Sorting out just what Florus’ condensed work of history is has proved a significant impediment to an understanding of what it might mean. F.R.D. Goodyear's terse précis of Florus ‘The historian’—carefully decoupled from ‘The orator’ and ‘The poet’—in the Cambridge History of Classical Literature begins tellingly: ‘Florus’ outline of Roman history, ending with Augustus, was in late antiquity inaccurately described as an epitome of Livy.’ This is accurate enough. Despite the transmitted title, Epitoma(e) de Tito Liuio (also Bellorum omnium annorum septingentorum libri n. duo), Florus’ work is notably distinct from, say, Justin's abridgment of Pompeius Trogus or the Livian Periochae. Livy looms large in Florus’ history, but at no point in the text is he signaled by name, and numerous structural and thematic features mark this diminutive work's divergence from its huge predecessor. Florus’ Tableau (Jal's chosen title) simply doesn't read as mere paraphrase of Ab urbe condita. He frequently reshuffles, omits, or contradicts material found in Livy, or covers content that Livy does not include, or does not reach chronologically. Alongside Livy, Cato, Caesar, Sallust, Virgil, Seneca the Elder, Lucan, and (seemingly) Tacitus are conspicuous presences in Florus. Much has been said about how Florus fails to be a proper epitome. However, and perhaps more significantly as regards the reception of Florus’ quirky historiography, Goodyear's emphatic non-definition reinforces a summary dismissal of Florus’ value as a text. That is to say, in such a portrayal (and in that of many others), Florus suffers double punishment. He ‘has little to say which is new or remarkable’, but at the same time definitely fails as a reliable compiler. Derivative, and yet faithless: whatever Florus may be, he is something worse than epitome.
整理弗洛勒斯的浓缩的历史作品被证明是理解它可能意味着什么的重大障碍。F.R.D.古德伊尔在《剑桥古典文学史》中对弗洛勒斯“历史学家”的简洁描述——小心翼翼地与“演说家”和“诗人”分离开来——娓娓道来:“弗洛勒斯”对罗马历史的概述，以奥古斯都结束，在古代晚期被错误地描述为李维的缩影。这是非常准确的。尽管传播的标题是《Tito Liuio Epitoma(e) de Tito Liuio(也称为Bellorum omnium annorum septingentorum libri n. duo)》，弗洛鲁斯的作品明显不同于犹斯丁(Justin)对庞培·特罗古斯(Pompeius Trogus)或利维亚(Livian) Periochae的删节。李维在弗洛勒斯的历史中占据重要地位，但在文本中没有任何地方显示他的名字，许多结构和主题特征标志着这部小型作品与它的巨大前身的分歧。Florus的《Tableau》(Jal选择的标题)读起来并不仅仅是《Ab urbe condition》的意译。他经常重新整理、省略或反驳李维的材料，或覆盖李维没有包括的内容，或没有按时间顺序到达的内容。除了李维之外，加图、凯撒、萨洛斯特、维吉尔、老塞内加、卢坎和(似乎)塔西佗都是弗洛勒斯引人注目的人物。关于《Florus》如何未能成为一个恰当的缩影，人们已经说了很多。然而，也许更重要的是，对于弗洛勒斯古怪的史学的接受，固特异强调的不定义强化了对弗洛勒斯作为文本价值的总结。也就是说，在这样的描绘中(以及其他许多人的描绘中)，弗洛勒斯遭受了双重惩罚。他“没有说什么是新的或值得注意的”，但同时，作为一个可靠的编译器，他肯定是失败的。不管弗洛勒斯是什么样的人，他都比他的化身还要糟糕。
{"title":"THE EMPIRE IN THE EPITOME: FLORUS AND THE CONQUEST OF HISTORIOGRAPHY","authors":"Jared Hudson","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2019.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.9","url":null,"abstract":"Sorting out just what Florus’ condensed work of history is has proved a significant impediment to an understanding of what it might mean. F.R.D. Goodyear's terse précis of Florus ‘The historian’—carefully decoupled from ‘The orator’ and ‘The poet’—in the Cambridge History of Classical Literature begins tellingly: ‘Florus’ outline of Roman history, ending with Augustus, was in late antiquity inaccurately described as an epitome of Livy.’ This is accurate enough. Despite the transmitted title, Epitoma(e) de Tito Liuio (also Bellorum omnium annorum septingentorum libri n. duo), Florus’ work is notably distinct from, say, Justin's abridgment of Pompeius Trogus or the Livian Periochae. Livy looms large in Florus’ history, but at no point in the text is he signaled by name, and numerous structural and thematic features mark this diminutive work's divergence from its huge predecessor. Florus’ Tableau (Jal's chosen title) simply doesn't read as mere paraphrase of Ab urbe condita. He frequently reshuffles, omits, or contradicts material found in Livy, or covers content that Livy does not include, or does not reach chronologically. Alongside Livy, Cato, Caesar, Sallust, Virgil, Seneca the Elder, Lucan, and (seemingly) Tacitus are conspicuous presences in Florus. Much has been said about how Florus fails to be a proper epitome. However, and perhaps more significantly as regards the reception of Florus’ quirky historiography, Goodyear's emphatic non-definition reinforces a summary dismissal of Florus’ value as a text. That is to say, in such a portrayal (and in that of many others), Florus suffers double punishment. He ‘has little to say which is new or remarkable’, but at the same time definitely fails as a reliable compiler. Derivative, and yet faithless: whatever Florus may be, he is something worse than epitome.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"52 1","pages":"54 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85673000","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}
In the medical practice of Asclepian dream incubation, dreams offered a conduit through which the divine power of the healing god could be visited upon an ailing suppliant. This practice was enough of a part of everyday life in fifth-century Athens that it achieved the dubious honor of an extended parody in Aristophanes’ Plutus. An extensive inscriptional record suggests that it continued to flourish for many centuries. But there was another type of dream employed in ancient Greek and Roman medical practice, with a much scanter trail of evidence. These dreams had endogenous, physiological origins and provided information about the internal disposition of the body not by divine intervention, but by some manner of inward perception on the part of the patient. With the rising interest in observational methodology in the fith century, opsis, and ideally autopsy, became the basis on which scientific knowledge was produced and elaborated. Taboos against physically opening the human body, in life as well as in death, prevented physicians from directly observing their patients’ interiors. The visions of dreams, then, could potentially provide doctors with a uniquely valuable diagnostic tool: genuine access to the observation of a body's internal condition, albeit in a strange, mediated form.
{"title":"THE SEMIOTICS OF THE SOUL IN ANCIENT MEDICAL DREAM INTERPRETATION: PERCEPTION AND THE POETICS OF DREAM PRODUCTION IN HIPPOCRATES’ ON REGIMEN","authors":"Ella Haselswerdt","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2019.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.8","url":null,"abstract":"In the medical practice of Asclepian dream incubation, dreams offered a conduit through which the divine power of the healing god could be visited upon an ailing suppliant. This practice was enough of a part of everyday life in fifth-century Athens that it achieved the dubious honor of an extended parody in Aristophanes’ Plutus. An extensive inscriptional record suggests that it continued to flourish for many centuries. But there was another type of dream employed in ancient Greek and Roman medical practice, with a much scanter trail of evidence. These dreams had endogenous, physiological origins and provided information about the internal disposition of the body not by divine intervention, but by some manner of inward perception on the part of the patient. With the rising interest in observational methodology in the fith century, opsis, and ideally autopsy, became the basis on which scientific knowledge was produced and elaborated. Taboos against physically opening the human body, in life as well as in death, prevented physicians from directly observing their patients’ interiors. The visions of dreams, then, could potentially provide doctors with a uniquely valuable diagnostic tool: genuine access to the observation of a body's internal condition, albeit in a strange, mediated form.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"7 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78683595","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}
Recent investigations of Seneca's Medea have found consistently fascinating the way in which Medea progressively flags her realization of enacted identity and selfhood. She self-consciously pierces the fabric of her drama with identifying declarations, colored by especial reference to her name: the announcement Medea superest (‘Medea remains’, 166) and bald statement of fiam (‘I will be’, 171) in response to hearing her own name lead to the supreme utterance of Medea nunc sum (‘now I am Medea’, 910). Medea conjures herself into being with these three identifications, stepping fully into the troubling contours she knows of not only her own mythology, but also her literary history. Medea's dominating focus on her name allows this layered acknowledgement of self, of Medea as both mythological figure and literary fixture. In resultant discussions, the weight given to her name in precipitating this sense of identity within her play has, quite naturally, led to a proportionate emphasis upon who Medea is. In some ways, Medea's notably self-annotative process of becoming ‘Medea’ eclipses other useful interrogative frameworks of her identity: the spotlight on the ‘who’ of Medea comes somewhat at the expense of the ‘what’, or the ‘how’. This is not to say that such categories are not mutually informative or intertwined, for Medea (by Seneca's time) does, in fact, have a defining act: the murder of her children. Who Medea is stems from what she does, the sentiment vividly expressed by Medea nunc sum. In light of these considerations, I would suggest a different perspective from which to conceptualize Medea's identity, one that takes into account the paired aspects of being and doing that together comprise an understanding of character, especially within drama. This perspective departs from a framework dependent on progressive structural characterization, as represented by the trio of passages cited above, and focuses instead on characterization via demonstrated patterns of linguistic tendency, on both macroscopic and microscopic levels. From the beginning, Medea displays measured consistency with her relentless knowledge of self as she transforms these categories of identification and action: as the play develops, her sense of ‘this is who I am’ becomes ‘this is what I do’.
{"title":"MEDEA'S SOL-IPSISM: LANGUAGE, POWER AND IDENTITY IN SENECA'S MEDEA","authors":"C. Campbell","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2019.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.7","url":null,"abstract":"Recent investigations of Seneca's Medea have found consistently fascinating the way in which Medea progressively flags her realization of enacted identity and selfhood. She self-consciously pierces the fabric of her drama with identifying declarations, colored by especial reference to her name: the announcement Medea superest (‘Medea remains’, 166) and bald statement of fiam (‘I will be’, 171) in response to hearing her own name lead to the supreme utterance of Medea nunc sum (‘now I am Medea’, 910). Medea conjures herself into being with these three identifications, stepping fully into the troubling contours she knows of not only her own mythology, but also her literary history. Medea's dominating focus on her name allows this layered acknowledgement of self, of Medea as both mythological figure and literary fixture. In resultant discussions, the weight given to her name in precipitating this sense of identity within her play has, quite naturally, led to a proportionate emphasis upon who Medea is. In some ways, Medea's notably self-annotative process of becoming ‘Medea’ eclipses other useful interrogative frameworks of her identity: the spotlight on the ‘who’ of Medea comes somewhat at the expense of the ‘what’, or the ‘how’. This is not to say that such categories are not mutually informative or intertwined, for Medea (by Seneca's time) does, in fact, have a defining act: the murder of her children. Who Medea is stems from what she does, the sentiment vividly expressed by Medea nunc sum. In light of these considerations, I would suggest a different perspective from which to conceptualize Medea's identity, one that takes into account the paired aspects of being and doing that together comprise an understanding of character, especially within drama. This perspective departs from a framework dependent on progressive structural characterization, as represented by the trio of passages cited above, and focuses instead on characterization via demonstrated patterns of linguistic tendency, on both macroscopic and microscopic levels. From the beginning, Medea displays measured consistency with her relentless knowledge of self as she transforms these categories of identification and action: as the play develops, her sense of ‘this is who I am’ becomes ‘this is what I do’.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"2 1","pages":"22 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90309826","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":"RMU volume 48 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2019.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"54 1","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88510658","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}
The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.
《库勒斯》是最早的、最能证明维吉尔的小作品，也是最直接地表明维吉尔是作者的作品，它给现代古典学术提出了一个问题。至少从17世纪开始，学者们就一直在关注这首诗的真实性。它是像古代证词和中世纪文本的传播似乎断言的那样，是早期弗吉尼亚的一件作品，还是后来的作品?如果是后来的作品，我们应该把它看作是故意伪造的，还是看作是一首在传播过程中与原作者分离的诗，无助地被维吉尔的火车卷走了?事实证明，真实性问题一直存在:就在20世纪70年代，学者们试图声称库莱克斯是维吉尔的。即使在那些认为这是非弗吉尼亚人的人当中，对泰伯里晚期匿名作者的明显共识也受到了质疑，奥托·茨维尔莱因(Otto Zwierlein)认为是朱利叶斯·蒙塔努斯(M. Julius Montanus)，让-伊夫·马勒弗尔(Jean-Yves Maleuvre)认为是奥古斯都(Augustus)，这更不可能。
{"title":"(MIS)READING THE GNAT: TRUTH AND DECEPTION IN THE PSEUDO-VIRGILIAN CVLEX","authors":"Talitha Kearey","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.13","url":null,"abstract":"The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"9 1","pages":"174 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90606415","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}
There is increasing interest in what might be thought ‘special’ about late antique poetry. Two volumes of recent years have focused on Latin poetry of this time, Classics Renewed: Reception and Innovation in the Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity edited by Scott McGill and Joseph Pucci (2016) as well as The Poetics of Late Latin Literature edited by Jaś Elsner and Jesús Hernández Lobato (2017), while it has become increasingly acceptable to remark on late antiquity as a cultural period in its own right, rather than a point of transition between high antiquity and the middle ages. Greek poetry of late antiquity has yet to receive the level of attention offered to Latin literature of this time, and so it is to help answer the question of what may be thought special about late antique Greek poetry that I here discuss the poetics of later Greek ecphrasis.
{"title":"THE POETICS OF LATER GREEK ECPHRASIS: CHRISTODORUS COPTUS, THE PALATINE ANTHOLOGY AND THE PERIOCHAE OF NONNUS’ DIONYSIACA","authors":"F. Middleton","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.15","url":null,"abstract":"There is increasing interest in what might be thought ‘special’ about late antique poetry. Two volumes of recent years have focused on Latin poetry of this time, Classics Renewed: Reception and Innovation in the Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity edited by Scott McGill and Joseph Pucci (2016) as well as The Poetics of Late Latin Literature edited by Jaś Elsner and Jesús Hernández Lobato (2017), while it has become increasingly acceptable to remark on late antiquity as a cultural period in its own right, rather than a point of transition between high antiquity and the middle ages. Greek poetry of late antiquity has yet to receive the level of attention offered to Latin literature of this time, and so it is to help answer the question of what may be thought special about late antique Greek poetry that I here discuss the poetics of later Greek ecphrasis.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"146 1","pages":"216 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80535665","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}
Teknophagy (τεκνοϕαγία), or child-eating, is an apt subject for tragedy. It introduces the theme of miasma, it escalates violence and epitomises the destructive family feuds that Aristotle prized as the most suitable stories for tragedy. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the teknophagies of Thyestes and Tereus were dramatised in three fifth-century tragedies, all of them preserved only in fragments: Euripides’ Thyestes, Sophokles’ Thyestes (Β) and Sophokles’ Tereus. What is surprising is the appearance of plays by the same titles in the comic tradition, including Tereus plays by Kantharos (C5 BC), Anaxandrides (C4 BC) and Philetairos (C4 BC) along with Diokles’ Thyestes (Β) (late C5 BC to early C4 BC). Therefore, this study will first consider how Tereus’ teknophagy was adapted to mythical burlesques, to then consider how comic adaptations of Thyestes’ teknophagy influenced Seneca's Thyestes.
啃咬小孩(τεκνο ο αγ γ terminal)，或称吃小孩，是悲剧的合适题材。它引入了瘴气的主题，它升级了暴力，并集中体现了亚里士多德认为最适合悲剧故事的破坏性家庭不和。因此，意料之中的是，五世纪的三部悲剧都将提俄斯忒斯和泰诺斯的食人故事戏剧化了，它们都只以碎片的形式保存了下来:欧里庇得斯的《提俄斯忒斯》，索福克勒斯的《提俄斯忒斯》(Β)和索福克勒斯的《泰诺斯》。令人惊讶的是，在喜剧传统中出现了相同标题的戏剧，包括坎萨罗斯(公元前5年)，阿纳克桑德(公元前4年)和菲利泰罗斯(公元前4年)的泰诺斯剧，以及迪奥克勒斯的提斯忒斯(Β)(公元前5年晚期至公元前4年早期)。因此，本研究将首先考虑泰诺斯的食毒术是如何被改编成神话滑剧的，然后考虑对提俄斯忒斯的食毒术的喜剧改编是如何影响塞内卡的提俄斯忒斯的。
{"title":"TEKNOPHAGY AND TRAGICOMEDY: THE MYTHIC BURLESQUES OF TEREVS AND THYESTES","authors":"M. Haley","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.12","url":null,"abstract":"Teknophagy (τεκνοϕαγία), or child-eating, is an apt subject for tragedy. It introduces the theme of miasma, it escalates violence and epitomises the destructive family feuds that Aristotle prized as the most suitable stories for tragedy. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the teknophagies of Thyestes and Tereus were dramatised in three fifth-century tragedies, all of them preserved only in fragments: Euripides’ Thyestes, Sophokles’ Thyestes (Β) and Sophokles’ Tereus. What is surprising is the appearance of plays by the same titles in the comic tradition, including Tereus plays by Kantharos (C5 BC), Anaxandrides (C4 BC) and Philetairos (C4 BC) along with Diokles’ Thyestes (Β) (late C5 BC to early C4 BC). Therefore, this study will first consider how Tereus’ teknophagy was adapted to mythical burlesques, to then consider how comic adaptations of Thyestes’ teknophagy influenced Seneca's Thyestes.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"73 1","pages":"152 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74644647","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":"RMU volume 47 issue 2 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2019.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"90 1","pages":"b1 - b2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79027686","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}
Within Classics, there is growing interest in the nature of reperformance, particularly in relation to archaic and classical Greek poetry and drama. Developing out of the now well-established ‘performative turn’ in studies of early Greek song, and gaining impetus from a series of publications focussing on the contextual specificity of archaic lyric and drama, those interested in reperformance ask what it means for a song or a play, composed for a specific occasion, to be reperformed in another time and (potentially) another place. While interest in reperformance is certainly not new, the debate is now increasingly taking place in dialogue with parallel studies of reperformance in other disciplines. Research in performance studies has articulated a paradox at the heart of reperformance: since a performance is imagined as a singular event that exists only in that moment, and in a specific context, reperformance is an attempt to repeat the unique. Theorists and practitioners have in turn explored this paradox in relation to the restagings and re-enactments of one-time events and performances, such as battle re-enactments, the reconstruction of ballet choreographies before the days of film and live performance art. These examples reveal the complex temporalities involved in reperforming notionally one-time events, as an attempt to capture the ephemeral and collapse the present and the past (as well as the there and the not-there) in the ‘syncopated time’ of the reperformance.
{"title":"PRESENT, FUTURE AND PAST IN THE HOMERIC HYMN TO APOLLO","authors":"Oliver Passmore","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.11","url":null,"abstract":"Within Classics, there is growing interest in the nature of reperformance, particularly in relation to archaic and classical Greek poetry and drama. Developing out of the now well-established ‘performative turn’ in studies of early Greek song, and gaining impetus from a series of publications focussing on the contextual specificity of archaic lyric and drama, those interested in reperformance ask what it means for a song or a play, composed for a specific occasion, to be reperformed in another time and (potentially) another place. While interest in reperformance is certainly not new, the debate is now increasingly taking place in dialogue with parallel studies of reperformance in other disciplines. Research in performance studies has articulated a paradox at the heart of reperformance: since a performance is imagined as a singular event that exists only in that moment, and in a specific context, reperformance is an attempt to repeat the unique. Theorists and practitioners have in turn explored this paradox in relation to the restagings and re-enactments of one-time events and performances, such as battle re-enactments, the reconstruction of ballet choreographies before the days of film and live performance art. These examples reveal the complex temporalities involved in reperforming notionally one-time events, as an attempt to capture the ephemeral and collapse the present and the past (as well as the there and the not-there) in the ‘syncopated time’ of the reperformance.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"35 1","pages":"123 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85097206","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}
At the sentence level Suetonius often appears to be neutral, but I argue here that the persuasive force in the arrangement of his material creates a portrait that is absolutely not neutral. As David Wardle put it in a 2016 review, ‘Anyone who reads Suetonius without regard to the careful structures within which the biographer places his material can produce almost any picture.’ Yet these ‘careful structures’ are a mystery known only to the initiated. This paper lays out the complex and varied ways in which Suetonius uses structure, specifically the ‘rubric system’ of arranging his material under subheadings and those subheadings in sequences, in the hope that with this knowledge we see more accurately what ‘picture’ the biographer creates.
{"title":"STRUCTURE AND PERSUASION IN SUETONIUS’ DE VITA CAESARVM","authors":"Phoebe Garrett","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.14","url":null,"abstract":"At the sentence level Suetonius often appears to be neutral, but I argue here that the persuasive force in the arrangement of his material creates a portrait that is absolutely not neutral. As David Wardle put it in a 2016 review, ‘Anyone who reads Suetonius without regard to the careful structures within which the biographer places his material can produce almost any picture.’ Yet these ‘careful structures’ are a mystery known only to the initiated. This paper lays out the complex and varied ways in which Suetonius uses structure, specifically the ‘rubric system’ of arranging his material under subheadings and those subheadings in sequences, in the hope that with this knowledge we see more accurately what ‘picture’ the biographer creates.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"42 1","pages":"197 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88057630","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：