DOCSLIB.ORG

Title’, Attested Six Hundred Years on by the Periegete Pausanias

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Title’, Attested Six Hundred Years on by the Periegete Pausanias CHAPTER SEVENTEEN ION’S HYMN TO KAIROS Victoria Jennings Ion of Chios wrote a hymn to Kairos. Nothing survives but this ‘title’, attested six hundred years on by the periegete Pausanias. Writing of the Altis at Olympia, Pausanias reports that, %N# $ & b %N# # % $%a ($ %% * % b D% " $ , % b a. V` b . I !! c a \ b I %% !* [# a .. Quite close to the entrance to the stadium are two altars; one they call the altar of Hermes of the Games, the other the altar of Kairos. I know that a hymn to Kairos was created by Ion of Chios; in the hymn Kairos is made out to be the youngest child of Zeus. (87 Leurini = 742 PMG = Paus. 5.14.9).1 Pausanias’ detailed account of the almost seventy altars at Olympia frustrates: 1 Translations of Pausanias are taken from Jones and Ormerod (1926) (with minor adaptations). oida, “I know”, is used elsewhere with this sense: 3.26.2 (I know that Alcman says in a song . .); cf. 1.43.1; 2.35.1; 3.26.10; 4.2.1; 4.30.4; 4.35.11; 9.27.2; 10.26.1; 10.31.3; 10.32.8. Note Pausanias’ neutral reference to “Ion of Chios”. In the infamous passage where Pausanias discovers that Ion’s genealogy of the Chians does not answer his question about their Ionianism, Ion is “the tragedian” (7.4.8); cf. Dusanic (1999) 11. See Blanshard and Olding in this volume. The slippage is telling: Pausanias disliked tragedians and was irked by poets like Sappho who “made many inconsistent references to Eros in her poems” (9.27.3 = fr. 198, tr. Campbell). See Pelling in this volume on the nuances of Plutarch’s labellings of Ion, notably in 109* Leurini = FGrH 392 F15 = Per. 5.3–4 where Ion is brushed off as someone with a tragedian’s expectations of people. Pausanias favours genealogies (Musti in Chamoux 1996: 76; Bowie 1996: 229) and epic material (“. I read the poem called the Eoeae and the epic called the Naupactia, and, moreover, all the genealogies composed by Cinaethon and Asius”: 4.2.1; note too his praise of the Orphic Hymns as next to Homer in rank: 9.30.12—see Habicht 1985: 133) over more blatantly artistic mythography: he ignores Euripides’ Ion in his account of Ionia—see Chamoux (1996) 60; Bingen in Moggi (1996) 107; cf. Habicht (1985) 133; Veyne (1988) 45. What are we to make here of his use of \? 332 victoria jennings The reader must remember that the altars have not been enumerated in the order in which they stand, but the order followed by my narrative is that followed by the Eleans in their sacri ces. (5.14.10) My narrative (logos) will follow in dealing with them the order in which the Eleans are wont to sacri ce on the altars. (5.14.4)2 Each month the Eleans sacri ce once on all the altars I have enumer- ated. (5.15.10) The traditional words spoken by them in the Town Hall at the liba- tions, and the hymns (hymnoi ) which they sing, it were not right for me to introduce into my narrative. (5.15.11) Inscriptions attest to the cult personnel of these sacri ces in “an ancient manner” (5.15.10), as Pausanias’ guide makes us aware.3 Nevertheless, Pausanias’ liturgical, ritual, phenomenological topography has made locating these altars very challenging4—a challenge exacerbated by the cluttered physical topography of these pre-eminent sites.5 Supposedly, there was an altar to Kairos near the entrance to the stadium that was used by of\ cials and competitors: it was on the north east of the precinct, between the rows of treasuries and statues of Zanes to the north, and the Echo Stoa to the south. No identi able trace remains.6 Why—and when—was there an altar to Kairos at Olympia? Ion’s hymn is the earliest extant literary reference to this abstract personi\ - 2 See Elsner (2001a); cf. Morgan (1990) 55–6. 3 Etienne (1992) attempts a reconstruction of the procession. Jones (2001) 35–7 dis- cusses cult personnel on inscriptions from the 30s BC to the late third century AD; cf. Gardiner (1925) 199 –203. On Pausanias’ “exegete”, our only named guide (5.20.4), see Jones (2001) 35–7; Chamoux (1996) 59; Habicht (1985) 145–6; cf. Veyne (1988) 76. 4 As Morgan (1990) 42 notes, we also cannot securely date these cults; but Pausanias’ accuracy can most likely be assumed: Habicht (1984) 55–6, (1985) 32ff., 77n48; Arafat (1992) 389; Rubinstein (1995) 211. “Phenomenological”: Elsner (2001a) 5, (2000) 53–6, (1995) 135–7 ( p. 136: “a more important, more meaningful arrangement of space than mere juncture”); cf. Alcock (1996) 245. Pausanias’ “topographical” narrative juxtaposes “events or monuments of quite different periods, giving the impression that they never- theless belong closely together”: Bowie (1996) 213. Even Wilamowitz-Moellendorff was stumped by Pausanias’ extraordinary Olympian geography—and consequently black- listed him from scholarly appreciation for a century: Habicht (1985) Appendix I. 5 A “wearisome” profusion: Wycherley (1962) 96. Cf. Millett (1998) 213 on the Athenian agora: “hundreds (if not thousands) of inscribed stelai standing in front of the monuments and buildings”. Moreover, Pausanias notes excavations at Olympia in his own time: 5.20.8–9. 6 Mallwitz (1988) 91–3 discusses how few altars can be located: an altar to Artemis is located by (non-speci c) debris and identi ed by inscription on a later Roman altar; the site of the ash Great Altar of Zeus, to which Pausanias frequently returns in his criss-crossings of the site, is only approximate ( pp. 92–3 and n58). See Herrmann (1992) for the (dubious) identi cation of Treasury VIII as an altar..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Euripides” Johanna Hanink
    The Life of the Author in the Letters of “Euripides” Johanna Hanink N 1694, Joshua Barnes, the eccentric British scholar (and poet) of Greek who the next year would become Regius Professor at the University of Cambridge, published his I 1 long-awaited Euripidis quae extant omnia. This was an enormous edition of Euripides’ works which contained every scrap of Euripidean material—dramatic, fragmentary, and biographical —that Barnes had managed to unearth.2 In the course of pre- paring the volume, Barnes had got wind that Richard Bentley believed that the epistles attributed by many ancient manu- scripts to Euripides were spurious; he therefore wrote to Bentley asking him to elucidate the grounds of his doubt. On 22 February 1693, Bentley returned a letter to Barnes in which he firmly declared that, with regard to the ancient epistles, “tis not Euripides himself that here discourseth, but a puny sophist that acts him.” Bentley did, however, recognize that convincing others of this would be a difficult task: “as for arguments to prove [the letters] spurious, perhaps there are none that will convince any person that doth not discover it by himself.”3 1 On the printing of the book and its early distribution see D. McKitterick, A History of Cambridge University Press I Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge, 1534–1698 (Cambridge 1992) 380–392; on Joshua Barnes see K. L. Haugen, ODNB 3 (2004) 998–1001. 2 C. Collard, Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans (Bristol 2007) 199–204, re- hearses a number of criticisms of Barnes’ methods, especially concerning his presentation of Euripidean fragments (for which he often gave no source, and which occasionally consisted of lines from the extant plays).
    [Show full text]
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Heraclitus on Pythagoras
    Leonid Zhmud Heraclitus on Pythagoras By the time of Heraclitus, criticism of one’s predecessors and contemporaries had long been an established literary tradition. It had been successfully prac­ ticed since Hesiod by many poets and prose writers.1 No one, however, practiced criticism in the form of persistent and methodical attacks on both previous and current intellectual traditions as effectively as Heraclitus. Indeed, his biting criti­ cism was a part of his philosophical method and, on an even deeper level, of his self­appraisal and self­understanding, since he alone pretended to know the correct way to understand the underlying reality, unattainable even for the wisest men of Greece. Of all the celebrities figuring in Heraclitus’ fragments only Bias, one of the Seven Sages, is mentioned approvingly (DK 22 B 39), while another Sage, Thales, is the only one mentioned neutrally, as an astronomer (DK 22 B 38). All the others named by Heraclitus, which is to say the three most famous poets, Homer, Hesiod and Archilochus, the philosophical poet Xenophanes, Pythago­ ras, widely known for his manifold wisdom, and finally, the historian and geog­ rapher Hecataeus – are given their share of opprobrium.2 Despite all the intensity of Heraclitus’ attacks on these famous individuals, one cannot say that there was much personal in them. He was not engaged in ordi­ nary polemics with his contemporaries, as for example Xenophanes, Simonides or Pindar were.3 Xenophanes and Hecataeus, who were alive when his book was written, appear only once in his fragments, and even then only in the company of two more famous people, Hesiod and Pythagoras (DK 22 B 40).
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance
    Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance There is a rich body of encyclopaedic writing from the two millennia before the Enlightenment. This book sheds new light on this material. It traces the development of traditions of knowledge-ordering which stretched back to Pliny and Varro and others in the classical world. It works with a broad concept of encyclopaedism, resisting the idea that there was any clear pre-modern genre of the ‘encyclopaedia’, and showing instead how the rhetoric and techniques of comprehensive compilation left their mark on a surprising range of texts. In the process it draws attention to both remarkable similarities and striking differ- ences between conventions of encyclopaedic compilation in different periods. The focus is primarily on European/Mediterranean culture. The book covers classical, medieval (including Byzantine and Arabic) and Renaissance culture in turn, and combines chapters which survey whole periods with others focused closely on individual texts as case studies. jason konig¨ is Senior Lecturer in Greek at the University of St Andrews. He works broadly on the Greek literature and culture of the Roman empire. He is author of Athletics and Literature in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2005) and Saints and Symposiasts: The Lit- erature of Food and the Symposium in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Culture (Cambridge, 2012), and editor, jointly with Tim Whitmarsh, of Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2007). greg woolf is Professor of Ancient History at the University of St Andrews. His books include Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provin- cial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge, 1998); Et tu Brute: The Murder of Julius Caesar and Political Assassination (2006); Tales of the Barbar- ians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West (2011); and Rome: An Empire’s Story (2012).
    [Show full text]
  • SOCRATES Information About the Historical Socrates
    SOCRATES Information about the historical Socrates Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife, from Alopeke, belonged to the tribe of Antiochis and was born circa 470 BC. Young Socrates initially worked as a stonemason like his father. There was an old tradition that he had crafted the statue of the Three Graces that stood by the entrance of the Acropolis (Pausanias 1,22,8 and 9,35,7 – Comments on Aristophanes’ Clouds 793) but like the rest of the information about the philosopher that we have from sources of his time, it is probably not true. Tradition has it that in his youth he showed interest in the Ionian physical sciences, which had become well known in Athens and initially they may have aroused his enthusiasm. However, later in his maturity, he was won by physical philosophy. In Plato’s Phaedo Socrates admits that he had been greatly impressed in his youth by the teachings of Anaxagoras about the Mind (he was on friendly terms with Archelaus, one of the students of Anaxagoras). In Epidimies of Ion of Chios (fr. 11 Blumenthal) it is reported that Socrates travelled to Samos with Archelaus. Of course, this refutes what Plato mentions in Crito that Socrates never travelled away from his city except when he took part in military expeditions of his city. One compromising explanation is that perhaps this journey of his had to do with the Athenian expedition to Samos in 441/440 BC. As a historical figure Socrates is mainly known through the works of two authors of antiquity: Plato and Xenophon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Euripides Vita
    The Euripides "Vita" Lefkowitz, Mary R Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1979; 20, 2; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 187 The Euripides Vita Mary R. Lefkowitz I. Introduction IOGRAPHY can serve as a convenient aid in literary inter­ Bpretation, explaining puzzling emphases, accounting for an author's choice of subject. It offers a chance to spy on the intriguing mysteries of the creative process and somehow, though perhaps only partially, to reveal its workings. Because biography informs so well about literature since the eighteenth century, readers of ancient literature instinctively search for information about authors' lives to interpret Greek and Latin texts, particularly for complex (Euvres like Euripides' which seem to drift until some biographical or historical framework is brought in to anchor them.1 For example, Bernard Knox, reviewing for non-specialist readers Cacoyannis' film Iphigenia in Aulis, begins not by discussing the drama but by speaking of Euripides the man.2 He first relates an anecdote from the ancient Vita of Euripides to show how much the Athenians respected him: when Sophocles heard that Euripides was dead, he put on mourning and brought his actors out at the proagon without their ceremonial crowns, and the audience wept. But then Knox tells another anecdote from the Vita that expresses the hostility experienced by the poet in his lifetime: how Euripides was attacked and killed by a pack of hunting dogs. Knox warns about the dubious authenticity of such sensational stories about the deaths of poets. But he adds: "anyone who has been chased on a Greek hillside by shepherd dogs will not dismiss the story out of hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Wandering Poets and the Dissemination of Greek Tragedy in the Fifth
    Wandering Poets and the Dissemination of Greek Tragedy in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC Edmund Stewart Abstract This work is the first full-length study of the dissemination of Greek tragedy in the earliest period of the history of drama. In recent years, especially with the growth of reception studies, scholars have become increasingly interested in studying drama outside its fifth century Athenian performance context. As a result, it has become all the more important to establish both when and how tragedy first became popular across the Greek world. This study aims to provide detailed answers to these questions. In doing so, the thesis challenges the prevailing assumption that tragedy was, in its origins, an exclusively Athenian cultural product, and that its ‘export’ outside Attica only occurred at a later period. Instead, I argue that the dissemination of tragedy took place simultaneously with its development and growth at Athens. We will see, through an examination of both the material and literary evidence, that non-Athenian Greeks were aware of the works of Athenian tragedians from at least the first half of the fifth century. In order to explain how this came about, I suggest that tragic playwrights should be seen in the context of the ancient tradition of wandering poets, and that travel was a usual and even necessary part of a poet’s work. I consider the evidence for the travels of Athenian and non-Athenian poets, as well as actors, and examine their motives for travelling and their activities on the road. In doing so, I attempt to reconstruct, as far as possible, the circuit of festivals and patrons, on which both tragedians and other poetic professionals moved.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Ion of Chios the Case of a Foreign Poet in Classical
    ION OF CHIOS THE CASE OF A FOREIGN POET IN CLASSICAL SPARTA ABSTRACT This paper aims to reassess one piece of evidence for the performance of music and poetry in classical Sparta: an elegy by the Chian poet Ion (fr. 27 West). It is argued here that this poem evokes the atmosphere of a Spartan festival and, specifically, a symposium held as part of that festival. Ion was present in Sparta not merely as a friend of prominent Athenians, as is often claimed, but as a professional travelling poet. This suggests that Sparta remained an important centre for μουσική in the classical period and, moreover, was part of a broader Panhellenic network of festivals and contests. χαιρέτω ἡμέτερος βασιλεὺς σωτήρ τε πατήρ τε· ἡμῖν δὲ κρητῆρ’ οἰνοχόοι θέραπες κιρνάντων προχύταισιν ἐν ἀργυρέοις· †ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς οἶνον ἔχων χειρῶν νιζέτω εἰς ἔδαφος.† σπένδοντες δ’ ἁγνῶς Ἡρακλεῖ τ’ Ἀλκμήνηι τε, Προκλεῖ Περσείδαις τ’ ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχόμενοι πίνωμεν, παίζωμεν· ἴτω διὰ νυκτὸς ἀοιδή, ὀρχείσθω τις· ἑκὼν δ’ ἄρχε φιλοφροσύνης. ὅντινα δ’ εὐειδὴς μίμνει θήλεια πάρευνος, κεῖνος τῶν ἄλλων κυδρότερον πίεται. May our king rejoice, our saviour and father; let the attendant cup-bearers mix for us a crater from silver urns; †Let the golden one with wine in his hands wash to the base † 1 Pouring libations piously to Heracles and Alcmene, Procles and the sons of Perseus and Zeus first of all, let us drink, let us play, let our song rise through the night. Dance someone, willingly begin the festivities. And anyone who has a fair girl waiting to share his bed will drink more like a man than all the others.
    [Show full text]
  • Wandering Poets and the Dissemination of Greek Tragedy in the Fifth
    Wandering Poets and the Dissemination of Greek Tragedy in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC Edmund Stewart Abstract This work is the first full-length study of the dissemination of Greek tragedy in the earliest period of the history of drama. In recent years, especially with the growth of reception studies, scholars have become increasingly interested in studying drama outside its fifth century Athenian performance context. As a result, it has become all the more important to establish both when and how tragedy first became popular across the Greek world. This study aims to provide detailed answers to these questions. In doing so, the thesis challenges the prevailing assumption that tragedy was, in its origins, an exclusively Athenian cultural product, and that its „export‟ outside Attica only occurred at a later period. Instead, I argue that the dissemination of tragedy took place simultaneously with its development and growth at Athens. We will see, through an examination of both the material and literary evidence, that non-Athenian Greeks were aware of the works of Athenian tragedians from at least the first half of the fifth century. In order to explain how this came about, I suggest that tragic playwrights should be seen in the context of the ancient tradition of wandering poets, and that travel was a usual and even necessary part of a poet‟s work. I consider the evidence for the travels of Athenian and non-Athenian poets, as well as actors, and examine their motives for travelling and their activities on the road. In doing so, I attempt to reconstruct, as far as possible, the circuit of festivals and patrons, on which both tragedians and other poetic professionals moved.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Socratic Thought in Sophoclean Tragedy
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2006 Pre-Socratic Thought in Sophoclean Tragedy Meggan Jennell Arp University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Arp, Meggan Jennell, "Pre-Socratic Thought in Sophoclean Tragedy" (2006). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pre-Socratic Thought in Sophoclean Tragedy Abstract This dissertation investigates the relationship between the plays of Sophocles and the philosophy of the pre-Socratics. The question considered is whether or not Sophocles' tragedies were influenced by pre- Socratic thought in distinction from Sophistic thought. Scholars generally have recognized the impact of the Sophists on Sophoclean tragedy and determined it to be evidence of Sophocles' primarily negative dramatic treatment of so-called 'Enlightenment' thought of the 5th century B.C.E. This study determines the presence of pre-Socratic thought in the tragedies of Sophocles and views its influence as a primarily positive instance of 5th century 'Enlightenment' thought in these plays, in contrast to the general depiction of Sophistic thought. Three works of Sophocles' extant plays are examined in separate chapters. A chapter on Sophocles' Philoctetes elucidates traces of the philosophy of Heraclitus in this tragedy. Sophocles deploys certain Heraclitean images in the character portrayal of Philoctetes, whose moral outlook contrasts with the Sophistic vision of Odysseus. A second chapter, on the Trachiniae, argues that this tragedy recalls the philosophy of Heraclitus, as well as 'Enlightenment' thought of the Ionian scientific tradition in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeschylus' Clytemnestra Versus Her Senecan Tradition
    Aeschylus’ Clytemnestra versus her Senecan Tradition Edith Hall 1. Clytemnestra’s gauntlet An unknown Etrurian sculptor in the second century AD decorated an alabaster urn with a scene in which Clytemnestra takes the principal role in the murder of Agamemnon (fig. 1). It is an unremarkable art work in both design and execution, but it has a peculiar significance that only a diachronic process of reflection on the figure of Clytemnestra can reveal. For this is the sole certain ancient visual illustration of the murder of Agamemnon to post-date Aeschylus’ Oresteia which makes Clytemnestra the primary agent in her husband’s slaughter.1 Literary versions which make her both mastermind and the executor of the crime are also rare, one exception being Philostratus’ even later Cassandra, an ecphrasis of a painting written in about 300 AD (Imagines 2.10, see further Easterling, this volume, pp. 000). Philostratus’ semi-crazed Clytemnestra, her hair streaming, is visualised assaulting Cassandra with an axe still warm from Agamemnon’s body (2.10.4). It is striking, however, that even here, in a detailed description of Agamemnon’s return which self-consciously harks back to classical Athenian tragedy, no mention whatsoever is made of Iphigenia.2 Clytemnestra dominates the Aeschylean play named after her husband. She is a murderer, an androgyne, a liar, an orator, and executor of a palace coup. She is also an avenging mother. Of all the characters she has the most powerful speeches and the most confrontational scenes. Her impact was swift: when the legal speech-writer Antiphon composed the case for the prosecution in the mid-fifth-century trial of a woman accused of murdering her husband (a trial which would have been held, like the trial depicted in Eumenides, at the court of the Areopagus), he invoked a parallel with Clytemnestra (Antiphon 1.17).
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Issue
    _____________________________________________________________ Volume 16 March 2001 Number 1 _____________________________________________________________ Editor Editorial Assistants John Miles Foley Michael Barnes Adam Dubé Associate Editor Kristin Funk John Zemke Heather Hignite Heather Maring Marjorie Rubright Slavica Publishers, Inc. For a complete catalog of books from Slavica, with prices and ordering information, write to: Slavica Publishers, Inc. Indiana University 2611 E. 10th St. Bloomington, IN 47408-2603 ISSN: 0883-5365 Each contribution copyright © 2001 by its author. All rights reserved. The editor and the publisher assume no responsibility for statements of fact or opinion by the authors. Oral Tradition seeks to provide a comparative and interdisciplinary focus for studies in oral literature and related fields by publishing research and scholarship on the creation, transmission, and interpretation of all forms of oral traditional expression. As well as essays treating certifiably oral traditions, OT presents investigations of the relationships between oral and written traditions, as well as brief accounts of important fieldwork, a Symposium section (in which scholars may reply at some length to prior essays), review articles, occasional transcriptions and translations of oral texts, a digest of work in progress, and a regular column for notices of conferences and other matters of interest. In addition, occasional issues will include an ongoing annotated bibliography of relevant research and the annual Albert Lord and Milman Parry Lectures on Oral Tradition. OT welcomes contributions on all oral literatures, on all literatures directly influenced by oral traditions, and on non-literary oral traditions. Submissions must follow the list-of reference format (style sheet available on request) and must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope for return or for mailing of proofs; all quotations of primary materials must be made in the original language(s) with following English translations.
    [Show full text]