Galli lorica, the Gaulish cuirass', a rather forced expression, to say nothing of the absence of a defined object for coercet. It seems to me that caeli lorica may possibly mean 'the enclosing sky', something like Spenser's 'baldrick of the heavens bright', Prothalamion, ad fin., and cf. 1134, caeli amictum. If so, qua will be aquam, and the sense is, as cold, heat, voices, fire, penetrate in various directions, so water is always encompassed and permeated by air, with its morbific properties wherever they coexist with it. Cf. 1102, Nonne uides etiam caeli nouitate et aquarum Temptari, where Lucretius perhaps hints at the combined effect of air and water in producing disease. In 956 Lachm. is surely right in changing tempestatem to tempestate in; the transition from a singular to a plural is easily intelligible, as in Catullus CXI. 1, 2. Iurae, I think, simply represents iure, as praeces, &c. for preces, a spelling which probably indicates the close agreement of the sounds e, ae. In 958 raro corpore nexum is in effect a more poetical form of raro corpor nexu, and as in other instances of the same kind should be retained as modifying the prosaic style to which Lucretius habitually confines himself. 971. Effluat ambrosias quasi uero et nectare tinctus, which Lachm. changed to ambrosiae quasi uere et nectari̇ linctus, an emendation retained by Munro, is perhaps an illustration of the vague meaning attached to ambrosia and nectar. No doubt 'Aλλà τόδ ̓ ἀμβροσίης καὶ νέκταρός ἐστιν ἀποῤῥωξ was familiar to Lucre tius, probably in his mind when writing this passage; that would not prevent his using the two words in a slightly different way; if in Homer ambrosia is the food of the Gods, nectar their drink, a distinction which appears to imply that one was more solid than another, that distinction can hardly be said to exist in the words of the Cyclops, applying as they do to the wine he had just received from Ulysses; and if it does not exist, or at any rate is not the point thought of there, Lucretius might go a step farther, and keeping the words drop the individuality of meaning, in fact speak of ambrosia as nectareous. Ambrosias then is the Greek genitive, though Lachm. denies this because Lucretius elsewhere writes harmoniam harmoniai; an madequate reason, and one which would banish every indivi dual peculiarity of grammar or construction. Et will then be for e as in 1018. The prosaic linctus will recede; it does not seem to have much in its favour, whilst tinctus is natural and in every way likely. Effluat ambrosias quasi uero e nectare tinctus will be, 'as if it were an off-set tinctured with the true nectar of ambrosia whence it is drawn'. Tinctus e nectare, because the tree is supposed to be dipt in ambrosia and then drawn out. 972. Qua nil est homini quod amariu' frondeat esca. So Lachm. and Munro for exscet or extet. I should prefer escae, i. e. Qua (esca) nihil est escae quod. 1069. Glutine materies taurino iungitur una, Ut uitio uenae tabularum saepius hiscant Quam laxare queant compages taurea uincla. In 1069 Lachm. and Munro read uno, and this is certainly like 1078, Denique non auro res aurum copulat una? 1074, Purpureusque colos conchyli iungitur uno Corpore cum lanae, to say nothing of sola calce in 1068. Yet una, ‘joined into one piece', with ut hiscant following so closely, would have some force; if indeed una is not materies. The next lines I would translate, 'to such an extent that veins open up through some flaw in the boards many times, for one where the soldered parts can unloose the binding glue'. Compages is apparently nominative, laxare taurea uincla, a less ordinary form of expression for laxari uinclis, or laxare se uinclis. 1119. Proinde ubi se caelum quod nobis forte alienum Commouet atque aer inimicus serpere coepit. 'Therefore when an atmosphere which happens to put itself in motion unsuited to us and a hurtful air begin to advance', Munro, who makes caelum as well as aer nominatives to coepit. It is more natural to make commovet do double duty, ubi caelum se commovet, quod nobis forte alienum (se commovet), a construction in the manner of Thucydides. 1126. Aut in aquas cadit aut fruges persidit in ipsas, i, e. indirectly into the waters which breed pestilence, or directly and immediately upon the corn. 1136. For corumptum perhaps coruscum; bright after gloom, or brighter than is natural to the climate. 1199. Quorum si quis, ut est, uitarat funera leti: for ut est Munro reads ibei; yet it may be right, as Lucretius has it in this book again, 1167, Corpus, ut est, per membra sacer dum diditur ignis, and the corresponding as évdéxeraι may well have been in his mind, whilst writing of the Athenian plague. ROBINSON ELLIS. THE MOSTELLARIA OF PLAUTUS. With notes critical and explanatory, Prolegomena and Excursus, by WILLIAM RAMSAY, M.A., edited by GEORGE G. RAMSAY, M.A. Professor of Humanity in the University of Glasgow. IT is to imply no disrespect to the name of Professor Ramsay to say that this book, with its merits and defects, is distinctly the work of a teacher. The materials collected in the Prolegomena and notes would, in the hands of a skilled and vigorous lecturer like Professor Ramsay, be of great service in awakening the interest and stimulating the effort of pupils. As put together in a book, they would be of considerable use to any one beginning the study of old Latin, and unacquainted with the course which Plautine criticism has lately been taking in Germany. But the philological activity of the Germans has by this time so far outstripped that of the English, that an independent study of original authorities, indispensable as it is, is now hardly sufficient of itself in any line, to enable a scholar of less than extraordinary grasp and insight to avoid the mistakes naturally incident to an early examination of the ground. If the reader of Professor Ramsay's work occasionally feels, as he does, a want of mastery and conclusiveness, he will naturally attribute it to the inadequacy, perhaps unavoidable, of the author's study of the latest results of German labour in a field where minuteness and subtlety are qualities as requisite in the critic as vigour and common sense. The Prolegomena consist of three essays: on the text, the orthography, and the metres of Plautus. The chapter on the text is interesting as far as it goes. Professor Ramsay's labours on the Milan Palimpsest and the Vatican MS. (B) are the most original and most complete part of his work: though it is to be regretted that he is not always sufficiently critical in the use which he makes of his materials. That on orthography seems encumbered with needless detail. The full array of facts which is presented, facts already known and turned to account by the modern writers on pronunciation and orthography, is hardly necessary as an introduction to an edition of a single play: the less so as Professor Ramsay has, like Ritschl, given up the impracticable attempt to represent the true spelling of the Plautine era. In the treatment of these materials there is little that calls for remark except the paragraph on the “D paragogicum." "It is well known" says Professor Ramsay "that in the earlier stages of the Latin language we find many words ending with a d, which was entirely dropped at a later period. It appears chiefly in datives and ablatives, but by no means exclusively" &c. D was the proper termination of the Latin ablative but the statement that it appears in datives is new, and (as far as I know) quite unsupported. The fact that it appears in adverbs is generally regarded as a proof that the Latin adverbs in e were originally ablatives. The accusative forms med and ted (if they can be defended) are exceptional. The first part of the chapter on prosody (p. 1-lxxiii) in which a general exposition of the ordinary rules of Latin comic metres is given, is very clear and good, recalling, in its fulness and patience, the author's "Manual of Latin Prosody." In the second part, on "the rule of position," the writer enters upon more difficult ground. He sets out (p. lxxv-vi) by denying the main position of Hermann: "apud Latinos duplex recitatio in usu fuit, una accentum maxime vocabulorum et vulgarem pronuntiationem sequens, qua scenici veteres usi sunt, altera ad Graecorum exemplum conformata, quae ab Ennio primum in epicam poesin, Augusti aevo in omnia fere genera poeseos introducta est." As Professor Ramsay remarks, Hermann goes too far in not limiting the statement which follows "(scenica recitatio) non curat positionem:" but take the passage in the rough, and it is hard to see what other hypothesis can account for acknowledged facts. Indeed the line which Hermann indicated has been strictly followed by later research. Accent, |