The first unmetrical word of Leonidas, AP 6.4 requires emendation, not explanation. On the basis of a variant in Lucian, a new textual suggestion is made. The paper explores metrical and intertextual criteria for explaining the passage, but rejects them in favour of emendation.
The first women to be humanistically educated, in mid-fourteenth century Italy, were educated to advance their family’s political agendas. The condottiere lords (professional mercenaries) found it particularly useful to be able to delegate responsibility to wives educated for rule. Additionally, by the fifteenth century other upper-class women were educated in order to perform as prodigies on behalf of their city of origin. Both strands of education for women spread to other European countries in the course of the sixteenth century, first to France, then to Spain, England and northern Europe. French and Habsburg princesses were well educated and undertook diplomatic activities. Frenchwomen associated with the court and, in some provincial centres, were also educated in Latin and formed part of local literary societies. Humanism in Spain and Portugal was almost entirely centred on the courts, but produced one woman of high achievement, Luisa Sigea. In England when the new learning arrived around 1520, the principal women humanists were either princesses or courtiers. Outside the court, the women with most reason to learn Latin were recusant Catholics. Elsewhere in northern Europe, women also began to take part in intellectual life. Education in Latin was no longer confined to women of the court, and some needed to work: particularly as teachers and in the print trades. In the seventeenth century Latin lost its importance as a language of diplomacy and was no longer needed at court. However, the increasing availability of translations made it possible for women to write in a way that referenced classical authors without necessarily having learned Latin. Women translated from Latin, and some ambitious translations were undertaken, notably Anne Dacier’s many translations from Latin and Greek. There was still a place for the ‘woman prodigy’, and a variety of women performed in this way, in some cases in order to try and attract patronage. Italian women’s cultural opportunities expanded because of the rise of the academies, many of which invited female participation. In this period we also find the first female autodidacts. The productions of seventeenth-century women Latinists are more extensive and more varied than those of their predecessors: they include the work of the first women scientists. There are substantial amounts of writing in Latin as well as translations from Latin by eighteenth-century women, which has been very little studied; however, the contributions of Latin-literate women in the scientific sphere have been recognised and are attracting a literature of their own. By the mid-nineteenth century the integration of studious women into the wider academy was well under way.
The present paper inquires into Maximus of Tyre’s theodicy (Or. 41). Contemporary scholarship tends to disclaim the philosophical significance of Maximus’ speeches due to their opulent rhetoric and popularising style. Oratio 41—Maximus’ speech on the problem of evil—might be suited to counteract such tendencies. The paper first analyses the different aspects of Maximus’ theodicy within its Stoic-Middle Platonic milieu, then demonstrates, how Maximus always takes into account the main purpose of his orations—encouraging his adolescent listeners to choose philosophy as a way of life.
Venus and Vulcan, Venus and Aeneas, Pallas and Aeneas, Aeneas and Evander, Evander and Pallas: all of these pairs are seen embracing one another in Aeneid 8. Alongside these emotive scenes of embrace, the book is peppered with embrace-related vocabulary, imagery, and metaphor, often in surprising contexts. This article weaves together these embraces in Aeneid 8 in relation to the thematics of the book as a whole. It is proposed that, when read together, the embraces in Aeneid 8 tell a story about the possibilities of knowledge in relation to the senses. Vision is the supreme sense-modality of truth in epic, as embodied in the shield of Aeneas; and yet, in book 8, embrace emerges as a way of knowing that runs counter to optical discourses of knowledge. This leads to an exploratory reconsideration of hermeneutic principles in light of Aeneas’ much-puzzled-over response to the shield.
The character designated by the manuscripts as Senex, who accompanies Andromache and Astyanax in act three of Seneca’s Troades, is problematic in many ways. He is not identified or acknowledged by any other character; his entrance and exit are unannounced; his presence onstage in the first half of the act requires that Astyanax’s two words of dialogue be delivered by a fourth actor or through ventriloquism; his very existence conflicts with the obvious interpretation of at least two sections of Andromache’s dialogue. All of these anomalies can be removed if there is in fact no Senex and the dialogue attributed to him by the manuscripts is spoken by the Chorus leader. This level of involvement in the action by the Chorus would itself be unusual in Senecan tragedy, but it does have parallels and would also fit with the exceptional treatment of the Chorus throughout Troades.
The words κακὸν κακῶς σε at D. 18.267 are printed in quotation marks in many modern editions of the speech. This sequence scans as the beginning of an iambic trimeter and is connected by καί with two quotations from tragedy. This article questions the idea that the sequence should be interpreted as the start of an interrupted quotation by showing that (1) these words are part of a standard, vernacular Greek curse formula, (2) initial καί may be interpreted as a discourse-level connector rather than as a syntactic coordinator, and (3) word order in the curse may be accounted for without invoking metrical effects. In particular, it is suggested that Demosthenes’ wording of the curse should be interpreted as a parody of the plea to the judges at Aeschin. 2.180.
This study surveys the state of scholarship on Roman verse Satire, written in Latin by Lucilius, Horace, Persius, and Juvenal between the late second century BCE and the early second century CE. Key interpretative approaches are discussed, highlighting the ways in which our understanding of the genre has developed and identifying areas that remain underexplored. The study is aimed at students and scholars in the fields of Classics, History, Literature, and Reception Studies.