- Alexei Garadja is the senior member of the research and educational programme “Platonic Investigations Center” (PInC)... moreAlexei Garadja is the senior member of the research and educational programme “Platonic Investigations Center” (PInC) at the Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow) and the managing editor of the journal “Platonic Investigations”, appearing twice a year since 2015 (ISSN 2410-3047 / 2619-0745)edit
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 17.2 (2023): 741–753. The publication presents a commented Russian translation of chapters 120 and 127-136 from Calcidius' Commentarius on Plato's Timaeus dealing with demonology, a most important part of philosophical... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 17.2 (2023): 741–753.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of chapters 120 and 127-136 from Calcidius' Commentarius on Plato's Timaeus dealing with demonology, a most important part of philosophical knowledge in the eyes of Neoplatonic thinkers. We know virtually nothing about Calcidius, neither the dates of his lifespan, nor the place where he lived and worked. Even his name has become debatable recently: Chalcidius or Calcidius. Meanwhile, his principal (and only) work, a Latin translation of Plato's Timaeus accompanied by a detailed commentary, has become the most important link in the transmission of Plato's legacy from Antiquity to the medieval Latin West. Up to the twelfth-century turning point and the rise of the School of Chartres, the reception of Plato in the West was channeled almost exclusively through Calcidius's work. His translation of the Timaeus, which occupies pages 17a-92c in the Corpus Platonicum, carries on only up to page 57c; another translation of the Timaeus, Timaeus has been accessible in the Latin West, belonged to Cicero, and was even more abridged (pages 27d-47b with omissions); nevertheless, it was Cicero's translation that St. Augustine (354-430) used, unaware, it would seem, of Calcidius' work. The most probable dating of our author seems to be IV-beginning V century AD. Calcidius reveals himself as an author in his own right, who had not only accomplished the serious job of translating philosophical terminology from Greek into Latin, but also contributed to the development of the genre of commentary, and so deserves to be studied not only as a transmitter of knowledge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The Russian translation is based on the standard Jan
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of chapters 120 and 127-136 from Calcidius' Commentarius on Plato's Timaeus dealing with demonology, a most important part of philosophical knowledge in the eyes of Neoplatonic thinkers. We know virtually nothing about Calcidius, neither the dates of his lifespan, nor the place where he lived and worked. Even his name has become debatable recently: Chalcidius or Calcidius. Meanwhile, his principal (and only) work, a Latin translation of Plato's Timaeus accompanied by a detailed commentary, has become the most important link in the transmission of Plato's legacy from Antiquity to the medieval Latin West. Up to the twelfth-century turning point and the rise of the School of Chartres, the reception of Plato in the West was channeled almost exclusively through Calcidius's work. His translation of the Timaeus, which occupies pages 17a-92c in the Corpus Platonicum, carries on only up to page 57c; another translation of the Timaeus, Timaeus has been accessible in the Latin West, belonged to Cicero, and was even more abridged (pages 27d-47b with omissions); nevertheless, it was Cicero's translation that St. Augustine (354-430) used, unaware, it would seem, of Calcidius' work. The most probable dating of our author seems to be IV-beginning V century AD. Calcidius reveals himself as an author in his own right, who had not only accomplished the serious job of translating philosophical terminology from Greek into Latin, but also contributed to the development of the genre of commentary, and so deserves to be studied not only as a transmitter of knowledge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The Russian translation is based on the standard Jan
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 19.2 (2023): 341–362. DOI: 10.25985/PI.19.2.15. The publication presents the text and a commented Russian translation of the xii-century Goliardic poem Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi,... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 19.2 (2023): 341–362. DOI: 10.25985/PI.19.2.15.
The publication presents the text and a commented Russian translation of the xii-century Goliardic poem Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi, wrongly attributed to Walter Mapes (1130-ок. 1210), a courtier of King Henry II of England, but in reality written by a student or champion of Peter Abelard (c. 1079-1142) soon after the philosopher's condemnation at the Council of Sens (1141) executed under the pressure of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153). The first half of the xii century is marked by the renascent interest for the Platonic philosophy, and for academic or "universitarian" forms of organization of scholarly activities. At the same time, it was the epoch of Gregorian reforms within the Catholic Church, including, as an important point, the imposition of celibacy among the clergy, which had been prescribed by the Second Lateran Council (1139). But it was precisely the clerics who learned and taught at the schools that were created at various ecclectical centers, cathedrals and abbeys. Hence a collision between learning and love, a full-fledged and full-blown love, for which Abelard had been punished with an especial cruelty. The author of the poem attempts to show that love and learning are not to be opposed and separated, but on the contrary, are supposed to nourish and complement each other. The obvious model is supplied by The Marriage of Philology and Mercury by Martianus Capella (fl. c. 410-420). The "metamorphosis" apparently intends an implementation of such a purported mating of love and scholarship against ecclesiastical monastic obscurantism. The translation is based on Winthrop Wetherbee's edition of the text (2017).
The publication presents the text and a commented Russian translation of the xii-century Goliardic poem Metamorphosis Goliae Episcopi, wrongly attributed to Walter Mapes (1130-ок. 1210), a courtier of King Henry II of England, but in reality written by a student or champion of Peter Abelard (c. 1079-1142) soon after the philosopher's condemnation at the Council of Sens (1141) executed under the pressure of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153). The first half of the xii century is marked by the renascent interest for the Platonic philosophy, and for academic or "universitarian" forms of organization of scholarly activities. At the same time, it was the epoch of Gregorian reforms within the Catholic Church, including, as an important point, the imposition of celibacy among the clergy, which had been prescribed by the Second Lateran Council (1139). But it was precisely the clerics who learned and taught at the schools that were created at various ecclectical centers, cathedrals and abbeys. Hence a collision between learning and love, a full-fledged and full-blown love, for which Abelard had been punished with an especial cruelty. The author of the poem attempts to show that love and learning are not to be opposed and separated, but on the contrary, are supposed to nourish and complement each other. The obvious model is supplied by The Marriage of Philology and Mercury by Martianus Capella (fl. c. 410-420). The "metamorphosis" apparently intends an implementation of such a purported mating of love and scholarship against ecclesiastical monastic obscurantism. The translation is based on Winthrop Wetherbee's edition of the text (2017).
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 18.1 (2023): 348–382 The publication presents the second part of a commented Russian translation of Plutarchus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles (Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin... more
Platonic Investigations 18.1 (2023): 348–382
The publication presents the second part of a commented Russian translation of Plutarchus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles
(Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin translation of the title is De defectu oraculorum; in Russian, the key notion was previously rendered, most often, as ‘decline’, but the Greek ἐκλείπω has at once a stronger and more polysemous meaning, implying ‘abandoning, ceasing, dying’, but also ‘eclipsing (about Sun and Moon)’, which connotations are actively exploited in the text.
The publication presents the second part of a commented Russian translation of Plutarchus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles
(Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin translation of the title is De defectu oraculorum; in Russian, the key notion was previously rendered, most often, as ‘decline’, but the Greek ἐκλείπω has at once a stronger and more polysemous meaning, implying ‘abandoning, ceasing, dying’, but also ‘eclipsing (about Sun and Moon)’, which connotations are actively exploited in the text.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 17.2 (2022): 291–320 The publication presents the first part of a commented Russian translation of Plutar-chus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles (Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin... more
Platonic Investigations 17.2 (2022): 291–320
The publication presents the first part of a commented Russian translation of Plutar-chus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles
(Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin translation of the title is De defectu oraculorum; in Russian, the key notion was previously rendered, most often, as ‘decline’, but the Greek ἐκλείπω has at once a stronger and more polysemous meaning, implying ‘abandoning, ceasing, dying’, but also ‘eclipsing (about Sun and Moon)’, which connotations are actively exploited in the text.
The publication presents the first part of a commented Russian translation of Plutar-chus’ (46 – after 119) On the Obsolence of Oracles
(Περί των εκλελοιπότων χρηστηρίων). The traditional Latin translation of the title is De defectu oraculorum; in Russian, the key notion was previously rendered, most often, as ‘decline’, but the Greek ἐκλείπω has at once a stronger and more polysemous meaning, implying ‘abandoning, ceasing, dying’, but also ‘eclipsing (about Sun and Moon)’, which connotations are actively exploited in the text.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 17.1 (2023): 464–480. The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ fragments associated with his Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 17.1 (2023): 464–480.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ fragments associated with his Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). These fragments contain a biography of Homerus (Vita Homeri) along with six summaries of the poems included in the so-called Epic Cycle, comprising the following titles: Cypria, Ethiopis, The Little Iliad, The Sack of Ilion, The Returns, and Telegony. In the past, the Chrestomathy was ascribed to the renowned Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Lycius (412–485). Even today, a number of scholars are still inclined to support this attribution, though it appears that it was most likely written by an otherwise unknown philosopher’s namesake, to wit a grammarian from the Alexandrian school, who lived in the first half of the 2th century AD.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ fragments associated with his Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). These fragments contain a biography of Homerus (Vita Homeri) along with six summaries of the poems included in the so-called Epic Cycle, comprising the following titles: Cypria, Ethiopis, The Little Iliad, The Sack of Ilion, The Returns, and Telegony. In the past, the Chrestomathy was ascribed to the renowned Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Lycius (412–485). Even today, a number of scholars are still inclined to support this attribution, though it appears that it was most likely written by an otherwise unknown philosopher’s namesake, to wit a grammarian from the Alexandrian school, who lived in the first half of the 2th century AD.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 16.1 (2022): 413–430. The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c.... more
Platonic Investigations 16.1 (2022): 413–430.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). Given its content, nowadays this work would have been titled something like a Short Course in Literary Criticism. We find here an index and brief specifications of various poetical genres, along with the listings of authors and works representing them. In the past, it was ascribed to the renowned Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Lycius (412–485), known not only by his commentaries on several of Plato’s dialogues, but by his purely philological works as well. Even today, a number of scholars are still inclined to support this attribution, though it appears that it was most likely written by an otherwise unknown philosopher’s namesake, to wit a grammarian from the Alexandrian school, who lived in the first half of the 2th century AD.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Proclus’ Abridged Grammatical Chrestomathy, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). Given its content, nowadays this work would have been titled something like a Short Course in Literary Criticism. We find here an index and brief specifications of various poetical genres, along with the listings of authors and works representing them. In the past, it was ascribed to the renowned Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Lycius (412–485), known not only by his commentaries on several of Plato’s dialogues, but by his purely philological works as well. Even today, a number of scholars are still inclined to support this attribution, though it appears that it was most likely written by an otherwise unknown philosopher’s namesake, to wit a grammarian from the Alexandrian school, who lived in the first half of the 2th century AD.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 16.2 (2022): 862–888. Ptolemy Chennus is a poorly known Roman author who wrote in Greek and lived in the late 1st — beginning of 2nd century AD. His works are enumerated in the corresponding article from the Byzantine... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 16.2 (2022): 862–888.
Ptolemy Chennus is a poorly known Roman author who wrote in Greek and lived in the late 1st — beginning of 2nd century AD. His works are enumerated in the corresponding article from the Byzantine encyclopedia Suda: a collection of Paradoxical stories, a historical drama Sphinx, and an epic entitled Anthomerus; his only extant work is the Novel History, probably another title of Ptolemy’s aforementioned paradoxographical collection, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). By his professional pursuits, apparently initiated in his native Alexandria, Ptolemy is defined as grammaticus, i.e. classical scholar, and the classics in his time were centered primarily on Homer; the tendency to thwart this great authority is evident throughout the Novel History which is teeming with a mass of blatantly unorthodox versions of various mythological stories going back to Homer. It is this unorthodoxy that the compiler of the epitome finds attractive, though unfortunately a mere summary forestalls the possibility to savour the presumed stylistic complexity of the work, as well as to form a well-grounded judgement on how serious was its author’s attitude to the fibs he tells, or on how close these fanciful rehashes came to a deliberate parody; still, it almost seems certain that the original text was truly rich in playfulness, irony, and burgeoning imagination. The publication presents the first full Russian translation of the work, accompanied with sufficiently detailed commentary, paying special attention to Eustathius’ of Thessalonica (c. 1115–1195/6) Commentaria to Homeric poems, the only literary source where some few parallels to the wildly unconventional data provided
by Ptolemy may be found.
Ptolemy Chennus is a poorly known Roman author who wrote in Greek and lived in the late 1st — beginning of 2nd century AD. His works are enumerated in the corresponding article from the Byzantine encyclopedia Suda: a collection of Paradoxical stories, a historical drama Sphinx, and an epic entitled Anthomerus; his only extant work is the Novel History, probably another title of Ptolemy’s aforementioned paradoxographical collection, which has been preserved as an epitome in the Bibliotheca of Patriarch Photius (c. 810/820–893). By his professional pursuits, apparently initiated in his native Alexandria, Ptolemy is defined as grammaticus, i.e. classical scholar, and the classics in his time were centered primarily on Homer; the tendency to thwart this great authority is evident throughout the Novel History which is teeming with a mass of blatantly unorthodox versions of various mythological stories going back to Homer. It is this unorthodoxy that the compiler of the epitome finds attractive, though unfortunately a mere summary forestalls the possibility to savour the presumed stylistic complexity of the work, as well as to form a well-grounded judgement on how serious was its author’s attitude to the fibs he tells, or on how close these fanciful rehashes came to a deliberate parody; still, it almost seems certain that the original text was truly rich in playfulness, irony, and burgeoning imagination. The publication presents the first full Russian translation of the work, accompanied with sufficiently detailed commentary, paying special attention to Eustathius’ of Thessalonica (c. 1115–1195/6) Commentaria to Homeric poems, the only literary source where some few parallels to the wildly unconventional data provided
by Ptolemy may be found.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 16.1 (2022): 317–333. Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested in ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes,... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 16.1 (2022): 317–333.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested in ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection
of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socrates’ daimonion’ (Or. 8–9), which has been also dealt with
by Maximus’ fellow Platonists of the Middle stage Plutarchus of Chaeronea (46 – after 119), in De Socratis demonio, and Apuleius of Madauros (c. 124 – c. 170), in De deo Socratis. All of them, with slight variations, consider demons intermediary beings shuttling between heavens and earth, gods and humans; at one point, Maximus compares them to translators who ensure contacts between people of different cultures. Maximus’ Platonism mainly manifests in his attempts to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The style is paramount for Maximus, him being not only a Platonist, but also a prominent representative of the Second Sophistic. As an eclectic philosopher, he introduces into his writings sundry Aristotelean and Stoic threads interwoven with Platonic warp and woof. Revealing himself a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as other ancient authors, whose many fragments are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 8–9 based on thoroughly corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested in ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection
of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socrates’ daimonion’ (Or. 8–9), which has been also dealt with
by Maximus’ fellow Platonists of the Middle stage Plutarchus of Chaeronea (46 – after 119), in De Socratis demonio, and Apuleius of Madauros (c. 124 – c. 170), in De deo Socratis. All of them, with slight variations, consider demons intermediary beings shuttling between heavens and earth, gods and humans; at one point, Maximus compares them to translators who ensure contacts between people of different cultures. Maximus’ Platonism mainly manifests in his attempts to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The style is paramount for Maximus, him being not only a Platonist, but also a prominent representative of the Second Sophistic. As an eclectic philosopher, he introduces into his writings sundry Aristotelean and Stoic threads interwoven with Platonic warp and woof. Revealing himself a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as other ancient authors, whose many fragments are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 8–9 based on thoroughly corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 15.2 (2021): 241–330. The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Book Ⅻ: On Animals of the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636). Isidore may be considered the... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 15.2 (2021): 241–330.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Book Ⅻ: On Animals of the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636). Isidore may be considered the last intermediary between ancient and mediaeval scholarship in the West, picking up his material from all kind of sources and doing his best to somehow arrange these membra disiecta and transmit the assembled crumbs of knowledge further on. To be sure, he was not the first to undertake this translator's task. Isidore relied heavily on his predecessors, from the earlier Latin encyclopedists, grammarians and lexicographers (Varro, Verrius Flaccus, Pliny the Elder, Servius Honoratus, etc.) who had ensured the transition of knowledge from the Greek world, to the principal Fathers of Church, first of all Augustine and Jerome. Isidore certainly had only secondhand access to the earlier sources. His work is a peculiar web of more or less distorted quotations or rather "reposts", his language a vitiated scholarly Latin, which the proposed Russian translation has attempted to somehow approximate.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of Book Ⅻ: On Animals of the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636). Isidore may be considered the last intermediary between ancient and mediaeval scholarship in the West, picking up his material from all kind of sources and doing his best to somehow arrange these membra disiecta and transmit the assembled crumbs of knowledge further on. To be sure, he was not the first to undertake this translator's task. Isidore relied heavily on his predecessors, from the earlier Latin encyclopedists, grammarians and lexicographers (Varro, Verrius Flaccus, Pliny the Elder, Servius Honoratus, etc.) who had ensured the transition of knowledge from the Greek world, to the principal Fathers of Church, first of all Augustine and Jerome. Isidore certainly had only secondhand access to the earlier sources. His work is a peculiar web of more or less distorted quotations or rather "reposts", his language a vitiated scholarly Latin, which the proposed Russian translation has attempted to somehow approximate.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 14.1 (2021): 270–290. The publication presents a new Russian translation of the chapters of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses dedicated to the key figure of Gnostic mythology Sophia-Achamoth... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 14.1 (2021): 270–290.
The publication presents a new Russian translation of the chapters of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses dedicated to the key figure of Gnostic mythology
Sophia-Achamoth (also called Barbelo and Prunicus). The translation is based on the standard critical edition of Irenaeus’ treatise by A. Rousseau
and L. Doutreleau (1979). The previous Russian translation by P. Preobrazhenskiy (1900), based on obsolete editions, is currently obsolescent itself.
The original Greek text of Irenaeus is almost entirely lost, we can only judge the treatise by the extant Latin translation which is rather awkward
and clumsy. To make the reader aware of this peculiarity of style, or rather of its deficiency, the Russian translator has imparted to the text a certain
rhytmic organization meant to affect the reader in a way analogous to how the clumsiness would, at the same time facilitating the reading — without distorting the intended meaning, to be sure. The translation is accompanied by extensive notes. Another experimental feature of the translation is the usage of the letter фита́ (ѳ) expunged from the Russian alphabet in 1918, which has greatly impaired the Cyrillic script’s ability to accurately render many names and notions coming from Greek, Hebrew, and other languages.
The publication presents a new Russian translation of the chapters of Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses dedicated to the key figure of Gnostic mythology
Sophia-Achamoth (also called Barbelo and Prunicus). The translation is based on the standard critical edition of Irenaeus’ treatise by A. Rousseau
and L. Doutreleau (1979). The previous Russian translation by P. Preobrazhenskiy (1900), based on obsolete editions, is currently obsolescent itself.
The original Greek text of Irenaeus is almost entirely lost, we can only judge the treatise by the extant Latin translation which is rather awkward
and clumsy. To make the reader aware of this peculiarity of style, or rather of its deficiency, the Russian translator has imparted to the text a certain
rhytmic organization meant to affect the reader in a way analogous to how the clumsiness would, at the same time facilitating the reading — without distorting the intended meaning, to be sure. The translation is accompanied by extensive notes. Another experimental feature of the translation is the usage of the letter фита́ (ѳ) expunged from the Russian alphabet in 1918, which has greatly impaired the Cyrillic script’s ability to accurately render many names and notions coming from Greek, Hebrew, and other languages.
Research Interests:
ESSE: Studies in Philosophy and Theology 5.1–2 (2020): 259–322. The publication presents a commented Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of Book I: On Grammar, of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies. Isidore was the last... more
ESSE: Studies in Philosophy and Theology 5.1–2 (2020): 259–322.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of Book I: On Grammar, of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies. Isidore was the last intermediary between antique and medieval scholarship, his work drawing a clear dividing line between the two, unlike similar mediators of earlier generations, including Cassiodorus, Boethius, Sidonius Apollinaris. The first book of his opus magnus was dedicated to the first among seven liberal arts, the first discipline of trivium (grammar – rhetoric – dialectic), whose basic function Sidonius had described as division (grammatica dividit, Ep. 5.2.1). Incidentally, Isidore’s other important work was entitled Differences (Differentiae). From here, a straight passage opened up leading to the medieval Scholasticism. On the side of Antiquity, Isidore was relying on later Latin grammarians and lexicographers (Servius, Donatus), who had already processed and appropriated both the rich Greek grammatical tradition and earlier Latin one (Varro, Verrius Flaccus). Undoubtedly, Isidore’s primary sources included the works of the leading figures of Latin Patristics, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian. But the usage of the sources in Isidore is rather loose, creating considerable difficulties for adequate translation (at that, a lot of valuable fragments of Latin literature are extant only thanks to Isidore’s quotes). Basically, all of his text is weaved out of more or less warped quotations. An attempt has been made to render in the present translation the peculiar scholarly barbarous Latin of Isidore. The commentaries
are limited to the most important references and parallels.
The publication presents a commented Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of Book I: On Grammar, of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies. Isidore was the last intermediary between antique and medieval scholarship, his work drawing a clear dividing line between the two, unlike similar mediators of earlier generations, including Cassiodorus, Boethius, Sidonius Apollinaris. The first book of his opus magnus was dedicated to the first among seven liberal arts, the first discipline of trivium (grammar – rhetoric – dialectic), whose basic function Sidonius had described as division (grammatica dividit, Ep. 5.2.1). Incidentally, Isidore’s other important work was entitled Differences (Differentiae). From here, a straight passage opened up leading to the medieval Scholasticism. On the side of Antiquity, Isidore was relying on later Latin grammarians and lexicographers (Servius, Donatus), who had already processed and appropriated both the rich Greek grammatical tradition and earlier Latin one (Varro, Verrius Flaccus). Undoubtedly, Isidore’s primary sources included the works of the leading figures of Latin Patristics, Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian. But the usage of the sources in Isidore is rather loose, creating considerable difficulties for adequate translation (at that, a lot of valuable fragments of Latin literature are extant only thanks to Isidore’s quotes). Basically, all of his text is weaved out of more or less warped quotations. An attempt has been made to render in the present translation the peculiar scholarly barbarous Latin of Isidore. The commentaries
are limited to the most important references and parallels.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 15.1 (2021): 422–435. Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes,... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole) 15.1 (2021): 422–435.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socratic love’ (Or. 18–21), i.e. of Plato’s theory of eros dealt with by the latter, imprimis, in his dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus. Maximus of Tyre may be dubbed a ‘Platonist’, though not in a scholastic vein (as, e.g., his contemporary and sometime neighbour in the manuscripts Albinus), but rather as an author who strived to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The author closest to Maximus may have been Favorinus of Arelate (ca. 80~– ca. 160). As a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as of other ancient authors, whose many fragments (e.g., of Sappho and Anacreon) are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 18–19 based on seriously corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century AD) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socratic love’ (Or. 18–21), i.e. of Plato’s theory of eros dealt with by the latter, imprimis, in his dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus. Maximus of Tyre may be dubbed a ‘Platonist’, though not in a scholastic vein (as, e.g., his contemporary and sometime neighbour in the manuscripts Albinus), but rather as an author who strived to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The author closest to Maximus may have been Favorinus of Arelate (ca. 80~– ca. 160). As a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as of other ancient authors, whose many fragments (e.g., of Sappho and Anacreon) are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 18–19 based on seriously corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 13.2 (2020): 334–353. Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century ad) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 13.2 (2020): 334–353.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century ad) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of 'Socratic love' (Or. 18-21), i.e. of Plato's theory of eros dealt with by the latter, im-primis, in his dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus. Maximus of Tyre may be dubbed a 'Platonist', though not in a scholastic vein (as, e.g., his contemporary and sometime neighbour in the manuscripts Albinus), but rather as an author who strived to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato's works. The author closest to Maximus may have been Favorinus of Arelate (ca. 80-ca. 160). As a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as of other ancient authors, whose many fragments (e.g., of Sappho and Anacreon) are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 18-19 based on seriously corrected editions of Maximus' text is provided.
Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century ad) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of 'Socratic love' (Or. 18-21), i.e. of Plato's theory of eros dealt with by the latter, im-primis, in his dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus. Maximus of Tyre may be dubbed a 'Platonist', though not in a scholastic vein (as, e.g., his contemporary and sometime neighbour in the manuscripts Albinus), but rather as an author who strived to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato's works. The author closest to Maximus may have been Favorinus of Arelate (ca. 80-ca. 160). As a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as of other ancient authors, whose many fragments (e.g., of Sappho and Anacreon) are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 18-19 based on seriously corrected editions of Maximus' text is provided.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 12.1 (2020): 299–349.
Research Interests:
Юнг К.Г. Философское древо. М.: Академический Проект, 2008: 65–174.
Research Interests:
Юнг К.Г. Философское древо. М.: Академический Проект, 2008: 3–64.
Research Interests:
Деррида, Жак. Тварь и суверен / Синий диван 12 (2008): 7–33, 13 (2008): 9–30, 15 (2010): 109–134.
Research Interests:
Джойс, Джеймс. Поминки по Финнегану (фрагмент 1.8.196–197) / У. Эко. Vertigo. М.: Слово, 2009: 109.
Research Interests:
Jacques Derrida. De l’économie restreinte à l’économie générale: Un hegelianisme sans réserve / From Restricted to General Economy. A Russian translation by A. Garadja / Жак Деррида. От частной экономики к экономике общей: Безоговорочное гегельянство / Пер. с французского А. Гараджи. (in Russian)more
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School / Труды Русской антропологической школы 4.2 (2007): 290–332.
Research Interests:
Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School / Труды Русской антропологической школы 6 (2008): 536–580.
Research Interests:
Jean-François Lyotard. Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants: Correspondance 1982–1985. A Russian translation by A. Garadja / Жан-Франсуа Лиотар. Постмодерн в изложении для детей: Письма 1982–1985. Пер. с фр., прим. и общ. ред. А. Гараджи; пер. Писем 2 и 9 В. Лапицкого. М.: РГГУ, 2008. (in Russian)more
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School / Труды Русской антропологической школы 13 (2013): 300–319.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 6.1 (2017): 113–254. This is an alternative Russian translation of Jacques Derrida's (1930–2004) influential study of Plato's work. The translation's bibliographical apparatus has been reformatted, a number of... more
Platonic Investigations 6.1 (2017): 113–254. This is an alternative Russian translation of Jacques Derrida's (1930–2004) influential study of Plato's work. The translation's bibliographical apparatus has been reformatted, a number of references have been added or corrected, Greek citations are not transliterated, but instead provided in Greek alphabet. The translation was completed in 2005, and has since been accessible online; in the meantime, another has been published (Кралечкин 2007): these two Russian translations differ considerably.
Research Interests:
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Plato, als Mitgenosse einer christlicher Offenbarung / Plato as Party to a Christian Revelation. A Russian translation, with introduction, by A. Garadja / Иоганн Вольфганг Гёте. Платон как товарищ христианскому откровению. Пер. с нем. и введение А. Гараджи. (in Russian)more
Platonic Investigations 4.1 (2016): 216–223. The publication presents a new Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of a note by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe entitled Plato, als Mitgenosse einer christlicher Offenbarung (1796).... more
Platonic Investigations 4.1 (2016): 216–223. The publication presents a new Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of a note by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe entitled Plato, als Mitgenosse einer christlicher Offenbarung (1796). Declaiming against self-righteous Christian appropriation of Plato, Goethe identifies his dialogue Ion as a ‘sheer mockery’ (persiflage) on the part of Plato the writer, and at the same time emphasizes the value of Aristophanes for his adequate understanding. These points, writing-in-mockery and the stress on Aristophanes, are also characteristic of the so-called dramatic approach to Plato's works.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 3.2 (2015): 198–253. The publication presents a commented Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of Book VIII: The Church and Sects, of the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville. An attempt is made to render... more
Platonic Investigations 3.2 (2015): 198–253. The publication presents a commented Russian translation, with a brief Introduction, of Book VIII: The Church and Sects, of the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville. An attempt is made to render in the translation a peculiar scholarly barbarous Latin of Isidore. The commentary concentrates on assorted etymological conundrums having to do with Semitic derivations gleaned from the works of St. Jerome.
Research Interests:
A reconstructed poetical cento-like cuneiform text in Sumerian with transliteration, translation, introduction and commentaries.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 12.1 (2020): 281–298. The paper considers the names Barbelo and Prunicus, and their possible origins, referring to the key figure of Gnostic mythology Sophia-Achamoth. The naive... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 12.1 (2020): 281–298.
The paper considers the names Barbelo and Prunicus, and their possible origins, referring to the key figure of Gnostic mythology Sophia-Achamoth. The naive etymologism of modern (starting from 18th century and up to the present day) interpreters does not yield reliable solutions, mostly because of its one-sided approach unsuitable for the syncretic nature of the object(s) under investigation. Drawing on a wide spectrum of multilingual (Greek, Coptic, Semitic) and heterogeneous (lexico-graphical, literary, epigraphic) testimonies may somewhat mend the situation. Though even in that case the attainment of an unequivocal interpretation free of conjectural and fanciful errancies seems hardly to be possible, and for the same reason-because of the multilayered, multistage character both of the linguistic facts under consideration and of historical and conceptual realities behind them. At least one can extricate individual threads in this syncretic tangle and so attempt as if from below, from the philological groundwork of word coinage and usage, to support and supply with content a counter-trend, which has been taking shape in the last decades, of a conceptual and still rather abstract rapprochement between Sethian Gnosticism and Platonism. As an appendix, a radically reworked, supplemented and commented Russian translation of the relevant passages from Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion (Haer. 1.2.25-26) is provided, with the underlying Greek text according to Karl Holl (1915).
The paper considers the names Barbelo and Prunicus, and their possible origins, referring to the key figure of Gnostic mythology Sophia-Achamoth. The naive etymologism of modern (starting from 18th century and up to the present day) interpreters does not yield reliable solutions, mostly because of its one-sided approach unsuitable for the syncretic nature of the object(s) under investigation. Drawing on a wide spectrum of multilingual (Greek, Coptic, Semitic) and heterogeneous (lexico-graphical, literary, epigraphic) testimonies may somewhat mend the situation. Though even in that case the attainment of an unequivocal interpretation free of conjectural and fanciful errancies seems hardly to be possible, and for the same reason-because of the multilayered, multistage character both of the linguistic facts under consideration and of historical and conceptual realities behind them. At least one can extricate individual threads in this syncretic tangle and so attempt as if from below, from the philological groundwork of word coinage and usage, to support and supply with content a counter-trend, which has been taking shape in the last decades, of a conceptual and still rather abstract rapprochement between Sethian Gnosticism and Platonism. As an appendix, a radically reworked, supplemented and commented Russian translation of the relevant passages from Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion (Haer. 1.2.25-26) is provided, with the underlying Greek text according to Karl Holl (1915).
Research Interests: Gnosticism and Barbelo
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 10.1 (2019): 197–208. Aristoxenus of Tarentum (ca. 370/360 – after 300) is the author to whom we owe the earliest biographies of Socrates (d. 399) — leaving aside the testimonies... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 10.1 (2019): 197–208. Aristoxenus of Tarentum (ca. 370/360 – after 300) is the author to whom we owe the earliest biographies of Socrates (d. 399) — leaving aside the testimonies provided by Plato, Xenophon and older Socratics — and Plato (d. 347/348). Many anecdotes taken up in compilations of later authors, from Diogenes Laertius (3 c. CE) to John Tzetzes (12c. CE), go back to Aristoxenus’ works. He was traditionally blamed with a malicious treatment of both Socrates and Plato. Recently a more poised stance was tried towards Aristoxenus’ testimony, with an attempt to explain its apparently biased flavour by the quality of ancient biography as a genre, to the emergence of which he had considerably contributed. To deal with the problem, we must first of all look closely at the said biographies as they are reconstructed by Fritz Wehrli and others.
Research Interests:
Proceedings of the Russian Anthropological School / Труды Русской антропологической школы 6 (2009): 167–187.
Research Interests:
Россия и гнозис. Труды Международной научной конференции «Раннехристианский гностический текст в российской культуре» в ВГБИЛ им. М.И. Рудомино 21.01.2011 г. / Отв. ред. А.Л. Рычков. Т. I. СПб.: Издательство РХГА, 2015: 375–394. The... more
Россия и гнозис. Труды Международной научной конференции «Раннехристианский гностический текст в российской культуре» в ВГБИЛ им. М.И. Рудомино 21.01.2011 г. / Отв. ред. А.Л. Рычков. Т. I. СПб.: Издательство РХГА, 2015: 375–394. The paper focuses on a number of magical incantations, formulas and names found in Ancient Greek documents from Egypt.
Research Interests: Gnosticism and Magic
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 9.2 (2018): 96–105. Ancient testimonies allude to a special relationship that linked Plato to Sophro, a writer of mimes from Syracuse, contemporary with Socrates and Euripi-des. Plato... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 9.2 (2018): 96–105. Ancient testimonies allude to a special relationship that linked Plato to Sophro, a writer of mimes from Syracuse, contemporary with Socrates and Euripi-des. Plato admired Sophron's writings, has brought them to Athens from Syracuse, was engrossed in them to such extent that he couldn't part with them throughout day and night, was not only absorbed in reading but in some way imitated the Sicilian, namely in depicting characters (ἠθοποιῆσαι πρὸς αὐτόν, D.L. 3.18). One might infer that even that which makes up the special appeal of Plato's philosophical style, the very form of dialogue, could have been borrowed from Sophron. Such an assumption has actually been made, both in recentiores like John Tzetzes (H. 10.806-810 et al.) and in a quite early testimony of Aristotle found in his fragmentary piece Περὶ ποιητῶν, supplemented by a papyrus (P. Oxy. 3219) and rebounding on the opening pages of the Poetics (1447b). Besides Sophron, Aristotle indicates among Plato's precursors a certain Alexamenus of Teos (Tenos) who supposedly wrote 'Socratic / dramatic dialogues / logoi' ahead of Plato. Before attempting to interpret such claims, one should not only parse the available material but also hone the tools for its processing, namely the questions that must be asked if one hopes to get any sensible answers. What did Aristotle intend by a 'dialogue'? What exactly were Sicilian mimes? Sophron's writings are extant only as scanty, largely unrevealing fragments. We have to grope our way on this quest, depending mostly on indirect and unreliable data.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ 13.1 (2019): 78–82. The paper deals with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave at the beginning of the 7th book of the Republic, focusing on the two lowest stages of the Cave (and the corresponding parts of the Line from the simile in the... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ 13.1 (2019): 78–82. The paper deals with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave at the beginning of the 7th book of the Republic, focusing on the two lowest stages of the Cave (and the corresponding parts of the Line from the simile in the Sixth book), occupied, respectively, by ‘prisoners and puppeteers’; the identity of these groups is questioned, along the lines set by J. Wilberding in his homonymously entitled article. The puppeteers and their show are examined with regard to the lexical peculiarities of Plato’s text, in particular his usage of thauma and the derived thaumatopoios. The overall ironical, playful character of the Allegory is emphasized, calling for cautious reading beyond its apparent face value. A Russian term vertep, meaning both ‘a cave’ and ‘a portable puppetshow’, may prove itself helpful in approaching the sense Plato actually intended with his Allegory.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ 12.2 (2018): 426–432. The article analyzes a passage from Plato’s Republic that has long since caused confusion and debate amongst editors and translators: οἷον ἰατρικὸν µὲν καὶ ἰατρικὴν τὴν ψυχὴν [ὄντα] τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν ἔχειν... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ 12.2 (2018): 426–432. The article analyzes a passage from Plato’s Republic that has long since caused confusion and debate amongst editors and translators: οἷον ἰατρικὸν µὲν καὶ ἰατρικὴν τὴν ψυχὴν [ὄντα] τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν ἔχειν ἐλέγοµεν· ἢ οὐκ οἴει; (Rep. 454d1–3). Can ἰατρικὴ τὴν ψυχὴν translate as ‘capable of healing psychically’ and refer to a female doctor, or is this passage “hopelessly corrupt” (Slings), the feminine flexion in ἰατρική only putting the reader off the track? The authors give a brief summary of the readings and emendations proposed by various editors and commentators, and offer their own interpretation of the passage guided by its philosophical context, relying on Plato’s redefinition of physis and his sustained attention to the eidos of the different and the identical, τῆς ἑτέρας and τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως (Rep. 453b5–456a4). The phrase about “doctor and doctor in soul” fits into this context only if we consider these “doctors” opposites in the physical sense and correlatives socially. From this perspective, it makes sense to read ἰατρικὸν µὲν καὶ ἰατρικὴν τὴν ψυχὴν as the correlation of the different (male and female) within the identical (aptitude for healing).
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 5.2 (2016): 154–163. When speaking of the sympotic order in the beginning and at the end of his Symposium, Plato mentions that the characters pass the logos, along with the wine-cup, ἐπὶ δεξιά (177d3, recapped... more
Platonic Investigations 5.2 (2016): 154–163. When speaking of the sympotic order in the beginning and at the end of his Symposium, Plato mentions that the characters pass the logos, along with the wine-cup, ἐπὶ δεξιά (177d3, recapped 214c4, 223c5). A satisfactory interpretation of this expression both in this dialogue and a couple of others (R. 420e4, Tht. 175e7) has occupied many scholars and translators of Plato for several centuries. In most English translations, this passage of both logoi and cups is rendered, with an extra precision, as going ‘from left to right’. Not so numerous Russian translations, on the contrary, while bidding for terseness, might have ended up with rather vague or even outright fallacious renderings. To overcome this, a complex exploration of the epidexia problem, taken in socio-cultural environments of ancient feasts and philosophical contexts of Plato's dialogues, is called for, the first step being a general review of it.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 7.2 (2017): 71–83. At the end of Book 7 of the Republic, in a passage describing the prospects of the polis with philosophers rising to power (540e), we stumble upon a quaint wording in an otherwise rather awkward... more
Platonic Investigations 7.2 (2017): 71–83. At the end of Book 7 of the Republic, in a passage describing the prospects of the polis with philosophers rising to power (540e), we stumble upon a quaint wording in an otherwise rather awkward phrase, overly protracted, barely getting to be suspended by means of a question mark. These peculiarities suggest that Plato is intentionally alerting his reader, signalling that a special treatment of the passage is called for. The wording in question is διασκευωρέομαι, traditionally translated, in its middle-voice form, as ‘to set in order’. However, an attentive lexicographical, context-oriented analysis of the initial Greek σκεῦος and its derivatives, both in Plato's dialogues and in the general Greek usage, reveals a possible undercurrent of a certain ‘deviousness’, even ‘fraudulence’, in that ‘setting in order’ of the philosophers' polis. To help clarify the intended meaning of the passage, whether it is straightforward or ironic, this paper looks at possible Indo-European connections and perspectives of the Greek word, focusing in particular on a number of presumably relevant Slavic and Russian terms.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 7.2 (2017): 11–32. The authenticity of the dialogue Hippias Major remains an issue of controversy among Plato scholars. Ever since Fr. Schleiermacher had rather unfavorably remarked on its purportedly scratchy... more
Platonic Investigations 7.2 (2017): 11–32. The authenticity of the dialogue Hippias Major remains an issue of controversy among Plato scholars. Ever since Fr. Schleiermacher had rather unfavorably remarked on its purportedly scratchy style while at the same time refraining from classifying it as unequivocally spurious, many scholars of the 19th century, with its salient hypercritical bias, started to convince themselves that the dialogue was indeed inauthentic. All of the main arguments pro and contra authenticity were rehearsed in the 1920s academic confrontation of G. Grube versus D. Tarrant. Grube argued that Hippias Major was an early work written by Plato himself, while Tarrant believed that the dialogue was a late one and most likely composed by one of Plato’s disciples. This paper deals with some aspects of the dialogue used in the argumentation of both sides of the controversy, including its ‘comico-mimical’ orientation, the enjeu of ‘Socrates’ double’, and the appearance of various kinds of eide (like the ‘beautiful’ and the ‘deuce’), in an effort to ground the authors’ own view: the dialogue in question is in fact rather late and does belong to Plato himself.
Research Interests:
Solovyov studies / Соловьевские исследования 47.3 (2015): 23–32. The paper analyzes a distich from Plato's Phaedrus (252b); its second line is qualified by Socrates as “hybristic” and “unmetrical”, and the verse on the whole, as an... more
Solovyov studies / Соловьевские исследования 47.3 (2015): 23–32. The paper analyzes a distich from Plato's Phaedrus (252b); its second line is qualified by Socrates as “hybristic” and “unmetrical”, and the verse on the whole, as an apocryphal Homeric text. The authors attempt to understand why Plato needs the themes of “apocryphicity”, “hybris”, and metrical “inconsistency” in this context. They approach this aim by examining the metrical qualities (or rather quantities) and lexical semantics of the distich, and by comparing the contexts of Platonic dialogues with the respective vocabulary. This allows to surmise sexual implications of both this distich and passages describing the growth of the “soul's wings”. The authors believe this is
linked to diverse treatment of Eros by Plato himself involving a peculiar mutual “transparency” of differing, seemingly contrary domains of reality.
linked to diverse treatment of Eros by Plato himself involving a peculiar mutual “transparency” of differing, seemingly contrary domains of reality.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations 2.1 (2015): 83–116. The paper, sketching preparatory steps for a new Russian translation of Plato's Symposium, "debugs" a number of emendations made to the Symposium's vulgo lectio centuries ago that remain tacitly... more
Platonic Investigations 2.1 (2015): 83–116. The paper, sketching preparatory steps for a new Russian translation of Plato's Symposium, "debugs" a number of emendations made to the Symposium's vulgo lectio centuries ago that remain tacitly and uncritically accepted by most modern scholars and translators. Chances are that Plato himself, no less a refined writer than a profound thinker, may have elaborated on and via his text, provoking readers and even catering for a lectio difficilior, thus emulating the mocking wizardry of his Socrates.
Research Interests:
Review of the RCAH 14.3 (2013): 9–18. The article deals with the Coptic «interpretative» translation of an extract from Plato’s “Republic” contained in Codex VI of the Nag Hammadi library (NH VI, v). A new Russian translation of the... more
Review of the RCAH 14.3 (2013): 9–18. The article deals with the Coptic «interpretative» translation of an extract from Plato’s “Republic” contained in Codex VI of the Nag Hammadi library (NH VI, v). A new Russian translation of the Coptic text is provided, along with comments and a summarized philosophical context of the original passage from Plato’s work.
Vestnik of Pushkin Leningrad State University. Philosophy 2.2 (2014): 7–13. The article discusses examples of wordplay in Plato’s dialogue Sophist showing how the important dialectical statement about the correspondence of logos and... more
Vestnik of Pushkin Leningrad State University. Philosophy 2.2 (2014): 7–13. The article discusses examples of wordplay in Plato’s dialogue Sophist showing how the important dialectical statement about the correspondence of logos and “thing” is manifested in the choice of vocabulary and various word play techniques.
Research Interests:
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 19.2 (2023): 264–278. The paper deals with the unpublished review by the Soviet classical scholar and translator Andrei Nikolayevich Egunov (1895–1968) of the translation of Plato’s... more
Platonic Investigations / Платоновские исследования 19.2 (2023): 264–278.
The paper deals with the unpublished review by the Soviet classical scholar and translator Andrei Nikolayevich Egunov (1895–1968) of the translation of Plato’s Symposium by Solomon Konstantinovich Apt (1921–2010), the prominent Soviet and Russian translator of many ancient Greek and modern German writers, that was first published in 1965 and then, with revisions, in 1970 and 1993. The original manuscript of the translation seems to be lost, but the comparison of the review with the printed translation allows to infer that a considerable number of Egunov’s edits had been accepted. The list of charges Egunov brings against Apt is rather extensive: grammatical errors and deficiencies; inadequate knowledge of the Russian language, inability to discern meanings and nuances, a total lack of taste; lingual anachronisms in the cultural and historic perspective; forced “folklorization” and vulgarization; adulterations of the text as a result of his straightforward rendering of euphemisms; inconsistencies in the translated language of the personages with their social status and educational level; unjustified crudely comic and contingently vulgar rendering of the text; a bureaucratic gobbledegook; a lack of scrupulous attitude towards the text, deviations from the intended sense; the Russian translation of many passages of the Symposium blatantly “apes” the German translation by Schleiermacher. By analyzing the methodological and psychological grounds for such a scathing estimation, the authors concludes that a great number of Egunov’s charges against Apt are starkly weak and contradictory, and an inch breaks no square, as an old saying runs.
The paper deals with the unpublished review by the Soviet classical scholar and translator Andrei Nikolayevich Egunov (1895–1968) of the translation of Plato’s Symposium by Solomon Konstantinovich Apt (1921–2010), the prominent Soviet and Russian translator of many ancient Greek and modern German writers, that was first published in 1965 and then, with revisions, in 1970 and 1993. The original manuscript of the translation seems to be lost, but the comparison of the review with the printed translation allows to infer that a considerable number of Egunov’s edits had been accepted. The list of charges Egunov brings against Apt is rather extensive: grammatical errors and deficiencies; inadequate knowledge of the Russian language, inability to discern meanings and nuances, a total lack of taste; lingual anachronisms in the cultural and historic perspective; forced “folklorization” and vulgarization; adulterations of the text as a result of his straightforward rendering of euphemisms; inconsistencies in the translated language of the personages with their social status and educational level; unjustified crudely comic and contingently vulgar rendering of the text; a bureaucratic gobbledegook; a lack of scrupulous attitude towards the text, deviations from the intended sense; the Russian translation of many passages of the Symposium blatantly “apes” the German translation by Schleiermacher. By analyzing the methodological and psychological grounds for such a scathing estimation, the authors concludes that a great number of Egunov’s charges against Apt are starkly weak and contradictory, and an inch breaks no square, as an old saying runs.
Research Interests:
Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics / Философия. Журнал Высшей школы экономики 3.1 (2019): 265–285. The paper reviews the new Russian translation of Plato’s “Symposium” presented along with the original Greek text by... more
Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics / Философия. Журнал Высшей школы экономики 3.1 (2019): 265–285. The paper reviews the new Russian translation of Plato’s “Symposium” presented along with the original Greek text by Alexander Markov and published by RIPOL Classic (Moscow, 2019). This translation is devoid of any value for scholarship and shockingly demonstrates the translator’s blatant disregard for the basic criteria for a scholarly rendering of an ancient written monument, his ignorance of the (1) textual criticism, (2) languages and idiom, and (3) subject matter of the text he translates. The original Greek text featuring in the parallel column appears to be a mixture of the texts established by J. Burnet (1910) and C.Fr. Hermann (1851), though it is never openly acknowledged and the principles of such a “collation” are in no way explained or substantiated. A closer examination of a number of passages confirms the extreme inadequacy of the translation, not to be accounted for by the alleged originality of the translator’s approach that in a sweeping and vague manner he tries to outline in the Introduction. Rather prominent, even obtrusive, is the translator’s tendency to “enliven” the text of the “Symposium”, bring it closer to the contemporary Russian-speaking audience; he insists on a “carnavalization” of the text, which supposedly was lacking in all previous Russian translations of the dialogue. The inferior quality of the new translation derives primarily from the translator’s strident negligence in rendering the exact meaning of the most common terms and phrases, never mind their intertextual play inside Corpus Platonicum or in the literature of Plato’s time in general.
Research Interests:
ΣΧΟΛΗ 1.1 (2015): 683–688. The review deals with a thesis by William John Kennedy devoted to Antisthenes. The authors of the review are chiefly interested in the first part of the work where Kennedy is attempting to substantiate his... more
ΣΧΟΛΗ 1.1 (2015): 683–688. The review deals with a thesis by William John Kennedy devoted to Antisthenes. The authors of the review are chiefly interested in the first part of the work where Kennedy is attempting to substantiate his controversial view on Antisthenes' philosophical affiliation, asserting that he had nothing to do with the Cynics and in his ethical judgment abided by traditional tenets of Athenian aristocracy. The review is focusing on those hermeneutical devices, including rather biased translations that allow the author to come to a conclusion that breaks so starkly with the standard position in modern Classical studies.