No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2009
1 Le Monde oriental 20 (1926), 85–222 and 21 (1927), 1–185 (cited below as i and ii)Google Scholar; see also Láng, J., Acta ethnographica acad. scient. Hungaricae 22 (1973), 171–197.Google Scholar
2 Not quite true; see Il. 22. 199–201.
3 Arbman, i. 117–21.
4 Cf. my Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (1971), 148 and 183. De Victu 4. 86 is of course not ‘Hippocrates’ (Bremmer 51, 53) but a fourth–century writer.
5 Cf. Burkert, W., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (1972), 162–165.Google Scholar
6 Similarly Láng 189, who identifies the older name asεἴδωλον.
7 See also Onians, R. B., The Origins of European Thought (1951), 93–95 and 119 f.Google Scholar
8 Like fumus. In later Sanskrit dhūmáh is also used of mists and vapours, meteors, and belches.
9 See Furley, D. J., BICS 3 (1956), 7, 9, 11Google Scholar; Fränkel, H., Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy (1975), 605 f.Google Scholar; Jarcho, V. N., Philologus 112 (1968), 149 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adkins, A. W. H., From the Many to the One (1970), 62–66Google Scholar; Snell, B., Die Entdeckung des Geistes, 4th ed. (1975), 25 f., 297Google Scholar; in most detail Claus, D.B., Toward the Soul (1981).Google Scholar