Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica

Text-critical and exegetical notes to Aesch. Ag. 38 f., 69 f., 101-103, 120, 140-145.

In this paper, my objective is to examine the occurrences of notitia and notities in Lucretius’ De rerum natura. In particular, I set out to establish whether each and every use of those terms is technical or not. Moreover, in the case of 5, 182 and 5, 1028, first I try to identify Lucretius’ polemical target; then, as for the semantics of notitia and notities, I tentatively argue for a remarkable stratification in their use.

This article discusses the mention of historical figures at the beginning of the first book of de re publica, comparing them with other works in which Cicero gives the same exempla, with the purpose of proposing a plausible reason for the inclusion of Lucius Caecilius Metellus and of explaining the text as part of the author’s polemic against those who advise abstention from politics, by comparison with the use of great names of history to attack Epicureanism both in the speech against Piso and in de finibus 2.67.

In Cic. Arat. 70 nec vi signorum cedunt we find an almost certain example, which has gone so far totally unnoticed and is not recorded by dictionaries and grammars, of the singular dative of the normally defective noun vis. This form, whose only other literary occurrence is found in the Bellum Africum, is likely to be understood as a morphological archaism. Its use by Cicero might also corroborate an old conjecture of Timpanaro on a problematic passage of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (1, 453, aquae vi for aquai).

This article identifies three ancient ‘signal-word’ supplements (i.e. the scribal habit of supplementing an omission in the text by adding in the margin the word either preceding or following the suspected lacuna) and one ancient variant in Seneca’s Dialogi X, XI, XII. Accordingly, a new constitutio textus is proposed for brev. vit. 4, 3; cons. ad Polyb. 14, 4 and 17, 4; cons. ad Helv. 2, 5.

A brief note by Theon on the abuse of the epiphonema shows some points of contact with Quintilian and seems to fit into the debate on the excesses of declamation that animates the cultural life of Rome during the first and second centuries AD. It provides additional evidence for dating Theon’s Progymnasmata.

This paper focuses on the dating of Major Declamations 8 and 10. Previous scholarship has pointed to a direct relationship between these two speeches, given the striking similarities in terms of language and shared commonplaces; in this paper I take into account a number of further resemblances with other speeches of our collection (DM 4; 18; 19), along with additional linguistic and rhythmic factors. This body of evidence leads to the conclusion that the author of DM 8 drew from DM 10, as well as from other declamations ascribed to Quintilian.

One of the surviving treatises περὶ τρόπων (i.e. on rhetorical figures) is attributed by the manuscript tradition to an enigmatic person named Κοκόνδριος. In this note, I argue that the correct name of this grammarian is actually Concordius, propose a terminus ante quem for his chronology, and offer an attempt to identify him.

Besides being a feminine proper name, Ἑρμιόνη is also recorded by Hesychius both as a place name and as a divine epithet. In the former sense it is already documented by Homer as an alternative form of the place name Ἑρμιών (a city in Argolis), whereas in the latter sense it is an otherwise unknown epithet of Demeter and Kore at Syracuse. This article focuses on a possible historical connection between Hermione and Syracuse through the cult of wheat and on the etymology of Ἑρμιών and its relation to the form Ἑρμιόνη. Finally, it puts forward a new reading of the epithet of Demeter and Kore (i.e., Ἑρμιονίς -ίδος).

Although Jerome, in speaking about translation, often introduces the opposition between uerba and sensus, this contrast mainly serves to highlight the difficulties of the translator’s work and does not actually indicate the need to choose between different methods of translation. In fact, the translator must first of all understand the text, and for rendering it faithfully - which includes the delicate case of sacred texts - there is not just one possible method.

This paper describes the Ancient Greek and Latin terminology for marine lobsters, especially for ‘European lobster, Homarus gammarus L.’, ‘common spiny Lobster, Palinurus elephas Fabricius’ and ‘Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus L.’. The conclusion can be reached that the European lobster was called λέων in Ancient Greek and leō in Latin; the Greek term κάραβος, as well as Latin locusta, was used for the common spiny lobster (or the sea crayfish), whereas the Greek appellative ἀστακός (hence Lat. astacus) exclusively denoted the Norway lobster.

Stefano Briguglio, Fraternas acies. Saggio di commento a Stazio, Tebaide, 1, 1-3894 - Michael Dewar

Marcus Deufert, Kritischer Kommentar zu Lukrezens De rerum natura - Francesco Verde

Antonius Diogenes, Die unglaublichen Dinge jenseits von Thule. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar von Helena Schmedt - Niklas Holzberg

Emily Kneebone, Oppian’s Halieutica: charting a didactic epic - Alessandro de Martini

Virginia M. Lewis, Myth, locality, and identity in Pindar’s Sicilian Odes - Gregor Bitto

More than Homer knew. Studies on Homer and his ancient commentators, edited by Antonios Rengakos - Patrick Finglass -Bernhard Zimmermann - Ambra Tocco

M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae liber IX. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di A. Cavarzere - L. Cristante - Francesca Romana Nocchi

Αλεξανδρα Ροζοκοκη, Η αρνητική παρουσίαση των Ελλήνων στην Αλεξάνδρα του Λυκόφρονα και η χρονολόγηση του ποιήματος. Αθηνα, Κοραλλι 2019, Alexandra Rozokoki, The negative presentation of the Greeks in Lycophron’s Alexandra and the dating of the poem - André Hurst