Among Greek grammarians a distinction is recognized between a class of nouns capable of referring to several nouns and a class referring to just one proper name. This distinction is very poorly (and problematically) attested in the works of Latin grammarians. This paper explores and discusses some connections so far overlooked, and tries to correct some misinterpretations. In the light of the distinction of proper vs. common epithets, the controversial phrase mediae potestatis is elucidated, by stressing that (...) it refers to the ‘semantic incompleteness’ of the adjective. Finally, the assumption that the concept of ‘adjective’ was not known within Latin grammatical tradition before the fourth century is revised. We bring forward evidence against this assumption implying an early ‘linguistic’ tradition with respect to the adjective which was to some degree independent from the well-known ‘rhetorical’ doctrine on epithets. (shrink)

This article reviews the text and interpretation of some ancient evidence on the pronunciation of syllable coda m in Latin. Crucial textual emendations are suggested for passages by Annaeus Cornutus and Velius Longus, and the resulting evidence is reinterpreted in the light of current phonological theories. Some of the accepted views on the pronunciation of –m are challenged by highlighting the likely sound variation in neutralization contexts. The evidence from both grammarians and inscriptions reveals that the possibility (...) of m sounding [n] in the internal preconsonantal position could have been more widespread than previously thought. (shrink)

When dealing with manuscripts transmitting otherwise unknown ancient texts and without asubscriptio, the work of a philologist and literary critic becomes both more difficult and more engrossing. Definitive proof is impossible; at the end there can only be a hypothesis. When dealing with a unique grammatical text, such a hypothesis becomes even more delicate because of the standardization of ancient grammar. But it can happen that, behind crystallized theoretical argumentation and apparently canonical formulas, interstices can be explored that (...) lead to unforeseen possibilities, more exciting—and even more suitable—than those that have already emerged. (shrink)

A long-lasting and sometimes acrimonious debate over the correct vocative form of second-declension Latin words in -ius began more than 800 years ago. For the past century most classicists have considered the matter to be settled, and little discussion on the subject has taken place. Yet the century-old conclusions we now so unthinkingly accept are based on very little evidence and are internally inconsistent in some of their details. The past hundred years have provided us not only with more (...) Latin to work with, better tools for search and analysis, and a more complete knowledge of the history of the Latin language, but also with a new understanding and respect for the ancient grammarians and their views on the structure of their language. It is time to re-examine the ancient and modern views on the vocative of -ius words, to see whether any viable conclusions can be drawn and whether the ancient grammarians may have more to contribute than our predecessors believed. (shrink)

Sarah Fielding (1710-1768), the younger sister of Henry Fielding, and the close friend of his literary rival Samuel Richardson, was one of the very few English women to master ancient languages like Latin and Greek. With the help of Shaftesbury's nephew, James Harris, a distinguished writer, scholar and grammarian, she embarked on the ambitious project of translating Xenophon's Memorabilia and the Apology of Socrates from the Greek. This work, titled Memoirs of Socrates, with the Defence of Socrates before (...) his Judges, was finally released in 1762. She proved a discreet editor and a talented Hellenist, whose elegant style garnered praise from Tobias Smollett in his Critical Review. This superb translation is re-published in its entirety for the first time since the 18th century"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

According to major Latin dictionaries, the word radius is attested as a terminus technicus for the geometrical concept ‘radius’ in Cicero’s Timaeus 17. In this study, however, it is argued that there is good reason to believe that Cicero did not use the word in this sense, but in a metaphorical expression in which radius mainly carries the well-attested sense of ‘rod ’: paribus radiis attingi literally = ‘to be touched by equal rods’, that is to say, ‘to be (...) equidistant’. The first and only convincing attestation of radius in the sense of ‘radius ’ in ancient Latin literature is found in Calcidius’ Commentary on the Timaeus 59. It is suggested that Calcidius was influenced by Cicero’s translation and consequently adopted the word radius; however, its technical sense of ‘radius’ was coined, deliberately or not, by Calcidius himself. As there are no other convincing attestations of this sense of the word in ancient Latin, not even in geometrical texts, it is suggested that the word radius never became a commonly accepted terminus technicus for radius in antiquity. (shrink)

To those who know little about the Middle Ages, the copying of manuscripts of “the ancients” (whether classical, such as the Roman poet Horace, or Christian, such as Saints Jerome or Augustine) often seems either a laudable act of preserving the past or an unfortunate fixation on repeating the words of others rather than penning new and original compositions. Even scholars of the Middle Ages appear sometimes more interested in new types of works such as fabliaux or courtly romances written (...) in the vernacular; when they study the practice of copying, they often concentrate on identifying prototypes or legacies. Finding old wine in old bottles has been a fairly constant theme in medieval studies; sometimes, we must admit, medievalists have just thrown out the old bottles and moved on to something completely new. In this context, it may seem strange to find a work about medieval Latin manuscript commentaries titled “The Birth of the Author,” responding to Roland Barthes's well-known essay “The Death of the Author,” published in 1984 and cited repeatedly since. What can it mean to see new, self-conscious awareness of the act of personal creation in works that are copies by scribes of other works that themselves comment on yet earlier works, often of a certain age or canonicity? Yet in this intelligent, engaging, and beautifully produced book, art historian Jeffrey Hamburger not only shows how those who wrote commentaries came to suggest that anyone who composes a work (even the scribe who copies it) could be considered a creator of meaning but also that the images in commentaries themselves sometimes make statements—indeed, statements more radical than those in the text—about the author of the work being illustrated. Long known as one of the relatively rare historians of medieval art equipped with a wide knowledge of theology and hence of how images respond to and reflect text, Hamburger here shows himself possessed of a shrewd eye for the image itself. He studies illuminated prefaces to, among other texts, the prose and poetic works of Horace as used in the medieval classroom, copies of the major biblical commentary of the High Middle Ages, the Glossa ordinaria, and Rupert of Deutz's erotically charged commentary on the Song of Songs. Changing the lens through which scholars have usually viewed such texts, Hamburger argues that images of authors of commentaries sometimes go beyond anything in the text to assert the authority not only of the author of the text commented on and of the commentator but occasionally even of the scribe.The Birth of the Author is a work of complicated analysis, and its full power demands close attention. Understanding how images construct claims that go beyond the text involves a good deal of careful looking. Hamburger is a patient and clear guide, but the reader must be prepared to flip back and forth between the magnificent colored images the publisher provides and to follow what are often painstaking arguments from comparison of small visual differences or puzzling identifications of seemingly strange details. The result of doing so is, however, to gain not only the reward of Hamburger's ingenious conclusions but also a lesson in how to look. For example, in a discussion of Gilbert Universalis's commentary on the Lamentations of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, Hamburger shows how Gilbert not only identifies Jeremiah as a “divine rhetorician” but also assimilates his own act of authorship to Jeremiah's prophetic speech. In the only extant copy of Gilbert's text that has a program of illustrations, the artist constructs both Jeremiah's speech and Gilbert's interpretation as similar acts of creation by framing both authors in parallel architectural images that evoke the Old Testament temple and a Christian church. Or to give a final example of Hamburger's interpretive reach: the book concludes not with yet another medieval preface but with an example of the far less usual manuscript epilogue. Here not only commentator, scribe, and illustrator but even the medieval reader construct themselves. Reception becomes interpretation, illustration becomes construction. In a commentary by the Carolingian figure Sedulius Scotus (fl. 840–60) on the Roman grammarian Donatus (mid-fourth century), the illustrator depicts Donatus as author and scribe (thus assimilating author into copier and vice versa). On the same folio, a later medieval reader constructs himself as reader/author in a charming marginal doodle that seems to entrap Donatus in a sort of hangman's noose. Thus, a bit wryly perhaps, Hamburger—himself teacher, commentator, and consummate scholar—seems to suggest that even frustrated students can construct themselves as interpreters and, yes, authors. Behind the seeming repetition and backward glance of the images in medieval commentaries lies radical and forward-looking self-awareness of the acts of authoring, interpreting, reading, and imagining. In Hamburger's analysis, the most seemingly conventional of medieval genres—the preface to commentaries on the texts of others—is a locus of the birth in illustration of the self-conscious and self-expressive author and reader. (shrink)

Most of the commentaries on Greek authors which circulated in the towns of Egypt during the late Ptolemaic and early Imperial periods ignored the critical and colometrical problems which had engaged the attention of the great Alexandrian grammarians. A few, however, based themselves on texts equipped with signs, included the signs in their lemmata and offered explanations. Such commentaries must be the source of the scattered references to signs in the older marginal scholia in Byzantine manuscripts of Homer, Hesiod, (...) Pindar and the Attic dramatists. The only Byzantine manuscript to transmit a pagan text still equipped with a large number and a variety of signs, namely cod. Venice, Bibl. Marc. gr. 454, is also the only one to transmit scholia with lemmata retaining prefixed signs. Just as texts and scholium-lemmata lost their signs in the course of transmission, so too did references to signs within scholia either disappear or become garbled. At best, a statement about the reasons for affixing a sign would turn into one about the content or style of the verse in question. The few mentions made of the great Alexandrians give no cause for thinking that we ever have a verbatim quotation of an πόμνημα written by one of them in order to explain his own signs. Time and again it is demonstrable that an explanation of a sign's presence against a particular verse goes back to some writer like Aristonicus. What survives of the ancient discussion of Latin literature is exiguous in comparison with the Greek material. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:M. Tullius Cicero: The Fragmentary SpeechesJohn NicholsonJane W. Crawford. M. Tullius Cicero: The Fragmentary Speeches. An edition with commentary. 2d ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. x + 350 pp. Cloth, $39.95; paper, $24.95. (American Classical Studies 33)Here we have a manifestation of the paradox that scholarship thrives on ignorance. Scanty evidence begets profuse speculation and reconstruction, and often the less we know about something, the more we write (...) about it. Hence flows this elaborate presentation of Cicero’s fragmentary speeches, which complements the author’s previous book in the same vein, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations(Hypomnemata 80, Göttingen 1984). With great industry Crawford presents us 350 pages of intense erudition devoted to the explication of about 220 fragments (most rather short) from sixteen otherwise lost but identifiable Ciceronian orations; this second edition adds a brief appendix of another thirty-one fragmenta incertae sedis.But Crawford’s sprawling edition of these remnants is by no means in vain. They have been unduly neglected, and deserve to be more widely appreciated. If nothing else they remind us of how much we have lost from antiquity, even of an author such as Cicero from whom so much else has survived. This rich inheritance is nevertheless only a fraction of the original legacy, and we must remember that there are many pieces missing from the puzzle, the loss of which distorts the overall picture. This new edition represents a dedicated effort to fill in some of the neglected pieces not just from along the edges, but also from the vital center, to reconstruct their original context, and thereby to sharpen the focus of the whole. The fact that most of the speeches under view in this study date to the 60s B.C., a period not fully represented in the extant Ciceronian letters, [End Page 148]makes them all the more important as valuable evidence in the proper understanding of Cicero’s political and forensic career at its height.The fragments here range in length from single isolated words to several lines; most average one or two lines, though there are about a dozen longer fragments between five and nine lines each. Not included in this edition are orations such as Pro Scauroand Pro Tulliowhich, though incomplete, are considered essentially extant. Some of the fragments come from minor orations about which we know very little (five speeches are represented by a single fragment), while others survive in large clusters from important speeches which were well known in antiquity and whose loss to modern readers must be regretted. There are, for example, twenty-seven fragments from Cicero’s electoral oration In Toga Candida(all preserved by Asconius), thirty-three from the invective In P. Clodium et Curionem,and twenty-five from the speech De Aere Alieno Milonis(preserved in the Bobbio scholia). But the most extensively preserved are the twin defense speeches Pro C. Cornelio,together represented by eighty fragments (well over a third from Asconius) whose discussion consumes nearly a quarter of Crawford’s book. Over all, Asconius, Quintilian, and the Bobbio scholiast provide the most numerous and significant fragments, augmented by their encasing commentary which provides valuable context and discussion. Less important are the stray words and phrases picked out by some three dozen others, mostly grammarians with narrow linguistic purposes, working as late as the sixth century a.d.Crawford’s modus operandifor making sense of these fragments is logical and thorough. For each of the sixteen orations, arranged here in chronological order, she first gives a preliminary introduction rehearsing what we know of the historical facts about the case and summarizing the scholarship on the issues which surround it. Next come the ancient testimonia for each speech, both Latin and Greek, and then the fragments themselves (along with textual apparatus) arranged in their probable correct order. She does not offer translations. Finally, each fragment receives a comprehensive commentary addressing matters of date, prosopography, history, politics and law, rhetoric, style, and diction (including textual questions). Where the fragments are extensive enough, there is also a good attempt to reconstruct the overall structure and argument of the speech. At... (shrink)

The Sanskrit term most frequently rendered in English as “truth” is satya, which is derived from a form of the verb “to be” (as). This can be traced etymologically back to the ancient Indo‐European copula, which is preserved also in Greek eirni, Latin esse, English is, and German Sein. The relationship between truth and being in Sanskrit is not just a discovery of modern linguistic science: Sanskrit grammarians, though not engaged in Indo‐European historical linguistics, were always sensitive (...) to the derivational principles of their own language, and they explain the term “satya” as being formed by the application of the suffix ya to sat, the present participle of the verb “to be.” Satya, given a strong interpretation of the semantical influence of the derivational suffix, is therefore literally “what stands in relation to, has affinity with, being.” Read more weakly, it is simply “what has being.”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological WordplayPamela R. BleischJames J. O’Hara. True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. xvii 1 320 pp. Cloth, $44.50, £35.This monograph provides a study and catalogue of Vergilian poetic etymological wordplay, defined by O’Hara as “explicit reference or implicit allusion to the etymology of one of the words a poet (...) is using. A poet may simply explain or allude to the derivation of a word or may suggest further that the derivation of the name is appropriate because it corresponds to some essential feature of the thing named, or gives the true explanation (etymos logos) of the thing” (3). O’Hara’s monograph includes an introductory essay of 163 pages: in part 1 he surveys etymological thinking and wordplay before Vergil, particularly, but not exclusively, the Alexandrian poets; in part 2 he analyzes the form and style of Vergilian wordplay; and in part 3 he examines how etymologizing furthers Vergil’s poetic goals, focusing on some of the prevailing imagery and themes of the Aeneid. The main portion of the monograph is a heavily annotated catalogue which presents and discusses all examples of etymological wordplay that O’Hara or any other scholar has found in Vergil’s Aeneid, Eclogues, and Georgics.O’Hara’s catalogue of Vergilian etymological wordplay is a gold mine of information and a welcome contribution to Vergilian studies. Bartelink’s Etymologisering bij Vergilius, published more than thirty years ago and never translated from the Dutch, had made Vergilian etymology a largely inaccessible topic. Organized by category and lacking indices locorum and verborum, Bartelink’s work did not readily lend itself to consultation. O’Hara’s monograph, with running commentary format, indexes, and cross-references, is easy to use. His catalogue is heavily annotated: each entry includes a quotation of the Vergilian etymologizing passage, discussion of the wordplay, passages from ancient grammarians or poets that explicitly mention the derivation, passages from elsewhere in Vergil or other poets which allude to the same or similar etymologies, [End Page 300] and, finally, up-to-date bibliographical references. As for dubious examples of etymologies, O’Hara tends to be much more inclusive and open-minded than Bartelink: “I place them in the catalogue, with question marks and often with discussion of the problem, in part because what looks implausible to me may look more plausible to another” (112 n. 367). He does not restrict his study to poetic etymology alone but includes “a slightly broader range of wordplay, both to be more useful and because strenuous efforts to distinguish or separate etymological wordplay from ‘related phenomena,’ are not worthwhile, and probably not true to the practice of the poets” (3). Thus he even includes anagrams (e.g., amor/Roma at Aeneid 4.347) in his catalogue, although he expresses reasonable doubts about their value as etymologies. The catalogue contains a wealth of material not found in Bartelink; see, for example, the discussion of Dictamnum, of mater Acidalia, and the section on wandering Dido and the planets. (This last is a must-read, and, to my mind, provides compelling evidence for Pöschl’s identification of Dido with the moon in Iopas’ song [Art of Vergil, Ann Arbor, 1966: 151–54]; and cf. Brown, HSCP 1989, 322–23).The monograph takes a descriptive rather than analytical approach and refrains from engaging in the debate over the determinacy or indeterminacy of meaning in Vergilian poetry; it may prove more accessible and timeless as a result. O’Hara is a reader’s writer: clear, concise, and helpful; his bibliography demonstrates his characteristic thorough research. The University of Michigan Press has done a beautiful job formatting a text fraught with pitfalls: extensive quotations in Latin and Greek featuring italics, boldface, and dotted underlining; plenteous and lengthy footnotes featuring all of the above. The very few errors I found did not detract from the authority or accessibility of the book; the volume does credit to both press and author.O’Hara’s introductory essay is intended as a preliminary to the catalogue, rather than as a full discussion of... (shrink)

There are signs that a list of parallelisms containing quite lengthy citations of republican works in prose and all kinds of verse, as well as remarks highly critical of Virgil, provided the material of Saturnalia 6. 2, Saturnalia 6. 3, and Saturnalia 6. 1. 55–65.1 Whereas Macrobius transmits the uersus parallelisms practically without comment, the locus parallelisms have a certain amount of discussion clustered at the beginning and at the end. This is for the most part neutral and matter of (...) fact but in 6. 2. 33 the harsh tone of an obtrectator makes itself heard: nee Tullio conpilando, dummodo undique ornamenta sibi conferret, abstinuit. The original list was excerpted very carelessly: in 6. 2. 29 the Virgil citation ought to continue for two more verses; in 6. 2. 7, 9, and 24 the Lucretius citations are likewise defective. (shrink)

The abbreviation-symbols of the Romans, found in ancient uncial MSS., may be roughly divided into three classes: Those peculiar to juristic writing, e.g. R.P. ‘res priuata’ , Q.D.R.A. ‘qua de re agitur.’ They are properly called ‘notae iuris.’ They abound in the famous Verona MS. of Gaius. A few used in histories, etc., e.g. R.P. 'respublica' , Q. ‘Quintus’ . Valerius Probus, who compiled a manual of ancient Notae, calls this class ‘notae publicae’. They appear in such MSS. (...) as the codex Puteanus of Livy ; and since they have been transferred into modern editions of the Latin historians, etc., no one is at a loss to interpret them nowadays, although they puzzled mediaeval scribes. Symbols of ordinary words of frequent occurrence in any type of literature, e.g. Q. ‘que.’ It is this class which is the subject of this article. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION Elio Gianturco translated Giambattista Vico's De Nostri Temporis Studiorum Ratione into English in 1965. l He began the introduction to that ...

This volume comprises a new critical edition of Vico’s original Latin text and a faithful translation of this early work on metaphysics. Robert Miner’s introduction offers valuable guidance in understanding this challenging text and assessing its significance.

From the scholarly activity of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. stem several collections of scholia to the poems of Virgil, most of which make copious reference to prose and verse composed in Latin before Virgil's time. The authors of these scholia were the last of a long line of commentators whose labours began soon after Virgil's death. Just as Virgil walked in the tracks of Theocritus, Hesiod, Aratus, Nicander, Homer, and Apollonius, so did his students in the tracks (...) of the great Alexandrian expositors of the Greek poets. They sought to explain Virgil not only through Virgil himself, but also through the poets and prose writers, Greek and Latin, whom they imagined Virgil to have read. Thus we have scholia citing early republican literature in order to parallel words uncommon in or absent from the fourth-century classical syllabus, as well as unclassical usages, inflections, and constructions; in order to demonstrate ‘imitations’ on the part of Virgil; and in order to elucidate the structure of episodes of the three poems where Virgil appears to depart from the most commonly known versions of myth and history. Argument concerning the text or interpretation of a disputed passage is frequently based on appeal to the usage of Virgil's Latin predecessors. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 123.4 (2002) 645-648 [Access article in PDF] Thomas N. Habinek. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. x + 234 pp. Cloth, $39.50. This is an important book, one that has in its brief life (a paperback edition appeared in 2001) spawned many scholarly debates in both written and spoken form. Many have (...) disagreed—and will disagree—with Habinek's ideas, and I certainly have many questions about his methodology, his use of sources and evidence, and his sometimes conflicting claims. Nonetheless, he takes on one of the most serious issues in Classics: how we read classical texts, what the reader's involvement with the text should be, and what part ideology plays (and did play) in both the formation and the reception of a text.Habinek's task, as he states it, is to study literature as a representation of society and an intervention in it (3). His overall aim is to assess the social function of Latin literature, a literature that was produced within a traditional aristocratic empire "by and for an elite that sought to maintain and expand its dominance over other sectors of the population through reference to an authorizing past" (3). As his title indicates (with "Politics" coming before "Literature"), he sets out to "politicize and historicize the reading of texts of classical Latin literature that are still too frequently regarded in purely formalistic and aesthetic terms" (4-5) by examining, chapter by chapter, a series of test cases or scenarios that embed Roman literature in its social, economic, and cultural context. This book is meant to offer the reader, then, a "historically engaged mode of reading" (5) by looking at intertexts of many sorts.Such an approach to literature belongs to the school of cultural-materialist studies, those critics who read and analyze literature as "ideological discourse and social institution" (5), and it draws from many schools of thought and disciplines, including Marxism, feminist theory, anthropology, political science, deconstruction, literary criticism, New Historicism, and Foucauldian theory. The genesis of Habinek's book was the close philological study of the "meaning and usage of specific Latin words and phrases in specific discursive contexts" (6). Thus he began with a close examination of the political basis of words but then broadened his lens to analyze textual systems and the construction of political identity. Habinek distinguishes himself from the semioticians and the formalists in his focus on the "interestedness" of textual utterances and the historical and political dynamics of the text. The particular kind of interestedness that Habinek zeroes in on is the Roman aristocratic elite and its anxieties about strategies for sustaining a moral and political hegemony.Habinek enters into a fray that has long simmered in the discipline of Classics but that boiled up into a full-scale battle with the publication of Martin Bernal's Black Athena. Habinek contends that Classical scholars' idealizing view of the ancient world (more Greece than Rome) and their isolation of Latin literature from Roman culture has allowed them to ignore "the social implications of their own practice" (10), a comfortable, ahistoricized position that militates [End Page 645] against reading Latin literature in a sociopolitical framework. If, for example, we read Ovid's exile poetry without acknowledging Ovid's contribution to Roman colonialism and his authorly assistance in constructing and disseminating an imperial discourse of domination, we risk imitating some famous scholarly forebears who "avoided the historical reality of Rome in order to actualize their own fantasies of the apolitical innocence of literature and literary studies" (14). Thus, Habinek sympathizes with Bernal's idea that "scholarship... is influenced by the scholar's sociopolitical background" (173, n. 2), and he urges us to follow Giambattista Vico, who privileged Roman literature and culture (over Greek), saw society and culture as something changing not fixed, and regarded language and cultural institutions as social constructs. Habinek contrasts Vico with figures like Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, who, in the German Romantic tradition, idealized Greece and firmly separated... (shrink)

The theory of negation developed in the grammatical-philosophical system of later Vyākaraṇa remains almost entirely unstudied, despite its close links with the (widely studied) approaches to negation found in other philosophical schools such as Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā, and despite its consequent importance for a comprehensive understanding of the theory of negation in ancient India. In this paper we present an edition, translation and commentary of the relevant sections of Nāgeśa’s _Paramalaghumañjūṣā_, a concise presentation by the final authority of the (...) Pāṇinian tradition, together with an explanatory introduction outlining the grammarians’ theory of negation and its relations particularly with the Nyāya theory of negation. (shrink)

This volume comprises a new critical edition of Vico’s original Latin text and a faithful translation of this early work on metaphysics. Robert Miner’s introduction offers valuable guidance in understanding this challenging text and assessing its significance.

P.Bon. 5 preserves the only known collection of ancient Latin model letters, accompanied by a Greek translation. This article argues that the Latin is the primary version and dates the composition to before the early third century. Comparisons with other model letter collections, principally ps.-Demetrius’ Epistolary Types and ps.-Libanius’ Epistolary Styles, locate the text within a wider literary genre. A new reconstructed text is provided in the Appendix at the end of this article.

The grammarians of antiquity, unlike some of their modern counterparts, seem to have had little interest in investigating ‘what every speaker knows’, at least as a largescale project, consciously articulated and embarked on. The object of such a project would be to determine what constitutes such knowledge—or mastery, or cognition, or whatever name it is given—in actual speakers. An alternative goal would be an account of something knowledge of which would count as knowledge of the language in question, even (...) if this is not what actual speakers know. No ancient author seems to have set himself either task; indeed, the whole question of what it is to know a language seems to have been raised only very occasionally in classical antiquity. is probably the best known of these rare discussions.) Kaimio is surely justified in making the still more sweeping observation that ‘The concept of language knowledge was rather vague amongst ancient peoples’. (shrink)

The first glimpse one has of W. R. Johnson's book on Propertius is its cover, Waterhouse's beguiling image of beguiling Circe. She lures you in, tricks and traps you, delays you in a new world that is remote from the call of everyday life and not without other charms. Circe appears nowhere and everywhere within the book. She is not mentioned by name even once, but the figure of the beguiling woman looms large in Johnson's interpretation, which devotes to Cynthia (...) and her predecessor Dido two long chapters before we ever really meet Propertius in chapter 4. A sort of Circe has also lured Johnson, who admittedly lingers in the otherworld of the pleasures of the text rather than the regular business of modern Propertian scholarship which, to Johnson, is overly theoretical, disengaged, and prone to reduce the pleasure of reading. (shrink)

David Blank presents a new translation into clear modern English of a key treatise by one of the greatest of ancient philosophers, together with the first ever commentary on this work. Sextus Empiricus' Against the Grammarians is a polemical attack on ancient Greek ideas about grammar, and provides one of the best examples of sustained Sceptical reasoning.

The Ruše school plays, which are described in the Latin chronicle of Jožef Avguštin Meznerič titled Notata Rastensia antiquissimis documentis desumpta et variis fide humana dignis autographis syno­ptice descripta in connection with the Latin school (1645–1760), are frequently seen as an early attempt of theatrical production, lost in Slovenian literary history. They were introduced by the remarkable Luka Jamnik, a local priest and talented impresario, called the “Ro­mulus of Ruše” in the chronicle. In 1680, he began organizing annual (...) plays modelled after Jesuit school “comedies” (actio comica). Regular annual performances in honour of the Virgin Mary took place every early September, on the feast of Mary’s name, until 1722, but due to a later fire, no texts have been preserved. This article undertakes a unique task – the first attempt to reconstruct one of the performances from that time, a lost play from 1706 with a supposedly ancient motif about Emperor Jovinian who was miraculously led to conversion, De Joviniano imperatore mire correcto. It outlines the dramatic plot based on two literary sources, one from the Gesta Romanorum collection and the other from the Summa Theologica by a Dominican writer called Antoninus of Florence. With a collection of six periochae, “theater programs” preserved from similar school performances of the time, it also sketches the Erwartungshorizont of possible variations, just as they were presented on different European stages at the time. Furthermore, the paper presents the treatment of this motif, known as ATU 757, “The Emperor’s Haughtiness Punished,” in a series of other traditions, starting from its roots in the biblical story of King Nebu­chadnezzar (Dan 3:31–4:34) through the authors such as Herrand of Wildonie, Geoffrey Chaucer, Hans Sachs, William Morris, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, to the contemporary 20th-century opera by Josef Tal and Israel Eliraz. In this light, the 1706 performance in Ruše emerges as a significant annual highlight of cultural life in the region, with young intellectuals introducing their audience of several thousand viewers to a complex motif from European literary tradition that was both spiritually and socially provocative. (shrink)

The article contains a list and brief characteristics of Latin legal maxims used in the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. Most of them were formulated by Roman jurists, some by medieval lawyers, and some by representatives of the modern science of law based on Roman law sources. They express universal and eternal ideas and are a significant element of the axiology of law. The presence of Latin legal maxims in the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal demonstrates (...) that Latin is an important element of the cultural heritage of ancient Rome and its knowledge is one of the essential tools in the workshop of a contemporary lawyer. (shrink)

This book is the recent addition to the Clarendon Later Ancient Philosophers series, and its greatest significance lies in its being the sole commentary on Against the Grammarians. It also provides the only English alternative to Bury’s 1949 translation in the Loeb edition. As such, it is a clear and readable translation, although, of course, there is no Greek text provided.

In a discussion of the spread of Latin in ancient Palestine it has been argued that, apart from Westerners like Jerome who settled in the province and a number of translators from Greek into Latin and from Latin into Greek, three Latin authors whose works are extant may have been, with various degrees of probability, natives of the country. These are Commodian of Gaza, arguably the earliest extant Christian Latin poet; Eutropius, the author of (...) abreviariumof Roman history, who apparently hailed from Caesarea; and the anonymous author of theDescriptio totius mundi et gentium, who certainly was a native of the Syro-Palestinian region, and conceivably of one of the Palestinian cities. Here I wish to discuss another case, which seems to me characteristic of the reluctance of scholars to admit that Latin, and Latin authors, were more prevalent in the East than is usually acknowledged. In fact, it may be not misleading to assert that the invariably adduced exceptions of Ammianus Marcellinus and Claudian as Latin writers from the East are exceptions by virtue of the quality of their work rather than by its very existence. (shrink)

The Greek under the Latin and the Latin under the Greek -- Greek-Latin philosophical interaction -- The odyssey of semantics from the Stoa to Buridan -- The Chimera's diary -- Where were the stoics in the late Middle Ages? -- Theories of language in the Hellenistic age and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -- Late-ancient ancestors of medieval philosophical commentaries -- Boethius on Aristotle -- Boethius on the metaphysics of words -- Western and Byzantine approaches (...) to logic -- Greek and Latin medieval logic -- Philoponus, Alexander, and the origins of medieval logic -- Analyzing syllogisms or anonymus Aurelianensis III, the (presumably) earliest extant Latin commentary on the prior analytics, and its Greek model -- Fragments of Alexander's commentaries on Analytica posteriora and Sophistici elenchi. (shrink)

David Blank presents a new translation into clear modern English of a key treatise by one of the greatest of ancient philosophers, together with the first ever commentary on this work. Sextus Empiricus' Against the Grammarians is a polemical attack on ancient Greek ideas about grammar, and provides one of the best examples of sustained Sceptical reasoning.

In 1988 the philosopher Gilles Deleuze remarked that throughout his career he had always been 'circling around' a concept of nature. Showing how Deleuze weaves original readings of Plato, the Stoics, Aristotle, and Epicurus into some of his most famous arguments about event, difference, and problem, Michael James Bennett argues that these interpretations of ancient Greek physics provide vital clues for understanding Deleuze's own conception of nature. -/- "Deleuze and Ancient Greek Physics" delves into the original Greek and (...) Latin texts and situates Deleuze's interpretations in relation to contemporary scholarship on ancient philosophy. It reveals that these readings are both more complex and controversial than they may at first appear. Generating both new critical analyses of Deleuze and an appreciation for his classical erudition, this book will be a valuable resource for anyone interested in ancient Greek philosophy, Deleuze's philosophical project, or his unique methodology in the history of philosophy. (shrink)

The grammarian Caesellius Vindex, writing under Trajan, criticized Furius Antias for his newly coined verbs lutescere, noctescere, opulescere and vīrescere. Their meanings in classical Latin are classified by Nicolaie as follows: becoming, the intensification of a quality, the acquisition of a quality. Their number increases in post-classical Latin, in which we also find them used causatively as transitive verbs, e.g. innotescere ‘make known’; Gellius' causative use of inolesco is mentioned below. Incohative verbs descend to Romance languages, where forms (...) in -o and in -sco both contribute to some conjugations, e.g. Fr. finir, finissant; It. finire, finisco, and to English. (shrink)

Federico Commandino’s Latin editions of the mathematical works written by the ancient Greeks constituted an essential reference for the scientific research undertaken by the moderns. In his Latin editions, Commandino cleverly combined his philological and mathematical skills. Philology and mathematics, moreover, nurtured each other. In this article, I analyze the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the printed edition of Apollonius’ Conics to highlight in a specific case study the role of the editions of the classics in (...) the renaissance of modern mathematics. (shrink)