巴兹尔在《六角星7》中对阿匹安的使用:重新思考他的动物学知识来源

Colten Cheuk-Yin Yam
{"title":"巴兹尔在《六角星7》中对阿匹安的使用:重新思考他的动物学知识来源","authors":"Colten Cheuk-Yin Yam","doi":"10.1515/zac-2023-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In analyzing the discussion of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7, this article attempts to shed light on the source that Basil of Caesarea used in his exposition of Gen 1:20. It will first critically review the old (but widely accepted) thesis of Jean Levie that Basil’s knowledge of natural history comes solely from an Aristotelian epitome. In rejecting this view, this paper will argue that Basil’s materials, in fact, draw on a more complex tradition than simply being directly extracted from Aristotle’s work. In the second part, four sources that are adduced in relation to Homilia in hexaemeron 7, namely Pliny, Aelian, Oppian, and Plutarch will be examined. By analyzing the similarities and differences between Basil and these sources, I will demonstrate that Oppian’s Halieutica is the most likely source that Basil consulted and used as a framework for composing the examples of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7,3–6, despite the apparent similarities among the four sources. I will also propose ways of interpreting the apparent similarities between Basil and the three other sources.","PeriodicalId":202431,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basil’s Use of Oppian in Homilia in hexaemeron 7: His Source of Zoological Knowledge Reconsidered\",\"authors\":\"Colten Cheuk-Yin Yam\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zac-2023-0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In analyzing the discussion of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7, this article attempts to shed light on the source that Basil of Caesarea used in his exposition of Gen 1:20. It will first critically review the old (but widely accepted) thesis of Jean Levie that Basil’s knowledge of natural history comes solely from an Aristotelian epitome. In rejecting this view, this paper will argue that Basil’s materials, in fact, draw on a more complex tradition than simply being directly extracted from Aristotle’s work. In the second part, four sources that are adduced in relation to Homilia in hexaemeron 7, namely Pliny, Aelian, Oppian, and Plutarch will be examined. By analyzing the similarities and differences between Basil and these sources, I will demonstrate that Oppian’s Halieutica is the most likely source that Basil consulted and used as a framework for composing the examples of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7,3–6, despite the apparent similarities among the four sources. I will also propose ways of interpreting the apparent similarities between Basil and the three other sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2023-0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2023-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文通过分析《六角星记》第七章中对鱼的讨论,试图揭示该撒利亚的巴西尔在他对创世记1:20的解释中所使用的来源。它将首先批判性地回顾让·列维(Jean Levie)的一个古老的(但被广泛接受的)论点,即巴兹尔的自然史知识完全来自亚里士多德的一个缩影。在拒绝这种观点的同时,本文将论证,巴兹尔的材料,实际上,借鉴了一个更复杂的传统,而不是简单地直接从亚里士多德的著作中提取。在第二部分中,我们将考察与《六角星7》中荷马利亚相关的四个来源,即普林尼、埃利安、奥庇安和普鲁塔克。通过分析巴兹尔和这些来源之间的异同,我将证明,尽管四种来源之间存在明显的相似性,但巴兹尔最可能参考的来源是《阿皮安的哈利乌提卡》,并将其用作构成《六面体》7,3 - 6中荷马利亚鱼的例子的框架。我还将提出解释罗勒和其他三个来源之间明显相似之处的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Basil’s Use of Oppian in Homilia in hexaemeron 7: His Source of Zoological Knowledge Reconsidered
Abstract In analyzing the discussion of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7, this article attempts to shed light on the source that Basil of Caesarea used in his exposition of Gen 1:20. It will first critically review the old (but widely accepted) thesis of Jean Levie that Basil’s knowledge of natural history comes solely from an Aristotelian epitome. In rejecting this view, this paper will argue that Basil’s materials, in fact, draw on a more complex tradition than simply being directly extracted from Aristotle’s work. In the second part, four sources that are adduced in relation to Homilia in hexaemeron 7, namely Pliny, Aelian, Oppian, and Plutarch will be examined. By analyzing the similarities and differences between Basil and these sources, I will demonstrate that Oppian’s Halieutica is the most likely source that Basil consulted and used as a framework for composing the examples of fish in Homilia in hexaemeron 7,3–6, despite the apparent similarities among the four sources. I will also propose ways of interpreting the apparent similarities between Basil and the three other sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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