bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Archilochus and Lycambes
Authors: Carey C. 
Published: February 2009

A persistent ancient tradition has it that a man named Lycambes promised his daughter Neoboule in marriage to the poet Archilochus of Paros, that he subsequently refused Archilochus, and that the poet attacked Lycambes and his daughters with such ferocity that they all committed suicide. When we reflect that the iambographer Hipponax drove his enemies Bupalus and Athenis and Old Comedy a man named Poliager to suicide, that the ancestress of iambos, Iambe, killed herself, and that all these suicides, like those of Lycambes and his daughters, took the form of hanging, we will not take too seriously the ending of the story of Archilochus' relations with Lycambes and his family.However, it seems now to be generally accepted, at least among English-speaking scholars, that the whole Lycambes tradition is to be rejected. The present note seeks to demonstrate that this extreme scepticism is misguided. I shall begin with a survey of Archilochus' references to Lycambes and his family to ascertain how far the indirect tradition is consistent with the surviving fragments.Lycambes appears to have played a consistent role in Archilochus, as far as the fragments allow us to see. In fr. 38 he appears as the father of two daughters (οἴην Λυκάμβεω παῖδα τ⋯ν ύπερτέρην), in fr. 33 (where the voice of ‘the daughter of Lycambes’ is mentioned) as the father of at least one daughter. In fr. 71 his role cannot be determined. But in fr. 54, if his name is correctly restored in v. 8, he may again figure as the father of a daughter, for a female is mentioned in the fragment, whether for good or ill. If his patronymic is correctly supplied in fr. 57.7, it may be significant that the lettersπατρoccur in the same verse.
Pythian11: did Pindar err?
Authors: Instone S. J. 
Published: February 2009

Pythian11 is usually reckoned to be a particularly problematic Pindaric ode. I hope to show that it is not, and in the process make some points which will have a bearing on interpretation of some of Pindar's other odes. Rather than go through the whole poem step by step, I shall concentrate on the main problems and on some particular passages.The most disputed problem is the myth. What is the relevance of the story of Agamemnon's return from Troy, his murder by Clytemnestra, and her murder by Orestes, all of which takes up the central part of the poem? The myth appears even more irrelevant because after telling it Pindar seems to acknowledge that it was a mistake to have told it in the first place. What does he mean by saying (lines 38–40) that he went off course when he told it?The second major problem comes after the myth and again concerns Pindar's apparently veering off suddenly into irrelevance. No sooner has he catalogued the victories of the winner's family than he launches into a denunciation of tyrannies and announces his support of moderation (lines 52–3). Why does he do that?The poem ends, after the social and political comments, with an epode devoted to Castor and Polydeuces, Spartan heroes, and the Theban hero Iolaos. Are they a sign that Pindar puts his hope in an alliance of Thebes with Sparta to win freedom from Athens? And was Pindar in the myth ‘telling us not only what Thrasydaios of Thebes the victor is, but also what he is not: he is not exposed to the kinds of peril that plagued the great house of Atreus?’
Euripides, Medea 639
Authors: Meridor Ra'Anana 
Published: February 2009

Modern interpretation tends to take E. Med. 639, ‘driving from the senses over a second bed’ (θυμ⋯ν ⋯κπλήξασ' ⋯τέροις ⋯π⋯ λέκτροις), found within the petition of the chorus that ‘dread Cypris never…inflict angry arguments and insatiate quarrels’ (637–40a), as referring to a second bed that might allure these women themselves rather than one that might allure their husbands. None the less, the latter interpretation seems to be recommended by both the contents and the context of the line; it is also consistent with Euripidean idiom. As to the context, v. 639 is found in the second stasimon. An examination of the attitude of the chorus toward Medea up to this point may guide us towards a fuller understanding of the phrase.In her opening speech in the first episode (214ff.) Medea, who was betrayed by the husband for whom she left family and country (252ff.), persuades the already sympathetic chorus (136–8, 178f., 182) to side with her as underprivileged women in a world dominated by egocentric men (230ff.). In the first pair of strophes of the following stasimon (410–30) they accept Medea's division of human beings into ‘the female stock’ (419) and ‘the race of males’ (429) and sing of male perfidy and discrimination against women. They stress their own personal involvement by replacing ‘women’ with ‘I’ and ‘we’ in five of the seven references to the second sex (415 and 422 ‘my’, 423 and 430 ‘our’, 428 ‘I’).
Xenophon'sHieroand the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek Literature
Authors: Gray V. J. 
Published: February 2009

TheHierois an account in Socratic conversational form of a meeting between Simonides the poet and Hiero the tyrant of Syracuse; it was written by Xenophon of Athens in the fourth century b.c., but is set in the fifth, when the historical Simonides and Hiero lived and met. The subject they are portrayed discussing is the relative happiness of the tyrant and private individual. Plato also makes this a topic of discussion in hisRepublic. However, whereas Plato writes a regular Socratic dialogue, Xenophon does not, for though he represents his characters using Socratic conversation, Socrates himself does not appear; the characteros of theHieroare Simonides and Hiero, poet and tyrant. This is the problem of theHiero. It requires explanation.The action of theHierois initiated by Simonides and begins in the following way:Simonides the poet once came to the court of Hiero the tyrant. When they were both at leisure, Simonides said, ‘Would you be willing to tell me, Hiero, something you are likely to know better than I?’ And Hiero said, ‘What is it that I should know better than you, who are such a wise man?’ He replied, ‘I know that you were once a private individual and are now a tyrant. Since you have experienced both conditions, you are likely to know better than I how tyrannical life differs from private life in respect of men's pleasures and griefs’ (1.1–2).The identification of Simonides as a wise man who nevertheless seeks wisdom from others establishes his Socratic nature from the start.
Putting the Cratylus in its Place
Authors: Mackenzie Mary Margaret 
Published: February 2009

The Cratylus begins with a paradox; it ends with a paradox; and it has a paradox in between. But this disturbing characteristic of the dialogue has been overshadowed, not to say ignored, in the literature. For commentators have seen it as their task to discover exactly what theory of language Plato himself, despite his declared perplexity, intends to adopt as he rejects the alternatives of Hermogenes and Cratylus. A common view, then, has been to suppose that the ⋯πορίαι of the dialogue are mere camouflage for the hidden dogma, whatever that may be. A favoured candidate, of course, has been the theory of transcendent forms, in some preliminary version. As a consequence, the dialogue has often been seen as a precursor to the great metaphysical works of Plato's middle period such as the Phaedo or the Republic.Not so, I shall argue. My case is that this dialogue centres upon a series of paradoxes which are both powerful and unsettling. Their final effect is to attack the theory of forms, not to defend it. They are, I suggest, genuine proposals of philosophical difficulty, rather than mere artifice to disguise an idealist truth. As such, they belong, and may clearly be seen to belong, with works of the critical period which subject the theory of forms to scrutiny. Thus the ⋯πορίαι of the Cratylus have their counterparts in the Parmenides, the Theaetetus and the Sophist. I propose, then, that the dialogue was written during the late, critical period of Plato's philosophical activity.
The Leges Clodiae and Obnuntiatio
Authors: Mitchell T. N. 
Published: February 2009

One of four laws passed by Clodius early in 58 b.c. in some way modified the regulations governing obnuntiatio, the right possessed by magistrates and augurs to obstruct proceedings of the popular assemblies through announcement of unfavourable omens. The precise nature of the change is obscured by the fact that our main source, Cicero, describes it, as he does all of Clodius' legislation, in hyperbolic and polemical terms, alleging that it wholly abolished the right of obnuntiatio, a claim contradicted by other evidence in his writings, which provide many examples of its continuing use. The later ancient sources repeat the substance of Cicero's main allegations and, accordingly, do little to help disentangle the facts from the hyperbole. Inadequate information about the earlier regulations relating to obnuntiatio, which were contained in two laws of the mid-second century, the Leges Aelia et Fufia, further hampers the search for the precise terms of Clodius' amendment.None of this, however, has discouraged speculation. The problem has exerted a peculiar fascination and has generated a succession of careful studies. Five main hypotheses have emerged: that the right of obnuntiatio was taken from curule magistrates; that it was taken from curule magistrates, but only in relation to legislative comitia; that it was taken from both curule magistrates and tribunes, but only in relation to legislative comitia; that it was abolished entirely, but soon restored by senatorial annulment of the reform; that it was left intact, but the assemblies were empowered to disallow it on any given occasion.
Puppes Sinistrorsum Citae
Authors: Pelling C. B. R. 
Published: February 2009

Nisbet and Kraggerud make good cases for taking the ninth Epode as a dramatic recreation of the Actium campaign. Horace begins in fearful anticipation; then the crisis comes, first on land and then on sea; Antony turns to flight; and — even though some danger remains, and there is metus as well as joy at the end of the poem — the celebrations can finally begin. On this reading there remains the familiar problem of vv. 17–20:at huc frementes uerterunt bis mille equosGalli canentes Caesarem,hostiliumque nauium portu latentpuppes sinistrorsum citae.The first couplet clearly relates to the defection of Amyntas' Galatians, the decisive moment in the fighting on land; the second must describe the crucial battle on sea. There is no problem in portu latent. The fleet has withdrawn, and is skulking in harbour instead of fighting. But what of nauium…puppes sinistrorsum citae? The difficulty is notorious: the secondary sources do not clearly describe any movement ‘toward the left’, and it is hard to see why Horace chooses so enigmatic a phrase to capture the fighting. His audience would not make much of the topographical detail in any case: unless they had been at Actium themselves (and most of his readers of course had not), their reaction to the words would centre on other associations — the contrast between these magnificent puppes (Antony's ships were probably already famed for their size and grandeur) and their undignified sideways movement; the suggestions of ill omen in sinistrorsum.
‘Stat Magni Nominis Umbra.’ Lucan on the Greatness of Pompeius Magnus
Authors: Feeney D. C. 
Published: February 2009

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch (Pomp. 13), the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle (‘ab adsentatione familiar’, 30.45.6). The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra miseria tu es magnus’. Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’ (11.10). In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem.When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’ (1.129). So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’ (125f.). Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’ (131–3). We will return later to this complex of ideas.
Euripides, Ion 247–8
Authors: Cropp M. J. 
Published: February 2009

ὦ ξένε, τ⋯ μ⋯ν σ⋯ν οὐκ ⋯παιδεύτως ἔχει⋯ς θαύματ' ⋯λθεῖν δακρύων ⋯μ⋯ν πέρι.The second of these lines seems to be the result of an interpolation designed to spell out the implicit sense of the first. In 241–6 Ion has expressed amazement that Creusa should be weeping at the sight of Apollo's sanctuary, a sight which brings other visitors joy. She prefaces her explanation of this with an assurance which in its transmitted form is elegantly translated by Grégoire: ‘Il n'est point discourtois de ta part, étranger, de marquer ta surprise au sujet de mes pleurs.’ But there are reasons for doubting I the authenticity of line 248:(1) Line 247 is self-sufficient, as is shown by IA 1402: τ⋯ μ⋯ν σόν, ὦ νε⋯νι, γενναίως ἔχει. This also gives the closest parallel for the use of τ⋯ σόν in reference to the attitude which a previous speaker's words have just expressed. Other instances of τ⋯ σόν, tout court, are helpfully grouped in Allen and Italie's Concordance to Euripides, s.v. σός. τ⋯ σόν…[adverbial phrase] ἔχει occurs also in Hek. 1195 and Med. 312; cf. HF 165, Hel. 893, Pho. 995 with τοὐμόν. These make it unlikely that τ⋯ χόν in our passage is to be taken adverbially, as perhaps Grégoire intended with ‘de ta part’, rather than as subject of ἔχει. Tro. 82 might be adduced for the alternative (A. Ag. 550 is a different idiom), but there is no reason for Creusa to be saying emphatically ‘as far as you are concerned’.
The prophasis of desertion
Authors: Pearson Lionel 
Published: February 2009

This statement, in Nicias' letter from Sicily, has puzzled readers and editors, and it has baffled translators, who expect phrases with ⋯π⋯ προɸάσει to indicate a pretext or ostensible reason for an action. In my first discussion of prophasis I suggested that ‘what Nicias means is that they are leaving without offering any other reason or pretext’ (except αὐτομολία), and Dover, in the Historical Commentary, goes halfway towards accepting this interpretation (‘though it is obscure, I do not think it is impossible’); but it does not satisfy me now, and it is firmly rejected by Hunter Rawlings. A different approach to the question is needed.Nicias is not concerned with any excuses or pretexts that these deserters are offering. He is explaining the ‘true prophasis’ of this epidemic of desertion, and does so in terms of opportunity — they can find employment in the enemy's forces and there are numerous opportunities elsewhere (Sicily is a large island). Translators may not want to render ⋯π' αὐτομολίας προɸάσει as ‘taking the opportunity to desert to the enemy’, arguing that ‘prophasis cannot mean opportunity’. But a prophasis is an explanation, true or false, that can be given for an action, and the best explanation (or excuse) can often be found in the circumstances — the opportunity that tempts or encourages. These deserters have a prophasis.This is not the only passage in Thucydides where ‘opportunity’ seems to be the word that translators need. A good example is in 4.126.5, where Brasidas is explaining how barbarian armies fight: αὐτοκράτωρ δ⋯ μάχη μάλιστ' ἃν κα⋯ πρόɸασιν το⋯ σᾡζεσθαί τινι πρεπόντως πορίσειε.
A New Gnomologium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies, II
Authors: Barns John 
Published: February 2009

We will now consider the most obvious parallels to our text in the papyri.(I) and (2) Berl. Kl. Texte V. 20 A and B (P 9772, 9773). Both second century B.C. Both deal with the subject of women and marriage. In both the citations are arranged to present opposite views on the subject. In A citations 1–6 (and perhaps 7–9) denounce women and marriage, while 10–13 defend them; in B 1–4 defend women, while the subject of the remaining excerpts is indicated by the heading . Compare Stob. Flor. §§ 67–74, where several chapters are devoted to what was treated here in one subdivided chapter.
On Some Passages in the Rhesvs
Authors: Porter W.H. 
Published: February 2009

In the April number of the Quarterly Mr. Pearson discussed seversal passages of the Rhesus. On two of these I wish to offer a few observations.Rhesus 250 sqq.ἒσΤı ιΦρνῶν ΤιςἒσΤιν ἄ;λκιμος ἒν δè θράσοςέν αίχμὃ· ποτì Μνσ⋯ν ὃς Êμνσνμμαχíαν άτíζζι
Emendations of Latin Poets
Authors: Owen S. G. 
Published: February 2009

In his elegiacs Ovid did not permit the elision of the final syllable of an iambic word ‘in an arsis (as Palmer on Her. l.c. expresses it), i.e. first syllable of dactyl or spondee.’ See L. Müller, De re metrica, ed. 2, p. 341. These two are the only lines in which this rule is transgressed, for in Trist. II. 296, which used to appear asstat Venus Vltori iuncta, uir ante foreswas brilliantly restored conjecturally by Bentley, and has since been found to be the actual reading of our best manuscript, the Marcianus. The soundness of the text in the two lines obelized above is still open to question.
Menandrea
Authors: Post L. A. 
Published: February 2009

Epitrepontes 353–355:ἐκείνην λήψεται ταύτην [δʹἐγὠἐπεύξ[ομαι τ]ὴν ἒνδον ἀπολείπειν δ μως και νῦν χαριέντως ἐκνενενκέναι δο κῶν τὸ μὴ δι΄ ἐμοῦ ταντι κυκᾶσθαι.
Rejoinder
Authors: Garrod H. W. 
Published: February 2009

My paper, written in 1911, was something of a ballon d'essai, and I acknowledge frankly one or two mistakes. Thus I did not know that Euripides wrote a Thyestes; and again one or two of my references were wrong: in excuse I may perhaps plead that I have not had access to a Latin book for nearly two years. Apart from this I will now make only two observations:1. I set aside the evidence of Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 because I was dealing with evidence of saec. i.-iv. Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 shows that some persons at the end of saec. viii. ascribed the Thyestes to L. Varius Rufus. So did persons in saec. iv. In addition, Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 gives a date for the Thyestes. To Mr. Housmanthis date is certain; if it is uncertain a large part of his argument comes to nothing. But who can think it certain ? It comes to us from the end of the eighth century. If it came to us from Jerome's Chronicle we could still not think it certain, though we should know whence Jerome derived it. We do not now whence Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 derived it. The reference to Actium may have no better source than the wish to connect a great literary and a great political event: and the gossip about the playwright's profits (reckoned by Mr. Housman at some £10,000) seems to me in itself suspicious.2. The main contention of the early part of my paper was that the evidence of the relevant MSS. as between Vari and Varii, etc., amounts to nothing either way. I do not think Mr. Housman is prepared seriously to contest this proposition.
Pindar,O. 2.83–90
Authors: Most Glenn W. 
Published: February 2009

According to the traditional interpretation of these celebrated lines, Pindar is saying here that while the wise can understand his poetry by themselves, the mass of his listeners need interpreters if they are to do so; he then goes on to contrast inferior poets, who can sing only ineffectually and only what they have learned, with the poet of natural genius, who surpasses them as the eagle surpasses the crows; and finally he returns to the subject at hand, the praise of the victorious Theron of Acragas. Sandys' Loeb translation may be taken as a representative example:Full many a swift arrow have I beneath mine arm, within my quiver, many an arrow that is vocal to the wise; but for the crowd they need interpreters. The true poet is he who knoweth much by gift of nature, but they that have only learnt the lore of song, and are turbulent and intemperate of tongue, like a pair of crows, chatter in vain against the god—like bird of Zeus.Now, bend thy bow toward the mark! tell me, my soul, whom are we essaying to hit, while we now shoot forth our shafts of fame from the quiver of a friendly heart?Construed in this way, this passage has always been especially popular with scholars and with other readers — not surprisingly, for the former could find in it a justification for their activity as⋯ρμηνεῖς, while the latter could pride themselves on belonging to theσυνετοί.
Athenian Festival Judges–Seven, Five, or However Many
Authors: Pope Maurice 
Published: February 2009

No ancient authority has left us a clear account of how the judges at the Athenian dramatic festivals operated. We can therefore never know for certain what happened. But it may be possible to improve the reconstruction normally given, which does not look as if it could ever have yielded acceptable results.One thing that is very clear (from Isocrates 17.33–4) is that the choice of judges was taken seriously. Not only did it involve the Council, the Prytanies, and the Treasurers, but any tampering with the panel from which the judges were eventually selected seems to have been punishable with death. Even the physical arrangements were quite complicated. Names approved by the Council were deposited in ten jars, one jar for each tribe but each jar containing several names, sealed by the Prytanies, held in safe-keeping on the Acropolis, and eventually brought down to the theatre, where the archon publicly broke the seals and drew out one name from each jar.At this stage of the process there emerged ten judges, one from each tribe. Their quality had been guaranteed by the Council's prior vetting of the panel, but their actual names were unpredictable because randomly selected from it. All had been done democratically and with equal representation of tribes, in perfect accord with normal Athenian practice.But now comes the difficulty. The paroemiographers record a proverb (or rather perhaps a joke since it seems to be a kind of parody of a Homeric verse) about judgement being in the lap of five judges — ⋯ν π⋯ντε κριτ⋯ν γούνασι κεῖται; Lysias tells us of a judge whose vote was not counted; and Lucian, who likes to disguise a very careful antiquarianism behind an apparent casualness of style, says that at festival competitions the many know how to clap and hiss but that judgement is in the hands of seven or five or however many.