Search

Search Results

• Acrostic Conversation: Horace, Ode I 18

  67-100

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  185

  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’.

• The Two Metamorphosesin Horace’s Second Roman Ode

  45–56.

  Attila Ferenczi

  Views:

  46

  It has always been a much-debated question how the two final stanzas of Horace’s Second Roman Ode fit to what came before in this poem. This paper will venture to place the apparent anomaly of these two verses within a new context emphasizing the strong and traditional connection between the constitution of the Roman State and the pax deorum. The second section of the poem (verses 5-6) portrays the workings of virtus as something incompatible with the usual ways and protocols of the late Republican political procedure in Rome. The all-changing power can be regarded as an inevitable consequence of the nature of the virtus, but at the same time, it can cause religious anxiety from somebody seeing and understanding this transformation. The last two verses about a religious panic do not contrast with the poem's previous passages but represent a new voice in the political discourse.

• Horace on Terence (Epist. 2,1,59)

  21–24

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  54

  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.

• Neue Beobachtungen zum Geschichtswerk des Iulius Florus als eines spätaugusteischen Autors

  101–137

  Holger Koch

  Views:

  92

  Baldwin (1988) summarized the main problems of Florus 25 years ago. These are still unsolved. They deal with the identification of the Flori, the date of Florus’ history and the correct title of the work. The most vexing of all the questions associated with the history is its date: Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) or Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.). An Augustan date has been plausibly proposed by Neuhausen (1992 and 1994) against the „communis opinio”. Following his studies I can explain and solve all the „anachronisms”, which were caused by the false dating of Florus to the second century A.D. According to Neuhausen’s and my own studies Florus’ history must therefore be dated after the consecration of Augustus (17th of September, 14 A.D.) [~ first edition]; the second edition came from the time of Trajan, because the preface contains two short interpolations with the name of this emperor at its end. The writer of the history has to be identified with Iulius Florus, the famous addressee of Horace’s two epistles. The original work probably has only one volume. The title Epitoma de Tito Livio bellorum libri duo is wrong and has to be changed into Rerum gestarum populi Romani breviarium or tabella.

• Shields dropped

  5–16

  György Németh

  Views:

  110

  Ancient sources regarded throwing away one’s shield as a punishable crime in Greek poleis, and their testimony has been accepted by modern scholarship. However, if we read the accounts of actual instances of shield-dropping, we find that the interests of the whole community often took precedence over the demand to penalize shield-droppers.