«Станут потомки тебя благословить»?
Aristarchus of Samothrace had excluded some verses from his edition of the Iliad (presumably those which were poorly attested in manuscript tradition) and had athetized some others (possibly those which were widespread). We may assume that his textual variants can also be divided in two similar groups: (1) those which were present in his edition (and were well attested in papyri) and (2) those which were cited only in his commentary (and were absent from most manuscripts). If we accept this hypothesis, it might help us to solve one of the important paradoxes of Homeric manuscript tradition. On the one hand, numerus versuum in ancient manuscript tradition is identical to mediaeval Homeric vulgate and to aristarchean edition (according to the mainstream view). That shows the influence of Aristarchus, because the standardization of Egyptian Homeric papyri concurs with the time of the great philologist. On the other hand, most readings of Aristarchus are absent from Homeric vulgate (only 30% of his readings, according to disputable calculations of T. Allen, can be seen in all or most manuscripts). That means on the opposite that the great philologist had little influence on the tradition. The suggested hypothesis can be in full or partly compatible with the others, e.g. the interesting assumption of M. Finkelberg about the role of Ptolemy VIII in Homeric tradition.
This report addresses a number of translation problems which made themselves conspicuous in domain-specific communication. The quoted English–Russian translation examples are treated as translation precedents within the translation studies, psycholinguistics, and communication theory frameworks. Challenges related to dissimilar worldviews objectified in texts generated in the source-language and the target-language are analyzed; the discrepancy is gaining in momentum due to the expanding professional communication under the lingua franca status recently acquired by English.
Two editions of Iliad with minute apparatus, that were published by T.W.Allen in 1930 and by M.L.West in 2000, give us entirely different images of Homeric vulgate (i.e. majority of manuscript readings). The first one based on ca. 200 manuscripts and the second one relying on 19 of them (and even less in most cases) vary conceptually. This paper focuses on several cases from the second half of Iliad, where differences in vulgate readings lead to diverse assessment of Aristarchean variant. For instance in 13.594 Alexandrian philologist reads with West's "Ω" ("omnes"), but against Allen's "vulg.". The opposite case is in 13.785, where Aristarchus' variant is the same as in Allen's majority and opposite to West's vulgate. In 2/3 cases the latter is in concordance with Aristarchean readings. That means that Allen's statistics showing very modest influence of Alexandrian textology on manuscript tradition needs new critical evaluation in the light of these facts. The thing of even more importance is new statistics of Aristarchean variants mentioned in scholia. This data is compared with readings which are cited in apparatus of both editions. We see that West's Aristarchus very often agrees with our vulgate and that Allen on the contrary is too pessimistic about Alexandrian influence on the extant manuscripts. I think more balanced view would be closer to provable facts. Nevertheless, the problem of Homeric vulgate and the problem of its relations to Aristarchean edition(s) remain unsolved and need further investigation.
There are 30 similies in the 3 book of “Argonautica”, and the most of them are concentrated in the last 200 verses. The article is focused on the Hellenistic reception of the classical epic tradition and problems of intertextuality between Apollonius and Homeric epos: if the use of similies is related with the peculiarity of Homeric style, what kind of relationship is between the structure and imagery of theApollonius’ similies and of the old epic similies.
The collection of studies is intended for teaching staff, post-graduate students and undergraduates.
The book has four main sections. The first section contains articles on topical linguistic issues and cross-cultural communication. The second and third sections are devoted to translation studies and methodology of teaching foreign languages. The fourth section investigates the problems of literature and linguistic cultural studies.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.