This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
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.
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.
References
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.
G.J. Pendrick, “Plato and Rhetorike”,Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 141, 1998, 10–23.
H. v. Arnim,Leben und Werke des Dion von Prusa, Berlin 1894.
E.N. Tigerstedt,The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation. An Outline and Some Observations, Commentationes humanarum litterarum 52, Helsinki 1974.
References
Preface XIII.
Nach Th. Lehmann. Zum archäologischen Befund demnächst ders.,Paulinus Nolanus und die Basilica Nova in Cimitile/Nola, Diss. Münster 1994 (im Druck).
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.
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.
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).
C. Settipani, “Prosopographica X. Ruricius Ier, évêque de Limoges et ses relations familiales”,Francia 18/1 (1991), 195–219.
Fast alle Zeugnisse stammen aus der Zeit nach Paulinus' Konversion in Nola.
Vor seiner Taufe (ca. 388/9) oder vor seinem Vermögensverzicht (393/4) scheint mir dies wenig wahrscheinlich.
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).
Paul.ep. 3,4:…Ambrosii semper et dilectione ad fidem innutritus sum … (“Durch die Liebe des Ambrosius bin ich stets zum Glauben erzogen worden …”).
T. 49: zwischen Ende 381 und Sommer 383. Appendix B, 282; C, 289: ca. 383 oder 384.
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.
S. Costanza, “I rapporti tra Ambrogio e Paolino di Nola”, in: G. Lazzati (ed.),Ambrosius Episcopus (Milano, 1967), 220–32.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul.ep. 32,17.
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).
Die Bankierssprache würde m.E. besser zu T.'s “Theorie der heilsamen Besitztümer” in Kap. 6 passen.
Es lohnt sich, den Bericht auch auf die juristischen Fakten hinter der Rhetorik zu überprüfen, vgl. S. Mratschek,Briefwechsel (Anm. 15), 374–88.
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”.
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.
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).
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).
Preface XIII.
Epilog 269.
References
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.]
In the series “Piccola Biblioteca,” Torino: Einaudi editore.
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).
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.
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).
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/>.
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.”
References
Yates,Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London and Chicago 1964).
Bossy,Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair (New Haven 1991).
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).
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).
References
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.
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.
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.
J.G.A. Pocock,The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975).
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.
References
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.
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.
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.”
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.
References
Henceforth:CFAB.
B. E. Perry, ed.,Aesopica, vol. 1 (Urbana 1952). Henceforth: “Perry,Aes.”
CFAB, pp. 149–160, 176 (=fabb. 361–405, 438–440).
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).
Fab. 33 (p. 15) written in 1872.
Fab. 391 (p. 156) written in 1890.
Perry,Aes. fab. 53.
Cf. Joshi on Bierce's efforts to expose the “sham” of Victorian family life (CFAB, p. xv).
Cf. Perry,Aes. fabb. 563, 563a.
Bierce fab. 380 (p. 154).
Perry,Aes. fab. 169.
Bierce fab. 379 (p. 153).
CFAB, p. 157.
Perry,Aes. fab. 157.
“In this way evil-doers among men also do not profit from their tricks, when they practice their villainy on knowledgeable people.”
The commentary to the fables noted above at nn. 3–4 is atCFAB, pp. 331–336.
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.”
CFAB, p. 332.
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).
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].)
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).
On the Accursiana see Perryop. cit. (supra, n. 17 Cambridge MA/London 1965) pp. xvi–xvii.
CFAB, p. xxi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galinsky, K., Engels, J., Thompson, N. et al. Book reviews. Int class trad 8, 610–674 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02901559
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02901559