塞内加《腓尼基妇女》文本注释

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
Iwona Słomak
{"title":"塞内加《腓尼基妇女》文本注释","authors":"Iwona Słomak","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to revise previous findings concerning selected passages of Seneca’s <jats:italic>Phoenician Women</jats:italic> (374-375; 610-613; 184-187; 314-315; 437-439; 631-632). In each of them, the unanimous reading of the MSS was replaced by conjectures which are now almost universally accepted by reputable editors and commentators. To justify these emendations, it was argued that the MS phrase did not make sense or was grammatically or stylistically incorrect; sometimes, the text was modified on the assumption that the author had imitated another poet when working on a particular line. In this paper, the passages are analysed in the light of Seneca’s other statements and against the broader background of ancient literary tradition. The results show that the conjectures are based on unconfirmed assumptions or flawed premises and thus should be rejected in favour of the MS reading.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"24 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Notes on the Text of Seneca’s Phoenician Women\",\"authors\":\"Iwona Słomak\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1568525x-bja10151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims to revise previous findings concerning selected passages of Seneca’s <jats:italic>Phoenician Women</jats:italic> (374-375; 610-613; 184-187; 314-315; 437-439; 631-632). In each of them, the unanimous reading of the MSS was replaced by conjectures which are now almost universally accepted by reputable editors and commentators. To justify these emendations, it was argued that the MS phrase did not make sense or was grammatically or stylistically incorrect; sometimes, the text was modified on the assumption that the author had imitated another poet when working on a particular line. In this paper, the passages are analysed in the light of Seneca’s other statements and against the broader background of ancient literary tradition. The results show that the conjectures are based on unconfirmed assumptions or flawed premises and thus should be rejected in favour of the MS reading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-09\",\"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-bja10151\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MNEMOSYNE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10151","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

摘要

本文旨在修订先前关于塞内加的《腓尼基妇女》(374-375;610 - 613;184 - 187;314 - 315;437 - 439;631 - 632)。在每一份报告中,对MSS的一致解读都被现在几乎被著名编辑和评论员普遍接受的猜测所取代。为了证明这些修改的合理性,有人认为MS短语没有意义,或者在语法或风格上不正确;有时,文章会被修改,假设作者在写某一行时模仿了另一位诗人。在本文中,这些段落是根据塞内加的其他言论和古代文学传统的更广泛的背景来分析的。结果表明,这些猜测是基于未经证实的假设或有缺陷的前提,因此应该拒绝赞成MS阅读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Some Notes on the Text of Seneca’s Phoenician Women
This article aims to revise previous findings concerning selected passages of Seneca’s Phoenician Women (374-375; 610-613; 184-187; 314-315; 437-439; 631-632). In each of them, the unanimous reading of the MSS was replaced by conjectures which are now almost universally accepted by reputable editors and commentators. To justify these emendations, it was argued that the MS phrase did not make sense or was grammatically or stylistically incorrect; sometimes, the text was modified on the assumption that the author had imitated another poet when working on a particular line. In this paper, the passages are analysed in the light of Seneca’s other statements and against the broader background of ancient literary tradition. The results show that the conjectures are based on unconfirmed assumptions or flawed premises and thus should be rejected in favour of the MS reading.
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
MNEMOSYNE
MNEMOSYNE CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
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.
×
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