Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Previously published
DEFINING GREEK
NARRATIVE
Edited by
Douglas Cairns and
Ruth Scodel
© editorial matter and organisation Douglas Cairns and Ruth Scodel, 2014
© the chapters their several authors, 2014
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
Preface vii
Notes on Contributors ix
1 Introduction 1
Ruth Scodel
Bibliography 334
Index 371
PREFACE
The present volume is the seventh in a series deriving from the bien-
nial Edinburgh Leventis Conference in Greek. The conference and
the visiting research professorship with which it is associated are
generously funded by a grant from the A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Since 1999 this grant has given the Edinburgh Classics department
the enviable luxury of being able to invite, every two years, one of
the world’s leading Hellenists to spend a semester in Edinburgh. The
main event and principal public face of the Leventis Professor’s tenure
is of course the conference, devised and organised by the Professor
on a theme of his or her choice, but each Professor has also made a
very substantial contribution to the intellectual life of the department,
especially through public lectures and seminars for students and col-
leagues. The seventh A. G. Leventis Professor in Greek, Ruth Scodel
(D. R. Shackleton Bailey Collegiate Professor of Greek and Latin,
University of Michigan), was no exception: throughout her stay Ruth
played a full part in the department’s academic and social activities.
For her part, she is honoured to have served as the Leventis Professor,
and was impressed by the engagement of her students and endlessly
charmed by the city of Edinburgh.
The seventh Leventis conference, 27–30 October 2011, was entitled
‘What’s Greek about Ancient Greek Narrative?’ All of the chapters
included in this volume were presented at that conference. Sadly,
other commitments have meant that not all of those who gave papers
at the conference are represented in the current volume. We should
like to record our thanks to Stephen Halliwell, Simon Hornblower,
Nick Lowe, Damien Nelis, Patricia Rosenmeyer, Meyer Sternberg
and Tim Whitmarsh, not only for the fine papers that they presented
but also for the part they played in making the conference such
a stimulating and enjoyable event. The success of the conference
was also due in no small part to the hard work of Classics secre-
taries Jill Shaw and Amanda Campbell; to the staff of Edinburgh
x preface
INTRODUCTION
Ruth Scodel
Behind this volume lies the hope that we will someday achieve a
general view of the history of ancient Greek narrative (henceforth,
for simplicity, often ‘Greek narrative’) – that is, that we will be able
to present a meaningful narrative about how the practices of telling
stories developed within Greek literature, and that this history will
contribute to the understanding of both Greek literature and narrative
generally. Before anyone can write a history, however, the historian
needs to be certain that the field has been meaningfully defined, both
temporally and spatially. A narrative requires a beginning and an
end, and a historical narrative also requires a decision about what the
subject is. These decisions will determine much of the history itself,
and the choice of boundaries is difficult and ideologically weighted.
While the ideological implications of literary history are sometimes
less obvious than those of the histories of nations, they are very
real, and the boundary difficulties present themselves immediately.
Originality conveys literary value, and literary value can be important
for a nation’s symbolic capital: this volume began as a conference in
Edinburgh, with its monuments to Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott
nearby. There can be few cities where the significance of the cultural
and literary inheritance, and its interactions with power and national
identity, are so manifest.
Deconstruction made many academics abandon any belief in real
origins (‘toujours déjà’).1 Still, histories require them, and histories
matter: the United States, Australia and the UK have all seen bitter
controversies about the national history as represented in school
history curricula or in museums.2 The ideological significance of liter-
ary boundaries is especially heavy in Classics, since the field’s very
1 The expression appears twenty-five times in Derrida 1967 and became a catchword.
2 For the United States, see Ravitch 1998; for Australia, Macintyre and Clarke
2004.
2 ruth scodel
3 Porter 2008.
introduction 3
ual texts or genres would not lose all value, they would be interesting
only as they served interpretative goals.
The beginning of a history of Greek narrative is, from one point of
view, easy, since before Homer and Hesiod nothing is preserved. The
influence of Homer is so central in Greek literature that it can serve to
define the tradition: we can speak of ‘Greek narrative’ because the nar-
ratives composed in Greek from 700 bce to the end of antiquity all are,
directly or indirectly, descendants of the epic. However, the earliest
Greek narrative texts are obviously products of a long oral tradition.
Cook’s chapter on the Odyssey argues for a complex ring-structure.
Ring-composition is characteristic of oral poetry in many cultures, but
Cook argues that the way the Odyssey adapts narrative conventions to
control audience response is both distinctive and influential. Homeric
epic is equally obviously much influenced by the narratives of cultures
to the east, in Egypt, Anatolia and Mesopotamia. If Homeric narra-
tive, foundational in Greek, is not significantly different from ancient
narratives in Akkadian, Hittite or Hebrew, ‘Greek narrative’ may not
really be a useful category at all for the early period, and if it is not
meaningful at its origin, it may not be meaningful at all. Although
these narratives could all be significantly different from realistic
novels, and historical interpretation could still be culturally limited,
we would need to study all the ancient Mediterranean narratives as a
group. Three chapters in this volume argue that Greek epic, despite its
affiliations with other ancient narrative traditions, is distinct.
If there are features that appear more consistently within Greek
narratives of all periods than in other narrative traditions, or that
mark off particular forms of Greek narrative, or that develop within
the history of Greek literature, we have a valuable tool for studying
the boundaries – not in order to police them, deciding what deserves
to be considered Greek, but in order to understand the interactions
that take place at them. There are many narratives that survive in
the Greek language, whether the extant texts are translations or were
originally composed in Greek – most notably Jewish and Christian
narrative in Greek. With a clearer understanding of how Greeks told
stories, we will more clearly perceive in what ways these narratives are
or are not Greek.
‘Greek narrative’ can be a meaningful category even if individual
features are not unique. We are far from knowing the narratives
of the world well enough to make claims of uniqueness; more than
one participant in the conference was frustrated that so little schol-
arly work on Chinese narrative is available in western languages. It
may well emerge that features that appear in Greek, but not in, for
example, Egyptian texts, are not rare in classical Chinese. This could
4 ruth scodel
4 Lubbock 1921; Booth 1961. There is a good treatment of the history and geneal-
ogy in Phelan and Rabinowitz 2008; Herman 2008 (on pre-structuralist work);
Fludernik 2008 (structuralist and later). See also Nünning 2003.
5 Genette [1972] 1980; Bal 1985.
6 De Jong [1987a] 2004.
introduction 5
7 Bakker 2009.
8 De Jong et al. 2004; De Jong and Nünlist 2007; De Jong 2012.
9 Herman 1999 was an especially important volume; see also Alber and Fluernik
2010; Nünning 2000.
10 G. Olson 2011.
11 Grethlein and Rengakos 2009.
12 De Jong 2009.
6 ruth scodel
is no doubt where his centre of interest lies. De Jong traces the ‘anony-
mous traveller’ who filters the description of a place as a specific device
that has its beginnings in Greek and develops through the novel. The
chapter operates within the definitions of classical narratology, since it
distinguishes the third-person anonymous observer from the general-
ised ‘you’ who can serve a similar function. However, its subject is not
universal. There may occasionally be similar anonymous observers in
non-western literatures, but the device seems to have its origin in the
literature of travel (Herodotus) and to have the history it has in part
because travel literature sustains it (a search for the phrase ‘the travel-
ler who visits . . .’ gets 77,900 Google hits).
One group of chapters is directly comparative; these are not tracing
change in time, but using similarity and difference to define what is
typically Greek. Three chapters address some of the earliest Greek
narratives and their closest parallels in the Near East. Kelly looks at
battle narratives and shows how different Greek epic is from ancient
Near Eastern battle narratives. Both Scodel and Haubold turn to
Auerbach’s famous comparison of Homeric and Biblical narrative.
Scodel argues that Homeric narrative, although it does not use the
Hebrew Bible’s technique of leaving profound and radical gaps, often
leaves its audience uncertain about exactly what characters are think-
ing. Because the narrative shows the characters’ efforts to understand
each other, and encourages the audience to consider the perspectives
of minor characters, Homeric narrative regularly gives the impression
that its characters are at once known and opaque. Haubold looks
at Homer and Gilgamesh. He points to those moments at which the
apparently smooth surface of Homeric narrative is disturbed: Priam is
first called θεοειδής in Iliad 24, when he is experiencing an extreme of
human suffering. These chapters also direct attention to other aspects
of the volume: Haubold comments on Homer’s self-awareness. The
poems already reveal anxiety about their claim to present a transpar-
ent window on the past; self-reflexiveness about narrative is central to
the Greek tradition.
Morrison compares in a very different way, looking at the modern
epistolary novel and ancient collections of fictitious letters. Ancient
and modern epistolary fictions share features that make them worth
comparing – both are intensely interested in the motivations and psy-
chology of the letter-writers. The differences are also striking, however.
Modern epistolary novels often include non-epistolary material and
an ‘editor’. Ancient epistolary works do not, even though the ‘found
document’ was a device for other ancient fictions. The ancient collec-
tions are relatively short, are often not chronologically arranged, and
tend to feature famous historical figures. They do not seek to tell a
8 ruth scodel
full story as modern novels do, in part, surely, because they have close
affiliations with ancient rhetorical training. So the contrast points to a
characteristic of at least one genre of Greek narrative.
Some essays, though not explicitly comparative, also concentrate
on such particular, salient characteristics of Greek narrative itself
or of one of its genres. Athanassaki, for example, looks at how new
narrative material is generated. By examining a particular group of
Pindaric odes for a single family, the Sicilian Emmenids, she shows
how the needs of each occasion interact with the narrative work that
the poet has already performed in earlier compositions. In Pythian 8,
the poet imagines a victory procession at Delphi, site of the victory,
and the east frieze of the Siphnian treasury, showing the killing of
Memnon, provides the inspiration for the song’s myth. This song
defines both Achilles and Antilochus, son of Nestor, as exempla of
filial piety. The narrative of Olympian 2 is the product both of its
unique occasion and of the connections Pindar has already made. In
Isthmian 2, in contrast, there is no mythic narrative, but the chariot-
eer, exceptionally, becomes a narrative subject, perhaps because he
commissioned the poem. Even if other narrative traditions similarly
create new story-elements or new connections among stories under the
pressure of occasionality, this is certainly a typical feature of Greek
narrative. Cairns considers the ‘principle of alternation’ – the belief
asserted in many Greek texts that no human life is without vicissitude.
Similar ideas appear in many cultures, and this chapter also has a
strong comparative side. Greeks have no monopoly on the aware-
ness of mutability. The exemplary function of much Greek narrative,
though, gives the principle some of its peculiar force in Greek texts.
Occasionality and exemplary function are distinct but closely associ-
ated features of much Greek narrative – much Greek storytelling has
a direct rhetorical purpose that determines both what the discourse
selects or invents as ‘story’ from the available material and how it
will be handled. Purves moves in an utterly different direction, study-
ing Sappho’s refusal of narrative. Sappho 1 presents an inversion of
Homeric narrative convention. In epic, the poet asks the Muse who
was responsible for a significant heroic action. In Sappho, the speaker,
asking Aphrodite for her help with her present love, narrates how the
goddess visited her in the past, when Aphrodite asked Sappho who
her beloved was. The audience does not learn who Sappho’s previous
beloved was, or who it is now; Sappho’s poetry is marked by unsatis-
fying deictics that prime an audience’s expectations of narrative and
frustrate them. In some ways, Athanassaki’s Pindar and Purves’s
Sappho represent opposite ends on a spectrum of narrative possibil-
ity. Pindar, although he tells subjects from the shared Greek mythical
introduction 9
past, attaches them to particular events and places, and to his own
earlier narratives. Sappho, even when narrating personal experience,
universalises. Sappho’s particular effects are possible because the
wider Greek narrative tradition is much less oblique; if her practices
were common, they would not work as well.
Hau looks at Greek historiography as a distinct tradition. There are
general characteristics of the major monuments of Greek historiogra-
phy, such as the alternation between narrative by an impersonal nar-
rator and argumentative passages. The tradition has general features,
such as its interest in causality. Most striking, perhaps, are the stock
situations that occupy so much historical narrative. Only when we
consider what Greek historians ignore is it clear how much the specific
literary tradition governs the stock situations.
Easterling considers the particular nature of narrative in tragedy.
Structuralist narratology generated productive work on messenger
speeches, as well as some narratological studies of tragedy itself.16 Yet
here, again, when we move beyond the questions of classical narratol-
ogy, the thinking about tragic narrative points to some important
characteristics of tragedy that are all too easy to forget. First, tragedy
is highly compressed. Along with the ‘here’ of the visible stage and
orchestra, tragedies summon the invisible space behind the stage
façade, and along with the ‘now’ of the action they evoke both past
and future. Most interesting, as a narrative development specific to the
genre, is the evidence that the protagonist often delivered messenger
narratives. This is particularly striking in tragedies where a messenger
quotes direct speech, a technique that emphasises the fundamental
multiplicity of the form. This invites further reflection, especially
because the audience witnesses stage action and, in drama, narrative
(and the responses of other characters to it) is itself action.17
Finally, Nünlist and Hunter both look at one of the most dis-
tinctive features in the history of Greek narrative – that, strikingly
self-conscious from Homer onward (a point Haubold also makes),
it produces a critical discourse. While Nünlist looks at the ancient
scholia for their underlying assumptions about how narrative should
be structured, Hunter considers the long tradition in Greek narrative
of making the choice of beginning highly salient. Of course such self-
consciousness is far from unique; it is a defining trait of modernist and
postmodernist fiction. Indeed, because the assumptions and devices of
Johannes Haubold
INTRODUCTION
One of the most ambitious attempts to define ancient Greek narra-
tive, and one of the most influential to date, is Erich Auerbach’s book
Mimesis. In the famous opening chapter, written in Istanbul in 1942,
Auerbach argues that Homeric narrative is all surface and illuminated
detail, whereas the Hebrew Bible is elliptic, deep and demanding of
its reader.1 To this day, Mimesis informs what modern readers see as
characteristic of Homeric narrative,2 and of classical Greek literature
more generally: for that reason alone, it seems important to revisit it
in this volume. I would like to take the opportunity to consider how
well Auerbach’s work has stood the test of time; and to reflect on what
it can tell us about the nature of this collection: what does it mean to
define Greek narrative? I begin by looking at how Auerbach’s vision
of Homeric narrative emerges from what he himself called ‘the par-
ticular situation’ in which he conceived it. I then sketch out what I see
as the circumstances in which, some sixty-five years after Auerbach,
we find ourselves engaged in a similar set of questions.
3 Auerbach 1953: 4.
4 Auerbach 1953: 5.
5 Auerbach 1953: 7.
6 Parry 1971; cf. Arend 1933; Van Otterlo 1944.
7 Auerbach 1953: 5.
8 E. Said 2003: xxviii–xxix.
beyond auerbach: homeric narrative and gilgamesh 15
12 Gossmann 1994.
13 Leonard 2012.
14 E.g. Bakker 1999: 14; Clay 2011b: 33–4.
beyond auerbach: homeric narrative and gilgamesh 17
Fencing off the western canon and making sure ‘nothing wild gets in’
seems to me to be an accurate description of much current work on
Homer. Unlike Pratt I am not convinced that the answer can be simply
to take down the fences and let the foxes into the henhouse: Homerists
in particular will do well to acknowledge their investment in a tradition
of reading that stretches back over 2,500 years. But the challenge, in the
twenty-first century, must surely be to extend our range as readers, and
in so doing to explore ‘new forms of cultural citizenship’.22 In pursuit of
this goal, I sketch a comparative reading of Homer which takes its cue
from Auerbach but looks beyond the western literary canon.
clay pits of Gilgamesh’s home town. But soon we are led downward,
to where the text itself awaits us in its cedar box. We must find it, then
open the lid of its secret, then read (SB Gilg. I.19–28 (George)). As
we pass into the subterranean world of this text, the question arises
of how the adventures of Gilgamesh relate to what we see around us.
Appearances are rarely self-explanatory or straightforward in this
text. Just as the reader must look beneath the surfaces, so do the char-
acters within it. Gilgamesh himself is a good example: after the death
of Enkidu, he goes in search of his ancestor Utanapishti, who alone of
all humans survived the deluge. This is a special man and it ought to
show. However, when they finally meet, Gilgamesh is puzzled by what
he sees (SB Gilg. XI.1–4 (George)):
d
GIŠ-gím-maš a-na šá-šu-ma izakkara(mu)ra a-na mUD-
napišti(zi) ru-ú-qí
a-na-aṭ-ṭa-la-kúm-ma mUD-napišti(zi)
mi-na-tu-ka ul šá-na-a ki-i ia-ti-ma at-ta
ù at-ta ul šá-na-ta ki-i ia-ti-ma at-ta
m
UD-napišti(zi)tim ana ru-qí i-na-aṭ-ṭa-l[a-áš-šu(m)-ma]
uš-tam-ma-a ana lìb-bi-šú a-ma-ta i-[qab-bi]
it-ti ra-ma-ni-šu-ma šu-ú i[m-tal-lik]
[. . .]
a-na-aṭ-ṭa-lam-ma ul ia-[ú amēlu]
a-na-aṭ-ṭa-lam-ma u[l . . .]
a-na-aṭ-ṭa-lam-ma [. . .]
them like an arrow’ (X.96); ‘death rained down on them like a mist’
(V.136). The effect here is suggestive rather than vivid, in a manner
that I have argued is characteristic of Gilgamesh more generally.
I have written of the complexities of the gaze in Gilgamesh and the
‘deep vision’ it requires of its readers. Homeric narrative too has its
complexities, but these are of a different order. Here is an ancient com-
mentator on Iliad 6 (Schol. bT on Il. 6.467):
26 Grand vistas: Purves 2010: ch. 1; Clay 2011b. Wounds: J. Tatum 2003.
24 johannes haubold
BEYOND AUERBACH
Having started from Auerbach’s Gegenüberstellung, I have arrived
at conclusions that in some ways look familiar: yet again, Homeric
poetry emerges as fully illuminated, blindingly of the present; whereas
the Epic of Gilgamesh, by contrast, was seen to foster a ‘deep vision’ of
reality, challenging us to probe further than might be comfortable or
enjoyable. Much of this recalls the findings of Mimesis. But there are
differences too. At a general level, there seems to be no reason to call
the Homeric approach superficial. Consider the famous passage which
introduces the Iliadic catalogue of ships (Il. 2.484–93):
ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι –
ὑμεῖς γὰρ θεαί ἐστε πάρεστέ τε ἴστε τε πάντα, 485
ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν –
οἵ τινες ἡγεμόνες Δαναῶν καὶ κοίρανοι ἦσαν.
πληθὺν δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω,
οὐδ’ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ’ εἶεν,
φωνὴ δ’ ἄρρηκτος, χάλκεον δέ μοι ἦτορ ἐνείη, 490
εἰ μὴ Ὀλυμπιάδες Μοῦσαι, Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο
θυγατέρες, μνησαίαθ’ ὅσοι ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθον.
ἀρχοὺς αὖ νηῶν ἐρέω νῆάς τε προπάσας
Tell me now, you Muses who have your homes on Olympos –
for you are goddesses, are present, and know all things, 485
but we hear only the kleos, and know nothing –
who were the leaders and commanders of the Danaans.
I could not tell the masses nor name them,
not even if I had ten tongues and ten mouths,
a voice that cannot break, and a heart of bronze inside me, 490
unless the Muses of Olympos, daughters of aegis-bearing
Zeus, remembered all of those who came to Ilios;
but now I will tell the leaders of the ships, and all the ships there
were.
27 Bakker 1997.
beyond auerbach: homeric narrative and gilgamesh 25
The Muse loved him greatly, and gave him both good and evil:
she took his eyesight but gave him sweet song.
Tall Priam came in unseen by the others and stood close beside
him
and caught the knees of Achilles in his hands, and kissed the
hands
that were dreadful and manslaughtering and had killed so many
of his sons.
As when dense disaster takes hold of a man who has murdered
Priam has come to Achilles’ tent to beg for Hector’s dead body. After
slipping in unseen, he suddenly appears before the man who killed his
son. A poignant reverse simile captures some of the complexities of
the situation: if anybody is rich it is Priam; and if anybody is a killer, it
ought to be Achilles.32 The obvious mismatch between the simile and
the situation it describes leads on to a challenging visual encounter. As
Achilles and his men marvel at Priam, outward appearance is empha-
sised: Achilles ‘wondered as he looked at godlike Priam’; ‘and the
rest of them wondered also, and looked at each other’. The language
of θάμβος is suggestive of epiphany, a characteristic feature, I have
argued, of traditional narratives inspired by the Muses (24.482–3; cf.
LfgrE s.vv. θάμβος, θαμβέω). However, what is at issue here is not
the easy illumination which for Auerbach becomes the hallmark of
Homeric narrative: Priam’s presence amazes but also puzzles those
around him – how could he possibly be here? Slightly later, Achilles
will ask that very question (Il. 24.519), and will take it as the starting
point for an extended reflection on what it is to be human. What we
see here is not a narrative surface without depth or moral significance,
but a poet in search of the elusive humanity that unites even Achilles
and Priam.
CONCLUSION
Auerbach was right: the Homer who emerges from my discussion is
still a master of immediacy. Conversely, and rather like Auerbach’s
Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh challenges us to probe beyond the
surfaces of the perceptible world. Two very different approaches,
then, each articulated in a distinctive voice: didactic, even cajoling,
in Gilgamesh; seductive in Homer. These differences, I have argued,
are aesthetically meaningful rather than merely betraying different
mentalities: Gilgamesh configures the relationship between reality and
representation as oblique and challenging whereas Homer invites us
to acquiesce in the epiphanic powers of the Muse. But Homeric repre-
sentation too reveals hidden depths, and more generally, the different
aesthetic choices which I have described do not preclude convergences
at a deeper level: both Homer and Gilgamesh use their poetic resources
to reflect on the human condition; and both insist that what makes us
human cannot be read off the surface of things.
I argued at the beginning of this chapter that what is characteristic
about Greek narrative can only emerge from comparisons that are
meaningful in a specific cultural and historical context. It makes sense
that Auerbach, writing in exile from Nazi Germany, should have
juxtaposed Homer and the Bible; and that he should have found them
to be strictly incompatible. I have argued that it makes equal sense
for us today to compare Homer with Gilgamesh; and to discover that,
for all the differences between them, they do in fact share some key
concerns. Yet even while allowing for shared concerns, and perhaps
especially then, we must respect the poetic fabric of the texts we read.
Auerbach’s example, it seems to me, can be helpful here: despite his
profound commitment to rehabilitating the Hebrew Bible – and his
equally profound misgivings about the Homer of Schiller and Goethe
– he insisted on approaching both as a close reader. At a time when
many classicists find themselves caught between their philological
commitment to Greek literature and their political commitment to
opening up the canon of western literature, applying the skills of com-
mitted and close reading across the texts we consider and compare
– which is what Auerbach did – seems crucial.
3
Adrian Kelly
I should like to thank Bill Allan, Sophie Gibson, Chris Minkwoski, Richard
Rutherford and Christopher Metcalf for their help with this chapter and its
material; Douglas Cairns, Ruth Scodel and the School of History, Classics and
Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh for arranging this volume and the
conference at which it was presented; and Peter Kruschwitz, Ian Rutherford and
the Department of Classics at the University of Reading for a first, and very gener-
ous, hearing. I apologise to all specialists in ancient Near Eastern studies for using
English translations of their primary sources.
1 For bibliography on the orientalist revolution, see Rollinger 1996: 156–9, 2004:
369–6, 2011 or 2012.
2 Osborne 1993: 232.
3 Morris 1997: 623.
30 adrian kelly
4 The term is owed to Sandmel 1962: 1: ‘that extravagance among scholars which
first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe
source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or
predetermined direction’.
5 For the conceptual dichotomy in practice, see Taylor 2007.
6 Cf. MacDonald 2000: 8–9 for a very rigorous method for identifying textual
interaction.
7 The former has recently been revived, not uncoincidentally, by M. L. West 2011;
for the latter, see most recently the papers in Montanari et al. 2012.
8 Cf. esp. Haubold 2002 and 2006, and I. Rutherford 2009 for an excellent discus-
sion of the dynamic between Hesiodic poetry and ANE traditions. For a broader
critique of the models of cultural contact in vogue amongst classicists, cf. Hall
2004.
9 Cf., e.g., Louden 2011 for a particularly egregious example, while B. Currie 2012
even argues for a Homer who bears more than a passing resemblance to T. S.
Eliot, alluding not only to the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also to the way that this
composition alludes to much earlier Sumerian narratives! ANE specialists are
very wary of this type of intertextuality (cf., e.g., Westenholz 2010: 30), and more
generally of the way classicists use their material; cf. esp. George 2003: 55–7 and
Haubold 2006.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 31
(2) The LORD said to Gideon, ‘The troops with you are too
many for me to give the Midianites into their hand. Israel would
only take the credit away from me, saying “My own hand has
delivered me.” (3) Now therefore proclaim this in the hearing
of the troops, “Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return
home.” ’ Thus Gideon sifted them out; twenty-two thousand
returned, and ten thousand remained.
14 For a recent summary of approaches and bibliography, cf. Latacz 2003: 29–30,
40–1, adding Sehnert-Siebel 1994 and Cook 2003.
15 M. L. West 1997: 207–8. M. L. West 2011: 100–8 posits an Analytical solution,
suggesting that the whole of 2.50–441 was an insertion, by the same poet, into his
original version, in which Thersites urged the army to leave: the test is thus an
‘afterthought’ (p. 103). Much of West’s argument depends on the ‘paradoxical’
nature of the test, for which see below.
16 The Hebrew Bible is quoted here and throughout from the New Standard Revised
Version.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 33
He was not, however, the first to note the similarity with the Iliadic
passage: Ronald Knox and Joseph Russo go even further, linking
the Diapeira not only with the test from Judges but also the various
prescriptions on warfare in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy
(specifically 20.8):17
course, that a Greek poet came across the theme and realised that it
was shamefully underexploited. Nonetheless, if West and others are
right that the test is misused or misunderstood in the Iliad and that this
is a sign of its derivation from the Hebrew narrative, then the Greek
poet must have been so powerfully struck by the original version in
Judges as to use it without complete harmonisation or recomposition
in the Iliad (on which more later). The interaction must be possible, of
course, but – given the scale and relative unimportance of the Hebrew
passage – is it likely?
This doubt applies even if we confront Knox and Russo’s belief
that such a method was a ‘rule’ widely used all over the ancient world.
Their evidence in this regard – Deuteronomy 20.8 (quoted above) – is
problematic: in Judges, Yahweh brings about the test ‘not in order
to reduce the fear in others’ (as in Deuteronomy), but just in order
to reduce the size of the army and thus increase his own glory. His
purpose there certainly has nothing to do with Deuteronomy’s sound
military reasoning. Can, then, these two very different passages
amount to anything like a rule?20 Moreover, even if we do assume
that a ‘discouragement test’ designed to elucidate an army’s negative
response was a widespread general custom in the ancient world (on
which more below), we have much less warrant to think in narrow
stemmatological terms: not only could such a custom could arise
independently in several places, so that its presence in any two of those
places need not be directly linked,21 but any process of transfer need
not depend upon its textual manifestations alone.22
But what if this is a case of indirect interaction of some sort,
that is, it is not this specific example of the motif in Judges (or even
Deuteronomy) but another example, perhaps in an oral version, with
which a Greek – not even necessarily a poet – became familiar at
any point from the ninth century onwards, or perhaps even earlier?
20 Furthermore, there is some suspicion that Deut. 20.8 is a late addition to the text,
perhaps modelled on the very passage from Judges; cf. Rofé 2002: 162 and n. 48.
21 Richard Rutherford reminds me aptly of the magnificent St Crispin’s Day speech
in Henry V (Act IV Sc. 3): ‘Rather proclaim it presently through my host / that he
which hath no stomach to this fight, / let him depart. His passport shall be made
/ and crowns for convoy put into his purse. / We would not die in that man’s
company / that fears his fellowship to die with us.’ Shakespeare may well have
come across the passage in Judges, but is anyone prepared to argue that Henry’s
speech owes anything to it?
22 R. Knox and Russo 1989: 352 also argue that this is a rule on the Greek side of the
equation because Agamemnon labels it θέμις (2.73). Yet such claims in Homeric
epic are exercises in self-justification in a particular context, and not mere recita-
tions of legislative fact: cf., e.g., Il. 9.33, 16.796, 23.44 and 24.652, next to more
clearly customary usages as 9.134 = 276, 11.779, 14.386, 19.177; cf. Scodel 1998b:
49–50.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 35
Though Serge Frolov and Allen Wright have recently cast great doubt
on the frequency and depth of contacts between Greeks and Jews
during this period,23 let us allow the hypothesis, since it is certainly
more likely than a direct interaction thesis. Once more, however, we
are immediately faced with the problem that the motif of the ‘discour-
agement test’ is found only in these two places in the Hebrew Bible
and nowhere else – as far as I know – in ANE literatures. We cannot,
therefore, follow Knox and Russo in their claim that it was a typical
motif in several traditions, and that it was in this form that the motif
became known to Greek audiences or poets vel sim. If there were
heroic traditions informing later representations of Israelite heroes
and kings, as Susan Niditch has argued,24 then the ‘discouragement
test’ does not seem to have been a particularly prominent part of those
stories, for it has left very little trace.
But there are, of course, many prior questions. In leaping straight
to wondering about how precisely Homer (or someone) came into
contact with the motif we find in Judges and Deuteronomy, it might
seem that we’ve conceded the parallel status of the episodes and
undertaken the burden of sundering them. Instead, let’s approach the
issue, as we should, from the other direction: are they actually ‘real’
parallels or, in other words, how many differences do we need before
we start doubting the validity of the equation in the first place?
The general similarity in context and progression is clear: a leader,
with backing from his supreme deity, tests the courage of his army.
Yet there are also several important departures, and the first three lie
in the role of the respective deities: first, Yahweh demands this test in
Judges, while Zeus doesn’t mention it in the Iliad; second, Yahweh
wants his side to win immediately and for him to get all the credit,
while Zeus wants the Greeks to lose, at least temporarily, in fulfilment
of his promise to Thetis; third, Yahweh explicitly wants the army
reduced in size,25 while Agamemnon definitely does not. Finally, of
course, the consequence is also different: whilst Gideon is left with a
harder core of supporters for even further reduction in another, sepa-
rate test (Judges 7.4–8), the entire Greek army eventually returns to
the fight with its enthusiasm strengthened.
Indeed, given these differences, perhaps we should examine more
closely the initial stimulus for the parallel – the apparently problem-
atic or defective nature of the Iliadic episode. Though the Diapeira
28 Cf. 2.71–4 (Agamemnon to the basileis about the army): πρῶτα δ’ ἐγὼν ἔπεσιν
πειρήσομαι, ἣ θέμις ἐστί, | καὶ φεύγειν σὺν νηυσὶ πολυκλήϊσι κελεύσω· | ὑμεῖς δ’
ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος ἐρητύειν ἐπέεσσιν; 4.5–6 (Zeus to Hera): αὐτίκ’ ἐπειρᾶτο Κρονίδης
ἐρεθιζέμεν Ἥρην | κερτομίοις ἐπέεσσι παραβλήδην ἀγορεύων; Od. 24.239–40
(Odysseus to Laertes): ὧδε δέ οἱ φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι, | πρῶτον
κερτομίοισ’ ἔπεσιν διαπειρηθῆναι. These three examples are used as our principal
cases, once more, because they are particularly clear and prominent, but cf. also
Il. 8.8–9 (Zeus to the other gods): μήτέ τις οὖν θήλεια θεὸς τό γε μήτέ τις ἄρσην |
πειράτω διακέρσαι ἐμὸν ἔπος; 9.344–5 (Achilles to the ambassadors): νῦν δ’ ἐπεὶ ἐκ
χειρῶν γέρας εἵλετο καί μ’ ἀπάτησε | μή μευ πειράτω εὖ εἰδότος· οὐδέ με πείσει; Od.
9.281 (Odysseus narrating Polyphemus’ trick): ὣς φάτο πειράζων, ἐμὲ δ’ οὐ λάθεν
εἰδότα πολλά; Od. 15.304–6 (Odysseus among his servants in Eumaius’ hut): τοῖς δ’
Ὀδυσεὺς μετέειπε, συβώτεω πειρητίζων, | ἤ μιν ἔτ’ ἐνδυκέως φιλέοι μεῖναί τε κελεύοι
| αὐτοῦ ἐνὶ σταθμῷ ἦ ὀτρύνειε πόλινδε·; Od. 19.215 (Penelope to the ‘stranger’):
38 adrian kelly
(footnote 28 continued)
ἐξαῦτίς μιν ἔπεσσιν ἀμειβομένη προσέειπε· | νῦν μὲν δή σευ ξεῖνέ γ’ ὀΐω πειρήσεσθαι
κτλ.; cf. also Latacz 2003: ad 2.73, 30.
29 R. Knox and Russo 1989: 352 mention this parallel for the Diapeira, but dismiss
it as ‘a peculiar and intimate expression of Odysseus’ character’ opposed to
Agamemnon’s ‘rule’ (on which error, cf. above, n. 22). I suggest that the psycho-
logical subtlety seen in Homer’s depiction of Odysseus’ character should not be
precluded from his construction of Agamemnon.
30 As he generally does for the male members of his household. For recent discussion
with further bibliography, cf. Kelly 2012: 10. Revelation and recognition in the
Odyssey are always a matter of contest, and Odysseus ‘defeats’ his father in their
encounter.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 39
31 Cook 2003.
32 It must, however, be signficant that it is only Odysseus of the other princes who
eventually – after Athena’s intervention – steps in to stop the retreat. M. L. West
2011: 103 takes this as grounds for thinking the Diapeira an intrusion into an
earlier version (cf. above, n. 15) because it adumbrates the unfulfilled involvement
of others, but their failure to get involved is surely deliberate, and an important
index of Agamemnon’s rather troubled authority within the camp, not a hint of
an earlier layer of composition which has been inadequately concealed; cf. also
below, n. 34.
33 In any case, we have indeed reached a very strange pass if we think that Homer
was only able to reproduce the precisely paralleled elements in his poetic inherit-
ance, and never to recombine them in new ways. Homeric individuality should not
be cast aside so lightly.
34 Within his theory of a broader interpolation (cf. above, nn. 15 and 32), M. L.
West 2011: 103 writes that the proposal is ‘paradoxical’ because, first, ‘it is ignored
in Nestor’s speech and in much of the later narrative’. However, why must it be
mentioned in Nestor’s speech (and cf. now Nünlist 2012 on Nestor’s many tactful
silences; for him (153) ‘this is a deliberate omission on Nestor’s part’), and how
many mentions does it need? Odysseus, after all, does explicitly refer to it when
40 adrian kelly
(footnote 34 continued)
rebuking the chieftains at 2.192–4 (οὐ γάρ πω σάφα οἶσθ’ οἷος νόος Ἀτρεΐωνος· |
νῦν μὲν πειρᾶται, τάχα δ’ ἴψεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν | ἐν βουλῇ δ’ οὐ πάντες ἀκούσαμεν οἷον
ἔειπεν) and it is clear that Agamemnon has miscalculated (cf. Odysseus’ tactful
reference to it at 2.252–3: οὐδέ τί πω σάφα ἴδμεν ὅπως ἔσται τάδε ἔργα, | ἢ εὖ ἦε
κακῶς νοστήσομεν υἷες Ἀχαιῶν). Second, according to West, ‘it is never explained
to the army that they were being tested’. Again, why should we expect it to be so
explained? The army is never given a clear view into the decision-making processes
of their leaders, as Odysseus explains to his several addressees in this very episode
(2.200–6, 246–7 etc.).
35 I am particularly indebted to Christopher Metcalf for help with this material.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 41
36 On the vexed question of genre in the ANE, cf. Hallo [1975] 2010a: 57–84;
Westenholz 1997: 17–24; Holm 2007; Sasson 2005, esp. 218–20; cf. also the indi-
vidual essays by Michalowski, Westenholz, Gilan and Niditch in Konstan and
Raaflaub 2010.
37 There is simply not the space here to treat visual traditions, though I have not
come across a single example that either depicts the ‘enemy’ triumphing over the
home team, or suggests that anything more than victory was important.
38 This is clear, above all, in the highly traditional and stylised manner of battle scene
composition, on which several scholars have written in great depth; cf. Albracht
[1886–95] 2005; Fenik 1968; M. Mueller 2009: 76–101.
42 adrian kelly
Table 3.1 The first (A) and fourth (A2) days of battle
1. Daylight preparation
• A: Assemblies and catalogues
• A2: Assembly and arming scene (Achilles)
2. Delayed joining (narration) of battle
• A: Duel between Menelaus and Paris, and its consequences (3.15–4.445)
• A2: Preparation for the theomachia (20.4–75)
3. Single figure drives the narrative (A: Diomedes | A2: Achilles)
4. Single figure aided by Athena (A: against Aeneas and Pandarus | A2: against
Hector)
5. Single figure fights deities (A: Aphrodite/Ares | A2: Scamander)
6. Single figure almost fights Apollo protecting a Trojan (A: Aeneas | A2: Agenor)
7. Deities fight one another (A: Athena/Ares | A2: theomachia)
8. Successful duel with Hector closes the battle (A: Ajax versus Hector | A2: Achilles
versus Hector)
9. Closed by two-day funeral scenes (Greek and Trojan dead | Patroclus)
• A: Gathering and burning of corpses (7.381–432)
• A: Construction of the wall (7.433–482)
• A2: Mourning and burning Patroclus (23.109–225)
• A2: Deposition and funeral games (23.226–57/257f.)
introducing its major actions and general plight, but with significant
differences on the third which help to underline, once more, how the
plot progresses towards its goal. Indeed, the entire poem seems to be
structured around this alternation.
Battle narrative does not seem to have been used in this way, or to
have played this role, in the varied literary traditions of the ANE.39
Standard surveys of military tactics and strategy across and within
those traditions constantly note the lack of detail about the actual
engagements.40 As a first example, consider the Hebrew Bible, where
fighting tends to be dealt with very swiftly, frequently without any or
39 That this is true across such a breadth of contiguous cultures, over such a period of
time, makes the exceptionalism of Homer and the Greek epic tradition seem all the
more pronounced in the Mediterannean and Mesopotamian context; cf. below, n.
72, for brief speculation as to its origin.
40 Cf., e.g., Yadin 1963; Younger 1990; Hamblin 2006. For statements concentrat-
ing on individual traditions, cf., e.g., Younger 1990: 89 on the Assyrians: ‘actual
combat . . . is infrequent’ and 124: ‘actual combat . . . is normally passed over’;
Gilan 2010: 60 on the Hittites: ‘our survey of the material suggests that the
ancient authors and their audiences found no delight whatsoever in juicy, bloody
depictions of “heroic” military actions and battle scenes . . . Interestingly, Hittite
historiography too . . . lacks battle scenes . . . depictions of the military actions
themselves are rare and scanty’; Janzen 1972: 162 on the Hebrew: ‘Israel did not
glorify death in war. There are no cenotaphs in the Old Testament. Strangely
absent are also the hero stories that fill the Homeric epics, or the tendentious
accounts of successful campaigns that fill the monuments of Egyptian and
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 43
Table 3.2 The second (B) and third (B2) days of battle
1. Zeus on Mt Ida isolated from other gods (B: 8.41–52 | B2: 11.78–83, 181–4)
2. Initial Greek success followed by Trojan gains
3. Teucer and Telamonian Ajax fight as a pair until counteraction from Hector
• B: Against Hector (8.266–334); Teucer wounded by Hector (322–34), who
attacks (335f.)
• B2: Against (a) Sarpedon (12.370–436)/Hector attacks (437f.)
• B2: Against (b) Hector (15.442–83); Teucer’s bowstring broken by Zeus
(15.463–5) and Hector attacks (484f.)
4. Diomedes faces down Hector, prevented from following up
• B: Thunderbolts from Zeus (8.117–29/130ff.)
• B2: Wounded by Paris (11.349–68/369ff.)
5. Hera joins forces with another deity to counteract Trojan success – unsuccessfully
• B: With Athena (8.350–96)
• B2: With Hypnos (and Poseidon) (14.153–361)
6. Zeus openly threatens recalcitrant pair
• B: Athena and Hera – delivered by Iris (8.461–84)
• B2: Hera – delivered by Zeus himself (15.13–78); Poseidon – by Iris
(15.157–219)
7. Hector worsted by major Greek hero in battle
• B: Diomedes (8.116–29)
• B2: Diomedes (11.310–60) and Telamonian Ajax (14.402–32)
8. Paris wounds important Greek with a bow
• B: Nestor(’s horse) (8.81–2)
• B2: Diomedes (11.369–78), Machaon (11.505–7) and Eurypylus (11.581–4)
9. Play ends with Trojans on plain, in assembly led by Hector (B: 8.489–542 | B2:
18.243–313)
• B: Hector only speaker (8.493–541)
• B2: Polydamas speaks first and suggests retreat, Hector contradicts
(18.284–313)
Assyrian monarchs’; cf. also Crouch 2009: 76. For a recent introduction to the
study of ANE warfare (excluding Egypt), cf. S. F. C. Richardson 2011.
41 This has not prevented scholars from making claims about a direct relationship
between the Homeric and the Hebrew traditions on this point; cf., e.g., Gordon
1967; de Vaux 1972; Niditch 1993: 104–5; Hamblin 2006. Frolov and Wright 2011
sunder the Homeric link in favour of older ANE traditions, and Taylor 2007:
24–7 looks to the later books of the Hebrew Bible for evidence of the influence of
Homeric battle narrative. For more general studies of battle in the Hebrew Bible,
cf. esp. Niditch 1993; Berman 2004; Crouch 2009: 65–118, 156–90.
42 Cf. 11.11 (first battle): ‘The next day Saul put the people in three companies. At
the morning watch they came into the camp and cut down the Ammonites until
44 adrian kelly
interest lies in what happens before or after battle: the skirmish which
begins the third battle, a victorious encounter with the Philistines
(14.1–15), focuses much more on Jonathan’s ruse than the actual
contact; when Saul destroys the Amalekites in his fourth battle (15),
far more time is spent on the issue of what happens to the cattle and
sheep, and the initial sparing of their King Agag, than what actually
happened on the field of battle or, rather, how it had happened; even
Saul’s sixth and final battle is over before the author decides to give
any details, in this case his suicide (31). Here, and generally in this
portion of the Hebrew Bible, the concern of the author is with other
things. The snippets of battle serve a wider purpose, to set the success
and failure of Israel in a causational and historical relationship with
the divine, while Joshua Berman has recently shown that the battles
tend to follow non-battle narratives to exemplify their lessons or
morals.43 Narrative sophistication is not at stake here, of course,
merely narrative scale and interest.
Brevity is indeed the watchword generally in ANE representations
of battle, and one of the big debates focuses on the journal style
(Tagesbuchstil) of many of these sources, which says much about their
‘battle aesthetic’. Thus, for instance, the Biblical historical narra-
tives are sometimes said to combine heroic traditions (i.e. interesting
stories) with the Tagesbücher or Kriegsberichte.44 These influential
sources have stylised ways to talk about battle, but they do not exploit
the drama of battle exchanges. Instead, typical themes include the
exchange of diplomatic correspondence between the king and the
transgressive figure, the summoning of forces (both friendly and oth-
erwise), the invasion of the recalcitrant country followed by its swift
defeat (usually with the aid of the gods who go before the king into
(footnote 42 continued)
the heat of the day; and those who survived were scattered, so that no two of
them were left together.’ The rest of his military career is similarly summaristic,
and entwined with David’s: 13.3 (second battle), 14.20–3 (third battle), 14.47–8
(general summary of his whole career), 15.7–8 (fourth battle), 17.51–2 (fifth
battle, after the slaying of Goliath), 18.30 (David’s early career), 19.8 (David’s
first battle), 23.5 (David’s second battle), 27.8–9 (David’s third battle), 30.16–18
(David’s fourth battle), 31.1–7 (Saul’s sixth battle); cf. Gunn 1974: 288, and 293:
‘Moreover the rather terse sequence, in markedly circumscribed language, occurs
in the face of some important variables, viz. the relative length and particular
details of the stories in which it occurs’ (my italics).
43 Berman 2004; cf. also Kang 1989. Hamblin 2006: 12 takes this as characteristic
of the ANE: ‘war was the means by which the gods restored cosmic order through
organized violence undertaken in their name by their divinely ordained kings’ (his
italics).
44 Cf. Hoffmeier 2002: xxiv. On the role of this kind of source in Egyptian texts, cf.
Younger 1990: 168–75, and in Neo-Assyrian, cf. Frahm 1997: 251–7.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 45
battle), the siege of the capital, which results in either flight or death
for the enemy, and the imposition of tribute or political order of some
sort. Kenneth Lawson Younger’s comprehensive and definitive study
of these sequences in Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian and Hebrew tradi-
tions reveals that combat – though sufficiently common to be consid-
ered a typical element – is by some way the briefest, least exampled
and emphasised feature across the traditions.45
Just as a sample of the limited range of narrative features, consider
the following Akkadian texts. In a poem with multiple versions and
a transmission history of well over a thousand years (beginning in
the second millennium bce), and promisingly named Sargon King of
Battle, Sargon of Akkad’s victory over his enemy Nur-daggal is over
in double-quick time.46 The bulk of the poem consists of the preceding
lengthy encounter with merchants who encouraged Sargon’s expedi-
tion, and the following extended speech of obeisance delivered by
Nur-daggal after his defeat.47 The course of the fighting is just unim-
portant; what matters is the fact of victory.48 The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic
(thirteenth century bce) shows much the same sort of scalar disparity,
but at least it describes the fighting: several preparatory diplomatic
exchanges occur between the protagonist Assyrian king and his enemy
Kashtilias (a Kassite ruler of Babylon), but once more lots of general
preparation and the sending of messages. The battle between them is
continually delayed by this means, then a skirmish is fought in gener-
alised terms before the final battle,49 in which Tukulti-Ninurta himself
manages to kill a nameless foe.50 Finally, the Hymn to Tiglath-Pileser
45 Cf. Younger 1990: 79–80, e.g., but passim; also above, n. 40. The same point is
made in Van der Deijl 2008, esp. 643–4, but seemingly in ignorance of Younger’s
work.
46 ‘Nur-daggal had not finished speaking | when Sargon dug into (?) his city, | he
widened the Gate of Nobles two field-lengths! | He threw it down, he slashed
through the top of its ramparts, | he smote the most outstanding of the general’s
men!’ (Foster 2005: III B 7 (a), 341). For the many other poems about Sargon, all
of which show the same brevity when it comes to battle narrative, cf. Westenholz
1997: 57–140; Foster 2005: I B 3 (a)–(b), 57–8; II B 6 (a), 107–12, III B 7 (a),
338–43.
47 Westenholz 1997: 102–40; Foster 2005: III 7 (a), 338–43.
48 Cf. also the equally popular stories of Naram-Sin; cf. Westenholz 1997: 173–368;
Foster 2005: I B 3 (c) 59–62; II B 7 (a), 115–21; III B 7 (b), 344–56.
49 ‘The valiant warriors of Assur espied | the Kassite kings’ preparations, | they did
not have their armour on, | but sprang forward like lions, | Assur’s unrivalled
weapon met the onslaught of [his] ar[my?] | and Tukulti-Ninurta, the raging, piti-
less storm, | made [their blood] flow. | The warriors of Assur [struck] the king of the
Kassites | like a serpent, | A mighty attack, an irresistible onslaught [ ] upon them’
(Foster 2005: III A 1, 311–12).
50 ‘The lines of battle were drawn up, | combat was joined on the battlefield. | There
was great commotion, | the troops were quivering among them. | Assur went first,
| the conflagration of defeat burst out upon the enemy, | Enlil was whirling in the
46 adrian kelly
I (1115–1077 bce) places battle much more to the fore, and yet the
same lack of precision or interest in combat description beyond the
stereotypical is evident: first the enemies rebel, then the king decides
to destroy them and prepares his forces; the gods enter the battle
and deal the usual rain of death in support of the Assyrian king; the
Assyrians win and the poem breaks off with ‘the mountains submitted
fully to Assur’.51 The brevity we see in the Akkadian sources is no less
remarkable than its tenacity and ubiquity in other traditions.52
This contrasts powerfully with the Homeric battle scenes, their
length and their poikilia – the sheer variety of narrative styles, tech-
niques and units expended on combat, and how they are combined and
recombined in order to create something new every time. Individual
(footnote 50 continued)
midst of the foe, | fanning the blaze, | Anu set a pitiless mace to the opponent . . .
[etc. etc.] . . . Behind the gods, his allies, | the king at the head of the army sets to
battle, | He let fly an arrow, the fierce, overwhelming, | crushing weapon of Assur,
| he felled one slain. | The warriors of Assur cried ‘To battle!’ as they went to face
death, | They gave the battle cry, “O Ishtar, spare (me)!” | and praised the mistress
in the fray | without any armour, | They had stripped off their breastplates, | dis-
carded their clothing, | They tied up their hair and polished (?) their weapons, | The
fierce, heroic men danced with sharpened weapons. | They roared at one another
like struggling lions, | with eyes aflash (?), While the fray, particles drawn in a
whirlwind, | swirled around in combat’ (Foster 2005: III A 1, 313–14).
51 ‘Stationed behind them [i.e. the typical list of gods doing their battle work], he was
raining down weaponry. | Daily he set devastation upon them’ (Foster 2005: III A
3, 326). This absolute and relative brevity continues in the Neo-Assyrian tradition:
cf. Shalmaneser III’s Campaign to Urartu (Livingstone 1989: 17, 44–7 at 46) or the
Defeat of Teumman and the Annexation of Elam (Livingstone 1989: 31, 67–8 at 67),
whilst in a whole series of (admittedly, badly damaged) texts (Livingstone 1989:
18–24, 48–53) there is no battle narrative at all; cf. Younger 1990: 79–122 for many
more examples.
52 In the Sumerian tradition, cf. the very swift defeat of the King of Akka in
Gilgamesh and Akka (COS 1.171.95–9), or the conquests of Urnanshe of Lagash
(c. 2495–2475 bce) (Cooper 1986: La 1.6, 25): ‘[Urnanshe, king of Lagash] went
to war against the leader of Ur and the leader of Umma: | The leader of Lagash
(r.ii) defeated the leader of Ur. He captured [etc. etc.] | (r.iii) . . . He defeated
the leader of Umma. (r.iv) He captured [etc. etc.].’ For his grandson Eanatum’s
‘Stela of the Vultures’, cf. below, n. 60, but cf. also Eanatum’s shorter narratives
of conquest (Cooper 1986: La 3.2–10, 39–45) as well as those of his descendants
Enanatum (Cooper 1986: La 4.2, 47–8), Enmetana (Cooper 1986: La 5.1, 54–7)
and Urukagina (Cooper 1986: La 9.5, 78–9), all of which also elide the narrative
of battle in favour of its (plundering vel sim.) outcome. For the Hittite royal tradi-
tions, cf., e.g., the short battle of Harashu in The Queen of Kanesh and the tale of
Zalpa (COS 1.71, 181–2), and several brief encounters and ambushes in the Deeds
of Suppililiuma (COS 1.74, 185–92), the Annals of Mursili II (COS 2.16, 82–90) etc.
(COS 1.75–7, 192–204); for the typical structure of Hittite narrative, cf. Younger
1990: 132–6, and 137–73 for many more examples; cf. also Gilan 2010. The same
brevity can be observed in the Ugaritic sources, e.g., the Epic of Kirta (COS 1.102,
333–43), pace the list of similarities with Homeric motifs in Gordon 1967: 46–55.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 47
1–56 [Preparations for battle, Ramesses’ qualities and advance into Syria]
56–74 [Ramesses alone ambushed by Hittites]
75–91 [Ramesses attacks]
* ‘Then His Majesty set forth at a gallop, he plunged into the midst of the
forces of the Hittite foe, he being entirely on his own, no one else with him.’
92–127 [Ramesses complains to Amun, who comes to aid him]
128–42 ‘My heart I found strong, my mind joyful, All I did came off well, I was
just like Montu. I shot to my right, and captured to my left, I was like
Seth in his moment, in their sight. I found that the 2,500 chariots (of
the Hittites), in whose midst I was, fell prostrate before my horses . . .
I slaughtered them just as I wished, none looked behind him, no other
turned around, whoever of them fell, he did not rise again.’
143–65 [Hittites attack once more; Ramesses counters; no one can face him]
* ‘I launched myself against them, being like Montu; I gave them a taste of
my fist in the space of a moment. I wrought mayhem among them, slain on
the spot . . .’
166–204 [Ramesses continues the attack, calls to his troops rebuking them]
205–13 [Menna the shield-bearer counsels retreat]
214–23 [Ramesses refuses, counterattacks]
* ‘Then his Majesty set off quickly, and he went off at a gallop, into the
midst of the foe, for the sixth time of attacking them. I was like Baal in the
moment of his power, I did not let up.’
224–50 [Egyptian army comes up and praises Ramesses]
251–76 [Ramesses rebukes them]
277–320 [Ramesses renews battle, the Hittite king submits]
* ‘When dawn came, I marshalled the battle line in the fight, I was prepared
to fight like an eager bull. I appeared against them like Montu, arrayed
in the accoutrements of valour and victory. I entered into the battle lines,
fighting like the pounce of a falcon, [etc. etc.] . . . thereupon my Majesty
seized them, killing among them, without letting up, sprawled before my
horses, lying together in their own blood.’
321–30 [Close of the fight]
57 The greater ‘poetic’ freedom of some Egyptian narratives like the Qadesh poem is
discussed by Younger 1990: 168–76, 189–93.
58 Cf., e.g., the battle of Megiddo in the Annals of Thutmose III (COS 2.2.84b–89),
in which displacement of the forces takes more space than the eventual combat
(‘Then his majesty overpowered them while leading his army. They saw his majesty
overpower them. They fled . . . ’), or the several swift battles in the Gebel Barka
Stela of Thutmose III (COS 2.2B), in which the personal might of the pharoah is
always the determinative factor; cf. also COS 2.2C–4G, 2.7 (the Victory Stela of
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 49
King Piye) for many other examples, and Baines 1998 for the underpinning ideol-
ogy. The survey of Partridge 2002 disproves his own contention that these sources
are ‘full’ of combat details; cf. Younger 1990: 165–95.
59 ‘His majesty raged like a panther . . . his majesty fired his first arrow, sticking in
the neck of that enemy. Then these enemies fled, weakened by his Uraeus which in
a moment turned them into carnage’ (COS 2.1.29b–35). Royal dominance is also
reflected in the common artistic motif of the pharoah holding a mace in one hand
and a defeated foe by the hair in the other; cf. Partridge 2002: 1–2 and passim.
60 ‘He fought with him. A person shot an arrow at Eanatum. He was shot through by
the arrow and had difficulty moving. He cried out in the face of it. The person . . . ’
(Cooper 1986: La 3.1 (ix), 33–9). This is only a tiny part of the stele, and Eanatum
obviously survived the wound, as the rest (i.e. vast majority) of the narrative has
him receiving the allegiance of the defeated king of Umma; cf. Hamblin 2006:
52–9.
61 Luckenbill 1924: 44–7. It is interesting to note that this prism was not for public
display (a fact which seems to have escaped most classicists who use this mate-
rial); cf. Frahm 1997: 36 on Sennacherib’s inscriptions generally, which ‘sollten
erst dann wieder ans Tageslicht kommen, wenn ein späterer Herrscher im Zuge
von Renovierungsarbeiten die jeweilige Baulichkeit ganz oder teilweise abreißen
ließ’; Frahm goes on to quote from the Chicago prism itself a passage (VI.76–8)
which actually says this (I am indebted to Christopher Metcalf for this reference).
Though the current chapter has generally ignored Sitz im Leben for reasons of
space, it is important for anyone trying to draw lines between the texts.
62 Foster 2005: IV A 2 (c) 125–44, 790–813 (798); IV A 1 (a) 47, 779–82 (781).
50 adrian kelly
heal him, and his re-entry into battle. Then the narrative focus moves
away from him entirely for several hundred verses, with victories
for Sarpedon and Hector, before returning to him in retreat before
a god, his teaming up with Athena and his attack on Ares. His run
of supremacy concludes in Book 6 with an aborted single combat, at
the end of which he exchanges guest gifts with the Lycian Glaucus. In
this extended narrative, the audience follows the above all-changeable
course of Diomedes’ progress over the battlefield; it is not simply a
victorious moment in which his might is evinced, or even a series of
such moments described in a variety of ways as in the Qadesh poem or
the Annals of Sennacherib,64 though of course Diomedes’ superiority
is important.
Instead, it is the narrativised course of this trial of strength, the to
and fro of his successes and setbacks, and those of the other Greeks
and Trojans, which the poet seems interested in, not ‘just the facts,
ma’am’ or – better – ‘just the propaganda, ma’am’. Even in a case
63 Burkert 1992: 118–19 suggests this as a parallel for Il. 20.498–501, where Achilles’
chariot is stained with the blood of corpses as it rides over them, though here
(p. 119) ‘one might even toy with the idea that some Greek singer had arrived in
Assyria together with the mercenaries, and that he composed this song . . . which
so much pleased the king that it was incorporated in the official annals, where it
forms a strange contrast to the standard dreary and dull list of battle and plundering’
(my italics). This is an adventurous thesis, but at least it shows how isolated this
narrative is in its Assyrian context.
64 It is remarkable that the two battles celebrated in these rather unusual texts,
Qadesh and Halule, were both stalemates or losses for the celebrating side;
cf. Frahm 1997: 255 on the latter: ‘je kritischer die Lage, desto massiver die
Propaganda’.
homeric battle narrative and the ancient near east 51
65 Cf. Younger 1990: 67–9 on Assyrian demonisation of the enemy, 128–30 on the
Hittite attitude, 177–85 on the Egyptian, 233–6 on the Hebrew.
66 Beye 1964.
67 It is no coincidence, then, that ‘in the ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts,
reports of casualties within one’s own army are rare . . . it is very common in these
texts to describe the total annihiliation of the enemy’ (Younger 1990: 261).
52 adrian kelly
71 For other factors contributing to the lack of detailed battle description, cf., e.g.,
Younger 1990: 169–70 on genre in Egyptian narratives; Cooper 1986: 10 on early
Sumerian and Akkadian royal inscriptions; Gilan 2010: 60–1 on Hittite traditions
of ‘epic’ and ‘historiography’. On the potential role of orality and transmission, cf.
Vogelzang and Vanstiphout 1992.
72 Homer was not autochthonous, of course, and his tradition has a long back-
ground, one important part of which was Indo-European; cf. M. L. West 2007, esp.
447–503. The Indian epic Ramayana, especially its final book (the Yuddhakanda),
is particularly comparable; cf. R. Goldman et al. 1984: 98–105 and 2009: 22–5,
91–2. That the Greeks were aware of Homeric similarities with Indian traditions
is suggested by Dio (Disc. 53.6–8), Aelian (VH 12.48) and Plutarch (Mor. 328D);
cf. Derrett 1992. On battle in the Ramayana, cf. Brockington 1998: 162–86, and
esp. R. Goldman et al. 2009: 21–2: ‘Valmiki’s descriptions of the realities, the tech-
nologies, and the consequences of war are numerous, vivid and interesting. On the
one hand he can be brutally direct and graphic, giving almost Homeric accounts
of the devastating effects of the violence . . . On the other hand, the poet is fond
of bringing out what one may call the aesthetics of violence by glossing the ugliness
of the carnage with various poetic figures’; 24–5: ‘the author deploys some of the
traditions’ repertory of poetic techniques of “ornamentation” in order to soften
54 adrian kelly
Though there are many gaps both in my research and in the evi-
dence, we can give a firm answer to Sarah Morris’s challenge at the
start of this chapter: there is something distinctively Greek about
Homer’s battle scenes, something that cannot be paralleled in the
literatures of the ANE. There are a few combat motifs and episodes
which scholars have tried to treat genealogically, as the supposed link
between the Diapeira and the Book of Judges, but they require careful
re-examination, and are overshadowed entirely by the tremendous
differences in the usage and fundamental conception of battle narra-
tive. These differences show us, by analogy, the remarkable singularity
of this element from the Greek epic tradition in the Mediterranean
and ancient Near Eastern setting. As one of the most prominent and
characteristic weapons in his poetic thesaurus, Homer’s battle narra-
tive can be defined as Greek in its conception, function and execution.
(footnote 72 continued)
and aestheticize the graphic violence . . . Thus the frightful images that inspire the
sentiments of fear, horror, or disgust are often skilfully crafted by the poet to rouse
other sentiments critical to the aesthetic appreciation of the piece, such as the senti-
ments of valor and wonder’; 91–2: ‘the foregrounding and aestheticization of violence
. . . Valmiki appears to delight in graphic descriptions of massive and sanguinary
violence . . . what is noteworthy is the poet’s constant effort to beautify the grisly
details of the carnage that takes place on the killing fields . . . Valmiki manages to
create a poetry of violence that, even as it details the horrific effects of weaponry
on the bodies of men . . . and so gratifies the voyeuristic appetites of its audiences,
frequently diverts the reader/auditor’s eye from the sanguinary to the charming
through the exploitation of an elaborate and highly conventionalized set of tropes
of comparison’ (my italics). This would be a more than adequate description
mutatis mutandis of Homeric battle narrative, though the relative brevity of (e.g.)
individual combat encounters when compared with those in Irish epic shows that
much work remains to be done fully to elucidate the Homeric genealogy; cf. esp.
Renehan 1987.
4
Ruth Scodel
6 Woloch 2003 is a fascinating study of how minor characters function in the novel
(and, in a brief preface, in the Iliad).
7 Lowe 2000: 115–17.
8 Zunshine 2006.
9 The classical narratological question of whether such narratorial self-limitation is
a form of focalisation is not relevant here. Fludernik [1996] 2010b and Jahn 2007
are helpful discussions.
10 Snell [1948] 1953.
narrative focus and elusive thought in homer 57
SHIFTS OF FOCUS
On a large scale, the Odyssey obviously shifts among Telemachus,
Odysseus and Penelope as the interest-focus. This practice is quite
different from what cyclic poetry seems often to have done, simply
moving serially among different characters from episode to episode
(cf. Aristotle’s famous criticism of the Cypria and Little Iliad at
Poetics 1459a–b), because the Odyssey’s characters are in rich and
complex interaction with each other; their concerns form a single plot.
Shifting also happens on the small scale. So for example, at Il.
1.326 we follow the heralds and are given some information about
their mental state (τὼ δ’ ἀέκοντε βάτην, ‘they went unwillingly’). The
heralds could be unwilling for two (general) reasons: they may be
unhappy at being engaged in an action that they think is wrong; or
they may be afraid of Achilles. They could very easily feel both these
They found him sitting beside his shelter and black ship. And
Achilles did not rejoice when he saw those two. The two of them,
frightened and feeling respect for the chief, stood there, and they
did not address him or ask a question. But he understood in his
mind and said . . . (Il. 329–33)
The narrator must be responsible for the litotes of ‘did not rejoice’ and
γε (which puts particular emphasis on the preceding dual pronoun).
Agamemnon said in the assembly that he would come personally to
take Briseis (Il. 1.184–7). He then changed his mind, telling the heralds
that he would come himself if Achilles refused to give up Briseis (Il.
14 The visit type-scene has been studied since Arend 1933: 34–53. See De Jong
[1987a] 2004: 107–10 for the focalisation through the arriving visitor.
15 The Basle Gesamtkommentar (Latacz 2000) ad loc. calls this a ‘triple, rapid change
of perspective’ from 330b Achilles, 331–2 heralds, 333 Achilles.
16 Jahn 1996: 260. See also Fludernik [1996] 2010b: 344–5; p. 404, n. 39 has a bibli-
ography on the debate to that point (1996). These are arguments with Bal 1985:
160–3 and with Genette [1972] 1980. Jahn 2007 is a recent survey, as is Niederhoff
2011.
narrative focus and elusive thought in homer 59
17 On this distinction, see Cairns 1993: 88–9; Zaborowski 2002: 168. Kirk ad loc.
points out that their fear is described in an aorist participle, their respect in the
present (fear belongs to this moment; respect is continuing).
60 ruth scodel
18 There are also the anonymous figures who are often very briefly focalisers and/or
centres of interest in similes, as Purves notes in this volume (p. 177).
narrative focus and elusive thought in homer 61
MIND-READING
Homeric characters themselves frequently try to understand each
other’s thoughts. For example, they interpret non-verbal behaviour
with more or less success. Achilles recognises that the heralds are
embarrassed by their errand; he can probably understand their hesita-
tion because it fits what he would want them to feel.
It seems clear that Achilles actually knows why Patroclus is crying
at the opening of Iliad 16 (5–19), even though he pretends that he does
not:
22 Rothe 1910: 279 remarks that Homeric characters often use a ‘harmless Tone’
in addressing others who are obviously agitated. It is true that speakers often
assume such emotional disengagement, but the narrator’s comment on Achilles’
pity makes this a complex instance. De Jong [1987a] 2004: 170 thinks Achilles’
pity means that he cannot be mocking Patroclus; Taplin 1992: 177 comments that
he must know why Patroclus is distressed; Zanker 1994: 14–15 calls it ‘chaffing
sarcasm’; Janko 1992 on 16.7–19 calls it ‘a friendly rebuke’; Edwards 1991: 257
considers the simile mocking.
23 Thetis, despite her divine knowledge and her intense concern for her son, is
ignorant of what has happened. See Reinhardt 1961: 26–7, who points out that
Achilles has never shown an awareness that his prayer to his mother is being
fulfilled.
64 ruth scodel
Only Athena and Hera sat in respect to Zeus, and they did not
address him or ask a question. But he understood in his mind and
said, ‘Why are you upset like this, Athena and Hera? You have
surely not got worn out in battle where men win glory, killing
Trojans, against whom you have made your resentment terrible.’
(Il. 8.444–9)
Lines 445–6 repeat 1.332–3 (substituting ‘sat’ for ‘stood’), but the
dynamic of emotion and power is very different. In other cases, a
speaker may ask and then formulate a hypothesis, but the question
seems to be genuine (for example, Il. 15.90–1), where Themis asks
Hera why she is distressed, and then answers her own question, as the
narrator represents Themis’ Theory of Mind in action.
Homeric characters also make assumptions about what others do
or do not know. When Nestor asks Patroclus why Achilles laments the
wounded Achaeans, and claims that Achilles does not comprehend
the grief of the army (11.657–8), it is impossible to say whether Nestor
is right that Achilles is ignorant – in any case, what he means is prob-
ably not that Achilles does not know, but that his emotional response
is inadequate. The Odyssey’s suitors are completely wrong when they
hear Penelope cry out:
Actually, she knows about their plot – the herald Medon has just
informed her – and her cry concludes a prayer she has made to Athena
to stop their plans. The suitors are, not surprisingly, consistently
wrong in their inferences about other people.
Both Homeric epics, then, frequently draw attention to how often
human interaction involves guessing the mental states of others.
GAP MANAGEMENT
Often, the narrator does not provide as much information about the
mental states of characters as we might want, and the characters’
attempts at understanding one another serve as reminders for the
external audience of how much or little they know. Because Homeric
narrative is so full, and the characters talk so much about their mental
states, it is easy to assume that we know more than we do.
In Iliad 9, ambassadors pray as they walk to Achilles’ camp that they
will easily persuade Achilles (Il. 9.184; I am bracketing the problem of
the duals here). Persuasion is an attempt to change another person’s
mental state, so the audience is primed to believe that the ambassadors
will be trying to understand what Achilles is thinking and feeling and
themselves to consider what Achilles may be thinking and feeling. We
follow the ambassadors as they arrive in a typical ‘visit’ passage:
Even if the visitors know where Achilles obtained his lyre, they are
unlikely to be thinking about this at this moment. The narrator pro-
vides this information. Who tells us that Achilles is ‘delighting his
heart’? Is it their inference that he enjoys what he is doing? Again,
they presumably see where Patroclus is sitting and notice that he is
the only member of Achilles’ audience and that he is silent. Do the
visitors realise that Patroclus is waiting for Achilles to stop, or is this
narratorial information? They could presumably infer this either from
their knowledge of norms of behaviour or because they understand
the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. Even though there
is no shifting, this passage, like Il. 1.329–33, problematises classical
focalisation, because it is impossible entirely to distinguish what the
characters see and infer from what the narrator infallibly knows. The
66 ruth scodel
In surprise, Achilles jumped up, still holding the lyre, leaving the
seat where he had been sitting. And likewise Patroclus, when he
saw the men, stood up.
Perhaps the narrator provides the detail that Achilles still holds the
lyre in order to indicate that Achilles’ surprise is visible to the ambas-
sadors. Achilles greets the visitors, and the narrator reports from an
equal distance on both Achilles and his guests as he seats them. The
visitors, however are still the interest-focus, as Achilles and Patroclus
perform an elaborately narrated series of hospitable actions. Since we
have been led to care about his state of mind at this point primarily
as it affects the Achaeans, although we do not watch these actions
through the ambassadors, we still watch with them, hoping that the
warm reception Achilles gives them indicates that he will also be open
to their mission.
Then we receive another small bit of information about a mental
state, when Ajax nods to Phoenix, and Odysseus notices the gesture
(1.224: νεῦσ’ Αἴας Φοίνικι· νόησε δὲ δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς), and begins speak-
ing. We have to infer that Ajax thinks that Phoenix should speak, but
that Odysseus decides to open the conversation instead. Although
we know very well what the ambassadors want, we are painfully
under-informed about what precisely anybody is thinking; we do not
know why Odysseus chooses to speak. He has probably been fooled
by Achilles’ gracious hospitality into misjudging his receptiveness to
Agamemnon’s offer. When Achilles delivers his very long and intense
reply, we infer that something in Odysseus’ approach has offended
him, but we have no more knowledge of Achilles’ actual thoughts than
his visitors do.
Near the end of the episode, Achilles nods to Patroclus:
The dative plural τοῖσι tells the external audience that, although Ajax’
speech is addressed to Odysseus only, it has a wider audience; δ’ ἄρ’
suggests that it is part of the ongoing sequence of moves, and it is
called a μῦθος, a speech claiming authority.25 However, since Phoenix
is apparently going to remain with Achilles, when Ajax speaks to
Odysseus, the two of them are the only active members of the embassy
remaining, and Ajax speaks as if the ambassadors were the only rati-
fied participants:
25 Martin 1989.
68 ruth scodel
Although the narrator does not actually tell us that Eumaeus frames
his prayer so that he can easily make the transition to addressing and
abusing Melanthius, because we know from the beginning that he will
do both, we probably assume that he intends both from the start.
On the other hand, at Il. 17.18–32 the narrator informs the audience
of Menelaus’ general state of mind and specifies that he is speaking to
Euphorbus:
your life-energy if you stand against me. But I urge you to retreat
and go back into the mass, and don’t stand opposite me, before
you suffer something bad. A fool learns by suffering.’
28 Sternberg 2005: 22–4 argues that the words are impossible to distinguish.
narrative focus and elusive thought in homer 71
30 De Jong 2001: 219 notes this as an example of the ‘delayed reaction presentation’
technique.
31 Cf. Danek 1998: 151–3.
narrative focus and elusive thought in homer 73
those he meets have heard prophecies about him by name (Circe and
Polyphemus), and so wants to be exceptionally careful.32 But this can
be only an inference.
Alcinous, having asked the stranger’s identity, then asks why the
stranger weeps at the song; he infers that Odysseus must have lost
a close relative or good friend in the war (Od. 8.577–86). Alcinous’
ignorance serves as foil for the audience’s knowledge but also for their
ignorance. The external audience knows the stranger’s name, parents
and home, but not exactly why he is weeping. He has lost not one
but many companions; is he weeping for all of them, or does he care
especially about some of them? Is he weeping at the contrast between
his triumph at Troy and the misery he has endured since? Is he even,
as the simile of the captive woman at Od. 8.523–31 suggests, weeping
at the misery caused to so many, including the Trojans, by the war?
Did Odysseus ask for this song because he knew it would make him
cry, and he, guessing that his tears would push Alcinous to demand
his name, wanted this prompt for the beginning of his story? Or did
he want this story to introduce his own, but not realise how it would
affect him?33 Odysseus could have many motives for requesting the
song and for weeping at it, motives not incompatible with each other
but nonetheless distinct.
Alcinous’ only partially successful mind-reading first directs the
hearer to what the external audience knows and the internal audience
does not, but it can also point to what the external audience does
not know – namely, exactly what Odysseus is thinking and feeling,
and a consideration of the characters’ work at understanding each
other brings us back to what even the external audience, with all its
advantages – including, probably, other versions of the same basic
story – does not know.
The narrator’s interest in the characters’ Theory of Mind is thus
important for both Homeric psychology in general and characterisa-
tion in particular – it is a technique for showing how perceptive indi-
viduals are and how fully they are ‘in tune’ with each other. But it is
also important for expositional technique. The narrator frequently
points to the difficulty people have in understanding others when they
are not already closely aligned. Yet the audience may feel perplexed
even when it has more information than the characters and its sympa-
thies may be fully engaged, as with Odysseus among the Phaeacians,
because the narrator severely limits the information he provides about
32 Scodel 1999.
33 The same debates recur over the foot-washing later. See E. Schwartz 1924; 196 and
the discussion in Fenik 1974: 43–4.
74 ruth scodel
STRUCTURE AS INTERPRETATION IN
THE HOMERIC ODYSSEY
Erwin Cook
I am grateful to Douglas Cairns and Ruth Scodel for inviting me to the confer-
ence, and for their hospitality during my stay in Edinburgh. I would also like
to thank them and the following colleagues for reading and commenting on
various drafts of the chapter: Jonathan Burgess, Tom Jenkins, Lenny Muellner,
Corinne Pache and Greg Thalmann. Thanks are also due to Egbert Bakker for an
extremely helpful conversation and series of emails on ring-composition. Please
credit them with anything you find convincing, and attribute all errors of fact and
interpretation to me.
1 This is the premise that guided Parry and Lord in their fieldwork, and it is main-
tained by what I take to be the majority of US Homerists. See, e.g., Martin 1989,
esp. 5–12, 89–100; A. Lord 2000; Scodel 2002, esp. 1–20; Doherty 2009: 3; see also
Jensen 2011: chs. 1–4.
2 Scodel 2002, esp. 4–13, 36–41.
3 Kakridis 1949: 18–27; Lohmann 1970: 258–63; see also Arthur 1981. For another
example of manipulation, see Heubeck’s analysis of the Cyclopeia as aristeia, in
Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989: 33, on Od. 9.375–94.
76 erwin cook
4 Edwards 1991: 44–48; see also Stanley 1993: 6–9. In what follows, I limit my
diagnosis of rings to (nearly) identical or antithetical themes, regarding as suspect
parallels that require significant decoding.
5 For comparative study, see Douglas 2007; Welch 1981; see also Rubin 1995: 221,
274–7; for Aeschylus and Herodotus, see Van Otterlo 1944, esp. 1–16; Sheppard
[1922] 1966: appendix; and Lang 1984: 1–12; for Bacchylides, see Cairns 2010, esp.
41–4, 101–6; further bibliography in Stanley 1993: 307 n. 21.
6 The analysis, first outlined in Cook 1991, has some points of contact with Louden
1999.
7 Myres 1932 and Whitman 1958: chs. 5 and 11 press the analogy between the Iliad
and geometric art, though as N. J. Richardson 1993: 4–5 notes this has not been
widely accepted. An important exception is Mackay 1999a, esp. 116–17, whose
comparanda, however, are from early sixth-century Attic vase-painting; see also
Andreae and Flashar 1977; Lewis 1981.
8 For Heliodorus, see Lowe 2000, esp. 137, 235–58; Lowe, pp. 110–11, does not,
however, consider ring-composition to be ‘part of the poetics of classical plotting’.
9 Thalmann 1984: 9; cf. Van Otterlo 1944: 3; Douglas 2007: 137–38.
structure as interpretation in the homeric odyssey 77
(A) PREVIEW
(C) GOAL
the time the speaker reaches the goal.’15 In other words, (c) differs fun-
damentally from (a) on account of the intervening information, even
though it repeats its contents.
None of these scholars investigates large-scale patterns. Whitman
offers a genetic explanation, arguing that ring-composition origi-
nated as a mnemonic device used in small-scale narratives.16 Ring-
composition loses its original function, however, ‘when it becomes
the structural basis of a fifteen-thousand-line poem such as the Iliad.
It has become an artistic principle.’17 By ‘artistic principle’, Whitman
means that the structural properties of rings were exploited to balance
and frame, so that ‘the use of “hysteron proteron,” giving the effect of
concentric circles, was gradually transformed from a mnemonic device
to an architectonic one’.18
One of Whitman’s most important findings concerns the Iliad’s
temporal sequence, in which Books 1 and 24 balance each other,
with Book 9 at the centre (Table 5.1). In an earlier study, Myres
identified Book 9 as the temporal and structural centre of the Iliad.19
Richardson, however, notes that Myres’s analysis has been scepti-
cally received because it divides the narrative unevenly.20 Speaking of
ring-composition generally, Gaisser declares that ‘The primary objec-
tion to this type of structural analysis is that the scale is not always
consistent.’21
A Cicones
B Lotus Eaters
C Cyclopes
Bʹ Aeolians
Aʹ Laestrygonians
D Circe
E Elpenor
Cʹ Necyia
Eʹ Elpenor
Dʹ Circe
F Sirens
G Scylla
Cʹʹ Thrinacia
Gʹ Charybdis
Fʹ Calypso
with the view that such structures are also a source of aesthetic pleas-
ure. Where Bakker and Douglas differ most significantly is in their
assessment of the enclosed centre: for Bakker the centre adds and
contextualises, so that the effect of the concluding element is cumula-
tive, while for Douglas the centre is the most significant element of the
structure. The Odyssean material is varied on just this point and can
be used to support both positions. Odyssean ring-compositions not
only reflect the balanced aesthetic that defines archaic Greek art gen-
erally, but are also distinguished by marked variation that, together
with their complexity, suggests a high degree of self-consciousness in
their production.
Whitman unquestionably played a role in the neglect of Odyssean
ring-composition. He finds that, in contrast to the Iliad, which ‘follows
a strict Geometric design . . . . [v]ery little of the sort occurs in the
Odyssey, and where it does occur, asymmetrical elements are more fre-
quent, the responsions less careful and less significant’.44 Nevertheless,
he notes that the Apologue is structured by elaborate ring-composition
serving to frame the Necyia (Table 5.3).45
Confirmation of Whitman’s analysis can be found in the organisa-
tion of the Necyia, which is likewise structured by ring-composition
(Table 5.4).
46 E.g., Page 1955b: ch. 2; cf. Nagler 1980; Heubeck in Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989:
75–7.
47 Cook 1995: 74–6.
84 erwin cook
A Divine assembly
B Athena impersonates a family xeinos and encourages a grieving Telemachus
C The suffering Penelope
i Phemius sings the painful return of the Greeks
ii Penelope complains
iii Telemachus instructs her to return to her quarters and weave
iv The suitors raise a din and pray to sleep with her
v Athena puts Penelope to sleep
D Telemachus assembles the Ithakans; is censured by Antinous; requests a ship
E Noemon lends a ship to ‘Telemachus’
F Pylus
i Proper sacrificial feast on Pylus
ii Stories of Odysseus, Troy, the returning Greeks, Agamemnon
iʹ Proper sacrificial feast on Pylus
Fʹ Sparta
i Proper wedding feast at Sparta
iiʹ Stories of Odysseus, Troy, the returning Greeks, Agamemnon
iʹ Proper wedding feast at Sparta
Eʹ Noemon asks about the ship he lent ‘Telemachus’
Dʹ Antinous assembles the suitors; censures Telemachus; requests ship
Cʹ The suffering Penelope
i Medon announces the plot to kill the returning Telemachus
ii Penelope complains
iii Eurycleia instructs her to go to her upper chamber and pray
iv The suitors raise a din and declare she is about to wed
v Penelope falls asleep
Bʹ Athena impersonates Penelope’s sister and encourages a grieving Penelope in
her sleep
Aʹ Divine assemblya
a
See Myres 1952: 3, 13
52 Zeitlin 1995: 139; on Helen see M. L. West [1975] 2011; Clader 1976.
53 On the book divisions, see now Jensen 2011: ch. 10
88 erwin cook
Table 5.6 The Phaeacis and transition to the Revenge
54 Cook 2012 provides a preliminary survey of the parallels between the three narra-
tive threads and the plot of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter; on the arrival scenes in
Books 3, 6 and 13, see also Cook 1998; for the parallels between the Phaeacis and
Revenge see Lang 1969.
55 See Scodel, this volume, pp. 71–2.
structure as interpretation in the homeric odyssey 91
and in what way, the queen will identify the stranger (such expecta-
tions may have been reinforced by traditions in which Penelope
does recognise him).56 The poet’s response is to incorporate and
displace both identifications: when the disguised Odysseus describes
what he wore to Troy, Penelope is able to recognise the clothing, the
person described as her husband, and the stranger as his guest-friend
(19.221–35). Yet she ‘recognises’ Odysseus in a narrative of the distant
past. Afterwards, a mother-figure, Eurycleia, recognises the stranger’s
resemblance to Odysseus, and then that he is indeed Odysseus, on the
basis of his hunting scar (19.361ff.).
Further analysis of these engagements is for another study. More
important in the present context is the typology of the sequence. It
is generally recognised that the plot of Homeric epic is structured by
the ‘withdrawal and return’ story-pattern which, Albert Lord argues,
originates in fertility myth:
56 Katz 1991: 93–113; Felson-Rubin 1994: 3–4, 56–60; Doherty 1995: ch. 1, 140–4;
Murnaghan [1987] 2011: 36–7, ch. 4; S. Saïd 2011: 285–9, 297–302; for sustained
analysis of the episode, see now Levaniouk 2011.
57 A. Lord 2000: 186; cf. H. Clarke 1989: 70–2.
58 M. L. Lord [1967] 1994: 182; cf. Sowa 1984; Nickel 2003; Cook 2012.
92 erwin cook
Although Lord observes that the themes generally occur in the same
order, she argues that the sequence may be altered to suit the needs of
the narrative. This obviously obtains when, as she also notes, impor-
tant themes are repeated for emphasis.
Lord finds that themes (2)–(6) are well represented in the Odyssey,
but that the first theme is not. As a possible echo, she offers the wrath
of Poseidon, which leads to Odysseus’ absence and the death of his
companions, though she concedes that the absence is not motivated by
the hero’s loss (nor is it motivated by his wrath). As a second possibil-
ity, she offers Nestor’s account of the quarrel between the Atreidai,
who serve as narrative foils for Odysseus. Neither parallel is direct,
nor do they occur in sequence. Finally, Lord observes that Demeter’s
withdrawal differs from Achilles’ and Odysseus’ because it takes the
form of a journey in search of her daughter. Lord does, however, note
the parallel supplied by the Telemachy: ‘one of the intrusive patterns
in the Odyssey is Telemachus’ quest for news of his absent father, an
initiatory exploit for Telemachus’.60
In the same year that Lord’s study appeared, Rose published a com-
parative analysis of what he terms a ‘revenge pattern’ in the Odyssey:
62 The theme of disguised return is, however, clearly reproduced in Patroclus’ re-
entry into battle wearing Achilles’ armour. What makes this of special interest in
the present context is that the Return themes are thus distributed among closely
related characters (on which, see below).
63 G. Rose 1967: 396.
64 M. L. Lord [1967] 1994: 184.
65 Nickel 2003: 60.
66 This is ideologically interesting as the interchangeability of father and son affirms
the ability of the father to reproduce himself in the son. This bears directly on the
symbolism of Laertes’ garden (on which, see below).
94 erwin cook
67 This is the only direct reference to Odysseus yearning for his wife by the narrator
(though see 5.209–10).
68 On the logic of her advice, see Felson-Rubin 1994: 4–9.
structure as interpretation in the homeric odyssey 95
69 Eurycleia’s appearances are of some interest here: she assists in the ambush
(21.380–7, 22.390–434), as she had earlier helped Telemachus depart from Ithaca
(2.345–80). When Medon arrives at Penelope’s chambers with news that the
suitors are planning to ambush Telemachus, Eurycleia tries to console the dis-
traught Penelope and instructs her to pray to Athena (4.742–57). After Odysseus
spares Medon, Eurycleia arrives at Penelope’s chamber to comfort her with the
news that Odysseus has returned (23.1–84). In the first instance, Eurycleia asks
Penelope to punish her; in the latter Penelope expresses the desire to do so. These
are the only two occasions on which Eurycleia addresses Penelope in the poem.
70 On Ogygia, see Powell 1970: 421; Crane 1988: 33–4, 142; Cook 1992.
71 On the logic of the prophecy, see Peradotto 1990: 63–75.
96 erwin cook
72 On the end of the Odyssey, relevant scholarship includes: Pfeiffer 1968: 175–7;
Thornton 1970: ch. 11; Erbse 1972: 166–244; Fenik 1974: 47–53; Moulton 1974;
Wender 1978; Goldhill 1991: 18–22; Scodel 1998a; Bierl 2004; Marks 2008: ch. 3;
Murnaghan [1987] 2011: 18–23; S. Saïd 2011: 217–22.
73 Laertes’ orchard is structurally significant: 1.193, 11.193, 24.221 etc.
74 Kullmann 1985: 5; cf. 6–7: ‘The religious system of the Odyssey . . . gives some-
thing like a metaphysical foundation of the principle of justice.’. . .
75 Wender 1978, esp. 64; Heubeck in Russo et al. 1992: on 24.482–5; Marks 2008:
67–78; Saïd 2011: 221.
76 Cook 2012.
structure as interpretation in the homeric odyssey 97
77 On his appearance as epiphanic, see Cook 2012. For the timelines involved see,
e.g., Auffarth 1991: 388–420; Austin 1975: ch. 5; Cook 1995: 156–7.
78 Murray 1934: 211.
79 Murray 1934: 212; cf. Auffarth 1991: 417–20.
80 Katz 1991: 177–82; Cook 1995: 154, 161–3; Zeitlin 1995; Saïd 2011: 216–17.
81 This coheres with Homeric agricultural metaphors such as τὸν . . . θρέψαν θεοὶ
ἔρνει ἶσον (Od. 14.175; cf. Il. 18.56, 437–8); for the metaphor in classical Athens,
cf. Ormand 1999, esp. 20–1, 138–41.
98 erwin cook
remarried on that same bed after Athena has rejuvenated her and her
husband (18.187–96; 23.153–63).82 Return home is equally a return
to the past and with it erasure of the physical effects of over nineteen
years spent at Troy and wandering. As important, with his successful
reintegration into the household, Odysseus wins immortal kleos as the
hero whose late return heralds the return of prosperity to the entire
kingdom.83 His remarriage to Penelope is thus a hieros gamos that
takes place on a displaced source of biotos.
This complex of themes is powerfully echoed in the recognition
scene with Laertes.84 Whereas Odysseus incorporates living nature
into the heart of his domestic space as the foundation of his marriage
bed, Laertes makes nature his domestic space, sleeping on the leaves
of his orchard in summer and at the hearth of his farmstead in winter
(11.187–96). While Penelope’s preservation of the tree-bed represents
the continued well-being of the family, Laertes’ cultivation of the
orchard sustains the household literally and symbolically through its
production of biotos.85 Whereas the foundation of the marriage (bed)
on a living tree displaces nature’s cycles with those of man, and specifi-
cally Odysseus’ family, ‘In the primary rituals of planting and tending
[Laertes] reasserts the connection between human life and the rhythms
of nature.’86 The orchard thus becomes a symbol of generational suc-
cession, from father to son.
Like the tree-bed, a living orchard representing the social reproduc-
tion of the family is both context and instrument of recognition and
legitimacy. While the scar is offered to Penelope as proof of Odysseus’
identity, only to be rejected, Odysseus now shows it to Laertes as a
proof to be superseded. In both cases, the preferred token is a shared
memory upon or within which the house of Arcesius is assimilated
to the eternal returns of nature. Odysseus thus proves his identity by
recounting the trees and vines Laertes had given him as a young boy.
Whereas ‘the gift which a father gives his son is life, and the right to
give life in turn to his son’, Odysseus affirms he is Laertes’ son by
reminding Laertes that he had once given him biotos.87 Laertes thus
recognises his son by returning through narrative to a time when he
himself was in his prime.
In a real sense, then, the orchard is not simply a token that reveals
Odysseus’ identity, but is that identity as surely as his scar; nor, like
the tree-bed, is it merely his own identity, but equally that of Laertes,
who laboured over it, and of Telemachus, who will inherit it. And so
the scene of reunion in an orchard as a new year begins reintegrates
Laertes into the family after his withdrawal, while Demeter restores
life to the world and returns to Olympus when Persephone returns
to her. The reunion of father and son in a symbol of cyclical nature
reconstitutes the family across three generations, representing a
complete human life-cycle of youth, maturity and old age that cor-
responds to the Homeric seasons of ἔαρ, θέρος and χεῖμα in further
expression of a ‘philosophy of renewal and regeneration’. This is
followed, as it must be, with feasting, in which the reconstituted
family is ritually affirmed through commensality.88 Before they eat,
however, Athena rejuvenates Laertes, just as she had earlier rejuve-
nated Odysseus before Penelope recognises him. Afterwards, Athena
addresses Laertes as ‘o son of Arcesius’ (24.517: ὦ Ἀρκεισιάδη), the
only time he is so called in the poem.89 All three generations of the
household are now, miraculously, in the prime of life. This too is
echoed in Laertes’ orchard, where the vines are said to bear grapes
‘continuously’ (24.342: διατρύγιος) in clear evocation of the season-
less and ageless environment of Elysium.90 Laertes is even allowed to
win his own measure of kleos by making the only kill described in the
ensuing altercation with the suitors’ parents.
I conclude by elaborating on the claim that the Odyssey’s promise
of wealth and prosperity extends to the entire community. It has been
a commonplace among social anthropologists since Malinowski and
Boas that performing the old stories allows the community to re-enter
the primordial past in which the gods still walked among us. It is in
this light, I suggest, that we should understand the mimetic nature
of Homeric performance, as a religious act of eternal return that
makes the ancient heroes and the gods vividly present.91 As a story of
withdrawal and return, the Odyssey thus reproduces its own poetics.
It does so a second time by making epiphany, and in particular the
miraculous reappearance of the long-absent Odysseus, the dramatic
92 Cook 2012.
93 On the social setting as post-heroic, see, e.g., Redfield [1983] 2009: 266–9.
94 The word πλοῦτος recurs once in the Odyssey, in the formula ὄλβῳ τε πλούτῳ
(14.206).
PART II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
GREEK TRADITION
6
Douglas Cairns
This chapter investigates the role of what I shall call the ‘principle of
alternation’ (the idea that no human life is free of suffering, that the
best one can expect is a mixture of good and bad fortune) in (some)
ancient Greek narratives. This is not a narratological study in the tra-
ditional, formalist sense, but rather reflects my own interests in Greek
social and ethical norms and especially in the sociality of emotion
in ancient Greek societies. In its broadest terms, its affiliations are
with recent approaches, especially those influenced by the cognitive
sciences, that see the human species’ storytelling propensities, and
particularly the interest in the lives and minds of others that these
engage and manifest, as a function of our cognitive and affective
evolution. The interest in others’ minds and experiences manifested
in (cinematic, literary and other forms of) narrative is not separable
from the interest in others’ minds and experiences, and the capacities
to have such interest, that we have developed as a result of our evolu-
tion as a social species.1 Emotional responses to imagined scenarios,
for instance, are as important in life as in literature.2 On one level,
‘For thus have the gods spun the thread for wretched mortals,
that they should live in pain; but they themselves are without
care. For there are two jars placed on the floor of Zeus of gifts
that he gives, the one of ills, the other of blessings. If Zeus who
delights in the thunderbolt gives a man a mixed lot, that man
meets now with evil, now with good; but if he gives only from the
evils, he ruins a man, and evil hunger drives him over the divine
earth, and he wanders honoured by neither gods nor mortals.
Just so the gods gave splendid gifts to Peleus from birth.’
5 Pace Pinker 1997: 543: ‘fictional narratives supply us with a mental catalogue of
the fatal conundrums we might face someday and the outcomes of strategies we
could deploy in them’; see rather Tooby and Cosmides [2001] 2010; Carroll 2006;
Zunshine 2006; Boyd 2009, esp. 188–208; Dutton 2009: 109–26; Smith 2011, esp.
109–11; Oatley 2011: 32–3, 37–8, 45, 55–79, 100–1, 105–6, 108–32 and esp. 156–75
(with reference to empirical studies in support of the notion that fiction builds
capacity in other-understanding and empathy; cf. Oatley 2012, esp. 121–6, 159–62,
184–8).
106 douglas cairns
6 A full sample of poetic passages, from Homer to Euripides, can be found in Krause
1976; see her index, 298–304; discussion 43–289. See esp. 50–2 on Il. 24.525ff. as
the ‘Vergleichsbasis für alle späteren Entwicklungen’ (p. 50). For similar notions
in Homer, cf. e.g. Od. 6.188–9, 16.211–12.
7 Poem of the Righteous Sufferer in Lambert 1960: 21–62 (cf. ANET3 438–40, where
it is called A Dialogue about Human Misery); Babylonian Theodicy, Lambert 1960:
63–91. For the divine as the source of alternation in human fortunes and the need
for human endurance, cf. Eccl. 7: 13–14, Job 5: 17–18.
8 ANET3 p. 90; trans. by Dalley 1989: 150. Cf. the consolation offered by
Ut-napishtim in Gilgamesh SBV X.vi, ANET3 92–3, Dalley 1989: 107–8.
9 In Atrahasis I (Dalley 1989: 9–15) mankind is created to free gods from toil. Cf.,
e.g., Gen. 3: 17–19, where toil is God’s punishment of Adam. Cf. also M. L. West
1997: 120.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 107
More specifically, the Greeks are far from alone either in their
reflections on the mutability of fortune and the transience of happi-
ness or in making art out of such reflections. Thoughts of the instabil-
ity of fortune, the shortness of life and the evanescence of happiness
are encapsulated in many cultures’ repertoires of artistic and literary
forms, not just in the Near Eastern traditions that may or may not be a
proximate source of influence on early Greek poetry, but more widely.
In Japan, for example, such thoughts play a role in the intense focus
on the passing of the seasons that finds expression in the celebration
of both spring blossoms and autumn leaves. These thoughts similarly
find expression in the visual arts. Wabi and sabi are Japanese terms for
an indefinable complex of philosophical and aesthetic ideals centred
on the acceptance of impermanence (mujō) and the beauty of imper-
fection, incompleteness and irregularity. Wabi (poverty/simplicity),
sabi (solitude) and aware (pathos/sensitivity) are (together with yūgen,
depth/mystery) the four moods associated with haiku, while mono no
aware, ‘the pathos of things’, is a sense of the exquisiteness and poign-
ancy of the changing seasons and the subtleties of human existence,
said to inform not only short poems, but also longer narratives from
the eleventh-century Tale of Genji to the films of Ozu Yasujiro.10 One
such narrative, Heike monogatari (The Tale of the Heike, dating from
the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries), begins with what the eighteenth-
century scholar and poet Motoori Norinaga identified as a classic
example of mono no aware:
10 For the terms, see Colombetti 2009: 19. For mono no aware, in particular, see
Motoori Norinaga,‘On mono no aware’, in Marra 2007: 184–5:
Now, with regard to the difference between knowing mono no aware and not
knowing it, I would say that to know mono no aware is to be stirred by the
view of the wonderful cherry blossoms, or of the bright moon while facing it.
One’s feelings are stirred up because he understands, deep in his heart, the
moving power of the moon and the blossoms. The heart that is ignorant of
this moving power will never be stirred, no matter how wonderful the blos-
soms are and how clear the moon is in front of him. In other words, this is
what I mean by the phrase, ‘not knowing mono no aware’.
The concept of mono no aware was the focus of a splendid and extensive exhibition
at the Suntory Museum of Art, Tokyo, 17 April–16 June 2013: see Ishida et al.
2013.
11 Heike monogatari 1.1 = McCullough 1988: 23.
108 douglas cairns
12 McCullough 1988: 473. On the reiteration of this central theme throughout the
narrative, the ways in which it affects the structure of the narrative itself, the norms
that it articulates and the emotions that it is designed to evoke, cf. McCullough
1988: 456–7, 463–4, 467–75; cf. Kawashima 2000: 5 (and passim on similarities and
differences between Heike and the Iliad in their attitudes to fate and death). The
similarity between the expression of mujōkan in the Heike prologue and Achilles’
parable of the jars is noted by Mori 1997: 79–80. See also Yamagata 1993: 7–9,
2011: 27 on mutability in Homer and Heike. On the paradox of a transcendent
epic that memorialises impermanence, cf. Mori 1997: 100–1; Bialock 2007: 281.
13 See further Colombetti 2009.
14 On rasa theory, see Schechner 2001; S. L. Schwartz 2004; Oatley 2011: 120–4,
2012: 34–7, 46–7, 69–72; cf. Dutton 2009: 122.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 109
But he who has gained some fine new thing in his great luxury
flies beyond hope on the wings of his manliness, with ambition
15 Schechner 2001: 32; cf. Oatley 2012: 34–5, esp. 34: ‘Rasas are like the emotions of
everyday life, but unlike them in that they are felt in fiction in a way that can make
them more understandable.’ See also S. L. Schwartz 2004: 15–16, 19, 23.
16 For a comparison of the Greek (esp. Aristotelian) and Indian traditions in this
respect, see Munteanu 2012: 29–36.
17 On gnōmai in Greek poetry, see Ahrens 1937; on particular poets, see Bischoff
1938; Cocuzza 1975; Lardinois 1997, 2000; Stenger 2004; and cf. Huart 1973 on
Thucydides; Gould 1989: 81–2 on Herodotus.
110 douglas cairns
Similarly, there are Near Eastern analogues for the famous gnōmē
on the generations of men and leaves at Il. 6.146–9.21 Here, however,
there are more remote parallels, not just in the Sanskrit sources that
perhaps might be argued to reflect indirect transmission or a common
Indo-European origin,22 but also in unrelated traditions.23 Since the
latter are clear evidence of analogy rather than homology, the pos-
18 M. L. West 1997: 541, citing Ps. 144: 3–4; Job 7: 17–8: 9 (see esp. 8: 9: ‘for we were
born only yesterday and know nothing, | and our days on earth are but a shadow’);
BWL (Lambert 1960) 282.
19 Mimnermus 5.4 West, with parallels from second-millennium Egyptian writings in
M. L. West 1997: 507.
20 M. L. West 1997: 534; cf., e.g., Ut-napistim on impermanence in Gilgamesh X.vi,
ANET3 pp. 92–3, Dalley 1989: 108–9.
21 M. L. West 1997: 365, comparing Ps. 103: 15–16, 90: 5–6; Isa. 40: 6–7; Job 14: 2.
The close parallel at Ecclus. 14: 18 (‘As of the green leaves on a thick tree, some
fall, and some grow; so is the generation of flesh and blood, one cometh to an end,
and another is born’) is, according to West, ibid. n. 37, ‘influenced by the Iliad
passage’.
22 E.g. Katha Upanishad 1 (trans. Mascaró 1965: 55): ‘Remember how the men of old
passed away, and how those days to come will also pass away: a mortal ripens like
corn, and like corn is born again.’ For the principle of alternation more generally
in Indian classical literature, cf. Rigveda 10.117.5 (trans. Doniger 1981: 69): ‘Let
the stronger man give to the man whose need is greater; let him gaze upon the
lengthening path. For riches roll like the wheels of a chariot, turning from one to
another.’ For the wheel as an image of alternation in Greek, cf. Hdt. 1.207.2, with
Krause 1976: 210 (and cf. below). For the focus on wealth, cf., e.g., Thgn. 157–8.
23 E.g. Heike monogatari 1.6 (McCullough 1988: 33), cited by Yamagata 1993: 8:
‘Since both are grasses | of the field, how may either | be spared by autumn – | the
young shoot blossoming forth | and the herb fading from view?’
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 111
24 Cf. Turner 1996: 5–7; Geary 2011: 182–8. As Gould observes (1989: 81), a gnōmē
‘is what Walter Benjamin [1973: 108] calls “an ideogram of a story” ’.
25 Geary 2011: 179–96.
26 ‘ἄνσχεο, μὴ δ’ ἀλίαστον ὀδύρεο σὸν κατὰ θυμόν· | οὐ γάρ τι πρήξεις ἀκαχήμενος υἷος
ἑῆος, | οὐδέ μιν ἀνστήσεις, πρὶν καὶ κακὸν ἄλλο πάθῃσθα’ (‘Bear up, and do not
lament incessantly in your thymos. You will not achieve anything by grieving for
your son, nor will you bring him back to life, before some other evil befalls you’).
Cf. the Niobe paradigm, 599–620.
112 douglas cairns
27 See above all Howie [1995] 2012. For a definition of exemplarity, as part of a
splendid account of its importance in Roman culture, see Roller 2004.
28 For shared vulnerability to misfortune as a typical condition for pity in traditional
Greek thought, cf. B. 5.155–62 (esp. 160–2 and cf. 89–92); S. Aj. 121–6, Phil.
501–6, OC 566–8; E. Hec. 282–7; Hdt. 1.86.6, 7.46.2; cf. Pelling 2005a: 289, 291–2
on Plutarch.
29 This is one reason why, for example, discussion of the issue of non-burial in
Sophocles’ Antigone cannot be restricted to consideration of the treatment of trai-
tors in fifth-century Athens. As George Steiner writes (1984: 242), ‘The more one
experiences ancient Greek literature and civilization, the more insistent the sugges-
tion that Hellas is rooted in the twenty-fourth Book of the Iliad.’
30 See Cairns 2012.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 113
31 Il. 9.502–14, 19.85–136. On these and other paranarratives, see Alden 2000.
32 See Cairns 2013b.
33 Cf. Ant. 1261–2, 1265, 1269 (Creon); 1304–5, 1312–13 (Eurydice, as reported by
the Messenger).
34 Versnel 2011: 212, 231.
35 These are topics which must be pursued in detail elsewhere. In brief, however,
I should see the phenomena that Versnel 2011: 151–237 (201–6 specifically on
Sol. 13 West) presents as logically incompatible much more in terms of a general
schema with particular options, each related to but not necessarily entailing the
others (cf. Eidinow 2011: 9–10, 66–75). Thus, while I appreciate in principle the
difference between notions such as alternation, fate, divine phthonos and divine
punishment, I should not (unlike Versnel; cf. in some respects Hau 2007 passim,
e.g., 35, 89–90, 112, 115, 141, 244) wish to see a sharp disjunction between them
in practice. If, for example, the principle of alternation is a statement of ‘the way
things are’, then it is a very short (yet still not a necessary) step to explain that state
114 douglas cairns
(footnote 35 continued)
of affairs in terms of something like ‘fate’. If the inevitability of suffering defines
man vis-à-vis god, then it is possible (but not obligatory) to see unmixed happiness
as something that gods jealously keep to themselves; and since gods are analyti-
cally superior to mortals, their felicity can (but need not) be seen as an entitlement
which justifies their resentment. These categories are not discrete but potentially
overlapping as the need arises; though the specific conceptions are not reducible,
without remainder, to a single general notion, there is a logic by which they may
be related.
36 On actions, scripts, plots and narratives, see Oatley 2012: 45–7, esp. 46: ‘Scripts
are not just cognitive components of understanding. They can also be sequences
that are deeply rooted in a society’s beliefs and values.’ On the emotional aspects
of this, cf. Boyd 2009: 107–8, 138–41. For another approach to the interrelation of
emotion-scripts and narratives, see Snaevarr 2010.
37 See Krause 1976: 61–151.
38 Bundy [1962] 1986, esp. 47–53, 74–5. See the passage from P. 8 quoted above and
cf., e.g., P. 7.20–1. For further discussion and examples of the theme of vicissitude
in Pindar, cf. Bischoff 1938: 125–65; Kirkwood 1975, esp. 63–74; Krause 1976:
91–138 (cf. 138–51 on Bacchylides); Maravela 2011.
39 So, rightly, Krause 1976: 51.
40 See, e.g., I. 7.37–9: ἔτλαν δὲ πένθος οὐ φατόν· ἀλλὰ νῦν μοι | Γαιάοχος εὐδίαν
ὄπασσεν | ἐκ χειμῶνος (‘I endured sorrow beyond words; but now the god that
holds the earth has granted me calm after the storm’).
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 115
41 Krause 1976: 101–6 (102 on ponos and hēsychia); Lloyd-Jones [1985] 1990; Nisetich
1988 (esp. 4–5 on ponos and hēsychia); Theunissen 2002: 698–783; Adorjáni 2011:
172–96. On ponos and hēsychia in epinician more generally, see, e.g., Slater 1981;
Dickie 1984.
42 I think the scholia (Σ P. 3.141a–b, ii. 81 Drachmann; cf. Σ A Il. 24.528) are right
about the allusion to the parable of the jars, but it would not affect my general
point if we followed B. Currie in believing that there is none (2005: 390–2).
43 See B. 5.162–3: ‘ἀλλ’ οὐ γάρ τίς ἐστιν | πρᾶξις τάδε μυρομένοις . . .’ (‘But since there
is no purpose in bewailing these things . . .’) and cf. Il. 24.524 (οὐ γάρ τις πρῆξις
πέλεται κρυεροῖο γόοιο), 550 (οὐ γάρ τι πρήξεις ἀκαχήμενος υἷος ἑῆος). Cf. also B.
5.84–5 (θάμβησεν δ’ ἄναξ | Ἀμφιτρυωνιάδας) with Il. 24.483–4 (ὣς Ἀχιλεὺς θάμβησεν
ἰδὼν Πρίαμον θεοειδέα· | θάμβησαν δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι). See further Cairns 2010: 46, 88–9,
231, 241; on the theme of alternation in this ode and in B. 3 (also for Hieron), cf.
Cairns 2011.
116 douglas cairns
of Heracles) guide those of the audience, with the result that, as the
career of Meleager embodies a truth for Heracles, so the presentation
of both great heroes serves an exemplary function for the audience.
But though the narrative is extensive, it is also truncated. Heracles
proposes a marriage with Meleager’s sister, Deianira, and the audi-
ence see that the human limitations that apply to Meleager will be
exemplified by Heracles too.
The principle of alternation is not the only motif from which tragic
plots are fashioned, but it is a central aspect of several, and the norms
with which it belongs are reflected more peripherally in many more.44
This is not a point that needs to be laboured, and there is no time
either for exhaustive survey or for detailed analysis of even the best
examples. But it is worth noting that in these ‘best examples’ – for
instance, Sophocles’ Ajax or Oedipus Tyrannus – (1) the develop-
ment of the theme of alternation involves the characteristic whole-life
perspective on the career of a single heroic figure; (2) the exemplary
nature of the central character’s change of fortune as a manifestation
of the principle of alternation is explicitly highlighted; (3) the limits
on what is possible for human beings are defined, as an explicit aspect
of the plot’s exemplary force, by what is possible for gods; and (4)
the responses of internal witnesses not only point the moral in terms
of alternation but also explicitly guide the emotional responses of an
external audience.
This is by no means the only kind of tragic plot, and the plots of
even these two Sophoclean plays are in some ways very different. In
Ajax, for example, the exemplarity of Ajax’s change of fortune is out-
lined by Athena in the prologue (118–33); she and Odysseus respond
to the same phenomena, but exhibit very different evaluations and
emotions. The notion of alternation then underpins both the false
hope that Ajax can be saved if he survives the current day and the
determination of Ajax himself to abandon a world of change and
vicissitude, until (paradoxically) his fortunes take a turn for the better
when his enemy, Odysseus, behaves like a friend. In OT, on the other
hand, it is after the prodigious scale of Oedipus’ misfortunes becomes
clear that the Chorus present him as a paradigm of the vulnerability
of all mortals (1186–96).45 A central focus on a profound change of
44 See Krause 1976: 151–285; Cairns 2006, 2013b, 2013c; Easterling 2013; Lloyd
2013. Among primary sources, and apart from those discussed in the text, cf. e.g.
A. Ag. 1327–9; S. Tr. 1–3, 29–30, 129–31, 296–302, 943–6, OC 394, 607–20, fr. 871
R; E. Med. 1224–30, Hipp. 1105–10, Supp. 331, Oedipus frr. 92, 97 Austin = 549,
554 Kannicht.
45 Cf. Ant. 1155–71 (with Simonides 521 PMG = 244 Poltera; cf. Swift 2010, on alter-
nation in Simonidean laments), 1347–53, picking up a theme of the play’s central
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 117
and fundamentally important second stasimon (582–625). The Ant. resembles the
OT in so far as the moral of mutability is drawn summatively in the play’s closing
stages, but in other ways their plots are very different, especially in the Ant.’s dual
focus on the fates of Antigone and Creon. Though these are very closely inter-
linked, if the principle of alternation is applicable to both, its ethical and religious
implications will differ in each case. See further Cairns 2013b.
46 On the relation between Po. 13 and 14 on the best kind(s) of plot, see most recently
Heath forthcoming.
47 See esp. EN 1100a4–11, 1101a6–13.
48 As in Sim. 521 PMG = 244 Poltera; A. Ag. 928–9 (with Fraenkel 1950: ii. 420 ad
loc.); E. Andr. 100–2, Hcld. 865–6 (with Fränkel 1946: 135), Tro. 509–10; Hdt.
1.32.7.
118 douglas cairns
For those that we great in the past have for the most part become
small; and those that were great in my time were small in the past.
Therefore, since I know that human eudaimonia never remains in
the same place, I shall make mention of both alike.
49 For prototypical thinking in Arist., see, e.g., (on the Rhetoric’s definitions of the
pathē) Harris 2001: 58–9 and Fortenbaugh 2008: 29–47.
50 Hau 2007. For aspects of the work in published form, see Hau 2009 (on Diodorus),
2011 (on Polybius).
51 Hau 2007: 242.
52 On alternation in Hdt., see (besides Hau 2007) Krause 1976: 199–223; Harrison
2000: 31–63 and passim.
53 Cf. Krause 1976: 221–2; Harrison 2000: 31–3, 62–3; Raaflaub 2002: 177; Van
Wees 2002: 328–36; Hau 2007: 84.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 119
“εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατος δοκέεις εἶναι καὶ στρατιῆς τοιαύτης ἄρχειν, οὐδὲν
ἂν εἴη πρῆγμα γνώμας ἐμὲ σοὶ ἀποφαίνεσθαι· εἰ δ’ ἔγνωκας ὅτι
ἄνθρωπος καὶ σὺ εἶς καὶ ἑτέρων τοιῶνδε ἄρχεις, ἐκεῖνο πρῶτον μάθε
ὡς κύκλος τῶν ἀνθρωπηίων ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων, περιφερόμενος δὲ οὐκ
ἐᾷ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς εὐτυχέειν.”
‘If you think that you, and likewise the army you lead, are
immortal, there would be no point in my declaring my views to
you. But if you accept that you are a human being and that those
you lead are the same, then you must first of all understand that
there is a wheel of human affairs, and that wheel, as it turns, does
not permit the same people always to be fortunate.’
ἐμοὶ τῆς τῶν βίων ἅψασθαι μὲν γραφῆς συνέβη δι’ ἑτέρους, ἐπιμένειν
δὲ καὶ φιλοχωρεῖν ἤδη καὶ δι’ ἐμαυτόν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ τῇ ἱστορίᾳ
πειρώμενον ἁμῶς γέ πως κοσμεῖν καὶ ἀφομοιοῦν πρὸς τὰς ἐκείνων
ἀρετὰς τὸν βίον . . .
(footnote 56 continued)
the initial setback of the mutilation of the herms (6.27–9), to disastrous failure
(7.75, 7.84.2–85.1, 7.86.2, 7.87.5–6), at least makes room for the reflections on
tychē and divine phthonos attributed to Nicias (7.77.2–4), and may well prompt
similar thoughts in at least some of the historian’s readers, perhaps especially
given the historian’s own verdict on the gulf between Nicias’ dystychia and his
deserts, 7.86.5 (the negation of the eutychia with which he is credited at 5.16.1,
6.17.1), echoing Nicias’ own at 7.77.2, and the contrasts he draws between aims
and outcome at 7.75.6–7 and between the glory of the victors and the dystychia of
the defeated at 7.87.5; possibly also, as Cornford famously argued (1907: 174–87,
esp. 185), in the juxtaposition of the Melian dialogue and the Sicilian expedition as
illustrations of the inevitable results of blind over-confidence. See further Macleod
1983: 140–58; Connor 1984: 161–8, 187–8, 198–209; Stahl [1966] 2003: 180–222;
Hau 2007: 55, 66–8, 111–12, 168–75, 206–8.
57 For examples from Diodorus and esp. from Polybius, cf. below.
58 On the continuity between Plutarch’s Lives and his predecessors among the his-
torians in their use of what one might regard as ‘tragic’ themes, cf. Pelling 2002b,
esp. 97–8, 106, 111 n. 27; cf. 117–41 (esp. 120–1, 130–1); cf. Pelling 2005a: 280–3.
59 Cf. Russell 1973: 100; Desideri 1989: 199–204, 212–15, 1992: 4473–5; Duff 1999:
34–6, 50, 53–4; Lamberton 2001: 72–4; Zadorojnyi 2010: 169–73, esp. on the
mirror motif.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 121
Among these are the Lives I have chosen for you now, of
Timoleon the Corinthian and Aemilius Paullus, men who were
alike not only in their principles, but also in the good fortune that
their careers manifested, making it a matter of debate whether
their greatest successes were due to luck or to judgement.
63 With Aem. 24.4–6, cf. Cic. Nat. D. 2.6; Val. Max. 1.8.1; Pliny, HN 7.86; Florus
1.28.14–15. With Aem. 27.2–5, cf. Plb. 29.20 (with Walbank 1957–79: iii.392; Hau
2007: 141); Livy 45.8.6–7; D.S. 30.23.1–2; Florus 1.28.11. With Aem. 28.4, cf. Plb.
30.10; Livy 45.27.7. With Aem. 34.8–38.1, cf. Cic. ad Fam. 4.6.1, Tusc. 3.70; Livy
45.41; D.S. 31.11; Vell. 1.10.3–5; Val. Max. 5.10.2; App. Mac. 19. Cf. also Plb.
29.21 (Perseus’ downfall prompts citation of Demetrius of Phalerum on mutabil-
ity; cf. D.S. 31.10, perhaps also Livy 45.9.2–7, with Walbank 1957–79: iii.393);
D.S. 31.9. 4 (Aemilius once more – cf. 30.23.1–2 – sees Perseus as an example of
the mutability of fortune and the need for humility in triumph); Livy 44.40.3–10
(fortuna initiates the battle of Pydna; contrast Aem. 18.1–3); Pliny, HN 34.54
(Aemilius dedicates a Phidian statue of Athena in the temple of Fortuna Huiusce
Diei).
64 See Fontana 1958, esp. 7–11; Geiger 1981: 101–3 = 1995: 186–9; Swain 1989c: 327;
cf. Swain 1989b: 284 n. 42; W. J. Tatum 2010a: 452.
65 Cf. Geiger 1981: 103–4 = 1995: 188–90; Swain 1989c: 314, 327–9; W. J. Tatum
2010a: 449–50.
66 Cf. Swain 1989c: 325.
67 For the issues here, see Cairns 2003 (with further lit.).
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 123
Unless it is true that some divine force has been allotted the task
of detracting from exceedingly great good fortune and of making
a mixture of human existence, in order that no one’s life should
be unsullied or without admixture of trouble . . .
Two of Aemilius’ sons (aged 14 and 12) died, one five days before the
triumph and the other three days after it. The Roman people see this
as an illustration of the mutability of fortune (35.3):
The result was that there was no Roman unaffected by his suffer-
ing; rather, they all shuddered at the cruelty of Tyche, as she felt
no compunction at bringing such great grief into a house that was
full of admiration, joy and sacrifices, or at mixing up laments and
tears with paeans of victory and triumphs.69
ἔφη γάρ, ὅτι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων οὐδὲν οὐδέποτε δείσας, τῶν δὲ θείων
ὡς ἀπιστότατον καὶ ποικιλώτατον πρᾶγμα τὴν Τύχην ἀεὶ φοβηθείς,
μάλιστα περὶ τοῦτον αὐτῆς τὸν πόλεμον ὥσπερ πνεύματος λαμπροῦ
ταῖς πράξεσι παρούσης, διατελοίη μεταβολήν τινα καὶ παλίρροιαν
προσδεχόμενος.
He said that he had never been afraid of any human power, but
among divine powers he had always feared Tyche, regarding her
as a most untrustworthy and variable thing; and since in this war
in particular she had been present in his actions like a favourable
wind, he had never ceased to expect some change or reversal.
69 Cf. the reversal (within a single hour) in the fortunes of the cities and people of
Epirus, with the result that φρῖξαι δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους τὸ τοῦ πολέμου τέλος, εἰς
μικρὸν οὕτω τὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον λῆμμα καὶ κέρδος ἔθνους ὅλου κατακερματισθέντος (‘all
men shuddered at the outcome of the war, that a whole nation could be chopped
up and shared out with so little profit or gain for each individual’, 29.5). On this
passage, cf. Pelling 2005a: 209.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 125
εὐφροσύνης καὶ ζήλου καὶ θυσιῶν γέμουσαν, ἔτι τὴν Τύχην δι’
ὑποψίας εἶχον, εἰδὼς οὐδὲν εἰλικρινὲς οὐδ’ ἀνεμέσητον ἀνθρώποις
τῶν μεγάλων χαριζομένην.”
Second, he draws the conclusion that the vanquished Perseus and the
victorious Aemilius are both equally good paradeigmata of human
vulnerability (36.9):
“ἱκανῶς γὰρ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς κακοῖς εἰς τὴν τῶν κατωρθωμένων
ἀποκέχρηται νέμεσιν, οὐκ ἀφανέστερον ἔχουσα παράδειγμα τῆς
ἀνθρωπίνης ἀσθενείας τοῦ θριαμβευομένου τὸν θριαμβεύοντα· πλὴν
ὅτι Περσεὺς μὲν ἔχει καὶ νενικημένος τοὺς παῖδας, Αἰμίλιος δὲ τοὺς
αὑτοῦ νικήσας ἀπέβαλεν.”
‘For she [sc. Tyche] has made sufficient use of me and my afflic-
tions to satisfy her nemesis at our successes,70 since she has as
clear an example of human frailty in the hero of the triumph as
in its victim; except that Perseus, even though defeated, keeps his
children, while Aemilius, the victor, has lost his.’
Both these points punctuate the work as it builds towards its climax:
there are repeated references to Aemilius’ exceptional good fortune
(or divine protection),71 portents presage Aemilius’ success and
Perseus’ defeat,72 and the contrast between the noble Aemilius and
the avaricious, cowardly and possibly base-born Perseus, especially in
their reactions to good or ill fortune, recurs.73 Where Perseus’ faults
70 For the thought that one’s sufferings to date should be enough to satisfy divine
resentment, cf. Nicias at Thuc. 7.77.3. Nicias speaks of phthonos, but Aemilius of
nemesis; cf. n. 68 above.
71 12.1, 19.6, 24.2–6.
72 10.6–8, 17.7–11, 24.4–6.
73 12.3–6, 12.12, 19.4–6, 23.1–24.1, 26.4–12, 27.4–5, 33.6–8, 37.2. For Perseus as a
foil, cf. Swain 1989c: 325 (cf. 321–2 on Hicetas as foil for Timoleon in Tim.). On
the presentation of Perseus, see further Scuderi 2004–5.
126 douglas cairns
Αἰμιλίῳ μὲν οὖν τὴν τοῦ κατορθώματος νέμεσιν εἰς ἕτερον ἡ Τύχη
καιρὸν ὑπερβαλλομένη, τότε παντελῆ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀπεδίδου τῆς
νίκης.
This is not just the general idea that good fortune is inherently unsta-
ble and that vicissitude is inevitable,75 an idea that might simply be
regarded as the common currency of Greek popular thought. Rather,
the notion is explicitly presented in thoroughly Iliadic terms.76 The
climax of the Life’s narrative, the reversal which occurs at the height
of Aemilius’ success, is introduced with a direct allusion to the parable
of the jars (34.8): ὅπως μηδενὶ κακῶν ἄκρατος εἴη καὶ καθαρός, ἀλλὰ
καθ’ Ὅμηρον ἄριστα δοκῶσι πράττειν, οἷς αἱ τύχαι ῥοπὴν ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα
τῶν πραγμάτων ἔχουσιν (‘in order that no one’s life should be unsullied
or without admixture of trouble, but that, as Homer says, those may
be regarded as best off whose fortunes shift in the balance, now this
way, now that’).77 But this is not all. We are alerted to the relevance
‘You wretch,’ he said, ‘Why do you free tychē from the strong-
est charge you could make, by behaving in ways that will make
people think that you deserve your misfortunes, and that it is not
78 Cf. esp. S. Aj. 121–6. The notion that an enemy’s defeat underlines the mutability
to which all are subject, and should therefore appeal to the humanity of the victor,
is common in the Hellenistic and later historiography on which Plutarch draws.
See esp. Plb. 29.20–1, on Aemilius and Perseus, and cf. Plb. 15.17.4, 38.21; D.S.
13.20–7, 28–32, 17.38.4–7, 27.6.1, 31.3.1–3 (with Hau 2007: 37–43, 139, 141).
79 Another feature of the source context in Homer: see Il. 24.503.
128 douglas cairns
your present lot, but your previous one that was undeserved?
And why do you undermine my victory and diminish my success,
by showing that you are not a noble or even a fitting antagonist
for Romans? Aretē in the unfortunate brings great aidōs even in
the eyes of their enemies, but, for Romans, cowardice, even if
it prospers, is the most dishonourable thing of all.’ (Plut. Aem.
26.10–12)
Aem.-Tim., see Geiger 1981: 99–104 = 1995: 184–90; Desideri 1989; Swain 1989c,
esp. 314; W. J. Tatum 2010a.
84 For Geiger 1981: 104 = 1995: 189–90 it is this sequence that explains why Aem.
comes first; Swain 1989c: 314 rightly suspects that the importance of the theme
runs deeper than that.
85 Aemilius also has his ‘wilderness years’: Aem. 6.8–10, 10.1.
86 For Perseus in Aem. see above. In Tim., the hero’s eutychia and aretē are clearly
mirrored in the contrasting presentation of his opponents, and Hicetas is a central
aspect of this antithesis; but it is the career of Dionysius that is in particular
singled out for moralising on the mutability of fortune – his surrender represents
‘unexpected eutychia’ for Timoleon (13.3), but also occasions reflections on the
extremes of vicissitude to which a single human life can be subject (13.8–10), his
130 douglas cairns
(footnote 86 continued)
fall from tyrant to wastrel a ‘work of tychē’ (14.3) that evokes mockery and rejoic-
ing among those who see him ‘overthrown by tychē’, but sympathy in those for
whom his metabolē represents the vulnerability of all human beings to ‘the power
of invisible, divine causation’ (14.2). For Dionysius’ dystychia as the explicit com-
plement of Timoleon’s eutychia, see 16.1.
87 Perseus: see esp. 26.8–12, 34.1–4 (discussed above); Dionysius, see Tim. 15, esp.
Dionysius’ remark at 15.4: ‘Don’t you think that the way I bear my change of
tychē shows how I profited from association with Plato?’
88 On the Plutarchan prologue as an introduction to both Lives in a pair, see Duff
2011.
89 On the aretē–tychē antithesis in Plutarch, see Swain 1989d on De fort. Rom.; cf.
Lamberton 2001: 98–9.
90 Cf. the combination of aretē and eutychia in the history of Aemilius’ family at
Aem. 2.3, the references to or illustrations of Aemilius’ aretai at 2.6, 4.3–5, 5.8,
10.1, 13.6, 18.1, 28.1–11, 30.1, 31.4, 39.9 and (esp.) the proleptic verdict on the
respective roles of tychē and divine favour versus virtue in the victory over Perseus
at 12.1–3. On the presence of the theme in both Lives, see Desideri 1989: 204–13;
Swain 1989c: 324, 330–1. On his response to misfortune as a mark of Aemilius’
aretē, cf. Desideri 1989: 208–9; Swain 1989b: 275; on tychē as a test of character in
general, cf. Swain 1989a: 64–5, 67–8. For the same theme in Polybius and for the
relevance of the Polybian belief in Aem., cf. W. J. Tatum 2010a: 454–8, 460. The
theme emerges programmatically at Plb. 1.1.2, and is restated with reference to
Aemilius himself at 29.20 (W. J. Tatum 2010a: 454–5; cf. Hau 2007: 141); cf., e.g.,
18.33.4–8, on Philip V.
91 Explicitly at 19.1, 21.4–5, 36.4–5, 37.5; implicit in 6.1–7.2, 15.1–4 (Dionysius),
26.3, 38.1; cf. Swain 1989c: 330–1.
92 As W. J. Tatum remarks (2010a: 452), Timoleon’s words at 36.5–6 represent ‘a
gesture Plutarch elsewhere records as an elegant example of self-praise (de laud.
ipsius 542E)’.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 131
The way that a theme can be salient and explicit in one of the pair,
less salient but still significant in the other, is further illustrated by
the presentation of our central topic, the mutability of fortune and
the impossibility of unmixed eudaimonia. In the Aemilius, disaster
strikes at the height of Aemilius’ success, whereas Timoleon puts his
early misfortunes behind him and ends his days secure in the honour
and esteem in which he is held by the recipients of his benefactions.93
But Timoleon’s felicity is not entirely unmixed: by remaining in Sicily
rather than returning to Corinth, he avoids the malicious resentment
of one’s fellow citizens (πολιτικὸς φθόνος) that typically attends the
successful (and ambitious) general (36.8), but not even he can escape
phthonos entirely. Attacked by Syracusan demagogues, he uses their
very freedom to attack him as a token of the benefactions that are
properly appreciated by the vast majority of their fellows (37.1–3).
Even then, however, his retirement is not entirely free of setbacks:
he gradually loses his sight, eventually becoming completely blind
(37.7–10). Though Plutarch is at pains to emphasise that this is an
affliction that runs in his family rather than an arbitrary ‘insult’ on the
part of Tyche (οὔτε παροινηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς Tύχης, 37.7), it is nonetheless a
symphora (that brings out both his own strength of character and the
esteem in which he is held by the Syracusans, 38.1–3). In this way, in a
minor key and in the midst of a much more pronounced emphasis on
Timoleon’s felicity, the pattern that we see in the phthonos that threat-
ens Aemilius’ triumph (Aem. 30.4–32.1), the misfortune that strikes at
the height of his success (demonstrating the truth of the gnōmē, sup-
ported by the Iliadic parable of the jars, that ‘no one’s life is entirely
free of misfortune’, Aem. 34.8), and the fortitude and wisdom with
which Aemilius bears his misfortune (Aem. 36.1–37.1) is replicated in
the case of Timoleon. The principle of alternation, though explicitly
enunciated and explicitly related to its emblematic statement in the
Iliad only in the Aemilius, recurs as an organising principle, an ethical
norm, and a template that structures audience response also in the
Timoleon. 94
Both Lives, then, manifest the whole-life perspective that is char-
acteristic of traditional Greek thought on the nature of eudaimonia.
In both, the vicissitudes of fortune play a substantial role in the
subject’s career. And in both, the subject’s overall felicity, emphasised
particularly in the concluding sections with reference to the esteem
93 Tim. 36.1–39.7, the length of this section in itself attesting to the emphasis on
Timoleon’s eudaimonia; the equivalent section in Aem. is two chapters to Tim.’s
four.
94 Cf. Pelling 1986: 94 = 2002a: 357.
132 douglas cairns
95 See Tim. 3.1–3, 13.4, 8.1–8, 12.3, 12.9, 13.1, 14.2–3, 16.1, 16.10–12, 19.1, 20.1,
20.11, 21.5, 21.7, 26.1–6, 27.9, 28.2, 30.3, 30.6–7, 30.10, 36.2, 36.5, 37.5, 37.7. For
this as a project of providence, cf. Dion 4.3–4, 50.4, with Swain 1989c: 329.
96 1989c: 334; cf. 1989b: 275: ‘Aemilius’ campaign did not produce really great
changes in the world.’
97 On the rise of Rome, see Fab. 27.2, De fort. Rom. 317f–318a (Rome as Tyche’s
final destination), 342b–d, with Swain 1989b: 286–98, 1989c: 327 n. 48, 1989d;
cf. W. J. Tatum 2010a: 450 n. 4; for Greece’s destined decline Dem. 19.1, Phoc.
28.2–3, Phil. 17.2, Flam. 12.10 (with Swain 1989b: 281–5, 293). In the last two pas-
sages cited, the point is that Rome’s rise is Greece’s fall.
98 See De fort. Rom. 4, 318b–c, where Aemilius is an example of the Roman leaders
whose tychē (which must encompass his success against Perseus) has contributed
to that of Rome in general; cf. Swain 1989d: 508–9.
99 See W. J. Tatum 2010a: 454–6 on Plb. 1.4.1, 1.4.4–5, with 29.20 (where Aemilius
himself ‘reprises Polybius’ own views on the purpose of history’, W. J. Tatum
2010a: 455); cf. Plb. 29.21.1–9 – it is significant that Polybius located this digres-
sion on Demetrius of Phalerum’s views on on tychē at this point (W. J. Tatum
2010a: 456). On Plb. 1.4.1, 4–5, cf. Hau 2011: 187–9, 196. Hau 2011 in general
makes substantial progress over earlier scholarship in seeing the underlying
schema to which all senses of tychē in Polybius might be related.
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 133
100 A point that is kept before us by the references to Alexander and the Macedonian
dynasty to which Perseus belongs at 8.1ff., 12.9–11, 23.9 and esp. 31.5 (Aemilius’
triumph entails the display of ‘the king of Macedon taken alive and the glory of
Alexander and Philip led as booty under Roman arms’).
101 See the references cited in nn. 71–2 above, and cf. W. J. Tatum 2010a: 453. I see
no basis for Swain’s assertion that ‘there is nothing comparable in Aem.’ to the
omens of Tim. 8, 12 and 26 (1989c: 332).
134 douglas cairns
Life offers a way of reading the first that makes explicit and salient
what would otherwise remain in the background.102 The two narra-
tives, as a pair, concern the mutability of fortune as it affects states
as well as individuals (a historiographical topos that goes back, as we
have seen, to Herodotus). Paradoxically, the Roman Life highlights,
in thoroughly Greek terms, the vicissitudes of a single life, a central
focus of traditional Greek thought on the nature and possibility of
happiness; while the Greek Life exemplifies the notion of historical
destiny that is so important for Rome and the Romans. Though
Plutarch’s appreciation of Timoleon’s providential mission in ridding
Sicily of tyrants and keeping the Carthaginians at bay is no doubt
genuine,103 the fact that his narrative of these events is preceded by
that of a crucial stage in Rome’s providential rise implies the temporal
limitations of Timoleon’s achievement;104 the destiny of free Greek
states, in Sicily and elsewhere, makes way for that of Rome. Yet
Timoleon’s achievements had their legitimate place in the providential
scheme of things. The Lives of Aemilius and Timoleon, taken together
as a single book, are saying something about the place of Greek and
Roman civilisation in world history.
If it is the Timoleon that emphasises the broader questions of the
rise and fall of states and cultures, it is the Aemilius that establishes,
for this pair of Lives, the relevance of the classic model of the principle
of alternation. As we see not least from their presence in Livy, these
ideas were in Plutarch’s day the common coin of Roman as well as
Greek thought.105 But Plutarch re-emphasises their Greekness. He
does so partly in his presentation of Aemilius as an untypically philo-
102 So W. J. Tatum 2010a: 460: ‘in Plutarch, the providential forces that so conspicu-
ously propel Timoleon’s liberation of the Greeks of Sicily recall, for the reader
of this pairing, the world historical impulse that brought Rome to greatness by
way of the career of Aemilius Paullus. The freedom of the Greeks and the rise of
Rome are results borne [sic] of the same providence.’
103 Swain 1989c: 329, 333–4; cf. Swain 1989b: 283–4. For W. J. Tatum 2010a:
459–60, Plutarch’s emphasis on this point constitutes a correction of Polybius’
attack on Timaeus (Plb. 12.23.4–6) for magnifying events that were of only
limited significance by comparison with the rise of Rome. On Timoleon as the
only great figure of his generation who succeeded in the Isocratean project of
making war only on barbarians and tyrants, rather than on other Greek states,
see Tim. 37.4.
104 As Swain notes (1989b: 292–3), Timoleon’s successes ‘were of limited duration
(as Plutarch must have known)’.
105 For the appeal of classic Greek formulations of the principle of alternation at
Rome, cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.24.59–25.60, quoting E. Hyps. 921–7 (in translation). At a
very general level, we may even be dealing with a narrative universal, in so far as
‘the narrative mode . . . deals in human or human-like intention and action and
the vicissitudes and consequences that mark their course’ (Bruner 1986: 13; cf.
Bruner 1986: 16–18, 88; Oatley 2012: 23, 45, 191).
exemplarity and narrative in the greek tradition 135
106 Cf. 3.3: Aemilius’ augurship is not just a step on the cursus honorum, but mani-
fests a genuine, quasi-philosophical religiosity. As Swain notes (1989c: 316),
Aemilius’ ‘unusual and Hellenic sounding education (2.6), which Plutarch has
probably fabricated, prefigures his philhellenism (28) and moral courage (36)’;
cf. Swain 1990: 132–3 = 1995: 240–1. W. J. Tatum 2013 sees Plutarch’s project
of emphasising Aemilius’ quasi-Hellenic virtues also in the account of Aemilius’
decision to dig wells in the vicinity of Mt Olympus at Aem. 14.
107 Cf., e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ presentation (via extensive evocation of the
speech of Phoenix and the allegory of the Litai, Il. 9.496–514) of Coriolanus as
a second Achilles at Ant. Rom. 8.50.3–4 (with M. Davies 2005). Várhelyi 2012:
124–8 usefully situates this presentation in the context of the development of
synkrisis as practised by Plutarch.
108 Sophocles at 1.3; Euripides, as quoted by Euthymus at 32.3; Timaeus’ quotation
of Sophocles at 36.2.
109 For Rome’s philhellenism as a factor in her providential rise to dominance, see
Flam. 12.1–10, with Swain 1989b: 293.
136 douglas cairns
engage with the same ideas, it returns explicitly to the source of these
narrative and cultural models in the most seminal and authoritative
works of Greek literature.110 The principle of alternation is not unique
as traditional wisdom or as narrative theme, nor is the tradition that
recurs to that principle uniquely Greek in intellectual, affective or aes-
thetic terms. Yet the principle has, for the Greeks themselves, a special
place in Greek culture. It is a normative pattern to which Greek artists
and audiences repeatedly turn as a means of making sense of and
giving form to experience. This they do in forms as minimal as a single
gnōmē and as extensive as the Iliad, but at either end of the spectrum
the principle of alternation is a pattern that cries out for exemplifica-
tion in narratives of the doings and sufferings of specific individuals.
The tendency to encapsulate the pattern of vicissitude, with its atten-
dant normative and emotional associations, in traditional narratives
of an exemplary character is a salient and typical feature of the Greek
literary tradition, found in some of its most authoritative and influ-
ential manifestations. It is thus an interesting example of the ways in
which the shared and social aspects of traditional literary genres play
a constitutive role in the ways that a culture represents to itself its
models of mind, morality and emotion.
‘WHERE DO I BEGIN?’:
AN ODYSSEAN NARRATIVE STRATEGY
AND ITS AFTERLIFE
Richard Hunter
This chapter will be concerned with a few more examples drawn from
the afterlife of Odysseus’ opening words, but there is an important
point to be made at once.
Although Odysseus’ proem sees him behaving very much like a bard
or rhapsode,2 his ‘rhetorical’ question at 9.14 seems at the first level
simply to emphasise how much he has suffered, that is, how much
material exists for a narration of suffering, rather than to express
a quandary about narrative τάξις, ‘ordering’; nevertheless, the two
issues are here already mutually implicated. One of our most impor-
tant ancient narratological texts, Aelius Theon’s discussion of διήγημα,
devotes considerable space to these issues, and when he notes right at
the beginning that, under the heading of χρόνος (the fifth of the six
elements of ‘narrative’, which seems as good a translation of διήγημα
as any), falls ‘what came first, what second and so forth’ (78.32–3 Sp.),
we should, I think, hear a faded scholastic echo of Odysseus’ ques-
tion. Odysseus’ apologoi indeed set the ancient narratological agenda.
When Theon later warns against saying the same things twice (80.28
Sp.), we should recall the final words of Odysseus’ narration:
1 There is uncertainty about the text at the beginning, but it does not affect the point
being made. It is a pity that we do not know more of the context of Cephisodorus
fr. 13 K-A, cited by Athenaeus at the head of Book 11, ἄγε δή, τίς ἀρχὴ τῶν λόγων
γενήσεται;.
2 Cf., e.g., Kelly 2008a: 178. Odysseus’ ‘problem’ of narrative choice is, of course,
also Homer’s (cf. below p. 155), one implied by his request to the Muse at 1.10
(where see Di Benedetto’s note, 2010: ad loc.). For other relevant aspects of the
‘Golden Verses’ cf. Ford 1999 and Hunter forthcoming b.
‘where do i begin?’: an odyssean narrative strategy 139
explanations for Homeric practice were not hard to find (cf. the scholia
on 12. 453).3 The reason why one did not want to repeat oneself was
that such repetition was the enemy of clarity, σαφήνεια (cf. Theon loc.
cit., Anon. Seg. 82 Dilts-Kennedy), and it is probably not too rash
a speculation that not merely the injunction against repetition, but
also Odysseus’ emphasis upon not repeating things already described
‘very clearly’, the standard ancient interpretation of ἀριζήλως,4 had its
effects in the rhetorical schools. Eustathius observes that Odysseus’
final words in Book 12 were ‘useful (χρήσιμος) for everyone who
does not wish to repeat what has already been clearly stated’ (Hom.
1730.17). Odysseus’ strategies thus survived in the way that narrative
practice was taught at a very basic level.
It is not of course the opening verses of Book 9 alone which gave
the impulse to the very rich ancient discussion of narrative τάξις, of
‘natural’ and ‘anastrophic’ narrative, and so forth,5 but these verses
must be set against Odysseus’ similar address to Arete in Book 7:
3 Cf. Nünlist 2009: 198 n. 15. Empedocles fr. 25 D-K, ‘it is a fair thing to say twice
what is necessary’, may have looked directly to Odysseus’ words; for those in the
audience who remembered the Homeric Odysseus’ words, Neoptolemus’ question
to him at Sophocles, Philoctetes 1238 (δὶς ταὐτὰ βούλῃ καὶ τρὶς ἀναπολεῖν μ᾽ ἔπη;)
will have carried a particular charge.
4 Cf. LfgrE s.v.
5 Cf. Hunter 2009: 52–5, citing earlier bibliography.
6 For some discussion and bibliography cf. Harder 2012: 2.20–1.
140 richard hunter
7 Cf. Hunter 2009: 55. It is worth noting that this chapter of Dionysius’ Thucydides
both uses τὸ διηνεκές and describes the historian in a way which, to us, seems
very ‘Callimachean’: ‘He wished to travel a road which was new and untrod-
den (ἀτριβής) by others’ (9.4). In the extant works Dionysius never mentions
Callimachus’ poetry, only his scholarly views (cf. Hunter 2011: 233), but I wonder
whether the ‘Reply to the Telchines’ does not lurk somewhere in the background
of Dionysius’ criticisms of the difficulties which Thucydides put in the way of his
readers. It is certainly much easier to assume that Dionysius knew the prologue to
the Aitia than that he did not.
8 De Jong 2001: 184–6 offers a helpful account of Odysseus’ narration in Book 7,
though she does not comment on διηνεκέως.
9 For the ancient testimonia cf. Bühler 1964: 46–7; Mazzucchi 1992 on ‘Longinus’
ad loc.
‘where do i begin?’: an odyssean narrative strategy 141
One ancient narrator who has learned much from Homer’s Odysseus is
Simaitha in Theocritus’ Second Idyll.10 Like Odysseus, she thematises
the problem of ‘where to begin’:
grove of Artemis; many wild beasts were paraded that day for the
goddess, including a lioness.
‘Observe, lady moon, from where my love came.’ (Theocritus
2.64–9)
Soon body grew warm on body,14 and our faces were hotter than
before, and we whispered sweet things. (Theocritus 2.140–1)
ἔρως (‘making ἔρως’ in fact) has now arrived, and there is no further
need for the refrain. Whether we are to understand that Simaitha’s
memories of that afternoon are now so powerful that, all formal
restraint abandoned, she quite forgets to put in the regular refrain is
probably something upon which we can only speculate.
Other answers to Simaitha’s question are also possible. Delphis, of
course, is Simaitha’s ‘love’, and Simaitha’s first sight of him, and ours,
might be thought to mark precisely ‘the coming of love’:
Both the reworking of Sappho fr. 31 V15 and the echo of Il. 14.293–4
(the effect on Zeus of the arrival of Hera, in full possession of the
powers of Aphrodite) show that the ‘burning disease’ of ἔρως has now
arrived; we even know ‘from where’ ἔρως/Delphis has come, namely
‘from the gymnasium’.
We have not yet, however, exhausted the potential answers to the
question of the origin of Simaitha’s love. The answer to the question
‘Who brought this evil upon me?’ (2.65) is, quite literally, Thestylis
(cf. 2.102 ἄγαγε τὸν λιπαρόχρων),16 and Delphis’ arrival at Simaitha’s
house (2.103–10) might well be thought to be yet another ἀρχὴ ἔρωτος.
It is not just τάξις, both as the order in which one tells things and
the relation between that order and the order in which events actu-
ally occurred, which Odysseus’ narration puts on the narratological
agenda. He announces the subject of the narration which he begins
in Book 9 as νόστον ἐμὸν πολυκηδέα (9.37), but it is the κήδεα and
the κακά which have already been repeatedly stressed (7.212–14,
242, 9.12–13). First-person narration is almost necessarily a tale of
woe, as Glenn Most argued in a well-known discussion of Achilles
Tatius,17 but there are (again) interesting survivals of relevant ancient
discussion. The scholia on Od. 9.12 and 14 note that this stress on his
‘troubles’ creates ‘anticipation’ in the listeners, just as the exegetical
scholia on the opening of the Iliad tell us that οἱ περὶ Ζηνόδοτον offered
as one solution to the famous ζήτημα of why Homer began from such
an ill-omened word as μῆνις that this would ‘rouse the hearers’ minds
and make them more attentive’ (bT-scholia on 1.1b);18 this explanation
also appears, though without the reference to Zenodotus, in the A and
D scholia. It is, however, on another scholium on Il. 1.1 that I wish to
dwell for a moment. Another answer to this ζήτημα which is shared
by the A and D scholia connects this opening with our psychological
well-being; I quote part of the relevant A-scholium:
[Homer begins with μῆνις] for two reasons, first so that the rel-
evant part of the soul might flow clear (ἀποκαταρρεύσῃ) of this
passion and so that he could make his listeners more attentive to
17 Most 1989; for some qualifications to Most’s discussion cf. Repath 2005.
18 Cf. Nünlist 2009: 137–8.
‘where do i begin?’: an odyssean narrative strategy 145
sible (we might even wish to associate the ‘pleasures at the end’ in the
Iliad scholium cited above with the Alexandrian τέλος (or πέρας) of
the Odyssey at 23.296), but it is another text to which I would like to
draw attention in this connection. One of the most famous passages in
the Greek novels is Chariton’s declaration at the head of his last book:
And I think that this book will be the sweetest for my readers, for
it cleans away the grim events of the earlier books. No longer will
there be piracy and slavery and law-cases and battles and suicide
and war and capturing, but honourable love and lawful marriage.
(Chariton, Callirhoe 8.1.4)
This passage and its relation to Aristotelian katharsis has been very
much discussed, most recently and in greatest depth by Stefan Tilg,24
though it has not, to my knowledge, been brought together with the
scholarship on the opening of the Iliad which is visible in the scholium
to 1.1 (above). It is hard to believe on general grounds, however, that
Chariton was not familiar with the kind of learning on show in these
Homeric scholia, and in any case he very obviously fashions his novel
as a new ‘Homer’ (however we wish to define the relationship) and,
moreover, he too is fond of asserting what is ‘Greek’ and what ‘bar-
barian’. I suggest, then, that, however we understand this claim at the
head of Book 8, Chariton has here adapted a scholastic observation
about the emotional and narrative structure of the Iliad, one associ-
ated with the opening of the poem, and placed it rather at the head
of his last book. It is Homeric literary virtues that he is (again) here
claiming for his work; Chariton’s creation of a ‘prose epic’ uses not
just Homer, but also the Homeric critical tradition, even if less elabo-
rately than Heliodorus was to do.
In narrative technique, as in so much else, it was of course the
ancient novel which most self-consciously presented itself as the heir
to the heritage of the Odyssey, and it is indeed Heliodorus’ Aethiopica
which takes pride of place. Heliodorus’ most famous narrator is the
wise Egyptian Calasiris, and he certainly has picked up the lesson of
24 Cf. Tilg 2010: 130–7; Whitmarsh 2011: 182–3. Heath 2011: 107 is ‘not convinced
that καθάρσιον in [Chariton] 8.1.4 is an Aristotelian allusion’.
‘where do i begin?’: an odyssean narrative strategy 147
“εἰ δέ μοι μέλει τῶν ὑμετέρων οὐκ ἄξιον ὑμῖν θαυμάζειν, τύχης
τε γάρ μοι τῆς αὐτῆς ἐοίκατε κοινωνεῖν καὶ ἅμα Ἕλληνας ὄντας
οἰκτείρω καὶ αὐτὸς Ἕλλην γεγονώς.” “Ἕλλην; ὦ θεοί” ἐπεβόησαν
ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς ἅμα οἱ ξένοι. “Ἕλλην ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸ γένος καὶ τὴν
φωνήν· τάχα τις ἔσται τῶν κακῶν ἀνάπνευσις.” “ἀλλὰ τίνα σε χρὴ
καλεῖν;” ἔφη ὁ Θεαγένης. ὁ δὲ “Κνήμωνα.” “πόθεν δὲ γνωρίζειν;”
“Ἀθηναῖον.” “τύχῃ τίνι κεχρημένον;” “Παῦε” ἔφη· “τί ταῦτα κινεῖς
κἀναμοχλεύεις; τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τῶν τραγῳδῶν. οὐκ ἐν καιρῷ γένοιτ’ ἂν
ἐπεισόδιον ὑμῖν τῶν ὑμετέρων τἀμὰ ἐπεισφέρειν κακά· καὶ ἅμα οὐδ’
ἂν ἐπαρκέσειε τὸ λειπόμενον πρὸς τὸ διήγημα τῆς νυκτὸς ὕπνου καὶ
ταῦτα δεομένοις ὑμῖν ἀπὸ πολλῶν τῶν πόνων καὶ ἀναπαύσεως.”
25 Cf. esp. Winkler 1982 (a seminal article); Hunter 1998b (citing earlier bibliography).
148 richard hunter
narration, particularly when you need sleep and rest after your
many sufferings.’ (Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1.8.6–7)
Cnemon . . . stood facing [the mysterious old man] and first of all
bade him good day. When the other said that he could not have a
good day, since this was not what fate had allotted him, Cnemon
was amazed and said, ‘The stranger is a Greek!’ ‘Not a Greek,’ he
replied, ‘but an Egyptian from hereabouts.’ ‘Why then is your dress
Greek?’ ‘Misfortunes have given me this bright change of cloth-
ing’ was the reply. Cnemon was amazed that anyone would dress
brightly as a result of disasters and asked to learn about them. ‘You
are carrying me from Troy’ answered the old man [cf. Od. 9.39],
‘and you are stirring up for yourself a swarm of ills and an endless
buzzing from them. But where are you heading and where do you
come from, young man? Why is a Greek-speaker in Egypt?’ ‘This is
absurd’ replied Cnemon. ‘You have given me no information about
your own story, though I indeed asked you first, and you want
information about mine!’ (Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.21.3–5)
26 Cf., e.g., Paulsen 1992: 142–50; Elmer 2008: 414–18. Montiglio 2013: 148–52 sees
the contrast rather as one between comedy (Cnemon) and epic-tragedy (Calasiris).
‘where do i begin?’: an odyssean narrative strategy 149
Alcinous at Od. 11.377–85. Moreover, what most holds these two pas-
sages together is the power of story. Cnemon claims that Charicleia
and Theagenes need ἀπὸ πολλῶν τῶν πόνων . . . ἀνάπαυσις, whereas
what they want is the virtually synonymous τῶν κακῶν ἀνάπνευσις; it is
not sleep, but stories which hold out the hope for both kinds of relief,
as is made immediately clear when the narrator tells us that Charicleia
and Theagenes thought that ‘listening to a story like their own would
be the greatest consolation’ (1.8.9).27
As for Calasiris, his opening Odyssean move is followed by a not
untypical (as we come to learn) piece of one-upmanship: he picks up
a verb, κινεῖς, from the verse of Euripides’ Medea which Cnemon had
cited in the earlier scene (although, of course, ‘in reality’ Calasiris did
not hear Cnemon speak) and goes one better with his extended insect
metaphor, σμῆνος . . . βόμβον ἄπειρον, which seems to amplify and
‘exhaust’ a metaphor already familiar in the narrative tradition (cf.
Ach. Tat. 1.2.2). Calasiris, like Odysseus, is indeed a highly competi-
tive narrator. These scenes in Book 2 have recently been enlighteningly
discussed by Tim Whitmarsh,28 so I will focus merely on what seems
relevant to the present discussion.
With an elegant reworking of the locus amoenus of Plato’s
Phaedrus,29 Calasiris leads Cnemon off to Nausicles’ house, where
their host’s daughter plays the Nausicaa role to perfection (2.22.1–2).
When Cnemon enquires about Nausicles, Calasiris describes him as a
man resembling both himself and Odysseus:
“οὐκ εἰς Διός” ἔφη, “ἀλλ’ εἰς ἀνδρὸς Δία τὸν ξένιον καὶ ἱκέσιον
ἀκριβοῦντος. βίος γάρ, ὦ παῖ, κἀκείνῳ πλάνος καὶ ἔμπορος καὶ
πολλαὶ μὲν πόλεις πολλῶν δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἤθη τε καὶ νοῦς εἰς πεῖραν
ἥκουσιν ὅθεν, ὡς τὸ εἰκός, ἄλλους τε κἀμὲ οὐ πρὸ πολλῶν τῶνδε
ἡμερῶν ἀλύοντα καὶ πλανώμενον ὁμωρόφιον ἐποιήσατο.”
‘It is not to Zeus’ house [that we are coming],’ he said ‘but to the
house of a man who is very careful about Zeus, the protector of
guests and suppliants. His life too, my child, is one of wandering
and trade, and he has experience of many cities and the customs
and minds of many men; this is probably the reason why he
has received others also into his house and not many days ago
he took me in when I was wandering in despair.’ (Heliodorus,
Aethiopica 2.22.3)
27 The hope is not, in fact, really fulfilled; cf. 5.33.4 with Hunter 1998b: 42.
28 Whitmarsh 2011: 232–8.
29 Cf. Hunter 2012: 13–14.
150 richard hunter
‘You [i.e. Calasiris] are like Proteus of Pharos, not that like him
you turn into a deceptive and fluid vision, but because you try to
lead me off the path.’
‘You will learn the story’, said the old man. ‘First, however,
I will give you a brief account of myself, not playing the sophist
with the story, as you believe, but offering you an account
which shows good order and is connected to what follows.’34
(Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.24.4–5)
You know this, old man. Why do you ask me this to turn me off
the track? (Od. 4.465)
34 The final phrase has been variously understood, but the meaning seems to be as
translated; it is, I think, misrepresented by Whitmarsh 2011: 235.
152 richard hunter
42 V.151 indeed evokes the description of Odysseus at Od. 19.203 ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ
λέγων ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα; the point is curiously absent from Brink’s commentary.
8
René Nünlist
1 Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.8 (trans. Usher). Whenever possible, published translations
have been used in this chapter (Lattimore’s for Homer). The other translations are
my own. In the case of scholia, elements that are tacitly understood have occasion-
ally been added (in angled brackets). Their sole purpose is to help understand the
quotation.
2 Contrast the (numerous) narratives which promise to tell the story ‘from the
beginning’ (ἐξ ἀρχῆς): Hes. Th. 45, 115; Pl. Phd. 59c8; Lys. 1.5, 32.3; Isoc. 17.3;
Dem. 34.5, 54.2; Men. fr. 129 K-A (ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς); etc.
some ancient views on narrative 157
The passage comes from chapter 23, in which Aristotle argues that the
plot of epic poetry (i.e., the narrative genre) must follow essentially the
same principles as the ones that he put forward for tragedy in chapter
7. A well-constructed plot must possess organic unity with natural
beginning, middle and end; it ought to have narrative coherence, plau-
sibility and appropriate magnitude. Unlike most of his fellow poets,
Homer succeeds in constructing a narrative that is to Aristotle’s liking
because he chooses to treat only one coherent part (ἓν μέρος) of the
entire Trojan War.
As often in the Poetics, the subject is dealt with in rather general
terms without too much detail. For instance, Aristotle does not
expressly state that the section chosen by Homer is located towards
the end of the war, covers a comparatively short time span (fifty-one
days) and incorporates the antecedents and the sequel by means of
analepsis and prolepsis respectively. Nor does Aristotle explain en
détail why the specific section chosen by Homer is particularly apt to
produce the type of plot that he considers a model of its kind.
I do not mean to criticise this laconism or speculate on what it might
say implicitly.3 Instead I propose to have a look at other ancient
sources which discuss similar questions and here and there fill the gaps
left in Aristotle’s account.
Among the first passages that come to mind is Horace’s winged word
in medias res.4 Instead of ‘beginning at the beginning’ (ab ovo, 147; cf.
Sat. 1.3.6), the poet hurries straight towards the actual outcome of his
story (ad eventum festinat, 148) and thus carries the reader or listener
3 One such speculation is worth addressing. It has been argued that, in the final
sentence of text 1, Aristotle means to say ‘daß die Episodentechnik ein Kunstgriff
Homers sei, durch den trotz der Beschränkung der Handlung seines Epos auf eine
übersichtliche Zeitperiode doch der gesamte Krieg dem Hörer vor Augen trete’
(Rengakos 2004: 289, with lit. 290 n. 38). Even if one accepts this interpretation
of the difficult term ἐπεισόδιον, two problems, at least, remain. Aristotle’s focus
in this passage is more on thematic unity than on temporal structure. What is
more, the catalogue of ships (and similar passages such as the teichoskopia or
the duel between Paris and Menelaus) are very peculiar because Homer does not
mark them as instances of analepsis. The relevant scenes are presented as if they
took place in the course of the fifty-one-day-period towards the end of the war,
even though they ‘actually belong’ to its beginning. Aristotle would have chosen a
curious example to illustrate Homer’s analeptic technique.
4 Hor. Ars P. 148; cf. Brink 1971: ad loc.; Meijering 1987: 146.
158 rené nünlist
along with him (auditorem rapit, 149). Since the second of Horace’s
two negative examples, which function as rhetorical foil, mentions
the poetic treatment of the Trojan War, it seems more than likely that
Homer represents the positive model for him too. At any rate, this is
the case for Quintilian (7.10.11), who expressly speaks of the ‘Homeric
manner’ (mos Homericus) when he distinguishes between chrono-
logical and non-chronological narratives (under the standard rubric
oeconomia, on which see below). If Quintilian describes the contrast to
a beginning ab initiis by means of the alternative a mediis vel ultimis,
one might first be tempted to understand this as a subtle correction
of Horace. Held against the background of their respective story (in
the sense of Genette’s histoire), both Homeric epics, as it were, begin
ab ultimis, the Iliad in the tenth and final year of the war, the Odyssey
thirty-nine days before Odysseus’ reunion with Penelope and twenty
years after his departure.5 But Quintilian may well be thinking of a
distinction that can be found in the progymnasmata of Theon (86.9–
87.12 Spengel), who discusses five possibilities for altering a narra-
tive’s natural sequence (‘beginning–middle–end’).6 The first possibility
is ‘middle–beginning–end’, which Theon expressly illustrates with
the Odyssey (Hunter, this volume): Calypso stands for the middle,
Odysseus’ Apologue with the Phaeacians is the beginning and the
remainder of the Odyssey represents the end. More generally, four of
Theon’s five possibilities start either in the middle or at the end, which
may well be Quintilian’s point of reference, not least because Theon’s
fifth variant, ‘beginning–end–middle’, seems less cogent than the other
four and is perhaps due to his recurrent attempt to be exhaustive.7
The narrative structure of the Iliad receives detailed discussion in
the Homeric scholia, for instance, a D-scholium on the opening line:
(2) The immediate (or: first) question is: why did the poet begin
his account with the final events (ἀπὸ τῶν τελευταίων) of the war?
The answer is: because the entire period before the tenth year did
not have such continuous battles, since the Trojans themselves,
due to their fear of Achilles, were penned up within the walls.
The tenth year contained more action and, with Achilles being
5 The first day-by-day analyses of the two epics go back to antiquity (for examples
see Nünlist 2009: 69–74).
6 It goes without saying that Quintilian need not depend directly on Theon, which
also helps avoid the difficulty of the latter’s date being disputed; cf. Heath 2003.
7 Interestingly, ‘middle–beginning–end’ (for beginning in the middle see also
74.17) is the only possibility that Theon exemplifies with entire texts (Odyssey,
Thucydides). The second, ‘end–middle–beginning’, is illustrated with a paragraph
from Herodotus (3.1). No examples are given for the remaining three.
some ancient views on narrative 159
(3) The question is: why did the poet begin from the final and not
the first events? The answer is: because the former battles took
place now and then and were not fought about the biggest cities.
As long as Achilles was present, the Trojans did not exit through
the gates, and the Greeks spent the nine years almost idly, sacking
the minor cities in the neighbourhood. There was no need for him
(sc. Homer) to write about these things, there not being a subject-
matter (ὕλη) for his account. They also say (λέγουσι δὲ καί) that
it is a poetic virtue (ἀρετή) to touch upon the last events first and
to narrate the rest from the beginning (ἀνέκαθεν, lit. from above).
(schol. b Il. 1.1 ex.)
8 On οἰκονομία see Nünlist 2009: 23–33 (with lit. in nn. 3 and 7).
9 Cf. Eust. Il. 7.29–31 παρενσπείρας ὧδε καὶ ἐκεῖ (‘inserting here and there’); for the
agricultural metaphor see texts 7 and 9 below.
160 rené nünlist
Even though the erzählte Zeit of the Iliad is a mere fifty-one days, it
incorporates the story-elements that fall outside this time span but are
essential to the story. The second sentence of the scholium elaborates
on the point that narrative structure depends on generic factors.
Chronological narratives are typical of historiography (and mediocre
poetry13). A similar view of historiography forms the implicit back-
drop against which Dionysius of Halicarnassus criticises Thucydides.
Since he chooses to proceed by seasons and thus repeatedly jumps
from one storyline to the other, Thucydides fails to produce the lucid
10 For narrating ἀνέκαθεν/ἄνωθεν cf. e.g. Pl. Leg. 781d9; Men. Epitr. 240; Polyb.
2.35.10; Plut. Thes. 19 (= Cleidemus FGrH 323 F 17) and texts 17–18 below. Other
scholia on the opening line discuss the question as to why Homer began the Iliad
with the ill-omened word ‘wrath’ (for an example see Hunter in this volume).
11 The hypothesis of a different source for the final sentence could find support
in the opening words ‘they also say’ (λέγουσι δὲ καί). Erbse (1950: 8, based on
Knauss 1910) has shown that, in Eustathius, the word φασί (‘they say’) regularly,
if not always, indicates change of source. Cf. also Serv. Praef. (p. 4.20–5.4 Thilo-
Hagen): ‘hanc esse artem poeticam, ut a mediis incipientes per narrationem prima
reddamus . . . quod etiam Horatius sic praecepit in arte poetica [quotation of lines
43–4]. unde constat perite fecisse Vergilium.’
12 The expression ‘in inverse order’ (ἐξ ἀναστροφῆς) must include here both types of
‘disturbed chronology’ (in Genette’s term, ‘anachrony’), analepsis and prolepsis,
since the third example, Achilles’ death, obviously illustrates a prolepsis (Nünlist
2009: 89 n. 52).
13 The probable targets of this critique are the poets of the epic cycle, whom Pollianus
(AP 11.130 = Cycl. test. 21 Bernabé) ridiculed as the ones who kept saying ‘and
then’ (αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα).
some ancient views on narrative 161
(5) For when Homer undertook to describe the war between the
Achaeans and the Trojans, he did not start at the very beginning,
but at haphazard; and this is the regular way with practically
all who distort the truth; they entangle the story and make it
involved and refuse to tell anything in sequence (ἐφεξῆς), thus
escaping detection more readily. (Dio Chrys. Or. 11.24, trans.
Cohoon)
14 Theon’s expressions for ‘the essentials’ are τὰ καιριώτατα τῶν πραγμάτων and τὰ
εἰς τὸ πρᾶγμα συντελοῦντα μόνα, and the entire question is dealt with under the
rubric συντομία. The notion that narratives in historiography are continuous and
chronological is particularly clear in a passage that Patillon and Bolognesi were
able to retrieve from the Armenian translation of Theon (inserted at 112.5 Sp. =
p. 77 Patillon); cf. also the implication of Anon. Seg. 133 Patillon.
162 rené nünlist
This scholar not only spells out the implicit risk of boredom among
readers, he also adds another factor by applying the rule primarily
15 Dion. Hal. Isae. 16 (trans. Usher); cf. Anon. Seg. 88 Patillon, where the ‘disturbed’
order is seen as a means to mislead (ἀπατᾶν) the judge.
16 This scholium confirms the view (n. 12) that ‘in inverse order’ can designate more
complex departures from strict chronology than mere analepses. Nestor’s nar-
rative displays a temporal complexity that is unparalleled in Homer’s primary
narratives. The remainder of the long scholium (not quoted here) attempts to
disentangle it by means of a chronological summary.
some ancient views on narrative 163
(7) Zenodotus omits <the fourteen lines> from here (Il. 15.64) to
‘supplicating’ (Il. 15.77).17 For they are similar to a Euripidean
prologue. However, the poet is <not boring like Euripides, but>
exciting (or: full of suspense) and, if anything at all, puts only a
seed (σπέρμα); cf. ‘this was the beginning of his (sc. Patroclus’)
evil’ (Il. 11.604). The one who composed these lines (sc. Il.
15.64–77) is perhaps the same who composed ‘we went against
Thebe’ (Il. 1.366ff., spoken by Achilles to Thetis) and ‘he (sc.
Odysseus to Penelope) began how he first defeated the Ciconians’
(Od. 23.310ff.). (schol. T Il. 15.64c ex. (Did.?))
17 In the absence of line numbers, the standard reference system for ancient scholars
was to quote the first word(s) of the relevant line. As the two final examples in
this scholium show, this could even indicate whole passages that begin with the
quotation.
164 rené nünlist
(8) The prolepsis sets the reader aflutter (ἀναπτεροῖ) and makes
him eager to learn (ἐπειγόμενον μαθεῖν) what the ‘evil’ was.
Homer achieves attention (προσοχή) by means of a small hint (διὰ
βραχείας ἐνδείξεως). If he had given more details, he would have
destroyed the sequence and made the poem blunt (ἀπήμβλυνε τὴν
ποίησιν). (schol. bT Il. 11.604c ex.)
In the first part the scholium mentions no fewer than three emotional
effects that the prolepsis has on the reader: excitement, inquisitive-
ness and attention. In the second it describes how these effects are
achieved: by giving the readers a foretaste of what is in store for them.
The amount of information should be enough to make them curious,
but not as much as to make the subsequent narration superfluous
and thus take the edge off (for the metaphor cf. text 6). If the readers
already know in detail what is coming, they might lose interest in it.
The recommendation that the poet should not lavish information on
the readers in his prolepses has a parallel in rhetorical handbooks that
describe the working of a proem:
(9) Thus the proem should be compact and contain only the seeds
of the subject-matter (σπερματικῶς). (Anon. Seg. 36 Patillon)
18 The Homeric line resonates, e.g., in Herodotus (5.97.3) and Thucydides (2.12.3,
with Hornblower’s note, 1991: ad loc.). In rhetorical handbooks it illustrates the
device of προαναφώνησις (‘prolepsis’): Trypho fig. 203 Spengel. For modern schol-
arship see, e.g., De Jong [1987a] 2004: 87, with a telling comparison with Alfred
Hitchcock as ‘master of suspense’.
19 For examples see Nünlist 2009: 34–45, 135–49, with lit. The creation of πάθος is a
fundamental function of the proem (e.g. Anon. Seg. 5–6, 9–18 Patillon).
20 In his note on the passage, Patillon lists as parallels for ‘seed’ Quint. 4.2.54
(semina), schol. Dem. 1.1.1c (p. 14.9 Dilts) and Syrianus (in Herm. de stat. p. 91.25
some ancient views on narrative 165
whet the appetite of the audience, without, however, giving too much
away in advance.21 They have the patience to wait until the seeds have
sprouted and it is time to reap the fruit, which, needless to say, is
indicative of their capacity to construct a good plot.
Equipped with these general interpretative principles, the ancient
critics whose notes are preserved in the medieval scholia had many
opportunities to judge whether or not the poet in question had suc-
ceeded in striking a good balance between withholding and provid-
ing information. A passage that incurred criticism was Achilles’
announcement of the bow contest in the funeral games for Patroclus
(Il. 23.855–8). In the second part of this speech Achilles seemed to
know too well how the contest would develop (‘But if one [sc. of the
two contestants] should miss the bird and still hit the string, that man,
seeing that he is the loser, still shall have the half-axes’). Aristarchus
felt this to be a problem of plausibility. He therefore marked the line
with a diplē.22
(10) <The diplē,> because it would be better not to have this pre-
dicted by Achilles, as if he had prior knowledge of something that
was going to happen by chance. (schol. A Il. 23.857a Ariston.)
Rabe); for ‘seeds’ in poetic scholia see Nünlist 2009: 39–40, with lit. Regrettably,
Dilts and Kennedy do not retain the metaphor in their translation of Anon. Seg.
(‘deal with the subject in general terms’).
21 The postulated analogy between proem and prolepsis in ancient criticism receives
further support from the fact that the term προέκθεσις, which designates a func-
tion of the proem (e.g. Anon. Seg. 10–11 Patillon), can also mean ‘prolepsis’ (e.g.,
schol. bT Il. 15.601–2 ex.). As is well known, to distinguish between literary criti-
cism and rhetorical theory is foreign to ancient practice, where the former was not
recognised as a domain of its own (e.g., Russell [1981] 1995: 1).
22 The diplē is the wedge-shaped sign (>) in the left margin by which Aristarchus
drew the reader’s attention to passages that he considered noteworthy and
therefore discussed in his commentary. It is telling that, in spite of his critique,
Aristarchus does not go as far as to doubt the authenticity of the passage (i.e.,
mark with an obelos). For Aristarchus’ reluctance to tamper with the text in such
cases see the testimonia collected by Erbse (on schol. Il. 2.665a Did.).
23 Cf. schol. A Il. 22.329 Ariston. and Nünlist 2009: 32, with more examples in n. 30.
166 rené nünlist
(11) It would have been better not to anticipate the point about
the string, but to mention it afterwards as something that has
happened in a suspenseful way (ἐναγώνιον). (schol. T Il. 23.857b
ex.)
Although (or, rather, because) the readers already know that Asius is
doomed to be killed and by whom, they long to hear about the events
that lead up to it. According to the anonymous critic, this is standard
rhetorical technique (cf. text 9). One may also be reminded of the
pattern that messenger speeches in tragedy often display. A concise
summary of the outcome is followed by an extended narrative account
of what happened in detail (cf. schol. Eur. Phoen. 1339).
The final part of text 7 addresses another aspect of the surplus of
information, in that the scholium interestingly compares the incrimi-
nated prolepsis (Il. 15.64–77) with two instances of analepsis that are
equally suspect (Il. 1.366–92, Od. 23.310–43). In both cases, a character
recapitulates the earlier events on behalf of another character (Achilles
to Thetis, Odysseus to Penelope). Alexandrian critics generally kept
24 Erbse attributes both scholia to Aristonicus (and thus Aristarchus). They are
indeed similar, but it would seem to me that the exegetical scholium substantially
modifies Aristarchus’ argument and should therefore not be ascribed to him.
some ancient views on narrative 167
Authors (poets and orators alike) want their audiences never to lose
interest (they might even fall asleep).29 Pseudo-Demetrius gives vivid
expression to how this is best achieved: by keeping the readers in sus-
pense and engaging them emotionally.30 In order to do so, the author
25 This scepticism, however, did not mean that they attempted to eliminate (verba-
tim) repetitions altogether. In fact more repetitions were left untouched than not
(Lührs 1992).
26 Cf. schol. A Il. 1.365a Ariston. and the Odyssean scholium mentioned in n. 28.
27 Contrast Meijering 1987: 287 n. 211, who claims that Aristarchus’ reason is ‘com-
pletely different’.
28 The disagreement with Aristarchus is explicit in schol. QV Od. 23.310–43 and
implicit in schol. bT Il. 1.366a/b ex. As to the prolepsis of Iliad 15, an exegetical
scholium (schol. bT Il. 15.64c ex.) uses the curious term προανακεφαλαίωσις.
29 On sleeping audiences see, e.g., the passages collected in Nünlist 2009: 138 n. 8.
30 Text 7 sees a similar connection between restricted distribution of information and
suspense when it contrasts Euripides with Homer and declares the latter ἐναγώνιος
168 rené nünlist
must find the right topic, one apt to keep the readers spellbound (cf.
Od. 1.351–2). In the immediate context of text 13 Pseudo-Demetrius
speaks of disasters or bad news, a subject that hardly ever fails to
have its desired effect on audiences. The scholia add more examples.
For instance, Homer has two leading heroes (ἄριστοι) fight the boxing
match in the funeral games because ‘we feel not so much agony for
a common man as we do for a great man’ (schol. T Il. 23.659b1 ex.).
Likewise, he exposes the greatest heroes to danger in order to make
the reader anxious.31 Several notes make it clear that the readers’
expectation is a crucial factor in the process of creating suspense; they
wait and see (with delight, anxiety, curiosity, etc.) where the story will
actually lead them.32 In the present context, the following scholium
is worth quoting because it deals with how the poet construes his
plot. The note is triggered by the climactic scene in which Hector and
Achilles finally meet for their long-expected showdown. Homer makes
Achilles miss his first shot, which takes the reader by surprise:
(footnote 30 continued)
(‘full of suspense’; for this meaning here see Nünlist 2009: 40 n. 54, based on
Meijering 1987: 205 n. 212, but see already Roemer 1912: 297: ‘auf Spannung
bedacht’). In a 2013 paper, De Jonge and Ooms make the attractive suggestion
that the common denominator of the polysemous adjective ἐναγώνιος is the
involvement and engagement of the audience.
31 E.g., schol. bT Il. 17.240–3 ex. (on Ajax), sim. T Il. 11.401 ex. (on Odysseus), with
the telling remark that Homer puts him ‘again’ (πάλιν) in danger.
32 E.g., schol. bT Il. 8.217a ex.; for more examples see Nünlist 2009: 140–1, 149–51
and thematic index s.v. ‘reader, expectation of’.
33 The attitude that text 14 presupposes is that of pro-Greek readers. They expect
Achilles to hit his target and are taken by surprise and therefore get nervous when
he does not do so. For ancient comments on the ‘creation of false expectations’ see
Nünlist 2009: 150–1, with lit. in n. 60; add J. V. Morrison 1993.
some ancient views on narrative 169
The note opposes two types of prologue, dialogic and concise, the other
narrative (i.e., monologic), long and therefore tedious. Even though
Euripides is not expressly mentioned in this scholium, it seems more
than likely that he is the understood target. After all, he tends to open
his plays with an extended monologue, whereas Sophocles favours
opening scenes in dialogue form (the exception being Trachiniae
among his extant plays). The contrast between ‘in dialogue form’ and
‘in narrative mode’ perhaps includes a generic argument. Sophocles
has chosen the means appropriate to the dramatic genre, whereas
it is inadvisable to inflate plays with narrative, that is, undramatic
elements.34 Be that as it may, long narrative prologues are in any case
said to be boring, not least because they include too much information,
which is the probable implication of ‘to go through the whole thing’ (τὸ
πᾶν διελθεῖν). This brings us back to the question of ‘where to begin’, as
the following quotation from a rhetorical handbook shows:
(16) As far as the content is concerned, you will make your nar-
rative concise (σύντομον), if you do not have it begin from long
ago (πόρρωθεν), as Euripides has done in numerous cases. (Anon.
Seg. 64–5 Patillon)
The quotation comes from the section on the three ‘virtues’ of narra-
tive: conciseness (συντομία), perspicuity (σαφήνεια) and plausibility
(πιθανότης). It is remarkable that a fundamental discussion on the
principles of narrative singles out no other than Euripides as the
negative example of an author who repeatedly failed the standard of
conciseness. This means that at least some ancient critics took excep-
tion to the way he selected his starting point not only in comparison
to other playwrights such as Sophocles but in a general sense.35 To
begin one’s narrative ‘from long ago’ (πόρρωθεν) was a mistake, and
Euripides was considered the one who more than once committed it.
The Anonymus Seguerianus does not substantiate his allegation. The
tragic scholia, however, level the same type of criticism specifically at
the starting point of Euripides’ genealogies.36 The first example again
opposes Sophocles and Euripides:
34 For the difference in size between drama and epic see Arist. Poet. 1459b17–31.
35 A different view is expressed by Eustathius (Meijering 1987: 147), perhaps based
on ancient sources.
36 For ancient sources that criticise Euripides, Elsperger 1907–10 remains the most
comprehensive collection.
170 rené nünlist
In the first part the scholium reports the view of other scholars who
felt that the extant text of Euripides was an unsatisfactory in-between.
To their minds, Jocasta should have either given a detailed account of
Theban history (starting with Cadmus emigrating from Phoenicia) or
37 This type of criticism is not isolated; cf. Meijering 1987: 190. For μηκύνειν in
historiography see above on Theon.
some ancient views on narrative 171
38 Meijering 1987: 284 n. 179. In this connection it is worth mentioning that for
ancient critics genealogical information is not a priori a bad thing. When Achilles
and Aeneas meet in Iliad 20, the latter gives a long description of his pedigree,
which is the cue for an exegetical scholium (schol. bT Il. 20.213b ex.) generally
to praise the Homeric insertion of genealogies. The difference from the criticism
expressed, for instance, in text 17 is probably due to generic considerations too
(cf. n. 34).
39 Likewise, ancient critics use the term συνεκτικὰ πρόσωπα in order to designate
central characters (Nünlist 2009: 244), although in this case Aristotle might object
that characters are unable to give a plot coherence (Poet. 1451a16–17).
172 rené nünlist
mill. In this case, the negative side is represented by the term ‘tedious’
(προσκορής), which is commonly used in ancient literary criticism
and has an interesting history. Witness the following passage from
Dionysius of Halicarnassus:
Several of the points made in this note will need no further comment
because, in essence, they repeat what has been documented in this
chapter. Two aspects, however, are worth highlighting. First, this
critic appears to believe that a poet can be faced with tedium even
before reaching line ten of his poem. Two explanations (at least)
suggest themselves. Either the original meaning of the adjective
προσκορής is no longer felt and has been replaced by a less specific
meaning: ‘boring’, ‘dull’ or the like. Or one might posit a whole
sequence of competing oral poets who cause tedium, if they all begin
their poems the same way. Second, and more importantly, this critic
is less concerned with ‘where to begin’ than with ‘how to begin’. The
involvement of the audience which has been shown above to be crucial
for the creation of suspense is here attributed to the rhetorical device
of prominently asking a question. The audience is seen as sitting on
the edge of their seats because they are eager to learn the answer to
the question.43
It goes without saying that the preceding survey could not present
more than a small selection of ancient views on the topic under
consideration. Even such a selection, however, is indicative of a
strong interest among ancient critics in narrative, its structure and
working. Unsurprisingly, the individual readers by no means agree
on the various aspects of the larger question, and an attempt to give
a summary of ‘what ancient critics thought about narrative’ is bound
either to fail or to streamline the picture. In fact, the relevant sources
indicate a general atmosphere of lively debate or downright polemics.
Also striking is the degree to which ancient critics are prepared to
‘go deep’ and address even minute details of the larger topic ‘narra-
tive’. They thereby implicitly agree that narrative is definitely worth
42 On this term see the series of articles by Lundon (1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
43 Lucian, on the other hand, makes fun of a historian who used this rhetorical
device ad nauseam in his prologue (Hist. conscr. 17).
174 rené nünlist
WHO, SAPPHO?
Alex Purves
For valuable suggestions and discussion, I thank the audience at the Leventis
Conference in Edinburgh, as well as audiences at the University of Toronto
and the University of Washington where subsequent versions of this chapter
were presented. I am also grateful to Douglas Cairns, Kathryn Morgan, Sheila
Murnaghan, Melissa Mueller, Craig Russell, Seth Schein, Ruth Scodel and Mario
Telò for their helpful comments on written versions of this chapter.
1 As suggested by scholars of Romantic and later poetry, who have said that lyric
opens up an entirely different space for reflection and representation – one in
which the personal and the occasional find expression, and where, most impor-
tantly, emotion and experience are no longer subordinated to the demands of nar-
rative form. For discussion and critique of this argument, see, e.g., Jeffreys 1995;
Friedman 1989, 1994; Murnaghan and Roberts 2002: 4; Hühn 2005; Dubrow
2006; McHale 2009.
2 P. A. Rosenmeyer 1997: 142.
176 alex purves
how detailed, before they can be said to open up into new narratives
of their own?3 What, also, about the difference between mythological
and quasi-autobiographical narrative, as in Sappho’s references to
her rivalry with Andromeda, or love for Anactoria, or her brother’s
relationship with Doricha?4 Do these small traces of detail about
Sappho’s life, whether real or constructed, build up to a larger over-
arching narrative that she dispenses poem by poem?5
Given the context in which Sappho was composing, and given, as
well, her long-established intertextual correspondence with Homer,
I take the Iliad as my precedent for Greek narrative in this chapter.
It has been widely recognised that Sappho artfully employs epic
vocabulary and motifs in her fragments, often in order to differentiate
her own voice and lyric style from Homer’s.6 But it has less often
been considered how Sappho engages with him as a story-teller. Her
explicit deviation from certain narrative practices found in the Iliad,
especially in fr. 1, her only known complete poem, will form the basis
of my analysis.7 By analysing just one of the specific ways in which
Sappho’s narrative practice differs from Homer’s, this chapter aims to
help us think further about what Greek narrative is, how it works, and
how it develops across genres.
In what follows I focus on Sappho’s use of the interrogative and
indefinite pronouns tis or ti (‘who’ or ‘what’) as potential signposts for
the act of storytelling in her work. In doing so, I look back to a practice
in Homer of using tis to introduce different narrative voices within the
epic frame and to draw attention to the alternative roles of the named
individual and the anonymous participant in the construction of ancient
narrative.8 As I see it, tis has at least four jobs in Homer, each of which
has a bearing on the way that the Iliad is constructed as a narrative.
3 Cf. McHale: ‘Is narrativity a matter of kind, or of degree? Are texts either narra-
tive or not-narrative, with no intermediate or partial options? Or is narrativity a
matter of degree: more or less narrative; perhaps a scale ranging from, say, non-
narrative to minimally narrative to fully narrative?’ (2001: 166, emphasis original).
4 A. D. Morrison 2007a: 36–102. Sappho names fourteen girls in her extant poetry,
which is a considerable number. She emerges, therefore, as interesting as much for
her naming as her non-naming practices. See M. Y. Mueller 2012 for the connec-
tion between memory, performance and naming in Sappho.
5 Yatromanolakis 2009.
6 See especially Rissman 1983; Winkler 1990; P. A. Rosenmeyer 1997; Blondell
2010. For a good overview and analysis of the relationship between epic and lyric,
see Graziosi and Haubold 2009.
7 My setting of lyric narrative in opposition to Homeric epic is nothing new – Lowe,
for example, has written of lyric’s ‘drastically unHomeric approach to narrative’
(2000: 84). But in pursuing this angle I hope to shed further light on Sappho’s own
concerns with the concept of plot and storyline.
8 Names play a role in establishing a storyworld’s cast of characters, enabling the
reader to answer questions such as: ‘who is there, how many are there, who is who,
who, sappho? 177
In fr. 1 (LP) Sappho calls Aphrodite to her, using, as has long been
noted, a series of embedded frames:
who did or was such and such, and is it (still) the same individual?’ (Margolin
2005: 337–8).
9 See also De Jong, this volume, on the narrative device of the anonymous traveller
in Homer and beyond.
10 De Jong [1987a] 2004: 45–53.
11 Tis occurs in Homeric similes in such phrases as ὡς δ’ ὅτε τις . . . (Il. 3.33, 4.141,
6.506, 8.338, 15.263, 17.61, 20.495; Od. 5.448, 6.232, 23.159), ὥς τίς τε . . . (Il.
17.133, 542, 657) and ὡς ὅτε τις . . . (Il. 15.326, 18.600, 23.760), all meaning ‘as
when some [lion, horse, etc.] . . . ’ or ‘as when someone . . . ’.
178 alex purves
12 All translations of Sappho are from Campbell 1982. Fragments of Sappho are
from Lobel and Page (LP) 1955.
who, sappho? 179
mistress, with ache and anguish, but come here’ – using a series of voc-
atives and imperatives. In the second frame (5–14), with ‘if ever in the
past . . . ’ we move into Sappho’s description of Aphrodite’s previous
arrival, riding down on a chariot drawn by sparrows. As the descrip-
tion of an event occurring (albeit repeatedly) in the past, this is the
most straightforward piece of narrative in the poem. Then in the third
frame (15–24) Aphrodite addresses Sappho. First with three indirect
questions: ‘you . . . asked what (ὄττι) was the matter with me this time
and why (ὄττι) I was calling this time and what (ὄττι) in my maddened
heart I most wished to happen . . . ’ Then with two direct ones: ‘Whom
(τίνα) am I to persuade this time . . . ? Who (τίς) wrongs you, Sappho?’
Finally, Aphrodite ends her speech with three conditional statements
‘If she runs away, soon she shall pursue; if she does not accept gifts,
why, she shall give them instead; and if she does not love, soon she
shall love even against her will.’ Although these conditions are simple,
thereby implying specificity, the repetition of vocabulary and lack of
direct object also generalises them, giving them a somewhat gnomic
quality.13 In the last stanza of the poem (25–8), we return to the first
frame and Sappho’s own speaking voice, where she again implores
Aphrodite with imperatives: ‘Come to me now again and deliver me
. . . ; fulfil all that my heart longs to fulfil . . . be my fellow-fighter.’
My interest for the moment lies in the questions posed by Aphrodite
in the third frame, which also doubles as the central core of the poem
(lines 15–24), and specifically in the fact that the goddess never receives
any answers to her questions. This has caused only a small amount of
puzzlement in the scholarship: West pondered why Sappho often
leaves girls unnamed (1970), and before him Wilamowitz proposed
that the anonymous girl in fr. 1 was a member of Sappho’s group, and
thereby the recipient of a secret message (1966: 48). But the major-
ity of scholars have felt that it is not really necessary to worry about
such things. Aphrodite is an all-knowing immortal, after all, and as
her smile and future predictions indicate, it does not really matter,
anyway, who this girl is – she is just one in a long line of girls who
have driven Sappho to heartbreak. Yet, by allowing these questions
to be posed but go unanswered, Sappho makes a statement about the
narratorial status of her poem.14
13 This kind of series of provisions in the form ‘if . . . then . . .’ most probably stems
from magical practice (Petropoulos 1993: 45).
14 M. L. West 1970: 309 says of Theognis: ‘It may be a habit of style that he or
she is not named, as in our own popular songs it is “my love”, “my darling”,
“you”. Such songs have a better chance of being propagated, for anyone can sing
them with his own love in mind.’ What is interesting about fr. 1, though, is that
Aphrodite so insistently poses the questions.
180 alex purves
‘Why then,
child, do you lament? What sorrow has come to your heart
now?
Tell me, do not hide it in your mind, and thus we shall both
know.’
(Il. 1.362–3)
16 See further Scodel’s discussion of these lines in this volume, especially for her iden-
tification of those places where gaps appear in Homer’s normally full narrative
explication.
17 Robbins 1990.
182 alex purves
18 As Krischer 1968: 13 points out, such steps cannot fit into lyric’s more compressed
style.
19 Prince 1988: 2 refers to the ‘disnarrated’ as a ‘category that covers all the events
that do not happen but are nonetheless referred to (in a negative or hypothetical
mode) by the text’.
20 ‘Back’ in Campbell’s translation follows the supplement ἄψ σ’ ἄγην at the begin-
ning of the line, which Lobel and Page 1955 and Voigt 1971 are hesitant to print
in their texts, although there is no viable alternative given the length of the lacuna
(just one letter) in the papyrus (cf. Lobel and Page 1955: 3).
21 The same structure is used in Zeus’ question to Artemis, when she returns wounded
from the theomachia at Il. 21.509–13: τίς νύ σε τοιάδ’ ἔρεξε φίλον τέκος Οὐρανιώνων
/ μαψιδίως, ὡς εἴ τι κακὸν ῥέζουσαν ἐνωπῇ; / Τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπεν ἐϋστέφανος
κελαδεινή· / σή μ’ ἄλοχος στυφέλιξε πάτερ λευκώλενος Ἥρη, / ἐξ ἧς ἀθανάτοισιν ἔρις
καὶ νεῖκος ἐφῆπται. (‘Who now of the Uranian gods, dear child, has done / such
things to you, rashly, as if you were caught doing something wicked?’ / Artemis
sweet-garlanded lady of clamours answered him: / ‘It was your wife, Hera of the
who, sappho? 183
The last two tis questions asked by Aphrodite in fr. 1 are especially
interesting, therefore, for the fact that they are left unaddressed.
Aphrodite knows, after all, the ‘what’ – she knows generally what
Sappho has suffered, why she has called her and what she wishes to
happen. The one thing neither Aphrodite nor we can glean from the
poem is the ‘who’. Even if Aphrodite’s questions are purely rhetorical,
as Thetis’ are in Iliad 1, Sappho’s refusal to answer them means that
the audience is kept out of the loop: just as we are over-supplied with
information in Homer, here we are deprived of it.22
In the immediate present tense of the poem, then, Sappho allows
the new girl’s identity to remain undifferentiated from the previous
girl’s whose future was spelled out in Aphrodite’s generalising series
of conditions: ‘If she runs away, soon she shall pursue; if she does not
accept gifts, why, she shall give them instead; and if she does not love,
soon she shall love even against her will.’ In doing so, Sappho short-
circuits the narrative potential that the questions had introduced, by
reminding us that we are, after all, only within a memory of an event
that happened in the past, and that the story that Sappho really cares
about – now concerning a different girl – has not even started to be
told in the poem. Nor will it be. In a very real sense, Sappho does not
want the name of that past girl remembered at all, because to have the
old girl’s name recalled would be to undermine the individuality of the
new girl, whoever she is.
The structure of fr. 1 is a kind of trap, therefore: to begin to answer
Aphrodite’s questions would lead Sappho down a path from which
there is no easy way out. Furthermore, the interrogatives and condi-
tions in Aphrodite’s speech to Sappho, which seek to pin the narrative
down to some specific starting points and draw it forwards into the
future, are at cross-purposes with the immediacy of Sappho’s impera-
tives and the complexity of her iterative strategies. For Sappho calls
on the goddess with an elaborate mix of epithets and names and spins
a memorable narrative of Aphrodite’s descent from her father’s house
that is furnished with pleasing detail.23 At the same time, though,
she refuses to engage in particulars or to allow any kind of story to
develop about herself.24 As has often been noted, this leads the poem
to circle back on itself, in the retracing of steps already taken many
times before – Sappho’s prayer; Aphrodite’s journey from Olympus;
white arms, who hit me, / father, since hatred and fighting have fastened upon the
immortals.’)
22 See n. 16.
23 Sappho names Aphrodite in six different ways in the first stanza alone: πο]
ικιλόθρο[ν’, ἀθανάτ’, Ἀφρόδιτα, παῖ] Δ[ί]ος, δολ[όπλοκε, [πότν]ια.
24 Beyond her marked act of naming herself within the poem (as discussed below).
184 alex purves
25 On the poem’s similarity to a magic spell or incantation, see Segal 1974; Burnett
1983: 254–8; Petropoulos 1993.
26 See further Winkler 1990: 166–76, on the multiple role-playing in fr. 1.
who, sappho? 185
The Iliad’s opening shows how important the interrogative tis can be
for getting a story started.27 But what is still more interesting about fr.
1 is that – even though Aphrodite is clearly standing in as some kind
of double for the Muse in that poem28 – it is Sappho, not the goddess,
who is the source of information being appealed to. This is precisely
the wrong way around. In Greek narrative as Homer constructs it, it is
the Muse who is called on by the narrator at key moments in the poem
to answer the question ‘who?’, as the following well-known examples
demonstrate:29
27 See for comparison Hunter, this volume, and Acosta-Hughes’s discussion (2010:
18) of Simaitha’s phrase ἐκ τίνος ἄρξωμαι; (‘from where shall I begin?’) at Theocr.
Id. 2.65. As both observe, the τίνος here is deliberately ambiguous (it could be
neuter, denoting ‘what point’, or masculine/feminine, ‘from whom’). Their differ-
ent observations point to the rich possibilities for this word as Theocritus takes it
up from Homer and Sappho.
28 As suggested by Skinner 2002, who also notes that the Alexandrians’ placement
of fr. 1 at the beginning of Sappho’s first book would indicate that they viewed
Aphrodite as a Muse figure appearing in a prooimion (68). I thank Richard Hunter
for first drawing my attention to the suggestive parallels of Aphrodite’s role as
Muse here.
29 As discussed in De Jong 1987a: 45–53. Note also those rhetorical questions that
follow the same format but are not addressed to the Muses: Ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον
Τρώων ἕλε Τεῦκρος ἀμύμων; (Il. 8.273); Ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον, τίνα δ’ ὕστατον
186 alex purves
These then were the leaders and the princes among the Danaans.
Tell me then, Muse, who of them all was the best and bravest,
of the men, and the men’s horses, who went with the sons of
Atreus.
(Il. 2.760–2)
(footnote 29 continued)
ἐξενάριξεν / Ἕκτωρ Πριαμίδης, ὅτε οἱ Ζεὺς κῦδος ἔδωκεν; (Il. 11.299–300); Ἔνθα
τίνα πρῶτον τίνα δ’ ὕστατον ἐξενάριξας / Πατρόκλεις, ὅτε δή σε θεοὶ θάνατον δὲ
κάλεσσαν; (Il. 16.692–3).
who, sappho? 187
of men, when the glorious shaker of the earth bent the way of
the battle?
(Il. 14.508–10)
In fact, in only one of the six instances when Homer addresses the
Muses in the Iliad does he fail to use the interrogative pronoun tis. On
that last occasion he instead asks them ‘how’ (ὅππως, Il. 16.112–13).
These questions are often asked self-reflexively by the Homeric
narrator, and the five examples of Muse invocation involving tis listed
here have been interpreted in a number of different ways. They can be
seen as examples of the Muses giving Homer specific information, of
enhancing the rhetorical force of the information he already knows,
or of setting things in order into a catalogue that might otherwise
be difficult to memorise.30 In fr. 1, there is a similar ‘catalogue’ of
girls hiding in nuce, yet Sappho refuses to differentiate them and put
them in sequence. In comparison with Homer, this is a starkly anti-
narrative move.
In the Iliad, anonymous figures get named when they die, and
attached to those names is often a short obituary narrative detailing
their lives or accomplishments. These small acts of narration flesh
out the plot, helping to make it more precise and particular.31 By
separating out individual lives like this, often starting with a name and
elaborating through a relative clause, the narrator moves from the
model of an archetypal utterance (‘as is the generation of leaves, so is
the generation of man’; ‘If she runs away, soon she shall pursue’) to
a story that varies with each repetition through the addition of indi-
vidual, named participants. What Sappho is telling us in fr. 1 is that
something badly needs to be ‘fulfilled’ (teleō), but she goes out of her
way not to couch that something in narrative form. This is despite the
fact that teleō is associated with the workings of a Homeric plot at Il.
1.5 and, among other places, in Achilles’ speech to Thetis (1.388). We
might also compare the use of ekteleō at fr. 112, where we learn that a
bridegroom’s wish has been accomplished because he named the girl
he desired in his prayers:
30 De Jong 1987a has suggested that in posing these questions the primary narrator-
focaliser does not really seek out information so much as to portray himself as a
‘“self-conscious narrator” . . . who is aware of and reflects on his own role’ (46).
31 Cf. Scodel 2002: 97–9.
188 alex purves
But Sappho, rather than following the model of the potential groom
in a marriage plot, instead inserts her own name almost at the very end
of Aphrodite’s list of questions:
you . . . asked what was the matter with me this time and why
I was calling this time and what in my maddened heart I most
wished to happen for myself: ‘Whom am I to persuade this time
to lead you back to her love? Who wrongs you, Sappho?’ (fr.
1.15–20)
32 Greene 1994 discusses the famous use of the vocative Ψάπφ’ in fr. 94, which, she
argues, ‘bridges the gap between the past of narration and the now of discourse’
(48).
who, sappho? 189
ὄττ[ι δηὖτε 15
κὤττι /
[δη]ὖτε 16
κ]ὤττι 17
δηὖτε 18
.].σάγην
[ἐς σὰν
τίς σ’, ὦ / 19
[Ψά]πφ’, [ἀ- 20
Given that Aphrodite’s questions have already lulled the listener, with
their sounded repetitions, into expecting melodious patterns (note the
combinations of sigma and alpha sounds in both lines), the suggestive
rhyming of τίς σ’ , ὦ with the hinted but unexpressed word Ψαπφώ at
the beginning of the next line creates another example of circularity
in the poem.33 Sappho’s phonic overlaying of her own name onto
the interrogative pronoun that takes σε (you) as its object stops
Aphrodite’s question in its tracks, confusing even further the question
of who exactly we are talking about.34 To make the circling around tis
more dizzying still, the ἄψ with which these lines must begin (ἄψ σ’
ἄγην, ‘lead you back’, 19) also reverses the first two letters of Sappho’s
name.35 Sappho, in other words, interrupts the story-unit of subject,
33 See further Petropoulos 1993: 45–6, for a discussion of the triple anaphora, double
repetition, repetitive variation, repeated sounds, near internal rhymes and asso-
nance in the stanza that follows (21–4). These repetitions and recurrent rhythms
and their connection to erotic and magical language are also discussed by Segal
1974.
34 On the uncovering of hidden words in a text through sound-play, see Shoptaw
2000; McHale 2005; Stewart 2009.
35 See n. 20.
190 alex purves
verb and object by overlaying herself, the subject, back onto the place
where the object is supposed to fall each time.36
The kind of avoidance of specificity that we find in fr. 1 is also com-
parable to Sappho’s correlative pairings of the indefinites ὄττις or ὄσσα
with the demonstrative pronoun κῆνος elsewhere in her poetry. Thus
ὄσσα . . . κῆ[να (‘as many mistakes as he made before, may he atone
for them’) is conjectured by Campbell (1982) at fr. 15.5, and ὄ]ττινα[ς
. . . / . . . κῆνοι occurs at fr. 26.2–3 (‘whomever I treat well, those ones
harm me most of all’). But the most famous examples occur at frr. 16:
κῆν’ ὄτ- / τω τις ἔραται (‘that thing, whatever someone loves’, 3–4) and
31: κῆνος . . . / . . . ὄττις (‘that man, who’, 1–2). In their simple function
as indefinites, these pronouns draw attention to the importance of the
anonymous figure or generalised thing in Sappho’s work.
First, let us consider fr. 16, which begins with the fact that men may
be divided into groups depending on whether they admire most a host
of cavalry, foot-soldiers or ships. Already at the start of the poem,
therefore, we have three quite particular sub-categories. For Sappho,
on the other hand, beauty is defined by the demonstrative keino and
two indefinite pronouns ‘whatever thing anyone loves’.
36 On the frequency of Sappho’s occurrence as both subject and object in her poetry,
cf. Winkler 1990: 166–76; P. A. Rosenmeyer 1997: 146; Greene 2002.
37 As Victoria Wohl has suggested to me, Helen’s function in the poem is compara-
ble to that of a tis character in a Homeric simile, since both serve to elaborate a
primary idea through example, except that here the categories have been flipped.
In a simile, a named subject is compared to a generalised thing, often via the use
of an indefinite adjective or pronoun. In this example, the unnamed subject (tis) is
compared to the hyper-named figure of Helen. We had initially been led to expect
a comparison to the object of desire, the κῆν’ ὄττω, but the comparison diverts us
by linking to its subject: Helen instead of Paris. The naming of Helen in fr. 16, in
other words, takes us on a generic detour, pointing to a reversed correspondence
between epic and lyric practices, at the same time as it re-inscribes the anticipated
who, sappho? 191
. . . for she who far surpassed mankind in beauty, Helen, left her
most noble husband and went sailing off to Troy with no thought
at all for her child or dear parents (10), but (love) lead her astray
. . . (fr. 16.6–11)
And yet even here, as Burnett (1983: 289–90) has shown, Anactoria is
already gone, and the traces of her that are left – a lovely step and the
shine of light off her face – are the most intangible of signs. We do not
see her, just as we do not follow her to any specific place (as we did
with Helen). Fr. 16 names as it also takes away, therefore, enticing us
object of desire with the desiring subject (and Paris, as has often been noted, is
not named at all). In these ways, Sappho appears to be using Helen and epic as
a bridge between naming and not-naming. On Helen’s role in this poem, see also
duBois [1978] 1996; P. A. Rosenmeyer 1997; Blondell 2010.
38 fr. 1.5–13: ἔλ[θ’, λίποισα, ἦλθ[ες, ἆγον, ἐξίκο[ντο, fr. 16. 9–11: κ̣αλλ[ίποι]σ̣’, ἔβα,
πλέοι̣[σα, παράγ̣α̣γ̣’. As others have noted, Helen and Aphrodite both ‘leave’ and
are ‘led’ in their respective mini-narratives. Cf. Blondell 2010: 381–2.
192 alex purves
to see the object of the poem as both specific and elusive – a character
around whom stories begin to cluster before we pass on to something
or someone else.
The puzzling of scholars over the identity of ‘that man’ (κῆνος) at
fr. 31.1 points again to Sappho’s deliberate use of indefinites in her
work.39 I am suggesting that it is important to her narratorial stance
to keep these indefinites in play, to not give too much information, to
keep her narratives elliptical.40 Perhaps the unnamed man and woman
in fr. 31 are, as has been suggested, a bride and groom, or perhaps
this fragment reflects some other aspect of Sappho’s experience,
whether fictive or real.41 But in both cases, what is remarkable is the
specificity of Sappho’s symptoms vis-à-vis the unspecified nature of
the characters in the scene. Ferrari labels this ‘an inner tension within
the lyric discourse’: ‘Whereas the indicative mood of φαίνεται (l. 1),
ἰσδάνει (l. 3) and ὐπακούει (l. 4) itself implies an actual dimension, the
demonstrative κῆνος and the indefinite pronoun ὄττις (“whoever that
may be”) distance the man, blurring his outlines into an evanescent
symbolic figure’ (Ferrari 2010: 183). As he goes on to show, the paral-
lel suggested by Winkler (1990: 178–80) with the passage from the
Odyssey where Odysseus praises Nausicaa’s marriageability is enlight-
ening in this respect:
but blessed at the heart, even beyond these others, is that one
who, after loading you down with gifts, leads you as his bride
home.
(Od. 6.158–9)
39 See Page 1955a: 20ff. for discussion of the use of the indefinite relative ὄττις with
a definite antecedent here. He argues for the last of three alternatives: ‘That man,
whatever his name may be, who is sitting opposite you, is fortunate.’
40 Whitmarsh 2004: 204 calls Sappho’s refusal to explain the identities of the figures
or to explain cause and effect sequentially in fr. 31 part of her anti-narrative
strategy.
41 The suggestion, first made by Wilamowitz ([1913] 1966), has inspired vigorous
scholarly debate. See Furley 2000: 7–8 and n. 4 for discussion and bibliography.
On Sappho’s wedding poetry, see Stehle 1997: 278–88 (with further bibliography).
who, sappho? 193
42 The closest parallels I can find in Sappho are in frr. 88a (13: . . . ]α̣ι̣ τις
εἴποι) ‘someone might say’ and 147: ‘Someone, I say will remember us in the
future’ (μνάσεσθαί τινά φαιμι †καὶ ἕτερον† ἀμμέων [Greek text modified following
Campbell 1982]). But in general, her use of tis is quite different from Homer’s. On
Homer’s use of tis to reflect a different perspective from that of the main narrator,
note also Jörgensen’s argument (1904) that the references to divinities by internal
narrators within the Homeric poems are non-specific (‘Zeus’, theos, theoi, daimōn,
sometimes with tis, e.g., τις δαίμων, τις θεῶν).
43 See further fr. 51.1: οὐκ οἶδ’ ὄττι θέω· δίχα μοι τὰ νοήμματα (‘I do not know what I
am to do; I am in two minds’); fr. 58 (17) . . . ἀ]λλὰ τί κεν ποείην; (‘but what could
I do?’); fr. 133: Ψάπφοι, τί τὰν πολύολβον Ἀφροδίταν . . . ; (‘Why, Sappho, [do you
summon? neglect?] Aphrodite rich in blessings?’).
44 M. L. West 1970: 318 argues that the lover is identified (frr. 16, 49, 94, 95, 96) when
‘either the affair belongs to the past, or Sappho’s attitude towards it is hostile’. See
further M. Y. Mueller 2012, on reperformance and kleos.
45 Carson [1980] 1996 argues that the direct object in lines 21–4 is left deliberately
unspecified. In other words, it is not Sappho, but some other as yet unnamed girl
that this girl will chase, although ἄψ (‘back’) would tend to suggest against this. Cf.
Skinner 2002: 89.
194 alex purves
54 Ruth Scodel suggests to me that fr. 1 pretends to be a prayer of a kind not normally
spoken in public, but which here relies on divine omniscience due to the presence
of an eavesdropping audience (cf. Clytemnestra’s prayer to Apollo at Soph. El.
637–59). This would explain Sappho’s vague language in asking Aphrodite to ‘do
what I want’. Through this reading, the audience is factored as a character in the
plot, who – originally – might have known who the girl was. If we then imagine
an original audience in which the girl herself is present, the speech-act shifts from
prayer to threat.
10
Lucia Athanassaki
Warmest thanks to Ewen Bowie, Peter Agócs and the editors of this volume for
helpful suggestions on this version and to the 10th Ephorate of Prehistorical and
Classical Antiquities for allowing me to take photographs of the Siphnian treasury
on a day when the Delphi Museum was not open to visitors.
1 For epinician sacrifices, performances and banquets see now B. Currie 2011; for
accounts of contests see Athanassaki 2012b.
198 lucia athanassaki
song.2 At the other end of the spectrum, there are songs that create a
continuum between the victory and the epinician performance. The
Sixth Pythian, for instance, fashions itself as a processional song that a
group of people sing on their way to the temple of Apollo, presumably
shortly after the victory, in order to participate in the epinician sacri-
fice. Pindar’s poetry shows an impressive range of representations of
or allusions to several celebratory occasions in one and the same song,
so I mention here only one representative example, that is, the Ninth
Olympian for the periodonikēs Epharmostus, which offers glimpses of
a variety of contests which Epharmostus won. This song, probably
composed for performance at Opous, at a local festival in honour
of Ajax son of Oileus, distinguishes itself from the Archilochus song
that the honorand sang with his hetairoi on their way to the hill of
Cronus.3
From the point of view of the present discussion it does not make
a great difference whether the variety of occasions that Pindar depicts
or alludes to are real or fictive, entirely or partially. I shall not discuss,
for instance, whether the Sixth Pythian was actually performed by a
group of singers on their way to Apollo’s temple or whether the Third
Olympian was actually performed at the Theoxenia or was simply suit-
able for performance at this festival.4 Such questions are undoubt-
edly important and have rightly received and continue to attract
scholarly attention.5 For the purposes of the present discussion,
however, verisimilitude is much more important. All the occasions
that are discussed either had or could have hosted epinician events. I
shall focus, therefore, on the inscribed occasions and I shall explore
their creative impact on the songs in which they are inscribed and on
subsequent songs that respond to the same or a different, but related,
occasion.
The following discussion focuses on four of the six songs Pindar
composed for the Emmenids and explores the range of narrative
effects that Pindar achieves through the representation, evocation and
reworking of several occasions.6 In the first section, ‘Utopias’, I discuss
2 The Tenth Olympian is one of Bundy’s two test cases (Bundy [1962] 1986: 1–33).
3 For the performance context of this ode see Farnell 1930–2: ii.67. For the variety
of contests and celebratory occasions see Athanassaki 2012b: 180–6
4 See Σ Οl. 3, 10c and passim. Detailed discussions in Shelmerdine 1987 (arguing for
an epinician celebration that evokes a theoxenia); Krummen 1990: 223–36 with
references; most recently Ferrari 2012.
5 Comprehensive studies of the locus and context of performance include Gelzer
1985; Krummen 1990; Neumann-Hartmann 2009; Eckerman 2012.
6 Space considerations do not allow detailed discussion of fragments 124ab and
118–19. For the interplay of the occasions of Pythian 6, Isthmian 2 and fr. 124ab
see Athanassaki 2012a: 153–5.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 199
UTOPIAS
The Second Olympian: Cadmus, Peleus and Achilles in the Isle of the
Blessed
The Second Olympian opens with the famous priamel (‘What god,
what hero . . .’), reworked by Horace in Odes 1.12 and with an
initial reference to the celebratory occasion, interspersed with gnomes
(1–22). The ensuing song consists of two extensive mythological
exempla (22–45 and 56–83) separated by a reference to the present and
previous celebratory occasions (46–56) and a cluster of transitional
gnomes. The ode concludes with an extensive, enigmatic self-referen-
tial poetic statement (83–90) and lavish praise of Theron.
The performance context of the ode is not specified, but the
speaker’s self-exhortation to aim his arrows at Acragas at the closure
(89–91), in combination with the opening references to Acragas (6,
9), suggests that it was composed for performance at the honorand’s
home town. The ode does not give details about the chariot race,
but brief references to the victory in the first strophe and the third
antistrophe frame the first genealogical/mythological narrative (3–7,
48–51). In the third antistrophe the speaker mentions the Olympic
victory in conjunction with the earlier chariot victories of Theron and
his brother Xenocrates at the Pythian and the Isthmian games. This is
a bridge that links the first mythological narrative with the second. As
I shall argue in a moment, the second exemplum draws its inspiration
from the inscribed celebratory occasion of the Sixth Pythian.
Before I consider this second narrative, a summary of the first, genea-
logical narrative is in order. Theron claimed descent from Thersander,
son of Polynices.7 Typically, Pindar traces Theron’s Theban ancestry
to the remotest past, to the time of Cadmus, through the gnomic
analogy of mixed blessings that is characteristic of the lives of the first
colonists of Acragas and Cadmus’ daughters. Theron’s genealogy is
introduced by a brief account of his ancestors’ arrival on Sicily. They
initially suffered much, but subsequently enjoyed wealth and prosper-
ity (7–11). The transition to the sufferings and blessings of Semele and
Ino is effected through a cluster of gnomes stating that not even Time
can undo what has been done and that sufferings are forgotten when
Moira piles up prosperity (15–22). The apotheosis of Semele and Ino
illustrates the point. Semele lives on Olympus among the immortals,
Ino among the Nereids (22–30). A new cluster of statements shifts the
7 Σ Οl. 2 81a: γίνεται γὰρ Ἀργείας τῆς Ἀδράστου θυγατρὸς καὶ Πολυνείκους, εἰς ὃν
ἀναφέρει τὸ γένος ὁ Θήρων.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 201
8 Theron’s descendants: αἰὼν μόρσιμος (11), gnome: πότμῳ σὺν εὐδαίμονι . . .ὅταν
θεοῦ Μοῖρα πέμπῃ ὄλβον (18–22) introducing the fate of the daughters of Cadmus,
οὕτω δὲ Μοῖρα (35) referring to the Emmenids, μόριμος υἱός (38) ἐν δὲ Πυθῶνι
χρησθὲν παλαίφατον τέλεσσεν (39–40) referring to Oedipus. For the significance of
Moira in this genealogical narrative see Athanassaki 2009a: 408–13.
9 See, for instance, Farnell 1930–2: i.15–16; Bowra 1964: 23; Lloyd-Jones [1985]
1990; Willcock 1995: 137–40; Torres 2007: 267–369; A. D. Morrison 2012: 126–7.
Cf. Nisetich 1988, who privileges poetic immortality; Grethlein 2010: 29–33, who
suggests that the Isle of the Blessed illustrates the temporary transcendence one
gains through the athletic victory.
202 lucia athanassaki
Peleus and Cadmus are numbered among them and Achilles too,
whom his mother brought, after she persuaded the heart of Zeus
with her entreaties. He laid low Hector, Troy’s invincible pillar of
strength, and gave to death Cycnus and Dawn’s Ethiopian son.10
10 All Pindaric quotations are taken from Snell and Maehler’s edition (1987). The
translations are those of William Race (1997a, 1997b) slightly modified.
11 Works and Days 156–73.
12 Farnell 1930–2: ii.21; B. Currie 2005: 44. See also n. 19.
13 For a thorough discussion of Pindar’s divergence from the Odyssey and the
Aethiopis and the relevance of Peleus and Achilles to Theron, see Nisetich 1988
with references to earlier literature; Torres 2007: 267–369; for mortality and
immortality in Homer and Pindar, see B. Currie 2005: 41–6.
14 This is a notoriously difficult passage. For the range of its different interpreta-
tions see Most 1986 and Willcock 1995: 161–2. Most 1986: 316 interprets it as
follows: ‘I have many swift arrows under my arm in my quiver that speak to those
with understanding and they thoroughly crave oracular announcers. Wise is that
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 203
announcer who knows many things by nature; but those who have only learned
speak out futilities like many-tongued vociferous crows in comparison to the
divine bird of Zeus. Now then, spirit, come, aim your bow at the target: whom
are we shooting at, casting forth arrows that provide good repute from a well-
disposed mind?’
15 Athanassaki 2009b: 132–46, 2012a. For the identification of the sculptural themes
see Brinkmann 1985. K. Shapiro 1988 was the first to draw attention to the points
of contact between the mythological narrative of the Sixth Pythian and the East
Frieze of the Siphnian treasury.
Figure 10.1 East Frieze of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi: psychostasia of Memnon and Achilles (left); combat of Memnon and
Achilles over the dead Antilochus (right)
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 205
a udience with the Delphic sanctuary and with the Sixth Pythian, the
poet expected the sunetoi (85) to work out that he was pointing his
swift arrows, the ὠκέα βέλη, to Delphi and the earlier celebration.16
I now add that the revival of the memory of that celebratory occa-
sion in the Second Olympian through the explicit mention of the
Pythian victory in line 49, attributed to both brothers, and the allusion
to a sculptural theme that Pindar had not fully explored in the Sixth
Pythian together form the basis of a new mythological account that
broadens the scope of the earlier song. In the Sixth Pythian Pindar
monumentalised the love and respect that Thrasybulus showed for
his father Xenocrates through its parallelism both with the filial piety
of Achilles towards Peleus and Thetis and with the self-sacrifice of
Antilochus to save Nestor. In the Second Olympian Pindar places
Peleus and Achilles in the Isle of the Blessed in the company of a third
figure, Cadmus, who links together the two mythological narratives
and is represented as Theron’s great ancestor.
Before discussing the creative impact of the earlier on the present
occasion, I wish to draw attention to the change of direction of the
speaker’s arrows at the conclusion of the song (83–100). The escha-
tological narrative concludes with the mention of Memnon’s death at
the hands of Achilles and is immediately followed by the assertion that
the speaker has many swift arrows in his quiver that speak to those
who understand. In the self-exhortation that follows after stating that
wisdom is inborn and clarifying the statement by the image of the
divine eagle, the speaker returns to the present occasion (νῦν) and aims
his bow at Acragas (ἐπί τοι Ἀκράγαντι τανύσαις, 90–1).
This is certainly not the only instance when the epinician speaker
aims his arrows at different sites associated with the contests and/or
victory celebrations. The Ninth Olympian displays a similar pattern. As
has been mentioned, the song opens with reference to the Archilochus
song that Epharmostus sang with his friends straight after his victory
at Olympia. Immediately afterwards the epinician speaker sets about
his present task (ἀλλὰ νῦν, 5), namely to target Zeus and Elis with the
arrows from the far-shooting bow of the Muses.17 Simultaneously,
however, he shoots another sweet, winged arrow at Pytho (πτερόεντα
16 There is no need to say that Pindar could count on his audience’s knowledge of
the Aethiopis, which would provide the necessary background, regardless of their
familiarity or not with the Delphic monument. For the Homeric intertexts of the
Sixth Pythian, see Kelly 2006. For the first and subsequent performances of the
songs for the Emmenids and audiences’ responses, see A. D. Morrison 2007b:
41–57, 84–92. For the various responses of the various groups of sunetoi, see also
A. D. Morrison 2012: 127.
17 For the identity of the addressee here, see Farnell 1930–2: ii.68 ad 6.
206 lucia athanassaki
20 The association of the three inhabitants of the Isle of the Blessed with the uncle,
the father and the son would be less obvious, but still possible, for those who
knew or remembered vaguely that Pindar had praised Theron, Xenocrates and
Thrasybulus in an earlier song, and for those who had noticed the explicit mention
of Xenocrates (ὁμόκλαρον ἐς ἀδελφεόν, 49). Once they made the identification of
Xenocrates with Peleus, the identification of Thrasybulus with Achilles was the
obvious solution.
208 lucia athanassaki
21 Pindar is our earliest source for this story; see Farnell 1930–2: i.19–20. For the
scholarly debate on whether Heracles travelled once or twice to the Hyperboreans,
see Robbins 1982. For Pindar’s challenge to the Athenian claim concerning the
provenance of the olive, see Sfyroeras 2003. Cf. Pavlou 2010, who suggests that
through the story of the olive tree Pindar links Acragas with Istria, thus highlight-
ing the bliss of the people of Acragas.
22 Farnell 1930–2: ii.29 ad 36.
23 For Pindar’s innovations and the encomiastic effect of the narration of Heracles’
journey, see Köhnken 1983.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 209
EUTOPIAS
May I make a long throw with the discus and cast the javelin as
far as Xenocrates surpassed all men with his sweet disposition.
He was respectful in the company of his townsmen, he practiced
horse-breeding in the Panhellenic tradition and welcomed all
feasts of the gods. And never did an oncoming wind cause him to
furl the sails at his hospitable table, but he would travel to Phasis
in summer seasons, while in winter he would sail to the shore of
the Nile.
27 The similarities between the two descriptions are noted by Bury 1892: 32; see now
Clear 2012: 190–1.
28 For Pindar’s views on the relation of poetry to the visual arts see Athanassaki
2012a: 156 with the references in n. 55.
212 lucia athanassaki
We have seen that the Siphnian treasury also provided the inspi-
ration for the inclusion of Xenocrates’ and Thrasybulus’ mythical
analogues, Peleus and Achilles, in the Isle of the Blessed in the Second
Olympian. Yet, despite the dialogue of the two songs, the Second
Isthmian does not conjure up a utopia. It focuses exclusively on human
deeds, achievements, emotions and mortality. Like the Sixth Pythian,
the only immortality it promises is the immortality of song. Pindar’s
urge to Thrasybulus to keep the songs alive as an antidote to people’s
envy shows that his concern is the commemoration of Xenocrates’
fame among the living through the song, with its summary narrative
of Xenocrates’ way of life and catalogue of victories.
The Second Isthmian, the Second and Third Olympians and the Role of
Nicomachus in the Light of the Fourth and the Fifth Pythians
In the Second and Third Olympians Pindar looked far beyond the
competition venue. In contrast, the Second Isthmian, in keeping with
its focus on human achievements and emotions, offers a narrative of
the chariot race and the charioteer, Nicomachus:
This is the first time in the Emmenid song-sequence that their victory
at the Panathenaea receives explicit mention.29 We also learn the
name of the victorious charioteer, Nicomachus, who drove the
Emmenids’ chariot in Athens and at Olympia. In this down-to-earth
song Pindar first paints a vivid agonistic image, zooming in on the
charioteer’s hands and the skill with which they handled the reins.
The diction (χαρίτεσσιν ἀραρώς) reflects the delight which the judges
and the spectators experienced at the supreme athletic performance of
Xenocrates’ chariot. Xenocrates, the proclaimed victor, is represented
as the recipient of charis, but the details of Nicomachus’ skilful driving
imply that it was the spectacle of the fast and skilfully driven horses
that elicited the delight of the watching crowd at the Panathenaea. The
theme of charis persists in the following description of Nicomachus’
reception at Olympia, which focuses on his friendship with the Elean
heralds and their emotional reaction at his victory.30 Like Xenocrates
and Thrasybulus, Nicomachus was evidently hospitable. The Eleans’
warm reception of him after his victory is therefore related both to his
personal ties and to his supreme athletic performance.
Pindar pays lip service to Theron by attributing the Olympic
victory to both brothers, but on the whole this is a song about
Xenocrates, Thrasybulus and Nicomachus, who, mutatis mutandis,
are represented as like-minded men: they are horse-lovers, they are
hospitable, they are popular with the people. We can only guess why
Pindar mentions Theron in passing, but the most convincing expla-
nation is that Theron was no longer alive, for otherwise it is hard to
explain how Pindar imagined even a sympotic performance of a song
that had so little to say about Theron, who was the Olympic victor,
Thrasybulus’ uncle and tyrant of Acragas.31 Why Pindar chose to
foreground Nicomachus’ role is not an easy question, but the two
Pythian songs for Arcesilas of Cyrene, celebrating his Pythian victory
(footnote 31 continued)
think there is anything in this song suggesting Theron’s death and dates the ode to
the mid-470s.
32 Cf. Nicholson 2005: 64–76 for a totally different reading of the occasion and
Nicomachus’ role. According to Nicholson (1) the occasion of composition was
Xenocrates’ Isthmian victory; (2) Nicomachus was not an aristocrat, although
Pindar represents him as such through the mention of his xenia with the Eleans,
but at the closure of the ode he is ‘reduced to the status of a servant’ (2005: 75);
after driving Theron’s chariot he probably became famous ‘and he was thus
perhaps included in Isthmian 2 because Xenocrates wanted the Olympic victory
won by his brother to be mentioned but felt that the Emmenids could not be con-
vincingly praised for the victory without some credit being given to the charioteer
who secured it’ (76). See, however, n. 44. For a view of Nicomachus' role in some
ways closer to mine, see Bell 1995.
33 See Braswell 1988: 3–6.
34 Discussions of the colonial narrative include Segal 1986; Calame 1990, 2003;
Dougherty 1993; Athanassaki 2003.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 215
ble to the Isle of the Blessed or the land of the Hyperboreans.35 In the
Fifth Pythian, however, which focuses on the historical colonisation
and Apollo as archagete, healer and god of music, Arcesilas ‘appears
with traits of a second Apollo through the intermediary of his ancestor
Battus, the founder of Cyrene’, as Claude Calame observes.36
The Fifth Pythian, composed in all likelihood for performance at
the Cyrenean Carneia, has interesting similarities both with the Third
Olympian and with the Second Isthmian.37 We have seen that in the
Third Olympian Pindar attributes the Emmenid victory at Olympia to
the Dioscuri, appointed overseers of the Olympic games by Heracles
and hosts of gods and men at the theoxenic feast, thus linking the epi-
nician celebration with the Theoxenia. In similar manner, Pindar asso-
ciates Arcesilas’ Pythian victory and the Carneia, but the association
is more straightforward in this case, because Apollo is the patron god
of the Pythian games and the honorand of the Cyrenean festival. The
difference between the Third Olympian and the Fifth Pythian is that the
Pythian song is a down-to-earth song that gives plenty of room to the
celebration of human achievements and the expression of emotions. In
this sense, it is similar to the Second Isthmian.
The two festive occasions of the Fifth Pythian are synchronised
through the reception of the kōmos and the victor (22, 29, 52–3).
A great part of the song is dedicated to the praise of the charioteer
Carrhotus, Arcesilas’ hetairos and, according to the scholiast, brother-
in-law. Carrhotus is praised for his skill and bravery and for the dedi-
cation of the victorious chariot at Delphi (27–53). His fearlessness at
the sight of forty charioteers falling off their chariots, which enabled
him to win, receives special mention. Like Nicomachus, Carrhotus has
xenia ties with the Delphians (ὕδατι Κασταλίας ξενωθεὶς, 31). But in
the case of Carrhotus Pindar chooses to mention not the response of
the Delphians to his achievement, but the warm reception he deserves
in Cyrene. Addressing the king, the epinician speaker tells him that
he should give credit to Apollo for his victory and cherish Carrhotus
above all his hetairoi (φιλεῖν δὲ Κάρρωτον ἔξοχ’ ἑταίρων), an exhor-
tation which is repeated a little later (ἑκόντι τοίνυν πρέπει/ νόῳ τὸν
εὐεργέταν ὑπαντιάσαι, 43–4).38
35 Pindar’s main interest in this ode is to tie closely together the historical with the
mythical colonisation; see Calame 1990; Athanassaki 2003 with references.
36 Calame 2003: 86; see also B. Currie 2005: 226–57.
37 The majority of scholars think that the Carneia was the performance context. See
Krummen 1990: 108–16 for a detailed discussion. This view has now been chal-
lenged by Ferrari 2012: 170–2.
38 Detailed discussion of the emotional attitude towards Carrhotus in this ode in
Athanassaki 2012b: 192–7.
216 lucia athanassaki
39 Athanassaki 2012b.
40 For Carrhotus’ political status and role in Cyrene see B. Currie 2005: 250–2;
Nicholson 2005: 46–7 with references.
41 Σ P. 5.34 Theotimus FGrH 479 FI.
42 For the political significance of the dedication see B. Currie 2005: 252–4.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 217
47 Cf. Nisetich 1978: 147–8, who interprets Pindar’s play on Nicasippus’ name as a
good omen for Thrasybulus’ future equestrian victories.
48 The only other similar exhortation is found in Nemean 5.1–4, but it is addressed to
Pindar’s song.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 219
which could be the occasions of several odes. All the speaker asks
Jupiter at the end of the ode is to grant victories to Augustus so
that he can rule a peaceful world, since he is second only to the
god.
Horace was a very sensitive and creative reader of Greek lyric.51
The absence of a specific occasion in a poem that enters into direct
dialogue with Pindar is, in my view, intentional and the ode an
experiment. I envisage Horace asking himself if he could compose
in the manner of Pindar for no special occasion. The result is a loose
catalogue. This insight is supported by Horace’s extensive reference to
Heracles and the Dioscuri in the heart of the ode. The extensive refer-
ence to the Dioscuri has puzzled David West, who posed the question
and answered it as follows:
Why do Castor and Pollux, the junior members of this cast [that
is of warlike Greek gods and heroes], receive the longest billing
[. . .]? Here this eighth stanza of fifteen is a peaceful interlude
between the Greek of the first half and the Roman of the second
and the transition is marked by a transition from the Greek Muse
Clio in line 2 in her three Greek mountains to the Italian Muse
Camena in line 39 of the Latin.52
This is a fair assessment. I only wish to add that at the moment when
Horace leaves Clio behind in order to listen to Camena, he alludes
to the other grand song that Pindar composed for Theron, the Third
Olympian, which, as we have seen, links together two festive occa-
sions through Heracles and the Dioscuri. In typical manner, Horace
does not replicate Pindar’s innovative narrative, which is thematically
irrelevant for his own purposes, but the allusion to the Third Olympian
cannot be accidental in an ode beginning with an unmistakable evoca-
tion of its sister ode. What Horace seems to say to those who knew
their Pindar is something along the lines of ‘I know what Pindar is up
to, but let me try another path.’
Interestingly, in Odes 4.2, which starts with an elaborate Pindarising
recusatio about the danger of emulating Pindar, Horace responds to
an occasion similar, mutatis mutandis, to the occasions that Pindar
had handled frequently, that is, the return of Augustus to Rome in
13 bc after several years of absence.53 Horace’s Odes 4.2 captures
51 See Fraenkel 1957: 154–214 and passim; see also the more recent contributions in
Paschalis 2002.
52 D. West 1995: 58.
53 Odes 4.2 has been much discussed; see in particular Fraenkel 1957: 432–40;
Putnam 1986: 48–62; Johnson 2004: 45–51; R. F. Thomas 2011: 101–2. I discuss
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 221
this poem to 4.2, except of course the theme of absence and return, is
Horace’s voice, which becomes one with the voice of common people
wishing that the emperor grant them long holidays. Interestingly, this
is a wish that they express day and night (4.5.37–40). The conclusion
of the ode makes clear that Horace gives voice to people’s constant
wish over a long period of time, that is, from the moment Augustus
left till the moment of his return. Odes 4.5 certainly complements 4.2,
but does not interact with its occasion.
Odes 3.14 focuses on the imminent return of Caesar from Spain
in 24 bc.55 In 3.14 the speaker casts himself initially in the role of the
master of ceremonies, who instructs Livia to perform sacrifices and
then, together with Octavia, head a suppliant procession of Roman
matrons. This day will be festal for him too, because he fears no civil
strife or violent death as long as Augustus holds the earth (‘tenente
Caesare terras’, 15–16). The speaker will spend this carefree day at a
symposium, hopefully in the company of Neaera. The theme of safety
under Augustus’ rule, reiterated more elaborately in 4.5, links of course
the return of Augustus in 24 bc with his return in 13 bc. But unlike
Pindar, Horace does not draw either on the occasion or the inscribed
celebration in 3.14 in his later odes. The theme of Augustus’ return in
24 bc and the envisaged festivities in 3.14 neither inform nor shape the
representation of the celebrations for his return in 13 bc, as described
in 4.2. The peace and prosperity that Augustus’ rule guarantees is a
common, all-pervasive theme in all the poems for Augustus. In other
words, it is not the occasion but the individual who is represented as
the source of happiness and prosperity, and the disappearance of the
specific occasion also means the disappearance of narrative.
processions, sacrifices and feasts, and why the focus is always on the
god who favours different men at different times. The importance of
the celebratory occasion and the indispensability of divine favour lie
therefore at the heart of the composition of ever-innovative narra-
tives that illustrate their close connection. This is, I think, one of the
reasons why Horace finds it hard to compose a Pindaric song for the
envisaged triumph of Augustus, who was a divi filius and above com-
petition with other mortals.
As a poetic theme, Greek celebratory occasions preserved and
revived the memory of exhilarating events and were therefore a desir-
able topic, but the demands of Greek performance culture dictated
novel and custom-made compositions. A Bacchylidean dithyramb,
composed for an Athenian festival, dramatises the pressure for inno-
vation the Greek poets felt. The poet makes the choreuts apostrophise
him and ask him to weave a new story: ὕφαινέ νυν ἐν ταῖς πολυηράτοις
τι καινὸν ὀλβίαις Ἀθάναις, εὐαίνετε Κηΐα μέριμνα (19.8–11).57 Similarly,
in the Ninth Olympian Pindar urges his audience to praise old wine,
but songs that are new (αἴνει δὲ παλαιὸν μὲν οἶνον, ἄνθεα δ’ ὕμνων
νεωτέρων, 48–9).
The preceding discussion focused on Pindar’s innovative take on
mythological narratives and evocations of occasions in his songs for
the Emmenids. I have labelled the songs for Theron ‘Utopias’ and the
songs for Xenocrates and Thrasybulus ‘Eutopias’ in order to highlight
Pindar’s different perspective on the same occasions. I conclude with a
few additional remarks. Pindar also praises Theron for his hospitality,
generosity and the countless delights he had offered to others, but he
does not anchor these virtues in any particular occasion, namely the
symposium or the festival, as he does with Thrasybulus, Xenocrates
and Nicomachus. For Theron he uses the occasion as a springboard
to open up vistas of afterlife and eternal happiness, which responded
to Theron’s Orphic and Pythagorean beliefs in an afterlife. From
Diodorus Siculus we learn that Theron was popular with the people
during his lifetime and was honoured with a posthumous heroic cult
(καὶ ζῶν μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῖς πολίταις καὶ τελευτήσας
ἡρωικῶν ἔτυχε τιμῶν, 11.53.2). Theron’s posthumous heroisation
raises the question whether Pindar was aware of such a plan in the
making, when he composed the Olympian songs some four years
before Theron’s death. There is no need to say that it is anybody’s
guess whether Pindar knew of any such intentions. Yet the image
of the Isle of the Blessed in the Second Olympian, and the image of
eternal happiness through the association of the crowning ceremony
57 For the similar pressure on the tragedians, see Easterling, this volume.
creative impact of the occasion: pindar and horace 225
58 Lehnus 1981: 47 ad 68–70; Torres 2007: 359–60. For Gelon’s cult in Syracuse, see
Diodorus Siculus 11.38.5.
59 In the First Olympian Pindar chose the myth of Pelops, a hērōs ktistēs, who receives
cult at Olympia; for the relevance of the mythical exemplum to Hieron’s hopes and
aspirations, see Slater 1989: 498–501; Athanassaki 2009b: 230–3; see also B. Currie
2005: 344–405, who focuses on Pythian 3. Moreover, Clay 2011a: 343 has recently
suggested that Hieron’s and Theron’s temporary reconciliation at the time of
their Olympic victories may have given Pindar the inspiration to choose common
themes for Olympians 1–3, which could have even been performed by a common
chorus. Note that Bacchylides also opened up afterlife prospects for Hieron in 476
in Ode 5.
11
P. E. Easterling
This chapter sets out to look for what was distinctive about Greek
practice in the staging of tragic stories. There is no doubt that this new
art form of the late sixth and early fifth centuries was a highly original
experiment, with no obvious model in other cultures, but of course
the early dramatists did not have to start from scratch. The epic and
lyric traditions offered them a great range of serious narratives which
had already been shaped for performance, whether by rhapsodes or
by choruses, and without this precedent it would be hard to imagine
Attic tragedy having developed as quickly as it did into a genre of such
richness, sophistication and popular appeal.1
Once the early dramatists had taken the crucial step of representing
imagined characters (particularly famous figures from the mythical
past) as present here and now, enacting their stories before an audi-
ence as if for the first time, the dynamics of narrative must have needed
reshaping to suit the new medium, and this is where we should be
looking for creative experimentation.2 For example, when we consider
the forms taken by narrative in tragedy there is no need to see them
as determined by, or as hangovers from, epic practice, or to single out
‘messenger speeches’ as having a specially privileged status. The long
‘set-piece’ rhēsis is not the only place for dramatic narrative, which can
turn up in passages of dialogue (as at S. OC 385–420, Ismene’s crucial
account to Oedipus, in question-and-answer format, of the new
oracle(s) about him and their effect on Theban policy), or in lyrics (as
at A. Cho. 22–46, where the chorus of slave women describe the events
that have prompted their errand to the tomb of Agamemnon, evoking
in a single stanza (32–41) both the terrifying effects of Clytemnestra’s
dream and the interpretation put on it by the ‘experts’). And there was
plenty of variety, too, in the choice of news-bringers:3 they could be
persons with official status as carriers of messages, heralds like Lichas
(S. Tr.) or Talthybius (E. Tro.), anonymous servants associated with
the central figures of the drama, or simply bystanders at some momen-
tous event, or they could be named characters intimately involved in
the action, as in Ajax, when Tecmessa tells Ajax’s crewmen in precise4
detail what has happened in his tent (284–330) and – as in a typical
messenger rhēsis – quotes direct speech (288–91, 293), or in Trachiniae,
when Hyllus describes for his mother Deianeira the terrible effect of
the poisoned robe on his father Heracles (749–812). Even participants
might be narrators: Clytemnestra as killer (A. Ag. 1372–98), and
Polymestor as victim (E. Hec. 1132–82), are shockingly memorable
examples.
Again, when we consider how the tragedians adapted the plot mate-
rial that they took over from earlier poetry, it is worth asking whether
the physical features of the ancient theatre, and the scenic conventions
that became standard for tragic plays, were a help or a hindrance to
them in presenting the stories in new ways. These conventions could
of course be regarded as constraints or limitations on the genre, but
it makes better sense – if our surviving tragedies can be taken as
representative examples – to see them as being used to intensify the
narrative focus.5 The challenge was to find ways of tailoring a chosen
sequence of events so that it could be enacted without loss of complex-
ity in a (more or less) unchanging setting and over a relatively short
period of playing time. This characteristic technique of compression is
worth examining more closely.
SPACE
If we ask ‘Where and when does the story unfold?’ the answer must
begin with the here and now, given that flesh-and-blood people are
acting the roles ‘here’, in whatever space is set apart for performance in
the particular polis where the play is presented. But the characters and
events are also located in three types of imagined space: the immediate
setting on view to the audience; the area understood to be immediately
off-stage (‘behind the scenes’: the interior of the palace/tent/grove);
and the relevant other places – local, foreign or divine – connected
3 On news-bringing in ancient society see Longo 1978; cf. Goward 1999: 15.
4 Precise, but limited by her human perspective: as Gould 2001: 327 points out, at
301–4 Tecmessa speaks of Ajax ranting at ‘some shadow’ (σκιᾳ̂ τιν), without iden-
tifying it as Athena, who has already been heard, if not seen by the audience.
5 See Lowe 2000: 164–75 for a rich discussion of these issues.
228 p. e. easterling
6 Rehm 2002: 22–3 labels these three categories as respectively ‘scenic’, extrascenic’
and ‘distanced’.
7 On the distinctive playing space of Greek theatre see Ley 2007.
8 Taplin 1977: 126–7.
9 See Sedley 2005: 210–11 (on Hipp. 1198–1214).
10 E.g., by raising questions about the significance of the stage action, as at Ant.
1244–5 when they ask the servant what it might mean that Eurydice has left in
silence after hearing his account of Haemon’s death, a clear warning of more dis-
aster to come.
narrative on the greek tragic stage 229
nable. Aristotle (Poetics 17) makes much of the need for a dramatist to
visualise stage action when working out plot, and the example he cites
must have been notorious, judging by the allusive way he mentions
it (1455a26–9). This was a play by Carcinus which ‘failed’ (ἐξέπεσεν:
perhaps the actor was hissed off stage) because the spectators were so
offended when the character in question, Amphiaraus, was ‘coming
back from the temple’: presumably a simple error in relation to what
the audience had been led to expect. The tragic scholia, too, are
intensely interested in the importance of entrances and exits for the
coherence and impact of the overall narrative. There is a detailed note
on Ajax 719, for example, which approvingly points out the ‘wonder-
ful’ timing of the messenger’s arrival from the Greek camp, soon after
Ajax had left the acting area, ostensibly to purify himself and bury
his sword (654–6). The messenger, evidently a comrade sympathetic
to Ajax and his men, comes with important news: Teucer, just back
from an expedition, has been warned by the seer Calchas of impending
danger to Ajax; this prompts Tecmessa and the chorus, who otherwise
had no reason to suspect his intentions, to go off in search of him,
leaving the scene clear for Ajax to enter and make his suicide speech.11
TIME
‘Now’ is complicated by the fact that the characters and choruses
are drawn from the past world of the epic heroes and use language
that is full of echoes of epic and lyric narrative, often evoking by
way of exempla other people’s stories from still further back in that
distant past (as when at A. Cho. 599–630 the chorus find parallels for
the destructive passion of women, specifically Clytemnestra, though
without naming her, in the stories of Althaea, who destroyed her son
Meleager, Scylla, who robbed her father of his immortality, and the
Lemnian women, who murdered their husbands).12 But in any tragedy
there are also regular allusions – in more or less veiled terms – to con-
temporary events, institutions and ideas, as well as ‘self-referential’
or ‘metatheatrical’ reminders of the play as play.13 At the same time,
the tragedians habitually remodelled the characters and stories that
11 For the text of this scholium see Christodoulou 1977: 168, and for discussion
Jouanna 2001.
12 Cf. Lowe 2000: 159: ‘The most important literary fact about Greek tragedy, its
unparalleled semic density, is itself a close corollary of its espousal of myth – where
every person, place, action, and utterance is set in a limitless web of other stories,
other versions, and aetiological resonances.’
13 On the function of such references in drama, see the interesting comments
by Rehm 2002: 23, and on the problematic terminology of ‘metatheatre’ and issues
raised by the concept, see T. G. Rosenmeyer 2002; Thumiger 2009.
230 p. e. easterling
14 Scodel 2010: 28; cf. the long scholium on E. Hec. 3, remarking that Euripides often
‘improvises (αὐτοσχεδιάζει) in genealogies’.
15 See Mastronarde 1994: 17–30 for a fine discussion of Theban myth in this and
other plays.
16 For tragedy’s use of oracles and dreams cf. R. B. Rutherford [1982] 2001.
17 See, e.g., Roberts 1988; Dunn 1996.
18 Ion is a sophisticated example of divine presence and absence, with Hermes at the
beginning of the play, and Athena at the end, speaking for the unseen Apollo, who
is clearly identified as the shaper of the immediate and more distant future of Ion
and his family (65–75; 1569–95), while the intervention of the Pythia at 1320–68
brings out his involvement from moment to moment in their lives; cf. another hint
of his agency at 1197–8.
narrative on the greek tragic stage 231
single revolution of the sun’, that is, it presents a more or less continu-
ous story compressed into a ‘now’ representing a single day, typically
starting at ‘zero-hour’ (as in A. Ag., Sept.; S. Aj., Tr., OT; E. Her.,
Or.). Aristotle goes on to note that tragedy was not always like this:
‘at first tragic practice was the same as epic’ (1449b14–16). And even
without Aristotle, who may or may not have had much documenta-
tion on the early stages of the genre, it is a likely guess that adaptation
from earlier modes of narrative can hardly have happened overnight,
and that the trilogy convention, in particular, may have been a useful
transitional stage in the process of development and innovation.19
What matters here is the scope that the one-day principle gives for the
greatest possible condensation of the story that is being dramatised.
Such a degree of compression cannot be effected without a very
particular kind of continuity: time has to be elastic, with choral lyrics
especially useful for covering indeterminate gaps.20 And the continuity
of the stage action is pretty distinctive, too. There are no interrup-
tions in long narrative rheseis: nothing is assumed to be happening
‘elsewhere’ while the story is told. At Medea 1122ff. when a messenger
comes in urgently telling Medea to ‘Flee! Flee!’ he is given nearly a
hundred lines of narrative, with no distracting anxiety for the audience
that at any moment Creon’s servants will rush in and attack Medea
for murdering the princess and her father; rather, here as elsewhere,
the telling and listening become the action, and there is nothing para-
doxical about the use of very long narrative speeches at certain critical
moments. One might compare the messenger in Ajax (p. 229): at this
moment of extreme urgency, with Ajax’s safety under threat, he gives
a long report (748–83) of what Calchas said to Teucer, condensing
into this part of his speech not only what needs to be known about
the immediate danger, but some highly relevant back-history about
the reasons for Athena’s anger, with direct quotation of advice given
to Ajax by his father long ago, and Ajax’s arrogant rejection of both
his father and the goddess herself. This seeming elaboration actually
intensifies the sense that the critical moment is about to arrive.
By contrast with epic, on the other hand, there is no almost verbatim
repetition of narrative information, and a variety of devices are used to
achieve more economical ends. Tragic speakers may pointedly abbre-
viate, or put off, narratives that would give news to other characters
but not to the audience, as at OC 569–70, when Oedipus, who has
21 ἔθος ἔχουσι τὰ γεγονότα ἔνδον ἀπαγγέλλειν τοῖς ἔξω οἱ ἄγγελοι, νῦν δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ
διατρίβειν ἐν τῷ δράματι οὐκ ἐποίησεν. τούτῳ γὰρ προκείμενον τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ἠλέκτραν
narrative on the greek tragic stage 233
NARRATIVE AS PERFORMANCE
Whatever the variations in technique for achieving the greatest con-
centration and intensity, there is no doubt that the narrative medium
itself was relished as having great theatrical power.22 The first point to
stress is the sheer length of narrative speeches in tragedy, particularly
the ones that relate a drama’s climactic but unseen events: eighty or
more verses for these is common, and some examples run to ninety or
a hundred. This lavishness suggests that in giving such prominence
to telling and listening the tragedians were appealing to the dramatic
potential of deeply rooted impulses in human experience. The seduc-
tive power – thelxis – of storytelling was certainly a familiar notion in
Greek tradition: we might recall Eumaeus in the Odyssey (17.518–21)
telling Penelope of his response to the disguised Odysseus’ three-day
narrative in his hut, ‘As when a man gazes at a bard, who has been
taught by the gods to sing spell-binding songs to mortals, and they
long insatiably to listen to him, for as long as he will sing’.23 And the
familiar example of rhapsodic performance, in which the rhapsodes
‘played all the speaking characters’ in their narratives,24 must have
been an influential model for tragedians and actors in their use of long
set speeches at critical points in the action.
There are other pointers, too, to the significance of the narrative
form. Almost always, the news-bringer’s account is marked off with
explicit deictic signals that crucial information is being brought,25
ἐστὶ πάθος· νῦν τοίνυν βοώσης ἐν τῇ ἀναιρέσει τῆς Κλυταιμήστρας ἀκούει ὁ θεατὴς
καὶ ἐνεργέστερον τὸ πρᾶγμα γίνεται ἢ δι᾿ἀγγέλου σημαινόμενον. καὶ τὸ μὲν φορτικὸν
τῆς ὄψεως ἀπέστη, τὸ δὲ ἐναργὲς οὐδὲν ἧσσον καὶ διὰ τῆς βοῆς ἐπραγματεύσατο
(Xenis 2010).
22 Cf. De Jong 1991: 118–20, noting the importance of parody scenes in comedy.
23 Cf. D. Steiner 2010 on 518–21; Maxwell 2012: 20–1 cites a more modern instance
of the need to tell, Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner: ‘The Mariner speaks
for the unassuageable thirst of all the storytellers, all the poets: “Since then, at an
uncertain hour | That agony returns: | And till my ghastly tale is told, | This heart
within me burns.” ’
24 Rehm 2003: 114–15, who compares the effect to that of a radio play, in which ‘the
audience become essential co-creators of the event’.
25 For fuller discussion of these formal features see De Jong 1991; Goward
1999; Barrett 2002.
234 p. e. easterling
usually with a ‘headline’ early in the scene to give the essence of what
has happened, and often with interpretative comment at the beginning
or end. In the earliest surviving example, the messenger’s account of
the Persian defeat at Salamis (A. Pers. 246–514), the chorus prepares
Atossa and the spectators for imminent news at 246–8, and the mes-
senger’s grandly emotional opening lines at 249–55 culminate in the
simplest of statements: ‘The whole barbarian force has perished.’
This is a particularly lavish narrative scene (at 429–30 the messenger
remarks that he could not give a full account of the disasters suf-
fered by the Persians, even if he were to take ten days going through
the details), but the same pattern recurs on a smaller scale in later
plays, with much stress on the speaker’s role as eye-witness. At S. OT
1236–40 the palace servant who reports Jocasta’s suicide remarks that
the chorus were spared the worst, not having been present at the scene,
‘but as far as my own memory allows you will learn what the poor
woman suffered’.26 Cf. the news-bringer from the Greek camp at Ajax
749: ‘So much I know, and I happened to be there.’ The reliability of
the narrative is sometimes more explicitly stressed: at S. Ant. 1192–3
the servant tells Eurydice ‘I will speak as one who was present, and I
will omit no word of the truth’, and there are many cases where narra-
tors claim to tell ‘the whole story’.27
Of course, despite all these claims to truth made by narrators, the
telling is by no means always transparent: there is always the ques-
tion of how to interpret the teller’s meaning or intentions, both for
the narratees, the built-in audiences of chorus and characters, and
for the audience in the theatre making sense of what they hear. Given
the strong bias in Greek poetic tradition towards the Hesiodic idea
that the Muses’ gift to poets was the capacity to tell both the truth
and beguiling lies that are like the truth, as in the false tales of the
Odyssey, audiences could be expected to engage very readily with
deliberately deceptive narratives. Recent work28 has examined the
extraordinary range of possibilities exploited by deceptive speeches
26 τῶν δὲ πραχθέντων τὰ μὲν | ἄλγιστ᾿ ἄπεστιν· ἡ γὰρ ὄψις οὐ πάρα. | ὅμως δ᾿, ὅσον γε
κἀν ἐμοὶ μνήμης ἔνι, | πεύσῃ τὰ κείνης ἀθλίας παθήματα. What does μνήμη mean
here? Jebb [1893] 2004: ad loc. takes it to mean ‘memory’, with the implication
‘though your own memory, had you been present, would have preserved a more
vivid impression’. For Dawe 2006, μνήμη in this context suggests ‘the power to
describe’: ‘as the messenger approaches his epic recital he depreciates his own
poetic ability to do justice to his theme’. Either way, this is a very self-conscious
indication of the dramatic importance of the narrative. Cf. Barrett 2002: 196–7 for
further discussion.
27 E.g., A. Pers. 253–4, Ag. 582 with Fraenkel’s note; S. Tr. 876, El. 680, Phil. 604
and 620; E. Hcld. 799.
28 See in particular Goward 1999: chs. 3 and 7.
narrative on the greek tragic stage 235
at the centre of the action. This practice was closely dependent on the
equally distinctive convention of using full-head masks for speakers
and mute supernumeraries, and since such masking limited the use of
facial cues, it was surely important for audiences to be aware that only
a limited number of the figures they were watching would actually be
speaking the relevant parts.29 There is virtually no precise external
evidence for how these parts were distributed in fifth-century plays
as originally performed, and all interpretation involves a degree of
guesswork, but the allocation of roles must have been something that
mattered a great deal to performers, particularly after the switch from
two speaking actors to three, which evidently took place sometime in
the period between the productions of Persae (472 bce) and Oresteia
(458 bce). An important change of this kind must have had an effect
on the dynamics of tragic performance, and it is tempting to see the
institution of a prize for the best actor at the City Dionysia in 449 bce
as a sign of growing interest in the ways in which individual perform-
ers could display their talents.30 The surviving plays themselves, with
their lengthy and prominent narrative speeches at high points in the
action, give encouragement to the idea that protagonists might have
been drawn to taking the parts of anonymous news-bringers as well as
playing the great hero roles, and there are some cases that point clearly
in this direction, as Maarit Kaimio31 and others have suggested.
Of course there could be no set formula for role-distribution
applicable to all plays. In some cases the plot demanded the almost
continuous visible presence of the leading figure (PV, OT, Med., Hec.,
Tro.), or the protagonist was fully occupied in playing two major roles
– for example, first Deianeira and then Heracles in Trachiniae – or
the action involved no climactic outside event to compare with what
29 A scholium on S. Aj. 815a may give a hint of the spectators’ alertness to such ques-
tions: ‘The scene changes to some lonely place, where Ajax gets ready his sword
and makes a speech before his death, for it would be absurd for a non-speaker to
come in and fall on his sword.’ (μετακινεῖται ἡ σκηνὴ ἐπὶ ἐρήμου τινὸς χωρίου, ἔνθα
ὁ Αἴας εὐτρεπίσας τὸ ξίφος ῥῆσίν τινα πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου προφέρεται· ἐπεὶ γέλοιον ἦν
κωφὸν εἰσελθόντα περιπεσεῖν τῳ̂ ξίφει.) Where would the ‘absurdity’ lie? In the fact
that there was no great final speech from the central figure Ajax, or in the fact
that, if the suicide were performed without a speech, the audience would assume it
was a non-speaking actor, not the protagonist, who was taking the part, and the
scene would lose its emotive power altogether? If audiences could be expected to
be closely familiar with the conventions of role-sharing between speakers and non-
speakers, dramatists would need to avoid letting their guard slip and revealing the
‘backstage’ realities.
30 Kaimio 1993 reviews the evidence for the organisation of tragic competi-
tions and makes some important suggestions about the distribution of roles.
31 Kaimio 1993; G. McCart in Ewans 2000: 284–6; Easterling 2004; Rehm 2002: 175;
Wiles 2007: 172–4.
narrative on the greek tragic stage 237
was happening before the eyes of the audience and therefore justify
a lengthy narrative. In S. Phil., for example, the two actors playing
Philoctetes and Neoptolemus, one of whom was certainly the protago-
nist, are on stage almost throughout, and although both have impor-
tant narrative speeches – Philoctetes’ account of his life on Lemnos
(254–316) and Neoptolemus’ disingenuous tale of his grudge against
the Atreidae (343–90) – these do not come into the ‘climactic’ category.
In some plays, too, the need to match the roles that called for lyric
monodies to the actors with the best singing voices must have affected
the overall distribution of parts: in E. Or. the actor who played Electra
and the Phrygian, both parts which required extensive solo singing –
in the Phrygian’s case an exotic messenger narrative – cannot have
been the protagonist, and some plots were clearly designed to spread
the performance opportunities more evenly between the actors. In any
case, the original allocation of roles surely did not have to stay fixed
for revivals, when the leading actors no doubt felt free to impose their
own preferences, and the wider the spread of tragedy in later times, the
more varied the circumstances of performance must have become.32
Taking the most likely examples from the second half of the fifth
century, with Pickard-Cambridge’s cautious analyses of what can be
inferred from the texts themselves as a starting point,33 we can identify
ten or more plays in which a reasonable argument can be made for
giving the protagonist also a prominent role as news-bringer. The
clearer candidates (in roughly chronological order of production) are
E. Hipp., Ion, IT, Helen,34 Or., Ba.; S. OC; and more tentatively E.
Hcld., Andr., Her., and S. Ant., a notoriously debated case.35 Some
brief notes on a couple of examples may help to illustrate a possible
effect that this kind of narrative may have had in performance. When
the narrator of a play’s climactic event quotes the direct speech of
others involved in the action, this can perhaps be felt as a structuring
device, an economical way of linking the different agents, through the
presence and voice of the single actor, in the creation of something
essential about the play and its possible meanings. Greek tragedy, as
Donald Mastronarde has remarked, is ‘inherently a representation of
many voices offering competing viewpoints, and the competition is
32 For the fourth century, see J. R. Green 1999. Green’s study of Tarentine
vase-paintings, showing a solo (evidently star) performer in the news-bringer role,
makes a compelling case for the importance of this figure as interpreter, as well as
narrator, of the play’s events.
33 Pickard-Cambridge 1988.
34 But Allan 2008: 33, argues for giving the messenger’s role to the deuterag-
onist and Castor’s to the protagonist.
35 See, e.g., Sifakis 1995, esp. 18–21; Kaimio 1993: 28–30; Easterling 2004: 133–4.
238 p. e. easterling
not merely between the elite figures of heroic myth, for tragedy also
significantly plays off against the elite voices various more humble
ones, such as those of the chorus and nameless servants and messen-
gers’.36 The practice of multiple role-playing, arranged so as to display
the versatility of the leading actors, may have helped to hold this ‘com-
petition’ in an extraordinarily creative tension, and thus to contribute
to the concentrated effect of the whole enactment of the story.
Hippolytus
There is no certainty that the protagonist must have played the part of
news-bringer, but Kaimio is surely right to argue strongly for it. This
man is one of Hippolytus’ faithful servants (1151–2) who can describe
the disaster on the seashore as an involved eye-witness. He and his
companions had heard their master’s sad words as he prepared to
leave Troezen and asked for his horses to be harnessed (duly quoted at
1182–4), then his defiant appeal to Zeus for justice (1191–3) before he
drove off; they were near enough to witness the crash, but too far away
to catch up in time and help, and did not see what happened to the bull
and the horses. The final direct quotation of Hippolytus’ words as he
was entangled in the chariot and smashed against the rocks (1240–2)
condenses into three lines the main features of both the character and
the plot of the play: ‘ Hold fast, horses reared in my own stables! Don’t
destroy me! O dire curse of my father! Who will be ready to save an
innocent man?’ The speaker ends (1249–54) with a strong challenge to
Theseus to recognise Hippolytus’ innocence:
Ion
The protagonist would surely play Ion, and the deuteragonist Creousa.
All the other parts could in theory be played by the third actor, but
Ion is absent between 675 and 1261; during this part of the play his
actor could have played both the Old Man who persuades Creousa to
plot his death, and the servant who rushes in at 1106 at a moment of
great crisis, to report the failure of the plot and the mortal danger of
Creousa. The crisis does not prevent him from making an enormously
long speech (1122–1228, the longest in the play), reporting Ion’s prep-
aration of the huge and elaborately decorated festive tent and then his
near-poisoning, saved only by the ‘miracle’ of a dove drinking from
the cup intended for him and falling dead. The speaker quotes four
passages of direct speech: first we hear Xuthus (1128–31) instructing
Ion to supervise the erection of the tent, and explaining that he himself
may be delayed in making sacrifices;37 then the Old Man’s voice at
1178–80 giving instructions about the serving of wine, before adding
poison to the ‘specially chosen cup’ to be presented to Ion; next Ion’s
own voice at 1210–14, when he suspects that he is the intended victim
and challenges the Old Man; and finally his public announcement of
Creousa’s guilt (1220–1), which leads to a death sentence. It is hard to
imagine any self-respecting protagonist passing up the opportunity,
but there is much more to the speech than the scope it offers to a
virtuoso actor: critics have often discussed the meaning for the play
(and for the understanding of Ion’s identity) suggested by the long
ekphrasis of the tent’s decorations,38 and the hint of Apollo’s agency
in its climactic event, the uncanny scene of the dove’s death which
saves Ion’s life (1187–1208), gives special significance to the narrative
in relation to the whole plot.
37 A clear indication that his actor will be returning in different roles (the Priestess
and Athena); cf. Lee 1997 on 1130–2.
38 Some samples in Lee 1997: 282–3.
39 The other speakers cited are: (Ba.) Pentheus at 1059–62, 1118–21 and Agave at
1106–9, 1146–7; (OC) Oedipus at 1611–19, 1630–5, 1639–44.
240 p. e. easterling
the action.40 At Ba. 1078–81: ‘From the upper air some voice – it must
have been Dionysus – cried out , “Young women, I bring you the one
who makes a mockery of you and me and my rites: punish him!” ’ Then
follows a tremendous flash of fire, and an uncanny silence in the whole
of nature; the maenads are bewildered, and the divine command is
repeated, with instant violent effects. At OC 1623–8, when Oedipus
has said farewell to his daughters: ‘There was silence, and suddenly
someone’s voice cried out to him, making everyone’s hair stand on
end in fear. For the god called him often and in many ways41: “You
there, Oedipus, why are we waiting to go? You have been delaying too
long.” ’ In each case, while the whole messenger narrative is rich in
detail evoking much that has gone before,42 the actor’s control over the
different roles that he brings to life within a single speech may help the
audience to sense something of the compression and coherence of the
whole design.
40 For the similarities of detail and phrasing between the two passages see Dodds
1960 on 1078–90.
41 Or perhaps ‘often and everywhere’: πολλὰ πολλαχῃ̂ seems to imply more than just
‘many times’.
42 I have tried to explore some of this detail for OC in Easterling 2006.
12
I want to thank Ruth Scodel and Douglas Cairns for inviting me to speak at the
Leventis Conference (which was a thoroughly enjoyable experience) and to con-
tribute to this volume, as well as for their valuable comments on earlier versions
of the chapter. Thanks are also due to everyone who asked questions and offered
comments after the delivery of the conference chapter; the comments of Nick
Lowe and Irene de Jong were particularly useful.
242 lisa irene hau
the inventor of the genre, in some ways differs from the others, and
I shall return to that below. The focus on these historiographers to
the exclusion of those that survive only in fragments means that some
branches of ancient Greek historiography are left out of the discus-
sion: local history and genealogy are particularly poorly preserved
although both were important and popular genres in the classical and
Hellenistic period. The narrow focus is justified not only by the state
of preservation of the works under scrutiny, but also by the fact that
these works are the ones that inspired the succeeding western tradition
of historiography (beginning with the Roman tradition) and deter-
mined some of its main characteristics, as we shall see below.
1 What I here call a ‘remote’ narrator could also be called an ‘external, covert’
narrator, e.g., De Jong 2004. For more detailed analyses of the narrators of
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and Polybius, see the relevant chapters in De
Jong et al. 2004. The Herodotean narrator has also been well discussed by Dewald
1987, 2002. The Diodoran narrator is discussed by Hau forthcoming.
2 Benveniste 1966: 241. The expression is also used by Barthes [1967] 1986: 131–2
and Genette [1969] 1976: 9.
3 Using the word ‘story’ is not meant to signal that I regard the events narrated
in ancient Greek historiography as invented or fictional. It is used in its techni-
cal narratological sense as one half of the pair ‘story–discourse’ equivalent to
‘fabula–sjužet’.
stock situations, topoi and greek 245
and ambushes. In addition, it is natural that they all recount the types
of events that lead up to battles and the like, such as the planning and
debates of assemblies and war councils, the outset of an expedition
and the marching army, and everything that results from battles,
such as the razing of cities, ravaging of countryside and dealing with
prisoners. And in fact all of these are stock situations in the historio-
graphical works of the period.
A stock situation is defined by showing up repeatedly in the stories
of Greek historiography, sometimes narrated extensively as a scene,
at other times briefly as a summary, but in a way that is similar in its
essentials. The similarity consists in certain stock events which tend to
take place within a stock situation and in a similar narratorial interest
in certain aspects of the situation, often manifesting itself as historio-
graphical topoi (Table 12.1).
It should be clear from the list of stock situations in Table 12.1
that some instances can be long, sometimes several pages of text, and
include a large number of stock events. For example, the stock situa-
tion ‘Battle’ can be narrated extensively over several pages of text (e.g.,
Herodotus’ account of the battle of Marathon, Thucydides’ of the
battle of Mantinea, Polybius’ of the battle of Cannae) or it can be nar-
rated briefly, in a fast-moving summary which takes up a paragraph
or two. But both of these modes of narrating a battle will contain a
certain number of stock events: both of them are likely to begin with
the deployment of troops making up the battle order on one or both
sides, and both are likely to include a charge by one side, an eventual
rout, and either a pursuit of the routed or a conscious decision not to
pursue. A large number of the battle narratives also contain the use
of some stratagem (typically troops hidden somewhere in the terrain,
who jump out and fall on the enemy’s rear), and many of them have a
passage where one or more important characters are killed, or at least
a list of important people killed. Those are the stock events listed in
Table 12.1. In addition, certain types of battle have extra stock events:
battles in front of a city typically have a rush for the gates made by
either attackers or defenders or both, while sea-battles usually have a
section on capturing enemy ships or at least an enumeration of ships
captured. A stock situation is a larger narrative unit that includes
these shorter items within it. It is also possible for an event which can
form its own stock situation, such as the ‘outset of an expedition’,
simply to be mentioned in passing as part of another stock situation,
such as ‘Build-up to battle’.
At this point it is worth asking ourselves if we need the term ‘stock
situation’ at all – is it perhaps not simply the case that if you boil it
down to its essentials, all relevant historical events can fit into a quite
246 lisa irene hau
Table 12.1 Stock situations, stock events and topoi
Stock situation Stock eventsa Topoia
Before battle:
Build-up to war Armament of opposing Discussion of causes
powers
Envoys going back and
forth
Background to grievances
explained
Inspection of troops Description of troops The magnificence or battle-
The commander’s reaction readiness of the troops
on inspecting them Realism or over-confidence
of commander
Outset of army/expedition Magnificent preparations Over-confidence
Goodbyes of those who are Foreshadowing of outcome
staying behind of expedition, especially if it
is going to fail
Army crosses river Planning how to cross Ingenuity of the commander
The crossing in coming up with stratagem
Attacked while crossing
Army crosses mountain Planning how to cross Carefulness or carelessness
pass The crossing of commander
Ambushed while crossing Harshness of mountain
conditions
Suspense
Army marches through Detailed descriptions of Suffering of the men
difficult terrain (such hardship Desperation or resoluteness
as snowy mountains or Deaths of men and animals of the commander
waterless deserts)
Commander and advisors Advice given and taken or The ability or inability of
(war-council) rejected the commander to listen to
Speeches advice
Anecdotal remarks
Pay negotiations between Reasonableness or
army and commander or unreasonableness of
(rare) commander and demands
superior
Build-up to battle Marching/sailing to the Creation of suspense,
place of battle (knowingly particularly before a battle
or unknowingly) famous in the reader’s time
Choosing a spot for battle Fear or excitement as the
Battle harangue enemy approaches
Deployment of troops
The armies/fleets drawn up
across from each other
Army in camp Training The commander’s skill or
Drinking and feasting at lack of it in keeping his
leisure troops battle-ready
stock situations, topoi and greek 247
Battle or similar:
Battle Deployment of troops Heroic fighting
(land-battle/sea-battle/ Charge Heroic deaths
cavalry battle) Use of new device or skill Skill and bravery or utter
Rout uselessness of commander
Pursuit
Stratagem
Killing of important
opponents
Night battle All of the above plus Confusion and suffering in
confusion the dark
Panic
Siege Building of siege engines Cleverness of commander or
(besiegers) engineer(s)
Building of fortifications
(besieged)
Breaking a naval Daring and skill of blockade
blockade breaker
Invasion Ravaging army Impiety of invaders
Violation of sanctuary Fear or determination of the
invaded
Betrayal of a city from Elaborate plan resulting in Despicability of the traitors
the inside the opening of the city gate or cleverness of the plan and
for the enemy stupidity of those who were
Slaughter of the political fooled
opponents of the traitors
Mutiny Outbreak of mutiny Low birth and despicability
Quelling of mutiny of the ringleaders
Skill of the commander in
dealing with the situation
Storm destroys The unpredictability of
battleships weather/fortune
248 lisa irene hau
After battle:
The victor after the Trophy and giving back Judgement on the victor’s
victory the dead treatment of the defeated
The victor and his troops The typical inability of
(rewards and punishments) human beings to handle
The victor and prisoners good fortune properly
The victor and the booty Measures for distributing
The victor in the taken city booty
Honouring of the
victorious commander
News of the outcome Celebrations or despair and Judgement on the
reaches the city mourning excessiveness or moderation
(victorious or defeated) Measures taken to sue for of the reaction
peace or continue the fight
The defeated after the Collecting the dead Dignity or lack of it of the
defeat Despondency defeated
The defeated and the
victors
Changeover of military Difference between leaving
commanders and incoming commander
Issues of new commander
threatening to take the glory
for former commander’s
achievements
Peace negotiations Speeches Sincerity or insincerity of
Exchanging oaths negotiators
limited list of basic situations, and that these are the situations all
historians have to work with, ancient Greek or not? However, if we
consider this question carefully, we discover that many events are, in
fact, not turned into stock situations and are hardly mentioned by the
Greek historiographers. Some of them, such as more or less everything
done by women, are left out because they were simply not interesting
to the male authors and not deemed historically significant. For other
non-stock situations it is harder to find a reason: why is there no stock
situation covering the practicalities of foraging, but only one dealing
stock situations, topoi and greek 251
4 For a discussion of the events that are and are not included in the post-victory
narratives of the Greek historiographers, see Hau 2013.
252 lisa irene hau
5 The terminology used here (analeptic and proleptic digressions and pauses) was
created by the founding father of narratology, Gérard Genette [1972] (1980), and
has been used to great effect by Tim Rood (1998) in his analysis of Thucydides. It
is also championed by De Jong et al. 2004.
stock situations, topoi and greek 253
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Let us now take a step back from stock situations in the nar-
rative of events and, turning our gaze to the entirety of the his-
torical works, go in search of what else is characteristic of classical
and Hellenistic Greek historiography. There are at least four main
characteristics:
6 For the similarity in the treatment of the victorious commander in the classical
and Hellenistic Greek historiographers, see Hau 2008.
254 lisa irene hau
As to why (τὰς αἰτίας) they broke the treaty, I have written down
first the complaints and the disputes, so that no one may ever
inquire whence so great a war arose among the Greeks. Now the
most genuine cause (τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεστάτην πρόφασιν), though
least spoken of, was this: it was the Athenians, in my opinion, as
they were growing great and furnishing an occasion of fear to the
Lacedaemonians, who compelled the latter to go to war. But the
complaints of each side, spoken of openly, were the following,
stock situations, topoi and greek 255
complaints which led the parties to break the treaty and enter a
state of war. (Thuc. 1.23, trans. Sealey)7
Anyone who claims that these incidents were the causes of the
war has not grasped the distinction, the considerable difference,
between a starting point (ἀρχή) and a cause (αἰτία) or pretext
(πρόφασις). A cause or pretext always comes first and a starting
point comes last. I take it that the starting point of anything con-
sists of the first application in the real world of a course of action
that has already been decided upon, while the cause is what first
influences one’s judgements and decisions, or, in other words,
what first influences one’s ideas, feeling, reasoning about the
matter, and all one’s decision-making and deliberative faculties.
(Plb. 3.6.6–7, trans. Waterfield)
During their term of office Philip, the son of Amyntas and father
of Alexander who defeated the Persians in war, succeeded to the
Macedonian throne in the following manner (διὰ τοιαύτας τινὰς
αἰτίας). After Amyntas had been defeated by the Illyrians and
forced to pay tribute to his conquerors, the Illyrians, who had
taken Philip, the youngest son of Amyntas, as a hostage, placed
him in the care of the Thebans. They in turn entrusted the lad
to the father of Epameinondas and directed him both to keep
careful watch over his ward and to superintend his upbringing
and education. Since Epameinondas had as his instructor a phi-
losopher of the Pythagorean school, Philip, who was reared along
with him, acquired a wide acquaintance with the Pythagorean
8 This passage has often been criticised for its confused chronology in presenting
Philip II and Epaminondas as being of the same age, but that does not concern us
here.
stock situations, topoi and greek 257
CONCLUSION
We have now identified five areas of shared characteristics, which I
argue define Greek historiography: similarity in the types of situations
they describe, both larger stock situations and smaller stock events
with attending topoi; similarity in structuring the narrative along the
lines of causation and in looking for causes; similarity in having a
partly didactic purpose, practical and moral; similarity in treating the
two sides in a conflict in an even-handed manner; and finally similarity
in alternating between two narratorial modes, one of them remote and
giving an illusion of transparency, the other personal, involved and
strongly argumentative.
How did these characteristics originate? Homeric influence can
perhaps account for the apparent transparency of narration and
the even-handed treatment of opponents, probably partly due to
the fact that both Homer and the historiographers were aiming at a
panhellenic audience. There was probably also inspiration from other
early prose genres, such as those of the Hippocratic writers and the
Sophists, which may well be where the interest in causation and the
involved, argumentative narrator mode originate.11 Alternatively,
it is possible that early historiography was not consciously inspired
by either Homer or other prose writings, but rather originated from
the same aesthetic values and intellectual preoccupations that had
generated them, as an expression of the ancient Greek mind. However
it happened, it seems that this combination of characteristics was
uniquely Greek.
J. R. Morgan
There are many systems of identity at work in this single sentence, but
the crucial point is that the author appears to define himself, in terms
of race, city and religious affiliation, as something other than Greek.
His home city, Emesa (modern Homs), was the centre of a religious
cult which by the imperial period had become identified with the sun,
although its origins may be different: this was the cult that Elagabalus
brought to Rome in the third century. It is regarded with suspicion,
distaste and horror as archetypally barbarian by our sources for his
reign. It is not clear exactly what Heliodorus means by calling himself
a ‘Descendant of the Sun’: the phrase is not otherwise attested in
connection with the Emesan cult, and seems to have been coined to
achieve precise literary effects in this context, but it is inescapable
that some reference is intended to the solar cult for which Emesa was
famous. I have argued elsewhere for a specifically Emesan ideologi-
cal dimension in the novel, shared in some degree with Philostratus’
fictionalised biography of Apollonius of Tyana, written at the com-
mission of the Emesan empress Julia Domna.2
(footnote 6 continued)
blackening brows’): the protagonists’ metaphorical ‘blackening’ indicates their
new Ethiopian-ness.
7 The argument is developed in detail in Morgan 2009: 265–8.
8 Whitmarsh 2011: 110.
heliodorus the hellene 263
9 Whitmarsh 2011; on Heliodorus specifically see 108–35, but the second half of the
book is also studded with Heliodoran jewels.
264 j. r. morgan
14 PIR I.7 refers to attestations in Strab. 16.753; Dio 50.13.7; Jos. Ant. Jud.
19.338, 20.139.
15 4.16.6: νικῶσαν τὴν Τύρον ἐν Ἕλλησιν ἀναγορεύσαντος.
16 As argued in Morgan 2009.
17 The arguments are summarised in Morgan [1996] 2003: 417–21.
heliodorus the hellene 267
between the two texts, one can nevertheless find significant conver-
gences of thought and imagery, and occasionally of diction, which
suggest that they were operating within the same cultural matrix. The
crucial point, however, is that Emesan theology, refracted through
Neo-Platonism, was an important element in Julian’s theorising of
classical paganism. Conveniently, Julian’s citation of the philosopher
Iamblichus demonstrates that the integration of Emesan theology
into Hellenism was already taking place in the third century, a period
to which some scholars date the composition of the Aethiopica, and
that the cult had already been successfully purged of the undesirable
elements which had been so prominent in the reign of Elagabalus.
Heliodorus’ distinguishing religion was so profoundly assimilated into
Hellenism that it could become a defining element of a classical pagan-
ism in a binary opposition to a new ‘other’ constituted by the threat
posed by Christianity. Far from connoting marginality and alterity,
Emesa and its cult were firmly at the centre of Hellenism.
18 Gronewald 1979.
19 Alexiad 1.9.2, 8.5.4. The TLG turns up ten other occurrences of the phrase ἡμέρας
ἄρτι διαγελώσης from Byzantine writers, not counting those who are quoting
Heliodorus. For the reception of the Aethiopica in Byzantium, see Gärtner 1969.
268 j. r. morgan
as priestess, to carry out the sacrifice of her beloved (whom she has
repeatedly pretended is her brother). The action is underpinned by
recurring metatheatrical imagery, comparing the action to the tragic
stage, both as an act of literary self-positioning, and as self-reflexive
commentary on the quality of the invention.22 The numerous laments
of the two protagonists are repeatedly characterised explicitly as tragic
utterances, through the use of verbs like ἐπιτραγῳδέω (1.3.2, 2.29.4,
7.6.4, 7.14.7).
Aristophanic Old Comedy understandably has less of a place in this
galaxy, but Menandrian New Comedy is represented in the story of
Cnemon, himself the bearer of an archetypally New Comic name.23
The comic intrigue with the slave girl Thisbe plays with a Hippolytan
characterisation for Cnemon, but in the end categorises him where his
name has already positioned him, as a lower-level comic character.
I like to toy with the idea that Heliodorus intends us to identify his
Cnemon as the younger self of the grumpy old man of the Dyscolus.
The picture of Athens thus constructed is admittedly not a favourable
one, but it is constructed entirely from within the classical tradition.
Classical prose genres are equally present in the mix. Historiography
provides much of the furniture of the setting. We may even be encour-
aged to see in the just Ethiopian king Hydaspes the very Ethiopian
king who saw through the spies sent by Cambyses in Herodotus.24
Certainly, the construction of Ethiopia presented in the novel is
heavily reliant on classical traditions, from Herodotus onwards,
and has little or nothing to do with the actual Meroitic civilisation,
except as filtered to Heliodorus through earlier Greek writing.25 The
Platonism of the novel has not been fully explored but the whole
story has a pattern based on the myth of the soul in the Phaedrus. The
soul’s fall into the material world and its return to the gods through
the power of spiritual, non-carnal love is rewritten in Charicleia’s
exile from Ethiopia in infancy and her return thither in the company
of her preternaturally self-restrained beloved. The final ceremony
that closes the novel is graced with Phaedran white horses and oxen
pulling chaste chariots towards a summation too holy for the text to
speak of openly. The scene of the protagonists’ inamoration (3.5.5) is
shot through with the Platonic idea that love is a memory of the soul’s
pre-natal existence. Meriel Jones has demonstrated that the antithesis
22 First noted by Walden 1894; more recently see Marino 1990; Montes Cala
1992.
23 Bowie 1995 explores the connotations.
24 Suggested by Elmer 2008.
25 Morgan 1982; for a more positivist view of Heliodorus’ knowledge of
Meroitic Ethiopia, see Hägg [2000] 2004.
270 j. r. morgan
One could go on, but it should be abundantly clear that the novel is
obsessively and deliberately self-positioned within the classical literary
tradition. We can phrase this in two ways. First and positively, it is an
assertion of the text’s Hellenism, an appropriation and revalidation
of virtually the whole of the classical literary tradition, a last gesture
of pride and defiance and education as the forces of darkness and
fanaticism come knocking at the fourth-century door. Second and
negatively, I can find nothing in this text which cannot be explained in
terms precisely of the literary tradition. I phrase this observation care-
fully. Scholarship on the novels was long obsessed with the question of
origins. A recurrent move in this game has been to look to other cul-
tures, particularly Egypt, either for the germs of the genre as a whole,
or for the ‘original’ of a particular novel.28 This is an ideologically
attractive position from two perspectives. First, from a Eurocentric,
‘right-wing’ view, it preserved the classical purity of Hellenism by
allowing ‘inferior’ literature to be unloaded on to ‘inferior’ cultures
and races: the Capelle gambit. Alternatively, from a liberal, postco-
lonial position, and with a more positive prejudice about the literary
quality of the novels, it allows the achievements of Hellenism to be
reapportioned to non-European sources: the Black Athena move.
It is no doubt true that in the Roman Empire there were continu-
ing and subtle exchanges between local and central cultures. We have
fragments of Egyptian narratives translated into Greek, and some of
the papyrus fragments of what we call Greek novels appear to have
a particularly local (i.e., Egyptian) centre of interest.29 The problem
26 Jones 2006.
27 Morgan 2012: 573–6.
28 Modern scholarship on the Greek novel begins with Rohde [1876] 1914,
still immensely authoritative. Barns 1956 is often cited in connection with the
supposed Egyptian origins of the novel, but is disappointingly thin when actually
read. The apogee of this tendency came with Anderson 1984.
29 In the first category come the Dream of Nektanebos (P.d’Anastasy [Leiden] 67 =
Pack²2476), and the Legend of Tefnut (P.Lit.Lond.274 = Pack²2618). In the second
are the Sesonchosis Romance (P.Oxy.1826, 2466, 3319 = Stephens and Winkler
1995: 246–66); P.Mich.inv. 3378 (= Stephens and Winkler 1995: 422–9), which S.
heliodorus the hellene 271
comes if we try to push the idea to specific cases, as for example Ian
Rutherford has tried, unconvincingly, to do with Heliodorus.30 It is
not difficult to find similarities, but that is not enough: we need to dis-
criminate methodologically between significant and insignificant simi-
larities, between resemblance and connection, and between remote
connection and immediate connection; by which I mean to reserve
the possibility of oriental influence at some earlier stage of the Greek
cultural tradition being transmitted within the Greek tradition itself.
We must also be alive to the possibility in the case of the Greek novels
at least of influence running in the other direction, so that similarities
might be explained by the migration of Greek novels into other narra-
tive traditions. We know this happened in the case of the fragmentary
romance of Metiochus and Parthenope, which has turned up in a
Persian version; and I suspect it happened with several of the stories in
the Arabian Nights.31 All that said, I repeat that I have not yet encoun-
tered any single piece of evidence or any argument that convinces me
either that the Greek novel is a basically oriental form that has been
brought over into Greek, or that any particular novelist had direct
access to and input from non-Greek narrative traditions. This line of
enquiry seems to me to be a dead end, and I want to conclude with yet
another approach to Heliodorus and Hellenism.
Is there a sense in which we can read this novel not as the product
of an outsider contesting Hellenism, but as that of a fully Hellenised
but not racially Greek person articulating an alternative, Helleno-
centrifugal perspective from inside the Greek literary tradition, one
that requires or enables his Greek readers to look at the world from a
different vantage point? To begin with, we should question the notion
of race in a question formulated like this. To be Greek was essentially
to speak Greek, and to think like a Greek. Heliodorus the Arab, whom
I do not believe to be the same person as our novelist (though there
are those who do), is listed by Philostratus among the leading sophists
of his time, with no issue about his race arising.32 We must not allow
ourselves to be misled by, for instance, analogy with the position of an
educated Indian under the British Raj, conscripted into the dominant
culture but simultaneously irrevocably ‘othered’ within it.
Heliodorus is certainly interested in what it means to be truly Greek.
When Calasiris introduces the hero Theagenes into his narrative for
the first time, it is as the leader of the sacred mission of the Aenianes:
West 1971: 95–6 connects with Demotic Egyptian analogues; Tinouphis (P.Turner
8 = (Stephens and Winkler 1995: 400–8); Amenophis (P.Oxy.3011).
30 I. Rutherford 1997.
31 On Metiochus and Parthenope, Hägg and Utas 2003 is definitive.
32 Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.32.625–7.
272 j. r. morgan
33 2.21.2: στολὴ καὶ ἐσθὴς ἡ ἄλλη πρὸς τὸ ἑλληνικώτερον βλέπουσα (‘his cloak and
the rest of his clothes were of a Greekish appearance’). This description is clearly
focalised through Cnemon, but the exact force of the comparative ἑλληνικώτερον
is not clear.
34 Capelle 1953; Dickie 1991.
35 Whitmarsh 2011: 124.
heliodorus the hellene 275
36 Bowie 1998.
276 j. r. morgan
Dennis Pausch
I wish to thank the audience at the Leventis conference for a helpful discussion
and especially Calum Maciver for doing his very best to rescue my English from as
many mistakes as possible.
1 For the ancient scholia as an important source of information about the reactions
of readers to poetic texts see Nünlist 2009, esp. 135–6, and his contribution in the
present volume.
280 dennis pausch
There are more Samnite wars still to come, though we have dealt
with them continuously throughout four books, covering a period
of forty-six years, from the consulship of Marcus Valerius and
Aulus Cornelius, who were the first that made war on Samnium;
and – not to go over now the disasters sustained in so many years
on either side and the toils endured, by which nevertheless those
sturdy hearts could not be daunted, . . . [14] yet would they not
abstain from war; so far were they from wearying of a liberty
which they had unsuccessfully defended, preferring rather to be
conquered than not to try for victory. Who, pray, could grudge
the time for writing or reading of these wars, when they could not
exhaust the men who fought them?2
I shall come back later to this attempt at transforming the very act
of reading into a heroic effort as perhaps something very Roman,
but shall start by taking a step back to Polybius, another author
who reflects quite a lot about his recipients. In fact, we should go
even further, back to the fragmentarily preserved writers of the early
Hellenistic period, since there began at that time the emergence of the
reader as an important benchmark of historiographical writing and
the idea that he should in some way actively engage with the text.3
But this would be another chapter in itself. Instead, I shall focus
on how this ‘historiography 2.0’ was adopted by Roman writers.
And I shall further confine myself to the two most obvious examples:
Polybius on the one hand, who actually brought Hellenistic histo-
riography to Rome in the flesh, so to speak, even if not completely
by his own choice, and on the other hand Livy, although I am aware
of the significant chronological difference between the two authors.
Admittedly, this creates a problem in terms of influence, which
is unsolvable in the end, as the histories of, for instance, Coelius
Antipater or Claudius Quadrigarius are regrettably lost to us today.
This may be part of the reason, too, why Polybius’ methodological
impact on Roman historiography has never been studied in detail,
though it must have been significant.4
Admittedly, this looks not only like a justification for his idea of
πραγματικὴ ἱστορία together with its focus on the political and military
8 See, e.g., Sacks 1981, esp. 7–8: ‘Even within the historical narrative proper, it is
clear that he has one eye turned toward his readers’; Marincola 2001: 133–4; Rood
2004b: 157–60; Näf 2010: 185–7.
9 Plb. 9.1.2–5 (trans. Paton, as in the following).
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 283
ἐγὼ δὲ φημὶ μὲν δεῖν πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ σπουδάζειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ
δεόντως ἐξαγγέλλειν τὰς πράξεις – δῆλον γὰρ ὡς οὐ μικρά, μεγάλα
δὲ συμβάλλεται τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν – οὐ μὴν ἡγεμονικώτατόν
γε καὶ πρῶτον αὐτὸ παρὰ τοῖς μετρίοις ἀνδράσι τίθεσθαι· πολλοῦ γε
δεῖν· ἄλλα γὰρ ἂν εἴη καλλίω μέρη τῆς ἱστορίας, ἐφ’ οἷς ἂν μᾶλλον
σεμνυνθείη πολιτικὸς ἀνήρ.
14 For modern factual texts see above all Genette 1990; Cohn 1999: 109–31; for an
outline of the problems attached to ancient historiography see De Jong 2004.
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 285
‘after I had said this’ or again, ‘and when I agreed to this.’ For as
I was personally much involved in the events I am now about to
chronicle, I am compelled to change the phrases when alluding
to myself, so that I may neither offend by the frequent repetition
of my name, nor again by constantly saying ‘when I’ or ‘for me’
fall unintentionally into an ill-mannered habit of speech. What
I wish is by using these modes of expression alternately and in
their proper place to avoid as far as possible the offence that
lies in speaking constantly about oneself, as such personal refer-
ences are naturally unwelcome, but are often necessary when the
matter cannot be stated clearly without them. Luckily I have been
assisted in this matter by the fortuitous fact that no one as far as I
know, up to the time in which I live at least, has received from his
parents the same proper name as my own.15
Of course, you can say that this passage is about nothing more than
Plutarch’s ‘How to praise oneself inoffensively’.16 I think, however,
there is a more general point to it, even more general than the question
of how a historian should present himself as part of the action, in the
context of which the passage is usually compared to the locus classicus
in Thucydides’ fourth book.17 Seen in a broader context, though, it is
a remarkable example of Polybius’ concern not to alienate his readers
by pushing himself to the fore, whereas this is necessary at the same
time to offer them a convincing narrative by a trustworthy narrator.
This is very important for Livy, too, although he is – at least as far as
his text is preserved – a completely external narrator, and first-person
narrative is thus restricted more or less to prefaces and methodologi-
cal statements.18
Yet the question of how present and how perceptible a narrator
should be, or – to put it the other way round – the extent to which the
reliability of the historical account should rest on the authority of the
19 For the use of one’s own persona as a way of authenticating historiography see
Marincola 1997: 128–74.
20 For this tendency in the historiography of the twentieth century see esp.
Barthes [1967] 1986.
21 See Marincola 1997: 262–3: ‘As opposed to the assured narrative of the contem-
porary historian, the non-contemporary historian, following in the tradition of
Herodotus, portrays himself within the narrative as organiser and sifter, if not
solver, of the tradition. He is far more likely to intrude into the narrative, and to
place before his audience the difficulties of his own knowledge and character.’
22 Cf. Feldherr 1998: 31–2: ‘The preface begins with a flurry of self-reference. But as
the text proceeds, the author himself progressively retreats from it, rarely intrud-
ing his own persona into the narrative.’
23 See Liv. 40.20.1–11.
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 287
princeps, and with the most diverse results.24 I shall not go into this
in any detail, but shall instead focus only on the way Livy presents
himself in this context:
When one looks at the Latin, it becomes even more obvious how pro-
nounced the use of ego (already not unprovocative in itself) really is:
it is not only placed nearly at the start, but very close to and definitely
before the princeps himself. The self-assured appearance is further
enhanced by the emphasis on an almost physical encounter (nicely
stressed by B. O. Foster’s translation of audissem as ‘heard from his
lips’) which in fact takes place between the author and one of the
figures in his historical account, thus producing yet another form of
metalepsis. The particular reason to highlight his own part here may
be the fact that this second version contradicts the first one given by
him earlier (Cossus not being consul, but only military tribune). But
apart from this special case, it is very much the way in which Livy
speaks about himself within his narrative.26 It is different from the
manner he found in Polybius’ Histories in more ways than one, but
these changes can be understood as a reaction to the modified situa-
tion in which this communication between historian and readers takes
place in the first century bc, and thus as Livy’s way of adapting Greek
narrative to Roman needs.
24 See, e.g., Miles 1995: 40–54; Rich 1996; Krafft 1998; Flower 2000; Sailor 2006.
25 Liv. 4.20.7 (trans. Foster).
26 For this observation see esp. Krafft 1998.
288 dennis pausch
ἴσως μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ πάσαις ταῖς ὀλυμπιάσιν αἱ προεκθέσεις τῶν πράξεων
εἰς ἐπίστασιν ἄγουσι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ διὰ
τὸ μέγεθος τῶν γεγονότων, ὡς ἂν ὑπὸ μίαν σύνοψιν ἀγομένων τῶν ἐξ
ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἔργων· οὐ μὴν τὰ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ὀλυμπιάδα
μάλιστα νομίζω συνεπιστήσειν τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας διὰ τὸ πρῶτον
μὲν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν καὶ Λιβύην πολέμους ἐν τούτοις τοῖς
χρόνοις εἰληφέναι τὴν συντέλειαν· ὑπὲρ ὧν τίς οὐκ ἂν ἱστορῆσαι
βουληθείη ποία τις ἡ καταστροφὴ καὶ τί τὸ τέλος αὐτῶν ἐγένετο;
φύσει γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι, κἂν ὁλοσχερῶς <παρα>δέχωνται τὰ
κατὰ μέρος ἔργα καὶ λόγους, ὅμως ἑκάστων τὸ τέλος ἱμείρουσι
μαθεῖν·
27 Plb. 1.1.4–1.6:
αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ παράδοξον τῶν πράξεων, ὑπὲρ ὧν προῃρήμεθα γράφειν, ἱκανόν
ἐστι προκαλέσασθαι καὶ παρορμῆσαι πάντα καὶ νέον καὶ πρεσβύτερον πρὸς τὴν
ἔντευξιν τῆς πραγματείας. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ὑπάρχει φαῦλος ἢ ῥᾴθυμος ἀνθρώπων
ὃς οὐκ ἂν βούλοιτο γνῶναι πῶς καὶ τίνι γένει πολιτείας ἐπικρατηθέντα σχεδὸν
ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην οὐχ ὅλοις πεντήκοντα καὶ τρισὶν ἔτεσιν ὑπὸ
μίαν ἀρχὴν ἔπεσε τὴν Ῥωμαίων, ὃ πρότερον οὐχ εὑρίσκεται γεγονός, τίς δὲ πάλιν
οὕτως ἐκπαθὴς πρός τι τῶν ἄλλων θεαμάτων ἢ μαθημάτων ὃς προυργιαίτερον ἄν
τι ποιήσαιτο τῆσδε τῆς ἐμπειρίας;
For the very element of unexpectedness in the events I have chosen as my
theme will be sufficient to challenge and incite everyone, young and old alike,
to peruse my systematic history. For who is so worthless or indolent as not
to wish to know by what means and under what system of polity the Romans
in less than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole
inhabited world to their sole government – a thing unique in history? Or who
again is there so passionately devoted to other spectacles or studies as to
regard anything as of greater moment than the acquisition of this knowledge?
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 289
204–201 bc] will have a peculiar power of doing this. For in the
first place it was during this Olympiad that the wars in Italy
and Africa were brought to an end, wars the final outcome of
which who will not be curious to learn? For everyone naturally,
although he may accept our account of particular action and
speeches in essence, still always longs to know the end.28
In one sense, this lack of knowledge might have been quite welcome
to him, as it allows him to create suspense, in order to keep his audi-
ence in line. But at the same time, he employs a range of techniques
to give his readers an orientation to what will happen in advance and
thus to create a kind of suspense that has been labelled as paradoxical
or anomalous in the twentieth century.29 The most obvious strategy is
to give a preview of the future events in the text itself, and the natural
place for this would be the start. This is, therefore, what Polybius does
in the third chapter of the first book.30 But more remarkable is that he
does not confine himself to this one preview at the start of the work.
Instead he uses the book division introduced into historiography at
some date during the Hellenistic period31 to give summaries at the
outset of every single book (we have seen an example in the passage
quoted above). In doing so, he draws a distinction between previews
in the form of prologues (his method favoured in Books 1–6) and
previews in the form of prefixed summaries (προεκθέσεις, to use his
own word).32 But one of the most astonishing aspects of Polybius’
(footnote 32 continued)
task, besides which by this means any matter that we are in search of can be
easily found. But as I saw that for various fortuitous reasons prologues were
now neglected and had degenerated in style, I was led to adopt the other
alternative. For an introductory summary is not only of equal value to a
prologue but even of somewhat greater, while at the same time it occupies a
surer position, as it forms an integral part of the work. I, therefore, decided to
employ this method throughout except in the first six books to which I wrote
prologues, because in their case previous summaries are not very suitable.
33 See Plb. 39.8.8: τούτων δὴ πάντων ἡμῖν ἐπιτετελεσμένων λείπεται διασαφῆσαι τοὺς
χρόνους τοὺς περιειλημμένους ὑπὸ τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν βύβλων καὶ <τὸν>
ἀριθμὸν τῆς ὅλης πραγματείας. (‘Now that I have actually accomplished all this,
nothing remains for me but to indicate the dates included in the history, to give
a list of the number of books and an index of the whole work.’); cf. Rood 2004b:
152: ‘Polybius offers at the start of his work a “table of contents” for the work as a
whole (3.2–6); . . . and then, after reiterating the utility of his work and the unique-
ness of his theme, he announces that he is appending the periods embraced by the
history, the number of books and what he calls the arithmos of the whole work,
whatever that was . . . All that was missing was a bibliography.’
34 See Pausch 2011: 113.
35 This is the case at least in Books 21–45, displaying the fully developed annalistic
layout: Rich 2009: 126–32.
36 During this time, the turn of the year usually takes place on 15 March.
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 291
Our next sample passage is the end of the section ‘events in Rome
at the turn of the year 208 bc’, which is a very notable year as both
consuls, one of whom was M. Claudius Marcellus, the conqueror of
Syracuse and one of the best-known figures of his time, will be dead
before its end.37 This may be part of the reason, too, why the narrator
becomes unusually explicit in this case:
The same applies to the prodigies, which are not only very numerous
but fail to be expiated in this year.39 Such bluntness, however, is rare.
In most cases, what the reader receives are hints rather than announce-
ments. Furthermore, these hints are usually embedded in the narrative
and not marked as statements given ex officio by the narrator, thus
producing the benefit described by Polybius, ‘to arrest the attention
of the reader’, without at the same time interrupting the narrative. By
this means, the involvement of the reader in the story is enhanced. On
the other hand, it is much more difficult to find a particular historical
event in the pages (let alone the original scrolls) of ab urbe condita than
it must have been in Polybius’ Histories.
Livy’s solution, then, favours a continuous and more literary way
of reading, whereas Polybius – in accordance with his own statements
– envisaged a more selective and utility-driven model. This may look
at first sight like role reversal, given our usual views on Roman and
Greek perceptions of literature, but it is in large part explicable by the
changes in the tastes and expectations of the reading audience over the
previous decades.
40 For an introduction see esp. Walbank 1985: 197–212, 298–312; Marincola 2001:
116–24; for the cultural and literary context of these decisions in hellenistic times
see K. Clarke 1999: 114–28, 2008: 109–21.
41 See Plb. 1.3.3–6, esp. §§ 3–4:
ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων χρόνοις ὡσανεὶ σποράδας εἶναι συνέβαινε τὰς τῆς
οἰκουμένης πράξεις (διὰ) τὸ καὶ (κατὰ) τὰς ἐπιβολάς, (ἔτι) δὲ (καὶ τὰς) συντελείας
αὐτ(ῶν ὁμοίως δὲ) καὶ κατὰ το(ὺς τόπους διαφέρ)ειν ἕκαστα (τῶν πεπραγμ)ένων.
ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων τῶν καιρῶν οἱονεὶ σωματοειδῆ συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὴν ἱστορίαν,
συμπλέκεσθαί τε τὰς Ἰταλικὰς καὶ Λιβυκὰς πράξεις ταῖς τε κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν καὶ
ταῖς Ἑλληνικαῖς καὶ πρὸς ἓν γίνεσθαι τέλος τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἁπάντων.
Previously the doings of the world had been, so to say, dispersed, as they were
held together by no unity of initiative, results, or locality; but ever since this
date history has been an organic whole, and the affairs of Italy and Libya
have been interlinked with those of Greece and Asia, all leading up to one
end.
Cf. further Plb. 4.28.1–6.
42 See esp. Plb. 15.24a:
ὅτι ἐπεὶ πάσας καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔτος τὰς κατάλληλα πράξεις γενομένας κατὰ τὴν
οἰκουμένην ἐξηγούμεθα, δῆλον ὡς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι τὸ τέλος ἐπ’ ἐνίων πρότερον
ἐκφέρειν τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἐπειδὰν πρότερος ὁ τόπος ὑποπέσῃ κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὅλης
ὑποθέσεως μερισμὸν καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῆς διηγήσεως ἔφοδον ὁ τὴν συντέλειαν τῆς
πράξεως ἔχων τοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὴν ἐπιβολὴν περιέχοντος.
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 293
As I give a narrative of the successive events that happened in each part of the
world in each year, it is evident that in some cases the end must be told before
the beginning, in those cases I mean where according to the general scheme
of my work and the order imposed on my narrative the locality which was
the scene of the final catastrophe occupies an earlier place than that which
witnessed the initial stages.
Cf. Marincola 2001: 120–1: ‘The historian does not propose a solution to such
a problem, which seems to have occurred fairly often, other than to inform his
reader that he is aware of it. He clearly thought this method had more benefits
than drawbacks.’
43 Dion. Hal. de Thuc. 9.8; cf. Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3.13–14; for the cultural context of
Dionysius and his critique of Thucydides see now Wiater 2011: 130–64.
44 See Walbank 1957–79: iii. 690: ‘those who criticize P.’s narrative as being incom-
plete and fragmented . . . will be followers of Ephorus, whose method is described
in Diod. v. 1. 4 (FGH, 70 T 11)’
294 dennis pausch
I am not unaware that some people will find fault with this work
on the ground that my narrative of events is imperfect and discon-
nected. For example, after undertaking to give an account of the
siege of Carthage I leave that in suspense and interrupting myself
pass to the affairs of Greece, and next to those of Macedonia,
Syria and other countries, while students desire continuous
narrative and long to learn the issue of the matter I first set my
hand to; for thus, they say, those who desire to follow me with
attention are both more deeply interested in the story and derive
greater benefit from it. My opinion is just the reverse of this
. . . And this, I think, is why the most thoughtful of the ancient
writers were in the habit of giving their readers a rest in the way
I say, some of them employing digressions dealing with myth or
story and others digressions on matters of fact; so that not only
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 295
do they shift the scene from one part of Greece to another, but
include doings abroad.45 . . . But I myself, keeping distinct all the
most important parts of the world and the events that took place
in each, and adhering always to a uniform conception of how
each matter should be treated, and again definitely relating under
each year the contemporary events that then took place, leave
obviously full liberty to students to carry back their minds to the
continuous narrative and the several points at which I interrupted
it, so that those who wish to learn may find none of the matters I
have mentioned imperfect and deficient. This is all I have to say
on the subject.46
Moving on to Livy, we shall have to face the fact once more that
these two historians had not been the only ones in the ancient world
up to this point. What is more, the development of the annalistic
pattern is one of the most controversial aspects of Roman historiog-
raphy, and the issue becomes even more difficult when we take into
account Greek historians too. To use this pattern for a history ab
urbe condita in the second half of the first century ad, however, will
not have been an outright revolution in any case.47 Nevertheless, I
maintain my assumption that Livy at the point of structuring his own
history will have looked not least at Polybius’ text to see what could
be adapted and what could perhaps be improved.
And one decisive point is already obvious from the fact that now
a Roman narrator presents the history from a Roman point of view:
every old year ends with the elections held in Rome, every new one
begins with the Roman magistrates taking their office and leaving the
city to start their campaign in another part of the world, the reader fol-
lowing their journey there and back again (even if sometimes without
them).48 By consequently taking Rome as the centre of events and
(footnote 48 continued)
Being interested in it, and desiring to compare the Roman prowess carefully
with that of every other nation, my history has often led me from Carthage
to Spain, from Spain to Sicily or to Macedonia, or to join some embassy
to foreign countries, or some alliance formed with them; thence back to
Carthage or Sicily, like a wanderer, and again elsewhere, while the work was
still unfinished. (trans. White)
49 See Liv. 21.7.1–15.2; cf. Pausch 2011: 202–5.
livy reading polybius: adapting greek narrative 297
literary way of reading history and the Greek one standing for a model
driven by utility looks like role reversal indeed, and is perhaps a con-
sequence of Polybius’ being too anomalous and idiosyncratic a figure
after all. Yet a vivid, even emphatic interest in narrative is something
highly characteristic of Rome and its culture in the first century bc – in
a way being more Greek than the Greeks.
15
A. D. Morrison
1 On the relationship of the ancient and the modern novel see, e.g., Sandy and
Harrison 2008.
ancient and modern epistolary narratives 299
2 The title-page describes the novel as (I reproduce the original spelling and typog-
raphy): ‘A Narrative which has its Foundation in TRUTH and NATURE; and
at the same time that it agreeably entertains, by a Variety of curious and affecting
incidents, is intirely divested of all those Images, which, in too many Pieces calcu-
lated for Amusement only, tend to inflame the Minds they should instruct.’
3 Although the precise circumstances of the addressee are carefully obscured as part
of the development of the plot.
300 a. d. morrison
address to the reader. Werther is quite short: only about 40,000 words,
which makes it the briefest of our four modern examples.
Les Liaisons dangereuses (1782) is substantially longer, at about
140,000 words, and has a more complex web of correspondence (in
this respect more like Clarissa than Pamela).8 Though there is some
editorial material at the beginning and in the form of notes to the
letters, the epistolary form is maintained throughout the main narra-
tive, which tells of the competition between the former lovers Valmont
and Merteuil, which leads the latter to challenge the former to seduce
the naive Cécile Volanges, while Valmont sets himself the task of
overcoming the devout Madame de Tourvel. The execution of these
plans and their consequences (which include the deaths of Tourvel and
Valmont, and the ruin of Merteuil) are told through letters by and to
various of the protagonists.
The latest of the modern examples is The Documents in the Case
(from 1930), in which the build-up to and investigation of the murder
of one George Harrison (not the as yet unborn Beatle but a middle-
aged mushroom enthusiast), apparently by means of poisonous mush-
rooms, is told mostly through a series of letters by and to a number of
the main players in the narrative, collected together by George’s son,
Paul, and sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.9 This too is
relatively short, at about 90,000 words.
All of our ancient examples, however, are much shorter still: the
longest is Plato at 17,000 words, of which about half is from the
enormous Seventh Letter. The letters, all thirteen of which are from
Plato, tell the story of Plato’s association with the court of Dionysius
II of Syracuse, including the banishment of Plato’s friend Dion,
Plato’s detention on Syracuse and his eventual release, the overthrow
of Dionysius II and the death of Dion. The structure is notably more
complex in terms of order, at least, than the modern examples.10 In
Themistocles we find a collection of twenty-one letters, all written
by Themistocles to a variety of addressees, which tell of the exile
of Themistocles (the famous fifth-century Athenian statesman and
8 The correspondents include, but are not limited to, the protagonists, such as the
Marquise de Merteuil, the Vicomte de Valmont, Cécile Volanges, Madame de
Tourvel and the Chevalier Danceny. There are 175 letters in total.
9 There are forty-four letters (including covering letter and one telegram). The novel
also contains three notes by Paul Harrison on the evidence gathered, the statement
of John Munting (in three parts), two extracts from a newspaper and the statement
by Paul Harrison (in two parts).
10 Letters 1–4 and 7–8 form a chronological sequence, but are interrupted by 5
and 6, which are earlier and later respectively in dramatic date; 9–13 are not in
chronological sequence and 9 and 13 seem to have the earliest dramatic dates in
the c ollection. See further A. D. Morrison 2013: 109–14.
302 a. d. morrison
general) from Athens and his eventual arrival at the court of the Persian
Great King.11 The structure is not straightforward: Penwill’s sugges-
tion that the letters have a ‘diptych’ structure has won wide (though
not universal) approval.12 On this model there are two sequences (1–12
and 13–21), each of which is chronologically arranged, though the
two sequences overlap and give different versions of the same events.
Penwill also suggests that the two sequences give us different versions
of Themistocles: the scheming politician and the Athenian patriot.
The structure of Chion is simpler: seventeen letters written by Chion,
the majority to his father, ordered chronologically and telling the
story of Chion’s philosophical development and his determination to
end the tyranny of Clearchus at Heraclea by killing the tyrant. The
final letter (to Plato) tells of Chion’s determination to kill the tyrant
and his certainty that he too will die. The shortest epistolary narrative
we are examining in this chapter (both in number of letters and in
number of words) is Euripides, in which Euripides writes five letters
to three different correspondents (arranged in chronological order),
and between them the collection tells of the developing relationship
between Euripides and Archelaus, king of Macedon (as well as giving
us an insight into the friendship between Euripides and Sophocles): the
final, fifth letter has Euripides writing from Macedon to Cephisophon
in Athens reporting his safe arrival, whereas in the first he had been in
Athens writing to Archelaus in Macedon.13
The cast of characters in these ancient collections is striking:
Plato, Dionysius II, Themistocles, Pausanias, the Persian Great King,
Xenophon, Clearchus, the tyrant of Heraclea, Euripides, Sophocles,
Archelaus. These figures are historical individuals (or perhaps better:
their literary namesakes in the ancient letter collections have historical
counterparts). This is a marked difference from the modern examples,
all of which concern fictional characters, none of whom is to be ranked
alongside Plato, Themistocles or the king of Persia in prominence or
importance (even those who are upper-middle-class or aristocratic).
They are, rather, as the preface to Liaisons has it, ‘quelques particuli-
ers’, that is, ‘some (private) individuals’, ‘ordinary people’. This is
a first clue to some differences in the antecedents or connections of
ancient and modern epistolary narratives: the former are closely con-
nected to the biographical tradition (which itself, of course, made use
of (real and fictitious) letters). But the modern examples owe more,
11 On the career of the historical Themistocles see Hdt. 7.143–4, 8.57–63, 75–80,
108–12; Thuc. 1.74, 93, 135–8; Plut. Vit. Them.
12 See Penwill 1978.
13 For a more detailed overview of the narrative structure of Euripides see Hanink
2010: 544–7.
ancient and modern epistolary narratives 303
17 See, e.g., 326b–327b (Plato’s first visit to Sicily, meeting of Dion), 327b–329b
(hopes for Dionysius II, Plato’s decision to go to Sicily), 337e–350b (Plato’s
second visit to Dionysius II, in which he is detained by Dionysius II, though even-
tually released).
18 The authenticity of Plato’s Epistles, especially the Seventh Letter, has long been a
controversial topic: see Wohl 1998: 87 n. 1; Isnardi Parente and Ciani 2002: xi–xv
(with further bibliography); and the survey in Huffmann 2005: 42–3 on the debate
about the Seventh Letter in particular.
19 Hanink 2010.
20 See Athen. 604D (TrGF IV T 75, V.1 T 75) with Hanink 2010: 550–1. Hanink
2010: 544 also discusses how the friendship apparent in the letter to Cephisophon,
the addressee of letter 5, itself responds to the story in the Euripidean Vita that
Cephisophon was a slave and had had an affair with Euripides’ wife (Vit. Eur.
IV.1).
ancient and modern epistolary narratives 305
I have never hated him, but have always been in awe of him,
though I haven’t always loved him as I do now. Thinking him
excessively competitive, I have been suspicious of him, but when
he wanted to end our quarrel I welcomed him most eagerly. Since
that happened we have loved one another, and will continue to
love one another . . .
21 See Sykutris 1931: 213–14; Penwill 1978: 92–3; P. A. Rosenmeyer 2001: 232.
22 See on this also Hodkinson 2007: 272.
ancient and modern epistolary narratives 307
after all, with the monumental Iliad and Odyssey), nor is it because
ancient prose narratives are always brief (think of the Cyropaedia or
Heliodorus), but perhaps it does point us once more to the different
affinities of our ancient and modern examples. The brevity of the
ancient examples fits in well with the usual explanation of the origins
of Greek fictional letters by famous men as rhetorical exercises,30 but
perhaps it also points to a closer association with biographical and
apologetic literature focused on the exploration and defence of char-
acter and motivations than with extended novelistic narrative.
A characteristic related, perhaps, to the much greater brevity of the
ancient examples is their greater tolerance for narrative gaps across
a given collection as a whole.31 There are several examples of events
not narrated, motivations not explained, consequences not explored,
answers not provided: in Euripides, for example, there is much we do
not learn, such as the names of the young men from Pella (E. 1.2),
how they came to be imprisoned by Archelaus (E. 1.2) or why they
were in fact released,32 while in Chion neither the killing of the tyrant
Clearchus is narrated, nor the consequences of that killing either for
Chion himself or for Heraclea, nor whether his characterisation of his
future homicide as an act of heroic liberation (Ch. 17.2–3)33 is accu-
rate, nor whether he attains his hope of a ‘good death’ (καλὸς θάνατος,
Ch. 17.2). Such narrative omissions may be in part a result of the ways
in which such collections came into being: if disparate, already exist-
ing letters were combined by editors into a narrative then perhaps it is
to be expected that not all the events in a story and the reasons behind
those events should be covered by the letters. The greater length of
modern examples lends itself to a greater degree of explanation and
exploration of what happened in the narrative (and why), a very nov-
elistic impulse (at least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), but
this drive to explain and inform the reader in turn has a peculiar con-
sequence for some of the modern examples, which is not immediately
clear from the summaries above. Several modern epistolary narratives
in fact abandon the epistolary form for some portion of the narrative
quite often: we see this in Pamela, in Werther and in Documents. We
have the employment of a section of narrative in the editor’s voice in
Pamela between the first straightforwardly epistolary section and the
greater second part which takes the form of a journal by Pamela,34 the
handing over to an editor who also narrates the final part of Werther
(with a lament that such a narratorial intrusion is necessary: ‘It is a
matter of extreme regret that we want original evidence of the last
remarkable days of our friend; and we are, therefore, obliged to inter-
rupt the progress of his correspondence, and to supply the deficiency
by a connected narration’;35 Werther, Editor to the Reader) and
the use of extensive witness-statements in Documents.36 Liaisons, on
the other hand, is strikingly more consistent in its employment of the
epistolary form. In this respect it (Liaisons) is more akin to the ancient
collections, which contain only letters.37 But Liaisons also has the
advantages of a complex network of correspondence (contrast Pamela
or Werther, which are largely written in the guise of their eponymous
34 ‘Here it is necessary to observe, that the fair Pamela’s Tryals were not yet
over; but the worst of all were to come, at a Time when she thought them all at
an End, and that she was returning to her Father: for when her Master found her
Virtue was not to be subdu’d, and he had in vain try’d to conquer his Passion for
her, being a gentleman of Pleasure and Intrigue, he had ordered his Lincolnshire
coachman to bring his Travelling Chariot from thence, not caring to trust his
Body Coachman, who, with the rest of the Servants, so greatly loved and honour’d
the fair Damsel; and having given him Instructions accordingly, and prohibited
his other Servants, on Pretence of resenting Pamela’s Behaviour, from accompa-
nying her any Part of the Way, he drove her five Miles on the Way to her Father’s;
and then turning off, cross’d the Country, and carried her onward towards his
Lincolnshire estate’ (Pamela, editorial narrative between letters 31 and 32).
35 ‘Wie sehr wünscht’ ich, daß uns von den letzten merkwürdigen Tagen
unsers Freundes so viel eigenhändige Zeugnisse übrig geblieben wären, daß
ich nicht nötig hätte, die Folge seiner hinterlaßnen Briefe durch Erzählung zu
unterbrechen.’
36 The documents numbered 45 (John Munting’s statement, second part, over
16 pp.) and 49 (Paul Harrison’s statement, 41 pp.) narrate the discovery of the
body, the investigations into the crime, etc.
37 See P. A. Rosenmeyer 2001: 209, who notes the ‘lack of connective material’ and
the absence of ‘a separate narrating voice’ across pseudonymous Greek letter
collections in general (not just those we are examining here). The length of the
Seventh Letter in Plato brings it furthest away from the epistolary form and nearer
to a species of autobiography (cf. Hodkinson 2007: 274–5, who suggests some-
thing similar for Th. 20). Nevertheless, it is still formally a letter within a letter
collection.
310 a. d. morrison
41 ‘ne contient pourtant que le plus petit nombre des lettres qui composaient
la totalité de la correspondance dont il est extrait. Chargé de la mettre en ordre
par les personnes à qui elle était parvenue, et que je savais dans l’intention de la
publier, je n’ai demandé, pour prix de mes soins, que la permission d’élaguer tout
ce qui me paraîtrait inutile’ (‘it nevertheless represents a very small proportion of
those included in the total correspondence from which they have been extracted.
When I was commissioned to collate these letters by the persons into whose pos-
session they had come and who, as I was aware, were intending to have them pub-
lished, my only request in return for my effort was to be allowed to prune anything
which I considered superfluous’; Liaisons, Editor’s Preface).
42 See n. 34.
43 See pp. 000–000.
312 a. d. morrison
execution of the murderer was pinned to the dossier ‘at some subse-
quent date’. The editor (as we have seen) does much of the narrative
work in Pamela and Werther and in a different way in Documents,
since the statement of Paul Harrison is important in establishing how
the narrative came to be assembled (since it includes letters incriminat-
ing the murderer). The editor is less obviously present in the bulk of
Liaisons, although there are several editorial notes commenting on
aspects of the action which are clearly in the voice of the editor. Across
our modern examples the editor is characterised as having discovered
or acquired the letters and to have arranged the material, in some
cases suppressing details or changing names, as the following indicate:
But this explicit pose of discovery, at least, is not present in the ancient
examples, even if it is implied by the collection and arrangement
of the letters (and certain editorial interventions such as prefacing
the majority of the letters of Chion to his father Matris as ‘to the
same’, which suggests the editor’s or reader’s perspective, not that
of the correspondents).46 But we do not meet the editor as a separate
speaking voice in the ancient examples. This is perhaps all the more
surprising because there are ancient examples of texts posing as ‘dis-
covered’ texts apparently found by an editor: Patricia Rosenmeyer
has reminded me of the Trojan War narratives of Dictys and Dares,
as well as the example of Antonius Diogenes.47 But those texts are not
Irene J. F. de Jong
INTRODUCTION: DEFINITION
Italo Calvino’s novel If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller of 1979
famously revolves around a reader in search of a book that he has
started to read but that turns out to be incomplete. The book’s
opening sentences tell of a traveller arriving on a winter’s night at the
small station of a provincial town. In the final chapter the reader ends
up in a library where one of the other readers warns him that finding
the book will be very difficult since ‘once upon a time they all began
like that, all novels. There was somebody who went along a lonely
street and saw something that attracted his attention, something that
seemed to conceal a mystery, or a premonition; then he asked for
explanations and they told him a long story’; ‘the traveller always
appeared only in the first pages and then was never mentioned again –
he had fulfilled his function, the novel wasn’t his story’.
In this chapter I shall take a closer look at this device of ‘the anony-
mous traveller’ in European literature. Calvino suggests that it is an
old device (‘once upon a time they all began like that’), and my first
question is ‘how old?’ Thus, I shall go back in time step by step and
trace its origins. My quest will, not surprisingly in view of the topic of
this volume, lead me to ancient Greece. The second question which
I shall discuss is whether we can indeed draw up such a European
history of a narrative device and speak of its Greek origins, or
whether, perhaps, we should rather consider the anonymous traveller
a narrative universal.
In short, I shall use the dossier of this device, fascinating in itself, as
one possible test-case in defining Greek narrative.
I wish to thank audiences in Edinburgh, Amsterdam and Leiden and the editors
for their useful comments and suggestions.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 315
I have seen the captain face to face, and in his own cabin – but,
as I expected, he paid me no attention. Although in his appear-
ance there is, to a casual observer, nothing which might bespeak
him more or less than man – still a feeling of irrepressible rever-
ence and awe mingled with the sensation of wonder with which I
regarded him.
1 Cf. Friedemann 1910: 188 (‘der Erzähler [braucht] die Fiktion eines Reisenden von
heute, um die Landschaftsbilder vor ihm emporsteigen zu lassen, ehe er erzählt’);
Hamon [1981] 1993: 175–6.
2 Herman 1994, quotation from 231.
316 irene j. f. de jong
her dress [Becky Sharp’s], though if you were to see it now, any
present lady of Vanity Fair would pronounce it to be the most
foolish and preposterous attire ever worn, was as handsome in
her eyes and those of the public, some five-and-twenty years
since, as the most brilliant costume of the most famous beauty of
the present season.
Such second-person forms are well known from ancient texts too, for
example, Homer, Il. 17.366–8:
Thus they fought on like fire, and you would not have thought
that sun or moon were still secure in their place;
for they were enclosed in mist in the battle, all the bravest . . . 3
But when the battle had finished then you might truly have noted
how much daring and mental power there had been in Catiline’s
army.4
3 Texts are mostly the current OCT ones; translations are my own.
4 For discussions in classical literature, see, for example, (on Homeric epic) De Jong
[1987a] 2004: 54–7; S. D. Richardson 1990: 174–8; (on Pausanias) Akujärvi 2005:
160–2; (on Latin historiography) Gilmartin 1975.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 317
5 Kühner and Gerth [1898] 1976: 213–14. Gilmartin 1975 and Akujärvi 2005:
145–66 also take the second- and third-person devices together.
318 irene j. f. de jong
back in time until, in true Greek spirit, we reach the prōtos heuretēs of
the device. Over the past years I have assembled some forty examples
and I am sure there are many more. Of course I can only present a
selection, which must suffice, however, to show its long history and
many forms and functions.
My first example, from Marcel Proust, Swann’s Way (1913), imme-
diately shows an interesting variant:
6 Proust is very fond of the anonymous traveller, who often figures in a comparison.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 319
house, and the finest in the place. The church is on the other side
of the street, twenty paces farther down, at the entrance of the
square. The little cemetery that surrounds it, closed in by a wall
breast-high, is so full of graves that the old stones, level with
the ground, form a continuous pavement, on which the grass of
itself has marked out regular green squares . . . The market, that
is to say, a tiled roof supported by some twenty posts, occupies
of itself about half the public square of Yonville. The town hall,
constructed ‘from the designs of a Paris architect’, is a sort of
Greek temple that forms the corner next to the chemist’s shop . . .
But that which most attracts the eye is, opposite the Lion d’Or
inn, the chemist’s shop of Monsieur Homais . . . Beyond this
there is nothing to see at Yonville.
of the tall man] But soon the visitor from Paris is annoyed by a
certain air of self-satisfaction and self-sufficiency mingled with a
suggestion of limitations and want of originality.
For someone sailing from the Propontis towards the east side of
the city, there is to the left a public bath.
7 There may be an additional effect intended by Stendhal in that his novel will tell
the story of an inhabitant of the small provincial town (Julien Sorel), who goes up
to Paris to try his luck. I owe this observation to Joern Soerink.
8 Cf. Hamon [1981] 1993: 175: ‘s’introduisant successivement dans des milieux ou
des espaces qu’il ne connaît pas (et qu’il explore) il va décrire ces milieux par ses
regards . . . : voir les Persans, Hurons, etc., des textes du XVIIIe siècle, les provin-
ciaux arrivant à Paris des textes du XIXe siècle, les badauds surréalistes, etc.’.
9 Cf. Kühner and Gerth [1898] 1976: 423–4.
10 For examples, see Akujärvi 2005: 164–6, and the index of De Jong 2012, s.v.
anonymous focaliser. There are also variants featuring a tis or a ‘man’ (anēr) (e.g.,
Paus. Periegesis 9.39.10–11, and see Akujärvi 2005: 161, n. 85) or ‘it was possible
to see’ (e.g., Josephus, Jewish War 3.529 or Xen. Hell. 3.4.16).
the anonymous traveller in european literature 321
11 See Güngerich 1950, esp. 9: ‘Es ist eine lockere, parataktische Aufzählung
der Őrtlichkeiten in der Reihenfolge, wie man an ihnen vorbeikam.’ Habicht 1985:
3 notes the relationship between periegetic literature and the periplus.
12 Akujärvi 2005: 146–58. Of course, as Purves 2010: 144–6 notes, the hodologi-
cal way of describing space, that is, following a trajectory from A to B from the
perspective of a traveller (to which the anonymous traveller in the shape of a
dative participle obviously belongs) is more experiential than cartographic space
(e.g., Hecataeus, Periegesis F 163: ‘the Cherronesians border, ὁμορέουσι, the
Apsinthians to the south’; Hdt. Hist. 5.49: ‘the Phrygians are next to, ἔχονται, the
Lydians to the east’). But we never hear of the anonymous traveller being tired (or
losing his way).
13 Dubel 1997: 252; Habicht 1985: 3.
14 Modern Rough Guides all employ the more direct ‘you’ form (which as a matter
of fact also has ancient roots; cf., e.g., Hdt. 2.29.2: ‘Having crossed this, you will
come, ἥξεις, to the stream of the Nile’; or Paus. Perieg.: ‘Here, first, the Alpheus
will receive you, σε ἐκδέξεται’).
322 irene j. f. de jong
ἅμα καὶ θαλάττης. Εὐρώπης ἡ γραφή. [. . . ] Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μὲν
ἐπῄνουν τῆς γραφῆς, ἅτε δὲ ὢν ἐρωτικὸς περιεργότερον ἔβλεπον
τὸν ἄγοντα τὸν βοῦν Ἔρωτα, καί, “Οἷον,” εἶπον, “ἄρχει βρέφος
οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης.” ταῦτά μου λέγοντος νεανίσκος καὶ
αὐτὸς παρεστώς, “Ἐγὼ ταῦτ’ἂν ἐδείκνυν,” ἔφη, “τοσαύτας ὕβρεις ἐξ
ἔρωτος παθών.”
Sidon is a city by the sea. The Sea is the Assyrian . . . Having
arrived there after a severe storm, I went to make offerings for
my safe arrival to the goddess of the Phoenicians. The Sidonians
call her Astarte. As I was therefore walking about the city and in
particular looking at its memorial offerings, I see a votive paint-
ing of land and sea. The painting was of Europa . . . I looked in
admiration at the entire painting, but being a lover of erōs myself
looked with special attention at the figure of Eros leading the bull
and said aloud: ‘To think that such a child can reign supreme
on earth and at sea.’ At my saying this a young man who stood
nearby said: ‘I might be called a living example, for I have suf-
fered great indignities as a result of love.’ 15
15 It was Ewen Bowie who reminded me of this passage. I quote the text of Gaselee
(Loeb). This is a rather special variant of the anonymous traveller since he is an
(internal) narrator and thereby – slightly – more individualised and personalised
than most travellers, but I see no difference in principle from the Parisian traveller
of Stendhal.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 323
fateful exception. The only thing we ever learn about him is that
he, like the reader (who otherwise would not be reading this kind
of text), is ἐρωτικός (i 2.1): and this is the strait gate though which
Cleitophon will be able to drive the whole σμῆνος λόγων of his own
erotic adventures.16 We may add that, being a victim of storms at
sea himself, the anonymous stranger will be all the more apt to
listen sympathetically to Clitophon’s story, which includes many
storms.
The device of the anonymous traveller is not confined to narrative
genres, as the following example shows, which also brings us to the
classical era (Isocrates, Panegyricus 133, 380 bc):
I think that if some persons should come here from another part
of the world and would become viewers of the present state of
affairs, they would charge us both [i.e., the Athenians and the
Spartans] with utter madness, because we risk our lives in this
way, fighting over trifles, though it is possible in security to enjoy
a wealth of possessions, and impoverish our own territory while
neglecting to exploit that of Asia.17
16 Most 1989: 133. His claim that first-person narratives need a stranger as narratee
seems to me more plausible than that they always have to be tales of woe. See also
Morales 2004: 146–7.
17 Cf. Isocrates, On the peace 41 (‘For suppose that someone [tis] from another part
of the world were to come to Athens, having had no time to be tainted with our
depravity, but brought suddenly face to face with what goes on here, would he not
think that we are mad and bereft of our senses, seeing that we plume ourselves
upon the deeds of our ancestors and think fit to eulogize our city by dwelling
upon the achievements of their time and yet act in no respect like them but do the
very opposite?’); Plato, Laws 637 c (‘For to a stranger [ξένῳ] expressing surprise
at the singularity of what he sees in comparison to his own customs, anyone will
answer: “Do not be surprised, stranger; this is our custom, and you may very
likely have some other custom about the same things” ’); Cicero, Pro Caelio 1.1
(‘If, gentlemen, anyone (quis) should happen to be present who is ignorant of our
laws or tribunals and customs, he would, in my opinion, immediately wonder
what . . . ’).
324 irene j. f. de jong
behaviour with fresh eyes and thereby note its madness, something of
which the Greeks themselves have become unaware.18 He is introduced
by Isocrates to bring home the central point of his whole speech (or
rather political pamphlet, since he never delivered this text on which
he worked for many years), that the Greeks should unite to fight their
eternal Angstgegner Persia.
This passage is a specimen of what ancient rhetoric called ēthopoeia
(sermocinatio): the fabrication of statements, soliloquies or unex-
pressed mental reflections of a (historical or invented) person.19
Rhetorical handbooks describe the function of this device as a means
for a speaker to express advice, reproach, complaint, praise or blame
via another than himself.20 This accords well with my thesis that the
anonymous traveller quintessentially is an outsider who looks at
scenery or a situation with fresh eyes.
A very different task is to be performed by the anonymous travel-
ler in the hands of a philosopher like Plato. In his tireless attempts at
making clear the difference between the sensible world and the world
of Forms, he once introduces an anonymous person who can actually
watch that world of Forms (Plato, Phaedo 109c–e, 370 bc):
ἡμᾶς οὖν οἰκοῦντας ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις αὐτῆς λεληθέναι καὶ οἴεσθαι ἄνω
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οἰκεῖν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πυθμένι τοῦ πελάγους
οἰκῶν οἴοιτό τε ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάττης οἰκεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος ὁρῶν τὸν
ἥλιον καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα τὴν θάλατταν ἡγοῖτο οὐρανὸν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ
βραδυτῆτά τε καὶ ἀσθένειαν μηδεπώποτε ἐπὶ τὰ ἄκρα τῆς θαλάττης
ἀφιγμένος μηδὲ ἑωρακὼς εἴη, ἐκδὺς καὶ ἀνακύψας ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης
εἰς τὸν ἐνθάδε τόπον, ὅσῳ καθαρώτερος καὶ καλλίων τυγχάνει ὢν
τοῦ παρὰ σφίσι, μηδὲ ἄλλου ἀκηκοὼς εἴη τοῦ ἑωρακότος. ταὐτὸν
δὴ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμᾶς πεπονθέναι· οἰκοῦντας γὰρ ἔν τινι κοίλῳ τῆς
γῆς οἴεσθαι ἐπάνω αὐτῆς οἰκεῖν, καὶ τὸν ἀέρα οὐρανὸν καλεῖν, ὡς
διὰ τούτου οὐρανοῦ ὄντος τὰ ἄστρα χωροῦντα· τὸ δὲ εἶναι ταὐτόν,
ὑπ’ ἀσθενείας καὶ βραδυτῆτος οὐχ οἵους τε εἶναι ἡμᾶς διεξελθεῖν
ἐπ’ ἔσχατον τὸν ἀέρα· ἐπεί, εἴ τις αὐτοῦ ἐπ’ ἄκρα ἔλθοι ἢ πτηνὸς
γενόμενος ἀνάπτοιτο, κατιδεῖν <ἂν> ἀνακύψαντα, ὥσπερ ἐνθάδε
οἱ ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης ἰχθύες ἀνακύπτοντες ὁρῶσι τὰ ἐνθάδε, οὕτως
ἄν τινα καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατιδεῖν, καὶ εἰ ἡ φύσις ἱκανὴ εἴη ἀνασχέσθαι
18 Cf. Setti [1886] 1960: ad loc.: ‘cioè degli stranieri, il cui giudizio appunto
come tali, potera essere più imparziale’.
19 Lausberg [1963] 1997: §§ 820, 824, 826.
20 Cf., for example, Quint. Inst. 9.2.30–7 (‘His [sc. fictiones personarum] suadendo,
obiurgando, querendo, laudando, miserando, personas idoneas damus’, ‘We use
these . . . to provide appropriate characters with words of advice, reproach, com-
plaint, praise, or pity’). See also Hagen 1966: 70–4.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 325
But we, who dwell in the hollows of the earth, have forgotten
this and we think that we dwell on top of the earth; as when
someone lives on the bottom of the sea but thinks that he lives
on top of the sea and looking at the sun and the stars through
the water and the air would think that the sea is the heaven,
because by reason of his sluggishness and feebleness he is
unable to attain to the upper surface of the air and emerging
and poking up his head see himself how much purer and more
beautiful it is than their region, or hear about it from someone
who has seen it. Our experience is the same. For living in a
hollow of the earth we think that we live on top of it and we
call the air heaven, as if this [the air] were the heaven, and the
stars moved through it. And the reason is the same, namely that
by reason of our feebleness and sluggishness we are not able to
go up to the outermost part of the air. For if anyone should
come up to the top of the air or should get wings and fly up, he
could lift his head above it and see, as fishes lift their heads out
of the water and see the things here, so he would see the things
there; and, if his nature were suited to bear the sight, he would
recognise that that is the real heaven and the real light and the
real earth.
21 For the idea of flying, Rowe 1993 on 109e3 points to Phaedrus 246a–248a, where
Plato speaks of the soul in terms of a charioteer and a pair of winged horses and
where of the best souls the charioteer may stick his head through the outermost
rim of the universe and glimpse the reality beyond.
326 irene j. f. de jong
hold boxing, dancing and singing contests in his honour (143–50). But
then the narrator introduces an anonymous ‘man’, to take over the
focalisation (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 151–5, seventh or sixth century
bc):
22 ἀνήρ is the reading of one group of manuscripts, while another has αἰεί. For my
interpretation this makes no difference since even with the reading αἰεί the anony-
mous traveller is contained in the autonomous relative clause ὃς τότ’ ἐπαντιάσει’.
This is a conjecture of Ilgen for οἳ τότ’ ἐπ’ ἀντιᾶσι τ’/ἐπαντία σεῖο τ’. These manu-
script readings can only be right if we would change φαίη κ’ into φαίης κ’: ‘you
would think them immortal who then step before you when . . . ’, vel sim., but this
results in a very abrupt change from second- person to third-person potential in
the next line (ἴδοιτο).
23 Miller 1986: 58. N. J. Richardson 2010: ad 151–2 is less convincing: ‘The
poet cannot see all this himself, and uses another’s eyes to do so’; if the poet
really needed a panoramic view, he could not have done better than continue
Apollo’s focalisation. The hymnic narrator again introduces an anonymous trav-
eller (perhaps the same person) at 167–73 (ξεῖνος ταλαπείριος ἐλθών), this time to
arrange praise of himself.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 327
This anonymous tis is a voyager not merely in space but also in time:
he belongs to the future. His function is to voice an oral (or quasi-)
epitaph and thereby confirm Hector’s eternal kleos.24
A shrewd use is made of the format of the anonymous traveller by
Athena, visiting Telemachus and trying to rouse him into action (Od.
1.224–9):
24 The passage has been discussed by De Jong 1987b: 77–8; Scodel 1992.
328 irene j. f. de jong
29 For this distinction, see Nagy 2005: 71–2 and compare the contribution by Kelly
in this volume.
30 See Curtius [1953] 1973: 3–16 (on European literature as a whole) and 391–7 on
literary constants.
31 Hogan 2003: 3.
the anonymous traveller in european literature 331
The Latin preference for the second person singular and the
Greek preference for tis may reveal less about the grammatical
rules than about the approach of the people who used them.
Although the choice of the more personal second person singular
. . . rather than the impersonal third person, may have been deter-
mined largely by grammatical requirement or convention, we
can expect great writers to make a virtue of such necessity. The
preference for the concrete over the abstract, the subjective over
the objective has been seen as characteristic of Latin literature.32
Although this quotation says more about Latin mentality than Greek,
we may still distil from it the idea that the impersonal, abstract and
objective imaginary third person would be (more) typically Greek.
A second argument in favour of the anonymous traveller as a Greek
phenomenon is the remark of the Latin grammarians Kühner and
Stegmann that the dative participle variant (type: ἐσπλέοντι) was an
originally Greek idiom, taken over by Roman historians.33
Finally, I have taken an – admittedly highly superficial – dip into
Chinese poetry, where we find many references to travelling but
always in the first person, for example Wang Wei, ‘An autumn night in
the mountains’ (ad 701–61):
34 Cf. Leeman 1985: 214: ‘Some of the topoi were archetypal rather than liter-
ary: in that case they may pop up spontaneously and independently and be recog-
nized as forming part of universal human experience. The two categories cannot
always be distinguished.’
35 See Dawkins 1976 and the helpful explanation (and radicalisation) in
Blackmore 1999: 7, for example: ‘Everything that is passed from person to person
in this way is a meme. This includes all the words in your vocabulary, the stories
you know, the skills and habits you have picked up from others and the games you
like to play. It includes the songs you sing and the rules you obey . . . Each of these
memes has evolved in its own unique way with its own history, but each of them is
using your behaviour to get itself copied’ (my italics).
the anonymous traveller in european literature 333
36 The meme model may also be useful to explain what I have been doing in the
Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative (De Jong et al. 2004; De Jong and Nünlist
2007; De Jong 2012), which sets out to trace the development of narrative tech-
niques as such, yet also at times suggests that one author may have consciously
taken over a certain device from another.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Miller (eds), Apolline Politics and Poetics, Athens: European Cultural Centre
of Delphi, pp. 405–71.
Athanassaki, L. (2009b), ἀείδετο πὰν τέμενος: Οι χορικές παραστάσεις και το κοινό
τους στην αρχαϊκή και πρώιμη κλασική περίοδο, Herakleion: University of Crete
Press.
Athanassaki, L. (2009c), ‘Narratology, deixis, and the performance of choral
lyric: On Pindar’s First Pythian Ode’, in Grethlein and Rengakos 2009: 241–73.
Athanassaki, L. (2012a), ‘Performance and re-performance: The Siphnian treas-
ury evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2 and Isthmian 2)’, in Agócs et al.
2012: 134–57.
Athanassaki, L. (2012b), ‘Recreating the emotional experience of contest and
victory celebrations: Spectators and celebrants in Pindar’s epinicians’, in
X. Riu and J. Pòrtulas (eds), Approaches to Archaic Greek Poetry, Messina:
Orione, pp. 173–219.
Athanassaki, L. (forthcoming), ‘Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari: Greek and
Roman civic performance contexts (Pindar’s Fourth and Fifth Pythians and
Horace’s Odes IV 2)’, in B. Delignon, N. Le Meur-Weissman and O. Thévenaz
(eds), La poésie lyrique dans la cité antique: Les Odes d’Horace au miroir de la
lyrique grecque archaïque, Lyon: Edition de l’Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3.
Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E. (eds) (2011), Archaic and Classical Choral Song:
Performance, Politics and Dissemination, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Auerbach, E. (1946), Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen
Literatur, Berne: Francke.
Auerbach, E. (1953), Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature
(trans. W. R. Trask), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Auffarth, C. (1991), Der drohende Untergang: ‘Schöpfung’ in Mythos und
Ritual im Alten Orient und in Griechenland am Beispiel der Odyssee und des
Ezechielbuches, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 39, Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Austin, N. (1972), ‘Name magic in the Odyssey’, California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 5: 1–19.
Austin, N. (1975), Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s
Odyssey, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Baines, J. (1998), ‘Ancient Egyptian kingship’, in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah
in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp.
16–53.
Bakker, E. (1997), Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse, Myth and
Poetics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bakker, E. (1999), ‘Mimesis as performance: Rereading Auerbach’s first chapter’,
Poetics Today 20: 11–26.
Bakker, E. (2005), Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric
Poetics, Hellenic Studies 12, Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Bakker, E. (2009), ‘Homer, Odysseus, and the narratology of performance’, in
Grethlein and. Rengakos 2009: 117–36.
Bakker, E. , De Jong, I. J. F. and Van Wees, H. (2002), Brill’s Companion to
Herodotus, Leiden: Brill.
336 bibliography
Black, J., Cunningham, G., Robson, E. and Zólyomi, G. (2004), The Literature
of Ancient Sumer, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blackmore, S. (1999), The Meme Machine, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blondell, R. (2010), ‘Refractions of Homer’s Helen in archaic lyric’, American
Journal of Philology 131.3: 349–91.
Bonifazi, A. (2008), ‘Memory and visualization in Homeric discourse markers’,
in Mackay 2008: 35–64.
Booth, W. (1961), The Rhetoric of Fiction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bowie, E. (1995), ‘Names and a gem: Aspects of allusion in Heliodorus’
Aethiopica’, in D. Innes, H. Hine, C. Pelling and D. A. Russell (eds), Ethics
and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 269–80.
Bowie, E. (1998), ‘Phoenician games in Heliodorus’ Aithiopika’, in Hunter 1998a:
1–18.
Bowie, E. (2012), ‘Epinicians and “patrons” ’, in Agócs et al. 2012: 83–92.
Bowra, C. M. (1964), Pindar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyd, B. (2009), On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, B., Carroll, J. and Gottschall, J. (eds) (2010), Evolution, Literature, and
Film: A Reader, New York: Columbia University Press.
Braswell, B. K. (1988), A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar,
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bréchet, C. (2004/5), ‘Homère dans l’oeuvre de Plutarque: La reference homé-
rique dans les Oeuvres Morales’, Ploutarchos n.s. 2: 181–7.
Bremmer, J. (1999), ‘Erich Auerbach and his Mimesis’, Poetics Today 20:
3–10.
Brink, C. O. (1971), Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brinkmann, V. (1985), ‘Die aufgemalten Namensbeischriften an Nord- und
Ostfries des Siphnierschatzhauses’, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 109,
pp. 77–130.
Briscoe, J. (1993), ‘Livy and Polybios’, in Wolfgang Schuller (ed.), Livius:
Aspekte seines Werkes, Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 39–52.
Brockington, J. (1998), The Sanskrit Epics, Leiden: Brill.
Brooks, P. (1984), Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative, New
York: Knopf.
Bruner, J. (1986), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Budelmann, F. (ed.) (2009), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Budelmann, F. and Easterling, P. E. (2010), ‘Reading minds in Greek tragedy’,
Greece & Rome 57: 289–303.
Buffière, F. (1956), Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque, Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Bühler, W. (1964). Beiträge zur Erklärung der Schrift vom Erhabenen, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
338 bibliography
Carroll, J. (2006), ‘The human revolution and the adaptive function of literature’,
Philosophy and Literature 30: 33–49.
Carson, A. [1980] (1996), ‘The justice of Aphrodite’, in Greene 1996: 226–32.
Carson, A. (1986), Eros the Bittersweet, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chatman, S. B. (1990), Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and
Film, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Christensen, J. (forthcoming), ‘Diomedes’ foot wound and the Homeric recep-
tion of myth’, in. J. Gonzalez (ed.), Diachrony, MythosEikonPoiesis, Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Christodoulou, G. A. (1977), Τὰ ἀρχαῖα σχόλια εἰς Αἴαντα τοῦ Σοφοκλέους,
Athens: Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις.
Clader, L. (1976), Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic
Tradition, Mnemosyne Suppl. 42, Leiden: Brill.
Clark, A. (2008), Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive
Extension, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, H. (1989), The Art of the Odyssey, 2nd edn, Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Clarke, K. (1999), Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of
the Roman World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, K. (2008), Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis, Oxford:
University Press.
Clay, J. S. (2011a), ‘Olympians 1–3: A song cycle?’, in Athanassaki and Bowie
2011: 337–45.
Clay, J. S. (2011b), Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision, and Memory in the
Iliad, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clear, R. (2012), ‘Family, community and divinity in Pindar’s Victory
Odes’, PhD thesis, Utrecht, http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/disserta-
tions/2012–1115–200532/Clear.pdf.
Cocuzza, S. F. (1975), Le gnomai di Euripide, Catania: Musumeci.
Cohn, D. (1999), The Distinction of Fiction, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Colombetti, G. (2009), ‘What language does to feelings’, Journal of Consciousness
Studies 16.9: 4–26.
Connor, W. R. (1984), Thucydides, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cook, E. (1991), ‘The plot of the Odyssey’, Abstracts of the One Hundred Twenty-
Third Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association, p. 1.
Cook, E. (1992), ‘Ferrymen of Elysium and the Homeric Phaeacians’, Journal of
Indo-European Studies 20: 239–67.
Cook, E. (1995), The Odyssey in Athens: Myths of Cultural Origins, Myth and
Poetics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cook, E. (1998), ‘Heroism, suffering and change’, in D. Boedeker (ed.),
Proceedings from a Seminar Sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and the
Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage and Held at the Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C., on March 6–7, 1998, Washington, DC: Society
for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage, pp. 47–63.
Cook, E. [1999] (2009), ‘“Active” and “passive” heroics in the Odyssey’, Classical
World 93: 149–67 (repr. in Doherty 2009: 111–34).
340 bibliography
Cook, E. (2003), ‘Agamemnon’s test of the army in Iliad book 2 and the function
of Homeric akhos’, American Journal of Philology 124: 165–98.
Cook, E. (2012), ‘Epiphany in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter and the Odyssey’,
Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 15: 53–111.
Cooper, J. S. (1986), Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions. Vol. I: Presargonic
Inscriptions, New Haven: Eisenbrauns.
Coplan, A. and Goldie, P. (eds) (2011), Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological
Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cornford, F. M. (1907), Thucydides Mythistoricus, London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Crane, G. (1988), Calypso: Backgrounds and Conventions of the Odyssey, Beiträge
zur klassischen Philologie 191, Frankfurt: Athenäum.
Crouch, C. L. (2009), War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence
in Light of Cosmology and History, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Currie, B. (2004), ‘Reperformance scenarios for Pindar’s odes’, in Mackie 2004:
49–69.
Currie, B. (2005), Pindar and the Cult of Heroes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Currie, B. (2011), ‘Epinician choregia: Funding a Pindaric chorus’, in Athanassaki
and Bowie 2011: 269–310.
Currie, B. (2012), ‘The Iliad, Gilgamesh and Neoanalysis’, in Montanari et al.
2012: 543–80.
Currie, G. (2010), Narratives and Narrators: A Philosophy of Stories, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Currie, G. and Ravenscroft, I. (2002), Recreative Minds: Imagination in Philosophy
and Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Curtius, E. R. [1953] (1973), European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
D’Alessio, G. B. (2004), ‘Past future and present past: Temporal deixis in Greek
archaic lyric’, Arethusa 37: 267–94.
Dalley, S. (1989), Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and
Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Danek, G. (1998), Epos und Zitat: Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee, Wiener
Studien Beiheft 22, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Davidson, J. (2009), ‘Polybius’, in A. Feldherr (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to the Roman Historians, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–36.
Davies, J. P. (2004), Rome’s Religious History: Livy, Tacitus, and Ammianus on
their Gods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M. (2005), ‘Coriolanus and Achilles’, Prometheus 31: 141–50.
Dawe, R. D. (2006), Sophocles: Oedipus Rex, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Decety, J. and Meltzoff, A. N. (2011), ‘Empathy, imitation, and the social brain’,
in Coplan and Goldie 2011: 58–81.
De Jong, I. J. F. (1985), ‘Iliad 1.366–392: A mirror story’, Arethusa, 18.1: 5–22.
De Jong, I. J. F. [1987a] (2004), Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the
Story in the Iliad, London: Duckworth.
bibliography 341
Frolov, S. and Wright, A. (2011), ‘Homeric and ancient Near Eastern intertextu-
ality in 1 Samuel 17’, Journal of Biblical Literature 130.3: 451–71.
Furley, W. D. (2000), ‘“Fearless, bloodless . . . like the gods”: Sappho 31 and the
rhetoric of “bloodlike” ’, Classical Quarterly 50: 7–15.
Gaisser, J. (1969), ‘A structural analysis of the digressions in the Iliad and the
Odyssey’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 73: 1–43.
Gallagher, S. (2012), ‘Empathy, simulation, and narrative’, Science in Context
25: 355–81.
Gärdenfors, P. (2003), How Homo Became Sapiens: On the Evolution of Thinking,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gärtner, H. (1969), ‘Charikleia in Byzanz’, Antike und Abendland 15: 47–69.
Gaskin, R. (1990), ‘Do Homeric heroes make real decisions?’, Classical Quarterly
40: 1–15.
Geary, J. (2011), I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How it Shapes the
Way We See the World, New York: HarperCollins.
Geiger, J. [1981] (1995), ‘Plutarch’s parallel lives: The choice of heroes’, Hermes
109: 85–104 (repr. in Scardigli 1995: 165–90).
Gelzer, T. (1985), “Μοῦσα αὐθιγενής: Bemerkungen zu einem Typ Pindarischer
and Bacchylideischer Epinikien”, Museum Helveticum 42: 95–120.
Genette, G. [1969] (1976), ‘Boundaries of narrative’, New Literary History 8:
1–15 (trans. A. Levonas from ‘Frontières de récit’ in Genette, Figures II, Paris:
Seuil, pp. 49–69).
Genette, G. [1972] (1980), Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (trans.
J. E. Lewin), Oxford: Blackwell.
Genette, G. (1983), Narrative Discourse Revisited (trans. J. E. Lewin), Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Genette, G. (1990), ‘Fictional narrative, factual narrative’, Poetics Today 11:
755–74.
George, A. R. (1999), The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, London and
New York: Penguin.
George, A. R. (2003), The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical
Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, R. K. (2012), ‘On the nature of ancient letter collections’, Journal of
Roman Studies 102: 56–78.
Gilan, S. (2010), ‘Epic and history in Hittite Anatolia’, in Konstan and Raaflaub
2010: 51–65.
Gilmartin, K. (1975), ‘A rhetorical figure in Latin historical style: The imagi-
nary second person singular’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association 105: 99–125.
Goldhill, S. (1990), ‘Character and action, representation and reading: Greek
tragedy and its critics’, in C. B. R. Pelling (ed.), Characterization and
Individuality in Greek Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 100–27.
Goldhill, S. (1991), The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman, A. J. (2006), Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and
Neuroscience of Mindreading, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
346 bibliography
Kelly, A. (2008b), ‘The Babylonian captivity of Homer: The case of the DIOS
APATE’, Rheinisches Museum 151: 259–304.
Kelly, A. (2012), ‘The audience expects: Odysseus and Penelope’, in E. Minchin
(ed.), Orality, Literacy, and Performance in the Ancient World, Orality and
Literacy in the Ancient World Vol. 9, Leiden: Brill, pp. 3–24.
Kessels, A. H. M. (1978), Studies on the Dream in Greek Literature, Utrecht: Hes.
Kirk, G. S. (1985), The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. I: Books 1–4, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirkwood, G. M. (1975), ‘Nemean 7 and the theme of vicissitude in Pindar’, in
G. M. Kirkwood (ed.), Poetry and Poetics from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance:
Studies in Honor of James Hutton, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 56–90.
Knauss, W. (1910), De Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum exemplo Eustathiano, PhD
dissertation, Bonn.
Knox, B. M. W. (1993), The Oldest Dead White European Males and Other
Reflections on the Classics, New York: W. W. Norton.
Knox, R. and Russo, J. (1989), ‘Agamemnon’s test: Iliad 2.73–75’, Classical
Antiquity 8: 351–8.
Köhnken, A. [1976] (2006, 2009), ‘Die Narbe des Odysseus: Ein Beitrag zur
homerisch-epischen Erzähltechnik’, Antike und Abendland 22: 101–14 (repr. in
A. Bettenworth (ed.), Darstellungsziele und Erzählstrategien in antiken Texten,
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006, pp. 49–64; and (in English translation) in Doherty
2009: 44–61).
Köhnken, A. (1983), ‘Mythical chronology and thematic coherence in Pindar’s
Third Olympian’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 87: 49–63.
Konstan, D. (2003), ‘Nemesis and phthonos’, in G. W. Bakewell and J. P.
Sickinger (eds), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy
Presented to Alan L. Boegehold on the Occasion of his Retirement and his
Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 74–87.
Konstan, D. and Raaflaub, K. (eds) (2010), Epic and History, Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Konuk, K. (2010), East West Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Krafft, P. (1998), ‘Livius 4.20 und Cossus’ Konsulat’, Wiener Studien 111: 119–43.
Kraus, C. S. (1997), ‘Livy’, in C. S. Kraus and A. J. Woodman (eds), Latin
Historians, Greece & Rome: New Surveys in the Classics 27, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 51–81.
Krause, J. (1976) ἄλλοτε ἄλλος: Untersuchungen zum Motiv des Schicksalswechsels
in der griechischen Dichtung bis zu Euripides, Tuduv-Studien 4, Munich: Tuduv.
Krischer, T. (1968), ‘Sapphos Ode an Aphrodite’, Hermes 96: 1–14.
Krummen, E. (1990), Pyrsos Hymnon: Festliche Gegenwart und mythisch-rituelle
Tradition als Voraussetzung einer Pindarinterpetation (Isthmie 4, Pythie 5,
Olympie 1 und 3), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. [1898] (1976), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache. II.1, Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. [1914] (1976), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateini
schen Sprache. II, Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
bibliography 353
Kullmann, W. (1985), ‘Gods and men in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology 89: 1–23.
Kurke, L. (1991), The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lambert, W. G. (1960), Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lamberton, R. (2001), Plutarch, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lang, M. (1969), ‘Homer and oral techniques’, Hesperia 38: 159–68.
Lang, M. (1984), Herodotean Narrative and Discourse, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lardinois, A. M. P. H. (1997), ‘Modern paroemiology and the use of gnomai in
Homer’s Iliad’, Classical Philology 92: 213–34.
Lardinois, A. M. P. H. (2000), ‘Characterization through gnomai in Homer’s
Iliad’, Mnemosyne 53: 641–61.
Latacz, J. (ed.) (2000), Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar. Band 1, Munich: Saur.
Latacz, J. (ed.) (2003), Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar. Band II. 2: Zweiter
Gesang, Munich: Saur.
Lattimore, R. (1951), The Iliad of Homer. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lattimore, R. (1965), The Odyssey of Homer, New York: Harper Perennial.
Lausberg, H. [1963] (1997), Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for
Literary Study, Leiden: Brill.
Lee, K. H. (1997), Euripides: Ion, Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Leeman, A. D. (1985), ‘The lonely vigil: A “topos” in ancient and modern litera-
ture’, in Leeman, Form und Sinn: Studien zur römischen Literatur (1954–1984),
Frankfurt, Berlin, New York and Nancy: Peter Lang, pp. 213–30.
Lehnus, L. (1981), Pindaro: Olimpiche. Traduzione, commenti, note e lettura
critica di Luigi Lehnus. Introduzione di Umberto Albini, Milan: Garzanti
editore.
Lentini, G. (2012), ‘L’idillio 2 di Teocrito e il “genere” oaristys’, Materiali e dis-
cussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 68: 181–90.
Leonard, M. (2012), Socrates and the Jews: Hellenism and Hebraism from Moses
Mendelssohn to Sigmund Freud, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levaniouk, O. (2011), Eve of the Festival: Making Myth in Odyssey 19, Hellenic
Studies 46, Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Levene, D. S. (1993), Religion in Livy, Mnemosyne Suppl. 127, Leiden: Brill.
Levene, D. S. (2010), Livy on the Hannibalic War, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leverage, P., Mancing, H., Schweickert, R. and William, J. M. (eds) (2011),
Theory of Mind and Literature, West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
Levinson, S. (1988), ‘Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations
in Goffman’s concepts of participation’, in P. Drew and A. Wooten (eds),
Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, Oxford: Polity, pp. 161–227.
Lewis, T. (1981), ‘Homeric epic and the Greek vase’, in S. Hyatt (ed.), The Greek
Vase: Papers Based on Lectures Presented to a Symposium Held at Hudson
Valley Community College at Troy, New York in April of 1979, Latham:
Hudson-Mohawk Association of Colleges and Universities, pp. 81–102.
354 bibliography
Ley, G. (2007), The Theatricality of Greek Tragedy: Playing Space and Chorus,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Livingstone, A. (1989), State Archives of Assyria. Vol. III: Court Poetry and
Literary Miscellanea, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Lloyd, M. (2013), ‘The mutability of fortune in Euripides’, in Cairns 2013a:
227–51.
Lloyd-Jones, H. [1985] (1990), ‘Pindar and the afterlife’, in Lloyd-Jones, Greek
Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–109 (first published in Pindare,
Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 17, Vandoeuvres and Geneva: Fondation
Hardt, pp. 245–83).
Lobel, E. and Page, D. L. (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lohmann, D. (1970), Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias, Untersuchungen zur
antiken Literatur und Geschichte, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Longo, O. (1978), ‘Tecniche della communicazione e ideologie sociali nella
Grecia antica’, Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 27: 63–92.
Lord, A. (2000), The Singer of Tales, 2nd edn, Harvard Studies in Comparative
Literature 24, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lord, M. L. [1967] (1994), ‘Withdrawal and return: An epic story pattern in the
Homeric Hymn to Demeter and in the Homeric poems’, Classical Journal 62:
241–8 (repr. in H. Foley (ed.), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation,
Commentary, and Interpretive Essays, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
pp. 181–9).
Louden, B. (1999), The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Louden, B. (2011), Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lowe, N. J. (2000), The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowrie, M. (1995), ‘A parade of lyric predecessors: Horace c. 1.12–1.18’, Phoenix
49: 33–48.
Lubbock, P. (1921), The Craft of Fiction, London: Jonathan Cape.
Luckenbill, D. (1924), The Annals of Sennacherib, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lührs, D. (1992), Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias
und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien, Hildesheim:
Olms.
Lundon, J. (1997), ‘“Abbilità artistica” o “amore paterno” nello scolio HMQR a
γ 400–1?’, Athenaeum 85: 611–24.
Lundon, J. (1998), “Ὅμηρος φιλότεχνος nel contesto dello scolio b ad A 8–9”,
Athenaeum 86: 209–29.
Lundon, J. (1999a), “Ὅμηρος φιλότεχνος nel contesto degli scoli bT ad A 149 b e
bT a Λ 102 a”, Athenaeum 87: 1–13.
Lundon, J. (1999b), ‘L’avverbio φιλοτέχνως nel contesto di tre scoli tragici’,
Athenaeum 87: 507–14.
bibliography 355
MacDonald, D. R. (2000), The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, New
Haven: Yale University Press.
MacDonald, D. R. (2003), Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases
from the Acts of the Apostles, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mace, S. (1993), ‘Amour encore! The development of δηὖτε in archaic lyric’,
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 34.4: 335–64.
Macintyre, S. and Clark, A. (2004), The History Wars, 2nd edn, Carlton,
Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Mackay, E. A. (1999a), ‘The bystander at the ringside: Ring-composition in early
Greek poetry and vase-painting’, in Mackay 1999b: 115–42.
Mackay, E. A. (ed.) (1999b), Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and its Influence
in the Greek and Roman World, Mnemosyne Suppl. 188, Leiden: Brill.
Mackay, E. A. (ed.) (2008), Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and
Roman World, Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Mackie, C. J. (ed.) (2004), Oral Performance and its Context, Leiden: Brill.
Macleod, C. W. (1982), Homer: Iliad Book XXIV, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Macleod, C. W. (1983), Collected Essays, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Manieri, A. (1998), L’immagine poetica nella teoria degli antichi: Phantasia ed
enargeia, Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici.
Maravela, A. (2011), ‘The athlete’s “happiness”: Eudaimonia in archaic Greek
epinicians’, Symbolae Osloenses 85: 33–51.
Margolin, U. (2005), ‘Naming in narrative’, in D. Herman, J. Manfred and
M. L. Ryan (eds), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 337–8.
Margolin, U. (2007), ‘Character’, in Herman 2007: 66–79.
Marincola, J. (1997), Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marincola, J. (2001), Greek Historians, Greece & Rome New Surveys in the
Classics 31, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marincola, J. (2003), ‘Beyond pity and fear: The emotions of history’, Ancient
Society 33: 285–315.
Marino, E. (1990), ‘Il teatro nel romanzo: Eliodoro e il codice spettacolare’,
Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 25: 203–18.
Markantonatos, A. (2002), Tragic Narrative: A Narratological Study of Sophocles’
Oedipus at Colonus, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Marks, J. (2008), Zeus in the Odyssey, Hellenic Studies 31; Washington, DC:
Center for Hellenic Studies.
Marra, M. F. (ed.) (2007), The Poetics of Motoori Norinaga: A Hermeneutical
Journey’ Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Martin, R. P. (1989), The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the
Iliad, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mascaró, J. (trans.) (1965), The Upanishads, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mastronarde, D. (1994), Euripides: Phoenissae, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
356 bibliography
INDEX
Page numbers with ‘t’ are tables; with ‘n’ are notes. Page numbers in italics are figures.