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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

From these words of Athenaeus, the majority of scholars have come to the Dnclusion that the Asotodidaskalos was not, despite what Sotion says, composed by Alexis, but is a forgery; and some even go so far as to attribute the forgery to Sotion himself. Yet nowhere do they support their views with sufficient rguments; nowhere has the question, in the light of all the evidence, both sternal and internal, been fully considered. Meineke (Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, i. 397 f.) has indeed given clear reasons for his belief that the play as not written by Alexis, in objecting to three usages in the cited fragment as unattic (see II below); but these objections are not all justifiable, as Kock has lown in the case of (Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ii. 307), or together inclusive enough to make us reject the fragment out of hand.

While Alexander is at Memphis an army arrives from Antipater including (Arr. 3.5. 1). It is a little surprising that Droysen's suggestion to read MevlSas for tevolras should have been accepted so readily by editors. We do at least hear fa Menoetas later (Diodorus 19. 47) as Berve remarks. He further points out lat Menidas does not elsewhere, so far as we know, command infantry.

There are in Plato's dialogues several examples of long-continued oblique narration, which may repay study in relation both to his syntactical usages and to the development of his literary style. Two dialogues are based upon this construction. In the Symposium the whole framework, after a brief dramatic introduction (172 a–174 a), is in reported form; the Parmenides, after a shorter narrative introduction (126 a–127 a), sustains 0.0. up to 137 c, continuing as a dramatic interchange of speeches without covering construction.

The word is generally regarded as having two distinct and separate meanings: (1) threshing-floor, and (2) garden, orchard, or vineyard. Like the classical the word must originally have denoted a threshing-floor. How the second, and apparently incongruous, meaning became attached to it has never been explained. Both are found in Homer. In the Iliad the horses of Achilles trample down the dead like oxen treading the barley on the well-built threshing-floor; the arrow rebounds from the breastplate of Menelaos like beans or chickpeas flying off the blade of the winnowing shovel on the great threshing-floor; the dust of the conflict that lay white on the Achaeans is likened to the whitening heaps when the wind drives off the chaff on the holy threshing-floors when men are winnowing and Demeter separates the chaff from the grain.

The Greater Alcibiades has been dismissed as spurious by a great many scholars including most of the major Platonists, and for a variety of reasons. Many of these reasons are to my mind extremely weak, and would apply with equal force to some of the undoubtedly genuine dialogues: Bluck has argued that nearly all can be met by supposing that Plato wrote it for some special purpose, for instance as a reply to Polycrates' attack on Socrates. It is noteworthy that several scholars, while rejecting die work, do so with reluctance and a hint of misgiving. Shorey, for instance, sees touches worthy of Plato himself, and de Strycker thinks the work may actually have been revised by Plato.

The object of this paper is to question the established view that the orator M. Calidius was an Atticist. I propose to argue (i) that the term ‘Atticist’ should be reserved for the coterie centring on Calvus, which attacked Cicero, and was attacked by him in Brutus and Orator, and (ii) that our evidence for the oratory of Calidius does not warrant the inference that he was in any way associated with, or a forerunner of, that coterie.

The climata played an important role in Greek geography. As used in the mathematical geography of Hipparchus and Ptolemy the word denotes a narrow belt or strip of land, 400 stades wide, on each side of a parallel of latitude; inhabitants of the same clitma were assumed to be situated in the same geographical latitude, since, for practical purposes, the celestial phenomena, lengths of the longest and shortest days, and general climatic conditions did not change appreciably within this distance. We may compare the modern conception of arbitrary zones each possessing its own standard time; but whereas these are belts of longitude contiguous to each other, the climata were belts of latitude not necessarily contiguous.