Vitruvius, man?

John M. Oksanish
{"title":"Vitruvius, man?","authors":"John M. Oksanish","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190696986.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 1 surveys what little we can say with reasonable certainty about Vitruvius’s life and the circumstances surrounding De architectura’s publication. Our knowledge of the historical Vitruvius is occluded by a lack of contemporary external testimony, by his declared attitudes toward representation, and by a particularly complex reception tradition both within and outside of Classical scholarship. This chapter focuses in particular on the second of these factors. First, I examine how the work’s dedicatory preface, with its open interest in “representing” Augustan auctoritas, exemplifies the basic difficulties presented by Vitruvius’s rhetoric in the absence of external testimony. I also examine Vitruvius’s attitudes toward texts through close readings of the prefaces to books 7 and 9. The presence of Ennius in the latter of these has confounded scholars, but his appearance there in conjunction with references to the simulacrum and figura poetae compels analogy to ancestral imagines. Next, I turn to Cicero’s Pro Archia, which also compares the commemorative power of text and image with recourse to Ennius. I suggest that Vitruvius’s strategies of self-representation portray him as a close adviser who appropriates the glory of an imperator for the populus Romanus. Comparisons with Horace’s persona in his Satires and apparitorial scribae remain useful, even if Vitruvius’s scribal status is not assured. But Vitruvius’s self-effacing pose should also be understood as an iteration of an earlier model, the Ennian “good friend.”","PeriodicalId":242293,"journal":{"name":"Vitruvian Man","volume":"03 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vitruvian Man","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696986.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 1 surveys what little we can say with reasonable certainty about Vitruvius’s life and the circumstances surrounding De architectura’s publication. Our knowledge of the historical Vitruvius is occluded by a lack of contemporary external testimony, by his declared attitudes toward representation, and by a particularly complex reception tradition both within and outside of Classical scholarship. This chapter focuses in particular on the second of these factors. First, I examine how the work’s dedicatory preface, with its open interest in “representing” Augustan auctoritas, exemplifies the basic difficulties presented by Vitruvius’s rhetoric in the absence of external testimony. I also examine Vitruvius’s attitudes toward texts through close readings of the prefaces to books 7 and 9. The presence of Ennius in the latter of these has confounded scholars, but his appearance there in conjunction with references to the simulacrum and figura poetae compels analogy to ancestral imagines. Next, I turn to Cicero’s Pro Archia, which also compares the commemorative power of text and image with recourse to Ennius. I suggest that Vitruvius’s strategies of self-representation portray him as a close adviser who appropriates the glory of an imperator for the populus Romanus. Comparisons with Horace’s persona in his Satires and apparitorial scribae remain useful, even if Vitruvius’s scribal status is not assured. But Vitruvius’s self-effacing pose should also be understood as an iteration of an earlier model, the Ennian “good friend.”
维特鲁威,男人吗?
第一章调查了我们对维特鲁威的生活和《建筑论》出版周围的环境所能说的一点合理的肯定。我们对历史上的维特鲁威的了解,由于缺乏同时代的外部证据,由于他对表现的公开态度,以及由于古典学术内外特别复杂的接受传统而受到阻碍。本章特别着重于第二个因素。首先,我考察了这部作品的奉献性序言,它对“代表”奥古斯都权威的公开兴趣,如何例证了维特鲁威在缺乏外部证据的情况下的修辞所呈现的基本困难。我还通过仔细阅读第七册和第九册的前言来考察维特鲁威对文本的态度。恩尼厄斯在后者的存在让学者们感到困惑,但他的出现与拟像和人物诗人的参考相结合,迫使类比祖先的想象。接下来,我将转向西塞罗的《阿基亚论》,它也将文本和图像的纪念力量与对恩尼乌斯的追索进行了比较。我认为维特鲁威的自我表现策略把他描绘成一个亲密的顾问,他把皇帝的荣耀给了罗马平民。即使维特鲁威的抄写员地位不确定,与贺拉斯在他的讽刺作品和幻影抄写员中的人物形象进行比较仍然是有用的。但维特鲁威的谦逊姿态也应该被理解为早期模型的迭代,即“好朋友”。
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
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