Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T17:36:14.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE HIPPIAS MINOR AND THE TRADITIONS OF HOMERIC CRITICISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

Richard Hunter
Richard Hunter*
Affiliation:
Trinity College, University of Cambridge, UK
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Homer plays an important role in the discussion in the Hippias Minor of voluntary and involuntary action and their relation to knowledge and goodness. This paper argues that the Hippias Minor sheds light on the Homeric criticism of the late fifth and early fourth centuries, and that it looks forward to, and significantly influenced, the tradition of Hellenistic and later Homeric criticism, for which our best witnesses are the Homeric scholia. This article considers Socrates' presentation of Achilles and Odysseus in the Hippias Minor and makes the case, more strongly than it has been made before, that this dialogue was an important influence on the later critical tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 62 , December 2016 , pp. 85 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016. Published by Cambridge University Press 

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.)

References

Works Cited

Blondell, R. (2002) The play of character in Plato's dialogues, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brancacci, A. (2004) ‘Il logos di Ippia: Plat. Protag. 337c–338b’, in Casertano, G. (ed.), Il Protagora di Platone: struttura e problematiche. Volume i, Naples, 390–401.Google Scholar
Cairns, D. L. (1993) Aidos: the psychology of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cerri, G. (2005) ‘L'ontano di Filita: soluzione di un enigma e ricostruzione di un percorso critico’, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 80, 133–9.Google Scholar
Culverhouse, Z. (2015) Review of Pinjuh (2014), Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2015.08.08.Google Scholar
Denniston, J. D. (1954) The Greek particles, 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. (1959) Plato, Gorgias, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmer, D. (2015) ‘The “narrow road” and the ethics of language use in the Iliad and the Odyssey ’, Ramus 44, 155–83.Google Scholar
Else, G. F. (1957) Aristotle's Poetics: the argument, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Fantuzzi, M. (2014) ‘Tragic smiles: when tragedy gets too comic for Aristotle and later Hellenistic readers’, in Hunter, R., Rengakos, A. and Sistakou, E. (eds.), Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads, Berlin, 215–33.Google Scholar
Gaudin, C. (1981) ‘Εὐήθεια: la théorie platonicienne de l'innocence’, Revue Philosophique 171, 145–68.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1984) ‘The ethos/pathos distinction in rhetorical and literary criticism’, Classical Quarterly 34, 149–66.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1996) Personality in Greek epic, tragedy, and philosophy, Oxford.Google Scholar
Giuliano, F. M. (1995) ‘L'Odisseo di Platone: uno ζήτημα omerico nell’ Ippia Minore’, in Arrighetti, G. (ed.), Poesia greca, Pisa, 9–57.Google Scholar
Heiden, B. (2002) ‘Hidden thoughts, open speech: some reflections on discourse analysis in recent Homeric studies’, in Montanari, F. (ed.), Omero tremila anni dopo, Rome, 431–44.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. (2011) ‘Plato's Ion and the origins of scholarship’, in Matthaios, S., Montanari, F. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient scholarship and grammar, Berlin, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. (2012) Plato and the traditions of ancient literature, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1996) Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lampert, L. (2002) ‘Socrates’ defense of polytropic Odysseus: lying and wrong-doing in Plato's Lesser Hippias ’, The Review of Politics 64, 231–59.Google Scholar
Luzzatto, M. T. (1996) ‘Dialettica o retorica? La polytropia di Odisseo da Antistene a Porfirio’, Elenchos 17, 275–357.Google Scholar
Lynn-George, M. (1988) Epos: word, narrative and the Iliad, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacPhail, J. A. (2011) Porphyry's Homeric Questions on the Iliad, Berlin.Google Scholar
Montiglio, S. (2011) From hero to villain: Odysseus in ancient thought, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Nesselrath, H.-G. (ed.) (2009) Dion von Prusa: Der Philosoph und sein Bild, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. (2009) The ancient critic at work, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of Classical scholarship, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pinjuh, J.-M. (2014) Platons Hippias Minor, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Pontani, F. (2000) ‘Il proemio al Commento all'Odissea di Eustazio di Tessalonica’, Bollettino dei Classici 21, 5–58.Google Scholar
Prauscello, L. forthcoming. ‘Plato Laws 3.680b–c: Antisthenes, the Cyclopes and Homeric exegesis’.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1975) ‘Homeric professors in the age of the Sophists’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 21, 65–81.Google Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1980) ‘Literary criticism in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: a sketch’, Classical Quarterly 30, 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmiel, R. (1983/4) ‘Wily Achilles’, Classical Outlook 61, 41–3.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (1989) ‘The word of Achilles’, Classical Philology 84, 91–9.Google Scholar
Vancamp, B. (1996) Platon, Hippias Maior, Hippias Minor, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz, U. von (1920) Platon. Volume i, 2nd edn, Berlin.Google Scholar