Πότερα τῶν ζῴων φρονιμώτερα τὰ χερσαῖα ἢ τὰ ἔνυδρα

Satırlar

– – – – – – – 1 – 1 1 – 1 1 – 1 2 – 2 2 – 2 3 – 3 3 – 3 3 – 3 3 – 3 3 – 4 4 – 4 4 – 5 5 – 5 5 – 5 6 – 6 7 – 7 7 – 7 8 – 8 8 – 9 9 – 9 10 – 10 10 – 10 10 – 10 10 – 10 11 – 11 11 – 11 11 – 12 12 – 12 12 – 12 13 – 13 13 – 13 13 – 13 14 – 14 14 – 14 15 – 15 15 – 16 16 – 16 16 – 16 16 – 16 17 – 17 17 – 18 18 – 18 19 – 19 19 – 19 19 – 19 20 – 20 20 – 20 21 – 21 22 – 22 23 – 23 23 – 23 23 – 23 24 – 24 24 – 24 24 – 24 25 – 25 25 – 25 26 – 26 26 – 26 27 – 27 27 – 27 27 – 27 28 – 28 29 – 29 29 – 29 30 – 30 30 – 30 31 – 31 31 – 31 31 – 31 32 – 32 33 – 33 33 – 33 34 – 34 34 – 34 35 – 35 35 – 35 36 – 36 36 – 36 36 – 36 36 – 36 36 – app app – app app – app app – app app – app app – app

İngilizce İngilizce Yunanca

It is by no means impossible that the work is incomplete in our mss.; there are, at least, several demonstrable lacunae and it is possible that it was considerably longer and may even have justified its title when it left Plutarch’s hands.

As for the date of the dialogue, the terminus post quem is a.d. 70 (not 79, as it cannot be certainly inferred from 974 a that Vespasian was then dead); it is probably a work of Plutarch’s youth, preceding in any case the Lives and the Symposiacs. It may well date from Plutarch’s anti-Stoic period which produced the De Facie, the De Communibus Notitiis, and the other anti-Chrysippean polemics. It has much in common with the Gryllus and the fragments of De Esu Carnium and some correspondence with the Amatorius.But allowance must be made for exaggerated and partially false premises in Hartman, De Plutarcho, p. 567. A modified chronological scheme of Plutarch’s writings has lately been proposed by T. Sinko (Polish Acad. Cracow, 1947), but it is too complicated to be examined here. It may, in fact, have been written during nearly the same period as that in which the elder Pliny (whose preface is dated a.d. 77) was compiling his own Natural History.

← Önceki 5 / 94 Sonraki →

Şifre Yenileme