These two texts are fundamental for the understanding not only of Neoplatonism but also of the conventions of biography in late antiquity. Neither has received such extensive annotation before in English, and this new commentary makes full use of recent scholarship. The long introduction is intended both as a beginner’s guide to Neoplatonism and as a survey of ancient biographical writing.

Cases of sexual harassment have become increasingly common in the courts, but there is at present no coherent definition of just what sexual harassment is supposed to consist. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines ultimately focus on issues of subjective victimization, a standard which is overly broad and prescriptively empty. In order to salvage the concept of sexual harassment, it is argued here that the element of unwelcomeness must be removed from it. Instead of considering welcomeness, it is argued that (...) sexual harassment can be given proscriptive clarity if it is delineated as gender harassment, coercive sexual harassment, and presumptive sexual harassment. (shrink)

At one point in his treatise against the ‘Gnostics’ Plotinus treats his adversaries as men of flesh and blood, not merely as proponents of false books and false beliefs: For I feel a certain shame with regard to some of my friends , who, having chanced upon this doctrine before the beginning of our friendship, have continued to adhere to it for reasons that I cannot understand. Not that they themselves show any compunction in saying what they say: they may (...) believe what they say to be true , but perhaps they rather wish others to be persuaded of the truth of their own opinions. (shrink)

It is gratifying to see the authenticity of Od. 10.475–9 defended anew by the late, Professor Alfred Heubeck; in 1974 I put forward a rather similar defence of the lines myself. However, Heubeck's correct conclusion – that the passage is genuine – stands in startling contrast to some gross exaggerations, in both the Italian and the English versions of his work, about the extent of the manuscript evidence against the passage.

It is gratifying to see the authenticity of Od. 10.475–9 defended anew by the late, Professor Alfred Heubeck; in 1974 I put forward a rather similar defence of the lines myself. However, Heubeck's correct conclusion – that the passage is genuine – stands in startling contrast to some gross exaggerations, in both the Italian and the English versions of his work, about the extent of the manuscript evidence against the passage.

The old Analytical view that the union between the Journey of Telemachus and the rest of the Odyssey is post-Homeric, superficial, and incompetently effected is nowadays widely rejected, and rightly so. However, although many defences cumulatively, I believe, successful–of the content of the second divine assembly have been put forward in recent years, no adequate answer has yet been given to the objections raised against the allegedly anomalous language of Athene's speech of 5.7–20.

If we divide up the action of the Odyssey into days,1 we find that we leaveTelemachus with Menelaus in Sparta on Day 6 and only return to him, still in Sparta, during the pre-dawn hours of Day 36 , although at 4. 593–9 he told Menelaus he did not want to stay long.

. Practitioner as researcher: Some techniques for analysing semi‐structured data in small‐scale research. British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 251-261.