Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff wrote surprisingly often to British colleagues. Usually it was a matter of a letter or two. The prolonged exchange with Gilbert Murray is the exception. More typical is the brief but important one with Sir James George Frazer. Extant evidence attests that he corresponded with some forty Englishmen and Scots. I omit Anglo-Irish: J.B. Bury, J.P. Mahaffy, L.C. Purser and the papyrologist, J.G. Smily. The evidence is incomplete because most letters after the letter N were stolen and (...) burned in the Berlin winter 1945-6. A first catalogue of his British correspondents is assembled. Because of the remoteness of much published biographical material, I include references to the important published sources and occasionally publish a document which otherwise would be forgotten. For the first time Wilamowitz's influence on the English scholars of his time is precisely documented. (shrink)

Shard cinema tells an expansive story of how moving images have changed in the last three decades, and how they have changed us along with them, rewiring the ways we watch, fight, and navigate an unsteady world. In a set of interrelated essays that range from the writings of early factory workers to the distributed sight of contemporary surveillance, Williams argues for deep links between the images we see and the hidden labors frozen into them, exploring how even the apparently (...) trivial or spectacular carries unique opportunities to detect and process the social frictions of their making. Spanning film, video games, radical history, architecture, visual effects, and war, the book crosses the twentieth century into our present to confront a new order of seeing and making that slowly took shape: the composite image, where no clean distinction can be made between production and post-production, filmed and animated, material and digital. Giving equal ground to costly blockbusters, shaky riot footage, disaster photography, and early cinema, Williams leads us from computer-generated 'shards' of particles and debris to the broken phone screens on which we watch these digital storms, looking for the unexpected histories lived in the interval between"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

The editors allow me four corrections of Mr. Parry's remarks in C.Q. N.S. X , 268–70. Mr. Parry observes : ‘Calder says that Jebb wanted to translate S0009838800011745_inline1 by him. That is not correct.’ But Mr. Parry has just said that S0009838800011745_inline2 exemplifies ‘the common “I know thee who thou art” construction’ and has endorsed the view of Brunck, ‘Est autem’ etc. Brunck is saying that S0009838800011745_inline3 is the proleptic subject of the verb S0009838800011745_inline4 which is S0009838800011745_inline5 he, sc. (...) Oedipus, S0009838800011745_inline6 therefore does not mean her nor them but him whether or not the word ‘must be left out in translation’. (shrink)