reuocabat MNTV: retrahebat CGL; cf. p. 18, 3, ciues tantum ab opere dei nec prospera nec adversa retraherent.

cauebis MNTV: carebis CGL; cf. p. 21, 4.

Incredibili ossuum dolore contritus omni caruerat incolumitate membrorum; p. 66, 5, statim caruit omnium langore membrorum.

nuntio NTV; nuncio M: praesagio CGL; cf. p. 51, 14, memor illius praesagii quo eum quondam expresserat regnaturum; p. 63, 2. Fredericus autem immemor contestationis et praesagii sancti uiri.

uexantes MNTV: uastantes CGL; cf. p. 50, 18, hunc populum non patiar saeua depraedatione uastari, uel gladio trucidari aut in seruitutem redigi.

paraphrase than that there has been an assimilation of the expression in one passage to that of another.

Of a somewhat different kind are the following:

propius CGM: propitius NTV: propitio, L, Sauppe. I cannot see any good reason for not accepting propius: 'further from men, nearer to and more intent upon God' seems to me to be an easy and natural antithesis.

...

aspiciendo MNTV: respiciendo CGL. Knoell (Praef. p. xi.) compares Sedulius, 'Nemo retrorsum. aspiciens soluendus erit.' But there is equally good authority for respiciendo.' Cf. Luke ix. 62, Lat-Vet. codd. a b f. concussis CG L2 concussit L1: excussis MNTV. Knoell retracts the reading concussis' (Praef. p. x.) in favour of 'excussis' on the strength of a line in Ovid-'ut excussis elisi nubibus ignes'failing to see that an expression which is applicable to a cloud is not applicable to a stone. hac petrae MN: ac petrę T: ac petre V: ferri ac petre CGL. I do not think that 'ferri ac petrae' is a conjectural emendation but the original reading, partly retained in TV; the dropping out of a word is an extremely simple and common form of corruption.

Asserens uniuersos in Romani soli prouinciam absque ullo, &c., CG and I practically.

The expression in Romani soli prouinciam 'is slightly peculiar but I think quite tenable, and it expresses Eugippius's meaning.

Mulse mensis regionis NTV('sub mulse mensis regionis nomen regionis Italiae latere uidetur,' Knoell): multis emensis regionibus CGL.

I see no reason why this perfectly simple, easy and natural reading should be rejected.

wrong. It is to me surprising that with all his experience of MSS. Knoell should not see how slight and in accordance with all analogy is the corruption involved. The reason is that he has contracted a prejudice against the readings of CGL which I fully believe to be mistaken, though he himself gives (p. x.) a list of by no means unimport

ant readings which he has taken from that group as against his favourites MNTV. The number of these readings in which CGL have preserved the true text might, I am sure, be largely increased.

The question which affects the largest section of the text is that as to the genuineness of eighteen lines in the last chapter describing two miracles of healing wrought by the body of the saint on its entrance into Naples-neither of them of such a kind that they might not have been believed by a contemporary. The relation of these two

miracles is contained in CGL and is wanting in MNTV. There are also corresponding variants in the Capitula: the verses in honour of Severinus imply the narrative: at the same time, as the MS. in which these are found is of the eleventh century, their evidence does not in strictness go back beyond that date, though it is probable that they were written much earlier. They clearly belong to a time when the fame of the saint was at its height.

Knoell argues elaborately against the genuineness of this section (Sitzungsberichte, p. 486 ff.); but here again I confess that his arguments seem to me anything but happy. He quotes a number of expressions from them which he thinks are imitations from the surrounding context: to me they seem to be not imitations, but coincidences of style which point to identity of authorship. Of the two hypotheses, in the case of naïve workmanship of this kind, I cannot but regard the latter as the more probable. And the other arguments which Knoell has advanced are of little weight.

I have found myself expressing so much dissent both from Knoell and from Hartel, whose conjectures are frequently mentioned and in several cases received, that I think it only right in conclusion to quote two examples in which they seem to me to have deserved the thanks of all scholars. There is a difficult passage, p. 28, 10, where the

MSS. have tunc ergo qui eos (sc. cereos) posuerant diuino declarati examine, protinus exclamantes secreta pectoris satisfactionibus prodiderunt et suorum testimonio cereorum manifesta confessione conuicti propria saorilegia testabantur. For satisfactionibus Hartel proposes satactionibus in the sense of 'agitation.' In the Corrigenda Knoell would substitute for this satisactionibus which would certainly involve a minimum of change, as the f might easily come in through the doubling of long 8 in a half-uncial hand. Is it just possible that satisfactionibus might = 'making amends for their faults' The other passage is one in which it seems to me that Knoell has both skilfully and successfully defended the reading of the MSS. In p. 41, 17, the MSS. read quas (sc. reliquias) suscipiens basilicam sancti Iohannis ultronea benedictione collata sacrauit officio sacerdotum. Knoell explains this quite satisfactorily by observing that officio is dative not ablative, and that benedictio ' relics': 'he consecrated the basilica of St. John for priestly ministration (i.e. the celebration of the mass) by placing there the relics which offered themselves to his hand. By a sudden inspiration Severinus had called for a boat, and crossing the Danube found on the bank a man who was bringing to him some relics of St. John the Baptist the very thing that he wanted. W. SANDAY.

=

I learn through the kindness of M. Deli-le that the missing portions of the interesting Desnoyers MS. of the Excerpts of Eugippius (Cod. D, saec. viii., see Classical Review, no. 5, p. 141) are in the possession of the Earl of Ashburnham. M. Delisle ascertained this too late for the knowledge to be of use to the editor of the Excerpts.-W. S.

I owe to a friend the following parallels from Cyprian Deum movere satisfactionibus' (De Lapsis, c. 36; ed. Hartel, p. 263, 27), 'Satisfactionibus inmorantes et Domini misericordiam deprecantes' (Ep. lxv. 4; p. 725, 13).

THE following facts need only, I am sure, to be put before the English-speaking public, in order to set this undertaking on a sound financial basis.

Professor Wölfflin of Munich, the director, has not only received no remunera

tion, but is two thousand marks out of pocket. The Munich Academy allows £25 a year towards the expenses, but that is handed over to Mr. Teubner, the publisher. Two hundred and fifty free copies are sent to the contributors, and only 280 copies are

sold. Surely England alone ought to take at least that number.

Three volumes are now complete, and cost 128. each. Of volume iv two parts have appeared, and a double number will this year complete the volume.

It rests with the republic of scholars to determine whether, now that the staff of workers has been collected and drilled, specimen articles published and criticised, a zealous and capable editor and publicspirited publisher found, the projected Thesaurus of Latin shall be abandoned, or whether substantial aid shall be given at once, in order to ensure its success.

To every reader I venture to say: Buy the book yourself, and see that any library which you can influence, does the same.

Let philological societies make a substantial grant in aid. When editor and publisher have been encouraged by a steady increase of subscriptions, let them issue a prospectus and specimen of the Thesaurus itself. There can be no doubt that England will call for as many copies as any other country.

I cannot think that scholars who have not yet seen the Archiv know what they lose by their neglect. Many hundreds of words are there for the first time registered, and the whole method of lexicography is criticised from many points of view, so that an eye, trained by travel through these 3 volumes, will ever afterwards search the field of Latinity with a clearer vision and a more definite aim.

JOHN E. B. MAYOR.

Les Cavaliers Athéniens.
Paris.

Par M. ALBERT MARTIN.
E. Thorin. 1886. 18 fr.

Ir may sound rather surprising at first to hear thatit is possible to write a large octavo volume of 563 pages on the inreis at Athens. But M. Martin, as he explains in the preface, takes a wide view of his subject: L'Histoire des Cavaliers athéniens c'est l'histoire religieuse, militaire, politique, économique et littéraire de l'ancienne Athènes. envisagée

...

d'un point de vue particulier qui permet d'en saisir mieux les grandes lignes ; . en étudiant cette histoire particulière, on voit l'histoire générale sous un jour un peu nouveau; il est donc possible d'apercevoir parfois des détails qui n'avaient pas encore été remarqués et d'apporter sur quelques points des explications nouvelles.' M. Martin has executed this difficult programme with great ability and freshness. Undoubtedly the book has defects; there are mistranslations that engender distrust in the accuracy of the author's scholarship, there are rash conjectures, there are elaborate theories built on nothing better than an ambiguous allusion. On the other hand, M. Martin has studied carefully the material provided by inscriptions, he has worked with wonderful diligence through a mass of literature and finally collected the fruits of his labour in a very readable book. For M. Martin has a respect for literary form which is not always felt by learned men: he writes clearly and with spirit, and sometimes, as when inspired by enthusiasm for 'l'aimable figure du fils d'Exékestide' or 'ces beaux athlètes nus,' with unusual eloquence.

M. Martin treats his subject in four books. He begins with the aristocracies which are already in the Homeric poems encroaching on the king and maintains, against Grote and Schoemann, that 'in the majority of Greek countries' the military strength of these aristocracies probably consisted of a force of chariots. The course of military development was interrupted in European Greece by the Dorian invasion which proved the superiority of heavy infantry. Only a few states were in a position to develop a cavalry numerous enough to contend against the new

tactics-hence the admitted insignificance of cavalry in many Greek states when history begins to dawn.

Passing to Attica in particular, he touches on the controversy as to the character of the four old Attic tribes without venturing an opinion except so far as to observe very justly that it seems improbable that the "ORANTES were a governing equestrian aristocracy. An organised force of Athenian cavalry cannot be traced before the time of the Solonian constitution, some aspects of which M. Martin proceeds to discuss, devoting to the legislator, for whom he has an ardent admiration, nine chapters and nearly a hundred pages. Of course the mutilated fragment of Aristotle's 'Aonvaiwv Toλireía (Landwehr, Papyr. Berol. No. 163. Frg. I. b.) comes under consideration: M. Martin inclines to subscribe to the opinion of Blass that the archon Damasias mentioned in it is to be referred to 683 B. C.: he is the last decennial archon, and is succeeded by nine annual archons, four chosen from the ευπατρίδαι, three from the ἄποικοι, two from the dnμloupyol, but some time before Solon the evraτpidai managed to reconquer sole power. I think this the most cumbrous of the rival hypotheses. In the review of the work of Solon what M. Martin is particularly eager to bring to light is that one great object of the division into classes was the organisation of military defence. 'Deux services importants, celui de la flotte et celui de la cavalerie, sont organisés par le moyen de deux prestations, la triérarchie et l'hippotrophie, qui sont réparties entre les citoyens, d'après une division du territoire, les naucraries, et une division des personnes, les classes censitaires' p. 295. To put it in another way, he contends, following Gilbert, that Solon was also the author of the division of each of the four tribes into three TOITTUES and twelve vauкрapíaι, and since Pollux (viii. 108) says that each vauкpapía provided two horsemen and one ship, there is given a fleet of forty-eight ships, considerable for that time, and ninety-six horsemen, which is a respectable force. The trierarchy would fall on the πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι, the class of ἱππεῖς would be liable for service in the cavalry. Here M. Martin has greatly exaggerated the value of his evidence. He confidently pronounces that Aristotle

attributed to Solon the institution of TpTtúes and vaukрapiai. What is the proof? First this extract from Photius: ναυκραρία μὲν ὁποῖόν τι ἡ συμμορία καὶ ὁ δῆμος, ναύκραρος δὲ ὁποῖόν τι ὁ δήμαρχος, Σόλωνος οὕτως ὀνομάσαντος ὡς καὶ ̓Αριστοτέλης φησὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δὲ ἐστίν οι λέγει. Rose) ἐάν τις ναυκραρίας ἀμφισβητῇ καὶ τοὺς ναυκράρους τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ναυκραρίαν. I believe the words Σόλωνος οὕτως ovouáσavros are a lexicographical reference, 'Solon having used the expression' i.e. in his Laws. M. Martin prefers to interpret Solon having given the name,' and concludes Solon then according to Aristotle created the vauкpapiai.' So much for the first passage: the second is Schol. Ar. Nub. 37, 'Apioτοτέλης δὲ περὶ Κλεισθένους φησί· κατέστησε καὶ δημάρχους τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχοντας ἐπιμέλειαν τοῖς πρότερον ναυκράροις· καὶ γὰρ τοὺς δήμους ἀντὶ τῶν ναυκραριῶν ἐποίησεν. οἱ πρότερον ναύκραροι· εἴτε ὑπὸ Σόλωνος κατασταθέντες εἴτε καὶ πρότερον. I see no evidence to prove that the Scholiast's note οἱ πρότερον ναύκραροι K.T.A. contains an allusion to the opinion of Aristotle in particular. But the citation to which M. Martin trusts most is drawn again from the article of Photius οι ναυκραρία· ἐκ τῆς ̓Αριστοτέλους πολιτείας ὃν τρόπον διέταξε τὴν πόλιν ὁ Σόλων· ‘φυλαὶ δὲ ἦσαν τέσσαρες καθάπερ πρότερον καὶ φυλοβασιλεῖς τέσσαρες· ἐκ δὲ τῆς φυλῆς ἑκάστης ἦσαν νενενημέναι τριττύες μὲν τρεῖς ναυκραρίαι δὲ δώδεκα καθ ̓ ἑκάστην. Μ. Martin translates Il y eut quatre tribus comme autrefois et quatre rois de tribus; mais, de chaque tribu, on forma trois trittyes et douze naucraries,' and concludes (p. 90):-La phrase d'Aristote ne peut signifier qu'une chose: Solon conserve les quatre tribus avec leurs rois; il crée les trittyes et les naucraries.' This I deny without discussing the 'mais,' it is enough to point out that 'on forma' is not a precise translation of ἦσαν νενενημέναι. All that can be safely inferred from this detached fragment is that in Aristotle's opinion vavкpaplaι formed part of the constitution as reorganised by Solon, not that they were a new element introduced by him. M. Martin however goes farther, and sees in this passage an intentional correction of Herodotus, who mentions vauxрapoi before Solon, in connexion with the attempt of Cylon (v. 71. οἱ πρυτάνιες τῶν ναυκράρων οἵπερ ἄνεμον τότε τὰς ̓Αθήνας), and not only sees this here but again in the fragment relating to Cleisthenes which has been quoted above (κατέστησε δὲ καὶ ônμáρxous K.T.λ.); Aristote, à deux reprises, contredisait formellement Hérodote et attribuait à Solon l'institution des naucraries' p. 92. How strange after this to find the same man hesitating to pronounce that the remark made by Thucydides in narrating this attempt of Cylon (I. 126. τότε δὲ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν πολιτικῶν οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες ἔπρασσον) is aimed against Herodotus.

At

After the examination of the legislative work of Solon M. Martin attempts to determine with some precision when the Athenian cavalry was raised from 100, which he puts as its number after Cleisthenes' reforms, to 1,000, the number we meet at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. The following analysis will show the uncertainty of the calculations. the time of the battle of Tanagra (457) the Athenian cavalry could not have numbered a thousand, for (1) in that case there would not have been in the army so large a contingent of Thessalian horse, (2) the defection of these Thessalians in the fight would not have produced such serious consequences, (3) only two horsemen fell on the Athenian side. (The evidence for this statement is Paus. I. 29. 6 ἔστι δὲ . . στήλη μαχομένους ἔχουσα ἱππεῖς· Μελάνωπός σφισίν ἐστι καὶ Μακάρτατος ὀνόματα they fell at Tanagra. M. Martin comments p. 128.

n. 4. On avait l'habitude de graver sur la même stèle les noms de ceux qui avaient été tués dans le même combat ou la même expedition.' Now M. Martin himself naturally declines to put such an interpretation on the evidence of a monument which gives only one horseman as killed at Coronea (394): that is the monument of a single tribe only. The monument mentioned by Pausanias may also have belonged to a single tribe or may have been erected in honour of distinguished valour). Again at the time of the battle of Coronea (447) the Athenian cavalry could not have numbered a thousand, for apparently there was no cavalry in Tolmides' army. (This is a very odd argument; there was not a large force of cavalry to take because Tolmides apparently took none. But Plutarch (Vit. Per. c. 18) represents Pericles as criticising just this, the irregularity and rashness of Tolmides' expedition). So much for the terminus post quem; the terminus ante quem is given by the frieze of the Parthenon which was opened in 438/7. Jamais on n'aurait pensé à accorder un tel rôle à la cavalerie si ce corps n'avait eu encore qu'un effectif de cent hommes' p. 131. Further in 438 this cavalry of a thousand must already have figured in a Panathenaic procession, i.e. at the previous celebration, in 442. Now the years 447-445 were years of disaster for Athens. Probably then Pericles, taught by experience the need of a stronger force, reorganised the cavalry between 445 and 442. Finally dans la manière dont Phidias a interprété cette woμm sur la frise de la cella, nous verrions une preuve, un souvenir de l'impression profonde que produisit sur le peuple ce magnifique spectacle quand, pour la première fois, ce corps d'élite, composé de ce qu'Athènes avait de plus brillante jeunesse, partit, en rangs nombreux, du Céramique pour se rendre à l'Acropole,' p. 134.

The second book deals with the part played by this corps of inweis in the religious festivals of Athens, particularly the Thesea and Panathenaea. Here there is much that is excellent, a brilliant and sympathetic description of the Hellenic festival with the procession, the sacrifice, and the ayŵves, a clear summary of the development of 'l'agonistique' in Greece and Athens, a minute exposition of the differences between the various contests of the ἀγὼν ἱππικός. M. Martin carefully examines a set of inscriptions discovered since the time of Krause, his chief predecessor in this department, for the Thesea C.I.A. II. 444-448, for the Panathenaea C.I. A. II. 2. 965–969. Unluckily these inscriptions are more or less mutilated and all (with the exception of C.I.A. II. 2. 965-first part of fourth century) are as late as the first half of the second century, so that M. Martin's speculations as to the period at which the cavalry first officially took part in various contests are highly uncertain. But this the author candidly confesses.

It is in the third book that I find most to criticise. M. Martin discusses in this section the organisation of the corps-the obligation to serve, the doкiμaσía, the nature of the Karáσraois, the fluctuating numbers of the force, the pay, officers, equipment etc. It is a delicate task to interpret justly the sense of passing observations and disconnected allusions, and M. Martin's desire for a neat and intelligible system proves o strong for his prudence. Moreover some slips of scholarship lead to serious misconceptions. Take for instance Ps.-Demosth. c. Phaenipp. 24: ἱπποτρόφος ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ φιλότιμος ἅτε νέος καὶ πλούσιος καὶ ἰσχυρὸς ὤν. τί τούτου μέγα σημεῖον; ἀποδόμενος τὸν πολεμιστήριον ἵππον καταβέβηκεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἵππων καὶ ἀντ ̓ ἐκείνου ὄχημα αὑτῷ τηλικοῦτος ὢν ἐώνηται κ.τ.λ. M. Martin has, En est-il une meilleure preuve? Il a vendu son cheval de guerre,

il est sorti du corps des cavaliers etc.' Surely the words can only mean 'He has come down from horseback, (has given up riding) and has effeminately taken to a carriage.' And on page 304 all M. Martin's inferences are overthrown by the simple observation that in Lysias V. 43 he has neglected aλλà μhy and taken oude as 'not even' when it is neither.' The way in which the author has occasionally done violence to common sense may be best illustrated by considering the evidence for the following statement at the end of the chapter on the method of recruiting the cavalry. 'Le citoyen riche qui n'est pas valide est tenu, puisqu'il ne peut pas contribuer de sa personne, de contribuer de ses biens, Anτoupyεî Xphuao; il arme, il monte à ses frais des citoyens pauvres qui combattront à sa place: enfin on peut encore avoir recours à lui pour les diverses dépenses qu'exige le service de la cavalerie.' The proof may be reduced to a single passage in Xenophon, Hipparch. ix. 5. Xenophon has suggested that it might be a good thing to establish a force of 200 mercenary horsemen. He finishes thus: εἰς δὲ τιμὴν τῶν ἵππων νομίζω ἂν αὐτοῖς χρήματα ὑπάρξαι καὶ παρὰ τῶν σφόδρα ἀπεχομένων μὴ ἱππεύειν, ὅτι καὶ οἷς καθίστησι τὸ ἱππικὸν ἐθέλουσι τελεῖν ἀργύριον ὡς μὴ ἱππεύειν, παρὰ πλουσίων γε, ἀδυνάτων δὲ τοῖς σώμασι, οἴομαι δὲ καὶ παρ' ὀρφανῶν τῶν δυνατοὺς οἴκους ἐχόντων. The clause from ὅτι καὶ to ἱππεύειν has provoked much conjecture : M. Martin expels καθίστησι τὸ ἱππικὸν as a gloss' and supposes that the abbreviations of ori and εἰσὶ were confused. The whole passage as recon. structed runs thus : εἰς δὲ τιμὴν τῶν ἵππων νομίζω ἂν αὐτοῖς χρήματα ὑπάρξαι καὶ παρὰ τῶν σφόδρα ἀπο εχομένων μὴ ἱππεύειν, εἴσι (sic) καὶ οἱ (sic) ἐθέλουσι τελεῖν ἀργύριον ὡς μὴ ἱππεύειν, καὶ παρὰ πλουσίων μέν γε, ἀδυνάτων δὲ τοῖς σώμασι, οἴομαι δὲ καὶ παρ ̓ ὀρφανῶν τῶν δυνατοὺς οἴκους ἐχίντων. Now let all these changes be granted and still it is not legitimate to infer from Xenophon's proposal that it was customary (p. 319) at the time, much less obligatory for the rich citizen to provide a substitute if physically unable to serve on horseback. But M. Martin also detects in the passage an allusion to the KaráσTaσis mentioned in Lysias XVI. 6 and in Harpocration. I think the passage may be turned against his explanation. According to M. Martin, the KaráσTaσis is analogous to the 'aes equestre' at Rome, except that at Athens the state did not present to the newly-enrolled inπeùs money to buy a mount for himself (and servant p. 344), but lent it: the sum was refunded when he passed out of the corps. There is no positive testimony in support of this, and-to pass over the contradictions in which M. Martin's exposition of the theory is involved-there is much that makes against it, as for example the remarkable absence in literature of any distinction such as that between 'equites equo publico' and 'equites equo privato'; and in the arguments against the hypothesis, I should include the passage from the Hipparchicus, understanding it to imply that in establishing a force of mercenary cavalry the state would have to reckon with an unusual expenditure; it would be obliged to provide horses.

The fourth and last book is entitled 'Les Cavaliers dans la Société Athénienne.' The author examines the value of the force as a military arm, and brings out very clearly the increasing importance of cavalry in warfare as the Macedonian period approaches. Drawn from the wealthier classes, these Knights' have in politics pronounced aristocratic sympathies, and their contests with Cleon and support of the Four Hundred and Thirty are sketched in lively prose. Not less interesting is the place they take in art and literature: 'ils sont une sorte de jeunesse dorée ;

The

M. CHATELAIN's scheme for publishing a series of facsimiles of MSS. of Latin Classics was announced in 1884, and the first livraison appeared in that year. With the hopefulness which cheers on a new enterprise, the editor fixed the year 1887 as the date for the completion of his work; but, having regard to the difficulties and hindrances which must inevitably arise in such an ingathering of scattered material, we are in no way surprised to find M. Chatelain just midway, if indeed so far, on his journey. The fifth livraison has just appeared; and we feel pretty confident that ten livraisons, the number originally announced for the completion of the series, will not suffice for a proper exhaustion of the subject. Seventy-five plates, containing facsimiles of upwards of one hundred MSS., have been issued. subjects for the greater number, in fact more than a third of the whole, have been found in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. The Vatican supplies about a score; and Florence, Leyden, St. Gall, Milan, Vienna, and several other continental towns have been drawn upon for the rest. No MSS. in English libraries have yet been touched. Thus it is to be feared that M. Chatelain has still a good many years' work before him ere he can cease from his labours. Meanwhile, Vita brevis! Posterity will in any case be happy. For ourselves, we will hope for long days; and in order to stimulate M. Chatelain's praiseworthy efforts, we would urge all classical students to subscribe, for the series, the very moderate sum which the publishers have fixed.

one.

was

The authors to whom M. Chatelain has hitherto devoted his attention are Plautus, Terence, Varro, Catullus, Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Lucretius, and Virgil. Cicero occupies two entire livraisons; Virgil A large proportion of the plates, as naturally to be expected, represent MSS. of the ninth and tenth centuries, of which period so many fortunately survive. For specimens of classical MSS. of earlier date recourse must be had, with few exceptions, to the palimpsest fragments and other imperfect MSS. of more remote times. In some instances the condition of these fragments has driven the editor to repeat in his series the same specimens that have already appeared in other works. This was unavoidable. Generally however M. Chatelain gives us fresh pages, which we gratefully welcome. We would however say a word with regard to the dates which are ascribed to these early MSS. In a work like the present, in which the letter-press is restricted to narrow dimensions, one must not expect explanations of the editor's views; but it is a little startling to find M. Chatelain differing, in certain cases, very widely from opinions which have been given by other students in the same department. Professors Zangemeister and Wattenbach made a special study of most of these early classical fragments and have given their reasons for the dates which they have assigned to them in their Exempla. Their judgment is not lightly to be set aside. Nor are we altogether satisfied with M. Chatelain's dating of his later specimens. Many of the MSS. which he attributes to the ninth century appear rather to belong to the