"Papermacs 3002." Bibliography: p. 72-73.

This early work by William Henry Hudson was originally published in 1894 and we are now republishing it. 'An Introduction to the Philosophy of Herbert Spencer' is a book that examines Spencer's ethics, sociology, and synthetic philosophy. Herbert Spencer was born on 27th April 1820, in Derby, England. In 1851 he published 'Social Statics' to great acclaim and his quietly influential 'Principles of Psychology' in 1955. These were followed by numerous works of sociology, psychology, and philosophy, which led him (...) to become a prominent intellectual of his day. He also wrote 'The Developmental Hypothesis' (1852) which described the theory of evolution seven years before Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. He even popularised the term "Evolution" and coined the phrase "Survival of the fittest," but his works did not contain the comprehensive theoretical system that Darwin's did, which is why his theory was not taken seriously at the time. Spencer's most famous idea was that of "Social Darwinism." He saw the process of organic evolution as being analogous to that of society, an idea influenced many intellectuals of the day. (shrink)

Mr. Alan Ker in C.Q., N.S. vii , 151–8, proposes to alter the text of Claudian in numerous places where the tradition appears to me to be blameless, in some cases substituting for readings which seem characteristic and admirable others which seem less so. Claudian is an elegant poet, whose mastery of language many regard as comparable with that of the Silver Age poets, and Mr. Ker's dismissal of him as ‘a simple writer, with a small and unambitious vocabulary’ does (...) less than justice to his powers. I would suggest, in particular, the following points for consideration. (shrink)

In CQ 34, 457, on Lucan 4.664 indulsit castris, I wrote ‘Housman…explains “…inuitantibus ad desidiam”: read rather ad temeritatem’. Mr S. J. Heyworth has kindly pointed out to me that Housman in his corrected impression does in fact write temeritatem. I was myself using the first impression, where H. has desidiam. It had not occurred to me that H. would so drastically alter an interpretation in a ‘Second impression ’.

For horribilesque we need something better than Haupt's horribile aequor ; and Mr. E. L. B. Meurig Davies comes near the truth, I think, with his proposal horribilem niue. A noun in the ablative indicating cold to define horribilem is just what we require. That noun does not seem to me, however, likely to be niue. Read rather horribilem gelu; cf. Luc. 2. 570 ‘ Rheni gelidis … fugit ab undis’, Claud. Rapt. 3. 321 ‘non Rheni glacies, non me Rhipaea (...) tenebunt’, Paneg. 7. 6 ‘duratus gelu Rhenus’. (shrink)

Little has been said as to how Isocrates' λγοι were published. It is commonly assumed that they were written for a reading public but for greater effect were given a fictitious dramatic setting. Such a generalization, although partly true, needs qualification. This article attempts to prove the following points: Isocrates wrote for a listening, as well as for a reading, public. Failure to recognize indications of this in his works has led to misinterpretation and mistranslation, especially of certain words used (...) in a semi-technical sense. There has been a tendency to confuse references to a real audience who will actually be listening to the λόγος with references to a fictitious audience introduced as a picturesque literary device. The Panegyricus provides an example of this. It is not, as is generally supposed, addressed to an imaginary audience in Olympia or some other πανγυρις but to real audiences in Athens, as well as to an Athenian reading public. (shrink)