Sommaire RET 9 (2019-2020)
NB : Pour lire l’intégralité des articles, voir ci-contre la rubrique Téléchargements.
1. JOACHIM GRUBER
Lusus et doctrina. Ein Buch über Ausonius – p. 1-9.
Abstract: The review-article provides an overview and critical evaluation of the collective book Ausone en 2015: Bilan et nouvelles perspectives, published by É. Wolff in 2018. All chapters are reviewed with respect to the status quaestionis, in order to highlight the original contribution they give to Ausonius and Late Antiquity studies.
2. EMANUELE SERETTI
Tre congetture ai carmi 253, 387, 389 R dell’Anthologia Latina– p. 11-17.
Abstract: In this paper, I would offer some conjectures on three troublesome passages of the so-called Anthologia Latina. The first deals with the presence of a strange iunctura in Reposianus’ de concubitu Martis et Veneris (253 R, v. 118): ipsa Venus tunc tunc calidis succensa uenenis. I correct the odd expression tunc tunc with tandem, in accordance with the context (Venus, after the sensual embrace with Mars, falls in love). In the second section, I discuss an often misinterpreted epigram (387 R.) and I propose to correct the surely corrupt participle conteritus at v.7 in concluditur, after the comparison with Rut. Nam. 1, 239 and Vitr., 5, 12, 2-5. In the last part, I discuss the incipit of Anonymous’ in laudem Solis (389 R., v. 1): dum mundum Natura potens terramque dicaret; I propose to read crearet instead of dicaret.
3. GUSTAVO VAGNONE
Il commentario inedito di Adolf Emper a Dione di Prusa (Ms. Leid. BPG 89, ff. 162-212): Or. 11 – Ilii captivitatem non fuisse – p. 19-64.
Abstract: In the oration 11 Dio Chrysostom aims to show that Homer’s Iliad is not a true story of the war, and to demonstrate that Hector and the Troians were the true winners: in other words, Troy has never been conquered. Is Dio’s speech a sophistic jeu d’esprit, or does it conceal a more serious intention? The question has been debated for a long time until recent times: however, Adolf Emper does not take a definite position on this point, as the priority of his Commentary is to complete the well known critical edition of Dio’s work, published in 1844. In this respect, he discusses the chief textual problems, which had already been debated by other scholars of his time, as Geel and Reiske, or even earlier like Rhodomann and Casaubon.
4. CHRISTOPHE BURGEON
Les lois prises par Gratien contre les donatistes africains et romains : une rupture sur le plan politico-religieux ? – p. 65-75.
Abstract: Gratian presented himself, like Constantine, as a fervent defender of imperial and ecclesial unity. During his reign, only minimal sanctions were applied to African Donatists; rhetoric took precedence over action. Donatists in the countryside were never really worried. However, as the letter de rebaptizatoribus shows, Gratian, who considered the practice of «renaming» as a condemnable doctrine, took adequate steps to gradually end Donat’s heresy in Rome. Its legislation therefore represented a moderate rupture.
5. MICKAËL RIBREAU
Dialoguer dans la joie. Fonctions du rire et du sourire dans les dialogues de Cassiciacum d’Augustin – p. 77-98.
Abstract: In his staged dialogues, the Contra academicos, the Beata uita and the De ordine, Augustine plays with a motive of the philosophical dialogues’ scenography : laugh and smile. We will first present the function of this theme, from Cicero to Minicius Felix – laugh and smile belong to the philosophical otium, and underline conversions. Then we will show that Augustine use this theme, according to the expectations of a Ciceronian dialogue – laugh belong to the dialogue’s cheerfulness –, but he breaks the conventions when he creates grudgingly laugh, laughs which are just looking for glory, laugh which isolate a part of the dialogue’s participants, or tears, contrary of laugh. This variation on laugh let Augustine break the conventions of a literary genre and show that the discussions involved are beyond conventions. Since he is looking for having an effect on a reader who is familiar to these literary codes, Augustine tranforms them to emphasize effect on the reader.
6. PASCAL CÉLÉRIER
L’expression «ΜΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΩΙ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ» d’Héraclite (B 92 D.-K.) chez l’Empereur Julien et les philosophes néoplatoniciens – p. 99-106.
Abstract: It was established that Julian had quoted five fragments of Heraclitus in his writings. But a sixth should be added : the famous fragment B 92 D.-K. on the Sibyl, in Against Heraclius the Cynic 23, 234D. The discovery is interesting because the immediate context of the quotation shows that Julien knew more than the formula “raving mouth” which has become proverbial, especially among the Neoplatonist phi losophers. The fragment could therefore have reached him through Plutarch or a collection of quotations more than through the Neo platonic tradition where the formula is present (Plotinus, Iamblichus). Neverthe less the quotation of the formula, a century later, by Proclus, on two occasions, in a philosophical context close to that of Julian, could indicate a common Neoplatonic source, perhaps Iamblichus. This discovery presents a triple interest, at the same time for the Heraclitean studies of which the specialists had not located this Julianic reminiscence, for the sources of Julian and for the study of the relations between rhetoric and philosophy in late Antiquity.