An overview of Hipparchus’ only surviving book, the Commentary on the Phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus (CPAE), is presented. A brief description of previous editions up to and including that of Karl Manitius (1894) is given. Themes discussed are the work’s cultural and historical setting, and possible motivations for its creation. Also described are its structure and its underlying mathematical basis, together with some aspects of its translation from the Greek text of Manitius into English.

Pindar’s epinician odes feature narrations of mythical events and references to the realm of myth. There has been a long-standing controversy about how to understand the function of myth within, and its relevance to, these songs, with regard to both their semantic coherence and their relation to festal contexts. Starting from general observations and a brief survey of the main narrations, this chapter explores how Pindar’s use of myth can be conceived as contributing to the praise of the victor, the primary aim of the epinician genre. This investigation focuses on direct comparisons between victors and mythical figures, the victor’s genealogy and place of origin, aetiological references to the past, depictions of the mindset of heroes, metaphorical parallelisms between past and present with regard to both the victory and the odes’ performance, and the intertextual dimension. These uses of myth operate less by directly equating agonistic present and mythical past and more by implying a parallel through indirect means, in either case with the aim of situating, and thereby giving meaning to, the agonistic victory within, and often as the pinnacle of, the history of human civilization.

Using tools from translation studies, this chapter seeks to analyse translations of Pindar in both systematic and historical terms. Metre is chosen as an ordering principle because it allows for an easier classification and understanding of various translation strategies that have been deployed (Holmes’ distinction between ‘analogical’, ‘mimetic’, and ‘organic’ strategies for translating metre turns out to be particularly useful here). But the detailed discussion of select translations – by Cowley, Hölderlin, Boeckh, Tycho Mommsen, and a host of more modern translators – automatically leads to other translatorial challenges posed by this poet, (in)famous since antiquity for his grandeur, variety, and difficulty.

The chapter examines some of the multiple and intriguing ways in which Pindar configures and shapes experiences of time, in an attempt to provide a sketch of what we could call ‘Pindaric temporality’. The discussion revolves around the principal temporalities that feature in Pindar’s epinician corpus (human, divine, Hyperborean), laying particular emphasis on their interrelationship and Pindar’s ‘obsession’ with, and positive portrayal of, time. Even though the focus of the chapter is mainly on the victory odes, it also touches on the distinctive temporality of his cult songs.

Pindar is perhaps the most metapoetic of the early Greek poets: his songs constantly refer self-referentially back to their own circumstances, poetics, and the social relationships that they dramatize and exemplify. This chapter examines some typical tropes used by Pindar and (to a lesser extent) other Greek choral poets to reflect on what they as poets and their poems as songs are doing. More broadly, it looks at the metapoetics and implied poetics of early Greek choral song as reflected and systematized in Pindar’s victory odes. The nature of song; the internal form of the poem; the poetics of genre; and the social relationships between poet, audience, and patron that underlie praise poetry are all given brief consideration.

Although from earliest times Greek astronomy had indigenous aspects, such as lunisolar calendars, descriptions of many of the northern constellations, and a variety of geometrical models of the cosmos, it was later increasingly influenced by astronomical practice in the Near East, especially that of Babylon. This influence, whose precise mechanisms of transmission are not well understood, included the development of the zodiac and the importation of its constellations, as well as certain astrological ideas. Within this general context, there were specific influences on Hipparchus. Possibly these included the sexagesimal representation of numbers and refinements to angular measures to include degrees and minutes of arc. More certain is the use he made of the long record of astronomical data that had been compiled by the Babylonians over several centuries.

Book 2 of the CPAE. Risings and settings. The division of the Zodiac. Analysis by the twelve zodiacal signs 1. The Crab (Cancer). The Lion (Leo). The Virgin (Virgo). The Claws (Libra). The Scorpion (Scorpio). The Archer (Sagittarius). Analysis by the twelve zodiacal Signs 2. The Horned Goat (Capricorn). The Water-Pourer (Aquarius). The Fishes (Pisces). The Ram (Aries). The Bull (Taurus). The Twins (Gemini). Risings and settings for latitude 36°. The risings of the northern constellations. The settings of the northern constellations.

Although only one book by Hipparchus is extant, the Commentary on the Phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus (CPAE), it is known from ancient sources that he wrote several others, a few fragments of which survive in quotations from later writers. A reconstructed list of his works is provided, together with a description of their possible contents and scope. In addition, a partial chronological ordering is provided, based on internal and external evidence. Following on from this, a summary discussion of Hipparchus’ achievements is given, covering his work on precession and the length of the year. Also briefly discussed here are his contributions to mathematics and astronomy, which are elaborated in Chapters 5 and 6.

Within the context of Greek astronomy, a part of which saw the subject as being an application of mathematics, Hipparchus seems to have been the first to apply specific techniques to find exact solutions to certain problems. Moreover, like the non-mathematical astronomy exemplified in the poetry of Aratus and in some books by Eudoxus, he was genuinely interested in describing the cosmos as it was observed, and in presenting the details more accurately than had been done hitherto. He developed an effective solar theory and a reasonably good lunar theory which would have enabled him to predict both lunar and solar eclipses. Only in planetary theory was he unable to make much headway owing to the lack of historical data upon which he could draw.

Constantine has such a powerful presence that modern scholars have interpreted obscure inscriptions or even restored fragmentary inscriptions to refer to his reign. These misconceptions should be discarded. For instance, there was no statue of deified Constantine at Stobi, and not all depictions of triumphal arches recalled the Arch of Constantine at Rome.