Verso. Setaioli, “Interpretazioni stoiche ed epicuree sopra Servio e la civilizzazione dell’esegesi filosofica del mito di nuovo dei poeti per Roma (Cornuto, Seneca, Filodemo)”, I–II,International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10, 2003–2004, 335–376; 11, 2004–2005, 3–46.
Per. 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 Tete-a-tete international interdisciplinaire de Creteil et de Paris (22–23–24 in nessun caso 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,” sopra 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 con: Ugualmente, P. Steinmetz,Kleine Schriften, di nuovo. Severin Koster, Palingenesia 68, Stuttgart: Steiner 2000).
References
The ‘conferenceacta’ comprise seven papers that are meant onesto document the direction(s) durante which the exploration of Roman literature is now moving, or (more accurately perhaps) sopra the opinion of most of the contributorsshould orshould not be moving; they were published in the most recent registro of theTransactions of profili swapfinder 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 onesto 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 verso par with its ‘traditional’ sense, “sicuro expound the meaning of [something]; sicuro render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear and explicit; onesto elucidate; onesto explain” (OED 2 , s.v., 1a).
Exceptions prove the rule. Whatever W.’s predisposition may have been, he surely made per wise decision when embarking onRoman Homosexuality for his Ph.D. first, andthen turning esatto verso commentary on verso collection of poetry.
For per theoretic back-up, cf. D. Fowler, “Criticism as commentary and commentary as criticism per the age of the electronic media,” in: G. W. Most (ancora.),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), onesto name but verso few.
W., at 283–284, gives per list of the most important editions and commentaries, to which one might want onesto add Per. Canobbio,La lex Roscia theatralis di nuovo Bellico: il cadenza del conferenza V, Scaffale di Athenaeum 49 (Como: New Press, 2002), because it is a valuable supplement esatto 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 Per. Heil,maton liber decimus: Text Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late sicuro be included sopra W.’s bibliography.
The bibliography, as emphasized by W. (283), is of course not meant onesto be exhaustive; for aForschungsbericht, see S. Lorenz, “]): 167–227, and cf. the bibliography con 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 in W.’s bibliography 401–490.
For a useful assessment of this issue (initiated by K. Barwick), cf. Grewing (anche.),Toto notus con orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Palingenesia 65, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1998): 139–156.