Pub Date : 2016-04-20DOI: 10.1017/S0009838816000264
Luis Rivero García
Among the manuscripts of Ovid's Metamorphoses used by N. Heinsius (1620–1681) and as yet unidentified or given up for lost is the so-called fragmentum Caesenas (Cs), the collation of which was not carried out by Heinsius himself but provided for him by the Hamburg jurist Lucas Langermann (1625–1686), who was a correspondent of Heinsius, Gronovius and Vossius, among others. According to M.D. Reeve, he was also responsible for adding these notes, using the siglum c, to Oxon. Bodl. Auct. S.V.5, which also includes the collations—by another hand—of A (= Vrbinas ueterrimus, our V2) and B (= Berneggerianus, our P2). The variants provided by this fragment affect lines 9.235–11.169 and 13.1–403, although this does not imply that these were the exact limits of its content, as we shall see below. Some of these variants ended up in the notes of the editions by Heinsius himself and by those who continued his work (the most prominent example being the admirable edition of Ovid by P. Burman, in 1727), and it was D.A. Slater who rescued the collation of Bodl. Auct. S.V.5 from obscurity when he included the greater part of the readings of c (the siglum he himself retains) among the rich store of information presented in his work. F. Munari included the fragment in his catalogue, clearly pointing to the uncertainty surrounding its dating (‘aetatis incertae’, the same expression as used by Slater) while adding the information that it was not at that time to be found in Cesena. The succinct information offered by Slater is used by I. Marahrens for her dissertation and by W.S. Anderson for his edition. R.J. Tarrant, in turn, explicitly states that the fragment is now lost. In the following pages, however, I will attempt to show that this fragment is not lost, but still preserved in the Biblioteca Malatestiana in Cesena.
{"title":"N. HEINSIUS'S FRAGMENTVM CAESENAS OF OVID'S METAMORPHOSES REDISCOVERED 1","authors":"Luis Rivero García","doi":"10.1017/S0009838816000264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838816000264","url":null,"abstract":"Among the manuscripts of Ovid's Metamorphoses used by N. Heinsius (1620–1681) and as yet unidentified or given up for lost is the so-called fragmentum Caesenas (Cs), the collation of which was not carried out by Heinsius himself but provided for him by the Hamburg jurist Lucas Langermann (1625–1686), who was a correspondent of Heinsius, Gronovius and Vossius, among others. According to M.D. Reeve, he was also responsible for adding these notes, using the siglum c, to Oxon. Bodl. Auct. S.V.5, which also includes the collations—by another hand—of A (= Vrbinas ueterrimus, our V2) and B (= Berneggerianus, our P2). The variants provided by this fragment affect lines 9.235–11.169 and 13.1–403, although this does not imply that these were the exact limits of its content, as we shall see below. Some of these variants ended up in the notes of the editions by Heinsius himself and by those who continued his work (the most prominent example being the admirable edition of Ovid by P. Burman, in 1727), and it was D.A. Slater who rescued the collation of Bodl. Auct. S.V.5 from obscurity when he included the greater part of the readings of c (the siglum he himself retains) among the rich store of information presented in his work. F. Munari included the fragment in his catalogue, clearly pointing to the uncertainty surrounding its dating (‘aetatis incertae’, the same expression as used by Slater) while adding the information that it was not at that time to be found in Cesena. The succinct information offered by Slater is used by I. Marahrens for her dissertation and by W.S. Anderson for his edition. R.J. Tarrant, in turn, explicitly states that the fragment is now lost. In the following pages, however, I will attempt to show that this fragment is not lost, but still preserved in the Biblioteca Malatestiana in Cesena.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838816000264","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743990","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 : 2015-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0009838815000154
Sarah Burges Watson
In chapter 12 of Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche describes Socrates as the new Orpheus, who rises up against Dionysus and murders tragedy: … in league with Socrates, Euripides dared to be the herald of a new kind of artistic creation. If this caused the older tragedy to perish, then aesthetic Socratism is the murderous principle; but in so far as the fight was directed against the Dionysiac nature of the older art, we may identify Socrates as the opponent of Dionysos, the new Orpheus who rises up against Dionysos and who, although fated to be torn apart by the maenads of the Athenian court of justice, nevertheless forces the great and mighty god himself to flee. As before, when he fled from Lycurgus, King of the Edonians, Dionysos now sought refuge in the depths of the sea, namely in the mystical waters of a secret cult which gradually spread across the entire world. (Trans. R. Speirs) (Cambridge, 1999), 64
{"title":"MOUSIKÊ AND MYSTERIES: A NIETZSCHEAN READING OF AESCHYLUS’ BASSARIDES","authors":"Sarah Burges Watson","doi":"10.1017/S0009838815000154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838815000154","url":null,"abstract":"In chapter 12 of Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche describes Socrates as the new Orpheus, who rises up against Dionysus and murders tragedy: … in league with Socrates, Euripides dared to be the herald of a new kind of artistic creation. If this caused the older tragedy to perish, then aesthetic Socratism is the murderous principle; but in so far as the fight was directed against the Dionysiac nature of the older art, we may identify Socrates as the opponent of Dionysos, the new Orpheus who rises up against Dionysos and who, although fated to be torn apart by the maenads of the Athenian court of justice, nevertheless forces the great and mighty god himself to flee. As before, when he fled from Lycurgus, King of the Edonians, Dionysos now sought refuge in the depths of the sea, namely in the mystical waters of a secret cult which gradually spread across the entire world. (Trans. R. Speirs) (Cambridge, 1999), 64","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838815000154","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743966","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 : 2015-04-02DOI: 10.1017/S0009838814000019
W. D. De melo
In this contribution I wish to tackle two corruptions in Book 7 of Varro's De lingua Latina that have hitherto gone unnoticed or been corrected inadequately.
在这篇文章中，我希望解决瓦罗的《拉丁语》第7卷中的两个迄今未被注意或未得到充分纠正的错误。
{"title":"TWO TEXTUAL PROBLEMS IN BOOK 7 OF VARRO'S DE LINGVA LATINA*","authors":"W. D. De melo","doi":"10.1017/S0009838814000019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838814000019","url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution I wish to tackle two corruptions in Book 7 of Varro's De lingua Latina that have hitherto gone unnoticed or been corrected inadequately.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2015-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838814000019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743911","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 : 2014-11-20DOI: 10.1017/S0009838814000159
M. G. García Ruiz
In a well-known article, Hodnett pointed out that Virgil emphasizes the peacefulness and quiet of the sea, its immensity and limitlessness, in contrast to the view articulated by the Roman poets of the Republic, which presents the sea as deceptive and fearsome. Among the many terms used in the Aeneid to denote the sea, aequor stands out precisely because it is the term most frequently used by Virgil in place of the word mare.
{"title":"AEQVOR: THE SEA OF PROPHECIES IN VIRGIL'S AENEID*","authors":"M. G. García Ruiz","doi":"10.1017/S0009838814000159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838814000159","url":null,"abstract":"In a well-known article, Hodnett pointed out that Virgil emphasizes the peacefulness and quiet of the sea, its immensity and limitlessness, in contrast to the view articulated by the Roman poets of the Republic, which presents the sea as deceptive and fearsome. Among the many terms used in the Aeneid to denote the sea, aequor stands out precisely because it is the term most frequently used by Virgil in place of the word mare.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838814000159","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743917","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 : 2014-11-20DOI: 10.1017/S0009838814000457
S. L. van der Pas
Euclid famously stated that there is no royal road to geometry, but his use of δή does give an indication of the minimum level of knowledge and understanding which he required from his audience. The aim of this article is to gain insight into his interaction with his audience through a characterization of the use of δή in the Elements. I will argue that the primary use of δή indicates a lively interaction between Euclid and his audience. Furthermore, the specific contexts in which δή occurs reveal the considerable mathematical competence that Euclid expected from his audience.
{"title":"THE NORMAL ROAD TO GEOMETRY: δή IN EUCLID'S ELEMENTS AND THE MATHEMATICAL COMPETENCE OF HIS AUDIENCE*","authors":"S. L. van der Pas","doi":"10.1017/S0009838814000457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838814000457","url":null,"abstract":"Euclid famously stated that there is no royal road to geometry, but his use of δή does give an indication of the minimum level of knowledge and understanding which he required from his audience. The aim of this article is to gain insight into his interaction with his audience through a characterization of the use of δή in the Elements. I will argue that the primary use of δή indicates a lively interaction between Euclid and his audience. Furthermore, the specific contexts in which δή occurs reveal the considerable mathematical competence that Euclid expected from his audience.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838814000457","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743927","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 : 2014-04-16DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000736
Christopher S. van den Berg
Tacitus' Dialogus de oratoribus (c. 100 c.e.) may be the most perplexing of the extant Roman dialogues, quite possibly, of the entire Greco-Roman tradition. Despite advances in the rhetorical and literary appreciation of ancient dialogues, this text continues to elude understanding. Oddly, the difficulties stem neither from obscurities of subject matter and presentation nor from any anomalism vis-à-vis the norms of the genre. Six compelling speeches lucidly detail the value, history and development of eloquentia (‘skilled speech’) from the perspective of the late first and early second centuries c.e. They provide convincing accounts of rhetoric and its evolution: the social and political efficacy of eloquentia (Marcus Aper's and Curiatius Maternus' prescriptions on how best to assert oneself with and against the powerful, and the famous yet notoriously tumultuous oratory of the Late Republic), evaluative categories for rhetoric, including the competing discourses that prized renown and canonical status (Vipstanus Messalla's praise of the ancients), or external and absolute aesthetic criteria; and lastly, exemplary instances (e.g. past luminaries) or suitable models for imitation (ancient and modern orators and poets). The richness of these diverse emphases, along with the complex and ambiguous reworking of literary forerunners, not to mention the open-endedness at the work's conclusion, all conspire against the expectation of a uniform message.
{"title":"INTRATEXT, DECLAMATION AND DRAMATIC ARGUMENT IN TACITUS' DIALOGUS DE ORATORIBUS","authors":"Christopher S. van den Berg","doi":"10.1017/S0009838813000736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838813000736","url":null,"abstract":"Tacitus' Dialogus de oratoribus (c. 100 c.e.) may be the most perplexing of the extant Roman dialogues, quite possibly, of the entire Greco-Roman tradition. Despite advances in the rhetorical and literary appreciation of ancient dialogues, this text continues to elude understanding. Oddly, the difficulties stem neither from obscurities of subject matter and presentation nor from any anomalism vis-à-vis the norms of the genre. Six compelling speeches lucidly detail the value, history and development of eloquentia (‘skilled speech’) from the perspective of the late first and early second centuries c.e. They provide convincing accounts of rhetoric and its evolution: the social and political efficacy of eloquentia (Marcus Aper's and Curiatius Maternus' prescriptions on how best to assert oneself with and against the powerful, and the famous yet notoriously tumultuous oratory of the Late Republic), evaluative categories for rhetoric, including the competing discourses that prized renown and canonical status (Vipstanus Messalla's praise of the ancients), or external and absolute aesthetic criteria; and lastly, exemplary instances (e.g. past luminaries) or suitable models for imitation (ancient and modern orators and poets). The richness of these diverse emphases, along with the complex and ambiguous reworking of literary forerunners, not to mention the open-endedness at the work's conclusion, all conspire against the expectation of a uniform message.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838813000736","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743488","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 : 2014-04-16DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000761
Peter van Nuffelen
Galen's stories about his successes in predicting the development of an illness belong to the best-known anecdotes drawn from his writings. Brilliant pieces of self-presentation, they set Galen apart from his peers, who tried to cover up their ignorance by levelling accusations of magic and divination against their superior colleague. These accusations are usually interpreted as very real threats, as Roman law punished illicit magic and divination. Pointing out that Galen sometimes likes to present himself as a mantis and a prophet, others have suggested that the accusations against Galen and his own self-presentation indicate that the border line between medicine and religion was still fluid. Both approaches correctly draw attention to the social reality that the accusations betray: they suggest that Galen belongs to a group of healers of dubious standing that populated the empire and thus show that medicine did not have a monopoly on healing. Yet such a socio-historical approach may not be sufficient. For one thing, both explanations have their limitations. Regarding the former, it can be said that Augustus' prohibition of divination aimed at controlling prediction about the emperor and one can doubt that a widespread clampdown of all forms of divination ever was intended. A possible objection to the second view is that throughout his oeuvre Galen emphasizes his medicine as a rational undertaking, even as a science (epistêmê). If one takes his self-presentation as a mantis to be more than metaphorical and to indicate the not yet fully crystallized identity of medicine as a separate scientific discipline, then Galen's usual way of understanding his own craft as a ‘science’ is in need of explanation. Besides such possible objections, a different set of questions still needs to be asked: why precisely were accusations of practising magic and divination levelled against Galen and why do they recur so frequently in his writings? Why divination and not, say, poisoning?
{"title":"GALEN, DIVINATION AND THE STATUS OF MEDICINE1","authors":"Peter van Nuffelen","doi":"10.1017/S0009838813000761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838813000761","url":null,"abstract":"Galen's stories about his successes in predicting the development of an illness belong to the best-known anecdotes drawn from his writings. Brilliant pieces of self-presentation, they set Galen apart from his peers, who tried to cover up their ignorance by levelling accusations of magic and divination against their superior colleague. These accusations are usually interpreted as very real threats, as Roman law punished illicit magic and divination. Pointing out that Galen sometimes likes to present himself as a mantis and a prophet, others have suggested that the accusations against Galen and his own self-presentation indicate that the border line between medicine and religion was still fluid. Both approaches correctly draw attention to the social reality that the accusations betray: they suggest that Galen belongs to a group of healers of dubious standing that populated the empire and thus show that medicine did not have a monopoly on healing. Yet such a socio-historical approach may not be sufficient. For one thing, both explanations have their limitations. Regarding the former, it can be said that Augustus' prohibition of divination aimed at controlling prediction about the emperor and one can doubt that a widespread clampdown of all forms of divination ever was intended. A possible objection to the second view is that throughout his oeuvre Galen emphasizes his medicine as a rational undertaking, even as a science (epistêmê). If one takes his self-presentation as a mantis to be more than metaphorical and to indicate the not yet fully crystallized identity of medicine as a separate scientific discipline, then Galen's usual way of understanding his own craft as a ‘science’ is in need of explanation. Besides such possible objections, a different set of questions still needs to be asked: why precisely were accusations of practising magic and divination levelled against Galen and why do they recur so frequently in his writings? Why divination and not, say, poisoning?","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838813000761","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743537","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 : 2014-04-16DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000773
R. M. van den Berg
In their introduction to the recent excellent volume Plato & Hesiod, the editors G.R. Boys-Stones and J.H. Haubold observe that when we think about the problematic relationship between Plato and the poets, we tend to narrow this down to that between Plato and Homer. Hesiod is practically ignored. Unjustly so, the editors argue. Hesiod provides a good opportunity to start thinking more broadly about Plato's interaction with poets and poetry, not in the least because the ‘second poet’ of Greece represents a different type of poetry from Homer's heroic epics, that of didactic poetry. What goes for Plato and Hesiod goes for Proclus and Hesiod. Proclus (a.d. 410/12–85), the productive head of the Neoplatonic school in Athens, took a great interest in poetry to which he was far more positively disposed than Plato had ever been. He wrote, for example, two lengthy treatises in reaction to Socrates' devastating criticism of poetry in the Republic as part of his commentary on that work in which he tries to keep the poets within the Platonic pale. This intriguing aspect of Proclus' thought has, as one might expect, not failed to attract scholarly attention. In Proclus' case too, however, discussions tend to concentrate on his attitude towards Homer (one need only think here of Robert Lamberton's stimulating book Homer the Theologian). To some extent this is only to be expected, since much of the discussion in the Commentary on the Republic centres on passages from Homer. Proclus did not, however, disregard Hesiod: we still possess his scholia on the Works and Days, now available in a recent edition by Patrizia Marzillo.
{"title":"PROCLUS ON HESIOD'S WORKS AND DAYS AND ‘DIDACTIC’ POETRY","authors":"R. M. van den Berg","doi":"10.1017/S0009838813000773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838813000773","url":null,"abstract":"In their introduction to the recent excellent volume Plato & Hesiod, the editors G.R. Boys-Stones and J.H. Haubold observe that when we think about the problematic relationship between Plato and the poets, we tend to narrow this down to that between Plato and Homer. Hesiod is practically ignored. Unjustly so, the editors argue. Hesiod provides a good opportunity to start thinking more broadly about Plato's interaction with poets and poetry, not in the least because the ‘second poet’ of Greece represents a different type of poetry from Homer's heroic epics, that of didactic poetry. What goes for Plato and Hesiod goes for Proclus and Hesiod. Proclus (a.d. 410/12–85), the productive head of the Neoplatonic school in Athens, took a great interest in poetry to which he was far more positively disposed than Plato had ever been. He wrote, for example, two lengthy treatises in reaction to Socrates' devastating criticism of poetry in the Republic as part of his commentary on that work in which he tries to keep the poets within the Platonic pale. This intriguing aspect of Proclus' thought has, as one might expect, not failed to attract scholarly attention. In Proclus' case too, however, discussions tend to concentrate on his attitude towards Homer (one need only think here of Robert Lamberton's stimulating book Homer the Theologian). To some extent this is only to be expected, since much of the discussion in the Commentary on the Republic centres on passages from Homer. Proclus did not, however, disregard Hesiod: we still possess his scholia on the Works and Days, now available in a recent edition by Patrizia Marzillo.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838813000773","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743900","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 : 2013-11-08DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000207
Irene Pajón Leyra
The ancient sources tell a particular story about the destiny of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus after Theophrastus' death. According to information provided mainly by Strabo and Plutarch, the texts produced by the Peripatetic school were lost and unavailable during a period of more than two hundred years, from the time of Neleus, the heir of Theophrastus' library, until Sulla's victory in Athens, in 86 b.c., at the end of his campaign against Mithridates. That was the point at which the private library of a famous bibliophile was confiscated: Apellicon of Teos, who at some time at the beginning of the first century b.c. had acquired the autograph papyri that contained the only copies of Aristotle's and his disciple's works. Sulla, so these sources maintain, recovered then for later generations the so-called ‘esoteric writings’ of Aristotle, and this prepared the ground for the general diffusion of Aristotelian thought, and for the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, whose name has gone down in history as the author of the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Corpus.
{"title":"THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS AND THE RHODIAN TRADITION: NEW LIGHT FROM POSIDONIUS ON THE TRANSMISSION OF ARISTOTLE'S WORKS*","authors":"Irene Pajón Leyra","doi":"10.1017/S0009838813000207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838813000207","url":null,"abstract":"The ancient sources tell a particular story about the destiny of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus after Theophrastus' death. According to information provided mainly by Strabo and Plutarch, the texts produced by the Peripatetic school were lost and unavailable during a period of more than two hundred years, from the time of Neleus, the heir of Theophrastus' library, until Sulla's victory in Athens, in 86 b.c., at the end of his campaign against Mithridates. That was the point at which the private library of a famous bibliophile was confiscated: Apellicon of Teos, who at some time at the beginning of the first century b.c. had acquired the autograph papyri that contained the only copies of Aristotle's and his disciple's works. Sulla, so these sources maintain, recovered then for later generations the so-called ‘esoteric writings’ of Aristotle, and this prepared the ground for the general diffusion of Aristotelian thought, and for the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, whose name has gone down in history as the author of the editio princeps of the Aristotelian Corpus.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838813000207","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"56743433","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：