This paper is a contribution to the question of how far Polybius fulfilled that part of an historian's duty which consists of acquiring information; it gives an instance, small in itself no doubt, where he definitely neglected to obtain good information which lay to his hand, and preferred to repeat a commonplace untruth of the literary hacks.

It is hardly necessary to recapitulate Rhys Roberts' cumulative and convincing proof that the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ was not written by Cassius Longinus, the tutor of Zenobia, but belongs to the early days of the Empire. Not the least convincing of the arguments for this date is the fact that the treatise is suggested by and put out as a substitute for the Περ ״ϒψоνς of Caecilius of Calacte, who according to Suidas taught rhetoric (σоφστενσε) in Rome in the time of Augustus. Now Caecilius was an intimate friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Pomp. 776 τῷφιλττῳ Kαικιλψ): they were both Atticists and fellow-workers in leading literary Romans back to the best models of Greek prose style. But Dionysius is no candidate for the authorship of the extant treatise, which is not one that he could have written. On the other hand he gives a plain indication by which to identify its writer, which Rhys Roberts mentioned but did not adopt. It is the object of this paper to put this identification seriously forward.

Little is known about phratries in ancient Athens. The few surviving pieces of evidence, both literary and epigraphical, do not provide an adequate basis for a convincing reconstruction of most details. It may be possible, however, to say something more about the number and size, even if not about the organization and function, of phratries in the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.

The purpose of this note is to show how IG II2.2344 is relevant to the question of phratries. It is a list of twenty names with patronymics, comprising three families and two isolated individuals, under the heading,

Δι⋯ς ⋮ Φρατρίο ⋮ Ἀθην⋯ας ⋮ Φρα[τρίας] | οἵδε ɸρ⋯τερες

The inscription is in the form of a dedication, and after Δι⋯ς ⋮ Φρατρίο ⋮ Ἀθην⋯ας ⋮ Φρα[τρίας] one should understand στήλη or ἱερ⋯ στήλη. There are several other examples of this form of dedication, though none is exactly parallel. The stele was most likely set up in the sanctuary of the phratry, and that would explain why a list of phratry members should be in the form of a dedication. In the absence of other criteria, the inscription is dated by letter forms to the early fourth century.

Surprisingly enough this inscription has been either ignored or curtly dismissed in the literature concerning the number and nature of Athenian phratries. In 1902 Alfred Körte concluded that this list of twenty names constituted the total membership of a phratry. But in 1910 Anton von Premerstein maintained that the list was only of a single thiasos within a phratry. We know that by the beginning of the fourth century phratries were subdivided into units called thiasoi, which are to be distinguished from the private religious associations of the same name. Von Premerstein argued that the constant appeals of the orators to the testimony of phratry members render it very unlikely that one phratry could be so small as to have only twenty members, even if there were more than twelve phratries altogether.

Mr. P. H. Ling's suggestion that the famous line ϕθε⋯ρουσιν ἤθη χρ⋯σθ' ⋯μιλ⋯αι κακα⋯ stood at the beginning of a play of Euripides seems to me to lack anything like cogent proof. A gnomic verse of this sort—to take the characteristics of the line in the order given by Mr. Ling—may indeed begin a play, as in the fragment of the Stheneboia (Nauck, 661) which he quotes; but it may also begin a speech, as Hec. 864; or come early in a speech, cf. Heracl. 2; or alone in stichomythia, as Alc. 540; or late in a speech, as Med. 561; or at the end of one, as Supp. 510. In other words, there is no position which it may not have. As to its lack of ‘any particle or conjunction to connect it with what preceded or followed,’ how does Mr. Ling prove that it was not preceded by γιγνώσκων ὅτι, cf. Med. 560; or that the previous line did not end in γάρ, like Hec. 551, Supp. 361; or that this line is not the end of a longer sentence, like Alc.

Cicero's use of the term is hardly a joke, and has to do with medicine, not logic. He says that his predecessor as governor of Cilicia, App. Claudius Pulcher, is like a doctor whose patient has been transferred to another practitioner, and who takes offence when the new man alters the treatment.

The fabulist Phaedrus, or Phaeder if that was his real name, was unhappy in his life, and ill-fortune pursued him after death. In addition to accidental corruption and the interpolation which this provoked, his five books of verse have suffered from disruption and partial conversion into prose. Restoration of the original, so far as that original is capable of being restored, is neither simple nor easy. The sources of the text are diverse and different. None of them can be trusted, but none on the other hand may be neglected. A short account of them is requisite in order to make what follows immediately intelligible.

Professor Webster has replied briefly to my article on this subject, and has dealt elsewhere with the works of art. One point I will gladly concede. In referring (p. 69) the phlyakes-vases to ‘the fourth or third century’ I was quoting Pickard-Cambridge's words in Dithyramb, etc. (1927), p. 267. But in Dramatic Festivals (pub. 1953), Pickard-Cambridge, perhaps influenced by Trendall, speaks of the fourth century only.

Dr. G. S. Kirk suggested (C.Q.xiii [1963], 51–2) that the last line here referred to ‘a fantastically ithyphallic bridegroom’. Professor Lloyd-Jones (C.Q,. xvii [1967], 168), while professing uncertainty as to the rightness of this suggestion, thought it ‘quite likely’, and adduced in support of it a story from Tzetzes on Lycophron 1378 (ed. Scheer, ii. 381 f.), a story told also, but in different words, in the Etymologicum Magnum s.v. (ed. Gaisford, 153, If.), and containing in this second version the words ‘used in just the sense which Dr. Kirk ascribed to it in Sappho’.

The Works and Days is contained in far more manuscripts than the other Hesiodic poems. Altogether there are something over 260, as against seventyodd for the Theogony and sixty-odd for the Shield. Over a hundred of them are later than 1480, the approximate date of the earliest printed edition of the poem; but even when these are subtracted, a formidable number remains, many of which have never been investigated. The present century has seen more done in the way of cataloguing them than the nineteenth, but less in the way of collating them. Since N. A. Livadaras published his list of Hesiod manuscripts in 1963, the disparity between what has been done and what might be done has become more apparent than ever before.

IX. 6. 12. (The young nobles of Capua describe the bearing of the Romans released from the Caudine Forks after having passed under the yoke.)

iacere indolem illam Romanam ablatosque cum armis animos; non reddere salutem, non salutantibus dare responsum, non hiscere quemquam prae metu potuisse.

The use of αὐτ⋯ το⋯το, ‘this very thing’, is perfectly familiar in classical Greek; but there is no general awareness, as witness the silence of the reference grammars and lexica, of the parallel usage of αὐτός juxtaposed with ⋯κεῖνος, which is in fact not infrequent in the classical period, and mentioned in Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt. 2. 88). The examination of this construction which follows is intended not only to add to our knowledge of Greek syntax, and thereby to defend some passages against erroneous emendations, but also to place in a wider context one of Plato's ways of referring to the Forms.

As far as I can establish, the only scholar who has ever paid much attention to αὐτ⋯ς ⋯κεῖνος is J. Vahlen in 1906, and that in an obscure place, to explain an obscure passage; moreover, he simply accumulated parallels from authors of the Imperial period, without discussing how the construction is employed. It will emerge that the usage is no less frequent earlier, when it is used in a greater variety of ways, especially by Plato.

Having withered you while you live I will lead you down so that you may give recompense for the miseries of your slaughtered mother. And if anyone else of mortals has done wrong, committing impiety against god or any stranger or his own parents, you will see him getting his just deserts. For Hades is a great euthunos of mortals below the ground, he oversees all things with his tablet-writing mind.

Aristotle begins his criticism of the communism of property in Plato's Republic1 with the following (which I have divied into two sections for convenient reference):

(i) τπων μν οὖν ὂντων τν νεωπγοὑντων ἂλλς ἂν εἴη ςπóπος καì πᾀων, αὐτν δ’ αὑτοις διαπονοὑνων τ πεπì τς κτσεις πλεíονς ἃν παπχοι δνσκολíας. (ii) καì γπ ν ταις πολαεςι ν τοις ἒπγοις μἠ γινομνων ἴςων λλ’ νíσων ναγκααιον γκλματα γíνεσθαι ππòς πολαὑσντας μν ἢ λαμβνοντας πολλ, òλíγα δ πονσντας ταῖς λττω μν λαμβνσι, πλεíω δ πονοσιν.

‘In Stymphalos there is also an old sanctuary of Stymphalian Artemis. The image is of wood, mostly gilded. On the roof of the temple there are also representations of the Stymphalian birds. It was difficult to discern clearly whether they were made of wood or plaster, but my examination suggested that they were of wood rather than plaster.’

Pausanias' reference to the Stymphalian birds of the temple at Stymphalos was taken by the German scholar, Bliimner, to indicate that stucco reliefs were produced by the Greeks; and, despite the caution of Miss E. L. Wadsworth, 3 the inference that plaster was used for architectural sculptures of some form in Classical (or even pre-Classical) Greece has clearly been accepted by M. Cagiano de Azevedo and N. Bonacasa in the two great Italian encyclopedias of art.

Barrett has given a brief account of the affiliations of Hn with the manuscripts which he has collated. He derives his information about the readings of Hn from the reports of nineteenth-century editors, and he does not report this manuscript in his apparatus criticus. He concludes that ‘In three instances (72, 641, 817) Haun. has the truth, or an approximation to it, where the rest of our tradition is at fault (though in two of them there are traces of the same reading in O) … in each case the reading can be accounted for as a lucky accident, and so I judge it in fact to be.’ Of the other four manuscripts, which editors have not collated, he gives no account. ‘From a number of readings cited by Turyn it appears that they are all more or less closely related to Haun.’ K. Matthiessen has voiced a mild regret that Barrett did not settle the question by collation. I have collated these five manuscripts from photographs or microfilms.

With the exception of what they seized or inherited from eastern kings, the Roman emperors gathered and administered their estates like private individuals. Imperial estates differed only in being bigger. For just this reason, however, more is known of them, and it is the purpose of these notes to shed light on large private holdings, and on the range of their economic potential, by looking at three unusual kinds of activity on crown lands: the raising of herds, the exploitation of forests, and the making of bricks.