TheĒthos/PathosDistinction in Rhetorical And Literary Criticism

1984 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Gill
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Previous Article ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Careful Study ◽  
Ancient Greek

Jasper Griffin, in his recent book on Homer, has suggested that modern critics would do well to pay more attention to the localized insights and the general critical framework of the ancient Greek commentators. In a previous article, ‘Homeric Pathos and Objectivity’, he claimed to show, by careful study of those passages in which the scholiasts found ἒλεος, οἷκτος or πάθος, that ‘the ancient scholars were right to regard pathos as one of the most important elements in theIliad’. also think this is a potentially fruitful and underdeveloped approach to the criticism of Homer and other ancient authors; and that the termpathos, together withēthos, with which it is often coupled or contrasted, is one of the most suggestive, though also confusing, of ancient critical terms. I want to begin the story further back in time than the scholia, in the treatises on rhetoric and poetics from which the scholiasts’ critical vocabulary was largely derived. I propose to survey the use ofēthosandpathosas contrasted terms in these treatises from Aristotle to Longinus, in the hope that such a survey will not only clarify the various meanings and associations attached to these terms but will also throw a more general light on ancient critical presuppositions. Both Aristotle and Longinus used theethos/pathosdistinction to contrast theOdysseyand theIliad; and a clearer understanding of the significance they gave to these words may help us to appraise the critical usefulness of their comments.

Arguing over Texts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Camper
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Rhetorical Theory ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Textual Interpretation ◽  
Ambiguous Words ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
Textual Meaning

Arguing over Texts presents a rhetorical method for analyzing how people disagree over the meaning of texts and how they attempt to reconcile those disagreements through argument. The book recovers and adapts a classification of recurring types of disagreement over textual meaning, invented by ancient Greek and Roman teachers of rhetoric: the interpretive stases. Drawing on the rhetorical works of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and Hermogenes, the book devotes a chapter to each of the six interpretive stases, which classify issues concerning ambiguous words and phrases, definitions of terms, clashes between the text’s letter and its spirit, internal contradictions, applications of the text to novel cases, and the authority of the interpreter or the text itself. From the dispute over Phillis Wheatley’s allegedly self-racist poetry to the controversy over whether some of Abraham Lincoln’s letters provide evidence he was gay, the book offers examples from religion, politics, history, literary criticism, and law to illustrate that the interpretive stases can be employed to analyze debates over texts in virtually any sphere. In addition to its classical rhetorical foundation, the book draws on research from modern rhetorical theory and language science to elucidate the rhetorical, linguistic, and cognitive grounds for the argumentative construction of textual meaning. The method presented in this book thus advances scholars’ ability to examine the rhetorical dynamics of textual interpretation, to trace the evolution of textual meaning, and to explore how communities ground their beliefs and behaviors in texts.

Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume 55

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Ancient Philosophy ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Original Essays ◽  
Constant Change ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Metaphysical Principle

Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy provides, twice each year, a collection of the best current work in the field of ancient philosophy. Each volume features original essays that contribute to an understanding of a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, from the beginnings to the threshold of the Middle Ages. From its first volume in 1983, OSAP has been a highly influential venue for work in the field, and has often featured essays of substantial length as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Volume LV contains: a methodological examination on how the evidence for Presocratic thought is shaped through its reception by later thinkers, using discussions of a world soul as a case study; an article on Plato’s conception of flux and the way in which sensible particulars maintain a kind of continuity while undergoing constant change; a discussion of J. L. Austin’s unpublished lecture notes on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and his treatment of loss of control (akrasia); an article on the Stoics’ theory of time and in particular Chrysippus’ conception of the present and of events; and two articles on Plotinus, one that identifies a distinct argument to show that there is a single, ultimate metaphysical principle; and a review essay discussing E. K. Emilsson’s recent book, Plotinus.

scholarly journals Book Review: Literature and Politics Today: The Political Nature of Modern Fiction and Drama

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Shannon Pritting
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
The Political ◽  
University Of Arkansas ◽  
Politics And Literature ◽  
Literature And Politics ◽  
Modern Fiction ◽  
The University

The editor, M. Keith Booker, Professor of English at the University of Arkansas, has served as editor on many reference works in literature as well as many books on genres and literary movements, specific authors, and other critical works. Booker also edited the last reference work dedicated to literature and politics, Encyclopedia of Literature and Politics: Censorship, Evolution, and Writing, a three-volume set published in 2005 by Greenwood, which is surprisingly the only current reference work dedicated solely to examining the connection between literature and politics. There are many recent book-length critical works on literature and politics, but these monographs typically focus on a genre or other refined topic such as a literary movement or single author. The compact single-volume Literature and Politics Today is a welcome addition to reference work in literature and politics. Certainly, other reference works in literary criticism cover some of the topics related to the intersection of politics and literature, but do not have the political focus of Literature and Politics Today.

scholarly journals The Evantropian Project: Revitalising Critical Approaches to Young Adult Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-193
Author(s):  
Robert Gadowski
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Young Adult Literature ◽  
Critical Power ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Average Reader ◽  
Critical Approaches

Anna Bugajska’s recent book Engineering Youth: The Evantropian Project in Young Adult Dystopias (2019) is an important and thought-provoking inquiry into the field of young adult literary criticism. While for the average reader, young adult narratives may be associated with juvenile tales created with an intent to provide escapist entertainment, a true connoisseur of youth literature is well aware of an immense didactic potential of this genre. Bugajska certainly belongs to the latter category as she diligently engages with young adult dystopias to highlight the immense critical power of these texts. In the following review article, the author of the paper is going to offer a brief commentary on the critical perspective that Bugajska employs to explore the notion of evantropia. The first section of this review discusses Bugajska’s volume as a part of utopian intellectual tradition, the second section postulates that ideas presented in Engineering Youth enrich literary criticism in the field of speculative fiction and children’s and young adult literature, the third section briefly discusses the layout of the volume and the content of each chapter, the fourth section presents an overview of selected core ideas that Bugajska presents in her work and in the last section the author of the paper offers his final thoughts on Engineering Youth.

scholarly journals Why Halley Did Not Discover Proper Motion and Why Cassini Did

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-397
Author(s):  
Frank Verbunt ◽  
Marc van der Sluys
Keyword(s):  
Proper Motion ◽  
Measurement Errors ◽  
Careful Study ◽  
The Moon ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Significant Evidence ◽  
Modern Methods ◽  
Made In

In 1717, Halley compared contemporaneous measurements of the latitudes of four stars with earlier measurements by ancient Greek astronomers and by Brahe, and from the differences concluded that these four stars showed proper motion. An analysis with modern methods shows that the data used by Halley do not contain significant evidence for proper motion. What Halley found are the measurement errors of Ptolemaios and Brahe. Halley further argued that the occultation of Aldebaran by the Moon on 11 March 509 in Athens confirmed the change in latitude of Aldebaran. In fact, however, the relevant observation was almost certainly made in Alexandria where Aldebaran was not occulted. By carefully considering measurement errors, Jacques Cassini showed that Halley’s results from comparison with earlier astronomers were spurious, a conclusion partially confirmed by various later authors. Cassini’s careful study of the measurements of the latitude of Arcturus provides the first significant evidence for proper motion.

scholarly journals “The Play’s the Thing”: Mathematization as Dramatization

Paideusis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-44
Author(s):  
Dan Mellamphy ◽  
Nandita Biswas Mellamphy
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Mathematical Thinking ◽  
Math Education ◽  
Learning To Learn ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Learning Mathematics ◽  
Negative Capability ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mathematical Pedagogy ◽  
Mathematical Play

Mobilizing prevalent themes in the fields of mathematics education, literary criticism, and philosophy, this paper contextualizes ‘the mathematical’, ‘mathematical thinking’, and ‘mathematical pedagogy’ with respect to ancient Greek concept of mathesis, modern notions of mathematical agency, the Keatsian concept of negative capability, and the analogy of ‘staging’ a dramatic/mathematical ‘play’. Its central claim is that mathematization is dramatization—that learning mathematics (indeed, learning to learn, which is what the Greek mathesis actually means) is an activity of setting things up and (in this ‘set’ or ‘setting’) allowing things to play out (e-ducere). Beginning with Paul Ernest’s identification of the difference between absolutism and fallibilism in the philosophy of math education, and incorporating concepts from Pythagoras, Hippasus, Heraclitus (the ‘ancients’), Descartes, Kant, Keats (the ‘moderns’), as well as Freud, Heidegger, and Badiou (‘nos prochains’, to quote Klossowski ), we argue that ‘mathematical knowledge’ cannot be understood simply within the framework of logicism, formalism, or even simply as an epistemological articulation. Rather, we endeavour to show that the process of ‘learning mathematically’ allows us to gain insight into the foundations of ‘being’ itself (i.e. ontology). Learning to learn (mathesis) proceeds, as such, by way of staging and playing-out the half-known or unknown (the ill-seen and ill-said) in the hopes of uncovering the mystery (Greek myesis) at the heart of things.

scholarly journals Combining Ricoeur and Bultmann on myth and demythologising

2016 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gert Malan
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Sociology Of Knowledge ◽  
Previous Article ◽  
Definition Of

A previous article investigated Ricoeur’s stance on myth and demythologising. The intersection of Ricoeur and Bultmann’s work in this field was noted and a future comparison was envisaged with a view to a possible merger. This study is a follow-up and proposes a way in which Ricoeur and Bultmann’s views on myth and demythologisation can be merged in order to gain a broader approach to the understanding of myth and the concept of demythologising. As Ricoeur’s understanding of myth was influenced by literary criticism, Bultmann’s definition of myth is viewed through the lens of literary criticism, before turning to a comparison with Ricoeur’s views. A comparison of their ideas on demythologisation follows. Sociology of knowledge forms the last lens through which a possible merger of their approaches is contemplated.Keywords: myth; demythologisation; Ricoeur; Bultmann; simbolic universe

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document