On Aen. 2. 277 DServius notes ‘non sine ratione etiam hoc de crinibus dolet Aeneas, quia illis maxime Hector commendabatur, adeo ut etiam tonsura ab eo nomen acceperit, sicut Graeci poetae docent.’ Fraenkel showed (J.R.S. xxxix [1949], 151 f., = Kl. Beitr. ii. 381 f.) that the reference in Graeci poetae is to Lycophron (1133 ), the source of the comment being provided by Eustathius 1276. 29, a scholion on Il. 22. 401 f. He adds a caution against supposing that Servius’ source referred not only to Lycophron but also to other Greek poets, ‘e.g. some Attic comedians’. That such allusions were in fact made in Comedy is proved by Pollux (2. 29, discussing (Anaxilas, fab. incert. vi, Meineke F.C.G.iii- 355).

Our understanding of the world is not static; it can both expand and contract, and it can also stagnate. In history the expansion of the known universe has come about from various causes, from scientific advance, the slow processes of trade and exploration, from, colonization, and especially from conquest. Periods of expansion produce often a re-evaluation of the external world, both that which was already known and that which was previously unknown, or on the fringes of the known. But no one is wholly capable of a direct response toreality: reality as soon as it is experienced is perceived, organized: ‘Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen nicht der Dinge’ (the world is the totality of facts, not of things).

No project lay nearer to the heart of Eduard Fraenkel during his last years than that of promoting a reprint of the famous book Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles, by Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, which was first published as volume xxii of Philologische Untersuchungen in 1917. Tycho Wilamowitz, the son of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and the grandson of Theodor Mommsen, was killed fighting against the Russians near Ivangorod on the night of 14/15 October 1914. After his death the manuscript was prepared for publication by his friend Ernst Kapp, who has explained in the foreword of the book the nature of his services.

The attribution of line 217 to Antigone seems never to have been questioned, and Hermann's emendation in 219 for the of the MSS.) has been generally accepted as ‘fitting, since Oedipus and Antigone have just been speaking together’ (Jebb ; alii similia). However, the introduction of Antigone into this lyrical dialogue may result from misunderstanding the tenor of the scene. The passage in question is difficult in parts and the text frequently emended ; nevertheless, enough seems clear to suggest that 217 belongs to the chorus. Antigone's alleged participation would interrupt the crescendo of the chorus's unremitting pressure on Oedipus until he complies with their demand in 220. The restoration of 217 to the chorus would thus reveal another instance of Sophocles‘ absolute concentration on the action developing at the moment, regardless of whoever else is on the stage.

The difficulty in the apostrophe of the (1144–5) has been noticed by commentators. So Barrett (ad loc.): ‘/ this cannot mean that the Amazon from Hipp, now that he is exiled: in all the forms of her legend … she meets a violent death at a time which cannot be long after Hipp.'s birth, and it is inconceivable that Eur. should mean his audience to think of her as still alive in Trozen or Athens.’

What seems to have passed unnoticed is that there are, in this choral ode (the triad 1120–50), two other passages which also suffer from at least prima facie incongruities with details of the story well known to the audience:

This passage is interpreted by all commentators and translators as follows: ‘Or how shall we call it glorious that I went out to fight the hydra and the lion at the command of Eurystheus—and shall I not labour to shield off death from my own children ?’ The purpose of my note1 is to suggest (i) that we have here a very remarkable use of the verb , and (2) that Euripides used it here with a precise and subtle intention

I start at the end. Iolaus appeals to Demophon (229–31): ‘become their kinsman, friend, father, brother, master: all this is better than falling into the hands of the Argives.’ One should hope so. When Pearson comments ‘: i.e. submission to Demophon is better than subjection by the Argives. The remark is prompted by , the climax of the preceding appeal’, he is unconsciously repeating what had been said by Herwerden, R.Ph. N.S. xvii (1893), 236: ‘manifestum est ad solum referri posse, nam praegressa omnia sunt eiusmodi quae nemo non sibi exoptet.’ How they can even consider the possibility that may refer to one item only in a list of five I do not know.

In this paper I argue that the stretch of dialogue from 385 b 2–d 1 (Burnet's lineation) in the Cratylus does not belong where it is found in the MSS. (and consequently in our published texts), but fits rather between 387 c 5 and 387 c 6. I suggest further that at any rate my negative thesis receives some measure of support from the fragments of Proclus' commentary on the dialogue.

Epaminondas the soldier has been much admired. His two great battles rank as masterpieces of the military art. Epaminondas himself perhaps regarded them as his greatest achievements, to judge by his last words as reported by Diodorus (15. 87). He had been carried from the battlefield of Mantinea with a spear stuck in his chest. The doctors declared that when the spear was removed he would die. After hearing that his own shield was safe and that the Boeotians had won, he ordered that the spear be removed. One of his friends said to him ‘But you die without a son.’ He answered ‘I do, by God, but I leave two daughters, my victory of Leuctra and my victory of Mantinea’, and then he died. Nor were his ‘daughters’ unadmired. By remarkable chance the future Philip II of Macedon was hostage at Thebes at the very time of Epaminondas' pre-eminence and did not fail to learn, as Chaeronea was to show

Few interpreters of Aristotle have denied that both empirical, inductive methods and some kind of systematic deduction played a role in the philosophy of the biologist who expounded the West's first formal logic. But it has usually been the fashion to focus on one side of this polarity. In recent decades the focus has been on the empirical Aristotle. But some of the latest studies emphasize that Aristotle varied his methods according to context. G. E. L. Owen, for example, although he feels that Aristotle took little care to separate inductive and deductive methods in the treatises, does allow that he uses deduction at times, and mentions book 6 of the Physics among them.

Aristotle says in the De Sensu that other colours are produced through the mixture of black bodies with white (440a31–b23). The obvious mixture for him to be referring to is the mixture of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, which he describes at such length in the De Generatione et Corruptione. All compound bodies are produced ultimately through the mixture of these elements. The way in which the elements mix is described in i. 10 and 2. 7. They mix in such a way as to produce an entirely new substance, in which the characteristics of the original earth, air, fire, and water survive only in modified form.

The consuls of 284, according to the Fasti Capitolini, were L. Caecilius Metellus Denter and C. Servilius Tucca. Of Tucca we know nothing else at all, and if the literary sources also tell us that Metellus Denter was defeated and killed by Gauls at Arretium, the date of this setback and Metellus' status at the time have long been matter for dispute. The surviving accounts of Rome's campaigns against the Gauls in this period fall into three categories. First, there is Polybius, who apparently sets Metellus' death in 284 and terms him , prima facie consul. Then there are the sources which seem clearly to derive from a later, annalistic tradition; they describe Metellus as praetor and place his death in 283. And finally there is Appian, whose account represents an attempt to conflate these views and consequently falls between two stools; in his account Metellus is not even mentioned.

In these lines Micio criticizes the way in which his brother Demea rears his son and implies comparison with his own method. Two types of imperium are contrasted, ‘imperium ’ and ‘illud quod amicitia adiungitur’. It is the latter phrase which will be discussed here. If this meant ‘si imperium tibi amicitia adiungas’, there would be no difficulty: cf. Cic. Mur. 41 ‘benevolentiam adiungit lenitate audiendi’; Sext. Rose. 116 ‘auxilium sibi se putat adiunxisse.’ The acquisition of imperium, however, is not relevant here; Micio is talking of the imperium that a man has qua father (the patria potestas) and the point at issue is the manner in which each man administers this imperium.

It has by now become a commonplace among the historians of the republic that optimates and populares were not political parties in any modern sense. Nevertheless the ghost of the ‘popular party’ still lingers in subtle disguises, the most insidious of which is donned whenever populares is translated as ‘the populares’, with all that the definite article may imply.

A. W. Verrall (The Altar of Mercy, Literary Essays Classical and Modern, Cambridge, 1913) considers rightly that the scene at Thebaid I 2. 481 ff. is ‘the cardinal point of the whole poem’. I hope to show that Statius has portrayed the goddess Clementia as a force which functions in a way very different from that which his readers would expect from their experience of the usage of the word clementia and that his new portrayal is closely related to a theme of the poem. I shall suggest that his redefinition of the concept was inspired by the political situation in which he found himself. The Altar of Mercy focuses Statius' thoughts on the position of man in the universe and of the individual in society, and coming as it does after eleven books of disaster offers some comfort to man in his suffering. Statius is concerned in the Thebaid with man as a tragic victim, and the Altar of Mercy affords him comfort precisely in that area in which he most seeks it.

The demonstration by E. Wölfflin that between the Histories and Annals Tacitus progressed towards a more archaic and artificial style is well known. From the outset Tacitus adhered to the traditional Roman view that history should be composed in an archaic language remote from everyday usage ; but he was apparently at first not fully aware of the possibilities of the archaizing style. New archaisms and artificial usages suggested themselves as he advanced ; and others, which he had used sporadically even early in the Histories, were allowed to oust ordinary alternatives completely.

The words I wish to delete in 48-9 spoil a ‘tricolon crescendo’ whose three members are clearly marked (ima plebe . . . de plebe . . . hinc) and whose verbs are perhaps deliberately varied in person and tense (invenies, veniet . . . petit). The parataxis by means of hic is awkward, and the words seem to be a versified gloss. The Scholiast says : id est: to nobilis tantum et imperitus. nam de plebe, id est de humili familia, eloquentes exeunt, qui nobilium imperitorum causas defendunt; but that could be a paraphrase based on the text as it stands in our manuscripts.

Among classical Latin poets, Juvenal is unusually richly provided with ancient scholia; at the same time, the scholia exhibit an unusual degree of ignorance and sheer stupidity. What is perhaps most surprising, however, is the extent to which these commentators appear to have been worse informed than we are today concerning the identity of individuals who appear in the satires.

‘The sudden emergence of all the post-classical functions of habeo+Infinitive in Tertullian is very remarkable’, as Mr. Coleman has said in his important paper (p. 226) on the origin and development of this structure, so prominent in the formation of the Future and Conditional paradigms of the main Romance languages. The functions which he has in mind are all Prospective: he distinguishes meanings tangential, as he puts it, to Possibility, Obligation/Necessity, Futurity, and, for the past tenses of habeo, Futurity-in-the-Past and Conditioned Unreality (p. 217). In this he essentially follows received opinion, though there have been those who would also distinguish a meaning tangential to Volition. Mr. Coleman gives these short shrift (p. 217 n. 3, p. 219 n. 2). Whether rightly, the reader may judge from what follows.