I found mistakes of quite another kind in the article on “Navis” in the third edition of Smith’s _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_. The article was written by the present Provost of Eton; and, as he was headmaster at the time, he ought to have asked the boys to instruct him in the art of cribbing. He gives himself away by copying the misprints in the books from which he cribbed. On page 219 he cites Plato, _Leges_, iv. p. 507 instead of 707; and there is the same misprint in Cartault, _Trière Athénienne_, page 234. On page 223 he cites Polybius, xx. 85 instead of Diodorus, xx. 85; and there is the same mistake in Graser, _De veterum re navali_, page 53. On the same page he cites Diodorus, 1. 61; and Graser, page 52, has 50, 61 by mistake for 506, 61, which is the reference to the page and line in Hoeschel’s excerpts. On page 217 he prints a passage in Lucian, _Navigium_, 4, and says he took it from Josephus, _Antiquitates_, iv. 8. 37. He took the passage in Lucian from Breusing, _Nautik der Alten_, page 57, and took the reference to Josephus from another passage that Breusing prints on the same page. * * * * * Now and then I make mistakes myself. In my _Ancient Ships_, note 214, I quoted a passage from Procopius, and added, “Apparently the _gonia_ is here the mast-head, as in Herodotus, viii. 122.” I should not have said that, if I had thought of Herodotus, i. 51; but I did not think of it until the book was out. However, it was only a single sentence in the middle of a very long note; and I hoped no harm was done. Some while afterwards I was at the Royal Academy, when the students were being lectured on Greek Sculpture. The lecturer was speaking of the trophy of the Æginetans, as described by Herodotus, viii. 122; and he told them that the grouping of the things was clear, if the _gonia_ was a mast-head, as had lately been suggested. There is no stopping a mistake after it has started. In the preface to my _Ancient Ships_ I gave the history of a blunder that was made by Scheffer in 1654, and is now in four authoritative books of reference. In fact, when I am told that all authorities agree, I feel certain that one of them has blundered, and the rest have followed him without inquiry. Guglielmotti has made a pleasant mistake, which these authorities are sure to copy some day: namely, that Alexander the Great was a distinguished German archæologist of the Nineteenth Century. Graser printed an account of his model of a war-ship of the time of Alexander the Great--“aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen.” Guglielmotti mentions it in his treatise _Delle due Navi Romane, etc._, and says, page 67:--“Non dai condottieri della nuova età, Bernardo Graser ed Alessandro de Grossen, egregi giovani, i quali hanno trattati, etc.”