This discussion concentrates on the meaning of Nausicaa's words in lines 286–8, in particular on the force of the phrase κα⋯ δ' ἄλλῃ κτλ. and the sense of the verb μ⋯σγηται. On the latter Hainsworth comments, ‘In later usage the simple verb in such a context is used as a euphemism for the sexual act. The line must have sounded most odd to the classical age.’ Thus he translates ‘associate with’, citing Odyssey 7.247 as an exact parallel; since, in that place, the verb refers to nothing more than ordinary human intercourse (neither gods nor men ‘have anything to do with’ Calypso), with no further connotations, one must conclude that Hainsworth sees no innuendo whatever in 6.288.

Among the works of Aelius Aristides is preserved one entitled the Rhodian ('Pοδιακ⋯ς, sc. λ⋯γος, no. 25) It concerns an earthquake which has recently struck the city of Rhodes, and since Keil's edition of 1898 it has usually been considered spurious.

The work reproduces a true speech, not something like an open letter: the clearest sign is when the author uses the deictic pronoun τοετ⋯, ‘this here’, of the place in which he is speaking (53). One question is best discussed at the outset, since later it will prove vital to the question of authenticity: does the speaker claim to have been in Rhodes at the moment of the earthquake? Keil assumed without argument that he does. He had clearly visited the city before the disaster as well as after it (4, 32), but despite the vividness of his descriptions he nowhere says that he was present, and this reticence surely implies that he was not; and if he had been it is odd that he should talk of ‘the actual climax of the thing that befell you’ (τ⋯ν ⋯κμ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν το comflex περιστ⋯ντος πρ⋯γματος, 19), using the second person plural. I infer that the speaker had not been present, but gave the speech several months after the event (εἰςμ⋯νας, 28); in the last part of this paper I will argue that he is Aristides, stopping at Rhodes on his wayback from Egypt to Smyrna in or about 142.

The text of the fourth-century veterinary writer Pelagonius, recently edited for the first time this century and greatly improved by K.-D. Fischer, poses many problems for an editor. The Latinity of Pelagonius himself in the epistles which precede various chapters is awkward and difficult to understand. Much of the rest of the work is a compilation, not all of it Pelagonius' own work, based on a variety of sources from the magical to the scientific. The work survives largely in a single manuscript, codex Riccardianus 1179, a. 1485 (R). In this paper I pass over intractable questions of spelling and concentrate on more substantial problems of text and interpretation, some of which concern punctuation.

First in the aether Parmenides places the morning star, which he believes to be the same as the evening star…

[the moon] always looking towards the sunshine

I shall not be concerned with the truth or falsity of these ascriptions, only with the fact that they are just the sort of thing that Parmenides could have said. Nor is an interest in Parmenidean reference new in the literature: Furth calls him a ‘hyperdenotationist’, and the word is apt on almost any interpretation.

‘I can make nothing’, declared Paul Cartledge in this journal some years ago, ‘of the “Lakonian key” first attested in Aristophanes (Thesm. 423)’. (For other attestations see Aristophon, Peirithous, fr. 7 Kassel-Austin; Menander, Misoumenos, fr. 8 Sandbach (10 Koerte); Plautus, Mostellaria 404–5, cf. 419–26.)

As A. B. Lloyd points out, the passage from Herodotus which includes this sentence is the most important non-Egyptian commentary on Ancient Egyptian shipbuilding. In the years following the discovery of the Dynasty IV ships buried beside Khufu's pyramid at Giza (c. 2500 B.C.), J. S. Morrison suggested a change in the translation of the word (⋯ν)επ⋯κτωσαν. Traditionally, and in Lloyd's commentary, the verb ⋯μπακτ⋯ω has been interpreted as meaning ‘to caulk’. Morrison, however, believes that (⋯ν)επ⋯κτωσαν ought to refer to reinforcement of a ship's fastenings with papyrus ropes. He bases this interpretation on the evidence of the Khufu boats, which are sewn through v-shaped mortises across the hull's width (Fig. 1), and on the argument that caulking is better done from the outside. Lloyd has challenged this translation, but we would like to support it with some further evidence, in particular evidence of Egyptian shipbuilding practice.

The picture of L. Appuleius Saturninus' last days is usually derived from the straightforward narrative account found in Appian's Civil Wars, an account which modern analysis has shown to be flawed. That narrative may be glossed as follows. At the consular elections for the year 99, Saturninus (a tribune who had that year been elected to a third tribunate) and Glaucia (a praetor and candidate for the consulship) instigated the death of a more hopeful contender. Chaos followed. On the following day, when the People (demos) had made its intention to do away with the ‘malefactors’ absolutely plain, Saturninus, Glaucia and the quaestor Saufeius seized the Capitol with followers from the country. The Senate voted for their suppression and Marius invested the hill. With hopes of a safe conduct, the beseiged surrendered and Marius detained them in the curia. Those who feared that the seditiosi might escape rough justice broke in and killed, amongst others, ‘a quaestor, a tribune and a praetor, still decorated with the insignia of office. Many others also perished in the stasis, including another tribune, thought to be the son of Gracchus and being a tribune for the first time on that very day’: ταμίαν τε κα⋯ δήμαρχον κα⋯ στρατηγόν, ἔτι περικειμ⋯νους τ⋯ σ⋯μβολα τ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς. πολὺς δ⋯ κα⋯ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ⋯ν τῇ στάσει δι⋯φθαρτο κα⋯ δήμαρχος ἕτερος, ⋯ το⋯ Γράκχου παῖς εἶναι νομιζ⋯μενος, πρώτην δημαρχ⋯ν ⋯κε⋯νην ⋯μ⋯ραν.

The decree of Themistocles, discovered by M. H. Jameson and first published by him in 1960 has given rise to an intense debate centring on the question of the decree's authenticity. This debate has focused to an important extent on supposed archaisms or anachronisms in the text. If a word appears to be used in an ‘archaic’ manner, i.e., in this instance, one peculiar to the early fifth century, it may be an indication of the inscription's authenticity. Conversely, a word employed in a manner proper to a later time may be an indication of the decree's actual period of origination. Thus an early and influential commentator, D. M. Lewis, argued for the decree's authenticity asserting: ‘I see no reason to suspect a forgery. There are too many traces of official and archaic language.’.

It used to be thought that, just as word-initialfl… and fr… behaved likepl…, pr…, tr…, etc., in not producing a long syllable when following a word-final short vowel, just so word-internal …fl… and …fr… allowed both the short and, except for the pre-classical scenic poets, the long scansion. It was implied that these clusters oscillated with the same degree of freedom which is the well-known characteristic of the stop-and-liquid clusters. The difficulty is, of course, that evidence can be no more than minimal since in truly Latin (i.e. neither dialectal nor foreign) material f occurs only at the beginning of words or after a compounding seam. In fact, the argument, explicit or implicit, has turned on Horace, Sat. 1.2.98: custodes lectica ceniflones parasitae; Horace, Sat. 2.2.131: ilium aut nequities aut uafri inscitia iuris; Ov. Ars 3.332: cuiue pater uafri luditur arte Getae; Martial 6.64.26: stigmata nec uafra delebit Cinnamus arte; 12.66.3: arte sed emptorem uafra corrumpis Amoene; Phaedrus 2.6.14: inducta uafris (cj. Festa) aquila monitis paruit; Silius 8.566: et quos aut Rufrae (cj. Heinse) quos aut Aesernia quosue, and Martial 4.71.1: quaero diu totam Safroni Rufe per urbem

To convince the Spartans of his suggested reform of the kingship, Lysander tried to get the sanction of the oracle of Zeus Ammon at the oasis of Siwa in Libya, and even attempted to bribe the priests there. The priests reported him to the Spartans. Only after his death, upon the discovery of a speech he had ordered concerning the reform, was the full scale of his plans revealed.

LSJ s.v. πρεσβε⋯ω II.3.b recorded, on the strength of Thuc. 5.39.2, the meaning ‘go as ambassador’ for the middle voice, in addition to the well-attested ‘send ambassadors’. The passage, however, does not on inspection support the meaning (see K. J. Dover, HCT 4.376 on Thuc. 6.104.2); it was deleted from the Supplement to LSJ.

As Aeneas begins his story of Troy's fall he wonders if in relating it even her enemies, such as the Myrmidons or Dolopes or the soldiers of Ulysses, could refrain from tears (Aen. 2.6–8). The reference to a weeping soldier of Ulysses is a subtle allusion to Vergil's Homeric model, but why are the Myrmidons and Dolopes mentioned? The usual explanation that these were the soldiers of Neoptolemus, who plays a central role in Aeneas' account of Troy's fall, is not entirely satisfactory.

In Homer the Myrmidons inhabit Phthia (cf. Il. 2.683–4) and are thus naturally linked with Achilles and Patroclus, but the Dolopes seem to play no role at all in the fighting. Their name occurs only once in the Iliad (as the people ruled by Phoenix) and not at all in the Odyssey.

‘One of Horace's fables remembered or invented. It is not found elsewhere’ (E. C. Wickham). Not elsewhere in classical literature, certainly. But a story illustrating precisely this absurd ignorance of the natural world is attested later, in circumstances which make it highly unlikely that it derives from Horace's brief reference, and I think we may safely assume that he did not invent the tale.

In 1979, A. D. Woozley proposed an interpretation of Apology 29c–d which was intended to alleviate the well-known tension between the Apology and Crito on the citizen's obligation to obey the law. According to his interpretation, the court's hypothetical offer – to release Socrates on the condition that he will be put to death if he does not give up philosophy – is not an order, but a warning as to what would happen should he accept their acquittal and yet continue to philosophize. Obviously, if this is the spirit of the words he puts into the court's mouth, Socrates would not be guilty of disobedience should he refuse the offer, or even if he should accept it and then disregard the warning. To support this interpretation, Woozley suggested a novel construal of the words in which Socrates makes his refusal – πε⋯σομαι δ⋯ μ⋯γγον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν (29d3–4):

At Epistles 2.2.87–9 Horace introduces an argument against writing poetry based on the unpleasant mutual admiration required in poetic society with an anecdote about an orator and a jurisconsult:

†frater erat Romae† consulti rhetor, ut alter

alterius sermone meros audiret honores,

Gracchus ut hic illi, foret huic ut Mucius ille.

Agathon's mannered yet striking encomium on Eros in Plato's Symposium (197c ff.) has attracted critical attention in ample measure, yet at least one dark corner remains unilluminated. As the speaker approaches his climax in the words quoted above, he slips into nautical imagery: κυβερν⋯της ⋯πιβ⋯της … (a soldier on shipboard), but then disconcerts readers and commentators alike by immediately lapsing into the down-to-earth language of παραστ⋯της τε⋯ σωτ⋯ρ … words which seem to lack maritime connotations. The standard editions offer no help: Hug–Schöner (1909) devote several lines to the metaphors as they conceive them and suggest various groupings, but conclude somewhat despairingly: ‘dass es im ubrigen hier nicht auf Schärfe der Begriffe ankommt, leuchtet ein’. Dover, elsewhere a supportive editor, here only offers observations on ⋯πιβ⋯της and the ‘predominantly nautical sense’ of κυβερν⋯της (‘pilot’); he translates παραστ⋯της as ‘comrade-in-arms, – strictly the hoplite posted beside one’. Bury (1909, ad loc.) has some desultory statements which lead nowhere, while lecture-notes of pupils betray perplexity; some consider the four nouns here to be an ‘odd assortment’, and say that ‘many emendations have been suggested’. It has even been suggested that it was perhaps Plato's intention to show Agathon talking ‘near-nonsense’.

In an interesting passage in the Philebus (51c, cf. 56b–c, an enlarged and slightly modified list), Plato associates pure beauty with geometrical forms created by certain measuring tools used both by mathematicians and carpenters. The ‘beauty of figures’ is analysed as' something straight [εὐθ⋯ τι]… and round [περιφερ⋯ς] and the two- and three-dimensional figures (sc. σχ⋯7mu;ατα) generated from these by [τ⋯ρνοι] and ruler [καν⋯σ7iota;] and set-squares [γων⋯αι]' He continues: ‘For I maintain that these things are not beautiful in relation to something, as other things are, but they are always beautiful by nature, by themselves…’

In lines 35–8 Ovid compliments the poem's recipient Brutus on his skill as a forensic orator. The transmitted text is as follows:

hostibus eueniat quam sis uiolentus in armis

sentire et linguae tela subire tuae,

quae tibi tam tenui cura limantur ut omnes

istius ingenium corporis esse negent.

In CQ 20 (1970), 277–87, 1 argued for dating Corinna to the third century B.C. In my Greek Metre (1982), p. 141, I continued to assume this date, observing that not everyone accepted it but that I knew of no attempt to answer my arguments. I must confess to having overlooked at least one such attempt, by A. Allen in CJ 68 (1972/3), 26–8; and now M. Davies has mounted another in SIFC 81 (1988), 186–94, largely repeating Allen's points but with some new touches. Allen upholds the traditional fifth-century date. Davies has yet to come to a decision, but meanwhile he is eager to discredit what he regards as an unsatisfactory case for a Hellenistic dating.

When Claudius came to power in January 41 he did not hesitate to distance himself from his predecessor's behaviour and policies, and among other measures, Suetonius reports, he abolished all Gaius' acta. The precise implications of this move are not made clear. Certainly, the extremely unpopular taxes introduced in Rome near the end of Gaius' reign were annulled, several people convicted of maiestas were set free, and the monies previously confiscated from negligent, and possibly corrupt, road commissioners were returned. But if the abolition of the acta was as sweeping as Suetonius seems to imply, a number of popular and useful measures must inevitably have been abrogated at the same time, and as a matter of routine they would need to be reintroduced by Claudius. The arrangements with the client kings may well have belonged to this general category, and if we assume that this was indeed the case we shall have an explanation for a number of apparent inconsistencies in the literary sources. It should be observed that in the early part of his principate Gaius went out of his way to be a ‘constitutional’ ruler. The appointment of the client kings would have been handled so as not to seem like the arbitrary exercise of power. Certainly, when the three sons of the murdered king of Thrace, Polemo, Cotys and Rhoemetalces received new kingdoms in 38, Dio stresses that the act was legitimised by a formal senatorial decree. If client kings had generally been established by a formal and legal process their appointments could quite well have come to an end with the abolition of the acta in January 41.