A. Treloar remains convinced (Antichthon vi [1972], 60-62) that he understands why the younger M. Porcius Cato should be placed after Romulus, Numa and ‘Tarquinius’ — and before M. Atilius Regulus, M. Aemilius Scaurus, L. Aemilius Paullus, C. Fabricius Luscinus, M’ Curius Dentatus, M. Furius Camillus, M. Claudius Marcellus and C. Iulius Caesar in a list of Roman men of state and why a poem which fawns upon C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus should mention Cato in an honorific context. His original contentions (Antichthon iii [1969], 45-51) were essentially that Horace thought of Cato as a heros like Hercules, Castor, Pollux, Romulus-Quirinus, Numa and L. Tarquinius Collatinus rather than as a uir like Regulus and the rest and that he expressed such a thought because he ‘never abandoned his loyalty to the lost cause for which he fought in his youth’.

Professor Dunston gives my loosely expressed reference to Horatian scholars the treatment it deserved (above, 56). I ought perhaps to have said ‘scholars whose authority carries great weight with me’ and hoped to show that I was not merely advocating in this respect an eccentric view of my own. In view of what he goes on to say, I hope it will not seem arrogant if I now say that Horace has been a favourite author with me for forty years and that the kind of structure I advocated does seem to me to be an element in his art. In a work of art such a structure must be self-evident, if it is real: otherwise it is likely to be something imposed on the artist by scholars or critics.

Ever since A. W. Schlegel the role of the Sophoclean chorus has been the subject of debate. To him the chorus was ‘the ideal spectator’, by which he meant that it moves at a deeper level than the actors and interprets the meaning of the play to us: it is as Schiller put it, ‘not an individual, but a general reflection’. This might be called one of the extreme views of the role of the chorus; even those who do not take it in general, such as Helg and Helmreich, still see some of the choral odes as a kind of parabasis, in which Sophocles lets the plot go and speaks to us in person. The main candidates are the first stasimon of the Antigone and the second stasimon of the Oedipus Rex. It is not clear whether these ‘messages’ were for posterity or Pericles; in my view these odes are entirely explicable in the dramatic context in which they occur; at least, the burden of proof lies with those who would maintain otherwise.

The administrative framework of a newly annexed Roman province is generally taken to conform to a regular and predictable pattern. The conquering general, with the help of ten commissioners sent from Rome, laid down a basic lex for the new territory; the edict of each successive governor confirmed or modified details of administrative and legal business.

But Roman conquests were often haphazard affairs. A procedure as schematic as this is not, in fact, warranted by our evidence: lex and edict not only resembled each other much more closely, but (as will be argued in this paper) can often be regarded as essentially the same type of ordinance. Their relationship in turn reveals considerable flexibility in Roman provincial rule.

Three articles in recent numbers of this journal have discussed Odes i 12 quem uirum, particularly lines 33-6. In Vol. iii (1969), 48-51, A. Treloar accepts a theory of a ‘triadic’ structure of the ode by which all those persons referred to in stanzas 7-9 (lines 25-36) are to be regarded as ‘heroes’: he further accepts the παρὰδoσις Catonis (35) and suggests that in Tarquini (35) is a reference to L. Tarquinius ‘Collatinus’. In Vol. v (1971), 68-76 H. D. Jocelyn expresses mistrust of such a structure, and after discussing what the words ήρως and heros are capable of meaning argues that Horace may only have been referring to two categories of beings, namely ‘gods’ and ‘men’. He further suggests that the Tarquin referred to is ‘Superbus’. In Vol. vi (1972), 60-2 Treloar responds. From now on these articles will be referred to as T1, J and T2 respectively, with the addition of the appropriate page-number.

The sources which refer to Silvanus and his abortive usurpation are few and varied. They include a secular historian with a military background (Ammianus Marcellinus), a Roman emperor (Julian) and a lesser group composed of secular and ecclesiastical historians, orators and priests. Epigraphical evidence is slight. These sources are not of equal merit or value nor are they in absolute agreement. Indeed, the two major sources, Ammianus and Julian, differ substantially.

This short document from the fourth century gave guidance to students who were getting an education in the tradition of the ancient Greco-Roman schools. Basil came out more strongly than any other early Church theologian in favour of the view that pagan literature, while not being authoritative, could be studied by Christians at school to their advantage. This view held good for many Christians in the Greek-speaking Byzantine world for the next thousand years and was endorsed in the West at the Renaissance when the Address was published in many editions throughout Europe. Leonardo Bruni first translated it into Latin in 1405, and it paved the way for his translation of classical texts, of Demosthenes, Aeschines, Plutarch and Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle.

The purpose of this article is to review the evidence upon the chronology of the Greek attempt under the leadership of King Agis of Sparta to throw off Macedonian domination, on which two totally different views have recently been stated. The date of the war must form the basis of any consideration of the strategic soundness of Agis’ campaign and Alexander’s reaction to it and it is therefore important in any evaluation of Agis and Alexander as generals and statesmen. It is necessary to begin by setting out the evidence in full.

The following notes on two well-known passages of Hellenistic epic, part of Cleanthes’ so-called hymn to Zeus and Aratus’ proem, may be of some interest as affording a detailed comparison of how the poets use, adapt and add to the traditional epic vocabulary and phraseology to convey closely related subject-matter that both belongs to and goes beyond the normal range of epic.

In a speech, delivered early in 59 B.C. and recorded by Dio, Pompey supported Caesar’s agrarian proposal. At the beginning of the speech, as recorded in Dio xxxviii 5. 1-2, Pompey mentioned a proposal, approved by the Senate on a former occasion, which related to the provision of land allotments for his own troops and those of Metellus:

My suggested interpretation of Horace, Odes i 12. 35 has been severely criticized by Professor Jocelyn. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reply.

J. himself agrees that the ancient scholars could not agree which King Tarquin was intended (68 and n. 1): this at least leaves open the possibility that some third Tarquin was meant. This was the possibility I sought to investigate.

J. further agrees that the structure of the whole ode must be considered in interpreting any particular stanza (68, I), but rejects my belief in the triadic structure of this ode, which is not peculiar to this ode and has the support of the majority of Horatian scholars. He offers no alternative analysis of the whole poem.

The use of μέρος in the sense of ‘side’ has long been recognized in the Septuagint. This sense is beyond doubt in numerous passages, as for example Ex. 32. 15 πλάκες λίθιναι καταγεγραμμέναι έξ αμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αυτῶν. In none of these can it be attributed to Hebraism.

It is also recognized in the NT in Eυ. Jo. 21.6 βάλετε εἰṽ τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη του πλοίου τò δίκτυον, and several times in other early Christian literature (Hermas and Eυ. Petr.).

When your friends within and without the A.S.C.S. were invited to contribute to the Festschrift planned in your honour, my Hellenistic Muse blanched at the fields chosen, Cicero and Vergil. It was, moreover, not enough to have new thoughts; they must, at least if the thinker had profited from your guidance at Melbourne both as student and colleague, make an effort to measure up to the quality of that guidance. Now in more co-operative mood my Muse, quae sera tamen respexit inertem, offers you some methodological comments, speculative in the nature of things, but I hope not too remote from a poetic application of your oft-voiced injunction to ‘Follow the argument’, which stood me in good stead from the Phaedo to the De Officiis.

It has been accepted since antiquity that one of the basic principles of the philosophy of Socrates was ‘virtue is knowledge’; that this was so is made abundantly clear by both Plato and Aristotle. It has also been assumed by scholars ancient and modern that Socrates, who believed that in this knowledge lay happiness, spent his life looking for it. In the early dialogues Plato represents Socrates as frequently professing either partial or total ignorance, but as always more or less confidently searching for the truth. The traditional interpretation continues with the belief that somewhere near the time of his first visit to Sicily Plato’s thought began to develop beyond that of his master, and that one of his first advances was his theory of knowledge by recollection, which he developed presumably because of dissatisfaction with Socrates’ ideas on how knowledge could be attained.

Luigi Labruna makes a number of proposals, in his recent Vim fieri veto: alle radici di una ideologia, of considerable importance to both the legal and the political history of the later Republic. The basic theme of the work is the possessory interdict uti possidetis, but in furtherance of his avowed purpose of illuminating the juridical, political, economic and social background to this early possessory remedy the author moves freely and knowledgeably in a number of fields. It is well that it should be so. The delimitation of the boundaries of Roman private law in a purely juridical setting is and will always be an indispensable and rewarding discipline, but it is more and more coming to be realized that the law of a given society needs also to be seen in a wider ambit, not only for the better understanding of the law but also for the better understanding of the society. His successful application of this wider approach to the rather austere problems of the possessory interdicts marks Labruna’s work out as one of considerable significance and merit.

Much of the primary material for the social history of the early Roman empire is inscriptional and an uncomfortably high proportion of this material consists of just names. Names of persons are what we have in abundance and the study of nomenclature at all levels of society is bound to be a most important key to the interpretation of that society.