Academic literature on the topic 'Latin Laudatory poetry'

The main aim of this paper is to present and analyse an ode by the Flemish Jesuit Sidronius Hosschius (Sidronius [or Syderoen] de Hossche, 1596–1653) to “the Sarmatian Horace”Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius (Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, 1595–1640). This eulogy has often been viewed as a masterpiece. In addition, it has two distinct versions: one published in a collection of poems in honour of Sarbievius (the socalled Epicitharisma), first printed in an edition of his oeuvre in 1632, and one in the collective volume of Hosschius’s own works issued posthumously in 1656. Both versions were first published by the famous Plantin-Moretus printing house in Antwerp. The paper consists of three sections. The first one focuses on the relationship between Hosschius and Sarbievius and on the Nachleben of Hosschius’s ode. The second section offers a general analysis of the poem. Tracing the contents of Hosschius’s ode and its sources of inspiration, it argues that Hor. Carm. IV 2 is central to the poem’s understanding. The third section discusses the differences between the two versions, in an attempt to disclose why the poem was altered and how the changes influence the ode’s meaning. A number of larger changes affect the poem’s central message: while in the earlier version Sarbievius is said to outdo Pindar and even Horace, the later version is more cautious. All it does is admit that Sarbievius could perhaps equal Pindar and Orpheus. Hosschius’s eulogy and the reception of Sarbievius through his composition have two different traditions: 1) the one found in most editions of Sarbievius’s works, where the poem basically proclaims him to be the best Latin lyricist of all time, thereby tying in with other laudatory contributions and promoting both Sarbievius’s oeuvre and the editions themselves, and 2) the one added to Hosschius’s own poetry, where the adjusted version—which contains more references to ancient literature and which could be called more personal, as well as, perhaps, more realistic—became a fan favourite. In both instances, however, the reinterpretation of the psychological effect of poetry—the translation of furor poeticus from the author to the reader—and the re-evaluation of the concept of aemulatio could be the main reason why Hosschius’s ode was so highly valued.

The main aim of this paper is to present and analyse an ode by the Flemish Jesuit Sidronius Hosschius (Sidronius [or Syderoen] de Hossche, 1596–1653) to “the Sarmatian Horace”Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius (Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski, 1595–1640). This eulogy has often been viewed as a masterpiece. In addition, it has two distinct versions: one published in a collection of poems in honour of Sarbievius (the socalled Epicitharisma), first printed in an edition of his oeuvre in 1632, and one in the collective volume of Hosschius’s own works issued posthumously in 1656. Both versions were first published by the famous Plantin-Moretus printing house in Antwerp. The paper consists of three sections. The first one focuses on the relationship between Hosschius and Sarbievius and on the Nachleben of Hosschius’s ode. The second section offers a general analysis of the poem. Tracing the contents of Hosschius’s ode and its sources of inspiration, it argues that Hor. Carm. IV 2 is central to the poem’s understanding. The third section discusses the differences between the two versions, in an attempt to disclose why the poem was altered and how the changes influence the ode’s meaning. A number of larger changes affect the poem’s central message: while in the earlier version Sarbievius is said to outdo Pindar and even Horace, the later version is more cautious. All it does is admit that Sarbievius could perhaps equal Pindar and Orpheus. Hosschius’s eulogy and the reception of Sarbievius through his composition have two different traditions: 1) the one found in most editions of Sarbievius’s works, where the poem basically proclaims him to be the best Latin lyricist of all time, thereby tying in with other laudatory contributions and promoting both Sarbievius’s oeuvre and the editions themselves, and 2) the one added to Hosschius’s own poetry, where the adjusted version—which contains more references to ancient literature and which could be called more personal, as well as, perhaps, more realistic—became a fan favourite. In both instances, however, the reinterpretation of the psychological effect of poetry—the translation of furor poeticus from the author to the reader—and the re-evaluation of the concept of aemulatio could be the main reason why Hosschius’s ode was so highly valued.

The subject of this paper is the multiplicity of meaning of the word pietas as it is used in the famous inscription CIL VI, 1527 called Laudatio Turiae. In revealing traditional and innovative aspects of this notion, the author tries to see the ideology of relations in the Roman family of the laudator and the laudata behind it, and to set it into the context of the changing world in the times of the Late Republic and the Principate within the Roman history.The inscription reveals that, in the eyes of laudator, pietas is the most important virtue of his defunct wife, laudata. In the course of the research, three features of pietas are marked out: 1) the virtue of pietas is operative exclusively in the sphere of family relations; 2) pietas relations always presuppose the hierarchical ones (e.g. children to the father / mother, wife to husband, younger brother / sister to the elder one); 3) the virtue of pietas always implies a strong action. Some new aspects of the functioning of the virtue of pietas can be observed when exploring the usage of the word in the inscription. For the first time in the Latin literature, the word pietas signifies the transfer of the virtue of pietas into the female domain, using it to describe the relation of the younger sister to the elder. But the most striking innovation is an inversion of the hierarchical order of children to the parents. For the first time, pietas means the duty of the parents to bring up their children in the best manner possible – an obligation which will find its place in the Roman law codes.The large usage of the notion of pietas and experimentation with its meaning, which finds parallels in the poetry of the Augustan age (Virgil, Ovid) signifies the susceptibility of the laudator to the ideas of the Augustan policies and his ideological stances.The article is preceded by a Lithuanian translation of the inscription with a short introduction.

This article argues that in Pindar's epinicians first-person statements may occasionally be made in the persona of the chorus and the athletic victor. The speaking persona behind Pindar's first-person statements varies quite widely: from generic, rhetorical poses—a laudator, an aoidos in the rhapsodic tradition (the “bardic first person”), an Everyman (the “first person indefinite”)—to strongly individualized figures: the Theban poet Pindar, the chorus, the victor. The arguable changes in the speaker's persona are not explicitly signalled in the text. This can lead to significant ambiguities concerning the identity of the speaker (“blurred quotation,” “indeterminate speech boundaries”). The lack of a concern always to distinguish clearly the primary from the secondary narrators relates to a desire to confuse diegetic and mimetic forms; the practice of the fifth-century choral lyric poets in this regard is compared to that of other ancient Greek writers. The main challenge is to indicate how it is possible, in theory and in practice, for the athletic victor to be identified as the speaker when this is not explicitly signalled in the text; and, if this is possible, to suggest how it is possible for an audience to recognize when the speaking persona subsequently reverts to laudator or poet. An attempt is made to consider whether any formal, structural, or thematic tendencies can be observed in those passages in choral lyric where the chorus or the victor are tacitly introduced as speaking personae: such effects, it is argued, occur especially when links of ritual or genealogy enable the ode to “zoom” from the mythical past to the present occasion of the performance. The main passages discussed in the article are Pind. P.8.56–60, P.9.89–92, N.7.85, Pae. 2.73–79, and Bacch. 3.84–85. But the phenomena discussed are related broadly to other phenomena in Greek literature, in Latin poetry, and, especially, in Cicero's forensic oratory.

The objectives of this study are to examine and interpret the meanings of the selected clan names and clan praises. Their sequences, laudatory and eulogic views highlight their significances and generic perspectives. In Swati culture, clan name is shared by a nuclear family and passed from father to sons. In patrilineal societies, clan names are vital for maintenance and sustenance of lineage hierarchy. Clan names are commonly called surnames. The prefix sur-in surname is derived from Latin, meaning super, above or beyond. The word, tibongo (clan names) is derived from the verb, bonga (thank; praise). The word, tinanatelo (clan praises) is derived from the verb, nanatela (be genial towards; show courtesy to and praise). Their anthroponymic domains are evident when they are used as address form. Each Swati clan name has a primary or main clan praise which is widely known by the society and almost equivalent to the clan name, for example, Matfonsi (Droplets) –Mjabulase! (Ever-elated one), Maphosa (Thrower)-Tsekwane (An owl) and Malindzisa (One who keeps others waiting)-Tfwala (Carry). In addition to the main clan praise, a number of secondary clan praise names follow and make a series of praise phrases. It is evident that all types of praises have their poetic features that are highlighted by bards, onomasticians, folklorists and oral poetry specialists.