Aspetti linguistico ancora dell’ideologia senecana, Testi e manuali verso l’insegnamento universitario del del lazio antico 68, Bologna: Patron 2000

Aspetti linguistico ancora dell’ideologia senecana, Testi e manuali verso l’insegnamento universitario del del lazio antico 68, Bologna: Patron 2000

Verso. Setaioli, “Interpretazioni stoiche anche epicuree in Servio addirittura la civilizzazione dell’esegesi filosofica del leggenda anche dei poeti verso Roma (Cornuto, Seneca, Filodemo)”, I–II,International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10, 2003–2004, 335–376; 11, 2004–2005, 3–46.

Per. Setaioli, “Le fragment II Soubiran duDe consulatu de Ciceron, leDe diuinatione et leur lecture par Virgile”, in:Signe et prediction dans l’Antiquite. Actes du Colloque international interdisciplinaire de Creteil et de Paris (22–23–24 in nessun caso 2003). Textes reunis par Jose Kany-Turpin, Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Universite de Saint-Etienne 2005, 241–261.

Ed. Merli, “Epigrammzyklen und ‘serielle Lekture’ in den Buchern Martials: Uberlegungen und Beispiele,” sopra F

W. H. Stahl,Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 48, New York: Columbia University Press 1952 (reprint: ibid. W. H. Stahl,Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 48, New York: Columbia University Press 1990).

P. Steinmetz, “Allegorische Deutung und allegorische Dichtung in der alten Stoa”,Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie N.F. 129, 1986, 18–30 (ristampato sopra: Idem, P. Steinmetz,Kleine Schriften, ed. Severin Koster, Palingenesia 68, Stuttgart: Steiner 2000).

References

The ‘conferenceacta’ comprise seven papers that are meant esatto document the direction(s) durante which the exploration of Roman literature is now moving, or (more App smore accurately perhaps) mediante the opinion of most of the contributorsshould orshould not be moving; they were published sopra the most recent testo of theTransactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA) 135 (2005): 1–162 (for Edmunds, see 1–13).

Edmunds (above, n. 2):Transactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA) 135 (2005): 8–9 (quotation at 8, the emphasis is mine); I leave it up preciso the reader preciso discover which of the papers is excluded here. Note that Edmunds’ (and, of course, others’) elite notion of ‘interpretation’ is emphatically narrow and must not be put on verso par with its ‘traditional’ sense, “esatto expound the meaning of [something]; onesto render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear and explicit; onesto elucidate; sicuro explain” (OED 2 , s.v., 1a).

Exceptions prove the rule. Whatever W.’s predisposition may have been, he surely made a wise decision when embarking onRoman Homosexuality for his Ph.D. first, andthen turning to a commentary on verso collection of poetry.

For a theoretic back-up, cf. D. Fowler, “Criticism as commentary and commentary as criticism sopra the age of the electronic mass media,” in: G. W. Most (anche.),Commentaries-Kommentare, Aporemata 4 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999): 426–442 (esp. 429–430).

Other examples of modern scholars, all well-known and highly esteemed forboth their theoryoriented works and their commentaries, include E. Fantham (Seneca, Lucan, Ovid), D. Fowler (Lucretius), and R. F. Thomas (Virgil), to name but verso few.

W., at 283–284, gives a list of the most important editions and commentaries, puro which one might want sicuro add A. Canobbio,La lex Roscia theatralis di nuovo Marziale: il andatura del conferenza V, Scansia di Athenaeum 49 (Como: New Press, 2002), because it is per valuable supplement onesto P. Howell’s edition of Book 5 (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1995), for which seeAnzeiger fur die Altertums-wissenschafter 50 (1997): 17–21. The collection of essays on Book 10, edited by G. Damschen and Per. Heil,maton liber decimus: Text Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late esatto be included durante W.’s bibliography.

The bibliography, as emphasized by W. (283), is of course not meant preciso be exhaustive; for aForschungsbericht, see S. Lorenz, “]): 167–227, and cf. the bibliography con Damschen-Heil (above, n.7):maton liber decimus: Text, Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late onesto be included durante W.’s bibliography 401–490.

For a useful assessment of this issue (initiated by K. Barwick), cf. Grewing (di nuovo.),Toto notus sopra orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Palingenesia 65, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1998): 139–156.