The paper considers two cases of Ovid’s playful treatment of features specific for the locations of his narrative. In Ov. Met. 6.673 the piece of Tereus’ armor that is being transformed into hoopoe’s beak is described in a contradictory way: rather as a spear or a prolonged point (praelonga cuspis), while the context more probably implies a sword. I argue that this might allude to some specific form of Thracian armor, in particular with the so-called romphaia, especially if it is correctly identified by the archaeologists. It must be something functioning both as a sword and as a spear, and having a very long thin blade, reminiscent of the form of hoopoe’s beak. In Ov. Met. 7.6 I suggest that purely literary explanations of the epithet limosus applied to the river Phasis (like that of E. Kenney, comparing it to the description of Tiber in Verg. Aen. 7.31) can be supplied by the comparison with that fact that the real river Rioni (corresponding to ancient river Phasis) is indeed muddy. Ovid could get acquainted with this fact from geographical descriptions like Arr. Peripl. 8.5; for instance, he could choose facts from similar descriptions that fitted his allusive intentions in a particular passage. Possibly a similar case can be detected in Ov. Met. 6.400, where cf. Curt. 3.1.3–4 (here a river in Phrygia is described, which means that Ovid could actually visit this place personally during his trip described in Ov. Pont. 2.10.21, but the similarity of the expressions used in two passages still seems noteworthy).
Present article focuses on analysis of John of Wales' classification of several types of knowledge on the basis of his "-loquia" sequence (consisting of “Breviloquium de philosophia, sive sapientia sanctorum”, “Communiloquium” or “Summa collationum”, “Compendiloquium” and “Breviloquium de virtutibus antiquorum Principum et Philosophorum”). John, an important Franciscan theologian and an industrious collector of exempla of the 13th century, designates scientia (knowledge), sapientia (wisdom) and philosophia (philosophy). According to him, the latter is the supreme form of knowledge that a human been can seek, it is a true wisdom inherent in Christian saints and Church fathers. As to wisdom, it is accessible for pagans as for Christians but a wise man need to possess a specific set of characteristics such as great humility, sobriety and patience etc. And scientia represents the practical, human knowledge, quite useful (for making fair laws, for example) but not leading to the virtuous life.
In this paper I shall argue that the problematic manuscript reading in De victu I,7 and I,16, as has recently been suggested, can indeed be explained an thus saved from emendation. Although the strange phrase τρυπῶσι (ὁ μὲν ἕλκει, ὁ δὲ ὠθεῖ) should without a doubt be kept as a lectio dificillior, the explanation proposed by H. Bartoš (that a large helical auger operated by two people is meant) is unsatisfactory, since the auger presupposes a rotatory motion while the phrase where we find the enigmatic τρυπᾶν stands in a context that presupposes an upward-downward path with 2 cardinal points. Therefore I propose that a large two-men bow drill must be meant here.
Astrological text Ἀποτελέσματα by Manetho is in many respects untypical for hexametric poetry of the Imperial period. First, it has larger proportion of spondees (31%) than any extant extensive Greek text, although in this period hexametric poetry had strong tendency to use more dactyls. Second, the proportion of shorter and longer words in the poem is very close to that of Homer and in particular Hesiodus unlike Hellenistic and late epic texts. Furthermore, Manetho prefers penthemimeral caesura to word-break κατὰ τρίτον τροχαῖον and often uses elision (almost 70 per 100 verses). These peculiarities are important and evident enough to let us speak of special modeling of Greek hexameter by Manetho as opposed to Nonnian reformation of epic verse.
The article deals with the Greek tradition about the movement of Amphilochus and Calhas with their companions across Anatolia to Cilicia and Syria after the fall of Troy which is traditionally regarded as a part of the story of Mopsos and his march to the East. The authors show that this tradition was originally independent from the legends of Mopsos, and that it has a historical parallel to Achaean component of the Sea peoples’ migration under Ramesses III. In the authors’ view, the legends about cooperation of the «Amphilochus – Calhas group» with the «Mopsos group» in Cilicia are also connected on the basis of their general motives (contrary to their fictional and contradictory details in Greek tradition) with the real interactions between various migrant groups of the 12th century BC in Cilicia.
Aristarchus of Samothrace had excluded some verses from his edition of the Iliad (presumably those which were poorly attested in manuscript tradition) and had athetized some others (possibly those which were widespread). We may assume that his textual variants can also be divided in two similar groups: (1) those which were present in his edition (and were well attested in papyri) and (2) those which were cited only in his commentary (and were absent from most manuscripts). If we accept this hypothesis, it might help us to solve one of the important paradoxes of Homeric manuscript tradition. On the one hand, numerus versuum in ancient manuscript tradition is identical to mediaeval Homeric vulgate and to aristarchean edition (according to the mainstream view). That shows the influence of Aristarchus, because the standardization of Egyptian Homeric papyri concurs with the time of the great philologist. On the other hand, most readings of Aristarchus are absent from Homeric vulgate (only 30% of his readings, according to disputable calculations of T. Allen, can be seen in all or most manuscripts). That means on the opposite that the great philologist had little influence on the tradition. The suggested hypothesis can be in full or partly compatible with the others, e.g. the interesting assumption of M. Finkelberg about the role of Ptolemy VIII in Homeric tradition.
Aristotle’s 'De animalibus' had been the main source of scientific knowledge about animals till the 18th century, and Latin translations served as an important vehicle for its transmission. The first two Latin versions appeared in the 13th century. In the early 1450s another one, by the Greek scholar George of Trebizond, was made in Rome for Nicholas V, but it was considered of poor quality and soon fell into oblivion. It was another Byzantine, Theodore Gaza, who was commissioned to replace it with a new translation. Meeting the humanists’ taste, Gaza’s version, printed in 1476, became soon extremely popular. As John Monfasani has shown, this Latin text exercised a virtual monopoly in the field of Aristotelian zoology for more than two centuries and influenced both the constitutio textus of the Greek editions of Aristotle and the new scientific writings in Latin. Gaza’s translation has been studied from the historical and stylistic points of view, but its vocabulary has not been object of a thorough analysis yet. Taking into consideration the influence of Gaza’s version, we presumed the possibility of discovering traces of its vocabulary in the modern zoological taxonomy. To check this hypothesis, we attempted a classification of Gaza’s renderings of Aristotle’s animal names and suggested a list of neologisms of Gaza’s coinage that could be used as handy material to test the reception of his translation on. Indeed, 25 out of the 47 neologisms introduced by Gaza turned out to have been used by the biologists of the 18th–19th centuries for the new taxonomic names in the binomial nomenclature; 11 out of these 25 remain valid in the nomenclature accepted nowadays.
The article continues the study of the Passio S. Susannae (BHL 7937) as a text of the 5th or 6th cent. AD that was originally composed in a language characterized by many as departing from Classical Latin. The ‘non-classical’ linguistic features connected with the categories of case and gender that can be indentified in the manuscripts of the Passio S. Susannae are taken into account: the use of prepositional constructions in place of the expected oblique cases without prepositions; the generalization of the accusative; the use of the nominative in place of the accusative; ‘non-classical’ noun gender; the use of masculine as a default gender with non-classical controllers; ‘non-classical’ use of gender forms of the relative pronoun. It is suggested that most ‘non-classical’ features connected with case and gender that are found in the manuscripts belong to the original text of the Passio, since in these aspects ‘barbarization’ does not seem to have been characteristic of early medieval scribes. It is concluded that in most respects the text is similar to other 6th cent. texts which are characterized by many ‘non-classical’ features like the Anonymus Valesianus II. One feature that seems to be unparalleled in Late Latin but apparently reliably attested in the manuscripts of the text and plausible from the point of view of later Romance development is the use of masculine as a default gender with non-classical controllers (in particular, with neuter pronouns without antecedent nouns).
The article considers the problems of reconstructing the text of the Passio S. Susannae (BHL 7937) from the point of view of phonology and orthography and systematizes the results achieved. It is argued that the ‘non-classical’ orthographic forms encountered in the manuscripts of the work mainly belong to its original text; radical approaches are criticized that imply that most ‘non-classical’ forms in such texts as works by Gregory of Tours or Regula Benedicti have been introduced to the text by scribes at the early stages of transmission. Instance of the following features are catalogued: confusion of <e> with <i> and <o> with <u>; hypercorrect <ae>; syncope; genitives in -i for personal names in -ius; confusion of <b> and <u>; <g> for CL /i̯/; <d> for CL /t/; omitted and hypercorrect final <m>; simplification and gemination; assimilation of consonants in prefixes; several special cases. It is concluded that this et of peculiarities is very similar to that reconstructed for several other texts of more or less the same date and region, in particular for the Anonymus Valesianus II. Certain aspects in which the evidence seems to point towards differences between the Passio S. Susannae and the Anonymus Valesianus II can probably be interpreted as connected with regional diversities of Late Latin in central (for the Passio) and northern (for the Anonymus) parts of Italy. It is also noted that most ‘non-classical’ forms found in the manuscripts of the Passio either coincide graphically with other ‘classical’ forms or belong to personal names that often cannot easily restored by ‘normalizing’ scribes. This seems to suggest that the text has passed through an early filter of ‘normalization’, perhaps the Carolingian one; and this conclusion in its turn implies that the original outlook of the text was much more ‘non-classical’ than what we can reconstruct with the help of the extant manuscripts. The texts that are particularly rich in ‘non-classical’ orthographic forms (like Gregory of Tours’s Historia Francorum or Edictus Rothari) all boast extant pre-Carolingian manuscripts; perhaps these texts can give us an idea of what the original text of the Passio looked like.
The article discusses pastoral motives in Pindar’s lyrics at the level of the plot and lexical expression. All the contexts in which this motiv occurs can be divided into two groups: I. the use of «shepherd» vocabulary in direct meaning including 1) the story of the owners of the herds; 2) mention of the gods-patrons of the herds; 3) mention of individual areas rich in herds; 4) mention of herds in connection with the ritual and the festival; II. the use of «shepherd» vocabulary in a figurative sense in the mythological, cult and everyday contexts. We can see an archaizing trend in the use of this motiv and its importance for Pindar's poetics at the level of ideology and stylistics. It manifests itself in the heroization of herd owners, the actualization of archaic notions of shepherds and herds, and the transfer of everyday concepts to the metapoetic language.