Incorporation of Aegilops biuncialis chromosomes into wheat and their identification using fluorescent in situ hybridization

The aim of the study was to select Aegilops biuncialis chromosomes from the progeny of the BC2 and BC3 generations of the wheat xAe. biuncialis hybrids, which differ from the chromosomes 2M, 3M, 7M, 3U and 5U found in the wheat-Ae. biuncails addition lines produced earlier in Martonvásár. Besides the above mentioned addition lines exists a 5U, 6U double disomic addition line. Chromosomes of the progeny of the BC2 and BC3 generations and the 5U, 6U double disomic addition line were counted with Feulgen method, while alien (Ae. biuncialis) chromosomes were identified with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using pSc119.2 and AFA family DNA probes. During the present experiment it was found that the transmission percentage of the chromosome 5U is 67,55% in the progeny of the BC2 and BC3 generations, while in the 5U, 6U disomic addition line chromosome 5U showed 100% transmission. Besides the chromosomes incorporated in the wheat-Ae. biuncialis addition lines produced in Martonvásár, some plants containing the chromosomes 1U, 2U, 4U, 6U, 7U, 5M and 6M without the presence of the chromosome 5U exist. These plants are potential sources of the production of new wheat-Ae. biuncialis addition lines

„ante alias venit in mentem […] Iohanna, serenissima Ierusalem et Sicilie regina” Egy ajánlás tervezett és tényleges címzettje – Johanna királynő és Andrea Acciaiuoli szerepe a De mulieribus clarisban

Johanna királynő és Andrea Acciaiuoli szerepe a De mulieribus clarisba

Vocavere eam preterea multis nominibus : a boccacciói Ops nyomában

Ops istennő már az ókori irodalmi hagyományban is – mind névalakjait, mind a hozzá társított funkciókat tekintve – rendkívül komplex istennőként van jelen. A bőség, a gazdagság, a termékenység és a Föld istenségeként számos néven említik őt (többek között Opis, Rhea, Tellus vagy leginkább Cybelé), és ezzel párhuzamosan különféle szerepeket tulajdonítanak neki, amelyek között egyértelmű distinkció nem születik, sem az antikvitásban, sem a középkorban. Tanulmányomban azt kívánom bemutatni, hogyan értelmezi mindezeket az Opshoz köthető, antik irodalmi elemeket a középkori hagyomány szűrőjén keresztül Boccaccio. Milyen attribútumok és interpretációk jutnak el hozzá, és forrásai alapján hogyan alkotja meg az istennőről szóló leírásait a De mulieribus claris és a Genealogia deorum gentilium soraiban? Milyen ellentmondásokba keveredik a filológus és a narrátor Boccaccio és ezek vajon feloldhatók-e? Ops alakja Boccaccio interpretációjában tehát szemléletes példája lehet annak, milyen kihívásokkal találja magát szemben a filológia hajnalán egy, az elődeitől származó ismeretek feldolgozására törekvő szerző. Ops can be found as a very complex goddess in the ancient literary tradition, considering either the variations of her name or the functions associated to her. She was named, as the goddess of prosperity, wealth, fertility and Earth, in different ways, e.g. Opis, Rhea, Tellus or mostly Cybele, and in line with this, different roles were attributed to her, among which no obvious distinctions were reached neither in the Antiquity, nor in the Middle Ages. In my essay I try to show how Boccaccio interpreted the elements of the ancient literary through the filter of the Medieval tradition. What kind of attributes and interpretations did he received and on the basis of the sources how he created his narratives on Ops in De mulieribus claris and Genealogia deorum gentilium? What kind of contradictions did Boccaccio the philologist and narrator get into and can these ones be unlocked? So the figure of Ops in Boccaccio’s interpretation can be a picturesque example to see what kind of challenges had to face an author, trying to elaborate ideas deriving from his ancestors, at the dawn of philology

Szempontok a De mulieribus claris elemzéséhez

Boccaccio had proved by his vernacular and Latin prosaic works as well that he merited a place among the three crowns of Italian literature. By De mulieribus claris he created the first collection of women’s biographies in the Western European literature, which work testifies such a complexity worth for analysing. This paper presents the various aspects I needed to apply during the analysis of the common goddesses of Genealogia and De mulieribus – e. g. the problem of the readers, the utilized literary sources, the narrative techniques and even the tradition called Euhemerism – to understand De mulieribus itself and due to these points of view to identify the answers that Boccaccio gave to the challenges of the Medieval and Renaissance interpretational traditions

Vocavere eam preterea multis nominibus: a boccacciói Ops nyomában

Ops can be found as a very complex goddess in the ancient literary tradition, considering either the variations of her name or the functions associated to her. She was named, as the goddess of prosperity, wealth, fertility and Earth, in different ways, e.g. Opis, Rhea, Tellus or mostly Cybele, and in line with this, different roles were attributed to her, among which no obvious distinctions were reached neither in the Antiquity, nor in the Middle Ages. In my essay I try to show how Boccaccio interpreted the elements of the ancient literary through the filter of the Medieval tradition. What kind of attributes and interpretations did he received and on the basis of the sources how he created his narratives on Ops in De mulieribus claris and Genealogia deorum gentilium? What kind of contradictions did Boccaccio the philologist and narrator get into and can these ones be unlocked? So the figure of Ops in Boccaccio’s interpretation can be a picturesque example to see what kind of challenges had to face an author, trying to elaborate ideas deriving from his ancestors, at the dawn of philology.Ops istennő már az ókori irodalmi hagyományban is – mind névalakjait, mind a hozzá társított funkciókat tekintve – rendkívül komplex istennőként van jelen. A bőség, a gazdagság, a termékenység és a Föld istenségeként számos néven említik őt (többek között Opis, Rhea, Tellus vagy leginkább Cybelé), és ezzel párhuzamosan különféle szerepeket tulajdonítanak neki, amelyek között egyértelmű distinkció nem születik, sem az antikvitásban, sem a középkorban. Tanulmányomban azt kívánom bemutatni, hogyan értelmezi mindezeket az Opshoz köthető, antik irodalmi elemeket a középkori hagyomány szűrőjén keresztül Boccaccio. Milyen attribútumok és interpretációk jutnak el hozzá, és forrásai alapján hogyan alkotja meg az istennőről szóló leírásait a De mulieribus claris és a Genealogia deorum gentilium soraiban? Milyen ellentmondásokba keveredik a filológus és a narrátor Boccaccio és ezek vajon feloldhatók-e? Ops alakja Boccaccio interpretációjában tehát szemléletes példája lehet annak, milyen kihívásokkal találja magát szemben a filológia hajnalán egy, az elődeitől származó ismeretek feldolgozására törekvő szerző

Ut clare mulieres ampliores sint numero: Boccaccio Minerva-interpretációi

Boccaccio, standing between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, uses specific methods of systematization and techniques when he decides to write (even many times if necessary) the biographies of the goddesses of Greco-Roman mythology. What influences his methods? Is it important which description of a goddess into which work of his – Genealogia deorum gentilium or De mulieribus claris or both – he intends to insert? What kind of literary sources does he rely on while writing these biographies? My paper starts a reckless „Minerva-counting” and describes the problem through the figure of one of the most important goddesses of the ancient culture

(Isten)nők és Boccaccio

Giovanni Boccaccio, writing his prosaic works in Latin and researching antique and medieval literary sources, as a philologist faces the question of systematizing and evaluating of Greek-Roman goddesses: were they really goddesses or not? How can he reveal his point of view to his readers? What kind of concept stands out in Genealogia deorum gentilium, and how consciously and consistently he uses that later in De mulieribus claris? What are the similarities and the differences between the portraits of goddesses in these two works? This is a maze of Cereses and Minervas, and the reader himself has to find the way out of it