386 Journal of Philology. In Eur. Med. 080 also, where the right reading seems to be (v yap' fcravt <r tiros, we have the same variation, the manuscript Rom. C. the same, by the way, as the Vatican of Sophocles just referred to (see Elmsl. Prajf. ad (Ed. Col. p. iv) giving tv yap ovv ktcvu a tiros, while the Flor. MS. has h yap av kt(vc7 <t tiros. Nor will any one feel surprised that such should be the case, when he con- siders how slight a difference there is between ov and a, if the v of the diphthong be carelessly written so as nearly to join the o. S. University Pitt Club, May 8, 1854. II. On a passage of Minucius Felix. Min. Felix. Cap. xvi. 4. p. 91, Holden. Quid igitur? ut quia rectam viam nescit, ubi, ut fit, in plures una diffinditur, qui viam nescit, hseret anxius, &c. Surely this is an extremely awk- ward sentence. The position of the two expressions quia r. v. nesc. and qui r. v. n. seems to indicate that the latter has crept into the text from the copyist's eye falling on the former in the line above. If instead of "quia" we read " qui", the harshness complained of will disappear. Quid igitur? ut qui rectam viam nescit ubi ut fit in plures una diff. haeret a. j. a III. On some passages of Niehuhr's Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography. [The following corrections of Niebuhr's Lectures have been sent to us, accompanied by a preface and conclusion which it is unnecessary to print. Some explanations of difficulties are also omitted, as sufficiently obvious to any careful reader of Niebuhr. We take this opportunity of assuring our correspondents that corrections of errors in important works need no apology: the more tersely they are expressed, the better. We cannot how- ever undertake to insert mere detached corrections of editor's notes on classical authors, unless they throw collateral light on some matter of interest]
