Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:23:43.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2024

Edited by
Giacomo Fedeli  and
Henry Spelman
Giacomo Fedeli
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Henry Spelman
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Writing Literary History in the Greek and Roman World , pp. 343 - 379
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahl, F. 1984. ‘The art of safe criticism in Greece and Rome’, AJPh 105: 174–208.Google Scholar
Allen, T. W. (ed.) 1912. Homeri Opera. Vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Alter, R. 1989. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Althoff, J. 1999. ‘Aristoteles als Medizindoxograph’, in van der Eijk, Ph. J. (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill: 57–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aly, W. 1923. ‘Die Überlieferung von Vergils Leben’, PhW 43: 645–8.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. 1986. Philostratus: Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century ad. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. S. 1963. Pompey, His Friends, and the Literature of the First Century bc. University of California Publications in Classical Philology 19. Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Andolfi, I. 2023. ‘Hippias’ Synagogé: an historiographical misunderstanding?’, CJ 118: 253–67.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 1995. ‘The impossibility of metathesis: Philodemus and Lucretius on form and content in poetry’, in Obbink (ed.): 210–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D., Fish, J., Johnston, P. A. and Skinner, M. B. (eds.) 2004. Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. 1977. ‘Fra erudizione e biografia’, SCO 26: 13–67.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. 1987. Poeti, eruditi e biografi: Momenti della riflessione dei Greci sulla letteratura. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. 2006. Poesia, poetiche e storia nella riflessione dei greci. Studi. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1992a. ‘Neoptolemus and the classification of poetry’, CPh 87: 206–31.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1992b. ‘Crates on poetic criticism’, Phoenix 46: 138–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 1995. ‘Epicurean poetics’, in Obbink (ed.): 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astbury, R. (ed.) 2002. M. Terentius Varro Saturarum Menippearum fragmenta. Munich – Leipzig: K. G. Saur.Google Scholar
Aubert-Baillot, S. and Guérin, C. (eds.) 2014. Le Brutus de Cicéron: Rhétorique, politique et histoire culturelle. Leiden – Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auhagen, U. 2001. ‘Lucilius und die Komödie’, in Manuwald, G. (ed.), Der Satiriker Lucilius und seine Zeit. Munich: C. H. Beck: 9–23.Google Scholar
Aujac, G. 1991. Denys d’Halicarnasse, Opuscules rhétoriques. Vol. 4. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Austin, C. and Bastianini, G. (eds.) 2002. Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia. Milan: LED edizioni.Google Scholar
Austin, C. and Olson, S. D. (eds.) 2004. Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. G. 1944. ‘Quintilian on painting and statuary’, CQ 38: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avezzù, G. (ed.) 1982. Alcidamante. Orazioni e frammenti. Rome: L’Erma.Google Scholar
Babbitt, F. C. (ed.) 1936. Plutarch, Moralia, Volume v: Isis and Osiris. The E at Delphi. The Oracles at Delphi No Longer Given in Verse. The Obsolescence of Oracles. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. (ed.) 1922. Lucreti De Rerum Natura libri sex. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. (ed.) 1947. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. J. 1997. Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barbantani, S. 2010. Three Burials (Ibycus, Stesichorus, Simonides). Facts and Fiction about Lyric Poets in Magna Graecia in the Epigrams of the Greek Anthology. Alessandria: Dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. 1979. ‘La vendetta del silenzio. Uno schema esegetico antico e una pretesa correzione d’autore in Virgilio, Georgiche 2, 225’, ASNP 9: 527–37.Google Scholar
Bardon, H. 1952. La littérature latine inconnue. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Barker, A. 2014. Ancient Greek Writers on Their Musical Past. Studies in Greek Musical Historiography. Pisa – Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. 1994. Actors in the Audience.Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumbach, M. 2017. ‘Poets and poetry’, in Richter and Johnson (eds.): 493–508.Google Scholar
Bayer, K. 2002. Suetons Vergilvita. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Beecroft, A. 2010. Authorship and Cultural Identity in Early Greece and China. Patterns of Literary Circulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, J. and Wellbery, D. (eds.) 1990. The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benediktson, T. 1993. ‘A survey of Suetonius scholarship: 1938–87’, CW 86: 377–44.Google Scholar
Benndorf, O. 1862. De Anthologiae Graecae epigrammatis quae ad artes spectant. Bonn – Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Berti, E. 2007. Scholasticorum Studia. Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e letteraria della prima età imperiale. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori.Google Scholar
Berti, M., Romanello, M., Babeu, A. and Crane, G. 2009. ‘Collecting fragmentary authors in a digital library’, in JCDL ’09: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: Association for Computing Machinery: 259–62.Google Scholar
Beschorner, A. 1999. Helen und Heroen, Homer und Caracalla. Übersetzung, Kommentar und Interpretationen zum Heroikos des Flavios Philostratos. Bari: Levante editori.Google Scholar
Bettini, M. 1986. Antropologia e cultura romana. Parentela, tempo, immagini dell’anima. Rome: La Nuova Italia scientifica.Google Scholar
Bickel, E. 1951. ‘Vates bei Varro und Vergil: Die Kult- und Ahnenlieder, Seher-, Zauber- und Heilverse des vates’, RhM 94: 257–314.Google Scholar
Biles, Z. P. 2011. Aristophanes and the Poetics of Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, J. 2021. The Philosophical Stage. Drama and Dialectic in Classical Athens. Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bing, P. 1988. The Well-Read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bing, P. 2011. ‘Afterlives of a tragic poet: anecdote, image and hypothesis in the Hellenistic reception of Euripides’, A&A 57: 1–17.Google Scholar
Bitto, G. 2012. Lyrik als Philologie: zur Rezeption hellenistischer Pindarkommentierung in den Oden des Horaz. Rahden: M. Leidorf.Google Scholar
Blomqvist, K. 1983. ‘A problem in Dioscorides Anth. Pal. vii 411.5–6’, Eranos 81: 63–4.Google Scholar
Blum, R. 1991. Kallimachos. The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Translated by H. Wellisch. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Blundell, S. 1986. The Origins of Civilization in Greek and Roman Thought. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bonadeo, A. 2015. ‘Il Culex e la Batrachomachia in Stazio e Marziale’, Sileno 41: 95–124.Google Scholar
Bonandini, A. 2012. ‘Horatius Menippeus: primi sondaggi sulla presenza di Orazio nell’alterum saturae genus’, Camenae, 12: 1–17.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. F. 1938. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Peripatetic Mean of style’, CPh 33: 257–66.Google Scholar
Bormann, E. 1894. ‘Die Grabschrift des Dichters Pacuvius und des L. Maecius Philotimus’, Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn 17: 227–39.Google Scholar
Bosman, P. 2006. ‘The pragmatics of Diogenes’ comic performances’, CQ 56: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. (ed.) 1974. Approaches to the Second Sophistic: Papers Presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association. University Park: American Philological Association.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 1970. ‘The Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic’, P&P 46: 3–41.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 1989a. ‘Greek sophists and Greek poetry in the Second Sophistic’, ANRW 33.1: 209–58.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 1989b. ‘Poetry and poets in Asia and Achaia’, in Cameron, A. and Walker, S. (eds.) The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire. BICS Suppl. 55. London: University of London Press: 198–205.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 1990. ‘Greek poetry in the Antonine Age’, in Russell, D. (ed.), Antonine Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowie, E. 2009. ‘Philostratus: the life of a Sophist’, in Bowie and Elsner (eds.): 3–18.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 2012. ‘An early chapter in the history of the Theognidea’, in Riu, X. and Pòrtulas, J. (eds.), Approaches to Archaic Greek Poetry. Messina: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità: 121–48.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. 2015. ‘Stesichorus at Athens’, in Finglass, P. J. and Kelly, A. (eds.), Stesichorus in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 111–24.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. and Elsner, J. (eds.) 2009. Philostratus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 1989. The Invention of Progress: The Victorians and Their Past. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyancé, P. 1936. ‘À propos de l’Art Poétique d’Horace’, RPh 10: 20–36.Google Scholar
Breed, B. 2006. Pastoral Inscriptions: Reading and Writing Virgil’s Eclogues. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Brenk, F. 1977. In Mist Apparelled. Religious Themes in Plutarch’s Moralia and Lives. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brillante, S. 2021. ‘L’influsso della conoscenza storica e cronologica sulla critica letteraria. Cicerone, Velleio Patercolo, Dionigi di Alicarnasso’, Hermes 149: 432–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1963a. ‘Horace and Varro’, in Varron. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 9. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 175–200, with discussion at 201–6.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1963b. Horace on Poetry: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. (ed.) 1971. Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1972. ‘Ennius and the Hellenistic worship of Homer’, AJPh 93: 547–67.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1982. Horace on Poetry: Epistles, Book ii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J. 2005. ‘The language and style of the fragmentary Republican historians’, in Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J. N. (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 53–72.Google Scholar
Brown, R. D. 1982. ‘Lucretius and Callimachus’, ICS 7: 77–97.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1993. ‘Cicero and historiography’, in Brunt, P. (ed.), Studies in Greek History and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 181–209.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1994. ‘The bubble of the Second Sophistic’, BICS 39: 25–52.Google Scholar
Bryant Davies, R. 2008. ‘Reading Ezekiel’s Exagoge: tragedy, sacrificial ritual, and the Midrashic tradition’, GRBS 48: 393–415.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V. 1984. ‘Lukrez über den Ursprung von Musik und Dichtung’, RhM 127: 141–58.Google Scholar
Büchner, K. 1950. ‘Die Römische Satire by Ulrich Knoche’, Gnomon 22: 239–43.Google Scholar
Buffière, F. 1956. Les mythes d’Homère et la penseé grecque. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Burnet, J. 1924. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, J. 1981. A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the British Past. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadau, C. 2015. Studies in Colluthus’s Abduction of Helen. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, F. 2004. ‘Varius and Vergil: two pupils of Philodemus in Propertius 2.34?’, in Armstrong, Fish, Johston and Skinner (eds.): 299–321.Google Scholar
Calame, C. (ed.) 1983. Alcman. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.Google Scholar
Calboli, G. 1995. ‘Quintilian and Horace’, Scholia 4: 79–100.Google Scholar
Calcante, C. M. 2014. ‘The verbal icon: rhetoric and the visual arts in the stylistic theory of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, in Cojannot-Le Blanc, M., Pouzadoux, C. and Prioux, É (eds.), L’Héroïque et le Champêtre. i. Les catégories stylistiques dans le discours critique sur les arts. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Nanterre: 103–24.Google Scholar
Cambiano, G., Canfora, L. and Lanza, D. (eds.) 1992–1996. Lo spazio letterario della Grecia Antica. 5 vols. Rome: Salerno Editrice.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. 1993. The Greek Anthology. From Meleager to Planudes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. 1995. Callimachus and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. 2016. Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, C. 2013. Poets and Poetics in Greek Literary Epigram. PhD diss. University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
Campodonico, N. 2021. ‘Virgilio nel circolo di Messalla: Ciris, Catalepton 9 e la letteratura di età tiberiana’, Maia 73: 657–70.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E.. 1997. ‘Varieties of quotation’, Mind 106: 429–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capra, A. 2016. ‘Rise and fall of a Parian shooting star: new perspectives on Evenus’, MD 76: 87–103.Google Scholar
Carey, C. 2011. ‘Alcman from Laconia to Alexandria’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds.), Archaic and Classical Choral Song. Berlin: De Gruyter: 437–61.Google Scholar
Carey, C. 2022. ‘Poetic fragments in the indirect tradition’, in Alexandrou, M., Carey, C. and D’Alessio, G. B. (eds.), Song Regained. Working with Greek Poetic Fragments. Berlin: De Gruyter: 217–38.Google Scholar
Casali, S. 2007. ‘Correcting Aeneas’ voyage: Ovid’s commentary on Aeneid 3’, TAPhA 137: 179–208.Google Scholar
Cavallo, G., Fedeli, P. and Giardina, A. (eds.) 1989–2012. Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica. 5 vols. Rome: Salerno Editore.Google Scholar
Cèbe, J.-P. (ed.) 1975. Varron, Satires Ménippées. Edition, traduction et commentaire. Vol. 5: Caprinum proelium – Endymiones. Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar
Cèbe, J.-P. (ed.) 1990. Varron, Satires Ménippées. Edition, traduction et commentaire. Vol. 9: Nescis quid vesper serus vehat – Papia papae. Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. 2021. ‘Language and style’, in DuQuesnay, I. M. Le M. and Woodman, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Catullus. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 116–42.Google Scholar
Cheyne, P. 2020. Coleridge’s Contemplative Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiron, P. 2002. Un rhéteur méconnu: Démétrios (Pseudo-Démétrios de Phalère). Essai sur les mutations de la théorie du style à l’époque hellénistique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Christesen, P. 2007. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. 1991. ‘Satira, epigramma, favola’, in Montanari, F. (ed.), La poesia latina. Forme, autori, problemi. Rome: Carocci: 133–208.Google Scholar
Citroni, M. 2001. ‘Affermazioni di priorità e coscienza di progresso artistico nei poeti latini’, in L’histoire littéraire immanente dans la poésie latine. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 47. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 267–314, with discussion at 305–14.Google Scholar
Citroni, M. 2003. ‘I proemi delle Tusculanae e la costruzione di un’immagine della tradizione letteraria romana’, in Citroni, M. (ed.), Memoria e identità: la cultura romana costruisce la sua immagine. Florence: Dipartimento Scienze dell’antichità ‘G. Pasquali’: 149–84.Google Scholar
Citroni, M. 2006. ‘The concept of the classical and the canons of model authors in Roman literature’, in Porter (ed.): 204–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. 2013. ‘Horace’s Epistle 2.1, Varro, and the ancient debate about the origins and the development of Latin poetry’, in Farrell, J. and Nelis, D. P. (eds.), Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 180–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. 2015. ‘La vittoria e il tempio: interpretazione del proemio al III libro delle Georgiche’, in Günther, H.-C. (ed.), Virgilian Studies. A Miscellany Dedicated to the Memory of Mario Geymonat. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz: 39–87.Google Scholar
Citroni, M. 2017. ‘Antiqui, veteres, novi: images of the literary past and the impulse to progress in the cultural program of Quintilian’, in Bessone, F. and Fucecchi, M. (eds.), The Literary Genres in the Flavian Age. Canons, Transformation, Reception. Berlin: De Gruyter: 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. 2019. ‘Vario alter Homerus. Hor. sat. 1, 10, 43 s. e il ruolo dell’epica nel progetto poetico augusteo’, Pan 8: 43–58.Google Scholar
Clark, R. J. 2004. ‘Horace on Vergil’s sea-crossing in Ode 1.3’, Vergilius 50: 4–34.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. L. 1953. Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey. London: Cohen & West.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. L. 1974. Review of Russell and Winterbottom 1972. CR 24: 78–9.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. L. 1971. Higher Education in the Ancient World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J. 1988. ‘Satire – the elusive genre’, SO 63: 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1994. ‘The origins of the Socratic dialogue’, in Vander Waert, P. A. (ed.), The Socratic Movement. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 23–47.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1998. Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, D. 2009. ‘The Athenian garden’, in Warren, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clive, J. 1973. Thomas Babington Macaulay: The Shaping of the Historian. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Cohen, R. 1969. ‘A note on New Literary History’, New Literary History 1: 3–6.Google Scholar
Colonna, G. (ed.) 1590. Q. Ennii poetae vetustissimi fragmenta quae supersunt. Naples: Officina Salviana.Google Scholar
Colson, F. H. (ed.) 1924. M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber i. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Compton, T. M. 2006. Victim of the Muses: Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History. Washington, dc: Center for Hellenic Studies.Google Scholar
Condello, F. 2011. ‘Forme della funzione-autore in Grecia antica’, Eikasmos 22: 495–524.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. 2001. ‘The problems of the past in Imperial Greek education’, Too, Y. L. (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden: Brill: 339–72.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1994. Latin Literature. A History. Translated by J. Solodow and revised by D. Fowler and G. W. Most. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. and Barchiesi, A.. 1989. ‘Imitazione e arte allusiva. Modi e funzioni dell’ intertestualità’, in Cavallo, Fedeli and Giardina (eds.), vol. 1: 81–114.Google Scholar
Conybeare, C. and Goldhill, S. (eds.) 2020. Classical Philology and Theology: Disavowal, Entanglement and the God-Like Scholar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, C. D. N. (ed.) 1984. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura v. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. (ed.) 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cova, P. V. 1990. ‘La critica letteraria nell’Institutio’, in Cova, P. V., Gazich, R., Manzoni, G. E. and Melzani, G. (eds.), Aspetti della ‘paideia’ di Quintiliano. Milan: Vita e Pensiero: 9–59.Google Scholar
Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crönert, G. 1911. ‘De Lobone Argivo’, in ΧΑΡΙΤΕΣ. Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht. Berlin: Weidmann, 123–45.Google Scholar
Cropp, M. J. (ed.) 2021. Minor Greek Tragedians. Vol. 2: Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Poets: Fragments from the Tragedies with Selected Testimonia. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, N. B. 1970. ‘ΟΙ ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΙ, poetae novi, and cantores Euphorionis’, CQ 20: 322–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čulík-Baird, H. 2022. Cicero and the Early Latin Poets. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, B. 2021. Herodotus as Homeric Critic. Histos Suppl. 13. Oxford – Edmonton – Tallahassee: Histos.Google Scholar
Cuypers, M. (ed.) 2012. ‘A Hellenistic Bibliograhy’. Online: https://sites.google.com/site/hellenisticbibliography/ (last accessed on 23 May 2023).Google Scholar
D’Alessio, G. B. 2022. ‘The afterlife of Sappho’s afterlife’, CCJ 68: 49–82.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. 1948. ‘Vates’, Philologus 97: 337–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlmann, H. 1953. ‘Varros Schrift De poetis und die hellenistisch-römische Poetik’, AbhMainz 3: 89–158.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. 1962. ‘Studien zu Varro De poetis’, AbhMainz 10: 557–676.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. 1963. ‘Zu Varros Literaturforschung, besonders De poetis’, in Varron. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 9. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 3–20, with discussion at 21–31.Google Scholar
Dale, A. 2011. ‘Sapphica’, HSPh 106: 47–74.Google Scholar
Dammer, R. 2001. Diomedes Grammaticus. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher.Google Scholar
Damon, C. and Farrell, J. (eds.) 2020. Ennius’ Annals. Poetry and History. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, J. A. 1968. From Archilochus to Pindar. Papers on Greek Literature of the Archaic Period. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2008. Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature. Leiden – Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2011. ‘Dionysius and the scholia on Thucydides’ syntax’, in Matthaios, S., Montanari, F. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Context. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter: 451–78.Google Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2014. ‘The Attic muse and the Asian harlot. Classicizing allegories in Dionysius and Longinus’, in Ker and Pieper (eds.): 388–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2017. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides’, in Balot, R., Forsdyke, S. and Foster, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 641–58.Google Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2018. ‘Geschichte, Rhetorik und Wahrheit: Dionysius von Halikarnassos über Thukydides’, in Blank, T. and Maier, F. K. (eds.), Die symphonischen Schwestern. Narrative Konstruktion von ‘Wahrheiten’ in der nachklassischen Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Steiner: 281–301.Google Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2019. ‘Longinus on ecstasy: author, audience, and text’, in Grethlein, J., Huitink, L. and Tagliabue, A. (eds.), Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece. Under the Spell of Stories. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 148–71.Google Scholar
de Jonge, C. C. 2021. ‘Rewriting rivers in ancient literary criticism’, in Cannavale, S., Miletti, L. and Regali, M. (eds.), I luoghi delle Muse. La funzione dello spazio nella fondazione e nel rinnovamento dei generi letterari greci. Baden-Baden: Academia Verlag: 155–76.Google Scholar
De Temmerman, K. 2016. ‘Ancient biography and formalities of fiction’, in De Temmerman and Demoen (eds.): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Temmerman, K. and Demoen, K. (eds.) 2016. Writing Biography in Greece and Rome: Narrative Technique and Fictionalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dench, E. 2017. ‘Ethnicity, culture, and identity’, in Richter and Johnson (eds.): 99–114.Google Scholar
Depew, D. 2007. ‘From hymn to tragedy. Aristotle’s genealogy of poetic kinds’, in Csapo, E. and Miller, M. C. (eds.), The Origins of Theater in Greece and Beyond. From Ritual to Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 126–49.Google Scholar
Dessau, H. 1911. ‘Ein Freund Plutarchs in England’, Hermes 46: 156–60.Google Scholar
Deubner, L. 1953. ‘Die Saturae des Ennius und die Jamben des Kallimachos’, RhM 96: 289–92.Google Scholar
Deufert, M. 2013. ‘Vergilische Prosa? Überlegungen zu Macr. Sat. 1, 24, 11’, Hermes 141: 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deufert, M. (ed.) 2019. Titus Lucretius Carus De Rerum Natura libri vi. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Di Castri, M. B. 1995. ‘Tra sfoggio erudito e fantasia descrittiva: un profilo letterario di Dioscoride epigrammatista (i)’, A&R 40: 173–96.Google Scholar
Di Marco, M. 2016. ‘Su alcuni epigrammi di Dioscoride (AP, 5, 52; 5, 138; 6, 290; 12, 14; 12, 37; 12, 170).’ RCCM 58: 277–300.Google Scholar
Dionisotti, A. C. 1997. ‘On fragments in classical scholarship’, in Most 1997: 1–33.Google Scholar
Douglas, A. E. (ed.) 1966. M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (ed.) 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. 2000. ‘Foreword. Frogments’, in Harvey, D. and Wilkins, J. (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy. London: Duckworth: xvii–xix.Google Scholar
Duckworth, G. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dugan, J. 2005. Making a New Man. Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont-Roc, R. and Lallot, J. (ed.) 1980. Aristote. La Poétique. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.Google Scholar
DuQuesnay, I. M. Le M. 1984. ‘Horace and Maecenas. The propaganda value of Sermones i’, in Woodman, T. and West, D. (eds.), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 19–58.Google Scholar
Edelstein, L. 1967. The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G. (eds.) 1972. Posidonius. Vol. 1: The Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. 2018. ‘Minor Roman poetry in the discipline and in the profession of Classics’, in Formisano and Shuttleworth Kraus (eds.): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliot, T. S. 1919. ‘Tradition and the individual talent’, The Egoist 6.4: 54–55 and 6.5: 72–73.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2013. Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. 2022. Early Latin Poetry. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsner, J. 2009. ‘A Protean corpus’, in Bowie and Elsner (eds.): 19–32.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. 2021. Review of Netz 2020, BMCR 2021.06.40.Google Scholar
Ercoles, M. 2013. Stesicoro: le testimonianze antiche. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Eshleman, K. 2008. ‘Defining the circle of Sophists: Philostratus and the construction of the Second Sophistic’, CPh 103: 395–413.Google Scholar
Eshleman, K. 2012. The Social World of Intellectuals in the Roman Empire: Sophists, Philosophers and Christians. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estienne, R. and Estienne, H. (eds.) 1564. Fragmenta poetarum veterum Latinorum, quorum opera non extant. Geneva: Henri Estienne.Google Scholar
Fairweather, J. 1974. ‘Fiction in the biographies of ancient writers’, AncSoc 5: 231–75.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 1989. ‘The growth of literature and criticism at Rome’, in Kennedy, G. A. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 1: Classical Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 220–44.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 1996. Roman Literary Culture: from Cicero to Apuleius. Baltimore – London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fantuzzi, M. 2007. ‘Epigram and the theater’, in Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden – Boston: Brill: 477–95.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1994. ‘The structure of Lucretius’ “anthropology”’, MD 33: 81–95.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1999. ‘The Ovidian corpus: poetic body and poetic text’, in Hardie, P., Barchiesi, A. and Hinds, S. (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society: 127–41.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2002. ‘Greek lives and Roman careers in the classical vita tradition’, in Cheney, P. and de Armas, F. A. (eds.), European Literary Careers. The Author from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 24–46.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2004. ‘Ovid’s Virgilian career’, MD 52: 41–55.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2007. ‘Horace’s body, Horace’s books’, in Heyworth, Fowler and Harrison (eds.): 174–93.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2009. ‘The impermanent text in Catullus and other Roman poets’, in Johnson, W. A. and Parker, H. N. (eds.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 164–85.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2016. ‘Ancient commentaries on Theocritus’ Idylls and Virgil’s Eclogues’, in Shuttleworth Kraus, C. and Stray, C. (eds.), Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 397–418.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2020. ‘Was Memmius a good king?’, in O’Rourke, D. (ed.), Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Rerum Natura. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 219–40.Google Scholar
Fedeli, G. 2017. ‘The text of Horace, Satires 1.4.4: Greek Old Comedy and Lucilius’, CQ 67: 182–92 (with a corrigendum on p. 284).Google Scholar
Fedeli, P. (ed.) 2005. Properzio, Elegie, libro ii, introduzione, testo e commento. Cambridge: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2000. ‘All talk, no substance.’ Review of F. Dupont, The Invention of Literature: From Greek Intoxication to the Latin Book. Translated by J. Lloyd, TLS 5065: 9.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2002a. ‘The odiousness of comparisons: Horace on literary history and the limitations of synkrisis’, in Paschalis, M. (ed.), Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry. Rethymnon: University of Crete, Department of Philology: 7–18.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2002b. ‘VNA CVM SCRIPTORE MEO. Poetry, Principate and the traditions of literary history in the Epistle to Augustus’, in Woodman, T. and Feeney, D. (eds.), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 172–87.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2007. Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2012. ‘Representation and the materiality of the book in the polymetrics’, in DuQuesnay, I. M. Le M. and Woodman, T. (eds.), Catullus: Poems, Books, Readers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2016. Beyond Greek. The Beginning of Latin Literature. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, R. 2011. ‘Context stinks!’, New Literary History 42: 573–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, R. 2012. ‘Introduction’, New Literary History 43: v–xv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, R. 2015. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferri, S. (ed.) 2000. Plinio il Vecchio. Storia delle arti antiche. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R. 2011. Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation. Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flacelière, R. (ed.) 1974. Plutarque, Œuvres morales. Tome vi: Dialogues pythiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Fleck, M. 1993. Cicero als Historiker. Stuttgart: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinthoff, E. 1988. ‘Naevius and Roman satire’, Latomus 47: 593–603.Google Scholar
Fogagnolo, M. (ed.) 2022. Zoilus Amphipolitanus. Supplementum grammaticum Graecum 6. Boston– Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ford, A. 1992. Homer. The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, A. 2002. The Origins of Criticism. Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formisano, M. and Shuttleworth Kraus, C. (eds.) 2018. Marginality, Canonicity, Passion. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Mirhady, D. C. (eds.) 1994. Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 1995. ‘From epos to cosmos: Lucretius, Ovid, and the poetics of segmentation’, in Innes, D. C., Hine, H. and Pelling, C. (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 2002. Lucretius on Atomic Motion: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura 2.1–332. Revised by P. Fowler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. L. 1990. ‘Two more new verses of Hipponax (and a spurium of Philoxenus)?’, ICS 15: 1–22.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. L. (ed.) 2000–2013. Early Greek Mythography. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. L. 2006. ‘Herodotus and his prose predecessors’, in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. L. 2019. ‘Myth(ography), history and the peripatos’, in Romano, A. J. and Marincola, J. (eds.), Host or Parasite? Mythographers and Their Contemporaries in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter: 29–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraenkel, E. 1933. ‘Lucili quam sis mendosus’, Hermes 68: 392–9.Google Scholar
Frampton, S. A. 2019. Empire of Letters: Writing in Roman Literature and Thought from Lucretius to Ovid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. D. 1990. Image and Idea in Fifth-Century Greece. Art and Literature after the Persian Wars. Edited by Vickers, M.. Abingdon – New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. C. 2010. ‘Remembering music in early Greece’, in Mirelman, S. (ed.), The Historiography of Music in Global Perspective. Piscataway: Gorgias Press: 1–42.Google Scholar
Freese, J. H. (ed.) and Striker, G. (rev.) 2020. Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. 1993. The Walking Muse. Horace on the Theory of Satire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. 2002. ‘Writing to/through Florus: criticism and the addressee in Horace, Epistles 2.2’, MAAR 47: 33–55.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. 2013. ‘The afterlife of Varro in Horace’s Sermones. Generic issues in Roman satire’, in Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J. and Frangoulidis, S. (eds.), Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature. Encounters, Interactions and Transformations. Berlin: De Gruyter: 297–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusi, A. 2014–2015. ‘Una tendenziosa lezione di storia letteraria’, Incontri di filologia classica 14: 59–89.Google Scholar
Gabathuler, M. 1937. Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter. St. Gallen: Selbstverlag des Verfassers.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 1994. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2004. ‘The story of us: a narratological analysis of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura’, in Gale, M. R. (ed.), Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry: Genre, Tradition and Individuality. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2007. ‘Lucretius and previous poetic traditions’, in Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M. R. (ed.) 2008. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura, Book v. Oxford – Warminster: Aris & Phillips.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzya, A. 1963. ‘Eueno di Paro’, GIF 6: 310–20.Google Scholar
Gavrilov, A. K. 1997. ‘Techniques of reading in classical antiquity’, CQ 47: 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, E. 2000. Ovid, Aratus and Augustus: Astronomy in Ovid’s Fasti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelzer, T. 1979. ‘Klassizismus, Attizismus und Asianismus’, in Le classicisme à Rome aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 25. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 1–41, with discussion at 42–55.Google Scholar
Genette, G. 1997. Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by J. E. Lewin. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentili, B. 1984. Poesia e pubblico nella Grecia antica da Omero al v secolo. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Gerber, D. E. 1982. Pindar’s Olympian One: A Commentary. Toronto – Buffalo – London: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giangrande, L. 1972. The Use of ‘Spoudaiogeloion’ in Greek and Roman Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigante, M. 2004. ‘Vergil in the shadow of Vesuvius’, in Armstrong, Fish, Johston and Skinner (eds.): 85–99.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 1988. Review of Skutsch (ed.) 1985, CJ 84: 59–61.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 1997. Review of Fantham 1996, BMCR 1997.3.38.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2000. ‘Cicero and the work of tragedy’, in Manuwald, G. (ed.), Identität und Alterität in der frührömischem Tragödie. Würzburg: Ergon: 49–59.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic. Poetry and Its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2020. ‘Ennius and the fata librorum’, in Damon and Farrell (eds.): 169–87.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. and Manuwald, G. (eds.) 2018. Fragmentary Republican Latin: Ennius. 2 vols. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Golden, M. and Toohey, P. (eds.) 1997. Inventing Ancient Culture. Historicism, Periodization, and the Ancient World. London – New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 1988. ‘Doubling and recognition in the Bacchae’, Metis 3: 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. 1999. ‘Literary history without literature: reading practices in the ancient world’, SubStance 28: 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2002. Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History of Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2011. Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity: Art, Opera, Fiction and the Proclamation of Modernity. Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2020. Preposterous Poetics: The Ideology and Aesthetics of Form in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. 2019. Afterlives of the Roman Poets. Biofiction and the Reception of Latin Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. 2013. Shaggy Crowns. Ennius’ Annales and Virgil’s Aeneid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. and Graziosi, B. (eds.) 2018. Tombs of the Ancient Poets: Between Literary Reception and Material Culture. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. 1966. ‘The debate on primitivism in ancient rhetoric’, JWI 29: 24–38.Google Scholar
Goodyear, F. R. 1969. Review of Jocelyn (ed.) 1969, CR 19: 168–71.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. (ed.) 1965. Machon: The Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F and Page, D. L. (eds.) 1965. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (eds.) 1968. The Garland of Philip. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gowers, E. (ed.) 2012. Horace, Satires. Book i. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graf, F. 1974. Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratwick, A. S. 1987. Review of Skutsch (ed.) 1985, CR 37: 163–9.Google Scholar
Graziosi, B. 2002. Inventing Homer. The Early Reception of Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graziosi, B. 2009. ‘Horace, Suetonius, and the lives of the Greek poets’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Wyke, M. (eds.), Perceptions of Horace: A Roman Poet and His Readers. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 140–60.Google Scholar
Greenberg, N. A. 1961. ‘The use of poiêma and poiêsis’, HSPh 65: 263–89.Google Scholar
Greensmith, E. 2020. The Resurrection of Homer in Imperial Greek Epic: Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica and the Poetics of Impersonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greensmith, E. forthcoming. ‘Lucian’s poetics’, in Goldhill, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lucian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. 2004. ‘Logográphos und Thuc. 1.21.1’, Prometheus 30: 209–16.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. 2010. The Greeks and Their Past. Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century bce. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. 2017. ‘Literary history! The case of ancient Greek literature’, in Grethlein and Rengakos (eds.): 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A. (eds.) 2017. Griechische Literaturgeschichtsschreibung: Traditionen, Probleme und Konzepte. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grilli, A. 1965. Studi enniani, Brescia: Paideia.Google Scholar
Grilli, A. (ed.) 2010. Marco Tullio Cicerone. Ortensio. Testo critico, introduzione, versione e commento. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, A. (ed.) 2021. I frammenti storici e cronografici di Eratostene. Edizione e commento. PhD diss. Sapienza University, Rome.Google Scholar
Gschwantler, K. 1975. Zeuxis und Parrhasios: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Künstlerbiographie. PhD diss. University of Graz.Google Scholar
Guez, J.-P., Klein, F., Peigney, J. and Prioux, É (eds.) forthcoming. Dictionnaire des images du poétique. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
Gullo, A. (ed.) 2015. Antologia Palatina. Epigrammi funerari (Libro vii). Introduzione e commento. PhD diss. SNS, Pisa.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. 1998. Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. 2002. ‘Posidippus on statuary’, in Bastianini, G. and Casanova, A. (eds.), Il Papiro di Posidippo un anno dopo. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Florence: Istituto papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’: 41–59.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. 2015. ‘Contests of style and uses of the middle in canon making’, in Cojannot-Le Blanc, M., Pouzadoux, C. and Prioux, É (eds.), L’Héroïque et le Champêtre. Vol. 2: Appropriation et déconstruction des théories stylistiques dans la pratique des artistes et dans les modalités d’exposition des œuvres. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Nanterre: 15–31.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 1997. Review of Fantham 1996, CPh 92: 387–9.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 2002. Review of Schwindt 2000, IJCT 9: 312–14.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 2005. The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social Order. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hadjimichael, T. A. 2019. The Emergence of the Lyric Canon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hägg, T. 2012. The Art of Biography in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. 2012. Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain, New Haven – London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliwell, S. 1986. Aristotle’s Poetics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 1987. The Poetics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2011. Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2017. ‘Was Aristotle a literary historian?’, in Grethlein and Rengakos (eds.): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliwell, S. (ed.) 2022. Pseudo-Longinus, On the Sublime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S., Fyfe, W. H., Russell, D. A., Roberts, W. R. and Innes, D. C. (ed.) 1995. Aristotle, Poetics. Longinus, On the Sublime. Demetrius, On Style. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, P. 2007. Coleridge and German Philosophy: The Poet in the Land of Logic. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Handley, E. W. (ed.) 1965. The Dyskolos of Menander. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Hanink, J. 2008. ‘Literary politics and the Euripidean Vita’, CCJ 54: 115–35.Google Scholar
Hanink, J. 2010. ‘The Life of the author in the letters of “Euripides”’, GRBS 50: 537–64.Google Scholar
Hanink, J. 2014. Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, M. A. (ed.) 2012. Callimachus, Aetia. 2 vols. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, W. V. 1994. ‘What is literary “history”?’, College English 56: 434–51.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W. M. (ed.) 2015. Brill’s Companion to Roman Tragedy. Leiden – Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. 2005. ‘Introduction: constructing Latin literature’, in Harrison, S. (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, G. 1970. ‘Toward literary history’, Daedalus 99: 355–83.Google Scholar
Hawes, G. 2014. Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, M. 1999. ‘Longinus, On Sublimity’, PCPhS 45: 43–74.Google Scholar
Heath, M. 2013. ‘Aristotle On Poets: a critical evaluation of Richard Janko’s edition of the Fragments’, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 14: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinze, R. 1903. Virgils epische Technik. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Heldmann, K. 1982. Antike Theorien über Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, G. L. 1897. ‘Are the letters of Horace satires?’, AJPh 18: 313–24.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, G. L. 1904. ‘The Peripatetic mean of style and the three stylistic characters’, AJPh 25: 125–46.Google Scholar
Hernández, J. P. S. 2011. ‘Scopelianus and the Homerids. Notes on Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists (VS 1.21.518)’, Mnemosyne 64: 455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslin, P. J. 2018. Propertius, Greek Myth, and Virgil. Rivalry, Allegory, and Polemic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. 2007. Cynthia. A Companion to the Text of Propertius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J., Fowler, P. J and Harrison, S. J. (eds.) 2007. Classical Constructions: Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidber, T. 1996. Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. Die Praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Stuttgart – Leipzig: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. 2021. ‘True friendship: Ennius and other poets in Catullus 116’, TAPhA 151: 155–84.Google Scholar
Hillgruber, M. 2000. ‘Homer im Dienste des Mimus. Zur künstlerischen Eigenart der Homeristen’, ZPE 132: 63–72.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1997. ‘Do-it-yourself literary tradition: Statius, Martial and others’, MD 39: 187–207.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, L. A. 2008. Theory for Classics. Oxford – London – New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, A. S. (ed.) 2007. Fragments of Roman Poetry c. 60 bc–ad 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hölscher, T. 1987. Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. 2004. ‘Impersonating young Virgil. The author of the Catalepton and his Libellus’, MD 52: 29–40.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, N. (ed.) 1994. Greek Poetry of the Imperial Period. An Anthology. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hordern, J. H. (ed.) 2002. The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 1981. ‘Some problems of titulature in Roman literary history’, BICS 28: 103–14.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 1994. ‘The prehistory of Latin poetry: some problems of method’, RFIC 122: 50–75.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 1995. ‘Virgil: his life and times’, in Horsfall, N. (ed.), A Companion to the Study of Virgil. Leiden – Boston – Cologne: Brill: 1–25.Google Scholar
Hose, M. and Schenker, D., 2005. ‘Introduction: a companion to Greek literature’, in Hose, M. and Schenker, D. (eds.), A Companion to Greek Literature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–5.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 1995. ‘Written in the stars: poetry and philosophy in the Phainomena of Aratus’, Arachnion 2: 1–34.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. (ed.) 1999. Theocritus. A Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2006. The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2008. On Coming After. Studies in Post-Classical Greek Literature and Its Reception. 2 vols. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2009. Critical Moments in Classical Literature. Studies in the Ancient View of Literature and Its Uses. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2014. Hesiodic Voices. Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2016. ‘“Palaephatus”, Strabo and the boundaries of myth’, CPh 111: 245–61.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2019. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the idea of the critic’, in Hunter and de Jonge (eds.): 37–55.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. 2022. ‘Homer and ‘the elegists’: an ancient construction of difference’, in Ercolani, A. and Lulli, L. (eds.), Rethinking Orality. Vol. 2: The Mechanisms of the Oral Communication System in the Case of the Archaic Epos. Berlin: De Gruyter: 165–76.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. and de Jonge, C. C. (eds.) 2019. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome. Rhetoric, Criticism and Historiography. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. and Russell, D. (eds.) 2011. Plutarch: How to Study Poetry (De audiendis poetis). Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurley, D. W. 2014. ‘Suetonius’ rubric sandwich’, in Power, T. and Gibson, R. T. (eds.), Suetonius the Biographer. Studies in Roman Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (ed.) 1985. Aeschylus: Septem contra Thebas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2001. ‘The date of De Rerum Natura’, CQ 51: 150–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2008. Talking Books. Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2013. Greek to Latin. Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immerwahr, H. R. 1964. ‘Book rolls on Attic vases’, in Henderson, C. (ed.), Classical, Mediaeval, and Renaissance Studies in Honor of Berthold Louis Ullman. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura: 17–48.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. J. 2015. Those Who Write for Immortality. Romantic Reputation and the Dream of Lasting Fame. New Haven – London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1903. ‘Sosiphanes’, RhM 58: 459–63.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1904. Das Marmor Parium. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1909. ‘Über die Entstehung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente’, Klio 9: 80–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1912. ‘Glaukos’, RE 7.1: 1417–20.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. 1949. Atthis: The Chronicles of Ancient Athens. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, J.-M. 1960. ‘Sur un acrostiche d’Aratos (Phén., 783–787)’, REA 72: 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquet-Rimassa, P. 1999. ‘Les représentations de la musique, divertissement du symposion grec, dans les céramiques attique et italiote (440–300)’, REA 101: 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, O. 1854. ‘Vermischtes’, RhM 9: 625–30.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (ed.) 2003. Philodemus: On Poems. Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (ed.) 2010. Philodemus: On Poems. Books 3–4. With the Fragments of Aristotle: On Poets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. (ed.) 2014. The Roman Paratext. Frame, Texts, Readers. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauss, H. R. 1967. Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (ed.) 1969. The Tragedies of Ennius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1977. ‘Ennius, Sat. 6–7 Vahlen’, RFIC, 105: 131–51.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1979. ‘Vergilius cacozelos (Donatus, Vita Vergili 44)’, in Cairns, F. (ed.), Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar, Second Volume. Liverpool: F. Cairns: 67–142.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1987. Review of Skutsch (ed.) 1985, RFIC 115: 444–58.Google Scholar
Jones, E. J. 2014. Coleridge and the Philosophy of Poetic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. L. (ed.) 1917. Strabo, Geography. 2 vols. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, A. 2017. ‘Biography and Virgil’s epitaph’, in Powell and Hardie (eds.): 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaibel, G. (ed.) 1878. Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta. Berlin: Reimer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaibel, G. (ed.) 1898. Die Prolegomena ΠΕΡΙ ΚΩΜΩΔΙΑΣ. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Karamanou, J. 2013. ‘As threatening as the Persians: Euripides in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousae’, in Carey, C. and Edwards, M. (eds.), Marathon – 2500 Years. BICS Suppl. 124. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London: 155–64.Google Scholar
Kassel, R. 1966. ‘Kritische und Exegetische Kleinigkeiten ii’, RhM 109: 1–12Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (ed.) 1995. C. Suetonius Tranquillus. De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kayachev, B. 2011. ‘Ille ego qui quondam: genre, date, and authorship’, Vergilius 57: 75–82.Google Scholar
Keith, A. 2018. ‘Epicurean perspectives in (and on) [Vergil] Catalepton 5’, in Frangoulidis, S. and Harrison, S. (eds.), Life, Love and Death in Roman Poetry. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter: 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 bc–ad 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1970. ‘Doctus Lucretius’, Mnemosyne 23: 366–92.Google Scholar
Ker, J. and Pieper, C. (eds.) 2014. Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World. Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values vii. Leiden – Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. 1989. Posidonius, Vol. 2: The Commentary. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. 1997. ‘What is a Posidonian fragment?, in Most (ed.): 225–36.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 2010. Homer between History and Fiction in Imperial Greek Literature. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, L. 2014. ‘Archaizing and Classicism in the literary historical thinking of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, in Ker and Pieper (eds.): 357–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, L. 2017a. ‘Literary history in Imperial Greece. Dionysius’ On Ancient Orators, Plutarch’s On the Oracles of the Pythia, Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists’, in Grethlein and Rengakos (eds.): 212–47.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 2017b. ‘Poetry, extravagance, and the invention of the “archaic” in Plutarch’s On the Oracles of the Pythia’, in Georgiadou, A. and Oikonomopoulou, K. (eds.), Space, Time and Language in Plutarch. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel-Clauzet, F. 2016. ‘Un hommage de poète à poète ? Sur quelques aspects des épigrammes grecques funéraires consacrées aux poètes des époques archaïques et classiques’, in Santin, E. and Foschia, L. (eds.), L’épigramme dans tous ses états: épigraphiques, littéraires, historiques. Lyon: ENS éditions: 106–21.Google Scholar
Kindstrand, J. F. 1973. Homer in der zweiten Sophistik: Studien zu der Homerlektüre und dem Homerbild bei Dion von Prusa, Maximos von Tyros und Ailios Aristeides. Uppsala: Studia Graeca Upsaliensa.Google Scholar
Kindstrand, J. F. (ed.) 1976. Bion of Borysthenes. A Collection of the Fragments with Introduction and Commentary. Uppsala: Studia Graeca Upsaliensa.Google Scholar
Kindt, J. 2016. Revisiting Delphi. Religion and Storytelling in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, G. S. 1962. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. 1990. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. ii: Books 5–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivilo, M. 2010. Early Greek Poets’ Lives. The Shaping of the Tradition. Leiden – Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingünther, A. 1933. ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung. Leipzig: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Klooster, J. 2017. ‘Authenticity and autochthonous traditions in Archaic and Hellenistic lyric poetry’, in Bakker, E. J. (ed.), Authorship and Greek Song. Authority, Authenticity and Performance. Leiden – Boston: Brill: 122–38.Google Scholar
Kneebone, E. 2020. Oppian’s Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, B. M. W. 1968. ‘Silent reading in antiquity’, GRBS 9: 421–35.Google Scholar
Koditschek, T. 2011. Liberalism, Imperialism, and the Historical Imagination. Nineteenth-Century Visions of a Greater Britain. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kõiv, M. 2011. ‘A note on the dating of Hesiod’, CQ 61: 355–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, A. and Whitton, C. 2018. ‘Introduction’, in König, A. and Whitton, C. (eds.), Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Literary Interactions, ad 96–138. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.) 2007. Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. and Saïd, S. (eds.) 2006. Greeks on Greekness: Viewing the Greek Past under the Roman Empire. PCPhS Suppl. 29. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.Google Scholar
Konstantakos, I. M. 2020. ‘Popular biography’, in De Temmerman, K. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Biography. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 45–57.Google Scholar
Korenjak, M. 1999. ‘Vates: a vi mentis. Eine Etymologie Varros und ihr Schicksal in der lateinischen Literatur der frühen Kaiserzeit’, GFA 2: 1–4.Google Scholar
Kousoulini, V. 2017. ‘Alcman in Pergamon’, AClass 60: 178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, D. 1990. ‘De Cephisophonte verna, ut perhibent, Euripidis’, ZPE 84: 15–18.Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. 1994. Euripidea. Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill.Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. (ed.) 2018. Euripides: Troades. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, C. B. 2013. ‘Caesar, Lucretius and the dates of De Rerum Natura and the Commentarii’, CQ 63: 772–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krevans, N. 2011. ‘Callimachus’ philology’, in Acosta-Hughes, B., Lehnus, L. and Stephens, S. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus. Leiden – Boston: Brill: 118–33.Google Scholar
Krostenko, B. A. 2013. ‘The poetics of Naevius’ ‘Epitaph’ and the history of Latin poetry’, JRS 103: 46–64.Google Scholar
Kurke, L. 1991. The Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
LaFleur, R. A. 1981. ‘Horace and onomasti komodein: the law of satire’, ANRW 31.3: 1790–1826.Google Scholar
Laks, A. 2007. Histoire, doxographie, vérité: Études sur Aristote, Théophraste et la philosophie présocratique. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Lamberton, R. 1986. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lamberton, R. 1997. ‘Homer in antiquity’, in Morris, I. and Powell, B. (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill: 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lämmle, R. 2013. Poetik des Satyrspiels. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Lanata, G. 1963. Poetica pre-platonica. Testimonianze e frammenti. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Langholf, V. 1990. ‘Vergil-Allegorese in den Bucolica des Calpurnius Siculus’, RhM 133: 350–70.Google Scholar
Lateiner, D. 1994. Review of G. Anderson, The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire, BMCR 1994.10.06.Google Scholar
LaValle Norman, D. 2019. The Aesthetics of Hope in Late Greek Imperial Literature: Methodius of Olympus’ Symposium and the Crisis of the Third Century. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledentu, M. 2014. ‘Cicéron et l’histoire en 46 avant JC. Le Brutus: une somme historiographique’, in Aubert-Baillot and Guérin (eds.): 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, A. D., Pinkster, H. and Nelson, H. L. W. 1985. M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri iii. Kommentar. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 1981. The Lives of the Greek Poets. London: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 1987. ‘Was Euripides an atheist?’, SIFC 5: 149–66.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2003. ‘Impiety and ‘atheism’ in Euripides’ dramas’, CQ 39: 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2007. ‘Visits to Egypt in the biographical tradition’, in Erler, M. and Schorn, S. (eds.), Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter: 101–13.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2012. The Lives of the Greek Poets. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2016. Euripides and the Gods. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2022. ‘The Phrygian Slave in Euripides’ Orestes’, in Papadodima, E. (ed.), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign. Athenian Dialogues ii. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, A. 1991. ‘La définition du Poète chez Varron’, Euphrosyne 19: 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, F. 1889. ‘Varro und die Satire’, Hermes 24: 67–84.Google Scholar
Leo, F. 1912. Plautinische forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
LeVen, P. A. 2014. The Many-Headed Muse. Tradition and Innovation in Late Classical Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levene, D. S. and Nelis, D. P. (eds.) 2002. Clio and the Poets. Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography. Leiden – Boston – Cologne: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, G. 1968. The Boundaries of Fiction: Carlyle, Macaulay, Newman. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linant de Bellefonds, P. and Prioux, É 2017. Voir les mythes: poésie hellénistique et arts figurés. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Lobel, E. (ed.) 1971. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri xxxvii. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
López Cruces, J. L. 1995. Les Méliambes de Cercidas de Mégalopolis. Politique et tradition littéraire. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Lowrie, M. 2009. Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, D. W. (ed.) 1968. Aristotle, Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1978. ‘The neoteric poets’, CQ 28: 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. D. 2006. ‘The ancients’ ironic nostalgia’, Paragraph 29: 94–107.Google Scholar
Macaulay, T. 1828. ‘The Romance of History. England. By Henry Neele. London 1828’, Edinburgh Review 47: 331–67.Google Scholar
Mader, G. 2013. ‘Re-presenting Piso: poetic and political agenda in the Laus Pisonis’, CW 106: 621–43.Google Scholar
Makowski, J. F. 1992. ‘Iocosus Maecenas: patron as writer’, SyllClass 3: 25–35.Google Scholar
Malcovati, E. 1943. Cicerone e la poesia. Pavia: Tipografia del libro.Google Scholar
Maltby, R. 1990. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. Leeds: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
Mangoni, C. 1993. Filodemo. Il quinto libro della Poetica (Pherc. 1425 and 1538). Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Mansfed, J. 1990. Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Mantovani, D. 2009. ‘Cicerone storico del diritto’, Ciceroniana 13: 297–367.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2015. ‘Editing Roman (Republican) tragedy: challenges and possible solutions’, in Harrison (ed.): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2012. Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. Vol. 2: Ennius. Göttingen. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchese, R. R. 2011. ‘Quello che circola tra noi: reciprocità e memoria nel Brutus di Cicerone’, in Marchese, R. R. (ed.), Bruto. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Rome: Carocci: 9–54.Google Scholar
Marenghi, G. (ed.) 1970. Dioniso di Alicarnasso, Dinarco. Milan: Istituto editoriale italiano.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. 2015. ‘Cicero, Leg. 1,6: ‘Pleasurable’ Annals?’, CQ 65: 401–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariotti, I. 1960. Studi luciliani. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Mariotti, I. 1974. ‘Lucilio 698 M. e Archiloco’, in Poesia latina in frammenti. Miscellanea filologica. Genoa: Istituto di filologia classica e medievale: 133–9.Google Scholar
Mariotti, S. 1952. ‘Titoli di opere enniane’, Maia 5: 271–6.Google Scholar
Martelli, F. 2018. ‘Ennius’ imago between tomb and text’, in Goldschmidt and Graziosi (eds.): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. 1993. Redeeming the Text. Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maslov, B. 2015. Pindar and the Emergence of Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. 2009. ‘The lost Phoenissae: an experiment in reconstruction from fragments’, in Cousland, J. R. C. and Hume, J. R. (eds.), The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp. Leiden: Brill: 63–76 and 461–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, V. J. (ed.) 2018. Antimachus of Colophon: Text and Commentary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Mazzarino, A. (ed.) 1955. Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta aetatis Caesareae. Turin: Paravia.Google Scholar
Mazzucchi, C. M. 2010. Dionisio Longino, Del Sublime. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar
McGing, B. and Mossman, J. (eds.) 2006. The Limits of Ancient Biography. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.Google Scholar
McOsker, M. 2020. ‘Poetics’, in Mitsis, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press: 347–76.Google Scholar
Mejer, O. 2004. ‘The Platonic corpus in antiquity.’ Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 4: 27–47.Google Scholar
Mestre, F. 2004. ‘Refuting Homer in the Heroikos of Philostratus’, in Bradshaw Aitken, E. and Berenson Maclean, J. K. (eds.), Philostratus’s Heroikos. Religion and Cultural Identity in the Third Century ce. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature: 127–41.Google Scholar
Mette, H. J. 1980. ‘Neoptolemos von Parion’, RhM 123: 1–24.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. and Elsner, J. (eds.) 2014. Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miguélez-Cavero, L. 2008. Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200–600 ad. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, G. 2004. ‘Music and immortality: the afterlife of Achilles in Philostratus’ Heroicus’, Ancient Narrative 4: 66–78.Google Scholar
Miles, G. 2017. ‘Philostratus’, in Richter and Johnson (eds.): 273–90.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. 2015. ‘Literary quotation as literary performance in Suetonius’, CJ 110: 333–55.Google Scholar
Moatti, C. 2015. The Birth of Critical Thinking in Republican Rome. Translated by J. Lloyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, A. 2005. ‘Epoch-making Eratosthenes’, GRBS 45: 245–60.Google Scholar
Montanari, F. 2017. ‘The idea of history of literature: the beginnings in ancient Greek culture’, in Grethlein and Rengakos (eds.): 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montiglio, S. 2011. From Villain to Hero: Odysseus in Ancient Thought. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli, A. M. 2012. ‘Prostrati in gramine molli. Il locus amoenus come modello di comunità ideale in Lucrezio e nell’Ovidio dei Fasti’, Paideia 67: 459–81.Google Scholar
Moreno, P. 1994. La scultura ellenistica. 2 vols. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato.Google Scholar
Moretti, F. 2000. ‘The slaughterhouse of literature’, Modern Language Quarterly 61: 207–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, K. A. 2000. Myth and Philosophy from the Pre-Socratics to Plato. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, L. and Taylor, B. 2017. ‘Memmius the Epicurean’, CQ 67: 528–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, E. P. (ed.) 1909. Horace. The Satires. New York – Cincinnati – Chicago: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Morris, W. 1972. Toward a New Historicism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morson, G. S. 2010. The Words of Others. From Quotations to Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mosshammer, A. A. 1979. The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press; London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 1987. ‘The ‘Virgilian’ Culex’, in Whitby, M., Hardie, P. and Whitby, M. (eds.), Homo Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press; Oak Park: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers: 199–209.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 1995. ‘Reflecting Sappho’, BICS 40: 15–38.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. (ed.) 1997. Collecting Fragments/Fragmente sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. 2008. ‘What was Literary History?’, in Berthold, J. and Previšić, B. (eds.), Texttreue. Komparatistische Studien zu einem masslosen Massstab. Bern: P. Lang: 195–207.Google Scholar
Munro, J. A. R. 1901. ‘Notes on the text of the Parian Marble. ii.’ CR 15: 355–61.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore – London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 2001. ‘The sign of the hero: a prologue’, in Berenson Maclean, J. K. and Bradshaw Aitken, E. (eds.), Flavius Philostratus: Heroikos. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature: xv–xxxv.Google Scholar
Naumann, H. 1981. ‘Suetonius’ Life of Virgil: the present state of the question’, HSPh 85: 185–7.Google Scholar
Nauta, R. R. 2007. ‘Literary history in Martial’, in Bonadeo, A. and Romano, E. (eds.), Dialogando con il passato. Permanenze e innovazioni nella cultura latina di età flavia, Florence: Le Monnier: 1–17.Google Scholar
Nauta, R. R. 2001. ‘In praise of Meliboeus: Calpurnius Siculus and Columella’, JRS 111: 179–202.Google Scholar
Neri, C. 1996. ‘Il poemetto e l’epigramma, Note sulla fortuna dell’opera di Erinna in età alessandrina’, Aevum(ant) 9: 193–215.Google Scholar
Neri, C. (ed.) 2003. Erinna, Testimonianze e Frammenti. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2018. ‘The Alexandrian footnote in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura’, Mnemosyne 71: 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2021. Ennius Noster: Lucretius and the Annales. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netz, R. 2018. ‘The Greek canon: a few data, observations, limits’, in Formisano and Shuttleworth Kraus (eds.): 203–30.Google Scholar
Netz, R. 2020. Space, Scale and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. K. 1967. The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry. Collection Latomus 89. Brussels: Société d’études latines.Google Scholar
Nicolai, R. 2004. Studi su Isocrate. La comunicazione letteraria nel iv sec. a.C. e i nuovi generi della prosa. Rome: Quasar.Google Scholar
Niehoff, M. R. 2001. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Niehoff, M. R. 2018. Philo of Alexandria: an Intellectual Biography. New Haven – London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. 1873. ‘Der Florentinische Tractat über Homer und Hesiod, ihr Geschlecht und ihren Wettkampf (Schluss)’, RhM 28: 211–49.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. 1995. ‘The survivors: old-style literary men in the triumviral period’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.), R. G. M. Nisbet. Collected Papers on Latin Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 390–413.Google Scholar
Noller, E. M. 2019. De Ordnung der Welt: Darstellungsformen von Dynamik, Statik under Emergenz in Lukrez’ De Rerum Natura. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Norden, E. 1898. Die antike Kunstprosa von vi. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Norden, E. 1905. ‘Die Composition und Litteraturgattung der Horazischen Epistula ad Pisones’, Hermes 40: 481–528.Google Scholar
Norden, E. 1915. Ennius und Vergilius. Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit. Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Norman, L. F. 2011. The Shock of the Ancient: Literature and History in Early Modern France. Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, J. 2017. Literary Criticism. A Concise Political History. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novara, A. 1982. Les idées romaines sur le progrès d’après les écrivains de la République. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2011. ‘The presentation and mispresentation of Virgilian poetry in Propertius 2.34’, AJPh 132: 457–97.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, N. 1992. Alcidamas, Aristophanes, and the Beginnings of Greek Stylistic Theory. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Oakley, J. H. 2020. A Guide to Scenes of Daily Life on Athenian Vases. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obbink, D. (ed.) 1995. Philodemus and Poetry. Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberhelman, S. and Armstrong, D. 1995. ‘Satire as poetry and the impossibility of metathesis in Horace’s Satires’, in Obbink (ed.): 233–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, S. D. 2002. Aristophanes: Acharnians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, S. D. 2015. ‘Athenaeus’ Aristophanes and the problem of reconstructing lost comedies’, in Chronopoulos, S. and Orth, C. (eds.), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie/Fragmentary History of Greek Comedy. Heidelberg: Verlage Antike: 35–65.Google Scholar
Oltramare, A. 1926. Les origines de la diatribe romaine. Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar
Ooms, S. 2019. How to Compose Great Prose: Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Stylistic Theory in Late-Republican and Augustan Rome. PhD diss. University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Pache, C. O. 2004. ‘Singing heroes: the poetics of hero cult in the Heroikos’, in Aitken, E. B. & Maclean, J. K. B. (eds.), Writings from the Greco-Roman World: Vol. 6. Philostratus’s Heroikos: Religion and Cultural Identity in the Third Century ce. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature: 3–24.Google Scholar
Page, D. L. (ed.) 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paoli, U. E. 1922. ‘Legere e recitare’, A&R 3: 205–7.Google Scholar
Parry, A. 1969. ‘The language of Thucydides’ description of the plague’, BICS 16: 106–18.Google Scholar
Pasoli, E. 1964a. ‘Spunti di critica letteraria nella satira oraziana’, Convivium 32: 449–78.Google Scholar
Pasoli, E. 1964b. ‘“Satura” drammatica e “satura” letteraria’, Vichiana 1: 1–41.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. 2012. The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake. Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. 2014. ‘“Sealing” the book: the sphragis as paratext’, in Jansen (ed.): 224–42.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. 2017. ‘Between biography and commentary: the ancient horizon of expectation of VSD’, in Powell and Hardie (eds.), 1–28.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. 2019. Persuasion, Rhetoric and Roman Poetry. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, J. 1975. ‘Some methodological problems in literary history’, New Literary History 7: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelling, C. 2002. Plutarch and History. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. 2006. ‘Breaking the bounds: writing about Caesar’, in McGing and Mossman (eds.): 255–79.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. (ed.) 1991. Theoretical Issues in Literary History. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. 1992. Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore – London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Petrain, D. 2014. Homer in Stone: The Tabulae Iliacae in Their Roman Context. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (ed.) 1949. Callimachus. Vol. 1: Fragmenta. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. Revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Podlecki, A. J. 1969. ‘The Peripatetics as literary critics’, Phoenix 23: 114–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöhlmann, E. 2011. ‘Ps. Plutarch, De musica. A history of oral tradition of ancient Greek music’, QUCC 128: 11–30.Google Scholar
Pollitt, J. J. 1974. The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology. New Haven – London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 1992. ‘Hermeneutic lines and circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the exegesis of Homer’, in Lamberton, R. and Keaney, J. J. (eds.), Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 67–114.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 1995. ‘Content and form in Philodemus: the history of an evasion’, in Obbink (ed.): 97–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. I. (ed.) 2006a. Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome. Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2006b. ‘Feeling classical: classicism and ancient literary criticism’, in Porter (ed.): 301–52.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2010. The Origins of Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece: Matter, Sensation, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2011. ‘Against λεπτότης: rethinking Hellenistic aesthetics’, in Erskine, A. and Llewellyn-Jones, L. (eds.), Creating a Hellenistic World. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales:271–312.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2016. The Sublime in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2021. ‘P. Mich. inv. 2754: new readings of Alcidamas, On Homer’, CPh 116: 1–25.Google Scholar
Porter, J. R. 1994. Studies in Euripides’ Orestes. Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, A. 2017. ‘Sinning against philology? Method and the Suetonian-Donatian Life of Virgil’, in Powell and Hardie (eds.): 173–98.Google Scholar
Powell, A. and Hardie, P. (eds.) 2017. The Ancient Lives of Virgil. Literary and Historical Studies. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.Google Scholar
Powell, J. E. 2011. Images of Virgil. Some Examples of the Creative Approach to the Virgilian Biography in Antiquity. PhD diss. University of Durham.Google Scholar
Power, T. 2016. ‘Poetry and fiction in Suetonius’ Illustrious Men’, in De Temmermann and Demoen (eds.): 217–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, V. 2018. ‘Silent bones and singing stones: materializing the poetic corpus in Hellenistic Greece’, in Goldschmidt and Graziosi (eds.): 21–49.Google Scholar
Prioux, É. 2007. Regards alexandrins. Histoire et théorie des arts dans l’épigramme hellénistique. Leuven – Paris – Dudley: Peeters.Google Scholar
Prioux, É. 2008. Petits musées en vers. Épigramme et discours sur les collections antiques. Paris: CTHS-INHA.Google Scholar
Prioux, É. 2010. ‘Le nouveau Posidippe: une histoire de l’art en épigrammes ?’, in Le Blay, F. (ed.), Transmettre les savoirs dans les mondes hellénistique et romain. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes: 275–92.Google Scholar
Prioux, É. 2015. ‘Douris et Posidippe: similitudes et dissemblances de quelques éléments de critique d’art et de critique littéraire’, in Naas, V. and Simon, M. (eds.), De Samos à Rome: Personnalité et Influence de Douris. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Nanterre: 91–120.Google Scholar
Prioux, É. 2016. ‘Une histoire des styles en épigrammes: essai de confrontation entre Posidippe et Dioscoride’, in Santin, E. and Foschia, L. (eds.), L’épigramme dans tous ses états: épigraphiques, littéraires, historiques. Lyon: ENS éditions: 90–105.Google Scholar
Pritchett, W. K. 1975. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: On Thucydides. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodi, E. 2021. ‘Notes on Pindar’s dithyrambs’, MH 78: 194–211.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. 2016. Euripides’s Revolution under Cover. An Essay. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Puelma Piwonka, M. 1949. Lucilius und Kallimachos. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung der hellenistisch-römischen Poesie. Frankfurt: Druck Frankischer Tag.Google Scholar
Pulz, E. 2023. Laevius – Ein altlateinischer Liebesdicter. Studien, Text und Interpretations-Kommentar. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. C. J. 1973. ‘Horace C. 3.30: The Lyricist as Hero’, Ramus 2: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. C. J. 2010. ‘Some Virgilian unities’, in Hardie, P. and Moore, H. (eds.), Classical Literary Careers and Their Reception. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Race, W. H. (ed.) 1997. Pindar, Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radt, S. (ed.) 1985. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 3: Aeschylus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Rajak, T. 2009. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambaud, M. 1953. Cicéron et l’Histoire romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Rathofer, C. 1986. Ciceros Brutus als literarisches Paradigma eines Auctoritas-Verhältnisses. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Rawles, R. 2018. ‘Simonides on tombs, and the “Tomb of Simonides”’, in Goldschmidt and Graziosi (eds.): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawson, E. 1972. ‘Cicero the historian and Cicero the antiquarian’, JRS 62: 33–45.Google Scholar
Rebeggiani, S. 2020. ‘Roman Agamemnon: political echoes in the proem to Lucretius’ De rerum natura’, Mnemosyne 73: 441–63.Google Scholar
Rescigno, A. (ed.) 1995. Plutarco, L’eclissi degli oracoli. Naples: M. D’Auria Editore.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 1999–2000. ‘Euripides, tragedy and Macedon: some conditions of reception’, ICS 24/25: 451–67.Google Scholar
Ribbeck, O. (ed.) 1897. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. 1981. ‘The Contest of Homer and Hesiod and Alcidamas’ Mouseion’, CQ 31: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, D. S. 2011. Cosmopolis: Imagining Community in Late Classical Athens and the Early Roman Empire. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, D. S. and Johnson, W. A. (eds.) 2017. The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricœur, P. 1991 [1985]. ‘Between the text and its readers’, in Valdés, M. J. (ed.), A Ricœur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Toronto – Buffalo: University of Toronto Press: 390–424.Google Scholar
Rocchi, S. (ed.) 2020. P. Annio Floro. Virgilio: oratore o poeta?. Berlin – Boston: De Gryuter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, E. 1878. ‘Γέγονε in den Biographica des Suidas’, RhM 33: 161–220.Google Scholar
Rolfe, J. C. 1913. ‘Suetonius and his biographies’, PAPHS 52: 205–25.Google Scholar
Roller, D. W. 2014. The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, E. 2010. ‘Senso del passato e paradigma dell’antico: per una rilettura del de legibus di Cicerone’, Incontri Triestini di filologia classica 9: 1–44.Google Scholar
Römer, C. (ed.) 2013. Alcman. Commentaria et lexica Graeca in papyris reperta. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rood, T. 1998. ‘Thucydides and his predecessors’, Histos 2: 230–67.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. 1988. Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition. Atlanta: American Classical Studies.Google Scholar
Rosenmeyer, P. 2006. ‘Sappho’s iambics’, Letras Clássicas 10: 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. O. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotstein, A. 2010. The Idea of Iambos. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rotstein, A. 2016. Literary History in the Parian Marble. Washington, dc: Center for Hellenic Studies.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. (ed.) and Smith, M. F. (rev.) 1975. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 1989. Histoire et Imaginaire de la peinture ancienne (ve siècle av. J.-C. – ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar
Rowell, H. T. 1949. ‘The ‘Campanian’ origin of C. Naevius and its literary attestation’, MAAR 19: 17–34.Google Scholar
Rudd, N. 1960. ‘Horace on the origins of Satura’, Phoenix, 14: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudd, N. 1966. The Satires of Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruffell, I. A. 2014. ‘Old Comedy at Rome: rhetorical model and satirical problem’, in Douglas Olson, S. (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson. Berlin: De Gruyter: 275–308.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1946. History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1981. Criticism in Antiquity. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. and Winterbottom, M.. 1972. Ancient Literary Criticism. The Principal Texts in New Translations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Russo, A. 2001. ‘Iambic presences in Ennius’ Saturae’, in Cavarzere, A., Aloni, A. and Barchiesi, A. (eds.), Iambic Ideas. Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield: 99–115.Google Scholar
Russo, A. (ed.) 2007. Quinto Ennio. Le opere minori. Vol. i: Praecepta, Protrepticus, Saturae, Scipio, Sota. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Russo, F. 2008. ‘The literary excursus of Velleius Paterculus and the exaltation of the Italic contribution to the grandeur of Rome’, Florentia Iliberritana 19: 293–312.Google Scholar
Rusten, J. and König, J. (eds.) 2014. Philostratus of Athens, Heroicus. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. 2021. ‘What can we know about ancient literature?’ Review of Netz 2020, CR 71: 1–3.Google Scholar
Salanitro, M. 1978. ‘Varrone poeta satirico’, C&S 66: 58–66.Google Scholar
Sansone, D. 1996. ‘Plato and Euripides’, ICS 21: 35–67.Google Scholar
Sbordone, F. 1969. Contributo alla poetica degli antichi. Naples: Libraria Scientifica Editrice.Google Scholar
Sbordone, F. 1976. ‘Sul De poematis di Varrone’, in Atti del congressione internazionale di studi Varroniani. Volume ii. Rieti: Centro di Studi Varroniani: 515–24.Google Scholar
Scarcia, R. 2017. ‘Vita Vergilii e Vita Ovidii’, RPL 40: 100–19.Google Scholar
Scardino, C. 2011. ‘Historiographie’, in Zimmermann, B. (ed.), Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Erster Band: die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Munich: C. H. Beck: 326–423.Google Scholar
Schaaf, L. 1979. ‘Die Todesjahre des Naevius und des Plautus’, RhM 122: 24–33.Google Scholar
Schierl, P. 2015. ‘Roman tragedy – Ciceronian tragedy? Cicero’s influence on our perception of Republican tragedy’, in Harrison (ed.): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 2007. ‘Didaxis, rhetoric, and the law in Lucretius’, in Heyworth, Fowler and Harrison (eds.): 63–90.Google Scholar
Schlegel, C. 2010. ‘Horace and the satirist’s mask: shadowboxing with Lucilius’, in Davis, G. (ed.), A Companion to Horace. Chichester – Malden: Wiley – Blackwell: 253–70.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. 2021. ‘Quintilian in Late Antiquity: from Lactantius to Isidore of Seville’, in van der Poel, M., Edwards, M. and Murphy, J. J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Quintilian. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 313–37.Google Scholar
Scholz, U. W. 1986. ‘Die Satura des Q. Ennius’, in Adamietz, J. (ed.), Die römische Satire. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: 25–53.Google Scholar
Schorn, S. (ed.) 2004. Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentär. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.Google Scholar
Schorn, S. 2018. Studien zur hellenistischen Biographie und Historiographie. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, S. (ed.) 1990. Plutarchs Schrift De Pythiae oraculis. Stuttgart: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt, J. P. 2000. Prolegomena zu einer ‘Phänomenologie’ der römischen Literaturgeschichtsschreibung: Von den Anfängen bis Quintilian. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt, J. P. 2001. ‘Literaturgeschichtsschreibung und immanente Literaturgeschichte’, in L’histoire littéraire immanente dans la poésie Latine. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 47. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 1–26, with discussion at 27–38.Google Scholar
Sciarrino, E. 2004. ‘Putting Cato the Censor’s Origines in its place’, ClAnt 23: 323–57.Google Scholar
Scullion, S. 2002. ‘“Nothing to do with Dionysus.” Tragedy misconceived as ritual’, CQ 52: 102–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scullion, S. 2003. ‘Euripides and Macedon, or the silence of the Frogs’, CQ 53: 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, C. 1982. Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides’ Bacchae. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sens, A. 2005. ‘The art of poetry and the poetry of art: the unity and poetics of Posidippus’ statue poems’, in Gutzwiller, K. (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 206–25.Google Scholar
Sens, A. (ed.) 2010. Asclepiades of Samos. Epigrams and Fragments. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sergei, S. 2002. ‘From biography to hagiography: some stable patterns in the Greek and Latin tradition of Lives, including Lives of the Saints’, in France, P. and St Clair, W. (eds.), Mapping Lives. The Uses of Biography. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 19–36.Google Scholar
Settis, S. 1993. ‘La trattastica delle arti figurative’, in Cambiano, Canfora and Lanza (eds.), vol. 1.2 (L’Ellenismo): 469–98.Google Scholar
Shaw, P.-J. 2003. Discrepancies in Olympiad Dating and Chronological Problems of Archaic Peloponnesian History. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth Kraus, C. S. 2016. ‘Agricolan paratexts’, in Shuttleworth Kraus, C. and Stray, C. (eds.), Classical Commentaries. Explorations in a Scholarly Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 318–45.Google Scholar
Skempis, M. 2010. ‘Kleine Leute’ und grosse Helden in Homers Odyssee und Kallimachos’ Hekale. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skutsch, F. 1905. ‘Q. Ennius’, RE v.2: 2589–628.Google Scholar
Skutsch, O. (ed.) 1985. The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Slings, S. R. 2002. ‘Oral strategies in the language of Herodotus’, in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F. and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Leiden – Boston – Cologne: Brill: 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. F. (ed.) 1919. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War. 2 vols. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smolenaars, H. 2017. ‘The historical truth of Vergil’s recitation of the Georgics at Atella (VSD § 27)’, in Powell and Hardie (eds.), 153–72.Google Scholar
Sollenberger, M. G. 1992. ‘The Lives of the Peripatetics: an analysis of the contents and structure of Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae philosophorum Book 5’, ANRW 36.6: 3793–879.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1941. ‘The Aristotelian tradition in ancient rhetoric’, AJPh 62: 35–50 and 169–90.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2018a. Pindar and the Poetics of Permanence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2018b. ‘Event and artefact: the Hymn to Apollo, archaic lyric, and early Greek literary history’, in Budelmann, F. and Phillips, T. (eds.), Textual Events. Performance and the Lyric in Early Greece. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 151–71.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2019. ‘Schools, reading and poetry in the early Greek world’, CCJ 65: 150–72.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2021a. ‘Staging literary history in Old Comedy’, CPh 116: 305–35.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2021b. ‘Of armpits and the origins of comedy: Aristophanes fr. 264 and 265’, GRBS 61: 249–62.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2021c. ‘Classicising ‘Pindar’: quotation, canonisation and early reception’, Trends in Classics 13: 363–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelman, H. L. 2023. ‘Alcidamas’ On Homer: P. Mich. Inv. 2754’, CPh 118: 440–58.Google Scholar
Spelman, H. L. forthcoming. ‘Invoking Homer: the Catalogue of Ships and the early reception of the Iliad’, in Kelly, A. and Spelman, H. L. (eds.), Texts and Intertexts in Archaic and Classical Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spielberg, L. 2020. ‘Ennius’ Annals as source and model for historical speech’, in Damon and Farrell (eds.): 147–66.Google Scholar
Squire, M. 2011. The Iliad in a Nutshell: Visualizing Epic on the Tabulae Iliacae. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stachon, M. 2014. Tractavi monumentum aere perennius. Untersuchungen zu vergilische und ovidischen Pseudepigraphen. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Stachon, M. (ed.) 2021. Sueton, De poetis. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Starr, R. J. 2007. ‘Roman literary chronology: a teacher in his classroom’, Latomus 66: 959–64.Google Scholar
Steel, C. E. W. 2002–2003. ‘Cicero’ Brutus: The end of oratory and the beginning of history?’, BICS 46: 195–211.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. 1964. ‘Gattungen und Epochen der Griechischen Literatur in der Sicht Quintilians’, Hermes 92: 454–66.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. 1982. Untersuchungen zur römischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2010. ‘The Life of Vergil before Donatus’, in Farrell, J. and Putnam, M. C. J. (eds.), A Companion to Vergil’s Aeneid and Its Tradition, Malden – Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 107–20.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2013. ‘Triumviri agris dividendis. Una leggenda virgiliana’, Argos 36: 9–27.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2016–2017. ‘Schemi di accessus a Virgilio’, Incontri di filologia classica 16: 229–43.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2017. ‘Why was Virgil called “Parthenias”?’, GIF 69: 157–70.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2018. ‘Virgil in the Renaissance court’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Sgarbi, M. (eds.), Virgil and Renaissance Culture. Tempe: Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies – Brepols: 31–67.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2020. ‘Augustus and Virgil in contemporary literature: Wishart, Nadaud, Vassalli’, in Pimentel, M. C., Lóio, A. M., Rodrigues, N. S. and Furtado, R. (eds.), Augustan Papers. New Approaches to the Age of Augustus on the Bimillennium of His Death. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms: 639–56.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2021. ‘Ovid and Virgilian exegesis: the episode of Achaemenides’, GIF 73: 127–45.Google Scholar
Stok, F. 2022. ‘Virgil the Wise. Genesis of a myth’, in Tischer, U., Gärtner, U. and Forst, A. (eds.), Ut pictura poeta. Author Image and the Reading of Ancient Literatur/Autorbilder und die Lektüre antiker Literatur. Turnhout: Brepols: 319–40.Google Scholar
Storey, I. C. (ed.) 2011. Fragments of Old Comedy, Vol. iii: Philonicus to Xenophon. Adespota. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stray, C. 2018. Classics in Britain. Scholarship, Education, and Publishing 1800–2000. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strazdins, E. 2016. The Future of the Second Sophistic. PhD diss. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Stroup, S. C. 2010. Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons: The Generation of the Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suerbaum, W. 1968. Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung älterer römischer Dichter. Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius. Hildesheim: G. Olms.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. P. 1975. ‘Editorial’, Arethusa 8: 5–6.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. F. 1987. ‘The theatrical families of Athens.’ AJPh 108: 9–26.Google Scholar
Svarlien, J. 1994. ‘Lucilianus character’, AJPh 115: 253–67.Google Scholar
Svenbro, J. 2018. Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, S. 1991. ‘The reliability of Philostratus’s Lives of the Sophists’, ClAnt 10: 148–63.Google Scholar
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World ad 50–250. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, S., Harrison, S. and Elsner, J. (eds.) 2007. Severan Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tautz, B. 2018. Translating the World. Toward a New History of German Literature around 1800. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 2020. Lucretius and the Language of Nature. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. 2023. ‘Lucretius and “early Latin”’, in Adams, J. N., Chahoud, A. and Pezzini, G. (eds.), Early Latin. Constructs, Diversity, Reception. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press: 434–52.Google Scholar
Teja, V. 2002. La “satura” drammatica e i suoi rapport con la “satura” letteraria e con il teatro latino. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.Google Scholar
Telò, M. 2023. Resistant Form: Aristophanes and the Comedy of Crisis. Goleta: Punctum Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teodorsson, S.-T. 1988. ‘Plutarch, De Pyth. or. 405 E-F’, Eranos 86: 141–4.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1996. ‘Genre through intertextuality: Theocritus to Virgil and Propertius’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, G. C. (eds.), Theocritus. Groningen: Peeters: 227–46.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1997. Review of Conte 1994, AJPh 118: 471–5.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 2001. Virgil and the Augustan Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (ed.) 2011. Horace, Odes Book iv and Carmen Saeculare. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thorsen, T. S. 2019. ‘Sappho: transparency and obstruction’, in Harrison, S. J. and Thorsen, T. S. (eds.), Roman Receptions of Sappho. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thury, E. M. 1987. ‘Lucretius’ poem as a simulacrum of the rerum natura’, AJPh 108: 270–94.Google Scholar
Tilg, S. 2006. ‘Cantores Euphorionis – in Epikurs Garten?’, Philologus 150: 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tissol, G. 1998. Review of Fantham 1996, AHR 103: 150–1.Google Scholar
Too, Y. L. 1998. The Idea of Ancient Literary Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Toye, D. L. 1995. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the first Greek historians’, AJPh 116: 279–302.Google Scholar
Trenkner, S. 1958. The Greek Novella in the Classical Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsantsanoglou, K. 1973. ‘Duo Alkmanes (P. Oxy. 2802)’, Hellenika 26: 107–12.Google Scholar
Ucciardello, G. 2007. ‘Glaucus [1]’, Lessico dei Grammatici greci antichi. Online: Brill.Google Scholar
Uden, J. 2020. ‘The margins of satire: Suetonius, satura, and scholarly outsiders in ancient Rome’, AJPh 141: 575–601.Google Scholar
Uhlig, S. 2023. Schools of Literature around 1800: Rhetoric, Poetics, and Literary Historiography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, G. 2007. Die Kindheit des Mythos. Die Erfindung der Literaturgeschichte in der Antike. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Usher, S. (ed.) 1974. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Critical Essays. Vol. 1. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Usher, S. (ed.) 1985. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Critical Essays. Vol. 2. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vahlen, J. (ed.) 1903. Ennianae poesis reliquiae. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Vallat, D. 2012. ‘Servius Danielis et les obtrectatores: éléments de polémique anti-virgilienne’, Eruditio Antiqua 4: 247–87.Google Scholar
van den Berg, C. S. 2014. The World of Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, C. S. 2021. The Politics and Poetics of Cicero’s Brutus: The Invention of Literary History. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Stockt, L. 1992. Twinkling and Twilight. Plutarch’s Reflections on Literature. Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, G.-J. 2009. ‘The odyssey of Apollonius: an intertextual paradigm’, in Bowie and Elsner (eds.): 176–204.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, C. A. 1955. ‘Quintilian x 1, 93 once more’, Mnemosyne 8: 305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, C. A. 1965. Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vansina, J. 1965. Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Veyne, P. 1984. Writing History: Essays in Epistemology. Translated by Moore-Rinvolucri, M.. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, E. 1959. ‘Die Schrift vom Wettkampf Homers und Hesiods’, RhM 102: 193–221.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2002. The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volk, K. 2010. ‘Lucretius’ prayer for peace and the date of De Rerum Natura’, CQ 60: 127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volk, K. 2012. ‘Letters in the sky: reading the signs in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, AJPh 133: 209–40.Google Scholar
von Albrecht, M. 1997. A History of Roman Literature from Livius Andronicus to Boethius, with Special Regard to Its Influence on World Literature. 2 vols. Revised by G. Schmeling and the author. Translated. Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill.Google Scholar
Von Reden, S. and Goldhill, S. 1999. ‘Plato and the performance of dialogue’, in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 257–92.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1983. Suetonius: The Scholar and His Caesars. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Walsh, G. B. 1987. ‘Philodemus on the terminology of Neoptolemus’, Mnemosyne 40: 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walz, C. (ed.) 1832. Rhetores Graeci. Vol. 1. Stuttgart – London – Paris: J. G. Cotta – Black and Young & Young – Firmin Didot.Google Scholar
Ward, J. K. 2008. Aristotle on Homonymy. Dialectic and Science. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2007. ‘Diogenes Laërtius, biographer of philosophy’, in König and Whitmarsh (eds.): 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waszink, J. H. 1972. ‘Problems concerning the satura of Ennius’, in Ennius. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 17. Vandœuvres – Geneva: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique: 99–137, with discussion at 138–47.Google Scholar
Watson, L. and Watson, P. (eds.) 2003. Martial, Selected Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, R. H. 1912. ‘On the origin of Roman satire’, CPh 7: 177–89.Google Scholar
Webster, T. B. L. 1950. Studies in Menander. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Weil, H. and Reinach, T. (eds.) 1900. Plutarque. De la musique. Paris: E. Leroux.Google Scholar
Weimann, R. 1976. Structure and Society in Literary History. Studies in the History and Theory of Historical Criticism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Wellek, R. 1947. ‘Six types of literary history’, in Clifford, J. L., Kirk, R. and Robertson, D. A. (eds.), English Institute Essays 1946. New York: Columbia University Press: 107–26.Google Scholar
Wellek, R. 1956. ‘The concept of evolution in literary history’, in Halle, M. (ed.), For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. The Hague: Mouton & Co.: 653–61.Google Scholar
Wellek, R. 1973. ‘The fall of literary history’, in Koselleck, R. and Stempel, W.-D. (eds.), Geschichte – Ereignis und Erzählung. Munich: W. Fink: 427–40.Google Scholar
Wellek, R. and Warren, A.. 1956. Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Welsh, J. T. 2014. ‘The “fragments” of Plautus’ Captivi’, in Perysinakis, I. N. and Karakasis, E. (eds.), Plautine Trends. Studies in Plautine Comedy and its Reception. Festschrift in honour of Prof. D. K. Raios. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter: 151–64.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1967. ‘The Contest of Homer and Hesiod’, CQ 17: 433–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. 1971. ‘Stesichorus.’ CQ 21: 302–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. 1983. The Orphic Poems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (ed.) 1987. Euripides: Orestes. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. 2011. ‘Pindar as a man of letters’, in Obbink, D. and Rutherford, R. (eds.), Culture in Pieces. Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 50–68.Google Scholar
White, H. V. 1973. Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
White, P. 1993. Promised Verse. Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome. Cambridge, ma – London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2004. Ancient Greek Literature. Cambridge – Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2006. ‘Quickening the classics: the politics of prose in Roman Greece’, in Porter (ed.): 353–74.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2013. Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism. Berkeley – London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Whitton, C. 2019. Review of Goldberg and Manuwald (eds.) 2018. G&R 66: 118–26.Google Scholar
Wiater, N. 2011. The Ideology of Classicism. Language, History, and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1900. ‘Asianismus und Atticismus’, Hermes 35: 1–52.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1913. Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1921. Griechische Verskunst. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. J. 1987. The Measure of Times Past: Pre-Newtonian Chronologies and the Rhetoric of Relative Time. Chicago – London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 1978. Change and Decline. Roman Literature in the Early Empire. Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willink, C. W. (ed.) 1986. Euripides: Orestes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wills, J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry. Figures of Allusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. 2005. ‘Trends in Greek literature in the contemporary academy’, in Hose, M and Schenker, D (eds.), A Companion to Greek Literature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 491–510.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. 2013. Shelley and the Apprehension of Life. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterbottom, M. 1970. Problems in Quintilian. BICS Suppl. 25. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2008. Unwritten Rome. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1988. ‘Satyrs in Rome? The background to Horace’s Ars Poetica’, JRS 78: 1–13.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2006. ‘Fauns, prophets, and Ennius’s Annales’, Arethusa 39: 513–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witke, C. 1970. Latin Satire. The Structure of Persuasion. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies. London – Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. and Miller, J. F. (eds.) 2010. Latin Historiography and Poetry in the Early Empire: Generic Interactions. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wooten, C. 1994. ‘The Peripatetic tradition in the literary essays of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, in Fortenbaugh and Mirhady (eds.): 121–30.Google Scholar
Wright, J. 1974. Dancing in Chains. The Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 25. Rome: The American Academy.Google Scholar
Wright, W. C. (ed.) 1921. Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists. Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wycherly, E. W. 1946. ‘Aristophanes and Euripides’, G&R 15: 98–107.Google Scholar
Zaccaria, P. 2020. ‘Distinguishing homonymous writers, detecting spurious works: Demetrius of Magnesia’s On Poets and Authors with the Same Name’, in Berardi, R., Filosa, M. and Massimo, D. (eds.), Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity. Problems of Authority from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance. Berlin: De Gruyter: 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlin, F. 1996. Playing the Other. Essays on Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. 2001. ‘Visions and revisions of Homer’, in Goldhill, S. (ed.), Being Greek under Rome. Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 195–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 1983. ‘Catullus, Ennius, and the poetics of allusion’, ICS 8: 251–66.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 2007. ‘The influence of Cicero on Ennius’, in Fitzgerald, W. and Gowers, E. (eds.), Ennius Perennis. The Annals and Beyond. PCPhS Suppl. 31. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society: 1–16.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 2018. Critics, Compilers, and Commentators. An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, B. 2001. ‘Lucilius und Aristophanes’, in Manuwald, G. (ed.), Der Satiriker Lucilius und seine Zeit. Munich: C. H. Beck: 188–95.Google Scholar
Ziogas, I. 2017. ‘Singing for Octavia: Vergil’s life and Marcellus’ death’, HSPh 109: 429–81.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, J. M. and Putnam, M. C. J. (eds.) 2007. The Vergilian Tradition. The First Fifteen Hundred Years. New Haven – London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, T. 1993. Virgil and the Moderns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zorzetti, N. 1990. ‘The carmina convivalia’, in Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Giacomo Fedeli, University of Exeter, Henry Spelman, University of Cambridge
  • Book: Writing Literary History in the Greek and Roman World
  • Online publication: 07 June 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009464543.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Giacomo Fedeli, University of Exeter, Henry Spelman, University of Cambridge
  • Book: Writing Literary History in the Greek and Roman World
  • Online publication: 07 June 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009464543.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Giacomo Fedeli, University of Exeter, Henry Spelman, University of Cambridge
  • Book: Writing Literary History in the Greek and Roman World
  • Online publication: 07 June 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009464543.017
Available formats
×