DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation August 21

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation August 21 Uncharted Territory: Receptions of Philosophy in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Laura Ann Marshall, B.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2017 Dissertation Committee: Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Advisor Thomas Hawkins Anthony Kaldellis Copyrighted by Laura Ann Marshall 2017 Abstract The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius is often studied in terms of how the author uses previous literary poets such as Homer. This project asks whether Apollonius Rhodius also uses philosophical authors in his Argonautica and looks particularly at Empedocles, Parmenides, Xenophanes, and Plato. In addition to building on references by earlier scholars such as Malcolm Campbell, I use plagiarism-tracking software (WCopyFind) to identify places of potential connection and then evaluate the passages in question to see whether these connections are significant. I conclude that Apollonius does use the works of Empedocles and Parmenides and perhaps Xenophanes, and he uses Parmenides’ and Empedocles’ works in ways that indicate he is interested in their ideas as well as vivid images and rare words. I conclude that although there are good reasons for considering Plato’s works as a source of interest for Apollonius, Apollonius does not use Plato’s work in the same significant ways that he uses Empedocles’ and Parmenides’ works. Instead, Apollonius’ project as a poet-scholar contradicts many of the views on poetry, inspiration and skill that Plato’s Socrates develops in the Ion. The works of Empedocles and Parmenides provide an alternative model of poetry that involves thoughtful mixing of elements from previous poets. ii Dedicated to my mother, Mary Ellen Day Marshall, who parented with skill, determination, and great love. iii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, whose kindness and patience have helped bring this project to completion. I would also like to thank Tom Hawkins and Anthony Kaldellis for their advice and guidance on a variety of topics and David Noe for kindling my initial interest in Classics. Thanks are also due to Erica Kallis and the graduate students at the Ohio State University Department of Classics (past and present) for their friendship, and to my siblings Leah, Wesley, Grant, Elena, Stuart, and Cameron for their support. iv Vita 2003................................................................Redeemer Academy 2009................................................................B.A. Literature, Patrick Henry College 2009 to present ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Classics, The Ohio State University Publications “Tracking Down Love: A New Interpretation of κεχρηµένος in Callimachus 31.3.” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 2015.2, 227-231. Fields of Study Major Field: Greek and Latin v Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Vita...................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Questions and Methodology ............................................................................. 1 Background on Apollonius as Scholar and Reader....................................................... 10 A New Tool: WCopyFind............................................................................................. 17 Step 1: prepare the texts............................................................................................. 22 Step 2: run the analysis.............................................................................................. 24 Step 3: use the TLG to determine word rarity and significance................................ 35 Step 4: Campbell’s work as a test case...................................................................... 36 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 2: Empedocles ..................................................................................................... 45 1. Empedocles G20 (B2) and Arg. 1.1291, 4.656, 4.140 .............................................. 48 vi 2. Empedocles G22 (B110) and Arg. 2.1275, 3.765 ..................................................... 53 3. Empedocles G25 (B115) and Arg. 1.647-8, 4.1744-5, 4.587, 1.773......................... 54 4. Empedocles G36 (B12) and Arg. 4.1307-8............................................................... 68 5. Empedocles G44 (B20) and Arg. 4.1291 .................................................................. 71 6. Empedocles G45 (B21) and Arg. 4.31, 4.1737 ......................................................... 72 7. Empedocles G46 (B22), G41 (B17), the Strasbourg Papyrus and Arg. 1.496-8....... 74 8. Empedocles G41 (B17) and Arg. 1.773, 2.685, 2.389 .............................................. 86 9. Empedocles G47 (B23) and Arg. 1.52, 4.933, 2.27 .................................................. 87 10. Empedocles G51 (B35) and Arg. 2.656, 3.177, 4.646, 3.759 ................................. 95 11. Empedocles G55 (B27) and G56 (B28) and Arg. 3.135-8.................................... 101 12. Empedocles G57 (B29) and Arg. 1.1264-1270, 4.779.......................................... 105 13. Empedocles G76 (B48) and Arg. 3.1021 and 4.1170............................................ 110 14. Empedocles G79 (B43) and Arg. 4.1604 .............................................................. 111 15. Empedocles G93 (B52) and Arg. 4.535-6............................................................. 112 16. Empedocles G115 (B98) and Arg. 2.980 .............................................................. 114 17. Empedocles G125 (B62) and Arg. 3.1-3, 4.672, 1423.......................................... 116 18. Empedocles G127 (B100) and Arg. 3.1204, 4.871, 1545 ..................................... 125 19. Empedocles G182 (B121), G50 (B26) and Arg. 3.1275 ....................................... 128 20. Empedocles G185 (B124) and Arg. 4.446 ............................................................ 131 vii 21. Empedocles G197 (B136.2) and Arg. 3.297-8...................................................... 133 22. Empedocles G198 (B137) and Arg. 4.875 ............................................................ 136 23. Empedocles’ Elements: G26, G46, G41 (B6, B22, B17) and Arg. 3.207-8, 163-6 ..................................................................................................................................... 138 24. Empedocles G199 (B138) and Arg. 3.1015 (Dubious) ......................................... 140 25. Empedocles G173.3 (B111.3) and Arg. 3.892 (Unconvincing)............................ 142 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 143 Chapter 3: Parmenides .................................................................................................... 149 Gates of Night and Daughters of Helios: Parmenides G10 (B1) and Arg. 4.603-630 152 Skillfully: Parmenides G10.16 (B1.16) and Arg. 1.1021, 1.1336, 2.1134, 3.83......... 157 There is a Path: Parmenides G11.4 (B2.4), 15.9 (G6.9) and Arg. 2.353, 3.160.......... 162 Backward-turning: Parmenides G15.9 (B6.9) and Arg. 3.1157, 4.643....................... 167 Helplessness: Parmenides G15.7 (B6.7) and Arg. 1.638, 286-89, 2.860-863............. 172 Homer, Parmenides, and Apollonius........................................................................... 183 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 187 Chapter 4: Xenophanes................................................................................................... 193 Xenophanes’ Life and Legacy..................................................................................... 194 Lasting Songs: Xenophanes G17 (B6) and Arg. 1.25 ................................................. 201 At the Feet: Xenophanes G52 (B28) and Arg. 1.694, 2.61 ......................................... 205 viii Other Possibilities ....................................................................................................... 207 The Form of the God(s)............................................................................................... 211 Theology and Progress................................................................................................ 213 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 221 Chapter 5: The Possibility of Plato ................................................................................. 223 The Plane Tree(s): Phaedrus 230b and Arg. 2.733..................................................... 236 Swan Songs: Phaedo 84e-85a and Arg. 4.1301 .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Argonautica, Book 1;
    '^THE ARGONAUTICA OF GAIUS VALERIUS FLACCUS (SETINUS BALBUS BOOK I TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH PROSE WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY H. G. BLOMFIELD, M.A., I.C.S. LATE SCHOLAR OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD OXFORD B. H. BLACKWELL, BROAD STREET 1916 NEW YORK LONGMANS GREEN & CO. FOURTH AVENUE AND 30TH STREET TO MY WIFE h2 ; ; ; — CANDIDO LECTORI Reader, I'll spin you, if you please, A tough yarn of the good ship Argo, And how she carried o'er the seas Her somewhat miscellaneous cargo; And how one Jason did with ease (Spite of the Colchian King's embargo) Contrive to bone the fleecy prize That by the dragon fierce was guarded, Closing its soporific eyes By spells with honey interlarded How, spite of favouring winds and skies, His homeward voyage was retarded And how the Princess, by whose aid Her father's purpose had been thwarted, With the Greek stranger in the glade Of Ares secretly consorted, And how his converse with the maid Is generally thus reported : ' Medea, the premature decease Of my respected parent causes A vacancy in Northern Greece, And no one's claim 's as good as yours is To fill the blank : come, take the lease. Conditioned by the following clauses : You'll have to do a midnight bunk With me aboard the S.S. Argo But there 's no earthly need to funk, Or think the crew cannot so far go : They're not invariably drunk, And you can act as supercargo. — CANDIDO LECTORI • Nor should you very greatly care If sometimes you're a little sea-sick; There's no escape from mal-de-mer, Why, storms have actually made me sick : Take a Pope-Roach, and don't despair ; The best thing simply is to be sick.' H.
    [Show full text]
  • Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon
    ATHENIANS AND ELEUSINIANS IN THE WEST PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON (PLATE 95) T HE IDENTIFICATION of the figuresin the west pedimentof the Parthenonhas long been problematic.I The evidencereadily enables us to reconstructthe composition of the pedimentand to identify its central figures.The subsidiaryfigures, however, are rath- er more difficult to interpret. I propose that those on the left side of the pediment may be identifiedas membersof the Athenian royal family, associatedwith the goddessAthena, and those on the right as membersof the Eleusinian royal family, associatedwith the god Posei- don. This alignment reflects the strife of the two gods on a heroic level, by referringto the legendary war between Athens and Eleusis. The recognition of the disjunctionbetween Athenians and Eleusinians and of parallelism and contrastbetween individualsand groups of figures on the pedimentpermits the identificationof each figure. The referenceto Eleusis in the pediment,moreover, indicates the importanceof that city and its majorcult, the Eleu- sinian Mysteries, to the Athenians. The referencereflects the developmentand exploitation of Athenian control of the Mysteries during the Archaic and Classical periods. This new proposalfor the identificationof the subsidiaryfigures of the west pedimentthus has critical I This article has its origins in a paper I wrote in a graduateseminar directedby ProfessorJohn Pollini at The Johns Hopkins University in 1979. I returned to this paper to revise and expand its ideas during 1986/1987, when I held the Jacob Hirsch Fellowship at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. In the summer of 1988, I was given a grant by the Committeeon Research of Tulane University to conduct furtherresearch for the article.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Arcesilaus and Carneades
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP/552750/WORKINGFOLDER/BCP/9780521874762C03.3D 58 [58–80] 24.9.2009 7:15AM harald thorsrud 3 Arcesilaus and Carneades Arcesilaus initiated a sceptical phase in the Academy after taking over in c. 268 BCE. He was motivated in part by an innovative reading of Plato’s dialogues. Where his predecessors found positive doctrines to be systematically developed, he found a dialectical method of arguing and the sceptical view that nothing can be known (akatalêpsia, De Or. 3.67,seeDL4.28, 4.32). He also advanced this conclusion in opposition to the ambitious system of the Stoics, claiming further that the appropriate response to the pervasive uncertainty generated by his method is the suspension of judgement (epochê). Arcesilaus’ dialectical method was practiced without significant modification in the Academy until Carneades, who became head sometime before 155 BCE.1 Carneades both continued and strength- ened Arcesilaus’ method (ND 1.11, Acad. 2.16, see also Acad. 1.46, and Eusebius, Praep. evang. 14.7.15). Sextus marks the change by referring to Plato’s Academy as Old, Arcesilaus’ as Middle, and Carneades’ as New (PH 1.220). Since the main interpretative issues regarding both Arcesilaus and Carneades depend on the concepts of akatalêpsia and epochê,we must try to determine what they mean, how they are related, and what attitude the Academics take towards them – i.e. in what sense, if any, are these their sceptical doctrines? iarcesilaus The view that Arcesilaus derived from Plato’s dialogues might have taken one of two very different forms. He might have discovered some arguments that show knowledge is not possible.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras
    The Classical Quarterly http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ Additional services for The Classical Quarterly: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras A. E. Taylor The Classical Quarterly / Volume 11 / Issue 02 / April 1917, pp 81 - 87 DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800013094, Published online: 11 February 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838800013094 How to cite this article: A. E. Taylor (1917). On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras. The Classical Quarterly, 11, pp 81-87 doi:10.1017/S0009838800013094 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 28 Apr 2015 ON THE DATE OF THE TRIAL OF ANAXAGORAS. IT is a point of some interest to the historian of the social and intellectual development of Athens to determine, if possible, the exact dates between which the philosopher Anaxagoras made that city his home. As everyone knows, the tradition of the third and later centuries was not uniform. The dates from which the Alexandrian chronologists had to arrive at their results may be conveniently summed up under three headings, (a) date of Anaxagoras' arrival at Athens, (6) date of his prosecution and escape to Lampsacus, (c) length of his residence at Athens, (a) The received account (Diogenes Laertius ii. 7),1 was that Anaxagoras was twenty years old at the date of the invasion of Xerxes and lived to be seventy-two. This was apparently why Apollodorus (ib.) placed his birth in Olympiad 70 and his death in Ol.
    [Show full text]
  • Sons and Fathers in the Catalogue of Argonauts in Apollonius Argonautica 1.23-233
    Sons and fathers in the catalogue of Argonauts in Apollonius Argonautica 1.23-233 ANNETTE HARDER University of Groningen [email protected] 1. Generations of heroes The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius brings emphatically to the attention of its readers the distinction between the generation of the Argonauts and the heroes of the Trojan War in the next genera- tion. Apollonius initially highlights this emphasis in the episode of the Argonauts’ departure, when the baby Achilles is watching them, at AR 1.557-5581 σὺν καί οἱ (sc. Chiron) παράκοιτις ἐπωλένιον φορέουσα | Πηλείδην Ἀχιλῆα, φίλωι δειδίσκετο πατρί (“and with him his wife, hold- ing Peleus’ son Achilles in her arms, showed him to his dear father”)2; he does so again in 4.866-879, which describes Thetis and Achilles as a baby. Accordingly, several scholars have focused on the ways in which 1 — On this marker of the generations see also Klooster 2014, 527. 2 — All translations of Apollonius are by Race 2008. EuGeStA - n°9 - 2019 2 ANNETTE HARDER Apollonius has avoided anachronisms by carefully distinguishing between the Argonauts and the heroes of the Trojan War3. More specifically Jacqueline Klooster (2014, 521-530), in discussing the treatment of time in the Argonautica, distinguishes four periods of time to which Apollonius refers: first, the time before the Argo sailed, from the beginning of the cosmos (featured in the song of Orpheus in AR 1.496-511); second, the time of its sailing (i.e. the time of the epic’s setting); third, the past after the Argo sailed and fourth the present inhab- ited by the narrator (both hinted at by numerous allusions and aitia).
    [Show full text]
  • THE ARGONAUTIKA He'd Gone on His Vain Quest with Peirithoos: That Couple Would Have Made Their Task's Fulfillment Far Easier for Them All
    Book I Starting from you, Phoibos, the deeds ofthose old-time mortals I shall relute, who by way ofthe Black Sea's mouth and through the cobalt-dark rocks, at King Pelias 's commandment, in search of the Golden Fleece drove tight-thwarted Argo. For Pelias heard it voiced that in time thereafter a grim fate would await him, death at the prompting of the man he saw come, one-sandaled, from folk in the country: and not much later-in accordance with your word-Jason, fording on foot the Anauros's wintry waters, saved from the mud one sandal, but left the other stuck fast in the flooded estuary, pressed straight on to have his share in the sacred feast that Pelias was preparing for Poseidon his father, and the rest of the gods, though paying no heed to Pelasgian Hera. The moment Pelias saw him, he knew, and devised him a trial of most perilous seamanship, that in deep waters or away among foreign folk he might lose his homecoming. ,\row singers before 7ny time have recounted how the vessel was fashioned 4 Argos with the guidance of Athena. IW~cctIplan to do now is tell the name and farnib of each hero, describe their long voyage, all they accomplished in their wanderings: may the Muses inspire mnj sinpng! First in our record be Orpheus, whom famous Kalliope, after bedding Thracian Oikgros, bore, they tell us, 44 THE XRGONAUTIKA hard by Pimpleia's high rocky lookout: Orpheus, who's said to have charmed unshiftable upland boulders and the flow of rivers with the sound of his music.
    [Show full text]
  • (Eponymous) Heroes
    is is a version of an electronic document, part of the series, Dēmos: Clas- sical Athenian Democracy, a publicationpublication ofof e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]. e electronic version of this article off ers contextual information intended to make the study of Athenian democracy more accessible to a wide audience. Please visit the site at http:// www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home. Athenian Political Art from the fi h and fourth centuries: Images of Tribal (Eponymous) Heroes S e Cleisthenic reforms of /, which fi rmly established democracy at Ath- ens, imposed a new division of Attica into ten tribes, each of which consti- tuted a new political and military unit, but included citizens from each of the three geographical regions of Attica – the city, the coast, and the inland. En- rollment in a tribe (according to heredity) was a manda- tory prerequisite for citizenship. As usual in ancient Athenian aff airs, politics and reli- gion came hand in hand and, a er due consultation with Apollo’s oracle at Delphi, each new tribe was assigned to a particular hero a er whom the tribe was named; the ten Amy C. Smith, “Athenian Political Art from the Fi h and Fourth Centuries : Images of Tribal (Eponymous) Heroes,” in C. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A.(A. MahoneyMahoney andand R.R. Scaife,Scaife, edd.,edd., e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org], . © , A.C. Smith. tribal heroes are thus known as the eponymous (or name giving) heroes. T : Aristotle indicates that each hero already received worship by the time of the Cleisthenic reforms, although little evi- dence as to the nature of the worship of each hero is now known (Aristot.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues
    Ryan C. Fowler 25th Hour On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues I. Thrasyllus a. Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 3.56: “But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasyllus says that he [Plato] published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.” b. Characters or types of dialogues (D.L. 3.49): 1. instructive (ὑφηγητικός) A. theoretical (θεωρηµατικόν) a. physical (φυσικόν) b. logical (λογικόν) B. practical (πρακτικόν) a. ethical (ἠθικόν) b. political (πολιτικόν) 2. investigative (ζητητικός) A. training the mind (γυµναστικός) a. obstetrical (µαιευτικός) b. tentative (πειραστικός) B. victory in controversy (ἀγωνιστικός) a. critical (ἐνδεικτικός) b. subversive (ἀνατρεπτικός) c. Thrasyllan categories of the dialogues (D.L. 3.50-1): Physics: Timaeus Logic: Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides, and Sophist Ethics: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Menexenus, Clitophon, the Letters, Philebus, Hipparchus, Rivals Politics: Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, Atlantis Obstetrics: Alcibiades 1 and 2, Theages, Lysis, Laches Tentative: Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus Critical: Protagoras Subversive: Euthydemus, Gorgias, and Hippias 1 and 2 :1 d.
    [Show full text]
  • Dirk Held on Eros Beauty and the Divine in Plato
    Nina C. Coppolino, editor ARTICLES & NOTES New England Classical Journal 36.3 (2009) 155-167 Eros, Beauty, and the Divine in Plato Dirk t. D. Held Connecticut College ontemporary intellectual culture is diffident, perhaps hostile, towards the transcendent aspects of Plato’s metaphysics; instead, preference is given to the openness and inconclusiveness of CSocratic inquiry. But it is not possible to distinguish clearly between the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. This essay argues first that Socrates does more than inquire: he enlarges the search for truth with attention to erotics. It further contends that Plato’s transformative vision of beauty and the divine directs the soul, also through erotics, to truth not accessible to syllogisms alone. We must therefore acknowledge that Plato’s philosophy relies at times on affective and even supra-rational means. Debate over the function of philosophy for Socrates and Plato arose immediately following the latter’s death. The early Academy discussed the mode and intent of reason for Socrates and Plato in terms of whether it was best characterized as skepticism or dogmatism. The issue remains pertinent to the present discussion of how Plato intends mortals both to live a life of reason and strive for the divine which is beyond the normal grasp of reason. What we regard as the traditional “Socratic question” arose in the early nineteenth century from studies of Plato by the Protestant theologian and philosopher, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The phrase stands for the attempt to winnow out an historical figure from the disparate accounts of Socrates found in Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Remarks on Apion1
    Some remarks on Apion1 Walter Ameling Apion ʻdistinguished himself among all the opponents of the Jews by the depth of his hatred, and was therefore treated with particular bitterness by Josephusʼ.2 This is how Apion is remembered generally — an author whose works are only preserved in a shamble of fragments,3 and whose fifteen minutes of fame are due only to the openly hostile Flavius Josephus, whose last work is nowadays called contra Apionem, although this was not the original title. In this work it was Apion who got the longest and most detailed response to an individual opponent, ‘the most sustained personal invective in the treatise, and the most developed forms of ethnic vituperationʼ.4 Only the last ten years or so saw a somewhat different appreciation of the man and scholar. Apion was called ʻa multi-faceted scholar and a man who devoted his life to various studiesʼ, and was seen as someone who achieved a ʻcelebrity justly won by his brillianceʼ.5 The reaction was prompt: Apion was rather ʻa scholar gone badʼ.6 Apion was, first and foremost, a prominent intellectual, a famous figure of Graeco- Roman culture in the first century A.D. — as is attested by authors as different as Seneca and Pliny, Plutarch and Gellius. People might have criticized him, but Gellius 1 This essay started out as an attempt to write about ‘Philon and Apion’; both had lived for some years in Alexandria, might have even met there or might at least have known of each other. Both were intellectually prominent, and at least Philon was also socially prominent.
    [Show full text]
  • All of a Sudden: the Role of Ἐξαίφνης in Plato's Dialogues
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 1-1-2014 All of a Sudden: The Role of Ἐξαιφ́ νης in Plato's Dialogues Joseph J. Cimakasky Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Cimakasky, J. (2014). All of a Sudden: The Role of Ἐξαιφ́ νης in Plato's Dialogues (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/68 This Worldwide Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALL OF A SUDDEN: THE ROLE OF ἘΧΑΙΦΝΗΣ IN PLATO’S DIALOGUES A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Joseph Cimakasky May 2014 Copyright by Joseph Cimakasky 2014 ALL OF A SUDDEN: THE ROLE OF ἘΧΑΙΦΝΗΣ IN PLATO’S DIALOGUES By Joseph Cimakasky Approved April 9, 2014 ________________________________ ________________________________ Ronald Polansky Patrick Lee Miller Professor of Philosophy Professor of Philosophy (Committee Chair) (Committee Member) ________________________________ John W. McGinley Professor of Philosophy (Committee Member) ________________________________ ________________________________ James Swindal Ronald Polansky Dean, McAnulty College Chair, Philosophy Department Professor of Philosophy Professor of Philosophy iii ABSTRACT ALL OF A SUDDEN: THE ROLE OF ἘΧΑΙΦΝΗΣ IN PLATO’S DIALOGUES By Joseph Cimakasky May 2014 Dissertation supervised by Professor Ronald Polansky There are thirty-six appearances of the Greek word ἐξαίφνης in Plato’s dialogues.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CONTRAPOSITION BETWEEN EPOS and EPULLION in HELLENISTIC POETRY: STATUS QUAESTIONIS 1 José Antonio Clúa Serena
    Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, ISSN 0210-8178, vol. XXVII, 23-39 THE CONTRAPOSITION BETWEEN EPOS AND EPULLION IN HELLENISTIC POETRY: STATUS QUAESTIONIS 1 José Antonio Clúa Serena Universidad de Extremadura Resumen En este artículo se esbozan algunos de los hitos más importantes que configuran, desde Antímaco de Colofón hasta las últimas manifestaciones poéticas helenísticas y romanas, la contraposición entre el e[po~ y el ejpuvllion. Sobre este último «género», repleto de elemen- tos etiológicos y largas digresiones, se aportan y se comparan datos importantes mediante dos métodos conocidos: la Quellensforchung y la comparación entre seguidores de la escuela de Calímaco y los denominados Telquines. Se analizan epigramas concretos, epilios de Teócrito, Mosco, la Hécale de Calímaco, epilios de Trifiodoro, Hedilo, Museo, Euforión, Partenio, Poliano, así como de Cornelio Galo y Cinna. Finalmente, se estudia la dicotomía «agua»/«vino» como símbolos de inspiración y se ofrece una posible clave para focalizar el paso de dicha contraposición desde la literatura helenística griega a la romana. Palabras clave: Epos, epyllion, hellenistic poetry, Cantores Callimachi. Abstract This paper describes some highly important aspects than configure, from Aminachus of Colofos to the latest Hellenistic and Roman poetic pieces, the contraposition of the concepts e[po~ and ejpuvllion. About this latter ‘genre’, filled with etiological and disgressive elements, data are contrasted according to two well known methods: Quellensforchung and comparison between Callimachus’ followers and Telquines. Specific epigrams are reviewed, also some epic poems by Theocritus, Moscos, the Hecale by Callimachus, epic poems by Trifiodorus, Hedilus, Museus, Euforius, Partenius, Polianus, Cornelius, Galius, and Cinnas. Finally, dichotomous elements like ‘water’/‘wine’ are studied as symbols for inspiration.
    [Show full text]