Pub Date : 2024-05-08DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10254
Zhongxiao Wang
In this article, I aim to challenge previous interpretations of the phrase inscitia rei publicae ut alienae in Tacitus’ Histories 1.1.1, offering a new reading which has been overlooked in Tacitean scholarship. I argue that this phrase reflects Tacitus’ criticism of Augustan historians, who, in distancing themselves from the state, were no longer concerned with state affairs and abandoned historical writing. I trace parallels between Hist. 1.1.1 and Ann. 1.1.2, arguing that both texts refer synchronously to imperial historiography’s decline, which suggests that the inscitia rei publicae ut alienae emerged at the midpoint of Augustus’ reign. The rules that Augustus implemented to enforce the quorum for the senatorial assembly and the penalties imposed for absenteeism in 9 BC offer compelling evidence in support of this interpretation.
本文旨在对塔西佗《历史》1.1.1 中 "inscitia rei publicae ut alienae "这一短语的前人解释提出质疑，并提供一种被塔西佗学术研究忽视的新解读。我认为，这个短语反映了塔西佗对奥古斯都时期历史学家的批评，他们远离国家，不再关心国家事务，放弃了历史写作。我追溯了 Hist.1.1.1 和 Ann.1.1.2 之间的相似之处，认为这两段文字都同步提到了帝国史学的衰落，这表明 inscitia rei publicae ut alienae 出现在奥古斯都统治的中期。公元前 9 年，奥古斯都为执行元老院会议法定人数而实施的规则以及对缺席者的处罚为支持这一解释提供了有力的证据。
{"title":"The inscitia rei publicae ut alienae in the Preface to Tacitus’ Histories Revisited","authors":"Zhongxiao Wang","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10254","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, I aim to challenge previous interpretations of the phrase <em>inscitia rei publicae ut alienae</em> in Tacitus’ <em>Histories</em> 1.1.1, offering a new reading which has been overlooked in Tacitean scholarship. I argue that this phrase reflects Tacitus’ criticism of Augustan historians, who, in distancing themselves from the state, were no longer concerned with state affairs and abandoned historical writing. I trace parallels between <em>Hist</em>. 1.1.1 and <em>Ann</em>. 1.1.2, arguing that both texts refer synchronously to imperial historiography’s decline, which suggests that the <em>inscitia rei publicae ut alienae</em> emerged at the midpoint of Augustus’ reign. The rules that Augustus implemented to enforce the quorum for the senatorial assembly and the penalties imposed for absenteeism in 9 <span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">BC</span> offer compelling evidence in support of this interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140925208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-04DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10240
Iwona Słomak
This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards Thy. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of Thy. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.
本文旨在修正将《诗经》920-969 视为单调的编辑和解释传统。920-969》是一部单曲。基于对塞内加所选三个剧本中的归属差异的系统分析，以及对其他几个存在问题的地方的比较，文章证实了之前的一般发现：MS 传统的 A 分支显示出有意识插补的痕迹，而 Etruscus 抄本（E 分支）则主要包含机械错误，这在 Thy.就 Thy.920-969 而言，这使其归属更为可信。文章进一步讨论了颂歌中可能导致插补的问题段落，对支持 A 读法的解释性假设进行了批判，并根据塞内卡诗学的规则，以及从文本的内在逻辑和同名英雄的伦理角度证明了 E 支本中的归属是正确的。
{"title":"Seneca’s Thyestes: Ode 920-969 as an Amoibaion","authors":"Iwona Słomak","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"298 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140587687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-29DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10274
David Christenson
This review article of the Oxford Latin Syntax (Vols. I-II, 2015 and 2021) demonstrates how the communicative approach of Harm Pinkster’s monumental grammar complements recent revivals of oral, aural, and active Latin pedagogical methods. I conclude with examples of how Pinkster’s analysis of discourse may be applied to select passages (from Plautus’ Rudens, as a productive means of explicating dramaturgical and narratological matters there) in order to illustrate the OLS’s manifold potential for exploring discursive strategies of Latin texts generally.
{"title":"The Art of Communicative Grammar","authors":"David Christenson","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10274","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This review article of the <em>Oxford Latin Syntax</em> (Vols. I-II, 2015 and 2021) demonstrates how the communicative approach of Harm Pinkster’s monumental grammar complements recent revivals of oral, aural, and active Latin pedagogical methods. I conclude with examples of how Pinkster’s analysis of discourse may be applied to select passages (from Plautus’ Rudens, as a productive means of explicating dramaturgical and narratological matters there) in order to illustrate the OLS’s manifold potential for exploring discursive strategies of Latin texts generally.</p>","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"92 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139646508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-27DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10189
Joseph Zehner
The writings of both Hecataeus and Pherecydes focus on genealogies, but scholars have characterized their styles differently: Hecataeus is anti-traditional and idiosyncratic, while Pherecydes is an impartial recorder of myths. This contribution argues for a neglected side of each author: Hecataeus follows Homeric genealogical traditions, while Pherecydes constructed novel genealogies of his own. Both authors, then, used tradition to accommodate, or ‘anchor,’ their innovations in genealogical writing, a strategy which Herodotus, in turn, improves upon in his own use of genealogies.
{"title":"Anchoring Genealogy","authors":"Joseph Zehner","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10189","url":null,"abstract":"The writings of both Hecataeus and Pherecydes focus on genealogies, but scholars have characterized their styles differently: Hecataeus is anti-traditional and idiosyncratic, while Pherecydes is an impartial recorder of myths. This contribution argues for a neglected side of each author: Hecataeus follows Homeric genealogical traditions, while Pherecydes constructed novel genealogies of his own. Both authors, then, used tradition to accommodate, or ‘anchor,’ their innovations in genealogical writing, a strategy which Herodotus, in turn, improves upon in his own use of genealogies.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-27DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10207
Mikolaj Domaradzki
The present paper suggests that Lucretius’ Magna Mater interpretation (2.598-660) can fruitfully be approached through the lens of invective oratory. While this difficult passage of De rerum natura has long puzzled scholars, this article argues that in his interpretation Lucretius masterfully transforms the encomiastic topos of allegoresis into a powerful means of blame: the poet allegorically interprets various aspects of the cult of Cybele with a view to showing how religious convictions and customs go awry. When thus exposing the cult as impious, Lucretius ingeniously exploits several topoi of rhetorical hymns (nurture, propitiation, etc.) for the purpose of making his vituperation all the more compelling. Hence, on the reading advocated here, the Magna Mater interpretation is a carefully constructed invective against those aspects of the cult (of Cybele) which an Epicurean is bound to frown upon (providential illusion, divine punishment, etc.).
本文认为，卢克莱修对《母校》（Magna Mater）（2.598-660）的阐释可以通过谩骂演说的视角来进行，从而取得丰硕成果。De rerum natura》中的这一难解段落长期以来一直困惑着学者，本文认为卢克莱修在其阐释中巧妙地将 "寓言"（allegoresis）这一讽喻性拓扑转化为一种强有力的指责手段：诗人以寓言的方式阐释了对赛比利神崇拜的各个方面，以展示宗教信仰和习俗是如何出错的。在揭露这种邪教的不虔诚时，卢克莱修巧妙地利用了修辞赞美诗的几个主题（哺育、赎罪等），使他的抨击更加引人入胜。因此，根据本文所主张的解读，"母校 "的解释是对伊壁鸠鲁派必然憎恶的（赛比利）崇拜的那些方面（天意的幻觉、神的惩罚等）的精心抨击。
{"title":"Lucretius’ Allegoresis and Invective","authors":"Mikolaj Domaradzki","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10207","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper suggests that Lucretius’ Magna Mater interpretation (2.598-660) can fruitfully be approached through the lens of invective oratory. While this difficult passage of <jats:italic>De rerum natura</jats:italic> has long puzzled scholars, this article argues that in his interpretation Lucretius masterfully transforms the encomiastic <jats:italic>topos</jats:italic> of allegoresis into a powerful means of blame: the poet allegorically interprets various aspects of the cult of Cybele with a view to showing how religious convictions and customs go awry. When thus exposing the cult as impious, Lucretius ingeniously exploits several <jats:italic>topoi</jats:italic> of rhetorical hymns (nurture, propitiation, etc.) for the purpose of making his vituperation all the more compelling. Hence, on the reading advocated here, the Magna Mater interpretation is a carefully constructed invective against those aspects of the cult (of Cybele) which an Epicurean is bound to frown upon (providential illusion, divine punishment, etc.).","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-24DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10217
Jan Maximilian Robitzsch
Scholars usually understand Κύρια Δόξα (ΚΔ) 33 as an antiplatonic polemic. This paper denies the communis opinio. First, it argues for an ontological reading of the maxim according to which justice (understood as virtue) is not a body but a property. Second, it shows that the Stoics hold the very thesis disputed in ΚΔ 33, namely that virtue is a body. This makes the Stoa the natural target of the maxim. Finally, the paper deals with De rerum natura I.464-482: here Lucretius criticizes nameless opponents with regard to the thesis that events are to be understood as bodies. If these opponents can be identified with the Stoics, as is usually assumed, there is further evidence besides ΚΔ 33 that the Epicureans engaged with the Stoic thesis of corporealism.
学者们通常将Κύρια Δόξα (ΚΔ) 33 理解为反柏拉图论战。本文否认共通确念。首先，本文论证了对格言的本体论解读，根据这一解读，正义（理解为美德）不是一个主体，而是一种属性。其次，本文指出斯多亚派所持的论点正是 ΚΔ 33 中的争议论点，即美德是一个本体。这使得斯多亚学派自然而然地成为格言的目标。最后，本文论述了 De rerum natura I.464-482：在此，卢克莱修批评了无名反对者关于事件应被理解为身体的论点。如果这些反对者能像通常假设的那样与斯多葛派相提并论，那么除了 ΚΔ 33 之外，还有更多证据表明伊壁鸠鲁派参与了斯多葛派的肉体论。
{"title":"Gegen wen ist Kuria Doxa 33 gerichtet?","authors":"Jan Maximilian Robitzsch","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10217","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars usually understand <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">Κύρια Δόξα</jats:styled-content> (<jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content>) 33 as an antiplatonic polemic. This paper denies the <jats:italic>communis opinio</jats:italic>. First, it argues for an ontological reading of the maxim according to which justice (understood as virtue) is not a body but a property. Second, it shows that the Stoics hold the very thesis disputed in <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33, namely that virtue is a body. This makes the Stoa the natural target of the maxim. Finally, the paper deals with <jats:italic>De rerum natura</jats:italic> I.464-482: here Lucretius criticizes nameless opponents with regard to the thesis that events are to be understood as bodies. If these opponents can be identified with the Stoics, as is usually assumed, there is further evidence besides <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33 that the Epicureans engaged with the Stoic thesis of corporealism.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-24DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10249
Claire McGraw
The differences between the narratives about Augustus’ silver statues in Cassius Dio, Augustus himself, and Suetonius are better explained in the context of gift-debt and gift-exchange rather than focusing on cult alone. Whereas Suetonius and Augustus emphasize Augustus’ correction of the statues as a pious act and a statement on imperial honors, Dio overlooks honors and gods, instead revealing how the statues funded road repairs. In his history, Dio adapts the narrative to underscore the gap between the reality and the appearance of events: here, the exchange of statues for monetary gifts in Augustan Rome. Augustus, treating the statues as a gift, transforms them into something greater for the people’s benefit. The connection between the statues, the roads, and the money appears elsewhere in the two earlier narratives, but Dio alone links the gift-exchange of statues for money to Augustus’ ‘gift’ of roads.
{"title":"Statues, Roads, and Money","authors":"Claire McGraw","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10249","url":null,"abstract":"The differences between the narratives about Augustus’ silver statues in Cassius Dio, Augustus himself, and Suetonius are better explained in the context of gift-debt and gift-exchange rather than focusing on cult alone. Whereas Suetonius and Augustus emphasize Augustus’ correction of the statues as a pious act and a statement on imperial honors, Dio overlooks honors and gods, instead revealing how the statues funded road repairs. In his history, Dio adapts the narrative to underscore the gap between the reality and the appearance of events: here, the exchange of statues for monetary gifts in Augustan Rome. Augustus, treating the statues as a gift, transforms them into something greater for the people’s benefit. The connection between the statues, the roads, and the money appears elsewhere in the two earlier narratives, but Dio alone links the gift-exchange of statues for money to Augustus’ ‘gift’ of roads.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"167 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-24DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10238
Oscar Goldman
Dialogic interaction plays important generic, poetic, and structural roles within hexametric Latin satire. One aspect of this interaction which has received little prior exegesis is the presence, or lack, of politeness. By adapting and applying existing models which study this sociolinguistic phenomenon, we can perceive not only patterned use of politeness across the genre, but further intertextuality between Latin satire and Roman comedy. Interactions in the works of Horace and Juvenal are illustrative of both shared ‘politeness-motifs’, as well as divergent stylistic adaptations which suit each poet’s literary agenda.
{"title":"Provoking Politeness","authors":"Oscar Goldman","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10238","url":null,"abstract":"Dialogic interaction plays important generic, poetic, and structural roles within hexametric Latin satire. One aspect of this interaction which has received little prior exegesis is the presence, or lack, of politeness. By adapting and applying existing models which study this sociolinguistic phenomenon, we can perceive not only patterned use of politeness across the genre, but further intertextuality between Latin satire and Roman comedy. Interactions in the works of Horace and Juvenal are illustrative of both shared ‘politeness-motifs’, as well as divergent stylistic adaptations which suit each poet’s literary agenda.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-24DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10218
Jamie Dow
‘We are convinced most of all whenever we take something to have been demonstrated’ (1355a5-6). The meaning and significance of this claim is a key point of dispute between those who take Aristotle’s project in the Rhetoric to be defending his distinctively argument-centred kind of rhetoric on the grounds that it is most persuasively effective, and those for whom he does so on the more normatively-charged grounds that this is the most valuable kind of rhetoric, and best delivers rhetoric’s distinctive benefits to civic communities. On the interpretation defended, the claim links being convinced (πιστεύειν) and the things that get us convinced (πίστεις) to the kind of epistemic merits possessed above all by demonstrations. This saves Aristotle from an implausible generalisation about the persuasive supremacy of deductive arguments. Since πίστεις are clearly central to Aristotelian rhetoric, this interpretation also lends support to the more normative understanding of Aristotle’s project overall.
{"title":"Pistis and Apodeixis: On the Disputed Interpretation of Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.1, 1355a5-6","authors":"Jamie Dow","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10218","url":null,"abstract":"‘We are convinced most of all whenever we take something to have been demonstrated’ (1355a5-6). The meaning and significance of this claim is a key point of dispute between those who take Aristotle’s project in the <jats:italic>Rhetoric</jats:italic> to be defending his distinctively argument-centred kind of rhetoric on the grounds that it is most persuasively effective, and those for whom he does so on the more normatively-charged grounds that this is the most valuable kind of rhetoric, and best delivers rhetoric’s distinctive benefits to civic communities. On the interpretation defended, the claim links being convinced (<jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">πιστεύειν</jats:styled-content>) and the things that get us convinced (<jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">πίστεις</jats:styled-content>) to the kind of epistemic merits possessed above all by demonstrations. This saves Aristotle from an implausible generalisation about the persuasive supremacy of deductive arguments. Since <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">πίστεις</jats:styled-content> are clearly central to Aristotelian rhetoric, this interpretation also lends support to the more normative understanding of Aristotle’s project overall.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"154 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-19DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10195
John Henry
Another identification for the author of the Derveni papyrus has been suggested: the fifth-century BCE sophist Prodicus of Ceos. Producing over 18 testimonia, Lebedev argues that the Derveni papyrus and the thought of Prodicus agree on many points that have previously been disregarded, including their linguistic approach and cosmological doctrines. On the basis of this evidence, it is suggested that Prodicus wrote the Derveni papyrus as an atheistic polemic and a sophistic deconstruction of popular religion. However, this article will suggest that the testimonia does not establish the case, and consequently the authorship of the Derveni papyrus remains undetermined.
{"title":"On Prodicus and the Derveni Papyrus","authors":"John Henry","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10195","url":null,"abstract":"Another identification for the author of the Derveni papyrus has been suggested: the fifth-century <jats:sc>BCE</jats:sc> sophist Prodicus of Ceos. Producing over 18 testimonia, Lebedev argues that the Derveni papyrus and the thought of Prodicus agree on many points that have previously been disregarded, including their linguistic approach and cosmological doctrines. On the basis of this evidence, it is suggested that Prodicus wrote the Derveni papyrus as an atheistic polemic and a sophistic deconstruction of popular religion. However, this article will suggest that the testimonia does not establish the case, and consequently the authorship of the Derveni papyrus remains undetermined.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号