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.

When classical scholars use the term ‘spelt’ to translate such words as and in Greek, and far, odor, semen (adoreum), arinca, and the like in Latin, they seldom realize that all these words denote grains which are nowadays included in the genus wheat. Within this genus a distinction is made between ‘husked’ and ‘naked’ species: naked wheat can be ‘threshed out’ on the threshing-floor, the grain being separated from the chaff and left ready for milling; husked wheat has before milling to undergo a separate hulling operation to free the grain from the husks, or cover glumes, by which it is enclosed and which so tightly adhere to it that the rachis (i.e. stem of the ear) breaks before the grain is freed. The term ‘spelt’, when used in the way described, denotes the husked wheats, while ‘wheat’ is reserved for the translation of the names (, triticum, siligo) of the naked species.

In this country and in those with which we are best acquainted, that large part of the human diet which is derived from grain is mainly eaten in the form of bread. Bread, in order to be palatable and digestible, must be leavened; and this means that the dough must be able to retain some of the carbon dioxide gas produced in it by the agency of yeast or some similar substance. Its capacity for doing this depends upon the presence in the grain of a sufficient amount of proteins of such a kind that when mixed with water they form the elastic substance known as gluten. It is largely because wheat—and especially the species of triticum vulgare to which all our bread wheats belong—is superior to all other grains in this respect that wheat has become the main bread grain of a large part of the world.

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 A.J.P. lxxvi 1955 I attempted to show that, contrary to the theory of Professor Hendrickson, Horace's fourth satire is what it purports to be, namely a defence against hostile criticism. The aim of the two present articles is to examine how that defence is handled.

The poet had, it seems, to contend with two main charges, one relating to spirit and the other to form. The first said in effect ‘Your work reveals a malicious nature’; the second ‘Your verses are meagre and prosaic’. Let us take these charges separately. In reply to the former Horace answers:

1. ‘The writers of Old Comedy and Lucilius branded criminals’ (1–7). As I hope to show later, Horace is not finding fault with their practice; on the contrary he is by implication claiming the same right for himself.

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 examining what Horace says about the style of Lucilius I would like to leave aside for a moment the controversial question regarding poetae in v. 1, and go straight to vv. 8–13. Here everything is clear and explicit: Lucilius was witty and keen-scented, but he was harsh in his versification, partly out of carelessness, partly owing to his enormous productivity. It has been suggested that these lines were simply ‘a chance remark’ which Horace ‘happened to make in the course of his argument’.

Many years ago Wilamowitz desiderated a systematic collection of the texts which relate to the different types of poetry composed by the great lyric poets of Greece. He hoped that if we could only crystallize our admittedly scanty information about the characteristics of, say, the Paean or the Dirge, we might be able to reach a slightly better understanding than we have now of the formal structure and artistic design of the poems and fragments which have come down to us under these titles. Indeed, this kind of knowledge is very important.

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.

AT the conclusion of his recently published paper on Corinna1 Professor Page leaves open the question whether the poetess was a contemporary of Pindar or of Moschus-whether she belongs to the middle of the fifth century or the end of the third. He gives excellent reasons for believing that these two dates exhaust the possibilities: they are far more probable than a date either outside or between them; but there seems to be no sure criterion by which we can decide between the two, and Professor Page has to end his researches with a suspension of judgement.

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.

The Stoics maintained that virtue was the only good; everything else, therefore, was not-good. On the other hand, regarded by itself, this huge class was not equally valueless. Vice, of course, was bad; but everything else was thought to be ‘indifferent’: wealth, health, for example; indifferent, that is, with regard to the summum bonum. Of these Intermediates, men, from human nature, had a leaning to some; these were , had value, were called , that is, preferred, and virtue itself lay in choice exercised among them.

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

In the preface to their edition of the Imagines of Philostratus Minor Schenkl and Reisch mention scholia of Tzetzes (presumably Joannes Tzetzes) on the Imagines of the elder Philostratus in Royal MS. 16 D XII of the British Museum. Their statement is repeated without comment in the histories of Greek literature of Schmid-Stählin and Sinko, as well as by Solmsen in his article on the Philostrati in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. 20. 174. 59 ff. Wendel, on the other hand, in his recent exhaustive treatment of Tzetzes in R.E. 2te Reihe 7. 1959–2012, knows nothing of the London manuscript, but says (col. 2005. 27 ff.): ‘Nur in den jungen Hs. Ambr. D 213 inf. (16. Jhdt.) werden die Philostratos-Scholien T. zugeschrieben, die sonst anonym oder als Eigentum des Moschopulos und Planudes überliefert sind.’ It is perhaps worth looking into the matter a little more closely.

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.

Translations show an appreciation of the technical sense with which is endowed in this passage but the terminology which they employ to express that sense is unfortunate. The English term ‘declination’ when used technically in an astronomical context is irreconcilable with the connotations of the Greek term as used in this particular astronomical context. Allowing the technical meaning normal for it in such passages, upon Plutarch's wording, here compressed almost into incomprehensibility, the following construction must be put.

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.

Editors and writers on the prosody of Plautus and Terence disagree about the prosody of the final -a in the nominative and vocative of proper names taken from the Greek First Declension. The fact that they are often quoted as examples of syllaba anceps either at the diaeresis of longer iambic lines or at loci Iacobsohniani would seem to imply that they normally scan as Latin First Declension nouns with short -a in the nominative and vocative singular. So R. Kauer in the commentary of his edition of Terence's Andria (1930) on line 301 writes ‘die griechischen Eigennamen auf -a (griech. -as)—Sosia, Byrria, Chaerea, Phaedria usw.—haben bei Terenz stets kurzes -a’.

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.