В статье установлен источник книги «Подражания древним», опубликованной в 1795 году в Санкт-Петербурге. Ее составителем и переводчиком был Николай Федорович Эмин (1767–1814), сын известного русского писателя и авантюриста турецкого происхождения Федора Александровича Эмина (1735–1770), который умер, когда его сыну было всего три года. Эмин-младший получил военное образование и не владел древними языками, поэтому для своего издания он воспользовался французской антологией Ж.-Ж. Мутонне де Клерфона (1740–1813), многократно переиздававшейся в XVIII веке. Из этой книги Эмин выбрал ряд стихотворений Сапфо, Анакреонта (точнее, эллинистических подражаний ему), Феокрита, Биона, Мосха, Горация и Катулла. Эмин также использовал биографические преамбулы к их стихам; эти вводные тексты были им существенно сокращены. В предисловии к «Подражаниям древним» Эмин развивает теорию «имитации», отрицая возможность точного поэтического перевода. Он также отстаивает необходимость рифм в «подражаниях» древнегреческой и латинской поэзии. Несмотря на эти декларации, Эмин в целом довольно точно следовал в своих стихах французской прозе Мутонне де Клерфона. Лишь единожды, в одиннадцатой идиллии Феокрита, писатель предпринял существенные изменения, пояснив в пространном примечании к ней, что его к этому побудило: уродливого циклопа Полифема Эмин заменил на галантного и привлекательного пастуха Меналка, заявив, что это больше подходит к «нынешнему веку». В остальных случаях отступления от античных претекстов объясняются не своеволием Эмина, но теми изменениями, которые внес в свои переводы Мутонне де Клерфон. Именно он, к примеру, объединил два стихотворения Катулла (XCII и LXXXV) в одно, и как раз этому тексту следовал Эмин. В знаменитое оплакивание воробушка Мутонне де Клерфон ввел обращение к чувствительным любовникам, которое находим и у Эмина
В статье предлагается транскрипция, перевод и комментарий двух версий стихотворного обращения к Петру Первому, написанного на древнегреческом языке братьями Лихудами, Иоанникием и Софронием, греками из Кефаллении, выдающимися религиозными писателями и учителями. «Эпиграмма тишайшему и боговенчанному нашему царю Петру Алексеевичу, самодержцу Московскому и всея Великия, Малыя и Белыя Руси» сохранилась в рукописях учебника Лихудов «О поэтическом или метрическом искусстве» как пример элегического дистиха. Учебник «Поэтики» был составлен в виде вопросов и ответов на греческом языке для учеников уровня suprema Богоявленской школы (1685–1687), начального этапа прославленной Славяно-греко-латинской академии, в качестве пособия по греческой версификации. Русский перевод пособия, вероятно, не планировался авторами (в одном из списков присутствуют славянские нотации). «Эпиграмма», а по существу — приветственное стихотворение, дошедшая в составе московской рукописи РГБ, Ф. 173 (МДА), No 331, 1687 г., была опубликована С. Смирновым в 1855 — не без ошибок в транскрипции и, соотвественно, в понимании текста. Версия же киевской рукописи Ф. 306 (Киево-Печерская Лавра) No337 п./725) к. 17 — нач. 18 в. с переводом на церковнославянский язык ранее, по на шим сведениям, не публиковалась. Предлагается сравнительный анализ обеих версий стихотворения, устанавливается датировка (terminus ad quem — 1687), выясняются обстоятельства создания текста
Detailed examination of the presence and use of Latin comic sources in Thomas More’s work has been the subject of little systematic investigation. Among other aspects, the variety of perspectives from which these sources are handled in More’s writings, and the diverse functionality that they are endowed with, make this analysis somewhat complex. The object of the article will be restricted to the analysis of some key mentions of Latin comic sources in a particularly significant letter from the point of view of More’s defense of humanism, such as the letter to Maarten van Dorp (1515). In addition, the density of allusions to Plautus and Terence is shown in a set of letters and, as a means of possible contrast, in More’s epigrammatic texts; an explanatory hypothesis of this presence is also proposed. The analysis contextualizes the place of the letter in which the aforementioned allusions occur, and examines them comparatively. It is suggested that the main functionality of the introduction of references to Latin comedians is to provide eloquent support to establish a significant part of the refutatio of the letter; these references make it possible to shed light on certain inconsistencies in the conduct of the addressee, which weaken the objectivity of his points of view and the correctness of his behavior: hence the Morean criticism of Dorp
This article offers yet another opinion concerning the 18th-century controversy surrounding St. Jerome’s level of knowledge of Hebrew and his Old Testament translation from the Hebrew truth (ex Hebraica veritate). Assurances that Jerome’s Latin rendition is based directly on the Hebrew biblical books made by the monk himself and by his contemporaries are widely challenged. Jerome’s testimony is not entirely credible as he tended to confabulate and prevaricate. Having retraced this dispute about the Stridon-born scholar, the authors of this article subject verse 8:15 of the Book of Deuteronomy to a thorough analysis. It is a peculiar and important fragment for the ongoing discussion due to the appearance of the Hebrew word צִ מָּ אוֹן. In the Greek version (LXX), it had been translated as δίψα (“dry land”). What is crucial here is the fact that a similar form, διψάς, exists in the Greek language. It is a term used for a venomous snake. Potentially mistaking “dry land” for a “snake” in the Hebrew language is not possible. That is why in Jerome’s translation of the Bible from the Hebrew truth such an error should not have occurred. Meanwhile, we can find exactly that mistake in the scholar’s rendition. In his Latin translation Jerome introduced the dipsas snake in lieu of the Hebrew צִ מָּ אוֹן (“dry land”). This article aims to explain why, in this very spot, the translator departed from the Hebrew original
The article aims to restore the train of thought in Petr. Sat. 118. 3–5. In 118. 3, the manuscript reading sanitatem (instead of the emendation vanitatem) is to be retained and taken not as hinting at the lack of poetic ecstasy, but as ‘stylistic simplicity’ after Pavlova 2017. The adversative ceterum does not imply that poetry is the polar opposite of rhetoric, but stresses that contrary to the expectations of poeticizing orators, true poetry is hard toil. The first neque-clause does not imply contrast with rhetoric, but calls for a copious style (in particular, copious sententiae). The second neque-clause implies that poetry must absorb an immense literary tradition in order to attain a copious language. Thus, the two coordinate neque-clauses in 118. 3 are paired as requiring copiousness (a) in style and (b) in language. In the next two sentences, (a) and (b) are specified in chiastic order: (b) the borrowed diction must be elevated (118. 4); (a) the sententiae (as the primary stylistic ornament) must be integrated into the texture of the poem (118. 5). The idea that absorbing literary tradition must enrich poetic language may be paralleled in Hor. Epist. 2. 2. 115–118. Sententiae are regarded as an essential constituent of poetic style, despite the ironic remark on sententiolae vibrantes in 118. 2
This article deals with the structure of Horace’s Carm. 2, 3, in which the poet advises Dellius to cultivate calm and goes on to describe a luxurious picnic. Whereas other commentators since antiquity have connected Falernian wine with an anecdote of Quintus Dellius (Plut. Ant. 59, 4: “For he had offended Cleopatra at supper by saying that while sour wine was served to them, Sarmentus, at Rome, was drinking Falernian. Now, Sarmentus was one of the youthful favourites of Caesar, such as the Romans call deliciae.” [Tr. B. Perrin]), this article seeks another reason why this particular kind of wine should be mentioned here. The phrase interiore nota Falerni in verse 8 probably indicates that the wine chosen for the picnic was not only of good origin, but also a vintage one, and this trait of Dellius can be viewed as an extreme desire to pursue the joie de vivre: he not only goes for a picnic (which would be a moderate way of spending holidays, see e. g., Cic. Off. 3, 58), but he chooses the Falernian for it, and — moreover — the aged one. Thus, the poem to Dellius is contrasted to other well-known poems from Book 2, namely Carm. 2, 14 (to Postumus, who will not enjoy his rare wine himself) and Carm. 2, 10, where the famous ideal of aurea mediocritas is expressed
This article argues that Greek σφαδᾴζω ‘struggle, toss one’s body about’ is etymologically related to Proto-Iranian *zgad- ‘to ride, gallop’ and *zganda- ‘messenger’, the source of loanwords σαγγάνδης and ἀσγάνδης in Greek. Iranian nominal stems *zgandá- ‘rider, mounted messenger’ and *zgánda- ‘riding’ (reflected in Sogdian non-finite forms) suggest the reconstruction of a Proto-Iranian root *zgand-, the zero-grade form of which is found in tudáti-type verbal stem *zgadá-ti ‘rides, gallops’ (*zgad- < *zgn̥d-). The correspondence between Greek σφ- and Iranian *zg- is unproblematic, since these are regular reflexes of PIE *sg wh - in both languages, compare Younger Avestan zgərəsna- ‘round, circular’ vis-à-vis Greek σφαῖρα ‘sphere, ball, globe’. Importantly, in its earliest attestations Greek σφαδᾴζω is used to refer to horses that are prancing, struggling, and moving violently: the application of the verb to human agony is demonstrably secondary. The Greek verb is best analyzed as a denominative *σφαδαι-ιζω derived from an unattested adjective *σφάδαιος, itself made from a nominal stem *σφάδη or *σφαδή, cf. ματᾴζω ‘speak foolishly’ ← μάταιος ‘foolish’ ← μάτη ‘foolishness’; the underlying unattested noun, whether *σφάδη ‘kicking, tossing’ or *σφαδή ‘kick, toss’, is based on a thematic verbal stem *σφαδε/ο- ‘to kick, toss, move swiftly (of horses)’ identical in origin with Proto-Iranian *zgadá- ti. On the basis of these forms, a new PIE root *sg whend- / *sgwhn̥d- ‘to move quickly (of horses)’ can be reconstructed
Zusammenfassung: Die Frage, ob Plutarch der Rhetorik gegenüber eine ablehnende Haltung einnimmt oder nicht, beschäftigte schon seit dem 19. Jh. eine Vielzahl von Wissenschaftlern. Die traditionelle Ansicht ist, dass seine Einstellung eher negativ sei: Obwohl er den Wert der Rhetorik als Mittel der Überzeugung im Bereich der Politik anerkenne, schreibe er trotzdem dem Ethos die dominierende Rolle zu. Wie aber im Folgenden gezeigt wird, ist diese Vorstellung nach einer genaueren Untersuchung der entsprechenden Texte in ihrem historisch-kulturellen Kontext nur teilweise berechtigt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Plutarchs Äußerungen zur Rhetorik vor dem Hintergrund des traditionellen Konflikts zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie betrachtet und dabei im Verhältnis zu drei thematisch bedeutsamen Oppositionen analysiert, nämlich zu jener zwischen dem Lehren und dem Überzeugen, zwischen der Rede und dem Ethos, und zwischen den Philosophen und den Sophisten. Daraus ergibt sich, dass die sekundäre, unterstützende Rolle, welche die Rhetorik an einigen Stellen als Mittel der Überzeugung einnimmt, eher zu relativieren als hervorzuheben ist. Denn sie lässt sich jeweils aufgrund ihrer argumentativen Funktion erklären. In anderen Fällen im plutarchischen Werk, in denen die Rhetorik behandelt wird, ohne dass zugleich die gewöhnliche Opposition zwischen Rede und Ethos eine Rolle spielt, ist die geäußerte Haltung jeweils grundsätzlich positiv
In the article which serves as a sequel to an earlier one the author argues that Draco’s constitution (DC) in Arist. AP 4 does not derive from an oligarchic political pamphlet in which it served as a prototype of a constitution to be implemented in Athens as the majority of scholars believe. The preponderance of scholars believe, relying on the alleged similarity of DC to the project of the ‘Constitution of Five Thousands’ (AP 30) in 411 BC, that DC emerged in the same ‘moderate’ oligarchic circles as a project of the same kind. Others propose later dates for its appearance but almost unanimously ascribe to oligarchic moderates who pleaded for a ‘hoplite constitution.’ The author argues contra that although DC is not reliable as a historical document, it differs considerably from the known political projects of oligarchs. Its distinguishing features make it anachronistic for conditions of 5th–4th centuries BC, but they are much more at home in the last decades of 7th BC. It is likely that Aristotle found this fictional account in one of the historical sources he used in the AP in which it was fabricated to fill a gap in the lacunose history of the early Athenian constitution and it may have been meant to diminish tendentiously Solon’s contribution, representing the latter as modifying the already existing state order
Die antike Literatur, insbesondere die Epigrammatik bietet eine große Anzahl an Witzen über schlechte Ärzte. Sie können (oft) gefährlich sein, sind dumm, grob, manchmal sexuell übergriffig oder habgierig und auf jeden Fall unfähig. Im nachfolgenden Beitrag wird eine Grundtypisierung dieser Witze, wie sie sich z. Bsp. in den inschriftlichen Denkmälern, in den Epigrammen der Anthologia Graeca, sowie in der Philogelos-Sammlung, bei Martial und Ausonius finden, aufgezeigt, deren Funktion wie zu allen Zeiten im Sinne eines psychologischen Ventils angesichts der Machtlosigkeit gegenüber einem mächtigen Berufsstand verstanden werden kann. So kann der Arzt als eigentliche Todesursache in den Blick treten. Die bloße Berührung ist todbringend; die Erwähnung seines Namens kann bereits letale Folgen haben. Oder man nimmt die technische Unvollkommenheit, ja Stümperei des ärztlichen Personals in den satirischen Blick, und dies in den verschiedenen Abteilungen der Medizin, von der Augenheilkunde über die Chirurgie bis zur Internistik. Gerne wird schließlich auch moralisches Fehlverhalten von Ärzten, ihre Habgier, aber auch sexueller Missbrauch humorvoll aufs Korn genommen. Am Ende des Beitrages wird kurz auf ein Epigramm des Ausonius eingegangen, in dem man einen Vorschlag findet, wie man solchen bedenklichen Zeitgenossen unter den Ärzten aus dem Weg gehen kann: Indem man sie gar nicht erst als Ärzte anerkennt
In this article, twelve new emendations are offered on the text of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. At 1.454 non tactus is proposed for the unparalleled intactus; at 2.99 et partim is suggested for the awkward pars etiam; at 2.258 quomque (late-Republican cumque) is advanced for quemque; at 2.615 the metrically problematic inuenti sint is altered to inueniantur; at 2.733 the unique use of nigrant is dispensed with by reading the expected nigra sunt; at 3.267 et tamen is made more naturally adversarial as at tamen; at 3.774 ne fessa is altered to the more Lucretian defessa (reading ne for et earlier in the line); at 4.160 the unusual feminine celer (his) is altered to (his) celeris; at 4.306 (331) the difficult gerund insinuando is changed to the gerundive insinuandis; at 4.318 (343) multisque is replaced with the more idiomatic multoque; at 5.323 the stark phrase deminui debet recreari is reordered as debet deminui et recreari; finally, at 6.266 uementes is read for the otiose uenientes. The discussion proceeds on the basis of the universally accepted stemma, namely that the three Carolingian manuscripts (O, Q, S) are the sole manuscripts with textual authority. The more than fifty surviving Renaissance manuscripts ultimately derive from O, but they remain a fertile source for conjectures
The fragment of the Syriac translation of Aristotle’s Poetics preserved by Jacob (Severus) Bar Shakko (d. 1241) comprises Poet. VI 1449b24–1450a10. In spite of its small size, it serves as an important witness both to the Greek text of the Poetics, and to the reception of this work in the Christian Orient and, later on, in the Muslim world. The fragment derives from a translation, which most likely appeared in West Syriac circles in the 7th/8th centuries AD and later served as the basis for the Arabic translation of the Poetics made by Abū Bishr Mattā ibn Yūnus in the 10 th century. The present article includes a new edition of the Syriac text preserved by Bar Shakko, which is based on the collation of six manuscripts and is accompanied by an English translation. The article also provides a detailed analysis of the Syriac fragment as compared to the transmitted Greek text of the Poetics, on the one hand, and to the Arabic translation of it by Abū Bishr, on the other. This comparison allows an assumption that the Syriac version is most likely based on a Greek manuscript, which may have contained glosses and scholia. A Greek and Syriac glossary is attached at the end of the article