This article contributes to a discussion raised more than forty years ago in this journal by Richard Stoneman on how to interpret the unexpected image of an eagle at Pind. Nem. 3.80. Without excluding the possibility of a reference to the poet himself, this article argues, mainly based on a survey on the traditional elements used in that passage, that the eagle also refers—at least partially—to the victorious athlete Aristocleides. This is demonstrated by an internal investigation of the structure of (...) the ode and the use of signal words. Moreover, the image of the eagle stands in a series of other ancient and traditional motifs, such as the ‘song of milk and honey’ and ‘shining fame’, which can be also found in the Rigveda and therefore can be regarded as an inheritance of the Indo-European poetic tradition. Parallels from the Rigveda can be found for the avian imagery too, in which the eagle is compared to someone striving for fame in an athletic contest; this suggests that the image of the eagle is another traditional motif from IE times in Pindar, who uses it as a device to transition from a poetological to a laudatory part of the epinician, perhaps deliberately playing with the ambiguity of the image. (shrink)

Every one who has used Dr. Meusel's excellent edition of Caesar's Bellum Ciuile will welcome the first volume, comprising Commentaries I.–IV., of his final edition of the Bellum Gallicum. Nominally, each of the two books is a revision of the work of other men,–in the former case of Kraner and Hofmann, in the latter of Kraner and Dittenberger; really each, especially the latter, contains the fruit of so much independent research that the personalities of the older editors are obscured. (...) That part of the joint work of Kraner and Dittenberger which corresponds with the revision consisted of 199 pages ; the revision extends to 464. As Meusel remarks in the Preface, it is no longer intended for the use of schools, but of teachers and classical scholars. The historical introduction and the section on the Roman army, which retain much of Kraner's work, have been carefully retouched; many of the footnotes have been corrected or rewritten; many, both on linguistic points and on the subject-matter, have been added. (shrink)

Codex Louaniensis, or L, the best MS. of Caesar in the British Museum , which is assigned to the eleventh century, has been collated by Alfred Holder for his edition of the Bellum ciuile and by Mr. R. L. A. Du Pontet for his edition of the Bellum Alexandrinum and the Bellum Africanum; but for the Bellum Gallicum no collation has hitherto been available. Last year I made one, which I sent to Dr. Meusel. He urged me to publish (...) it, remarking that it would be very useful, as ‘wir haben nun ein sichereres Urteil über die Familie φ.’ Relying upon Holder's collation, he had described L in his own edition of the Bellum ciuile as ‘a twin-brother of Ashburnhamianus’ ; and so it is in the Bellum ciuile, but, as he acknowledged after reading my collation, not in the Bellum Gallicum. The first folio, comprising i, I–6, §3 , is by a later hand. The MS. is described in the Catalogue thus: ‘c. Jvlii Caesaris commentariorum libri. Desinit cum verbis “res eis suppeteret” in libro de Bello Africano, cap. 33. Codex membranaceus, sec. XL, sed folium primum a manu recentiori suppletum est. Folio [10,084.].’. (shrink)

The sentence that comprises 5.31.5 in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum has long been felt to be problematic. It was deleted entirely by H. Meusel. A. Klotz posited a lacuna after quare. Others sought smaller adjustments. Yet, the defence of the text as transmitted also drew advocates and the debate quietened. The current Teubner edition, by W. Hering in 1987, prints the transmitted text and does not acknowledge the debate in the apparatus criticus. I propose a new solution, one that reinterprets (...) the sentence in context and requires a small textual change from et to nec. I will first set the context and identify problems with the conventional understanding of 5.31.5. (shrink)