Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 116 items for :

  • Epigraphy & Papyrology x
  • Encyclopedia x
Clear All
Der Kaiser war der Bevölkerung im Römischen Reich auf vielfältige Weise präsent, durch Statuen auf öffentlichen Plätzen, sein Bildnis auf Münzen oder seinen Namen in Inschriften. Dabei waren seine Untertanen nicht nur Rezipienten kaiserlicher Selbstdarstellung, sondern beteiligten sich auch aktiv an der Ausgestaltung der kaiserlichen Repräsentation mit ihren eigenen Vorstellungen und Erwartungen.
Dieses Thema wird in Dialogangebote. Die Anrede des Kaisers jenseits der offiziellen Titulatur erstmals am Beispiel der sog. inoffiziellen Titulaturen auf breiter Quellenbasis untersucht. Dabei werden diese ehrenden Epitheta in ihrer diachronen Entwicklung von Augustus bis Severus Alexander (27 v. Chr. – 235 n. Chr.) und ihren thematischen, medialen, funktionalen und sozialen Kontexten analysiert.
Die Untersuchung arbeitet die wichtige Rolle der Untertanen für die Herrscherrepräsentation heraus und bietet neue Einblicke in die Bedeutung dieses Phänomens für die reziproke Kommunikation zwischen Kaiser und Untertanen.

The people of the Roman Empire encountered the emperor in many different ways, such as through statues in public places, his portrait on coins or his name in inscriptions. In these encounters, his subjects were not merely recipients of imperial self-expression, but also expressed their own ideas and expectations. Dialogangebote. Die Anrede des Kaisers jenseits der offiziellen Titulatur is the first study of this dynamic to make use of the rich Latin and Greek source material for the so-called unofficial titulature. These honorific epithets are analysed in their diachronic development from Augustus to Severus Alexander (27 BCE – 235 CE) and discussed in their thematic, media, functional and social contexts. The study fleshes out the important role played by the subjects in the representation of rulers and offers new insights into the importance of this phenomenon for the reciprocal communication between emperors and subjects.
Editor: Michiel Meeusen
This volume provides a set of in-depth case studies about the role of questions and answers (Q&A) in ancient Greek medical writing from its Hippocratic beginnings up to, and including, Late Antiquity. The use of Q&A formulas is widely attested in ancient Greek medical texts, casting an intriguing light on its relevance for the medical art at large, and for ancient medical practice, education, and research in specific (diagnostics, didactics, dialectics). The book aims to break new grounds by exploring, for the first time, the wide complexity of this phenomenon while introducing a coherent approach. In so doing, it not only covers highly specialized medical treatises but also non-canonical authors and texts, including anonymous papyrus fragments and collections of problems.
In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers

Abstract

This chapter examines the interaction between authors and readers within the medical-naturalist collection of the so-called Supplementary Problems (2nd century CE, or later), with the aim of reaching an understanding of how this compilatory work may have been read and evaluated by imperial readers. Like other medical-naturalist collections of problemata, the Supplementary Problems has been relatively neglected by scholarship, not least because it lacks clear contextual information regarding its origins and readership. Its purpose is surmised to be didactic, but as yet no attempt has been made to address questions pertaining to its function and readership in a systematic fashion. Accordingly, the chapter seeks to track the full gamut of author-reader relationships within the Supplementary Problems, by focussing on first-person statements, apostrophes to the reader, and strategies of explanation that point to a shared background of knowledge between reader and author, or, on the contrary, suggest the author occupies a privileged position, in terms of his command of medical-naturalist knowledge, in comparison to his envisaged reader. As the discussion shows, while didacticism certainly pervades the collection as a whole, its envisaged readers cannot in all cases be securely identified as students of medicine. Instead, we need to place the Supplementary Problems’ formation in a cultural context where medical-naturalist knowledge was exchanged and shared not only in the medical school, but also in other settings (such as the symposium and oral epideixis).

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers
Author: Isabella Bonati

Abstract

The aim of this contribution is to analyse some specific aspects of catechisms on papyrus mainly devoted to individual diseases, by focusing more precisely on the definition of the pathology and the technical terminology employed to express it. After providing a general introduction to papyri preserving medical catechisms, the chapter will illustrate the divergences and similarities in the definition of identical medical topics by means of selected specimina. This will be done between both papyrus catechisms and medical literature, especially compared to the tradition of the definitiones and quaestiones medicinales, and among different catechisms on papyrus. Finally, the investigation of technical vocabulary and certain expressions used to define pathologies and medical procedures in the papyri, but unparalleled in medical authors, can provide interesting insights into the language of medical question-and-answer texts. This raises the innovative question as to whether there was a sort of lexical ‘particularisation’ in the catechistic genre, maybe influenced by the concrete nature of the context in which the erôtapokriseis on papyrus were copied and used, be it for didactic purposes in medical education or during the exercise of the doctor’s profession.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers
Author: Nicola Reggiani

Abstract

This chapter presents a general overview of the Greek medical papyri in question-and-answer format, focusing in particular on their layout and on the graphical strategies deployed by the ancient scribes in highlighting the main articulations of the texts. Discussion will then move from the ancient sources to their modern digital representation, where the current strategies to encode such ancient layout and graphical devices will be presented and analysed, pinpointing their fundamental relevance in our comprehension of this peculiar textual typology.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers
Author: Luca Gili

Abstract

Syllogistic is grounded upon dialectics. Dialectics is a version of erotetic logic, because it deals with questions and answers. This paper intends to explore the erotetic logics of Galen and of Alexander of Aphrodisias in order to establish whether the differences in their logical systems correspond to differences in their understanding of medicine. Galen and Alexander of Aphrodisias were almost contemporaries. Both of them shared the idea that doctors should know logic to practice medicine. The radical difference between Alexander and Galen consists in the fact that Alexander has a modal logic, whereas Galen does not. In other words, the premises—the answers in a dialogical exchange—include a modal operator for Alexander, but not for Galen. This absence is not without consequences. This will become clearer if one pays attention to the role of contingency syllogistic within Alexander’s own account of medicine.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers

Résumé

Découverts dans les sables d’ Égypte, où ils se sont conservés par centaines de milliers, les papyrus documentaires grecs donnent une foule d’ informations sur le genre de vie, l’ état sanitaire, l’ alimentation, l’ hygiène, les accidents, maladies et épidémies des autochtones, ainsi que sur la démographie et l’ organisation de la médecine. Parmi ceux-ci, trente et un papyrus d’ époques romaine et byzantine (I er-IV e s. apr. J.-C.) contiennent le rapport d’ une inspection conduite par des médecins sur le corps blessé ou malade d’ hommes, de femmes et d’ enfants de toutes conditions sociales. Dans quel but l’ expert est-il mandaté et comment se déroule l’ inspection ? À quelles questions est-il chargé de répondre ? Que nous apprennent les observations cliniques consignées sur la condition des patients examinés et sur les pratiques médicales ? Après avoir analysé la structure et le contenu de ces documents, on les comparera à ceux de textes littéraires comme les fiches de malades des Épidémies hippocratiques.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers
Author: Robert Mayhew

Abstract

Although the Problemata physica attributed to Aristotle is beginning to receive more attention, Book 4 (περὶ ἀφροδίσια) has generally been neglected. This essay attempts to shed some light on Pr. 4 and to determine what it might tell us about the study of reproduction, and Aristotelian engagement with Hippocratic medicine, in the early Peripatos. After sketching the pangenesis theory (in the Hippocratic On Seed), and Aristotle’s critique of that theory and his alternative account of generation (in the Generation of Animals), I examine three chapters of Pr. 4 (2, 15, and 21), each of which raises questions about Aristotle’s rejection of the Hippocratic pangenesis theory. I argue that although there are no challenges to Aristotle’s account of generation generally, doubts or concerns are being raised in connection with certain aspects of that account, including doubts about some of Aristotle’s reasons for rejecting the pangenesis theory and about whether certain aspects of that theory might well be superior or in some way worth salvaging. I end by speculating—based on the available evidence—that the date of the three chapters I examine likely falls somewhere between the period in which Aristotle himself was active and the time when Strato was scholarch.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers
Author: Michiel Meeusen

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to examine one of the central explanatory—or rather anti-explanatory—concepts Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodisias expounds in the preface to the first book of his Medical Puzzles and Natural Problems and which he sporadically uses in addressing specific medical-naturalist problems collected in it—that is the concept of “unsayable properties” (ἰδιότητες ἄρρητοι). This concept relies on the author’s conviction that for certain natural/medical phenomena the human intellect fails to provide a proper explanation due to the particular nature of the phenomenon at hand. He ascribes this failure to a lack of descriptive resources on the side of the researcher, which is symptomatic of the weakness of human intelligence and discourse more generally. Ps.-Alexander incorporates the concept in a specifically aetiological context, where it ties in closely with more meta-physical preconceptions about the world, seen as a divinely organised cosmos. By analysing and contextualising Ps.-Alexander’s concept and use of ἰδιότητες ἄρρητοι, this study aims to shed a light on the ancient debate about what medical physicians were expected to know and what was knowable to them. This question is important, as it reflects on the epistemic limits of ancient medical-naturalist research as conceived by its own practitioners, thus giving a concrete idea of what kind of questions were better left unresolved.

In: Ancient Greek Medicine in Questions and Answers