MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009756733 · doi:10.1353/clw.2007.0092

The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (review)

2007· article· en· W2009756733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Classical World · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreeksRhetoricAncient GreekPersuasionModern GreekExpression (computer science)Ancient GreeceHonourPhilosophyEpistemologyContext (archaeology)LiteratureSociologyHistoryArtClassicsLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature Elizabeth Belfiore David Konstan . The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature. The Robson Classical Lectures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Pp. xvi, 422. $85.00. ISBN 978-0-802-09103-1. Konstan argues convincingly that human emotions are not universal con-stants, as many modern scientists believe, but culturally conditioned responses, and that they contain important cognitive elements (ch. 1). Greek emotions, then, do not necessarily correspond to modern concepts, but must be understood within the context of a highly competitive society, within which social status and the opinions of others were all-important. Many of them work "to maintain an equilibrium of goods or honour in a society where everyone is trying to get ahead" (259). Konstan bases his study on Aristotle's close analysis of the emotions in book 2 of the Rhetoric, a guide to the art of persuasion in the agonistic proceedings of the law courts. According to Aristotle's highly cognitive view, the emotions are those things "on account of which people change and differ in regard to their judgments." They are not "static expressions resulting from impersonal stimuli," but "elements in complex sets of interpersonal exchanges, in which individuals are conscious of the motives of others and ready to respond in kind" (27–28). In spite of his apparently narrow focus on one work, Konstan shows, by means of numerous examples from Greek literature, that Aristotle in many respects accurately represents the views of his contemporaries. Konstan's interpretation of Greek emotions as dependent on judgments made within a competitive social context helps to explain many of the puzzling features of Aristotle's own account and of the representation of emotions in Greek literature. For example, in chapter 2, Konstan focuses on some oddities in Aristotle's definition of anger that are frequently overlooked. Aristotle holds "that anger entails, or is reducible to, a desire for revenge; that this desire is provoked by a slight—and only a slight; and that some people, but only some, are not fit to slight another." All of this means, Konstan argues, that anger is not merely "an instinctive response to a hostile gesture," but "involves an appraisal of social roles" (43). Konstan uses Aristotle's account [End Page 106] of anger to arrive at insightful interpretations of anger in Greek literature. He claims, for example, that Achilles' reaction to Agamemnon, who slights him, differs significantly from his response to Hektor, who does not slight but instead causes Achilles a pain so great that it replaces the anger he feels toward Agamemnon (48–55). Konstan also provides an illuminating interpretation of πραότηϛ not as "calmness," but as the "satisfaction" resulting from the appeasement of anger (ch. 3). He argues that "this was the emotion that pleaders chiefly sought to arouse against opponents, just as they solicited the pity of the jurors for themselves and their clients" (86). He also argues convincingly that "fear is simply the response to danger, above all in the form of an enemy in a position to do harm" (136). To fear a more powerful enemy, as Hektor fears Achilles, is not cowardice, but a failure to take realities into account (138). Konstan provocatively claims that romantic jealousy in the modern sense may not have been known at all in the classical period (220), but was perhaps invented by Horace (243). If this is indeed the case, it will radically change our views about much of Greek literature. Less convincing is Konstan's account of grief. This emotion, he argues, is not discussed by Aristotle in part because it differs significantly from other emotions. Grief "involves no judgment of intentions, no reckoning of relative power, no reference to desert or to social status," and little or no impulse to act in response (247). As Konstan himself notes, however, mourning has ritualized aspects that are governed by social norms. And there is ample evidence, for example, in the funeral regulations of Solon, that these rituals were, contrary to Konstan's statement, "governed by considerations of competitive standing" (252–53). Indeed, funeral rites, from the earliest prehistoric...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it