This article is devoted to the history of stylometry and its development at an early stage. Stylometry is an applied philological discipline that considers style as a set of quantitative parameters. Stylometry arose on the material of classical studies. Using the example of the most reliable and authoritative stylometric method to date — Burrows’ Delta — the advantages and disadvantages of this type of analysis are examined. The genesis of the term “stylometry” is established. In the seminal book of G. Martynenko “Fundamentals of Stylometry” it is indicated that it was coined by the German classical philologist W. Dittenberger. The study reveals that the term “stylometry” actually existed in the 19th century in the meaning of ‘the art of measuring columns’, and it is not used in Dittenberger’s works. This term was introduced by W. Lutoslawski, who tried to solve the problem of periodisation of Plato’s dialogues. It turns out that “stylometry” was first used in a new meaning on May 21, 1897, during a report by W. Lutoslawski at the Oxford Philological Society. In Russia, the term first appears in a review in 1898 in the form стилометрия, and in Morozov’s 1915 article in the form стилеметрия, which became widespread in the Soviet academic community
This article deals with the question of possible reasons for Conrad Gessner quoting an aphorism from Julian the Apostate’s letter (Ep. 23, to Ecdicius, prefect of Egypt) under the name of Marcus Aurelius in the preface to his Bibliotheca universalis, the first European universal bibliography (1545). Basing on the articles in Bibliotheca devoted to the above-mentioned authors, we can conclude that Gessner was directly acquainted with Julian’s letters (he obviously relied on the collection of Greek letters published by Aldus Manutius in 1499 under the title Epistolae diversorum philosophorum, oratorum, rhetorum), whereas no texts of Marcus (including fragmentary ones) were available to him by 1545. The topic of the search for a library and the question of how to treat the books written by religious opponents, which occupy a central place in Julian’s letter to Ecdicius, must have attracted Gessner’s attention, especially since the solution proposed by Julian turned out to be consonant with Gessner’s thoughts expressed in Bibliotheca. Thus, the false attribution of the quotation, undoubtedly deliberate, was, on the one hand, to prevent possible reproaches from conservative readers for quoting an anti-Christian author, and, on the other hand, to draw attention of a competent reader to Julian’s text
This piece studies the Portuguese version of the so-called Notarial Latin, the Latin of medieval documents. The author briefly overviews the reasons why these written records have been scarcely explored — the low availability of texts, the unreliability of existing editions and the perception of Notarial Latin as a corrupted language. The chronological framework of Notarial Latin, its correlation with Late and Medieval Latin and its sociolinguistic peculiarities are described. It is suggested to primarily focus on the morphosyntax of Notarial Latin. The results of the analysis of eighteen texts created between 1033 and 1183 are then presented followed by the analysis of various deviations from the grammatical norm of Latin caused by the interference of Galician-Portuguese. In nominals, there is a violation of the norms for the use of some prepositions (foremost, the preposition de). The case system generally remains. In the verb system, the regular use of Latin Futurum II in the function of the Portuguese Futuro de Conjuntivo which developed on its basis is evident. However, contrary to expectations, there are practically no traces of Romance verb analyticity. On the syntactic level, there is a tendency towards the SVO word order. The frequent cases of Romance interference indicate supposedly the most profound transformations that took place during the formation of Galician-Portuguese from vernacular Latin. It is concluded that the study of Notarial Latin is promising for a contrastive typology of Latin and Romance languages
This paper is dedicated to the analysis of the intertextual relationship between Sophocles’ Antigone and the plays of Aeschylus, especially the Theban trilogy. It is shown that Sophocles in this play creates the situation that is radically different from that of Aeschylus’ tragedies. The main differences are the attitude towards “peace in death” and towards the ancestral curse. In Sophoclean play, by contrast with Aeschylus, death is not the end of the strife — at least not until those in power acknowledge that it is; blood ties are not enough for belonging to the cursed family, and this belonging is not necessarily envisaged in negative terms. To illustrate the utter inadequacy of the Aeschylean approach to the world and the events of his tragedy, Sophocles embodies such approach in his Chorus and provokes, during the course of the play, the growing disappointment of the spectator by it. The Chorus is irresponsive when directly addressed, annoyingly counterproductive during the commos with Antigone and prone to change their opinion and perspective too quickly and radically. At the fifth stasimon Sophocles, by the reference to another Aeschylus’ tragedy, this time the Eleusinians, gives the spectator the short-living hope for the rescue of Antigone. This trap is also intended to disappoint the spectators and show them the inadequacy of the Chorus’ Aeschylean perspective
This piece explores the difficult expression βλιμάζων ἐπιεικέστερον found in the MSS of the Letter of Aristeas, in the section describing how Ptolemy II Philadelphus puts questions to the interpreters he has invited in Alexandria and receives advice to treat his subordinates with kindness and not to impose harsh punishments on them (Ep. Arist. 188). According to the most scholars, who have published the Letter of Aristeas, including P. Wendland, H. Thackeray, H. Andrews, R. Tramontano, and R. Shutt, the verb βλιμάζω in the answer of the Jewish sage means ‘to chastise’. However, this interpretation is not supported by the actual usage of the verb in ancient Greek. In fact, this word, which is often used in comedy, usually means ‘to grope’ and seems quite out of place coming from the sage. Günther Zuntz pointed out that the verb βλιμάζω is not appropriate and suggested correcting βλιμάζων to κολάζων, which is accepted by A. Pelletier (1962) and is supported in the recent studies on the Letter (Wright [2015] and Erto [2012]). The consideration of the correction and the analysis of the wordusage in ancient Greek literature, as well as the examination of the explanations provided by lexicographers, where the verb θλίβω and its derivatives are used as synonyms for βλιμάζω, lead us to the conclusion that Zuntz’s suggestion is not necessary und should be rejected. The reading βλιμάζων, confirmed by the manuscripts, may be retained by supposing that it implies pressure in a broader sense
This piece explores the difficult expression βλιμάζων ἐπιεικέστερον found in the MSS of the Letter of Aristeas, in the section describing how Ptolemy II Philadelphus puts questions to the interpreters he has invited in Alexandria and receives advice to treat his subordinates with kindness and not to impose harsh punishments on them (Ep. Arist. 188). According to the most scholars, who have published the Letter of Aristeas, including P. Wendland, H. Thackeray, H. Andrews, R. Tramontano, and R. Shutt, the verb βλιμάζω in the answer of the Jewish sage means ‘to chastise’. However, this interpretation is not supported by the actual usage of the verb in ancient Greek. In fact, this word, which is often used in comedy, usually means ‘to grope’ and seems quite out of place coming from the sage. Günther Zuntz pointed out that the verb βλιμάζω is not appropriate and suggested correcting βλιμάζων to κολάζων, which is accepted by A. Pelletier (1962) and is supported in the recent studies on the Letter (Wright [2015] and Erto [2012]). The consideration of the correction and the analysis of the wordusage in ancient Greek literature, as well as the examination of the explanations provided by lexicographers, where the verb θλίβω and its derivatives are used as synonyms for βλιμάζω, lead us to the conclusion that Zuntz’s suggestion is not necessary und should be rejected. The reading βλιμάζων, confirmed by the manuscripts, may be retained by supposing that it implies pressure in a broader sense
In this paper, the Latin language is analyzed in the context of typology of object incorporation. The authors draw on the research of Mithun, who considers incorporation on the basis of two obligatory conditions: first, the noun must be embedded in the verb, and second, the language must have parallel syntactic paraphrases with non-incorporated noun. The second criterion is so important that the phenomenon of incorporation is acknowledged to exist even in those languages where there is no complete integration of the noun into the verb, but only a certain syntactic compactness, provided there are parallel constructions. The latter type has been coined “noun stripping” and has launched the division of incorporation into two types, viz. “strong” and “weak” incorporation. Another important point of divergence between the incorporating languages is the change of the argument structure of the source verb, namely, the preservation or loss of transitivity of the incorporated complex. Taking all these parameters into account, the authors propose a new typology of object incorporation, including languages that have not previously been considered in the context of this phenomenon. This typology is not based on a strict opposition of incorporating and non-incorporating languages, but represents a kind of continuum in which the place of a language depends on whether it demonstrates: 1) full incorporation or only a close syntactic Noun–Verb compactness; 2) the presence of parallel syntactic paraphrases; 3) the detransitivisation of the resulting compound verb. The authors examine each criterion in detail as applied to Latin and show the place of Latin in this typology
This paper offers a comprehensive and critical review of the most significant studies on the possible alternation between two specific encodings that can express, in a generic sense, the Manner in which a verbal process is developed: adverbial expressions (ADV) and Secondary Predicates (SP). The main types of SP/ADV to be addressed here are those which are Subject and/or event oriented. Both general and typological works will be taken into account, as well as others more focused on the Latin language; the central criterion of the study will essentially be to distinguish and analyse approaches which are more or less favourable to seeing the two types of constituents as equivalent. A section devoted to the work of one of the Latinists who has contributed most specifically and notably to the issue under discussion (H. Pinkster) will also be included. Following a critical review of the criteria which have the greatest explanatory potential for explaining the issue, some analytical approaches will be proposed which are as objective as possible for a subsequent corpus study; these criteria include parameters pertaining to different linguistic levels: syntax, lexical-semantics, pragmatics, etc.: their application — here only tentatively discussed — will provide clear and measurable results on the problem and on those questions arising from the critical review itself.
The results of a comparative study of verb forms with aspectual semantics in Ancient Greek (Koine) (which has an overt category of aspect) and Latin (where aspect is rather a covert category), based on the Gospel of Mark, have shown that the expected correspondence of verb forms appears to be standard in the material as well: it is found in the majority of cases (97,6 % of the Ancient Greek Aorist translated by the Latin Perfect, and 89,4 % of the Ancient Greek Imperfect/ Present translated by the Latin Imperfect). Therefore, there must be a considerable semantic overlap between the Ancient Greek Aorist and the Latin Perfect forms and between the Ancient Greek Imperfect/Present forms and the Latin Imperfect forms. For each pair, there must be a common semantic core, corresponding in the first case to the perfective, and in the second case to the imperfective viewpoints. In the minority of cases, we find deviations from this standard correspondence. Some of them can be explained by the trivial fact that the context allows freedom in the choice of the aspectual viewpoint. However, in several cases, the discrepancies are not accidental and can be explained by the existence of specific differences between the grammatical systems of two languages. These include iterative contexts and contexts with speech verbs
A series of interconnected conjectures to the text of Ps.-Maur. VII B 17. 2,12 (8, 9–10, 33– 34 Dennis) is proposed, which makes the text more understandable: ἤτοι τὰ βά<θη> τῶν ἀκιῶν <ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίαςin mg>… ἀπὸ παλαιῶν [δὲ] καὶ νέων <ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους>…. τὸν λεγόμενον ἰλάρχην [ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας]. To explain this, author proposes the hypothesis of a transcription error in the archetype (ἤτοι τὰ βάθη > ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα), of compensatory asterisk and of the later marginal gloss (ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας), as well as of the transmission of the passage ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας from § 2 to § 12. The proposed hypothesis assumes a multiple processing (glosses, added leafs) of the codex of the archetype ξ, its active use and subsequent rewriting into a new codex (α), which is the precursor of both uncial families (λ and β). The five phases of the development of the discussed passages are proposed: (1a) the Urtext with the books I–III, V, VII A und VII B 1–15; (1b) creation of the text VII B 16–17 (4952 characters) on the three bifolia with a reading error (βάθη > βάνδα), the source for the § 12 being the passage II 20/19, 1 (4–7 Dennis), where are no parallels for the words “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας”; (1c) the appearance of marginalia — “ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” to the words “ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα τῶν ἀκιῶν”, as well as asteriskos to § 12 and § 2 after παλαιῶν; (2) moving the text “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” from § 2 to § 12, replacement of the asteriskos with δὲ in § 2; (3) division of the tradition between λ (without marginalia) and β (integration of marginalia)
In chapter 41 of Petronius’ Satyricon, a boar is served in a hat (pilleatus) during Trimalchio’s feast, which puzzles the protagonist Encolpius. The interpretation of the passage considered in the article (Petron. Sat. 41. 3) involves a number of difficulties, which all commentators note. Firstly, the reader needs to decide whether the case of summa cena is accusative or nominative. The second difficulty has to do with the meaning of the adjective summus. The third question concerns the meaning of the verb vindicasset. And the last and most crucial question deals with the fact that both cena and aper can function as the subject of the verb vindicasset. The author of the article looks into the opinions of various scholars and offers several arguments for the manuscript reading, which enables us to restore the final -m in summa. The author examines examples with the verb vindico which means “to claim a legal right to” and draws attention to the fact that in such cases the subject is more often an animate noun. In order to understand which word cena or aper is a more suitable candidate for the function of the subject in the passage under consideration, the author analyses the use of these words as subjects in other texts. The examples of the personification of cena are found mainly in poetry, whereas the word aper is discovered in one example which contains a verb usually used with animate subjects (intrare). The latter can be regarded as an additional argument for animateness of aper and its functioning as the subject of the sentence cum heri… vindicasset
The only two surviving poems by Sulpicius Lupercus still remain practically unexplored. Until now, the main object of researchers’ attention has been the portrait of the avids, wherewith Sulpicius Lupercus’ elegy “De cupiditate” is concluded; despite this, the identity of these avids has not yet been proven. This paper makes another attempt to analyse this portrait. Into account is taken not only the ecphrasis itself, but also its place in the elegy. The analysis of the elegy’s composition shows that the poem is structured in general in accordance with the rhetorical canon of epideictic speech. The previously advanced hypotheses that the portrait depicts a certain barbarian tribe seem unconvincing: thus, the expression barbaricae opes, the literal understanding of which serves as one of the main arguments for the attempts to identify the avids from the poem with a certain barbarian tribe, can also be understood idiomatically, which casts doubt on the seemingly unconditional mention of barbarians in the poem. It is more reasonable to assume that the ecphrasis, which is clearly based on the device of grotesque, depicts the teachers of rhetorics mentioned in the elegy shortly before the portrait; this assumption is supported, among other things, by the tradition of Renaissance editions of this Sulpicius Lupercus’ elegy. A cumulative consideration of the elegy from a compositional point of view allows a conclusion that the discussed portrait serves as a final figurative argument in an ethical invective against avidity as such