In a previous paper I have shown that this is the correct reading, and that the variant єλєν is a clumsy attempt made by a copyist who did not understand Apollonius. Since my elucidation of the matter has now been questioned by Campbell , I find it necessary to return to Apollonius’ line in more detail, and I shall endeavour to demonstrate geometrico more that my explanation of the poet's words is right because supported by the use of Homeric Wortgut (...) made by Hellenistic poets; Campbell's contention is wrong in that it starts from a false assumption and rests on basic methodological errors. (shrink)

Josephus' pamphlet commonly known under the title Contra Apionem makes rather interesting reading, not only because it represents a more mature stage in the author's stylistic evolution, which shows so many points worth considering, but also and chiefly because it gives us a direct insight into a vehement polemic in which the writer played a leading role.

Professor Trypanis has recently suggested changing àνούαтον into àνούтαтον. Since the problem has not been dealt with atisfactorily by any commentator,1 I should like to clarify the matter by demonstrating that the text is sound: the adjective àνούαтον is, in fact, not only morphologically impeccable, but, in particular, singularly pointed. From the morphological point of view, the Hinterglied ούαтος is paralleled by δολιχούαтος , μονούαтος , and χρυσούαтος : these adjectives occur in hexameter poetry, and each of them is attested (...) once, exactly as is the case with Theocritus‘ àνούαтος. The point brought out by àνούαтον is extremely felicitous: statues of Priapus could be either of an elaborate type, in which the god was represented as having two protruding physical features, namely his ears3 and his mentula, or of a more uncouth type, which consisted of a ‘truncus dolatus’, i.e. a truncus whose only protuberance was the ‘mentula edolata’. The statue described by Theocritus belongs to the latter type: it is uncouthly hewn and devoid of one of the two protruding features {à½οÍαтοт), but it does possess the other one. (shrink)

This is one of the Horatian passages most tormented by the critics. Four points, I think, may now be safely regarded as established. First of all, the lectio tradita can hardly be sound : those who have tried to defend it—their Nestor is Porphyrio himself—have encountered insuperable difficulties. Magnum—to use Kiessling—Heinze's word—is patently ‘sinnlos’. Secondly, none of the proposed conjectures really satisfies. Maga non, as Kiessling-Heinze rightly note, is excluded by metrical reasons alone, not to mention its stylistic harshness ; (...) magica, favoured by Kiessling-Heinze, is scarcely better : the epithet is tautological after venena, and if we accept the emendation we are compelled to postulate a very awkward zeugma . Thirdly, the corruption is pre-medieval, because Porphyrio already read magnum : if we have to apply palaeographical methods for the solution of the problem, we must reason in terms of Roman cursive. (shrink)