Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-24-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Indeed, anonymity was the norm for writers until the late medieval period.

Um, are you sure about this? On what is this based? Consider the idea of book-readings, to which Pliny refers as a commonplace of Roman literary society; these can't be anonymous, because the author is stood there reciting his work!

Looking at Martial, he is trumpetting his authorship and where to buy his works. Cicero is publishing his stuff (two examples where we can see what is happening).

I realise that you must have something in mind here, but it sounds a bit odd to me (with that sort of stuff filling my head).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DCHindley · 03-24-2008, 07:30 PM

Andrew,

I think TedM is referring to the Dutch Radical position that all the Ignatian epistles are pseudepigraphical, not just the longer Greek rescension. As far as I know, the longer rescension is not even on the DR radar.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

One example might be some of the works of "Ignatius" which are now considered to be fraudulent, I understand. It seems like one could figure out the purpose of such frauds from the content, and that in and of itself could be educational.

There is a good deal of discussion in the literature of the motives behind the expanded and enlarged edition of Ignatius produced around 400 CE or shortly earlier.

It seems clear that the author/forger was attempting to rewrite Ignatius in order that he would support his side in the current debates about the Trinity and the Incarnation, and clear that (by later standards) the author/forger was unorthodox/heretical.

What is less clear is exactly which position the author/forger was defending. Most modern scholars think he was a neo-Arian but some have considered him an Apollinarian. If the author/forger was a neo-Arian he may have also written the Apostolic Constitutions on the basis of earlier works.

Andrew Criddle

TedM · 03-24-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Andrew,

I think TedM is referring to the Dutch Radical position that all the Ignatian epistles are pseudepigraphical, not just the longer Greek rescension. As far as I know, the longer rescension is not even on the DR radar.

No, actually I'm referring to any work that is strongly regarded as fraudulent or any interpolated passage that is strongly regarded as such.

thanks though. And, thanks to all responses.

ted

mountainman · 03-25-2008, 12:51 PM

ONE PROJECT

You could examine the large selection of stories that were at any time attributed to the author Lucian of Somosata, particularly the series which are now classified as fraudulent starting with the Philopatris known to have been written in the fourth century.

Personally, I think the works of Lucian were raw materials sitting in the libraries of Rome c.312 CE.

Quote:

LUCIAN of SAMOSATA:
======================================
Introduction by A.M. Harmon, 1913,
Published in Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes,
Greek texts and facing English
translation: Harvard University Press.

======================================

Among the eighty-two pieces that have come down to us under the name of Lucian, there are not a few of which his authorship has been disputed. Certainly spurious are Halcyon, Nero, Philopatris, and Astrology; and to these, it seems to me, the Consonants at Law should be added. Furthermore. Deinostitenes, Gharidemus, Cynic, Love, Octogenarians, Hippias, Ungrammatical Man, Swiftfoot, amid the epigrams are generally considered spurious, and there are several others (Disowned and My Country in particular) which, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity.

There are a hundred and fifty manuscripts of Lucian, more or less, which give us a tradition that is none too good. There is no satisfactory critical edition of Lucian except Nilén’s, which is now in progress. His text has been followed, as far as it was available, through the True Story. Beyond this point it has been necessary to make a new text for this edition. In order that text and translation may as far as possible correspond, conjectures have been admitted with considerable freedom: for the fact that a good many of them bear the initials of the translator he need not apologize if they are good; if they are not no apology will avail him. He is deeply indebted to Professor Edward Capps for reviewing his translation in the proof.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Chief manuscripts :--

g group--

Vaticanus 90 (G), 9/10th century.
Harleianus 5694 (E), 9/10th century.
Laurentianus C. S. 77 (F), 10th century.
Marcianus 434 (W), 10/11th century.
Mutinensis 193 (S), 10th century.
Laurentianus 57, 51(L), 11th century (?).

ß group--

Vindobonensis 123 (B), 11th century (?).
Vaticanus 1324 (U), 11/12th century.
Vaticanus 76 (P).
Vaticanus 1323 (Z).
Parisinus 2957 (N).

Principal editions :--

Florentine, of 1496, the first edition by J. Lascaris, from the press of L. de Alopa.
Hemsterhuys-Reitz, Amsterdam 1743, containing a Latin translation by Gesner, critical notes, variorum commentary and a word-index (C. C. Reitz, 1746).
Lehmann, Leipzig 1822-1831, a convenient variorum edition which contains Gesner’s translation but lacks Reitz’s index.
Jacobitz, Leipzig 1836-1841, with critical notes, a subject-index and a word-index; it contains the scholia.
Jacobitz, Leipzig 1851, in the Teubner series of classical texts.
Bekker, Leipzig 1853.
Dindorf, Leipzig 1858, in the Tauchnitz series.
Fritzsche, Rostock 1860-1882, an incomplete edition containing only thirty pieces; excellent critical notes and prolegomena.
Sommerbrodt, Berlin 1886--1899, also incomplete, but lacking only fifteen pieces; with critical appendices.
Nilén, Leipzig 1906- , the new Teubner text, with very full critical notes, and part of the Prolegomena in a separate gathering; the text is to appear in eight parts.

Scholia:--

edited by Rabe, Leipzig 1906.

Bibliography:--

Mras, Die Ueberlieferung Lucians, Vienna, 1911.
Croiset, Essai sur la Vie et les Œuvres de Lucian, Paris 1882.
Foerster, Lucian in der Renaissance, Kiel 1886
Helm, Lucian und Menipp, Leipzig 1906.

A.M. HARMON

Also:--

MACLEOD, M.D., 1972-, New edition in Oxford Classical Texts series.
G. W. Bowersock, The Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford 1969 (chapter 9)

Certainly, if I were asked about such a project, I would respond that one strand of analysis would be to enquire what issues, relevant to the ascendancy of the christian regime of the fourth century, are put forward in each of these books. The question being of course of the nature of the various authenticity issues that the fourth century forgers were shamelessly attempting to answer by the shockingly simple method of retrojecting these issues into ancient texts -- Lucian being just one example.

Somewhere in the commentary on the Philopatris is the comment that scholarship once thought it was written during the time of Julian. My question is obviously what is to preclude this text to have been forged in the time of Constantine.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.