Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:25:57.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ANTHOLOGIA LATINA 109.8 SHB: A NEW READING FOR YOU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

T.J. Leary
T.J. Leary*
Affiliation:
London
*
timlaoghaire@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note addresses briefly the difficulties associated with the personalities named in the epigram Anth. Lat. 109.8 ShB and their roles before suggesting that tibi should be read rather than mihi in line 8.

Keywords

Latin Anthologyacrostichtelestichprosopographytextual criticism
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , May 2022 , pp. 455 - 458
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful for their comments to Dr N.M. Kay and the anonymous CQ reader.

References

1 The text given here is based on that of Kay, N.M., Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina. Text, Translation and Commentary (London, 2006)Google Scholar, who has preserved the numbering in Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Anthologia Latina 1.1. Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina (Stuttgart, 1982)Google Scholar. Also given is the numbering of A. Riese's Teubner text (Leipzig, 1894). On this epigram, see too Zurli, L., Unius poetae sylloge (Hildesheim, 2007), 82−5Google Scholar and 150, and Bergasa, I. and Wolff, É., Épigrammes latines de l'Afrique Vandale (Paris, 2016), 30−1Google Scholar. See also Müller, L., ‘Zu Meyer's Anthologie’, RhM 20 (1865), 633−7Google Scholar (on line 4), Stowasser, J.M., ‘Lexicale Vermutungen zur lateinischen Anthologie I’, WS 31 (1909), 279−92Google Scholar, at 281 (on line 5), and (on line 6) Courtney, E., ‘Observations on the Latin Anthology’, Hermathena 129 (1980), 37−50Google Scholar, at 41−2, and id., Musa Lapidaria (Atlanta, 1995), 266; cf. Evans-Grubbs, J. and Courtney, E., ‘An identification in the Latin Anthology’, CPh 82 (1987), 237−9Google Scholar, at 238 and Cameron, Alan, ‘Filocalus and Melania’, CPh 87 (1992), 140−4, at 140Google Scholar.

2 See Kay (n. 1), 173 and cf. 191.

3 For which, see Kay (n. 1), 177−8. Also Evans-Grubbs and Courtney (n. 1), 238 and Cameron (n. 1), 140.

4 Evans-Grubbs and Courtney (n. 1), 237−9, Cameron (n. 1), 141−4; cf. Trout, D.E., Damasus of Rome (Oxford, 2015), 49Google Scholar.

5 Regarding the Elder Melania, see Cameron (n. 1), 141. She was the grandmother of the Younger Melania, for whom see Evans-Grubbs and Courtney (n. 1), 238−9.

6 Cameron (n. 1), 141−2. He refers to OLD s.v. condo 10 and 14.

7 Cf. Kay (n. 1), 178. Versus is a collective singular, as at Prop. 2.34.93 Cynthia … uersu laudata Properti.

8 Courtney (n. 1 [1980]), 41 observes that there is no known work by any poetess in the Latin Anthology. See too the arguments in Kay (n. 1), 184.

9 Courtney (n. 1 [1980]), 41−2. Courtney is, of course, thinking of the Younger Melania; but his reasoning here applies also to the Elder.

10 Kay (n. 1), 179; cf. Bergasa and Wolff (n. 1), 30−1.

11 Cameron (n. 1), 140−1.

12 Engaging bathers thus means that, while the absence of any first-person words earlier in the poem is odd, the absence of any second-person words is not a difficulty.

13 See Kay, N.M., Martial Book XI. A Commentary (London, 1985)Google Scholar, ad loc.

14 Cf. too e.g. Mart. 9.42.6 (me γ and te β) and 12.60.5 (meis β and tuis γ). Note also Lindsay's apparatus criticus at Mart. 13.48.2 mittere, where he suggests that the abbreviation mī lies behind mihi T and tibi R.

15 It seems possible, given hic lauet at both Anth. Lat. 110.3 ShB (121.3 R) and Anth. Lat. 108.7 ShB (119.7 R), that Anth. Lat. 108−10 ShB (119−21 R) form an integral group.

16 Given the connection between Anth. Lat. 109 ShB and Anth. Lat. 110 ShB (120 and 121 R), should hospes at Anth. Lat. 110.2 ShB (121.2 R) be written as ospes?

17 Cf. Kay (n. 1), 179.

18 See Cameron (n. 1), 143 and n. 14.