Neither the chronology nor the interpretation of the history of the years 375 to 371 BC is yet settled. The date of the peace that followed the Athenian naval victory over Sparta at Alyzeia in Scirophorion 375 is put variously in the second half of 375 or 374 or even in spring 374. The status of the Boeotian cities at the time of the peace as well as the role of the King and the participation of Thebes are controversial, and this affects the interpretation of the peace itself.

A. The Problem:

Since A. Gercke's fundamental work, there has been no complete reappraisal of the manuscript tradition of the Natural Questions, yet a reappraisal is long overdue. Gercke divided the manuscripts into two branches, Δ and Φ but this division has been seriously undermined from two quarters. First, H. W. Garrod questioned the status which Gercke assigned to Δ, arguing, quite rightly, that in every case where Δ has the truth against Φ, Δ's reading can reasonably be attributed to conjecture, which is known to be rife in Δ Certainly nothing is proved about Δ's integrity by the passages which Gercke adduced, such as the following (Δ's reading first):3

In C.Q. 1935, 72–82 and 150–163 I published some observations on Herodotus which were the by-product of a translation. Those which follow are the similar by-product of a lexicon. It says much for the delusive simplicity of Herodotus that it is still possible to reap a critical crop from an author who has been read by Reiske, Dobree and Cobet. Had van Herwerden not edited Herodotus, the harvest would have been twice as large.

If one wants to know what happened in Hellenistic poetic theory, Philodemus' survey of poetic theories in the fifth book of his On Poems is an excellent guide. Even though I the survey is well preserved, it has been neglected. Jensen, who published the first complete edition of On Poems 5 in 1923, did not discuss this part of the text; and it has been treated only briefly by others. This is a pity because, as Philodemus shows, the Hellenistic period was an era of great diversity and innovation in literary theory. Philodemus gives evidence of: (1) a refined and highly systematic critical vocabulary; (2) a new concern with verbal form; (3) a new notion of mimesis; and (4) in general, a great proliferation of theories that present alternatives to those of Plato and Aristotle. Hellenistic literary theorists studied Plato and Aristotle critically; some revised or elaborated their views, whereas others opposed them. Ancient poetic theory did not come to a standstill with Aristotle any more than philosophy did.

Little has been said as to how Isocrates' λγοι were published. It is commonly assumed that they were written for a reading public but for greater effect were given a fictitious dramatic setting. Such a generalization, although partly true, needs qualification. This article attempts to prove the following points:

(a) Isocrates wrote for a listening, as well as for a reading, public.

(b) Failure to recognize indications of this in his works has led to misinterpretation and mistranslation, especially of certain words used in a semi-technical sense.

(c) There has been a tendency to confuse references to a real audience who will actually be listening to the λόγος with references to a fictitious audience introduced as a picturesque literary device.

(d) The Panegyricus provides an example of this. It is not, as is generally supposed, addressed to an imaginary audience in Olympia or some other πανγυρις but to real audiences in Athens, as well as to an Athenian reading public.

In Classical Quarterly N.S. ix (1959), 80 ff. Professor Hugh Lloyd-Jones published an article on the closing scenes of Seven Against Thebes. In it he directed an assault on the orthodox belief that these scenes are, in whole or in part, not authentic. The movement in favour of authenticity seemed all the stronger when independently, and in the same year, Walter Potscher put forward arguments in Eranos in defence of some parts of the disputed passages.

Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia provide an opportunity of seeing how an undistinguished talent responded to the demise of the republic and the establishment of an imperial system. Fergus Millar has argued that we should view Valerius as a contemporary of Ovid, that is as an author influenced by the last years of Augustus and writing in the early years of Tiberius’ reign, but the internal evidence of Facta et dicta memorabilia better fits publication in the early 30s a.d. in the aftermath of Sejanus’ unsuccessful conspiracy. Although this does distance Valerius further from the key years of transition, he is not remote—and because of the relative paucity of prose authors of the period his presentation of the domus Augusta and of Augustus and Tiberius repays attention.

The saga of Ceyx, king of Trachis, begins at Met. 11.266 and continues to 11.748. Ceyx' adventures form the longest single episode in the Metamorphoses (482 verses), slightly longer than the Phaethon legend (432 verses, Met. 1.747–2.400). Three metamorphoses take place in the course of the Ceyx narrative. The first is that of Ceyx' brother Daedalion who is transformed into a hawk. The second transformation occurs in the course of the exiled Peleus' visit to Ceyx when a wolf attacks Peleus' cattle and sheep and is eventually turned into stone. The third metamorphosis is that of Ceyx and his wife Alcyone into halcyons.

The linking together of these three metamorphoses was entirely an Ovidian invention: it had never been done before. It is therefore important to see the Ceyx story as a whole, as it was put together by Ovid. Attention naturally concentrates on the most interesting episode in it – the Ceyx–Alcyone – but the Daedalion and Peleus episodes are integral parts of the narrative and not separate legends. The story is framed by the contrasting transformations of the two brothers. The fierce and bellicose Daedalion becomes a bird of prey (Met. 11.344). The gentle and uxorious Ceyx becomes a happily paired halcyon (11. 741–8). It is ironic that we first meet Ceyx when he is mourning the transformation of his brother into a bird, since the same end awaits him. The brothers' characters are very different but their fates are similar. Ceyx' dealings with Peleus (11. 268–409) bring out the king of Trachis' hospitable, peace-loving, godly and husbandly qualities and give us a rounded and detailed picture of his personality to balance the developed character-study of his wife Alcyone which is to follow. The spotlight passes from Ceyx to Alcyone at Met. 11. 410.

Athenian officials in the fifth century maintained careful records of treasure owned by their gods, and of the expenditures and receipts of sacred moneys and dedications. These records are conventionally divided into two main types: (i) ‘inventories’ or annual lists of the treasure located in a particular repository, and (ii) ‘accounts’ or documents recording the receipts and expenditures (or loans) of sacred treasuries over a given period. A few documents seem to combine both these elements, and have been called ‘accounts-inventories’ In a well-known example, Athena's treasurers maintained records of valuable items located in three cellae of the building moderns call the Parthenon. Moreover, they published their records of these items in three separate series of inscriptions, one each dedicated to the pronaos, the hekatompedos and the parthenon; these records are conventionally referred to as the ‘inventories’ of Athena's treasure and are extant from 434/3.

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.

It seems very commonly agreed that Sappho's wedding-songs display none of the ritual obscenity so frequent in the genre. Thus D. L. Page wrote of fr. i ioa (Lobel-Page) that ‘There is no trace here or elsewhere in Sappho of that ribaldry which was characteristic of the songs recited at this and other stages of Greek wedding-ceremonies’ (Sappho and Alcaeus [Oxford, 1955], p. 120). Similarly Sir Maurice Bowra asserted of fr. 111 (L.-P.) that it is ‘neither bawdy nor exalted, but playful. If the humour is a bit primitive, that is due to tradition, which expected jokes at this level’ (Greek Lyric Poetry [Oxford, 1961], p. 216). On the next page he writes of the songs sung outside the bridal chamber, as distinct from those sung in the procession thither, that ‘Here too Sappho seems to avoid bawdry but is not averse from rather elementary jokes’.

Most ancient philosophers found access to the mental states of people other than the perceiver less problematic than the moderns did. But there is evidence, however scarce, that some groups of ancient sceptics raised questions which I shall call, for brevity's sake, doubts about other minds.

The old question whether or no the doctrine of ‘intermediate mathematical objects’ ascribed to Plato by Aristotle (Met. 987b14, 1059b6) is to be found in the Divided Line of Republic vi, has been recently raised again in a careful and lucid discussion by Mr. W. F. R. Hardie. I may clear the ground by saying at once that I agree with that part of Mr. Hardie's chapter which deals with those criticisms of the traditional view that have been put forward by Prof. Ferguson and the late Prof. Stocks; nevertheless I do not believe that the objects of the third segment are intermediate between Forms and Sensibles: I propose to argue that they, like the objects of the highest segment, are Forms.

It has recently been argued by C. W. MacLeod that Catullus 116 not only has a poetic meaning, but also has a significant position in the Catullan corpus. MacLeod in fact views this poem as a programmatic piece, whose position at the end of the Catullan corpus is purposeful and part of the poet's own design. Since poem 116 has been one of the most neglected of the Catullan epigrams, MacLeod's suggestions are very welcome and serve to reopen the questions surroundingthis poem.

It has been acknowledged ever since H. T. Becker's dissertation on Aeschylus in Greek comedy that Aristophanes' plays can provide us with a terminus ante quern for the composition of the Prometheus Bound. The evidence is clearly presented by Becker and shows that there are a large number of echoes, particularly in the Knights and later in the Birds. Of these latter the most interesting occurs at Birds 1547, a line spoken by Prometheus himself, μισ⋯ δ' ἅπατντας τω⋯ θεōὺ ὡς ōἶσθα ςὺ which is certainly meant to parody PV 975, ⋯πλΏ λ⋯γῳ τō⋯ς π⋯ντας ⋯χθα⋯ ρω θεōὺς a line also spoken by Prometheus. It makes explicit what is surely implicit in all Aristophanic imitation, that what we have here is not just a play but a particular context that is so well known that the reference is meant to be picked up not just by the fictional ‘you’ to whom it is addressed but by the audience, too; in short we may infer that the line of the Prometheus Bound was already a classic quotation.

Editors and translators have found this paragraph troublesome. Though its general tenor is fairly clear it is not easy to interpret in detail, and the task is complicated by three points of uncertainty about the text, (i) Bury conjectured that in 5 is misplaced, and should stand in 3 after . (ii) After in 5, the second hand of Ven. 189 adds modern editors have often accepted this addition, (iii) In 6, has been thought incomprehensible: Badham offered instead, and this suggestion too has found some favour.

I first met Parmenides – together with Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and the other great Presocratics – in a German translation by Wilhelm Nestle, famous as the editor of the later editions of Zeller's magnum opus. I was 15 or 16 years old, and I was overwhelmed by the meeting. The verses that I liked best were Parmenides' story of Selene's love for radiant Helios (DKB 14–15). But I did not like it that the translation made the moon male and the sun female (these being their genders in German), and it occurred to me to give the couplet in German a title like ‘Moongoddess and Sungod’, or perhaps ‘Selene and Helios’, in order to rectify the genders. So I began fiddling about with the translations. The volume, which I still possess, shows many traces of this.

Some recent work on the history of Athens and Tenos in the third century B.c. has brought to light new evidence and new interpretations of old evidence for this notoriously shadowy period of Greek history. Reflection on this material has suggested to me solutions to a few minor puzzles (Sections IA, IB, III), a contribution to a long-standing problem in the history of Athens in the early third century (Section IB), and a new explanation for the entry of Rhodos into the war with Antiokhos (Section II).