This is one of the identities offered by Ovid for the goddess Anna Perenna, whose festival falls on the Ides of March. Ovid's lines give us the following information about this version of Anna: she was a poor but industrious old woman living in the suburbs of Rome, her benevolent baking and distribution of cakes provided much-needed sustenance for the plebs during their secessio on the Mons Sacer, and the plebs repaid this service when peace was restored by dedicating a cult-statue to her, so founding the cult of Anna Perenna. This Anna is thus a minor character, otherwise unknown, associated with a cult of obscure origin and with a major historical event, the first secessio plebis to the Mons Sacer usually dated to 494 B.C. This alone would make it likely that Ovid is inventing her here as circumstantial detail. When we consider that wo are told that she lived at Bovillae, some twelve miles south-east of Rome (orta… Bovillis surely indicates residence as well as place of birth), and that the Mons Sacer was located three miles north-east of the city, any probability of Ovid's story being a fully historical report vanishes; Anna of Bovillae was simply in the wrong place to purvey cakes to the plebs on this occasion, unless she ran a modern-style delivery service over a thirty-mile circuit. The possibility remains that there was an otherwise unknown cult of Anna Perenna at Bovillae to which Ovid refers, since the association of Anna with Bovillae must have come from somewhere, especially as it here seems to introduce an unwanted inconsistency.

The Brotherton Collection, which now forms part of the Library of the University of Leeds, contains a manuscript of Cicero's De Officiis which is usually assigned to the twelfth century. On page 3 of the catalogue of the Brotherton Library (printed for private circulation, Leeds, 1931) the manuscript is incorrectly said to contain ‘DE OFFICIIS LIBER PRIMUS’. In fact the manuscript contains all three books with the exception of nine leaves (seven of them from Book II) which have been removed. At present the manuscript consists of 41 folios on vellum measuring 11 in. X 7½ in. Ff. 39–41 are written by a later (14th-century?) hand.

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.

On p.339 of Classical Quarterly 36(1986), note 9 of the posthumous article by T.C.W. Stinton,‘Sophocles, Trachiniae 94–102’, refers to ‘JHS 106 (1986, forthcoming)’. The reference should in fact be to T.C.W. Stinton,‘Greek tragic texts and the limits of conservatism’, BICS 32 (1985),35ff.

Ritualistic formulae and acts pervade the political, legal, societal and religious life of the ancient world. In many instances there are striking similarities between the formulae of the Greco-Roman world and those of the Near East. Often illumination exists from one to the other. Here I wish to notice a few passages in Greek drama where I think such illumination is possible.

(i.) Even after the masterly studies of Leo Sternbach following on the paper by Hilberg1 there are still some small points to be noted on the historical poems of George of Pisidia. In what follows I have, of course, presupposed a knowledge of Sternbach's work which has happily rendered superfluous the new text which he was to have edited for Methuen's Series of Byzantine Texts.

It is not without a certain feeling of surprise that I find the fragment preserved by Strabo VIII. 3, 20, and somewhat doubtfully ascribed by him to Stesichoros, still commonly attributed to that writer. As the purpose of this note is to give what seem to me cogent reasons for holding that no poem of such a metre and content could be by an author of any possible date earlier than Alexandrian times, I cite the passage of Strabo in full. It runs as follows, and is part of an argument for the existence of an ancient city called Samos in Elis.

Heracleides Ponticus, a pupil of the schools of Plato and Aristotle, who lived from about 390 to 310 B.C., shared the wide interests of many of his pre-Platonic predecessors. Diogenes Laertius gives a long list of his works, many of them now known only by their titles, which he divided into writings on ethics, physics, grammar, music, rhetoric, and history. Like most of his predecessors he gave some attention to the heavens and speculated about the nature of the moon (frg. 114a), comets (frg. 116), the infinity of the cosmos (frg. 112); he was best known in antiquity, in this field, for his suggestion that the phenomena could be saved if the heavens were at rest and the earth revolved about the central axis (frgs. 106, 108).2 One of two pieces of evidence for his involvement in anything more than this general, inexact speculation in the field of astronomy is contained in the commentary on Plato's Timaeus written in Latin by Chalcidius somewhere at the beginning of the fourth century A.D.; it is this passage which this paper will discuss.

Over a hundred instances of the word ὕμνος from extant archaic poetry demonstrate that the Greek hymn was understood broadly as a song of praise. The majority of these instances comes from Pindar, who regularly uses the term to describe his poems celebrating athletic victors. Indeed, Pindar and his contemporaries saw the ὕμνος as a powerful vehicle for praising gods, heroes, men and their achievements—often in service of an ideological agenda. Writing a century later Plato used the term frequently and with much the same range. A survey of his usage reveals instances of ὕμνοι for gods, daimones, heroes, ancestors, leading citizens, noble deeds, sites and landscapes. Despite abundant evidence of Plato's own practice, studies of the Greek hymn posit an extreme narrowing of the genre in the classical period and cite the philosopher as the sole witness to, if not the originator of, this development. Two passages in particular, one from the Republic and one from the Laws, are seen to support the claim that by the fourth century b.c.e. the term ὕμνος refers exclusively to songs for gods. In Republic Book 10, we find the memorable edict on poetic censorship: ‘But we must know that of poetry only ὕμνοι for the gods and ἐγκώμια for the good must be admitted into our city.’ Laws Book 3 offers what appears to be an even more straightforward pronouncement: ‘Back then our music was divided according to its various types and arrangements; and a certain type of song was prayers to the gods, and these were called by the name ὕμνοι.’ From these two statements has arisen the consensus that Plato saw a divine recipient as the defining feature of the ὕμνος and, moreover, that this position reflects the communis opinio from at least the fourth century b.c.e. onward.

Herodas' Mimiamb VII is now generally admitted to be a sequel to VI insofar as Metro is a main character of both and Kerdon, the ‘Shoemaker’ who gives to VII its title, is a main topic of VI. Controversy remains as to whether the leather ‘baubons’ (dildoes) which Kerdon makes with consummate skill (VI 68–73) and purveys in secret (VI 63) is also an underlying topic of VII

At Theaetetus 163d-164b Socrates objects to the thesis that knowledge is perception by pointing out that a man who has seen something can still remember it, and so has knowledge of it; but this is impossible, if knowledge is perception, since he is no longer perceiving it.To this Protagoras is made to reply with two sentences at 166b 1–4:.Cornford translates ‘ For instance, do you think you will find anyone to admit that one's present memory of a past impression is an impression of the same character as one had during the original experience, which is now over? It is nothing of the sort’.Cornford understands this as the suggestion that the memory and the original perception are of different things: ‘ All that the objection in fact established was that “ perception” must be stretched to include awareness of memory images’. So too Lee: ‘Protagoras’ “way out”… appears to be to say that what we now know is not properly X but rather (say) our memory trace of X - some present πά θ ο ς (Y) quite distinct from X (or, more exactly, from our earlier perception of X: Protagoras must thoroughly subjectivize the matter) and very different from that (perhaps along Humean lines of vividness and the like)’. (Relevant passages from Hume are given by Campbell in his note ad loc.) McDowel

The former part of this paper attempted to show—

1. That in Anaxagoras' scheme of physics the following substances were elements:

(a) The animal substances (such as Flesh, Bone, Marrow, etc.);

(b) The vegetable substances (such as Bark, Wood, etc.);

(c) The so-called Opposites (the hot, the cold, etc.); and

2. That there is no evidence that Anaxagoras asserted any substances to be homoeomerous, and that, even if he had done so, the word ‘homoeomerous’ does not bear the meanings often attached to it by those theories which assume he made the assertion. The meaning of is, ὁμοιομερής is, not ‘simple in substance,’ i.e. ‘elementary,’ but ‘simple in formation.’

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.

I Agree with R. G. Austin, who in his recent paper (CQ, N.S. xviii (1968), 107 ff.) showed that Virgil did not write this proem to the Aeneid, and suggested (p. 115) that it was produced in the first half of the first century, perhaps prompted by the problem mentioned by Servius on A. I. I: ‘multi varie disserunt cur ab armis Vergilius coeperit.’ I wish here to comment briefly on the content of the lines.

(a) gracili

qui... carmen refers to the writing of the Eclogues. As Austin points out (p. 112), Virgil has gracilis only in E. 10. 70 ff., the conclusion of the whole of the Eclogues:

Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam,

dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco,

Pierides…

Socrates' account of recollection in the Phaedo has been the subject of much study, but little attention has been paid to the questions whether and how far his arguments address Simmias' claim that he needs to recollect and be reminded that learning is recollection (73b6–10). I shall argue that Socrates reminds Simmias by appealing to Simmias' experience of question-and-answer discussion in order to show him how in these discussions they are regaining forgotten knowledge, but have not yet completed this process.

Although modern scholars have expressed in various ways the view that the Gallus passage is unusual in its context,1 no editor or commentator during the past quarter of a century has questioned the ordering of the lines in which the Gallus passage occurs.2

H.-U. Wiemer opposes the image which Libanius gives of Constantine in his fifty-ninth oration (Panegyric of Constantius and Constans) to that which emerges from his later works, especially those of the Theodosian period when hostility is obvious, mirroring the opinion of pagan circles, who held this Emperor responsible for most of the calamities endured by the Empire in the fourth century. As the epideictic genre required, in 344/5 or in 348/9 the father had to be praised so that the sons could be praised too. However, Wiemer claims that ‘the panegyric of 344/5 already foreshadows the critical view’, by remaining silent about Christianity, the founding of Constantinople, and the tax policy on the one hand, and on the other hand by clearly declaring Constantine responsible for the war against Persia, which troubled the entire reign of Constantius. I wish to supplement these remarks with a few others and to suggest that the portrait of Constantine in Oration 59 presents us with a case of ‘disguised intention’—a rhetorical proceeding based on ὑποδήλωσις and παραψόγους: the orator tries to convey a message that is different from his apparent intentions, even opposite to them.

‘Come, live with me,’ says Polyphemus (1. 42), ‘and leave the grey sea to beat upon the shore; my cave has all the heart could desire, laurels and cypresses, ivy and a sweet-fruited vine; a stream too fed by the snows of Etna.’

αἰ δέ τοι αὐτ⋯ς ⋯ϒὼν λασιώτερος ημεν, ⋯ντ⋯ δρυ⋯ς ξύλα μοι ὑπ⋯ σποδ⋯ ⋯κάματον π⋯ρ καιόμενος δ ὑπ⋯ τε⋯ς και τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν ⋯νεχοιμαν κα⋯ τ⋯ν ἕν ⋯ϕθαλμόν τ⋯ μοι γλυκερώτερον οὐδέν

τοὐτων σὲ οὓτωσ ἐχóντων χρὴ σοκεῖν ἐνεῖναι πολλά τε καì παντοῖα ἐν πᾶσι τοῖσ συγκρινομἐνοισ καὶ σπέρματα π;άντων χρημ;άτων καὶ ἰσέασ ἕχοντα καὶ χροιὰσ καὶ ἡσονάσ. καὶ ἀνθρώπονσ τε συμπαγῆναι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ξᾦα ὄσα Ψυχὴ;ν ἔχει. καὶ τοἶσ γε ἀνθρώποισιν ευναι καὶ πόλεισ συνῳκημένασ καὶ τὰ ἂλλα σᾦα óσα κατεσκνασμενα, ωσπερ παρ' ημíν, και την γην αυτοισι πυειν πολλὰ τε και παντοιων εκεινοι τα ονηιστα συνενεγκὰμενοι εíσ την οικησιν χρωνται. ταυτα μεν ουν μοι λέλεκται περι τἦσ ἀποκρισιοσ, xsὄτι οửκ ὄν παρ' ἡμíν μóνον ἀποκπιθεíη, ἀλλὰ καì ἄλλη.

In common with other poems of the Appendix Vergiliana, Copa has incurred the a priori suspicion of forgery or post-Virgilian imitation. But if, as I have tried to show, Copa was written under the direct and immediate influence of Theocritus, that suspicion can no longer be permitted to colour and confuse the enquiry into Copa's date and authorship. The poem has acquired the right to do battle with the Eclogues on equal terms for the palm of priority.