This note considers a Pindaric crux. It argues that Aristarchus’ ‘solution’ should not have been so readily accepted because the evidence can be interpreted differently, giving more satisfactory sense if ἐϲλ᾽ ὡς rather than ἐϲλούϲ is read for the manuscripts’ ἐϲλόϲ.

Much has been made of the power of the Internet and related communication technologies to serve as a new public sphere in which democracy can flourish. The evidence, however, has been limited; like the telephone and the postal letter before that, the Internet has powers as a capable tool for organizing social action and protest. Otherwise, though, it seems to have been co-opted by commercial interests and to be used by the public for arguments concerning already settled opinions, a far (...) cry from the fruitful and thoughtful debates demanded by a true public sphere. (shrink)