普鲁塔克对奇闻轶事的运用与《平静的动物》的出版日期

IF 0.1 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
PHILOLOGUS Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.1515/phil-2020-0123
B. Demulder
{"title":"普鲁塔克对奇闻轶事的运用与《平静的动物》的出版日期","authors":"B. Demulder","doi":"10.1515/phil-2020-0123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plutarch’s De tranquillitate animi had been regarded as an early work until Jones, in his seminal article on the chronology of Plutarch’s works, argued for a much later date (after 107 CE). Although I agree with Jones’ late dating, I question his arguments for it. Instead, I argue for a terminus post quem (TPQ) around 110 CE by considering an unnoticed parallel between De tranq. anim. and Plutarch’s Caesar. This parallel also illustrates Plutarch’s creative use of anecdotes. Jones adduces three arguments for a late dating of De tranq. anim. (1) Calling Minicius Fundanus ὁ κράτιστος, as Plutarch does at 464 f, would be most fitting after Fundanus’ consulship (107 CE). (2) At 470 c Plutarch ridicules the power hunger of Chians, Galatians, and Bithynians pursuing senatorial careers, thus alluding to political developments under Trajan. (3) De tranq. anim. was probably written around the same time as De cohibenda ira, which also mentions the characters Fundanus and Eros, i. e. after 92–93 CE. The first argument stands out because it points to a later date than the others. Jones must have regarded this argument as decisive, since he concludes that De tranq. anim. was written after c. 107 CE. However, in Plutarch’s time the term κράτιστος was a general show of respect and did not indicate a specific title or position. There is no reason why Fundanus could not have been κράτιστος in","PeriodicalId":44663,"journal":{"name":"PHILOLOGUS","volume":"7 1","pages":"153 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plutarch’s Use of Anecdotes and the Date of De Tranquillitate Animi\",\"authors\":\"B. Demulder\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/phil-2020-0123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plutarch’s De tranquillitate animi had been regarded as an early work until Jones, in his seminal article on the chronology of Plutarch’s works, argued for a much later date (after 107 CE). Although I agree with Jones’ late dating, I question his arguments for it. Instead, I argue for a terminus post quem (TPQ) around 110 CE by considering an unnoticed parallel between De tranq. anim. and Plutarch’s Caesar. This parallel also illustrates Plutarch’s creative use of anecdotes. Jones adduces three arguments for a late dating of De tranq. anim. (1) Calling Minicius Fundanus ὁ κράτιστος, as Plutarch does at 464 f, would be most fitting after Fundanus’ consulship (107 CE). (2) At 470 c Plutarch ridicules the power hunger of Chians, Galatians, and Bithynians pursuing senatorial careers, thus alluding to political developments under Trajan. (3) De tranq. anim. was probably written around the same time as De cohibenda ira, which also mentions the characters Fundanus and Eros, i. e. after 92–93 CE. The first argument stands out because it points to a later date than the others. Jones must have regarded this argument as decisive, since he concludes that De tranq. anim. was written after c. 107 CE. However, in Plutarch’s time the term κράτιστος was a general show of respect and did not indicate a specific title or position. There is no reason why Fundanus could not have been κράτιστος in\",\"PeriodicalId\":44663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOLOGUS\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"153 - 158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOLOGUS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2020-0123\",\"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":"PHILOLOGUS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2020-0123","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

普鲁塔克的《论平静的动物》一直被认为是一部早期作品,直到琼斯在他的一篇关于普鲁塔克作品年表的开创性文章中,提出了一个更晚的日期(公元107年之后)。虽然我同意琼斯的晚约会,但我质疑他的论据。相反,我认为终点后队列(TPQ)在公元110年左右,通过考虑De tranq之间未被注意到的相似之处。动画。以及普鲁塔克的凯撒。这个比喻也说明了普鲁塔克对轶事的创造性运用。琼斯引用了三个理由来证明《宁静》的年代较晚。动画。(1)象普鲁塔克在公元464年所说的那样,称米尼乌斯为Fundanus ς κρ τιστος,在Fundanus担任执政官(公元107年)之后,是最合适的。(2)公元470年,普鲁塔克嘲笑追求元老院生涯的中国、加拉太和庇提尼亚人的权力饥渴,从而暗指图拉真统治下的政治发展。(3)宁静。动画。可能与De cohibenda ira写于同一时期,其中也提到了Fundanus和Eros,即在公元92-93年之后。第一个参数比较突出,因为它指向的日期比其他的晚。琼斯一定认为这个论点是决定性的,因为他得出结论说,《论宁静》。动画。写于公元107年以后。然而,在普鲁塔克时代,κρ τιστος这个词是一种普遍的敬意,并不表示特定的头衔或职位。没有理由说Fundanus不可能是κρ τιστος in
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Plutarch’s Use of Anecdotes and the Date of De Tranquillitate Animi
Plutarch’s De tranquillitate animi had been regarded as an early work until Jones, in his seminal article on the chronology of Plutarch’s works, argued for a much later date (after 107 CE). Although I agree with Jones’ late dating, I question his arguments for it. Instead, I argue for a terminus post quem (TPQ) around 110 CE by considering an unnoticed parallel between De tranq. anim. and Plutarch’s Caesar. This parallel also illustrates Plutarch’s creative use of anecdotes. Jones adduces three arguments for a late dating of De tranq. anim. (1) Calling Minicius Fundanus ὁ κράτιστος, as Plutarch does at 464 f, would be most fitting after Fundanus’ consulship (107 CE). (2) At 470 c Plutarch ridicules the power hunger of Chians, Galatians, and Bithynians pursuing senatorial careers, thus alluding to political developments under Trajan. (3) De tranq. anim. was probably written around the same time as De cohibenda ira, which also mentions the characters Fundanus and Eros, i. e. after 92–93 CE. The first argument stands out because it points to a later date than the others. Jones must have regarded this argument as decisive, since he concludes that De tranq. anim. was written after c. 107 CE. However, in Plutarch’s time the term κράτιστος was a general show of respect and did not indicate a specific title or position. There is no reason why Fundanus could not have been κράτιστος in
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
PHILOLOGUS
PHILOLOGUS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Die Beiträge behandeln Probleme der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur, Geschichtsschreibung, Philosophie, Religionsgeschichte und Linguistik sowie ihrer Rezeption und der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Ziel der Zeitschrift ist es, einen Beitrag zur Erhellung der geistigen Kultur der Antike und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte zu leisten. "Philologus" is one of the oldest and most respected periodicals in the field of classical studies. Its articles investigate Greek and Roman literature, historiography, philosophy, history of religion, linguistics, and history of science. The journal contributes to reconstructing and understanding ancient intellectual culture and its lasting influence on European civilization.
×
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