^{page 33 note 1} Afterwards reprinted in Lectures and Essays (Oxford, 1895), to the pages of which reference is given throughout.

^{page 34 note 1} De Congressu, 4.

^{page 34 note 2} De Sac. Ab., 22.

^{page 34 note 3} ib.

^{page 34 note 4} De Congressu, 26.

^{page 34 note 5} ib.

^{page 34 note 6} Marius Victorinus K., vol. vi., p. 4. He adds ‘eius praecipua officia sunt quattuor, ut ipsi placet, scribere, intellegere, probare.’ This classification is discussed further on, p. 13. Probably scribere, legere, refer to the school of the γραμματισής (so Wilmanns), the other two to the school of the γραμματις, and all four contemplate the work of the pupil, while the other classification thinks of the teacher.

^{page 34 note 7} Ap. Diomedes, K. vol i., p. 426.

^{page 34 note 8} Wilmanns proposed dictationem for dictionem.

^{page 35 note 1} Gram. Graec., vol. iii., p. 12.

^{page 35 note 2} K. (vol. vi., p. 4).

^{page 35 note 3} Sen. Ep. 88, 3.

^{page 35 note 4} άμήθοδος üλη, Sext. Emp. Adu. Gram. 249. In Diomedes and elsewhere, the two are classed as òριστική and έξηγητική.

^{page 36 note 1} Essay, pp. 165, 159.

^{page 36 note 2} But as chapter vii. is supposed by Nettleship to be ‘taken or adapted’ from Verrius, while iv.6–17 exhibits the same characteristics as vii., the theory has to be complicated by supposing that Palaemon borrowed these sections from Verrius. As a matter of fact the resemblances between Quintilian and Peulus' epitome of Verrius show, I think, that Quintillian knew and used Verrius, but the introduction of Palaemon is pure hypothesis, at any rate in these sections. It is to be noted that some of the most note-worthy coincidences between Quintilian and Paulus occur in chapter vi., which Nettleship does not ascribe to Verrius.

^{page 37 note 1} He brings forward three points in which Quintilian discusses or mentions questions known to have been discussed by Pliny ; (a) declension of Greek nouns in -o; (b) the coincidence in gender of the diminutive with the principal noun; (c) the two forms Albanus and Albensis from Alba. Of these (a) had been discussed by Caesar, and Pliny and Quintilian both disagreed with him; (b) Pliny is stated to have followed Varro; (c) is mentioned by Varro, L.L. viii. 35. All three were stock cases. Two other points are mentioned which Nettleship thinks may have been quoted by Charisius from Pliny. One of them, at any rat, is in Varro, the other, or a similar one, had been discussed both by Pliny and Caesar.

^{page 38 note 1} Elsewhere called ‘noua.’

^{page 38 note 2} ‘Arte non egent, cuius in hoc opere non est usus nisi in dubiis,’ i. 6, 38; ‘analogiae haec uis est, ut id, quod dubium est, ad aliquid simile de quo non quaeritur referat,’ i. 6, 3.

^{page 38 note 3} ‘hoc amplius ut institutum ordinem sequar.’ These are the words with which, on Nettleship's theory, Quintilian ‘having bid adieu to Grammar’ (and Palaemon) proceeds to make a literary transcript of Pliny! No more unlikely place can be imagined for such a complete break.

^{page 38 note 4} One of the four pairs ‘translata’ and ‘proest’ is passed over with a bare mention and no examples. Quintilian, no doubt, felt that it examples. Quintilian, no doubt, felt that it belonged rather to rhetoric–i.e., it was not so much a question ‘recte loquendi,’ as ‘bene dicendi.’

^{page 39 note 1} The fact is that it is very difficult to keep the two apart. Thus in v. 55 etc., the question of the choice between Greek and Latin words, which is a matter of ‘singula uerba,’ inevitably leads to a discussion of Greek declension as opposed to Latin declension in names like Calypso, which, as a matter of formation, really belongs to ‘plura uerba.’

^{page 39 note 2} Essay, p. 161.

^{page 39 note 3} In Charisius (K. 1, 50) the same statement with the same explanation of ‘natura’ and the same example of scrimbo is given of ‘sermo,’ but here it is not ascribed to Varro.

^{page 40 note 1} 1 i. 6, 3 ‘omnia (i.e. analogia, etc.) exigunt acre iudicium.’

^{page 41 note 1} Useful examples are given in Lehr's Aristarchus, p. 344.

^{page 41 note 2} A Chapter in the History of Annotation, chapter1.

^{page 42 note 1} Quintilian ix. 1,4.

^{page 42 note 2} For this reason perhaps the curious epithet πρόχειρος is attached to γλωσσ⋯ν κα⋯ ἱστορι⋯ν ⋯π⋯δοσιςWith them the teacher has merely to state the facts; with the έξήγησις κατá τρόπους, a more ‘heuristic’ method has to be adopted, Cf. Sext. Emp. Adu. Gram., 249, ἱστρικ⋯ν δ⋯ το’ περ⋯ τ⋯ν προχειρ⋯τητα τ⋯ς ⋯μεθ⋯δου ὔλης

^{page 42 note 3} Adu. Gram., 250.

^{page 44 note 1} Quintilian i. 2, 14,

^{page 44 note 2} A Chapter in the History of Annotation, chapter vi.

^{page 44 note 3} ‘et mixtum his omnibus iudicium est, quo quidem ita seuere sunt usi ueteres grammatici, ut non uersus modo censoria quadam uirgula notare et libros, qui falso uiderentur inscripti, tanquam subditos summouere familia permiserint sibi, sed auclores alios in ordinem redegerint alios omnino exemerint numero.’

^{page 45 note 1} Vide note on p. 3.

^{page 45 note 2} Quintilian ii. 13, 14.

^{page 45 note 3} Rutherford translates ‘matters of fact.’

^{page 45 note 4} Adu. Gram. 250, and following sections.

^{page 45 note 5} Ep. 88,3.

^{page 46 note 1} Adu. Gram. 92, 93. I think this passage supports the view of κρόσις taken above. H seems to use ύγιής in the sense of ‘valuable,’ ‘morally sound.’ I do not know whether ύγιής is ever used of ‘sound text.’ Stephanus gives no examples of it.

^{page 46 note 2} In i. 2. 14 he gives the same order as the others, ‘grammaticus si de loquendi ratione disserat, si quaestiones explicet, historias exponat, poemata enarret.’

^{page 46 note 3} The view adopted by Quintilian and those who advocated the teaching of τό λδιαíτερον superior to τό λστορικόν is closely paralleled modern views of teaching Shakespeare. The Clarendon Press editions, which restricted them selves mainly to γλωσσ⋯ν καì íστορι⋯ν ⋯π⋯δοσις have now given place to the Pitt Press and othe editions, in which Kplais plays a prominent part.

^{page 46 note 4} Quint, i. 4,4, ‘nee poetas legisse satis est: ex-cutiendum omne scriptorum genus non propter historias modo, sed uerba, quae frequenter ius ab auctoribus sumunt,’ does not contradict this, Quintilian is here speaking of the equipment of the ‘grammaticus’ himself. Just as he will require some knowledge of astronomy and music, so he must read prose-writers, both in order to master the rules of language and to enable him to deal adequately with the ‘historiae’ of the poets.

^{page 47 note 1} Also admirably states by Mr. Garrod in his introduction to the Oxford Book of Latin Verse.

^{page 47 note 2} And also for the value of the subject-matter as ‘exempla.’