The Portrait of a Lady attributed to Correggio (St Petersburg, State Hermitage, inv. no. 5555) was witnessed as signed with the Latin pseudonym Antonius Laetus. The inscription was still legible in the 70s, and the analysis of parallels confirms authenticity of the painting while also indicating the time of its creation — most likely in the winter 1518–1519. The identification of the sitter as Ginevra Rangoni accepted by the majority should not be disputed. The idea expressed by Riccardo Finzi more than half a century ago can moreover be supported by new arguments: not only the scapular and the Franciscan knot, but also the laurel, ivy, myrtle, the general expression of the widow bride, the full cup of charming wit as a cure for the bitterness of losses, and the reference to Helen of Troy — all this perfectly fits in with Ginevra’s life circumstances. Contrary to the authoritative opinion of Claudio Franzoni, the inscription on the cup cannot be reduced to a single word: besides νηπενθές it includes ἄχολο[ν], explaining the uncommon epithet, a hapax, and [ἐπίληθον ἁπά]ντων, marking the end of verse Od. 4. 221. Correggio reflected on the feast scene in Menelaus’ palace, visualized it in his creative imagination, and the viewer should turn to it to understand the artist’s intention. Its central character, Helen, appears to act very differently in the two stories told at its end. She sympathizes with the Achaeans, longs for the husband she left behind, and at the same time wants to destroy the warriors hidden in the belly of the wooden horse, among them this deserted husband of hers. Abnormal details of the second story aroused suspicion; it might well have been an interpolation originally belonging to Iliupersis or Little Iliad. However, to Correggio’s mind the text was, of course, authentic, and he perceived the contradictory behavior of Helen as truly homeric. Inspired by Homer, he thus created an ethically ambivalent female image, feasible in its duality.
The purpose of the following paper is to identify what kind of mythical creature Aeschylus’ γρυπαίετος (‘griffin–eagle’) that caused such a scandal for ‘Euripides’ in Aristophanes’ Frogs 928–930 (= Aesch. fr. inc. fab. 422 R.) was. The term has usually been interpreted in three ways: (a) as a poetic form of ‘eagle’; (b) as a poetic form of ‘griffin’; (c) as ‘eagle of the griffin species’. The testimony of Aristophanes’ Frogs and vase-painting suggests that it may have been an idiosyncratic, archaic type of griffin, called by modern specialists ‘griffin-bird’ and characterised by having two legs, not four, and the body of a bird, not a lion. This fantastic creature appeared quite frequently on Archaic black-figure vases in Athens, but had completely disappeared by the end of the 6 th century BC. As a result, its appearance would be unknown to Aristophanes’ public, making the term γρυπαίετος impossible to make out (Ra. 930). Thus, the following paper suggests that Aeschylus’ γρυπαίετος (‘griffin-eagle’) is a fabulous composite beast made up of griffin and eagle parts, as its name suggests: a griffin head (with an open hooked beak, long pointed ears, a protuberance or horn over the eyes, and a curl or plume falling down one side of the neck) crowning an eagle body (two-legged, feathered, with wings and talons).
Heraclides of Pontus (active ca 360–310 BC) is one of the sources used in Ps.-Plutarch’s De musica. In his turn, the Pontic philosopher is known to have quoted a list of ancient poets and musicians and their achievements from an epigraphical document preserved in Sicyon. Incising such a work in stone would be natural as a dedication to some divinity in a sanctuary, where it would promote the fame of the historian who composed it. The system of dating used in the Sicyonian chronicle was based on the records of Hera’s priestesses held in Argos. As far as we know, this approach was first applied by Hellanicus of Mytilene (ca 480–395 BC). If the unknown author of the chronicle borrowed his method of dating from Hellanicus, this implies that the document was created in the late fifth or early fourth century BC. Nevertheless, for Heraclides this inscription was, on the one hand, anonymous, and on the other, authoritative. Both these peculiarities lead us to assume that he believed the Sicyonian chronicle to be an archaic document. Perhaps the author forged it to pass for an ancient inscription, in order to quote from, and thus give weight to his arguments in discussions on music.
Установление источников «Бородина» — задача со многими неизвестными, едва ли посильная даже современной филологии. Тем не менее о нескольких слагаемых шедевра мы знаем: школьный этюд «Le champ de Borodino» 1829 г. и сочиненное годом или двумя позднее «Поле Бородина» в какой-то степени позволяют определить, между какими альтернативами Лермонтов выбирал. Например, франкоязычный прозаический текст рисует ночь перед боем в обоих станах, тогда как автор ювенильных стихов сосредоточен на русском. Историчность очевидным образом конфликтует с лиризмом. Преодолеть конфликт, то есть выступить историком битвы, оставаясь в костюме ее героя, получится лучше, если изображать действия, предполагаемые в данной сюжетной ситуации. Кроме мемуаров, среди которых явные пересечения с текстами Лермонтова обнаруживают записки Ф. Н. Глинки и Н. Н. Любенкова, поэт обращается к литературным моделям. В числе последних — «Илиада» в переводе Гнедича, который вышел в 1829 г. и живо обсуждался литераторами и учеными, в частности учителем Лермонтова А. Ф. Мерзляковым. Дополняя замеченную исследователями параллель с Ил. 11, 523, можем добавить к перечню искомых источников контрастное описание троянского и ахейского лагерей, увиденных глазами Агамемнона (10, 11–16), тем более что сочинитель «Le champ de Borodino» описывает поведение французов почти в тех же выражениях, что и Гомер — троянцев
In Antiphon’s speech “Prosecution of the Stepmother for Poisoning”, one of emphasized motives is the opposition between, on the one hand, the author of the criminal plan and organizer of the murder, and on the other hand, the immediate executor. The accuser claims that his stepmother plotted to kill her husband and deceived a female slave into adding poison to his wine. The slave was executed as the murderer, but the accuser seeks to prove that the true guilt lies with the stepmother, as she conceived the crime. The manuscript text (20) reads a participle χειρουργήσασα, ‘the one who enacted’, attributed to the stepmother. Friedrich Blass, in his 1871 edition, transposed the words καὶ χειρουργήσασα, referring them to the slave who poured the poison into the wine, believing, as she was told by the accused, that it was a love potion. By doing this, Blass emphasized the distinction between the plan and its execution. Almost all editors accepted this rearrangement. At the same time, some scholars prefer the manuscript reading. Reiske, supported by Maetzner, suggested a literal understanding of the participle, ‘the one who prepared the poison’. Wilamowitz considered χειρουργήσασα a rhetorical exaggeration. Adelmo Barigazzi and Ernst Heitsch understood the participle attributed to the stepmother in the manuscripts as a way to shift the entire responsibility for the murder — both the criminal idea and its execution — onto the stepmother. Here I present arguments in favor of the manuscript reading and variants of interpreting its meaning
Выход в свет первого тома сочинений А. С. Пушкина в 1899 г. побудил филолога-классика Виктора Карловича Ернштедта перечитать его лицейскую лирику, насквозь пронизанную античными мотивами. В философической оде Пушкина «Усы», написанной в 1816 г., он обратил внимание на строчку «где драмы тощие Клеона?» и посвятил ей небольшую заметку, которая впервые публикуется и комментируется. В ней В. К. Ернштедт высказал остроумную догадку о том, что Пушкин имел в виду малоизвестного древнего драматурга Клеофонта, но по ошибке написал имя известного политика Клеона. В. К. Ернштедт задается вопросом, из какого источника поэт мог знать о Клеофонте. Сведения о «Поэтике» Аристотеля, где встречается имя Клеофонта, лицеисты могли почерпнуть из первого тома труда Ж. Ф. Лагарпа «Лицей, или Курс древней и новой литературы» — настольной книги в преподавании литературы в Царскосельском Лицее. Однако имя Клеофонта здесь не встречается, нет его и в дидактическом сочинении Н. Буало-Депрео «Поэтическое искусство», доступном лицеистам на языке оригинала и в русском переводе. Филолог-классик переоценил культурный багаж поэта-лицеиста, обширность и глубину лицейского образования. Много позже пушкинисты установили, что под именем Клеона скрывался современник А. С. Пушкина — посредственный поэт А. А. Шаховской. В. К. Ернштедт подошел к тексту Пушкина с позиций филологаклассика, недооценив культурный контекст эпохи. Но его ошибка сама по себе весьма примечательна, а поставленные им вопросы говорят о его намерении продолжить исследование и показывают направление будущих поисков
В статье представлен текстологический и компаративный комментарий к встречающимся в романе Д. С. Мережковского «Смерть богов. Юлиан Отступник» цитатам из эпических поэм Гомера: к Il. 5, 83 (дана на греческом языке с русским переводом) и к Od. 14, 57–58 (только в русском переводе). Анализ черновиков русского писателя позволяет установить, что эти стихи и их переводы были заимствованы через текстыпосредники. Результаты сопоставления содержащих гомеровские строки мест (в романе, исторических источниках, а также в произведениях Й. фон Эйхендорфа, Г. Ибсена, Ф. Дана, Г. Видала, привлеченных в качестве дополнительного материла для сравнения) и анализа их роли в архитектонике первой части трилогии «Христос и Антихрист» демонстрируют, как Мережковский, изменяя форму и значение употребленных цитат, включает их в художественную структуру своего произведения. Гекзаметр Il. 5, 83 обретает смысл мистической словесной формулы и становится центральным элементом фрактальной по своему типу (многократно воспроизводящей три фазы инициации) сюжетной системы, которая передает становление Юлиана как императора-отступника. Стилистический акцент этого стиха может быть определен как один из источников образности произведения Мережковского: русские варианты, соответствующие греческому πορφύρεος, и семантически связанные с ними лексемы употреблены здесь подобно тому, как это прилагательное использовано в «Илиаде», и проявляются в ключевых эпизодах. Стихи Od. 14, 57–58, концентрирующие общие для греко-римского язычества и христианства ценностные темы, также обретают дополнительное значение, поддерживая разрабатываемую с первых глав линию сопоставления Юлиана со стремящимся на родину Одиссеем
A comparative analysis of the chapter titles and text of the first book of the late antique military treatise Strategikon allows to put forward the hypothesis that its text was constituted in several stages. Of particular importance here are the wording of the titles and the peculiar beginnings or introductions to most of the chapters, which summarise the content of the preceding sections. A comparison of the passages clearly shows the sequence of formation within each chapter. We should assume at least 5 consecutive phases of text development: author and 4 editors. At first (phase 1a–1b), on the basis of the extant sources, the author of the book created as part of the treatise a text in four sections, organised by the beginnings according to the scheme of genetivus absolutus (primary chapters *1, *2 + 3, *4, *5 + 9). Then another editor (Leg, phase 2) inserted into this codex in the middle of the text *5 + 9 two bifolia with the text of military laws organised by μετὰ-constructions (*6 + 7, *8), resulting in the actual division of the text *5 + 9 into two sections *5 and 9. The next editor (phases 3a–3b) then rewrote the entire text into a new codex, providing it with headings (following the πῶς… scheme), what consolidated the division of the text into seven chapters (1, 2 + 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 + 8, 9), but he could not, however, fully understand the system of incipits of the original text. The new editor (Optim) made a series of additions in the form of glosses and inserted leaves (phase 4). The main development of the text was completed in the next phase (5a–5b–5c), when two new headings (3 and 8), structured in a different scheme (περὶ…), an introduction to chapter 8, and a general table of contents for Book 1 were inserted into this codex. The text was then rewritten into a new, third codex, which fixed the position of interpolations in the text.
The Portrait of a Young Man, or Self-Portrait, by Michael Sweerts, remains poorly studied, although this is one of the two known works, dated by the master himself, and dated 1656, a pivotal year in his biography. Beside the date the sheet pinned to the green tablecloth displays the signature and the moralizing motto: Ratio Quique [sic!] Reddenda. Titled as “The Bankrupt” the painting appeared in the collection of I. I. Shuvalov and with this apparently false title went first to the St Petersburg Academy of Arts, then to the Hermitage. The reading of it as belonging to the vanitas genre also leads away from the point. That the Young Man is not a frivolous embezzler, but a calculating businessman follows from parallels in Flemish and Dutch art. Neither is he a “melancholic”, however similar his posture may be to many of them. The key to Sweerts’ message is the Latin pinacogram, of which each word is capitalized and one is spelled in a somewhat extravagant manner (dat. quique). Rationem reddere evokes associations with the Gospel debt parables. Flemish painters had turned to this subject already in the early 16th century; Van Hemessen’s depiction of the Unforgiving Slave is likely to be one of Sweerts’ direct sources. The parallelism of earthly and heavenly “banking” is emphasized in Th. Halle’s engraving Redde rationem being part of Veridicus Christianus by J. David. The engraving and the portrait have a number of details in common, and the relative comment abounds in references to the debt parables. The Young Banker of the Hermitage portrait puts aside his counting and muses that the same debit-credit law operates in the other world, and that the list of debtors includes every one of us: to get that message across was so important to the fanatically catholic Sweerts that he styled the Latin inscription as the title of this list
This article opens a series devoted to investigating the sources of the ample zoological excursus (vv. 916–1223) in the Hexaemeron by George of Pisidia, a 7th-century Byzantine poet. Since the two attempts to find a general formula for George of Pisidia’s treatment of his models have led to directly opposite results (according to Max Wellmann, the poet distanced himself from pagan zoologists; according to Luigi Tartaglia, on the contrary, he drew material from them, favouring Aelian), it seems that the question of the poem’s sources should be addressed by a step-by-step examination of passages, paying attention to such evidence as the coincidence of minor details or words. In v. 1116 the unusual metaphor “aithyia, bending its winged cloud” (in the sense of “spreading its wings”) makes one think of an (unconscious?) association with Arat. Phaen. 918–920, where “a stretching cloud” is mentioned in the catalogue of storm’s signs in immediate juxtaposition to the flapping of the wings of seabirds. In vv. 1117–1124 (the self-cleansing of the ibis) the reference to Galen is not a mere metonymy (= “the most skillful physician”), as interpreters have hitherto thought, but points to the poet’s source: in the Galenic corpus this story is attested three times, and the passage closest to George of Pisidia’s account is [Galen.] Introd. 1.2. In vv. 1154–1159 (the structure of the web) the confused sequence of the stages of the spider’s work (first concentric circles, then radial threads), that contradicts both reality and (which is more important) the ancient tradition going back to Book IX of Historia animalium, seems to betray the influence of John Philoponus (De opif. mundi, p. 257, 24 sqq. Reinhardt). In Philoponus’ text this sequence is justified by the fact that his rhetorical passage describes, strictly speaking, not the web itself, but a drawing of it made by a “diligent geometer”.
A citharodic performance typically included a προοίμιον that preceded a νόμος. Theoretically, there are three possible options: a prooimion (1) was an inseparable introduction to a specific main part; (2) was not performed independently, but could precede various main parts; (3) was an independent piece. Most evidence points to option 2. Standard circumstances of performance must have stereotyped the subject matter that appeared in the introduction, so the proem became an autonomous song that could precede any narrative part, and even be performed independently (if there were no agonistic connotations and transitional formulas). Pseudo-Plutarch’s notions of ancient citharody (De mus. 1132В–С; 1132D; 1133B–C) are interpreted as follows: a proem addressed to the gods was a citharode’s own composition (hence ὡς βούλονται, despite its formal character and epic metre). It was immediately followed by a nome, whose epic narration could be either original or taken from Homer and other poets and set to music according to one of melodic patterns systemized by Terpander. Terpander’s proems likely offered two proofs of this theory: they ended with a formula of transition to another song, which itself did not follow. Apparently, the option to use someone else’s poetry in the main body led to the practice of writing down the proems without the subsequent nomes, so that they were seen as independent works. It is likely that Pseudo-Plutarch’s source was referring to minor Homeric hymns, since they correspond perfectly with the information that we have about citharodic proems
A series of interconnected conjectures to the text of Ps.-Maur. VII B 17. 2,12 (8, 9–10, 33– 34 Dennis) is proposed, which makes the text more understandable: ἤτοι τὰ βά<θη> τῶν ἀκιῶν <ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίαςin mg>… ἀπὸ παλαιῶν [δὲ] καὶ νέων <ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους>…. τὸν λεγόμενον ἰλάρχην [ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας]. To explain this, author proposes the hypothesis of a transcription error in the archetype (ἤτοι τὰ βάθη > ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα), of compensatory asterisk and of the later marginal gloss (ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας), as well as of the transmission of the passage ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας from § 2 to § 12. The proposed hypothesis assumes a multiple processing (glosses, added leafs) of the codex of the archetype ξ, its active use and subsequent rewriting into a new codex (α), which is the precursor of both uncial families (λ and β). The five phases of the development of the discussed passages are proposed: (1a) the Urtext with the books I–III, V, VII A und VII B 1–15; (1b) creation of the text VII B 16–17 (4952 characters) on the three bifolia with a reading error (βάθη > βάνδα), the source for the § 12 being the passage II 20/19, 1 (4–7 Dennis), where are no parallels for the words “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας”; (1c) the appearance of marginalia — “ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” to the words “ἤτοι τὰ βάνδα τῶν ἀκιῶν”, as well as asteriskos to § 12 and § 2 after παλαιῶν; (2) moving the text “ἔχοντα ἴσως καὶ ἀναλόγως τοὺς νεωτέρους ἤτοι τὰς ἀκίας” from § 2 to § 12, replacement of the asteriskos with δὲ in § 2; (3) division of the tradition between λ (without marginalia) and β (integration of marginalia)