shortly before composing this Ode, read that book of the Aeneid; that he had naturally been duly impressed by it; that portions of its substance, its imagery, and even its phraseology had sunk into his mind; that he had then, more or less unconsciously, reproduced them in his own poem: and that this is the true explanation of the striking resemblances, which I have indicated?

If we draw this conclusion, and I scarcely see how it can be resisted, it will not only be of great interest in itself, as offering a striking instance of the influence of the one great poet upon the other, and a pleasing association in the immortal productions of their genius between those who were so closely united by friendship in their lives; but it will also afford us assistance in deciding the question whether this Ode and No. 14 of the same book were composed about the same time. For in that Ode I cannot at all detect any such striking signs of the influence of the second Aeneid as I have shown in the companion Ode, which constitutes a very powerful argument, in addition to the others which have been urged against the theory of their practically contemporaneous composition.

H. T. JOHNSTONE.

Geelong, Australia:

NOTES AND EMENDATIONS ON VARRO

THE

DE LINGUA LATINA.

'HE editions of the de Linguq Latina which I have used are those of Ottfried Müller (1833) and Andreas Spengel (1885); the latter is an improved revision of the text as constituted by the editor's father, Leonard Spengel (1826). The extensive and important edition of Pietro Canal I have not had by me; but some of his views are embodied in Antonibon's Supplemento di Lezioni Varianti ai libri de Lingua Latina, Bassano, 1899, from which it is clear that he has made many valuable suggestions, though strangely ignored by Spengel. I have already called attention to Canal's edition of the Dirae in the American Journal of Philology, xx., p. 139. It is time that justice should be done to a scholar whose name is, I believe, little, if at all, known in England, and whose edition of the de Lingua Latina began to be printed at Venice as far back as 1846. A second edition is dated 1874 (Antonibon).

V. 24 (where Varro gives the etymology of puteus):

nisi potius quod eolis dicebant ut potamon sic potura potu non ut nunc ФPC.

This is the way the passage is written in the best MS., F (51. 10 of the Laurentian Library at Florence). A. Spengel prints Túraμov for potamon, Túτεov a potu (both from Buttmann), and of course ppéap.

The form of the MS. tradition can hardly be said to support πύτεον. Mss. steadily retain p (potuRa). I believe this to represent an Aeolic Tórop = ppéαp. φρέαρ,

The word is discussed again, vi. 84:

Ab eadem lingua quod poton potio unde poculum potatio repotatio indidem puteus quod sic graecum antiquum non ut nunc phrear dictum (so F).

Here also, I think, we should suppose sic to refer to a word Tórop, showing its affinity by the % of the stem to Greek πότον, by its final p to φρέαρ.

v. 25. Speaking of a "locus publicus ultra Esquilias," where bodies were thrown, Varro writes:

itaque eum afranius fcuticulos in togata appellat quod inde suspiciunt per puteos lumen.

The etymology given suggests that we should write either putilucos as Scaliger conjectured, or, as seems equally possible, luciputos. This latter word would easily explain itself to the ordinary Roman as luci putrescentes : rotting in open daylight.

v. 28. item antemnae quod ante amnis fquanto influit in tiberim.

qui anio the elder Spengel: rather quia anio.

V. 34. eius finis minimus constitutus in latitudinem pedes quattuor in longitudinem pedes centum uiginti in quadratum actum et latum et longum esset centum uiginti..

An ut seems to have fallen out in the last clause, probably before esset.

v. 36. ager cultus ab eo quod ibi cum terra semina coalescebant et ab inconsitus incultus.

L. Spengel would remove ab before inconsitus. It may, however, have been ab inconsito.

V. 43. itaque eo ex urbe aduehebantur ratibus cuius uestigia quod ea quatum dicitur uelabrum.

Either quod ea qua tum (i)tum or quod ea (a)qua [qua] tum (itum. The former is the simpler and more probable:

v. 49. Speaking of the etymology of Esquiliae Varro

says:

alii has scripserunt ab excubiis regis dictas alii ab eo quod excultae a rege Tullio essent: huic origini magis concinunt loca uicini quod ibi lucus dicitur facutalis et larum querquetulanum sacellum.

From the illustration of Esquiliae which Varro draws from other tree sites (fagus, querquetum), it certainly seems likely that he mentioned the aesculus here. Hence Brinck conjectured aesculetis excultae, A. Spengel aesculis consitae. Why not aesculis cultae? And may not loca uicini be possible, uicini a locative like uesperi, temperi, peregri? See Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 396.

V. 57. etsi arpocrates digito significat utf tatas eam.

This must surely be ut tacescam or possibly ut attacescam. v. 65. quae (Ops identified with Terra Mater) quod gerit fruges Ceres, antiquis enim quod nunc &.

So F. O. Müller conj. antiquis enim C quod nunc G., i.e. the letter which we now express by G was in old times C, and therefore Geres was written Ceres.

This is not the only possible suggestion. Varro may mean that formerly they called Geres what the Romans of his day called Ceres. On this view I conjecture antiquis enim GER quod nunc CER. At some stage of the transmission I suppose cer to have become cet, of which the c fell out after nunc.

Id. pater quod patefacit semen nam tum est conceptum et inde cum exit quod oritur.

Rather tum exit: "for at that time was conceived and from that seed then issues what rises into birth."

v. 68. hinc epicharmus enni proserpinam quoque appellat quod solet esse sub terris dicta proserpina.

The last seven words have, to my mind, the look of a verse, possibly a cretic,

Sub terris quod solet dicta Proserpina,

for Ennius seems to have lengthened the o of Proserpina, perhaps from its resemblance to proserpere, which Varro mentions immediately afterwards.

V. 72. neptunus quod mare terras obnubit ut nubes caelum. For mare I conjecture marei, unless mare is ablative.

V. 101. cerui quod magna cornua gerunt fcorui G in C mutauit ut in multis.

Corui cannot be right: A. Spengel edits gerui, which is wide of the transmitted letters. Perhaps ceroui from an original geroui. Varro would be helped to this thoroughly Varronian hypothesis by κέρας.

V. 104. brassica ut passica quod ex eius scapo minutatim praesicatur.

It may be doubted whether Turnebus was right in his emendation praesica, which would hardly have assumed the form passica in all MSS. It would be quite in accordance with Varro's etymologies to write prassica, or perhaps prasica. The essential letters are the two first (p, r), the fact of ae following in praesecare would not determine the supposed word as praesica, rather than what is closer to the sound of brassica, namely prasica.

V. 110. murtatum a murta quod eo ad large fartis.

So F.

ad large fartis is, perhaps, an instance of a preposition separated from its compound, then read eo ad large fartae, "myrtle berries are stuffed into it (eo adverb, sc. in murtatum) in quantities." So ad nos uersum, VI. 8.

V. III. ab eadem fartura farcimina extis appellata a quo fin eo quod testinuissimum intestinum fartum hila dicta ab hilo.

I think in eo is a mistake for ideo, "from the fact that it is the smallest intestine used for stuffing."

testinuissimum (F) from an original testinumissimum