Sappho and Aesop, distinctions between diachronic and historical perspectives
Xem mô tả
0
Xem & Tải
0
Tóm tắt
Mô tả
This short paper is derived from a lengthy article of mine, the first version of which was published online in 2011.[1] An abbreviated second version was published in a book edited by José M. González in 2015.[2] The title of both versions of that article was “Diachrony and the Case of Aesop.” Since even the shorter printed version was over 50 pages long, I can now understand, looking back on it all, that the topics of diachrony and Aesop could easily get lost in the minds of readers who, seeing the title of the article in whichever version, were perhaps expecting to engage with only those two topics, diachrony and Aesop. In the short electronic “paper” I present here, which would take up less than 10 printed pages, I will try to concentrate more on the essence of those two topics, diachrony and Aesop. To get to the essentials, however, I need to add two more topics, as indicated in the title of my paper here: besides Aesop, I add the name of Sappho, and, besides diachronic, I add the term historical. In my compressed paper here, originally presented “live” on the eleventh of March 2017 at a conference hosted by the Society for the Promotion of Education and Learning (SPEL) in Athens, I will make the same distinctions between the terms diachronic and historical that I had originally made in the overlong article of 2011, but my focus now will be different. In the briefest possible way, I will compare historically as well as diachronically the media of Sappho and Aesop, who are described respectively by Herodotus as μουσοποιός/mousopoios (2.135.1) and λογοποιός/logopoios (2.134.3). These two words are often translated as ‘maker of song’ and ‘maker of prose’ respectively—but I intend to modify the second of these translations in what follows. For those who may wish to compare the essentials as reviewed here in my refocused short paper with the wider-ranging argumentation of my older articles from 2011 and 2016, I offer two makeshift systems of cross-reference. One, I indicate next to the paragraph-numbers of this short “electronic” version the paragraph-numbers, where relevant, from the overlong electronic version of 2011 (preceded by “<”). Two, I indicate the page-breaks from the printed version of 2016: for example, “{236|237}” marks where page 236 stopped and page 237 started.
The Classics
Version of Record
The Classics
Version of Record
Năm xuất bản
Tác giả
Nagy, Gregory
Nhà xuất bản
Harvard University, Center for Hellenic Studies
