Otto Schneider, the first editor to use II, wrote , and he has been followed by Gow-Scholfield. The form is used by Antimachus, though not elsewhere by Nicander. Nicander uses tetrasyllabic forms from the stem ; he also uses

Received interpretation. As far as I have been able to determine, all scholars who have dealt with this fragment have followed Plutarch (to whom the preservation of the fragment is due) in holding (i) that and are synonyms for ‘body’ and ‘void’ respectively, and (ii) the purport of the pronouncement is simply that ‘even void has a nature and substantiality of its own’ (). But (i) is included in Aristotle's dictionary of Atomist jargon, while (ii) is put better in the celebrated Fragment 125 . In consequence, Fragment 156 has been deemed more curious than important. Despite the extreme scarcity of Democritean fragments other than moralizings, Kirk and Raven do not even print it. No doubt this assumed unimportance explains why it has not been noticed how unsatisfactory Plutarch's exegesis is.

The question of the source of the pronominal forms (in which Seiva itself is indeclinable), and of the later fully declined forms, presents an unusual situation. It seems clear from earlier work that we should not look for the answer outside Greek, nor probably even outside colloquial Attic Greek of the fifth century. These are strong advantages, but despite them one cannot have much confidence in the solutions so far provided, and there is room for a fresh approach. In addition to this, the usage of the forms does not seem to have been explained satisfactorily, and I shall attempt to clarify it.

None of the emendations proposed so far (cf. Ludwich's apparatus) is satisfactory. As Keydell (cf. his apparatus) reminds us, Ap. Rhod. I. 1205 makes Nonnus' untouchable, and thereby disposes of all the conjectures which would alter these words; consequently, the corruption must be hiding in the impossible .

In 189 B.C. Ennius accompanied Fulvius Nobilior on the Aetolian campaign, which ended in the siege and surrender of Ambracia. He went as a court poet, to the indignation of Cato, and celebrated his patron's achievement in what seems to have been a fabula praetexta, the Ambraci.

This article falls into two parts: the first is an analysis, in the light of my earlier discussions of and of the Homeric usage of and the second, an attempt to show that, as in the case of the effects of Homeric usage persist to a considerable degree in the moral philosophy of Aristotle. In the earlier discussions I have argued that the higher value placed upon the competitive in Greek entails that co-operative relationships, even when valued and necessary, take the form dictated by the more valued qualities, the The most general words to denote co-operative relationships in Greek are and its derivatives: my purpose here is to show how the Homeric usage of these words is related to the Homeric standard and to Homeric society, and to sketch in the outline of a wider discussion, which I hope to be able to fill in later.

Cicero's use of the term is hardly a joke, and has to do with medicine, not logic. He says that his predecessor as governor of Cilicia, App. Claudius Pulcher, is like a doctor whose patient has been transferred to another practitioner, and who takes offence when the new man alters the treatment.

for the Persian occupation … ([Dem.] II. 5)

read the Macedonian occupation … ([Dem.] II. 4)

What is the reality behind the famous phrase, in Demosthenes 2. 6? It is commonly spoken of as a secret treaty, pact, agreement, bargain, or understanding, or as a secret clause or article (all these terms have been used in recent times), between Athens and Philip II of Macedon, at some time between 359 and 357, whereby the Athenians promised to hand over their ally, Pydna, to Philip, in return for his promise to hand over Amphipolis to them.

It seems very commonly agreed that Sappho's wedding-songs display none of the ritual obscenity so frequent in the genre. Thus D. L. Page wrote of fr. i ioa (Lobel-Page) that ‘There is no trace here or elsewhere in Sappho of that ribaldry which was characteristic of the songs recited at this and other stages of Greek wedding-ceremonies’ (Sappho and Alcaeus [Oxford, 1955], p. 120). Similarly Sir Maurice Bowra asserted of fr. 111 (L.-P.) that it is ‘neither bawdy nor exalted, but playful. If the humour is a bit primitive, that is due to tradition, which expected jokes at this level’ (Greek Lyric Poetry [Oxford, 1961], p. 216). On the next page he writes of the songs sung outside the bridal chamber, as distinct from those sung in the procession thither, that ‘Here too Sappho seems to avoid bawdry but is not averse from rather elementary jokes’.

The aim of the following note is to draw attention to certain links between the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina and that of Nero and Octavia. Previous writers have not, so far as I know, dealt fully with the implications of these marriages, especially when they are seen in the light of the Silanus affair of A.D. 48–49. In each case, it will be argued here, Claudius may have been impressed by Greek precedents.

The short hymn to Hypnos at the opening of the first komrnos of the Philoctetes is of particular interest in view of Sophocles' association with the cult of Asclepius.

As suggested by the invocation the hymn is in fact intended to recall the paean, a form of liturgy with which Sophocles' audience must have become increasingly familiar in the years since the introduction in 420/19 of the Asclepius cult. Indeed if we are to judge by inscriptional and other remains the output of hymns for the cult of the healing gods from the fifth century onwards must have been a prolific one and considerably in excess of that for other deities in the same period. It is well known that amongst the earliest writers of hymns for the cult was Sophocles himself. The Suda in the list of his works records one of which at least, a paean to Asclepius, was known as late as the second and third centuries A.D. Probably this is not to be identified with the Sophoclean paean on the Sarapion monument of the same period, which in so far as the extremely fragmentary state of the inscription will allow us to determine would seem to be addressed not to Asclepius himself but to his mother Coronis.