Author Archives: Олег Ноговицин

Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe. Métaphrasis. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

  By | |
Comments Off on Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe. Métaphrasis. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

Publication Details

Métaphrasis
Title in the language of publication: Метафразис
Author:
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe
1940–2007. French philosopher and literary critic, a prominent exponent of post-Heideggerian deconstruction and specialist in German romanticism, the author of translations into French works of Heidegger, Celan, Nietzsche, Hölderlin and Benjamin.
Translated from French: 
Sergey Ermakov
Associate Research Fellow at the Sociological institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 25/14 7-ya Krasnoarmeyskaya str., St. Petersburg 190005, Russia.
Issue:
P. 33–52.
Language: Russian
Document type: Translation
 
   PDF

Abstract

What exactly does Hölderlin do when at the turn of the XIX century he decides to make a translation of two tragedies by Sophocles, “Oedipus the king” and “Antigone” — a translation that cannot strictly be considered as such, even though not being a mere free interpretation? Why does he raise “Antigone” to the rank of tragedy, exemplarily expressing the Greek essence of the tragic, while “Oedipus” for him proves to be a “more occidental”, to wit modern tragedy”? What historical, philosophical and historico-philosophical consequences for the destiny (and for the very issue of there being a destiny) of the Occident including that of occidental metaphysics, are concealed in this distinction? How is Hölderlin’s vision of tragedy related to speculative and dialectical interpretations of the tragic dominant since Schelling and Hegel’s times?

Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe (1940–2007) suggests a reading of Hölderlin’s translations and the famous Commentaries accompanying them, in which Hölderlin expounds his theory of the tragic, by means of the key term “metaphrasis”, a super-translation, a tendentious and distorting interpreting translation; such a translation turns to be not so much a “genius’ whim” but rather an attitude towards something to which one cannot have a direct relation. By analyzing the way Hölderlin thinks “Antigone” as a tragedy of spontaneous and secret desire of transgression peculiar for Greeks, and “Oedipus” as a tragedy of Knowledge and Logics in the broad sense, Lacoue-Labarthe detects paradoxical Holderlinian hyperbologics — the logics of infinitely increasing contradictions which cannot be resolved and sublated within the standard movements of dialectics of Hegelian kind and thereby speculatively quieted.

As a result Lacoue-Labarthe manages to reveal one of the deepest layers of Hölderlin’s thought, notably his theology or, rather, his attempt to create something like ancient Greek theology different from the myth and grounded not on faith and relation, but on the principled mutual infidelity of God and man, on God’s turning away and yet not absent. It is the paradoxical hyperbologics “the greater infidelity towards God, the greater fidelity to Him” that provides the only possible even if inconsistent relation. However, probably, it is just such theology, in Holderlin’s view, that can only correspond to the fateless (schiksaallos) man of modernity.

Keywords

Friedrich Hölderlin, translation, metaphrasis, metaphysics, antique tragedy, essence of the tragic, hyperbologics, paralyzed dialectics, nonclassical theology.

. 

References 

Biet C. (1994) Œdipe en monarchie. Tragédie et théorie juridique à l’age classique. Paris: Klincksieck.

Goux J.-J. (1990) Œdipe philosophe. Paris: Aubier.

Dastur F. (1997) Hölderlin, le retournement natal. Tragédie et modernité, Nature et poésie & autres essais. La Versanne: Encre marine.

Hegel G. V. F. (1970) Wissenschaft der Logik. Erster Band. Moscow: Mysl’ (Filosofskoe nasledie. T. 37 [Philosophical Heritage. Vol. 37]). (in Russian).

Heidegger M. (1998) Einführung in die Metaphysik. St. Petersburg: Vysshaya religiozno-filosofskaya shkola. (in Russian).

Hölderlin F. (1943–1985) Sämtliche Werke — Grosse Stuttgarter Ausgabe. 8 in 15 Bände (hg. v. F. Beissner, A. Beck). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Hölderlin F. (1967) Œuvres (éd. P. Jaccottet). Paris: Gallimard (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. No. 191).

Hölderlin F. (2009) “Stikhotvoreniya” [Poems] (tr. by V. Kupriyanov). Novyi bereg. Zhurnal literatury i istorii kul’tury [The New Coast. Journal of Literature and History of Culture]. No. 26: 53–55. (in Russian).

Humboldt W. (1904) “Über den Geist der Menschheit”. Humboldt W. Gesammelte Schriften. Ausgabe der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. In 17 Bände. 1. Abteilung (hg. v. A. Leitzmann). Schriften. Bd. 2: 1796–1799. Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag: 324–334.

Lacoue-Labarthe Ph. (1986) L’imitation des modernes. Typographies 2. Paris: Galilée (La philosophie en effet).

Schürmann R. (1996) Des hégémonies brisées. Mauvesin: TER.

Sophocles (1990) Dramy [Dramas] (tr. by T. S. Zieliński, ed. by M. L. Gasparov, V. N. Yarkho). Moscow: Nauka (Literaturnye pamyatniki [Literary monuments]). (in Russian).

Szondi P. (1961) Versuch über das Tragische. Frankfurt am Main: Insel-Verl.

Taminaux J. (1995) Le théâtre des philosophes: la tragédie, l’être, l’action. Grenoble: Millon.

.

© Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, 2016  © Sergey Ermakov, transl., 2016.

Anna Glazova. The Greek and European halves in Holderlin’s “Half of life”. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

  By | |
Comments Off on Anna Glazova. The Greek and European halves in Holderlin’s “Half of life”. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

Publication Details

The Greek and European halves in Holderlin’s “Half of life”
Title in the language of publication: Греческая и европейская половины в «Половине жизни» Фридриха Гёльдерлина
Author:
Anna Glazova
Ph.D, Craig-Kade Scholar in Residence, The State University of New Jersey.
Address: 15 Seminary Pl., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, United States.
Issue:
P. 18–32.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article
 
   PDF

Abstract

Much like numerous poets and theoreticians of his time, Friedrich Hölderlin builds on the experience of Greek Antiquity. However, his poetry occupies a special place among representatives of Classicism and Romanticism, since Hölderlin does not employ antique works as models to be imitated; instead, he suggests his own model of historical connection between classics the Antiquity and modernity. He distinguishes two origins: on the one hand, the ancient Greek one, on the other — the “Hesperian” one (which in his terminology means “Western European”). These origins coexist in reciprocal dependence while their interplay defines both the aesthetics of ancient Greeks and that of contemporary Germans. The present article explains Hölderlin’s thought based on the theoretical fragment “Becoming in Dissolution” and certain excerpts from his letters to Casimir Boehlendorff. Greece and Hesperia appear there as two interpenetrating manifestations of one and the same historical destiny. This idea helps to understand form and way of speaking in Hölderlin’s own poems. Drawing on the analysis of the poem “Half of life” the author detects the separateness of the ancient and contemporary European arts and points out the productivity of a confrontation between them, which confrontation still determines the fate of poetry up to date. The author puts forward a hypothesis saying that it is on the possibility of a non-chronological connection between European modernity and Greek Antiquity that the poetics of equilibrium between feeling and technique develops; the said equilibrium being expressed to its fullest by Hölderlin himself. The «Half of life» is formally divided into two strophes. The first one, as demonstrated in the article, recapitulates the Greek aesthetics of pathos (“fire of heaven”), while the second one reassumes the clarity of expression stemming from skillful mastery of technique, proper to Europeans. The article is concluded with analysis of a sudden shift in the mood of the poem between the first and second strophes.

Keywords

Friedrich Hölderlin, Peter Szondi, Greek antiquity, contemporary poetry, becoming in dissolution, caesura, pathos and technique.

. 

References 

Allemann B. (1954) Hölderlin und Heidegger. Zürich: Atlantis.

Andersen J. E. (1997) Poetik und Fragment. Hölderlin-Studien. Würzburg: Königshausen, Neumann.

Beißner F. (1933) Hölderlins Übersetzungen aus dem Griechischen. Stuttgart: Metzler.

Benjamin W. (1972) “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften”. Benjamin W. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag: 125–201.

Hamacher W. (2004–2005) “Parusie, Mauer. Mittelbarkeit und Zeitlichkeit, später Hölderlin”. Hölderlin-Jahrbuch. Nr. 34: 93–142.

Heidegger M. (1963) Erläuterungen zu Hölderlins Dichtung. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

Heidegger M. (1977) «Wozu Dichter?” Heidegger M. Gesamtausgabe. I. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1914–1970. Bd. 5: Holzwege. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann: 268–320.

Hölderlin F. (1969) Sochineniya [Collected works] (ed., intr. by A. Deich, comment. by G. Ratgauz). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura. (in Russian).

Hölderlin F. (1992) Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in drei Bänden. Bd. I: Gedichte; Hyperion; Empedokles. Dichtungen nach 1806. Bd. II: Aufsätze. Übersetzungen. Briefwechsel. Stammbuch-Einträge. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.

Hölderlin F. (1998) Theoretische Schriften (hg. v. J. Kreuzer). Hamburg: Meiner (Philosophische Bibliothek. Bd. 509).

Michel W. (1923) Hölderlins abendländische Wendung. Jena: Diederichs.

Ryan L. (1960) Hölderlins Lehre vom Wechsel der Töne. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Szondi P. (1978) “Überwindung des Klassizismus. Der Brief an Böhlendorff vom 4. Dezember 1801”. Szondi P. Schriften I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag: 346–367.

.
© Anna Glazova, 2016

Alexey Žerebin. Hölderlin’s Novel Hyperion and the utopia of the “third kingdom” an European culture. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

  By | |
Comments Off on Alexey Žerebin. Hölderlin’s Novel Hyperion and the utopia of the “third kingdom” an European culture. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2016

Publication Details

Hölderlin’s Novel Hyperion and the utopia of the “third kingdom” an European culture
Title in the language of publication: Роман Гёльдерлина «Гиперион» и утопия «третьего царства» в европейской культуре
Author:
Alexey Žerebin
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Literature at the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
Address: 48 Moika embankment, St. Petersburg 191186, Russia.
Issue:
P. 5–17.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article
 
   PDF

Abstract

Hölderlin’s Novel “Hyperion” (1799) is at the origin of the over two century history of the notion of the “Third Kingdom” as “God’s Kingdom”. It is based on the romantic idea of the cyclic course of the historical and universal (theantropic) process — an idea deriving from Gnosticism which found its logical justification in Hegel’s dialectic triad (thesis — antithesis — synthesis). The idea of cycle constitutes the mythological subtext of “Hyperion” as well as that of the entire text of broadly understood modernist culture. This idea implies an incomplete identity of the initial unconscious truth (Golden Age) and final conscious or reflective truth (God’s Kingdom), that of the original non-differentiation (of God and the world, of the immanent and transcendent, of the subject and object, of the male and female principles etc.) and their ultimate non-differentiation, or, as the Russian symbolists put it, undifferentiatedness-fusion. In Hölderlin’s terms, antiquity is the thesis, while future Germany as the bearer of the idea of Europe is the synthesis. Hölderlin’s experimental hero keenly feels the dissonance inherent to the transitory state of the world at the stage of antithesis; he feels disappointment in matters of love and freedom and he falls at the edge of nihilism and metaphysical despair. Yet the stage of antithesis is, in the novel’s terms, a situation of crisis on the eve of upcoming resolution of all the contradictions in the synthesis, which is embodied in the esthetic concept “theocracy of beauty”. The latter is intended to overcome the antinomy of anthropocentrism and theocentrism, liberalism and totalitarianism. This ideal finds its herald in Diotima, the heiress of the mystical Holy Sophia, the soul of the “new church”, communal godly mankind, united by the principle of universal love. The present article is an essay of generalizing the conceptual plot of “Hyperion” at the mythotectonic level, which entitles us to see it as part and parcel of the paradigm based on the idea of Europe as the “third Kingdom”.

Keywords

Anthropocentrism, the godly humankind, metanarrative, mystic awareness, the modern era, revolution, Romanticism, Utopia, Millenarism.

. 

References 

Baudrillard J. (2000) De la séduction (tr. by A. Garadzha). Moscow: Ad Marginem. (in Russian).

Frank S. L. (1992) “Russkoe mirovozzrenie” [The Russian Worldview]. Frank S. L. Dukhovnye osnovy obshchestva [The Spiritual Foundations of Society]. Moscow: Respublika (Mysliteli XX veka [20nd-Century Thinkers]): 472–500. (in Russian).

Heidegger M. (2003) Erläuterungen zu Hölderlins Dichtung (tr. by G. B. Notkin). St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt. (in Russian).

Heine H. (1934) Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen (tr. by L. Penkovsky, intr. by G. Lukács). Moscow; Leningrad: Academia. (in Russian).

Heinrich G. (hg.) (1978) Athenäum. Eine Zeitschrift von August Wilhelm Schlegel und Friedrich Schlegel. Auswahl. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun.

Hölderlin F. (1970) Sämtliche Werke und Briefe. Bd. 1–4 (hg. v. Günter Mieth). Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag.

Ivanov Vyach. (1987) “O Novalise” [On Novalis]. Ivanov Vyach. Sobr. soch.: v 4 t. T. 4 [Collected Works in 4 vol. Vol. 4]. Brussels: Foyer oriental chretien: 252–278. (in Russian).

Gerhard J. (hg.) (1968) Die Revolution des Geistes. Politisches Denken in Deutschland 1770–1830. Goethe, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Humboldt. München: List-Verlag.

Lyotard J.-F. (1998) La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir (tr. by N. A. Shmatko). Moscow: Institut eksperimental’noi sotsiologii; St. Petersburg: Aleteiya. (in Russian).

Merezhkovsky D. S. (1911) “Ne mir, no mech. K budushchei kritike khristianstva” [Not Peace, but a Sword. Towards the Future Critique of Christianism]. Merezhkovsky D. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 17 t. T. 10 [Complete Works in 17 vol. Vol. 10]. St. Petersburg; Moscow: Izdanie T-va M. O. Wolfa: 3–161. (in Russian).

Nietzsche F. (1986) Kritische Studienausgabe in 8 Bänden (hg. v. G. Colli, M. Montinari). Bd. 8: Sämtliche Briefe. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag.

Nietzsche F. (1990) “Die fröhliche Wissenschaft”. Nietzsche F. Soch.: v 2 t. [Works in 2 vol.] (ed., tr. by K. A. Swasyan). T. 1 [Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl’: 491–719. (in Russian).

Polonsky V. V. (2011) “Mezhdu metafizikoi, istoriei i politikoi: religioznaya mifologiya v pozdnem tvorchestve D. S. Merezhkovskogo” [Between Metaphysics, History and Politics: Religious Mythology in later works of D. S. Merezhkovsky]. Polonsky V. V. Mezhdu traditsiei i modernizmom. Russkaya literatura rubezha XIX–XX vekov: istoriya, poetika, kontekst [Between Tradition and Modernism. The Russian Literature at the turn of the 19–20 centuries: history, poetics, context]. Moscow: IWL RAS: 251–265. (in Russian).

Rilke R. M. (1955) “Archaïscher Torso Apollos”. Rilke R. M. Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 1–6 (hg. v. Rilke-Archiv in Verbindung mit R. Sieber-Rilke besorgt durch E. Zinn). Bd. 1. Frankfurt a. M.: Insel Verlag: 557.

Schiller F. (1955) “Der Antritt des neuen Jahrhunderts”. Schiller F. Sobr. soch.: v 7 t. T. 1 [Collected Works in 7 vol. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literature: 321–322. (in Russian).

Sloterdijk P. (2009) Du musst dein Leben ändern. Über Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Vietta S. (1992) Die literarische Moderne. Eine problemgeschichtliche Darstellung der deutschsprachigen Literatur von Hölderlin bis Thomas Bernhard. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.

Zhirmunsky V. M. (1914) Nemetskii romantizm i sovremennaya mistika [German Romanticism and Contemporary Mysticism]. St. Petersburg: Tip. T-va A. S. Suvorina “Novoe vremya”. (in Russian).

.

© Alexey Žerebin, 2016

Aleksander Ogarkov. Having cast a lot. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

  By | |
Comments Off on Aleksander Ogarkov. Having cast a lot. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

Having cast a lot. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015.
Title in the language of publication: Бросив жребий. Рецензия на книгу: Н. А. Грякалов. Жребии человеческого. Очерк тотальной антропологии. СПб.: Дмитрий Буланин, 2015.
Author:
Aleksander Ogarkov
PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Art History of St. Petersburg Stieglitz State Academy of Art and Design.
Address: 13 Solyanoj pereulok, St. Petersburg 191028, Russia.
Issue:
P. 386–392.
Language: Russian
Document type: Review
 
   PDF
.

© Aleksander Ogarkov, 2016

Alexander Isakov. An essay of refutation of one metaphysical provocation. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

  By | |
Comments Off on Alexander Isakov. An essay of refutation of one metaphysical provocation. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

An essay of refutation of one metaphysical provocation. Review of the book: Gryakalov N. A. The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2015. 
Title in the language of publication: Опыт преодоления одной метафизической провокации.  Рецензия на книгу: Н. А. Грякалов. Жребии человеческого. Очерк тотальной антропологии. СПб.: Дмитрий Буланин, 2015.
Author:
Alexander Isakov
PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Institute of Philosophy of the Saint Petersburg State University.
Address: 7/9 Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg 199034, Russia.
Issue:
P. 381–385.
Language: Russian
Document type: Review
 
   PDF

References 

Derrida J. (1996) “L’origine de la géométrie, de Husserl. Introduction”. Husserl Ed. Nachalo geometrii. Vvedenie J. Derrida [Husserl Ed. The Origin of Geometry. Introduction by J. Derrida] (tr., comment. by M. Mayatsky). Moscow: Ad Marginem: 8–209. (in Russian).

Derrida J. (1999) Golos i fenomen, i drugie raboty po teorii znaka Gusserlya [Speech and Phenomena, and other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs] (tr. by S. G. Kashin, N. V. Suslov). St. Petersburg: Aleteiya. (in Russian).

Gryakalov N. A. (2015) Zhrebii chelovecheskogo. Ocherk total’noi antropologii [The Human Lots. An Essay of Total Anthropology]. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin. (in Russian).

Husserl Ed. (1996) “Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometrie als intentional-historisches Problem”. Husserl Ed. Nachalo geometrii. Vvedenie J. Derrida [Husserl Ed. The Origin of Geometry. Introduction by J. Derrida] (tr., comment. by M. Mayatsky). Moscow: Ad Marginem: 210–245. (in Russian). 

. 

.© Alexander Isakov, 2016

Svetlana Kleiner, Michael Pozdnev. Zieliński’s «chronological inconsistency»: The Epinomis. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

  By | | ,
Comments Off on Svetlana Kleiner, Michael Pozdnev. Zieliński’s «chronological inconsistency»: The Epinomis. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

Zieliński’s «chronological inconsistency»: The Epinomis
Title in the language of publication: Хронологическая несовместимость» Ф. Ф. Зелинского: Послезаконие
Author:
Svetlana Kleiner
PhD in Philology, Junior Researcher at the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 9 Tuchkov Lane, St. Petersburg 199053, Russia.
Michael Pozdnev
Doctor of Philology, Professor at the Department of Classical Philology of the Faculty of Philology of the Saint Petersburg State University.
Address: 7/9 Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg 199034, Russia.
Issue:
P. 367–377.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article (afterword)
 
   PDF

Abstract

Tadeusz Zieliński’s “Law of Chronological Inconsistency”, as is generally known, concerns the impossibility of simultaneous actions in the Homeric epics. Zieliński defines four modes of dealing with such actions: 1. one action remains hanging while the other continues (this case is the most apparent; its discovery seems to have inspired the scholar to point out the further three, which are by far less universal), 2. one action unfolds but the course of the other is only traced; it will meet the first at some point, 3. the parallel action is not shown at all, thus leaving a “sensible gap”, 4. to describe parallel actions as consecutive.

The rebirth of interest in Zieliński’s law in the last two decades manifested by a number of discussions and a selective English translation of his German essay on the subject has not yet resulted in a thorough monographic study — partly because the reference works still exist mostly in Russian, partly due to the marginalizing the principle of inconsistency as commonplace in modern folkloristics and narratology. The examples given by Zieliński should however be re-examined. The main point of interest lies in demonstrating that Zieliński’s interpretations are largely influenced by his epoch. He wants, for instance, to be told by Homer how the Trojans came to the idea that they should attack the Achaeans after the Pandar’s peace-breaking shot, when he stroke Menelaus by an arrow. This is the point of view of a tolerant European of the Vorkriegszeit. However, by narrating about negotiations in Troy, Homer would destroy the effect of surprise; the impression of Trojans as treacherous enemies would be lost. In other cases Homer, as well as the narrators of the Russian Byliny or other epic songs, is focused on the act of the greatest interest leaving the parallel acts without mention. Homer shows no incapacity in describing simultaneous actions as simultaneous. What his narrative style really exhibits is economy of the audience’s attention.

Keywords

Homer, Zieliński, classical philology, folklore, epic, Homeric question, chronological inconsistency, narrative techniques.

. 

References 

Gavrilov A. K. (2011) “F. F. Zieliński v kontekste russkoi kul’tury” [T. S. Zieliński in the context of Russian culture]. Gavrilov A. K. O filologakh i filologii. Stat’i i vystupleniya raznykh let [On Philologists and Philology. Articles and Addresses of Various Years]. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbU: 101–111. (in Russian).

Homerus (1949) Ilias (tr. by V. V. Veresayev). Moscow; Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury. (in Russian).

Homerus (1990) Ilias (tr. by N. I. Gnedich). Leningrad: Nauka (Literaturnye pamyatniki [Literary monuments]). (in Russian).

Mikhailova T. A., Shkunaev S. V. (coll.) (1985) Táin Bó Cúailnge (tr., article, notes by T. A. Mikhailova, S. V. Shkunaev). Moscow: Nauka (Literaturnye pamyatniki [Literary monuments]). (in Russian).

Nitzsch G. W. (1852) Die Sagenpoesie Der Griechen. Kritisch Dargestellt. Drei Būcher. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn (M. Bruhn).

Scodel R. (2008) “Zieliński’s Law Reconsidered”. Transactions of the American Philological Association. Vol. 138. No. 1. P. 107–125.

ΧΑΡΙΣΤΉΡΙΑ (1896) ΧΑΡΙΣΤΉΡΙΑ. Sbornik statei po filologii i lingvistike v chest’ Fedora Evgenievicha Korsha, zasluzhennogo professora Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta [ΧΑΡΙΣΤΉΡΙΑ. A collection of articles on philology and linguistics in celebration of Fyodor Evgenievich Korsch, honored professor of the Imperial Moscow University]. Moscow: Tipografiya Lissnera i Romana. (in Russian).

Zieliński T. S. (1900) “Starye i novye puti v gomerovskom voprose. Retsenziya na knigu: S. Shestakov. O proiskhozhdenii poem Gomera. Vyp. 2. O proiskhozhdenii ‘Iliady’: Etyud iz istorii literatury gomerovskogo voprosa i analiz ‘Iliady’ s tochki zreniya teorii zerna. Kazan: tipografiya Kazanskogo universiteta, 1899. 509 s.” [The old and new paths in the Homeric question. Book review: S. Shestakov. On the origin of Homer’s poems. Issue 2. On the origin of the Iliad: An etude from the history of the literature on the Homeric question and an analysis of the Iliad from the perspective of the theory of grain. Kazan: tipografiya Kazanskogo universiteta, 1899. 509 p.]. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Ch. CCCXXIX. 1900. Otd. 2 [The Journal of the Ministry of Education. Vol. CCCXXIX (1900). Issue 2]: 167–195. (in Russian).

Zieliński T. (1901) “Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse im alten Epos”. Philologus. Bd. 8. No. 3. S. 405–449.

. 

© Svetlana Kleiner, 2016  © Michael Pozdnev, 2016

Tadeusz Zielinski. Law of Chronological Inconsistency and the Composition of the “Iliad” Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

  By | | ,
Comments Off on Tadeusz Zielinski. Law of Chronological Inconsistency and the Composition of the “Iliad” Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

Law of Chronological Inconsistency and the Composition of the “Iliad”
Title in the language of publication: Закон хронологической несовместимости и композиция Илиады
Author:
Tadeusz Zielinski
1859–1944. A prominent Russian and Polish classical philologist, historian, translator of Sophocles, Euripides and other classical authors into Russian, professor at the University of St. Petersburg (1890–1922), then at Warsaw University (1922–1939).
Preparing the text for publication: 
Svetlana Kleiner
PhD in Philology, Junior Researcher at the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 9 Tuchkov Lane, St. Petersburg 199053, Russia.
Oleg Nogovitsin
PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Associate Research Fellow at the Sociological institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 25/14 7-ya Krasnoarmeyskaya str., St. Petersburg 190005, Russia.
Issue:
P. 347–366.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article
 
   PDF

References 

Bekker Imm. (1853) “Über das zwanzigste Buch der Odyssee”. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Jahrgang 1853: 643–652.

Bekker Imm. (1863) “Über das zwanzigste Buch der Odyssee”. Bekker Imm. Homerischs Blätter. 2 Bände. Bd. 1. Bonn: Bei Adolph Marcus: 123–132.

Bergk Th. (1872) Griechische Literaturgeschichte. 4 Bände. Bd. 1. Berlin: Weimannsche Buchhanndlung.

Curtius G. (1854) Andeutungen über den gegenwärtigen Stand der homerischen Frage. Wien: Verlag und Druck Carl Gerold und Sohn (First edition in the magazine: Zeitschrift für die Österreichischen Gymnasien. Bd. 5: 1–23).

Curtius G. (1886) “Andeutungen über den gegenwärtigen Stand der homerischen Frage”. Curtius G. Ausgewählte Abhandlungen wissenschaftlichen Inhalts (hg. v. E. Windisch). Leipzig: S. Hirzel: 176–229.

Hüttig C. (1886) Zur Charakteristik homerischer composition. Züllichau: Druk von Herm. Hampel.

Nitzsch G. W. (1852) Die Sagenpoesie Der Griechen. Kritisch Dargestellt. Drei Būcher. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn (M. Bruhn).

Seeck O. (1887) Die Quellen der Odyssee. Berlin: F. Siemenroth.

Steinthal H. (1868) “Das Epos”. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. Bd. 5: 1–57.

Steinthal H. (1871) “Ueber Homer und insbesondere die Odyssee”. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. Bd. 7: 1–88.

.

© Thaddeus Zielinski, 2016  © Svetlana Kleiner, prep., 2016  © Oleg Nogovitsin, prep., 2016

Sergey Ermakov. Messianism: an Essay of Non-Appropriative Reading. Review of the book: Agamben G. Il tempo che resta. Un commento alla “Lettera ai romani”. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2000 (Saggi. Storia, filosofia e scienze sociali) (Russian translation by Sergey Ermakov: Agamben G. Il tempo che resta. Un commento alla “Lettera ai romani”. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2018 (Intellectual History)).

  By | |
Comments Off on Sergey Ermakov. Messianism: an Essay of Non-Appropriative Reading. Review of the book: Agamben G. Il tempo che resta. Un commento alla “Lettera ai romani”. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2000 (Saggi. Storia, filosofia e scienze sociali) (Russian translation by Sergey Ermakov: Agamben G. Il tempo che resta. Un commento alla “Lettera ai romani”. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 2018 (Intellectual History)).

Continue reading →

Timur Shchukin, Oleg Nogovitsin. Anonymous treatise “On the Common Nature and the Trinity” in the context of christlogical and triadological discussions of the VI century. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

  By | | ,
Comments Off on Timur Shchukin, Oleg Nogovitsin. Anonymous treatise “On the Common Nature and the Trinity” in the context of christlogical and triadological discussions of the VI century. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2016

Publication Details

Anonymous treatise “On the Common Nature and the Trinity” in the context of christlogical and triadological discussions of the VI century
Title in the language of publication:
Анонимный трактат «Об общей природе и Троице» в контексте христологических и триадологических споров VI века
Author:
Timur Shchukin
Research Fellow at the Institute of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Campus in Perm.
Address: 38 Studencheskaya Ulitsa, Perm 614070, Russia.
Oleg Nogovitsin
PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Associate Research Fellow at the Sociological institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Address: 25/14 7-ya Krasnoarmeyskaya str., St. Petersburg 190005, Russia.
Issue:
P. 312–337.
Language: Russian
Document type: Research Article (introdaction)
 
   PDF

Abstract

The anti-Monophysitic anonymous treatise On the common nature and the Trinity was written in the 550–560s for the educational purposes in philosophy and theology. Therefore, its content was perceived in this time as something certainly traditional. It reflects theological discussions of its time, thus making feel the degree of complication of the current theological situation and the extent of mutual comprehension between the rivalry parties. The anonymous author normally keeps himself within the conceptual language of the late Neoplatonism, especially the school of Ammonius of Alexandria known by its interest to peripatetic instruments. The author himself is a Chalcedonian. When rejecting both “Nestorian” and “Severian” Christologies, he claims that the human nature became a constitutive element of the hypostasis of Christ (consisting of two common natures) and by no means an independent hypostasis. There are some similarities with the teaching of Leontius of Byzantium’s Against the Nestorians and the Eutychians and Refutation of the Syllogisms of Severus, whereas the present author is much more succinct, and his exposition is simplified. For instance, unlike Leontius of Byzantium, he does not distinguish the contexts, where the notions of nature and essence could be used differently; he does not states explicitly that the human nature within the hypostasis of Christ is the common nature and not a particular nature. The latter term is used but never explained. The treatise is a curious witness of the relevance of an inter-Monophysite controversy for the Chalcedonians.

Keywords

Christology, Chalcedonism, Monophysitism, Tritheism, particular nature, Leontius of Byzantium, John Philoponus, Severus of Antioch.

. 

References 

Allen P., Hayward C. T. R. (2004) Severus of Antioch. The Early Church Fathers. London; New York: Routledge.

Ananian P. (1969) “L’opusculo di Eutichio patriarca di Costantinopoli sulla ‘Distinzione délia natura e persona’”. Armeniaca. Mélanges d’études arméniennes. Publiés à l’occasion du 250e anniversaire de l’entrée des pères mekhitaristes dans l’Ile de Saint-Lazare (1717–1967). Vénise: St. Lazar’s Press: 316–382.

Benevitch G. I. (2011) “Leontii Ierusalimskii. Protiv monofizitov. Predislovie” [Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites. Preface]. Leontius Hierosolymitanus, Theodorus Abucara, Leontius Byzantinus. Polemicheskie sochineniya [Polemical Works]. Krasnodar: Tekst (Patristika: teksty i issledovaniya [Patristics: Texts and Studies]; Vizantiiskaya filosofiya. T. 7 [Byzantine philosophy. Vol. 7]): 6–24. (in Russian).

Busse A. (ed.) (1891) Ammonius in Porphyrii isagogen sive quinque voces. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. IV. Pars 3).

Busse A. (ed.) (1895) Ammonius in Aristotelis categorias commentaries. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. IV. Pars 4).

Cross R. (2002) “Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium”. Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol. 10. No. 2: 245–265.

Dodds E. R. (ed.) (1977) Proclus. The elements of theology (a revised text, tr., intr., comment. by E. R. Dodds). Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Evans D. (1970) Leontius of Byzantium: Аn Origenist Christology. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks (Dumbarton Oaks Studies. Vol. 13).

Grey P. (ed.) (2006) Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae (ed., tr. by P. T. R. Gray). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Early Christian Texts).

Grillmeier A., Hainthaler T. (1995) Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604). Part 2. The Church of Constantinople in the sixth century (tr. by J. Cawte, P. Allen). London: Mowbray; Louisville, KY: WJK.

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1882) Simplicii in libros Aristotelis de anima commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XI).

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1891) Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. I).

Hayduck M. (ed.) (1897) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima libros commentaria. Berlin: Reimer (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XV).

Henry R. (éd.) (1967) Photius. “Bibliothèque. Codices 230: Eulogius”. Photius. Bibliothèque (texte établi et trad. par R. Henry). 9 vols. Vol. 5. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Collection Budé): 8–64.

Iohannes Damascenus (2002) Tvoreniya prepodobnogo Ioanna Damaskina. Istochnik znaniya [The Works of St. John of Damascus. The Source of Knowledge] (tr. by D. E. Afinogenov, A. A. Bronzov, A. I. Sagarda, N. I. Sagarda). Moscow: Indrik (Svyatootecheskoe nasledie. T. 5 [Patristic heritage. Vol. 5]). (in Russian).

Junglas P. (1908) Leontius von Byzanz. Studien zu seinen Schriften, Quellen und Anschauungen. Paderbom: F. Schoningh.

Kotter B. (hg.) (1981) Johannes von Damaskos “Liber de haeresibus”. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Bd. IV: Liber de haeresibus. Opera polemica. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter (Patristische Texte und Studien. Bd. 22): 19–67.

Lang U.-M. (2001) John Philoponus and controversies over Chalcedon in the six century. A Study and Translation of the “Arbiter”. Leuven: Peeters (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents. Fascicule 47).

Lebon I. (ed.) (1938) Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum. Oratio prima et orationis secundae quae supersunt. Louvain: Peeters (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vol. 112; Scriptores Syri. Vol. 59 (IV, 4)).

Lemerle P. (1971) Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France (Bibliothèque byzantine. Etudes 6).

Lemerle P. (2012) Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (intr., tr. by T. A. Senina (nun Kassiya)). St. Petersburg: “Svoe izdatel’stvo” (Seria Bizantina). (in Russian).

Lourié B. (2006) Istoriya vizantiiskoi filosofii. Formativnyi period [The History of Byzantine Philosophy: The Formative Period]. St. Petersburg: Axiōma. (in Russian).

Photius (2009) Photius Constantinopolitanus. “Izlozhenie slova sv. Evlogiya Aleksandriiskogo” [Exposition of the sermon of St. Eulogius of Alexandria]. Antologiya vostochno-khristianskoi bogoslovskoi mysli. Ortodoksiya i geterodoksiya: V 2 t. T. 2 [An Anthology of the East Christian Theological Thought. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. In 2 vol. Vol. 2] (ed. by G. I. Benevitch, D. S. Birjukov). Moscow: Nikeya; St. Petersburg: Izd-vo RHGA (Vizantiiskaya filosofiya. T. 5; Smaragdos Philocalias): 89–95. (in Russian).

Rashed M. (2007) “Un texte proto-byzantin sur les universaux et la Trinité”. L’héritage aristotélicien: textes inédits de l’Antiquité (sous la direction de M. Rashed). Paris: Les Belles Lettres: 345–377.

Reichardt W. (hg.) (1897) Joannis Philoponi de opificio mundi libri VII. Leipzig: Teubner.

Ronconi F. (2012) “Quelle grammaire à Byzance? La circulation des textes grammaticaux et son reflet dans les manuscrits”. La produzione scritta tecnica e scientifica nel Medioevo: libro e documento tra scuole e professioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Fisciano – Salerno, 28–30 settembre 2009 (a cura di G. De Gregorio e M. Galante). Spoleto: CISAM: 63–110.

Sanda A. (ed.) (1930) Opuscula monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi (syriac text, latin tr. by A. Sanda). Beirut: Typographia Catholica PP. Soc. Jesu.

Shchukin T. (2016) “Identity in Difference: Substance and Nature in Leontius of Byzantium’s Writings
”. Scrinium. Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 12: 308–321.

Suchla B. R. (hg.) (1990) Corpus Dionysiacum I: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter (Patristische Texte und Studien. Bd. 33).

Trizio M. (2013) “A new testimony of the middle Platonist Gaius”. Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies. Vol. 53: 136–145.

Van Roey A. (1985) “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugene (557–569)”. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Vol. 16: 141–165.

Vitelli H. (ed.) (1887–1888) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis physicorum libros octo commentaria. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer. Vol. 1, 1887; Vol. 2, 1888 (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XVI, XVII).

Wallies M. (ed.) (1909) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis analytica posteriora commentaria cum Anonymo in librum II. Berlin: Reimer, 1909 (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. Vol. XIII. Pars 3).

. 

© Timur Shchukin, 2016  © Oleg Nogovitsin, 2016