Volume 154, Issue 2 -

In archaic societies the oath is not an explanation given in particular form by an official order, but, at the very most, a selfcondemnation and therefore, together with trial by ordeal and duel, a means to ending serious conflicts. In the early Greek epos there is only one single paragraph that still testifies to such a regulation (by πρόκλησις ‘challenge’, as the later term says); and less than 200 years later Xenophanes describes what happens when in the legal reality of more secular/enlightened societies the old piece of evidence remains preserved.

On the Soul II 8, 420a3–12 is always explained as if Aristotle there considered the ears to be the seat of the faculty of hearing. However, Aristotle there identifies the instrument of sense perception not with external parts of the visible body but with the soul’s instrumental body, situated in the heart and connected with the ears. That also appears to be the case in Generation of Animals V 2.

Current scholarship on Clearchus’ Lives emphasizes a moralizing historiographical schema of pernicious luxury, in which truphē leads to koros , then to hybris , and finally to destruction. Yet all the fragments used to construct this theory are preserved in one late source, the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus. A study of the diction and immediate context of these so-called fragments demonstrates that the moral themes are presented in language that is far more likely to originate in the cover text rather than in the Lives . Furthermore, this moralizing schema that binds together acts both effeminate and hybristic – as if the one followed naturally from the other – cannot be found securely attested elsewhere in Greek thought before the Roman Era. Thus we argue that, based on the evidence that survives, it is anachronistic to suggest that Clearchus espoused this principle. In addition, those who study Hellenistic fragments need to scrutinize more carefully the exact phrasing and framework of the Deipnosophistae , and be more wary about Athenaeus’ attribution of contemporary values to his sources.

P. Papageorgiou was the last to edit the complete set of the scholia vetera to Sophocles in 1888. The narrow manuscript basis of the edition, the reluctance of the editor to use a sufficient amount of conjectural emendation and the lack of a methodology specific to editing scholia are responsible for a great number of corrupt passages in his text. This article is concerned with the critical restoration of eight such passages from the scholia to the Trachiniae : schol. Trach . 7, 48, 56, 104b, 105b, 379, 434b and 556.

The manuscript tradition of Cyril of Alexandria’s apologetical work Contra Iulianum consists altogether of fourteen codices ; among these, six are late exemplars of the Renaissance, characterized by a very contaminated text. Despite their limited value for the constitutio textus , they seem to be fundamental to reconstructing the history of the text itself. This philological investigation clearly shows that the six recentiores have to be considered as a group; provides information and details about them – concerning scribes, owners and genesis – definitely useful for tracing a general outline of the timetable of diffusion and circulation of Contra Iulianum in the Renaissance; and furthermore defines relationships between the recentiores and the main manuscripts of the tradition, among which is included the lost so-called Capnioneus .

In this paper we examine Cic. Inv . 1, 10 in order to reject the propositions which consist of interpreting in dictione ac disceptatione as an allusion to the genera dicendi (Achard, Marius Victorinus) or to the ἀσύστατα (Martin, Grillius). These words are a sort of hendiadys (“a speech involving debate”), which translates the Greek adjective λογικήν, present in Hermagoras’ definition of thesis and hypothesis, as reconstructed by Striller and Jaeneke. We also provide new punctuation for this passage, in order to avoid a contradiction with Cic. Inv. 1, 17 (regarding the non-application of status to the quaestiones legales ); according to which, the four genitives aut facti aut nominis aut generis aut actionis present in Inv. 1, 10 have to refer to controversiam , not to quaestionem.

By analysing the cumulated usage of the Greek loan word daedalus in De rerum natura it can be shown that the mythological artist Daedalus functions as a poetological model for the didactic narrator. The narrator presents himself as a poet-Daedalus. As with Daedalus’ statues who were said to see and walk around like human beings, De rerum natura adds to the poetic mimesis (which is in respect of content) a formal one such as to stand as a model for the nature it describes. Likewise, as Daedalus’ most characteristic feature in classical literature is his astuteness the muse of poetry in De rerum natura is called callida . The craftsman’s work finally is reflected in the ordering of elements, i.e. in word order. The Epicurean position is furthermore elucidated by comparison with the Platonic view on Daedalus.

This article reconsiders the evidence for Furius Bibaculus’ historical epic Annales Belli Gallici , an epic arguably covering Caesar’s warfare in Gaul. In addition to a reconsideration of the textual evidence and the testimonia, this article discusses in detail questions of authorship, date, and sources. The article concludes with some observations on language and content of the Annales Belli Gallici .

It is argued, on a variety of evidence, that the usual view of 35–6, “But if you, Maeceas, include me in the canon of lyric poets, I shall strike the stars with my exalted head”, is mistaken. Rather, they mean “But make me one of those lyric poets, and I shall strike, etc.”. This is the “depersonalized” indefinite second person, illustrated by pone at Odes 1. 22. 17–24, dedisses at Serm . 1. 3. 15–16, and other passages. It does not imply that any particular person can do the action in question but merely invites the supposition that the action is performed. A second section treats 29–34, showing two ways in which they can be consistent with the suggested interpretation of 35–6.

Augustine’s De Magistro , an early work, is cast as a dialogue between himself and his bright son Adeodatus. It leads from a discussion whether teaching is effected through signs to the conclusion that words are not a route to knowledge, unless the soul is taught by God, the only teacher. Although Augustine is mainly concerned to develop his new theory of signification, the dialogue is set in the frame of traditional grammatical teaching, which had become standard in later Roman antiquity (i. e. quotations from classical writers, explanation of synonyms, discussions about the eight parts of Latin speech). These elements of grammatical education make a good starting point for exploring what precisely was Augustine’s position within this system. Taking into consideration especially his definition of pronomen and the eight parts of speech we come to the conclusion that Augustine as a grammarian is dependent on Charisius and his teacher.