Volume 166, Issue 2

In this short article I discuss the variae lectiones in Il. 8.408 and 8.422. All manuscripts have ὅττι νοήσω (408) and ὅττι νοήσῃ (422), but many editors have preferred to print Aristarkhos’ corrections ὅττί κεν εἴπω and ὅττί κεν εἴπῃ respectively. By comparing the instances in which ὅττί κεν εἴπω/ῃς/ῃ and ὅττι νοήσω/ῃς/ῃ are used and by delving deeper into the use of the modal particle (MP) in epic Greek, I argue that the transmitted readings ὅττι νοήσω (408) and ὅττι νοήσῃ (422) should have preference, because they have no MP and refer to repeated actions, whereas the construction ὅττί κεν εἴπω/ῃς/ῃ, which has an MP, refers to a more specific instance (which is why it has an MP in the first place).

Concepts of reason play a decisive role in the discussion of the different ideas of god in Cicero’s De natura deorum . However, the dialogue uses many different conceptual terms (such as ratio , mens , consilium , intelligentia or cogitatio ) to refer to the achievements and potentials of reason. The variable use of the expressions across the dialogue at first suggests purely rhetorical criteria – variatio delectat – in selecting the terms for reason. However, the investigation presented here into the use of terms reveals that Cicero ascribes to each of his dialogue partners a specific use of terms for reason. As will be shown, the use of terms relates not only to the underlying concepts of reason of the Epicurean, Stoic and Academic schools, but is also closely linked to their ideas about god.

The notice in the Scholia Bernensia about Vergil, Georgics 4.468 that links the name of Gallus to the katabasis of Orpheus can be read as a confirmation of the relation between Vergil’s short poem and the elegiac poet’s work. Significant in this sense is the term formido , very elegant as used by Vergil and maybe part of the poetic lexicon of Gallus, as is perhaps suggested by a passage of the Philae stele.

Five conjectures are proposed on the text of four poems in the ‘Lygdamean cycle’ (= [Tib.] 3.1–6): 1.20 morer for minor , 4.5 uera monent sacrae, uenturi nuntia, sortes for diui uera monent uenturae nuntia sortis , 4.45 nescit for bachus , 5.8 laudatae for laudandae , and 6.55 nostris inimica querelis for nobis inimica merenti . Older readings and conjectures are defended at 2.15 (Huschke’s praefataeque for praefatae ante ), 5.8 (Erath’s uidere for docere ), 6.11 (Burman’s inire for mite ) and 6.57 ( quid cessas for cessas o ).

The language of Seneca’s messenger speeches concentrates preceding patterns of imagery into grotesquely violent action. In three tragedies – Phaedra , Thyestes , and Trojan Women – the report of an anonymous messenger dominates an entire act. All three scenes describe gruesome deaths: the impalement of Hippolytus on a tree trunk in Phaedra , Atreus’ butchering of his nephews in Thyestes , and the slaughter of Astyanax and Polyxena in Trojan Women. In portraying violence, these messenger speeches repurpose language established in earlier scenes to realize and deform a dominant theme of each play: distorted sexuality, appetite, and moral dissolution.

This paper will examine three textual problems in Statius’ Thebaid , book 5 (Hypsipyle’s narration of the massacre on Lemnos) that have not previously been discussed in appropriate detail. It will also try to contribute to the demonstration of the fact that, on several occasions, P (Parisinus lat. 8051, s. ix 2/3 ) is not the best codex in the tradition and that we can easily accept the text of the majority of manuscripts.

The article presents an edition of the previously unpublished letter from A. E. Housman to Grigory E. Saenger, written in Latin and dated 28 May, 1909, as well as a commentary on this text. The letter contains a criticism of Saenger’s 1909 edition of Statius’ Siluae . Housman evaluates the general approach of the edition and pronounces his judgement on two particular decisions made by the editor. The commentary treats both the general context of the letter and particular statements made by Housman. The approach recommended by Housman is compared to those adopted in the major post-Saengerian editions of the Siluae ; it is suggested that, while in certain respects some of the modern editions come close to what Housman endorsed, in other ways there is nothing among them to compare with it.

This article presents an edition with introduction and commentary of two unpublished letters that Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff wrote to the art historian and cultural scholar Aby Warburg in the 1920 s. The edition completes a correspondence that includes a letter from Warburg that has already been published several times. The two letters cast light on the hitherto barely known relation of Wilamowitz to Warburg himself and to his Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek in Hamburg. They centre on the Warburg Library’s special research interest, namely the influence of the ancient world on later cultural periods, especially the Renaissance.