Linguistic and Stylistic Characterisation: Tragedy and Menander by A. G.

Katsouris
Review by: Elaine Fantham
Phoenix, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 82-84
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087859 .
Accessed: 24/10/2012 02:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org
82 PHOENIX

more to connect 'mind' with 'return'than he does by using the words

oe Litus c&ya%','intelligence led you out.' " He employs the same rather
insidious translationof TrLsas "intelligence" to make his point in the
chapter (4) on Nestor (85). He admits (72) that only in Od. 12.211 is v6o~
used in relation to the escape fromthe Cyclops's cave, but says "The
word v6oshas largelybeen replaced by a new vocabulary,by wordssuch
as 3ovX'and, in particular, iI-rts."But how can we knowthis?"Counsel,"
"plot," and "device" are perfectlynatural wordsto use in the context.
The shortchapter(5) on Achillesadds little.The factthat the v6osand
whichare unfulfilled(1. 23.149-50, 18.328 ff.)are the intentions
vonjiacra
ofcharactersotherthanthosewhose vb6aro are lostsurelyweakensFrame's
case.
Chapter 6, on evidence for the meaning of the Indo-European root
nes- again argues convincinglyfor"bring back to life and light" in the
case of the Vedic NAsatyd,but again the connectionwith "intelligence"
is tenuous.The factthat the epithetdasrA"miracle-working"is isofunc-
tional withthe name NAsatydis insufficient reason forsupposingthat the
name itselfimpliedintelligence.
But whetheror notone agreeswithFrame's arguments,his book makes
stimulatingreading.The chapterson Odysseus and Nestor furnishmuch
illuminatinginsightinto the Homeric passages discussed, and have a
value quite apart fromtheirimportanceto Frame's centralthesis.So too
does thecomparativestudyoftheNAsatyaand the Dioscuri in Chapter6.
The book is well produced,apart froma fewproblemswithGreek font.
A misleadingslip occurs on p. 82, note 2, whereFrame refersto Ventris
and Chadwick Documentsin Mycenaean Greek,2nd edition (Cambridge
1973), but cites the page numberfromthe 1st edition.The correctpage
is 562.
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH VICTOR J. MATTHEWS

LINGUISTIC AND STYLISTIC CHARACTERISATION: TRAGEDY AND MENAN-

DER. By A. G. KATSOURIS. Ioannina: Universityof Ioannina (Philo-
logical Periodical of the School of Philosophy,Dodone Supplement
5). 1975. Pp. 211.
IN AN IMPORTANTPAPER related to the theme of this book, ("Menander's
Manipulation of Language for Dramatic Purposes," EntretiensHardt
16 [1970] 113-136) Sandbach was led to comment"when we try to de-
scribe the language of Menander's characters,we are drawn into con-
sideringwhat they say as well as how they say it." When Katsouris, in
this adaptation of the second part of his doctoral dissertation,attempts
the even more difficulttask of tracingthe connectionbetweensuch lin-
 SHORT REVIEWS 83

guistic techniquesin Tragedy and Menander, his argumentsinevitably

sufferfromthis difficulty in separatinglexis fromdianoia.
With an odd reversalof timeand logic thepreliminarychapterpresents
modern theoriesabout the nature of this connection,beforesampling,
under the ostensiblyparallel heading "Ancient Theories," the views of
Aristotleand later criticson the widerissues of both dramatic and non-
dramatic language as a medium of characterization.This combination
of systematicand random materialgoes some way to explain the incon-
sequentialityof his approach, when he turnsto considerthe language of
character-portrayal in tragedy.
Since the two genresuse a different spectrumof vocabulary there is
little scope forcomparative lexical analysis, but Katsouris's discussion
of tragedy,as also of comedy,is assembled fromsuch disparate elements
as (1) characterizationby idie-fixe,the recurringwords or word-clusters
that reflecta role's preoccupations,(2) standard rhetoricaldevices such
as formalrepetitionor asyndeton,and (3) the structuraluse of phrases,
eitherin ring-composition or as resumptivetags linkingscene to scene.
At times(e;g., 43, 62) one is moved to ask "how else could thishave been
expressed,even in casual speech?" Here again Katsouris is handicapped
by his organization.He could have offeredan account of all relevantfea-
tures occurringin selected tragedies,or treated each featurein turn,
illustratingit fromseveral plays. Instead he scans all Greek tragedyin
fiftypages, so that despite shrewdindividualobservations(especiallyon
Euripides) the cumulativeeffectis unfocussedand trivial.
This effectof trivialitypersistswhensuch featuresare tracedto Menan-
drian and Roman comedy,and even in the last chapter,"Common Tech-
niques," whose fullerdiscussions are the most useful part of the book,
Katsouris sometimesmissesevidenceor failsto draw conclusionsfromhis
own material; the worstomissionariseson page 146 in treatingchangesin
the formof address, where he should not have omitted fromthe recog-
nitionscenes Menander's fullestexample,in Perikeiromene (cf. 718, 747,
770, 802, 824, forsuch changes in mode of address). At timesKatsouris's
desire to improveearlieranalysis only generatesconfusion,as in his clas-
sificationof Menander's paratragic writingby incompatiblecategories
based on tone and function(or indeed lack of function:see "x," page
155). Althoughhis collectionof instancesof self-addressin tragedyand
comedydeservesa betterdiscussion,it will be a usefulstarting-pointfor
others.A last section(164-181) reviewstheevidenceforechoes of tragedy
in Menander's mythologicalallusions, concludingjudiciously that few
instancesare reminiscencesof a specificplay.
The othermonographdrawnfromKatsouris's originalthesiswas useful
and stimulating(reviewedPhoenix32 [1978]345); if by contrastthis dis-
appoints,the cause is perhaps less Katsouris's own failureto presentthis
84 PHOENIX

part of his argumenteffectively than the recalcitranceofhis material-in

fact the absence of real continuityin stylistictechniques.There is some
persistenceof character-typology fromEuripides to Menander,and some
transmissionof sentimentsand situations,as Katsouris's firstmonograph
clearly established, but in purely "linguistic characterization"the few
affinitiesdo not warrantconsiderationin a workof this scale.
The English of thisvolumeis moreerraticthan that ofits stable-mate,
and a list of erratashould have been supplied.
TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO ELAINE FANTHAM

THE POEMS OF THEOCRITUS. Translated with Introductions by ANNA

RIST. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1978. Pp.
xii, 248. ($16)

ANNARIST has given us a thoroughlyengagingversion of Theocritus.

Her elegantlyproduced book will delightboth the classical scholar and
the generalreader. A usefulgeneral introductionis followedby transla-
tions of the genuineidylls,each preceded by a perceptiveinterpretative
essay. The epigrams,fragments,and poems of doubtfulauthenticityare
gatheredat the end of the book along witha select bibliographyof schol-
arship on the idylls since Gow's 1952 edition. Rist has gone far toward
makingTheocritusaccessible to the Greeklessreader.
The translationsare a sheer pleasure and by far the best currently
available. Dignified and resonant, they capture the tone, emphasis,
rhythm,and imagesoftheoriginalGreekwhilebeingeminentlyenjoyable
in theirown right.Two examples will suffice:
Sweet music, goatherd, the pine by the springyonder
makeswithits whispering:
sweet,too,yourfluting. (1. 1-2)

Compare Holden:
There'ssubtlemusicin thewhispers
of thatpine
downby thespring;yetyourpiping,goatherd,
rivalsit.
and Mills:
The whispering
ofthatpinetreeby thespring
is sweet music, goatherd, and your piping
is sweet too.

Only Rist manages to preserve Theocritus' placement of the repeated

key word "sweet," while producing a resonant internal rhyme in her