‘Of course laniabor is not a name.’ Thus very recently Cristiano Castelletti in a discussion of this notorious acrostic, which he associates with Aratean ἄρρητον and Virgilian MA VE PV. If, however, laniabor is itself ‘not a name’, the aim of the present annotatiuncula is to argue that it is an etymological play on a ‘name’. Laniabor spans the description of Amycus’ cave, which is adorned with the dismembered limbs of his victims: Amycus himself will shortly suffer the same fate (...) at Pollux’ hands. The name ‘Amycus’ was etymologized from ἀμύσσω, which exactly matches lanio. Hence by a cutely etymological jeu onomastique ‘Tearer’ says ‘I'll be torn’. (shrink)

A syllabic acrostic (de-ca-te, “tenth”) has recently been discovered by Leah Kronenberg at Eclogue 4.9–11. The aim of the present article is to adduce further evidence for the intentionality of this acrostic. The article begins by pointing to corroborative clues in the text encompassed by the acrostic itself. Attention is then drawn to the overlooked deni‑acrostic in the previous Eclogue (3.55–58). This acrostical deni, for whose intentionality arguments are likewise adduced, evidently serves to corroborate acrostical decate. This deni‑acrostic is itself (...) confirmed shortly afterwards by decem (Ecl. 3.71), which is in turn an imitation of Theocritus (Id. 3.10). This Theocritean text, which contains the word δέκα in ‘line ten’, provides further corroboration of the decate-acrostic, which is likewise centred around ‘line ten’. In particular it is argued that this passage of Theocritus has inspired the noun which decate can be shown to qualify. (shrink)

In the letter which initiated his correspondence with Paulinus of Nola Jerome deplores the propensity of the inexpert to pontificate on scripture. Three kinds of incompetence are denounced. The second takes the following form: ‘alii discunt – pro pudor!–a feminis, quod viros doceant’ . As in the other two denunciations, Jerome has chosen to express himself in general terms; scholars have nonetheless assumed that here a specific individual is meant. Nautin argued that with these words Jerome was attacking Rufinus, who (...) is here represented as being intellectually dependent on his patroness Melania. More recently Testard has maintained that Jerome's criticism is in fact directed against Ambrose. However Nautin's view that Rufinus is the target has now been re-affirmed by Rebenich. The purpose of the present note is to draw attention to a piece of evidence which has hitherto been overlooked; it would seem to indicate that the object of Jerome's attack cannot be Rufinus. (shrink)

In the letter which initiated his correspondence with Paulinus of Nola Jerome deplores the propensity of the inexpert to pontificate on scripture. Three kinds of incompetence are denounced. The second takes the following form: ‘alii discunt – pro pudor!–a feminis, quod viros doceant’. As in the other two denunciations, Jerome has chosen to express himself in general terms; scholars have nonetheless assumed that here a specific individual is meant. Nautin argued that with these words Jerome was attacking Rufinus, who is (...) here represented as being intellectually dependent on his patroness Melania. More recently Testard has maintained that Jerome's criticism is in fact directed against Ambrose. However Nautin's view that Rufinus is the target has now been re-affirmed by Rebenich. The purpose of the present note is to draw attention to a piece of evidence which has hitherto been overlooked; it would seem to indicate that the object of Jerome's attack cannot be Rufinus. (shrink)

The investigations of Fletcher and Owens have documented the breadth of Ammianus’ familiarity with Latin literature; however, neither scholar was able to demonstrate a debt to Pliny the Younger. At the same time Alan Cameron has shown that in the later fourth century the Letters of Pliny enjoyed a certain vogue. The issue of Ammianus’ knowledge of Pliny is discussed by Cameron on two occasions. The evidence he cites inclines him to the duly circumspect view that Ammianus may perhaps have (...) been familiar with Pliny's Letters after all. The aim of the present note is to argue that the grounds which have so far been adduced for entertaining such a possibility would in fact appear to be inadmissible. (shrink)