[The following notes, from a MS. of Headlam's, now published by permission of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, give the substance of a lecture which Headlam delivered in Cambridge but did not publish, though some account of it is given in the memoir by Mr. Cecil Headlam (pp. 55–7). A few verbal alterations have been made for the sake of clearness and some references added.—GEORGE THOMSON].

The openings of the strophe and antistrophe do not correspond, and many unavailing efforts have been made, from Triclinius to Lawson, to bring them into conformity. But, as I have shown elsewhere (Greek Lyric Metre, pp. 117–18), the discrepancy appears to be intentional and appropriate. For other instances of the same thing see 709–10, 715–16 (ibid. pp. 113–14), and there is yet another in Cho. 422–4 (resolved iambics for lamentation, loc. cit. p. 88) = 443–5 (dochmiac in anticipation of the climax). In 1005 πρ⋯παρ (MSS) is not only better attested than προιθ' (Triclinius), but it makes a much better rhythm:

τ⋯ δ' ⋯π⋯ γ⋯ν πεσ⋯ν ἄπαξ θαν⋯σιμον πρν⋯σιμον πρ⋯παρ ⋯νδρ⋯ς μ⋯λαν αἶμα τ⋯ς ἄν…

Itis a strange chance that our whole conception of that scene of the Persae in which Atossa and the Chorus evoke from the lower world the spirit of Darius should be dependent largely on the interpretation or the restoration of a single line.

ὦ πιστὦ πιστ⋯ν ἣλικ⋯ς θ' ἣβης ⋯μ⋯ς

Π⋯ρσαι γεραιο⋯, τ⋯να π⋯λις πονεῖ π⋯νονον;

στ⋯νει, κ⋯κοπται, κα⋯ χαρ⋯σσεται π⋯δον.

λε⋯σσων δ' ἂκοιτιν τ⋯ν ⋯μ⋯ν τ⋯φου π⋯λας

ταρβ⋯, χο⋯ς δ⋯ πρευμν⋯ς ⋯δεξ⋯μην.

ὑμεῖς δ⋯ θρηνεῖτ' ⋯γγὺς ⋯στ⋯τες τ⋯φου

κα⋯ ψυχαγωγοῖς ⋯ρθι⋯ζοντες γ⋯οις

οἰκτρ⋯ς καλεῖσθ⋯ μ' …

Myobject in this paper is to discuss the date and significance of the introduction of a plurality of unmoved movers in Met. A chapter 8. As in the previous paper, it will be necessary to give a fairly complete exposition in order that the resulting picture of Aristotle's development may be judged as a consistent whole. I shall try to indicate as I proceed how much of it has been supplied by the work of others.

In 1924 W. W. Tarn published an article in which he attempted to prove that the mother of Philip V of Macedon was the Epirot princess Phthia. Previously all historians had accepted the statement of Eusebius that Philip was the son of Demetrius II and Chryseis, whom, after the death of her husband, the Macedonians gave in marriage to Antigonus Doson. Despite the cogency of Tarn's arguments, his theory has been rejected by both Beloch and Dinsmoor, who adhere to the traditional view. This problem of the identity of Philip's mother is one of considerable importance, and consequently in this paper I intend to collect the evidence once again and subject it to a careful analysis. The results will be found strongly to corroborate Tarn's contention.

I have shown in an earlier article that from the second half of the fifth century onwards the desire to defend Homer and Hesiod against accusations of immorality was certainly not the main motive which actuated the allegorical interpreters of the early poets. That desire, no doubt, existed; but the part which it played was wholly a subordinate one. In the present article I propose first to consider allegorism in its earlier stages, and to state my case for holding that the practice of allegorical interpretation cannot have originated in this desire of Homeric partisans to exculpate the poet. My view is that the function of allegorism was originally not negative or defensive but rather (as with Anaxagoras, Metrodorus, etc., in later times) positive or exegetical.

Most of the traditions about Stesichorus place him in Italy and Sicily. He was said to have been born at Mataurus and to have lived and died at Himera. Only two small and disputed pieces of evidence connect him with the Peloponnese. Suidas s.v. Στη⋯χορος says that he went to Catana when banished from Pallantium in Arcadia, and the Marmor Parium records that in the archonship of Philocrates (485 B.C.) the poet Stesichorus came to Greece. Both testimonies are embarrassing and both have been subjected to sceptical criticism. Stesichorus' connection with Pallantium has been reduced to a misunderstanding of his mention of it in his Γηρυον⋯σ (Paus. VIII 3, 2), and the entry in the Marmor Parium is so flatly in contradiction of the other evidence for his date that it has with some justice been regarded as a mere blunder. And yet it is possible that behind these two disputed testimonies there lies a genuine tradition based on the actual sojourn of Stesichorus in the Peloponnese. Some evidence for this may be found in what we know of his Ἑλ⋯νη and Ὀρεστεἰα.