Notice bibliographique
Résumé
190 PHOENIX than a sustained examination of inscriptions in Latin elegy. Discussion of Amores 1.11, for example, is an interesting interpretation that pays many dividends, but her attempt to establish a connection between Ovid's dedication of his writing tablets to Venus, the character of Nape, and Roman slavery frequently strains to show its links to the inserted inscription. Ramsby's exploration of the relationship between Ovid's prayer for a safe Corinna in Amores 2.13-14 and his anxiety regarding the writing of elegy in the contemporary political climate likewise often fails to remain tethered to the accompanying three-word inscription. Moreover, in her discussion of the Amores, and indeed throughout the book, Ramsby is perhaps a little too content to ground her thesis about the close relationship between the literary and real-world application of inscriptions with reference to how Romans used them to evoke and achieve permanence, memorialization, and self-display. These broad categories also frequently underpin the use of inscriptions in other cultures, however, and as a result it remains a little cloudy as to how often the use of inscriptions by the elegists is distinctively or uniquely Roman. Ramsby's engagement with the social and political relevance of literary inscriptions continues in her discussion of the Metamorphoses in the sixth and final chapter of the book. Of particular interest in this chapter is the employment of inscriptions by characters traditionally marginalized or lacking status and power. Ramsby reviews the inscriptions contained within the tales of Phaethon, Caieta, and Iphis, for example, and with the latter uncovers connections with both the threats to male power during the Augustan period and the ongoing process of Romanization. Similarly, in Propertius, the use of epigraphic elements by women such as Cynthia, Arethusa, and Cornelia in poems 4.3, 4.7, and 4.11, for instance, is typical of Roman practice in that they strive to establish memorial and permanence. But Ramsby also demonstrates how they can be read as reactions against the policies of the new regime, and also how they are interconnected with moves on the part of the elegists to secure their own immortality and establish their position in society at a time when other forms of literary production were in perhaps greater favour. Many of these readings are invigorating and, for the most part, convincing, although occasionally the discussion exhibits a shortcoming common in studies that attempt to integrate literature and history, in that some of the connections drawn demand fuller development. Ramsby's attempt to secure the interpretation of inscriptions in elegy within their Roman context is welcome and needed. This important perspective, however, still demands a more thorough engagement with the social and political developments of the late republic and early principate, and a more precise consideration of the specific functions of inscriptions for Romans and Italians. But this is a good book, and Ramsby is to be commended for her fresh insight into a well studied selection of poems. Campion College, University of Regina David Meban Statius' Thebaid and the Poetics of Civil War. By Charles McNelis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Pp. x , 203. Studying Statius no longer requires an apology: in the four recent monographs in English and the surging tide of articles, there is a sense of a new orthodoxy on Statius emerging (a poet secure in his self-confidence, challenging his predecessors). I should begin by stating unequivocally that this is an excellent book which demands and deserves close reading and engagement: a balanced, stimulating, and original interpretation of the BOOK REVTEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 191 Thebaid. It is a shame that all this work on Statius came at the same time, leading to some duplication and less engagement with the ideas of others than might be ideal. The distinctive offering of McNelis's book, despite its rather uninformative title, is his take on the Thebaid's use of Callimachus and Callimacheanism. For a thorough, detailed, and thoughtful exploration of all possible echoes of Callimachus and Callimachean material in Statius' Thebaid, we nefed look no further. McNelis presents a reading of the Thebaid as a text riven by conflicting poetic agendas, along the lines of Jamie Masters's...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».