IT has long been recognized that Circe's instructions to Odysseus at Od. 10. 516–40 were composed after their fulfilment at 11. 2 3–50.2 Something similar in Iliad 9 seems to have been overlooked.

Agamemnon–s offer to Achilles at 122–57 is reported by Odysseus at 264–99 in more or less the same words.

On Aen. 2. 277 DServius notes ‘non sine ratione etiam hoc de crinibus dolet Aeneas, quia illis maxime Hector commendabatur, adeo ut etiam tonsura ab eo nomen acceperit, sicut Graeci poetae docent.’ Fraenkel showed (J.R.S. xxxix [1949], 151 f., = Kl. Beitr. ii. 381 f.) that the reference in Graeci poetae is to Lycophron (1133 ), the source of the comment being provided by Eustathius 1276. 29, a scholion on Il. 22. 401 f. He adds a caution against supposing that Servius’ source referred not only to Lycophron but also to other Greek poets, ‘e.g. some Attic comedians’. That such allusions were in fact made in Comedy is proved by Pollux (2. 29, discussing (Anaxilas, fab. incert. vi, Meineke F.C.G.iii- 355).

Our understanding of the world is not static; it can both expand and contract, and it can also stagnate. In history the expansion of the known universe has come about from various causes, from scientific advance, the slow processes of trade and exploration, from, colonization, and especially from conquest. Periods of expansion produce often a re-evaluation of the external world, both that which was already known and that which was previously unknown, or on the fringes of the known. But no one is wholly capable of a direct response toreality: reality as soon as it is experienced is perceived, organized: ‘Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen nicht der Dinge’ (the world is the totality of facts, not of things).

A number of scholars have discussed the difficulty of preserving accurately—or at all—information about the past1 in the Greek Dark Ages when the literacy of Minoan/Mycenean Greece had been lost. Such preservation necessarily depended on the memories of the members of the society, especially those of the professional ‘rememberers’, the bards of the oral tradition: in such a society, if knowledge of an event is to be available to future generations, it must not be forgotten.

No project lay nearer to the heart of Eduard Fraenkel during his last years than that of promoting a reprint of the famous book Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles, by Tycho von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, which was first published as volume xxii of Philologische Untersuchungen in 1917. Tycho Wilamowitz, the son of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and the grandson of Theodor Mommsen, was killed fighting against the Russians near Ivangorod on the night of 14/15 October 1914. After his death the manuscript was prepared for publication by his friend Ernst Kapp, who has explained in the foreword of the book the nature of his services.

In a recent article1 the psychiatrist George Devereux reached the following conclusion about fr. 31: Sappho as a ‘masculine lesbian’ experiences ‘a perfect, “text-book case”, anxiety attack’, elicited by ‘a love-crisis’, viz. by the presence of a male rival for the attention of Sappho's favourite girl. He then sums up: ‘In fact, even if there existed no explicit tradition concerning Sappho's lesbianism, her reaction to her male rival would represent for the psychiatrist prima facie evidence of her perversion’ (p. 21).

The attribution of line 217 to Antigone seems never to have been questioned, and Hermann's emendation in 219 for the of the MSS.) has been generally accepted as ‘fitting, since Oedipus and Antigone have just been speaking together’ (Jebb ; alii similia). However, the introduction of Antigone into this lyrical dialogue may result from misunderstanding the tenor of the scene. The passage in question is difficult in parts and the text frequently emended ; nevertheless, enough seems clear to suggest that 217 belongs to the chorus. Antigone's alleged participation would interrupt the crescendo of the chorus's unremitting pressure on Oedipus until he complies with their demand in 220. The restoration of 217 to the chorus would thus reveal another instance of Sophocles‘ absolute concentration on the action developing at the moment, regardless of whoever else is on the stage.

Towards the end of Plutarch's treatise de Pytkiae oraculis (409 b 29) Theon quotes a short passage of verse but does not identify its author. The fragment is now customarily printed among the remains of Pindar's Parthenea, most recently by Snell:

Much space is devoted by Broadhead to the discussion of this strophe and its ‘various difficulties’. The discussion centres on two main issues:

1. ‘If the Chorus say ; that implies there has already been some call he might have heard & But to Darius there has been no appeal at all; nor surely could the previous invocation have been described in these excessive epithets.’ So Headlam,3 who then proceeded, in the light of Luc. Necyom

The difficulty in the apostrophe of the (1144–5) has been noticed by commentators. So Barrett (ad loc.): ‘/ this cannot mean that the Amazon from Hipp, now that he is exiled: in all the forms of her legend … she meets a violent death at a time which cannot be long after Hipp.'s birth, and it is inconceivable that Eur. should mean his audience to think of her as still alive in Trozen or Athens.’

What seems to have passed unnoticed is that there are, in this choral ode (the triad 1120–50), two other passages which also suffer from at least prima facie incongruities with details of the story well known to the audience:

No speech in Attic tragedy has made a stronger impression on later generations than Medea's farewell to her children. Four changes of mind and two displays of maternal affection lay bare the depths of a tortured soul; ‘there, in a short space, arelove and hatred, firmness and hesitation, fierce joy and unfathomable sorrow’.

This passage is interpreted by all commentators and translators as follows: ‘Or how shall we call it glorious that I went out to fight the hydra and the lion at the command of Eurystheus—and shall I not labour to shield off death from my own children ?’ The purpose of my note1 is to suggest (i) that we have here a very remarkable use of the verb , and (2) that Euripides used it here with a precise and subtle intention

This need not in itself be surprising if the speeches of Thucydides are, as many believe, fairly free compositions, but it is difficult to explain the immediate irrelevances of [P] in particular on any view of , if this is what Thucydides is claiming to give us (1. 22. 1). As the effect of the foregoing analysis is to suggest that the generalization forms an important part of Thucydides’ ‘historical’ technique, it would be interesting to pursue the extent to which the emphasis should in 1. 22. 1 be placed on , if these can possibly be ‘generalizations’ as opposed to the usual translation as ‘particular occasions’.

I start at the end. Iolaus appeals to Demophon (229–31): ‘become their kinsman, friend, father, brother, master: all this is better than falling into the hands of the Argives.’ One should hope so. When Pearson comments ‘: i.e. submission to Demophon is better than subjection by the Argives. The remark is prompted by , the climax of the preceding appeal’, he is unconsciously repeating what had been said by Herwerden, R.Ph. N.S. xvii (1893), 236: ‘manifestum est ad solum referri posse, nam praegressa omnia sunt eiusmodi quae nemo non sibi exoptet.’ How they can even consider the possibility that may refer to one item only in a list of five I do not know.

In this paper I argue that the stretch of dialogue from 385 b 2–d 1 (Burnet's lineation) in the Cratylus does not belong where it is found in the MSS. (and consequently in our published texts), but fits rather between 387 c 5 and 387 c 6. I suggest further that at any rate my negative thesis receives some measure of support from the fragments of Proclus' commentary on the dialogue.

This is one of the most controversial passages in Thucydides' Archaeological Introduction, and perhaps the least happily phrased. Scholiasts explain is as meaning (a) Athens in other respects, (b) Greece other than Athens. Jowett, whose suggestions have not on the whole been bettered by later commentators, suggests three main possibilities of interpretation:

Professor Andrewes has recently been kind enough to refer in his commentary on Thucydides to a suggestion of mine. This present note seeks to expand the idea, and to relate it to north Arcadian politics of the early fourth century B.C.

Tradition gave some prominence in the archaic period to Orchomenus in eastern Arcadia; and genealogy supported this prominence, since, apart from a belief that Areas himself was a son of the eponym Orchomenus, there was a continuing belief that this Orchomenus founded not only Orchomenus itself but also Methydrium.

Epaminondas the soldier has been much admired. His two great battles rank as masterpieces of the military art. Epaminondas himself perhaps regarded them as his greatest achievements, to judge by his last words as reported by Diodorus (15. 87). He had been carried from the battlefield of Mantinea with a spear stuck in his chest. The doctors declared that when the spear was removed he would die. After hearing that his own shield was safe and that the Boeotians had won, he ordered that the spear be removed. One of his friends said to him ‘But you die without a son.’ He answered ‘I do, by God, but I leave two daughters, my victory of Leuctra and my victory of Mantinea’, and then he died. Nor were his ‘daughters’ unadmired. By remarkable chance the future Philip II of Macedon was hostage at Thebes at the very time of Epaminondas' pre-eminence and did not fail to learn, as Chaeronea was to show

Few interpreters of Aristotle have denied that both empirical, inductive methods and some kind of systematic deduction played a role in the philosophy of the biologist who expounded the West's first formal logic. But it has usually been the fashion to focus on one side of this polarity. In recent decades the focus has been on the empirical Aristotle. But some of the latest studies emphasize that Aristotle varied his methods according to context. G. E. L. Owen, for example, although he feels that Aristotle took little care to separate inductive and deductive methods in the treatises, does allow that he uses deduction at times, and mentions book 6 of the Physics among them.

A Distinction of four species of tragedy and epic poetry is laid down, though not explained at length, in two passages of the Poetics (18, I455b32–56a3 and 24, I459b7–16), and, as I hope to show, mentioned in another (12, ). At the end of the treatise, Aristotle positively says that he has given an explanation of both the species and the component parts of tragedy and epic poetry (l462bl6–l8 ).