Тредиаковский – читатель ломоносовской Риторики: вопрос к истории текста
This paper discusses notes and marginalia left by Trediakovsky in his copy of Lomonosov’s Rhetoric (1748), compared to the corrections made by Lomonosov in the second edition of his book (1759); one of the points of this discussion is to evaluate S. I. Nikolaev’s hypothesis, that Trediakovsky’s notes had notably influenced Lomonosov. Among 310 Trediakovsky’ notes and over 400 Lomonosov’s corrections only 37 correspond each other. These cases are studied individually, using a) manuscript and proofsheets of the 1748 edition of the Rhetoric; b) the full body of corrections in 1759 edition; c) Lomonosov’s work in preparing his Russian grammar (1755); d) lexics of Lomonosow’s works and documents; e) literary and language polemics of 1740–1750’s. The analysis makes it clear, that the second edition of Lomonosov’s Rhetoric was corrected independently of the Trediakovsky’s notes (only four cases may be questioned), based on Lomonosov’s own style and language theory, which developed in 1740–1750’s and was partly obliged to Trediakovsky’s polemical writings. The appendix offers addenda to the corpus of Trediakovsky’s notes as published by M. I. Sukhomlinov.
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 note discusses one of the largely super uous conjectures unearthed by J. Diggle and given an honourable place in his otherwise very succinct and e cient apparatus criticus. Reported by none of the recent editors, and earlier by Prinz–Wecklein and Verrall, Herwerden’s μελανόσπλαγχνος in Euripides’ Medea 109 is an undesirable change of the sound, if idiosyncratic, mss. reading μεγαλόσπλαγχνος. Diggle, however, having (independently) conjectured the same word, patched together arguments for it. An additional attraction this conjecture gained in his eyes was due to his misreading of the remark (quoted in the heading) Wilamowitz made proofreading the rst volume of Murray’s OCT in 1901. While Wilamowitz discouraged Murray from reporting this conjecture with his usual “besser fort”, Diggle, on passing acquaintance with the letters, took it to mean “Herw. besser fort[asse]”, thus corroborating his point.
This article is about the Rhythm of Mikhail V.Lomonosov's Odes of 1743.
This book brings together academics and practitioners from a range of disciplines from more than twenty countries to reflect on the growing importance of transparency, power and control in our international community and how these concerns and ideas have been examined, used and interpreted in a range of national and international contexts. Contributors explore these issues from a range of overlapping concerns and perspectives, such as semiotic, sociolinguistic, psychological, philosophical, and visual in diverse socio-political, administrative, institutional, as well as legal contexts.
The collection examines the ways in which 'actors' in our society - legislators, politicians, activists, and artists - have provoked public discourses to confront these issues.
It is known that Old Rusian chronicles were not only extended, but also inetnsively edited by the newcoming generations of bookmen. Usually the reasons for editing of text are searched amongst the political circumstances of the time. However, changing approaches to actual theological questions could also be the cause of text evolution. One of such was the question of the nature of suffering, on which there existed at least two views — the one of the author of so-called Načalnyj Svod of the 1090ies, and the outher of the author of Pověst Vremennykh Lět.
The book is a publication of a full text of M.Kh. Aleshkovskiy’s candidate of sciences (PhD) thesis defended in 1967 and previously available only in a shortened popular edition.
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.