MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4293382188 · doi:10.1353/phx.2020.0049

Ennius Noster: Lucretius and the Annales by Jason Nethercut

2020· article· en· W4293382188 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesse Hill

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhoenix · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueClassical Antiquity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDemocracyLawIdeologyHomicideEconomic JusticeHistorySociologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 335 with the concerns of the separate homicide courts, where both litigants and witnesses had to swear that their side’s case was true. Her speculative explanation is that the homicide laws, which were the oldest in Athens, were enacted primarily to replace retaliatory murders (the common response to homicide before written laws) and thus had to produce verdicts that were factually credible to the victim’s relatives. When the popular courts were established more than a century later, the same circumstances no longer prevailed. I would add one other factor to her account, namely that the popular courts were established by the new democratic government led by Cleisthenes, and democratic ideology required that the courts consider justice in their decisions. The eight contributions in this volume cover a wide range of topics. All are interesting and valuable in their own right, but only the Roman law papers really address issues concerning law and fact. University of Texas at Austin Michael Gagarin Ennius Noster: Lucretius and the ANNALES. By Jason Nethercut. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2021. Pp. 260. These are happy times for the study of Latin literature’s first few hundred years: dusty, “archaic” poets are starting to appear fresh and exciting;1 republican genres that once were thought to have died young now seem to have lived into ripe, imperial old age;2 and the contours of Roman literature’s very “beginning” have received renewed and probing attention.3 It might not be an overstatement to say that the history of Latin poetry, ca 240 to 40 b.c.e., is in the process of being rewritten. Enter Jason Nethercut. The first book-length study of the relationship between Lucretius and the Annales in any modern language, Ennius Noster does more than fill a “gap”: this is a bold and important work of scholarship, with provocative things to say about Lucretius, Ennius, and Latin literary history writ large. Though not every reader will buy everything on offer, Ennius Noster is sure to become a major point of reference over the coming decades. Scholars of republican literature will need to have it on their shelves, and I, at least, will be keeping it within arm’s length of my laptop. The book’s central thesis is tidy and easy to summarize: Lucretius systematically alludes to the Annales in order to dismantle the worldview that he attributes to that poem; Ennian ideology thus stands as the unenlightened foil to Lucretius’ vera ratio— Epicureanism. Nethercut argues this credible thesis over a lucid and to-the-point introduction , four chapters, a conclusion, and five valuable appendices. The prose style is punchy and readable, and the text has been carefully copy-edited throughout. It is a real pleasure to encounter scholarship written with so much love and labour. Chapter One, “Ennius and the Tradition of Republican Epic,” sets the stage. Reconsidering the hexametrical poetry written between the Annales and De rerum natura, 1 For Ennius, see J. Elliott, Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales (Cambridge 2013); for Livius Andronicus and Naevius, see T. Biggs, Poetics of the First Punic War (Ann Arbor 2020). 2 On republican comedy’s afterlife, see M. Hanses, The Life of Comedy after the Death of Plautus and Terence (Ann Arbor 2020); C. Polt, Catullus and Roman Comedy: Theatricality and Personal Drama in the Late Republic (Cambridge 2021). 3 D. Feeney, Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature (Cambridge, MA 2016). 336 PHOENIX Nethercut here argues that Ennius’ influence on second-century b.c.e. epic was much less pronounced than is currently believed and that, consequently, Lucretius’ appropriation of Ennius in the mid-first century was unexpected. A version of this argument has already appeared in a recent volume on the Annales, which I reviewed in the last issue of Phoenix.4 So, I will be brief: this chapter does well to criticize the stale scholarly narrative that second-century Rome was full of Ennianisti, writing cookie-cutter imitations of the Annales. Yet the new story that it tells—that Ennius’ influence on epic before Lucretius was slight—seems to me little better, predicated, as it is, on significant omissions (e.g., Nethercut...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,593
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,322

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhoenixMême sujetClassical Antiquity StudiesTravaux en français237 207