ΔεȖρ’ [’ Eλε

υσινίον [τρ

ιττύς τελ[ε

υτāɩ, Περαι

õν δἑ τριττ

ύς ἄρχεται

Thus IG I2 897, a trittys marker from the Peiraieus. It is likely that I2 885, a horos from the Agora with the same formula, listed the same two trittyes in the same order.

IG I2 901, a Peiraieus marker of earlier date and written from right to left, also names a trittys of Hippothontis. Wade-Gery restored the first four lines as follows.

ΔεȖρε Η[ɩπποθο

ν[τί]ς φυ[λέ τελε

υτᾱι Τε (or Ζε) [---ο

[ν] δέ τριτ[τύς

Eleusis was the largest coastal deme of Hippothontis and Peiraieus the largest city deme. Therefore the trittyes Eleusis and Peiraieus must be coastal and city respectively. Accordingly, it was taken for granted by Wade-Gery that IG I2 901 contained the name of Hippothontis’ inland trittys. Since no deme of Hippothontis starts with either zeta or with tau, it apparently follows, if Wade-Gery’s restoration is correct, that inland Hippothontis was not named after one of its constituent demes. Nor, like some other trittyes, can it have been named after one of the twelve poleis settled, according to Athenian tradition, by Kekrops. Although a parallel would exist (the inland trittys of the phyle Oineis was called Pedieis) an appropriate or even remotely plausible name for inland Hippothontis does not readily come to mind and one is puzzled that Dekeleia, the name both of the tribe’s largest inland deme and one of Kekrops’ poleis, was not chosen.

Ever since A. W. Schlegel the role of the Sophoclean chorus has been the subject of debate. To him the chorus was ‘the ideal spectator’, by which he meant that it moves at a deeper level than the actors and interprets the meaning of the play to us: it is as Schiller put it, ‘not an individual, but a general reflection’. This might be called one of the extreme views of the role of the chorus; even those who do not take it in general, such as Helg and Helmreich, still see some of the choral odes as a kind of parabasis, in which Sophocles lets the plot go and speaks to us in person. The main candidates are the first stasimon of the Antigone and the second stasimon of the Oedipus Rex. It is not clear whether these ‘messages’ were for posterity or Pericles; in my view these odes are entirely explicable in the dramatic context in which they occur; at least, the burden of proof lies with those who would maintain otherwise.

One of the verses of classical poetry frequently quoted by those who have had a traditional upbringing is still an iambic senarius originally uttered by an old man in a comedy by Terence:

Few would be willing to interpret it closely. Some would see in it, as Michel de Montaigne did, a man’s confession of his emotional and spiritual weakness. Others, like John of Salisbury, perceive an expression of Christian charity. Others again make it a disavowal of intolerance and prudery in regard to human behaviour. Most would say that it had to do with being ‘humane’ in some very positive sense of this much used word and claim to hear in it a tone both elevated and elevating. The association with knowledge of literature and the fine arts which Varro and Cicero sometimes gave the abstract humanitas still exercises a powerful influence and not surprisingly the verse turns up time and again in the public discourses of University professors and in the mottos of institutions concerned with education.

The administrative framework of a newly annexed Roman province is generally taken to conform to a regular and predictable pattern. The conquering general, with the help of ten commissioners sent from Rome, laid down a basic lex for the new territory; the edict of each successive governor confirmed or modified details of administrative and legal business.

But Roman conquests were often haphazard affairs. A procedure as schematic as this is not, in fact, warranted by our evidence: lex and edict not only resembled each other much more closely, but (as will be argued in this paper) can often be regarded as essentially the same type of ordinance. Their relationship in turn reveals considerable flexibility in Roman provincial rule.

Three articles in recent numbers of this journal have discussed Odes i 12 quem uirum, particularly lines 33-6. In Vol. iii (1969), 48-51, A. Treloar accepts a theory of a ‘triadic’ structure of the ode by which all those persons referred to in stanzas 7-9 (lines 25-36) are to be regarded as ‘heroes’: he further accepts the παρὰδoσις Catonis (35) and suggests that in Tarquini (35) is a reference to L. Tarquinius ‘Collatinus’. In Vol. v (1971), 68-76 H. D. Jocelyn expresses mistrust of such a structure, and after discussing what the words ήρως and heros are capable of meaning argues that Horace may only have been referring to two categories of beings, namely ‘gods’ and ‘men’. He further suggests that the Tarquin referred to is ‘Superbus’. In Vol. vi (1972), 60-2 Treloar responds. From now on these articles will be referred to as T1, J and T2 respectively, with the addition of the appropriate page-number.

Professor Dunston gives my loosely expressed reference to Horatian scholars the treatment it deserved (above, 56). I ought perhaps to have said ‘scholars whose authority carries great weight with me’ and hoped to show that I was not merely advocating in this respect an eccentric view of my own. In view of what he goes on to say, I hope it will not seem arrogant if I now say that Horace has been a favourite author with me for forty years and that the kind of structure I advocated does seem to me to be an element in his art. In a work of art such a structure must be self-evident, if it is real: otherwise it is likely to be something imposed on the artist by scholars or critics.

A. Treloar remains convinced (Antichthon vi [1972], 60-62) that he understands why the younger M. Porcius Cato should be placed after Romulus, Numa and ‘Tarquinius’ — and before M. Atilius Regulus, M. Aemilius Scaurus, L. Aemilius Paullus, C. Fabricius Luscinus, M’ Curius Dentatus, M. Furius Camillus, M. Claudius Marcellus and C. Iulius Caesar in a list of Roman men of state and why a poem which fawns upon C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus should mention Cato in an honorific context. His original contentions (Antichthon iii [1969], 45-51) were essentially that Horace thought of Cato as a heros like Hercules, Castor, Pollux, Romulus-Quirinus, Numa and L. Tarquinius Collatinus rather than as a uir like Regulus and the rest and that he expressed such a thought because he ‘never abandoned his loyalty to the lost cause for which he fought in his youth’.

Attention has rightly been drawn to the central theme of Cyprian’s thinking —the sacramentum unitatis. The well worn dichotomy between episcopal or papal interpretations is misleading. What moved Cyprian was a conviction of the spiritual unity of the church, a mystery whereby one stood for many. At the centre of his thinking stood the theme of mater ecclesia and the recovery of this truth remains the proper end of the study of Cyprian.

The sources which refer to Silvanus and his abortive usurpation are few and varied. They include a secular historian with a military background (Ammianus Marcellinus), a Roman emperor (Julian) and a lesser group composed of secular and ecclesiastical historians, orators and priests. Epigraphical evidence is slight. These sources are not of equal merit or value nor are they in absolute agreement. Indeed, the two major sources, Ammianus and Julian, differ substantially.