The London papyrus of the Athenaion Politeia of Aristotle makes this statement about the prizes awarded in the musical contests at the Panathenaic games:It has been generally assumed that the andhere are connected with the prizes offered in the musical contests in IG n2 2311.1–22.For instance the winner in the lyre-playing contest receives a gold crown worth 1000 drachmas as well as 500 drachmas of silver.In consequence, the here are connected with the prizes offered in the musical contests in IG (...) n2 2311.1–22.For instance the winner in the lyre-playing contest receives a gold crown worth 1000 drachmas as well as 500 drachmas of silver.In consequence, the,in Aristotle should refer to the cash prize awarded to the winner in the lyre-playing contest.In other words, a sum of silver money would be referred to in Aristotle by the plural. (shrink)

Horace, Satires 1.3.117–23, as transmitted: adsitregula, peccatis quae poenas inroget aequas,ne scutica dignum horribili sectere flagello.nam ut ferula caedas meritum maiora subire 120uerbera non uereor, cum dicas esse paris resfurta latrociniis et magnis parua minerisfalce recisurum simili te, si tibi regnumpermittant homines.Let there be a rule to impose fair penalties for transgressions, lest you pursue with terrible scourge one deserving but the stick. You see, I don't fear that you will strike with a schoolmaster's rod one who has earned more (...) serious lashing when you say mere thefts are of a pair with brigandage and threaten to trim little things and great with like sickle, would the world but grant you power. Horace is attacking the Stoics for their doctrine that all sins are equal. The overall run of sense must be that given above. If kept, the ut of line 120 must then have the value of ne: were it allowed its normal meaning in expressions of fear the opposite of what is required would be said. The oddity of the construction was long excused as a sort of anacoluthon, provoked by the postponement of uereor. Such defences of the received text were rightly criticised by Palmer and Housman: ‘incredible’, they both concluded, and indeed it is incredible that Horace could have in such a short space forgotten what he had written, and forgotten it in such a way as to say the opposite of what he meant. (shrink)

The following notes concern textual problems in the prologue andparodosof Aeschylus’Seven against Thebes. The text and apparatus criticus are based on those of M.L. West,Aeschylus: Tragoediae(Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1990; corrected edition, 1998).

In editing Plato's Sophist for the new OCT vol. I, ed. E. A. Duke, W. F. Hicken, W. S. M. Nicoll, D. B. Robinson, and J. C. G. Strachan , there was less chance of giving novel information about W = Vind. Supp. Gr. 7 for this dialogue than for others in the volume, since Apelt's edition of 1897 was used by Burnet in 1900 and was based on Apelt's own collation of W. The result was better than the somewhat (...) confused information printed by Burnet, even in his 1905 reprint, for W for the other dialogues in vol. I. But in the Sophist as elsewhere in vol. I collations largely due to Dr W. S. M. Nicoll added new facts about all of BDTWP and their correctors, and the search for testimonia largely carried out by Dr E. A. Duke added new facts in that area. A reviewer counts 66 changes in our text of the Sophist, which may perhaps be a slight over-estimate. Classification of changes as substantive or as falling into different groups is sometimes difficult, but I think plausible figures are as follows. We have in 25 places made a different choice of readings from the primary mss. and testimonia. We have printed conjectures where Burnet kept a ms. reading in 17 places, but conversely we have reverted to a ms. reading where Burnet had a conjecture in 8 places. We have printed alternative conjectures to conjectures adopted by Burnet in 6 places. So we have actually departed from the primary sources on at most 9 more occasions overall than Burnet. What must be noted is that Burnet had already printed conjectures on something like 87 occasions , so our percentage addition to Burnet's departures from the primary sources is modest. Moreover Burnet printed about 25 readings from testimonia; we have followed him in 20 or so of these cases, and this in turn implies that the primary mss. are in error at these further 20 places. It needs to be underlined that though Burnet undoubtedly deserved to be regarded as a safe and cautious editor, nevertheless he departed from the primary mss. on average about twice per Stephanus page in this dialogue. Sometimes, of course, testimonia showed him right to do this, but testimonia cover only a quite small part of this dialogue. Otherwise Burnet accepted almost 90 conjectures. For the Politicus the figures are fairly similar; Burnet accepted 22 Byzantine conjectures and 35–40 more modern ones. The new OCT there adds 15 or so more conjectures. (shrink)

The London papyrus of the Athenaion Politeia of Aristotle makes this statement about the prizes awarded in the musical contests at the Panathenaic games:It has been generally assumed that the andhere are connected with the prizes offered in the musical contests in IG n2 2311.1–22.For instance the winner in the lyre-playing contest receives a gold crown worth 1000 drachmas as well as 500 drachmas of silver.In consequence, the here are connected with the prizes offered in the musical contests in IG (...) n2 2311.1–22.For instance the winner in the lyre-playing contest receives a gold crown worth 1000 drachmas as well as 500 drachmas of silver.In consequence, the,in Aristotle should refer to the cash prize awarded to the winner in the lyre-playing contest.In other words, a sum of silver money would be referred to in Aristotle by the plural. (shrink)

Ἠλ. ὑμᾶς δὲ κωκυτοῖς ἐπανθίζειν νόμος, 150παιᾶνα τοῦ θανόντος ἐξαυδωμένας.Χο. ἵετε δάκρυ καναχὲς ὀλόμενονὀλομένωι δεσπόταιπρὸς ῥεῦμα τόδε κεδνῶν κακῶν τ’ἀπότροπον, ἄγος ἀπεύχετον 155κεχυμένων χοᾶν.κλύε δέ μοι σέβας, κλύ’, ὦ δέσποτ’, ἐξἀμαυρᾶς φρενός.ὀτοτοτοτοτοτοῖ⋅ἴτω τις δορυσθενὴς ἀνὴρ 160ἀναλυτὴρ δόμων †Σκυθιτά τ’ ἐν χεροῖνπαλίντον’ ἐν ἔργωι† βέλη ’πιπάλλων Ἄρηςσχέδιά τ’ αὐτόκωπα νωμῶν ξίφη.152–63 lectio dubia 154 ῥεῦμα Weil: ἔρυμα Μ κεδνῶν κακῶν τ᾽ Schütz: κακῶν κεδνῶν τ᾽ Μ; locum interpr. DoddsCQ3, 13–15 155 ἄγος ΜΣ: ἄλγος Μ; ἄγος χοᾶν ad ῥεῦμα adpositum est 157 (...) μου Blaydes σέβας κλύ᾽ Bamberger: κλύε σέβας Μ 160 ἴτω Bothe: ἰὼ Μ 161 seq. Σκυθιτά, supra ιτ scr. ης, Μ; Σκύθης an Σκυθικά incertum; fort. Σκυθικά τ᾽ ἐν χεροῖν | ἐναργῶς βέλη κτλ., del. παλίντονα tamquam e schol. ad Σκυθικά illatum 163 ξίφη Pauw ex ΜΣ: βέλη Μ. (shrink)

In 1998, I suggested a new text for a notably corrupt passage in Pindar's Isthmian 5. This article is in effect a sequel to that earlier discussion. In the 1998 article, I proposed, inter alia, that the modern vulgate text of I. 5.58, ἐλπίδων ἔκνισ’ ὄπιν, is indefensible and the product of scribal corruption in antiquity, and that chief among the indefensible products of corruption there is the supposed secular use of ὄπις, as if used to mean something like ‘zeal’. (...) This is a sense for which there is no good evidence in classical Greek, where ὄπις always has a delimited religious denotation, meaning either ‘gods’ response’, ‘divine retribution’, or else ‘religious awe’ or ‘reverence’ towards the gods, through fear of that response or that retribution. If we discount I. 5.58 itself, all the pre-Hellenistic attestations can be straightforwardly listed under these headings: Il. 16.388 θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες, Od. 14.88 ὄπιδος κρατερὸν δέος, Hes. Theog. 221–2 θεαὶ... |... ἀπὸ τῷ δώωσι κακὴν ὄπιν, Pind. P. 8.71–2 θεῶν δ’ ὄπιν | ἄφθονον αἰτέω, sim. Od. 20.215, 21.28, Hes. Op. 187, 251, 706, along with, seemingly, a fragmentary fifth-century Thessalian verse inscription, CEG 1.120.1 Hansen; Hdt. 9.76.2 θεῶν ὄπιν ἔχοντας, 8.143.2. In addition, one other instance can be interpreted as either or, or in effect both: Od. 14.82 οὐκ ὄπιδα φρονέοντες... οὐδ’ ἐλεητύν. In all cases, though, ‘gods’ are specified, usually as a dependent genitive with ὄπις, or else separately but in the near context. Hellenistic and later occurrences of the word are few, and hints there of a secular reading can actually be taken to reflect misunderstandings based on, precisely, the early corruption in I. 5. (shrink)