Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20697131?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philosophy & Rhetoric
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Task of the Bow:
Heraclitus' Rhetorical Critique of Epic Language
Carol Poster
The rhetorical theory and form of Heraclitus' work and the relationship of
his manner of exposition to his ideas have vexed critics from Plato and
Aristotle through the present. Although Heraclitus has not been studied
frequently in rhetorical scholarship, it can be argued that his work is criti
cally important for understanding developments in early rhetorical theory
and practice, especially as background to the Gorgianic account of logos,
Protagorean hermeneutics and epistemology, and the Platonic account of
Protagoras in the Theaetetus. The neglect of Heraclitus by rhetoricians is
due to a phenomenon, which Edward Schiappa (1991, 1999) has cogently
analyzed, of contemporary rhetorical theorists bringing to bear anachro
nistic assumptions about disciplinarity on "predisciplinary" ancient
thought, especially about relationships among "philosophy," "sophistic,"
and "rhetoric," terms which, in antiquity, demarcated fluid rhetorical po
sitions rather than fixed concepts.1
Perhaps the most important reason for rhetoricians to study
Heraclitus, however, is not merely his subsequent influence on those writ
ers who form part of the contemporary canon of ancient rhetorical schol
arship, but the ways in which his work both presents and enacts the
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 CAROL POSTER
Heraclitus is one of several archaic thinkers who wrestled with the prob
lem of expressing ideas in verbal genres belonging to a cultural tradition
that they were criticizing. They had available the discourses of ritual, tra
ditional epic, and ordinary speech, but none of these were precisely com
mensurable, formally or ideologically, with their radically new conceptions
of the world, which were in accord neither with traditional religion nor
with "common sense."2 This sense of inadequacy of existing forms of dis
course can be seen in the critiques of epic by Xenophanes and Heraclitus,
which challenged not only the contents but the very semantic habits and
literary devices of the traditional epic itself.3 At the same time, as new
theories concerning the human, physical, and divine worlds demanded new
verbal forms, so new modes of expression themselves functioned to cast
doubt on conventional views of these matters and how they could be known.
As rhetoricians, for example, argued both sides of a case equally well,4 it
became more difficult for their hearers to accept unproblematically the
stability of universal natural or social laws grounded in fixed standards of
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 3
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4 CAROL POSTER
Where to Begin
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin, please
your Majesty?" he asked.
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely, "and go on till
you come to the end: then stop."
?Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 12
Although the King's advice appears sensible and obvious, one can onl
follow it, as Alice discovers as the trial proceeds, if the material one is
trying to narrate has a coherent temporal and logical structure. Because
interpretation is a process that requires the interpreter to shift constantly
between considering part and whole, text and context, and purposes an
product, it is difficult to select any particular starting point, whether an
assumption about the material to be interpreted or a place within the mate
rial at which to start. This general problem is, in the case of Heraclitus,
complicated by the material itself being fragmentary, disordered, and o
uncertain accuracy and authenticity. If one is concerned with the problem
of Heraclitean interpretation, both in the sense of how contemporary schol
ars can interpret Heraclitus and Heraclitus' own theories of interpretation,
it is important to begin with material that is:
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 5
The fragment that will be examined first in this study, while not as imme
diately obvious or significant a choice as DK22bl, is DK22b48, "For the
bow (toxon), its name is life {bios) but its task is death" (t(S ovv ro^cp
?vofia ?iog, epyov 8e Qdvaioq). Its semantic and syntactic surfaces are not
particularly complex; it is well attested with only trivial variations; the
contexts in which it occurs, namely, commentaries on Homeric vocabu
lary, are consistent and do not suggest immediate motives for misquota
tion or distortion; and it provides useful information concerning Heraclitean
methods of reading earlier authors. DK22b48 is paradigmatic of the way
in which Heraclitus uses language to enact as well as represent arguments.
Four typically Heraclitean themes can be found in this fragment:
1. It attacks epic for misusing language (using the wrong term for
"bow").
2. It leads readers to question the relationship of names to things, and
particularly whether names can be correct in a nonarbitrary manner.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 CAROL POSTER
3. While it criticizes epic for errors in language and ideas, at the same
time, its very use of epic as a starting point suggests that epic can
still be valuable.
4. Finally, although it somewhat overtly suggests epic read literally is
erroneous, it covertly shows that behind these errors are truths that
can be discovered by allegorical reading, albeit truths that were
not necessarily apparent to the epic authors.
I will set before you the great bow (toxon) of the god-like Odysseus
And the one who most easily shall string the bow (bios) in his hands ...
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 7
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 CAROL POSTER
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 9
of life and death extend from the human to the cosmic realm, as illustrated
especially in the following three fragments:
For souls it is death to become water, and for water death to become earth.
Water comes into existence out of earth, and soul out of water. (DK22b36)
Immortals are mortal, mortals immortal, living their death and dying their
life. (DK22b62)
Fire lives the death of earth and air lives the death of fire; water lives the
death of air, earth that of water. (DK22b76a)
For even the cosmos itself, the life of one thing is the death of an
other?fire consumes wood and air, air condenses into rain, water evapo
rates into air, and so forth. Like the cosmos, the bow has a physical harmony
dependent on tensions between opposites (the string and the wood), as
Heraclitus seems to be suggesting in DK22b51.
The connection between DK22b48 and DK22b51 is obvious, in that
they both talk about bows; a less apparent connection is that both do so in
a way that comments on Homeric language. DK22b5116 runs:
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10 CAROL POSTER
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 11
die. Tides ebb and rise. The day dawns, brightens, fades to night, and dawns
again. The moon waxes and wanes and the seasons change from winter to
spring to summer to fall, and then back again to winter. The natural world
presents to us a dynamic tension between these opposites, in which no
given opposite triumphs completely: just as the summer gets too hot or
the winter gets too cold, the sun passes through a solstice and the seasons
slowly begin to change again, as if constrained by some external force:
"The sun will not overstep his measures. Otherwise the Furies, ministers
of Justice, will find him out" (DK22b94).
It is this balance of opposites and the necessity of strife (within con
straints) that, according to Heraclitus, Homer misunderstands. When
Heraclitus says "Homer is worthy to be thrown out of the lists and thrashed,
and similarly Archilochus" (DK 22b42), he is not suggesting thrashing
merely as appropriate punishment, but also as a remedy for their igno
rance of strife. The epic poets, despite their reputation for wisdom, misun
derstand strife, seeing warfare only as destruction to be resolved by peace
rather than as a necessary and desirable state of affairs, something that
would be remedied by their having more extensive personal acquaintance
with being thrashed. Poets, who themselves seem to claim wisdom about
strife, as they make verses about war, misunderstand its nature. That is
why Homer cannot even answer a children's riddle that depends on killing
one thing (lice) to maintain the health of another (humans):
Homer, who was wiser than all the Greeks, was deceived. For he was de
ceived by the words spoken to him by some boys killing lice: "What we saw
and caught we leave behind, while what we do not see and catch we take with
us." (DK22b56)
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 CAROL POSTER
single changing whole. Like the Homeric poems, and the epic tradition in
general, Hesiod's teachings mislead people, in precisely the same way as
does the naming of the bow.
The critique of the epic "bids" in DK22b48 thus addresses two is
sues simultaneously, first whether the poets are using the wrong word (as
bios [bow] has the wrong connotation due to its similarity in sound to bios
[life]) and second whether the epic misuse of the term is indicative of a
misunderstanding of the thing in particular and the nature of weapons and
strife in general.19 It is relatively clear (from the preceding discussion)
that Heraclitus considers the epic poets both to have misused the term
"bios " and to have misunderstood the nature of bows (synecdochally for
strife, and thus the role of strife in the cosmos and the ordering of the
cosmos). That these two positions are connected is also apparent, but the
precise nature or logic of the connection is unapparent, possibly due to
accidents of reception (that we have only disconnected gnomic fragments
remaining of Heraclitus) or possibly because Heraclitus considered unap
parent connections superior (DK22b54) and/or wanted his audience to work
out these unapparent connections for themselves.
If interpretation of Heraclitus were restricted entirely to making our
own contemporary connections among ipsissima verba isolated from his
torical context, this problem would need to stand as irresolvable. There is,
however, a quite plausible solution, which can be found in classical testi
monia. Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient sources portray Cratylus as a
Heraclitean. In Plato's dialogue, Cratylus is portrayed as advocating the
position that there are correct names with an intrinsic connection to those
things with which they correspond. Moreover, Cratylus is also portrayed
as believing that any incorrect names can often be resolved etymologi
cally into historical corruptions of true names.20 The Cratylean notion of
true naming makes explicit what would be a logical connection between
Heraclitus' critiques of epic vocabulary and his objections to epic
worldviews, namely, that if words are intrinsically connected to things,
using the wrong word entails or derives from misunderstanding the things
themselves. The possibility of etymological recovery of correct names can
also explain why there is value to investigating epic names despite their
inaccuracy. Because epic would have been the oldest form of the Greek
language known to Heraclitus, it would have been his only access to a
crucial stage in the corruption of names, one in which true names are still
present in allegorical residues even if the literal epical usages are incorrect.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 13
1. The epic term for bow (bios) is incorrect. (Epic language itself is
misleading)
2. The epic understanding of the bow's function (and the function of
weapons and strife in general) is incorrect.
The question remains, though, whether the bad instruction received from
epic is solely a function of the specific author or text (i.e., that Heraclitus
could conceivably have written a better epic than the ones he criticizes) or
whether it depends on the ways in which readers approach and understand
epic. In other words, Heraclitus is presenting his readers with the idea that
any hermeneutic analysis or critique of received compositions (oral or writ
ten) requires one to reflect upon rhetorical practices.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
14 CAROL POSTER
rod 8e Xoyov rov?' eovrog aiei d^vveroi yivovmi ?vOpomoi Kai npooOevr)
dcKovaai Kai aKovaavteg to KpSnov.
Of the logos that exists always uncomprehending are men, both before they
have heard it and after having heard it. (DK22M)22
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 15
(DK22b54).25 If epic language and doctrine are false on one level, we can
still learn truths from them if we read them nonliterally, something that
the many for whom Homer and Hesiod are teachers fail to do. This dual
method of interpretation allows Heraclitus to simultaneously describe
Homer as "wiser than all the Greeks" (DK 22b56) and Hesiod as "teacher
of very many people" who "believe he knew many things" (DK22b57),
but at the same time criticize them for not recognizing riddles or hidden
unities in opposites. Whatever wisdom they have is knowledge of sur
faces, of literal facts, things that do not bring about understanding: "Much
learning does not teach understanding. For otherwise it would have taught
Hesiod and Pythagoras and also Xenophanes and Hecataeus" (DK22b40).
The writers of epic and other apparently wise men do not themselves un
derstand unapparent harmonies or truths, and their audience, interpreting
them literally, misses the unapparent wisdom that can be found if one in
terprets them in a nonliteral fashion.
Conclusion
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
16 CAROL POSTER
Since many of the issues rhetoricians discuss with respect to the genera
tions following Heraclitus (especially Gorgias, Protagoras, Prodicus, and
Plato) respond directly to Heraclitean formulations, it is important to avoid
letting anachronistic concepts of disciplinarity (of "rhetoric" versus "phi
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 17
English Department
York University, Toronto
Notes
1. The anachronism of applying contemporary disciplinary categories to archaic thinkers
and the associated problem of the generic preconditions against which their audiences would
have seen then are discussed cogently by Long (1999) and Mansfeld (1990). For editions
and translations of Heraclitus, see Diels-Krantz (1989), Kahn (1979), Kirk (1962), Marcovich
(1967), and Robinson (1987). I generally agree with Robinson's text, but discuss individu
ally texts over which there are substantial disagreements. I use my own translations for
passages that I discuss in some detail, albeit borrowing what seem to me strikingly good
solutions from others, e.g., George Kennedy's (1991) ingenious preservation of the syntac
tic ambiguity of DK22bl. For passages cited in passing, I use the translations cited below
where they seem adequate to my purpose, and either silent modifications or my own transla
tions otherwise. I have aimed at fidelity rather than elegance.
2. I have discussed this problem of the commensurability of new archaic ideas with older
literary forms in some detail in two earlier articles in Philosophy and Rhetoric (Poster 1994,
1996).
3. Havelock (1983) and Robb (1983) both argue for the pre-Socratic critique of epic as
part of a shift from oral to literate culture. While I agree with their notion that not only the
ideas but the language of the epic poets is being rejected, along with the majority of more
recent scholars, I do not think this phenomenon can be explained entirely in terms of an oral/
literate divide,
4. Hesiod's Works and Days 27-41 shows that judicial oratory was common even in the
eighth century and may imply that skill in legal argument could make, as it were, the worse
case seem the better, though this effect may have been caused entirely by the crookedness of
the (bribed) judges. Traditionally, the rise of rhetoric is placed in fifth century Sicily (Kennedy
1963 remains the best detailed overview to rhetoric of the period) The Dissoi Logoi and
Antiphon's Tetralogies (both translated in Sprague 1972 from Greeks texts in Diels-Kranz)
are (substantially later) evidence for ancient views of arguing both sides of a question equally
well, as are the remains of Protagoras and the portrait of Protagoras/Socrates in Aristophanes'
Clouds. In any trial, though, both sides of a case will be argued. See Jeffrey Walker (2000)
for a cogent discussion of the relationship of archaic poetry and rhetoric and for a strong
argument that rhetorical theory pre-dates the Sicilian "origin" myth.
5. Parmenides' poem has many similarities, both linguistic and structural to traditional
epic, as has been noted by numerous authors, including Havelock (1958), Mourelatos (1970),
and Pellikaan-Engel (1974). Floyd acknowledges close epic parallels in Parmenides and
suggests use of verse form (and modification of epic tradition) is "essential to Parmenides'
integration of contraries" (1992, 263). Heraclitus seems closer formally to a gnomic tradi
tion, as is discussed by H?lscher (1974). In a short paper, Gallop (1989) draws interesting
parallels between Heraclitus and both classical and modern riddles. Havelock (1983) and
Owen (1974) argue that Parmenides was trying to invent the "timeless present" of an ana
lytic copula. Mason (1988) argues that Parmenides sees human language as misleading and
the goddess' language as non-descriptive. Havelock (1983) argues for the new language of
the pre-Socratics as marking an oral-literate transition. Cherniss (1977) is a general survey
of the literary forms of pre-Socratic discourse.
6. Heraclitus criticizes earlier thinkers in numerous fragments, e.g., DK22b40, 56, 57,
81, and 129. Xenophanes objects to earlier poets' theologies in DK21M1,12, and 21. Whether
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18 CAROL POSTER
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 19
for the reading that most supports one's interpretation. Modern scholarship is divided; Kirk
(1962, 210 ff.) and Marcovich (1967, 125); support palintonos, Robinson (1987, 116) and
Kahn (1979, 195) palintropos. Since it is more likely that copyists would err by replacing
palintropos with the familiar Homeric epithet for the bow, palintonos, than the other way
around, I think it best to follow Wilamowitz et al. in preferring palintropos by lectio difficilior.
Although the evidence is inconclusive by itself, it does seem probable, given its consistency
with other less problematic texts.
19. Heraclitus criticizes Homer for misconceiving strife in DK22b56 and Hesiod for mis
understanding opposition in DK22b57.
20. Plato, Aristotle and Diogenes Laertius all categorize Cratylus as Heraclitean. Although
Kirk (1951) argued against the scholarly consensus and most ancient testimonia on this point,
he was ably refuted by Allan (1954). See Barney (2001) for a detailed commentary on this
issue.
21. Kahn (1979, 96-97) argues that DK22bl served as the opening of Heraclitus' book,
citing comments of Sextus Empiricus and Aristotle. That it may have been placed first in
whatever Heraclitean book was available to Aristotle and later writers does not, however,
necessarily imply that Heraclitus wrote a book of which this was the opening. On the other
hand, Kahn's parallels with traditional openings of Hecataeus and other authors do serve as
fairly strong evidence that either DK22M was the opening of some sort of Heraclitean work,
whether intended and written as such by Heraclitus, or likely to be so placed by later editors.
22. Even Aristotle points out the syntactic ambiguity of this opening (Rhetoric 1407M4).
The fragment begins: "tou ?e Xoyov to\>8 iovrog aiei at^vvcxoi." It is impossible to deter
mine whether aiei (forever) goes with eontos (holding, literally "being") or axunetos (un
comprehending), i.e., whether the account holds forever, people remain forever uncompre
hending, or both. Neither case would materially affect this part of my argument.
23. There are two additional fragments that make similar claims, DK22M7 ("Many people
do not understand the sorts of things they encounter . . .") and DK22M9 ("Certain people do
not know how to think or speak").
24. Gallop (1989) argues that Heraclitus is deliberately writing riddles, using a traditional
folk riddle form, like the one we find the Sphinx posing to Oedipus.
25. Allegorical readings of Homer began as early as the sixth century in the work of
Theagenes. If Heraclitus is advocating allegorical reading, then the Stoic tradition of alle
gorical reading may well have some continuity with or be influenced by Heraclitus (but
Stoicism is far outside the chronological scope of this study). See Lamberton (1986) and
Lamberton and Keaney (1992) for discussions of later Homeric interpretation.
26. I owe thanks to an anonymous reader for Philosophy and Rhetoric for useful suggestions.
Works Cited
Allan, D. J. 1954. "The Problem of Cratylus." American Journal of Philology 75 (3):271
87.
Aristophanes. 1999. "Clouds." Trans. Carol Poster. In Aristophanes 3. Ed. David Slavitt and
Palmer Bovie, 85-192. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Aristotle. 1933. Metaphysics Books I-IX. Trans. Hugh Tredennick. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
-. 1981. Aristotle XX. The Athenian Constitution. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and
Vices. Trans. H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
-. 1982a. "Art" of Rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UP.
-. 1982b. Poetics. Trans. W. Hamilton Fyfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard UP.
Barnes, Jonathan. 1983. "Aphorism and Argument." In Language and Thought in Early Greek
Philosophy, ed. Kevin Robb, 91-109. LaSalle, IL: The Hegeler Institute, Monist Library
of Philosophy.
Barney, Rachel. 2001. Names and Nature in Plato's Cratylus. New York and London:
Routledge.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20 CAROL POSTER
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TASK OF THE BOW 21
Marcovich, M. 1967. Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary. Merida: Los Andes
UP.
Martin, Alain, and Oliver Primavesi. 1999. L'empedocle de Strasbourg: (P. Strasb. gr. Inv.
1665-1666). Introduction, edition et commentaire with an English summary. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Mason, Richard. 1998. "Parmenides and Language." Ancient Philosophy 8:149-66.
Most, Glenn W. 1999. "The Poetics of Early Greek Philosophy." In The Cambridge Com
panion to Early Greek Philosophy, ed. A. A. Long, 332-62. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Most, Glenn W., ed. 1997. Collecting Fragments. Aporemata 1. G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
-. 1998. Editing Texts. Aporemata 2. G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1970. The Route of Parmenides. New Haven: Yale.
Osborne, Catherine. 1987. Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the
Presocratics. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Owen, G. E. L. 1974. "Plato and Parmenides on the Timeless Present." In The Pre-Socratics:
A Collection Of Critical Essays, ed. Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, 271-311. New York:
Anchor Books.
Pellikaan-Engel, Maja E. 1974. Hesiod and Parmenides: A New View on Their Cosmologies
and on Parmenides' Proem. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Plato. 1925. Plato VII: Theaetetus, Sophist. Trans. H. N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
-. 1967. Plato II: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb
Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
-. 1970. Plato IV: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias. Trans. H. N.
Fowler. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
-. 1982. Plato I: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Trans. H. N. Fowler.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Philostratus and Eunapius. 1921. Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. Trans. Wilmer C.
Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Poster, Carol. 1993. "Plato's Unwritten Doctrines: A Hermeneutic Problem in Rhetorical
Historiography." Pre/text 14 (1-2): 127-38.
-. 1994. "Persuasion in an Empty Ontology: The Eleatic Synthesis of Poetry, Philoso
phy, and Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric 27 (4):277-99.
-. 1996. "Being and Becoming: Rhetorical Ontology in Early Greek Thought." Phi
losophy and Rhetoric 29 (1):1-14.
-. 1998. "Silence as a Rhetorical Strategy for Neoplatonic Mysticism." Mystics Quar
terly 24 (2):48-73.
-. 2001. "The Affections of the Soul: Pathos, Protreptic, and Preaching in Hellenistic
Thought." In Paul and Pathos, ed. Tom Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney, 23-37. Society
for Biblical Literature Seminar Series. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001: 23-37.
-. 2005. "Framing Theaetetus: A Rhetorical Reading of Plato's Rhetorical Epistemol
ogy." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35 (3): 21-73.
Robb, Kevin. 1983. "Preliterate Ages and the Linguistic Art of Heraclitus." In Language
and Thought in Early Greek Philosophy, ed. Kevin Robb, 153-206. LaSalle, IL: The
Hegeler Institute, Monist Library of Philosophy.
-. 1994. Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece. New York: Oxford UP.
Robinson, T. M. 1987. Heraclitus: Fragments. A Text and Translations with a Commentary.
Toronto: U of Toronto P.
Schiappa, Edward. 1991. Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric.
Columbia: U of South Carolina P.
-. 1999. The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece. New Haven: Yale
UP.
Sophocles. 1994-1996. Works. Ed. and Trans. Hugh Lloyd-Jones. 3 vols. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Sprague, Rosamund Kent, ed. 1972. The Older Sophists. Columbia: U of South Carolina P.
Walker, Jeffrey. 2000. Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford UP.
West, M. L., ed. 1978. Hesiod. Works and Days. Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary.
Oxford: Clarendon.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:08:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms