bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Demosthenes' Policy After the Peace of Philocrates. II
Authors: Cawkwell G. L. 
Published: February 2009

It is perhaps worth briefly discussing a subject on which Demosthenes has so much to say and on which there is so little satisfactory evidence. In every speech which he delivered after 346 he referred, in greater or less detail, to breaches of the Peace of Philocrates, and this insistence on Philip's may mislead us.The case of Cardia is suggestive. In 341, in the speech On the Chersonese, he sought to create the impression that Philip was acting in breach of the peace by sending troops to help defend Cardia against Diopeithes:
Notes on the Text of Pliny's Epistles
Authors: Postgate J. P. 
Published: February 2009

The following notes are based on the apparatus criticus in the edition of E. T. Merrill (Teubner, 1922):I. 20. 5 ‘uides ut statuas, signa, picturas, hominum denique multorumqne animalium formas, arborum etiam, si modo sint decorae, nihil magis quam amplitudo commendet.’ Why ‘many animals’ and not ‘many men’ and ‘many trees’ ? Read mutorum; with ‘animalia,’ a standing opposition to ‘homines,’ as in Seneca, Ep. 76. 26 'ea quae tam homini contingunt quam mutis animalibus, 'where also it has been corrupted to multis as in many other places.
Num in Direct Questions: A Rule Restated
Authors: Shackleton Bailey D. R. 
Published: February 2009

What seems to be the prevailing doctrine of the particle num is thus set forth in the most recent of major Latin grammars:‘num ist wahrscheinlich die unerweiterte Form von nunc … num diente also zunächst dazu, dieFragein der lebendigen Rede lebhaft an die Situation anzuknüpfen; es steht oft in erregten Erkundigungsfragen mit unentschiedener Erwartung (z. B. Pit. Merc. 173 obsecro, num nauis periit ?:: saluast nauis); auch bejahende Antwort wird vielfach erwartet … Der in der klassischen Sprache alleinherrschende Gebrauch in Fragen mit erwarteter Antwort ‘nein’ setzte sich zunächst in lebhaften Fragen der Entrüstung oder des Erstaunens fest wie Pit. Asin. 619 sed num fumus est haec mulier quam amplexare?’
Elephant Tactics: Amm. Marc. 25. 1. 14; Sil. 9. 581–3; Lucr. 2. 537–9.
Authors: Meurig Davies E. L. B. 
Published: February 2009

post hos elefantorum fulgentium formidandam speciem et truculentos hiatus uix mentes pauidae perferebant; ad quorum stridorem odoremque et insuetum aspectum magis equi terrebantur. (Amm. Marc. 25. 1.14.)COKNELISSEN, Mnemosyne, xiv (1886), 280, comments: ‘Non intellego fulgentium. Minime audiendus est Wagnerus, qui fulgentes elephantes dictos esse contendit ob cutem glabram. Corrigendum puto ingentium. Porro non satis intellego quomodo hiatus elefantorum militibus pauorem incutere potuerit. Wagnerus, qui omnia con-coquere solet, interpretatur proboscidas. Nescio an scripserit A. barritus.’
Note on the Nova Hellenicorum Oxyrhychiorum Fragmenta
Authors: Fuks Alexander 
Published: February 2009

Maas's annotation on Fr. C, col. I in his edition of the new fragments (C.Q. xliv. 8–11) says: ‘fortasse conferendi Diod. 13. 66. 6; Xen. Hell. 1. 3. 16–22; Dionys. Byz. Anapl. 13’.The comparison of Fr. C, col. I with the passage in Dionys. Byz. De Bospori Navigatione 13 seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the city referred to in the fragment is Byzantion. Consequently the supposition that the papyrus tells the story of the siege of Byzantion—dealt with in the other two passages quoted by Maas—becomes almost a certainty.
Hesiodea
Authors: Evelyn-White Hugh G. 
Published: February 2009

(Works and Days, 172–181.)In a note (C. Q. vii. p. 219) on the Geneva Papyrus, No. 94, I tried to show that of the four new lines (169 a-d) which that fragment adds to our text the last two formed an introduction to the Iron Age parallel to ll.127,143, 157. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember to have seen it remarked that in ll.179-181 (rejected by Lehrs) we have the conventional ending to the Iron Age.
The Evocation of Darius (Aesch. Persae 607–93)
Authors: Lawson J. C. 
Published: February 2009

Itis a strange chance that our whole conception of that scene of the Persae in which Atossa and the Chorus evoke from the lower world the spirit of Darius should be dependent largely on the interpretation or the restoration of a single line.ὦ πιστὦ πιστ⋯ν ἣλικ⋯ς θ' ἣβης ⋯μ⋯ςΠ⋯ρσαι γεραιο⋯, τ⋯να π⋯λις πονεῖ π⋯νονον;στ⋯νει, κ⋯κοπται, κα⋯ χαρ⋯σσεται π⋯δον.λε⋯σσων δ' ἂκοιτιν τ⋯ν ⋯μ⋯ν τ⋯φου π⋯λαςταρβ⋯, χο⋯ς δ⋯ πρευμν⋯ς ⋯δεξ⋯μην.ὑμεῖς δ⋯ θρηνεῖτ' ⋯γγὺς ⋯στ⋯τες τ⋯φουκα⋯ ψυχαγωγοῖς ⋯ρθι⋯ζοντες γ⋯οιςοἰκτρ⋯ς καλεῖσθ⋯ μ' …
Plato, Phaedrus 263b6
Authors: Solmsen Friedrich 
Published: February 2009

Οὐκο⋯ν τ⋯ν μέλλοντα τέχνην ῥητορικ⋯ν μετιέναι πρ⋯τον μέν δεῖ τα⋯τα ⋯δῷ διῃρ⋯σθαι, κα⋯ εἰληɸέναι τιν⋯ χαρακτ⋯ρα ⋯κατέρου το⋯ εἵδουδ, ⋯ν ᾧ τε ⋯ν⋯γκη τ⋯ πλ⋯θος πλαν⋯σθαι Kα⋯ ⋯ν ᾧ μή (Phaedrus 263b6–9). To the best of my knowledge the soundness of the first six words of this sentence (Οὐκο⋯ν…μετιέναι) has never been questioned, yet to accept them as they are in the manuscripts means to close one's eyes to the direction of the argument.At 260d5–9 rhetoric personified and allowed to plead its case makes the ‘big’ statement that anyone learning how to speak would do well to know the truth about his subject but that even if he knows it he would not be able ἄνεν ⋯μο⋯, i.e. without the aid of rhetoric, πείθειν τέχνῃ. From that point on the issues are whether rhetoric justly claims to be a τέχνῃ, what territory it covers and how the procedure of someone practising it τέχνῃ may differ from that of one for whom it is an ἄτεχνος τριβή (see 260e3–5). Even if rhetoric engages in ⋯πάτη (261a6ff.) and proves e.g. one and the same thing to be both just and unjust (261c5ff., d3f.), success will be with ⋯ τέχνῃ το⋯το δρ⋯ν (clO); witness Zeno of Elea, a master in such arguments λέγοντα τέχνῃ when he makes the same things appear like and unlike or one and many (261d6–9). To judge shrewdly what kind of subjects deceive people more easily (261eff.) the rhetorician himself must have a firm grasp of the truth: λόγων ἄρα τέχνην, ⋯ ⋯ταῖρε, ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯λήθειαν μ⋯ εἰδώς, δόξας δ⋯ τεθηρευκώς, γελοίαν τινά, ὡς ἔοικε, κα⋯ ἄτεχνον παρέξεται(262c 1 ff.).
An Early Laconian Lex Sacra
Authors: Beattie A. J. 
Published: February 2009

The text of a Laconian inscription recorded by Fourmont is re-examined and found to be part of an early lex sacra relating to the cult of a goddess, probably Demeter.Restoration of the text is attempted and, despite many uncertainties, the general structure and meaning are established. The first sentence deals with the weaving or dedication of certain garments by the votaries; the second excludes unmarried women from participation in the rites.
Sophocles,Trachiniae94–102
Authors: Stinton† T. C. W. 
Published: February 2009

Some years ago, Sir Kenneth Dover suggested a new interpretation ofκαρ⋯ξαι.Prima facie, the chorus ask the sun to proclaim where Heracles is, and this sense is supported by such passages asIl. 3.277Ή⋯λιóς θ', ὃς π⋯ντ' ⋯ɸορᾷς,Od. 9.109Ήελ⋯ου, ὅς π⋯ντ' ⋯ɸορᾷ(cf A.PV91, S.OC869),Od. 8.270–1ἄɸαρ δ⋯ οἱ ἄγγελος ἧλθεν | Ή⋯λιος, and especially (‘a passage…which comes very close to Sophocles in spirit’)h. Cer.69ff., where ‘Demeter visits the Sun and implores him, “you who look down on all earth and sea…tell me truly of my dear child, if you have seen her anywhere, who has gone off with her…”.’ This is the wayκαρ⋯ξαιinTrach.97 has always been taken. Dover points out, however, thatκηρ⋯ττεινalso has a special, technical sense: to make proclamationinquiring abouta missing person's whereabouts, as the town-crier used to do a century ago England and elsewhere, and the media do now. The model is not that ofh. Cer.69ff., but rather S.Aj.845ff.: ‘Sun, when you see my native land, draw near and tell (ἄγγειλον) my aged father…of my fate.’The examples he cites are enough to demonstrate the ‘interrogative’ use ofκηρ⋯ττω, though his first example, Ar.Ach.748⋯γὼν δ⋯ καρυξ⋯ Δικαιóπολιν ὅπᾳ, will not do: if sound, it means not ‘I will find out byκ⋯ρυξwhere Dicaeopolis is’ (he is present in the next line), but ‘I will summon Dicaeopolis to where (the sale is)’. The normal ‘interrogative’ use is to enquire by herald (town-crier) the whereabouts of a Crminal (Andoc. 1.112, D. 25.56, Antiphon iiγ2 with ib.δ6) or a runaway slave (Lucian,Fug.27).
Wine andCatharsisof the Emotions in Plato'sLaws
Authors: Belfiore Elizabeth 
Published: February 2009

Plato's views on tragedy depend in large part on his views about the ethical consequences of emotional arousal. In theRepublic, Plato treats the desires we feel in everyday life to weep and feel pity as appetites exactly like those for food or sex, whose satisfactions are ‘replenishments’. Physical desire is not reprehensible in itself, but is simplynon-rational, not identical with reason but capable of being brought into agreement with it. Some desires, like that for simple and wholesome food, are in fact ‘necessary’ and approved by reason. Other appetites, like lust and gluttony, are ‘unnecessary’ andanti-rational in that they are actively opposed to reason. According to theRepublic, the satisfaction of these ‘unnecessary’ desires inevitably strengthens the elements in the soul that oppose reason. The desire to weep at the theatre is treated in this dialogue as just such an anti-rational desire. Even a temporary indulgence in tragic pity and fear has a permanent deleterious effect on the soul, although it does not lead directly to any action.This paper argues that a radically different psychological theory, with important aesthetic implications, appears in the discussion of wine-drinking in Books 1 and 2 of Plato'sLaws. Though this long passage has been much scorned and neglected, it is of considerable philosophical importance. While in theRepublicPlato condemns drunkenness and other anti-rational states, in theLawshe extols the benefits of a hypothetical ‘fear drug’ that could induce a temporary state of anti-rational terror and of wine to produce other anti-rational emotions and desires.
The law of Periandros about Symmories
Authors: Macdowell Douglas M. 
Published: February 2009

The speechAgainst Euergos and Mnesiboulosdescribes a dispute over some naval gear. The dispute occurred early in the year 357/6 b.c.⋯π' Ἀγαθοκλ⋯ους ἄρχοντος, Dem. 47.44), when the speaker was a trierarch and supervisor of his symmory (τρɩηραρχ⋯ν κα⋯ ⋯πɩμελητ⋯ς ὢν τ⋯ς συμμορ⋯ας, Dem. 47.22), and he refers to ‘the law of Periandros, by which the symmories were organized’ (⋯ νóμος ⋯ το⋯ Περɩ⋯νδρου…καθ' ὃν αἰ συμμορ⋯αɩ συνετ⋯χθησαν, Dem. 47.21). There is no other specific reference to the law of Periandros. If 357/6 was the first year of its operation, it was probably passed in 358/7, but that is not known for certain. The identity of the man is likewise uncertain, though it has plausibly been suggested that he was Periandros son of Polyaratos (Dem. 40.6–7) and that he was the Periandros who proposed an alliance between Athens and Arkadia in 362/1 (IGii2112 = Tod 144). However, his identity is of no importance for the present article. Here I am concerned only to try to reconstruct what the law said about the symmories. Despite a great deal of modern discussion this question has still not been satisfactorily solved.The wordσυμμορ⋯αmeans ‘group’ or ‘division’ and does not necessarily have a technical or legal sense. But most of the Attic instances do have the special sense of a group of persons formed for the purpose of making payments of a compulsory tax or levy: either the property tax calledεἰσɸορ⋯, which was imposed at irregular intervals, or payments towards the maintenance of ships in the Athenian navy, which were required every year. A fragment of Philokhoros says that Athenians were dividedκατ⋯ συμμορ⋯αςfor the first time in 378/7, and it is generally agreed that this means that symmories were first formed in 378 for the payment ofeisphora. For the navy, however, there is no trace of symmories before the 350s, and everyone agrees that it was the law of Periandros which introduced the use of symmories for maintaining ships, which had previously been the sole responsibility of one trierarch or (more usually in the fourth century) a pair of syntrierarchs for each ship.
Internal clausulae in Late Latin Prose as Evidence for the Displacement of Metre by Word-Stress
Authors: Hall Ralph G. , Oberhelman Steven M. 
Published: February 2009

In several recent studies we have developed precise statistical methodologies which have demonstrated that the cursus mixtus was the dominant rhythmical system for final clausulae in Latin prose from the third century a.d. to the fifth. The cursus mixtus consisted of four standard metrical forms derived from the richer variety of Cicero's Asiatic tradition – cretic-spondee, dicretic, cretic-tribrach and ditrochee –, which were structured according to three accentual patterns – planus, tardus and velox. The latter are differentiated by the number of unstressed syllables intervening between and following two accented syllables. The planus has two unaccented syllables between two word accents and one after the last accent. The tardus has two between two accents and two after the last accent. The velox has four between two accents and one after the last accent. The four metrical forms are contained within the parameters of the accentual cadences. The planus contains either the cretic-spondee (epistulae nostrae) or the ditrochee (manu ferire); the tardus either the dicretic (carcer includeret) or the cretic-tribrach (estis indigenae); the velox either the ditrochee (experientiam singulorum) or the cretic-spondee (nimium videbatur. Authors who used the cursus mixtus, however, preferred to effect an exact coincidence between the accent and ictus, and as a result evinced primarily the following standard rhythmical forms: planus/cretic-spondee; tardus/dicretic or cretic-tribrach; and velox/ditrochee.So far now we have examined only the rhythmical properties of final clausulae, but it is appropriate also to investigate for rhythm at internal positions within the sentence.
The meaning of ПANAΩΡΙΟС as applied to Achilles
Authors: James A. W. 
Published: February 2009

In his article ‘A Nonce-word in the Iliad’ (CQ 35 [1985], 1–8) Maurice Pope argues against the usual modern interpretation of παναώριος, a Homeric ἃπαξ λεγόμενον applied by Achilles to himself at Il. 24.540, sc. ‘of all-untimely fate’, ‘doomed to die young’, and the like. The same is also the interpretation of the scholium παντελ⋯ς ἄωρον ⋯ποθανούμενον, whilst Herodian and Eustathius, respectively with κατ⋯ πάντα ἄωρον and πάντῃ ἄωρον, do no more than paraphrase the force of παν- in the compound. Pope tries to establish instead the suitability of the meaning ‘out of season’, i.e. in what Achilles does or fails to do in general. His case rests on the ground of what is appropriate to or required by the context, since, as he himself shows, the word in itself can, on the analogy of closely related forms, notably the adjective ἄωρος, bear the meaning usually attributed to it, provided the context contains sufficient indication of a reference to death. Accordingly, the validity of his argument depends on his assessment of this context.Pope recognises that throughout the last part of the Iliad, at least starting from the conversation between Achilles and his mother at 18.70ff., Achilles is fully aware of the nearness and unavoidability of his own death, and that ‘from this point on Homer exploits the atmosphere of impending doom’. But after citing several passages in which the approach of Achilles' death is mentioned, Pope continues as follows.
What Worried the Crows?
Authors: White Michael J. 
Published: February 2009

A well-known epigram by Callimachus on the philosopher Diodorus Cronus (fr. 393 Pfeiffer) reads as follows:The question of the third line, while perhaps recondite from a contemporary perspective, was clear in antiquity. The crows are asking ‘What follows (from what)?’, in allusion to the Hellenistic disputes concerning the truth conditions of conditional propositions (συνημμ⋯να), disputes in which the views of Diodorus figured prominently.I agree with Sedley that the question of the last line is ‘much more problematic’. The common interpretation has been to read the αὖθι as a form of αὖθις and to interpret it temporally. The result, in Pfeiffer's estimation, is ‘quomodo posthac erimus?’.This interpretation derives from Sextus Empiricus' discussion at M. 1.309–12 of the last two lines of the epigram. After crediting the grammarian with the ability to understand the allusion in the crows' first question (M. 1.310: κα⋯ μ⋯χρι τούτου συνήσει τ⋯ κα⋯ παιδίοις γνώριμον), he proceeds to argue that the philosopher has a better chance than the grammarian of understanding the second question. But, to quote Sedley, Sextus ‘makes a ghastly mess of it’ when he attempts his own elucidation. According to an argument of Diodorus, a living thing does not die in the time in which it lives nor in a time in which it does not live. Hence, Sextus concludes, it must be the case that it never dies and, ‘if this is the case, we are always living and, according to him, we shall come to be hereafter (αὖθις γενησόμεθα)’ (M. 1.312).
Strabo 816: a note
Authors: West Stephanie 
Published: February 2009

This note is not concerned with the reliability of this information, but with the lexical singularity παλλ⋯ς, which has won widespread acceptance as an ancient sacral term, though our lexica display an uncommon, and indeed misleading, prudishness as to its meaning: ‘maiden-priestess’ (LSJ s.v. Παλλ⋯ς ii); ‘bei den Griechen in ägypt. Theben noch als sakraler Ausdruck = παρθ⋯νος' (Frisk, GEW s.v. παλλακ⋯); ‘A Thèbes d'Égypte pour désigner une prêtresse = παρθ⋯νος' (Chantraine, Dictionnaire s.v. παλλακ⋯).Pubescent temple-prostitutes had no place in Hellenic religious life, and it might be thought surprising that there was a Greek word for them; yet Strabo offers the term without explanation or speculation as to derivation or dialectal provenance, apparently confident that it is indeed Greek and not a foreign loan-word. The Greeks who frequented Upper Egypt were not a group of largely homogeneous origin, who might have preserved in quasi-colonial isolation an archaism obsolete elsewhere in the Hellenic world. No such usage is mentioned in ancient discussions of the derivation of Pallas, wide though the etymological net is cast in the attempt to explain Athene's title: see, e.g., sch. Il. 1.199–200 (with Erbse's note), sch. Od. 1.252, P. Oxy. 2260 (early second century a.d.).
Aristotelica
Authors: Smith J. A. 
Published: February 2009

I. Eth. Nic. III. c. I, § 16.In spite of what Bernays and others have done to clear up this chapter, many perplexities remain. To some of these I propose later to return, but here I confine myself to one. Among the possible circumstances of an act, ignorance of which is excusable and may excuse, is enumerated τò οὑ ἔνεκα. Nothing but desperation could have led the commentators to suggest that here τò οὑ ἔνεκα means the actual effect or result of the act (Stewart, Burnet). It may be sufficient to quote the notes ad loc. of these two scholars:1. Stewart: ‘The oὑ ἔνεκα here is not, as usual, the intention of the doer, for he cannot be ignorant of what he intends to do; but the outcome or result of what he actually does, which is the opposite of the intention.’
‘Donatus’ and Athenian phratries
Authors: Golden Mark 
Published: February 2009

My purpose in this paper is to reassert the traditional view that Athenian women of the classical period regularly had an association with phratries (and incidentally to clarify the nature of that association). As part (though not an essential part) of my argument I adduce an overlooked piece of evidence, a much discussed passage from the Donatus commentary on Terence; for this I provide a new interpretation.There is some evidence that Athenian women were introduced to their fathersphrateresat birth, or to their husbands'phrateresat marriage, or both. The speaker of Isaeus 3 repeatedly asserts (73, 75, 76, 79) that a certain Pyrrhus would have presented his daughter to hisphrateresif she had been legitimate (which he denies). A scholium on Aristophanes,Acharnians146 (=Suda s.v. Apatouria)may refer to such a practice. Euxitheus calls as witnesses of his mother's citizenshipphrateresfor whom his father celebrated the wedding feast, thegamelia, on her behalf (Dem. 57.43, 69, Isaeus 3.79); celebration of thegameliais regarded as proof of the legitimacy of the speaker's mother at Isaeus 8.19. Neither Demosthenes nor Isaeus says that women were formally registered among thephrateresor even present at the feast; but notices in the lexicographers do connect thegameliawith registration among or introduction to thephrateres(Harpocration s.v.gamelia, Suda s.v. gamelia, Etym. Magn.220.50 s.v.gamelia, Pollux 8.107,Anec. Bekk.228.5, Schol. Dem. 57.43). Many scholars have accepted these passages as evidence for normal practice at Athens in the classical period.
ΑΥΤΟΣ ΕΚΕΙΝΟΣ: A neglected idiom
Authors: Janko R. 
Published: February 2009

The use of αὐτ⋯ το⋯το, ‘this very thing’, is perfectly familiar in classical Greek; but there is no general awareness, as witness the silence of the reference grammars and lexica, of the parallel usage of αὐτός juxtaposed with ⋯κεῖνος, which is in fact not infrequent in the classical period, and mentioned in Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt. 2. 88). The examination of this construction which follows is intended not only to add to our knowledge of Greek syntax, and thereby to defend some passages against erroneous emendations, but also to place in a wider context one of Plato's ways of referring to the Forms.As far as I can establish, the only scholar who has ever paid much attention to αὐτ⋯ς ⋯κεῖνος is J. Vahlen in 1906, and that in an obscure place, to explain an obscure passage; moreover, he simply accumulated parallels from authors of the Imperial period, without discussing how the construction is employed. It will emerge that the usage is no less frequent earlier, when it is used in a greater variety of ways, especially by Plato.
Catilina and the execution of M. Marius Gratidianus
Authors: Marshall Bruce 
Published: February 2009

The ancient tradition is strong that the execution of M. Marius Gratidianus during the Sullan proscriptions was carried out by L. Sergius Catilina. The earliest evidence comes from several passages in Cicero's speechin toga candida, delivered just before the consular elections in 64 and designed to rake up as much prejudice as possible against his two main rival candidates, Catilina and C. Antonius (Hybrida). While in none of the passages does Cicero specifically mention the executioner or the victim, it is Asconius commenting on the passages (which are preserved for us as lemmata in his commentary on the speech) who reveals that Catilina was the executioner and Marius Gratidianus the victim. We do not have a great deal of the speechin toga candidaleft (and we are indebted to Asconius for what we do have of it); if we did have the whole speech, it is clear that we would have been given the name by Cicero himself.The Ciceronian version (if that term may be used for convenience) is that the head of Gratidianus was cut off by Catilina, carried in his hands through the city from the Janiculum to the temple of Apollo, and delivered to Sulla still full of life and breath. This version is followed by Plutarch (Sull.32.2). A variation can be found, as early as Sallust (and so for convenience it may be called the Sallustian version — not that the two versions are necessarily to be regarded as mutually exclusive). There is a fragment of thehistoriaewhich says that Gratidianus died after his arms and legs had been broken and his eyes gouged out, so that he expired as it were through each and every limb. There is nothing about his head being cut off and carried about, nor is there any mention of Catilina as the executioner. While the details of the torture and mutilation become progressively more gory, this version is followed by Livy (per.88), Valerius Maximus (9.2.1), Lucan (2.173–93), and Florus (2.9.26 = 3.21.26).