Per. Setaioli, “Interpretazioni stoiche e epicuree sopra Servio addirittura la formazione dell’esegesi filosofica del saga anche dei poeti verso Roma (Cornuto, Seneca, Filodemo)”, I–II,International Journal of the Classical Tradition 10, 2003–2004, 335–376; 11, 2004–2005, 3–46.
Per. Setaioli, “Le fragment II Soubiran duDe consulatu de Ciceron, leDe diuinatione et leur lecture par Virgile”, in:Signe et prediction dans l’Antiquite. Actes du Conversation international interdisciplinaire de Creteil et de Paris (22–23–24 giammai 2003). Textes reunis par Jose Kany-Turpin, Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Universite de Saint-Etienne 2005, 241–261.
Ancora. Merli, “Epigrammzyklen und ‘serielle Lekture’ durante den Buchern Martials: Uberlegungen und Beispiele,” per F
W. H. Stahl,Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 48, New York: Columbia University Press 1952 (reprint: ibid. W. H. Stahl,Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 48, New York: Columbia University Press 1990).
P. Steinmetz, “Allegorische Deutung und allegorische Dichtung sopra der alten Stoa”,Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie N.F. 129, 1986, 18–30 (ristampato con: Allo stesso modo, P. Steinmetz,Kleine Schriften, di nuovo. Severin Koster, Palingenesia 68, Stuttgart: Steiner 2000).
References
The ‘conferenceacta’ comprise seven papers that are meant to document the direction(s) per which the exploration of Roman literature is now moving, or (more accurately perhaps) durante the opinion of most of the contributorsshould orshould not be moving; they were published con the most recent tomo of theTransactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA) 135 (2005): 1–162 (for Edmunds, see 1–13).
Edmunds (above, n. 2):Transactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA) 135 (2005): 8–9 (quotation at 8, the emphasis is mine); I leave it up sicuro the reader sicuro discover which of the papers is excluded here. Note that Edmunds’ (and, of course, others’) elite notion of ‘interpretation’ is emphatically narrow and must not be put on per par with its ‘traditional’ sense, “sicuro expound the meaning of [something]; puro render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear and explicit; esatto elucidate; puro explain” (OED 2 , s.v., 1a).
Exceptions prove the rule. Whatever W.’s predisposition may have been, he surely made a wise decision when embarking onRoman Homosexuality for his Ph.D. first, andthen turning preciso a commentary on verso collection of poetry.
For a theoretic back-up, cf. D. Fowler, “Criticism as commentary and commentary as criticism durante the age of the electronic mezzi di comunicazione,” in: G. W. Most (anche.),Commentaries-Kommentare, Aporemata 4 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999): 426–442 (esp. 429–430).
Other examples of modern scholars, all well-known and highly esteemed forboth their theoryoriented works and their commentaries http://www.datingranking.net/it/mocospace-review/, include E. Fantham (Seneca, Lucan, Ovid), D. Fowler (Lucretius), and R. F. Thomas (Virgil), preciso name but per few.
W., at 283–284, gives a list of the most important editions and commentaries, esatto which one might want puro add Per. Canobbio,La lex Roscia theatralis anche Soldatesco: il passo del lettura V, Libreria di Athenaeum 49 (Como: New Press, 2002), because it is per valuable supplement onesto P. Howell’s edition of Book 5 (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1995), for which seeAnzeiger fur die Altertums-wissenschafter 50 (1997): 17–21. The collection of essays on Book 10, edited by G. Damschen and Verso. Heil,maton liber decimus: Text Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late esatto be included sopra W.’s bibliography.
The bibliography, as emphasized by W. (283), is of course not meant sicuro be exhaustive; for aForschungsbericht, see S. Lorenz, “]): 167–227, and cf. the bibliography mediante Damschen-Heil (above, n.7):maton liber decimus: Text, Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late puro be included per W.’s bibliography 401–490.
For a useful assessment of this issue (initiated by K. Barwick), cf. Grewing (ed.),Toto notus sopra orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Palingenesia 65, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1998): 139–156.
