Patrick J. Burns

Associate Research Scholar, Digital Projects @ Institute for the Study of the Ancient World / NYU | Formerly Culture Cognition, and Coevolution Lab (Harvard) & Quantitative Criticism Lab (UT-Austin) | Fordham PhD, Classics | LatinCy developer

Latin Literary Acrostics as Information Technology

Abstract for 2021 Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Atlantic States (CAAS2021)

Abstract

Acrostics—and related literary features such as telestichs and mesostichs—are ordered lists of letters or letter groups (Fowler and Fowler 2012). While a great deal has been written in the last decade about Latin literary acrostics—concerning in particular the discovery of individual instances of this poetic feature with accompanying arguments in support of the plausibility of each (see Robinson 2019a; Robinson 2019b; Rick 2019; Kronenberg 2019; Danielewicz 2019; Mitchell 2020a; Mitchell 2020b; Kearey 2020; Hosle 2020; Hejduk 2020 in just the last two years)—the 2019 publication of Andrew Riggsby’s Mosaics of Knowledge, with its reappraisal of the role of lists in Roman information technology, calls for fresh look at acrostics in Latin literature. Using Riggsby’s work as a framework, this paper concentrates on “imperfect” acrostics like the signature in the opening lines of the Ilias Latina (Scaffai 1982; Kilpatrick 1992; see also Jacques 1955: 20 nn. 266–74 on similar problem in Nicander). Rather than insist on a modern standard of literal exactness which requires the philological reconstruction of the V in ITALIC*S (a manuscript reading † protulerant † replaced by, say, the conjecture ut primum tulerant; see Baehrens 1879: 8), I will argue in this paper that such close-enough, unamended readings may be sufficient by the standards of Roman information technology. The paper makes two contributions to the study of Latin poetics: 1. acknowledgement that Latin literary acrostics are ordered lists and so then, by extension, they need to be examined not only in relationship to other types of literary devices and wordplay, but also in relationship to other lists and related aspects of Roman information technology; 2. following from the first point, recognition that like other kinds of Roman information technology, acrostics should not be read with (modern) assumptions about completeness and accuracy, but rather with the understanding that “much of what is both true and interesting lies in a zone of broad similarity or likeness, not in absolute identity or absence” (Riggsby 2019: 210).

Works Cited

• Chaudhuri, P., and Dexter, J.P. 2017. “Bioinformatics and Classical Literary Study.” ​Journal of Data Mining &Digital Humanities: 3807.
• Courtney, E. 1990. “Greek and Latin Acrostichs.” Philologus 134: 3–13.
• Danielewicz, J. 2013. “Vergil’s certissima signa Reinterpreted: The Aratean LEPTE-Acrostic in Georgics I.” Eos 100: 287–95.
• ———. 2019. “ASTER, ASTER, ASTER: A Triple Transliterated Greek Acrostic in Vergil’s Eclogue 4.” Philologus 163 (2): 361–66.
• Fowler, D.P., and Fowler, P.G. 2012. “Acrostic.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Graf, G. 1894. “Akrostichis.” In Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 1:1200–1207.
• Hejduk, J.D. 2020. “Sacrificial Acrostics and the Fall of Great Cities in Virgil and Lucan.” CJ 115 (3–4): 302–7.
• Hinds, S. 2017. “Pre- and Post-Digital Poetics of ‘Transliteralism’,” In Intertextuality in Flavian Epic Poetry. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
• Hosle, P.K. 2020. “An Acrostic in Aeneid 11.902–6.” The Classical Quarterly 70 (2): 908–10.
• Jacques, Jean-Marie. 1955. “Les « Alexipharmaques » de Nicandre.” RES 57(1): 5–35.
• ———. 1960. “Sur un acrostiche d’Aratos (Phén., 783-787).” REA 62(1): 48–61.
• Jacques, J.-M. 2002. Œuvres: Nicandre. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
• Kearey, T. 2020. “Two Acrostics in Horace’s Satires (1.9.24–8, 2.1.7–10).” CQ: 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0009838819001009.
• Kilpatrick, R.S. 1992. “The Ilias Latina Acrostic: A Milder Remedy.” Latomus 51(4): 857–59.
• Kronenberg, L. 2019. “The Light Side of the Moon: A Lucretian Acrostic (LUCE, 5.712–15) and Its Relationship to Acrostics in Homer (LEUKĒ, Il. 24.1–5) and Aratus (LEPTĒ, Phaen. 783–87).” CP 114 (2): 278–92.
• Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D., and Szymanski, M. 2012. The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek & Latin Poetry. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Laterza, G. 2015. “Aeneid VII 53-57: An Acrostic?” Maia 67(3): 515–19.
• Leclercq, H. 1907. “Acrostiche.” Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie.
• Lobel, E. 1928. “Nicander’s Signature.” CQ 22: 114–15.
• Middleton, F. 2018. “The Poetics of Later Greek Ecphrasis.” Ramus 47(2): 216–38.
• Mitchell, K. 2020a. “Acrostics and Telestichs in Augustan Poetry: Ovid’s Edgy and Subversive Sideswipes.” CCJ 66: 165–81.
• ———. 2020b. “Ovid’s Hidden Last Letters on His Exile – Telestichs from Tomis: Postcode or Code?’.” CCJ 66: 144–64.
• Pease, A.S., ed. 1923. M. Tulli Ciceronis de Divinatione II. University of Illinois Press.
• Rick, E.P. 2019. “Cicero Belts Aratus: The Bilingual Acrostic at Aratea 317–20.” CQ 69 (1): 222–28.
• Riggsby, A. 2019. Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Robinson, M.J. 2019a. “Looking Edgeways. Pursuing Acrostics in Ovid and Virgil.” CQ 69(1): 290-308.
• ———. 2019b. “Arms and a Mouse: Approaching Acrostics in Ovid and Vergil.” MD 82: 23–73.
• Scaffai, M., ed. 1982. Ilias Latina. Bologna: Pàtron.
• Thraede, K. 1985. “Abecedarius.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Suppl. 1(2): 11–13.
• Vogt, E. 1967. “Das Akrostichon in der griechischen Literatur.” AA 13: 80–95.