The fifth-century vase numbered 1260 in the collection of the National Museum at Athens and 1241 in the Catalogue of Collignon and Couve represents Sappho seated reading from a roll to three women, one of whom (left) holds a wreath over Sappho, and another (right) holds out a lyre towards her. By the kindness of the Director of the British School I have recently been able to study the inscriptions on the roll in enlarged photographs, and also to avail myself of the result of a very careful examination which he made of the vase in company with Dr. Leonardos in December, 1919. The vase is published in Mus. Ital. II. 64 (Reinach, Répertoire I. 526, cf. Farnell, Greek Lyric Poetry, PI. ii.). In the rough representation of the roll given here, the gaps in the lines indicate the places where the roll is obscured by the hands which, hold it.

The identification of Daphnis with Julius Caesar, supported in most detail by Servius of the ancient commentators, has in general been either casually accepted or arbitrarily rejected by modern criticism without serious effort to ascertain how far the probabilities point one way or the other.

In what has preceded I have travelled a good deal beyond Simonides. But I have done so in order to illustrate the fact that the remains of ancient lyric cannot be interpreted in isolation. I come back now to the extant fragments of Simonides.

The object of this paper is twofold: in the first place, to expound afresh a passage of Greek tragedy which has been mauled by recent criticism; and, more particularly, by recognition of the light which it throws upon the development of the action, to vindicate the dramatic unity of the play.

The first part of this paper argued that the traditional application of the Cave to the Line was not intended by Plato, and led to a misunderstanding of both similes. The Cave, it was said, is attached to the simile of the Sun and the Line by the visible region outside the cave, which is a reintegration of the symbolism of sun, originals and images in the sunlight, and the new system of objects inside the cave is compared and contrasted with the natural objects in the visible outside. As we know that the natural symbolism illustrates the Platonic education, our main task in this paper will be to find the meaning of the cave, untrammelled by the associations of the lower line.

The notes which follow are concerned almost entirely with questions of metre and rhythm; and since the lyric forms of Simonides are, nearly every-where, ‘systematic’ and not stichic, it is not easy to speak of these without involving oneself—and the reader—in problems of a nature somewhat controversial. In particular, it is impossible to avoid the use of the terms ‘logaoedic’ and ‘dactylo-epitritic’; and it is impossible to use these without explaining what sense one attaches to them. I will begin, therefore, by discharging this necessary, but tiresome, duty. I call it tiresome, because in the country of Bentley and Porson and Elmsley and Gaisford no one any longer cares to scan Greek verse. The history of metrical study in England in the last century begins with Jebb's Sophocles (which popularized a German metric already discredited in Germany), and ends with chapter VI. of Mr. Norwood's Greek Tragedy. People ask why the classics are dying. It is because the wrath of God is coming upon the children of Jebb and Mr. Norwood.

In discussing the origin and history of Orphism, it is usual to treat it rather as a system of belief than as a ritual. The former aspect of it probably was more salient in later times, yet it is certain that the Orphic movement began rather as a ritual with strong emphasis on purification and a rule of life. Its theological and traditional aspect developed only gradually, and the greatest characteristic of this development was always its readiness to incorporate elements possibly alien to the original Dionysos mystery, till it finally takes all Greek religious tradition within its scope. It was early influenced by Eleusinian ideas, and exerted a mutual influence on the cults and myths of the Kabeiroi and those of Sabazios. Whether its own ritual was affected by these latter to the same degree as its mythology we cannot say with certainty, but it may at any rate be affirmed that Orphism was an eclectic type of religion from the beginning. This was indeed only natural to such a system which depended for its teaching on wandering priests, and may never have possessed any kind of temple. It may also be safely said that neither the rite nor the central beliefs of Orphism were nearly as much affected by these borrowings as its mythology. It took over the names and some of the legends of strange deities and grafted them on to its own system. The ritual may have remained in all essentials the same, as did the eschatology.

The object of this paper is to show that, in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., two different and radically opposed systems of thought were elaborated within the Pythagorean school. They may be called respectively the mystical system and the scientific. All current accounts of Pythagoreanism known to me attempt to combine the traits of both systems in one composite picture, which naturally fails to hold together. The confusion goes back to Aristotle, who usually speaks indiscriminately of ‘the Pythagoreans,’ though now and then the phrase ‘some Pythagoreans’ indicates that he was aware of different currents within the school.

Did Herodotus die between 430 and 424 or later ?

He twice speaks of the Peloponnesian War as an event, in VII. 137 (χρνῳ δμετπειτα πολλῷ πηγρθη [sc. Ϊαλθυβου μυις] κατ τν Πελοποννσῳν κα Ἀθηναωνπλεμον, ὡς λγονσι Λακεδαιμνιοι) and IX. 73 (τοῖςι δ Δεκελεσι ν Σπρτῃ π τοτουτο ἒργου τελειη τε κα προεδρη διατελει ς τδε αἰε ἓτι οσα, οὔτω ὥστε κα ς τνπλεμον τν ὓστερον πολλοῖσι ἒτεσι τοτων γενμενον Ἀθηνα τε κα Πελοποννησοισι σινоμνων τᾐν ἂλλην Ἀττικν Λακεδαιμονων, Δεκελης πχεσθαι).

What the nineteenth century knew of attamen or at tamen it did not learn from dictionaries. The two last revisions of Forcellini, Corradini's and De-Vit's, provided eight examples between them, of which three were false. Klotz added one, Georges two, Smith two: one of these five was false, and two more lie under much suspicion. Freund gave no instance whatsoever. In preparing his first volume, which appeared in 1834, he turned, like a good compiler, to the first volume of Hand's Tursellinus, published in 1829. What he found there, on p. 450, was ‘de at tamen uide in tamen’; so he sat down quickly and wrote ‘attamen adv., s. tamen’. But Hand's Tursellinus, which never reached tamen, had proceeded no further than multum when Freund in 1840 produced the last volume of his dictionary; so he did not redeem his promise, and when you got there the cupboard was bare. This perfidy was faithfully imitated by the English and American dictionaries of Andrews, White and Riddle, Lewis and Short. To all intents and purposes one was left to depend on one's own reading and on the observations of Madvig at Cic. de fin. pp. 286 and 425 and opusc. I p. 491.

If such rhetorical flourishes are allowed any weight against indisputable historical fact, what strange inferences might we not draw from Juvenal's exclamation:

“… Arma quidem

ultra litora Iuuernae promouimus”

or

“de conducendo loquitur iam rhetore Thyle.“’

In the last issue of the C.Q. Mr. Powell has called attention to my emendation ἔρρε κακῇ γ;λνῃ, which he finds a difficulty in accepting, because he cannot find any formula of imprecation corresponding to the formula of blessing, τχγαθῇ. He would, therefore, if I am not mistaken, take refuge in a suggestion of Mr. T. C. Snow's, which maintains the traditional vocative, while at the same time annexing my new explanation. Evidently my exposure in Homerica (Pref. p. 9) of the futility of the long-established ‘poor puppet’ has taken effect, and I am glad of it, for it simplifies matters considerably, if the only question between Mr. Powell and myself is whether ‘O evil eye’ or ‘with the evil eye’ is the better.

From the paper in which the Interrogatives were treated, by an inadvertency an was omitted. As there was every reason to expect, an is found to shorten a sub-joined hoc, id, etc.

Ad. 337 an ŏc proferendum tibi uidetur usquam? Ge. Mi quidem non placet. (So the vulg. since Bentley; but A has usquam esse, and the Calliopians have esse usquam. Room could be found for both words by a transposition, thus: an hŏc tibi uidetur proferendum esse usquam? etc.)

In A.J.P. XXXIII., pp. 426–435, Mr. A. C. Pearson attempted to prove that ὅТαѵ ‘not infrequently bears a causal signification … and that in such cases the temporal meaning is more or less evanescent, and sometimes entirely disappears.’ The use of ὅТαѵ where the verb refers to future time is not discussed, the purpose being ‘to establish that the classification which sums up the other occurrences of the construction as necessarily expressing “indefinite frequency” is incomplete; and that a rigorous insistence on its universal applicability has vitiated the interpretation of numerous passages.’ In the question of ‘causal implication’ I am not particularly interested. It is useless to attempt to deny that our English since is a satisfactory translation of ὅТαѵ in many instances, though it is not, perhaps, an easy matter to state what is the exact force of since in such cases. As to ‘causal implication’ I shall merely point out that a cause, strictly speaking, precedes in time that of which it is the cause, whereas a ὅТε-clause properly defines a situation that is of the same time as the principal clause. The question I wish to raise is whether the implication of ‘indefinite frequency’ has disappeared so completely in certain passages as Mr. Pearson thinks it has. Some of his examples are very interesting. It is not easy to see repeated action in them, and we may admit that critics have not ‘seriously pondered the results which flow from their adherence to established convention.’ But has Mr. Pearson seriously pondered the results which flow from his own conclusions ?' So far as I can see, he makes no distinction at all between cases of ὅТαѵ with the subjunctive, ‘where no other relation than that of causality appears to exist between the subordinate and principal clauses’ and cases of ‘causal’ ὅТε with the indicative.

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.

These glosses have already been dealt with in a dissertation by H. Gnueg, De Glossis Terentianis Codicis Vaticani 3321 (Jena, 1903). This would seem to render a re-opening of the subject unnecessary; but it does not require a very close examination of Gnueg's work to show that his treatment of these glosses is unsatisfactory. That must be the excuse for this paper. I do not propose, however, to attempt to re-write the dissertation or to treat all the Terence glosses in ‘Abolita’ as fully as Gnueg has done, but I wish to show that he has been working on wrong lines, and that, as a consequence, we must revise our estimate of the Terence glosses to be found in this glossary.

As the later phases of Greek thought are at last beginning to receive in England and Ireland the attention they merit, it is hoped that the following critical notes on Plotinus may be of interest to a few readers. Some involve points of doctrine; others are intended to illustrate certain shortcomings of the German school, who have hitherto been practically the sole workers in the textual field.

In a past number of this journal Mr. E. Harrison has raised an interesting problem in connexion with the Corinthian War. According to Diodorus, the fortress of Heracleia in Trachis passed out of the hands of Sparta into those of Thebes and her allies in the spring campaign of 394 B.C. Yet in the summer of that year the Spartan king Agesilaus made his way through the adjacent pass of Thermopylae without let or hindrance. Since it is hardly credible that the Thebans should have let Agesilaus through of set purpose, the question arises whether Diodorus can be right in asserting that Heracleia had already been lost to Sparta at the time of Agesilaus' passage.

In discussions of the date at which Philodemos wrote the treatise περ σημείωѵ κаί σημεɩώσεωѵ there is general agreement on one point ‘that for this purpose our best evidence is a passage from col. 2, II. 11 sqq., of the papyrus. The author is there explaining the difficulties of induction in allowing for unobserved variations, and in taking Man as an instance he quotes first ‘the Kretan giant’ and then οѷ)ς έѵ՚ Акώρεɩ π∋γμα∕ονς δ(εικνύ)ονσιν νλει δ՚ ν∕α(λ)óγο(νς τος οѷς)’ Aντώνιος νûν ∕ κ Ʃụρία(ςκο)μσ(ατ. In the last line the letters of the papyrus are ΕΞϒΡΙΑΣ, which equally well may represent either § 'ϒρας or κ Σνρας but κ Σνρας has held the field since it was first suggested by Gomperz.