Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Anabasis
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

THE IDEA OF MAN AND DIVINITY IN ANTIQUITY PART II: Μέγιστον τῶν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον διαδεξαμένων τὴν ἀρχὴν βασιλέα: Arrian’s Judgment of Seleucus I Nicator (Anab. 7. 22. 5)

100%
Burliga B.
Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica
|
2014
|
vol. 15(4)
PL
The article deals with Arrian of Nicomedia’s high estimation of the king Seleucus (calledNicator), a former officer in Alexander the Great’s army. Seleucus had created the greatest– second to Alexander, in fact – empire and this is the main criterion by which he isappreciated by the Bithynian historian and philosopher. It is the same criterion that Arrianhad adopted in evaluating Alexander’s achievements. ‘Greatness’ constituted thus, to putit briefly, an old measure by which kings, commanders and eminent men were rated byGreek historians.
2

Źródła Diodora do dziejów wyprawy dziesięciu tysięcy

81%
Głogowski P.
Roczniki Humanistyczne
|
2019
|
vol. 67
|
issue 3: Filologia klasyczna
23-44
PL
Wiemy, że Anabasis Ksenofonta nie była jedynym przekazem współczesnym poświęconym wyprawie Cyrusa Młodszego. Świadectwa te jednak zaginęły i znane są nam jedynie dzięki tradycji pośredniej. Jak się powszechnie uważa, opowieść Diodora o wyprawie Cyrusa (14, 19-31; 14, 37, 1-4) opiera się na zaginionej pracy Efora z Kyme. Przekaz ten różni się jednak w pewnej mierze od opowieści Ksenofonta. Rodzi się zatem pytanie o źródła, z których korzystał sam Efor. W niniejszym artykule wykazane zostają zarówno różnice, jak i podobieństwa występujące między zachowanymi przekazami. Omówione zostają również najważniejsze poglądy uczonych współczesnych dotyczące tej sprawy. Okoliczności, które mogłyby świadczyć o wykorzystaniu tradycji odmiennej od Anabasis, są w istocie raczej drugorzędne i w wielu przypadkach dają się one przekonująco wytłumaczyć w inny sposób niż wykorzystanie przez Efora jakichś innych źródeł niż świadectwo Ksenofonta i Ktezjasza. Mimo różnic językowych występujących między Anabasis a tekstem Bibliotheke, u Diodora spotykamy wyrażenia bliźniaczo przypominające te Ksenofonta. Biorąc pod uwagę podobieństwa obu tych opowieści, można zatem założyć, że głównymi źródłami, których wpływ dostrzec można u Efora i Diodora, jest przekaz Ksenofonta uzupełniany wiadomościami z dzieła Ktezjasza.
EN
The Anabasis of Xenophon was not the only account of the expedition of Cyrus. However, the other accounts were lost, and they are known today only thanks to the intermediate tradition. As it is thought, the narrative of Diodorus on the expedition of Cyrus (14, 19-31; 14, 37, 1-4) is based on the lost work of Ephorus of Cyme. It is necessary to state that this account differs to some extent from the narrative of Xenophon. Therefore, the question is what the sources exploited by Ephorus are. The aim of the current work is to present the selection of the most significant differences and similarities between the extent accounts. Furthermore, the most important views concerning this issue are discussed. The evidence which could suggest that the Anabasis is not a source of Ephorus is rather of secondary importance and in many cases could be interpreted otherwise. Despite the linguistic differences between the Anabasis and the Bibliothece, we can notice that in Diodorus there are expressions which resemble greatly these of Xenophon. By considering the similarities between these two narratives, we can assume that the main sources which could be identified in the story of Ephorus and Diodorus are the account of Xenophon supplemented by the information taken from the work of Ctesias.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wyprawa Cyrusa i odwrót Dziesięciu Tysięcy w przekazie Diodora (14.19–31; 37.1–4): Przekład i komentarz

75%
Głogowski P.
Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae
|
2018
|
vol. 28
|
issue 1
EN
The author presents the first Polish translation of the section of the work by Diodorus Siculus devoted to the expedition of Cyrus the Younger and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand (Diod. 14.19–31; 37.1–4). The translation is supplemented by the commentary, which focuses mainly on the problem of the sources exploited by the direct source of Diodorus in this part of his work – Ephorus of Cyme. Therefore, the basic aim of the commentary is to display the similarities and differences between the narrative of Diodorus and the Anabasis of Xenophon and other sources, e.g. Persica by Ctesias of Cnidus.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ctesias and the Importance of His Writings Revisited

72%
Almagor E.
Electrum
|
2012
|
vol. 19
9-40
EN
Following the recent attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of Ctesias and the information given in his works, this paper proposes to understand certain of the seemingly fanciful details that were associated with the physician and his writings. It tries to shed some light on several uncertainties connected with Ctesias (i.e., his sojourn in Persia) and the Persica (i.e., date, original style and sources of imagery). It argues that the pedestrian lists included in the work might have been later interpolations and that the minor works circulating under Ctesias’ name might have been either sections of the Persica that were taken out to be presented as stand-alone volumes or else falsely attributed to him. The paper addresses the Indica and puts forward several possibilities concerning its relation with the Persica. The influence of Ctesias on the author Deinon is examined, and in the appendix the impact of the Persica on Xenophon’s Anabasis is analyzed.
5

Author, Narrator, and Literary Character:A Study of Xenophon’s "Anabasis"

72%
Hajduk J.
Classica Cracoviensia
|
2013
|
issue 16
45-62
EN
The article discusses Xenophon’s Anabasis. Its main aim is to present some new research perspectives for Classical Studies. It analyzes such aspects of Xenophon’s opus as author, implied author, narrator, narratee and narrative, as well as literary character and the human context. The article is a sort of introduction to narratological studies, concerning classical narrative texts, which has not so far been thoroughly tested for its inner structure.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.