17 found
Sort by:
  1. N. B. Booth (1987). Propertius 4.1.8. Classical Quarterly 37 (02):528-.
    The manuscript version of this line, apart from a nonsensical variant tutus for bubus, is et Tiberis nostris advena bubus erat. The trouble here has been that scholars have taken advena to mean ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘alien’, or German ‘fremd’. Clearly the sentence and Tiber was a stranger to our oxen makes no sense in the context, and for this reason many scholars have either produced strange translations or else have dabbled in dubious emendation.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. N. B. Booth (1985). The Chorus of Prometheus Pyrphoros and Hesiod Th. 563. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:149.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. N. B. Booth (1979). Sophocles, O.T. 230–2. Classical Quarterly 29 (02):485-.
    In CR N.S. 10 , 7, I supported L. Purgold's emendation of to in O. T. 230, accepted by Elmsley, wrongly discarded by all editors since, and now omitted even from the apparatus criticus of R. D. Dawe's recent Teubner edition of Sophocles. May I now add that the emendation was also defended, at greater length, by M. Furness in CR 13 , 195–7? The 1899 editor of CR reproduced, at the end of Furness's article, the sueeinct and trenchant Latin (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. N. B. Booth (1978). Two Points of Interpretation in Zeno. Journal of Hellenic Studies 98:157-158.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. N. B. Booth (1977). Sophocles, Electra 610–11. Classical Quarterly 27 (02):466-.
    Jebb is right. The two lines are a comment by the Chorus; and they are a comment on the apparent shamelessness of the remarks which Electra has just been making about her mother. The dissentients have been deceived by two pseudo-problems, hitherto unexploded.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. N. B. Booth (1976). A Mistake to Be Avoided in the Interpretation of Empedocles Fr. 100. Journal of Hellenic Studies 96:147-148.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. N. B. Booth (1976). Zeus Hypsistos Megistos: An Argument for Enclitic Που in Aeschylus, Agamemnon 182. Classical Quarterly 26 (02):220-.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. N. B. Booth (1974). Westphal's Transposition in Aeschylus, Supplices 86–95. Classical Quarterly 24 (02):207-.
    Westphal wished to transpose lines 88–90 and 93–5 of the Supplices. This transposition has been supported recently by R. D. Dawe , by Holger Friis Johansen in C. & M. xxvii , 43–4 , and by Sir Denys Page . However, the transposition gains little support from a careful examination of the language and context of the passage, as I shall now proceed to demonstrate. I discussed the whole passage previously in my article ‘Aeschylus Supplices 86–95’, Classical Philology, 1 , (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. N. B. Booth (1960). Empedocles' Account of Breathing. Journal of Hellenic Studies 80:10.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. N. B. Booth (1958). Aeschylus, Choephori 926. The Classical Review 8 (02):107-.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. N. B. Booth (1958). Assumptions Involved in the Third Man Argument. Phronesis 3 (2):146-149.
  12. N. B. Booth (1957). Aeschylus, Choephori, 61–65. Classical Quarterly 7 (3-4):143-.
    All past interpretations of this passage involve an obscure train of thought. There appear to be two ideas running right through; light-twilight-night, and quick-slow-. But how are we to combine these ideas so as to make sense of them ? Most, if not all, past commentators have agreed in taking to mean ‘punishes’’ and most interpretations conform to one or other of the following patterns.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. N. B. Booth (1957). Two Points of Translation in Plato Epinomis 990 C 5-991 B 4. Phronesis 2 (2):160-161.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. N. B. Booth (1957). Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply To Attacks Upon Parmenides? Phronesis 2 (1):1-9.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. N. B. Booth (1957). Were Zeno's Arguments Directed Against The Pythagoreans? Phronesis 2 (2):90-103.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. N. B. Booth (1956). Plato, Sophist 231 a, Etc. Classical Quarterly 6 (1-2):89-.
    Mr. G. B. KERFERD, in C.Q. xlviii , 84 ff. writes of ‘Plato's Noble Art of Sophistry’. He suggests that Plato thought there was a ‘Noble Art’ of sophistry, other than philosophy itself; and he seeks to find this Art in the better and worse arguments of Protagoras. This suggestion is, unfortunately, based on a mistranslation of Plato, Sophist 231 a:.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation