Search results

1

Apostrofy do wód – nowe spojrzenie na cykl epigramów w czwartej księdze Marcjalisa (18; 22 i 63)

100%

Pieczonka J.

Collectanea Philologica

|

2018

|

issue 21

117-126

EN

The article focuses on the Martial’s poems no. 18, 22 and 63 from the Book 4 of epigrams. These poems unite in a cycle of epigrams with a common motif of an apostrophe to water appearing in the last line of each epigram. Although this cycle has been previously disputed in an article by Mark A. P. Greenwood (‘Talking to Water’: An Epigram-Cycle in Martial, Book 4 (4.18; 4.22; 4.63), RhM 141 (1998), 367–372), the author finds it necessary to reassess the epigrams. As a result of these analyses the author discovers the links and the differences between the poems that have not been noted before. Furthermore the article presents the possible connections between the cycles and suggests that they form a complex structure, a whole web, inside the Book 4. Concluding, the author puts forward a hypothesis that perhaps this special arrangement of epigrams (complied with the principle of cohesion and variety) exceeds the boundaries of Book 4.

2

Non scripsit meus ista Martialis. Marcjalis o literackich paszkwilach

100%

Rominkiewicz J.

Prawo

|

2013

|

issue 315/2

7 - 18

EN

In this article the author discusses several epigrams of Martial (VII, 12 and 72; X 3, 5 and 33), in which the poet complains about libels written under his name and circulated throughout Rome. The outrage of Martial is justified, because the poet almost intentionally avoided writing poems which would offend the reputation of any person. Defamatory epigrams circulated in Rome under his name, written by the poet’s competitors who envied his fame and recognition, were dangerous for him due to threats of accusation of defamation. The punishment of any behavior aimed at defaming another person, was introduced in Rome by edict ne quid infamandi causa fiat. It provided, inter alia, the possibility of a legal action for insult against any person who arranged the songs to defame another person with the intention to distribute them. As it seems, defamatory carmina were not punishable by law during the republic period. The situation changed during the principate period, when people reciting ridiculing poems at the feasts were met with repression. The works detrimental to the good name of the rulers resulted even in a charge of crimen maiestatis. Practising satirical works became a particularly risky occupation during the reign of Domitian, because the emperor declared a decisive fight against the authors of defamatory writings. Punishment by actio iniuriarum aestimatoria for the authors of libels, circulating in Rome as the works of Martial, however, was not easy. Firstly, the poet had to establish their authors, and secondly prove the intention of insulting him by the publication of such poems. A simpler form of defense was public denial of authorship of such epigrams. For this purpose, Martial called on his literary patrons, asking them to bear witness that he was not the author of this kind of libels.

3

Kilka uwag na temat polskiej edycji Seksualizmów łacińskich Jamesa N. Adamsa (A few observations on the Polish edition of The Latin Sexual Vocabulary by James N. Adams)

88%

Loch M.

Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae

|

2014

|

vol. 24

|

issue 1

279-287

PL

Last year, Homini Publishing House published a Polish edition of The Latin Sexual Vocabulary by J.N. Adams. The translation was made by J. Janik. In comparison with the original English version, the Polish edition has been enriched with translations of its Latin quotations. In this paper, I will carry out a critical review of the Polish edition of the book.Hoc superiore anno in lucem prodiit Polona editio libri The Latin Sexual Vocabulary a I.N. Adams conscripti, quem Polonice reddendum curavit Ioanna Janik. Opus illud, quamvis valde desideratum et propter thema susceptum vera laude dignum, haud exiguo lapsuum numero, qui in Polona interpretatione exemplorum Latinorum occurrunt, admirationem affert singularem. Poloni editores tacito quoque praetermisisse videntur libri censuras, quae primam eius editionem Anglicam sequerentur, ubi iuste quidem operis vitia enumerarentur. Nihil ergo correctum, nihil ex enumeratis vitiis in illa recentissima editione adnotatum est (praeter corrigendorum et adnotandorum indicem in ultimis pagellis versionis propriae positum). Nonnullis ergo mirum fortasse appareat librum quendam vitiosum ad scientiarum disciplinas investigandas spectantem nunc triginta dilapsis annis ab eius prima editione in vernaculas linguas interpretari, cum certe illius temporis spatio scientiarum status multo progressus sit. Nullum tamen opus aliud vocabulis Venereis Romanorum adhuc dicatum est, quam ob rem duo restant faciunda: aut liber diligentissime recensendus, aut materies ipsa denuo investiganda et novo libro tractanda. Quod nisi fiat, sperandum est proximam libri editionem correctiorem fore, hac praesenti autem philologorum animos ad oriundam disputationem de Latinis vocabulis eroticis admoveri.

4

Inpones plagiario pudorem. Marcjalis o literackiej kradzieży

51%

Rominkiewicz J.

Studia Prawnicze KUL

|

2013

|

issue 4 (56)

79-101

PL

Powyższy tekst poświęcony jest epigramatom Marcjalisa, w których poeta odnosi się do problematyki plagiatu. Autor ten jest pierwszym uchwytnym dla nas rzymskim poetą, który niezwykle ostro zaprotestował przeciw kradzieży swych utworów. Wśród 1172 epigramatów Marcjalisa znajduje się dwanaście utworów dotyczących problematyki literackiej kradzieży (Epigramaty I 29, 38, 52, 53, 63, 66, 72; II 20; X 100,102; XI 94; XII 63). Kradzież literacką wiąże Marcjalis przede wszystkim z publicznym deklamowaniem cudzych utworów jako własnych, włączaniem do utworów plagiatora fragmentów dzieł innych twórców oraz publikacją pod własnym nazwiskiem cudzych dzieł. Marcjalis po raz pierwszy i jedyny w rzymskiej literaturze posłużył się w odniesieniu do złodzieja literackiego słowem plagiarius, określającym przestępcę, który parał się porywaniem ludzi (I 52, 9). Epigramaty poświęcone plagiatowi należy odczytywać przede wszystkim jako protest przeciw kradzieży poetyckiej tożsamości. Autor artykułu podkreśla, że prawo rzymskie nie chroniło twórców przed plagiatem. Starożytni uznawali co prawda przywłaszczanie sobie cudzych utworów za kradzież, była to jednak jedynie metafora. Plagiat nie mieścił się w rzymskiej koncepcji furtum jako deliktu prawa cywilnego! Brakowało tu bowiem elementu przedmiotowego kradzieży, którym była contrectatio rei. Plagiatorom nie groziły w praktyce żadne sankcje prawne. Jedyną przykrą dla nich konsekwencją popełnienia literackiej kradzieży mogło być zatem, jak sugeruje to Marcjalis (I 52, 9), okrycie ich wstydem dzięki nagłośnieniu tego faktu przez literackich patronów i przyjaciół poety.

EN

The above paper is devoted to Martial’s epigrams, in which the poet refers to the problem of plagiarism. He is probably the first known Roman epigrammatist, who protested against the theft of his works in such an incredibly strong way. Among 1172 Martial’s epigrams there are twelve compositions concerning the question of literary theft (Epigrams I 29, 38, 52, 53, 63, 66, 72; II 20; X 100, 102; XI 94; XII 63). Martial connects the phenomenon of literary theft principally with public declamations of someone else’s works as declaimer’s own, with incorporating parts of other authors’ works in plagiator’s own composition, and with publishing other authors’ works under plagiator’s own name. Martial was the first and only Roman poet who used the term plagiarius, meaning a kidnapper (I 52,9), in reference to a literary thief. Epigrams devoted to the issue of plagiarism are above all to be understood as a protest against the theft of poetic identity. The author of this paper emphasises that Roman Law did not protect authors against plagiarism. Although the ancient Romans recognized approprieting someone else’s works as a theft, it was no more than a metaphor. Plagiarism was not included in a Roman concept of furtum as a delict, as the essential element of theft – contrectatio rei – was lacking here. There were no legal sanctions against plagiators. The only unpleasant consequence of committing the literary theft could have been, as Martial suggests (I 52,9), covering plagiators with shame by publicising this fact by poet’s literary patrons and friends.

RU

Вышеуказанный текст посвящен эпиграммам Марциала, в которых поэт относится к проблематике плагиата. Этот автор является первым уловимым для нас римским поэтом, который чрезвычайно остро запротестовал против кражи своих произведений. Среди 1172 эпиграмм Марциала есть двенадцать произведений, касающихся проблематики литературной кражи (Эпиграммы I 29, 38, 52, 53, 63, 66, 72; II 20; X 100, 102; XI 94; XII 63). Марциал связывает литературную кражу прежде всего с общественной декламацией чужих произведений как собственных, включением в произведения плагиатора фрагментов дел других авторов и публикацией под собственнoй фамилией чужих дел. Марциал впервые в римской литературе использовал в отношении к литературному вору слово plagiarius, определяющим преступника, который похищал людей (I 52, 9). Эпиграммы посвященные плагиату необходимо читать прежде всего как протест против поэтической кражи личности. Автор статьи подчеркивает, что римское право не предохраняло авторов от плагиата. Древниe признавали присвоение чужих дел кражей, однак это была только метафора. Плагиат не укладывался в римской концепции furtum как деликт гражданского права! Не хватало здесь предметного элемента кражи, которым была contrectatio rei. Плагиаторам в практике не угрожали никакие юридические санкции. Единственным неприятным для них наследствием совершения литературной кражи могло быть, как это указывает Марциал (І 52, 9), разглашение этого факта литературными авторитетами и друзьями авторов.

Refine search results

1 Collectanea Philologica

1 Prawo

1 Studia Prawnicze KUL

1 Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae

2 Rominkiewicz J.

1 Loch M.

1 Pieczonka J.

1 2018

1 2014

2 2013

Apostrofy do wód – nowe spojrzenie na cykl epigramów w czwartej księdze Marcjalisa (18; 22 i 63)

Non scripsit meus ista Martialis. Marcjalis o literackich paszkwilach

Kilka uwag na temat polskiej edycji Seksualizmów łacińskich Jamesa N. Adamsa (A few observations on the Polish edition of The Latin Sexual Vocabulary by James N. Adams)

Inpones plagiario pudorem. Marcjalis o literackiej kradzieży