塞内加的《Thyestes》:作为 Amoibaion 的颂歌 920-969

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS MNEMOSYNE Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1163/1568525x-bja10240
Iwona Słomak
{"title":"塞内加的《Thyestes》:作为 Amoibaion 的颂歌 920-969","authors":"Iwona Słomak","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seneca’s Thyestes: Ode 920-969 as an Amoibaion\",\"authors\":\"Iwona Słomak\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1568525x-bja10240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10240\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MNEMOSYNE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在修正将《诗经》920-969 视为单调的编辑和解释传统。920-969》是一部单曲。基于对塞内加所选三个剧本中的归属差异的系统分析,以及对其他几个存在问题的地方的比较,文章证实了之前的一般发现:MS 传统的 A 分支显示出有意识插补的痕迹,而 Etruscus 抄本(E 分支)则主要包含机械错误,这在 Thy.就 Thy.920-969 而言,这使其归属更为可信。文章进一步讨论了颂歌中可能导致插补的问题段落,对支持 A 读法的解释性假设进行了批判,并根据塞内卡诗学的规则,以及从文本的内在逻辑和同名英雄的伦理角度证明了 E 支本中的归属是正确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Seneca’s Thyestes: Ode 920-969 as an Amoibaion
This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards Thy. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of Thy. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MNEMOSYNE
MNEMOSYNE CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Since its first appearance as a journal of textual criticism in 1852, Mnemosyne has secured a position as one of the leading journals in its field worldwide. Its reputation is built on the Dutch academic tradition, famous for its rigour and thoroughness. It attracts contributions from all over the world, with the result that Mnemosyne is distinctive for a combination of scholarly approaches from both sides of the Atlantic and the Equator. Its presence in libraries around the globe is a sign of its continued reputation as an invaluable resource for scholarship in Classical studies.
期刊最新文献
Aristotle’s On the Good and the “Categorial Reduction Argument” Tanks for Nothing: an Explanation of Plautus Casina 121-125 Make Art, Not War: An Other (Hi)Story of thymos “Is the Embryo a Living Being?” (Aët. 5.15): Embryology, Plants, and the Origin of Life in Presocratic Thought A Translation Note on Pseudo-Seneca, Her. O. 1907
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1