Volume 162, Issue 1

A reconstruction of the medical instruction of the iatrosophists in Alexandria (5 th –7 th century) faces serious problems, because the sources provide us with no information on either their organisation or the biographies of their teachers. Nonetheless, some key points can be established that were characteristic of the teaching of the iatrosophists. These include the medical curriculum, the textbooks used, the type of lectures, the practical training, and the teaching units on philosophical themes. Further, it seems that Gessius initiated this type of teaching, and in the process made numerous borrowings especially from his philosophy teacher Ammonius. Ultimately, the rise in the teaching of the iatrosophists can be explained by different innovations in educational politics that can also be detected in other parts of the Roman Empire at the same time.

A new reading is offered of a passage from the Chronica of Apollodorus which is about the Academic philosopher Melanthius of Rhodes (P.Herc. 1021 col. XXXI,1–20). As well as smaller textual improvements, the new reconstruction of the text shows in particular that the Academic was able to enjoy great wealth and preferred to pursue his studies in Athens.

From the second half of the last century onwards, the term ‘metalepsis’ has been in common use in the field of narratology, and has gradually found a place in literary criticism more broadly, to denote the transgression of diegetic boundaries, whether by the narrator or the narratee. The present article provides a thorough analysis of the metaleptic depiction of Bion provided by his anonymous eulogist at lines 58–63 of the Epitaph for Bion . This passage describes Galatea’s reaction to Bion’s demise, with the result that the dead poet, who sang of the Cyclops in fr. 16, himself assumes Polyphemus-like traits. However, the parallelism between the poet and his character proves to be imperfect, because the text hints at a past liaison, and describes Galatea’s newly acquired status as a shepherdess, thus presenting Bion as a successful lover, and, more importantly, one who has been successful precisely where the Cyclops failed. The key to reading this ‘antagonistic’ portrayal of Bion is provided by analysis of the hidden web of intertextual connections that lies beneath this passage (Theoc. Idd . 6, 11, Bion frr. 3, 16), which brings to the fore its strong poetological meaning, revealing it to be a poetic tribute through which the anonymous poet celebrates Bion’s achievements as both a bucolic and an amatory poet.

In this paper I analyse the most important pieces of evidence concerning the structure of Middle Platonist exegesis (passages from Diogenes Laertius, Taurus of Beirut, the anonymous Commentary on the Theaetetus , Longinus). At first sight these sources seem to present a two-step structure in Middle Platonist exegesis, i. e. a structure which would be quite similar to the Neoplatonic λέξις–θεωρία model. I shall argue, however, that this is not the case: such a structure could be ascribed (in different arrangements) to school exegetical praxis, but it was not applied in Middle Platonist exegetical writings, which were not bound to specific stylistic patterns.

In Hauptmann’s reception of antiquity there is an overlap between the ‘dark’ (i.e. chthonic, Dionysiac, barbaric) understanding of the Greeks, which had been introduced by Bachofen and Nietzsche and which was characteristic of modernism as a whole around 1900, and a late neoclassical view of the Hellenic legacy, which is manifested not least in his drawing on the literary translations of the nineteenth century (in the case of the three tragedians, Donner’s translations “in the original metres”). The same tension is a feature also of his late Atrides Tetralogy. Its second part, Agamemnons Tod (‘Agamemnon’s Death’) not only recurs to Aeschylus’ Oresteia , to which Hauptmann had responded with enthusiasm in his youth, but is also influenced by the chthonic Homer interpretation of his first drama on a theme from the ancient world, Der Bogen des Odysseus (‘Odysseus’ Bow’), and by nineteenth-century archaeology at Mycenae.

In 359 CE Constantius II appointed investigators into the fall of Amida, who confronted Ursicinus, a commander in the East, about the disaster. He refused to play along, answering them instead with a stirring outburst that predicted the imminent failure of the emperor unless he freed himself from his meddling eunuchs and his obsession with Amida. This assessment may be read as a metaliterary comment that reflects both forwards and backwards; up until that point, Constantius has been pulled along by the judgments of others, including his eunuchs, again and again. In contrast, Julian is presented as a bold and independent judge of people and events who actively carries out his responsibilities. As the narrative unfolds, Ursicinus’ prediction is borne out: Constantius never gets over the fall of Amida nor the influence of his eunuchs and eventually fails. The eclipse excursus that follows enhances the prophetic force of Ursicinus’ words as Julian is proclaimed Augustus and Constantius nervously dithers over what he should do. Ursicinus’ outburst is crucial to his narrative role and the important intratextual links that are drawn between the main individuals in Ammianus’ narrative of Constantius’ fall and Julian’s rise, including Gallus, Silvanus, Julian, Constantius, Eusebius, and Ammianus himself.

This article aims to show how the translators of the Latin series of the “Collection des Universités de France” treated the obscene passages between 1920 and 1945. Some address the issue in their preface; many deliberately avoid a literal translation, either by quite simply refraining from translating the passages concerned, or by relying on a form of euphemisation. Each of these two strategies itself drew on various mechanisms. In the end, the “Collection des Universités de France” is shown to be more precise than older or contemporary bilingual collections, whether in France or in the English-speaking world. Nontheless, from the 1930 s onward Jules Marouzeau criticised the translators for their prudery; progressively, the new translators became more explicit.