bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
A Note on the Berlin Papyrus of Corinna
Authors: Harvey A. E.
Published: February 2009

AT the conclusion of his recently published paper on Corinna1 Professor Page leaves open the question whether the poetess was a contemporary of Pindar or
of Moschus-whether she belongs to the middle of the fifth century or the end of the third. He gives excellent reasons for believing that these two dates
exhaust the possibilities: they are far more probable than a date either outside or between them; but there seems to be no sure criterion by which we can
decide between the two, and Professor Page has to end his researches with a suspension of judgement.
The Relation of Stoic Intermediates to the Summum Bonum, with Reference to Change in the Stoa
Authors: Kidd I. G.
Published: February 2009

The Stoics maintained that virtue was the only good; everything else, therefore, was not-good. On the other hand, regarded by itself, this huge class was not equally valueless. Vice, of course, was bad; but everything else was thought to be ‘indifferent’: wealth, health, for example; indifferent, that is, with regard to the summum bonum. Of these Intermediates, men, from human nature, had a leaning to some; these were , had value, were called , that is, preferred, and virtue itself lay in choice exercised among them.
The Asotodidaskalos Attributed To Alexis
Authors: Arnott W. G.
Published: February 2009

From these words of Athenaeus, the majority of scholars have come to the Dnclusion that the Asotodidaskalos was not, despite what Sotion says, composed by Alexis, but is a forgery; and some even go so far as to attribute the forgery to Sotion himself. Yet nowhere do they support their views with sufficient rguments; nowhere has the question, in the light of all the evidence, both sternal and internal, been fully considered. Meineke (Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, i. 397 f.) has indeed given clear reasons for his belief that the play as not written by Alexis, in objecting to three usages in the cited fragment as unattic (see II below); but these objections are not all justifiable, as Kock has lown in the case of (Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ii. 307), or together inclusive enough to make us reject the fragment out of hand.
M. Calidius and the Atticists
Authors: Douglas A. E.
Published: February 2009

The object of this paper is to question the established view that the orator M. Calidius was an Atticist. I propose to argue (i) that the term ‘Atticist’ should be reserved for the coterie centring on Calvus, which attacked Cicero, and was attacked by him in Brutus and Orator, and (ii) that our evidence for the oratory of Calidius does not warrant the inference that he was in any way associated with, or a forerunner of, that coterie.
The Manuscript Tradition of Ovid's Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris
Authors: Kenney E. J.
Published: February 2009

To the editor of a classical text manuscripts are useful as they can be induced to yield the truth. The purpose of this article is purely practical: to discuss in moderate compass, though in greater detail than an O.G.T. preface seems to demand, how the manuscripts of these poems can be used to find out what Ovid wrote. His text has been transmitted to us in circumstances which defy the rigid application of this or that ‘method’ of recension; and his editors will sometimes be wise to recognize the limitations of the evidence and to cultivate a robust indifference to unnecessary detail.
Erratum
Authors: E. J. K.
Published: February 2009

I take this opportunity of correcting a particularly reprehensible error of my own on p. 140 of my edition of these poems. At A.A. 1. 730 read ‘…hoc multri †non ualuisse† putant’; and at 11. 3-4 of the critical apparatus read ‘equidem multi
 utique’ eqs. In other words, the manuscripts are unanimous in offering multi. I hope that Dr. Lenz will be glad to have this evidence of our common humanity (Maia xiii [1961], 131).
Pity, Terror, and Peripeteia
Authors: Lucas D. W.
Published: February 2009

In an article (C.Q. xli [1947], 73 ff.) based on an unpublished paper by Professor Cornford, Mr. I. M. Glanville returned to the suggestion that the words at the beginning of Chapter 11 of the Poetics (1452a23), which are part of the definition of peripeteia, refer back to the phrase (52a4), thereby raising the question whose expectation it is to which events turn out contrary, that of the audience or of the characters in the play.
Cicero, Pro Sestio 96–143
Authors: Lacey W. K.
Published: February 2009

In a recent paper Mr. Balsdon has condemned the ‘political barrenness of Cicero's thought and the thought of his political friends’. The speech pro Sestio, we are told, with its stress on otium, implies ‘an acceptance of the existing political and social conditions, of what Cicero describes as otiosae dignitatis … fundamenta (98), which the principes must protect and defend’. Defence of these was ‘a placid acceptance of the existing régime’ and the appeal for otium ‘the retort of Maître Pangloss that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds’.
L.S.J. and Cicero's Letters
Authors: Bailey D. R. Shackleton
Published: February 2009

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.
The Textual Tradition of Quintilian 10. 1. 46f.
Authors: Winterbottom M.
Published: February 2009

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.
Parry on Sophocles, Oedipvs Tyrannvs 1271–4
Authors: Calder William M.
Published: February 2009

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’.
TheArgonautica of Valerius Flaccus.
Authors: Syme Ronald
Published: February 2009

The Flavian writers of epic verse took their business seriously enough and seldom permitted themselves anything that might pass for an allusion to contemporary events: so much so that only an ingenuity that runs a risk of being perverse can wrest from them much more than what they have themselves chosen to say in their dedications or invocations. Where the man survived to complete and edit his work, such a dedication, the last thing to be written, more or less bears on its face the date of publication. The proem of the Thebaïs of Statius and the ‘Flavian Panegyric,’ which Silius Italicus inserted in the third book of his Punica thus reveal, to within a year, when the whole of the one and a portion of the other were given to the world, viz. in 91–2 and in 92–3 respectively. With an unfinished work the case is different; indeed, the very presence of that panegyric might sufficeto prove that though Silius had reached the end, in a fashion, when he finished his seventeenth book, he did not truly complete his poem or himself publish it as a whole. In order to determine at what date he got as far with his poem as he ever did, some other source of information is therefore desirable. Similarly with the Argonautica. Valerius Flaccus does not appear to have composed any more than the eight books that have come down to us, nor is he known to have published any part of them save, if at all, by recitation. It is for this reason that the proem, with its invocation of Vespasian, to all appearance as still living, has always been taken to be, not a later insertion, but an integral part of the first book, and thus a clear indication of the date at which Valerius began his task.
The Tribunate of Cornelius
Authors: McDonald William
Published: February 2009

The two years which intervened between the consulship of Pompey and Crassus 70 B.C. and the tribunate of Cornelius in 67 B.C. are for the most part neglected in standard histories of the period. It is true that they were uneventful, if by uneventful meant the absence of open hostilities between the two political parties. a careful investigation of the political affiliations of the men who were prominent these years, and of the significance of events which usually are considered of moment, reveals political undercurrents which go far towards explaining meaning, not only of what happened in 67 B.C, but also of the more serious four years later.
Menandrea
Authors: Post L. A.
Published: February 2009

Epitrepontes 353–355:

ἐκείνην λήψεται ταύτην [δʹἐγὠἐπεύξ[ομαι τ]ὴν ἒνδον ἀπολείπειν δ μως και νῦν χαριέντως ἐκνενενκέναι δο κῶν τὸ μὴ δι΄ ἐμοῦ ταντι κυκᾶσθαι.
Tύpannoς, Kέpδoς, and the Modest Measure in three Plays of Euripides
Authors: Sheppard J. T.
Published: February 2009

In a paper recently published in this Review, I tried to show that part of the formal beauty of the Hercules Furens is due to a subtle treatment of the familiar doctrine that the tyrant's wealth and power are of trifling value compared with Sophrosune, the gain that is really gain. Perhaps some further notes on the dramatic use made by Euripides of these familiar ideas may be of interest. One object with which I started was to observe the use of the word τúραννος in Greek drama. Though the poets frequently enough use it merely as a convenient equivalent for βασιλεúσetc., popular feeling made it easy to suggest the meaning ‘tyrant,’ ‘bad King,’ or ‘Usurper’; and the poets use the ambiguity with great subtlety and in a manner which enables them to obtain fine effects of irony and scorn. What is more important is the fact that the notion of a tyrant with which we are acquainted in later Greek literature was already common-place in the fifth century, and that many dramatic effects depend on the recognition by the audience of the commonplace as such. Indeed, it is often the adaptation by the poet of the familiar ideas that lends formal beauty to compositions which, if we think simply of the plot, appear at first sight jerky or ‘epeisodic.’
Rejoinder
Authors: Garrod H. W.
Published: February 2009

My paper, written in 1911, was something of a ballon d'essai, and I acknowledge frankly one or two mistakes. Thus I did not know that Euripides wrote a Thyestes; and again one or two of my references were wrong: in excuse I may perhaps plead that I have not had access to a Latin book for nearly two years. Apart from this I will now make only two observations:

1. I set aside the evidence of Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 because I was dealing with evidence of saec. i.-iv. Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 shows that some persons at the end of saec. viii. ascribed the Thyestes to L. Varius Rufus. So did persons in saec. iv. In addition, Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 gives a date for the Thyestes. To Mr. Housmanthis date is certain; if it is uncertain a large part of his argument comes to nothing. But who can think it certain ? It comes to us from the end of the eighth century. If it came to us from Jerome's Chronicle we could still not think it certain, though we should know whence Jerome derived it. We do not now whence Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 derived it. The reference to Actium may have no better source than the wish to connect a great literary and a great political event: and the gossip about the playwright's profits (reckoned by Mr. Housman at some £10,000) seems to me in itself suspicious.

2. The main contention of the early part of my paper was that the evidence of the relevant MSS. as between Vari and Varii, etc., amounts to nothing either way. I do not think Mr. Housman is prepared seriously to contest this proposition.
Pindar,O. 2.83–90
Authors: Most Glenn W.
Published: February 2009

According to the traditional interpretation of these celebrated lines, Pindar is saying here that while the wise can understand his poetry by themselves, the mass of his listeners need interpreters if they are to do so; he then goes on to contrast inferior poets, who can sing only ineffectually and only what they have learned, with the poet of natural genius, who surpasses them as the eagle surpasses the crows; and finally he returns to the subject at hand, the praise of the victorious Theron of Acragas. Sandys' Loeb translation may be taken as a representative example:

Full many a swift arrow have I beneath mine arm, within my quiver, many an arrow that is vocal to the wise; but for the crowd they need interpreters. The true poet is he who knoweth much by gift of nature, but they that have only learnt the lore of song, and are turbulent and intemperate of tongue, like a pair of crows, chatter in vain against the god—like bird of Zeus.

Now, bend thy bow toward the mark! tell me, my soul, whom are we essaying to hit, while we now shoot forth our shafts of fame from the quiver of a friendly heart?

Construed in this way, this passage has always been especially popular with scholars and with other readers — not surprisingly, for the former could find in it a justification for their activity as⋯ρμηνεῖς, while the latter could pride themselves on belonging to theσυνετοί.
Athenian Festival Judges–Seven, Five, or However Many
Authors: Pope Maurice
Published: February 2009

No ancient authority has left us a clear account of how the judges at the Athenian dramatic festivals operated. We can therefore never know for certain what happened. But it may be possible to improve the reconstruction normally given, which does not look as if it could ever have yielded acceptable results.

One thing that is very clear (from Isocrates 17.33–4) is that the choice of judges was taken seriously. Not only did it involve the Council, the Prytanies, and the Treasurers, but any tampering with the panel from which the judges were eventually selected seems to have been punishable with death. Even the physical arrangements were quite complicated. Names approved by the Council were deposited in ten jars, one jar for each tribe but each jar containing several names, sealed by the Prytanies, held in safe-keeping on the Acropolis, and eventually brought down to the theatre, where the archon publicly broke the seals and drew out one name from each jar.

At this stage of the process there emerged ten judges, one from each tribe. Their quality had been guaranteed by the Council's prior vetting of the panel, but their actual names were unpredictable because randomly selected from it. All had been done democratically and with equal representation of tribes, in perfect accord with normal Athenian practice.

But now comes the difficulty. The paroemiographers record a proverb (or rather perhaps a joke since it seems to be a kind of parody of a Homeric verse) about judgement being in the lap of five judges — ⋯ν π⋯ντε κριτ⋯ν γούνασι κεῖται; Lysias tells us of a judge whose vote was not counted; and Lucian, who likes to disguise a very careful antiquarianism behind an apparent casualness of style, says that at festival competitions the many know how to clap and hiss but that judgement is in the hands of seven or five or however many.
Hellenistic kings, War, and the Economy
Authors: Austin M. M.
Published: February 2009

My title links together kings, war, and the economy, and the linkage is deliberate. I do not of course wish to suggest that Hellenistic kings did nothing but fight wars, that they were responsible for all the wars in the period, that royal wars were nothing but a form of economic activity, or that the economy of the kings was dependent purely on the fruits of military success, though there would be an element of truth in all these propositions. But I wish to react against the frequent tendency to separate topics that are related, the tendency to treat notions relating to what kings were or should be as something distinct from what they actually did, and the tendency to treat political and military history on the one hand as something separate from economic and social history on the other.

A number of provisos should be made at the outset. The title promises more than the paper can deliver; in particular, more will be said about kings and war than about kings and the economy. The subject is handled at a probably excessive level of generalization and abstraction. I talk about Hellenistic kings in general, but in practice it would obviously be necessary to draw distinctions between different dynasties, different times and places, and individual rulers, and some of those distinctions I shall indicate. Conclusions are provisional and subject to modification and considerable expansion in detail. Finally, two points of terminology. I use the word ‘Hellenistic’ for no better reason than out of the force of acquired habit, but of course the word and the concept are modern inventions that were unknown to the ancient world.
The Fetiales: a Reconsideration
Authors: Wiedemann Thomas
Published: February 2009

In recent years many historians have rightly emphasised aggressive imperialism as a key element in Roman political life in the Middle and Late Republic. This has led to reconsideration of the significance of the ‘just war’ theory associated with the college of fetiales. ‘On the basis of this fetial law of the Roman people, it can be understood that no war is justified unless it is waged after compensation has been demanded (sc. and refused by the enemy), or the war has been announced in advance and formally proclaimed.’ Earlier this century, scholars were happy to accept that this ‘fetial law’ implied that the Romans never initiated wars of aggression but fought only if they felt they were the aggrieved party. Scullard believed that ‘…in fact Roman religious law (the ius fetiale) did not countenance wars of aggression designed to gain new territory’ ; for Tenney Frank, ‘ the Roman mos maiorum did not recognise the right of aggression or a desire for more territory as just causes for war. That the institution was observed in good faith for centuries there can be no doubt.’

Recent scholars have been more sceptical. Harris sees the activities of the fetiales primarily as a psychological mechanism for assuaging the guilt feelings which even Romans will have been unable to escape when initiating totally unjustified wars of aggression: ‘the significance of the fetial procedure for declaring war was solely psychological’. Other writers have gone further in stressing its mystificatory and propaganda function.

Our scepticism about the efficacy of ‘fetial law’ in restraining the Romans' belligerence should be accompanied by a re-evaluation of our evidence regarding the fetiales and what they actually did. Such a re-evaluation will not affect our picture of the Romans of the Middle and Late Republic as aggressive and militaristic, but we may have to revise our views on how the fetiales fit into that picture. This paper makes no claim to analyse exhaustively every piece of evidence which might throw some light on the fetiales, let alone every interpretation to be found in the secondary literature; but it may be worthwhile to reconsider the main types of operations which the fetiales are said by our ancient sources to have been involved in.
Two notes on [Vergil] Catalepton 2
Authors: O'Sullivan Neil
Published: February 2009

The difficulty of this little poem is shown by the facts that Ausonius had no idea what it was about, and that Westendorp Boerma's commentary takes 22 pages to explicate its five lines. The latter relies on Quintilian 8.3.27ff., who quotes the poem, saying that Vergil wrote it to attack a certain Cimber for his taste in obsolete words. This is no doubt the Annius Cimber whom Augustus ridiculed when reprimanding Mark Antony for a similar foible (Suet. Aug. 86) and who, as an antiquarius is contrasted with the Asiatici oratores. For convenience, I have kept Westendorp Boerma's text, but I take issue with his interpretation on two points.

4 tau Gallicum: since Bücheler tentatively suggested it in RhM 38 (1883), 508, the standard explanation of this has been to point out that a number of Latin inscriptions in Gaul use a Greek θ or else a barred D (Ð), to represent what appears to have been a dental fricative elsewhere indicated in Latin by -sd- or -st-. Thus Frank, AJP 56 (1935), 255, quotes (T)HYÐRITANVS (CIL xii 686) for what is elsewhere spelled Thysdritanus, and says that ‘Ð clearly represents the best that one Celt could do with sd’. On the basis of this supposed Gallic incompetence, Frank went on to see the repeated -st- sounds in the poem as some sort of joke on the orator's inability to pronounce this sound. His view seems to have been generally accepted.

There seems to me a profound error in this viewpoint which shows cultural imperialism at its worst. First, let us note that none of the examples of alleged substitution are in Latin words; they are native names for people or places or things. The Latin names by which we know some of them are only the approximation of foreigners, and not in any sense the ‘correct’ names of those people or places.
Theocritus of Chios' Epigram against Aristotle
Authors: Runia David T.
Published: February 2009

In the Vita Aristotelis of Diogenes Laertius and elsewhere we come across an epigram of Theocritus of Chios directed against Aristotle. I cite the poem in the form in which it has most recently been published by D. L. Page:
Cicero, ad Att. 1.14.5
Authors: Tatum W. J.
Published: February 2009

Constans, who defends the unanimous reading of the manuscripts, explains ‘tertium’ as a reference to two previous senatus consulta which Fufius did not veto (ad Att. 1.13.3). The problem with this interpretation is that Fufius is not even mentioned in the passage Constans cites; in fact, this letter marks Fufius' first appearance in the correspondence. On the basis of what is preserved it is difficult to see how Atticus could have divined such a meaning in Cicero's ‘tertium’. Scholars have preferred to emend. The proposals of Graevius and Manutius have been criticized by Shackleton Bailey on the grounds that ‘concessit’ cannot mean ‘non intercessit’ in the absence of any mention of previous intercessory action on Fufius' part. However, in view of Cicero's description of the tribune in ad Att. 1.14.1, Atticus would have been no less puzzled if Fufius' failure to veto went unexplained. No earlier allusion to Fufius is necessary. Both ‘territus’ and ‘tum’ provide an explanatory context for Fufius' behaviour which makes the word play in ‘concessit’ understandable and perfectly acceptable.

Shackleton Bailey's own suggestion does not suit the context of the letter, as Ph. Moreau demonstrates in some detail. In addition to the arguments (chiefly historical) adduced by Moreau, it is important to notice that Shackleton Bailey's reading fails to conform to the confident and victorious mood of the letter or to the plot of the relevant paragraph (1.14.5): once Cato's intrusion has focused the resentment of the Senate against Clodius' supporters and his tactics, Cicero depicts Clodhis 'position as increasingly abject.
Greek Compound Adjectives with a Verbal Element in Tragedy
Authors: Richards G. C.
Published: February 2009

A General treatment of Greek compounds seems much to be desired. It would have to be undertaken by one who had an up-to-date philological equipment, to which I cannot lay claim. But rather with the hope of eliciting discussion on the subject and learning from others I offer the following observations, and in further study of the subject should be grateful to anyone who would advise as to the exact statistics that may be desirable over and above what I give below. I was led to the subject by a feeling that the treatment of many individual compounds by editors was far from satisfactory, and that possibly a collection of the material might help to bring out the exact meaning of some of the well-known difficulties in the Tragedians. One is dealing here with a highly developed and somewhat arbitrary poetic idiom, and it may perhaps be impossible, as one must admit from the outset, always to make precise the poet's meaning, but it is worth while to make the attempt.
Virgil Glosses in the Abolita Glossary
Authors: Weir Robert
Published: February 2009

The aim of this article is twofold: first, to prove that Virgil was one source of the Glossary which is printed within square brackets in Goetz;' Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, Vol. IV. pp. 4–198, and to which Professor Lindsay, in his article on the Abstrusa Glossary and the Liber Glossarum in the Classical Quarterly for July of last year (Vol. XL No. 3), has given the name of Abolita (Abol.); secondly, to show, as the result of assigning batches of glosses to Virgil, that certain corrections must be made in the Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum. The corrections there made likewise hold good for the Latin Thesaurus, so far as it goes, which has taken over the errors without question from the Thes. Gloss.
The Sacrifice of Goats in Homer
Authors: Scott John A.
Published: February 2009

On p. 49 of the number of the Classical Quarterly for January, 1917, Mr. Alex. Pallis suggests an emendation in the reference to sacrifice of goats in A. 40, 66, 315, on the assumption that such a sacrifice is not Homeric: ‘In no other Homeric passages do we find an allusion to sacrifices of goats, nor is it likely that offerings of animals so little prized would have been thought acceptable to the gods. It is clear, therefore, that in the above passages we must read $$$ίων instead of α$$$γ$$$ν.’
Restorations and Emendations in Livy VI.–X
Authors: Walters C. Flamstead , Conway R. S.
Published: February 2009

X. 13. 10, with X. 33. 3. (Fabius Maximus is protesting against his own re-election as consul in defiance of the law.)

Et ille quidem in recusando perstabat: quid ergo attineret leges ferri rogitans quibus per eosdem, qui tulissent, fraus fieret; iam regi leges non regere.
‘Cada’ Nom. Plur
Authors: Lindsay W. M.
Published: February 2009

Mrs. Dall, in her article A Seventh-Century English Edition of Virgil (p. 176 infra), shows that Virgil glosses taken from marginalia in the same MS. of the poems often preserve something of their original coherence in the two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, in spite of all the reshuffling of these two collections. Thus a small group of Virgil items appears in Affatim on p. 491 of Goetz's apograph (in Vol. IV. of the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum): (no. 2) Carecta, (no. 3) Crateras, etc. The second last of this ‘Virgil cluster’ (as Mrs. Dall calls it) is (C.G.L. IV. 491, 5) Cada: vasa vinaria. It appears also in Ampl. II. (C.G.L. V. 272, 63) Ca[t]da: vas vinaria, and in (the cognate) Ampl. I. (C.G.L. V. 354, 75) Cada: vasa vinaria, and is apparently taken (by all three compilers), ultimately or immediately, from a marginal annotation on Aen. 1, 195 ‘uina bonus quae deinde cadis onerarat Acestes’ for in the Virgil Glossary printed by Goetz in C.G.L. IV. 427–470 we find (p. 432, no. 24) Cadis: vasis vinariis.
Socrates, ‘Qvantvm Mvtatvs Ab Illo’
Authors: Adam Adela Marion
Published: February 2009

The Times Literary Supplement of November 8, 1917, contained, under the title of Socrates recognitns, a review of Plato's Biography of Socrates, a lecture delivered by Professor A. E. Taylor to the British Academy in the early part of last year. The opening sentence of the review is as follows: ‘Next to the problem of the Gospels ranks that of the Platonic dialogues amongst those most vital to the history of the human spirit.’ A little further down the reviewer says: ‘It is much to the credit of British scholarship—and especially to that of the University of St. Andrews—that it should have attacked these problems with untiring energy, and propounded solutions which, although they run counter to most of the traditional tendencies of historical and philosophical criticism, have not only challenged attention, but are carrying conviction even to unlikely quarters.’ And again, at the end of the article, we read this passage: ‘It is scarcely to be thought that the ground won by the scholars of St. Andrews will be held without counter-attack; but this is slow to mature, and in the meanwhile such essays as the subject of this notice, with which we may couple the paper recently read to the British Academy by Professor Burnet on the Socratic doctrine of the soul, serve to buttress and consolidate the position.’
Plavtvs, Poenvlvs 1168
Authors: Lindsay W. M.
Published: February 2009

How any editor of Plautus can become one of the slash-cut-and-carve critics I cannot understand. The fair garden-beds of Plautus are scored all over with the hoof-prints of the reckless emender. Take this line of the Poenulus for example. Hanno gets a sight of his two long-lost daughters and is surprised to find how they have grown:

Haecine meae sunt filiae?

Quantae e quantillis iam sunt factae!

His would-be son-in-law, not a very refined youth, says with a smile:

Scin quid est?

Thraecae sunt: in celonem sustolli solent.
Vergiliana
Authors: Norwood Gilbert
Published: February 2009

Georg. I. 36 sq.:

quidquid eris,—nam te nec sperant Tartara regem, nec tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira cupido;—

Mr. Page's note puts well what seems the customary view of this famous parenthesis: ‘The force of nam deserves attention. Having used the phrase quidquid eris, which sums up the whole passage from line 24, as though there were no other form of deity left which Augustus could assume, Vergil adds this explanatory sentence to show why he had not mentioned the fourth division into which deities were divided, viz. those of the underworld. The fourfold division of deities being well known, Vergil cannot omit the fourth without stating the reason for which he does so.’
The MSS. of Seneca's Tragedies
Authors: Harrison E.
Published: February 2009

Charles Erskine Stuart's studies of the MSS. of Seneca's tragedies are known to readers of the Class. Quart, from his two articles (V., 1911, pp. 32 sqq., and VI., 1912, pp. 1 sqq.). Before he died he expressed a wish that his collations and notes should pass to me.
Notes on the Consonants in the Greek of Asia Minor
Authors: Evans D. Emrys
Published: February 2009

The change of the Greek aspirates into the voiceless spirants of the modern language was already beginning to appear in some of the ancient dialects. The intermediate stage in this development is naturally that of affricates,ph, th, kh,becomingpf, tp, kxrespectively, a stage seen in such spellings as μετνλλακχóτα. The evidence of the inscriptions shows that the change was not readily effected in Attic, and the clearest mark of this conservatism is the interchange of aspirates and tenues.
A Seventh-Century English Edition of Virgil
Authors: Dall N. F. G.
Published: February 2009

Two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, have been shown (by Professor Lindsay in the Classical Quarterly XI. 185 sqq.) to derive their materials mainly from the Abstrusa and Abolita glossaries, but partly also from Virgil marginalia. This Virgil thread is most clearly seen in the I-section of Affatim. The Affatim compiler tells us that the exemplar (from which he drew most of his material) had lost four leaves at this point: ‘Here the exemplar lacks four leaves in the H–I portion’ (C.G.L. IV. 524, 45–46). We find the following unmistakable Virgil batches:

Affatim 525, 41 sqq. Infandum: inenarrandum, nee loquendum (e.g. Aen. 1, 251); Inpar: inaequalis uiribus (e.g. Aen. 1, 475); Iamdudum: iam pridem, iam olim (e.g. Aen. 1, 580; also C.G.L. IV. 88, 40); In arce: in excelso (e.g. Aen. 3, 531); Infabricata: inperfecta (Aen. 4, 400); Iam uertitur: iam transit (Aen. 5, 626); : iam ualidum minus, minus fortem (Aen. 5, 716); Imago: uultus (e.g. Aen. 6, 695); In iaculis: in armis, in telis (Aen. 5, 37).
Winged Words
Authors: Thomson J. A. K.
Published: February 2009

The metaphor is derived from archery. The epithet πτερόεɩς is appropriate to arrows [πτερόεντες ỏịστοί E 171, ỉờν ἰβλ⋯τα πτερόεντα Δ 117, ἰοì πτερόεντες π 773, ἰ⋯ πτερόεντα ϒ 68]. Just as ἰ⋯ πτερόεντα means ‘feathered arrows,’ so ἔπεα πτερόεντα means ‘feathered words.’ The early Greeks, when they formed a picture of words in their minds, thought of them as missiles—not as birds. Whence ‘to utter’ words is ἱέναɩ or ⋯ϕɩέναɩ. Missiles so light are more readily imagined as arrows than as spears or stones.
Plato's Theism
Authors: Hackforth R.
Published: February 2009

In the ontology of the Philebus (23C–30E) νο⋯σ is the αἰτία τ⋯ς συμμ⋯ξεωσ, the cause (called also τ⋯ δημιουργο⋯ν and τ⋯ ποιο⋯ν) that combines π⋯ρας with ἃπειρον into the mixture called γ⋯νεσισ εἰς οὐσ⋯αν or γεγενημ⋯νη οὐσ⋯α: correspondingly in the Timaeus the Demiurge, ⋯ ἃριστος τ⋯ν αἰτι⋯ν (29A), brings order into unordered chaos by ‘Forms and Numbers’ (διεσχηματ⋯σατο εἴδεσι κα⋯ ⋯ριθμοῖς 53B). In the Philebus the Universe has a Soul, discriminated from the νο⋯ς that causes it (30B, where it is argued that we cannot imagine that the αἰτ⋯α, while it provides our human bodies with a soul, does not ‘devise that which is fairest and most precious’ in the body of the Universe: οὐ γ⋯ρ που δοκο⋯μ⋯ν γε … ⋯ν το⋯τοις δ' οὐκ ἃρα μεμηχαν⋯σθαι τ⋯ν τ⋯ν καλλ⋯στων κα⋯ τιμιωτ⋯των φ' σιν): correspondingly in the Timaeus the Demiurge devises (⋯μηχαν⋯σατο 34c) a soul of the world, as well as its body.
Stativs and the Date of the Cvlex
Authors: Phillimore J. S.
Published: February 2009

In Professor W. B. Anderson's interesting paper on this subject (C.Q. Vol. X. No. 4) there seems a certain hesitation about the treatment of Lucan's famous

et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem ? (Sueton. Vita Lucani).

The following passages may be cited as fixing the sense of this rather rare idiom:

1…crebro querens incolumi filio adiutorem imperii alium uocari. Et quantum superesse ut collega dicatur ? (Tac.Ann. IV. 7),

i.e. from adiutor to collega is ‘a mere step.’
The Tragedy of Electra, According to Sophocles
Authors: Sheppard J. T.
Published: February 2009

There is a note of uneasiness in many modern appreciations of Sophocles, and particularly of his Electra. A symptom is the familiar apology that, after all, he was the perfect artist. Jebb himself betrays a certain moral discomfort in the midst of his enthusiasm for the brightness of the morning sun that greets the righteous avenger. Professor Murray has the courage to state as a challenge the criticism which less candid writers hint by inuendo. By the very frankness of his indictment he helps us to face, instead of shirking, the issue. Unlike Euripides and Aeschylus, he says, Sophocles takes the story exactly as he finds it:

He knows that those ancient chiefs did not trouble about their consciences: they killed in the fine old ruthless way.
Phaedriana
Authors: Postgate J. P.
Published: February 2009

The fabulist Phaedrus, or Phaeder if that was his real name, was unhappy in his life, and ill-fortune pursued him after death. In addition to accidental corruption and the interpolation which this provoked, his five books of verse have suffered from disruption and partial conversion into prose. Restoration of the original, so far as that original is capable of being restored, is neither simple nor easy. The sources of the text are diverse and different. None of them can be trusted, but none on the other hand may be neglected. A short account of them is requisite in order to make what follows immediately intelligible.
Restorations and Emendations in Livy VI.–X
Authors: Walters C. F. , Conway R. S.
Published: February 2009

IX. 6. 12. (The young nobles of Capua describe the bearing of the Romans released from the Caudine Forks after having passed under the yoke.)

iacere indolem illam Romanam ablatosque cum armis animos; non reddere salutem, non salutantibus dare responsum, non hiscere quemquam prae metu potuisse.
On Two Passages in the Phaedo
Authors: Platt Arthur
Published: February 2009

84 B. ζῆν τε οῐεται οὕτω δεῖν … καὶ… ἀϕικομένη ἀπάλλαττεσθαι. Surprise has been expressed at this nominative after οἲεται δεῖν. Cf. Magna Moralia II. xi. 31, οὐκοἲ ονται δεῖν αὐτοι ϕιλεῖν ἀλλ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνδεεστέρων οἲονται δεῖν αὐϒοῖ ϕιλεῖσθαι. Herodian Hist. I. X. 4, ῲήθη δεῖν μέϒα τι δράσας κατορθῶσαι . Isocrates ix. 30, οὐΧ ἠϒήσαϒο δεῖν χωρίον καταλαβὼν και τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀσϕαλείᾀ καταστήσας περιιδειν.… Either such phrases were so common that οἲομαι δεῖν came to be thought of as a single word, in which δεῖν did not count, or else this use comes from adding δεῖν superfluously to a primitive use of οἲομαι with an infinitive. It is of course common enough to say οἲομαι ϕιλεῖν in good Attic for ‘I think fit to love.’ I should prefer the latter hypothesis myself: οῐομαι is properly to ‘carry’ or ‘bear’ so οἲομαι ϕιλείν is ‘I propose to love,’ and then δεῖν was added, especially when οἲομαι had come to mean ‘I think.’ There is a good instance of the primitive use of οἲω in Odyss. xix. 312, ῶδʹἀνὰ θυμὸν οἲεται surely this is simply ‘it is borne in upon my mind,’ ‘je suis porté à croir’. Anyhow οἲομαι or ἡ ϒοῦμαι δειν may be followed by a nominativeand infinitive.
Some Glosses in the Text of Sophocles
Authors: Pearson A. C.
Published: February 2009

In attempting to determine the text of Sophocles in the places presently to be discussed, it is notmy purpose to put forward a series of novelties which, though more or less plausible, are essentially incapableof proof. I seek rather to plead for the reception of certain ascertained but neglected variants, and to establish their claims by a survey of the relevant evidence. After a somewhat prolonged study of the data, I am convinced that the chief hope of progress— apart from the discovery of fresh material—lies in a more methodical use of the ancient scholia and lexicographers. Although their value has long been acknowledged, they have been employed unintelligently or at haphazard, largely because the character of their information and its sources have been imperfectly understood. One of the chief aids which they afford is in passages where the genuine reading has been displaced by an explanatory gloss. This is a possibility which critics have always recognized, but, while ready enough to suggest that the word selected for expulsion is a gloss on some other, they frequently fail to demonstrate that it is used as a gloss at all. Leaving such guess–work aside, we shall still find various grades of probability. It should be a minimum requirement that the word removed from the text is, either itself or as one of a class, a well-attested gloss of the proposed substitute. Thus in El. 800, where LA with most other MSS. have καταξίως but four of the recentiores κατ' άξιαν, I think that Bothe and Monk were right in preferring κατάξι' ἂν.
Notes on the Greek Rhetors
Authors: Greene Herbert W.
Published: February 2009

In the course of reading some of these writers I have made the following notes. Some of the suggestions have very probably been anticipated, and in such cases I can only plead the legal maxim, superflua non nocent. The references are to volume and page of Spengel's edition (Lipsiae, 1853–6), and Anon. 1. 427 has been cited as Cornutus.
Plato, Republic 421B
Authors: Ferguson A. S.
Published: February 2009

єί μέƲ ο$$v$$Ʋ ήμєȋς μέƲ ϕƲλακЃκ ώς άληθῶς ποіοῶμєƲ, ἥкіστα КαКоύρϒονς Τῆςs πóλєѡς, ό δ' ὲκєîƲo גέγѡƲ γєѡργούς τιƲɑς καì ὥσπєρ έƲ παƲƞΥύρєі άλλ' οὐ᧻ ÉƲ πόλєі έσΤιάΤορας єύδαίµοƲας, ȁλιƲ ȁƲ ΤΙ ἥ πóλιƲ λέλoi.

‘More simply expressed,’ write Jowett and Campbell, ‘the sense is as follows: “If the idea of a state requires the citizens to be guardians, he who converts them into rustic holiday-workers will mean something that is not a state.“’ This rendering, which seems to be necessary if the traditional text is retained, is difficult to reconcile with the preceding argument. Although this note will suggest an emendation, its chief purpose is to indicate the connexion of this passage with the argument of which it is the closing sentence.
A Ninth-Century Commentary on Phocas
Authors: Esposito M.
Published: February 2009

One of the most learned and prolific writers of the ninth century was Remigius of Auxerre (c. 841–908). In addition to lengthy expositions of several books of the Bible, he wrote Commentaries on Donatus, Priscian, Eutyches, Beda, the Disticha Catonis, Sedulius, Martianus Capella, Boethius, and Phocas.
Plato, Socrates and the Myths
Authors: Tate J.
Published: February 2009

I begin with a paraphrase of Plato Laws X 887de, which has suggested the arguments to be developed in this brief article. ‘The Athenian’ speaks to the following effect:

‘How can one admonish in all patience those who deny the existence of gods ? For no sufficient reason they disbelieve the myths which, in infancy, they heard from nurses and mothers in sportive or in serious vein. They disbelieve also those myths which, at sacrifices, from boyhood onwards, they heard recounted in prayers and saw represented in spectacles. They reject the testimony of their own parents, nay, of all Greeks and barbarians, who by continual prayer and worship show clearly their unanimous belief in the existence of gods. Despising all these things, they lay on us the burden of refuting by reasoned argument their perverse opinions.’
ΣXΟΛH
Authors: Stocks J. L.
Published: February 2009

There are only two passages in the whole of the works of Plato and Aristotle in which the word σχoλ⋯ is given central position and philosophical significance. These are (1) the celebrated interlude in the Theaetetus of Plato (172–177) and (2) the predominantly educational discussion of the foundations of the ideal city in Aristotle's Politics, Bks. VII and VIII. It will be as well to begin by summarizing briefly the doctrine of these two passages.
The Cvlex
Authors: Hardie W. R.
Published: February 2009

The ancient evidence about the Culex is collected by Miss Jackson in her article in the Classical Quarterly (Vol. V. 1911, p. 163 sq.). There seems no reason to doubt that Lucan said ‘et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem!’; and, whatever Lucan meant by it, Statius turned it into a compliment for the poet by making Calliope predict the various works he would produce ‘ante annos Culicis Maroniani’ (Siluae II. vii. 70). In the Neronian age, we may take it, it was not an obscure or conjectural matter, but one of common knowledge or belief, that a certain known poem, the Culex, was the work of Virgil. About the other opuscula there is no evidence as early as that. The Aetna and Moretum are ascribed to him dubiously; the Ciris, Dirae, Epigrammata, Priapea, Catalepton are attributed to him with more confidence, but not so confidently as the Culex. It almost looks as if the belief in the Virgilian authorship spread from the Culex to certain other poems which were in some way or other connected with it. Here there is admittedly a great difficulty for those who are inclined to deny or to doubt that it is Virgil's. Are not the facts most easily explained by supposing that it was Virgil's ? At all events it is in various ways improbable that it was written, and produced as Virgil's, at some time between Virgil's death and the youth of Lucan. It is difficult to imagine who would have a motive for doing such a thing, or who could do it successfully. So it is incumbent upon the sceptic to produce some plausible view of what may have happened.
The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria
Authors: Witt R. E.
Published: February 2009

In seeking to understand the development of philosophy in later antiquity it is important to take account of Clement of Alexandria, perhaps the first Christian writer to be greatly influenced by the systems of Greece. Accordingly in this article certain aspects of Clement's doctrine will be selected for examination where his obligations to the philosophers have apparently hitherto received insufficient attention. In a valuable paper Mr. R. P. Casey has dealt with many important points, but there is room for further exploration, both by the philological method and by a careful comparison of corresponding ideas in Clement and Plotinus. I am here concerned to stress resemblances rather than to prove, for instance, that any direct connection exists between Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology. It is nevertheless not irrevelant to mention that Ammonius Saccas, the professor whose lectures both Origen the Christian and Plotinus were to attend, and who, besides being a Platonist, if not the founder of Neoplatonism, was also an apostate Christian, had probably begun to attract attention in Alexandria at the time when Clement was head of the Christian School there, in which perhaps Ammonius himself had been originally educated. There seems nothing to prevent the assumption that Ammonius and Clement were known at least by name to each other, and perhaps the philosopher under whom Plotinus was to study for eleven years had even sat by the side of Clement at the feet of Pantaenus, the erstwhile Stoic and founder of the Catechetical School. However that may be, both Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology show a markedly similar tendency, and in the Enneads and the Stromateis there are many equivalent features.
Notes on the Text of Seneca's Letters
Authors: Alexander William Hardy
Published: February 2009

The text of Seneca's Letters, despite the attention it has received from scholars in the last fifty years, still leaves much to be desired in a large number of places. It is a field in which emendations can be proposed (and judged) with rather more security than is often the case in classical Latin prose, because Seneca was a very prolific writer, exceeded only by Cicero and Livy in the bulk of his extant work. The absence of a special lexicon for this eminent author constitutes a genuine difficulty of course, but it can be overcome in part at least by a constant reading and re-reading of his works, not excluding the dramas. The following suggestions are based on a more intense application to Seneca than Quintilian would be likely to have approved.
Iliupersides
Authors: Knight W. F. J.
Published: February 2009

For about a hundred years there has been an intermittent but sometimes vigorous debate1 on the question whether Quintus Smyrnaeus and Tryphiodorus directly used the Second Aeneid as a source for their epic descriptions “of the capture and destruction of Troy. Heyne thought that they did not; but towards the end of the nineteenth century it appeared more likely that they did. Heinze opposed the general belief: but it was reaffirmed for Quintus by Paschal and Becker4 and for Tryphiodorus by Dr. E. Cesareo on internal evidence. Meanwhile Professor Samuel E. Bassett had concluded that Quintus was not after all dependent on Vergil: and still more recently Dr. J. W. Mackail, reviewing Cesareo's monograph, has maintained with emphasis that the Aeneid is certainly not the source of the late epic. Accordingly the controversy cannot even now be considered closed.
New Light on Festus
Authors: Lindsay W. M.
Published: February 2009

In Italy, at the end of the tenth century, a pedant named Regulus (?) who had a copy of the De Verborum Significatu (or had made extracts from one), wishing to read Plautus (so often quoted by Festus), took the opportunity of an illness to appeal to certain prelates whose church-library contained a MS. of the comedian. Through their stupidity he received not Plautus, but Plato, i.e. Chalcidius' translation of the Timaeus. Disappointed, but not deterred, he wrote the following letter (in a sort of rhyming prose, affected by the litterati of that time) on the fly-leaf and returned the MS. (now Bamberg. Class. 18), hoping that by much repetition he might hammer into their dull heads the difference between PL-AU-TUS and PL-A-TO and yet save them from chagrin and resentment (the material for the letter was supplied by Festus, although the opening illustration comes from Chalcidius):

Differentia est qua differunt singula: in Timeo Platonis legitur ANIMA-M post ANIMA-L non perire: in Plauto legitur CANCRUM imitaris, item aeneis COCULIS excocta est mihi omnis misericordia.