The Portrait of a Lady attributed to Correggio (St Petersburg, State Hermitage, inv. no. 5555) was witnessed as signed with the Latin pseudonym Antonius Laetus. The inscription was still legible in the 70s, and the analysis of parallels confirms authenticity of the painting while also indicating the time of its creation — most likely in the winter 1518–1519. The identification of the sitter as Ginevra Rangoni accepted by the majority should not be disputed. The idea expressed by Riccardo Finzi more than half a century ago can moreover be supported by new arguments: not only the scapular and the Franciscan knot, but also the laurel, ivy, myrtle, the general expression of the widow bride, the full cup of charming wit as a cure for the bitterness of losses, and the reference to Helen of Troy — all this perfectly fits in with Ginevra’s life circumstances. Contrary to the authoritative opinion of Claudio Franzoni, the inscription on the cup cannot be reduced to a single word: besides νηπενθές it includes ἄχολο[ν], explaining the uncommon epithet, a hapax, and [ἐπίληθον ἁπά]ντων, marking the end of verse Od. 4. 221. Correggio reflected on the feast scene in Menelaus’ palace, visualized it in his creative imagination, and the viewer should turn to it to understand the artist’s intention. Its central character, Helen, appears to act very differently in the two stories told at its end. She sympathizes with the Achaeans, longs for the husband she left behind, and at the same time wants to destroy the warriors hidden in the belly of the wooden horse, among them this deserted husband of hers. Abnormal details of the second story aroused suspicion; it might well have been an interpolation originally belonging to Iliupersis or Little Iliad. However, to Correggio’s mind the text was, of course, authentic, and he perceived the contradictory behavior of Helen as truly homeric. Inspired by Homer, he thus created an ethically ambivalent female image, feasible in its duality.
This second part concludes the publication of previously unpublished texts, a project initiated in the preceding issue of this journal, featuring 30 new schedographical texts. Once again, the objective is to provide new valuable material for the comprehensive study of Byzantine culture and the teaching and learning practice of Ancient Greek during the East Roman Empire. Schedography, a distinct form of educational text practiced in the Byzantine Empire from the 10th century until its end and even beyond (continuing in use until the 19th century), reached its peak in the 13th century. This unique kind of pedagogical texts has gained scholarly attention in contemporary academia. However, despite this interest, it remains a complex field of study due to its unique characteristics. These texts, specifically crafted to be read aloud in educational settings, pose challenges for modern readers as they markedly deviate from contemporary silent reading practices. Furthermore, their lack of clear original context, coupled with their educational intent rather than aesthetic value, complicates the process of interpretation and understanding. Schedography stands as a literary and educational enigma that continues to be a focal point of research in the 21st century. Critically edited collections, such as the one presented in this study (published in two parts), are indispensable for further rigorous scholarly analysis
The article aims to analyze the use of the term concessivus/concessiva ‘concessive’ in Latin grammatical texts which make up Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum and Digital Library of late antique Latin texts, and to consider the concessive meaning as a grammatical category. A number of grammatical sources (Probus, Ars of Diomedes, Victorini sive Palaemoni Ars, Ars of Cledonius, Explanationes) place the category of concessivity among the verbal categories, namely modus ‘mood’, while in others this term is not mentioned. The text of Diomedes is also notable for the fact that concessivity is included in the concept of species, a term that includes heterogeneous grammatical phenomena among Roman grammarians. At the same time, the grammarian identifies not one meaning of concession, but two, which are defined by the terms — species concessiva (describes situations that are undesirable for the speaker in the present and future) and species affirmativa (describes situations that did not actually happen). All the three terms in the title of this paper correspond to coniunctivus concessivus and indicate the same grammatical form — perfect subjunctive, e. g. feceris ‘even if you did’. In modern linguistics, the meaning of concession is expressed not only by the perfect subjunctive, but also by the present subjunctive, and, thus, does not have a unique formal expression, as in ancient linguistics. I suppose that concession in the Latin language falls under the scope of covert grammatical category, whereas concession, as it was presented in Roman grammars, can be treated as an overt one
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the distribution of the ancient Greek negatives οὐ and μή in rhetorical questions, particularly in those which are equivalent to an assertive speech act. Traditionally, their use in this context has been described after the answer that usually follows the question without any further explanation: οὐ favours a positive answer, while μή favours a negative one. However, this rule does not always hold true. A theoretical framework that may explain their distribution is nonveridicality. Nonveridicality is applied to those operators that do not presuppose their proposition to be true or false. In fact, the use of μή with the indicative mood in this type of rhetorical question can be explained as characteristic of a nonveridical operator. Thus, μή is used in confirmative questions to signal that the proposition goes against the speaker’s expectations without implying its falsity. In turn, οὐ would be the general negative, so it can appear both in questions with reversed polarity and in confirmative questions whose proposition conforms to the speaker’s expectations. It must be noted that the study includes the use of οὐ and μή combined with other particles such as ἆρα, ἦ, or οὖν, since they exhibit the same properties in those cases
This article discusses the extract from Galen’s treatise “Protrepticus” which contains a description of the goddess Tyche. In the extract, Galen contrasts Hermes (a male master of the arts) and Tyche (a capricious and irrational woman). The fragment is considered in the context of the entire treatise (“Protrepticus” was intended as a polemical statement against the empirical school and their method) and its purpose (exhortation to the study of arts). G. Kaibel has previously shown that many details in the description of Tyche coincide with similar descriptions in the treatise “Tabula Cebetis’’. As a result, the scholar came to the conclusion that Galen and the author of “Tabula’’ relied on the same source. The fragment from the poem by Pacuvius provides additional evidence. However, in addition to the similarities in the description, it is worth considering the differences that appear in Galen’s treatise. For example, Galen replaces the term μανία (μαινομένη in “Tabula Cebetis’’) with the term ἄνοια, depriving it of medical connotations. The translators, apparently, did not attach any importance to this replacement, and therefore we have different translations of the term ἄνοια: folie, mancanza di senno, inanity. Since the replacement of the term μανία is not commented on in the editions and the existing translations demonstrate different interpretations, the author of the article provides an additional commentary, including a comparison of “Protrepticus” with other texts of Galen and the works of Plato, and also draws attention to the parallel passage from Pacuvius
This article offers a linguistic commentary on the verse Verg. Aen. 9. 427 me, me, adsum qui feci, in me conuertite ferrum, in which the personal pronoun in the accusative needs interpretation. Since the time of Servius and Donatus, the opinions of commentators have been divided. Servius and his followers believe that the pronoun in the accusative is a direct complement that depends on an implied (omitted) verb like interficite, occidite, or petite, and consider this place as a rhetorical figure of aposiopesis. Donatus, on the other hand, argues that the accusative me, me is independent, while discontinuous intonation with which the whole verse must be uttered emphasizes the extreme degree of despair of Nisus, who cannot prevent the death of his beloved friend Euryalus. A review of the commentaries on the Aeneid shows that there are slightly more supporters of Donatus’ hypothesis than that of Servius’, but all of their reasoning is intuitive and does not explain why it is the syntactically independent accusative that gives the agitated sounding to Nisus’ last words. The author of the article applies the pragmatic approach to the interpretation of this place, analyzing similar examples of “non-syntactic” use of the accusative and considering both traditional and modern views on this phenomenon. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the verse under consideration corresponds to what in modern linguistics is called “cleft construction”. Such constructions exist in different languages and serve to express the focus of contrast. At the end of the study, the author attempts to answer the question of why Latin employs the accusative as a tool to express intense emotions
The Byzantine Empire had a long tradition of educational practices, including schedography. It became popular in the 10th century and continued to be cultivated until the 19th century, with a peak in the 13th century. In the late 19th century, scholars began to take an interest in the relevant texts. In the mid-20th century, there were attempts to study these texts as a curious kind of paraliterary production. Currently, in the 21st century, there have been editions of different schedographical collections. Schedographical texts are a very specific kind of written documents and do not fit well with the usual editorial practices. They were written to be read aloud, intended to teach, not to entertain, and generally, they do not have the aesthetic value of a literary text. Finally, these texts appear in collections of very different origins. In many cases we do not know their original context, which makes them difficult to be interpreted. In this article, 23 schedographical texts from manuscript Vat. Pal. Gr. 92 are published. This manuscript consists of 239 ff. and it was copied in the last decades of the 13th century in southern Italy. The manuscript contains more than 425 schedae. In contrast to other paratexts used in schools, the manuscript includes glosses with forms of popular Greek, such as, e. g., the use of σπίτι for “house”. A complete edition of the manuscript will certainly reveal more expressions similar to this one. 29 remaining unpublished texts will be published in the second part. The humorous phrase that heads this article, ὦ μωρῆς παιδίον, is the schedographical resolution of the phrase ὀμμ’ ὀρεῖς (glossed as ἐγείρεις) παιδίον, included in one of the schedae published here for the first time.
The author discusses the newly found Greek inscriptions from Lasica, from the basilica on Machkhomeri Hill near Khobi dated to the 6 th c. CE, with three Greek words and expressions having non-standard meanings. The only possible interpretation of the expression ἔχετε ἐν παραθέκῃ (sic) that comes to mind is “to have or keep as a pledge, to have or keep entrusted” i. e. the martyrs must keep the soul of the founder Gorgonios, which he entrusted to them as a pledge of his own salvation. The standard meanings of the term κατοίκησις as “settling” or “dwelling, abode” do not correspond to the context of the list of the benefactors either as an act or as a locus, as well as the early Byzantine meaning “government, administration”. It should mean here a burial, which could be understood as a new dwelling of the body or even a shrine for the relics (probably one of the Forty Martyrs), which appeared in Machkhomeri in connection with the rebuilding of the basilica and which was placed in the martyrium in the eastern end of the southern aisle. Finally, the term συνοδία by its origin meant a “companionship on a journey”, and later became a terminus technicus for caravan; new, Byzantine meanings of this word are “Christian fellowship company of the faithful, local congregation”, “gathering, assembly for worship”, “community of religious”. But here it is an “association of lay people around an institution or an influential person, probably functioning as a group of pilgrims”
This paper concerns the issue of the length of vowel e in the final -eus of the Latin medical terminological adjectives of coccygeus type. These adjectives are not associated with ancient Latin nouns and do not have a digraphic combination in the Greek prototype at the junction of the noun base and the adjective suffix: anconeus, coccygeus, laryngeus, phalangeus, pharyngeus. The lexemes were created by anatomists between the 16th and 18th centuries, mostly by Jean Riolan the Younger, James Douglas, William Cheselden, Christian H. T. Schreger. The spelling of these words with the final -æus in the work by Douglas in 1707 was a failed (and faulty) attempt to unify the spelling of Latin medical adjectives with a final -eus. The next try belonged to Cheselden (1713): he writes these lexemes with the final -eus. The artificial origin, the presence of two variants of the spelling (-æus and -eus) and of an identical in spelling Latin morpheme (-ĕus), and the simplification of spelling of Latin medical terms are the reasons why different variants of the appearance of the Latin adjectives of coccygeus type exist: with finals -aeus, -ēus, -ĕus. At the same time, an original Latinized Greek adjective existed — coccygius (from κοκκύγιος, used by Pausanias). The author suggests changing the nomenclature spelling of the adjectives of coccygeus type, bringing them in line with the historical “living” appearance: anconius, coccygius, laryngius, phalangius, and pharyngius. Until this change is carried out, it is recommended to consider ⟨e⟩ in the final -eus as a short vowel stressing the antepenultimate syllable
The article discusses the origins of four Neo-Latin animal names, denoting a beetle, a bird, a fish and a mollusk, coined by the Greek scholar Theodore Gaza in the third quarter of the fifteenth century: two neologisms of form, or proper neologisms, gal(l)eruca and gallinago, and two neologisms of sense, cernua ‘inclined forwards, head foremost’ and patella ‘plate, pan’. These words, still valid in today’s zoological nomenclature, were first introduced in Gaza’s Latin version of Aristotle’s Historia animalium, where they stood, respectively, for μηλολόνθη, σκολόπαξ/ἀσκαλώπας, ὀρφώς/ὀρφός and λεπάς. Apparently, they owe their existence to Gaza’s acquaintance with Italian dialectal vocabulary, as can be deduced from two sixteenthcentury sources: Agostino Nifo’s commentary to Aristotle’s zoological writings and Ippolito Salviani’s encyclopedic work on aquatic animals. Gaza’s galleruca must have originated from the Lombard galeruca ‘rose chafer’ (the identification of μηλολόνθη with the latter probably due to the hapax legomenon χρυσομηλολόνθιον, Ar. Vesp. 1341), gallinago from the Emilian gallinazza ‘woodcock’ (since the only known characteristic of σκολόπαξ/ἀσκαλώπας is that it is similar to a hen, Arist. Hist. an. 617b24), cernua from the Calabrian cerna/cernia (identified with ὀρφώς/ὀρφός either due to Gaza’s use of a bilingual glossary or due to his own experience in the Calabrian bilingual milieu) and patella from the Calabrian or Roman patella ‘pan; limpet’ (perhaps identified with λεπάς because Gaza kept in mind the name of a vessel, λεπαστή/ λεπάστη, considered deriving from λεπάς by Eustathius). All the said dialects correspond to the Italian regions where Gaza spent parts of his life
This article offers a transcription and translation, as well as a commentary, on P. Mich. inv. 5594. The papyrus is believed to date from the fourth century A. D. The origin and provenance of it are unknown. The papyrus is damaged in some places, so lacunae in the text or poorly readable places are restored in accordance with the formulas and word usage on the papyri, which is always explained in the commentary. The beginning of the papyrus has been lost but the formulas at the end of it (Ἀσπάσῃ κατ̣ ’ [ὀνό]ματα… καὶ ἔ̣ρ̣ρωσό μοι) and address on the verso of the papyrus indicate that it is obviously a private letter in which a certain Lucius writes to Plution. The Nomina Sacra (θ(εο)ῦ ἐν κ(υρί)ῳ; κ(ύρι)ος) regularly repeated in this letter suggest that it was written by a Christian to a Christian. The context of the letter and the definitions pertaining to Plutio on the verso (πρεσβύτερος καὶ ὁμολογητής) suggest that the relationship between Lucius and Plutio is that of a dependent and his patron where the Lucius is being supported by a superior in age or status. As is often the case, a scrap of letter details only a moment in someone’s life, leaving us only to speculate on the context and the whole picture
This paper examines the form διεπρήστευσε, obelized in the editions of Herodotus. There have been two ways of interpreting the form: some scholars have taken it to refer to an act of speech, while others have sought here a verb of motion. Both groups of scholars proposed a variety of conjectures, some of them addenda lexicis and none of them commanding immediate acceptance. After a review of various solutions that have been proposed to-date, this paper argues in favor of retaining the reading of the paradosis and analyzing (-)πρηστεύω as a verb of quick motion. The verb is argued to be an Ionic colloquialism (or even Herodotus’ own Augenblicksbildung), derived from the root of πίμπρημι in its original meaning ‘to blow’ (of which ‘to burn’ is a secondary development) via an agent noun πρηστήρ / *πρήστης, cf. μνηστεύω ‘woo’: μνηστήρ ‘suitor’ or δυναστεύω ‘hold power’: δυνάστης ‘person with power’. The proposed translation ‘blasted, dashed’ is supported by typological parallels for the semantic development ‘to blow’ → ‘to move (impetuously)’, such as Old English blǽstan ‘to blow; to move impetuously’ or Russian dut’ ‘to blow; to dash, to rush’. Interestingly, Hittite (parip) parāi-, the cognate of Gk. πίμπρημι, may show the same semantic development: ‘to blow’, ‘to ignite fire by blowing’ > ‘to move swiftly’.