"Boxing as a Stoic Paradigm": A Philosophical Reading of the Fight between Amycus and Pollux in Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica (4.199–343) with a View to Seneca's De Ira

Th Antoniadis
{"title":"\"Boxing as a Stoic Paradigm\": A Philosophical Reading of the Fight between Amycus and Pollux in Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica (4.199–343) with a View to Seneca's De Ira","authors":"Th Antoniadis","doi":"10.5406/ILLICLASSTUD.42.1.0163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In his version of the bout between Amycus and Pollux, which culminates the Argonauts' stopover at Bebrycia in Argonautica 4, Valerius Flaccus is evoking a well-known epic tradition of boxing matches. Simultaneously, he appears to be reworking those model texts with the same protagonists \"in the ring,\" by adding further elements from Homer, Vergil, and Ovid that bring Amycus closer to other terrifying creatures of epic such as Polyphemus and Cacus. However, the portrayal of Amycus' almost inexplicable furor and ira bears some discernible Stoic influences: the symptoms that, according to Seneca's theory in his treatise De Ira, are exhibited by a volatile man who, having lost his self-control and reasoning, is prone to anger and its devastating effects. On the contrary, Pollux's more calculating tactic during the fight reveals the kind of rational perceptiveness of a Stoic sage which gradually paves the way for his feat. Overall, the boxing match itself introduces a philosophical element to Valerius' source material that propels the reader to assess the whole episode both through its intertextual and intratextual dynamics.","PeriodicalId":81501,"journal":{"name":"Illinois classical studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"163 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Illinois classical studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/ILLICLASSTUD.42.1.0163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract:In his version of the bout between Amycus and Pollux, which culminates the Argonauts' stopover at Bebrycia in Argonautica 4, Valerius Flaccus is evoking a well-known epic tradition of boxing matches. Simultaneously, he appears to be reworking those model texts with the same protagonists "in the ring," by adding further elements from Homer, Vergil, and Ovid that bring Amycus closer to other terrifying creatures of epic such as Polyphemus and Cacus. However, the portrayal of Amycus' almost inexplicable furor and ira bears some discernible Stoic influences: the symptoms that, according to Seneca's theory in his treatise De Ira, are exhibited by a volatile man who, having lost his self-control and reasoning, is prone to anger and its devastating effects. On the contrary, Pollux's more calculating tactic during the fight reveals the kind of rational perceptiveness of a Stoic sage which gradually paves the way for his feat. Overall, the boxing match itself introduces a philosophical element to Valerius' source material that propels the reader to assess the whole episode both through its intertextual and intratextual dynamics.
“拳击是斯多葛主义的范式”——从塞涅卡的《德伊拉》看弗拉库斯的《阿尔戈》(4.199-343)中Amycus与Pollux之争的哲学解读
摘要:在他描述的Amycus和Pollux之间的较量中,Valerius Flaccus唤起了一个著名的拳击比赛史诗传统,这场较量以Argonautica 4的Bebrycia停留为高潮。同时,他似乎正在重新设计那些具有相同主人公“在环中”的模型文本,添加了荷马、维吉尔和奥维德的更多元素,使阿米库斯更接近其他可怕的史诗生物,如波里菲莫斯和仙人掌。然而,对Amycus几乎无法解释的愤怒和ira的刻画受到了一些明显的斯多葛学派的影响:根据塞涅卡在其论文《De ira》中的理论,这些症状是由一个反复无常的人表现出来的,他失去了自制力和推理能力,容易产生愤怒及其毁灭性影响。相反,波卢克斯在战斗中更为精明的策略揭示了斯多葛派圣人的理性洞察力,这为他的壮举逐渐铺平了道路。总的来说,拳击比赛本身为瓦莱里乌斯的原始材料引入了一种哲学元素,促使读者通过其互文和语篇内的动态来评估整集。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信