|
David H. Porter: Horace's Poetic Journey. - New Jersey, 1987, pp. 252 f.:
Nor, in view of the many evidences of Vergil's influence on Horace, may it be too far-fetched to suggest a rough analogy between Odes 1-3 and the Aeneid. Both works strongly emphasize journeying by sea, both contain a central descent to the underworld, both rise too high in their hopes following that descent only subsequently to fall into renewed despair. And both surely deal with the quest for rebirth out of death, for purification out of pollution, for renewed initiative out of stagnation. That Horace assigns Vergil a prominent place in an early poem - a poem, moreover, that follows the highly Vergilian 1.2 and that concerns the hazards and the glory of seafaring - is, given these other similarities, scarcely accidental.* Nor is it accidental that the collection's two Vergil poems, 1.3 and 1.24, both mark crucial stages in Horace's journey (cf. the critical role Vergil plays in the journey to Brundisium and the introduction to Maecenas, Satires 1.5-6), or that the Alcaeus of 2.13's underworld, the figure who in so many ways points the way back to life for Horace, is clearly identified with Orpheus, a figure strongly associated with Vergil's underworld, and one who figures prominently in Horace's second ode to Vergil, 1.24.
One could push the parallel between the Aeneid and Odes 1-3 farther - to the analogy between the deaths of Dido in Aeneid 4, of Cleopatra in Odes 1.37, both crucial, emotion-charged events in the narratives, both marking the end of the first third of the journey;** to the similarities between Vergil's underworld in Aeneid 6 and Horace's in 2.13, both located near the center of the work, both divided between a sense of tragic loss and a sense of new possibilities, both marking the transition from obsession with the past to readiness for the future; to the possible analogies between the shield in Aeneid 8 and the Roman Odes, both weaving a complex and many-hued web of past and future, of hopes and fears, and both located approximately two-thirds of the way through the narrative; above all, to the fascinating contrast between the resolutions of 3.25-30, the lack of resolution at the end of the Aeneid, a contrast that may owe something to the unfinished state of the Aeneid but that probably suggests also a basic divergence of attitude between the two poets.
___
* Note also the echo of Eclogues 9.29 in 1.1.36, an early indication of the Vergilian cast of much that is to come. Cf. Santirocco, Arethusa 13 (1980): 51. On the Vergilian character of 1.2, see C.F. Saylor, "Horace, C. 1.2 and Vergil's Storm (Aen. 1.81)," Vergilius 25 (1979): 20-25; also Fraenkel, Horace, 243 ff.; Nisbet-Hubbard, Commentary on Horace, Odes I, 16-17. [Porter's footnote.]
** There's a very close correspondence between Aeneid 4. 238-258 (Dido) and Odyssey 5.43-74 (Kalypso); another epos that moves from being lost at sea to the foundation or restoration of order. (Of course although left behind like Dido and a bit of a mantrap like Cleopatra, Kalypso does not die; nor is it at exactly the same part of the poem.) [My own footnote.] |
|
Hi,
A quick, really basic Greek question.
In my ‘Reading Greek’ vocabulary they have exile listed as ό φυγάς. However I definitely remember this as ό θυγάς from my A-Level vocabulary list.
My question is, is one of them incorrect, or are they different versions, like θαλαττα and θαλασσα? And if they’re different versions, where does each come from respectively?
Thank you! |
|
I remember a dialogue, I think it was, between two philosophers debating whether, among other things, whether or not the gods could cause a man harm. During the discussion they brought up the Iliad where Zeus is mentioned as having a jar of good fortune and a jar of bad. However they argued that this was artistic liberty misunderstood by commmon men, for the gods would not cause anyone misfortune except for the greater good of reforming them. Therefore no one should say that they'd been harmed by the gods.
I am paraphrasing of course. Where is this discussion? I myself thought for some reason that it was in Lucian of Samosata's writings, but going over them again briefly I can't find it. If you could point me in the right direction that would be greatly appreciated. |
|
"Der Neue Pauly" has an article "Geburtstag (γενέθλιος ἡμέρα, natalis dies)": Apparently "urspr." (originally) everyone's birthday was celebrated monthly: Both in Greece and in Rome, both of Gods and human beings. It wasn't really a celebration of the human being, but of their personal guardian spirit: ἀγαθὸς δαίμων γενέθλιος in Greece, Genius and Iuno in Rome. "Später" (later) it became common practice to only celebrate it once a year.
I had this suspicion yesterday and I'm glad about the confirmation, but I still don't know when this change took place and how and to what extent.
1.) I don't know if that is true at all, but let's assume that Plato's birthday was celebrated once a year, Epicurus' once a month. Would that imply that the Epicureans paid more religious homage to their founder than the Academy to divine Plato?
2.) How common was the monthly celebration of birthdays in Ovid's times? I just remembered Tristia 4,10: Nec stirps prima fui: genito sum fratre creatus,/ qui tribus ante quater mensibus ortus erat./ Lucifer amborum natalibus affuit idem:/ una celebrata est per duo liba dies... So he had a brother who was exactly one year his senior and celebrated his birthday on the same date. If they had celebrated monthly birthdays, such a thing like "una celebrata est per duo liba dies" (one day - two birthday cakes) wouldn't have been very uncommon at all. So I'm leaning towards yearly celebrations now.
Still I'm baffled for how long Ovid in "Ars amatoria" goes on about the importance of avoiding one's amica at this day. If that was just an affair of once a year, this seems very cheap indeed to me. Did by any chance girlfriends expect more and more frequent attention than family members? (Yearly for your brother, but monthly for your sweetheart?)
Which leads me to a different question: Was there something like Valentine's Day in antiquity? What about Wedding anniversaries? (I'm quite aware that the girls Ovid talks about are not the marrying kind. Still the question interests me.) Did lovers maybe have other private anniversaries to celebrate, like - I don't know - the day they first met, their first kiss, the first date?
Maybe I'll go to library again tomorrow. There must be more information somewhere. (EDIT: I did. Hmm: Apparently the monthly birthday celebrations were a bigger thing in Greece than in Rome. Didn't find out much more information. A certain W. Schmidt seems to have written a book "Geburtstag im Altertum", 1908, and a K. Argetsinger an article "Birthday Rituals: Friends and Patrons in Roman Poetry and Cult", 1992, but neither was available. Still not an entirely wasted trip to the library. After all in one of those books on everyday life I learned about the asaroton: http://community.livejournal.com/unusual_words/59305.html, which is irrelevant to the matter at hand, but still nice to know. Add the analecta: http://malkhos.livejournal.com/71237.html and you have two alternatives to sweeping.)
New and interesting things I learned: People who celebrated their birthday on the same day (of the month) joined and celebrated together, calling themselves after the day, e.g. "Tetradisten", or after the ruling god, e.g. "Herakleisten".
It was common to continue the birthday celebrations of dead family members. - In Rome some people gave money to foundations to take care of the birthday celebrations after their death.
Ah, and I now know what gods where celebrated on which day (in Greece): 1. and in later times particularly 7.: Apollon; 2.: agathós daímon; 3.: Athena; 4.: Herakles, Hermes, Aphrodite; 5.: Horkos; 6.: Artemis; 8.: Poseidon, Theseus, Asklepios; 12.: Demeter, Persephone. |
|
"I beg your pardon?" Alice said with a puzzled air.
"I'm not offended," said Humpty Dumpty.
"I mean, what is an un-birthday present?"
Apollo's birthday was celebrated at the seventh day of every month. To emphasize his connection to this god, Plato's birthday was celebrated on the seventh day of Thargelion (May/June).
Epicurus' birthday was the 20th Gamelion (January/February). I'm not sure whether his students celebrated it every year or every month. Google is ambiguous about it and I'll have to wait till tomorrow to get to the library.
Ovid, Ars 1. 417 f writes: magna superstitio tibi sit natalis amicae,/ quaque aliquid dandum est, illa sit atra dies. Does he advise to avoid one day a year or one day every month?
Does anybody know, if there's a rule about how often birthdays were celebrated? I assume that changed over the centuries and was different for different kinds of people, let alone for gods. All of this interests me. These are obviously questions to look up at the library tomorrow, but maybe also an interesting topic for this community? |
| » Past counterfactual conditional with eimi (to be)? |
|---|
I got such a good response to my last question, that I thought that I would ask another, this time about composition.
Since eimi doesn't have an aorist, can the imperfect substitute for it in the apodosis of a past countrafactual conditional? Here is the sentence I am trying to put into Greek: "If the general had led his army to the plain, our grief would have been less." Here is what I have written (forgive the transliteration, but I am unfamiliar with the unicode keyboard map): ei ho stratēgos para to pedion ton straton hēgēsato, hē lupē humetera elattōn an ēn. The problem seems to be that this would appear to mean "our grief would be less" (present tense). Alternately, I thought that maybe a Greek would just say it differently, so I also tried this for the apodasis: tēn elattō lupēn an eschomen. I'm a bit surprised to have encountered this problem, since I'm using a textbook (Hansen & Quinn), though perhaps this was explained somewhere but I forgot it.
What do you think?
Jun. 15th, 2009 @ 05:12 pm
|
| » Some grammatical questions |
|---|
οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν περὶ ὅτου οὐκ ἂν πιθανώτερον εἴποι ὁ ῥητορικὸς ἢ ἄλλος ὁστισοῦν τῶν δημιουργῶν ἐν πλήθει. ἡ μὲν οὖν δύναμις τοσαύτη ἐστὶν καὶ τοιαύτη τῆς τέχνης· δεῖ μέντοι, ὦ Σώκρατες, τῇ ῥητορικῇ χρῆσθαι ὥσπερ τῇ ἄλλῃ πάσῃ ἀγωνίᾳ. καὶ γὰρ τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀγωνίᾳ οὐ τούτου ἕνεκα δεῖ πρὸς ἅπαντας χρῆσθαι ἀνθρώπους, ὅτι ἔμαθεν πυκτεύειν τε καὶ παγκρατιάζειν καὶ ἐν ὅπλοις μάχεσθαι, ὥστε κρείττων εἶναι καὶ φίλων καὶ ἐχθρῶν, οὐ τούτου ἕνεκα τοὺς φίλους δεῖ τύπτειν οὐδὲ κεντεῖν τε καὶ ἀποκτεινύναι. (Plato, Gorgias 456c2-456d5).
I am struggling to make sense of this passage, even when I consult an English translation. Perhaps someone could help.
I do not understand what οὐ ἔστιν means. The rest of the sentence seems to mean "the rhetorician would not speak more persuasively about any subject than any other of the skilled workers in the crowd would." This is, of course, not true, so could it be that οὐ ἔστιν is somehow negating the rest of the sentence, as if it meant "It is not the case that..." I don't see how that would make grammatical sense though since you can't have two main verbs (ἔστιν and εἴποι). Perhaps the relative pronoun ὅτου connects them somehow.
Secondly, I am confused by the third sentence, which could mean something like, "For in fact, because of this, it is necessary for the rhetorician not to use another contest against all people, because he learned to box and to wrestle and to fight among the heavy-armed foot-soldiers, with the result that he is stronger than both his friends and his enemies, [and?] because of this it is necessary that he not hit his friends nor urge them on and kill them."
What does τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀγωνίᾳ mean? I translated it as if it were the object of χρῆσθαι because χρῆσθαι takes the dative, just as in the second sentence, which made sense to me. However, "to use another contest" doesn't make sense. Is rhetoric the implied object and τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀγωνίᾳ adverbial: "in another contest"? Then it would mean "not to use rhetoric in a contest against all people." That makes more sense, although I don't see how ἄλλῃ makes sense in that case.
Finally, how does the last clause of the sentence connect to the previous clauses? Is it asyndeton? I would prefer it if the demonstrative pronoun were a relative pronoun instead. Or am I missing something?
Thanks for any help you may offer.
Jun. 12th, 2009 @ 03:54 pm
|
| » doggy stylings |
|---|
Some time ago I wondered, what Aristotle might have meant by claiming in the Rhetoric 2.24, at 1401a22, that to be without a dog is most dishonorable. My solution arrived ( Read more... ) Crossposted to ![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) larvatus, linguaphiles, ancient_philo, classicalgreek, and classics.
Jun. 2nd, 2009 @ 04:54 pm
|
| » Down These Meno Streets... |
|---|
An interesting project by John Holbo and Belle Waring: they've posted
a pre-publication version of a translation-with-commentary (geared at
the intro level) of _Euthyphro_, _Meno_ and _Republic_ Book I. It's
available as a free PDF (although apparently not printable). The final
version will be available the same way.
http://www.reasonandpersuasion.com/
I haven't tackled any of the translations yet, but the intro material
looks like this might be a good way to sneak some ideas into people's
heads.
Jun. 1st, 2009 @ 02:58 pm
|
| » fagus and φηγός: false φριενδς |
|---|
fagus: beech
φηγός: oak
Virgil uses the fagus as a piece of bucolic scenery in Eclogues 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9; [...] Apart from Virgil's use of the tree in Eclogues (and a couple of brief allusions in Georgics), the word is used very infrequently in Latin. [...] The popularity of the tree, therefore, seems to have originated with Virgil in his Eclogues.
Why should he have chosen this tree? Theocritus has a notable simile of the lover longing for his loved one (Idyll 12. 8 f.): σκιερὴν δ΄ὑπὸ φηγὸν/ ἠελίου φρύγοντος ὁδοιπόρος ἔδραμον ὥς τις - 'I hastened to you as a wayfarer to a shady oak-tree out of the scorching sun.' This simile relies on the shade of the φηγός for its effect. Now it seems that the φηγός was a type of oak-tree, and, though it is the same word as Latin fagus, it was not used of the same tree. Theocritus only mentions it once elsewhere (9. 20), but it seems a plausible explanation for Virgil's choice of the fagus that he was taken with this simile of Theocritus, wrongly identified the φηγός with fagus, and used it in his bucolic scenery (at first emphasizing, like Theocritus, the idea of shade, but then extending its use as a characteristic detail of pastoral poetry).
Gordon Williams: Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, 1968, p. 318. - He then goes on to show how also Catullus before (64. 289) and Propertius afterwards (1. 18. 20) seem to have confused fagus and φηγός.
May. 24th, 2009 @ 06:21 pm
|
| » Exile and τλημοσύνη |
|---|
Ovid, Tristia 5 . 11 . 7: perfer et obdura; multo graviora tulisti
Odyssey 20 . 18: τέτλαθι δὴ κραδίη· καὶ κύντερον ἄλλο ποτ' ἔτλης
Is Ovid comparing his exile to Odysseus' afflictions? Both go on to remember a woeful instance in the following verse: Ovid, the day he was separated from his wife, Odysseus, when the Cyclops ate some of his fellows.
Horace makes Odysseus say in his satire 2 . 5 . 20f: fortem hoc animum tolerare iubebo;/ et quondam maiora tuli. I'm sure that he is alluding to that verse in Homer. After all it's even the same person here.
(And yes, perfer et obdura is a famous quote from Catullus 8 . 11: sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura, and from Ovid's own Amores 3 . 11 . 7f: perfer et obdura: dolor hic tibi proderit olim:/ saepe tulit lassis sucus amarus opem.)
May. 22nd, 2009 @ 10:53 am
|
| » Aeneid scansion query |
|---|
I'm reading the Aeneid in Mynors' Oxford edition, and I love it. I was wondering, however, if I could get some thoughts on the meter of line ii.607: "iussa time neu praeceptis parere recusa."
Is it just me or does this not scan? Something, though, about the triple occurrence of "re" in "parere recusa" seems odd to me: maybe the latter two instances of "re" are lengthened by diastole. Perhaps it's just an imperfection. (Anyone with a copy of Pharr's commentary or the like care to take a stab at this?)
May. 19th, 2009 @ 08:57 pm
|
| » Struggling with Aristotle |
|---|
Οἱ δὴ κομίσαντες τὴν δόξαν ταύτην οὐκ ἐποίουν ἰδέας ἐν οἷς τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ἔλεγον, διόπερ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἰδέαν κατεσκεύαζον· τὸ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν λέγεται καὶ ἐν (20) τῷ τί ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ ποιῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ πρός τι, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ καὶ ἡ οὐσία πρότερον τῇ φύσει τοῦ πρός τι (παραφυάδι γὰρ τοῦτ᾽ ἔοικε καὶ συμβεβηκότι τοῦ ὄντος)· ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν εἴη κοινή τις ἐπὶ τούτοις ἰδέα. (Nicomachean Ethics 1096 a 18-23)
The originators of this theory, then, used not to postulate Ideas of groups of things in which they posited an order of priority and posteriority (for which reason they did not construct an Idea of numbers in general). But Good is predicated alike in the Categories of Substance, of Quality, and of Relation; yet the Absolute, or Substance, is prior in nature to the Relative, which seems to b a sort of offshoot or 'accident' of Substance; so that there cannot be a common Idea corresponding to the absolutely good and the relatively good. (H. Rackham)
Die Begründer dieser Lehre haben keine gemeinsamen "Ideen" solcher Dinge aufgestellt, bei denen sie von "früher" und "später" sprachen, weshalb sie auch keine die Zahlen umfassende Idee angesetzt haben. Nun wird jedoch "gut" ausgesagt in der Kategorie der Substanz, der Qualität und der Relation, das An-sich aber, die Substanz, ist von Natur früher als die Relation. Diese gleicht ja einem Seitensproß und Akzidens des Seienden. Folglich kann es über den genannten Erscheinungsformen von "gut" keine gemeinsame "Idee" geben. (Franz Dirlmeier; Anm.: Die Platoniker kennen (zu Recht) keine Idee von Genera und analogen Begriffen, innerhalb derer es Primäres, Unabhängiges und Sekundäres, Angewiesenes gibt, wie z.B. innerhalb des Seienden die Kategorie der Substanz und die der Relation, und zwar weil sonst der Widersinn entstünde, daß dem Primären (z.B. der Substanz) Primäres (nämlich die Idee) vorauszuordnen wäre. In der Annahme der Idee des Guten als Allgemeinbegriff liegt nach A. insofern ein Widerspruch, als "gut" analog den Kategorien des Seienden ausgesagt werde. - Not helpful.)
I don't think it's the language alone why I can't make head or tail of this. How important is it to understand this for reading the whole of Nicomachean Ethics? I realise it's Aristotle's criticism at Plato. Immediately above this he famously states that amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas. I did understand the preceding paragraphs and the ones that followed.
May. 15th, 2009 @ 11:43 am
|
| » Hero and Leander and Lewis and Miller and Davis |
|---|
There's a judicious review-article of what seems to be a problematic book up at The Nation website: Jordan Davis on Laura Miller's book about the Narnia series.
I thought it was pretty impressive, and had never heard of Davis before, so I went in search of his work. I found some of his verse scattered about the internet, and I'm not sure I totally get it, but I was struck by a longish poem with some classical content, "Hero and Leander." Leander, swimming, sees a girl (except she's not a girl) peeling an orange (except it's not an orange) on the beach.
Leander, seeing, dripping as he came
Onto rocky land said May I
Have a piece of that
It was pomegranate and she
Smiled red and said
Here and he was in intense pain
(The whole thing is online here)
I like that "smiled red" bit, and the general design of the poem (insofar as I understand it).
[cross-posted a couple places]
May. 11th, 2009 @ 05:19 pm
|
| » The Lysistrata....it works. |
|---|
I hope this is appropriate to post here. I was just...so amused. ^^;
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/05/09/kenya.sex.lawsuit/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
It broke his life and now they are having successful negotiations.
May. 9th, 2009 @ 02:38 pm
|
| » Varro |
|---|
Hey all,
I've been reading some Quintilian lately, which has led me to becoming very interested in Varro (the one who died in 27 BC). Classes have ended, so I was wondering if any of you guys would be so helpful as to suggest some readings (articles/books). I'm more interested in Varro's work with language, and I would love to read up on ancient philology (or what's known about it).
Thanks in advance for any help!
May. 2nd, 2009 @ 04:50 pm
|
| » ars artis ... what? |
|---|
Hi all,
I was talking to a friend and the phrase ars artis gratia came up. Supposedly it means "art for art's sake", and the internet seems to agree (it's MGM's motto). A quick google revealed no Classicist outrage over bad Latin, so I am assuming it's proper, but ... I can't figure it out.
ars artis I've got, but I'm totally confused by gratia.
gratia, gratiae, f. noun? (agreeableness, pleasantness, thanks?)
gratius -a -um, the adjective? (thankful?)
grator, gratari, the deponent verb? (to give thanks or congratulate?)
I just can't find a way to make the "for the sake" work with what I'm looking at. I'm looking at my Cassell's dictionary, but maybe I'm just missing something in here -- what's going on in this little phrase?
May. 1st, 2009 @ 10:39 am
|
| » Introduction and Questions |
|---|
Hi, everyone. I'm Ziggy, and I've been lurking here for the past month or two. I recently switched universities and my major, and come this autumn I shall finally commence work in that long desired and most useful of commodities--a BA in Classics with specialisation in Classical Languages! Hurrah!
That said, I have two questions for all of you:
1.) I just started reading Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great (trans. John Dryden), and was wondering to what extent I can take literally the information contained therein. Is it purely anecdotal, or is it perceived as a serious history in its own right? If not, are the acedotes themselves usually true, or do they remain largely unproved?
2.) I've recently started learning Latin again in hopes of an advanced placement. Unfortunately, the book that I am using does not display vowel length or stress after the first few examples. Most likely the author assumes that the independent learner is working with a reliable Latin dictionary, but I do not know which edition would be suitable. Can anyone here recommend a good dictionary which displays vowel length and any grammatical irregularities?
Thank you for all of your help.
Apr. 28th, 2009 @ 09:19 pm
|
| » inquiry |
|---|
The question I have is annoyingly appropriate for this time of year, but I'll step out and ask it anyway. (I hope it's the forum for this type of thing.)
I'm a senior undergrad at Rutgers likely graduating this May in the two languages. I don't plan on going to graduate school immediately (i.e. at least until Fall 2010) because I'm poor and undecided. So meanwhile I've been thinking of looking for employment: temporary positions, education-related or otherwise, relevant to my interests (G. & R. History or Lit.). To cut to the chase: where do I begin? I don't expect a definite or narrowed-down answer, but welcome any.
Thanks.
Apr. 16th, 2009 @ 05:13 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
classics![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
