A Possible Aristotle-Fragment in the b-Scholion on Illiad 22.94

R. Mayhew
{"title":"A Possible Aristotle-Fragment in the b-Scholion on Illiad 22.94","authors":"R. Mayhew","doi":"10.7146/classicaetmediaevalia.v69i0.122622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nThe b-scholion on Iliad 22.94 attributes a claim about a venomous snake (δράκων) to Aristotle’s On Animals. Likely because there is no obvious parallel text in Aristotle’s extant works on animals, the reference tends nowadays to be dismissed as inauthentic (though it was taken much more seriously in the 19th century). Further, the Aristotle reference has been consigned to a footnote in the standard edition of the Iliad scholia. This essay reassesses the scholion and considers as possible sources a few different works of Aristotle. It also suggests that the Aristotelian material – whatever its source – was brought in by Homeric scholars to support one side of a debate over the meaning of κακὰ φάρμακα. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":306790,"journal":{"name":"Classica et Mediaevalia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Classica et Mediaevalia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/classicaetmediaevalia.v69i0.122622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The b-scholion on Iliad 22.94 attributes a claim about a venomous snake (δράκων) to Aristotle’s On Animals. Likely because there is no obvious parallel text in Aristotle’s extant works on animals, the reference tends nowadays to be dismissed as inauthentic (though it was taken much more seriously in the 19th century). Further, the Aristotle reference has been consigned to a footnote in the standard edition of the Iliad scholia. This essay reassesses the scholion and considers as possible sources a few different works of Aristotle. It also suggests that the Aristotelian material – whatever its source – was brought in by Homeric scholars to support one side of a debate over the meaning of κακὰ φάρμακα.
《伊利亚特》中一个可能的亚里士多德片段
《伊利亚特》第22章第94节的学者把一条关于毒蛇(δρ α κων)的说法归于亚里士多德的《论动物》。可能是因为在亚里士多德现存的关于动物的著作中没有明显的类似文本,这种参考现在往往被认为是不真实的(尽管在19世纪它被更认真地对待)。此外,亚里士多德的参考文献在《伊利亚特》的标准版中被放在脚注中。这篇文章重新评估了学者,并考虑了亚里士多德的一些不同作品的可能来源。它还表明,亚里士多德的材料——不管它的来源是什么——是由荷马学派的学者带来的,以支持关于κακ ο φ ρμακα意义的争论的一方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信