Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin's Epitome of Trogus (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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...
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".