DOCSLIB.ORG

The Dispute Concerning Rhetoric in Hellenistic Thought

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

% © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Hypomnemata Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle, Siegmar Döpp, Dorothea Frede, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Günther Patzig, Christoph Riedweg, Gisela Striker Band 185 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Yosef Z. Liebersohn The Dispute concerning Rhetoric in Hellenistic Thought Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Verantwortliche Herausgeberin: Gisela Striker Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar ISBN 978-3-525-25294-9 Hypomnemata ISSN 0085-1671 Umschlagabbildung: Cluny (Burgund, Frankreich), ehemalige Benediktinerabtei. Die Rhetorik. Skulptur, um 1095/1115. Ausschnit aus einem Kapitell mit Personifikation der sieben freien Künste. Yvan Travert/akg-images. ’ 2010, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Oakville, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei der entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Gesamtherstellung: L Hubert & Co, Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 To John Glucker sub umbra illius, quem desideraveram, sedi; et fructus eius dulcis gutturi meo © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Preface This book has its origins in my doctoral thesis (2002) at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Since then, developments in research on the art of rhetoric have required significant modifications to be made to my position prior to publication. Two studies above all have affected the subject matter, form, and conclusions of the present work. Winter- bottom and Reinhardt’s Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria Book 2 (2006) was for me an eye-opener. I am indebted to the authors for providing me with a copy of their type- script prior to publication. Their work on Quintilian, II, the second half of which is one of the main sources I discuss, obliged me to rewrite much of the book in light of their findings. The second study I should mention actually appeared before I had be- gun my thesis, but was unattainable at the time. This is an article by Jonathan Barnes, “Is Rhetoric an Art?” (1986). I am deeply grateful to Prof. Barnes for sending me a personal copy. The article deals mainly with Sextus Empiricus, but also looks at paral- lels in Quintilian and Philodemus, among others. I have gained most profit, however, from the astonishing originality of Barnes’ notes, as the reader will be able to discern. This book is not an easy read, and is not intended to be dipped into. The argu- ment is cumulative, and pays close attention to the sources; the reader would be well advised to have the sources at hand while reading the book. It is the complex char- acter of the sources themselves which has obliged this approach, and every effort has been made to facilitate reading within these strictures. A study of ancient rhetoric is particularly significant at a time when departments of rhetoric and media studies, not to mention advertising and public relations agen- cies, are increasingly commonplace. Unlike research on the debate over rhetoric in the Classical period, drawing on the extensive sources of Plato and Aristotle, there has been little discussion of the great debate over rhetoric in the Hellenistic period, primarily because of the difficult nature of the sources for this later debate. It is the aim of this book to rectify this omission. Many have aided me in bringing this book to publication, but I would like to thank two in particular. My great teacher and mentor, Prof. John Glucker, has accompanied me at almost every stage, from the preparation of the doctoral dissertation, and through many consultations during the writing of this book, he has given generously of his time and expertise. My thanks also go to my good friend Dr. Ivor Ludlam who read through the entire typescript with the eye of a true expert in the field of Hellenistic philosophy and made many important remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Bar-Ilan University, my home for over twenty years, and especially my colleagues in the departments of Philosophy, History and Classics who have always given me support and good advice. Yosef Z. Liebersohn Jerusalem, January 2010 © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Contents Preface ................................. 7 1. Introduction ............................ 13 1.1. Foreword ........................... 13 1.2. Methodology ......................... 14 1.3. A Survey of the Sources .................... 17 1.3.1. Cicero ......................... 17 1.3.2. Philodemus ....................... 18 1.3.3. Quintilian ........................ 19 1.3.4. Sextus Empiricus .................... 21 1.3.5. The Prolegomena Literature ............... 22 2. The Background to the Debate .................... 24 2.1. Preliminary Considerations ................... 24 2.2. The Philosophical Schools and Rhetoric ............. 28 2.2.1. The Epicureans ..................... 29 2.2.2. The Peripatetics ..................... 29 2.2.3. The Stoics ........................ 32 2.2.4. The Academics ..................... 36 2.3. The Historical Background ................... 38 2.4. Common Assumptions in the Secondary Literature ........ 47 2.4.1. Ludwig Radermacher .................. 47 2.4.2. Harry Hubbell ...................... 47 2.4.3. Leeman and Pinkster ................... 50 2.4.4. Jonathan Barnes ..................... 51 2.4.5. Reinhardt and Winterbottom ............... 51 2.5. The Present Study ....................... 53 3. The Exclusivity of Teaching Argument ................ 58 3.1. General Points ......................... 58 3.2. The Sources .......................... 58 3.3. The Testimony of Cicero .................... 59 © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 10 Contents 3.3.1. The Arguments ..................... 59 3.3.2. The Target of the Arguments ............... 64 3.4. The Testimony of Sextus Empiricus ............... 66 3.4.1. The Arguments ..................... 66 3.4.2. The Target of the Arguments ............... 69 3.5. The Testimony of Quintilian .................. 70 3.5.1. The Arguments ..................... 71 3.5.2. The Target of the Arguments ............... 76 3.6. The Testimony of Philodemus .................. 78 3.6.1. The Arguments ..................... 78 3.6.2. The Target of the Arguments ............... 80 3.7. Conclusion .......................... 82 4. The Falsa Argument ........................ 84 4.1. General Points ......................... 84 4.2. The Sources .......................... 85 4.2.1. The Testimony of Quintilian ............... 85 4.2.2. The Testimony of Sextus Empiricus ............ 87 4.3. The Falsa Argument ...................... 90 4.3.1. The (Self)Deceiving Orator Argument ........... 90 4.3.2. The Rhetoric as Fraud Argument ............. 92 4.4. The Target of the Arguments .................. 93 4.5. Conclusion .......................... 94 5. The Benefit Argument ........................ 97 5.1. General Points ......................... 97 5.2. Quintilian and the Benefit Argument ............... 97 5.2.1. Quintilian, II. ch.16 (Description) ............. 98 5.2.2. Quintilian, II. ch.16 (Analysis) .............. 99 5.3. Sextus Empiricus and the Benefit Argument ........... 106 5.3.1. Sextus Empiricus, II. 20–47 ................ 107 5.3.2. The Expulsion Argument ................. 108 5.3.3. The General Harm Argument ............... 113 5.4. Kakotechnia .......................... 118 5.4.1. Sextus Empiricus, II. 12 ................. 118 5.4.2. Kakotechnia – sources .................. 120 5.5. Two Problems ......................... 125 5.5.1. pro falsis contra veritatem valere ............. 125 5.5.2. The Expulsion Argument in Critolaus’ Version ....... 126 © 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525252949 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647252940 Contents 11 5.6. Conclusion .......................... 127 6. The End Argument ......................... 129 6.1. The Sources .......................... 129 6.2. Introduction to the End Argument ................ 132 6.3. The Exclusivity of Attaining the End Argument ......... 136 6.4. The Exclusivity of the End Argument .............. 144 6.4.1. Analysis of the Exclusivity of the End Argument ...... 145 6.4.2. Analysis of the
Recommended publications
  • Reading Plato with Charmadas (Cic

    Reading Plato with Charmadas (Cic

    Reading Plato with Charmadas (Cic. De Or. 1.45-47) Evidence for the reading of Plato in the New Academy is sparse, and our understanding of how sceptical Academics interpreted Plato is limited (Glucker 1978: 31–64; Barnes 1991; Annas 1992; Tarrant 2000). Concerning Arcesilaus’ interpretation of Plato, Crassus in his history of the schism between oratory and philosophy notes how Arcesilaus found akatalepsia (the view that, according to infallibilist criteria of knowledge, nothing is known) in various dialogues of Plato and other Socratic works (Cic. De Or. 3.67). Frequent accusations that Arcesilaus foisted his own view on philosophical predecessors in order to gain from their authority confirm, at least, that Arcesilaus upheld sceptical readings of Plato (Plut. Col. 1121f-1122a; Cic. Luc. 15). Those charitable to the Academy, both ancient and contemporary (e.g. Cic. Luc. 74; Cooper 2004), have reconstructed responsible sceptical readings of Plato, such that the Academic’s aim in reading Plato is not to take advantage of its founder’s authority. Cicero’s depiction of when Crassus read Gorgias with the Academic Charmadas in 110BCE (De Or. 1.45-47) is all the more interesting given this paucity of evidence. Even if entirely fabricated, the account is authored by a self-professed Academic and, therefore, merits analysis for the Academy’s view about reading Plato. Against the competing interpretations of Lévy (2005), Hösle (2008), and, most recently, Altman (2016), I defend the position of Dörrie (1987) that Charmadas read Plato sceptically. I argue that only a reading which makes a distinction between Socrates as Plato’s mouthpiece and Plato as the author, where Socrates is dogmatic while the author is aporetic, makes proper sense of Crassus’ judgment that he both disagreed with Plato and admired him for his rhetorical skill.
  • Valerius Maximus on Vice: a Commentary of Facta Et Dicta

    Valerius Maximus on Vice: a Commentary of Facta Et Dicta

    Valerius Maximus on Vice: A Commentary on Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 9.1-11 Jeffrey Murray University of Cape Town Thesis Presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the School of Languages and Literatures University of Cape Town June 2016 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town Abstract The Facta et Dicta Memorabilia of Valerius Maximus, written during the formative stages of the Roman imperial system, survives as a near unique instance of an entire work composed in the genre of Latin exemplary literature. By providing the first detailed historical and historiographical commentary on Book 9 of this prose text – a section of the work dealing principally with vice and immorality – this thesis examines how an author employs material predominantly from the earlier, Republican, period in order to validate the value system which the Romans believed was the basis of their world domination and to justify the reign of the Julio-Claudian family. By detailed analysis of the sources of Valerius’ material, of the way he transforms it within his chosen genre, and of how he frames his exempla, this thesis illuminates the contribution of an often overlooked author to the historiography of the Roman Empire.
  • Frederic Ozanam, a Life in Letters

    Frederic Ozanam, a Life in Letters

    OTHER BOOKS BY JOSEPH I. DIRVIN, C.M. St. Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, New York, 1958; reissue Tan Books and Publishers, Rockland, Illinois 1984. Woman Clothed With the Sun (Collaboration), Hanover House, New York, 1960. Mrs. Seton, Foundress of the American Sisters of Charity Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, New York, 1962, 1975. Louise de Marillac Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, Spring, 1970. Frederic Ozanam A LIFE IN LETTERS ' " , ~~ , ,-·~-- . ,, ~~~ Frederic Ozanam 1813-1853 ~ Frederic Ozanam A LIFE IN LETTERS Translated and edited by JOSEPH I. DIRVIN, C.M. SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES © 1986 by Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Council of the United States, 4140 Lindell, St. Louis, Missouri 63108 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ozanam, A.-F. (Antoine Frederic), 1813-1853. Frederic Ozanam, a life in letters. Includes index. 1. Ozanam, A.-F. (Antoine Frederic), 1813-1853- Correspondence. 2. Catholics-France-Correspondence. 3. Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I. Dirvin, Joseph I. II. Title. BX4705.08A4 1986 282'.092'4 [B] 86-26127 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FOREWORD The Council of the United States has taken on the responsibility of publishing an annotated English translation of selected correspondence of our Frederic Ozanam. This praiseworthy effort is made possible by the unselfish labor of Father Joseph I. Dir, vin, C.M., who has translated the letters from the original French.
  • 2019-20 Annual Report

    2019-20 Annual Report

    PRINCETON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT AND PROGRAM OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES Annual Report 2019-2020 1 COVER: The wooden doors to 202 Jones. Photo taken by Martin Kern. 2 Annual Report 2019-20 Contents Director’s Letter 4 Department and Program News 6 Language Programs 8 Undergraduates 11 Graduate Students 14 Faculty 18 Events 24 Summer Programs 26 Affiliated Programs 29 Libraries & Museum 34 3 Director’s Letter, 2019-20 In normal years, the Director’s Letter is a retrospective of the year in East Asian Studies—but where to begin? Annual disasters and upheavals are standard topics in traditional East Asian chronicles. By June of 2020 (a gengzi 庚子 year), we had already lived through more than our share: the coronavirus pandemic, severe economic downturn, government inaction and prevarication, Princeton’s shift to online teaching, dislocation of undergraduate and graduate life, shuttering of libraries and labs, disruption to travel, study, and research for students, staff, and faculty, the brutal murder of George Floyd, and the international renaissance of the Black Lives Matter movement. invigorate campus intellectual life, completing book This spring semester, the usual hum of summer manuscripts, or starting new projects. The heaviest burden, programming and plans for next academic year grew no doubt, fell on our language instructors. The faculty quiet, and many EAS projects were cancelled, postponed, in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean innovated non-stop to shifted online, or put on hold. As this Annual Report goes insure that, in the era of Zoom, students would remain fully to press, plans for undergraduate residence on campus engaged in all four language skills of speaking, listening, and the format for classes in fall of 2020 are still being reading, and writing.
  • Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece

    Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) University Studies of the University of Nebraska 5-1942 Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece Clarence A. Forbes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/univstudiespapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Studies of the University of Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece * * * * * CLARENCE A. FORBES UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA STUDIES Ma y 1942 STUDIES IN THE HUMANITIES NO.2 Note to Cataloger UNDER a new plan the volume number as well as the copy number of the University of Nebraska Studies was discontinued and only the numbering of the subseries carried on, distinguished by the month and the year of pu blica tion. Thus the present paper continues the subseries "Studies in the Humanities" begun with "University of Nebraska Studies, Volume 41, Number 2, August 1941." The other subseries of the University of Nebraska Studies, "Studies in Science and Technology," and "Studies in Social Science," are continued according to the above plan. Publications in all three subseries will be supplied to recipients of the "University Studies" series. Corre­ spondence and orders should be addressed to the Uni­ versity Editor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. University of Nebraska Studies May 1942 TEACHERS' PAY IN ANCIENT GREECE * * * CLARENCE A.
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
  • Stasis-Theory in Homeric Commentary

    Stasis-Theory in Homeric Commentary

    This is a repository copy of Stasis-theory in Homeric commentary . White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/390/ Article: Heath, M. (1993) Stasis-theory in Homeric commentary. Mnemosyne, 46 (3). pp. 356-363. ISSN 0026-7074 Reuse See Attached Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Mnemosyne 46 (1993), 356-63 St£sij-theory in Homeric commentary Malcolm Heath University of Leeds ABSTRACT: (i) Analysis of the small number of references to the rhetorical theory of stasis (issue-theory) in the Homeric scholia shows that they assume a modified version of the theory of Athenaeus, a contemporary and rival of Hermagoras of Temnos. (ii) In his discussion of Agamemnon's speech in Iliad 3.456-60 Eustathius follows the discussion in Plutarch Quaestiones convivales 9.13, rather than that in the scholia. It is shown that this is justified on technical grounds. The interpretation in the scholia does not fit Agamemnon's speech, and must have originated in a discussion of the attested Homeric 'problem' concerning claims that the Trojans had broken their oath. I The sporadic references to st£sij-theory in the scholia to the Iliad employ an unusual terminology.1 The following terms are found: (A1) parormhtik» (9.228; 23.594); (A2) katastocastik» (18.497-8); (A3) ¢lloiwtik» (1.118; 8.424; 9.228, 312-3), of which tÕ ØpallaktikÒn is a part (9.228); (A4) dikaiologik» (23.594);2 (A5) ·htÕn kaˆ di£noia (3.457).

  • A Literary Sources

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82860-4 — The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 2nd Edition Index More Information Index A Literary sources Livy XXVI.24.7–15: 77 (a); XXIX.12.11–16: 80; XXXI.44.2–9: 11 Aeschines III.132–4: 82; XXXIII.38: 195; XXXVII.40–1: Appian, Syrian Wars 52–5, 57–8, 62–3: 203; XXXVIII.34: 87; 57 XXXIX.24.1–4: 89; XLI.20: 209 (b); ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ I.9–11 and XLII.29–30.7: 92; XLII.51: 94; 261 V.35–40: XLV.29.3–30 and 32.1–7: 96 15 [Aristotle] Oeconomica II.2.33: I Maccabees 1.1–9: 24; 1.10–25 and 5 7 Arrian, Alexander I.17: ; II.14: ; 41–56: 217; 15.1–9: 221 8 9 III.1.5–2.2: (a); III.3–4: ; II Maccabees 3.1–3: 216 12 13 IV.10.5–12.5: ; V.28–29.1: ; Memnon, FGrH 434 F 11 §§5.7–11: 159 14 20 V1.27.3–5: ; VII.1.1–4: ; Menander, The Sicyonian lines 3–15: 104 17 18 VII.4.4–5: ; VII.8–9 and 11: Menecles of Barca FGrHist 270F9:322 26 Arrian, FGrH 156 F 1, §§1–8: (a); F 9, Pausanias I.7: 254; I.9.4: 254; I.9.5–10: 30 §§34–8: 56; I.25.3–6: 28; VII.16.7–17.1: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae V.201b–f, 100 258 43 202f–203e: ; VI.253b–f: Plutarch, Agis 5–6.1 and 7.5–8: 69 23 Augustine, City of God 4.4: Alexander 10.6–11: 3 (a); 15: 4 (a); Demetrius of Phalerum, FGrH 228 F 39: 26.3–10: 8 (b); 68.3: cf.
  • Alexander of Aphrodisias on Fate, Providence and Nature

    Alexander of Aphrodisias on Fate, Providence and Nature

    Supplement to Acta Philosophica FORUM Volume 3 (2017)7–18 Alexander of Aphrodisias on Fate, Providence and Nature David Torrijos-Castrillejo Universidad Eclesiástica San Dámaso [email protected] DOI: 10.17421/2498-9746-03-01 Abstract To study the inuence of divinity on cosmos, Alexander uses the notions of ‘fate’ and ‘providence,’ which were common in the philos- ophy of his time. In this way, he provides an Aristotelian interpreta- tion of the problems related to such concepts. In the context of this discussion, he oers a description of ‘nature’ dierent from the one that he usually regards as the standard Aristotelian notion of nature, i.e. the intrinsic principle of motion and rest. The new coined concept is a ‘cosmic’ nature that can be identied with both ‘fate’ and ‘divine power,’ which are the immediate eect of providence upon the world. In the paper it is exposed how the conception of providence defended by Alexander means a rejection of the divine care of the particulars, since the divinities are only provident for species. Several texts be- longing to the Middle Platonic philosophers will convince us that such thinkers (and not directly Aristotle) are the origin of the thesis that will be understood as the conventional Aristotelian position, namely that divinity only orders species but not individuals. contents 1 Alexander on Nature as Divine Power or Fate ........... 8 2 Middle Platonic Roots of the Alexandrian Notion of Fate and Providence ............................. 11 3 Conclusions ............................ 14 Notes ................................. 15 7 david torrijos-castrillejo Alexander of Aphrodisias, the commentator of Aristotle par excellence, tries to answer to the scientic questions arisen in his time using the contribu- tions of the philosophy of the head of the Peripatetic school.
  • The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism

    The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism

    Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity Herausgeber/Editor: CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES (Berlin) Beirat/Advisory Board HUBERT CANCIK (Berlin) • GIOVANNI CASADIO (Salerno) SUSANNA ELM (Berkeley) • JOHANNES HAHN (Münster) JÖRG RÜPKE (Erfurt) 23 John Granger Cook The Interprétation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism Mohr Siebeck JOHN GRANGER COOK, born 1955; 1976 B.A. in Philosophy, Davidson College; 1979 M. Div., Union Theological Seminary (VA); 1982-83 Doctoral research at the University of Gottin- gen; 1985 Ph.D. at Emory University; 1985-91 Pastor at Reems Creek Presbyterian Parish in Weaverville, NC/USA; 1991-94 post doctoral studies at Emory University; since 1994 Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at LaGrange College, GA/USA. ISBN 3-16-148474-6 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2004 by Mohr Siebeck,Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany. For my doctoral fathers, Prof. David Hellholm and the late Prof. William Beardslee, with heartfelt gratitude Table of Contents Introduction 1 0.1 Hecataeus of Abdera (ca 300 B.C.E.) 4 0.2 Manetho (III B.C.E.) 6 0.3 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.) 8 0.4 Lysimachus 9 0.5 Apollonius Molon (I B.C.E.) 11 0.6 Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.) 13 0.7 Diodorus Siculus (I B.C.E.) 16 0.8 Nicolaus of Damascus 19 0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E.
  • Download PDF Datastream

    Download PDF Datastream

    City of Praise: The Politics of Encomium in Classical Athens By Mitchell H. Parks B.A., Grinnell College, 2008 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics at Brown University PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND MAY 2014 © Copyright 2014 by Mitchell H. Parks This dissertation by Mitchell H. Parks is accepted in its present form by the Department of Classics as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Adele Scafuro, Adviser Recommended to the Graduate Council Date Johanna Hanink, Reader Date Joseph D. Reed, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date Peter M. Weber, Dean of the Graduate School iii Curriculum Vitae Mitchell H. Parks was born on February 16, 1987, in Kearney, NE, and spent his childhood and adolescence in Selma, CA, Glenside, PA, and Kearney, MO (sic). In 2004 he began studying at Grinnell College in Grinnell, IA, and in 2007 he spent a semester in Greece through the College Year in Athens program. He received his B.A. in Classics with honors in 2008, at which time he was also inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and was awarded the Grinnell Classics Department’s Seneca Prize. During his graduate work at Brown University in Providence, RI, he delivered papers at the annual meetings of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South (2012) and the American Philological Association (2014), and in the summer of 2011 he taught ancient Greek for the Hellenic Education & Research Center program in Thouria, Greece, in addition to attending the British School at Athens epigraphy course.
  • Copyrighted Material

    Copyrighted Material

    Index Note : Geographical landmarks are listed under the proper name itself: for “Cape Sepias” or “Mt. Athos” see “Sepias” or “Athos.” When a people and a toponym share the same base, see under the toponym: for “Thessalians” see “Thessaly.” Romans are listed according to the nomen, i.e. C. Julius Caesar. With places or people mentioned once only, discretion has been used. Abdera 278 Aeaces II 110, 147 Abydus 222, 231 A egae 272–273 Acanthus 85, 207–208, 246 Aegina 101, 152, 157–158, 187–189, Acarnania 15, 189, 202, 204, 206, 251, 191, 200 347, 391, 393 Aegium 377, 389 Achaia 43, 54, 64 ; Peloponnesian Aegospotami 7, 220, 224, 228 Achaia, Achaian League 9–10, 12–13, Aemilius Paullus, L. 399, 404 54–56, 63, 70, 90, 250, 265, 283, 371, Aeolis 16–17, 55, 63, 145, 233 375–380, 388–390, 393, 397–399, 404, Aeschines 281, 285, 288 410 ; Phthiotic Achaia 16, 54, 279, Aeschylus 156, 163, 179 286 Aetoli Erxadieis 98–101 Achaian War 410 Aetolia, Aetolian League 12, 15, 70, Achaius 382–383, 385, 401 204, 250, 325, 329, 342, 347–348, Acilius Glabrio, M. 402 376, 378–380, 387, 390–391, 393, Acragas 119, COPYRIGHTED165, 259–261, 263, 266, 39MATERIAL6–397, 401–404 352–354, 358–359 Agariste 113, 117 Acrocorinth 377, 388–389 Agathocles (Lysimachus ’ son) 343, 345 ; Acrotatus 352, 355 (King of Sicily) 352–355, 358–359; Actium 410, 425 (King of Bactria) 413–414 Ada 297 Agelaus 391, 410 A History of Greece: 1300 to 30 BC, First Edition. Victor Parker.