between the one he has chosen and the rise of the Romance languages, and evidently regards his present paper as merely preliminary to a more important investigation. Within his field, the author has omitted Trogus-Justinus and Curtius, both of whom would have furnished him additional examples of the usages he discusses. The collection of examples from the authors employed is not exhaustive. It is not essential, perhaps, to the plan of the paper to cite all the occurrences of a given phrase in each author, but it would be desirable to know, especially in chap. i, just how complete the lists are intended to be. Sometimes all the cases are listed, sometimes only a single example is given. At least the earliest example of a given usage should be included, e.g., p. 7, Ter. Adel. 240, venias in periclum, should be inserted as a parallel for the Caesar example on p. 12; p. 19, Ter. Adel. 677, advocatum venire, should be added to the Cicero examples, and p. 9, Nepos Dat. 11, in conloquium veniret, to the Livy example. I have noted a few slips of the pen and some typographical errors. In the quotation of Müller, p. 3, the German is bad; the citation from the Tristia should be 4, 10, 117 instead of 4, 10, 7, indicem should be read instead of iudicem, and quotation marks should be inserted before ihre and after widerlich; p. 7, Plaut. Poen. 185, read venerit for venit; p. 8, Sen. Dial. VI, 26, 3, read percussoris for percursoris; p. 24, Sext. Turp., insert ire after ebrium; p. 27, Verg. Aen. VII, 470, read Teucris for Tucris; and p. 43, Verg. Georg., read 1, 29 for 129. It is to be hoped that Dr. Mood will complete his study and so double the worth of an already valuable investigation. CHARLES H. BEESON THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Palaeographia Latina. Exempla Codicum Latinorum Phototypice Expressa Scholarum maxime in usum. Edidit MAXIMILIANUS IHM. Series I. Lipsiae: In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri. M. 5. If the increasing number of paleographical works may be taken as an indication of the growing recognition of the importance of paleography as a subject of instruction, those who are especially interested have every reason to be satisfied. The older generation had to be content with Arndt's Schrifttafeln (1874), now in its fourth edition (Tangl, 1904-1907). In 1903 Steffens published the first part of his excellent Lateinische Paläographie, so excellent, indeed, that a second edition and a translation of the work into French soon followed. In response to frequent requests the publishers of the great Leyden series of facsimiles issued a collection containing fifty-four plates (Album Palaeographicum, 1909). Inexpensive as these works are in comparison with previous publications, the cost is still a drawback. Something was wanted that was within the reach of the average student to serve as the basis for the lectures of the instructor. It is therefore in response to an actual want that the new collection has been published. There are 18 plates containing 25 pages from 22 manuscripts. Some of them are new, others have been published in works not generally accessible; only a few are familiar. Practically all the authors are of interest to the student of the classics, Augustine's Homilies and Jerome's De viris illustribus being the only patristic works represented. The plates are excellent; they are arranged chronologically and represent the various scripts from square capitals to the humanistic script. More than half the manuscripts are in the library at Wolfenbüttel, e.g., the Agrimensores (uncial), Augustine's Homilies (Merovingian), Isidore's Etymologies (Italian half-cursive), and the following minuscule MSS: Pompei commentum artis Donati (saec. VIII), Aurelius Victor (saec. IX), Suetonius (saec. XI), Propertius (saec. XI-XII), Martianus Capella (saec. XIII), Vegetius (saec. XIV), Juvenal (saec. XIV), Tibullus (saec. XV), the Panegyrici (saec. XV). The other libraries represented are: Berlin, Virgil ("Augusteus"); Florence, Virgil ("Mediceus"), Caesar, (Beneventine script); Bamberg, Jerome, De viris illustribus (halfuncial), Scriptores historiae Augustae ("insular"); Madrid, Isidore's Etymologies (Visigothic); Paris, Suetonius ("Memmianus"); Erlangen, Cicero, De inventione (saec. X), Isidore's Etymologies (saec. XII); Venice, Tacitus, Dialogus (saec. XV). A booklet accompanying the plates contains a brief history, written in Latin, of the manuscripts, with a selected bibliography. There is no transcription of the text and discussion of the script. Further series, of a more special character, are promised if the reception of the first is favorable. It is to be hoped that the untimely death of Ihm will not interfere with the project. It would be easy to combine in future issues a scientific and a practical purpose. It would be very desirable, for example, to have published a collection of plates from Spanish manuscripts no longer in Spain, to supplement the series published by Ehwald-Loewe. CHARLES H. BEESON THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO M. Tulli Ciceronis Paradoxa Stoicorum, Academicorum Reliquiae cum Lucullo, Timaeus, De Natura Deorum, De Divinatione, De Fato. Fasciculus I. Ed. OTTO PLASBERG. Leipzig: Teubner, 1908. Pp. iv +196. M. 8. The task of preparing a new (and much needed) edition of this group of Cicero's philosophical works was intrusted to Professor Plasberg by the Royal Prussian Academy fourteen years ago. The first fascicle contains the Paradoxa, the Academica, and the Timaeus. The Academica are printed in the following order: The Varro, or the first book of the Academica Pos teriora (the title of which, in the form Academicus I, has an unfamiliar look), then the fragments of Book II and part of the fragments of Book III, followed by the fragments of the Catulus and by the Lucullus. The other fragments of Book III and those of Book IV, since they are derived from the Lucullus, are entered as footnotes to that work on the appropriate pages. The ancient testimonia precede the Academica and also the Timaeus. The distinguishing feature of this edition of the Timaeus is the interlinear arrangement of the Greek with the Latin text, an arrangement so convenient that it justifies the typographical difficulties it must have caused. Brackets inclose such passages of each author as are not found in the other, so that the relation of the Latin to the Greek original is easily made out. The text of the Paradoxa, of the Lucullus, and of the Timaeus, like the text of earlier editions, rests primarily upon A B (Vossiani 84 and 86), and V (Vindobonensis 189). Besides these MSS the editor cites for the Paradoxa F (Florentinus Marcianus 257), M (Monacensis 528), Harleiani 2622 and 2682; for the Lucullus F, M, and, where V fails, N (Notradamensis Parisinus 17812); for the Timaeus F, M, L (Vossianus 10). Variants for the Greek text are occasionally cited from A, P, Y, F, and the testimonia of Proclus as given in Burnet's edition. For Academicus I some sixty MSS have been used, but the promised discussion of them has been postponed till the publication of the third fascicle, containing De Divinatione and De Fato, in order to avoid repeating the same subject-matter. Its place is taken by a brief summary (p. 33). The MSS are divided into two main classes, ▲, subdivided into "meliores," headed by Parisinus 6331 (Halm's P) and including a MS similar to Halm's V, and "deteriorum genera," including Halm's A; T, subdivided into "genus corruptum" and "genus interpolatum," which includes Halm's G. For further information the reader is referred to an article by Ed. Stroebel, Philologus 52, and to the dissertation by Otto Dieckhoff, De Ciceronis libris de natura deorum recensendis (Göttingen, 1894). Besides the readings of the MSS and of the very early editions, the critical apparatus includes the readings of the editions of Halm and Baiter (1861), Baiter (1865), Müller (1878-79), and, for the Academica, Reid (1885). The edition of Schneider (1891) is occasionally quoted for the Paradoxa. The text is the most conservative that has yet appeared and the editor has done good service in relegating to the notes the greater number of the conjectures adopted by earlier editors, thus clearing the ground for further work on the text. For example I have noted in the Paradoxa 39 instances where the present text differs from that of Halm; in 31 conjectures have been replaced by MSS readings and in 12 readings of A have replaced those of V or of inferior MSS. The text of the Lucullus is closer to the text of Reid (whose arguments are often quoted) than to that of any other editor, but I have noted some 85 cases where the two editions vary; in 38 of them conjectures are replaced by MSS readings and in 24 the readings of A have replaced those of inferior MSS; in 11 cases MSS readings have been discarded in favor of conjectures. Sixteen passages (ten of them in the Lucullus) are starred as being corrupt. The editor has incorporated in the text a score or more of his own emendations. I give a few specimens: Lucullus 44, convincitur (coniungitur, MSS); 113, hi minores (mihi or mi minores, MSS); 124, merus numerus (numerus, Bentley; mens, MSS), Timaeus 8, fit (sit, MSS). When the text differs from the best MSS and often when it differs from the editions cited, the reading adopted is supported by references to articles by modern scholars or by cross-references to Cicero's other works. Not infrequently explanatory and linguistic notes are added, e.g., p. 66 (Paradoxa 7), malo masculinum; p. 160.9 (Timaeus 7), in hac formula (i.e., de his quae diximus) nullo fere discrimine tribus pronominibus utitur, quae sunt hic, is, ille. When Cicero has translated from Greek sources, the original Greek, if known, is usually quoted in the notes. The value of the work lies in the full critical apparatus and in the usually close adherence to the best MSS rather than in any notable emendations of the text. It has taken rank at once as the authoritative critical edition of this portion of Cicero's works. SMITH COLLEGE FLORENCE ALDEN GRAGG Die Blütezeit der griechischen Kunst im Spiegel der Reliefsarkophage. Von DR. HANS WACHTLER. Aus Natur und Geisteswelt, 272. Bändchen. Leipzig: Teubner, 1910. Pp. 112. M. 1.25. To draw in firm outlines the history of Greek sculpture down to the end of the fourth century B.C., to comment incisively upon each member of a series of illustrative monuments, never to lapse into vagueness or gush or dulness, and to keep within the limit of little more than one hundred pages-this is Dr. Wachtler's notable achievement. His booklet well deserves translation into English, all the more as information is scanty in our language regarding the objects he has chosen for detailed study, viz., the magnificent sarcophagi from Sidon, now in Constantinople, and the hardly less magnificent Fugger sarcophagus in Vienna. F. B. TARBELL De Lycophrone Mythographo. Dissertatio inauguralis quam ad summos in philosophia honores et amplissimo philosophorum ordine Lipsiensi rite impetrandos scripsit HORSTIUS GASSE. Leipzig: Hoffmann, 1910. Pp. 73. Dissertations on Lycophron are few and far between, and the advent of a new one deserves more than passing notice. In Fock's Catalogue eight titles only, not all of which are of actual dissertations, are entered under Lycophron's name, as compared with over 1,000 for Homer and 650 for Sophocles. Perhaps this may serve as a speaking testimonial to the relative importance of these authors. And yet there are problems enough connected with the Alexandra which are not bad subjects for Doctors' dissertations. There are obscure passages which need further elucidation in spite of voluminous scholia, and the investigation of sources is always a fertile field; so that the novice has ample opportunity to win his spurs. The dissertation before us belongs to the second of the two classes just mentioned. It is an investigation of sources. Holzinger and Ciaceri have worked in this field, as well as Geffken in his Timaios' Geographie des Westens, Walter in a Basel dissertation of 1903 (De Lycophrone Homeri imitatore), and others, and the work of these predecessors has naturally had to be considered by the author. Lycophron's indebtedness to Homer is apparent to every reader of the Alexandra and was set forth in detail by Walter; but there is such a mixture of Homeric and post-Homeric matter that Holzinger argued that in composing his poem Lycophron introduced the myths from memory. Gasse proposes another explanation. In a word, the thesis which he attempts to establish is that the poet used a prose source for these stories, that is to say that he had before him a compendium of the myths relating to the Trojan cycle. This compendium, he argues, was based upon the epic cycle, the later epic poems, tragedies, and books pertaining to certain regions. He relies upon two arguments for his proof: (1) that while the poet narrates certain incidents at length, others which are poetic in character and would easily lend themselves to elaboration and embellishment are treated very briefly; and (2) the fact that earlier and later stories are found together. The wanderings of Odysseus, 11. 648-819, are a good example. Both of these points may be admitted and, in fact, Gasse seems to have established them by sufficient evidence; but whether they necessarily lead to the conclusion which he wishes may be questioned. The argument is, however, ingenious and well set forth and the evidence skilfully marshaled, showing a good grasp of the subject. The thesis is decidedly above the average of Doctors' dissertations and an important addition to the literature of Lycophron; but a bibliography, even if short, should have been appended. If we are not mistaken the author will be heard from later. WILLIAM N. BATES UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Costume in Roman Comedy. By CATHERINE SAUNDERS. New York: Columbia University Press, 1909. Pp. x+145. In this addition to the Columbia University Series of Studies in Classical Philology the writer presents, under a somewhat dubious title, a methodical investigation of the conventions of Roman comic costume. This has been based chiefly upon the comedians themselves and Bethe's photographic |