Evripides Rhes. 161 sqq. Dolon, having undertaken to visit the Greek lines as a spy, addresses Hector:

οủκûν πονεεîν μèν χρή, πο;νοûντα

μιαθòν φéρεαθαι. παντì γàρ προακε;íμενον

κéρρς πρòς ἔργῳ τ⋯ν χáριν τíκτει διπγ⋯ν.

This famous decree, which is the earliest Athenian decree preserved on stone, is printed e.g. by Hiller in IG. i. no. i, and with a materially different text by Tod in SGHI. no. II. A small new fragment was published in Hesperia, vii. 264. Restorations continue to differ widely and fundamentally. In Hesperia, x. 301–7, Meritt has discussed recent suggestions, and has submitted his own text on p. 307; on p. 305 is a drawing by Raubitschek of the whole monument on the basis of Meritt's text.

Among the departures from the direct tradition in Thucydidesü quotation of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo at 3.104, perhaps the most interesting is line 171. The MSS of the Hymns give ET-iotacism). The majority of Thucydidesü MSS give , but is corrected by a second hand in FJ and by the first hand in H to . Each tradition exists in blissful ignorance of the other. In Aristidesü quotation of lines 169–72 ( 559D, p. 245 Keil), the MSS in general agree with the direct tradition of the Hymns: ( A) (. DU). But the reading in R is a correction. The original reading, which has been erased, was . Aristides, who as his introductory remark shows ( in Aristides clearly comes from Thucydidesü ) is quoting from Thucydides, appears to have read in his text of Thucydides, but this has been replaced at some stage in the tradition by ; the MSS tradition of Aristides has been ’corrected’ from the direct tradition of the Hymns. If Aristides had in his text of Thucydides, the corrected reading of FJH is not the

Whether Meletus, the accuser of Socrates, is to be identified with Meletus, the accuser of Andocides and participant in the arrest of Leon of Salamis (And. 1.94), has recently been discussed, with inconclusive results, by H. Blumenthal. The strongest argument against the identification, it may be thought, is that Socrates mentions the arrest (32 c 4-e 1) without implicating Meletus. I propose to argue that the Meleti are one, that there is a veiled allusion to Meletus in this passage and that Socrates effects this allusion in two ways.

The present paper is based on one entitled ‘The papyri and the text of Thucydides’, which I read before the Fifth International Congress of Papyrology in Oxford on August 31st, 1937. Later in the same year appeared Vittorio Bartoletti's Pisa dissertation Per la storia del testo di Tucidide (Florence: Sansoni), of which I was privileged to see a draft in 1935. I have several times saved space here by referring to Bartoletti for a collection of the evidence.

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.

The first few chapters of Caesar's Bellum Civile are notoriously untrustworthy. Much has been done by Nissen, Schmidt and others towards re-telling the story more truthfully, but our accounts are not yet fully satisfactory. Caesar's statement that he met the tribunes only after crossing the Rubicon is at first sight startling and does not accord with the story as told by Plutarch and Appian; for both of these historians make much of the fact that Caesar exhibited the tribunes upon their arrival to his army, thus stirring the soldiers to action. Plutarch and Appian are evidently following Pollio, who was with Caesar on the day of crossing: they ought therefore to furnish testimony of some weight. Suetonius makes no direct statement about the matter, but the order of events as given by him seems to place him in agreement with the statement of the Bellum Civile. We have therefore Pollio, Plutarch (twice), and Appian against the words of the Bellum Civile and Suetonius; or, more simply, Pollio against Caesar, both of whom were eye-witnesses of what occurred that day. Pollio, moreover, is the critic who questions the veracity of these very commentaries. Our acceptance of one side or the other can, therefore, hardly depend upon preponderance of authority. It will be a question of probability and probability I think we shall find resting with Plutarch and Appian. The only objection against adopting this conclusion at once, is that it seems to assume that Caesar has falsified to his own disadvantage.

After I had put myself the task of investigating the correctness of the results obtained by Heibges concerning the clausulae of Chariton, I decided to determine the frequency in which the different rhythmical forms appear in the authors of non-rhythmical works. For that purpose I investigated the prose works of Thucydides and Plutarch as carefully and in as specified a form as was possible. This I did with the intention to compare the percentages with those of Heibges. In this comparison, however, I came to the conclusion that the figures for Thucydides and Plutarch differed considerably, and that in such a way that certain conclusions could be drawn concerning the manner in which Plutarch constructed his clausulae according to fixed rules.

In a former paper I endeavoured to show that the myth in Plutarch's de facie is a conscious imitation on a small scale of the Timaeus of Plato, and that therefore we might conclude that Plutarch, who regarded the Timaeus as serious philosophy, intended the main point of his own myth, the derivation of mind, soul and body from the sun, moon and earth respectively, to be taken literally. This conclusion will be equally true of the myth of the de genio, if it can be shown, first, that the two myths present what is essentially the same psychological theory, and, secondly, that there is no internal inconsistency in the myth of the de genio, such as to justify von Arnim in concluding that it consists merely of two incompatible doctrines from different sources arbitrarily placed by Plutarch in juxtaposition. The present paper is an attempt to establish these two points.

In the course of a series of arguments to refute Simmias' hypothesis that soul is an attunement Socrates asks the question (93 a 11–12), which may be literally translated ‘Is it not natural for each attunement to be an attunement according as it has been attuned?’ This question Simmias admits he does not understand, and Socrates responds with another question in which he suggests that if it (i.e. the attunement) is more attuned and to a greater extent, supposing that it is possible for this to happen, it would be more of an attunement and a greater attunement, if less attuned and to a smaller extent, less of an attunement and a smaller attunement (93 a 14–b 2).if less attuned and to a smaller extent, less of an attunement and a smaller attunement (93 a 14–b 2). Neither the meaning of these questions nor their place in the argument is at all obvious, and none of the solutions offered by the English commentators seems to be without difficulty.

As stated in C.R. LI, p. 168, the Jerusalem palimpsest of Euripides had been collated by Tischendorf, Papadopoulos Kerameus and Horna Mr. D. L. Page's edition of the Medea takes account of the present collation, which in its turn owes much to the acumen of Mr. Page and to his kindness in allowing me to include some of his results (indicated below by the initials D. L. P.) obtained from independent photographs. Each of the above-named scholars has found reason to correct and add to his predecessor's work, and this is natural, since not only is man not infallible but more and more is also required of a collator as time goes on.

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.

Löwe and von Hartel (loc. cit. in n. 3) have drawn attention to the striking similarity between R's contents and those of a lost manuscript bequeathed by Philippe d' Harcourt (bishop of Bayeux, 1142–64) to the library at Bee. This manuscript is described in a twelfth-century catalogue as follows:7 ‘in alio Seneca de naturalibus questionibus et Adelermus Batensis [Adhelardus Bathonensis Becker), Proba vates, Aurea Capra, et liber Hildeberti Turonensis archiepiscopi de dissensione interioris et exterioris hominis, et sermones eius et uita ipsius.’

In the middle of the third book of his Histories, Tacitus records some movements in the western provinces occasioned by the events of 69. The troops in Britain, he says, were partial to Vespasian, who had served there with distinction in the reign of Claudius, and a party was formed in his interest.

Professor Kamerbeek in a recent article raises some interesting questions about the value of the manuscript of Sophocles Parisinus gr. 2712, universally known as A. Ever since the time of Brunck, who was the first to use this manuscript extensively, it has been considered second only to Laurentianus XXXII 9 (L) as a source of correct readings and as a witness of the old, i.e. pre-Byzantine, tradition of Sophocles. But the importance of A has been seriously challenged by Alexander Turyn, who has sought to show that in Ajax, Electra, and Oedipus Tyrannus—the three plays which constitute the Byzantine Triad of Sophocles—A's text is principally that of the recension of Manuel Moschopulus (fl. c. A.D. 1290)—or, more strictly, the version of that recension which includes scholia by Maximus Planudes and some slight variations in the poetic text.

This note argues that repeated uses of onus ‘burden’ in Plaut. Asin. 591–745 pun on Greek ὄνος ‘ass’ and, in so doing, activate a network of other puns and hints at the play's title, asses (the animal), and both homoerotic and anal sex.

At Ph. 3.4, Aristotle begins his discussion of the Unlimited. As is customary with him, a preliminary to the investigation proper is set up: he presents and discusses other thinkers' opinions on the subject, from which to draw indications on the meaning—and possibly the existence—of the entity at issue. As for the question of what the Unlimited is, Aristotle points out that there is a complete agreement on two points: the Unlimited pertains to physics, and it presents itself as a principle of sorts. A matter of disagreement concerns the categorial status of the Unlimited: Plato and the Pythagoreans regard it as something existing per se, whereas the Physicists claim that it is only the attribute of something else. A concise exposition of these theories follows.