Three contributions have been made recently to the understanding of the house of Odysseus. In 1949 Professor L. R. Palmer1 revived the theory that a door at the back of the megaron led into the womena's quarters, a two-storied building with storerooms on the ground floor and stairs leading up to Penelope's rooms. ‘If only we resist the temptation to use Mycenaean palaces as the mise-en-scène for Homer's story’ (p. III), we recognize a house type which was widely diffused over the Indo-European world from Neolithic to medieval times.

Tr.: ‘Zeus, whoe'er he be, if so to be called is pleasing to him, thus do I name him—I have naught, when I weigh all things in the balance, to count their equal, save Zeus if it behoves me to strike truly this vain burden born of anxiet

‘He that at the outset was great, flourishing with all-conquering boldness, will not stay to accomplish anything; he, as soon as he was born, met his conqueror and is gone. But a man who willingly hails Zeua as victor will achieve wisdom in full measure—

This article deals with four almost classic problems in Anaximander. of these the first is of comparatively minor importance, and the second is important not for what Anaximander thought but for what Aristotle thought he thought. Problem i is: Did Anaximander describe his as ? Problem 2: Did Aristotle mean Anaximander when he referred to people who postulated an intermediate substance ? Problem 3: Did Anaximander think that there were innumerable successive worlds? Problem 4: What is the extent and implication of the extant fragment of Anaximander? Appended is a brief consideration of the nature of Theophrastus' source-material for Anaximander; on one's opinion of this question the assessment of the last two problems will clearly depend.

IN the first part of this paper we discussed R and the y family, which divides into the two groups v (VE) and Φ (AT). Before leaving the y family, however, we may consider some of the recentiores, nearly all of which belong within it. They seem to contain no genuine tradition unknown to their elders and betters; so it is not proposed to inflict on the reader a detailed account of them all, but rather to study a representative selection.

These manuscripts consist of an uninterpolated and an interpolated group: the latter group includes also the Aldine edition.

In an interesting article entitled ‘XOPOY in the Plutus’ Mr. E. W. Handley questions the accuracy of some observations of mine on this subject, and complains of my ‘failure to state facts’. He quotes my remark that ‘the editors freely insert () in the Plutus; but, according to Weissinger (p. 51), the only example afforded by the MSS. is after 770; and here there is no lapse of time’. I added in a footnote that R inserts XOPOY after line 801, according to the Oxford text. Handley's own researches have shown him that R has KOMMATION XOPOY between 770 and 771, and that R has inserted XOPOY between 801 and 802.

It was at one time almost universally believed, and is still believed by some scholars, that Thucydides cannot have written his account of the Pentekontaetia (I. 89–118. 2) before his return from exile because he refers in it (97. 2) to the of Hellanicus, in which an event belonging to the year 407/6 was mentioned. This argument in favour of a late date for the composition of the excursus has been disputed and is now much less widely supported. It has been suggested that the reference to Hellanicus in 97. 2, or the whole of that section, was added by Thucydides to a part of his work written much earlier, or that an edition of the including an account of the Pentekontaetia may have been published long before 406 and the work have been subsequently continued.

A lyrical variation on vv. 27–30, the present passage is, at the same time, a new version of Hec. 631–7. A comparison is instructive in various respects, but Hel. 27 f. will not be quoted in justification of what L gives in vv. 236 f. This wording raises the following objections: (a) the last word, , is outside the metre and not easily attached to the following colon, the beginning of which naturally coincides with the new sentence and new idea If, then, is obelized—and this seems unavoidable—the words

Several explanations have already been put forward to account for the origin of the use of and with the subjunctive (and occasionally the optative) in indefinite relative, temporal, and conditional clauses in Greek. Therefore, before I add one more to them, it is necessary for me to give the reasons which there are for thinking that the views already put forward are unsatisfactory, and that a new explanation is required.

Professor Beare has attacked the position established by Alfred Körte in 1893 and accepted in large measure by Sir Arthur Pickard-Cambridge in Dithyramb, etc., and Festivals. The following reply is brief because I have dealt with the works of art at some length in Rylands Bulletin, xxxvi (1954), 563 f. and in a forthcoming number of Ephemeris Archaiologike.

The statement of Aristotle (Poet., ch. 4). I have tried to show that various elements in the ‘phallic performances’ were taken over by comedy and that we have some evidence that the leaders of padded dancers wore the phallos.

Modern scholars have been concerned with the hostility shown to Alexander by the Hellenistic schools of philosophy. Two literary portraits have been distinguished, the Peripatetic and the Stoic, the former deriving from Theophrastus' book on Callisthenes, or starting with this work the Peripatetics worked out a theory of and applied it to Alexander, in order to belittle his achievements. It was a case of giving sophisticated expression to the kind of crude resentment expressed by Demades.

The surviving textual tradition of the Topics and Elenchi down to A.D. 1503 includes, as far as we know:

Greek texts: (a) a small papyrus fragment, c. A.D. 100; (b) over a hundred Greek manuscripts, from c. A.D. 900 onwards; (c) the Aldine ‘editio princeps’, A.D. 1495; (d) commentaries, paraphrases, and scholia; notably: Alexander of Aphrodisias on Top., c. A.D. 200; John Italos on Top. 2–4, 11th century; Michael of Ephesus on EL, 11th century; Sophonias on EL., c.,. A.D. 1300; Leo Magentenus on Top., 14th century;

Metrical scholia to the Agamemnon appear in the manuscripts commonly called F (Laurentianus XXXI. 8) and Tr (Farnesianus Neapolitanus II F 31)— also in G (Venetus Marcianus 663), but these are the same as some of those in F and are of interest only at one point (see below, C). In the lyrical passages these scholia are of two types, which I shall call ‘long’ and ‘short’; Professor Eduard Fraenkel, who prints illustrative examples, has pointed out the distinction (Aeschylus: Agamemnon, 1950, i, pp. 16–21). ‘Long’ scholia give a comparatively full description of the metre of the passage to which they refer: they state adequately the number and order of the cola, classified according to the metrical system which Demetrius Triclinius learnt from Hephaestion's work.

Tacitus' use and adaptation of phrases from earlier Latin writers is well known. By this means he adds to his own context something of the atmosphere belonging to the context from which the phrase is borrowed. So, for example, when at Ann. 4. 1 he describes Seianus in language modelled on Sallust's description of Catiline (c. 5), the reader is immediately made aware that he is to expect Seianus to display the same resolute villainy that Catiline had shown