corruptions and other critical difficulties are easily removed by inspecting the original passages in the Nicom. Ethics. E. Fabricius, Die Skeuothek des Philon. This important inscription on the famous naval arsenal at Zea in the Piraeus has been edited and translated in this Journal by Th. W. Ludlow, Amer. Journ. of Philol. III, pp. 317-28. I. Vahlen, Varia, continues his suggestive critical notes, chiefly on passages in Plautus, and mainly in defense of the MS reading, or, if not, at least so as to disapprove of the critical suggestions of Schoell, Goetz and Loewe. His notes in great part are replies to Schoell (although he now refrains from mentioning the latter by name). As to solid learning, Vahlen's notes on licentia collocandi in Plautus (p. 612 sqq.) are particularly valuable. It may be interesting to let Vahlen tell in his own way how he would edit a critical edition for university purposes (p. 610 sqq.): “In Menaechmis igitur, quam fabulam nuper auditorum meorum in usum exprimendam curavi, hoc egi potissimum, ut poetae verba legerentur qualia librorum memoria sedulo consulta nec correctionibus adhibitis nisi certis cum fiducia quadam veri exhiberi posse viderentur. Et hoc quod summum erat, universe me satis recte assecutum adhuc confido. Levidensem hanc operam visam esse nulliusque rem iudicii haberi, si qui non occaecatus opinationum multitudine ac varietate nihil nisi quod cum fide poni possit sibi sequendum duxerit, id quid miri hac aetate, qua non modio neque trimodio, verum ipso horreo funduntur emendationes Plautinae, neque pretium editionibus nisi ex novarum coniecturarum numero dici solet. . . . In adnotatione quam subieci nolui aliorum exempla imitatus aut codicum apices cum pulvisculo exhaurire, quae res praesertim alibi parata esset, nec commentorum immensam molem exaedificare, sed id cavens ad iudicandam textus fidem quem edebam, quod utile esset ne desideraretur, ad eam normam addenda et omittenda secrevi." Kirchhoff, Eine Attische Todtenliste. Of this table K. publishes a very handsome facsimile, being an excellent illustration of the Attic alphabet in the generation preceding the archonship of Eucleides. The dead of this catalogue are Attic citizens slain έγ Χερρονήσῳ Εμ Βυζαντίῳ and ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις πολέHous. The citizens are given by tribes, the Acamantis alone not occurring. Eleutherae is given separately, a community not ranged under any of the ten tribes at that time. Kirchhoff differs from Kumanudis in putting the inscription considerably later in the V century than the former; he assigns it to 408 B. C., and interprets the data to fit the Hellespontian and Byzantian operations of Alcibiades in 409 B. C. In this inscription § is expressed by xs. A pair of elegiac distichs is appended in which the reader will recognize the phonetic spelling of the stonecutter: Οἵδε παρ' Ελλήσποντον ἀπώλεσαν ἀγλαον ήβην βαρνάμενοι σφετέραν δ' εὐκλέισαμπατρίδα, ὥστ ̓ ἐχθροὺς στενά χειμπολέμου θέρος ἐκκομίσαντας· αὐτοῖς δ ̓ ἀθάνατον μνῆμ' ἀρετῆς ἔθεσαν. Th. Mommsen, Das Augustische Festverzeichniss von Cumae. Mr. Stevens in the course of his excavations has come upon the last of three fragments of this inscription, the former two having been discovered by Guarini, 1834, and by Mommsen, 1846, so that now the inscription may be read entire. This interesting document proves that municipia, in the matter of domestic celebration, made their own decrees independently of the Roman Senate. Thus, under date of Sept. 23, there is "Immolatio Caesari hostia" (a), whereas at the capital, divine honors were officially paid to Augustus only after his death. We notice, too, that the municipium of Cumae had no official annual celebration of Actium, whereas the accession of Lepidus' army to the standards of Octavianus is set down for Sep. 3. The historical value of the inscription is so considerable that the readers of the Journal will be glad to possess it entire. Aug. 19. [XIIII K. Septembr. Eo die Caesar pri]mum consulatum in[iit. Supplicatio] .. ... Sept. 3. [III Non. Septembr. Eo die exer]citus Lepidi tradidit se Caesari. Suppli[c]a[tio]... Sept. 23. [VIII K. Octobr. Natalis Caesaris. Immolatio Caesari hostia; suppicatio [sic] . . . Oct. 5. Nonis Octobr. Drusi Caesaris natalis. Supplicatio Vestae. Oct. 18. XV K. Novimbr. Eo die Caesar togam virilem sumpsit. Supplicatio Spei et Iuve[ntuti] . . . Nov. 16. XVI K. Dicimbr. Dec. 15. XVIII K. Januar. Natalis Ti. Caesaris. Supplicatio Vestae. Eo die a[r]a Fortunae reducis dedicatast, quae Caesarem A[ugustum ex transmari]nis provinciis red[uxit]. Supplicatio Fortunae reduci. Jan. 7. VII idus Januar. E[o die Caesar] primum fasces sumpsit. Suppicatio [sic] Iovisempi[terno]. Jan. 16. [XVIII [sic] K. Febr. Eo di[e Caesar Augustu]s appellatus est. Supplicatio Augusto. Jan. 30. [III K. Febr. Eo die ara Pacis Aug. dedicata] est. Supplicatio imperio Caesaris Augusti cust[odis] [civium Romanorum orbisque terrar Jum. Mart. 6. [pridie Non. Mart. Eo die Caesar pontifex ma]ximus creatus est. Supplicato [sic] Vestae, dis pub(licis) P(enatibus) p(opuli) R(oman). Q(uiritium). Apr. 14. [XVIII Kal. Mai. Eo die Caesar primum vicit. Suppli]catio Victoriae Augustae. Apr. 15. [XVII Kal, Mai. Eo die Caesar primum imperator appellatus est. Supplicatio Félicitati imperi. Mai. 12. [IIII id. Mai. Eo die aedes Martis dedicatest. Supplica]tio Mólibus Mártis. Mai. 24. [VIIII K. Jun. Germanici Caesaris natalis. Supp]licatio Vestae. Jul. 12. [IIII id. Jul. Natalis divi Juli. Supplicatio Iov]i, Marti ultori, Veneri [genetrici] . . . [Suppli]catio Iovi. E. G. SIHLER. Sir: CORRESPONDENCE. SEBASTE, TURKEY IN ASIA, August 10, 1883. Those of your readers who are interested in the exploration of Greek antiquity in the East, are no doubt acquainted with the work in Asia Minor during the past three years, of Mr. W. M. Ramsay, of Oxford. But for the information of those who are not familiar with the archaeological doings of the day, it may be necessary to state that the object of Mr. Ramsay's journeys is to illustrate the history of Asia Minor by a careful and comprehensive study of all the existing remains of antiquity. Accordingly copies and impressions of inscriptions are made, the sculptured monuments are drawn and described, coins of cities are collected as far as feasible, and in short, the aim is to do everything that will in any way illustrate or increase our knowledge of Greek and Roman antiquity in Asia Minor. Last winter in Athens it was, of course, well known in archaeological circles that Mr. Ramsay contemplated an extensive tour in Asia Minor during the present summer, and it was also known to a few that two members of the French school at Athens had a similar archaeological journey in view. Mr. Ramsay was asked to give a minute description of the route he proposed to take, in order that the Frenchmen might traverse a different district and not interfere in the least with the English expedition. In explanation of what follows it is perhaps proper to state that the writer was invited to join the English expedition. The Frenchmen left Saraikieui, the present terminus of the Ottoman Railway, about ten days before we did. One of the two became ill and returned to Smyrna, leaving M. Paris to continue the journey alone. We had not proceeded far, when we were astonished to find ourselves upon his trail. We could see what he had done, or more properly speaking what he had left undone. We noticed that he left whole series of villages unvisited and unexplored. Even in places he had touched we saw that much had been left undone that might easily have been done with but small expenditure of time and energy. For instance, in one village we copied nine inscriptions which M. Paris had left untouched. This we knew because some digging and adjustment of fragments was necessary in order to read the inscriptions. All this very apparent hurry led us to believe that M. Paris was heading for the eastern country, and took cognizance of things in intermediate districts simply en passant. But it appears, as will be seen presently, that this was intended for earnest work in the line of archaeological research. After a time we passed through the villages Sevaslee and Seljikler, in the neighborhood of which the ancient Sebaste was situated, its name being preserved in the modern Sevaslee. Ten days after our visit to these villages the July number of the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique-the publication of the French school at Athens-came to hand. This July number was published in advance of the May and June numbers; at least the latter had not yet reached the subscribers in Smyrna. In the July number we found a paper on the inscriptions of Sebaste, by M. Paris. He had brought his short excursion to an abrupt termination and had gone to Smyrna to publish the results of his journey. A glance at his paper sufficed to reveal to us errors in almost all of the inscriptions. We were thoroughly convinced of the accuracy of our readings, but when, in the course of our zigzags, we found ourselves once more in the neighborhood of Sevaslee and Seljikler, it was made convenient for the writer to revisit those villages in order to verify our own readings as well as those of M. Paris. Besides this, impressions of the stones were made, so that the accuracy of the statements which follow may be easily verified. The long inscription published by M. Paris bears the date 99 A. D., and most probably marks an era in the Hellenisation of the city of Sebaste. The yɛpovoia was a feature of Greek cities, and as the cities of the interior became Hellenized they adopted, among other things, the institution of the yɛpovoía. So that on the whole it may be safely assumed that the stone was erected in commemoration of the organization of the yɛpovoía in Sebaste. It may, however, be noted that the interpretation of M. Paris is altogether different. In lines I-2, M. Paris reads 'Ασκληπιάδου Ερμογένους. It is true that here the stone is much worn, but nevertheless 'Ασκληπιάδου τοῦ Ἑρμογένους may be easily distinguished. In line 4, M. Paris reads [-]va тov кaì 'Avravíov, but the stone has Παπᾶ τοῦ καὶ ̓Αντωνίου. In line 29, col. I, he reads Μηνόφιλος Βλέπιδος φύσει Ευπάτορος. It is true that here M. Paris has the correct reading so far as the letters themselves are concerned, if I may except a distinct and unmistakable dot both before and after the B of his word Bheridos. Still that he understands the signification of the letters is a daring assumption. I need scarcely mention that Myvópios B' is the short way of indicating that the man in question bore the same name as his father, or in other words it stands in place of Μηνόφιλος Μηνοφίλου. It was usual to write the second name of a man after that of his father, so that the passage under discussion is clearly Mópus δὶς Λέπιδος φύσει Ευπάτορος. In line 3r, col. r, M. Paris reads λέγων ; the stone has patywv. The down-stroke of the is bold, while the circular part is quite small, but it is very plain even in the impression. In lines 40-41, M. Paris gives up the contest and reads: *Αλέξανδρος Μελίτωνος ΛΟΝ This apparent difficulty is easily explained. The stonecutter inserted the latter half of the word Aovyeivos under the AON in line 41, seeing that the space in line 40 was limited. The -ystoç is not horizontal, but runs at a small angle upwards, from which it is clear that line 40 must read 'Ahéğavdpos Mɛkitwvog Λονγεῖνος. In line 46, col. 1, M. Paris reads Γέμιος Δάδων ; the stone has Γέμιος Λάδων. The name Téos sounds queer enough, and may be a mistake on the part of the stonecutter for Téλs, but the M is certain. In lines 41-42, col. 2, M. Paris reads Παπᾶς Ιπποκρίτου τοῦ καὶ Νοντάνου, and assures us that both his copy and his impression have Νοντάνου, not Μοντάνου. This is doubtless true, but the stone and my impression both read unmistakably Movrávo, and just as unmistakably |