helped by a play on the meaning of the word. The sense seems to require here some substantive, meaning hunger e.g. ieiunitatem. 1093. Viden scelestus ut palpatur S, scelestus us (or is) aucupatur MSS. Palpatur is wide of the MSS. and can hardly be right as Trachalio uses no palpatio whatsoever. Studemund's Viden scelestum ut aucupatur is more probable, though aucupatur again is open to the objection that Trachalio's speech is in no sense an aucupatio. I would suggest auguratur, making the word refer to suspicor and de opinione, expressions which Trachalio has just used. So v. 986. Gripus accosts Trachalio as philosophe. v. 1124. Vidi petere miluom etiam coruom: nihil aufert tamen S, cum (for coruom) MSS. auferret D F, auferet C, aufert B. Surely coruom seriously weakens the point of the passage, and is much inferior to the old reading cum nihil auferret tamen. Gripus says You were for pouncing on the half.' Trachalio replies Yes and I still am.' To which Gripus rejoins 'I've seen a kite pounce and . . . get nothing. v. 1138. D. Ius merum oras meo quidem animo. G. At meo hercle malitiast mera S, malitiast mera om. MSS. It seems very strange that Prof. Schoell should not adopt the obvious correction iniuriam meram, which has been repeatedly suggested by scholar after scholar. v. 1152. P. Ius bonum oras. G. Edepol haud recte orat: nam tu iniuria's S, te MSS. for recte, and this is surely Plautinissimum, 'If he's asking what's fair, he's not asking you, for you're unfair.' v. 1169. Postid ensicula S, Postin sicula C D, post in sicilicula B. Ensicula can hardly stand, as it is highly improbable that the vidulus contained an ensicula as well as an ensiculus. v. 1232. Tanto immo melior: obtigit qui perdidit S, Tanto melius illi. MSS. Tanto illi melius (Bentley) is much nearer the MSS. and seems to give a more pointed sense, 'Then so much the better for the man who-lost it.' v. 1307. in mari

pecu alui S, mari et alii MSS. Pecu alui is surely impossible. Labrax has not fed the fishes in the only sense possible here. (Like Sir Thomas in the Ingoldsby Legends). v. 1170. Et suculast. G. Quin tu i dierecta S. Prof. Schoell scans dierecta as a trisyllable, but does not mention Prof. Nettleship's view as to the origin of the word. On the whole it is perhaps no iniqua censura' to say that in Prof. Schoell the man has rather a tendency to disappear in the scholar. But let us be thankful for his scholarship, and indefatigable and painstaking industry, and wish him health and leisure to publish the remaining plays with even greater rapidity.

1. M.

2.

J. H. ONIONS.

Tullii Ciceronis de Oratore Liber Primus: für der Schulgebrauch erklärt von Prof. Dr. REMIGIUS STÖBILE. 1 Bandchen. Gotha, F. A. Perthes, 1887. 1 Mk. 30.

M. Tullii Cicerone dell' Oratore Libri tre: testo riveduto ed annotato da Antonio Cima. Torino, Loescher, 1887. 21. 50.

BOTH these editions of Cicero de Oratore are intended for school use. The text of the former has been settled by Dr. Stangl, and so has no independent critical value. It represents the ad interim judg ment of a scholar who has already done excellent work on the rhetorical works of Cicero, and whose own edition is looked forward to with high anticipations. Unfortunately it comes to us entirely without critical notes of any kind or form. It is impossible to ascertain what are the grounds on which Dr. Stangl has accepted a reading, except where it happens to have been discussed by him in one of his scattered papers and essays, or why he has, as is sometimes the case, retracted a judgment

previously expressed. It is a great step backwards for Dr. Stangl to have taken after his excellent editions of the Orator and the Brutus; and we can only hope that the edition which he promises to give on the same model as these, will not be long delayed. Dr. Stöbile's notes are well adapted to their purpose: they are not so full of instruction as to the syntax and idiom of Cicero as those of Dr. Sorof, and the editor appears to have avoided of set purpose all illustrations from parallel passages; but the translations of individual words and phrases are numerous and generally accurate, and the student has what is needful for the understanding of the text given to him in a very brief and clear form. An English schoolmaster would probably not care to have his boys saved so entirely the trouble of using a classical dictionary; but the boys would find the notes just what they liked. In a work presenting so many difficulties there are of course cases where Dr. Stöbile has decided one way, when the balance of evidence to others would appear to incline the other way, and to speak with a confidence which is not altogether warranted; but the appearance of dogmatism is inevitable in notes of this compass, and he will generally be found a safe and sensible guide.

The edition of Signor Cima furnishes a somewhat more thorough commentary than that of Dr. Stöbile, and especially, in an appendix of 17 pages, it gives an excellent critical commentary, like that of Sorof, with all important variations of the MSS. and of the best recent editions. This is also indebted to Dr. Stangl for the readings of his important Italian MSS. The language of the explanatory notes will, of course, be a bar to the use of this edition in English schools; and these do not claim to have much independent value. They are largely selected from previous commentators, as a rule, with very good judgment: but I have not observed any fresh light thrown upon any obscure passage. The most interesting portion is to be found in the frequent distinctions drawn between the Latin words and phrases and the derived Italian But if the edition does not add much to our knowledge, it is to be welcomed as a sign of the thoroughness of the teaching of Latin in Italian schools, and the acquaintance of Italian scholars with the most recent German and English works.-A. S. W.

ones.

Ueber die Appendix Vergiliana. By MAX SONNTAG. THE most noticeable feature of this programme is the view taken by Sonntag of the epigram Quis deus, Octaui, te nobis abstulit? an quae Dicunt &c. He accepts the heading of the Culex in the codex Thuaneus Poetarum sapientissimi P. Vergilii Maronis condiscipuli Octauiani Caesaris Augusti mundi imperatoris iuuenalis ludi libellus incipit as conveying a fact, Octavianus and Vergil had been The epigram was written by the poet condiscipuli. to the future master of the Roman world shortly after the battle of Philippi, when, whilst on his return to Italy, he was attacked by sickness and was reported dead, (Dion. C. 48, 3, 1). The poem would belong therefore to the spring of B.C. 41. distich

The

Scripta quidem tua nos multum mirabimur, et te
Raptum et Romanam flebimus historiam.
Sed tu nullus eris. Perversi dicite Manes,
Hunc super esse patri quae fuit inuidia?

refers to writings by Octavius with which Virgil was presumably acquainted as fellow-pupil of the rhetor Epidius; Suetonius (Aug. 85) tells us multa varii generis in prosa oratione composuit, ex quibus nonnulla

in coetu familiarium recitauit; and speaks of his practising oratory and composition with assiduity from his earliest years. The words Romanam flebimus historiam Sonntag would explain not of actual historical works written by Octavius (though he left some), but of the loss of a central figure in the history of the time which his death would effect. The words super esse patri would have a natural meaning as referring to Octavius' death within three years from that of his adoptive father J. Cæsar.

It is not impossible that this is an old view revived. It certainly deserves attention. The rest of the pamphlet is not worth much. In particular I dissent strongly from Sonntag's disparagement of the graceful epigram Si mihi susceptum fuerit decurrere munus, which, with Niebuhr, I have always thought quite worthy of Vergil.-ROBINSON ELLIS.

Etude sur Quinte Curce, sa vie et son œuvre, par S. Dosson, Professeur à la faculté des lettres de Clermont-Ferrand, &c. Paris: Hachette and Co. 1887. 9 fr.

THIS is an admirable work : learned, well arranged, clearly argued, complete. To read it would be an unmixed pleasure, if one could turn aside at will to follow up the side-paths of inquiry everywhere suggested by its fruitful pages.

The first part is devoted to preliminary discussions. The apocryphal theory is dismissed, and the authenticity of the History of Alexander is established, in a neat and judicious criticism. The date of the work, long a vexed question among scholars, is discussed with enviable fulness and lucidity: M. Dosson arrives at the same conclusion as Mützell, Vogel and Teuffel, that it belongs to the early years of Claudius; and I can hardly believe that this conclusion will ever be shaken. At the same time it seems to me that it might be quite as strong if some of the evidence were less confidently pressed. Next an attempt is made to determine the identity of the author. Here a probable conjecture is all that can be attained. M. Dosson with great probability identifies the author with the Curtius Rufus spoken of by Tacitus and the younger Pliny. This I have always thought a very reasonable view; but why it should be so unreasonable (see p. 49) to hold that the rhetorician named by Suetonius may also be the same person, I cannot as yet see. It is a further conjecture, no doubt, and devoid of evidence strictly so called: but so is the other identification, and in neither case is there, so far as I can see, any serious objection to the conjecture, provided we understand that it is a conjecture and no more. The Professor proceeds to show how natural it was for a Life of Alexander to appear in the Rome of the first century A.D.

These

The second part, headed Quinte Curce historien,' opens with a treatise of the various materials existing in Curtius' time for a history of Alexander. are shown to have been very plentiful and of various kinds; and then comes what is perhaps the most important section of the work, the inquiry into the materials actually employed by Curtius, the proportions in which they are severally used, and the methods followed by him in their use. To attempt any detailed criticism of this inquiry is out of the question here, nor do I feel competent to the task; but I will say that I believe the results on the whole to be correct and arrived at by legitimate processes. I must however remark that in this part of the work also I doubt whether M. Dosson is not at times too confidently definite in his conclusions, whether he does not expect from his method more than it is capable of yielding. Many points turn up in the

course of the book to minimise this feeling of doubt: but I confess that, though weakened, it still remains. The third part contains an inquiry into the character of Curtius' talent. Chapters 1-3 ‘Q. C. peintre, orateur, moraliste' are brilliant, descriptive and critical essays, thorough and clear-sighted and in the very best style of French elegance and brightness. For scholars' reading it would perhaps be better if passages were more freely quoted in the original, and printed in parallel columns, as is done in the second part. The fault of the work in fact is that it is rather too neat; for I cannot imagine that it is in any case meant for the general reader.' But the scholarship is there sure enough; and such masterly handling of great masses of material, admirably selected and grouped, is seldom seen: I know of nothing in English to equal it save the writings of Professor Sellar. Chapter 4 Q. C. écrivain' is also an excellent piece of work, but in § 1 (language) the need of frequent and tabulated quotations is very perceptible. Of this part of the book I may say in general that the analysis of the influences of the conditions of Roman life in the Claudian period, of the rhetorical schools, of the contemporary philosophy, of the recitations and of education and habits generally, on the writers of the time, their canons of composition, their tone of thought, and their mannerisms of style and diction, is in the highest degree fruitful and suggestive. The results of the whole inquiry are summed up in a clear and judicious chapter with which the main body of the work appropriately ends. M. Dosson remarks with truth that if Livy is to be styled the Vergil of history, Quintius Curtius may be called its Lucan. Indeed the affinity, not less striking than the difference, between Curtius and Lucan, has been often present to my mind: and I believe that there is room for an interesting dissertation on this subject.

M. Dosson concludes his labours with two extremely valuable and learned appendices; the first containing an exhaustive account of the MSS. of Curtius, the second a dissertation on the traces of Curtius in ancient writers, his complete disappearance for several centuries, his reappearance and the diffusion of his work in the Middle Ages. To so voluminous and learned a book on a special subject a copious index would have been a welcome addition. The table des matières' at the end is a poor substitute for such.

In reading this excellent treatise one cannot but feel how much English scholarship suffers from the paucity of similar works among ourselves. The true value of the study of literature cannot be fully known till it is seriously and methodically established by a combination of critical lucidity and sound learning, such as we find in the 'Q. Curce' of Professor Dosson.

W. E. HEITLAND.

Verrianische Forschungen, von R. REITZENSTEIN. Breslaue Philologische Abhandlungen, Vol. I., Heft 4. Breslau, Koebner, 1887. 116 pp. 2 Mk.

40.

THIS essay, which students of ancient Latin scholarship will find very serviceable, consists of five chapters and a few excursuses. In the first chapter Dr. Reitzenstein undertakes to refute the theory of Müller, Gruppe, and Hoffmann, that the last or second parts of each book or letter in Paulus and Festus were added by Festus to the original work of

1 Müller observed that in the first part of each book there is a tendency to regard not only the first but the second letter of cach word; in the second it is not so.

Verrius, whether from materials supplied by Festus himself or by other works of Verrius. The argument of chapter II. is that the single glosses often give indications of having been extracted in groups from the same works, and afterwards distributed among the various letters; thus (as Hertz pointed out) many of the glosses on proverbs may have come from Sinnius Capito: the continuous glosses on_names (e.g., Caeso, Caesar, p. 57; Lucius, Lycius, Luceres, Lucani, p. 119; Opiter, Opitulus, Opitulata, p. 170; Mamercus, Mamurius, Mamers, Martialis, Mamilia turris, p. 130) may in like manner go back to some one authority, perhaps Varro. The same reasoning holds good with regard to the groups of glosses which illustrate points of antiquities. Again, the same notes often occur under different glosses, probably from the conscious effort of Verrius to spare his readers trouble.

The same correspondence between groups of glosses under different letters may, it is argued in the third chapter, be observed in the second parts of some letters. And some of the series of glosses on Cato and Plautus may be analysed into smaller groups.

The fourth chapter contains an attempt to prove that the alphabetical order originally contemplated by Verrius in each letter had been disturbed, not probably by Festus, but through an early confusion in the redaction of the book by Verrius himself.

In chapter V., Dr. Reitzenstein mentions a number of the most important authorities which it is probable that Verrius used at first hand.

The aim of the whole essay is to show the homogeneousness of the work abridged by Festus, and the improbability of the hypothesis that this very poor scholar made any additions to the work of Verrius. With out entering into details we may say at once that in our opinion Dr. Reitzenstein has succeeded, especially by the close reasoning in Chapter I., in raising a strong presumption in favour of his view, though proof is perhaps not attainable.

Dr. Reitzenstein is also, we think, quite successful in demonstrating the existence of homogeneous groups of glosses under different letters, and right in referring them respectively to the same authorities.

The analysis of Catonian and Plautine glosses into smaller groups was undertaken at the suggestion of Studemund. It appears to us to rest on a more shadowy foundation than, no doubt, Dr. Reitzenstein would admit. His case is far the strongest in the case of the Plautine glosses, but even here the evidence is not conclusive. The point which he tries to make is this: that under the letter C (Paulus, p. 60-62), we find three groups of Plautine glosses, in which the plays are respectively quoted in alphabetical order, (1) Curionem-Crumena: from Aulularia, Amphitruo, Bacchides-(twice), uncertain plays; (2) Corinthienses-Celassis: from Aulularia, Amphitruo, Bacchides, Casina (thrice), Cistellaria, Miles (four times), Stichus; (3) Custoditio-Cudere: uncertain except in one instance. And corresponding to the second series under C is a series under A (Adaxint— aucta): from Aulularia, Casina, Miles, Menaechmi, Pocnulus, Rudens, Trinummus.

After the letter C Dr. Reitzenstein admits that the smaller groups of Plautine glosses quite vanish. But even under A and C he is obliged to make some assumptions which (is it owing to English "beef-mindedness" ?) we are unable to accept. To make the gloss Corinthienses refer to the Aulularia, (559 Corinthiensem fontem), our author says it is impossible that Plautus can ever have used Corinthienses for the inhabitants of Corinth. Now Atheniensis is common instead of Athenaeus; may not Corinthiensis have been used in

the same way by Plautus for Corinthius! If so, there is no necessity to think of the Aulularia here. Conivolis is referred to the lost part of the Cistellaria on hardly any evidence. Cogitatim, we are asked to believe, must have come out of the Miles, though it is not given in the MSS. either there or anywhere else in the remains of Plantus. Clientam, again, must come from the Miles, though, it might, on our author's own showing, come equally well from the Poenulus or the Rudens. Capulum must again refer to the Miles, because Nonius refers to capularis in this play in his gloss on Capulum. But Capulum might be a gloss on Lucretius's ire ad capulum. In his remarks on the Plautine series under A, Dr. Reitzenstein assigns auditavi on a conjecture of Bergk's to Miles 211, though it actually occurs Stichus 167. He then asserts that Paulus's words (p. 28), 'adrelitatio' iactatio quaedam verborum figurata ab hastis veli taribus, refer "zweifellos" to Rudens 525, equidem me ad velitationem exerceo. True, Turnebus thought this was possible. But Dr. Reitzenstein can hardly mean that Verrius took advelitationem as one word. If Verrius read velitationem, then the gloss has been transferred by an error from V to A, (for me advelitationem exerceo is untranslatable), and nothing is proved for the letter A. If the passage in the Rudens is referred to, advelitatione must be read (against the authority of A and B) in the text of Plautus. was recognised by Turnebus. The gloss auctor feminine, it is assumed, refers to Trin. 107, or Stichus 129. It may equally well be meant for Vergil's auctor ego audendi, which is a stock quotation in the grammarians for the feminine use of auctor. The first point in dealing with Paulus is to remember, not only that he is a worse epitomist of a bad epitomist, but also that whole masses of Latin prose and poetry have perished.

This

In all this, as indeed in other parts of the book, we think Dr. Reitzenstein far too much inclined to mistake mere presumptions for certainties. This fault is conspicuous in the fourth chapter, which is a mere attempt to prove what cannot either be proved or disproved. We miss, by the bye, any mention either in this chapter or elsewhere of Verrius's original division of each letter into libri. The destruction of this arrangement by Festus is, no doubt, responsible for much of the obscurity which besets the whole subject.-H. NETTLESHIP.

Mélanges Renier. Recueil de travaux publiés par l'École Pratique des Hautes Études (Section des sciences historiques et philologiques) en mémoire de son président Léon Renier. Paris, Vieweg. 1887. pp. lx, 468. 15 fr.

THIS memorial volume opens with a short sketch of Renier by Desjardins, which is followed by a full bibliography under the three headings of Livres Classiques, Travaux de Vulgarisation, and Travaux d'Erudition. Under the last head Renier's works and occasional writings on epigraphical subjects are carefully detailed. The essays themselves are the work of some thirty different scholars. Those on classical subjects comprise the following topics: 1. The author of c. Aristogit. I and his acquaintance with Athenian institutions, by H. Weil. (Weil questions the ignorance imputed to the writer of this speech by J. H. Lipsius, Leipziger Studien, 1883). 2. Observations on the Text of the Economicus, by Ed. Tournier. (A number of emendations, some of them of a very drastic character and making seemingly too little allowance for free and even loose writing, the former intentional the latter unin