With these words the ‘first slave’’ of the Knights (usually identified as Demosthenes), encourages the Sausage-seller to take up the cudgels against the Paphlagonian, confident that the actor playing this role will not be masked. The exception proves the rule and it is generally concluded from these lines that portrait masks were customary in Aristophanic comedy.

In a long note in his epoch-making book on ancient Pythagoreanism Walter Burkert raised some grave doubts about the authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1 which have recently been challenged in an article by A. C. Bowen. In this paper I have two goals. First, I will evaluate Burkert's doubts and the success of some of Bowen's arguments against them. Second, I will present a further consideration that both clarifies the text of the fragment and also removes the most serious problem raised by Burkert. The upshot of both these points is to increase the likelihood that the fragment is authentic.

I reproduce the text of just the first part of the fragment as given in DK followed by the text as it appears in the two primary sources, Nicomachus and Porphyry.

In the twentieth century the question of the relationship of Terence's Heautontimorumenos to its Greek original has been largely neglected or else dismissed on the grounds that it presents no major problem. It is true that, because of the new light which the discovery of the Cairo codex of Menander shed on the nature and role of the chorus in Greek new comedy, there was a flurry of activity concerning the difficult passage 167 ff.; but the far more fundamental problem of contaminatio in general and of the meaning and interpretation of lines 4 to 6 of the play's prologue has attracted comparatively little attention. H. Marti produced a two-part survey of work done on Terence in the years 1909 to 1959; in it he says that in the period under review the question of contaminatio in Heauton–in the sense of the fusion of two originals –has been totally abandoned, with the exception of one article by F. Skutsch in which he holds to his earlier views on the subject. Marti also refers to Kohler's earlier work on the same problem, and to the discussion to be found in Kuiper's more comprehensive work on Roman comedy, but that is all.

Mr. G. S. Kirk's interesting and illuminating treatment of this curious fragment in CQ,. xliv (1950), pp. 149–57, prompts me to offer some further conjectures (i) on the reading and interpretation of lines 15–23, (ii) on the character of the fragment as a whole. I am indebted for valuable help both to Mr. Kirk himself and to Mr. C. H. Roberts.

Among the remains of Archilochus is an iambic trimeter which is as mysterious as it is charming. Zenobius, who quotes it (v. 68), says that it was written by Homer and used by Archilochus in his Epodes. If he is telling the truth, it must, as Bergk saw, come from the Margites. But its origin and original purpose need not now concern us. The important fact is that Archilochus used it, and we ought to be able to discover how he used it. What was his precise intention when he quoted or composed the line

πόλλ᾽ οἰδ᾽ ἀλώπη ἀλλ᾽ ἐχνος ἒν μέγα,

what was the contrast he drew between the Fox and the Hedgehog, and how did he make use of it? Zenobius gives two aids, but neither is so easy as it looks at first sight. First, he says that the proverb was used ἐπὶ τν πανουργοτάτων, and secondly he quotes as relevant some lines from the Phoenix of Ion of Chios (fr. 38 Nauck, 81 von Blumenthal) about the hedgehog:

ἀλλ᾽ ἔν τε χέρσῳ τὰς λέοντος ᾔνεσα

ἢ τὰς ἐχίνου μλλον οἰζυρὰς τέχνας.

ὃς εὐτ᾽ ἂν ἄλλων κρεισσόνων ὁρμὴν μάθῃ,

στρόβιλος ἀμΦ᾽ ἄκανθαν εἱλίας δέμας

κεîται δακεν τε καὶ θιγεν ἀμήχανος.

It is universally recognized that the Hymn to Ares stands apart from all the other poems in the Homeric collection, and that it was composed centuries later than any of those that can be assigned to a particular period with any degree of confidence. Many older scholars classed it or even printed it with the Orphic Hymns, which are transmitted together with the Homeric Hymns as well as with the hymns of Callimachus and Proclus. But the similarity with the Orphic Hymns is only superficial. It merely consists in the stylistic feature of accumulated epithets, a common characteristic of late hymns. There are three reasons for not lumping the Hymn to Ares with the very homogeneous Orphic series. First, the Orphic Hymns are courteous invocations of different gods to come to a ceremony described as τєλєτή or τєλєτταί, while the Hymn to Ares is an intensely personal prayer for the poet's own soul. Secondly, the Orphic collection already contains a hymn to Ares (65), and duplications are avoided. (There are a number of hymns, to Dionysus, but then he bears a different title in each case, Liknites, Trieterikos, etc.) Thirdly, in the Homeric hymn Ares is addressed as a planetary god. In the Orphic hymn to Ares, this aspect is totally absent, and the same is true of the hymns to Hermes, Aphrodite, Zeus, and Kronos.

A propos of his earlier attempt to demonstrate, by means of measurements, computer-enhanced images and laser technology, that the archon of IG i311 was Antiphon (418/17), not Habron (458/7), Mortimer Chambers now quotes with approval the favourable verdict of J. Tréheux: ‘la mésure des intervalles entre les lettres, la superposition des photographies multiples et, surtout, le bombardement du marbre par un rayon laser ont prouvé (les photographies en couleur A et B ne permettent pas d'en douter)

In De myst. 1.11–18 (see also 1.25), Andokides reports a series of four judicial denunciations (μην⋯σεις), made before the Athenians on four separate occasions in 415 B.c., concerning profanations of the Eleusinian Mysteries. After statements from the slave Andromachos and the metic Teukros, ‘a third denunciation followed. The wife of Alkmaionides, who had also been the wife of Damon, a woman named Agariste, made a denunciation that in the house of Charmides beside the Olympieion, Alkibiades, Axiochos and Adeimantos celebrated mysteries. And at this denunciation all these men fled’ (1.16). A fourth denunciation was made by the slave Lydos.

ὓβριс φυτε⋯ει τ⋯ραννον ὕβριс κτλ. Thus the MSS, Schol. (= Suda u 15) and Stobaeus 4.8. 11 (p. 298 H.). ὕβριν φυτε⋯ει τυραννον ὕβριс κτλ. Thus Blaydes, followed recently by R. P. Winnington-Ingram, JHS 91 (1971), 126 = Sophocles. An interpretation (Cambridge, 1980), p. 192 (‘What is positively gained by making this correction? Three things’); R. D. Dawe, Sophoclis Tragoediae (Teubner, 1975), i. 156 and Sophocles. Oedipus Rex (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 18, 61,182 f. (‘We may be sure of this for two reasons’); R. W. B. Burton, The Chorus in Sophocles' Tragedies (Oxford, 1980), p. 164 (‘The resulting sense is admirable’); J. Diggle, CRn.s. 32(1982), 14(‘My heart warms… What is drastic about altering three letters?’).

During the period from December to April Dionysos is celebrated at Athens four times: at the Lesser Dionysia, at the Lenaea, at the Anthesteria, at the Greater Dionysia.

The Lenaea festival falls in the Ionic month of Lenaion, which corresponds with the Attic Gamelion, i.e. January. There are no serious objections to fixing the date in this way. The competition in theatricals held at this festival is called ⋯ ⋯π⋯ Ληναίωι àγών the god Dionysos Ληναίος or Ληνεύς the temple-grounds τ⋯ Λήυαιου. These were probably situated on the stretch of swelling ground, rising from the Apostle Paul Road, between Areopagus and Akropolis, as there was room enough there to seat a large audience. It is worthy of notice that, in contrast with the Greater or Urban Dionysia, ancient narrators call the Lenaea a rural festivity, at which a rustic song is intoned. Still, they are to be distinguished from the Lesser Dionysia, which are celebrated at the end of December.

‘Ein vÖllig unverständliches Wortspiel’, said Friedlander. There have been many attempts to solve the riddle. The older commentators, following Domizio Calderini, offered a fantastic solution: Athenagoras was a doctor specializing in leprosy (⋯λφ⋯ς): ‘porro ducta uxore coepit lingere cunnum…unde factus est olficius, hoc est olfacit cunnum’! H. C. Schnur emended to Olbius (ὅλβιος): Albius Athenagoras (Greek cognomen with Roman nomen gentilicium), by marrying a rich wife, became Olbius. This explanation deprives the name ‘Albius’ of any point; nor is it particularly witty to say that Albius married money. The most popular solution points to the biblical ⋯γώ εἰμι τ⋯ Ἄλφα κα⋯ τἈ 'Σ [sc. ⋯ πρ⋯τος κα⋯ ⋯ ἔσ×ατος] it can be shown with some plausibility that the expression was known to the Romans of Martial's time – and to Martial's phrases ‘alpha paenulatorum’ (2. 57. 4, 5. 26. 1) and ‘beta togatorum’ (5. 26. 4). Before marriage Athenagoras was A in his house; now he is last, in other words, henpecked. ‘Paenulatorum’ and ‘togatorum’, however, give ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ a context which plain Alphius and Olphius do not possess. Moreover, in all the other passages which scholars quote in support of the A–Σ hypothesis,9 a letter of the alphabet becomes a byname for an individual, and is not incorporated in another name, as would be the case with Alphius and Σlphius. The presence of two names points to an etymological, not alphabetical, jeu des mots.

The second play of the trilogy begins with the appearance before Agamemnon's tomb of the long-absent Orestes, who prays to Hermes for aid in his revenge and then dedicates upon the tomb a lock of hair cut from his own head. He is interrupted by the entrance of Electra together with the captive women who form the Chorus; in consequence of an evil dream, Clytemnestra has sent them to pour a libation to the spirit of her murdered husband. After discussion with the Chorus, Electra resolves to accompany that libation not with words of appeasement, but with a prayer for her father's help in taking revenge upon his murderers. Going to the tomb to pour the libation, she notices upon it the lock put there by Orestes (168). She notices that the hair is like her own, and at once suspects that it may be her brother's. ‘How can he have dared to come here?’ the Chorus ask her (179); and she replies that he must have sent the lock from his place of exile. The thought that Orestes' return is impossible plunges both the Chorus and Electra into deep sorrow, and in tears Electra broods over the lock (183 f.). It can belong only to Orestes; she wishes it could speak, so that either she could know it not to be his, or else it could at least take part with her in mourning. At this point, if we cantrusttheone manuscript, Electra breaks off her reflections with a prayer (201–4). ‘But we call upon the gods,’ she says, ‘well do they know by what storms, like sailors, we are buffeted; but if we are fated to find safety, from a small seed may grow a mighty trunk.’ Next, if we are to trust what is transmitted, Electra catches sight of a new indication of her brother's presence. ‘Yes, and here are tracks,’ she says (205 f.), ‘a second indication, the tracks of feet matching each other and resembling mine. Yes, for here are two outlines of feet, his own and those of some companion. The heels and the outlines of the tendons agree in their proportions with my prints. I am in torment, and my wits are confounded.’

In re-opening the case of the authorship of the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus I am afraid I must state at once that you will find that there is not much in it, at least nothing new. The few pages, recently published by Vittorio Bartoletti, from a papyrus book which evidently contained the same work as P. Oxy. 842 (whether they belong to the same papyrus is therefore a secondary question) have not changed the state of the problem. They confirm (which is important, though not surprising) the two primary facts known about the author in question: (1) that he is a continuator of Thucydides—a fact which was inferred at once from the very exceptional use of Thucydides' war-year, and which, incidentally, does not allow of the further inference that he intended merely to complement Thucydides, ending his work with the fall of Athens, as it is often assumed that Xenophon originally did; (2) that he was the main source of Ephoros for the period for which Thucydides was no longer available. But, unfortunately, they do not contain a title-page or subscription; and it does not help that in the remains of col. ii the anonymous author seems to quote Thucydides. Quotations of prose writers by name are extremely rare in the fifth and even in the fourth century, but they do occur: Herodotus quotes Hekataios for a special point, and Thucydides quotes Hellanikos for a special period, though it is worth while mentioning that both quotations are polemical.

Before Odysseus and his companions cross over to the land of the Cyclopes, they land on an island, which is described in unusual length and detail (9.116–41). It is inhabited only by wild goats; no hunters disturb them. It possesses neither flocks nor cultivated land, sown or ploughed, since no men live there. The Cyclopes, while nearby, have no ships, nor are there shipwrights who might build ships on which men travel to every city. The island could be made to flourish, for the soil is rich and would bear all things in season. In addition, it contains well-watered meadows, good for vineyards, and a fine protected harbour which requires no mooring.

This famous passage has given rise to much discussion and some perplexity. Theodoras the mathematician is represented by Theaetetus as proving the irrationality of the square roots of the (non-square) numbers from 3 to 17:

‘He took the separate cases up to the root of 17 square feet; and there, for some reason, he stopped.’ (Transl. Cornford.)

The passage is of great importance in the history of Greek mathematics for more than one reason. Theaetetus is said to have generalized the proof of the irrationality of square roots of non-square integers; and thus his connexion with this passage is important because Plato here obviously implies that Theodorus was not giving a generalized proof—otherwise, why should he go up to 17 ? If Theodorus did not know the generalized proof, he clearly had to proceed by enumeration and proof of particular case

The following discussion' of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics i-iv originated in an examination of the tradition of the fragments of Parmenides. It is therefore illustrated not only from Simplicius but particularly from the texts of Parmenides quoted by him. This will not be misleading, since, though many of these texts are quoted by Simplicius more than once, there is little or no sign in any manuscript of interpolation from one passage to another and it is not likely that any scribe could have interpolated the text from an independent manuscript of Parmenides.

The lack of a separate commentary on the fourth book of Statius' Thebaid has meant that many significant details in this description of Capaneus in the catalogue of the Seven have gone unremarked. This article aims to fill the deficiency, pointing out the rich literary allusions, artful symbolism and the careful use of language in this well written passage.

When Mommsen saw foll. 28r line i–29r line 6 of cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7530, an eighth-century grammatical miscellany from Monte Cassino, he realised immediately the importance of their contents. He wrote to Bergk about his discovery on 2 November 1844 and Bergk published the material early the next year as being an epitome of a treatise on signs applied to literary texts by Probus and earlier Latin grammarians. There had long been known Diogenes Laertius' account of the χῖ and other signs placed in the margins of texts of Plato's dialogues, Hephaestion's account of the colometrical παράγραɸος, κορωνίς, διπλ⋯ and ⋯στερίσκος placed in texts of lyric and dramatic poetry, the chapter de notis sententiarum in Isidore's Origines, the names of various treatises περ⋯ σημείων mentioned in the Suda, the references to σημεῖα in Eustathius' commentary on Homer' and in the marginal scholia to Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes in Byzantine manuscripts, Cicero's allusions to the ⋯βελός and the διπλ⋯ scattered reports of the signs with which Origen equipped Greek versions of the Old Testament and Jerome's adaptation of Origen's system, and Cassiodorus' account of his own method of noting orthodox and heterodox opinions in ecclesiastical writings.

In an excellent survey of Alexander′s campaign in western Pakistan, P. H. L. Eggermont has done a great deal to clarify local topography and toponymy and Alexander′s movements, and has improved on Sir Aurel Stein′s classic investigations and on the work of Sir Olaf Caroe on which he chiefly bases himself.1 However, he is less familiar with the critical use of Greek and Roman sources, and of Arrian in particular [henceforth cited as A.],2 than he so admirably is with the Indian sources. This has led to one or two errors in interpretation and especially in chronology, some of which are due to his following what specialists working on Alexander would regard as outdated scholarship. Since his work has opened up sources, and a point of view, hitherto unfamiliar to standard Alexander scholarship, and will remain of basic importance to our interpretation of Alexander, the chronology of this brief campaign, which has not received much attention from Alexander specialists, and the events surrounding the city of Peucelaotis3 are worth a more detailed investigation in the light of his discussion.