tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post8470098467773669321..comments2023-04-05T08:04:07.514-04:00Comments on Bryn Mawr Classical Review: 2013.03.30Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-79351735217306930452013-04-05T12:43:14.263-04:002013-04-05T12:43:14.263-04:00J. Mouratidis writes:
Unfortunately the reviewer...J. Mouratidis writes:<br /><br /><br />Unfortunately the reviewer, has not shared his own opinion on the above approch with us, although he does warn readers that I am not familiar with the sources, and that I am not entitled to a view on the said <i>Commentary</i>, given that my field is the history of physical education, not philology. It is hard to imagine a statement more mistaken. Apart from anything else, the reviewer is here betraying his strong desire, indeed his desperate efforts, to monopolize this field of knowledge. When the reviewer claims that the book contains nothing new, saying that “Nearly all the possible permutations involving the <i>halma</i> have been entertained by scholars: ...” he is indulging in a gross simplification, probably implying, and perhaps assuming, that similar interpretations to my own are to be found elsewhere. All he need do is refer us to the articles or books in question. For my part, after studying the subject for years, I am not aware of any such material, nor am I aware that such material is familiar to other scholars.<br /><br />To conclude this brief response to Dr Brunet’s review, I must insist that every student of ancient athletics – even those who already know a great deal about the jump in the ancient pentathlon- will find within the pages of my book many new interpretations, views and approaches, to which the reviewer makes no reference and on which he has no comment to make. Why is this? I should like to observe to Dr Brunet that while only time will tell whether or not a book contains truths, whether or not it contains new ideas should be – to those well versed in the subject - immediately apparent. <br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />[[1]] See Gardiner 1903, 54; 1910, 362, 63; Bean 1956, 361; Harris 1963; 1964, 77; Ebert 1963, 2-6; Sweet 1983, 287-90; 1987, 56; Weiler 1988, 190-91; Kyle 1990, 291; Jackson 1991, 178; Matthews 1995, 132-33; Golden 1998, 69; Lee 2001, 46-47; Decker 2004, 143.<br /><br />J. Mouratidis Ph D Professor <br />Aristotle University of Thessaloniki<br />Greece<br />Bryn Mawr Classical Reviewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12183270212416267662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-51572379472450088042013-04-05T12:42:15.759-04:002013-04-05T12:42:15.759-04:00J. Mouratidis writes:
I have not previously respon...J. Mouratidis writes:<br />I have not previously responded to reviews of my work, but I believe that on this occasion a response is required. Before Dr Brunet begins his review proper, he raises a number of fundamental, and very familiar questions concerning the jump in the ancient pentathlon, concluding with some degree of glibness that: ‘… our inability to answer these questions is not due to a lack of evidence’. Many leading scholars would take issue with this view.[[1]] Dr Brunet’s position is disappointing, perhaps most of all to those of us who have made a study of the matter in question. The question of the jump in the ancient pentathlon is perhaps the most vexed and complex issue in the whole field of ancient Greek physical education, due to the paucity of ancient sources and the difficulty of interpreting those sources that are available. <br /><br />The reviewer appears to believe that my book is an introductory survey of the jump in the ancient pentathlon, of value to students and to those not familiar with the subject and adding nothing new to the sum of our knowledge. Dr Brunet does not seem to have read the book carefully, particularly the two sections (pp. 55-80) which form, in my view, the very heart of the argument. It is evident that the reviewer’s claim is arbitrary and groundless. He has wrongly asserted there is nothing new in my book whereas there are, as every informed reader will find out, a number of new approachings interpretations and views:<br /><br />1. The way in which the jumpers performed the jump and the manner in which they used their weights when performing the triple jump, that is, the number - one problem in our understanding of the jump in the ancient pentathlon.<br />Why does not the reviewer comment in the athlete’s performance of the triple jump, as described in the pages of the book and in plate B? Is a similar interpretation to be found anywhere in the literature? Does Dr Brunet really know of any other similar approach to this complex problem?<br /><br />2. The jump without <i>halteres</i> being an event in the ancient pentathlon. In fact it was the most ancient form of jump in the pentathlon. <br />Dr Brunet does not tell us whether he agrees with the above interpretation.<br /><br />3. The possible position of the <i>skamma</i> in the ancient stadium.<br />Is the reviewer aware of a similar interpretation of this question based on the art of the period? Here too, the reviewer fails to inform us whether he agrees with the approach I take.<br /><br />4. The origin of the long jump in the ancient pentathlon.<br />Dr Brunet makes no reference to the interpretation offered for the first time in the section. Can he point us to any similar approach to this so important and difficult question? Not even here can the reviewer admit that I have anything to contribute.<br /><br />5. Symmachus’ contention (about the position of the <i>bater</i>) δὲ τὸ μέσον, ἀφ’ οὗ ἁλόμενοι πάλιν ἐξάλλονται and the possible length of the ancient <i>skamma</i>.<br />Does the reviewer agree or disagree with my view? Once again fails to tell us.<br /><br />6. The placing of the feet on the <i>bater</i>, after two jumps and the interpretation of the phrase ἀφ’ οὖ καί τὸν βατῆρα κέκρουκεν.<br />Why does the reviewer not comment on the above approach? Is a similar approach to be found in the international literature? <br /><br />7. A new approach to the Commentary of Themistius on Aristotle’s <i>Physics</i> 172.26. <br />Bryn Mawr Classical Reviewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12183270212416267662noreply@blogger.com