Irony and the Text of Caesar, Bellvm Gallicvm 5.31.5
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20637477 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rex Stem (University of California, Davis, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 307-310 |
| Publication date | 2017-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Classical Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0009-8388 • E-ISSN: 1471-6844 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0009838817000076 |
| OpenAlex | W2592859385 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
The sentence that comprises 5.31.5 in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum has long been felt to be problematic. It was deleted entirely by H. Meusel. A. Klotz posited a lacuna after quare . Others sought smaller adjustments. Yet, the defence of the text as transmitted also drew advocates (T. Rice Holmes, A. Ernout, O. Seel) and the debate quietened. The current Teubner edition, by W. Hering in 1987, prints the transmitted text and does not acknowledge the debate in the apparatus criticus. I propose a new solution, one that reinterprets the sentence in context and requires a small textual change from et to nec . I will first set the context and identify problems with the conventional understanding of 5.31.5
Context (archaeology) · Humanities · Irony · Linguistics · Sentence · Set (abstract data type) · Classical Antiquity Studies · Computer Science · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|