It is exxtraordinary what difficulties have been found from ancient times in the extract from Empedocles containing his theory of respiration, and preserved by Aristotle, De Respiratione 7, p. 473 B1.

Sophocles, Antigone 853–856, Jebb's text: προβσ' π' σχατον θρσους ψηλν ς Δκας βθρον προσπεσες, τκνον, πολ.

When the Oxyrhynchus Papyri of Sophocles' 'ІΧνενταí gave the forms κννηγ[Έ]σω , 1. 44 in Fragmenta Tragica Papyracea, and ΈκκννηγΈσαι, 1. 75, it restored to light a verb which is not acknowledged in the Lexicons, but which had remained, though almost unnoticed, in Phrynichus, Soph. Propar. in Bekker's Anecdota I. p. 48, and Theognostus' Canons in Cramer's Anecdota Oxoniensia II. p. 143. The form could not come from κννηγετΕîν, nor from the Hellenistic verb κννηγεîν, and attention was first drawn to (...) these two authorities by P. Maas in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1912, p. 1075, and by J. Stahl in Rhein. Mus. Vol. LXVIII. p. 307 . I owe these references to Mr. Stuart Jones. (shrink)

μxs22EF. ρ[…] τει. Professor Hunt thinks that this may be the remains of a verb ending in -εxs22EF or -λxs22EF; read perhaps 'κρινλάτει. The uncompounded verb occurs in col. iv. 1. 8. It is well known that Sophocles is fond of forming new verbs compounded with xs22EFκ. Professor Hunt tells me that this suggestion satisfies the conditions in the Papyrus. Compare κυνηλέσω, 11. 15, 44, and xs22EFκκυνηλxs22EFσαι, 1. 75.

Hermesianax, ap. Athen. 599B, I. 91 = Collectanea Alexandrina p. 100. This is a locus desperatus; but since the reviewer of Collectanea Alexandrina in the Classical Review, XXXIX., p. 192, accepts the idea which underlay my conjecture ξετρνησε, I think of adding to it οѵδϥμνόν τε, which is suggested by Schweighaeuser's οѵδϥμνόν The line will thus run: οѵδϥμνόν τ' ξετρνησε βίον ‘uitam uilem deliciis consumpsit.’ Hesychius has: οѵδαμνός οδένοςλόуου εστ βραύςεύτελής.

There is a general agreement among English scholars as to the meaning and derivation of these strange words: Merry and Riddell ad loc., the admirable article in Liddell and Scott, and Dr. Giles, agree in connecting ѵποδες with nepos, neptis, νεψιóς. The short ο in the declension has come from false analogy with τρíπουε and τετρποѵς, 'Aλοσύδѵη is probably for 'Aλοσύνδη ‘salt water.’ Other derivations of ѵποδѵς refute themselves. ‘Brood’ is the rendering now approved, but although this gives the general (...) sense, it does not quite hit the centre; and no critics have seen the reason for the choice of this peculiar word. (shrink)

Lines 53 to 56 stand thus in Weil, Bulletin de Corr. Hell. xix. 393 sqq., and Weir Smyth's Greek Melic Poets, p. 525.

Mr. Agar in Homerica, Preface ix., has suggested that κακι γλνηι was the original reading, ‘Be off with the evil eye upon you.’ I have searched, but in vain, for any formula of imprecation corresponding to the formula of blessing, τύχγαθι, though I should like to see it in κακι τѵχι of the Treacherous Hound in Agamemnon 1230. Mr. T. C. Snow, objecting to Mr. Agar's alterations of the Homeric text, once suggested to me that we should rather retain the (...) vocative, and translate it, ‘Be off, evil eye.’ Others also may have thought of this, but it does not appear to have got into print. (shrink)

Some uncertainty has always surrounded the translation of Thucydides made by Laurentius Valla in 1452 at the desire of the Humanist Pope, Nicolas V., because its source was unknown. It is recognized that the translation is of unequal value, because, excellent Latinist as Valla was, he was less at home in Greek, and often fails, even when the Greek is not particularly difficult; but his text, whatever its origin and history, is a primary authority. In the Oxford text of Thucydides, (...) edited by Principal Stuart Jones, I have counted sixteen places for which Valla is the only authority, and there are a few more which might perhaps well be added. The view both of the Principal and of Hude is that Valla's readings in these places were due to his own ingenuity. (shrink)

xs1F61ς … xs22EFξειργxs22EFσατο of MSS. is generally corrected to the third person plural, but it would be more like Thucydides to xs22EFξεxs22EFργαστο write: this would then be another instance of the corruption of pluperfects, such as S000983880001956X_inline1 into xs1F20γγxs22EFλλετο and the like, of which many instances are given by Cobet in Nov. Lect. 422, Var. Lect. 253. In the old edition of Poppo, 1826, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 297, xs22EFξxs22EFπγαστο is given as contained in Cod. Bas. ex emend., but (...) it is not noticed by Poppo-Stahl or recent editors. Ως with the pluperfect is Thucydidean: Mr. Marchant on ii. 59 refers to iii. 23, 1; 26, 4; 27, 1; 69, 2. See the remarks of Poppo in vol. i. part ii. p. 44 sq. on this MS. (shrink)

A cornerstone of physics, Maxwell‘s theory of electromagnetism, apparently contains a fatal flaw. The standard expressions for the electromagnetic field energy and the self-mass of an electron of finite extension do not obey Einstein‘s famous equation, \, but instead fulfill this relation with a factor 4/3 on the left-hand side. Furthermore, the energy and momentum of the electromagnetic field associated with the charge fail to transform as a four-vector. Many famous physicists have contributed to the debate of this so-called 4/3-problem (...) without arriving at a complete solution. It has generally been assumed that, as originally suggested by Poincaré, the problems are connected to the question of stability of the charge distribution, and that relativistic equivalence between energy and self-mass can only be restored by inclusion of stabilizing forces. Alternative solutions to the problems have also been proposed. Nearly a century ago Fermi suggested a covariant definition of the electromagnetic energy and momentum, and sixty years later Kalckar et al. argued that the 4/3 problem is caused by omission of a relativistic correction in the standard evaluation of the self-force from Coulomb self-interaction. However, the relation between these suggestions has not been clear. We show that the relativistic correction implies that the mechanical momentum of an accelerated rigid body must be defined as the sum of the momenta of its parts for fixed time in the momentary rest frame of the body. For the total momentum of particles and field to be conserved, the total energy–momentum tensor must be divergence free, and this then requires that the momentum of the associated electromagnetic field be defined in the same way, consistent with the suggestion by Fermi. This comprehensive solution of the 4/3-problem demonstrates that there is no conflict of Maxwell‘s theory with special relativity and the questions of equivalence of electromagnetic energy and self-mass and of stability of a classical charge distribution are independent. In appendices we discuss the relations of our treatment with Fermi‘s seminal paper and with a classic paper by Dirac where he evaluated the damping self-force on a point electron from transport of energy and momentum in the electromagnetic field. (shrink)