In Ox. Pap. xxxii (1967) i ff., no. 2617, Mr. Lobel published fragments which he shows reason to believe are from Stesichorus’ Geryoneis. Further work has been done on them by Professor D. L. Page and Mr. W. S. Barrett, and the more substantial fragments are included in an Appendix to Page's Lyrica Graeca Selecta (Oxford, 1968). Fr. 4, the most considerable piece, describes how, in Lobel's words: ‘a person, who I do not think there is much room to doubt is Heracles, delivers a secret attack on somebody which consists in shooting him through the head. Though only one “forehead”, one “crown”, and one “neck” are mentioned and the Geryones of Stesichorus had six hands and six feet (Page, MG fr. 186; Stesichorus, fr. 9; LGS fr. 56) and therefore presumably three heads, as elsewhere (e.g. Hes. Theog. 287), the possibility that Geryones is here in question does not seem to be ruled out.’

In Cratylus 385 b-c Plato argues that if statements () can be true or false, names (),2 as parts () of statements, are also capable of being true or false. From Aristotle onwards this view has often been challenged,3 and R. Robinson put the case against it trenchantly when he wrote:4

This argument is bad; for names have no truth-value, and the reason given for saying that they do is a fallacy of division. No one in the dialogue points out that it is bad. … Nevertheless it is fairly probable that Plato saw or at least felt that it is a bad argument, quite different in quality from those he later produces against the nature-theory.

Arrian's enthusiasm for Ptolemy's account of Alexander has often been echoed in modern times. With much justification it is generally agreed that Arrian's account of Alexander, through its reliance on the works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, is our best and, on the whole, most reliable account of Alexander. Recent work, however, has illuminated Ptolemy's weaknesses, and we can no longer regard Ptolemy as utterly reliable in every important respect. His version of the Alexander story is centred on Alexander, therefore Alexander is depicted out of the close context of the Macedonian court. It is only through the information preserved in other writers—traditionally, but undiscriminatingly, considered unreliable—that, for instance, the picture of Alexander's struggle with his Macedonian nobles has begun to emerge. And in matters of this kind Ptolemy's version is so much the court ‘official’ version that it cannot be regarded as trustworthy.

In 394 most editors of the Knights read , cited uniquely from this passage in the lexica, in the sense ‘dry up, parch’ (the simple is said to mean , Hdn. Gr. 2. 132, although it nowhere occurs in extant literature; but cf. avos, etc.), referring, for the condition and appearance of the prisoners after long captivity and privations, to Nub. 186, where the allusion is to the squalor and emaciation of the Socratics. Now Aristophanes' skill in maintaining allusively an image, once a keyword has been supplied, makes me wonder how line 394 was intended to complete the metaphor of the harvest and the crop in 392–3.

To the modern student of fourth-century Greece nothing at first sight seems so surprising as the almost kaleidoscopic changes in relations between Greek cities, especially in the fourth century. Mortal enemies become allies suddenly, and alliances, though made for all time, are rapidly dissolved. In his old age Sophocles had summed up the harsh experience of a lifetime in words that might serve as an epigraph for the mutability of Greek ‘international’ politics.

To know the scale of an aulos it is necessary to have a complete instrument. None of the surviving auloi are complete. It is the purpose of this article to attempt to reconstruct the missing parts of several auloi and thus to determine their scales.

All musical sounds consist of regular vibrations. The interval between two notes may be expressed as the rate of vibration of the higher note divided by the rate of vibration of the lower note. This ratio is very roughly the same as the length of the air column for the lower note (i.e. the distance from the reed to the first open hole) divided by the length of the air column for the higher note. This gross over-simplification has been used for all calculations in this article. The width of the air column, the size of the holes, and the reed itself affect the pitch considerably. The player also has a large control over the precise note played. And so the notes obtained by the ancients might have been very different from the notes obtained by ignoring these factors; although the player's control over pitch might have been used to lessen the effects of the other factors.

Ardizzoni retains , but gives no reasons for doing so. Platt's correctionis technically easy, but the difficulty is, I feel, imaginary. I take . as asabsolute, = ‘joined the expedition’: so at 1. 90, 139—not, as LSJgive, ‘come next‘—and is dative of interest or advantage, as, for example, Od. 24. 400 , 21 209, 12.438, A.R. 2. 1092, Q,.S. 6. 119, 10. 24. here does not ‘govern‘ a dative any more than does, for examplel, at Od. 24. 400.And seems to me to be rather oddly placed.

Suidas tells us that Erinna wrote a poem of 300 lines, in Aeolic and Dorian dialect, called . There happens to be preserved on papyrus part ofa hexameter lament for Erinna's friend Baucis, the subject of two epigramsalso by Erinna, AP 7. 710 and 712. ‘Distaff’ is a strange title for a lament, it would seem, and there have been various attempts both to explain it and to explain it away.

emended in with the note ‘hanc formam doricam defendere studet G. Fraenkel Glotta ii. 33’.Fraenkel argues that this form is the product of a conscious effort to avoidconfusion and not ‘ein bloss‘

In a recent article Mr. D. A. West investigated the meaning of haurire, haustus, showing how the primary sense ‘to take by scooping, to draw’ is present in a number of passages which have been incorrectly interpreted in the light of extensions made only later of this usage. He noted in passing that ‘this sense may well survive in , the cognate of haurire’. In this article I hope to show that the recognition of this as the basic sense of and its cognates and compounds helps to clear away a number of errors arising from the misunderstanding of the fact that the action of scooping, or drawing, is at the root of Gk. , as of Lat. haurire.

THE closing lines of Act I, Scene n of Terence's Eunuchus (189–206) pose certain difficulties; in particular it is far from clear when Phaedria and Parmeno leave the stage-if indeed they do so at all. Taking this small difficulty as a starting-point, I wish to examine the text of Eunuchus at this place in order to see what information can be gained about the structure of the play and about any alterations Terence may have made in adapting his Greek original. In this I shall mainly be confining myself to Terence's adaptation of Menander's Eunuchus at this one point, and shall not re-examine the welltrodden ground concerning the introduction of the parasite and the boastful Captain from Menander's Colax.

Seneca ‘Rhetor’ was last critically edited by H. J. Müller in 1887; the editions of H. Bornecque (1902) and W. A. Edward (Suasoriae only, 1928) lack an apparatus criticus, though the latter's notes give some attention to textual points. Whoever next addresses himself to the task can take heart from Eduard Norden (Röm. Lit., p. 180): ‘der Text ist schwer korrupt, für Konjekturalkritik noch viel zu tun.’ It may be added that he will do a service by jettisoning a large proportion of what Konjekturalkritik has already produced-too much of this nature in Müller's text and apparatus, to say nothing of later contributions, is merely depressing.

IN a discussion of the reading in Lucan i. 231, Richard Bentley dismissed Grotius's suggestion Ariminon: ignes on the correct grounds that, like Virgil, Lucan avoids starting a new sentence or clause at the beginning of the sixth foot of the hexameter, except with a pair of monosyllables (as in 6. 700, per quam) or with a word emphasized either by repetition (as in 7. 350, ipsi … ipsi) or by a strong contrast (as in Cicero, Arat. 266, hic totus medius circo disiungitur: ille… —the only example of this sort of break in Cicero's poetical fragments).

Atque illo die certe Aricia rediens devertit Clodius ad se in Albanum: quod ut sciret Milo ilium Ariciae fuisse, suspicari tamen debuit eum, etiam si Romam illo die reverti vellet, ad villam suam, quae viam tangeret, deversurum (Pro Milone 51).

THIS passage is interesting in that its argument runs counter to the main picture which Cicero had earlier presented of the movements of Milo and Clodius before they met on the Appian Way in January 52 B.C. In an earlier passage (27) Cicero says: ‘Interim cum sciret Clodius–neque enim difficile erat id scire–xiter sollemne, legitimum, necessarium ante diem XIII Kalendas Februarias Miloni esse Lanuvium ad flaminem prodendum, quod erat dictator Lanuvii Milo, Roma subito ipse profectus pridie est, ut ante suum fundum, quod re intellectum est, Miloni insidias conlocaret.’ Cicero remains true to this latter version in all the relevant arguments concerning the motives and movements of Clodius and Milo. Milo had legitimate business at Lanuvium, and hence a legitimate reason for being on the road at the time of the affray; Clodius′ presence is explained by Cicero as due solely to the desire to place an ambush for his enemy at a convenient spot, i.e. in front of his farm, and for this reason he had set out from Rome a day before Milo, when his presence was really required in Rome

In view of the overwhelming weight of the manuscript evidence, including most recently the testimony of Y, it is perhaps about time to stop the attempts at emendation that began in the sixteenth century with sed non blanda puto. The weaknesses, too, of the argument in favour of lengthening metri gratia the final vowel of blanda have been clearly pointed out by Housman,1 who just as clearly pointed out that blanda must therefore be an ablative.

Recently Mr. E. Courtney has reopened discussion on the authenticity of the last six Heroides, a subject which had almost universally been accepted as settled by scholars.2 He also briefly discussed the ninth epistle and examined certain grounds for doubting whether it is rightly included in the Ovidian canon. In this he is following Karl Lachmann, who was disposed to doubt the authenticity not only of the last six but also of those of the remainder which are not mentioned in Ovid's catalogue of the epistles given at Amores 2. 18 f.3 This despoliation of the canon has not generally found favour since Lachmann, and in the case of Heroides 9 (Deianira Herculi) the editors (e.g. Palmer) and other scholars working on the poems (e.g. Housman and recently Dörrie)4 have without exception regarded the poem as a genuine specimen of Ovid's work.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate through representative examples the principal ways in which Valerius Flaccus borrowed from Homer. Earlier articles1 examined Valerius' attitude towards Apollonius and his debt to Virgil. While not nearly as numerous as the Virgilian echoes, those from Homer are unmistakable, deliberate, sometimes erudite, or with a subtle twist. A convenient classification of them may be into (a) verbal usages, (b) situations, (c) similes. Although the last merges with the previous category, it deserves separate treatment, being greatest in size as well as complexity.

It has frequently been remarked by critics of Petronius (though usually merely in passing) that the entry of the monumental mason, Habinnas, in the Cena Trimalchionis is modelled on that of Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium. Yet surprisingly enough the parallel has not found its way into the commentaries, nor has it ever been analysed in detail. In fact it can stand as an interesting illustration of the use of literary allusion in the Satyricon.

Tacitus writes that, by insisting that legionary legates who had not so far held the praetorship should immediately proceed to that office, Asinius Gallus ‘altius penetrare et arcana imperii temptari’. In C.Q. N.S. xvi (1966), 327, I suggested that this demand of Gallus’ was probably probing dangerously deeply into and perhaps threatening to wreck the carefully worked-out imperial promotions system, the working of which has been examined by Birley.

It is the purpose of this note to look at a number of examples of such irregularity, which, though not as early as the debate during the course of which Gallus made his suggestion, do at least illustrate the process later in the Julio-Claudian era.