Volume 155, Issue 2 -

Pindar’s skolion for the Olympic victor Xenophon of Corinth (fr. 122) has received considerable attention for its subject rather than its poetic quality. For it celebrates a dedication of prostitutes to Aphrodite which scholars have considered a subject inappropriate for a choral ode. So they detected traces of a tension between the poet and Xenophon within the text. In this article it is argued that, quite the reverse, Pindar is drawing a parallel between himself and the victor and his family. If we reconsider the pragmatic aspects of the skolion, its relation to Olympian 13 and the context Athenaeus provides for the fragment, we are able to see that Pindar links sport, ritual and politics, thereby serving Xenophon’s ambitions as well as his own. By practising conspicuous consumption Xenophon aims at detaching himself from Corinth’s egalitarian aristocracy, and at the same time the poet promotes himself in the literary field as a poetic innovator and authority. So, both transgress expectations and boundaries.

This paper addresses the scholarly controversies surrounding the succinct remark Thucydides makes at Hist . 1. 22. 1 on composing speeches. It argues for the understanding of the “ἂν εἰπεῖν” expression not as contrary-to-fact, as most scholars assume, but as potential of the past, to be translated: “as in his judgment the speakers most likely might have spoken.” The paper proposes that Thucydides indicates a historical method similar to the strategy used in contemporary rhetoric in order to show on the basis of probability considering all the conditions given that certain things were said. The paper scrutinizes every important term used by Thucydides at 1. 22. 1 (ἐδόκουν, τὰ δέοντα, ξύμπασα γνώμη) and the various modern interpretations and translations proposed.

Zusammenfassung Der Aufsatz ist die Fortsetzung von „Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien I“ (Philologus 108, 1964, 233–246) und „Beobachtungen zu den Thukydidesscholien II“ (Philologus 142, 1998, 11–40). Im ersten Abschnitt (3. 1) wird gezeigt, dass durch genauere Dokumentation der Marginalien im Vatic. gr. 126 (B), als es auch in neuen kritischen Ausgaben geschehen ist, mit unterschiedlicher Sicherheit abweichende Lesarten in Ω erschlossen werden können. In 3. 2 wird nachgewiesen, dass die Hand jenes Theodoros, der im Codex Paris. suppl. gr. 255 (A) eine vieldiskutierte Marginalnotiz eingetragen hat, auch – was bisher nicht beachtet worden ist – im Monac. graec. 430 (F) einen ähnlichen Marginaleintrag vorgenommen hat, woraus sich weitreichende Konsequenzen für eine Reihe von Handschriftenkomponenten ergeben. Die Identität jenes Theodoros lässt sich nicht ermitteln, die von Hemmerdinger vorgenommene Identitifikation mit Theodoros Metochites wird widerlegt. Abschnitt 3. 3 untersucht die Wolfenbütteler Handschrift Gud. gr. 35 (Gu) hinsichtlich ihrer Stellung im Stemma der Familie ψ und zeigt, dass Gu nicht zusammen mit μ 2 und μ 1 eine Abschrift von μ ist, sondern dass Gu selbst die Vorlage von μ 2 und μ 1 war, also mit μ identisch ist. Dadurch wird eine Vermutung D. Harlfingers bestätigt, dass der Codex Gu, der jetzt nur noch die Markellinosvita und die Anonymusvita des Thukydides enthält, der Rest einer kompletten Thukydideshandschrift ist. Da Gu der Schrift des Maximos Planudes bzw. der seiner Schreiber ähnelt, darf vermutet werden, dass im Gelehrtenkreis um Planudes eine Thukydidesausgabe geschaffen worden ist.

The Piraeus were certainly leased out to private individuals in classical antiquity. It has been suggested that this was common and was true even for the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, and that this model was true for impermanent wooden theatres. This article argues a contrary position: that there is only one certain example of a leased theatre, which may for all we know have been unique. The other alleged parallel, the deme theatre in Acharnae, is argued to be wrongly supplemented and explained. Some other epigraphical examples of theatres are cited for different funding mechanisms, and it is also argued that wooden theatres were neither leased nor necessarily impermanent. We have especially no reason to think that the Theatre of Dionysus was leased in the time of Theophrastus.

Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica 9, 338–352 deals with the most famous Λήμνιον κακόν of the ancient myths: the women of Lemnos, jealous of the relationships between their husbands and some Thracian slaves, killed all the male population of the island. Quintus’ story uses as an intertextual model Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica 1, 609–632, dealing with the same episode (which is partly repeated, with some differences, in 1, 793–826). The aim of this paper is not only to show the intertextual relationship between Quintus’ and Apollonius’ texts, but also to show how Quintus changes the innovative point of view of Apollonius (who reduces the women’s guilt, blaming the husbands) in order to come back to the traditional “masculinist” point of view. In doing so Quintus inserts in his text some fundamental details (both lexical and narrative) of Apollonius’ version, but he ingeniously modifies their functions or meanings in order to remind the readers both of Apollonius’ version and of the changes he made to it.

This paper proposes a reading of Cicero’s Fourth Catilinarian as a consistent and historically realistic attempt at urging the senate to punish the conspirators. Cicero struggles against the senators’ inclination to postpone a decision out of fear of the consequences which a severe sentence might have. The speech does not show signs of substantial revision or even contamination of several addresses Cicero made at different stages of the meeting on 5 December 63; nor may the extended passages in which Cicero talks about himself be read as subsequent additions in the light of Clodius’ assaults. They rather fit into the exhortative strategy of the speech, forming part of the refutation of any grounds which would allow for a delay of the decision. The extended space they take up is to be explained as a strategy that prevents further discussion of dangers by an argumentum a maiore .

A sequential reading of Horace’s Odes shows that the Pyrrha poem (1. 5) is connected with various others by means of subject matter, structure, choice of words, and metre. In the centre of this complex of allusions we find the figure of Achilles in the transvestite disguise he used to hide on the island of Scyrus, where, according to Hyginus, he was known by the name of Pyrrha. In the epic tradition, Scyrus seems to have been counted among the Cycladic Isles, while at the same time, that particular episode in the hero’s life belongs to the period narrated in the epic cycle. Through this connection, the Scyrian Achilles may shed light on the meaning of Horace’s warning against travelling the sea that extends between the Cyclades in ode 1. 14, the first ode written in the same metre as 1. 5. In the final part of the article, Horace’s allusive technique, described by him in metaphors of weaving and spinning, is compared to the modern concept of the leitmotif.

In his exitus letter on the death of Corellius Rufus ( Ep . 1. 12), Pliny attempts to present his dead friend with Stoic characteristics. Not only does Corellius follow the Stoic view on suicide in the case of an incurable disease, but also he is implicitly compared to the Stoic sapiens . This is greatly facilitated by allusions to Seneca’s Epistulae Morales , and in particular to epistle 85, where the sapiens is described and dolor is presented as indifferent to the pursuit of virtus . These allusions allow Pliny to both praise Corellius and at the same time express his objections to the prose consolationes of his predecessors.

Johannes Lydos quotes a passage from a lost military work on warfare against the Parthers in De magistratibus 3, 34. The author of this work, which dates from 63 AD, is said to be Κέλσος ὁ Ῥωμαῖος τακτικός, who has repeatedly been identified as Marius Celsus in several research studies. This article, however, depicts the encyclopedist and medical practitioner Aulus Cornelius Celsus as the author of this military writing. It first provides a retrospective of the research done. Secondly it shows that two military writings are likely to exist in the works of Celsus and in a third step it puts forward a decisive argument against Marius Celsus. Finally, some further reflections on his interests and lifetime hint at Aulus Cornelius Celsus being the author.