A. Setaioli, “Interpretazioni stoiche addirittura epicuree mediante Servio addirittura la formazione dell’esegesi filosofica del favola di nuovo 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 Dialogue international interdisciplinaire de Creteil et de Paris (22–23–24 no 2003). Textes reunis par Jose Kany-Turpin, Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Universite de Saint-Etienne 2005, 241–261.
Anche. Merli, “Epigrammzyklen und ‘serielle Lekture’ mediante den Buchern Martials: Uberlegungen und Beispiele,” durante 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 in der alten Stoa”,Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie N.F. 129, 1986, 18–30 (ristampato per: Ugualmente, P. Steinmetz,Kleine Schriften, anche. Severin Koster, Palingenesia 68, Stuttgart: Steiner 2000).
References
The ‘conferenceacta’ comprise seven papers that are meant sicuro document the direction(s) in which the exploration of Roman literature is now moving, or (more accurately perhaps) in the opinion of most of the contributorsshould orshould not be moving; they were published per the most recent elenco 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 https://datingranking.net/it/pinalove-review/, the emphasis is mine); I leave it up sicuro the reader to 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 verso par with its ‘traditional’ sense, “sicuro expound the meaning of [something]; preciso render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear and explicit; puro elucidate; puro explain” (OED 2 , s.v., 1a).
Exceptions prove the rule. Whatever W.’s predisposition may have been, he surely made per wise decision when embarking onRoman Homosexuality for his Ph.D. first, andthen turning sicuro a commentary on verso collection of poetry.
For per theoretic back-up, cf. D. Fowler, “Criticism as commentary and commentary as criticism con the age of the electronic media,” in: G. W. Most (e.),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, include Di nuovo. Fantham (Seneca, Lucan, Ovid), D. Fowler (Lucretius), and R. F. Thomas (Virgil), esatto name but a few.
W., at 283–284, gives a list of the most important editions and commentaries, to which one might want sicuro add Per. Canobbio,La lex Roscia theatralis di nuovo Soldatesco: il ciclo del lettura V, Scaffale di Athenaeum 49 (Como: New Press, 2002), because it is a valuable supplement puro 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 Per. 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 in Damschen-Heil (above, n.7):maton liber decimus: Text, Ubersetzung, Interpretationen, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 148 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004), appeared too late sicuro be included per W.’s bibliography 401–490.
For verso useful assessment of this issue (initiated by K. Barwick), cf. Grewing (addirittura.),Toto notus in orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Palingenesia 65, (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1998): 139–156.