In an article published thirteen years ago, I tried to break new ground by showing that the texts transmitted under the titleCataleptonas the work of Virgil can be seen to form an elaborately arranged and highly allusive book of verse written by a single author. This latter, I argued, was identical with the anonymous poet who, in an epilogue, represents the preceding poems as the juvenilia of the author later known for hisBucolics,GeorgicsandAeneidand, consequently, is himself speaking in the alleged early (...) works asVirgil impersonator. This anonymous poet, however, cannot rightly be labelled a literary forger, since he repeatedly and quite unmistakably recalls each of Virgil's threeoperaas well as other texts written after the year 19b.c. Evidently, then, he is inviting his readers to take part in a literarylusus, one in which they are expected to be familiar not only with the texts ofBucolics,GeorgicsandAeneidbut also with the life of the man who wrote them. The fiction of a young Virgil is created, one who wrote his first poems—the verses referred to in the epilogue aselementaandrudis Calliope—primarily under the influence of Catullus, the said poems being, with the exception ofCatal.12 and 16, epigrams. My interpretation has borne fruit, with Irene Peirano and Markus Stachon each devoting, in 2012 and 2014 respectively, a monograph to this approach and offering what are often very thorough analytical readings of the poems as the creations of aVirgil impersonator. However, neither of these two Latinists has considered one particular interpretative aspect, which I myself had only been able to introduce very briefly into my paper: the recognition that, as many more recent studies have now further corroborated, Roman poetry books were designed for linear, sequential reading, that they have, as it were, a story to tell. Peirano, moreover, disregards in her study the threePriapeapositioned in editions before the other fifteen epigrams and shown there with their own separate numbering. In the manuscripts, however, the titleCataleptonrefers without exception to a unit comprising the threePriapeaand the fifteen epigrams. The titlePriapea, found in the catalogue of the Murbach manuscripts and in some codices, is always attached solely to the poemQuid hoc noui est?In theVita Suetoniana-Donatiana, the termsCatalepton,PriapeaandEpigrammatawere evidently used as three different titles; the author may not have seen thatCataleptonis the title of all the poems. Furthermore, I should like to point out that, counted together, ‘Virgil's’Priapeaand epigrams come to a total of seventeen poems and so match precisely both the total of seventeen books in the real Virgil's three works and the total number of Horace's epodes, of the poems, that is, which the not-so-real Virgil quite conspicuously evokes in his own penultimate poem. More significantly, however, a sequential reading of thePriapea et Epigrammatacan in fact build a watertight case for taking the texts to be, as it were, a composite whole, and that is what I intend to argue in the rest of the article. (shrink)

Die im 1./2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. von einem Anonymus verfaßte Vita Aesopi (= VA), eine „fiktionale Biographie mit Elementen des komisch-realistischen Romans“ (2), wurde zu Beginn der Neuzeit in aller Welt dadurch bekannt, daß sie in lateinischer und deutscher Übersetzung als einer von mehreren Texten in Heinrich Steinhöwels Esopus von 1476/77 erschien, einem „Bestseller“ der Frühdruckzeit. Aber das griechische Original des VA-Textes, der im 16. Jahrhundert z.B. den Autoren des Lazarillo de Tormes und des Till Eulenspiegel wichtige Anregungen gegeben haben (...) dürfte, entsprach in seinem Wortlaut nicht dem kaiserzeitlichen Text – dieser ist uns zwar nicht erhalten, aber die Version des Codex 397 in der New Yorker Pierpont Morgan Library (G) steht ihm wahrscheinlich sehr nahe –, sondern stellte eine Epitome der Urfassung dar, die recensio Westermanniana (= rec. W). Diese Version versuchte Ben Edwin Perry durch Kollation von 11 Handschriften zu rekonstruieren (Aesopica, Urbana, IL, 1952, 81-107), obwohl er bemerkte, daß innerhalb der Kodizes, auch wenn sie in der Wiedergabe des Stoffs einander mehr ähneln als G, wiederum zwei Fassungen zu unterscheiden sind, repräsentiert durch die beiden Handschriftengruppen MORNLFVW und BPS. Da nun der in Steinhöwels Ausgabe publizierte und von neuzeitlichen Autoren mehrfach rezipierte Text der VA – es handelt sich dabei um die lateinische Übersetzung des Rinuccio da Castiglione d'Arezzo – in griechischer Sprache in einem Kodex stand, der als Ahn von P gelten darf, ist es sehr verdienstlich, daß K. die eine der beiden Fassungen von rec. W, die so besonders wirkungsmächtig war – sie ist wahrscheinlich ins frühe 6. Jahrhundert zu datieren, und ihr sind außer B, P und S das Kodexblatt Th und die erst 1991 aufgetauchte Hs. A zuzuordnen –, als selbständigen Text der VA herausgegeben und zugleich sowohl literaturgeschichtlich als auch sprachwissenschaftlich analysiert hat. (shrink)

Schon von Kaiser Augustus als Aufforderung zur Unsittlichkeit missverstanden, wurde Ovids "Liebeskunst" bis weit ins 20. Jahrhundert hinein als frivoler Scherz gedeutet und meist dementsprechend übersetzt. Niklas Holzbergs schlichte Wiedergabe des Originals vermeidet die plüschige Stammtischerotik der alten Übersetzungen.

This chapter discusses some concerns regarding the effects of enhancement technologies on autonomy and authenticity, insofar as authenticity relates to autonomy. As a preliminary, it describes how enhancement and autonomy should be understood in this context along with some examples of enhancement. The chapter moves on to explain why enhancement can promote autonomy. Three types of concerns regarding the effect of enhancement technologies on autonomy are raised: (i) that medical technologies should not be used to enhance autonomy, since this is (...) not the proper use of such technologies; (ii) that some enhancement technologies are inimical to our authenticity; and (iii) that the widespread use of some enhancement technologies have negative overall consequences on people's autonomy. Different kinds of enhancements typically arouse different kinds of concerns as regards autonomy. These include cognitive, mood, physical, and aesthetic enhancement. (shrink)

Language Lost and Found takes as its starting-point Iris Murdoch's claim that "we have suffered a general loss of concepts." By means of a thorough reading of Iris Murdoch's philosophy in the light of this difficulty, it offers a detailed examination of the problem of linguistic community and the roots of the thought that some philosophical problems arise due to our having lost the sense of our own language. But it is also a call for a radical reconsideration of how (...) philosophy and literature relate to each other on a general level and in Murdoch's authorship in particular. (shrink)

Looking back on the many prophets who tried to predict the future as if it were predetermined, at first sight any forward-looking activity is reminiscent of making predictions with a crystal ball. In contrast to fortune tellers, today’s exercises do not predict, but try to show different paths that an open future could take. A key motivation to undertake forward-looking activities is broadening the information basis for decision-makers to help them actively shape the future in a desired way. Experts, laypeople, (...) or stakeholders may have different sets of values and priorities with regard to pending decisions on any issue related to the future. Therefore, considering and incorporating their views can, in the best case scenario, lead to more robust decisions and strategies. However, transferring this plurality into a form that decision-makers can consider is a challenge in terms of both design and facilitation of participatory processes. In this paper, we will introduce and critically assess a new qualitative method for forward-looking activities, namely CIVISTI (Citizen Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation; www.civisti.org), which was developed during an EU project of the same name. Focussing strongly on participation, with clear roles for citizens and experts, the method combines expert, stakeholder and lay knowledge to elaborate recommendations for decision-making in issues related to today’s and tomorrow’s science, technology and innovation. Consisting of three steps, the process starts with citizens’ visions of a future 30–40 years from now. Experts then translate these visions into practical recommendations which the same citizens then validate and prioritise to produce a final product. The following paper will highlight the added value as well as limits of the CIVISTI method and will illustrate potential for the improvement of future processes. (shrink)

Looking back on the many prophets who tried to predict the future as if it were predetermined, at first sight any forward-looking activity is reminiscent of making predictions with a crystal ball. In contrast to fortune tellers, today’s exercises do not predict, but try to show different paths that an open future could take. A key motivation to undertake forward-looking activities is broadening the information basis for decision-makers to help them actively shape the future in a desired way. Experts, laypeople, (...) or stakeholders may have different sets of values and priorities with regard to pending decisions on any issue related to the future. Therefore, considering and incorporating their views can, in the best case scenario, lead to more robust decisions and strategies. However, transferring this plurality into a form that decision-makers can consider is a challenge in terms of both design and facilitation of participatory processes. In this paper, we will introduce and critically assess a new qualitative method for forward-looking activities, namely CIVISTI (Citizen Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation; www.civisti.org ), which was developed during an EU project of the same name. Focussing strongly on participation, with clear roles for citizens and experts, the method combines expert, stakeholder and lay knowledge to elaborate recommendations for decision-making in issues related to today’s and tomorrow’s science, technology and innovation. Consisting of three steps, the process starts with citizens’ visions of a future 30–40 years from now. Experts then translate these visions into practical recommendations which the same citizens then validate and prioritise to produce a final product. The following paper will highlight the added value as well as limits of the CIVISTI method and will illustrate potential for the improvement of future processes. (shrink)