הבדלים בין גרסאות בדף "Sacks 1990"

מתוך Amitay.haifa.ac.il
קפיצה אל:ניווט, חיפוש
מ
מ
שורה 1: שורה 1:
[[מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר]]  
+
[[מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר|<br>]]  
 
<div align="left">
 
<div align="left">
 
=== Sacks, Kenneth. 1990. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press  ===
 
=== Sacks, Kenneth. 1990. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press  ===
 
<div align="right">
 
<div align="right">
 
בספריית חיפה: D58.D563S23  
 
בספריית חיפה: D58.D563S23  
 +
 +
[[מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר]]
 +
 +
== סיכומים  ==
 
<div align="left">
 
<div align="left">
 
'''p. 67''': "In writing about India, Diodorus generally follows the account of Megasthenes,<sup>52</sup><ref>n. 52: DS 2.35-42 = ''FGH'' 715F</ref> but again departs to stress his own cosmopolitanism." Unlike Megasthenes, and Arrian who followed him, Diosorus does not dwell on the Greekness of the God. As part of his anthropology of India, Diodorus includes the legend of the Indian region named Meros, which locals claimed was responsible for the subsequent Greek belief that Dionysos was nurtured in the thigh (μηρός) of Zeus ([[Diodorus Siculus 2.38.3-4|ii 38.4]]). The story had already been criticized by Theophrastus (HP iv 4.1), and, when Arrian tells it in the Anabasis where he is not {p. 68} following Megasthenes, he puts it in the mouth of Indian envoys to Alexander. To Arrian, or his source, the explanation was related by Indians who are only anxious to secure Alexander’s cooperation. Diodorus, on the other hand, adds legitimacy to the account by making it part of his ethnological narrative. At every place where the treatments of Diodorus and Arrian differ, Diodorus’ version is more sympathetic to non-Greeks. c<br>  
 
'''p. 67''': "In writing about India, Diodorus generally follows the account of Megasthenes,<sup>52</sup><ref>n. 52: DS 2.35-42 = ''FGH'' 715F</ref> but again departs to stress his own cosmopolitanism." Unlike Megasthenes, and Arrian who followed him, Diosorus does not dwell on the Greekness of the God. As part of his anthropology of India, Diodorus includes the legend of the Indian region named Meros, which locals claimed was responsible for the subsequent Greek belief that Dionysos was nurtured in the thigh (μηρός) of Zeus ([[Diodorus Siculus 2.38.3-4|ii 38.4]]). The story had already been criticized by Theophrastus (HP iv 4.1), and, when Arrian tells it in the Anabasis where he is not {p. 68} following Megasthenes, he puts it in the mouth of Indian envoys to Alexander. To Arrian, or his source, the explanation was related by Indians who are only anxious to secure Alexander’s cooperation. Diodorus, on the other hand, adds legitimacy to the account by making it part of his ethnological narrative. At every place where the treatments of Diodorus and Arrian differ, Diodorus’ version is more sympathetic to non-Greeks. c<br>  
שורה 14: שורה 18:
  
 
[[מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר]]  
 
[[מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר]]  
</div></div> </div></div>
+
</div></div></div></div>

גרסה מ־18:11, 10 בינואר 2010


Sacks, Kenneth. 1990. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press

בספריית חיפה: D58.D563S23

מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר

סיכומים

p. 67: "In writing about India, Diodorus generally follows the account of Megasthenes,52[1] but again departs to stress his own cosmopolitanism." Unlike Megasthenes, and Arrian who followed him, Diosorus does not dwell on the Greekness of the God. As part of his anthropology of India, Diodorus includes the legend of the Indian region named Meros, which locals claimed was responsible for the subsequent Greek belief that Dionysos was nurtured in the thigh (μηρός) of Zeus (ii 38.4). The story had already been criticized by Theophrastus (HP iv 4.1), and, when Arrian tells it in the Anabasis where he is not {p. 68} following Megasthenes, he puts it in the mouth of Indian envoys to Alexander. To Arrian, or his source, the explanation was related by Indians who are only anxious to secure Alexander’s cooperation. Diodorus, on the other hand, adds legitimacy to the account by making it part of his ethnological narrative. At every place where the treatments of Diodorus and Arrian differ, Diodorus’ version is more sympathetic to non-Greeks. c

הערות

  1. n. 52: DS 2.35-42 = FGH 715F

בשימוש ב...

מקום הולדתו של דיוניסוס בהיסטוריות של אלכסנדר