The Philosophical and Rhetorical Concept of Enargeia at Work in Latin Poetry

264 Pages·2015·2.19 MB·English

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2015
Seeing the Unseeable: The Philosophical
and Rhetorical Concept of Enargeia at Work
in Latin Poetry
Robert E. (Robert Edward) Hedrick
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SEEING THE UNSEEABLE:

THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND RHETORICAL CONCEPT OF ENARGEIA

AT WORK IN LATIN POETRY

By

ROBERT E. HEDRICK, III

A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Classics
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2015
Robert Hedrick defended this dissertation on March 16, 2015.
The members of the supervisory committee were:

Timothy Stover
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Svetla Slaveva-Griffin
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

John Roberts
University Representative

Nathaniel Stein
Committee Member

Francis Cairns
Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii
This manuscript is dedicated to two people who have deeply influenced me and who, in fact,
share my name: my grandfather, Robert E. Hedrick (1920-1997),
and my father, Robert Hedrick, Jr.

My grandfather was a truly great person. He served his country as a captain in the U.S. Army
during World War II and saw combat throughout Europe. After returning home, he went on to
become the first “Doctor” in the family and was the director of the Orlando location of Florida
Southern College. Without him, I would not be the man I am today.

Throughout my life, my father has been the greatest influence on me both intellectually and
ethically. He is also a truly great person and I have strived to emulate him in many ways. He
received a B.A. and an M.A. from Duke University (the same college where I received my B.A.).
As a high school teacher, he is on the front lines of the Classics discipline. I had the distinct
pleasure of taking his classes throughout my high school years. Our countless conversations
helped me to grow and develop my own critical thought and to become a person guided by the
goals of altruism and generosity. He is also responsible for kindling my love of classical
languages and literature. I can honestly say that none of this would have been possible without
his help, encouragement, and love all along the way. It is with a great deal of love that I dedicate
this manuscript to him.

ii i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was only made possible thanks to the help and guidance of many people and
organizations throughout the last few years. I owe special thanks to my dissertation committee.
In particular, Svetla Slaveva-Griffin and Tim Stover, as the co-chairs, read multiple drafts of
each chapter and provided constructive criticism and encouragment throughout this process. I
cannot thank you both enough. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee,
Francis Cairns, Nathaniel Stein, and John Roberts, for their kindly advice, assistance, and
feedback. Thanks also go out to Laurel Fulkerson for helping me learn the publishing process
during my two years as her editorial assistant for The Classical Journal. I also wish to thank Jeff
Bray and Patrick Burns for their help with paper work and for clearing up logistical problems
along the way. In addition to them, the FSU Classics department has been a source of
tremendous support throughout these years of graduate study. In particular, they provided me
with sufficient funding throughout my graduate career and awarded me with the M. Lynnette
Thompson Fellowship for the 2014-2015 school year. Without this support, this dissertation
would surely not have been finished this year. I have also benefited from funding from the Duke
Alumni Scholarship (2002-2005) and from the Semple Award from CAMWS to attend the
American School in Athens during the summer of 2011.
This dissertation had a very long gestation period. I was first exposed to the concept of
enargeia in my first semester of graduate school, while working on a paper for John Marincola’s
class on Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. In other courses, I often found myself returning to this topic
and pursuing the study of ancient theories of vision and visualization. Chapter three developed
from a paper that I wrote for Dr. Slaveva-Griffin’s class on Platonic Myths. Chapter four is
largely based on a paper that I wrote for Dr. Stover’s seminar on Lucretius. The sections on
iv
Plato, Lucretius, and Virgil include portions of papers deliverd at recent CAMWS conferences
and at the SCS conference this year. I owe thanks for the many comments and questions from the
members of these panels and especially to the presiders and audience, with special thanks to
David Armstrong, Sergio Yona, Wilson Shearin, and Ben Hicks. I also thank the anonymous
referees at Philologus for feedback on the Lucretius chapter.
On a more personal note, I wish to thank family and friends who have offered me much
needed support throughout this process. My mother and father have steadfastly supported my
studies and have always been there for me lending me love and encouragement. I owe special
thanks to my brother, Stevie, and sister, Molly, and to their wonderful families for all the love
and support along the way. I also would like to thank my grandparents, my Uncle Jim and Aunt
Carol (now deceased), and especially to Topper for all your thoughtful encouragement. Thanks
also go out to my in-laws, the Geer family, for welcoming me into their family and for their great
love and generosity. To my closest friends throughout graduate school—Kyle, Shawn, Kristen,
Charlie, Jordan, Sara, Deb, Kevin, Giulio, Ricardo, Ben, and Stephen—I owe many thanks as
well. Over these years, you all have been there for me at various points along the way and you
have often provided the necessary encouragement, studying assistance, as well as diversions that
kept me going.
Lastly and most importantly, I offer humble thanks to my wife, Ashley, who has patiently
listened for countless hours as I waxed poetic on the subject of enargeia and who has even read
numerous drafts of papers and chapters throughout this process. It is only with your generous and
caring support that I was able to bring this project to fruition. This project has, I’ll admit, been
daunting—both mentally and physically draining—but you have been there for me every step of
the way and I cannot thank you enough. You are my best friend and my true love. I will forever
v
be thankful to you for helping to make this possible and, most of all, for your compassion and
love every day of our lives together. Thank you, sweet girl.

v i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER TWO: PERSPICUITAS: ENARGĒS AND THE HISTORY OF MEANING FROM
HOMER TO PLATO .................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER THREE: EVIDENTIA: ENARGĒS AND ENARGEIA IN PLATO AND
ARISTOTLE ................................................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER FOUR: SCIENTIA: SELF-EVIDENCE AND THE CRITERIA OF TRUTH IN
HELLENISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY ............................................................................................. 69
CHAPTER FIVE: ANTE OCULOS: ENARGEIA AS “PLACING BEFORE THE EYES” IN
RHETORIC, LITERARY THEORY, AND PEDAGOGY ........................................................ 126
CHAPTER SIX: SPECIES RATIOQUE: ENARGEIA IN THE PHILOSOPHY AND POETRY
OF LUCRETIUS ......................................................................................................................... 174
CHAPTER SEVEN: PROLĒPSEIS: CONCLUSION WITH ANTICIPATIONS ..................... 201
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 226
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................................... 254

vi i
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the Hellenistic concept of enargeia (self-evidence/vividness)
in both its philosophical and literary dimensions and then applies this concept to close readings
of Lucretius’ De rerum natura and Virgil’s Aeneid. I argue that the theory of enargeia provides
an important model for understanding the epistemological themes of these epic poems. My study
offers a history of the concept from its origins in Homeric poetry through its development as a
philosophical term in Plato and Aristotle, before turning to examine the theory of enargeia in
epistemology, rhetoric, and literary theory in the Hellenistic period. Based on the foundation of
these Hellenistic theories, I turn to a discussion of the stylistic effect of enargeia and the link
between seeing and knowing in Lucretius. I illustrate how vivid imagery often serves to inspire
knowledge in both the reader and the didactic addressee, Memmius. According to Epicurean
(and Stoic philosophy), vision and sense-perception of self-evident facts ultimately provide the
basis for knowledge. I maintain that we can see this same framework underpin Lucretius’
rhetorical strategies, his descriptions, and the way that he guides us as readers to imagine the
poetic subjects before our mind’s eye.
By noticing how enargeia plays a role in Lucretius’ philosophy and poetics, we can
better understand the way Hellenistic thought continued to influence Latin literature. Through
the lens of rhetorical and philosophical theory, I draw important conclusions about the
epistemological themes in the poem and how they influence the reader’s response. This lens
seems entirely appropriate, as Lucretius would have been thoroughly familiar with enargeia
through his study of philosophy, rhetoric, and literature. An especially helpful result of my study
is that it offers a way to integrate various dimensions of ancient thought—philosophical,
rhetorical, literary, and historical—with one another. I show that these aspects are not separate
vi ii
from each other, but rather they allow us to glimpse how various fields of thought interacted and
continued to be appropriated and applied in the creation of poetry in the late Republic into the
imperial age and throughout the Western tradition. This interdisciplinary approach helps us to
draw conclusions about the intellectual background of Lucretius, however my findings and
methodology can also be understood to apply for other Latin writers, most importantly Virgil, as
I illustrate through a brief study of the end of the Aeneid in my closing chapter.
ix