Quintus of Smyrna: The Trojan Epic (Posthomerica) ed. by Alan James (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
62 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS the requirements of the meter,3 but regarded as potentially another of the poet's means of conveying to us what he wants us to feel." This is, it seems, somewhat different from "struggling" to express his feelings. Despite the few infelicities mentioned in this review, the book does admirably achieve its purpose of directing the reader~s attention to the interactions between sound, sense, and rhythm in ancient poetry. Edwards asserts in his Preface that he hopes to give teachers of Classics "renewed interest in showing their students how to translate-how best both to understand the intonations and implications of the original language and to see why it can be so difficult to reproduce it in the different norms of English idiom" (x, Edwards' italics). Edwards' renditions are successful on their own terms, and of course producing translations in the classroom is necessary when teaching ancient language and literature . But too much emphasis on writing out word-for-word translations can be counter-productive: I am reminded of the final-year undergraduate who once came to me brandishing the Creek and Latin reading list for a graduate school and asking in despair, "Are we supposed to translate all of this?" More importantly, this excellent book will undoubtedly stimulate renewed interest in showing our students how to read. Or listen. C.LC. ROBERTSON DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 5TJOHN'S, NL AIC 557 ALAN JAMES. trans. and ed. Quintus of Smyrna: The Trojan Epic (Posthomerica). Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2004. Pp. xi + 365. ISBN 0-8018-7965-5. Alan James' translation of the Posthomerica clearly aims to be a work of scholarship as well. It begins with an extensive Introduction and Select Bibliography. The Critical Summary following the translation provides a general introduction to each book as well as a summary by sections of the contents of each book (almost 30 pages) There follows a Commentary (ca. 80 pages) and an Index of Names. I shall consider these ancillary sections before taking up the translation. The Introduction gives information on the Cyclic epics and their re3 Again (see previous note). this aspect of the poetry has hardly been discussed atall. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS lationship to the Iliad and Odyssey (xi-xviD. and then to Quintus himself (xvii-xxi). James is particularly interested in Quintus' background and date. Was Quintus a shepherd. or is he merely following Hesiod? Did he live in Smyrna. as the "ostensibly autobiographical passage at 12.306- I 3" suggests, or is he following Homer? James thinks he was from Smyrna. Here as with the fairly detailed presentation of evidence for Quintus' date the question arises: for whom is this translation-or translation and edition as James has it-intended? The Commentary at least is intended for" nonspecialist readers" (viii). There is also more of the technical and philological. and less of the literary, than translations usually provide. And so, when James' discussion of the Character of the Trojan Epic (xxi-xxix) deals with meter. we learn that Quintus ignores Kallimachos' refinements and follows Homeric practice, but is more dactylic than Homer. The treatment of oral poetry is heavy on numbers and statistics: 550/0 of heroic names in Horner are with an epithet, 370/0 in Quintus: the Iliad is 44% speech, the Odyssey 560/0. Quintus 240/0. and so on. For similes, surely an opportunity for literary comment, we learn of frequency and clustering, of subject matter, and of the percentage (100/0) that are original (xxv-xxvi). The heroes get short shrift: we learn that they are idealized. Divine intervention is far less common than in Homer (xxvii-xxviii). Stoic philosophy-generally in the form of moral maxims-is thought to contribute to the idealization of characters (xxviii-xxix). When Achilles' ghost appears to Neoptolemos, delivers a long list of old saws (don't be too sad when things go bad, or too happy when you're lucky: human beings are like grass, etc.), provides advice on scaling the Tree of Virtue, advises Neoptolemos to be gentle, and in the next breath orders the sacrifice to Polyxena at his tomb (14.179...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".