Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Classical Studies
  4. Classical studies (general)
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

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
×

60621 results in Classical studies (general)

Page 1551 of 3032

  • Notes on Euripides' Supplices1

  • C. Collard
  • Journal:
    The Classical Quarterly / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / December 1963
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 178-187
    Print publication:
    December 1963

  • This difficult passage has been much discussed and the text of L emended usually by rearrangement of the verses. The work of commentators before Wilamowitz is practically valueless, for their inexact knowledge of Theban topography, with which Euripides' account of this battle shows a good acquaintance, was based largely upon the unsatisfactory description of Pausanias: despite the good sense of Markland, they misunderstood 653.

  • Sun, Line, and Cave Again

  • John Ferguson
  • Journal:
    The Classical Quarterly / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / December 1963
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 188-193
    Print publication:
    December 1963

  • I Want in this paper briefly to contribute two points to the elucidation of this famous passage, and apologize for the fact that my possessing the same name as one of its most illustrious interpreters may add confusion to the doxographic tradition.

    The first point is not an original one. It is simply to revive an interpretation given by Henry Jackson in an article which strikes me as the most profound and pellucid which I have read on the subject, and which is in some danger of being forgotten. Raven, about ten years ago, insisted as a criterion of interpretation that the entire passage should be viewed ‘as a single and indivisible whole’. This is precisely what Jackson does, though he concentrates his attention, as indeed does Raven, on the line and the cave.

  • On the Interpretation of Aristotle, De Interpretations 12–13

  • R. S. Bluck
  • Journal:
    The Classical Quarterly / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / December 1963
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 214-222
    Print publication:
    December 1963

  • Chapters 12 and 13 of the De Interpretations present some puzzles, which it is my purpose to try to solve. The latest commentator, Professor Jaakke Hintikka, attempts in Acta Philosophica Fennica xiv (1962), 5–22, to abolish the difficulties by taking certain verbs in an unusual way. He suggests that in these chapters , which is usually taken to denote logical consequence, sometimes expresses simply compatibility (21b35–22a1, 22b11–14, 22b17–22), sometimes equivalence (22a14 and 33, 22b22ff., 23a18ff.), and that at 22a38ff., 22b3O, and 23a17 , which again is usually taken to denote consequence, in fact expresses compatibility. I propose to counter Hintikka's arguments and to maintain that both verbs express consequence; but as my main purpose is to give my own explanation of the general trend of Aristotle's remarks, I shall take the passages discussed by Hintikka in the order in which they occur in Aristotle's text.

  • Two Lines of Eumelus

  • C. M. Bowra
  • Journal:
    The Classical Quarterly / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / December 1963
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 February 2009, pp. 145-153
    Print publication:
    December 1963

  • Among the scanty remains of poetry attributed to Eumelus of Corinth two lines (fr. 13 Kinkel, fr. 1 Bergk, Diehl, Edmonds, fr. 696/1 Page)2 stand out as different from the rest, first because they are concerned not with the legendary past but with an actual, present occasion, and secondly because they are composed not for Corinthians but for Messenians. Our evidence comes from Pausanias and may be set out at the start:

Page 1551 of 3032