Euxitheus son of Thoucritus was struck off the lexiarchicon grammateion (or roll) of the deme Halimous (the Halimousioi), probably in the diapsephisis (revision) of 346/5 B.C. Speech 57 in the Demosthenic corpus (against Euboulides) is his reply to the demarch at the hearing of his appeal. This paper attempts (1) to correct the stemma given for him in J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C., pp. 94–5

In the twentieth century the question of the relationship of Terence's Heautontimorumenos to its Greek original has been largely neglected or else dismissed on the grounds that it presents no major problem. It is true that, because of the new light which the discovery of the Cairo codex of Menander shed on the nature and role of the chorus in Greek new comedy, there was a flurry of activity concerning the difficult passage 167 ff.; but the far more fundamental problem of contaminatio in general and of the meaning and interpretation of lines 4 to 6 of the play's prologue has attracted comparatively little attention. H. Marti produced a two-part survey of work done on Terence in the years 1909 to 1959; in it he says that in the period under review the question of contaminatio in Heauton–in the sense of the fusion of two originals –has been totally abandoned, with the exception of one article by F. Skutsch in which he holds to his earlier views on the subject. Marti also refers to Kohler's earlier work on the same problem, and to the discussion to be found in Kuiper's more comprehensive work on Roman comedy, but that is all.

The expression transuersa tuentibus hircis has been liable to misunderstanding. Conington, Sidgwick, and Page offer no comment; Perret is puzzled; Coleman explains ‘either literally “peeping out of the corner of their eyes” or figuratively “looking askance”; cf. Greek This was too much even for the lusty goats …’; others, e.g. Holtorf, detect humour in the words. A more realistic view was taken by some earlier editors (cf. Forbiger), who saw in the sidelong looks of the goats a sign of envy and desire;

In Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society N.S. 14 (1968), 68, D. C. C. Young drew attention to a curious variant in the text of Longus 2.2.1, where, in a description of how, at the vintage, women ‘eyed’ Daphnis, A has concluding that ‘brothers’ must be a colloquial expression for ‘eyes’, he was however unable to cite any other example of this usage, but compared ‘picked men’, in Paulus Silentiarius (A.P. 5. 270), a locution found in a small range of other authors (Sophron, Callimachus, and Nicander, and in a number of lexicographers), as well as ‘comrades on the flank, bystanders’ ‘twins’ = testicles, and French jumelles - binoculars.

The subject is in both cases the voyage of the Argo, and therefore the use of the same words is not likely to be coincidental, even though the words themselves are scarcely uncommon. One would hesitate to deny, however, that such reminiscence might be unconscious; that Lucan had famous tags in his head is suggested by another allusion to famous opening lines:

These lines from the second book of the Aeneid introduce the night on which Troy falls. They have always been felt to be impressive: rich in allusion, noteworthy for the monosyllabic ending of the first line, and memorable for the majestic zeugma of the last two lines. Line 250 opens by incorporating a half line from Ennius:

vertitur interea caelum cum ingentibus signis (Ann. 211)

and closes with a near-translation of the substance (as well as the rhythm) of a half-line from Homer:

It used to be a commonplace that Bacchylides made profligate use of epithets to adorn his poetry, and not always in an appropriate fashion. More recently, there has been a healthy reaction against this attitude, with attempts to seek more subtle relationships between epithets and the contexts in which they occur. Recent study of poem 17 has concentrated on the conflict of character between Theseus and Minos, and the structure of the Ode, but the epithets have received some attention.

Claudian compares Eutropius in his consular robes to a monkey, dressed in silk to amuse dinner guests, but with his buttocks bare (Eutr. 1.300–8). The situation has not failed to attract the notice of scholars. Christiansen and Fargues called attention to the striking and original use of the monkey-simile (though the latter notes that the monkey itself is a banal subject for similes, and compares Juvenal 10.194). Alan Cameron has suggested that the present example is drawn from life: ‘Who can doubt that this was a typical dinner divertissement in the elegant circles of Claudian's day-or at least one Claudian himself had witnessed?’ He cites E. R. Curtius's assertion that metaphorical apes are uncommon in ancient literature (as opposed to medieval); that may be relatively true, but when Demosthenes is entitled to address his opponent as similar licence in subsequent invective is unlimited.

(1) I do not think it is possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that the two slaves who open the play either must have been, or cannot have been, visually identifiable by portrait-masks or otherwise as Demosthenes and Nikias. I wish however to point out a piece of evidence that appears to have gone unnoticed.

‘Ist die zweite Stelle des Satzes bereits durch ein anderes Enklitikon besetzt, so tritt enim auch in klassischer Prosa oft an die 3. und 4. Stelle zurück’ (Hofmann-Szantyr). How often, and in what circumstances, does enim in Cicero occupy any place but the second? The answer to this question is sometimes relevant to the establishment of the text.

And the answer is: there are many instances which fall into categories A and B below; in all other categories, C-G below, there are comparatively few.

Part I examines various readings about which there persists editorial or other disagreement, Part II argues that six couplets are not from Ovid's hand. The lemmata give the reading of the Oxford Classical Text (Kenney, 1961/5), followed by the rejected variants and any conjectures. ‘Goold’ = G. P. Goold, ‘Amatoria Critica’, HSCP 69 (1965), 1–107. ‘Geisler’ = H. J. Geisler, P. Ovidius Naso Rentedia Amoris mit Kommentar zu Vers 1–396 (Inaugural Dissertation, Berlin, 1969). Normally only the principal manuscripts are cited individually.

In Metaphysics Z 13 Aristotle argues that no universal can be substance. Prima facie, this appears to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substance, species as well as genera. Nevertheless, many commentators have denied that this chapter intends to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substantial. Aristotle, it is thought, cannot wish to deny that any universal can be substance because he believes that some universals are substances, viz. species.

If we divide up the action of the Odyssey into days,1 we find that we leaveTelemachus with Menelaus in Sparta on Day 6 (4. 624) and only return to him, still in Sparta, during the pre-dawn hours of Day 36 (15. 1), although at 4. 593–9 he told Menelaus he did not want to stay long.

Presumably it is common ground that this verb has in addition to the basic sense ‘recognize’ the derivative sense ‘oread’, and that one must judge from the context whether reading to one or more other people, or private reading, is meant. The reading of the text of a law to a jury at an orator's request is marked by the circumstances themselves as public reading; so is the reading of the Athenian decree to the Mitylenaeans in Thucydides. When Theaetetus answers in the affirmative the question whether he has read the book of Protagoras which contains the statement that man is the measure of all things (); or when it is asked ‘Why is it that some people, if they begin to read, are overcome by sleep even against their will, whereas others wishing to be overcome by sleep are kept awake by taking up a book?’ Evidently what is intended is reading in the privacy of one's own room. When Socrates in the Phaedo says that he heard a person reading from Anaxagoras and eagerly took the book home to read (97 B-98 B), both senses are found within a few pages.

Translation at this stage would be premature, but three variants in line 3 deserve notice, (a) Bury (iii.394) writes (b) Natorp (p. 292), followed by Brochard (p. 62 n. 4), suggested (which would yield a meiouric line), (c) Wachsmuth (p. 22) prints a colon instead of a comma after

It is not surprising that line 3 has attracted emendation. As it stands, it lacks a verb and has to modify an understood existential

In Aeneid 7. 1–285 Vergil colours his picture of early Latium with a religious atmosphere which can be fully appreciated only if these verses are read with an attentive awareness of Roman religious beliefs and practices. A detailed exegesis of all 285 verses would hardly be possible here, and I will limit myself to two major points, the account of Latinus' ancestry (45–9) and the description of the royal palace (170–91), both because these passages are interesting in themselves for the way they apparently contradict each other, and because they are good illustrations of how Vergil draws on the data of Roman religion, both its folklore and its cult, to fix in his reader's mind certain definite impressions about Latinus and the Latins.

The papyrus fragments that belong almost certainly to Sophocles' Inacbos (P.Oxy. 2369 and P. Tebt. 692) have been admirably discussed by Pfeiffer andCarden.1 But one remarkable feature that has never been explained adequatelyis the apparent reference to a black Zeus. P. Oxy. 2369 contains a fragmentarydescription of a stranger turning Io into a cow with a touch of his hand and thenleaving the palace.

The most recent attempt to explain Aristotle's use of in Poetics 13 is that of T. C. W. Stinton (CQ N.S. 25 (1975), 221–54). Stinton insists that must not be restricted to any one definition, but should be understood to include a ‘range of applications’ embracing both moral error and ‘ignorance of fact’ (p. 221).