History of Logic

website logic logoeBook version

My other websites:

Theory and History of Ontology

website ontology logoeBook version 



website bibliographia logoeBook version  

History of Logic from Aristotle to Gödel by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: rc@ontology.co


Selected Bibliography on Stoic Philosophy of Language, Grammar and Rhetoric

Bibliography on Stoic philosophy of language and semiotics

  1. Allen James. Inference from Signs. Ancient Debates About the Nature of Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

    See Study III: The Stoics on Sign-Inference and Demonstration pp. 147-193.

  2. Ax Wolfram. Laut, Stimme Und Sprache. Studien Zu Drei Grundbegriffen Der Antiken Sprachtheorie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

  3. ———. "Der Einfluss Des Peripatos Auf Die Sprachtheorie Der Stoa." In Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer, edited by Döring, Klaus and Ebert, Theodor. 11-32. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.

    Reprinted in: W. Ax, Lexis und Logos. Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, 2000, pp. 73-94.

  4. Barnouw Jeffrey. Propositional Perception. Phantasia, Predication, and Sign in Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. Lanham: University Press of America, 2002.

    Contents: Preface IX; Introduction 1; 1. Phantasia, Judgment and Statement in Plato 9; 2. Phantasia in Aristotle 49; 3. Predication and Sign in Aristotle 97; 4. Phantasia and Sign in Stoic Philosophy 149; 5. Recalling Sign and Revealing Sign. Part I. Sceptics and Stoics 21; Part II. The Debates of the Hellenistic Medical Sects 245; 6. Predication, Proposition, Sign and Proof in Stoic Logic 275; Appendix 1. Declarative Predication vs. Kahn's Veridical Be 327; Appendix 2. Peirce, the Epicureans and the Stoics 341; Bibliography 369; Indices 379-383.

    "There has been considerable growth in the understanding and estimation of Stoic logic in the last thirty years, yet an important dimension of this Stoic achievement has not been grasped. Stoic logic was broadly conceived to include their theories of knowledge and perception, and the theory of perception provides the starting point and foundation of their logic. It is essential to the structure and unity of that logic that the Stoics take perception to be propositional. Starting from a new interpretation of the Stoic conception of phantasia as propositional perception, this study offers a view of Stoic logic that brings out the continuity linking perception, predication, inferential signs and proof.

    For Plato and Aristotle the basic objects of perception are qualities. In effect they develop a phenomenological analysis, underpinned by a physiological conception of sensation. The Stoics take this over as an account of sensation, but they establish the theory of perception at a higher level of complexity. For the Stoics the objects of perception are not qualities nor discrete things or bodies but rather have the form of fact, event or situation, relating qualities to things and things to each other. In perceiving we are trying to make sense of things. This means that both inference (drawing on past perception) and judgment (i.e. judging that something holds in reality) are involved in perception from the start. Conversely, the logical capacities of the mind, extending through logical signs to proof, carry forward a revelatory power inherent in perception.

    The propositional character of perceptions does not derive from language. In the Stoic analysis perceiving picks out a focus or subject and links a predicate to it, and these are logical entities, strictly distinguished, terminologically and in their discrete treatment, from what are linguistic elements, the grammatical subject and predicate. What is predicated of the subject is generally doing or undergoing some action. This linking of elements within perception is at the same time propositional in the sense that it pro-poses something, that is, makes a truth- or reality-claim. What is perceived is by that very act taken to be the case, to be real.

    To translate 'phantasia' as 'perception' is unusual but justified, even required, in Stoic contexts. The term undergoes striking changes in meaning from Plato through Aristotle to the Epicureans, Sceptics and Stoics, which must be reflected in differing translations. For Plato it is misleading 'appearance', sensation wrongly taken as revealing reality. In some of the applications of the term in Aristotle the translation 'imagination' seems appropriate, while in others something like 'representation' or 'impression' is called for, either in a neutral sense or with a problematic cast akin to the Platonic and Sceptic versions.

    In the Hellenistic schools 'phantasia' (often in the plural) designates not a faculty but particular mental events. It is usually taken to mean 'impression' or 'mental presentation'. This is apt for the Sceptics, for whom a further act would be needed to add belief to what is present to the mind and affirm it as real. But 'perception' is the translation called for by Stoic usage. To translate it as 'presentation' in Stoic arguments would be to concede a damaging point of contention to their Sceptic critics by eliding its intrinsic reality claim, its propositional character.

    To understand what the Stoics are doing to and with the idea of phantasia, we must see it in relation to the different purpose and character given the term first in Plato, then in Aristotle, and in those contemporary antagonists of the Stoics, the Sceptics and Epicureans. The starting point is Plato's origination of the notion phantasia, taken together with his analysis of predication or what constitutes 'statement', in the Theaetetus and Sophist. Building on the connection of phantasia and statement, the Stoics reverse the tendency which Plato embodies in his coinage in that they try to establish confidence in what phantasia reveals, whereas Plato took such confidence to be necessarily misplaced.

    Indeed, the purpose of his coinage (derived from 'phainesthai', 'to appear', meaning appearance in contrast to reality or being) was to embody the confusion of 'it seems to me' and 'it is' and so to show up the fundamental error of those who rely on the senses as revealing reality. To trust the senses as a basis of knowledge opens one to distortion from perspective and the illusory character of objects that never are the same." pp. 1-2.

  5. Bundy Murray Wright. The Theory of Imagination in Classical and Medieval Thought. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1927.

    Contents: Preface 7; I. Pre-Socratic Philosophy 11; II. Plato 19; III. Aristotle 60; IV. Post-Aristotelian Philosophy 83; V. The Theory of Art: Quintilian, Longinus, and Philostratus 105; VI. Plotinus 117; VII. The Lesser Neoplatonists 131; VIII. Neoplatonic Views of Three Early Christians [Synesius, Augustine, Boethius] 146; IX. Mediaval Descriptive Psychology 177; X. The Psychology of the Mystics 199; Xi. Dante's Theory of Vision 225; XII. Conclusion 257; Index 281-289.

    On the Stoics see. pp. 87-96.

  6. Chiesa Curzio. "Le Problème Du Langage Intérieur Chez Les Stoiciens." Revue Internationale de Philosophie 45 (1991): 301-321.

  7. Colish Marcia. "The Stoic Theory of Verbal Signification and the Problem of Lies and False Statement from Antiquity to St. Anselm." In Archéologie Du Signe, edited by Brind'Amour, Lucie and Vance, Eugène. 17-43. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1983.

  8. Cortassa Guido. "Pensiero E Linguaggio Nella Teoria Stoica Del Lekton." Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 106 (1978): 385-394.

  9. Detel Wolfgang, Hülsen Reinhard, Krüger Gerhard, and Lorenz Wolfgang. "Lekta Ellipé in Der Stoischen Sprach-Philosophie." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 62 (1980): 276-288.

  10. Ebert Theodor. "La Théorie Du Signe Entre La Médecine Et La Philosophie." In Signe Et Prédiction Dans L'antiquité, edited by Kany-Turpin, José. 51-64. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l'Université de Saint-Etienne, 2005.

    Actes du colloque international interdisciplinaire de Créteil et de Paris, 22-23-24 mai 2003.

  11. Edlow Robert Blair. Galen on Language and Ambiguity. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

    An English translation of Galen's De Captionibus (On Fallacies), with Introduction, text and commentary.

    Se the Chapter Seven: The Stoics on Fallacy and Ambiguity, pp. 56-68.

  12. Egli Urs. Zwei Aufsätze Zum Vergleich Der Stoischen Sprachtheorie Mit Modernen Theorien. Bern: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 1970.

  13. ———. "Sprachwissenschaft in Hellenistischer Zeit." In Neuere Forschungen Zur Wortbildung Und Historiographie Der Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Asbach, -Schnitker Brigitte, Brekle, Herbert Ernst and Roggenhofer, Johannes. 261-269. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2011.

  14. Frede Michael. "Stoics and Skeptics on Clear and Distinct Impressions." In The Skeptical Tradition, edited by Burnyeat, Myles. 65-93. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

    Reprinted in: M. Frede, Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 151-176.

  15. Gentinetta Peter M. Zur Sprachbetrachtung Bei Den Sophisten Und in Der Stoisch-Hellenistischen Zeit. Winterthur: P.G. Keller, 1961.

    On the Stoics see pp. 93-118.

  16. Hülser Karlheinz. "Expression and Content in Stoic Linguistic Theory." In Semantics from Different Points of View, edited by Bäuerle, Rainer, Egli, Urs and Stechow, Arnim von. 284-303. New York: Springer, 1979.

  17. Ildefonse Frédérique. "Perception Et Discours Dans L'ancien Stoicisme." Histoire Épistemologie Langage 14 (1992): 3-34.

    "As the Stoics (particularly through the status they grant to apprehensive representation) work out the relationship between perception and discourse, their definition of representation as alteration rather than impression may be understood as an effort to uphold perceptive multiplicity. I endeavour to find out how the multiplicity which perception implies is to be transcribed into discourse, and why such a transcription requires us to distinguish between two ways of partitioning discursive language, which are hinted at by the two expressions mérè tou logou and stoicheia tou logou."

  18. ———. "La Théorie Stoïcienne De La Phrase (Énoncé, Proposition) Et Son Influence Chez Les Grammairiens." In Théories De La Phrase Et De La Proposition De Platon À Averroés, edited by Büttgen, Philippe, Dieble, Stéphane and Rashed, Marwan. 151-170. Paris: Éditions Rue d'Ulm, 1999.

  19. Jackson Darrell B. "The Stoic Theory of Signs in St. Augustine's "De Doctrina Christiana"." Revue des Études Augustiniennes 15 (1969): 9-49.

    Reprinted in: Robert Austin Markus (ed.) - Augustine: a collection of critical essays - Garden City, Anchor Books, 1972, pp. 92-147

  20. Long Anthony Arthur. "Language and Thought in Stoicism." In Problems in Stoicism, edited by Long, Anthony Arthur. 75-113. London: Athlone Press, 1971.

  21. ———. "Stoic Psychology and the Elucidation of Language." In Knowledge through Signs. Ancient Semiotic Theories and Practices, edited by Manetti, Giovanni. 109-131. Turnhout: Brepols, 1996.

    "(1) During the creative period of Stoicism grammar was still in its infancy as a determinate field of study. I mention this fact because, as is well known, the Stoics were enormously influential on the Graeco-Roman grammatical tradition, which extends from the later Hellenistic epoch into the Christian period of the Roman Empire. Recourse to the Stoic influence on that tradition, excellently facilitated now by Karlheinz Hülser's collection (1987), can give the impression that these philosophers were merely pioneers in starting what the grammarians carried forward more fully and systematically. I want to suggest that such an impression may be seriously misleading in two respects.(2) First, it implies, incorrectly I believe, that the Stoics approached language as a phenomenon calling primarily for the kind of grammatical and syntactical description later grammarians developed. Secondly, it fails to identify the philosophical considerations that underpin the Stoics' principal interests in language. The Stoics had some splendid intuitions about the phonetic, grammatical and semantic levels of linguistic structure. Although these bear directly on the development of traditional grammar, they also seem to have clear affinities with what contemporary experts in linguistics call universal grammar.

    The material I have chosen in order to make this point will be drawn primarily from sections of Diogenes Laertius' doxography of Stoicism (7.41-83). This is our only comprehensive account of "the logical part" of Stoic philosophy. I shall be dealing mainly with Diogenes' section "on utterance" (peri phonés) or "on signifiers" (peri semainonton), which forms the first part of the subdivision of "dialectic" (D.L. 7.55-62). The second part of that subdivision (D.L. 7.63-82) is "on significations" (peri semainomenon). This division of dialectic into signifiers and significations has a clear rationale, as we shall see, but it too can yield misleading impressions, especially if it is taken to imply that the subdivisions are independent of one another or that there are no superordinate concepts that unite them. I shall argue that there are two such concepts, (phantaisia and logos, and that these together provide the foundations of the Stoic theory of language and logic.(3)

    There is a third general point that I want to address. Scholars have become accustomed to making a sharp distinction between the Stoic concept of linguistic signs (words and sentences) and their concept of semeion.(4) They applied the latter term (as distinct from the term semainon) to a pattern of sign-inference from a fact or proposition that is evident to a fact or proposition that is non-evident. It so happens that nothing is said about sign-inference in Diogenes Laertius' doxography of Stoic logic.(5)

    Whatever the explanation for this omission may be, it cannot be doubted that the Stoics classified sign-inferences under the "significations" heading of the division of dialectic. As such, they are not linguistic signs but a class of propositions signified by linguistic signs. The antecedent or "if' clause of a sign inference is a meaning or sayable (lekton), not the sentence by which this meaning is expressed, and what the "if' clause is the sign for is the truth value of its consequent and the connexion of that truth value to itself. However, what we should conclude from this is not that sign-inference is a function of logic as distinct from language, but that it is a normative function of language, i.e., language in its epistemic and truth-signifying capacity. Not only do sign-inferences require language for their expression; they are also tied to language as lekta, or sentence content. Correspondingly, language is tied to lekton (including sign inferences) for its semantic content. The Stoics appl,ÁÿÖ5òied the term logos both to significant utterances (linguistic signifiers) and to sign-inferences of the form: if p, then q. The presence of logos on both sides of the division of dialectic is hardly inadvertent. I take it as an indication that what the Stoics were seeking to elucidate was a unitary science of discourse, which would comprehend both linguistic signs and sign-inferences without reducing one to the other." pp. 109-110

    (1) (...) I have deliberately focused upon a limited range of texts, and I say virtually nothing about the antecedents of Stoic doctrines or their reception by later philosophers and grammarians. That is due in part to reasons of time and space, and also to the excellent studies covering these matters by Ax (1986), Frede (1977, 1978) and others. However, given the extremely fragmentary nature of our evidence, it also seemed to me important to focus rather narrowly on texts which have at least the appearance of being systematically Stoic and uncontaminated by other material. Hence my concentration on the "logical" doxography of Diogenes Laertius 7.

    (2) The three studies from which I have learned most about the complex relation between Stoicism and the work of grammarians are Lloyd (1971) and Frede (1977, 1978).

    (3) There is no novelty about this claim. Its implications are explored by Imbert (1978) and Manetti (1988), and I dealt with them at some length in Long (1971b). My main point here is to elucidate the primacy attached to phantasia in Stoic logic.

    (4) See for instance Long (1971b: 84-88).

    (5) This is noted and explored by Ebert (1991: 54 ff.).

  22. Manetti Giovanni. "Perception, Encyclopaedia, and Language among the Stoics." Versus.Quaderni di Studi Semiotici 50%1 (1988): 123-144.

  23. ———. Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity. Bloomngton: Indiana University Press, 1993.

    Original Italian edition: Le teorie del segno nell'antichità classica - Milano, Gruppo Editoriale Fabbri, 1987.

    Translated by Christine Richardson.

    See Chapter Six: Theory of language and semiotics in Stoic philosophers - pp. 92-106

  24. Melazzo Lucio. "La Teoria Del Segno Linguistico Negli Stoici." Lingua e Stile 10 (1975): 199-230.

  25. Panaccio Claude. Le Discours Intérieur. De Platon À Guillaume D'ockham. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1999.

    Sur ce livre voir: Laval Théologique et Philosophique, vol. 57 n. 2 (June 2001).

    Sur les Stoiciens, voir le Chapitre 2. Logos endiathetos 53-93.

  26. Pinborg Jan. "Das Sprachdenken Der Stoa Und Augustins Dialektik." Classica et Medievalia 23 (1962): 148-177.

  27. Pohlenz Max. "Die Begründung Der Abendländischen Sprachlehre Durch Die Stoa." Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philosophische-historische Klasse 1, 3.6 (1939): 151-198.

    Reprinted in: M. Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, edited by Heinrich Dörrie, Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1965, vol. I, pp. 39-86.

  28. Sandbach Francis Henry. "Phantasia Kataleptike." In Problems in Stoicism. 9-21. London: Athlone Press, 1971.

  29. Schubert Andreas. Untersuchungen Zur Stoischen Bedeutungslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

    Inhalt: Vorwort 7; Einleitung 9; I. Kapitel: Die Identität des Lektons 15; II. Die Identität der unvollständingen Lekta und die stoischen "Fälle" 57; III. Die Unkörperlichkeit der Lekta 110; IV. Das Konzept des Lektons in seiner Genese und in der philosophischen Diskussion 131; V. "hyparchein" und "hyphistasthai" bei den Stoikern 149; VI. "Bedeutungslehre" bei Aristoteles und Augustinus und ihr Verhältnis zur stoischen Semantik 175; VII. Die stoische "Kategorienlehre" 199; Appendix: Bemerkungen zu "hyparchein" und "hyphistasthai" im philosophischen Schriftttum und im Corpus Hippocraticum 246; Abkürzungsverzeichnis 261; Bibliographie 263; Index nominum 275; Index locorum 278-284.

  30. Shields Christopher. "The Truth Evaluability of Stoic Phantasiai: Adversus Mathematicos Vii 242-46." Journal of the History of Phiosophy 31 (1993): 325-347.

  31. Sluiter Ineke. "Language and Thought in Stoic Philosophy." In History of Language Sciences / Geschichte Der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire Des Sciences Du Langage I.1, edited by Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Konrad, Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Cornelis H.M., 375-384. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

  32. Steinthal Heymann. Geschichte Der Sprachwissenschaft Bei Den Griechen Und Römern Mit Besonderer Rücksicht Auf Die Logik. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1890.

    Two volumes: I (1890); II (1891).

    Reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1961.

  33. Verbeke Gérard. "Philosophie Et Séméiologie Chez Les Stoiciens." In Études Philosophiques Présentees Au Dr. Ibrahim Madkour. 15-38. Paris: Gebo, 1974.

    Repris dans: G. Verbeke, D'Aristote à Thomas d'Aquin. Antécédents de la pensée moderne, Louvain, Presses de l'Université de Louvain, 1990, pp. 341-364.

  34. Watson Gerard. "Discovering the Imagination. Platonists and Stoics on Phantasia." In The Question of "Eclecticism". Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edited by Dillon, John M. and Long, Anthony Arthur. 208-233. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

  35. ———. Phantasia in Classical Thought. Galway: Galway University Press, 1988.

    Contents: Acknowledgements VII; Preface IX-XIII; 1. Phantasia in Plato 1; 2 Phantasia in Aristotle and Theophrastus 14; 3. The Epicureans and Stoics 38; 4. The transformation of phantasia 59; 5. The Neoplatonists 96; 6. The transition to imaginatio 134; Bibliography 163; General Index 170; Index of Names 174-176.

    On the Stoics see pp. 44-59.

Bibliography on Stoic grammar

  1. Allen James. "The Stoics on the Origin of Language and the Foundation of Etymology." In Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium Hellenisticum, edited by Frede, Dorothea and Inwood, Brad. 14-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

    "James Allen shows that this assumption explains the Stoics' preoccupation with etymology as part of their concern with a time 'when language was still young' and the product of a primordial wisdom. Since they held a naturalist rather than a conventionalist view the Stoics assumed that there had been a primary stock of words that somehow 'imitate' the nature of the objects in question and could therefore be used as a natural standard of correctness. Since they assumed that there had been a high level of rationality among humans at a primordial stage, the Stoics saw nothing unnatural in proposing the notion of an original 'name-giver' as a hypothetical construct. Such a construct escapes the sceptic's ridicule because it merely assumes that the human need and the ability to converse rationally with each other, which manifests itself in every individual at a certain age, must also have been part of the nature of the (assumed) first generation of human beings. The 'naturalness' of names consists, then, in their suitability for communication with others; though it presupposes a mimetic relation between words and certain kinds of objects, it is not confined to onomatopoetics; instead it makes use of other means to augment language by associations and rational derivations of further expressions that are gradually added to the original stock of words. This explanation, as Allen points out, may make the etymologies less interesting and relevant in our eyes; but though the Stoics did not assume mechanical laws of derivation that would allow them to recover the 'cradle of words', attempts at rational reconstruction of the relation between different expressions provided them with a means to discover and to correct later corruptions of thought and so to play a crucial role in philosophical progress. Despite certain similarities of concern with the naturalist position in the Cratylus, the Stoic position therefore differs in more significant ways from the Platonic position than is usually acknowledged." From the Introduction by Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, pp. 4-5

  2. Amsler Mark. Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1989.

    See Chapter 1. Etymology and Discourse in Late Antiquity, pp. 15-56.

  3. Atherton Catherine. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

    "The subject of this book is some of the most impressive and original work on ambiguity to survive the wreck of western antiquity: that of the Stoa.

    At some point in the long history of their school Stoics constructed at least one definition of ambiguity, the earliest to survive in the western philosophical tradition, and remarkable in any case for its complexity, subtlety, and precision. It shows that its authors saw themselves as defining a linguistic phenomenon, amphibolia, which can easily be recognised today as familiar to users of most, if not all, natural languages: that one and the same linguistic item can mean or signify two or more different things. (This rough-and-ready characterisation will serve for the moment.) Two Stoic classifications of types of ambiguity, neither explicitly associated with the definition, are also extant; as these seem to differ from each other in small but important ways, they make it probable that at least one other definition was also arrived at, and this too may have survived, albeit in a mutilated form, and not explicitly attributed to the Stoa.

    Three chapters of this book will be devoted to close analysis of these three main pieces of evidence. They will reveal that Stoic philosophers had identified a range of linguistic and semantic concepts and categories with which ambiguity is intimately connected, and which serve to delimit or define it. Brief as they are, the texts to be examined will repay detailed study not only by students of ancient philosophy, at whom this book is primarily aimed, but also by workers in a variety of modern disciplines, above all by philosophers of language, theoretical and comparative linguists, and philosophical logicians: although they may all need to be convinced of the fact.

    What these texts do not reveal, in a general, explicit way, is what originally prompted Stoic interest in ambiguity. No ancient authority says in so many words why Stoics, as self- professed philosophers, found it worth while to define and classify ambiguity. If their motivations and anxieties are to be comprehensible, their conceptions of the purpose, structure, and contents of philosophy, of its internal and external boundaries, of the goal of human existence, and of the right way to achieve that goal, must all be determined. Stoic interest in ambiguity was the inevitable consequence of the basic doctrines about human nature, language, and rationality on which the whole Stoic system was based. Once ambiguity's place in the Stoic scheme of things is clear, it will be possible to trace the ways in which the form and content of Stoic work on ambiguity were shaped and constrained by its origins; and judgement by the school's own lights can be passed on its success in the projects it set itself.

    This interpretative and evaluative task is one of the two chief purposes of this book. It prepares the way for its companion, which is to assess, as far as possible, the merits and defects of Stoic work from other appropriate perspectives, including those of relevant modern concerns and interests, both inside and outside philosophy. To do so it will be necessary to abandon the special viewpoints of both the Stoics' own philosophical teachings and their philosophical and intellectual milieu. One result of this shift will be a questioning of the lines of division which moderns (philosophers, logicians, linguists, and others) and ancients (Stoics and rival philosophers, as well as non-philosophical professionals such as grammarians and rhetoricians) alike draw between what they conceive of as different disciplines or sciences, including philosophy itself.

    Given that part of the purpose of this book will be to try to analyse and explain some of the differences, in conception and method, between a range of modern and ancient perspectives on ambiguity, then restricting our inquiry to the particular contributions, however rich, which Stoics made to what are now called grammar, semantics, and epistemology, and to the other ancient disciplines or theories comparable with modern endeavours, would be a false economy even were the details of the Stoic enterprise not hopelessly distorted or understanding of them severely curtailed in the process. For the exegetical need for these larger contexts also reflects the fact that Stoic ideas of what philosophy was like, and what it was for, are vastly different from those which dominate the field today. The Stoic motivation for studying ambiguity might be called pragmatic, but not in the sense that it contributed to some narrowly practical goal, whether writing good Greek or understanding the classics, arguing in court or doing grammar -- or even doing logic, if that is conceived of as just another intellectual discipline, or as a tool of philosophy or of the sciences. The point was that seeing or missing an ambiguity could make a difference to one's general success as a human being." pp. 1-3

  4. Auroux Sylvain, ed. La Naissance Des Metalangages En Orient Et En Occident. Liège: Mardaga, 1989.

    Histoire des idéèes linguistiques, Vol. 1.

    Chapitre III. La naissance de la réflexion linguistique occidentale: Marc Baratin: Section 3. La constitution de la grammaire et de la dialectique 186; Section 4: La maturation des analyses grammaticaes et dialectiques p. 207; Section 45. Les difficultés de l'analyse syntaxique pp. 228-242.

  5. Ax Wolfram. Laut, Stimme Und Sprache. Studien Zu Drei Grundbegriffen Der Antiken Sprachtheorie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

    Zweiter Teil: Die philosophischen Grundlagen, 3. Stoa pp. 138-211.

  6. Baratin Marc. "Les Origines Stoiciennes De La Théorie Augustinienne Du Signe." Revue des Études Latines 59 (1981): 260-268.

  7. ———. "L'identité De La Pensée Et De La Parole Dans L'ancien Stoïcisme." Langages 16 (1982): 9-21.

  8. ———. "La Constitution De La Grammaire Et De La Dialectique." In Histoire Des Idées Linguistiques. I. La Naissance Des Métalangages En Orient Et En Occident, edited by Auroux, Sylvain. 186-206. Liège: Mardaga, 1989.

  9. ———. "Aperçu De La Linguistique Stoïcienne." In Sprachtheorien Der Abendländischen Antike, edited by Schmitter, Peter. 193-217. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1991.

    Geschichte der Sprachtheorie. Band II.

  10. Baratin Marc, and Desbordes Fraçoise. L'analyse Linguistique Dans L'antiquité Classique. 1. Les Théories. Paris: Klincksieck, 1981.

    Avec la participation de Philippe Hoffman et Alain Pierrot.

  11. Berrettoni Pierangiolo. "An Idol of the School: The Aspectual Theory of the Stoics." Rivista di Linguistica 1 (1989): 33-68.

  12. ———. "Further Remarks on the Stoic Theory of Tenses." Rivista di Linguistica 1 (1989): 251-275.

  13. ———. "La Formazione Di Un Paradigma Stoico-Alessandrino Nella Teoria Dei Tempi Verbali." Quaderni dell'Istituto di Glottologia dell'Università di Chieti 8 (1997): 5-28.

    "The article seeks to identify the philosophical premises of the theory of tense developed by the Stoics in the formation of a propositional logic and a temporal logic. It also indicates the presence of a number of suggestions derived from mathematical theories."

  14. Blank David Leslie. Ancient Philosophy and Grammar. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

  15. ———. "Remarks on Nicator, the Stoics and the Ancient Theory of Punctuation." Glotta 61 (1983): 48-67.

  16. Blank David Leslie, and Atherton Catherine. "The Stoic Contribution to Traditional Grammar." In The Cambridge Companion to Stoics, edited by Inwood, Brad. 310-327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

  17. Brunschwig Jacques. "Remarques Sur La Théorie Stoïcienne Du Nom Propre." Histoire Épistemologie Langage 6 (1984): 3-19.

    Répris dans: J. Brunschwig, Études sur les philosophies hellénistiques: Epicurisme, stoïcisme, scepticisme, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1995.

  18. Caujolle-Zaslawsky Françoise. "La Scholie De Stéphanos. Quelques Remarques Sur La Théorie Des Temps Du Verbe Attribuée Aux Stoiciens." Histoire Épistemologie Langage 7 (1985): 3-19.

    "Although this testimony is isolated, the historians of ancient grammar, who are aware of the part played by the Stoics in the formation of an independent grammatical field, unreluctantly take for granted the indications of a scholium by Stephanos -- the commentator on Dionysios Thrax -- which imply the existence of stoic theory of verbal tenses; yet none of the reconstructions of this theory as the basis of the scholium can be taken as conclusive, for want of complementary documents. This paper offers neither a new reconstruction nor a critical survey of former ones, but tries to follow another path; it investigates whether elements which, in the scholium, are undoubtedly of stoic origin, did not stand up to the scholiast's skill in his attempt to integrate them within a framework which may be foreign to them."

  19. Dinneen Francis P. "On Stoic Grammatical Theory." Historiographia Linguistica 12 (1985): 149-164.

  20. Egli Urs. "The Stoic Concept of Anaphora." In Semantics from Different Points of View, edited by Bäuerle, Rainer, Egli, Urs and Stechow, Arnim von. 266-283. New York: Springer, 1979.

  21. ———. "Stoic Syntax and Semantics." In The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period, edited by Taylor, Daniel J., 281-306, 1986.

    Also published in: Historiographia Linguistica, 13, 1986 and in J. Brunschwig (ed.), Les Stoiciens et leur logique, Paris, Vrin, 1986, pp. 135-147 (2nd edition 2006, pp. 131-148).

    "Let me now summarize the main points of my exposition of Stoic syntax:

    1. Stoic loquia (lekta) are designated by expressions of a normalized Greek. They have the same structure as these Greek expressions. Thus in most technical uses they serve approximately the same purpose as "semantic structures" or "semantic representations" in modem linguistics and philosophy of language.

    2. There is an infinity of loquia derived by a finite number of recursive rules of four types, lexical, inclusion, combination and transformation rules. Semantic categories like statement, predicate and subject are used in the formulation of these rules which enable us to build complex loquia of the various categories from atomar ones (asuntheta). The structure of a compound loquium may be revealed by using Chomsky or Montague analysis trees.

    3. This infinity of loquia is related with real things by an analogue of modern model theory. General terms are said to denote individuals according to a variant of multiple denotation theory. Deictic subjects are assigned values, like their modern analogues: individual variables by an assignment (deixis). Statements are either true or false. Complex expressions are valuated in function of their syntactic composition and the values of their parts.

    4. Denotations of Greek expressions are determined indirectly. E.g. appellatives signify appellative subjects, which refer to individuals. Thus appellatives indirectly denote these individuals too.

    5. All this would have to be refined by taking into account tense.

    6. By neglecting tense, plural and subjectivization, Stoic loquium theory becomes an analogue of modern first order predicate logic by

    a) the Introduction of n place predicates with arbitrary n,

    b) the Introduction of a means to handle relative clauses

    Stoic syntax and related model theory thus proves interesting and comparable to modern treatments." Les Stoiciens et leur logique, 2nd edition 2006, pp. 144-145.

  22. ———. "Anaphora from Athens to Amsterdam." In Reference and Anaphoric Relations, edited by Heusinger, Klaus von and Egli, Urs. 17-29. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000.

    "Excavating the prehistory of dynamic predicate logic in the Stoic theory of methodical arguments makes us aware of an interrupted tradition, in a way that is possible only by philological reconstruction and the use of similar facts independently invented in modern times. That such interrupted traditions can become important has been shown by the use of ancient temporal logic and its resurrection in Kripke's (1963) semantics of modal logic. Kripke combined Prior's reconstruction of the Diodorean system of time-logical modality with ideas from Carnap on modal logic in order to get his semantic

    characterization of the Lewis systems of modal logic. Modern developments offer scholars of classical logic a modern foil that can help them to understand ancient texts and to see interesting developments in them which otherwise would be incomprehensible.

    The modern representatives of this tradition also gain an advantage from such research, in that they can build on a tradition which helps to strengthen confidence in the new methods.

    The adherents of Stoicism gave their logic high priority, saying that if the Greek gods had a logic, then it must be that of Chrysippus. As we have seen, this logic was a form of dynamic predicate logic. It is equivalent to classical predicate logic and contains it as the static part. Classical predicate logic is according to Hilbert's thesis a privileged form of logic, and according to Quine it is the right regimentation of language. Perhaps the Stoic saying was not so false after all. But we can also learn something about our own form of predicate logic, classical and dynamic, because the Stoic developments can be considered as a finalized whole. Even if the Stoic version of dynamic predicate logic is no logic of the gods, it still is an important logic for human beings." p. 28

  23. Frede Michael. "Some Remarks on the Origin of Traditional Grammar." In Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by Butts, Robert E. and Hintikka, Jaakko. 51-79. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977.

    Reprinted with the title: The Origins of Traditional Grammar in: M. Frede, Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 338-359.

  24. ———. "Principles of Stoic Grammar." In The Stoics, edited by Rist, John M., 27-75. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

    Reprinted in: M. Frede, Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 301-337.

    "Historians of grammar have usually proceeded as if their subject had a continuous history starting in the fifth century B.C., with the Sophists. But even if one is willing to credit Sophists like Protagoras and Prodicus, and later philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, with a theory of language, It is obvious that their theories were not grammatical theories: they were not interested in finding out how a particular language, Greek, actually works in such detail as to be in a position even to attempt to start formulating the canons for correct Greek. Hence to treat them as part of one continuous tradition along with the later grammarians is to invite neglect of important questions. We may, for example, assume that those who actually started grammar had certain notions concerning the nature of language, and that these and other philosophical views influenced the way they set up their subject and thus also its later development. We may also assume that they had certain reasons for starting this enterprise and that these reasons influenced the way they went about it and hence, indirectly, the outlines of later grammar. For reasons of this sort it is important that we should have a better notion of the actual origins of the grammatical tradition.

    Now our question concerning the Stoics is important, since it has been claimed that it was the Stoics themselves who first formulated traditional grammar, To substantiate this claim it will not be sufficient to show that traditional grammar is Influenced in many respects by Stoic notions. For such a state of affairs would be completely compatible with the assumption that the Stoics still formed part of the earlier philosophical tradition, though they contributed more to this tradition than their predecessors, but that grammar itself only began among the classical scholars of Alexandria, who exploited the available philosophical tradition and the Stoic contributions to it. To substantiate the claim that grammar originated with the philosophers we have to show that it formed a definite part of Stoic philosophy (the evidence seems to rule out the other schools of philosophy as plausible candidates). But the origin of traditional grammar is not the concern of this paper. Even if grammar originated with the Alexandrians, it would be important to know whether in matters of language the Stoics still formed part of the earlier philosophical tradition or whether they were already engaged in doing grammar. For the evidence on the Stoic theory of language is so fragmentary that the context of the fragments and testimonies makes an enormous difference to their interpretation and evaluation."

  25. ———. "The Stoic Doctrine of the Tenses of the Verb." In Dialektiker Und Stoiker. Zur Logik Der Stoa Und Ihrer Vorläufer, edited by Döring, Klaus and Ebert, Theodor. 141-154. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.

  26. ———. "The Stoic Notion of a Grammatical Case." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 39 (1994): 13-24.

  27. Gourinat Jean-Baptiste. " La Théorie Stoïcienne Et Ses Enjeux." In Théories De La Phrase Et De La Proposition De Platon À Averroés, edited by Buttgen, Philippe, Dieble, Stéphane and Rashed, Marwan. 133-150. Paris: Éditions Rue d'Ulm, 1999.

  28. ———. "Épistémologie, Rhétorique Et Grammaire." In Lire Les Stoïciens, edited by Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste and Barnes, Jonathan. 23-39. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009.

  29. Hadot Pierre. "La Notion De "Cas" Dans La Logique Stoïcienne." In Le Langage. Actes Du Xiii Congrés Des Sociétés De Philosophie De Langue Française. Genève, 2-6 Août 1966. 109-112. Neuchâtel: La Baconnière, 1966.

  30. Hagius Hugh. "The Stoic Theory of the Parts of Speech." 1979.

    Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University available at: ProQuest Dissertation Express n. 8008733.

    Contents: Preliminary remarks IV--IX; Chapter I. Chrysippus 1; Chapter II. The Techne concerning sounds of Diogenes of Babylon 101; Chapter III. Aristarchus and the Aristarcheans 171; Chapter IV. The Dialectica of Augustine 249; Concluding remarks 260; Appendix I 265; Appendix II 280; Bibliography 283-290.

    Abstract: "This dissertation relates the history of the theory of the parts of speech from its origin in the Stoic school of dialectics through its passage into the Alexandrian school of literary criticism in the second century B.C.

    It pays especial attention to the way in which the theory was transformed in that passage. The Stoics had used it as part of their general system of dialectics, intended to give an account of the truth of true sentences and the validity of valid deductions. The Alexandrians, whose main activity was textual criticism, used the parts of speech as a system of naming and classifying the forms of Greek. The dissertation argues that for each of these purposes a different theory is required, and that in the Alexandrian grammarians' application of the theory two different ways of analyzing language were confused.

    The chief figures in this history are the Stoics, Chrysippus of Soloi (c. 281 to 208 B.C.) and his student, Diogenes of Babylon (c. 238 to 150 B.C.), and the Alexandrian, Aristarchus of Samothrace (c. 216 to 144 B.C.). One chapter is devoted to each of them.

    The first chapter is a reconstruction of Chrysippus's version of the theory of the parts of speech. It discusses the terminology which he inherited, such as "element of logos," the forerunner of our phrase "part of speech," as well as the notions of noun, verb, conjunction and article. It examines Chrysippus's theory of the significate (alternatively called the lekton), which was described as being what "the barbarians, although hearing the sound, do not understand," and also as being "just what is true or false." The several parts of speech were distinguished according

    to their association with significates.

    The second chapter is a reconstruction of a lost work of Diogenes of Babylon, his Techne Concerning Sound. This was a handbook which treated language as a single topic, beginning with acoustics and proceeding to the parts of speech. Diogenes's Techne probably was the vehicle by which the theory of the parts of speech reached Alexandria.

    The third chapter discusses Aristarchus's adaptation of the parts of speech to the purposes of textual criticism, and some of the ways in which he used it in his own edition of the Iliad. It also considers the difficulty which the confusion within the theory caused for Aristarchus's successors. Finally it compares the grammatical theory of the Alexandrians with that of the great Indian grammarian Panini and his commentators.

    The fourth and final chapter is devoted to a post-classical Latin text which has come down to us as the De Dialectica of Augustine. Its sources are obscure, but it appears to represent a development of Stoic theory later than Diogenes. It considers questions of metalanguage, and draws a distinction between use and mention very like the one made by Panini. This stage of Stoic theory did not pass into the grammatical tradition, but the De Dialectica was read during the medieval and Renaissance periods in Europe.

    The dissertation contains two appendices. The first is a collection of fragments upon which the reconstruction of Diogenes's Techne Concerning Sound was based. The second discusses Aristarchus's pupil Dionysius Thrax, and the grammar attributed to him."

  31. Hennigfeld Jochem. Geschichte Der Sprachphilosophie. Antike Und Mittelalter. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

    Chapter V. Die Stoa. Laut und Bedeutung pp. 104-124.

  32. Householder Fred Walter. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981.

    Translated and with Commentary.

  33. Ildefonse Frédérique. La Naissance De La Grammaire Dans L'antiquité Grecque. Paris: Vrin, 1997.

    Chapitre II: Les Stoïciens - pp. 119-251.

  34. ———. "Petite Histoire De La Metabasis." Histoire Épistemologie Langage 20 (1998): 63-80.

    "I will try to illustrate the dynamics of the passage as described by metabasis in a few stoic texts and several grammatical analysis of Apollonius Dyscolus. I believe the concept of « décrochement », which I borrow from Claude Lévi-Strauss, helps to clarify it. The adjective metabatikos qualifies the type of human representation, logical representation, which, in as much as it is « transitive », allows an information to open into another, as well as their mutual articulation, therefore founding the conception of the sign « if this, then this » and the possibility of the conditional « if it is day, there is light ». According to the grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus, metabasis intervenes in the analysis of the transitive diathesis and in the definition of the person. I will procède to show the part played by metabasis in the grammatical treatment of conjunction and how it allows to throw some light upon the obscure part of the definition of conjunction in the Technè Grammatikè attributed to Dionysus the Trhax."

  35. Lallot Jean. "Origines Et Développement De La Théorie Des Parties Du Discours En Grèce." Langages 23 (1988): 11-23.

  36. Lohmann Johannes. "Über Die Stoische Sprachphilosophie." Studium Generale 21 (1968): 250-257.

    Summarizes in particular the important unpublished Dissertation by Hans-Erich Müller (1943).

  37. Long Anthony Arthur. "Stoic Linguistics, Plato' Cratylus, and Augustine's De Dialectica." In Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium Hellenisticum, edited by Frede, Dorothea and Inwood, Brad. 36-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

    "Anthony Long also elaborates on the influence of Plato's Cratylus on Stoic theory. But he goes much further than Allen with his hypothesis that the Stoics not only made use of Plato's dialogue, but did so in a way that justifies he presentation of many central features of their linguistic theory as being he result of a revisionary reading of the Cratylus. It is a reading that makes Socrates' suggestions about the 'natural' relation of names to things much more coherent than they are in the dialogue itself. This also applies to their etymological explanation of the names of the gods that they suggested as a revision of a corrupted tradition and a return to the original name-givers' comprehension of the true nature of the universe. Given their `synaesthetic' reconstruction of the relation between phonetics and semantics, the Stoics could avoid the Cratylus' more absurd features of onomatopoetics, as Long shows by analysing different forms of 'naturalism', including 'formal and phonetic naturalism', and their application by the Stoics that not only ins hides names but also the famous lekta or 'sayables'. Long contends that the Stoics not only found a better balance between the phonetic and the formal constituents of meaningful discourse than emerges from Plato's dialogue itself, but restricted their use of etymology as a back-up to their theology, i.e. the naturalistic reconstruction of the names of the gods. As an additional witness to the sophistication of the Stoic linguistic theory Long adds an appendix on the four-fold semantic distinction (between dicibile, res, verbum, and dictio) in St Augustine's De dialectica, which he takes to be largely of Stoic origin.

    The Epicureans also held that language is part of the natural emergence of human culture. But here the similarity between the Stoic and the Epicurean theory of language ends. For instead of an early stage of rationality and inspired `name-givers', the Epicureans proposed a quite different account of the evolution of language as part of their mechanical reconstruction of the order in nature, which includes an animal-like primitive stage of human beings. Unfortunately the information on this early stage in the development of humans as cultural beings in Epicurean theory is extremely meagre; attempts to reconstruct it have to rely on a few lines in Epicurus' Letter to Herodotus and in Lucretius' poem." From the Introduction by Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, pp. 5-6

  38. Luhtala Anneli. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 2000.

    "This study examines the dialectical origin of syntactical description in our traditional grammar. Two famous texts take pride of place in containing the first descriptions of a 'clause' in Greek literature, namely Plato's Sophist and Aristotle's Peri hermeneias. These descriptions arose in the context of a more general inquiry into the nature of truth and language which gave rise to the first speculations on the form of the logical proposition in Greek Antiquity. By establishing as the unit of propositional analysis a combination of two linguistic items, Onoma (`name', 'noun') and rhema (`verb', 'predicate') these philosophers laid the foundation for the doctrine of the parts of speech which later constituted the core of ancient grammar. Their concern was to establish the two functional constituents of the proposition, roughly the subject and the predicate, by means of which true and false statements could be made. The object of their concern -- the minimal statement consisting of a noun and a verb -- came to figure as the point of departure for syntactical analysis when it began to be pursued in independent grammatical treatises. In the grammar of Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd century A.D.), which is our first extant grammatical treatise on syntax, syntactical description proceeds from the minimal self-sufficiency (autoteleia) of the linguistic expression. But the description of the minimal sentence by Apollonius bears witness to the distinctly Stoic origin of the notion of self-sufficiency." p. 11

  39. Müller Hans-Erich. "Die Prinzipien Der Stoischen Grammatik." 1943.

    Unpublished dissertation (University of Rostock).

  40. Ophuijsen Johannes M.Van. "Parts of What Speech? Stoic Notions of Statement and Sentence; or, How the Dialectician Knew Voice and Began Syntax." In Syntax in Antiquity, edited by Swiggers, Pierre and Wouters, Alfons. 77-94. Louvain: Peeters, 2003.

  41. Pinborg Jan. "Classical Antiquity: Greece." In Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol 13: Historiography of Linguistics, edited by Sebeok, Thomas A., 69-126. La Haye: Mouton, 1975.

  42. Schenkeveld Dirk Marie. "Stoic and Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods." Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 291-353.

    Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics II.

  43. ———. "The Stoic Techne Peri Phones." Mnemosyne 43 (1990): 86-108.

    Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics III.

  44. ———. "Developments in the Study of Ancient Linguistics." Mnemosyne 43 (1990): 289-306.

    Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics IV.

  45. ———. "Scholarship and Grammar." In La Philologie Grecque À L'époque Hellénistique Et Romaine. Sept Exposés Suivis De Discussions (Vandoeuvres - Genève, 16-21 Août 1993), edited by Montanari, Franco. 263-301. Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1993.

  46. ———. "Philosophical Prose." In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C. - A.D. 400, edited by Porter, Stanley E., 195-264. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

  47. ———. "The Invention of the Whole-and-Part Figure and the Stoics on Solecism: Ancient Interpretations of Il. 24.58." Mnemosyne 55 (2002): 513-537.

  48. Schenkeveld Dirk Marie, and Barnes Jonathan. "Language." In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Algra, Keimpe, Barnes, Jonathan, Mansfeld, Jaap and Schofield, Malcolm. 177-225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

  49. Schmidt Rudolf T. Die Grammatik Der Stoiker. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, 1979.

    Introduction, translation and editing from the Latin edition (1839) by Karlheinz Hülser. With an annotated Bibliography of the Stoic linguistics (dialectic) by Urs Egli (pp. 182-216).

  50. Sluiter Ineke. Ancient Grammar in Context. Contributions to the Study of Ancient Linguistic Thought. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1990.

    Contents: VII-X; Preface XI-XII; General Introduction 1; I. The Stoa 5; II.Apollonius Dyscolous 39; III. Causal ina 143; IV. The Interjection 173; Abbreviations 247; Bibliography 248; Selective Index Locorum 263; Selective Indices: I. Greek 266; II. Latin 268; III. Subject 268-270.

  51. Telegdi Zsigmond. "On the Formation of the Concept of 'Linguistic Sign' and on Stoic Language Doctrine." In Hungarian Linguistics, edited by Kiefer, Ferenc. 537-588. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1982.

  52. Versteegh Cornelis H.M. "The Stoic Verbal System." Hermes 108 (1980): 338-357.

    "The difficulties one meets in studying Stoic grammatical theory may well be illustrated by the verbal system, whose reconstruction has been undertaken in various ways. It is our aim in this paper to study first the data provided by the Greek grammarians, and to determine the influence of Stoic theories on this corpus with the help of the direct quotation in the scholia (scholia Dyonisios Thrax 250, 26 - 251, 25). Then we will analyse the data from Varro (De Lingua Latina VIII - X) and from the Latin Corpus Grammaticorum, in connection with the direct quotation by Priscianus (Inst. 414, 21 sqq.). Finally, we will compare the various reconstructions which have been proposed, and give our own proposal." p. 338

Bibliography on Stoic rhetoric

  1. "Rhetorics of Reason and Restraint: Stoic Rhetoric from Antiquity to the Present." Advances in the History of Rhetoric 14 (2011).

  2. Atherton Catherine. "Hand over Fist: The Failure of Stoic Rhetoric." Classical Quarterly 38 (1988): 392-427.

    "Students of Stoic philosophy, especially of Stoic ethics, have a lot to swallow. Virtues and emotions are bodies; virtue is the only good, and constitutes happiness, while vice is the only evil; emotions are judgements (in Chrysippus' Stoa); all sins are equal; and everyone bar the sage is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Non-Stoics in antiquity seem for the most part to find these doctrines as bizarre as we do. Their own philosophical or ideological perspectives, and the criticisms of the Stoa to which these gave rise, are no less open to criticism than are the paradoxes and puzzles under attack -- but they may be, often are, better documented, less provocatively attention-begging, or simply more familiar. Even disputes within the Stoa can be obscured or distorted by modern prejudices. Posidonius rejected Chrysippus' theory of a unitary soul, one rational through and through, on the grounds that such a theory could not satisfactorily account for the genesis of bad -- excessive and irrational- - emotions, the páthe (Galen, PHP [De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis] 2.246.36ff., 314. 15ff. De Lacy). Posidonius' own Platonising, tripartite soul feels more familiar to us because the Republic tends to be a set text rather more often than do the fragments of Chrysippus' de anima; and the balance in Plato's favour is unlikely to change. When Posidonius wrote, on the other hand, the Chrysippean soul was school orthodoxy, and Platonism the latest thing in radical chic." (p. 392).

  3. Barré Véronique, and Laks André. "Le Sens De Lektixos Dans La Définition Stoïcienne De L'ambiguïté (Diogène Laërce Vii, 62 = Svf Iii, 23)." Revue des Etudes Grecques 107 (1994): 708-712.

  4. Barwick Karl. Probleme Der Stoischen Sprachlehre Und Rhetorik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957.

    Inhalt: Abkürzungen 4; Vorwort 5; Einleitung 7; I. Augustins Dialektik und ihr Verhältnis zu Varros Schriften De dialectica und De lingua latina 8; II. Die Sprachschöpfungslehre der Stoa 29; III. Die Deklinationslehre der Stoa 34; IV. Die Etymologie der Stoa 58; V. Platons Kratylos und die stoische Sprachschöpfungslehre und Etymologie 70; VI. Die Stellung der Stoa zu dem Problem der sprachlichen Neuschöpfung 80; 1. Die stoische Auffassung von der sprachlichen Neuschöpfung bei Varro und Quintilian 80; 2. Das Problem der sprachlichen Neuschöpfung bei Cicero, Quintilian und anderen Rhetoren 83; 3. Horaz und das Problem der sprachlichen Neuschöpfung 85; VII. Die stoische Tropen- und Figurenlehre und ihr Verhältnis zu der der zünftigen Rhetorik 88; 1. Die stoische Tropenlehre 88; 2. Die stoische Figurenlehre 97; 3. Entstehungszeit der stoischen Tropen- und Figurenlehre 110-111.

    Vorwort: "Die vorstehenden Untersuchungen verfolgen das Ziel, einige Gebiete der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik aufzuhellen. Bei dem Stand unserer Überlieferung ist das eine schwierige und entsagungsvolle Aufgabe: aber, wie ich glaube, eine Aufgabe, die sich lohnt; denn nur auf dem Weg über die Stoa läßt sich ein tieferer Einblick gewinnen in die Geschichte der antiken Sprachtheorien und, bis zu einem gewissen Grad, auch der antiken Rhetorik. Leider ist auch die Arbeit des nachprüfenden Lesers nicht immer bequem. Ich war daher bemüht, sie ihm nach Möglichkeit zu erleichtern und weitgehend die Quellen selber sprechen zu lassen.

    Der Stoff ist in sieben Kapitel gegliedert. Sie behandeln Themen verschiedener Art, die aber innerlich eng zusammenhängen. Kapitel I will durch seine Analysen eine stoische Quelle erschließen, die von Wichtigkeit ist für die folgenden Untersuchungen. Kapitel II und III versuchen die stoische Auffassung von der Entstehung der Sprache klarzulegen, wobei das erstere mehr die verschiedene Bedeutung der Worte, das letztere ihre verschiedenen Formen ins Auge faßt. Mit Kapitel II und III steht Kapitel IV in engem Zusammenhang: Über die in ihm behandelte Etymologie der Stoa läßt sich nur von ihrer Ansicht über die Entstehung der Sprache her ein tieferes Verständnis gewinnen. Da die stoischen Lehren über die Sprachentstehung und Etymologie sich nahe berühren mit denen des platonischen Kratylos, waren in Kapitel V die beiderseitigen Beziehungen zu untersuchen und festzustellen, wie weit etwa die Stoiker von Platon abhängig sind und wie weit sie ihre eigenen Wege gehen. Kapitel VI und VII untersuchen die stoischen Anschauungen über das sprachschöpferische Verfahren der Gegenwart; beide gehören mehr in das Gebiet der Rhetorik. Während Kapitel VI die verschiedenen Arten der Neubildung von Worten behandelt, beschäftigt sich Kapitel VII mit den Tropen und Figuren; sie können ebenfalls, wenn auch in anderem Sinn als die Bildung neuer Worte, als ein Akt sprachlicher Neuschöpfung bezeichnet werden. Die Formen moderner Sprachschöpfung gehen, jedenfalls zum Teil, parallel mit dem sprachschöpferischen Verfahren, wie es von den Stoikern für die Urzeit angenommen und in Kapitel II und III beschrieben wurde. Kapitel VI und VII setzen also zu ihrem tieferen Verständnis Kapitel II und III voraus.

    Es sei noch bemerkt, daß Kapitel VII ursprünglich als selbständige Abhandlung geplant und bereits 1922 geschrieben war, als mein Buch über "Remmius Palaemon und die römische ars grammatica" gedruckt wurde, wo S. 99, 1 auf sie verwiesen wird. Die Veröffentlichung ist damals aus verschiedenen Gründen unterblieben und erfolgt jetzt im Rahmen dieser Untersuchungen in erweiterter und z. T. veränderter Form."

  5. Edlow Robert Blair. "The Stoics on Ambiguity." Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (1975): 423-445.

  6. Flory Dan. "Stoic Psychology, Classical Rhetoric, and Theories of Imagination in Western Philosophy." Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (1996): 147-167.

    "The roots of a major theory of imagination arising out of classical thought lay in descriptions of phantasia (or its equivalent) in fragments of Stoicism and accounts of philosophical rhetoric."

  7. Goldschmidt Victor. "Logique Et Rhétorique Chez Les Stoiciens." Logique et Analyse 16 (1963): 450-456.

    Repris dans: V. Goldschmidt, Écrits. Tome 1: Études de philosophie ancienne, Paris, Vrin, 1984, pp. 179-186.

  8. Hadot Pierre. "Philosophie, Dialectique, Rhétorique Dans L'antiquité." Studia Philosophica 39 (1980): 139-166.

    Répris dans P. Hadot, Études de philosophie ancienne, Paris, Belles Lettres, 1998, pp. 159-193.

  9. Le Bouellec Alain. "L'allégorie Chez Les Stoiciens." Poétique 23 (1975): 301-322.

  10. Moretti Gabriella. Acutum Dicendi Genus. Brevità, Oscurità, Sottigliezze E Paradossi Nelle Tradizioni Retoriche Degli Stoici. Trento: Università di Trento, 1990.

  11. O'Gorman Ned. "Stoic Rhetoric: Prospects of a Problematic." Advances in the History of Rhetoric 14 (2011): 1-13.

  12. Pachet Pierre. "Les Métaphores De La Connaissance Chez Les Anciens Stoiciens." Revue des Etudes Grecques 81 (1968): 374-377.

  13. Pearcy Lee T. "Galen and Stoic Rhetoric." Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 24 (1983): 259-272.

  14. Protopapas-Marnelli Maria. La Rhétorique Des Stoiciens. Paris: L'Harmattan, 2002.

  15. Striller Franz. De Stoicorum Studiis Rhetoricis. Breslau: W. Kebner, 1886.