Bryn Mawr Classical Review

About the question in note 8. above, see S.TIMPANA...

2013-05-20T11:43:34.799-04:00

About the question in note 8. above, see S.TIMPANARO, 'Introduzione' and passim, in his edition (critical) and commentary in italian (not as widely known as it merits!):
CICERONE, la Divinazione, Milan, Garzanti, 1998(2).

This is an amazing work but there is one significa...

2013-05-14T05:04:03.725-04:00

This is an amazing work but there is one significant detraction and that is the trim size selected by the publisher.

Again, I emphasise this is not a criticism of the author or his exceptional work.

This is a large coffee-table sized work but the trim size and the nature of the analysis it contains are at odds. The book defies easy handling and this is the biggest reason I have not read it properly other than as a reference work. I cannot transport it to, for example, read on the train as I would normally do, and its is very unwieldy to read at a desk, especially if one is also taking notes. the attention demanded by depth and quality of the text are incongruous with the relaxed, coffee-table scenario its format demands, and I think this actually does the book a significant disservice. The publisher should seriously reconsider applying this kind of format to this kind of work, which is prejudiced by their poorly thought-out choice.

Thanks for drawing attention to this use of the wo...

2013-05-13T19:17:25.699-04:00

Thanks for drawing attention to this use of the word "handbook." In my view, it is nothing else than deceptive marketing.

I was glad to see this acknowledgement of Lucan...

2013-05-09T13:13:55.492-04:00

I was glad to see this acknowledgement of Lucan's important influence, and would like to add the unmentioned case of Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost, as a Caesar-figure in the epic. This was almost utterly neglected until recently. See Charles Martindale, John Milton and the Transformation of Ancient Epic. (London: Croom Helm, 1986); David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics,1627-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Without doubt E. Farinettis monograph is very usef...

2013-04-29T06:11:29.331-04:00

Without doubt E. Farinettis monograph is very useful and offers an important new synthesis of the topography of Boeotia. S. Gartland has very well presented all the advantages of this book, and I only take issue with one small point in case it gives the ignoramus the wrong impression. In his praise of Farinetti’s work, the reviewer has felt the obligation to criticize — mildly, it is true — the work of J.M.Fossey, a pioneer of Boeotian topography and epigraphy. One cannot understand Gartland’s passing reference to the "occasional caprices of a solo adventurer", an assessment that is said to apply to “much of Boiotian scholarship". He then goes on to hail the work of a modern team, which, we are let to believe, is superior to that of "solo adventurers”. May I point out that this category encompasses such great scholars as A. Keramopoullos, N. Pappadakis, M. Feyel, P. Roesch, S. N. Koumanoudis, S. Lauffer and K. Pritchett to name only a few? This comparison between two different modes of Boeotian research is anachronistic and ultimately unhelpful. The conditions which J.M. Fossey encountered in Boeotia back in the 60s and 70s are totally different from those offered by modern facilities.
I can think of no greater praise for Fossey’s work than the fact that Farinetti herself has used it abundantly in her voluminous monograph. So, even though, as per Sam Gartland “Boeotian Landscapes is a successor to John Fossey’s Topography and Population”, one should not get the wrong impression that the student of Boeotian history and topography can now do without consulting Fossey’s studies. It is my conviction that a great advantage of humanities, and in particular classical archeology, is that older bibliography especially when it is based on autopsy, as in the case of the work of J. M. Fossey, remains always relevant.

ON PAUL’S ROMAN CIVITAS: An interesting passage c...

2013-04-15T15:52:17.602-04:00

ON PAUL’S ROMAN CIVITAS:

An interesting passage concerning Paul’s Roman civitas appears in Acts XXII.22-29. Summarily, Paul is brought by the centurion [•katonτãrxhw] before the chiliarch/military tribune(?) [χιλίαρχος], after Paul tells the centurion that you cannot whip ἄνθρωπον Ῥωμαῖον. And a little later, the centurion to the chiliarch τί μέλλεις ποιεῖν; ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν. Chiliarch to Paul: Λέγε μοι, σὺ ῾Ρωμαῖος εἶ; ὁ δὲ ἔφη Ναί. Chiliarch: Ἐγὼ πολλοῦ κεφαλαίου τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην ἐκτησάμην. ὁ δὲ Παῦλος ἔφη Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγέννημαι. … καὶ ὁ χιλίαρχος δὲ ἐφοβήθη ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν ἦν δεδεκώς (cf. also XXIII.27-28: μαθὼν ὅτι Ῥωμαῖός ἐστιν) [see below].

The question then what was Paul’s nomen or gentilicium? And he had to have one, if a civis, and his civitas had to go through Rome. The name Παῦλος/Paulus alone is not proof that he was a civis. However, if Paul’s civitas was sponsored by Σέργιος Παῦλος, the proconsul (ἀνθύπατος, Acts XIII. 6-7), as assumed by some, then his name could have been Σέργιος Παῦλος/Sergius Paulus [but sponsoring takes time]. On the other hand, the change from Σαῦλος to Παῦλος/Paulus seems to have been influenced by the proconsul’s cognomen Παῦλος/Paulus, as Paul appears immediately therein with a double name Σαῦλος ὁ καὶ Παῦλος (XIII.9), that is, Saulos called also Paulos [the addition of Παῦλος as a compliment to the proconsul, an ἀνὴρ συνετός].

Lastly for briefness, one/two final comment(s) on this interesting passage. The chiliarch Κλαύδιος Λυσίας (Acts XXIII.22-30) told Paul that he had paid a good amount of money for the civitas (above: Ἐγὼ πολλοῦ κεφαλαίου τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην ἐκτησάμην), with Paul replying Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγέννημαι, from γεννάω, meaning that he had inherited the civitas from his father or grandfather, in which case his full name may have been Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Σαῦλος, later adding also the name Παῦλος/Paulus > Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Σαῦλος ὁ καὶ Παῦλος [and one should remember that Paul hailed from Tarsos/Tarsus, and Mark Antony is connected with Cilicia].

Elias Kapetanopoulos, Professor Emeritus,
History Department, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

The writer has studied the civitas in his dissertation [unpublished] The Early Expansion of Roman Citizenship into Attica during the First Part of the Empire, 200 BC-AD 70 [and selectively to AD 300] (Yale University, 1963/1964).

15 April 2013

I think the idea that Prometheus may have mistaken...

2013-04-12T16:43:51.129-04:00

I think the idea that Prometheus may have mistaken "the ultimate plan of Zeus" is difficult to defend. Actually, in this respect Aeschylus even softens the portrait of Zeus by presenting his genocidal tendencies as a plan that he eventually agreed not to implement. Other mythology sources aren't so kind. Hesiod explicitly reports that Zeus has exterminated the men of Silver Age for a trivial reason, while later writers say that the generation helped by Prometheus was obliterated by a deluge. It is curious how modern scholars have more piety to Zeus than ancient Greeks ever had.

Workbook, Part 1 P. 353, 36: ὡς ἐστὶν shou...

2013-04-12T08:50:13.170-04:00

Workbook, Part 1

P. 353, 36: ὡς ἐστὶν should read ὡς ἔστιν (Smyth § 187b).

P. A61: In the sentences illustrating direct and indirect statements, the article is missing before γυναῖκας in the indirect versions.

P. A87: The feminine nominative/vocative/accusative dual ending of three-termination adjectives of the first and second declensions in both eta and long alpha should be -ᾱ, not -ω; the feminine dual nominative/vocative/accusative of καλός and Ἀθηναίος should thus be καλά (long ultima) and Ἀθηναίᾱ, not καλώ and Ἀθηναίω; also Workbook, Part 2, p. A71.

P. A91: The feminine genitive/dative dual of the article is more commonly τοῖν than ταῖν; also Workbook, Part 2, p. A15.

P. A92: The feminine genitive/dative dual of the demonstratives οὗτος, ὅδε, and ἐκεῖνος are τούτοιν, τοῖνδε, and ἐκείνοιν, not ταύταιν, ταῖνδε, and ἐκείναιν; also Workbook, Part 2, p. A77.

P. A93: The feminine genitive/dative dual of the relative pronoun is more commonly οἷν than αἷν; also Workbook, Part 2, p. A78.

P. A106: For the feminine genitive plural second aorist middle participle παυσαμένων should be replaced with ἀγαγομένων.

Workbook, Part 2

P. 482, 12: There is no reason for the elision in ἆρ’ δύνανται.

P. 521, 35: σφετέρης should read σφετέρᾱς.

P. 542, 8: διδάξοντα με should read διδάξοντά με.

P. 581, 33: There is no reason for the first elision in ἰστ’ μετ’ ἐμοῦ.

P. 582, 36: ἄνδρες ὄντες … χρησόμενοι should be accusative to agree with ἡμᾶς.

P. 611, 14: (φέρε νυν …) εἴπω seems to be hortatory (Smyth § 1797b) but is punctuated with a semicolon (question mark) as if deliberative.

P. 668, 8: Two possibilities are requested for ἴοι, which can only be third person singular present active optative of εἶμι.

P. 668, 11: Two possibilities are requested for ἀπιέναι, which can only be present active infinitive of ἄπειμι (εἶμι), on the assumption that students are not expected to recognize it as the Ionic infinitive of ἀφίημι.

P. 669, 14: ω should presumably read ἴω.

P. 669, 19: Two possibilities are requested for ἴοιεν, which can only be third person plural present active optative of εἶμι.

P. 777, 37: πονηρτάτοις should read πονηροτάτοις.

P. 790, 28: ἐπέχειρουν should read ἐπεχείρουν.

P. 812, 2: In the fourth sentence, ἐδέησε should have a nu movable before ὴμᾶς.

P. A46: In the chart on the present imperative of ἵστημι, ἵστάτω should read ἱστάτω.

P. A80: In the second person dual the Homeric forms σφῶι and σφῶιν should be marked with diereses (i.e., σφῶϊ, σφῶϊν) to show that the iotas are not adscript.

P. A84: The uncontracted second person singular present middle/passive indicative of τῑμάω is given twice as τῑμάῃ, the second instance of which should read τῑμάει.

P. A91: In the third person singular aorist middle subjunctive παύθηται should read παύσηται. In the third person dual aorist middle subjunctive παυσήσθον should read παύσησθον.

P. A108: In the second and third persons dual aorist active subjunctive of φύω, φύτον should read φύητον.

P. A111: In the third person dual imperfect active indicative of ἵημι, ἵετην (long antepenult) should read ἱέτην (long antepenult).

P. A114: In the second person plural present active subjunctive of δείκνυμι, δείκνυητε should read δεικνύητε.

P. A117: In the third person plural aorist active optative of ἵημι, εἷσαν should read εἷεν. In the second person singular aorist middle optative, εἷσο should read εἷο. In the third person singular aorist active optative of ἵστημι, σταίην should read σταίη.

P. A119: In the third person singular aorist middle imperative of ἵημι, ἕσθων should read ἕσθω.

P. A121: In the neuter nominative singular of the aorist active participle of δίδωμι, δοῦν should read δόν.

Textbook, Part 1 P. 46: In the parenthesis...

2013-04-12T08:36:11.472-04:00

Textbook, Part 1

P. 46: In the parenthesis after the last example, αἰτίά (long ultima) should read αἰτίᾱ.

P. 57: ἆρα μή expects a negative, not positive answer (Smyth § 2651).

P. 102: The active and middle τιμάω and τιμάομαι (not only middle) regularly govern the dative of the person (not accusative) and genitive of the penalty; with the genitive of value, τιμάομαι regularly governs things in the accusative, not people (Smyth 1373-74, LSJ s.v.).

P. 122: In the genitive plural of the paradigm of ἄρχων, ἄρχόντων should read ἀρχόντων.

P. 166: In the first example, in the phrase τὴν ὁδὸν ἅπᾱσαν, translated “every road,” the article should be omitted.

P. 192: In the pentameter scheme the foot division in the first dactyl after the caesura is spurious.

P. 253: πεπαῦθαι (× 3) should read πεπαῦσθαι.

P. 257: In chart illustrating constructions of indirect statement governed by different verbs, it should be indicated that ἀκούω may govern subject accusative and infinitive (Smyth § 2144; cf. LTRG Textbook, Part 1, p. A34; Workbook, Part 1, p. A62; Textbook, Part 2, p. A62; Workbook, Part 2, p. A177).

P. 272: At X. Cyn. 13.1 γέργραπται should read γέγραπται.

P. 306: In the principal parts of ζεύγνυμι, ἐζύγνη should read ἐζύγην.

P. 307: Abbreviation of Silenus should be Σι., not Σε.

Textbook, Part 2

P. 315: ἑβδομηκοστος is missing an accent on the ultima.

P. 355: ποίκιλος, ποικίλη, ποίκιλον should read ποικίλος, ποικίλη, ποικίλον.

P. 387, Observation 1: In the last sentence “future middle” should read “present middle.”

P. 389, 5: Attic of ἀεθλίη is ἀθλίᾱ (contracted, long antepenult), not ἀεθλίᾱ.

P. 391, 17: In the vocabulary glosses, ᾕμενος should read ἥμενος.

P. 410: In the principal parts of κιβδηλεύω, ἐκιβήλευσα should read ἐκιβδήλευσα.

P. 422: In the second example sentence for συμφέρω, οὺκ before τοῖς should read οὐ.

P. 461, 31: In principal parts of περιβάλλω, περέβαλον should read περιέβαλον.

P. 463, 41: “Isomachus” should read “Ischomachus.”

P. 477: In the vocabulary glosses, in the third principal part of ἐξετάζω, ἐξέτασα should read ἐξήτασα.

P. 553: In the vocabulary entry for Ἄμμων, Ἀμμωνος should read Ἄμμωνος.

P. 567, Observation 4: “future middle” should read “present middle/passive.”

P. 569: In the paradigm of the aorist middle indicative, ἐθόμεθα should read ἐθέμεθα.

P. 579: At Ar. Nu. 96 πνγεύς should read πνιγεύς.

P. 588: In the vocabulary glosses, Διονῡσίος should read Διονύσιος (accented, long antepenult).

P. 587, 51: In the principal parts of περικαλύπτω, περεκάλυψα and περεκαλύφθην should read περιεκάλυψα and περιεκαλύφθην.

P. 595: οὗ in the phrase μέχρι οὗ is relative, not the equivalent of Attic τοῦ.

P. 648: In the vocabulary glosses οὐ τι should read οὔ τι.

P. 664: AP 7.525 is not about Battus, founder of Cyrene, but his namesake, Callimachus’s father.

P. 668: At Hom. Od. 1.21 ἥν is the possessive adjective of the third person, not the equivalent of Attic τήν.

P. 676: In the vocabulary note for ναῦς, every instance of ϡ (sampi) should read Ϝ (digamma).

P. 684: εἴη should be parsed as third, not second person singular.

P. 697, 18: In the vocabulary glosses φλόξ is missing its accent.

P. 697, 19: At Ar. Ra. 1464 σφέτερον should read σφετέρᾱν.

P. 713: At Pi. N. 6.4 προσφέρομεν means “resemble” (LSJ s.v. προσφέρω A.III), not “offer; contribute,” and ἔμπαν means “at any rate, yet” (LSJ s.v. ἔμπας [A] III), not “similarly.”

P. 714: In the vocabulary gloss for ἀκροάομαι, ἠκροάθην is missing its accent.

P. 720: In the vocabulary gloss for χελιδών, χελιδῶνος should read χελιδόνος.

P. 724: In the vocabulary gloss for ἄλοχος, ἄλοχου should read ἀλόχου.

P. 728: In the vocabulary glosses ἐμβάλλω is missing its accent.

Eugene Afonasin writes: Notes to the Commentary ...

2013-04-09T22:34:18.578-04:00

Eugene Afonasin writes:

Notes to the Commentary

p. 223 ad 2.2.26–29. I see no reason for attributing of the second part of Iamblichus’ De anima fr. 32 (Finamore–Dillon) to Galenus. I would rather take this to belong to Iamblichus himself.

p. 224 ad 2.3.39–40. Aristotelian testimony quoted, where he says that according to the Orphics “an animal comes into being in the same way as the knitting of a net”, is actually the Generation of Animals, 734a16-20, not 733b17-20.

p. 234 ad 5.8.83. On the question of analogy and homonymy the reader is referred to an unspecified place in the Poetics. I would suggest trying the Rhetoric 1406b20 ff. and 1407а14. Ср. the Anon. prolegomena 27.

p. 250, ad 7.3.23–25. Concerning heliotropes and selenotropes, one can also have a look at the Proclan On the sacred art 149.12 ff (cf. Stephen Ronan’s translation, and Dioscorides De materia medica 4.37, vol. 1, p. 196.13 Wellmann (on kunosbatos or selenotropion, mentioned by Wilberding, ad. loc.).

p. 251, ad 8.3.25–37. Strictly speaking ὑστέρα and μήτρα are not synonymous. Maybe it is the case for Plato, Tim. 91b7, but in Aristotle, just before a place from the History of Animals 582b22–27, quoted in the commentary, he says that «forked» ὑστέρα or δελφύς is the womb, while the tube or orifice of it (ὁ καυλὸς καὶ τὸ στόμα τῆς ὑστέρας) is termed μήτρα (510b13).

p. 255 ad 10.1.7–8. I would add the most interesting place from Clemens Alexandrinus, the Stromateis 6.15.119.1–4, where he offers a philosophical and pedagogical interpretation of the process of grafting and inoculation.

p. 275–277 ad 11.4. To this note, full of references to Fourier transform and the quotes from musicological literature, one could add a more relevant reference: in his Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics (65.21 ff.) Porphyry summarizes the acoustical ideas, expressed by certain Panaetius (not the Stoic), the phenomenon of resonance included.

p. 284 ad 12.6.51–52. On the question of superfoetation, reference to Generation of Animals 4.7, 773-774b is misleading. Actually, 4.5, 773a30 ff. is about the phenomenon in question, while, after 4.6 (on birth defects), goes 4.7, 775b25 ff., about the phenomenon of “mole” also referred to by Porphyry (here and in the damaged part of 17.4).

p. 291 ad 13.6.48. Concerning the Platonic division of the soul and the question of the seat of intelligence, I would also adduce an evidence from the Hippocratic On the sacred disease 17.

Miscellaneous notes

p. 7 gives “supp. gr. 635”, while elsewhere (p. 121 etc.) it is “suppl. gr. 635”.

p. 175, marginal numbering is a line down.

p. 254, “Medecine”, must be “Medicine”.

p. 332, ET of 3.2 ‘by means if (must be OF) organs…’

p. 324, ‘’’animal’’.

p. 327, ET of 6.2. ‘intellect’ and ‘Intellect’ (as if these are to different intellects). The French translation gives it correctly.

p. 333 12 (2) the numbering is missing.

Back cover: one of the primary authors, T. Dorandi is not mentioned among the contributors, while, on the contrary, C. Castelletti and E. Vermon, listed here, are omitted from the title page.

Eugene Afonasin writes: 3.3.18 ff. …διὰ μόνης δὲ ...

2013-04-09T22:32:07.427-04:00

Eugene Afonasin writes:

3.3.18 ff. …διὰ μόνης δὲ τῆς καλουμένης ἐντεριώνης διαπνεῖται τὰ φυτά, …animals breath (ἀναπνεῖν) through nostrils,… plants breath (διαπνεῖται) only through the so-called ‘marrow’ (Chase’s tr.). In this case the term ‘marrow’ is better to replace with ‘medulla’, since marrow is usually related with the animals, and, more importantly, to translate ἀναπνεῖν and διαπνεῖται differently. The French translation also has ‘respirent’ in both cases. I would opt for the solution, proposed by Wilberding, who translates ἀναπνεῖν as ‘breath’ (for animals), while διαπνεῖται as ‘transpire’ (for plants), which definitely captures the meaning better (plants do not breath after all, but receive air through pores). l also think that it is important to keep the term ‘chorion’, avoiding its replacement by ‘placenta’ (3.3. and again 10.3): the ancients knew the difference between chorion and amnion. Similarly, νεύρων at 13.4.35 are not nerves, but sinews.

4.11, p. 325 ταὐτὸ δ' ἄν τις εἴποι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐμβρύου, καὶ ἔτι γε μᾶλλον <ὃ> ἐπάγει περὶ τοῦ φυτοῦ, ἐπεὶ κἀκείνῳ ὡσαύτως πρόσεστι… Chase: The same could be said about of the embryo, as could, with even greater justification, what he adds about plants, since this <property> belongs identity (!) to the former. Must be : …since this in a similar manner applicable to the embryos.

Generally, it appears that M. Chase often prefers Kalbfleisch’s edition, cf. for instance, 5.5.50 (Dorandi and the French tr. accept the manuscript reading, ζῷον, against K. κυηθὲν). Ср. 11.2.24 (Dorandi: ὁ νάφθας ἁφθεὶς ἁφθέντι πυρὶ ἐξάπτεται οὐ διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ τόπου / Chase: ὁ νάφθας ἁφθεὶς ἁφθέντι πυρὶ...), or 6.2.2.28 Ms. λέγεται / K. ἄγεται / FT: mais elle est dit… / Chase: it is led by reason.

6.1.7. χρῴζοντας μὲν οὐδαμῶς could, interestingly, mean both ‘not by coloring it (pneuma)’ (Chase) or ‘without touching it in any way’ (Wilberding ). The FT gives: ‘non pas en le colorant’, so we will never know what the daimones do with the forms, but, the former is more probable, given the Sentence 23, where Porphyry says that ‘pneuma’ is by nature “invisible and dark”.

7.3.22-29. ὡς οὖν καὶ διψᾶν λέγεται ταῦτα καὶ πάλιν κόρον ἴσχειν ἀφαντάστως, καὶ ὥσπερ πρὸς ἥλιόν τινα τρέπεται καὶ συμπεριάγεται συμμεταφερόμενα ταῖς κλίσεσι πρὸς τὰς ἐκείνου καμπάς, τὰ δὲ καὶ σχίζεται πρὸς τὴν σελήνην καὶ διανοίγεται εἰς χάσματα μεγίστης διαστάσεως, τὰ δ' ἤδη καὶ πρὸς χάρακας ὥσπερ χεῖρας ἐκτείνει τὰς ἕλικας, οὑτωσὶ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰς θέρμας φυσικῶς τινα πάλλει.
Wilberding translates this sentence as following: “Hence, just as these plants are said to be thirsty or again to be sated without having representation… still other plants stretch their tendrils out like hands towards their vine-props, and in this same way some [plants] also sway in a natural manner towards heat”.
The French translators differ in details but still in the last clause have ‘…certaines tressaillent naturellement sous l’effet de la chaleur’.
πάλλω could equally mean sway, wave, and jump, and, given the structure of the previous paragraph, it is natural to suppose that here Porphyry again compares plants with embryos, which previously known to jump because of excessive heat (5.1). Therefore I would prefer M. Chase’s translation: ’Just as plants are said to be thirsty…., so <embryos> naturally jump under the influence of heat (p. 328)’.

11.2.25 and also Comm. ad loc., p. 271. ἡ μαγνῆτις λίθος κατὰ συγγένειαν φύσει τὰ σιδήρια καὶ <….> τὰ κάρφη. I see absolutely no reason to keep the text as it stands and translate ‘…the Magnesian stone attracts iron filings and bits of straw’. It is clear that it is ἤλεκτρος, amber, which attracts τὰ κάρφη, as everybody knows from school. The experiment is well attested in Antiquity and Avicenna in his Canon of Medicine says that amber is named kahrobaa after its ability to ‘steal straw’ (s.l. Kaf, 340).

Eugene Afonasin writes: Notes to the Text and Tran...

2013-04-09T22:29:40.039-04:00

Eugene Afonasin writes:
Notes to the Text and Translations

2.1.5 <ὁ> ὅρος ὁ ταύτης γίγνεται (cf. τὸν καιρὸν τῆς εἰσκρίσεως a few lines below) I would, together with the French translators, take to mean (determining) “when this [the entrance of the soul] takes place” [“quand elle a lieu”], while M. Chase rendering: «its definition» is less convincing.

2.1.10. “lequel doit se situer après l’accouchement quand les choses ont suivi leur cours naturel’ (Brisson et al.) and “It must take place after birth from the womb, when this occurs naturally” (Chase), looks a bit misleading, as if the soul will not enter the body, if it is born ‘unnaturally’. I have no idea what the latter could mean, but I would suggest the following translation: “…after it is naturally born from the womb”.

2.3. Generally speaking, Porphyry does not seem to be much concerned with the appropriate medical terminology. So sometimes do the translators. For instance, it would be a good idea to translate ἐκ γαστρὸς ‘from the belly’, not “from the womb”, since within few lines of the text we often find expressions like ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, ‘in the womb’ properly so speaking, while, on the other hand, ‘belly’ still can sometimes mean ‘stomach’ (7.2). Apparently the context matters.
A striking example is 2.3.48-52. …ὅταν τις τὰς εἰσκρίσεις παραιτησάμενος τίθεσθαι μετὰ τὰς ἐκ τῆς μητρὸς ἀποκυήσεις εἰς τὰ κατὰ γαστρὸς ἔτι ὄντα καὶ τὴν ἐνταῦθα ἀδηλίαν ἐπάγῃ τὰ γιγνόμενα. We have the following translation: … pour avoir refusé de situer l’entrée de l’âme après l’accouchement, on la renvoie au processus de la gestation…
Chase renders it thus: …because one refuses to situate the entries <of the soul after birth>, one attributes what happens to things (sic!) that are still in the womb…
Festugière is less helpful here then usually: … pour s’être refusé à placer l’entrée de l’âme après l’enfantement hors du sein maternel, …
I take it to mean the following: …refuses to situate the [soul’s] entrance after [the child’s birth] by its mother, having assigned this [event] to [the embryos (pl.)] that are still in the belly…
Porphyry says ‘belly’, not ‘womb', and it is better to keep this. Another example is 2.5.64: τὸ κυούμενον is translated l’embryon (Chase, correctly, ‘fetus’, Festugière, also correctly, ‘le fruit’); cf., again, 3.1.6-7. Of course, unlike the Hippocratic doctors or Galen, Porphyry did not adopt the concept of gradual development of the fetus, and did not employ the special terminology, like γονή, κύημα, ἔμβρυον, and παιδίον, found in Galen (On semen 92.19–94.11 De Lacy; IV 542 ff. K.), but if he for some reasons distinguished between, say, τὸ κυούμενον and ἔμβρυον, let us allow him at least this little, and a note to 3.1.5-6 (p. 226) is quite unconvincing in this respect. Or take 5.1.3: …ῇ γαστρὶ τῆς μητρὸς… which Chase renders as “hot air contacts their’s mother’s womb” (!). Definitely the ‘belly’ will be more appropriate in this case (in the French translation it is, correctly, ‘le ventre’).
By the way, 2.5. Chase’s (p. 321) <soul’s entry> must be: <soul’s> entry.

2.3.39. Here we have an interesting expression: …ἣ χορηγὸς ἦν τοῦ σπέρματος, translated as: … la nature qui fournit le sperme…. the nature that supplies the sperm… I would suggest, following Wilberding, to preserve the wording: …the nature that was the seed’s orchestrator... Ср. 10.3., where an umbilical cord supplies (χορηγεῖται) the fetus with air and food.

J. Mouratidis writes: Unfortunately the reviewer...

2013-04-05T12:43:14.263-04:00

J. Mouratidis writes:

Unfortunately the reviewer, has not shared his own opinion on the above approch with us, although he does warn readers that I am not familiar with the sources, and that I am not entitled to a view on the said Commentary, given that my field is the history of physical education, not philology. It is hard to imagine a statement more mistaken. Apart from anything else, the reviewer is here betraying his strong desire, indeed his desperate efforts, to monopolize this field of knowledge. When the reviewer claims that the book contains nothing new, saying that “Nearly all the possible permutations involving the halma have been entertained by scholars: ...” he is indulging in a gross simplification, probably implying, and perhaps assuming, that similar interpretations to my own are to be found elsewhere. All he need do is refer us to the articles or books in question. For my part, after studying the subject for years, I am not aware of any such material, nor am I aware that such material is familiar to other scholars.

To conclude this brief response to Dr Brunet’s review, I must insist that every student of ancient athletics – even those who already know a great deal about the jump in the ancient pentathlon- will find within the pages of my book many new interpretations, views and approaches, to which the reviewer makes no reference and on which he has no comment to make. Why is this? I should like to observe to Dr Brunet that while only time will tell whether or not a book contains truths, whether or not it contains new ideas should be – to those well versed in the subject - immediately apparent.

Notes:

[[1]] See Gardiner 1903, 54; 1910, 362, 63; Bean 1956, 361; Harris 1963; 1964, 77; Ebert 1963, 2-6; Sweet 1983, 287-90; 1987, 56; Weiler 1988, 190-91; Kyle 1990, 291; Jackson 1991, 178; Matthews 1995, 132-33; Golden 1998, 69; Lee 2001, 46-47; Decker 2004, 143.

J. Mouratidis Ph D Professor
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Greece

J. Mouratidis writes: I have not previously respon...

2013-04-05T12:42:15.759-04:00

J. Mouratidis writes:
I have not previously responded to reviews of my work, but I believe that on this occasion a response is required. Before Dr Brunet begins his review proper, he raises a number of fundamental, and very familiar questions concerning the jump in the ancient pentathlon, concluding with some degree of glibness that: ‘… our inability to answer these questions is not due to a lack of evidence’. Many leading scholars would take issue with this view.[[1]] Dr Brunet’s position is disappointing, perhaps most of all to those of us who have made a study of the matter in question. The question of the jump in the ancient pentathlon is perhaps the most vexed and complex issue in the whole field of ancient Greek physical education, due to the paucity of ancient sources and the difficulty of interpreting those sources that are available.

The reviewer appears to believe that my book is an introductory survey of the jump in the ancient pentathlon, of value to students and to those not familiar with the subject and adding nothing new to the sum of our knowledge. Dr Brunet does not seem to have read the book carefully, particularly the two sections (pp. 55-80) which form, in my view, the very heart of the argument. It is evident that the reviewer’s claim is arbitrary and groundless. He has wrongly asserted there is nothing new in my book whereas there are, as every informed reader will find out, a number of new approachings interpretations and views:

1. The way in which the jumpers performed the jump and the manner in which they used their weights when performing the triple jump, that is, the number - one problem in our understanding of the jump in the ancient pentathlon.
Why does not the reviewer comment in the athlete’s performance of the triple jump, as described in the pages of the book and in plate B? Is a similar interpretation to be found anywhere in the literature? Does Dr Brunet really know of any other similar approach to this complex problem?

2. The jump without halteres being an event in the ancient pentathlon. In fact it was the most ancient form of jump in the pentathlon.
Dr Brunet does not tell us whether he agrees with the above interpretation.

3. The possible position of the skamma in the ancient stadium.
Is the reviewer aware of a similar interpretation of this question based on the art of the period? Here too, the reviewer fails to inform us whether he agrees with the approach I take.

4. The origin of the long jump in the ancient pentathlon.
Dr Brunet makes no reference to the interpretation offered for the first time in the section. Can he point us to any similar approach to this so important and difficult question? Not even here can the reviewer admit that I have anything to contribute.

5. Symmachus’ contention (about the position of the bater) δὲ τὸ μέσον, ἀφ’ οὗ ἁλόμενοι πάλιν ἐξάλλονται and the possible length of the ancient skamma.
Does the reviewer agree or disagree with my view? Once again fails to tell us.

6. The placing of the feet on the bater, after two jumps and the interpretation of the phrase ἀφ’ οὖ καί τὸν βατῆρα κέκρουκεν.
Why does the reviewer not comment on the above approach? Is a similar approach to be found in the international literature?

7. A new approach to the Commentary of Themistius on Aristotle’s Physics 172.26.

Thank you for this good review. I would just like ...

2013-04-02T13:57:42.836-04:00

Thank you for this good review. I would just like to point out that, as the title page says, I contributed to the general introduction as well, and that the following part was researched and written by me: "This is common knowledge among Plotinians, but Narbonne's (actually ACHARD'S) discussion argues persuasively that Plotinus would have been content for his 'three' to be called hypostases, on the basis of his use of the term in 33 (II 9), 6, 1-2, and the plausible assumption that he accepted the title of 10 (V 1), reported by Porphyry as among those of the early treatises which, though given by others, had 'prevailed' (Life 4, 16-19). Narbonne (actually ACHARD) rightly stresses that the use of hupostasis as a philosophical technical term by Alexander of Aphrodisias is likely to have influenced its adoption by Plotinus." MARTIN ACHARD (martin.achard@hotmail.com)

The prejudice expressed in the doctor's spoof ...

2013-03-20T05:31:55.168-04:00

The prejudice expressed in the doctor's spoof Doric is that a Dorian doctor was likely to be better than an Athenian (Alexis fr. 146 Kassel-Austin); English translators have likewise used pseudo-Scots because of the confidence that a douce Scottish accent (not Glaswegian if you please) instils in English patients. I touched on this in ‘Selinus or Athens?’, Classical Quarterly, new series, 59 (2009), 624–6. It is emphatically not mockery of Dorians (or of Scots); if anyone is mocked it is the gullible Athenians (and English).

I am grateful for Adam Goldwyn's thoughtful an...

2013-03-05T10:26:24.277-05:00

I am grateful for Adam Goldwyn's thoughtful and fair review of my Southern African Iliad translation.

I just wish to add that the place to order my book is www.southernafricaniliad.com.

And a couple of comments:

1) I was very conscious that the opening lines of my translation were the place to signal the Southern African element. That is why I used 'inkosi' (= Standard English 'lord') in the first sentence of the translation, at line 7. The reviewer missed this, supposing that 'impis' in line 10 was the first Southern African reference.

2) I intended the Southern African character of my translation to be more than a matter just of vocabulary. Even when not using Southern African terms, I tried to suggest that the Homeric world was a smaller-scale one than Anglo-American translations generally do - closer to a tribal society of small chiefdoms than one of European monarchies and nation-states. Hence I never use 'king' (except once in error! - I'll correct this in a reprint), 'prince', 'palace' or' city', but instead 'chief', 'home' and 'town' - usages which, I think, create an atmosphere significantly different from that of Anglo-American translations.

3) George Steiner certainly wrote about the Iliad, but did he ever translate it? I'm not aware that he did.

Manchmal denke ich, dass diese Kriege mit Absicht ...

2013-03-01T03:15:25.065-05:00

Manchmal denke ich, dass diese Kriege mit Absicht gemacht und es ist eigentlich profitable

I have not read this book, but if the reviewer is ...

2013-02-28T09:06:41.836-05:00

I have not read this book, but if the reviewer is correct in saying that Kalimtzis argues that Judeo-Christian thought uniformly emphasized eradicating anger rather than taming it, he is ignoring the rich vein of ethical material, particularly in ascetical works from the rise of monasticism in late antiquity, that call for a taming of anger for internal use against harmful passions -- a page taken from Plato, among others.

I am very surprised at this and other reviews whic...

2013-02-27T04:44:45.308-05:00

I am very surprised at this and other reviews which suggest this is the first book on retail shops or tabernae. Have the reviewers not noticed:
The Taberna Structures of Roman Britain. By A. MacMahon. British Archaeological Reports British Series. 356. Archaeopress, Oxford, 2003.
And articles and book chapters by the same author?

John Bintliff
Leiden/Edinburgh University

Review copies of book available from publishers we...

2013-02-26T15:28:00.420-05:00

Review copies of book available from publishers website
http://www.brownwalker.com/contact

the right review for an historical day! perfect ti...

2013-02-12T11:05:38.904-05:00

the right review for an historical day! perfect timing

The title and subtitle of this book seem at odds w...

2013-02-11T13:27:05.176-05:00

The title and subtitle of this book seem at odds with each other. The subtitle promises a method for learning the language but the title is all about translating. From the review, and the preview at Amazon, the title seems more accurate. Would this book be useful for someone who wants students to be able to read Latin as Latin? To start developing actual fluency? To get the sense, and the details, of a passage in Latin without going through English? We've got lots of how-to-translate textbooks already.

Is anyone who has tried this text in the classroom...

2013-02-10T16:31:14.467-05:00

Is anyone who has tried this text in the classroom willing to give an opinion?

Indeed, Diamantopoulou’s statements were both nati...

2013-02-07T13:27:56.800-05:00

Indeed, Diamantopoulou’s statements were both nationalist and racist, which may have prejudiced your reading of the book. However, I still find the authors’ ambition to contribute to the study of the Greek language, literacy and its contexts, the diffusion of alphabets etc quite legitimate. As Prof. Janko states in his comment above, these are extraordinary discoveries and this book makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of early writing among other things. Yes, the writing in question happens to be Greek and the site happens to be in Northern Greece. If these were finds from Pithekoussai no one would even think of branding this same publication a nationalist project. To my mind, your piece still reads like a vociferous retort, and your rather offensive suggestion that I should brush up my archaeological ethics or check the “dictionary of Triantafyllides” seems to confirm this. I have no intention on continuing this discussion; I suspect, however, that the contributors to this volume will have much to say in defence of their work, and I look forward to hearing from them in due course.