Aristotle's claim that natural slaves do not possess autonomous rationality (Pol. 1.5, 1254b20-23) cannot plausibly be interpreted in an unrestricted sense, since this would conflict with what Aristotle knew about non-Greek societies. Aristotle's argument requires only a lack of autonomous practical rationality. An impairment of the capacity for integrated practical deliberation, resulting from an environmentally induced excess or deficiency in thumos (Pol. 7.7, 1327b18-31), would be sufficient to make natural slaves incapable of eudaimonia without being obtrusively implausible relative to what (...) Aristotle is likely to have believed about non-Greeks. Since Aristotle seems to have believed that the existence of people who can be enslaved without injustice is a hypothetical necessity, if those capable oí eudaimonia are to achieve it, the existence of natural slaves has implications for our understanding of Aristotle's natural teleology. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: 1. Poetry: the roots of a problem; 2. A radical solution: Plato's Republic; 3. The natural history of poetry: Aristotle; 4. Ways to find truth in falsehood; 5. The marriage of Homer and Plato.

Stasis-theory seeks to classify rhetorical problems acccording to the underlying structure of the dispute that each involves. Such a classification is of interest to the practising rhetor, since it may help him identify an appropriate argumentative strategy; for example, patterns of argument appropriate to a question of fact may be irrelevant in an evaluative dispute.

In this paper I shall approach Hesiod's poetry from two, rather different, directions; consequently, the paper itself falls into two parts, the argument and conclusions of which are largely independent. In I offer some observations on the vexed question of the organisation of Works and Days; that is, my concern is with the coherence of the poem's form and content. In my attention shifts to the function of this poem and of its companion, Theogony; given the form and content of (...) these two poems, what can we plausibly conjecture about the end or ends to which they were composed? In particular, I shall consider whether, and in what sense, these poems may be regarded as didactic in intent. Much of what I have to say in I say with a measure of confidence; in , by contrast, my primary aim is to undermine unwarranted confidence — although I do, even here, reach some positive conclusions. (shrink)

A new English translation, with commentary, of the treatise On Issues by Hermogenes of Tarsus. The book is intended to make sophisticated theories of argument developed by Greek teachers of rhetoric in the second century AD accessible both to specialist and non-specialist readers. Of interest to scholars of all types of Greek literature.

My aim in this paper is to reconsider a number of aspects of Aristotle's thinking on comedy in the light of the acknowledged Aristotelian corpus. I shall have nothing to say about the Tractatus Coislinianus, an obscure and contentious little document which must remain an inappropriate starting-point for discussion. There is still, I believe, something to be learnt from the extant works.

In chapter 9 of the Poetics Aristotle states that poetry is concerned with the universal . In this paper I shall consider three questions arising out of this statement. First, what does it mean? Secondly, what constraints does it impose on the construction of tragic plots ? I shall consider this question with special reference to the possible role of chance in tragedy. Thirdly, why is poetry concerned with the universal – that is, why is poetry such that these constraints (...) are appropriate ? (shrink)

It has been said that ‘the history of Pindaric criticism is the history of the cardinal problem, unity’; but this history has yet to be fully explored. Young's pioneering study passes dismissively over the centuries preceding the publication, in 1821, of Boeckh's commentary—a landmark, indeed, but Boeckh's approach to the poet did not spring into being from nothing; it was the product of a long tradition of careful study, in which Pindar had been widely admired and diversely understood. This paper (...) attempts to document that claim; its primary purpose is therefore historical. But the study of the history of scholarship is of most value when it helps us to understand our own place in that history, disclosing and encouraging us to think critically about our tacit or ill-considered assumptions. I shall therefore conclude by pointing briefly to a possible implication of this history for some more recent work on the poet. (shrink)

This sentence has long been regarded as problematic; Kirchhoff's emendation is palaeographically simple and has met with general approval, but if ίερά is taken to mean ‘temples’, as is usual, the phrase is not without its difficulties. ỉστασθαι is normally used of inscriptions, statues and trophies rather than buildings; LSJ cite only one instance of the latter usage, Thucydides 1.69.1, and there it might be argued that the Long Walls were not a building as such . Furthermore, it does seem (...) rather pointless to say that individual poor members of the demos are unable to build temples, for that was something that even the richest were unlikely to be able to afford. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Apsines and Pseudo–ApsinesMalcolm HeathThis essay addresses a problem with the authorship of the rhetorical treatise traditionally attributed to Apsines,1 and explores the possibilities which open up if we reject that attribution. We know that a great deal of rhetorical literature was in circulation in late antiquity without reliable indication of authorship. Some texts, such as the Anonymus Seguerianus, have survived with no name attached. Others survive with the wrong (...) name: only two of the five parts of the Hermogenean canon are likely to be by Hermogenes himself.2 In some cases alternative attributions are found: as we shall see, one of the pseudo–Hermogenean texts (On Invention) was also attributed to Apsines. Sometimes alternative attributions are recorded in the manuscripts: the first of the two treatises on epideictic attributed to Menander Rhetor is ascribed in a supralinear variant in one manuscript to "Menander or Genethlius";3 neither attribution is likely to be correct. One manuscript of the short treatise on epicheiremes preserved under the name of Minucianus notes that it is ascribed in another source to Nicagoras;4 the confusion may have arisen from a patronymic, since the younger Minucianus was son and father of sophists named Nicagoras. In the case of the pseudo–Dionysian Art of Rhetoric we can see a false attribution coming into being: the anonymous author's references to his own On Imitation (364.24, 383.22 Usener/Radermacher) prompted a scholiast to identify him conjecturally with Dionysius of Halicarnassus.5 One of the sources used by [End Page 89] Georgius, a commentator on Hermogenes of (probably) the fifth century, was "an unascribed treatise, which they attribute to Aquila" ().6 Other examples of false or uncertain attribution could be cited. These facts do not warrant indiscriminate skepticism about the authorship of rhetorical texts; but caution is in order, and we should weigh seriously possible grounds for doubting a traditional attribution.Treatise AThe treatise traditionally attributed to Apsines (to avoid prejudging the question of authorship let us call it "Treatise A") discusses the parts of a speech: prologue, narrative, arguments, epilogue. This was a standard format; Syrianus refers to "a myriad others" who have written on the subject (2.11.6–10 Rabe; cf. PS 205.8–10 Rabe). Other extant examples include the epitome of Rufus, the Anonymus Seguerianus, and the pseudo–Hermogenean On Invention. In his work on stasis Hermogenes himself seems to look forward to such a text when he promises to return to one point in more detail in a discussion of the prologue (53.12–13 Rabe). This promise is not redeemed in any extant work of his; Syrianus inferred that Hermogenes had written "on the parts of the political speech" (2.3.2–7) but evidently had no firsthand knowledge of such a work.The Traditional AttributionThe Apsines to whom Treatise A is attributed is generally identified with Valerius Apsines of Gadara, a friend of Philostratus (VS 628). From the Suda (A4735) we gather that he studied with Heraclides of Lycia in Smyrna and with Basilicus in Nicomedia, held a sophistic chair in Athens, and was elevated to consular rank under Maximinus (A.D. 235–38).7 A complimentary reference to Basilicus in the introduction to [End Page 90] the treatise (331.7 = 217.5–6) encourages this identification. But we know of at least three other sophists with the same name. The Suda mentions two:1. Apsines of Athens, father of the sophist Onasimus (A4734).2. Apsines, son of the Athenian sophist Onasimus (A4736).From Eunapius we know of3. Apsines the Spartan, a rival of Julian of Cappadocia and a distinguished (482, with an entertaining anecdote about the rivalry at 483–85). Eunapius' Apsines the Spartan may well be identical with the Suda's Apsines son of Onasimus, since the Suda's entry on Onasimus (O327) describes him as "of Cyprus or Sparta" and lists a technical work (addressed, presumably, to his son) among his writings.8 An older theory which identified Apsines of Gadara with the father of Onasimus has generally been abandoned on chronological grounds, since the Suda gives the reign of Constantine as Onasimus' floruit.9 [End Page 91]A... (shrink)

This article explores Aristotle’s understanding of the value of tragedy. The primarily technical analyses of the Poetics are not sufficient for this purpose: they must be read in the context of Aristotle’s philosophical anthropology. An outline of Aristotle’s understanding of the structure of human motivation provides a framework within which to interpret his discussion of the uses of music, and in particular of music’s status as an intrinsically valuable component of cultivated leisure. Applying that model to tragedy requires an explanation (...) of what motivates engagement with drama that evokes distressing affects. Aristotle’s account of musical katharsis, if read with sufficient attention to its structure and interpreted in the light of his analysis of pleasure, provides a solution. If the importance which Aristotle attaches to intrinsically valuable leisure activities is overlooked, it is not possible to understand his conception of a good human life, or his aesthetics. (shrink)

Whom did Telephus defend in Telephus? We know that he defended himself; fr. 710 proves that. It is widely, and I believe rightly, held that he defended the Trojans also; but this has been denied by some scholars, most recently by David Sansone in an article on the date of Herodotus' publication. In the first part of this paper I shall comment on Sansone' arguments and offer a defence of the conventional view; I shall then make some rather speculative suggestions (...) concerning the reconstruction of the play. (shrink)

This paper considers the date and authorship of chapters 8-11 of the Art of Rhetoric‚ falsely attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Analysis of the two chapters on "figured speech" suggests that chapter 9 is an unfinished attempt by the author of chapter 8 to rework the material into a more radical (but, in fact, conceptually flawed) refutation of those who rejected the concept. Distinctive common features indicate that chapters 10-11, on declamation and criticism, are by the same author. The texts (...) probably date to the early second century A.D.; the author was perhaps the Aelius Sarapion attested in the Suda. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus: Text, Translation, and CommentaryMalcolm HeathLewis A. Sussman. The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994. vi + 258 pp. Cloth, Gld. 140, $80. (Mnemosyne Supplement 133)Throughout the Hellenistic and Roman period members of the educated elite composed and delivered imitation speeches about hypothetical sets of historical, legendary, or fictitious circumstances. This was a (...) practice capable of exciting the enthusiasm of adults as well as schoolboys, of amateurs as well as professional rhetors; witness (for example) Pliny's report of Isaeus' public displays (Ep. [End Page 161] 2.3). Considering its importance in classical culture, surprisingly little attention has been paid to declamation; scholars have perhaps been too ready to disparage and dismiss it on the basis of misleading secondhand characterisations.Admittedly, firsthand acquaintance has been hard to come by in the past, requiring arid labours over obscure, often badly edited and inaccessible texts without much by way of secondary literature to help in orientation. But the situation has improved in recent years. On the Greek side, Donald Russell's Greek Declamation (Cambridge 1983) is indispensable. Innes and Winterbottom have opened up the way to a usable text of Sopater's Diaresis Zetematon in their commentary (London 1988); alas, we still await someone willing to produce a text answering to their prolegomena. Building on these foundations, my own Hermogenes On Issues (Oxford 1995) makes some attempt to explore the connections between theory and declamatory practice.Latin declamation has been even better served. The elder Seneca has been edited and translated by Winterbottom (1974), with monographs by Fairweather (Cambridge 1981) and Sussman (Leiden 1978). The Minor Declamations ascribed to Quintilian (D. Min.) have been edited by Shackleton-Bailey (Stuttgart 1989) and (with an excellent commentary) by Winterbottom (Berlin 1984); and there is Dingel's Scholastica Materia (Berlin 1988). The Major Declamations have been edited by Håkanson (Stuttgart 1982) and translated by Sussman (Frankfurt 1987). Håkanson also edited the declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus (Stuttgart 1978); Sussman now puts us further in his debt with a revised text of Calpurnius, accompanied by the first English translation and the first commentary since Burman's in 1720.Of Calpurnius Flaccus himself we know nothing beyond what can be inferred from the text; stylistic indicators point to a second-century date. His Declamations are in fact excerpts of varying length from treatments of fifty-three declamation themes; in nine cases only, extracts are given from both sides of the argument. By contrast with Seneca's eclectic collection, the excerpts seem to be the work of a single hand. But the kind of explicit commentary and advice from the teacher provided by the sermones in the Minor Declamations attributed to Quintilian, and more systematically by Sopater, is entirely absent. This makes for a frustrating read. The sparse highlights collected here convey little sense of the structure of the declamation as a whole, or the overall manner in which its argument was laid out; one may compare, for example, Calp. 6 with the far more instructive treatment of the same theme in D. Min. 351.Sussman's introduction sets out the context efficiently and lucidly. But he reproduces a common error in explaining the terms controversia and suasoria (3, 12). Although most suasoriae were based on history or legend, this was not a defining characteristic; the crucial distinction is that between the forensic controversia and the deliberative suasoria (respectively de factis and de futuris, as Quintilian says, 7.4.2; cf. 2.4.25). Thus a forensic declamation based on historical [End Page 162] events is a controversia (e.g., Sen. C. 9.2); fictitious deliberative themes, such as Calp. 18 and 39, are suasoriae.The text does not vary greatly from Håkanson's; many of the changes adopt proposals advanced but not printed by Håkanson. The result is sometimes a definite improvement and usually plausible. But at 7.23 (reference by page and line in Håkanson) perneg>antes necshrink)