of Tacitus only once or at most a very few times there is often found a characterization varying from a passing phrase to a complete summary of character and family history. The important thing to notice is the large number of such characterizations. The number is so large that Tacitus apologizes for inserting them (Ann. 16.16): Etiam si bella externa et obitas pro re publica mortis tanta casuum similitudine memorarem, meque ipsum satias cepisset aliorumque taedium expectarem, quamvis honestos civium exitus, tristis tamen et continuos aspernantium: at nunc patientia servilis tantumque sanguinis domi perditum fatigant animum et maestitia restringunt. Neque aliam defensionem ab iis quibus ista noscentur exegerim quam ne oderim tam segniter pereuntis. . . . Detur hoc inlustrium virorum posteritati, ut quo modo exsequiis a promisca sepultura separantur, ita in traditione supremorum accipiant habeantque propriam memoriam. No classification of the methods of characterization used by Tacitus is satisfactory because of the variety of the methods used by him and his modification of the usual methods. He is so much of an artist that he paints in shades and colors that cannot be classed under any general name. Instead of trying to make such a classification, I shall, I hope, obtain a more satisfactory result by making a summary of the various methods, with a few examples of individual cases. (1) Of many of the unimportant characters there is given a brief description, varying from a phrase to a complete summary. (2) Characterization at the first mention. This may be (a) a direct statement of Tacitus; (b) comment by others; (c) a speech of the person himself; (d) a combination of the opinion of Tacitus and those of other characters; (e) an incidental reference or a sort of parenthesis. (3) Characterization at the notice of death. This may be (a) a statement by Tacitus; (b) comment by others; (c) a combination of these two; (d) a summary of previous references; (e) a description of the death and funeral and of the man's last words. (4) Characterization at some effective place in the narrative. It may consist of scattered references or be a summary of the whole life. (5) Contrast of two characters. This is used in combination with other methods. A few examples will serve to show his treatment of the more unimportant characters. Some are characterized by Tacitus himself: examples are Percennius, 1.16; Sempronius Gracchus, 1.53; Crispinus Caepio, 1.74; Occia, Virgo Vestalis, 2.86; Bruttidius Niger, 3.66; Poppaea, 13.45; Nymphidius, 15.72; Petronius, 16.18. There are several examples of self-characteriza tion. For one of these, that of Subrius Gallus, Tacitus gives his reason for quoting the man's words (15.67): Ipsa rettuli verba, quia non, ut Senecae, vulgata erant, nec minus nosci decebat militaris viri sensus incomptos et validos. In some cases Tacitus merely quotes the opinions of friends or enemies, e.g. in those of Lutorius Priscus, 3.49-50, Lucius Silanus, 15.52, Curtius Montanus, 16.28. Sometimes Tacitus combines his own estimate with that of friend or foe, e.g. concerning Italicus, 11.1617, and Rhadamistus, 12.44, 48. Occasionally the characterization is given incidentally to explain some action, e.g. that of Asinius Gallus, 1.12, and that of Libo, 2.27. Some characters are thrown into strong contrast, e.g. Arminius and Flavus, Tiberius and Germanicus, Tiberius and Augustus, the younger Agrippina and Antonia. In the more important characters the methods vary; some are direct and simple, others are more complex. The character of Livia is shown by several scattered references and then by a full direct characterization at the notice of her death. The characterization of Augustus is a splendid example of indirect method. This is given at the description of the funeral, and the comments are those made by the crowd attending the service, or of idlers about the forum. One of the most original and telling of all the characterizations is found in the case of Claudius. Tacitus introduces him (3.18) by saying that the more he read history the more he was struck by the whims and the uncertainty of Fortune, which had so mocked men's plans as to put on the throne the one man whom the people considered unfit to rule. In 6.46 there is another brief estimate. The most striking characterization of Claudius, however, is found at the notice of his funeral. Nero delivered an elaborate oration.composed by Seneca in honor of the dead. This choice of orator made the eulogy of less worth in the mind of Tacitus, but the characterization lies in the effect of the speech on the audience (13.3): Dum antiquitatem generis, consulatus ac triumphos maiorum enumerabat, intentus ipse et ceteri; liberalium quoque artium commemoratio et nihil regente eo triste rei publicae ab externis accidisse pronis animis audita: postquam ad providentiam sapientiamque flexit, nemo risui temperare, quamquam oratio a Seneca composita multum cultus praeferret. What need of further characterization? The character of Claudius has scarcely yet recovered from that laugh. The character of Seneca is left somewhat obscure. There are several remarks about his ability as a writer and about the elegance of his person, but the personal estimate of Tacitus is lacking. The clearest idea of him is obtained from the letter which he wrote to Nero after he had been banished from court and when his life was in danger (14.53). It is written in an elaborate style, full of expressed willingness to renounce earthly goods, and marked, to me, by considerable insincerity. Was Tacitus trying to show the man's inconsistency? The description of his death shows a more manly side. There is no summary of his life and character. The most unattractive figure in the Annales is Sejanus. His life is described at a time and place where it is needed to explain the change in the character of Tiberius (4.1). It is a direct characterization with some details of family history. The life of Nero is shown by an entirely new method and one very dramatic. We are taken, as it were, into a laboratory to watch the workings of a diseased brain and soul, while Tacitus stands by and explains his actions and analyzes motives and feelings. In relating the events following the murder of Nero's mother Tacitus gives the reader a description of Nero under the influence of various emotions (14.10); the passage is full of psychological interest, and powerful enough to make any dramatist envious. Again in 14.37, in a descriptive passage, the depth of Nero's depravity is shown. Tacitus is at his best in this passage. In sharp contrast to the characterization of Nero is that of Tiberius. In the case of Nero Tacitus shows us how his estimate is formed; but judgment has already been passed on Tiberius and the reader is shown only the result of that judgment. The character of Tiberius had been studied carefully before Tacitus wrote, as a passage in the Annales shows (4.57); the various periods of his life, the secret motives for all his deeds, were known, and Tacitus for the most part follows this analysis. In some few cases he is in doubt about the motive (e.g. 4.57), but usually he is certain even of the inmost thoughts of Tiberius. Facts to prove his assertions are not always given. He assumes that Tiberius was a master of deceit and cunning, a man of base passions, which, although held in check for a time, finally crowded out all his good qualities. From this standpoint he explains Tiberius's words and acts. A few instances will illustrate this. When Tiberius came to the throne, he was modest and timid. This attitude was assumed, says Tacitus (1.4), because he wished to seem to be called to the throne by the people rather than to have stolen into it through the intrigues of his wife and through adoption by an old man in his dotage. The people admit that he was a tried soldier but filled vetere atque insita Claudiae familiae superbia, of which some indications were appearing even then. Tiberius was a ready speaker except before the senate; there he was obscure and halting in speech. This too was assumed, Tacitus thinks (1.7), because he wished to read the secret thoughts of the senators in order to whet his wrath against them. And part of this timidity was caused by a secret jealousy and fear of Germanicus (1.7). This attitude toward Germanicus runs through all his dealings with Germanicus. He sent Germanicus to the East, hints Tacitus, not for his honor but for his destruction (cf. 1.33, 52; 2.5, 26, 42, 72; 3.5, 12). The retirement of Tiberius to Capri may have been due to the artes Seiani, and that was the current opinion, but Tacitus is not sure num ad ipsum referri verius sit, saevitiam ac libidinem cum factis promeret, locis occultantem (4.57). In two instances Tacitus refuses to believe all that had been told of Tiberius (1.76; 2.48), but usually he does not defend him. At the notice of death there is a brief family history and an analysis of the different periods in the degradation of his character (6.51): egregium vita famaque, quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub Augusto fuit; occultum ac subdolum fingendis virtutibus, donec Germanicus ac Drusus superfuere; idem inter bona malaque mixtus incolumi matre; intestabilis saevitia, sed obtectis libidinibus dum Seianum dilexit timuitve: postremo in scelera simul ac dedecora prorupit, postquam remoto pudore et metu suo tantum ingenio utebatur. From the facts narrated it is doubtful whether Tacitus could prove his assertions. As to method of characterization this is both direct and indirect. Tacitus has been thought to be an enemy of empire. If this be true, one would expect some comment which could be interpreted in that light at the notice of the death of Paetus Thrasea and Helvidius Priscus, but there is nothing to indicate his attitude toward them. There are three characters which he treats with considerable sympathy and even affection. The first is Arminius. The fight the great German had made to free his country calls forth a warm personal eulogy at the notice of his death (2.88): liberator haud dubie Germaniae et qui non primordia populi Romani, sicut alii reges ducesque, sed florentissimum. imperium lacessierit, proeliis ambiguus, bello non victus. Septem et triginta annos vitae, duodecim potentiae explevit, caniturque adhuc barbaras apud gentes, Graecorum annalibus ignotus, qui sua tantum mirantur, Romanis haud perinde celebris, dum vetera extollimus recentium incuriosi. Germanicus is the hero of the first two books of the Annales. His characterization turns toward encomium. Almost every element of the encomium is present. The first characterization is found at the story of the mutiny of the German legions. There we find a comparison with Tiberius and the terms are eulogistic (1.33) libertatem redditurus; civile ingenium; mira comitas et diversa ab Tiberii sermone vultu, adrogantibus et obscuris. In 1.35 his loyalty to Tiberius is spoken of. In the mutiny the soldiers had offered to make him ruler instead of Tiberius but he, quasi scelere contaminaretur, praeceps tribunali desiluit . . . moriturum potius quam fidem exueret clamitans, ferrum a latere diripuit elatumque deferebat in pectus. Again in 1.42 the same quality is shown. His piety toward the dead in the Teutoburg forest is shown in 1.62: primum extruendo tumulo caespitem Caesar posuit, gratissimo munere in defunctos et praesentibus doloris socius. His kindly spirit (comitas) is mentioned in 1.71. But a more striking passage is the scene around the camp fire in the German wilderness on the night before a big battle. In order to find out the spirit of his soldiers Germanicus had disguised himself and had gone around among the different groups. There he heard them talking about himself (2.13): Hic nobilitatem ducis, decorem alius, plurimi patientiam, comitatem. . . laudibus <ferebat>. His ability as general is spoken of in 2.20 in the language of encomium: Nihil ex his Caesari incognitum: consilia locos, prompta occulta noverat astusque hostium in perniciem ipsis vertebat. But all of these references are summed up at the notice of his death, the details of which are carefully recorded. The language is certainly that of encomium (2.72): Indoluere exterae nationes regesque: tanta illi comitas in socios mansuetudo in hostis; visuque et auditu iuxta venerabilis, cum magnitudinem et gravitatem summae fortunae retineret, invidiam et adrogantiam effugerat. Following that there is a comparison with Alexander the Great, to the disparagement of the latter-the uykρious of encomium. Much of this characterization is the opinion of the people but there is little doubt that the sympathy of Tacitus is with this general opinion. To this list might be added the incident of his saving the life of Piso, his enemy, because of his mansuetudo (2.55); also the expression used regarding his appearance in the triumph given to him for his work in Germany. Tacitus says the people wondered at the eximia ipsius species currusque quinque liberis onustus (2.41). The treatment of Corbulo is somewhat like that of Germanicus but yet is very different in some respects. The introduction is abrupt, a peculiar thing, for usually important characters are given a worthy introduction. There was no lack of material, because Corbulo had written some Memoirs which Tacitus must have known. Scattered through the story of his deeds there is found the mark of encomium. Geography and chronology are confused and indefinite, suggesting those of the Agricola, and the narrative constantly refers to Corbulo's character. An eclipse of the sun is magnified into a portent or miraculum. There is an implied comparison with Lucullus (15.1, 35), another with Paccius Orfitus (15.36). There is no summary and no estimate of his life. In this respect he is unique among the important figures of the Annales. From the above examples it can be seen that 2 A list of the encomiastic terms has been collected by Dr. Schoonover in a dissertation of the University of Chicago, entitled A Study of Domitius Corbulo As Found In The Annals Of Tacitus (Chicago, 1909). Selected Epigrams of Martial. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Edwin Post. College Series of Latin Authors. Boston: Ginn and Company (1909). Pp. li + 402. $1.50. A complete edition of Martial to match that most admirable book in the same series, Merrill's Catullus, where delicacy had to deal with equally intractable though fewer obscenities, or one that at least offered the entire text would have better met some of our needs, but, in default of that, the judicious and sufficiently chaste selection of Professor Post is more than welcome. To be sure, some of its references do direct a student to pariah epigrams and to other literature of lubricity, such as the Priapean Corpus, but consistency is a detestable virtue that we could not expect to find even in a Mr. Bowdler, and an American editor has a right to assume that normal undergraduates will never look up a reference any way. Those that do are doubtless too virtuous to be affected deleteriously. That even the least docile, however, may not ignore the other contents of the notes, these are obtruded on his attention at the bottom of the page. Terse, clear, and interesting as well as informing, shirking no difficulty and always essaying to make the poet explain himself through an abundance of cross-references, they are indeed much too good to be relegated to the back of a book. One general criticism, however, the reviewer would make of this edition and of others that follow the same practice. If it is really intended for undergraduates, might we not forego certain references to philological magazines and to books that only the largest College libraries are justified in owning— no specialist in Martial needs such proof of the editor's adequate equipment for his task, nor would they overawe a more ignorant critic-and receive in their place what even American youth can be tempted to read, for example, extra citations of modern parallels? A few quotations from Shakespeare, Jonson and Herrick' hardly permit the reader to suspect to what extent Martial has dominated all modern epigram, and the powerful part that this literary genre has often played in European politics, as for instance in France, the history of which might, indeed, be largely learned from a perusal of her epigrammatic literature. Furthermore, the student who links Greek with Latin finds little encouragement in this edition, where the paucity of 1 We may now compare Professor Nixon's paper in Classical Philology 5.189-202. passages from Hellenic literature would better suit that Greekless age which we prophesy so lugubriously but have not yet quite reached. At any rate, some of the perhaps four score isolated words in the Commentary that represent the language need a little Hellenizing". Presumably much of the Bibliography and all the non-collegiate matter in the Notes to which I have referred were really intended to teach the teacher, and those that believe, as many do, that this should be one of the functions of a college text-book should accord the editor praise for his helpfulness. Since, however, books on epigram as a branch of literature ought to figure prominently in the lists and teferences, at least such monographs as Büttner's Porcius Licinus und der litterarische Kreis des Q. Lutatius Catulus, Reitzenstein's Epigramm und Skolion, and Piazza's L'Epigramma Latino deserve to be added. The most important article is, of course, that of Reitzenstein in Pauly-Wissowa, 6.71III (1909). Among contributions to this general subject that have appeared since Professor Post's edition Dr. V. J. Craig's thesis, Martial's Wit and Humor, will be found interesting and instructive. Professor Post's biography of the epigrammatist is excellent. It would be hard to congest the facts into a brief narrative that would be more readable, complete and generally acceptable. There are only a few expressions that some might regard as overstatements likely to mislead, such as Martial's "humble extraction" (§4), "he dragged on a handto-mouth existence" (§10; cf. §14), and “pinch of poverty" (§11). I attach more significance to the fact that his Spanish home was one of "rude plenty" ($14), his education superior". For years he owned a house in Rome. If "his small estate near Nomentum . . . did not afford him anything to eat" (§10), it at least provided vinum, ova, poma (= = nuces, mala, apyrina and tuberes) to look at, and in 10.92 it seems to have become a property that only somebody far removed from paupertas could possess. Furthermore, if his epigrams are to be trusted at all, he had more than "a slave or two" (SI); for we have to reckon with Alcimus, Demetrius', Erotion, Callistus and the ministri, his vilica", the pueri who diaria poscunt" and a verna". Again, he could hire a carriage, and eventually possess a span of his own. A mere enumeration of the places in Italy with which he was personally familiar, and by no means always as a comes of some patronus, 2 Reitzenstein, in Pauly-Wissowa 6.108, rightly remarks: "Die Abhängigkeit Martials von den Griechen die er frielich in dichterischer Kunst weit überragt, bedarf dringend einer besonderen Behandlung". Such works as Tolkiehn, Homer and die römische Poesie, barely scratch the soil. We find such errors as υδωρ, 6.35.5; λευκή ψήφος, 9.52.4-5; πλήκτρον, 12.94.6. In the Introduction to 14.189 "Monobiblos (Moróßißλos)", contrasts with the lemma, "Monobyblos Properti". In $22, verse 3 of the epigram of Simonides contains ös for os. But 2.48 is no epigram to be cited in note 5. In spite of the fact that he makes Cicero belong to Arpi, Horace to Calabria, and thought Tibullus's Delia was his Nemesis-as well he might! See, however, Boissier, Tacite, 288. 1.88. 1.101. 8 5.34,37. 8.67. 10 10.48.7. 11 11.108. 12 12.29 (26).11. suggests that there were times at any rate when he was far from “sorely reduced" (§11). Was he not in fact financially a prototype of the College professor, keeping company beyond his means, and at the worst only relatively poor"? Again, the quality of his humor makes me doubt his chastity as much as it does his poverty, in spite of all his protests. If Martial did not have a “part in the wantonness that he depicts", what classic writer may not hope to come under the mantle of our charity? Intimacy with Juvenal (§37), at any rate, should be no voucher for his virtue. The man" who wrote, for instance, in his Satires 11.184-189 was not exactly squeamish in his choice of friends, and no amount of rhetorical indignatio can establish parthenopic character in him who uses it, as the case of many a fallen angel annually attests. Some details of criticism are now in order. In 89 Junius Pollio is presumably L. Junius Gallio". Martial's senex (1.108.4) becomes perhaps misleading in English when one says of a man much under fifty that "he had grown old" (§11), nor is it true that "three flights" necessarily introduced you to a "garret" in a Roman insula. In $36 it is said that of Martial we have no "counterfeit presentment". But it is interesting to note that Bernoulli lists one that is probably really counterfeit, and not a descendent of that imago that graced or disgraced the library of Stertinius. In Note 1, to page xxxvi why not add to the list Ausonius, Cento Nuptialis (Peiper's Edition, page 218, lines 7-8)? In this Note, again, "Life of Helius (i.e. Commodus)" presumably refers to L. Ceionius Commodus (not the Commodus, as a student might infer) = L. Aurelius Verus = L. Aelius Verus Caesar. There are corrections to make in the commentary. Only a portion of the Argiletum was converted into the Forum Nervae (1.2.8). The presence of harundo does not necessarily show that papyrus was the writing-material (1.3.9). In 1.41.10 we have a reference to the man who peddles food 'for the profit' not "for the use" of some popina, i.e. one of the institores of whom Seneca speaks in Epist. 56.2. In 2.5.1 the usage cannot be illustrated by the ablative in 4.54.3. In 2.77.2 isn't the interpretation bona potes esse axungia pinguis es preferable to bonus potes esse axungiator? This is Housman's view", following Ramirez de Prado, and I believe he also correctly explains" 4.69.2 by optima illa vina 13 Pliny's viaticum may correspond rather to the _parting present that a well-to-do tourist may receive to-day. Compare $14, end. 14 What Ramorino, Letteratura Romana, 253, says of Martial ("a vedere con che gusto ritorna su somiglianti motivi e li adorna col lenocinio delle 'arte più fina, difficil mente si può credere alla sua decantata innocenza"), may in my opinion be said also of the restless rover of the Subura (12.18.1). Surely what Oltramore, Les Epigrammes de Martial, 13, says of Martial's verse, lasciva est nobis pagina, vita proba (1.4.8), is just: "ce langage que Catulle et Ovide avaient tenu avant Martial ne saurait innocenter un poete". 15 It may be worth stating that the earlier noted parallelisms between epigrams of Martial and expressions in Seneca have been interestingly increased by Friedrich, Hermes 45 (1910).538-594. 10 Römische Ikonographie, 1.288. 17 Journal of Philology, 30.234. 18 Ibidem, 236. a te posita rumor quidam nobis convivis negat quemadmodum dapes Tantalo negantur; obstat scilicet quominus ea bibere velimus. On 6.28.10 we read: "qui . . . viator: for like mortuary invocations to the passer-by see 10.61.5-6". But this is not to the passer-by. The note on 10.2.1-2 needs a rectification of the date from "Saturnalia of 96" to 'Saturnalia of 95'. In 10.13 (20).3 I suspect that simplicibus has the meaning that the adjective does in 10.62.1, where parce simplici turbae 'whom I have loved from childhood's artless years'. If Claudius Etruscus was eighty at the time of his banishment, and survived his recall, as we learn from Statius Silvae 3.3, it is an error to say in the Commentary on 10.23.2, "In 7.40.6 it may perfectly well be interpreted of a period of four years". Where cereus is used of apples, it means that they are waxen yellow, but not necessarily that they are either "ripe" or "mellow" (10.94.6). Professor Post's note on 11.3.10 directs us to a comment on 8.56, but that epigram is not in the collection. Read 8.55. One might better the English" of 11.84.3-4: "The Phrygian pipes were distinguished from the Lydian and the Dorian measures". In 11.54.1 I fear that we had better assign to the red-headed Zoilus black teeth like those of Thais (5.43.1), i.e. a black mouth, rather than a swarthy complexion. So far from the view of Marquardt, which is adduced on 12.82.4, being substantially that which is published in Transactions of the American Philological Association, 37.126-128, it is there held to be fundamentally wrong, and no one would suspect from Professor Post's words, "published after the above was written", that the article in the Transactions was actually published several years before his edition of Martial appeared. There is nothing on Terentius Priscus in the note on 8.12.3, to which 12.92.1 directs the reader. Certain other points that deserve mention including several that relate to the Critical Appendix cannot be discussed properly here. Professor Post's Martial had already enjoyed more than four years of life, before it was submitted to the reviewer. Its scholarly and pedagogical merits will ensure its continued success as the best edition to use in our College classes, whether of men or women or both. WALTON BROOKS MCDANIEL. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. In addition to the bibliography on palaeography given in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 6.193-194 there may be mentioned an inexpensive and useful collection of facsimiles recently published, under the title, Palaeographia Latina, Exempla Codicum Latinorum phototypice expressa Scholarum maxime in Usum, Series I, edicit Maximilianus Ihm (Teubner, Leip 19 See also 2.57 Introd., where "raise the wind at a pawn shop" may not be so universal a colloquialism as to justify its use. The note on 13.77.1 could be emended by inserting the effect of which is' before "helped", and that on 14.195.1 could be made more accurate by printing 'as being near his birthplace'. zig). The collection is accompanied by a descriptive pamphlet (Enarratio Tabularum). The whole costs only 5 marks ($1.10) and may be imported through G. E. Stechert and Co., 151-155 West 25th Street, New York City. The work provides very satisfactory facsimiles of 25 pages from 22 manuscripts, mainly of classical writers, which illustrate all the important hands from the square capitals to the humanistic. Plate I shows a facsimile of the Augustean manuscript of Vergil (Ribbeck's A), of perhaps the fourth century. Seven leaves only are extant, and, to make them more precious, four are in the Vatican Library, three in Berlin. The page shown is in Berlin; it gives Georgics 1.101-120. Plate II presents two pages (Georgics 1.262-291 and Aen. 9.264-292) of the Medicean Vergil in Florence, the Codex Laurentianus 39, 1, written in rustic capitals. In Plate IX we have a page of the Codex Laurentianus, 68, 6, of Caesar's Bellum Gallicum (2.12), now in Florence, written in the Langobard-Beneventane script. Other writers represented are Cicero (De Inventione), Suetonius, Propertius, Juvenal, Tibullus, Tacitus, Vegetius, Martianus Capella, Aurelius Victor, Historiae Augustae, Isidorus, Augustinus, and Hieronymus. Why did Dido fall in love with Aeneas? Those who are interested in this question will be interested in the answer given by the learned Bishop of Seville, Isidorus, in his Etymologia 9.7.28: In eligendo marito quattuor spectari solent: virtus, genus, pulchritudo, sapientia. Ex his sapientia potentior est ad amoris affectum. Refert haec quattuor Vergilius de Aenea, quod his Dido inpulsa est in amorem eius: Pulchritudine: Quam sese ore ferens! Genere: Credo equidem, nec vana fides, genus esse deorum. Why Aeneas fell in love with Dido, the Bishop does not say, but he does say ($29): Item in eligenda uxore quattuor res impellunt hominem ad amorem pulchritudo, genus, divitiae, mores. This tempts him to make an observation on the conditions in his own age (29): Melius tamen si in ea mores quam pulchritudo quaeratur. Nunc autem illae quaeruntur, quas aut divitiae aut forma, non quas probitas morum commendat. He then adds (30) Ideo autem feminae sub viri potestate consistunt, quia levitate animi plerumque decipiuntur. Unde et aequum erat eas viri auctoritate reprimi. Isidorus wrote at the beginning of the seventh century. What would he have said, if he wrote in the twentieth century? COLLEGE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. EMORY B. LEASE. |