tempted to defend them all, in a writer so vigorous and yet so prolix as Juvenal. Most of them make perfectly good sense where they stand, and are supported by all the ancient authorities. Others are omitted by several MSS., and one or two interrupt the connexion wherever they can be placed. The first fact proves at most that they displeased ancient critics as well as modern; the second would be decisive if there were not reason to believe that Juvenal never finished the revision of his satires. The introductory satire is naturally polished with most care, and there only one critic has been found to suspect one line (v. 157), which is so difficult that his suspicion is likely to be more popular than it deserves. In the Third Satire Jahn condemns v. 104', against the MSS. and John of Salisbury; Heinrich and Pinzger condemn v. 113 as an unnecessary explanation; for the same reason, if the MSS. were few or worthless, vv. 49, 50, might be eliminated; Heinecke condemns v. 281. In the Fourth Satire nobody condemns any thing. In the Fifth, Heinrich rejects the end of v. 9, and the beginning of v. 10, and the whole of v. 66. Pinzger had anticipated his dislike of v. 51; but the latter critic defends v. 91, though omitted by Pithou's MS. and condemned by Weber, Heinrich, Jahn,-who also condemns v. 140, I suppose for reasons of taste which would justify Heinecke's rejection of VV. 146-148. In the Seventh, Jahn, Pinzger, and Heinrich condemn v. 15, which contains an unusual quantity; Jahn alters v. 50 to suit his rejection of v. 51; Heinrich condemns vv. 138 and 181; Valla condemned vv. 240, 241. In the Eighth, most MSS., but not the best, omit v. 7 (see note) v. 78 might be omitted as a question of taste, on the same principle as all editors omit Gutta cavat lapidem, con 1 Whenever nothing is said to the contrary, the MSS. are unanimous in favour of the verse attacked. sumitur anulus usu, which occurs in the Dresden MS. after xiii. 18: vv. 111, 112, are in all the MSS.; but they are so flat that Jahn and Manso wish to leave them out altogether, while Heinrich and Heinecke more plausibly treat unicus as a gloss on unus, and go straight on to Despicias tu. Jahn and Lachmann condemn v. 124; Ruperti, v. 194, and is followed by Heinrich in his condemnation of v. 202. In the Tenth, Ruperti condemns v. 37, Pinzger v. 148; Heinrich condemns v. 189, but not v. 187. In the Eleventh, at v. 30, Heinecke wishes to read vel sacri in parte senatus Esse velis, seu tu magno discrimine causam Protegere affectas, &c., striking out two lines, which are a tasteless display of cheap reading. Heinrich condemns vv. 63 and 99, in which last he is followed by Jahn: v. 108 is omitted by Heinrich and several MSS., and condemned by Jahn: vv. 165, 166, are also omitted by several MSS., and condemned, perhaps justly, by Heinrich, Pinzger and Jahn: as the Scholium in several MSS., which gives them, "Hi duo versus et in aliis reperti sunt," makes it not improbable that they are a marginal quotation, which different copyists foisted into the text at different places. Heinrich condemns v. 182, but not v. 208. In the Twelfth, v. 36 is condemned by Heinrich; vv. 51, 52, by Bentley, Pinzger, Heinrich, Jahn. In the Thirteenth, Heinrich is alone in condemning v. 166. In the Fourteenth, v. 229 interrupts the grammatical sequence, is omitted in six MSS., and condemned by Ruperti, Heinrich, Jahn; but it seems more likely that Juvenal left it, than that an interpolator introduced it. In the Fifteenth, Ruperti condemns v. 34. Francke, who wants to show that he wishes disinterestedly to purify Juvenal's text as well as to prove that he was never in Egypt, omits from summus utrimque in v. 35, to sed in v. 38, as well as the longer passage from horrida sane in v. 44, to titubantibus in v. 48. This last omission is approved by G. Hermann, and of course by Heinrich. Francke also condemns vv. 97, 98, which are too bad for any interpolator who knew, what Juvenal did not when he wrote them, what was coming next. Orelli and Francke show their taste by omitting from Elemento in v. 86 to reor in v. 87, and from nec enim in v. 107, to putant in v. 108, respectively. In the Sixteenth Satire, nobody condemns any thing, though some condemn every thing. It remains to acknowledge my great obligations to Mr. Mayor, whose edition would leave no room for mine, if schoolboys and undergraduates liked their work well enough to linger over it, and to say what I have attempted to do. As to the text, Jahn has generally been followed without discussion, where it was simply a question of manuscript authority; where the readings had a character of their own, I tried to make up my mind and give my reasons, that my readers might not be annoyed, as I have sometimes been, when using an edition that indicated a variety of reading, while giving no clue to its principle of selection. As to the interpretation, I aimed chiefly at bringing out as many as possible of Juvenal's epigrammatic points, without any fear of going too far; because, in a highly literary age, artificial connexions and effects occur more readily than natural. In addition to this, I endeavoured to supply an answer to every question which my limited knowledge of Juvenal and his English readers suggested, except where the solution was already contained in one or other of Dr. Smith's valuable Dictionaries. Three satires have been altogether omitted as not required in the Oxford examinations, which proceed on the creditable hypothesis, that all candidates for a pass or honours either possess or cultivate the temper to which such reading is as painful as it ought to be. D. JUNII JUVENALIS SATIRARUM LIBER PRIMUS. SATIRA I. SEMPER ego auditor tantum? nunquamne reponam, Impune ergo mihi cantaverit ille togatas, I reponam] May be future or subjunctive. I prefer the latter. 'Am I never to reply?' if so, impune recitaverit, Is he not to be punished for having recited ?' Any way the passage shows the very close affinity of the future tense to the subjunctive mood. 2 toties] It lasted so many recitations.-Cordi, a stock character in Valgius, Virgil, Juvenal, and Martial. According to the Scholiast, he is spoken of as a contemporary in Valgius's lost elegies. comoe 3 togatas] Older than diae,' which were 'palliatae,' and half-way between them and tragedy, perhaps archaic and dull. Cf. Di citur Afrani toga convenisse Me 5 nandro" (Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 57); and "Adeo sanctum est vetus omne poëma" (id. sup. 54). 5 summi] As the margin (the feminine is found also in Licinius, Macer, Rabirius, and Vitruvius) at the end of the roll is full already, he writes on the back too, and has not done yet: et, even when out of its usual place, generally goes with the word which comes after it. 7 lucus Martis] "In quo Ilia peperit," Schol., would occur in a poem on Romulus: the rest, as far as Aeacus, suggests a 'rifacimento ' of the Odyssey; though, but for alius, we might place the grove in Colchos, according to another guess of the Scholiast, and refer the rocks B Vulcani. Quid agant venti, quas torqueat umbras Cur tamen hoc potius libeat decurrere campo, 10 15 20 25 poets and later prose writers, where it can be explained by metrical convenience, or a passion for brevity. 16 dedimus] "We have given," is a present qualification for writing. Dormiret, the result contemplated, is naturally in the past, as the advice must have been decided on long ago. Cf. vii. 161; x. 167. Boys began with political suasoriae, and went on to legal controversiae. 20 Auruncae] Suessa Aurunca, where Lucilius was born. 23.] Practising as a 'bestiaria,' in the costume of an Amazon. This profession, and that of gladiator, was opened to women under Nero, and closed to them by Severus. 25.] Repeated (x. 226). 26 Canopi] Canopus was to Alexandria what Greenwich and Rotherhithe are to London. 27 Crispinus] Raised to the senate by Nero, a favourite of Do |