Antidorus, Dionysius Iambus, Epigenes, Lysanias, Parmenon, Silenus, Simaristus, Simmias
Edited by Franco Montanari, Fausto Montana and Lara Pagani
Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione italiana e note di commento
Edited by Fabio Tanga
Nel Mulierum virtutes Plutarco intende dimostrare unità ed identità della virtù maschile e femminile e, per sostenere l'assunto, adduce esempi storici di atti ‘virtuosi’ femminili compiuti collettivamente ed individualmente da donne del mondo antico. Questo volume contiene edizione critica, traduzione italiana e note di commento al Mulierum virtutes. Il testo tradotto e commentato è preceduto da un'introduzione generale sull’opuscolo e da alcuni capitoli dedicati alla tradizione testuale, alla fortuna, allo stile e al rapporto con i modelli letterari, i Moralia e la tematica femminile dell’opera. Il volume offre un significativo contributo scientifico di natura filologica, letteraria, storica e filosofica allo studio del Mulierum virtutes di Plutarco e della sua tradizione testuale e fortuna nel corso dei secoli.
Alexander of Cotiaeum, the cultivated sophistes and one among the teachers of Aelius Aristides and Marcus Aurelius, distinguished himself in linguistic and literary studies, teaching, and cultural communication. Though without achieving brilliant results, he also engaged in some of the questions previously discussed by the most learned scholars. This cultural figure displays some typicality with respect to the average educated personalities (grammatikoi) of the Antonine renaissance. However, current studies are revealing a possible specificity of Alexander’s role: his influence, by way of educational approach, on the making of literary trends and models (canons) of the concurrent high culture, between New Sophistic and Atticism. This paper focuses on the very philological side (diorthosis, or textual criticism) of the composite and complex intellectual profile of Alexander.
The Compendium on Physics (Epitome physica) by the Byzantine theologian and philosopher Nikephoros Blemmydes (13th cent.) was a very successful textbook on Natural Philosophy containing a summary of physics, meteorology and astronomy. This compendium was also conceived for being used as support for teaching. For his purposes, Blemmydes combined passages taken from different sources into a new text: Aristotle and his commentators as well as Cleomedes were his main sources. Since a manuscript with an earlier version of the text still survives, it is also possible to go deeper into the workshop of this Byzantine author and to investigate the use of the sources in both textual stages. This paper will therefore be devoted to analysing the inner structure of the Epitome physica and Blemmydes’ activity as an author.
The article offers an overview of the testimonies about Aelius Aristides’ reception in the didactic context of the late antique schools of rhetoric. After analysing the major issues relating Aristides’ presence in the rhetorical treatises (Hermogenes, Menander rhetor, the ps.-Aristidean ars), the paper focuses in particular on the (lost) commentaries to his mostly widespread works, namely the Panathenaic and the Platonic orations. From the scholia to these speeches it is possible to obtain some information about how these commentaries were, though the annotations which can be attributed with certainty to specific commentators (Metrophanes, Menander, Athanasius, Sopater, and Zosimus) are scarce. In a last section of the paper, some encomia featuring in Libanius’ epistle 1262 and Synesius’ Dio are discussed as far as they resonate with some remarks on Aristides’ style found in scholia, prolegomena, and in rhetorical treatises.
In this paper we examine some treatises about interpretatio iuris that encode the methodology of the Italian ‘scuola del commento’, from the end of the Middle Ages onwards. Those writings reaffirm the primacy of the mens or sensus over the verba of the law. In all these treatises, the law is considered the expression of ratio rather than of the voluntas principis: therefore, its efficacy must be addressed by means of specific and different jurisprudential work. We illustrate this methodology through a detailed analysis of the treatises by C. Rogerio, B. Cepolla, S. Federici, P. A. Gammaro.
Scholars have lengthy debated on the originality of the humanistic commentary on the classical authors with respect to the medieval commentaries on the same authors. If the question can be regarded as still open for the works written in the first half of the 15th century, the birth of the printing determined a dramatic change in the contents and the form of the commentaries. From the point of view of the content the humanists are much more interested in the different readings transmitted by the manuscripts, whilst the printing allows both to have different layouts of the commentaries and to insert new tools as indexes and page numbers for consulting them. The present paper will present the new aspects of the printed commentaries and will try to explain the reasons which produced each change.
This article aims at mapping the scholia on the first lines from Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics A 1. It offers the first edition of the scholia on 71a1–21 from Vaticanus Gr. 241 (13th century), Laurentianus 72,3 (second half of the 13th century) and Laurentianus 72,4 (second half of the 13th / beginning of the 14th century). Appendix II and III present the content of a brief writing of Psellus about the Aristotelian Organon and the Praefatio to the Latin translation of Themistius’ Paraphrasis to Posterior Analytics written by Hermolaus Barbarus in the 15th century.