When exactly does Apollo leave the stage for the last time in the Eumenides? Even in a play whose... more When exactly does Apollo leave the stage for the last time in the Eumenides? Even in a play whose staging is as notoriously anomalous as is the case in this one (and in which Apollo’s first and second entrances too have been the object of vigorous discussion1), the question of the precise timing of the Delphic god’s final exit is particularly perplexing. The last lines assigned to him by name in the Mediceus occur in the sets of paired trimeters with which he and the coryphaeus accompany and comment on the voting by the human jurors (711–34).2 But of course the assignment of speakers in M is woefully inadequate, and no editor feels much constrained by its lack of indications in the following lines or elsewhere. Orestes invokes Apollo anxiously at 744, and no one doubts that Apollo is still there on stage to be addressed by him. At 748 M indicates solely with a paragraphos (the Triclinian manuscripts have no mark here) the first of four lines in which care is urged in counting the votes and is justified with a formally balanced gnomic reflection. Although Wellauer assigned 748–9 to Orestes and 750–1 to the chorus,3 the particle in 750, especially in a gnomic context in which it is not indispensable, must surely mean that whoever spoke that line must also have spoken the preceding one and hence that all four lines belong to the same speaker. Given that Athena intervenes as a new speaker at lines 752–3 in order to announce the result, that the coryphaeus is hardly likely to be worried at the moment about the danger of a single vote destroying a household (751), and that the tone of the gnomic lines is far too serene for the speech to be assigned to Orestes,4 all editors are almost certainly right to have followed Victorius5 in giving the four lines to Apollo. But they seem to be his very last words: after 751 no edition or translation shows Apollo saying anything further. When, then, does Apollo leave the stage? Whether or not we assign lines 676–7 to Apollo,6 it is impossible to imagine him exiting before the verdict has been announced (especially if it is he who has urged care in counting the votes at 748–51 just before that announcement is made). So he must leave sometime after 753. But when? And in any case why does he leave without a single word of farewell? In Greek tragedy, 12
O ne of the distinguishing features of the reception of Homer, in contrast with that of most othe... more O ne of the distinguishing features of the reception of Homer, in contrast with that of most other ancient authors, is that since antiquity almost every culture has considered his poems to be especially faithful to the truth and to be especially valuable precisely for that reason. Keats was not the first, or the only, reader who could claim that he felt the very same excitement at looking for the first time into Homer's poetry (even in translation) as he would have if he had been vouchsafed a glimpse not just into some book but instead into a hitherto unimagined but achingly real world beyond the narrow and conventional reality he had supposed was the only one. 2 So, too, when Goethe describes his own youthful enthusiasm for Homer, he celebrates his discovery of the ancient poet as the dawn of a new day, in which the bright sun suddenly revealed to him men and things for what they really were. 3 But if we look more broadly at the various ways in which Homer has been read and understood in European culture over the centuries, we can see, far more clearly than Keats or Goethe could have, that their own experience was not only personal and individual but also traditional and almost commonplace. Throughout history, Homer has been celebrated as the poet of reality, and what varied from period to period was not the notion that his poems told an important truth about reality but rather the kind of reality that interpreters sought to connect with the poems and the kinds of connections they sought to establish. The following pages detail the history of the reception of Homer as that of the changing understandings of a body of poetry to which an indisputable truth was always ascribed, however differently that truth was conceived. In the modern period, these variations are embodied in the works of Homer's editors and translators. For that reason, the Biblio-theca Homerica Langiana (BHL) provides a rich treasury of materials for research into the history of the understanding of his poetry. So vast and complex is this topic that I shall only be able to touch on it, illustrating it by the example of a single small but charming episode: the encounter between Odysseus and his dog Argus in book 17, lines 290–327 of the Od
When exactly does Apollo leave the stage for the last time in the Eumenides? Even in a play whose... more When exactly does Apollo leave the stage for the last time in the Eumenides? Even in a play whose staging is as notoriously anomalous as is the case in this one (and in which Apollo’s first and second entrances too have been the object of vigorous discussion1), the question of the precise timing of the Delphic god’s final exit is particularly perplexing. The last lines assigned to him by name in the Mediceus occur in the sets of paired trimeters with which he and the coryphaeus accompany and comment on the voting by the human jurors (711–34).2 But of course the assignment of speakers in M is woefully inadequate, and no editor feels much constrained by its lack of indications in the following lines or elsewhere. Orestes invokes Apollo anxiously at 744, and no one doubts that Apollo is still there on stage to be addressed by him. At 748 M indicates solely with a paragraphos (the Triclinian manuscripts have no mark here) the first of four lines in which care is urged in counting the votes and is justified with a formally balanced gnomic reflection. Although Wellauer assigned 748–9 to Orestes and 750–1 to the chorus,3 the particle in 750, especially in a gnomic context in which it is not indispensable, must surely mean that whoever spoke that line must also have spoken the preceding one and hence that all four lines belong to the same speaker. Given that Athena intervenes as a new speaker at lines 752–3 in order to announce the result, that the coryphaeus is hardly likely to be worried at the moment about the danger of a single vote destroying a household (751), and that the tone of the gnomic lines is far too serene for the speech to be assigned to Orestes,4 all editors are almost certainly right to have followed Victorius5 in giving the four lines to Apollo. But they seem to be his very last words: after 751 no edition or translation shows Apollo saying anything further. When, then, does Apollo leave the stage? Whether or not we assign lines 676–7 to Apollo,6 it is impossible to imagine him exiting before the verdict has been announced (especially if it is he who has urged care in counting the votes at 748–51 just before that announcement is made). So he must leave sometime after 753. But when? And in any case why does he leave without a single word of farewell? In Greek tragedy, 12
O ne of the distinguishing features of the reception of Homer, in contrast with that of most othe... more O ne of the distinguishing features of the reception of Homer, in contrast with that of most other ancient authors, is that since antiquity almost every culture has considered his poems to be especially faithful to the truth and to be especially valuable precisely for that reason. Keats was not the first, or the only, reader who could claim that he felt the very same excitement at looking for the first time into Homer's poetry (even in translation) as he would have if he had been vouchsafed a glimpse not just into some book but instead into a hitherto unimagined but achingly real world beyond the narrow and conventional reality he had supposed was the only one. 2 So, too, when Goethe describes his own youthful enthusiasm for Homer, he celebrates his discovery of the ancient poet as the dawn of a new day, in which the bright sun suddenly revealed to him men and things for what they really were. 3 But if we look more broadly at the various ways in which Homer has been read and understood in European culture over the centuries, we can see, far more clearly than Keats or Goethe could have, that their own experience was not only personal and individual but also traditional and almost commonplace. Throughout history, Homer has been celebrated as the poet of reality, and what varied from period to period was not the notion that his poems told an important truth about reality but rather the kind of reality that interpreters sought to connect with the poems and the kinds of connections they sought to establish. The following pages detail the history of the reception of Homer as that of the changing understandings of a body of poetry to which an indisputable truth was always ascribed, however differently that truth was conceived. In the modern period, these variations are embodied in the works of Homer's editors and translators. For that reason, the Biblio-theca Homerica Langiana (BHL) provides a rich treasury of materials for research into the history of the understanding of his poetry. So vast and complex is this topic that I shall only be able to touch on it, illustrating it by the example of a single small but charming episode: the encounter between Odysseus and his dog Argus in book 17, lines 290–327 of the Od
What is sovereignty? Often taken for granted or seen as the ideology of European states vying for... more What is sovereignty? Often taken for granted or seen as the ideology of European states vying for supremacy and conquest, the concept of sovereignty remains underexamined both in the history of its practices and in its aesthetic and intellectual underpinnings. Using global intellectual history as a bridge between approaches, periods, and areas, The Scaffolding of Sovereignty deploys a comparative and theoretically rich conception of sovereignty to reconsider the different schemes on which it has been based or renewed, the public stages on which it is erected or destroyed, and the images and ideas on which it rests.
The essays in The Scaffolding of Sovereignty reveal that sovereignty has always been supported, complemented, and enforced by a complex aesthetic and intellectual scaffolding. This collection takes a multidisciplinary approach to investigating the concept on a global scale, ranging from an account of a Manchu emperor building a mosque to a discussion of the continuing power of Lenin's corpse, from an analysis of the death of kings in classical Greek tragedy to an exploration of the imagery of "the people" in the Age of Revolutions. Across seventeen chapters that closely study specific historical regimes and conflicts, the book's contributors examine intersections of authority, power, theatricality, science and medicine, jurisdiction, rulership, human rights, scholarship, religious and popular ideas, and international legal thought that support or undermine different instances of sovereign power and its representations.
Glenn W. Most, L'io dei Greci. Corpo e mente nel pensiero classico.
Traduzioni e cura di Patriz... more Glenn W. Most, L'io dei Greci. Corpo e mente nel pensiero classico.
Traduzioni e cura di Patrizia Pedrini
Edizioni ETS
(anteprima -- vai alla scheda del libro su www.edizioniets.com)
The 'Presocratic' philosophers in 1 volume, in Greek and Latin (and some other languages) and Fre... more The 'Presocratic' philosophers in 1 volume, in Greek and Latin (and some other languages) and French translation, with supplementary materials.
The 'Presocratic' philosophers in 9 volumes in the Loeb series, in Greek and Latin (and some othe... more The 'Presocratic' philosophers in 9 volumes in the Loeb series, in Greek and Latin (and some other languages) and English translation, with supplementary materials.
The first edition of the Loeb Early Greek Philosophy contained errors of various kinds – inconsis... more The first edition of the Loeb Early Greek Philosophy contained errors of various kinds – inconsistencies, inconcinnities, typographical slips, errors in orthography and punctuation, larger and smaller omissions, mistaken or outdated references, minor and more serious outright mistakes in translation, but also decisions regarding the text, translation, and/or interpretation of extremely difficult and controversial passages on which we have come in the meantime, after further reflection and advice, to adopt a somewhat different view from that reflected in the first edition. The editors, André Laks and I, expect that these errors will all be corrected in a forthcoming second edition. In the meantime, we are making available here the list of corrigenda of all sorts that we and others have noted so far. We have also taken the opportunity provided by the forthcoming second edition to update references to new critical editions of some of the authors involved and to add to the bibliographies a very few significant works of secondary scholarship that have appeared recently. The list will be updated periodically. These corrigenda are intended to be understood as André Laks' and my wholly self-published and preliminary plans for the second edition, and not as official supplements. Should scholars wish to cite them, they may of course do so as they would any other document posted on a personal website, specifying the date of the list and the date retrieved. The corrections take the following form: • volume, page, line number(s); • then the erroneous version, with the erroneous letters indicated by highlighting and strikethrough; • then the symbol >; • then the correct version, with the correct letters indicated by highlighting. We are deeply grateful to numerous friends and colleagues who have pointed out errors to us, and we would welcome any and all further corrections, which should be sent to both most@sns.it and laks.andre@gmail.com.
Uploads
The essays in The Scaffolding of Sovereignty reveal that sovereignty has always been supported, complemented, and enforced by a complex aesthetic and intellectual scaffolding. This collection takes a multidisciplinary approach to investigating the concept on a global scale, ranging from an account of a Manchu emperor building a mosque to a discussion of the continuing power of Lenin's corpse, from an analysis of the death of kings in classical Greek tragedy to an exploration of the imagery of "the people" in the Age of Revolutions. Across seventeen chapters that closely study specific historical regimes and conflicts, the book's contributors examine intersections of authority, power, theatricality, science and medicine, jurisdiction, rulership, human rights, scholarship, religious and popular ideas, and international legal thought that support or undermine different instances of sovereign power and its representations.
Traduzioni e cura di Patrizia Pedrini
Edizioni ETS
(anteprima -- vai alla scheda del libro su www.edizioniets.com)