Skip to main content
table of contents
Notes
Introduction: Rhetoric, Myth, and Rhetorical Myth
- 1. Page 182 →Page 183 →See, for example, Stroud (2005), Lloyd (2007), Mao (2010), and Wu (2020).
- 2. There is an extensive literature of mythographic theory which has been most comprehensively summarized by Doty (2000), who ultimately concluded that no one theory of myth—which would imply a hermeneutical theory by which we might comprehend their nature—has thus far been unsatisfactory. However, in every case, an attempt to universally command, interpret, or theorize all myth at all times cannot account for their culturally specific origins, hermeneutics, and rhetorical aims over millennia of time. I have attempted throughout this book to reconstruct the mythic perspective specific to each ancient culture represented, using the authority of primary sources, Assyriological scholars, and Egyptological experts, as well as existing scholarship on Plato and myth. I offer no universal explanation or heuristic for the interpretation of all myth, everywhere, at all times, and firmly doubt one will ever be invented or synthesized. To explain the reasons for this conclusion would be an entirely separate work, and such a project would ultimately produce no positive or constructive conclusions. Therefore, this volume attempts a constructive illustration of a very narrow sort of myth, whose analysis is confined to culturally specific contexts and the relations between them.
Chapter 1: Nisaba and the Identification of Sumerian Rhetoric
- 1. The translation of Glassner is my own. The original explains: “Dans cette pensée subtile où se conjoignaient la perception sensorielle et laperception cognitive, il s’instaura une dialectique tout en finesse du visible etde l’invisible, de la présence et de l’absence” (p. 44).
Chapter 2: Sumerian Narrative Myth and the Relational Nature of Rhetoric in the Aratta Epics
- 1. Veldhuis (1997) and Tinney (1999) place Enmerkar in either the Tetrad or Decad of orks prescribed for scribal training. Whether it was the ultimate or penultimate text, along with the other Enmerkar narratives, has become somewhat disputed in more recent literature (see Delnero 2010). Of the extant texts listed in either the Louvre or Nippur catalogue, the Enmerkar epics remain some of the lengthiest and most complex in those catalogue or lists. Delnero groups them among the “more substantial” of the texts on the curricular lists/catalogues (p. 36).
- Page 184 →2. Enmerkar’s boasts about his sexual prowess are remarkable not merely in the way they reveal the sexual mores and sensibilities of ancient Sumer, but in the linguistic distinction created between the Sumerian word inim and gu, which had related cuneiform symbols. The Sumerian verb gu as “crying out” (in this case, like a waterfowl) is used in contrast to inim; gu usually indicates an inarticulate cry of rejoinder, sometimes in response to physical stimuli. Inim, as I outline here, constituted a verbal interaction that reflected a less physical relational ontology among ontologically defined entities.
- 3. For the role of Nabu, see Zimmern and Winckler, 1903, pp. 399–408.
Chapter 5: The Beginnings of Rhetorical Myth in Ancient Greece
- 1. Presumably the god Thoth, a syncretically familiar figure in the classical world, mentioned by name in Plato’s Phaedrus (1914, p. 322a–c).
- 2. Naucratis was known as Hellenion (Ἑλλήνιον), an outpost founded in the sixth century bce.
- 3. Plato’s actual visit or visits to Egypt remain a subject of speculation by modern historians and in any case is not central to this argument, but ancient writers discussed the Egyptian travels associated with his biography with telling consistency. Plato’s extensive travels during his life are attested to in his Seventh Letter. Cicero states in De Rep. that Plato went to Egypt after hearing of the death of Socrates and in De Finibus “to study in Egypt with barbarian priests” (I.16, emphasis added). Quintilian (1920), in Instituio Oratoria, stated that Plato “was not merely content” with the teachings of Athens or the Sicilian Pythagoreans “but even approached the priests of Egypt and made himself thoroughly acquainted with all their secret lore” (1.12.15, emphasis added). The biographer Diogenes Laertius (1925) reports that Plato, after withdrawing from Athens and eventually traveling to Sicily, went “thence to Egypt to see those who interpreted the will of the gods” (3.6, emphasis added). Diodorus Siculus (1989) similarly states that Plato sought knowledge of numbers and astronomy from the priests (sacerdotibus) of Egypt (8.96).
- 4. Plato’s relationship to Egypt is most extensively discussed in Vasunia (2001). Although I depart from Vasunia’s interpretation of Thoth significantly, this chapter is heavily indebted to his foundational work.
- 5. Burkert (1995) has argued that Greek myth bears a structural and incidental connection to Near Eastern myths, but in the context of rhetoric, Egypt’s rhetorical tradition is far more demonstrable.
Chapter 6: Plato, Atlantean Rhetoric, Mythic σχῆμα (Schema), and the Speeches of Critias
- 1. ἴτε ἀνεπιτήδειός ἐστι.ἐσπουδάκει καθάπερ ἄλλοι, τόν τε λόγον ὃν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου δεῦρο ἠνέγκατο ἀπετέλεσεν.”
- Page 185 →2. Although not wholly relevant to this discussion, Fowler (2011) triggered an enormous discussion with his article “Mythos and Logos.” This article does not address the tension between the two terms, explicitly, because its focus is principally on what Plato meant by skema muthos.
- 3. Brisson put it this way: “images plus ou moins éloignées de ce modèle.”
- 4. “μίμησιν μὲν γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἀπεικασίαν τὰ παρὰ πάντων ἡμῶν ῥηθέντα χρεών που γενέσθαι”
- 5. See also Phaedrus, p. 275b–d. When Socrates rebukes Phaedrus for questioning the truth of the myth of Theuth, Plato makes clear his conviction that myth need possess neither factual-historical truth nor a demonstrable provenance.
- 6. “δεινὸν γάρ που, ὦ Φαῖδρε, τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει γραφή, καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὅμοιον ζωγραφίᾳ.”
- 7. “παραδέδοται δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ παμπαλαίων ἐν μύθου σχήματι καταλελειμμένα τοῖς ὕστερον ὅτι θεοί τέ εἰσιν οὗτοι καὶ περιέχει τὸ θεῖον τὴν ὅλην φύσιν.”
- 8. “ἀληθές ἐστι τῶν περὶ γῆν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἰόντων παράλλαξις καὶ διὰ μακρῶν χρόνων γιγνομένη τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πυρὶ πολλῷ φθορά.”
- 9. “ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄρτι κατεσκευασμένα ἑκάστοτε τυγχάνει γράμμασι καὶ ἅπασιν ὁπόσων πόλεις δέονται, καὶ πάλιν δι᾽ εἰωθότων ἐτῶν ὥσπερ νόσημα ἥκει φερόμενον αὐτοῖς ῥεῦμα οὐράνιον καὶ τοὺς ἀγραμμάτους τε καὶ ἀμούσους ἔλιπεν ὑμῶν.”
- 10. “τούτων πέρι καὶ τοὺς λόγους ποιούμενοι, τῶν ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν καὶ πάλαι ποτὲ γεγονότων ἠμέλουν. μυθολογία γὰρ ἀναζήτησίς τε τῶν παλαιῶν μετὰ σχολῆς ἅμ᾽ ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις ἔρχεσθον.”
- 11. “σχεδὸν γὰρ τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν τῶν λόγων ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ θεῷ πάντ᾽ ἐστίν.”
- 12. “λέληθεν διὰ τὸ τοὺς περιγενομένους ἐπὶ πολλὰς γενεὰς γράμμασιν τελευτᾶν ἀφώνους.”
- 13. “καὶ ἰατρικῆς πρὸς ὑγίειαν ἐκ τούτων θείων ὄντων εἰς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀνευρών.”
- 14. “δὲ ἀρετὰς καὶ τοὺς νόμους τῶν ἔμπροσθεν οὐκ εἰδότες, εἰ μὴ σκοτεινὰς περὶ ἑκάστων τινὰς ἀκοάς.”
- 15. “ἐδικάζοντό τε καὶ ἐδίκαζον εἴ τίς τι παραβαίνειν αὐτῶν αἰτιῷτό τινα.”
- 16. “συνελέγοντο, τῷ τε ἀρτίῳ καὶ τῷ περιττῷ μέρος ἴσον ἀπονέμοντες.”
- 17. “ἐν δὲ τῇ στήλῃ πρὸς τοῖς νόμοις ὅρκος ἦν μεγάλας ἀρὰς ἐπευχόμενος τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσιν.”
- 18. “(κατὰ γὰρ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ἐπαινοῦσιν ἢ ψέγουσιν πάντες), προσχρῶνται δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τὰ γενόμενα ἀναμιμνήσκοντες καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προεικάζοντες.”
Conclusion: An Apologia for the Persistently Magical
- 1. For a discussion of one rhetorical myth in Meso-America, see Abbott, 1996, p. 90, in the discussion of Manco Capac. Many other scholars have examined myth and rhetoric in other cultural contexts, such as Richard Johnson-Sheehan and Paul Lynch (2007), in the context of Irish rhetoric.