Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 57,903 items for :

  • Search level: Chapters/Articles x
Clear All

Abstract

The present paper inquires into Maximus of Tyre’s theodicy (Or. 41). Contemporary scholarship tends to disclaim the philosophical significance of Maximus’ speeches due to their opulent rhetoric and popularising style. Oratio 41—Maximus’ speech on the problem of evil—might be suited to counteract such tendencies. The paper first analyses the different aspects of Maximus’ theodicy within its Stoic-Middle Platonic milieu, then demonstrates, how Maximus always takes into account the main purpose of his orations—encouraging his adolescent listeners to choose philosophy as a way of life.

In: Mnemosyne
Author: Adrian Gramps

Abstract

Venus and Vulcan, Venus and Aeneas, Pallas and Aeneas, Aeneas and Evander, Evander and Pallas: all of these pairs are seen embracing one another in Aeneid 8. Alongside these emotive scenes of embrace, the book is peppered with embrace-related vocabulary, imagery, and metaphor, often in surprising contexts. This article weaves together these embraces in Aeneid 8 in relation to the thematics of the book as a whole. It is proposed that, when read together, the embraces in Aeneid 8 tell a story about the possibilities of knowledge in relation to the senses. Vision is the supreme sense-modality of truth in epic, as embodied in the shield of Aeneas; and yet, in book 8, embrace emerges as a way of knowing that runs counter to optical discourses of knowledge. This leads to an exploratory reconsideration of hermeneutic principles in light of Aeneas’ much-puzzled-over response to the shield.

In: Mnemosyne
Author: Robert Cowan

Abstract

The character designated by the manuscripts as Senex, who accompanies Andromache and Astyanax in act three of Seneca’s Troades, is problematic in many ways. He is not identified or acknowledged by any other character; his entrance and exit are unannounced; his presence onstage in the first half of the act requires that Astyanax’s two words of dialogue be delivered by a fourth actor or through ventriloquism; his very existence conflicts with the obvious interpretation of at least two sections of Andromache’s dialogue. All of these anomalies can be removed if there is in fact no Senex and the dialogue attributed to him by the manuscripts is spoken by the Chorus leader. This level of involvement in the action by the Chorus would itself be unusual in Senecan tragedy, but it does have parallels and would also fit with the exceptional treatment of the Chorus throughout Troades.

Open Access
In: Mnemosyne

Abstract

The words κακὸν κακῶς σε at D. 18.267 are printed in quotation marks in many modern editions of the speech. This sequence scans as the beginning of an iambic trimeter and is connected by καί with two quotations from tragedy. This article questions the idea that the sequence should be interpreted as the start of an interrupted quotation by showing that (1) these words are part of a standard, vernacular Greek curse formula, (2) initial καί may be interpreted as a discourse-level connector rather than as a syntactic coordinator, and (3) word order in the curse may be accounted for without invoking metrical effects. In particular, it is suggested that Demosthenes’ wording of the curse should be interpreted as a parody of the plea to the judges at Aeschin. 2.180.

Open Access
In: Mnemosyne
In: Mnemosyne
In: Mnemosyne

Abstract

This study surveys the state of scholarship on Roman verse Satire, written in Latin by Lucilius, Horace, Persius, and Juvenal between the late second century BCE and the early second century CE. Key interpretative approaches are discussed, highlighting the ways in which our understanding of the genre has developed and identifying areas that remain underexplored. The study is aimed at students and scholars in the fields of Classics, History, Literature, and Reception Studies.

In: Roman Satire
In: Mnemosyne
In: Mnemosyne
In: Mnemosyne