从Antyllos Heliodoros”成为问题的双重Autorenlemma-Angaben Oreibasios和医学Sammelwerken中的Aëtios Amida的

Mathias Witt
{"title":"从Antyllos Heliodoros”成为问题的双重Autorenlemma-Angaben Oreibasios和医学Sammelwerken中的Aëtios Amida的","authors":"Mathias Witt","doi":"10.25162/sar-2019-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous fragments of ancient Greek medical writings otherwise lost have been transmitted in the Byzantine medical compendia by Oribasius (4th cent. AD), Aetius (6th cent. AD) and Paul of Aegina (7th cent. AD). Sometimes, in the compendia by Oribasius and Aetius one single chapter heading does not only indicate one, but two sources, using formulae like “from Antyllus and Heliodorus”. As these double quotations have been misunderstood in the past, this paper attempts to examine their exact meaning by considering all available data, e. g. scholia with author indications (the so-called R2 scholia in Oribasius), parallel Arabic versions of Greek texts and stylistic criteria. The result attained by this process is that in the Greek medical compendia double quotation formulae always indicate that the following chapter is a cento from different passages of the authors mentioned. This does not mean that the same text occurs in both authors or that there is a textual dependency between them, as it has been claimed in the past. Since, in general, changes of authors in such compound passages are either not completely marked by scholia or are not indicated at all, they can only be traced by means of a stylistic analysis and/or parallel (e. g. Arabic) versions of the text in question. The different approaches of identification are comprehensively discussed in the present paper. A comparison between parallel passages in Oribasius’ Medical Collections, the Eclogae and Aetius suggests that the R2scholia to Oribasius’ Medical Collections must have been written prior to Aetius’ lifetime (first half of the 6th century AD).","PeriodicalId":76565,"journal":{"name":"Sudhoffs Archiv","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aus Antyllos und Heliodoros“ Zum Problem der doppelten Autorenlemma-Angaben in den medizinischen Sammelwerken des Oreibasios und Aëtios von Amida\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Witt\",\"doi\":\"10.25162/sar-2019-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Numerous fragments of ancient Greek medical writings otherwise lost have been transmitted in the Byzantine medical compendia by Oribasius (4th cent. AD), Aetius (6th cent. AD) and Paul of Aegina (7th cent. AD). Sometimes, in the compendia by Oribasius and Aetius one single chapter heading does not only indicate one, but two sources, using formulae like “from Antyllus and Heliodorus”. As these double quotations have been misunderstood in the past, this paper attempts to examine their exact meaning by considering all available data, e. g. scholia with author indications (the so-called R2 scholia in Oribasius), parallel Arabic versions of Greek texts and stylistic criteria. The result attained by this process is that in the Greek medical compendia double quotation formulae always indicate that the following chapter is a cento from different passages of the authors mentioned. This does not mean that the same text occurs in both authors or that there is a textual dependency between them, as it has been claimed in the past. Since, in general, changes of authors in such compound passages are either not completely marked by scholia or are not indicated at all, they can only be traced by means of a stylistic analysis and/or parallel (e. g. Arabic) versions of the text in question. The different approaches of identification are comprehensively discussed in the present paper. A comparison between parallel passages in Oribasius’ Medical Collections, the Eclogae and Aetius suggests that the R2scholia to Oribasius’ Medical Collections must have been written prior to Aetius’ lifetime (first half of the 6th century AD).\",\"PeriodicalId\":76565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sudhoffs Archiv\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sudhoffs Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25162/sar-2019-0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sudhoffs Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25162/sar-2019-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

奥里巴修斯(公元4世纪)、埃提乌斯(公元6世纪)和埃伊纳的保罗(公元7世纪)在拜占庭医学纲要中传播了许多古希腊医学著作的碎片,否则它们就会丢失。有时,在奥里巴修斯和埃提乌斯的《概要》中,一个章节的标题不仅表明了一个来源,而是两个来源,使用“来自安提拉斯和赫利奥多罗斯”这样的公式。由于这些双引号在过去一直被误解,本文试图通过考虑所有可用的数据来检查它们的确切含义,例如,带有作者指示的scholia(在Oribasius中称为R2 scholia),希腊文本的平行阿拉伯语版本和风格标准。这一过程的结果是,在希腊医学纲要双引号公式总是表明下一章是从不同的段落提到的作者。这并不意味着相同的文本出现在两位作者身上,或者他们之间存在文本依赖性,就像过去所声称的那样。由于一般来说,这种复合段落中作者的变化要么没有被学者完全标记出来,要么根本没有被指出,因此只能通过文体分析和/或相关文本的平行版本(例如阿拉伯语)来追踪。本文对不同的识别方法进行了全面的讨论。比较奥里巴修斯的《医学文集》、《Eclogae》和《埃提乌斯》中的平行段落,可以看出奥里巴修斯的《医学文集》的R2scholia一定是在埃提乌斯生前(公元6世纪上半叶)写的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aus Antyllos und Heliodoros“ Zum Problem der doppelten Autorenlemma-Angaben in den medizinischen Sammelwerken des Oreibasios und Aëtios von Amida
Numerous fragments of ancient Greek medical writings otherwise lost have been transmitted in the Byzantine medical compendia by Oribasius (4th cent. AD), Aetius (6th cent. AD) and Paul of Aegina (7th cent. AD). Sometimes, in the compendia by Oribasius and Aetius one single chapter heading does not only indicate one, but two sources, using formulae like “from Antyllus and Heliodorus”. As these double quotations have been misunderstood in the past, this paper attempts to examine their exact meaning by considering all available data, e. g. scholia with author indications (the so-called R2 scholia in Oribasius), parallel Arabic versions of Greek texts and stylistic criteria. The result attained by this process is that in the Greek medical compendia double quotation formulae always indicate that the following chapter is a cento from different passages of the authors mentioned. This does not mean that the same text occurs in both authors or that there is a textual dependency between them, as it has been claimed in the past. Since, in general, changes of authors in such compound passages are either not completely marked by scholia or are not indicated at all, they can only be traced by means of a stylistic analysis and/or parallel (e. g. Arabic) versions of the text in question. The different approaches of identification are comprehensively discussed in the present paper. A comparison between parallel passages in Oribasius’ Medical Collections, the Eclogae and Aetius suggests that the R2scholia to Oribasius’ Medical Collections must have been written prior to Aetius’ lifetime (first half of the 6th century AD).
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
CiteScore
0.40
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