Musaeus’ “Hero and Leander”: Introduction, Greek Text, Translation, and Commentary by Silvia Montiglio
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
346 PHOENIX more enjoyable than its satisfaction. Smith sees this posture as unusual and distinctive, and he reads the epigram as engaging with conceptions of manhood: since self-control (enkrateia) was “traditionally” the way to express manliness, the door deprives the speaker of an opportunity to express his masculinity and instead provokes “a complete disregard of encratic practice and an impulse to luxuriate in apparent powerlessness” (125). Here, the adverb “traditionally” does a lot of work and effaces some nuance. From the standpoint of the tradition, Paul’s speaker is also a descendant of the numerous excluded lovers of Hellenistic epigram who stand outside, and sometimes directly complain to, the door of a would-be lover, and who often seem to derive an analogous, self-indulgent pleasure from their exclusion and from their suffering and lack of control. In other cases, too, some additional consideration of Hellenistic intertexts would be beneficial. To give a single example, in Paulus AP 10.15.3, Smith sees a specific allusion to A.R. 2.594–595, where a ship at sea rides the waves “as if on a cylinder” (ºste kul’nd~), but the reference in both passages is to the practice of launching ships on rollers such as is recounted at A.R. 1.375–377 (cf. A.R. 1.377: ¥lisya’nousa). In any case, the idea that encouraging sailors to set sail without fear “exposes the fear and anxiety at the heart of masculine identity” and that it evokes the sailors’ shortcomings relative to the Argonauts in the alleged intertext (154) does not adequately address the direct model provided by Satyrus AP 10.6.5 or account for the tradition, grounded in reality, that all sailors, no matter how brave, had good reason to be anxious, especially outside of the sailing season (e.g., Leonidas AP 7.665.1–2). Such quibbles hardly detract from Smith’s achievement in this pathbreaking book. I have learned a tremendous amount from it, and it has led me to think about the ways that the approach could be applied productively to earlier poetry. It is essential reading not only for specialists in Byzantine literature, but also for anyone working on epigrams or interested in the treatment of sex, gender, and power in antiquity. Georgetown University Alexander Sens Musaeus' “Hero and Leander”: Introduction, Greek Text, Translation, and Commentary. By Silvia Montiglio. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. 2020. Pp. 123. The tale about Leander, the nighttime clandestine lover who crosses the dangerous waters between Sestos and Abydos to see his beloved Hero and drowns in the process, is among the “classics” of European literature. Since the editio Aldina of 1495, Musaeus’ poem has been associated above all with tragic romantic love. Manutius’ choice to print this poem even before the Homeric epics—Musaeus was thought a forerunner of Homer—has marked the reception of the poem as one of the hallmarks of humanism. The present work is a convenient and useful edition. It includes an extensive introduction of forty-nine pages, taking up almost half the book; a Greek text with a facing English translation; and a concise line-by-line commentary. The up-to-date bibliography provides an excellent reference tool as it includes all past and even forthcoming scholarly works. Below I present some of the highlights of Montiglio’s edition as well as some personal thoughts on the poet in his late antique context. The author has succeeded in producing a modern English translation and an excellent literary discussion accessible to novice and expert readers alike. By contrast to C. Whit- BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 347 man, who attempted to maintain the poetic effect of the text by adopting a loose fourbeat verse,1 Montiglio’s adaptation is in free verse and resembles rather Orsini’s poetic French prose for the 1968 Budé edition.2 The interpretation of pœmatow (“hindmost,” “last”) in line 343 (úll}lvn d' úp—nato ka“ \n pum‡t~ per ¥lyr~), for instance, translated as “and they had joy of each other even in the extremity of death,” evokes Orsini’s “et ils jouirent l’un de l’autre éternellement, jusque dans l’abı̂me...
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».