The aim of this paper is to understand why empiricist philosophers of language did not try to refute the Leibniz-Beauzée argument, which questioned the genetical priority of proper names. It is shown that, within the semantic theory which underlies the empiricist doctrine, one may assume that all general terms derive from particular names, while conceding that every proper name can be etymologically traced back to the ancestor of a common noun.

In the following, I will propose and/or defend new or previous emendations for a set of passages in Catullus, most of which are deemed corrupt or even beyond repair by many, if not all, philologists. For the sake of simplicity, I will first quote Mynors's OCT text, except for possible changes in punctuation that will be justified, either implicitly or in their own terms, in the ensuing discussion. Those sections I consider incorrect I will put between obeli. In addition, I (...) will reproduce the relevant manuscript readings recorded in Mynors's apparatus, checked against Thomson's more complete collations. In each case, I will begin with summarizing the state of the question; nevertheless, owing to the vast amount of corrections or conjectures to be examined for many passages, I will concentrate on the most significant proposals. Next, I will try to show that the correction suggested conforms to the constraints of metre and language, and sheds some light on the symbolic or intertextual dimension of the poem at hand. Finally, I will provide an account of the corruption process that presumably operated, with the aim of establishing the palaeographical verisimilitude of my proposal. (shrink)

Université libre de BruxellesThe vulgate text at Prop. 3.10.17–18 reads as follows: et pete, qua polles, ut sit tibi forma perennis inque meum semper stent tua regna caput. 17–18 om. N 17 polles T, uulgo: pelles FLP.