Pub Date : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004612
S. Halliwell
When Plato's and Aristotle's views on poetry are juxtaposed, it is usually for the purpose of contrast. Nowhere does the contrast seem to be so sharp as in the case of tragedy, by which both philosophers, agreeing in this at least, rightly meant Homer's Iliad as well as the plays of the Attic genre specifically given the name. While Plato made tragedy the target of his most fervent attacks on poetry, Aristotle devoted the major part of the Poetics to a reconsideration of the genre, in a sympathetic attempt, it is normally agreed, to defend it against Plato's strictures, and to restore to it some degree of valuable independence. The apparently fundamental opposition between the philosophers’ responses to tragedy can be regarded as expressive of divergent presuppositions about the status of poetry as a whole in relation to other components of culture: on the one side, the presupposition of Platonic moralism, by which poetry is subjected to judgement in terms of values, both cognitive and moral, which lie outside itself; and, on the other, of Aristotelian formalism, according to which autonomy can be established for poetry by turning the criteria of poetic excellence into standards internal and intrinsic to poetry's own forms. As Aristotle himself puts the point, in one of the Poetics ’ more suggestive pronouncements, ‘correctness in poetry is not the same as correctness in politics or in any other art.’ Here, as often, an implicit response to Plato can be detected.
{"title":"Plato and Aristotle on the denial of tragedy","authors":"S. Halliwell","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004612","url":null,"abstract":"When Plato's and Aristotle's views on poetry are juxtaposed, it is usually for the purpose of contrast. Nowhere does the contrast seem to be so sharp as in the case of tragedy, by which both philosophers, agreeing in this at least, rightly meant Homer's Iliad as well as the plays of the Attic genre specifically given the name. While Plato made tragedy the target of his most fervent attacks on poetry, Aristotle devoted the major part of the Poetics to a reconsideration of the genre, in a sympathetic attempt, it is normally agreed, to defend it against Plato's strictures, and to restore to it some degree of valuable independence. The apparently fundamental opposition between the philosophers’ responses to tragedy can be regarded as expressive of divergent presuppositions about the status of poetry as a whole in relation to other components of culture: on the one side, the presupposition of Platonic moralism, by which poetry is subjected to judgement in terms of values, both cognitive and moral, which lie outside itself; and, on the other, of Aristotelian formalism, according to which autonomy can be established for poetry by turning the criteria of poetic excellence into standards internal and intrinsic to poetry's own forms. As Aristotle himself puts the point, in one of the Poetics ’ more suggestive pronouncements, ‘correctness in poetry is not the same as correctness in politics or in any other art.’ Here, as often, an implicit response to Plato can be detected.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"49-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004612","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325630","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 : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004673
J. Rich
Maurice Holleaux, in the brilliant study which for so long dominated discussion of Rome's early dealings with the Greek East, argued that Roman aims in the First Macedonian War were strictly defensive. The Romans' sole purpose in forming alliances with the Aetolians and other Greek powers was, he held, to prevent Philip from crossing to Italy by obliging him to fight in Greece. Roman conduct showed how limited their interest in the war in Greece was: they fulfilled their obligations to their allies halfheartedly and in the end neglected them altogether, while they viewed the other Greeks simply as a source of booty. They regarded the compromise peace reached with Philip at Phoenice as entirely satisfactory, and their decision to renew war against him in 200 was a complete reversal of policy.Although most aspects of Holleaux's interpretation of Rome's Eastern policy have generated great controversy, his treatment of the First Macedonian War has, except for certain specific points, received relatively little attention. While the significance of the Peace of Phoenice has been much discussed, most of those who have written on the war itself have been in broad agreement with Holleaux's views on the Romans' aims and conduct, and only a few brief protests have been registered. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap. I shall argue that Roman aims in the war were less limited and their conduct less half-hearted than has usually been supposed, and offer a new interpretation of the obscure last years of the war, based on a redating of the expedition of P. Sempronius Tuditanus and the Peace of Phoenice to 206.
Maurice Holleaux在长期以来主导罗马早期与希腊东部交往的精彩研究中认为，罗马在第一次马其顿战争中的目标是严格防御的。他认为，罗马人与埃托利亚人和其他希腊大国结盟的唯一目的是通过强迫菲利普在希腊作战来阻止他越境前往意大利。罗马人的行为表明，他们对希腊战争的兴趣是多么有限：他们半心半意地履行对盟友的义务，最终完全忽视了他们，而他们只是将其他希腊人视为战利品的来源。他们认为在Phoenice与Philip达成的妥协和平是完全令人满意的，他们决定在200年再次对他发动战争，这完全是政策的逆转。尽管霍莱对罗马东方政策的解释在大多数方面都引起了很大的争议，但他对第一次马其顿战争的处理，除了某些特定的问题外，相对较少受到关注。虽然Phoenice和平的意义已经被广泛讨论，但大多数写过战争本身的人都广泛同意Holleaux对罗马人目标和行为的看法，只有少数短暂的抗议活动被记录在案。本文试图填补这一空白。我认为，罗马在战争中的目标没有通常想象的那么有限，他们的行为也不像通常想象的那样三心二意，并根据对P.Sempronius Tuditanus的探险和到206年的Phoenice和平的编辑，对战争的最后几年进行了新的解释。
{"title":"Roman aims in the First Macedonian War","authors":"J. Rich","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004673","url":null,"abstract":"Maurice Holleaux, in the brilliant study which for so long dominated discussion of Rome's early dealings with the Greek East, argued that Roman aims in the First Macedonian War were strictly defensive. The Romans' sole purpose in forming alliances with the Aetolians and other Greek powers was, he held, to prevent Philip from crossing to Italy by obliging him to fight in Greece. Roman conduct showed how limited their interest in the war in Greece was: they fulfilled their obligations to their allies halfheartedly and in the end neglected them altogether, while they viewed the other Greeks simply as a source of booty. They regarded the compromise peace reached with Philip at Phoenice as entirely satisfactory, and their decision to renew war against him in 200 was a complete reversal of policy.Although most aspects of Holleaux's interpretation of Rome's Eastern policy have generated great controversy, his treatment of the First Macedonian War has, except for certain specific points, received relatively little attention. While the significance of the Peace of Phoenice has been much discussed, most of those who have written on the war itself have been in broad agreement with Holleaux's views on the Romans' aims and conduct, and only a few brief protests have been registered. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap. I shall argue that Roman aims in the war were less limited and their conduct less half-hearted than has usually been supposed, and offer a new interpretation of the obscure last years of the war, based on a redating of the expedition of P. Sempronius Tuditanus and the Peace of Phoenice to 206.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"126-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004673","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57326000","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 : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0068673500004685
G. Vlastos
In Section IV above we start with texts whose prima facie import speaks so strongly for the Identity Thesis that any interpretation which stops short of it looks like a shabby, timorous, thesis-saving move. What else could Socrates mean when he declares with such conviction that ‘no evil’ can come to a good man (T19), that his prosecutors ‘could not harm’ him (T16(a)), that if a man has not been made more unjust he has not been harmed (T20), that ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ (T16(a)), that living well is ‘the same’ as living justly (T15)? But then doubts begin to creep in. Recalling that inflation of the quantifier is normal and innocuous in common speech (“that job means everything to him, he'll do anything to get it, will stick at nothing”) we ask if there is really no chance at all that ‘no evil’ in T19, ‘not harmed’ in T20 might be meant in the same way? The shift from ‘no harm’ at T16(a) to ‘no great harm’ at T16(b), once noticed, strengthens the doubt. It gets further impetus in T21(b) when to explain how ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ he depicts a relation (that recurs more elaborately in T22) which, though still enormously strong, is not quite as strong as would be required by identity. The doubt seeps into T15 when we note that current usage did allow just that relation as a respectable use of ‘the same’.
{"title":"Happiness and Virtue in Socrates'Moral Theory","authors":"G. Vlastos","doi":"10.1017/s0068673500004685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0068673500004685","url":null,"abstract":"In Section IV above we start with texts whose prima facie import speaks so strongly for the Identity Thesis that any interpretation which stops short of it looks like a shabby, timorous, thesis-saving move. What else could Socrates mean when he declares with such conviction that ‘no evil’ can come to a good man (T19), that his prosecutors ‘could not harm’ him (T16(a)), that if a man has not been made more unjust he has not been harmed (T20), that ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ (T16(a)), that living well is ‘the same’ as living justly (T15)? But then doubts begin to creep in. Recalling that inflation of the quantifier is normal and innocuous in common speech (“that job means everything to him, he'll do anything to get it, will stick at nothing”) we ask if there is really no chance at all that ‘no evil’ in T19, ‘not harmed’ in T20 might be meant in the same way? The shift from ‘no harm’ at T16(a) to ‘no great harm’ at T16(b), once noticed, strengthens the doubt. It gets further impetus in T21(b) when to explain how ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ he depicts a relation (that recurs more elaborately in T22) which, though still enormously strong, is not quite as strong as would be required by identity. The doubt seeps into T15 when we note that current usage did allow just that relation as a respectable use of ‘the same’.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"181-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0068673500004685","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325728","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 : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004600
J. Cherry
It is widely accepted that distinctive polities of an institutional complexity sufficient to consider as ‘states’ first appeared in the Aegean area shortly after c. 2000 B.C. Most scholars would also agree that the origins of these palace-centred societies of Minoan Crete cannot be understood without extensive reference to developments taking place within and beyond the Aegean during a long formative period spanning the late fourth and the whole of the third millennia B.C. Yet that is an era so remote that it lies well beyond the reach of even the most enthusiastic adherent of Homer as a source of information about the Bronze Age, beyond any demonstrable relevance of later Greek memory in myth and legend, well before the period to which the Mycenaean Linear B tablets refer – indeed, before the existence of written records of any sort in the region, at least in a form we can read at present. Such a dearth of documentary evidence, even of a very indirect or secondary character, might seem prima facie to damn the investigation of the emergence of the first states on Greek soil as inherently speculative and, to a degree, that is so; but in many respects the same or similar problems have to be faced in studying the later emergence of the Greek city-state. As Snodgrass has reminded us, the ancient Greek political analysts provide a wide range of ostensibly confident statements about the nature and aetiology of many early legal and religious institutions, yet they have scarcely anything to say about the appearance of the political entity of which they themselves claimed citizenship and they throw very little light on the origins of what they were analyzing. Indeed, he claims ‘it is doubtful how far, if at all, contemporary consciousness of the emergence of a “state” existed.’
{"title":"The emergence of the state in the prehistoric Aegean","authors":"J. Cherry","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004600","url":null,"abstract":"It is widely accepted that distinctive polities of an institutional complexity sufficient to consider as ‘states’ first appeared in the Aegean area shortly after c. 2000 B.C. Most scholars would also agree that the origins of these palace-centred societies of Minoan Crete cannot be understood without extensive reference to developments taking place within and beyond the Aegean during a long formative period spanning the late fourth and the whole of the third millennia B.C. Yet that is an era so remote that it lies well beyond the reach of even the most enthusiastic adherent of Homer as a source of information about the Bronze Age, beyond any demonstrable relevance of later Greek memory in myth and legend, well before the period to which the Mycenaean Linear B tablets refer – indeed, before the existence of written records of any sort in the region, at least in a form we can read at present. Such a dearth of documentary evidence, even of a very indirect or secondary character, might seem prima facie to damn the investigation of the emergence of the first states on Greek soil as inherently speculative and, to a degree, that is so; but in many respects the same or similar problems have to be faced in studying the later emergence of the Greek city-state. As Snodgrass has reminded us, the ancient Greek political analysts provide a wide range of ostensibly confident statements about the nature and aetiology of many early legal and religious institutions, yet they have scarcely anything to say about the appearance of the political entity of which they themselves claimed citizenship and they throw very little light on the origins of what they were analyzing. Indeed, he claims ‘it is doubtful how far, if at all, contemporary consciousness of the emergence of a “state” existed.’","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"18-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004600","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325574","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 : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004636
D. Mckie
When, in the third stanza of Catullus' Sapphic poem 11, the tradition preserved by our earliest manuscripts (O, G, R) presented the textsiue trans altas gradietur AlpesCaesaris uisens monimenta magniGallicum Rhenum horribilesque 11ultimosque BritannosR2 (Salutati) quickly restored metre to line 12 by transferring ulti– to line 11. At the same time he erased the –que of horribilesque, improving the sense, as we shall see, but leaving the line deficient by one syllable. This was the first recognition of the conflicting demands of sense and scansion in the line, as present in the twentieth as they were in the fourteenth century. Salutati made many such alterations in R, often with an eye to metre, but no manuscript authority lies behind them and we are free to accept or reject his corrections on their own merits. With the first only of these two accepted (as is normal), the lines present us with the notorious crux:Gallicum Rhenum horribilesque ulti–mosque Britannos
{"title":"The horrible and ultimate Britons: Catullus 11.11","authors":"D. Mckie","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004636","url":null,"abstract":"When, in the third stanza of Catullus' Sapphic poem 11, the tradition preserved by our earliest manuscripts (O, G, R) presented the textsiue trans altas gradietur AlpesCaesaris uisens monimenta magniGallicum Rhenum horribilesque 11ultimosque BritannosR2 (Salutati) quickly restored metre to line 12 by transferring ulti– to line 11. At the same time he erased the –que of horribilesque, improving the sense, as we shall see, but leaving the line deficient by one syllable. This was the first recognition of the conflicting demands of sense and scansion in the line, as present in the twentieth as they were in the fourteenth century. Salutati made many such alterations in R, often with an eye to metre, but no manuscript authority lies behind them and we are free to accept or reject his corrections on their own merits. With the first only of these two accepted (as is normal), the lines present us with the notorious crux:Gallicum Rhenum horribilesque ulti–mosque Britannos","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"74-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004636","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325678","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 : 1981-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004326
A. Wallace-Hadrill
“Finally in his sixth consulship Caesar Augustus, securely in control, cancelled the orders he had issued as triumvir and laid the legal foundations for use in peace under principate. The bonds were more bitter from then on; watchers were set over us, with the inducement of rewards from the lex Papia Poppaea ; the aim was that if men shirked the privileges of parenthood, the state as common parent should lay claim to their vacant possessions”. Tacitus Annals 3.28.
{"title":"Family and inheritance in the Augustan marriage laws","authors":"A. Wallace-Hadrill","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004326","url":null,"abstract":"“Finally in his sixth consulship Caesar Augustus, securely in control, cancelled the orders he had issued as triumvir and laid the legal foundations for use in peace under principate. The bonds were more bitter from then on; watchers were set over us, with the inducement of rewards from the lex Papia Poppaea ; the aim was that if men shirked the privileges of parenthood, the state as common parent should lay claim to their vacant possessions”. Tacitus Annals 3.28.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"58-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004326","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325567","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 : 1981-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004314
D. R. S. Bailey
{"title":"Notes on the Younger Pliny","authors":"D. R. S. Bailey","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004314","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"50-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004314","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325530","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 : 1981-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004296
Paul Cartledge
Homosexuality, it would appear, now claims the space in the public prints that was not long ago lavished on the ‘woman question’. Its prominence in contemporary life is reflected in art. Nearly sixty current journals dealing with the subject in all its multifarious manifestations are listed in the eighteenth edition of Ulrich's International Periodical Directory (1979). The experience of homosexuals in the concentration camps and the role of the homosexual as hero in contemporary fiction have lately provided matter for books. Recent biographies of Havelock Ellis, Edward Carpenter and W. H. Auden discuss their subjects' practice of or writings on homosexual behaviour. Masters and Johnson have now applied their quantitative approach to homoerotic physical response. Christian attitudes to homosexuality, notably in mediaeval Europe, have been extensively canvassed. In a less scholarly vein Edmund White has written of his travels in gay America; he, like Jeffrey Weeks and other members of the British Gay Left Collective, is much concerned with the politics and political vocabulary of homosexuality. Many other illustrations could be given. In short, ‘the love that dared not speak its name has become … insistently communicative’.
同性恋，看起来，现在占据了公共印刷品的空间，而不久前还被大量地用于“女性问题”。它在当代生活中的突出体现在艺术上。在第18版的乌尔里希国际期刊目录(1979)中列出了近60种以各种形式处理这一主题的当前期刊。同性恋者在集中营的经历以及同性恋者在当代小说中的英雄角色最近为书籍提供了素材。最近出版的哈夫洛克·埃利斯、爱德华·卡彭特和w·h·奥登的传记讨论了他们的主人公对同性恋行为的实践或著述。马斯特斯和约翰逊现在将他们的定量方法应用于同性恋的身体反应。基督教对同性恋的态度，尤其是在中世纪的欧洲，已经被广泛讨论过。埃德蒙·怀特(Edmund White)以一种不那么学术的风格写了他在同性恋美国的旅行;他和杰弗里·威克斯(Jeffrey Weeks)以及英国同性恋左翼团体(British Gay Left Collective)的其他成员一样，非常关注同性恋的政治和政治词汇。还可以举出许多其他的例子。简而言之，“那种不敢说出自己名字的爱，已经变得……不断地交流。”
{"title":"The politics of Spartan pederasty","authors":"Paul Cartledge","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004296","url":null,"abstract":"Homosexuality, it would appear, now claims the space in the public prints that was not long ago lavished on the ‘woman question’. Its prominence in contemporary life is reflected in art. Nearly sixty current journals dealing with the subject in all its multifarious manifestations are listed in the eighteenth edition of Ulrich's International Periodical Directory (1979). The experience of homosexuals in the concentration camps and the role of the homosexual as hero in contemporary fiction have lately provided matter for books. Recent biographies of Havelock Ellis, Edward Carpenter and W. H. Auden discuss their subjects' practice of or writings on homosexual behaviour. Masters and Johnson have now applied their quantitative approach to homoerotic physical response. Christian attitudes to homosexuality, notably in mediaeval Europe, have been extensively canvassed. In a less scholarly vein Edmund White has written of his travels in gay America; he, like Jeffrey Weeks and other members of the British Gay Left Collective, is much concerned with the politics and political vocabulary of homosexuality. Many other illustrations could be given. In short, ‘the love that dared not speak its name has become … insistently communicative’.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"17-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004296","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325487","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 : 1981-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0068673500004302
Richard Hunter
The Aulularia has always been one of the most popular and most studied of Plautus' plays, both because of its intrinsic interest and quality and also because of its later influence in the European dramatic tradition. In the large amount of scholarly work which has been devoted to this play the identity of the author of Plautus' Greek model and the alterations which Plautus may have made in this model have been much discussed. Research on these questions was, however, placed on a quite new footing in 1958 by the publication of Menander's Dyscolus: the striking similarities between these plays have now produced a loose consensus of scholarly opinion, although the dissenting voice can still be heard. The two conclusions upon which most scholars who have written recently on this subject seem to agree are that the Plautine changes to the Greek model were relatively minor, consisting in the omission of one or two scenes and the expansion of a couple of others, and that Menander was the author of the Greek original. Although it will become clear that I am very sceptical of the former of these propositions and have at least an open mind on the latter, the aim of this present paper is simply to re-open discussion of the relationship between the Aulularia and its Greek original by pointing to some problems which have been neglected and to others which have not yet been satisfactorily answered. In Part I I discuss the division of the Greek original into five acts and the conclusions to be drawn from difficulties in this division and in Part II I examine a further problem in the Aulularia which might have some bearing on the question of the authorship of the Greek original.
{"title":"The ‘Aulularia’ of Plautus and its Greek original","authors":"Richard Hunter","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004302","url":null,"abstract":"The Aulularia has always been one of the most popular and most studied of Plautus' plays, both because of its intrinsic interest and quality and also because of its later influence in the European dramatic tradition. In the large amount of scholarly work which has been devoted to this play the identity of the author of Plautus' Greek model and the alterations which Plautus may have made in this model have been much discussed. Research on these questions was, however, placed on a quite new footing in 1958 by the publication of Menander's Dyscolus: the striking similarities between these plays have now produced a loose consensus of scholarly opinion, although the dissenting voice can still be heard. The two conclusions upon which most scholars who have written recently on this subject seem to agree are that the Plautine changes to the Greek model were relatively minor, consisting in the omission of one or two scenes and the expansion of a couple of others, and that Menander was the author of the Greek original. Although it will become clear that I am very sceptical of the former of these propositions and have at least an open mind on the latter, the aim of this present paper is simply to re-open discussion of the relationship between the Aulularia and its Greek original by pointing to some problems which have been neglected and to others which have not yet been satisfactorily answered. In Part I I discuss the division of the Greek original into five acts and the conclusions to be drawn from difficulties in this division and in Part II I examine a further problem in the Aulularia which might have some bearing on the question of the authorship of the Greek original.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"37-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0068673500004302","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325496","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 : 1978-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S006867350000403X
J. Gould
Plays, we say, are about people, about people doing and saying things. What they say and do gives us access to the kind of people they are – their personalities, their individuality, their ‘character’. And we find people interesting. Simply, crudely put, this is the basis of what we call our interest in dramatic character. It is in her clear-sighted attention to this simple but central fact that Mrs. Easterling's essay on ‘Presentation of character in Aeschylus’ is at its most effective. But as we go on to ask further questions, about precisely what our interest in dramatic personality amounts to, about what it springs from and what are its necessary conditions in dramatic and theatrical form, further discriminations become necessary. I am not at all sure, for example, that it is true, as Mrs. Easterling suggests, that ‘the people and events of Aeschylean drama … convince us with the same kind of blinding authenticity as we find in Shakespeare and George Eliot'. We may have to distinguish between very different modes of authenticity. Again, Mrs. Easterling's appeal to ‘human intelligibility’ seems to me not without ambiguity. This paper is an attempt to forward discussion of dramatic personality in the context of Greek tragedy by examining some of the ambiguities inherent in the concept and to offer some possible discriminations. It is a contribution to an argument rather than a statement of a position.
{"title":"Dramatic character and ‘human intelligibility’ in Greek tragedy","authors":"J. Gould","doi":"10.1017/S006867350000403X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S006867350000403X","url":null,"abstract":"Plays, we say, are about people, about people doing and saying things. What they say and do gives us access to the kind of people they are – their personalities, their individuality, their ‘character’. And we find people interesting. Simply, crudely put, this is the basis of what we call our interest in dramatic character. It is in her clear-sighted attention to this simple but central fact that Mrs. Easterling's essay on ‘Presentation of character in Aeschylus’ is at its most effective. But as we go on to ask further questions, about precisely what our interest in dramatic personality amounts to, about what it springs from and what are its necessary conditions in dramatic and theatrical form, further discriminations become necessary. I am not at all sure, for example, that it is true, as Mrs. Easterling suggests, that ‘the people and events of Aeschylean drama … convince us with the same kind of blinding authenticity as we find in Shakespeare and George Eliot'. We may have to distinguish between very different modes of authenticity. Again, Mrs. Easterling's appeal to ‘human intelligibility’ seems to me not without ambiguity. This paper is an attempt to forward discussion of dramatic personality in the context of Greek tragedy by examining some of the ambiguities inherent in the concept and to offer some possible discriminations. It is a contribution to an argument rather than a statement of a position.","PeriodicalId":53950,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Classical Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"43-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"1978-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S006867350000403X","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57325426","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：