{"title":"《一个奇怪的拉丁词和无名氏的日期》，第155卷","authors":"J. Kwapisz","doi":"10.1515/tc-2020-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This note argues, against a recent article published in this journal, that the traditional Hellenistic dates of anon. 155 FGE, an experimental anonymous epigram composed of eccentric compounds, and accordingly of Hegesander of Delphi, who is Athenaeus’ source for this epigram, are correct, since an allusion to this poem is found in the early Roman poet Laevius. Anon. 155 FGE is an attack not on Cynics, but philosophers in general.","PeriodicalId":41704,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Classics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tc-2020-0021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Odd Latin Word and the Date of anon. 155 FGE\",\"authors\":\"J. Kwapisz\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/tc-2020-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This note argues, against a recent article published in this journal, that the traditional Hellenistic dates of anon. 155 FGE, an experimental anonymous epigram composed of eccentric compounds, and accordingly of Hegesander of Delphi, who is Athenaeus’ source for this epigram, are correct, since an allusion to this poem is found in the early Roman poet Laevius. Anon. 155 FGE is an attack not on Cynics, but philosophers in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Classics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tc-2020-0021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Classics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/tc-2020-0021\",\"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":"Trends in Classics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tc-2020-0021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This note argues, against a recent article published in this journal, that the traditional Hellenistic dates of anon. 155 FGE, an experimental anonymous epigram composed of eccentric compounds, and accordingly of Hegesander of Delphi, who is Athenaeus’ source for this epigram, are correct, since an allusion to this poem is found in the early Roman poet Laevius. Anon. 155 FGE is an attack not on Cynics, but philosophers in general.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
