Homeric Passages Research Articles

The wisdom of the eagle: a (Middle) Platonic reading of Apuleius, Florida 2

Abstract The eagle of Florida 2 is the literary synthesis of many Homeric eagles. The description of this raptor is not only a display of erudition and rhetorical technique, but reflects Middle Platonic thought on the animal’s λόγος. The use of Homer, in addition to stylistically ennobling the described subject, documents the relationship between the eagle and the divine that is emphasized by Plutarch and Aelius Aristides and also occurs more than once in Apuleius’ macro-text. The reference to Odyssey 6.42–46, which connects the ascent of the raptor to celestial heights with the Platonic motif of the Himmelfahrt, is particularly significant in this regard. The description of the downward flight of the eagle, based on several Homeric passages, also emphasizes the lightning speed and the infallibility that are also pertinent to divine intelligence, which is capable, as Maximus of Tyre observes, of catching its target anywhere and with the swiftness of a glance.

FINDING ITHACA, AND SENSE IN PARMENIDES B1.3: THE HOMERIC MEANING OF ΕΙΔΩΣ

AbstractA close reading of the contexts of several Homeric passages reveals that Homer often uses εἰδώς with ironic force. This realization sheds light on several passages discussed herein, including: 1) Homer's description of the location of Ithaca, which is shown to be Odysseus’ strategic lie that directs the Phaeacians to the local stronghold (nearby Dulichium), and 2) the manuscript reading of Parmenides B1.3, which is shown to harbour no internal conflict even if its εἰδότα φῶτα (‘one who knows’) is in a state of confusion (ἄτῃ), because εἰδότα can signal incomplete or confused knowledge, or even a lack of it. Other literary clues in Parmenides B1 are shown to support this reading.

Refiguring Odysseus’ Apologue in Plato’s Protagoras

The common 4th century B.C. view according to which Homer was regarded as a poet and a wise man, the leading and most honorable, to the point of being considered “the educator of Greece” (Pl. Resp. 606e-607a), is strongly supported by the Pla-tonic dialogues. The works of Plato are the main available source to get to know not only the great pedagogical esteem for Homer, but also the several educational traditions that used or relied on Homeric poetry in Classical Athens. We are certainly used to thinking of Socrates as standing out for contesting or blaming such customs and methods provided by rhapsodes, sophists and common people (Pl. Resp.; Ion; Hp. mi.). But conversely, he is also often depicted quoting, alluding to or remaking on Homeric passages when presenting his own views. Socrates even claims to feel a certain friendship or reverence for the poet and declares to be charmed by contemplating things through him, whom he con-siders to be amongst the few deserving to be called “philosophers” (Pl. Resp. 595b; 607c-d; Phdr. 278b-279b). The puzzling twofold nature of the Socratic attitude towards Homer, coupled with the fact that Plato would become a figure as honored as the poet was, led ancient literary criticism to focus on the Platonic use and sharing of material and techniques proper to Homeric poetry. Works like those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Maximus of Tyre, Longinus and above all Proclus, not only pointed out the philosopher’s debt to the poet, but even consid-ered him to be an admirer of the Homeric genius unlike anyone else, and whose emulation basically attempted to reach and out-perform the pedagogical power that the legendary poet had (Dion. Hal. Pomp. I, 13; Max. Tyr. Or. 26; [Longinus]; Subl. XIII, 2-3; Procl., In R. VI, 163.13-164.7; 202.7-205.23). With an analogous spirit, studies of contemporary Platonists suggest that the dialogues were shaped using the Homeric text, especially the Odyssey, as a template, and making Socrates ap-pear as going through equivalent experiences to those of Odys-seus’ “νόστος”. With respect to Protagoras, previous attempts focused on explicit references to books X and XI, placing the dispute with the sophist and the events at Callias’ house in the symbolic context of Odysseus’ encounter with Circe and the fol-lowing journey into the underworld. I attempt to bring that read-ing one step further, paying special attention to the narrated character and the dramatic context for the singing of those epi-sodes and the parallel ones in Protagoras. In first place, I consider the whole dialogue refiguring the epi-sode in the Odyssey that works as a dramatic frame for the sing-ing of Odysseus’ past adventures, the arrival at Phaeacia and the reception at Alcinous’ court. I regard Odysseus’ need to sing the Apologue as a call for hospitality to secure a safe passage home, working as a pattern for Socrates’ need of a tale at his own ap-pearance in Athens to fulfill and secure a philosophical education in the city. In second place, I take into consideration the metanar-rative dimension of such remaking. Since Socrates’ narration comes in response to a certain “Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτης”, a “praiser of Homer” (Pl. Prt. 309b1), as Odysseus’ Apologue is to Demo-docus the “ἀοιδὸς”, I examine how the dialogue could evince a dispute for pedagogical primacy amongst the different narratives and uses of poetry in Athens, a dispute that the Platonic narrative would attempt to surpass precisely by imitating Homer.

The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey by Richard Hunter

Reviewed by: The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey by Richard Hunter Jonathan S. Burgess Richard Hunter. The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. x, 254. $44.99. ISBN 978-1-108-42831-6. Referring to his recent monographs on Hesiod and Plato, Hunter describes this book as completing a "trilogy" on foundational literature. The author notes that he will not repeat himself on Hellenistic poetry or cover reception of Homer in drama, imperial epic, and philosophy of later antiquity. As this learned inquiry amply demonstrates, there remains much other material by which to "measure" the influence of Homeric poetry. In an often digressive and accumulative manner, the five chapters explore a number of different themes. Chapter 1, "Placing Homer," argues that the effect of Homer was geographically extensive and socially deep. Chapter 2, "Homer and the Divine," discusses ancient reaction to select Homeric passages featuring divinities. Chapter 3, "The Golden Verses," surveys the attention given to Odysseus' symposiastic address to the Phaeacians in Odyssey 9. Chapter 4, "Homer among the Scholars," discusses ancient critical explication of a number of Homeric passages. Chapter 5, "The Pleasures of Song," focuses on two key passages, the song of the Sirens in Odyssey 9 and the heroic song of Achilles in Iliad 9, with attention to divergent explication or utilization of them in antiquity. Despite the term "reception" in the subtitle, "heritage" might be the better word for this work's celebratory exploration of Homeric influence. Besides referring to a wide variety of literature that discussed Homeric poetry, Hunter also searches out everyday texts, often epigrams of the eastern Greek world, that seemingly reflect Homer. The point is that the implicit employment of Homer in even obscure texts especially affirms the reach of Homeric influence. At times Hunter's optimism that we are "invited" to perceive Homeric allusions may not convince. An early example is a "humble" epigram from Cappadocia (5–6); it is undoubtedly epicized, but a father grieving a dead son does not bring to my mind the parents of Hector watching their son being dragged in Iliad 22, despite the correlation of two common words. Though Hunter refers to the use of Homer in ancient education, this usually involved rote copying and memorization of the early parts of the Homeric epics; more socio-economic analysis would be required to demonstrate that Homer penetrated "all levels of society" in a specific and sophisticated manner. An interesting section in chapter 4 reveals that ancient scholars were actually quite alarmed at the attention given to humble characters and activities in the Odyssey. In many ways the book gathers strength as it explores the undoubted importance of Homer in antiquity. Hunter is particularly informative in his subtle yet dogged pursuit of the shifting employment of various themes, such as the snatching of a mortal to heaven or the song of the Sirens. Though the author excellently [End Page 113] explains the mechanics of ancient interpretation of Homer, not every reader will be as sympathetic to its methods and conclusions. For example, Hunter is rather accommodating with Longinus' biographical hypothesis that an aging Homer composed the Odyssey as an epilogue to the Iliad. The argument that Nestor's speech to Telemachus in Odyssey 3 ("the sufferings of the Greeks at Troy, the sacking of the city … , and then the νόστος") suggests the "shape of the Iliad followed by the Odyssey" is carefully worded yet misleading. Three of the four dead lamented by Nestor belong to cyclic traditions, not the Iliad, and in general the Odyssey looks back to non-Homeric episodes and famously avoids Iliadic material. But there is no doubt that readers will come away from this book much better informed about ancient responses to Homer, and this work should prove to be an impetus for further consideration of the extent of reception of the Homeric poetry in the ancient Greek world. Jonathan S. Burgess University of Toronto Copyright © 2019 The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, Inc.

Homer and the Poetics of Hades by George Alexander Gazis

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 363 Homer and the Poetics of Hades. By George Alexander Gazis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018. Pp. xi, 253. George Alexander Gazis's book is a welcome addition to the growing scholarship on the ancient Greek Underworld. It is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation at Durham University and consists of seven chapters organized in two parts. Through close readings of most Homeric passages pertaining to Hades, Gazis looks within the tradition of the Iliad and the Odyssey to identify a poetics unique to Hades, governed by its impenetrable darkness and informed by the experience of heroic afterlife. Gazis introduces opposing pairs, such as Muses/Hades and light/darkness, as structural elements of this poetics and argues that Hades, as a poetic domain inaccessible to the Muses and to all Olympian gods, provides an alternative context where “the mainstream epic tradition can be discussed, re-evaluated, and recast as the shades of the dead reflect upon their story and relate to us their own very personal experience of the epic past” (13). The Introduction offers a comprehensive overview of the concept of Homeric enargeia in ancient and modern scholarship. This thorough presentation of Homeric vividness and its incompatibility with darkness also serves as a theoretical basis for the subsequent discussion of the invisibility of Hades, on which Gazis places special emphasis. After connecting the Homeric narrative about the cap of Hades (Il. 5.844–845) and the etymology of Hades as A-idēs to poetic attestations of the utter isolation of the Underworld, the author proceeds to explore Hades’ presence in the Iliad. In Part 1, Chapter One argues that the Iliad, despite its focus on light and brightness, keeps Hades in the background as a prerequisite to kleos. Nevertheless, Hades’ associations with glory are notably absent from Patroclus’ address to Achilles during the latter’s dream in Il. 23.59–107, which is discussed in Chapter Two. Gazis reads the dream scene as a poetic (and metapoetic) statement on the relationship between the two heroes as they interact for the last time in the Iliad, asserting that their conversation “across the divide of the living and the dead” (48) allows internal and external audiences of the Iliad a precious glimpse into Achilles’ acceptance of his own mortality through the death of his nearest and dearest. According to Gazis, this acceptance also entails a distinct reformulation of the heroic experience, centered on emotion and detached from warlike splendor. Part 2, Chapters Three to Seven, delves into the Odyssean Underworld, viewing it as a space where conventional poetic vision, traditionally granted by the Muses, is no longer acting as a source of bardic inspiration. Gazis’s argument for a poetics of Hades is made most compellingly here as he explores the “experimentation with voice and genre which is made possible by the Underworld setting of Odyssey 11” (83), as well as the performative possibilities of Hades. As a poetic resource, the Underworld has a liberating effect on both context and content, giving the poet the freedom to experiment with un-epic sentiments and lyric overtones evoking Sappho or Stesichorus. Gazis revisits all of Odysseus’ encounters in the Nekyia against the backdrop of an antagonism between a poetics of vividness, portraying the world of the living, and “a poetics of darkness, which favours inwardness and personal experience” (102). This tension is illustrated in the death narratives of Elpenor (102–108) and Agamemnon (167–181), where the shade’s perspective comes into stark contrast with the version provided by an external source. The author skillfully demonstrates that this contrast evolves into a powerful display of personal feelings in the “Catalogue of Heroines” and into passionate 364 PHOENIX revisionism in the “Catalogue of Heroes,” examined in Chapters Five and Seven respectively . Chapter Five offers an in-depth analysis of the stories of the fourteen heroines Odysseus meets after the encounter with his mother. By diligently juxtaposing the hero’s eyewitness account with the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and other traditions, Gazis explicates how the poetics of Hades enables the characters to supply only the information that completes their profiles as they wish to construct them, according to their...

Odysseus and the Cult of Apollo at Delos

This paper explores literary representations of the cult of Apollo on Delos. This island is, to be sure, mentioned only occasionally in early Greek poetry, but details specific to the cult do appear. Thus, for example, Odysseus describes a palm tree he saw at an altar of Apollo on Delos (Od. 6.162-3), and a third-century inscription from the island mentions just such a feature. References to a palm, altar, and temple at Delos in later classical authors, including Callimachus, Pliny, Cicero, and Plutarch, demonstrate that the Archaic period traditions represented by the Homeric passages continued to shape how successive generations of visitors understood Delos. The material record makes clear that the Greek epic tradition documents a time when Delos was already a well attended sanctuary, and that later constructions at the site attempted to remain consistent with the details preserved in the epics.

Nota sobre Odisea 1.7

The genitive α ? τ ? ν with which the seventh line of the Odyssey starts in the vulgata and in all modern editions allows in principle several interpretations. In this paper, we defend a hypothesis that has so far never been raised: the function of the genitive as the expression of a semi-subject, that is, of a subject that has semantic and pragmatic properties which do not correspond exactly to the properties of the prototypical subject and with a grammatical codification that is also different from the grammatical codification of the prototypical subject, this is, the nominative. This analysis of α ? τ ? ν solves the disadvantages of other interpretations and is supported by the use of the genitive in other Homeric passages and in the works of subsequent writers. If we accept the hypothesis that is defended in this paper, we would be facing the first example in Greek of unequivocal agreement in number and person between the genitive and its verbal predicate.

Propertius 3.1.27

The paradosis of Propertius 3.1.27: Idaeum Simoenta Iouis (cunabula parui) is either lacunose (N) or nonsensical (all other manuscripts). Gustav Wolff 's celebrated. . . cum prole Scamandro runs against objections in terms of paleographical verisimilitude, intertextual relevance, and conformity with elegiac diction. This paper provides arguments in favor of. . . ruisse in pabula parta , which echoes two Homeric passages ( Il . 5.773-7, 12.19-22) while pointing, intertextually, to Lucretius and the archaic forms of epic poetry. Paleographically, ruisse in pabula parta can easily have yielded Iouis cunabula parua . Moreover, Petrarch's use of cunabula parua in 1342 suggests that his (lost) copy of Propertius, and the (now incomplete) manuscript A from which it was made in 1333, bore parua . If parui is a later correction, the standard theory, according to which the manuscript tradition of Propertius divides into the N and A families, is vindicated against the alternative theory recently put forward by James L. Butrica and Stephen J. Heyworth.

Salvando a vida ou a si próprio: um comentário crítico ao fragmento 5 West, de Arquíloco

This paper tries to enrich a philological discussion regarding Archilocus' fragment 5 West. Textual criticism tradition has been arguing whether psykhén or autón should be taken into account in the beginning of the fragment's third line. Since our aim is to decide which term is more appropriate, relevant modern commentaries related to the subject and some Homeric passages have been consulted in order to support our arguments.

Salvando a vida ou a si próprio: um comentário crítico ao fragmento 5 West, de Arquíloco

<p>This paper tries to enrich a philological discussion regarding Archilocus' fragment 5 West. Textual criticism tradition has been arguing whether psykhén or autón should be taken into account in the beginning of the fragment's third line. Since our aim is to decide which term is more appropriate, relevant modern commentaries related to the subject and some Homeric passages have been consulted in order to support our arguments.</p>

Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note (review)

Reviewed by: Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note Gregory Nagy Maria Broggiato . Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note. Pleiadi: Studi sulla Letteratura Antica, 2. La Spezia: Agorà Edizioni, 2001. Pp. xciv, 359. €30.00 (pb.). ISBN 88-87218-34-X. This book is the first complete modern edition of all fragments surviving from the works of Crates of Mallos, a philologist and textual critic who was head of the Library of Pergamon in the second century B.C.E. (xvii– xix). In the ancient world, he was best known for his interpretations of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, but he was also well known for his theories in the fields of astronomy and geography. As a Homeric scholar, he was a rival of Aristarchus of Samothrace, who was head of the Library of Alexandria around the same time. There are many traces, especially in the Homeric scholia, of rival Homeric readings and interpretations attributed to these two scholars, who evidently engaged in a lively ongoing exchange with each other in their writings. Thanks to the painstakingly complete and philologically precise collection of the relevant evidence by Broggiato, classicists can now trace the intellectual history of the differences between Crates and Aristarchus. In the ancient world, the many real differences between these two rival editors of Homer were conventionally reduced to a single overarching contrast between Crates the Pergamene as an "anomalist" and Aristarchus the Alexandrian as an "analogist." Such an antithesis, as the evidence collected by Broggiato shows decisively, has been grossly exaggerated. It cannot be denied, however, that Crates had major differences with Aristarchus in his own work on Homer. A most prominent example is Crates F 20 (I follow here the numbering of Broggiato). We read in Plutarch, De facie in orbe lunae 938d: (Il. 14.246) (Il. 14.246a) But you are always so enamored of Aristarchus and so impressed with him that you do not hear Crates as he reads out loud: " . . . , who has been fashioned as genesis for all men and gods, and he flows over the Earth in all her fullness." [End Page 468] The first of these two verses as quoted by Plutarch corresponds to Iliad 14.246—with verse-initial , continuing the syntax of verse 245 as we have it—while the second, "14.246a," has been omitted from the text proper of modern editions of the Iliad. Evidently, the base text of Homer as established by Aristarchus excluded this verse, while the base text as established by Crates included it. For Crates (F 20), the verse of Iliad 14.246a provided evidence for a cosmic theory—that the was the salt-water "ocean" covering the earth, which was supposedly spherical. According to the theory of Crates, the earth was spherical, at the center of a universe that was likewise spherical (lii). Crates evidently interpreted in a modernizing sense: "[which flows] over most of the earth." In other words, the saltwater ocean covers most of the spherical earth. This theory was opposed by Aristarchus, who viewed the Homeric as a freshwater river surrounding an earth that is round and flat (179). Even from the standpoint of Homeric criticism, the editorial decisions of Crates reflect a solid grounding in the textual evidence. A striking example is Crates F 1 (as analyzed by Broggiato, 140–41). We may often wish to disagree with his specific points of interpretation, but the textual variants that he adduces cannot be dismissed as mere inventions. From an analysis of the formulaic composition of Iliad 14.246a, for example, we can see that there is nothing non-Homeric per se about the form of this verse as adduced by Crates (179 n.151, with reference to Il. 13.632 and two other Homeric passages). Nor is there anything non-Homeric per se about the contents. Moreover, from a formulaic point of view, the verse does not even necessarily convey a vision of a saltwater ocean—let alone a spherical earth, as argued by Crates. From the standpoint of Homeric poetry as a formulaic system, the mythological essence of is self-evident: he is a cosmic freshwater river-god who circles Earth, pervading her...

Alegorična eksegeza Homerja, pripovedni suspenz in metapoezija v Vergilijevi pripovedi o Aristaju (Georg. IV 315-558)

Intertekstualno funkcijo štirih homerskih epizod, ob katerih se zgleduje sklepna pripoved Vergilijevih Georgik (Il. 1 in 18, Od. 4 in 8), je mogoče povezati z moralizirajočimi interpretacijami Homerja, izpričanimi zlasti pri Plutarhu (De aud. poet. 19f-20a), Horaciju (Epist. 1,2) in v Vergilijevi zbirki Bucolica (Ecl. 2). Klimenin spev (Georg. 4,345-7), ki so ga dosedanji interpreti povezovali predvsem s kozmološko alegorezo Homerja, posnema homersko tehniko prefiguracije; ta značilni pojav pripovedne poezije pa v novem zvrstnem kontekstu dobi močan filozofsko-didaktični naboj.

Fractasque ad lito ra voces : Aen. 3.556

The view that fractasque ad litora voces at Aen.3.556 alludes to the absence of the Homeric Sirens - at a point in the narrative where the reader expects to find them (D. Nelis) -, is further sustained with an etymological approach to the Sirens' name. In the relevant Homeric passages their name is repeatedly connected with the idea of binding. The Vergilian fractas is significantly opposite to this idea and thus implies the Sirens' absence from this part of the narrative.

The Iapyx Episode of "Aeneid" 12 and Medical Tales in Myth and Mythography

This paper attempts to investigate an episode of the final book of Vergil's Aeneid about which criticism has been remarkably reticent. The episode, Aeneid 12.391-429, is that in which Iapyx, a doctor absent from earlier battles in the epic, attends the wounded Aeneas. This battlefield-surgeon heals the hero at once with a miraculous drug provided through divine intervention. Apart from commentaries which elucidate individual points of grammar or clarify obscure aspects of lore, no full interpretation of the episode exists, at least not one that satisifies the criteria that I argue need to be met. Such a full interpretation should take account of the mythological and cultural perspective of the passage. Its narrative function, its Homeric and post-Homeric antecedents, and what can be called the medical fictions in the minds of its original audience, all deserve attention. This requires a mixture of structuralist, new-historicist, readerresponse, and philological tactics in approaching the text, but the understanding of the text, not the method or combination of methods, is paramount, because the intent is to show that the passage is not some sort of minor digression, as the absence of full, critical discussion might imply, but is carefully wrought and ought to have a substantial impact on readers' reaction to the climax of the Aeneid. The treatment of Aeneas' wound by the doctor Iapyx in Aeneid 12.391-429 has an obvious source in Iliad 4.190 ff. There, Machaon, who is both a warrior-chieftain and a battlefield-surgeon, is summoned by Agamemnon's herald Talthybios and comes to treat the wounded Menelaus. Vergil knew Homer's descriptions of battlefield-doctoring either from Iliad 4.213-219 or from 11.828-848, where Eurypylos gets surgical and pharmaceutical help from Patroklos, while Machaon and Podaleirios are busy fighting. But Vergil makes considerably more of these scenes than he found in Homer. And the first thing to consider is Vergil's manipulation of these Homeric passages. Over the past two decades criticism has made it quite clear that Vergil engages in what has been called the creative imitation of his sources generally. And even the subtle changes that Vergil makes in Homeric material transform it, often with the effect of emphasizing the distance between Homer and himself or between his world and the world of Homeric epic.l Thus, while acknowledging Vergil's

Is Literary Criticism an Illegitimate Discipline? A Fallacious Argument in Plato's Ion

The short Platonic dialogue, the Ion, has suffered a strange fate. Its authenticity has been doubted, and its content considered slight or repetitious. The greatest and most surprising setback the work has encountered is that critics have never even been able to agree on its subject. Therefore, an analysis of the dialogue requires that we first investigate whether the dialogue questions the knowledge of poets or critics, the two subjects proposed. Second, Socrates' argument denying an area of expertise to rhapsodes needs examination; and, finally, the implications of the Ion's argument, especially in regard to the connections between literary criticism and philosophy, deserve attention.The main argument of the Ion is anticipated by two questions posed at the beginning of the work. Socrates asks Ion whether he is as skilful (deinos) in discussing Hesiod and Archilochus as he claims to be in regard to Homer (531a1-2). When the rhapsode responds that his talent is limited to Homer, Socrates concludes that Ion's ability to speak about Homer is not based upon technical knowledge (tekhnē) or a scientific method (epistēmē) but upon divine inspiration. Shortly afterwards, Socrates asks whether Ion or a seer could better assess Homeric and Hesiodic passages about soothsaying (531b3-6). This question anticipates the argument in the last third of the dialogue where Socrates insists that Ion has no particular expertise in regard to the Homeric works and that in fact specialists in various technical fields are better qualified to judge Homeric passages. The question also prefigures the important role divination will play in the dialogue.

THE HOMERIC TOPOGRAPHY OF THE TROJAN PLAIN RECONSIDERED

Summary. Homeric passages bearing on the location of the Achaean camp at Troy are re‐examined in the light of new scientific data on the time‐scale for the alluviation of the Trojan plain. The new data confirm the accuracy of Strabo's account of the plain, and in particular of the shore‐line having come close to the Hisarlik site (Novum Ilium) in Hellenistic times. In the era of Troy VI/VII, c. 3,250 years BP, the shore‐line appears to have run west by south of the site, and a broad marine embayment lay between the city and the Sigeum ridge. It is therefore no longer possible to accept the received view (deriving from Schliemann and Leaf) that the Achaean camp was sited on the present shore‐line by the Hellespont. A new site is proposed for the camp on the lower slopes of the Sigeum ridge about four miles west of Hisarlik. It is argued that the indications in the Iliad are not inconsistent with such a siting, and in fact suit it better than the received view. This is shown with regard to the course of the Scamander, evidently pictured by Homer as running between camp and city, and also with respect to the general axis of the fighting on the plain, which is indicated to lie in an east‐west rather than a north‐south direction. The Besika Bay site, first proposed in 1912, is rejected as inconsistent with the Homeric data and unsatisfactory in itself.

The Sacrifice of Goats in Homer

On p. 49 of the number of the Classical Quarterly for January, 1917, Mr. Alex. Pallis suggests an emendation in the reference to sacrifice of goats in A. 40, 66, 315, on the assumption that such a sacrifice is not Homeric: ‘In no other Homeric passages do we find an allusion to sacrifices of goats, nor is it likely that offerings of animals so little prized would have been thought acceptable to the gods. It is clear, therefore, that in the above passages we must read $$$ίων instead of α$$$γ$$$ν.’