1. IN the C.Q.xxxiv , pp. 118 ff., I wrote on ‘Some Uses of the Imperfect in Greek’ . It occurred tome to check the suggestions there made by examining all the instances in one author. I had no hesitation in choosing Herodotus, who of all authors, except perhaps Homer, presents the most baffling diversity of types . For purposes of comparison I also read Thucydides and Xenophon's Anabasis 1–4. It would appear that Thucydides retains something of Herodotus' freedom, Xenophon (...) comparatively little. (shrink)

1. IN the C.Q.xxxiv, pp. 118 ff., I wrote on ‘Some Uses of the Imperfect in Greek’. It occurred tome to check the suggestions there made by examining all the instances in one author. I had no hesitation in choosing Herodotus, who of all authors, except perhaps Homer, presents the most baffling diversity of types. For purposes of comparison I also read Thucydides and Xenophon's Anabasis 1–4. It would appear that Thucydides retains something of Herodotus' freedom, Xenophon comparatively little.

1. The use of the imperfect τικτε ‘was the mother of’, with τíκτουσα; νίκων, ο νικντες; διδος is well known, and no doubt correctly explained. Reference is frequently made to Virgil's quem dat Sidonia Dido, but δίδου seems not to be used, no doubt because it is so extensively used in the sense of ‘offered’. In T. 7. 56. 3 περιεγíγνοντο seems to be a substitute for νíκων, ‘were victorious’; cf. φερε in Find. O. 10 , 74 ‘was prizewinner’ —the (...) other winners all have an aorist. So too Pyth. 3. 44. (shrink)

1. The use of the imperfect τικτε ‘was the mother of’, with τíκτουσα; νίκων, ο νικντες; διδος is well known, and no doubt correctly explained. Reference is frequently made to Virgil's quem dat Sidonia Dido, but δίδου seems not to be used, no doubt because it is so extensively used in the sense of ‘offered’. In T. 7. 56. 3 περιεγíγνοντο seems to be a substitute for νíκων, ‘were victorious’; cf. φερε in Find. O. 10, 74 ‘was prizewinner’ —the other (...) winners all have an aorist. So too Pyth. 3. 44. (shrink)

Although much has been written in the attempt to date individual plays of Plautus—too often, unfortunately, an attempt to make bricks without straw—little has hitherto been done to determine the approximate chronological sequence of the plays as a whole. Yet this appears the most obvious necessity if any advance in scientific criticism is to be made. Not till this is done can we see the bearing of the innumerable facts which have accumulated in the extensive Plautine literature of the last (...) fifty years. No one would dream of a scientific criticism of Shakespeare which did not take into account the chronology of the plays. This is equally true of Tennyson and Browning, though the method has not yet been as systematically applied to literary as to musical criticism. Think of a writer on Bach or Mozart, Beethoven or Schumann, who mixed up indiscriminately early and later work! If we could only arrange Plautus' plays in something like chronological order, a flood of light would be thrown on details of technique which at present escape us; the utility of the Lexicon Plautinum would be doubled. (shrink)

Miss Steuart, in her recent edition of the Annals of Ennius, prints the notorious line, ‘O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta tyranne tulisti,’ among the fragmenta spuria, and shows that the attribution of it to Ennius is late and uncertain. That it is old is shown by the fact that it is quoted in the Ad Herennium. Miss Steuart classes it among the ‘freak’ lines by which Hardie thought Lucilius illustrated his hundred kinds of Solecism.

This paper explores Nietzsche’s approach to the question of illness. It develops an account of Nietzsche’s ideas in the wake of Arthur W. Frank’s discussion of the shortcomings of modern medicine and narrative theory. Nietzsche’s approach to illness is then explored in the context of On the Genealogy of Morality and his conception of the human being as “the sick animal”. This account, it is argued, allows for Nietzsche to develop a conception of suffering that refuses to reduce it to (...) modernist restitutive conceptions of well-being. Instead, Nietzsche advocates a more nuanced conception of varying degrees of health. This, it is argued, can be developed into a model that allows for a more satisfying conception of the relation between medical practitioner and patient. (shrink)

This paper explores Nietzsche’s approach to the question of illness. It develops an account of Nietzsche’s ideas in the wake of Arthur W. Frank’s discussion of the shortcomings of modern medicine and narrative theory. Nietzsche’s approach to illness is then explored in the context of On the Genealogy of Morality and his conception of the human being as “the sick animal”. This account, it is argued, allows for Nietzsche to develop a conception of suffering that refuses to reduce it to (...) modernist restitutive conceptions of well-being. Instead, Nietzsche advocates a more nuanced conception of varying degrees of health. This, it is argued, can be developed into a model that allows for a more satisfying conception of the relation between medical practitioner and patient. (shrink)

It would add greatly to our interest in the plays of Plautus if we knew more about the order in which they were produced. As it is, our knowledge of the dates of the plays is pitifully meagre and uncertain. Miles Gloriosus appears to have been produced soon after 206; Cistellaria about 201; Stichus in 200; Trinummus soon after 194; Pseudolus probably is 191, and Truculentus about 189. The date of the remaining seventeen plays is unknown. We can only infer (...) their relation one to another from the internal evidence of language, metre, and structure. The results of an examination on these lines, if they converged, might be useful in enabling us to arrange the plays roughly in a number of well-defined groups. Mr. Sedgwick 1 has recently made an interesting attempt to approach the problem from the side of metre. I think that a more intensive study of the plays from the side of language might lead to profitable results. My immediate concern is, however, only with a small corner of this vast field—viz., the frequent coincidence of thought and phrase which is so marked a feature of these plays. (shrink)

This article examines the psychoanalytic foundations of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s late essay “The Weather in Proust” and draws out the contradictions in its aesthetic claims. These claims are based on the object-relations theory of Melanie Klein, D. W. Winnicott, and others whom Sedgwick turns to in her departure from Freudian psychoanalysis. The latter, Sedgwick argues, is a closed system compared to the freedom afforded by a theory of weather. From this vantage point, Sedgwickian weather is exemplary of (...) a broader turn away from psychoanalysis, especially Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, in the environmental humanities. I examine the limits to this turn and show why the version of eco-psychoanalysis on display in “The Weather in Proust” contradicts Sedgwick’s stated intentions. Though Sedgwick posits the weather as a source of freedom and creativity, her version of atmospheric criticism exacerbates the very conditions of anxiety that Sedgwick tries to ameliorate. This contradiction in reading points to a greater problem in the environmental humanities. I address this problem by returning to Sedgwick’s rejection of Sigmund Freud. (shrink)

Sally Sedgwick’s most recent book is not, as its title might suggest, an exhaustive compendium of Hegel’s criticisms of Kant. Instead, it is something that is in many respects far more valuable: it is a detailed and thorough investigation of one particular criticism, which Sedgwick claims we must understand if we are to see any of Hegel’s other criticisms in their proper light. As a scholar who has published extensively on these other criticisms, her claim should be taken (...) seriously. (shrink)

Biologists, historians, lawyers, art historians, and literary critics all voice arguments in the critical dialogue about what constitutes evidence in research and scholarship. They examine not only the constitution and "blurring" of disciplinary boundaries, but also the configuration of the fact-evidence distinctions made in different disciplines and historical moments the relative function of such concepts as "self-evidence," "experience," "test," "testimony," and "textuality" in varied academic discourses and the way "rules of evidence" are themselves products of historical developments. The essays and (...) rejoinders are by Terry Castle, Lorraine Daston, Carlo Ginzburg, Ian Hacking, Mark Kelman, R. C. Lewontin, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Mary Poovey, Donald Preziosi, Simon Schaffer, Joan W. Scott, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, and Barbara Herrnstein Smith. The critical responses are by Lauren Berlant, James Chandler, Jean Comaroff, Arnold I. Davidson, Harry D. harootunian, Elizabeth Helsinger, Thomas C. Holt, Francoise Meltzer, Robert J. Richards, Lawrence Rothfield, Joel Snyder, Cass R. Sunstein, and William Wimsatt. (shrink)