The A. analyzes three texts, all pertaining to criticism of Anaximenes of Lampsacus by Theocritus of Chios, and tries to identify their common background. Two of them were published by Felix Jacoby in 1926 under Anaximenes’ testimonia (Anaxim. FGrHist 72 TT 12, 25), while the third (Gnom. Vat. sententia 348, p. 135 Sternbach) has not been published in any of the existing collections of Anaximenes’ fragments, and should therefore be classified as a new testimonium. Theocritus’ main target was the style that Anaximenes displayed in public readings, which he criticized as overly verbose. Both Anaxim. FGrHist 72 T 25 and Gnom. Vat. sententia 348 derive from Theocritus’ lost Sentences, and suggest that the lemma "peribolen" in Anaxim. FGrHist 72 T 12 has a rhetorical sense. Besides its importance in disclosing some features of Anaximenes’ style in public readings, Theocritus’ criticism unquestionably demonstrates the strong bond between Anaximenes and the Macedonian court; in contrast to the view of modern scholars, it cannot serve as proof of the decline of historiography in the fourth century BCE.
Una nuova testimonianza di Anassimene di Lampsaco. Gnom. Vat. sententia 348 su Teocrito di Chio contro la lexis di Anassimene
Giovanni Parmeggiani
2013-01-01
Abstract
The A. analyzes three texts, all pertaining to criticism of Anaximenes of Lampsacus by Theocritus of Chios, and tries to identify their common background. Two of them were published by Felix Jacoby in 1926 under Anaximenes’ testimonia (Anaxim. FGrHist 72 TT 12, 25), while the third (Gnom. Vat. sententia 348, p. 135 Sternbach) has not been published in any of the existing collections of Anaximenes’ fragments, and should therefore be classified as a new testimonium. Theocritus’ main target was the style that Anaximenes displayed in public readings, which he criticized as overly verbose. Both Anaxim. FGrHist 72 T 25 and Gnom. Vat. sententia 348 derive from Theocritus’ lost Sentences, and suggest that the lemma "peribolen" in Anaxim. FGrHist 72 T 12 has a rhetorical sense. Besides its importance in disclosing some features of Anaximenes’ style in public readings, Theocritus’ criticism unquestionably demonstrates the strong bond between Anaximenes and the Macedonian court; in contrast to the view of modern scholars, it cannot serve as proof of the decline of historiography in the fourth century BCE.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
