Cover not available
Part of
Drawing Attention to Metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities
Edited by Camilla Di Biase-Dyson and Markus Egg
[Figurative Thought and Language 5] 2020
► pp. 129–158

Early Greek medical metaphors and the question of deliberateness

 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
This paper analyses deliberate metaphor use in three Hippocratic treatises and in Empedocles’ two famous similes. By exclusively examining direct metaphors and their textual markers, I first investigate the communicative function metaphors have in ancient Greek anatomical and physiological argumentation. These are illustrative tools, items of evidence and/or elements that demonstrate a given hypothesis, as well as instruments of a heuristic method of enquiry. Second, I show that there are explicit claims by both authors to deliberate metaphor use: they claim to use metaphors as metaphors and leave their addressees no option but to recognise the source domain as such, as this represents the field in which both theoretical construction and the demonstration of a given hypothesis take place.
Keywords: deliberate metaphor use, Hippocratic author, Empedocles, direct metaphors, textual signals, communicative function, illustrative tools, heuristic method
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hippocratic comparisons
    • 2.1Borderline cases
  • 3.Two famous comparisons by Empedocles
  • 4.The question of deliberateness in the Hippocratic author and in Empedocles
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.5.06fer
References (38)
References
Al-Karaki, B. (2012). ‘Thinking more’ as a function of metaphors in philosophy. metaphorik.de, 22, 6–22.Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures. metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar
Booth, N. B. (1960). Empedocles’ account of breathing. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 80, 10–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
De Donato Rodrigrez, X. & Arroyo-Santos, A. (2015). The function of scientific metaphors: An example of the creative power of metaphors in biological theories. The paths of creation: Creativity in nature, science and the arts, 9, 81–96.Google Scholar
Diels, H. & Kranz, W. (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und deutsch von H. Diels. Sechste Auflage herausgegeben von W. Kranz, Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Diller, H. (1932). οψισ αδηλων ta φαινομενα. Hermes, 67(1), 14–42.Google Scholar
Ferella, C. (1957). Waking up Sleeping Metaphors: A cognitive approach to Parmenides’ two ways of enquiry. eTopoi. Journal of Ancient Studies, 6, 107–130. Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. (1957). Empedocles and the clepsydra. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77, 31–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1957). In the beginning: Some Greek views on the origins of life and the early state of man. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Herrmann, J. B. (2013). Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2015). High on Metaphor, Low on Simile? An Examination of Metaphor Type in Sub-registers of Academic Prose. In J. B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse. Investigating Metaphor Use in Technical, Scientific and Popularized Discourse Contexts (Metaphors in Language, Cognition and Communication 4), (pp. 163–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2001). The poem of Empedocles: A text and translation with an introduction. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Kamtekar, R. (2009). Knowing by likeness in Empedocles. Phronesis, 54(3), 215–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laks, A. & Most, G. W. (2016). Early Greek philosophy (Vol. 5). Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966). Polarity and analogy: Two types of argumentation in Early Greek thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lonie, I. M. (1981). The Hippocratic treatises, “On generation”, “On the nature of the child”, “Diseases IV”: A commentary. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. W. (1965). Gleiches zum Gleichem: ein Prinzip frühgriechischen Denkens (Klassisch-philologische Studien 31). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Needham, N. J. T. M. (1959). A history of embryology (2nd ed., revised with the assistance of Arthur Hughes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. (1970). Empedocles’ theories of seeing and breathing: The effect of a simile. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 90, 140–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulaczewska, H. (1999). Aspects of metaphor in physics: Examples and case studies. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regenbogen, O. (1930). Eine Forschungsmethode antiker Naturwissenschaft. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, 1, 130–182 (reprinted in: F. Dirlmeier (Ed.) (1961). Kleine Schriften (pp. 141–194). Munich: Beck.)Google Scholar
Rudolph, K. (2015). Sight and the Presocratics: Approaches to Visual Perception in Early Greek Philosophy. In M. Squire (Ed.), Sight and the Ancient Senses (pp. 36–53). London: Routledge. Available from [URL].Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1992). Empedocles’ theory of vision and Theophrastus’ De sensibus. In W. Fortenbaugh & D. Gutas (Eds.), Theophrastus: His psychological, doxographical, and scientific writings (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 5), (pp. 20–31). New Brunswick & London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A. & Rayson, P. (2017). The online use of violence and journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals. A mixed methods study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 7, 60–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a). When is metaphor deliberate? In N. L. Johannesson, D. Minugh & C. Almarvius (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Metaphor Festival, Stockholm (pp. 43–63), prepublication retrieved from [URL], accessed 27.01.2015.Google Scholar
(2011b). What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean? More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 53–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timpanaro Cardini, M. (1957). Respirazione e clessidra (Empedocle, fr. 100). La Parola del Passato, 12, 250–270.Google Scholar
Wright, M. R. (1995). Empedocles: The extant fragments. edited with introduction, commentary, and concordance. New Haven: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.