DOCSLIB.ORG

The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle's Rhetoric

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle's Rhetoric DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0045 BZ 2020; 113(3): 1069–1088 Melpomeni Vogiatzi The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: the 12th centuryRenaissance Abstract: In this paper,Iarguethat,after centuries of neglect,arevival of inter- est towards Aristotle’sRhetoric took place in 12th centuryConstantinople, which led to the production of anumber of commentaries.Inorder to give an overview of the commentary tradition on the Rhetoric,Iexamine first the surviving extant commentaries themselves, then the informationthatthe commentators offer re- garding theirpreceding interpretations, and lastthe traces of commentaries on the Rhetoric found in other treatises.Thisexamination will show that,atleast within aspecific group of scholars, the Rhetoric was studied and commented upon like never before. Finally, Iattempt to explain this revival of interest,espe- ciallywith respect to the role thatphilosophical and rhetoricaleducation played in 12th century Byzantium. Adresse: Dr.Melpomeni Vogiatzi, MunichSchool of Ancient Philosophy,LMU Lehrstuhlfür PhilosophieVI, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 München, Deutschland; [email protected] The question regardingthe reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the late antique and Byzantine period has been raised before. As earlyas1865, H. Usener publishedanarticle on the reception of this Aristotelian treatise, and concluded that it was ignored by scholars of the late antiqueflourishing of Aristotelian studies, and also during Byzantium. In fact,heargues that aside from the two extant commentaries on the treatise, all references to the ancient commentary tradition on the Rhetoric refertoscholars who worked not on Aristotle’stext, but rather on other late antique rhetorical treatises. Similarly, more recent stud- ies, have argued that the treatise wasstudied neither by philosophersnor by rhetoricians in late antiquity,and that the existing Byzantine commentaries do not indicate in themselvesany changeininterest,since the commentators focus on the sametopics as the ones studied by the rhetoricians of late Iwould liketothank the Munich School of Ancient Philosophy,especiallyProf.Peter Adamson and Prof.Christof Rapp fortheir recommendationsand support.Also, Iamindebted to Prof.Di- eter Harlfinger and Dr.Nikos Agiotisand the anonymous refereesfor their feedback on this paper. 1070 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung antiquity.¹ Therefore, accordingtothe communis opinio on the reception of Aris- totle’s Rhetoric in Byzantium, the treatise was largely neglected by academic and intellectual circles,with the existing Byzantine commentaries on the treatise being single instances of interest in it,and even these being texts of no philo- sophical value writtenbyauthors with mainlypractical interests (in line with their contemporary rhetorical tradition). Against this communis opinio,Iwill show that scholarlyinterest in Aristote- lian rhetorical theory,which largely disappeared prior to the Byzantine period, revivedinthe 12th centuryand produced anumber of commentaries written by Aristotelian scholars. HereImean scholars whose exegetic strategyaimed at interpreting Aristotle ex Aristotele in order to highlight the Rhetoric’scompat- ibility with the other Aristotelian treatises.Inorder to sketch the history of the commentary tradition as it pertains to Aristotle’s Rhetoric during Byzantium, I will first give an outline of the surviving Byzantine commentaries on the text. Iwill then supplement this list of existing commentaries with some evidence for the existenceofadditional commentaries on the Rhetoric. Anonymous andStephanus on Aristotle’s Rhetoric The onlyexisting commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric are the ones that have been edited in the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (vol. 21.2,ed. Rabe), twoofwhich are extant,inthatthey cover the whole treatise, whereas other two have come down to us in fragmentary form. As mentioned above, the general consensus regardingthese commentaries is that they are texts of no philosophical import,written by authors thatare interestedinrhetorical praxis rather than in philosophy. Therefore, apresentation of the content and aim of the existing commentaries will not onlygivethe general context of the production of commentaries in the 12th century,but it will also challengethe communis opinio and demonstrate that the commentators are Aristotelianschol- ars, in the sense thatthey interpret Aristotle’srhetorical account on the basis of his own views as expressed in other treatises. See H. Usener,Literarhistorisches. Rheinisches Museum (), –;see also Th. Conley,Aristotle’s Rhetoric in Byzantium. Rhetorica (), –; idem,Notes on the By- zantine reception of the peripatetic tradition in rhetoric, in W.W. Fortenbaugh/D.C. Mirhady (eds.), Peripatetic rhetoric after Aristotle. New Jersey , –. M. Vogiatzi, The Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s Rhetoric 1071 The first extant commentaries on Aristotle’s Rhetoric thathavecome down to us are dated in the 12thcentury CE and are written in Constantinople by an Anonymous author and by an ancient commentator named Stephanus. Stepha- nus’ identity has been amatter of studyand the commentator has been convinc- ingly identifiedwith Stephanus Skylitzes, the later metropolitan of Trebizond.² The identity of the Anonymous commentator is still amatter of controversy.It has been long agosuggested, although not proven,³ thatthe author is no other than Michael of Ephesus,probablyonthe basis of areference to acom- mentary on the Rhetoric found in the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations that is usually attributed to Michael of Ephesus (CAG 2.3),⁴ as well as on the basis of areferencetoacommentary on the Rhetoric found in aByzantine list of Mi- chael’sworks.⁵ Recently, C. Rambourg defended this suggestion and argued in favour of the identification of the Anonymous commentator with Michael of Ephesus, mainlyonthe basis of analyzingmedicaland zoological examples used in the commentary on the Rhetoric that indicate, as she argues, strongin- terest in medicineand biology.⁶ This interest fits, in her view,with our knowl- edge of Michael as acommentator on Aristotle’sbiological works and as adoc- tor. However,none of these arguments are enough to provethat Michael is the author of the anonymous commentary on the Rhetoric. First and foremost,the style, language, and philosophicalmaturity of the Anonymous author differs greatlyfrom thatofMichael of Ephesus: expressions typical in Michael’scom- mentariesonother Aristotelian treatises are absent from the commentary on the Rhetoric,whereas the most characteristic linguistic features of the Anony- mous are absent from Michael. Moreover,the commentary on the Rhetoric differs Both commentaries areeditedinH.Rabe (ed.), Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria. CAG, /.Berlin .Onthe identity of Stephanus see W. Wolska-Conus,À propos des scholiesdeStéphanos àlaRhétorique d’Aristote: l’Auteur,l’œuvre, le milieu, in M. Berza (ed.), ActesduXIVeCongrès Internationaldes Etudes Byzantines.Bucarest , –.AsConus has argued, the Aristotelian commentatorStephanus is no other than Ste- phanus Skylitzes,the metropolitan of Trebizond. The monodyonhim written by his pupil The- odoros Prodromos is agood source of information regarding his life and career as ateacher of rhetoric at the school of Saint Paul, beforehebecame metropolitan. See Conley,Aristotle’s Rhetoric (as footnote above), . In Soph. El., , : περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀτέχνου ταύτης πειραστικῆςκαὶἐντοῖςεἰςτὴνῬητορικὴν πονηθεῖσι διειλήφειμεν. Cod. Hieros. Patr.Taphou ,f.v: εἰςτὴνῥητορικὴντοῦἀριστοτέλους, τὸν ἐφέσιον. C. Rambourg,Qu’est-ceque le commentaireanonyme de CAGXXI ?, in F. Woerther (ed.), Commenting on Aristotle’s Rhetoric from antiquity to the present. International Studies in the HistoryofRhetoric, .Leiden , –. 1072 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung greatlywith respect to style from all other existing commentaries thatMichael wrote. Most importantlyofall, the Anonymous’ commentary does not seem to have the depth of Michael’sphilosophicalthought.⁷ Second, regarding Ram- bourg’sarguments, the Anonymous’ use of medical examples, and in particular, examples that come from Galen’scorpus, are insufficient to provethat Michael is the author of the commentary,and indicate onlythatthe Anonymous’ is ac- quainted with Galen. Third, the reference to the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations cannot offer certain ground for arguingfor the identity of the author, especiallygiven thatits attributiontoMichael of Ephesus has recentlycome under scrutiny.⁸ The most one could inferisthattherewas acertain author who wroteacommentary on the Sophistical Refutations and the Rhetoric,without the further extrapolation that this commentary on the Rhetoric is the anonymous one. In fact,since the comparison of the two commentaries does not offer any positive results with respect to language, style, and content,weshould conclude that the twotexts have not been written by the sameauthor,regardless of who in fact authored the commentary on the Sophistical Refutations. Finally, the refer- ence to Michael’scommentary found in the list of his works indicatedearlier, is alsonot secure, giventhatother lists of Michael’scommentaries do not men- tion the Rhetoric at all. However,evenifthe list is accurate and Michael has writ- ten acommentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric,this does not provethat his commen- tary is the one that has come down to us as anonymous. Therefore, we can conclude thatthe author of the anonymous commentary is not Michael
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Gilgamesh: His World and His Story Aims Toward This Process of Communication
    University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) UNDERSTANDING GILGAMESH: HIS WORLD AND HIS STORY by GEZINA GERTRUIDA DE VILLIERS submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR LITTERARUM (SEMITIC LANGUAGES) in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the University of Pretoria SUPERVISOR : PROF GTM PRINSLOO Pretoria October 2004 University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) CONTENTS Pag CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1-1 1. Motivation for research 1-2 2. Research problem 1-4 3. Hypothesis 1-5 4. Purpose for research 1-5 5. Methodology 1-6 5.1. Source-orientated inquiry 1-6 5.2. Discourse-orientated analysis 1-7 5.2.1. Epic: poetry or prose? 1-7 6. Premises 1-9 7. Contents 1-12 CHAPTER 2 : THE STANDARD BABYLONIAN GILGAMESH EPIC 2-14 1. The narrative 2-15 CHAPTER 3 : THE SOURCE HISTORY OF THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH 3-38 1. The Sumerian past 3-38 1.1. General background 3-38 1.2. Cities 3-40 1.3. Animals 3-45 1.4. Kings 3-46 1.5. Theology 3-49 2. Sumerian literature: the five poems on Bilgames 3-56 2.1. Obscure origins: did the king really exist? 3-56 2.2. The poems 3-58 2.3. The function of the Sumerian poems 3-71 3. From frivolous frolic to academic achievement: entertainment to literature 3-72 University of Pretoria etd – De Villiers, G (2005) 3.1. Writing 3-72 3.2. From Sumerian to Akkadian 3-74 3.3. The Sumerian Renaissance 3-76 3.4. The end of Ur III and the Isin-Larsa period 3-79 3.5 Babylon 3-81 3.5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23
    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius
    A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius Michele Trizio PART FROM a single Delphic inscription (FD III.4 103), the testimonia of the life and work of second-century AMiddle Platonist Gaius fall into two classes.1 The first includes first-hand observations of later philosophers up to Proclus: Porphyry, for instance, reports that Gaius was one of several authors read regularly by Plotinus’ entourage.2 Galen tells us that he followed the classes of two of Gaius’ pupils in Pergamum and Smyrna respectively.3 As to Proclus, he twice mentions Gaius, among other Platonists, in his commentaries on the Republic and the Timaeus.4 The second class of testimonia includes statements concerning Gaius’ scholarship on Plato in three important Greek MSS. The first of these, Paris.gr. 1962, is a ninth-century MS. of the so-called ‘philosophical collection’, which, among others entries, contains a pinax at f. 146v men- tioning ᾿Αλβίνου τῶν Γαίου σχολῶν ὑποτυπώσεων πλατωνικῶν δογµάτων. That is to say, Albinus’ edition of Gaius’ scholia on 1 On Gaius and the related bibliography see J. Whittaker, “Gaius,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire de philosophes antiques III (Paris 2000) 437–440. All testimonia on Gaius are collected and discussed with reference to previous literature in A. Gioè, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.c. (Naples 2002). 2 V.Plot. 14, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera I (Leiden 1951) 19.10–14. 3 De propriorum animi 41, ed. W. de Boer (CMG V.4.1.1, Leipzig 1937); Libr.propr. 2.1, ed. V. Boudon-Millot (Paris 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Jon Garthoff
    Jon Garthoff University of Tennessee Email: [email protected] Department of Philosophy Mobile: 773.236.6206 801 McClung Tower 555 W. Jackson Ave. #602 Knoxville TN 37996 USA Knoxville TN 37902 USA Employment Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee Department of Philosophy, August 2011- present. Director of Graduate Studies, August 2013-present. Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Department of Philosophy, September 2005-August 2011. Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Department of Philosophy, September 2007-December 2007. Postdoctoral Fellow, Judd and Marjorie Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, August 2004-August 2005. Education Ph.D. in Philosophy, University of California at Los Angeles, December 2004. Dissertation – The Embodiment of Morality. Committee: Prof. Barbara Herman (co-director), Prof. Seana Shiffrin (co-director), Prof. Calvin Normore (member), and Prof. Stephen Gardbaum (member). Proposition – Harms Without States: A Defense of the Possibility of Posthumous Harm. Committee: Prof. Seana Shiffrin (adviser) and Prof. Barbara Herman (second reader). A.B. in Philosophy summa cum laude, Princeton University, June 1997. Senior Thesis – Resisting Skepticism About Meaning. Committee: Prof. Scott Soames (adviser) and Prof. John Burgess (second reader). Areas of Expertise Principal Areas of Specialization: Ethical Theory, Political Philosophy, History of Ethical Theory and Political Philosophy. Further Areas of Research/Graduate Teaching Competences: Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Mind, Metaethics. Undergraduate Teaching Competences: Epistemology, History of Philosophy, Applied Ethics. Current Research ‘Animal Punishment’, under review. ‘Decomposing Legal Personhood’, under review. ‘Worldview Adoption as a Special Psychology’, under review. Curriculum Vitae – Jon Garthoff – April 2016 Publications Essays ‘Against the Construction of Ethical Standing’. Forthcoming in Kant on Animals, Eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Synopsis of the Aristotelian Commentary Tradition (In Less Than Sixty Minutes)
    HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY TRADITION (IN LESS THAN SIXTY MINUTES) Fred D. Miller, Jr. CHAPTER 1 PERIPATETIC SCHOLARS Aristotle of Stagira (384–322 BCE) Exoteric works: Protrepticus, On Philosophy, Eudemus, etc. Esoteric works: Categories, Physics, De Caelo, Metaphysics, De Anima, etc. The legend of Aristotle’s misappropriated works Andronicus of Rhodes: first edition of Aristotle’s works (40 BCE) Early Peripatetic commentators Boethus of Sidon (c. 75—c. 10 BCE) comm. on Categories Alexander of Aegae (1st century CE)comm. on Categories and De Caelo Adrastus of Aphrodisias (early 1st century) comm. on Categories Aspasius (c. 131) comm. on Nicomachean Ethics Emperor Marcus Aurelius establishes four chairs of philosophy in Athens: Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, Epicurean (c. 170) Alexander of Aphrodisias (late 2nd —early 3rd century) Extant commentaries on Prior Analytics, De Sensu, etc. Lost comm. on Physics, De Caelo, etc. Exemplar for all subsequent commentators. Comm. on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Only books 1—5 of Alexander’s comm. are genuine; books 6—14 are by ps.-Alexander . whodunit? Themistius (c. 317—c. 388) Paraphrases of Physics, De Anima, etc. Paraphrase of Metaphysics Λ (Hebrew translation) Last of the Peripatetics CHAPTER 2 NEOPLATONIC SCHOLARS Origins of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas (c. 175—242) forefather of Neoplatonism Plotinus (c. 205—260) the Enneads Reality explained in terms of hypostases: THE ONE—> THE INTELLECT—>WORLD SOUL—>PERCEPTIBLE WORLD Porphyry of Tyre (232–309) Life of Plotinus On the School of Plato and Aristotle Being One On the Difference Between Plato and Aristotle Isagoge (Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories) What is Neoplatonism? A broad intellectual movement based on the philosophy of Plotinus that sought to incorporate and reconcile the doctrines of Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle with each other and with the universal beliefs and practices of popular religion (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Arabatzis.Ffinal Version
    Michael of Ephesus and the philosophy of living things (In De partibus animalium, 22.25–23.9) GEORGE ARABATZIS Introduction As in other scientific disciplines, for biological knowledge the Byzantines depended largely on ancient Greek science, especially of the Hellenistic pe- riod. Under the appellation ‘biology’, we should understand those sciences which had to do with medicine, pharmacology, veterinary medicine, zool- ogy, and botany.1 As regards theories about living things (animals and plants), Byzantium carried on a tradition that synthesized elements from an- cient Greek philosophy and the Christian religion (especially the philosophy of the Church Fathers). The crucial point here is the introduction by Christianity of the theory of the historical creation of the world, from its initial elements to the formation of humans, who were seen as the crown of the universe. In a rural civilization like Byzantium, proximity to the world of plants and animals produced popular literary works that played with the idea of human primacy over all other living beings, primarily animals, often through prosopopoeia.2 Since Greco-Roman times, Aristotelian reflection on the conditions of knowledge of biological phenomena, in other words Aristotle’s biological epistemology, had fallen into oblivion;3 what re- mained from his contribution to biology was the collection of natural data and curiosities that offered, together with other sources, material for late ancient compilations. We have to wait for the eleventh–twelfth centuries in order to see, in the person of Michael of Ephesus, a commentator on Aristotle’s philosophy of biology, and this paper will focus on him.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens
    Trinity University Digital Commons @ Trinity Philosophy Faculty Research Philosophy Department 2014 Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens Damian Caluori Trinity University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/phil_faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Repository Citation Caluori, D. (2014). Rhetoric and Platonism in fifth-century Athens. In R. C. Fowler (Ed.), Plato in the third sophistic (pp. 57-72). De Gruyter. This Contribution to Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Damian Caluori (Trinity University) Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens There are reasons to believe that relations between Platonism and rhetoric in Athens during the fifth century CE were rather close.Z Both were major pillars of pagan cul- ture, or paideia, and thus essential elements in the defense of paganism against in- creasingly powerful and repressive Christian opponents. It is easy to imagine that, under these circumstances, paganism was closing ranks and that philosophers and orators united in their efforts to save traditional ways and values. Although there is no doubt some truth to this view, a closer look reveals that the relations be- tween philosophy and rhetoric were rather more complicated. In what follows, I will discuss these relations with a view to the Platonist school of Athens. By “the Platon- ist school of Athens” I mean the Platonist school founded by Plutarch of Athens in the late fourth century CE, and reaching a famous end under the leadership of Dam- ascius in 529.X I will first survey the evidence for the attitudes towards rhetoric pre- vailing amongst the most important Athenian Platonists of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarities and Differences Between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern Texts
    Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1, 5-32. Copyright © 2011 Andrews University Press. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS ROBE R TO OU R O Adventist School of Theology Sagunto, Valencia, Spain Introduction In 1902, the noted Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch presented a series of lectures on comparative studies under the auspices of the German Oriental Society. Delitzsch’s lectures, entitled “Babel und Bibel,” claimed that the literature of the Bible was dependent on, and even borrowed from, the literature of Mesopotamia. He questioned the appropriateness of the traditional theological terminology used to describe the Bible (e.g., revelation, inspiration) in light of its now evident dependency.1 Delitzsch’s work spawned a movement called “Pan-Babylonianism,” which argued that all world myths and Christian Scriptures (OT and NT) were simply versions of Babylonian mythology.2 As the series developed, however, it became clear that the lecturer’s motives were not entirely pure. His interest was to minimize the values of OT teaching so that it could be contrasted with that of the NT.3 The widespread interest in finding connections between the Bible and other ANE cultures has bred its own reaction in the warning raised by several scholars against exaggerating the importance of such similarities, a practice baptized with the name “parallelomania.”4 Of particular concern has been the often tacit assumption that such parallels can be construed as evidence for a genetic connection between the cultures that share them. Despite such warnings, the pendulum of biblical studies has continued to swing back and forth with remarkable regularity over the generations, as initial archeological discoveries have led to enthusiastic claims of similarities with various biblical practices and the implied, if not always stated, conclusion that these constitute the source for the biblical practice in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Jon Garthoff
    Jon Garthoff University of Tennessee Email: [email protected] Department of Philosophy Mobile: 1.773.236.6206 801 McClung Tower 555 W. Jackson Ave. #602 Knoxville TN 37996 USA Knoxville TN 37902 USA Employment Associate Professor, University of Tennessee Department of Philosophy. August 2017-present. Director of Graduate Studies, University of Tennessee Department of Philosophy. August 2018-present. Faculty Fellow, University of Tennessee Humanities Center. August 2017-July 2018. Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee Department of Philosophy. August 2011-July 2017. Director of Graduate Studies, University of Tennessee Department of Philosophy. August 2013-July 2017. Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Department of Philosophy. September 2005-August 2011. Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Chicago Department of Philosophy. September 2007-December 2007. Postdoctoral Fellow, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University. September 2004-August 2005. Education Ph.D. in Philosophy, University of California at Los Angeles, December 2004. Dissertation – The Embodiment of Morality. Committee: Prof. Barbara Herman (co-director). Prof. Seana Shiffrin (co-director). Prof. Calvin Normore (member). Prof. Stephen Gardbaum (member). Proposition – Harms Without States: A Defense of the Possibility of Posthumous Harm. Committee: Prof. Seana Shiffrin (adviser). Prof. Barbara Herman (second reader). A.B. in Philosophy summa cum laude, Princeton University, June 1997. Senior Thesis – Resisting Skepticism About Meaning. Committee: Prof. Scott Soames (adviser). Prof. John Burgess (second reader). Areas of Expertise Principal Areas of Specialization: Ethical Theory, Political Philosophy, History of Ethical Theory and Political Philosophy. Further Areas of Research/Graduate Teaching Competences: Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Mind, Metaethics. Undergraduate Teaching Competences: Epistemology, History of Philosophy, Applied Ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew George, What's New in the Gilgamesh Epic?
    What’s new in the Gilgamesh Epic? ANDREW GEORGE School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Summary. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic exists in several different versions. There were at least two versions current during the Old Babylonian period, and no doubt a similar situation obtained later in the second millennium BC, when versions of the epic were copied out in Anatolia, Syria and Palestine, as well as in Mesopotamia proper. But the best-known version is the one called “He who saw the Deep”, which was current in the first-millennium libraries of Assyria and Babylonia. Because this text was so much copied out in antiquity we keep finding more of it, both in museums and in archaeological excavation. This means that editions and translations of the epic must regularly be brought up to date. Some of the more important new passages that are previously unpublished are presented here in translation. WHAT THERE IS It was a great pleasure to be able to share with the Society at the symposium of 20 September 1997 some of the results of my work on the epic of Gilgamesh. My paper of this title was given without a script and was essentially a commentary on the slides that accompanied it. The written paper offered here on the same subject tells the story from the standpoint of one year later. Being the written counterpart of an oral presentation, I hope it may be recognized at least as a distant cousin of the talk given in Toronto. I should say at the outset that my work has been concerned primarily with the textual material in the Akkadian language, that is to say, with the Babylonian poems.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is “Classical” About Classical Antiquity? Eight Propositions
    What Is “Classical” about Classical Antiquity? Eight Propositions JAMES I. PORTER 1. “classical antiquity” is not consistently classical In 1930 classical studies experienced an insurrection. Werner Jaeger, in apostasy from his teacher Wilamowitz, convened a conference in Naumburg called “The Problem of the Classical” (Das Problem des Klassischen). The apostasy was open and calculated. Thirty years earlier Wilamowitz had boasted that he helped put paid to the word classical, which he found meaningless, and in his Geschichte der Philologie from 1921 he notoriously (and audibly) omitted the time- honored epithet of his discipline.1 (In English the title ought to read, History of [ ] Philology. The published English and Italian translations spoil the title’s symbolism by reinserting the missing word Classical.) Das Klassische was a problem indeed, and Jaeger’s conference aimed at making classics a classical discipline again, one firmly rooted in classical and humanistic values true for all time, as against its being a compilation of dry historical data. We have a good idea of what the conference was about because Jaeger published its proceedings a year later.2 But what went on behind the scenes? Luckily, in the days before tape recorders there was Alfred Körte, who offers an in- valuable first-hand account of what he saw and heard: “A number of speakers in the discussion at Naumburg sharply disputed the claim that Aeschylus was a classical author of the first rank (ein Klassiker). As the discussion went on, it turned out that actually none of the first-class luminaries of world literature had any rightful claim to the label classical, or at most they had only a qualified claim to it—neither Homer nor Aeschylus nor Shakespeare nor even the young Goethe.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Denunciation of Rhetoric in the "Phaedrus" Author(S): Brad Mcadon Source: Rhetoric Review, Vol
    Plato's Denunciation of Rhetoric in the "Phaedrus" Author(s): Brad McAdon Source: Rhetoric Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2004), pp. 21-39 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20176594 Accessed: 22/09/2010 21:38 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Review. http://www.jstor.org Brad McAdon University of Memphis Plato's Denunciation of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles thatfinds a positive view of rhetoric in the Phaedrus, / contend that Plato mockingly de nounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus.
    [Show full text]