Filozofia antyczna wobec problemu interpretacji. Rozwój alegorezy od przedsokratyków do Arystotelesa

The present work examines the beginnings of ancient hermeneutics. More specifically, it discusses the connection between the rise of the practice of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the emergence of the first theory of figurative language, on the other. Thus, this book investigates the specific historical and cultural circumstances that enabled the ancient Greeks not only to discover the possibility of allegorical interpretation, but also to treat figurative language as a philosophical problem. By posing difficulties in understanding the enigmatic sense of various esoteric doctrines, poems, oracles and riddles, figurative language created the context for theoretical reflection on the meaning of these “messages”. Hence, ancient interpreters began to ponder over the nature and functions of figurative (“enigmatic”) language as well as over the techniques of its proper use and interpretation. Although the practice of allegorical interpretation was closely linked to the development of the whole of ancient philosophy, the present work covers only the period from the 6th to the 4th century B.C. It concentrates, then, on the philosophical and cultural consequences of allegoresis in the classical age. The main thesis advocated here has it that the ancient Greeks were in-clined to regard allegory as a cognitive problem rather than merely as a stylistic or a literary one. When searching for the hidden meanings of various esoteric doc-trines, poems, oracles and riddles, ancient interpreters of these “messages” assumed allegory to be the only tool suitable for articulating certain matters. In other words, it was their belief that the use of figurative language resulted from the necessity of expressing things that were otherwise inexpressible. The present work has been organized in the following manner. The first part contains historical and philological discussions that provide the point of departure for more philosophical considerations. This part consists of two introductory chapters. Chapter one situates the practice of allegorical interpretation at the borderline of two different traditions: the rhetorical-grammatical and the hermeneutical. In order to clearly differentiate between the two, chapter one distinguishes between allegory and allegoresis, on the one hand, and allegoresis and exegesis, on the other. While pointing to the conventionality (and even arbitrariness) of such distinctions, the chapter argues, nevertheless, for their heuristic usefulness. The remaining part of chapter one focuses on a historical and philological reconstruction of the most important conceptual tools of ancient hermeneutics. Discussing the semantics of such terms as allēgoría, hypónoia, ainigma and symbolon proves important for at least two crucial reasons. Firstly, it reveals the mutual affinity between allegoresis and divination, i.e., practices that are inherently connected with the need to discover the latent meaning of the “message” in question (whether poem or oracle). Secondly, these philological analyses bring to light the specificity of the ancient understanding of such concepts as allegory or symbol. It goes without saying that antiquity employed these terms in a manner quite disparate from modernity. Chapter one concludes with a discussion of ancient views on the cognitive value of figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Chapter two focuses on the role that allegoresis played in the process of transforming mythos into logos. It is suggested here that it was the practice of allegorical interpretation that made it possible to preserve the traditional myths as an important point of reference for the whole of ancient philosophy. Thus, chapter two argues that the existence of a clear opposition between mythos into logos in Preplatonic philosophy is highly questionable in light of the indisputable fact that the Presocratics, Sophists and Cynics were profoundly convinced about the cognitive value of mythos (this conviction was also shared by Plato and Aristotle, but their attitude towards myth was more complex). Consequently, chapter two argues that in Preplatonic philosophy, myth played a function analogous to the concepts discussed in chapter one (i.e., hidden meanings, enigmas and symbols), for in all these cases, ancient interpreters found tools for conveying issues that were otherwise difficult to convey. Chapter two concludes with a classification of various types of allegoresis. Whilst chapters one and two serve as a historical and philological introduction, the second part of this book concentrates on the close relationship between the development of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the flowering of philosophy, on the other. Thus, chapter three discusses the crucial role that allegorical interpretation came to play in Preplatonic philosophy, chapter four deals with Plato’s highly complex and ambivalent attitude to allegoresis, and chapter five has been devoted to Aristotle’s original approach to the practice of allegorical interpretation. It is evident that allegoresis was of paramount importance for the ancient thinkers, irrespective of whether they would value it positively (Preplatonic philosophers and Aristotle) or negatively (Plato). Beginning with the 6th century B.C., the ancient practice of allegorical interpretation is motivated by two distinct interests. On the one hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects the more or less “conservative” attachment to the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus). The purpose of this apologetic allegoresis is to exonerate poetry from the charges leveled at it by the first philosophers and, though to a lesser degree, historians. Generally, these allegorists seek to save the traditional paideia that builds on the works of the poets. On the other hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects also the more or less “progressive” desire to make original use of the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus) so as to promote a given philosophical doctrine. The objective of this instrumental allegoresis is to exculpate philosophy from the accusations brought against it by the more conservative circles. Needless to say, these allegorists significantly contribute to the process of the gradual replacing of the mythical view of the world with its more philosophical explanation. The present book suggests that it is the philosophy of Aristotle that should be regarded as a sort of acme in the development of ancient hermeneutics. The reasons for this are twofold. On the one hand, the Stagirite positively values the practice of allegoresis, rehabilitating, thus, the tradition of Preplatonic philosophy against Plato. And, on the other hand, Aristotle initiates the theoretical reflection on figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Hence, in Aristotle we encounter not only the practice of allegoresis, but also the theory of allegory (although the philosopher does not use the term allēgoría). With the situation being as it is, the significance of Aristotle’s work cannot be overestimated. First of all, the Stagirite introduces the concept of metaphor into the then philosophical considerations. From that moment onwards, the phenomenon of figurative language becomes an important philosophical issue. After Aristo-tle, the preponderance of thinkers would feel obliged to specify the rules for the appropriate use of figurative language and the techniques of its correct interpretation. Furthermore, Aristotle ascribes to metaphor (and to various other “excellent” sayings) the function of increasing and enhancing our knowledge. Thus, according to the Stagirite, figurative language is not only an ornamental device, but it can also have a significant explanatory power. Finally, Aristotle observes that figurative expressions cause words to become ambiguous. In this context, the philosopher notices that ambiguity can enrich the language of a poet, but it can also hinder a dialectical discussion. Accordingly, Aristotle is inclined to value polysemy either positively or negatively. Importantly, however, the Stagirite is perfectly aware of the fact that in natural languages ambiguity is unavoidable. This is why Aristotle initiates a syste-matic reflection on the phenomenon of ambiguity and distinguishes its various kinds. In Aristotle, ambiguity is, then, both a problem that needs to be identified and a tool that can help in elucidating intricate philosophical issues. This unique approach to ambiguity and figurative (“enigmatic”) language enabled Aristotle to formulate invaluable intuitions that still await appropriate recognition.

PHILIPPE ROGIER (c.1561-1596): MISSA INCLITA STIRPS JESSE. A CRITICAL AND PERFORMING EDITION WITH PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

The dissertation comprises two parts: (a) a musical edition and (b) a performance given on 3 July, 2008 of Philippe Rogier’s Missa Inclita stirps Jesse. The dissertation explores some of the editorial decisions required, how the demands of performers and musicologists differ, and whether they can be reconciled in one single edition. The commentary explains the preparation and realization of the edition. A video recording of the concert performance is attached to the dissertation. The Mass: The Missa Inclita stirps Jesse was published in Madrid in 1598 in a collection entitled Missae Sex. The mass setting is for four voices, except the Agnus Dei, which is for five, and is based on musical material in the motet Inclita stirps Jesse by Jacobus Clemens non Papa (c. 1510-15 – c.1556-6). Rogier’s choice and use of musical material from the motet (published in 1549) are discussed in the dissertation. The Edition: The edition is made from a microfilm copy of the Missae Sex held in the Biblioteca del Conservatorio de Musica “Giuseppe Verdi” in Milan. The Missae Sex was originally dedicated to King Philip II of Spain (1527-1598, reg. 1556-1598), whom Rogier had served as chorister and then maestro de capilla. Both Rogier and King Philip died before the volume was ready for publication. One of Rogier’s pupils, Géry de Ghersem, prepared the volume, which was printed in 1598, dedicated to King Philip III. The Performance: The mass was performed at a concert of Spanish Renaissance music in St. Matthew’s Cathedral, Washington, DC, on 3 July 2008, sung by the ensemble Orpheus directed by Philip Cave as part of the Chorworks summer workshop entitled Kings and Conquistadors: Music of Old and New Spain.

O auteur a ver-se a si mesmo ao espelho: as alegorias do enunciador em Jean Cocteau

ABSTRACT - Jean Cocteau, French cinema auteur avant la lettre, has consecrated his uniqueness to the defense of the “poet” and the promotion of its artistic ideals, before the French Nouvelle Vague inspired the break away from the filmic tradition and ahead of the eulogistic tendency to consider the director the undisputed creative entity of the filmmaking process. The Orphic trilogy expresses Cocteau’s cinematic philosophy in action. In other words, it reveals the way by which the creative entity affirms itself as the major filmic enunciator, through an allegorical relationship with vision. Therefore, Cocteau’s self-reflexive metacinema conjoins, in a fertile attunement, the starting point and the ultimate goal, the creation and the reception. Without being exactly a cinema about the cinema, this artistic practice is, nonetheless, very much with the cinema, feeding as it does on its essence. The films Le Sang d’un poète (“The Blood of a Poet”, 1932), Orphée (“Orpheus”, 1950) and Le Testament d’Orphée, ou ne me demandez pas pourquoi! (“Testament of Orpheus”, 1960) recreate, in allegorical form, the double creative function: the look of the directing entity reflects the gaze of the observer, just as this one always restores the presence of the creator. In short: Cocteau’s films, more than anyone else’s, deliberately reflect its auteur as enunciator.

Recueil d'épitaphes, précédé d'un journal des principaux événements arrivés à Paris de 1557 à 1590.

Contient : 1 Journal autographe de JEHAN DE LA FOSSE, où sont notés mois par mois les principaux événements des années 1557 à 1590, arrivés en France et particulièrement à Paris, où vivait l'auteur, curé de St-Leu et de St-Barthélemy ; 2 Recueil d'épitaphes ; « Cavendish,... general Norris,... docter Story,... mylord Treasurer,... Frier Andrew,... Ellis,... earle of Essex, beheaded in the tower », Joannes Rekingale, episcopus Cicestriensis, Gulielmus de Blitz, archidiaconus Nodovicensis ; Thomas Linaerus, regis Henrici VIII medicus, Antonius Riccius Faventiae, « Mr Hofkins », Lucretia Borgia, Honorius P. M., Johannes Riberius ; Galfridus Chaucer, Corythus, filius Oenones et Paridis, Ninus, Assyriae monarcha, Pyramis, lateritia Asychis, Aegypti regis ; Bartholomaeus Platina, Petrus Pomponatius, Pompeius Magnus, Capys, Ennius, Hannibal ; Marcus Antonius Turrianus, Marcus Antonius Coccius, Marcus Antonius Casanova, Sardanapalus, Rufus, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar ; Petrus Ciaconius, Nicolaus Macchiavellus, Gulielmus Rondeletus, medicus, Anicia, foemina romana, Callicratea ; Johannes Coletus, Rembertus Dodonaeus, medicus Maximiliani II et Rodolphi imperatorum, Alcaeus poeta, Scipio Africanus ; Paracelsus, Gerardus Noviomagus et Andreas Hyperius, Didacus de Valdes, Albericus de Vere et Gulielmus, primus comes Oxoniensis, Robertus Buc ; Hieronymus Cagnolus Vercellensis, Johannes Stofflerus, mathematicus Tubingae, Remigius Bellaqueus, Pallas, Evandri filius, Zarmanochegas indus, de Bargosa ; Johannes Rivius Attbend, Petrus Bembus, Lucius P. M. Veronae, Gulielmus Norselez, decanus quondam ecclesiae S. Pauli Londini, Mathias Corvinus, rex Pannoniae ; Philippus Callimachus Cracoviae, in aede S. Trinitatis, Ludovicus Bologninus, Bononiae, Rachel, uxor Jacobi Bethleem, Aratus, Plato, Aeschylus ; Joannes Zonaras, Homerus, Menander, Epictetus ; Berengarius, archidiaconus Andegavensis, Andreas Fanzonius, Cyrus, Persarum monarcha, Midas ; Hugo S. Victoris Parisiensis, S. Bernardus, abbas claraevallensis, Petrus de Toledo, Psittacus, Musaeus poeta, Linus, thebanus poeta, Orpheus ; Petrus Lombardus, Petrus Comestor, Pallas, libertus Romae, Megista, Spartanus vates ; Aegidius de Roma, archiepiscopus Bituricensis, Johannes Gerson, Aristocrates, perfidus in Lycaei Jovis luco, Setho, sacerdos Vulcani et Aegypti rex, Rosamunda Cliffordensis, Petrus Aretinus ; Nicolaus de Lyra, Jacobus Pisaurus, Paphi episcopus, Cedwalla, rex Sussexiae ; Alphonsus Tostadus, hispanus, Abulensis episcopus, Albertus Pius de Sabaudia, princeps Carporum, Similis, praefectus praetorianorum, Jupiter, Osyris, Isis ; Aeneas Sylvius, Christophorus Colombus, Hermes, Apollo, Timon, Darius ; Robertus Gaguinus, Johannes de Sacro Busto, Darius, Hystaspis filius, Simandius, Aegypti rex, Idomeneus et Myrio, filii Deucalionis, Semiramis ; Alexander Piccolomineus, Justina, pulchra foemina, quam maritus zelotypus nefarie decollavit, Claudia, nobilis foemina Romae, Carolus Magnus, Carolus V, imperator ; Actius Plautus, Johannes Boccacius, Franciscus Ximenes, cardinalis Hispaniae, Federicus imperator, Sylla, Ricardus I, rex Anglorum ; Johannes Stadius, math. belga, C. Manlia camertina, Johannes de Mandeville, Patricius, Brigida et Columda in Hibernia, la reine d'Angleterre, femme de Jacques Ier ; Johannes Glandorp, Jodocus, medicus Romae, Urandus, sive Durandus, Johannes Jacobus Trivultius, Ludovicus VIII, rex Francorum ; Antonius quidam italus, Fin dal Finale, Battistina Senensis, puella elegantissima ; Chalonerus Dubliniae, Askew Lincolniensis, Christophorus Hatton, Robertus, comes Leicestriae ; Johannes Chidley, Walterus Ralegh, Arturus Gorges, Johannes Parkar, Maria Stafford, Charitas et Carolus Ho., Thomas Wals, Sylvanus Scorus, Johannes Horo et Edwardus Nymark, Edwardus Stanhop, Franciscus Wal ; Philippus Sydney, Franciscus Walsinghan, N. Marsonius, jurisconsultus, Christophorus H, Gulielmus, comes Penbrok, Angliae marescallus, Antonius Deny, frater Lubinus ; Fratislaus, dux Bohemiae, countess of Penbrok, Edward Spenser, Henry Abyngdon, Thomas Nash, N. Dobson ; Dr Hugh a price, Johannes Vitulus, Dr Bently, Hor. Pallavicin, Margaret Ratcliff ; Howlet, Elian, Henry Barron ; James Stuart, Thomas Sackville, Penelope d'Evreux, uxor domini Bar. Rich, pellicis comitis Devonshire, Robert Cecil, Ricardus Bancroft, archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ; Godefridus de Bulion, Balduinus, rex Jerusalem, Allicia, pulchra foemina anglica et forte meretrix, Theobaldus, comes Campaniae, qui vixit tempore regis Angliae Stephani ; Fernandus de Castro, hispanus in Anglia exulans et moriens ob fidem in Dominum Petrum, regem Castellae, Johannes Taylor de Colman street, usurarius, Petrus Miago Vallisoleti, in templo Sancti Stephani, Franciscus Duarte de Mendico, a proveedor de los exercitos y armadas del emperador Carlo V, Henricus, Walliae princeps ; Milo, comes de Anglera, pater Rolandi, a Mauris juxta ripam Ceae occisus, Hecuba, S. Edmundus, rex et martyr, Pindarus, poeta lyricus, Stesichorus, Anacreon, poeta vinosus, Leonidas, dux Lacedemoniorum ad Thermopylas occisus contra Persas, Timotheus, citharedus milesius ; Timocreon Rhodius, Laïs, meretrix Corinthia, sepulta in Thessalia, juxta Peneum fluvium, Acron, antiquissimus medicus Agrigentinus

Notas sobre Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin e a Paris do Segundo Império: pontos de contato

Trata-se de mostrar a originalidade crítica de Siegfried Kracauer diante da experiência da modernidade estética e de discutir as afinidades estético-teóricas de Kracauer e Benjamim ao analisar a Paris da segunda metade do século XIX, o Segundo Império, em particular, como fenômeno originário da sociedade de massas, da indústria cultural e do entretenimento e, sobretudo, do nazi-fascismo. Kracauer durante seu exílio parisiense (1933-41) escreveu uma biografia da sociedade: Jacques Offenbach e a Paris de sua época (Jacques Offenbach und das Paris seiner Zeit). Obra inovadora pelo seu enfoque da história do presente e com pontos de contatos com a Obra das Passagens (Passagen-Werk) ou Paris capital do século XIX de Walter Benjamin.

Virgílio e Ovídio, poetas de Orfeu: um estudo sobre a poética da expansão seguido de tradução e notas

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

A religião, a magia e o canto de Orfeu na Argonáutica de Apolônio de Rodes

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Orfeu sem travessa: leitura de um poema de José Paulo Paes

Starting from general considerations on the Orpheus myth and its resonance on Brazilian poetry, this essay aims at an interpretative analysis of the prose poem “Orpheus” from José Paulo Paes, published in one of the author’s latest books, A meu esmo (1995).

The Lily and the Lotus: Notes on Translation

This critical/creative project considers Stéphane Mallarmé’s critical poems in his 1897 Divagations as an invitation to explore the notion of criticism and the relationship between the conceptual and the nonconceptual aspects of writing and thinking. Informed by Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics of the face, Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Task of theTranslator” and the myth of Orpheus, I consider ways to approach that which may not be said or thought by following Mallarmé’s method of combining poetry and criticism to create a wandering, unclassifiable text where we may imagine the nonconceptual as a remoteness, as the presence of an absence.

Roma de amor y muerte : Eros y Thánatos en tres poetas latinos (Horacio, Virgilio, Propercio)

¿De qué modos se vinculan Eros y Thánatos en la poesía latina clásica? Catulo había fijado una primera expresión de tal vínculo. Los poetas del círculo de Mecenas, cada uno a su modo, renuevan el tema. Horacio intenta moderar el miedo a la muerte y el afán amoroso. Virgilio, por su parte, en sus versos sobre Orfeo y Eurídice, nos ofrece otra cifra del enigma: ni el mayor poeta y amante pudo rescatar de la oscuridad a su amada; pero la poesía con que cante su dolor sobrevivirá a la muerte de ambos. Propercio, finalmente, expresa la constante cercanía de amor y muerte; amar es sentir el fondo de la humana fragilidad. Sin embargo, no piensa él meramente en una perduración literaria; afirma que “son algo los manes", pues su amada Cintia, ya muerta, lo ha visitado. “Aun cruza las riberas del Hado un gran amor."

Savitri y Orfeo : La argumentación en la lógica india y en la retórica clásica

Los mitos de Savitri (Mahabharata 3.293-299) y Orfeo (Ovidio. Metamorfosis 10.1-85), pertenecientes al ámbito cultural indoeur opeo, presentan algunos puntos en común: narran la historia del amante que rescata a su ser amado de la muerte, y combinan el encuentro con los dioses de la muerte y el discurso mediante el poder de la palabra. En esta propuesta, se analizan los discursos de los protagonistas a partir de las convenciones propias de cada contexto de enunciación. Para el caso indio, se sigue el modelo lógico de la escuela Nyaya; para el greco-latino, el de la retórica clásica. De este modo, sobre la base de la estructura argumentativa del silogismo aristotélico, se plantean dos variaciones, respectivamente, el silogismo hindú y el silogismo retórico. Se trata de dos aproximaciones argumentativas con métodos distintos pero con un mismo fin: (con)vencer al oponente