This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

A REFERENCE UUH FOR Llb^nv, J'-t ONLY Operations Research With Special Reference to Non-Military Applications A Comprehensive Scientific Aid to Executive Decisions OPERATIONS Research (or, as the British say, Operational Research) is ...

Many years ago, C.B. Martin drew our attention to the possibility of ‘finkish’ dispositions: dispositions which, if put to the test would not be manifested, but rather would disappear. Thus if x if finkishly disposed to give response r to stimulus s, it is not so that if x were subjected to stimulus r, x would give response z; so finkish dispositions afford a counter‐example to the simplest conditional analysis of dispositions. Martin went on to suggest that finkish dispositions required (...) a theory of primitive causal powers; there, I think, he was mistaken. All that they require is an improved conditional analysis, and this improved analysis can be built upon whatever treatments of properties and of laws we may favour on other grounds. (shrink)

The first volume of this series presents fifteen selected papers dealing with a variety of topics in ontology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language.

The first volume of this series presents fifteen selected papers dealing with a variety of topics in ontology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language.

Psychology does not get rid of its problems by taking experience at its face value, for it is the province of psychology to study problems arising when experience is taken at its face value. Only in actual lived experience is concrete reality to be found in its fullest sense. All reality which is experience includes attributes both spatial and temporal. Objects cannot b7 considered in the first place apart from such attributes. Physical objects are perceived as parts of a total (...) situation and there is merit in the suggestion of the Gestalt psychologists. Always much will be found in the perceptum which will not correspond with the physical object, since the physical object is only an abstract. The effort to control our environment has led to a sophisticated attitude toward perceptual experience, which is said in psychological circles to lead to the stimulus error. Those who have seen children gradually grow into a realization of the unreliability of perception—for purposes of muscular manipulation—will understand what is meant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

In view of the importance of the philosophical method argued in Mr. C. I. Lewis's “Experience and Meaning,” I wish to call attention to ambiguities which may have an important bearing on one of his conclusions. The method for which he argues is a certain empirical test of meaningfulness. It is his ‘positivistic’ inference from this method which I wish to challenge. To do so I shall present four points: A summary of his empirical test of meaningfulness; A ‘non-positivistic’ hypothesis (...) which Mr. Lewis rejects; An analysis of this hypothesis in view of his test; The theory of universals implied in my analysis. (shrink)

It seems clear that Virgil, Horace, and Tibullus knew, if not the third Sibylline Oracle itself, prophecies like it. An unnoticed parallel between that work and Horace may confirm this conclusion and afford a small insight into the Latin poet's art.

The explanation of the vexed phrase ‘auditor et ultor’ given by Professor E. Fraenkel on p. 349 of his Horace marks a great improvement on previous interpretations. Auditor he translates as ‘pupil’ and ultor he explains as ‘rescuer’ . However I very much doubt whether ultor can in fact bear this meaning. Whatever may be the case with vindex and vindico, I have found no instance of ultor meaning anything but ‘avenger’ or ‘punisher’. Fraenkel takes ‘nobilium scriptorum’ as the (...) Greek poets ‘whose form and spirit he attempted to renew in a different tongue’ 2. (shrink)

It seems clear that Virgil, Horace, and Tibullus knew, if not the third Sibylline Oracle itself, prophecies like it. An unnoticed parallel between that work and Horace may confirm this conclusion and afford a small insight into the Latin poet's art.

The most characteristic feature of all satirical writing appears to be its elusiveness. Though much work has been done in recent years on satire, no definition has as yet been offered that has met with general approval. However, to some extent Roman verse satire seems to be the exception that proves the rule. For in view of the statements which the main representatives of this genre themselves have made on their satires, most modern critics are agreed on their major characteristics. (...) Yet some poems which the ancient satirists included in their collections have not been accepted as satires by contemporary scholars, while others seem to have eluded satisfactory interpretation, as e.g. Horace's fourth satire of the second book. (shrink)

The most characteristic feature of all satirical writing appears to be its elusiveness. Though much work has been done in recent years on satire, no definition has as yet been offered that has met with general approval. However, to some extent Roman verse satire seems to be the exception that proves the rule. For in view of the statements which the main representatives of this genre themselves have made on their satires, most modern critics are agreed on their major characteristics. (...) Yet some poems which the ancient satirists included in their collections have not been accepted as satires by contemporary scholars, while others seem to have eluded satisfactory interpretation, as e.g. Horace's fourth satire of the second book. (shrink)

I begin by quoting from two valuable recent works on Horace. Professor Brink in his Horace on Poetry writes: ‘The centre of the short piece lies in lines 21—34. Readers, among them critics and poets, had denied one aspect of the Odes which was surely above criticism—the striking originality of these poems. Horace's defence turns on the question of originality’ and ‘Epistle 19 is unique in that it alone among the literary satires and letters reiterates Horace's (...) claim to be the Latin fidicen’ . And Dr. McGann in his Studies in Horace's First Book of Epistles : ‘In Ep. 19... as in the literary satires, Horace is a practising poet or at least a very recently practising one, engaged in defending himself against hostile criticism’ and ‘As the only epistle concerned exclusively with literary matters, the nineteenth stands apart’. (shrink)

Although not tenable in details, Porphyrion's interpretation seems to me generally preferable to Bentley's, despite the very wide acceptance of the latter. Horace is in all seriousness defending his claim to originality. On the Bentleian interpretation, it is a curious defence that he is made to offer.

Although not tenable in details, Porphyrion's interpretation seems to me generally preferable to Bentley's, despite the very wide acceptance of the latter. Horace is in all seriousness defending his claim to originality. On the Bentleian interpretation, it is a curious defence that he is made to offer.

I begin by quoting from two valuable recent works on Horace. Professor Brink in his Horace on Poetry writes: ‘The centre of the short piece lies in lines 21—34. Readers, among them critics and poets, had denied one aspect of the Odes which was surely above criticism—the striking originality of these poems. Horace's defence turns on the question of originality’ and ‘Epistle 19 is unique in that it alone among the literary satires and letters reiterates Horace's (...) claim to be the Latin fidicen’. And Dr. McGann in his Studies in Horace's First Book of Epistles : ‘In Ep. 19... as in the literary satires, Horace is a practising poet or at least a very recently practising one, engaged in defending himself against hostile criticism’ and ‘As the only epistle concerned exclusively with literary matters, the nineteenth stands apart’. (shrink)

Nisbet and Kraggerud make good cases for taking the ninth Epode as a dramatic recreation of the Actium campaign. Horace begins in fearful anticipation; then the crisis comes, first on land and then on sea; Antony turns to flight; and — even though some danger remains, and there is metus as well as joy at the end of the poem — the celebrations can finally begin. On this reading there remains the familiar problem of vv. 17–20: at huc frementes (...) uerterunt bis mille equos Galli canentes Caesarem, hostiliumque nauium portu latent puppes sinistrorsum citae. The first couplet clearly relates to the defection of Amyntas' Galatians, the decisive moment in the fighting on land; the second must describe the crucial battle on sea. There is no problem in portu latent. The fleet has withdrawn, and is skulking in harbour instead of fighting. But what of nauium…puppes sinistrorsum citae? The difficulty is notorious: the secondary sources do not clearly describe any movement ‘toward the left’, and it is hard to see why Horace chooses so enigmatic a phrase to capture the fighting. His audience would not make much of the topographical detail in any case: unless they had been at Actium themselves, their reaction to the words would centre on other associations — the contrast between these magnificent puppes and their undignified sideways movement; the suggestions of ill omen in sinistrorsum. (shrink)

Nisbet and Kraggerud make good cases for taking the ninth Epode as a dramatic recreation of the Actium campaign. Horace begins in fearful anticipation; then the crisis comes, first on land and then on sea; Antony turns to flight; and — even though some danger remains, and there is metus as well as joy at the end of the poem — the celebrations can finally begin. On this reading there remains the familiar problem of vv. 17–20: at huc frementes (...) uerterunt bis mille equos Galli canentes Caesarem, hostiliumque nauium portu latent puppes sinistrorsum citae. The first couplet clearly relates to the defection of Amyntas' Galatians, the decisive moment in the fighting on land; the second must describe the crucial battle on sea. There is no problem in portu latent. The fleet has withdrawn, and is skulking in harbour instead of fighting. But what of nauium…puppes sinistrorsum citae? The difficulty is notorious: the secondary sources do not clearly describe any movement ‘toward the left’, and it is hard to see why Horace chooses so enigmatic a phrase to capture the fighting. His audience would not make much of the topographical detail in any case: unless they had been at Actium themselves , their reaction to the words would centre on other associations — the contrast between these magnificent puppes and their undignified sideways movement; the suggestions of ill omen in sinistrorsum. (shrink)

Commentators onEpode11 generally begin by comparing the opening couplet with Archilochus : κα⋯ μ' οὔτ' ἰ⋯μβων οὔτε τερπωλ⋯ων μ⋯λει, and sometimes also Catullus 68. 1–40. In both of these the poet explains that grief at the death of a loved one has expelled all desire to compose verses. According to the comparison, Horace, in 1–2, is stating that the onset of love has, similarly, so absorbed his attention that he cannot write verse. The translation will then run ‘Pettius, I (...) have no pleasure any longer in writing verse, smitten as I am with a heavy love’. (shrink)

A Page of this MS, which however I discovered independently, is reproduced by M. Chatelain in his Paléographie des Classiques Latins, and for an account of the codex I refer to vol. ii. p. 11 of that work. The volume consists of four parts: Juvenal, ff. 1–47; Persius, ff. 48–59; Horace, ff. 60–93; Juvenal, ff. 94–113. This last part contains Sat. i. 1–ii. 66, iii. 32–vi. 437, i.e. two intermediate leaves, the two outside double leaves of the first quire (...) of eight, of 34 lines on a page, have been lost. The quires b and c are disordered. Foil. 94v–97 contain i. 1–ii. 66, ff. 98–105, v. 98–vi. 437, ff. 106–113, iii. 32–v. 97. (shrink)

Commentators onEpode11 generally begin by comparing the opening couplet with Archilochus : κα⋯ μ' οὔτ' ἰ⋯μβων οὔτε τερπωλ⋯ων μ⋯λει, and sometimes also Catullus 68. 1–40. In both of these the poet explains that grief at the death of a loved one has expelled all desire to compose verses. According to the comparison, Horace, in 1–2, is stating that the onset of love has, similarly, so absorbed his attention that he cannot write verse. The translation will then run ‘Pettius, I (...) have no pleasure any longer in writing verse, smitten as I am with a heavy love’. (shrink)