Theoricon. On Olynth. i. 19 we read 'After Apollodorus' condemnation Eubulus got a law passed enacting capital punishment for any one proposing this in future (i.e. proposing to apply the surplus to war).' The scholiast on Olynth. i. 1 is quoted as the authority for this fact, but the editors embody the scholiast's statement in their own summary of the case. On the other hand on Olynth. iii. 12 we read, 'àroλéσlai of civil death, not physical. Any one who proposed the use of the theoric fund before the law was altered would be indicted by a γραφή παρανόμων, and if condemned would lose his civil rights till he had paid the fine imposed.' The latter interpretation is probably the correct one, but it is directly at variance with the former. A flaw, however, of this kind is altogether exceptional, for in all that concerns the subject-matter of the speeches-in the historical introduction, in the analysis prefixed to each speech, in archaeological details-singular exactness is apparent. Those who know the quality of Mr. Abbott's previous work will be fully prepared for such an exercise of independent judgment after a patient sifting of materials. S. H. BUTCHER. Veteris Testamenti Graeci Codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum Textu Recepto collati ab Eberardo Nestle. Supplementum editionum quae Sixtinam sequuntur omnium, in primis Tischendorfianarum. Editio altera recognita et aucta. Lipsiae F. A. Brockhaus. 1887. : 5 Mk. SINCE Dr. E. Nestle published his valuable Supplementum to Tischendorf's Septuagint in 1879, two important works have appeared; the sixth and concluding volume of the Roman edition of the Vatican MS. containing the Prolegomena and Commentary: and the antotype reproduction of the Alexandrian MS. Of these Dr. Nestle has made full use in his new edition. When the former edition was published, it was only possible to give the corrections in the Vatican MS. generally, without distinguishing the different hands to which they appear to be due: now he has entirely revised his collation by the help of the Prolegomena and Commentary, following the judgment of the Roman editor H. Fabiani in distinguishing the different hands, or rather classes, of corrections, found in the MS. It was impossible to do otherwise but the imperfections of the Roman edition, valuable as it is, are well known, and the editor's account of the various hands is generally acknowledged to be more than doubtful. Dr. Nestle warns the student that Fabiani's confident identification of the scribe who retraced the text with the monk Clement in the fourteenth or fifteenth century is in opposition to the general opinion which has hitherto assigned that corrector to the tenth or eleventh century. Would he not have done well to point out further that the account of the corrections given by the Vatican editors must be accepted as provisional only, until better information can be obtained? In the collation of the Alexandrian MS. Dr. Nestle has given some variations intentionally omitted by Tischendorf, and corrected a number of errors due to oversight on Tischendorf's part, or mistakes in Baber's edition, which he followed. Dr. Nestle's name is a guarantee for the accuracy of the work, and the new edition of his Supplementum is indispensable to every scholar who uses Tischendorf's edition of the LXX. A. F. KIRKPATRICK. Plutarch's Life of Nikias, edited by Rev. H. A. HOLDEN, D.C.L. Cambridge University Press. THE Nikias of Plutarch is the Greek subject for the Previous Examination of the present year 1888, and again Dr. Holden has undertaken the work of editor, giving us a companion volume to the Lives of the Gracchi and of Sulla. All students of Plutarch, an increasing number as they bid fair to be under the stimulus of the Cambridge Board of Classical Studies, will find all, more than all perhaps, that they require; besides the notes which are of course very full and elaborate, we have an introduction which gives us a complete account of Plutarch himself and a discussion of the chief sources of information for his Life of Nikias-next, we have a Chronological Table from B.C. 460 to B.C. 413 of events in the life of Nicias. To the text is appended a marginal summary after the fashion now so commonly adopted by editors and so very helpful to the student. The book is well furnished with indices, one for the subject-matter, a second for the author quoted, and a third for points of grammar. Last comes a complete Lexical Index'; here are noted, by means of numerals attixed, words peculiar to Plutarch or to late Greek authors, words which he uses in a sense other than classical, and poetical words, (such as άλκιμος, αμίαντος) to which he seems to have been rather partial. The word ψοφοδέης (highly nervous') is by an error here set down as peculiar to later Greek, whereas it occurs in Plato's Phaedrus (257 D), as indeed the editor himself observes on page 59. The notes are very copious and touch alike on grammar, criticism and history, and every now and then we find the errors of translators (which are pretty numerous in the version of the Greek Lives in Bohn's Series; let students be warned in time) exposed and corrected. In ch.1, 3, the not very clear expressicn ὑπορρέων εἰς τὸν Ξέναρχον, rendered by Liddell and Scott 'seeking shelter behind (the authority of) Xenarchos,' is very differently explained by Dr. Holden as dribbling into conceits worthy of X,' though he is rather doubtful. The context seems to favour his rendering; something disparaging would seems to be implied. Tolerably proficient scholars in the Greek of the classical period will often stumble at passages in Plutarch, and we should suppose that the Previous Examination as to its Greek subjects will be a trial to a good many men. As in his edition of the Lives of the Gracchi and of Sulla, so here Dr. Holden has overloaded his notes with long extracts in illustration of the history of the time. Was it necessary to quote so largely from such an accessible book as Grote's history of Greece? This objection does not apply to extracts from Boeckh's Economy of Athens, a work with which an ordinary student is hardly likely to be familiar. Dr. Holden, we suppose, was determined to make his edition complete at all points, as it is to be hoped he will follow up his work with the result of Plutarch's Lives taking their place at the side of Thucydides and Xenophon in our schools and universities. W. J. BRODRIBB. Zur Kritik des Johannes von Antiocha, by GEORGIOS SOTIRIADIS. Leipzig, 1887. 3 Mk. 20. THIS thorough-going examination of the fragments attributed to Johannes of Antioch, which were collected by Carl Müller in the fourth and fifth volumes of his Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, throws a flood of light not only on the fragments themselves but on other very important questions relating to Byzantine historiography, for example on the date of Johannes Malalas. These historians, who were both natives of Antioch, have often been confounded, and many papers on them have appeared from time to time in Hermes from the pens of Mommsen, Haupt, Neumann and de Boor. Herr Sotiriadis proves elegantly and convincingly that of all the so-called Salmasian excerpts (fragments published from a Paris MS. by Salmasius), frag. 1 alone was really written by Johannes of Antioch. By a comparison of the other eight excerpts, from frag. 73 to frag. 200, with the corresponding passages in Leo Grammaticus and Zonaras, he makes it clear that these two chronographers and the author of the excerpts had a common source, whom we may call X.; and further that the source of X. was Cassius Dio. Thus the question to be solved is-Was X. Johannes of Antioch? That this question must be answered in the negative is proved abundantly. In the first place there are many passages in which a remarkable agreement between Leo and Zonaras points to utilisation of X, although we have no corresponding excerpt; and a comparison of some of these passages with undoubted fragments of Johannes makes the identification most improbable. In the second place some of the excerpts in question cover the same ground as genuine fragments of Johannes, and in some of these cases we find that Johannes follows Dio far more closely than X. (cp. frags. 107 and 108, 91 and 92); in other cases we find that Johannes differs from X. by following Herodian. An examination of the Salmasian excerpts from frag. 3 to 73, which relate to history prior to Julius Caesar, leads to the result that they are also from the hand of X., whose source in this part of his work was John Malalas. So far then the result is that the Salmasian excerpts are from the work of an anonymous author (X.), who used John Malalas for early history, and Cassius Dio for imperial history; whereas Johannes of Antioch, as is well known, used Herodian largely for imperial history, and whenever he drew from Dio followed him much more closely than X. Johannes also used Eutropius. Sotiriadis then proceeds to identify X. with the author of the Constantinian excerpts repl yvwμv (first published by Mai), which Mommsen wrongly attributed to Johannes. These excerpts rest on Dio, whereas corresponding passages among the fragments of Johannes rest on Herodian or some other source. As X. had before him not only Prokopios but John Malalas, he cannot have lived earlier than the seventh century, and from his style Sotiriadis would place him in the latter half of the ninth century. The exact date is not of much importance, but I cannot agree with the necessity of this conclusion. As far as his style is concerned, there is no reason why he might not have been a contemporary of Georgios Synkellos and Theophanes Confessor and lived about 800; or for that matter there is no particular reason why he might not have been a younger contemporary of Malalas, whom Sotiriadis afterwards places in the first half of the seventh century. Among the best and most striking parts of the treatise are the comparisons of the diction of Johannes of Antioch with (1) that of X. and (2) that of Malalas. Johannes was imbued with a thorough Sprachgefühl for the Hellenistic literary dialect, which maintained itself from Polybius to Menander Protector, and was renewed in the eleventh century by the renaissance movement of Psellos. X. on the other hand is out of touch with this language, he cannot use the variety of particles and prepositions which are found in writers like Dio or Johannes, he employs all sorts of Byzantine words and expressions, many of which have survived in modern Greek; e.g. ¿0epaπev0n = hoon, κινδυνεύοντα = 'sick unto death, ̓ ἀξίνην αὐτὸν δέδωκεν = ἀξίνῃ αὐτὸν διεχρήσατο, ἐλευθέρως ἐλάλησε instead οἱ ἐπαρρησιάσατο. This is the language of Theophanes or Constantine VII, differing completely from the language of Prokopios or Agathias. It is also the language of Malalas, whose pages bristle with phe, κωδικίλλια, ποιήσας ἡμέρας πολλάς, εἰς δύο ἡμέρας (=in NO. XVII. VOL. II. two days), reoav, &c. The decline of the literary language took place about 600, and Herr Sotiriadis ought to have noticed that we can see the change taking place distinctly in Theophylaktos, who, while aiming at the achievement of a very artistic and exquisite style, introduces many words from the spoken tongue which Prokopios would never have used, but always does this with an apologetic explanation-a κаλоúμevos or something of that kind. It is in Theophylaktos that we first observe words that are so frequent in Theophanes and Kedrenos, like Toûλdov, but they are as yet sparingly used. This criterion of language decides convincingly that, of the excerpts derived from the Madrid MS. and contained in Müller's fifth volume, 217a-218f were not written by Johannes of Antiochia, but by Malalas, extracts from whose work immediately follow in the MS. As these fragments relate to the reigns of Justin II., Maurice and Phokas, there is no longer any reason for placing the date of Johannes in the reign of Heraklios; and Sotiriadis, pointing out that his style proves him to have lived in a literary atmosphere that did not exist later than the sixth century, makes it probable that he wrote about the time of Justin I., and thus formed a sort of link between Eustathios of Epiphania and Hesychios of Miletos. He further identifies him with Johannes the historiographer who is quoted several times by Evagrios. In favour of the date it must be admitted that details of the revolt of Vitalian in the reign of Anastasios, as described by Johannes, seem to point to the writer's having been alive at that time. It is possible, however, that he may have derived his account from an eye-witness, considerably older than himself. It may be noticed here that in his recent article on Boniface and Aetius in the English Historical Review, Mr. Freeman neglected some genuine fragments of Johannes, which are important as they rest on a source independent of Prokopios. It remains to say that Sotiriadis fixes the reign of Heraklios as the date of Malalas, but by no means convincingly. He certainly did not live before that time, but he may have lived at a later period. Special points in the eighteenth book of his abridged history are discussed, namely his accounts of the Nika revolt and of the Persia war 528–532, as compared with those of Prokopios. For this period Malalas is really valuable, as a correction to the Belisarianism of Prokopios. I may add one criticism, In Malalas, p. 97, 19 we read the words τῶν λεγομένων Μυρμιδόνων τ ότε νυνὶ δὲ λεγομένων Βουλγάρων. These words, it is said, could not have been written by Malalas, assuming him to have lived before 650, because the Bulgarians vanish from history after the reign of Anastasios and do not reappear till the days of Constantine IV. ; this must therefore be an addition of the redactor of the original Malalas. This argument is not convincing, because (1) we cannot argue from the silence of historians that the Bulgarians, as subjects of the Avars, had fallen into oblivion, and (2) Theophylaktos, a contemporary of Maurice, Phokas and Heraklios, actually mentions (vii. 4) the Bulgarians as playing a part in the wars, which in the reign of Maurice devastated the Balkan peninsula. JOHN B. BURY. dition and civilisation of Gaul at the date of Caesar's arrival. The notes upon geography, chronology and military affairs are well done, but there might with advantage have been more notes on syntax, and some of those given are not correct. Mr. Bell, for instance, is quite in error about the use of se and is. On 5 § 3 I must join in the protest already made (C. R. i. 2336) against the statement that iis ought to be se, or that 'the strict rule would require' se. There is no such rule. It is no doubt to gain clearness that Caesar uses iis here and in similar cases, i.e. when referring in a dependent sentence to the subject of the principal sentence: cf. 14 § 2, eo invito and 37 § 1, fines eorum (Madv. 490c obs. 3; Roby § 2268). When however the editor says, 'Caesar very frequently uses se and suus in reference to the subject of the dependent clause,' he states the rule, or rather ordinary usage, as if it were the exception; the ordinary usage being, of course, that se and suus are used in reference to the subject of the dependent clause as well as in reference to the subject of the principal sentence. It often happens that the context alone can decide who is meant by any particular se or suus. What Caesar does is to use is where we might expect se, suus, and not the converse. Again, on 13 § 4, ne ob eam rem aut suae magnopere virtuti tribueret aut ipsos despiceret, the note is ipsius virtuti and se would have been more strict Latin.' Caesar is more correct than his critic. We might perhaps expect se ipsos for ipsos, but ipsum alone for se ipsum is found in the best writers (Madv. § 490c. obs. 4; Riemann, p. 22 note 2). R. C. SEATON. Discours de Cicéron contre Verres: Livre IV. De Signis. Par ÉMILE THOMAS. Paris: Hachette. 1887. 4 frcs. A SHORT time ago M. Thomas published an attractive little edition of the same book, with brief notes and some woodcuts and maps (see C. R. vol. i. p. 72). The present volume is on a larger scale, and is uniform with an excellent edition of the De Suppliciis previously published by the editor. M. Thomas is one of the most accomplished Latin scholars who have been produced by the great revival of classical studies in France which the present generation has witnessed. His scholarship is finished and exact; he is fully abreast with recent research; and he writes in a style which is always lucid, and very often pointed. An introduction of a few pages deals with the MSS. evidence for the text and with the chief peculiarities which the book presents. The Latin text is accompanied by a few critical notes and by elucidations which are not indeed so numerous or extensive as those in the editions of Halm and Richter, yet often touch on important matters which they pass by. In the constitution of his text M. Thomas is thoroughly cautious; wherever possible he gives the readings of the codex Regius, clinging even to its orthography, though he is forced to reduce it to something like uniformity. Like many other editors, M. Thomas does not stop to inquire whether it is probable that Cicero wrote two forms like Heracli and Heraclii in the same speech. If the authority of the Regius is good for repperire, which is printed several times, why not for Appollinis and many other things which are rejected? M. Thomas ventures on very few emendations of his own, perhaps a dozen in all. Of these only one is absolutely improbable the rest are all scholarly, and two or three are highly attractive. Particularly may be mentioned the suggestion ex aede Liberae arietinum caput illud pulcherrimum for the corrupt parinum, which may easily have come from arietinum written in error parietinum. few remarks which follow are given in view of a new The edition of the book, which will no doubt speedily be demanded. The misprints are few, but in notes on §§ 102, 3, Schwalz is printed for Schmalz and Nopl for Nohl, and at the end Jepp for Jeep. The system of marking by italics the omissions of the Regius is not consistently carried out: see particularly § 27. Some of the dicta concerning usage need modification In § 4 ad aedem is not the equivalent of in aede, nor is it ever so in Cicero. Pliny, speaking of the very same statues which Cicero mentions here, states in one place (36 § 39) that they were ad aedem Felicitatis, in another (33 § 69) that they were ante aedem, the two phrases conveying the same sense. § 7, cuiusque modi: from the statement that Cicero in his later speeches avoids the adverbial expressions compounded with modi, eiusmodi should have been excepted. § 25, the assertion that non... .. uerum is used and not, non modo uerum to mark the hypothesis as impossible cannot be maintained; non modo certainly occurs in circumstances precisely similar. § 30, the note seems to overlook the existence of the word fictor. § 47, quoppiam, like aliquammulti in § 56, is really indefensible, though still generally accepted; the former has as much, or as little, in its favour as quodquod and quodquam, now universally abandoned, while the latter originated in the age of Gellius, and is formed on the false analogy of aliquamdiu. § 53, si quaeritis occurs in two other passages of the speeches, viz., Verr. 5 § 173, and Rab. Post. § 11. § 86, there are many parallels to the description of a citizen of a ciuitas stipendiaria as socius; it is doubtful whether it can be even described as incorrect. Those who lived under any kind of foedus, whether aecum or inicum, might well be called socii as against the dediticii. § 87, Draeger's statement about donec in Cicero, accepted by M. Thomas, is not quite exact. § 118, cui nomen Arethusa est: avec les noms de personnes, Cicéron dans cette construction emploie toujours le datif: voir Reisig § 345 et Draeger § 193, 1.' Draeger however says, 'bei Cicero finde ich nur: Verr. 3, 31 [§ 74] cui Pyragro nomen est. Sonst setzt er den Nominativ.' Reisig's (or rather his editor Haase's) contention that, if Arethusa had been a Roman name, it would have been in the dative, is quite baseless. In Verr. 3 § 74 the reading is not quite certain; in the speeches the only other passage, whether with dat. or nom., is § 119 of this speech (a few lines lower): cui nomen Achradina est. in fact uses other forms of expression for the purpose as a rule. § 136, quibuscum: telle est la construction regulière de nubere au passif.' In reality the examples in Cic. are about equally divided between the cum construction and the dat. § 137, cum fueram : 'action répétée; dans ce cas, Cicéron emploie toujours l'indicatif.' But at § 48 M. Thomas had rightly said cum... uenisset was used 'pour indiquer une action répétée.' § 147, it is very doubtful whether Cic. did avoid quocum; it stands still in Deiot. § 39, Rab. Post. § 19, and a good many other passages. germanum: if M. Thomas will read C. F. W. Müller's critical notes on Verr. 2, 5, 34, and on Caec. § 18, with my note on Acad. 2 § 34, he will find reason to doubt whether Cic. ever wrote ac before g. Cicero Ib. ac J. S. REID. M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum Libri QuinEd. TH. SCHICHE. Vienna: Tempksky. que. 1888. Mk. 1.20. A VOLUME of K. Schenkl's series of Greek and Latin texts, which is rapidly becoming known in England. Two volumes edited by Schiche have already been noticed in this Review, one containing Cicero's Cato Maior and Laelius, the other the De Officiis. The pre sent volume is executed on the same plan, and deserves the same commendation as its predecessors. Within the limits which the editor proposed to himself, the work could hardly have been better done. The editor's judgment in selecting readings is almost always sound and careful. He adopts conjectures of his own in about fifteen places only, and these are reasonable, even where they may be deemed unnecessary. The boldest, and at the same time the best, is saxo Lemnio for lecto umido of the MSS. in 2 § 33. J. S. R. M. Tullii Ciceronis pro M. Caelio Oratio ad Iudices. Recognovit I. C. VOLLGRAFF. Leyden. 1887. Mk. 2. A CRITICAL edition of an admittedly difficult speech, which has the advantage of giving, in most instances, reasons for the alterations introduced into the text. It is an unquestionably able piece of work. Many of the editor's own suggestions are extremely acute. To those who share his critical principles the permanent value of the book will appear great. To others, with whom we agree, the editor will seem the victim of a false system. Briefly, Vollgraff suffers most severely from what may be termed interpolation fever.' He applauds most of the mutilations of the text proposed in recent years by Francken, Schoell and others, and applies their critical surgery himself with a still more incisive and resolute hand. He is haunted by the ghosts of the 'male sedulus interpolator,' the librarius non ineruditus,' the 'acutulus corrector,' and the 'eruditus magistellus,' who in his view have studded the speech with their 'emblemata,' their 'insulsa additamenta et interpretamenta,' and their 'molesta glossemata.' These creatures of his imagination are equal to foisting in anything, from single words to whole paragraphs, but they have hardly anywhere in the speech left half a dozen lines uncontaminated by their influence. They possess an almost miraculous sagacity in determining the exact points in the text at which insertions may be made with a chance of escaping detection. In a note on § 6 Vollgraff speaks of one glossator as a person who 'ita versatus est ut, licet mirifico artificio verba vere Tulliana satis lepide contexerit, ea tamen protulerit, quae a Ciceronianis distent quantum aera lupinis.' Scholars who have time and patience enough to study carefully those interpolations in the text of Cicero which are generally admitted cannot, we think, fail to conclude that no such person as Vollgraff describes was ever at work. Two things may be safely asserted: (1) that in the overwhelming majority of instances the interpolations in the text of Cicero's works are due to accident, not design; (2) that the interpolators were, almost to a man, dull and iguorant creatures. The validity of Vollgraff's principles may be tested very simply by two methods, both of which would, we believe, prove fatal to them. The first method Iwould be that of reductio ad absurdum. Let any competent scholar go through the editor's text and notes, marking at each point the reasons he gives for altering or mutilating the text. He cannot fail to see that those reasons, if rigorously applied, would justify far more extensive changes than even those which Vollgraff has himself made. A second test would be, after acquiring complete familiarity with the traditional text of the pro Caelio and with Vollgraff's proposed alterations, to enter on a patient and minute study of the whole of Cicero's writings, noting everything that bears on the criticism of the speech. Such a process would inevitably bring into view the baselessness of nearly all the statements concerning Ciceronian usage which are made the excuses for altering the MSS. readings of the pro Caelio. That the text of the speech as handed down to us is more defective than that of most Ciceronian speeches no competent scholar will deny; or that there are in it accidental interpolations, some of which have indeed been recognised for generations. But there is no need for such heroic remedies as those which Vollgraff tries to apply. Far truer and sounder is the criticism of that most painstaking and conscientious scholar, C. F. W. Müller, whose text Vollgraff rarely mentions. We regret that space forbids a detailed examination of this ingenious work. The editor has powers which would suffice, could he but change his method, to place him in the very first rank of contemporary Latin scholars. J. S. R. Merguet Lexikon zu der Philosophischen Schriften Cicero's. Parts I. II. A.-Autem. Each part 5 Mks. IT is hardly possible to overrate the value of the services which Dr. Merguet has already rendered to Latin scholarship by his lexicons to Caesar and to the Speeches of Cicero. But his indomitable energy and industry know no pause. No sooner is one Herculean task completed than another is commenced. This time it is not only Latinists but all students of postAristotelian philosophy who will profit by the results of his self-sacrificing labours. The method which he has pursued will be familiar to most readers of the Classical Review. It may be described as exhaustive rather than selective, and as following a principle of arrangement which is mechanical rather than logical. For instance, under such a word as autem every single passage in which the word occurs is quoted; and the divisions and subdivisions are made, not according to the different meanings or uses of the word, but according to the nature of the sentence in which it occurs (interrogative, imperative &c.), and the nature of the word which it follows (adjective, adverb &c.) There is an advantage in this very objective mode of treatment, which excludes nothing as unimportant, in so far as it leaves the way open for all possible generalizations in the future. At the same time it must be confessed that it very much increases the difficulty of discovering examples of any particular use. We hunt in vain for the needle in the superfluous mass of hay; and little light is to be obtained from the somewhat confused and artificial grouping of the examples. Compare for instance the classification of the uses of ab in Roby's grammar with that in the lexicon. R. has (1)From,' of place; (2) From,' of the starting point in time or reckoning; (3) From,' of the thing left or shunned; (4) From,' of the source; (5) ' By,' 'from,' of the agent; (6) From,' 'on the side of,' of the side or department concerned. M. has ་ I. After verbs and participles (which are themselves arranged in alphabetical order). pp. 1-12. II. After adjectives and adverbs. p. 12. III. After substantives and combinations of substantive and verb. pp. 12, 13. IV. Qualifications belonging to the whole sentence (Zum ganzen Satz gehörige Bestimmungen) (1) of space; (2) of time; (3) of the limit. pp. 13, 14. V. Logical subject with the passive: (1) with Pronouns, a personal, b possessive, e demonstrative, relative, general; (2) Proper Names, a personal, b national and class names, c names of countries; (3) Appellatives, a persons, b collective of persons, c things. pp. 14—–17. VI. Ellipses. p. 18. VII. Lücke,' (answering to the heading 'Doubtful Passages' in the Lexicon to the Speeches). It is plain at first sight that there is no pretence to logic in this classification; and such a heading as that marked IV. seems very inappropriate to denote examples like a laeva, most of which would come under Roby's (6). Again, if we compare the article on ab in Merguet's lexicon with that in Meusel's to Caesar, we shall find that the latter gives in addition (1) a reference to treatises bearing on the word, (2) a section on the form, (3) a section on the position of the word, and that there is moreover some attempt to classify the verbs with which ab is used. No I proceed now to give the results of my examination of Parts I. II, so far as they bear on the Natura Deorum. In p. 13, N.D. II. 125 basis trianguli quem efficiunt grues tamquam a puppi ventis adjuvatur should, I think, appear not under IV. but under III. a puppi ventis meaning 'stern winds.' p. 34. We have the examples of actio arranged according as it precedes or follows an adjective or substantive, but no notice is taken of such a remarkable use as actio vitae (I. 2, 45, 103). N. D. II. 26 adiectis frigoribus is the reading of the MSS. retained by all the later editors except Müller, who follows Heindorf in reading adstrictus f.; but there is no reference to-it under adicio. On N.D. I. 116 allicere sapientem, it should have been stated that all the best MSS. have elicere. N.D. I. 114 Cogitat deus adsidue beatum esse se is given as an example of adsidue joined to an adjective. It really goes with cogitat, as is shown by the next sentence propone ante oculos nihil aliud in omni aeternitate nisi... Ego beatus sum' cogitantem. distinction is made between the forms aliquis and aliqui. Under aptus there is no distinction between the participial sense with inter se or ex and the ordinary adjectival sense. Under aqua III., N.D. II. 118 should be cited with the examples of vapor, and respiratio should be a separate heading. Under arcus, III. 51 arqui species is omitted, I suppose because it is unnecessarily printed with a capital in the editions, but it really has no more right to a capital than the following nubes. Under ars no mention is made of the use of the plural in the sense of treatise 'work of art.' Under audio, N.D. I. 58 de familiari illo tuo videor audisse cum te anteferret is classed (II.) with such examples as audire de summo bono, and omitted in the preceding section, where we have examples of the use of audio with ab and ex. The faultiness of the arrangement is further shown by the fact that other examples of this somewhat rare use of de are buried under acc. c. inf.' or 'with object.' The unusual construction of animadverto with cum in I. 54, animadversum saepe est cum cor palpitaret, is classed like equum animadvertit, under the heading 'Mit einfachen Object' (p. 175) though audio with cum has a separate clause to itself (p. 277). I have noticed the following misprints, adlico for adlício (p. 76), acdificuturus (p. 93), natara for natura in N.D. I. 116 (p. 167), comunis (p. 192 under III. 2). or Notwithstanding these and similar defects, the book is a monument of accurate industry. I have not discovered a single wrong reference. It greatly facilitates the study both of Ciceronian Latin and of Roman philosophy. J. B. M. P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica. A. SIDGWICK. edition of the Georgics. He seems to have been at more pains to be absolutely and unmistakably intelligible even to the beginner, and lucidity has never been with him a neglected virtue. It would be a pity however if, with such an editor, Introduction and Notes did not occasionally fly above the head of the 'ordinary fourth-form boy,' and Mr. Sidgwick, while granting this poor plodder all the help he needs, has written words to be read with profit by graduates, undergraduates and even the Sixth Form. Such a comment as that on p. 18. of the Introduction on the beautiful passage Ecl. VIII. 38 foll. has no meaning except to the boy of literary taste; and indeed much of this section of the Introduction shares the same merit. The Introduction consists of four sections :-(1) The form of the poem. (2) Dates of the Eclogues (3) The execution of the poem. (4) Outline of Vergil's life. The second section is the most important and Mr. Sidgwick's conclusions seem almost certainly right. He places the Eclogues in the order II. III. V. VII. IX. and I. VI. IV. VIII. X: of theseII. III. V. must certainly belong here: VII is doubtful. Mr. Sidgwick holds that IX. was written before I : the 'disappointment' came before the 'gratitude.' This certainly seems the natural order: but if, as Mr. Sidgwick seems to think, the 'first edition' of the Eclogues did not include the Xth and was dedicated to Polio in VIII. 12, it is difficult to suppose the IXth occupying its present position (as the dedicatory poem would naturally come first or last) if it was already written : cn the other hand it is hard to see any reason for its displacement if it originally occupied another position. But the whole question of the present order of IX.is so apparently insoluble, that such grounds are far from sufficient to justify us in setting aside an otherwise satisfactory hypothesis, Is it possible that IX., originally published separately, was suppressed by Vergil himself after it had attained its object? that it was then, in the second edition, republished by request' in the collection? The somewhat isolated position of X. would be to some extent explained if it was thus written later to round off the series, nine being considered an impossible number to publish. One of the most masterly pieces of work in the book is the examination of the circumstances of the fourth Eclogue. Taking together the Introduction and the Note introductory to this Eclogue, a reader can hardly avoid coming to much the same conclusions: 1. 60 incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem' shews that the child was already born and was a boy therefore it cannot have been the child of Octavian, Julia, or that of Antony and Octavia, also a girl: it must therefore have been Polio's son Asinius Gallus: the difficulties of this hypothesis are overcome by the considerations (1) that the consulship was still a splendid position' (2) that 'something must be allowed for poetry, to friendship, and even to play fulness.' Mr. Sidgwick considers the Messianic' hopes expressed in the Eclogue accounted for by the expectation of a new reign of peace after a century of civil war. The third section of the Introduction is thoroughly good and suggestive: especially we may notice the detailed criticism of VIII. and X. For the sake of those who read Vergil without admiring him, we are glad to see that Mr. Sidgwick lays more stress on Vergil's manipulation of his materials: 'not a mere imitator,' he says, and it cannot be said too often or too strongly, especially to the young. That wonderful power, in which Vergil stands preeminent, of using other men's work as 'studies' for his own picture, is too readily mistaken for the plagiarism of a copyist. To come to the Notes:-In I. 5 resonare Amaryl |