To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter adopts the Middle English term defaute as theory and methodology, arguing that Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess exhibits two distinct modes of whiteness refracted through space and time. The first is a normative whiteness produced by the linkage of the courtly lady and male subjectivity, which makes possible a productive erasure of local and individual difference through a deliberate evocation of an international, universalising courtliness. The second is a particularising and literalising mode of whiteness that is emphatically ‘English’. The poem opens with the lady White but ends on a white castle on a hill that allude to John of Gaunt and his deceased wife Blanche. It is a whiteness that acknowledges its own limits or borders, be they linguistic, cultural or proto-national. The naming and mapping of the lady White appears to feed into the structuring of a universal and ideologically secure voice and identity coded as white, masculine and aristocratic. Yet the Dreamer’s literalising and Englishing mode of questioning the Man in Black interrupts the normal unfolding of consolation and insists on the local and the particular, for they are the specific tags of memories that shape subjectivity. The two male writing selves, practitioners of white fragility as a reactionary politics, present whiteness as embodying the universalising and the particularising modes of aristocratic self-fashioning. The Chaucerian ‘I’ is what I would term a ‘white fragiliac’, the masculine subject in mourning who must write his way out of whiteness as an extreme state of paralysis and death.
Contemporary historians of philosophy almost universally embrace the idea that the young Plato had a close, personal relationship with the historical Socrates. Many refuse to countenance a similar status for Plato’s contemporary, Xenophon. This note takes as its focus a novel argument intended to support the claim that Xenophon was never on intimate terms with Socrates or even privy to reliable information about him. The reply offered here has implications far beyond this apparently narrow focus, however, and points to pervasive biases in Socratic studies generally that remain in sore need of correction.
In a world where the teaching of Classical Latin itself is increasingly at risk, introducing Vulgar Latin at secondary school level could be an opportunity to revive pupils’ interest in studying this language and increase awareness of their linguistic heritage. The ideal way to stimulate this effect is through classwork on epigraphic documents, which undoubtedly provide students with a unique opportunity to get to know the Latin-speaking civilisation from within. In recent years, this teaching strategy has gained international attention, stimulated by the need to renew Latin teaching methods to make them more effective and meaningful for both teachers and students. In this contribution, I will offer a review of a personal experience including the reusable sample of a Vulgar Latin workshop for high school students, and I will reflect on the role schools and universities should play in specifically promoting the teaching of Latin through epigraphy.
This note argues that imitation of Ausonius’ Cento nuptialis in the Peruigilium Veneris establishes 374 c.e. as the terminus post quem for the Peruigilium Veneris. The note enlarges on the argument of Danuta Shanzer, who identified debts to Ausonius in the Peruigilium Veneris and dated the latter poem accordingly: the approach is to locate evidence for Ausonian imitation that Shanzer missed, and thus to reinforce and confirm her position. While the note does not propose a poet for the Peruigilium Veneris, it shows that certain figures to whom the work is commonly attributed, notably Florus and Tiberianus, cannot be its author.
This note addresses a grammatical objection, first raised by Torstrik, to the transmitted text of Aristotle’s De anima 3.7, namely that the text contains at 431a4–7 a μέν without a corresponding δέ (or another adversative particle). Rejecting Corcilius’s suggestion that this is a μέν solitarium, the note shows that modest repunctuation reveals a responding δέ and makes better sense of this part of the text.