SANDER GOLDBERG | University of California, Los Angeles (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by SANDER GOLDBERG

Understanding Terence, 1986

Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic, 2005

The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus, 2010

Brill's Companion to Seneca, 2014

Poetry and its Reception, 2005

The Classical Review, 2014

Athenaeus has been neglected as an author in his own right for a long time. His mega biblion has ... more Athenaeus has been neglected as an author in his own right for a long time. His mega biblion has been read in abridged rather than in the original form (of which we only possess one mutilated manuscript) from antiquity to modern times and has been considered (wrongly) to be no more than a kind of ancient Reader’s Digest. Consequently, Athenaeus was long regarded as a collector rather than an author. This view gradually changed over the course of the twentieth century, and in 2000 the change was marked by the appearance of Athenaeus and His World, a series of papers edited by J. Wilkins and D. Braund. Shortly after that a new edition of the Deipnosophistae was published: Ateneo. I Deipnosofisti. I dotti a banchetto (edited by L. Canfora [2001]). The introductory chapter of this edition, written by J., far exceeded what one might call a preface. It was a groundbreaking study – and the first of its kind – of Athenaeus’ context, method and aims. Many of us who consider ourselves members of the Friends-Of-Poikilography movement wished to have it on our desks as a separate monograph, preferably (for many of us) in English (the Italian edition, the first volume of which alone is priced at around E750, not quite being a book to be found on everybody’s shelf). It takes time for wishes to come true but now, in 2013, they have, and J.’s study Ateneo, o il Dedalo delle parole has been finally translated into English. J.’s important study is now obtainable for everyone interested in reading Athenaeus rather than using bits and pieces of the knowledge preserved in his Deipnosophistae. To catch up with what was written on the subject of Athenaeus and the Deipnosophistae after 2001, though, it might be useful to have a look at L. Rodríguez-Noriega Guilléńs bibliography fortunately available on the internet: www.lnoriega.es/Ateneo.html.

Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic, 2005

Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 1996

Page 1. Transactions of the American Philological Association 126 (1996) 265-286 The Fall and Ris... more Page 1. Transactions of the American Philological Association 126 (1996) 265-286 The Fall and Rise of Roman Tragedy* Sander M. Goldberg University of California, Los Angeles The history of Roman tragedy rests on a paradox. ...

The Classical World, 1988

The Classical World, 1989

The Classical World, 1986

The Classical World, 1988

The Classical Review, 2003

ditissimus Orgetorix’, Orgetorix’s demise (1.4.4) is foretold by the marked use of the perfect. C... more ditissimus Orgetorix’, Orgetorix’s demise (1.4.4) is foretold by the marked use of the perfect. Contrast 1.3.5 ‘itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat’, and 1.9.3 ‘Dumnorix gratia et largitione apud Sequanos plurimum poterat et Helvetiis erat amicus’. Since the imperfect is the normal aspect with stative verbs, it is not marked, and it would go too far to say that its choice requires that Dumnorix was still alive when Caesar wrote the words. Nevertheless, those who believe that Books 1–4 were published separately or, at least, before Books 5–7 (as O. argues, based on a sharp increase in the use of the present of narration in 5–7) can take comfort in the failure to use perfects here, since Dumnorix does not die until 5.7.7. On the marked use of the perfect, see Servius’ comment on Aen. 1.12 urbs antiqua fuit. The most controversial claim of O. is that the present of narration (historical present) ‘is an alternative tense form to the narrative perfect alone and not to the imperfect’. It is true that verbs of accomplishment and achievement are invariably used in the present with the meaning of the perfect. But that is not true of stative verbs. O. quotes BG 6.39.1–40.6, in which he concedes that est, est, credunt, censent, and conμdunt could have been expressed through imperfects. Such examples O. treats simply as exceptions. But it would be better to conclude that the present of narration is undeμned as to aspect, and the aspect comes from the ‘Aktionsart/situation type’. Examples of use for the imperfect are nevertheless relatively rare, in part because, when it is desired to stress the imperfective, it is always clearer to use the imperfect itself.

The Classical Review, 2010

Exemplaria Classica, 2010

Understanding Terence, 1986

Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic, 2005

The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus, 2010

Brill's Companion to Seneca, 2014

Poetry and its Reception, 2005

The Classical Review, 2014

Athenaeus has been neglected as an author in his own right for a long time. His mega biblion has ... more Athenaeus has been neglected as an author in his own right for a long time. His mega biblion has been read in abridged rather than in the original form (of which we only possess one mutilated manuscript) from antiquity to modern times and has been considered (wrongly) to be no more than a kind of ancient Reader’s Digest. Consequently, Athenaeus was long regarded as a collector rather than an author. This view gradually changed over the course of the twentieth century, and in 2000 the change was marked by the appearance of Athenaeus and His World, a series of papers edited by J. Wilkins and D. Braund. Shortly after that a new edition of the Deipnosophistae was published: Ateneo. I Deipnosofisti. I dotti a banchetto (edited by L. Canfora [2001]). The introductory chapter of this edition, written by J., far exceeded what one might call a preface. It was a groundbreaking study – and the first of its kind – of Athenaeus’ context, method and aims. Many of us who consider ourselves members of the Friends-Of-Poikilography movement wished to have it on our desks as a separate monograph, preferably (for many of us) in English (the Italian edition, the first volume of which alone is priced at around E750, not quite being a book to be found on everybody’s shelf). It takes time for wishes to come true but now, in 2013, they have, and J.’s study Ateneo, o il Dedalo delle parole has been finally translated into English. J.’s important study is now obtainable for everyone interested in reading Athenaeus rather than using bits and pieces of the knowledge preserved in his Deipnosophistae. To catch up with what was written on the subject of Athenaeus and the Deipnosophistae after 2001, though, it might be useful to have a look at L. Rodríguez-Noriega Guilléńs bibliography fortunately available on the internet: www.lnoriega.es/Ateneo.html.

Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic, 2005

Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 1996

Page 1. Transactions of the American Philological Association 126 (1996) 265-286 The Fall and Ris... more Page 1. Transactions of the American Philological Association 126 (1996) 265-286 The Fall and Rise of Roman Tragedy* Sander M. Goldberg University of California, Los Angeles The history of Roman tragedy rests on a paradox. ...

The Classical World, 1988

The Classical World, 1989

The Classical World, 1986

The Classical World, 1988

The Classical Review, 2003

ditissimus Orgetorix’, Orgetorix’s demise (1.4.4) is foretold by the marked use of the perfect. C... more ditissimus Orgetorix’, Orgetorix’s demise (1.4.4) is foretold by the marked use of the perfect. Contrast 1.3.5 ‘itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat’, and 1.9.3 ‘Dumnorix gratia et largitione apud Sequanos plurimum poterat et Helvetiis erat amicus’. Since the imperfect is the normal aspect with stative verbs, it is not marked, and it would go too far to say that its choice requires that Dumnorix was still alive when Caesar wrote the words. Nevertheless, those who believe that Books 1–4 were published separately or, at least, before Books 5–7 (as O. argues, based on a sharp increase in the use of the present of narration in 5–7) can take comfort in the failure to use perfects here, since Dumnorix does not die until 5.7.7. On the marked use of the perfect, see Servius’ comment on Aen. 1.12 urbs antiqua fuit. The most controversial claim of O. is that the present of narration (historical present) ‘is an alternative tense form to the narrative perfect alone and not to the imperfect’. It is true that verbs of accomplishment and achievement are invariably used in the present with the meaning of the perfect. But that is not true of stative verbs. O. quotes BG 6.39.1–40.6, in which he concedes that est, est, credunt, censent, and conμdunt could have been expressed through imperfects. Such examples O. treats simply as exceptions. But it would be better to conclude that the present of narration is undeμned as to aspect, and the aspect comes from the ‘Aktionsart/situation type’. Examples of use for the imperfect are nevertheless relatively rare, in part because, when it is desired to stress the imperfective, it is always clearer to use the imperfect itself.

The Classical Review, 2010

Exemplaria Classica, 2010