There can be no doubt of the primacy of Andronicus in Roman literature, but there is an interesting and unorthodox ancient tradition concerning his date. Modern scholars incline to place Andronicus' birth about 285 B.C. and to postulate either that he came to Rome as a slave from Tarentum in 272 B.C., or that the story of his captivity is a fiction. His first play was produced in 240 B.C.

Despite the long controversy on the date and composition of the First Philippic, we are no nearer, it would seem, to a satisfactory solution. F. Focke, apparently following a suggestion in Gercke-Norden, developed what is perhaps the most reasonable presentation of the view that the speech was delivered in the spring of 350 B.C.; but what vitiates his argument in the long run is Focke's constant presumption that all the various datable references must belong to one and the same speech or stratum of composition. For although the view of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, that the First Philippic really comprises two distinct speeches, has not in its extreme form won acceptance with modern scholars, other more moderate solutions are not impossible; and it would seem that Blass's revision theory (for which Werner Jaeger has expressed sympathy) suggests a more subtle way of handling the various inconsistencies between the first (§§ 1–29) and the second (30–50) parts of the speech.

A Previous article made a linguistic study of municeps. The present examines the Roman discussions of the word. I hope further to discuss the definitions of Verrius Flaccus, the history of the ius, and the juridical concept.

Roman historical and legal discussion of municeps is to be found in the Digest (50. 1. 1, Ulpian), in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (16. 13), and in the De verborum significatu of Sextus Pompeius Festus (p. 126 L.) and its epitome by Paulus (pp. 117 and 155 L.). It comprises legal definitions, which must have had at least contemporary validity, historical definitions of what the word meant at different periods in its history, and the citation of precedents with or without historical detail. Of these the last two are the most important.

The initial paradox is simple: The ideal state, as Plato describes it, is composed of un-ideal individuals. Both the warrior class and the masses are deprived of reason and must be governed by the philosopher-king. How can one legitimately call a community perfect when so many of its members are imperfect ? My point here is logical; the word ‘ideal’ is used in a self-inconsistent manner.

In his recently published Propertiana, Mr. D. R. Shackleton Bailey has given what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the first two lines. He maintains that sacra has no direct connexion with poetry, that it may be virtually synonymous with Manes or possibly signify the rites paid to the dead, or that it can be taken in the sense of their physical relics, the ashes in the urn. He reminds us that nemus is more than a ‘poetic grove’; it must be a ‘consecrated grove’.

The purpose of this paper is to protest against the opinion that Catullus' Elegiacs are careless and uncouth. It will be shown that in many details his metre resembles that of the Augustan Elegists, and then it will be argued that some of the points in which Catullus differs from the Augustans are signs not of incompetence or indifference but of a deliberate adjustment of metre to content

The letters are constant in the tradition of 1. 19 and must be taken as genuine. It follows that we have to do either with ‘lead’ or with one of its compounds. At any rate nobody has found another word of like appearance that will fit the context.

Since the first publication of P. Oxy. xxi.

Probably no part of the Iliad has given rise to more discussion than the apparent contradiction between Books 9 and 16. In the former, Agamemnon's embassy offers Achilles the restoration of Briseis and ‘handsome gifts’ in recompense for taking her: in the latter Achilles tells Patroklos to obey his battle-orders exactly, ‘so that you may win me great renown and glory from all the Danaans, and they shall restore the lovely damsel and also give splendid gifts’ —just as though he had not refused precisely these things only the night before

Inc.Q,., N.S. v (1955), i76ff., Mr. A. E. Harvey discusses the problem presented by the first ten lines of the first column of the Berlin Papyrus of Corinna, and finds the solution in the region of erroneous colometry. So far as I can judge, he is justified in claiming that he has offered ‘the most concise and satisfactory explanation of the irregularities’; but, if so, there is one further step which should be taken, and there is one obscurity in his account which should be clarified

Professor Webster has replied briefly to my article on this subject, and has dealt elsewhere with the works of art. One point I will gladly concede. In referring (p. 69) the phlyakes-vases to ‘the fourth or third century’ I was quoting Pickard-Cambridge's words in Dithyramb, etc. (1927), p. 267. But in Dramatic Festivals (pub. 1953), Pickard-Cambridge, perhaps influenced by Trendall, speaks of the fourth century only.

O. A. W. Dilke (Proc. Class. Assoc. liii [1956], 30 f.) disapproves of the reading uergens advocated by me in C.Q., NS. iv [1954], 188 f., retains uertens of the better manuscripts translating ‘and Fortune did not take long to change the balance of so many weights’, and, citing for the use of diu Sen. Contr. 2. 3. 10 ‘si non impetro ut uiuam, hoc certe impetrem ne diu moriar’, asks ‘How is this not a parallel?’ Others too have not hesitated to ascribe a similar use to diu. The difficulty is that to which I briefly referred in C.Q,., I.e. The adverb diu is appropriate only with verbs representing a continuous or protracted action: e.g. morior may represent such an action, and it does so in Sen., I.e.—the speaker prays for exemption from a protracted death and diu retains its characteristic sense.

In answer to Professor Beare's note, which he has generously shown me, I would make the following points: (1) I think it unlikely that Middle Comedy was more obscene than Old Comedy, and the Attic vases go back to about 420 B.C. (see my Greek Theatre Production, pp. 56 f., particularly 66, and Wiener Studien, lxix (1956), 110 f.).

Astronomy has been known to profit on occasion from the observations of amateurs; and so perhaps, in its less technical passages, could the Astronomica. I venture to dispute the emendations of Mr. Shackleton Bailey (hereinafter S.B.) in the first two items of his learned Maniliana (C.Q., N.S. vi. 81).

The aim of this paper is the discussion, and in some cases also, it is hoped, the clarification, of several passages in the fragments of the comic poet Alexis, where either the traditional text has been attacked because there occurred in it an allegedly objectionable split anapaest, or alternatively an excellent emendation has been rejected because laws framed by modern scholars have wrongly been applied to the passage being emended.

At Book 15, chapter 76, Diodorus Siculus says that during the Attic year 366/5, at the same time as the Thebans won possession of the Attic border district of Oropus, the King of Persia sent ambassadors and persuaded the Greeks to put an end to their wars and to conclude Common Peace )); this peace, he adds, was more than five years after the battle of Leuctra.

One of the ways in which a poet may show his quality is by discrimination and originality in his choice of adjectives. Poetry likes to adorn the bare noun; a noun such as ‘the sky’ calls out for an attribute. But in practice the poet has to take care to avoid the cliche. He can seldom write ‘the blue sky’; even ‘the azure sky’ has become trite. He has to search for the epithet which will be both apt and original.

p. 13: delete lines 5 and 6.

p. 17, 1. 18: after ‘3. 599–603:’, insert ‘the manuscripts have:’.

1. 22 : for κοπ⋯ς read .

p. 21, 1 24: for fSLov read χpVOVP

22, 1. 4 : for TOV xpovov read TOV XpOV.

1. 5: alter the genitives to accusatives.

p. 23, five lines from the bottom: for ‘221 f.’ read ‘22 f.’