Brink reminds us that T. H. Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics is a neglected classic in the history of ethics, comparable to F. H. Bradley’s Ethical Studies and Henry Sidgwick’s Methods of Ethics. This is saying quite a bit when it is considered that no less a figure than John Rawls has claimed that Sidgwick’s version of utilitarianism is the most sophisticated and carefully reasoned to date. On Green’s view, however, perfectionism is the main rival in ethical theory to utilitarianism. Green (...) defends a version of perfectionism that relies on both the ancients and Kant, thereby anticipating recent readings of Kant that emphasize the importance of virtue in that thinker. (shrink)

Brink reminds us that T. H. Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics is a neglected classic in the history of ethics, comparable to F. H. Bradley’s Ethical Studies and Henry Sidgwick’s Methods of Ethics. This is saying quite a bit when it is considered that no less a figure than John Rawls has claimed that Sidgwick’s version of utilitarianism is the most sophisticated and carefully reasoned to date. On Green’s view, however, perfectionism is the main rival in ethical theory to utilitarianism. Green (...) defends a version of perfectionism that relies on both the ancients and Kant, thereby anticipating recent readings of Kant that emphasize the importance of virtue in that thinker. (shrink)

The concept of human gene therapy came on the heels of fundamental discoveries on the nature and working of the gene. However, realistic prospects to correct the underlying cause of recessive genetic disorders through the transfer of wild‐type alleles of defective genes had to wait for the arrival of recombinant DNA technology. These techniques permitted the isolation and insertion of genes into the first recombinant delivery systems. The realization that viruses are natural gene carriers provided inspiration for gene therapy and, (...) as engineered vectors, viruses became prominent gene delivery vehicles. Nonetheless, when put in the context of human and non‐human primate studies, all vectors fell short of success regardless of their viral or non‐viral origin. Recognition of issues such as inefficient gene transfer and short‐lived or scant expression in the relevant cell type(s) prompted researchers to refine and develop several gene delivery systems, in particular those based on retroviruses, adeno‐associated viruses and adenoviruses. Concomitantly, available technology was deployed to tackle disorders that require few genetically corrected cells to attain therapy. BioEssays 27: 506–517, 2005. © 2005 Wiley periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Li. 263 and 264 have been much vexed, and a string of conjectures will be found in Wecklein's appendix. All of them produce roughly the same meaning–‘it is useless to enquire into the future, which is bound to be disastrous.’.

In the course of his dispute with Conington on the comparative merits of Catullus and Horace, Munro taxed the Augustans with having made the lyric of the heart impossible in Latin by their virtual exclusion of diminutives from the language of poetry; and, whether that is the result or no, the general fact that diminutives are rare in the serious poetry of the Augustan age is well known. The details, however, are less easy to come by. Stolz and Stolz-Schmalz devote (...) a few unilluminating lines to the Stilistik of diminutives: otherwise the grammars and the treatises on diminutives known to me concern themselves only with forms and meanings. Except for a note by Professor Housman which, at 4. 927, sets out Manilius's diminutives, I know of no collections for any Augustan poet, and it is perhaps worth while therefore to state the facts. I have not indeed read through Augustan poetry for the purpose, but for some time past I have been in the habit of noting such diminutives as I have come across in the course of reading, and these lists I have now checked and amplified from the indexes to the authors concerned. My lists are probably not complete, but I hope they are sufficiently near it to present a true picture of the position. (shrink)

The poem to which Callierges attached the title Hρακλσ ΛεοντοφῸνοσ from the narrative which occupies its last hundred lines falls into three sections, of which two have still, and all no doubt had originally, separate titles. In the first Herakles is found in conversation with a rustic who describes to him the estates of Augeias and accompanies him in search of that king. In the second the hero, in attendance on Augeias and his son Phyleus, inspects the royal flocks and (...) herds as they return at night to their folds and byres, and astonishes the spectators by the ease with which he repels the attack of a mighty bull. In the third Herakles and Phyleus are discovered on their way to the neighbouring town. Phyleus has heard from an Achaean stranger some account of the death of the Nemean lion, suspects that its slayer may have been his companion, and questions him. Herakles in reply tells the story. The poem exhibits the same conception of epic narrative as is seen in the authentic works of Theocritus. There is the eye for landscape and the attention to setting conspicuous in Id. 13 and in Part 2 of Id. 22: the keying down of the miraculous and heroic conspicuous in Id. 24: the easy command and constant memory of Homer which is in T. not confined to epic subjects. There is, too, at leaste point of contact with Callimachus. Part 1, as has been said, is occupied by a conversation between a friendly rustic and Herakles, who, we must suppose, is seeking Augeias in order to clean out his cattle-byres. We know next to nothing of what passed in the Hekale of Calhmachus between that heroine and Theseus on his way to deal with the bull of Marathon, and nothing of what passed in the Aetia between Molorchos and Herakles on his way to kill the lion of Nemea; but both Hekale and Molorchos were treated as poor countryfolk who befriend a hero bound on a heroic mission, and, whatever may have been the divergences of handling, the agreement between the two poets in this far from obvious method of attacking an epic theme is noteworthy. (shrink)

On p. 118 I said that the injunction of Pythagoras παρà θνσíαν μxs22EF xs22EFννχíζον, quoted by Goettling with a false reference, might be illuminating in its context but that I suspected it of being a figment. My suspicions were unfounded. The reference, as Mr. A. B. Cook has kindly pointed out to me, is Iambl. Protrept. 364 K.; but Iamblichus's explanation—that ‘nails’ stands for one's remoter kinsfolk, οíον xs22EFνεψιáδαι xs22EF πατραδxs22EFλφων γαμβρονοτιδεîς xs22EF τοιοντοí τινες, with whom one should renew relations (...) on festal days—does not seem very helpful. (shrink)

Some day, it may be, a betterGreek scholar and more skilful emendator than I will summon to hisaid from among scientists familiar with the Levant a botanist, aherbalist, a herpetologist, and an entomologist, empanel forconsultations a small body of medical men who have practised in theNear East, and produce an annotated text and translation of Nicander;and when this has been done it will be possible to read him, notindeed with pleasure, but with a good deal less labour and vexationthan attend (...) the process at present. Meanwhile, those whose dutyobliges them to struggle through the Theriaca andAlexipharmaca with the aids now available stand in no need ofthe injunction not to forget him which the author has appended tothose two poems. (shrink)

It is more than half a century since P. Boudreaux equipped the Cynegetka of the Syrian author now sometimes called Pseudo-Oppian with a proper text and apparatus criticus. The Halieutica of Oppian is still without either. Onemight think the latter poem hardly worth the aureus for every line with which Marcus Aurelius is reported in the Life of the author to have rewarded it, or hesitate to say, with St Jerome, that O. Alieutica miro splendore conscripsit, but it is better (...) constructed and far better written than the Cynegetica; it was more admired by later poets, and some might account it the more interesting poem. It would appear from R. Keydell's survey of Oppianic literature down to 1929 that R. Vári published between 1908 and 1926 in Hungarian journals and an Italian Festschrift some papers on the manuscripts of Hal. (shrink)

‘Come, live with me,’ says Polyphemus , ‘and leave the grey sea to beat upon the shore; my cave has all the heart could desire, laurels and cypresses, ivy and a sweet-fruited vine; a stream too fed by the snows of Etna.’ α δέ τοι ατς ν λασιώτερος ημεν, ντ δρυς ξύλα μοι π σποδ κάματον πρ καιόμενος δ π τες και τν ψυχν νεχοιμαν κα τν ν θαλμόν τ μοι γλυκερώτερον οδέν.

There can be no doubt about the object which Delphis was in the habit of leaving at Simaetha's house. The word λπη is capable of meaning a ladle or jug for wine , and the name is conventionally applied by archaeologists to a particular form of jug, but Delphis did not carry a jug about with him. What he took to the gymnasium or palaestra where he appears to have spent most of his time was the portable flask of oil, (...) carried indeed by others, but, together with sponge and scraper, the regular equipment of the athlete. ὌΟλπις, which appears to be a mere synonym, also has the same two meanings. At Sapph. fr. 51 it is a wine-jug, but at T. 18. 45, where the Spartan girls will make libation of oil at Helen's plane-tree, the silver λπις containing it is no doubt that from which they anoint themselves in their masculine way by the Eurotas. (shrink)

The last epigrammatist named by Meleager as contributing to his Garland is Phanias, who, with Meleager's customary irrelevance, is said to be represented there by cornflowers . No inferences can be drawn from his place in the catalogue, which is neither chronological nor topographical in arrangement, and with one possible exception the epigrams give no hint of his home or date. In A.P. 6. 299.

Some years ago, when discussing Theocr. 22. 177 sqq. , I suggested that Theocritus had been a little careless in envisaging the circumstances which he is describing, and had written as though a duel normally resulted in the deaths of both combatants. That still seems to me the probable explanation of the difficulty with which I was dealing, and, as I then said, the oversight with which I charged Theocritus is venial enough, for in fact two deaths result from the (...) particular duel which he is about to describe. He is concerned with the drama, not with the setting, and if the setting proves to be of cardboard, the play is after all the thing. (shrink)

That the thirteenth Idyll of Theocritus and the Hylas episode in the first book of Apollonius are not independent of each other was perhaps first pointed out by Casaubon, who supposed T. to be the earlier of the two. The opposite view was upheld, whether for the first time or not I do not know, by Wilamowitz in his lectures, and it was assumed, without much argument, by his pupil G. Knaack, who presently defended it, with little more, against an (...) attack by G. Türk. Gercke and Susemihl were persuaded, and later on Wilamowitz himself touched briefly on the matter. Legrand, who had doubted before, remains unconvinced, and Cholmeley, to whose chronology this theory was disastrous, took shelter behind the unsubstantial shades of Antimachus and Philetas. In Italy, G. Perrotta has supported Wilamowitz's view, but L. Bignone says that the problem is insoluble. I have myself no doubt that Wilamowitz was right, but the arguments employed have not been very cogent, and, as the evidence has not been well set out, it may be useful to outline it here and to add a little to it. (shrink)

Line 24 on page 218 in the July number of this volume of Philosophy should read as follows: naturally out of matter itself lifeless or that consciousness and intelli-.

‘The populace,’ says Menelaus, ‘when roused to anger, is difficult to deal with; but if when it rages one slacks the sheet, watching an opportunity, the storm may blow itself out. And when it moderates its blasts, one may easily win one's will of it. It is capable of pity and nobility, qualities most precious to one who bides his time.’.

As bearing on the time of year of the celebration attended by Simichidas and his friends, I stated, on the authority of Miss Alice Lindsell, that the barley-harvest in Cos is normally over by the end of April; and I added that the barley-harvest ought to fix the time of the events recorded, but that the scene depicted in 131 ff. is evidently much later than April and that the modern dates do not fit T's setting. I was assuming that (...) the threshing and winnowing of the barley, which is the occasion of the festival , took place immediately after it had been carried, but, as Miss Lindsell has pointed out, this assumption has no justification. (shrink)