Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica

This paper re-examines the indirect tradition of Herondas, with particular reference to the Byzantine etymologica. The focus is on both the entry ζήτρειον, already known but so far unsatisfactorily published, and a ‘new’ testimony transmitted by the Etymologicum Genuinum (s. v. ὑγίεια). The information reported in the latter is in keeping with that provided by the former and requires us to reconsider the problem of Herondas’ iotacist spellings, suggesting that a large part of them dates back to the author himself.

The cross references in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives have often been examined, since they provide precious information about the chronology of the different pairs of biographies. As a result of this specific focus on their chronological value, however, they have never been studied for their own sake, although they throw an interesting light on Plutarch’s authorial intentions. This article seeks to set the balance right by closely examining the content of the cross references and their purpose. This results in two complementary typologies that illustrate in various ways the overall moral project of the Parallel Lives.

The purpose of this note is to discuss a detail in Aspasius’ commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics (In Eth. Nic. 1094a1, p. 2, line 8 H.), in which the transmitted text (τῶν φύσει συντεινόντων) does not convey a satisfactory meaning. Several solutions are proposed and discussed, including τῶν φύσει συντυχόντων.

The present contribution proposes a correction to a controversial passage in Proclus’ commentary on the Platonic Timaeus: the intervention proposed here seeks to emend the transmitted καταλείπουσαν into καταλείπ<ειν ποι>οῦσαν, assuming a lacuna in the text. Such an emendation would make it possible not only to restore to the verb καταλείπω the causative meaning that is necessary here, but at the same time avoid distorting the content, thereby restoring its original meaning to the passage from the Timaeus on which Proclus is commenting.

Starting from the description of the sturgeon in Auson. Mos. 135-139, this article discusses the reading deprensa and the conjecture defensa contained in two passages of Ausonius, reconstructing the poet’s previous models (Vergil and Seneca) and tracing the subsequent influence of the expression via the metaphor of the whale in Claudian (Eutr. 2, 430-431) and Noah’s ark in Arator (apost. 2, 682-684).

A paraliterary work created via a process of compilation, such as a scholiastic corpus, has characteristics that raise specific challenges with regard to both textual constitution in general and emendation in particular. Insofar as they are the result of the stratification of different sources (and therefore possess a low degree of authoriality), such works require an adaptation of many concepts of stemmatic philology. Notwithstanding the multiformity inherent in scholiastic practices, modern critical editions of scholia tend to employ a reconstructive approach, with the goal of restoring the corpus in a form as close as possible to that conceived by its original compiler. In this contribution a series of examples taken from the Iliad scholia is discussed in order to outline a typology of the kinds of emendations that can (or cannot) be made within such a corpus.

The exegetical reuse of sch. D Il. 13, 12 will be analyzed in a range of Iliadic manuscripts. The investigation proceeds from two different but complementary perspectives. First, the relationship between the text of the Iliad and the exegetical paratext in the manuscripts is examined with a view to their layout strategies and the organization of the scholiastic apparatus. The second part is focused on exegetical issues concerning the content of sch. D Il. 13, 12 that will be clarified with reference to two isolated sources from Greek and Latin literature. The reception of this content in different cultural, intellectual, and literary contexts allows us to assume that a transmission error took place within the D-tradition itself.

Davide Amendola, The Demades Papyrus (P.Berol. inv. 13045): a new text with commentary – Lorenzo Sardone

Jacopo Cavarzeran, Scholia in Euripidis Andromacham. Edizione critica, introduzione, indici – Marco Comunetti

Le Peliadi di Euripide. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di Michele Di Bello – Emanuele Dettori

Ruth Montreal, Aeneas als Held und Erzähler: Zur narrativen Gestaltung von Vergils Aeneis – Dennis Pausch

Arjan A. Nijk, Tense-switching in classical Greek: a cognitive approach – Giuseppina di Bartolo

Palladas and the Yale Papyrus Codex (P. CtYBR inv. 4000). Ed. by M. Kanellou – C. Carey – Letizia Cinus

Pindar’s first Pythian Ode. Text, introduction and commentary by Almut Fries – Maria Cannatà Fera

P. Papinius Statius, Silvae, Liber I. I carmi di Domiziano. I, Introduzione al ciclo, epistola prefatoria, carme 1, a cura di A. Pittà – Edoardo Galfré