870 Italische Literaturen; Lateinische Literatur
Refine
Document Type
- Article (13)
- Postprint (7)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Review (2)
Keywords
- Historiography (3)
- Tacitus (3)
- 16. Jahrhundert (2)
- Aristoteles-Kommentare (2)
- Enthusiasmus (2)
- Entscheidungsfreiheit (2)
- Geschichtsschreibung (2)
- Inspiration (2)
- Lateinische Literatur (2)
- Latin literature (2)
Institute
Tacitus' Wonders
(2022)
This volume approaches the broad topic of wonder in the works of Tacitus, encompassing paradox, the marvellous and the admirable. Recent scholarship on these themes in Roman literature has tended to focus on poetic genres, with comparatively little attention paid to historiography: Tacitus, whose own judgments on what is worthy of note have often differed in interesting ways from the preoccupations of his readers, is a fascinating focal point for this complementary perspective.
Scholarship on Tacitus has to date remained largely marked by a divide between the search for veracity – as validated by modern historiographical standards – and literary approaches, and as a result wonders have either been ignored as unfit for an account of history or have been deprived of their force by being interpreted as valid only within the text. While the modern ideal of historiographical objectivity tends to result in striving for consistent heuristic and methodological frameworks, works as varied as Tacitus' Histories, Annals and opera minora can hardly be prefaced with a statement of methodology broad enough to escape misrepresenting their diversity. In our age of specialization a streamlined methodological framework is a virtue, but it should not be assumed that Tacitus had similar priorities, and indeed the Histories and Annals deserve to be approached with openness towards the variety of perspectives that a tradition as rich as Latin historiographical prose can include within its scope. This collection proposes ways to reconcile the divide between history and historiography by exploring contestable moments in the text that challenge readers to judge and interpret for themselves, with individual chapters drawing on a range of interpretive approaches that mirror the wealth of authorial and reader-specific responses in play.
Lost in Germania
(2021)
Tacitus’ Germania is notable for its absences: lacking a preface and programmatic statements, and being the only ethnographic monograph to have survived from Greco-Roman antiquity, readers have often leapt to fill in its perceived blanks. This chapter aims at redressing the effects of overdetermined readings by interpreting the text’s absences as significant in their own right.
Tacitus and cinema
(2021)
Cave canem
(2021)
So far, animals in fables have almost exclusively been studied as symbolic representatives of human behaviour. New perspectives are opened up by Human-Animal Studies which focus on the animals themselves and human-animal relationships. Inspired by this approach, this article examines five fables of Graeco-Roman antiquity which are connected by the motif of the vicious dog. On the basis of philological interpretation it is shown to what extent and with which intention the dogs are anthropomorphised and at the same time represented as real animals. Interestingly, the human protagonists usually don´t blame the dogs and draw a clear borderline between animals and humans. It seems that successful communication is possible only within the same species.
This article is a discussion of Plin. Ep. 7.29 and Ep. 8.6, in which he presents his reaction to seeing the grave monument of Marcus Antonius Pallas, the freedman and minister of the Emperor Claudius, beside the Via Tiburtina. The monument records a senatorial vote of thanks to Pallas, and Pliny expresses intense indignation at the Senate’s subservience and at the power and influence wielded by a freedman. This article compares Pliny’s letters with Tacitus’ account of the senatorial vote of thanks to Pallas at Ann. 12.52–3 and explores the differences between the ways in which the two authors encourage readers to relate to past events. It is noted that the Pallas letters are unusual amongst Pliny’s let- ters for their treatment of material unconnected with the life and career of Pliny and his friends, and argued that in Ep. 7.29 Pliny uses language and attitudes drawn from satire to evoke the past. Ep. 8.6 is read as an idiosyncratic piece of historical enquiry, consider- ing Pliny’s use of citation and his anonymization of historical individuals. Both letters are considered in the context of the surrounding letters, and a hypothesis is offered regarding the identity of their addressee Montanus, considering evidence from Tacitus’ Histories and Annals. Discussion of Tac. Ann. 12.52–3 focusses on the use of irony. Pliny’s evocation of enargeia (‘vividness’) is compared with that of Tacitus. The article concludes with comparison of the historical accounts offered by Pliny and Tacitus through reflection on Juvenal, Satire 1.
In the Posthomerica references to an omnipotent fate or to the power of the gods are strikingly frequent. Modern scholarship has often treated this as Stoic. Closer reading reveals that Quintus is, on the one hand, following the Homeric concept of double motivation, according to which humans can be motivated by a deity only to an act that conforms to their character and for which they are responsible. On the other hand, Quintus gives these statements on responsibility to characters who are trying to excuse their own acts to themselves and, particularly, to others, i.e. they are motivated contextually. It would be non-Stoic to excuse oneself for a bad deed by reference to an almighty fate. It seems that Quintus, by presenting this tension, wanted the reader to reconsider and reflect on the different concepts.
Although claiming the authority of an eye-witness account, frater Simon’s letter is almost certainly a ficticious description of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. This presumed lack of authenticity has obviously prompted modern scholarship for a long time to be oblivious to this contemporary and exclusive source on the events, preferring well-known and reliable sources such as Leonard of Chios and Isidore of Kiev. However, since frater Simon’s letter has survived in two different versions and ten manuscripts from the 15th century, it is clearly more than a marginal note. Rather is it a remarkable contribution to the literary treatment of the Turkish threat and timeless moral instruction.With his portrayal of the pagan Mehmed II as a just ruler, the recurring moral instructions and the lack of a call to arms. Simon’s text stands out against themyriad of more or less contemporary depictions. In preparation for a critical edition the paper gives an analysis of the text and an overview of the extant manuscripts.
WISSEN MACHT… ?!
(2018)
NIHIL NISI VERITAS
(2018)
Ludus impudentiae!
(2018)
Raumwissen als Raumpolitik?
(2018)
www.BrAnD2.Würde.
(2018)
Das Zweite Brandenburger Antike-Denkwerk zielt auf die Zusammenarbeit der Klassischen Philologie der Universität Potsdam mit fünf landesweit ausgewählten Schulen. 2015/6 war das Projekt dem Thema „Würde“ gewidmet. Erste Aspekte beleuchteten Prof. Dr. Claudia Tiersch und PD Dr. Stefan Büttner-von Stülpnagel auf dem Potsdamer Lateintag. Anschließend wurde das Thema von den am Projekt beteiligten Schülerinnen und Schülern unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr. Ursula Gärtner in ganz unterschiedlichen Produkten umgesetzt. Alle diese Beiträge versammelt der vorliegende Band.
Das Projekt wird von der der Robert-Bosch-Stiftung gefördert.
In the Posthomerica references to an omnipotent fate or to the power of the gods are strikingly frequent. Modern scholarship has often treated this as Stoic. Closer reading reveals that Quintus is, on the one hand, following the Homeric concept of double motivation, according to which humans can be motivated by a deity only to an act that conforms to their character and for which they are responsible. On the other hand, Quintus gives these statements on responsibility to characters who are trying to excuse their own acts to themselves and, particularly, to others, i.e. they are motivated contextually. It would be non-Stoic to excuse oneself for a bad deed by reference to an almighty fate. It seems that Quintus, by presenting this tension, wanted the reader to reconsider and reflect
on the different concepts.
Although claiming the authority of an eye-witness account, frater Simon’s letter is almost certainly a ficticious description of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. This presumed lack of authenticity has obviously prompted modern scholarship for a long time to be oblivious to this contemporary and exclusive source on the events, preferring well-known and reliable sources such as Leonard of Chios and Isidore of Kiev. However, since frater Simon’s letter has survived in two different versions and ten manuscripts from the 15th century, it is clearly more than a marginal note. Rather is it a remarkable contribution to the literary treatment of the Turkish threat and timeless moral instruction.With his portrayal of the pagan Mehmed II as a just ruler, the recurring moral instructions and the lack of a call to arms. Simon’s text stands out against themyriad of more or less contemporary depictions. In preparation for a critical edition the paper gives an analysis of the text and an overview of the extant manuscripts.
1455a 32-34 heißt es in der „Poetik“ des Aristoteles, dass die Dichter entweder begabt oder von einem göttlichen Wahnsinn (furor poeticus) besessen seien. Damit scheint es sich bei diesem Satz um die einzige Stelle zu handeln, an der Aristoteles eine göttliche Entrückung der Dichter in Betracht zieht. Die Kommentatoren des 16. Jahrhunderts haben deshalb viel philologischen Scharfsinn auf den Versuch verwendet, diese Stelle so zu deuten, dass sie zur Konzeption der Dichtung als einer technischen Fähigkeit, wie sie die „Poetik“ entwickelt, nicht in Widerspruch steht. Mehr oder weniger explizit wenden sie sich dabei gegen die neuplatonische Enthusiasmus-Theorie Marsilio Ficinos.
1455a 32-34 heißt es in der „Poetik“ des Aristoteles, dass die Dichter entweder begabt oder von einem göttlichen Wahnsinn (furor poeticus) besessen seien. Damit scheint es sich bei diesem Satz um die einzige Stelle zu handeln, an der Aristoteles eine göttliche Entrückung der Dichter in Betracht zieht. Die Kommentatoren des 16. Jahrhunderts haben deshalb viel philologischen Scharfsinn auf den Versuch verwendet, diese Stelle so zu deuten, dass sie zur Konzeption der Dichtung als einer technischen Fähigkeit, wie sie die „Poetik“ entwickelt, nicht in Widerspruch steht. Mehr oder weniger explizit wenden sie sich dabei gegen die neuplatonische Enthusiasmus-Theorie Marsilio Ficinos.
Chapter 1, 2 of the Noctes Atticae reports how the orator and politician Herodes Atticus silences a boastful young Stoic by citing a diatribe of Epictetus. The article shows that Gellius – unlike his own assertion – does not describe a real experience. Instead he dramatizes the text (Epict. diss. 2, 19), which is the origin of the citation. Comparing both texts one finds details of the scenery described, the characterizations of the protagonists as well as the themes discussed quite similar in both the non-cited parts of Epictetus and the text of Gellius. Particularly interesting in that respect is how Gellius takes up citing and its various aspects as it can be found in his model. Epictetus deals with this theme in a critical way, because in his opinion citations of authorities say nothing about the philosophical qualities of the person who uses them. While Gellius’ praxis of citation is formally modelled very closely on Epictetus’ speech, regarding the content he by no means rejects the use of philosophical citations as weapon to beat an opponent in discussion.