The old Analytical view that the union between the Journey of Telemachus and the rest of the Odyssey is post-Homeric, superficial, and incompetently effected is nowadays widely rejected, and rightly so. However, although many defences cumulatively, I believe, successful–of the content of the second divine assembly have been put forward in recent years, no adequate answer has yet been given to the objections raised against the allegedly anomalous language of Athene's speech of 5.7–20:

Anyone who seeks to add to the already vast pile of literature dealing with the I.A. must needs feel apologetic, especially if he is conscious that little of what he will say is new. Nevertheless this seems to be one of those occasions when it is necessary to restate old arguments. Recent contributors to the debate about the problems of the opening of the play either fail to realize what the problems are or else attempt to explain away valid criticisms of the text with arguments that are methodologically suspect and parallels which will not hold water.

It has long been accepted as a principle by editors and writers on Greek metre that brevis in longo and hiatus in tragic lyrics often coincide with some kind of sense-pause. The object of this inquiry is (i) to determine the incidence of pause in such places, and show that it is significantly high; (ii) to show that there is a comparable incidence in the corresponding places in strophic systems; (iii) to show that period-ends determined by criteria other than brevis and hiatus are attended by similar conditions. It might seem that if all this were true it would have been recognized long ago, particularly as the connection between sense and metrical structure, and symmetry of sense in strophe and antistrophe, has often been pointed out.

In CQ 55 (1941), 22–5, E. Harrison noticed that hiatus between verses in the trimeters of dialogue was much less frequent in tragedy when the sense ran on from one verse to the next, than when there was a pause in sense at verse-end. He observed (i) that Aeschylus' Prometheus differed from the other plays of Aeschylus in this respect, the proportion of run-over hiatus to end-stopped hiatus being much higher, and more like that of comedy; (ii) that Sophocles had remarkably few verses with run-over hiatus in the Trachiniae (8) and Antigone (12), much less than Aeschylus in proportion to the number of non-stop trimeters in the play, though Oedipus Tyrannus had much the largest number in Sophocles (48), and no continuous chronological development was discernible; (iii) that in Euripides there was a general progression from relative strictness to relative freedom in the run-over hiatus allowed, though individual plays did not conform closely to this pattern; (iv) that in general comedy was freer than tragedy.

The last line should, I believe, be printed as a question. Strepsides is seated on the sacred and a wreath is put on his head, which makes him feel like a sacrificial victim. In 261 he is told to hold still, and we gather from that at this point he is being sprinkled with some dry substance. If we put the full stop at the end, he is saying, ‘I can see you won't disappoint me: being sprinkled like this will make me into flour all right’. If we make it a question, it is ‘No fear, you won't trick me: you mean being sprinkled is the way to turn into flour?’ This seems more in keeping with his apprehension in 257, and it allows what is perhaps a more natural sense to

It is characteristic of Aristophanes that, in the fifth-century debate on the conflicting moral claims of and he tended to adopt a conservative stance, and in general to support the claims of Most of his plots concern an imbalance.in cosmic order (usually at first perceptible to the hero alone), and the hero's (Ach. 128) which is undertaken to correct it. Often the cosmic imbalance is caused by the pre-eminence of those who place their own above (whether they are generals, politicians, sophists, or tragedians), and the hero's self-imposed task is to reverse this state of affairs.

In the early years of the fifth century, the Greek cities of Asia Minor attempted to free themselves from Persian rule. Our primary evidence for the unsuccessful ‘Ionian Revolt’ is literary, a patchwork from the narrative of Herodotus iv–vi.

The main events of the Revolt need not be doubted: the Ionian cities were ruled by Greek puppet tyrants until the outbreak of the rebellion (Hdt. 4.136–7); Aristagoras was the early leader of the movement which began after the failure of the Persian-Milesian expedition against Naxos (5.30–5); Athens, petitioned by Aristagoras, and Eretria supplied limited support for-the Revolt (5.38; 55; 65; 97; 99);

Of the ten ships of the barbarians three the reef that is between Sciathus and Magnesia and is called the Ant. When the barbarians had brought to the reef and set up there a pillar of stone, they themselves set out from Therma, as the way ahead had now been made clear for them, and sailed on with all their ships, having let eleven days pass since the king's departure from Therma. The reef, which was right in their course, had been pointed out to them by Pammon, a Scyrian.

The excursus of Thucydides on the last years of Pausanias and Themistocles (1.128–38) is remarkable for its simple, rapid-flowing style, its storytelling tone, its wealth of personal ancedote, its marked deviation from his normally strict criteria of relevance. These characteristics, which give the excursus a Herodotean flavour, have often been noted by modern scholars, but until recently acceptance of its general credibility has been widespread, and indeed, with one important exception, which seems to have created very little impression almost unchallenged.

Excavations at Sparta early in this century seemed at the time to have provided a fairly clear-cut and decisive answer to questions about the character of Spartan life in the archaic and classical periods. In the seventh century B.C. and the beginning of the sixth century, it was thought, life was comfortable and even luxurious but thereafter comforts and luxuries disappeared from among the offerings at the temple of Artemis Orthia and so, it was held, from Spartan life.

This allegory (R.,514 a 1–517 a 6) is among the most well-traversed passages in Plato's dialogues and deservedly so. Its emotional impact is undeniable, yet it confronts the reader with several problems of interpretation. There is a strong sense that it is of central importance to the crucial questions of the Platonic philosopher's education and his role in society, and it possibly holds one key to an understanding of the Republic as a whole.

It is arguable that the student of the deductions which make up the second part of Plato's Parmenides is today better placed than any of his predecessors, save Aristotle, Speusippus, and other immediate associates of Plato, to understand and evaluate those forbidding pages. Ways of looking at and handling the matter of the text are available to him which were not open to those who lived before the rise of critical philological scholarship in Europe in the last century, and of analytical philosophy in the English-speaking world in this. He has to hand, too, some pioneering work on the dialogue of recent date.

This paper originated in an attempt to come to terms with the problems which arise from the structure of the Politics. It is no news to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the Politics that the work reads, to borrow a phrase of Barker's, not as a composition, but as composite. Broadly speaking, it falls into three parts: Books I–III, Books IV-VI, and Books VII-VIII.

The widely accepted redating of the praetorship and propraetorship of Cornelius Sulla from the conventional years 93–92 to the years 97–96 B.C., proposed by E. Badian in an ingenious paper, involved the rearrangement of the story of the Cappadocian succession between c. 101 B.C. and 90 B.C. Badian proposed a much simpler reconstruction of the events recorded in the summary narratives of Justin, Appian, and Plutarch, than the version established by Th. Reinach which has hitherto held the field.

Cicero, after a discussion of the value of Cornelius' bill about privilegia, is clearly here dealing with the bill, ‘ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent’ (cf. Asconius, 59 C). The pluperfect subjunctives suggest that he is arguing that notorious unjust judgements of previous years would not have happened, if Cornelius' bill had been then in force.

Cicero, after a discussion of the value of Cornelius' bill about privilegia,' is clearly here dealing with the bill, ‘ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent’ (cf. Asconius, 59 C). The pluperfect subjunctives suggest that he is arguing that notorious unjust judgements of previous years would not have happened, if Cornelius' bill had been then in force.

Already an admired senior poet to Virgil in the Eclogues (9.35), Varius by the mid-thirties, B.C. had established himself as the leading epic writer of his day (Horace, Sat. 1.10.43–4). It is a sobering thought that we do not know even the titles of the serious hexameter works which had won him so high a reputation, except for de Morte, quoted four times by Macrobius (from whom we may gather that the poem was not split into more than one book).

CO. Brink's discussion of these lines takes five pages in the body of his commentary, and is continued in an appendix of nine pages at the end. But the passage has for so long caused such sore vexation that his treatment of it seems actually compendious rather than long, and deserves our gratitude. With the main part of his solution, which is to understand communia as ‘generalities to which individual features must be given’ (p. 196), I fully agree.

Statius' Silvae owe their preservation to a copy made in Switzerland for Poggio in 1417 by a local scribe. This copy, brought to light by G. Loewe in 1879, was recognized for what it was by A.C. Clark and A. Klotz twenty years later, and since then its descendants have had at best historical interest. To extract much of that from them an editor must endeavour to survey all the extant material, and A. Marastoni in the recent Teubner edition (1961, 1970) claims to have done just that: ‘omnes manuscriptos libros veteresque editiones iterum contuli’ he says at the opening of his preface, and the reviewers echo his words.

On the following pages Corippus' text is quoted according to the edition of J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear (D.-G.). Even after the publication of that admirable edition there remain not a few passages of the Iohannis that are doubtful and worth discussing, because the only extant manuscript (the Codex Trivultianus, T) appears to give a very corrupt text of the epos, and Corippus' Latin usage is not always easy to cope with.

The word , first attested in writers of the fifth century B.C., belongs to a large group of possessive adjectives in which are formed from ethnic names. A few of these occur in Homer () and in the early lyric poets (e.g. in Alcman, , and others in Alcaeus), but examples become increasingly common in the fifth century and later; their characteristic function is to denote something as belonging to a people or city as a whole, as distinct from ethnic adjectives which are applied to persons.