Two papyrus fragments (Berlin Pap. 7497 and Oxyrh. Pap. 421) treat of the ancestry and story of Bellerophon. The first has the beginnings of fifteen lines, and the other the endings of nineteen: both are assigned to the second century A.D.

The view of Homer which I have attempted to expound in articles recently contributed to this and other journals may be stated as follows: an individual, father of the children, first natural then spiritual, who bore his name and worshipped him, lived in Chios, of which island he was so much the glory that ‘ Chian ’ in the mouth of Simonides, himself a professional and an islander, means ‘ Homer.’ He was not blind, like his disciple the Chian Cynaethus, but seeing: he selected, arranged, adorned and expanded two episodes in the stock of saga (whether continuous or already disposed in separate poems) which the colonists brought with them from Europe.

In Appendix II. to his edition of Odyssey, xiii.-xxiv., the late Dr. Monro examined the ‘ Relation of the Odyssey to the Iliad.’ One section of this Appendix, pp. 327 sqq., deals with ‘ passages of the Iliad borrowed or imitated in the Odyssey.’ It is there admitted that repetition is a characteristic of the epic style, and that in many cases of parallelism no detrimental inference can legitimately be drawn. But if, it is said, ‘ we are able to point to a sufficient number of passages tending to show that the author of the Odyssey imitates the Iliad, and if no considerable instances can be produced of the converse,’ then it is thought there is confirmation of the view that the Odyssey is the later poem. The object of the present paper is to suggest that the decisions in individual cases have been arrived at on scanty or disputable grounds, and without due regard to relevant epic practice; and consequently that the reasons for inferring the existence of a later poet imitating an earlier are inadequate.

Read just as has been corrected. The rain was still falling.

7. 2. Two points may be urged against the MS. reading. First is an extremely awkward construction, if it means that they gave, not received, the order. In Thucydides the dative is quite rare in this use with passives, except of course with perfect tenses, and the cases in which it most often occurs will not be compared with this by any competent scholar (e.g. ). But special awkwardness arises from the fact that naturally takes a dative of a quite different kind, and that in this sentence such a dative is actually added.

These notes are the result of some work done a year or two ago on the Medicean MS. of Aeneas Tacticus1 (Cod. Mediceus Laurentianus, Plut. lv. 4, Saec. xi.) in preparation for an edition of that unduly neglected author which I hope will soon see the light. I should not have thought it worth while to publish them separately were it not for two papers, at once laborious and brilliant, read by Mr. A. C. Clark to the Oxford Philological Society on the text of Cicero′s speeches, in May, 1912, and February, 1913. The extreme plausibility with which the reader then explained numberless corruptions, transpositions, etc., in the text of Cicero, by reconstructing the length of line and pagination of the MSS. in their several degrees of descent, led me to think that it might be of some interest to publish the results at which I arrived by working on the same lines with a Greek author. In my case the problem has been a far simpler one, as I only had one MS. to deal with; but as I came to my own conclusions quite independently, before I knew that the method was being applied elsewhere, I give them for what they are worth, only too glad to find myself in such good company.

In a recent number of the Classical Quarterly Mr. F. M. Cornford argues against the commonly accepted view, according to which the tripartite social structure of the Republic is a corollary, in Plato′s mind, to the tripartition of the individual Soul. In the present paper I propose to examine the general plan of the dialogue, in the hope of showing that Plato′s conceptions of State and Soul were not, as generally assumed and as assumed by Mr. Cornford, ready-made and clearly formulated in his mind before he began to write the Republic: that, on the contrary, we can detect profound and vital modifications of his original views as the argument proceeds: and that the conceptions of the Ideal State and the rightly constituted human soul grow out of one another and react on one another in such a way that it is impossible to give a simple answer, affirmative or negative, to the question ‘ Which is prior, the tripartition of State or the tripartition of Soul ?’

Inde Venus uaria produdt sorte figuras

maiorumque refert uoltus uocesque comasque,

1225 quandoquidem nilo magis haec de semine certo

fiunt quam facies et corpora membraque nobis.

1227 et muliebre oritur patrio de semine saeclum

maternoque mares existunt corpore creti…