3. “ Σύνοψις τοῦ τε βίου τοῦ ποιητοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ δράματος ὑποθέσεως”: by Thomas Magister. ff. 646, 556. 4. “ Εὐριπίδου Εκάβη.” f. 67. 5. “ Τοῦ μαγίστρου σύνοψις τῆς ὑποθέσεως τοῦ προκειμένου δράματος." f. 101. 6. “ Εὐριπίδου Ορέστης.” f. 104. 7. “Τοῦ αὐτοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ μαγίστρου σύνοψις περιεκτικὴ τῆς ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους τοῦ δράματος ἱστορίας.” f. 1496. 66 8. “ Εὐριπίδου Φοίνισσαι.” f, 13, 45.-BRIT. MUS. Harley MS. 5724 (ff. 1—30). Paper: ff. 30. 8 x 5 inches. Minusoules. Written in Italy. With works of Hesiod [No. 26] and others. Late XV cent. 1. “Υπόθεσις Εκάβης Εὐριπίδου.” f. 1. 46.-BRIT. MUS. 304). Paper: 165. Written in Italy. Late XV cent. Belonged to the Jesuit College of Agen in France. 1. “Γένος Εὐριπίδου τοῦ ποιητοῦ. f. 140. 2. “ Υπόθεσις τοῦ πρώτου δράματος.” f. 1406. Harley MS. 5725 (ff. 140— 8 x 6 inches. Minuscules. With Aristophanes [No. 55]. 5. “ Εὐριπίδου ὑπόθεσις Φοινίσσων.” f. 73. 6. Φοίνισσαι. f. 74. 7. “ Υπόθεσις Ορέστου.” f. 116. 51.-BRIT. Mus. Sloane MS. 1774. Paper: ff. 45. 6 × 4 inches. Minuscules. Late XVI cent. · Εὐριπίδου Ἱππόλυτος στεφανηφόρος”: some marginal notes in Latin, and a few glosses in Greek. ARISTOPHANES. 52.-BRIT. MUS. Harley MS. 6307. Paper: ff. 181. 7 x 5 inches. Minuscules. XV cent. Belonged to the Jesuit College of Agen in France. 1. “Αριστοφάνους Πλοῦτος”: with argument, etc. f. 1. 2. Nepéλai: with argument. f. 556. In another hand : 3. Bárpaɣo: with argument. f. 1226. Scholia and glosses throughout. Used by Dobree. I. lxxii. See Aristoph. ed. Blaydes, 53.-BRIT. MUS. Harley MS. 5629 (f. 52). Paper: f. 1. 8×5 inches. Minuscules. Written in Italy. In a volume of miscellaneous extracts grammatical tracts, etc. XV. cent. Bought, for the Harley Library, of Nathaniel Noel, bookseller, 18 Jan. 1724. Νεφέλαι : 11. 291-312. 54.-BRIT. Mus. Harley MS. 5664 (ff. 71238). Paper: ff. 168. 83 x 6 inches. Minuscules. Written in Italy. With Homer's Batrachomyomachia [Nos. 20, 31], etc. Late XV. cent. 1. “ Υπόθεσις ̓Αριστοφάνους ” : life. f. 1. 2. « Υπόθεσις Πλούτου.” f. 716. 3. Πλούτος. f. 73. Imperf. beg. 1. 235. 66 Colophon: « Τέλος τοῦ πρώτου δράματος." 4. Nedélai with argument. f. 129. Used by Porson and Dobree. See Aristoph. ed. Blaydes, I. lxxii. 55.-BRIT. MUS. Harley MS. 5725 (ff. 1—138). Paper: ff. 138. 83 x 6 inches. Minuscules. Written in Italy. With Euripides [No. 46]. Late XV cent. Belonged to the Jesuit College of Agen in France. 1. IIAoûros: scholia, and glosses in red. f. 1. Imperf. beg. 1. 266. 2. “ Ὑπόθεσις τοῦ δευτέρου δράματος.” f. 54. 3. Nepéλa scholia, and glosses in red. f. 55. 4. “Υπόθεσις τοῦ τρίτου δράματος”: ί.ε. argument to Frogs. f. 139. [Followed by Euripides]. Used by Dobree. 1. lxxii. See Aristoph. ed. Blaydes, 56.-BRIT. Mus. Add. MS. 12,182. Paper: ff. 143. 8 x 5 inches. Minuscules. End XV cent. · Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος ὑπάρχει Διονυσίου ἱεροδιακόνου Κατιλιανοῦ Ζακυνθίου.” Belonged also to Constantine Mavrocordato, 1725. Bought in 1841. Homeri Iliadis Carmina cum Apparatu critico. THE text of this edition is in accordance with the principles laid down in the editors' Dialect of the Homeric Poems, noticed by Mr. Monro in the July number of this Review. It is based, the editors tell us, upon the edition of Rzach, but is a great advance upon Rzach, who so inconsistently omits the digamma while adopting other improvements in themselves no more certain and of infinitely less importance. Leeuwen and Da Costa, on the contrary, introduce the digamma everywhere, unless either interpolation is suspected, or no change proposed satisfies them, apparently not agreeing with Hartel and others, who believe that this sound was fluctuating in even the oldest Epic dialect. For medial digamma they go upon what is certainly the best and soundest plan; they introduce it after augment (Feine), in reduplicated words (FéFoike), when a prothetic vowel precedes original digamma (Firos), and in compounds (à Feкúv, 'AFions, FekáFeрyos, &c.). Otherwise they neglect it, writing, e.g., ἀάτη, κοῖλος. These two words bring us to a new question. Many diphthongs in Homer should be resolved, and there is no half-way house between resolving some of them and resolving all. It is simply a mystery to me, at any rate, why modern editors should write 'Ατρείδης and not ἐγχείη, ἀάτη and not κόϊλος. Οπ this point Leeuwen and Da Costa are hardly more advanced than La Roche, who is at least consistent, They only resolve 'Apyéïo and patronymics like Ατρείδης, leaving Ερμείας, κοῖλος, θεῖος, κλειτός, Kрeίw and others untouched. These are different from the case-endings, etc. -or at any rate are treated by Leeuwen and Da Costa as different. Here they go as far as can be desired; they resolve the dative in e, even writing v móλi' &кpy in Z. 297, Xeixe' ¿PEσTabtes in M. 52, etc.; they give the long form of the infinitive where possible, e.g., ndéμer' ös=кndéμev(ai) for xhdew in I. 615; and they resolve all such words as ἐκόσμει, τῷ into εκόσμε, ήσα, &c. I presume that no one will object to the principle that you ought to resolve such forms in Homer wherever you can. But when our editors go on to assume that you ought to write the augmented form in verbs wherever possible, it is quite another affair. Mr. Monro, in the notice above referred to, objected to their theory that the loss of the augment must be regarded as aphaeresis,' according to which they write 'Teûxe &c. In the preface to this volume they actually assert that the augment was not in recitando neglectum, sed urgente metro saepe tam breviter enunciatum ut quasi extra numeros positum non in legitima syllabarum morarumque serie recenseretur.' This extraordinary idea will, one would think, find but few supporters. But Dutch scholars seem still to have something to learn in metrical matters. The adoption of Bentley's unfortunate Taváypolo Faλóvres in E. 487 may pass, but what is to be said to the suggestion (luckily it is not given in the text) that the original of H. 424 was evỡ ăp' ěnv χαλεπὸν διαγνώμεναι ἄνδρα έκαστον? To return to the argument. The principle of always reading the augmented form might have easily led to the unlawful weak cesura in the third foot, as in A. 4; this has been carefully avoided. But it has sometimes, as in A. 54, led to a strong cesura in the third foot, when the natural rhythm of the hexameter would certainly prefer the weak cesura. Still, though our editors carry it a little too far, it is no doubt more rational to suppose that the augment was the rule and the loss of it the exception, than to put in unaugmented forms on the whimsical theory of Aris tarchus that the shorter forins are Ionic. The best to do at present would be to stick to the MSS. and keep theory until some one has collected a few facts to bear on the subject. It goes without saying that they mark elision of in the dative plural (σoio' érapoioi, &c.); they also endeavour after Nauck to get rid of all the short forms of this case-unnecessarily. The -o of the gen. sing. is elided freely. For the pronouns they write everywhere ήμες, ἦμας, ἥμων, ἡμιν, ἡμὸς, ὕμες, &c., ‘et pro ăμμe, tμue, quas ad dualem numerum referendas esse formas evicisse nobis videmur, dedimus hue, vue," regarding these forms not as certain but "medela et satis lenis et satis probabilis." To come to some special points. For ὕφρ' εἴπω passim they read ὄφρ' ἔσπω, in H. 277 σκήπτρ ̓ ἔσχον, an extremely dubious conjecture, in Z. 285 píλov ἦτορ ( φρέν' ατερπέ ?), in K. 373 ευξόου, with which they are naturally discontented; surely úçov is better than this; is it possible that eútoo may be right for ἐυξόσο ? In . 481 they read àup for audis, but aupis may well here mean "between," in K. 299 εἴαεν "Εκτωρ, in Κ. 285 ὥσπερ μ' ὡς, in Θ. 166 πότμον phow, probably a mere conjecture of Zenodotus, in E. 293 aixun 8' èñλ0ev, which cannot be right, as it makes no approach whatever to accounting for the various readings of antiquity and simply spoils the brilliant éλveev of Ahrens. A clear understanding of what passages are to be considered as interpolated, and what not, must underlie any attempt to re-construct the Homeric text, and here our editors seem generally to agree with the resuits of modern criticism; they occasionally however lose sight of this, as when they arbitrarily alter Ἑρμέᾳ ἐξήγγειλεν in E. 390 to ̔Ερμείᾳ ἤγγειλεν. If however it is not always possible to applaud the judgment of the editors, it is certainly true that they have done good service in issuing a text which will give the reader a very near approximation to the text of Homer now recoguised in thecry by almost everyone who has any right to speak on the question, and in their apparatus criticus they give him the opportunity of judging for himself. I have pointed out what shortcomings as I conceive them to be-I could find, because it is a pity that so good an edition should not have been just a little better, and attained the ideal standard of what is possible in our present state of knowledge. My only excuse for venturing to speak with such assurance of the work of far more learned scholars must be the old saying that "lookers on see most of the game." To end with unqualified praise, I have kept to the end the series of references to parallel passages printed in the margin of the text. The Odyssey of Homer. Book IX., with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices by G. M. EDWARDS, M. A. Cambridge University Press. 1887. 2s. 6d. THIS edition of the ninth book of the Odyssey 'is intended for use in the higher forms of schools.' A serviceable introduction on Homeric Forms is given, following generally the lines of Mr. Monro's grammar. Mr. Edwards, in his preface, refers to the great use he has made of Van Leeuwen and Da Costa in questions of dialect and accidence, and of Cauer and Fick in matters of textual criticism: but with the exception of a note referring to Cauer's treatment of contracted verbs, and a quotation of some lines from Fick's Aeolic version, the effect of these authorities is not very noticeable. The short appendices are of unequal merit: the best are those on the subjunctive and optative moods and the traces of the digamma. Others, such as the appendix on the infinitive, are too slight to be of value. Mr. Edwards' notes want life. More room might have been made for explanations and illustrations by the omission of renderings that must be superfluous for the higher forms of schools' in possession of a Greek lexicon: such, for example, as εἰνοσίφυλλον, with shaking leaves'; ἀμφί, ‘round about,' adverbial; auxǹ, court'; apoiтol, 'unfailing'; epí, adverbial; pío, 'a peak'; Oeoreoln, 'wondrous.' Such a note as (57) 'wep, a shorter form of "Tép, exceedingly," means even,' seems misleading as stated. As Mr. Edwards says nothing about the scholia, it may be doubted if his schoolboys would understand his note (491) on phoσovTES, where he writes πλήσσοντες Rhianus, ῥήσσοντες Bergk. Among slight misprints may be noted "Apyw, xapièv, σμερδαλεὺν, ὃ μὲν, Πηλήος. W. W. MERRY. 66 Platonis Crito, with Introduction, Notes, and Appendix, by J. ADAM, B. A. Cambridge, 1888, 2s. 6d. Platonis Crito, edited with critical notes for schools by M. SCHANZ. B. Tauchnitz. 1888. Platonis Krito, mit deutschen Kommentar von PROF. M. SCHANZ B. Tauchnitz. 1888. Platonis Apologia and Kriton, für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von DR. CHR. CRON, ninth edition, Teubner. 1888. 1 Mk. MR. ADAM'S Crito will confirm the favourable impression produced by his edition of the Apology. The Introduction is interesting, the notes useful and scholarlike. In the former we think Mr. Adam has succeeded in showing that the framework of the Crito is intentionally copied from the proceedings in a lawcourt, and that we have in it a new Apology, in which it is the State that is the prisoner at the bar, Crito the prosecutor and Socrates the judge. We cannot however see any ground for the opinion expressed towards the end of the Introduction, that Socrates would not have dogmatically asserted or even have approved of the doctrine of immortality, and that Plato was therefore not justified in imputing to him the reference to Hades contained in the final chapter of the Dialogue. Apparently Mr. Adam regards Socrates as an old-world Positivist, with whom virtue would have lost its bloom if it were supposed to lead the way to happiness hereafter. But surely this is hardly consistent with the Socratic egoism, of which we are so often reminded by the Editor, still less with the homely teaching of the Memorabilia. Such finedrawn morality was altogether beyond the horizon of that time. To Socrates, as to his greater pupil, the belief that the sphere of noble action was not confined to the present life, was, if not an essential, yet a valuable support to well-doing here. We should have been justified in assuming his belief in immortality without evidence, because it was the established belief of the time; it rested on the vou móλEWS, as well as on the teaching of the poets and the mysteries. But it is also the doctrine held by Xenophon as well as by Plato, and it is maintained by the former on thoroughly Socratic grounds in the speech put in the mouth of the dying Cyrus. Moreover it naturally flows from that belief in the duality of soul and body, which Mr. Adam calls one of the distinctive traits of the teaching of Socrates, and it is distinctly attributed to him by Plato in the dialogues which are acknowledged to exhibit the most literal transcript of his master's views. If it is less confidently affirmed in the Apology than in the Crito, it is because, before the public, Socrates uses his accustomed eipwvela, which he naturally lays aside in his last tête-à-tête with the simple-minded and affectionate Crito. To turn now to the notes. On p. 44 D άτοπον τὸ ἐνύπνιον—ἐναργὲς μὲν οὖν—λίαν γε ὡς ἔοικεν, " Possibly we should read ἄπορον (for ἄτοπον) as affording a better antithesis to ἐναργές. λίαν γε is ironical, for it is clear from the sequel that Crito does not believe in the vision." The passage referred to (46 A) merely says whatever plan of escape you adopt must be tried to-night,' but this may only mean the sooner the better, or it might have reference to the arrangements already made for the escape. With regard to the proposed reading &ropov, it should have been stated that Proclus (on Tim. 25c) refers to this passage for the use of TOTOV, and explains it as = παράδοξον. Why may we not translate a queer dream, Socrates. Nay, quite plain I think. Too plain, I fear.' In the previous note on Φθίην ἐρίβωλον ἵκοιο, Mr. Adam follows Lambinus in supposing an allusion to pelois, and 'feels sure that Socrates derived comfort from the epithet epißwλov.' But is there not something a little absurd in the notion of Socrates finding comfort in the thought that his body was to decay in a fertile soil? The essential point, as Fischer remarks, is the homeward journey of Achilles on the third day He illustrates it by the similar vision in which it was foretold to Eudemus that he should return home after five years, a prophecy fulfilled, as Cicero tells us, by his death at that time. Shortly afterwards the difficult sentence πολλοῖς δόξωὡς οἷός τε ὦν σῴζειν ἀμελη σa seems to be wrongly translated, 'Many men will think me guilty of neglect because I might have saved you.' Such a rendering of &s after dót is surely most unnatural. We are disposed to agree with Buttmann fere relabor in vulgatum &s-àμeλhoaiμi, quam Wolfius quoque servavit, ut per anacoluthiam ita continuaverit sermonem scriptor, quasi praecessisset phoovoi πολλοί. If we read ἀμελῆσαι it is best explained by a further anacoluthon, such as we find in Xen. Hellen. ΙΙ. 2, 2, είδες ὅτι ὅσῳ ἂν πλείους συλλεγῶσιν —θᾶττον τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἔνδειαν ἔσεσθαι, where see Breitenbach. In 44D αὐτὰ δὲ δῆλα τὰ πάροντα νυνί (' the present state of affairs is of itself sufficient to prove the power of ignorance'), we do not see the appropriateness of the note "this use of aurà throws light on avтíka in the sense of 'for example."" Of course auTíka, like εὐθὺς, means literally to take the first case which comes to hand. In the same sentence ἐάν τις ἐν αὐτοῖς διαβεβλημένος ᾖ is translated falsely accused to them': it should rather be if they are prejudiced against any one.' There seems no reason to suppose that has any 'reference to a court of law.' In 46D ἄλλως ἕνεκα λόγου ἐλέγετο, Mr. Adam proposes to omit éveka λóyou as a gloss, because the subject of ἐλέγετο is λόγος. But four lines have passed since it was mentioned, and the phrase éveka Adyov, here used to define &λλws, has its own distinct meaning, which was hardly likely to recall the simple λóyos. In 480 σkéμμaтa seems to be only a repetition of the preceding σkéveis, 'those considerations of which you speak, about money and reputation, are just the considerations which influence the mob.' 53D τὸ τοῦ Σωκράτους πρᾶγμα is translated Socrates and everything about him.' Would it not be better to take payua of a 'profession, "as explained on 47B? It would have been well to give examples of the use of où uh with the first p. Fut. Ind. (44B), and of áv with Fut. Inf. (53D). Might we in conclusion suggest that such notes as 'Hirschig foolishly corrupts the text,' Wohlrab is wrong in reading Touro σua with Buttman,' 'it has been doubted by Zeller and othersbut I have no doubt,' are scarcely in the Platonic style? It is needless to say that Prof. Schanz's editions appear with all the advantages of paper and type to which we are accustomed in the Tauchnitz publications. The critical edition is especially to be commended for neatness and clearness. Immediately under the text we have references to any quotations made in later writers, and in the critical notes below we have the various readings of the chief MSS. and the more important conjectures. As to the text itself we agree with Mr. Adam in thinking that Prof. Schanz is too much given to alteration. If a word or phrase seems to him superfluous, he has no hesitation in declaring it an interpolation, though it may be just such a superfluity as gives naturalness to a conversation, and though no possible motive could be assigned for its insertion by an interpolator. Thus in the following, the words in brackets are regarded by him as interpolated. 48 Α. ἀλλὰ μὲν δή, φαίη γ' ἄν τις, οἷοί τέ εἰσιν ἡμᾶς οἱ πολλοὶ ἀποκτιννύναι. ΚΡ. δῆλα δὴ καὶ ταῦτα, [φαίη γὰρ ἂν] ὦ Σώκρατες. ΣΩ. ἀληθῆ λέγεις. This, the ordinary division of the words, is retained by Cron and Adam, dñλa 8h referring to the truth of the statement that the majority have the power to kill us, pain yàp av to the probability that this statement would be made. Schanz brackets pain yàp av and assigns ἀληθῆ λέγεις to Crito. 50 Ε. ἢ πρὸς μὲν ἄρα σοι τὸν πατέρα οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου ἦν τὸ δίκαιον καὶ πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην ... ὥστε [ἅπερ πάσχοις ταῦτα καὶ ἀντιποιεῖν] οὔτε κακῶς ἀκούοντα ἀντιλέγειν οὔτε τυπτόμενον ἀντιτύπτειν. 51 Β. σέβεσθαι δεῖ...καὶ θωπεύειν πατρίδα χαλεπαίνουσαν... καὶ [ἢ πείθειν] ἢ ποιεῖν ἃ ἂν κελεύῃ, here Schanz omits Areldew, because, for the sake of clearness, it is repeated six lines below. 53 A. outw σoi diapepÓYTWS τῶν ἄλλων ̓Αθηναίων ἤρεσκεν ἡ πόλις καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ νόμοι [δῆλον ὅτι· τίνι γὰρ ἂν πόλις ἀρέσκοι ἄνευ νόμων ;]. 53 Ε. ὑπερχόμενος δὴ βιώσει πάντας ἀνθρώπους [καὶ δου λeúwv]. 54 A. (in regard to the plea that anxiety for his children justified Socrates in wishing to prolong his life, the Laws say 'you think that if you take refuge in Thessaly your children will be looked after at home”) οἱ γὰρ ἐπιτήδειοι οἱ σοὶ [ἐπιμελήσονται αὐτῶν]. πότερον, ἐὰν εἰς Θετταλίαν ἀποδημήσῃς, ἐπιμελήσονται, ἐὰν δὲ εἰς "Αιδου ἀποδημήσῃς, οὐχὶ ἐπιμελήσονται ; Other unnecessary changes are made with the view of improving the logic or grammar, e.g. 44 C (Why do you care so much for the opinion of the many! All reasonable people) ἡγήσονται αὐτὰ οὕτω πεπράχθαι ὥσπερ ἂν πραχθῇ (will believe that the course of affairs was really such, as it may ultimately prove to have been). Here Schanz reads σrep dǹ éxpáxon eliminat ing the reference to the still undetermined question, whether Socrates should escape or not. 44 Ε. ἢ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποβαλεῖν ἢ συχνὰ χρήματα ἢ καὶ ἄλλο τι πρὸς τούτοις παθεῖν. For this perfectly natural expression it is proposed to substitute the more strictly logical ἢ συχνὰ χρήματα ἢ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποβαλεῖν καὶ ἄλλο τι πρὸς τούτοις παθεῖν, omitting the third *. 45 Β. ξένοι οὗτοι ἐνθάδε ἕτοιμοι ἀναλίσκειν, See, here are foreigners ready to spend theirs' (Adam). Schanz changes ouro into To, because the strangers could not have been actually in the prison, and if they were, ἐνθάδε would be superfluous with οὗτοι, 50 Β. ἢ ἐροῦμεν ὅτι ἠδίκει γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἡ πόλις καὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς τὴν δίκην ἔκρινεν ; Here ἀδικεῖ, an allowable reading no doubt, is substituted for holke, but can we doubt that, if aduceî had had the misfortune to appear in the MSS. symmetry would at once have proved that Plato could only have written ἠδίκει ? 51 D. οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν τῶν νόμων ἀπαγορεύει, ἐάν τέ τις βούληται ὑμῶν εἰς ἀποικίαν ἰέναι, εἰ μὴ ἀρέσκοιμεν ἡμεῖς τε καὶ ἡ πόλις, ἐάν τε μετοικεῖν ἄλλοσέ ποι ἐλθών, ἰέναι ἐκεῖσε ὅποι ἂν βούληται. Here ἀρέσκοιμεν is changed into ἀρέσκομεν on the ground that the Optative is inadmissible, as it is not dependent on a past tense; the fact being that the Optative is here thoroughly idiomatic and is not at all equivalent to the Present Indicative. It is the previous condition of ἐάν τις βούληται, and does not mean if we are now unpleasing to you,' but 'supposing we were at any time unpleasing to you.' There is however one passage in which we should be disposed to follow Schanz, where his reading differs from that of Cron and Adam, viz. 53 E. where Schanz reads yλloxpws with Eusebius and the Venetian Codex against the alexpws of the Bodleian Codex. The explanatory notes turn chiefly on points of grammar, as on où un with Future Indicative (44 B.) on ἐν τοῖς βαρύτατα (43 C.), sometimes with almost a superfluity of illustration: we also find in them careful discrimination of the use and meaning of words, as of daiμóvios (44 B.) The note on the Homeric quotation (44 B.) is far more satisfactory than those in the other two editions. Schanz however is not more successful than they are in his explanation of 44 B. ὡς οἷός τε ὤν, where he would like to read ὅμως for ὡς ; and both he and Cron fail to give the true force of WOLOUσ in 44 D. where Adam rightly translates they treat a man. In 52 C. ὡμολόγεις καθ' ἡμᾶς πολίτεύσεσθαι τά τε ἄλλα καὶ παῖδας ἐν αὐτῇ ἐποιήσω we prefer Cron's explanation, making eroinow a change from the regular infinitive to the direct construction, and governing τά τε ἄλλα by πολιτεύσεσθαι, to the explanations of the other editors. Schanz has a curious note on 54 Α. θρέψονται καὶ παιδεύσονται (‘bei Plato haben die medialen Futura sehr oft passive Bedeutung') which would seem to imply that he regards the passive force of the so-called 'middle' future as something exceptional. Lastly we cannot agree with Schanz in holding the sentiment expressed in 49 B. ovdaμŵs deî àdikeîv, ovdè ἀδικούμενον ἀνταδικεῖν to be un-Socratic, because in the Memorabilia Socrates once and again refers to the ordinary idea of the virtuous man as one who is useful to his friends and dangerous to his enemies. But when Chaerecrates wishes to apply this principle in the case of his brother who has injured him, Toy μέντοι καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ πειρώμενον ἐμὲ ἀνιᾶν οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην οὔτ ̓ εὖ λέγειν οὔτ ̓ εὖ ποιεῖν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ πειράσopal (Mem. II. iii. 8), Socrates puts forward a very different rule of conduct, that it is his duty, though injured, to take the initiative in doing kindness and so try to win back his brother's affection. In like manner what we read in the Crito is quite in accord1 So also C. F. Hermann. NO. XVI. VOL. II. ance with the principle, that there is no disgrace in suffering, but only in doing injustice (Mem. IV. viii. 9). This being the ninth issue of Cron's very useful edition, we need not say more of it than that he has added in the Appendix the readings of Wohlrab (1887) Kral (1885) and Schanz (1875), where they differ from his own. Plauti Captivi by W. M. LINDSAY (Clarendon Press Series). 2s. 6d. THIS book, we are told in the Preface, does not claim to be a critical edition. 'Its only aim is to enable boys of the Higher Forms of our Schools to read the Captivi with interest and intelligence.' This being so, it is almost a pity that the delegates of the Clarendon Press did not ask Mr. Lindsay to undertake some other play. There is a real want of good school editions of Plautus, but it so happens that, so far as the Captivi is concerned, this want has been inost adequately met by Prof. Sonnenschein's adaptation of Brix. Of course Plautine criticism has advanced during the last few years, but we do not in this case see the need of a rival edition such as the one before us. Mr. Lindsay has based his notes mainly on those of Dr. Brix. He has obviously consulted other recent authorities, like Langen and Dräger, but the bulk of his material-more perhaps than the acknowledgment in the Preface quite implies-comes from the commentary of the first-named scholar. He seems also to be familiar with Prof. Sonnenschein's edition, and one cannot but regret that he has nowhere defined his relation to it. Both editors have, of course, borrowed from Dr. Brix, but any one who will compare the three sets of notes, will find also a good many minor coincidences between the two English ones (see e.g. the notes on 268-70, 310, 314, 333, 336, 358, 499, 548, 569, 597). These coincidences may be accidents, but we fancy that if B, L, and S were three MSS., critics would decide that L had been influenced by S independently of the archetype B. In itself the book does not contain-nor does it claim to contain-any original work of any sort, but it deserves a full share of praise as a good schoolbook. The notes are generally brief and clear; parallel passages, various readings, and insoluble cruces are not treated with the inordinate respect that University tutors often show to them, and the Latinity is fairly well explained. The only misfortune is that, so far as we ca judge, Mr. Lindsay has carried his severe simplicity too far. His notes are scarcely full enough for a sixth form boy, certainly not for Honour men at the Universities. The etymological explanations are especially faulty in this point. According to the Preface, they form a 'feature' of the book; but when one comes to examine them, one finds little beyond ordinary school knowledge, and in two or three cases doubtful or obsolete theories The Introduction is open to the same criticism: it is too slight. A section, for example, is devoted to 'Prosody,' but it is either too short or too long, nor is Mr. Lindsay wise in telling the 'reader,' i.e., the schoolboy-though schoolboys never read Introductions-to supplement it from Ritschl's Prolegomena. We do not, of course, expect him to reveal to the profanum volgus the mysteries of the anapaest or the 'versus Reizianus,' but he might at least say more about the ordinary iambic. The 'reader' would scarcely gather from this Introduction that the Plautine iambic is a very complicated metre. The Ordner' (as Meyer calls him) of the foreign metre had to solve the usual problem how to make the verse both scan and read well; and he has solved it N |