Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T10:37:42.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Language

from PART II - LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
Dirk M. Schenkeveld  and
Jonathan Barnes
Edited by
Keimpe Algra ,
Jonathan Barnes ,
Jaap Mansfeld  and
Malcolm Schofield
Dirk M. Schenkeveld
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Keimpe Algra
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jonathan Barnes
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Jaap Mansfeld
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Malcolm Schofield
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Linguistics

The study of language

In the classical period, the Greek language was studied by philosophers, sophists and rhetoricians, and the contributions of Aristotle and Theophrastus in particular are very valuable. But only in the Hellenistic era does grammar show significant development and almost becomes a discipline in its own right. Although their origin as students of poetry is never forgotten, grammarians now start to be acknowledged as teachers and scholars in the fields of phonology and morphology. To some extent they also study syntax and pragmatics, while semantics provides, as it were, their basic approach. This development is the result of the concurrence of three kinds of linguistic analysis: in philosophy, rhetoric and scholarship. Students of each of these disciplines look at language from their own specific point of view and in a different context. Thus, philosophers, especially Stoics, are interested in the nature of language and its relationships to reality and knowledge, and analyse speech in the context of their study of logic, which analysis has its consequences for their physics and ethics. Rhetoricians are more concerned with ways of manipulating people by means of language; and scholars develop tools for language analysis in order to edit and explain the texts of Homer and other poets. These different concerns greatly advance the study of language although the complete emancipation of grammar as a discipline to be studied for its own sake, like mathematics, is not achieved in this period.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy , pp. 177 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amsler, M. (1989) Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Amsterdam).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. (1990c) ‘The poetic theory of the Stoic “Aristo”’, Apeiron 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. (1992) ‘An Epicurean survey of poetic theories (Philodemus On Poems 5, cols. 26–36)’, CQ 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atherton, C. (1988) ‘Hand over fist: the failure of Stoic rhetoric’, CQ 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atherton, C. (1993) The Stoics on Ambiguity (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Ax, W. (1986) Laut, Stimme und Sprache: Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie, Hypomnemata 84 (Göttingen).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ax, W. (1991) ‘Sprache als Gegenstand der alexandrinischen und pergamenischen Philologie’, in Schmitter, (1991).Google Scholar
Baldassarri, M. (1984) Introduzione alla Logica Stoica, La logica stoica: testimonianze e frammenti (Como).Google Scholar
Baratin, M. (1989) La Naissance de la Syntaxe à Rome (Paris).Google Scholar
Baratin, M. (1991) ‘Aperçu de la linguistique stoïcienne’, in Schmitter, (1991).Google Scholar
Baratin, M. & Desbordes, F. (1987) ‘La “troisième partie” de l'ars grammatica’, in Taylor, (1987a).Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1986d) ‘Is rhetoric an art?’, Darg Newsletter II.2.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1990b) The Toils of Scepticism (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1993c) (rev. Ebert 1991) CR 43.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1996c) ‘Grammar on Aristotle's terms’, in Frede, & Striker, (1996).Google Scholar
Barwick, K. (1922) Remmius Palaemon und die römische ars grammatica, Philologus Suppl. 15, H. 2 (Leipzig; repr. Hildesheim 1967).Google Scholar
Barwick, K. (1957) Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik, Abh. Sächsischen Akad. der Wiss. zu Leipzig, Philol.-hist. Kl. Bd. 49.3 (Berlin).Google Scholar
Benedetto, V. di (1958/9) ‘Dionisio Trace e la Techne a lui attribuita’, ASNP II 27 ; 28.Google Scholar
Berrettoni, P. (1989) ‘An idol of the school: the aspectual theory of the Stoics’, Rivista di linguistica 1.Google Scholar
Blank, D. L. (1982) Ancient Philosophy and Grammar: The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus (Chico. Cal.).Google Scholar
Blank, D. L. (1994) ‘Diogenes of Babylon and the κριτικōί in Philodemus: a preliminary suggestion’, CErc 24 (1994).Google Scholar
Blank, D. L. (1995) ‘Philodemus on the technicity of rhetoric’, in Obbink, (1995).Google Scholar
Bochenski, I. (1947) La logique de Théophraste, Collectanea Friburgensia, N.S. 32 (Fribourg).Google Scholar
Bréhier, E. (1910) La Théorie des Incorporels dans l'Ancien Stoicisme (Paris; repr. 1962).Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. (1963) Horace on Poetry, vol. I: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles (Cambridge and later repr.).Google Scholar
Brunschwig, J. (1978b) ‘Le modèle conjonctif’, in Brunschwig, (1978a) ; repr. in Brunschwig, (1995).Google Scholar
Calboli, G. (1962) Studi grammaticali, vol. I (Bologna).Google Scholar
Colish, M. L. (1990) The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages I: Stoicism in the Classical Latin Literature, Studies in the history of Christian thought 34, 2nd impr. (Leiden, first edn 1985).Google Scholar
De Lacy, Ph. (1939) ‘The Epicurean analysis of language’, AJPh 60.Google Scholar
De Lacy, Ph. (1948) ‘Stoic views of poetry’, AJPh 69.
Delamarre, A. J.-L. (1980) ‘La notion de ΠTΣ∑I∑ chez Aristote et les Stoïciens’, in Aubenque, (1980).Google Scholar
Desbordes, B. A. (1990) Introduction à Diogène Laërce, Exposition de l'Altertumswissenschaft servant de préliminaires critiques à une lecture de l'oeuvre, 2 vols. (Utrecht).Google Scholar
Desbordes, F. (1990) Idées Romaines sur l'Ecriture (Lille).Google Scholar
Ebbesen, S. (1981) Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi, A Study of Post-Aristotelian Ancient and Medieval Writings on Fallacies, 3 vols. (Leiden).Google Scholar
Edlow, , Blair, R., 1975, ‘The Stoics on ambiguity’, JHPh 13.Google Scholar
Evans, J. D. G. (1974) ‘The Old Stoa on the truth-value of oaths’, PCPhS 20.Google Scholar
Everson, S. (1994b) ‘Epicurus on mind and language’, in Everson (1994a).Google Scholar
Fehling, D. (1956/7; 1958) ‘Varro und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion’, Glotta 35 ; 36.Google Scholar
Fehling, D. (1958) (rev. Barwick 1957) GGA 212.
Fehling, D. (1965) ‘Zwei Untersuchungen zur griechischen Sprachphilosophie’, RhM 108.Google Scholar
Forschner, M. (1981) Die Stoische Ethik: über den Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprachu. Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System (Stuttgart; repr. Darmstadt 1995).Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1974a) Die stoische Logik, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philol.-hist. Kl. Folge 3, Nr. 88 (Göttingen).Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1978) ‘Principles of Stoic grammar’, in Rist (1978b) ; repr. in Frede (1987a).Google Scholar
Glidden, D. K. (1983b) ‘Epicurean semantics’, in De anatomicis administrationibus. VV. (1983).Google Scholar
Gottschalk, H. B. (1992) ‘An errant fragment of Theophrastus’, CQ 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudriaan, K. (1988) ‘Van eerste naar tweede sofistiek’, in Slings, S. R. & Sluiter, I., edd., Ophelos (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Graeser, A., ed. (1973) Die Logischen Fragmente des Theophrast (Berlin).Google Scholar
Hossenfelder, M. (1991b) ‘Epikureer’, in Schmitter, (1991).Google Scholar
Hülser, K.-H. (1987–8) Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. 4 vols. (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt).Google Scholar
Innes, D. (1989) ‘Philodemus’, in Kennedy, (1989).Google Scholar
Isnardi Parente, M. (1987) ‘Una poetica di incerto autore in Filodemo’, in Filologia e forme letterarie, Studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte (Urbino) v.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (1995) ‘Reconstructing Philodemus' On poems’, in Obbink, (1995).Google Scholar
Joosen, J. C. & Waszink, J. H. (1950) ‘Allegorese’, in RAC Bd. 1 (Stuttgart).Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1990) ‘The abandonment of nomos in Greek linguistic thought’, HL 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A. (1991) ‘The emergence of autonomous Greek grammar’, in Schmitter (1991).Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., ed. (1989a) The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 1: Classical Criticism (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. (1994a) ‘Peripatetic rhetoric as it appears (and disappears) in Quintilian’, in Fortenbaugh & Mirhady (1994).Google Scholar
Kerferd, G. B. (1978b) ‘The problem of synkatathesis and katalepsis’, in Brunschwig (1978a).Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. (1988) Posidonius, II: The Commentary, 2 vols., Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 14 A & B (Cambridge) (vol. I see Edelstein & Kidd 1972).Google Scholar
Kraus, M. (1987) Name und Sache: Ein Problem im frühgriechischen Denken, Studien zur antiken Philosophie 14 (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1971d) ‘Aisthesis, prolepsis and linguistic theory in Epicurus’, BICS 18.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1992) ‘Stoic readings of Homer’, in Lamberton, & Keaney, (1992) ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar
Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N., edd. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols.: i. Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary; ii. Greek and Latin texts with notes and bibliography (Cambridge, various reprints).Google Scholar
Mangoni, C., ed. (1993) Filodemo, Il quinto libro della Poetica (PHerc. 1425 e 1538), La scuola di Epicuro 14 (Naples).Google Scholar
Marrone, L. (1984) ‘Proposizione e predicato in Crisippo’, CErc 14.Google Scholar
Meijering, R. (1987) ‘Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia’ (dissertation Groningen).Google Scholar
Müller, H.-E. (1943) Die Prinzipien der stoischen Grammatik, 2 vols. (Rostock).Google Scholar
Nuchelmans, G. (1973) Theories of the Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity (Amsterdam/London).Google Scholar
Obbink, D., ed. (1995) Philodemus and Poetry. Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus and Horace (Oxford).Google Scholar
Pépin, J. (1976) Mythe et allégorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes, 2nd edn (Paris).Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford).Google Scholar
Pinborg, J. (1975) ‘Classical Antiquity: Greece’, in Sebeok, T. A., ed., Current Trends in Linguistics 13.1: Historiography of Linguistics (Den Haag/Paris).Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. (1992) ‘Hermeneutic lines and circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the exegesis of Homer’, in Lamberton & Keaney (1992).Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. (1995) ‘Oι κριτικoι: a reassessment’, in Abbenes, J. G. J., Slings, S. R. & Sluiter, I., edd. (1995) Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: a Collections of Papers in Honour of Schenkeveld, D. M. (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1994) ‘Aristotle and Hellenistic scholarship’, in Montanari, (1994).Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1979) A Short History of Linguistics, 2nd edn (London).Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1964) ‘Studies in Demetrius “On Style”’ (dissertation Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1970) ‘Aristarchus and OMHPOΣ ΦIΛOTEXNOΣ. Some fundamental ideas of Aristarchus on Homer as a poet’, Mnemosyne 23.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1984) ‘Studies in the history of ancient linguistics II: Stoic and Peripatetic kinds of speech act and the distinction of grammatical moods’, Mnemosyne 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1990a) ‘Studies in the history of ancient linguistics III: The Stoic TEXNH ΠEPI ΦωNHΣ’, Mnemosyne 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1990b) ‘Studies in the history of ancient linguistics IV: Developments in the study of ancient linguistics’, Mnemosyne 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1991) ‘Figures and tropes. A border-case between grammar and rhetoric’, in Ueding (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1993) ‘Pap. Hamb. 128. A Hellenistic ars poetica’, ZPE 97.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1994) ‘Scholarship and grammar’, in Montanari (1994).Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. (1995) ‘The linguistic contents of Dionysius’ Παραγγέλματα’, in Law, V. & Sluiter, I., edd., Dionysius Thrax and the Technē Grammatikē (Müster).Google Scholar
Schubert, A. (1994) Untersuchungen zur stoischen Bedeutungslehre (Göttingen).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1973) ‘Epicurus, On Nature book XXVIII’, CErc 3.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1989a) ‘Philosophical allegiance in the Greco-Roman World’, in Griffin, & Barnes, (1989).Google Scholar
Siebenborn, E. (1976) Die Lehre von der Sprachrichtigkeit und ihren Kriterien: Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik, Studien zur antiken Philosophie 5 (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. (1988) ‘On ἤη διασαφητικU+1F40ς and propositions containing μαλλoν/ἧηττoν’, Mnemosyne 41.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. (1990) Ancient Grammar in Context: contributions to the study of ancient linguistic thought (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Striker, G. (1974) Kριτ̮ριoν τἀς ἀαληθ∊ια, NGG, Philol.-hist. Klasse, 2 ; repr. in Striker, (1996).Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (1987b) ‘Rethinking the history of language science in classical antiquity’, in Taylor, (1987a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepedino Guerra, A. (1990) ‘Il contributo di Metrodoro di Lampsaco alla formazione della teoria Epicurea del linguaggio’, CErc 20.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. L. (1996) Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul, Argument and Refutation in the De Placitis Books II–III, PhA 68 (Leiden).Google Scholar
Versteegh, C. H. M. (1980) ‘The Stoic verbal system’, Hermes 108.Google Scholar
Wehrli, F., ed. (1969d) Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler, Die Schule des Aristoteles, H. 10, Zweite Auflage (Basle/Stuttgart).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×