>I was going to let this pass but couldn't.
What a PEIRASMOS, eh! Glad you did not, Carl, though am afraid I may
so often voice positions so far departing from what is taken as standard,
that may have everytime to write in minor diatribes afterwards so as to
partially mend for perceived or real differences.
>>Ionic, Classic, those words are legitimately almost
>>totally interchangable, dear Jack, that is not really
>>any problem. Athens, Ephessos, Corinth, Delphi, Chios,
>>Smyrna, Miletos... most all of those Classic are Ionic.
>>So it comes naturally, easily, without intent or effort.
(isidoros)
>Well, there's no question about Ephesos, Chios, Smyrna, and Miletus being
>Ionic in antiquity, but not Delphi, nor Corinth, and Athens only in a
>special sense. (CWC)
Well, no, in "antiquity," as I too had meant it, all of the above. Certainly
Athens, and in no special sense, tho no nned to say any more on this. But
also Corinth, certainly after Periander, increasingly an influence that was
Ionic, on to its classical (Ionic) period and down to the times of its decay,
in the days of Paul. Not addressing here prehistoric concerns; not speaking
of peoples that may have been autocthonous, the who were they; or of the
Mycenean period, but subsequent to this of what is called Doric--which,
however, I consider almost synonemous, and especially for this list's
purposes, to an early form of the Ionic. You see in the main the difference,
I see mostly, and so stress, the sameness, the infusing and continuity.
Similarly, I could draw almost a same analogy for Delphoi, the pivotal
Doric-to-Ionic metaphor included, to its becoming essentially Ionic,
during, and especially to the end of, the classical period.
A matter of knowledge, sensitivity and perspective and, subsequently,
of semiotic classification.
"Classic" is being used loosely. Ionic here is being used
>loosely. In fact Ionic appears to mean so many things that it means
>nothing, in which case it seems to me better to avoid using it
>altogether.
But, Carl, I thought you'd see through all this! The whole post was meant
to be taken "loosely." And so the talk at end of prophecy. Haven't been
around long enough to measure the lever of humour of this forum, and
perhaps the sensibilities and willingness to allow for play, fair play IMO,
at about the cutting edge, there where I think one can be most creative,
in the purposeful "ambiguity," you seem not to take well, but I 'd guessed
I might have had to come to terms with the fact that some scholars only
read syntacticly "correctly", and "tightly" (as contrasted to "loosely")
semasiologically. Logically, only. One logic. Finally, and as for the use,
specifically, of the term "Ionic", you will please allow me to use it as
I deem appropriate, won't you? even if "nothing" does mean something,
to some, sometime?!
(Jack Kilmon)
>>By golly, Carl, I DID type "Ionic" didn't I? I am sure that
>>the sentence as originally composed within the dusty caverns of my
>>cranium was "style is literary, almost classic" How it became"ionic"
>>as I typed it at 4AM, I'll never know.
CWC
>I did NOT say "almost"--that's part of the text of Jack Kilmon to which I
>was responding; and he has admitted that "Ionic" is not what he meant.
Yes you did not, thank you; the "almost" goes back to Jack where it belongs,
though the statement in its essential allusion stays, just as it does the
comment on one being "puzzled." As to what did Jack Kilmon meant,
was all previously, AND playfully, tho ever respectfully, commented.
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University
Isidoros
The Ionic Centre, Athens ioniccentre@hol.gr