В статье публикуются две эпиграммы Д. Г. Мессершмидта, посвященные И. Ф. Брейну и сохранившиеся среди его бумаг. Первая представляет собой стихотворную подпись к портрету самого Брейна и была, скорее всего, отправлена из Петербурга уже после возвращения Мессершмидта из Сибири, то есть между 1727 и 1735 гг. (а не в 1701– 1800, как указано на сайте Дрезденского фотоархива). Правдоподобно, что подпись предназначалась для гравюры, один из экземпляров которой хранится в Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden и представлен на сайте Deutsche Fotothek Dresden. Не исключено, что Иоганн Филипп Брейн послал в Петербург и портрет отца, и свой собственный (оба работы неизвестного мастера), и что к обоим Мессершмидт сделал стихотворные подписи. В 1739 г. был опубликован элегический дистих Мессершмидта, включенный в обрамление портрета Якоба Брейна работы знаменитого гравера П. Г. Буша. Как предположил С. С. Орехов, гравюра Г. П. Буша восходит к работе того же неизвестного мастера. Портрет Иоганна Филиппа не был опубликован, возможно потому, что поместить такой текст под своим портретом И. Ф. Брейн не мог. Второе стихотворение представляет собой запись в альбом, хранившийся в Музее И. Ф. Брейна в Гданьске, и датировано ноябрем 1716 г. Это стихотворение не имеет заголовка (что подчеркнуто в самом тексте), но предваряется древнееврейским эпиграфом, подробный комментарий к которому сделал К. А. Битнер. Латинское стихотворение, изобилующее звуковыми повторами и усложненное языковой игрой, оставляет ощущение некоторого нравственного надлома. Оба стихотворения характеризуют общую образованность и душевный склад Мессершмидта, а также его восторженную преданность И. Ф. Брейну как старшему коллеге по научным и медицинским занятиям
The article attempts, firstly, to critically analyze the traditional order of cases in Latin, secondly, to discover an internal mechanism that brings the elements of a paradigm together, and thirdly, to present a new model of the nominal and pronominal case paradigms in Latin. The authors develop the idea that the crucial role in structuring a case paradigm belongs to morphemic syncretism. The syncretism is treated as a systemic phenomenon of morpheme neutralization rather than a result of phonetic reduction. In the paradigm built on this principle, the cases marked with the same endings necessarily take adjacent positions. There is a certain correlation between the morphemic syncretism and the semantics of cases extensively exemplified in the Latin literature. Taking this as reference point, the authors establish a formally motivated paradigmatic order of cases and single out a set of semantic features that shape the case paradigm. This method enables authors to find the non-contradictory paradigmatic positions for both the core and the “marginal” cases (vocative and locative). Applied to the pronominal cases, however, it reveals the significant discrepancy between the nominal and pronominal paradigms concerning two cases — nominative and genitive. The pronominal nominative’s special status is determined by its pragmatic rather than syntactic functions, which is typical for pro-drop languages. The genitive case appears in three different forms that originate from the possessive pronouns and correspond to the three basic functions of the genitive — possessive, objective, and partitive ones. Such transparadigmatic syncretism brings together the paradigms of personal and possessive pronouns, which are related by nature. The ORBIS ROMANUS approach suggested in this study makes it possible to present in a new way the nominal and pronominal case paradigms, to demonstrate in what points they differ from each other, and to highlight some functional and semantic features of the particular cases
This paper traces the semantic and constructional development of the complement-taking verb εὑρίσκω ‘find’ from Homeric Greek to Post-Classical Greek. First, the paper details the semantic development of εὑρίσκω using characteristics such as predicate type, semantic role of the subject and factivity. Subsequently, explanations are offered for the constructional development of εὑρίσκω, using insights from grammaticalization research such as reanalysis and analogy. In contrast to previous studies on Ancient Greek complementation which support the idea of a systematic Classical Greek opposition of factive participial versus non-factive infinitival complementation, this paper shows how bridging contexts of mental judgment εὑρίσκω with a participial complement do not follow this opposition as they are non-factive and changed their meaning (with reanalysis) before changing their complementation structure (through analogy). Also, by extending our view to the individual history of other cognitive predicates (ἐπίσταμαι, γιγνώσκω and οἶδα) the author shows that other cognitive predicates undergo similar developments from factive+object to factive+ACP to non-factive+ACI, although their individual histories are still in need of a systematic diachronic account. Thus, complementation patterns per period could be analysed in a more fine-grained way by analysing complementation patterns bottom-up from the semantic and constructional evolutions of individual predicates. Also, the findings from this paper provide evidence towards a diachronic solution of the so-called matching-problem: diachronically related semantic and constructional stages strongly motivate the choice of a specific complementation structure but absolute factivity oppositions in Classical Greek complementation are rather strong tendencies
The ms. tradition of the Poetics is a mine, quite unexpectedly, when it comes to composition on literary matters: four independent witnesses — Parisinus 1741 (A), Riccardianus 46 (B), and mediaeval translations into Latin by William of Moerbecke and Arabic by Abū-Bishr Mattā made with the help of a Syriac interlinear (not to mention the recentiores which still could prove of some stemmatic value, as for instance Par. gr. 2038, Vat. gr. 1400, Berol. Philipp. and Mon. 493) — allow in most cases for a safe reconstruction of an archetype. Common errors suggest that this text differed from the autograph in some twenty passages, largely interpolations, ranging from a couple of words to a number of phrases. Several intrusions prove to be typologically close. All of them correct what was deemed to be inaccurate or loose argumentation by inserting syntactic complements or references adding cohesion. As a result, both the style and context go largely neglected. The first paragraphs of ch. 6, central to the Poetics, suffered most. This text also came down to us in a Syriac translation having a heavily glossed uncial ms. as its source. Insertions in ch. 6 cause ‘harmonising’ additions to the following text of the treatise. The ‘family of interpolations’ under discussion is tentatively attributed to a professor of Aristotelianism of late antiquity (the most suitable candidate seems to be Themistius): a school-room copy diffused by his pupils became the common ancestor of both the extant Greek mss. of the Poetics and the reconstructed Greek sources of the mediaeval translations. A fresh collation of the Syriac text together with the evidence of variae lectiones in the oldest independent Greek mss. offer a glimpse into the workings of his mind
Justin the Philosopher, a second-century Christian author, discusses the cult of Mithras in his works First Apology on behalf of the Christians and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Justin’s portrayal of Mithraic customs is traditionally interpreted in the light of his conception of imitatio diabolica, as the ἀρχή of pagan myths and beliefs. To illustrate the theory of diabolical imitation, Justin touches upon several features of Mithraic rituals and provides us with a few indications of Mithraic ethical teachings. Two curious accounts of Mithraic cave shrines in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Justin. Dial. 70, 1–3; 78, 6) have not been closely examined by previous researchers and require our special attention. Justin draws a parallel between the Mithraic cave shrines and the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 33, 13–16), focusing on the prophet’s words concerning a cave and a cliff as he finds them analogous to Mithraic sanctums. Remarkably, Justin never refers to Mithraic temples as caves, but only as places, called so by Mithraists. He does not claim that the devil has taught Mithraists to perform rituals in caves, but insists that he has taught them to name their sanctuaries caves. Justin’s wording exposes his effort to accentuate the difference between the object (a shrine) and its name (cave). This indicates that Justin believed that Mithraists did not use natural caves as their sanctuaries, despite his knowledge of other aspects of this cult
One of the most famous academic conflicts in 17 th century Sweden was a quarrel between Johannes Schefferus and Olof Verelius in the 1670s concerning the original position of the city of Uppsala and its heathen temple, mentioned by Adam of Bremen. After a series of publications with mutual attacks Verelius published in 1678 a document entitled Annotationes ex scriptis Karoli Episcopi Arosiensis excerptae, pretending to go back to a lost medieval source. Schefferus answered with an analysis of the document, proving it to be a forgery. Despite Schefferus’ brilliant and convincing philological investigation, Annotationes have often been regarded as a genuine medieval source, especially after the publication of a monograph by the Swedish historian Kjell Kumlien in 1967. Recently, several historical and philological surveys have opposed Kumlien’s views, providing additional arguments in favour of Schefferus’ claims. This article aims at adding one more: an odd juncture in the text of Annotationes — ‘opus trium deorum’ that is to be understood as ‘a temple of three gods’ — can be explained by an ambition of the forger to imitate Adam of Bremen, whose text belonged to the central ones in the controversy.
В статье исследуются восточнославянские (русские и украинские) переводы фрагментов из поэм Гомера, входивших в исторические и политические сочинения М. Стрыйковского, А. Ф. Моджевского, Юста Липсия и др., переводившихся в Киеве, Москве и Санкт-Петербурге с начала XVII до середины XVIII вв. Особый интерес представляют переводы, выполнявшиеся в той или иной стихотворной форме. Выбор переводчиками именно стихотворной формы для перевода позволяет лучше понять пути адаптации русской культурой относительно новой для нее стихотворной формы. Тщательное изучение контекста появления стихотворных переводов из Гомера в составе обширных прозаических трудов позволяет увидеть мотивы, руководившие переводчиками (Гомер предстает автором древнейших свидетельств по истории славян; учителем политической риторики, моделью интеллектуала в конструируемых отношениях интеллектуала и государства). Восточнославянские культуры имели опыт стихотворной передачи текстов Гомера и филологического интереса к ним (во всяком случае — интереса, требующего обращения к альтернативным изданиям и греческому тексту) задолго до того, как фрагментарный стихотворный перевод из Гомера, выполненный М. В. Ломоносовым, был в 1748 г. опубликован в Петербурге. Впервые публикуются стихотворные переводы из Гомера, содержащиеся в московском переводе Хроники Мацея Стрыйковского (1660-1670-е) и «Увещаниях и прикладах политических» (Monita et exempla politica) Юста Липсия, переведенных в Киеве, Петербурге и Москве в 1712-1722 гг. Публикация текста сопровождается существенными уточнениями истории текста памятников.
Following the first edition of Manuel Álvares’ De institutione grammatica libri tres (Lisbon, 1572), the Portuguese text tradition of the celebrated grammar was completed with the 1573 pupil’s manual. Both the precise number of editions that appeared thereafter and what in a distant future might be developed into a stemma editionum remain unknown. In the context of ongoing bibliographic research, the present article offers an outlook on the beginnings of Alvaresian grammar in late 16th-century Europe by means of a presentation of how the grammars’ national text traditions emerged in Czech, French, German, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish and Spanish editions. Álvares’ grammar started to take on divergent national forms since its first publication for the purposes of the Bavarian Jesuit University of Dillingen, in which the volumes were distributed according to the official syllabus, thus moving beyond the division between teacher’s manual and pupil’s manual made by the author. Even though the more comprehensive ars maior also appeared in German and Italian editions, in the late 16th century the ars minor became particularly important due to its editions in France, Italy and Spain. There also appeared the Czech variant of the ars minor as well as the Lithuanian and Polish partial editions, whose textual constitution seems to correspond to the requirements of the respective syllabi.
The perfect tense in Greek which is used to denote a state of affairs in the present as resulting from a past action does not find an exact equivalent in the system of Latin tenses: when faced with the need to express this idea a Latin speaker could either focus on the expression of the state by using the present tense (whereby the connection with the past was not expressed and would only be inferred), or use the perfect, in which case the effect of the past action on the present was not directly expressed and could only be deduced (the so-called resultative perfect). The article analyses Latin speakers’ attitude to this difference between Greek and Latin verbal systems, in particular, on the basis of the evidence collected from Roman epistolography when the letter-writer felt that the idea he wished to express could most aptly be rendered by a Greek perfect and switched to the Greek solely for that perfect form. The corpus of texts used for this study included the letters of Cicero to Atticus and his Epistulae ad Familiares, the Letters of Pliny the Younger, Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius, excerpts of Augustus’ letters preserved by Suetonius, and M. Cornelius Fronto’s correspondence with Marcus Aurelius
This paper aims to revise the status quaestionis of the title of a play by Seneca preserved in two commonly recognised variants — Phoenissae and Thebais — and two less well-known variants — Phoenissa and Antigona. It has been generally accepted that only the title Phoenissae is correct, and that this title was modelled on Euripides’ drama of the name. This view, however, can hardly be deemed plausible, considering the substantial differences between Seneca’s and Euripides’ Phoenissae. Moreover, it has been widely held that there is no analogy for the title Thebais in the dramatic tradition but that it has equivalents in epic texts, which has led to the conclusion that Thebais is an ill-chosen interpolation. The other variants of the title have not been discussed at all. In this article we scrutinise previously disregarded sources and argue that all the play’s titles may have originated in Classical Antiquity and may be regarded as synonyms. We also demonstrate that the interpretation of the title Phoenissae as referring to a Chorus of Tyrian maidens is purely speculative, since the links between Seneca’s and Euripides’ Phoenissae cannot be unequivocally defined. We posit that the Romans may have understood both the title of Euripides’ play and of its probable imitation written by Accius as alluding to the heroines, Jocasta and Antigone. The examples found in Statius’ verse may be used as evidence that the adjective Phoenissus was understood by the educated Roman public as Thebanus. In the final part of the paper, we analyse the dramatic action of Phoenissae, which leads us to the conclusion that the interpretation of the title as a metonymic term describing Jocasta and Antigone is accurate
The article investigates an early theological justification of the radical detachment from society expressed in a saying by the famous Egyptian hermit Arsenius the Great (4 th‒5 th century) who avoided contacts not only with lay people, but even with his fellow monks in the desert of Sketis. This justification is to be seen in connection with the phenomenon of monastic secluded life which suddenly emerged in the second part of the 3 rd century, in sharp contrast with traditional views of the catholic Christians of the 1 st‒3 rd centuries on the way of life suitable for the followers of Christ. In this article, the radical break with this early paradigm is called the “revolution of the solitaries”. Arsenius, who lived about eighty years after the first monks in Egypt started to be recognized as a distinct phenomenon in public space, does not necessarily draw on the oldest layers of the traditions justifying and explaining the religious motivation for being alone. Nevertheless, his statement is one of the first pieces of theological reflection on the subject transmitted in full which opens a number of intriguing possibilities for further research on this widely neglected field. The article provides the historical context of Arsenius’ justification which includes criticism of the anachoretic monasticism in the pagan and Christian communities. Some critics of the secluded life consider it as contrary to the Jewish and pagan wisdom as well as to the revelation of Christ, a statement making Arsenius’ apology most precarious. Of special inrerest is that Arsenius, when staying away remaining secluded from all kinds of people, was to a certain degree guided by the example of Socrates
New Testament scholars have long argued that in Acts 17:16–34 Luke depicts Paul in such a way as to evoke Socrates’ modus philosophandi and to echo his trial and apology. While this argument can be based on sufficiently clear philological indications, there are other, comparatively vague and more general Socratic reminiscences in Luke-Acts, e. g. in the Gethsemane episode which shows that for the Lukan Jesus death is not a terrifying prospect. This study reads Luke’s portrayal of the apostle Peter through the lens of the exemplum Socratis as presented by Greek and Roman intellectuals in the first and early second centuries CE, including Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Seneca. The author argues that the humble origins of Peter, his non-academic profession, his poverty, his lack of formal education, and his unbreakable commitment to obey God and to spread the Christian message in spite of the threat of judges are reminiscent of major elements of the reception of Socrates in the period that Luke-Acts was probably composed (c. 80–100 CE). Highlighting the subtle Socratic components in Luke’s depiction of Peter not only helps to shed new light on Peter’s alleged lack of education (Acts 4:13). It also helps to understand, firstly, how the literary depiction of early Christian teaching figures is shaped by roughly contemporaneous philosophical discourses, and secondly, that Peter’s literary image, although it presents a totally different type of teaching figure than Paul, serves in its own way to exemplify the compatibility of the Christian religion with particular strands of ancient philosophy.