Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin's Epitome of Trogus (review)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin's Epitome of Trogus S. J. V. Malloch J. C. Yardley . Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin's Epitome of Trogus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Pp. xvii, 284. $95.00. ISBN 0-8020-8766-3. In the reign of Augustus the historian Pompeius Trogus wrote in forty-four books the Historiae Philippicae, which narrate events from early Assyrian times to his own day. The Historiae have only come down to us in the epitome written probably around A.D. 200 by one Justinus, and they provide useful evidence about Carthage and Hellenistic history. In his preface Justin explains that he "excerpted" only the most noteworthy material, the result being a brief anthology to refresh the learned or instruct the unlearned in Greek history. One question of fundamental importance is: how much of the epitome belongs to Trogus and how much to Justin? Yardley's study of the language of Justin's epitome makes the most significant contribution yet to the debate whether the epitome is a farrago of Trogus or an autonomous work by someone who was virtually a creative writer. Utilizing the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) Latin disk and the standard printed reference materials, Yardley analyses vocabulary and expressions current in Trogus' day but rare later, and those rare in the Augustan period but subsequently popular. This procedure, if cautiously used, provides a guide to identifying what language probably belongs to each author. The book is divided into two parts, one on Trogus, the other on Justin, and individual chapters open with essays before the format becomes more like a commentary: parallels are quoted, with concise discussion and bibliography where necessary. The first part demonstrates that, whereas the influence on Trogus of Sallust and Cicero is possible but complicated to assess and that of Caesar less pronounced, Livy's is "deep and pervasive" (20), with a number of expressions in the epitome paralleled only in Livy or so close to Livy as to seem like echoes, "Livian expressions that appealed to Pompeius Trogus, left intact by the epitomator" (21). Yardley sees the detection of Livian language in the epitome as one of the "firm" conclusions of his study, strongly suggesting that Trogus is "Livian" rather than "Sallustian," as has been thought (10). This part also collects expressions common to the epitome and to authors known to have used Trogus (Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Curtius Rufus, and Frontinus), but less frequent in writers closer to Justin's time. The second part is dominated by the chapter "'Justinisms' in Justin," in which Yardley documents expressions that are rare in the late republic and early empire, but cluster around the second century A.D. Authors such as Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and Suetonius recur frequently. Tacitus creates more of a problem: there are either Tacitean expressions in Justin or expressions shared by Tacitus and Justin go back to Trogus. Yardley inclines towards the former view and quotes relevant passages from Tacitus. Parallels in Pseudo-Quintilian, the influence of Virgil and later poets like Ovid, and the presence of legal expressions in the epitome shared (especially) with Ulpian and Papinian are enough for treatment in separate chapters. Yardley reads the parallels with Pseudo-Quintilian as further evidence for his thesis that Justin was a teacher of rhetoric and his epitome for use in the rhetorical schools, whilst the expressions shared with the jurists lend support to his dating of the epitome to about A.D. 200. Yardley admits that we shall probably never be certain how much of the language is owed to Trogus and how much to Justin, but an important result of his study is that more, probably, belongs to the later than to the earlier writer. [End Page 91] Readers expecting an intertextual tour de force will not find one here: Yardley is very cautious in tracing influences and continually reminds the reader of the complexities involved, especially where one author is no longer extant. Inevitably one is bound to disagree with some interpretations. Is it quite clear that the inter epulas et pocula in the epitome's description of Alexander...
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.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 découle