1 Introduction
EmanuelaBianchi,SaraBrill, andBrookeHolmes
Inthethirdbookofhis Histories,Herodotustellsthestoryofthedeathof thePersiankingCambyses.Startledbyadreamrevealingacoupat home,heleapsonhishorsewiththeintenttomarchonthecapital andisimmediatelywoundedbyhisownsword,whosesheathhasfallen offinthecommotion(3.64).Thewound,Herodotusreports,occursat exactlythesitewhereCambyseshadhimselfstruckthesacredbullApis inEgypt,andaswasthecasewithApis,itprovesfataltoCambyses.The storyiscitedcenturieslaterbythetravelwriterPausaniusasaparticularlyvividandapparentlyfamousexampleofinanimateobjects “oftheir ownaccordinflictingrighteousretributiononhumans” (1.28.11).These impersonalagentsofjusticecouldalsobeperpetratorsofinjustice,as Pausaniusrecognizes,withtheresultthatanyassessmentoftheplaceof thehumanintheancientGreco-Romanworldmustaccommodateitself tothefactthatthecategoryoflegalsubject ifbythiswemeanany entitythatmaybebroughttotrial includednotonlyhumanbeingsbut alsodogsandoxen,statuesandaxes,javelins,stones,andwoodenbeams. Ensnaredinwebsofpollutionandexpiationbutalsoofblame,thelegal statusofthesenon-humananimalsand “lifelessthings” remindsusthat theconceptsofagencyandsubjectivityarecapaciousintheancient Mediterranean,withdeepconsequencesfortheconceptsofanimacy, materiality,embodiment,personhood,andresponsibility.
Theentanglementofhumanandnon-humanwithinsocial,ethical, legal,andpoliticalspacesstandsasaninvitationtoreflectmorebroadly ontheplaceofthehumanwithinthelargercategoryof zōē,thekindof lifethatfortheGreeksencompassedanimals,plants,thecosmos,and thedivineinadditiontothehuman.Theaxthatremembersthe injusticeofitsusetoslayAgamemnon,theriverthatrisesupinanger againstAchilles,orthestonethatAjaxcomestoresemble alldefyany modernreductionto “mute ” materiality.1 Theseobjectsinsteadinsist upontheircontributiontoasphereofaction,efficacy,andjusticethat
1 Sophocles, Electra 484–6(theax);Homer, Iliad 21.233–71(river);Schol.D. Il. 6.5(wall ofstone,seealsoPurves(2015)).
2 EMANUELABIANCHI,SARABRILL,ANDBROOKEHOLMES
maybeseenatworkin kosmos, physis ,and theos alike,onethatfar exceedstherealmofthehuman.
ItisinthissphereoflifethatancientGreekthinkingaboutthe cosmologicalcharacterofjustice,sostrikingintheearliestextantphilosophicalfragmentfromAnaximander,2 comestogetherwithconceptions ofthedynamicandattimesintentionalcapacitiesofobjectsandelementsandtheexuberant,distributedpowersofself-renewalpresentin eventhemostbasiclivingthings,exemplifiedbyTheophrastus’ observationthataplanthas “thepowerofgrowthinallitsparts,inasmuchas ithaslifeinallitsparts” (EnquiryintoPlants 1.1.4).Wecanseehere glimmersofahistoryofthinkingwhichundercutsandchallengesthe somatophobiathatisalltoofrequentlytakentobeisomorphicwith “ancientGreekthought,” tracesofanalternatelineagethatincludes variegated,rhizomaticstrandswhoseintersectionsanddivergencesrun rough-shodovercontemporarydistinctionsbetweenzoological,ethical, juridical,andpoliticaltheorizing.ThroughoutmuchofancientGreek andRomanthinking,theconceptsof bios, ēthos,and polis aresodeeply intertwinedastorendertermslike “bioethics” and “biopolitics” nearly redundant.AncientGreekandRomanliterary,medical,andphilosophical textsareresplendentwithsitesatwhichmateriality,embodiment,and theboundariesbetweenlivingandnon-living,humanandanimal,divine andbeastly,eruptintoa fi eldofquestioning,deliberation,care,and experimentation.
Itisthereforenotsurprisingthatancientphilosophyhasbeenespecially formativeforthe fieldofbiopolitics,preeminentlythroughMichel Foucault’slasttwovolumesonthe HistoryofSexuality andhisnow publishedlecturesattheCollègedeFranceandthroughGiorgioAgamben’ s oft-citedappropriationofanostensiblyAristoteliandivisionbetween bios and zōē. 3 Yettheverypowerandauthorityofthesefoundationalworkshas madeclassicalantiquitymoreofatrope,asiteofphilologicalgestureand receivedwisdom,thanadynamicandproductiveconceptualresource forthevariousformsofposthumanismandnewmaterialismthathave flourishedinthepastdecadeinawiderangeofdisciplines.Moreover,the forceofthepost-intheconceptofposthumanism,akintothegeological rupturethatattendsthenewlychristenedAnthropocene,hasencouraged thesenseofadecisiveepochalbreakwiththepast.
2 “Whencethingshavetheirorigin,theretheymustalsopassawayaccordingto necessity;fortheymustpaypenaltyandbejudgedfortheirinjustice,accordingtothe ordinanceoftime” (DK12B1).
3 Brill’scontributiontothisvolumechallengestheAristotelianlineageofAgamben’ s constructionof zōē and bios.
Counteringthisunflaggingmodernistinfatuationwiththenew, AntiquitiesbeyondHumanism mapsoutthegroundforaricherand moresustainedencounterwithGreco-Romanantiquity,excavatingan ante-humanismthatnonethelessdoesnotseekanykindofreturntoa pre-humanistarcadia.Thevolumearisesfromacommitmenttoactively engagethisancientphilosophicaltraditionasapowerful fieldthrough whichtotacklesomeofthemosturgentquestionsaddressedbythenew materialismsandformsofpost-andnon-humanism.ThepapersgatheredheretakeupancientGreekphilosophicalandliterarytextsasat oncelivewithpossibilitiesforthepresentanduncannilydistant.Collectively,theyapproachantiquityasneitheroriginnortelosbutas asynchronousoruntimelyinNietzsche’ssense.Bybringingtogethera rangeofinternationalscholarsactivelyworkingattheintersectionsof ancientphilosophy,literature,continentalphilosophy,feministtheory, andpoliticaltheory,weaimtoopenupnewvectorsforthinkingbeyond thehumanthatareresponsivetothecontemporaryworldwhilealso proposingacomplexsetofrelationshipswithinthe longuedurée ofthe intellectualtraditionsshapedbytheprofoundstrangenessandunsettling familiarityoftheGreco-Romanworld.Inthisway,thevolumeresists anddisplacestheseductionsofpresentism,scientism,andtechnological determinismthatoftenlimitthehorizonsofnewmaterialistthinking.
Nonetheless,likethenewandstillemerging fieldsofposthumanism, biopolitics,chaostheory,complexitytheory,quantumtheory,neovitalism,newmaterialism,cyborgstudies,affectstudies,object-oriented ontologies,soundstudies,ecocriticism,andanimalandplantstudies, classicalthinkingdisplacesandcomplicatesthemodernnotionofsubjectivityand findsmovementandlifeinherentlyatworkinbothorganic andinorganicphenomena.WhiletheverynotionofRenaissancehumanismwasfoundedonareturntothecentralityofthehumaninculturaland politicallifeconceivedasaclassicalideal,ancienttextsrevealthemselves asteemingwithcompetingnarratives.Greekphilosophybegins,afterall, withthosewhomAristotlecallsthe physikoi,whoturntoexplanationsof thecosmosgroundedinobservationsofthenaturalworld.Andwhilethe ethicaltraditioninGreekphilosophycentrallyaddressesthequestionof whatkindoflifehumanbeingsshouldlive,thisquestionwasinextricably linkedtoinvestigationsofplantlifeandanimallifeand,indeed,even stonelife;the technai (political,medical,rhetorical,ethical)thatare fundamentaltohumanlife;andtheontologicalstatusoflivingbeingas such(includingquestionsaboutthemotionandanimacyofnon-living things).Fromthisperspective,antiquitygivesrisenotonlytoahumanist traditionbutalsotolinesofthoughtthatarebetterunderstoodasnonhumanist.
Thelifeofthebodyandnon-humanlifeinGreco-Romanantiquity haveofcoursebeenthesubjectofmuchimportantclassicalscholarship overthelast fiftyyears.Suchworkhaspredominantlyfocused,however, onthenegativevaluationoftheseconceptsinGreekphilosophy,functioningasthe(typicallyfeminized)foiltothelifeofdivinereasonand properhuman flourishing.Theseinquiriesintoancientphilosophical formationscontinuetobefundamentalinexposingthesubtleandoften unconsciouswaysinwhichthebodyisstillpathologizedandcaughtup inunproductivebinariesincontemporarythought,andtheywarn againsteasyorreactivereturnstohumanistidealsinthewakeofpoststructuralismandposthumanism.Butthereisalsoworktobedone tracingoutotherstrainsofancientthoughtthattakeupamorenuanced relationshiptoanimals,plants,andembodiedlife.Weneedtobetter understandhowinquiriesintovulnerabilityandcarearealsoopportunitiestothinkaboutcontingency,mindfulness,ephemerality,value,and affinityinwaysthatresistpolarizationandinsteaddynamicallyknotand unfoldarounddifferentproblems.Thenon-humanisnotsimplythe negatedOtherofthehumaninGreekthought eitherasitsbinary oppositeorasthefamiliarstructuralistpolesofgodandanimal buta plural,unpredictable,andrichlyarticulated fieldthatintertwineswith attemptstothinkthehumanfromHomerintolateantiquityand beyond.Instaginganencounterwith “theGreeks” alongtheselines, AntiquitiesbeyondHumanism contributes,too,tothetheorizationand enactmentoftheveryhistoryofphilosophyandideas.Ratherthan retellingnarrativesoforigin,return,legacy,andlineartemporality,the essaysgatheredinthisvolumetrustinthecreativepotentialofclassical antiquityundercontemporaryconditionswhilerefusingitsconventional roleasgroundingidealorinauguralnightmare.
1.1. Humanism,thehuman,andclassicalantiquity
Whatdoesitmeantobehuman?Thequestionisneverposedina vacuum.ForcenturiesofEuropeanintellectualhistory,thecoordinates ofaninquiryintothehumanweredominatedbyvariousstrainsof humanism,thatis,scholarly-pedagogicalmovementstomakeman andmanwasuncontroversiallyequivalenttothehuman theprivileged objectofstudyandcontemplationasameanstoethicalself-formation. Thehumaninhumanismisnotabiological-evolutionarycategorytobe uncoveredthroughpositivistinvestigation(ifiteveris).Rather,within traditionalformsofhumanismitisanidealcategory,exempli fied
unevenlyandrequiringcarefulcultivation.Wearenotbornhumanbut atleastsomeofuscanbecomegenuinely, essentially,human.
Inthesearchforperfectspecimens,humanismhashistoricallyzeroed inontheancientGreeksandRomans.Renaissancehumanismisfounded onaninvestmentintheancients,especiallytheLatinauthors,asexemplarsofagraceandnobilitythatcanbeacquiredinthepresentthrough detailedstudyoftheirextanttexts,andthehumanistrevolutionin educationofthe fifteenthandsixteenthcenturiestakesitasan “article offaith” thatitsfoundationsmustlieintheGreco-Romanclassics.4 Itisto theGreeksassingularrepresentativesof “truehumanness,” definedabove allbyphysicalbeauty,nobilityofspirit,andfreedom,thattheeighteenthandnineteenth-centuryGermanneo-humanists Winckelmann,Wolf, Schiller,Humboldt turninseekingamodelonwhichtofoundspiritual renewalatthelevelofboththeindividualandthecollective(andthe GreeksareagainatthecenterofWernerJaeger’ s “ThirdHumanism” in WeimarGermany).5 Whenin “WhatisaClassic?” (1944),T.S.Eliot reachesfortheparagonof “aclassic,” whichhedefinesasaworkwhose geniusshouldberecognizedbyallhumanbeings,heturnstoLatin andGreekand,morespecifically,toVirgil’ s Aeneid.Incontemporary Americanuniversities,evenifthehumanitiescanhardlybesaidtobe synonymouswithaclassicaleducation,theirself-definitioncontinuesto owemuch,albeitcontroversially,tothestudyofGreco-Romanantiquity. Aslongastheidiomsofhumanismpersist,theGreeks(andtoalesser degree,theRomans)neverseemtobefaraway.Totakejustoneexample: whenthepoliticaltheoristBonnieHonigundertakesacritiqueofwhatshe calls “mortalisthumanism,” ahumanismthatshearguesisfoundednoton idealsofbeautyandfreedombutonasharedcapacityforsuffering,sheis bothtargetingreadingsof Antigone anddevelopingapositionthroughher ownpioneeringreadingoftheplay:Sophoclesisstillthesiteforadebate abouthumanism.6 Inshort,the “ancients” havebeenandcontinuetobe integraltohowthehumanhasbeendefinedinawiderangeofphilosophical,political,aesthetic,literary,andhistoricaltraditionsthathavecontributedtotheself-definitionofmodernEuropeand “theWest.” Whatthismeansisthatanyinquiryintotheboundariesofthehuman inancientGreekandRomantextsintervenesinalongandconsequential history.Thishistoryisalsooneofexclusionaryandcoercivenormsthat havelicensedenormousphysical,symbolic,andepistemicviolence.The
4 “Articleoffaith”:GraftonandJardine(1986)xiv.
5 SeeMarchand(2003)3–35onGermanneo-humanism,302–40ontheThirdHumanismofJaeger,and21onWolf ’sbeliefthattheGreeksalonerepresent “truehumanness.”
6 Honig(2013).
humanistproject,especiallyoverthepastfewcenturies,hassystematicallyarguedforthesuperiorityoftheancientGreeksattheexpenseof otherpeoples(amongthemtheEgyptians,Persians,Phoenicians,Indians, andJews,aswellastheGreeksinthemodernperiod,seenasunworthy oftheirillustriouspast).Insodoing,ithaslaidthegroundwork andat timessuppliedthejustification formodernEuropeanandAmerican racialformationsaswellasmodernformsofimperialism,colonialism, andslavery.7 Themisogynyofancientauthorsandtheirrefusalstogrant womenfullhumanityhavelicensedtheoppressionandabuseofwomen amongmodernadherentsofclassicalhumanism,andthepersistentgenderingofagency,autarchy,andfreedominGreekandRomanauthorshave often,fortheirreaders,naturalizedassociationsbetweenfemininityand powerlessness,withdeepconsequencesfortheself-determinationnotonly ofwomenbutalsoofothergroupsdemeanedbyfeminization: “barbarians,” slaves,and “sexualdeviants.”8 Theselegaciesmakeitclearthatifwe aretolooktoantiquityatall,itshouldbeanantiquitybeyondhumanismas ithasbeenhistoricallydefined.
Butwecouldhardlysuggestthatwhatmakesthisvolumedistinctiveis thatitheedsforthe firsttimethecallforanantiquitybeyondthe humanistvision.Notwithstandingtensionswithinthatvisionfromits earliestarticulations,thedecenteringof “classical ” antiquityandchallengestoitsidealbodiesandsubjectshavebeenongoingprojectsforat leastoveracentury,fromtheriseofcomparativeanthropologyattheendof thenineteenthcenturyandNietzsche’sinventionofDionysus,toinvestmentsintheprehistoricandthepre-classicalinmodernistart,tothe antihumanismofpostwarEuropeanphilosophy.Inclassicalscholarship, E.R.Dodds’smid-centuryclassic, TheGreeksandtheIrrational (1951), andtheanthropologicalturninthegroupofpostwarFrenchscholarsof antiquityassociatedwiththeCentreLouisGernet Jean-PierreVernant,
7 WorkontheEurocentrismandracismofclassicalhumanismhasbeenshapedforthe pastthirtyyearsbyMartinBernal’strilogy BlackAthena,andespeciallythe firsttwo volumes(Bernal(1987)and(1991))andthecontroversyattendingtheirpublication; McCoskey(2012)167–99providesausefuloverviewofthedebates.Thepapersin Orrells,Bhambra,andRoynon(2011)bearwitnesstothewaysinwhichreceptionstudies andstudiesinblackclassicismhaveshiftedthetermsofthe BlackAthena debateand openedupmoresophisticated,difficult,andfar-reachingconversationsaboutraceand classicalantiquity.SeealsoRankine(2006),esp.30–3,ontheperniciouswaysinwhichthe raciallogicoftheoldhumanismcanresurfaceinreceptionstudiesthroughtheframingof thestudyofclassicalantiquityashumanizing,civilizing,oruniversalizing.
8 FortheproblemofsexualdifferenceattheheartofWesternmetaphysicsandissuing fromancientGreece,seeespeciallyIrigaray(1985),Cixous(1986),Lloyd(1984),Tuana (1993),Cavarero(1995),Holmes(2012),andBianchi(2014)aswellasthecollectionsof Tuana(1994)andFreeland(1998),especiallythecontributionsofduBois(1994), Saxonhouse(1994).
PierreVidal-Naquet,NicoleLoraux,MarcelDetienne remainlandmarks withina fieldofworkmarkedbyacommitmenttotheothernessofthe ancients(andespecially “theGreeks”)andanon-idealizingvisionofthe past.Ifanything,antiquitybeyondhumanisminitshistoricallydominant formshasbeenthenormratherthantheexceptionoverthepasthalfa century(whichisnottosaythatthesehumanisttraditionsdon’tsurvivein allkindsofwaysintothepresent,notleastwhenthevalueofengaging classicalantiquityisbeingcontestedandthedisciplineis fieldingchallenges toitsplaceintheuniversity).Thepapersinthisvolumeemergefromthis richlandscapeasmuchastheyengagenewtheoreticalworkaroundand beyondthecategoryofthehumanintwenty-first-centuryscholarship.Itis thereforeworthchartingverybrieflythebackgroundtothisvolumewithin classicalstudies.
TheideaofthehumaninRenaissancehumanismandGermanphilhellenismhadbeenpremisedonanessenceinhumannatureoranideal qualityofhumanenessintheRomanorGreekembodimentofman.By contrast,thepowerfulinfluenceofstructuralismonVernantandother postwarFrenchclassicists,aswellasonsomeoftheirmostimportant interlocutorsintheUSandtheUK,providedanimpetustothinkthe ancienthumaninrelationalterms.Accordingtothislineofthought,the humanliesbetweenthegodsandtheanimalworld,definedthrough thenegotiationoftaxonomicboundariesratherthanthroughagiven essence.Vidal-Naquet’sreadingofthe Odyssey,forexample,chartsthe “fantasyworld” ofthewanderingsinBooks9–12as “aworldthatisnot theworldofmen,aworldwhichisbyturnssuperhumanandsubhuman.” Thestoryoftheepic,hegoeson, “isinonesensethestoryofOdysseus’ s returntonormality,ofhisdeliberateacceptanceofthehumancondition.”9 Thehumanconditioncrystallizesthroughastudyinwhatahumanisnot (e.g.immortal,omniscient,monstrous,cannibalistic,etc.).
Thehuman,then,canberereadinantiquityasarelationalterm. Accordingly,itsmeaningshiftsinresponsetochangingideasofthe divineandtheanimal.Vernantwasasdeeplyinterestedinthe fifth century BCE asaprivilegedsitefortheemergenceofGreekideasabout thehumanaspreviousscholarsofthe “Greekmiracle.” Butwhatoccupiedhimwasnotthe fleetingtriumphoftheclassicalspiritbetween archaismanddecadence.Rather,hefocusedonhowanascentlegal cultureinAthensandthe flourishingofAttictragedycametoredraw theboundariesbetweenthegodsandhumansbysituatinghumanagency innewvocabulariesofblameandresponsibility,aswellasthewaysin
9 Vidal-Naquet(1986)19.
whichtheriseofthedemocratic polis redefinedmanagainsttheanimal intermsoftheidealizedimageoftheautarchicmalecitizenandhis participationinthepoliticalcommunity.10 Thegodsandtheanimal remaindeterminingcoordinateswithinthedefinitionofthehuman. Butthehumantheyhelpproducestartstoacquirenewqualities.It alsoarguablyacquiressharperlines,astheverycategoriesof “the human” (hoanthrōpos)and “humannature” (hē anthrōpinē physis) becomeincreasinglydeterminate,especiallyinthenewgenresofprose writing(rhetorical,historiographical,medical,cosmological,prescriptive andsoon),whichinform,too,therepresentationofthehumanbodyin sculpture.Still,evenwiththeadventoftheProtagoreancreed, “manisthe measureofallthings,” itisundeniablethatthehumancontinuestobe measuredagainstthesuperhumanandthesubhuman,whetherthatmeans tellingstoriesofearlyhumanlifethatfocusonthedivergenceofanthropologyandzoology(intheHippocratictext OnAncientMedicine,for example,orthemythofProtagorasinPlato’seponymousdialogue), creatinga scalanaturae (inAristotle,forexample,ortheStoics),orcharting avisionofhowahumanbeingmightbecomegodlikethroughphilosophicalinquiry(e.g.Plato’ s Phaedo,orAristotle’ s NicomacheanEthics).
Thehumancanbesituatedinrelationshiptothedivineandthebestial butitcanalsobereadasafundamentallygenderedcategory,synonymouswith “ man ” notbecauseofasharedinvocationoftheuniversalbut becauseoftheimplicitassumptionthathumanmustmeanmale.The workofVernantwasnotinsensitivetothecategoryofgender,butinthe 1970sand1980s,structuralistanthropologymetfeminismmoredeliberatelyintheworkofFrenchandAmericanclassicistssuchasMarilyn ArthurKatz,AnnBergren,PageduBois,NancyFelson,HeleneFoley, NicoleLoraux,NancyRabinowitz,GiuliaSissa,andFromaZeitlin,which exposedthefemaleasacriticalfoilwithinthedefinitionofthehumanin antiquity,nowreadmoreexplicitlyas man.The flourishingoffeminist readingswithinagenderedanthropologyhelpedleadtoanexplosionof interestinthecomingdecadesinthestrategiesbywhichGreekand Romanauthorsdefinedthecategoryofthehuman,especiallywithinthe “sciencesofman,” againstitsmanyothers:notonlywomenbutalsononGreek “barbarians,” slaves,non-elites,and “sexualdeviants, ” allcategoriesthatcontaminateoneanother(purportedbarbariansandpathic homosexualsareoftenfeminized,womenaredefinedasunfreeand requiringmalecontrol).
10 SeeespeciallytheessaysinVernantandVidal-Naquet(1988).
Astheuniversalcategoryofmanbecameincreasingly fissuredby difference,criticalmethodologicalquestionsalsobegantoariseabout theintegrityofcategoriesofidentitywithinthecategoryofthehuman acrosstime.Theprivilegingofhistoricaldifferenceandtherefusalof universalismhadbeenguidingcommitmentsoftheCentreLouisGernet, butthegrowthofculturalstudiesandtheNewHistoricisminthe1980s encouragedanevengreater fidelitytothespecificitiesofthehistorical record.Theriseofgenderstudiesdestabilizedthecategoryof “ woman ” inantiquity,asinotherdomains,whileatthesametimefuelingthe developmentofsexualitystudiesandqueertheory.GreeceandRome becamefrontlinesinFoucault-inspireddebatesaboutthetrans-historical validityof “ sex ” andthechangingroleplayedbysexualityinthedefinitionofhumannormsindifferentcultures(ofteninaccordancewith claimsabouthumannature),aswellasintheself-definitionofhistorical actors.11 Muchofthedebateturnedonjusthowradicallydifferentthe classicalpastwasandtheethicalstakesofacknowledgingthepersistenceof perniciousideasandcategoriesfromclassicalantiquityintothepresent. Debatesoverancientracialformationshavenegotiatedthesequestions aswell.Inrecentyears,scholarshaveacknowledgedthegroundbreaking workofFrankSnowdenJr.indemonstratingtheapparentlynegligiblerole playedbyskincolorinourancientGreekandRomansources,bothtextual andmaterial,whileatthesametimedissectingthelogicofancientracial formations,differentfromthepresentbutneverthelesspersistentand stilloperativewithinthefunctioningofthecategoriesofhumanand subhumantoday.12
InsteadofsimplyacceptingthefreeGreekadultmaleasthenatural synonymofthehumanandatargetofmimesisinthepresent,then,
11 Thestatusofthecategoryof “pathichomosexual”—thatis, kinaidos/cinaedus has beenhighlycontestedinthehistoryofsexuality.Forsomeofthekeypositionsinthedebate, seeWinkler(1989)esp.45–6andHalperin(2002)35(arguingforthelargely fictionalstatus ofthe kinaidos/cinaedus)and,forargumentsthatseemorecontinuitybetweenancient andcontemporaryqueeridentitiesandsubcultures,Richlin(1993)andTaylor(1997).For furtherdiscussionofthe “sexualitywars,” seeHolmes(2012).Theverystakesofwhatit meanstoseeksamenessordifferenceinthehistoryofsexualityhavebeenvigorously debatedinmedieval,Renaissance,andearlymodernstudiesoverthepastdecade seee.g. theessaysandintroductioninFradenburgandFreccero(1996),GoldbergandMenon (2005)andTraub(2013) buttheseconversations,whilerespondinginkeywaystothe argumentsofHalperin(1990)and(2002)andadvancingthetheoreticalconversation significantly havehadarelativelynegligibleeffectonworkinancientGreco-Roman sexuality.Matzner(2016)hasstartedtoopenuptheconversation.
12 SeeSnowden(1970)and(1983);Dee(2003–4)defamiliarizes “white” asaselfdescriptorofancientGreeksandRomans.Onproto-racisminantiquity,seeIsaac(2004). McCoskey(2012)providesausefuloverviewoftheturntowards “ethnicity” andarguesfor theimportanceofkeepingraceasacentralterminworkonGreco-Romanantiquity.
scholarsofantiquityhaveinrecentdecadesrelentlesslyandpainstakinglyinterrogatedtheexclusionsconstitutingthehumaninancienttexts, exposingthecategoryasevermorevulnerabletotheencroachmentof theostensiblysubhuman.Theyhaveaimedtomakemorefar-reaching claimsabouttheexclusionarylogicoftheconstructionofthehumanin GreekthoughtorGreekcultureasawhole,attimesworkingwiththe resourcesofpsychoanalysisandanthropology.Therehasbeenpushback insomequartersagainstthebroadsweepofsomeofthisworkandwhat isseenasthetendency,insomeearlystructuralistworkinparticular,to drawfreelyfromacorpusofheterogeneousmaterialfromdistinctive cultureswithinaperiodoftimespanningoverathousandyears.Yeteven workingatthegranularlevelofthecasestudyortheindividualtext,itis difficulttomissthepersistentdefinitionofnorms,whichinantiquityare ethicalratherthanstatistical,intermsofgender,race,class,socialstatus, sexuality,andspecies.Wecannolonger not noticethewaysinwhich beinghumaninthemajorityofourancienttextsisrestrictedtoasmall groupofpeoplewhohavetoovercomethepartsofthemselvesthatpull towardsthesubhumanandthenon-humaninorderto become human and stay human,thankstoarobusttraditionofworkonanantiquity beyondhumanism.Theessaysinthisvolumeareatoncedeeplyindebted tothistradition,participatewithinit,andhopetocontributetoits continued flourishing.
Yetforallthatwomen,slaves,orbarbariansarereadasfailingto achievefullhumanitybymanyancientauthors,theyremaininan importantwaywithinthecategoryofthehuman.Theymaybe “mutilated” specimens,asinAristotle’sinfamousdefinitionofthefemale,but theyarestillspecimens.Thesekindsofdifferenceshaveemergedas decisivefortheposthumanornon-humanturnwithinthebroadertheoreticalhumanitiesandsocialsciences,whichhasfocusedattentionona spacebeyondthehumanquaspeciesandinterrogatedhowchangesin technology,globaleconomy,andecologicalconditionshavetransformed orwillsoontransformtheverydefinitionofthehumanasaspecies.
Theessaysgatheredinthisvolumeresisttheideathatsuchchanging conditionsseverourpresentandfutureselvesfrommillenniaofreflectiononwhatitmeanstobehuman,andthoseinthe firstPart,in particular,interrogatedirectlytherelevanceofposthumanismtoour engagementwithancienttexts.Atthesametime,theysharewiththe broadertheoreticalhumanitiesafocusonzonesofthenon-human constitutedmorebyanunderstandingofthehumanquaspeciesthan byanunderstandingofthehumanquaidealstate,zonesthatcanbe glossedastheanimal,thevegetal,thecosmic,thematerial,orthe daemonic.Ofcourse,itcanbedifficulttoparsethedifferencebetween
thesetwoversionsofthehuman.Thehumaninantiquityisnevera value-neutralcategory,thoughthisisnottosaythatthehumanalways comesoutaheadoftheanimal:in1935,LovejoyandBoascompileda wholedossieroftextssupportingwhattheycall “animalitarianism,” exemplifiedmostspectacularlybyPlutarch’ s Gryllus,wherethemen turnedintoswinebyCirceresistareturntohumanformbyextolling thevirtuesofanimallifeandinsistingonthesuperiorityofanimalsto humans.13 Nevertheless,thespace “beyondhumanism” thattheseessays traverseexpandstoencompassthingsandbodiesandbeingsthatare classednotsomuchasostensibly failed humansbutasnothumanatall.
Inthisrespect,theseessaysre-engagequestionsthathavebeencentral tothestructuralistproject:therelationsamongthehumanandthe animal,thedivineanddaemonicrealms.14 Atthesametime,thework gatheredheresharesadesiretoavoidthestrictpolaritiesthathaveat timesbecomestraitjacketswithinstructuralistanalyses,evenwhenthose analyseshaveinsistedonapoeticsofambiguity.15 Theyshareaninterest intakinguptheanimalworld,thecosmos,andthedaemonicascategoriesthatfunctionnotjusttodelineatethehumanbutwhicharealso mappedasspacesdemandingexplorationontheirownterms,asmuch aspossible.Theytakeseriouslytherelationshipsbetweenthehumanand thenon-humanworldstogetherwithformsofnon-humansocialityin ancienttextsthatsharefeatureswithdistinctivelyhumanmodesof sociality(e.g.political,choral,affective)butcannotbereducedtotheir purelyhumanmanifestation.Theyexpandbeyondtheanimalandthe divinetoencompass,too,materialobjects,plants,andthecosmosasa whole.Andmuchasanimportantstrainofworkinnon-humanstudies moregenerallyhasdealtwiththewaysinwhichthehumanself and usuallythehumanbody isimaginedtoincorporatethenon-human (thegermcell,e.g.,orthemicrofloraofthebiome),anumberofthe chaptershereinterrogateandreflectonhowfacetsofthehumancan becomeportalstothenon-human(thevoice,forexample,ortheexperienceofdesire).
Noneofthisistosaythatabodyofworkonanimalsinantiquity,or plants,orhumansinrelationtothelargercosmosdoesnotexist.Butthe majorityofsuchworkhasbeendoneprimarilyinsubfieldsinancient philosophyandsciencethatoftenremainisolatedfrombroader
13 LovejoyandBoas(1935)389–420.
14 Thisisnotasurprise,giventhatsomeimportantworkinnon-humanstudies, especiallyinanthropology,isavowedlyneo-structuralist,perhapsmostnotablythatof PhilippeDescola:seeDescola(2013a)and(2013b).
15 See,forexample,thecritiqueofWohl(2005)137–8oftheanalysisofsexualdifference inCharlesSegal’sstructuralist-inspiredreadingofthe Bacchae.
interdisciplinarytheoreticalconversations.Itistruethatthereisarich traditionwithinClassicsofattendingtothemanywayshumanselvesare permeabletonon-humanforces.Indeed,importantworkhasrecognized howtheforcesthatcoursethroughthewarriorlustingforbattleorthe lover floodedwithdesireorthepersoningestingamealarenotexclusivelyhumanatallbutratherconduitsofenergythatalsopassthrough riversandtreesandclouds,creatingbondsbetweenbodiesthatare subjecttoincreasinglycomplexexaminationinancientcosmological, biological,andmedicalwritings.16 Butcontemporarytheoreticalpreoccupationswiththelimitsofthehuman andwithwhatliesbeyond thoselimits warrantarethinkingoftheimplicationsoftheseancient waysofimaginingforce,emotion,anddesireaspointsofconnectivity betweenhumanandnon-human.
Thepointisnot,however,thatanagendasetbycontemporarytheory needstobenowsimplyappliedtoancientmaterial.Aswehavestressed, thepapersherearedeeplycommittedtotheideathatancienttextsactively contributetocontemporarydiscussionsandharboranuntimelypotential todisruptandextendthem.Indeed,theparticularconstellationofconcernscapturedbythe “non-humanturn” invitesustoreadancienttexts fromnewanglesasweseektoimagineanewinthepresent.Someofthis workisbeginningtogetunderway.Whileclassicalarchaeologyhasfor sometimenowbeenreconceptualizingobjectsasagentswithinhuman andnon-humannetworksofpower,moreattentionisbeingpaidthese daystothesemioticandagentialpowerofobjectswithinancienttexts.17 Recentworkonanimalsinantiquityhasprobedthewaysinwhichancient authorssympatheticallyimagineanimallife,thewaysinwhichnarratives ofmetamorphosisdiscloseformsofothernessirreducibletobinarytaxonomy,andthecontributionsthatancientphilosophymightmaketo contemporarydebatesaboutinterspeciesethics.18 Thefermentofactivity withintheenvironmentalhumanitiesandecocriticismisstartingtobe channeledintoreadingsofGreco-Romantexts,asaretheresourcesof environmentalhistory.19 Thewaysinwhichnatureandorganismsare imaginedthroughthethinkingofmachines,adeepveinofworkin contemporarynon-andposthumanstudies,havebeentracedinrecent
16 SeeOnians(1951);Padel(1992);Clarke(1999).
17 Seee.g.Purves(2015);Mueller(2016);andtheessaysinGreenstineandJohnson (2017);TelòandMueller(2018);andChesiandSpiegel(Forthcoming).
18 Seee.g.Payne(2010)and(2016);BellandNaas(2015);Hutchins(2016).Onancient philosophyandinterspeciesethics,Sorabji(1993)remainsrelevant.
19 SeetherecenteditedcollectionSchliephake(2016).Onenvironmentalhistory,Harper (2016).
workwithdueattentiontothespecificnatureof technē andmechanismin ancientwriters.20
Sowhilerethinkingthehumanwithintheframeworkofarigorously materialistcosmoshasalonghistory,theprojectisnowbeingundertakenfromarangeofnewperspectivesinthetheoreticalhumanitiesand continentalphilosophy.Theessaysgatheredhereengagedeeplywiththis work,sometimessympatheticallyandsometimescriticallybutalwaysas activeparticipantsincontemporaryconversations.Bypublishingthese essaystogether,wehopetoencouragefurtherworkintheseareasinmany differentcommunitiesworkingonmaterialfromGreco-Romanantiquity.
1.2. Posthumanism,thenon-human, andcontemporarytheory
AntiquitiesbeyondHumanism thusalsojoinsafast-movingstreamof critical-theoreticalworkthat,sincetheearly1990s,hasshiftedattention toobjects,affects,bodies,matterandmaterialisms,livingandnon-living animacies,andthenetworksandecologiesthatconnectthem,across disciplinesaswide-rangingasphilosophy,feministtheory,queertheory, culturalstudiesandthesocialsciencesmoregenerally,sciencestudies, andpoliticaltheory.Whileacomprehensivemappingofthesemovementsandtheirmany-tentacledandburgeoningstrandsisbeyondthe scopeofthisintroduction,thequestionofwhatouruntimely,anachronisticengagementwithantiquitycontributestothis fieldisworthtarrying with.Ofthevariousstartingpointsonemightchooseforthis “turn,” especiallyintheAnglo-Americancontext,onemightusefullypointto ElizabethGrosz’s1994text, VolatileBodies. Here,Groszlaysoutan alternativetothinkingaboutthecorporealthatrescuesitfromthe “profoundsomatophobia” oftheWesterntradition.Shetracesthis somatophobiafromPlatoandtheJudaeo-Christiantraditiontothe present, findingitszenithinCartesiandualism.Mosttwentieth-century feministtheory,withitsunderstandableemphasisongenderratherthan sex,thatis,initsfocusonhumanpractices,culture,language,andhistory intheprojectofdiagnosingandseekingtoremediatemisogynyand sexism,unthinkinglyrepeatsthisdevaluationofthebody.Grosz respondstothiscomplicityoffeminismandsomatophobiabyreactivatinganalternatenon-Cartesianontologicaltradition,monistratherthan
20 Seee.g.Berryman(2009);Roby(2013).
dualist,committedtotheimmanenceofbodies,earthliness,affectivity, andmateriality,andfoundinthinkerssuchasNietzsche,Bergson, Foucault,Simondon,and,aboveall,Deleuze.Spinozahasbeenakey predecessorherebutinhermostrecentworkon “theincorporeal,” Grosz followsDeleuzeingoingbacktoancientphilosophy,andtheStoicsin particular(fromwhomsheborrows “theincorporeal”),therebyresponding,too,totheancientand,morespecifically,StoicrootsofSpinozist philosophy.21
NowGroszalsothoroughlyembracesaninclusionofhumanpractices informing,shaping,inscribing,indeedinmaterializingbodies,soto callherpositiononethatiscommittedprimarilytotheposthumanor non-humanwouldbepatentlyfalse.Andyet,asthetitle VolatileBodies suggests,shealsoaffordsbodiesandmaterialitytheirownmotilityanda capacityforeffectiveaction.Thisconcernforthewaysthatbodies,matter, andthingsmoveandexistindependentlyofthehumancapacitytoexplicitlyknowthembecamethefocusofmuchofthethinkingthatfollowedin the firstdecadesofthetwenty-firstcentury,inthevariousincarnationsof whathavecometobecallednewmaterialisms,speculativerealisms,affect theories,andobject-orientedontologies.Alongwithfeministphilosophers suchasMoiraGatens,RosiBraidotti,andDonnaHaraway,andother contemporaneousthinkerssuchasManuelDeLanda,BrianMassumi,and PhengCheah,Groszwasthusapivotal figureinreopeningaphilosophical genealogythathadbeenleftrelativelyfallowduringtheeraoftwentiethcentury “hightheory” andthat,especiallyinthefaceofaccelerating environmentalcrisis,openedinevitablyontoquestionsoftheposthuman andthenon-human.Thisisnottosaythatmateriality,thebody,thenonhuman,theaffective,ortheobjectalwerenotalsokeythematicconcerns withinthedominantstrandsoftwentieth-centurytheorizing.Psychoanalysis,Marxism,structuralism,phenomenology,theFoucaultianunderstandingofpower,theoriesofperformativity,anddeconstructionhave afterallattendedassiduouslytothesephenomena,evidencedforexample parexcellencebyDerrida’sextendedengagementwiththequestionof theanimalinhislaterwork.22 Nonetheless,itwouldbehardtoargue thataseismicshifthasnottakenplace,oneconditionedatoncebythe riseofneo-liberalglobalcapitalism,climatechangeandacceleratingenvironmentaldestruction,newunderstandingsofcolonialanddecolonial historicaldynamics,andnewconfigurationsofgender,amongwhich AntiquitiesbeyondHumanism isinalienablysituated.
21 SeeGrosz(2017)andDeleuze(1990).ForDeleuzeandtheStoics,seeBénatouïl (2003);Sellars(2007);Johnson(2017);andHolmesinthisvolume.
22 See,inparticular,Derrida(2008).
Onehallmarkofthisturnintheintellectualsphere,then,hasbeento drawonanalternategenealogyofmodernphilosophythatsidestepsthe aporiasofCartesianismbytakingSpinoza’ s Ethics asafoundationaltext, atextwhichproposes,inDeleuze’sinterpretation, “ a commonplaneof immanence onwhichallbodies,allminds,andallindividualsare situated.”23 Thissenseofimmanence,inwhichnothingstandsapart fromtheworldthatmightfunctionasatranscendentfoundational principleofitorforit,givesontoascenewhereallthingsarein continualbecoming,expression,proliferation,diffusion,interconnection,and touseKarenBarad’sword intra-action. 24 Thehierarchical binariessocentraltostructuralistandpoststructuralistthinking here wemightincludenotjustmindandbody,butreasonandpassion, intellectandsensation,outsideandinside,depthandsurface,reality andappearance,presenceandabsence,lackandsatisfaction,among manyothers dissolveina fieldofplenitudethatrigorously flattens suchhierarchies.Moreover,thingsarenolongerspecifiedaccordingto staticformbutareunderstoodasemergentandprocessual,andboundariesareunderstoodasconnectivetissueasmuchasbarriersthat separate.Manyofthesebinariesarecentraltomodernphilosophical paradigms,butsomeofthem,suchasformandmatter,areestablishedin ancientGreekthought,perhapssometimesindifferentform(psychē, oftentranslatedassoulbutderivingfrombreath,certainlyovertime becomesopposableinantiquityto sōma orbody),andcontinuetohold swaythroughoutthedominantWesterntradition.
Inasignalintervention,DeleuzeandGuattaribegintheir1972opus Anti-Oedipus bydesignatingbodies,organs,andindividualsas machines, thefamousdesiringmachinesthatengageindesiring-production desiringmachinespluggingintoorganmachines: “Thebreastisa machinethatproducesmilk,andthemouthamachinecoupledto it.”25 InoneshortsentenceDeleuzeandGuattaridispensenotjustwith Oedipusandhisprimaltransgression,butalsowithHecuba’sorganic maternalconnectionwithHectorandwithOrestes ’ matricide,indeed withallGreekfoundationalscenesandthelogicsofsacrificetheyboth produceandsupport.TheyalsoannulthedistinctivenessofPandora,for ifthe firstwomanisadeadlyartifact,theinfantisnolessamachine,and bothhavebeenthrownfreeofanydeath-driveintoaprofusionof machinicliveliness.Notonlyissexualdifference,strictlyspeaking, herebyrenderedirrelevantbutperhapsthemostprofoundandenduring ofancientdistinctions,thatbetween technē and physis artorcraft,and
23 Deleuze(1988)122. 24 Barad(2007)33and passim.
25 DeleuzeandGuattari(1983)1.
