Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.792676
Title: A commentary on the 'De constantia sapientis' of Seneca the Younger
Author: Hope, Nigel Royden
ISNI:       0000 0004 8499 5710
Awarding Body: Royal Holloway, University of London
Current Institution: Royal Holloway, University of London
Date of Award: 2017
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The present thesis is a commentary on Seneca the Younger's 'De constantia sapientis', one of his so-called 'dialogi'. The text on which I comment forms part of the Oxford Classical Texts edition of the dialogi by L.D. Reynolds. The thesis is in two main parts: an Introduction and the Commentary proper. Before the Introduction, there is a justificatory Preface, in which I explain why this thesis is a necessary addition to the scholarship on De constantia sapientis, on which the last detailed commentary was published in 1950. The Introduction covers the following topics: Date; Genre (involving discussion of what is meant by the term 'dialogus' and the place of 'De constantia sapientis' in the collection of Seneca's 'Dialogi' as a whole); Argumentation: Techniques and Strategies (including a discussion of S.'s views on the role of logic in philosophy); Language and Style; Imagery; Moral Psychology (an analysis of Seneca's account of the passions); The Nature of Insult (including types of insult, appropriate responses to insults, and interpretation of the meanings of two of the verbal insults presented by Seneca); and Legal Aspects (the question of the distinction between 'iniuria' and 'contumelia' in legal terms and what sorts of actions were pursued by an actio iniuriarum in Seneca's day). The commentary itself discusses individual passages in detail. The entries cover the following aspects: literary, philosophical (including an analysis of the syllogisms in the first half of the work), and historical (e.g. an examination of Seneca's portrayals of Cato the Younger and Caligula). There is also discussion of textual questions (e.g. the crux at 18.18-19); disagreements with the text of Reynolds are aired at the relevant points.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.792676  DOI: Not available
Share: