In the late nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth thematic resemblances to the Roman elegists in Paulus Silentiarius (and other late epigrammatists) were explained as the result of the poets' reliance on a common Hellenistic source – usually this was identified as the so-called ‘subjective Alexandrian love elegy’ – and this represented a departure from the views of earlier scholars such as Hertzberg and Postgate, who had maintained that Paulus knew and imitated the elegists. In recent years the pendulum has swung back (partly, perhaps, because the whole notion of a ‘subjective Alexandrian love elegy’ has been abandoned), and the prevailing opinion seems to be that the Roman elegists were known to Paulus. This is the view of, for instance, Giovanni Viansino in his edition of Paulus, of Elmar Schulz-Vanheyden in his important work on Propertius' relationship to Greek epigram, and of Hermann Beckby in his edition of the Greek Anthology. Recently, too, Gordon Williams has put forward a very strong case for earlier epigrammatists like Antipater and Crinagoras imitating the Augustan poets.

‘Alexander, it is said, starting from Amphipolis and keeping on his left the city Philippi and the mountain Orbelus, invaded Thrace, that part occupied by the so-called self-governing Thracians. He crossed the river Nestus, and in ten days, they say, he reached the mountain Haemus.’

Presumably it is common ground that this verb has in addition to the basic sense ‘recognize’ the derivative sense ‘oread’, and that one must judge from the context whether reading to one or more other people, or private reading, is meant. The reading of the text of a law to a jury at an orator's request is marked by the circumstances themselves as public reading; so is the reading of the Athenian decree to the Mitylenaeans in Thucydides. When Theaetetus answers in the affirmative the question whether he has read the book of Protagoras which contains the statement that man is the measure of all things (); or when it is asked ‘Why is it that some people, if they begin to read, are overcome by sleep even against their will, whereas others wishing to be overcome by sleep are kept awake by taking up a book?’ Evidently what is intended is reading in the privacy of one's own room. When Socrates in the Phaedo says that he heard a person reading from Anaxagoras and eagerly took the book home to read (97 B-98 B), both senses are found within a few pages.

The modern historian of Greece and Rome often depends for his information on writings whose reliability is no greater, though often much less, than that of the histories, now lost in whole or part, which their authors followed. The quality of these histories can sometimes be detected from the internal evidence of the extant derivative accounts, even when we cannot name the historians with any certainty.

In Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society N.S. 14 (1968), 68, D. C. C. Young drew attention to a curious variant in the text of Longus 2.2.1, where, in a description of how, at the vintage, women ‘eyed’ Daphnis, A has concluding that ‘brothers’ must be a colloquial expression for ‘eyes’, he was however unable to cite any other example of this usage, but compared ‘picked men’, in Paulus Silentiarius (A.P. 5. 270), a locution found in a small range of other authors (Sophron, Callimachus, and Nicander, and in a number of lexicographers), as well as ‘comrades on the flank, bystanders’ ‘twins’ = testicles, and French jumelles - binoculars.

I Per. 4: As the text stands now, we read that Adulis, the principal port of the Axumite Kingdom, is on a deep bay that extends due south, in front of which is an island called Oreiue, situated about 200 stades from the innermost [sc. part of the] bay towards the open seaand with both its shores paralle to the mainland, where arriving vessels now moor…Formerly they used to moor at this innermost [part of the] bay at what is called Didorus Island right by this [part of the]

The subject is in both cases the voyage of the Argo, and therefore the use of the same words is not likely to be coincidental, even though the words themselves are scarcely uncommon. One would hesitate to deny, however, that such reminiscence might be unconscious; that Lucan had famous tags in his head is suggested by another allusion to famous opening lines:

Procopius, Bell. Goth. 8.20 (pp. 589 ff., ed. Haury), gives us information about Britain which is of the first importance, but I have not seen a convincing interpretation of what he says. Since the standard English translation, that of H. B. Dewing in the Loeb series (vol. v, pp. 252 ff.), includes a number of unfortunate mistakes I rive a literal translation of some of Procnnius' sentences.

These H, British Library Harl. 647, was written in Lorraine but crossed before AD 1000 to England, where it later belonged to St. Augustine's Canterbury; Cicero's verses in minuscule occupy the foot of each page, and the rest is given over to the appropriate illustration, painted only at the extremities and filled out to the requisite shape with scholia from Hyginus in small capitals. D, Dresden Dc 183, left France not before 1573; illustrations and scholia occur only in a preceding work, the scholia Sangermanensia.

It used to be a commonplace that Bacchylides made profligate use of epithets to adorn his poetry, and not always in an appropriate fashion. More recently, there has been a healthy reaction against this attitude, with attempts to seek more subtle relationships between epithets and the contexts in which they occur. Recent study of poem 17 has concentrated on the conflict of character between Theseus and Minos, and the structure of the Ode, but the epithets have received some attention.

Claudian compares Eutropius in his consular robes to a monkey, dressed in silk to amuse dinner guests, but with his buttocks bare (Eutr. 1.300–8). The situation has not failed to attract the notice of scholars. Christiansen and Fargues called attention to the striking and original use of the monkey-simile (though the latter notes that the monkey itself is a banal subject for similes, and compares Juvenal 10.194). Alan Cameron has suggested that the present example is drawn from life: ‘Who can doubt that this was a typical dinner divertissement in the elegant circles of Claudian's day-or at least one Claudian himself had witnessed?’ He cites E. R. Curtius's assertion that metaphorical apes are uncommon in ancient literature (as opposed to medieval); that may be relatively true, but when Demosthenes is entitled to address his opponent as similar licence in subsequent invective is unlimited.

The phrase τά ένί διαστηματι γ ραφόμενα occurs in that part of Pappus' Collection Book VIII which deals with instrumental solutions to problems more practical than purely geometrical. In the preceding section an instrumental solution for the problem of doubling the cube has been propounded, which is dependent on the use of a ruler passing through a point about which it is turned in the generation of the locus of points known as the cissoid, and in the subsequent section a solution is propounded for the problem of finding the diameter of a cylinder of which only an incomplete portion of the side remains, leaving neither base intact.

Among other recent attempts to correct what he takes to be Cameronian misconceptions, Barry Baldwin has reopened the question of a difficult passage in the panegyric to Anastasius the quaestor prefaced to Corippus' In laudem Iustini. His discussion perfectly correctly emphasizes the fragility of our knowledge of Corippus' life and background, but unfortunately it introduces certain misconceptions itself which make a rejoinder inescapable, especially since new arguments may be adduced.

Horace C. 2.4 is an ironical address to Xanthias (presumably a freeborn man), who, it appears, is rather ashamed of his love for Phyllis, a slave-girl. It has long been held that ‘Xanthias’ is a pseudonym, but so far there has been no convincing explanation of why Horace chose that appellation rather than any other. Of course, there is no way of telling if the situation of the ode is real or imaginary, but, whether ‘Xanthias’ is the pseudonym of an actual person or a name given to an invented character, I believe that it does have particular point.

‘And many chariots were smashed to pieces in the dust…’ My conjecture seems far more vibrant and vivid than Edgar Lobel's suggestion Adopting my supplement the Greek will mean that the chariots are not only broken but actually smashed to pieces. This Epic form fits well into a poem that already has so much Epic usage.

As far as I am aware, it has generally been taken for granted that ‘Kato’ in the pentameter must be vocative. The double vocative ‘Visce’—‘Kato’ does not seem objectionable if ‘non’ were repeated as first word of the pentameter (e.g., as Professor Nisbet suggests, ‘non ego, Visce, / non quadrupla, Kato, …). None the less this is unexpected, and it seems at least worth considering the possibility that 'Kato’ might be nominative. The most plausible (if not the only) way of accounting for a nominative would be as subject of a relative clause. Further consequences would follow almost inevitably: the word-ending doubtfully read