have ενοιξεν and ενοιξε respectively. ενοιξεν is also found, teste Tischendorf, in Cod. 225. The witness of the three Greek cursives 56, 58, and 68 has been so often misrepresented that it may be of interest to give the details. First of all, Ussher collated 56 and 58 for Walton's Polyglot; and in the apparatus criticus of that great work it is implied e silentio that these codices have no variant from the common text worth mentioning. And this is the state of the case, and agrees with Dobbin's collation, who (in his Codex Montfortianus) states that Cod. 56 has ɛvʊžɛ (it actually has ἤνυξε) and Cod. 58 εμυξε by the first, but ενυξε by the second hand. Cod. 68 was first collated by Mill, and he gives its reading as ἤνοιξε (it actually has ἔνοιξε). In this Mill was followed by Wetstein, and the statement is also made by Michaelis. But Wetstein, in his note, added inaccurately that 56 and 58 read nuvv. Then Tischendorf, presumably following these authorities, has the note • 56. 68 al. nvoičev uel nvvžev,' i.e. 'Codices 56, 68, and some other cursives read either nvoičev or nvučev.' And I suppose that the statement in the note of the Oxford Vulgate is due to some further misinterpretation of this. There is really no MS. authority at all for voice, as far as I know; the authorities for voice are, as has been said, 68, 225, and the Evangelistaria 257 and 259. In the cases last mentioned, Jerome's text has but scanty Greek support. In xviii. 18, it has, apparently, none at all. Here all Greek MSS. have ἀνθρακιὰν πεποιη 1 That the readings of 56, 58, and 68 are, respectively, as stated above, hvuţe, ἔνυξε and ἔνοιξε, I have determined by personal inspection of the manuscripts in question. Dr. Gwynn points out to me that the confusion between ηνυξε, ηνοιξε, and evvce is frequent in ; e.g. in Apoc. vi. 12 it has evuşe, and in vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, ήνυξε for ηνοιξε. The cursive 1str = Apoc. 7 also reads vuče in Apoc. vi. 3. So too in , Mt. xx. 33, àvvywow; Mc. vii. 35, ηνυγησαν ; Lc. xi. 9, 10, ανυγησετε[-αι]; Jn. ix. 21, 26, ηνυξε: Jn. X. 3, avvyel; Acts xii. 14, xiv. 27, ηνυξε. KÓTES, but the Vulgate ad prunas (so also cƒ), and the O. L. ad carbones (a bff r aur), apparently correspond to something like πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρακίαν. Indeed 9 is registered as alone agreeing with the extant Greek; it has focum habentes. Again, in xvi. 13, the Jerome version seems to be docebit uos omnem ueritatem, which corresponds to a Greek text, διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν, extant in no N. T. codex, and only surviving in citations by Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem. The true Greek is ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀληθειαν, οἱ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ Tάon, and this is followed more or less by a majority of O. L. texts. However, c (as well as m, aur, and Cod. Sangallensis or 8) support diny hoera: and it is more probable that here (as in xviii. 13) Jerome left unchanged an older Latin rendering than that he was influenced by Greek MS. authority. In x. 16, however, his text hardly admits of this explanation. The Vulgate is 'Et alias oues habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ouili . . . et fiet unum ouile et unus pastor.' The comment on this verse, issued privately by our editors in the circular already mentioned, is as follows: The Vulgate thus reads ouile in each case; the Old Latin have unus grex in the second case, except 8, which has unum ouile uel pastorale; all our Greek MSS. have ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης . . . μία ποίμνη εἷς ποιμήν. Jerome (in Ezek. 46), proposing to translate atrium, distinctly implies that his Greek MSS. read avλý in each case. 'Et alias oues habeo quae non sunt ex hoc atrio . . . et fiet unum atrium et unus pastor; hoc enim Graece avλn significat, quod Latina simplicitas in ouile transtulit.' Bishop Westcott considers this a case of S. Jerome's carelessness, but the facts are, we believe, more consistent with a Greek text which had auλý twice over.' And in substance they repeat this in their formal critical note on the passage, and they add: Hanc lectionem, i.e. ouile bis repetitum, pro insigni documento habemus Hieronymum codicibus graecis usum esse, ex familia quae ad nos non peruenerit.' Other less striking cases of a similar opposition between Jerome's version and the Greek text, as we know it, might be given, but two from chap. xvii. must suffice. In verse 24 the O. L. and the true Vulgate have ego sum, but the Greek MSS. have tiuì iyo. The only Latin. authority registered for sum ego is 8 (the Latin version of the Cod. Sangallensis, which naturally follows the order of the interlinear Greek); this (the Greek order) is also found in the Stowe MS., whether by accident or as a survival of some older text is not to be determined now. And in the preceding verse (23) et is inserted in the Vulgate after sicut without Greek authority; it is also omitted in the O. L. MSS. c d e f g 8, to which we may again add stowe. In xx. 25, the Vulgate MSS. are divided as to fixuram or figuram. No O. L. authority is known for the former, which, therefore, the editors presume to be a correction made by Jerome, and hence place in their text. (The Greek is Tòv TÚTOV, which ƒq have rendered by locum as if it were τὸν τόπον.) We have no space for more; but there are many more valuable observations in the apparatus criticus which it would be instructive to cite. The notes to the last fasciculus of the Oxford Vulgate are even more interesting than those in the preceding parts. One is struck not only by the mass of MS. material that is here collected for the first time, but by the complete mastery over the material which is displayed. J. H. BERNARD. WE WADDELL'S PARMENIDES: WE desire to express our gratitude for Mr. Waddell's edition of the Parmenides-a nobly planned and no less nobly executed work. It contains an elaborate Introduction, with Text, and Notes critical and explanatory. The Introduction is divided into two parts, of which the first deals successively with the authorship of the Dialogue, its position in the series of the Platonic writings, and its character and contents; while the second treats of the sources of the Text, and the chief manuscripts. The Text is that of the celebrated Clarke MS. now in the Bodleian Library. The notes which follow consist, first, of a collation of the readings of the Clarke, Tübingen, and Ven. t MSS., in all the passages in which variation occurs, thus furnishing a complete and excellent apparatus criticus: secondly, of illustrative and discursive observations elucidating the sense of the Greek, and by a free commentary serving to determine its chief points of relationship to antecedent as well as to subsequent philosophy-Aristotelean, Neo-Platonic, and modern. No aspect from which student or critic could contemplate the Parmenides seems to have been neglected. The editor's design is as exact as it is comprehensive; and his attention to the minutia of grammar is not the less because of his genuine and enlightened interest in metaphysics. It was part of Mr. Waddell's purpose that the outward appearance should correspond to the inward character of 1 Πλάτωνος Παρμενίδης. The Parmenides of Plato, after the paging of the Clarke Manuscript, edited with Introductions, Facsimiles, and Notes, by William Wardlaw Waddell, M.A., his book. Having decided (as he tells us) to reproduce the form of the Clarke MS.-the highest authority for the text-the size of his page was fixed for him: this suggested facsimiles, &c. 'Metaphysics, palæography, æsthetics' (he says, with some humour), 'such was the writer's downward course.' The quarto volume before us, exquisitely printed on rich vellum, and embellished with facsimiles, than which nothing of their kind could be more beautiful, is a proof how well his publishers assisted him to realise his conception. But it is not merely this: it is a monument of that liberal devotion to literae humaniores, unfortunately now less common than it used to be, which, whenever it appears, is evidence of more than individual culture, and testifies to the still vivid and vivifying influence of classical antiquity on modern thought through the medium of our great Universities. On the philological and philosophical aspects of the Parmenides our editor seems to have bestowed about equal attention. His opening disquisition on its authorship seems excellent. Neglecting no pertinent consideration, he arrives at the just conclusion that it is a genuine work of Plato. With regard to its position in the series of Platonic writings he says: On the whole it seems most consonant with evidence to assign to it a very early place among Plato's ontological speculations, to place it, for example, earlier than the Theaetetus, Sophistes, Politicus, Phaedo, Philebus, and Timaeus, and at least not later than the more abstract discussions in the Republic. Recognising, with Dr. Jackson, that the Parmenides marks a break in the continuity of Plato's views and a reconstruction of his ideal system, he goes on to say: 'While Dr. Jackson represents Plato here as breaking with most of the opinions which we are in the habit of associating with his name in favour of a theory' [that which Dr. Jackson calls his later Theory of Ideas], 'for which we |