Miscellen.-H. Schrader finds that as Minucianus was the first to treat of the 13 orάoes (cf. Syrianus II p. 55, 2 R.) Telephos must either have followed him (150–155 A. D.) at an advanced age, which involves difficulties, or this subject was wrongly attributed to him in the Proleg. to the oráσes of Hermogenes (Walz VII, 1, p. 5, 23) (cf. A. J. P. XXIV 474).-S. Selivanov supported by F. Hiller von Gaertringen shows that five not six was the number of ρuráveis at Rhodes in the III century B. C.— W. Radtke approves of Kaibel's explanation of Cratinus' verse (II p. 88 Μ.) τυρῷ καὶ μίνθῃ παραλεξάμενος καὶ ἐλαίῳ " dici videtur piscis aliquis caseo mentha oleo conditus tamquam cum Mintha concubuisse"; but includes Tyro in the allusion (λ 235 f.) and adds "quem iocum ut satis absolvat et explanet, poeta extremo versu subiungit sine ulla ambiguitate kai lai."-Mommsen derives iumentum from iuvare. Iouxmenta on the archaic cippus of the Roman Forum (Lehmann Beiträge zur alten Gesch. 2 (1902) p. 232) is therefore unintelligible. The word regei in the same inscription points to the time of the kings; the letter R can be matched only in the Duenos-inscription.-A. Wilhelm discusses the Hecatomped on inscription and one pertaining to the Eleusinian Mysteries.-Chr. Huelsen identifies the Aemilius Probus, who gave Theodosius II the extracts from Nepos' work de historicis latinis, with one whose name is inscribed on three fragments of stone from the Colosseum.-C. Robert changes Arist. Birds 1701 to kaì þíλiññоɩ гopуiov.

Fascicle 2.

Paralipomena zu Euklid (Fortsetzung) (J. L. Heiberg). See Hermes XXXVIII pp. 46-74.

Die enoplischen Strophen Pindars (O. Schroeder). S. transfers the dactylo-epitritic odes of Pindar and four of Bacchylides into the Ionic rhythm known as évónλios, in which the fundamental constituents are

- - པ པ,

(

and

A lengthy introduction discusses the nature and origin of this metre, its occurrences in the Lyric poets and its close relation to and confusion with logaoedics. The fundamental peculiarity of Ionics is their three-fold character, producing a waltz-like movement. There is no antithesis between ascending and descending rhythms; but an equal balance is maintained by means of a medial stress). The first and last syllable being common produces variety, now a retarded movement (— — ~ — and —~——), now iambs and trochees, which are, however, peculiar to the rhythm. The Ionic measure, at once rigid and pliable, was highly developed before it combined with the choriamb to form the vónλios, in which the choriamb with medial stress (— ~'~ —) is of secondary value, just as the dactyl is in anapaestic verse, yet important in causing the rhythm of the verse to glide and soar rather than to rise and fall. The

letters a e io u representing the five fundamental forms, with a few diacritics, serve to set forth compactly the metrical schemes and facilitate their description.

Eine Prosaquelle Vergils und ihre Umsetzung in Poesie durch den Dichter (P. Jahn). This study attempts to show by means of parallel columns, that one half of Georgics II is a poetical version of a prose extract from Theophrastus περὶ φυτῶν ἱστορίας. The agreements, taken in sections, follow frequently in the same order and are often nearly literal. This illustrates the remark of Columella that Vergil's method was exornare floribus poeticis.

'ElapóσTIKTOS (P. Wolters). Dittenberger showed (Hermes XXXVII p. 298) this to be a nickname of one marked with the figure of a deer to designate the runaway slave (ortyparías). We have evidence that the owl, horse and ivy-leaf were used to indicate respectively the proprietorship of Athens, Syracuse and the god Dionysus; but the figure of a deer does not appear suitable. On a vase of the Munich collection appear two women whose arms and legs are tattooed showing at least one figure of a deer. These vasepaintings probably represent Thracians, whose custom of tattooing is well known as it is of other races in antiquity. We may presume then that the 'EladóσTIKTOS of Lysias (13, 19) was tattooed with one or more such figures, which would be considered an ornament in his native country, but in Athens marked him as a barbarian.

Zu Herons Automatentheater (W. Schmidt). S. tries to meet the criticisms of A. Olivieri, who argues (Rivista di filologia XXIX (1901) 424-435) that the above mechanism would not work according to Heron's description. S. while believing in its completeness refers the final solution to a practical test.

Zwei Listen chirurgischer Instrumente (H. Schoene). S. compares a Latinized list of 67 names of surgical instruments found in a IX century MS (codex Parisinus latinus 11219) with a similar independent list in Greek characters of the XI century (Laurentianus gr. LXXIV 2), containing 88 names, and so attempts to determine the original forms. It remains for a specialist to identify these names with the numerous surgical instruments discovered at Pompeii and elsewhere. The above lists yield a total of 104 distinct names.

a

Über die Handschriften der Silven des Statius (A. Engelmann). E. meets the objections made by Vollmer (see above), and gives reasons for believing that the Matritensis is a copy of a XV century MS. Line 86 (in M) is not genuine, hence the only proof of the priority of M over Poliziano's collation falls to the ground. This collation was complete, for the notes known as A were written in the same pale ink as notes A*, which were explicitly taken from the Poggio MS.

Zu Galens Schrift Περὶ κράσεως καὶ δυνάμεως τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων (M. Wellmann). The V century MS Constantinopolitanus (C) contains under the text of Dioscorides on the first few leaves corresponding sections from the illustrated herbarium of Crateuas and, more extensively, extracts from the above named work of Galen. This beautifully illuminated MS is valuable in showing what the oldest illustrated herbarium of the Greeks, the piloтoμikóv of Crateuas, was like; but the text of Galen, as of Dioscorides, has been arbitrarily abbreviated and changed so as to be valueless. The Galen extracts with critical notes follow to prove this assertion. Fuller and better extracts karà Faλŋvóv are found on the margin of a Dioscorides MS of the XV century (cod. Paris. gr. n. 2183). A few specimens of these are given to serve to identify the probably extant original.

Conjectanea (F. Leo). I Catulli versus 95, 7. 8; II Caelius Ciceroni (ep. VIII 3); III Horatii carm. I 20; IV Petroni cap. 82; V Valeri Flacci Medea VIII 6; VI Octaviae v. 485; VII CIL. VI 4, 33674.

Miscellen.-W. Dittenberger with the aid of an inscription conjectures Xapiov, a rhetorician, for Xaßpiov, the general, in Plutarch's An virtus doceri possit (3 p. 440 b.).-J. Schoene shows that Photius' extracts from Plutarch's lives were arranged chronologically.-The same scholar finds that Cicero ad fam. V 5 contains a rough draft of the letter followed by a smoother copy, the latter beginning with "Meus in te animus" (cf. A. J. P. XIX p. 227).-M. Manitius presents his collation of the legible part of the Dresden MS R. 52' (XII century) containing Cicero's orat. Phil.—Joseph Mesk proposes παράλιον Οι πάραλον for Παραίτιον in Xenophon of Ephesus III 12, 1 (cf. E. Rohde Gr. Roman (2. Aufl.) p. 422 A. 4).-F. Hiller von Gaertringen cites a list of five puтáveis found in Alexandria, but recognized as Rhodian by v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff. (See Miscellen above.)

HERMAN L. EBELING.

BRIEF MENTION.

There is worse reading than the Opuscula of GOTTFRIED HERMANN, a mighty shade in the days when I began to learn my business, and in turning over the third volume the other day I chanced on two prefaces, one of which made a deep impression on my youthful mind more than fifty years ago. In the preface to his edition of the Odyssey as in the preface to his edition of the Iliad the fine old scholar emphasizes the importance of reading Homer continuously, and tells us how he read the Iliad over and over again within the compass of a few days. Years before I knew aught of Hermann except the name I had been stirred by the passage in Gibbon's autobiography in which he informs us that 'Scaliger ran through the Iliad in one and twenty days' and adds 'I was not dissatisfied with my diligence for performing the same labour in an equal number of weeks'. It was easy enough to beat Gibbon, but when it comes to Scaliger, when it comes to Hermann, the question 'How?' arises. To read Homer as Hermann read him, as Hermann would have us read him, with the eye now on this, now on that element, is not an easy matter for men of a certain temperament. One gets caught in the undertow, and I have once at least found myself turned back from w to A and forced to begin all over again in order to verify an observation I thought I had made. Even lesser units are not often read continuously by the average scholar, such units as a major dialogue of Plato or a long speech of Demosthenes; and I myself remember as a manner of revelation the first time I read the De Corona through without leaving my chair from πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες ̓Αθηναῖοι to the musical close σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ. It was some thirty years ago. I had studied the speech years before under the illustrious master Boeckh. I had gone through it guttatim et stillatim with undergraduate classes, but I never felt the thrill of it and the surge of it as I did then. What was intended to be heard at one sitting ought to be read at one sitting. But I am afraid that I forgot to mark some of the typographical blunders I had set out to correct in an edition of that date, much lauded by the only kind of press we had then, for I find on consulting the book that I had scored only some two hundred errors. The trouble is that after such hours of exaltation commentaries always seem to be more or less an impertinence. And yet commentaries are not an impertinence, nay, are eminently necessary, though, to quote the same old master, many commentaries are constructed on false principles, and one type was his abomination as it is mine:

Si de rebus alienis in commentariis scriptum est, non tam hi scriptoris caussa facti esse quam scriptor, ut commentarius scribi potuerit, editus videtur.

At all events there is no lack of commentaries on the De Corona and more are on the way. The latest next to GOODWIN's smaller edition is ROSENBERG's new revision of WESTERMANN's standard work (Weidmann), with which I made acquaintance in the year of its first issue. The Westermann edition of 1850 contains 144 pp., the Rosenberg-Westermann of 1903 contains 194 and the additional fifty pages hold much valuable matter, whereas enlarged editions often resemble nothing so much as blown up veal; and Blass was right when he prided himself on the reduction of the bulk of the first volume of his 'Attische Beredsamkeit' in its second edition. Indeed a comparative study of the different succeeding editions of the Haupt and Sauppe series would yield much food for reflection and throw much light on the progress of doctrine. The fad of one editor is thrust out by the fad of another and one is reminded of the shifting proportion of articles in cyclopaedias. Look at the space occupied by Magic Squares in the first edition of Johnson's Cyclopaedia and the space occupied by the same subject in the second. Studied in this way commentaries would furnish much material for history, more perhaps for biography. But evidently Brief Mention is not the place for a minute differentiation between WESTERMANN and ROSENBERG, between the 'Grundstock' and the 'Bearbeitung', which must not be translated 'belaboring', as one is sometimes tempted to do when the younger commentator revises his predecessor. So far as I have observed, ROSENBERG'S attitude towards WESTERMANN is all that it should be, and there is no occasion to espouse the cause of Entellus against Dares.

ROSENBERG'S laudable object is to bring the work up to date and to cover every point-political situation, grammatical phenomenon, rhetorical device, sophistic trick. Ay, sophistic trick, for in this edition at least, our admiration of the forked lightning of Demosthenean eloquence is not suffered to blind. us to the cloven foot of the disingenuous pleader. Diligent use has been made of recent German contributions and due honor is paid to such Demosthenean scholars as Blass and Fox, but no mention is made of Goodwin's magnum opus, which has been received everywhere with loud acclaim, and that is all the more remarkable as in the Leptinea due credit is given to Sandys for his elaborate edition, so that the English garb could not have interfered with the recognition of Goodwin's merits. Piqued by this neglect, as a good American should be, I had hoped to