‘Alexander, it is said, starting from Amphipolis and keeping on his left the city Philippi and the mountain Orbelus, invaded Thrace, that part occupied by the so-called self-governing Thracians. He crossed the river Nestus, and in ten days, they say, he reached the mountain Haemus.’

The modern historian of Greece and Rome often depends for his information on writings whose reliability is no greater, though often much less, than that of the histories, now lost in whole or part, which their authors followed. The quality of these histories can sometimes be detected from the internal evidence of the extant derivative accounts, even when we cannot name the historians with any certainty.

I Per. 4: As the text stands now, we read that Adulis, the principal port of the Axumite Kingdom, is on a deep bay that extends due south, in front of which is an island called Oreiue, situated about 200 stades from the innermost [sc. part of the] bay towards the open seaand with both its shores paralle to the mainland, where arriving vessels now moor…Formerly they used to moor at this innermost [part of the] bay at what is called Didorus Island right by this [part of the]

Procopius, Bell. Goth. 8.20 (pp. 589 ff., ed. Haury), gives us information about Britain which is of the first importance, but I have not seen a convincing interpretation of what he says. Since the standard English translation, that of H. B. Dewing in the Loeb series (vol. v, pp. 252 ff.), includes a number of unfortunate mistakes I rive a literal translation of some of Procnnius' sentences.

These H, British Library Harl. 647, was written in Lorraine but crossed before AD 1000 to England, where it later belonged to St. Augustine's Canterbury; Cicero's verses in minuscule occupy the foot of each page, and the rest is given over to the appropriate illustration, painted only at the extremities and filled out to the requisite shape with scholia from Hyginus in small capitals. D, Dresden Dc 183, left France not before 1573; illustrations and scholia occur only in a preceding work, the scholia Sangermanensia.

The phrase τά ένί διαστηματι γ ραφόμενα occurs in that part of Pappus' Collection Book VIII which deals with instrumental solutions to problems more practical than purely geometrical. In the preceding section an instrumental solution for the problem of doubling the cube has been propounded, which is dependent on the use of a ruler passing through a point about which it is turned in the generation of the locus of points known as the cissoid, and in the subsequent section a solution is propounded for the problem of finding the diameter of a cylinder of which only an incomplete portion of the side remains, leaving neither base intact.

Among other recent attempts to correct what he takes to be Cameronian misconceptions, Barry Baldwin has reopened the question of a difficult passage in the panegyric to Anastasius the quaestor prefaced to Corippus' In laudem Iustini. His discussion perfectly correctly emphasizes the fragility of our knowledge of Corippus' life and background, but unfortunately it introduces certain misconceptions itself which make a rejoinder inescapable, especially since new arguments may be adduced.

Horace C. 2.4 is an ironical address to Xanthias (presumably a freeborn man), who, it appears, is rather ashamed of his love for Phyllis, a slave-girl. It has long been held that ‘Xanthias’ is a pseudonym, but so far there has been no convincing explanation of why Horace chose that appellation rather than any other. Of course, there is no way of telling if the situation of the ode is real or imaginary, but, whether ‘Xanthias’ is the pseudonym of an actual person or a name given to an invented character, I believe that it does have particular point.

‘And many chariots were smashed to pieces in the dust…’ My conjecture seems far more vibrant and vivid than Edgar Lobel's suggestion Adopting my supplement the Greek will mean that the chariots are not only broken but actually smashed to pieces. This Epic form fits well into a poem that already has so much Epic usage.

As far as I am aware, it has generally been taken for granted that ‘Kato’ in the pentameter must be vocative. The double vocative ‘Visce’—‘Kato’ does not seem objectionable if ‘non’ were repeated as first word of the pentameter (e.g., as Professor Nisbet suggests, ‘non ego, Visce, / non quadrupla, Kato, …). None the less this is unexpected, and it seems at least worth considering the possibility that 'Kato’ might be nominative. The most plausible (if not the only) way of accounting for a nominative would be as subject of a relative clause. Further consequences would follow almost inevitably: the word-ending doubtfully read