怀疑偏见的检验

IF 0.1 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS PHILOLOGUS Pub Date : 2023-04-28 DOI:10.1515/phil-2023-0113
Gianluca Conte
{"title":"怀疑偏见的检验","authors":"Gianluca Conte","doi":"10.1515/phil-2023-0113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The author returns to a much debated topic, the so-called “Episode of Helen”, which has come to us only through indirect transmission, and endeavors to dismantle the prejudice against Virgilian authorship. G. P. Goold’s pugnacious intervention, dating back to more than half a century ago, contributed decisively – in fact, more than it should have – to the thesis that the text is spurious. A critical analysis of the text will demonstrate this claim to be groundless while offering arguments that support the authenticity of the episode.","PeriodicalId":44663,"journal":{"name":"PHILOLOGUS","volume":"7 1","pages":"46 - 64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verifica di un pregiudizio scettico\",\"authors\":\"Gianluca Conte\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/phil-2023-0113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The author returns to a much debated topic, the so-called “Episode of Helen”, which has come to us only through indirect transmission, and endeavors to dismantle the prejudice against Virgilian authorship. G. P. Goold’s pugnacious intervention, dating back to more than half a century ago, contributed decisively – in fact, more than it should have – to the thesis that the text is spurious. A critical analysis of the text will demonstrate this claim to be groundless while offering arguments that support the authenticity of the episode.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOLOGUS\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"46 - 64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOLOGUS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2023-0113\",\"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":"PHILOLOGUS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2023-0113","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

作者回归到一个备受争议的话题,即所谓的“海伦的插曲”,这一话题是通过间接传播才来到我们面前的,并试图消除对弗吉尼亚作者的偏见。早在半个多世纪前,g·p·戈尔德(G. P. gold)的好斗干预就对《圣经》是假的这一论点起到了决定性的作用——事实上,比它应该起到的作用更大。对文本的批判性分析将证明这种说法是毫无根据的,同时提供支持情节真实性的论据。
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
Verifica di un pregiudizio scettico
Abstract The author returns to a much debated topic, the so-called “Episode of Helen”, which has come to us only through indirect transmission, and endeavors to dismantle the prejudice against Virgilian authorship. G. P. Goold’s pugnacious intervention, dating back to more than half a century ago, contributed decisively – in fact, more than it should have – to the thesis that the text is spurious. A critical analysis of the text will demonstrate this claim to be groundless while offering arguments that support the authenticity of the episode.
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
PHILOLOGUS
PHILOLOGUS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Die Beiträge behandeln Probleme der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur, Geschichtsschreibung, Philosophie, Religionsgeschichte und Linguistik sowie ihrer Rezeption und der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Ziel der Zeitschrift ist es, einen Beitrag zur Erhellung der geistigen Kultur der Antike und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte zu leisten. "Philologus" is one of the oldest and most respected periodicals in the field of classical studies. Its articles investigate Greek and Roman literature, historiography, philosophy, history of religion, linguistics, and history of science. The journal contributes to reconstructing and understanding ancient intellectual culture and its lasting influence on European civilization.
期刊最新文献
„In tyrannos“ !? – Sicco Polentons Ovidvita zwischen mittelalterlichem ‚Aberglauben‘, ‚republikanischem Diskurs‘ und pragmatischem Bildungsideal The Riddles in Martius Valerius Capaneus philosophus? Una nota su Zenone, Filodemo, Stazio (e Lucrezio) Ovidio, Cicerone e il finale delle Metamorfosi Juvencus’ Präsenz im Proömium des Cento Probae: ein bisher unbemerkter Fall akustischer Imitation
×
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