[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The cognitive humanities are a growing field, whose application to classical texts has proven to be a fruitful endeavour. In particular, figurative language is a profitable access point for exploring how the mind works. Conceptual metaphor theory maintains that metaphors do not work only at the linguistic level as embellishment for a literary text, but also at the cognitive level. We do not merely speak in terms of something else, but we actually think in terms of something else, creating systematic mappings and transferences between two independent conceptual domains. This book is a welcome addition to existing contributions on this topic:[1] it not only advances knowledge on specific authors and genres, but also suggests conceptual refinements to conceptual metaphor theory.
The book opens with an introductory chapter by the editor, Fabian Horn, who clearly and concisely explains the main tenets of conceptual metaphor theory, a constantly updated and refined theory. Nine chapters follow; they cover a variety of prose and poetic genres (e.g. philosophy, epic, comedy, and elegy), in both Greek and Latin. A more methodological ‘coda’ closes the book.
In his chapter, Marcel Humar proposes a typology for metaphorical expressions based on model theory and motivated by valid points: the inability to judge whether metaphors are, for instance, ‘dead’, ‘conventional’, or ‘novel’ in classical languages; terminological inconsistency in modern scholarship; and the subjectivity of available categorisations. Such a typology, conceived as an analytical tool for describing metaphors in a more objective way without touching on aesthetic issues, hinges on the relationship between the source and the target domains: in ‘homeoconceptual’ metaphors both are related to the same conceptual frame, in ‘paraconceptual’ metaphors they are simply linked through the same frame. This typology ‘is not primarily concerned with the accessibility of or the difficulty in understanding metaphorical expressions’ (p. 32), for this would bring us back to the issue of subjectivity. However, the question on accessibility seems to be a natural implication (and an appealing field of application) of the proposed typology, which may unfold insights into the functions of metaphors in a given text; Humar himself seems to draw conclusions in this regard here and there (e.g. pp. 17, 33, 34-35).
In his essay, Alexander Forte investigates whether the Homeric poems present a conceptualisation of gravity (he concludes that they do). This investigation leads Forte to criticise orientational metaphors as explained by conceptual metaphor theory, since they conceptualise up and down in too abstract terms and account for both static and motional orientation. To overcome this problem, Forte suggests an enactivist approach to metaphors, one which posits the interaction between the individual and the environment. This is undoubtedly the most interesting point of the paper. Its theoretical implications are the interpretation of metaphors as ‘metaphorising’ and of conceptual metaphors as techniques rather than mappings between domains. The practical consequence is the use of gerunds for describing conceptual metaphors (e.g. survival is remaining up-right, p. 50). This paper offers a valid adjustment to the theory from within, but is rather dense and complex (personally, I found the analysis difficult to follow when it became statistical at p. 53).
The Homeric text also lies at the heart of Horn’s work. Horn examines conceptualisations of heroic anger from beginning to end, working with the concepts of construal—the different ways in which a speaker can ‘construe’, i.e. portray, the same action—and personification/reification. As well as outlining the main features of heroic anger, Horn observes how the construal is somewhat predetermined: anger’s beginning or persistence is generally personified, while its end is reified. Whether this is inherent to the conceptualisations of anger or is influenced by other factors, such as epic diction or specific poetic choices, is a question that Horn rightly leaves open, awaiting further research.
Anna Novokhatko’s chapter broadens the perspective beyond verbal metaphors alone by analysing metaphors in Greek comedy through the lens of multimodality. In multimodal metaphors, the source and the target domains refer to two different modes – for example, visual and verbal – which are recalled simultaneously. Given its mixture of verbal, visual, enacted, and embedded elements, Greek comedy is undoubtedly an appropriate genre for trying out this approach, generally used for advertisements and films within Media Studies. The application of multimodality to classical texts is certainly original and, as this paper shows, promising. However, Novokhatko’s discussion of visual and auditory metaphors appears to be more rewarding than that of gustatory and olfactory metaphors, which seem to rely more on the verbal mode than on multimodality. Reflections on possible embodied responses to such metaphors in the audience undoubtedly provide food for thought, but as the author herself is aware, remain at the level of speculation.
Conceptual metaphor theory successfully enables Chiara Ferella to challenge the standard assumption that metempsychosis is exclusively related to the soul. By surveying pre-Platonic evidence and analysing the two conceptual metaphors metempsychosis is a journey and metempsychosis is a metamorphosis, Ferella reveals the role of the body: the soul is conceived as a ‘person endowed with disembodied existence and human agency’ (p. 152) prior to Plato; the alternative conceptual metaphor metempsychosis is a metamorphosis, featuring in Empedocles, shows how the body changes form without the soul’s agency being explicitly mentioned.
With Andreas Zanker’s paper we turn to Latin literature. The paper explores how Horace spoke of and conceptualised death in his Odes. Zanker’s main conclusion is that Horace’s metaphors are neither rare nor trite, but simply common in Latin and actually part of a broader tradition, which makes them less remarkable. However, it seems to me that the paper’s two most original contributions are the following: to posit the conceptual metaphor alive is level to us, along with dead is down and immortality is up,[2] so as to account for images such as eternal life on the Isles of the Blessed; and to claim that also myths ‘might have been motivated’ (p. 181) by conceptual metaphors.[3]
Both Roberta Grazia Leotta’s and Chiara Fedriani’s papers combine corpus-based analysis with textual and literary analysis. In both papers, the corpus-based investigation enables clusters of images and preferred associations between the target and source domains to be identified, and therefore for conceptualisations of abstract phenomena to be explored. Textual and literary analyses reveal then specific details as to specific authors and genres, thus rounding off the results reached through corpus-based analysis and the application of conceptual metaphor theory. Leotta’s investigation of the conceptualisations—both metaphorical and metonymical—of jealousy and envy highlights the close connection between livor, a polysemous term that can also refer to bruises and (love)bites, with erotic jealousy, passion, and betrayal in Latin elegy. Fedriani’s analysis of the conceptualisation of pain in Seneca’s Consolationes ad Marciam and ad Helviam matrem shows the central role that the metaphor pain is a wound plays in these texts; it also suggests that such imagery, which the corpus-based analysis has revealed to be relatively uncommon, is specifically associated with the topic of exile. Furthermore, Fedriani reflects more broadly on the frequency, productivity, and conventionality of metaphors, and hints explicitly at the role of culture in the conceptualisation and expression of pain in more than one place.
Tommaso Gazzarri applies the concepts of embodied and extended cognition to metaphors in Seneca’s De tranquillitate animi. This approach allows him to highlight Seneca’s embodied conception of tranquillitas, in accordance with his (and the Stoic) conception of the soul as a material, embodied and enclosed in a space. Such an approach is also used to stress the internal coherence of Seneca’s dialogue, which Gazzarri retraces by showing how Seneca’s imagery relates to the mentioned features of soul and tranquillity. In some points, however, the claimed coherence seems to rely ultimately on the fact that Seneca, a Stoic himself, employed a Stoic conception of the soul as being material, embodied, and enclosed. This chapter broadens the range of approaches used, but could benefit from a more extensive discussion of the relationship between distributed cognition and conceptual metaphor theory.[4]
In the coda, Horn introduces the concept of ‘bold metaphors’ by the German scholar Harald Weinrich; the aim is to refine the analysis of highly imaginative metaphors, an area in which conceptual metaphor theory seems to produce fewer results. For Weinrich, the small distance (‘image span’) between the two domains involved in the metaphor makes the clash between the domains more evident, and therefore the metaphor ‘bolder’. The examples chosen (from Homer and Gorgias) clearly illustrate Weinrich’s concept and show how alternative approaches might complement conceptual metaphor theory.[5] Horn admits that premodern societies seem to use comparatively fewer ‘bold metaphors’, something which would be interesting to explore; if this is true, the concept of ‘bold metaphors’ might turn out to be less applicable than expected.
As suggested by the title, the book focuses on metaphors and on conceptual metaphor theory, but is in no way limited to such a theoretical framework. The contributors deploy several methodologies and advance other cognitive approaches (e.g. multimodality, enactivism, blending, and distributed cognition), and even an alternative approach to conceptual metaphor theory in exploring literary metaphors. This clearly indicates a meaningful engagement with the tenets of conceptual metaphor theory, what it can achieve, and in which areas or for what research questions it is better paired with other methodologies, especially from a literary perspective. Ultimately, different texts, and different degrees of metaphoricity, need different approaches.[6] Despite the introduction, some of the concepts involved may be difficult for the uninitiated reader, particularly in certain papers. Also, certain papers seem to achieve more original results than others, but all of them offer stimulating reflections: the book clearly demonstrates how cognitive studies, and conceptual metaphor theory in particular, are useful approaches when exploring classical texts, and how Classics, in turn, can help refine such theories. As the brief chapter summaries show, most of the papers provide an overview of conceptualisations, but this is generally only the first step in challenging standard views (Ferella), refining some conceptual aspects of the theory (e.g. Humar, Forte and Horn’s Coda), considering audience reactions (Novokhatko), and carrying out literary analysis (e.g. Zanker and Leotta), even at the level of close reading (e.g. Forte’s reading of Zeus’ scales in books 8 and 22 of the Iliad and Nestor’s razor in book 10, Gazzarri’s reading of chapter 17 of Seneca’s De tranquillitate animi). However, the cultural aspects involved in metaphors are only touched upon briefly (e.g. Zanker and Fedriani) or implicitly. The suggested enhancements to the theory, as well as the concluding outline for further research in some of the papers, are encouraging signs of the vitality and value of cognitive approaches for classical texts.
Authors and titles
- Fabian Horn, A Very Brief Introduction to CMT and the Classics
- Marcel Humar, Through the Lens of Science: A Typology of Metaphors in Ancient Literature based on Scientific Modelling
- Alexander Forte, Homeric Gravity and Getting Lost in Orientational Metaphor
- Fabian Horn, The Construal of Heroic Anger in the Iliad
- Anna A. Novokhatko, Multimodality of Metaphor in Old Greek Comedy
- Chiara Ferella, Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Greek Representations of Metempsychosis before Plato
- Andreas T. Zanker, Metaphors for Death in Horace’s Odes
- Roberta Grazia Leotta, Biting Animals and Human Bites: Embodied Metaphors and Experiences in Latin Elegy
- Chiara Fedriani, Dolor Metaphors in Latin: What a Corpus-Based Approach to Ancient Sources Can (and Cannot) Tell Us
- Tommaso Gazzarri, Peace of Mind is Space: An Application of Conceptual Metaphor Theory to Seneca’s Ideal of Tranquillitas
- Fabian Horn, Coda: The Case of “Bold Metaphors” and the Limits of CMT
References
Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novokhatko, A. (2025). A Guide to Classics and Cognitive Studies: Reviewing Findings and Results. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
Silk, M. S., & Whitmarsh, T. (2025). Interaction in Poetic Imagery (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Notes
[1] For contributions on CMT and the classics I refer to those listed in Novokhatko 2025, 98 n. 358 and 359.
[2] That, e.g., orientational metaphors are criticised in a paper while profitably employed in another shows how cognitive classics is a continuously evolving field.
[3] Lakoff (1993, 242) hints at this, without much elaboration.
[4] Embodied and distributed cognition are taken to be ‘key concepts from CMT’ (p. 246, my emphasis). While the two theories—CMT and distributed cognition—undoubtedly overlap in many areas, I would not go so far as to claim dependence, as seems implied here.
[5] One of the examples was indeed previously analysed as blending by Horn himself.
[6] Note that in 2025 (the year of publication of the book under review) Silk and Whitmarsh reissued Silk’s 1974 book with a new introduction.