In an interesting article in the Journal of Roman Studies (Vol. V., Part I.) Prof. Jefferson Elmore reopens the vexed question as to the nature and object of the ‘declarations’ provided for in lines 1 to 19 of the Heraclean Table, and claims to have discovered a fresh clue more satisfactory than any so far propounded. As I have recently committed myself in opposition to the hypotheses of Hirschfeld, Legras and Nap, to what is at least a partial reaffirmation of Mommsen's explanation, and as I find Prof. Elmore's suggestions contrary to the evidence, and seriously wanting in cohesion and consistency, I shall venture to subject them to some examination and criticism.

Probably few scholars would now doubt that at least the bulk of the matter both of Servius' commentary on Virgil (S) and of the additions to it which were first printed by Daniel (D) descends from Donatus. The problem of these additions has been approached by a number of writers from different directions, and different lines of evidence have been found to converge on one conclusion. An important contribution to the discussion has recently been made by J. J. Savage in a thorough study of the multifarious scholia contained in the well-known Bernensis 165 and some other Virgil manuscripts.1 He shows that some of these scholia go back to a commentary which was fuller than that of Servius, and which moreover was related both to S and to D.2 Other fragments of such a commentary are to be found by those who have the patience to sift the rubbish of the Latin glossaries,3 and also, among other sources, in Isidore, who is all the more useful for his habit of verbal transcription.4 When material of this kind is found, there is a strong temptation to say ‘Here is Donatus,’ and one can hardly doubt that that is where much of it ultimately comes from; but the question how far we may assume that the words of Donatus are directly reproduced can hardly yet be regarded as satisfactorily answered. I have before ventured to doubt whether Donatus was the immediate source of D.5 Professor Rand and Mr. Savage think that he was, that the compiler of SD supplemented S with material which S had not reproduce from Donatus the statement to which S had objected.

In the publication of their second journal of archaeological travels in Cilicia, Bean and Mitford included the text of an unusual inscription from the site of ancient Syedra. The text has previously been discussed by Louis Robert, by the Hungarian historian of piracy Egon Maróti, and also by H. W. Parke. Although all four made suggestions about the date and interpretation of the inscription, no firm conclusions were reached.

Since Hermann first suggested the likelihood of a considerable loss of verses from the text of the Heraclidae it has been generally assumed that the play has suffered either from some mischance in the copying of the manuscript or else at the hand of an interpolator. Hermann held that the end of the play had been lost: ‘Fabulae extrema pars videtur intercidisse, in qua fieri non poterat quin de Macaria referretur, eaque res solitis celebraretur lamentis.’ Kirchhoff places the lacuna after line 629: ‘Post hunc versum multa desunt. Macariae narratio et Alcmenae matris [sic] lamentationes cum chori cantico integro; novit hanc fabulae partem auctor argumenti: **ταύτην μ⋯ν εὐγεν⋯ς ⋯ποθανο⋯σαν ⋯τίμησαν αὐτο⋯ δ⋯ τοὺς πολεμ⋯ους ⋯πιγνόντες παρόντας εἰς τ⋯ν μάχην ὥρμησαν.’ Wilamowitz argues against the assumption of a ‘mechanischer Ausfall’ of a whole passage, and maintains that the play has been revised by a fourth century régisseur in order to adapt it to the capacity of his theatrical troupe.

The answer to the basic question, quisquamne cantat?, given the rhetoric of the context (perhaps a professorial chestnut of Quintilian's: elements from 11.3.60 turn up at Pliny, Ep. 2.14.3), especially emotive in 57, should be that everyone cantat, but the form of the question seems to suggest, at first sight, the opposite.

One of the clearest phonological developments of the language of Attic inscriptions of the Hellenistic period down to the end of the second century B.C. is the change . I have studied this phenomenon with particular reference to the period 323–146 B.C., taking into account also the trends before 323 (i.e. between 403 and 323) and after 146 B.C. down to the end of the pre- Christian era. The object of this article is to draw attention to the fact that in only one instance, the relative pronoun, is there not a marked progressive increase in the frequency of at the expense of .

DR. G. Zuntz's excellent paper on these verses in Proc. Brit. Acad. xlii (1956), 209–46, deserves all our thanks for the clarity and good sense of its exposition, and for clearing away much unnecessary comment that has been encumbering the fragment, especially Bignone's theory (Atene e Roma, i [1933], 30, and L'Aristotele perduto, i [1936], 94) that it derives its philosophy directly from Aristotle's Protreptikos, with Körte's supplement that (since all of it derives from this same source) it is indivisible—that there is no break at v. 7; see Körte's Menandri quae supersunt (1953), ii. 147–8. There is, however, I think, room for further comment on Zuntz's interpretation of the lines, and on his view that die fragment known as Papyrus Didotiana b (Körte, i. 145) may belong to the same play, Hypobolimaios.

In the de Abstinentia book I chapters 7–12 Porphyry gives an account of the views of Hermarchus, the Epicurean, on abstinence from animal food. This account, which is presumably derived from Hermarchus' work on Empedocles, would seem to preserve his actual words, for in chapter 9 (p. 91, 22) the word γωγε is used where it must refer to Hermarchus. It would be exceedingly careless of Porphyry, if he were merely summarizing or paraphrasing, to leave this word as it stands. (On the view here maintained see the Additional Note at the end.)

All commentators on these lines make two assumptions about the first clause, (i) that means ‘sitting in judgement’, ‘punishing’, or the like, (2) that the which is its subject as well as that of is the second in a series of two: the subsequent slaying punishes or sits in judgement on the previous; thus the slaying of Cly taemnestra herself will sit in judgement upon that of Agamemnon, just as that had sat in judgement upon the of Iphigenia. Then opinions differ as to whether is to be taken as the object of both verbs, or of one but not the other.

Antiphon, in his fifth oration, relates that c. 422–413 B.C. Euxitheos, a young Mytilenean, and Herodes, probably an Athenian cleruch in Mytilene, embarked together on a ship bound from Mytilene for Ainos in Thrace. Shortly after they left port, a storm forced them to put into an unnamed harbour in Methymnian territory. The two men left their uncovered ship to take shelter in a covered one; whether others from their own ship went with them is not indicated. During the night, a drinking party ensued. Herodes, after heavy drinking, left the covered ship and disappeared; he could not be found in the morning, nor even after two days of searching. When the weather cleared, the search was abandoned, and all ships in the port resumed their voyages. On Euxitheos' return to Mytilene, a charge of murder was brought against him by Herodes' relatives, who tried him in Athens. Antiphon's fifth oration is his final defence; we do not know whether the speech was successful.

The main source of Archytas, fr. 1 Diels-Kranz is Porphyr. in Ptol. harmon. p. 56,5–57,27 Düring; there is also an extensive quotation of its initial part in Nicomachus, Introd. Arithm. p. 6,16–7,5 Hoche. In recent years both the text and the interpretation of this fragment, whose authenticity was questioned by W. Burkert, have been re-examined, and a good deal of progress has been made especially by paying more attention to the nature of Nicomachus' quotation and its context.

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.

The present paper consists of emendations in the text of Maximus Tyrius. For convenience in citing the text I shall refer by page and line to Hobein's edition.

All the known codices of Maximus, as M. Mutschmann and F. Schulte have shown, most probably (many say certainly) derive from the Parisinus 1962 which belongs to the tenth or the eleventh century. In Hobein's edition and in the present paper the codex is indicated by the letter R.

Two papyri ascribe this poem to Sappho (P. Oxy. 1232 and P. Oxy. 2076); Athenaeus (XI. 4600) attributes v. 10 to her; Philostratos (Imag. II. i, p. 62) attributes v. 30 to her. In three of these places the poem is assigned to her Second Book. Perhaps it is true that hardly any other poem of Sappho is so often ascribed to her by antiquity. This admittedly proves no more than that the poem was certainly handed down in the Sappho-book in antiquity: it does not necessarily prove its authenticity. But at least it settles the burden of proof on those who would deny that Sappho wrote it. Now it has been thought that certain arguments can be employed to justify the overthrow of ancient testimonies. If, however, these arguments should proveto be fallacious or insufficient, the poem will automatically be reascribed to Sappho.

The following paper contains a few suggestions which have occurred to me from time to time. As it was written under appreciable difficulties—Want of access to a library being the chief—it is possible that at whiles I may have simply repeated the criticisms of others. In that case, I can only express my regret for the involuntary depredation.

During the British occupation of the western extremity of the Gallipoli Peninsula, a brief Greek inscription was discovered by Sergt.-Major R. S. Jones, 136 Company, Royal Engineers. A copy of this he sent to his relatives in Cardiff, and it was by them put before the Western Mail for explanation. Ultimately it came into my hands. I at once wrote asking what had become of the stone, and what was its position—whether above or below ground—when discovered But Sergt.-Major Jones had been killed by a shell on December 27, 1915, eleven days after writing his letter, and only two days after he had been recommended for the Distinguished Conduct Medal. Further information, therefore, was not obtainable; but the inscription appears to have been hitherto unknown. It is a splendid thought that we owe this new historical information to the interest and care of a soldier in the midst of perilous and toilsome duties. His commanding officer wrote that he was ‘my right-hand man ever since the company was formed at Buxton.’

Histories 1.40 is designed to set the scene for Galba's assassination. It begins by bringing the emperor into the crowded Forum, but then it switches to Otho and his followers, dwelling on the horror, not of the act they plan (that is reserved for chapter 41), but of their readiness to commit it. The text is not problematical, but since the point behind the first two sentences is not entirely clear, this has prompted occasional emendation, repeated discussion, and continuing perplexity. The difficulty arises, in good measure, from the assumption that Tacitus is saying much the same as Plutarch (Galb. 26.4–6). As has been remarked more than once, the two authors no doubt drew their material from the common source, but they have in mind different time-frames and different viewpoints. Nor does this end the matter. A skewed perspective on these sentences has also led one scholar to dissect the chapter in a manner purporting to show that Galba's fate, not the Othonians' willingness to bring it about, is Tacitus' main concern.

‘Lapidem silicem tenebant iuraturi per Iouem, haec uerba dicentes: Si sciens fallo, tum me Dispiter salua urbe arceque bonis eiciat ut ego hunc lapidem.’ I do not propose to add to the mass of commentary and controversy which loads this passage of Paulus Diaconus (p. 102, 11 Lindsay), except to remind readers that it is a comparatively modern version (for the words are not archaic in form) of a very old formula. Under Dispiter lurks some early shape of the name of Iuppiter, certainly not of the Greek importation Dis, first worshipped in Rome, apparently, in 505/249. I believe it to be older than the end of the regal period, probably much older, for it names the Arx as the important spot in Rome, not the Etruscanizing Capitol. However, this detail and my opinions concerning the oath and its takers matter little for my present purpose. It is enough if it be granted, as I think everyone will grant, that it is ‘eine alte Fetialformel’ as Fraenkel has it, at all events eine alte Formel, more ancient than the surviving literature.

In C.Q. XXVI. 45–51 I contended that in Aesch. Agam. 1227–30 Cassandra describes Clytemnestra in terms of a Greek proverb, the proverb of the Treacherous Hound; and I restored the passage thus:—

νεŵν δ' ἔπαρχоς 'Ιλ⋯оν τ' ⋯ναστ⋯της

оὐκ оἶδεν оἵα γλŵσσα μισ⋯της κνν⋯ς

λε⋯ξασα κα⋯ σ⋯νασα φα⋯δρ', оἷоν δ⋯κоς

Ατης λαθρα⋯оν δ⋯ξεται κακῇ τ⋯χνῃ.