Drunk with Wisdom: Metaphors of Ecstasy in Plato’s Symposium and Lucian of Samosata
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is one of the best I've read for this journal. It is thoroughly engaging, and it brings together philosophy, rhetoric, and literature in a brilliant fashion. It is astoundingly well documented. The author sets forth an original argument and situates it well in the existing scholarship.
Make sure the font is consistent throughout.
Author Response
I'm most grateful for the comments. I have now closely revised the English and I hope to have caught all infelicities.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript, a discussion of the function of the 'drunkenness' metaphor in Platonic philosophy and this metaphor's strange reception elsewhere and particularly in Lucian. It is an engaging, valuable, and especially well-researched piece of scholarship that was, quite frankly, a treat to read. It furthermore will make for an excellent contribution to this particular special volume.
I've made some notes on the manuscript below. Very few of these concern argumentation or clarity, as these are really quite well developed. The only real problem--which is purely one of style--is that the article is written in a mix of US and UK English. For example, words like 'realize' and 'seize' are US English variants, while the author also uses UK English for words like 'behaviour,' 'endeavour,' and the UK-English usage of 'which' in defining clauses. My notes below reflect the assumption that the author intends to write in US English; if this is wrong, well, then unfortunately all of these notes should be thrown out and a new hunt for US-English variants would be needed. (I recommend starting by searching for the letter 'z' and changing all uses in the -ize/-ise suffix, e.g., 'realise,' 'seise,' etc.)
Anyhow, to be clear, these notes are mostly my attempts to flag typos and suggestions that the author should feel free to consider or not as they see fit.
Notes throughout:
Title: I think "Drunk with Wisdom" instead of "Drunken with Wisdom" is better. "Drunken" is now less common (i.e., more "old fashioned") and is typically used attributively, i.e., before a noun.
Abstract: Lines 8-9, comma needed between 'style' and 'which'
Abstract: 'behaviour,' change to 'behavior' (also in fn. 30)
Page 1, second sentence: all true and good points, but seven commas seems like a lot for one sentence.
Page 1, toward bottom: "to somehow relate" is an awkward split infinitive. Maybe "Plato needs to relate... in some way" is better.
Page 2 very top, comma needed between "(e.g. Symp. 218b3-4)" and "which."
Page 2, end of first full paragraph, "experience which leads" should be "experience that leads."
Page 2 and throughout: are these original translations? This should probably be specified, in any case.
Page 2 after first block quote: comma needed between "frenzy" and "which."
Page 3 top, first sentence: a minor point, but Alcibiades isn't really making an argument here, right?
Page 3, first paragraph middle: " Silenoi statues which look ridiculous," either this 'which' needs to be changed to a 'that,' or a comma is needed after 'statues.' In any case, the wording of this sentence might be revised overall.
Page 3, first full paragraph: "confusing philosophy with the literary endeavour," this is very interesting, and unpacking the meaning of this distinction just a bit here would help. Also, "endeavour" is UK English, change to 'endeavor.'
Page 4, first English text: The quote begins with "possible;" is this a typo?
Page 4 after last block quote: "experienced precisely which," comma needed between 'precisely' and 'which.'
Page 4, final paragraph: "a debate which" should be "a debate that"
Page 4, final paragraph: "Calactinus who wrote," comma needed after 'Calactinus.'
Page 4 fn. 27: "did not oppose rhetoric per se but to its uncritical," cut "its" for verb agreement.
Page 6 first sentence: "epitomises" should be "epitomizes," on the assumption that this paper is intended to be written in US English.
Page 7, toward end of first paragraph: "hordes of young men which by Lucian’s time flocked," either change 'which' to 'that' or add in some commas.
Page 7, last sentence of first paragraph: "Plato’s dialogues which," either add comma after 'dialogues' or change 'which' to 'that.'
Page 7, fn. 42: For what it's worth, I was expecting more engagement with Lucian's 'Symposium' and was surprised to find it treated only parenthetically.
Page 9, block quote of Greek text: Note that something strange has happened with the font of the numbers indicating footnotes.
Page 9 fn. 56: "to use here vocabulary which evokes," change 'which' to 'that.'
Page 10, block quote of Greek text: Are these underlinings and partial underlinings typos? Maybe I'm just missing the function of the words underlined.
Page 10, below final block quote of English text: "this kind of language which," change 'which' to 'that.'
Page 10, fn. 59: Change 'honours' to 'honors.'
Page 11, paragraph ending section 2: "where emphasis is given on," should this not be, "where emphasis is given to" ?
Page 11, paragraph ending section 2: "rather than deliver a fair defence," change to "defense" (US English version).
Page 11, fn. 66: change "practised" to "practiced."
Page 11, fn. 66: "N íMheallaigh" is inconsistent with bibliography spelling, "Ní Mheallaigh," and I assume the latter is correct.
References section: note throughout that italics have been lost (presumably due to a problem with file conversion). Each entry should be checked and proper italics restored
Comma missing in Bartoš citation after last name.
"Blondell, Ruby and Sandra, Boehringer": erroneous comma after 'Sandra.'
I'm not sure to what the '21960.' refers in the Dodds citation.
"Druckman, Daniel, Robert A. Bjork," replace comma with 'and.'
Note erroneous extra line between first two Halliwell sources.
Second Halliwell citation: comma needed after 'Halliwell,' and note missing 'and' in list of authors.
Herrero de Jáuregui citation: note erroneous line break.
Neef entry: There seems to be a missed close-parenthesis.
Author Response
I'm very grateful for this careful reading of my work and the comments. I have made all the corrections regarding the English, fonts and typos; I have acknowledged the translators of the Loeb editions I use; I have addressed every other recommendation.
Finally, yes, I also thought that I would use more of Lucian's Symposium in the article but the references to philosophical inebriation are just not there - in fact, in my view, Lucian's Symposium responds both to Plato and Xenophon's Symposia with the focus being on laughter. I discuss this text at length in connection to laughter and drunkenness in my book but to make the argument here would require another paper.
