Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T12:25:40.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Battles, Ancient and Modern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

G. B. Grundy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last number of the Hellenic Journal Professor Burrows has once more attacked Pylos and Sphakteria, this time with the aid of certain allies from the Peloponnese and a whole battery of photographs. I am, I confess, loth to dye this ink-stained field a deeper hue, and I have certainly no intention of sending friends of mine to Pylos with a view to reviving a controversy which has gone far enough. At the same time I do not wish to appear to undervalue the evidence of Messrs. Carr Bosanquet, Crowfoot, and Lindsay, though it is not of a very decisive character. I should therefore like to point out, as briefly as possible, its true bearing, and in doing so I have the satisfaction of not having to treat it as hostile, though brought into court by the other side.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 18 , November 1898 , pp. 232 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1898

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 233 note 1 Prof. Burrows on p. 149 of his article has quoted a long passage from a previous paper of mine, in which occur the words: ‘at this south end of the east cliff, the summit of the cliff rises to a vertical height of sixty feet above its eastern foot, which is only at a horizontal distance of eighty-one feet from that summit.’ Professor Burrows disposes of this remark by an appeal to the photograph, and says ‘Comment is needless.’ The effect of this criticism is unfortunately negatived by the fact that though he has quoted my actual words, he has misread them. He says the photograph shows in profile the slope to which I refer. It does not. It shows in profile the slope to the southern, not the eastern foot. To this southern slope I referred in the Classical Review of Nov. 1896 in the words ‘The cliff is sixty feet high within fifty yards of the Sikia.’ But it is the east slope which is of importance to the question between us. As to comment we are in agreement.