Search

In the first section of this paper, the interpretations of Ausonius’ passage by Green (1991) and Lolli (1997) are subjected to criticism; the traditional view on praeter iustum is reinforced, and further linguistic and poetic aspects of this expression are explored. In the second section, it is investigated how alternative approaches to Ausonius’ locus, such as that of Green or Barth’s attempted emendation of iustum > nostrum (1624), are consequential to the comparison of Par. praef. uers. 18 with Martial’s VI 28.10 as printed by all editors (qui fles talia, nil fleas uiator); it is then argued that the traditional text and interpretation of Ausonius’ line and a revised text of Martial (either qui fles, talia nil fleas, uiator, as punctuated by Salanitro, or qui fles, tale nihil fleas, uiator, as I have suggested elsewhere) are mutually consistent and provide philological support for each other (§§ 2-3).

In the first section of this paper, the interpretations of Ausonius’ passage by Green (1991) and Lolli (1997) are subjected to criticism; the traditional view on praeter iustum is reinforced, and further linguistic and poetic aspects of this expression are explored. In the second section, it is investigated how alternative approaches to Ausonius’ locus, such as that of Green or Barth’s attempted emendation of iustum > nostrum (1624), are consequential to the comparison of Par. praef. uers. 18 with Martial’s VI 28.10 as printed by all editors (qui fles talia, nil fleas uiator); it is then argued that the traditional text and interpretation of Ausonius’ line and a revised text of Martial (either qui fles, talia nil fleas, uiator, as punctuated by Salanitro, or qui fles, tale nihil fleas, uiator, as I have suggested elsewhere) are mutually consistent and provide philological support for each other (§§ 2-3). En la primera sección de este trabajo se someten a crítica las interpretaciones del pasaje de Ausonio propuestas por Green (1991) y Lolli (1997) y se refuerza la interpretación tradicional de praeter iustum, al tiempo que se analizan otros aspectos de esta expresión. En § 2 se investiga cómo lecturas alternativas del pasaje de Ausonio, como la defendida por Green o la conjetura de Barth a iustum (codd.) > nostrum (1624), son consecuentes con el cotejo de Mart. VI 28.10, paralelo citado por esos estudiosos según el texto de todas las ediciones antiguas y modernas (qui fles talia, nil fleas, uiator). Se razona que el texto e interpretación tradicionales de Ausonio y un texto repuntuado de Marcial (qui fles, talia nil fleas, uiator, según propuesta de Salanitro, 1996 / qui fles, tale nihil fleas uiator, según propuesta propia) son mutuamente coherentes y se prestan apoyo filológico recíproco (§§ 2-3).