« AnteriorContinuar »
Translate :1. Beginning, Σκέψαι δή και τάδε έτι. φμην γάρ έγωγε ικανώς, κ. τ. λ. Ending, τούτον δε ουδαμή πρoσίεμαι.
Plato, Phaedo, xlv. 2. Beginning, αν ουν τύχη και ερόμενος ημάς υβριστής ών, κ. τ. λ. Ending, εάν δε τα ήδέα υπό των ανιαρών, ου πρακτέα.
ID., Protagoras, xxxvii. 3. Beginning, ΣΩ. Τί δέ, ώ βέλτιστε ; ή και η του νείν, κ. τ. λ. Ending, ενέβησαν ούτε τα σώματα ούτε τας ψυχάς.
ID., Gorgius, lxvii.
1. Name the Sophists with whom Plato brings Socrates into controversy. To what places did they severally belong? What do we know of the published treatises of several of them ? How does Grote explain the hostility of Plato against them?
2. “To comprehend the full value of the improvements struck out by Socrates, we have only to examine the intellectual paths pursued by his predecessors or contemporaries.” Expand this statement of Grote, pointing out distinctly the improvements originated by Socrates.
3. State what is known of the personal history of Plato.
4. What is Grote's view as to the logical nexus between the dialogues of Plato? A few general guide-posts as to their order are pointed out by Mr. Mahaffy ?
5. On what facts, either proved or fairly presumable, does Grote base his high opinion of the trustworthiness of the Thrasyllean canon of Plato's works ? When did Thrasyllus live?
6. Which is the most important Codex of the works of Plato, and its date ?
MR. L. C. PURSER.
Translate into English :1. Beginning, De iis, qui nunc petunt, Caesar certus putatur. ... Ending, his dumtaxat competitoribus urbanis.
CICERO, Ad Atticum, 1. i. 2. 2. Beginning, Ekonós est, ut suspicor, illis qui tenent, Ending, petere destitit, ne iuraret.
Ibid., 11. 18.1. 3. Beginning, Hoc quod re vera ita est, quum semper, Ending, qui lege tenentur, est curandum.
Cicero, De Atticum, u. 23. 3. 4. Beginning, Ciceronis epistolam tibi remisi. Ending, Dicaearchi, familiaris tui.
Ibid., XIII. 30
1. Explain-acta Kal. Sext. ; agrarii ; cistophorus ; cuicuimodi ; plagiarius; portorium circumvectionis ; pragmaticus homo; senatus auctoritas ; tabula Valeria ; Únolîkai. 2. Write critical notes on (a) Epistolam quam, ut scribis, ancora sublata, de phaselo
dedisti. (6) quem hominem (sc. Blaudenum Zeuxidem) cognosco nobi
liorem esse prope quam civitatem suam. (c) Phaetho libertus Quintum non vidit ; reiectus ab illo in Ma
cedoniam Pellae mihi praesto fuit. 3. Distinguish--Scio quid quaeras, Scio quod quaeris : Nihil habeo quod scribam, nihil habeo scribere, non habeo quid scribam. 4. (a) Caecilius agere coepit cum Satyro de iis rebus quas eum dolo
malo mancipio accepisse de Vario diceret. (6) nosmet ipsi, qui Lycurgei a principio fuissemus, cotidie miti
gamur. (c) Accedit incommodum quod gravis illa opinio senatum nihil
decernere ante quam de nobis actum esset amissa est. Explain the subjunctives in (a) and (b), and the tense of the infinitive
5. How does Mr. Tyrrell explain those actions in which Cicero seemed to make overtures to democracy?
6. Give an account of how letters were written and transmitted in Cicero's time.
7. What was the formal shape of the new monarchy as established by Caesar? It was in reality nothing else than the old regal office reestablished ?
8. What was the state of Italian agriculture in Caesar's time?
9. How did Caesar relieve the provinces from the oppressions of the magistrates and the capitalists? He instituted a great reform in provincial finance ?
10. How did the mimes differ from the Atellanae ? Who was the chief writer of mimes ? Give examples of political allusions in them.
11. What historically important work did Atticus write ?
12. What is the fundamental thought in Cicero's treatise “ De Republica”? In such semi-political writings of Cicero, Mommsen finds a comparative originality ?
Translate into Greek prose :
These natural pangs of an affrighted conscience are the demons, the avenging furies, which, in this life, haunt the guilty, which allow them neither quiet nor repose, which often drive them to despair and distraction, from which no assurance of secrecy can protect them, from which no principle of irreligion can entirely deliver them, and from which nothing can free them but the vilest and most abject of all states, a complete insensibility to honour and infamy, to vice and virtue. Men of the most detestable characters, who, in the execution of the most dreadful crimes, had taken their measures so coolly as to avoid even the suspicion of guilt, have sometimes been driven, by the horror of their situation, to discover, of their own accord, what no human sagacity could ever have investigated.
Translate into Latin prose :
The Stoics, in the few fragments of their philosophy which have come down to us, sometimes talk of leaving life with a gaiety, and even with a levity, which, were we to consider those passages by themselves, might induce us to believe that they imagined we could with propriety leave it whenever we had a mind, wantonly and capriciously, upon the slightest disgust or uneasiness. “When you sup with such a person," says Epictetus, “you complain of the long stories which he tells you about his Mysian wars. Now, my friend,' says he, 'having told you how I took possession of an eminence at such a place, I will tell you how I was besieged in such another place.' But if you have a mind not to be troubled with his long stories, do not accept of bis supper. If you accept of his supper, you have not the least pretence to complain of his long stories. It is the same case with what you call the evils of human life. Never complain of that of which it is at all times in your power to rid yourself.”
Translate into Greek Verse :
O God, that I might wash that sight away!
Translate into Latin Verse :
Blown from the land to which we strive,
Undaunted, nearer every hour-.
Though skies and ocean lour,
In fury hiss around our keel,
Even in the night of storms, we feel
The scorn of every breeze and tide,
And rough the sea and wide ?
And forward cast the longing eye,
And in the tempest lift our cry
1. Show that proper names have no connotation. Are abstract or individual names ever connotative ?
2. What is the ambiguity in the words 'one' and 'same'? Give examples of fallacies resulting from this ambiguity.
3. How far is it true that all propositions, in which the predicate is a general name, affirm or deny Resemblance ?
4. What are the exceptional cases in which, although the predicate is the name of a class, we affirm nothing but resemblance ?
5. Porphyry approached near to the true conception of essences : show this. Who was Porphyry?
6. What is the true ground of the distinction between the two kinds of classes indicated by the terms genus or species and accident) ?
7. What is the generic distinction between sciences which can be made deductive and those which cannot ? Show how an experimental science may become deductive.
8. Explain what Mill means by calling the major premiss of a syllogism a memorandum of past inferences, and a short formula for making
9. Show that his view is applicable to trains of reasoning.
10. Show that, accepting the ordinary view, the syllogism may be defended from the charge of petitio principii.
1. What is Mr. Monck's view of the fallacy of Petitio Principii ?
On what grounds does he maintain that fewer fallacies are current in the world than is sometimes alleged ?
2. Express the reasoning in the following argument in strict logical form, and show that the conclusion can be obtained either by reasoning correctly from a false premiss, or by a fallacious logical
ocess with a true premiss :
This disease is not infectious, for A and B were exposed to it and did not take it.
3. Give an example of an affirmative proposition, with the corresponding negative and infinite.
Under what circumstances is the affirmative true, and the negative and infinite false; the affirmative false, and the negative and infinite true; the negative true, and the affirmative and infinite false ?
4. What are the four predicables as originally expounded by Aristotle?
According to some, the Aristotelian predicables may be reduced to two-how ?
In what manner does Mr. Monck show, that even if the view here entertained of the Aristotelian predicables be correct, the quantification of the predicate is not anticipated ?
5. What are the objections which have been urged against the validity of the distinction between analytical and synthetical propositions ?
How are these objections answered by Mr. Monck
6. How does Mr. Monck show that Hamilton's Y and n are A and 0, with the predicate written before the subject ?
7. How does Mr. Monck investigate the number of legitimate syllogisms on the Hamiltonian system ?
8. In reductio ad impossibile, if the reduct conclusion be 0, determine the reducend mode when the minor is suppressed.
9. If the conclusion be substituted for one premiss of a legitimate syllogism, and the new premises be legitimate, what condition must be fulfilled by the suppressed premiss ?
10. In a sorites, in which the last predicate is predicated of the first subject, prove that all the premises except the last must be affirmative, without assuming that the sorites can be resolved into syllogisms in the first figure.
1. In Reduction to impossible there are two oppositions ?
2. It is assumed in Murray that in Reduction to impossible Opposition must result: how far is this true ?
3. State by.contrary-opposition the rules of the Fourth Figure.
4. What is the distinction between the terms Analytic and Synthetic, and to what are they applied by Kant?