Chaeremon is a shadowy figure in early fourth century tragedy, but one of considerable interest. I attempt here an appraisal of his work, in so far as the fragments and the ancient testimonia allow.I. BibliographyText of the fragments: Nauck, TGF 781–92; P. Hibeh ii 224.The only general assessments of Chaeremon of any extent date from the nineteenth century with its more expansive approach. Best is G. Bernhardy, Grundriss der griechischen Literatur ii 2 61–3, who there refers to the (...) ‘sorgfältige Monographie’ of H. Bartsch, De Chaeremone poeta tragico. Older literature is listed by A. Dieterich s.v. ‘Chairemon’, PW iii 2, 2025.Since Bernhardy the space accorded Chaeremon not just in general works but even in detailed studies of tragedy diminishes sharply. He still warrants a page or so in A. and M. Croiset, Histoire de la littérature grecque iii 402 f.; in Lesky he gets a brief mention, Geschichte 680. He is not mentioned by name in Lesky's Tragische Dichtung, and only in connection with fr. 2 by Pohlenz, Griechische Tragödie 407; he is ignored, for example, by Kitto, Greek Tragedy. (shrink)

Critical essays, editions and translations, commentaries, apparatuses, and bibliographies of: Manilius (pp. 1-688), Musonius Rufus (689-943), Annaeus Cornutus (945-1295), Chaeremon of Alexandria (1297-1359), Persius and Thrasea Paetus (1361-1515), Lucan (1517-2207), Juvenal (2209-2553); Appendix: Mara bar Serapion (2555-2598). Philosophical key concepts of the Roman Stoics (2599-2626).

Editions of, translations of, and essays and commentaries on: Ancient Stoics (pp. 1-107), Apollodorus of Athens (pp. 111-217), Crates of Mallus (pp. 219-327), Palaephatus (pp. 329-365), authors De Incredibilibus (pp. 367-400), Conon (pp. 401-442), Cicero ND II-III (pp. 443-483), Cornutus (pp. 485-560), Heraclitus Grammaticus (pp. 561-669), Chaeremon (pp. 671-707), Ps. Plutarch, De Vita et Poesi Homeri (pp. 709-820), Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus (pp. 821-832); Cebetis Tabula (pp. 833-860), Philo of Byblus (pp. 861-896); Appendix: Derveni Papyrus (pp. 897-944).

This cutting-edge monograph has extensively demonstrated that allegoresis was part and parcel of philosophy, and more specifically a tool of philosophical theology, in Stoicism and Middle and Neoplatonism, “pagan” and Christian alike. Many Stoics and ‘pagan’ Platonists applied philosophical allegoresis to theological myths, and this operation provided the link between theology and physics (in the case of the Stoics) or metaphysics (in the case of the Platonists). Many Christian Platonists in turn, starting from Clement and Origen, applied philosophical allegoresis to (...) the theological discourse in Scripture. [Arguments in this monograph, and further in more recent essays in English in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Jahrbuch für Religionsphilosophie, Mnemosyne Supplements, the Brill Companion to the Reception of Homer, etc.]. This research is also extremely relevant to the intertwining of philosophy and religion in antiquity and late antiquity. It investigates one of the ways in which religion became part of the philosophical discourse, and at the same time philosophy became indispensable to religion, be this traditional “pagan” mythology and cults or newly expanding Christianity. Monograph in nine chapters plus bibliography. Chaps. I (before Stoicism), II (Ancient Stoa), III (Apollodorus and Crates of Mallus), IV (Palaephatus, his followers, and Conon), V (Cicero, Philodemus, Lucretius and other Epicureans; Philo and Josephus), VI (Cornutus and other Roman Stoics; Cornutus and Heraclitus: a comparison), VII (Chaeremon, Cebetis Tabula, Ecphantus, De vita et poësi Homeri, Plutarch), and IX (conclusions) and Bibliography by I. Ramelli; chap. VIII (Heraclitus Rhetor) by G. Lucchetta. Pp. 550. (shrink)