Mr. Bishop's article in C.Q., xlix . 187–92 on Palatine Apollo calls for an answer from me, since I am still alive to give it, though my own study dates from 1910 and was published in J.R.S. for 1914, pp. 193–226. So far away is this publication, and my offprints have for so long been exhausted, that scholars of my generation need to go to university libraries to refer to it, and recent generations do not know it at all. From (...) Lugli's book on Rome they do not gather the details which convinced Boni that I was right, because he omitted some of the most cogent from mention. (shrink)

In 820 the corrections of Buecheler and Scaliger are accepted. In 822 the MSS. have quom penes me potestas; quom for quos from v. 823, lacuna supplied by Klotz, met , by Leo, mei . I conceive an intermediate stage: quom penes mei potestas, which would account for the lacuna by haplography, as well as for the change of mei to me.

This instalment of suggestions is put forward with all the diffidence one is bound to feel after an examination of the great body of the manuscripts. No great writer's text has hung upon a more slender thread of evidence. Larger matters than verbal emendation are touched upon in the discussion of poem LXVIII. My theory of how our texts became dislocated , and some new light I hope to throw upon the form and meaning of the Peleus and Thetis, must (...) be withheld until a later occasion. (shrink)

Miss Gertrude Hirst's article on Aeneid VII.in the April number, 1916, of the C.Q. depends for its cogency upon dates in Propertius. Not wishing that her careful work should be vitiated by premisses which may shortly be proved false, I venture to set out the bare results of my own researches in this field of dates, results which have stood the test of several years of further examination.

I Purpose in this essay to declare by means of a few chosen examples the theory and method upon which I have for over twelve years been proceeding to the restoration of the text of Propertius. I had always hoped to present my results first in their final form; but the long delays and the immediate circumstance of war compel me to a partial presentation of what is now in all essentials a finished work. The examples I choose are mostly (...) those which I used in 1911 in a paper read before the Philological Societies of Cambridge and Oxford; nothing but detail has been changed in any part of my theory since that date. (shrink)

A. I begin with some emendations founded on familiar evidence. ii. 9. aspice quos summittat humus formosa colores.In each of the following verses of the stanza from u. 9 to u. 14 natural and spontaneous beauty is the subject. Verse 9 has seemed unsatisfactory because it lacks the very point which it should introduce. All the emendations have attacked formosa because it is repeated in u. 11: morosa, Housman, dumosa, nemorosa, muscosa, and other even less probable adjectives have been suggested.

A. I begin with some emendations founded on familiar evidence. ii. 9. aspice quos summittat humus formosa colores. In each of the following verses of the stanza from u. 9 to u. 14 natural and spontaneous beauty is the subject . Verse 9 has seemed unsatisfactory because it lacks the very point which it should introduce. All the emendations have attacked formosa because it is repeated in u. 11: morosa, Housman , dumosa, nemorosa, muscosa, and other even less probable adjectives (...) have been suggested. (shrink)

Too late for my edition of Propertius, but in time, I hope, to anticipate one criticism of the many that will be aimed at its details, I have detected a serious flaw in my text of his elegy upon Vertumnus . It is not so serious as some of the flaws caused in it by the corruption of our archetype; but instead of helping I have hindered truth in respect of two of the couplets. Now I should like to put (...) forward a correction, which seems to set us in a fair way to recover the authors's pattern, as well as his words, in the second half of the elegy. (shrink)