English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The authority of great scholars such as Fraenkel and Wilamowitz means that any mistakes they make tend to be accepted even when the evidence adduced is weak. Fraenkel’s interpretation of  ego, quem vocas  in  Odes  2. 20. 6 as “I, whom you invite to dinner” has apparently silenced all debate. Yet Bentley construed  non ego, pauperum sanguis parentum, non ego, quem vocas  as a single idea, “I, the man you call the offspring of penniless parents.” (He suggests the further improvement of writing  vocant  for  vocas .) For various reasons this seems preferable to Fraenkel’s rendering. Likewise, Fraenkel has silenced doubts about 3. 30. 10–14, where he takes  qua violens obstrepit Aufidus et qua pauper aquae Daunus agrestium regnavit populorum  with  dicar  although this implies the boast that Horace will be famous in Apulia, a spatial restriction hard to square with the limitless temporal vistas of 1–9. Unless we alter the text, the words cited above have no anchoring point in what follows, but  potens  in 12 seems for various reasons dubious and should be replaced by, e.g.  editus .

When Giants Stumble: Two Influential Misjudgements on Horace′s Odes (2. 20. 56 and 3. 30. 1014)

When Giants Stumble: Two Influential Misjudgements on Horace′s Odes (2. 20. 56 and 3. 30. 1014)