The article considers the question of the study of satire in philosophy. The study found that satire is an underdeveloped topic in the field of Ukrainian philosophy and the philosophy of Englishspeaking countries. For instance, the works of the last five to six years by such philosophers as D. Ab rahams and D. Declercq, who echoed the opinion of C. W. Mendell concerning the close connection of satire with philosophy. In the work “Satire as Popular Philosophy” created at the be (...) ginning of the 20th century Mendell proved that ancient satire was a type of philosophy. Ne vertheless, the issue of the first place of appearance of the genre of satire in the period of Antiquity, whether in ancient Roman or ancient Greek art, needs to be clarified. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to solve a number of related questions, namely: where previously appeared satire as a genre — in Ancient Rome or in Ancient Greece, why it got such a name, and what metamorphoses took place with it over time Antiquities. One of the primary sources about the history of satire was Aristotle’s work “Poetics”, which describes iambic (humorous) and satirical poetry. According to Aristotle, the nature of satiric poetry undergo metamorphosis from the “dance” tetra meter to the iambic meter characteristic of mocking poetry. In this regard, the main part of the work is devoted to proving that satiric poetry got its name from mythological goat-like satyrs and if the performers of iambic (derisive lyrics) could be ordinary people, then the performers of satirical poems — only mythological goat-like satyrs. As a result of the research, it was found that initially the genre called satire had a poetic form and was borrowed by ancient Roman poets from ancient Greek artists. The adopted type of satire received the name “satura”, in Latin meaning “miscellany or medley” of prose and verse form of presentation of the creation. (shrink)

In these lines from the fourth poem of his first collection of satires, Horace defines his poetic identity against the figures of his satiric predecessor Lucilius and his contemporary Stoic rival Crispinus. Horace emerges as the poet of Callimachean restraint and well-crafted writing in contrast to the chatty, unpolished prolixity of both Lucilius and Crispinus. A proponent of the highly wrought miniature over the sprawling scale of Lucilius, Horace knows when enough is enough. And, owing to a playful link between (...) what is satis and satura, this makes Horace not only a skilful poet but also the consummate satirist. I suggest that this programmatic message is both emphasized and illustrated by a piece of wordplay beginning in line 14. In a previously unnoticed telestich, the last letters of lines 14–18 spell out the word satis. Moreover, this hidden word—made possible only by the particular arrangement of words in all five of its lines—anticipates and deepens the poem's later interest in the matter of compositio, or artful word-arrangement. While this may be unique as an example of a Horatian telestich, Horace does engage in various forms of wordplay elsewhere, and could look not only to Hellenistic poets but also to Lucretius as a predecessor in this regard. In the Satires, a collection in which problems of libertas make forms of implication and veiled speech especially significant, a wide range of hidden words and wordplay has been detected and suggested. The instance observed here reaffirms Horace's interest in wordplay, while its uniqueness as a telestich is, as I hope to show, particularly suited to its context in this poem. (shrink)

En el marco de la traducción y estudio de textos de Teodoro Pródromos (s. xii ) con contenido satírico, se presenta aquí el caso de _ Κατὰ φιλοπόρνου γραός _ (140 Hörandner), del que no conocemos versión española. El análisis de la obra, puesta en el contexto de la época y de la tradición, la revela no como un poema lírico satírico sino como una _ satura _ en verso.

Se ofrece una traducción española del texto mencionado, con introducción, anotación y comentario interpretativo, y se destaca que la obra representa el género satura en Bizancio, según una tradición amplia recogida por el ‘clasicismo’ del s. xii.

L'éducation scolaire et universitaire de Leibniz en matière de langue et rhétorique se déroule conformément aux coutumes du XVII e siècle en Allemagne et s'assimile à la tradition sans notable écart. On conserve à Hanovre deux cahiers de 1662, «Liber Observationum» et «Loci Rhetorici»; ce sont les premières documents qui montrent l'intérêt du jeune Leibniz pour les études linguistiques et font le point sur l'enseignement reçu par lui. Pour en comprendre la genèse, il est d'extrême importance de reconstituer le (...) milieu culturel dont ils sont issus. Mais auparavant deux éléments doivent être considérés: les doctrines concernant la langue du maître de Leibniz Jakob Thomasius et l'héritage grammatical d'origine melanthonienne. Tous les deux constituent le point de départ pour le jeune Leibniz qui révèle néanmoins déjà un fort esprit d'indépendance et une attitude scientifique marquée par un caractère humaniste envers le langage savant. (shrink)

The mistranslation by Mr. J. D. Duff of nox ubi sidera condit as ‘where night hides the stars’ is also the interpretation of many commentators from Sulpitius in the last decade of the fifteenth century to Lejay in the last decade of the nineteenth. Lucan is clearly speaking of East and West in 15, of South in 16, and of North in 17–18. How can night be said to hide the stars in the West? Burman saw the difficulty and expressed (...) himself thus: ‘…dubito, an recte dicatur, nox condere sidera, id est, Stellas, quae sole cadente prodeunt, et se spectanda praebent, obscurare et occulere: neque nunc occurrit alius ex veteribus locus, unde ita locutos fuisse Poetas appareat. Nox enim adveniens prodit sidera, praecipitans uero, aurora adveniente, potest recte dici condere, et quasi auferre ex oculis hominum sidera.’ Burman then was tempted to understand sidera as the sun, but could not parallel this use of the plural, although he admitted the use of sidera solis. He cited Ouid. Met. 14, 172–3 caelumque et sidera solis / respicio, as did Haskins, who took the same view with hesitation. Ezra de Clerq van Jever in his Specimen Selectarum Observationum, which he published at Leiden in 1772, definitely understood sidera as the sun, though he could parallel only sidus in the singular from Ouid. A.A. 1, 723–4 aequoris unda / debet et a radiis sideris esse niger. But, it may be said, these Ovidian passages are such that no ambiguity is possible, and are not quite relevant to Lucan's phrase. (shrink)