Published After
Published Before

Search Results

  • Acrostic shit (Ecl. IV 47-52)

    The cacata-acrostic (Ecl. IV 47-52) is considered accidental, as being inconsistent with the dignitas of this “Messianic” Eclogue. It is however possible to demonstrate that Virgil employs such acrostics on other occasions with the object of undercutting such political panegyric. The intentionality of this cacata-acrostic is further buttressed by clues in the lines it spans as well as by winks tipped in other parts of the poem. Pointers to this acrostic are also embedded in the foregoing third Eclogue, especially in the section devoted to Pollio, dedicatee of Eclogue IV. Problematic passages in both these Eclogues are elucidated by the presence of the cacataacrostic.

  • More Additions to Maltby’s Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies and Marangoni’s Supplementum Etymologicum: The Scholia to Statius

    Etymology has recently become one of the most vibrant spheres of classical scholarship. Maltby’s epoch-making Lexicon has now been complemented by Marangoni’s Supplementum Etymologicum. The present article offers addenda to both. It limits itself to the scholia on Statius.

  • Horace on Terence (Epist. 2,1,59)

    In Horace’s Epistle to Augustus the estimate of Terence may be less positive than is generally believed. This reinterpretation is based first on classical views of acoustic concinnity, then on etymological considerations.

  • Sinon on his “pal” Palamedes (Virgil, Aeneid II 81-104)

    Sinon’s speech to the Trojans falsely represents him as Palamedes’ friend. The present article endeavours to show how in this connection Virgil avails himself of etymology.

  • „Read the edge”: Acrostics in Virgil’s Sinon Episode

    Virgil’s famous Sinon episode at the start of Aeneid II contains four hitherto unidentified acrostics. Examination of these particular instances sheds light on Virgil’s acrostical practice in general.

  • A Crux in the Proem of Henry of Avranches’ Bordo-Siler (R 129–144,17–18)

    The 13th-century poet Henry of Avranches has given us in the form of his Bordo-Siler what is a chef-d’oeuvre of poetic vituperation. The proem of this important poem is marred by textual corruption in the view of its editor and commentator, A. G. Rigg. The present article endeavours to show that the text is sound. Here we in fact have a reference to the parable of the Prodigal Son. We also have a clever jeu grammatical in the matter of metrical quantity.

  • MA VE PU again: Kill Caesar! (Georg. I 424–471)

    This article deals with the Virgilian onomastic in Georgic I 429-433: some fresh considerations are advanced. In particular this sphragis would seem to endorse an overlooked acrostic: “Kill Caesar!”

  • Acrostic Conversation: Horace, Ode I 18

    This article argues that gamma-acrostical disce in Horace’s Ode I 18 (ll. 11–15) alludes to the land-confiscatory acrostics recently identified in Virgil’s Eclogues (I 5–8; VI 14–24; IX 34–38). Horace has carefully signposted his acrostical intent. Virgil himself interfaces with this Horatian cryptography by means of other acrostics of his own. The result is an ‘acrostic conversation’.

  • Quis est nam ludus in undis? (Virgil, Eclogue IX 39-43)

    The undis-acrostic that has recently been discovered in Eclogue IX 34-38 has proved problematic. The present article argues that the acrostic’s point is the etymology of litus as the place where these “waves” do not “play” (39: ludus), but “strike” (43: feriant for synonymous but exceedingly scarce lidant). This acrostic is accordingly hot-potato politics, since it pertains to the land confiscations round Virgil’s “wave”-begirt Mantua. The poet also provides endorsement in the form of an unidentified onomastic.

  • Jerome’s Dream and the Book of Daniel

    Recently Smolak has argued that in the famous account of Jerome’s dream (Epist. 22,30,2) the propheta whose language put him off is Daniel. This passage is also connected by Smolak with Jerome’s later reference to Daniel’s clarus sermo (Epist. 53, 8,16): in Smolak’s view Jerome is here claiming that he has now come to an understanding of Daniel’s “stilistische Klarheit”. The present article endeavours to refute both of these cases.