870 Italische Literaturen; Lateinische Literatur
Refine
Document Type
- Article (12)
- Postprint (7)
- Review (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Keywords
- 16. Jahrhundert (2)
- Aristoteles-Kommentare (2)
- Enthusiasmus (2)
- Entscheidungsfreiheit (2)
- Inspiration (2)
- Neuplatonismus (2)
- Poetik (2)
- Posthomerica (2)
- Quintus Smyrnaeus (2)
- Schicksal (2)
Institute
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.
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.
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.
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.