In this piece, attention is once again drawn to the locus classicus of Euripidean sententious outbursts, lines 599–602 put in the mouth of Hecuba mourning her daughter Polyxena. Suggested for bracketing by W. M. Sakorraphos in 1893 and athetised by J. Diggle (1984) and D. Kovacs (1995) in their respective editions (although not in the editions of J. Gregory (1999) and K. Matthiessen (2010), the lines (and the whole passage 592–602) have also shouldered a weight of Euripidean Weltanschauung doctrines built on their slender frame. A brief overview of scholarly judgment, often overexacting, prompts one to occupy the middling ground allowing both for the possibility of the genuine character of the lines 599–602 and their relevance in context (and not only expressing the ideas current in Euripides’ times) with both birth and upbringing contributing to virtuous character. The metaphor in line 603 should not be considered a brave mannerism, or a marginal remark of some critic, but a marker of a change of topic, its archery imagery well on the side of trite
The ms. tradition of the Poetics is a mine, quite unexpectedly, when it comes to composition on literary matters: four independent witnesses — Parisinus 1741 (A), Riccardianus 46 (B), and mediaeval translations into Latin by William of Moerbecke and Arabic by Abū-Bishr Mattā made with the help of a Syriac interlinear (not to mention the recentiores which still could prove of some stemmatic value, as for instance Par. gr. 2038, Vat. gr. 1400, Berol. Philipp. and Mon. 493) — allow in most cases for a safe reconstruction of an archetype. Common errors suggest that this text differed from the autograph in some twenty passages, largely interpolations, ranging from a couple of words to a number of phrases. Several intrusions prove to be typologically close. All of them correct what was deemed to be inaccurate or loose argumentation by inserting syntactic complements or references adding cohesion. As a result, both the style and context go largely neglected. The first paragraphs of ch. 6, central to the Poetics, suffered most. This text also came down to us in a Syriac translation having a heavily glossed uncial ms. as its source. Insertions in ch. 6 cause ‘harmonising’ additions to the following text of the treatise. The ‘family of interpolations’ under discussion is tentatively attributed to a professor of Aristotelianism of late antiquity (the most suitable candidate seems to be Themistius): a school-room copy diffused by his pupils became the common ancestor of both the extant Greek mss. of the Poetics and the reconstructed Greek sources of the mediaeval translations. A fresh collation of the Syriac text together with the evidence of variae lectiones in the oldest independent Greek mss. offer a glimpse into the workings of his mind
Scopo di questo articolo è gettare luce sul testo di alcuni passi di De beneficiis, De clementia, Apolocyntosis, Dialogi di Seneca e della commedia anonima Querolus sive Aulularia. Una nuova edizione di De beneficiis, De clementia e Apolocyntosis per la Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis verrà a breve pubblicata da R. Kaster e io ho avuto occasione di leggerne una prima bozza. In questo articolo io discuto circa 70 passi di Seneca e 5 del Querolus: per la maggior parte di essi io propongo nuove congetture (la mia conoscenza delle lezioni dei manoscritti è basata sulle edizione esistenti, inclusa quella di Kaster). Per esempio: De ben. 2, 28, 3 al posto di fert si legga fer<a>t; De ben. 5, 4, 2 si aggiunga itaque <bonus>; De ben. 6, 3, 1 si legga <ni>si cito; De ben. 6, 37, 2 non est… pudet deve essere espunto; De ben. 7, 2, 6 al posto di prorsus si legga pronus; De clem. 2, 7, 2 si aggiunga eius <levius>; Apocol. 4, 3 si aggiunga <solito> sonum; De ira 3, 28, 3 al posto di dolor si legga dolus; De ira 3, 13, 7 al posto di tota si legga tuta; Consol. ad Helviam matrem 10, 3 al posto di potest si legga potitur; Querolus sive Aulularia 26 si legga fall<er>is
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
In her critical edition of the Passio Nazarii, Celsi, Geruasii et Protasii (BHL 6043), a text dated to the 6th or 7th century AD and probably translated from Greek, Cecile Lanéry introduces several conjectural changes aimed at language standardization. The author of the present article takes issue with several of her conjectures and suggests that in each case the transmitted text actually stands criticism and should probably be left unchanged. At 2.3, the transmitted alapas is not to be changed to alapis with percutio, since percutio with both the accusative of direct object and the accusative of a word meaning “blow” is several times reliably attested in the Vetus Latina, and in one of these instances the word used for “blow” is actually alapa. At 5.1, et in the expression uocans Nazarium et dixit ei should not be deleted, since there are numerous parallels for this syntax in Late Latin. At 8.2, in carcerem is to be retained as a possible way to describe position in Late Latin, whether confusion of expressions denoting position and direction or hypercorrect graphic -m is at issue. At 12.1, the form imperatori is to be retained as a possible orthographic variant for the ablative in Late Latin
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’.
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 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
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 this article, three textually problematic passages from the Ciris, a variously dated short poem from the Appendix Vergiliana, are discussed. In line 63, it is suggested that B. Kayachev’s proposal to change erroribus auctor to auctoribus error should be accompanied by an emendation of istorum to est idem (the meaning of the line will then be “the mistaken versions of the less authoritative poets are actually not unanimous”). In line 90, it is proposed to read Aonisin… placeat instead of omnia sim… liceat (“let the Muses be benign to the idea of giving renown to my version of Scylla”). Greek forms of Dative in -sin often provoke similar nonsensical errors, and aoni- could be transformed into omnia uia loss of a at the beginning of the line and a misunderstood attempt to restore it above the text. In line 208, it is hardly possible to be sure what was the original reading in place of the transmitted iactabat (hardly appropriate and perhaps introduced by a scribe under the influence of the parallel passage in Verg. Ecl. 2.5), but it is argued that to the set of possibilities considered by the scholars one should add alternabat (meaning “relieved watch”)