Of all the numerous inscriptions which throw light “upon the organization and activities of the ancient religious and social guilds, none is more valuable and none more vivid than that which contains the minutes of a meeting of the Athenian Iobacchi followed by acomplete text of the statutes which were then unanimously ratified. This document, originally published by S. Wide in A th. Mitt. XIX. 248 sqq., appears in a number of well-known and widely accessible collections—Dittenberger's S.I.G. 737, 1109; Roberts andGardner's Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, II. No. 91; Ziehen's Leges Graecorum Sacrae, II. 46; Michel's Recueil, 1564; and I.G. II. 1368—and has been discussed in detail by E. Maass (Orpheus, 14 sqq.), who republishes the text with a translation and commentary, and by E. Drerup (Neue Jahrbücher f. d. klass. Altertum, III. 356 sqq.).

Vergil's plagiarism has been a theme for critics ever since Perellius Faustus made an anthology of his ‘furta’ and Quintus Octavius Avitus com-piled eight volumes of Оμоιóτηɛσ, giving both the original passages and Vergil's adaptations of them (Suet. Vit. Verg. 45). Much of this literature has survived in the commentary of Servius and in Book VI. of the Saturnalia of Macrobius. The study of his imitations and plagiarisms throws much light on Vergil's methods and aims of composition, and has frequently been attempted in editions of his works. But one class of his plagiarisms differs considerably from the rest. Often in the Aenèid he incorporates phrases, either intact or slightly altered, from the Annales of Ennius. These differ from where he imitates Homer, because in them he does not have to translate from Greek into Latin and so remake the original into something new, and they differ, too, from his adaptations of some other earlier Latin poets, because Ennius was his only important forerunner who had written on the same heroic themes of war and the growth of Rome.

The Flavian writers of epic verse took their business seriously enough and seldom permitted themselves anything that might pass for an allusion to contemporary events: so much so that only an ingenuity that runs a risk of being perverse can wrest from them much more than what they have themselves chosen to say in their dedications or invocations. Where the man survived to complete and edit his work, such a dedication, the last thing to be written, more or less bears on its face the date of publication. The proem of the Thebaïs of Statius and the ‘Flavian Panegyric,’ which Silius Italicus inserted in the third book of his Punica thus reveal, to within a year, when the whole of the one and a portion of the other were given to the world, viz. in 91–2 and in 92–3 respectively. With an unfinished work the case is different; indeed, the very presence of that panegyric might sufficeto prove that though Silius had reached the end, in a fashion, when he finished his seventeenth book, he did not truly complete his poem or himself publish it as a whole. In order to determine at what date he got as far with his poem as he ever did, some other source of information is therefore desirable. Similarly with the Argonautica. Valerius Flaccus does not appear to have composed any more than the eight books that have come down to us, nor is he known to have published any part of them save, if at all, by recitation. It is for this reason that the proem, with its invocation of Vespasian, to all appearance as still living, has always been taken to be, not a later insertion, but an integral part of the first book, and thus a clear indication of the date at which Valerius began his task.

At the beginning of the Poetics Aristotle has these words: έποιìα δn` καì τσ τραγωιδίασ ποίησισ τι δ κωμωιδία καì διθυραμβοποιητικ καì τσ αλητικσ πλɛίστη καì κιθαριστικσ πσαι τυγχάνουσιν οσαι μιμήσɛισ τò σνολον. διαøρουσι δ άλλήλων τρισίν. ρ τι ' ν τέροισ μιμɛίσθαι τι τɛρα τι τέρωσ καì μ τòν αὐτòν τρόπον. Then, expounding ν τέροισ: ᾰπασαι μν ποιονται τν μίμησιν ν p'υθμι καì λόγωι καì ρμονίαι, τοτοισ ' η χωρìσ ἤ μɛμιγμένοισ οἶον ρμονίαι μν καì p'υθμι χρῴμɛναι μόνον ἤ τɛ αὐλητικ καì κιθαριστική … αὐτι δ τ'υθμι χωρìσ ρμονίασ τν ρχηστν. Here I omit the crucial sentence; he proceeds: οὐδν γρ ἂν ἔχοιμɛν νομάσαι κοινòν τ ὺσ σøρονος καì Ξɛνάρχον μίμουσ καì τοὺσ σωκρατικοὺσ λόσουσ, οὐδɛἴ τισ δι τριμέτρων ἤ λɛγɛiων ἤ τν ἄλλων τινν τν τοιοτων ποιοῖτο τν μiμησιπλν οἱ ἂνθρωποi γɛ συνπτοντɛσ τι μτρωι τò ποιɛῖν λɛγɛιοποιοὺσ τοὺσ δ ποποιοὺσ νομζουσιν. He develops this point about the use of the word ποιητσ to denote all writers who write in verse and finally, before ending his exposition of ν τροισ, says: ισ δ τινɛσ οἳ πσι χρνται τοῖσ ɛἰρημνοισ, λγω δ οἶον p'υθμι κα μλɛι καi μτρωι, ὢσπɛρ ἤ τɛ τν διθυραμβικν ποiησισ καῖ ἤ τν νჲμων καῖ ἤ τɛ τραγωιδiα καῖ κωμωιδiα.

It has been common in history for the conqueror or usurper to fortify his position by marrying a daughter of the old line. It was done by Alexander at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, by Herod at the end. There is reason to believe that it was also done both by Ptolemy I. and Seleucus.

Some uncertainty has always surrounded the translation of Thucydides made by Laurentius Valla in 1452 at the desire of the Humanist Pope, Nicolas V., because its source was unknown. It is recognized that the translation is of unequal value, because, excellent Latinist as Valla was, he was less at home in Greek, and often fails, even when the Greek is not particularly difficult; but his text, whatever its origin and history, is a primary authority. In the Oxford text of Thucydides, edited by Principal Stuart Jones, I have counted sixteen places for which Valla is the only authority, and there are a few more which might perhaps well be added. The view both of the Principal and of Hude is that Valla's readings in these places were due to his own ingenuity.

That accent as well as quantity plays a certain rô1e in the structure of early Latin dramatic verse is no new doctrine. It has been present in some form or other to the minds of most writers on Plautine and Terentian prosody since the time of Bentley, who in his Schediasma de metris Terentianis (1726, second edition 1727) laid the foundations of modern research into this somewhat thorny subject. Unfortunately, however, the question has been complicated from the very first by the introduction of a third term into the discussion, viz. the term ictus, with the result that the fundamental issue has been obscured and to some extent side-tracked. Bentley was himself responsible for this result; for it was he who introduced into his text of Terence those ictus-marks which have figured in most texts of Plautus and Terence down to the present day. And his whole theory of Terentian verse was dominated by the postulate that it was delivered on the stage with a stress of the voice falling rhythmically on the ‘rise’ (or, as he called it, the ‘arsis’) of each foot: e.g.

Malúm quod ísti dí deaéque omnés duínt.

Allegorical interpretation of the ancient Greek myths began (as I showed in C.R. XLI., pp. 214–15) not with the grammarians, but with the philosophers. As speculative thought developed, there grew up also the belief that in mystical and symbolic terms the ancient poets had expressed profound truths which were difficult to define in scientifically exact language. Assuming that the myth-makers were concerned to edify and to instruct, the philosophers found in apparent immoralities and impieties a warning that both in offensive and in inoffensive passages one must look beneath the surface for the true significance of the tales. Thus allegory was originally positive, not negative, in its aim; its purpose was not so much to defend the poetic traditions against charges of immorality as to make fully explicit the wealth of doctrine which ex hypothesi the myths contained. Those who wrote to defend the poets could, if they chose, make some use of the results of the allegorical method; passages to which exception had been taken could be shown by allegorical treatment to be quite consistent with the view that the poets were wise and divinely inspired. But the first dim beginnings of allegory can be traced to another and a weightier motive—namely, the desire of speculative thinkers to appropriate for their own use some at least of the mythical traditions. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the same motive was the main driving force in the later history of allegorical interpretation. Objectionable passages were, indeed, regarded as among the richest in deeper meaning; but the leading allegorists applied their method to offensive and inoffensive passages alike.

Plutarch's dialogue De facie in orbe lunae contains a mention of an eclipse, the identification of which would give a terminus post quern, for the composition of the work. The speaker is the Etruscan Lucius, the Pythagorean friend of Sulla the Carthaginian, and his words are as follows (93ID): ‘Concede me this, remembering this recent eclipse, which, beginning immediately after midday (εύθùς έκ μεσηβρίας άρξαμένη), caused many stars to appear in many quarters of the sky.’ For such a phenomenon to occur the eclipse must have been nearly or quite total.

Clytaemnestra describes her anxious presentiment of coming evil, but ό π ροστατν Χρθνος bears no obvious meaning. The schol.'s πιενόμεος —corrected to πιινπιγ by Papageorgios from Suidas—is meant to interpret the phrase as merely a periphrasis for the future. So the schol. on Pind. ol. X. 9 glosses πιγν πιγ with ιγενόμε&ngr;ος. Jebb practically agrees, but thinks that strictly ό πρ. Χρόνος is ‘the time which stands in front (of the present).’ Kaibel, rightly in my opinion, regards έμοṽ as the necessary complement of προστάτης, but understands the latter as Time personified leading the queen by the hand continuously forward. She does not know her goal, but fears it is death. None of these views is convincing; and if we would seize the metaphor which the words are intended to convey, we shall do better to follow the indication afforded by Aesch. Ag. 976 τιπτε μο τς μπςως |δείμαπ ροατατατηριον| καρδιας τερασκόπον ποτται where the speaker is labouring under the burden of apprehension, whose image hovers over his heart. The future casts its shadow beforehand as a danger to be encountered. So here Clytaemnestra cannot rest for the persistent image which ever obtrudes itself upon her mental vision (scil.έμοṽ). Meineke preferred προσ-στατν just as Blaydes conjectured προσ-στατ ριον in the Agamemnon.

Perhaps for ώς ἔθελ' as there is no real contrast of persons, but only an intimation of the extent or degree of power exercised, ώς ἓθελ' αὔτως, ‘just as he liked’ (cf. note on 211), should be read. I make no doubt λύρην (MS. Mosc.) should be preferred to the rival λαβών, which appears to be an import from 499, and for έέαριστερ Χειρός I would recommend π ριστέρέ ργων' ργων (cf. 153). The omission of Χειρός leaves nothing to regret, especially as it must mean in 418 the left hand, and in 419 the right hand (v. Sikes and Allen, ad loc.)

That a considerable fragment of the Fabulae of Hyginus—whoever Hyginus may have been and whenever he lived—exists in a Greek translation in the Hermeneumata Leidensia (C.G.L. III., p. 56, 30 sqq.) is well known to all students of his work. Indeed, this extract furnishes the terminus ante quem for Hyginus’ date in its opening words; I cite it as accented and punctuated by Schmidt (p. liv of his edition of the Fabulae, Jena, 1872):

Maξμѱ ka “Aπρῳ v´πáτoιs πρò у εἰδν ΣεπTεμβρων ‘Ỵуνoυ уενεaλoуaν πâσιν уνωστν μετуραΨα, ν ὦ ἒσoνται π λεoνɛṣ ἱστoρατ δτερμνευνατ ν τoὑτῳ τῴ βιβλῳ θεν уàρ kα θεáων νματα ν δευτρ ξεπλξαμεν λ’ π τoτ σoνται τoτων ξμуσεισ, ε kα μ πσαι, ττων μντoιуε ν τoστ δναμαι.

O.T. 463 sq.BRUHN followed Zielinski (Philol. LV. 523) in adopting είδε from F, and used the variant together with others as establishing the value of Fas an independent source. We have already seen reason for refusing to attach much importance to the authority of this MS. (384), but it should be observed that both readings are recognized by Σ, and the question between εἶπε and είδε must be settled on its merits. Γ itself has πε written over the last syllable of είδε, and Zenodotus read εἲπ for εἰδῇ in Hom. O 207. Zielinski thinks that Eur. Andr. 998 τελουμένων δὲ Δελϕὶς εἲσεται πέτρα is an echo of this passage, but the inference is by no means certain. It may be that the original text of Trin (εἶπέτρα) points to the true solution, that πε fell out by haplography, and the isolated εἶ became εἶσε or ἣδε

Among the Homeric names there are many of the shortened form, of types that appear in historical Greek names and also some with endings (such as -ες, της, and -τωρ) that disappear, or tend to disappear, in names of the later time. Different forms of the same name occur; Patroklos is the only form used in the nominative of that hero's name, but in the other cases forms of the name Patrokles are found. The name Sthenelaos appears in its full form and there is also the variant Sthenelos. The full name Agasthenes is used in Il. 2. 624, but in the case of others who have names originally made in the same way the short forms appear; Eurystheus is short for Eurysthenes and his name contains an element of his father's name Sthenelos. The name Menesthenes does not occur in Homer, but the forms Menestheus, Menesthes, and Menesthios are all found. Other examples could be added of the variety which existed in the early form of the language in the proper names that are variants or ‘short forms’ of the original name.

‘Heliodori Aethiopica, sive Fabula … complectens amores castos Theagenis et Chancleae Libris X quorum singuli, quoad initium et finem, cum editione Graeca Basil[iensi] MDXXXIV. 4. collati, cum ipsa penitus consentire comperti sunt.…

‘Codex Graecus Chartaceus Ms. in 8 Saec. XV plurimis in locis manu Saec. XVI suppletus. Constat foliis scriptis 211.’

Too late for my edition of Propertius, but in time, I hope, to anticipate one criticism of the many that will be aimed at its details, I have detected a serious flaw in my text of his elegy upon Vertumnus (IV. ii.; IV. iii. of my edition). It is not so serious as some of the flaws caused in it by the corruption of our archetype; but instead of helping I have hindered truth in respect of two of the couplets. Now I should like to put forward a correction, which seems to set us in a fair way to recover the authors's pattern, as well as his words, in the second half of the elegy.

In the Classical Quarterly, Vol. XXIII. i, pp. 7–10, Mr. Denniston attempts to revive the ancient and once honoured sport of gloss-chasing. But the day of that perilous pastime has gone, and this latest effort is perhaps less successful than some of its predecessors. In his notes on the De Elocution of Demetrius he hunts and traps the unwary ‘gloss’ in his net of criticism, but unfortunately the snare is faulty, and the ‘catch’ escapes. I propose to discuss each of his suggested ‘glosses’ in his order, basing my arguments against his conclusions—(a) on probabilities; (b) on the usage of Demetrius in this work:

§ 271. καθλου δ νς λEεως τ σϰματα κα ὑπκρισιν κα γνα παρϰει τῷ λοντι, μλιστα τ διαλελυμον, τοτ' στι δειντητα.

In the opening chapter of the Iudicium de Dinarcho Dionysius quotes a passage from the Περì ὁμωνὐμων of Demetrius Magnes, mat the end of which come the words ἧ δέ λὲξις ἐςτί τοῦ Δεινάρχου κυρὶως ἠθική πάθος κινοῦσα σχεδòν τῇ πικρíᾳ μóνον καì τῷ τóνῶ τοὖ Δημοσθθενικοὖ χαρακτῆρος λειπομὲνη τοῦ δέ πιθανοὖ καì κυρíιυ μηδὲν ἐνδέονσα. [I have deliberately omitted all punctuation marks, because the punctuation of this sentence is still doubtful, though I hope to suggest a possible interpretation of its meaning at the end of this article.] Now there is nothing in this sentence or in the words preceding it to indicate beyond all possibility of doubt the precise meaning ofκυρíως ἠθικὴ. And in such circumstances, to allow free play to personal (or perhaps natural) prejudices regarding the significance of thephrase is more than dangerous. The whole problem of ἠθική λὲξις has been treated too cursorily. If one mentions the phrase to a non-professional student of Greek, who, however, has some acquaintance with the Attic orators, he immediately replies: ‘I suppose you mean the sort of thing you meet in Lysias.’ And he is to beexcused, because, after all, that is the predominant meaning of the term. But it has other senses, and therefore one must fight shy of vague statements like that of Finke, who, after quoting the above lines, comment: ‘Demetrius Magnus attribuit ei (sc. Dinarcho)τἡν κυρíαν λὲξιν qua non sit Demosthene inferior’(the last few words of which are possibly not even a correct translation of the text); or of Burgess, who enumerates qualities, ideas, and topics ‘of special value to the epideictic and court orators, ’ among which appears ἠθοποιἷα which he merely translates ‘impersonation or delineation of character, ’ without offering any further comment. Sandys talks of ‘the ethical warmth of colouring, by which the dullest details are lit up with a fresh life and interest.’ Gromska is even more vague (and seems almost to confuse ἦθ∨ς and χαρακτὴρ: ‘Grammatici antiqui, qui de Hyperide tractabant, de eloquentiae eius genere disputabant, orationum Hyperidearum compositionem et ἦθ∨ς respicientes, i.e. quantum in arte rhetorica et oratoria valeret, examinantes.’ In the hope, therefore, of being able to represent the difficulty inherent in these lines, and of attempting to remove it, or at any rate to shed a broader beam of light upon it than has been shed hitherto, I propose to review very briefly the fluctuations of meaning in the life of this phrase and its equivalents, as we find them used in the critical writings of the Greek philosophers and rhetoricians.