bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Hellenistic kings, War, and the Economy
Authors: Austin M. M. 
Published: February 2009

My title links together kings, war, and the economy, and the linkage is deliberate. I do not of course wish to suggest that Hellenistic kings did nothing but fight wars, that they were responsible for all the wars in the period, that royal wars were nothing but a form of economic activity, or that the economy of the kings was dependent purely on the fruits of military success, though there would be an element of truth in all these propositions. But I wish to react against the frequent tendency to separate topics that are related, the tendency to treat notions relating to what kings were or should be as something distinct from what they actually did, and the tendency to treat political and military history on the one hand as something separate from economic and social history on the other.A number of provisos should be made at the outset. The title promises more than the paper can deliver; in particular, more will be said about kings and war than about kings and the economy. The subject is handled at a probably excessive level of generalization and abstraction. I talk about Hellenistic kings in general, but in practice it would obviously be necessary to draw distinctions between different dynasties, different times and places, and individual rulers, and some of those distinctions I shall indicate. Conclusions are provisional and subject to modification and considerable expansion in detail. Finally, two points of terminology. I use the word ‘Hellenistic’ for no better reason than out of the force of acquired habit, but of course the word and the concept are modern inventions that were unknown to the ancient world.
The Fetiales: a Reconsideration
Authors: Wiedemann Thomas 
Published: February 2009

In recent years many historians have rightly emphasised aggressive imperialism as a key element in Roman political life in the Middle and Late Republic. This has led to reconsideration of the significance of the ‘just war’ theory associated with the college of fetiales. ‘On the basis of this fetial law of the Roman people, it can be understood that no war is justified unless it is waged after compensation has been demanded (sc. and refused by the enemy), or the war has been announced in advance and formally proclaimed.’ Earlier this century, scholars were happy to accept that this ‘fetial law’ implied that the Romans never initiated wars of aggression but fought only if they felt they were the aggrieved party. Scullard believed that ‘…in fact Roman religious law (the ius fetiale) did not countenance wars of aggression designed to gain new territory’ ; for Tenney Frank, ‘ the Roman mos maiorum did not recognise the right of aggression or a desire for more territory as just causes for war. That the institution was observed in good faith for centuries there can be no doubt.’Recent scholars have been more sceptical. Harris sees the activities of the fetiales primarily as a psychological mechanism for assuaging the guilt feelings which even Romans will have been unable to escape when initiating totally unjustified wars of aggression: ‘the significance of the fetial procedure for declaring war was solely psychological’. Other writers have gone further in stressing its mystificatory and propaganda function.Our scepticism about the efficacy of ‘fetial law’ in restraining the Romans' belligerence should be accompanied by a re-evaluation of our evidence regarding the fetiales and what they actually did. Such a re-evaluation will not affect our picture of the Romans of the Middle and Late Republic as aggressive and militaristic, but we may have to revise our views on how the fetiales fit into that picture. This paper makes no claim to analyse exhaustively every piece of evidence which might throw some light on the fetiales, let alone every interpretation to be found in the secondary literature; but it may be worthwhile to reconsider the main types of operations which the fetiales are said by our ancient sources to have been involved in.
Two notes on [Vergil] Catalepton 2
Authors: O'Sullivan Neil 
Published: February 2009

The difficulty of this little poem is shown by the facts that Ausonius had no idea what it was about, and that Westendorp Boerma's commentary takes 22 pages to explicate its five lines. The latter relies on Quintilian 8.3.27ff., who quotes the poem, saying that Vergil wrote it to attack a certain Cimber for his taste in obsolete words. This is no doubt the Annius Cimber whom Augustus ridiculed when reprimanding Mark Antony for a similar foible (Suet. Aug. 86) and who, as an antiquarius is contrasted with the Asiatici oratores. For convenience, I have kept Westendorp Boerma's text, but I take issue with his interpretation on two points.4 tau Gallicum: since Bücheler tentatively suggested it in RhM 38 (1883), 508, the standard explanation of this has been to point out that a number of Latin inscriptions in Gaul use a Greek θ or else a barred D (Ð), to represent what appears to have been a dental fricative elsewhere indicated in Latin by -sd- or -st-. Thus Frank, AJP 56 (1935), 255, quotes (T)HYÐRITANVS (CIL xii 686) for what is elsewhere spelled Thysdritanus, and says that ‘Ð clearly represents the best that one Celt could do with sd’. On the basis of this supposed Gallic incompetence, Frank went on to see the repeated -st- sounds in the poem as some sort of joke on the orator's inability to pronounce this sound. His view seems to have been generally accepted.There seems to me a profound error in this viewpoint which shows cultural imperialism at its worst. First, let us note that none of the examples of alleged substitution are in Latin words; they are native names for people or places or things. The Latin names by which we know some of them are only the approximation of foreigners, and not in any sense the ‘correct’ names of those people or places.
Cicero, ad Att. 1.14.5
Authors: Tatum W. J. 
Published: February 2009

Constans, who defends the unanimous reading of the manuscripts, explains ‘tertium’ as a reference to two previous senatus consulta which Fufius did not veto (ad Att. 1.13.3). The problem with this interpretation is that Fufius is not even mentioned in the passage Constans cites; in fact, this letter marks Fufius' first appearance in the correspondence. On the basis of what is preserved it is difficult to see how Atticus could have divined such a meaning in Cicero's ‘tertium’. Scholars have preferred to emend. The proposals of Graevius and Manutius have been criticized by Shackleton Bailey on the grounds that ‘concessit’ cannot mean ‘non intercessit’ in the absence of any mention of previous intercessory action on Fufius' part. However, in view of Cicero's description of the tribune in ad Att. 1.14.1, Atticus would have been no less puzzled if Fufius' failure to veto went unexplained. No earlier allusion to Fufius is necessary. Both ‘territus’ and ‘tum’ provide an explanatory context for Fufius' behaviour which makes the word play in ‘concessit’ understandable and perfectly acceptable.Shackleton Bailey's own suggestion does not suit the context of the letter, as Ph. Moreau demonstrates in some detail. In addition to the arguments (chiefly historical) adduced by Moreau, it is important to notice that Shackleton Bailey's reading fails to conform to the confident and victorious mood of the letter or to the plot of the relevant paragraph (1.14.5): once Cato's intrusion has focused the resentment of the Senate against Clodius' supporters and his tactics, Cicero depicts Clodhis 'position as increasingly abject.
Restorations and Emendations in Livy VI.–X
Authors: Walters C. Flamstead , Conway R. S. 
Published: February 2009

X. 13. 10, with X. 33. 3. (Fabius Maximus is protesting against his own re-election as consul in defiance of the law.)Et ille quidem in recusando perstabat: quid ergo attineret leges ferri rogitans quibus per eosdem, qui tulissent, fraus fieret; iam regi leges non regere.
Plavtvs, Poenvlvs 1168
Authors: Lindsay W. M. 
Published: February 2009

How any editor of Plautus can become one of the slash-cut-and-carve critics I cannot understand. The fair garden-beds of Plautus are scored all over with the hoof-prints of the reckless emender. Take this line of the Poenulus for example. Hanno gets a sight of his two long-lost daughters and is surprised to find how they have grown:Haecine meae sunt filiae?Quantae e quantillis iam sunt factae!His would-be son-in-law, not a very refined youth, says with a smile:Scin quid est?Thraecae sunt: in celonem sustolli solent.
Vergiliana
Authors: Norwood Gilbert 
Published: February 2009

Georg. I. 36 sq.:quidquid eris,—nam te nec sperant Tartara regem, nec tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira cupido;—Mr. Page's note puts well what seems the customary view of this famous parenthesis: ‘The force of nam deserves attention. Having used the phrase quidquid eris, which sums up the whole passage from line 24, as though there were no other form of deity left which Augustus could assume, Vergil adds this explanatory sentence to show why he had not mentioned the fourth division into which deities were divided, viz. those of the underworld. The fourfold division of deities being well known, Vergil cannot omit the fourth without stating the reason for which he does so.’
A Seventh-Century English Edition of Virgil
Authors: Dall N. F. G. 
Published: February 2009

Two kindred glossaries, Affatim and the Second Amplonian, have been shown (by Professor Lindsay in the Classical Quarterly XI. 185 sqq.) to derive their materials mainly from the Abstrusa and Abolita glossaries, but partly also from Virgil marginalia. This Virgil thread is most clearly seen in the I-section of Affatim. The Affatim compiler tells us that the exemplar (from which he drew most of his material) had lost four leaves at this point: ‘Here the exemplar lacks four leaves in the H–I portion’ (C.G.L. IV. 524, 45–46). We find the following unmistakable Virgil batches:Affatim 525, 41 sqq. Infandum: inenarrandum, nee loquendum (e.g. Aen. 1, 251); Inpar: inaequalis uiribus (e.g. Aen. 1, 475); Iamdudum: iam pridem, iam olim (e.g. Aen. 1, 580; also C.G.L. IV. 88, 40); In arce: in excelso (e.g. Aen. 3, 531); Infabricata: inperfecta (Aen. 4, 400); Iam uertitur: iam transit (Aen. 5, 626); <lnualidum>: iam ualidum minus, minus fortem (Aen. 5, 716); Imago: uultus (e.g. Aen. 6, 695); In iaculis: in armis, in telis (Aen. 5, 37).
Stativs and the Date of the Cvlex
Authors: Phillimore J. S. 
Published: February 2009

In Professor W. B. Anderson's interesting paper on this subject (C.Q. Vol. X. No. 4) there seems a certain hesitation about the treatment of Lucan's famouset quantum mihi restat ad Culicem ? (Sueton. Vita Lucani).The following passages may be cited as fixing the sense of this rather rare idiom:1…crebro querens incolumi filio adiutorem imperii alium uocari. Et quantum superesse ut collega dicatur ? (Tac.Ann. IV. 7),i.e. from adiutor to collega is ‘a mere step.’
The Tragedy of Electra, According to Sophocles
Authors: Sheppard J. T. 
Published: February 2009

There is a note of uneasiness in many modern appreciations of Sophocles, and particularly of his Electra. A symptom is the familiar apology that, after all, he was the perfect artist. Jebb himself betrays a certain moral discomfort in the midst of his enthusiasm for the brightness of the morning sun that greets the righteous avenger. Professor Murray has the courage to state as a challenge the criticism which less candid writers hint by inuendo. By the very frankness of his indictment he helps us to face, instead of shirking, the issue. Unlike Euripides and Aeschylus, he says, Sophocles takes the story exactly as he finds it:He knows that those ancient chiefs did not trouble about their consciences: they killed in the fine old ruthless way.
Restorations and Emendations in Livy VI.–X
Authors: Walters C. F. , Conway R. S. 
Published: February 2009

IX. 6. 12. (The young nobles of Capua describe the bearing of the Romans released from the Caudine Forks after having passed under the yoke.)iacere indolem illam Romanam ablatosque cum armis animos; non reddere salutem, non salutantibus dare responsum, non hiscere quemquam prae metu potuisse.
Plato, Republic 421B
Authors: Ferguson A. S. 
Published: February 2009

єί μέƲ ο$$v$$Ʋ ήμєȋς μέƲ ϕƲλακЃκ ώς άληθῶς ποіοῶμєƲ, ἥкіστα КαКоύρϒονς Τῆςs πóλєѡς, ό δ' ὲκєîƲo גέγѡƲ γєѡργούς τιƲɑς καì ὥσπєρ έƲ παƲƞΥύρєі άλλ' οὐ᧻ ÉƲ πόλєі έσΤιάΤορας єύδαίµοƲας, ȁλιƲ ȁƲ ΤΙ ἥ πóλιƲ λέλoi.‘More simply expressed,’ write Jowett and Campbell, ‘the sense is as follows: “If the idea of a state requires the citizens to be guardians, he who converts them into rustic holiday-workers will mean something that is not a state.“’ This rendering, which seems to be necessary if the traditional text is retained, is difficult to reconcile with the preceding argument. Although this note will suggest an emendation, its chief purpose is to indicate the connexion of this passage with the argument of which it is the closing sentence.
Plato, Socrates and the Myths
Authors: Tate J. 
Published: February 2009

I begin with a paraphrase of Plato Laws X 887de, which has suggested the arguments to be developed in this brief article. ‘The Athenian’ speaks to the following effect:‘How can one admonish in all patience those who deny the existence of gods ? For no sufficient reason they disbelieve the myths which, in infancy, they heard from nurses and mothers in sportive or in serious vein. They disbelieve also those myths which, at sacrifices, from boyhood onwards, they heard recounted in prayers and saw represented in spectacles. They reject the testimony of their own parents, nay, of all Greeks and barbarians, who by continual prayer and worship show clearly their unanimous belief in the existence of gods. Despising all these things, they lay on us the burden of refuting by reasoned argument their perverse opinions.’
New Light on Festus
Authors: Lindsay W. M. 
Published: February 2009

In Italy, at the end of the tenth century, a pedant named Regulus (?) who had a copy of the De Verborum Significatu (or had made extracts from one), wishing to read Plautus (so often quoted by Festus), took the opportunity of an illness to appeal to certain prelates whose church-library contained a MS. of the comedian. Through their stupidity he received not Plautus, but Plato, i.e. Chalcidius' translation of the Timaeus. Disappointed, but not deterred, he wrote the following letter (in a sort of rhyming prose, affected by the litterati of that time) on the fly-leaf and returned the MS. (now Bamberg. Class. 18), hoping that by much repetition he might hammer into their dull heads the difference between PL-AU-TUS and PL-A-TO and yet save them from chagrin and resentment (the material for the letter was supplied by Festus, although the opening illustration comes from Chalcidius):Differentia est qua differunt singula: in Timeo Platonis legitur ANIMA-M post ANIMA-L non perire: in Plauto legitur CANCRUM imitaris, item aeneis COCULIS excocta est mihi omnis misericordia.
Two lives or three? Pericles on the Athenian character (Thucydides 2.40.1–2)
Authors: Rusten J. S. 
Published: February 2009

ɸιλοκαλο⋯μέν τε γ⋯ρ μετ' εὐτελείας κα⋯ ɸιλοσοɸο⋯μεν ἄνευ μαλακίαας. πλούτῳ τε ἔργου μ⋯λλον καιῷ ἢ λόγου κόμπῳ χρώμεθα, κα⋯ τ⋯ πένεσθαι οὐχ ⋯μολοσεῖν τιν⋯ αἰσχρόν, ⋯λλ⋯ μ⋯ διαɸεύγειν ἔργῳ αἴσχιον ἔνι τε τοῖς αὐτοῖς οἰκείων ἄμα κα⋯ πολιτικ⋯ν ⋯πιμέλεια, κα⋯ ⋯τέροις πρ⋯ς ἔργα τετραμμένοις τ⋯ πολιτικ⋯ μ⋯ ⋯νδε⋯ς γν⋯ναι.J. Kakridis has seen in this famous passage a reflection of the popular debate, conducted most memorably by Amphion and Zethus in Euripides'Antiopeand Callicles and Socrates in Plato'sGorgias, over the respective merits of thevita activaandvita contemplativa. Normally the intellectual is faulted as lazy and helpless, the politician as an ignorant busybody; yet Pericles, according to Kakridis, claims that Athenians avoid these faults and combine the traits of both lives at their best.This interpretation accords well with the idealism of the funeral oration, but it falters over what Pericles places between philosophy and politics,viz.πλο⋯τος. Kakridis must struggle to account for the transition directly from philosophy to wealth, on the assumption thatπλούτῳ τε…χρώμεθαserves to amplifyἄνευ μαλακίας, whileἔνιτε…⋯πιμέλειαextends the description of the non-intellectual life from the private sphere of trade to the public one of politics (pp. 50–1).
ΛΗΚγΘΙΟΝ ΑΠΩΛΕСΕΝ: Some Reservations
Authors: Bain David 
Published: February 2009

The phraseληκύθιον ⋯πώλεсεν, which Aeschylus in the contest of Aristophanes'Frogsmockingly introduces into six of the prologues of his rival Euripides (twice into one of them), has recently attracted a great deal of attention. With a couple of exceptions those scholars who have discussed it during the last fifteen years agree that it contains a sexual innuendo. Where they differ is on the exact nature of its meaning. What vase shape doesληκύθιονorλήκυθοсdenote and hence what part of the male genitalia is envisaged? Or is it mistaken to press for anatomical detail? May not the phrase simply suggest ‘become detumescent’? These are the questions that have been posed regarding Ar.Ran.1200–47. In what follows I shall try to show that the context, far from demanding that we give an underlying sexual meaning as well as its surface meaning to the phrase, could almost be said positively to exclude such a meaning. In an attempt to be as brief as possible I shall not deal with all of the suggestions made by the scholars mentioned in my second footnote and rarely indicate points of agreement, disagreement or indebtedness. When I confront the arguments of these scholars they are mostly those of two of the most recent contributors to the debate, Snell and Anderson.At first sight there is some plausibility in the suggestion that lekythion might denote a penis or a pair of testicles or both things. Several vase shapes have a suggestive appearance. If the object denoted is actually the vase we are accustomed to call the aryballos, the reference would be to an object whose name possibly derived (in part) from a word which had a genital reference. It has also been suggested that this object was once manufactured from animals' testicles.
Nomothesiain fourth-century Athens
Authors: Rhodes P. J. 
Published: February 2009

There have been two recent attempts to disentangle the evidence for the procedures in fourth-century Athens for the enactment and revision ofnomoi, by D. M. MacDowell and by M. H. Hansen. I have learned from both, but think that further progress can be made.MacDowell distinguishes five separate measures:(b) The Old Legislation Law, requiring action at a specified time, advance publicity for the new proposal, concurrent repeal of any existing law with which the new proposal conflicts, and a decision by nomothetae who areomomokotes, men who have sworn the dicastic oath <for the current year and are on the register of potential jurors>: this is described as aπαλαι⋯ς νόμος, and as the lawκαθ' ὃν ἦσαν οἱ πρότεροι νομοθέαι.(c) Replacing thatc. 370, the New Legislation Law, no longer requiring action at a specified time, advance publicity, concurrent repeal, or that the nomothetae should beomomokotes: as a result of the change conflicting laws have been enacted, and for some time continuing to the mid 350s commissioners have had to be elected to sort out the conflicts.(d) Still valid in the 350s, the Review Law, requiring an annualepicheirotoniaof the laws in four subject divisions in the assembly on 11 Hecatombaeon (i), advance publicity for new proposals, and at the third assembly after 11 Hecatombaeon the appointment of nomothetae who areomomokotesto decide between the existing laws and the new proposals.
Theocritus' seventhIdyll, Philetas and Longus
Authors: Bowie E. L. 
Published: February 2009

Few years pass without an attempt to interpret Theocritus,Idyll7. The poem's narrative and descriptive skill, dramatic subtlety and felicity of language are mercifully more than adequate to survive these scholarly onslaughts, so I have less hesitation in offering my own interpretation.The poem's chief problems seem to me to arise from uncertainty as to:(a) Who is the narrator, and why are we kept waiting until line 21 before we are told that he is called Simichidas?(b) Who, or what sort of man, is the goatherd Lycidas, whom he encounters on his way from town to the harvest festival?Answers to these questions fundamentally affect our interpretation of their exchange of songs, which occupies almost half the idyll, and of Lycidas' gift of his stick to Simichidas; and these interpretations will go far towards interpreting the poem as a whole.
The distribution of Greek loan–words in Terence
Authors: Maltby Robert 
Published: February 2009

The aim of this paper is to discuss Terence's use of Greek loan-words and to examine their distribution by plays and by characters. How far are they used for stylistic effect and what relationship do they have to the themes of different plays? Is there any evidence for the concentration of these words, which often tend to be colloquial in tone, in the mouths of slaves and characters of low social status for the purposes of linguistic characterisation? Finally, does Terence's use of these words develop in the course of his short career? The usefuleness of a previous note on this subject by J. N. Hough is limited by the absence of any comprehensive list of occurrences, so that its objectivity is difficult to check. A more helpful discussion by P. Oksala gives a fuller list, but concentrates mainly on a comparison with Plautine usage in the type and frequency of these words and does not discuss their distribution within the Terentian corpus.The question of characterisation by linguistic means, particularly in the field of New Comedy, has received considerable attention in recent years. The doctrine that a character's speech should be appropriate to his or her age, sex or social status, is well attested in the ancient world, with reference both to the theatre and to the law-courts. The ancient scholia on Aristophanes, as well as the fourth-century commentary on Terence that goes under the name of Donatus, contain comments on the appropriateness of particular words and phrases to particular character types. Leo, commenting long ago on the distribution of Greek words in Plautus, observed that they were used predominantly by slaves and characters of low social standing, a point made earlier by N. Tuchhaendler. More recently M. E. Gilleland has produced detailed statistical evidence for both Plautus and Terence which tends to back up these observations.