Advertisement

Book reviews

  • Karl Galinsky
  • Johannes Engels
  • Norma Thompson
  • Harold Tarrant
  • Michael Erler
  • M. J. Edwards
  • John Dillon
  • Thomas Habinek
  • Sigrid Mratschek
  • Andrew Galloway
  • R. N. Swanson
  • Walther Ludwig
  • Ann Ellis Hanson
  • Wilhelm Kühlmann
  • Chris L. Heesakkers
  • Paul Malo
  • Luc Deitz
  • Brendan Dooley
  • Jane Tylus
  • F. L. van Holthoon
  • Egon Verheyen
  • John Vaio
Article
  • 106 Downloads

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See the review of Kahn'sPlato and the Socratic Dialogue: the Philosophical Use of a Literary Form (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) by Charles L. Griswold, Jr., “E Pluribus Unum? On the Platonic ‘Corpus’”,Ancient Philosophy 19 (1999): 361–397.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrea Wilson Nightingale, “Plato'sGorgias and Euripides'Antiope: A Study in Generic Transformation,”Classical Antiquity 11 (1992): 121–141; Ann N. Michelini, “Polle Agroikia: Rudeness and Irony in Plato'sGorgias,”Classical Philology 93 (1998): 50–59. Older works with this same all-embracing spirit include Arlene W. Saxonhouse, “An Unspoken Theme in Plato'sGorgias: War,”Interpretation 11,2 (1983): 139–169, and Richard McKim, “Shame and Truth in Plato'sGorgias,” in:Platonic Writings, Platonic Readings, ed. Charles L. Griswold, Jr. (London & New York: Routledge, 1988; repr. with new preface and bibliography, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002): 34–48.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Th. Cole,The origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Baltimore 1991; E. Schiappa, “Did Plato coin Rhetorike”,American Journal of Philology 111, 1990, 457–70; ders.Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric, Columbia SC 1991, 39–63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.J. Pendrick, “Plato and Rhetorike”,Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 141, 1998, 10–23.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. v. Arnim,Leben und Werke des Dion von Prusa, Berlin 1894.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.N. Tigerstedt,The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation. An Outline and Some Observations, Commentationes humanarum litterarum 52, Helsinki 1974.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Preface XIII.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nach Th. Lehmann. Zum archäologischen Befund demnächst ders.,Paulinus Nolanus und die Basilica Nova in Cimitile/Nola, Diss. Münster 1994 (im Druck).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Die Chronologie ist gesichert und basiert auf D.E. Trout, “The dates of the ordination of Paulinus of Bordeaux and of his departure for Nola”Revue des Études Augustiniennes 37 (1991), 237–60. Ein Hinweis auf J. Desmulliez' (“Paulin de Nole. Etudes chronologiques [393–397]”,Recherches Augustiniennes 20, 1985, 35–64) anderslautende Reihenfolge und Datierung dernatalicia wurde bei der Tabelle offenbar aus optischen Gründen vermieden.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Wells,The Roman Empire, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), 221=Das Römische Reich (München, 1985), 252; A. Baudrillart,Saint Paulin: Évêque de Nole, 353–431 (Paris, 1905), I–VIII; W.H.C. Frend in der Nachfolge Momiglianos, “Paulinus of Nola and the Last Century of the Western Empire”,Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969), 11.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    War Paulinus mit den Anicii verwandt? Dafür ergibt sich, wie schon T.D. Barnes (“The conversion of the Roman Aristocracy in Prudentius'Contra Symmachum”, Phoenix 45, 1991, 54) und D.M. Novak (A Late Roman Aristocratic Family: The Anicii in the Third and Fourth Centuries, Diss. Univ. of Chicago 1976, 187) nachweisen konnten, kein Indiz; siehe aber die Zweifel Trouts (26, n. 19).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Settipani, “Prosopographica X. Ruricius Ier, évêque de Limoges et ses relations familiales”,Francia 18/1 (1991), 195–219.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fast alle Zeugnisse stammen aus der Zeit nach Paulinus' Konversion in Nola.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vor seiner Taufe (ca. 388/9) oder vor seinem Vermögensverzicht (393/4) scheint mir dies wenig wahrscheinlich.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.W. Bowersock (Julian the Apostate, London, 1978, 87) hat am Beispiel Julians gezeigt, daß auch heidnische Kaiser ihrephilanthropia dadurch bewiesen, daß in jeder Stadt Hospize eingerichtet wurden, und nicht alle Christen demonstrierten Milde, wie die Zerstörung heidnischer Tempel auf der Reise des Prätorianerpräfekten Maternus Cynegius durch Syrien zeigt (Liban.,Or. 30,8Pro Templis).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul.ep. 3,4:…Ambrosii semper et dilectione ad fidem innutritus sum … (“Durch die Liebe des Ambrosius bin ich stets zum Glauben erzogen worden …”).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. 49: zwischen Ende 381 und Sommer 383. Appendix B, 282; C, 289: ca. 383 oder 384.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quod … enim indicasti iam de humilitatis nostrae nomine apud Mediolanum te didicisse, cum illic initiareris … (“Deinen Hinweis betreffend, daß du den Namen meiner unbedeutenden Person schon in Mailand vernommen hast, als du dort getauft wurdest …”).—Die Anwesenheit Gratians in Mailand 381 (T. 49, n. 153) hast kein hinreichender Grund, einen Besuch des Paulinus anzunehmen.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Costanza, “I rapporti tra Ambrogio e Paolino di Nola”, in: G. Lazzati (ed.),Ambrosius Episcopus (Milano, 1967), 220–32.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    z.B. J. Desmulliez, in: Ch. und L. Pietri,Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 2, pt. 2, École française de Rome (Paris-Rom, 2000), 1631 f.s.v. Paulinus.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gründe für die drohende Konfiskation sind der notorische Geldmangel des Usurpators Magnus Maximus vor der Invasion Italiens und die auffallende Übereinstimmung vonPaneg. 2(12),25,1–3 und Paul.carm. 21,416–20. Siehe die Diskussion bei S. Mratschek,Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Hypomnemata 134 (Göttingen, 2002), 83–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulinus' Taufe war m.E. keine Reaktion auf den Tod seines Bruders, sondern eher auf die Hinrichtung Priszillians, anders T. 65. Sie fand möglicherweise gleichzeitig mit der Taufe seines Bruders statt, da dieser inep. 36,1 als geistlicher Sohn (spiritalis filius) und beide als Söhne (filii) des Bischofs Delphinus von Bordeaux bezeichnet werden.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faszinierend interpretiert von T. 68–77 (“Spain”). Mythische Vergleiche mit der etruskischen Magierin Tanaquil und Bellerophon beschwören die Erinnerung an die Hinrichtung Priscillians und die Anklage wegen Hexerei herauf.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul.ep. 32,17.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Den Begriff hat P. Brown (The Cult of the Saints, Chicago, 1981) geprägt, T. benutzt den Ausdruck “promoting” (165). Den Anspruch auf diese Rolle leitet er aus Paulinus' Stellung als “senatorischer Aristokrat, … und lokaler Patron” ab (162).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Die Bankierssprache würde m.E. besser zu T.'s “Theorie der heilsamen Besitztümer” in Kap. 6 passen.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Es lohnt sich, den Bericht auch auf die juristischen Fakten hinter der Rhetorik zu überprüfen, vgl. S. Mratschek,Briefwechsel (Anm. 15), 374–88.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Conybeare,Paulinus Noster. Self and Symbols in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola (Oxford, 2000), bes. Kap. 3: “Amicitia andcaritas Christi: friendship and the love of Christ”.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    So etwa die Jugendfreundschaft des Severus (familiaritas), die durch den Einfluß christlicher Liebe (caritas) eine neue Dimension erfährt, die Grenzen der Freundschaft zwischen Paulinus und Ausonius, die Vision der mystischen Vereinigung von menschlicher und göttlicher Liebe bei der poetischen Vorstellung der Verwandten Melanias incarm. 21, die friedensstiftende Liebe von Nicetas' Missionstätigkeit und die “Harmonie der Seelen” eines jung verheirateten Paares. Zu Nicetas und zum Leitmotiv der Freundschaft siehe jetzt R. Kirstein,Paulinus Nolanus. Carmen 17, Chrêsis VIII (Basel, 2000), 61–73.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Es wurde angeregt von E.A. Clark,The Origenist Controversy: Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992), und von der italienischen Forschung, z.B.S. Leanza, A. Nazzaro u.a. in:Atti del Convegno. XXXI Cinquantenario della morte di S. Paolino di Nola, 431–1981 (Roma, 1982).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zum juristischen Vorgehen und Ablauf des Schismas könnte man auf H. Chantraine zurückgreifen, “Das Schisma 418/19 und das Eingreifen der kaiserlichen Gewalt in die römische Bischofswahl”, in: P. Kneissl—V. Losemann (Hg.),Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag (Darmstadt, 1988), 79–94. Zur Nachwirkung in Gallien siehe M. Heinzelmann,Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien, Beihefte der Francia 5 (München, 1976).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Preface XIII.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Epilog 269.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Constant J. MewsThe lost love letters of Heloise and Abelard: perceptions of dialogue in twelfth-century France (Basingstoke: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999, repr. New York & Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001). [See also Idem, “Philosophical Themes in theEpistolae duorum amantium: The First Letters of Heloise and Abelard” in: Bonnie Wheeler, ed.,Listening to Heloise: The Voice of a Twelfth-Century Woman (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2001), 35–52. —On the ascription cf. Peter Dronke's review of Bonnie Wheeler, ed.,Listening to Heloise etc., above in this volume (IJCT 8 [2001/02], 134–139), and the brief reply in the review article by John Ward and Katie Chambers, “The (Self-)Censored Masters: Classisicm, Humanism and the Arbitration of Orthodoxy in the ‘Heroic Age’” (on Peter Godman,The Silent Masters: Latin Literature and Its Censors in the High Middle Ages [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000] and R.W. Southern,Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe, II.The Heroic Age [Oxford: Blackwell, 2001]), above in this volume, 437f., n.62. For additional bibliography, affirming the ascription, see the review article by C. Stephen Jaeger, “Decline and Rise in the Culture of the Twelfth Century” (on R. N. Swanson,The Twelfth-Century Renaissance [Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press & New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999]) above in this volume, 244, n. 1.—W.H.]Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    In the series “Piccola Biblioteca,” Torino: Einaudi editore.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Although at least three copies of CelsusDe med. produced in the ninth and tenth centuries survive to our time and a fourth is lost, Celsus' work was essentially forgotten until the copies again came to light in the early fifteenth century, arousing considerable interest among Humanists (see, e.g., L.D. Reynolds, ed.,Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1983, 46–47).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    E.g. Ivan Garofalo, “Note filologiche sull'anatomia di Galeno,”Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) II.37.2 ed. W. Haase (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994) 1790–1833, with earlier bibliography. Carlino's account of the anatomist Marinus, p. 140, would also have benefited from consultation of M.D. Grmek and D. Gourevitch, “Aux sources de la doctrine médicale de Galien: l'enseignement de Marinus, Quintus et Numisianus,” ibid., 1491–1528.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Galen describes the affair in hisDe praecognitione 5.9–21 (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum [CMG] V 8.1, 96.5–100.6 Nutton); cf. alsoDe praecognit 3.6–7 (ibid., 84.1–10 Nutton).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Andreas Vesalius,On the Fabric of the Human Body. Book 1, Bones and Cartilages (1998) andBook 2, The Ligaments and Muscles (1999), William Frank Richardson, translator, in collaboration with John Burd Carman, San Francisco: Norman Publishing (=Norman Anatomy Series, nos. 1–2). Another translation and commentary of Vesalius'Fabrica is now being prepared at Northwestern University under the general editorship of Daniel H. Garrison (Classics) and Malcolm H. Hast (Medical School), for information about which see the website <http://vesalius.northwestern.edu/>.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    E.g. references to Theophilus Protospartarius, p. 248 (bibliography), p. 266 (index), and footnote 109, p. 154 (also “Protospartario,” p. 177, footnote 109, in the 1994 edition). The correct transliteration of the title is “Protospatharius” (Πρωτоσπαθα′ριоξ), “chief of the Byzantine emperor's ceremonial bodyguard.”Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Yates,Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London and Chicago 1964).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bossy,Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair (New Haven 1991).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Firpo,Il processo di Giordano Bruno, Quaderni della rivista storica italiana 1 (Naples 1949)=Id.,Il processo di Giordano Bruno, ed. D. Quaglioni, Profili 15 (Rome 1993).Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Croce,La filosofia di Giambattista Vico (Bari 1911; 2nd ed. ibid. 1922)=Edizione nazionale delle opere di Benedetto Croce. Corpus Saggi filosofici 2 (Napoli 1997).Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Pocock quotes an addition (vol. 2, 212) that Hume made to the 1773 edition of hisHistory of England. Pocock quotes Hume as an authority on “the milder theology of Arminius”, but he fails to comment on the next sentence: “Even in so great a doctor, the genius of the religion prevailed over its speculative tenets” (D. Hume,History of England, a variorum edition, ed. F.L. van Holthoon, vol. 5, Charlottesville VA: CD ROM InteLex Corp., 2000, 131–132, par. 10686–10687; this passage was located in the editions Va(1754) to 1770(5) at par. 10053–10054). According to Hume Arminius was as much a fanatic as his adversary Gomarus.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Forbes, “Introduction”, to D.Hume,The History of Great Britain, the Reigns of James I and Charles I (Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1970), 39; I must admit that in Hume's first volume on the Stuarts civilizational history has a greater role than in the other volumes. That it “bares its teeth” to political history is an overstatement.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    In his first edition (1754) ofThe Reigns of James I and Charles I, he frequently uses the term “fanaticism”, which in later editions he changed to “enthusiasm” to soften his anti-religious expressions.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.G.A. Pocock,The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pocock is a careful scholar. I discovered only one mistake (vol. 1, 51): The Synod of Dordrecht was held, in 1618/19, not 1614; it was a national, not an international convention.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Egon Verheyen, “‘The most exact representation of the original’: Remarks on Portraits of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart and Rembrandt Peale,” inStudies in the History of Art, vol. 20, 1989, pp. 127–140.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An earlier version of this project was presented in 1987 at a conference devoted to the history and significance of the Mall that was held at the National Gallery of Art, but Greenberg's paper (and that of Walker O. Cain) were not included in the proceedings.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    We cannot know whether L'Enfant had known of St. Petersburg and preferred not to mention it to Washington, or, as Greenberg claims, that had he “been aware of such an important precedent, it is likely he would have cited it to Washington, if only because of its vast size.”Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egon Verheyen, “On Meaning in Architecture,” in:The Emblem and Architecture. Studies in applied Emblematics from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries, edited by Hans J. Böker and Peter M. Daly. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999, pp. 17–41.Google Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Henceforth:CFAB.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. E. Perry, ed.,Aesopica, vol. 1 (Urbana 1952). Henceforth: “Perry,Aes.”Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CFAB, pp. 149–160, 176 (=fabb. 361–405, 438–440).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ib. CFAB, pp. 160–165 (=fabb. 406–422). Note that one of these fables (fab. 419) may be no more “ancient” than La Fontaine (CFAB, p. 164; cf. p. 334).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fab. 33 (p. 15) written in 1872.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fab. 391 (p. 156) written in 1890.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perry,Aes. fab. 53.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. Joshi on Bierce's efforts to expose the “sham” of Victorian family life (CFAB, p. xv).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cf. Perry,Aes. fabb. 563, 563a.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bierce fab. 380 (p. 154).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perry,Aes. fab. 169.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bierce fab. 379 (p. 153).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    CFAB, p. 157.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perry,Aes. fab. 157.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    “In this way evil-doers among men also do not profit from their tricks, when they practice their villainy on knowledgeable people.”Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The commentary to the fables noted above at nn. 3–4 is atCFAB, pp. 331–336.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Babrius and Phaedrus, ed. B. E. Perry (Cambridge MA/London 1965) pp. 419–610. (These are the numbers in Perry,Aes.) I have caught only one error: atCFAB, p. 332 line 9 (on Bierce fab. 374) for “Ae 365” read “Ae 453.”Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    CFAB, p. 332.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    This is the version of the paraphrase of Babrius, first published in 1877. It is unlikely that Bierce knew of it. The best modern text is that of A. Chambry,Aesopi fabulae, vol. 2 (Paris 1926) fab. 238c (p. 386).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    In 1890 it talked with itsmother. Thefather took over in 1899. (Dates and variant are atCFAB, p. 332.) A Byzantine version of the Greek fable, first published in 1810, also pairs amother with herfawn. (Text at Chambry,op. cit., p. 385 [fab. 238a].)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The best text of this version is atCorpus fabularum Aesopicarum, edd. A. Hausrath and H. Hunger, vol. I.2 (Leipzig 19592) p. 92 (fab. 275).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    On the Accursiana see Perryop. cit. (supra, n. 17 Cambridge MA/London 1965) pp. xvi–xvii.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CFAB, p. xxi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Galinsky
    • 1
  • Johannes Engels
    • 2
  • Norma Thompson
    • 3
  • Harold Tarrant
    • 4
  • Michael Erler
    • 5
  • M. J. Edwards
    • 6
  • John Dillon
    • 7
  • Thomas Habinek
    • 8
  • Sigrid Mratschek
    • 9
  • Andrew Galloway
    • 10
  • R. N. Swanson
    • 11
  • Walther Ludwig
    • 12
  • Ann Ellis Hanson
    • 13
  • Wilhelm Kühlmann
    • 16
  • Chris L. Heesakkers
    • 17
  • Paul Malo
    • 18
  • Luc Deitz
    • 19
  • Brendan Dooley
    • 20
  • Jane Tylus
    • 21
  • F. L. van Holthoon
    • 22
  • Egon Verheyen
    • 14
  • John Vaio
    • 15
  1. 1.Department of ClassicsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Institut für AltertumskundeUniversität zu KölnKölnGermany
  3. 3.Whitney Humanities CenterYale UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Department of ClassicsUniversity of Newcastle
  5. 5.Institut für Klassische PhilologieUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  6. 6.Christ ChurchOxford
  7. 7.Trinity CollegeDublin School of ClassicsDublinIreland
  8. 8.Department of ClassicsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  9. 9.Institut für AltertumswissenschaftenUniversität RostockRostockGermany
  10. 10.Department of EnglishCornell UniversityUSA
  11. 11.Department of Medieval HistoryUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  12. 12.Institut für Griechische und Lateinische PhilologieUniversität HamburgHamburgGermang
  13. 13.Department of ClassicsYale UniversityUSA
  14. 14.George Mason UniversityUSA
  15. 15.Department of Classics and Mediterranean StudiesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  16. 16.Germanistisches SeminarRuprecht-Karls-Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  17. 17.em. prof. of Neo-Latin Universities of Leiden and AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherland
  18. 18.School of ArchitectureSyracuse UniversityUSA
  19. 19.Universität Trier-FB IITrierGermany
  20. 20.School of Humanities and Social SciencesInternational University BremenBremenGermany
  21. 21.College of Letters and ScienceUniversity of WisconsinMadison
  22. 22.Faculty of Arts-HistoryUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherland

Personalised recommendations