Aristotle and the Metaphysics of Metaphor

Apeiron, 2017

This paper addresses alleged contradictions between the use and theory of metaphora in Aristotle. Some authors claim that these inconsistencies are resolved by showing that the use of metaphorai is allowed in the technai and forbidden in the epistemai. This paper instead unpacks Aristotle's view on language, as it is contained in the semantics of metaphora, to make sense of Aristotle's statements on metaphora. My proposal is that Aristotle refers to metaphora under different nomenclatures (metaphora, metapherein, and metaphorikon einai) as they relate to the level of linguistic expression, to the perception of similarities, or to the ability to produce metaphors. This threefold distinction helps us understand that the use of metaphora by Aristotle is guided by his idea of the lexis as a means to show the dianoia, and express reality in energeia. This use does not contradict his methodological principles. Lastly, this interpretation also enlightens Aristotle's understanding of the relations between language, thought, and reality.

Neither the use of the term metaphora in Latin texts nor the concept of metaphor in Roman linguistic thought has been sufficiently investigated. Roman approaches to metaphor can be characterized as eclectic, based on the Aristotelian and Peripatetic traditions, while also including Rhodian influences. 1 From Quintilian on, the term metaphora is established in Latin linguistic thought and used regularly by Roman grammarians such as Marcus Cornelius Fronto, Pomponius Porphyrio, Aelius Donatus, Maurus Servius Honoratis. This paper's aims are however more limited: to examine the first uses and discussions of metaphor in texts where linguistic issues were debated. The first of these that has survived is a Latin handbook on rhetoric, the ad Herennium. Cicero and the Augustan grammarian Verrius Flaccus (to the extent that his relevant considerations on metaphor have been transmitted in the Lexicon of Festus) will also be examined. In order to follow the use of a linguistic term in Latin, Greek texts need to be taken into account. Grammarians and rhetoricians worked in a bilingual cultural context, and from the very beginning reciprocal influences are both expected and observed. Latin texts were in fact to a considerable extent translations from Greek grammatical and rhetorical handbooks.

In: M. Witte & S. Behnke 201, eds. The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Berlin, 41-58.

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Ancient Rhetoric, 2021

This chapter discusses the place of metaphor in ancient and modern political rhetoric. It starts with the idea of metaphor in classical rhetorical and stylistic theories and juxtaposes it with modern cognitive theories, to note that the differences between Greek theorists’ and modern linguists’ views have often been misconstrued and overemphasised. It argues that the cognitive aspect of metaphor, well represented in Greek theorising, was sidelined in Roman and later tradition. It also analyses examples of some prominent types of metaphors in classical Athenian and recent rhetorical practice, including Cold War rhetoric, and discusses their real-life impact (including metaphors of states as structures and containers, personifications and body politic, and war as a sporting competition).

Lemmata Linguistica Latina, Volume I, Words and Sounds, ed. by Holmes, N. / Ottink, M. / Schrickx, J. / Selig, M., 2019

This chapter, belonging to the field of the history of Roman linguistics , builds on my previous analysis of the theoretical linguistic treatment of metaphor in Roman thought from first century BCE to first century CE. It argues that metaphor from the very beginnings has been analysed not only within rhetoric but also within both linguistic and philosophical domains. Aristotelian cognitive approaches are significant for understanding Quintilian's treatment of metaphor, which Quintilian develops along semantic and pragmatic lines. Seneca's approach to metaphor contributes towards an understanding of the intellectual context of Quintilian's first-century CE Rome. The iconicity of metaphor and metaphorical mapping developed in Seneca's semiotic use of 'mental pictures' in their interplay with metaphor constituted a particularly important contribution to theoretical debates on metaphor.

manuscrito, 2000

Toward a Cognitive Classical Linguistics, 2019

Abstract: Aristotle, according to the dominant view in the field of cognitive linguistics, is the father of an old, defunct and now refuted "classical" theory of metaphor based on literal similarity. But is the theory of metaphor put forward by Aristotle really so antithetical to the contemporary theory of metaphor in cognitive linguistics? Scholars in and out of this field have begun to question this depiction. In this paper, I take advantage of the very tools afforded by cognitive linguistics to reinterpret Aristotle's theory of metaphor. I argue that Aristotle has been misrepresented and suggest an alternate view which will be of interest to philosophers, philologists and cognitive linguists alike.

This is a paper I presented at the Instituta de Filosofia e Ciências Sociais at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, in July 2015. In it, I attempt to argue that the question of Aristotle's place in the contemporary debate about metaphor has, up to now, not been adequately posed. I then go on to outline what I think is a more pertinent way of posing the question, and lay the groundwork for future research on the question.

Linguisticae Dissertationes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon and Pragmatics, 2021

This paper argues that ‘metaphorical mapping’ and the ‘iconicity’ of metaphor, not sufficiently analysed in Roman discourse up until now, open new perspectives for the evaluation of Roman treatment of cognitive metaphor. Greek and Latin 1st century CE theoretical passages on mental visuality and (conceptual) metaphor are analysed revealing the attention Roman intellectuals accorded to communicational process and to the interaction of language (speaking) and cognition (meaning). Greek parallels are of particular importance. They provide missing links allowing for a fuller interpretation of the usage and meaning of certain key terms and ideas. This paper argues that 1st century CE Roman authors were well aware of structural analogies and interaction between the cognitive, the imaginative, and the emotional components of metaphor (with all the caveats of the anachronistic use of these terms). Further the imagines they have in mind when discussing the cognitive act corresponds to ‘conceptual metaphors’ in modern theories.

Aristotle’s theory of metaphor is still considered one of the most relevant points of reference in the study of this particular kind of language. In this article the definitions of metaphor which are contained in his treaties on Rhetoric and Poetics are analysed and interpreted epistemologically and ontologically with reference to Aristotle’s theory of the soul. In the Rhetoric Aristotle defines the metaphor as «putting things before the eyes» (pro ommaton poiein), since a property of metaphors is to link the production of meaning to a sensible, pictorial or iconic quality. To account for the meaning of the exhibition of a sensible or iconic component, I will make reference to the doctrines of koine aisthesis and phantasia, as defined in De Anima. Here the philosopher highlights a primary perceptive and pre-linguistic recognition of the object, which organises the formation of concepts. This means that the formation of a unitary condition is still fluid, “undetermined” (in epistemological rather than ontological sense) and approximate, and precedes the categories of language. The unitary condition emerges from the sensible forms, which the soul receives adhering to the worldly order, and which the soul will employ in the formation of certain meanings. What matters is that a precondition for linguistic conceptualisation is a predisposition to meaning-production, which belongs to the sphere of sensibility. Through the activities of articulation, determination and dissection, language expresses the primary unitary conditions of experience. Insofar as the categories are fundamental modes of predication, they are ruled by these primary perceptive configurations. Scientific language builds a system of axioms and definitions that determine how ordinary language can articulate this objectification. However, the pre-categorial unity of soul and sensible nature still persists inside scientific language and reveals its presence if the procedures of definition and objectification are considered from different linguistic perspectives. KEYWORDS: Metaphor, Aristotle, Mimesis, Form of Sensibility, Unity by analogy.