{"title":"第六章编者汇编:帝国学术和杂记文献中的低土莫斯","authors":"Scott DiGiulio","doi":"10.1093/bics/qbaa018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Few ancient scholars were as prolific as Didymus of Alexandria, who was hailed by some in antiquity as the greatest of the grammarians. Yet, despite his polymathic output and seemingly positive ancient reputation, Didymus was much maligned for his carelessness and the compilatory nature of his work, attitudes which have continued in modern scholarship. This chapter aims to reassess the earliest period of Didymus’ reception by looking closely at the scholarly and miscellaneous texts of the Roman Empire that cite and discuss the Alexandrian. By examining four particular points of reception—Roman educationalists, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Macrobius—this chapter illustrates that while Roman authors were particularly interested in using a caricature of Didymus as a straw man for their own arguments, Greek figures more readily engaged with Didymus and his work per se. These two traditions evolve in parallel and use Didymus to represent both the positive and negative facets of polymathy; each freely cites, and transforms, him to suit their literary purposes. As a result, Didymus’ reception throughout antiquity is considerably more complex than has been previously acknowledged: he is a figure of both authority and consternation, even among the authors most similar to himself.","PeriodicalId":43661,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter SixThe compiler compiled: Didymus in Imperial scholarly and miscellanistic literature\",\"authors\":\"Scott DiGiulio\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bics/qbaa018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Few ancient scholars were as prolific as Didymus of Alexandria, who was hailed by some in antiquity as the greatest of the grammarians. Yet, despite his polymathic output and seemingly positive ancient reputation, Didymus was much maligned for his carelessness and the compilatory nature of his work, attitudes which have continued in modern scholarship. This chapter aims to reassess the earliest period of Didymus’ reception by looking closely at the scholarly and miscellaneous texts of the Roman Empire that cite and discuss the Alexandrian. By examining four particular points of reception—Roman educationalists, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Macrobius—this chapter illustrates that while Roman authors were particularly interested in using a caricature of Didymus as a straw man for their own arguments, Greek figures more readily engaged with Didymus and his work per se. These two traditions evolve in parallel and use Didymus to represent both the positive and negative facets of polymathy; each freely cites, and transforms, him to suit their literary purposes. As a result, Didymus’ reception throughout antiquity is considerably more complex than has been previously acknowledged: he is a figure of both authority and consternation, even among the authors most similar to himself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa018\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bics/qbaa018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter SixThe compiler compiled: Didymus in Imperial scholarly and miscellanistic literature
Few ancient scholars were as prolific as Didymus of Alexandria, who was hailed by some in antiquity as the greatest of the grammarians. Yet, despite his polymathic output and seemingly positive ancient reputation, Didymus was much maligned for his carelessness and the compilatory nature of his work, attitudes which have continued in modern scholarship. This chapter aims to reassess the earliest period of Didymus’ reception by looking closely at the scholarly and miscellaneous texts of the Roman Empire that cite and discuss the Alexandrian. By examining four particular points of reception—Roman educationalists, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Macrobius—this chapter illustrates that while Roman authors were particularly interested in using a caricature of Didymus as a straw man for their own arguments, Greek figures more readily engaged with Didymus and his work per se. These two traditions evolve in parallel and use Didymus to represent both the positive and negative facets of polymathy; each freely cites, and transforms, him to suit their literary purposes. As a result, Didymus’ reception throughout antiquity is considerably more complex than has been previously acknowledged: he is a figure of both authority and consternation, even among the authors most similar to himself.