This chapter examines the reception and use of Didymus’s doctrine and figure in Lactantius (inst. 1. 22) and Ammianus (22. 16. 16 and 27). The passage from Lactantius preserves a piece of Pindaric exegesis, unanimously accepted as Didymean, which reveals the Alexandrian critic’s rationalistic attitude and his interest in the investigation of the protoi heuretai. Lactantius’ ideological motivations are also investigated. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions an anti-Ciceronian work by Didymus Chalcenterus, whose attribution to the Alexandrian has, however, been questioned by some modern critics. After analysing the different positions, some reflections on Didymus Chalcenterus’s working method and his possible relationship with Antony and Cleopatra are proposed.
Due testimonianze su Didimo in Lattanzio e Ammiano
Stefano Rocchi
2024-01-01
Abstract
This chapter examines the reception and use of Didymus’s doctrine and figure in Lactantius (inst. 1. 22) and Ammianus (22. 16. 16 and 27). The passage from Lactantius preserves a piece of Pindaric exegesis, unanimously accepted as Didymean, which reveals the Alexandrian critic’s rationalistic attitude and his interest in the investigation of the protoi heuretai. Lactantius’ ideological motivations are also investigated. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions an anti-Ciceronian work by Didymus Chalcenterus, whose attribution to the Alexandrian has, however, been questioned by some modern critics. After analysing the different positions, some reflections on Didymus Chalcenterus’s working method and his possible relationship with Antony and Cleopatra are proposed.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
