Verso. Setaioli, “Interpretazioni stoiche di nuovo epicuree sopra Servio ed la formazione dell’esegesi filosofica del leggenda anche dei poeti a Roma (Cornuto, Seneca, Filodemo)”, I–II,International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10, 2003–2004, 335–376; 11, 2004–2005, 3–46.
Verso. 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 Conversation international interdisciplinaire de Creteil et de Paris (22–23–24 niente affatto 2003). Textes reunis par Jose Kany-Turpin, Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Universite de Saint-Etienne 2005, 241–261.
Di nuovo. Merli, “Epigrammzyklen und ‘serielle Lekture’ mediante den Buchern Martials: Uberlegungen und Beispiele,” profili indonesiancupid mediante 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 mediante: Ugualmente, P. Steinmetz,Kleine Schriften, di nuovo. Severin Koster, Palingenesia 68, Stuttgart: Steiner 2000).
References
The ‘conferenceacta’ comprise seven papers that are meant sicuro document the direction(s) mediante which the exploration of Roman literature is now moving, or (more accurately perhaps) in the opinion of most of the contributorsshould orshould not be moving; they were published con the most recent tomo 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 puro 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 per par with its ‘traditional’ sense, “esatto expound the meaning of [something]; sicuro render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear and explicit; preciso elucidate; onesto 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 onesto per commentary on per collection of poetry.
For verso theoretic back-up, cf. D. Fowler, “Criticism as commentary and commentary as criticism in the age of the electronic mass media,” in: G. W. Most (addirittura.),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 Anche. Fantham (Seneca, Lucan, Ovid), D. Fowler (Lucretius), and R. F. Thomas (Virgil), puro name but verso few.
W., at 283–284, gives verso list of the most important editions and commentaries, preciso which one might want to add A. Canobbio,La lex Roscia theatralis e Marziale: il successione del lezione V, Scansia di Athenaeum 49 (Como: New Press, 2002), because it is per valuable supplement sicuro 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 Verso. Heil,maton liber decimus: Text Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late onesto be included mediante W.’s bibliography.
The bibliography, as emphasized by W. (283), is of course not meant esatto be exhaustive; for aForschungsbericht, see S. Lorenz, “]): 167–227, and cf. the bibliography mediante Damschen-Heil (above, n.7):maton liber decimus: Text, Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late to be included sopra W.’s bibliography 401–490.
For a useful assessment of this issue (initiated by K. Barwick), cf. Grewing (di nuovo.),Toto notus per orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Palingenesia 65, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1998): 139–156.
