Pub Date : 2006-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S1750270500000464
Laurel Fulkerson
Sophocles' Philoctetes , first performed in 409 BCE, is a complex play, engaging with a number of issues that have guaranteed it a great deal of attention through the ages. Among other things, from what we know about the Aeschylean and Euripidean versions, Sophocles offers a far more dynamic work than either of the other two playwrights, involving many plot twists, false resolutions, and, all-but uniquely, a character who seems to grow up in the course of the play. Although Philoctetes is generally considered the key figure of the play, as it revolves around his willingness to use his bow in the service of his enemies, Neoptolemus too is of great interest to many (modern) readers, as it is in him that we see the clearest case in extant tragedy of a decision rethought on moral grounds; Neoptolemus' struggle may well render him one of the most compelling characters in Greek tragedy (Reinhardt (1979) 166; cf. Gill (1996) 1–18).
{"title":"Neoptolemus grows up? 'Moral development' and the interpretation of sophocles' Philoctetes","authors":"Laurel Fulkerson","doi":"10.1017/S1750270500000464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1750270500000464","url":null,"abstract":"Sophocles' Philoctetes , first performed in 409 BCE, is a complex play, engaging with a number of issues that have guaranteed it a great deal of attention through the ages. Among other things, from what we know about the Aeschylean and Euripidean versions, Sophocles offers a far more dynamic work than either of the other two playwrights, involving many plot twists, false resolutions, and, all-but uniquely, a character who seems to grow up in the course of the play. Although Philoctetes is generally considered the key figure of the play, as it revolves around his willingness to use his bow in the service of his enemies, Neoptolemus too is of great interest to many (modern) readers, as it is in him that we see the clearest case in extant tragedy of a decision rethought on moral grounds; Neoptolemus' struggle may well render him one of the most compelling characters in Greek tragedy (Reinhardt (1979) 166; cf. Gill (1996) 1–18).","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":"49-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1750270500000464","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57010236","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 : 2006-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S1750270500000488
R. Thompson
§1. Common Greek inherited from proto-Indo-European a simple five vowel system as shown in (1), with one mid vowel on each of the front and back axes. Only the long vowel system is shown here; the short vowel system had the same structure. The inherited system was inherently stable: there was balance between the short and long vowel systems and between the front and back axes, and with only one mid vowel on each axis, there was no problem of overcrowding. The individual phonemes were, so far as we can tell, optimally distributed in the available phonological space. (The diagram shows the back axis as being shorter than the front, since anatomical constraints mean there is less articulatory space at the back of the mouth; see Laver (1994)272–3).
{"title":"Long mid vowels in attic-ionic and cretan","authors":"R. Thompson","doi":"10.1017/S1750270500000488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1750270500000488","url":null,"abstract":"§1. Common Greek inherited from proto-Indo-European a simple five vowel system as shown in (1), with one mid vowel on each of the front and back axes. Only the long vowel system is shown here; the short vowel system had the same structure. The inherited system was inherently stable: there was balance between the short and long vowel systems and between the front and back axes, and with only one mid vowel on each axis, there was no problem of overcrowding. The individual phonemes were, so far as we can tell, optimally distributed in the available phonological space. (The diagram shows the back axis as being shorter than the front, since anatomical constraints mean there is less articulatory space at the back of the mouth; see Laver (1994)272–3).","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"200 1","pages":"81-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1750270500000488","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57010247","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 : 2004-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500001073
Fiona Hobden
Xenophon's Symposium lies at a confluence between two trends in modern scholarship. On the one hand, its author and his writings have recently attracted a resurgence in interest and credibility. No longer is Xenophon regarded as merely a ‘literary dilettante’, a dull, unimaginative and ultimately incompetent philosopher, or a conservative gentleman of the British old school. He is rather a political radical, an innovator in literary form, and the defender of a ‘trendy and shocking philosopher’. In this vein, his Symposium has been rescued from condemnation as a poor imitation of Plato's dialogue of the same name. No modern reader of Xenophon's work would go so far as Eunapius in declaring its writer to be ‘the only man out of all the philosophers to adorn philosophy in word and deed’. Yet, as Huss's comprehensive commentary has shown, the Symposium is much more than the product of an amateur philosopher and writer. It is a work of considerable complexity which draws on a variety of literary influences beyond Plato's Symposium , mixing seriousness with jest in order to explore, among other issues, beauty and desire.
{"title":"How to be a good symposiast and other lessons from Xenophon's symposium","authors":"Fiona Hobden","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500001073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500001073","url":null,"abstract":"Xenophon's Symposium lies at a confluence between two trends in modern scholarship. On the one hand, its author and his writings have recently attracted a resurgence in interest and credibility. No longer is Xenophon regarded as merely a ‘literary dilettante’, a dull, unimaginative and ultimately incompetent philosopher, or a conservative gentleman of the British old school. He is rather a political radical, an innovator in literary form, and the defender of a ‘trendy and shocking philosopher’. In this vein, his Symposium has been rescued from condemnation as a poor imitation of Plato's dialogue of the same name. No modern reader of Xenophon's work would go so far as Eunapius in declaring its writer to be ‘the only man out of all the philosophers to adorn philosophy in word and deed’. Yet, as Huss's comprehensive commentary has shown, the Symposium is much more than the product of an amateur philosopher and writer. It is a work of considerable complexity which draws on a variety of literary influences beyond Plato's Symposium , mixing seriousness with jest in order to explore, among other issues, beauty and desire.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"50 1","pages":"121-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500001073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323536","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 : 2004-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500001061
Elton T. E. Barker
Debate in the Iliad – what form it takes, what significance that might have, whether or not it even exists – has been a matter of some controversy. One approach has been to examine debate in terms of a formal social context and to extrapolate from this some kind of political or – according to other accounts – pre-political community that the Iliad preserves. Scholars have, however come up with very different ideas about how to describe that society, how to interpret that depiction, or whether such attempts are even fruitful. An alternative approach focuses on the form of the speeches and analyses them as the production of thesis and antithesis: in these terms the cut-and-thrust of debate is understood as a form of proto-rhetorical theory. All this seems far removed from debate as it is represented in the narrative, which is the subject of this paper. I begin with four preliminary propositions. Previous approaches have tended to homogenise different scenes of debate, with little regard to differences in structure or context.
{"title":"Achilles' last stand: Institutionalising dissent in Homer's Iliad","authors":"Elton T. E. Barker","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500001061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500001061","url":null,"abstract":"Debate in the Iliad – what form it takes, what significance that might have, whether or not it even exists – has been a matter of some controversy. One approach has been to examine debate in terms of a formal social context and to extrapolate from this some kind of political or – according to other accounts – pre-political community that the Iliad preserves. Scholars have, however come up with very different ideas about how to describe that society, how to interpret that depiction, or whether such attempts are even fruitful. An alternative approach focuses on the form of the speeches and analyses them as the production of thesis and antithesis: in these terms the cut-and-thrust of debate is understood as a form of proto-rhetorical theory. All this seems far removed from debate as it is represented in the narrative, which is the subject of this paper. I begin with four preliminary propositions. Previous approaches have tended to homogenise different scenes of debate, with little regard to differences in structure or context.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"50 1","pages":"92-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500001061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323527","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 : 2004-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500001036
F. Budelmann
This article is concerned with West-African plays (all written in the last 50 years) drawing on Greek sources. It discusses the plays both in their own contexts and from the perspective of classicists and audiences in the West.
{"title":"Greek tragedies in West African adaptations","authors":"F. Budelmann","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500001036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500001036","url":null,"abstract":"This article is concerned with West-African plays (all written in the last 50 years) drawing on Greek sources. It discusses the plays both in their own contexts and from the perspective of classicists and audiences in the West.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"50 1","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500001036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323518","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 : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500000924
Sara Owen
This article involves a case-study of one of the most generally accepted literary accounts of a Greek settlement abroad – the Greek colonisation of Thasos. Here, according to the generally accepted account, we have an eye-witness, Archilochos, son of the oikist , who actually settled on Thasos not during the first Greek settlement but during a subsequent wave of settlers. He didn't like it much – he calls it ‘thrice-wretched’ (228W), the settlers were the dregs of Greece (102W), the island looked like the back of an ass (21W), it wasn't pretty like Sybaris in Italy (22W), and the Thracians were described as ‘dogs’ (93aW). Fighting between Greeks and Thracians is portrayed (5W). The archaeological evidence for the first period of Greek settlement on Thasos is scarce, but what there is has been marshalled in support of this literary model. Archaeology's main role has been to be used in chronological disputes. The orthodoxy dates the Parian colonisation to 680 BC, arguing that the Delphic oracle concerning the foundation of Thasos has Archilochos' father as oikist. The subject-matter of several of the poems has allowed Archilochos' poetry to be dated to 650 BC, and therefore the colonisation of Thasos to a generation before. Pouilloux (1964), indeed, has used the archaeological evidence from a house in the lowest levels of Thasos town to argue for this early date for the Parian settlement, seeing the ‘Thracian’ (and distinctly un-Cycladic) character of many of the finds as indicative of a certain amount of interaction between Parians and Thracians in the first generation of the colony.
{"title":"Of dogs and men: Archilochos, archaeology and the greek settlement of Thasos","authors":"Sara Owen","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500000924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500000924","url":null,"abstract":"This article involves a case-study of one of the most generally accepted literary accounts of a Greek settlement abroad – the Greek colonisation of Thasos. Here, according to the generally accepted account, we have an eye-witness, Archilochos, son of the oikist , who actually settled on Thasos not during the first Greek settlement but during a subsequent wave of settlers. He didn't like it much – he calls it ‘thrice-wretched’ (228W), the settlers were the dregs of Greece (102W), the island looked like the back of an ass (21W), it wasn't pretty like Sybaris in Italy (22W), and the Thracians were described as ‘dogs’ (93aW). Fighting between Greeks and Thracians is portrayed (5W). The archaeological evidence for the first period of Greek settlement on Thasos is scarce, but what there is has been marshalled in support of this literary model. Archaeology's main role has been to be used in chronological disputes. The orthodoxy dates the Parian colonisation to 680 BC, arguing that the Delphic oracle concerning the foundation of Thasos has Archilochos' father as oikist. The subject-matter of several of the poems has allowed Archilochos' poetry to be dated to 650 BC, and therefore the colonisation of Thasos to a generation before. Pouilloux (1964), indeed, has used the archaeological evidence from a house in the lowest levels of Thasos town to argue for this early date for the Parian settlement, seeing the ‘Thracian’ (and distinctly un-Cycladic) character of many of the finds as indicative of a certain amount of interaction between Parians and Thracians in the first generation of the colony.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500000924","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323457","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 : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500000936
A. Laird
Past responses to ancient literature and the reading practices of previous centuries are of central relevance to the contemporary exegesis of Greek and Roman authors. Professional classicists have at last come to recognise this. However, accounts of reception still tend to engage in a traditional form of Nachleben , as they unselfconsciously describe the extent of classical influences on later literary production. This process of influence is not as straightforward as it may first seem. It is often taken for granted in practice, if not in theory, that the movement is in one direction only – from antiquity to some later point - and also that the ancient text which ‘impacts on’ on the culture of a later period is the same ancient text that we apprehend today. Of course it is never the same text, even leaving aside the problems of transmission. The interaction between a text and its reception in another place, in another time, in another text, is really a dynamic two-way process. That interaction (which has much in common with intertextuality) involves, or is rather constituted by, our own interpretation of it.
{"title":"Roman Epic Theatre? Reception, performance, and the poet in Virgil's Aeneid","authors":"A. Laird","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500000936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500000936","url":null,"abstract":"Past responses to ancient literature and the reading practices of previous centuries are of central relevance to the contemporary exegesis of Greek and Roman authors. Professional classicists have at last come to recognise this. However, accounts of reception still tend to engage in a traditional form of Nachleben , as they unselfconsciously describe the extent of classical influences on later literary production. This process of influence is not as straightforward as it may first seem. It is often taken for granted in practice, if not in theory, that the movement is in one direction only – from antiquity to some later point - and also that the ancient text which ‘impacts on’ on the culture of a later period is the same ancient text that we apprehend today. Of course it is never the same text, even leaving aside the problems of transmission. The interaction between a text and its reception in another place, in another time, in another text, is really a dynamic two-way process. That interaction (which has much in common with intertextuality) involves, or is rather constituted by, our own interpretation of it.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"19-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500000936","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323461","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 : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500000985
M. Leonard
The Freudian engagement with the classical world represents one of the most important and intriguing episodes in the ongoing dialogue between antiquity and modernity. That Freud returned to antiquity to formulate his revolutionary theories of the human mind should strike classicists and psychoanalysts alike as a fascinating enigma. And yet classicists have to a large extent given short shrift to this issue. They have not only shown themselves indifferent to the question of why Freud takes the ancient world as the starting-point for his examination of modern man, they have also, by and large, rejected psychoanalysis as a methodological tool for providing insights into the classical world. Even those classicists who are most open to the benefits of contemporary theory have largely isolated psychoanalysis as a uniquely inappropriate methodology for understanding antiquity. So, for instance, those classicists who display an interest in the complex series of discourses and practices which surround the construction of the ancient self have explicitly distanced their analyses from the insights of psychoanalysis. Thus in Christopher Gill's 500-page work on ‘Personality’ in Greek culture, Freud gets a mere three perfunctory citations.
弗洛伊德与古典世界的接触代表了古代与现代之间正在进行的对话中最重要和最有趣的情节之一。弗洛伊德回到古代，形成了他关于人类心灵的革命性理论，这应该会让古典主义者和精神分析学家都觉得是一个迷人的谜。然而，古典主义者在很大程度上对这个问题置之不理。他们不仅表现出对弗洛伊德为什么把古代世界作为他研究现代人的起点的问题漠不关心，而且总的来说，他们也拒绝把精神分析作为一种提供对古典世界的洞察的方法论工具。即使是那些对当代理论的好处持最开放态度的古典主义者，也在很大程度上把精神分析作为一种独特的不合适的方法来理解古代。因此，例如，那些对围绕古代自我构建的一系列复杂的话语和实践表现出兴趣的古典主义者，已经明确地将他们的分析与精神分析的见解拉开了距离。因此，在克里斯托弗•吉尔(Christopher Gill)长达500页的著作《希腊文化中的人格》(Personality in Greek culture)中，弗洛伊德仅被敷衍地引用了三次。
{"title":"Antigone, the political and the ethics of psychoanalysis","authors":"M. Leonard","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500000985","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500000985","url":null,"abstract":"The Freudian engagement with the classical world represents one of the most important and intriguing episodes in the ongoing dialogue between antiquity and modernity. That Freud returned to antiquity to formulate his revolutionary theories of the human mind should strike classicists and psychoanalysts alike as a fascinating enigma. And yet classicists have to a large extent given short shrift to this issue. They have not only shown themselves indifferent to the question of why Freud takes the ancient world as the starting-point for his examination of modern man, they have also, by and large, rejected psychoanalysis as a methodological tool for providing insights into the classical world. Even those classicists who are most open to the benefits of contemporary theory have largely isolated psychoanalysis as a uniquely inappropriate methodology for understanding antiquity. So, for instance, those classicists who display an interest in the complex series of discourses and practices which surround the construction of the ancient self have explicitly distanced their analyses from the insights of psychoanalysis. Thus in Christopher Gill's 500-page work on ‘Personality’ in Greek culture, Freud gets a mere three perfunctory citations.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"130-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500000985","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323507","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 : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500000961
T. Duff
Almost four decades ago, Donald Russell published in this journal an analysis of the first sixteen chapters of the Life of Alkibiades , which consist largely of short self-contained anecdotes about Alkibiades' childhood, youth and early career (Russell 1966b). As Russell demonstrated, most of these anecdotes are juxtaposed without any causal link. Although there are the occasional chronological markers – indications, for example, that Alkibiades is getting older and passing from childhood to early manhood – some are plainly out of chronological order and it is impossible to extract a clear chronology from them. Russell argued, however, that to try to extract such a chronological narrative would be to misunderstand the function of this material, which is not to provide a narrative of Alkibiades' early years but rather to illuminate and illustrate his character. Russell's argument, in particular the stress on Plutarch's interest in character, was seminal; together with two other papers published at roughly the same time, it marked the beginning of a new appreciation of Plutarch as an author of literary merit. But Russell was rather less convinced of the logic of selection of the first five anecdotes, which relate to Alkibiades' youth and comprise some one-and-a-half pages of Teubner text ( Alk. 2–3).
大约40年前，唐纳德·罗素(Donald Russell)在这本杂志上发表了一篇对《阿尔基比德斯的一生》(Life of Alkibiades)前16章的分析，其中大部分是关于阿尔基比德斯的童年、青年和早期职业生涯的短小而独立的轶事(Russell 1966b)。正如罗素所证明的，这些轶事大多是并列的，没有任何因果关系。虽然偶尔会有一些时间上的标记——例如，阿尔基比德斯变老了，从童年过渡到成年早期——但有些明显是没有时间顺序的，因此不可能从中提取出一个明确的时间顺序。然而，罗素认为，试图提取这种按时间顺序的叙述会误解这些材料的功能，这些材料的功能不是提供阿尔基比德斯早年的叙述，而是阐明和说明他的性格。罗素的论点，特别是强调普鲁塔克对人物的兴趣，是开创性的;与几乎同时发表的另外两篇论文一起，它标志着对普鲁塔克作为一位有文学价值的作家的新欣赏的开始。但罗素对选择前五篇轶事的逻辑不太信服，这些轶事与阿尔基比德斯的青年时代有关，构成了约一页半的Teubner文本(Alk. 2-3)。
{"title":"Plutarch on the childhood of Alkibiades (Alk. 2-3)","authors":"T. Duff","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500000961","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500000961","url":null,"abstract":"Almost four decades ago, Donald Russell published in this journal an analysis of the first sixteen chapters of the Life of Alkibiades , which consist largely of short self-contained anecdotes about Alkibiades' childhood, youth and early career (Russell 1966b). As Russell demonstrated, most of these anecdotes are juxtaposed without any causal link. Although there are the occasional chronological markers – indications, for example, that Alkibiades is getting older and passing from childhood to early manhood – some are plainly out of chronological order and it is impossible to extract a clear chronology from them. Russell argued, however, that to try to extract such a chronological narrative would be to misunderstand the function of this material, which is not to provide a narrative of Alkibiades' early years but rather to illuminate and illustrate his character. Russell's argument, in particular the stress on Plutarch's interest in character, was seminal; together with two other papers published at roughly the same time, it marked the beginning of a new appreciation of Plutarch as an author of literary merit. But Russell was rather less convinced of the logic of selection of the first five anecdotes, which relate to Alkibiades' youth and comprise some one-and-a-half pages of Teubner text ( Alk. 2–3).","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"89-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500000961","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57323473","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：