If we divide up the action of the Odyssey into days,1 we find that we leaveTelemachus with Menelaus in Sparta on Day 6 (4. 624) and only return to him, still in Sparta, during the pre-dawn hours of Day 36 (15. 1), although at 4. 593–9 he told Menelaus he did not want to stay long.

The papyrus fragments that belong almost certainly to Sophocles' Inacbos (P.Oxy. 2369 and P. Tebt. 692) have been admirably discussed by Pfeiffer andCarden.1 But one remarkable feature that has never been explained adequatelyis the apparent reference to a black Zeus. P. Oxy. 2369 contains a fragmentarydescription of a stranger turning Io into a cow with a touch of his hand and thenleaving the palace.

Herodotus' extension of tisis from a merely ethical principle to an encompassing law of nature is now widely recognized. The unjust expulsion of Demaratus from the Spartan kingship obtains its clear revenge from both Leotychidas and Cleomenes (6.72.1, 84.3). Hipparchus' vision of a giant prophet who announces the universal penalty for human injustice (5.56.1) embodies a statement of the ethical law which Herodotus sees operating in the realm of animals as well as of men: for any act of injustice one must pay the penalty, (3.109.2). Herodotus similarly analyses the Persians' aim at Salamis: they sought to force the Greeks to ‘pay t n e penalty’ for the Greek success at Artemision (8.76.2, ).

The basis of this article is a reconsideration of some old and familiar problems about Aristophanes' early career. In the course of trying to supply firm solutions to these problems I hope also to present evidence for an early and inconspicuous stage in Aristophanes' development as a comic dramatist, and as a reflection on the resulting picture I shall make some general observations on ou understanding of the relationship between the various activities involved in the creation of a comic production in the fifth-century theatre. Practically all the material I shall deal with comes from the plays themselves, and I should state at the start that I both work with and hope to justify the principle that Aristophai disingenuousness does not normally operate where hard facts of chronology, law and theatrical conditions are concerned.

(1) I do not think it is possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that the two slaves who open the play either must have been, or cannot have been, visually identifiable by portrait-masks or otherwise as Demosthenes and Nikias. I wish however to point out a piece of evidence that appears to have gone unnoticed.

Euxitheus son of Thoucritus was struck off the lexiarchicon grammateion (or roll) of the deme Halimous (the Halimousioi), probably in the diapsephisis (revision) of 346/5 B.C. Speech 57 in the Demosthenic corpus (against Euboulides) is his reply to the demarch at the hearing of his appeal. This paper attempts (1) to correct the stemma given for him in J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C., pp. 94–5

The most recent attempt to explain Aristotle's use of in Poetics 13 is that of T. C. W. Stinton (CQ N.S. 25 (1975), 221–54). Stinton insists that must not be restricted to any one definition, but should be understood to include a ‘range of applications’ embracing both moral error and ‘ignorance of fact’ (p. 221).

In Metaphysics Z 13 Aristotle argues that no universal can be substance. Prima facie, this appears to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substance, species as well as genera. Nevertheless, many commentators have denied that this chapter intends to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substantial. Aristotle, it is thought, cannot wish to deny that any universal can be substance because he believes that some universals are substances, viz. species.

Translation at this stage would be premature, but three variants in line 3 deserve notice, (a) Bury (iii.394) writes (b) Natorp (p. 292), followed by Brochard (p. 62 n. 4), suggested (which would yield a meiouric line), (c) Wachsmuth (p. 22) prints a colon instead of a comma after

It is not surprising that line 3 has attracted emendation. As it stands, it lacks a verb and has to modify an understood existential

In the twentieth century the question of the relationship of Terence's Heautontimorumenos to its Greek original has been largely neglected or else dismissed on the grounds that it presents no major problem. It is true that, because of the new light which the discovery of the Cairo codex of Menander shed on the nature and role of the chorus in Greek new comedy, there was a flurry of activity concerning the difficult passage 167 ff.; but the far more fundamental problem of contaminatio in general and of the meaning and interpretation of lines 4 to 6 of the play's prologue has attracted comparatively little attention. H. Marti produced a two-part survey of work done on Terence in the years 1909 to 1959; in it he says that in the period under review the question of contaminatio in Heauton–in the sense of the fusion of two originals –has been totally abandoned, with the exception of one article by F. Skutsch in which he holds to his earlier views on the subject. Marti also refers to Kohler's earlier work on the same problem, and to the discussion to be found in Kuiper's more comprehensive work on Roman comedy, but that is all.

‘Ist die zweite Stelle des Satzes bereits durch ein anderes Enklitikon besetzt, so tritt enim auch in klassischer Prosa oft an die 3. und 4. Stelle zurück’ (Hofmann-Szantyr). How often, and in what circumstances, does enim in Cicero occupy any place but the second? The answer to this question is sometimes relevant to the establishment of the text.

And the answer is: there are many instances which fall into categories A and B below; in all other categories, C-G below, there are comparatively few.

The expression transuersa tuentibus hircis has been liable to misunderstanding. Conington, Sidgwick, and Page offer no comment; Perret is puzzled; Coleman explains ‘either literally “peeping out of the corner of their eyes” or figuratively “looking askance”; cf. Greek This was too much even for the lusty goats …’; others, e.g. Holtorf, detect humour in the words. A more realistic view was taken by some earlier editors (cf. Forbiger), who saw in the sidelong looks of the goats a sign of envy and desire;

In Satires 1.1 Horace asks the question why people are discontented and praise the fortunes of others, and he gives the answer that they are greedy. The precise connection between question and answer is however far from clear, and some commentators have felt that Horace has combined two separate themes of avarice and discontent without establishing a causal link between them. The great obstacle for critics who argue for thematic unity is to explain how it is that the malcontents of 1–19 are motivated by greed, for Horace is not explicit but merely asserts baldly that it is so (108–9), and leaves the reader to work out the logic. The direct method is to identify to some degree praise of the fortunes of others with an envious desire to outstrip them in wealth. In support we may quote two of the most influential recent interpreters of the Satires, to whom all interested in the poems owe a great debt: ‘It is avaritia that is at the bottom of the misguided yearning after other men's lot. All those people would not be prepared to have a change; rather will they, out of greed, put up with any toil or danger.’

In Aeneid 7. 1–285 Vergil colours his picture of early Latium with a religious atmosphere which can be fully appreciated only if these verses are read with an attentive awareness of Roman religious beliefs and practices. A detailed exegesis of all 285 verses would hardly be possible here, and I will limit myself to two major points, the account of Latinus' ancestry (45–9) and the description of the royal palace (170–91), both because these passages are interesting in themselves for the way they apparently contradict each other, and because they are good illustrations of how Vergil draws on the data of Roman religion, both its folklore and its cult, to fix in his reader's mind certain definite impressions about Latinus and the Latins.

These lines from the second book of the Aeneid introduce the night on which Troy falls. They have always been felt to be impressive: rich in allusion, noteworthy for the monosyllabic ending of the first line, and memorable for the majestic zeugma of the last two lines. Line 250 opens by incorporating a half line from Ennius:

vertitur interea caelum cum ingentibus signis (Ann. 211)

and closes with a near-translation of the substance (as well as the rhythm) of a half-line from Homer:

Part I examines various readings about which there persists editorial or other disagreement, Part II argues that six couplets are not from Ovid's hand. The lemmata give the reading of the Oxford Classical Text (Kenney, 1961/5), followed by the rejected variants and any conjectures. ‘Goold’ = G. P. Goold, ‘Amatoria Critica’, HSCP 69 (1965), 1–107. ‘Geisler’ = H. J. Geisler, P. Ovidius Naso Rentedia Amoris mit Kommentar zu Vers 1–396 (Inaugural Dissertation, Berlin, 1969). Normally only the principal manuscripts are cited individually.

The general significance of Ovid's Apollo-Dapbne (Met. 1. 452 ff.) within its immediate context seems plain enough. Ovid's technique, as Otis remarks, is to set epic pretensions beside elegiac behaviour and thus to show a struggle between incompatible styles of life and poetry. Yet the episode still poses certain problems. These mainly concern the significance of the story within the wider context of the opening of Ovid's poem. One difficulty is hinted at by Otis himself. He observes that with the Apollo-Dapbne and Jupiter-10 (1. 568 ff.) Ovid has ‘deflated his divine prologue’. Yet elsewhere3 Otis remarks that in one sense the gap between the behaviour of the gods in the concilium deorum (1. 163 ff.) and their philandering in the Daphne and Io stories is very slight.

A. The Problem:

Since A. Gercke's fundamental work, there has been no complete reappraisal of the manuscript tradition of the Natural Questions, yet a reappraisal is long overdue. Gercke divided the manuscripts into two branches, Δ and Φ but this division has been seriously undermined from two quarters. First, H. W. Garrod questioned the status which Gercke assigned to Δ, arguing, quite rightly, that in every case where Δ has the truth against Φ, Δ's reading can reasonably be attributed to conjecture, which is known to be rife in Δ Certainly nothing is proved about Δ's integrity by the passages which Gercke adduced, such as the following (Δ's reading first):3

These notes, which are conservative more often than they are revolutionary, have originated from some reviews which I have recently written of books on Apuleius. I have found that the only way to preserve any consistency in the format is to open each note by citing the text I should prefer and then following that with a Latin apparatus criticus. The aim of the notes is generally only to shed light on the individual passages, to offer conversion or conviction, but some notes serve the rather larger purpose of bolstering a general view of the editors of Apuleius against some modern misconceptions.

Sextus Empiricus does not reveal anything of himself as distinct from ‘the Sceptic’ except in a passing and incidental way. He does not refer to his contemporaries, nor to his country, nor to any personal experiences, in such a way as to provide a definite picture of his life and times. The few references he makes to his involvement in the medical profession are as perplexing as they are enlightening. The only attachments which Sextus strongly identifies with in his extant writings are the demands of the Pyrrhonean philosophy.