DOCSLIB.ORG

Marginalia and Commentaries in the Papyri of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marginalia and Commentaries in the Papyri of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes Nikolaos Athanassiou Marginalia and Commentaries in the Papyri of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes PhD thesis / Dept. of Greek and Latin University College London London 1999 C Name of candidate: Nikolaos Athanassiou Title of Thesis: Marginalia and commentaries in the papyri of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes. The purpose of the thesis is to examine a selection of papyri from the large corpus of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes. The study of the texts has been divided into three major chapters where each one of the selected papyri is first reproduced and then discussed. The transcription follows the original publication whereas any possible textual improvement is included in the commentary. The commentary also contains a general description of the papyrus (date, layout and content) as well reference to special characteristics. The structure of the commentary is not identical for marginalia and hy-pomnemata: the former are examined in relation to their position round the main text and are treated both as individual notes and as a group conveying the annotator's aims. The latter are examined lemma by lemma with more emphasis upon their origins and later appearances in scholia and lexica. After the study of the papyri follows an essay which summarizes the results and tries to incorporate them into the wider context of the history of the text of each author and the scholarly attention that this received by the Alexandrian scholars or later grammarians. The main effort is to place each papyrus into one of the various stages that scholarly exegesis passed especially in late antiquity. Special treatment has been given to P.Wurzburg 1, the importance of which made it necessary that it occupies a chapter by itself. The last chapter of the thesis deals with the issue of glosses, namely their origin and use in the margins of papyri. The focus is again on the history of early collections of tragic and comic vocabulary and their appearance in the margins or hypomnemata. The parallel circulation of hypomnemata and glossaries often compiled by the same people and some special features of the glosses in our material led to the condusion that most glosses at least in the earlier periods were copied from hypomnemata. The thesis ends with a presentation of all conclusions from the previous chapters in relation to the history of scholarship and book production in late antiquity. Table of Contents Pages Preface 4 Chapters 1. The papyri of Euripides 8 P. Oxy.3716: Orestes 9 P. Mich. Inv.3735: Orestes 11 P. Harris 38: Medea 13 P. Merton 2.54: Phoenissae 15 P. Oxy.3712: Phoenissae 16 P. Oxy.2543: Andromache 18 PSI 1302: Alcmeon 19 P. Oxy.3215: Alcmeon 21 P. Oxy.852: Hypsipyle 22 P. Oxy.3719: Iphigenia inAulis 24 P. Oxy. 1370: Orestes and Medea 26 P. Oxy.3718: Orestes and Bacchae 28 P. Ant. 1.23: Medea 33 Louaniensis deperditus: Andromache 34 P. Or. Vindob.29769: Phoenissae 35 Conclusions 38 Appendix to Chapter 1 P. Würzburg 1: A Commentary on Euripides' Phoenissae 44 2. The papyri of Sophocles 59 P. Oxy.1805: Trachiniae 60 PSI 1192: Oedipus Tyrannus 63 2 P. Oxy.2180: Oedipus Tyrannus 69 P. Oxy.3151:AjaxLocrus 71 P. Oxy.1 175: Eurypylus 74 P. Oxy.2452: Theseus (?) 77 P. Oxy. 1083 ^ 2453: Polyidos or Manteis and other plays 80 P. Oxy.1 174: Ichneutae 82 Conclusions 86 3. The papyri of Aristophanes 92 P. Oxy.856: Commentary on Acharnians 93 P. Mich.3690: Heroes (?) 106 P. Grenf.12: Gerytades or Thesmophoriazousae II (?) 108 P. Amh.13:? 111 P. Rain.3.20: Commentary on Clouds 114 P. Rain.1.34: Commentary on Peace 117 Conclusions 122 4. Didymus, Glossaries and Lexica, Marginalia 127 5. Conclusions 148 Bibliography 178 Appendix with the texts of papyrus commentaries 189 3 Preface Preface The first time I heard about marginalia and commentaries in papyri was in the autumn term of 1993 in a paper delivered by Prof. H. Maehler in the Department of Greek and Latin at UCL. Since then the initial awe in front of such a specialized and unknown to me subject was gradually replaced by curiosity and interest to work further into this field and to explore some of its "secrets". The decision that this would be the subject of my PhD research was made the following year. The papyrological evidence about hypomnemata and annotation on classical Greek authors covers a substantial amount of texts and literary genres from Homer and Hipponax to Callimachus and Apollonius of Rhodes. Some of it has already been thoroughly studied in the first editions of the papyri, or in monographs and articles by various scholars under different perspectives. There have been, however, very few attempts to reconsider as a whole all this evidence which is scattered in papyrological publications and to draw conclusions about the nature and methods of the ancient exegesis as illustrated in papyri. The main idea behind the present study was to reexamine a selection of annotated papyri or hypomnemata on papyrus from the corpus of Euripides, Sophocles and Aristophanes. The focus is not on the purely papyrological aspect since most of the material has already been adequately published. A general description of the papyri, however, is always given insofar as this is necessary for the better understanding of the marginalia and of the circumstances under which they were written. The principal objective of our work is to compare the material provided by the papyri to the scholia of the byzantine manuscripts (usually to the so-called scholia vetera but occasionally to the scholia recentiora too). The scholia recentiora reflect the studies of the famous Byzantine scholars such as Tzetzes, Triclinius and Moschopoulos but they contain also elements of much earlier exegesis which has not been preserved in the scholia vetera. A study of ancient exegesis on classical literarure would not be complete without a constant consideration of all the relevant material in lexicography of late antiquity and Byzantine times. Entries in Hesychius, Suda, the Etymologica and other lexica were used in order to help us reconstruct the origins and various channels through which Alexandrian and Graeco-Roman scholarship has been transmitted up to the present times. The study of the lexica confirmed the known fact that in antiquity a systematic exchange of material between commentaries, glossaries 4 Preface and possibly monographs took place; unfortunately the evidence from monographs is still too limited to be of any use in this study. Given the complexities surrounding the sources of lexicographical material, it was inevitable that occasionally some questions remained unanswered and some links were based upon a certain amount of speculation. Hopefully, however, we managed to throw some more light upon the development of scholarship on drama and the radical changes that this kind of exegetical material underwent during the first seven centuries of our era. In dealing with marginalia and hypomnemata in papyrus one needs to be consistent with a very precise terminology which would help to avoid confusion as far as different and successive forms of the scholarly material are concerned. First of all, the very familiar term "scholium / a" refers exclusively to the bulk of exegesis transmitted in the margins of the byzantine manuscripts and not to any earlier form of marginal annotation as has been the practice of many earlier editors of papyri. Within "scholia" we distinguish between "scholia vetera" and "scholia recentiora" or preferably "scholia byzantina", which in old editions used to be edited together. "Marginal note / marginalia" refers to the annotation of papyri in general, although it was necessary to specify as "interlinear" a note or a gloss inserted between the lines of the main text. The terms "commentary" and "hypomnema" are usually interchangeable, namely they are both used to define the same kind of literary work introduced by the Alexandrian scholars. Accordingly, the terms for the people responsible for marginal annotation and commentaries are "annotator" and "commentator". "Lemma" denotes the excerpt from the main text which had been cited in a commentary or a lexicon and "explanation" is whatever sort of exegetical material followed. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 are devoted to the papyri of each poet separately, and always conclude with some very specific considerations drawn from each group, with regard to the history of annotation of the dramatic texts in the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman world. The Appendix to Chapter 1 is a papyrus commentary which, though on Euripides, needed to be discussed separately and not in Chapter 1. Chapter 4 deals with the issue of marginal glosses and their links to the scholiographical and lexicographical tradition. The method of presenting the papyri examined in these chapters is as uniform as possible: main texts and marginalia are accurately reproduced but not always according to their first edition. Subsequent publications are taken into account, provided, of course, that they offer an improved version of the papyrus. 5 Preface For reasons of economy of space, the papyrus text which is offered includes only the part of the papyrus that contains the marginalia; all the rest is omitted unless it is absolutely indispensable. Because our interest was not in the readings of the main text, there is no critical apparatus. However, important disagreements in the readings of the marginalia are always mentioned and judged in the discussion that follows. All texts of papyrus commentaries are appended in full at the very end of this study in the form of photocopies from the first editions. Their lemmata, however, are discussed selectively and only if there is something new and important to be added to the first edition. During this study I tried to check from the original as many papyri as possible but this was not achieved for texts belonging to collections abroad.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surviving Antigone: Anouilh, Adaptation, and the Archive
    SURVIVING ANTIGONE: ANOUILH, ADAPTATION AND THE ARCHIVE Katelyn J. Buis A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2014 Committee: Cynthia Baron, Advisor Jonathan Chambers ii ABSTRACT Dr. Cynthia Baron, Advisor The myth of Antigone has been established as a preeminent one in political and philosophical debate. One incarnation of the myth is of particular interest here. Jean Anouilh’s Antigone opened in Paris, 1944. A political and then philosophical debate immediately arose in response to the show. Anouilh’s Antigone remains a well-known play, yet few people know about its controversial history or the significance of its translation into English immediately after the war. It is this history and adaptation of Anouilh’s contested Antigone that defines my inquiry. I intend to reopen interpretive discourse about this play by exploring its origins, its journey, and the archival limitations and motivations controlling its legacy and reception to this day. By creating a space in which multiple readings of this play can exist, I consider adaptation studies and archival theory and practice in the form of theatre history, with a view to dismantle some of the misconceptions this play has experienced for over sixty years. This is an investigation into the survival of Anouilh’s Antigone since its premiere in 1944. I begin with a brief overview of the original performance of Jean Anouilh’s Antigone and the significant political controversy it caused. The second chapter centers on the changing reception of Anouilh’s Antigone beginning with the liberation of Paris to its premiere on the Broadway stage the following year.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Comedy: Not Only Mythology and Food
    Acta Ant. Hung. 56, 2016, 421–433 DOI: 10.1556/068.2016.56.4.2 VIRGINIA MASTELLARI MIDDLE COMEDY: NOT ONLY MYTHOLOGY AND FOOD View metadata, citation and similar papersTHE at core.ac.ukPOLITICAL AND CONTEMPORARY DIMENSION brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library Summary: The disappearance of the political and contemporary dimension in the production after Aris- tophanes is a false belief that has been shared for a long time, together with the assumption that Middle Comedy – the transitional period between archaia and nea – was only about mythological burlesque and food. The misleading idea has surely risen because of the main source of the comic fragments: Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters. However, the contemporary and political aspect emerges again in the 4th c. BC in the creations of a small group of dramatists, among whom Timocles, Mnesimachus and Heniochus stand out (significantly, most of them are concentrated in the time of the Macedonian expansion). Firstly Timocles, in whose fragments the personal mockery, the onomasti komodein, is still present and sharp, often against contemporary political leaders (cf. frr. 17, 19, 27 K.–A.). Then, Mnesimachus (Φίλιππος, frr. 7–10 K.–A.) and Heniochus (fr. 5 K.–A.), who show an anti- and a pro-Macedonian attitude, respec- tively. The present paper analyses the use of the political and contemporary element in Middle Comedy and the main differences between the poets named and Aristophanes, trying to sketch the evolution of the genre, the points of contact and the new tendencies. Key words: Middle Comedy, Politics, Onomasti komodein For many years, what is known as the “food fallacy”1 has been widespread among scholars of Comedy.
    [Show full text]
  • P.Oxy. 2438 and the Order of Books in Aristophanes Byzantius’ Edition of Pindar
    The Classical Quarterly 70.2 822–826 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 822 doi:10.1017/S0009838820000804 P.OXY. 2438 AND THE ORDER OF BOOKS IN ARISTOPHANES BYZANTIUS’ EDITION OF PINDAR Two well-known ancient witnesses report that Aristophanes of Byzantium was responsible for the arrangement of Pindar’s poems into seventeen book-rolls according to lyric genres (dithyrambs, hymns, etc.). These witnesses form fr. 381 in the edition of Aristophanes’ fragments by W.J. Slater (Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta [Berlin and New York, 1986]): Vit. Pind. P.Oxy. 2438.35–9(LDAB 3724, TM 62542; late second/early third century A.D.)1 δ]ιῄρηται̣̣δὲ αὐ̣τ̣[̣ο]ῦ̣τ[̣ὰ ποιήματα ὑπ’ Ἀριστοφάν]ους εἰς βιβλία ιζˊ· διθ[̣υ]ρά[̣μ]βων βˊ [προσοδίω]ν ̣βˊ παιάνων αˊ πα[ρ]θεν[εί]ων γˊ̣[ἐπινικίω]ν ̣δˊ ἐγκωμίων αˊ ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ̣ [σκ]όλ[̣ια ±4 ὕμ]νων̣ αˊ ὑ[π]ορχημάτων αˊ θρ[̣ήνων. | nisi aliter ind., omnia suppl. Lobel | 2 Ἀριστοφάν]ους Lobel e Vit. Pind. Vat. (q.v.) | 3 ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ̣[σκ]όλ[̣ια …. de Kreij : ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά τινα vel ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά ἐστι(ν) Gallo (1968, 73–4; 1969, 107) : ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ [παροίνια D’Alessio (2000) | 4 αˊ post θρ[̣ήνων coni.
    [Show full text]
  • The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion. Lectures Delivered at Oxford and In
    BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIET OF Henirg m. Sage 1891 .A^^^ffM3. islm^lix.. 5931 CornelJ University Library BL 25.H621911 The higher aspects of Greek religion.Lec 3 1924 007 845 450 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924007845450 THE HIBBERT LECTURES SECOND SERIES 1911 THE HIBBERT LECTURES SECOND SERIES THE HIGHER ASPECTS OF GREEK RELIGION LECTURES DELIVERED AT OXFORD AND IN LONDON IN APRIL AND MAY igii BY L. R. FARNELL, D.Litt. WILDE LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON WILLIAMS AND NORGATE GARDEN, W.C. 14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT 1912 CONTENTS Lecture I GENERAL FEATURES AND ORIGINS OF GREEK RELIGION Greek religion mainly a social-political system, 1. In its earliest " period a " theistic creed, that is^ a worship of personal individual deities, ethical personalities rather than mere nature forces, 2. Anthrqgomorphism its predominant bias, 2-3. Yet preserving many primitive features of " animism " or " animatism," 3-5. Its progress gradual without violent break with its distant past, 5-6. The ele- ment of magic fused with the religion but not predominant, 6-7. Hellenism and Hellenic religion a blend of two ethnic strains, one North-Aryan, the other Mediterranean, mainly Minoan-Mycenaean, 7-9. Criteria by which we can distinguish the various influences of these two, 9-1 6. The value of Homeric evidence, 18-20. Sum- mary of results, 21-24. Lecture II THE RELIGIOUS BOND AND MORALITY OF THE FAMILY The earliest type of family in Hellenic society patrilinear, 25-27.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1. Aristophanes and His Works (TT 1-5)
    4. Aristophanes of Boiotia SALVATORE TUFANO – Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma [email protected] 4.1. Aristophanes and His Works (TT 1-5) T 1 (= BNJ 379 T 1; FGrHist 379 T 1; cp. F 5 [Plut. De Hdt. mal. 31.864D]).683 Ἀριστοφάνους […] τοῦ Βοιωτοῦ “Aristophanes [...] of Boiotia”. T 2 (= BNJ 379 T 2b; EGM I T 1A; cp. F 6 [Plut. De Hdt. mal. 33.866F-867A]). ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ ἄρχοντας ὑποµνηµάτων ἱστόρησε “As Aristophanes retold, from the public records organized through the yearly archons” (tr. S. Tufano) T 3 (= BNJ 379 T 2a; FGrHist 379 T 2; cp. F 2 [Steph. Byz. α 330, s.v. ἀντικονδυλεῖς]). Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ τοὺς Θηβαίους ὥρους γεγραφώς “Aristophanes, author of Theban Annals”. 683 Since these witnesses actually belong to the fragments, I comment on the textual problems in the commentary on the single fragments. Salvatore Tufano. Boiotia from Within. Teiresias Supplements Online, Volume 2. 2019. © Salvatore Tufano 2019. License Agreement: CC-BY-NC (permission to use, distribute, and reproduce in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed and not used for commercial purposes). Tufano, Boiotia from Within – 4. Aristophanes T 4 (= EGM I F 1A; cp. F 1 [POxy. 2463, ll. 14-16]). Ἀριστοφάνης δ’[ἐν| τῆι α΄ {πρώτῃ} τῶν Βοι[ωτι-| κῶν πρώτῃ del. Fowler “Aristophanes, in the first book of his Boiotian Histories”. T 5 (= EGM I F 2; cp. F 3 [Suda ο 275, s.v. Ὁµολώϊος (= Phot. Lex. (g, z) ο 298 (III 82 Theodoridis)]). Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν β’ Θηβαϊκῶν ὁ Phot. ὡς Suda Ἀριστόδηµος Reines “Aristophanes, in the second book of his Theban Histories”.
    [Show full text]
  • Antigone's Line
    Bulletin de la Société Américaine de Philosophie de Langue Française Volume 14, Number 2, Fall 2005 Antigone’s Line Mary Beth Mader “Leader: What is your lineage, stranger? Tell us—who was your father? Oedipus: God help me! Dear girl, what must I suffer now? Antigone: Say it. You’re driven right to the edge.”1 Sophocles’ Antigone has solicited many superlatives. Hölderlin considered the play to be the most difficult, the most enigmatic and the most essentially Greek of plays. This paper treats a matter of enigma in the play, one that is crucial to understanding the central stakes of the drama. Its main purpose is to propose a novel account of this enigma and briefly to contrast this account with two other readings of the play. One passage in particular has prompted the view that the play is extremely enigmatic; it is a passage that has been read with astonishment by many commentators and taken to demand explanation. This is Antigone’s defense speech at lines 905-914. Here, she famously provides what appear to her to be reasons for her burying her brother Polynices against the explicit command of her king and uncle, Creon. Her claim is that she would not have deliberately violated Creon’s command, would not have ANTIGONE’S LINE intentionally broken his law or edict, had this edict barred her from burying a child or a husband of hers. She states that if her husband or child had died “there might have been another.” But since both her mother and father are dead, she reasons, “no brother could ever spring to light again.”2 Reasoning of this sort has a precedent in a tale found in Herodotus’ Histories, and Aristotle cites it in Rhetoric as an example of giving an explanation for something that one’s auditors may at first find incredible.3 To Aristotle, then, Antigone’s defense speech appears to have been “rhetorically satisfactory,” as Bernard Knox says.4 However, such a reception is rare among commentators.5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Antigone Introductory Lecture Notes Greek Drama and the Elements of Tragedy
    Antigone Introductory Lecture Notes Greek Drama and the Elements of Tragedy Understanding Greek Theatre I. The Festival of Dionysus Dionysus - Festival of Dionysus - II. Conventions of Greek Drama Actors - Chorus - o Functions Costuming Scenery and Action Composition and Structure o Composition . o Structure . Prologue - . Parados - III. Tragedy Tragedy: Aristotle o Aristotle’s Unity of Time, Place, and Action . Time: . Place: . Action: o Action of the play arouses extreme pity and fear in the audience – pity for the protagonist and a sympathetic fear. (Tragedy cont.) o Purpose of tragedy: o Catharsis - Tragic Hero o Hamartia: o Paripateia: The Fall Revelation IV. Sophocles and the Oedipus Myth Sophocles Notes on Greek Burial Traditions: The Oedipus Myth o King Laius rules Thebes with his queen, Jocasta. An oracle prophesies that his son will grow to kill him, so Laius pierces his infant son’s ankles and feet and orders Jocasta to kill him. She cannot, so she sends a servant to do it, who leaves him for dead in the mountains. o The infant is found by a servant of the King of Corinth and is then raised by the King and Queen of Corinth, who name him Oedipus (meaning “swollen foot”). o When Oedipus is a young man, an oracle tells him that he will kill his father and marry his mother so, to try to escape his fate, he flees Corinth. Along the road, he gets into an argument with a stranger and kills him. That stranger is Laius. Part 1 of the prophecy is fulfilled. o Oedipus reaches Thebes, where a sphinx is plaguing the city, but will stop if someone answers a riddle.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Studies on the Scholia to Euripides
    Preliminary Studies on the Scholia to Euripides CALIFORNIA CLASSICAL STUDIES NUMBER 6 Editorial Board Chair: Donald Mastronarde Editorial Board: Alessandro Barchiesi, Todd Hickey, Emily Mackil, Richard Martin, Robert Morstein-Marx, J. Theodore Peña, Kim Shelton California Classical Studies publishes peer-reviewed long-form scholarship with online open access and print-on-demand availability. The primary aim of the series is to disseminate basic research (editing and analysis of primary materials both textual and physical), data-heavy re- search, and highly specialized research of the kind that is either hard to place with the leading publishers in Classics or extremely expensive for libraries and individuals when produced by a leading academic publisher. In addition to promoting archaeological publications, papyrologi- cal and epigraphic studies, technical textual studies, and the like, the series will also produce selected titles of a more general profile. The startup phase of this project (2013–2017) is supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Also in the series: Number 1: Leslie Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy, 2013 Number 2: Edward Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal, 2013 Number 3: Mark Griffith, Greek Satyr Play: Five Studies, 2015 Number 4: Mirjam Kotwick, Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Text of Aristotle’s Metaphys- ics, 2016 Number 5: Joey Williams, The Archaeology of Roman Surveillance in the Central Alentejo, Portugal, 2017 PRELIMINARY STUDIES ON THE SCHOLIA TO EURIPIDES Donald J. Mastronarde CALIFORNIA CLASSICAL STUDIES Berkeley, California © 2017 by Donald J. Mastronarde. California Classical Studies c/o Department of Classics University of California Berkeley, California 94720–2520 USA http://calclassicalstudies.org email: [email protected] ISBN 9781939926104 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017916025 CONTENTS Preface vii Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Sigla for Manuscripts of Euripides xvii List of Plates xxix 1.
    [Show full text]
  • P.Oxy. 2438 and the Order of Books in Aristophanes Byzantius' Edition Of
    The Classical Quarterly 70.2 822–826 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 822 doi:10.1017/S0009838820000804 P.OXY. 2438 AND THE ORDER OF BOOKS IN ARISTOPHANES BYZANTIUS’ EDITION OF PINDAR Two well-known ancient witnesses report that Aristophanes of Byzantium was responsible for the arrangement of Pindar’s poems into seventeen book-rolls according to lyric genres (dithyrambs, hymns, etc.). These witnesses form fr. 381 in the edition of Aristophanes’ fragments by W.J. Slater (Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta [Berlin and New York, 1986]): Vit. Pind. P.Oxy. 2438.35–9(LDAB 3724, TM 62542; late second/early third century A.D.)1 δ]ιῄρηται̣̣δὲ αὐ̣τ̣[̣ο]ῦ̣τ[̣ὰ ποιήματα ὑπ’ Ἀριστοφάν]ους εἰς βιβλία ιζˊ· διθ[̣υ]ρά[̣μ]βων βˊ [προσοδίω]ν ̣βˊ παιάνων αˊ πα[ρ]θεν[εί]ων γˊ̣[ἐπινικίω]ν ̣δˊ ἐγκωμίων αˊ ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ̣ [σκ]όλ[̣ια ±4 ὕμ]νων̣ αˊ ὑ[π]ορχημάτων αˊ θρ[̣ήνων. | nisi aliter ind., omnia suppl. Lobel | 2 Ἀριστοφάν]ους Lobel e Vit. Pind. Vat. (q.v.) | 3 ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ̣[σκ]όλ[̣ια …. de Kreij : ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά τινα vel ἐν [ᾧ] κ[αὶ σκόλιά ἐστι(ν) Gallo (1968, 73–4; 1969, 107) : ἐν [ᾧ] καὶ [παροίνια D’Alessio (2000) | 4 αˊ post θρ[̣ήνων coni.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism the Alexandrian
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Pauliina Remes, Svetla Slaveva-Griffin The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 Richard Sorabji Published online on: 30 Apr 2014 How to cite :- Richard Sorabji. 30 Apr 2014, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching from: The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Richard Sorabji It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identifi ed the surprisingly well-preserved lecture rooms of the sixth-century Alexandrian school.1 Th is was a major archaeological discovery.2 Although the fi rst few rooms had been excavated twenty-fi ve years earlier, identifi cation has only now become possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Antigona Van Tommaso Traetta Wo 2, Do 3 April 2003 Om Dramaturgische Redenen Zijn in De Partituur Enige Coupures Aangebracht
    Muziektheater Transparant Antigona van Tommaso Traetta wo 2, do 3 april 2003 Om dramaturgische redenen zijn in de partituur enige coupures aangebracht. redactie programmaboekje deSingel en Janine Brogt druk Tegendruk duur van de voorstelling: deel 1 1 uur pauze 25 minuten deel 2 1 uur spreektaal Italiaans . boventiteling Nederlands bediening boventiteling Bart Boone gelieve uw GSM uit te schakelen! Muziektheater Transparant Antigona van Tommaso Traetta dirigent Paul Dombrecht assistent-dirigent Ewald Demeyere regie Gerardjan Rijnders regieassistent en voorstellingsleider Remi Beelprez muzikale uitvoering orkest Il Fondamento repetente Noémi Biro koor La Sfera del Canto verantwoordelijke dramaturgie Janine Brogt licht- en standenplan Tom Verheijen decor Paul Gallis verantwoordelijke belichting Luc De Vreese kostuums Rien Bekkers productieleiding Veerle Francke licht Reinier Tweebeeke technische leiding Roel Ghesquière beweging Bambi Uden lichttechnici Koen Ghesquière, Dag Jennes podiumtechnici Anton Devilder, Koen Ghesquière, rolverdeling Maarten Streefland Antigona, prinses van Thebe Raffaella Milanesi rigging Jan Hooyberghs Ismene, haar zuster Giorgia Milanesi coördinatie orkest en koor Philippe Severyns Creonte, haar oom Markus Brutscher vertaling libretto Janine Brogt Emone, Creonte’s zoon Maartje de Lint assistentie dramaturgie Bart Boone Adrasto, een Thebaans edelman David-Erich Fankhauser kleedsters Viviane Coubergs, Reintje Daens orkest kap en grime Sylvia Hiel, Leen Samyn viool Dirk Van Daele, Marianne Herssens, Maia Silberstein,
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Oedipus: Prequel to Antigone
    The Story of Oedipus: Prequel to Antigone • LAIUS is left an orphaned minor by his father Labdacus • AMPHION AND ZETHUS rule Thebes (Build the Cadmeia) and exile Laius • Laius goes to live in Elis (PISA) with King Pelops (son of Tantalus son of Zeus) • Laius becomes very good friends with young Chrysippus, youngest child of King Pelops • Laius and Chrysippus run away together (or Laius rapes Chrysippus). Pelops curses Laius. • Laius returns to Thebes and becomes King • Laius marries his cousin Jocasta, but they are childless • Laius goes to Delphi and intends to ask Apollo's advice; Apollo announces that Laius will have a child who will kill him • Laius and Jocasta have a baby son (Oedipus) whom they plan to kill. The royal shepherd is ordered to dispose of the child on Mt. Cithaeron. Instead he gives Oedipus to the royal Corinthian shepherd. • The Royal Corinthian Shepherd takes the child back to the childless king and queen of Corinth (Polybus and Merope), who adopt him. • At about the age of 18, at a dinner party, one of Oedipus' friends makes a rude remark about his not being a real Corinthian but only adopted. Oedipus is shocked and shamed, and goes off to Delphi to ask Apollo about the truth. • Apollo tells Oedipus he is doomed to kill his father and sleep with his mother. • Oedipus unknowingly kills his father Laius (within hours, at The Three Ways) • Oedipus kills the SPHINX on the way from the Three Ways to Thebes • Oedipus is received at Thebes as a national hero, and invited to marry the recently widowed queen Jocasta.
    [Show full text]