Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:02:18.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Odivm Chronologicvm - A. Grafton: Joseph Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship. II Historical Chronology. (Oxford-Warburg Studies.) Pp. xviii+766. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Cased, £65.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2009

E. J. Kenney
E. J. Kenney
Affiliation:
Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 413 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1995

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

1 A pedantic niggle. Scaliger's note on Manil. 5.126 ‘EumaeusnatusestVlyssi’ does not mean ‘Eumaeus… was born to Ulysses’ (447). Vlyssi is genitive, as is Laertiadae in Manilius’ text. And while we are at it, it is misleading to say that Scaliger's identification of Pollio as the dedicatee of Ecl. 8 ‘has had its adherents over the centuries, down to C. G. Heyne’ (621); until 1971 it was the communis opinio. It is interesting, by the way, to note that when Scaliger propounded his thesis in the TT in 1606, the identification had already been in the public domain since 1600, when Pierre Daniel published Servius auctus. In the light of Scaliger's generally cavalier attitude to the contributions of other scholars it is legitimate to wonder whether his claim to be first in the field—‘nemo, quod sciam, hactenus aduertit——is to be ascribed to oversight or lack of candour.