{"title":"关于卢克雷齐奥的《自然》中的自然和物种的一些评论(以及对案文的说明)","authors":"Luca Beltramini","doi":"10.1515/phil-2020-0109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article proposes to re-examine the Lucretian formula naturae species ratioque (1.146–148 = 2.59–61 = 3.91–93 = 6.39–41), the meaning of which has prompted some critical debate. The examination begins from an analysis of rhetoric and argument in the sections in which the phrase occurs, with the goal of demonstrating that the meaning ‘rational vision of nature’ is more apt to the context and to Lucretius’ poetic and philosophical programme, which often relies on metaphors drawn from the semantic field of vision to describe the comprehension of natural phenomena and the didactic aim of the work. In the light of this, the final part of the paper discusses the textual problem concerning lines 6.56–57 (= 90–91), which are normally considered spurious but which can be understood better in the light of the Lucretian conception of philosophy (and of poetry) as penetrating vision.","PeriodicalId":44663,"journal":{"name":"PHILOLOGUS","volume":"148 1","pages":"308 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alcune osservazioni su naturae species ratioque nel De rerum natura di Lucrezio (e una nota al testo)\",\"authors\":\"Luca Beltramini\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/phil-2020-0109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article proposes to re-examine the Lucretian formula naturae species ratioque (1.146–148 = 2.59–61 = 3.91–93 = 6.39–41), the meaning of which has prompted some critical debate. The examination begins from an analysis of rhetoric and argument in the sections in which the phrase occurs, with the goal of demonstrating that the meaning ‘rational vision of nature’ is more apt to the context and to Lucretius’ poetic and philosophical programme, which often relies on metaphors drawn from the semantic field of vision to describe the comprehension of natural phenomena and the didactic aim of the work. In the light of this, the final part of the paper discusses the textual problem concerning lines 6.56–57 (= 90–91), which are normally considered spurious but which can be understood better in the light of the Lucretian conception of philosophy (and of poetry) as penetrating vision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOLOGUS\",\"volume\":\"148 1\",\"pages\":\"308 - 331\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-06\",\"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-2020-0109\",\"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-2020-0109","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
摘要本文提出重新审视Lucretian公式naturae species ratioque(1.146-148 = 2.59-61 = 3.91-93 = 6.39-41),该公式的含义一直存在争议。考试从对该短语出现的部分的修辞和论证的分析开始,目的是证明“理性的自然视野”的含义更适合上下文和卢克莱修的诗歌和哲学计划,这通常依赖于从语义视野中提取的隐喻来描述对自然现象的理解和作品的教学目的。鉴于此,本文的最后一部分讨论了关于6.56-57行(= 90-91)的文本问题,这通常被认为是虚假的,但可以更好地理解卢克莱安的哲学(和诗歌)概念作为穿透性的视觉。
Alcune osservazioni su naturae species ratioque nel De rerum natura di Lucrezio (e una nota al testo)
Abstract The article proposes to re-examine the Lucretian formula naturae species ratioque (1.146–148 = 2.59–61 = 3.91–93 = 6.39–41), the meaning of which has prompted some critical debate. The examination begins from an analysis of rhetoric and argument in the sections in which the phrase occurs, with the goal of demonstrating that the meaning ‘rational vision of nature’ is more apt to the context and to Lucretius’ poetic and philosophical programme, which often relies on metaphors drawn from the semantic field of vision to describe the comprehension of natural phenomena and the didactic aim of the work. In the light of this, the final part of the paper discusses the textual problem concerning lines 6.56–57 (= 90–91), which are normally considered spurious but which can be understood better in the light of the Lucretian conception of philosophy (and of poetry) as penetrating vision.
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.