Wilamowitz (Staat und Gesellschaft, II. 70) denies that there was ever any definite status of Nobility (‘ein rechtlich irgendwie abgesonderter Stand der Adeligen’) in Athens: his reason is, that Solon says nothing of such a thing. E silentio and very dangerous: and in fact a remnant of Privilege of Nobility survived into the fourth century at least; ϕυλοβαασιλεῖς ἐξ Eὐπατριδῶν (Pollux, VIII. in). This puts it beyond question that Eupatrid-hood (a) was capable of definition, and (b) carried privilege.

The theory of the comparative method has been discussed in a previous article. I pass on to the results obtained—the actual history of prose-rhythm in the practice of particular authors. I give below the figures of normal frequency on which my statements are based. For Greek prose, as I have already said, Thucydides may be considered a practically unmetrical author, since nearly all his clausulae occur with about the same frequency as might be expected from the natural proportion of long and short syllables in the Greek language, and since there is little difference between his sentence-metre and his clausula-metre. (A slight difference between the two is natural, because there are some words, such as the article, which can scarcely be used to close a sentence.) Thus the theoretical frequency of — ∪ — is 14·19 per cent.; its frequency in Thucydides' clausula-metre is 14·2, in his sentence-metre 14·4. But there are two cases where the difference in these proportions seems too great to be due altogether to chance. Compared with the theoretical calculation and with the sentence-metre, —∪∪—— occurs in the clausula considerably more frequently (6·1 per cent, as against 2·6 per cent.) and —∪—∪ considerably less (3·7 per cent, as against 5·1 per cent.). The first form seems to be sought by Thucydides; the second seems to be avoided (doubtless as suggesting an iambic trimeter ending). For these two forms, therefore, I have considered as normal the average percentages of 2,000 cases in the sentence-metre of Thucydides and Xenophon (1,000 each), for the rest the percentages of 2,000 cases in the clausula-metre of Thucydides. For normal frequency in Latin metrical prose I have used de Groot's figures, based on 2,000 cases from nineteenth-century Latin translations of Gregory and Athanasius.

It is usual, since Wolf, to print πέλει in 396 instead of ποτί. The authority for this is very slight: E. M. 214. 33 from Diogenes βρόμος κυρίως ὁ τοῦ πυρὸς. ᾒχος. πεποιημένη δέ ἐστιν ἡ ϕωνὴ κατὰ μίμησιν τοῦ ἀποτελουµένου ψόφου ἀν πυρί, οἷον τόσος γε πέλει βρόμος αἰθοµένοιο. schol. Ap. Rhod. III. 861 the etymology of Bx03B1;ἰθριµώ … ἢ παρὰ τοῦ βρόµον τοῦ πυρός. τόσσος γὰρ πέλεται βρόµος ἡ γὰρ θεὸς λαµπαδοῦΧος. It is not certain that either of these quotations refer to our line; in the former, as will be noticed, πυρός is out of place, and we cannot tell how the second (which may also come from Diogenes) would have continued. In any case, it is not obvious what turned such an easy word as πέλει into the difficult ποτί.

The present essay is intended to supply amplification, and where necessary correction, to my previous article on Anaxagoras' philosophy. Since its publication important essays on the same subject have been written by Mr. Cyril Bailey and by Mr. F. M. Cornford, and the present essay is also an attempt to examine some of the theories put forward in them.

There are one or two points which may be stated at the outset. The conclusions which I put forward five years ago I still believe to be valid. Some of the presentation of the evidence, however, I now see to be misleading and inadequate, notably the treatment of Aristotle's evidence, which I now hope to deal with more fully, and to show that it lends even stronger support to my thesis. I should also say that my former use of ‘Elements’ as a convenient collective term to refer to the four Empedoclean Elements has proved confusing, since it was never intended to suggest that these substances were elements in Anaxagoras' system. I now refer to them by their names in full.

It would be natural to expect, after all these years, that the language of an author so important as Livy would be adequately represented in the dictionaries. Unfortunately this is very far from being the case. It is disquieting to find numerous Livian words cited without any mention of Livy or of any other writer of the Ciceronian or the Augustan Age. It is equally disquieting to find Livian idioms or constructions attributed only to writers remote from Livy both in time and in genre. To crown all, we find a good many of Livy's notable usages entirely ignored. Perhaps a humble service may be rendered both to Livy and to the history of the Latin language by indicating a few deficiencies, especially in the parts of the alphabet not yet covered by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

The history of Athenian relations with Sicily in the fifth century is beset with difficulties; and no part of it, perhaps, is more obscure than the story of what is commonly known as the First Sicilian Expedition, which set sail from Athens in the late summer of 427 under Laches, and was reinforced under Pythodorus, Sophocles and Eurymedon in the winter of 426.