This article revisits a long-abandoned position that, contrary to the developmentalist view, Aristotle’s lost dialogue, the Eudemus, argued for the immortality of intellect, not for the Platonic view of the immortality of the soul as a whole. It does so by providing evidence for the presence of Aristotle’s lost writings in the Church Fathers, a period often overlooked in the study of the reception of Aristotle’s lost writings. After discussing the debates in the secondary literature on Aristotle’s view of immortality in the Eudemus, it shows that Tertullian’s De anima 12 should be considered a fragment of the central argument for the immortality of intellect in Aristotle’s Eudemus. The conclusion is based not only on the fact that Tertullian’s summary of Aristotle’s view cannot be derived from any of Aristotle’s extant writings, but also on similar reports regarding the separability of intellect from soul found in Origen and Clement of Alexandria. The article thereby demonstrates the influence of Aristotle’s lost writings in the Patristic period and their importance as reporters of Aristotle’s lost works.

The Tomb of the Scipios is a multigenerational patrician tomb outside Rome dating from the early third to mid-second century b.c.e. The tomb is perhaps most famous for its verse epitaphs, which have traditionally been identified as echoes of the lost elite family domestic archives that informed the first Roman histories. In dialogue with the recent turn towards considering the role of non-literary methods of recording the past in the development of Roman historical thought, this paper proposes a reinterpretation of these epitaphs within their archaeological context. Ultimately, this paper argues that the Tomb of the Scipios and its epitaphs should be understood not simply as lost echoes of other types of family history, but as a site where the family experienced history through an ongoing dialogue with the dead.

This article offers a fresh interpretation of the ancient Roman relief at Palazzo Sacchetti, identifying it as a depiction of the senatorial delegation meeting Septimius Severus at Interamna in AD 193. Through iconographic analysis, it argues that the relief embodies the Senate’s expectations for Severus’ rule, grounding his image in the principle of Iustitia and portraying him as a model of moderation and fairness. Ultimately, it reveals how the relief uses a ‘historical’ depiction of a real event as a lens to examine the negotiation of power dynamics between the emperor and the Senate at the outset of Septimius Severus’ reign.

This paper presents an archaeological material science study of pottery production and use at the Bronze Age Minoan town of Palaikastro, east Crete, from Middle Minoan IIA to Late Minoan IIIA2 (c. 1850 to 1300 BC), through petrographic analysis of thin sections and wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. The compositions of 288 archaeological samples are compared with geological references collected from the site and its adjacent hinterland. The results of this study indicate that throughout this period the majority of the archaeological pottery assemblage was probably produced using materials from a small number of geological outcrops local to the town; however, the manner in which these resources were utilised changed significantly over time, particularly between the Proto- and Neopalatial periods.

Recent years have seen a remarkable revival of research on Cassius Dio and his Roman History, including the publication of numerous volumes of collective essays, and this has been accompanied by a much higher estimation of his achievement than used to be customary. This article seeks to assess the progress made on a range of key issues relating to Dio and his history and to point ahead to further directions for research. The chief topics considered are Dio’s career as senator and historian, central aspects of his history (transmission, sources and models, structure, speeches), and Dio’s handling of politics and system change.

This article offers principles to be followed when editing οὔκουν and οὐκοῦν. The distinction between these words is supported by the ancient grammarians, but manuscript readings oscillate to such a degree that modern editors often do not trust them. The most common principles thus far available are those established by Kühner–Gerth and Denniston. Some are so subjective, however, that editors do not always agree on the accentuation of a non-negligible number of instances. This article takes into account the pragmatic contexts in which the particle is used in Attic drama to effect a distinction by applying a conversation analytic methodology to their interpretation. All instances appearing in the extant plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes have been analysed.