Eustathius’ Use of Ancient Scholarship in his Commentary on the Iliad: Some Remarks

2017 ◽  
pp. 79-110
Keyword(s):  
2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Timothy Johnson

The letters of Paul to Timothy, one of his favorite delegates, often make for difficult reading in today's world. They contain much that make modern readers uncomfortable, and much that is controversial, including pronouncements on the place of women in the Church and on homosexuality, as well as polemics against the so-called "false teachers." They have also been of a source of questions within the scholarly community, where the prevailing opinion since the nineteenth century is that someone else wrote the letters and signed Paul's name in order to give them greater authority. Using the best of modern and ancient scholarship, Luke Timothy Johnson provides clear, accessible commentary that will help lay readers navigate the letters and better understand their place within the context Paul's teachings. Johnson's conclusion that they were indeed written by Paul himself ensures that this volume, like the other Anchor Bible Commentaries, will attract the attention of theologians and other scholars.


2013 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 152-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Phillips

This article analyses how Callimachus was cited in ancient scholarship on Pindar. A survey of references to literary authors in the scholia establishes that commentaries provided only minimal specification of relations between the texts concerned. Despite this, commentaries were important intertextual sites. In providing information that supplements Pindar's texts, citations of Callimachus contribute to the latter's canonical status by treating his poetry as an authoritative source of mythological and historical details. The juxtaposition of the two authors in commentaries also allowed for an exploration of their literary relationship.


1964 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. D. Jocelyn

From the scholarly activity of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. stem several collections of scholia to the poems of Virgil, most of which make copious reference to prose and verse composed in Latin before Virgil's time. The authors of these scholia were the last of a long line of commentators whose labours began soon after Virgil's death. Just as Virgil walked in the tracks of Theocritus, Hesiod, Aratus, Nicander, Homer, and Apollonius, so did his students in the tracks of the great Alexandrian expositors of the Greek poets. They sought to explain Virgil not only through Virgil himself, but also through the poets and prose writers, Greek and Latin, whom they imagined Virgil to have read. Thus we have scholia citing early republican literature in order to parallel words uncommon in or absent from the fourth-century classical syllabus, as well as unclassical usages, inflections, and constructions; in order to demonstrate ‘imitations’ on the part of Virgil; and in order to elucidate the structure of episodes of the three poems where Virgil appears to depart from the most commonly known versions of myth and history. Argument concerning the text or interpretation of a disputed passage is frequently based on appeal to the usage of Virgil's Latin predecessors.


1984 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Halliwell

Interest in νομαστìκωμῳδєȋν began early. Even before the compilation of prosopo-graphical κωμῳδούμєνοɩ in the second century B.C., Hellenistic study of Aristophanes had devoted attention to the interpretation of personal satire. The surviving scholia contain references to Alexandrian scholars such as Euphronius, Eratosthenes and Callistratus which show that in their commentaries and monographs these men had dealt with issues of νομαστì κωμῳδєȋν Much material from Hellenistic work on Old Comedy was transmitted by later scholars, particularly by Didymus and Symmachus in their variorum editions, and was eventually embodied in the scholia, though of course in an abridged and sometimes distorted form. Many of our fragments of Old Comedy, preserved in the scholia or in medieval works of reference as parallels to passages in Aristophanes, are direct evidence of the long ancient tradition of interest in the genre's large element of personal satire. What we find in the scholia should not therefore be treated as representative only of the latest and most derivative stages of ancient scholarship. It is the purpose of this article to argue that the scholia on Aristophanes allow us to see that in matters of νομαστì κωμῳδєȋν certain assumptions about the nature of this type of comic material were persistently made by ancient scholars, and that certain interpretative habits were consequently developed from them. It is my further aim to suggest that this pattern of interpretation has been widely but unjustifiably perpetuated in later work on Aristophanes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document