History of religion, in its beginnings, had to struggle to emancipate itself from classical mythology as well as from theology and philosophy; when ritual was finally found to be the basic fact in religious tradition, the result was a divorce between classicists, treating mythology as a literary device, on the one hand, and specialists in festivals and rituals and their obscure affiliations and origins on the other.

The context shows that the intention of the lines was to bring out the surpassing beauty of a certain girl and its value to the chorus as a whole. When the Pleiades rise up the sky, they are followed by a star that far outshines them all: Sirius. In Alcman's image, then, the Pleiades should correspond to the chorus and Sirius to the girl. The point of opdpiaiis that the comparison is not chosen at random, but suggested by something to be seen during the current ceremonies: the Pleiades rise up the sky before dawn when we carry the plough, with Sirius down below them, and they seem like a rival group.

There is no reference to Ortheia, and no rival chorus. We may translate: ‘For the Pleiades range themselves against us, before dawn, as we bear the plough through the ambrosial night, bringing Sirius up with them as they do.’

In his discussion of the ethics of suicide (Phaedo 61 c ff.) Plato alludes to more than one traditional injunction against it:indicates a fairly general acceptance of its wickedness. Cebes has heard the Pythagorean Philolaus, among others, saying that suicide was immoral, but has gathered no satisfactory explanation as to why this should be so. One reason, impressive, but, Socrates admits, difficult is to be found

It is proposed to reappraise the nature of Sappho's seizure (2 B = 2 D = 31 LP), to demonstrate that it constitutes proof positive of her lesbianism and to delimit, on the basis of psycho-physiological considerations, the sense any emendation of (v. 9) must have, if it is to match the clinical precision and to fit the rest of the seizure she describes.

In two of his dialogues especially, the Sophist and the Parmenides, Plato concerns himself at length with problems presented by the Eleatics. Despite difficulties in the interpretation of individual passages, the Sophist has in general proved the less difficult to understand, and since some of the problems at issue in the two works indicate the same or similar preoccupations in Plato's mind, it is worth considering how far an interpretation of the ‘easier’ dialogue can be used to forward an interpretation of the more difficult. First, therefore, we must identify problems common to the two works; then we must see whether we can understand what Plato understood Parmenides to have done—this may help towards an understanding of what he did in fact do; finally we can apply our findings to the Parmenides itself, particularly to the problem of the unity of the dialogue, in the hope that Plato's intentions may become clearer.

The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. Most recent critics, however, agree that Plutarch's printed in the later editions of DielsKranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, should be excluded in favour of As G. E. L. Owen remarks (‘Eleatic Questions’, CQ [1960], 102), ‘[Plutarch's] is inappropriate since is to be proved from and not vice versa’.

In a previous article in this journal I proposed the hypothesis that the First Stele of the Hekatompedon inventories was originally opisthographic. Subsequently, when eleven fragments of this stele were placed in plaster in the Epigraphical Museum, it became possible to examine its reverse face thoroughly and to see clearly the architectural features of the stone.

In 191O Wilamowitz suggested that the account of the election of the first Magnesian officials (Laws 751 a–755 b) is a conflation of two originally separate sets of proposals. After long neglect his arguments have been resurrected, with one major modification and in more detail, by Morrow. I intend to argue that both commentators are fundamentally mistaken, and that, properly interpreted, the passage yields limited but valuable information about Plato's plans for coping with the problems of founding a state from scratch. These plans are not simply of theoretical interest: as D. A. Russell has remarked, the Laws is our best guide to the policies and practices of the constitutional advisers sent out by the Academy.

Fuhrmann's work on the manuscripts of Anaximenes', finally made public in his Teubner text (Leipzig, 1966), has left the ground clear for critical operations. A solid start was made by Spengel and Kayser (for references to their contributions, and to those of other scholars, see Fuhrmann, pp. xlvi–xlviii, whose abbreviations are used below); but that there are still serious flaws in the text has recently been shown by R. Kassel (Philologus 1967, 122–6). The main purpose of the following notes is to air difficulties, some afresh, some for the first time.

The second example is apt, the first not, because the author is discussing not outright illegality, which falls within the compass of TO, but two ways of bringing within the compass ofacts that are not expressly illegal. Deletion of the first example must therefore be considered. It should not be thought, however, that there is anything wrong with the asyndetic coupling of two examples that both lead off with(cf. p. 10. 9–11).

Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor have interpreted the rubric to signify that the Hellenotamiai transferred to the commissioners of the Propylaia any un-expended funds left from a grant of money authorized by the demos for a given military campaign. While this idea of surplus funds seems a perfectly possible explanation, I would suggest an alternative, that the Hellenotamiai transferred to the commissioners of the Propylaia an aparche of booty collected by an Athenian expeditionary force. Herodotus and Xenophon4 mention the dekate from the booty of several battles, and Thucydides speaks of the dedication of spoils as a customary procedure.

A. Agreement of Participle

(1) Masculine takes precedence over feminine: e.g.

In the first two examples (for which see also II. A. 2 below) the participle may be conceived of as agreeing with the nearer of the two subjects, since it is expressed in the masculine singular. Likewise,refers specifically to. But the third example, in which the participle is in the masculine plural, clearly demonstrates the usual preference for masculine.

Publication by Eugene Vanderpool of the ostrakon with the name (Inv. No. P 27691) vindicates an inference made by Gustav Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Athens, 144 f. There he claimed that Nicostratus son of Dieitrephes (P.A. 11011) and Nicostratus (P.A. 11051), who is mentioned by Aristophanes, Wasps 81 f, were identical. Gilbert supposed that the qualities implied of Nicostratus in that passage were of the type to endear him to Nicias.

I should like to draw attention to a metrical phenomenon observable in the hexameters of Callimachus and propound a ‘law’ which so far as I know has not been remarked on before; the accompanying discussion involves some refinements to our understanding of the metrical effect of proclitics of general importance to Greek metrical studies. In analysing the data I have made use of some standard statistical methods which could in my view be used throughout the whole field of Greek metrical studies with great profit (to emphasize this I have presented the evidence as thoroughly as seemed possible). The analysis also provides some detailed evidence useful for a comparison of Callimachus, Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus, and Aratus, and the earlier writers by whom the Hellenistic poets were influenced.

The whole of the Pylos campaign is intimately connected with the local topography. Pritchett has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the land in this area has sunk (rather than risen, as commentators have assumed) since classical times, and hence there is much about the campaign that needs re-examination. We confine ourselves here to a consideration of the Spartan plan to block the entrances, as given in Thucydides. Some points relevant to this turn on a more detailed examination of the site itself, which we were able to conduct in the summers of 1967 and 1968.

The text as published runs:

The elegiacs on side (a) of this fragmentary piece of papyrus are identifiable as by Callimachus, probably from the Aetia, and these lines too are undoubtedly by the same author, and almost certainly from the same work. Verse 5 is a surprise, for it was thought until the discovery of this papyrus to be by Euripides; however the only source for this attribution is Stobaeus (Eel. 1. 3. 6), in whom it appears as the first line of a two-line quotation. It is not unusual in Stobaeus for two originally unconnected lines to be mistakenly combined (for further references and comments see John Barns, ‘A new Gnomologium (II)’, CQ N.s. i (1951), 18–19).

Aristophanes Frogs 1407–81 is a passage involving several problems of interpretation, the chief of which is, of course, the position and status of lines 1437–41 and 1451–3. In this brief note I shall confine myself to a consideration of the distribution of lines 1422–34 among the characters involved.

The tradition that Socrates had two wives at once, Xanthippe and Myrto, though an established one among ancient scholars, has met with blank incredulity in modern times. It impugns the character of Socrates, who has been established by Plato's martyrology as the unimpeachable patron saint of Western philosophy. And it appears to cast a slur on Greek marriage—not that the guiding lines of this somewhat ramshackle institution are perfectly known.

In the controversy over the date of Corinna, the following points may be taken as agreed:

1. An edition was made in Boeotia about the end of the third or beginning of the second century B.C.

2. The texts of Corinna current in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods were all descended from that Boeotian edition.

3. Before its dissemination, Corinna was unknown in Greece at large. If she wrote at an earlier period, she must have been remembered only locally.

The difference between Boeotian spelling of the fifth century and that of the fourth is very great: but the difference in this respect between the mid-fourth century and the late third or early second is comparatively slight. It is therefore tenable that whereas there would be a good reason for the re-spelling of fifth-century Boeotian into the later convention of any period, there would be no obvious or adequate reason for re-spelling Boeotian of the fourth century into the orthography of the third, or that of the third into that of the second. Even those features of fourth-century spelling which have ceased to preponderate are by no means unknown or even uncommon at the end of the third century.

Didymus, in modern works of reference, gets rather a good press. It is conceded on all sides that he was not an original researcher and that his remarks often betray a certain want of common sense. But the general estimate is favourable: more recent works do not substantially dissent from Sandys’ verdict (History of Classical Scholarship, i. 143): ‘The age of creative and original scholars was past and the best service that remained to be rendered was the careful preservation of the varied stores of ancient learning; and this service was faithfully and industriously rendered by Didymus.’ His industry is, of course, beyond question. But it is perhaps surprising that his reputation for accuracy did not drop sharply with the publication of the Berlin papyrus of the,the defects of which cast grave doubt on his reliability and general competence.

In his stimulating article on this topic Mr. Christopher Ehrhardt sought to show that there is no good reason to believe in any intervention by Philip of Macedon in Thessaly earlier than his campaign of 353. The second half of his paper is devoted to the date of Philip's capture of Pagasae, which Diodorus appears to put in the Athenian archon year 354/3 after the fall of Methone, a date adopted by most modern interpreters accepting the emendation for the unidentifiable in the text of Diodorus. Ehrhardt shows well the difficulties of believing in any capture of Pagasae, the port of Pherae, earlier than the capture of Pherae itself (in 352), and concludes that the emendation is to be rejected. In this I think he is right, and I am joining him in dating the capture of Pagasae in 352 after Pherae itself had fallen. The first half of his paper, however, rejecting all the evidence suggesting other interventions by Philip in Thessaly earlier than 353, is much harder to accept, for two reasons: