If on the evidence of the manuscript we accept it as a fact that the
) was written by Psellus, we are presented with two historical works (
) written by the same author (Psellus) in the same genre (
) in two different styles (middle and simple style), which the Byzantine reader or the modern scholar can read and interpret as one historical work. In his
Psellus briefly and superficially describes the style of Leo the Wise and of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and in connection with the latter he observes that rhetorical devices can be and are used in texts that are not written in the literary language. Though this statement might seem obvious for us, it did not appear so for a Byzantine rhetor.
ekphrasis theory, and as such, he emphasizes its significance in literarycriticism. CHINN, C. M.: Before Your Very Eyes: Pliny Epistulae 5. 6. and the Ancient Theory of Ekphrasis. Classical Philology 102.3 (2007) 274–278. 16 Quintilian calls this
Eustathios, the illustrious scholar and clergyman of the 12th century AD, wrote a commentary to Pindar’s epinician odes, from which only the proem survives. Eustathios treatment of the lyric poet, his ideas and criteria of literary criticism have not been re-assessed since Kambylis’ interpretation and text edition (1991). The aim of this paper is to supply this re-evaluation. Besides, a new Homeric allusion and some evidence for Eustathios’ productive imitation of Pindar’s style are dealt with.
The paper aims at presenting a comparative review of current Slavic literature (and related fields) as reflecting contemporary
gender and feminist issues. In various parts of Slavdom the processes of awakening or revitalizing gender awareness have been
taking place with various speed and 'local colour': in the former Yugoslavia since the end of the 1970s, in Russia since the
second half of the 1980s (one should not speak about 'former Soviet Union' in this context, since the 'feminist revival' concerned
mostly some Moscow circles), with the rest of the Slavic post-communist world responding to them sooner or later after 1989.
They have faced a strong backlash everywhere, both from conservative/nationalist/populist discourses, as well as - though
in different forms and expressed in different rhetoric - from the liberal/democratic/progressive ones. It is of crucial importance
to enhance the mutual awareness of gender issues within the whole post-communist world, as well as exchange information and
launch international projects concerning relevant topics.
Michael Verancius greatly criticized the historical work of Valentinus Polidamus, one of his contemporaries in his satirical elegy in 1536. He did so in a rather unique way. The main aim of the present paper is to outline the classical allusions of this elegy to a great extent (primarily the parallels with Volusius and Choerilus). Moreover, Polyhymnia and Clio appear in a quite unusual description in his elegy. Although the background of his criticism (namely that Polidamus was an untalented historian) might also have been valid, it is not outlined here in details since it would be a separate topic.
The Ukrainian literary critic Yuriy Boyko stated that Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky (1811–1848), the famous Russian literary critic harshly criticized Ukrainian writers who wrote in Ukrainian. In fact, he tried to persuade those who wrote not only in Ukrainian but also in Russian to use only the latter. Belinsky often referred to contemporary Ukrainian literature in his writings. His attitude towards Ukrainian literature and Ukrainian language was rather ambiguous. It was the manifestation of the interest in Ukraine and Ukrainian culture that existed in Russia at that time and also the continuation of the polemics about the existence of the Ukrainian language, which was quite vivid in the first half of the 19th century. The critic believed that the Little Russian language did exist but only in folk poetry of value. Since the time of Peter I, according to Belinsky, due to the separation of estates, noblemen began to speak Russian and at the same time, the Little Russian language spoken by people began to deteriorate. His categorical and unfair conclusion is that there is no Little Russian language but there is a regional Little Russian dialect, such as Belarusian, Siberian, and other similar regional dialects.
The paper is devoted to Belinsky’s evaluation of the oeuvre of Hryhory Kvitka-Os- novyanenko (1778–1843), the Ukrainian writer and playwright. In his writings from 1839 to 1846, Belinsky analyzed and sometimes only mentioned Kvitka’s prosaic and dramatic works written in Russian or translated from Ukrainian into Russian. On the one hand, Be- linsky characterized Kvitka as a “wonderful talent” and “an excellent master” but, on the other hand, he called him ironically “the first Russian writer”, mentioning his “mediocrity” and “bad taste”. On the one hand, Belinsky spoke about witty, fascinating, and original works but, on the other, he called Kvitka’s writings artificial or late imitations.
The reasons for such ambiguous attitude of Belinsky towards the Ukrainian language and literature, and in particular to Kvitka’s works, are the above-mentioned polemics about the Ukrainian language and literature, the juxtaposition of the patriarchal Ukrainian village subjected to the “disastrous” influence of Russia, and the fact that most Ukrainian writers grouped around the retrograde Mayak, an ardent opponent of Otechestvennye zapiski. The whole problem was not sufficiently explored theoretically, thus Belinsky had no opportu- nity to rely on authoritative research. The level of development of the so-called new Ukrai- nian literature also influenced the critic’s opinion.