Jakub Filonik
Feel free to request PDFs with full versions by e-mail / through Academia messages .
Address: https://us.edu.pl/instytut/il/osoby/jakub-filonik/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=5955650
Address: https://us.edu.pl/instytut/il/osoby/jakub-filonik/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=5955650
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (47)
Uploads
Papers by Jakub Filonik
fourth-century Athens and with the questions of court practice, recording, and rhe-
torical reuse of votes by ballot. It aims to provide a comprehensive discussion of all
cases of nearly split judicial panels in Athens. It examines, first, the problems related
to Aeschines’ statement (3.252) about an equal distribution of votes happening in a
system with an uneven number of judges and subsequently explores the role of num-
bers, particularly vote counts, in the rhetorical presentation of data in oratory. Based
on several exemplary court cases, it argues that their reliability and objective nature is
questionable and that such data should thus be used with caution.
It may seem curious, considering the role civic status and norms played in Greece, that classical Greek, unlike modern European languages, did not have a single abstract noun for ‘citizenship’. Greek authors only occasionally refer to the ‘privilege of citizenship’ (politeia), usually as something either claimed by or bestowed on someone. Instead, they eagerly resort to the metaphorical language of ‘sharing in the polis’ (metechein tēs poleōs) to encapsulate their socio-political status. This chapter explores such language common in Greek legal and political discourse, and looks at its usage in fourth-century Athenian rhetoric, where it appears semantically broader, more diverse, and more widely applied than in normative philosophical and legal definitions. It also briefly compares these categories to those used in the epigraphic material.
This chapter argues that crucial distinctions should be made between the object (political or social sphere) and the subject (men/women, citizens/metics) when considering the meaning of this influential idea. In doing so, it draws upon modern theories in cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis, including Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Critical Metaphor Analysis, in order to unfold some common ideas and experiences that might have stood behind the conceptualisations of political status and participation as ‘having a share’ in the polity, including sacrifice, commensality, and land ownership.
fourth-century Athens and with the questions of court practice, recording, and rhe-
torical reuse of votes by ballot. It aims to provide a comprehensive discussion of all
cases of nearly split judicial panels in Athens. It examines, first, the problems related
to Aeschines’ statement (3.252) about an equal distribution of votes happening in a
system with an uneven number of judges and subsequently explores the role of num-
bers, particularly vote counts, in the rhetorical presentation of data in oratory. Based
on several exemplary court cases, it argues that their reliability and objective nature is
questionable and that such data should thus be used with caution.
It may seem curious, considering the role civic status and norms played in Greece, that classical Greek, unlike modern European languages, did not have a single abstract noun for ‘citizenship’. Greek authors only occasionally refer to the ‘privilege of citizenship’ (politeia), usually as something either claimed by or bestowed on someone. Instead, they eagerly resort to the metaphorical language of ‘sharing in the polis’ (metechein tēs poleōs) to encapsulate their socio-political status. This chapter explores such language common in Greek legal and political discourse, and looks at its usage in fourth-century Athenian rhetoric, where it appears semantically broader, more diverse, and more widely applied than in normative philosophical and legal definitions. It also briefly compares these categories to those used in the epigraphic material.
This chapter argues that crucial distinctions should be made between the object (political or social sphere) and the subject (men/women, citizens/metics) when considering the meaning of this influential idea. In doing so, it draws upon modern theories in cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis, including Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Critical Metaphor Analysis, in order to unfold some common ideas and experiences that might have stood behind the conceptualisations of political status and participation as ‘having a share’ in the polity, including sacrifice, commensality, and land ownership.
The chapters in this volume cover numerous periods and regions – from the Ancient Near East, through the Greek and Hellenistic worlds and pre-Roman North Africa, to the Roman Empire and its continuations, and with excursuses to modernity. The contributors to this book adopt various contemporary theories, demonstrating the manifold meanings and ways of defining the concept and practices of citizenship and belonging in ancient societies and, in turn, of non-citizenship and non-belonging. Whether citizenship was defined by territorial belonging or blood descent, by privileged or exclusive access to resources or participation in communal decision-making, or by a sense of group belonging, such identifications were also open to discursive redefinitions and manipulation. Citizenship and belonging, as well as non-citizenship and non-belonging, had many shades and degrees; citizenship could be bought or faked, or even removed. By casting light on different areas of the Mediterranean over the course of antiquity, the volume seeks to explore this multi-layered notion of citizenship and contribute to an ongoing and relevant discourse.
Citizenship in Antiquity offers a wide-ranging, comprehensive collection suitable for students and scholars of citizenship, politics, and society in the ancient Mediterranean world, as well as those working on citizenship throughout history interested in taking a comparative approach.
According to the needs of the occasion, speakers could identify the Athenian people either as a unified demos or as a collection of sub-groups, and they could exploit either differences or similarities between Athenians and other Greeks, and between Greeks and ‘barbarians’. Names and naming strategies were an essential tool in the (de)construction of individuals’ identities, while the Athenians’ civic identity could be constructed in terms of honour(s), ethnicity, socio-economic status, or religion. Within the forensic setting, the physical location and procedural conventions of an Athenian trial could shape the identities of its participants in a unique if transient way.
The Making of Identities in Athenian Oratory is a fascinating look at this understudied aspect of Athenian oratory, and will be of interest to anyone working on the speeches themselves, identity in ancient Greece, or ancient oratory and rhetoric more broadly.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IntroductionJakub Filonik, Brenda Griffith-Williams, and Janek Kucharski
Part 1: The politics of naming and individuals’ rhetorical identities
1. Civic and local identities in Athenian rhetoric Roger Brock
2. The two Mantitheuses in Demosthenes 39 and [Demosthenes] 40: a case of Athenian identity theft? Brenda Griffith-Williams
3. Constructing the identity of Timarchus in Aeschines 1 Rosalia Hatzilambrou
4. Constructing gender identity: women in Athenian trials Konstantinos Kapparis
Part 2: The rhetorical construction of civic identities
5. Athenian identity and the ideology of autochthony: an institutionalist approach Matteo Barbato
6. Lysias and the rhetoric of citizen honour Benjamin Keim
7. Archaism, performance, and civic status in Lysias 10 Against Theomnestus Alex Petkas
8. Seeing others as Athenians in Demosthenes’ third Philippic Judson Herrman
Part 3: Social and material dimensions of Athenian identities
9. The rich and the poor, conflicts and alliances: socio-economic identities and their uses in the Demosthenic corpus Lucia Cecchet
10. Prosecutorial identities and the problem of relevance Janek Kucharski
11. Space, place, and identity in Antiphon On the Murder of Herodes Christine Plastow.
Index
Index locorum
The author, inspired by ‘The Rebel’ by Albert Camus, seeks to analyse the attitudes of the heroes of the surviving tragedies who may be classified as rebels according to the definition given. He also notices the existence of the term stasis, but nonetheless mainly endeavours to describe the characters of the rebels themselves, the attitude of those whom they oppose, and the characters introduced in these plays in contrast to them. Furthermore, he analyses the content of the plays, paying particular attention to the interactions between the characters involved, as well as to the vocabulary related to these notions and attitudes, focusing on rebellion and its opposite, which he argues to be assent or obedience. In addition, the author develops the opinion expressed by other investigators arguing that in many tragedies one or more of the main characters defy the authority appearing in the play. Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus and Antigone by Sophocles are provided as examples of the most significant acts of rebellion, displayed by their characters when they defy the power of tyrants in the name of their beliefs. The author also tries to describe several major characters from Euripidean plays, though the main focus is on Heracles as the rebel and saviour, and on the problem of interpreting the Bacchae. Some minor acts of defiance in other plays are also pointed out, with reference to the tragedies mentioned.
Referring indirectly to a long-lasting discussion concerning the authorship of the Prometheus Bound, the author acknowledges within this work the traditional Aeschylean authorship of the play. He stresses the difference between the Hesiodian Prometheus, a trickster and the thief of the heavenly fire, and the Aeschylean Titan, a philanthropos who guides the mankind from the state of unconsciousness to self-awareness and civilized life, in which he opposes Zeus, the tyrannos of Olympos. The god is called tyrannos and a harsh (trachys), new ruler more than several times in the play, even by his obedient servants. Prometheus’ defiance against the tyranny of Zeus is his essential characteristic, which makes him a fierce rebel, very likely in accordance with the Athenian ethos of defying Persian monarchy and, earlier, the native tyranny of Hippias and Hipparchus. The author further seeks to compare the terms depicting rebels and those whom they oppose, both in tragedy and in other contemporary literature – mainly Aristotle’s Politics (1314a1-10) and Herodotus’ Histories (1.119, 3.86, 7.386, 8.118). Titan’s reluctance is constantly being emphasised, especially in juxtaposition with Zeus’ servants who try to humiliate and humble him both by threats and persuasion. Finally, the author brings up the problem of the lost trilogy and tries to reconstruct the Prometheia and the theme of reconciliation of the antagonists, following the existing studies and surviving fragments of the plays.
The author then discusses the works of Sophocles and his main rebel, Antigone. First the structure and the opening scenes of the Antigone are described. The main character is explicitly contrasted throughout the play with her sister, Ismene, and an opposition between “rationality” and “madness” is being continually stressed. Antigone is unwavering and proud in her defiance against Creon, just as Prometheus in his rebellion. As to the tyrant himself, his character raises the issues of authority, obedience and justice in the play. Some attention is also given to his conflicts with Antigone, Haemon and Tiresias and the evolution of the chorus in accordance with the divine signs. In the analysis of the vocabulary in the Antigone, the role of the terms signifying disobedience (apistein) and obedience (peithesthai) in particular is emphasised. The author then compares the characters of Electra and Chrysothemis in the Electra with Antigone and Ismene in the Antigone, examining the structure of the dialogues between them and the terms involved. After mentioning some other plays involving similar issues, especially Philoctetes, the effort to describe Sophocles’ world of ideas ends with depicting Oedipus in Colonus as he departs from life in tranquility and full assent.
Furthermore, the author presents some similarities between the tragedies which introduce the two major rebels, both in the vocabulary and the structure of these plays. Both the obstinate characters of protagonists in the Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus and the Antigone of Sophocles, the vocabulary used to describe them and terms put in their own mouths to reveal their defiance against the tyrants, are being examined. The sheer structure of the plays (scene-building, the content of dialogues and monologues) and the theories about the influence of one upon the other have also been mentioned.
The author has also noticed the lack of heroic individuals as well as plays presenting only one main hero in Euripidean drama (despite Hercules Furens), thus the lack of one predominant rebel acting by himself. As Heracles has been singled out from other tragic personae, a comparison with Prometheus has been made and his attitude towards fate, Hera and suicide has been extensively discussed. The presence of Bellerophon in surviving Euripidean fragments has been noticed in relation to his rebellion against Olympic gods, both in speech and action. The character of Pentheus in the Bacchae and his questionable role as theomachos has been brought to attention, as well as numerous minor characters in various plays who speak up their mind in a very independent manner. This has brought the author to the problem of freedom as such, even considered only as an immanent state, and its connection with defiance, as he argues that the characters displaying a sense of freedom were presented in a manner which was meant to emphasise their defiance and glorify it, as Gregory points out in her articles. The role of slaves in Euripidean drama has also been asserted in this chapter, along with the existence of „noble slaves” showing free spirit. The elderly in his plays are mainly obedient, scared and grotesque, like old Cadmus and Tiresias in the Bacchae, while the young are idealistic, stubborn and courageous, like Antigone, Haemon, Iphigenia or Menoeceus. The author concludes with some remarks concerning various attitudes of mainly hesitant Eurpidean characters towards the order of the world or its absence, as well as divine (in)justice and power.
The terms used in Greek Tragedy by rebels and those describing them rarely state their defiance explicitly. More often epithets such as tyrannos and tyrannis are used as an insult towards the oppressive rulers whom they describe, accompanied by vocabulary related to submission and disobedience. The rebels themselves express their attitude in their own words – “in vain you trouble me” (PV 1001) or brief “leave me alone”, “let it go”, eason (PV 332 et al.) should suffice most of the time. Each time someone tries to persuade them to kneel and be more humble, they consistently and bravely resist and do not retreat even if sufferings follow their obstinacy (PV 966 sq., Ant. 443).
The main conclusion of this thesis is the statement that, following the arguments given, the rebellion was an important message and structural element of some of the surviving tragedies, which was intentionally emphasised by the poets and, within the boundaries set by the insoluble tragic conflict, presented as morally justified. The author supports the view that, by introducing the characters of rebels, the writers intended to draw the attention of the audience to the historical instances of the rule of tyrants and acts of rebellion against them. In connection with that fact they referred to the particularly Athenian ethos of opposing the tyranny, and sometimes the Tyrannicides themselves, i.e. Harmodius and Aristogeiton."
Intersections between drama and oratory are a phenomenon of which even ancient authors were acutely aware. In his Poetics, for instance, Aristotle famously remarked that the characters of his contemporary tragedy spoke ‘rhetorically’, whereas those in earlier dramas did so ‘politically’ (1450b). While the exact meaning of these words still largely remains obscure, numerous studies have been produced in modern times which highlight the mutual relationship between the genres both in terms of form (e.g. Lloyd, The agon in Euripides, 1992) and substance (e.g. Daube, Zu den Rechtsproblemen in Aischylos' Agamemnon, 1939). In such a theoretical framework, drama and oratory are studied in terms of their direct literary influences on each other (e.g. Antiphon and tragedy), or considered as supplementary sources for the study of various social, legal and political phenomena in ancient Athens (e.g. New Comedy and family law).
While there is nothing inherently wrong with such a way of reading the relevant texts, we would like to explore other theoretical approaches as well. New Historicism, for instance, has taught us to look at the intersections between oratory and drama from a slightly different angle: not in terms of direct mutual reflections between the genres or allusions to political events and institutions, but instead with an emphasis on their discursive aspects. Drama and oratory are both forms of public discourse which speak about the polis, its institutions and values, but each has its own conventions and objectives. The undeniable strength of this approach, therefore, is that it allows one to highlight the differences between the genres instead of ignoring or indeed obfuscating them. Both oratory and drama deal with similar topics, but their respective patterns of speech and thought are determined by the demands of the genre and by the different expectations of the respective audiences. In the broadest outline, the job of the playwright is to entertain, whereas that of a public speaker in the Assembly or a lawcourt is to persuade.
Far from imposing any particular methodology on contributors to this panel, we welcome abstracts dealing with phenomena common to oratory and drama whatever their theoretical underpinning. We strongly suggest, however, that in examining such intersections panellists emphasize the differences between drama and oratory and do not merely gloss over them.
(Registration ends on 21st June 2019!)
Panel Discussion: Citizenship Ancient and Modern
What does it mean to be a citizen of a particular state? How does an individual qualify for citizenship, and what privileges and obligations does it entail? What are the consequences of exclusion from citizenship? Most people, for whom citizenship is normally determined throughout their lives by territorial belonging or blood descent, may never even think about these questions; but for others – especially migrants and refugees – they may cause serious problems.
The immediacy of such issues in the modern world calls for a re-investigation of the notion of citizenship in its ancient contexts. This public event, which is part of an international conference entitled ‘Citizenship in Classical Antiquity: Current Perspectives and Challenges’, will start with short presentations by four of the keynote speakers from the conference:
-Professor Clifford Ando (Chicago) on the meaning of citizenship to the ancient Romans,
-Professor John Davies FBA, FSA (Liverpool) on whether we are asking the right questions when studying citizenship in antiquity,
-Professor Engin Isin (QMUL) on citizenship ancient and modern, and
-Dr Catherine Neveu (IIAC (CNRS-EHESS), Paris) on the anthropology of citizenship in classical antiquity and modern Europe.
The panel will be chaired by Professor Chris Carey (UCL), and the presentations will be followed by a Q & A session and discussion. All registered guests, as well as panellists and conference participants, are warmly invited to a wine reception from ca. 7:00 pm.
Registration for the full conference is open until 31 May, and details may be found here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/classics/news-events/events/citizenship-classical-antiquity-current-perspectives-and-challenges
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/classics/news-events/events/citizenship-classical-antiquity-current-perspectives-and-challenges
Rather than simply idealizing the ‘wisdom of the Greeks’, this workshop seeks to identify those of the ancient experiences that can be fruitfully compared with the challenges lying ahead of modern Europe, along with their causes and proposed solutions. How, then, did the Greeks deal with their own crises? Given their political assumptions and realities, what would they have made of the ‘European experience’ today, and would their solutions be acceptable to us? Is there anything in particular in their answers that should now be followed or, to the contrary, avoided? The three main themes which emerge from these questions form the basis of our three panels.
Workshop: http://www.issei2016.com/jakub-filonik-.html
What’s Not New in the New Europe: Ancient Answers to Modern Questions
The political, social, and economic challenges Europe faces today appear to many people as utterly new and unprecedented, but most of them had their parallels in the ancient world. Throughout antiquity, members of Greek states and communities were confronted with numerous threats to their life and livelihood, and felt the need to defend the social and political entities that defined them. They lived in a world of constant economic crises, wars, destruction of entire cities, immigration, and social instability. The remedies for these pressing issues and their causes were the subject of public deliberation and theoretical reflection, constantly in search for a more stable and viable political order.
Instead of simply idealising the ‘wisdom of the Greeks’, this workshop seeks to identify those of the ancient experiences that can be fruitfully compared with the challenges lying ahead of modern Europe, along with their causes and proposed solutions. How, then, did the Greeks confront their own crises? Given their political assumptions and realities, how would they have dealt with the ‘European experience’ today, and would their solutions be acceptable to us? Is there anything in particular in their answers that may now be followed or, to the contrary, avoided?
Scholars are invited to submit proposals on topics relating to the ancient Greek states and communities from the archaic to the pre-Byzantine period, with a particular focus on their practical, ideological, and philosophical response to crisis and change. These may include:
- shifts in political power and the threat of losing political autonomy;
- economic and humanitarian crises, immigration, and regional instability;
- alliances, peace treaties, and interstate agreements;
- social, political, and legal innovation, changes in status of individuals and groups;
- regime change and coups d’état;
- the effects of (civil) wars, social conflicts, and large-scale enslavement;
- the threat of annihilation.
Panellists are encouraged to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to linking the past to the present in line with the general theme of the conference. The workshop is open to scholars of all disciplines who can provide in-depth readings of ancient history, politics, and/or the primary sources.
Please submit a 250-300 word abstract and a tentative list of references and main sources by 31 March 2016 to Jakub Filonik, at jakub.filonik@ NO SPAM uw.edu.pl (please remove the 'NO SPAM' tag).