{"title":"Reading for Achilles in the bT-Scholia to the Iliad","authors":"B. Beck","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbab005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbab005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72461706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Some problems in the ‘Deception of Zeus’","authors":"Richard Hunter","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbab008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbab008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85023526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter examines Didymus’ studies on Greek tragedy, in particular on Sophocles and Ion of Chios. It demonstrates Didymus’ methods of exegesis and his use of other exegetical corpora. It explains the thinking behind some of his choices and preferences, including the mistakes. Furthermore, it examines the problems of identifying Didymean material where Didymus is not named.
{"title":"Chapter Three Didymus on Attic tragedy","authors":"T. Coward","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This chapter examines Didymus’ studies on Greek tragedy, in particular on Sophocles and Ion of Chios. It demonstrates Didymus’ methods of exegesis and his use of other exegetical corpora. It explains the thinking behind some of his choices and preferences, including the mistakes. Furthermore, it examines the problems of identifying Didymean material where Didymus is not named.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76988213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter studies Didymus’ scholarly activity on epic poetry, especially on Homer, in relation to both his own exegetical efforts and his work about the textual recension of Aristarchus of Samothrace. It provides a critical survey of the fragments of Didymus’ Homeric commentaries, with an overview on the subjects they covered. As for the treatise on Aristarchus’ diorthōsis, which is much more significant for the exegetical tradition on Homer, it discusses the scholia that convey his reasonings, the relationship of this work with the work of Aristonicus, the sources used by Didymus, the information Didymus gives us about Aristarchus’ works and ecdotic method, and finally the methods employed by Didymus himself in handling the work of his predecessors.
{"title":"Chapter One Didymus and epic poetry","authors":"Lara Pagani","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This chapter studies Didymus’ scholarly activity on epic poetry, especially on Homer, in relation to both his own exegetical efforts and his work about the textual recension of Aristarchus of Samothrace. It provides a critical survey of the fragments of Didymus’ Homeric commentaries, with an overview on the subjects they covered. As for the treatise on Aristarchus’ diorthōsis, which is much more significant for the exegetical tradition on Homer, it discusses the scholia that convey his reasonings, the relationship of this work with the work of Aristonicus, the sources used by Didymus, the information Didymus gives us about Aristarchus’ works and ecdotic method, and finally the methods employed by Didymus himself in handling the work of his predecessors.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74422377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Didymus worked extensively on archaic lyric poetry. The greatest amount of surviving material comes from the Pindar scholia and concerns Pindar’s Epinicians, but there are fragments and testimonies of his commentaries to other authors and a treatise On Lyric Poets. This chapter reviews the evidence for Didymus’ lyric scholarship, then discusses the contents of the On Lyric Poets—whose surviving fragments are concerned with the identification of lyric genres and the etymologies of their names—and the threads that run through his Pindaric exegesis: the compilation and evaluation of earlier scholarship, the use of historiographical evidence, textual criticism, a concern for the constitution of the Pindaric corpus and the contextualization of individual poems, and strategies of literary interpretation such as recourse to recurrent Pindaric themes and the train of thought of a passage.
{"title":"Chapter Two Didymus and lyric","authors":"E. Prodi","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Didymus worked extensively on archaic lyric poetry. The greatest amount of surviving material comes from the Pindar scholia and concerns Pindar’s Epinicians, but there are fragments and testimonies of his commentaries to other authors and a treatise On Lyric Poets. This chapter reviews the evidence for Didymus’ lyric scholarship, then discusses the contents of the On Lyric Poets—whose surviving fragments are concerned with the identification of lyric genres and the etymologies of their names—and the threads that run through his Pindaric exegesis: the compilation and evaluation of earlier scholarship, the use of historiographical evidence, textual criticism, a concern for the constitution of the Pindaric corpus and the contextualization of individual poems, and strategies of literary interpretation such as recourse to recurrent Pindaric themes and the train of thought of a passage.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76397065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Didymus’ commentaries on the comic playwrights and his Comic Vocabulary responded to the interests of the readership of Attic comedy primarily in two ways: by summarizing the opinions of previous scholars and by offering a wide range of explanations, useful also to less specialized readers. Although his exegesis of comedy is now preserved only through quotations (mainly in the scholia to Aristophanes), it is still possible to identify the main features and interests of Didymus’ interpretative work and highlight its relevance for both ancient and contemporary readers of Greek comedy.
{"title":"Chapter Four Didymus and comedy","authors":"Federica Benuzzi","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Didymus’ commentaries on the comic playwrights and his Comic Vocabulary responded to the interests of the readership of Attic comedy primarily in two ways: by summarizing the opinions of previous scholars and by offering a wide range of explanations, useful also to less specialized readers. Although his exegesis of comedy is now preserved only through quotations (mainly in the scholia to Aristophanes), it is still possible to identify the main features and interests of Didymus’ interpretative work and highlight its relevance for both ancient and contemporary readers of Greek comedy.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83047113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We lack positive evidence that Didymus composed scholarly works specifically devoted to Greek historians. Even more, the very origins and characteristics of the Alexandrian interest in the historiographic genre, not to say in literary prose, represent open issues for the historian of Hellenistic scholarship. In this chapter, the rare and sparse pieces of information are gathered, in order to obtain a possibly systematic and organic overview on the very defective puzzle of the Didymean approach in this field. In the first part, clues from testimonies and fragments directly concerning historians (Herodotus, Thucydides) and antiquarian subjects (Solon’s axones) are taken into special consideration. The second part deals with the use and abuse of history and historical sources detectable in fragments from Didymean works which were devoted to fields and genres other than historiography. As a result, the testimony of the Pindar scholia and of the writing On Demosthenes attested to by P.Berol. inv. 9780 recto (second century ad) proves to be especially decisive for a reassessment of Didymus’ approach to historiography and history.
{"title":"Chapter FiveDidymus and the Greek historians","authors":"Fausto Montana","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We lack positive evidence that Didymus composed scholarly works specifically devoted to Greek historians. Even more, the very origins and characteristics of the Alexandrian interest in the historiographic genre, not to say in literary prose, represent open issues for the historian of Hellenistic scholarship. In this chapter, the rare and sparse pieces of information are gathered, in order to obtain a possibly systematic and organic overview on the very defective puzzle of the Didymean approach in this field. In the first part, clues from testimonies and fragments directly concerning historians (Herodotus, Thucydides) and antiquarian subjects (Solon’s axones) are taken into special consideration. The second part deals with the use and abuse of history and historical sources detectable in fragments from Didymean works which were devoted to fields and genres other than historiography. As a result, the testimony of the Pindar scholia and of the writing On Demosthenes attested to by P.Berol. inv. 9780 recto (second century ad) proves to be especially decisive for a reassessment of Didymus’ approach to historiography and history.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86113159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A checklist of the testimonia and fragments of Didymus","authors":"T. Coward, E. Prodi","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76189131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Few ancient scholars were as prolific as Didymus of Alexandria, who was hailed by some in antiquity as the greatest of the grammarians. Yet, despite his polymathic output and seemingly positive ancient reputation, Didymus was much maligned for his carelessness and the compilatory nature of his work, attitudes which have continued in modern scholarship. This chapter aims to reassess the earliest period of Didymus’ reception by looking closely at the scholarly and miscellaneous texts of the Roman Empire that cite and discuss the Alexandrian. By examining four particular points of reception—Roman educationalists, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Macrobius—this chapter illustrates that while Roman authors were particularly interested in using a caricature of Didymus as a straw man for their own arguments, Greek figures more readily engaged with Didymus and his work per se. These two traditions evolve in parallel and use Didymus to represent both the positive and negative facets of polymathy; each freely cites, and transforms, him to suit their literary purposes. As a result, Didymus’ reception throughout antiquity is considerably more complex than has been previously acknowledged: he is a figure of both authority and consternation, even among the authors most similar to himself.
{"title":"Chapter SixThe compiler compiled: Didymus in Imperial scholarly and miscellanistic literature","authors":"Scott DiGiulio","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Few ancient scholars were as prolific as Didymus of Alexandria, who was hailed by some in antiquity as the greatest of the grammarians. Yet, despite his polymathic output and seemingly positive ancient reputation, Didymus was much maligned for his carelessness and the compilatory nature of his work, attitudes which have continued in modern scholarship. This chapter aims to reassess the earliest period of Didymus’ reception by looking closely at the scholarly and miscellaneous texts of the Roman Empire that cite and discuss the Alexandrian. By examining four particular points of reception—Roman educationalists, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Macrobius—this chapter illustrates that while Roman authors were particularly interested in using a caricature of Didymus as a straw man for their own arguments, Greek figures more readily engaged with Didymus and his work per se. These two traditions evolve in parallel and use Didymus to represent both the positive and negative facets of polymathy; each freely cites, and transforms, him to suit their literary purposes. As a result, Didymus’ reception throughout antiquity is considerably more complex than has been previously acknowledged: he is a figure of both authority and consternation, even among the authors most similar to himself.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74146241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Index of passages cited","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbab012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbab012","url":null,"abstract":"<span>Acusilaus</span>","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138543327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：