Most classical journals report on research on literary, historical and linguistic questions, and rarely allocate space to discussions of pedagogy at tertiary level. This article, however, falls into the latter category. It takes the form of a report on the teaching of Latin and Greek (both classical and post-classical) in universities in Australia and New Zealand; and it makes a number of suggestions regarding the future of the classical languages in this region.Any general examination by an outsider of the situation of Classics in Australian and New Zealand universities would readily conclude that most departments are managing well, or at least holding their own, compared to other disciplines. Student enrolments are high overall, since most departments, like those in Britain and North America, have expanded their teaching range to embrace ancient history, classical literature in translation and, in some cases, archaeology. This has been the situation for the best part of the last two decades. Often these subjects were introduced in order to ‘subsidise’ and protect the continuance of Greek and Latin with their smaller numbers; but they have been extremely popular with students in every university in Australasia in which they are taught. And so these teaching areas have come to have a life and a rightful presence of their own.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.

No abstract

In the pantheon of poets of all cultures and ages, Homer (however we respond to the ‘Homeric Question’) has a unique place. His primacy is due to the fact that his two epic poems encapsulated Hellenic culture, both for the Greeks themselves, and for others steeped in the ‘European tradition’ whether in antiquity or in subsequent ages. So much is this the case that the very name ‘Homer’ became an abstraction, summing up what it was to be Hellenic. All literature written by Greeks, in the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and Imperial periods, and much that was produced by others (including in Latin), looks back to the Iliad and the Odyssey, takes its rise from them, finds its locus in them. A canonicity was conferred on these poems such as on no other Greek text in equal degree. If Shakespeare was representative of an entire age in one culture, Homer summed up a culture itself.

Of the roughly 160 inscriptions currently held in the Archaeological Museum at Burdur, only a fraction has been published hitherto. The following articles have published monuments from the Museum:1. G. E. Bean, “Sculptured and inscribed stones at Burdur”, Belleten 18 (1954) 469–88 (Turkish version: 489–510); inscribed stones: nos. 3–5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17–22 (SEG 14.797–809), of which nos. 8, 13, 19–22 seem no longer to be located in the Museum or the adjacent garden (it should be mentioned that Bean wrote before the Museum was formally established).2. Id., “Notes and inscriptions from Pisidia, I”, AS 9 (1959) 67–117; inscriptions from Burdur: nos. 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4–9, 21, 87 (SEG 19.734–42, 753, 819), of which nos. 4 (at the Lycée in 1959) and 6 (at Aşkış in 1959) have not been located.3. Id., “Notes and inscriptions from Pisidia, II”, AS 10 (I960) 43–82, no. 135 (SEG 19.802). A photograph of this monument is included in the present article as Pl. XXXII (b); see further, pp. 126, 127, 131–32 below.4. S. Mitchell, “Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia”, JRS 66 (1976) 106–31 (AE [1976] 653; SEG 26.1392); redated to early under Tiberius by E. A. Judge, “The regional kanon for requisitioned transport”, in G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, I. A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1976 (North Ryde, 1981) 36–45 no. 9 (SEG 31.1286); the date accepted with further refinement by Mitchell in Chiron 16 (1986) 25–27 (SEG 36.1208).