Josephus' pamphlet commonly known under the title Contra Apionem makes rather interesting reading, not only because it represents a more mature stage in the author's stylistic evolution, which shows so many points worth considering, but also and chiefly because it gives us a direct insight into a vehement polemic in which the writer played a leading role.

Cynthia will leave Rome for the country: how fortunate that there will be no one there to seduce her—provided there is no visitor from the outside world! Propertius will himself go hunting. If Cynthia has any temptations, let her remember that in a few days he will be with her:

With the exception of what they seized or inherited from eastern kings, the Roman emperors gathered and administered their estates like private individuals. Imperial estates differed only in being bigger. For just this reason, however, more is known of them, and it is the purpose of these notes to shed light on large private holdings, and on the range of their economic potential, by looking at three unusual kinds of activity on crown lands: the raising of herds, the exploitation of forests, and the making of bricks.

It is generally held that Plutarch's authority in his Vita Agidis was Phylarchos and that, consequently, our knowledge of Agis' programme derives solely from the Phylarchean, pro-Spartan, and generally unreliable tradition. There is little doubt that Plutarch's biography of Agis is based on Phylarchos. However, our knowledge of the programme of Agis does not depend solely on the Phylarchean tradition.

Demosthenes prophesied1 that, unless Athens stopped Philip in the north, she would have to deal with him in Greece itself, and the events of 346 proved him right. Right in this much, he has been presumed right in general, and the policies of those he opposed have received only scant consideration before being dismissed as the selfish pursuit of peace by the rich, who were so blinded by their material interests that they could not see the real issues involved. It is the purpose of this article to question, from a purely military standpoint, the soundness of Demosthenes' policy.

J. Kaerst, following a suggestion made by Ranke, conjectured that Diodorus' source for Alexander, whom he identified with Clitarchus, derived information from the mercenaries who served Darius. This conjecture has been developed into an elaborate theory by Sir William Tarn, a theory that has found some favour. He holds that the ‘mercenaries' source’, which I shall henceforth call M, was Diodorus' ‘principal guide [my italics] down to Issus’, and also ‘largely used’ by Curtius (p. 71); from certain texts in Curtius Tarn infers (pp. 105–6) that M went down to Darius' death, and he thinks that till that point both Diodorus and Curtius continued to draw upon him, as well as upon other authorities.

ARCHAEOLOGYTHE Classical Spartans were noted for their austerity, which seemed already ancient to writers of the fifth century B.C. The early poetry and art of their country show a considerable aesthetic sense. This apparent contradiction has caused some students to conclude that the strict Lycurgan regimen was not introduced till the middle or even the end of the sixth century (when literature and art were dead or died) and that before that date Sparta had culturally been developing in much the same way as other important Greek states. The argument is unsound.

Few authors, I should suppose, get less expert treatment in this lexicon than Cicero, so far at least as his letters are concerned. That is largely because the editors chose to trust Tyrrell and Purser, to whom Cicero's Greek was no less full of pitfalls than his Latin. The following notes may be of help in the preparation of a tenth edition.

It is now generally agreed that the Satyricon was written in the age of Nero by the Emperor's Arbiter elegantiae. The view that it should be dated to the age of the Antonines has been reasserted since the war, and the work of scholars who have refuted it has produced several new arguments of value; notably in the matter of the economic and social background in the Satyricon. H. C. Schnur has recently restated the economic arguments for the Neronian date, with some new points, and with convincing force.

This article does not set out to cast doubts on the established textual basis of the bulk of Quintilian's Institutio, or on the history of the work's fortunes in the Middle Ages. What I say about these things will be unoriginal and, I hope, uncontroversial. My object, however, is to show that what is true of the bulk is not true of 10. 1. 46–131; and to fill in some details in the history of the tradition.

The editors allow me four corrections of Mr. Parry's remarks in C.Q. N.S. X (1960), 268–70. Mr. Parry observes (p. 268, n. 4): ‘Calder says that Jebb wanted to translate by him. That is not correct.’ But Mr. Parry has just said that exemplifies ‘the common “I know thee who thou art” construction’ and has endorsed the view of Brunck, ‘Est autem’ etc. Brunck is saying that is the proleptic subject of the verb which is he, sc. Oedipus, therefore does not mean her nor them but him whether or not the word ‘must be left out in translation’.