In this piece, attention is once again drawn to the locus classicus of Euripidean sententious outbursts, lines 599–602 put in the mouth of Hecuba mourning her daughter Polyxena. Suggested for bracketing by W. M. Sakorraphos in 1893 and athetised by J. Diggle (1984) and D. Kovacs (1995) in their respective editions (although not in the editions of J. Gregory (1999) and K. Matthiessen (2010), the lines (and the whole passage 592–602) have also shouldered a weight of Euripidean Weltanschauung doctrines built on their slender frame. A brief overview of scholarly judgment, often overexacting, prompts one to occupy the middling ground allowing both for the possibility of the genuine character of the lines 599–602 and their relevance in context (and not only expressing the ideas current in Euripides’ times) with both birth and upbringing contributing to virtuous character. The metaphor in line 603 should not be considered a brave mannerism, or a marginal remark of some critic, but a marker of a change of topic, its archery imagery well on the side of trite
The post-Renaissance copies of Aristotle’s Poetics were mostly made for scholarly use. The copyists such as Anton Salvini, a Florentine polymath, librarian and professor of Greek, drew on MSS as well as on printed editions in an attempt to establish the text they could use for translation or academic teaching. Still uncertain remains the rationale of the latest known manuscipts — from the Vatopedi monastery on Mt. Athos (ca. mid 18th cent.) and from Bucharest (of the early 19th cent.). Several similarities these copies display suppose common provenance. The Greek diaspora in Bucharest blossomed around 1800 and Romania is linked to Vatopedi by a long tradition of orthodox learning. The MSS in question provide an overall impression of a schoolwork. The Athoan is of supreme quality while the Romanian often resembles an abstract. The first MS was probably written soon after the foundation of the Athonite Academy near Vatopedi. Aristotle’s Poetics is hardly suitable for monastic learning, but Eugenius Bulgaris who was the headmaster of Athonias from 1753 to 1758 introduced ancient texts into its curriculum: from one of his letters we conjecture that Plato and Aristotle were studied there. It is thus reasonable to suppose that the cod. Vatopedius was made in the Athonias for learning purposes. By 1800 the Academy was in decline but they still taught disciplines and read texts introduced by Bulgaris. So, the Bucarestensis could have been written in the same place. Judging by the composition of the codex its maker was nurturing interest in ancient and modern Greek literature
Three ancient Greek epigrams by Vyacheslav Ivanov (1866–1949), dedicated to renown classical scholars Tadeusz F. Zieliński, Mikhail I. Rostovtzeff, and to religious philosopher and literate G. A. Rachinsky (1859–1939), were published in the collection of poems Nezhnaja tajna [‘Soft Secret’], ΛΕΠΤΑ, Humaniorum studiorum cultoribus (SPb, 1912, 112–113). This article provides a commentary on the Greek poem to Rachinsky based partly on archive materials. Rachinsky, of whose personality we know mostly from memoirs by Andrey Bely, N. A. Berdyaev and from correspondence and diaries of his contemporaries, chaired the Moscow Religious Philosophic Society ‘in memory of Vl. Solovjov’. He translated into Russian, inter alios, Nietzsche, Goethe, Maupassant and Balzac. Ivanov’s archives in Rome and Moscow keep some unpublished letters written by Rachinsky to Ivanov in 1910–1914. The correspondence allows to suppose that cordiality and even friendship between them developed in 1910. In the ‘Soft Secret’, Ivanov also dedicated to Rachinsky a Russian poem ‘On Receiving a Greek Prayer’. On December 25, 1910, Rachinsky sent to Ivanov from Moscow to St. Petersburg a card, most probably his Christmas greeting, with the Ode 5 for Choir, Irmos of the morning service for Christmas, in Greek. Conceivably, this text is a key to understanding of Ivanov’s quite dark Greek and Russian poems, which formed a poetic answer in gratitude for Rachinsky’s Greek prayer. In Ivanov’s Greek poem, there is a deliberate mixture of pagan and Christian vocabulary. It starts with the pagan πρόμαντις ‘prophet’ and goes on to οἰκτιρμῶν τε τοῦ Πατρός… εἰρήνης τε ‘Father of mercies and peace’. This recalls the wording of the NT and the Prayer for Christmas: Θεὸς ὢν εἰρήνης, Πατὴρ οἰκτιρμῶν. A scholarly poet, Ivanov expressed his thanks to a friend who could reveal insight into his complicated style. The author of the present contribution specifies the date of Ivanov’s Greek poem as between December 26, 1910 and January 28, 1911, and of his ‘On receiving a Greek Prayer’ between the 17th and the 28th of January, 1911
In this paper, a methodological issue is considered concerning the corpus of texts bearing witness to “spoken Latin”. Within this corpus there are also some texts that have been neglected up until now, stemming from shorthand records of spoken utterances: all of them — either dialogal or monologal — share a conversational allure, that allows the singling out of both universal and historical features of spoken (late) Latin. One of these texts, the Gesta concilii Aquileiensis, is then examined: the shorthand report of a Church council summoned in AD 381, where a lively debate is recorded among bishops supporting opposite views — Catholic vs. Arian — of the divinity of Christ. The survey on the universal traits of orality surfacing in the Gesta focuses on the textual-pragmatic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. It leads to interesting results, concerning above all syntax (prominence of parataxis, and of descendent order of the phrasal constituents within the complex sentence, i. e. independent clause > dependent clause) and semantics (lack of lexical innovation; inclination for expressive words). Despite the undeniably formal — and sometimes even formulaic — character of the dialogue, I would argue that the Gesta allow us to listen as it were to the voices of a group of cultured bishops animatedly discussing subtle theological matters
This present paper is concerned with the causal/instrumental uses of faciente + (pro)nominal head within an ablative absolute. We only examine the instances in which the participle does not govern a direct object and is not accompanied by further arguments and/or satellites, as in Jer. In psalm. 89 l. 28 qui per peccatum cecidit, diabolo faciente, rursum per Christum resurgat ad gloriam (“he who fell through sin under devil’s influence, shall soon be reborn to the Glory through Christ”). The analysis is restricted to the imperial and late period because the construction is not attested until Ovid (Met. 2, 540–541 lingua faciente loquaci / qui color albus erat, nunc est contrarius albo “through his tongue’s fault the talking bird, which was white, was now the opposite of white”, transl. Loeb). The discussion consists of four main sections. After a short survey of the main studies on the topic, we introduce the analysed corpora, the selection criteria of the data and the overall results. In section 5 we discuss some possible reasons behind the origin of the syntagm. Subsequently, the use and expansion of the syntagm in later centuries is analysed in the light of recent studies on the reanalysis of participles as prepositions. We show that faciente began a categorial shift into the class of causal/instrumental prepositions, but for reasons that shall be explained, this process remained unaccomplished. In the last section, we make a brief comparison with other absolute ablatives that include semantically related participles (operante, instigante, praestante), pointing out the main differences between them
The paper analyzes the function of the prefix inter-, which allows to reduce the 15 main senses (described in the OLD) to the basic two. The sense of the prefix depends on the situation described with the compound: a) the situation of dividing space: ‘a border between two or more points disconnecting them’ (inter hostes flumen erat). Most of the verbs in this group are transitive and accompanied by a countable object: intercalare ‘to insert a day or month into the calendar’; interloqui ‘to interrupt, to speak between’. b) the situation of connected space: ‘all the space (or time) between two points connecting them within the same situation’ (inter arma tacent musae). The majority of these verbs are transitive and are used with an uncountable object: interbibere ‘to drink dry, drain’; interlegere ‘to pick off here and there, to thin’. Some verbs can have either sense depending on the context (interesse: a. ‘to lie between, intervene’ modo inter me atque te murus intersit (Cic. Cat. 1. 10.), b. ‘to be in the company of, to take part’ legit scripta de se carmina, legit historias, et posteritati suae interfuit (Plin. Ep. 2.1.2). On the basis of this classification principle four verbs are analyzed in which the meaning of the prefix inter- is unclear: interire, interficere, interimere, intellegere. Three of them have the prefix inter- in the sense of division and form pairs of compounds (an intransitive verb of state interire — a verb of action interimere, interficere). The verb intellegere has two senses as different stages of its semantic development: 1. ‘to choose between’, ‘to notice, discern’ and 2. ‘to collect together (all the parts)’ > ‘to grasp, understand (the whole picture of an object or a situation)’.
Der Vergleich des hebrä ischen Originaltextes 1. Sam. 19, 11 –17, wo die Episode mit dem Trick der Saulstochter Michal vor den Boten Sauls erzä hlt wird, mit dem entsprechenden Passus der Septuaginta-Übersetzung (1. Regn. 19) zeigt einen krassen Unterschied: Statt des masoretischen Ausdrucks, der gewöhnlich als ‘Ziegen-Haargeflecht’ oder ‘Ziegenfell’ übertragen wird (העִ זִּים כְּ בִ יר ) steht im griechischen Text ἧπαρ τῶν αἰγῶν, ‘Ziegenleber’. Die Entstehungsgründe dieser Merkwürdigkeit sind in der Forschung schon etliche Male erkannt worden; nach F. Field mag schon Origenes das hinter ἧπαρ steckende Geschichte des Abschreibens, Lesens und Deutens des Ursprungstextes treffend rekonstruiert haben, und zwar wie ein alexandrinischer Übersetzer a. a. O. hinter כבר oder כבד ein כָבֵ ד, also ‘Leber’, erahnt. Denn der Duktus von daleth und resh (ד and ר) sah sehr ä hnlich aus, was oft Anlass zu einer Verwechselung in beide Richtungen gab. Desto bemerkenswerter ist, dass die Masoreten die Lesart vorzogen, welche nicht allein traditionsmä ßig, sondern auch sinngemä ß bessere Chancen gibt, das einheitliche Bild von den virtuellen Geschehnissen zu bekommen: Ein behaarter Gegenstand auf dem Kissen kann doch natürlich den Eindruck eines Menschenkopfes machen. Was nun die allem Anschein nach fehlerhafte LXX-Deutung betrifft, so versucht Josephus Flavius (AJ VI, 11, 3–4), welcher, wie viele hellenistisch ausgebildeten Juden (u. a. Philo und Apostel Paulus), die Bibel in der griechischen Sprache popularisierte, diese Eigenheit der Septuaginta zu untermauern, indem er damit den eigentlichen Trick Michals verbindet: Wenn sie die mit einer Hülle verdeckte Ziegen-Leber leicht anrührt, antwortet die Masse mit einer Bewegung, welche den Eindruck eines mühsam atmenden (ἀσθμαίνειν) Menschen hervorruft. So entsteht aus einem (vermeintlichen) Überschrift- bzw. Übersetzungsfehler eine witzige Deutung, welche aus der Not eine Tugend macht und die Septuaginta über hebrä isches Original zu erheben versucht
Опубликованный С. И. Писаревым в 1771 г. перевод трактата ПлутархаDe liberis educandis (Περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς) неожиданно оказывается первым русским переводом Плутарха с языка оригинала («еллиногреческого»). Статья посвящена некоторым особенностям этого перевода, а главным образом, — выявлению его источника, то есть того базового издания, которым пользовался Писарев в своей переводческой работе (контаминация, конечно, не исключается). При этом поиске автор прежде всего уделяет внимание маркированию поэтических цитат. Встроенные в текст трактата цитаты в переводе Писарева выделены курсивом, частью — вместе с последующим авторским текстом Плутарха, который, очевидно, воспринимается переводчиком как продолжение цитаты. В латинских переводах, которые сопровождают греческий текст в доступных Писареву двуязычных греко-латинских изданиях цитаты даются с отступом и выделяются курсивом. Переводчик мог пользоваться одним из таких изданий. С другой стороны, указанного критерия недостаточно, поскольку единообразие оформления цитат отсутствует в изданиях трактата отдельными книгами. Поэтому для более уверенного опознания источника автор сравнивает текст перевода с греческим текстом нескольких изданий XVI–XVIII вв. Анализ разночтений последовательно исключает все издания, кроме двух, выбор между которыми затрудняется тем обстоятельством, что отличие между ними сводится к порядку слов в цитате. Тем не менее анализ порядка слов в переводах поэтических цитат у Писарева позволяет предположить, что его источником послужило франкфуртское издание 1599 г., переизданное в 1620 г. и затем в Париже в 1624 г
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
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.