It has been accepted since antiquity that one of the basic principles of the philosophy of Socrates was ‘virtue is knowledge’; that this was so is made abundantly clear by both Plato and Aristotle. It has also been assumed by scholars ancient and modern that Socrates, who believed that in this knowledge lay happiness, spent his life looking for it. In the early dialogues Plato represents Socrates as frequently professing either partial or total ignorance, but as always more or less confidently searching for the truth. The traditional interpretation continues with the belief that somewhere near the time of his first visit to Sicily Plato’s thought began to develop beyond that of his master, and that one of his first advances was his theory of knowledge by recollection, which he developed presumably because of dissatisfaction with Socrates’ ideas on how knowledge could be attained.

The purpose of this article is to review the evidence upon the chronology of the Greek attempt under the leadership of King Agis of Sparta to throw off Macedonian domination, on which two totally different views have recently been stated. The date of the war must form the basis of any consideration of the strategic soundness of Agis’ campaign and Alexander’s reaction to it and it is therefore important in any evaluation of Agis and Alexander as generals and statesmen. It is necessary to begin by setting out the evidence in full.

The following notes on two well-known passages of Hellenistic epic, part of Cleanthes’ so-called hymn to Zeus and Aratus’ proem, may be of some interest as affording a detailed comparison of how the poets use, adapt and add to the traditional epic vocabulary and phraseology to convey closely related subject-matter that both belongs to and goes beyond the normal range of epic.

The use of μέρος in the sense of ‘side’ has long been recognized in the Septuagint. This sense is beyond doubt in numerous passages, as for example Ex. 32. 15 πλάκες λίθιναι καταγεγραμμέναι έξ αμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αυτῶν. In none of these can it be attributed to Hebraism.

It is also recognized in the NT in Eυ. Jo. 21.6 βάλετε εἰṽ τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη του πλοίου τò δίκτυον, and several times in other early Christian literature (Hermas and Eυ. Petr.).

In a speech, delivered early in 59 B.C. and recorded by Dio, Pompey supported Caesar’s agrarian proposal. At the beginning of the speech, as recorded in Dio xxxviii 5. 1-2, Pompey mentioned a proposal, approved by the Senate on a former occasion, which related to the provision of land allotments for his own troops and those of Metellus:

When your friends within and without the A.S.C.S. were invited to contribute to the Festschrift planned in your honour, my Hellenistic Muse blanched at the fields chosen, Cicero and Vergil. It was, moreover, not enough to have new thoughts; they must, at least if the thinker had profited from your guidance at Melbourne both as student and colleague, make an effort to measure up to the quality of that guidance. Now in more co-operative mood my Muse, quae sera tamen respexit inertem, offers you some methodological comments, speculative in the nature of things, but I hope not too remote from a poetic application of your oft-voiced injunction to ‘Follow the argument’, which stood me in good stead from the Phaedo to the De Officiis.

My suggested interpretation of Horace, Odes i 12. 35 has been severely criticized by Professor Jocelyn. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reply.

J. himself agrees that the ancient scholars could not agree which King Tarquin was intended (68 and n. 1): this at least leaves open the possibility that some third Tarquin was meant. This was the possibility I sought to investigate.

J. further agrees that the structure of the whole ode must be considered in interpreting any particular stanza (68, I), but rejects my belief in the triadic structure of this ode, which is not peculiar to this ode and has the support of the majority of Horatian scholars. He offers no alternative analysis of the whole poem.

Luigi Labruna makes a number of proposals, in his recent Vim fieri veto: alle radici di una ideologia, of considerable importance to both the legal and the political history of the later Republic. The basic theme of the work is the possessory interdict uti possidetis, but in furtherance of his avowed purpose of illuminating the juridical, political, economic and social background to this early possessory remedy the author moves freely and knowledgeably in a number of fields. It is well that it should be so. The delimitation of the boundaries of Roman private law in a purely juridical setting is and will always be an indispensable and rewarding discipline, but it is more and more coming to be realized that the law of a given society needs also to be seen in a wider ambit, not only for the better understanding of the law but also for the better understanding of the society. His successful application of this wider approach to the rather austere problems of the possessory interdicts marks Labruna’s work out as one of considerable significance and merit.

This short document from the fourth century gave guidance to students who were getting an education in the tradition of the ancient Greco-Roman schools. Basil came out more strongly than any other early Church theologian in favour of the view that pagan literature, while not being authoritative, could be studied by Christians at school to their advantage. This view held good for many Christians in the Greek-speaking Byzantine world for the next thousand years and was endorsed in the West at the Renaissance when the Address was published in many editions throughout Europe. Leonardo Bruni first translated it into Latin in 1405, and it paved the way for his translation of classical texts, of Demosthenes, Aeschines, Plutarch and Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle.