The much-maligned lines Eur. H.F. 1410–17 are treated in this article as a psychologically veritable conclusion – should we not wish to follow N. Wecklein and bluntly round off at 1404 – of the Amphitryon–Heracles–Theseus scene in which they are most at home where the tradition has them, at the very end, and not, as G. Bond would attempt to prove, immediately after 1253. Along the way to 1417 certain minor critical comments are offered.
A short undated note to Vladimir Beneševič filed under 22.214.171.124r and housed in St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences is a postcard written by Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and dispatched at some point in the course of the correspondence around what turns out to be a request for photographs of certain Sinai MSS. Further archival documents and published letters instrumental in setting the scene are cited to the result that the key to the correct understanding of the note offered for publication here lies in the Zutritt to the Sinai holdings Beneševič enjoyed.
Herodotus notes that both the height and the width of the Eupalinian aqueduct equal 8 feet (3. 60. 2). Modern measurement gives 2.10 m for both height and width. It follows that the sixth-century Samian foot was 26.25 cm, and there is much to support such a conclusion. However, a standard Greek foot was much longer. We are dealing here with two different systems. In the earlier one, the foot corresponds to the height of an average Greek man, and it measures a half of a cubit and a third of a pace. In the standard system, there is no integer number of feet in one pace, a foot corresponds to the height of exceptionally tall persons and it is in a ratio to a cubit of 2 : 3. The change was probably caused by the growing interest in athletic competitions. The stadiums were extended to accommodate more spectators, and, since each stadium was 600 feet long by definition, the foot was extended accordingly.
Aelian in the detailed description of ancient tuna fishing (De nat. anim. XV, 5) mentions that Naxians and Eretrians knew about it according to Herodotus and others. Commonly it is understood in literal sense: inhabitants of Naxos and Eretria use this way of fi shing, as Aelian alleges. But arguments, on which this interpretation is based, seem unreliable. More plausible is to see in Aelian’s account an obvious hint at Persian tactics of depopulation.
The prolonged correspondence of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Gilbert Murray was summarised by Murray himself late in his life (Antike und Abendland, 1954). Once Wilamowitz’ side of the correspondence – Murray’s letters are lost – was published by A. Bierl, W. M. Calder III and R. L. Fowler in 1991, it revealed the correspondents’ scholarly and personal relations to have been more complex. A selection of episodes pivotal to the correspondence is arranged in this article in the way witnessing not only the variety of the correspondents’ talents and undertakings, but also the differences inherent in their ways.
The way of argumentation employed by the Eleatic philosophers was repeatedly compared with methods of demonstration characteristic for Greek mathematics. The paper addresses a particular type of argument, argumentum ad impossibile, found in both Zeno’s antinomies and an ancient demonstration of the incommensurability of the side and diagonal of a square. It is argued that in this particular case the debtor was Zeno.