This chapter explores interpretive strategies and exegetical polyphony in the commentary on Ps.-Hermogenes’ Meth. compiled by the twelfth-century literatus Gregory of Corinth. The three sections of this chapter examine the different contexts in which the exegesis of Hermogenes in general and Meth. in particular was embedded: that of the broader Hermogenian Corpus, that of other traditions shaping Byzantine literary thought, and that of the exegesis of ancient model authors. Strong affinities between Gregory’s commentary on Meth. and contemporary exegesis of the ancient texts that were studied in the grammatical and rhetorical classroom point to their complementary nature as catering to the same textual culture and educational context. At the same time, Gregory’s commentary demonstrates the cumulative, comprehensive, and entangled nature of Hermogenian exegesis and Byzantine literary scholarship more broadly: the commentary not only aims to elucidate Meth. and its rhetorical thought as part of a broader Hermogenian system but also inserts Ps.-Hermogenes’ treatise into the wider grammatical and rhetorical traditions that shaped Byzantine literary and linguistic thinking.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Interpretive Strategies and Exegetical Polyphony in the Commentary on Ps.-Hermogenes’ On the Method of Forceful Speaking by Gregory of Corinth

  • Baukje van den Berg

摘要

This chapter explores interpretive strategies and exegetical polyphony in the commentary on Ps.-Hermogenes’ Meth. compiled by the twelfth-century literatus Gregory of Corinth. The three sections of this chapter examine the different contexts in which the exegesis of Hermogenes in general and Meth. in particular was embedded: that of the broader Hermogenian Corpus, that of other traditions shaping Byzantine literary thought, and that of the exegesis of ancient model authors. Strong affinities between Gregory’s commentary on Meth. and contemporary exegesis of the ancient texts that were studied in the grammatical and rhetorical classroom point to their complementary nature as catering to the same textual culture and educational context. At the same time, Gregory’s commentary demonstrates the cumulative, comprehensive, and entangled nature of Hermogenian exegesis and Byzantine literary scholarship more broadly: the commentary not only aims to elucidate Meth. and its rhetorical thought as part of a broader Hermogenian system but also inserts Ps.-Hermogenes’ treatise into the wider grammatical and rhetorical traditions that shaped Byzantine literary and linguistic thinking.