DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly
2015
Volume 9 Number 3
Volume 9 Number 3
Comparative rates of text reuse in classical Latin hexameter poetry
Abstract
This paper presents a quantitative picture of the interactions between poets in the Latin hexameter tradition. The freely available Tesserae website (tesserae.caset.buffalo.edu) automatically searches pairs of texts in a corpus of over 300 works of Latin literature in order to identify instances where short passages share two or more repeated lexemes. We use Tesserae to survey relative rates of text reuse in 24 Latin hexameter works written from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE. We compare the quantitative information about text reuse provided by Tesserae to the scholarly tradition of qualitative discussion of allusion by Latinists.
The detection and interpretation of allusion currently represent the dominant mode of
study of Latin poetry.[1] The typical goal of
intertextual study is to describe how links between texts affect the meaning of both
the specific passages that contain them and the poems as a whole. Although
intertextual associations may be signalled in many different ways (including
similarity of action, character, or theme), verbal repetition, or text reuse, is the
best studied and often the strongest type of signal. Philogical commentaries,
copiously detailed collections of information on individual books of Latin epic
poems, have been the traditional means for Latin poetry scholars to collect and
present interpretations based on studies of text reuse. An example from Parkes’
recent commentary on the fourth book of Statius’ Thebaid demonstrates the practice of translating the evidence of verbal
repetition into interpretation:
This exemplary note builds its interpretation on the evidence of the repetition of two key lexemes, the verb percutio (“I strike”) and the noun amor (“desire”).[3] The cooccurence of these lexemes in the Statian passage signifies for most readers a link to the passage from Vergil. The discovery of such verbal links has been facilitated in recent years by digital tools such as the freely available Tesserae web interface (tesserae.caset.buffalo.edu), a search program developed by Neil Coffee and a team at the University at Buffalo. Tesserae allows users to search pairs of texts (an earlier “source” text paired with a later “target” text) in a corpus of over 300 poetic and prose works, in order to discover every instance where short passages (either lines of verse or grammatical periods) share two or more repeated lexemes. Thus, a Tesserae search that pairs the Thebaid with the Aeneid permits the user to discover the allusion discussed by Parkes by identifying the repetition of the lexemes percutio and amor. The Tesserae scoring system signals the potential interpretive significance of the match by assigning it a high score, 8 out of approximately 11.[4][Statius, Thebaid 4.260] audaci Martis percussus amore [“struck by a bold desire for warfare”[2]]: … The collocation percussus amore [“struck by a desire”] is not uncommon (compare e.g. Verg. G. 2.476, Hor. Epod. 11.2 amore percussum, and Nem. Cyn. 99) but Statius may be specifically recalling the ephebe Euryalus’ reaction to Nisus’ planned expedition at Verg. A. 9.197: magno laudum percussus amore [“struck by a great desire for glory”]…. Like Parthenopaeus, Euryalus is eager to brave danger for the chance of glory (A. 9.205–6), with similarly fatal results. [Parkes 2012, 164]
In addition, Tesserae identifies a second potential
match (score = 7) between Thebaid 4.260 and another
passage from the Aeneid:
Statius, Thebaid 4.260 prosilit audaci Martis percussus amore (“Parthenopaeus leapt up, struck by a bold desire for warfare”).
Vergil, Aeneid 7.550 accendamque animos insani Martis amore (“I’ll inflame their minds with a desire for mad warfare”).
The words in the Aeneid are spoken by Allecto, a demon
of the underworld, and we may thus once more translate this evidence of verbal
repetition provided by Tesserae into literary
interpretation.[5] Parthenopaeus’ desire to fight in the Theban war in
Statius is not only fatal, like the desire of Vergil’s Euryalus to participate in
Nisus’ expedition; it is also infernal, like the war provoked by Vergil’s Allecto.
This is consistent with Statius’ characterization of the Theban war as destructive
and impious throughout the Thebaid. Such new avenues
for specific intertextual interpretation are the typical results of Tesserae searches. Previous examples of comparable results
can be found in a study of verbal reuse of Vergil’s Aeneid by the epic poet Lucan [Coffee et al. 2012]. Coffee
et al. hand-ranked all Tesserae results from a comparison of Lucan Bellum
Civile 1 (target) and Vergil’s Aeneid
(source) on a 5–point scale of interpretive significance. They concluded that the
Tesserae search had identified 25% more
interpretively significant instances of text reuse than the standard philological
commentaries on Bellum Civile 1 [Roche 2009]
[Viansino 1995].
The interpretation of specific allusions relies partly on the characterization of the
overall intertextual relationship between texts, which is often hampered by a
haphazard approach to gathering data. This paper presents a more consistent,
quantitative picture of the interactions between poets in the Latin hexameter
tradition. We use Tesserae to generate a statistical
analysis of relative rates of text reuse in 24 Latin hexameter works written from
the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE. We then compare the quantitative information about text
reuse provided by Tesserae to the scholarly tradition
of qualitative discussion of allusion by Latinists. Statistical analyses of certain
aspects of Latin poetry are not new. Drobisch’s studies beginning the 1860s
represented the birth of the modern statistical studies of metrical aspects of the
epic hexameter, a tradition which has reached a high-water mark in the recent work
of Ceccarelli [Ceccarelli 2008]
[Drobisch 1866]. Counts of individual lexical items in Latin poetry,
usually in an effort to determine whether particular words should be considered
“poetic” or “unpoetic”, are best
represented by the tradition of Axelson’s work [Watson 1985]
[Axelson 1945]. Yet scholars have not typically evaluated instances of
verbal reuse in quantitative terms, as it has simply not been possible for human
readers to count such instances accurately. The speed, consistency, and
comprehensiveness of Tesserae searches now enable the
interpreter to quantify the reuse of phrases on a scale beyond the capacities of
ordinary human reading.
Powerful and productive as the Tesserae interface is,
the following limitations must be clearly understood. They bear on analysis of
specific passages, and to a lesser extent on our large-scale study:
- Text reuse does not give the full, complex picture of intertextuality in Latin hexameter, where allusions may be signalled by similarity of action, character, theme, and so on.
- Not all text reuse features the repetition of two or more lexemes. At its current stage of development, Tesserae focuses on pairs of lexemes and so cannot reliably identify repetition of single significant words. It would accordingly be unable to flag, for example, the very common word arma (“warfare”). This word takes on a new intertextual significance in poems written after the Aeneid, a foundational epic poem that begins with the words Arma uirumque cano… (“I sing of arms and the man…”) [Fowler 1997, 20]. There is accordingly need of a sensitive human interpreter to uncover the metapoetic significance, for example, of the opening word of Ovid’s Amores, Arma graui numero uiolentaque bella parabam / edere… (“I was beginning to sing of arms and violent wars in a serious meter...”)
- The Latin poets wrote for an audience of Roman elites that were literate in Greek [Hutchinson 2013], and so created numerous translingual calques on Greek phrases. To remain with the example of Vergil, the Aeneid adapts numerous lines and phrases from Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Some foundational studies have uncovered these calques using traditional philological methods [Knauer 1964] [Nelis 2001], but such studies have not been pursued systematically across the Latin corpus. A feature of Tesserae currently in development searches for such translingual allusions between Latin and Greek poetry, but is not yet a reliable tool.
- Repetitions with verbal variations that seem slight to a human reader are
determinative for Tesserae. For example, Tesserae will locate the following correspondence
based on the repetition of the lexemes Acheron
and moueo:
Silius Italicus, Punica 2.536 quis Acheronta moues, flammam immanesque chelydros… (“[The weapons] with which you rouse the underword — flame and monstrous serpents…”).
But Tesserae cannot yet locate the equally significant allusion:Vergil, Aeneid 7.312 flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta mouebo (“If I cannot sway the gods above, I will rouse the underworld”).
The change from the verb moueo (“I move”) to uideo (“I see”) means the phrase no longer contains two repeated lexemes. This means that Tesserae will inevitably miss some of the variations on a verbal motif that form a component of the Latin poets’ creative art. That said, the majority of allusions identified via traditional reading are repeated phrases. So though Tesserae cannot uncover allusions of this type, the majority of such allusions are typically missed by human readers as well.Silius Italicus, Punica 2.367 …aeternum famulam liberque Acheronta uidebo (“…An eternal slave; I will see the underworld as a free man”).
- The Tesserae scoring system provides a measure of interpretive significance that correlates with human-generated measures [Forstall et al. 2014]. Numerous passages of Latin poetry that human readers have traditionally thought of as linked through allusion are also high-scoring lexeme matches, and these correspondences form the basis for scholarly confidence in the scoring system. Yet the score assigned to any given lexeme match does not generate by itself the kind of sensitive assessment of significance that a scholarly reader of Latin poetry brings to the identification of parallel passages. In order to be significant, the allusion must be placed in a larger scholarly narrative of the passage’s compositional goals. A human reader must be able to make a plausible interpretation of the allusion before it can be recognized as an allusion rather a chance repetition [Farrell 2005]. Tesserae’s usefulness comes in discovering potential allusive connections through lexeme matching and ordering them by the rarity and proximity of the paired lexemes. Subjective interpretation of these connections is still required for any meaning-making exercise [Drucker 2009].
Within these acknowledged limitations, Tesserae can be
an extraordinarily powerful tool for representing the large-scale reuse of text in a
literary tradition. Focusing as it does on repetition of phrases, the most commonly
studied marker of allusion, Tesserae can provide a
large-scale view of intertextual relationships that models traditional scholarly
practice. The program can generate provisional answers to questions of particular
relevance to the study of the Latin hexameter genre. Tesserae
enables us to undertake the first large-scale statistical study of
intertextuality in classical literary studies. Classicists have used new digital
tools since their inception, and several techniques of digital text analysis were
pioneered on Latin literary corpora, from Fr. Busa’s Index
Thomisticus to the Packard concordance of Livy [Bodard and Mahony 2010]
[McCarty 2005]. Studies of intertextuality, however, have generally
been confined to pairs or very small sets of texts, and have traditionally relied on
broad but subjective classification of intertextual data (synonyms, similar motifs,
images, etc.), rather than objective parameters such as lexeme matches, lexeme
frequency, and lexeme proximity. The Tesserae scoring
system, however, represents the first opportunity to quantify the study of
intertextuality using a large set of poems and objective parameters. Our object of
study is the entire super-genre of Latin hexameter poetry, in which we privilege the
system of relationships between texts rather than any integral text itself.
Latin poetry scholars have traditionally divided the “super-genre”
of hexameter into several subgenres, including satire, epic, and didactic [Hutchinson 2013]. Is it possible to quantify the verbal cohesiveness
and distinctiveness of these genres? What other general factors affect text reuse
across the entire hexameter tradition? Can the well-known influence of Vergil and
Ovid on their epic successors be quantified? In particular, can it be determined how
frequently one predecessor’s text is reused compared to another’s? For example, is
Statius’ Thebaid more “Vergilian” in
terms of text reuse than another contemporary epic poem, Silius Italicus’ Punica? Most specialist readers of these Flavian epic
poets would correctly guess that the answer is no, but would perhaps not be so
confident in making assertions about the two poems’ relative rates of reuse of
other, earlier poets such as Ovid, Lucan, or Manilius. Which works in the classical
hexameter tradition provide the most significant verbal resources for the hexameter
epics of late antiquity? This study offers preliminary answers to such questions
from a quantitative perspective by surveying the relative rates of text reuse in 24
Latin hexameter works written from the 1st century BCE
to the 6th century CE.
2. METHODS
a. Text Selection
Our analysis included every possible source–target pair from a set of 24
Latin hexameter texts written from the 1st
century BCE to the 6th century CE (Table 1[6]). This set
included every hexameter text available on the Tesserae website,[7]
excluding hexameter poems from polymetric collections (such as Catullus’
poems or Statius’ Silvae), hexameter works with
non-hexameter prefaces (such as Claudian’s In
Rufinum[8]), and four very short minor texts.[9]
b. Data collection and scoring
Using the Tesserae Batch Processing option (http://tess-dev.caset.buffalo.edu/html/batch.php), we recorded
the number of “hits” (phrases sharing at least two
matching lexemes) in each source–target pair (searches conducted on 2 May
2014). Hits may include exact matches of inflected forms, such as Vergil,
Georgics 1.493 exesa
inueniet scabra robigine pila ~ Statius,
Thebaid 3.582 tunc
fessa putri robigine pila (lemmata:
robigo, pilum). Matches may also occur among differently inflected
forms of the same lexeme, such as Vergil, Georgics 2.64 solido Paphiae de robore myrtus ~
Statius, Thebaid 4.300 hi Paphias myrtos a stirpe recuruant
(lexemes: Paphius, myrtus).[10]
We used a set of search parameters that capture the most instances of
interpretively significant text reuse while excluding many instances of less
significant reuse. These were:
- phrases as the search unit
- lemma as the matching feature
- 20 stop words, determined by frequency in the Tesserae corpus
- scores calculated by stem
- a maximum distance of 10, calculated by frequency
- no score cutoff[11]
- \(Score = \ln\left( \frac{\sum_{}^{}{\frac{1}{f(t)} + \sum_{}^{}\frac{1}{f(s)}}}{d_{t} + d_{s}} \right)\)
- f(t) is the frequency of each matching term in the target text
- f(s) is the frequency of each matching term in the source text
- dt is the distances in the target text
- ds is the distances in the source text
Examples of hits of different scores are listed in Table 2.
c. Weighing of counts
We thus obtained for each pair a count of the number of hits at each score
(from 2 to 11). Hits scoring 6 and lower were excluded from the analysis,
since it has been shown that these are unlikely to be instances of
interpretively significant text reuse [Forstall et al. 2014]. We were
left with five data points for each pair, C7, C8, C9, C10, and
C11 (counts of score 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 11; Table 8 and 9). In order to convert these five counts into a single useful
“composite count”, C, we took advantage
of the strongly linear relationships between counts of every score except
for the rare C11 hits. Because the
mean correlation was strongest between C9 and the other counts (mean R2 = 0.879; mean ρ = 0.931), the smallest amount of error was
introduced by converting all counts into C9, using a combination of linear regressions and principal
component analysis.
First, we used a series of linear regressions to characterize the
relationship between C9 and the other
four counts and obtain an initial composite count, Cregr.[12]Second, we applied principal component analysis (PCA) to
the five counts, first correcting for their very different scales by
dividing each count by its standard deviation, in order to obtain a second
composite count, Cpca.[13] Noting the similar weights in the formulae for Cregr and Cpca, we chose the average weights for the
final formula for composite counts, which we considered to be the “observed
count”, Cobs:
- \(C_{regr} = 0.057C_{7} + 0.225C_{8} + C_{9} + 6.168C_{10} + 212.062C_{11}\)
- \(C_{pca} = 0.057C_{7} + 0.225C_{8} + C_{9} + 6.404C_{10} + 243.426C_{11}\)
- \(C_{obs} = 0.057C_{7} + 0.225C_{8} + C_{9} + 6.286C_{10} + 227.744C_{11}\)
d. Relative intensity of reuse
The resulting observed counts could not be directly compared to one another,
since the total lengths of the texts were different for each source–target
pair. For instance, we expected to obtain a much higher Cobs value for
the pair Ovid, Metamorphoses (78098 words) – Silius
Italicus, Punica (76292 words) than for the pair
Horace, Ars Poetica (3090 words) – Claudian, De Bello Gildonico (3165 words), simply because there
is much more space for text reuse in the longer texts. Indeed, we found that
Cobs was correlated with the lengths of both source and target
texts, Ws and Wt; the correlations were strongly linear
when the variables were converted to a logarithmic scale (cobs, ws,
and wt).
Thus, we could use a multiple regression to determine (in logarithmic scale)
an expected count, cexp, for any given length of source and
target text, ws and wt. We obtained the model (R2 = 0.979):[14]
\(c_{exp} = - 19.591 + 1.311w_{s} + 1.208w_{t}\)
We then subtracted the expected count for each source–target pair
from the observed count to obtain a residual, which we considered to be a
measure of the relative intensity of text reuse for each pair:
\(r + c_{obs} - c_{exp}\)
A positive value of r for a given pair indicates that
the observed intensity of text reuse was higher than would be expected for
an “average” pair of texts with those particular word
counts — that is, for a pair of texts with no particularly strong or weak
intertexual relationship. A negative value of rindicates that the observed intensity of text reuse was lower than
average. The further the value deviates from zero, the stronger the evidence
for an intensity of reuse above or below average. Thus, we sorted all pairs
by their r values, presented in both standardized and
non-standardized forms (Table 3).[15] We also presented the
(non-standardized) r values graphically, partitioning
the pairs by source text (Figure 07) and
target text (Figure 12), and presented various
subsets of the data to aid discussion (Figures
13–15, Tables 5–7).
It should be reiterated that r is not a measure of the
number of phrases reused for each pair (for which Cobs is the most
direct measure), but a measure of the intensity of
text reuse that takes into account the lengths of the source and target
texts in each pair. For instance, the very high Cobs value of 7407.3 for the
pair of the longest texts in our data set, Ovid, Metamorphoses (78098 words) – Silius Italicus, Punica (76292 words), actually reflects only moderately intense
text reuse (r = 0.146), whereas the very intense
reuse (r = 1.280) of Vergil’s Georgics (14154 words) by Vergil’s later poem, the Aeneid (63719 words) corresponds to a lower Cobs
value (1974.8) because the texts are shorter.
e. Centrality
For each of our 24 chosen texts, we determined the mean value of r for all pairs involving that text (23 pairs each
time), and sorted the texts by the results (Table
4). We considered this to be a measure of the
“centrality” of each of our chosen texts within the
24–text set: that is, how often each text reuses earlier texts and is reused
by later texts. A text strongly influenced by its predecessors and
influential to its successors would have a higher mean r than a text more peripheral to the literary tradition of Latin
hexameter poetry.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We have kept two objectives in mind in interpreting our data set. First, we
attempt to test whether the results of the automated search and statistical
analysis match the conclusions reached by traditional scholarship. Second, we
endeavor to identify unexpected results that suggest avenues for future
research. We achieve those two objectives when interpreting both general
(sections 3.a-b) and specific trends (section 3.c).
a. Statistical outliers and centrality
Three pairs with standardized residuals near or above |3| may be considered
statistical outliers (Georg – Aen, standardized r = 4.571; Met – Mos, 3.830; Ars – Gild, –2.977). These
results reflect several phenomena that we will discuss: the influence of
author on text reuse (Georg – Aen, section 3.b), the influence of genre (Ars – Gild, 3.b), and the importance of
Ovid (among others) to late antique hexameter (Met –
Mos, 3.c.iv). For a further 11 pairs,
standardized residuals near or above |2| indicate intensity of text reuse
markedly above or below average; these results also reflect phenomena that
we will discuss.[16] These
standard statistical thresholds should not be relied upon naively, however:
for instance, several pairs for which we would expect a strong intertextual
engagement (such as texts written by the same authors) had standardized r values well below 2.
The centrality scores conformed to expectations (Table 4). The high centrality of the Aeneid (0.133) reflects the importance of Vergil’s works to the
subsequent hexameter tradition, while the high centrality of the Ilias Latina (0.186) reflects multiple reuse
facilitated by its intense reuse of the Aeneid
(see section 3.c.i). The high centrality of the Georgics (0.279) stems from a combination of these factors. All
four of Claudian’s works had positive centrality. This reflects not only
Claudian’s extensive reuse of his predecessors, but also the influence of
authorship on text reuse: each of Claudian’s works had high r values when paired with the other three works, thus
increasing their centrality. The low centrality of the works of Horace,
Persius, Juvenal, and Lucretius reflects the influence of genre in our data
set comprising mainly epic/panegyric texts. Perhaps the most unexpected
result is the high centrality of the Achilleid
(0.117), which reflects both intense reuse of earlier epic sources and
intense reuse by later epic targets. Because the Achilleid is a very short text, certain considerations must be
kept in mind (see section 3.c.i).
b. General trends
Unsurprisingly, the most important influence on text reuse intensity was
authorship. In all 13 cases where a pair of texts was written by the same
author, the reuse intensity was higher than average (r > 0.000), markedly so in 5 of the cases (standardized r > 2.000); see Figure
13 and Table 5. Vergil showed the
highest intensity of text reuse within his own poems, followed by Claudian,
while Horace and Statius reused their own poems with less intensity. Though
drawing on a very different data set (a relatively small corpus of Latin
hexameter poems), the results are nevertheless broadly comparable to
Jockers’ study of the author signal in a corpus of 3500 nineteenth-century
novels written in English. Jockers observes that of five “signals” (author, decade,
genre, gender, and text), the author signal is the strongest.[17]
A secondary influence on text reuse intensity was genre. Although
categorizing Latin poetry by genre is difficult, we may obtain a rough idea
of the influence of genre by partitioning the texts of our data set into
three genres: didactic, epic/panegyric, and satiric (Figure 14).[18] Within the small didactic and
satiric genres, reuse intensity was higher than average for 5 of 6 pairs
(r > 0.000; the exception, HSat – JSat, was
slight: r = −0.007). Within the much larger (and more
diverse) epic/panegyric genre, reuse intensity was higher than average in 66
of 78 pairs; the 12 remaining pairs had only slightly lower than average
reuse intensity (standardized r ≥ −0.446). In
contrast, pairs comprising texts from different genres tended to display
lower than average reuse intensity. The trend was clearest for pairs
composed of one epic/panegyric and one satiric text: 37 of 39 pairs had
lower than average reuse intensity.[19] The results conform to the expectations of traditional
reading, as epic and satire are the most distant hexameter genres from one
another in style and subject matter. Genre is also perhaps the best
explanation for the trends seen in the “centrality”
measure (Table 4). Since 13 of 24 texts in our
data set belong to the epic/panegyric genre, we would expect each of them to
be more central than texts belonging to smaller genres. This is true in most
cases; the most notable exception is the Georgics, which had the highest centrality score by far,
despite belonging to the didactic genre. We discuss this exceptional text in
section 3.c.i.
Time period appeared to have no influence on text reuse intensity. This is
not surprising, since the technical and aesthetic constraints of hexameter
poetry discouraged changes in diction or syntax over time. However, it is
possible that a future study which controls for much more salient influences
such as authorship and genre may discover a subtle influence of time
period.
c. Specific observations
The 276 pairs in our data set represent a generically and chronologically
diverse collection of texts. Different scholars will accordingly highlight
various aspects of the data. We only offer a handful of specific
observations here. As with the general trends we observed, these specific
results both confirmed that our analysis falls in line with the results of
traditional scholarship and identified several possible avenues for future
inquiry. For instance, Virgil’s Aeneid
predictably emerged as a major influence on subsequent poetry of all
periods. Lucretius’ De Natura Rerum was not a
prominent verbal resource for later authors. The four Flavian epics were
closely related, and late antique poets reused material from previous works
in expected ways. The congruence of these results with traditional
scholarship supports our contention that several unexpected results are
indicators of potential for fruitful further research. For instance,
Virgil’s Georgics and the anonymous Ilias Latina scored high in reuse intensity in
almost every case. This is probably an indication of frequent multiple
allusions to both these texts and the more prominent Aeneid and Metamorphoses (section
3.c.i). The relationship between the Flavian epics and the Aeneid appears to be more
“creative” or “original” than
often allowed, although these terms must be used carefully (see 3.c.ii).
Horace’s Ars Poetica seems to have an
unexpected influence on Manilius’ Astronomicon,
suggesting that didactic sensibility may cut across genre (see 3.c.iii).
Finally, Ausonius’ Mosella, usually considered
primarily “Vergilian” in nature, also shows close links
with Ovid’s Metamorphoses (3.c.iv).
i. Vergil’s Georgics and the Ilias Latina
The influence of Vergil’s Aeneid on the
subsequent tradition of Latin hexameter is well established and reflected in
our results. The work had a high centrality score (0.133) and higher than
average reuse intensity (r > 0.000) when paired
with 13 of 18 subsequent target texts (the exceptions are BC and the non-epic texts Ars, PSat, JSat, and HE); see Tables 4 and 6 and
Figure 11. However, the results for
Vergil’s early work, the Georgics, are even
more exceptional. Its centrality score was more than twice as high (0.279)
and it had higher than average reuse intensity (r
> 0.000) when paired with 16 of 20 subsequent target texts (the
exceptions are the non-epic texts Ep, Ars, PSat, and
JSat). These results may seem surprising at
first. Although the Georgics is an important
text, few would argue that its influence on subsequent Latin literature
eclipses that of the Aeneid. But two factors
must be kept in mind. First, recall that r is not a
measure of the number of phrases reused for each pair (for which Cobs is the most direct
measure), but a measure of the intensity of text reuse that
takes into account the lengths of the texts in each pair. Because the Aeneid is much longer than the Georgics (63719 vs 14154 words), it requires
values of Cobs over 7 times
higher, and thus the reuse of many more phrases, in order to achieve the
same residual when paired with any subsequent target text. Subsequent target
texts use many more phrases from the Aeneid
than from the Georgics in total,[20] and the influence of the Aeneid on subsequent literature is therefore more obvious to the
reader. Yet the intensity of the reuse is greater for the shorter Georgics.
The second factor arises from Vergil’s extensive reuse in the Aeneid of his own phrases from the Georgics, which resulted in the highest r value in our data set (1.280), one of three
statistical outliers (standardized r = 4.571).
Because Vergil’s two texts share many phrases, subsequent target texts that
reuse phrases from one Vergilian text will often automatically reuse the
same phrase from the other Vergilian text. In practice, subsequent epic
poems that reuse phrases from the epic Aeneid
will often automatically reuse the same phrase from the Georgics. A similar phenomenon explains the unexpected results
for the Ilias Latina. Although no scholar would
argue that this minor poem, a rough compression and translation of the
Iliad, exerted any discernable influence on
Latin literature in antiquity,[21] it
had a higher centrality score than the Aeneid
(0.186) and higher than average reuse intensity (r
> 0.000) when paired with every subsequent target text (Tables 4 and 6 and
Figure 11). However, the Ilias Latina also had markedly higher than average
reuse intensity (standardized r > 2.000) when
paired with both the Aeneid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, two foundational texts for later
Latin literature.[22] This suggests that when a
subsequent target text reuses phrases from either the Aeneid or the Metamorphoses, it
will often automatically reuse the same phrase from the Ilias Latina and thereby increase the r
value when paired with that poem.
The high scores for both the Georgics and
Ilias Latina demonstrate that allusion in
Latin literature is not always a case of a target text reusing a phrase from
a single, specific source text. On the contrary, an allusion to, say, the
Aeneid often necessarily entails an
allusion to the Georgics, the Ilias Latina, or some other text(s). While
scholars routinely privilege one source text at the expense of the others
for the sake of interpretation, the automatic searches of Tesserae do not. This egalitarian interpretive
practice is not very suitable in the case of the Ilias
Latina, a minor text rightly subordinated to the sources it
reuses, but it is more suitable in the case of the Georgics, where readers will more often hit upon compelling
interpretations by treating the Georgics as a
source text on par with the Aeneid.[23]
Tesserae encourages this kind of interpretation
not only by presenting all texts as equal in value, but also by offering the
option to perform multi-text searches (http://tesserae.caset.buffalo.edu/multi-text.php), where matches
between a source–target pair are presented alongside every other instance of
the matching phrase in a user-selected set of texts.
ii. Post-Vergilian classical epic
Scholarly interest in post-Vergilian classical epic (the Metamorphoses, Bellum Civile,
Argonautica, Thebaid, Achilleid, and Punica) has roughly tracked the chronology of the
epics themselves, with attention paid first to the Metamorphoses and last to the Punica. Similarly, the assumption has often been made that the
earlier epics (Metamorphoses and Bellum Civile) responded to Vergil’s influence in
more creative and original ways, while the four later epics of the Flavian
period tended to imitate Vergilian epic less creatively.[24] To compare this assumption to
the results of our study, we must bear in mind the nature of the text reuse
that Tesserae can discover. At its current
stage of development, Tesserae identifies only
matching phrases with exact repetition of two or more lexemes. It cannot
detect allusions signaled by similarity of action, character, or theme, or
text reuse involving single significant words or verbal variations. That is,
Tesserae preferentially detects exactly the
sort of allusions that may be classified as less
“creative”. Thus a high residual indicates not only
higher than expected text reuse, but also potentially a less
“creative” allusive relationship.
Bearing this in mind, the results do not fully support the assumption of
declining creativity over time (Figure 15 and
Table 7). In contrast, although the
intensity of text reuse of both the Georgics
and Aeneid by the Argonautica, Thebaid, and Achilleid was higher than average (0.160 ≤ r ≥ 0.299), it was not as high as the intensity of
reuse of any of Vergil’s three works by the Metamorphoses (0.323 ≤ r ≥ 0.560). The
intensity of reuse of Vergil by the Bellum
Civile was even lower: in fact, the intensity of reuse of the
Aeneid was slightly lower than average (r = −0.026).[25] Thus, it would seem that the intertextual
engagement with Vergil’s texts by Lucan, Valerius Flaccus, and Statius are
either less intense or more “creative” (or both) than
often assumed.
The notable exception is the Punica of Silius
Italicus, which had much higher than average intensity of text reuse when
paired with the Georgics (r = 0.433) and Aeneid (r = 0.540). This is consistent with the assumption of
an uncreative intertextual relationship, and inconsistent with recent claims
about the Punica’s originality.[26] It must be acknowledged, however, that
“originality” and “creativity” are
subjective concepts, which are not directly measured by r values. A high r value for a given pair
indicates only that the number of matching phrases of two or more lexemes
was greater than expected for an “average” pair of texts
with the same word counts. It does not indicate, for instance, a paucity of
other kinds of subtler intertextuality (text reuse with verbal variation, or
similarities of action, theme, or character). Nor does it take into account
the context into which the lexemes are redeployed: a poet may, for instance
quote a predecessor’s words exactly, but in a completely different and
original context.
Other observations may be made about the results for the four Flavian epics.
The high r values for the epics when paired with the
Georgics (0.160 ≤ r
≥ 0.433) may be influenced by factors discussed in section 3.c.i, but
scholars have begun to interpret the relationship between these texts more
aggressively (Pagán 2015), and our results support this line of inquiry. The
Metamorphoses and Bellum Civile have often been interpreted as important texts
for the Flavian epics; however, although the intensity of text reuse for the
eight relevant pairs was usually higher than average (r ≥ −0.075), it was usually only moderately so, approximately on
par with the intensity of reuse for the epics when paired with the Eclogues, a text rarely argued to be important to
Flavian epic. Again, this does not argue against a strong intertextual
engagement between the Metamorphoses, Bellum Civile, and Flavian epics; it may instead
suggest that future investigations should focus on allusions not signalled
by the obvious text reuse that Tesserae
discovers.
The intertextual relationship between the four Flavian epics has been the
subject of recent study, and this line of inquiry is supported by our
results. The intensity of the Thebaid’s reuse
of the Argonautica was slightly higher than
average, on par with the Thebaid’s reuse of the
Metamorphoses (r =
0.064, 0.037). The intensity of the Achilleid’s
reuse of the Argonautica was much higher than
average, on par with the Achilleid’s reuse of
the Aeneid (r = 0.279,
0.289).While the intertextual relationship between the Thebaid and Argonautica has been
well studied, the relationship between the Achilleid and Argonautica has
not;[27] future work in
this vein could be productive. Unsurprisingly, the intensity of reuse of
Statius’ Thebaid by Statius’ later Achilleid was higher than average (r = 0.141), but it was lower than 11 of the 12
remaining intra-author pairs (Figure 13 and
Table 5). This low reuse cannot be
explained purely by the divergent subject matter and style of Statius’ two
epics: Vergil’s Eclogues and Aeneid are at least as divergent, but had a higher
r value (0.224). Finally, the r value for the pair Achilleid –
Punica was very high (0.410).[28] This was unexpected.
Research on the intertextual relationship between Statius’ and Silius’ works
has focused on the pair Thebaid – Punica,[29] but these results suggest more attention should be
paid to the Achilleid. In all discussion of the
Achilleid, however, we should keep in mind
that it is much shorter than the other three Flavian epics; therefore, the
considerations that applied to the Georgics in
section 3.c.i apply here.
iii. Didactic and satiric hexameter
Hardie’s study of the reception of Lucretius makes a strong and well-received
case for the fundamental contribution of the De Rerum
Natura to succeeding poetry from the Augustan poets through
Milton’s Paradise Lost
[Hardie 2009]. No reader would dispute the conceptual and
formal importance of the DRN to the Latin
hexameter tradition. Features of later hexameter poetry such as sententiae, multiple explanations, and similes
from the natural world all bear the marks of the Epicurean poet’s mode of
argumentation. Yet the vocabulary of the DRN
was not mined as extensively as the other foundational works of Republican
and Augustan poetry, as can be seen from our results (centrality = −0.151,
r < 0.000 when paired with 21 of 23 succeeding
target texts; Figure 11). The only positive
r values resulted from pairings with other
didactic works: Vergil’s Georgics (r = 0.230) and Manilius’ Astronomica (r = 0.023). While these
results are consistent with the observed influence of genre on text reuse
(section 3.b), the low r values overall demonstrate
the difference between the importance of Lucretius’ poem as a conceptual
resource and its importance as a verbal resource.
Volk’s study of the Astronomica makes a series
of valuable observations about Manilius’ thematic adaptations of Lucretius,
Vergil, and Ovid [Volk 2009]. Those thematic adaptations were
accompanied by verbal reuse only for Vergil in our results. Vergil’s Georgics yielded the highest reuse intensity (r = 0.342), followed by the Eclogues (r = 0.307). Unexpectedly,
Horace’s Ars Poetica had the next highest r value (0.213). As the Ars is one of the shortest poems in our data set, the
considerations that applied to the Georgics in
section 3.c.i apply here. Yet there may be hitherto unexplored verbal
connections between the poem on composing poetry and the poem of the stars,
likely in the addresses of the didactic narrator. The intensity of reuse of
the DRN was higher than average, but only
negligibly so (r = 0.023). The intensity of text
reuse of the Astronomica by later texts was
low, suggesting a limited influence on the language of subsequent classical
hexameter tradition.
The inclusion of the Satires of Horace, Persius,
and Juvenal (HSat, PSat, JSat) in this study permits
us to begin investigation of the influence of genre on text reuse in Latin
hexameter. As mentioned above (section 3.b), the author signal is a stronger
determinant than the genre signal for intensity of text reuse, as evidenced
by higher r values for pairs of texts written by
Horace than inter-author pairs within the satiric genre.[30] But the importance of
genre was especially marked when pairing epic/panegyric with satiric texts,
where 37 of 39 pairs had lower than average reuse intensity (r < 0.000), including the lowest r values in our data set (Figure
14).[31] These results indicate a strong
separation between the genres, related to satire’s pedestrian vocabulary and
everyday concerns, which contrast with the more elevated style and subject
matter of epic.
iv. Late antiquity
The tremendous influence of Vergil and Ovid on the hexameter poems of late
antiquity has been well recognized in prior scholarship, but has been
typically studied from the perspective of theme, character, and subject. The
present study permits some initial quantification of the intensity of text
reuse between these poems and those occurring earlier in the hexameter
tradition.
Prior scholarship has identified Ausonius’ Mosella as primarily Vergilian in character, with several
secondary influences, but has not heretofore been able to quantify the
nature of Ausonius’ reuse of his predecessors’ texts.[32] In our
study, the intensity of text reuse of Ovid’s Metamorphoses by the Mosella was
markedly higher than average (standardized r >
2.000). This pairing had the highest r value of any
two independently authored texts (r = 1.073), and
second only to Vergil’s reuse of the Georgics
in the Aeneid (r =
1.280). The intensity of reuse of Vergil’s works was decidedly lower (Georgics, r = 0.260; Aeneid, r = 0.115). The
intensity of reuse of Statius’ Achilleid and
Silius Italicus’ Punica was slightly above
average (r = 0.104 and 0.028), but lower than that of
Manilius’ Astronomica and the Ilias Latina (r = 0.130 and
0.120; for the latter, see section 3.c.i). Intensity of reuse was lower than
average (r < 0.000) for Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Lucan’s Bellum Civile, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, and Statius’ Thebaid.
The centos entirely composed of phrases adapted from Vergil’s works that
appear in this period represent a new level of engagement with the
foundational texts of the genre [McGill 2005]. Ausonius’
Cento Nuptialis, the best known of the
centos, is available on Tesserae, but was
excluded in this study, since its artificially high reuse rates of Vergil’s
works would have produced extreme outliers that would have distorted our
results.
As observed above (section 3.b), the works of Claudian are evidence for the
strength of the author signal. Four of the top fifteen r values in our data set were derived from pairing works of
Claudian (Hon – Stil, Hon – Gild, Gild – Stil, and Rapt – Hon; 0.461 ≤ r ≥ 0.716).
The lower position of the De Raptu Proserpinae
among the pairings of Claudian’s works (Rapt –
Hon, Rapt –
Gild, Rapt –
Stil; 0.243 ≤ r ≥
0.461) may suggest that Claudian’s self-reuse is strongest among works in a
similar genre (panegyric rather than mythological epic). We are hesitant to
draw firm conclusions, however, about the relative importance of the author
and genre signals with so few data. Claudian’s rates of reuse of his
Augustan predecessors present a similar story to that told in the scholarly
literature [Ware 2012, 9–10]. For instance, Vergil’s
Georgics (r = 0.538)
and Aeneid (r = 0.326)
had high reuse intensity when paired with Claudian’s mythological De Raptu Proserpinae. The intensity of reuse of
Statius’ Achilleid was also high (r = 0.426), which accords with the importance of
Statius as an intermediary between the Augustans and the poets of late
antiquity. As Kaufmann observes, “Claudian, possibly inspired
by Ausonius, [was] the trendsetter for the increased interest in
Statius’ poetry by the later poets”
[Kaufmann 2015]. An unexpected but plausible result is the importance of Lucan’s
Bellum Civile to Claudian’s historical
panegyrics, Gild (r =
0.351) and Hon (r =
0.278).
We also included Juvencus’ Historia Evangelica,
a fourth-century Christian epic, and Corippus’ Johannis, a sixth-century historical epic, in the data set.
Both the Johannis’ high rates of reuse of
Vergil and Claudian and the HE’s low rates of
reuse of classical pagan poetry (with the exception of the Georgics and Ilias
Latina) conform to the expectations set by the scholarly
literature.[33]
4. CONCLUSIONS
We chose to begin by studying a selected corpus of Latin hexameter poems because
relationships between works in this “super-genre” have been
the most closely studied of all intertextual relationships in ancient
literature. We are able to compare the information about the relative rates of
reuse of texts in Table 3 to a long tradition of
qualitative discussion of allusion by Latinists. We provisionally conclude that
a majority of the results conform to the statements typically made by poetry
scholars about the significance of various intertextual relationships in the
Latin hexameter tradition. For instance, the author signal is one of the
strongest determinants of intensity of text reuse, the works of Ovid and Vergil
are the most important verbal resources for the later works of the tradition,
and satiric hexameter is strongly separated from the other hexameter genres in
terms of reuse. If it is accepted that the high level of correlation between our
quantified results and the scholarly tradition’s qualitative assessments
provides a strong vote of confidence for our methodology, then we can begin to
explore the significance of unexpected findings. These include (a) the
importance of Vergil’s Georgics to the later
tradition, (b) the indications of multiple reuse visible in the Ilias Latina, (c) the relatively low reuse of Vergil
by Lucan, Valerius, and Statius, and (d) the intense reuse of Ovid’s Metamorphoses by Ausonius’ Mosella.
This is a first step in algorithmic criticism of the hexameter super-genre [Ramsay 2011]. As observed in the Introduction, Tesserae has some limitations which reflect its
current state of development, and others which reflect the nature of Latin
poetry. In this initial study, we confirmed the value of the lexeme-matching
approach by comparing it to the traditional critical narrative of relationships
among Latin hexameter poems. Our goal is to model a system of relationships
between texts that can frame critics’ discussions of the role of individual
poems within the tradition. As Drucker observes, “on the surface, a model seems
static. In reality it is, like any ‘form,’ a
provocation for a reading, an intervention, an interpretive act”
[Drucker 2009, 16]. In Drucker’s terms, Tesserae modeling is a
dynamic rather than static approach to textual analysis. New data sets can
easily be constructed, whether by using different Tesserae parameters or changing the texts in the group under analysis.
These future analyses will produce new and different perceptions of the system
of relationships among Latin literary texts in other genres, or between other
genres and the hexameter super-genre.
Tables and Figures
| Text | Abbreviation (name of work) | Date (approximate) | Length (words) |
| Lucretius, De Rerum Natura | DRN | before 55 BCE | 49099 |
| Vergil, Eclogues | Ecl | 42–39 BCE | 5617 |
| Horace, Satires | HSat | 40–30 BCE | 14215 |
| Vergil, Georgics | Georg | 36–29 BCE | 14154 |
| Horace, Epistles | Ep | 23–20 BCE | 9906 |
| Vergil, Aeneid | Aen | 29–19 BCE | 63719 |
| Horace, Ars Poetica | Ars | 14 BCE | 3090 |
| Ovid, Metamorphoses | Met | 2–8 CE | 78098 |
| Manilius, Astronomica | Astr | after 9 CE | 27353 |
| Persius, Satires | PSat | before 62 CE | 4457 |
| Lucan, Bellum CivileM | BC | 64–65 CE | 51065 |
| [Italicus], Ilias Latina | Ilias | 60–70 CE | 6597 |
| Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica | Arg | before early 90s CE | 37250 |
| Statius, Thebaid | Theb | 92 CE | 62504 |
| Statius, Achilleid | Ach | 95 CE | 7204 |
| Silius Italicus, Punica | Pun | before 96 CE | 76292 |
| Juvenal, Satires | JSat | after 96 CE | 24884 |
| Juvencus, Historia Evangelica | He | 330 CE | 19854 |
| Ausonius, Mosella | Mos | 370 CE | 2957 |
| Claudian, De Raptu Proserpinae | Rapt | 395–397 CE | 6991 |
| Claudian, De Quarto Consulatu Honorii Augusti | Hon | 397 CE | 3965 |
| Claudian, De Bello Gildonico | Gild | 398 CE | 3165 |
| Claudian, De Consolatu Stilichonis | Stil | 399–400 CE | 7583 |
| Corippus, Johannis | Joh | 6th c. CE | 29046 |
Table 1.
| Score 11 |
| Pun 13.752 miscuerint Italis Piraeo litore leges |
| Met 6.444 Cecropios intrat Piraeaque litora tangit |
| Ilias 401 instat et exstructos morientum calcat aceruos |
| Met 5.85 sternit et exstructos morientum calcat acervos |
| Score 10 |
| Theb 10.228 cum fetura gregem pecoroso vere novavit |
| Ecl 7.35 si fetura gregem suppleverit, aureus esto |
| Astr 2.807 per latera atque imum templi summumque cacumen |
| Aen 6.678 dehinc summa cacumina linquunt |
| Score 9 |
| Astr 1.753 nec mihi celanda est famae vulgata vetustas |
| Aen 12.608 Hinc totam infelix volgatur fama per urbem |
| JSat 10.99 an Fidenarum Gabiorumque esse potestas |
| HEp 1.11.7 Gabiis desertior atque / Fidenis vicus |
| Score 8 |
| Theb 7.262 arma patris pinuque iubas imitatur equinas, / terribilis silvis |
| Ecl 2.31 Mecum una in silvis imitabere Pana canendo |
| Astr 4.897 pars sua perspicimus genitique accedimus astris |
| Aen 9.641 sic itur ad astra, / dis genite et geniture deos |
| Score 7 |
| Theb 7.447 ipsa loco mirum natura favebat |
| Ecl 3.68 ipse locum, aëriae quo congessere palumbes |
| Astr 4.96 quin etiam infelix virtus et noxia felix |
| Aen 9.799 Quin etiam bis tum medios invaserat hostis |
Table 2.
Randomly selected examples of hits from Tesserae
searches scoring 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7.| Source | Target | r | Standardized r |
| Georg | Aen | 1.280 | 4.571 |
| Met | Mos | 1.073 | 3.830 |
| Met | Ilias | 0.719 | 2.565 |
| Hon | Stil | 0.716 | 2.555 |
| Ilias | Joh | 0.663 | 2.368 |
| Hon | Gild | 0.634 | 2.264 |
| Ecl | Georg | 0.603 | 2.153 |
| Aen | Ilias | 0.594 | 2.119 |
| Gild | Stil | 0.575 | 2.054 |
| Georg | Met | 0.560 | 1.999 |
| Aen | Pun | 0.540 | 1.928 |
| Georg | Rapt | 0.538 | 1.921 |
| Rapt | Hon | 0.461 | 1.644 |
| Ilias | Gild | 0.457 | 1.631 |
| Georg | Pun | 0.433 | 1.546 |
| Ilias | Pun | 0.433 | 1.545 |
| Gild | Joh | 0.427 | 1.525 |
| Ach | Rapt | 0.426 | 1.520 |
| Ach | Pun | 0.410 | 1.462 |
| Rapt | Gild | 0.404 | 1.442 |
| Ilias | Ach | 0.396 | 1.414 |
| Mos | Hon | 0.395 | 1.411 |
| Ilias | Arg | 0.389 | 1.387 |
| Ach | Joh | 0.375 | 1.337 |
| Hon | Joh | 0.372 | 1.327 |
| Georg | Joh | 0.355 | 1.266 |
| Ep | Ars | 0.354 | 1.262 |
| Georg | BC | 0.351 | 1.253 |
| BC | Gild | 0.351 | 1.252 |
| Aen | Met | 0.350 | 1.249 |
| Georg | Astr | 0.342 | 1.221 |
| Ach | Stil | 0.331 | 1.183 |
| Aen | Rapt | 0.326 | 1.162 |
| Rapt | Stil | 0.324 | 1.157 |
| Ecl | Met | 0.323 | 1.151 |
| Georg | Ilias | 0.310 | 1.107 |
| Ecl | Astr | 0.307 | 1.096 |
| Rapt | Joh | 0.302 | 1.079 |
| Aen | Theb | 0.299 | 1.067 |
| Georg | Arg | 0.297 | 1.061 |
| Aen | Ach | 0.289 | 1.033 |
| Arg | Ach | 0.279 | 0.996 |
| BC | Hon | 0.278 | 0.992 |
| Aen | Joh | 0.269 | 0.961 |
| Georg | Gild | 0.268 | 0.957 |
| HE | Joh | 0.267 | 0.951 |
| Ach | Gild | 0.263 | 0.939 |
| Georg | Mos | 0.260 | 0.928 |
| HSat | Ep | 0.259 | 0.925 |
| Aen | Arg | 0.255 | 0.910 |
| BC | Stil | 0.253 | 0.903 |
| Ilias | Theb | 0.252 | 0.899 |
| BC | Rapt | 0.250 | 0.893 |
| Mos | Stil | 0.247 | 0.883 |
| Mos | Joh | 0.243 | 0.866 |
| Ach | Hon | 0.238 | 0.851 |
| Met | BC | 0.238 | 0.850 |
| Georg | Hon | 0.232 | 0.829 |
| DRN | Georg | 0.230 | 0.823 |
| Ars | Stil | 0.228 | 0.813 |
| Ecl | Aen | 0.224 | 0.800 |
| Ecl | Ilias | 0.224 | 0.799 |
| Ilias | HE | 0.223 | 0.795 |
| Ars | Astr | 0.213 | 0.762 |
| HSat | PSat | 0.210 | 0.750 |
| Stil | Joh | 0.199 | 0.711 |
| Georg | Theb | 0.186 | 0.664 |
| Georg | HE | 0.172 | 0.614 |
| Georg | Ach | 0.160 | 0.570 |
| Ilias | Stil | 0.157 | 0.560 |
| Mos | Rapt | 0.153 | 0.546 |
| Ilias | Rapt | 0.152 | 0.543 |
| Met | Pun | 0.146 | 0.520 |
| Theb | Ach | 0.141 | 0.503 |
| PSat | JSat | 0.137 | 0.490 |
| Georg | Stil | 0.132 | 0.472 |
| BC | Joh | 0.132 | 0.471 |
| Astr | Mos | 0.130 | 0.465 |
| Theb | Rapt | 0.128 | 0.457 |
| Pun | Rapt | 0.128 | 0.457 |
| BC | Pun | 0.126 | 0.450 |
| Astr | Ilias | 0.125 | 0.446 |
| Ilias | Mos | 0.120 | 0.428 |
| Aen | Mos | 0.115 | 0.409 |
| Ach | Mos | 0.104 | 0.373 |
| Astr | Joh | 0.101 | 0.361 |
| BC | Ach | 0.097 | 0.348 |
| Arg | Gild | 0.097 | 0.346 |
| Ecl | Stil | 0.094 | 0.335 |
| Ecl | Pun | 0.093 | 0.332 |
| Aen | Gild | 0.092 | 0.328 |
| Met | Rapt | 0.089 | 0.319 |
| Ars | JSat | 0.078 | 0.278 |
| Met | Ach | 0.077 | 0.276 |
| Arg | Pun | 0.076 | 0.272 |
| HE | Gild | 0.075 | 0.267 |
| Arg | Rapt | 0.067 | 0.239 |
| Aen | Hon | 0.064 | 0.229 |
| Arg | Theb | 0.064 | 0.229 |
| Pun | Hon | 0.060 | 0.214 |
| Theb | Pun | 0.057 | 0.204 |
| JSat | Hon | 0.053 | 0.188 |
| Theb | Hon | 0.052 | 0.185 |
| Pun | Joh | 0.051 | 0.182 |
| Astr | BC | 0.048 | 0.171 |
| Astr | Ach | 0.047 | 0.168 |
| Ecl | Ach | 0.047 | 0.167 |
| Ilias | JSat | 0.045 | 0.160 |
| Mos | Gild | 0.042 | 0.150 |
| HSat | Ars | 0.041 | 0.146 |
| HSat | Georg | 0.037 | 0.133 |
| Met | Theb | 0.037 | 0.131 |
| Ilias | Hon | 0.036 | 0.130 |
| Astr | Hon | 0.036 | 0.130 |
| BC | Arg | 0.035 | 0.125 |
| Aen | Stil | 0.030 | 0.108 |
| BC | Ilias | 0.028 | 0.100 |
| Pun | Mos | 0.028 | 0.099 |
| Arg | Hon | 0.024 | 0.087 |
| DRN | Astr | 0.023 | 0.082 |
| Pun | Gild | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Met | Stil | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Ars | HE | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Aen | Astr | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Ars | PSat | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Ep | JSat | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Ecl | Arg | -0.003 | -0.012 |
| Met | Arg | -0.006 | -0.020 |
| Theb | Stil | -0.006 | -0.022 |
| Astr | Stil | -0.007 | -0.026 |
| HSat | JSat | -0.007 | -0.026 |
| Ecl | Rapt | -0.009 | -0.032 |
| Georg | JSat | -0.009 | -0.033 |
| HE | Rapt | -0.010 | -0.036 |
| Astr | Pun | -0.013 | -0.046 |
| DRN | Aen | -0.015 | -0.054 |
| HE | Stil | -0.016 | -0.058 |
| Astr | Rapt | -0.016 | -0.058 |
| DRN | Ilias | -0.017 | -0.062 |
| Ecl | JSat | -0.021 | -0.076 |
| Met | Hon | -0.022 | -0.077 |
| Aen | BC | -0.026 | -0.091 |
| Arg | Joh | -0.030 | -0.106 |
| Arg | Stil | -0.039 | -0.138 |
| Ep | PSat | -0.040 | -0.141 |
| DRN | Hon | -0.042 | -0.149 |
| Georg | Ep | -0.045 | -0.162 |
| Aen | HE | -0.047 | -0.169 |
| DRN | Ars | -0.052 | -0.184 |
| Met | Gild | -0.055 | -0.197 |
| Ecl | Mos | -0.058 | -0.206 |
| Pun | Stil | -0.059 | -0.212 |
| Met | Astr | -0.064 | -0.228 |
| Ecl | HSat | -0.066 | -0.237 |
| Ach | JSat | -0.068 | -0.242 |
| BC | Theb | -0.075 | -0.268 |
| Ach | HE | -0.076 | -0.273 |
| Astr | Gild | -0.077 | -0.276 |
| HE | Mos | -0.079 | -0.283 |
| JSat | Gild | -0.081 | -0.288 |
| Theb | Gild | -0.081 | -0.289 |
| Met | Joh | -0.085 | -0.302 |
| Ecl | HE | -0.089 | -0.318 |
| Ecl | BC | -0.089 | -0.319 |
| Astr | HE | -0.090 | -0.321 |
| Ep | Stil | -0.090 | -0.323 |
| DRN | Ach | -0.091 | -0.324 |
| DRN | Pun | -0.092 | -0.329 |
| JSat | Mos | -0.094 | -0.334 |
| Ecl | Joh | -0.098 | -0.351 |
| Ars | BC | -0.100 | -0.355 |
| DRN | Joh | -0.101 | -0.361 |
| HSat | Ach | -0.102 | -0.364 |
| JSat | Joh | -0.104 | -0.372 |
| DRN | Rapt | -0.111 | -0.394 |
| DRN | Mos | -0.111 | -0.397 |
| HE | Hon | -0.112 | -0.400 |
| Ars | Met | -0.112 | -0.401 |
| JSat | Rapt | -0.113 | -0.405 |
| Ep | Astr | -0.114 | -0.406 |
| Georg | Ars | -0.114 | -0.408 |
| Astr | Arg | -0.114 | -0.409 |
| JSat | Stil | -0.117 | -0.418 |
| Ep | Hon | -0.117 | -0.418 |
| Ep | Mos | -0.121 | -0.433 |
| Theb | Joh | -0.125 | -0.446 |
| Theb | Mos | -0.128 | -0.459 |
| Ars | Mos | -0.131 | -0.467 |
| Ep | Rapt | -0.133 | -0.476 |
| DRN | Ecl | -0.134 | -0.480 |
| Arg | HE | -0.137 | -0.490 |
| Astr | JSat | -0.139 | -0.496 |
| DRN | Ep | -0.139 | -0.497 |
| PSat | Stil | -0.139 | -0.498 |
| BC | Mos | -0.142 | -0.506 |
| Ecl | Theb | -0.145 | -0.518 |
| Pun | HE | -0.154 | -0.550 |
| DRN | Met | -0.164 | -0.585 |
| Georg | PSat | -0.164 | -0.587 |
| DRN | Stil | -0.170 | -0.606 |
| Ars | Ilias | -0.171 | -0.609 |
| Ecl | Ep | -0.171 | -0.610 |
| DRN | HSat | -0.183 | -0.654 |
| PSat | Mos | -0.185 | -0.661 |
| Ars | Ach | -0.187 | -0.668 |
| Ep | Ach | -0.188 | -0.670 |
| Astr | Theb | -0.189 | -0.673 |
| HSat | Ilias | -0.195 | -0.697 |
| Ars | Pun | -0.195 | -0.697 |
| BC | JSat | -0.203 | -0.724 |
| HSat | Pun | -0.205 | -0.731 |
| PSat | Arg | -0.211 | -0.754 |
| BC | HE | -0.215 | -0.768 |
| Ep | Aen | -0.216 | -0.772 |
| DRN | HE | -0.221 | -0.789 |
| PSat | Pun | -0.230 | -0.823 |
| HSat | Astr | -0.236 | -0.842 |
| Met | JSat | -0.236 | -0.843 |
| HSat | HE | -0.242 | -0.866 |
| HSat | Gild | -0.243 | -0.866 |
| Aen | JSat | -0.243 | -0.867 |
| HSat | Aen | -0.243 | -0.869 |
| HSat | Stil | -0.244 | -0.870 |
| Ep | Ilias | -0.245 | -0.873 |
| Met | HE | -0.246 | -0.877 |
| HSat | Mos | -0.253 | -0.903 |
| Ep | Gild | -0.253 | -0.903 |
| Ep | Met | -0.261 | -0.931 |
| Ars | Rapt | -0.272 | -0.971 |
| JSat | HE | -0.273 | -0.973 |
| PSat | Ach | -0.273 | -0.976 |
| Ep | Arg | -0.279 | -0.995 |
| DRN | Arg | -0.283 | -1.009 |
| Ep | BC | -0.288 | -1.028 |
| Arg | Mos | -0.290 | -1.035 |
| Theb | HE | -0.293 | -1.045 |
| DRN | BC | -0.297 | -1.059 |
| Pun | JSat | -0.298 | -1.062 |
| PSat | BC | -0.300 | -1.071 |
| Ep | Joh | -0.301 | -1.075 |
| Arg | JSat | -0.303 | -1.083 |
| Ars | Arg | -0.304 | -1.084 |
| PSat | Hon | -0.315 | -1.126 |
| Ecl | PSat | -0.316 | -1.127 |
| DRN | PSat | -0.316 | -1.128 |
| HSat | Joh | -0.322 | -1.148 |
| HSat | Met | -0.326 | -1.163 |
| HSat | BC | -0.326 | -1.165 |
| DRN | JSat | -0.330 | -1.179 |
| Ep | HE | -0.336 | -1.198 |
| Ep | Pun | -0.338 | -1.208 |
| Ecl | Hon | -0.341 | -1.219 |
| Ars | Joh | -0.348 | -1.242 |
| Ars | Hon | -0.351 | -1.254 |
| PSat | Theb | -0.354 | -1.264 |
| Aen | Ars | -0.356 | -1.269 |
| DRN | Theb | -0.363 | -1.296 |
| Ecl | Ars | -0.370 | -1.320 |
| HSat | Hon | -0.376 | -1.342 |
| Met | PSat | -0.379 | -1.353 |
| HSat | Theb | -0.387 | -1.381 |
| Ars | Theb | -0.390 | -1.393 |
| HSat | Arg | -0.404 | -1.442 |
| PSat | Ilias | -0.406 | -1.448 |
| Ecl | Gild | -0.422 | -1.507 |
| Theb | JSat | -0.434 | -1.548 |
| PSat | Gild | -0.444 | -1.584 |
| Ep | Theb | -0.451 | -1.609 |
| PSat | Joh | -0.453 | -1.617 |
| PSat | HE | -0.454 | -1.621 |
| Astr | PSat | -0.468 | -1.669 |
| DRN | Gild | -0.484 | -1.726 |
| HSat | Rapt | -0.485 | -1.731 |
| Aen | PSat | -0.537 | -1.917 |
| PSat | Rapt | -0.579 | -2.065 |
| Ars | Gild | -0.834 | -2.977 |
Table 3.
Intensity of text reuse for 276 pairs of hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE, determined by comparing composite counts of high
scoring results in Tesserae searches with
expected counts based on text lengths. Reuse intensity is presented as both
non-standardized and standardized residuals.| Text | Mean r |
| Georg | 0.279 |
| Ilias | 0.186 |
| Aen | 0.133 |
| Ach | 0.117 |
| Stil | 0.105 |
| Rapt | 0.088 |
| Hon | 0.086 |
| Joh | 0.078 |
| Met | 0.073 |
| Mos | 0.057 |
| Pun | 0.044 |
| Gild | 0.032 |
| BC | 0.006 |
| Astr | -0.006 |
| Ecl | -0.018 |
| Arg | -0.036 |
| Theb | -0.096 |
| HE | -0.102 |
| JSat | -0.120 |
| Ars | -0.146 |
| DRN | -0.151 |
| Ep | -0.153 |
| HSat | -0.187 |
| PSat | -0.270 |
Table 4.
Centrality scores for 24 hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE,
determined by calculating for each text the mean text reuse intensity for
all 23 pairs involving that text.| Horace | Vergil | Statius | Claudian | ||||||||
| Source | Target | r | Source | Target | r | Source | Target | r | Source | Target | r |
| Ep | Ars | 0.354 | Georg | Aen | 1.280 | Theb | Ach | 0.141 | Hon | Stil | 0.716 |
| HSat | Ep | 0.259 | Ecl | Georg | 0.603 | Hon | Gild | 0.634 | |||
| HSat | Ars | 0.041 | Ecl | Aen | 0.224 | Gild | Stil | 0.575 | |||
| Rapt | Hon | 0.461 | |||||||||
| Rapt | Gild | 0.404 | |||||||||
| Rapt | Stil | 0.324 |
Table 5.
Intensity of text reuse for pairs of hexameter texts written by the same
author.| Georg | Aen | Ilias | |||
| Target | r | Target | r | Target | r |
| Aen | 1.280 | Ilias | 0.594 | Joh | 0.663 |
| Met | 0.560 | Pun | 0.540 | Gild | 0.457 |
| Rapt | 0.538 | Met | 0.350 | Pun | 0.433 |
| Pun | 0.433 | Rapt | 0.326 | Ach | 0.396 |
| Joh | 0.355 | Theb | 0.299 | Arg | 0.389 |
| BC | 0.351 | Ach | 0.289 | Theb | 0.252 |
| Astr | 0.342 | Joh | 0.269 | HE | 0.223 |
| Ilias | 0.310 | Arg | 0.255 | Stil | 0.157 |
| Arg | 0.297 | Mos | 0.115 | Rapt | 0.152 |
| Gild | 0.268 | Gild | 0.092 | Mos | 0.120 |
| Mos | 0.260 | Hon | 0.064 | JSat | 0.045 |
| Hon | 0.232 | Stil | 0.030 | Hon | 0.036 |
| Theb | 0.186 | Astr | 0.011 | ||
| HE | 0.172 | BC | -0.026 | ||
| Ach | 0.160 | HE | -0.047 | ||
| Stil | 0.132 | JSat | -0.243 | ||
| JSat | -0.009 | Ars | -0.356 | ||
| Ep | -0.045 | PSat | -0.537 | ||
| Ars | -0.114 | ||||
| PSat | -0.164 |
Table 6.
Intensity of text reuse for pairs of hexameter texts with Vergil’s Georgics, Vergil’s Aeneid, or the Ilias Latina as
source text.| Met | BC | Arg | Theb | Ach | Pun | ||||||
| Source | r | Source | r | Source | r | Source | r | Source | r | Source | r |
| Georg | 0.560 | Georg | 0.351 | Georg | 0.297 | Aen | 0.299 | Aen | 0.289 | Aen | 0.540 |
| Aen | 0.350 | Met | 0.238 | Aen | 0.255 | Georg | 0.186 | Arg | 0.279 | Georg | 0.433 |
| Ecl | 0.323 | Aen | -0.026 | BC | 0.035 | Arg | 0.064 | Georg | 0.160 | Ach | 0.410 |
| Ars | -0.112 | Ecl | -0.089 | Ecl | -0.003 | Met | 0.037 | Theb | 0.141 | Met | 0.146 |
| DRN | -0.164 | Ars | -0.100 | Met | -0.006 | BC | -0.075 | BC | 0.097 | BC | 0.126 |
| Ep | -0.261 | Ep | -0.288 | Ep | -0.279 | Ecl | -0.145 | Met | 0.077 | Ecl | 0.093 |
| HSat | -0.326 | DRN | -0.297 | DRN | -0.283 | DRN | -0.363 | Ecl | 0.047 | Arg | 0.076 |
| HSat | -0.326 | Ars | -0.304 | HSat | -0.387 | DRN | -0.091 | Theb | 0.057 | ||
| HSat | -0.404 | Ars | -0.390 | HSat | -0.102 | DRN | -0.092 | ||||
| Ep | -0.451 | Ars | -0.187 | Ars | -0.195 | ||||||
| Ep | -0.188 | HSat | -0.205 | ||||||||
| Ep | -0.338 |
Table 7.
Intensity of text reuse for select pairs of hexameter texts with
post-Vergilian epics as target text (Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Lucan’s Bellum
Civile, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, Statius’ Thebaid and
Achilleid, and Silius Italicus’ Punica).
Figure 1.
Intensity of text reuse for 276 pairs of hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE, determined by comparing composite counts of high
scoring results in Tesserae searches with expected counts based on a text
lengths. Reuse intensity is sorted chronologically by source text (with the
set of all pairs for comparison).
Figure 2.
Intensity of text reuse for 276 pairs of hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE, determined by comparing composite counts of high
scoring results in Tesserae searches with
expected counts based on a text lengths. Reuse intensity is sorted
chronologically by target text (with the set of all pairs for
comparison).
Figure 3.
Intensity of text reuse for pairs of hexameter texts written by the same
author.
Figure 4.
Intensity of text reuse for pairs of hexameter texts within the same genre
(didactic, epic/panegyric, and satire), or pairs comprising one
epic/panegyric and one satiric text. The didactic genre comprises: DNR, Georg, and,
Astr. The epic/panegyric genre comprises:
Aen, Met,
BC, Ilias,
Arg, Theb,
Ach, Pun,
Rapt, Hon,
Gild, Stil,
and Joh. The satiric genre comprises: HSat, PSat, and
JSat.
Figure 5.
Intensity of text reuse for select pairs of hexameter texts with
post-Vergilian epics as target text (Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Lucan’s Bellum
Civile, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, Statius’ Thebaid and
Achilleid, and Silius Italicus’ Punica).| Source | Target | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | Cobs | r |
| DRN | Ecl | 911 | 193 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 129.9 | -0.134 |
| DRN | HSat | 2171 | 552 | 100 | 5 | 0 | 380.0 | -0.183 |
| DRN | Georg | 2643 | 894 | 169 | 8 | 0 | 571.8 | 0.230 |
| DRN | Ep | 1414 | 358 | 70 | 4 | 0 | 256.7 | -0.139 |
| DRN | Aen | 11060 | 3350 | 790 | 92 | 0 | 2755.7 | -0.015 |
| DRN | Ars | 407 | 74 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 68.6 | -0.052 |
| DRN | Met | 12958 | 3726 | 827 | 100 | 0 | 3036.4 | -0.164 |
| DRN | Astr | 5380 | 1458 | 331 | 10 | 0 | 1030.2 | 0.023 |
| DRN | PSat | 601 | 84 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 81.9 | -0.316 |
| DRN | BC | 8160 | 2318 | 464 | 22 | 0 | 1591.4 | -0.297 |
| DRN | Ilias | 1089 | 254 | 39 | 3 | 0 | 177.4 | -0.017 |
| DRN | Arg | 5904 | 1416 | 351 | 15 | 0 | 1102.3 | -0.283 |
| DRN | Theb | 9682 | 2443 | 520 | 44 | 0 | 1901.1 | -0.363 |
| DRN | Ach | 1117 | 260 | 42 | 3 | 0 | 183.4 | -0.091 |
| DRN | Pun | 12722 | 3892 | 907 | 105 | 0 | 3171.5 | -0.092 |
| DRN | JSat | 3685 | 955 | 188 | 5 | 0 | 645.5 | -0.330 |
| DRN | HE | 3353 | 883 | 132 | 4 | 0 | 548.0 | -0.221 |
| DRN | Mos | 377 | 86 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 61.2 | -0.111 |
| DRN | Rapt | 1028 | 235 | 49 | 2 | 0 | 173.4 | -0.111 |
| DRN | Hon | 565 | 124 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 93.6 | -0.042 |
| DRN | Gild | 387 | 65 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 45.8 | -0.484 |
| DRN | Stil | 1074 | 282 | 49 | 1 | 0 | 180.3 | -0.170 |
| DRN | Joh | 4842 | 1393 | 306 | 13 | 0 | 978.6 | -0.101 |
| Ecl | HSat | 201 | 33 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 25.0 | -0.066 |
| Ecl | Georg | 374 | 98 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 48.5 | 0.603 |
| Ecl | Ep | 130 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14.5 | -0.171 |
| Ecl | Aen | 1222 | 250 | 53 | 4 | 0 | 204.4 | 0.224 |
| Ecl | Ars | 39 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.9 | -0.370 |
| Ecl | Met | 1482 | 325 | 55 | 12 | 0 | 288.5 | 0.323 |
| Ecl | Astr | 501 | 93 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 79.9 | 0.307 |
| Ecl | PSat | 56 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.8 | -0.316 |
| Ecl | BC | 801 | 146 | 23 | 2 | 0 | 114.3 | -0.089 |
| Ecl | Ilias | 138 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13.2 | 0.224 |
| Ecl | Arg | 693 | 116 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 85.1 | -0.003 |
| Ecl | Theb | 1106 | 175 | 29 | 1 | 0 | 138.1 | -0.145 |
| Ecl | Ach | 128 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.3 | 0.047 |
| Ecl | Pun | 1312 | 261 | 45 | 7 | 0 | 222.9 | 0.093 |
| Ecl | JSat | 413 | 83 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 51.4 | -0.021 |
| Ecl | HE | 330 | 56 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.5 | -0.089 |
| Ecl | Mos | 54 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.8 | -0.058 |
| Ecl | Rapt | 117 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.2 | -0.009 |
| Ecl | Hon | 51 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1 | -0.341 |
| Ecl | Gild | 30 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.8 | -0.422 |
| Ecl | Stil | 137 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.7 | 0.094 |
| Ecl | Joh | 524 | 99 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 57.3 | -0.098 |
| HSat | Georg | 583 | 176 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 93.0 | 0.037 |
| HSat | Ep | 490 | 126 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 75.4 | 0.259 |
| HSat | Aen | 2638 | 674 | 111 | 3 | 0 | 432.7 | -0.243 |
| HSat | Ars | 151 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14.8 | 0.041 |
| HSat | Met | 3107 | 780 | 112 | 7 | 0 | 509.6 | -0.326 |
| HSat | Astr | 1090 | 282 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 156.9 | -0.236 |
| HSat | PSat | 196 | 45 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 27.4 | 0.210 |
| HSat | BC | 1983 | 424 | 58 | 6 | 0 | 304.8 | -0.326 |
| HSat | Ilias | 239 | 56 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 29.3 | -0.195 |
| HSat | Arg | 1419 | 329 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 192.6 | -0.404 |
| HSat | Theb | 2400 | 551 | 67 | 6 | 0 | 366.3 | -0.387 |
| HSat | Ach | 254 | 81 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 35.8 | -0.102 |
| HSat | Pun | 3151 | 839 | 108 | 13 | 0 | 559.1 | -0.205 |
| HSat | JSat | 1167 | 292 | 37 | 1 | 0 | 175.9 | -0.007 |
| HSat | HE | 769 | 190 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 105.8 | -0.242 |
| HSat | Mos | 87 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 | -0.253 |
| HSat | Rapt | 218 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.5 | -0.485 |
| HSat | Hon | 125 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 13.2 | -0.376 |
| HSat | Gild | 126 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.5 | -0.243 |
| HSat | Stil | 257 | 68 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 33.0 | -0.244 |
| HSat | Joh | 1052 | 287 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 154.9 | -0.322 |
| Georg | Ep | 413 | 114 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 55.3 | -0.045 |
| Georg | Aen | 4150 | 1276 | 275 | 42 | 4 | 1974.8 | 1.280 |
| Georg | Ars | 140 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12.6 | -0.114 |
| Georg | Met | 4460 | 1415 | 251 | 28 | 1 | 1228.6 | 0.560 |
| Georg | Astr | 1578 | 473 | 75 | 1 | 0 | 278.1 | 0.342 |
| Georg | PSat | 158 | 34 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 18.7 | -0.164 |
| Georg | BC | 2876 | 794 | 140 | 18 | 0 | 596.6 | 0.351 |
| Georg | Ilias | 372 | 111 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 48.3 | 0.310 |
| Georg | Arg | 2341 | 584 | 108 | 2 | 0 | 386.1 | 0.297 |
| Georg | Theb | 3433 | 965 | 144 | 14 | 0 | 645.8 | 0.186 |
| Georg | Ach | 428 | 83 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 46.2 | 0.160 |
| Georg | Pun | 4728 | 1489 | 245 | 32 | 0 | 1052.0 | 0.433 |
| Georg | JSat | 1104 | 329 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 174.6 | -0.009 |
| Georg | HE | 975 | 313 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 159.3 | 0.172 |
| Georg | Mos | 159 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17.4 | 0.260 |
| Georg | Rapt | 379 | 126 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 65.1 | 0.538 |
| Georg | Hon | 204 | 42 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 24.1 | 0.232 |
| Georg | Gild | 162 | 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19.1 | 0.268 |
| Georg | Stil | 353 | 96 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 47.8 | 0.132 |
| Georg | Joh | 1677 | 473 | 94 | 1 | 0 | 302.8 | 0.355 |
| Ep | Aen | 1658 | 420 | 56 | 5 | 0 | 276.9 | -0.216 |
| Ep | Ars | 134 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.6 | 0.354 |
| Ep | Met | 2052 | 545 | 67 | 5 | 0 | 338.6 | -0.261 |
| Ep | Astr | 860 | 205 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 110.4 | -0.114 |
| Ep | PSat | 116 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13.3 | -0.040 |
| Ep | BC | 1437 | 278 | 46 | 1 | 0 | 197.2 | -0.288 |
| Ep | Ilias | 150 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.4 | -0.245 |
| Ep | Arg | 951 | 211 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 136.0 | -0.279 |
| Ep | Theb | 1496 | 372 | 32 | 2 | 0 | 214.0 | -0.451 |
| Ep | Ach | 188 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20.5 | -0.188 |
| Ep | Pun | 1803 | 460 | 79 | 3 | 0 | 304.7 | -0.338 |
| Ep | JSat | 705 | 219 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 110.7 | 0.003 |
| Ep | HE | 513 | 114 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 60.1 | -0.336 |
| Ep | Mos | 75 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 | -0.121 |
| Ep | Rapt | 150 | 41 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 20.8 | -0.133 |
| Ep | Hon | 94 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10.7 | -0.117 |
| Ep | Gild | 57 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.1 | -0.253 |
| Ep | Stil | 199 | 47 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24.0 | -0.090 |
| Ep | Joh | 742 | 164 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 98.4 | -0.301 |
| Aen | Ars | 539 | 85 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 71.3 | -0.356 |
| Aen | Met | 21610 | 6172 | 1364 | 250 | 7 | 7156.5 | 0.350 |
| Aen | Astr | 6658 | 1763 | 437 | 35 | 0 | 1435.2 | 0.011 |
| Aen | PSat | 735 | 131 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 92.6 | -0.537 |
| Aen | BC | 13863 | 3157 | 815 | 99 | 0 | 2942.2 | -0.026 |
| Aen | Ilias | 2361 | 670 | 112 | 10 | 0 | 460.9 | 0.594 |
| Aen | Arg | 12214 | 3071 | 647 | 99 | 0 | 2660.2 | 0.255 |
| Aen | Theb | 18667 | 4816 | 1166 | 190 | 3 | 5196.9 | 0.299 |
| Aen | Ach | 2196 | 511 | 87 | 8 | 0 | 378.1 | 0.289 |
| Aen | Pun | 26063 | 7011 | 1720 | 323 | 7 | 8415.5 | 0.540 |
| Aen | JSat | 5113 | 1252 | 299 | 19 | 0 | 993.2 | -0.243 |
| Aen | HE | 4656 | 1236 | 255 | 19 | 0 | 919.3 | -0.047 |
| Aen | Mos | 623 | 114 | 28 | 3 | 0 | 108.2 | 0.115 |
| Aen | Rapt | 1674 | 494 | 83 | 14 | 0 | 378.1 | 0.326 |
| Aen | Hon | 910 | 182 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 146.7 | 0.064 |
| Aen | Gild | 773 | 151 | 24 | 2 | 0 | 114.9 | 0.092 |
| Aen | Stil | 1761 | 411 | 73 | 7 | 0 | 310.4 | 0.030 |
| Aen | Joh | 9050 | 2482 | 550 | 59 | 0 | 1997.9 | 0.269 |
| Ars | Met | 681 | 83 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 85.3 | -0.112 |
| Ars | Astr | 213 | 58 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 33.3 | 0.213 |
| Ars | PSat | 37 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 0.008 |
| Ars | BC | 398 | 56 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 51.7 | -0.100 |
| Ars | Ilias | 59 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1 | -0.171 |
| Ars | Arg | 268 | 33 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 28.8 | -0.304 |
| Ars | Theb | 515 | 57 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 49.4 | -0.390 |
| Ars | Ach | 50 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.4 | -0.187 |
| Ars | Pun | 642 | 109 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 76.3 | -0.195 |
| Ars | JSat | 229 | 39 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 25.9 | 0.078 |
| Ars | HE | 164 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 18.5 | 0.013 |
| Ars | Mos | 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.6 | -0.131 |
| Ars | Rapt | 49 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.9 | -0.272 |
| Ars | Hon | 28 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.8 | -0.351 |
| Ars | Gild | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | -0.834 |
| Ars | Stil | 66 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.2 | 0.228 |
| Ars | Joh | 207 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20.4 | -0.348 |
| Met | Astr | 8646 | 2366 | 466 | 39 | 0 | 1738.9 | -0.064 |
| Met | PSat | 797 | 161 | 22 | 6 | 0 | 141.6 | -0.379 |
| Met | BC | 16737 | 3936 | 966 | 131 | 6 | 5000.8 | 0.238 |
| Met | Ilias | 2497 | 662 | 74 | 14 | 1 | 681.8 | 0.719 |
| Met | Arg | 12279 | 2899 | 622 | 75 | 1 | 2677.2 | -0.006 |
| Met | Theb | 19745 | 5002 | 1015 | 165 | 4 | 5220.1 | 0.037 |
| Met | Ach | 2330 | 639 | 78 | 7 | 0 | 399.3 | 0.077 |
| Met | Pun | 24950 | 6621 | 1564 | 284 | 5 | 7407.3 | 0.146 |
| Met | JSat | 6383 | 1685 | 328 | 37 | 0 | 1305.5 | -0.236 |
| Met | HE | 5307 | 1420 | 235 | 20 | 0 | 984.3 | -0.246 |
| Met | Mos | 814 | 135 | 26 | 6 | 1 | 368.5 | 1.073 |
| Met | Rapt | 1971 | 548 | 97 | 9 | 0 | 389.8 | 0.089 |
| Met | Hon | 992 | 260 | 29 | 5 | 0 | 175.8 | -0.022 |
| Met | Gild | 775 | 192 | 23 | 3 | 0 | 129.5 | -0.055 |
| Met | Stil | 2073 | 597 | 84 | 10 | 0 | 400.0 | 0.017 |
| Met | Joh | 9569 | 2604 | 515 | 29 | 0 | 1831.5 | -0.085 |
| Astr | PSat | 305 | 59 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 32.8 | -0.468 |
| Astr | BC | 6009 | 1465 | 239 | 21 | 0 | 1045.0 | 0.048 |
| Astr | Ilias | 732 | 161 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 95.2 | 0.125 |
| Astr | Arg | 3871 | 867 | 171 | 3 | 0 | 606.8 | -0.114 |
| Astr | Theb | 6224 | 1506 | 257 | 16 | 0 | 1053.1 | -0.189 |
| Astr | Ach | 760 | 166 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 97.9 | 0.047 |
| Astr | Pun | 8545 | 2134 | 439 | 30 | 0 | 1597.4 | -0.013 |
| Astr | JSat | 2253 | 554 | 91 | 3 | 0 | 363.6 | -0.139 |
| Astr | HE | 1916 | 533 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 290.7 | -0.090 |
| Astr | Mos | 314 | 59 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.3 | 0.130 |
| Astr | Rapt | 657 | 151 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 88.6 | -0.016 |
| Astr | Hon | 407 | 70 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 47.1 | 0.036 |
| Astr | Gild | 304 | 47 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 32.0 | -0.077 |
| Astr | Stil | 731 | 159 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 98.7 | -0.007 |
| Astr | Joh | 3184 | 870 | 154 | 4 | 0 | 557.3 | 0.101 |
| PSat | BC | 564 | 79 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 68.4 | -0.300 |
| PSat | Ilias | 63 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.2 | -0.406 |
| PSat | Arg | 434 | 63 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 51.1 | -0.211 |
| PSat | Theb | 698 | 113 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 82.7 | -0.354 |
| PSat | Ach | 60 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.6 | -0.273 |
| PSat | Pun | 891 | 150 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 119.1 | -0.230 |
| PSat | JSat | 343 | 79 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 44.4 | 0.137 |
| PSat | HE | 197 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.7 | -0.454 |
| PSat | Mos | 31 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5 | -0.185 |
| PSat | Rapt | 62 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.7 | -0.579 |
| PSat | Hon | 30 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.1 | -0.315 |
| PSat | Gild | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.1 | -0.444 |
| PSat | Stil | 77 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.0 | -0.139 |
| PSat | Joh | 250 | 46 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 29.7 | -0.453 |
| BC | Ilias | 1387 | 294 | 25 | 4 | 0 | 195.8 | 0.028 |
| BC | Arg | 8571 | 1837 | 391 | 48 | 0 | 1597.4 | 0.035 |
| BC | Theb | 14282 | 3067 | 631 | 85 | 0 | 2674.1 | -0.075 |
| BC | Ach | 1607 | 303 | 48 | 4 | 0 | 233.5 | 0.097 |
| BC | Pun | 18677 | 4366 | 957 | 147 | 1 | 4161.6 | 0.126 |
| BC | JSat | 4549 | 1061 | 211 | 10 | 0 | 773.3 | -0.203 |
| BC | HE | 3518 | 851 | 138 | 8 | 0 | 581.4 | -0.215 |
| BC | Mos | 463 | 76 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 62.7 | -0.142 |
| BC | Rapt | 1458 | 334 | 47 | 9 | 0 | 262.3 | 0.250 |
| BC | Hon | 920 | 160 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 135.9 | 0.278 |
| BC | Gild | 580 | 133 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 111.3 | 0.351 |
| BC | Stil | 1645 | 357 | 59 | 9 | 0 | 290.2 | 0.253 |
| BC | Joh | 7466 | 1754 | 336 | 23 | 0 | 1303.1 | 0.132 |
| Ilias | Arg | 1150 | 237 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 155.5 | 0.389 |
| Ilias | Theb | 1818 | 380 | 45 | 3 | 0 | 253.6 | 0.252 |
| Ilias | Ach | 234 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.5 | 0.064 |
| Ilias | Pun | 2581 | 582 | 70 | 6 | 0 | 386.6 | 0.396 |
| Ilias | JSat | 465 | 107 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 67.7 | 0.279 |
| Ilias | HE | 484 | 106 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 61.6 | 0.433 |
| Ilias | Mos | 50 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.6 | 0.076 |
| Ilias | Rapt | 158 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.3 | 0.045 |
| Ilias | Hon | 88 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.3 | -0.303 |
| Ilias | Gild | 77 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.5 | 0.223 |
| Ilias | Stil | 177 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.0 | -0.137 |
| Ilias | Joh | 977 | 212 | 29 | 3 | 0 | 151.6 | 0.120 |
| Arg | Theb | 11371 | 2503 | 535 | 45 | 0 | 2032.8 | -0.290 |
| Arg | Ach | 1304 | 297 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 185.1 | 0.152 |
| Arg | Pun | 14178 | 3236 | 650 | 68 | 0 | 2618.2 | 0.067 |
| Arg | JSat | 2895 | 682 | 118 | 4 | 0 | 462.5 | 0.036 |
| Arg | HE | 2731 | 614 | 121 | 0 | 0 | 415.7 | 0.024 |
| Arg | Mos | 357 | 50 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 35.7 | 0.457 |
| Arg | Rapt | 1099 | 224 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 144.4 | 0.097 |
| Arg | Hon | 538 | 96 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 69.7 | 0.157 |
| Arg | Gild | 430 | 82 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 57.1 | -0.039 |
| Arg | Stil | 1120 | 226 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 143.3 | 0.663 |
| Arg | Joh | 4622 | 1069 | 171 | 9 | 0 | 733.0 | -0.030 |
| Theb | Ach | 2283 | 517 | 58 | 2 | 0 | 317.8 | 0.141 |
| Theb | Pun | 22806 | 5275 | 1076 | 165 | 2 | 5062.7 | 0.057 |
| Theb | JSat | 4733 | 1232 | 170 | 13 | 0 | 800.1 | -0.434 |
| Theb | HE | 4047 | 989 | 184 | 10 | 0 | 701.3 | -0.293 |
| Theb | Mos | 612 | 95 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 82.8 | -0.128 |
| Theb | Rapt | 1844 | 500 | 53 | 5 | 0 | 302.6 | 0.128 |
| Theb | Hon | 972 | 200 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 141.3 | 0.052 |
| Theb | Gild | 727 | 130 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 94.2 | -0.081 |
| Theb | Stil | 1836 | 395 | 60 | 6 | 0 | 291.8 | -0.006 |
| Theb | Joh | 7759 | 1900 | 303 | 22 | 0 | 1313.5 | -0.125 |
| Ach | Pun | 2631 | 614 | 91 | 7 | 0 | 423.9 | 0.410 |
| Ach | JSat | 559 | 115 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 67.9 | -0.068 |
| Ach | HE | 448 | 87 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 51.3 | -0.076 |
| Ach | Mos | 68 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.1 | 0.104 |
| Ach | Rapt | 207 | 45 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24.0 | 0.426 |
| Ach | Hon | 112 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.0 | 0.238 |
| Ach | Gild | 68 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7.8 | 0.263 |
| Ach | Stil | 226 | 45 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24.1 | 0.331 |
| Ach | Joh | 881 | 194 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 127.4 | 0.375 |
| Pun | JSat | 6378 | 1625 | 296 | 26 | 0 | 1190.6 | -0.298 |
| Pun | HE | 5321 | 1403 | 262 | 26 | 0 | 1046.0 | -0.154 |
| Pun | Mos | 755 | 133 | 21 | 5 | 0 | 125.6 | 0.028 |
| Pun | Rapt | 2074 | 573 | 76 | 11 | 0 | 392.9 | 0.128 |
| Pun | Hon | 1168 | 247 | 31 | 5 | 0 | 185.0 | 0.060 |
| Pun | Gild | 957 | 163 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 135.1 | 0.018 |
| Pun | Stil | 2204 | 544 | 73 | 6 | 0 | 359.4 | -0.059 |
| Pun | Joh | 11414 | 2598 | 525 | 43 | 0 | 2034.1 | 0.051 |
| JSat | HE | 1386 | 361 | 47 | 1 | 0 | 213.9 | -0.273 |
| JSat | Mos | 191 | 43 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 25.6 | -0.094 |
| JSat | Rapt | 464 | 131 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 71.1 | -0.113 |
| JSat | Hon | 300 | 67 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 42.3 | 0.053 |
| JSat | Gild | 222 | 42 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 28.2 | -0.081 |
| JSat | Stil | 592 | 143 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 78.1 | -0.117 |
| JSat | Joh | 2486 | 594 | 106 | 3 | 0 | 401.0 | -0.104 |
| HE | Mos | 165 | 35 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 19.3 | -0.079 |
| HE | Rapt | 430 | 102 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 58.6 | -0.010 |
| HE | Hon | 244 | 43 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 26.7 | -0.112 |
| HE | Gild | 202 | 44 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 24.5 | 0.075 |
| HE | Stil | 470 | 117 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 64.3 | -0.016 |
| HE | Joh | 2321 | 639 | 105 | 8 | 0 | 432.1 | 0.267 |
| Mos | Rapt | 62 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.7 | 0.153 |
| Mos | Hon | 44 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.6 | 0.395 |
| Mos | Gild | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.042 |
| Mos | Stil | 77 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.9 | 0.247 |
| Mos | Joh | 263 | 43 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 34.8 | 0.324 |
| Rapt | Hon | 104 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 0.243 |
| Rapt | Gild | 100 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.7 | 0.461 |
| Rapt | Stil | 193 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.0 | 0.404 |
| Rapt | Joh | 845 | 198 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 114.0 | 0.302 |
| Hon | Gild | 59 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.2 | 0.634 |
| Hon | Stil | 133 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.2 | 0.716 |
| Hon | Joh | 472 | 89 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 58.1 | 0.372 |
| Gild | Stil | 100 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 | 0.575 |
| Gild | Joh | 402 | 74 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 45.7 | 0.427 |
| Stil | Joh | 862 | 182 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 114.4 | 0.199 |
Table 8.
Results of Tesserae searches of 276 pairs of
hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the
6th century CE, sorted chronologically by
source text. Results include: raw counts of score 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11;
composite counts calculated from the raw counts using a combination of
linear regressions and principal component analysis; and text reuse
intensity, determined by comparing the composite counts with expected counts
based on a text lengths.| Source | Target | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | Cobs | r |
| DRN | Ecl | 911 | 193 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 129.9 | -0.134 |
| DRN | HSat | 2171 | 552 | 100 | 5 | 0 | 380.0 | -0.183 |
| Ecl | HSat | 201 | 33 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 25.0 | -0.066 |
| DRN | Georg | 2643 | 894 | 169 | 8 | 0 | 571.8 | 0.230 |
| Ecl | Georg | 374 | 98 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 48.5 | 0.603 |
| HSat | Georg | 583 | 176 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 93.0 | 0.037 |
| DRN | Ep | 1414 | 358 | 70 | 4 | 0 | 256.7 | -0.139 |
| Ecl | Ep | 130 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14.5 | -0.171 |
| HSat | Ep | 490 | 126 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 75.4 | 0.259 |
| Georg | Ep | 413 | 114 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 55.3 | -0.045 |
| DRN | Aen | 11060 | 3350 | 790 | 92 | 0 | 2755.7 | -0.015 |
| Ecl | Aen | 1222 | 250 | 53 | 4 | 0 | 204.4 | 0.224 |
| HSat | Aen | 2638 | 674 | 111 | 3 | 0 | 432.7 | -0.243 |
| Georg | Aen | 4150 | 1276 | 275 | 42 | 4 | 1974.8 | 1.280 |
| Ep | Aen | 1658 | 420 | 56 | 5 | 0 | 276.9 | -0.216 |
| DRN | Ars | 407 | 74 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 68.6 | -0.052 |
| Ecl | Ars | 39 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.9 | -0.370 |
| HSat | Ars | 151 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14.8 | 0.041 |
| Georg | Ars | 140 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12.6 | -0.114 |
| Ep | Ars | 134 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.6 | 0.354 |
| Aen | Ars | 539 | 85 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 71.3 | -0.356 |
| DRN | Met | 12958 | 3726 | 827 | 100 | 0 | 3036.4 | -0.164 |
| Ecl | Met | 1482 | 325 | 55 | 12 | 0 | 288.5 | 0.323 |
| HSat | Met | 3107 | 780 | 112 | 7 | 0 | 509.6 | -0.326 |
| Georg | Met | 4460 | 1415 | 251 | 28 | 1 | 1228.6 | 0.560 |
| Ep | Met | 2052 | 545 | 67 | 5 | 0 | 338.6 | -0.261 |
| Aen | Met | 21610 | 6172 | 1364 | 250 | 7 | 7156.5 | 0.350 |
| Ars | Met | 681 | 83 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 85.3 | -0.112 |
| DRN | Astr | 5380 | 1458 | 331 | 10 | 0 | 1030.2 | 0.023 |
| Ecl | Astr | 501 | 93 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 79.9 | 0.307 |
| HSat | Astr | 1090 | 282 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 156.9 | -0.236 |
| Georg | Astr | 1578 | 473 | 75 | 1 | 0 | 278.1 | 0.342 |
| Ep | Astr | 860 | 205 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 110.4 | -0.114 |
| Aen | Astr | 6658 | 1763 | 437 | 35 | 0 | 1435.2 | 0.011 |
| Ars | Astr | 213 | 58 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 33.3 | 0.213 |
| Met | Astr | 8646 | 2366 | 466 | 39 | 0 | 1738.9 | -0.064 |
| DRN | PSat | 601 | 84 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 81.9 | -0.316 |
| Ecl | PSat | 56 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.8 | -0.316 |
| HSat | PSat | 196 | 45 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 27.4 | 0.210 |
| Georg | PSat | 158 | 34 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 18.7 | -0.164 |
| Ep | PSat | 116 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13.3 | -0.040 |
| Aen | PSat | 735 | 131 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 92.6 | -0.537 |
| Ars | PSat | 37 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 0.008 |
| Met | PSat | 797 | 161 | 22 | 6 | 0 | 141.6 | -0.379 |
| Astr | PSat | 305 | 59 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 32.8 | -0.468 |
| DRN | BC | 8160 | 2318 | 464 | 22 | 0 | 1591.4 | -0.297 |
| Ecl | BC | 801 | 146 | 23 | 2 | 0 | 114.3 | -0.089 |
| HSat | BC | 1983 | 424 | 58 | 6 | 0 | 304.8 | -0.326 |
| Georg | BC | 2876 | 794 | 140 | 18 | 0 | 596.6 | 0.351 |
| Ep | BC | 1437 | 278 | 46 | 1 | 0 | 197.2 | -0.288 |
| Aen | BC | 13863 | 3157 | 815 | 99 | 0 | 2942.2 | -0.026 |
| Ars | BC | 398 | 56 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 51.7 | -0.100 |
| Met | BC | 16737 | 3936 | 966 | 131 | 6 | 5000.8 | 0.238 |
| Astr | BC | 6009 | 1465 | 239 | 21 | 0 | 1045.0 | 0.048 |
| PSat | BC | 564 | 79 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 68.4 | -0.300 |
| DRN | Ilias | 1089 | 254 | 39 | 3 | 0 | 177.4 | -0.017 |
| Ecl | Ilias | 138 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13.2 | 0.224 |
| HSat | Ilias | 239 | 56 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 29.3 | -0.195 |
| Georg | Ilias | 372 | 111 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 48.3 | 0.310 |
| Ep | Ilias | 150 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.4 | -0.245 |
| Aen | Ilias | 2361 | 670 | 112 | 10 | 0 | 460.9 | 0.594 |
| Ars | Ilias | 59 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1 | -0.171 |
| Met | Ilias | 2497 | 662 | 74 | 14 | 1 | 681.8 | 0.719 |
| Astr | Ilias | 732 | 161 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 95.2 | 0.125 |
| PSat | Ilias | 63 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.2 | -0.406 |
| BC | Ilias | 1387 | 294 | 25 | 4 | 0 | 195.8 | 0.028 |
| DRN | Arg | 5904 | 1416 | 351 | 15 | 0 | 1102.3 | -0.283 |
| Ecl | Arg | 693 | 116 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 85.1 | -0.003 |
| HSat | Arg | 1419 | 329 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 192.6 | -0.404 |
| Georg | Arg | 2341 | 584 | 108 | 2 | 0 | 386.1 | 0.297 |
| Ep | Arg | 951 | 211 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 136.0 | -0.279 |
| Aen | Arg | 12214 | 3071 | 647 | 99 | 0 | 2660.2 | 0.255 |
| Ars | Arg | 268 | 33 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 28.8 | -0.304 |
| Met | Arg | 12279 | 2899 | 622 | 75 | 1 | 2677.2 | -0.006 |
| Astr | Arg | 3871 | 867 | 171 | 3 | 0 | 606.8 | -0.114 |
| PSat | Arg | 434 | 63 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 51.1 | -0.211 |
| BC | Arg | 8571 | 1837 | 391 | 48 | 0 | 1597.4 | 0.035 |
| Ilias | Arg | 1150 | 237 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 155.5 | 0.389 |
| DRN | Theb | 9682 | 2443 | 520 | 44 | 0 | 1901.1 | -0.363 |
| Ecl | Theb | 1106 | 175 | 29 | 1 | 0 | 138.1 | -0.145 |
| HSat | Theb | 2400 | 551 | 67 | 6 | 0 | 366.3 | -0.387 |
| Georg | Theb | 3433 | 965 | 144 | 14 | 0 | 645.8 | 0.186 |
| Ep | Theb | 1496 | 372 | 32 | 2 | 0 | 214.0 | -0.451 |
| Aen | Theb | 18667 | 4816 | 1166 | 190 | 3 | 5196.9 | 0.299 |
| Ars | Theb | 515 | 57 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 49.4 | -0.390 |
| Met | Theb | 19745 | 5002 | 1015 | 165 | 4 | 5220.1 | 0.037 |
| Astr | Theb | 6224 | 1506 | 257 | 16 | 0 | 1053.1 | -0.189 |
| PSat | Theb | 698 | 113 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 82.7 | -0.354 |
| BC | Theb | 14282 | 3067 | 631 | 85 | 0 | 2674.1 | -0.075 |
| Ilias | Theb | 1818 | 380 | 45 | 3 | 0 | 253.6 | 0.252 |
| Arg | Theb | 11371 | 2503 | 535 | 45 | 0 | 2032.8 | 0.064 |
| DRN | Ach | 1117 | 260 | 42 | 3 | 0 | 183.4 | -0.091 |
| Ecl | Ach | 128 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.3 | 0.047 |
| HSat | Ach | 254 | 81 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 35.8 | -0.102 |
| Georg | Ach | 428 | 83 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 46.2 | 0.160 |
| Ep | Ach | 188 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20.5 | -0.188 |
| Aen | Ach | 2196 | 511 | 87 | 8 | 0 | 378.1 | 0.289 |
| Ars | Ach | 50 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.4 | -0.187 |
| Met | Ach | 2330 | 639 | 78 | 7 | 0 | 399.3 | 0.077 |
| Astr | Ach | 760 | 166 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 97.9 | 0.047 |
| PSat | Ach | 60 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.6 | -0.273 |
| BC | Ach | 1607 | 303 | 48 | 4 | 0 | 233.5 | 0.097 |
| Ilias | Ach | 234 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.5 | 0.396 |
| Arg | Ach | 1304 | 297 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 185.1 | 0.279 |
| Theb | Ach | 2283 | 517 | 58 | 2 | 0 | 317.8 | 0.141 |
| DRN | Pun | 12722 | 3892 | 907 | 105 | 0 | 3171.5 | -0.092 |
| Ecl | Pun | 1312 | 261 | 45 | 7 | 0 | 222.9 | 0.093 |
| HSat | Pun | 3151 | 839 | 108 | 13 | 0 | 559.1 | -0.205 |
| Georg | Pun | 4728 | 1489 | 245 | 32 | 0 | 1052.0 | 0.433 |
| Ep | Pun | 1803 | 460 | 79 | 3 | 0 | 304.7 | -0.338 |
| Aen | Pun | 26063 | 7011 | 1720 | 323 | 7 | 8415.5 | 0.540 |
| Ars | Pun | 642 | 109 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 76.3 | -0.195 |
| Met | Pun | 24950 | 6621 | 1564 | 284 | 5 | 7407.3 | 0.146 |
| Astr | Pun | 8545 | 2134 | 439 | 30 | 0 | 1597.4 | -0.013 |
| PSat | Pun | 891 | 150 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 119.1 | -0.230 |
| BC | Pun | 18677 | 4366 | 957 | 147 | 1 | 4161.6 | 0.126 |
| Ilias | Pun | 2581 | 582 | 70 | 6 | 0 | 386.6 | 0.433 |
| Arg | Pun | 14178 | 3236 | 650 | 68 | 0 | 2618.2 | 0.076 |
| Theb | Pun | 22806 | 5275 | 1076 | 165 | 2 | 5062.7 | 0.057 |
| Ach | Pun | 2631 | 614 | 91 | 7 | 0 | 423.9 | 0.410 |
| DRN | JSat | 3685 | 955 | 188 | 5 | 0 | 645.5 | -0.330 |
| Ecl | JSat | 413 | 83 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 51.4 | -0.021 |
| HSat | JSat | 1167 | 292 | 37 | 1 | 0 | 175.9 | -0.007 |
| Georg | JSat | 1104 | 329 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 174.6 | -0.009 |
| Ep | JSat | 705 | 219 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 110.7 | 0.003 |
| Aen | JSat | 5113 | 1252 | 299 | 19 | 0 | 993.2 | -0.243 |
| Ars | JSat | 229 | 39 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 25.9 | 0.078 |
| Met | JSat | 6383 | 1685 | 328 | 37 | 0 | 1305.5 | -0.236 |
| Astr | JSat | 2253 | 554 | 91 | 3 | 0 | 363.6 | -0.139 |
| PSat | JSat | 343 | 79 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 44.4 | 0.137 |
| BC | JSat | 4549 | 1061 | 211 | 10 | 0 | 773.3 | -0.203 |
| Ilias | JSat | 465 | 107 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 67.7 | 0.045 |
| Arg | JSat | 2895 | 682 | 118 | 4 | 0 | 462.5 | -0.303 |
| Theb | JSat | 4733 | 1232 | 170 | 13 | 0 | 800.1 | -0.434 |
| Ach | JSat | 559 | 115 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 67.9 | -0.068 |
| Pun | JSat | 6378 | 1625 | 296 | 26 | 0 | 1190.6 | -0.298 |
| DRN | HE | 3353 | 883 | 132 | 4 | 0 | 548.0 | -0.221 |
| Ecl | HE | 330 | 56 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.5 | -0.089 |
| HSat | HE | 769 | 190 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 105.8 | -0.242 |
| Georg | HE | 975 | 313 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 159.3 | 0.172 |
| Ep | HE | 513 | 114 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 60.1 | -0.336 |
| Aen | HE | 4656 | 1236 | 255 | 19 | 0 | 919.3 | -0.047 |
| Ars | HE | 164 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 18.5 | 0.013 |
| Met | HE | 5307 | 1420 | 235 | 20 | 0 | 984.3 | -0.246 |
| Astr | HE | 1916 | 533 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 290.7 | -0.090 |
| PSat | HE | 197 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.7 | -0.454 |
| BC | HE | 3518 | 851 | 138 | 8 | 0 | 581.4 | -0.215 |
| Ilias | HE | 484 | 106 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 61.6 | 0.223 |
| Arg | HE | 2731 | 614 | 121 | 0 | 0 | 415.7 | -0.137 |
| Theb | HE | 4047 | 989 | 184 | 10 | 0 | 701.3 | -0.293 |
| Ach | HE | 448 | 87 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 51.3 | -0.076 |
| Pun | HE | 5321 | 1403 | 262 | 26 | 0 | 1046.0 | -0.154 |
| JSat | HE | 1386 | 361 | 47 | 1 | 0 | 213.9 | -0.273 |
| DRN | Mos | 377 | 86 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 61.2 | -0.111 |
| Ecl | Mos | 54 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.8 | -0.058 |
| HSat | Mos | 87 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 | -0.253 |
| Georg | Mos | 159 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17.4 | 0.260 |
| Ep | Mos | 75 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 | -0.121 |
| Aen | Mos | 623 | 114 | 28 | 3 | 0 | 108.2 | 0.115 |
| Ars | Mos | 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.6 | -0.131 |
| Met | Mos | 814 | 135 | 26 | 6 | 1 | 368.5 | 1.073 |
| Astr | Mos | 314 | 59 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 36.3 | 0.130 |
| PSat | Mos | 31 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5 | -0.185 |
| BC | Mos | 463 | 76 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 62.7 | -0.142 |
| Ilias | Mos | 50 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.6 | 0.120 |
| Arg | Mos | 357 | 50 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 35.7 | -0.290 |
| Theb | Mos | 612 | 95 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 82.8 | -0.128 |
| Ach | Mos | 68 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.1 | 0.104 |
| Pun | Mos | 755 | 133 | 21 | 5 | 0 | 125.6 | 0.028 |
| JSat | Mos | 191 | 43 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 25.6 | -0.094 |
| HE | Mos | 165 | 35 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 19.3 | -0.079 |
| DRN | Rapt | 1028 | 235 | 49 | 2 | 0 | 173.4 | -0.111 |
| Ecl | Rapt | 117 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.2 | -0.009 |
| HSat | Rapt | 218 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.5 | -0.485 |
| Georg | Rapt | 379 | 126 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 65.1 | 0.538 |
| Ep | Rapt | 150 | 41 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 20.8 | -0.133 |
| Aen | Rapt | 1674 | 494 | 83 | 14 | 0 | 378.1 | 0.326 |
| Ars | Rapt | 49 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.9 | -0.272 |
| Met | Rapt | 1971 | 548 | 97 | 9 | 0 | 389.8 | 0.089 |
| Astr | Rapt | 657 | 151 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 88.6 | -0.016 |
| PSat | Rapt | 62 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.7 | -0.579 |
| BC | Rapt | 1458 | 334 | 47 | 9 | 0 | 262.3 | 0.250 |
| Ilias | Rapt | 158 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.3 | 0.152 |
| Arg | Rapt | 1099 | 224 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 144.4 | 0.067 |
| Theb | Rapt | 1844 | 500 | 53 | 5 | 0 | 302.6 | 0.128 |
| Ach | Rapt | 207 | 45 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24.0 | 0.426 |
| Pun | Rapt | 2074 | 573 | 76 | 11 | 0 | 392.9 | 0.128 |
| JSat | Rapt | 464 | 131 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 71.1 | -0.113 |
| HE | Rapt | 430 | 102 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 58.6 | -0.010 |
| Mos | Rapt | 62 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.7 | 0.153 |
| DRN | Hon | 565 | 124 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 93.6 | -0.042 |
| Ecl | Hon | 51 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1 | -0.341 |
| HSat | Hon | 125 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 13.2 | -0.376 |
| Georg | Hon | 204 | 42 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 24.1 | 0.232 |
| Ep | Hon | 94 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10.7 | -0.117 |
| Aen | Hon | 910 | 182 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 146.7 | 0.064 |
| Ars | Hon | 28 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.8 | -0.351 |
| Met | Hon | 992 | 260 | 29 | 5 | 0 | 175.8 | -0.022 |
| Astr | Hon | 407 | 70 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 47.1 | 0.036 |
| PSat | Hon | 30 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.1 | -0.315 |
| BC | Hon | 920 | 160 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 135.9 | 0.278 |
| Ilias | Hon | 88 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.3 | 0.036 |
| Arg | Hon | 538 | 96 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 69.7 | 0.024 |
| Theb | Hon | 972 | 200 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 141.3 | 0.052 |
| Ach | Hon | 112 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.0 | 0.238 |
| Pun | Hon | 1168 | 247 | 31 | 5 | 0 | 185.0 | 0.060 |
| JSat | Hon | 300 | 67 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 42.3 | 0.053 |
| HE | Hon | 244 | 43 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 26.7 | -0.112 |
| Mos | Hon | 44 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.6 | 0.395 |
| Rapt | Hon | 104 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 0.461 |
| DRN | Gild | 387 | 65 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 45.8 | -0.484 |
| Ecl | Gild | 30 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.8 | -0.422 |
| HSat | Gild | 126 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.5 | -0.243 |
| Georg | Gild | 162 | 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 19.1 | 0.268 |
| Ep | Gild | 57 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.1 | -0.253 |
| Aen | Gild | 773 | 151 | 24 | 2 | 0 | 114.9 | 0.092 |
| Ars | Gild | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | -0.834 |
| Met | Gild | 775 | 192 | 23 | 3 | 0 | 129.5 | -0.055 |
| Astr | Gild | 304 | 47 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 32.0 | -0.077 |
| PSat | Gild | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.1 | -0.444 |
| BC | Gild | 580 | 133 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 111.3 | 0.351 |
| Ilias | Gild | 77 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.5 | 0.457 |
| Arg | Gild | 430 | 82 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 57.1 | 0.097 |
| Theb | Gild | 727 | 130 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 94.2 | -0.081 |
| Ach | Gild | 68 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7.8 | 0.263 |
| Pun | Gild | 957 | 163 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 135.1 | 0.018 |
| JSat | Gild | 222 | 42 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 28.2 | -0.081 |
| HE | Gild | 202 | 44 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 24.5 | 0.075 |
| Mos | Gild | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 0.042 |
| Rapt | Gild | 100 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.7 | 0.404 |
| Hon | Gild | 59 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.2 | 0.634 |
| DRN | Stil | 1074 | 282 | 49 | 1 | 0 | 180.3 | -0.170 |
| Ecl | Stil | 137 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.7 | 0.094 |
| HSat | Stil | 257 | 68 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 33.0 | -0.244 |
| Georg | Stil | 353 | 96 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 47.8 | 0.132 |
| Ep | Stil | 199 | 47 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 24.0 | -0.090 |
| Aen | Stil | 1761 | 411 | 73 | 7 | 0 | 310.4 | 0.030 |
| Ars | Stil | 66 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.2 | 0.228 |
| Met | Stil | 2073 | 597 | 84 | 10 | 0 | 400.0 | 0.017 |
| Astr | Stil | 731 | 159 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 98.7 | -0.007 |
| PSat | Stil | 77 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.0 | -0.139 |
| BC | Stil | 1645 | 357 | 59 | 9 | 0 | 290.2 | 0.253 |
| Ilias | Stil | 177 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18.0 | 0.157 |
| Arg | Stil | 1120 | 226 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 143.3 | -0.039 |
| Theb | Stil | 1836 | 395 | 60 | 6 | 0 | 291.8 | -0.006 |
| Ach | Stil | 226 | 45 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 24.1 | 0.331 |
| Pun | Stil | 2204 | 544 | 73 | 6 | 0 | 359.4 | -0.059 |
| JSat | Stil | 592 | 143 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 78.1 | -0.117 |
| HE | Stil | 470 | 117 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 64.3 | -0.016 |
| Mos | Stil | 77 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.9 | 0.247 |
| Rapt | Stil | 193 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.0 | 0.324 |
| Hon | Stil | 133 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.2 | 0.716 |
| Gild | Stil | 100 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 | 0.575 |
| DRN | Joh | 4842 | 1393 | 306 | 13 | 0 | 978.6 | -0.101 |
| Ecl | Joh | 524 | 99 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 57.3 | -0.098 |
| HSat | Joh | 1052 | 287 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 154.9 | -0.322 |
| Georg | Joh | 1677 | 473 | 94 | 1 | 0 | 302.8 | 0.355 |
| Ep | Joh | 742 | 164 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 98.4 | -0.301 |
| Aen | Joh | 9050 | 2482 | 550 | 59 | 0 | 1997.9 | 0.269 |
| Ars | Joh | 207 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20.4 | -0.348 |
| Met | Joh | 9569 | 2604 | 515 | 29 | 0 | 1831.5 | -0.085 |
| Astr | Joh | 3184 | 870 | 154 | 4 | 0 | 557.3 | 0.101 |
| PSat | Joh | 250 | 46 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 29.7 | -0.453 |
| BC | Joh | 7466 | 1754 | 336 | 23 | 0 | 1303.1 | 0.132 |
| Ilias | Joh | 977 | 212 | 29 | 3 | 0 | 151.6 | 0.663 |
| Arg | Joh | 4622 | 1069 | 171 | 9 | 0 | 733.0 | -0.030 |
| Theb | Joh | 7759 | 1900 | 303 | 22 | 0 | 1313.5 | -0.125 |
| Ach | Joh | 881 | 194 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 127.4 | 0.375 |
| Pun | Joh | 11414 | 2598 | 525 | 43 | 0 | 2034.1 | 0.051 |
| JSat | Joh | 2486 | 594 | 106 | 3 | 0 | 401.0 | -0.104 |
| HE | Joh | 2321 | 639 | 105 | 8 | 0 | 432.1 | 0.267 |
| Mos | Joh | 263 | 43 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 34.8 | 0.243 |
| Rapt | Joh | 845 | 198 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 114.0 | 0.302 |
| Hon | Joh | 472 | 89 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 58.1 | 0.372 |
| Gild | Joh | 402 | 74 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 45.7 | 0.427 |
| Stil | Joh | 862 | 182 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 114.4 | 0.199 |
Table 9.
Results of Tesserae searches of 276 pairs of
hexameter texts from the 1st century BCE to the
6th century CE, sorted chronologically by
target text. Results include: raw counts of score 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11;
composite counts calculated from the raw counts using a combination of
linear regressions and principal component analysis; and text reuse
intensity, determined by comparing the composite counts with expected counts
based on a text lengths.Notes
[1] See, for example, [Hutchinson 2013], [Farrell 2005], and [Hinds 1998] for points of entry
to the study of intertextuality in Latin literature.
[2] All translations are by the authors.
[3] Because Latin is a
highly inflected language, the same lexeme may occur in many different inflected
forms. For example, percutio may appear as
percussus (“struck”), percutimus (“we strike”), percusserant (“they had
struck”), etc. Traditional literary interpretation may privilege
specific morphological forms, such as the opening words of Vergil’s Aeneid (arma
uirumque), which are frequently adapted by later poets, but more
often the various inflected forms of a lexeme may be considered to be the same.
Tesserae converts all inflected forms to a
single lemma (e.g., percussus and percussum are treated as percutio) and so does not permit analysis of individual inflected
forms.
[4] See section 2.b for discussion of the
scoring system.
[5] Recent commentaries (such as [Steiniger 2005], [Micozzi 2007], and [Parkes 2012]) note the
verbal parallel with Aeneid 7.550, but do not offer
a literary interpretation of the link. Their reticence is symptomatic of the
scholarly tendency to privilege certain allusions (here, Aeneid 9.197) over others in interpretation. The impartial
automatic searches of Tesserae encourage an
interpretive style that is both less hierarchical and less committed to
authorial intention.
[6] The dates of texts mostly follow
those found in Brill’s New Pauly, and
depart in some cases from the dates used by the Tesserae to assign source and target text status for each
pair (http://tesserae.caset.buffalo.edu/blog/authors−and−text−dates/).
Where necessary, we manually corrected for the switched source and
target. Some dates are uncertain; see, e.g., [Zissos 2008, xiv–xvii] on Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, or [Gruzelier 1993, xviii–xix] on Claudian’s De Raptu
Proserpinae. Alternative datings would affect our results in
some cases, since the calculation of the variable cexp depends on which text in a pair
is considered the source and which the target. But the overall effect of
any plausible change in dating would be small.
[7] The Tesserae repository is extensive but not complete. Relevant
hexameter texts unavailable for the study at this writing include, for
example, Ennius’ Annales, the Appendix Vergiliana, the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus, and the various Latin
versions of Aratus’ Phaenomena.
[8] We included Claudian’s De
Raptu Proserpinae because it is an important text and
because its pentameter preface is short compared to the text as a whole
(69 out of 6991 words), and therefore unlikely to noticeably affect our
results.
[9] Ausonius’
Precationes, Ordo
Urbium Nobilium, and Cento Nuptialis
(see section 3.c.iv), and Claudian’s In
Consulatum Olybrii et Probini.
[10] False lemma matches also sometimes occur, such
as Vergil, Georgics 4.308 ossibus umor ~ Statius,
Thebaid 4.698 ora … umor.
Here ossibus (“bones”) and
ora (“faces”) are inflected
forms of two different lexemes, both of which share the lemma os. Since such false matches occur
infrequently, we did not expect them to affect the results
significantly.
[11] These parameters are explained at http://tess−dev.caset.buffalo.edu/html/help_advanced.php.
[12] The regressions yielded the
following formulae:
We omitted the intercepts, which provide no useful
information, and thus obtained a formula for a composite count:
\(C_{regr} = 0.057C_{7} + 0.225C_{8} + C_{9} + 6.168C_{10} + 212.062C_{11}\)
- \(C_{9} = - 21.191 + 0.057C_{7}\)
- \(C_{9} = - 17.943 + 0.225C_{8}\)
- \(C_{9} = 36.958 + 6.168C_{10}\)
- \(C_{9} = 84.259 + 212.062C_{11}\)
[13] The first principal component had weights
\(0.458{\widetilde{C}}_{7} + 0.462{\widetilde{C}}_{8} + 0.465{\widetilde{C}}_{9} + 0.463{\widetilde{C}}_{10} + 0.383{\widetilde{C}}_{11}\)
This led to, in original scale, the composite count (which
accounts for 90.1% of the total variability):
$$C_{pca} = 0.458\frac{C_{7}}{4341} + 0.462\frac{C_{8}}{1118} + 0.465\frac{C_{9}}{253} + 0.463\frac{C_{10}}{39} + 0.383\frac{C_{11}}{1} = 10^{- 3}\left( 0.106C_{7} + 0.413C_{8} + 1.839C_{9} + 11.775C_{10} + 447.617C_{11} \right)$$
Further rescaling it such that the weight for C9 became 1, we
obtained:
\(C_{pca} = 0.057C_{7} + 0.225C_{8} + C_{9} + 6.404C_{10} + 243.426C_{11}\)
[14] This
model was the best of several considered, namely:
- \(c_{exp}\ w_{s} + w_{t}\)
- \(c_{exp}\ w_{s} + w_{t} + w_{s} \times w_{t}\)
- \(c_{exp}\ w_{s} + w_{t} + {w_{s}}^{2} + {w_{t}}^{2} + w_{s} \times w_{t}\)
- \(c_{exp}\ w_{st},\ \text{where}\ w_{st} = w_{s} + w_{t}\ \text{(treated as a single variable)}\)
[15] The r values are also sorted chronologically by
source and target in Table 8 and 9. Standardized residuals have been adjusted
by the standard deviation of the entire set in order to detect
statistical outliers. Standardized residuals greater than |2| are
normally considered unusual; standardized residual greater than |3| are
normally considered statistical outliers.
[16] Author (Hon–Stil, Hon – Gild, Ecl – Georg,Gild – Stil, section 3.b), genre (PSat - Rapt,
3.b), multiple reuse (Met – Ilias, Ilias – Joh, Aen –
Ilias, Georg –
Met, Georg –
Rapt, 3.c.i), and the influence of Vergil (Aen – Pun, 3.c.ii).
[17] Jockers
observes, “the strength of the
author signals in this experiment in fact trumps the signals of
individual texts — something intuition does not prepare us for.
The classifier [program] is more likely to identify the author
of a given text segment than it is to correctly assign that same
text segment to its novel of origin.”
[Jockers 2013, 93]
[18] The didactic genre comprised: DRN, Georg, and
Astr. The epic/panegyric genre
comprised: Aen, Met, BC, Ilias, Arg, Theb, Ach, Pun, Rapt, Hon, Gild, Stil, and Joh.
The satiric genre comprised: HSat, PSat, and JSat.
This partitioning excludes five texts (Ecl,
Ep, Ars,
HE, Mos)
that do not fit into any of the three genres. Including Horace’s Epistles and Ars
Poetica in the satiric genre would not alter our
conclusions: in fact, the lowest r value in our
data set would then comprise an epic/panegyric–satric pair, Ars – Gild (r = −0.834).
[19] The exceptions were slight: Ilias – JSat (r = 0.053) and JSat
– Hon (r =
0.045).
[20] The average
Cobs value for the
Aeneid paired with all subsequent
target texts is 1876.6, compared to 284.6 for the Georgics.
[21] Its influence grew later on: the text
is quoted in the late antique commentary on the Thebaid ascribed to Lactantius Placidus, and became popular
in the Middle Ages [Curtius 1953, 49–51].
[22] This is consistent with scholarly observation; see
New Pauly s.v. Ilias Latina
[Courtney 2016].
[23] For
example, see the discussion of the “many mouths” topos [Gowers 2005].
[24] For
discussion of the Flavian poets’ gradual return to scholarly favor, see
[Dominik 2010].
[25] Given the low residual, it is
remarkable that Tesserae searches reported
in [Coffee et al. 2012] identified 25% more interpretively
significant instances of verbal reuse in the pair Aeneid – Bellum Civile 1 than
the standard philological commentaries. Similar studies for pairs with
more intense text reuse (e.g., Aeneid –
Metamorphoses) would presumably be
even more successful.
[26] E.g.,
Compared with other writers of Latin epic, [Silius] tends to eschew signposting his intertexts by the technique of “quotation”, that is, by repeating complete phrases or other word collocations from earlier poems. He prefers to signal the intertextual connection by alternative means, in particular, by coincidence of situation and detail rather than wording and, occasionally, by more explicit hints. [Wilson 2004, 225]
[27] Parkes on the Achilleid and
Argonautica is an exception [Parkes 2009]. For the Thebaid
and Argonautica, see [Lovatt 2015], with bibliography.
[28] The
relative dating of these two epics is uncertain. This study has treated
the Achilleid as the source, but the two
epics may well have been composed concurrently and influenced one
another [Ripoll 2015].
[29] Marks argues for “bi-directional
influence” between the two works [Marks 2014].
[30]
Ep – Ars (r = 0.354), HSat –
Ep (0.259), HSat – Ars (0.041) vs. HSat – PSat
(0.210), HSat – JSat (−0.007), PSat – JSat (0.137).
[31] HSat – Rapt (r = −0.485),
Aen – PSat
(r = −0.537), PSat – Rapt (r = −0.579). The lowest pair, Ars
– Gild (−0.834), was one of three
statistical outliers (section 3.a); although we did not class Horace’s
Ars Poetica as a satire, it shares has
stylistic features of the genre.
[32] Gruber’s
comments are representative of a long tradition of Ausonius commentary: “Sprachlich und thematisch
ist Vergil stets gegenwärtig. In jahrzehntelanger Lehrtätigkeit,
in deren Mitte der Vergilerklärung stand, hat Ausonius diesen
Dichter so verinnerlicht, daβ ihm nicht nur seine Worte, sondern
die gesamte Thematik seiner Werke zur Verfügung stehen. Aber
auch Lukrez, Horaz und Ovid gehören zum sprachlichen Fundus. Von
den Autoren der frühen Kaiserzeit ist vor allem Statius
sprachliches und thematisches Vorbild. Dazu kommen Lukan, Silius
Italicus, Valerius Flaccus, und Martial”
[Gruber 2013, 27–28]. One of the goals of the present study is to place on an
objective footing such statements of the relative importance of a given
text as an overall verbal resource for its successors.
[33] Hofmann (New Pauly s.v.
Corippus, Flavius Cresconius) calls
Corippus “the last great
practitioner of the Roman epic… in his use of language and his
narrative skill,” and cites Vergil and Claudian as the poet’s
primary classical influences. Juvencus’ Historia
Evangelica differs from all other texts in the data set due
to its Biblical subject matter, and it should accordingly come as no
surprise that exhibits both low rates of reuse and low centrality.
Schmidt (New Pauly s.v. Iuvencus, C. Vettius Aquilinus) lists only
Vergil as a relevant source for Juvencus. See [Green 2006, 11–14], who observes “roughly speaking, allusions to Vergil
outnumber allusions to all other writers combined by at least five
to one” (11 n. 63).
Works Cited
Axelson 1945 Axelson, B. Unpoetische Wörter, ein
Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache. Gleerup, Lund
(1945).
Bodard and Mahony 2010 Bodard, G., & S.
Mahony. 2010. Digital research in the study of classical antiquity. Ashgate,
Burlington VT (2010).
Ceccarelli 2008 Ceccarelli, L. Contributi per
una storia dell’esametro latino. Herder, Roma (2008).
Coffee et al. 2012 Coffee, N., J.-P. Koenig, S.
Poornima, R. Ossewaarde, C. Forstall, and S. Jacobson. “Intertextuality In the Digital Age.” Transactions of the American
Philological Association, 142 (2012): 383–422.
Coffee et al. 2013 “The
Tesserae Project: Intertextual Analysis of Latin Poetry,” Literary
and Linguistic Computing, 28 (2013): 221–28.
Courtney 2016 Courtney, Edward. 2016. “Ilias Latina.” Brill’s New Pauly, ed. Hubert Cancik and
Helmuth Schneider. Leiden: Brill Online.
Curtius 1953 Curtius, E. R. European Literature
and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1953).
Dominik 2010 Dominik, W. J. “The Reception of Silius Italicus in Modern Scholarship.” In A.
Augoustakis, ed., Brill’s Companion to Silius Italicus. Brill, Leiden (2010),
pp. 425-447.
Drobisch 1866 Drobisch, M. W. “Ein statistischer Versuch über die Formen des lateinischen
Hexameters”, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsische
Gesellschaft, Philologisch-Historische Classe, 18 (1866): 75–139.
Drucker 2009 Drucker, J. SpecLab: digital aesthetics and projects in speculative computing.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009).
Farrell 2005 Farrell, J. “Intention and Intertext”, Phoenix 59 (2005): 98-111.
Forstall et al. 2014 Forstall, C., N. Coffee, T.
Buck, K. Roache, and S. Jacobson. “Modeling the Scholars:
Detecting Intertextuality through Enhanced Word-Level N-Gram
Matching,” Literary and Linguistic Computing (2014): doi:
10.1093/llc/fqu014.
Fowler 1997 Fowler, D. “On the
Shoulders of Giants: Intertextuality and Classical Studies”,
Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 39 (1997):
13–34.
Gowers 2005 Gowers, E. Vergil’s Sibyl and the
‘many mouths’ cliché, Classical Quarterly 55 (2005): 170-182.
Green 2006 Green, R. Latin Epics of the New
Testament: Juvencus, Sedulius, Arator. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2006).
Gruber 2013 Gruber, J. D. Magnus Ausonius, “Mosella”: kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung, Kommentar.
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2013).
Gruzelier 1993 Gruzelier, C. Claudian: De raptu
Proserpinae. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993).
Hardie 2009 Hardie, P. Lucretian Receptions:
History, The Sublime, Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(2009).
Hinds 1998 Hinds, Stephen. Allusion and Intertext:
Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(1998).
Hutchinson 2013 Hutchinson, G.O. Greek to
Latin: frameworks and contexts for intertextuality. Oxford University Press,
Oxford (2013).
Jockers 2013 Jockers, M. Macroanalysis: Digital
Methods and Literary History. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
(2013).
Kaufmann 2015 Kaufmann, H. “Papinius Noster: Statius in Roman Late
Antiquity.” In W. J. Dominik, C. E. Newlands, and K. Gervais (eds.),
Brill’s Companion to Statius. Brill, Leiden.
Knauer 1964 Knauer, G. Die Aeneis und Homer:
Studien zur poetischen Technik Vergils mit Listen der Homerzitate in der Aeneis.
Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, Göttingen (1964).
Lovatt 2015 Lovatt, Helen. 2015. “Following after Valerius: Argonautic Imagery in the
Thebaid.” In: Brill’s Companion to Statius, ed. Dominik, Gervais, and
Newlands. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 408-424.
Marks 2014 Marks, R.D. “Statio-Silian Relations in the Thebaid and
Punica 1–2”, Classical Philology 109
(2014): 130-139.
McCarty 2005 McCarty, Willard. Humanities
Computing. Palgrave, London (2005).
McGill 2005 McGill, S. Vergil Recomposed: The
Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2005).
Micozzi 2007 Micozzi, L. Il catalogo degli eroi:
saggio di commento a Stazio, Tebaide 4, 1–344. Edizioni della Normale, Pisa
(2007).
Nelis 2001 Nelis, D. Vergil's Aeneid and the Argonautica of
Apollonius Rhodius. Leeds: Francis Cairns, (2001).
Pagán 2015 Pagán, V. E. “Georgics 2.497 and Thebaid 1.19–20: Allusion and Inspiration.” In W. J.
Dominik, C. E. Newlands, and K. Gervais (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Statius.
Brill, Leiden.
Parkes 2009 Parkes, R. “Sed tardum (Ach.
1.47): Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica as Prequel
to Statius’ Achilleid.”
Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi
classici 63 (2009): 291-297.
Parkes 2012 Parkes, R. Statius, Thebaid 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2012).
Ramsay 2011 Ramsay, S. Reading machines: toward an
algorithmic criticism. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (2011).
Ripoll 2015 Ripoll, F. “Statius and Silius Italicus.” In W. J. Dominik, C. E. Newlands, and
K. Gervais (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Statius. Brill, Leiden.
Roche 2009 Roche, P. Lucan De Bello Civili Book 1.
Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
Steiniger 2005 Steiniger, J. P. Papinius
Statius: Thebais 4, 1–344. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart (2005).
Viansino 1995 Viansino, G. Lucano. La guerra
civile. Mondadori, Milano (1995).
Volk 2009 Volk, K. Manilius and his Intellectual
Background. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
Ware 2012 Ware, C. Claudian and the Roman Epic
Tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012).
Watson 1985 Watson, P. “Axelson Revisited: The Selection of Vocabulary in Latin Poetry.”
Classical Quarterly 35 (1985): 430-448.
Wilson 2004 Wilson, M. “Ovidian Silius”, Arethusa 37 (2004): 225-249.
Zissos 2008 Zissos, A. Valerius Flaccus.
Argonautica. Book 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008).
URL: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/3/000237/000237.html
Comments: dhqinfo@digitalhumanities.org
Published by: The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations and The Association for Computers and the Humanities
Affiliated with: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DHQ has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Copyright © 2005 -
Unless otherwise noted, the DHQ web site and all DHQ published content are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Individual articles may carry a more permissive license, as described in the footer for the individual article, and in the article’s metadata.
Comments: dhqinfo@digitalhumanities.org
Published by: The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations and The Association for Computers and the Humanities
Affiliated with: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DHQ has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Copyright © 2005 -
Unless otherwise noted, the DHQ web site and all DHQ published content are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Individual articles may carry a more permissive license, as described in the footer for the individual article, and in the article’s metadata.
