- Universität Leipzig
Institut für Klassische Philologie und Komparatistik
Beethovenstr. 15
04107 Leipzig
Germany
- Latin Language and Literature, Literary Theory, Quotations, Ancient Literary Criticism, Ancient Commentaries, Intertextuality and Allusion, and 29 moreAllegory, Aulus Gellius, Cicero, Servius, Scholia, ancient commentaries on Vergil, Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation, quotations in Antiquity, Latin Glossaries, Scholia, History of Scholarship, Citation and Allusion, Latin Literature, Context, Culture and Context, Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics, Petrus Martyr Anglerius, Servius Maurus Honoratus, Commentary Traditions, The Reception of Vergil, Virgil, Bilingualism in the Ancient world, Apuleius, Cornelius Gallus, Vergil, History of Classical Scholarship, Late Antiquity, Publio Virgilio, Intertextuality, Phaedrus the fabulist, and Authorityedit
Ancient commentaries on poetry – due to their heteronomous nature, their miscellaneous character, and the fact that most of them are transmitted in abridged and anonymous form – are usually not considered ‘authorial’ texts in the same way... more
Ancient commentaries on poetry – due to their heteronomous nature, their miscellaneous character, and the fact that most of them are transmitted in abridged and anonymous form – are usually not considered ‘authorial’ texts in the same way as poems or literary prose are. Nevertheless, as didactic texts, they rely on authority to convey their interpretation, and they also often seem to have been perceived as products of authorial activity, as paratexts, references and pseudepigraphic attributions demonstrate.
The aim of this volume is to explore this tension and to examine commentaries and scholia on poetry in terms of authorship and ‘authoriality’. The contributions use several Latin and Greek corpora as case studies to shed light on how these texts were read, how they display authorial activity themselves, and how they fulfil their function as didactic works. They provide reflections on the relationship of author, authorship, and authority in ‘authorless’ traditions, explore how authorial figures and authorial viewpoints emerge in an implicit manner in spite of the stratified nature of commentaries, investigate the authorial roles adopted by commentators, compilers and scribes, and elucidate how commentators came to be perceived as authors in other exegetic traditions.
The aim of this volume is to explore this tension and to examine commentaries and scholia on poetry in terms of authorship and ‘authoriality’. The contributions use several Latin and Greek corpora as case studies to shed light on how these texts were read, how they display authorial activity themselves, and how they fulfil their function as didactic works. They provide reflections on the relationship of author, authorship, and authority in ‘authorless’ traditions, explore how authorial figures and authorial viewpoints emerge in an implicit manner in spite of the stratified nature of commentaries, investigate the authorial roles adopted by commentators, compilers and scribes, and elucidate how commentators came to be perceived as authors in other exegetic traditions.
Research Interests:
The leitmotif of this volume is the concept of “author images”, which is used in modern literary studies to describe processes of production and reading of literary works and is here applied for the first time to the study of ancient... more
The leitmotif of this volume is the concept of “author images”, which is used in modern literary studies to describe processes of production and reading of literary works and is here applied for the first time to the study of ancient works. As a means of analysing ancient literature, it captures the aspect of personification, which is characteristic of ancient author concepts, and at the same time points to the fact that there is a difference between “image” and “author” and that it is only an image and not the author himself that can be seen and grasped by readers.
This makes the “author image” particularly suitable for examining the intersections of material, rhetorical and mental representations of literary authorship that form the subject of this volume. Using selected examples from Latin and Greek literature, the contributors explore the fields of cultural experience that nourish authorial images. They discuss the manifold possibilities of visualising and representing a person’s quality of being an author in general or being an author of specific works, be it physically through artworks or pictures, metaphorically through evoked authorial figures, through thematised representations of authors in a text, or through the combination of authorial images and texts.
These issues are addressed in four overlapping sections, each focusing on different areas of the metaphor’s application, namely material images in the form of artworks, knowledge about persons, textual images as authorial strategies and images in reception.
This makes the “author image” particularly suitable for examining the intersections of material, rhetorical and mental representations of literary authorship that form the subject of this volume. Using selected examples from Latin and Greek literature, the contributors explore the fields of cultural experience that nourish authorial images. They discuss the manifold possibilities of visualising and representing a person’s quality of being an author in general or being an author of specific works, be it physically through artworks or pictures, metaphorically through evoked authorial figures, through thematised representations of authors in a text, or through the combination of authorial images and texts.
These issues are addressed in four overlapping sections, each focusing on different areas of the metaphor’s application, namely material images in the form of artworks, knowledge about persons, textual images as authorial strategies and images in reception.
Research Interests:
Contextualisation is generally held to be an indispensable instrument for analysing ancient works. Identifying something as a context involves providing an explanation for it that allows the contextualised text or fact to be appropriately... more
Contextualisation is generally held to be an indispensable instrument for analysing ancient works. Identifying something as a context involves providing an explanation for it that allows the contextualised text or fact to be appropriately understood. Thus, the decision to view something as a context is closely connected with the problem of correct interpretation. It is the aim of this volume to critically examine these two concepts and to initiate reflection on the methodology used.
The volume starts by introducing three contextual concepts developed in the fields of cultural studies, linguistics and modern literary studies. A number of papers using Greek and Latin works as examples reflect on the meaning of context, the ways of establishing relationships between texts and contexts, and the resulting potential for analysis and interpretation. The papers are divided into three sections that focus on how the term and concept of context is used in interpretations, on the problem of missing or multiple contexts, and on possible interfaces that the ancient works themselves provide between text and context(s).
The volume starts by introducing three contextual concepts developed in the fields of cultural studies, linguistics and modern literary studies. A number of papers using Greek and Latin works as examples reflect on the meaning of context, the ways of establishing relationships between texts and contexts, and the resulting potential for analysis and interpretation. The papers are divided into three sections that focus on how the term and concept of context is used in interpretations, on the problem of missing or multiple contexts, and on possible interfaces that the ancient works themselves provide between text and context(s).
Research Interests:
Figurenrede, Redewiedergabe und Zitat sind literarische Gestaltungsmittel, die unter dem tatsächlichen oder vorgeblichen Rückgriff auf Äußerungen eines «anderen» funktionieren. Ihr Einsatz differenziert im Text zwei Redesituationen und... more
Figurenrede, Redewiedergabe und Zitat sind literarische Gestaltungsmittel, die unter dem tatsächlichen oder vorgeblichen Rückgriff auf Äußerungen eines «anderen» funktionieren. Ihr Einsatz differenziert im Text zwei Redesituationen und verlagert die Verantwortung für das Gesagte vom aktuellen auf den fremden Sprecher. Dessen Rede ist durch ihre Wiederholung im neuen Kontext von der «eigenen» des aktuellen Textes zugleich aber auch nie vollkommen zu scheiden. Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge beschäftigen sich mit den Implikationen der so entstehenden Ambivalenz und mit den literarischen Gestaltungsspielräumen, die sie in antiker Prosa eröffnet. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dabei das Zitat und die Aspekte seiner Beschreibung wie Quellenbezug, Wiedergabegenauigkeit und Markierungsstrategien.
Research Interests:
Der Band versammelt eine Reihe von Beiträgen, die zu den 13. Aquilonia 2008 in Potsdam vorgetragen wurden. Ziel dieses Treffens ist es, ein Podium für Nachwuchswissenschaftler zu bieten und aktuelle Forschungsprojekte vorzustellen.... more
Der Band versammelt eine Reihe von Beiträgen, die zu den 13. Aquilonia 2008 in Potsdam vorgetragen wurden. Ziel dieses Treffens ist es, ein Podium für Nachwuchswissenschaftler zu bieten und aktuelle Forschungsprojekte vorzustellen. Entsprechend groß ist die Spannbreite der hier behandelten Themen, die von den hippokratischen Schriften über Klassiker wie Catull und Ovid bis in die Renaissance und Neuzeit reicht. Ein besonderer Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Rezeption antiker Texte, Themen und Motive seit der Antike selbst.
Research Interests:
Die Arbeit beschäftigt sich im weitesten Sinne mit dem Verhältnis zwischen einem Text, seinen Lesern und deren Kritikern. Ihr Gegenstand sind Anspielungen auf zeitgeschichtliche Ereignisse in antiken literarischen Texten und die... more
Die Arbeit beschäftigt sich im weitesten Sinne mit dem Verhältnis zwischen einem Text, seinen Lesern und deren Kritikern. Ihr Gegenstand sind Anspielungen auf zeitgeschichtliche Ereignisse in antiken literarischen Texten und die Vermutungen, die die Verfasser antiker exegetischer Literatur darüber äußern. Ziel ist dabei - anders als in den meisten einschlägigen Untersuchungen - nicht die Präsentation neuer Interpretationen zu den klassischen Texten, sondern die Analyse der aus Antike und Spätantike überlieferten Anspielungsdeutungen. An diese wird die Frage gestellt, welche Absichten, Ziele und Verfahren die Exegeten den von ihnen kommentierten Dichtern unterstellten und auf welchem Wege sie selbst zu ihrer Interpretation gelangten. Der Vergleich der einzelnen Interpretationen läßt typische Denkweisen und Interpretationsmuster hervortreten, ermöglicht einen Einblick in den geistigen Hintergrund der antiken Kommentatoren und schafft damit erst die Basis für die Beurteilung ihrer auch heute immer wieder diskutierten Vorschläge.
Research Interests: Latin Literature, Aristophanes, Lucan, Horace, Allegory, and 14 moreAeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Theocritus (Classics), Virgil, Servius, Persius, Scholia, Latin Glossaries, Scholia, History of Scholarship, Juvenal, Greek Scholia and History of Scholarship, Terentius, Allusion, and Ancient Commentaries
This article deals with the relationship between the authorial status of commentaries and the perception of their ‘authoriality’ when they are being read. In the commentaries and scholia on Latin poetry as they have come down to us, this... more
This article deals with the relationship between the authorial status of commentaries and the perception of their ‘authoriality’ when they are being read. In the commentaries and scholia on Latin poetry as they have come down to us, this relationship is often unclear because the genesis of the text does not correspond to authorial attributions in titles or source references. To illustrate this problem, I examine witnesses for three exegetical corpora on Vergil’s Georgica (Servius, Brevis expositio, Scholia Bernensia) and compare their ‘factual’ authoriality with the ‘authorial impression’ that users of such a book get from the layout and structure of the text. The results indicate that the layout and material presentation of the book contribute significantly to whether the recipients perceive an ‘author’ in the commentary and how they do so. Problems with the authorial status of such texts arise primarily when they are considered from a source-critical or hermeneutical perspective.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The topic of this paper is expressions of frequency such as semper, plerumque, raro and numquam that are used in the Virgil commentaries of Servius. Their use and function vary depending on whether they refer to language rules to be... more
The topic of this paper is expressions of frequency such as semper, plerumque, raro and numquam that are used in the Virgil commentaries of Servius. Their use and function vary depending on whether they refer to language rules to be observed (ars), or whether they describe the usage of canonical poets and prose writers (auctoritas) or the practice of the commentary users (usus). By far the most common frequency expressions in the commentaries are those meaning ‘frequently’ or ‘occasionally’. Servius tends to use them to mark a certain usage as irregular with regard to the normative grammar system and to warn against idiosyncratic and poetical forms. A comparison with the Ars maior of Donatus shows that in his grammatical treatise Donatus uses the same expressions much less frequently. This difference can be explained by the special task of the commentator Servius, who had to teach his students standard language on the basis of a text that deviates in many places from the regular and contemporary use.
Research Interests:
The topic of this paper is the reception of Servius, the commentator on Virgil's works, as an authorial figure. It examines three aspects that may have helped to shape Servius's image in the eyes of the users and recipients of the... more
The topic of this paper is the reception of Servius, the commentator on Virgil's works, as an authorial figure. It examines three aspects that may have helped to shape Servius's image in the eyes of the users and recipients of the commentaries, namely biographical information, medial performance, and authorial self-representation within the commentaries. It will show that knowledge about the empirical author Servius plays only a minor role in the construction of the authorial image compared to the didactic voice which emerges from the text. This can be interpreted as an authorial strategy and has influenced the reception of the author Servius as well as of the commentaries itself.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper deals with the various aspects of veiled speech as found in the commentaries of Servius, Tiberius Claudius Donatus and in the scholia of Servius auctus. After a brief outline of the topic in ancient rhetoric, the explanations... more
This paper deals with the various aspects of veiled speech as found in the commentaries of Servius, Tiberius Claudius Donatus and in the scholia of Servius auctus. After a brief outline of the topic in ancient rhetoric, the explanations of three pairs of speeches considered by ancient interpreters as non-open speech are examined. The focus is on the terms the commentators use to describe this phenomenon, on the concepts of non-open speech that their explanations reveal, and on how these concepts relate to contemporary and earlier rhetorical theory. As a result, it can be observed that the three commentaries are quite familiar with the aspects of covert speech discussed in rhetoric. However, they use the corresponding terms less specifically, refrain from a strict typology and are more interested in the recipient’s perception.
Research Interests:
At the beginning of the 5th century A.D. there are a number of testimonies that place Cicero and Virgil in a competitive relationship and at the same time reflect a polemical debate between rival interpreters of poetry. Central issues in... more
At the beginning of the 5th century A.D. there are a number of testimonies that place Cicero and Virgil in a competitive relationship and at the same time reflect a polemical debate between rival interpreters of poetry. Central issues in this debate are the reputation of poetry and prose both as literary genres and as subjects of instruction, the ‘correct’ reading of poetry and of Virgil in particular, and the question of who is competent and authorised to interpret and teach Virgil’s works.
The fact that such rivalries and interpretative claims in late antiquity could be expressed precisely in the comparison between Cicero and Virgil is based on a long history of reading and teaching literature in Rome. In this article, I shall outline this history in order to better understand which cultural and literary preconditions made the comparison plausible in the eyes of contemporary readers. To this end, I trace the development of three motifs, viz. the changing perspectives on Cicero and Virgil and their relationship to other authors, the idea of Virgil as being (comparable to) an orator and the tradition of polemics against grammarians. The paper concludes with some reflections on the rhetorical function and possible intentions for the use of the comparison motif.
The fact that such rivalries and interpretative claims in late antiquity could be expressed precisely in the comparison between Cicero and Virgil is based on a long history of reading and teaching literature in Rome. In this article, I shall outline this history in order to better understand which cultural and literary preconditions made the comparison plausible in the eyes of contemporary readers. To this end, I trace the development of three motifs, viz. the changing perspectives on Cicero and Virgil and their relationship to other authors, the idea of Virgil as being (comparable to) an orator and the tradition of polemics against grammarians. The paper concludes with some reflections on the rhetorical function and possible intentions for the use of the comparison motif.
Research Interests:
This article takes as its starting point the observation that quotations in Latin prose are largely characterised by features of oral communication. It analyses four passages from Cicero, Suetonius, Gellius, and Servius so as to outline... more
This article takes as its starting point the observation that quotations in Latin prose are largely characterised by features of oral communication. It analyses four passages from Cicero, Suetonius, Gellius, and Servius so as to outline how these quotations bridge the verbal and the written, and can therefore be classified as covert intermedial representations. Specific formulae which shape text passages as quotations include both explicit markers such as ferunt (‘they say’) and dixit (‘he said’), as well as implicit hints ranging from demonstrative pronouns (illud, haec) to conjunctions (ut, sicut). These linguistic tags are read within the frameworks of ‘intermedial reference’ and ‘remediation’, thereby yielding insights on how oral and written features meld into the literary quotations of Roman prose. What is more, this chapter demonstrates the merits of its approach to Classical literature by showing that an awareness of media and medialities is conducive to original interpretations of well-studied ancient texts.
Research Interests:
Apuleiusʼ Apology against the accusation of magic is the only transmitted court speech from imperial times we still possess and is a text that is singular in many respects. Compared to Cicero’s speeches, distinguishing features include... more
Apuleiusʼ Apology against the accusation of magic is the only transmitted court speech from imperial times we still possess and is a text that is singular in many respects. Compared to Cicero’s speeches, distinguishing features include the large number of literary devices and the self-staging of the speaker as a philosopher. Scholars have also identified other role-playing scenes connected with intertextual allusions, for example, to Plato’s Socrates, Cicero and Roman comedy. This paper examines the role of philology (grammatica) as part of the speaker’s rhetorical strategy. The introduction outlines the importance of philology in the 2nd century A.D. and possible communicative goals pursued by Apuleius. In the main section, some examples will be discussed that can show in which ways and to what effect he displays “philological” learning and argumentation. An important result of this strategy is to mock his prosecutors as uneducated ignoramuses. A comparison with the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius at the end of the paper supports the hypothesis that one goal of the Apology is the sophistic self-presentation by means of philology.
Research Interests:
‘Quotation’, ‘context’ and ‘author’ are concepts both clear from everyday practice and controversial in literary theory. My paper aims to reflect on their intersections: It focusses on quotations and how ‘authorial figures’ or ‘speakers’... more
‘Quotation’, ‘context’ and ‘author’ are concepts both clear from everyday practice and controversial in literary theory. My paper aims to reflect on their intersections: It focusses on quotations and how ‘authorial figures’ or ‘speakers’ can be used to activate contexts that help to explain or interpret a quoted passage. In the first part, I will give a theoretical outline based on a model of literary communication. I will briefly introduce the three concepts and differentiate between different types of context. One factor which strongly influences the perception of ‘voices’ and the contexts connected with them is the narrative level on which the ‘speaker’ is situated. In the second part of the paper, therefore, I will use some quotations from Cicero’s works as test cases for an analysis of how speaker concepts, depending on narrative levels, might influence a reader’s choice of contexts.
Research Interests:
Introduction: How classicists use 'context' in interpretations.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The paper explains the the famous anecdote about a meeting between Cicero and Virgil as the result of biographical allegoresis.
Research Interests:
The article examines the relation between poetical fiction and real events as seen by Late Antique commentators. It takes as an example the 5th century commentary of Servius on Virgil’s bucolic poetry. Here we find as a central concept... more
The article examines the relation between poetical fiction and real events as seen by Late Antique commentators. It takes as an example the 5th century commentary of Servius on Virgil’s bucolic poetry. Here we find as a central concept the term allegoria being understood by these readers as a poetical means of veiling historical or biographical facts and as an exegetical method to detect biographical references. Servius notices a conflict of interests on the poet’s side: On the one hand he sees him forced by political circumstances to allude allegorically to certain persons or events, on the other hand he points out Virgil’s attempts to pursue his literary interests, namely the faithful imitation of his model Theocritus. In his explanations, the commentator deals with different forms of allegoria, which can be described as code name, mask and metaphorical allegory. From the exegetical point of view they mark degrees of progression of biographical allegoresis, leaving increasingly more room for less text-based and more subjective interpretations. In an attempt to control such interpretations, Servius limits the points of reference to a defined topic: the loss and retrieval of Virgil’s farm with the help of influential patrons. This can be interpreted as a reaction to literary and critical tendencies of his age. Similarly, his image of Virgil as panegyric-composing client shows contemporary features.
Research Interests: Classics, Latin Literature, Late Antique and Byzantine Studies, Literary Theory, Late Antiquity, and 17 moreMetaphor, Bucolic Poetry, Vergil, Allegory, Quintilian, Ancient Biography, Metaphors, Virgil, Servius, The Reception of Vergil, Allegorical Interpretation, Bucolic Tradition, Bucolics, Vergilian Commentary Tradition, Reception of Vergil's Bucolics, Virgil's Eclogues, and Ancient Allegorical Interpretation
The article deals with problems connected with the interpretation of fragments transmitted as quotations. An introduction about the types of context and the levels of contextualization specified in communication theory is followed by an... more
The article deals with problems connected with the interpretation of fragments transmitted as quotations. An introduction about the types of context and the levels of contextualization specified in communication theory is followed by an analysis of two verses of Ennius quoted by Cicero, and their treatment in our critical editions. It will be asked, in which ways readers reconstruct the meaning of the de-contextualized utterance, and which kinds of „context“ they use as arguments. The investigation will show the impact of their decisions on the supposed meaning of the quoted fragment as well as on the assessment of Cicero as the quoting author.
Research Interests:
This paper examines a statement of Aulus Gellius about a misleading attribution in Cicero’s De gloria to explore the conditions and possibilities of misquotation in an ancient text. To do this, it draws on the conversational maxims of... more
This paper examines a statement of Aulus Gellius about a misleading attribution in Cicero’s De gloria to explore the conditions and possibilities of misquotation in an ancient text. To do this, it draws on the conversational maxims of Paul
Grice and analyzes the modern solutions presented for the passage as well as the opinions Gellius implicitly expresses. Its thesis is that the interpretation of misquotations, both ancient and modern, follows similar principles and is determined by assumptions of intention made by the interpreter. It will be argued that Gellius’ way of presenting the misquotation is a rhetorical strategy to provoke critical consideration of quotations by the recipient.
Grice and analyzes the modern solutions presented for the passage as well as the opinions Gellius implicitly expresses. Its thesis is that the interpretation of misquotations, both ancient and modern, follows similar principles and is determined by assumptions of intention made by the interpreter. It will be argued that Gellius’ way of presenting the misquotation is a rhetorical strategy to provoke critical consideration of quotations by the recipient.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In Attic Nights 1,9 Aulus Gellius presents Taurus, a Platonic philosopher and his teacher, speaking about education in ancient and modern times. Following Taurus, the modern way of studying philosophy, if compared with the curriculum of... more
In Attic Nights 1,9 Aulus Gellius presents Taurus, a Platonic philosopher and his teacher, speaking about education in ancient and modern times. Following Taurus, the modern way of studying philosophy, if compared with the curriculum of the ancient Pythagoreans, is characterised by decadence and decline. But a close reading of the story presented by Gellius and its comparison with the image of the educated reader which Gellius describes in the praefatio of the Attic Nights will place Taurus‘ complaints in a quite ambivalent light. As a result, Gellius once again emerges as implicitly inviting his audience to think critically and to question authoritative statements.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Chapter 1, 2 of the Noctes Atticae reports how the orator and politician Herodes Atticus silences a boastful young Stoic by citing a diatribe of Epictetus. The article shows that Gellius – unlike his own assertion – does not describe a... more
Chapter 1, 2 of the Noctes Atticae reports how the orator and politician Herodes Atticus silences a boastful young Stoic by citing a diatribe of Epictetus. The article shows that Gellius – unlike his own assertion – does not describe a real experience. Instead he dramatizes the text (Epict. diss. 2, 19), which is the origin of the citation. Comparing both texts one finds details of the scenery described, the characterizations of the protagonists as well as the themes discussed quite similar in both the non-cited parts of Epictetus and the text of Gellius. Particularly interesting in that respect is how Gellius takes up citing and its various aspects as it can be found in his model. Epictetus deals with this theme in a critical way, because in his opinion citations of authorities say nothing about the philosophical qualities of the person who uses them. While Gellius' praxis of citation is formally modelled very closely on Epictetus' speech, regarding the content he by no means rejects the use of philosophical citations as weapon to beat an opponent in discussion.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: History of Classical Scholarship, Sebastiano Timpanaro, Virgil, Servius, Scholia, and 10 moreThe Reception of Vergil, Latin Glossaries, Scholia, History of Scholarship, ancient commentaries on Vergil, Vergilian Studies, Ancient Commentaries, Tiberius Claudius Donatus, Publio Virgilio, Virgilio, Vergilian Commentary Tradition, and Servius Maurus Honoratus
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Latin Literature, Rhetoric, Commentaries: History and Theory, Rhetorical Criticism, Late Antiquity, and 10 moreVergil, Latin Language and Literature, Commentary Traditions, The Reception of Vergil, Hermogenes, ancient commentaries on Vergil, Ancient Commentaries, Tiberius Claudius Donatus, Vergilian Commentary Tradition, and Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics
Conference at the University of Leipzig, September 26-28, 2019 Organized by Ute Tischer (Leipzig), Thomas-Kuhn Treichel (Heidelberg), Stefano Poletti (Pisa) From a hermeneutical point of view, referring to the author of a text is useful... more
Conference at the University of Leipzig, September 26-28, 2019
Organized by Ute Tischer (Leipzig), Thomas-Kuhn Treichel (Heidelberg), Stefano Poletti (Pisa)
From a hermeneutical point of view, referring to the author of a text is useful in many respects. Knowledge about the author helps to situate a work in time and space and to identify contexts; defining a work as the product of a (single) author can explain its coherence in respect of topic and style. The ‘speaking I’ becomes the target of the reader’s attribution of intentions and authority, especially when the rhetorical design of a text creates authorial figures or voices.
In recent years, studies in classical literature have focused increasingly on author roles, author figures and author voices as part of the rhetorical texture. Technical prose and exegetical literature in particular are attracting attention as discursive areas, where emphasising authorial activities and authorial voices is a rhetorical means to constitute authority. Common to most of the work to date is that scholars usually investigate author roles and authority in texts whose attribution to an empirical author is not questionable.
Our conference by contrast will concentrate on works whose authorial status is in question. The corpus of the extant Virgilian exegesis provides a good example. Apart from commentaries attributed to certain authors (Servius and Tiberius Claudius Donatus), it comprises various authorless, anonymous and pseudepigraphic compilations. The aim of the conference is to shed light on the possible consequences of such doubtful authorial attribution for the reading of these and other collective, authorless texts from an ancient as well as a modern perspective.
Organized by Ute Tischer (Leipzig), Thomas-Kuhn Treichel (Heidelberg), Stefano Poletti (Pisa)
From a hermeneutical point of view, referring to the author of a text is useful in many respects. Knowledge about the author helps to situate a work in time and space and to identify contexts; defining a work as the product of a (single) author can explain its coherence in respect of topic and style. The ‘speaking I’ becomes the target of the reader’s attribution of intentions and authority, especially when the rhetorical design of a text creates authorial figures or voices.
In recent years, studies in classical literature have focused increasingly on author roles, author figures and author voices as part of the rhetorical texture. Technical prose and exegetical literature in particular are attracting attention as discursive areas, where emphasising authorial activities and authorial voices is a rhetorical means to constitute authority. Common to most of the work to date is that scholars usually investigate author roles and authority in texts whose attribution to an empirical author is not questionable.
Our conference by contrast will concentrate on works whose authorial status is in question. The corpus of the extant Virgilian exegesis provides a good example. Apart from commentaries attributed to certain authors (Servius and Tiberius Claudius Donatus), it comprises various authorless, anonymous and pseudepigraphic compilations. The aim of the conference is to shed light on the possible consequences of such doubtful authorial attribution for the reading of these and other collective, authorless texts from an ancient as well as a modern perspective.
Research Interests:
„ut pictura poeta. Author images as literary, historical-biographical and medial concepts and their influence on the reading of ancient literature“ A conference at the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, May 9-11. Organizers: Ursula Gärtner... more
„ut pictura poeta. Author images as literary, historical-biographical and medial concepts and their influence on the reading of ancient literature“
A conference at the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, May 9-11.
Organizers: Ursula Gärtner (ursula.gaertner@uni-graz.at), Ute Tischer (ute.tischer@uni-leipzig.de) and Alexandra Forst (alexandra.forst@uni-potsdam.de)
A conference at the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, May 9-11.
Organizers: Ursula Gärtner (ursula.gaertner@uni-graz.at), Ute Tischer (ute.tischer@uni-leipzig.de) and Alexandra Forst (alexandra.forst@uni-potsdam.de)
Research Interests:
„Kontext“ und „Kontextualisierung“ sind nicht nur in der Klassischen Philologie vertraute Begriffe. Immer wieder wird die Bedeutung der „Kontextualisierung“ als methodisches Instrument hervorgehoben, und sobald etwas als „Kontext“ benannt... more
„Kontext“ und „Kontextualisierung“ sind nicht nur in der Klassischen Philologie vertraute Begriffe. Immer wieder wird die Bedeutung der „Kontextualisierung“ als methodisches Instrument hervorgehoben, und sobald etwas als „Kontext“ benannt ist, spricht man ihm ein Erklärungspotential zu, mit dessen Hilfe das Kontextua¬li¬sierte besser als bisher zu deuten sein soll. Reflektiert wird über diese Begriffe jedoch nur selten, und in der Praxis scheint „Kontextualisierung“ oft zu einem Etikett zu geraten, welches jeder Art des In-Beziehung-Setzens angeheftet werden kann. Der Interpret antiker Texte befindet sich dabei in einer besonders prekären Situation, denn als zeitlich weit entfernter Leser ist er nicht nur besonders oft mit „fremden“ Kontexten, sondern häufig auch mit dem Problem des Kontextverlustes konfrontiert.
Das Ziel der Tagung ist es, den Begriff des „Kontex¬tes“ zu problematisieren und in verschiedenen Anwendungsbereichen zu untersuchen. Dabei sollen einerseits grundsätzliche Fragen geprüft werden: Wie wird etwas zum „Kontext“? Welche Beziehung muss zwischen Objekt und „Hinter¬grund“ bestehen, damit ein „Kontext“ deutungsrelevant wird? Welche Arten von „Kontexten“ kann man unter¬schei¬den? Was ist „Kontext“ eigentlich – und was ist kein Kontext? Inwiefern berührt die Wahl des „richtigen“ Kontextes die Frage nach der Zulässigkeit einer Interpre¬ta¬tion? Zum anderen wird es um die Anwendung der verschiedenen, vor allem in den modernen Literatur- und Kommunikationswissenschaften entwickelten Kontexttheorien auf die Deutung konkreter antiker Textbeispiele gehen.
Aufgrund der deutschlandweiten Bahnstreiks im Mai wurde die Tagung auf den 3. bis 4. Juli 2015 verschoben!
Das Ziel der Tagung ist es, den Begriff des „Kontex¬tes“ zu problematisieren und in verschiedenen Anwendungsbereichen zu untersuchen. Dabei sollen einerseits grundsätzliche Fragen geprüft werden: Wie wird etwas zum „Kontext“? Welche Beziehung muss zwischen Objekt und „Hinter¬grund“ bestehen, damit ein „Kontext“ deutungsrelevant wird? Welche Arten von „Kontexten“ kann man unter¬schei¬den? Was ist „Kontext“ eigentlich – und was ist kein Kontext? Inwiefern berührt die Wahl des „richtigen“ Kontextes die Frage nach der Zulässigkeit einer Interpre¬ta¬tion? Zum anderen wird es um die Anwendung der verschiedenen, vor allem in den modernen Literatur- und Kommunikationswissenschaften entwickelten Kontexttheorien auf die Deutung konkreter antiker Textbeispiele gehen.
Aufgrund der deutschlandweiten Bahnstreiks im Mai wurde die Tagung auf den 3. bis 4. Juli 2015 verschoben!
Research Interests: Classics, Greek Literature, Latin Literature, Literary Theory, Context, and 19 moreCallimachus, Latin Literature (in Classics) - Seneca, Commentary Traditions, Ancient Literary Criticism, Author, Ancient Greek Literature, Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation, Culture and Context, Roman Literature, Chariton, Centos, Dracontius, Fragments, Reader, Contextualization, Ancient Literature, Literatura Latina, Centones, and Fragmentary Latin Poetry
Research project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Universität Leipzig, October 2017 – September 2020 The main topic of the project will be the interaction between authorship and exegetical function in ancient... more
Research project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Universität Leipzig, October 2017 – September 2020
The main topic of the project will be the interaction between authorship and exegetical function in ancient commentaries on poetry. It aims at a comparative examination, using as an example the commentaries on the works of Virgil. Due to its diverse subsets, the corpus of the Virgilian commentaries is particularly well suited for this analysis. It includes two autonomous commentaries ascribed to single authors (Servius, Tiberius Claudius Donatus), and several anonymous as well as pseudepigraphic collections of annotations. The comparison will take as its starting point the exegetical work of Servius, which represents a frequently investigated, but also a most controversially discussed part of the corpus.
The analysis is based on the assumption that commentaries, as works with a didactic-exegetical function, use certain strategies of authorization to achieve their objectives. Studies on Servius suggest that a prominent role in this process plays the authorial „persona“, i.e. the impression of an „authorial voice“, that readers experience while using the commentary. This impression is caused by certain features of Servius’ text, which will equally be found in other parts of the corpus, even if these are fragmentary, anonymous or collective. The aim of the project is to analyse such manifestations of „authorial voice“ for the first time for collections, which cannot be ascribed to single authors. Comparing them with Servius will bring new insights into individual characteristics of the different collections as well as into general methods of annotating and commenting in antiquity. The result will be a better understanding of ancient exegetical and didactic practices.
The main topic of the project will be the interaction between authorship and exegetical function in ancient commentaries on poetry. It aims at a comparative examination, using as an example the commentaries on the works of Virgil. Due to its diverse subsets, the corpus of the Virgilian commentaries is particularly well suited for this analysis. It includes two autonomous commentaries ascribed to single authors (Servius, Tiberius Claudius Donatus), and several anonymous as well as pseudepigraphic collections of annotations. The comparison will take as its starting point the exegetical work of Servius, which represents a frequently investigated, but also a most controversially discussed part of the corpus.
The analysis is based on the assumption that commentaries, as works with a didactic-exegetical function, use certain strategies of authorization to achieve their objectives. Studies on Servius suggest that a prominent role in this process plays the authorial „persona“, i.e. the impression of an „authorial voice“, that readers experience while using the commentary. This impression is caused by certain features of Servius’ text, which will equally be found in other parts of the corpus, even if these are fragmentary, anonymous or collective. The aim of the project is to analyse such manifestations of „authorial voice“ for the first time for collections, which cannot be ascribed to single authors. Comparing them with Servius will bring new insights into individual characteristics of the different collections as well as into general methods of annotating and commenting in antiquity. The result will be a better understanding of ancient exegetical and didactic practices.
Research Interests:
Ute Tischer, Quotations and markers. Indicating and identifying quotations in Roman prose, Habilitation thesis, accepted at Potsdam University, 2018/12/17. The starting point of this analysis was the question, whether Roman authors and... more
Ute Tischer, Quotations and markers. Indicating and identifying quotations in Roman prose, Habilitation thesis, accepted at Potsdam University, 2018/12/17.
The starting point of this analysis was the question, whether Roman authors and readers had a different concept of quoting from ours. It is easy to observe that the Romans practiced something similar to our quotations, but did it have the same meaning for them? Did they use similar criteria to identify quotations, did they know similar ways of quoting and was there as similar set of norms connected with it?
In order to answer questions like these, I investigate quotation markers, which I define as the strategies which are used to signal quotations and to recognise them on the part of the recip-ient. My analysis is based on a corpus of about 4000 quotations from the works of five au-thors of Roman prose (Cicero, Suetonius, Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Servius), which I collect-ed and described in a database.
The work starts with a theoretical section. Here I describe the act of quoting as a kind of in-tertextual communication and develop the descriptive categories which I used for my analy-sis. The main part of my investigation is devoted to the three most important types of mark-ers which can be found in my corpus. Among them are (1) markers which accompany the quoted segment within the quoting text (graphemic signs, intonation, inquit-formulas, pro-nouns and source indication by author name, title and position within the quoted text), (2) markers signalled by contrasts between quoted segment and surrounding text (rhythmically, linguistically, stylistically), and (3) pragmatic markers which can be defined as the con-scious use of contextual conditions (textual context, knowledge about literature and literary conventions, genre).
As a result, I have identified two main points where Roman and modern concepts of quoting diverge. (1) The markers used in my corpus are not very interested in bibliographic refer-ence and reference to specific passages within the quoted texts. More important seems to be the discourse, on which the quoted text or author forms part, the literary and philosophical tradition referred to, and the very fact that the quoted passage is someone other’s speech or opinion. Consequently, most of the quotations included in my corpus require only a rough knowledge of the referred work and can be understood even without knowing the quoted text at all. (2) Although the Romans, as a matter of fact, knew books and libraries and lived in a literary culture, the use of quotations seemed to be more adapted to the conditions and norms of a conceptual orality. This could, on the one hand, explain, why they developed nearly no ‘silent’ markers like our quotation marks and instead preferred markers which are easily identified in oral speech, as for instance rhythmical contrasts and verbal indications like verba dicendi and pronouns. On the other hand, if oral speech is quoted, it will be not possible to refer bibliographically exact and to compare the quoted passage with the original utterance. This might be the reason why the name of the quoted author, without title or posi-tion, represents the ‘standard reference’, as well as literal rendition is practised and expected only in special instances. Normally, only poems were quoted literally, which probably could be expected to be well-known to the audiences.
The starting point of this analysis was the question, whether Roman authors and readers had a different concept of quoting from ours. It is easy to observe that the Romans practiced something similar to our quotations, but did it have the same meaning for them? Did they use similar criteria to identify quotations, did they know similar ways of quoting and was there as similar set of norms connected with it?
In order to answer questions like these, I investigate quotation markers, which I define as the strategies which are used to signal quotations and to recognise them on the part of the recip-ient. My analysis is based on a corpus of about 4000 quotations from the works of five au-thors of Roman prose (Cicero, Suetonius, Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Servius), which I collect-ed and described in a database.
The work starts with a theoretical section. Here I describe the act of quoting as a kind of in-tertextual communication and develop the descriptive categories which I used for my analy-sis. The main part of my investigation is devoted to the three most important types of mark-ers which can be found in my corpus. Among them are (1) markers which accompany the quoted segment within the quoting text (graphemic signs, intonation, inquit-formulas, pro-nouns and source indication by author name, title and position within the quoted text), (2) markers signalled by contrasts between quoted segment and surrounding text (rhythmically, linguistically, stylistically), and (3) pragmatic markers which can be defined as the con-scious use of contextual conditions (textual context, knowledge about literature and literary conventions, genre).
As a result, I have identified two main points where Roman and modern concepts of quoting diverge. (1) The markers used in my corpus are not very interested in bibliographic refer-ence and reference to specific passages within the quoted texts. More important seems to be the discourse, on which the quoted text or author forms part, the literary and philosophical tradition referred to, and the very fact that the quoted passage is someone other’s speech or opinion. Consequently, most of the quotations included in my corpus require only a rough knowledge of the referred work and can be understood even without knowing the quoted text at all. (2) Although the Romans, as a matter of fact, knew books and libraries and lived in a literary culture, the use of quotations seemed to be more adapted to the conditions and norms of a conceptual orality. This could, on the one hand, explain, why they developed nearly no ‘silent’ markers like our quotation marks and instead preferred markers which are easily identified in oral speech, as for instance rhythmical contrasts and verbal indications like verba dicendi and pronouns. On the other hand, if oral speech is quoted, it will be not possible to refer bibliographically exact and to compare the quoted passage with the original utterance. This might be the reason why the name of the quoted author, without title or posi-tion, represents the ‘standard reference’, as well as literal rendition is practised and expected only in special instances. Normally, only poems were quoted literally, which probably could be expected to be well-known to the audiences.
Research Interests:
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata” Dipartimento di Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arte EARLY MODERN AND MODERN COMMENTARIES ON VIRGIL June 14-16, 2021 An Online Conference Link Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81909339883... more
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Dipartimento di Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arte
EARLY MODERN AND MODERN COMMENTARIES ON VIRGIL
June 14-16, 2021
An Online Conference
Link Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81909339883
All times are CEST (Rome time).
For more information: casali@uniroma2.it
Monday, June 14, 2pm-2:20pm
Welcoming words by EMORE PAOLI (Director of the Department of Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arte, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”) and introduction by SERGIO CASALI
SESSION 1
Monday, June 14, 2:20pm-5pm
Chair: VIRGILIO COSTA (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
DAVID WILSON-OKAMURA (East Carolina University)
Afterimages of Lucretius
FABIO STOK (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
Commenting on Virgil in the 15th Century: from Barzizza (?) to Parrasio (?)-I
GIANCARLO ABBAMONTE (Università di Napoli Federico II)
Commenting on Virgil in the 15th Century: from Barzizza (?) to Parrasio (?)-II
NICOLA LANZARONE (Università di Salerno)
Il commento di Pomponio Leto all’Eneide: sondaggi relativi ad Aen. 1 e 2
5pm-5:20pm
Break
SESSION 2
Monday, June 14, 5:20pm-8pm
Chair: EMANUELE DETTORI (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
PETER KNOX (Case Western Reserve University)
What if Poliziano Had Written a Commentary on Virgil?
PAUL WHITE (University of Leeds)
Badius’s Virgil Commentary in the Context of Humanist Education
ANDREA CUCCHIARELLI (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Petrus Nannius as an Interpreter of Virgil: the Commentary on the Eclogues
SERGIO CASALI (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
Petrus Nannius as an Interpreter of Virgil: the Commentary on Aeneid 4
SESSION 3
Tuesday, June 15, 2pm-4:40pm
Chair: JOHN F. MILLER (University of Virginia)
CRAIG KALLENDORF (Texas A&M University)
Virgil’s Unluckiest Commentator? Iodocus Willichius and His Times
FEDERICA BESSONE (Università di Torino)
Spiegare Virgilio con i suoi successori. I commenti virgiliani sulle tracce di Stazio
VIOLA STARNONE (Scuola Superiore Meridionale)
The Metamorphoses of Virgil: Early Modern Responses
VASSILIKI PANOUSSI (College of William & Mary)
Egypt and Africa in the Early Modern Commentaries
4:40pm-5pm
Break
SESSION 4
Tuesday, June 15, 5pm-7:40pm
Chair: IRENE PEIRANO GARRISON (Harvard University)
UTE TISCHER (Universität Leipzig)
Author Strategies in Collected Editions of Printed Commentaries on Virgil in Early Modern and Modern Times
JOSEPH FARRELL (University of Pennsylvania)
Rediscovering the Rediscovery of Homer in Vergil Commentaries, Half a Century On
MONIQUE BOUQUET (Université de Rennes 2 - CELLAM)
La Poétique d’Aristote comme clé de lecture de l’Énéide de Virgile dans les In librum Aristotelis de arte poetica explicationes de Francesco Robortello
PHILIP HARDIE (University of Cambridge)
MetaVirgilian Commentaries, with Particular Reference to Abraham Cowley
SESSION 5
Wednesday, June 16, 2pm-4:40pm
Chair: BARBARA WEIDEN BOYD (Bowdoin College)
YASMIN HASKELL (University of Western Australia)
Virgil Vindicated: Jesuit Praelections, Prolusions, Corrections and Exclusions
GIAN BIAGIO CONTE (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa)
Considerazioni sul Commentario a Virgilio di C. G. Heyne
RICHARD F. THOMAS (Harvard University)
Between Heyne and Conington from the Land of the Fairies: Thomas Keightley’s Eclogues and Georgics
STEPHEN HARRISON (University of Oxford)
Victorian Virgil: John Conington and Henry Nettleship’s Commentary (1858-82)
4:40pm-5pm
Break
SESSION 6
Wednesday, June 16, 5pm-7:40pm
Chair: SHADI BARTSCH (University of Chicago)
ALISON KEITH (University of Toronto)
Epicureana in Virgil Commentaries
LUIGI GALASSO (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano)
Su cosa si fonda l’Oltretomba. La dialettica commento-saggio da Norden a oggi
ALEXANDER ROGUINSKY (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow) & MIKHAIL SHUMILIN (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, / A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences / National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow) Textual Criticism in Russian Language Commentaries on Classical Latin Poetry: The Case of Valery Bryusov’s Projected Commentary on Aeneid 2
JAMES O’HARA (University of North Carolina)
Adventures in Writing and Editing a Group Classroom Commentary: the Focus-Hackett Aeneid Project
Dipartimento di Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arte
EARLY MODERN AND MODERN COMMENTARIES ON VIRGIL
June 14-16, 2021
An Online Conference
Link Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81909339883
All times are CEST (Rome time).
For more information: casali@uniroma2.it
Monday, June 14, 2pm-2:20pm
Welcoming words by EMORE PAOLI (Director of the Department of Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arte, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”) and introduction by SERGIO CASALI
SESSION 1
Monday, June 14, 2:20pm-5pm
Chair: VIRGILIO COSTA (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
DAVID WILSON-OKAMURA (East Carolina University)
Afterimages of Lucretius
FABIO STOK (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
Commenting on Virgil in the 15th Century: from Barzizza (?) to Parrasio (?)-I
GIANCARLO ABBAMONTE (Università di Napoli Federico II)
Commenting on Virgil in the 15th Century: from Barzizza (?) to Parrasio (?)-II
NICOLA LANZARONE (Università di Salerno)
Il commento di Pomponio Leto all’Eneide: sondaggi relativi ad Aen. 1 e 2
5pm-5:20pm
Break
SESSION 2
Monday, June 14, 5:20pm-8pm
Chair: EMANUELE DETTORI (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
PETER KNOX (Case Western Reserve University)
What if Poliziano Had Written a Commentary on Virgil?
PAUL WHITE (University of Leeds)
Badius’s Virgil Commentary in the Context of Humanist Education
ANDREA CUCCHIARELLI (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Petrus Nannius as an Interpreter of Virgil: the Commentary on the Eclogues
SERGIO CASALI (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”)
Petrus Nannius as an Interpreter of Virgil: the Commentary on Aeneid 4
SESSION 3
Tuesday, June 15, 2pm-4:40pm
Chair: JOHN F. MILLER (University of Virginia)
CRAIG KALLENDORF (Texas A&M University)
Virgil’s Unluckiest Commentator? Iodocus Willichius and His Times
FEDERICA BESSONE (Università di Torino)
Spiegare Virgilio con i suoi successori. I commenti virgiliani sulle tracce di Stazio
VIOLA STARNONE (Scuola Superiore Meridionale)
The Metamorphoses of Virgil: Early Modern Responses
VASSILIKI PANOUSSI (College of William & Mary)
Egypt and Africa in the Early Modern Commentaries
4:40pm-5pm
Break
SESSION 4
Tuesday, June 15, 5pm-7:40pm
Chair: IRENE PEIRANO GARRISON (Harvard University)
UTE TISCHER (Universität Leipzig)
Author Strategies in Collected Editions of Printed Commentaries on Virgil in Early Modern and Modern Times
JOSEPH FARRELL (University of Pennsylvania)
Rediscovering the Rediscovery of Homer in Vergil Commentaries, Half a Century On
MONIQUE BOUQUET (Université de Rennes 2 - CELLAM)
La Poétique d’Aristote comme clé de lecture de l’Énéide de Virgile dans les In librum Aristotelis de arte poetica explicationes de Francesco Robortello
PHILIP HARDIE (University of Cambridge)
MetaVirgilian Commentaries, with Particular Reference to Abraham Cowley
SESSION 5
Wednesday, June 16, 2pm-4:40pm
Chair: BARBARA WEIDEN BOYD (Bowdoin College)
YASMIN HASKELL (University of Western Australia)
Virgil Vindicated: Jesuit Praelections, Prolusions, Corrections and Exclusions
GIAN BIAGIO CONTE (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa)
Considerazioni sul Commentario a Virgilio di C. G. Heyne
RICHARD F. THOMAS (Harvard University)
Between Heyne and Conington from the Land of the Fairies: Thomas Keightley’s Eclogues and Georgics
STEPHEN HARRISON (University of Oxford)
Victorian Virgil: John Conington and Henry Nettleship’s Commentary (1858-82)
4:40pm-5pm
Break
SESSION 6
Wednesday, June 16, 5pm-7:40pm
Chair: SHADI BARTSCH (University of Chicago)
ALISON KEITH (University of Toronto)
Epicureana in Virgil Commentaries
LUIGI GALASSO (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano)
Su cosa si fonda l’Oltretomba. La dialettica commento-saggio da Norden a oggi
ALEXANDER ROGUINSKY (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow) & MIKHAIL SHUMILIN (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, / A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences / National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow) Textual Criticism in Russian Language Commentaries on Classical Latin Poetry: The Case of Valery Bryusov’s Projected Commentary on Aeneid 2
JAMES O’HARA (University of North Carolina)
Adventures in Writing and Editing a Group Classroom Commentary: the Focus-Hackett Aeneid Project
Research Interests:
Paper, given at the 8th German-Israeli Frontiers of Humanities Symposium 2016, held at Potsdam (Germany), September 4 – 7, 2016