Ovidij je nedvomno med vsemi avgustejskimi pesniki eden najbolj izrazitih oporečnikov v odnosu do avtokratskega režima cesarja Oktavijana Avgusta. Medtem ko je na primer Vergilij na Avgustov ukaz spremenil zaključni del druge knjige Georgik, tako da je izbrisal iz nje laudes Galli, ki ga je zadela damnatio memoriae, pa se Ovidij niti v svoji mladostni zbirki Amores niti v žalostinkah iz izgnanstva (Tristia) ni bal proslavljati tragično preminulega pesnika, ki velja za začetnika rimske elegije. Zato se ne smemo čuditi, da (...) je tudi Ovidija zadela nekaka damnatio memoriae, saj so morale biti vse njegove pesniške zbirke, ne le spotakljiva Ars amatoria, odstranjene iz rimskih javnih knjižnic (Tristia, 3.1.63–80). Tudi v največjo umetnino, Metamorfoze, je Ovidij zasejal nekaj domiselnih in iskrivih protiavgustovskih bodic. Tako je na primer že v eni prvih epizod, v zgodbi o preobrazbi Likaona, še izraziteje pa v zadnji epizodi, kjer katasterizmu, tj. preobrazbi Julija Cezarja v zvezdo in podobni preobrazbi, ki po smrti čaka Avgusta, dodal za sklep še zaostreno poanto, da bo njegovo ime po smrti povzdignjeno še višje, visoko nad (super!) zvezde (torej še višje kot Cezarjeva in Avgustova zvezda): super alta perennis / astra ferar (Metamorfoze, 15.875–6). (shrink)

To, Odisej, ti zamudnežu piše Penelopa tvoja.Nič ne odpiši nazaj! Rajši mi pridi ti sam!Troja, odurna danajskim ženám, poteptana na tleh je!Priam in Troja tegà sploh nista vredna bila.O, da takrat, ko s svojim brodovjem je plul proti Šparti,bedno vlačugar končal v divjih bi morskih vodáh!V postelji ne bi prezebala zdaj, zapuščena in sama,tarnala ne bi, kako dnevi počasi teko,tuhtala ne bi, kako noči naj predolge si krajšam,ne bi ob statvah bedé vdova si utrujala rok.

Prispevek je avtorica pripravila za pogovorni večer na Prvi gimnaziji Maribor 26. oktobra 2022.

Esej jest próbą przybliżenia ostatniej książki napisanej przez Rolanda Barthesa, która została właśnie przełożona na język polski. W dzienniku pisanym po śmierci matki, a zatytułowanym znamiennie Dziennikiem żałobnym, Barthes porusza kwestie żałoby, melancholii, depresji, odnosząc się zarówno do siebie i własnej straty, jak i podejmując dyskusję z Freudem, Lacanem czy psychoanalizą, zadając sobie przy tym pytanie, czy żałobnik po śmierci ukochanej osoby w ogóle chce wychodzić z żałoby i czy ma do tego jakiekolwiek prawo. Jest tu zatem ukazana ciekawa perspektywa (...) oglądu tego, co drzemie u samego jądra psychoanalizy, której wszak głównym zadaniem była praca z analizantem i - w trakcie godziny analitycznej - wyciąganie go z psychozy. Esej pokazuje również, co się dzieje z językiem żałobnika, w jaki sposób owo „pęknięcie”, którego nijak nie sposób zapełnić ani słowami, ani logosem, ani w końcu ciałem, które pozostaje, gdy ukochany umiera. I właśnie dziennik pisany jest takim językiem: pękniętym, bez żadnego celu, pozbawionym sensu. Owe fragmenty, którymi Barthesa zapełniał swój świat po śmierci matki, stanowią niezwykły dowód doświadczenia straty. (shrink)

Autor podejmuje zagadnienie przypadkowości i możliwości generowania losowego zachowań. Wskazuje, iż możliwe jest określenie i nauczanie tzw. nieprzewidywalnego rytmu w odniesieniu do sytuacji potocznych.

About a year before the pandemic struck, personal archives of Anton Sovre (1885–1963) were rediscovered, and they eventually made their way to the National and University Library in Ljubljana. During the fifties, Anton Sovre was the undisputed éminence grise of the field of classics in Slovenia and among the new sources now available to researchers is an essay on “Perspective Development of Classical Philology” from 1959. The document was written in the tradition of the Five-Year Plans, and its rhetoric is (...) often amusing. Its content, however, was written mainly by Sovre’s best student. At that time, Kajetan Gantar (1930–2022) had already defended his PhD thesis on Homer. Due to political reasons, he was initially blocked from getting a university position. However, the situation changed somewhat during the thaw in the sixties, when he could finally get the position of lecturer, and he eventually became the leading classical scholar and translator in the country and Sovre’s successor. His proposal for the future of the discipline shows strategic thinking, which was confirmed by the decades that followed. (shrink)

Liutprand Kremonski je bil škof, diplomat in zgodovinar langobardskega porekla, ki je deloval v sredini 10. stoletja. Njegova zgodovinopisna dela Antapodosis, Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana in Historia Ottonis so nadvse pomembna za poznavanje politične zgodovine 10. stoletja, zlasti za dogajanje na Apeninskem polotoku. Hkrati pa velja tudi obratno: literarna vrednost njegovih del v veliki meri izhaja iz pogosto duhovite, mestoma pa tudi izrecno napadalne kritike političnih nasprotnikov in nekdanjih zaveznikov.

O Katulu vemo zelo malo zanesljivega in celo večino tega je treba razbrati iz njegovega lastnega literarnega dela. To je vedno tvegan pristop, ki mu kritika danes večinoma nasprotuje (četudi je kritika vedno spremenljiva in znaki teh sprememb so že v zraku). Toda po drugi strani vemo kar precej o zadnjem stoletju rimske republike, o času torej, v katerem je Katul preživel svoje kratko, a intenzivno življenje, in o številnih javnih osebnostih, tako iz sveta književnosti kot politike, ki jih je (...) štel med svoje prijatelje ali sovražnike. Tako kot Byron, ki je bil Katulu v nekaterih pogledih podoben, se je gibal v krogih visoke družbe, imel je radikalna stališča, ne da bi se aktivno politično udejstvoval, ter je pisal poezijo, ki daje vtis, da je nastala kot odziv na družbeno dogajanje, literarne tokove ali zasebne škandale takratne aristokracije. (shrink)

Na poti do sem sem razmišljal, kako začeti to srečanje – in bolj sem razmišljal, bolj se mi je zdelo absurdno, da bi uvodoma predstavljal nekoga, ki ga vsi poznate. Pač pa lahko povem anekdoto, za katero mogoče ne veste vsi. V Društvu za antične in humanistične študije smo predlani prišli na idejo, da bi profesorja Gantarja predlagali za neko drugo nagrado, ki je imela med obrazci tudi obrazec za soglasje predlaganega. Naredil sem osnovnošolsko napako ter pisal profesorju, če ga (...) lahko izpolni in podpiše. On pa mi je odpisal, da je nagrad v življenju dobil preveč in da prosi, naj ga ne predlagamo. Eksplicitno izraženi zahtevi se je težko upreti. Smo pa v društvu tudi poznavalci Otona Župančiča, ki je, kot veste, napisal, da gre osel enkrat na led, »baš to je oslovstvo«, in da modrec ve, kako je »danes pal«, jutri bo pa plesal po njem. Ko smo tako profesorja predlagali naslednjič, tokrat za Prešernovo nagrado, ga nismo nič spraševali. Na tem mestu bi se zato rad zahvalil Miljani Cunta s Slovenske matice, ki je vse to koordinirala, in SAZU, ki je predlog takoj podprla; resnično sem vesel, da ob tej priložnosti lahko sediva tukaj. (shrink)

[Aquinas and Cajetan on the analogy of names].

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:This volume collects seven articles of Carlo Paolazzi, O.F.M., previously published in journals and congress proceedings between 1996 and 2004, each of them dealing with the Writings of Francis. The essays are not arranged chronologically but move from more general to more specific studies on the Writings of Francis of Assisi. The titles of the essays included are: 1) The Birth of the Writings and Constitution of the Canon (...) ; 2) Francis, Theology and the Letter to brother Anthony ; 3) Anthony cites Francis: the Epilogue of the Sunday Sermons and the Early Rule XVI ; 4) The Writings between Francis and his secretaries: a Knot to be Untied ; 5) Concerning the Autographs of brother Francis: Doubts, Verifications and Confirmations ; 6) Concerning the Authenticity of the Writings of Francis to the "Poor Ladies" ; 7) The Lesser Brothers and Books: Concerning the Exegesis of "the books necessary to fulfill their office" and "Those who do not know how to read" . Each of the essays displays a careful methodology and appreciation for the evangelical content of the texts.The first essay deals with the establishment of the "canon" of Francis's writings in which the author demonstrates that the writings are born and develop from Francis's relationship with the Word of God. In this context, "writing" takes on the character of an "essential moment" in Francis's relationship with the Word , with God and with the brotherhood. This explains for Paolazzi, the passion with which Francis recommends the writings to those to whom they are addressed.The second and third essays are related to Anthony of Padua and the writings. The second essay deals with the content and authenticity of the Letter to Anthony, included by Kajetan Esser in the canon of Francis's writings. Paolazzi argues that the expression, "Brother Anthony my bishop" goes back to Francis himself. He suggests that Anthony's request for permission to teach reflects the concern of the novice who had permission from his minister to have a breviary, but was uncomfortable and needed Francis's explicit permission , a characteristic of the tension in the brotherhood upon Francis's return from Egypt in 1220. The conditions Francis places on the teaching of Anthony reflect Francis's concern that the Word of God not be approached purely from an intellectual perspective, but rather as a Word which must transform life. The third essay attempts to demonstrate that the Epilogue to Anthony's Sunday Sermons integrates sections of chapter 17 of the Early Rule. Paolazzi concludes this careful lexical study with the affirmation that Anthony had the Early Rule's exhortation to preachers in chapter 17 before his eyes as he concluded his Opus Evangeliorum .In the fourth essay Paolazzi tackles the question of the role played by secretaries in the production of the Writings of Francis. Scholars, including Esser, have suggested that because of his health and/or because of his status as "illiterate," Francis depended on secretaries to put his thoughts on paper. Paolazzi approaches the question by citing a saying attributed to Francis from the Mirror of Perfection . That this saying goes back to the historical Francis Paolazzi concludes based on both the content and the fact that it reflects Francis's literal approach to the Gospel. The saying states that Francis wanted no one to call him good, father or master because of the teaching of Christ in the Gospel who said that only God should be addressed with these titles . He then studies the usage and appearance of these three terms in the Writings of Francis, which confirm a consistent usage in accord with this saying. This demonstrates that the Writings reflect the "speech" of Francis and not simply his conceptual thought. Paolazzi considers that "in the Writings religious thought and the verbal lexicon of evangelical inspiration respond one to.. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:1. The present state of the questionEsser's turnaboutIn his collection of studies on the writings of Francis, published in 1973, Kajetan Esser, the acknowledged master of Franciscan textual criticism, wrote that in verse 13 of Francis's Letter to the Clergy there exists "a striking difference, that is difficult to explain," between the oldest manuscript which originally belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Subiaco and was written before 1238, (...) and the famous manuscript Assisi 338 which originated between 1250 and 1260. However, Esser considered this difference "a too weak basis to accept a double version of the Letter to the Clergy." It is therefore somewhat strange, to say the least, that in his textcritical edition of the writings of Francis, published only three years later in 1976, the same Esser concludes, without any further explanation, that the differences are "so serious that one has to accept two versions of one and the same letter."Esser's conclusion immediately raises the question about which one of the two versions would be the first. Esser opted for the Subiaco manuscript as the first version and the Assisi manuscript as the second. An important reason for Esser's option was the fact that the Assisi manuscript of the Letter to the Clergy added in verse 13 that the clerics have to observe all of these matters "according to the precepts of the Lord and the constitutions of holy mother Church ." With "the constitutions of holy mother Church" Francis referred, according to Esser, to the papal bull Sane cum olim, issued by pope Honorius III on November 22, 1219. And as this bull, in Esser's view, also "contained references to the will of God as laid down in Holy Scripture," Francis decided to insert both a reference to the papal bull and to "the precepts of the Lord" in a new, second version of the letter. This would imply that Francis, who in the summer of 1219 left for Egypt, wrote the second version only after his return from the Middle East in the spring of 1220. For it was only then that he came to know about the existence of the papal bull issued during his absence from Italy, and could refer to it in order to strengthen his appeal to the clergy to show greater reverence for the Eucharist. At the same time, however, the absence of these important additions in the first version implies that this version was written before the papal bull of Honorius was issued and thus also before Francis's departure for the Middle East in the summer of 1219.Present reception of Esser's theoryThe latest English translation, published in 1999, follows Esser and contains a separate translation of both versions, the first of which was written before 1219 and the second in 1220. In the most recent German translation Leonhard Lehmann acknowledges the existence of two versions but the differences between the two are so small that it suffices to print only the text of the oldest manuscript, that of Subiaco, written before 1238. He agrees, though, that the addition constitutiones sanctae matris Ecclesiae in the second version refers to the papal bull Sane cum olim and that the earlier version may have been written before 1219. The revised edition of the Fonti Francescane still follows Esser's theory as regards the existence of two versions, the early date of the first version and the reference of the second version to Sane cum olim. However, in a lengthy article on Francis's letters, C. Paolazzi, the author of the introduction to the Letters in FF, revised his previous opinion in 2008. He still accepts the existence of two versions but dates both after Sane cum olim and therewith also after Francis's return from the Middle East in 1220. His main argument is that theimplicit quotations.. (shrink)