Draco's constitution in the Athenaion Politeia 4: Is it an interpolation or an Author's later addition?

Переведенное название: Драконтова конституция в Афинской политии гл. 4: является ли она интерполяцией или позднейшим авторским добавлениием?

Результат исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхстатья

6 Downloads (Pure)

Выдержка

В статье рассаматривается один из вопросов, связанных с так наз. “конститу-
цией Драконта” (ДК) в гл. 4 Афинской политии Аристотеля. Описание этого
государственного устройства, согласно преобладающему в науке мнению,
является позднейшей интерполяцией или, по крайней мере, позднейшей
вставкой, сделанной самим автором сочинения. В статье доказывается, что
аргументы, на которых основывается это мнение (формальные особенности
композиции первых глав, пропуск номера при ДК в перечне изменений афин-
ского государственного устройства в гл. 41, общее число 11 изменений в той
же главе, вместо ожидаемого 12), не доказывают наличие позднейшей встав-
ки в текст. Вместе с тем, ошибочны и попытки объяснить странности
гл. 41 тем, что ДК в гл. 4 не изображается как самостоятельная конституция.
Их более вероятное объяснение состоит в том, что изменение при Тесее обо-
значено двояким образом – как второе по порядку, но первое, имевшее кон-
ституционный характер. Первое по времени изменение, при Ионе, не имело,
следовательно, конституционного характера: именно оно, а не изменение при
Драконте, было не учтено в общей сумме изменений.
Язык оригиналаанглийский
Страницы (с-по)142-173
Число страниц32
ЖурналHyperboreus
Том23
Номер выпуска1
СостояниеОпубликовано - 7 янв 2018

Отпечаток

Interpolation
Constitution
Omission
Supposition
Aristotle

Предметные области Scopus

  • История
  • Гуманитарные науки и искусство (все)

Ключевые слова

  • Аристотель, Афинская полития, конституция Драконта

Цитировать

@article{953a696700014755846ed06a6bcc30ff,
title = "Draco's constitution in the Athenaion Politeia 4: Is it an interpolation or an Author's later addition?",
abstract = "The paper reconsiders Draco’s constitution (DC) in ch. 4 of Aristotle’ AthenaionPoliteia, which is widely held to be an interpolation in the text (or, minimally, anauthor’s later addition). The present paper is an attempt to prove that neitherargument – neither that from the structure of the text of the fi rst chapters of the APnor the argument from the omission of number with DC in the list of constitutionalchanges (ch. 41) and the discrepancy in the total number of changes (eleveninstead of twelve) does not prove that DC was later inserted into the text in anyway. At the same time the attempts to explain the awkwardness in ch. 41 throughthe supposition that DC is not depicted in ch. 4 as a constitution in its own rightand thus proving it to be an integral part of the text are misleading. The confusionin ch. 41 is related to the double status of the change under Theseus which precededthe one under Draco: it is called the second change (i.e. second institutionalchange), but the fi rst constitutional one. The fi rst change absolutely, that whichtook place under Ion, was thus not constitutional, and this change, and not thatwhich took place under Draco, was not counted.",
keywords = "Аристотель, Афинская полития, конституция Драконта, Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia, Draco’s constitution",
author = "Верлинский, {Александр Леонардович}",
note = "Hyperboreus vol. 17 (2017) fasc. 1, p.142-173",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "7",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "142--173",
journal = "Hyperboreus",
issn = "0949-2615",
publisher = "Bibliotheca classica Petropolitana",
number = "1",

}

Draco's constitution in the Athenaion Politeia 4: Is it an interpolation or an Author's later addition? / Верлинский, Александр Леонардович.

В: Hyperboreus, Том 23, № 1, 07.01.2018, стр. 142-173.

Результат исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхстатья

TY - JOUR

T1 - Draco's constitution in the Athenaion Politeia 4: Is it an interpolation or an Author's later addition?

AU - Верлинский, Александр Леонардович

N1 - Hyperboreus vol. 17 (2017) fasc. 1, p.142-173

PY - 2018/1/7

Y1 - 2018/1/7

N2 - The paper reconsiders Draco’s constitution (DC) in ch. 4 of Aristotle’ AthenaionPoliteia, which is widely held to be an interpolation in the text (or, minimally, anauthor’s later addition). The present paper is an attempt to prove that neitherargument – neither that from the structure of the text of the fi rst chapters of the APnor the argument from the omission of number with DC in the list of constitutionalchanges (ch. 41) and the discrepancy in the total number of changes (eleveninstead of twelve) does not prove that DC was later inserted into the text in anyway. At the same time the attempts to explain the awkwardness in ch. 41 throughthe supposition that DC is not depicted in ch. 4 as a constitution in its own rightand thus proving it to be an integral part of the text are misleading. The confusionin ch. 41 is related to the double status of the change under Theseus which precededthe one under Draco: it is called the second change (i.e. second institutionalchange), but the fi rst constitutional one. The fi rst change absolutely, that whichtook place under Ion, was thus not constitutional, and this change, and not thatwhich took place under Draco, was not counted.

AB - The paper reconsiders Draco’s constitution (DC) in ch. 4 of Aristotle’ AthenaionPoliteia, which is widely held to be an interpolation in the text (or, minimally, anauthor’s later addition). The present paper is an attempt to prove that neitherargument – neither that from the structure of the text of the fi rst chapters of the APnor the argument from the omission of number with DC in the list of constitutionalchanges (ch. 41) and the discrepancy in the total number of changes (eleveninstead of twelve) does not prove that DC was later inserted into the text in anyway. At the same time the attempts to explain the awkwardness in ch. 41 throughthe supposition that DC is not depicted in ch. 4 as a constitution in its own rightand thus proving it to be an integral part of the text are misleading. The confusionin ch. 41 is related to the double status of the change under Theseus which precededthe one under Draco: it is called the second change (i.e. second institutionalchange), but the fi rst constitutional one. The fi rst change absolutely, that whichtook place under Ion, was thus not constitutional, and this change, and not thatwhich took place under Draco, was not counted.

KW - Аристотель, Афинская полития, конституция Драконта

KW - Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia, Draco’s constitution

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 142

EP - 173

JO - Hyperboreus

JF - Hyperboreus

SN - 0949-2615

IS - 1

ER -