The object of this article is to examine the letter from which Plutarch quotes in the above passage from the twenty-eighth chapter of his life of Alexander; to attempt to prove, particularly by a comparison of the letter with the Sidypafifia sent in 319 B.C. by Polyperchon to the Greek cities, that it is a genuine part of Alexander's correspondence; and further to consider what light the letter, if genuine, throws upon the person of Alexander himself.

In his illuminating discussion of ‘the Caspian question’ Sir William Tarn, basing his case mainly on Aristotle, Meteorologica, 2. 1. 10 and Strabo, 11. 7. 4, argued that Alexander knew of the existence of the Aral Sea. Tarn's conclusion, however, was soon challenged by Professor Lionel Pearson, who disagreed in particular with Tarn's interpretation of the passage in Strabo. But, although he undoubtedly succeeds in showing that some of Tarn's arguments are not valid, Pearson fails, as it seems to me, (...) to disprove his main contention. Indeed, Pearson misunderstands the line of Strabo's argument and is led to propose an unnecessary emendation of the text. (shrink)

In his illuminating discussion of ‘the Caspian question’ Sir William Tarn, basing his case mainly on Aristotle, Meteorologica, 2. 1. 10 and Strabo, 11. 7. 4, argued that Alexander knew of the existence of the Aral Sea. Tarn's conclusion, however, was soon challenged by Professor Lionel Pearson, who disagreed in particular with Tarn's interpretation of the passage in Strabo. But, although he undoubtedly succeeds in showing that some of Tarn's arguments are not valid, Pearson fails, as it seems to me, (...) to disprove his main contention. Indeed, Pearson misunderstands the line of Strabo's argument and is led to propose an unnecessary emendation of the text. (shrink)

In an otherwise convincing article Mr. T. P. Wiseman argues that this passage ‘seems to mean that L. Memmius and Q. Pompeius were principes, i.e. outstanding orators, and that they were not among those who spoke in their own defence in 90 B.C.’. But he rightly refuses to believe that Cicero can have intended this, since, apart from other considerations, it is clear from Cicero's previous references to Memmius and Pompeius that he did not consider them to be outstanding orators.

In an otherwise convincing article Mr. T. P. Wiseman argues that this passage ‘seems to mean that L. Memmius and Q. Pompeius were principes, i.e. outstanding orators, and that they were not among those who spoke in their own defence in 90 B.C.’. But he rightly refuses to believe that Cicero can have intended this, since, apart from other considerations, it is clear from Cicero's previous references to Memmius and Pompeius that he did not consider them to be outstanding orators.

The McNaughton Rules, which are used when someone pleads insanity at the time of a homicide, are out of date and unsatisfactory. Suggestions have been made about how the insanity defence can be reformulated. The preference of a defence of diminished responsibility means abandoning an ancient and humane principle of not convicting those who are so mentally disordered as not to be responsible for their actions. There is a need for Parliament to consider changes to the law both to prevent (...) the mentally disordered being sent to prison inappropriately, and because the Mental Health Act 1983 has not taken account of rare cases where an offender such as an epileptic might be found legally insane but not mentally disordered. (shrink)

The text of lines 39–40 is open to three main objections: stimulantem pectu Achilli cannot be construed in its context; to refer tuas to Persen would involvi difficult, though not unexampled, change of person; and thirdly, and most serious, it is scarcely possible to believe that Cornelia could appeal to a king of Macedon to testify to the soundness of her morals.

The text of lines 39–40 is open to three main objections: stimulantem pectu Achilli cannot be construed in its context; to refer tuas to Persen would involvi difficult, though not unexampled, change of person; and thirdly, and most serious, it is scarcely possible to believe that Cornelia could appeal to a king of Macedon to testify to the soundness of her morals.

While Alexander is at Memphis an army arrives from Antipater including . It is a little surprising that Droysen's suggestion to read MevlSas for tevolras should have been accepted so readily by editors. We do at least hear fa Menoetas later as Berve remarks. He further points out lat Menidas does not elsewhere, so far as we know, command infantry.

While Alexander is at Memphis an army arrives from Antipater including. It is a little surprising that Droysen's suggestion to read MevlSas for tevolras should have been accepted so readily by editors. We do at least hear fa Menoetas later as Berve remarks. He further points out lat Menidas does not elsewhere, so far as we know, command infantry.