In Poetics 25 (1461b1–3), Aristotle mentions critics who tend to misunderstand the text or read it inaccurately and thus criticise not the actual work, but rather their ideas on it. Some of the extant fragments of Zoilus (4th c. BC), the best-known and the most notorious critic of all the Aristotle’s contemporaries, imply that his critique was sometimes based on misreading and misinterpreting of the text so he could be one of those whom Aristotle meant. This article deals with three fragments attributed to Zoilus (two of them are found in the Scholia to the Iliad, the third one is quoted in Ps. Longinus’ De Sublimitate), each containing criticism towards certain passages in Homer’s poems. On closer examination it turns out that all the inconsistencies Zoilus postulated can be explained, should we read the text more carefully. Hence Zoilus dealt not with what is written but rather with what seemed to him to be convenient for his criticism
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 contribution, we present a representative corpus of similia similibus formulae attested in ancient Greek and Latin curse tablets or defixiones. The simile formulae, attested in about 80 tablets in widely differing states of preservation and legibility, are introduced in the context of sympathetic magic and, in contradistinction to literary similes, as performative utterances that are based on a persuasive analogy. This analogy operates in the general form of “just as X possesses property P, so let also Y possess property P”, in which Y is the target or victim of the curse, while X and P are variables that change in accordance with the intended results. We provide a provisional taxonomy of simile formulae, offer new readings and interpretations of some defixiones, and compare Greek and Latin documents. Due to its length, the paper has been divided into two parts. In the first part, presented here, we focus on comparata that reference the materiality of the tablet itself and comparata referencing corpses or ghosts of the dead. The remaining comparata, namely animals, historiolae and rituals, aversus formulae and unusual orientations of the script, “names”, and drawings, will be presented in a follow-up paper, to be published in the next issue of Philologia Classica
The present contribution examines the relationship between ancient Greek comic poets, who worked in different periods and cultural contexts. The study considers the specific case that binds Epicharmus (Syracuse, 5th century BC), Nikophon (Athens, 5th century BC) and Hegesippus (native of Taras, 3rd century BC). The comparison of fragmentary texts casts new light on the connection between these authors, highlighting the reuse of subjects previously known and developed. The main part of this work analyses a long fragment from Hegesippus, where a boastful chef compares his own culinary skills to the seduction technique of the Homeric Sirens. The juxtaposition of these monstrous beings with food is not only a parody of Homer and does not constitute a new image in the Greek comic literature. Instead, it seems to be part of a shared repertoire, since it was used by Epicharmus and Nikophon two centuries earlier. It is therefore possible that the ancient Greek comic poets had at their disposal a number of models and situations already tested and deemed good for the success of the pieces. The paper considers the importance of Epicharmus’ image and examines the function of the Homeric parody as well as the meanings that it conveys. Hegesippus refers to this subject with an allusion which should be easily understood by his audience
Plutarch cited Simonides’ elegy with toponyms Corinth and Ephyra as proof that Corinthians had participated directly in the battle of Plataea (Plut. De malign. 872D–E). Though several places in Greece bore the name Ephyra (Strab. 8, 3, 5), a number of features in Simonides’ text allows us to identify Ephyra with Corinth, but the juxtaposition of two names of the same city needs to be explained. On the one hand, Ephyra could denote a territory adjacent to Corinth, but it is difficult to localize it; attempts were made to identify the historical Ephyra with one of the settlements of the Mycenaean period in the vicinity of Corinth (Korakou and Aetopetra). On the other hand, several sources mention the fact that Ephyra could be used as the ancient name for Corinth, and Aristarchus remarked that in Homer Corinth was called Ephyra in the characters’ speeches (i. e. by Glaucus); to be sure, in literary texts, and especially in poetry, the toponyms Ephyra and Corinth are virtually interchangeable. It thus seems probable that Simonides mentioned Ephyra as the ancient name of Corinth, implying by the use of this toponym, as well as by the mentioning of Glaucus, that the Corinthians who fought at Plataea were equal in prowess to the Homeric heroes
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
Among the examples on how not to portray a character in tragedy, Aristotle names the female protagonist of the Iphigenia in Aulis, claiming that she is drawn in violation of the principle of consistency: begging to spare her life she is much unlike her later self. Philologists stood for Euripides, charging Aristotle with a lack of intuitive understanding. Moreover, as has been pointed out, the unaffected character of Iphigenia’s behaviour could find a footing in the ample observations on human psychology Aristotle himself made elsewhere in the Ethics and Rhethoric. Certain modern scholars, however, tend to side with Aristotle. To argumentatively prove or disprove the feasibility of the change Iphigenia undergoes seems thus to be close to impossible, both psychologically and aesthetically. A thought not alien to the Poetics goes as simple as that: not all the shifts and turns, so human and so easily observed in life, should find their way into art. One supposes Aristotle all too well recognised the fact that no example would in this case prove to be free of blame, while holding that the general applicability and inherent veracity of his theory goes unimpaired by the fact that it could in principle be assailed.
Статья знакомит читателя с поэмой Ф. Б. Грефе (1780–1851), ординарного академика Императорской академии наук и профессора Санкт-Петербургского университета, написанной элегическими дистихами на древнегреческом языке к 100-летию Императорской академии наук. Грефе сопроводил греческую поэму из 424 стихов авторизованным поэтическим переводом en regard на родной немецкий язык. Насколько нам известно, с 1826 г. поэма не переиздавалась и не становилась предметом исследования. В статье приводится греческий и немецкий текст пролога, эпилога и трех небольших пассажей поэмы с русским переводом и комментарием. В прологе Грефе пишет об основании Санкт-Петербурга и Императорской академии наук Петром I, воспроизводя официальную петербургскую мифологию, оформленную литературными топосами (одинокий рыбак с убогой лачугой; царь-демиург на пустынном берегу Невы; город, воздвигнутый на болоте, etc.) и формулами (сходными с пушкинскими, опубликованными намного позднее: «где прежде…, там ныне»; «из тьмы лесов, из топи блат»). В избранных пассажах говорится о палеонтологической коллекции АН, в частности о мамонте, а также о сокровищах Египетского музея Академии, о мумиях, приобретенных у Франсуа де Кастильоне. Автор исследует возможные литературные источники Грефе, описывает исторический контекст и реалии петербургской и академической жизни того времени, а также говорит об отклике на поэму Грефе в Германии
Как и подобает всякому настоящему ренессансу, русское поэтическое возрождение конца XIX — начала XX в. было ознаменовано всплеском интереса к греко-римской древности. Интенсивная разработка античных сюжетов, мотивов и топосов, в диапазоне от стилизации до тотального переосмысления, осознается как важнейшая особенность русской модернистской поэтики. Неудивительно, что в последние десятилетия исследование античных реминисценций в поэзии Cеребряного века регулярно становится темой многочисленных и многообразных работ. В настоящей статье, по жанру обзорно-полемической, автор надеется обратить внимание на некоторые уязвимые стороны соответствующих исследовательских практик и предполагает сформулировать своего рода «комментаторский кодекс» для изучения интертекстуальных параллелей между русскими поэтами рубежа XIX–XX вв. и древними авторами; непосредственным поводом к ее написанию стал 25-летний юбилей методологически важной, хотя и недостаточно известной книги пизанских лекций М. Л. Гаспарова «Античность в русской поэзии начала XX века». В статье затрагиваются такие вопросы, как степень знакомства того или иного писателя с античными памятниками, связь истории рецепции и гимназического образования, взвешивание и классификация аллюзий, проблема промежуточных источников, учет не только русских, но и иноязычных переводов, необходимость обращения к филологической литературе, современной не исследователю, а исследуемому автору, и пр. Изложение перемежается разборами частных случаев, в которых предлагаются новые либо уточняются прежние толкования отдельных стихотворений О. Э. Мандельштама, В. К. Шилейко, В. А. Комаровского, А. А. Кондратьева и других поэтов
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