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 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.

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.

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.:

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.

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);

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:

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.

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: