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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2024-01-19DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10194
Joel Gordon
This paper considers the narrative significance of localization in Homer’s Odyssey, in particular singular places that are associated with multiple spaces (identified here as dual localization). Our reading posits that spatial features hold narrative significance and, once uncovered, this resolves ‘problematic’ issues that may arise from spatial paradoxes. The chosen case study is the Odyssean land of the Ethiopians with its twin dual localization: (1) it is located simultaneously at the eastern and western peripheries of the world while also located singularly ‘with Poseidon’; and (2) this peripheral localization contrasts with a later ‘real world’ setting in Egypt/North Africa. While this people’s localization has been the subject of prior study, this paper presents a novel analysis: these localizations serve a characterizing function which, in turn, relates to the thematic function of Menelaus’ embedded narrative as foreshadowing the primary narrative of Odysseus’ nostos.
{"title":"‘Solving’ the Paradox of the Odyssean Ethiopians’ Twin Dual Localization","authors":"Joel Gordon","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10194","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the narrative significance of localization in Homer’s <jats:italic>Odyssey</jats:italic>, in particular singular places that are associated with multiple spaces (identified here as dual localization). Our reading posits that spatial features hold narrative significance and, once uncovered, this resolves ‘problematic’ issues that may arise from spatial paradoxes. The chosen case study is the Odyssean land of the Ethiopians with its twin dual localization: (1) it is located simultaneously at the eastern and western peripheries of the world while also located singularly ‘with Poseidon’; and (2) this peripheral localization contrasts with a later ‘real world’ setting in Egypt/North Africa. While this people’s localization has been the subject of prior study, this paper presents a novel analysis: these localizations serve a characterizing function which, in turn, relates to the thematic function of Menelaus’ embedded narrative as foreshadowing the primary narrative of Odysseus’ <jats:italic>nostos</jats:italic>.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516394","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 : 2024-01-03DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10209
Gerard J. Pendrick
{"title":"A Note on Anonymus Iamblichi 2.7","authors":"Gerard J. Pendrick","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10209","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139630554","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 : 2024-01-03DOI: 10.1163/1568525x-bja10214
Alexandra Madeła
The late antique De excidio Troiae historia, supposedly written by a soldier in the Trojan War, Dares the Phrygian, encourages the reader to consult a work called Argonautae. This article discusses three possibilities of how to understand this reference—it could either be a comment by the real author of this pseudonymous work, or the supposed translator Nepos, or the ostensible author Dares. It argues that audiences in antiquity were familiar with the idea of literature written prior to the Trojan War, and debates the possibility that the Trojan Dares might refer to a poem about the Argonauts which was composed by the mythical Orpheus. It comes to the conclusion that the reference is intentionally ambiguous.
{"title":"Qui volunt eos cognoscere, Argonautas legant","authors":"Alexandra Madeła","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10214","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The late antique De excidio Troiae historia, supposedly written by a soldier in the Trojan War, Dares the Phrygian, encourages the reader to consult a work called Argonautae. This article discusses three possibilities of how to understand this reference—it could either be a comment by the real author of this pseudonymous work, or the supposed translator Nepos, or the ostensible author Dares. It argues that audiences in antiquity were familiar with the idea of literature written prior to the Trojan War, and debates the possibility that the Trojan Dares might refer to a poem about the Argonauts which was composed by the mythical Orpheus. It comes to the conclusion that the reference is intentionally ambiguous.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139630683","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}
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：