In an earlier paper on this topic, ‘Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus,'3 I was primarily concerned to recover the views of Aristotle, as expressed in the ‘Αθ. πολ., on such elements of Attic Society as Eupatridai, Gennetai, etc. I sought to establish that to him at least these two were not identical: that, more precisely, he recorded two stages of development—

(a) ‘Ion’: in whose day the whole body of Athenians was composed of Gennetai, while Eupatridai had not yet been created.

(b) ‘Theseus’: who created the Eupatridai—distinguishing them, as a Third Estate, from those two Estates (Georgoi and Demiourgoi) which had hitherto, since Ion, composed the body of Athenians.

Cicero (Inu. 2, 166) defines gloria as frequens de aliquo fama cum laude, ‘much talk about a person to his praise.’ When the talk is by the person himself, the word takes the signification ‘boast’ (as early as Plaut. Mil. 22 gloriarum pleniorem).

I. HomericHymn to Apollo 334:

κἐκλντε νῦν μοι γαῖα καὶ οὐρανòσ εὐρὺσ ὓπερθεν,

TιτǴνεσ τε θεοιí ὑπὸ χθονὶ ναιετάοντεσ

τάρταρον ἀμφὶ μέγαν, τῶν ἔξ ἂνδρεσ τε θεοί τε.

In dealing with excerpts from Terence in the Servian Commentary on Virgil I deferred consideration of the material found only in the enlarged Commentary, on the ground that, if any difference of quality or character should appear in this material, it must be kept distinct from the work of Servius.

Having recently chosen to lecture on the Pythian Odes, and coming in due course to the ninth, I naturally consulted Dr. Farnell's translation and his article in the Classical Quarterly with regard to the puzzling question of the connexion in thought between lines 76–96 and the rest of the ode. Being more or less dissatisfied both with his views and with those of such other commentators as were known to me, I am now attempting to analyze the poem myself in hopes of showing that it is a more continuous whole than has been generally supposed.

Professor W. B. Anderson'S paper ‘Livy and the Lexica’ in C.Q. XXV., 1931, pp. 38–48, prompts me to put together from my notes this further list of words and idioms used by Livy but not recorded in the lexica as Livian. With one or two clearly indicated exceptions, I have included nothing which is given in Lewis and Short, Forcellini-Corradini-Perin or Georges, and I have included nothing in which Mr. Anderson has anticipated me, except that in a few places I have added to the citations he gives; but my citations make no more claim to be exhaustive than his do. I have given within parentheses the authors who are cited by the lexica for a particular word or use, but I have refrained from adding other authorities.

The author of the Orphic Argonautica was, except by personal election, no poet. He was, however, a very devout reader of poetry and, had he only been Irradiated by the same Celestial Light, might well have been a Milton, for he went to work in very much the same way. Books, and not personal experience, were his guides. His mind was stored with the lines and phrases of other poets; he read his authors attentively: but he did not always understand them, and he lacked the Miltonic art of giving borrowed gems new value from their setting.

It is sufficiently probable that quantitative scansion in Latin, imposed on a language in which accentuation by stress was alone significant originally, not only gave way to the earlier principle in the decline of Latin literature, but scarcely tended to suppress it at any time in common speech and in familiar writing. It is also probable therefore that even in literature dominated by quantity stress-accentuation was not obliterated altogether. In fact the incidences of it, in Vergilian verse at least, seemed so characteristic that in late Antiquity the Vergilian stress-rhythms were apparently copied without any knowledge of the prosody of the hexameter. In modern expositions, the variety of Vergil's rhythms is generally referred, not only to scansion, but also to stress-accentuation: and it has recently been shown that lines in which stress and metrical ictus predominantly coincide are different in quality and expressiveness from lines in which they do not. Since however no general explanation or definition of this difference in quality seemed to have been offered, I lately attempted a simple theory which would account for the different aesthetic values of lines of these two classes, and which would define, if possible, what these different values are.

In seeking to understand the development of philosophy in later antiquity it is important to take account of Clement of Alexandria, perhaps the first Christian writer to be greatly influenced by the systems of Greece. Accordingly in this article certain aspects of Clement's doctrine will be selected for examination where his obligations to the philosophers have apparently hitherto received insufficient attention. In a valuable paper Mr. R. P. Casey has dealt with many important points, but there is room for further exploration, both by the philological method and by a careful comparison of corresponding ideas in Clement and Plotinus. I am here concerned to stress resemblances rather than to prove, for instance, that any direct connection exists between Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology. It is nevertheless not irrevelant to mention that Ammonius Saccas, the professor whose lectures both Origen the Christian and Plotinus were to attend, and who, besides being a Platonist, if not the founder of Neoplatonism, was also an apostate Christian, had probably begun to attract attention in Alexandria at the time when Clement was head of the Christian School there, in which perhaps Ammonius himself had been originally educated. There seems nothing to prevent the assumption that Ammonius and Clement were known at least by name to each other, and perhaps the philosopher under whom Plotinus was to study for eleven years had even sat by the side of Clement at the feet of Pantaenus, the erstwhile Stoic and founder of the Catechetical School. However that may be, both Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology show a markedly similar tendency, and in the Enneads and the Stromateis there are many equivalent features.

Theocritus I. 49:

ἁ δ', ἐπὶ πήρᾳ

πάντα δόλον κεύθοισα, τὸ παιδίον οὐ πίν ἀνήσειν

φατὶ πρὶν ἠ ἀκράτιστὸν ἐπὶ ξηροȋσι καθίξῃ.

For a very long time I have held a view of this sentence which differs very greatly from any which I have seen advocated elsewhere. Mr. Campbell's discussion in the last number of C. Q. will render it possible to abbreviate my presentation of it. For many of Mr. Campbell's criticisms on page 99 are, I believe, sound, if occasionally overstated. Many will agree, with some hesitations, in his methods of disproving the rendering ‘set him breakfasting upon dry stuff’ on page 98. This has always seemed to me a bad rendering for quite other reasons. Unfortunately for my purpose, which is not to expose modern misrenderings, but to find out what ἀκράτωτὸν means, much is immaterial. Mr. Campbell's real objections to ἀκράτιστὸν seem to be confined:

(a) To an alleged ‘active’ sense.

(b) To an alleged equivalence with a ‘present’ participle.

(c) To a violation of a law which he attributes to Mehlhorn.

(d) ‘It is the only occurrence of ἀκρατίζομαι (with congeners) outside Comedy and Late Prose.’

MrShewring, C.Q. XXV. 14, gives statistics of the clausulae favoured in Aristotle's Ethics. I have applied them to test a few conjectural emendations that I happen to have published, with the following encouraging results: (a) Emendations that substitute a good clausula for a bad one:

96a 18 ὓστερον λέγομεν for ὓστερον ἐλέγομεν κb, ὓστερον ἔλεγον cet.

09b 5 ἑαυτοὺς ἀφέλκειν [δεῖν].

48a 14 ἀκόλαστον τίθεμεν [καὶ ἐγκρατῆ καὶ σώφρονα].

63b 13 τὴν φιλίαν [καθάπερ εἴρηται].

71a 35 αὐτῶν <ἡδονὴ εἶναι (the crasis gives – ∪ – –: some additional figures that Mr. Shewring has been good e nough to send me show that this is the second commonest clausula in normal Attic prose, and that in the Ethics its frequency is slightly above the normal).

(b) Emendations that substitute one good clausula for another:

97a 9 τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτ for τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀγαθόν κb, τὸ αὐτὸ or αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθόν cet.

25a 22 τῶν ἀγαθῶν [καὶ ἀγνοεῖν ἑαυτόν].

I may be pardoned for omitting my one or two alterations that substitute a bad clausula for a good one.

My text adopts a MS. variant, or a conjecture of another scholar, similarly supported by Mr. Shewring's test in the following places: 99b 6, 02a 20, 10b 31, 15a 8, 20a 22, 20b 2, 22a 28, 32a 11, 33a 1, 34b 33, 50b 34, 53a 1, 59a 3, 61a 2, 63a 3, 64a 23, 66a 34, 75a 6, 79a 22.