N B Booth
Biographic Data
| ID | 5716660 |
|---|---|
| NAME | N B Booth |
| GIVEN NAMES | N B |
| FAMILY NAME | Booth |
| SIGNATURE | BOOTH N B |
| AFFILIATIONS | Department of Mathematics Statistics and Computing, Polytechnic of North London |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 15 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 2 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 15 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1956 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1987 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
Propertius 4.1.8
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 (‘alien Tiber served our oxen’, Butle…
Arguments Against Αμεívov' in Sophocles' Electra 1085–6
ARGUMENTS AGAINST αμεívov' IN SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA 1085–6 N. B. Booth N. B. Booth Department of Mathematics Statistics and Computing, Polytechnic of North London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Volume 33, Issue 1, December 1986, Pages 103–106, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.1986.tb00188.x Published: 12 March 2010
Sophocles, O.T. 230–2
In CR N.S. 10 (1960), 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 (1899), 195–7? The 1899 editor of CR reproduced, at the end of Furness's article, the sueeinct and trenchant L…
Sophocles, Electra 610–11
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
Zeus Hypsistos Megistos
In pages 101–3 of his article Pope lists the numbers of occurrences of interrogative and enclitic in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and mentions occurrences in other authors. He shows that, although there is a dead heat between the numbers of instances of the two words in Aeschylus, nevertheless enclitic is very rarely indeed, and perhaps never, found in sentences which do not have a main verb (or, failing that, at least subject and predica…
Westphal's Transposition in Aeschylus, Supplices 86–95
Westphal wished to transpose lines 88–90 and 93–5 of the Supplices . This transposition has been supported recently by R. D. Dawe ( The Collation and Investigation of Manuscripts of Aeschylus , 163), by Holger Friis Johansen in C . & M . xxvii (1966), 43–4 (also in his edition of the play), and by Sir Denys Page (in his new Oxford Text of Aeschylus). However, the transposition gains little support from a careful examination of the language and co…
Empedocles' Account of Breathing
Empedocles' Fragment 100 contains an account of ‘the way that all things breathe in and out’. It may conveniently be divided into three sections: A. Lines 1–5, the apparatus of breathing. B. Lines 6–8, the manner in which breathing takes place. C. Lines 8–25, an illustration taken from the working of the klepsydra. I shall discuss the fragment under thesethree headings. A. The Apparatus of Breathing These lines (1–5) are translated as follows by …
Oedipus's Supposed "Clue" At O.T. 22I
Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?
Assumptions involved in the Third man Argument
T HIS ARTICLE takes its start from G. Vlastos's excellent discussion in Philosophical Review Ixiii (I 9 g4) pp. 3 I 9 ff. I am in general agreement with Vlastos, but I think that his ideas need further development before they can be fully accepted. It is hardly necessary for me to comment on the criticisms advanced by Geach and Sellars; Vlastos has already defended himself in Philosophical Review Vol. Ixiv (I9gg) and Vol. lxv (i9g6). Possibly, ho…
Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply To Attacks upon Parmenides
NE of the mysteries about of Elea's arguments is that, whereas we learn from all the available evidence that was particularly concerned to defend the One of Parmenides 1, yet we find him, in his arguments about plurality, doing all that he can to refute the ones of a plurality.2 This would be reasonable if we could be sure that his arguments were valid only against the ones of a plurality, not against Parmenides's One; but it is by no means certa…
Two Points of Translation in Plato Epinomis 990 c 5-991 b 4
Were Zeno's Arguments Directed Against The Pythagoreans
THE anti-Pythagorean interpretation of Zeno's arguments had as its chief protagonist P. Tannery;' but it was afterwards accepted, developed, and modified by a number of other scholars.2 Zeller would have nothing to do with the theory,3 and critics have not been wanting.4 These critics have shown that the theory as held by its various exponents is at least in need of considerable modification; they have not shown that it is completely untenable, a…
Aeschylus, Choephori, 61–65
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-(never?). 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
Plato, Sophist 231 a, Etc
Mr. G. B. KERFERD, in C.Q . xlviii (1954), 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
Zeus Hypsistos Megistos
In pages 101–3 of his article Pope lists the numbers of occurrences of interrogative and enclitic in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and mentions occurrences in other authors. He shows that, although there is a dead heat between the numbers of instances of the two words in Aeschylus, nevertheless enclitic is very rarely indeed, and perhaps never, found in sentences which do not have a main verb (or, failing that, at least subject and predica…
Were Zeno's Arguments Directed Against The Pythagoreans
THE anti-Pythagorean interpretation of Zeno's arguments had as its chief protagonist P. Tannery;' but it was afterwards accepted, developed, and modified by a number of other scholars.2 Zeller would have nothing to do with the theory,3 and critics have not been wanting.4 These critics have shown that the theory as held by its various exponents is at least in need of considerable modification; they have not shown that it is completely untenable, a…
Plato, Sophist 231 a, Etc
Mr. G. B. KERFERD, in C.Q . xlviii (1954), 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
Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply To Attacks upon Parmenides
NE of the mysteries about of Elea's arguments is that, whereas we learn from all the available evidence that was particularly concerned to defend the One of Parmenides 1, yet we find him, in his arguments about plurality, doing all that he can to refute the ones of a plurality.2 This would be reasonable if we could be sure that his arguments were valid only against the ones of a plurality, not against Parmenides's One; but it is by no means certa…
Two Points of Translation in Plato Epinomis 990 c 5-991 b 4
Were Zeno's Arguments Directed Against The Pythagoreans
THE anti-Pythagorean interpretation of Zeno's arguments had as its chief protagonist P. Tannery;' but it was afterwards accepted, developed, and modified by a number of other scholars.2 Zeller would have nothing to do with the theory,3 and critics have not been wanting.4 These critics have shown that the theory as held by its various exponents is at least in need of considerable modification; they have not shown that it is completely untenable, a…
Aeschylus, Choephori, 61–65
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-(never?). 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
Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?
Assumptions involved in the Third man Argument
T HIS ARTICLE takes its start from G. Vlastos's excellent discussion in Philosophical Review Ixiii (I 9 g4) pp. 3 I 9 ff. I am in general agreement with Vlastos, but I think that his ideas need further development before they can be fully accepted. It is hardly necessary for me to comment on the criticisms advanced by Geach and Sellars; Vlastos has already defended himself in Philosophical Review Vol. Ixiv (I9gg) and Vol. lxv (i9g6). Possibly, ho…
Empedocles' Account of Breathing
Empedocles' Fragment 100 contains an account of ‘the way that all things breathe in and out’. It may conveniently be divided into three sections: A. Lines 1–5, the apparatus of breathing. B. Lines 6–8, the manner in which breathing takes place. C. Lines 8–25, an illustration taken from the working of the klepsydra. I shall discuss the fragment under thesethree headings. A. The Apparatus of Breathing These lines (1–5) are translated as follows by …
Oedipus's Supposed "Clue" At O.T. 22I
Westphal's Transposition in Aeschylus, Supplices 86–95
Westphal wished to transpose lines 88–90 and 93–5 of the Supplices . This transposition has been supported recently by R. D. Dawe ( The Collation and Investigation of Manuscripts of Aeschylus , 163), by Holger Friis Johansen in C . & M . xxvii (1966), 43–4 (also in his edition of the play), and by Sir Denys Page (in his new Oxford Text of Aeschylus). However, the transposition gains little support from a careful examination of the language and co…
Zeus Hypsistos Megistos
In pages 101–3 of his article Pope lists the numbers of occurrences of interrogative and enclitic in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and mentions occurrences in other authors. He shows that, although there is a dead heat between the numbers of instances of the two words in Aeschylus, nevertheless enclitic is very rarely indeed, and perhaps never, found in sentences which do not have a main verb (or, failing that, at least subject and predica…
Sophocles, Electra 610–11
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
Sophocles, O.T. 230–2
In CR N.S. 10 (1960), 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 (1899), 195–7? The 1899 editor of CR reproduced, at the end of Furness's article, the sueeinct and trenchant L…
Arguments Against Αμεívov' in Sophocles' Electra 1085–6
ARGUMENTS AGAINST αμεívov' IN SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA 1085–6 N. B. Booth N. B. Booth Department of Mathematics Statistics and Computing, Polytechnic of North London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Volume 33, Issue 1, December 1986, Pages 103–106, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.1986.tb00188.x Published: 12 March 2010
Propertius 4.1.8
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 (‘alien Tiber served our oxen’, Butle…
Philosophy (14 works) · Philosophy (11 works) · Classical Antiquity Studies (10 works) · Classical Philosophy and Thought (10 works) · Art (8 works) · Literature (7 works) · Epistemology (6 works) · Mathematics (6 works) · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies (5 works) · History (5 works)