This article offers yet another opinion concerning the 18th-century controversy surrounding St. Jerome’s level of knowledge of Hebrew and his Old Testament translation from the Hebrew truth (ex Hebraica veritate). Assurances that Jerome’s Latin rendition is based directly on the Hebrew biblical books made by the monk himself and by his contemporaries are widely challenged. Jerome’s testimony is not entirely credible as he tended to confabulate and prevaricate. Having retraced this dispute about the Stridon-born scholar, the authors of this article subject verse 8:15 of the Book of Deuteronomy to a thorough analysis. It is a peculiar and important fragment for the ongoing discussion due to the appearance of the Hebrew word צִ מָּ אוֹן. In the Greek version (LXX), it had been translated as δίψα (“dry land”). What is crucial here is the fact that a similar form, διψάς, exists in the Greek language. It is a term used for a venomous snake. Potentially mistaking “dry land” for a “snake” in the Hebrew language is not possible. That is why in Jerome’s translation of the Bible from the Hebrew truth such an error should not have occurred. Meanwhile, we can find exactly that mistake in the scholar’s rendition. In his Latin translation Jerome introduced the dipsas snake in lieu of the Hebrew צִ מָּ אוֹן (“dry land”). This article aims to explain why, in this very spot, the translator departed from the Hebrew original
The article aims to restore the train of thought in Petr. Sat. 118. 3–5. In 118. 3, the manuscript reading sanitatem (instead of the emendation vanitatem) is to be retained and taken not as hinting at the lack of poetic ecstasy, but as ‘stylistic simplicity’ after Pavlova 2017. The adversative ceterum does not imply that poetry is the polar opposite of rhetoric, but stresses that contrary to the expectations of poeticizing orators, true poetry is hard toil. The first neque-clause does not imply contrast with rhetoric, but calls for a copious style (in particular, copious sententiae). The second neque-clause implies that poetry must absorb an immense literary tradition in order to attain a copious language. Thus, the two coordinate neque-clauses in 118. 3 are paired as requiring copiousness (a) in style and (b) in language. In the next two sentences, (a) and (b) are specified in chiastic order: (b) the borrowed diction must be elevated (118. 4); (a) the sententiae (as the primary stylistic ornament) must be integrated into the texture of the poem (118. 5). The idea that absorbing literary tradition must enrich poetic language may be paralleled in Hor. Epist. 2. 2. 115–118. Sententiae are regarded as an essential constituent of poetic style, despite the ironic remark on sententiolae vibrantes in 118. 2
This article deals with the structure of Horace’s Carm. 2, 3, in which the poet advises Dellius to cultivate calm and goes on to describe a luxurious picnic. Whereas other commentators since antiquity have connected Falernian wine with an anecdote of Quintus Dellius (Plut. Ant. 59, 4: “For he had offended Cleopatra at supper by saying that while sour wine was served to them, Sarmentus, at Rome, was drinking Falernian. Now, Sarmentus was one of the youthful favourites of Caesar, such as the Romans call deliciae.” [Tr. B. Perrin]), this article seeks another reason why this particular kind of wine should be mentioned here. The phrase interiore nota Falerni in verse 8 probably indicates that the wine chosen for the picnic was not only of good origin, but also a vintage one, and this trait of Dellius can be viewed as an extreme desire to pursue the joie de vivre: he not only goes for a picnic (which would be a moderate way of spending holidays, see e. g., Cic. Off. 3, 58), but he chooses the Falernian for it, and — moreover — the aged one. Thus, the poem to Dellius is contrasted to other well-known poems from Book 2, namely Carm. 2, 14 (to Postumus, who will not enjoy his rare wine himself) and Carm. 2, 10, where the famous ideal of aurea mediocritas is expressed
In the article which serves as a sequel to an earlier one the author argues that Draco’s constitution (DC) in Arist. AP 4 does not derive from an oligarchic political pamphlet in which it served as a prototype of a constitution to be implemented in Athens as the majority of scholars believe. The preponderance of scholars believe, relying on the alleged similarity of DC to the project of the ‘Constitution of Five Thousands’ (AP 30) in 411 BC, that DC emerged in the same ‘moderate’ oligarchic circles as a project of the same kind. Others propose later dates for its appearance but almost unanimously ascribe to oligarchic moderates who pleaded for a ‘hoplite constitution.’ The author argues contra that although DC is not reliable as a historical document, it differs considerably from the known political projects of oligarchs. Its distinguishing features make it anachronistic for conditions of 5th–4th centuries BC, but they are much more at home in the last decades of 7th BC. It is likely that Aristotle found this fictional account in one of the historical sources he used in the AP in which it was fabricated to fill a gap in the lacunose history of the early Athenian constitution and it may have been meant to diminish tendentiously Solon’s contribution, representing the latter as modifying the already existing state order
Die antike Literatur, insbesondere die Epigrammatik bietet eine große Anzahl an Witzen über schlechte Ärzte. Sie können (oft) gefährlich sein, sind dumm, grob, manchmal sexuell übergriffig oder habgierig und auf jeden Fall unfähig. Im nachfolgenden Beitrag wird eine Grundtypisierung dieser Witze, wie sie sich z. Bsp. in den inschriftlichen Denkmälern, in den Epigrammen der Anthologia Graeca, sowie in der Philogelos-Sammlung, bei Martial und Ausonius finden, aufgezeigt, deren Funktion wie zu allen Zeiten im Sinne eines psychologischen Ventils angesichts der Machtlosigkeit gegenüber einem mächtigen Berufsstand verstanden werden kann. So kann der Arzt als eigentliche Todesursache in den Blick treten. Die bloße Berührung ist todbringend; die Erwähnung seines Namens kann bereits letale Folgen haben. Oder man nimmt die technische Unvollkommenheit, ja Stümperei des ärztlichen Personals in den satirischen Blick, und dies in den verschiedenen Abteilungen der Medizin, von der Augenheilkunde über die Chirurgie bis zur Internistik. Gerne wird schließlich auch moralisches Fehlverhalten von Ärzten, ihre Habgier, aber auch sexueller Missbrauch humorvoll aufs Korn genommen. Am Ende des Beitrages wird kurz auf ein Epigramm des Ausonius eingegangen, in dem man einen Vorschlag findet, wie man solchen bedenklichen Zeitgenossen unter den Ärzten aus dem Weg gehen kann: Indem man sie gar nicht erst als Ärzte anerkennt
In this article, twelve new emendations are offered on the text of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. At 1.454 non tactus is proposed for the unparalleled intactus; at 2.99 et partim is suggested for the awkward pars etiam; at 2.258 quomque (late-Republican cumque) is advanced for quemque; at 2.615 the metrically problematic inuenti sint is altered to inueniantur; at 2.733 the unique use of nigrant is dispensed with by reading the expected nigra sunt; at 3.267 et tamen is made more naturally adversarial as at tamen; at 3.774 ne fessa is altered to the more Lucretian defessa (reading ne for et earlier in the line); at 4.160 the unusual feminine celer (his) is altered to (his) celeris; at 4.306 (331) the difficult gerund insinuando is changed to the gerundive insinuandis; at 4.318 (343) multisque is replaced with the more idiomatic multoque; at 5.323 the stark phrase deminui debet recreari is reordered as debet deminui et recreari; finally, at 6.266 uementes is read for the otiose uenientes. The discussion proceeds on the basis of the universally accepted stemma, namely that the three Carolingian manuscripts (O, Q, S) are the sole manuscripts with textual authority. The more than fifty surviving Renaissance manuscripts ultimately derive from O, but they remain a fertile source for conjectures
This article attempts to provide an interpretation of a passage on the noun number written by the 5th-century grammarian Cledonius who composed a lemmatised commentary on Donatus’ Ars minor and Ars maior. The passage discussed here is a part of the explanation regarding the noun categories in Ars minor: Numerus, qui unum et plures demonstrat: et communis est numerus, qui et dualis dicitur apud Graecos, ut species facies res. (GL V 10. 19–20). Cledonius’ text confuses two terms dualis and communis, which normally signify different linguistic phenomena. Tim Denecker, whose article covers the history of the term dualis in Latin grammatical treatises, argues that dualis in this passage is indicating a pair and is equated to communis. The aim of the present work is to explain why these two terms have been confused. When comparing Greek and Latin, the Roman grammarians Charisius, Diomedes, Priscian, and Macrobius highlighted the absence of the dual number from Latin, whereas Donatus added it to the singular and plural exemplifying it with two nomina — duo and ambo. Having analysed all of Cledonius’ passages on dualis and communis and compared them with the original text of Donatus, one may notice that Cledonius did not make comments on Donatus’ observations concerning the dual number of duo and ambo. In the author’s view, the grammarian may have opined that the Latin language had no dual number at all, so that in his commentary Latin communis is juxtaposed to Greek dualis and both are opposed to singular and plural
This article revises current perspectives on the generic status, composition, and subject matter of Phoenician Women by Seneca. It adopts a new approach, focusing on selected elements of text organisation. In particular, emphasis is given to the construction of characters and the analogies and contrasts between them which were already of interest to ancient poetics and rhetoric. Moreover, the article refers to observations, accurate but isolated and largely ignored, made by scholars who recognised Seneca’s originality and suggested that his plays might have been inspired by the declamatory tradition and should be read in the context of evolving postclassical literature. By adopting this perspective, it becomes possible to bring together a large number of partial conclusions that are related to Phoenician Women as well as other plays by Seneca. What is more important, the work brings to light the purposeful composition of the drama and its thematic unity, allowing us to return to the MS versions that until now have been replaced by conjectures, which often distort the meaning of the text. After dismissing the emendations and adopting a new method of reading, Seneca’s Phoenician Women can be regarded as complete and well-organised. The play has certain characteristic features of a tragedy, of all Seneca’s dramas, it is the one most inspired by the genre of declamation and the poetics of Seneca the Elder’s anthology, and it is an example of the use of plot material typical of tragedy for presenting the problem of pietas in all its complexity
This article aims to put Latin impersonal passive into the context of covert categories, specifically pluractionality. I try to reanalyse six passages from the Roman grammatical texts, mostly compiled in Heinrich Keil’s Grammatici Latini, in which the meaning of Latin impersonal passives is considered. There are two groups of evidence. The first one (passages from Diomedes, Priscian, and frg. Bobiense de verbo) presents the impersonal passive as a linguistic strategy that shifts focus from an agent to a situation, while the second one (Diomedes and two excerpts of Servius’ commentaries on Virgil) concentrates upon the number of agents. In the last case, a verbal action is considered to be a collective one involving many people, and therefore, in my opinion, falls into the category of pluractionality. Being a diverse phenomenon, the term pluractionality includes participant plurality, which is realised either in a subject or in an object depending on whether the verb is intransitive or transitive. Intransitivity of the Latin impersonal passive forms, as it seems, may imply agent plurality rather than subject plurality, since impersonal passive constructions are subjectless. Furthermore, in my opinion, the evidence provided by Latin grammarians demonstrates a contraposition of the 1 st person singular, 1 st person plural and 3rd person singular passive forms
The piece deals with the interpretation of Prop. 2. 8. 21–24. These verses seem to be problematic and illogical over the years. In the poem, the speaker, deserted by his beloved Cynthia, imagines himself dead and then describes the heroine’s reaction to this disastrous event. Propertius thinks that she will be happy about his death and defile his grave. Then he suddenly turns to Haemon, who commits suicide in despair of the Antigone’s death, and after that threatens Cynthia to kill her. Firstly, it is incorrect to compare the righteous Antigone with the unfaithful Cynthia. Secondly, the decision to kill the beloved is inept. Some scholars transpose the verses in order to avoid the incoherence. Others try to interpret the passage, leaving the lines in their initial order, but they usually think that Propertius compares himself with Haemon and Cynthia with Antigone. The author of the article reconsiders gender roles in this comparison and suggests a new interpretation. There are also some examples from the Catullan and Propertian poetry, which show that the gender-inverted comparisons are widely used in ancient literature and especially in Roman love poetry of the 1st century B. C., in which they, probably, are part of a new literary strategy.
Der Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit drei Passagen aus Asconius’ Kommentar zu den Reden Ciceros. Im ersten der behandelten Fragmente berichtet Asconius, dass Ciceros Tochter Tullia im Wochenbett im Haus ihres Ehemannes P. Lentulus verstorben sei. Diese Darstellung steht im Gegensatz zur in der Forschung fast allgemein akzeptierten, wenngleich auf indirekte Quellenzeugnisse gestützten, Meinung, dass Tullia auf Ciceros tuskulanischer Villa verschieden sei, nachdem sie einen Sohn im Haus ihres Vaters in Rom geboren habe. Asconius’ Zeugnis wird der Nachricht Plutarchs (Cic. 41, 7–8) gegenübergestellt, in der die gleiche Version überliefert ist. Der Verfasser gelangt zur Schlussfolgerung, dass der Darstellung der beiden Autoren eine gemeinsame Quelle zugrunde liegt, nämlich die von Tiro verfasste Biographie Ciceros, in der nur der Geburtsort des Kindes Tullias, aber nicht der Todesort seiner Mutter angegeben wurde. Gestützt auf diese Information, kamen Asconius und Plutarch unabhängig voneinander zum folgerichtigen, aber irrtümlichen Schluss, dass Tullia im Haus ihres ehemaligen Ehemannes verstorben sei. In der zweiten Passage erwähnt Asconius, dass M. Licinius Crassus im Richterkollegium im Majestätsprozess des C. Cornelius im Jahre 65 saß. Im selben Jahre bekleidete Crassus die Zensur. Allerdings waren die amtierenden Magistrate von den Geschworenen ausgeschlossen. Da der Corneliusprozess in den späten Frühling oder die erste Hälfte des Sommers datiert werden kann, ist zu vermuten, dass Crassus zu diesem Zeitpunkt das Amt aufgab. Im dritten Teil des Aufsatzes wird Asconius’ Bericht über den Mord an Lucretius Afella untersucht. Nach Asconius wurde Afella von einem gewissen L. Bellienus ermordet, während Plutarch berichtet, dass Afella von einem der Zenturionen Sullas erschlagen worden sei. Der Verfasser kommt zum Schluss, dass diese zwei Menschen identisch sind, obwohl ihre mögliche Identität in der Forschung üblicherweise in Zweifel gezogen wird
Im folgenden Beitrag sollen Ciceros Nachrichten zu den römischen Schülern des griechischen Philosophen Panaitios (2. Jh. v. Chr.) mit Philodems Tradition, die uns durch seine Stoicorum Historia zugänglich ist, verglichen werden. Während Cicero in mehreren Zeugnissen prominente römische Politiker des zweiten Jhs. v. Chr. — unter anderem P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus — mit Panaitios in Verbindung bringt, bezeugt Philodem lediglich das Studium der beiden Samniten Marcius sowie Nysius und des Römers Piso — alle drei waren politisch wohl unbedeutend — bei Panaitios. Dies lässt sich durch die unterschiedlichen Zielgruppen der beiden Autoren erklären: Ciceros Leser waren in erster Linie die römischen nobiles, die sich (gelegentlich) mit der Philosophie beschäftigten, Philodem wiederum wendete sich an die Angehörigen eines Griechisch lesenden Fachpublikums. Die Tatsache, dass sich die, Listen‘ der Schüler bei den beiden Autoren nicht decken, ist somit kein Grund, ihre Historizität abzustreiten. Angemessener scheint es, neben den von Cicero genannten Politikern, die mit Panaitios befreundet waren, die Existenz italischer und römischer (Berufs-)Philosophen zu akzeptieren.