Abstract:This article expands on observations made by Dominique Lenfant regarding Athenaeus' citations of Herodotus, arguing that Xenophon and Plato, and thus presumably all prose authors, are cited in a similar fashion. This means that we can generally tell the difference between Athenaeus' quotations (which appear to be more or less reliable) and his paraphrases (which are not). I maintain that the situation is more problematic than Lenfant suggests, for again and again what seem to be minor edits of source-texts by Athenaeus himself or perhaps mere slips of an anonymous scribe's pen substantially affect the apparent meaning of the prose fragments preserved in the Deipnosophists. I also show that a number of passages in Herodotus, Xenophon and Plato that on Lenfant's criteria would have to be regarded as quotations, and thus as largely faithful renderings of the original, are badly damaged or have been subject to ideologically driven distortion of a sort that would be undetectable in the case of genuinely fragmentary texts.

中文翻译：

---

雅典娜的非碎片散文作者的“碎片”及其含义

摘要：本文扩展了多米尼克·伦凡特 (Dominique Lenfant) 对雅典娜 (Athenaeus) 引用希罗多德 (Herodotus) 所做的观察，认为色诺芬 (Xenophon) 和柏拉图 (Plato) 以及所有散文作者都以类似的方式被引用。这意味着我们通常可以分辨出雅典娜的引文（似乎或多或少可靠）和他的释义（不可靠）之间的区别。我坚持认为情况比 Lenfant 所暗示的更成问题，因为似乎是雅典娜本人对源文本的微小编辑，或者仅仅是匿名抄写员的笔迹，一次又一次地严重影响了保存在其中的散文片段的明显含义。 Deipnosophists。我还表明，希罗多德、色诺芬和柏拉图中的许多段落，根据 Lenfant 的标准，必须被视为引文，