Theofanis Tsiampokalos

This article explores the treatment of ‘common syllables’ in Maximus Planudes’ Dialogue on Grammar within the broader tradition of ancient and Byzantine grammatical scholarship. It contrasts Planudes’ approach with that of earlier figures, like (Ps.‐)Dionysius Thrax, Heliodorus, Hephaestion and Aristides Quintilianus, highlighting his distinctive focus on simplifying this concept for educational purposes. The study also traces Planudes’ influence on later scholars, such as Manuel Moschopulos and Manuel Chrysoloras, situating his work within the evolving understanding of Greek prosody from antiquity to the late Byzantine period.

A fundamental reappraisal of Plutarch’s attitude towards rhetoric. Plutarch was not only a skilled writer, but also lived during the Second Sophistic, a period of cultural renaissance. This book offers new insights into Plutarch’s seemingly moderate attitude towards rhetoric. The hypothesis explored in this study introduces, for the first time, the broader literary and cultural contexts that influenced and restricted the scope of Plutarch’s message. When these contexts are considered, a new perspective emerges that differs from that found in earlier studies. It paints a picture of a philosopher who may not regard rhetoric as a lesser means of persuasion, but who faces challenges in openly articulating this stance in his public discourse.

Die Herausgeber der Reihe Traditio Praesocratica haben es sich zum Ziel gesetzt, das Überlieferungswissen zu den sogenannten vorsokratischen Philosophen in möglichster Vollständigkeit in Text und Übersetzung darzustellen. Der rezeptionsgeschichtliche Blickpunkt des Unternehmens erklärt die – im Vergleich zu den meisten anderen vorliegenden Sammlungen zu den Vorsokratikern – chronologische Anordnung der in ihren jeweiligen Überlieferungskontext eingeordneten Zeugnisse. Im vierten Band der Reihe werden nun die griechisch, lateinisch und arabisch überlieferten Zeugnisse vom vierten Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis ins ausgehende Mittelalter hinein zu Leben und Lehre der drei westgriechischen Philosophen Alkmaion, Hippon und Menestor in chronologischer Anordnung und mit deutscher Übersetzung wiedergegeben. Während Alkmaion aus Kroton vor allem durch seine sinnesphysiologischen, möglicherweise empirisch begründeten Theorien Aufmerksamkeit in der weiteren Rezeptionsgeschichte erregte, fand Hippon aufgrund seines Beinamens 'der Gottlose' immer wieder das Interesse späterer Autoren. Menestor aus Sybaris hingegen kennen wir fast nur aus Theophrasts botanischen Werken, der in ihm einen gelegentlich zitierfähigen Vorgänger seiner eigenen entsprechenden Forschungen sah. Alle Zeugnisse werden im Sinne der Reihe mit einer kurzen kontextuellen Information zu dem jeweils überliefernden Autor und dem betreffenden Werk, in dem sich das Zeugnis findet, versehen. Außerdem werden den Zeugnissen thematisch orientierte 'Similien' beigegeben, die zur besseren Orientierung der Überlieferungs- bzw. Rezeptionszusammenhänge dienen sollen. Ausführliche Indices beschließen den Band. Dem Studium der vorsokratischen Philosophie wird damit ein weiterer Grundlagenband zur Verfügung gestellt, der einen umfassenden Blick nicht nur in Hinsicht auf die Rekonstruktion von Leben und Lehre der betreffenden Denker, sondern auch und vor allem in Hinsicht auf deren Rezeption ermöglicht.

The question of Plutarch’s attitude towards rhetoric has occupied several scholars since the 19th century. The traditional view is that it is rather negative. Although Plutarch acknowledges some value in rhetoric as a means of persuasion in politics, he nevertheless attributes the dominant role to ethos. As it will be shown below, however, this picture is only partially justified after a closer examination of the relevant texts in their historical-cultural context. In the present study, Plutarch’s remarks on rhetoric are considered against the background of the traditional conflict between rhetoric and philosophy, and analyzed in relation to three thematically significant oppositions, namely that between teaching and persuading, between speech and ethos, and between the philosophers and the sophists. The result is that the secondary, supporting role that rhetoric assumes in certain passages as a means of persuasion is to be relativized rather than emphasized. It can be explained in each case on the basis of its argumentative function. In other cases in Plutarch’s work, where rhetoric is discussed without the usual opposition between speech and ethos playing a role at the same time the attitude expressed is in principle positive.

The present chapter addresses a passage from Plutarch’s Praecepta gerendae reipublicae that can be found where the section referring to the need for the statesman’s ethical development intersects with the section concerning rhetoric. In this passage, Plutarch remarks that even though he had earlier ascribed everything to virtue, he shall now consent that rhetoric, too, has a role to play in politics. Though not defined as the “craftsman” of persuasion but just as a “factor helping for persuasion,” rhetoric is still regarded as necessary for the good statesman to exercise his power on the irrational and aggressive impulses of the mass. Despite the fact that the passage has strongly attracted the attention of scholars, there is still room for analysis of this ‘secondary place’ that Plutarch has reserved for rhetoric. My intention here is to explore the extent to which taking a closer look both at the literary/rhetorical aspect of this passage and in the way and the conditions under which pre-textual presence occurs in it could yield a deeper understanding of the attitude expressed by Plutarch towards a subject as loaded as rhetoric during that period.