Topic
Censorinus
About: Censorinus is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 14 publications have been published within this topic receiving 62 citations.
Papers
TL;DR: Pattison as mentioned in this paper argued that technical chronology had been untouched in modern times, not an entirely fair judgement, but in antiquity it had been practised in exactly the manner he considered proper, or so he believed.
Abstract: Technical chronology establishes the structure of calendars and the dates of events; it is, as it were, the foundation of history, particularly ancient history. The chronologer must know enough philology to interpret texts and enough astronomy to compute the dates of celestial phenomena, above all eclipses, which alone provide absolute dates. Joseph Scaliger, so we are told, was the first to master and apply this range of technical skills:Of the mathematical principles on which the calculation of periods rests, the philologians understood nothing. The astronomers, on their side, had not yet undertaken to apply their data to the records of ancient times. Scaliger was the first of the philologians who made use of the improved astronomy of the sixteenth century to get a scientific basis for historical chronology.So Mark Pattison.This verdict can be challenged on a number of grounds. The one relevant at present is simple: Scaliger himself claimed far less. He certainly said that technical chronology had been untouched in modern times — not an entirely fair judgement — but in antiquity it had been practised in exactly the manner he considered proper, or so he believed. In particular he singles out Censorinus, whose De die natali drew extensively on Varro's lost Antiquitates rerum humanarum, books 14–19, for information on chronology.Students of Varro have long appreciated the importance of Censorinus. His dry and compact treatise offers Varronian views on etymology, the human life-span, and the course of history itself, all couched in language so jejune as to suggest that he added little or nothing to what he read.
55 citations
6 Feb 2018
TL;DR: In this article, the authors apply a more sceptical approach to the story of the Streit between Theophrastus and Dicaearchus and apply it to the question of the origins of philosophical thought.
Abstract: Much has been made of one small passage, a passing reference in one of Cicero’s letters: people are constantly told of the well-known dispute between Dicaearchus and Theophrastus, and several attempts have been made to amplify the story in different directions: even the sober Regenbogen refers to the Streit between Theophrastus and Dicaearchus and says that it was famous in ancient times. Fortenbaugh and Donini interestingly relate it to views about the existence of the soul and intellect, while F. Muller’s study of Cicero’s De republica, with Dicaearchus in mind, relates the discussion of the best way of life in the Peripatos to the question of the origins of philosophical thought. This may be correct, but the author wishes to apply a more sceptical approach. Much of the information about Dicaearchus comes from Cicero and other Latin authors, Tertullian, Lactantius, Gellius, Censorinus, Varro, Pliny, and Martianus Capella, though in Greek, is addressed to a Roman.
12 citations
8 citations
1 Aug 2004
TL;DR: In the case of Coriolanus, the missing line in the second and third lines as mentioned in this paper was identified by a nineteenth-century German, Nicolaus Delius, who retrieved from North's phrasing the pentameter.
Abstract: In the Folio text of Coriolanus , a recitation of the title character's family tree seems to have a lacuna: Of the same House Publius and Quintus were, That our best Water, brought by Conduits hither, And Nobly nam'd, so twice being Censor, Was his great Ancestor. The transition between the second and third lines does not quite make sense, but help is to hand on the opening page of Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus in Sir Thomas North's translation: ‘Of the same house were Publius, and Quintus, who brought Rome their best water they had by conducts. Censorinus also came of that familie, that was so surnamed, bicause the people had chosen him Censor twise’ (2.143; Coriolanus 1.1). A nineteenth-century German, Nicolaus Delius, retrieved from North's phrasing the pentameter now recognised as the missing line: Of that same House Publius and Quintus were, That our best Water brought by Conduits hither, And Censorinus that was so surnam'd, And Nobly named so, twice being Censor, Was his great Ancestor. 2.3.241–5 Emendation is rarely so blessed with evidence that the critic is retracing the footsteps of the author. Geoffrey Bullough calls Shakespearean source study ‘the best, and often the only, way open to us of watching Shakespeare the craftsman in his workshop’; the passage from Coriolanus is part of the ballast for that generalisation, which taken to some extremes can seem dubious but in particulars like these is all but incontrovertible.
7 citations
TL;DR: Reevaluation de la datation du document Jos. AJ 16.162-165, edit d'Auguste sur les privileges des Juifs, and de limplication de ce meme document sur la carriere d'un officier romain, Censorinus, mentionne dans cet edit.
Abstract: Reevaluation de la datation du document Jos. AJ 16.162-165, edit d'Auguste sur les privileges des Juifs, et de l'implication de ce meme document sur la carriere d'un officier romain, C. Marcius Censorinus, mentionne dans cet edit. Certains reperes aident a cerner quelques dates, notamment l'etude de sources et la mort d'Herode le Grand
2 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2012 | 1 |