I start with two contradictory statements: (1) Jaeger, Aristotle (Eng. trans.), p. 330: ‘Thus all indications point to a late date for the origin of the philosopher's zoological works.’ (2) D'Arcy Thompson, Historia Animalium (Oxford Translation), Prefatory Note: ‘It can be shown that Aristotle's natural history studies were carried on, or mainly carried on, in his middle age, between his two periods of residence at Athens.‘

In this article I have been concerned to show that some commonly accepted readings or interpretations are inadequate, to offer what I believe to be the correct interpretations, to justify these by a careful consideration of the context, and to-propose corrections that give the required sense and are in accordance with well-established palaeographical canons.

It is well known that the trisyllabic ending of the pentameter, which, with the Augustan elegists, declines in popularity until it is practically rejected by Ovid, meets with a revival in Martial. His pentameters show a considerably higher proportion of trisyllabic endings than those of either Tibullus or Propertius.1 Is it possible to dis-cover any reasons, conscious or instinctive, that conditioned the revival of this type of ending?

Was Isocrates influenced by Thudydides? Wilamowitz at first suspended judgement and later decided he was not, but he did not go into the question. Attempts have since been made to prove close and direct influence. The question assumes greater interest and importance because of the immense influence of rhetoric on the writing of history in the fourth century and of the generally accepted tradition that Isocrates’ pupils included well-known historians like Ephorus, Theopompus, and the ‘Atthis’ writer Androtion.

In The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens Dr. Pickard-Cambridge includes a most useful and convenient collection of south Italian vase-paintings which have been held to throw light on the stage-settings of Greek tragedy. He concludes that they give no evidence for Athens in the fifth century and in particular do not justify the assumption that interior scenes were played in a porch in front of the central door. The second conclusion is true, but some of the vases do show that the central doors could be thrown wide open to display an interior scene. The first conclusion is formally correct, but it should be remembered that the “plays came from Athens, and it is at least possible that the south Italian producers modelled themselves on Athenian producers. In any case these vases are worthy of further consideration.

In A.D. 60 Nero instituted at Rome a quinquennale certamen which he called Neronia. It was in three sections—athletics, chariot-racing, and music (which included singing, and recitations in prose and verse)—after a Greek model. This model would be that of the Pythian rather than of the Olympic Games, for at the latter there was no regular musical contest; though perhaps Nero got his immediate inspiration from the Augustalia at Naples, which was an athletic and musical festival of a religious nature.

The study of Plato's style as a writer has hardly kept pace with the study of his thought as a philosopher. Obviously he stands apart as the one original thinker in classical antiquity who also gives expression to his thought in a finished literary prose; and obviously his prose is worth studying for its own sake. What I would here suggest is that the close and continual relationship between the style and the content of his work may serve, in various aspects, to elucidate his argument; and, further, that at certain points his style itself has a direct connexion with his philosophic thought.

Every reader of Roman poetry must be struck by the fact that atque is so much more frequently elided than left unelided; and that the rarity of unelided atque is not—a matter of chance may be seen from a comparison between the poets' treatment of this word and that of others of a similar metrical structure: i.e. disyllables beginning with an open long vowel and terminating with an open short one. Such words ending in -que or -ě (utque, inque, ipse, ante, ire, ecce, and the like) are common enough in Roman poetry and are, particularly in elegiac verse, more often found unelided than elided. It would be a waste of time to give figures for them all, but those for ille may be cited as an example. In Virgil, Aen. 1 and 2 the proportion of unelided to elided ille is 57 per cent, to 43 per cent.; in Catullus' hexameters 50 per cent, to 50 per cent.; in his lyrics 75 per cent, to 25 per cent. In his elegiacs there are 3 unelided to none elided. In Ovid's Met. the proportion is 83 per cent, unelided to 17 per cent, elided; in hisArs Am. 1 and 2 84–6 per cent, to 15–4 per cent.; in his Fasti 1 and 2 97–5 per cent, to 2–5 per cent. In Tibullus 1 and 2 the proportion is 87 per cent, unelided to 13 per cent, elided; in Propertius 1 and 4 73–7 per cent, unelided to 26–3 elided.

I present first what I take to be a more interesting item than the others.

O.C 716–19. δ' εὐρετμος ἔκπαγλ' λα χερ

σ ✝παραπτομναπλτα

θρῷσκει, τν κατομπδων

νηρῄδων κλουθος.

The above is Pearson's text, except that I have transferred the last syllable of his 716 to the beginning of my 717. Careful consideration of the metre of this stasimon has convinced me that 716 is rightly regarded by Schroeder as an ionic trimeter (what Pearson's line would be I have no idea, and his in 703 looks oddly detached); further, that 717 is what (I and) most people call a glyconic, as is also 718. Naturally therefore I follow Hermann and Jebb as regards the text in 704, and have thus no use for the three conjectures mentioned by Pearson as substitutes for our admittedly corrupt παραπτομνα.

It is one of the attractions of Greek syntax that it provides an abundance of usages which require careful discrimination, if we are to appreciate their value; and which at the same time present problems of interpretation which have not been completely solved. This is particularly the case with the use of the negatives, and it is one of these constructions with which we are concerned here.

The codex Cromwellianus 12 (saec. XV–XVI), one of the most interesting astrological manuscripts of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, contains on p. 450 f., under the heading 'Ιμβρασίου 'Εϕεσίου περί ⋯ρρώστων, the first part of the first part of Ps.-Galen's περι κατακλίσεως νοσούντων, which is, together with a work of Hermes Trismegistos, our principal source for iatromathematics, that is, for diagnosis and prognosis based on certain constellations, above all on the Moon's position in a particular sign of the zodiac. It is not the text itself that calls for notice—since we possess older and better manuscripts of it—but the mention of the author, Imbrasios of Ephesus, which only occurs here.

Professor R. J. Getty has drawn attention (C.Q. xxvii, 1933, p. 139) to a tenth- or early eleventh-century manuscript of Statius’ Thebaid, hitherto examined only in Book I, namely Turonensis (T: codex Parisinus nouv. acqu. lat. 1627). Dr. Klotz, in his Teubner edition of 1908, gave citations from Book I, and wrote (Praefatio, p. xiv), ‘dolendum est sane de hoc codice primum tantum librum innotuisse, sed cum Roffensis libri maxime affinis accuratiorem notitiam haberemus, collatione quamvis -aegre careri posse nobis visum est.’ I have collated both T and Roffensis (r: codex Regius Mus. Brit. 15.C.X) in full, and find firstly that the citations of r by Klotz are far from accurate, especially in the last six books, and secondly that while it is indeed true thatT and r are very closely related, T is a much better representative than r of their common source.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to a similarity between an ancient and a modern theory of living nature. There is no need to present the Aristotelian doctrine in full detail. I must rather apologize for repeating much that is well known. My endeavour is to offer it for comparison, and, incidentally, to clear it from misrepresentation. Uexküll's theory, on the other hand, is little known, and what is given here is an insufficient outline of it. I do not maintain that either doctrine is right. I am fully aware that the problem of the essence of living nature by no means admits of an éasy solution. In offering for consideration the comparison contained in this paper I would go no farther than owning my belief that the two authors here discussed, both thinkers who combine an intensely philosophical outlook with a wide biological experience, are worth the attention not only of the historian of science and philosophy, but also of the student of philosophical biology.

Etymology, especially that of an ancient language like Greek, is not as a rule a field in which one expects to get conclusive demonstration; and between rival explanations one is often provided with a choice which cannot be made with much confidence. But despite this I think that I should reply to the article by W. S. Allen on ‘The Name of the Black Sea in Greek’ (C.Q. xli (1947), pp. 86–8), which has raised again the question dealt with in my article ‘The Name of the Euxine Pontus’ (C.Q. xxxiv (1940), pp. 123–8). This is not so much because I do not feel satisfied with Allen's explanation (as I do not), as because this particular etymology has considerable historical, in addition to linguistic, interest.

Since my article in C.Q. xli, pp. 86 ff., a further discussion of the problem has come to my notice. H. Jacobsohn, in an article entitled Σκνθικ⋯ in Zeitschr. f. vergleichende Sprachforschung, liv, pp. 254 ff., anticipates my point that the Greek ᾊξε(ι)νƿς is borrowed not from Avestan but from some other Iranian language, probably Scythian. He also makes outan attractive case, based on the word παφ⋯δεισ¿ς, for considering the Iranian pronunciation at the period when the loan occurred to have been αχšēna, with ē from original ai. It is unfortunate that he should have supported his case with the argument that a form αχšaina is too remote from Greek ἄξειν¿ς (where ει = ē, not ei) for the identification to have taken place: this insistence on complete homonymy in folk-etymology I have already criticized in discussing Moorhouse's article; and in any case it is by no means certain that ἄξεινႿς is the earliest form of the name in Greek.