Ibn al-Samḥ

1956 ◽  
Vol 88 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 31-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Stern
Keyword(s):  

Yaḥyā b. 'adī played an important role in the history of Aristotelian studies in Islam. By his extensive activity as translator, as textual critic, and as interpreter, he gave a new impetus to the study of Aristotle. He can clearly be recognized as the head of a distinct school of philosophers, and his influence remained discernible for several generations, especially in the school's tradition of Aristotelian interpretation.

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-275
Author(s):  
L. D. Jacobs

The textual criticism of the New Testament (1): The current methodological Situation This first article in a two-part series on the textual criticism of the New Testament focuses on the current state of affairs regarding textcritical methodology. Majority text methods and the two main streams of eclecticism, viz moderate and rigorous eclecticism, as well as statistical methods and the use of conjectural emendation, are reviewed with regard to their views on method as well as the history of the text. The purpose is to arrive at a workable solution which the keen and often not so able textual critic, translator and exegete can use in his handling of the Greek text of the New Testament.


1984 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 464-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. D. Jocelyn

In the period between Constantine's reunification of the Empire in 324 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 M. Valerius Probus enjoyed a large reputation as master of all areas of the ars grammatica. The commentary on Terence attributed to Donatus and the commentary of Servius on Virgil cite him more often than they do any other ancient authority. His fame persisted through the Dark Ages. Eugenius of Toledo set him with Varius and Tucca against Aristarchus, the greatest of the Alexandrian students of Homer. Modern writers on the history of Roman scholarship have estimated in widely different ways his quality as a textual critic, the level of his reputation during the century after his death and the influence which his activities had on the transmission of the Latin classics. That he ‘annotated’ at least some of these in the manner of an Aristarchus is not in dispute, but everything about the nature of his ‘annotation’ is. This paper will treat afresh a famous statement about Probus in Suetonius' De grammaticis (24. 3), two lists of notae associated with Probus’ name in a late eighth-century manuscript from Monte Cassino, cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7530 (CLA v 569), two references to such notae which have been detected in Virgilian scholia (Serv. Aen. 10. 444 and Serv. Dan. Aen. 1. 21) and a number of statements in these scholia which appear to give Probus’ reasons for affixing notae. The results of my study are largely negative but may help to control general discussion of the history of a number of Latin texts.


1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-108
Author(s):  
John C. Lamoreaux

AbstractThe earliest extant Greek commentary on the Apocalypse was written by a certain Ecumenius. Many questions surround the provenance of this commentary. Was it written early in the sixth century or does it rather stem from the later decades of that same century? Was it written by a Monophysite? or by a Chalcedonian? Was the author of this commentary a friend and ally of Severus of Antioch? If not, who then was he? Such questions are important because Ecumenius' commentary is important. It offers an early uncial text of the Apocalypse of great moment for the New Testament textual critic. It is a significant source for understanding late antique efforts to support the canonical authority of the Apocalypse.' It contains crucial evidence of developing Mariological doctrines. Even more interesting, however, is the commentary's place in the history of polemic against Origen. Such themes are subtle, yet so frequent that one could read the text primarily as an attempt to provide an eschatological vision orthodox enough to replace that of Origen and his followers. But these are matters for another time.2 Here our concern is that of establishing the provenance of this text-who wrote it? when? and where?


Author(s):  
Nikolai N. Podosokorsky

The review is devoted to the edition of collected works by the outstanding scholar Vasily Komarovich (1894–1942), researcher of the life and work of Fyodor Dostoevsky, philologist, textual critic, and folklorist. Most of the articles included in the book were published in small editions during the author’s lifetime and have never been reprinted since then. The book also contains materials on Vasily Komarovich.


Author(s):  
Oksana Pashko

The paper aims to reconstruct the research activity of the Ukrainian literary scholar Ahapii Pylypovych Shamrai (1896—1952) in the period from 1922 to 1929. For this purpose, the works of the scholar, his personal files, materials from the newspapers and journals of the time, as well as correspondence have been examined. It was necessary to describe A. Shamrai’s postgraduate studies at the Research Department of History of Ukraine (literary and ethnographic section) (1922—1924). Much attention is given to the textbook “Ukrainian Literature. A Brief Survey” (1927, 1928) that was among the first structured presentations of the history of Ukrainian literature. The paper analyzes the perception of the textbook by contemporary readers and outlines the specifics of Shamrai’s sociological method of this period. Considering the research work of A. Shamrai in the context of literary criticism of the 1920s, the author of the paper reconstructs the scholar’s dialogue with M. Zerov and the polemic with “New Generation” magazine. One of the central topics for A. Shamrai in the 1920s is examined in detail: it is his study of H. Kvitka-Osnovianenko’s work. In particular, the discussion between A. Shamrai and Ye. Aizenshtok on the publication of H. Kvitka’s works in 1928 has been highlighted. A. Shamrai’s scholarly concepts of the 1920s characterize him as a textual critic (‘text of the work’, ‘canonical text’) and historian of literature (‘literary fact’, ‘work’, ‘environment’, ‘style’, ‘literary school’, ‘template’, ‘minor writers’, ‘influence’). The category ‘reader’ was also very important for Shamrai’s works of this period. A range of examples shows how Shamrai used the methodology of comparative studies.


Author(s):  
Nikolai N. Podosokorsky

The review is devoted to the edition of collected works by the outstanding scholar Vasily Komarovich (1894–1942), researcher of the life and work of Fyodor Dostoevsky, philologist, textual critic, and folklorist. Most of the articles included in the book were published in small editions during the author’s lifetime and have never been reprinted since then. The book also contains materials on Vasily Komarovich.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-201
Author(s):  
Marina A. Mozharova

The article deals with the history of a musical term, transformed by L. N. Tolstoy in his novel Anna Karenina into imagery employed for the conveying of ideas about running farmlands in Russia, which are so important for the author and his character Konstantin Levin. Having chosen a musical term to express his idea in the most accurate way, Tolstoy draws parallels between various narrative arcs and certain parts in a polyphonic composition where the main role is that of the “thorough bass” which is Levin’s impressions of the household of an old and wise peasant. Quite expectable of the writer, who loved and studied music, this artistic solution seemed to be so unusual to the editors preparing the publications of Anna Karenina during the entire 20th century that they considered it to be a misspell of a copying clerk or a type setter. As a result, a polysemic musical term “thorough bass” was replaced by “fundamental basis”. Looking up in the autographs does not give the answer to the question, which of these two options is correct, as manuscript collection has not been fully preserved. The only formal source which allows a textual critic to reconstruct the initial version is the text of the first publication of the novel in the magazine Russky Vestnik (1875–1877) corrected by Tolstoy himself in 1877, in accordance with which Anna Karenina is being published in academic Complete works of L.N. Tolstoy in 100 volumes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document