What do the most frequent anthroponyms say in the framework of the discipline "Classical Literature"

Lakina Svetlana Valentinovna Specialist in educational and methodological work, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory 1, str., 51 sve-lakina@yandex.ru

Introduction

  At the moment, computer text processing, including those that are didactic, educational in nature, is one of the most promising and actively developing research methods. The 20th century was marked by the appeal of the world scientific community to the linguistic-statistical approach, which was actively used when working with texts of various subject and disciplinary affiliation. The purpose of this method is to select and systematize the most frequent "speech elements, forms or structures" that would accurately and succinctly reflect a specific area of knowledge ^[1]. The indicator of the frequency of use of individual word forms (including proper names, in particular, anthroponyms) is one of the main ones in characterizing a particular disciplinary discourse.

  As part of the practice of compiling frequent lexical dictionaries, both basic lists of general literary vocabulary (common-core vocabulary list) and separate lists are created that would meet the lexical needs and requests of students of higher educational institutions within the framework of a particular disciplinary discourse ^{[2, 3]}. Moreover, the focus of researchers' attention shifted towards the latter only in the two thousandth years (see, for example, the developed lists for the field of business and finance: ^[4]; for chemistry: ^{[5, 6]}; for the purposes of applied linguistics: ^[7], etc.)

  The study of the lexical composition of textbooks on the discipline "Ancient Literature", in particular their onymic vocabulary, has several goals at once:

1) compilation of lexical minima of the subject area (linguodidactic purpose);

2) definition of the onomastic space (OP) of the discipline in general and of each individual textbook in particular and subsequent comparison of the composition of the OP (linguistic purpose);

3) definition of the worldview of the author or a group of textbook authors and the concept within which they worked (extralinguistic goal).

  The most frequent onym in the subject area is always a word that is important not only in itself, but as an element of the conceptual scheme or conceptual framework of the discipline ^[8]. As an example of the implementation of such a research approach, one can cite the work of N.B. Feldman, the purpose of which was a systematic description of the thematic group of the vocabulary of the nuclear industry of the Russian–speaking discourse of the XX-XXI centuries ^[9].

  In the process of mastering such a university discipline as "Ancient Literature", students experience not only a terminological load ^[10], but also an "onomastic load" (our term). Moreover, when perceiving anthroponyms, it is necessary to understand that for this subject area, the differentiation "mythological character — a real historical person" is conceptually important. At the initial stages of education, the possibility of such a distinction is extremely difficult for a first-year student who is just starting to study antiquity and often does not have an information base on which to rely for the correct implementation of this dichotomy.

Research material and procedure

  As part of the presented research, seven textbooks on "Ancient Literature" were processed:

1. A.F. Losev, G.A. Sonkina, A.A. Tahogodi, N.A. Timofeeva, N.M. Cheremukhina. Edited by A.A. Tahoe-Godi. Ancient literature. M.: Enlightenment, 3rd edition, 1980 ^[11];
2. A.F. Losev. Edited by A.A. Tahoe-Godi. Ancient literature. Moscow: Chero, 7th edition, 2005 ^[12];
3. I.M. Tronsky. The history of ancient literature. Moscow: Higher School, 5th edition, 1988 ^[13];
4. S.I. Radzig. The History of Ancient Greek literature. Moscow: Higher School, 5th edition, 1982 ^[14];
5. S.I. Sobolevsky, B.V. Gornung, Z.G. Grinberg, F.A. Petrovsky, S.I. Radzig. The history of Greek literature. Vol. 1-3, M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1946 ^[15].
6. M. von Albrecht. Translated by A.I. Lyubzhin. The History of Roman Literature. M.: The Greek-Latin Cabinet, vol. 1-3, 2003-2005 ^[16];
7. M.M. Pokrovsky. The History of Roman Literature. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1942 ^[17];

  A.F. Losev's textbook is presented in several editions at once. Thus, the list contains both a lifetime edition of the Soviet period, see ^[11], and a textbook published after the death of A.F. Losev in the post-Soviet period, see ^[12]. We consider I.M. Tronsky's textbook in its more modern, i.e. reprinted version, the last lifetime edition was published in 1957. The first edition of S.I. Radzig's book was published in 1940, and we are considering this textbook in its later version.

  In single- volume textbooks on ancient literature in general (with a division into Greek and Roman cultures) ^{[11],[12],[13]} The following periods are presented in the framework of the study of Greek literature:

1. the archaic period of Greek literature (the pre-literary period / the study of the oldest literary monuments / the development of Greek literature during the formation of the ancient slave-owning society and the state);
2. The Attic period of Greek literature (the heyday and crisis of Athenian democracy and the collapse of the polis system);
3. the Hellenistic and Roman periods of Greek literature.

As part of the study of Roman literature:

1. Roman literature of the Republic period (pre-literary period / study of early Roman literature / study of literature of the Civil Wars period);
2. Roman literature of the Empire period (the study of literature of the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire / the study of literature of the end of the I–beginning of the II century AD / the study of later Roman literature).

In a single-volume textbook devoted to Greek literature ^[14], the following periods of history are established:

1. initial (the time of decomposition of the primitive tribal system);
2. Hellenic / Classical (the time of the formation of city states);
3. Hellenistic (the time of the development of Hellenistic monarchies);
4. imperial (the time of Roman rule).

In a one-volume textbook devoted to Roman literature ^[17], the following periods are established:

1. the early period of literature;
2. literature of the end of the Republic;
3. The age of August;
4. literature of the time of the Empire from Tiberius to Hadrian;
5. The Age of Nero;
6. The age of Flavius, Trajan and Hadrian;
7. the last period of Roman literature.

  As for multi-volume textbooks, it is necessary to determine the chronological framework of each volume so that it is possible to correctly interpret the quantitative data of a particular anthroponym. The first volume of M. von Albrecht's book is devoted to the origin of Roman literature (III century BC), as well as the literature of the Republican era, which, as is known, is divided into the Early (V–III centuries BC) and the Late Republic (II–I centuries BC). The second volume of the textbook is devoted to the literature of the era Augustus (31 BC–14 AD) and the Early Roman Empire or Principate (I–II centuries). The third volume tells about the literature of the Middle and Late Empire or the Dominat (IV–V centuries). The first volume of S.I. Sobolevsky's book is devoted to the history of the development of lyrics, epic and drama of the classical period (until the last third of the IV century BC). It examines the work of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes and other authors. The second volume is devoted to the prose literature of the VI–V centuries BC. In particular, in its content, the authors of the textbook turn to the consideration of the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is considered, as well as the oratory of Demosthenes and his contemporaries. The third volume of the book is devoted to the literature of the Hellenistic era, in particular, the new attic comedy, poetry of the Hellenistic era, the work of Callimachus, epic and bucolic poetry, such a literary genre as the epigram. In addition, the literature of the Roman era is considered (scientific prose of the II–I centuries BC and I–III centuries AD, oratorical and artistic narrative prose of the same period). Data on the philosophical and scientific literature of the Hellenistic and Roman eras are also provided.

  Based on the year of publication of the textbooks included in our list, it is possible to determine the periods of study of ancient literature that they represent. The textbooks from our list were published in: a) the forties; b) the eighties; c) the two thousandth years. Thus, five of the seven textbooks under consideration were prepared and published during the Soviet era. And only two textbooks from the list belong to the post-Soviet period (the book by M. von Albrecht and the book by A.F. Losev, edited by A.A. Tahodi). Thus, all textbooks were published after the end of the crisis, which was observed both in the teaching of the science of antiquity and in the development of this humanitarian branch as a whole in the twenties and forties of the XX century ^[18].

  The study was conducted in two stages, the first of which consisted in computer processing of the corpus of texts, the second in manual processing of the results obtained. Then the most frequent anthroponyms (the first ten in terms of the number of uses) found in textbooks were selected and distributed on the basis of thematicity (used in textbooks on Greek, Roman or ancient literature in general). After eliminating the duplicate units, a final list was formed. The final list contains full variants of names, taking into account cognomen (for example, Gaius Sallust Crispus). In other words, the given list of names was formed taking into account the results of deonymization within anthroponymic lexemes, which were achieved using manual processing of the educational text – checking the contextual environment ^[19].

Results and discussion

  In order for the analysis to be relevant, it is necessary to differentiate the textbooks presented depending on which literature each of them is devoted to. Thus, the textbooks involved in the study can be divided into three categories:

1) textbooks on ancient literature in general;

2) textbooks on Roman literature;

3) textbooks on ancient Greek literature.

  Tables 1-3 present quantitative data, absolute and relative numbers are slashed. The relative numbers, which are highlighted in bold in the tables, imply the number of uses of anthroponyms per 100,000 word usage.

Table 1

The first ten anthroponymic units (anthroponyms) in textbooks on ancient literature

Table 2

The first ten anthroponymic units (anthroponyms) in textbooks on Greek literature

Table 3

The first ten anthroponymic units (anthroponyms) in textbooks on Roman literature

 Thus, the total upper part of the frequency dictionaries looks like this (the units that are in at least one of the textbooks fall into the top ten most frequent ones are indicated):

1) On ancient literature in general: Homer, Horace, Aristotle, Virgil, Cicero, Ovid, Athena, Lucian, Zeus, Odysseus, Euripides, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Augustus, Apollo. In total, there are 14 anthroponyms.

2) In Roman literature: Cicero, Caesar, Ennius, Cato, Plautus, Terentius, Gaius Sallust Crispus, Catullus, Marcus Terentius Varro, Virgil, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Augustus, Ovid, Tacitus, Horace, Lucan, Propertius, Martial, Augustine, Tertullian, Boethius, Hieronymus, Suetonius, Lactantius, Cyprian, Aeneas, Pompey. In total, there are 27 anthroponyms.

3) In Greek literature: Odysseus, Euripides, Aristophanes, Athena, Homer, Aristotle, Achilles, Zeus, Engels, Agamemnon, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pindar, Herodotus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Plato, Socrates, Philip, Isocrates, Theocritus, Lucian, Apollonius, Plutarch, Callimachus, Dion, Libanius, Menander.  In total, there are 29 anthroponyms.

  A generalized list of the most frequent anthroponyms in all textbooks (without their thematic division) is as follows: Homer, Horace, Aristotle, Virgil, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Publius Ovid Nazon, Athena, Lucian, Zeus, Odysseus, Euripides, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Augustus, Apollo, Caesar, Quintus Ennius, Cato the Elder, Titus Maccius Plautus, Publius Terentius Afr, Gaius Sallust Crispus, Gaius Valerius Catullus, Marcus Terentius Varro, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Marcus Annaeus Lucan, Sextus Propertius, Marcus Valerius Martial, Aurelius Augustine, Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius, Hieronymus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquille, Lucius Caecilius Firmian Lactantius, Cyprian, Aeneas, Gnaeus Pompeius, Aristophanes, Achilles, Friedrich Engels, Agamemnon, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pindar, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Plato, Socrates, Philip of Macedon, Isocrates, Theocritus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Plutarch, Callimachus of Cyrene, Dion Chrysostom, Libanius, Menander. A total of 57 anthroponyms.

   The first ten frequency anthroponyms in all textbooks are divided into the following classes:

a) Real-life personalities, which include:

1. Authors of works of art (Ennius, Lucian, etc.);
2. Philosophers (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Aristotle, etc.);
3. Statesmen, military and political figures (Augustus, Cicero, etc.);
4. Historians (Gaius Sallust Crispus, Tacitus);
5.      Rhetoricians (Isocrates, Cicero, Lactantius).

b) Mythonyms — a group of synonyms to which we refer:

1. Theonyms — the nomination of gods/ goddesses (Zeus, Athena, etc.);
2. The names of other mythological characters (the degree of fiction may vary) are Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus.

   The key factor that influenced the difference in the number of word usage is the literature that a particular textbook is dedicated to. We have designated anthroponyms belonging exclusively to Greek or Roman culture as thematic. This approach makes it possible to create a field structure of the onomastic space of the discipline "Ancient Literature" based on the parameters of frequency and thematicity.  

 However, there were exceptions: for example, in the textbook on Greek literature by S. I. Radzig, the name of the German politician and scientist Friedrich Engels is included in the top ten anthroponyms (such an anthroponym is, according to our classification, frequent, but not thematic). In addition, the upper part of the dictionary varies depending on whether the textbook is single-volume or multi-volume. For example, the Homer lexeme is used 514 times and is included in the first ten anthroponyms in Volume 1 of Sobolevsky's textbook (see Table 3), while in Volumes 2 and 3 this unit is used only 53 and 85 times, respectively, and is not included in the top ten.  Obviously, with such a quantitative difference, the basic information related to the name of this author is already introduced in volume 1.

  The contents of Table 1 allow us to conclude that the top ten anthroponyms in textbooks on ancient literature in general include mainly the names of Roman writers, while the Greek anthroponym is only one — Homer. However, all the theonyms present at the top of the dictionary are Greek (Athena, Zeus). Based on the data given in Table 1, we also have the opportunity to identify similarities and differences associated with the use of a particular anthroponym. For example, Homer, which ranks first in terms of the number of uses in A.F. Losev's textbook (including in the book edited by A.A. Tahogodi), closes the upper part of the dictionary of I.M. Tronsky's textbook. In the latter, Cicero comes first, who, in the context of ancient culture, acts in several roles at once (as a statesman and politician, orator, philosopher, but not as a writer). In other words, the top position in the dictionaries of anthroponyms compiled on the basis of textbooks by two different authors is occupied by historical figures — bearers of different roles. In addition, these anthroponyms are thematic (Homer refers to Greek literature, Cicero to Roman literature).

  Differences can also be found when analyzing the frequency of names of mythological characters. Of all the mythological characters who are not theonyms, only Odysseus gets into the top ten, but in Tronsky he is in second place, and in Losev he is located near the end of the top ten. This difference in the number of uses can be explained by the fact that in Tronsky's textbook, information about the Odyssey is placed in a separate paragraph of the second chapter, "The most ancient literary monuments." Tronsky does not have Ovid and Lucian in the top ten anthroponyms, while Seneca is present. This indicator allows us to draw a parallel with the frequency of the name Cicero in the textbook of the same author. It turns out that he interprets the boundaries of literature broadly: philosophers and orators are more important to Tronsky than poets.   However, Tronsky pays less attention to Aristotle than Losev, which is expressed in quantitative indicators that are 2 times less (52 occurrences versus 104 and 99). None of these textbooks contain paragraphs specifically dedicated to Aristotle. However, in Losev's concept of ancient literature, it is much more important than in Tronsky's.  This is also confirmed by the contextual environment. In the textbook by A.F. Losev (edited by A.A. Tahogodi) ^[12] it is possible to find contexts that demonstrate that the author seems to "verify" his point of view with Aristotle, constantly refers to him and enters into a dialogue with him. Let's give them as an example and highlight the dialogic indicators in bold inside the quotes.

a) "Aristotle speaks about the origin of the tragedy "from the singing of the praises." The dithyramb was indeed a choral song in honor of Dionysus." 

b) "The same Aristotle speaks about the origin of tragedy from the satire game."

c) "According to Aristotle, the drama originated in the Peloponnese, among the Dorian population. However, the drama received its development only in a much more advanced Attic."

d) "Aristotle reports that Aeschylus introduced a second actor. This means that the tragedy before Aeschylus, originating from choral lyrics, at first was simply a choral work, in which there was a single independent actor who played the most insignificant role of an interlocutor with the choir."

e) "In his style and worldview, Hipponact is the initiator of parody, which was introduced not by Genemon of Phasos (as Aristotle claimed) and not by Homer, as well as not by rhapsodes, but by Hipponact, who takes sublime images from the epic and makes them ridiculous."

  In the edition of Tahoe-Godi, the theonym Athena disappears from the top of the list of anthroponyms in Losev's textbook (its frequency is 50 occurrences), but Apollo appears.  Tronsky does not have Zeus among the most commonly used anthroponyms (with a frequency of 77 occurrences). 

  The data shown in Table 2 also reveal a number of features related to the frequency of use of some anthroponyms. So, in Radzig's textbook, Odysseus is in the first place, while in the first volume of Sobolevsky the same anthroponym is located at the end of the top ten and its relative frequency is two times less. In the upper part of the dictionary, formed on the basis of volumes 2 and 3, this name is completely absent. This distribution can be explained by the fact that it is in volume 1 of Sobolevsky's book that there is an Epic section, which deals, among other things, with Homer's lyroepic poem "Odyssey". Radzig of the gods at the top of the dictionary has Athena and Zeus with a total relative frequency of 184, and Sobolevsky has the same theonyms in different volumes. Radzig uses the name Odysseus much more often than Agamemnon. At the same time, in the first volume of Sobolevsky's book, the frequency of these anthroponyms is approximately the same (84/81). From the second volume of Sobolevsky, only Aristotle, who is not a writer, is present at the top of Radzig's dictionary, and from the third — only theonym Zeus. This distribution of anthroponyms can probably be explained by the fact that Radzig's book contains information in a separate chapter (XVII) concerning the Greek philosophy of the IV century BC, in particular, the life and work of Aristotle. The actively used theonym Zeus in S.I. Radzig's book is found in several chapters of the textbook at once. Accordingly, the number of uses of theonym increases many times. Manual processing of the material made it possible to find out that this name is present in the chapters and paragraphs devoted to: 1) tales and songs about heroes, aedes, rhapsodies and homerides:; 2) Greek society at the beginning of the first millennium BC; 3) Homer's poems ("Iliad" and "Odyssey"), in particular, tales of the Trojan War / Homeric question in general; 4) the decline of the heroic epic; 5) parodies of the heroic epic; 6) didactic epic and its social foundations; 7) the simplest forms of lyric poetry; 8) the simplest forms of melic poetry; 9) solemn lyrics; 10) the development and flourishing of choral lyrics; 11) the decline of the epiniky genre; 12) biography, religious and socio-patriotic views of Aeschylus; 13) biographies of Sophocles; 14) biographies of Euripides; 15) the most ancient Greek comedy; 16) biographies of Aristophanes; 17) the process of transition to Hellenism and literature of the Hellenistic era; 18) poetry of small forms; 19) the fate of the heroic epic; 20) Greek literature in the era of Roman rule; 21) the end of ancient Greek literature and early Christian literature; 22) the last Greek poets (Musaeus, Nonnus and others).

  Analyzing Table 3, it is also possible to identify a number of features related to the frequency indicators of anthroponymic lexemes. For example, Virgil is found at the top of the dictionary, formed on the basis of all three volumes of M. von Albrecht's textbook, and Cicero is present only at the top of the first and third volumes. In addition, in the upper part of the dictionary, compiled on the basis of Albrecht's textbook, there is not a single name of the hero of the work. While in all other textbooks in our database, among the 10 most frequent such anthroponyms are present (at least in one of the volumes).

  We were able to identify the main reasons for the high frequency of use of a number of names of writers and historical figures, due to the fact that some of these names are present not only in chapters / sections directly devoted to them, but also on pages where other personalities are involved. Such use of the names of real personalities undoubtedly indicates their authority in history, as well as their special importance for the discipline in question. The reasons for using the names of real personalities on the pages of chapters or sections of textbooks telling about other authors and historical figures are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

The use of the most frequent anthroponyms on pages dedicated to other personalities

  Thus, a check of the contextual environment showed that 49 out of 50 anthroponyms, the referent of which is a real person, are used not only in sections and chapters devoted to them, but also in other parts of the textbook. This fact confirms the increased importance of anthroponymic lexemes included in the top ten in terms of the number of word uses.

  The only anthroponym to which an example of context is not given in Table 4 (Boethius) is used either exclusively in sections devoted to it, or in parts of textbooks that provide a general description of the era / circle of authors / literary trend.

Conclusions

1) The main factor that influenced the composition of the upper part of the frequency dictionary of the discipline "Ancient Literature" was the thematic factor. In this case, a direct dependence is built on which kind of literature the textbook is devoted to (Greek or Roman). Thus, it is expected that a greater number of Greek anthroponyms were found in textbooks on Greek literature, and Roman ones in textbooks on Roman literature. The number of their word usage also increased or decreased naturally, depending on the topic.  The exception, which is explained by the socio-historical conditions of the textbook's creation, is the presence of Friedrich Engels units in the top ten (textbook on Greek literature by S.I. Radzig).

2) The allocation of thematic anthroponyms makes it possible to create a field structure of the onomastic space of the discipline in question, within which the center and periphery can be distinguished. The basis for the construction of such a structure is the key parameters of frequency and thematicity for our study.

3) A classification of proper names was proposed, which were included in the top ten in terms of frequency of use. Thus, a) real—life personalities were identified - writers, poets, philosophers, rhetoricians, etc., b) mythonyms.  

4) It was possible to identify several reasons why anthroponyms appear on textbook pages that are dedicated to other personalities: 1) An indication of continuity in creativity; 2) An indication of the era in which historical figures lived and created. Temporary comparison; 3) Comparison of the features of creative activity; 4) Confirmation of the high position of the individual in society and in the field of activity; 5) Transfer of the relationship of the "heroes" of the textbook.

 Thus, in general, it was possible to establish the correspondence of the data of quantitative and qualitative analysis of anthroponyms, which confirms what was stated in our previous works (see ^{[19],[20],[21]}) the idea of the systematic onomastic space of textbooks on ancient literature.