Volume 160, Issue 2

The author argues that Iliad 7.87–89 where Hector imagines an epitaph that will redound to his own glory implies a knowledge of writing and should in any case be central to any discussion of writing in Homer.

The word δούλευμα, which appears only three times in extant Greek literature, is defined in all the authoritative dictionaries with the meaning of “slave” or “servitude”, but this lexical meaning is not well supported by the contexts in which the word appears. The word δούλευμα does not signify a person’s status as a slave or the duty of a slave to perform a service for its owner. Rather, δούλευμα has an extended or secondary meaning of a woman’s “baby doll” or “doll-like object” (in the same way that other polysemous words, such as κόρη, νύμφη, and γλήνη, can also mean “doll”, depending on the contexts in which these words are used). This proposed definition offers a new perspective on the three scenes in which the word appears in Greek tragedy.

The aim of this article is to make a contribution towards a fuller understanding of the praesens pro praeterito (the present referring to past states of affairs, more commonly known as ‘historical present’) in Classical Greek by studying its use in non-narrative discourse in tragedy. The case of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex serves as a framework for this survey. Taking the relevant present forms in this play as a starting point, three groups of verbs are subjected to close analysis: verbs of ‘dying’/‘perishing’, of ‘giving birth’/‘begetting’, and of ‘killing’. It is argued that the primary indicative forms referring to the past belonging to these verbs do not stand for perfects, as is often suggested, but retain their specific value: they construe the designated events as somehow part of the speaker’s ‘immediate reality’. Specifically in the Oedipus ,the present is used bythe protagonist and his co-operative interlocutors to highlight those facts that are crucial to Oedipus’ quest of finding out the killer’s, and with that his own, identity.

A great many Greek simple names originated as appellatives for young children. The terms that lie behind these names were not always of the kind we find in literary texts (and in our dictionaries), and are therefore records of as-yet unknown popular Greek. This is the underlying theme in the seven discussions presented here, where we examine proper names formed on reflexive pronouns, and on the nouns ἱκέτης, λάθυρος, μύναρος, νόθος, σίνις, and σωμάτιον.

The primary motivating force of the Ephesiaca ’s plot can be attributed to the divine factor, which functions in a complementary and inclusive way with the intentions that inform the attitude of the various human agents. Eros’ initial scheme to avenge himself on Habrocomes’ pride constitutes the core of the composite divine intervention that both causes the primary couple’s wanderings and tribulations and brings about the happy denouement. Eros’ revenge centers on the hero’s body, which had been emphatically presented at the beginning of the narration as one of the main reasons for his arrogance towards the god, but ultimately aims at the rehabilitation of the hero, fulfilling thus the hopes of the Ephesians that someday Habrocomes will evolve into a noteworthy citizen. To this end, the purpose of Habrocomes’ wanderings and adventures also involves the acquisition through his several acquaintances of the necessary means that will ensure his future prosperity: in Hippothous the male protagonist will probably find a valuable ally for his subsequent political career in his native city, while the example of Aigialeus ensures the stability of the primary couple’s emotional bond. Furthermore, Habrocomes’ status is raised by the devotion of Anthia and the loyalty of his former servants. Finally, it is not inconceivable that Xenophon has been influenced by the philosophy of Heraclitus.

Sidonius knew and understood the beginning of Horace’s influential Ars poetica , the passage in which Horace pronounced in favour of artistic unity. Instead of following Horace’s advice, Sidonius opted for variety in Poem 22 and Letters Book 9. Even though he ignored the advice, Sidonius at the end of both texts invoked Horace’s authority from the Ars poetica . Sidonius even claimed to have written exactly as Horace said he should. A century before, Ausonius had translated Horace in a way that the source had specifically criticised. Both Sidonius and Ausonius engaged Horace’s authoritative text in order to negotiate their debt toward and place within Latin literature. Further study could describe the variety of ways in which late antique poets received and transformed their Classical inheritance.

The article focuses on the Renaissance debate about an anecdote reported by Gellius, Noctes Atticae 6.20, according to which Virgil erased the name of the city of Nola, in Campania, from Georgics 2.225, since the Nolans did not allow him to run some public water into a farm belonging to him. This essay offers an outline of how and where, between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the debate pro or contra Gellius developed. The epicentre of this debate was the Kingdom of Naples, since Gellius’ anecdote cast a shadow over Nola, which in the Renaissance period was a prosperous centre and wished to appear as the authentic descendant of the glorious ancient town that, according to Livy and Silius, was loyal to Rome during the Punic Wars. The citizens of Nola were concerned that Gellius’ words could be used to create an image of the city as one hostile to the most celebrated poet in antiquity, and thus damage its public reputation. Some voices emerged in defence of Nola while others argued against it. Whether as defenders or accusers, a number of the leading humanists of the Kingdom became involved in this querelle , namely Giovanni Pontano, Jacopo Sannazaro, and Ambrogio Leone, through whom the debate also reached the Netherlands, and Erasmus of Rotterdam.