Since geography was one of the accepted branches of Ionian Ίστορíη, it is not surprising that geographical description and discussion should play so large a part in the work of Herodotus. Nor is it surprising that, since he covered so much ground, he should occasionally borrow information from his predecessors. Apart from particular passages where comparison with the fragments of Hecataeus shows that he borrowed from this author's Periegesis, there are numerous others which, although strictly relevant fragments are lacking, by (...) their style and manner betray the influence of Hecataeus. The so-called ΛιβυκῸσ λΌγος for example, in Book IV is full of the conventional formulae familiar to anyone who has studied the fragments; consequently Jacoby is prepared to say that it provides even more valuable material for the method and style of Hecataeus than the treatment of Egypt in Book II, where more specific evidence of borrowing is available. There are countless other passages and isolated sentences where the style suggests, if not actual dependence on the text of Hecataeus, at least adherence to the Hecataean tradition of geographical description. (shrink)

It may not occur to a modern reader of the Poetics to think that Aristotle is drawing contrasts between poetry and oratory. But there is one aspect of tragedy which must have forced him to think of a contrast with oratory, especially forensic oratory, even though he seems to make no special effort to draw it to the reader's attention. This is the matter of characterization. He does not believe that it is the purpose of tragedy to illustrate character; he (...) says that action, not ethical quality, is the of tragedy, that action and plot are what matter most and that action is not subordinate to character-representation. (shrink)

It may not occur to a modern reader of the Poetics to think that Aristotle is drawing contrasts between poetry and oratory. But there is one aspect of tragedy which must have forced him to think of a contrast with oratory, especially forensic oratory, even though he seems to make no special effort to draw it to the reader's attention. This is the matter of characterization. He does not believe that it is the purpose of tragedy to illustrate character; he (...) says that action, not ethical quality, is the of tragedy, that action and plot are what matter most and that action is not subordinate to character-representation. (shrink)

There are some passages in Strabo where corruption of the text is not obvious at first reading, because the existing text offers no grammatical difficulty and can even be translated in such a way as to satisfy the less wary reader. One is driven to conclude that emendation is necessary only when one realizes that Strabo's argument demands something different from that which the manuscripts offer. There is an interesting example of such a passage in 11. 7. 4.

Library POPULAR ETHICS IN ANCIENT GREECE Lionel Pearson STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS STANFORD. ...

This statement, in Nicias' letter from Sicily, has puzzled readers and editors, and it has baffled translators, who expect phrases with π προάσει to indicate a pretext or ostensible reason for an action. In my first discussion of prophasis I suggested that ‘what Nicias means is that they are leaving without offering any other reason or pretext’, and Dover, in the Historical Commentary, goes halfway towards accepting this interpretation ; but it does not satisfy me now, and it is firmly (...) rejected by Hunter Rawlings. A different approach to the question is needed. Nicias is not concerned with any excuses or pretexts that these deserters are offering. He is explaining the ‘true prophasis’ of this epidemic of desertion, and does so in terms of opportunity — they can find employment in the enemy's forces and there are numerous opportunities elsewhere. Translators may not want to render π' ατομολίας προάσει as ‘taking the opportunity to desert to the enemy’, arguing that ‘prophasis cannot mean opportunity’. But a prophasis is an explanation, true or false, that can be given for an action, and the best explanation can often be found in the circumstances — the opportunity that tempts or encourages. These deserters have a prophasis. This is not the only passage in Thucydides where ‘opportunity’ seems to be the word that translators need. A good example is in 4.126.5, where Brasidas is explaining how barbarian armies fight: ατοκράτωρ δ μάχη μάλιστ' ν κα πρόασιν το σᾡζεσθαί τινι πρεπόντως πορίσειε. (shrink)

This statement, in Nicias' letter from Sicily, has puzzled readers and editors, and it has baffled translators, who expect phrases with π προάσει to indicate a pretext or ostensible reason for an action. In my first discussion of prophasis I suggested that ‘what Nicias means is that they are leaving without offering any other reason or pretext’ , and Dover, in the Historical Commentary, goes halfway towards accepting this interpretation ; but it does not satisfy me now, and it is (...) firmly rejected by Hunter Rawlings. A different approach to the question is needed. Nicias is not concerned with any excuses or pretexts that these deserters are offering. He is explaining the ‘true prophasis’ of this epidemic of desertion, and does so in terms of opportunity — they can find employment in the enemy's forces and there are numerous opportunities elsewhere . Translators may not want to render π' ατομολίας προάσει as ‘taking the opportunity to desert to the enemy’, arguing that ‘prophasis cannot mean opportunity’. But a prophasis is an explanation, true or false, that can be given for an action, and the best explanation can often be found in the circumstances — the opportunity that tempts or encourages. These deserters have a prophasis. This is not the only passage in Thucydides where ‘opportunity’ seems to be the word that translators need. A good example is in 4.126.5, where Brasidas is explaining how barbarian armies fight: ατοκράτωρ δ μάχη μάλιστ' ν κα πρόασιν το σᾡζεσθαί τινι πρεπόντως πορίσειε. (shrink)