Depuis Homère, les penseurs de l’antiquité se sont intéressés à la nature, à l’usage et au contrôle de la colère. Cet article porte sur le plus ancien ouvrage sur le sujet qui ait survécu de l’antiquité jusqu’à nous, à savoir le traité Sur la Colère de Philodème, un important philosophe épicurien, actif en Italie du Sud au ier siècle av. J.-C. De façon générale, il s’agit dans cet article de présenter, du point de vue historique, sémantique et méthodologique, le contexte (...) de l’analyse par Philodème de la colère, ainsi que de reconstruire l’essentiel de son argumentation contre différents adversaires. La question comporte un débat sur la bonne façon de traiter la colère ; l’explication que donne Philodème de la nature, des symptômes et des conséquences de cette émotion ; la distinction qu’il opère entre colère naturelle (orge) et non naturelle (thymos), ainsi que son affirmation, que le sage peut à l’occasion resssentir la première, mais jamais la seconde ; enfin, sa réfutation de trois arguments en forme d’epilogismos qui soutiennent que le sage ne sera pas moins sujet à la colère que n’importe qui. (shrink)

The meaning of κερτομω and its congeners in Homer has been the subject of debate in this journal. Jones has argued that ‘to κερτομω someone is to speak in such a way as to provoke a powerful emotional reaction’, whether of anger or fear, and thus means ‘“to utter stinging words at [someone]”, “pierce to the heart”, “cut to the quick”, rather than merely “provoke” This definition seems to work well enough for some cases, but certainly not for all, and (...) especially not for the passage from which the whole controversy began: Iliad 24.649, where Achilles speaks to Priam ༐πικερτομέωυ. As Richardson says in his Iliad commentary, ‘there is no sign that Akhilleus’ speech has this direct effect [i.e. arouses fear] on Priam’. Jones's article was responding to an earlier one by J. T. Hooker, who attempted to ascertain the sense of Achilles’ ༐πικερτομέυ by surveying the usage of kertom- words throughout Homeric epic. He concluded that the basic meaning is ‘to taunt’ or, more abstractly, it ‘indicates the provocation of another person into behaving in a certain way, whether that is the behaviour desired by the speaker… or is not desired by the speaker’. The problem was that this definition did not seem to fit the very line from which his inquiry began, the words of Achilles to Priam. Hooker then hypothesized that the verse betrayed signs of an ‘imperfect adaptation’ of a different version of the poem in which Achilles taunted a defeated enemy or perhaps preserved his grudge against Agamemnon to its end. This explanation is unpersuasive. (shrink)