In an article in an earlier issue of this journal Vivienne Gray sought to challenge my claim that Xenophon's account of Prodicus' narrative concerning the Choice of Heracles represents ‘a very close approximation to Prodicus’ actual wording'. Since that time, Gray's article has been cited approvingly by Louis-André Dorion and David Wolfsdorf, both of whom consider that Gray has settled the matter, at least as far as the linguistic aspect of my argument is concerned. In view of this, I feel (...) it necessary to point out that Gray's argument is fundamentally flawed. In addition, I should like to take this opportunity to show that the arguments of Dorion and Wolfsdorf, which are aimed at other aspects of the case that I made for Xenophon's faithfulness to Prodicus' text, are likewise invalid. (shrink)

The article seeks to show that, contrary to the standard view, the 'Choice of Heracles' preserved at Xen. Mem. 2.1.21-33 is not a summary or paraphrase, but is a very close approximation to the actual wording of Prodicus' epideixis. The language and style are shown to be uncharacteristic of Xenophon, and the fact that Prodicus' original was known to exist in both written and orally performed versions serves to explain why the piece is framed by language that disclaims strict accuracy (...) in reproducing it. It is further shown that the way in which near-synonyms are used in the piece is not necessarily inconsistent with other evidence for Prodicus' practice: it is rather the personified character Vice whose usage conflicts with that of Prodicus himself and with that of the personification of Virtue. Finally, it is proposed that the 'Choice of Heracles' represented the contents, not of Prodicus' advanced teaching, but of the popular, cut-rate lecture intended for a general audience. (shrink)

At Ar. Ran. 1028 read ην ηκoυσ ɛυχην for the metrically defective ηνικ' ηκoυσα.

The ghost of Darius provides a versified history of the Persian kingship, from the beginning down to the reign of his luckless son Xerxes, that starts out as follows in Martin West's Teubner text :Mῆδος γὰρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμὼν στρατοῦ, 765ἄλλος δ’ ἐκείνου παῖς τόδ’ ἔργον ἥνυσεν·ϕρένες γὰρ αὐτοῦ θυμὸν ᾠακοστρόϕουν·τρίτος δ’ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ Κῦρος, εὐδαίμων ἀνήρ,ἄρξας ἔθηκε πᾶσιν εἰρήνην ϕίλοις,Λυδῶν δὲ λαὸν καὶ Φρυγῶν ἐκτήσατο 770Ἰωνίαν τε πᾶσαν ἤλασεν βίᾳ·θεὸς γὰρ οὐκ ἤχθηρεν, ὡς εὔϕρων ἔϕυ.Κύρου δὲ παῖς τέταρτος (...) ηὔθυνε στρατόν·πέμπτος δὲ Mάρδος ἦρξεν, αἰσχύνη πάτρᾳθρόνοισί τ’ ἀρχαίοισι· 775First comes ‘the Mede Cyaxares, whom A[eschylus] probably saw as the first king of a united Media and Persia, and therefore the right person to begin his list’. Unless ἄλλος is corrupt, the first two members of the dynasty are anonymous. This is not perhaps surprising, given Aeschylus’ limited knowledge of early Median and Persian history and given his use of these rulers as foils to the blest Cyrus. Each of them is, like the equally anonymous Cambyses, accorded only one or two lines, in contrast to the five lines devoted to Cyrus the Great. What is surprising is that the second of these is singled out for his good sense and his restraint. Further, it is not clear what point is being made by attributing ‘this deed’ to the good sense and restraint of the son of the Mede, particularly since it is not immediately apparent to what deed reference is being made. As Alexander Garvie notes in his recent commentary on the play, ‘That this line [767] is out of place in the codd. is highly likely’. (shrink)

In response to Mnesilochus′ disparaging comments regarding Agathon's unusual dress, the tragic poet replies:.

Odysseus has just entered the acting area following the choral song, during which he witnessed the Cyclops butchering, cooking and then eating two of his companions. In these lines Odysseus seemingly presents himself as being at a loss for words, and claims that what he witnessed inside the cave is not to be believed. These are, of course, nothing more than rhetorical ploys, with frequent parallels in Euripides and elsewhere. When Odysseus says οὐ πιστά he means not that what he (...) is about to recount lacks credibility—he does, after all, expect the satyrs to accept his account as reliable—but that it surpasses the bounds of ordinary human experience. And the account that follows belies his apparent profession of being at a loss for words, since he is about to deliver what is in effect a messenger-speech of over fifty lines. Expressions of aphasia are common in Euripides, sometimes accompanied, as here, by lengthy exposition. Characters use such expressions to indicate that the circumstances in which they find themselves are beyond the power of language to convey. There is, therefore, something discordant in Odysseus immediately following his expression of aphasia by saying that what he has witnessed is ‘like stories’, especially when he is about to tell the story of the circumstances in which he finds himself. It is the purpose of this note to suggest that the words μύθοις εἰκότ’ have been universally misunderstood, and that Odysseus is here saying something quite other than that the events in the cave have a greater resemblance to stories than to reality. (shrink)

This has all the appearance of being a straightforward, even conventional, transition. Indeed, the conceit of Night′s chariot is common and has a history stretching back at least as far as the beginning of the fifth century B.C. Night is elsewhere described by Virgil as umida, the epithet reflecting the traditional view that Night, like Dawn , arises from and sinks back into the stream of Ocean. In fact, the chariot of Night had been referred to as recently as lines (...) 721 and 738 of this book, in the latter instance with the epithet umida applied to Night. What is new and interesting in our passage is the ‘meta caeli’ round which Night′s chariot turns. The effect of this novelty is to make of Night′s vehicle a racing chariot, as it is the chariots in the Circus that must negotiate a meta. The programmatic reasons for Virgil′s having done this in Book 5 are obvious. Earlier in the book Virgil had described the games held in honour of the anniversary of Anchises′ death. The first and most elaborately portrayed event in these games had been the boat-race, which is plainly modelled on the chariot-race in Iliad 23, the first and most elaborately portrayed event in the funeral games for Patroclus. Just as Achilles had required the competing chariots to race once around a distant turning-post, so Aeneas requires the competing ships to race once around a rock out at sea, which rock is three times called a meta . A simile comparing the sailors and their ships to charioteers and their teams makes the connection explicit. (shrink)