bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Knowledge and forms in Plato's Theaetetus
Authors: Hicken Winifred F. 
Published: May 2006

In the last pages of the Theaetetus Socrates is made to present four versions of a final attempt to define knowledge, as true opinion accompanied by logos, and to reject them all; yet in earlier dialogues ‘ability to give account’, λόγον ἔχειν or λόγον διδόναι δύναδθαι is closely associated with knowledge, not always, or not necessarily, knowledge of Forms, and in the Republic it is said to be the essential mark of the dialectician. These facts are exceedingly hard to interpret. In recent years the passage has been read as an indirect defence of the earlier theory of Forms, as the statement of a problem answered in the Sophist by a revision of that theory and as a piece of radical self-criticism. No one of these interpretations seems tome without difficulty, and in this article I shall attempt to argue for yet another solution which owes something to all three.Professor Cornford, pressing the fact that Socrates draws all his illustrations from the world of concrete things, believes that Plato intended by criticism of the different versions to point the way to an old and invulnerable sense of λόγον διδόναι, which implies that the proper objects of knowledge are Forms. This is the statement or understanding of grounds for judgments which in the Meno is said to turn true opinion into knowledge. A rather similar line has been taken by Professor Cherniss. Professor Stenzel thinks that the earlier theory of Forms is vulnerable to Socrates' criticism of what I call ‘the first version’, the ‘dream’, but he believes that all three of the later versions ‘recover their meaning’ when the problem of definition has been solved in the Sophist with the help of the method of diaeresis; and so restated they can be shown to apply to particulars as well as to Forms.
The Structure and Function of the Melian Dialogue
Authors: Liebeschuetz W. 
Published: May 2006

Thucydides' account of the events at Melos in 416–15 B.C. falls into two parts, the famous dialogue in which representatives of Melos and of Athens discuss the submission of Melos, and a series of notes about the siege of the city culminating in the account of its destruction. But as I shall try to show, the two sections form part of a single whole. The discussion between the negotiators centres on two topics. In the first half of the dialogue the speakers discuss the expediency of forcing Melos into the Athenian Empire, in the second they discuss the likelihood of the Melians resisting successfully. But since the Melians are offered no alternative to becoming subjects except complete destruction, and since they are clearly not ready to choose the safe but dishonouring alternative, even though they have no chance of defending their city successfully, the inevitable destruction of Melos casts its shadow over the whole of the negotiations.Many of the arguments used in the discussion are equally relevant to the destruction and to the subjection of Melos. This is partly a result of the Athenian aim: to impress their island-subjects with their power. This they can achieve by forcing Melos to become a subject—but equally well by destroying it. On the level of expediency the Athenian argument would be equally applicable to either course, and the tactlessness of the Athenians suggests that they are not much concerned which of the two they will adopt. The Melians on the other hand appear to anticipate their own rejection of the ultimatum and to include the consequences of this inevitable rejection within the scope of their arguments. So a debate about the expediency of forcing an independent state to forgo its freedom is at the same time a debate about the expediency of destroying an independent city that refuses to become a subject.
Xenophon, Critias and Theramenes
Authors: Usher S. 
Published: May 2006

The speeches of Critias and Theramenes form the central tableau of Xenophon's account of the reign of terror of the Thirty at Athens in 404–3 B.C. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the style and content of these speeches, in order to discover to what extent they may have been based on the texts of the original speeches. The vividness and pathos of the narrative of the siege of Athens, her surrender, the establishment of the Thirty and their expulsion have seemed to some commentators to have the quality of personal reminiscence. Recently the case for Xenophon's having been a witness of some of the events of this period has been argued anew, and in the present writer's view convincingly, by E. Delebecque, who refers to several passages which seem to convey personal impressions of events. Delebecque also argues, to the satisfaction of Sir Frank Adcock, that Xenophon composed this part of the Hellenica before setting out on the Cyreian Expedition. The acceptance of both these theses would add some weight to the present argument; but the possibilities here envisaged do not depend upon their support.According to Xenophon's account, both speeches were delivered before the βουλή. The members of this body had been chosen by the Thirty, so that it seems certain that they were men who were known to favour the oligarchy. But whatever were Xenophon's political views at the time, it is unlikely that he was old enough to be a member in 404 B.C. Hence it is improbable that he heard either speech. Four possibilities may therefore be considered:(1) That the substance of the speeches was reported to him from memory by a member, who perhaps took special pains to remember some of the purple passages.(2) That his informant took the speeches down in shorthand.(3) That Xenophon obtained complete copies of the speeches, and condensed them. (Both speeches as they stand are too short to be historical.)(4) That the speeches in the Hellenica are entirely the product of his imagination.
Painted Mycenaean Larnakes
Authors: Vermeule E. D. T. 
Published: May 2006

Nearly ten years ago the first specimens of a new group of painted Mycenaean sarcophagi, or larnakes, began to become known in Greece. They attracted immediate attention, and some disbelief. The group has not yet been studied as a whole, or evaluated as a relic of Aegean art, for the circumstances of discovery and dispersal have made close examination difficult. The scenes of mourning figures painted on them have considerable interest, however, and it seems timely to put together what is known about them in spite of the incomplete evidence. Once the larnakes become better known it will be a pleasurable task for scholars to relate them as harmoniously as possible to neighbouring monuments of Aegean painting and to the late Mycenaean environment which produced them.Until the discovery of these Greek larnakes, scholars rightly believed that the practice of using clay coffins for burial was essentially a Minoan one, not Mycenaean. The great number of larnakes on display in the Herakleion Museum in Crete demonstrates how widespread larnax-burial was in the Late Minoan period, apparently gathering momentum after the destruction of the Cretan palaces. While the earliest terracotta larnakes known in Crete are as old as the latter part of the Early Minoan period, they were not used extensively among the middle classes until the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. The first preserved wooden coffins of Crete are found in chamber tombs of sea-captains and soldiers who died in the late fifteenth century. Perhaps they adapted the custom from Egypt in an age when relations between coastal Crete and the Nile Valley were particularly active. One of the coffins in the harbour cemetery of Katsaba near Knossos was painted blue; otherwise there are no traces of rich surface elaboration in the Egyptian fashion. As far as one can tell from the rotted condition of wood in the Aegean climate, the Minoans did not use external face masks, or gilding, but made simply carpentered containers for simple inhumations.
A Fragment of Sculpture
Authors: Burn A. R. 
Published: May 2006

Many years ago, on my first visit to Greece, I scrambled down from the Temple at Sunium to bathe off the cape. Half-way down, I came across a fragment of worked marble c. 7 in. long, heavily discoloured on the fractured side; the break was ancient (Plate 111(a)). It was lying on a 20° slope, and just why its seaward journey had been interrupted at that point was not evident. I put it in my pocket and took it home, explaining it to myself and other people to whom I have shown it as a piece of an architectural moulding. Actually, its worked side, from end to end, is slightly concave, but I explained this as the result of wear.It was not until after many (far too many) years that, having still never seen an architectural moulding at all resembling my fragment, I began to wonder if it belonged to a piece of sculpture; and it was reserved for a student, Mr. James Picken, of Glasgow, to ask, ‘Could it be a piece of hair?’ Now at last I took the step of looking up Gerke's illustrations of a statue found at Sunium: the famous kouros. Its hair, I saw, was rendered in the manner of my fragment, with concave ‘waves’ meeting in salient ridges (Plate III(b)). Ifit had been rendered in the commoner manner, with convex waves, I might have been less slow to recognise it. Also, the kouros had a piece missing above the left shoulder, which, it seemed, might well be my fragment (Plate 111(c)). It only remained to take it to the National Museum at Athens, to have the great pleasure of finding that it was indeed the missing piece, and to leave it for re-attachment where it belongs.
The Orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt (According to Herodotus)
Authors: Griffiths J. Gwyn 
Published: May 2006

Herodotus has several references to the orders or companies of gods in Greece and Egypt, and they involve a comparison and a contrast.They may be arranged, in translation, as follows:(1) II, 4, 2. ‘They say that the Egyptians first used the names of the twelve gods, and that the Greeks adopted them from them.’(2) II, 7, 2 mentions ‘the altar of the twelve gods at Athens’.(3) II, 43, 2. ‘Concerning Heracles I heard this account, that he was one of the twelve gods.’(4) II, 43, 4. ‘But to the Egyptians Heracles is an ancient god; and as they say themselves, there were seventeen thousand years to the reign of Amasis since the eight gods produced the twelve, of whom they consider Heracles to be one.’(5) II, 46, 2. ‘The Mendesians hold Pan to be one of the eight gods, and they say that these eight gods came into existence before the twelve.’(6) II, 145, 1. ‘Among the Greeks Heracles and Dionysus and Pan are considered to be the youngest of the gods, but among the Egyptians Pan is considered very ancient and one of the eight gods said to be the earliest, while Heracles is one of the second group, and Dionysus one of the third group, who were produced by the twelve.’
Solon and the Megarian Question
Authors: French A. 
Published: May 2006

The capture of Salamis from Megara in the sixth century B.C. can safely be said to mark a turning-point in Athenian development. Considerations both of economics and defence would lead one to expect the island to be a natural bone of contention between the two mainland cities, and hence for it to be controlled by the one which was temporarily stronger. The surprising thing is that in the early part of the sixth century the stronger should have been Athens.We have, it is true, one piece of evidence which suggests that Athenian naval power and interests were already considerable in this period. This is the account, in Herodotus, Diogenes, and Strabo, of the struggle against Mytilene for Sigeion, a struggle terminated by the arbitration of Periander in favour of the Athenians. The causes and aims of the Athenian venture are a matter for speculation, but whether they went as traders, pirates, or settlers, or as all three, their going underlines the fact that there were in the Athenian community at the time a number of men who had invested their capital and were prepared to risk their lives in a distant naval venture: their successful opposition to the forces of Mytilene in its turn suggests that the naval strength at the disposal of the Athenians was correspondingly formidable. It is possible that the expedition began as a private venture, financed, directed, and executed by a band of interested Athenians without any official backing. In view of the position of Sigeion it seems most probable that the venture was connected with the flow of trade to and from the Pontus: Sigeion was perhaps the base at which friendly ships bound for Attica could find rest and refuge, and from which other ships coming from the straits could be raided with the object of diverting corn cargoes to the home market.
The second stasimon of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus
Authors: Carey C. 
Published: May 2006

The first strophe opens with a wish and a syntactical problem:εἴ μοι ξυνείη φέροντι μοῖρα τὰν εὔσεπτον ἁγνείαν λόγων ἔργων τε πάντων,…The sentence is often interpreted as though φέροντι were φέρειν: ‘may it be my destiny to possess’. However, for this meaning the infinitive is clearly required; there is no valid parallel for the use of the participle supposed here. Burton offers: ‘may a share of life be my companion provided that I win or possess purity’; purity is a precondition for life. This interpretation is possible but improbable, for the use of μοῖρα as a synonym for βίος would be obscure in this context. It is altogether easier to interpret with Kamerbeek: ‘would that Destiny were with me when I (“so long as I” or the like)’; the chorus hopes for the favour of fate, provided that this is earned by purity of word and deed. The hope thus embraces an intention to avoid all impurity of word or action. Against this interpretation it has been objected that μοῖρα is a constant presence, not a helpful power which might desert. However, συνεῖναι is attested with the sense ‘favour’ (Aesch. Sept. 671, Soph. OT 275); and the notion that fate may favour individuals or groups is attested (Pindar O. 2.35 ff., P. 3.85 f).
The Psychotherapy Scene in Euripides' Bacchae
Authors: Devereux G. 
Published: May 2006

I propose to demonstrate the clinical plausibility of the ‘psychotherapy scene’ of the Bacchae, which is subjected here to a purely psychiatric analysis: all my interpretations and conjectures are based on clinical data and psychiatric theory only. Euripides' objective and rational treatment of the irrational, the accuracy of his descriptions (not theories) of abnormal behaviour, which are compatible, down to the last detail, with descriptions found in modern psychiatric texts, and his capacity to present not simply a partial list of symptoms, but a coherent clinical picture (syndrome) are taken for granted and will not be discussed further in the present context. The focus of my enquiry is exclusively the psychiatric plausibility of Euripides' description of the psychotherapeutic process.It goes without saying that, since ‘instant cures’ are impossible, Euripides condensed a normally fairly long procedure into a single scene, selectively high-lighting only what would be the crucial moments of a real psychotherapy. His summary of the psychotherapy is as satisfactory as that of a modern psychiatrist. In fact, Euripides' masterly selectivity actually facilitates the understanding of the psychodynamics of Agave's recovery. This enables me to comment on the Euripidean text in exactly the same way as I commented on the verbatim transcript of the psychotherapy of one of my Plains Indian patients.
A Note on the Chrysanthina of Sardis
Authors: Fraser P. M. 
Published: May 2006

The periodic festival known as the Χρυσάνθινα celebrated at Sardis in the late Imperial period is known already from numerous inscriptions, noted below. This note concerns an unpublished letter of the year 1838, which contains a brief allusion to an inscription, apparently now lost, in which the festival is mentioned.In 1838 Henry Wentworth Acland, aged at the time 23, and an undergraduate of Christ Church, visited the Troad from H.M.S. Pembroke, in which he was cruising in the eastern Mediterranean for the sake of his health, to study the topography of that region.
The forethought of Themistocles
Authors: Holladay A. J. 
Published: May 2006

A recent discovery on the island of Aegina by Professor H. Walter (University of Salzburg) throws a new light on the origins of the so-called Aegina Treasure in the British Museum.In 1982 the Austrians were excavating the Bronze Age settlement on Cape Kolonna, to the north-west of Aegina town. Immediately to the east of the ruined Temple of Apollo, and close to the South Gate of the prehistoric Lower Town, they found an unrobbed shaft grave containing the burial of a warrior. The gravegoods (now exhibited in the splendid new Museum on the Kolonna site) included a bronze sword with a gold and ivory hilt, three bronze daggers, one with gold fittings, a bronze spear-head, arrowheads of obsidian, boar's tusks from a helmet, and fragments of a gold diadem (plate Va). The grave also contained Middle Minoan, Middle Cycladic, and Middle Helladic (Mattpainted) pottery. The pottery and the location of the grave in association with the ‘Ninth City’ combine to give a date for the burial of about 1700 BC; and the richness of the grave-goods would suggest that the dead man was a king.
Recollection and the argument ‘from a hypothesis’ in Plato's Meno
Authors: Bedu-Addo J. T. 
Published: May 2006

The dialogue begins with Meno's peremptory request: ‘Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue can be taught, or is it acquired by practice, not teaching …?’ (70a). Socrates protests that he does not know what virtue is, and hence cannot know whether it is teachable or not, explaining that in general if one does not know what a thing is, τί ἐστι, one cannot know what it is like, ὁποῖον (71b). He insists that the prior question of what virtue is must be settled before consideration of the subsequent question of whether it is teachable or not.In accordance with this principle, Socrates gets Meno to make attempts to offer a general definition of virtue. As in earlier dialogues, Socrates quickly reduces his interlocutor to aporia, and Meno refuses to make further attempts at defining virtue on the ground that no criterion of truth exists. Socrates sums up his argument thus: ‘It is impossible for a man to enquire into what he knows or into what he does not know. For he cannot enquire into what he knows, because he knows it, and there is no need for enquiry; nor again can he enquire into what he does not know, since he does not know about what he is to enquire into’ (80e). Socrates describes this paradox as a piece of eristic, but he does not dismiss it. To resolve it, he introduces the theory of recollection, ἀνάμησιρ (81a–e).
Medism: the origin and significance of the term
Authors: Graf David F. 
Published: May 2006

To designate collaborating with Persia, the Greeks employed the verbΜηδίζω‘side with the Medes’ or the nounΜηδισμός‘leaning toward the Medes, Medism’, both derived fromΜῆδος. Since this seemingly inappropriate terminology has attracted only limited consideration, a thorough discussion of its usage in Greek literature may help to clarify Greek relations with the Achaemenid empire throughout the classical period. After a brief preliminary discussion I consider the more problematic aspects of thisterminus technicus.It may be observed initially that such terms characterized the political relationships within the Greek world, and were encouraged by the struggle of eachpolisto maintain its independence and preserve its distinctive cultural qualities. For example, such terms as ‘Atticizing’ (Thuc. iii 62.2, 64.5) and ‘Laconizing’ (X.Hell.iv 4.2) arise during the contention for leadership in the Greek world in the late fifth and early fourth centuries.
The Nothoi of Kynosarges
Authors: Humphreys S. C. 
Published: May 2006

Our main pieces of evidence about the bastards who exercised in the gymnasium of Kynosarges not far outside the walls of Athens are the following:(1) Plutarch,Themistocles1: Themistocles' mother was a Thracian (or Carian) and he therefore exercised at the gymnasium of Kynosarges where thenothoiwere enrolled (syntelein), the gymnasium being sacred to Heracles because he, too, being the son of a divine father but a mortal mother, was anothosamong the gods. Themistocles persuaded aristocratic friends to exercise with him at Kynosarges and thus abolished social discrimination between pure-born Athenians andnothoi.
Merciful heavens? A question in Aeschylus' Agamemnon
Authors: Pope Maurice 
Published: May 2006

In discussions of Aeschylus' theology one of the passages most often quoted is the so-called ‘hymn to Zeus’ in the first chorus of the Agamemnon (Ag. 160–83). Fraenkel in his commentary goes so far as to call it ‘the corner-stone not only of this play but of the whole trilogy’. The passage concludes with two lines which in all modern editions are read as a statement, though our oldest manuscript, the Medicean, writes them as a question. Textually the difference is merely one of accent, but the difference of accent carries with it a reversal of meaning. As a statement the lines mean that the gods are something to be grateful for, that there is some χάρις or kindness associated with them. Taken as a question they deny this. Clearly then it is of great importance for the interpretation of Aeschylus to decide which is the correct reading.The lines in question, written without accents, areOur oldest manuscript, M, as I have said, writes ποῦ with an accent. So does our next oldest, the manuscript 468 of the Biblioteca di San Marco, generally known as V. If this reading stems uncorrupted from the time when accents were first applied to the text of Aeschylus and if at that time the oral tradition of the poet's words was not yet dead, then it will not be destitute of authority. But the thread is far too tenuous to bear any weight of proof.Equally there can be no argument from authority on the side of reading the lines as a statement. For though Triclinius and the closely associated manuscript F write που without an accent as an enclitic, this is as likely as not to be due to simple conjecture.
Plutarch's method of work in the Roman Lives
Authors: Pelling C. B. R. 
Published: May 2006

This paper is concerned with the eight Lives in which Plutarch describes the final years of the Roman Republic: Lucullus, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Caesar, Cato, Brutus, and Antony. It is not my main concern to identify particular sources, though some problems of provenance will inevitably arise; it is rather to investigate the methods which Plutarch adopted in gathering his information, whatever his sources may have been. Did he, for instance, compose each biography independently? Or did he prepare several Lives simultaneously, combining in one project his reading for a number of different works? Did he always have his source-material before him as he composed? Or can we detect an extensive use of memory? Can one conjecture what use, if any, he made of notes? And can we tell whether he usually drew his material from just one source, or wove together his narrative from his knowledge of several different versions?I start from an important assumption: that, in one way or another, Plutarch needed to gather information before writing these Lives; that, whatever may be the case with some of the Greek Lives, he would not be able to write these Roman biographies simply from his general knowledge. The full basis for this assumption will only become clear as the discussion progresses: for example, we shall find traces of increasing knowledge within these Lives, with early biographies showing only a slight knowledge of some important events, and later ones gradually filling the gaps. It will become probable that Plutarch knew comparatively little of the detail of Roman history before he began work on the Lives, and that considerable ‘research’—directed and methodical reading—would be necessary for their composition.