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.

The text of Martial is fairly good, though not as good as many editors seem to think. We have three separate sources from which our manuscripts are derived, which are called by Lindsay in the O.C.T. AA, BA and O.1 All three sources seem to have suffered from editing, AA less than the others. In A.D. 401 one Torquatus Gennadius seems to have emended the text (feliciter as the ‘puff’ in some of the BA MSS. puts it). We do not know whether all three sources were affected by this recension: all we know is that the BA family are the only manuscripts that mention it. But there are many signs of recension discernible in the readings of the other families too, e.g. pas-sages which have evidently had grammar or syntax thrust upon them—and in these I do not include the now obscure allusions and the dead jokes past recall.

There are three outstanding events in the internal history of Sparta during the sixth century. First, there is the constitutional settlement denning the functions of the Crown, the Senate, and the Assembly: this is now generally admitted to have taken place about 600 B.C. Secondly, there is the increase in the importance of the ephorate, a pseudo-democratic development associated with the ephor Chilon and the year 556. Thirdly, there is the decline in Spartan material culture; this process begins shortly after the turn of the century with the abandonment of gold and ivory work, and culminates shortly after the middle of the century in an almost total collapse of artistic and cultural standards.

This is partly a verbal question, depending on the meaning of the word ‘caste’. I propose to assume that if we say that a State is a caste State we imply at least two things:

(1) that its members are divided into mutually exclusive endogamous classes, and (2) that no one may be transferred from one class to another—unless possibly to a lower class. The State which Plato describes in the Republic satisfies the first of these conditions. Dr. Popper, who believes that it is a caste State, maintains that it also satisfies the second. In addition he contends that the original basis of the class division is racial. My object in the notes which follow is to argue that both these contentions are false.

Two firm points in the chronology of Antiphon's speeches are VI περ⋯ τοὖ χορευτοὖ in 419/81 and the Defence (περ⋯ τ⋯σ μεταστ⋯σεωσ) in 411/02. Speech V περ⋯ τ⋯σ 'Hρῷδου is now generally dated between these two; only the vaguest attempts have been made to date I κατ⋯ τ⋯σ μητρυ⋯ασ; there is no general agreement on either the date or the authorship of the Tetralogies. The main purpose of this paper is to adduce linguistic as well as external evidence for the dating of V in the neighbourhood of 414 and to show grounds for dating I between VI and V. Its secondary purpose is to apply some of the results gained in this inquiry to the fragments and the Tetralogies.

The text of Euripides' Troades depends mainly upon the versions preserved in two manuscripts, viz. Palatinus 287 (P) and Vaticanus 909 (V). Both these manuscripts are well known and have been several times collated. Their importance in relation to one another and to the other existing manuscripts for the study of the text of Euripides in general has been frequently discussed and is no longer a subject of major controversy. The notes which follow are designed (a) to put on record a number of corrections to the readings ascribed to P and V for the Troades in the apparatus criticus of Prinz-Wecklein and later editors; and (b) to correct and amplify the general descriptions of P and to call attention to certain difficulties in the current views of its relationship to Laurentianus xxxii. (L).

(i) In Epictetus‘ chapter on Providence (1. 16), the eighteenth section contains an evident corruption: ταντα επ’ εκαοτον επνειν εδει και και νον μεγιστον υμνονεπνμνειν…

The duplication of cannot be genuine. It is not an iteration of the kind which heightens the effect of a passage: it just falls flat. Wilamowitz, in his Lesebuch, printed in the first place. This is an improvement, but I doubt whether this conjecture really settles the point. The duplication is stressed, and not eased, by the noun and Epictetus is hardly likely to have followed the verb by the homophonous synonym At one of the two places, then, the scribe missed the original verb by duplicating the other. I believe that consideration of the context can show what the original was and from which place it was ousted.

It is proposed to account here for a number of words with closely allied forms but different meanings: περιοτερα ‘pigeon’ περωτερις ‘vervain’ and ‘a woman's ornament’ ‘vervain’, ‘a woman's ornament’, and diminutive of περωτερις There are several other by-forms, as may be seen by reference to LSJ, but they add nothing to the well-established partition of meaning in this stem between the three senses ‘pigeon’, ‘vervain’, and ‘a woman's ornament’. It is my belief that we must explain the three senses together, and this I shall attempt to do.

Diogenes Laertius relates the tale that Aristotle, upon being reproached for giving alms to a debased fellow, replied, ‘It was not his character, but the man, that I pitied.’ Some such reply is equally apt in apology for a paper paying homage to an idea long discredited in the philosophical world, Aristotle's theory of Place. I have been moved, not indeed by the apparent character of Aristotle's theory, for that is easily reproached, but by what has proved for the philosophical tradition of infinite worth, what we may call the theory's ‘latent virtue’. There is a danger, of course, as hard-headed philologists and commentators are always reminding us, that in attending to this latent virtue we may be paying sentimental homage to the dead. Thus it will be important that we first carefully and coldly examine the overt character of the Aristotelian doctrine before attempting to justify any philosophical compassion felt in its presence. More than likely in such a disinterested inquiry it will be found that our ‘debased fellow’ is a good deal more of a man than the modern reformers have allowed.