1. Homer, Iliad, 1.3-1.5, 2.871-2.872, 3.385, 3.395-3.398, 3.414 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • Aristarchus of Samothrace • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, athetesis • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, clarifying author from author himself • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, contemporary linguistic usage, reference to • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, etymological and allegorical arguments • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, linguistic analysis backed up by textual references to other passages • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, punctuation, changing • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, strategies of Aristarchus followed and expanded by Eusebius • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, strategies of Aristarchus followed by Eusebius
Found in books: Ayres and Ward (2021), The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual, 196, 208, 211, 212; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 213; Finkelberg (2019), Homer and Early Greek Epic: Collected Essays, 175; Hunter (2018), The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad, 69, 70; Niehoff (2011), Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 24, 50; Ward (2022), Clement and Scriptural Exegesis: The Making of a Commentarial Theologian, 44, 45; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 213
sup>
1.3 πολλὰς δʼ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν 1.4 ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δʼ ἐτελείετο βουλή,
2.871 Νάστης Ἀμφίμαχός τε Νομίονος ἀγλαὰ τέκνα, 2.872 ὃς καὶ χρυσὸν ἔχων πόλεμον δʼ ἴεν ἠΰτε κούρη
3.385 χειρὶ δὲ νεκταρέου ἑανοῦ ἐτίναξε λαβοῦσα,
3.395 ὣς φάτο, τῇ δʼ ἄρα θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ὄρινε· 3.396 καί ῥʼ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησε θεᾶς περικαλλέα δειρὴν 3.397 στήθεά θʼ ἱμερόεντα καὶ ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα, 3.398 θάμβησέν τʼ ἄρʼ ἔπειτα ἔπος τʼ ἔφατʼ ἔκ τʼ ὀνόμαζε·
3.414 μή μʼ ἔρεθε σχετλίη, μὴ χωσαμένη σε μεθείω,' ' None | sup>
1.3 The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles, that destructive wrath which brought countless woes upon the Achaeans, and sent forth to Hades many valiant souls of heroes, and made them themselves spoil for dogs and every bird; thus the plan of Zeus came to fulfillment, " "1.5 from the time when first they parted in strife Atreus' son, king of men, and brilliant Achilles.Who then of the gods was it that brought these two together to contend? The son of Leto and Zeus; for he in anger against the king roused throughout the host an evil pestilence, and the people began to perish, " 2.871 These were led by captains twain, Amphimachus and Nastes—Nastes and Amphimachus, the glorious children of Nomion. And he came to the war all decked with gold, like a girl, fool that he was; but his gold in no wise availed to ward off woeful destruction; nay, he was slain in the river beneath the hands of the son of Aeacus, swift of foot;
3.385 Then with her hand the goddess laid hold of her fragrant robe, and plucked it, and spake to her in the likeness of an ancient dame, a wool-comber, who had been wont to card the fair wool for her when she dwelt in Lacedaemon, and who was well loved of her; in her likeness fair Aphrodite spake: ' "
3.395 So spake she, and stirred Helen's heart in her breast; and when she marked the beauteous neck of the goddess, her lovely bosom, and her flashing eyes, then amazement seized her, and she spake, and addressed her, saying:Strange goddess, why art thou minded to beguile me thus? " "
3.414 But thither will I not go—it were a shameful thing—to array that man's couch; all the women of Troy will blame me hereafter; and I have measureless griefs at heart. Then stirred to wrath fair Aphrodite spake to her:Provoke me not, rash woman, lest I wax wroth and desert thee, " " None |
|
2. None, None, nan (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, different timing posited for contradictory accounts of same event • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, etymological and allegorical arguments • Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Aristarchus on Homer,, strategies of Aristarchus followed by Eusebius
Found in books: Ayres and Ward (2021), The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual, 207; Hunter (2018), The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad, 161, 162, 163
|
3. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • denigration, Aristarchus affair used for
Found in books: Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 37, 91; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 40
|
4. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • Atticus, as Aristarchus of Ciceros speeches
Found in books: Keeline (2018), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy, 294; Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 132, 133
|
5. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus
Found in books: Gordon (2012), The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, 174; Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 134
|
6. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus
Found in books: Konig and Wiater (2022), Late Hellenistic Greek Literature in Dialogue, 321; König and Wiater (2022), Late Hellenistic Greek Literature in Dialogue, 321; Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 135
|
7. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • Aristarchus of Samos
Found in books: Bowen and Rochberg (2020), Hellenistic Astronomy: The Science in its contexts, 612; Hankinson (1998), Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, 364, 365; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 130
|
8. Aeschines, Or., 1.171-1.172, 2.148, 2.166
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchos • Aristarchus • denigration, Aristarchus affair used for
Found in books: Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 37, 42, 167, 241; Michalopoulos et al. (2021), The Rhetoric of Unity and Division in Ancient Literature, 61; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 40
| sup>
1.171 he discovered a household that was rich and ill-managed, the head of which was a woman, proud and of poor judgment. A fatherless young man, half crazy, was managing the estate, Aristarchus, son of Moschus. Demosthenes, pretending to be a lover of his, invited the young man to this intimacy, filling him up with empty hopes, assuring him that without any delay whatever he should become the foremost man in public life, and he showed him a list of names.Doubtless a list of young men who had studied oratory with Demosthenes and become successful public men. So the Scholiast. So he became prompter and teacher of the young man in conduct which has made Aristarchus an exile from his fatherland, ' "1.172 while Demosthenes, getting hold of the money that was to support him in in his banishment, has cheated him out of three talents, and, at the hands of Aristarchus, Nicodemus of Aphidna has met a violent death, poor man! after having had both eyes knocked out, and that tongue cut off with which he had been wont to speak out freely, trusting in the laws and in you.The murdered man, Nicodemus, was a friend and supporter of Demosthenes' influential personal and political enemies, Meidias and Eubulus, and had taken part in an unsuccessful attempt to convict Demosthenes of desertion in the Euboean campaign. When he was found murdered, Meidias made repeated attempts to throw suspicion on Demosthenes. " "
2.148 It is my good fortune, too, that all the members of my mother's family are free-born citizens; and to-day I see her here before my eyes in anxiety and fear for my safety. And yet, Demosthenes, this mother of mine went out to Corinth an exile, with her husband, and shared the disasters of the democracy; but you, who claim to be a man—that you really are a man I should not venture to say—you were once indicted for desertion, and you saved yourself by buying off the man who indicted you, Nicodemus of Aphidna, whom afterward you helped Aristarchus to destroy; wherefore you are polluted, and have no right to be invading the market-place." "
2.166 You entered a happy home, that of Aristarchus the son of Moschus; you ruined it. You received three talents from Aristarchus in trust as he was on the point of going into exile; you cheated him out of the money that was to have aided him in his fight, and were not ashamed of the reputation to which you laid claim, that of being a wooer of the young man's bodily charms—an absurd story, of course, for genuine love has no place for rascality. That conduct, and conduct like that, defines the traitor."' None |
|
9. Demosthenes, Orations, 21.104-21.122
Tagged with subjects: • Aristarchus • Aristarchus (Against Meidias) • denigration, Aristarchus affair used for
Found in books: Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 16, 20, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 40; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 146
| sup>
21.104 But I will now relate a serious act of cruelty committed by him, men of Athens, which I at least regard as not merely a personal wrong but a public sacrilege. For when a grave criminal charge was hanging over that unlucky wretch, Aristarchus, the son of Moschus, at first, Athenians, Meidias went round the Market-place and ventured to spread impious and atrocious statements about me to the effect that I was the author of the deed; next, when this device failed, he went to the relations of the dead man, who were bringing the charge of murder against Aristarchus, and offered them money if they would accuse me of the crime. He let neither religion nor piety nor any other consideration stand in the way of this wild proposal: he shrank from nothing. 21.105 Nay, he was not ashamed to look even that audience in the face and bring such a terrible calamity upon an innocent man; but having set one goal before him, to ruin me by every means in his power, he thought himself bound to leave no stone unturned, as if it were only right that when any man, having been insulted by him, claimed redress and refused to keep silence, he should be removed by banishment without a chance of escape, should even find himself convicted of desertion, should defend himself on a capital charge, and should be in imminent danger of crucifixion. Yet when Meidias is proved guilty of all this, as well as of his insults when I was chorus-master, what leniency, what compassion shall he deserve at your hands? 21.106 My own opinion, men of Athens, is that these acts constitute him my murderer; that while at the Dionysia his outrages were confined to my equipment, my person, and my expenditure, his subsequent course of action shows that they were aimed at everything else that is mine, my citizenship, my family, my privileges, my hopes. Had a single one of his machinations succeeded, I should have been robbed of all that I had, even of the right to be buried in the homeland. What does this mean, gentlemen of the jury? It means that if treatment such as I have suffered is to be the fate of any man who tries to right himself when outraged by Meidias in defiance of all the laws, then it will be best for us, as is the way among barbarians, to grovel at the oppressor’s feet and make no attempt at self-defence. 21.107 However, to prove that my statements are true and that these things have actually been perpetrated by this shameless ruffian, please call the witnesses. The Witnesses We, Dionysius of Aphidna and Antiphilus of Paeania, when our kinsman Nicodemus had met with a violent death at the hands of Aristarchus, the son of Moschus, prosecuted Aristarchus for murder. Learning this, Meidias, who is now being brought to trial by Demosthenes, for whom we appear, offered us small sums of money to let Aristarchus go unharmed, and to substitute the name of Demosthenes in the indictment for murder. Now let me have the law concerning bribery. 21.108 While the clerk is finding the statute, men of Athens, I wish to address a few words to you. I appeal to all of you jurymen, in the name of Zeus and all the gods, that whatever you hear in court, you may listen to it with this in your minds: What would one of you do, if he were the victim of this treatment, and what anger would he feel on his own account against the author of it? Seriously distressed as I was at the insults that I endured in the discharge of my public service, I am far more seriously distressed and indigt at what ensued. 21.109 For in truth, what bounds can be set to wickedness, and how can shamelessness, brutality and insolence go farther, if a man who has committed grave-yes, grave and repeated wrongs against another, instead of making amends and repenting of the evil, should afterwards add more serious outrages and should employ his riches, not to further his own interests without prejudice to others, but for the opposite purpose of driving his victim into exile unjustly and covering him with ignominy, while he gloats over his own superabundance of wealth? 21.110 All that, men of Athens, is just what has been done by Meidias. He brought against me a false charge of murder, in which, as the facts proved, I was in no way concerned; he indicted me for desertion, having himself on three occasions deserted his post; and as for the troubles in Euboea—why, I nearly forgot to mention them!-troubles for which his bosom-friend Plutarchus was responsible, he contrived to have the blame laid at my door, before it became plain to everyone that Plutarchus was at the bottom of the whole business. 21.111 Lastly, when I was made senator by lot, he denounced me at the scrutiny, and the business proved a very real danger for me; for instead of getting compensation for the injuries I had suffered, I was in danger of being punished for acts with which I had no concern. Having such grievances and being persecuted in the way that I have just described to you, but at the same time being neither quite friendless nor exactly a poor man, I am uncertain, men of Athens, what I ought to do. 21.112 For, if I may add a word on this subject also, where the rich are concerned, Athenians, the rest of us have no share in our just and equal rights. Indeed we have not. The rich can choose their own time for facing a jury, and their crimes are stale and cold when they are dished up before you, but if any of the rest of us is in trouble, he is brought into court while all is fresh. The rich have witnesses and counsel in readiness, all primed against us; but, as you see, my witnesses are some of them unwilling even to bear testimony to the truth. 21.113 One might harp on these grievances till one was weary, I suppose; but now recite in full the law which I began to quote. Read. The Law If any Athenian accepts a bribe from another, or himself offers it to another, or corrupts anyone by promises, to the detriment of the people in general, or of any individual citizen, by any means or device whatsoever, he shall be disfranchised together with his children, and his property shall be confiscated. 21.114 This man, then, is so impious, so abandoned, so ready to say or do anything, without stopping for a moment to ask whether it is true or false, whether it touches an enemy or a friend, or any such question, that after accusing me of murder and bringing that grave charge against me, he suffered me to conduct initiatory rites and sacrifices for the Council, and to inaugurate the victims on behalf of you and all the State; 21.115 he suffered me as head of the Sacred Embassy to lead it in the name of the city to the Nemean shrine of Zeus; he raised no objection when I was chosen with two colleagues to inaugurate the sacrifice to the Dread Goddesses. The Eumenides (Furies), whose sanctuary was a cave under the Areopagus. Would he have allowed all this, if he had had one jot or tittle of proof for the charges that he was trumping up against me? I cannot believe it. So then this is conclusive proof that he was seeking in mere wanton spite to drive me from my native land. 21.116 Then, when for all his desperate shifts he could bring none of these charges home to me, he turned informer against Aristarchus, aiming evidently at me. To pass over other incidents, when the Council was in session and was investigating the murder, Meidias came in and cried, Don’t you know the facts of the case, Councillors? Are you wasting time and groping blindly for the murderer, when you have him already in your hands? -meaning Aristarchus. Won’t you put him to death? Won’t you go to his house and arrest him? 21.117 Such was the language of this shameless and abandoned reptile, though only the day before he had stepped out of Aristarchus’s house, though up till then he had been as intimate with him as anyone could be, and though Aristarchus in the day of his prosperity had often importuned me to settle my suit with Meidias out of court. Now if he said this to the Council, believing that Aristarchus had actually committed the crime which has since proved his ruin, and trusting to the tale told by his accusers, yet even so the speech was unpardonable. 21.118 Upon friends, if they seem to have done something serious, one should impose the moderate penalty of withdrawing from their friendship; vengeance and prosecution should be left to their victims or their enemies. Yet in a man like Meidias this may be condoned. But if it shall appear that he chatted familiarly under the same roof with Aristarchus, as if he were perfectly innocent, and then uttered those damning charges against him in order to involve me in a false accusation, does he not deserve to be put to death ten times—no! ten thousand times over? 21.119 I am going to call the witnesses now present in court to prove that my version of the facts is correct; that on the day before he told that tale to the Council, he had entered Aristarchus’s house and had a conversation with him; that on the next day-and this, men of Athens, this for vileness is impossible to beat—he went into his house and sat as close to him as this, and put his hand in his, in the presence of many witnesses, after that speech in the Council in which he had called Aristarchus a murderer and said the most terrible things of him; that he invoked utter destruction on himself if he had said a word in his disparagement; that he never thought twice about his perjury, though there were people present who knew the truth, and he actually begged him to use his influence to bring about a reconciliation with me. 21.120 And yet, Athenians, must we not call it a crime, or rather an impiety, to say that a man is a murderer and then swear that one has never said this to reproach a man with murder and then sit in the same room with him? And if I let him off now and so stultify your vote of condemnation, I am an innocent man apparently; but if I proceed with my case, I am a deserter, I am accessory to a murder, I deserve extermination. I am quite of the contrary opinion, men of Athens . If I had let Meidias off, then I should have been a deserter from the cause of justice, and I might reasonably have charged myself with murder, for life would have been impossible for me, had I acted thus. 21.121 And now please call the witnesses to attest the truth of these statements also. The Witnesses We, Lysimachus of Alopece, Demeas of Sunium, Chares of Thoricus, Philemon of Sphetta, Moschus of Paeania, know that at the date when the indictment was presented to the Council charging Aristarchus, the son of Moschus, with the murder of Nicodemus, Meidias, who is now being tried at the suit of Demosthenes, for whom we appear, came before the Council and stated that Aristarchus, and no one else, was the murderer of Nicodemus, and he advised the Council to go to the house of Aristarchus and arrest him. This he said to the Council, having dined on the previous day with Aristarchus in our company. We also know that Meidias, when he came from the Council after making this statement, again entered the house of Aristarchus and shook hands with him and, invoking destruction on his own head, swore that he had said nothing in his disparagement before the Council, and he asked Aristarchus to reconcile Demosthenes to him. 21.122 Can anything go beyond that? Has there ever been, or could there ever be, baseness to compare with this of Meidias? He felt justified in informing against that unfortunate man, who had done him no wrong—I waive the fact that he was his friend—and at the same time he was begging him to bring about a reconciliation between himself and me; and not content with this, he spent money on an iniquitous attempt to procure my banishment as well as that of Aristarchus. '' None |
|
