{"title":"Seneca’s Thyestes: Ode 920-969 as an Amoibaion","authors":"Iwona Słomak","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of <jats:italic>Thy</jats:italic>. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"298 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MNEMOSYNE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10240","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article aims to revise the editorial and interpretive tradition that regards Thy. 920-969 as a monody. Based on a systematic analysis of attribution differences in three selected plays by Seneca and, comparatively, in several other problematic places, it confirms earlier general findings: the A-branch of the MS tradition shows traces of conscious interpolation, while the codex Etruscus (E-branch) contains largely mechanical errors, which—in the case of Thy. 920-969—makes its attribution more plausible. The article further discusses the problematic passages of the ode that might have motivated interpolations, provides a critique of the interpretive assumptions supporting the A reading, and demonstrates that the attribution in the E-branch is correct in the light of the rules of Senecan poetics, as well as from the point of view of the internal logic of the text and the ethopoeia of the eponymous hero.
本文旨在修正将《诗经》920-969 视为单调的编辑和解释传统。920-969》是一部单曲。基于对塞内加所选三个剧本中的归属差异的系统分析,以及对其他几个存在问题的地方的比较,文章证实了之前的一般发现:MS 传统的 A 分支显示出有意识插补的痕迹,而 Etruscus 抄本(E 分支)则主要包含机械错误,这在 Thy.就 Thy.920-969 而言,这使其归属更为可信。文章进一步讨论了颂歌中可能导致插补的问题段落,对支持 A 读法的解释性假设进行了批判,并根据塞内卡诗学的规则,以及从文本的内在逻辑和同名英雄的伦理角度证明了 E 支本中的归属是正确的。
期刊介绍:
Since its first appearance as a journal of textual criticism in 1852, Mnemosyne has secured a position as one of the leading journals in its field worldwide. Its reputation is built on the Dutch academic tradition, famous for its rigour and thoroughness. It attracts contributions from all over the world, with the result that Mnemosyne is distinctive for a combination of scholarly approaches from both sides of the Atlantic and the Equator. Its presence in libraries around the globe is a sign of its continued reputation as an invaluable resource for scholarship in Classical studies.