Search

VERITAS is a ground-based gamma-ray observatory covering energies between 100 GeV and 50 TeV and will start operating by January 2007. We give a brief report of the construction status and performance characteristics of the telescopes.

The Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) being constructed in Southern Arizona consists of an array of four Atmospheric Cherenkov 12m Telescopes designed to observe astrophysical gamma rays in the energy range from 100 GeV to tens of TeV. A first telescope has been in operation on a temporary site since the end of 2004 and meets all specifications. The second is being installed on the same site, 85m from the first, in order to test stereoscopic capabilities. The full system of four telescopes is expected to be installed on the definitive site by the end of 2006.

The very ingenious and closely reasoned article of Mr. L. R. Palmer (C.Q. XXXII, p. 57) seems to us to deserve examination, the more so as we totally disagree with his views, both from the point of view of etymology and that of Religionsforschung. To put his conclusions briefly, he supposes mactus to be derived from a hypothetical verb macio, signifying ‘bespatter, sprinkle’; mactus then would properly mean ‘sprinkled’(with wine, blood, milk or some other fluid used in sacrifice), and might also be used of the substance which was sprinkled or poured, thus accounting for the double construction of the secondary verb mactare (aliquid alicui or aliquem aliqua re). In particular, Mr. Palmer supposes that macte uirtute alludes to the blood with which the warrior thus addressed is besprinkled, and so to his tabu condition. To the whole of this construction we object, holding that the old derivation from the root MAG is correct (though a verb *mago is as hypothetical as Mr. Palmer's *macio) and that mactus signifies ‘increased’, ‘made greater or stronger’, mactare properly ‘to put someone in the condition of being mactus’, and by an easy transition ‘to sacrifice a victim’ (to a deity, to make him mactus).

This ancient tale has naturally been recognized by modern scholars for what it is—a story of the Great Mother and her paramour; but several features appear to me to have been given less examination than they deserve, in view of their own peculiarity and the obvious antiquity of the myth.That it is pre-Greek is fairly clear from the names of the principal actors. Anchises yields no tolerable meaning in Greek, and we do not know to what speech it belongs—possibly Phrygian. Aphrodite is, of course, no Greek goddess at all. The tale was known to Greek saga-men about the tenth century B.C., and is fully told for the first time, so far as our surviving records go, in a document possibly of the seventh century—the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Connected as it is, though loosely, with the Troy-saga, it may quite possibly go back to Minoan-Mycenaean times, as that does. The features which I think worthy of further investigation are the fate of Anchises after his enjoyment of the goddess' favours, and in particular the effect upon him of the thunderbolt with which he was smitten.

n/a

That a considerable fragment of the Fabulae of Hyginus—whoever Hyginus may have been and whenever he lived—exists in a Greek translation in the Hermeneumata Leidensia (C.G.L. III., p. 56, 30 sqq.) is well known to all students of his work. Indeed, this extract furnishes the terminus ante quem for Hyginus’ date in its opening words; I cite it as accented and punctuated by Schmidt (p. liv of his edition of the Fabulae, Jena, 1872):Maξμѱ ka “Aπρῳ v´πáτoιs πρò у εἰδν ΣεπTεμβρων ‘Ỵуνoυ уενεaλoуaν πâσιν уνωστν μετуραΨα, ν ὦ ἒσoνται π λεoνɛṣ ἱστoρατ δτερμνευνατ ν τoὑτῳ τῴ βιβλῳ θεν уàρ kα θεáων νματα ν δευτρ ξεπλξαμεν λ’ π τoτ σoνται τoτων ξμуσεισ, ε kα μ πσαι, ττων μντoιуε ν τoστ δναμαι.

Not a little speculation has been expended on the Genius in ancient and modern times. I propose very briefly to recapitulate the known facts about him, examine the chief explanations, and give what I consider the true one.

The purpose of this paper is to indicate the slightness of the foundation on which a commonly received doctrine about Roman funerals rests, and to discuss a point in connexion with the ritual of funera acerba.

It is no longer the fashion to imagine Herodotos a liar when he tells marvellous stories, for some of his most extraordinary statements have long since been shown to contain at least a substantial measure of truth. It is perhaps not sufficiently realized, however, that on occasion he misleads his readers and himself by too much critical unbelief in his materials and consequent application of the crude methods of mythological investigation then current. In other words, he often rationalizes in the only way then possible, superficially altering the story so as to rid himself of the incredible details, or at all events, as I think, attributing to the actors motives which a somewhat drily rational mind could understand and approve or condemn. It is of course well known that at least the former method was a commonplace of the sophists, whose influence on Herodotos is manifest and widespread; it has been said, indeed, that it is much older than they and characteristically Ionic. L. Radermacher finds traces of it in the Odyssey itself and adds that, although we can sometimes catch the rationalizer (or Fälscher, as he impolitely calls him) at work, we cannot be sure of always doing so and ‘müssen annehmen, dass der Glaube an die Geschichtlichkeit ihrer Sage manche griechischen Autoren früh verführt hat, sie geschichtlicher zu erzählen als eigentlich erlaubt war’. This is a true and useful statement. Modern criticism has long learned to set aside ancient allegorizations of myths, about which I need say nothing, for the subject has been repeatedly and well handled by my colleague, Dr. J. Tate; it has often, however, confused ancient interpretation of myth with ancient criticism of saga. Euhemerism indeed is usually recognized for what it is, although even this is not always so; but uixere inepti ante Euhemerum multi, and their efforts are by no means always distinguished either from allegorizing or from real sagas. For an example of the former confusion I may refer to Stallbaum's note on Plato, Phaedrus, 29 C-D, where the reader is referred to the account given by Lobeck of the rise and growth of allegorization. But Plato says nothing at all of allegories in this passage. He quotes, with ironical admiration of its ‘wisdom’, a version of the story of Boreas and Oreithyia according to which she. was knocked off the Areiopagos, or some other place, by a strong north wind, and so was killed and consequently said to have been carried away by Boreas. He adds that it would be a laborious and dismal business to go through all the tales of wonder in that way, rationalizing the Hippocentaurs, Gorgons, Chimaira, Pegasos, and the rest out of existence; a wise saying which was uttered in vain for Palaiphatos and his kind. However, most moderns know a myth from a saga and an allegory from a crude rationalization which accepts the story as true except for the incredibilities and is quite ready to believe, for instance, in Romulus if we will but postulate that he was not snatched up to heaven but murdered and his body hidden. There is a much more subtle snare, consisting of a story which, although rationalized, is well told, and Herodotos in this respect can be a notable offender, for he never tells a story ill.

If I had asked ten years ago the question I am asking to-day, I should have answered it with a good deal of confidence. I should have told you that we have irrefragable evidence of a group of very ancient cults, those of the di indigetes or native Roman gods, in whom we might safely recognize the reflection of purely Roman thought, untouched by the influence of Etruria, of Greece, or even of the other Italian states. I should then have proceeded to describe briefly the general characteristics of these gods and deduce therefrom the mental development and social status of their worshippers. I should probably have added that one of the most ancient of Roman institutions, the templum, showed clear traces of being derived from the customs of the terramara people, and therefore that that interesting branch of the Bronze culture had a good deal to do with the founding of the Eternal City. Then I might have gone on to tell you of other elements known or supposed to exist in the earliest cults, as revealed by modern investigation.

Such editors of Aeschylus as have time left from considering difficulties of the text to deal with larger problems of structure and presentation remark on the fact that Pylades speaks but three lines in the whole play. Verrall, for instance, who despite his many and great shortcomings as a scholar never lost sight of the essential fact that Aeschylus is a dramatist, draws attention to and attempts to justify it.

n/a

This paper sets out to answer four apparently unconnected questions, which, however, I hope to show to be parts of one question:(1) Why did Haimon kill himself over the body of Antigone?(2) Why did Philinnion return for three nights to her father's house?(3) Why is it unlawful(ού θέμɩς) to leave a story unfinished?(4) Why is a magician sometimes torn in pieces by his own devils, or otherwise destroyed by his own magic?