Публикации автора

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

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.

While working on the correspondence of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff with Russian scholars in the summer of 2021, the author discovered two letters of Viktor Jernstedt to Wilamowitz in the mss. collection of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. Wilamowitz’ part of this correspondence, three letters under the shelfmark call number 733.2.44 1r–6r, dated between June 1894 and August 1895, was likewise preserved among the papers of Jernstedt in the St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Jernstedt’s letters and Wilamowitz’ two replies are transcribed for the first time and published here. Some details that should aid understanding of the letters are offered in the notes. The transcription of Wilamowitz’ notoriously difficult hand is, even in the most hopeless cases, possible, and, apart from minor abiding problems, unequivocal. While abstaining from a full critical commentary on the problem of intrusive stage directions discussed in the letters, and not wishing to take sides, the author would like to draw the readers’ attention to the way in which the gulf between the two approaches to criticism is wont to be left unbridged, however sound and convincing the arguments coming from the opposite side are

This piece is a fresh take on the crux philologorum in Sappho fr. 96,8, an extended moon simile, where Aeolic σελάννα, a commonplace of Sapphic poetry, easily restituted ex coniectura by W. Schubart in his editio princeps of PBerol. 9722 in 1902, was ousted by an unmetrical, if poetic, μήνα. The author offers an overview of the past and most recent scholarly effort along with an attempt (albeit a speculative one) to approach the issue of the irrational ratio corruptelae from the part of the resonant adjective βροδοδάκτυλος, an altogether uncommon epithet of the moon, paying close attention to the fact that the intruding word is disyllabic. The dactylic feel of the weighty adjective βροδοδάκτυλος is deemed at some point to have prevailed in a scribe’s dictation interne to the result that ἠώς could have landed in the text proper, or could have found its way there gradually from an intrusive marginal gloss left by a learned scribe unable to keep the Homeric clausula ῥοδοδάκτυλος ἠώς to himself. At some point another, no less learned scribe, attentive to the context of the simile, picked up μήνα, not σελήνη, as his remedy of choice, sticking to the number of syllables in the now resident ἠώς

This article fills the gap in the extant published correspondence of Ulrich von WilamowitzMoellendorff (1848–1931) and Victor Jernstedt (1854–1902). This time only Wilamowitz’ letter from 5 th June 1894 survives, housed in the St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and it is not clear whether an immediate answer in the eventually established correspondence followed; in all likelihood, it could have, although no trace or evidence of its existence was found by the author in the Archive of Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen back in the summer of 2021. A handwritten piece of three pages, with shelfmark call number 733.2.44.1r–2r, is a belated thank-you letter for the volume of Euripides’ Electra, edited by August Nauck (1822–1892) and posthumously published in 1893. It was seen through the press by Jernstedt himself and posted to Wilamowitz some time in late 1893 or early 1894, but somehow without any valid return address. A fresh transcription published here, while in agreement with the one made by Alexander Gavrilov, attempts to solve the problem the last word of the letter has presented ever since it was first trabscribed decades ago. A brief discussion of variants discarded follows. Since the decision taken is tentative, the images of the letter are attached in three plates, for the reader to try their hand and eye

Работа посвящена описанию методики постановки и решения геологических задач, в том числе слабо формализованных. Подробному рассмотрению основных этапов процесса постановки и решения задач. Отображено описание анализа данных, классификации формализованных задач по эталонам, или без них. Изложены постановки задач упорядочения и минимизации.