IN Od. 10. 81–86 we read: ‘On the seventh day we came to the steep city of Lamos … where herdsman bringing in his charge hails herdsman taking his charge out, and he who takes them out returns the greeting. There might a sleepless man have earned a double wage, as cowman for the one part, as shepherd of white sheep for the other. For close ‹together› are the paths of night and day.’

A. ScT 803–21 are a notorious crux, which has received very varied treatment from editors without any clear solution of the problem emerging.

A widely favoured version follows that of Weil, and disposes the lines as follows: 803–4 –6–7 ( (Heimsöth) or (Dindorf))–8–9–io (Porson))–ll ( (Hartung))–21–I2 … 19– [20]. We may be able to concede the arbitrary transpositions of 805 and 821, since it is likely enough that the text is substantially disordered; more serious, however, are the inherent weaknesses in Weil's rearrangement:

Phaedra's long speech is one of the most important elements in Euripides’ most intricate play; we may confidently assume that with his surpassing interest in women and in rhetoric the dramatist will have lavished more than usual pains upon it. Interpretation of it has suffered in the past from false preconceptions and lexicological imprecision; the nature of the speech is such that we can be led far astray by a small misjudgement of the connotation (whether for Phaedra or the audience) of such words as at the same time there are some profoundly significant variants in the manuscripts, and it will be argued that the text of 405–12 has suffered from ancient garbling and interpolation. In the following discussion I am everywhere indebted to W. S. Barrett's commentary, whose detailed approach at least draws attention to numerous difficulties that have been hitherto neglected, but the conclusions reached differ radically from his.

Philocleon's dance in the exodus of the Wasps, and its allusions to, and caricatures of, contemporary composers or dancers, have often been discussed, and much is bound to remain inconclusive in view of the dubious nature of such scanty material as has survived in explanation of the scene in the scholiastic tradition. It is particularly unfortunate that it is not certain who is the Phrynichus referred to in 1490 ff.:

In the present paper I shall investigate how far the employment of the vocative in Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica and in Callimachus' Hymns i–iv complies with the Homeric usage as elucidated by Scott. For Apollonius, the relevant attestations have been listed, but hardly analysed, by Gildersleeve and Miller in A.J.P. xxiv (1903), 197–9; the Callimachean material has never been examined, as far as I know.

First of all, however, it will be useful to fill a gap in our knowledge and supplement Scott's data by surveying the use of the vocative in the Homeric Hymns i–v. My survey has led me to the following results:

It is more than half a century since P. Boudreaux equipped the Cynegetka of the Syrian author now sometimes called Pseudo-Oppian with a proper text and apparatus criticus. The Halieutica of Oppian is still without either. Onemight think the latter poem hardly worth the aureus for every line with which Marcus Aurelius is reported in the Life of the author to have rewarded it, or hesitate to say, with St Jerome, that O. Alieutica miro splendore conscripsit, but it is better constructed and far better written than the Cynegetica; it was more admired by later poets, and some might account it the more interesting poem. It would appear from R. Keydell's survey of Oppianic literature down to 1929 that R. Vári published between 1908 and 1926 in Hungarian journals and an Italian Festschrift some papers on the manuscripts of Hal.;

In all texts of the fragments of Parmenides printed in the last fifty years he begins his poem by speaking of ‘the way which’ (or, according to some, ‘the goddess who’) ‘carries through all towns the man who knows’ (). The more percipient critics have realized that is difficult or impossible to defend, for it makes no good sense and is incompatible with 1. 27, according to which the way is . In fact , which is alleged to be the reading of the best manuscript of Sextus' books Adversus Dogmaticos, has no manuscript authority at all.

The following discussion' of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv originated in an examination of the tradition of the fragments of Parmenides. It is therefore illustrated not only from Simplicius but particularly from the texts of Parmenides quoted by him. This will not be misleading, since, though many of these texts are quoted by Simplicius more than once, there is little or no sign in any manuscript of interpolation from one passage to another and it is not likely that any scribe could have interpolated the text from an independent manuscript of Parmenides.

It may not occur to a modern reader of the Poetics to think that Aristotle is drawing contrasts between poetry and oratory. But there is one aspect of tragedy which must have forced him to think of a contrast with oratory, especially forensic oratory, even though he seems to make no special effort to draw it to the reader's attention. This is the matter of characterization. He does not believe that it is the purpose of tragedy to illustrate character; he says that action, not ethical quality, is the of tragedy, that action and plot are what matter most and that action is not subordinate to character-representation.

The present better understanding of the Logistai Inscription (I.G. i2. 324), both mathematical and calendrical, justifies the presentation of a new continuous text and some comment upon it. The inscription is well cut with a stoichedon pattern of 75 or 74 letters per line. The change from 75 to 74 letters occurs somewhere between line 69 and line 75; in the upper half of the stone (approximately) there were normally six letters to the right of the preserved post-Classical edge, and in the lower half there were never more than five.

At the end of the last section we anticipated the concluding page of the argument, where Plato makes the soul imperishable, as well as not-dead, and where he describes finally the soul's withdrawal at the approach of death. For the conclusion that the soul never admits death, and is in that sense was probably in Plato's eyes the heart of the argument. The final page, we shall argue, will have seemed to Plato in some ways less important, and even something of an embarrassment.

Of these lines Markland wrote in 1728 (on Statius, S. 5. 3. 8) ‘patet ignari cuiusdam et barbari interpolatoris esse’; Dr. Trapp in 1735 found them ‘in themselves flat, and improper, and altogether unworthy of Virgil’; ‘in his ipsis miror qui factum sit ut Viri Doctissimi non agnouerint orationis uim et elegantiam’ (Wagner, 1832); ‘finding in them … all Virgil's usual ease and suavity … [we] hail those verses with joy, and reinstate them in their rightful … position as the commencing verses of the great Roman epic’ (Henry, 1873); ‘uersus praeclarissimos iniuria poeta abiudicauerunt editores plerique’ (Hirtzel, OGT, 1901);

As we read these lines we are inevitably reminded of the old adage ab love principium, . Horace here conforms to the ancient precept, as many other poets, at least since Pindar, had done before him. But in his works as a whole, and in the first collection of Odes as a whole, he begins not with Jupiter but with his patron Maecenas.3 Perhaps, therefore, Horace's own practice may help to justify the division of this Horatian article into two separate but interdependent parts of which the first takes Maecenas as its starting-point while the second is concerned with Jupiter and with Augustus, his vicegerent on earth.

It has been the fate of Corippus' Iohannis to survive in one manuscript, the fourteenth-century Trivultianus, and to find one competent editor. The first edition of the Iohannis was published in 1820 by P. Mazzucchelli. It contained a few notes, in content mainly geographical and ethnographical and useless for the interpretation of the text; it remains the only commentary in existence.

In the course of a wider study of stylistic development in Cicero's speeches1 an examination was conducted into the clausal and phrasal structure of a chronological cross-section of the speeches. The examination revealed some clearly distinguishable developments in the orator's maturing style.

This paper is restricted to an examination of one aspect of his stylistic development, namely his use of abundantia of phrases. The term abundantia has a long history, but in Cicero's rhetorical treatises it is almost synonymous with amplitudo and copia.

The groundwork for a reliable edition of Seneca's tragedies was done fifty years ago by three men who died in the First World War: C. E. Stuart, T. Düring and W. Hoffa. Yet no complete edition since has taken full account of their work. It is even now not widely enough known that the papers of all three are readily available; Stuart's papers (dissertation, handwritten notes, and collations) are now in Trinity College Library, Cambridge,2 and those of Hoffa and Düring (including a draft apparatus to all the tragedies except Oedipus and most of Phaedra) are in Göttingen University Library.3 Stuart's work has lain in particular obscurity, and for my work on the tradition I have given especial attention to it.

(1) laudationem ferculum est insecutum plane non pro expectatione magnum: novitas tamen omnium convertit oculos. (2) rotundum enim repositoriurr duodecim habebat signa in orbe disposita, super quae proprium convenien. temque materiae structor imposuerat cibum: (3) super arietem cicer arietinum, super taurum bubulae frustum, super geminos testiculos ac rienes, supei cancrum coronam, super leonem ficum Africanam, super virginem steriliculam (4) super libram stateram in cuius altera parte scriblita erat, in altera placenta super scorpionem † pisciculum marinum, super sagittarium oclopetam, supei capricornum locustam marinam,† super pisces duos mullos. (5) in medio autem caespes cum herbis excisus favum sustinebat.

By the end of the Republic the Bay of Naples had become a preferred setting for the pleasure villas of wealthy Romans, a centre of fashion and of cultivated ease. The villa of C. Marius at Misenum, though not the first of which we hear, is the earliest coastal Campanian estate whose appointments are explicitly described as having been luxurious. In an epistle of Seneca (Ep. 51. 11) Marius is said to have built the villa, and on a height; of the location Seneca says, vaguely, in regione Baiana, for the subject of the epistle is the depravity of Baiae, and the author took pleasure in contrasting the character of the early villas in the area with the moral decadence of the imperial resort; the elder Pliny locates the site of Marius' villa more precisely: in Misenensi. From Plutarch's somewhat fuller account come a first indication of date, a different impression of architectural character, and the names of two subsequent owners of the property. He states that after the Social War, when Sulpicius proposed Marius, others Sulla, for command in the Mithridatic War, the detractors of Marius urged him to look after his failing health and to go to the warm baths at Baiae:

In a previous article (C.Q. N.S. xv [1965], 281 ff.) I argued that the promulgatio trinundinum, regularly necessary before a vote in a legislative assembly, an election, or a iudicium populi during the late Roman Republic, was not the declaration of an interval of time (either seventeen or twenty-four days) but a publication of the proposed business which had to be made over three market-days or nundinae. These market-days occurred continuously at eight-day intervals, and no fresh start was made at the beginning of a year or other period. So the identification of nundinae near the time when a law or other piece of public business was being transacted should provide evidence for or against my view, and further, if this view is sound, suggest more precisely the dates on which certain events occurred.