Philologia Classica最新文献

{"title":"Reflections on the Hesychian Lemma βουρικυπάρισσος","authors":"E. Kaczyńska","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.105","url":null,"abstract":"The Greek grammarian and lexicographer, Hesychius of Alexandria (5th–6th c. CE) included a Pamphylian gloss: βουρικυπάρισσος ἡ ἄμπελος. Περγαῖοι in his dictionary of rare and dialectal words. Based on a microphilological and lexical analysis, I suggest that the Greek text should be read as follows: βουρί˙κυπάρισσος ἢ ἄμπελος. Περγαῖοι (“bourí: cypress or grapevine. Citizens of Perge”). The Pamphylian gloss in question represents two different borrowings of terms originating in the Near East. The first item βουρί˙κυπάρισσος (‘cypress’) seems to have been borrowed from Akkadian burāšu(m) ‘a kind of conifer tree; juniper or cypress’ with a Lycian intermediary (Akk. burāšu → Luw. *burašiš > Lyc. *burehi > *burhi → Pamph. βουρί), whereas the second one βουρί˙ […] ἄμπελος (‘grapevine’) reflects a separate loanword from an Anatolian source, cf. Hitt. and Luw. muriš c. ‘a grapevine, a vine, a cluster or bunch of grapes or other fruit’. The Pamphylian dialect of Ancient Greek represents an extraordinary idiom, which was used in the neighbourhood of numerous Anatolian languages such as Lycian, Milyan, Sidetic, Pisidian and Cilician. It is therefore not surprising that the Pamphylian Greeks borrowed a number of cultural terms for plants from an Anatolian Indo-European source, as well as from Akkadian or other West Semitic languages via Luwian and Lycian. Additionally, other possible Anatolian borrowings into Ancient Greek (e. g. Gk. dial. βωληνή ‘a type of grapevine’, μῶλαξ ‘id.’ vs. Hittite maḫlaš c. ‘grapevine, Vitis vinifera L.’) are mentioned and reviewed.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89183696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intentionalism and Deontology in the Early Stoic Ethics","authors":"A. Seregin","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.103","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I demonstrate that the early Stoics adhered to a normative theory that may be called intentionalist: the moral significance of any action is not determined by its material content, but by the virtuous or vicious disposition of the agent’s soul and the intentions arising from this disposition. Since according to Stoics all people are divided into virtuous sages and vicious non-sages, all the actions of the former are morally right (κατορθώματα), whereas those of the latter are morally wrong (ἁμαρτήματα), even if they are materially identical. On the other hand, some statements in the Stoic fragments can rather be characterized as deontological: in this case, certain materially defined types of action (stealing, lying, adultery, etc.) seem to be presented as morally wrong in themselves. The paper’s central thesis is that such statements do not contradict the basic Stoic intentionalism but can be interpreted as consistent with it. Such an interpretation becomes possible under two conditions: firstly, if one takes into account how exactly the notions of κατόρθωμα and ἁμάρτημα relate to the Stoic notions of appropriate and inappropriate action (καθῆκον and παρὰ τὸκαθῆκον), and, secondly, if one examines the Stoic position on the moral status of lying, which is very revealing in this respect.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78753525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"V. K. Trediakovskii and A. P. Sumarokov in Polemics about the Sapphic Stanza","authors":"K. Lappo-Danilevskii","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.210","url":null,"abstract":"The transition from syllabic to syllabo-tonic verse in Russian poetry in the 1730s — early 1740s years is connected to the activity of three outstanding writers: Vasilii Trediakovskii (1703–1769), Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765) and Aleksandr Sumarokov (1717–1777). This reform concerned first of foremost binary and ternary meters and paved the way for creation of more complicated meters, among them syllabo-tonic equivalents of ancient Aeolic verse. The Sapphic hendecasyllable was the most known and widespread of them. The sapphic stanza was likewise very popular in European literatures; it consists of three sapphic hendecasyllabic lines and an adonean fourth line. Russian syllabic poets eagerly created rhymed sapphicstanzas with a caesura after the fifth syllable in the hendecasyllables, with the stresses in all four lines unregulated. Trediakovskii composed such sapphic stanzas for his translation of Paul Tallemant’s gallant novel “Le voyage de l’isle d’amour, à Licidas” (Paris, 1663), printed 1730 in Saint Petersburg. In 1735, Trediakovskii published “A New and Brief Method of Composing Russian Verse”, which is considered the beginning of the reform of Russian versification. In this treatise, Trediakovskii proposed a more regulated sapphic stanza. The sapphic hendecasyllables were to consist of six trochees; the third of them, before a regular caesura, was catalectic. All lines concluded with feminine rhymes. In the second edition of this work (1752) Trediakovskii revisited his conception. At this point he understood the sapphic hendecasyllable as a combination of four trochees with one dactyl in the middle of them. Under the influence of Lomonosov’s “Letter on the Rules of the Russian Poetry” (1739) Trediakovskii became convinced of the necessity of alternating rhymes and for this reason decided that the first two lines in the sapphic stanza should have masculine rhymes. As a result he truncated these lines so that they contained only ten syllables. In his lost “Letter about Sapphic and Horatian Stanzas” (1755) Aleksandr Sumarokov expressed strong disagreement with Trediakovskii’s revised conception. He found decasyllables in sapphic stanzas unacceptable; he also came out against regular caesurae. However, Sumarokov treated the metrical structure of the sapphic hendecasyllable the same way as Trediakovskii had. In 1755 and 1758, Sumarokov published three poems in sapphic syllabo-tonic stanzas, rhymed and unrhymed, but always without a regular caesurae. In 1762, Trediakovskii translated two stanzas from Horace’s Carmen saeculare. Their form allows one to conclude that he took Sumarokov’s criticism intoaccount: he rejected decasyllables in these stanzas. Only in the question of caesura did he remain unyielding.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78049088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is it worth multiplying translation multiplicity? From the experience of working on a new translation of Multatuli’s Max Havelaar","authors":"Ekaterina Vekshina, Irina Michajlova","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu21.2022.204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu21.2022.204","url":null,"abstract":"The article is written within the framework of a relatively new trend in translation studies — the study of translation multiplicity (or, in other terminology, re-translation) of fiction. It uses Multatuli’s Max Havelaar (pseudonym of Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820–1887)) as its research material. It is an anti-colonial novel with autobiographical elements that opened Dutch readers’ eyes to the real state of affairs in the Dutch East Indies. These days, Max Havelaar is enjoying a worldwide surge in popularity: between 2017 and 2022, its new translations and retranslations have been published in twelve languages, including English, French and Azerbaijani. The authors of this article, who were involved in creating a new Russian translation (the planned year of publication is 2022), analyse the work of their predecessors — the previous seven Russian editions of the novel, which were published from 1916 to 1959. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the previous Russian versions of Max Havelaar do not meet the modern norms of translation (in the terminology of G. Toury), since all the 20th-century translations of the novel were made not from the Dutch original, but from a German translation, which had been made from the abridged edition of 1871, and not from the full author’s version of 1875–1881. These translations are full of literalisms that do not take into account the context; they contain errors in understanding the author’s text and are unnecessarily difficult to understand. This is why there is a need for a new, modern Russian version, which will allow Russian readers to appreciate Multatuli’s famous book at its true value. The differences in translation strategies in the 20th and 21st centuries are listed and relevant examples are given.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67775571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Ancient Progymnasmata in the Classroom of Sophronios Leichoudes","authors":"Lydia Spyridonova, A. Kurbanov","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.111","url":null,"abstract":"At the core of this paper is a discussion of unpublished progymnasmata (in Greek & Latin) elaborated by a number of Sophronius Leichoudes’ first students. These texts are preserved in three codices from the National Library of Russia. They were dedicated to elaboration of the whole range of the late antique rhetorical exercises such as ethopoeia, encomium, psogos (invective), chreia, commonplace, refutation and confirmation. No manuscripts have revealed examples of the exercises in fable, comparison, ecphrasis, thesis, introduction of a law. However, these progymnasmata, except the latter, were studied in abbreviated form within the preserved exercises. The topics of the pieces proposed by Sophronios are mostly of Christian character, such as a lament of Joseph, Judas’ betrayal, praises of Christmas, saints and martyrs, theological debates and many more. The information preserved on their scholia makes us possible to identify the authors’ names (Nikolay Semeonov Golovin, Aleksey Kirillov, Feodor Polikarpov and Feodor Gerasimov, Fedot Ageev, Iosif Afanas’ev, Peotr Postnikov, Paladiy Rogov, Greeks Anastasios and hierodeacon Dionysios) as well as to specify the essential elements of each exercise to be performed. Based on these materials, we can conclude that Sophronios conveyed to his students the best elements of both Byzantine and Jesuit rhetorical training, in this way the Leichoudian method of instruction corresponds in general to that of contemporary Greek schools.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75205670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν: Explaining the Longevity of the Tmesis","authors":"M. Kazanskaya","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.104","url":null,"abstract":"It is a well-known fact that tmesis (independent use of the preverb from its verb) as a linguistic phenomenon was progressively eliminated from Ancient Greek, so that only residual usage is attested in the language of the Classical age. However, one verb, ἀναδραμεῖν, retained tmetic usage with the particle τε intervening between the preverb and the verb, ἀνά τε ἔδραμε, until late Antiquity (Appian, Eunapius). It is significant that this construction (on par with the non tmetic form ἀνέδραμε) was used in prose, which suggests that it was part of actual linguistic usus. The article examines the reasons behind the unique longevity of this tmesis. Followingan overview of the occurrences of ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν in Herodotus, Appian and Eunapius, and the comparison of the use of the tmetic and non tmetic forms, the elements of the construction are discussed. It is shown that the survival of ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν must have been influenced by the semantic development of the verb (the root no longer denotes actual running, but springing to one’s feet or rapid growth), as well as the capacity of the preverb ἀνα- to appear independently of its verb (the deontic ἄνα). Finally, a possible shift in meaning of τε (as invariable part of the expression) is discussed. While it is impossible to pinpoint one single factor that determined the singular longevity of the tmesis ἀνά τε ἔδραμε in Greek, a combination of factors seems to have contributed to its survival.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90846526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dikaiopolis in Despair (Aristophanes’ Acharnians 30–31)","authors":"B. Nikolsky","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.203","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with a passage from the prologue of Aristophanes’ Acharnians, vv. 30–31. Close reading of the passage and analyzing each verb of the series in vv. 30–31 shows that the entire series of verbs in Acharnians 30–31 describes Dikaiopolis’ suffering and constitutes the culmination of the woes listed in his monologue. This last and greatest of his woes cannot be mere annoyance at having come first to the Pnyx and not knowing how to kill time. στένω must mean a lament tragic in tone, and κέχηνα intensifies this vocal lament though adding a comic bathos. σκορδινῶμαι does not refer here to drowsy stretching as it is usually interpreted by scholars but to convulsions of rage and despair. πέρδομαι indicates acuteness and intensity of Dikaiopolis’ disappointment; the relationship between σκορδινῶμαι and πέρδομαι is similar to that between στένω and κέχηνα, where the second verb emphasizes and marks the culmination of the first (“I’m moaning so much that my mouth is open wide” and “I’m convulsed to the point of farting”). παρατίλλομαι must mean “to tear out the hair on one’s head”, a gesture that is obviously a sign of sorrow and despair. The verbs γράφωand λογίζομαι describe Dikaiopolis writing out and assessing his debts sitting in the assembly place. The lines that follow are tightly connected to 30–31 and explain the reason for the protagonist’s despair: Dikaiopolis dreams of the countryside and hates the city, but due to the war cannot return to the country (32–33); his hatred of the city is further explained by the enormous expenses city life entails.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89431113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Three notes on Asconius","authors":"W. Chrustaljow","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.108","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with three passages from Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s speeches. In the first of these fragments, Asconius reports that Cicero’s daughter Tullia died after childbirth in the house of her husband P. Lentulus. This version stands in contrast to the communis opinio in the scholarship (albeit rested on indirect evidence), according to which Tullia passed away at the Tusculan villa of Cicero after she had given birth to her son in Cicero’s house in Rome. Asconius’ testimony is compared with the account of Plutarch (Cic. 41. 7–8) who tells the same story as the commentator of Cicero. The author concludes that the reports of two ancient writers are based on a common source, namely Cicero’s biography composed by Tiro, in which only the place of birth of Tullia’s son, but not the place of her death was given. Based on this information, Asconius and Plutarch independently of each other came to the logical but wrong conclusion that Tullia died in the house belonged to her ex-husband. In the second passage Asconius mentions that M. Licinius Crassus sat on the jury upon the trial of C. Cornelius de maiestate in 65. In the same year Crassus held the censorship. However, office-holding magistrates were excluded from juries. Since the trial of Cornelius can be dated to the late spring or the first half of summer, we are to assume that Crassus gave up the office by this time. In the third part of the paper Asconius’ account on the murder of Lucretius Afella is examined. According to Asconius, Afella was killed by a L. Bellienus, whereas Plutarch reports that Afella was murdered by one of Sulla’s centurions. The identicalness of L. Bellienus and the anonymous centurion mentioned by Plutarch is usually called into doubt in the scholarship, but the author comes to conclusion that the ancient authors write about the same man.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82732872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Was Pigres an Interpreter to Cyrus?","authors":"R. Rubtsov","doi":"10.21638/spbu20.2022.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.102","url":null,"abstract":"Ancient authors did not leave us any description of ancient interpreters, and neither their usual functions nor possible social positions are known to us. Although this can be partially restored from written sources, the whole picture remains in the shadows. We are not aware of the ways in which people became interpreters in Antiquity, whether such a profession actually existed, and to what extent it is possible to apply the modern understanding of interpreters to ancient times. Finally, there are many dark corners in our understanding of historical specifics: the functions, social status and ethnic origin of interpreters obviously varied in different cultures and time frames. The use of a word or an expression defining the interpreter is another issue, for Greek ἑρμηνεύς, a traditional lexeme in dictionaries of Ancient Greek (LSJ, GE, DELG, GEW, EDG, Woodhouse), does not, in fact, always denote someone related to this line of work. In Xenophon’s Anabasis a person named Pigres is described as ἑρμηνεύς and one of the companions of Cyrus the Younger in his belligerent attempt to overthrow Artaxerxes II. Pigres is usually understood as an interpreter (Gehman, Lendle, Rochette, Wiotte-Franz, Stoneman etc.), but is there a solid basis for such understanding? What do we know about him? What does Xenophon tell us about his responsibilities? The study shows that Pigres’ identity should be understood in relation to the usage of the word ἑρμηνεύς in V–ΙV BCE and to the sociocultural context of Asia Minor under the rule of the Achaemenid dynasty.","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72888102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research Articles on English Phonetics and Phonology Published in Northern Europe from 2002 to 2022: A Systematic Analysis","authors":"Oleksandr (Alexander) Kapranov","doi":"10.18485/philologia.2022.20.20.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18485/philologia.2022.20.20.3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40525,"journal":{"name":"Philologia Classica","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83839193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}