The PHI Latin corpus (previously known as PHI5.3 and now available to search online) is certainly an important tool, and I've made good use of it in various corpus analyses.

However, I'm not sure how to properly reference and cite it. The main page just says that it's "A Resource Prepared by The Packard Humanities Institute", and the About page doesn't have much more; searching online for "packhum latin citation" doesn't turn up much.

If I want to give a proper reference to this corpus, how would I do it? Is there a paper introducing it that can be cited, or an "author" (implementor?) to reference by name? Or should I just credit it all to "The Packard Humanities Institute"?

  • 2
    Two questions to clarify: (1) Do you mean citations in the context of a scientific article? In many other contexts something less formal would do. (2) Have you tried reaching out to the email address latin@packhum.org give on their pages? I would assume that they have the definitive answer. Having their answer recorded here on our site would be great.
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    Dec 20 '20 at 10:38
  • 2
    @JoonasIlmavirta Ah yes, I mean in the context of a publication. Their very minimal license agreement doesn't even indicate whether that's allowed, but going from the earlier licensing on their CDs, it seems like the intent is to allow pretty much any academic use (just not commercial publication), so I'm hoping that's allowed. I'll send them an email and update here if I get a response!
    – Draconis
    Dec 20 '20 at 17:27
  • (In the meantime, though, if anyone else knows of precedent, I'm sure there are papers out there which have used this corpus and have probably cited it somehow.)
    – Draconis
    Dec 20 '20 at 17:28

You generally do not need to cite the edition of a Latin text that's standardized. Lucretius 1.1 is Lucretius 1.1 no matter whom you're reading, so unless you're citing something for its textual variation, just cite Lucretius himself: Lucr. 1.1.

If you're citing a particular edition, place the name of the editor after citation. If the work is discussed, put the name in parentheses.


Dominicy 2015:

"See above, on 29.19; †magis† for malis at Lucr. 6.1150 (Martin)..."

  • Martin's edition is being referenced here. Note that the purpose is textual. This is also the edition used in PHI.

*González 2010:

Heroic Age. (Hesiod fr. 204.94-103 M-W)

  • M-W refers to Merkelbach and West, who edited Hesiod's fragments in the Oxford edition, Fragmenta Hesiodea.

If you want to cite the site itself, and not a text in it, certainly check with the editor, as some places might have different requirements.

Quickly checking JSTOR I see that an article from 2010 (Pałuchowski, "La dédicace érigée à Ephèse...") in ZPE merely mentions it:

Aucue attestation archéologique (cf. Sanders 1982, 156–159 Gazetteer 10/10), pas un seul témoignage épigraphique (cf. l'index dressé aux pages 437–438 d'ICret IV et PHI on-line).

See also this 2016 article (Connors & Clendenon, "Mapping Tartaros") in CA:

The search term barathr returns 32 results from the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts (https://latin.packhum.org).

Additionally, how you plan on integrating it in your text will change how you present it.

  • Appreciated! Unfortunately my goal here is to cite the entire corpus rather than a single work—I'm doing some linguistic analysis on Classical Latin, and want to show where I got my sample of Classical Latin from. Is there a similar convention for that?
    – Draconis
    Jan 1 '21 at 0:32
  • @Draconis Fixed.
    – cmw
    Jan 1 '21 at 1:17

Finding the Publication Date:

Enter the URL into the browser preceded by 'inurl:'


After accessing that page, add '&as_qdr=y15' to the end of the URL:


The date of publication will appear in the search results:

enter image description here

APA Format:

For entire website:

The Packard Humanities Institute. (2011, July 15). PHI Latin Texts. Retrieved from https://latin.packhum.org/

For a particular page, the title of the page is required (in the example 'Word Search'). The publication date and URL should also pertain to the page in question:

The Packard Humanities Institute. (2011, September 28). Word Search. PHI Latin Texts. Retrieved from https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scapula

MLA Format:

Notice that the month is abbreviated in the publication date:

The Packard Humanities Institute. PHI Latin Texts. 15 Jul. 2011: https://latin.packhum.org/

For a particular page:

The Packard Humanities Institute. "Word Search". PHI Latin Texts. 28 Sep. 2011: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scapula

Harvard Format:

The Harvard format only requires the year of publication, but, in addition to that, the date accessed is required:

The Packard Humanities Institute. (2011). PHI Latin Texts [Online]. Available at: https://latin.packhum.org/ (Accessed: 21 December 2020).

For a particular page:

The Packard Humanities Institute. (2011). Word Search [Online]. PHI Latin Texts. Available at: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=scapula (Accessed: 21 December 2020).

  • Very nice! In this particular case, I know from outside information that this version of the data was first published (on CD) in 1991, and then moved online 20 years later; I'm assuming I should cite when the data was first published in any form, rather than when it was moved online, since that's what I'd do with a digitized article or book?
    – Draconis
    Dec 21 '20 at 17:28
  • @Draconis. I don't know. My source simply said to cite the date when it was published on the internet. The instructions I included are those that they gave for obtaining that. Dec 21 '20 at 18:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.