It will be seen that has twofold prosodic value: in passage (I) it equals but in the others

It is usual to connect the word with Alc, Pind. i.e. Lejeune, Traité de phon. grecque, p. 155note), thus following a lead given by Hesychius This is indeed the only suggestion advanced in the respective etymological dictionaries of Boisacq, Hofmann, and Frisk, and by Seiler (Lex.frühgriech. Epos); though all but Seiler express more or less of doubt, particularly on the ground of meaning.

Under 336/5 Diodorus records: Of such a Common Peace prompted by Persia Xenophon gives no hint. After recording the failure of the Theban attempt to summon a Congress at Thebes to swear a peace on the basis of the terms negotiated by Pelopidas at Susa, he goes on to record negotiations where by certain allies of Sparta made peace with Thebes, but his account contains no mention of either Persia or Athens. To his narrative the Archidamus of Isocrates seems to fit. The imagined scene of the speech is the last meeting of the Peloponnesian League; Corinth, Phlius, and Epidaurus are seeking Sparta's permission for them to make peace with Thebes, the very situation that Xenophon speaks of, and, at first sight, it seems that only those cities are involved. There is thus a serious conflict in the evidence, and for over half a century scholars have been unable to agree as to which account to choose. Most have declared in favour of Diodorus, primarily on the ground that his source (or sources) is more trustworthy than Xenophon, but some remain sceptical and the subject has recently been re-examined by Ryder, who has concluded that, where Xenophon is so full and precise, there is no justification for preferring the brief notice of Diodorus. A resolution of this question would be of great assistance to understanding the 360's, and it is the purpose of this article to advance considerations in support of Diodorus.

The hollow peristasis at Segesta presents two interrelated problems. The question of how Greek temples were constructed, and whether the method generally used was applied to the structure at Segesta, depends to some extent for its answer upon the Segestans' motives for building. And the problem of motive is affected by considerations of architectural method. Neither problem appears to have been fully discussed in the light of the other. The result is that at the moment the prevailing views of either problem stand quite unconnected. Thus while many scholars accept the structure as the sole surviving member of a projected scheme to build a complete temple, the theory is now widely held that it was meant to serve merely as a hellenizing decorative element round an Elymian shrine or open-air altar, and so, that the Segestans' interest in Greek temple-architecture was purely superficial.

Professor Richmond's reply (C.Q. N.S. viii. 180–4) t o m y article on Palatine Apollo (C.Q. N.S. vi. 187–92) is argued with his usual enthusiasm and cogency. This reply to him, which has been delayed by my departure for Australia, must begin with an expression of the respect that I feel for an antagonist far more able and experienced than I can claim to be. Indeed, it was while lecturing on Ovid, Tristia 3 that I first met Professor Richmond's masterly article on the Augustan Palatium (J.R.S. iv [1914], 193–226). From this article my enthusiasm for the subject began, and I know that Professor Richmond has always welcomed discussion and argument about the famous Augustan temple of Apollo on the Palatine. I can but join him in urging any who may have been interested by our discussion to study his original article which contains much more besides a discussion of the site of Apollo's temple.

The Octavia is, on the face of it, one of the most bizarre documents which have reached us from antiquity. If the news of its discovery had broken yesterday, there would certainly have been a sensation at the bare idea, whatever the literary merits of the work. A few years ago the publication of a 15-line fragment of a Greek play about Gyges caused discussion enough; but here we have a complete Roman historical play, unlike any other ancient play in structure, featuring Nero, Octavia, Poppaea, Seneca. …