Antiphon's speech on the murder of Herodes has been variously dated by several scholars, but all seem to agree that it was delivered a good many years after the revolt and recapture of Mytilene. According to this opinion the speaker in § 74 declares himself too young to know much of what happened in those days. Before going into this more carefully, it seems necessary to visualize the situation of the accused man. In order to achieve this the best we can do is to follow his own words in the Sirjyrjcris, §§ 20–24: ‘I travelled from Mytilene on the same ship as the lost man; we were on our journey to Ainos, I to see my father—he happened to be there at that time—he in order to sell some slaves to Thracian natives. These natives, who were to pay the ransom, and the slaves were on board too.—All this I will prove by witnesses.—As we, however, met with stormy weather, we were compelled to put in to a harbour in the territory of Methymna; there we found that* ship into which Herodes changed; in that ship, according to the accusers, he died. Now all this was mere chance: obviously I had not persuaded him to travel with me, no, he was travelling on his own business. Then I, personally, had a very good reason for travelling to Ainos; our putting in to that harbour was not premeditatd, we were compelled to. And again, when we were lying at anchor, the change of ship took place without any trickery or fraud: again, it was done because of necessity. The ship, viz., on which we had been travelling was not covered, the other one on the contrary had a covering; that was because of the rain.—All this I will prove by witnesses.—After boarding the other ship we drank some wine. After that it is only known that he left the ship, but did not return. I myself never left the ship that night at all. When the next day but did not return. I myself never left the ship that night at all. When the next day he had disappeared, we looked for him, I as well as the others. Probably it seemed strange to them, it certainly did to me. And it was I who caused a messenger to be sent to Mytilene, not one of the crew or the passengers belonging to Herodes, but my own servant. If I had been guilty, I would not, of course, have sent a man who might have informed against me. But when the man could not be found in Mytilene, nor anywhere else, and when the weather had improved and all the other ships were putting out, I also sailed.—All this I will prove by witnesses.

The reply which Socrates makes to Zeno in the Parmenides and that which he makes to the φιλοθɛ⋯μονɛς in the Republic are perhaps connected chiefly by the fact that a false interpretation of either might prejudice the other, but it seems convenient to take them together for that reason even if they have not much actual connection in themselves. Both are controversial, and in the case of Socrates' reply to Zeno, no re-statement of it could be secure which did not take account of Parmenides' reply to Socrates. For if Parmenides, as is maintained by some, is not attacking the doctrine of forms as such, but only Socratic theories of their relation with particulars, it would be natural to think that these theories about ‘participation’ had been the substance of Socrates' answer to Zeno. So it is impossible to avoid some discussion of the later passage, however cursory, as a preliminary.

The source-criticism2 of Diodorus XVI has been dominated by the principle of argument from detail. Thus, if two details in Diodorus' text are found to conflict, they are assumed to derive from different sources and, if similar, from the same source; and, where a fragment of an ancient historian is found to resemble a passage in Diodorus, that historian is assumed to be the source employed by Diodorus in that passage; finally, when a sufficient mosaic of such details is pieced together, general divisions are drawn to embrace each separate detail. But this principle is of questionable value: for it implies the tacit assumption that Diodorus made no mistake in compressing or transcribing detail, added no colour himself, and could only have derived a given detail, described in a given manner, from the one ancient historian whose description of that detail is preserved. When one remembers that Diodorus is a careless and unintelligent compiler of a compendious narrative, who aimed like Ephorus at lending each book a unity, and that the fragments of the many historians whom Diodorus may have excerpted are very scanty, it is clear that this principle admits of a large margin of error.

Most critics agree with varying emphasis that this is one of the most significant lines in the Watchman's speech, because of its emphasis on Clytaemnestra's unique masculinity. But the same interpreters widely disagree in deciding what exactly was her most masculine trait. In other words the meaning of the –βουλον part of the compound is in dispute. Here are some English renderings: ‘whose will is as a man's’ (Platt); ‘manly’ (Sidgwick); ‘with man's resolve’ (Lawson); ‘into the council of men’ (Verrall); ‘man-passionéd’ (Murray); ‘man's mind’ and ‘man-like spirit’ (Headlam); ‘manly-counselling’ (Paley); ‘shrewd-purposed as a man's’ (Tucker). Thus, as my italics show, we have will, resolve, passion, mind, spirit, counsel, and purpose, a pretty array of would-be synonyms, for the Greek βουλον, an area whose semantic termini are βουλεύομαɩ = I wish and βουλεύομαɩ = I deliberate, plan. The purpose of this article is to show that every ounce of interpretative weight must be put into insistence on the second meaning, and that unless this be done (and it has not been done by English editors) appreciation of two important motifs in the play will be impaired. The scholiast saw that βουλεύομαɩ was the operative element in ⋯νδρόβουλον, and wrote τò μείζονα ἣ κατ⋯ γυναȋκα βουλευόμενον ἣ κατ⋯ ⋯νδρòς βουλευομένης.1 His second alternative is otiose but scarcely culpable in the light of Aeschylus' amazing exploitation of verbal ambiguity throughout this play.2

The irregular division of vv. 35 sqq. between two semi-choruses seems to bo widely accepted and approved.2 I wish first to discuss the obvious objection that such an irregular division is unparalleled in a strophic chorus,3 and secondly to show that the reasons advanced for the division are themselves insufficient.

It is a well-known fact that of the three governors of Britain who were responsible for the Flavian advance of the northern frontier two had had previous military experience in the area in which they were now called upon to operate. Petilius Cerialis was in command of the IXth legion during the critical times of Boudicca's revolt (Tac. Ann. XIV. 32). And although in that capacity he succeeded in losing the larger part of his forces, his subsequent appointment by Vespasian to the command of the army despatched to reconquer the Rhine frontier from the revolted Civilis suggests that his military record was more distinguished than Tacitus would imply. Agricola has still better claims to be considered as a British specialist. In 61 as tribunus militum he was serving with distinction on the staff of Suetonius Paulinus in N. Wales (Tac. Agr. 5), and in 70 he was sent as legatus legionis to the XXth legion at Chester, in which capacity he served under Cerialis during the initial stages of the northward advance (Tac. Agr. 8). Of Julius Frontinus, the successor of Cerialis and predecessor of Agricola, we are less well informed; and it is the purpose of this note to show that in all probability he too had had previous military experience in Britain.

Text, interpretation and metre present a tangled problem in this threnody, and the solutions of editors differ widely. The chief function of detailed metrical study in such corrupt passages of lyric is to weight the scales in favour of—or more often against—certain methods of handling the text. The positive results of this present attempt to apply metrical criteria are necessarily modest and tentative; negatively they are, I think, sometimes decisive.

In the fifth book of Livy there is a passage of which hitherto no good explanation has been forthcoming:

Romae interim multiplex seditio erat, cuius leniendae causa coloniam in Volscos, quo tria milia civium Romanorum scriberentur, deducendam censuerant; triumvirique ad id creati terna iugera et septunces viritim diviserant (Livy v, 24. 4: 395 B.C.). (Livy then goes on to describe the viritane division of the ager Veientanus.)