bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
A New Interpretation of a Fragment of Callimachus' AETIA: Antinoopolis Papyrus 113 fr. 1 (b)
Authors: Bulloch A. W. 
Published: February 2009

The text as published runs:The elegiacs on side (a) of this fragmentary piece of papyrus are identifiable as by Callimachus, probably from the Aetia, and these lines too are undoubtedly by the same author, and almost certainly from the same work. Verse 5 is a surprise, for it was thought until the discovery of this papyrus to be by Euripides; however the only source for this attribution is Stobaeus (Eel. 1. 3. 6), in whom it appears as the first line of a two-line quotation. It is not unusual in Stobaeus for two originally unconnected lines to be mistakenly combined (for further references and comments see John Barns, ‘A new Gnomologium (II)’, CQ N.s. i (1951), 18–19).
A Note on Ille Ego Qui Qvondam…
Authors: Pearce T. E. V. 
Published: February 2009

I Agree with R. G. Austin, who in his recent paper (CQ, N.S. xviii (1968), 107 ff.) showed that Virgil did not write this proem to the Aeneid, and suggested (p. 115) that it was produced in the first half of the first century, perhaps prompted by the problem mentioned by Servius on A. I. I: ‘multi varie disserunt cur ab armis Vergilius coeperit.’ I wish here to comment briefly on the content of the lines.(a) graciliqui... carmen refers to the writing of the Eclogues. As Austin points out (p. 112), Virgil has gracilis only in E. 10. 70 ff., the conclusion of the whole of the Eclogues:Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam,dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco,Pierides…
A Note on Trimalchio’s Zodiac Dish
Authors: Baldwin Barry 
Published: February 2009

In their recent article on this subject, Rose and Sullivan suggest that we read: super scorpionem locustam, super sagittarium oculatam, super capricornum caprum et cornutam, etc. This is attractive and can, I suggest, be supported by a further argument.I propose that locustam be regarded as a pun on the celebrated lady poisoner of the period, Locusta. According to Tacitus, she was already infamous by the year 54, and continued to be a valuable tool of Nero throughout his reign. Petronius is fond of puns, and the passage under discussion contains more than one. And the suggested play on locusta may be confirmed by Trimalchio himself, a little later on, in his lecturette on astrology: in scorpione venenarii et percussores.
Notes on P. Oxy. XXXIX
Authors: Oxy I. P. 
Published: February 2009

The twenty-seven fragments under this number ‘were assembled in the belief that they represented lyric verses in the Aeolic dialect and might contribute something to the text of Sappho or Alcaeus’ (Lobel). The only feature that is ‘unequivocally Aeolic’ is in fr. 2. 9 the letter following is, or possibly the division is not considered, no doubt rightly).Is this indeed a text in the Aeolic dialect ? There is very little other indication: fr. 4. 3 in fr. 4. 5 would seem decisive if the reading were quite certain.
Persius 5.129–31
Authors: Morgan J. D. 
Published: February 2009

This is the reading of Clausen's OCT, in which no variant for line 131 is recorded in the apparatus.No doubt the hendiadys ‘scutica et metus…erilis’ is not impossible,2 but it seems to me not to be a well chosen expression. Since the scutica belongs to the master, one is tempted to construe erilis with both nouns, not just with metus. But then the adjective must function in two different ways: ‘scutica… erilis’ is possessive, ‘his master's strap’, but ‘metus…erilis’ is objective, ‘fear of his master’. And ‘metus…erilis’ in this passage receives no support from ‘erilis…metus’ at Plautus, Amphitruo 1069, which means ‘fear for my mistress’.
Orthodoxy and Hopiltes
Authors: Cawkwel G.L. 
Published: February 2009

In Philip of Macedon (1978) (pp. 150f.), as part of a general survey of the development of the art of war in Classical Greece, I briefly adumbrated a view of the nature of hoplite fighting. It was not the conventional one, of which the following statement of Adcock in The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (1957) p. 4 is fairly representative:The effectiveness of the phalanx depends in part on skill in fighting by those in the front rank, and in part on thephysical and moral support of the lines behind them. The two opposing phalanxes meet each otherwith clash of shield on shield and blow of spear against spear. Their momentum is increased by the impetus of the charge that precedes their meeting. If the first clash is not decisive by the superior weight and thrust of the one phalanx over the other, the fighting goes on. The laterranks supply fighters as those before them fall. At last one side gains the upper hand. Then the other phalanx breaks and takes to flight and the battle is won and lost.
A Note on Lucretius 4.1046
Authors: Schiesaro Alessandro 
Published: February 2009

One of the most surprising features of the final part of the fourth book of the De rerum natura is the peculiar way Lucretius introduces the topic he intends to examine at length. We approach the extensive treatment of love from merely physiological phenomena. The terms libido and amor are mentioned for the first time at 1045 and 1046 respectively; I would like to focus on the interpretation of those lines and on the meaning of the clausula dira libido in the context of the final section of Book Four. Lucretius is talking of semen:quod simul atque suis eiectum sedibus exit,per membra atque artus decedit corpore toto,in loca conveniens nervorum certa cietquecontinuo partis genitalis corporis ipsas.irritata tument loca semine fitque voluntas 1045eicere id quo se contendit dira libido,idque petit corpus mens unde est saucia amore.
Bulls and Boxers in Apollonius and Vergil
Authors: Hunter Richard 
Published: February 2009

In a famous passage of the third book of the Georgics (3.209–41) Vergil describes two bulls fighting over a formosa iuuenca; the bull which is at first beaten goes off to recover and prepare, returning to attack again its arrogant opponent. The description of the bull's training blends the toughness of early man, the playfulness of a young animal, the suffering of the exclusus amator and the preparations of a human athlete:ergo omni cura uiris exercet et interdura iacet pernox instrato saxa cubilifrondibus hirsutis et carice pastus acuta, 230et temptat sese atque irasci in cornua discitarboris obnixus trunco, uentosque lacessitictibus, et sparsa ad pugnam proludit harena.(Georg. 3.229–34)
Seneca, Troades 1109–10
Authors: Coulson Frank T. 
Published: February 2009

The English critic Bentley first proposed emending the transmitted text of Troades 1109 from teget, the reading of all manuscripts, to leget. Bentley's suggestion subsequently gained wide acceptance and was printed in many later editions of the tragedies, including those of Leo (1878–9), Richter (1902), and Moricca (1917–23). More recent critics have favoured retention of the manuscript reading. Carlsson, for example, underlines the distinctive alliterative quality which the reading teget imparts to the line; and the latest commentator on the Troades has produced a spirited defence of the transmitted text:Andromache has not yet realized the condition of the corpse, and is thinking, not of gathering up fragmented limbs, but merely of the formal requirements of burial. What Carlsson (I p. 50) defends on grounds of alliteration should be retained on grounds of sense: teget tumuloque tradet is a doublet of which the second part makes clear the religious meaning of the first, more general, word.
Io! In Ovid
Authors: Kershaw Allan 
Published: February 2009

The scribes of the Latin poets were not, as a rule, in the habit of interpolating exclamatory particles; on the contrary, their tendency was to trivialise. The particle io has MSS authority in two passages in Ovid where distinguished critics reject it.Kenney in the Oxford Text of Ars Amatoria 3.742 prints.labor, io: cara lumina conde manu.
The Authenticity of Archytas fr. 1
Authors: Huffman Carl A. 
Published: February 2009

In a long note in his epoch-making book on ancient Pythagoreanism Walter Burkert raised some grave doubts about the authenticity of Archytas Fr. 1 which have recently been challenged in an article by A. C. Bowen. In this paper I have two goals. First, I will evaluate Burkert's doubts and the success of some of Bowen's arguments against them. Second, I will present a further consideration that both clarifies the text of the fragment and also removes the most serious problem raised by Burkert. The upshot of both these points is to increase the likelihood that the fragment is authentic.I reproduce the text of just the first part of the fragment as given in DK followed by the text as it appears in the two primary sources, Nicomachus and Porphyry.
Livy 40.51.9 and the Centuriate Assembly
Authors: Grieve Lucy 
Published: February 2009

In 179 b.c. the censors M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior brought about a reform in the voting. The only evidence for this is a single sentence in Livy (40.51.9):mutarunt suffragia regionatimque generibus hominum causisque et quaestibus tribus discripseruntThe meaning of these words has often been discussed but never in a fully systematic manner. Further, the attempts to discover their meaning have always been made in an effort to throw light upon some other problem. They are thus transported into the historical context in question, such as the vicissitudes of the freedman vote or the reforms of the comitia centuriata. Yet the formulaic nature of the sentence and its virtual independence from its immediate context make it essential to examine it in its own right in order objectively to establish its meaning. Only then should the question of historical context be considered. The purpose here is to provide a systematic analysis of each element in this sentence. If the results of this are accepted it will become apparent that Livy 40.51.9 relates to central questions concerning the census and the centuriate assembly.As it stands the sentence is entirely divorced from what precedes and follows it, with the exception of the subject, the censors. Not only is there nothing in the surrounding context to explain it; there is nothing remotely comparable anywhere else in Livy. This, together with the precision of the language, the institutional content, and the formal and formulaic sound of the whole, suggests that Livy has either lifted the sentence out of an official document or is using the terminology characteristic of such documents.
Axelson Revisited: the Selection of Vocabulary in Latin Poetry
Authors: Watson Patricia 
Published: February 2009

Although it is now fifteen years since G. Williams' thorough-going criticism of B. Axelson'sUnpoetische Wörter, his discussion has failed to elicit the adverse response which might have been expected in view of the widespread influence exerted by the earlier work.The reason for this may be that Axelson's theory is so widely accepted that any refutation thereof may be disregarded. Yet surely Williams was right to point to the dangers of total reliance on statistics and to the necessity of considering the contexts in which words occur in Latin poetry. In this respect, he was not so much rejecting Axelson's work as pointing to its inadequacies: whereas Axelson would be content to label a word that occurs only rarely in poetry as ‘unpoetisch’, it is necessary, as Williams demonstrates, to take the further step of determining the effect that such a word has in a given context. This approach will be particularly helpful, for example, in the case ofparvulusat Virg.Aen.4.328, where the heightened pathos achieved by Virgil's use of a diminutive is better appreciated by the reader who is aware of the scarcity of diminutive adjectives in poetry and in epic above all. To recogniseparvulusas an ‘unpoetic word’, with Axelson, is the essential first step, but we should proceed a stage further to inquire what effect was intended by the employment of a form not normally found in elevated poetry.Of greater importance is Williams' rejection of the ‘hierarchy of genres’ theory, taken for granted by Axelson, that is, that Latin poetry may be divided into a number of higher- or lower-ranking genres and that the more elevated a genre the less unpoetic vocabulary it is liable to employ.
Technical Chronology and Astrological History in Varro, Censorinus and Others
Authors: Grafton A. T. , Swerdlow N. M. 
Published: February 2009

Technical chronology establishes the structure of calendars and the dates of events; it is, as it were, the foundation of history, particularly ancient history. The chronologer must know enough philology to interpret texts and enough astronomy to compute the dates of celestial phenomena, above all eclipses, which alone provide absolute dates. Joseph Scaliger, so we are told, was the first to master and apply this range of technical skills:Of the mathematical principles on which the calculation of periods rests, the philologians understood nothing. The astronomers, on their side, had not yet undertaken to apply their data to the records of ancient times. Scaliger was the first of the philologians who made use of the improved astronomy of the sixteenth century to get a scientific basis for historical chronology.So Mark Pattison.This verdict can be challenged on a number of grounds. The one relevant at present is simple: Scaliger himself claimed far less. He certainly said that technical chronology had been untouched in modern times — not an entirely fair judgement — but in antiquity it had been practised in exactly the manner he considered proper, or so he believed. In particular he singles out Censorinus, whose De die natali drew extensively on Varro's lost Antiquitates rerum humanarum, books 14–19, for information on chronology.Students of Varro have long appreciated the importance of Censorinus. His dry and compact treatise offers Varronian views on etymology, the human life-span, and the course of history itself, all couched in language so jejune as to suggest that he added little or nothing to what he read.
Paul the Silentiary and Claudian
Authors: Whitby Mary 
Published: February 2009

The extent to which Latin was familiar to the inhabitants of late sixth- and early seventh-century Constantinople is a topic of current discussion and interest. While there is little evidence to suggest a significant knowledge of Latin even among the educated in the seventh century, it is clear that in the late sixth century the language was still familiar to a section of the upper classes. Among native easterners, the degree of this familiarity would certainly have varied considerably, from those who could recognise a few words of Latin, through the lawyers, administrators and military men who had a specialised, professional knowledge, to the small proportion who could detect the Virgilian echoes in Corippus' panegyric of Justin II.Whether Paul the Silentiary, epigrammatist and panegyrist of the Emperor Justinian's church of S. Sophia, should be included in the small category who were acquainted with Latin literature is indeed a more far-reaching issue than that of the survival of Latin in the eastern capital, since it is an element in the larger problem of the extent to which late Greek poets knew and imitated the work of their Latin predecessors. The broad generalisations of the past no longer satisfy modern scholarship, which rightly demands rigorous scrutiny of the evidence for each individual author.
Nikias, Epimenides and the Question of Omissions in Thucydides
Authors: Herman Gabriel 
Published: February 2009

Our starting point is a somewhat obscure incident which has lately attracted some attention. The year is 429 B.C., and the place is Athens in the third year of the Peloponnesian war. The plague, which had broken out only a year before, was still claiming its victims. Yet military operations were in full swing, and the general Phormio operating in the Corinthian gulf against a Peloponnesian fleet was able to score an impressive victory. The Lacedaemonians were deeply dissatisfied. This was the first sea-fight they had been engaged in, and they found it hard to believe that their fleet was so much inferior to that of the Athenians. They dispatched three advisers to Knemos, the admiral in charge, instructing them to make better preparations for another sea-fight. Additional ships were solicited from the allies, and those already at hand were prepared for battle. It is at this point that the incident in question occurred. Not to prejudge the issue, I quote the text in full leaving the controversial phrases untranslated:4. And Phormio on his part sent messengers to Athens to give information of the enemy's preparations and to tell about the battle which they had won, urging them also to send to him speedily (δι⋯ τ⋯χους) as many ships as possible, since there was always a prospect that a battle might be fought any day.5. So they sent him twenty ships, but gave τῷ δ⋯ κυμ⋯ξοντι special orders to sail first to Crete. Nικ⋯ας γ⋯ρ Kρ⋯ς Γορτ⋯νιος πρ⋯ξενος ⋯ν persuaded them (αὺτο⋯ς) to sail against Cydonia, a hostile town, promising to bring it over to the Athenians; but he was really asking them to intervene to gratify the people of Polichne, who are neighbours of the Cydonians.6. So ⋯ μ⋯ν λαβὼν τ⋯ς να⋯ς. went to Crete, and helped the Polichnitans to ravage the lands of the Cydonians, and by reason of winds and stress of weather wasted not a little time.
Aidōs in Plotinus: Enneads II.9.10
Authors: Edwards M. J. 
Published: February 2009

At one point in his treatise against the ‘Gnostics’ Plotinus treats his adversaries as men of flesh and blood, not merely as proponents of false books and false beliefs:For I feel a certain shame (aidōs tis echei) with regard to some of my friends (philoi), who, having chanced upon this doctrine before the beginning of our friendship, have continued to adhere to it for reasons that I cannot understand. Not that they themselves show any compunction in saying what they say: they may believe what they say to be true (alethe), but perhaps they rather wish others to be persuaded of the truth of their own opinions. (Enneads II.9.10.3ff.)
Ruit Oceano Nox
Authors: Knox Peter E. 
Published: February 2009

Night falls on war-weary Troy after a day of celebration, setting the stage for the final agony of the city:uertitur interea caelum et ruit Oceano noxinuoluens umbra magna terramque polumqueMyrmidonumque dolos(Virg.Aen. 2.250–2)
Two Notes on Horace, Epodes (10, 16)
Authors: Harrison S. J. 
Published: February 2009

Epode 10: the Mystery of Mevius' CrimeHorace's tenth Epode, an inverse propempticon, calls down dire curses on the head of a man named Mevius as he leaves on a sea-voyage.1 Scholars have naturally been interested in what Mevius had done to merit such treatment, but answers have been difficult to find, for nothing explicit is said on this topic in the poem; as Leo noted, ‘[Horatius] ne verbo quidem tarn gravis odii causam indicat’. This is in direct contrast with the Strasbourg epode usually attributed to Hipponax (fr. 115 West), which served as Horace's model in this poem; there it is clear that the similar curses on a departing sailor are caused by his breaking of oaths to the poet and betrayal of their previous friendship (15–16 ⋯ς μ' ἢδίκησε, λ⋯ξ δ' ⋯π' ⋯ρκίοις ἔβη, τò πρίν ⋯ταῖρος ⋯ώμ ). One might expect Horace to give some kind of indirect suggestion of the nature of Mevius’ offence, but even this is despaired of by Fraenkel: ‘There is no hint at the sort of crime which Mevius is said to have committed, nor is anything said about the man himself; he remains an entirely shadowy figure’. The best that scholars have been able to do is to follow the ancient commentary of Porphyrio in suggesting that Horace's Mevius is to be identified with the poetaster attacked by Vergil in Ecl. 3.90 ‘qui Bavium non odit, amet tua carmina, Mevi’. Though it is pleasant to think of Vergil and Horace, perhaps by now friends in the circle of Maecenas, ganging up on a luckless hack, there is, as Fraenkel points out, no mention in the tenth Epode that Mevius is a poet, and his literary incompetence, assuming he is Vergil's poet, does not seem to underlie or indeed warrant the bitter imprecations of the poem: Catullus might wish a dire fate on the works of a bad poet (e.g. Volusius – 36.18–20, 95.7–8), but to long for their author's shipwreck and consumption by gulls might indeed seem excessive.
Tranquility Without a Stop: Timon, Frag. 68
Authors: Burnyeat M. F. 
Published: February 2009

Translation at this stage would be premature, but three variants in line 3 deserve notice, (a) Bury (iii.394) writes(b) Natorp (p. 292), followed by Brochard (p. 62 n. 4), suggested(which would yield a meiouric line), (c) Wachsmuth (p. 22) prints a colon instead of a comma afterIt is not surprising that line 3 has attracted emendation. As it stands, it lacks a verb andhas to modify an understood existential
A Cyprian Contract concerning the Use of Land
Authors: Beattie A. J. 
Published: February 2009

Mr.Mitford has kindly provided me with a photograph and impression of a Cyprian text of uncertain provenance, which he assigns to the fifth or fourth century B.C. An account of the text has been published by Mr. Mitford in Minos, VI. i (1958), 37–47. I print below my interpretation, which differs in some respects from his.The characters on the stone are for the most part clearly legible, and even where there is damage to the surface of the stone restoration is practically certain.
A sign of a new speaker in Plautus and Terence?
Authors: Kershaw Allan 
Published: February 2009

The phrase ei mihi is used fifteen times by Plautus. On all but one occasion these words introduce a new speaker. The single ‘exception’ is, I suggest, rather an error of transmission. I quote the line in context, Bac. 1171–4NIC. Ni abeas, quamquam tu bella es,malum tibi magnum dabo iam. BACCH. Patiar,non metuo, ne quid mihi doleatquod ferias. NIC. Ut blandiloquast!ei mihi, metuo. SOR. Hie magis tranquillust.1173 non – blandiloquast uno versu B 1174 SOROR B: B D
A punning reminiscence of Vergil, Ecl. 10.75–7 in Horace, Epist. 1.5.28–9
Authors: Langslow D. R. 
Published: February 2009

The fifth poem in Horace's first book of Epistles takes the form of an invitation to Torquatus to attend a dinner which the poet is preparing for that evening, the eveof the Emperor's birthday (line 9 eras nato Caesare). The fare will be simple but Horace will see to it that the furnishings, napkins, vessels and plates will be clean and bright and that the company and the seating-plan will be to Torquatus’ taste (21–6). Horace will get Butra and Septicius to be there, and Sabinus, too, as long as he is not kept away by a prior dinner engagement or by a girl he'd rather spend the evening with. With Torquatus and Horace, that makes four or five diners, so that there is room for others before the triclinium is full, although there shouldn't be too many; or, as Horace puts it (28–9):locus est et pluribus umbris;sed nimis arta premunt olidae conuiuia caprae.
Aeschylusü Oresteia And Archilochus
Authors: Janko R. 
Published: February 2009

In a recent article in this journal M. L. West made the plausible suggestion that some features of the parodos of Aeschylusü Agamemnon, including the famous simile of the vultures deprived of their young, display the influence of Archilochusü celebrated epode in which Lycambes was admonished with the tale of the fox and the eagle. I think a passage in the Choephoroe confirms his view.One of the Oresteiaüs most characteristic traits is the manner in which themes and images recur during the trilogy. The simile of the vultures at Ag. 48 ff. and the omen of the eagle and the hare at 112 ff. are conspicuously placed and vividly drawn, and we are not surprised to find a resumption of this imagery in the Choephoroe, when the eagleüs nestlings, Electra and Orestes, are reunited and plan their revenge (Cho. 246–51, 255–9). Here we find the image reversed: the young have lost their parents, not the parent-birds their young as at Ag.