148

Among the paratexts that precede seventeenth-century English translations, one finds encomiastic poems dedicated to the translators. Whereas the translators’ own prefaces apologize for their work’s inferiority, these encomia often do the opposite, boldly claiming that the translations equal—or even surpass—their models (Hermans 1985: 106).

Since Suetonius, Odes 4 has been the focus of much criticism and apology. Odes 4’s apparent disunity as well as its eclectic mixture of encomium and occasional pieces seems to call for some explanation. A microcosm of this phenomenon can be found in the various treatment of Horace's ode to Lollius (C.4.9). From what we know of Lollius, he seems a less than obvious choice to stand alongside the other addressees of Odes 4: Augustus, his relatives, Maecenas, and Vergil. Lollius’ political life was moderately prominent but less than smooth.

It was a commonplace in scholarship of an earlier generation to assert that Flavius Josephus was not a particularly competent Hellenist (Laqueur 1920 and Thackeray 1929).

In ancient conceptions of space, mythical geography is often inextricably connected to the phenomenological experience of time. Homer’s Phaeacians experience time differently on the periphery of the world, and the Island of the Blessed exists in a kind of prelapsarian state. One useful theoretical model to explain this phenomenon is Bakhtin’s chronotope of the literary image (Bahktin (1982)). According to this framework, space and time are so intricately interwoven that we cannot speak of one without talking about the other.

Three documents of the Collectio Avellana’s dossier of the Bonifatian-Eulalian schism of 418-419 are docketed as letters of the Western emperor Honorius, but express their thoughts markedly differently from Honorius’s other letters in the group. Two of the three refer to domni germani mei Augusti principis (Coll.Av. 27.2, 28.3), plainly correcting the docketer: they were written not by Honorius but by his sister Galla Placidia, at that date also a member of Honorius’s court.

This paper disagrees with a prevailing account of the publicani during the early to high Empire, as reduced in power, relegated to provincial tax collection, and increasingly at odds with the imperial state. It argues that instead we should understand the publicani both as providing indispensable services throughout the empire and generating sizeable earnings in the process, and as legally protected in their position.

The Stoics notoriously argued that it was possible for someone progressing (a proficiens) towards wisdom and virtue to achieve these utterly distinct states without being aware of it (SVF 3.539-541). Seneca clearly alludes to this position when he writes in the Epistulae Morales that the most advanced proficientes lack only this awareness, for “they are ignorant that they are wise” (scire se nesciunt; Ep. 75.9).

The philosophical dialogues of Socrates’ student Aeschines of Sphettos are known to us only from fragmentary quotations and brief testimonia (see Giannantoni, SSR). There is thus considerable uncertainty about their contents. Using historical, philological, and papyrological evidence, this paper refutes a widespread misinterpretation of Athenaeus’ indication of the content of Aeschines’ dialogue Callias. Where Athenaeus (5.220b) says that “his (sc.

Nishiwaki Junzaburō’s Ambarvalia, first published in 1933, has become one of the key works of Japanese Modernism and is also a work profoundly influenced by the world of classical antiquity.

Recent developments in reception studies, world literature, and the digital humanities have made effective use of enlarged scale in posing and answering new research questions.