To be satisfactory, a scholarly interpretation of a Greek tragedy must enable the present-day reader to see the play, so far as is possible, through the eyes of the fifth-century audience. If it does not, if it merely substitutes the predilections of a particular scholar for those of the reader, it is useless, and indeed worse than useless; for the reader unassisted by the interpretation of others may well examine the play critically for himself, while the reader with an interpretation at his elbow is likely to make every effort to fit the ideas of the tragedian into the schema provided for him. Certainly, more and more interpretations are of the kind which assist the reader; but a significant number even of the most recent throw more darkness than light on their subject by refusing to acknowledge the whole context of value and belief in terms of which the tragedians wrote, and the audience watched, these dramas. The result of such misinterpretation is frequently, as in the case of the two I shall discuss here, to present for our admiration a more high-minded and uplifting drama than the one which (say) Euripides wrote; but our concern is presumably not to achieve this end, but to understand Euripides and his audience.

In Part I of this article the major problems of the transmission of the Bacchae were considered, with a discussion of interpolated lines and lacunae, whether certain or merely postulated by previous editors. In the Introduction it was argued that P is a copy of a manuscript which was very like L (whether a copy or a twin hardly matters) before being supplemented with variant readings and with the whole of Tr. and Ba. 756 ff. from a lost source. The symbols λ and were used for P's exemplar and this remoter source respectively. The ancestry of in turn was traced back to Λ, the ancestor of L. This, if right, means that L and P (including the end of Ba.) both descend from a single uncial archetype, though with a fair chance that some true variants from a different tradition reached and λ. P, however, steadfastly preferred the original reading of λ (= L, in effect) whenever possible. When P differs from L, there are three possibilities: (a) that he is making a fresh error (misreading or carelessness—seldom, if ever, constructive); (b) that λ (before being supplemented) differed from L (probably only in ortkographica); (c) that λ (after contamination) included a variant which P preferred (significant variants are so rare that legibility is likely to have been P's main criterion).

The earliest extant manuscript of Polybius, Books 1–5 is A (Vaticanus Graecus 124). It was copied by a monk called Ephraim in the tenth century in a fine early minuscule hand; quite probably A should be dated to A.D. 947, though this cannot be certain, since Ephraim gave the day of the month and the indic-tion in the subscription, but not the year. A is written in two columns to the page, the average line length is 19–21 letters, and the almost invariable extreme lengths are 18 and 22 letters. There are two lacunae in A on successive pages, the first affecting the bottom six lines of the second column of f. 1v and the top line of the first column of f. 2r, and the second affecting 11. 3–9 of the second column of f. 2r. These lacunae also appear in all other manuscripts covering the same section of text, with no significant variation of the content; however, the scribe of A has clearly taken a good deal of trouble to reproduce as accurately as possible the text in front of him, while all other manuscripts reproduce the text across the page with gaps of varying length. In addition to this, it can be shown that the line length of A is the same as that of the hyparchetype of all the extant manuscripts of Books 1–5.

1. 1.5.3. The unanimous manuscript reading for this passage is The idea of an looking for an seems alien to Greek thought, and the expression is not derived from any traceable proverb. A small correction produces the reading which restores sense, and produces a meaning which is much more in line with the requirements of the passage. The corruption may well have arisen from the penchant which scribes had for making minor alterations to restore what they conceived to be the required grammar of the immediate context.

It has been customary to believe that apart from selection and abridgement Diodorus Siculus made little contribution to his Scholars have admitted the contribution of Diodorus himself when he refers to his native town Agyrium with some pride and to Sicily in general and when he occasionally records details of his own life. Beyond statements of this character, however, the tendency has been to assume that the origin of any particular statement is to be sought in the single source which Diodorus was currently using, or, as others would argue, in the major source supplemented by a subsidiary source, or, as Tarn would postulate for 17, the medley of sources used by the Sicilian historian. An examination of the attribution of one item in 17 may throw some light on Diodorus as an historian.

There is more evidence for Empedocles than for any early Greek philosopher before Democritus, yet the details of his philosophy remain controversial and often hopelessly obscure. Jaeger called Empedocles a ‘philosophical centaur’, which aptly sums up the seeming disparity between the and the There is no agreement about the famous simile to illustrate respiration, generally known as the Clepsydra, and the stages and nature of the cosmic cycle continue to be disputed. Perhaps we can never be certain about these aspects of Empedocles' thought, for the evidence fails at every crucial point and the imaginative reconstructions which have to serve are unlikely to win universal acceptance. It may then appear hazardous to discuss the fragments concerned with thinking and sense-perception, for these too are riddled with problems. I do so prompted partly by the timely reprint of J. I. Beare's book, Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition, and also because this feature of Empedocles has been touched on by modern scholars but not studied in any detail. At the same time the significance of the is greatly affected by how we interpret the theory of sense-perception and thinking.

Whittaker, following Siebeck, pointed out the important role Plotinus assigns to the functions of imagination in psychic life. Imagination is the terminus ad quern of all properly human conscious experience; it is that faculty of man without which there can be no conscious experience. The sensitive soul is an imaginative soul below which there is Nature, or vegetative soul, which acts without being conscious. When the functions of reason are added to sensation to produce a rational human being, there is conscious discursive thought as well as conscious sensation; and since the sensitive soul cannot be responsible for the imaging of rational concepts, Plotinus asserts the existence of a conceptual imagination.

In this paper I shall offer an hypothesis to explain the process by which the inventories of the contents of the three chambers of the Parthenon were inscribed in the fifth century and to account for all the surviving fragments of those inscriptions. At the end of their annual term the treasurers of Athena prepared separate inventories of the Pronaos, the Hekatompedon, and the cella which they called the Parthenon. But the four boards of treasurers whose terms filled a Panathenaic penteteris co-operated with each other in stewarding the sacred possessions and began in 434/3 to have their inventories inscribed on the same stelai. The four inventories of the Pronaos filled one face of one stele, the four of the Hekatompedon one face of a second stele, and the four of the Parthenon one face of a third stele. In the course of time the treasurers began to post their records on the backs of stelai erected by their predecessors. This process was apparently changed in 410/09 to allow the four inventories to fill both the obverse and reverse faces of a smaller stele. In 406/5, with the creation of the unified board of the treasurers of Athena and the Other Gods, the inventories began to be inscribed year by year on individual stelai, and the Four Archai disappear.

I Begin with quotations from two authoritative works, both of which require modification in the light of the evidence which I have assembled concerning the language of the inscriptions of Attica of the period 323–146 B.C. These quotations are: (a) LSJ s.v. B: ‘in early Attic inscriptions only is used …; without only once in cent, iv B.C., IG 22. 226. 42 (343 B.C.), after which it becomes gradually prevalent.’ This is very near the truth. (b) Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 328: ‘ final with the subjunctive appears first in Aeschylus, and remains in good use in Attic poetry and prose, being almost the only final expression found in the formal language of the Attic inscriptions.’ This, although absolutely correct in relation to the fifth and fourth centuries, is too sweeping for the period 299–146 B.C., and definitely misleading for the period after 146 B.C.

The fact that the enclosing word order is not common in Latin prose, and is first found to any extent in the neoteric poet Catullus and in Cicero's Aratea, raises the possibility that they may owe this feature of their style to Alexandrian influence. In one way at least, in the inversion of connecting particles, atque, nam, etc., Alexandrian influence on Catullus' word order is generally admitted, e.g.

The first point that Tacitus makes is the confusion that surrounded these elections. Tiberius' policy was in no way as well denned here as it apparently was in the case of the praetorship elections:

De comitiis consularibus, quae turn primum illo principe ac deinceps fuere, vix quicquam firmare ausim: adeo diversa non modo apud auctores, sed in ipsius orationibus reperiuntur.

Ever since the work of Otto Miiller it has been generally agreed that the most important manuscript of the Thebaid is Puteaneus (P), a ninth-century manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Parisinus 8051). It is not only the earliest extant manuscript but it has a large number of readings not found elsewhere, many of which are obviously preferable to what is offered by the other tradition, normally referred to as ω. Both traditions are early, however, since Lactantius depends on inferior ω material while Priscian seems to have followed the P tradition.

In the last number of CQ,(N.S. xvi [1966], 28 [iii]), I mistakenly attributed to Professor Zuntz (An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides [Cambridge, 1965]) the view that P's exemplar was, before correction, the ‘parent’ of L.

The possibility that the parent (‘Λ’ in Zuntz) of L became, after corrections derived from its own parent (‘β’), the parent of P is in fact considered by Zuntz (p. 124) only as an alternative to the hypothesis, propounded by him on p. 122 and set out in his stemma on p. 192, that the parent (‘π’) of P was a copy of Λ and thus a brother of L. Regrettably, An Inquiry appeared too late for me to do it justice, with my article already in proof. In addition, I now draw attention to the following passages in An Inquiry as containing arguments which affect what I have written: pp. 13 ff. (my p. 28, n. 1), 119 f. (on Ba. 144–7), and 118 (on Ba. 151).