Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 26 items for

  • Author or Editor: Tamás Adamik x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

In my paper I scrutinize the vocabulary of the famous epitaph CLE 558, cut on the front side of a sarcophagus, found near Aquincum of Pannonia in 1868. The Latin text of the epitaph consists of 7 lines; in the first 5 lines the deceased woman, Veturia talks to the passers-by; the last two lines inform the reader that Fortunatus set up the sarcophagus to his wife. In the text of the inscription the woman professes to be unicuba uniiuga. The text of the inscription is written in hexameter. Some scholars say that the versification of the poem is incorrect because its author did not know the prosody. In my opinion the author did not want to write correct hexameters; his aim was to put the words unicuba uniiuga in the middle. The sarcophagus dates back to the 2th century AD.

Restricted access

In my paper I analyse the narrative of Livy about the Bacchanalia conspiracy. Our author, who is short with some events, dedicates twelve long chapters to this happening, that is, he regards it as important. In his report we can establish more different sources: the accounts of earlier historians, the decree of the senat (Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus) and rumours. In spite of his loyalty to the traditional Roman religion, his decription is reliable.

Restricted access

“A Trope is a shift of a word or phrase from its proper meaning to another, in a way that has positive value” (Quint. 8. 6. 1). I treat the tropes in Roman rhetoric and grammar but it does not mean that I do not take into consideration the Greek. I scrutinize the tropes in the survived Roman and Greek rhetorics and grammars in order to establish the development of the theory of tropes. Versus Karl Barwick, I mean that the theory of tropes established itself in the first century B.C. under the influence of Peripatetic School.

Restricted access

1. Im Querolus begegnen wir einer für spätantikes Heidentum ungewöhnlichen Moralität. Um diese nachzuweisen, empfiehlt es sich, die Struktur dieser Prosakomö-die kennenzulernen. In der Dedicatio empfiehlt der unbekannte Verfasser sein Werk einem Rutilius, den er vir inlustris 1 tituliert, und beschreibt den Inhalt (materiam) der Komödie (32–34). Im allgemeinen identifiziert man diesen Rutilius mit dem heid-nischen Aristokraten Rutilius Namatianus, der im ersten Drittel des 5. Jahrhundert in Rom hohe Ämter bekleidet. 2 Dann folgt ein Prologus, in dem der Autor erklärt: Aululariam hodie sumus acturi, non veterem at rudem, investigatam Plauti per vesti-gia (34, 12–13). Er zählt die Hauptpersonen der Komödie auf, Querolus, Mandroge-rus und den Lar Familiaris, und beschreibt die Moral der fabella wie folgt: Fabella haec est: felicem hic inducimus (sc. Querolum) fato servatum suo atque e contrario fraudulentum (sc. Mandrogerus) frauda deceptum sua (34, 14–15).1. Im Querolus begegnen wir einer für spätantikes Heidentum ungewöhnlichen Moralität. Um diese nachzuweisen, empfiehlt es sich, die Struktur dieser Prosakomö-die kennenzulernen. In der Dedicatio empfiehlt der unbekannte Verfasser sein Werk einem Rutilius, den er vir inlustris 1 tituliert, und beschreibt den Inhalt (materiam) der Komödie (32–34). Im allgemeinen identifiziert man diesen Rutilius mit dem heid-nischen Aristokraten Rutilius Namatianus, der im ersten Drittel des 5. Jahrhundert in Rom hohe Ämter bekleidet. 2 Dann folgt ein Prologus, in dem der Autor erklärt: Aululariam hodie sumus acturi, non veterem at rudem, investigatam Plauti per vesti-gia (34, 12–13). Er zählt die Hauptpersonen der Komödie auf, Querolus, Mandroge-rus und den Lar Familiaris, und beschreibt die Moral der fabella wie folgt: Fabella haec est: felicem hic inducimus (sc. Querolum) fato servatum suo atque e contrario fraudulentum (sc. Mandrogerus) frauda deceptum sua (34, 14–15).

Restricted access
Restricted access