THE surviving century of epigrams by this tedious writer was edited with a commentary by J. Geffcken in 1896, and they were included in A. Veniero's Poeti de l'Antol. Pal. (1905) and A. Olivieri's Epigrammatisti Gr. d. Magna Grecia (1950?), but the inquirer who is not content with Geffcken's explanations or with his frequent silences will rarely find satisfaction in Veniero, and Olivieri's comments are almost exclusively translated from Geffcken. I have not a great deal to offer by way of supplement, but as a preliminary it may be worth while to consider the five epigrams which have been held to throw light on the poet's date, and first A.P. 6. 334, on which the authorities rely with varying degrees of confidence for placing his birth in or before 315 B.C.

VOL. i, Reitz 88, Indicium Vocalium 5. The so called ñμίÞωνα are given as ίΧνΡΑ Σ Σ and if by Dionysius Hal. Comp. 14

AT the beginning of the third part of the Theaetetus (201d–2O2c), Socrates entertains an interesting theory of knowledge in the form of a ‘dream’. In Cornford's translation, it reads as follows:

I seem to have heard some people say that what might be called the first elements () of which we and all other things consist are such that no account () can be given of them. Each of them just by itself can only be named; we cannot attribute to it anything further or say that it exists or does not exist; for we should at once be attaching to it existence or nonexistence, whereas we ought to add nothing if we are to express just it alone. We ought not even to add ‘just’ or ‘it’ (‘that’) or ‘each’ or ‘alone’ or ‘this’, or any other of a host of such terms.

Greek literature embodies a number of instances of the optative in main clauses that are acknowledged either definitely or probably to have a reference to past time. These are mostly well known, but the object of this article is to reconsider them and to attempt an explanation. They are certainly commonest in the Homeric period, but later examples are by no means wanting.

All editors have taken the words to mean ‘thou wouldst anger a very st ne’. So did the scholiast.

THE stage of Alexander's great drama is thronged with minor characters playing their walk-on parts or acting as heroes or villains in their own little scenes. Their names, often unknown to–or ignored by—our main sources, have been gathered with monumental diligence by Berve, who has provided a basis for some akribeia in a study traditionally befogged with generality and prejudice. In this country the study of Alexander is necessarily under the spell of Tarn's masterly work, based on a thorough discussion of the sources. To agree or to disagree, we must always come back to him; and disagreement, in the main, has been confined to details.

THE following further instances and parallels, and additional usages, may supplement the colloquialisms, &c, in Plato's dialogues which were listed and studied in a former article.

1. Colloquialisms

(a) More examples and parallels for usages previously noted:

Charm. 154 b 4, Crat. 418 b 8, Phaedo 92 d 4, Parm. 126 c 6, 127 b 1, Polit. 290 d 7, Laws 630 b 7.

The purpose of this article is to re-examine the more important extant manuscripts of Livy 21–25 with special reference to omissions and significant errors, and on this basis to try to establish their interrelationship in stemmatic form. A stemma for Books 26–30 has already been drawn up by Professor S. K. Johnson in O.C.T. vol. iv, but, since the tradition for those five books is slightly different from that of the first half of the third decade, it has seemed worth while to draw up a stemma for Books 21–25 independently. The manuscripts to be considered, and the sigla to be employed, are as follows:

This famous passage has given rise to much discussion and some perplexity. Theodoras the mathematician is represented by Theaetetus as proving the irrationality of the square roots of the (non-square) numbers from 3 to 17:

‘He took the separate cases up to the root of 17 square feet; and there, for some reason, he stopped.’ (Transl. Cornford.)

The passage is of great importance in the history of Greek mathematics for more than one reason. Theaetetus is said to have generalized the proof of the irrationality of square roots of non-square integers; and thus his connexion with this passage is important because Plato here obviously implies that Theodorus was not giving a generalized proof—otherwise, why should he go up to 17 ? If Theodorus did not know the generalized proof, he clearly had to proceed by enumeration and proof of particular case

Mr. Bishop's article in C.Q., xlix (vi. 3/4). 187–92 on Palatine Apollo calls for an answer from me, since I am still alive to give it, though my own study dates from 1910 and was published in J.R.S. for 1914, pp. 193–226. So far away is this publication, and my offprints have for so long been exhausted, that scholars of my generation need to go to university libraries to refer to it, and recent generations do not know it at all. From Lugli's book on Rome they do not gather the details which convinced Boni that I was right, because he omitted some of the most cogent from mention.

In his speech against Meidias Demosthenes describes the arrogant and proud behaviour of his opponent in which Meidias persists in spite of the popular vote condemning him. Whenever there is voting, Demosthenes says, Meidias is put forward as a candidate; he is the proxenos of Plutarch, he knows everything, the city is too small for his aspirations. This illustration of the enormous popularity of an Athenian politician shows his predominant influence in the two spheres of domestic and foreign policy. The main line of this foreign policy —the passage is obviously intended as an accusation—is expressed by the relationship of proxenia and xenia between Meidias and Plutarch, the leading politician of Eretria who, pro-Athenian at first, changed his attitude and almost brought disaster on the Athenian army intervening in Euboea.

J. D. P. Bolton has argued in the C.Q. 1948 that although there is some confusion in the use of the term ‘quinquennalis’ in the first century A.D., the linguistic and literary evidence suggests that the Neronia (instituted by Nero in A.D. 60) was a four-yearly festival, that the celebration which Tacitus records in 65 was merely a postponement of part of the celebration due in 64, and that such a view is supported by the evidence of Nero's issues of Certamen Quinquennale semisses. Bolton divides these semisses into four main groups:

(i) Copper. With sc on reverse. Obverse: bare head of Nero; legend NERO (CLAVDIVS) CAESAR AVGVSTVS (GERMANIGVS) variously abbreviated.

Persius places these words in the mouth of his interlocutor, who states one of the traditional arguments against satire in the contrived manner typical of our poet. The passage may be translated: ‘What need is there to rasp upon tender little ears with biting truth? Be careful that the thresholds of the great do not perhaps grow cold towards you; here there is the nasal sound of the canine letter.’

The idea of the philosopher-statesman finds its first literary expression in Plato's Republic, where Socrates, facing the ‘third wave’ of criticism of his ideal State, how it can be realized in practice, declares2 that it will be sufficient ‘to indicate the least change that would affect a transformation into this type of government. There is one change’, he claims, ‘not a small change certainly, nor an easy one, but possible.’ ‘Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries, or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiendy inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet together, … there can be no rest from troubles for states.’

Vocem in v. 514 is generally taken to mean ‘voice’ on this basis there are two possible interpretations— (a) that Allecto shouted through the bucina, or (b) that two actions are implied, an alarm call on the bucina followed by a shout, (a) is, owing to the structure of this type of instrument, physically impossible; this may or may not be regarded as an objection, (b) presents less difficulty, but it seems strange that, if two actions are involved, Vergil should have joined cornuque recuruo syntactically with the wrong one of the two; in sense it would belong with pastorale canit signum.

The links between Eileithyia, an earlier Minoan goddess, and a still earlier neolithic prototype are, relatively, firm. The explanation is as simple as it is important. The continuity of her cult depends upon the unchanging concept of her function. Eileithyia was the goddess of childbirth; and the divine helper of women in labour has an obvious origin in the human midwife. To Homer she is ‘goddess of the pains of birth’. When Leto gave birth to Apollo in Delos, was in attendance, and so were a number of other goddesses who bathed the god-child and wrapped him in his swaddling-clothes.

The rhetorical treatises of Aristotle and Anaximenes, in discussing the introduction of a speech, recognize that a speaker may encounter prejudice on the part of his audience for some reason or other; perhaps because of his own character or reputation, or because of the nature of the case he is pleading, or because his opponent has already won their approval. Anaximenes describes a speaker in this situation as and he and Aristotle give advice on countering such if they have arisen (Arist. Rhet. 3. 15; Anax. Rhet. ad Alex. 29 fin., 35 init., 36 init.). Rather more than two centuries later we find the early Latin rhetoricians expounding the doctrine of insinuatio for dealing with such a situation; they distinguish between principium, the ordinary direct introduction, and insinuatio, the ‘subtle approach’ (Caplan, in his Loeb translation of the ad Herennium, p. 13).

In his choice of quotations concerning fate and the good ordering of events Stobaeus (Eel. 5. 10–12) gives in succession three passages which the manuscripts ascribe to the Peleus of Euripides and the Phaedra of Sophocles, but as Wilamowitz and Nauck saw, all three form a single piece, and the ascriptions to Euripides and Sophocles do not concern them. The text so recovered may be presented as follows

All we know of this law is to be found in Cicero's Pro Cluentio. Elsewhere we have only one passing reference to it. However, this speech seems to give us the main clause of the bill as it appeared after incorporation in the Lex Cornelia de sicariis el veneficis: ‘Qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis quive quaestor, tribunus plebis’ —deinceps omnes magistratus nominavit—‘quive in senatu sententiam dixit dixerit, qui eorum coiit, coierit, convenit, convenerit quo quis iudicio publico condemnaretur de eius capite quaerito.

In the Classical Quarterly, xlix (July–October 1955), Mrs. A. D. Ure mentions a Corinthian pyxis which had been previously published by her in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, lxix. 19 f. (Figs. 2a and 3). This vase, at first believed to be of Boeotian origin, appears to come from Corinth, as subsequently shown by Mrs. Ure in J.H.S. lxxii. 121. Its subject is quite well known, consisting of an unbearded figure dressed in a fawn-skin with two horns growing from its head, and sitting on what very probably is a heap of corn. In his right hand he is holding a staff thickened at the head, and in his left a stick terminating in forklike prongs. The figure is flanked on the right by a small animal (pig) and on the left by a basket of fruit.