I. The etymologies susceptible to simple phonetic formulation and semantically obvious have, for the most part, been discovered long ago. But I cannot say semantically obvious without recording my conviction that semantic science is still in swaddling clothes. Readers of the Classical Quarterly will, I trust, find the following derivations interesting, as well as clear and semantically obvious.

Of Aristophanes' comedy Αἰολοσκων we have only seventeen fragments, not extensive enough to allow us an accurate judgment about the contents; but it seems certain that the second performance of the play belongs to the so-called Middle Comedy, and the various fragments are well explained in the beautiful edition of Blaydes. I will add only some words about the title.

The succeeding pages were destined, had matters gone otherwise, to form one section of a chapter devoted to the text of those deservedly neglected authors whom, after a mortal illness released Anton Westermann from the task, Rudolf Hercher marshalled between the two covers of the Didot Epistolographi. That chapter, in its turn, was to have been the last in a volume of Adversaria, and, if the truth is to be told, perhaps not the least important function of some of my proposals was to supply a colourable pretext for dealing with passages of other writers (especially Clement of Alexandria and Libanius) whom I had not treated in the body of the book.

In considering the question as to the order of composition of different portions of Aristotle's works it is necessary to start (as Jaeger did in his study of the genesis of the Metaphysics) with some idea as to his method of composition.

On looking at the surviving works one sees at a glance that at some date and by some hand they have been carefully arranged as a continuous series. Internal references forward and backward are frequent. The author refrains as carefully as Euclid does from anticipating ‘earlier’ discussion the answer to a question which will arise ‘later.’ The forward references are merely promises that a question will be discussed. These multitudinous cross-references are so interwoven with the thought and the argument that there is little doubt that in the main they are due to Aristotle himself. On the other hand, the short transitional statements with which the ‘books’ as we have them close must always be accepted with some reservations. The book is a device of the ancient bookseller, not the unit of composition. Of course, where they could, the editors have made the ends of books correspond with important breaks in the argument; but wholly artificial book-endings do occur. There is, e.g., the end of N.E. θ, which corresponds to no important stage in the thought; and here the editor or bookseller has merely emphasized the artificiality of the division by inserting the wholly inappropriate clause, περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐπὶ τοσοῨτον εἰρήσθω

Michael Choniates (c. 1138–c. 1222), a pupil of Eustathius of Thessalonica, who was Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Athens for some 25 years up to that city's capture by Frankish crusaders in a.d. 1205, is best known to classical scholars as the possessor of probably the last complete copy of Callimachus' Hecale and Aetia. He had brought with him from Constantinople many books of all kinds, and added to his collection when in Athens. Although an immense task, it would be well worth trying to identify all Michael's classical allusions, as an indication of how much ancient Greek literature was still available just before Constantinople too succumbed to the crusaders.

In the preface to his Nodes Atticae, Gellius explains his choice of title:

quoniam longinquis per hiemem noctibus in agro, sicuti dixi, terrae Atticae commentationes hasce ludere ac facere exorsi sumus, idcirco eas inscripsimus Noctium esse Atticarum (praef. 4)

He then proceeds to enumerate other titles used for miscellaneous works similar to his own, both Greek and Latin, which, he claims, are far more refined and witty than his title (§§4–9). Attractive as Gellius' explanation may be, it raises some serious difficulties2 and should not be taken at face value, especially since it seems to establish a novel type of relation between title and work. None of the titles in Gellius' list seems to have been based on the circumstances of the inception of the work, nor indeed does any other extant title prior to the publication of the Nodes Atticae. There is no reason to deny Gellius the credit for inventing a novel principle of titling, yet titles based on the circumstances of composition rather than on the content of the work fail to perform a primary function of titles, namely an initial direction of the expectations of prospective readers.

77, 3 (manubia) uastat in quae includit.

E has incidit for includit–another example, eagerly welcomed by Gercke, of free interpolation in this MS. Perhaps incutitur.

The following emendations, if sound, illustrate the relation between the two chief MSS.

(a) Kb shows a gloss that has ousted the true reading, while Lb has a conflation of the two:

1097b 14: τ δ αὒταρκες τίθεμεν μονούμενον ἄρκιον κα αἱρετν ποιεῖ τν βον κα μηδενς νδε Lb: αἱρετν κα ἄρκιον Mb (which is better, as it does not divide ἄρκιον from μηδ. ένδ.): Kb has αἱρετν alone. I suspect the true reading to be ἄρκιον alone. On this αἱρετν was a mistaken gloss: it is out of place here, as it belongs to the concept τέλειον which was discussed in §§ 1–5 and to which we return below, ἒτι δ πάντωναἱρετωτάτην μ συναριθμονμένην. The poetic ἄρκιον is used to explain αὔτ-αρκες, and is itself paraphrased κα μηδενς νδε. αύτ is explained by μονούμενον, just as b 9 αὐτῷ was explained by τῷ ντι βίον μονώτην (which shows that μονούμενον goes with βίον, not ὃ).

In the opening verses of P.Oxy. 2370 (= 655 PMG) Corinna declares that she is about to sing lovely to the white-robed ladies of Tanagra. These lines come from the same poem or collection of poems cited by Hephaestion (Encb. 16.3 p.56 Cons.) and Antoninus Liberalis (25) as which must be a corruption of the original at the hands of a copyist who read the unfamiliar as .

The meaning of eluded the first editor, E. Lobel, who describes it as ‘etymologically mysterious’, and has not been investigated by others, yet one does not have to look very far to find it. or better, the singular can be understood as a formation of the same type as and ) In their verbal forms, the stems of these nouns change to e-grade giving from and from .3 If the analogy is correct, we would expect that would be formed from and a verb from

In his recent pamphlet on Herodotus the Historian, Friederich Focke has discussed the lion-portent which accompanied the birth of Pericles: έκ δἐ Ίππоκπἁτεоς Μεγακλἑνσ τε Ξλλоσ καὶ ᾈγαπίоτνς, ὶ;ϰλ· ίλπ ταὶ ᾽Αγαριστŋς ίхоυσα τò о;νоѵоνα. ῆ σооνικńσασί τε ξανθίππψ τῷ᾽ Απιφρоνоς καὶ ἔλκυоς éоûα είδε ὄψℓν ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ. ἐδὁκεε δἐ λἑοντα τεκεῖṿ καὶ υετ᾽ ợλίγας ἡυἑρας τίκτει Пερικλἑα ξανθίππψ. As this is the only occasion on which Herodotus mentions Pericles by name, those critics who are concerned to show that Herodotus was ‘Pericles' man’ have made much of the passage, and have deduced therefrom that Herodotus here means to express all his pent-up admiration for Pericles, which otherwise the scope of his work did not give him an opportunity of displaying. This admiration is at least conveyed in cryptic form, and Focke, following up a hint of Nissen that Pericles is here called a lion ambiguously, combats the view that Herodotus is expressing great reverence for him; and after examining fifth-century parallels, comes to the conclusion that Herodotus was repeating (whether as a mere marvel or with some personal arrière pensée he cannot decide) a tradition that had been set afoot as a purposely ambiguous and derogatory reference to Pericles as a ‘tyrannical man of might.’ After an examination of Focke's evidence, however, I remain unconvinced. It seems possible to account for most of thes quotations which Focke makes by bringing them into line with the ordinary Greek use of leonine symbolism, which, as I shall try to show, was complimentary, not derogatory

That the words πрύλις πрύλέες belong to the Cypriot dialect cannot be seriously doubted; the statement still occasionally encountered that they are Cretan rests mainly, as will be shown below, on the arbitrary and ill-judged emendation of the authoritative text which ascribes them to Cyprus. If is πрύλέες Cypriot, it is a priori probable that it should be added to the Achaian element in the vocabulary of Homer. That both words survived from Achaian days in the Doric of Crete is perfectly possible. That the dialect of a central district absorbed various Achaian forms is a well-known fact, established by inscriptions from Eleutherna and Axos; the name of a dance in general use might pass into the common speech of the island. Whether προυλέσι explained by Hesychius as πεξοîς òπλίΤаіς represents a similar survival in Boeotian, or more probably Laconian, it is impossible to say.

CATVLLVS LXVIII. 157 contains a crux in the last word which has continued to defy editors. In ending his long elegy to Manlius, Catullus showers his gratitude upon him and all who have served him in his first efforts to meet Lesbia:

Sitis felices et tu simul et tua uita

et domus, in qua nos lusimus, et domina

et qui principio nobis terram dedit aufert

a quo sunt primo omnia nata bona.

The name Iphianassa occurs only once in Latin literature—in the proem to De Rerum Natura (= DRN). Here Lucretius illustrates the evils of religion with a description of Iphianassa's sacrifice at Aulis (1.80–101):

illud in his rebus uereor, ne forte rearis
impia te rationis inire elementa uiamque
indugredi sceleris. quod contra saepius illa
religio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta.
Aulide quo pacto Triuiai uirginis aram
Iphianassai turparunt sanguine foede
ductores Danaum delecti, prima uirorum.
cui simul infula uirgineos circumdata comptus
ex utraque pari malarum parte profusast,
et maestum simul ante aras adstare parentem
sensit et hunc propter ferrum celare ministros
aspectuque suo lacrimas effundere ciuis,
muta metu terram genibus summissa petebat.
nec miserae prodesse in tali tempore quibat
quod patrio princeps donarat nomine regem.
nam sublata uirum manibus tremibundaque ad aras
deductast, non ut sollemni more sacrorum
perfecto posset claro comitari Hymenaeo,
sed casta inceste nubendi tempore in ipso
hostia concideret mactatu maesta parentis,
exitus ut classi felix faustusque daretur.
tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

In the Politics, Aristotle maintains, contrary to his predecessors, that there is a distinctive mode of authority that husbands should exercise over their wives. He even coins a word for it: γαμιϰή, ‘the marital art’ or ‘marital rule’ (Pol. 1.3, 1253b8–10; 1.12, 1259a37–9). Marital rule is supposed to differ from the authority that fathers have over their children and from the kind of rule that citizens exercise over one another. Yet it is not clear whether there is any conceptual space between political and paternal rule for marital rule to occupy. Where fathers rule and children are ruled, citizens take turns ruling and being ruled. Husbands, however, either share their rule with their wives, or they do not. If they do not, then marital rule seems indistinct from paternal rule; if they do, then it seems indistinct from political rule. To add to the confusion, Aristotle says that husbands properly rule their wives politically, but without alternating in positions of ruling and being ruled. On its face, this idea seems flatly contradictory. Political rule just is shared, reciprocal rule, and so if the husband rules permanently and his wife is merely ruled, then his rule cannot be political. So Aristotle's own description of marital rule appears inconsistent, and in any case it is difficult to see how marital rule could have the distinctive character that he insists it does.

While it is no secret that Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica explores civil-war themes at great length, the conflicts arising on the island of Peuce between the Colchians and the Argonauts and within the Argonautic party itself in the epic's final book (8.217–467) have been overlooked in critical studies of Valerian civil war. This article argues that Valerius presents the conflicts on Peuce as examples of civil war—emphasizing the bonds of kinship between the conflicting parties and illustrating effects of this discord using imagery of stasis and cosmic dissolution associated with civil war in the wider Latin literary tradition—and thus invites reflection on the development and manifestation of internecine strife within the Argonautica.

Against prevailing interpretations, this article contends that Plato's Sophist and Statesman accord the sophist a kind of ‘knowing-how’ (epistêmê). In Soph. 233c10‒d2, the Visitor and Theaetetus agree that the sophist has not truth but a δοξαστικὴ ἐπιστήμη. This phrase cannot mean ‘a seeming knowledge’, for –ικός adjectives formed from verbs express the ability to perform the action denoted by the verb—here, δοξάζω. Although not a first-order, subject-area knowledge, sophistry is a second-order knowledge of how to form and use judgements (doxai). Other acknowledgements of the sophist's epistêmê and the ascription to him of τέχνη, ‘craft/expertise’, confirm that the Visitor's conclusion is not to be dismissed as irony. To critics who argue from the Gorgias and from other works that Plato must consider the Visitor's conclusion an error, the author replies: 1) other dialogues do not control the Visitor dialogues; 2) the Visitor does not validly demonstrate that the sophist lacks all knowledge; 3) by admitting sensibles into Being, the Visitor and Theaetetus allow the objects of epistêmê to include things in the embodied world, even likenesses. Non-philosophers’ epistêmê in the Visitor dialogues is not implicated in the difficulties that critics have raised about epistemology in the so-called Two Worlds dialogues. On this new ontology, even the sophist, if guided by philosophical rulers, can benefit citizens by employing his elenctic expertise as Socrates did, aiding their growth toward virtue.

In Bk. 3 of the Institutio oratoria, Quintilian gives a list of the Greek artium scriptores of the classical epoch (1.8ff.). It contains a controversial entry: ‘…et, quem Palameden Plato appellat, Alcidamas Elaites’ (1.10). The historicity of the rhetorician and sophist from Elaea named Alcidamas, Gorgias' pupil, is of course beyond doubt; scholars disagree only as to the ‘quem Palameden Plato appellat’.