The Authorship of the Refutatio omnium haeresium (original) (raw)
Related papers
Demosthenes’ On the Crown oration was a masterpiece in Antiquity. This success is testified by the great number of findings. I have notice of 30 papyri containing passages from this work. The enquiry of these specimina and their lessons could be useful in order to reconstruct the demosthenic text, the origin and nature of the public documents quoted, the circulation of this oration in ancient world. Another interesting point is the relation between these papyri and the medieval manuscripts. Usually, no medieval codex is a perfect representative of an ancient line of transmission, as cross-contamination intervened during both ancient times and Middle Ages. From this point of view, P.Oxy. IV 700 gives us many interesting cases of reflection. This specimen, dated II-III century AD, contains §§ 17-19, but it’s incomplete and fragmentary. The integration of gaps sometimes is difficult, above all at lines 22-23, where the text is shorter than the one attested in the medieval witnesses. Moreover, with reference to this passage, probably the same hand added a textual integration on the lower margin (Ἕλληϲι). This entry seems the same which recurs on the upper margin of page 159 verso of S codex (Paris.gr. 2934), the oldest medieval manuscript of Demosthenes. We are dealing with a particular case of conjunctive error? The situation could be, perhaps, more complex. The paradigmatic and difficult case of this papyrus compels us to search a right scientific method to use, in order to critically reconstruct the text. We have to ask ourselves if in the S codex too the addition of Ἕλληϲι on the margin could be the result of a simple omission. We have to reconsider reasons why the most part of critical editors have ever preferred thinking of Ἕλληϲι like an interlinear note that should be eliminated. This idea derives surely from the authority of codex S that, despite its excellence, should be released from the reductive etiquette of codex optimus.
Hierocles: Theory and Argument in the Second Century AD
1983
In recent years philosophical interest in Stoicism has been directed mostly at its early, period, from the foundation by Zeno shortly after Aris totle^ death, through its acme under Chrysippus, to the late second century BC, or perhaps into the first with Posidonius0 This is right and proper0 Sharp philosophical debate flourishéd then; fundamental issues were tackled by way of close argumentation; exciting comprehensive theories were put for ward for criticism and refinement. In the decades and centuries which followed the schoolfs influence held strong and even grew0 But the philosophical stan dard, we tend to think, declined, at least in the preserved texts. There was no second Chrysippus. And neither was there a second Carneades to stimulate a new re-examination of the philosophical foundations laid in the days of the archaioio Instead, I suppose, we tend to see the arid doxographical tradition and its hangers-on, the deliberate popularization of Cicero, the irksome in consistency of Seneca, the homilies of Musonius and the personal reflections of Marcus Aurelius0 Naturally the revival of interest in the Stoa has focussed on the fertile early period, despite the barriers which lie in the way of reliable reconstruc tion. But all is not lost in the later period, which is, after all, so much bet ter documented. We are not, in fact, reduced to a meagre diet of hand-me-down moralizing in the time after Posidoniusc My present subject is only one of the points of serious philosophical interest in this later period. I will deal with Hierocles, a Stoic philosopher of uncertain provenance and probably Hadrianic date0 But in doing so I do not wish to suggest that similar gems are not to be found in Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus and yes, even in Cicero0 Hierocles is, I hope you will agree, worthy of more attention than he has received since his treatise on the foundations of ethics was published in its first modern edition over seventy-five years ago. The general tendency has been to use Hierocles1 text primarily to shed light on the earlier Stoa, as its editor von Arnim did in his introduction, and not to consider him in his own right as a serious philosopher.(1) Pembroke too(2) takes this approach, assuming that Hierocles1 orthodox discussion is wholly inherited from earlier sources. He is kinder to Hierocles than is von Arnim, who seems to feel that he is capable of gross blunders whenever he departs from attested theories of the school0 But even Pembroke sees him as a mere packager of theories: , ! his personal contribution is little more than the verbal mannerisms and stock examples of the professional lecturer". It must, of course, be conceded that it is impossible to prove that any of Hierocles1 arguments were original. We know that some at least were inherited; some of his examples, too, were used by earlier Stoics, as their appearance in letter 121 of Seneca shows. And the basic doctrine Hierocles was defending was orthodox too. The hypothesis of complete philosophical unoriginality is tempt ing, all the more so since the style of his treatise is fluent, rhetorical and sophisticated, obviously appealing to a wider non-specialist audience. Yet his accessible style should not prejudice us against his philosophical merits, and I suggest that the issue of Hierocles1 originality in argument be left open. In a sense the uncertainty on this point is irrelevante For the
A Neglected Sixth-Century Manuscript of Origen’s De Principiis, Adamantius 22 (2016) pp. 323-327
Parisinus lat. 10593 (P), a sixth-century Latin manuscript of Origen’s De Principiis, transmits a very important chapter of the work in its entirety, namely the one devoted to the incarnation, i.e., De Principiis II 6. This manuscript has not been used by modern scholars for the constitutio textus of Origen’s work. The history and collation of P show that it is an independent witness to Rufinus’ Latin translation. The article tries to show the importance of this manuscript and its specific contribution to the reconstruction and re-assessment of the textual tradition of Origen’s masterpiece.
2017
As a medieval author and as a woman, Hrotswita of Gandersheim requires a double legitimacy. Most prior research on her plays focuses on her connection with Terence from a syntactic and stylistic point of view. This focus undermines the precise pedagogical intent of the author, namely the rehabilitation of the woman as a character and, contextually, as a writer. This research on the Dulcitius and the Callimachus draws upon a comparative analysis of both late-antique sources (respectively the Passio sanctarum virginum Agapis, Chioniae et Irenae and the De Drusiana suscitata) and the classical model. This approach makes it possible to highlight some new terentian implications with respect to his unusual perception of the feminine paradigm. These features allow a more accurate consideration of her authoriality, which is not given by a thoughtful merging of classical structures with christian plots. Hrotswita’s double legitimacy originates indeed from the positive evaluation of the woman and the deep analysis of her soteriological value in both her sources and her model.
Origen's Protreptics to Philosophy: Testimony of Gregory Thaumaturgus in the Oratio Panegyrica, VI
Origeniana Undecima: Origen and Origenism in the History of Western Thought, 2016
St. Gregory’s Address is a unique document depicting a situation of conversion in the early Church. It represents a necessary link between ancient and Christian traditions of exhortation. We show that there is continuity between them, for protreptic motifs of the Address are to a great extent inspired or even directly borrowed from Plato.