Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Synthesis]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/rss.php?pid=0328-120520080001&lang=pt vol. 15 num. lang. pt <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.ar <link>http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100001&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt</link> <description/> </item> <item> <title><![CDATA[Orfeo y Eleusis]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100002&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Orfeo aparece en múltiples fuentes como fundador de las teletai , esto es, del tipo de ritos a los que pertenecen claramente los Eleusinios, y como autor de poesía religiosa relacionada con ellos. Sin embargo, nadie afi rma que los Misterios Eleusinos sean "órficos". Por otra parte, varias fuentes consideran a Eumolpo el fundador de los ritos. El artículo trata de explicar esta contradicción. Para ello se examinan los testimonios que relacionan a Orfeo con Eleusis o las teletai en general y los restos de la poesía órfica sobre Deméter y Perséfone. Puede concluirse que había dos puntos de vista que coexistían sin solaparse: desde el punto de vista Eleusinio, Eumolpo aparece destacado y los Eumólpidas tienen el privilegio exclusivo de ser hierofantes. Desde el punto de vista ateniense, el prestigio de Orfeo es más "internacional" y sirve mucho mejor sus intereses políticos.<hr/>Orpheus appears in numerous sources as founder of the teletai, this is, the type of rites to which the Eleusian mysteries clearly belong to, and as author of religious poetry related to them. However, nobody states that the Eleusinian Mysteries are "Orphic". On the other hand some sources consider Eumolpus as the founder of these rites. The paper tries to analyse this contradiction. In order to do so, the testimonies linking Orpheus to Eleusis or to the teletai in general and the relics of the Orphic poetry about Demeter and Persephone are examined. <![CDATA[A propósito de algunos epigramas atribuidos a Luciano]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100003&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt La Antología griega incluye entre sus poemas un conjunto de epigramas que suelen atribuirse a Luciano de Samosata, pero dicha atribución ha sido puesta en duda. Nuestro propósito es revisar algunos de esos epigramas, todos ellos del libro XI, en el que se concentran la mayor parte de epigramas de carácter burlesco dentro de la colección. Se trata de poemas relacionados con el ámbito del simposio, de la erudición y de la sofística, ya que son éstos motivos habituales sobre los que abunda la sátira mordaz del samosatense a lo largo de su obra.<hr/>The Greek Anthology includes several epigrams attributed to Lucian of Samosata; however this attribution is a moot point since it is really impossible to have a firm certitude about the personality of their author. Our aim is to survey some of these epigrams and, more specifically, the Book XI ones, as they are the most significative from the point of view of satirical and burlesque epigrammatic procedures of the collection. These poems are related to symposium, erudition and sophistry, which are, precisely some of the most frequent subjects of Lucian's sharp satire. <![CDATA[Democracia e esportes em Atenas]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100004&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Há um consenso entre os especialistas que na Atenas Clássica (séculos V e IV a.C.) houve uma democratização das práticas esportivas. Partindo desta afirmação, propomos estudar a relação entre a democracia e a disseminação das práticas atléticas na pólis dos atenienses, a partir da representação nos vasos gregos da modalidade esportiva do lançamento de disco. Tal escolha se explica pelo discóbolo ter sido o ícone da democracia ateniense.<hr/>In the commonsense among specialists there was a democratization in sports practice in the Classical Athens (centuries V and IV B.C.). That said, we suggest to study the relation between democracy and the dissemination of athletic practices in the Athenian polis, using athletic figures from Greek vases as a form to explain this fact, such as the discobulos, which is considered as a symbol of the Athenian democracy. <![CDATA[Afinidad entre semejantes: sentido y proyección de una paroimía homérica (od. 17.218)]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100005&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Od. 17.218 constituye el registro más antiguo del proverbio griego sobre afinidad entre semejantes, recordado numerosas veces y bajo gran variedad de enunciados en la tradición paremiográfica griega. Este artículo propone un estudio de dicho proverbio, que se inicia con una revisión del antiguo concepto de paroimía, con especial referencia a su vinculación con el concepto de gnome. A continuación se analiza el sentido del proverbio homérico y los rasgos inherentes a su inserción en el texto de Odisea. Por último, se examina la proyección del proverbio en autores griegos y en las colecciones del Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum.<hr/>Od. 17.218 establishes the most ancient record of the Greek proverb refering to affinity on similarities and it was remembered several times under a great variety of statements in the Greek paroemiographic tradition. This article proposes a study on the already mentioned proverb, which at the beginning presents a review of the ancient concept of paroimia with a special reference to its link with the concept of gnome. Following this there is an analysis of the Homeric proverb and the features inherent to its insertion in the text of Odyssey. Finally the projection of the proverb is examined in the work of Greek authors and in the collections of Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. <![CDATA[Los conceptos de verdad y falsedad en Filoctetes de Sófocles]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100006&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt El presente trabajo pretende exponer las particularidades que exhiben los términos <img width=90 height=31 src="/img/revistas/synth/v15/a06i01.gif">, verdad, y <img width=75 height=28 src="/img/revistas/synth/v15/a06i02.gif">, falsedad, en Filoctetes de Sófocles. Merced al análisis etimológico, morfológico y semántico de dichos términos, de las relaciones que se establecen entre ellos y de su disposición en la tragedia, se busca destacar la manera en que el texto trágico mismo pone en evidencia la naturaleza de ambos conceptos como constructos humanos, artificios del lenguaje no sólo parciales sino también relativos, subordinados a contextos de enunciación transitorios.<hr/>This article aims at exposing the interesting way in which the concepts of <img width=90 height=31 src="/img/revistas/synth/v15/a06i01.gif">, truth, and <img width=75 height=28 src="/img/revistas/synth/v15/a06i02.gif">, falsehood, appear to be used in Sophocles' Philoctetes. By means of analysing the etymology, morphology and semantics of both concepts, their common rapports and arrangement in the play, I would like to call attention to the way in which the play itself depicts both truth and falsehood as human constructions, linguistic artefacts not only incomplete but also relative, subordinate to an ever-changing speech situation. <![CDATA[El espacio metaperformativo en Odisea, 11]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100007&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt Este trabajo pretende lograr una interpretación de Odisea a partir del Canto 11, su centro arquitectónico y frontera formal, considerando especialmente la categoría «espacio». A través del análisis de la estructura que despliega el Canto, de relato dentro del relato, intentaremos demostrar que el Canto 11 resulta un espacio épico ineludible que reformula el código ético-heroico mediante una performance interactiva.<hr/>This paper aims to achieve an interpretation of Odyssey from the study of the Book 11, its architectural center and formal frontier, considering especially the category «space». By the analysis of the book's structure, that is a story inside the story, we will try to prove that Book 11 is an unavoidable epic space which re- formulates the heroic ethic code by means of an interactive performance. <![CDATA[Deixis social: los valores absolutos y relativos de la Deixis en la relación Odiseo/Pretendientes]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100008&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt En el canto 22 de Odisea, la deixis social se construye a través de una red significante de elementos deícticos aplicados a la relación entre Odiseo y los pretendientes. Esa red significante involucra determinaciones específicas de la sociedad heroica propuestas como rasgos únicos de los personajes en la ejecución de sus discursos. El presente artículo estudia el valor absoluto y el valor relativo de las expresiones deícticas, las distinciones de los usos pronominales y las elecciones léxicas atribuidas a los caracteres para establecer nuevas conclusiones acerca de la interpretación y del movimiento narrativo del canto 22, en particular y de Odisea , en general.<hr/>On 22 book of the Odyssey , the social deixis is composed through a signifier net of deictic elements applied to the relationship between Odysseus and the Suitors. This important net incorporates specific determinations of the heroic society proposed like unique features of the characters in the execution of their speeches. This article studies the absolute and relational value of deictic expressions, the distinction of the pronominal uses and the selected words attributed to the characters to set new conclusions about the interpretation and narrative movement of the 22 book, and of the Odyssey in general. <![CDATA[Dioses, Dios]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100009&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Aeschylus]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100010&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Aeschylus' Supplices: Play and Trilogy]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100011&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Esquilo: Aristeia de los ojos en tragedia griega]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100012&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Sófocles: Una interpretación de sus tragedias]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100013&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Sophocles: Electra]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100014&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[Commedie di Aristofane: A cura di Giuseppe Mastromarco e Piero Totaro]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100015&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god. <![CDATA[The Oral Palimsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics]]> http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0328-12052008000100016&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt "Nous ne jalousons pas les dieux, nous ne les servons pas, ne les craignons pas, mais au péril de notre vie nous attestons leur existence multiple, et nous nous émouvons d'être de leur élevage aventureux lorsque cesse leur souvenir". Que veut dire cette phrase de René Char? Est-il encore possible de penser et d'expérimenter, ici et maintenant, après des siècles de monothéisme, une pluralité de dieux? Qu'est ce qu'être païen? Relisant Homère, puis Platon, Nietszche et Lyotard, on risquera la définition suivante: on est païen quand on est à même de supposer, entre performance et cosmos, que celui qui s'avance en face est, peut-être, un dieu.<hr/>"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following definition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god.