Le fonti del De orthographia di Cassiodoro: modalità di ricezione e fruizione

In his treatise De orthographia Cassiodorus utilized eight ancient sources distributed in twelve chapters, five of which (Annaeus Cornutus, Curtius Valerianus, Papirianus, Eutyches and Caesellius Vindex) have been completely lost; however three of them have been preserved in a direct tradition (being that of Velius Longus, Martyrius and Priscian in the series of Grammatici Latini), and these can be compared with the text published by Cassiodorus, to assess the way in which this author had assimilated and treated them: in particular the works of Velius Longus and Priscian have been extracted on the basis of a drastic selection principle, and then elaborated again with great liberty acquiring at times also proper creative and perceptive autonomy (although this is not devoid of mistakes); Martyrius’s text instead has been preserved in an almost integral form, but contains mistakes by the author and innovations of great interest.Stoppacci Patrizia. Le fonti del De orthographia di Cassiodoro: modalità di ricezione e fruizione. In: Latin vulgaire – latin tardif IX. Actes du IXe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Lyon 2-6 septembre 2009. Lyon : Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 2012. pp. 739-751. (Collection de la Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen ancien. Série philologique, 49

Le fonti del De orthographia di Cassiodoro: modalità di ricezione e fruizione

In his treatise De orthographia Cassiodorus utilized eight ancient sources distributed in twelve chapters, five of which (Annaeus Cornutus, Curtius Valerianus, Papirianus, Eutyches and Caesellius Vindex) have been completely lost; however three of them have been preserved in a direct tradition (being that of Velius Longus, Martyrius and Priscian in the series of Grammatici Latini), and these can be compared with the text published by Cassiodorus, to assess the way in which this author had assimilated and treated them: in particular the works of Velius Longus and Priscian have been extracted on the basis of a drastic selection principle, and then elaborated again with great liberty acquiring at times also proper creative and perceptive autonomy (although this is not devoid of mistakes); Martyrius’s text instead has been preserved in an almost integral form, but contains mistakes by the author and innovations of great interest.Stoppacci Patrizia. Le fonti del De orthographia di Cassiodoro: modalità di ricezione e fruizione. In: Latin vulgaire – latin tardif IX. Actes du IXe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Lyon 2-6 septembre 2009. Lyon : Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 2012. pp. 739-751. (Collection de la Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen ancien. Série philologique, 49

Madonne. Regine, principesse e nobildonne nella letteratura medioevale

I contributi raccolti nel volume indagano alcuni, fondamentali aspetti della regalità femminile, mostrando la ricchezza delle possibilità esplorative legate al tema

Chapter 2 - Philology’s roommate: hermeneutics, antiquity, and the seminar

This chapter starts from the extraordinary historical circumstance that Schleiermacher and Schlegel, a theologian and classical scholar and philosopher, who both had a huge influence on the development of their disciplines and the institution of the university, shared lodgings as students. It explores their relationship, and the importance of it for their subsequent careers, and expands from this to consider how the seminary, as dominant theological educational institution, was overtaken in the university by the seminar – to explore how both educational forums show similar negotiations of the dynamic between personal, affective relationships and methodological rigour. It thus raises questions about how the public and the private, emotion and objectivity became values of scholarship between philology and theology in the universit

Chapter 2 - Philology’s roommate: hermeneutics, antiquity, and the seminar

This chapter starts from the extraordinary historical circumstance that Schleiermacher and Schlegel, a theologian and classical scholar and philosopher, who both had a huge influence on the development of their disciplines and the institution of the university, shared lodgings as students. It explores their relationship, and the importance of it for their subsequent careers, and expands from this to consider how the seminary, as dominant theological educational institution, was overtaken in the university by the seminar – to explore how both educational forums show similar negotiations of the dynamic between personal, affective relationships and methodological rigour. It thus raises questions about how the public and the private, emotion and objectivity became values of scholarship between philology and theology in the universit