Since 2007, a team of American and British ancient historians has been preparing a new translation of the Codex Justinianus. The ‘Codex Project’ was launched by chief editor Bruce W. Frier; the goal of the project is to create the first reliable English translation of the Codex Justinianus on the basis of the standard edition by Paul Krüger. Since 1932, the notoriously unreliable translation by Scott has remained the only one in English. The new translation by the Codex Project should appear soon.

It has long been known that there is a significant connection between Aphrodite and Semitic goddesses. In Walter Burkert's recent words, ‘Behind the figure of Aphrodite there clearly stands the ancient Semitic goddess of love, Ishtar-Astarte.’ This was already recognized by Herodotus (1.105, 131) and Philo of Byblos (Eus. Prep. evang. 1.812). I want here to note a curious and striking item of connection that has not been noticed.

πολλὰ γὰρ πολλᾷ λέλεκται, νεαρὰ δ᾽ ἐξευρόντα δόμεν βαϲάνῳ     20
ἐϲ ἔλεγχον, ἅπαϲ κίνδυνοϲ· ὄψον δὲ λόγοι φθονεροῖϲιν,
ἅπτεται δ᾽ ἐϲλῶν ἀεί, χειρόνεϲϲι δ᾽ οὐκ ἐρίζει.
κεῖνοϲ καὶ Τελαμῶνοϲ δάψεν υἱόν, φαϲγάνῳ ἀμφικυλίϲαιϲ.

21. ὄψον δὲ λόγοι BD : δὲ λόγοι om. Triclinius
φθονεροῖϲιν BD : φθόνῳ εἰϲίν Vauvilliers (vel potius φθονερῷ ᾽ιϲιν)

In his recent edition of Aeschylus' Persae Garvie prints the second strophe of the amoibaion

ὀτοτοτοῖ, µάταν
τὰ πολλὰ βέλεα παµµιγῆ    270
γᾶς ἀπ᾽ ᾿Ασίδος ἦλθεν, αἰαῖ,
δᾴαν Ἑλλάδα χώραν.

Sophocles, fr. 316 comprises matching entries in Photius, Lex. p. 489 Porson and the Suda ρ166, which are thought to derive from Pausanias the Atticist's dictionary. Erbse presents the following text (ρ5):

There has been much controversy over the completeness and unity of Euripides᾽ Heraclidae in the last two centuries. Hermann᾽s characterization of the play as a heavily mutilated piece, which was adopted by Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz, Nauck and Murray, prevailed for a long time. Wilamowitz's thesis that the Heraclidae was revised by the ancient director found its adherents. It was Günther Zuntz who led the general offensive against this widely accepted opinion and whose critical scrutiny reversed the view of the play. According to Zuntz, the play has come down to us substantially as it was written. The alleged mutilation, as well as the specific dramatic technique, shortness and swiftness of the Heraclidae, also influenced the general evaluation of the play as a minor or odd piece. It was Günter Zuntz again and also Franz Stoessl who reconstituted the reputation of the Heraclidae. Today Euripides᾽ Heraclidae is studied and recognized as a classical Hikesiedrama, a play deeply rooted in Athenian ideology and in the social and religious context of fifth-century Athens, and representing various aspects of communal life. Since the play has been interpreted and scrutinized from a very wide range of perspectives, I do not aim at a radically new general interpretation of the Heraclidae, but I would like to make a short remark on an aspect of it which has, as far as I know, been neglected or only briefly referred to: the term ἀμηχανία in crucial passages of the play, which signifies, or rather describes, a situation which is desperate, hopeless, and with no way out. I would like to show that for the characters in the Heraclidae who follow the ideal of justice (τὸ δίκαιον), in contrast to those who prefer profit (κέρδος), no situation is hopeless, even as it was not for Heracles, who managed to do things which could be evaluated as impossible (defeating the Hydra of Lerna and the Nemean lion, gaining the apples of the Hesperides, etc.). On the other hand, those who opt for the Heraclean ideal have to prepare to face the ultimate challenges.

In an article in an earlier issue of this journal Vivienne Gray sought to challenge my claim that Xenophon's account of Prodicus' narrative concerning the Choice of Heracles (Mem. 2.1.21–34) represents ‘a very close approximation to Prodicus’ actual wording'. Since that time, Gray's article has been cited approvingly by Louis-André Dorion and David Wolfsdorf, both of whom consider that Gray has settled the matter, at least as far as the linguistic aspect of my argument is concerned. In view of this, I feel it necessary to point out that Gray's argument is fundamentally flawed. In addition, I should like to take this opportunity to show that the arguments of Dorion and Wolfsdorf, which are aimed at other aspects of the case that I made for Xenophon's faithfulness to Prodicus' text, are likewise invalid.

In his description of India Strabo (after Eratosthenes) alludes to various Indian crops: in the rainy seasons (summer) the land grows flax, millet, sesame, rice and bosmoron, and in the winter – wheat, barley, pulse ‘and other edible crops with which we are unacquainted (καὶ ἄλλοι καρποὶ ἐδώδιμοι, ὧν ἡμεῖς ἄπειροι)’ (15.1.13, C 690). Later on in his survey, Strabo briefly refers to the cultivation of rice, where he relies mainly and specifically on Aristobulus of Cassandria, one of the companions of Alexander the Great in his campaign in the East. Aristobulus composed an account of Alexander's expedition and, in all likelihood, personally witnessed most of the details included in the fragments of his lost work (FGrHist 139). His descriptions are therefore highly valuable as reports reflecting one of the first encounters of the Greek culture with India.

Stating that Olympias and Eurydice fought the first war ever between women, Duris of Samos explained the behaviour of Eurydice by reporting that she learned the art of war from Cynnane ‘the Illyrian’ (ἀσκηθεῖσαν τὰ πολεμικὰ παρὰ Κυννάνῃ τῇ Ἰλλυρίδι).

καλὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ σήματι σῆμα
σκέπτεσθαι, μᾶλλον δὲ δυοῖν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἰόντων
ἐλπωρὴ τελέθοι, τριτάτῳ δέ κε θαρσήσειας. (Phaen. 1142–4)

Aulus Gellius records an epigram of the Roman consul Q. Lutatius Catulus (Noctes Atticae 19.9.14 = fr. 1 Blänsdorf/Courtney):

Aufugit mi animus; credo, ut solet, ad Theotimum
deuenit. sic est, perfugium illud habet.
quid si non interdixem, ne illunc fugitiuum
mitteret ad se intro, sed magis eiceret?
ibimu' quaesitum. uerum ne ipsi teneamur
formido. quid ago? da, Venu', consilium.

Varro wrote three books De bibliothecis, according to a list by Jerome (Ep. 33.2 = testimonium 23 GRF Funaioli). The work may have had something to do with his commission to build a massive public library for Julius Caesar (Suet. Iul. 44.2), though Caesar was assassinated before the library could be built. It may also have some connection to Rome's first public library, which Asinius Pollio added to the Atrium of Liberty in the 30s b.c. Pollio, after all, gave a portrait to Varro alone among living authors (Plin. HN 7.115). The known fragments are few.

In this contribution I wish to tackle two corruptions in Book 7 of Varro's De lingua Latina that have hitherto gone unnoticed or been corrected inadequately.

A recent book about Agricola's conquest of Scotland presents a Scottish historian's take on a subject that has been dominated by archaeologists: the whereabouts of Mons Graupius, the scene of Agricola's final battle. Unfortunately, in confidently locating it in Perthshire, author James Fraser builds his case on shaky foundations.

The recent edition of the Thebaid by Hall, Ritchie, and Edwards launched a successful attack on the communis opinio of a bipartite manuscript tradition, with one clearly superior family (represented by the ninth-century P [Puteanus] manuscript), and relatively few textual problems. In doing so, they underscored the need for renewed editorial work on the poem. Here I discuss five passages from Thebaid 2 that have not received adequate attention from editors.

Anth. Pal. 10.92, ascribed to Palladas of Alexandria, appears to be a short iambic prologue to a single epigram. Evidently addressed to a judge of some sort, it survives only in the Palatinus, which preserves the text as follows:

Ἐπεὶ δικάζεις καὶ σοφιστεύεις λόγοις,
κἀγὼ φέρω σοι τῆς ἐμῆς ἀηδόνος
ἐπίγραμμα σεμνόν, ἄξιον παρρησίας·
οὐ γὰρ σὲ μέλπων τῆς Δίκης ὕπνους ἔχει.

In Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, John Marincola downplays the importance of an historian's choice to use first-, rather than third-, person verbs to represent his actions as an historical protagonist within his narrative. Marincola's justification for this rests on the incongruous groupings that arise if one divides first-person narrators from third: among the former we find Velleius, Eutropius and Ammianus representing Latin historians of the Empire. However, as part of a wider study which examines Ammianus' nuanced use of allusion to earlier Latin authors, Gavin Kelly has recently argued for a series of close intertextual relationships between Eutropius and Ammianus. I argue here that Ammianus' relationship with Eutropius also extends to their personal roles within their narratives, and that Ammianus' use of the first person singular makes a bold statement about his historiographical programme.