The Hellenistic epigrammatist does not break off at this point, but proceeds to state that Pisistratus collected the corpus of the songs of Homer—an appropriate tribute, in his view, to a ‘golden scion of Athens if, as is claimed, we Athenians founded Smyrna’ . The ‘Pisistratid recension’ of Homer is an extremely vexed and unfashionable question in Homeric criticism and does not concern us here. More to the present point is the elementary logical mistake which is made in the lines (...) which are quoted above. Pisistratus had three periods of tyranny, and is said to have been driven out three times, and to have been restored three times. The error is a transparent one, common in juvenile puzzles. Pisistratus died naturally in old age at the end of his third spell of power and so was exiled only twice. The final exile of his son Hippias would be the third occasion completing the chain of coup and expulsion. (shrink)

The Hellenistic epigrammatist does not break off at this point, but proceeds to state that Pisistratus collected the corpus of the songs of Homer—an appropriate tribute, in his view, to a ‘golden scion of Athens if, as is claimed, we Athenians founded Smyrna’. The ‘Pisistratid recension’ of Homer is an extremely vexed and unfashionable question in Homeric criticism and does not concern us here. More to the present point is the elementary logical mistake which is made in the lines which (...) are quoted above. Pisistratus had three periods of tyranny, and is said to have been driven out three times, and to have been restored three times. The error is a transparent one, common in juvenile puzzles. Pisistratus died naturally in old age at the end of his third spell of power and so was exiled only twice. The final exile of his son Hippias would be the third occasion completing the chain of coup and expulsion. (shrink)

The beginning of the seventy-sixth poem of Catullus appears to cause some modern readers considerable dismay. One may instance the reactions of R. O. A. M. Lyne: ‘Our first reaction to the beginning of this poem may be one of incredulity’ ; ‘The effect of such language is to imply an outrageous and implausible self-righteousness’ ; of K. Quinn: ‘a self-righteousness that makes us feel a little uncomfortable’ ; or of G. Williams: ‘this is sheer melodrama, a deft and surprising (...) reversal of “count your blessings”’; and, further down, on ‘si vitam puriter egi’: ‘This could be simply priggish or outrageous or both, but he does not mean it as a general statement’. (shrink)

It is recognized that Romans of the late Republic did not normally address or refer to one another by praenomen alone. Most instances in which the praenomen is used alone are easily explicable ; either the persons concerned are members of the same family, with names otherwise identical, or the praenomen itself is particularly distinctive and aristocratic.

The beginning of the seventy-sixth poem of Catullus appears to cause some modern readers considerable dismay. One may instance the reactions of R. O. A. M. Lyne: ‘Our first reaction to the beginning of this poem may be one of incredulity’ ; ‘The effect of such language is to imply an outrageous and implausible self-righteousness’ ; of K. Quinn: ‘a self-righteousness that makes us feel a little uncomfortable’ ; or of G. Williams: ‘this is sheer melodrama, a deft and surprising (...) reversal of “count your blessings”’; and, further down, on ‘si vitam puriter egi’: ‘This could be simply priggish or outrageous or both, but he does not mean it as a general statement’. (shrink)

Suetonius quotes a number of extracts from Augustus' letters, with the intention of showing that Augustus did not dislike Tiberius as much as some had held, and that he had a high opinion of Tiberius' military qualities. The first of these contains a somewhat vexed textual problem. It reads as follows : Vale, iucundissime Tiberi, et feliciter rem gere, μο κα τας †μουιcαcαιcτ στρατηγν. iucundissime et ita sim felix, vir fortissime et dux νομιμτατε, vale.

Suetonius quotes a number of extracts from Augustus' letters, with the intention of showing that Augustus did not dislike Tiberius as much as some had held, and that he had a high opinion of Tiberius' military qualities. The first of these contains a somewhat vexed textual problem. It reads as follows : Vale, iucundissime Tiberi, et feliciter rem gere, μο κα τας †μουιcαcαιcτ στρατηγν. iucundissime et ita sim felix, vir fortissime et dux νομιμτατε, vale.

…vel quod res omnes timide gelideque ministrat, dilator, † spe longus, iners avidusque futuri, diffcilis, querulus… I agree with Brink, and other editors referred to by him ad loe, that spe longus in Horace's description of the typical old man's character cannot be made to give sense. For earlier attempts at emendation, see Brink's note . Most of those who have tried to emend the passage concentrate on longus, and are reluctant to relinquish spe: this is largely due to the (...) parallel with Aristotle's account of the character of old men in Rhetoric 2. 13. 1389b 13ff., in which they are said to be, among other things it seems to me that this parallel should not be pressed too far. There is much in Aristotle that is not in Horace, and nothing to suggest close and detailed dependence. The parallel can only be relevant if spe longus can be turned into a reasonable Latin equivalent for Otherwise there is no good reason to suppose that spe is any less likely to be corrupt than longus. (shrink)

…vel quod res omnes timide gelideque ministrat,dilator, † spe longus, iners avidusque futuri,diffcilis, querulus…I agree with Brink, and other editors referred to by him ad loe, that spe longus in Horace's description of the typical old man's character cannot be made to give sense. For earlier attempts at emendation, see Brink's note. Most of those who have tried to emend the passage concentrate on longus, and are reluctant to relinquish spe: this is largely due to the parallel with Aristotle's account (...) of the character of old men in Rhetoric 2. 13. 1389b 13ff., in which they are said to be, among other things it seems to me that this parallel should not be pressed too far. There is much in Aristotle that is not in Horace, and nothing to suggest close and detailed dependence. The parallel can only be relevant if spe longus can be turned into a reasonable Latin equivalent for Otherwise there is no good reason to suppose that spe is any less likely to be corrupt than longus. (shrink)

It is recognized that Romans of the late Republic did not normally address or refer to one another by praenomen alone. Most instances in which the praenomen is used alone are easily explicable ; either the persons concerned are members of the same family, with names otherwise identical, or the praenomen itself is particularly distinctive and aristocratic.

I begin by listing those manuscripts older than 1100 that have hitherto been known to editors.

Correspondence and texts by Fichte and Schelling illuminate their thought and the trajectory of their philosophical falling out.