Book contents
- Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World
- Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction: First Thoughts on Language and Nature
- Chapter 1 Posidonius’ Linguistic Naturalism and Its Philosophical Pedigree
- Chapter 2 Lucilius on Latin Spelling, Grammar, and Usage
- Chapter 3 Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism
- Chapter 4 Naturalism in Morphology
- Chapter 5 What’s Hecuba to Him?
- Chapter 6 Linguistic Naturalism in Cicero’s Academica
- Chapter 7 Linguistic Naturalism and Natural Style
- Chapter 8 Natural Law and Natural Language in the First Century BCE
- Bibliography
- Index Locorum
- Index Nominum et Rerum
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2019
Book contents
- Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World
- Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction: First Thoughts on Language and Nature
- Chapter 1 Posidonius’ Linguistic Naturalism and Its Philosophical Pedigree
- Chapter 2 Lucilius on Latin Spelling, Grammar, and Usage
- Chapter 3 Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism
- Chapter 4 Naturalism in Morphology
- Chapter 5 What’s Hecuba to Him?
- Chapter 6 Linguistic Naturalism in Cicero’s Academica
- Chapter 7 Linguistic Naturalism and Natural Style
- Chapter 8 Natural Law and Natural Language in the First Century BCE
- Bibliography
- Index Locorum
- Index Nominum et Rerum
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World , pp. 212 - 225Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Adams, J. N. (1977), The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. (forthcoming), ‘Ancient Writing (Latin)’, in de Melo, W. D. C. and Scullion, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Latin Textual Criticism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Alesse, F. (2012), ‘Il saeculum aureum e le origini della civiltà secondo Posidonio (Seneca, Epist. 90)’, in Calabi, F. and Gastaldi, S. (eds.), Immagini delle origini: La nascita della civiltà e della cultura nel pensiero antico (Sankt Augustin), 139–54.Google Scholar
Allen, J. (2005), ‘The Stoics on the Origin of Language and the Foundations of Etymology’, in Frede, and Inwood, (2005), 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, W. S. (1978), Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, 2nd ed. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Amis, K. (2011) The King’s English: A Guide to Modern Usage. With an Introduction by M. Amis. London [1st ed. London 1997].Google Scholar
Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J. and Nisbet, R. G. M. (1979), ‘Elegiacs by Gallus from Qaṣr Ibrîm’, JRS 69, 125–55.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. (1995), ‘Epicurean Poetics’, in Obbink, D. (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus and Horace (Oxford and New York), 15–34.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. (2005), ‘Lucretius on What Language Is Not’, in Frede, and Inwood, (2005), 101–38.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. (2009), ‘Epicurean Philosophy of Language’, in Warren, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge), 197–215.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. and Blank, D. (2013), ‘From Plato to Priscian’, in Allan, K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (Oxford), 283–342.Google Scholar
Aubert-Baillot, S. (2014), ‘La rhétorique du Stoïcien Rutilius Rufus dans le Brutus’, in Aubert-Baillot, and Guérin, (2014), 123–40.Google Scholar
Aubert-Baillot, S. and Guérin, C. (eds.) (2014), Le Brutus de Cicéron. Rhétorique, politique et histoire culturelle. Leiden, and Boston, .Google Scholar
Aujac, G. (1978–1992), Denys d’Halicarnasse, Opuscules Rhétoriques. Volumes 1–2, 4–5. Paris.Google Scholar
Aujac, G. and Lebel, M. (1981), Denys d’Halicarnasse, Opuscules Rhétoriques. Volume 3. Paris.Google Scholar
Ax, W. (1987), ‘Quadripertita ratio’, in Taylor, D. J. (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam), 17–40.Google Scholar
Ax, W. (1995), ‘Disputare in utramque partem: Zum literarischen Plan und zur dialektischen Methode Varros in De lingua Latina 8–10’, RhM 138, 146–77.Google Scholar
Ax, W. (1996), ‘Pragmatic Arguments in Morphology: Varro’s Defence of Analogy in Book 9 of his De Lingua Latina’, in Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context (Leuven), 105–19.Google Scholar
Ax, W. (2002), ‘Zum de voce-Kapitel der Römischen Grammatik. Eine Antwort auf Dirk M. Schenkeveld und Wilfried Stroh’, in Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (eds.), Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in Antiquity (Leuven and Sterling, VA), 121–41.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (2015), ‘Is Rhetoric an Art?’, in Bonelli, M. (ed.), Mantissa: Essays in Ancient Philosophy IV (Oxford), 80–105.Google Scholar
Barwick, K. (1957b), ‘Widmung und Entstehungsgeschichte von Varros De lingua Latina’, Philologus 101, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D. I. and Geurts, B. (2014), ‘Presupposition’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Winter Edition (URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition/> Accessed 06/08/2018).+Accessed+06/08/2018).>Google Scholar
Belardi, W. (1990), ‘Aspetti del linguaggio e della lingua nel pensiero degli stoici, III: Il fondamento del metodo etimologico di Trifone’, RAL 9.1, 91–7.Google Scholar
Belardi, W. and Cipriano, P. (1990), Casus interrogandi. Nigidius Figulus e la teoria stoica della lingua. Rome and Viterbo.Google Scholar
Bernardi Perini, G. (1982), ‘Il sistema ortografico di Nigidio Figulo’, Orpheus 3, 1–33.Google Scholar
Bernardi Perini, G. (1983), ‘Le “riforme” ortografiche latine di età repubblicana’, AIΩN 5, 141–69.Google Scholar
Bett, R. (1989), ‘Carneades’ Pithanon: A Reappraisal of Its Role and Status’, OSAPh 7, 59–94.Google Scholar
Binder, H. (1905), Dio Chrysostomus und Posidonius: Quellenuntersuchungen zur Theologie des Dio von Prusa. Borna and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Biville, F. (forthcoming), ‘Nigidius Figulus and the Articulatory Symbolism of the Pronouns’, in Nobile, L. (ed.), Towards a History of Sound-Symbolic Theories (Amsterdam and Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Blank, D. (1982), Ancient Philosophy and Grammar: The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Chico, CA.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. (1963), ‘Horace and Varro’, in Reverdin, O. (ed.), Varron: six exposés et discussions (Vandoeuvres and Gèneve), 137–206.Google Scholar
Brittain, C. (2014), ‘The Compulsions of Stoic Assent’, in Lee, M.-K. (ed.), Strategies of Argument: Essays in Ancient Ethics, Epistemology, and Logic (Oxford), 332–55.Google Scholar
Brunschwig, J. (1994), ‘Epicurus and the Problem of Private Language’, in Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge), 21–38.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. (1997), ‘Antipater and Self-Refutation: Elusive Arguments in Cicero’s Academica’, in Inwood, B. and Mansfeld, J. (eds.), Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books (Leiden), 277–310.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. (2003), Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura Book Five, Lines 772–1104. Oxford.Google Scholar
Carilli, M. G. (1997), ‘Gli aggettivi col suffisso -osus in Nonio’, Studi noniani 15, 35–105.Google Scholar
Cary, E. (1937), The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. London and Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Cavazza, F. (1980), ‘Come si forma la lingua: Chiarificazioni sulla declinatio varroniana’, in Serra Zanetti, P. (ed.), In verbis verum amare (Florence), 135–42.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2007), ‘Alterità linguistica, Latinitas e ideologia tra Lucillio e Cicerone’, in Oniga, R. and Vatteroni, S. (eds.), Plurilinguismo letterario (Catanzaro), 41–58.Google Scholar
Chiron, P. (2014), ‘Démétrios de Phalère dans le Brutus’, in Aubert-Baillot, and Guérin, (2014), 105–20.Google Scholar
Clackson, J. and Horrocks, G. (2007), The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Malden, MA and Oxford.Google Scholar
Colish, M. L. (1983), ‘The Stoic Theory of Verbal Signification and the Problem of Lies and False Statements’, in Brind’Amour, L. and Vance, E. (eds.), Archéologie du signe (Toronto), 17–43.Google Scholar
Colson, F. H. (1924), M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae liber primus. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. (1995), Musa Lapidaria: A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. (1932), Varro und die Hellenistische Sprachtheorie. Berlin and Zürich [repr. 1964, Italian trans. 1997].Google Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. (2005), ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Method of Metathesis’, CQ 55, 463–80.Google Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. (2008), Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics, and Literature. Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. (2011), ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Scholia on Thucydides’ Syntax’, in Matthaios, S., Montanari, F., and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar (Berlin and New York), 451–78.Google Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. (2014), ‘The Attic Muse and the Asian Harlot: Classicizing Allegories in Dionysius and Longinus’, in Ker, J. and Pieper, C. (eds.), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden and Boston), 388–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, C. C. (2019), ‘Dionysius and Horace: Composition in Augustan Rome’, in Hunter, and De Jonge, (2019), 214–66.Google Scholar
De Martino, M. (2006), ‘Noctes Atticae, XIII, 26 e il presunto “equivoco” di Gellio: riaperto il caso del “casus interrogandi”’, IF 111, 192–226.Google Scholar
Della Corte, F. (1981), La filologia latina: dalle origini a Varrone. Florence [1st ed. Turin 1937].Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2007), Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dirksen, H. E. (1851), ‘Die Auszüge aus den Schriften der römischen Rechtsgelehrten, in den Noctes Atticae des A. Gellius’, Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 29–77.Google Scholar
Dorandi, T. (2012), ‘Polyen de Lampsaque’, in Goulet, R. (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques (Paris), 1253–4.Google Scholar
Dragona-Monachou, M. (1976), The Stoic Arguments for the Existence and the Providence of the Gods. Athens.Google Scholar
Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G. (1989), Posidonius: Volume I, The Fragments, 2nd ed. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Egli, U. (1987), ‘Stoic Syntax and Semantics’, in Taylor, D. J. (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam), 107–32.Google Scholar
Everson, S. (1994a), ‘Introduction’, in Everson, S. (ed.) Companions to Ancient Thought 3: Language (Cambridge), 1–9.Google Scholar
Everson, S. (1994b), ‘Epicurus on Mind and Language’, in Everson, S. (ed.) Companions to Ancient Thought 3: Language (Cambridge), 74–108.Google Scholar
Fay, E. W. (1913), ‘Reply to Professor Kent [Again Lucilius on EI and I]’, AJPh 34, 497–99.Google Scholar
Fehling, D. (1956/7), ‘Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion’, Glotta, 35, 214–70 and 36, 38–100.Google Scholar
Fehling, D. (1965), ‘Zwei Untersuchungen zur griechischen Sprachphilosophie’, RhM 108, 212–29.Google Scholar
Ferrary, J.-L. (2014), Philhellénisme et impérialisme: Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, 2nd ed. Paris.Google Scholar
Fink, J. (1952), ‘Analogie und Anomalie in der Sprache: Zu Varro De lingua latina 9.1’, Hermes 80, 377–9.Google Scholar
Flinterman, J. J. (2014), ‘Pythagoreans in Rome and Asia Minor around the Turn of the Common Era’, in Huffman, C. A. (ed.), A History of Pythagoreanism (Cambridge), 341–59.Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1987a), ‘The Original Notion of Cause’, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford), 125–50 [orig. in Schofield, , Burnyeat, , and Barnes, 1980: 217–49].Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1987b), ‘Stoics and Sceptics on Clear and Distinct Impressions’, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford), 151–76.Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1987c), ‘The Skeptic’s Two Kinds of Assent and the Question of the Possibility of Knowledge’, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford), 201–22.Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1987d), ‘Principles of Stoic Grammar’, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford), 301–37 [orig. in Rist, 1978: 27–75].Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1994), ‘The Stoic Notion of a lekton’, in Everson, S. (ed.), Companions to Ancient Thought 3: Language (Cambridge), 109–28.Google Scholar
Frede, D. and Inwood, B. (eds.) (2005), Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gabba, E. (1991), Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford.Google Scholar
Garcea, A. (2008), ‘Varron et la constitution des paradigmes flexionnels du latin’, HEL 30, 75–89.Google Scholar
Garcea, A. (2012), Caesar’s De Analogia: Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Garcea, A. (2015), ‘Il criterio della definitezza nell’Ars breuiata di Agostino’, in Pistolesi, E., Pugliese, R., and Gili Fivela, B. (eds.), Parole, gesti, interpretazioni: Studi linguistici per Carla Bazzanella (Rome), 349–61.Google Scholar
Gera, D. L. (2003), Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (2016), ‘Antiochus’ Theory of Oikeiôsis’, in Annas, J. and Betegh, G. (eds.), Cicero’s De Finibus: Philosophical Approaches (Cambridge), 221–47.Google Scholar
Gitner, A. (2015), ‘Varro Aeolicus: Latin’s Affiliation with Greek’, in Butterfield, D. J. (ed.), Varro Varius: The Polymath of the Roman World (Cambridge), 33–50.Google Scholar
Görler, W. (1984), ‘Zum Virtus-fragment des Lucilius (1326–1338 M.) und zur Geschichte der stoischen Güterlehre’, Hermes 113, 445–68.Google Scholar
Görler, W. (2004), ‘Ein sprachlicher Zufall und seine Folgen. “Wahrscheinliches” bei Karneades und bei Cicero’, in Kleine Schriften zur hellenistisch-römischen Philosophie (Leiden and New York), 60–75.Google Scholar
Grebe, S. (2000), ‘Kriterien für die Latinitas bei Varro und Quintilian’, in Haltenhoff, A. and Mutschler, F. H. (eds.), Hortus Litterarum Antiquarum (Heidelberg), 191–210.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. T. (1997), ‘The Composition of the Academica: Motives and Versions’, in Inwood, B. and Mansfeld, J. (eds.), Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books (Leiden), 1–35.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. (2010), ‘Literary Criticism’, in Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. (eds.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (Oxford and Malden, MA), 337–65.Google Scholar
Hahm, D. E. (1989), ‘Posidonius’ Theory of Historical Causation’, ANRW 2.36.3, 1325–63.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. (2011), ‘Stoic Epistemology’, in Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (Cambridge), 59–84.Google Scholar
Hatzimichali, M. (2017), ‘Strabo’s Philosophy and Stoicism’, in Dueck, D. (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Strabo (London), 9–21.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, G. L. and Hubbell, H. M. (1952), Cicero, Brutus, Orator. London and Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hertz, M. (1886), ‘Gellius und Nonius Marcellus’, in Opuscula Gelliana (Berlin), 85–146 [orig. in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 8 (1862)].Google Scholar
Holford-Strevens, L. (forthcoming a), A. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Oxford.Google Scholar
Holford-Strevens, L. (forthcoming b), Gelliana. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. and De Jonge, C. C. (eds.) (2019), Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Augustan Rome: Rhetoric, Criticism and Historiography in Augustan Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hülser, K. (1987–1988), Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker: Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentaren. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Ierodiakonou, K. (2007), ‘The Stoics and the Skeptics on Memory’, in Sassi, M. M. (ed.), Tracce nella mente: Teorie della memoria da Platone ai moderni (Pisa), 47–65.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (1984), ‘Hierocles: Theory and Argument in the Second Century AD’, OSAPh 2, 151–83.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A. M. (2013), Dibattiti filosofici ellenistici. Dottrina delle cause, Stoicismo, Accademia scettica. Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A. M. (2016), ‘Sententia explosa: Criticism of Stoic Ethics in De Finibus 4’, in Annas, J. and Betegh, G. (eds.), Cicero’s De Finibus: Philosophical Approaches (Cambridge), 167–97.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2000), Limiting the Arbitrary: Linguistic Naturalism and Its Opposites in Plato’s Cratylus and the Modern Theories of Language. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. (1973), ‘Language and Ontology in the Cratylus’, in Lee, E. N., Morellos, A. P. D., and Rorty, R. M. (eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos (Assen), 152–76.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (1988), Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Keller, M. (1992), Les verbes latins à infectum en -sc-, étude morphologique (à partir des formations attestées dès l’époque préclassique). Brussels.Google Scholar
Kemp, A. (1987), ‘The Technē grammatikē of Dionysius Thrax Translated into English’, in Taylor, D. J. (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam), 169–89.Google Scholar
Kent, R. G. (1913b), ‘Zu den orthographischen Regeln des Lucilius’, Glotta 4, 299–302.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. (1999), Posidonius: Volume III, The Translation of the Fragments. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. and Kiparsky, C. (1970), ‘Fact’, in Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics (The Hague), 143–73.Google Scholar
Kleve, K. (1963), Gnosis Theon: Die Lehre von der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis in der epikureischen Theologie. Oslo.Google Scholar
Koster, S. (2001), ‘Lucilius und die Literaturkritik’, in Manuwald, G. (ed.), Der Satiriker Lucilius und seine Zeit (Munich), 121–31.Google Scholar
Kretzschmer, J. (1860), De A. Gelli fontibus, I: De auctoribus A. Gellii grammaticis. Diss. Poznań.Google Scholar
Kullmann, W. (1991), ‘Man as a Political Animal in Aristotle’, in Keyt, D. and Miller, F. D. (eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics (Oxford), 94–117.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001), Principles of Linguistic Change, Social Factors, 2 vols. Oxford and Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lamberton, R. and Keaney, J. J. (eds.) (1992), Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes. Princeton.Google Scholar
Law, V. (1990), ‘Auctoritas, consuetudo and ratio in St. Augustine’s Ars grammatica’, in Bursill-Hall, G. L., Ebbesen, S., and Koerner, E. F. K. (eds.), De Ortu Grammaticae: Studies in Medieval Grammar and Linguistic Theory in Memory of Jan Pinborg (Amsterdam), 191–207.Google Scholar
Lazzerini, F. (2017), ‘Romulus’ adytum or asylum? A New Exegetical Proposal for De lingua Latina 5,8’, Ciceroniana On Line 1, 97–128.Google Scholar
Lazzeroni, R. (1956), ‘La geminatio vocalium nelle iscrizioni latine’, ASNP 25, 124–35.Google Scholar
Lehmann, A. (2004), ‘Analyse linguistique et critique littéraire dans les Satires de Lucilius’, in Abbamonte, G., Conti Bizzarro, F., and Spina, L. (eds.), L’ultima parola. L’analisi dei testi: teorie e pratiche nell’antichità greca e latina (Naples), 177–201.Google Scholar
Lehrs, K. (1882), De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, 3rd ed. Leipzig [repr. Hildesheim 1964].Google Scholar
Leumann, M. (1977), Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, 6th ed. Munich [1st ed. 1926–8].Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969), Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA [repr. Oxford 2002].Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983), ‘Languages and Language’, in Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Oxford), 163–88.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. (1998), ‘Éthique d’immanence, éthique de la transcendence. Le problème de l’oikeiôsis chez Philon’, in Lévy, C. and Besnier, B. (eds.), Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie (Turnhout), 153–64.Google Scholar
Lomanto, V. (1993), ‘Due divergenti interpretazioni dell’analogia: la flessione dei temi in ‑u‑ secondo Varrone e secondo Cesare’, in Poli, D. (ed.), La cultura in Cesare (Rome), 643–76.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1982), ‘Astrology: Arguments Pro and Contra’, in Barnes, J. et al. (eds.), Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice (Cambridge), 165–192 [repr. Long, 2006: 128–56].Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1996b), ‘Dialectic and the Stoic Sage’, in Long, (1996a), 85–106 [orig. in Rist, 1978: 101–24].Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1996c), ‘Stoic Readings of Homer’, in Long, (1996a), 58– 84 [orig. in Lamberton, and Keaney, 1992: 41–66].Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1996d), ‘Hierocles on Oikeiôsis and Self-Perception’, in Long, (1996a), 250–63 [orig. in Boudouris, 1993: 93–104].Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (2005), ‘Stoic Linguistics, Plato’s Cratylus, and Augustine’s De dialectica’, in Frede, and Inwood, (2005), 36–55.Google Scholar
Lossmann, F. (1962), Cicero und Caesar im Jahre 54: Studien zur Theorie und Praxis der romischen Freundschaft. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O. and Boas, C. (1935), Primitivism and Related Ideas in the Middle Ages. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Magnaldi, G. (2009), L’oikeiôsis peripatetica in Ario Didimo e nel ‘De finibus’ di Cicerone. Turin.Google Scholar
Matthaios, S. (1999), Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Matthaios, S. (2002), ‘Neue Perspectiven für die Historiographie der antiken Grammatik: Das Wortartensystem der Alexandriner’, in Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in Antiquity (Leuven and Sterling, VA), 161–220.Google Scholar
Matthaios, S. (2003), ‘Tryphon aus Alexandria: Der erste Syntaxtheoretiker vor Apollonios Dyskolos?’, in Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (eds.), Syntax in Antiquity (Leuven and Dudley, MA), 97–132.Google Scholar
Mattingly, H. B. (1987), ‘A New Look at the lex repetundarum Bembina’, Philologus 131, 71–81.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1975), ‘Sobre el fragmento 4 ed. Swoboda de Publio Nigidio Figulo’, CFC(L) 9, 319–28.Google Scholar
Mercklin, A. (1860), ‘Die Citiermethode und Quellenbenutzung des A. Gellius in den Noctes Atticae’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Suppl. 3, 635–710.Google Scholar
Michel, A. (1965), ‘Le philosophe, le roi et le poète dans le De lingua Latina’, RPh 39, 69–79.Google Scholar
Montanari, F., Matthaios, S., and Rengakos, A. (eds.) (2015), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Leiden.Google Scholar
Morelli, G. (1976), ‘Il proemio del de metris Horatianis di Atilio Fortunaziano e un frammento di Lucilio’, in Grammatici latini d’età imperiale: miscellanea filologica, Giornate Filologiche Genovesi 3 (Genoa), 99–113.Google Scholar
Mueller, I. (1982), ‘Geometry and Scepticism’, in Barnes, J. et al. (eds.), Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice (Cambridge), 69–95.Google Scholar
Musial, D. (2001), ‘Sodalicium Nigidiani: Les pythagoriciens à Rome à la fin de la République’, RHR 218, 339–67.Google Scholar
Nikitina, V. (2015), Standardisation and Variation in Latin Orthography and Morphology (100 BC–AD 100). Diss. Oxford.Google Scholar
Nikulin, D. (2015), ‘Memory in Ancient Philosophy’, in Nikulin, D. (ed.), Memory (Oxford), 35–84.Google Scholar
Pagani, L. (2014), ‘Hellenismos tra filologia e grammatica – riflessioni antiche sulla correttezza della lingua’, Philologus 158, 235–60.Google Scholar
Pagani, L. (2015), ‘Language Correctness (Hellenismos) and Its Criteria’, in Montanari, , Matthaios, , and Rengakos, (2015), 798–849.Google Scholar
Pfaffel, W. (1987), ‘Wie modern war die Varronische Etymologie?’, in Taylor, D. J. (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam), 207–28.Google Scholar
Piras, G. (1998), Varrone e i poetica uerba: Studio sul settimo libro del De lingua Latina. Bologna.Google Scholar
Pisani, V. (1960), ‘Casus interrogandi’, in Hommages à Léon Herrmann (Bruxelles), 624–38.Google Scholar
Prosdocimi, A. L. (1983), ‘Discussione [Response to Bernardi Perini 1983]’, AIΩN 5, 255–6.Google Scholar
Radt, S. L. (2002–2011), Strabons Geographika: mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, 10 vols. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T. (2008), ‘Epicurus and Lucretius on the Origins of Language’, CQ 58, 127–40.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T. (2018), ‘Pithana and Probabilia in Sextus and Cicero’, in Ierodiakonou, K. and Bénatouïl, T. (eds.), Dialectic after Plato and Aristotle (Cambridge), 218–53.Google Scholar
Reitzenstein, R. (1897), Geschichte der griechischen Etymologika: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philologie in Alexandria und Byzanz. Leipzig [repr. Amsterdam 1964].Google Scholar
Rolfe, J. C. (1922), ‘The Uses of Devices for Indicating Vowel Length in Latin’, PAPhS 61, 80–98.Google Scholar
Ronconi, A. (1971a), ‘Un equivoco di Aulo Gellio’, in Interpretazioni grammaticali (Rome), 285–98 [orig. in SIFC 27 (1956)].Google Scholar
Ronconi, A. (1971b), ‘I nomi dei casi e le ire di un linguista’, in Interpretazioni grammaticali (Rome), 299–304 [orig. in A&R 7 (1962)].Google Scholar
Rösch-Binde, C. (1998), Vom ‘δεινὸς ἀνήρ’ zum ‘diligentissimus inuestigator antiquitatis’: Zur komplexen Beziehung zwischen M. Tullius Cicero und M. Terentius Varro. Munich.Google Scholar
Runia, D. T. (2001), Philo of Alexandria on the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses. Leiden.Google Scholar
Rutgers, J. (1618), ‘P. Nigidii Figuli quæ extant collecta, disposita, emendata’, in Variarum lectionum libri sex (Leiden), 246–98.Google Scholar
Saumaise, C. (1689), Plinianae exercitationes in Caji Julii Solini Polyhistora I. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1983), ‘Linguistic Theories in the Rhetorical Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, Glotta 61, 67–94.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1996), ‘Charisius, Ars grammatica 1.15: The Introduction’, in Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context (Leuven), 17–35.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. and Barnes, J. (1999), ‘Language’, in Algra, K. et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge), 177–225.Google Scholar
Schironi, F. (2007), ‘Ἀναλογία, analogia, proportio, ratio: Loanwords, Calques, and Reinterpretations of a Greek Technical Word’, in Basset, L. et al. (eds.), Bilinguisme et terminologie grammaticale gréco-latine (Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA), 321–38.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. (1980), Kosmologische Aspekte im Geschichtswerk des Poseidonios. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (2012), ‘The Neutralizing Argument: Carneades, Antiochus, Cicero’, in Sedley, (2012), 237–49.Google Scholar
Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J. (eds.) (1980), Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford.Google Scholar
Schröter, R. (1963), ‘Die varronische Etymologie’, in Reverdin, O. (ed.), Varron: six exposés et discussions (Vandoeuvres and Gèneve), 79–116.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1993), ‘Chrysippus on Psychophysical Causality’, in Brunschwig, J. and Nussbaum, M. C. (eds.), Passions and Perceptions (Cambridge), 313–31.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1998b), ‘Theophrastus and Epicurean Physics’, in Ophunsen, M. and van Reale, M. (eds.), Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources (New Brunswick, NJ and London), 331–54.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (2002), ‘Zeno’s Definition of phantasia kataleptike’, in Scaltsas, T. and Mason, A. S. (eds.), The Philosophy of Zeno (Larnaca), 135–54.Google Scholar
Seppänen, M. (2014), Defining the Art of Grammar: Ancient Perceptions of Γραμματική and Grammatica. Diss. Turku.Google Scholar
Shcheglov, D. A. (2006), ‘Posidonius on the Dry West and the Wet East: Fragment 223 EK Reconsidered’, CQ 56, 509–27.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (1987), ‘Proclus’ Philosophical Method of Exegesis: The Use of Aristotle and the Stoics in the Commentary on the Cratylus’, in Pépin, J. and Saffrey, H. D. (eds.), Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens: Actes du colloque international du CNRS Paris (2–4 Octobre 1985) (Paris), 137–51.Google Scholar
Siebenborn, E. (1976), Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit und ihren Kriterien: Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. (1990), Ancient Grammar in Context: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Linguistic Thought. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Somerville, T. (2007), ‘The Orthography of the New Gallus and the Spelling Rules of Lucilius’, ZPE 160, 59–64.Google Scholar
Spoerri, W. (1959), Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter: Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien. Basle.Google Scholar
Stevens, B. (2008) ‘Symbolic Language and Indexical Cries: A Semiotic Reading of Lucretius 5.1028–90’, AJPh 129, 529–57.Google Scholar
Straumann, B. (2016), Crisis and Constitutionalism: Roman Political Thought from the Fall of the Republic to the Age of Revolution. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, E. H. (1940), The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, 2nd ed. Philadelphia [repr. Groningen 1968].Google Scholar
Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (2015), ‘The Description of the Constituent Elements of the (Greek) Language’, in Montanari, , Matthaios, , and Rengakos, (2015), 759–97.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (1974), Declinatio: A Study of the Linguistic Theory of Marcus Terentius Varro. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (1996), Varro, De Lingua Latina 10: A New Critical Text and English Translation with Prolegomena and Commentary. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (2015), ‘The New Varro and the Structure of His De Lingua Latina’, in Butterfield, D. J. (ed.), Varro Varius: The Polymath of the Roman World (Cambridge), 19–31.Google Scholar
Thomas, Y. (1991), ‘Imago naturae. Note sur l’institutionnalité de la nature à Rome’, in Théologie et droit dans la science politique de l’État moderne (Rome), 201–27.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (1996), Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul, Philosophia Antiqua 68. Leiden.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (2003), Chrysippus’ On Affections: Reconstruction and Interpretations, Philosophia Antiqua 94. Leiden.Google Scholar
Trüdinger, K. (1918), Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie. Diss. Basle.Google Scholar
Uhl, A. (1998), Servius als Sprachlehrer: Zur Sprachrightigkeit in der exegetischen Praxis des spätantiken Grammatikerunterrichts. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Usener, H. and Radermacher, L. (1904–1929), Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant: Vol. 6. Stuttgart and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Usher, S. (1974–1985), Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Critical Essays, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Valente, S. (2015), ‘Orthography’, in Montanari, , Matthaios, , and Rengakos, (2015), 950–78.Google Scholar
Velsen, A.. (1853), Tryphonis grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta. Berlin [repr. Amsterdam 1965].Google Scholar
Verde, F. (2016), ‘Posidonius against Epicurus’ Method of Multiple Explanations?’, Apeiron 49, 437–49.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, A. (1998), ‘The Epicureans against the First Inventors’, Hyperboreus 4, 302–39.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, A. (2005), ‘Epicurus and His Predecessors on the Origin of Language’, in Frede, and Inwood, (2005), 56–100.Google Scholar
Verlinsky, A. (2006), Antichnye teorii vozniknovenija jazyka [Ancient Theories of the Origin of Language]. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Viparelli, V. (2004), ‘La uerborum proprietas in Aulo Gellio’, in Abbamonte, G., Conti Bizzarro, F., and Spina, L. (eds.), L’ultima parola. L’analisi dei testi: teorie e pratiche nell’antichità greca e latina (Naples), 351–60.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. (2011), ‘The Latin Alphabet and Orthography’, in Clackson, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language (Oxford), 9–28.Google Scholar
White, S. A. (2007), ‘Posidonius and Stoic Physics’, in Sorabji, R. and Sharples, R. W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC to 200 AD (London), 35–76.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1982), ‘Cratylus’ Theory of Names and Its Refutation’, in Schofield, M. and Nussbaum, M. C. (eds.), Language and Logos (Cambridge), 83–93.Google Scholar
Wisse, J. (1995), ‘Greeks, Romans, and the Rise of Atticism’, in Abbenes, J. G. J., Slings, S. R., and Sluiter, I. (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honour of D. M. Schenkeveld (Amsterdam), 65–82.Google Scholar
Wisse, J., Winterbottom, M., and Fantham, E. (2008), M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III, A Commentary, V: Book 3, 96–230. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Wölfflin, E. (1893), ‘Die Etymologien der lateinischen Grammatiker’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8, 421–40 and 563–85.Google Scholar
Zago, A. (2015), Vitia e virtutes orationis nel Commentum in artem Donati di Pompeo grammatico (GLK V 283, 1–312, 16): edizione e commento. Diss. Pisa.Google Scholar
Zago, A. (2017), Pompeii Commentum in Artis Donati partem tertiam, 2 vols. Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York.Google Scholar
Zago, G. (2012), Sapienza filosofica e cultura materiale: Posidonio e le altre fonti dell’Epistola 90 di Seneca. Bologna.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2013), ‘A Contract on Ameria: Law and Legality in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino’, AJPh 134, 425–44.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2018), Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 BCE–800 CE. Oxford.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, R. (1996), The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford.Google Scholar