Little has been said as to how Isocrates' λγοι were published. It is commonly assumed that they were written for a reading public but for greater effect were given a fictitious dramatic setting. Such a generalization, although partly true, needs qualification. This article attempts to prove the following points:

(a) Isocrates wrote for a listening, as well as for a reading, public.

(b) Failure to recognize indications of this in his works has led to misinterpretation and mistranslation, especially of certain words used in a semi-technical sense.

(c) There has been a tendency to confuse references to a real audience who will actually be listening to the λόγος with references to a fictitious audience introduced as a picturesque literary device.

(d) The Panegyricus provides an example of this. It is not, as is generally supposed, addressed to an imaginary audience in Olympia or some other πανγυρις but to real audiences in Athens, as well as to an Athenian reading public.

The story of Actaeon of Corinth is a slight, rationalized, romantic version of the original Boeotian myth, and as such has occasionally received a brief notice. In the Corinthian story Melissos his father (or Habron his grandfather) had rescued Corinth from an attack by Pheidon of Argos, and was therefore held in great honour by the Corinthians. The boy Actaeon was torn to pieces not by his dogs but by bis drunken Bacchiad admirers, and after the murder Melissos, unable to get legal redress from the Corinthians, cursed them publicly at the Isthmian festival and jumped over a cliff. Plutarch and Diodorus name the Bacchiad Archias as the chief culprit, and Plutarch ends with Archias' departure to found Syracuse and his eventual death there. The story has an historical not a mythical setting, and has attracted some slight attention from historians, either in the hope of light on the obscure question of Pheidon's relations with Corinth, or because of the chronological implication that Pheidon reigned a generation or more before the foundation of Syracuse. In neither aspect has its evidence been rated high, and that is not surprising, especially since attention has been concentrated mainly on Plutarch's story. I believe, however, that we can distinguish an earlier version, and that the historical implications of this original are less disreputable.

The first publication of a hitherto lost work on moral philosophy by Galen deserves the attention of scholars interested in the thought of one who was the last great physician of antiquity, who by a peculiar chain of circumstances became the teacher of the Middle Ages in scientific medicine, and who in his own day enjoyed also success as a philosopher. Posterity, it is true, did not regard his philosophical work with the favour it bestowed on his achievements in medicine, and hence a very small number of his philosophical writings has survived to the present day either in the original text or in Arabic translations.