Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Classical Quarterly
  4. Volume 27
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 27 - April 1933

Contents

Page 2 of 3

Research Article

  • Greek Serpents or Egyptian Lizards?

  • H. J. Rose
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, p. 54

  • Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson has recently revived a conjecture of Lauth on Geoponica, XIII, 8, 1, which runs as follows: ὅϕεις οὔκ ἔσονται ⋯ν χωρ⋯ῳ ⋯⋯ν ⋯ʊ⋯νθιονἢ ⋯ρτεμ⋯σιον ἢ ⋯βρ⋯τονον περ⋯ τ⋯ν ἔπα$$υλιν ϕυτε⋯σῃς. τοὺς δ⋯ ⋯ντας ⋯λ⋯σεις ⋯⋯ν (directions for a fumigation follow). The conjecture is that ⋯ντας is the Egyptian hontasu, ‘lizard.’ That this would make sense is obvious; but the usage of the Geop. itself, to say nothing of other authors, indicates that the word is simply what it appears to be, namely the pres. part, of εἰμ⋯. Thus we find in X, 46 τ⋯ ς⋯κα σκώληκας ¿ὔ π¿ι⋯σει⋯⋯ν μ⋯λλων φυτε⋯ειν ⋯μπ⋯ξῃς σκ⋯λλῃ τ⋯ν κλ⋯δ¿ν, τ¿ὺς δ⋯ ⋯ντας ⋯ναιρεῖς ⋯⋯ν κ.τ.λ. Here the explanation ‘lizards’ would hardly be reasonable; still more cogent, however, is XII, 8, 2–3, ¿ὔκ ἔσονται … τ⋯ς δ⋯ οὔσας κ⋯μπας διαϕθερῖς, where no such conjecture is possible. Not dissimilar is XII, 19, 9, τ⋯ς τε γ⋯ρ οὔσας ψ⋯λλας ϕθε⋯ρεικα⋯ ἄλλας οὔκ ⋯ᾷ γεν⋯σθαι. All these extracts are taken from authors of the second and third centuries A.D., though we have no means of knowing how closely their actual wording is followed; it is therefore in point to cite a passage of Galen, the opening paragraph of the tractate περ⋯ αἱρ⋯σεων Medicine, he says, has for its aim health, and a physician must know how to bring about health if absent (μ⋯ παρο⋯σαν) and preserve it if present (παροȗσαν). καλεῖται δ⋯, he continues, τ⋯ μ⋯ν ⋯ργαζ⋯μενα τ⋯ν μ⋯ οὖσαν ὑγ⋯ειατν τε κα⋯ βοηθ⋯ματα, τ⋯ δ⋯ φυλ⋯ττοντα τ⋯ν οὖσαν ὑγιειν⋯ διαιτ⋯ματα. In other words, ὢν can be used in much the same sense as παρών. This is no novelty of Roman times, for we may compare, for instance, Soph. Ant. 1109, οἵ ' ὅντες οἵ τ'⋯π⋯ντες, and El, 305 τ⋯ς οὔσας … κα⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯πο⋯σας ⋯λπ⋯δας.

  • The Development of Aristotle's Theology—I.1

  • W. K. C. Guthrie
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 162-171

  • The work of Professor Jaeger on the Aristotelian metaphysics, and its modification by the late Hans von Arnim, have raised many new points of the greatest interest, and may, I hope, be considered as having opened up a large and fascinating new field for discussion rather than as having closed the matter. It is a subject which must be considered as a whole. There would be little profit in writing short notes on isolated points in the arguments of the two scholars. Anyone who, possessed of some previous acquaintance with the Aristotelian corpus, reads their work is inevitably stimulated to return to Aristotle with his mind full of fresh ideas. If after a re-examination of the texts he feels he has a different story to tell, he must tell it for himself. That is my excuse for an account which must include much which was always known and much which (as I would gratefully acknowledge) has arisen out of the work of Jaeger and von Arnim. My conclusions are not the same as theirs, and the argument must stand or fall as a consistent whole.

  • Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1227–32

  • J. C. Lawson
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 112-114

  • These lines of Cassandra's speech, as given in the MSS., run thus:

    νεν τ' ἄπαρχος Ἰλίου τ' ναστάτης

    οὐκ οἶδεν οἷα γλσσα μισητς κυνς

    λέξασα κα κτείνασα ϕαιδρνους, δίκην

    ἄτης λαθραίου, τεξεται κακῇ τχῃ.

    τοιάδε τολμ· θλυς ἄρσενος ϕονεὺς

    ἔστιν.

Summaries of Periodicals

Front matter

  • CAQ volume 27 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. f1-f5
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Research Article

  • Some Fragments of the Propaganda of Mark Antony

  • M. P. Charlesworth
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 172-177

  • The civil war which ended in the victory of Octavian and the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra is one of the most exciting but most obscure periods of Roman history, obscure mainly because the victor succeeded in imposing bis version of affairs upon his countrymen and through them on posterity. That is not to say that his version is necessarily completely false: the danger that threatened Rome was a real one, the national feeling that resulted in the coniuratio totius Italiae of 32 B.C. and that inspired Virgil and Horace later was not an artificial growth, though it was carefully tended. But in kindling the requisite war-feeling and in rousing the necessary enthusiasm both sides had to propagand for themselves, and in ancient times propaganda often became a matter of personal abuse and mud-slinging. In this Octavian's agents were perhaps more successful, though few nowadays (save writers of sensational novels) would accept the conventional portraits of Antony and Cleopatra as anywhere near the truth. But Antony's propaganda, though not so effective, was not obliterated by Octavian's victory; indeed a great deal of it is still preserved and masquerades as fact in histories of the period, where Octavian's personal character suffers badly.

Other

Summaries of Periodicals

Back matter

  • CAQ volume 27 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, p. b1
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Summaries of Periodicals

Research Article

  • A Test of the Spirensian Sources of Livy's Text in Books XXVI–XXX

  • S. K. Johnson
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 195-199

  • It may be of interest to supplement the latter part of Professor Conway's article by a note applying the same standards to estimating the value of the other sources on which (together with Rhenanus' incomplete record) we have to rely for our knowledge of the Spirensian tradition. Apart from ‘L’ and Harl. 2684 (which is Spirensian only from xxix. 3. 15 to xxx. 21. 12) Luchs used for this purpose three partially Spirensian sources: (a) the one fourteenth-century and four fifteenth-century MSS whose archetype he called ‘R’ (to be called θ in the Oxford Text) (b) V, the fifteenth-century Vat. Pal. 876, and (c) the fifteenth-century Flor. Laur. lxxxix. inf. 1. The last mentioned may be dismissed as practically valueless and as supplying little more than new corruptions from an unusually contaminated intermediary. In addition to these deteriores Luchs used the Agennensis (Harl. 2493), but only for the Spirensian supplement in Book xxvi' (where the omission in N is not supplied by any corrector) and for the last part of Book xxx (where A like N contains a supplement). He did not deal at all with the Spirensian textual correctors in A.

Front matter

  • CAQ volume 27 issue 2 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. f1-f5
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Other

Back matter

  • CAQ volume 27 issue 2 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, p. b1
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Research Article

  • The Structural Unity of the Protagoras

  • G. M. A. Grube
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 203-207

  • To speak of ‘the real subject’ or ‘the primary aim’ of a Platonic dialogue usually means to magnify one aspect of it at the expense of other aspects as important. Such is not my intention. It is quite clear, however, without prejudice to the philosophic value of any of the topics discussed, that the Protagoras is an attack upon the sophists as represented by Protagoras, the greatest of them. Hippias and Prodicus are present and some of the great man's glory is reflected upon them; they are also no doubt to some extent implicated in his defeat, though they seem quite unaware of the fact.

  • Studies on the Greek Reflexive—Herodotus a

  • J. Enoch Powell
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 208-221

  • Commenting on Thucydides I, 136: ναγκáζεται… παρ' αδμητον τòν Μολοσσѿν βασιλέα, ὅντα α ὐ τ ᾦ οὐ ϕλον, καταλσαι, Shilleto once wroteb: ‘After some thought I have acquiesced in αὐτᾦ, i.e. in Latin, qui ei (or ipsi) erat inimicus. Still inimicum suum would be as natural. In Latin MSS., as sui (suus) cannot be con-founded with is (ipse), a Critic of course more or less sees his way. But in Greek, as far as my experience goes, we are in a labyrinth without a clue.’

Summaries of Periodicals

Page 2 of 3