Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
GREEK NOTIONS
OF THE PAST IN
THE ARCHAIC AND
CLASSICAL ERAS
------- ♦--------
History W ithout H istorians
Edited by
John Marincola, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
and Calum Maciver
E D I N B U R G H L E V E N T IS S T U D IE S 6
P reviously p u b lish ed
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 1
W o r d a n d Im a g e in A n c ie n t G reece
E d ite d b y N . K e ith R u tte r a n d B rian A. S parkes
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 2
E n vy, S p ite a n d J e a lo u sy : T h e R iv a lro u s E m o tio n s in A n c ie n t G reece
E d ited by D a v id K o n s ta n a n d N . K e ith R u tte r
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 3
A n c ie n t G reece: F ro m th e M y c e n a e a n P a la c e s to the A g e o f H o m e r
E d ite d by S igrid D e g er-Ja lk o tz y a n d Iren e S. L em os
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 4
P u rsu in g th e G ood: E th ic s a n d M e ta p h y s ic s in P la to ’s R ep u b lic
E d ited by D o u g las C a irn s , F ritz -G re g o r H e rrm a n n a n d T erry P en n er
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 5
T h e G ods o f A n c ie n t G reece: Id e n titie s a n d T ra n sfo rm a tio n s
E d ite d by J a n N . B rem m er a n d A n d rew E rsk in e
E d in b u rg h L eventis S tudies 6
G re e k N o tio n s o f th e P a s t in th e A r c h a ic a n d C la ssic a l E ra s: H is to r y
w ith o u t H isto r ia n s
E d ited by J o h n M a rin c o la , L lo y d L lew ellyn-Jones a n d
C a lu m M ac iv e r
E D I N B U R G H L E V E N T IS S T U D IE S 6
Edited by
John Marincola,
Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and
Calum Maciver
EDINBURG H
University Press
© editorial matter and selection, John Marincola, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and
Calum Maciver, 2012
© in the individual contributions is retained by the authors, 2012
www.euppublishing.com
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
P re fa c e vii
L is t o f Illu stra tio n s viii
N o te s on C o n trib u to rs x
In d e x L o c o r u m 366
In d e x 376
PREFACE
T allahassee, E d in b u rg h , L e e d s
J.M .
L .L -J.
C .M .
ILLUSTRATIONS
John Marincola
I
T h e y ea r 2009 m a rk e d a n im p o rta n t an n iv ersary , fo r it w as exactly
o n e h u n d re d years earlier th a t F elix Jaco b y , o n e o f th e g re atest o f
tw en tieth -c en tu ry classical scholars, p u b lish e d his fu n d a m e n ta l article
o n th e d ev elo p m en t a n d g ro w th o f th e v ario u s fo rm s o f G re ek h is to
rio g ra p h y .1 T h e article, a sto n ish in g in its com prehensiveness a n d in
th e clarity o f its co n c ep tio n a n d vision, h a d a tw o -fo ld p u rp o se : first
to ex p lain h o w Jac o b y saw th e re la tio n sh ip betw een th e v ario u s types
o f G re e k h isto rical w riting; a n d , second a n d m o re p ra g m a tic ally ,
as J a c o b y ’s ex p la n a tio n a n d ju stific atio n fo r th e arra n g e m e n t o f th e
co llectio n o f th e frag m en ts o f th e G re e k h isto ria n s th a t h e w as ju s t
b eg inning. T his en terp rise saw th e p u b lic a tio n o f th e first vo lu m e in
1923, a n d th e final v olum e som e th irty-five years la te r in 1958. B y th a t
tim e, exile a n d w a r h a d ta k e n its to ll o n Jaco b y , a n d th e collection
w as left u n fin ished a t his d ea th , w ith a b o u t 60 p e r cen t o f th e m a te ria l
co llected a n d a n even sm aller p ercen tag e c o m m en ted u p o n . E ven so,
th e w o rk m e a su re d o u t a t fifteen volum es, som e o f en o rm o u s size a n d
im p o rta n c e , a n d th e collection, n o w itself a frag m en t, stan d s as o n e o f
th e g re at m o n u m e n ts o f tw en tieth -c en tu ry scholarship.
A n y o n e w h o h a s trie d to use J a c o b y ’s co llectio n - a n d very o ften
‘trie d ’ is th e key w o rd - k now s th a t th e w o rk is o rg a n ise d n o t o n a lp h a
b etical, ch ro n o lo g ic al o r reg io n a l principles. Jac o b y h a d co n sid ered
1 F. Jacoby, ‘Uber die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan
einer neuen Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente’, Klio 9 (1909), pp.
80-123; repr. in Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, ed.
H. Bloch (Leiden: Brill, 1956), pp. 16-72. For the reception of this article and
Jacoby’s other work, see A. L. Chavez Reino, ‘Felix Jacoby aux prises avec ses cri
tiques: lettres, comptes rendus et scholia Jacobiana’, in F. Grebible and V. Krings
(eds), S ’ecrire et ecrire sur l’antiquite (Grenoble: Editions Jerome Millon, 2008),
pp. 281-300.
th ese b u t rejected th em , deciding in ste a d th a t th e m o st useful ed itio n
w o u ld b e o n e in w hich th e fra g m e n ta ry a u th o rs w ere a rra n g e d a c c o rd
ing to th e ir place in a n d w ith in th e h isto rical dev elo p m en t o f G re ek
h isto rio g ra p h y (‘die entw icklungsgeschichtliche P rin z ip ’) - th a t is, as
Jac o b y h im self u n d e rsto o d th a t developm ent. A s I h a v e elsew here cri
tiq u e d th is arra n g e m e n t a n d its consequences fo r o u r u n d e rsta n d in g
o f G ra e c o -R o m a n h is to rio g ra p h y ,2 I shall h ere m erely sum m arise m y
m a in p o in ts.
J a c o b y d iv id ed th e h isto rical w ritin g o f th e G reek s in to five su b
genres, a rra n g e d acco rd in g to th e o rd e r in w hich h e believed th a t they
developed: m y th o g ra p h y o r genealogy; e th n o g ra p h y ; c h ro n o g ra p h y ;
c o n te m p o ra ry h isto ry (Z e itg e sc h ic h te ); a n d local h isto ry o r h o ro g -
ra p h y . T h e th ird , c o n te m p o ra ry h isto ry , w as th e m o st im p o rta n t, o f
co u rse, b u t it co u ld b e seen to h av e p red ecesso rs in th o se w ho h a d p re
viously trie d to b rin g o rd e r to th e com plex genealogies o f G re ek m y th
a n d th o se w ho h a d stu d ied th e cu sto m s o f n o n -G re e k s - H ecataeu s,
fo r ex am ple, w ho h a d d o n e b o th . In this discussion o f th e dev elo p
m e n t o f G re e k h is to rio g ra p h y a n d even m o re in his P a u ly -W isso w a
article o f 1913, Ja c o b y assigned a role o f p a rtic u la r im p o rta n c e in the
d ev elo p m en t o f G re e k h isto rio g ra p h y to H e ro d o tu s, w ho, Jac o b y
believed, h a d b eg u n as a g e o g rap h er in H e c a ta e u s’ fo o tstep s, h a d
p ro g ressed th en ce to becom e an e th n o g ra p h e r, an d , finally, u n d e r the
influence especially o f A th en s a n d Pericles, cam e to co m p o se a n actu al
w ar n a rra tiv e .3 F o r Jac o b y , th ere fo re , H e ro d o tu s ’ in d iv id u al ‘p r o
gress’ re p resen te d th e dev elo p m en t o f a n en tire genre a n d , we m ig h t
even say, an en tire p e o p le ’s h isto rical consciousness.
T h is m o d el, lo n g in fluential, h a s com e u n d e r fire recently o n several
fro n ts. F irst, th e m o d el h a s a n u n re alistic tidiness;4 second, its teleo l
ogy is also p ro b le m a tic , since it suggests th a t h isto ry w as all alo n g
try in g to b ecom e th e genre it u ltim ate ly becam e w ith T h u cy d id es;5
th ird , J a c o b y ’s n o tio n s o f ‘g en re’ suggest th a t h e sees it as fixed a n d
II
J a c o b y ’s sch em a stan d s in s ta rk c o n tra s t to th e o n e an cien t te sti
m o n iu m we h av e o f th e origins o f G re ek h isto rio g ra p h y , w hich is
c o n ta in e d in D io n y siu s o f H a lic a rn a ssu s’ O n T h u cy d id es. T h is w o rk ,
w ritten in th e late first ce n tu ry b ce o r ju s t possib ly early in th e first
ce n tu ry ce, is o n e o f th e few ‘th e o re tic a l’ w o rk s o n h isto rio g ra p h y
to survive fro m an tiq u ity . M o d e rn scholars generally fin d it a d isa p
p o in tin g p erfo rm an c e, m ain ly because D io n y siu s deals m o stly w ith
issues o f style a n d arra n g e m e n t, a n d his criticism s o f T hucydides
do n o t strik e us as p a rtic u la rly forceful o r even, a t tim es, germ ane.
H o w ev er th a t m a y be, we fin d a t th e beg in n in g o f th is w o rk a very
different su ggestion o f h o w G re e k h is to rio g ra p h y d ev eloped (T huc. 5):
9 A. Ford, Homer: The Poetry o f the Past (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell
University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 90-130.
10 In Book II, for example, Herodotus mentions the island of Chemmis and states
that it is said ‘by the Egyptians’ to float and move about, a claim that Herodotus
then strongly ridicules (2.156). We happen to know from a later source that it was
Hecataeus who stated that the island moved (FGrHist 1 F 305), yet Herodotus
does not mention Hecataeus here, and instead ascribes the belief to the Egyptians.
As it is not likely that he did not know Hecataeus’ work, it must be the case that
Herodotus has deliberately suppressed mention of his predecessor.
11 J. Marincola, ‘Herodotus and the poetry of the past’, in Marincola and C. J.
Dewald (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), pp. 13-28.
d ealt w ith th e d ev elo p m en t o f G re ek h isto rio g ra p h y . T h e th in k in g
goes th a t b ecau se these h isto ria n s w ro te in a sim ple, clear style it w as
assu m ed by la te r critics th a t they m u st h av e been early. Y e t n o t all
o f D io n y siu s’ arg u m e n ts in this passag e are in fact b ase d o n style.
M o re o v er, w here we ca n check th e accu racy o f his d a tin g by c o m
p a rin g it w ith o th e r sources, D io n y siu s com es o u t p re tty well. B o th
R o b e rt F o w ler a n d D a v id T o y e h av e p o in te d o u t th a t D io n y siu s’
p lacin g o f th ese h isto ria n s agrees w ith w h a t o th e r an cien t sources say,
a n d F o w ler ad d s th a t a lth o u g h D io n y siu s m a y h av e stretch ed a d ate
h ere o r th e re to ac c o m m o d a te a n a u th o r ’s p lace in th e h isto ry o f style,
such a m o v e does n o t in v alid ate th e en tire p a ssa g e .12
S om e sch o lars h av e so u g h t to reclaim som e o f D io n y siu s’ o b se rv a
tio n s as v alu ab le a n d as p e rh a p s reflecting th e a c tu a l state o f affairs in
early G re ek h isto rical w riting. T h e m o st th o ro u g h tre a tm e n t k n o w n
to m e is a n article, n o w som e fo rty years old, by S a n d ra G o z z o li.13
She begins by exam ining th e p assa g e o f D io n y siu s a n d d e m o n stra t
ing th a t th e early a u th o rs m en tio n e d by D io n y siu s w ere k n o w n to
h im n o t fro m som e pre-existing list o r tre a tm e n t - T h e o p h ra stu s
again! - b u t ra th e r fro m his o w n re ad in g a n d in d e p e n d e n t ev a lu a tio n .
She th e n tries to see w h e th e r th ere m ig h t b e an y th in g in D io n y siu s’
re m a rk th a t these early a u th o rs b ro u g h t to th e a tte n tio n o f th e p u b lic
‘w ritten re co rd s p reserv ed in sacred o r p ro fa n e arch iv es’. T h ere w as
n o difficulty, o f course, in estab lish in g th a t such re co rd s a n d archives
existed in th e an cien t N e a r E ast, as we h av e evidence fo r such am o n g st
th e S u m erians, B ab y lo n ian s, H ittites a n d E g y p tian s. B u t th e ta sk
becom es ra th e r m o re difficult closer to h o m e. G ozzoli displays a great
deal o f care a n d ca u tio n , b u t she does at least suggest, fro m lite rary
a n d ep ig rap h ical evidence, th a t th e n o tio n o f early re co rd s (p e rh ap s
q u ite b a re a n d h a v in g only th e m o st m in o r ‘h isto ric a l’ n o ta tio n ) k ept
in archives a n d tem ples m ay h av e been k n o w n to th e G reek s fro m
early tim es, a n d th a t such reco rd -k e ep in g m a y ow e so m eth in g to the
k n o w ledge o f an c ie n t N e a r E a ste rn cultures. I f we w ere to im agine
th a t th e G reek s did so m eth in g o f this so rt, th e n we w o u ld b e p lacin g
th e h isto rical im pulse very fa r b efo re th e tim e o f H e ro d o tu s h im self -
w hose ach iev em ent m ig h t th e n h av e to be seen precisely in th a t role o f
‘c o llec to r’ o r ‘sy nthesiser’ th a t D io n y siu s gave him .
T h e m a in issue, it seem s to m e, is w h a t exactly D io n y siu s m ig h t
m ean by ^ v % a i a n d y p a^ a l. A s to th e first, th ere seem s little difficulty
14 I should also add - though I will not make anything of it here - that such col
lections, if they existed in the Greek world, would provide a link with certain
practices of the ancient Near East, where the Mesopotamians, among others, kept
collections of omens. One might think here of the importance that oracles play as
a structuring device in Herodotus’ history.
15 L. Porciani, Prime forme della storiografia greca: Prospettiva locale e generale nella
narrazione storica (Historia Einzelschriften 152; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001).
J a c o b y ’s b asic ou tlin e, a n d o th e r ideas a b o u t th e d ev elo p m en t o f
G re ek h is to rio g ra p h y h a v e b een p u t fo rw ard . F re n c h scholars in p a r
tic u la r h av e en g ag ed w ith th e co n c ep t o f ioxopln a n d w h a t th a t m ig h t
en tail. T h ey h av e also b een m u ch m o re o p en to in tro d u c in g a w hole
ra n g e o f tex ts fro m th e p h ilo so p h ers, m edical w riters, trag e d ian s a n d
o ra to rs in th e ir search fo r w h a t is distinctive a b o u t iaxopln. In som e
cases, such as in th e w o rk o f F ra n c o is C h atelet a n d A n d re Sauge, the
m a in goal is to discover n o t h isto ry in th e sense o f th e genre o f h isto ry
b u t ra th e r th e activity o f ioxopln, as it m ig h t a p p e a r in an y n u m b e r o f
w riters a n d genres, in clu d in g trag e d y , th e m edical w riters a n d philoso-
p h y .16 B o th in th e ir b o o k s a n d in C a th e rin e D a rb o -P e sc h a n sk i’s recent
a n d co m p reh en siv e tre a tm e n t o f G re ek h isto rio g ra p h ic a l beginnings,
th e n o tio n o f ioxopln as research b ase d o n a u to p sy h a s been greatly
d e-em p h asised .17
I m u st n o t fail to m e n tio n h ere one o f th e m o st in tere stin g forays
in to th e o rigins o f G re ek h isto rical th o u g h t, th a t m a d e b y S an to
M az zarin o in his II p e n sie ro sto ric o c la ssic o .18 A t th e o u tset, M az zarin o
sets h im self th e goal o f discovering th e origins o f G re e k h isto rical
th o u g h t, a n d h e finds it in a n u n u su a l place, nam ely, O rphism . N o w
this te rm h e u n d e rsta n d s in a n ex ten d ed sense to m e a n n o t ju s t the
ac tu a l p ra c titio n e rs o f O rp h ic religion, b u t all th o se influenced b y its
w orld-view . (I sh o u ld a d d th a t M a z z a rin o th ro u g h o u t his w o rk draw s
a close c o rresp o n d en c e betw een eco n o m ic life a n d in tellectu al life: so,
fo r ex am ple, in th e case o f O rp h ism ’s criticism o f estab lish ed religion,
h e sees a t w o rk a new class o f m en w ho m a d e th e ir w ealth largely
th ro u g h tra d e a n d w ho th e n to o k o n th e aristo cracy b o th politically
a n d intellectually.) M a z z a rin o is aw are th a t his choice o f O rp h ism
m ay seem p a ra d o x ic a l since O rp h ism is o ften p o rtra y e d as h o stile to
ra tio n a lism , b u t in O rp h ism , h e argues, we see th e first m a n ife sta tio n
19 Hecataeus, FGrHist 1 F 1a: 'Eraxaiog MiX'qoiog ro5s p/u0sixar xaSs ypa^ro, rog ^oi
S o k s i a^n0sa sivar oi yap 'EXX'qvrov Xoyoi noXXol t s Kai ysXoioi, rog e^oi ^alvovxai,
siolv.
co u rse h e exam ines A eschylus’ P e rsia n s w here h e sees th e tra g e d ia n
tra n sfo rm in g a c o n te m p o ra ry event b y m ak in g o f it a n im age o f m yth.
O nly a fte r som e h u n d re d a n d tw en ty pages do we finally com e to
H e ro d o tu s a n d his h isto ry .
N o w even th o u g h o n e m u st ta k e issue w ith q u ite a lo t o f w h a t
M az zarin o says, h e nevertheless is to b e p ra ise d fo r lo o k in g every
w here a n d a t different m an ife sta tio n s o f th e G re e k h isto rical spirit.
H e also deserves cred it fo r his o n -going en g ag em en t w ith influence o f
th e an c ie n t n e a r east o n th e G re e k s’ h isto rical th o u g h t, an influence
th a t I h av e m e n tio n e d o ff a n d on. Such a n in tere st m a y n o t so u n d
p a rtic u la rly su rp risin g in light o f recen t sch o larsh ip , b u t it is n o te w o r
th y th a t w hen, n o t lo n g ago, G re ek studies w ere very m u ch co n c ern e d
w ith th e ‘o rien talisin g re v o lu tio n ’ a n d w ere focusing o n ‘th e east face
o f H e lico n ’, th e o n e area, so fa r as I ca n see, left o u t o f co n sid eratio n
a lto g e th e r w as h is to rio g ra p h y .20 N o w this m a y h av e b een sim ply the
re su lt o f th e in terests o f th o se scholars studying th e influence o f the
an cien t N e a r E a st o n G re e k cu ltu re, w ho w ere fa r m o re fo cussed on
religion, epic, m y th a n d th e like, o r it m a y be th a t th e d evelopm ent
o f G re e k h is to rio g ra p h y w as seen as o cc u rrin g later, afte r th e stro n g
w ave o f N e a r E a st influence. B u t I w o n d e r as well w h e th e r it m ig h t
m u ch m o re be a stro n g ly in g rain e d c u ltu ra l p reju d ice a b o u t th e n a tu re
o f w estern h isto rio g ra p h y . W e n eed n o t go so fa r p e rh a p s as Ja c k
G o o d y in his recen t b o o k a rg u in g th a t th e w est h a s stolen its ideas o f
h isto ry fro m th e ea st;21 yet a t th e sam e tim e, o n e ca n h a rd ly av o id th e
n o tio n th a t classical scholars see a fu n d a m e n ta l g ap betw een, o n the
one h a n d , h isto ry as p ra c tise d in th e societies o f A ssyria, P ersia, a n d
E g y p t, w hich m agnified th e achievem ents o f kings a n d closely allied
itself w ith state religion, a n d , o n th e o th e r h a n d , th e ‘secu lar’, ‘d em o
c ra tic ’ a n d ‘ra tio n a l’ h is to rio g ra p h y developed by th e G reek s a n d
b e q u e a th e d to th e w est. A n d th ere is ce rtain ly th e sense in scholarship
th a t w hen G re ek h isto rio g ra p h y is ‘influenced’ by th e east, th e resu lt
is alw ays b a d , a n d p ro d u c es som eone such as C tesias, w ith his e m p h a
sis o n d isso lu te kings, h a re m politics a n d - G o d h elp us - w om en in
charge.
L et m e com e b a c k o n e last tim e to H e ro d o tu s ’ ‘d ev e lo p m e n t’ as
im ag in ed by Jaco b y . I m e n tio n e d ab o v e th a t this seem s to p u t to o
m u ch re sp o n sib ility o n th e sh o u ld ers o f H e ro d o tu s , b u t it also h as
III
A n d so I com e, a t last, to th e th em e o f this volum e. I t is a tru ism
o ften re p e a te d th a t th e academ ic discipline o f h isto ry over th e last
g en e ratio n o r so h a s u n d e rg o n e a re v o lu tio n - m ay b e m u ltip le re v o
lu tio n s. O n th e o n e h a n d , th ere h a s b een th e a tta c k (o r a tta c k s) o n
th e subject m a tte r o f tra d itio n a l h isto ry , p a rtic u la rly w h a t w as seen
as its n a rro w co n c ern w ith p o litical a n d m ilitary events. O ne o f th e
resu lts o f th is h a s b een th e dev elo p m en t o f new types o f h isto ry a n d o f
22 Above, n. 7.
new a n d n o n -tra d itio n a l in terests show n b y h isto rian s. O n th e o th e r
h a n d , th e re h a s been an o n g o in g d e b a te a b o u t th e epistem ic claim s o f
h isto ry , a b o u t w h a t h isto ry really teaches o r can claim to teach , a n d
w h a t k in d o f know ledge it ca n actu ally im p a rt. A s a resu lt, th e p ra c
tice o f h isto ry itself h a s ceased to b e co n sid ered a self-evident activity
w ith a clear a n d o b v io u s m eth o d o lo g y , a n d in q u iries in to th e p a s t are
n o w seen as com plexly c o n d itio n e d b y a w hole h o s t o f fa c to rs o n the
in d iv id u al, social a n d even d isciplinary level.
A d d to th is th a t a lth o u g h h isto ria n s h av e h a rd ly a b a n d o n e d th eir
desire to k n o w w h a t ac tu ally h a p p e n e d a n d w hy, they h av e a t the
sam e tim e ex p a n d ed th e ir in terests by lo o k in g m o re carefully a t the
stru ctu re s a n d m ean s w ith w hich in d iv id u als a n d societies deal w ith
th e ir p asts. T h e in tere st h ere is less in w h a t actu ally h a p p e n e d a n d
m o re in w h a t p eo p le believed to h a v e h a p p e n e d a n d h o w such beliefs
affected th e ir id en tity a n d th e social en v iro n m e n t - in sh o rt, h o w
h isto ry w as m ean in g fu l to th e m in th e ir ac tu a l lives. J a n A ssm an n
h a s c o in ed th e te rm ‘h o t m e m o ry ’ (heisse E rin n e ru n g ) fo r th e ty p e o f
h isto ry th a t creates a n id en tity fo r a g ro u p o r com m u n ity : h e eq u ates
it w ith m y th a n d identifies it as ‘a sto ry th a t o n e tells to o rien t oneself
vis-a-vis o n eself a n d th e w o rld , a tru th o f a h ig h er o rd e r th a t is n o t
m erely rig h t b u t also m ak es n o rm a tiv e d em an d s a n d possesses fo rm a
tive p o w e r’.23 H a n s-Jo a c h im G e h rk e h a s co in ed th e te rm ‘in te n tio n a l
h is to ry ’ fo r th o se stories a n d sagas th a t w ere e m b ra ced b y c o m m u n i
ties a n d w ere o f co n sid erab le a n d a t tim es decisive significance fo r real
life a n d p o litical b e h a v io u r - even th o u g h th e m o d e rn h is to ria n w o u ld
h a rd ly ch a rac te rise these as h isto ry .24
G e h rk e also em phasises th e u b iq u ito u s n a tu re o f th e p ast: h e w rites,
‘o n e alw ays h a d a story, even w hen one, acco rd in g to o u r criteria,
d id n o t k n o w o n e ’s p a s t at all. T o p u t it differently, o n e knew o n e ’s
p a s t very well. It w as th a t w hich everyw here im p in g ed u p o n o n e ’s
eyes a n d ears in th e w o rld o f p o rtra its a n d statu es, in th e m ilieu o f
p o em s a n d so n g s.’25 N o w y o u will n o tic e th a t I h a v e m a d e a tra n s i
tio n fro m sp eaking o f h isto ry to speaking o f th e p a st, a n d th a t is n o t
accid en tal. F o r it seems to m e th a t a n in tere st in h o w th e G reek s saw
th e ir p a s t ra th e r th a n in h o w c e rtain figures p erceived h isto ry strictly
sp eaking will en ab le us to co n stru c t a larg e r canvas, one th a t m o re
Jonas Grethlein
1 J. Latacz, Troia und Homer: Der Weg zur Losung eines alten Ratsels, 5th
edition (Munich: Koehler und Amelang Verlag, 2005), p. 342 (‘Homer ist
ernstzunehmen’).
2 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Uber die Ionische Wanderung (Berlin:
Konigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1906), p. 60: ‘Daruber ereifert man sich
nicht, man nimmt es aber auch nicht ernst.’ For critical assessments of Latacz’s
views, see the contributions in C. Ulf (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troja: Eine Bilanz
(Munich: C. H. Beck, 2003).
3 On the reception of Homer, see, e.g., R. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney (eds),
Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics o f Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); E. Pallantza, Der Troische Krieg
p o e try a n d h isto rio g ra p h y . G iven th e reign o f teleological m odels
fo r th e ‘g rip o f th e p a s t’ o n th e G reek s, it b ea rs p o in tin g o u t th a t th e
estab lish m en t o f h isto rio g ra p h y did n o t elim in ate m em o ry in epic.
T h e Ilia d a n d O d y s s e y n o t only p re se n t ca n o n ic al ac co u n ts o f w h a t
G reek s to o k fo r th e ir a rch aic p a st. E m b ed d e d in th e n a rra tiv e s o f th e
T ro ja n W a r a n d O d y sseu s’ n o s to s , we also fin d a p rev io u s p ast. B o th
th e n a r r a to r a n d th e c h a ra c te rs freq u en tly refer to w h a t we co u ld call
th e ‘epic p lu p a s t’, th e p a s t th a t p re ced e d th e m a in ac tio n o f th e song.4
T h e ‘epic p lu p a s t’ ca n b e re a d as a m is e en a b y m e , th a t is to say th e
em b ed d e d p a s t o f th e h ero es figures as a m irro r to th e h e ro ic p a s t
p re se n te d in epic p o e try .5 In th e first tw o sections o f this c h a p te r, I
will use a n e x a m in a tio n o f th e ‘epic p lu p a s t’ as a w ay o f a p p ro a c h in g
th e epic p re s e n ta tio n o f th e p ast. T h e first will explore th e re la tio n
betw een p a s t a n d p re sen t, th e second will be c o n c ern e d w ith th e m edi-
ality o f m em o ry . T h en , in a th ird section, I will directly discuss th e
view o f h isto ry u n d erly in g th e epic, in p a rtic u la r th e issue o f theodicy.
F in ally , I will lo o k b ey o n d H o m e r to h is to rio g ra p h y a n d arg u e th a t
even w here G re e k h isto ria n s define them selves ag a in st epic th ey share
co m m o n g ro u n d w ith it.
in der nachhomerischen Literatur bis zum 5. Jh. v. Chr. (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,
2005).
4 Cf. W. Kullmann, ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias’, Poetica 2.1 (1968),
pp. 12-37; J. Grethlein, Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias: Eine Untersuchung aus
phanomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2006), pp. 42-153.
5 The term ‘mise en abyme’ was coined in 1893 by A. Gide, Journal 1889-1939
(Paris: Gallimard, 1948) and the concept was developed further by L. Dallenbach,
Le recit speculaire: Contribution a l’etude de la mise en abyme (Paris: Seuil, 1977).
6 E.g. J. Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (London: James Currey, 1985).
dAAa m 0 sa 0 ’- a ^ 9 © Ss vs©xsp© saxov s^sio.
i\5n y ap nox’ sy© Kai dpsfoaiv nsp upV
dvSpaaiv © ^ n o a , Kai ou noxs ^ ’ oi y ’ d0spiZov.
ou yap n© xofoug iSov dvspag, ouSs iSro^ai,
oiov n s ^ 0 o 6 v xs Apuavxa xs n o i^sv a A,a&v
K a iv sa x’ ’E£,aSi6v xs Kai dvx^08ov noA^nM-ov.
Y e t b e p e rsu a d e d . B o th o f y o u are y o u n g er th a n I am .
Y es, a n d in m y tim e I h av e d ea lt w ith b e tte r m en th a n
y o u are, a n d nev er once d id th ey d isreg a rd m e. N ev er
yet h av e I seen n o r shall see a g a in such m en as these were,
m en like P eirith o o s, a n d D ry a s, sh ep h e rd o f th e p eople,
K a in e u s a n d E x ad io s, godlike P olyphem os.
a n d (1.271-2):
II MEDIA OF MEMORY
B esides shed ding light o n th e re la tio n betw een epic p a s t a n d p re sen t
o f p erfo rm an c e, th e ‘h ero ic p lu p a s t’ also illu strates th e m ed iality o f
epic m em o ry . T h e q u a estio H o m e r ic a is still hig h ly co n tro v e rsial, w ith
c o n tin e n ta l scholars ten d in g to w a rd s a u n ita ria n a p p ro a c h a n d m an y
A n g lo -A m e rican classicists fa v o u rin g o ra list m o d els, b u t n o b o d y will
seriously deny th a t th e I lia d a n d O d y sse y re st o n o ra l tra d itio n s a n d
th a t in th e a rch aic a n d classical ages th e epics circ u lated in th e fo rm
o f p erfo rm an c es. P oetic p e rfo rm an c es em b ed d ed in th e H o m eric n a r
rativ es h av e th ere fo re b een fru itfu lly ex am in ed as cases o f m ise en
38 Cf. I. Morris, ‘The use and abuse of Homer’, Classical Antiquity 5 (1986), pp.
81-138; J. P. Crielaard, ‘How the west was won’, in C. Gillis, C. Risberg and
B. Sjoberg (eds), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece (Jonsered: Paul
Astrom, 1995), pp. 125-7.
39 Cf. Grethlein, ‘From imperishable glory to history’, pp. 128-9.
40 On the reuse of gems, see J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1970), p. 107; J. Boardman, The Archaeology o f Nostalgia:
How the Greeks Re-Created their Mythical Past (London: Thames and Hudson,
2003), pp. 81-2. On hero cult, see, e.g., C. Antonaccio, An Archaeology o f
Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield, 1995); R. Hagg (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult (Athens: Svenska
Institutet i Athen, 1999); D. Boehringer, Heroenkulte in Griechenland von der
geometrischen bis zur klassischen Zeit (Berlin: Klio, Akademie, 2001).
41 Cf. D. Hertel, Die Mauern von Troia: Mythos und Geschichte im antiken Ilion
(Munich: Beck, 2003); Grethlein, ‘Imperishable glory to history’.
42 Cf. Grethlein, ‘Memory and material objects’, p. 35.
43 See Grethlein, ‘Memory and material objects’, pp. 31-2.
HOMER AND HEROic HISTORY 25
III THEODICY
In th e first tw o sections o f this c h a p te r, I h av e used th e ‘epic p lu p a s t’
to explore th e re la tio n betw een p a st a n d p re sen t a n d th e m ediality o f
m em o ry in H o m er. I w o u ld n o w like to a p p ro a c h directly th e epic p re s
e n ta tio n o f th e p a s t a n d exam ine h o w H o m e r envisages h u m a n life in
tim e. In m en tio n in g h ero ic suffering a n d divine agency, th e p ro em s o f
Ilia d a n d O d y sse y highlight tw o im p o rta n t aspects o f th eir n arrativ es
a n d raise th e q u estio n o f theodicy. A re th e sorrow s o f A chilles & C o.
em b ed d ed in a system o f divine justice? A cco rd in g to th e tra d itio n a l
view, th e O d y sse y p resen ts a m o re ad v a n ced co n cep tio n th a n the
Ilia d :44 w hereas th e gods a p p e a r as a rb itra ry a n d am o ra l in th e earlier
p o em , th e later one featu res gods co n cerned a b o u t rig h teo u s co n d u c t
a n d is th erefo re a step to w ard s th e cosm ic o rd e r we find in H esio d . Such
ev o lu tio n ary m odels o f divine justice in G re ek literatu re, how ever, have
been forcefully challenged by H u g h L lo y d -Jo n es.45 M o re recently,
W illiam A llan h a s m ad e a case th a t th e Ilia d a n d O d y sse y share a
co m m o n belief a b o u t h u m a n a n d divine ju stice w hich also underlies the
h ex am eter co rp u s o f H esiod, th e E pic Cycle a n d th e H o m eric H y m n s.46
A llan assem bles o n th e one h a n d passages fro m th e Ilia d w hich testify
to a divine co n cern w ith m o ra l issues; o n th e o th er, h e show s th a t in the
O d y sse y th e gods h av e n o t lost th eir u n p re d ic tab le a n d tro u b lin g side.
T h ere are in d eed p assages in th e I lia d w hich view th e fall o f T ro y as
p u n ish m e n t fo r P a ris ’ crim e. A p a rtic u la rly in terestin g case in p o in t,
n o t discussed by A llan, is a p ra y e r o f M en elau s in Il. 3.351-4:
44 See, e.g., F. Jacoby, ‘Die geistige Physiognomie der Odyssee’, Antike 9 (1933),
pp. 159-94; K. Reinhardt, ‘Tradition und Geist im homerischen Epos’, in C.
Becker (ed.), Tradition und Geist: Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), pp. 5-15, at p. 6; K. Ruter, Odysseeinter-
pretationen: Untersuchungen zum ersten Buch und zur Phaiakis (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), p. 70; Rutherford, ‘Philosophy of the Odyssey’,
pp. 147-8; most recently, E. A. Schmidt, ‘Die Gerechtigkeit des Gottes als Axiom
fruhgriechischer Weltdeutung: Zum Recht in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung von
Homer bis Solon’, in B. Greiner, B. Thums and W. Graf Vitzthum (eds), Recht und
Literatur: Interdisziplinare Bezuge (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2010),
pp. 29-74, at pp. 44-53.
45 H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice o f Zeus (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1971).
46 W. Allan, ‘Divine justice and cosmic order in early Greek epic’, JH S 126 (2006),
pp. 1-35. For a nuanced account of divine justice in the Iliad and Odyssey, see
also B. Fenik, Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1974), pp. 209-27;
on the Odyssey, J. S. Clay, The Wrath o f Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 213-39.
o ^ p a Tig 8pp^ynol Kai oyiyovrov av0p©n©v
£,sivoS6kov KaKa ps£,ai, o ksv ^iAoxnxa napdoxni-
51 On the central place of death in the Iliad, see W. Marg, ‘Kampf und Tod in der
Ilias’, WJb 2 (1976), pp. 7-19; S. L. Schein, ‘On Achilles’ speech to Odysseus, Iliad
9.308-429’, Eranos 78 (1980), pp. 125-31.
52 Cf. 23.264-84. Cf. A. Bergren, ‘Odyssean temporality: Many (re)turns’, in C.
Rubino and C. Shelmerdine (eds), Approaches to Homer (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1983), pp. 38-73.
53 For a recent version of this juxtaposition, see N. J. Lowe, The Classical Plot and
the Invention o f Western Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), pp. 103-56.
54 Cf. M. Lossau, ‘Ersatztotungen: Bauelemente in der Ilias’, W S 104 (1991), pp.
5-21; M. Stoevesandt, Feinde - Gegner - Opfer: Zur Darstellung der Troianer
in den Kampfszenen der Ilias (Basel: Schwabe, 2004), pp. 161-6; Grethlein,
Geschichtsbild, p. 160.
Kai xou ^sv p ’ d 9 a ^ a p 0 ’, o S’ d ^u ^o v a ro p y u 0 to v a
uiov suv n p ia ^ o io Kaxa o x ^ o g Pa^sv i&i,
x6v p ’ e£ A iau^n0sv onrno^svn tsks ^ x n p
K a ^ K ao xiavsipa Ss^ag siKuIa 0sflioiv-
^ K © v S’ &g sxsproos Kapn Pa^sv, ^ x’ svi K^nroi
Kapn&i Ppi0o^svn v o x ^ xs siapiv^ioiv-
&g sxsproo’ ^ u o s Kapn n ^ n * * Papuv0sv.
60 Patroclus and Hector are compared with one another by R. Rutherford, ‘Tragic
form and feeling in the Iliad’, JH S 102 (1982), pp. 145-60, at p. 157.
HOMER AND HEROic HISTORY 31
A h , p o o r w retch! T h ere is n o th o u g h t o f d e a th in y o u r m in d
now ,
a n d yet d e a th stan d s close beside y o u as y o u p u t o n th e
im m o rta l a rm o u r
o f a su rp assin g m an . T h ere are o th ers w ho trem b le b efo re him .
A n d ro m a c h e ’s ig n o ran c e is n o t d u e to th e o p aq u e n ess o f th e fu tu re ,
b u t to sp atial d istance. W hile she is ta k in g care o f a w a rm w elcom e
fo r H e cto r, A chilles h a s sta rte d m u tila tin g his corpse. T h e tra g ic iro n y
is d eep en ed by a p la y w ith th e ritu a l o f th e b ath : th e d e a th o f H e c to r
tra n sfo rm s th e b a th fo r th e re tu rn in g w a rrio r in to th e cleaning o f his
co rp se, w hich a g a in will be d eferred u n til th e last b o o k o f th e Ilia d .61
T h e last h e ro in th e c h ain o f d ea th s w hich stru ctu re s th e final th ird o f
th e Ilia d , A chilles, is d istin ct fro m th e o th ers in th a t h e is aw are o f his
ow n m o rta lity , even know s th a t his ow n d e a th is to follow so o n u p o n
H e c to r’s (Il. 18.95-6), a n d n o n eth eless ru sh es to avenge P atro clu s.
W h e n H e ra len ds a voice to th e divine h o rse X a n th u s, w hich th e n
p ro p h esies A ch illes’ d e a th to him , th e h e ro replies (Il. 19.420-3):
61 Cf. J. Grethlein, ‘The poetics of the bath in the Iliad’, HSCPh 103 (2006),
pp. 25-49.
X a n th u s, w hy do y o u p ro p h e sy m y d eath ? T his is n o t fo r you.
I m y self k n o w well it is d estin ed fo r m e to die h ere
fa r fro m m y belo v ed fa th e r a n d m o th e r. B u t fo r all th a t
I will n o t sto p till th e T ro ja n s h av e h a d en o u g h o f m y fighting.
IV BEYOND HOMER
L et m e finally go b e y o n d H o m e r a n d briefly lo o k to h isto rio g ra p h y . In
ta k in g u p th e th ree p o in ts th a t I h av e exam in ed - th e re la tio n betw een
p a s t a n d p re sen t, th e m ed iality o f m em o ry a n d th eo d icy - it is n o t
m y aim to ex p lo re fully th e differences o r th e H o m eric influence on
th e h isto ria n s. In ste a d , I w o u ld like to illu stra te th e claim th a t epic
62 M. Heidegger, Being and Time, tr. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, 8th edn
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; 1st pub. 1962), p. 351 (p. 304).
63 Cf. Rutherford, ‘Tragic form and feeling’, p. 150.
a n d G re e k h is to rio g ra p h y sh are som e c o m m o n g ro u n d .64 W ith o u t
d enying th e cru cial differences, I will argue th a t even th e a tte m p ts o f
th e h isto ria n s to set them selves o ff ag a in st H o m e r reveal a n id ea o f
h isto ry th a t also underlies th e I lia d a n d O d y sse y. N eedless to say, I can
offer h ere n o m o re th a n spotlights.
W e h av e first seen th a t th e epics focus o n a d ista n t p a s t w hich is n o t
lin k ed to th e p re sen t, b u t is highly a p t to p ro v id e exem pla because
o f its su p erio rity . O n th e o th e r h a n d , a t least th e ca n o n ic al h isto ria n s
privilege th e m o re re cen t p a st. T o m e n tio n only th e tw o fo u n d in g
fa th e rs o f G re ek h isto rio g ra p h y , H e ro d o tu s gives a n a c c o u n t o f th e
P ersian W a rs a n d T hu cy d id es m ak es a case fo r co n c e n tra tin g o n c o n
te m p o ra ry h isto ry . In his A rc h a e o lo g y , T hu cy d id es even challenges
th e su p erio rity o f th e h e ro ic age a n d tak es p a in s to d e m o n stra te
th a t th e P e lo p o n n esian W a r is b y fa r th e g re atest m ilitary event in
G re ek h isto ry . N o n eth eless, h e draw s heavily o n th e exem plary view
o f h isto ry w hich is so p ro m in e n t in H o m e r.65 T h u cy d id e s’ ac co u n t
will, h e h o p es, p e rm it th e read ers to u n d e rs ta n d fu tu re events b e tte r
(1.22.4; cf. 3.82.2). T h e p a s t will n o t sim ply re p e a t itself, b u t m a y be
sim ilar. D u e to th e stab ility o f h u m a n n a tu re , th e insights w on by
his rig o ro u s m e th o d will p ro v e v alu ab le fo r la te r g en e ratio n s a n d
m a k e his a c c o u n t a KT%a sg a s l T h e n o tio n o f a ‘p o ssession fo re v e r’
evokes a n d tra n sfo rm s th e epic n o tio n o f ‘im p erish ab le g lo ry ’ (KAsog
a^0iTov).66 W h ereas th e epic defines its ow n e tern ity via its objects,
T h u cy d id es claim s e tern ity in re la tio n to his read ers. F a m e h a s been
rep laced w ith usefulness, b u t th e u n d erly in g exem plary view o f th e
p a s t is th e sam e.
In a second step, I h av e d ealt w ith th e m ed iality o f epic, a rg u in g fo r
a very h ig h degree o f im plicit reflection o n o ra l p o etry . H e ro d o tu s ’
H is to r ie s still b e a r th e traces o f epideictic p e rfo rm an c es a n d it seems
th a t lo cal h isto ria n s also p re se n te d th e ir w o rk s o ra lly ,67 b u t th e
m ed iu m o f w ritin g is as cru cial to th e h isto ry o f h isto rio g ra p h y as
(footnote 67 continued)
features of the Histories, see M. Lang, Herodotean Narrative and Discourse
(Martin Classical Lectures; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984).
See also R. Thomas, Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art o f
Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), who contextualises
Herodotus in an epideictic milieu. On oral presentations of local historians, see
K. Clarke, Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011).
68 See J. Moles, ‘Anathema kai ktema : The inscriptional inheritance of ancient
historiography’, Histos 3 (1999), pp. 27-69.
ow n o p in io n , this w as because th e d a im o n io n a rra n g e d th in g s so
th a t, in th e ir co m p lete a n n ih ila tio n , they sh o u ld m a k e this clear
to m a n k in d th a t fo r severe crim es th e p u n ish m e n t a t th e g o d s’
h a n d s is severe.
Bruno Currie
(footnote 3 continued)
Kernos 17 (2004), pp. 67-102, at p. 67: ‘ces vers ne representent pas un “mythe”,
mais un logos; il s’agit donc d’un simple recit.’ Not that these function reliably
as technical terms; cf. R. G. A. Buxton, Imaginary Greece: The Contexts o f
Mythology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 12-13, on the
interchangeability of mythos and logos in the archaic period.
4 For Leclerc, ‘Mythe des races’, p. 224, this verse (WD 108) ‘donne la cle de
l’histoire’. Cf. Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 72.
5 Rosenmeyer, ‘Hesiod and historiography’, p. 269: ‘Hesiod does not wish to go
into detail; like Thucydides in his archaeology, he realizes that he cannot supply as
full a picture as he wishes.’ Criticized by Rowe, ‘Archaic thought’, pp. 132-3; L.
Bertelli, ‘Hecataeus: From genealogy to historiography’, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The
Historian’s Craft in the Age o f Herodotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001),
pp. 67-94, at p. 82. The inference from the narrative’s sketchiness to its historical
intent is weak; for mythological ‘sketches’, cf. Hygin. Fab., and of course Hesiod
(and ‘Hesiod’) himself in several passages of Th. (and Cat.).
6 Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 72 on smoT&^svog: ‘Le logos profere est bien
celui d’un sage, par reference au savoir du poete homerique ou mieux encore
par allusion au savoir faire du poete elegiaque’ (referring to Od. 11.368, Theogn.
769-72, Solon fr.13.51-5 West; add Archil. fr. 1.2 West); cf. M. L. West, Hesiod:
Works and Days (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 178; M. Griffith, ‘Contest
and contradiction in early Greek poetry’, in Griffith and D. Mastronarde (eds),
The Cabinet o f the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in
Honor o f Thomas G. Rosenmeyer (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 185-207,
at p. 196. It seems sti Kai smoTa^svrog was used especially of a skilled craftsman
(and hence of a craftsman of words?): Od. 17.341 = 21.44, 23.197, cf. 5.245, Il.
10.265.
7 WD 109 = 143 = 180 ysvog ^sporcrov av6p<mrov, 121, 127, 140, 156, 159, 176. Cf.
WD 160 ysvsf.
by critiq u in g som e c o n stru c tio n s w hich w o u ld m a k e H e sio d ’s th in k in g
q u ite stra ig h tfo rw a rd ly h isto rical.
F irst, H e sio d ’s yevn are n o t ‘ages’, like th e y u g a s o f th e M a h a b h a ra ta
(3.148, 187), d espite th e L a tin re n d erin g sa ecu la a n d th e co m m o n
E nglish re n d erin g ‘golden (silver, etc.) a g e ’.8 T h e ysvn sh o u ld n o t be
glossed as ‘ep o c h s’, as th ey are b y R o sen m ey er, w ho w ished to see
H e sio d as th e o rig in a to r o f ‘a h isto rical im ag in a tio n w hich sees th e
p a st, a n d tim e in general, n o t as a steady flow to w a rd th e p re sen t
. . . b u t ra th e r as a succession o f e p o c h s’. A c co rd in g to R osenm eyer,
H e sio d ’s c o n c ep tio n is a fits-an d -sta rts view o f h isto ry , w hich he
co m p ares w ith T a c itu s’ reference to in terva lla a c sp ira m e n ta tem p o -
ru m (A g ric o la 44).9 H e sio d ’s yevn are, how ever, n o t sy n o n y m o u s w ith
‘p erio d s o f h is to ry ’ (as we m ay sp eak fo r scholarly convenience o f
‘arch aic-classical-H ellen istic’ o r ‘re p u b lic a n -im p e ria l’ as p erio d s o f
G re ek o r R o m a n h isto ry ); th ey are a c tu a l h u m a n ‘ra ces’. W hile these
do occu p y discrete h isto rical p erio d s (they h av e ‘a sp a tio -te m p o ra l
ex ten sio n ’),10 th a t c a n n o t be said to be th e essence o f H e sio d ’s
co n cep tio n .
Second, H e sio d ’s yevn are n o t ‘civ ilisatio n s’. W e sh o u ld c o n tra st
th e a n a lo g o u s p assa g e fro m th e O ld T e sta m e n t b o o k o f D a n ie l
(2:31-45), w here th e vision in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r’s d re a m o f a statu e
m a d e o f gold, silver, b ro n z e, iro n a n d clay in tim ate s successive
h isto rical ‘k in g d o m s’: to w it (p ro b ab ly ), th e B ab y lo n ian (u n d e r
N e b u c h a d n e z z a r him self), th e P ersian (u n d e r C yrus th e G re a t), th e
G re ek (u n d e r A lex a n d er th e G re a t) a n d G re e k a g a in (u n d e r th e
S eleucids).11 H o m eric epic to o seems to h a v e a c o n c ep tio n o f h isto ry
as defined b y th e rise a n d fall o f g reat civilisations, if th e e n d o f th e
age o f h ero es is sy n ch ro n o u s w ith th e ru in o f M ycenae, S p a rta a n d
A rg o s (Il. 4 .5 1 -3 ) a n d T ro y itself (Il. 12.15-33, cf. 24.543-6). W e, to o ,
read ily co n cep tu alise h isto ry as a sequence o f em pires (e.g. A ssyrian,
P ersian , G re ek , R o m a n , etc.). B u t this is n o t H e sio d ’s co n c ep tio n
eith er, fo r th ere is n o p ro sp e c t o f c o rrelatin g H e sio d ’s yevn w ith any
civilisations k n o w n to him .
8 H. C. Baldry, ‘Who invented the golden age?’, CQ n.s. 2 (1952), pp. 83-92,
at p. 88; Rosenmeyer, ‘Hesiod and historiography’, p. 265 and n. 3; B. Gatz,
Weltalter, goldene Zeit undsinnverwandte Vorstellungen (Hildesheim: Olms, 1967),
pp. 205-6. J. Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice, and Hesiod’s five ages’, CP 69 (1974), pp.
1-16, at p. 1 n.1, with reservations retains ‘ages’, finding ‘races’ ‘misleading and
inaccurate’; cf. L. Koenen, ‘Greece, the Near East, and Egypt: Cyclic destruction
in Hesiod and the Catalogue of Women’, TAPA 124 (1994), pp. 1-34, at p. 2 n. 3;
Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, pp. 68, 71.
9 Rosenmeyer, ‘Hesiod and historiography’, p. 267.
10 Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 68.
11 Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 95.
T h ird , H e sio d ’s schem e does n o t sim ply resolve itself in to h u m a n
g en eratio n s. W h e n th e h ero es o f th e I lia d ta lk a b o u t th e p a s t they
typically sp eak o f a fo rm e r g en e ratio n , su p erio r to th e p re se n t (e.g.
Il. 1.250-2, 260-72: th e L ap ith s; 4.405: th e A rgive Seven; 5.636-7:
H erak les; e tc .).12 T h is resem bles H e sio d ’s c o n c ep tio n in so fa r as
his successive yevn to o are w orse th a n th e ir predecessors, b u t th a t
is a b o u t as fa r as th e resem blance goes; his ysvn are n o t ‘g en e ra
tio n s ’.13 Som e scholars, in clu d in g G . W . M o s t a n d C. C alam e, h av e
a rg u ed fo r ta k in g ysvs^ a t W D 160 as ‘g e n e ra tio n ’, w here th e hero es
are re ferred to as npoxepn ysvs^ Kax’ dnslpova y a la v .14 O n this view
th e h ero es a n d th e m en o f th e p re se n t belo n g to th e sam e yevog,
n am ely th e iro n race, o f w hich th e hero es are early rep resen tativ es,
a n ea rlier g en e ratio n (ysvs^) w ithin th a t ra c e .15 T his w o u ld b rin g
H e sio d ’s a c c o u n t in to line w ith o th e r G re e k th in k in g , w hich tra c e d
th e an cesto rs o f c e rta in h isto rical G reek s b a c k to th e h ero ic p e rio d .16
B u t th e a tte m p t to m a k e th e hero es ju s t an earlier g en e ratio n w ithin
th e race o f iro n seem s to fo u n d e r o n W D 176: ‘now th e k in d /b ree d
is m a d e o f iro n ’ (vuv yap S^ yevog soxi oiS^psov). T h a t em p h atic
‘n o w ’ in d icates th a t it is only th e ‘fifth m e n ’ (W D 174) w ho are
m ad e o f iro n : b y im p lica tio n , th e p reced in g fo u rth m en (the heroes)
12 E.g. G. W. Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth of the five (or three or four) races’, PCPS
43 (1997), pp. 104-27, at pp. 121-2.
13 Except in an obsolete sense recognized by OED: ‘Family, breed, race; class, kind,
or “set” of persons.’ Cf. Stewart, ‘Hesiod and history’, p. 44 n. 17: ‘The word genos
is better translated “generation” - though not one of ours only - or “race” than as
“age”.’ M. Schmidt, ‘yevog’, in B. Snell et al. (eds), Lexikon des fruhgriechischen
Epos (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955-2010), vol. ii, pp. 130-2, at p.
131, gives yevog throughout MoR (WD 109, 121, 127, 140, 143, 156, 159, 173d, 176,
180) and at Il. 12.23 the translation ‘Generation der Menschenheitsgesch[ichte]’
(s.v. yevog 5a), and similarly of ysvs^ at WD 160 (p. 127, s.v. ysvs^ 5b).
14 Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, pp. 112-13; cf. Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 81
and n. 26.
15 Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, p. 10: ‘In effect, [the heroic genos] is not a
separate age, but the first part of the fourth and final age of iron’; J. Rudhardt, ‘Le
mythe hesiodique des races et celui de Promethee: Recherches des structures et des
significations’, in Rudhardt, Du mythe, de la religion grecque et de la comprehension
d’autrui = Revue Europeenne des Sciences Sociales 19 (Geneva: Droz, 1981), pp.
246-81, at p. 249: ‘l’introduction des heros dans le mythe des ages metalliques
n’en altere pas le schema autant qu’il le parait a premiere vue; conformement a la
donnee traditionelle le recit hesiodique connait quatre races creees par les dieux;
son originalite consiste seulement a distinguer deux phases dans l’histoire de la
quatrieme’; Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 113: ‘there is good reason to believe that
Hesiod wanted to suggest not so much that that the heroes belonged to a yevog
different from that of the iron men as rather that both belonged to the same yevog
- call it iron’.
16 M. L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1985), p. 9.
w ere n o t .17 H e sio d ’s is evidently a n a c c o u n t o f five h u m a n races, n o t
fo u r w ith th e fo u rth subdivided in to tw o. A t W D 160 y sv sf is b e tte r
u n d e rs to o d as a synonym o f yevog18 in th e sense o f ‘k in d ’, ‘b re e d ’,
‘ra c e ’.19 T h e re la tio n sh ip betw een th e yevn is n o t expressed in term s
o f g en eratio n s, d espite th e u n d o u b te d im p o rta n c e o f g en eratio n al-
genealogical th in k in g in b o th G reece a n d th e N e a r E a st (cf. e.g.
H d t. 2.121ff. o n th e E g y p tian priests o n th e ir kings: 341 ysvsal w ere
c o u n te d , H d t. 2.142.1; see fu rth e r belo w ).20
T h e m ean in g th a t we m u st accept fo r yevog (a n d y sv sf) in M o R is
‘ra c e ’, ‘b re e d ’ o r sim ilar.21 A co n v en ien t a p p ro x im a tio n is offered by
th e w o rd ’s E nglish co g n ates, ‘k in ’ a n d ‘k in d ’, as in ‘m a n k in d ’, ‘h u m a n
k in d ’ o r ‘n a tu ra l k in d ’.22 T h e p h ra se yevog ^sponrov av0p©nrov23 m ean s
‘th e b re ed o r k in d o f m e n ’, i.e. ‘m a n k in d ’. W e also fin d ‘th e k in d o f
m u les’ (q^iovrov yevog: Il. 2.852), ‘th e k in d o f o x e n ’ (Porov yevog: Od.
20.212, H H e r m 309), ‘th e k in d o f g o d s’ (Th. 21 = 105 a0avaTrov ispov
yevog, ^arap ro v yevog T h . 33, 0srov yevog T h. 44), ‘th e k in d o f m en a n d
[the kind] o f g ia n ts’ (av0p©nrov t s yevog KpaTeprov t s yiyavTrov: T h. 50),
17 According to Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 113 n. 41, ‘this particular race could
already previously have been called by the name of iron, but only now has it
demonstrated . . . that it deserves the name’. But there is little to support a ‘use of
Sf to strengthen the claim that a name is appropriate’ (ibid.). On the other hand,
the emphatic temporal use of vw yap Sf is well attested (cf. Xenophanes fr. 1.1
West vw yap S^ Z^nsSov Ka0apov ktL), and for the antithesis between WD 176
vw yap Sf and 109 nproTioTa, cf. Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, pp. 83-4 ‘Le point
axial de ce temps present, en contraste avec le protista du vers 109, est signifie par
le connecteur nun gar de, “car maintenant precisement”, situe en position forte au
vers 176’, cf. 99. Cf. R. Gagne, ‘Invisible kin: Works and Days 280-285’, Hermes
138 (2010), pp. 1-21 at p. 10.
18 Pace Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, pp. 111- 12.
19 The notion of the heroes as a separate race (yevog or ysvsf) from contemporary
men recurs at Il. 12.23 •q^iBerov yevog avSprov. Cf. R. Scodel, ‘The Achaean wall
and the myth of destruction’, HSCP 86 (1982), pp. 35-50, at p. 35: ‘The phrase
q^iGerov yevog avSprov evokes the Hesiodic depiction of the heroes as a separate
race, for yevog in such a context can mean nothing else.’ Similarly Herodotus’ ‘the
so-called human race’ (T^g . . . av0proTCnvqg Xsyo^evng ysvsflg, 3.122), in an implied
contrast to a heroic ysvsf. For the antithesis in Pindar: "qprosg versus avSpsg, cf.
P. 8.27-8, O. 6.24-5.
20 On ‘genealogical thinking’ in Greece, see R. L. Fowler, ‘Genealogical
thinking, Hesiod’s Catalogue and the creation of the Hellenes’, PCPS 44 (1998),
pp. 1-19.
21 See Schmidt, ‘yevog’; R. D. Woodard, ‘Hesiod and Greek myth’, in Woodard
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), pp. 83-165, at pp. 141-2. Compare the use of qmXov: one
9 ^Xov of men and another of gods, Il. 5.441-2; cf. WD 90 9 CX’ av0pronrov, 199
a0avaTrov . . . qmXov.
22 OED s.v. ‘kind’ 10; cf. s.v. ‘kin’ 5.
23 Three times in MoR (WD 109, 143, 180), otherwise at Cat. fr. 204.98 M-W
and HDem 310, both times in the context of the destruction of mankind. Cf. Th.
50.
‘th e k in d o f sa ty rs’ (Yevog . . . oaxup©v: H es. fr. 10(a).18 M -W ), ‘the
k in d o f w o m e n ’ (Yevog . . . YuvaiK&v: T h . 590), ‘th e k in d o f iro n /b ro n z e ’
(Yevog no^iou dSa^avxog: T h . 161).
H e sio d m ay b e do in g so m eth in g m o re id io sy n cratic th a n is o ften
reco g n ised in m u ltip ly in g th e ‘k in d s’ o f m a n a n d in im plying th e p o s
sibility o f a n indefinite article, ‘a m a n k in d ’, w hich m ay be as m u ch
o f a solecism in G re e k as in E nglish. T his is a h isto ry n o t o f one
h u m a n k in d , b u t a sto ry o f five h u m a n k in d s. T his c o n c ep tio n o f five
h u m a n k in d s is p ro b a b ly as u n co n v e n tio n a l as H e sio d ’s m o re explic
itly rev isio n ist d o ctrin e o f th e tw o Strifes a t th e beg in n in g o f th e poem :
‘th ere is n o t, a fte r all ,24 a single k in d o f Strifes (ouk a p a ^ouvov e^v
’EplSrov Yevog), b u t th ere are tw o o v er th e e a rth ’ (W D 11-12). I t can
h a rd ly be h isto rical th in k in g th a t inspires a sto ry o f this sort. T h ere is
a cru cial difference betw een this c o n c ep tio n a n d a co n c ep tio n o f ages
(epochs), civilisations o r generations.
T echnically th e re la tio n o f these ‘h u m a n k in d s’ to o n e a n o th e r o u g h t
to be n o closer th a n th a t o f H o m o sa p ien s to N e a n d e rth a l, o r even less
close, fo r th ere is n o ch ro n o lo g ical overlap. M o R presen ts these as
discrete successive races, th e o n e race being d estro y e d in n ih il , th e n ext
b eing c reated th e re a fte r e x n ihilo. G enealogical co n tin u ity betw een suc
cessive kin d s th u s seems excluded, a lth o u g h it is co n tro v e rsial w h eth er
co n tin u ity b etw een th e hero es a n d th e iro n race is nevertheless p re
su p p o sed .25 T h e c reatio n o f genealogical ties betw een th e hero es a n d
G reek s o f th e h isto rical p e rio d h a s indeed been seen as a necessary first
step fo r th e creatio n o f a h isto rical a ttitu d e to w a rd s th e h ero ic a g e .26
24 apa . . . &qv: J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford
ouk
University Press, 1950), pp. 36-7; West, Hesiod: Works and Days, p. 143; Rowe,
‘Archaic thought’, p. 133; W. J. Verdenius, A Commentary on Hesiod Works and
Days, vv. 1-382 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), p. 15 and n. 57.
25 Genealogical continuity is assumed by Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, p. 2; Rudhardt,
‘Le mythe hesiodique’, p. 248 and n. 11, cf. pp. 257-8 n. 66; Leclerc, ‘Le mythe des
races’, p. 219; Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 113; C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘The Hesiodic
myth of the five races and the tolerance of plurality in Greek mythology’, in O.
Palagia (ed.), Greek Offerings: Essays on Greek Art in Honour o f John Boardman
(Oxford: Oxbow, 1997), pp. 1-21, at pp. 8 , 11-12. Differently, K. Matthiessen,
‘Form und Funktion des Weltaltermythos bei Hesiod’, in G. W. Bowersock, W.
Burkert and M. C. J. Putnam (eds), Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to B.
M. W. Knox on the Occasion o f his 65 th Birthday (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), pp.
25-32, at p. 31: ‘Wenn nun Hesiod in seiner Erzahlung das Geschlecht der Heroen
vom gegenwartigen eisernen Geschlecht als ein vergangenes abhebt, dann betont
er die Diskontinuitat zwischen den adligen Herren seiner Gegenwart und ihren
angeblichen heroischen Vorfahren. Diese deutlich antiaristokratische Auffassung
entspricht der auch sonst vom SelbstbewuBtsein des Bauernstandes gepragten
Denkweise Hesiods.’
26 F. Graf, Greek Mythology: An Introduction, tr. T. Marier (Baltimore and
London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), pp. 129-30 ‘[The practice of
Y et fo r all th a t genealogical co n tin u ity betw een successive kinds seems
to be excluded in M o R , th e n a rra tiv e still som ehow w ishes, a n d needs,
to be co n sid ered a n a rra tiv e o f a c o n tin u o u s h u m a n h is to ry .27 V erse 108
invites us to u n d e rsta n d H e sio d ’s n a rra tiv e as ‘[a story of] h o w gods
a n d m o rta l m en w ere b o rn o f th e sam e o rig in ’. T his only seems to w o rk
if th e o th e r races are seen as being in a lin ear descent fro m th e golden
race, w ho ‘lived as g o d s ’.28 M o re o v er, th ere seems to be a n in trig u in g
th e m a tic o r e th ic a l p ro g ressio n betw een successive races; ethically the
one race seems to p ick u p w here th e last left off. T o begin w ith, th e m en
o f th e golden race h av e everything they w a n t ap p a re n tly w ith o u t being
spoilt by i t .29 T he m en o f th e silver race are a p p a ren tly heirs to this
extern ally fa v o u re d existence ,30 b u t they are in tern a lly less able to deal
w ith it. T o h av e all o n e w an ts w ith o u t an y effort resem bles th e c o n d i
tio n o f a spoilt ch ild .31 A p p ro p ria te ly , th erefo re, th e silver race live
as p a m p e re d ch ildren fo r one h u n d re d years (130-1), a n d it seems to
follow th a t w hen they reach m a tu rity a refu sal to share leads to hubris
to w a rd s one a n o th e r (134-5) a n d im piety to w ard s th e gods (1 3 5 -7 ).32
T h e m en o f th e b ro n z e race in h erit this p ro p e n sity to h ubris (146) a n d
linking historically real genealogies with those of the heroic age] marked a highly
significant conceptual development . . . The age of the heroes enters into a datable
relation to the present age . . . With the elaboration of a chronology, the Greeks
had a rational way of including the heroic age in their past, which they understood
as a quantifiable time continuum.’ Cf. Smith, ‘History and the individual’, p. 150.
However, this step appears to have been taken already by the time of Homer (cf.
Il. 20.300-8; A. Faulkner, The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Introduction, Text,
and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 5-6) and Hesiod
(cf. Th. 1011-16; N. J. Richardson, Review of P. Drager, Untersuchungen zu den
Frauenkatalogen Hesiods, CR 50 (2000), pp. 263-4, at p. 263), even though they
have a clear sense of the distinctness of the ‘race of heroes’ (Il. 12.23; WD 160).
27 We may compare and contrast, for the continuity of mankind through
heaven-sent destruction, the Mesopotamian flood myth (cf. Atrahasis) and the
Greek Deukalion myth; cf. Plat. Tim. 22a-23a, Laws 677a-c.
28 Cf. B. G. F. Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men in early Greece: Hesiod’s theios aner’,
in A. Coppola (ed.), Eroi, eroismi, eroizzazzioni (Padua: SARGON, 2007), pp.
163-203, at pp. 178-81.
29 Contrast Virg. Geo. 1.121-4.
30 Cf. Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’, p. 253: ‘La race d’argent est moins
bonne [sc. que la race d’or] mais son inferiorite ne reside pas dans les conditions
exterieurs auxquelles elle se trouve soumise. Hesiode ne dit pas que ces conditions
aient change: la terre continue de fournir aux hommes ce qui leur est necessaire et
rien ne leur impose l’obligation de travailler.’
31 For a comparison of the condition of the golden race with childhood, cf.
Smith, ‘History and the individual’, pp. 156-7.
32 Compare and contrast Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, p. 7, on the silver race; J. S.
Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 88;
Stewart, ‘Hesiod and history’, p. 46: ‘[The silver and bronze races] are destroyed
for and by their hubris towards one another.’ Calame, ‘Succession des ages’, p. 76,
describes the silver race as ‘un age adulte abrege par la demesure, la violence et
l’impiete qui conduit ces hommes a une rapide disparition’. The short life of the
are ad d icte d to th e w orks o f w a r (146), in w hich they kill one a n o th e r
(1 5 2 -3 ).33 T h e hero es in th e follow ing race are killed in w ars (161-5),
one o f w hich w as fo u g h t ap p a re n tly betw een tw o b ro th e rs over th eir
p a trim o n y (163 ^apva^evoug ^A rov svsk’ OiSinoSao, w ith echoes o f
Perses a n d H esio d in P olyneikes a n d E teokles, if in d eed it is th eir
d isp u te w hich is m e a n t ),34 a n d th e o th e r w as fo u g h t over H elen, th a t
is, over a g u est’s a b d u c tio n o f his h o s t’s wife. T h e m en o f iro n race are
to be d estro y ed w hen fam ilial a n d social re la tio n s b re a k dow n, so th a t
guest is at o d ds w ith h o st (183 ouSs £,slvog £,sivoS6 k©, sc. o^oliog) a n d
b ro th e r is n o t as b efo re a d e a r one (184 ouSs Kaolyvnxog ^lAog soosxai).
‘N o t . . . as b e fo re ’ (©g to napog nsp, 184); b u t as we h av e seen this did
n o t go u n p ro b lem a tica lly fo r th e race o f hero es either. T h e negative
tra its o f each race a p p e a r to be p asse d o n to its successor .35 T h ere is
th e n an ethical ev o lu tio n , even if a genetic o r genealogical ev o lu tio n
seems ru led out.
W e h av e n o t yet co n sid ered th e asso c ia tio n w ith a m etal th a t is
fo u n d w ith fo u r o f th e five ‘m a n k in d s ’, w hich is p lain ly fu n d a m e n ta l
to a n y u n d e rsta n d in g o f H e sio d ’s co n cep tio n . T h e asso c ia tio n w ith a
m etal ca n be seen as literal o r m e ta p h o ric a l o r b o th .36
(footnote 32 continued)
men of the silver race after reaching maturity may reasonably be seen as caused
by acts of violence (WD 134-5), rather than just genetics (Sourvinou-Inwood,
‘Myth of the five races’, p. 5: ‘their biological cycle’, cf. 2 ‘the “proper” proportion
between childhood and maturity was reversed’; Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 109:
‘biological lore’; cf. Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’, pp. 250, 253). The role of
Zeus in their destruction (WD 138) can be seen as double motivation (cf. WD 239,
245).
33 On the thematic transition from silver race to bronze race, cf. Calame, ‘Succession
des ages’, p. 78: ‘Meme s’il est dit “en rien semblable a la famille d’argent” (vers
144), le genos de bronze partage avec les hommes precedents des traits assez
nombreux pour s’inscrire dans leur suite non seulement du point de vue temporel,
mais egalement du point de vue semantique. Comme les hommes d’argent, les
hommes tout de bronze vetus font preuve d’une folie et d’une demesure qui les
engage a retourner leur violence contre eux-memes.’
34 So West, Hesiod: Works and Days , p. 192; differently, Verdenius, Commentary,
p. 101.
35 An anticipation of the degenerate ethos of the iron race is seen in the race
of heroes by Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’, p. 257: ‘C’est donc l’immoralite
qui caracterise la race de fer et produit sa degenerescence. Elle se trouvait sans
doute en germe dans la race des heros dont certains representants s’adonnerent
a l’injustice et a la demesure, meme si elle n’etait pas alors si generale’; p. 258 (on
the heroes): ‘Les uns plus justes, les autres plus enclins a lhybris, leurs actions se
combinent, produisent des consequences et l’humanite evolue. A partir de la race
des heros que leurs qualites apparentent aux dieux, cette evolution produit la race
de fer qui lui est inferieure’; cf. p. 261.
36 Cf. Baldry, ‘Who invented the golden age?’, p. 86: ‘How far were the words
literally meant, and how far was their use metaphorical or symbolic? For Hesiod
the question probably did not exist. His “bronze race” and “iron race” are so
T ak in g th e m etallic asso c ia tio n literally w o u ld p e rm it o n e to see
M o R as a h isto ry o f m a n k in d th ro u g h tech n o lo g ical, a n d specifically
m etallu rg ical, in n o v atio n s. W e m ig h t co m p a re L u c re tiu s’ a c c o u n t o f
early m a n , w hose w eapons p ro g ressed fro m h a n d s, nails a n d teeth to
stones a n d b ra n ch es to fire to b ro n z e a n d finally ir o n .37 R eal h isto rical
th in k in g ca n b e in p la y here; a sim ilar co n c ep tio n , afte r all, u n d e r
lies th e m o d e rn arch ae o lo g ic al-h isto ric al categories o f ‘S to n e A g e’,
‘B ro n ze A g e’ a n d ‘Iro n A g e’. Such w as th e view o f J. G . G riffiths:
‘[W D 150-1] m ak es [H esiod’s] id ea clear. T h e “b ro n z e ra c e ” lived
u n til th e discovery o f a new m etal, th a t is iro n . A p a rt fro m these lines,
it is tru e , th e re is n o m e n tio n o f th e use o f m etals . . . B u t th e re can
be little d o u b t th a t this is th e u n d erly in g idea. I f th e p o e t h a d chosen
th e m etals m erely as sym bols o f in creasing d eg e n era tio n , h e w o u ld
n o t h a v e re ferred so clearly to th e use o f tw o o f th e m .’ F o r G riffiths,
M o R w as ‘a n am alg a m o f h isto ry a n d m y th , w here m y th u n d o u b te d ly
p re d o m in a te s b u t w here h isto ry lies b e h in d th e sequence o f m e ta ls ’.38
O n th is view M o R w o u ld preserve a h isto rical m em o ry o f p eo p le first
w idely using gold, th e n silver, th e n b ro n z e, th e n ir o n .39
T his is n o t th e p lace to p u rsu e th e q u estio n s w h e th e r th ere really
w as an y such h isto rical m em o ry in H e sio d ’s tim e o r w h e th e r th ere
ever h a d b een such a h isto rical reality to be rem em b ered ; a m o re
u rg e n t q u estio n is w h e th e r such a h isto rical in te rp re ta tio n is su p
p o rte d b y H e sio d ’s language. T h e m o st n a tu ra l u n d e rsta n d in g o f 109
a n d 128 is, surely, ‘th e gods m a d e a race o f m en o u t o f go ld (silver)’,
w ith th e adjectives as p re d ic ativ e co m p lem en ts o f nolnoav d en o tin g
th e su b stan ce o u t o f w hich these first tw o h u m a n k in d s w ere fa sh
io n e d .40 T h e b ro n z e race deviates fro m th is (W D 143-51), b u t th e
d ev iatio n is signalled by tw o ad d itio n s: this race w as m a d e ‘fro m ash
tre e s’ (W D 145), i.e. w as n o t fa sh io n e d fro m th e m etal in q u estion;
a n d th is race u sed b ro n z e fo r every th in g u n d e r th e sun (W D 150-1).
T h a t is, th e b ro n z e race, fo r w h o m th e asso c ia tio n w ith a m etal is
called because they use these metals . . . , but he does not explain - and presumably
did not ask himself - in what sense the first race was xpuoeov.’
37 Lucr. 5.1281-96. Cf. Lucr. 5.1241-2. J. G. Griffiths, ‘Archaeology and Hesiod’s
five ages’, JH I 17 (1956), pp. 109-19, at p. 114.
38 Griffiths, ‘Archaeology and Hesiod’s five ages’, quotations from pp. 112 and 119.
H. C. Baldry, ‘Hesiod’s five ages’, JH I 17 (1956), pp. 553-4, esp. p. 553, is a reply to
Griffiths, ‘Archaeology and Hesiod’s five ages’ (and Griffiths, ‘Did Hesiod invent
the golden age?’, JH I 19 (1958), pp. 91-3 is a reply to Baldry, ‘Hesiod’s five ages’).
39 Griffiths also suggests that historical memory lies behind the metallic myths
of the Near East: Griffiths, ‘Archaeology and Hesiod’s five ages’, pp. 115-19.
40 With the idea that humankind might be ‘made of’ gold or silver, compare
womankind (Pandora) as made of earth and water (WD 61), men being made from
ash trees (WD 145: bronze race), men made from stones in the Deukalion myth (cf.
‘Hes.’ Cat. fr. 234 M-W, Pind. O.9.42-6).
literal, rep resen ts a clear d e p a rtu re fro m th e schem e th a t h a s o b ta in e d
th u s fa r in th e n a rra tiv e .
T a k e n m etap h o ric ally , o n th e o th e r h a n d , th e asso c ia tio n o f the
races w ith a m etal w o u ld be a w ay o f expressing th e differing eth o s
o f th ese v ario u s ‘h u m a n k in d s’. W e m ig h t co m p a re S em onides fr. 7
W est, o n w o m an k in d : ‘g o d first m ad e th e m in d o f w o m an in differ
e n t ways: o n e [he m ade] fro m a sh ag g y -h aired sow ’ - a n d th e o th ers
h e m a d e fro m a vixen, a b itch , th e e a rth , th e sea, a n ass, a w easel, a
m o n k ey a n d a bee. N o t so dissim ilar (b u t w ith reversed sexism ) is the
E n g lish n u rse ry rhym e: ‘W h a t are little boys m a d e of? / F ro g s a n d
snails / A n d p u p p y -d o g s ’ tails / . . . W h a t are little girls m a d e of? /
S u g ar a n d spice / A n d all th in g s n ic e .’ A g a in th is is n o t very h isto rical,
o r very scientific, th in k in g . R . G . A . B u x to n is rig h t to observe th a t in
M o R ‘m etals are u sed to m a k e statem en ts a b o u t th e m o ra l w o rld ’41
a n d to recognise th a t this co n stitu te s a difference betw een ‘tra d itio n a l’
a n d ‘scientific’ - we m ig h t a d d ‘h isto ric a l’ - categories o f th o u g h t .42 B.
M . W . K n o x h a s also k n o ck e d o n th e h e a d th e k in d o f h isto rical in te r
p re ta tio n a rg u e d fo r by G riffiths: ‘T h ere is n o t m u ch use p re te n d in g
th a t H e sio d is th in k in g in m o d e rn term s o f th e B ro n ze a n d Iro n ages;
fo r one th in g his ow n age u sed b ro n z e as well as iro n a n d so, clearly,
d id th e H o m eric hero es o f th e fo u rth age. A n d th e gold a n d silver ages
h av e to be p asse d o v er in silence .’43
I t m u st be rig h t th a t th e b asic c o n c ep tio n u n d erly in g H e sio d ’s
m etallic schem e is th e m e ta p h o ric a l one. B ut th ere is n o re aso n w hy
th e schem e sh o u ld be m o n o v alen t: n o re a so n w hy th e m etals sh o u ld
n o t s ta rt o ff b eing u sed sym bolically w ith th e go ld a n d silver races, b u t
th e n also acq u ire a literal dim en sio n w ith th e b ro n z e a n d iro n races.
A q u asi-h isto rica l n o tio n seems to be g ra fte d o n w ith these tw o races;
th ere seems little p o in t otherw ise in insisting th a t th e b ro n z e race used
b ro n z e becau se ‘b lack iro n d id n o t exist’ ( W D 151). O ne o f th e w ays in
w hich H o m eric epic seem s keen to d istin g u ish th e w o rld o f th e heroes
fro m th e c o n te m p o ra ry w o rld is th e ir in h a b ita n ts ’ differential uses
o f b ro n z e a n d iro n , a n d this seems to be a w ay o f c a p tu rin g genuine
h isto rical difference betw een th e M y ce n aea n a n d th e a rch aic w o rld s .44
T h e tra d itio n (p ro b a b ly N e a r E astern : see below ) th a t gave H e sio d th e
41 Cf. already ‘Socrates’ at Plat. Crat. 398a4-6: ‘I think that [Hesiod] spoke of
the golden race not as created from gold, but as noble and fine.’
42 Buxton, Imaginary Greece, pp. 202-4, at pp. 203 and 204.
43 B. M. W. Knox, ‘Work and justice in archaic Greece’, in Knox, Essays: Ancient
and Modern (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), p. 12.
44 Cf. Most, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, pp. 122-3. Differently, West, Hesiod: Works and Days,
pp. 188-9: ‘probably due more to the conservatism of the formulaic language . . .
than to deliberate avoidance of anachronism’.
(m eta p h o rical) m etallic schem e g o ld -s ilv e r-b ro n z e -iro n is evidently
d istin ct fro m th e G re e k epic tra d itio n , w hich im plicitly c o n tra s te d th e
b y g o n e h ero es as p re d o m in a n tly (literal) users o f b ro n z e w ith c o n te m
p o ra ry m en as p re d o m in a n tly (literal) users o f iro n ; b u t H e sio d fo u n d
a n e a t w ay o f co m b in in g th e tw o tra d itio n s .45 T h a n k s to this c o m b in a
tio n his a c c o u n t w ins a genuine h isto rical dim ension. B u t th e h is to ri
cal th in k in g in q u estio n is th e p ro d u c t o f th e h ero ic epic tra d itio n , a n d
c a n n o t be co n sid ered a n o rig in al in tellectu al c o n trib u tio n o f H esiod.
49 Cf. Koenen, ‘Greece, the Near East and Egypt’, p. 8 : ‘the paradigm of the heroic
age exemplifies the possibility of reversal, for, at that time, humankind was better
and more just than in the previous ages (SiKaioxspov Kai apsiov, 158). The dete
rioration in the other series of ages is underscored by the descending value of the
metals - gold, silver, bronze, and iron . . . Because the age of heroes reverses this
deterioration and is not named after a metal, it is not fully integrated into the rest
of the series and signals the possibility of a return to the better.’ Most, ‘Hesiod’s
myth’, p. 119: ‘the heroes hold out to us paradigms of good and bad behaviour
in which our own possibilities for success or failure are spelled out in a grander
and more intelligible form. They share our biological constitution and our moral
chances in a way that the golden, silver, and bronze men did not . . . We may see
in them models of moral choice which we can choose to emulate or to avoid.’
Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’, p. 256: ‘A la difference de toutes les races ante-
rieures, la race heroique et la race de fer sont formees d’individus differencies,
appeles chacun d’un nom propre, et qui n’ont pas tous de pareilles qualites et de
pareils defauts’; cf. p. 258. Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men’, pp. 169-71.
50 Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, p. 15: ‘The truth is that men through justice and
work can improve their condition. The righteous city has much of the happi
ness and abundance of the golden age’; J.-P. Vernant, ‘Hesiod’s myth of the
races: An essay in structural analysis’, in Vernant, Myth and Thought Among the
Greeks, tr. of Mythe et pensee chez les Grecs (London and Boston: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1983), pp. 3-32, at pp. 10 and 28 n. 39; Knox, ‘Work and
justice’, pp. 15-16; Querbach, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 6 ; P. Rousseau, ‘Instruire
Perses: Notes sur l’ouverture des Travaux d’Hesiode’, in F. Blaise, P. Judet de
La Combe and P. Rousseau (eds), Le metier du mythe: Lecture d’Hesiode (Lille:
Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1996), pp. 93-167, at p. 156 n. 163; Calame,
‘Succession des ages’, p. 89. Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men’, p. 170.
giving p ro sp e rity a n d a flo u rish in g p ro g e n y to th e ju s t m a n , w hile th e
p ro g e n y o f th e u n ju st m a n is b lig h te d .51
A n o th e r p assag e o f W D w hich im p o rta n tly co n tin u es th e dialectic
w ith M o R is th e ‘n a u tilia ’ (618-94, esp. 632-62). H ere, in th e co n tex t
o f his sea-passage fro m A ulis to C halcis, th e n a r r a to r m en tio n s th e
‘A c h a e a n s’ w h o once sailed fro m G reece to T ro y (W D 651-3). T hese
A c h aea n s are, o f course, id en tical w ith th e hero es o f M o R w hom
w a r ‘b ro u g h t in th e ir ships over th e g reat expanse o f sea to T ro y
fo r th e sake o f fa ir-h a ire d H e le n ’ (W D 164-5). T h e A m p h id am as
fo r w h o se fu n e ral gam es th e n a r r a to r cro ssed fro m A ulis to E u b o e a
w as, acco rd in g to P lu ta rc h (S e p t. sap. conv. 153F), a ca su alty o f th e
L ela n tin e W a r, a c o n te m p o ra ry conflict w hich, if any, m ig h t be seen
as a la tte r-d a y T ro ja n W a r (co m p are th e re m a rk s o f A rch ilo ch u s,
fr. 3 W est, a n d T h u cy d id es, 1.15.3); th e e p ith e t Safypovog (W D 654)
m a y h in t a t his w a rrio r statu s. A m p h id a m a s’ fu n e ral gam es w ith
th e ir lavish p rizes (W D 6 5 5 -6 ) evoke a h e ro ic m o d el, m o st o b v i
ously P a tro k lo s ’ fu n e ra l gam es in th e tw e n ty -th ird b o o k o f th e Ilia d .
P erh a p s A m p h id a m a s w as even h ero ised , as o th e r casualties o f th e
L elan tin e W a r m a y h av e b e e n .52 B u t if A m p h id a m a s is h o n o u ra b ly
a p p ro x im a te d to th e h ero es, th e n a r r a to r in this passag e is, n o less
h o n o u ra b ly , c o n tr a s te d w ith th e A ch aean s. T h ey sailed fro m G reece
to T ro y (‘o v er a g re at expanse o f sea’) a n d w ere killed in w ar; h e sailed
(a v oyage o f som e h u n d re d y ard s) fro m A ulis to E u b o e a to triu m p h in
a singing co n test. T h ere is, fu rth e r, a stro n g c o n tra s t betw een th e n a r
ra to r a n d his ow n fa th e r. T he la tte r sailed freq u en tly (tcAMZsok’) fo r
w a n t o f a g o o d livelihood, a n d w as given p o v e rty by Z eus (W D 634,
638). B y c o n tra s t th e n a r r a to r h a s nev er sailed b u t once, w hen h e was
en ric h ed w ith a trip o d w hich h e p ro m p tly reinvested in th e eco n o m y
o f th e sacred b y d ed icatin g it to th e M uses, th ro u g h w h o m h e know s
th e m in d o f Z eus ( W D 6 5 0 -1 , 661). T h e n a r r a to r - ‘H e sio d ’53 - leads
a life o f self-sufficiency, ex e m p tio n fro m sea-faring, a n d g o o d re la
tio n s w ith th e gods. H is life th u s quietly evokes th a t o f th e m en o f th e
go ld en race. H is life seems m o re stra ig h tfo rw a rd ly po sitiv e in ethical
term s th a n th e largely po sitiv e b u t also so m ew h at am b iv alen t lives o f
th e h ero es a n d A m p h id am as.
T h e p reced in g tells us som ething a b o u t H e sio d ’s view o f h u m a n
h isto ry . A first a n d im p o rta n t p o in t to be m ad e concerns H e sio d ’s
w ay o f d isco u rsing a b o u t th e p a s t (ra th e r th a n ju st his view o f the
54 E.g. D. O. Ross, Virgil’s Elements: Physics and Poetry in the Georgics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 109-28; J. J. O’Hara, Inconsistency in
Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 83-4.
55 Cf. Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, p. 15: ‘The myth is a paradigm, an exemplum of his
argument, a synchronic scheme presented as history . . . There are silver, bronze,
and iron men among his contemporaries - and there are some golden men too,
though now they live under Zeus and have to work for their bread’; Matthiessen,
‘Form und Funktion des Weltaltermythos bei Hesiod’, p. 28; Rowe, ‘Archaic
thought’, p. 134; Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men’, p. 169. MoR is analysed rather
differently as synchronic not diachronic (as structural not genetic) by Vernant,
‘Hesiod’s myth of the races’, esp. pp. 5-6; cf. V. Goldschmidt, ‘Theologia’, REG
63 (1950), pp. 20-42, at pp. 33-9.
56 Cf. Matthiessen, ‘Form und Funktion’, p. 27; Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’,
p. 256; Querbach, ‘Hesiod’s myth’, p. 3; Leclerc, ‘Le mythe des races’, p. 210;
Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Myth of the five races’, p. 8; Calame, ‘Succession des ages’,
p. 79 and n. 22.
re c e p tio n .57 T h e p o e m as a w hole show s us h o w to ‘re a d ’ M o R , w ith
a t least tw o shifts o f perspective. F irst, as we h av e alre ad y n o te d , w h a t
sta rts o ff as a d ia c h ro n ic a c c o u n t gets re in te rp re te d as a sy nchronic
acco u n t. Second, th e re is a progressive n a rro w in g o f focus, w hereby
w h a t w as p re se n te d to begin w ith, in M o R , as a fate befalling a w hole
yevog in d iscrim in ately (b u t w ith a d istin c tio n m a d e fo r th e heroes:
W D 166-8) gets successively redefined: first, in th e d iptych, as th e
fate b efallin g o n e w hole city -state (W D 240 ^ u ^ n a o a no^ig) b u t n o t
an o th e r; second, in th e ‘syncrisis’ a n d n a u tilia sections, as th e fate
befalling o n e in d iv id u al b u t n o t a n o th e r .58 T he progressive n a rro w in g
o f focus m ean s th a t th e ‘lesso n ’ o f ‘h is to ry ’ is devolved o n to us w ith
in creasin g im m e d ia cy :59 th e co n d itio n s o f o u r life are largely o f o u r
ow n m a k in g .60 E ven n o w th e life o f th e golden race m ay be, to an
ex ten t, re co v erab le .61
57 Plat. Crat. 398a8-b1; Orph. fr. 216 Bernabe (Proclus in Plat. Resp. 2.74.26 Kroll);
Isodorus apud Suda s.v. Zapamrov. People of the present after their death likened
to the golden race: Plat. Rep. 468e4-469a3; Heracl. 22 B63 D-K (C. H. Kahn, The
Art and Thought o f Heraclitus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979),
pp. 254-6, 261; T. M. Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1987), pp. 125-6). See Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men’, pp. 171 and
n. 38, 191 n. 157.
58 In the ‘syncrisis’ the individuals are left indefinite (Tig, og Ss k s ), but named
in the nautilia (the narrator ‘Hesiod’ versus his father and Amphidamas).
59 Cf. Gagne, ‘Invisible kin’, p. 13: ‘The degressive sequence Race-City-
Family is clear.’
60 Fontenrose, ‘Work, justice’, pp. 15-16: ‘when rulers and citizens are just, Zeus
and the gods prosper their cities, and they come near to the happy existence of
the golden men and of the heroes in the Blessed Isles (225-37). In Hesiod’s age, as
distinct from the iron age of myth, men can live this happier life, if they follow the
ordinance of work and the way of justice.’ Rudhardt, ‘Le mythe hesiodique’, p.
261: ‘les hommes sont aujourd’hui responsables de leur propre destin. Le malheur
qui les accable resulte de leurs propres fautes.’ Leclerc, ‘Le mythe des races’, p. 220:
‘Suspendus entre l’age anterieur, qui offre un modele de justice et une promesse de
recompense, et l’age posterieur, qui en est l’inverse exact, les auditeurs d’Hesiode
doivent choisir. La curieuse expression “plut au ciel que je fusse ou mort plus
tot ou ne plus tard” [WD 174-5] pourrait temoigner, plutot que d’une concep
tion cyclique du temps, de la confiance d’Hesiode dans un avenir qui, “hommes
et dieux ayant meme origine” [cf. WD 108], reste ouvert a des evolutions posi
tives’; ibid.: ‘Il y a ce qui nous echappe: l’etat dans lequel nous a mis revolution
du monde voulue par les dieux; il y a ce qui nous revient: la maniere dont nous
disposons de cet etat est de notre responsabilite.’ Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Myth of
the five races’, pp. 10- 11, 16 (downward movement and an upward movement).
Cf. G. W. Most, Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia (Loeb Classical
Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. xli. Currie, ‘Heroes
and holy men’, p. 169.
61 N. Brout, ‘La mauve ou l’asphodele ou Comment manger pour s’elever au-dessus
de la condition humaine’, DHA 29/2 (2003), pp. 97-108; Currie, ‘Heroes and holy
men’, pp. 165-85.
CONFRONTATION OF MoR WITH THE MYTH OF
PROMETHEUS AND PANDORA
A key q u estio n in ev a lu a tin g M o R as a p ro to -h isto ric a l a c c o u n t is
w h a t claim to tru th it m akes. T his q u estio n is raised in p a rtic u la r by
th e W a h rh eitsa n sp ru ch a t th e beginning o f each H esiodic p o em ( W D
10, T h. 2 6 -8 ).62 R osen m ey er surely exaggerates H e sio d ’s c o m m it
m en t to tr u th w hen h e w rites o f ‘H e sio d ’s striking insistence o n the
im p o rta n c e o f his ow n p erso n a n d o n th e veracity o f his ac co u n t; an
insistence w hich is eq u alled b y H e catae u s la te r o n . . . H esiod, in his
em p h asis o n th e tru th , sets h im self a p a rt fro m th e lies, th e illusory
b e a u ty a n d p o lish o f th e epic p o e try . . . T ru th is th e ch ief objective
o f H e sio d ’s e n te rp rise .’63 O thers, fo r in stan ce Leclerc, h av e seen it as
a consciously fic tio n a l d isco u rse .64 It is re aso n ab le to be suspicious
o f atte m p ts to hive o ff M o R fro m o th e r p a rts o f th e n a rra tiv e o f the
E rg a , such as th e m y th o f P ro m eth eu s a n d P a n d o ra a n d th e fable o f
th e h a w k a n d th e nigh tin g ale, a n d claim a q u ite special veridical statu s
fo r M o R .65
T h e re la tio n sh ip betw een M o R a n d th e m y th o f P ro m eth eu s a n d
P a n d o ra (W D 4 8-105; h e n c e fo rth P ro m P a n d ) is p a rtic u la rly im p o r
ta n t fo r th e q u estio n o f w h a t k in d o f n a rra tiv e a b o u t th e p a s t each is.
F o r if th e tw o n a rra tiv e s stra ig h tfo rw a rd ly conflict, it w o u ld a p p e a r
th a t H e sio d c a n n o t be in th e business o f u n co v erin g h isto rical t r u t h .66
T h e tw o n a rra tiv e s are o ften seen as sim ply in c o m p a tib le .67 B ut
eq u ally it is h a r d n o t to be stru ck b y th e th e m a tic links th a t ca n be
Herodotus to include some false versions and not others? Despite the commonly
held view that he is unable to resist any really good story, Herodotus’ false versions
of events almost always contain identifiable themes that are significant in the
Histories as a whole’; p. 68: ‘two versions of a story exist, neither is contradicted
by material evidence, but both contain themes that interest Herodotus. In this case
Herodotus tells both versions without discrimination or disclaimer.’
78 Rowe, ‘Archaic thought’, p. 134: ‘[Hesiod] proceeds as he does in the case of
the myths of Prometheus and Pandora and the Five Races, and elsewhere, not
because of a lack of capacity on his part, or of the “primitiveness” of his habits
of thought, but rather because of the nature of his fundamental preoccupations:
it is that in the end the business of explanation, in the sense of looking for causes,
matters rather less to him than reflection of a different sort, and especially of a
moralising sort’; cf. Rowe, Essential Hesiod (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1978),
p. 7: ‘It is typical of Hesiod’s methods of composition generally . . . that he works
in sections . . . What is particularly interesting is that even adjoining sections are
often developed independently of each other, so that they say things which seem
either incompatible, or at least difficult to reconcile . . . [This habit of Hesiod’s of
composing in what are almost watertight, self-contained units] has something to
do with the absence from Hesiod of a clear distinction between what isfactual and
what is non-factual. Questions of compatibility worry us because of our obsession
with the idea that there is, ideally, only a single proper way of describing what is the
case or was the case; and Hesiod does not share this obsession.’ Buxton, Imaginary
Greece, pp. 178-9: ‘What concerns us here is . . . the fact that immediately after
the Prometheus/Pandora explanation of why things are so rough nowadays comes
a story which is explicitly said by Hesiod to be a different one . . . The point to
note is that there is no way in which the two stories can be exactly integrated with
one another . . . To accuse Hesiod of inconsistency, of being unable to sustain
a logical argument, would be wholly to misunderstand him. He signals the fact
that the two stories are different. The contrast between past and present is there
in each case, but is worked out in different ways, first with an emphasis on guile
and concealment, then through a set of variations on the opposition between fair
dealing and aggressive violence. The compatibility of alternatives is basic to Greek
mythology. We come back to the question of belief, and of proverbs. “Look at it
this way; or if you like, look at it this way”’; cf. pp. 163-4.
79 Cf. T. J. Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 15, taking a different view from Buxton,
Imaginary Greece, pp. 163-4.
is th a t it risks leaving to o little difference betw een M o R a n d th e fable
(W D 20 2 -1 2 ), a m o ralisin g n a rra tiv e w ith n o p re te n sio n s to describe
th e real w o rld (as M o R , in places, a p p a re n tly does have). C a n we be
h a p p y to ac c o rd M o R j u s t th e statu s o f a p a ra b le ?80 W e m a y also
h esitate in an early G re e k co n tex t to c o n tra st a d esc rip tio n o f th e real
w o rld th a t leads to scientific (h isto rical o r physical) ex p lan a tio n s o f
th e w o rld ’s p rocesses w ith a n a c c o u n t th a t p u rp o rts (a t least) to be
o f th e real w o rld b u t leads to th e fo rm u la tio n o f m o ra l tru th s . T h e
difficulty h ere is th a t th e physical a n d h isto rical in v estig atio n s o f
A n a x im a n d e r a n d H e ro d o tu s them selves u ltim ate ly serve to d e m o n
strate th e o p e ra tio n in th e ph y sical a n d h u m a n w orlds o f d ik e a n d tisis:
tw o d istin ctly m o ra l, a n d very H esiodic, c o n c e p ts .81 A n ov errid in g
co n c ern w ith m o ra l prin cip les th a t u n d erlie th e w o rk in g o f th e w o rld
does n o t clearly distinguish H e sio d fro m th e early G re ek scientist o r
h is to ria n .82
A th ird a p p ro a c h is to ta k e th e ensem ble ‘P ro m P a n d + M o R ’ as
self-refuting in so fa r as som e o f its p a rts c o n tra d ic t o n e a n o th e r, b u t
as self-validating in so fa r as o th e r o f its p a r ts agree. In this w ay the
ju x ta p o s itio n o f th e tw o ac co u n ts can reveal th e tru th as m u ch as the
fiction. It is th e coincidence in th e ‘su b stra te ’ o f P ro m P a n d a n d M o R
th a t will in d icate w h a t sh o u ld c o u n t as ‘tru e ’.83 G u id e d by H e sio d ’s
tw o co n tig u o u s ac co u n ts we (H e sio d ’s audience) m ay co n stru c t o u r
ow n n a rra tiv e o f h u m a n h isto ry a p p ro x im a te ly as follow s: m a n k in d
h a s h a d a very lo n g h isto ry ; m en w ere once m u ch closer to th e gods;
life fo r m a n w as once m u ch b e tte r th a n it is now ; w hile th ere h a s been
a succession o f cu ltu ra l a n d tech n o lo g ical d ev elopm ents, th ere h as
also been in ta n d e m w ith these a n ethical d e te rio ra tio n a n d a n in cre as
ing alien a tio n o f m a n fro m th e gods; yet in th e p a s t th a t d e te rio ra tio n
a n d alien a tio n co u ld be arrested , a n d so (a n d h ere com es th e ‘lesso n ’
o f h isto ry ) it ca n be arre ste d ag ain in th e p re se n t a n d th e fu tu re. Such
a p ro c e d u re o f in clu d in g m u tu a lly self-refuting ac co u n ts th a t are also
84 Flory, Archaic Smile, p. 70: ‘Often Herodotus tells a story in two or more variants
without any comment about their relative truth or falsity. Is he reluctant or for
some reason unable to make a judgment? Yet these variant versions rarely present
clearly opposed points of view or important contradictions but actually confirm
a single point of view he wishes to establish’; p. 70: ‘Herodotus gives two versions
of how [Cambyses’ wife] angers her husband . . . [3.32]. Both versions, and that
is their purpose, make a similar point about Cambyses’ violent and impetuous
character . . . This fact Herodotus does not question. The effect of his alternative
stories about Cambyses is not to introduce a note of caution or uncertainty about
what actually happened, but just the opposite. He emphasizes Cambyses’ stupidity
and cruelty even more intensely through two stories with a similar point.’
85 Somewhat in this vein Leclerc, ‘Le mythe des races’, pp. 223-4, distinguishes
between ‘coffrage’ and ‘l’essentiel’ of MoR. Cf. Stewart, ‘Hesiod and history’, p.
44: ‘Obviously Hesiod is not interested in the literal details of the two stories but in
their general agreement on “ideological” matters.’ This route is rejected by Rowe,
‘Archaic thought’, p. 132: ‘They [sc. PromPand and MoR] follow the same broad
pattern, in the shape of the idea of man’s fall from an original and better state.
But this cannot by itself be the common truth Hesiod is trying to convey, since if
it were, we should have to treat the myths as such simply as fictional elaborations
of a basic theme; and this they cannot be, unless the Prometheus episode in the
Theogony is fiction too - and that will take the rest of the Theogony with it. But
how can the Theogony be fiction? It bears all the marks of serious theology.’
86 The methods of Hesiod and Hecataeus are contrasted rather than compared by
Bertelli, ‘Hecataeus’, pp. 82-3; V. Pirenne-Delforge, ‘Under which conditions
did the Greeks “believe” in their myths? The religious criteria of adherence’,
in U. Dill and C. Walde (eds), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen und
Konstruktionen (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009), pp. 38-54, at p. 48.
ag ain can be a rg u e d to do so m eth in g very sim ilar, to w o rk his read ers
sim ilarly h a r d .87
P ro b a b ly n o n e o f these a p p ro a c h e s to th e p ro b le m o f P ro m P a n d
a n d M o R can fully satisfy. Y e t it is a m erit o f th e th ird is th a t it tak es
seriously th e presence o f striking a n d extensive co rresp o n d en ces
betw een P ro m P a n d a n d M o R . T w o th in g s in all this are w o rth e m p h a
sising. F irst, H e sio d surely ju x ta p o se s P ro m P a n d a n d M o R w ith
som e u n d e rsta n d in g o f his ow n as to h o w th ey cohere, b u t th a t u n d e r
stan d in g rem ain s entirely im plicit: we can do n o m o re th a n im p u te
an u n d e rsta n d in g to him . A n d second, th e size o f th e g ap th a t we
perceive betw een H e sio d a n d H e ro d o tu s dep en d s o n h o w we choose
to n u a n c e o u r co n c ep tio n n o t ju s t o f H e sio d ’s b u t also o f H e ro d o tu s ’
h isto rio g ra p h ic a l m eth o d .
101 Cf. S. Scullion, ‘Herodotus and Greek religion’, in C. Dewald and J. Marincola
(eds), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), pp. 192-208, at pp. 198-204.
102 On this expedient of postulating homonymies, cf. Veyne, Did the Greeks?, pp. 75
and 147 n. 154.
103 Koenen, ‘Greece, the Near East and Egypt’, pp. 24-5, disputes that the metallic
scheme is Near Eastern.
deity reco g n izable to c o n te m p o ra rie s (w hich is n o t to say th a t m o d e rn
sch olars ca n agree w ho m a d e u p th ese tw o g ro u p s ) .104
T his c o n stru c tio n o f H e sio d ’s p ro c e d u re in M o R a ttrib u te s a n o ta b le
c o m m o n m e th o d o lo g y to H e sio d a n d H e ro d o tu s. (1) T here is th e cog
nizan ce o f altern ativ e a n d d iscre p an t acco u n ts in G reece a n d th e N e a r
E ast as a resu lt o f w ide d ata -g a th e rin g th ro u g h H e ro d o te a n h istorie
a n d H e sio d ic p o ly m a th ie (cf. H eracl. fr. 22 B40 D -K ). (2) T h ere is th e
identificatio n o f these acco u n ts as co m p etin g acco u n ts o f th e sam e
situ atio n a n d th u s a n eed to resolve th e conflict. (3) T h e re so lu tio n
involves a m u ltip licatio n o f term s, so th a t identification o f G re ek w ith
N e a r E astern term s becom es possible w hile conflict is avoided. (4) T h e
so lu tio n is ju stified by a n ap p e al to th e ‘evidence’ o f tra d itio n (cult a n d
m y th ) to su p p o rt th e new term s in tro d u ce d . (5) T he tra d itio n a l G reek
c h ro n o lo g y is radically revised a n d becom es vastly m o re extended.
T h is is o f co u rse a speculative a c c o u n t o f h o w a n d w hy H e sio d m ay
h av e a p p ro x im a te d a G re ek tra d itio n o f h u m a n h isto ry to a p u ta tiv e
N e a r E a ste rn sto ry o f h u m a n h isto ry . I t will be clear, how ever, h o w
such a n a c c o u n t p arallels o u r th in k in g a b o u t h o w a n d w hy H esio d
m ay h av e a p p ro x im a te d th e n a rra tiv e s o f P ro m P a n d a n d M o R . In
each case we see a co n c ern to estab lish coherence betw een altern ativ e
v ersions o f th e p a st. T his co n cern fo r coherence c o u ld b e in te rp re te d
as a co n c ern fo r h isto rical tru th , b u t it is fa r fro m clear th a t it m u s t o r
sh o u ld be. T h e difficulty is th a t coherence is n o t ju s t a crite rio n o f tru th
b u t ca n also b e a m o re p u re ly ae sth etic quality. W h e n a rch aic G re ek
p o ets offered a new version o f a tra d itio n a l tale they typically to o k
p ain s to m a k e th e new version co h ere in ce rta in key details w ith the
o ld .105 B u t it w o u ld be ra sh to assum e th ey m u st h av e d o n e so because
o f a co n v ictio n o f th e h isto ric a l tru th o f th e details re ta in e d .106 T his
104 Cf. Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos, pp. 89-90; Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Myth of the five
races’, pp. 6-9; Currie, ‘Heroes and holy men’, p. 168 n. 27.
105 See, famously, Pind. O. 1.26b-27, with J. G. Howie, ‘The revision of myth in
Pindar Olympian 1: The death and revival of Pelops (25-27; 36-66)’, P L L S 4
(1983), pp. 277-313, at p. 288: ‘The audience can . . . simultaneously see the roots
of both the traditional myth and the revised version in these lines’; E. Krummen,
Pyrsos Hymnon: Festliche Gegenwart und mythisch-traditionelle Tradition als
Voraussetzung einer Pindarinterpretation (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter,
1990), p. 176: ‘Pindar behalt offensichtlich Struktur und Material des alten
Mythos . . . vollstandig, wie sie uberliefert sind, bei, gibt ihnen aber als ganzes
eine neue Erklarung.’ See Currie, Pindar and the Cult o f Heroes, pp. 50-2; Currie,
‘L’Ode 11 di Bacchilide: il mito delle Pretidi nella lirica corale, nella poesia epica e
nella mitografia’, in E. Cingano (ed.), Trapanellenismo e tradizioni locali: Generi
poetici e storiografia (Alexandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2010), pp. 211-53, at pp.
222-3, for further examples and references.
106 The assumption is often made, e.g. W. Kullmann, ‘Oral poetry theory and neo
analysis in Homeric research’, GRBS 25 (1984), pp. 307-23, at p. 313: ‘mytho
logical characters were taken to be historical persons’, ‘respect for tradition is
m o d e o f in n o v a tio n in w hich th e new w as th o ro u g h ly in te g ra te d w ith
th e o ld is a t o n ce m o re satisfying a n d calls fo r m o re in g en u ity th a n
in v en tio n a b in itio ; such a m o d e o f in n o v a tio n seems to h av e becom e
so m eth in g like a ‘rule o f th e g am e’ fo r G re e k p o e ts .107 It is obvious
th a t th e re is a n issue h ere o f p o etic v irtu o sity as well as an y sim ple
co n cern fo r h isto ricity . T h ere is w ith o u t d o u b t a self-conscious display
o f p o etic v irtu o sity in H e sio d ’s fitting o f G re ek tra d itio n s o f h u m a n
h isto ry to N e a r E a ste rn tra d itio n s o f h u m a n h isto ry w ith in M o R a n d
in his fittin g o f M o R to P ro m P a n d (th a t p o e tic v irtu o sity is p ro c la im e d
in su Kai smaTa^evrog, W D 107!). T h e q u estio n is w h e th e r th e c o h e r
ence fo r w hich H e sio d strives p e rta in s solely to a closed p o etic system
o r is m e a n t fu rth e r to arg u e a fa ith fu l fit w ith reality. C o n sid e r fo r
a m o m e n t th e uses m a d e o f etym ology a n d aetiology, devices w hich
m a y serve to co n n e ct a n ovel ac co u n t w ith in d ep en d e n tly existing fe a
tu res o f lan g u ag e o r o f th e w orld. T h e m y th o g ra p h e rs a n d H e ro d o tu s
em p lo y ety m o lo gy to confirm th e veracity o f a n ac co u n t; b u t H e sio d ’s
etym ologies (e.g. P a n d o ra , W D 81-2; A p h ro d ite , Th. 195-8; etc.)
m u st freq u en tly be re g a rd e d as ‘m erely h eu ristic o r p la y fu l ’.108 T he
sam e m ig h t be said o f aetiologies. W h en H e sio d identifies d a im o n e s as
th e p o sth u m o u s spirits o f th e golden race ( W D 121-6) o r th e D e lp h ic
sto n e as th e one sw allow ed by K ro n o s (Th. 498-500), these n eed
n o t be m o re seriously m e a n t th a n , say, th e id en tificatio n o f a ro c k
fo rm a tio n a t Sipylos as th e petrified N io b e (Il. 24.614-17). I t is th u s
u n clea r w h e th e r th e sim ilarities in m e th o d ob serv ed betw een H esio d
a n d H e ro d o tu s are p ro fo u n d o r superficial, w h e th e r th ey go b ey o n d
th e m erely fo rm a l to en co m p ass th e ends o f th e w o rk s in q u estio n .
T h ere is n o m ista k in g th a t H e ro d o tu s is in tere ste d n o t on ly in h o w
G re ek beliefs a b o u t H erak les fit n o n -G re e k beliefs b u t in h o w these
m u tu a lly ac c o m m o d a te d beliefs fit th e real w o rld (‘m y inquiries sh o w
clea rly [ S ^ o l aa^erog] th a t H erak les is [sovTa] a n an cien t g o d ’, 2.44.5).
Precisely b ecau se th e re is n o such clarity w ith H esiod, it is h a r d to
combined with poetic invention’; P. Burian, ‘Myth into mythos: The shaping of
tragic plot’, in P. E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 178-208, at p. 185: ‘myth is
subject to interpretation and revision, but not to complete overturn, because it
is also history’; A. Kelly, Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus (London: Duckworth,
2009), p. 36 ‘Greek poets could not move in utterly new directions . . . for the new
to be believable, it had to accommodate itself to the old, to grant to the audience
that the stories they knew were not very far from the truth.’
107 On the tragic poets, cf. Burian, ‘Myth into mythos’, pp. 183-6. A notable
exception to this ‘rule of the game’ is Agathon’s Anthos/Antheus (Aristot. Poet.
1451b21-2), where the tragic mythos was invented ab initio.
108 Griffith, ‘Contest and contradiction’, p. 195. Etymology in the mythographers:
R. L. Fowler, ‘Herodotus and his contemporaries’, JH S 116 (1996), pp. 62-87, at
pp. 72-3.
d e m o n stra te H e sio d th e h isto ria n w ho deals in tru th as o p p o se d to
H e sio d th e p o e t w ho deals in tra d itio n a l ta le s .109
CONCLUSION
By w ay o f co n clu sio n it m ay b e h elp fu l to re ite ra te th e am biguities
a n d in d eterm in acies in h e re n t in M o R ’s view o f th e p ast. F irst, this
is a h isto ry o f discrete ‘m a n k in d s ’; b u t it is also som ehow a h isto ry
o f a unified m a n k in d . Second, it is a n a c c o u n t o f discrete races, b u t
n o t en tirely discrete races (one race bleeds in to th e o th er; ethical a tti
tu d es, m o ra l b eh a v io u rs, seem to be p asse d on, alm o st like genes).
T h ird , th e schem e is p re m ised o n a decline, b u t this tu rn s o u t n o t to
be a co m p lete o r irreversible decline. F o u rth , th e id en tificatio n w ith
m etals is sym bolic, b u t it also becom es literal. F ifth , it starts o u t as a
d iach ro n ic ac co u n t, b u t it is also (no less im p o rta n tly ) sy n ch ro n ic . 110
Sixth, th e ac co u n t ap p e a rs to b e sim ply descriptive, b u t it is also n o r
m ativ e a n d p re scrip tiv e (th ere is an im plicit, b u t fu n d a m e n ta l, ethical
d im en sio n to th e acco u n t). S eventh, th e a c c o u n t o f th e p a s t is different
fro m P ro m P a n d , b u t n o t en tirely different; it ca n be a p p ro x im a te d to
P ro m P a n d , b u t n o t com pletely. L ast, H e sio d is arg u ab ly in tere ste d in
a c co m m o d atin g G re e k w ith n o n -G re e k tra d itio n s a b o u t th e p a st a n d
in m ak in g a w ide ra n g e o f d a ta co h ere (in this very like H e ro d o tu s);
b u t th a t does n o t necessarily e q u a te to a co n cern fo r h isto rical tru th .
I t is o b v io us th a t M o R is a re m a rk a b ly fluid fo rm o f discourse th a t
defies red u ctiv e analysis. A g reat m a n y different, a n d co n tra d ic to ry ,
views o f th e p a s t can be d iscern ed in these h u n d re d lines. I t does n o t
seem a b su rd to see M o R as som e k in d o f p o te n tia l p re c u rs o r to a h is
to rica l a c co u n t. B u t th ere is to o m u c h th a t rem ain s im plicit in H e sio d ’s
m e th o d o lo g y , a n d to o m u ch th a t req u ires scholarly co n stru c tio n , to
m ak e us co n fident a b o u t seeing it so. T he c o m p ariso n s th a t ca n be
d ra w n betw een H e sio d ’s m e th o d a n d H e ro d o tu s ’ are strik in g b o th
fo r th e ir q u a n tity a n d q u ality , b u t th ese do n o t clinch th e issue: M o R
rem ain s tan talisin g ly p o ised betw een p o e tic fiction a n d h isto ry .
109 For this distinction in the possible objects of a poet’s discourse, cf. Aristot. Poet.
1460b10.
110 Cf. R. G. A. Buxton, ‘Introduction’, in Buxton (ed.), From Myth to Reason?
Studies in the Development o f Greek Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), pp. 1-21, at pp. 9-10: ‘the myth of the Races stresses that things now are
. . . not as they once were: iron is not gold. And yet . . . the sequence of Races
exhibits, albeit in different blends, the same, recurring traits: aggressive violence,
and righteousness’; cf. p. 9, on ‘the past in the present’ in Hesiod.
HELEN AND ‘I’ IN EARLY
GREEK LYRIC
Deborah Boedeker
1 For recent general studies of poetry and history see J. Marincola, ‘Herodotus
and the poetry of the past’, in C. Dewald and J. Marincola (eds), The Cambridge
Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.
13-28; D. Boedeker, ‘Early Greek poetry as/and history’, in A. Feldherr and G.
Hardy (eds), The Oxford History o f Historical Writing, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), pp. 122-47.
2 For example, C. P. Segal, ‘Beauty, desire, and absence: Helen in Sappho, Alcaeus,
and Ibycus’, in Segal, Aglaia: The Poetry o f Alcman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides,
and Corinna (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), pp. 63-83, on Sappho,
Alcaeus and Ibycus; N. Worman, ‘The body as Argument: Helen in four Greek
texts’, Classical Antiquity 16 (1997), pp. 151-203, on Sappho together with
Iliad 3, Gorgias’ Encomium o f Helen and Euripides’ Troades; and R. Blondell,
‘Refractions of Homer’s Helen in archaic lyric’, American Journal o f Philology
131 (2010), pp. 349-91, on the Iliadic Helen compared with Helen in the Sappho,
Alcaeus and Ibycus fragments.
3 I assume that the performance context is, at least to a degree, constructed rather
than biographical; likewise, in using an author’s name, I refer to the persona of
the speaker in that work - also to some degree a construction - rather than to a
historical human being.
she is) as a k in d o f fu lcru m to h elp p o sitio n h im self o r h erself in the
c o n te m p o ra ry situ atio n .
T h is sto ry is n o t tru e,
y o u d id n o t go o n th e w ell-benched ships
a n d y o u d id n o t arriv e a t th e citadel o f T roy.
4 In the vast literature on the Palinode I have found especially useful the
following studies: K. Bassi, ‘Helen and the discourse of denial in Stesichorus’
Palinode’, Arethusa 26 (1993), pp. 51-75; E. Pallantza, Der Troische Krieg in der
nachhomerischen Literatur bis zum 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005),
esp. pp. 98-123; A. J. Beecroft, ‘This is not a true story: Stesichorus’s Palinode and
the revenge of the epichoric’, Transactions o f the American Philological Association
136 (2006), pp. 47-70; A. Kelly, ‘Stesikhoros and Helen’, Museum Helveticum 64
(2007), pp.1-21.
5 E.g. W. Allan (ed.), Euripides: Helen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008), pp. 18-22; Bassi, ‘Helen and the discourse of denial’; Kelly, ‘Stesikhoros
and Helen’. E. Cingano, ‘Quante testimonianze sulle palinodie di Stesicoro?’,
d ream . Such a m eetin g o f p o e t a n d divinity w o u ld be rem in iscen t o f
H e sio d ’s co m m issio n in g b y th e M uses (T h e o g o n y 3 0 -1 ) a n d is a tte ste d
in o th e r tex ts as well (e.g. S ap p h o a n d A p h ro d ite , S ap p h o fr. 1).6
W h e th e r o r n o t it re la te d a direct en c o u n te r w ith H elen, th e p o em
very likely allu d ed to S tesich o ru s’ losing a n d reg ain in g his sig h t .7 N o t
o nly is th is tale o f n a rra tiv e offence, p u n ish m e n t a n d a to n e m e n t th e
w hole p o in t o f th e P h a e d ru s c ita tio n , b u t it is reg u larly co n n e cted
w ith th e P alin o d e in o th e r an cien t sources as w ell .8 B eing stru ck b lin d
fo r telling th e ‘w ro n g ’ version (fro m H e le n ’s perspective) leads th e
sp eak er to re n o u n ce th e fam iliar p an h e lle n ic a c c o u n t th a t H elen w ent
to T ro y w ith P aris a n d th ere b y becam e a cause o f th e T ro ja n W a r .9
M o st strikingly, h e addresses his re c a n ta tio n to H elen herself: ‘Y o u
d id n o t go . . . y o u d id n o t a rriv e .’10 N o lo n g er ju s t a c h a ra c te r in th e
lo g o s , she b ecom es p re se n t in th e p e rfo rm a n c e situ atio n .
K elly co n ten d s th a t S tesich o ru s’ re aso n fo r this re m a rk a b le re c a n
ta tio n is to w in a u th o rity fo r his version o f events, in c o m p e titio n w ith
his p red ecesso rs: h e h a s le a rn e d w h a t h a p p e n e d fro m H elen h e rse lf .11
T his a u th o rity w o u ld b e u n d e rc u t, how ever, if S tesichorus a p p e a re d
to revise his sto ry in o rd e r to ap p ease a n an g e red im m o rta l, a n d
th ere b y cu re his blindness. D re a m s m a y be deceptive (if K elly ’s sug
gestio n is co rrec t th a t H elen a p p e a re d to th e p o e t in a d ream ), a n d in
Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 41 (1982), pp. 21-33, offers the strongest
arguments for the existence of more than one Palinode.
6 Kelly, ‘Stesikhoros and Helen’, cites parallels from epic and lyric, noting that
many mortals come into direct contact with gods in Homeric epic. Another
parallel to the Palinode would be Pheidippides’ meeting with Pan on his way to
Sparta, when the god chides the Athenians for not recognising his helpfulness to
them; he later receives proper recognition in cult (Herodotus 6.105).
7 Pace Bassi, ‘Helen and the discourse of denial’, pp. 54-5 n. 6.
8 E.g. Isocrates, Encomium o f Helen 10.64. On the basis of the Isocrates passage,
D. Sider, ‘The blinding of Stesichorus’, Hermes 117 (1989), pp. 423-31, suggests
that the singer’s blinding and sudden recovery of sight might have been mimed in
performance.
9 This non-Homeric version of Helen’s role, perhaps even including the eidolon
that went to Troy in her stead, may already have been transmitted in the Hesiodic
corpus (see F 358 M-W), based on a paraphrase of Lycophron, Alexandra 822.
10 This point receives relatively little emphasis from commentators, with the
exception of Kelly, ‘Stesikhoros and Helen’, pp. 3-6, who mentions it in
connection with his thesis that the ‘Palinode’ was part of a single poem that began
with the standard version of the Helen story, and then restarted (in the manner of
some Homeric Hymns) with an address to the divine figure whose story has just
been told. See D. Boedeker, ‘Paths to heroization at Plataea’, in Boedeker and D.
Sider (eds), The New Simonides: Contexts o f Praise and Desire (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001), pp. 148-63, esp. pp. 155-61, for an analogous argument
that Achilles is directly addressed as an immortal in Simonides fr. el. 11.19-20
W2.
11 Kelly, ‘Stesikhoros and Helen’, p. 3 and passim.
an y case gods read ily ta k e offence w hen th e ir h o n o u r is im p u g n e d .12
In o th e r w o rd s, w as th e p o e t b lin d ed b ecau se h e go t his ‘h is to ry ’
w ro n g , o r ra th e r b ecause his version a n n o y e d one o f its (im m o rtal)
subjects ? 13 I f we follow this line o f th o u g h t, th e P alin o d e co u ld b e re a d
as a n ad m issio n o f a m o rta l’s u n h e ro ic ‘a d a p ta b ility ’, alo n g th e lines
o f A rc h ilo c h u s’ d ro p p in g his shield b u t saving his life (A rch ilo ch u s fr.
5 W ).
In th e P h a e d ru s story th a t fram es th e frag m en t, S o cra te s’ iro n ic
fe ar o f b eing h a rm e d by E ro s ce rtain ly allow s th a t h e u n d e rsto o d
S tesich o ru s’ P alin o d e in this w ay; th e p h ilo so p h e r declares th a t h e will
be sm arter (a o ^ m sp o g ) th a n eith er H o m e r o r S tesichorus, by offer
ing th e g o d a re c a n ta tio n even b efo re an y th in g b a d h a p p e n s to h im
(P h a e d ru s 243b). S tesich o ru s’ readiness to ch an g e th e fam iliar story
(^oyog ornog14) in re actio n to its neg ativ e consequences fo r him self
m ay th u s p re sen t h im as an u n re lia b le ‘h is to ria n ’, h o w ev er skilled he
is in d ealin g w ith an g ry im m o rtals.
A lex a n d er B eecroft offers a m o re ch a rita b le read in g . B uilding on
th e arg u m e n ts o f C lau d e C alam e a n d B ruce L in co ln a b o u t types o f
p o e tic a n d m y th o lo g ical ‘t r u t h ’, B eecroft ex p a n d s o n th e w idely h eld
thesis th a t th e m o rta l H elen o f H o m eric epic is p itte d h ere ag ain st
an ep ich o ric divine H elen, a n d is fo u n d w an tin g . ‘W h e n S tesichorus
p erfo rm s th e P an h ellen ic version o f th e logos o f H elen . . . it is ritu ally
ineffective - w hich is d e m o n stra te d con cretely th ro u g h th e b lin d in g
o f th e p o e t .’15 I agree th a t th e sto ry o f a H elen w ho follow ed P aris
to T ro y m ig h t be deem ed in a p p ro p ria te (a n d even ‘u n tru e ’) in the
co n tex t o f a cu lt o f H elen such as existed a t S p a rta , A th en s a n d o th e r
p la c e s .16 A b lam ew o rth y p o rtra it co u ld offend th e goddess - o r fro m
a m o re m u n d a n e perspective, as o ften suggested, S tesichorus m ay
12 E.g. the dream sent to Agamemnon in Iliad 2.1-282; cf. the dream that
forces Xerxes to invade Greece.
13 Bassi, ‘Helen and the discourse of denial’, argues perceptively that it is
impossible for Stesichorus to recast entirely Helen’s dangerously unstable, female
nature.
14 On the deictic significance of Xoyog omog ‘this story’ in the fragment see
Beecroft, ‘This is not a true story’, pp. 49-52.
15 Beecroft, ‘This is not a true story’, p. 66. See further Beecroft’s stimulating
analysis of STU^og in the Stesichorus passage (pp. 55-66).
16 On cults of Helen see Herodotus 6.61-2; M. L. West, Immortal Helen: An
Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 30 April 1975 (London: Bedford College, 1975);
L. L. Clader, Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition,
Mnemosyne Suppl. 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 63-80, J. Larson, Greek Heroine
Cults (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), pp. 65-70, 79-81; and
D. Lyons, Gender and Immortality: Heroines in Ancient Greek Myth and Cult
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 44-7. See Pallantza, Der
Troische Krieg, pp. 112-18, for a critical overview of the relationship between
literary and religious-historical approaches to the Palinode.
be d istan cin g h im self fro m th e p an h e lle n ic sto ry h ere because th e
lo cal au d ien ce w o u ld re a c t (o r d id re act) negatively to a p o rtra y a l o f
H elen in k eep in g w ith th e fa m iliar epic tra d itio n . T h e P a lin o d e th u s
p o in ts to th e com plex n a tu re o f c e rtain figures in th e p an h e lle n ic
tra d itio n - m o rta l in epic, b u t im m o rta l in local cults - a n d h ence to
th e m u ltip licity o f stories a b o u t them .
W h a te v e r exactly w as conveyed in th e m issing p a rts o f S tesich o ru s’
song, th e e x ta n t frag m en t show cases a re m a rk a b le en g ag em en t o f th e
sp eak er w ith his subject/addressee H elen, as a n active divine p o w er
w ith a n ego a n d p o w e r o f h e r ow n (again, like S o cra te s’ E ro s in th e
P h a e d ru s). W hile it hig h lig h ts S tesich o ru s’ respect fo r th e goddess, th e
P alin o d e also exposes a lack o f reliability in songs a b o u t events a n d
ch a ra c te rs in th e sh ared p ast: circu m stan ces m ay p ro m p t th e singer to
ch an g e his tu n e, as S tesichorus does here, in full view o f th e audience.
A s A n n B erg ren co n c lu d e d lo n g ago, such am b ig u ity is a distinctive
ch a ra c te ristic in p o rtra y a ls o f H e le n . 17
b q A,oyoq k &k©v a[
n s p p a ^ © < i> Kai n aia[i
sk a80sv mKpov, n[
’IAaov ipav.
ou x sa w a v AiaK,Sai[q
navxaq Sq ya^ov ^aK[apaq Ka^sooaiq
aysx’ sk Nq[p] noq s^©v [^ sM 0 p©v
n a p 0 svov aPpav
n aiS a y s w a x ’ aip,08©v [
o^Piov £,av0 av SM xn[pa tc©A©v,
oi S’ anro^ovx’ a ^ ’ ’E[A,8vai
Kai noAaq aw © v.
19 H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophie des fruhen Griechentums: Eine geschichte der
griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur M itte des funften Jahrhunderts, 2nd edn
(Munich: Beck, 1962), p. 169 n. 50; quoted in S. R. Slings, ‘The “I” in personal
archaic lyric: An introduction’, in Slings (ed.), The Poet’s ‘I ’ in Archaic Greek Lyric
(Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1990), pp. 1-30, esp. p. 1. Slings goes on to
argue for a more varied ‘I’ in early lyric, especially in Archilochus, which would
allow for a more autobiographical as well as a collective perspective.
20 So Blondell, ‘Refractions of Homer’s Helen’, pp. 353-4. See the pioneering
work of W. Rosler, Dichter und Gruppe: Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen
und zur historischen Funktion fruher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios
(Munich: W. Fink, 1980), for the argument that Alcaeus composed exclusively
for his political/social circle at Mytilene. In my opinion, as that of most critics,
Rosler’s views are overly restrictive, but his work demonstrates that much of
Alcaeus’ corpus deals with contemporary concerns from the perspective of a self
conscious hetairia.
21 A number of similar phrases in tragedy refer to things the speaker does not
know for sure, but which accord with the reality portrayed or discovered in the
course of the drama; cf. Aesch. Supplices 230, Eur. IT 532-4, Eur. Helen 18-19,
Eur. Phoen. 396. See again Beecroft, ‘This is not a true story’.
A lcaeus frag m en t, how ever, n o th in g speaks ag a in st th e p an h e lle n ic
lo g o s;22 ra th e r, th e so n g ’s final sta n z a confirm s th a t th e T ro ja n s ‘p e r
ish ed [fighting] a b o u t H e le n ’ (lines 15-16). T h e audience is expected
to k n o w a n d accept this version o f th e tale, to u n d e rsta n d th e b an e fu l
effects o n P ria m ’s T ro y o f th e m a rria g e o f H elen a n d P aris, a n d to p ity
th o se w ho lo st th e ir lives a n d th e ir city fighting over h er. T h ey w o u ld
also agree w ith th e sp e a k e r’s e v a lu a tio n o f th e m arria g es (a n d w om en)
c o n tra s te d here: w hereas H e le n ’s u n io n w ith P aris p ro d u c e d only
d e stru c tio n fo r th e city o f T ro y , Peleus m a rrie d a ch aste a n d com ely
b rid e, w ho becam e th e m o th e r o f g re at A chilles.
A s critics h av e n o te d , th e sp eak er stops fa r sh o rt o f telling th e
w hole logos. H e does n o t m e n tio n th a t T h e tis’ g re at son A chilles w as
a m o n g th o se w ho p erish e d a t T ro y , a n d th a t h e h im self killed m an y
o f P ria m ’s so n s .23 M o re o v er, his audience m a y well k n o w th e story,
a tte ste d in th e C y p ria ,24 th a t th e w edding o f Peleus a n d T h etis m a rk e d
a b eg in n in g o f th e T ro ja n W ar: E ris p ro v o k e d a d isp u te a b o u t w hich
g oddess w as m o st b ea u tifu l, w hich led to th e Ju d g e m e n t o f P aris.
P ossible n a rra tiv e co n n e ctio n s betw een th e tw o m arria g es in th is song
are m an y , b u t th e p o e t elides th em , in p a r t b y using th e u n u su a l tro p e
o f d irect ad d ress to h elp h im focus a tte n tio n w here h e w an ts it.
V ery differently fro m th e S tesichorus P alin o d e, b u t also w ith
strik in g effect, A lcaeus addresses o n e o f his ch a ra c te rs in th e second
p erso n : ‘fro m y o u ( sk osBsv) [came?] a b itte r [end?] to P ria m a n d his
c h ild re n ’ (lines 1-4). H ere again, h e a p p e a rs to b e speaking w ith a n d
fo r his au d ien ce as to g e th e r th ey co n sid er th e sufferings o f P ria m ’s
fam ily a n d acknow ledge th e one resp o n sib le fo r th em . A n d quite
u n lik e th e tra d itio n th a t acco m p an ies S tesich o ru s’ P alin o d e, th e re is
n o reference h ere to a re a c tio n fro m th e c h a ra c te r addressed; th e ‘y o u ’
is a figure w ith in th e h isto rical n a rra tiv e , n o t a n im m a n en t im m o rtal.
T his ad d ressee is usu ally ta k e n to be H elen, acco rd in g to P a g e ’s
w idely ac cep ted su p p lem en t in line 3: n[ox’, ’'QA,sv’, ^ 0 s v ‘once, O
H elen , [a b itte r end] ca m e ’. T h e second p e rso n (osBsv), how ever, m ay
in ste a d refer to P aris, as E len a P a lla n tz a h a s lucidly a rg u e d .25 F o r th e
Apa]oavxag aio%uv[...]xa xa ^ v S iK a
...]nv Ss nspPa^ovx’ [av]ayKa
au]%svi A,a[P]oM©i n.[..]av
(footnote 25 continued)
stanza before the start of the extant fragment, in which Helen could have been
mentioned.
26 A focus on Paris would also align the speaker with the Homeric tradition.
As Blondell, ‘Refractions of Homer’s Helen’, pp. 349-50, emphasises, no Homeric
male blames Helen for the war. As if pre-empting any reproach, she blames herself
- to Priam (Il. 3. 173-80), to Hector (Il. 6.344-58) and in the Odyssey to Menelaus
and Telemachus (4.145).
27 For this citation I use Campbell’s text and translation, slightly modified.
T his is fo llo w ed by a b ru ta l a c c o u n t o f A ja x ’ ra p e o f th e m a id e n as
she clasp ed th e statu e o f A th en a . H is im p io u s d eed tu rn e d th e goddess
ag a in st th e co n q u e rin g A c h aea n s because th ey d id n o t ta k e it u p o n
them selves to p u n ish th e evil-doer. T h e shipw recks th ey suffered as
a resu lt o f h e r w ra th (lines 24-45?) sta n d as a w arn in g to th e speaker
a n d his c o n te m p o ra ry audience a b o u t h o w they sh o u ld tre a t th o se
guilty o f sham eful deeds in th e ir ow n society. A lth o u g h th e p a p y ru s is
extrem ely fra g m e n ta ry a t th is p o in t, one o f th o se evil-doers is called
by his p atro n y m ic: ‘son o f H y rrh a s ’ (line 47): P ittac u s, arch-nem esis
o f A lca eu s’ h e ta iria .28
In fr. 42 as well, p a rtic u la rly if P aris is th e ‘y o u ’ b la m e d fo r th e
d e stru c tio n o f T ro y , th e sp eak er m a y be d ra w in g a n an alo g y to th e
p o litical w o rld h e shares w ith his fellow sym posiasts. P a ris’ tre a c h
ery, his illicit m a rria g e to H elen, c a u sed th e d e stru c tio n o f his ow n
fam ily a n d city. W h e th e r o r n o t this applies specifically to P ittac u s o r
som e o th e r enem y o f A lca eu s’ g ro u p ,29 th e resu lts o f evil deeds in th e
p a s t are clear, a n d th e sp eak er refers to a fam iliar logos to show th e
con seq u en ces o f actio n s th a t b re a k th e b o n d s o f tru s t a n d p ro p rie ty .
31 E.g. G. W. Most, ‘Sappho Fr. 16.6-7 L-P’, Classical Quarterly 31 (1981), pp.
11-17; W. H. Race, ‘Sappho, Fr. 16 L-P. and Alkaios, Fr. 42 L-P.: Romantic and
classical strains in Lesbian lyric’, Classical Journal 85 (1989), pp. 16-33; Segal,
‘Beauty, desire, and absence’; Blondell, ‘Refractions of Homer’s Helen’.
32 A. Bierl, ‘Ich aber (sage), das Schonste ist, was einer liebt! Eine pragmatische
Deutung von Sappho Fr. 16 LP/V’, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica n.s. 74
a fa m o u s exam ple fro m th e p a st. A s G len n M o s t h a s nicely show n,
S ap p h o re cru its a figure w ith w h o m she ca n s u p p o rt h e r case th ro u g h
a u th o rity if n o t th ro u g h logical arg u m en t: w ho b e tte r th a n th e su p er
latively b ea u tifu l H elen to p ro v e h o w th e k a llisto n is d eterm in e d by
desire ?33 L ed astra y (line 11), p re su m a b ly b y E ro s o r A p h ro d ite , H elen
left h e r excellent h u s b a n d to follow P aris to T ro y . In d o in g so, she
fo rg o t th o se w ho w ere n e a re st to h er, h e r p a re n ts a n d child. H e r ac tio n
exem plifies th e p rim a c y o f w h a t one desires.
In th e rh e to ric o f th e p o em , H elen is n e ith e r co n d e m n e d n o r
p ra is e d .34 H e r sto ry play s an epistem ological fu n c tio n , a n extrem e
a n d clear illu stra tio n o f th e sp e a k e r’s self-declared u n d e rsta n d in g o f
h u m a n values, by referrin g to a w ell-know n situ a tio n in th e sh ared
p a st. W e n o te d th a t in A lcaeus fr. 42 th e sp eak er p asses over th o se
p a rts o f th e log o s th a t m ig h t u n d e rc u t his m o ra l p o in t by suggesting
th a t in fa ct b o th m arria g es c o n trib u te d to th e d e stru c tio n a t T ro y .
S ap p h o even m o re bold ly elides a g re at p a r t o f th e fam iliar story. She
does n o t m e n tio n th e g reat w a r th a t w as th e consequence o f H e le n ’s
decision (if it ca n be called th a t) to follow P aris to T ro y . N o n eth eless,
th e e n o rm ity o f th a t w a r surely ad d s to th e im p act o f th e exam ple she
selects: even w ith so m u ch a t stak e, H elen fo u n d ‘b e st’ th a t w hich she
desired (o r w as m ad e to desire).
S ap p h o b rin g s to life H e le n ’s p o in t o f view, m ak in g h e r a tru e
subject, as m a n y co m m e n ta to rs h av e discussed. A t th e sam e tim e she
uses th is figure as a n an alo g u e, a p arallel to h e r o w n subjectivity - an d ,
she declares, to ev ery o n e’s. H e le n ’s p a s t ac tio n th u s illu m in ates th e
sp e a k e r’s p re se n t assertion.
T his o rig in al yet s tra ig h tfo rw a rd use o f th e p a s t tak es a n o th e r
tu rn , ho w ev er, w hen th e ‘I ’ says th a t H e le n ’s sto ry b rin g s to h e r m in d
th e ab se n t A n a k to ria , w hose lively b e a u ty she h erself values m o st
h ig h ly .35 H e le n ’s sto ry th u s tu rn s o u t to p ro v id e m o re th a n a n e x p la n
a to ry exam ple, fo r it triggers th o u g h ts o f th e sp e a k e r’s ow n situ atio n ,
w hich involves se p a ra tio n fro m th a t w hich is k a llisto n fo r her. T his
rev elatio n suggests th a t y earn in g fo r th e b ea u tifu l girl co lo u rs even th e
sp e a k e r’s self-assured p ria m e l .36
(2003), pp. 91-124, argues that the speaker, in the role of thiasos leader, models for
her youthful audience the values they should cultivate.
33 Most, ‘Sappho Fr. 16.6-7 L-P’, pp. 13-15.
34 Allan, Euripides: Helen, p. 13, argues on the contrary that Sappho condemns
Helen by mentioning everyone she left behind - husband, daughter, parents -
when she was led astray by Aphrodite.
35 Segal, ‘Beauty, desire, and absence’, p. 77, notes Helen’s ‘forgetting’ and
Sappho’s ‘remembering’.
36 H. C. Fredricksmeyer, ‘A diachronic reading of Sappho fr. 16 LP’, Transactions
o f the American Philological Association 131 (2001), pp. 75-86, argues for a
S a p p h o ’s sw eet-bitter situ atio n , h e r vivid m em o ry o f a n d longing
fo r ab se n t A n a k to ria , in tu rn leads to fu rth e r reflection o n th e senti
m en ts o f c h a ra c te rs in th e H elen story. M ig h t H elen to o h av e re m e m
b ered , once they w ere gone, th e v alue o f w h a t she once ‘entirely
fo rg o t’ (fr. 16.11) - h e r d a u g h te r, h e r d e a r p a re n ts, h e r p a n a risto n
h u s b a n d (fr. 16.7-8)? C ertain ly th e H o m eric H elen voices th o se senti
m en ts (Ilia d 3 .1 7 3 -5 ).37 T h e sp e a k e r’s o w n y earn in g fo r th e desirable
o n e w ho is ab se n t also recalls M en elau s, w hose d e p a rte d wife ‘fa r
su rp a sse d m a n k in d in b e a u ty ’ (fr. 16.6-7). T his w o u ld fo resh ad o w
A esch y lu s’ M en elau s in a c h o ra l song o f th e A g a m e m n o n , ra n g in g
d eso lately th ro u g h his p alace, beset w ith piercing m em ories o f H e le n ’s
b e a u ty (A g . 407).38
F ro m th e p erspective o f h o w a lyric ‘I ’ relates to th e p a st, w h a t
fascin ates m o st in this frag m en t is th e d y n am ic in te ra c tio n estab lish ed
betw een th e sp eak er a n d h e r ‘h isto ric a l’ subject. H e le n ’s fa m o u s
ac tio n , p a r t o f th e co m m o n p a s t o f singer a n d audience, is called u p o n
to ex p lain th e sp e a k e r’s p ro fessed value system . In tu rn th e p e rfo r
m an ce situ a tio n (A n a k to ria is gone b u t vividly rem em b ered ) casts
lig h t b a c k o n to th e ac tio n s a n d feelings o f b o th H elen a n d M enelaus.
T h e p re se n t illu m in ates th e p a s t as m u ch as th e p a s t does th e presen t.
(footnote 36 continued)
‘diachronic’ reading of fr. 16, in which the audience’s response changes as the
poem progresses. This is a fruitful and reasonable approach and I follow here its
principles, but I disagree with Fredricksmeyer that the response moves from a
positive to a negative ethical reading of Helen.
37 On the resemblances between these two passages see Race, ‘Sappho, Fr. 16
L-P’, pp. 24-5, and Worman, ‘The body as argument’, p. 171.
38 This analogy is eloquently drawn by Worman, ‘The body as argument’, p. 168.
39 For this fragment I use Davies’ text and Campbell’s translation, slightly
modified.
vu]v Se ^oi ouxs £,sivanax[a]v n[ap i]v (10)
..] emBup.ov ouxs xav^o 9 ]up[ov
u^]v^v K aooavS pav
n p i]a ^ o i 6 xs nm Sag aAlou[g
.........Ka^^i]oxog a n ’ Apysog
.........Kuavi]nn[o]g 8g ’'IAaov
[ ]
[ ]..[.]...
40 Hutchinson, Greek Lyric Poetry, p. 237, argues that the song must have begun with
a reference to the performance context in which Polycrates is being celebrated.
This would follow the marked tendency of early lyric to return to the opening
deictic situation after a mythological parallel, as shown by L. Edmunds, ‘Tithonus
in the new Sappho and the narrated mythical exemplum’, in E. Greene and M.
Skinner (eds), The New Sappho on Old Age (Hellenic Studies 38; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press), pp. 58-70; it would also resemble the typical structure
of Pindaric and Bacchylidean epinicians (also largely triadic), for which Ibycus -
as Hutchinson notes - may be seen as a predecessor.
th e p a p y ru s, b u t th e fra g m e n t’s final line (48) is follow ed by a co ro n is,
so we can be co n fid en t th a t th e song w as in te n d e d to e n d there. T he
stru c tu re o f th e e x ta n t w o rk is rem a rk ab le: forty-five e x ta n t verses
d ealing w ith th e T ro ja n W a r - over h a lf o f th e m o n subjects th e
sp eak er says h e will n o t o r c a n n o t ad d ress - follow ed by th ree lines in
p ra ise o f P o ly crates, p re su m a b ly th e fa m o u s ty ra n t o f S am o s .41
Ib y c u s’ p o e m does n o t d isp u te th e p an h e lle n ic tra d itio n th a t H elen
w ent to T ro y , b u t n o b lam e is cast o n h er. A rgives a n d T ro ja n s fo u g h t
o v er h e r b e a u ty (eidos) b ecause o f th e ‘p lan s o f g reat Z e u s’ (line 4),
a n d th e G reek s d estro y e d T ro y ‘because o f th e g o ld en -h a ired C y p ria n ’
(8 -9 ).42 P aris is called a ‘deceiver o f his h o s t’ (x e in a p a ta n , 10) b u t
H elen is w holly passive; h e r b e a u ty is th e re aso n fo r epic struggle,
so rro w a n d fa m e .43
It is significant to n o te w hich aspects o f th e T ro ja n saga th e speaker
says h e h a s n o desire to sing. G lo rio u s th o u g h th ey m ay be in song, th e
events are all so rro w fu l a n d w earisom e: th e siege o f T ro y , th e tre a c h
ero u s P aris, C a ssa n d ra a n d th e o th e r ch ild ren o f P riam , th e d isastro u s
fall o f a g reat city, cau sed by th e a re te o f h ero es led by m agnificent
A g a m e m n o n (10-22). M o re o v er, h o w co u ld a n y singer reh earse all
this? T h e learn ed (a s a o 9 i[a]^evai) M uses m ig h t b e able to v en tu re
in to such a sto ry (23-4), Ib y cu s says, b u t n o m o rta l m a n co u ld tell th e
details (lines 2 5 -6 ).44
T his g en eral statem en t o n th e lim its o f p o etic accu racy a b o u t so v ast
a to p ic su b tly casts d o u b t o n th e ‘h isto ric a l’ accu racy a n d a u th o rity
o f H o m er. M o re o v er, as G . O. H u tc h in so n p o in ts o u t, th e d e c la ra
tio n o f h u m a n lim ita tio n is follow ed by a clear reference to th e Iliad ic
C a ta lo g u e o f Ships (lines 27-31), w hich th e epic b a r d p resen ts as a tour
de fo r c e a n d so m eth in g h e co u ld n o t d o w ith o u t h elp fro m th e M uses
CONCLUSION
In these texts, th e lyric ‘I ’ co n ju res u p a p a s t th a t raises q u estio n s,
in clu d in g in te n tio n a lly o r n o t q u estio n s a b o u t versions a n d seg
m en ts o f th e H elen sto ry th a t are n o t m en tio n ed , o r n o t accepted,
in th e c u rre n t song. T h e fa m iliar yet am b ig u o u s H elen is a h is to ri
cal figure im plicitly sh ared w ith th e audience, a n d serves as a p o in t
52 On the comparison of the two metals, and men, see Woodbury, ‘Ibycus and
Polycrates’, pp. 201-3.
53 MacLachlan, ‘Personal poetry’, pp. 193-4, points out the inherent dangers
in beauty, with the mention of Helen, Aphrodite and Cassandra, and suggests
that this may look ahead, as if prophetically, to the troubles that will come about
because of beautiful Polycrates. But Ibycus avoids any hint of dangers coming
from masculine beauty, a topic he certainly could have opened up in connection
with the guest-deceiver Paris.
54 I am persuaded by the arguments of Woodbury, ‘Ibycus and Polycrates’,
pp. 203-5, and Hutchinson, Greek Lyric Poetry, pp. 253-5, to follow Wilamowitz
in removing the stop attested at the end of line 46; thus the speaker promises
‘immortal fame for beauty’ to Polycrates as well as Zeuxippus and Troilus.
o f co n ta c t, a baseline fro m w hich to define th e sp e a k e r’s in te n t in
each so n g .55
T o sum m arise very briefly: S tesichorus changes his tu n e, we are
to ld , w hen H elen blin d s h im fo r slan d erin g h er. In an y case, his
P alin o d e q u estio n s th e a u th o rity o f th e T ro ja n logos, a n d suggests te n
sions betw een p an h ellen ic a n d local versions o f a story: is H elen a h is
to rica l m o rta l o r a n im m o rta l goddess? A lcaeus in tu rn uses H e le n ’s
m a rria g e to P aris to co m m en t o n h u m a n ju stic e a n d th e dire co n se
quences o f illicit b eh av io u r: co n te m p o ra rie s sh o u ld learn fro m h isto ry
n o t to to le ra te evil-doers w ho th re a te n th e c o m m u n ity ’s w elfare. T h e
sp eak er in S ap p h o fr. 16 explains h e r c o n te n tio n th a t ero s determ ines
w h a t is m o st highly v alu ed by p o in tin g to H e le n ’s relative v a lu a tio n o f
P aris a n d M en elau s. Vice versa, she casts light o n th e lo n g -p ast in n er
w o rld o f H elen a n d M en elau s th ro u g h h e r ow n experiences o f b e a u ty
a n d absen ce in th e p resen t. Ibycus claim s th a t h e will n o t, o r c a n n o t,
reh earse th e d isastro u s a n d g lo rio u s tale o f T ro y , a fight fo r H e le n ’s
b ea u ty , a n d tu rn s in ste a d to o th e r b ea u tie s a t T ro y , y o u n g w a rrio rs
w hose fam e will b e m a tc h e d b y th e b ea u tifu l P olycrates.
Such in te ra c tio n s w ith th e p a s t are n o t entirely different fro m w h a t
early G re e k p ro se h isto ria n s d o ;56 h isto ry is inescap ab ly w ritten fro m
th e p re se n t situ a tio n o f th e h isto ria n a n d his audience, a n d is o ften
u sed to shed light o n c u rre n t issues .57 B u t a m o n g m a n y o th e r generic
d istin ctio n s, we h av e seen th a t th e lyric ‘I ’ allow s itself m o re freed o m
to co m m en t o n analogies betw een p a s t a n d p re se n t th a n does th e h is
to rio g ra p h ic a l (o r in d eed th e epic) n a r ra to r, a n d m a y even be fo u n d to
iro n ise itself in so doing. N o r does th e sp eak er in lyric affect to efface
h im self o r h erself in telling o f th e p a st, b u t play s a p ro m in e n t role in
sh ap in g it in view o f th e p e rfo rm a n c e situ atio n . T h e lyric ‘I ’ th u s c o n
ju re s u p th e ‘h isto ric a l’ H elen n o t only to h elp explain, blam e o r p ra ise
events in th e p a s t b u t also to illu m in ate, a n d p e rh a p s to ju stify , the
co n tex t o f th e p re sen t song.
55 I do not mean to imply that the performance situation is not to some degree
constructed, let alone invariable in reperformances of the song.
56 See again Marincola, ‘Herodotus and the poetry of the past’, and Boedeker,
‘Early Greek poetry as/and history’, for extended discussion.
57 See K. Raaflaub, ‘Ulterior motives in ancient historiography: What exactly, and
why?’, in L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke and N. Luraghi (eds), Intentional History:
Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010), pp. 198-210, for an
overview of the question of ancient historians’ motives.
STESICHORUS AND IBYCUS: PLAIN
TALES FROM THE WESTERN FRONT
Ewen Bowie
1 See above all P. Nora, Les lieux de memoire I-III (Paris: Gallimard, 1984-92).
For the Scottish ambience of the conference on which this volume is based one
could adduce the associations of the Agricolan two-legion camp at Inchtuthill
and the associated fortification of Cleaven Dyke; Macbeth’s fortress on the top of
Dunsinan(e); the Cistercian Abbey at Coupar Angus; Bannockburn; Mary Queen
of Scots and the palace of Holyrood; Greyfriars Bobby.
2 q^sTsproi PaaiXqi, 0soiai ^IXroi ©sonogram, | ov Sia Msaaqvnv siXo^sv
supu%opov,| Msaaqvr|v aYa0ov ^sv apow, aYa0ov Ss 9 UTsUsiv-| a^q>’ auT^v S’
s^a%ovT’ evvsa Kai S s k ’ s t ^ | vroXs^srog aisi TaXaai^pova 0u^ov s%ovTsg | ai^qTai
naTsprov q^sTsprov naT8psg-| siKoaT&i S’ oi ^sv KaTa mova spYa XinovTsg | qisvyov
TOro^airov s k ^sYaXrov opsrov, Tyrtaeus fr. 5 West.
3 mv’ oivov, t o v e^oi Kopu^qg ano TquYsToio | a^nsXoi qvsYKav, Tag eqm Tsua’ o
Ysprov | otipsog ev Pqaaqiai 0soiai ^IXog ©soTi^og, | s k nXaTaviaTowTog ^u%pov
uSrop enaYrov.| to C mvrov ano ^sv xaXsnag aKsSaasig ^sXsSrovag,| 0ropqx0sig S’
sasai noXXov eXa^poTspog, Theognidea 879-84; cf. E. L. Bowie, ‘Wandering
poets, archaic style’ in R. L. Hunter and I. C. Rutherford (eds), Wandering Poets
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 105-36, at p. 117.
stories a b o u t th e ex p ed itio n ag a in st T hebes by A rgive w a rrio rs o f the
h ero ic a g e .4
I t is a co ro lla ry th a t w hen sections o f co m m u n ities w en t to settle on
new a n d o ften very d ista n t sites som e local tra d itio n s co n cern in g th eir
m etro p o lis w o u ld b e likely to fade a n d even p erish , w hile o th ers re la t
ing to th e p ro cess a n d lo c a tio n o f re settlem en t w o u ld grow u p . W ith in
a few g en eratio n s th e sto ried p a s t o f a n anoiKla m ig h t acq u ire a quite
different p rofile fro m th a t o f its m etro p o lis. Such h a s ce rtain ly been
m y experience in b o th th e U n ite d S tates a n d A u stra lia; Lew is a n d
C la rk are h ero ise d in St L o u is a n d in W a sh in g to n S tate, N e d K elly h as
p rid e o f place in a rt galleries in C an b erra.
I h a d h o p e d , th ere fo re , in setting o u t to co m b , n o t fo r th e first tim e,
th e surviving frag m en ts o f som e a rch aic G re ek p o ets, th a t som ething
w o u ld em erge th a t ch im ed w ith this p a tte rn . I m u st a d m it a t this p o in t
th a t I fo u n d m u ch less th a n I h o p ed . T his in itself p e rh a p s invites an
e x p la n a tio n , w hich I shall a tte m p t w hen concluding.
I w as en c o u rag e d in m y e x p lo ra tio n , how ever, by th e case o f early
n a rra tiv e elegy. A s I h a v e discussed m o re th a n o n ce ,5 several
early elegiac p o e ts seem to h av e n a rra te d a t som e len g th b o th the
early a n d th e m o re recen t h isto ry o f th e ir cities: som e - M im n erm u s,
X e n o p h an es, Io n o f C hios - to u c h e d o n m ig ra tio n ea stw ard s fro m
m a in la n d G reece to th e islands a n d A sia M in o r; a n o th e r, S em onides
o f A m o rg o s, o n w e stw a rd m o v em en t b a c k fro m th e ea ste rn A egean,
Sam os, to th e w estern A egean, A m o rg o s. T y rta e u s’ E u n o m ia p re
sen ted a different so rt o f co lo n isatio n , th a t o f co n q u e re d M essen ia by
ex p a n sio n ist S p a rta .6 M ig h t so m eth in g sim ilar b e discovered fo r the
4 For the early (? sixth century bce) commemoration of the Seven at Argos cf.
A. Pariente, ‘Le monument argien des “Sept contre Thebes”’, in M. Pierart (ed.),
Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais myceniens a la construction de l’etat
classique (BCH Supplement 22; Paris: de Boccard, 1992), pp. 195-225. Note also
the later Argive statues of the Seven at Delphi, Pausanias 10.10.3; on Argos’ sixth-
century presentation of its role in the Trojan War see E. L. Bowie, ‘Sacadas of
Argos’, in A. Moreno and R. Thomas (eds), Epitedeumata: Essays in Honour o f
Oswyn Murray (forthcoming).
5 E. L. Bowie, ‘Early Greek elegy, symposium and public festival’, JH S 106
(1986), pp. 13-35; E. L. Bowie, ‘Ancestors of Herodotus in early Greek elegiac and
iambic poetry’, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age o f Herodotus
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 45-66; E. L. Bowie, ‘Historical
narrative in archaic and early classical Greek elegy’, in D. Konstan and K. A.
Raaflaub (eds), Epic and History (Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2010), pp. 145-66.
6 My reconstruction of the form of such early elegiac narratives has recently been
challenged by J. Grethlein, The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History
in the Fifth Century b c e (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2010), but whatever the form of the poems, it is indisputable that their content
included some narrative of ‘colonisation’.
west? H ere we h av e n o such elegiac p o e try - th e p ossible re aso n fo r
th is is so m eth in g I shall discuss elsew here - a n d fo r traces o f p ro to -
h isto rical n a rra tiv e we m u st tu rn to m elic p o etry . T h ere m y tw o test
cases are S tesichorus o f H im e ra a n d Ib y cu s o f R hegion.
STESICHORUS
I s ta rt w ith S tesichorus, a m elic p o e t co m p o sin g lo n g po em s, seem
ingly fo r p u b lic p erfo rm an c e, a n d in m y view p e rfo rm a n c e b y a
Xopog, a ro u n d 570 b c e .7 T h e first p e rfo rm an c es o f these c h o ral w orks
w ere p ro b a b ly in his o w n city, H im era , th e G re ek settlem ent th a t lay
fu rth e st w est o n th e n o rth co a st o f Sicily, o r in o th e r G re ek cities o f
Sicily o r S o u th Italy , th o u g h one p a p y ru s frag m en t v ario u sly ascrib ed
to S tesich o ru s (by L o b el a n d W est) a n d Ibycus (by P age a n d D avies)
h a s been a rg u ed to be designed fo r p e rfo rm a n c e in a S p a rta n con-
te x t .8 T o w hichever o f these tw o p o ets th a t frag m en t is ascribed, it
does n o t a lte r th e general p ictu re. S tesich o ru s’ n a rra tiv e m a te ria l is
overw helm ingly d ra w n fro m th e sam e ra n g e o f G re ek m y th o lo g y
th a t circ u lated in th e cities o f o ld G reece a n d th a t w as in m a n y cases
dev elo p ed to en h a n ce th e p a s t o f o n e o f these cities. T h e T ro ja n W a r
p ro v id es S tesichorus w ith his larg est g ro u p o f poem s. T h e A rg o n a u ts,
T h eb es, th e C aly d o n ia n b o a r are likew ise tra d itio n a l them es. P erh a p s
th e G eryo n eis, th e m elic epyllion in w hich H eracles steals th e cattle
o f th e th re e -h e a d e d G e ry o n , resid en t o f th e H e sp e rid islan d E ry th eia
in th e o cean b ey o n d T arte ssu s/C ad iz , h a d especial in tere st fo r an
au d ien ce living in H im e ra o n a tra d e ro u te fro m th e ea ste rn a n d
c e n tral M e d ite rra n e a n to S pain. B u t th ere is n o h in t in th e p o e m ’s
surviving frag m en ts (ad m itted ly only a sm all p ro p o rtio n o f w h a t was
orig in ally p ro b a b ly m o re th a n 1,800 lines) th a t its p o e t b ro u g h t Sicily
in to his s to ry :9 c o n tra s t th e C acus sto ry in V ergil’s A e n e id B o o k 8 .
(footnote 9 continued)
the complexity of the cultural situation in Sicily see A. Willi, Sikelismos: Sprache,
Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien 8.-5. Jh. v. Chr. (Basel: Schwabe,
2008).
10 See P.Oxy. 2506 (= Stesichorus fr. 193 PMGF = Chamaeleon fr. 29 Wehrli) citing
Chamaeleon for the form of the Palinode, but registering other innovations of
content too.
11 H. J. Rose, ‘Stesichoros and the Rhadine-fragment’, CQ 26 (1932), pp.
88-92.
12 L. Lehnus, ‘Note Stesicoree: I poemetti “minori”’, SCO 24 (1975), pp.
191-6.
13 Aristoxenus’ use of the word yuvaiKsg suggests that the poem was not a
partheneion but for singing by a group of married women, but perhaps the term
should not be pressed. We might also wonder whether the unhelpful adjective
apxaiai conceals an ethnic: AKpayavTivai? A^ppaKiroxiKal?
w as p u rs u e d to C o rin th by a co u sin w ho h a d fallen in love w ith her.
T h e ty ra n t killed th em b o th a n d sent th e ir bodies b a c k o n a c h a rio t,
b u t la te r re p e n te d a n d b u rie d them . S trab o cites th e first tw o lines,
specifying h elp fully th a t they are th e p o e m ’s ap%q:
14 Paus. 7.5.13.
15 Thuc. 6.5.
D a p h n is th e co w -h erd is said by som e to h av e b een th e ero m en o s
o f H erm es, a n d b y o th ers to h av e b een his son, a n d to h av e go t his
n a m e fro m th e circu m stan ces o f his b irth - h e w as th e child o f a
n y m p h , a n d o n his b irth h e w as ex p o sed in a lau rel b u sh (daphne).
A n d th ey say th a t th e ca ttle te n d e d by h im w ere sisters o f th o se o f
th e S un, w hich H o m e r m en tio n s in th e O d yssey. W hile D a p h n is
w as ten d in g his ca ttle in Sicily, a n y m p h fell in love w ith h im a n d
h a d in terc o u rse w ith him , since h e w as h a n d so m e a n d y o u n g a n d
g ro w in g his first b e a rd , a t w hich p o in t th e p rim e o f b ea u tifu l
y o u n g boys is a t its m o st attra ctiv e , as in d eed H o m e r also says.
She m a d e a co m p a c t w ith h im th a t h e w o u ld n o t h av e sex w ith
a n y o th e r w o m an , a n d th re a te n e d th a t it w as fa te d th a t h e w o u ld
b e d ep riv ed o f his sight if h e b ro k e th e agreem ent. A n d th ey h a d
a c o n tra c t w ith each o th e r a b o u t this. B u t la te r a princess fell in
love w ith him , got h im d ru n k , so th a t h e b ro k e th e agreem ent
a n d h a d sex w ith h er. A n d it w as o n th e basis o f this th a t bucolic
[cattle-tending] songs w ere first sung a n d h a d as th e ir th em e w h a t
h a p p e n e d to his sight. A n d (they say?) S tesichorus o f H im e ra
in itia te d th is so rt o f sung p o etry .
o Ss T xupog 8yyu0sv ao sl
©g noKa xag Hsvsag ^p aooaxo Aa^vig o Pouxag,
x©g opog a ^ s n o v s lx o Kai ©g Spusg auxov 80p^vsuv
'I^ sp a aixs ^Uovxi n a p ’ oxBaioiv noxa^olo
IBYCUS
T h e rem ain s o f Ibycus o f R h eg io n are only a little m o re illu m in atin g ,
b u t th a t little is a large little. M o st, if n o t all, o f Ib y c u s’ h a n d lin g o f
18 D.S. 4.84.
19 Timaeus FGrHist 566 F83.
20 J. L. Lightfoot, Parthenius o f Nicaea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp.
526-30.
21 Vibius Sequester, De fluminibus fontibus etc., p. 15 Gelsonino; cf. Himerius, Or.
27.27: rqv 'I^spav . . . XoYoig Koa^si ZTnat%opog.
m y th seems n o t to h av e been in long, self-standing tre a tm e n ts like
th o se o f S tesichorus b u t in co m p ariso n s o r p r a e te r itio n e s in praise-
p o em s, o f w hich th a t fo r P o ly crates is th e b est a n d m o st fam o u s
ex a m p le .22 H e re o n S am os, as in th e frag m en t o f a p o e m a rg u e d to be
d esigned fo r a S p a rta n c o n te x t ,23 th e ra n g e o f m y th is ‘s ta n d a r d ’: in th e
P o ly crates p o em , T ro y ; in th e o th e r, C a s to r a n d P olydeuces, H eracles,
Io lau s, Peleus a n d (p e rh ap s th e single w hiff o f th e W est) G e ry o n .24 As
I h av e a rg u e d elsew here, th e em p h asis th a t A jax a n d A chilles w ere
th e g reatest w a rrio rs a t T ro y (S 151.32-4) m ay b e a n e n d o rsem en t o f
a claim b y Ib y c u s’ h o st P o ly crates, son o f A eaces, to h av e a n A eacid
p a s t going b a c k to A eacus a n d his g ra n d s o n s .25 O edipus a n d In o also
figure in som e e ro tic p o em s k n o w n fro m a p a p y ru s c o m m e n ta ry .26
T h e P o ly crates p o e m rem in d s us th a t som e o f Ib y c u s’s po em s w ere
first co m p o sed fo r audiences in th e A egean. I t is only ra rely possible
to ju d g e w h en a p o e m belongs th ere , a n d w hen b a c k in his n ativ e
R h eg io n o r o th e r cities o f th e w estern G reeks. B u t a p a p y ru s c o m
m e n ta ry o n Ib y cus a n d o th e r lyric p o ets h a s p ro v id e d som e tan talisin g
detail. S220 D avies = 282B C am p b ell begins as follow s:
’'I]PuKog sxspro
]av.[ ].o xBovog sg
..].[..]av Pa0[uv a ]sp a xa^vrov
].OT.[
[ ] XaXKiSsrov[
[ lg nponYn[
[ ] a n o m a a .[
[ ]opKia no[ (5)
[ ]vrog ku^[
[ 8]ni Toig o ^ [ a a i
[ K]opuaasTai Ss[
[ Kop0]psTai ^s[T]sro[p^sTai
[ ]og o n o 0 og.[ ( 10 )
[ ] 9 n aiv o.[
[ ls (?ro[..].[
Maria Pavlou
Thanks go to John Marincola for his invitation to the Leventis Conference, and to
the audience there for their suggestions and remarks; also to the J. F. Costopoulos
Foundation for its generous financial support, which enabled me to conduct the
research for this chapter. Last but not least I thank my PhD supervisor, Robert
Fowler, for many stimulating discussions on the notion of time in Pindar.
1 The phrase was first used by M. Eliade, The Myth o f the Eternal Return, tr. W.
R. Trask (New York: Pantheon Books, 1954), in order to indicate the sacred time
of origins when the world was first created.
2 On the Greek view of myth and history see among others C. Brillante, ‘History
and the historical interpretation of myth’, in L. Edmunds (ed.), Approaches to
Greek Myth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. 91-140, at
pp. 93ff; T. Harrison, Divinity and History: The Religion o f Herodotus (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2000), pp. 197-207.
3 D. C. Young, Pindar Isthmian 7: Myth and Exempla (Leiden: Brill, 1971),
pp. 16-18. On the cluster of myths that opens Isthm. 7 see, among others,
R. Sevieri, ‘Cantare la citta: Tempo mitico e spazio urbano nell’ Istmica 7
di Pindaro per Strepsiade di Tebe’, in P. A. Bernardini (ed.), Presenza e
funzione della citta di Tebe nella cultura greca: A tti del Convegno Internationale,
D io n y so s a n d th e ir re la tio n sh ip to T hebes, p rogresses to T h e b a n
h ero es, a n d finally com es d o w n to his ow n tim e th ro u g h a reference to
th e T h e b a n A egeidai, th u s linking m y th a n d h isto ry in a co n tin u u m .
W h a t sh o u ld be stressed a t th e o u tse t is th a t P in d a r’s m y th ic al d eto u rs
are n o t g en e rated by his desire to re p o rt th e p a s t p e r s e , b u t ra th e r
serve as a k in d o f eulogistic device. B eing a n en co m iast, P in d a r’s aim
is to p raise, extol a n d glorify c o n te m p o ra ry victors. A ccordingly, his
n a r ra tio n o f th e p a s t is alw ays trig g ered by th e c u rre n t occasio n a n d
seeks to in te rp re t fo rm s a n d in stitu tio n s o f th e p re sen t; in o th e r w ords,
th e re c o n stru c tio n o f th e p a s t in P in d a r is first a n d fo rem o st p re sc rip
tive a n d e x p la n a to ry .4 F u rth e rm o re , this is th e re a so n w hy m o st o f
th e stories h e n a rra te s refer to th e b irth o f h ero es, th e co lo n isatio n o f
cities, th e estab lish m en t o f h e ro cults, ritu a ls a n d ath letic gam es, a n d
o th e r in v e n tio n s .5 W h ereas som e o f these ac co u n ts h a d a p an h ellen ic
a p p e al (e.g. th e m y th o f H eracles), P in d a r’s self-ex h o rtatio n in N e m .
3.31 to ‘search a t h o m e ’ (ofcoBsv ^axsus) u n d e rp in s th e w hole epini-
cian co rp u s; as a resu lt, m o st o f his m a te ria l is derived fro m local lore
a n d is asso ciated , in o n e w ay o r a n o th e r, w ith th e v ic to rs’ fam ily a n d /
o r th e ir h o m e tow ns.
In w h a t follow s, I will a tte m p t to exam ine a few aspects o f this
in tric a te a n d fa scin atin g P in d a ric ep in ician p a s t .6 M y discussion will
be div id ed in to tw o p a rts. In th e first p a r t I will focus o n th e te m p o
ra l p ersp ectiv e o f P in d a r’s n a rra tiv e s a n d th e re la tio n sh ip h e tries
to estab lish betw een p a s t a n d p resen t. I will th e n research P in d a r’s
sources: m o re p artic u la rly , I will c o n c e n tra te o n th e w ay in w hich
h e acq u ires his in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e p a s t, w ith p a rtic u la r em phasis
o n his co m m en ts a n d views o n th e tran sm issio n o f th e p a st a n d the
reliab ility o f tra d itio n .
(footnote 3 continued)
Urbino 7-9 Luglio 1997 (Pisa and Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici
internazionali, 2000), pp. 179-92; P. Agocs, ‘Memory and forgetting in
Pindar’s Seventh Isthmian’, in L. Dolezalova (ed.), Strategies o f Remembrance:
From Pindar to Holderin (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2009), pp. 33-91.
4 G. Huxley, Pindar’s Vision o f the Past (Belfast: Author, 1975), p. 43.
5 Birth of heroes: Iamos (Ol. 6.35-45); Aristaios (Pyth. 9.59-65); Asklepios (Pyth.
3.38-46). Foundation/colonisation of cities: Pyth. 4, 9 (Kyrene); Ol. 7 (Rhodes).
Institution of athletic games: Ol. 10 (Olympic games); Nem. 9 (Nemean games).
Cults of heroes: Ol. 1; on allusions to hero cults in Pindar see B. Currie, Pindar and
the Cult o f Heroes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
6 Even though scholars tend to examine Pindar’s epinician and cult poems
together, the way in which Pindar treats time and establishes the relationship
between past and present in these two poetic genres differs considerably. On this
see M. Pavlou, ‘Past and present in Pindar’s religious poetry’, in A. P. M. H.
Lardinois, J. H. Blok and M. G. M. van der Poel (eds), Sacred Words: Orality,
Literacy and Religion (Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World 8 ; Leiden: Brill,
2011), pp. 59-78.
1 LOCATING THE PAST IN THE TIMELINE
O n e strik in g th in g a b o u t P in d a r is his d isreg a rd fo r p lacin g events in a
te m p o ra l fram ew o rk . F o r in stan ce, h e n ev er specifies th e in terv al th a t
sep arates th e m o m e n t o f th e n a r ra tio n a n d th e m o m e n t o f th e story.
T h e tra n s itio n fro m th e p re se n t to th e p a s t is u su ally m a d e th ro u g h
th e indefinite c o n ju n ctio n s to ts , o ts a n d especially tcots, follow ed by a
relativ e p r o n o u n .7 D esp ite th e vagueness o f th e ab o v e co n ju n ctio n s,
P in d a r show s n o p a rtic u la r in tere st in p ro v id in g a so m ew h at m o re
specific lo catio n o f events in th e sphere o f th e p ast. A s a resu lt, events
are alw ays p re se n te d as ‘flo a tin g ’ in a k in d o f ‘ageless p a s t ’.8 E ven
in th e case o f recen t h isto rical events, w here a m o re precise c h ro n o l
ogy co u ld be easily p ro v id e d , P in d a r p refers to lo cate these events by
em p lo y in g th e indefinite noTs in lieu o f a m o re specific te m p o ra l term .
In P y th . 3, fo r exam ple, th e v ictory o f H ie ro n ’s h o rse P h eren ik o s,
w hich o cc u rre d ju s t a few years b efo re th e co m p o sitio n o f th e ode, is
said to h av e ta k e n place ‘once u p o n a tim e ’ (sXsv . . . tcots, 74 ).9
A sim ilar stance is a d o p te d in re la tio n to th e v ario u s te m p o ra l levels
w ith in a p a rtic u la r m y th ical story. N o t only does P in d a r rad ically alter
th e o rd e r a n d ch ro n o lo g ic al sequence o f events, b u t h e also refrain s
fro m d esig n atin g th e ir ex ten t a n d d u ra tio n . In fact, in m a n y cases th e
tra n s itio n fro m one te m p o ra l level o f a sto ry to th e o th e r is achieved
th ro u g h th e re p e titio n o f th e indefinite tcots. In Ol. 7, fo r instance,
in line 30 noTs refers to th e p e rio d o f th e c o lo n isatio n o f R h o d es by
T lep o lem o s; a t line 34 it refers to a n ea rlier p e rio d , w hen A th e n a was
7 See e.g. tots (Nem. 9.11); ots (Ol. 7.55); tcots (Ol. 3.13, Ol. 9.9; Pyth. 1.16, 9.5;
Nem. 8.18, 9.13; Isthm. 1.13). The transition to the past can also be achieved
through the use of the temporal adjectives naXaiog (Pyth. 9.105) and apxaiog (Nem.
1.34).
8 G. Genette, Narrative Discourse, tr. J. E. Lewin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980),
p. 220.
9 See also Isthm. 8.65; Nem. 6.36, 42; Nem. 9.52; Nem. 10.25. D. C. Young,
‘Pindar Pythian 2 and 3: Inscriptional noTs and the “poetic epistle”’, HSCP 87
(1983), pp. 31-42, at p. 36, suggests that in these instances noTs has a future point
of view, not a present one; in other words, it does not indicate distance in time from
the moment of the narration, but rather reflects the viewpoint of later audiences
on the victory. He calls this noTs ‘inscriptional’ as it is often used in inscriptions
in the same sense. Even though I agree with Young’s observation, in my view it
is also significant to consider the impact that this ‘inscriptional’ noTs would have
upon the current audience; through the use of noTs recent events are put on a par
with the mythical events of the past and are ‘traditionalised’, so to speak. In this
way the temporal distance between past and present seems to collapse and the
audience is invited to experience time as a unity. Another thing that should be
stressed is that only a few instances of noTs in Pindar pertain to the ‘inscriptional’
noTs. Whenever noTs refers to the distant mythical past, its vagueness suggests
a significant remove in time; see C. Carey, ‘Prosopographica Pindarica’, CQ 39
(1989), pp. 1-9, at p. 8 .
b o rn ; a n d a t line 71 it refers to a n even earlier p e rio d , w hen H elios
u n ite d w ith R h o d es. T h e effect is m o re p o ig n a n t in P y th . 4, w here
noxs occu rs eight tim es, each tim e re ferrin g to a different te m p o ra l
level. O ccasionally noxs is acco m p an ied b y sp atial ad v erb s (npooBs
noxs, Ol. 10.31, a n d omBsv ou noAlov, Ol. 10.35-6), w hich co n trib u te
n o th in g , ho w ever, to th e m o re precise d a tin g o f events. F u rth e rm o re ,
th e ch ro n o lo g ic al term s u sed in a h a n d fu l o f cases are also q u ite vague
a n d indefinite. In P y th . 11 we are to ld th a t A g a m e m n o n re tu rn e d fro m
T ro y xpovt®, w hile in Ol. 1.46 G a n y m e d e ’s tra n sfe r to O lym pos is said
to h av e ta k e n p lace Ssuxsp© xpov®. In P y th . 2.58 th e lo c u tio n s ra g erov
m o st p ro b a b ly gives in sp atialised term s th e te m p o ra l d istance th a t
sep arates P in d a r fro m A rc h ilo ch u s, once ag ain w ith o u t specifying
th e in te rv a l .10 T h is overall lack o f te m p o ra l perspective, in co n ju n c
tio n w ith P in d a r’s ten d en cy to re so rt to an a ch ro n ies b y d isto rtin g a n d
alterin g th e ch ro n o lo g ic al sequence o f events, creates difficulties; a n d
it som etim es leads to h erm e n eu tic aporias. A salient exam ple is Ol. 3,
w here th e unspecified lapse o f tim e betw een H e ra k le s’ tw o jo u rn e y s
to th e Is tria n L a n d h a s cau sed d eb a te a n d led a n u m b e r o f scholars to
co n flate th e tw o jo u rn e y s in to o n e .11
T h e o nly in stan ce w here P in d a r offers a m o re precise (in term s o f
c h ro n o lo g y ) n a rra tiv e is P y t h . 4, a p o e m th a t celebrates th e c h a rio t
v icto ry o f th e king o f K yrene, A rkesilas IV . H ere, n o t only does
P in d a r d esig nate th e te m p o ra l in terv a l th a t sep arates th e story,
as h e n a rra te s fro m th e p e rfo rm a tiv e n o w , b u t h e also defines the
in terv als betw een th e different stages o f th e story. W e learn , fo r
in stan ce, th a t a lapse o f tw en ty years intercedes betw een J a s o n ’s
b irth a n d his arriv al a t Io lk o s ( s k o a i S’ SKxsAsaaig eviauxoug, 104),
a n d th a t th ere is a n in terv a l o f five days betw een his m eetin g w ith
Pelias a n d th e beg in n in g o f th e A rg o n a u tic ex p ed itio n (131-3). W e
are also in fo rm e d th a t th e A rg o n a u ts w ere ca rry in g th e A r g o across
la n d fo r tw elve days (SroSsKa a^spag, 25-6). W h a t m erits p a rtic u
la r a tte n tio n , how ever, is th e use o f genealogical ch ro n o lo g y , th e
o nly in stan ce th ro u g h o u t th e E p in ic ia n s w here P in d a r re so rts to the
use o f g en eratio n s in o rd e r to re ck o n tim e. A s h e declares, eight
12 The ‘Danaans’ were forced to leave the Peloponnese because of the Dorians’
invasion of Greece. Note that Pindar employs the term ‘Danaans’ to indicate the
generation that lived in Greece before the Dorian invasion; see B. K. Braswell,
A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode o f Pindar (Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter, 1988), ad Pyth. 4.48.
13 See M. Giangiulio, ‘Constructing the past: Colonial traditions and the writing
of history. The case of Cyrene’, in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the
Age o f Herodotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 116-37, at p. 124,
who, based on the affinities between the Pindaric and Herodotean version of the
Battiad genealogy, argues for the existence of an earlier written version. See also
R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 172 n. 39.
significant events, such as th e T ro ja n W a r a n d th e D o ria n in v asio n ? 14
O f co u rse, such a genealogical fra m e w o rk w o u ld p re su p p o se th e use
o f a n ‘a v e rag e’ genealogy fo r its c o n stru c tio n . P in d a r’s m u ch y o u n g er
c o n te m p o ra ry H e ro d o tu s in fo rm s us o f th e E g y p tia n s ta n d a rd o f
th ree g en eratio n s p e r ce n tu ry (each g en e ratio n eq u allin g 33.3 years);
a n d it seems th a t h e h im self u sed this s ta n d a rd fo r a t least som e o f
his o w n calcu latio n s in th e H is to r ie s .15 C o n sid e rin g th e geo g rap h ical
p ro x im ity o f K y ren e a n d E gypt, co u ld we assum e th a t P in d a r u sed a
sim ilar s ta n d a rd fo r his ow n genealogical reck o n in g in P y th . 4? E ven
th o u g h , p r im a fa c ie , this suggestion m a y seem m erely co n jectu re, if
we a tte m p t to co n v e rt th e genealogies o f P y th . 4 in to years by using
an ‘av e rag e’ genealogy, th e results are in d eed strik in g a n d th o u g h t-
p ro v o k in g . T w enty-five g en eratio n s eq u al ap p ro x im a te ly 800 years,
eig h t g en e ratio n s eq u a l 233 years a n d fo u r g en eratio n s m a k e 100
y e a rs .16 G iv en th a t th e o d e w as p e rfo rm e d a ro u n d 462 bce, this places
th e A rg o n a u tic ex p e d itio n as fa r b a c k as 1300 bce, th e c o lo n isatio n
o f K y re n e by B a tto s as 700 b ce a n d th e D a n a a n s ’ m ig ra tio n fro m the
P elo p o n n ese as 1200 bce. W e k n o w th a t th e c o lo n isatio n o f K yrene
to o k p lace a ro u n d 650 bce, w hile in a n tiq u ity th e c o n jec tu ral d ate
o f th e T ro ja n W a r, w hich w as co n sid ered to h av e ta k e n p lace o n e o r
tw o g en eratio n s a fte r th e A rg o n a u tic ex p ed itio n , w as th e th irte e n th o r
early tw elfth c e n tu ry .17 F u rth e rm o re , we also k n o w th a t th e D o ria n
in v asio n o f G reece m u st h av e ta k e n place betw een 1200 a n d 1100
b ce. C ertain ly , this c o rresp o n d en c e m ig h t b e sheer coincidence. I t is,
h o w ev er, strik in g a n d , if n o th in g else, it does invite us to th in k m o re
18 Whatever the case is, if my conjecture is valid, then some sort of chronological
reckoning seems to have been in use even before Herodotus.
19 See, among others, H. Frankel, ‘Die Zeitauffassung in der griechischen
Literatur’, Beilagenheft zur Zeitschrift fur Aesthetik und allgemeine
Kunstwissenschaft 25 (1931); P. Vivante, ‘On myth and action in Pindar’, Arethusa
4 (1971), pp. 119-36; Vivante, ‘On time in Pindar’, Arethusa 5 (1972), pp. 107-31.
20 Like Pindar, Bacchylides shows no particular interest in the chronology of
the events he narrates. The only exception is Ep. 11; but see R. Garner, ‘Countless
deeds of valour: Bacchylides 11’, CQ 42 (1992), pp. 523-5.
21 Contrast I. Rumpel, Lexicon Pindaricum (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883), and
Slater, Lexicon to Pindar, both of whom translate naAaiog and apxaiog in a similar
way without paying attention to this semantic nuance.
o ften d esig n ated w ith th e co m p a ra tiv e a n d superlative fo rm o f the
adjective vsog .22
L eav in g term in o lo g y aside, le t’s m o v e o n a n d discuss briefly
th e re la tio n sh ip th a t P in d a r registers b etw een p a s t a n d p re sen t. In
H o m e r th e p a s t is a b so lu te a n d su p e rio r to th e p re se n t (‘ch ro n o -
to p e o f h isto ric a l in v e rsio n ’) .23 In Il. 12.445-9 we h e a r th a t p eo p le
o f o ld co u ld lift stones th a t n o t even tw o p eo p le in th e p re se n t can
lift, w hile th e stories o f N e s to r leave it to be in ferred th a t th e p a s t o f
th e p a s t h a d b een even g re ater a n d s u p e rio r .24 In th e H esio d ic m y th
o f ages th e p a s t also stan d s fo r a go ld en age, w ith th e p re se n t being
m erely its d eg e n era te d fo rm . In P in d a r th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een p a st
a n d p re se n t is seen fro m a new persp ectiv e a n d is given a different
spin; P in d a r collapses th e q u a lita tiv e d istan ce b etw een these tw o
te m p o ra l en tities, a n d th e p re se n t is n o w seen as c o n tin u in g , re p e a t
ing a n d ren ew ing fo rm s o f th e p a st. R eference to cities n a m e d afte r
th e ir h e ro ic fo u n d e rs, expressions in th e fo rm o f ‘even n o w ’, m y th i
cal genealogies w hich com e d o w n to th e p re s e n t ,25 th e setting u p o f
explicit p arallels b etw een p re se n t-d a y v icto rs a n d m y th ic al heroes:
all th ese serve to b rid g e th e te m p o ra l g ap b etw een p a s t a n d p resen t.
P in d a r’s fa ith in th e p erm a n en ce a n d tra n s c e n d e n t n a tu re o f c e rtain
values, especially his b elief in th e n o tio n o f in n e r excellence (p h y a ) a n d
th e u n failin g p ro sp e rity a n d eu d a im o n ia o f a risto c ra tic fam ilies, also
serve as a h in g e b etw een ‘th e n ’ a n d ‘n o w ’.26 In som e cases th e c o n tin u
ity betw een p a s t a n d p re se n t is also m a p p e d spatially: in Ol. 6 .7 1 -3 ,
fo r in stan ce , th e Ia m id s are d ep icted trav e llin g alo n g a co n sp icu o u s
ro a d , w hile in N e m . 2 .6 -7 th e v ic to r w alks o n th e p a th in scrib ed by his
fa th e rs (naTplav . . . Ka0’ oSov).
27 See Ol. 1.36; Nem. 4.46-53; Isthm. 6.19. On the invocation to Pelops in Ol.
1 see L. Athanassaki, ‘Deixis performance and poetics in Pindar’s First Olympian
Ode’, Arethusa 37 (2004), pp. 317-41.
28 See also Pyth. 5.96-103; Ol. 14.20-4.
29 P. Toohey, Melancholy, Love, and Time: Boundaries o f the Self in Ancient
Literature (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 205.
will o r c o n stra in his choices, as h e ca n also re sp o n d a n d a d a p t to these.
In fact, o n som e occasions th e gods are fo rced to intervene in o rd e r to
en su re th a t a fa te d event will be actualised. So, in P y th . 4 th e P y th ia
m u st re m in d B a tto s o f M e d e a ’s p ro p h e cy re g ard in g th e co lo n isatio n
o f K y ren e, a n d in P y th . 5 A p o llo m u st intervene a n d p ro te c t B atto s
fro m th e lions so th a t ‘h e m ig h t n o t fail to fulfil his o racles’ (60-2).
T h is sem i-openness o f tim e is also m an ifested in th e ‘c o u n te rfa c tu a ls’,
th a t is, in th o se cases w here P in d a r refers to possibilities th a t existed
a t a given p o in t in th e p a s t b u t w ere n o t ac tu a lise d .30 M en tio n should
also be m ad e h ere o f th e n o tio n o f k a ir o s , w hich plays a ce n tral a n d
p ro m in e n t ro le in P in d a r. In a w o rld w here everything is determ in ed
a p r io ri, k a iro s w o u ld h av e n o place a n d w o u ld h av e lost its m eaning,
in so fa r as it is b ase d o n h u m a n ac tio n a n d decision, a n d p erm its m a n
to co n tro l a n d h arn ess co n tin g en c y .31 W h a t is m o re, P in d a r keeps
em p h asisin g th a t, ju s t like hero es w ho th ro u g h th e ir actio n s altered,
d estro y ed , c reated anew a n d left co n crete traces in th e m a te ria l w o rld
w ith in w hich they lived, p re sen t-d ay victors will leave th eir ow n in d i
vid u al trail in space a n d tim e. A ccordingly, in th e v ictory songs m a n is
visualised as h a v in g a share in th e d evelopm ent a n d change o f events,
a n d as being n o t m erely p a r t b u t also c re a to r o f h is to ry .32
T h e lin ear dim en sio n o f tim e w hich cro p s u p in th e E p in icia n s is
significant, fo r it p u ts th e dynam ics betw een p a st a n d p re se n t in a new
perspective. D e sp ite its sim ilarities w ith th e p a st, th e P in d a ric epini-
cian p re se n t is n o t entirely in its grip, b u t re ta in s its ow n p a rtic u la rity .
F a r fro m passively re p eatin g fo rm s o f th e p a st, th e p re sen t is p o rtra y e d
as actively co n tin u in g a n d in creasing th e glory o f th e p a s t .33 In fact, I
w o u ld even d are to say th a t it is allo ca te d a n alm o st equally significant
place n ex t to it. W h ereas it is tru e th a t th e ex em p lary n a tu re a n d p a r a
4 TRADITION
T h e n ew ro le th a t P in d a r assigns to his M u se leads n a tu ra lly to
th e questio n : if th e M u se ceases to b e th e m a in source o f in fo rm a
tio n a b o u t th e p a st, fro m w here o r w h o m does P in d a r ac q u ire his
(footnote 37 continued)
and Focalizers: The Presentation o f the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam: Gruner,
1987), pp. 45-50.
38 In Ol. 13 and Pyth. 11 the questions remain unanswered, while in Isthm.
5 the answer is presented as widely known. An answer to the question raised is
provided only in Pyth . 4.
39 G. Norwood, Pindar (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945), p. 114.
40 This feature is not peculiar to Pindar but seems to apply to the lyric Muse
in general; see M. Finkelberg, The Birth o f Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 163 n. 6.
in fo rm a tio n ? A s will b ecom e clear in w h a t follow s, this ro le is now
ta k e n o v er by tra d itio n . 41 P in d a r very o ften re so rts to tra d itio n a n d
leaves it to be in ferred th a t his know ledge o f th e p a s t is b ase d o n
n o th in g m o re im m ed iate th a n verbal n a rra tiv e s. A ttrib u tio n s to tr a d i
tio n are n o rm a lly in tro d u c e d w ith th e verbs ^ a a l a n d XsysTai (b o th in
th e sin g u lar a n d in th e p lu ral), a n d lo cu tio n s such as Xoyog saTi, 9 &Tig
saTi, Xsyousvov saTi. 42 E ven th o u g h P in d a r occasionally refers a n d
cred its g n o m a i to specific p o ets, such as H o m e r a n d H e sio d , 43 m o st
o ften his a ttrib u tio n s to tra d itio n re m a in an o n y m o u s. E ven w hen it
can be su rm ised w ith som e ce rtain ty th a t h e d raw s o n a specific p o etic
w o rk , P in d a r chooses to cam ouflage th e n a m e o f his p o e tic p red eces
so r w ith a ^ a a l statem en t. In P y th . 6 .2 1 -3 , fo r in stan ce, h e says th a t
his la u d a n d u s X e n o k ra te s u p h o ld s th e p re c e p t w hich ‘th ey say (^ a v u )
th a t P h ily ra ’s son once gave to th e m ig h ty son o f Peleus in th e m o u n
ta in s ’. F ro m th e scholia 44 we learn th a t th e p re cep t w hich follow s is
d ra w n fro m T h e P re c e p ts o f C h e ir o n , a w o rk a ttrib u te d to H e sio d . 45
Y et P in d a r o m its an y reference to h im a n d chooses in stead to a ttrib
u te his n a rra tiv e to th e unspecified ^ a v u (21). 46 S om e P in d a rists h av e
a tte m p te d to n a rro w do w n such appeals, a rg u in g th a t all references to
th e npoTspoi sh o u ld be u n d e rsto o d as allusions to lite rary p redecessors
a n d n o t to tra d itio n in general. D e sp ite th is being b o th a p ossible a n d
a p lau sib le re ad in g , th ere is n o th in g in these p assag es w hich fav o u rs
th is ov er a m o re general in te rp re ta tio n ; in fact, o n e co u ld even suggest
th a t P in d a r d eliberately leaves such a ttrib u tio n s q u ite vague so th a t he
can h av e his cake a n d e a t it to o . O n th e o n e h a n d , by a ttrib u tin g a n a r
ra tiv e to tra d itio n in general h e p resen ts it as th e ca n o n ic al ac co u n t,
n o t m erely as a version e n te rta in e d b y a p a rtic u la r p o et. O n th e o th e r
h a n d , by leaving it to b e in ferred th a t h e derives his ac co u n ts fro m
earlier p o ets, P in d a r stresses his know ledge o f th e p re v io u s p o etic
47 See e.g. the celebrated passage in Il. 2.485-6 where tradition is juxtaposed
with the superior eyewitness knowledge of the Muses.
48 Scodel, ‘Poetic authority and oral tradition’, p. 125. It should be noted, however,
that Pindar acknowledges the epistemic difference between seeing and knowing;
see Nem. 4.91-2: aXXoiai S’ aXiKsg aXXor Ta S’ auTog avTvrt%fl, / sXnsTal Tig sKaaTog
8^o%roTaTa ^aaBai.
49 Mackie, Graceful Errors, p. 71.
50 Scodel, ‘Poetic authority and oral tradition’, p. 124.
51 See Huxley, Pindar’s Vision o f the Past, pp. 29-30.
52 Something similar occurs in Ol. 9 for Epharmostos of Opous.
fulness o f such lesser-know n m y th s, a n d at th e sam e tim e c o n trib u te s
to th e ir estab lish m en t as ca n o n ic al acco u n ts. T h ere is, how ever,
a n o th e r eq u ally significant im plication: by p re sen tin g these m y th s
as ‘c a n o n ic a l’, P in d a r m an ag es to safeg u ard th e ir d o m in an ce a n d
a u th o rity n o t o nly in th e p re se n t b u t also in th e fu tu re , as th e p re sen t
tense o f th e verbs ^ a o l a n d Asysxai g u aran tees th a t these ac co u n ts will
be ‘c u rre n t’, alive a n d d o m in a n t in th e re p o rts o f m en forever. In every
fu tu re re p erfo rm an ce th e version em b ra ced a n d voiced by P in d a r in
th e p re sen t will be th e o n e sh ared by all.
In spite o f his ap p eals to tra d itio n , P in d a r also freq u en tly ad o p ts
a p o lem ical stance to w a rd s earlier au th o ritie s, cen su rin g th e ir u n re li
ab ility a n d treach ery . W h e rea s tim e ( ch ro n o s ) is irreversible a n d th e
p a s t a n u n ch a n g in g re a lity ,53 stories a b o u t th e p a s t v ary (noAAa yap
noAAa AsAsKxai, N e m . 7.20) a n d o ften p ro v id e d isto rte d reflections o f
reality . A cco rd ingly, P in d a r o ften re p u d ia tes tra d itio n a l stories th a t
h e co n sid ers h av e b een in co rrectly h a n d e d dow n. T h e b est exam ple
is Ol. 1.36, w here h e op en ly declares th a t his a c c o u n t will force th e
estab lish ed sto ry o f P elops to be co n sid ered fro m a new p ersp ec
tive (uis TavxaAou, a s S’ avxla npoxsprov 9 0 sy£,o^ai, Ol. 1.36).54 In a
sim ilar vein is Ol. 7.21, w here P in d a r once ag ain declares th a t h e will
‘c o rre c t’ (Siop0roaai )55 th e stan d in g tra d itio n a b o u t th e beginnings o f
R h o d es a n d tease o u t w h a t really h ap p e n e d . I t is im possible to say
w h e th e r th is n ew version w as P in d a r’s o w n in v en tio n o r a sto ry w ith
lo cal scope. A t a n y ra te , th e R h o d ia n s w ere so p lease d w ith th e ir new
‘straig h ten e d o u t’ p a s t th a t th ey in scrib ed th e o d e o n th e tem p le o f
A th e n a a t L in d o s in golden le tte rs .56
T o be sure, P in d a r w as n o t th e first to criticise tra d itio n openly.
A p a rt fro m H o m e r a n d H esiod, w hose criticism s are alw ays veiled,
a n d a few sca tte red exam ples a m o n g th e lyric p o ets, th e m o st cel
e b ra te d re p ro ac h es o f tra d itio n are cred ited to H e ra k le ito s 57 a n d
th e elegiac p o e t X e n o p h a n e s .58 W h a t d istinguishes P in d a r fro m his
53 xrov Ss TCsnpay^svrov / sv Slra xs Kai napa SlKav anolnxov otiS’ av / Xpovog o navxrov
nax^p / Swaixo 0s^sv spyrov xsAog (Ol. 2.15-17).
54 See, among others, J. G. Howie, ‘The revision of myth in Pindar Olympian
1’, P L L S 4 (1983), pp. 277-313.
55 On the meaning of Siop0roaai see W. J. Verdenius, Pindar’s Seventh
Olympian Ode: A Commentary (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972), ad 21.
56 See schol. ad Ol. 7 (Drachmann I, 195).
57 In fr. 42 D-K Herakleitos argues that both Homer and Archilochos deserve to be
expelled from the contests and be flogged, because their narratives abound in lies:
see also frr. 56 and 57 D-K.
58 Xenophanes fr. 11. A. Gostoli, ‘La critica dei miti tradizionali alla corte di Ierone
di Siracusa: Senofane e Pindaro’, QUCC 62 (1999), pp. 15-24, at p. 16, points
out that such criticisms of tradition must have been common in the literary-
philosophical circles of the fifth and sixth centuries. See also K. Freeman, The
p red ecesso rs a n d peers is th a t a p a rt fro m engaging critically w ith t r a
d itio n , h e also explicitly discusses th e th ree fa c to rs w hich h e believes
c o n trib u te to th e w ro n g tran sm issio n o f th e p a s t a n d th e fo rm a tio n
o f ‘false sto ries’: envy ( 9 0 ovog ) ,59 th e lim itatio n s o f m o rta l know ledge
a n d - last b u t n o t least - p o e try .60
C o n sid e rin g h o w highly h e values tra d itio n , P in d a r’s critical stance
to w a rd s it seems c o n tra d ic to ry . W h y does h e decry tra d itio n ’s u n re li
ab ility a n d deceptive c h a ra c te r an d , m o st im p o rta n tly , w hy does h e
d raw a tte n tio n to p o e try ’s c o n trib u tio n to th e falsification o f th e p ast?
P in d a r’s m o ra l ju d g e m e n ts o f th e m y th s h e n a rra te s h av e b een in te r
p re te d by m a n y scholars as an in d ic a tio n o f his p ru d e ry a n d ten d en cy
to m o ralise tra d itio n in o rd e r to reveal th e real t r u t h .61 E ven th o u g h
this is a p o ssible e x p la n a tio n , we m u st n o t fo rg et th a t P in d a r’s aim
a n d p rim a ry co n cern are to p ro v id e n o t an a c c u ra te b u t a ‘u sa b le ’
ac co u n t o f th e p a st, an a c c o u n t th a t w o u ld m eet th e ex p e ctatio n s o f
his la u d a n d u s a n d a u d ien c e .62 T his is n o t to say th a t his claim s a b o u t
th e tru th fu ln ess o f his p o e try are m erely a preten ce, b u t ra th e r th a t
th e u ltim a te y a rd stic k ag a in st w hich h e chooses w h a t to rem em b er
a n d w h a t to fo rg et is n o t tru th fu ln e ss b u t ‘a p p ro p ria te n e ss ’.63 T his
is stark ly a rtic u la te d in th e ‘h u sh p assa g es’ w here P in d a r refuses to
re c o u n t ce rtain u n flatterin g aspects o f th e p a s t w hich co u ld be offen
sive to th e gods o r c e rta in h e ro e s .64 It is im p o rta n t to re m e m b er th a t in
(footnote 58 continued)
Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 94, who argues for a possible
encounter between Xenophanes and Pindar at the court of Hieron in Syracuse.
59 Even though phthonos is a generic topos, it is significant that Pindar explicitly
associates it not only with the distortion of the present, but also with the distortion
of the past. See P. Bulman, Phthonos in Pindar (Berkeley and Oxford: University
of California Press, 1992).
60 See e.g. Nem. 7.20-3: syro S s nXsov’ sXno^ai / Xoyov OSuoosog ^ naBav Sia xov
aSusnq ysvsoB’ 'O^qpov- / snsi ysuSsol oi noxava <t s > ^axava / os^vov snsoxl xr
oo^la S s k Xstctsi napayoioa ^uBoig. See also Ol. 1.28-9.
61 Cf. C. M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 285-7; Howie,
‘Revision of myth’, esp. p. 299; C. Carey, ‘Pindar and the victory ode’, in L. Ayres
(ed.), The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation o f Classical Tradition
Presented to Professor I. G. Kidd (New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Rutgers
University Press, 1995), pp. 97-8. See also D. Loscalzo, ‘Pindaro tra ^uGog e
Xoyog’, in M. Cannata Fera and G. B. d’ Alessio (eds), I Lirici Greci (Messina:
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichita dell’Universita degli Studi di Messina,
2001), pp. 165-85, at p. 185: ‘Pindaro, in particolare, cerca nuove prospettive di
interpretazione delle varianti del mito e in questo senso la sua poesia si profila
come ermeneutica e quindi ha un valore attivamente etico.’
62 L. Pratt, Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1993), esp. pp. 11-53 and 115-29.
63 Pratt, Lying and Poetry , p. 123.
64 Ol. 9.35-41; Nem. 5.14-18. See Norwood, Pindar, p. 80.
these cases P in d a r does n o t d isp u te th e facts a n d tru th fu ln e ss o f these
events, b u t m erely tre a ts th e m as p a rts o f th e p a s t th a t sh o u ld be fo r
g o tten a n d re m a in u n sp o k en . B esides, as h e em p h atica lly declares in
N e m . 5.1 6 -1 8 , ‘fo r n o t every exact tru th / is b e tte r fo r show ing its face,
/ a n d silence is o ften th e w isest th in g fo r a m a n to o b serv e’.
In o rd e r to ap p reciate P in d a r’s stance b e tte r, it w o u ld be in stru c
tive to ex am in e it in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e co n v e n tio n s o f th e epinician
genre a n d , m o st im p o rta n tly , th e w ay in w hich h e seeks to p o rtra y his
en co m iastic p e rso n a . I t is tru e th a t d espite th e new role assigned to his
ep in ician M u se, in m o st scholarly discussions P in d a r is still re ferred to
as a ‘v atic p o e t’ a n d a ‘p ro c la im e r o f th e M u ses’. T his is n o t fo rtu ito u s,
in so fa r as P in d a r o ften styles h im self as m a n tis (D ith y ra m b 75.13
a n d P a rth e n io n 1.5-6), p r o p h a ta s (P a e a n 6 .6 ), h e ra ld o f wise verses
(D ith y r a m b 2.24), a tte n d a n t o f th e gods (P a ea n 5.45) a n d ‘p riest o f
th e M u ses’ (fr. 150 a n d 52f.6). H ow ever, w h a t we te n d to o v erlo o k is
th a t all th ese references o ccu r in th e frag m en ts (cult p o etry ), n o t in th e
v icto ry songs. T his c a n n o t a n d sh o u ld n o t be ta k e n as an insignificant
detail.
In a n u tsh ell, in th e E p in ic ia n s P in d a r is n o t th e p riestly figure o f
th e frag m en ts, w hose ro le is th a t o f th e m e d ia to r betw een gods a n d
m en , b u t in ste a d assum es a m o re active a n d energetic role: th a t o f th e
m a itr e d u tem p s. H e is th e o n e w ho th ro u g h his song can rew rite th e
p a s t a n d secure fo r th e p re se n t a p lace in th e fu tu re by erecting fo r it a
p o etic m o n u m e n tu m a e r e p e r e n n iu s .65 T h ro u g h his song P in d a r ensures
th a t th e v ic to rs’ g o o d re p u ta tio n will n o t be d isto rte d b y 9 0 ovog a n d
n a p ^ a a ig , a n d th a t th e rig h t k le o s will be p ro p a g a te d in th e fu tu re .66
E ven if so m eo ne tries to d isto rt th e tru th a n d c o rru p t th e v ic to rs’
n a m e w ith false stories, P in d a r’s p o e try will serve as th e safety valve
fo r th e tru e ac co u n t; due to his h ig h statu s as a p o e t a n d th e a u th o rity
o f his p o e try , P in d a r’s versions will be perceived by fu tu re g en e ra
tio n s as ‘a m irro r’ o f th eir p a st, as h e nicely p u ts it in N e m . 7 .1 4 -1 6 .67
P ara d o x ic ally P in d a r m u st b o th h o n o u r tra d itio n a n d at th e sam e
tim e criticise a n d challenge it if h e is b o th to b e p a r t o f tra d itio n a n d
to h av e a special place w ith in it. O nly if h e p resen ts h im self as u n iq u e
w ith in tra d itio n ca n h e confirm th a t his versions a n d n o one else’s will
d eterm in e th e shape o f th e p re se n t in th e fu tu re a n d th e ju d g em en ts
65 On the distinct ways in which Pindar pitches his epinician and religious
persona see Pavlou, ‘Past and present’.
66 See G. M. Kirkwood, ‘Blame and envy in the Pindaric epinicion’, in D. Gerber
(ed.), Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in Honour o f Leonard Woodbury
(Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 169-83.
67 spyoig Ss KaXoig saonTpov laausv svi aw Tponro, / si Mvauoawag sKaTi XinapaunuKog
/ sup^Tai anoiva u6%0rov KXuTaig snsrov aoiSaig.
o f p o sterity . T his also seem s to explain w hy even w hen h e openly
acknow ledges his dep en d en ce o n tra d itio n , h e is a t p ain s to u n d erlin e
th e d istin ctiv e c h a ra c te r o f his p o e try .68 B u t w hereas P in d a r’s stance
to w a rd s tra d itio n a n d th e p a s t is p re m ised by his ro le as a p an eg y rist,
we sh o u ld n o t fo rg et th a t h e d id n o t live in a vacu u m . T h e re c u rre n t
co m m en ts o n th e fluidity a n d u n re lia b ility o f tra d itio n , o n his selective
‘re m e m b erin g ’ a n d o n th e m alleab ility o f th e p a s t seem to reflect a
b ro a d e r c o n te m p o ra ry a n d lively discussion a b o u t th e V erg a n g en h eit
a n d its tran sm issio n . B esides, it can scarcely b e a coincidence th a t
H e ro d o tu s a n d th e first h isto rio g ra p h e rs lived d u rin g ro u g h ly the
sam e p erio d .
Ruth Scodel
8 I thus see Orestes as somewhat more consistent than many interpreters do. A
good discussion of the inconsistencies of character as survival strategy is M.
O’Brien, ‘Character in the agon of the Orestes’, in S. Boldrini (ed.), Filologia e
forme letterarie: Studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte (Urbino: Universita degli
studi di Urbino, 1987), pp. 183-99.
9 J. Holzhausen, Euripides Politikos. Recht und Rache in ‘Orestes’ und ‘Bakchen’
(Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 185; Munich and Leipzig: Saur, 2003), pp. 52-67,
has a full discussion.
th e o lig arch ic re v o lu tio n .10 C ertain ly d em o crats a n d oligarchs b o th
claim ed an c estral su p p o rt. A c co rd in g to A th . P o l. 29.3, C lito p h o n
p ro p o s e d th a t th e p r o b o u lo i exam ine th e law s o f C listhenes, o n th e
g ro u n d s th a t his c o n stitu tio n w as n o t p o p u la r b u t close to S o lo n ’s .11
T h u cy d id es 8.97.6 m ak es d em o crats in th e fleet a t S am os sp eak o f
naTpfoug vououg th a t th e new g o v ern m en t h a s (w rongly) dissolved.
T h e exp ressio n ‘an c estral law s’ w as evidently, as M o g en s H a n se n h as
p o in te d o u t, a ‘h u rra h -w o rd ’; it in d ic a te d a p p ro v a l o f th e law s .12
In th is p o litica l clim ate, it is n o t p e rh a p s so stran g e th a t everyone
else ig n o res w h a t T y n d a re u s describes as an cien t a n d an cestral rules.
S om eo n e m a y assert th a t th e an cesto rs estab lish ed a law lo n g ago, b u t
th a t does n o t m e a n th a t h e is rig h t, o r th a t, even if th e law is ancien t, it
h a s b een in co n sisten t use a n d h a d n o t b een superseded. So h a v in g one
c h a ra c te r seem to live in a different p a s t fro m th e o th ers is n o t p o in t
less, since c o n te m p o ra ry A th e n ia n s p ro fo u n d ly d isag reed a b o u t w h a t
th e ir p a s t was.
W e c a n n o t k now , how ever, exactly h o w this ro u g h sim ilarity
betw een T y n d a re u s’ speech a n d c o n te m p o ra ry p o litical discourse
w o u ld h av e im p ressed th e c o n te m p o ra ry audience. T he p la y takes
p lace fa r in th e p a st, so o n a fte r th e T ro ja n W a r, a n d T y n d a re u s refers
to ‘th e fa th e rs, lo n g a g o ’. D ra c o w o u ld be re cen t in c o m p a riso n to
T y n d areu s, let alone to his ancestors. M ay b e T y n d a re u s is sim ply
m o d elled o n a n elderly A th e n ia n o lig arch ic type: th a t h e is old, S p a rta n
a n d u n y ield in g w o u ld cue th e aud ien ce to see T y n d a re u s’ an cesto rs
as th e o lig arch ic D ra c o ra th e r th a n th e D ra c o th e re sto re d d em o c
racy co u ld c la im .13 In th a t case, th e difference betw een T y n d a re u s ’
lo n g -ag o an cesto rs a n d th e lo n g -ag o an c esto rs o f th e aud ien ce was
erased: h e co u ld b e h e a rd as if h e w ere arg u in g in late fifth -cen tu ry
A th en s, so th a t th e h isto rical a rg u m e n t w as com pletely ah isto rica l in
its fram in g . H o w ever, it w o u ld also b e p ossible to see th e speech as
a d elib erate tra n sfe r o f a c o n te m p o ra ry k in d o f a rg u m e n t a b o u t th e
18 R. Parker, ‘Through a glass darkly: Sophocles and the divine’, in J. Griffin (ed.),
Sophocles Revisited: Essays Presented to Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), pp. 11-30, at p. 17; P. Finglass, Sophocles: Electra
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 267-8 (on 566-76).
19 J. Barrett, Staged Narrative: Poetics and the Messenger in Greek Tragedy
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), passim , esp. p. 96.
20 R. P. Winnington-Ingram, Sophocles: An Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1980), p. 220, following J. H. Kells (ed.), Sophocles: Electra
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), on 566-633. So also M. Ringer,
Electra and the Empty Urn: Metatheater and Role Playing in Sophocles (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), pp. 159-60.
21 As J. R. March, Sophocles: Electra (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2001), pp. 176-7,
does, esp. on 564.
a m a te u r h isto ria n . She is try in g to co m b in e a n d m a k e sense o f all she
h a s h e a rd , a n d using h e r experience o f h e r m o th e r as fu rth e r evidence.
So h o w are we to u n d e rs ta n d th ese speeches? O ne p o ssib ility is th a t
C ly te m n e stra is sim ply lying. In E le c tra ’s a c co u n t, A g a m e m n o n co u ld
c ertain ly be b lam ed fo r th e tran sg ressio n th a t cau sed A rte m is’ anger,
b u t h e h a d n o choice a b o u t th e sacrifice. C ly te m n e stra ’s claim th a t she
killed h im in v engeance is th e n a fu rth e r lie, a n d she killed h im fo r h er
re la tio n sh ip w ith A egisthus, using th e sacrifice as a self-serving pre-
te x t .22 T his is w h a t E lec tra says a t 561-2. In an y case, if A g a m e m n o n
w as a t fa u lt, h e r a rg u m e n ts a b o u t M e n e la u s’ ch ild re n are a sham . T he
o th e r altern ativ es are m o re co m p licated , b u t also m o re interesting:
C ly te m n e stra is speaking in p a rtia l g o o d fa ith (only p a rtia l, since she
c ertain ly h a s n o t ac te d solely fo r th e m o tiv e she offers). I f she know s
E le c tra ’s v ersion, she does n o t believe it. She co u ld be arg u in g fro m
w ith in th e sto ry o f A esch y lu s’ A g a m e m n o n , w here A rte m is’ an g er
does n o t h av e a d irect a n d o b v io u s m o tiv a tio n . She co u ld also accept
th e sto ry th a t A g a m e m n o n an g e red A rtem is by killing th e stag (while
d elib erately ig n o rin g it in h e r speech), b u t n o t believe th a t h e h a d n o
choice in sacrificing his d au g h ter. T h ere is n o w ay to tell fro m th e tex t
w h e th e r she w as ac tu ally p re se n t a t A ulis.
W h a t we m a y h a v e here, th en , is ag ain so m eth in g very m u ch like
a H e ro d o te a n ‘h e said/she said ’. T h e d isp u ta n ts accept ac co u n ts o f
th e p a s t th a t ju stify th e ir p re se n t beliefs, ju s t as H e ro d o te a n figures
p re se n t versio n s o f th e p a st th a t m a k e th e ir ow n n a tio n s a p p e a r
guiltless. C ly te m n e stra im plicitly denies th a t a n y p ro p h e c y o r o th e r
a u th o rita tiv e source re q u ire d th a t th e sacrifice be A g a m e m n o n ’s
child. T h e q u estio n o f w hy th e victim sh o u ld be A g a m e m n o n ’s
ch ild is ra ise d elsew here in trag e d y , a n d in E u rip id e s’ Ip h ig en e ia a t
A u lis, A g a m e m n o n a t least im plies th a t C a lc h a s’ p ro p h e c y requires
Ip h ig en ia, b o th in th e p ro lo g u e (90) a n d in resp o n se to C ly te m n e stra
(1262). C ly te m n e stra in tro d u ce s a degree o f choice th a t th e tr a d i
tio n does n o t. O nce A eschylus’ A g a m e m n o n h a d to ld th e sto ry o f
th e sacrifice w ith o u t an y p a rtic u la r m o tiv e fo r A rtem is to p u n ish
A g a m e m n o n , th e q u estio n h a d to arise. E le c tra ’s version, o n th e o th er
h a n d , gives A g a m e m n o n n o effective choice a t all. O ne version h a s an
A g a m e m n o n im p lau sib ly u n c o n stra in e d , w hile th e o th e r creates so
m u ch c o n s tra in t th a t h e really h a s n o dilem m a. T hese in te rp re ta tio n s
o f th e p a s t c o rre sp o n d to p ro b lem s o f in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e p resent:
E lec tra tells th e ch o ru s th a t h e r endless lam en ts are entirely fo rced o n
h e r (2 5 6 -7 ), at least in so fa r as she is suysv^g, a n d she tells h e r m o th e r
22 L. MacLeod, Dolos and Dike in Sophokles’ Elektra (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 84-7;
van Erp Taalman Kip, ‘Truth in tragedy’, p. 519.
th a t h e r ab u se o f h e r m o th e r is also com pletely in v o lu n ta ry (619-21).
O n th e o th e r h a n d , she certain ly does n o t see C ly te m n e stra ’s b e h a v
io u r as in an y w ay fo rced o n h e r , a n d she generally refuses to accept
lim its im p o sed by o th ers o n h e r ow n freed o m o f action.
E le c tra ’s a c c o u n t leaves n o m o ra l am biguities. I f h e r version is
co rrec t, A g a m e m n o n , a p a rt fro m th e folly o f his b o a st, is guiltless,
w hile C ly te m n e stra w as n o t actu ally m o tiv a te d by Ip h ig e n ia ’s sacri
fice a t all - it is en tirely a n excuse. C ly tem n estra, o n th e o th e r side,
(repellently) does n o t acknow ledge an y m o ra l com plexity in h er
ow n actio n s; she says th a t she is ‘n o t distressed by w h a t w as d o n e ’
(5 49-50), w hile she insists th a t E le c tra ’s b e h a v io u r in speaking ill o f
h e r is b lam ew o rth y (523-4) a n d in d eed re g ard s it as hubris. In fact, she
re g ard s E le c tra ’s c o n s ta n t references to th e m u rd e r o f A g a m e m n o n
as a n excuse (npoaxnua, 525), a lth o u g h she does n o t say w h a t she
believes E le c tra ’s real m otives are.
T h is a g o n , like th e one in T ro a d es, p ro b e s b e y o n d th e b asic p re fe r
ence o f an y g ro u p fo r th e sto ry th a t m ak es it lo o k b etter. P eople in
a n ta g o n istic situ atio n s p ro d u c e versions th a t dism iss th e pressures
a n d situ a tio n a l c o n stra in ts o f o th ers w hile m a k in g them selves a n d
th o se th ey s u p p o rt victim s o f circum stances. T ra g ic c h a ra c te rs expect
m o re con sistency th a n reality typically p resen ts. T his is a d a n g e r fo r
th e h is to ria n w ho m u st in te rp re t th e ir acco u n ts, a n d these tragedies
p u t th e sp ec ta to r in to th e situ a tio n o f such a h isto ria n . In O re ste s ,
T y n d a re u s refers to a n an c estral a n d p an h e lle n ic n o rm th a t n o b o d y
else recognises, so th a t a n ap p e al to th e p a st does n o t settle th e c o n
tro v ersies o f th e p resen t. In ste a d , p re se n t co n tro v ersies seem to be
p ro je c te d in to th e p a st, in p o te n tia lly infinite regress.
EURIPIDEAN EXPLAINERS
Allen Romano
237-61, at p. 252, highlights some of these predecessors to argue that the Oresteia
is similarly about ‘the meta-level’ and what he terms ‘the aetiological mode’.
6 G. S. Kirk, ‘Aetiology, ritual, charter: Three equivocal terms in the study of
myths’, YClS 22 (1972), pp. 83-102 (esp. p. 84: ‘these explanatory modes tend
to be functionally distinct, so that the application of the one generic label
of “aetiology” - and most critics are content with that - is inadequate and
misleading’), prefigured in Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and
Other Cultures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), pp. 13-31, and
echoed in Kirk, The Nature o f Greek Myths (Woodstock: Overlook Press, 1975),
pp. 53-68.
7 In addition to the nine cases of divine appearance at the end of extant plays
(Hippolytus, Andromache, Supplices, Electra, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Ion,
Helen, Orestes, Bacchae), all of which contain aetiological information of some
sort, Athena’s appearance at the end of Erecththeus and Hermes’ at the end of
Antiope both survive in substantial papyrus fragments and contain aetiological
information. Dionysus’ appearance at the end of Hypsipyle is marked in the
margin of the papyrus, but the speech does not survive. Other cases of the deus
ex machina (and aetiology), though frequently inferred by modern scholars, are
inferences of varying likelihood from later plot summaries. At the end of Medea ,
Medea boasts to Jason that she will bury her children at Corinth and they will
receive cult worship, but we should not interpret this case as a variety of divine
intervention scenes. The play predates the earliest securely attested deus ex
machina scene (Hippolytus of 428) and Medea’s arrival on the chariot of the Sun
differs greatly in tone and emphasis from the appearance of a god, particularly in
foregrounding Jason’s inability to touch either Medea or their children. The non-
Euripidean Rhesus ended with the Muse predicting, among other things, the future
cult for Rhesus.
8 Both Euripides’ Ion and the fragmentary Archelaus begin with extensive
genealogies. Etymology is common as, for example, in Antiope fr. 181 and 182,
Archelaus fr. 228.7-8, Erechtheus fr. 370, Hec. 1270, Hel. 1670-5, Hipp. 29-33, Ion
661-2 and 1577-81, Or. 1643-7, Phrixos fr. 819, Telephus fr. 393, Tro. 13-14. See
further the list offigura etymologica in J. D. Smereka, Studia Euripidea (Leopoldi:
Sumptibus Societatis Litterarum, 1936), pp. 172-6. City foundation is predicted
at El. 1273-5 and mentioned at Archelaus fr. 228.6. Alexandros fr. 61b gives the
origin of human kinds. On the origins of the universe, Aeschylus fr. 44, Euripides,
Melanippe the Wise fr. 484, Chrysippus fr. 839 (cf. Hippolytus Veiled, fr. 429).
re p o rt o f th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e A th e n ia n C hoes in Ip h ig en ia a m o n g
th e T a u ria n s (958-60), a n d aetio lo g y o ften featu res in c h o ra l songs
(fo r exam ple, H e c u b a 802 o n th e origin o f th e olive a t A th en s fro m
A th e n a ).9 S cholars h av e lo n g claim ed a ty p e o f aetiological reso n an ce
fo r p lay s like S ophocles’ A j a x , w here th e fu tu re cu lt o f A jax is only
h in te d a t b u t seem s crucial fo r u n d e rsta n d in g th e p lay , o r E u rip id e s’
B a c c h a e , w here aspects o f D io n y su s’ cu lt re so n a te th ro u g h th e p la y .10
T his is a diverse b o d y o f stories a n d p re se n ta tio n s. F o lk lo rists like
B arre T o elk en re m in d us th a t th e very a ssu m p tio n o f a ca te g o ry
o f aetio lo g ical m y th o ften co n d itio n s us, as cu ltu ra l in terlo p ers, to
m isu n d e rsta n d w h a t tellers o f such tales fin d salien t .11 P arad o x ically ,
in o rd e r to u n d e rs ta n d w h a t E u rip id es is do in g w ith his p a rtic u la r
exp ressio n s o f aetiology, it ca n be h elp fu l first to de-em phasise the
e x tra -d ra m a tic categ o ry o f ‘ae tio lo g y ’ a n d focus in ste a d o n varieties
o f o rigin ta lk in th e ir specific contexts. W e m u st, sim ilarly, decentre
E u rip id es in fa v o u r o f th e ch a ra c te rs w ho are th e im m ed iate m o u th
pieces o f aetiological in fo rm a tio n w ith in an y given play. In w h a t
follow s, I arg u e ag a in st fam iliar d escrip tio n s o f E u rip id e a n aetiology
as b rid g e b etw een p a st a n d p re se n t in o rd e r to show h o w E u rip id es
ex p lo its, w ith g reat variety a n d inventiveness, fifth -cen tu ry discourse
a b o u t fo u n d a tio n s a n d , fu rth e r, h o w E u rip id e a n explainers all speak
9 Mastronarde, Art o f Euripides, p. 122. See especially his discussion on pp. 123-4
and 165.
10 R. C. S. Jebb, Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments (Cambridge: The Cambridge
University Press, 1893), pp. xxx-xxxii; J. C. Kamerbeek, The Plays o f Sophocles:
Commentaries (Leiden: Brill, 1953), pp. 14-15; P. H. Burian, ‘Supplication and
hero cult in Sophocles’ Ajax ’, GRb S 13 (1972), pp. 151-6; P. E. Easterling,
‘Tragedy and ritual: Cry “woe, woe”, but may the good prevail!’, Metis 3 (1988),
pp. 87-109; A. Henrichs, ‘The tomb of Aias and the prospect of hero cult in
Sophokles’, ClAnt 12/2 (1993), pp. 165-80; J. R. March, ‘Sophocles’ Ajax: The
death and burial of a hero’, BIC S 38 (1991-3), pp. 1-36; Kowalzig, ‘Aetiology
of empire?’. Cf. J. P. Poe, Genre and Meaning in Sophocles’ Ajax (Frankfurt:
Athenaum, 1987), pp. 9-18, and A. F. Garvie, Sophocles, Ajax (Warminster: Aris
& Phillips, 1998), pp. 5-6. On the connections of the Salaminian chorus, Ajax and
Athens, see Seaford, Reciprocity and Ritual, pp. 398-9. For Bacchae, see especially
R. Seaford, Euripides, Bacchae (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1996), and Seaford,
Reciprocity and Ritual.
11 B. Toelken, ‘The “pretty languages” of Yellowman: Genre, mode, and
texture in Navaho Coyote narratives’, in D. Ben-Amos (ed.), Folklore Genres
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), pp. 145-70, at pp. 146-7, describing an
aetiological tale for the origin of snow recounted by a Navajo elder: ‘I found by
questioning him that he did not in fact consider it an aetiological story and did not
in any way believe that that was the way snow originated; rather, if the story was
“about” anything, it was about moral values, about the deportment of a young
protagonist whose actions showed a properly reciprocal relationship between
himself and nature. In short, by seeing the story in terms of any categories I had
been taught to recognize, I had missed the point.’
w ith id io sy n cratic a n d d istin ct perspectives o n p a st, p re se n t a n d
fu tu re . C o n seq u en tly , E u rip id e a n aetiology does n o t fu n c tio n p rim a r
ily as an act o f c o m m u n ic a tio n a b o u t th e p a s t betw een p lay w rig h t a n d
au d ien ce, n o r does it m a k e salient an y so rt o f m essage co n n e ctin g one
te m p o ra l d o m a in to a n o th e r; ra th e r, th e ra n g e o f fu n c tio n s fo r trag ic
aetio lo g y is hig hly v ariab le a n d , to th e ex ten t th a t we can generalise
a b o u t E u rip id e s’ m otives, a to o l fo r filling in a fuller p ic tu re o f th e
p a s t as en a c te d o n stage a n d m ak in g vividly alive th e m in d s o f th o se
in h a b itin g th a t p ast.
F o r a m o d e rn re a d e r p rim e d to see th e p a s t as so m eth in g th a t can
be re c o rd e d a n d th ere fo re k n o w n , b u t th e fu tu re as a th in g in h e r
en tly u n k n o w n an d , to non-believers in d iv in atio n , u n k n o w a b le , th e
g u lf b etw een p re d ic tio n s o f fo u n d a tio n a n d n a rra tiv e re co u n tin g
o f fo u n d a tio n seems wide; b u t in a n an cien t id io m w here th e p a st,
a n d p a rtic u la rly th e p o etic access to th e p a st, reg u larly requires
ap p e al to divine know ledge o r em ploying divinely given gifts, th e
line b etw een vision o f th e fu tu re a n d vision o f th e p a s t is fa r finer.
I t is n o t necessarily to an cien t ch roniclers o r h isto rio g ra p h e rs th a t
we sh o u ld lo o k fo r fifth -cen tu ry d iscourse a b o u t fo u n d a tio n s a n d
origins ag a in st w hich to co n tex tu alise aetiology generally, a n d espe
cially E u rip id e a n aetio lo g y o f th e p ro p h e tic fo rm w hich h a s received
th e b u lk o f sch olarly a tte n tio n . W e h av e clues as to one im p o rta n t
co n tex t fo r cu lt p re d ic tio n in scenes th a t h a v e freq u en tly been m is
u n d e rs to o d as m o rta l v a ria tio n s o n divine p a tte rn s. F o r exam ple,
in H e c u b a , P o ly m ester speaks w ith H e c u b a a n d A g a m e m n o n a n d
p re d ic ts H e c u b a ’s m eta m o rp h o sis in to a dog, h e r d e a th a n d th e
n a m in g o f th e h ea d la n d s n e a r th e site o f h e r d ro w n in g , ety m o lo g is
ing th e p ro m o n to ry C y n o ssem a as Kuvog . . . o % a (‘b itch es’ g ra v e’).
It is m islead in g to lu m p these details to g e th e r w ith E u rip id ea n
aetiologies in o th e r closing scenes as if this is th e slightly u n u su a l
offspring o f th e n o rm a tiv e divine en d in g fo u n d elsew here; aligning
th is case to o closely w ith th e fu n c tio n o f gods w ho deliver aetiologi-
cal p re d ic tio n s m isses th e specific te n o r o f th e scene .12 P o ly m esto r
is try in g to p a in his in te rlo c u to rs, as h e m ak es clear to w a rd s th e
en d (1283, aXysig aKourov; ‘D o es it h u rt to listen?’, to A g am em n o n ).
W h e n his p re d ic tio n s o f H e c u b a ’s ow n d e a th do n o t h av e m u ch
effect o n h e r (H e c u b a even m o ck s h im a t 1272, ‘Y o u going to give
a n a m e a b o u t m y fo rm [as a dog]?’), P o ly m e sto r tu rn s to th e d e a th
19 Dillery, ‘Chresmologues and manteis’, pp. 194 and 210-12, interprets the
‘wooden walls’ episode of Themistocles as oracular competition.
20 This is a heroic paradigm rather than a divine one and his concerns are not unlike
those of heroes of epic. See G. Nagy, The Best o f the Achaeans: Concepts o f the
Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, revised edn (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1999), pp. 118-19 and 222-42.
21 Contra J. Wilkins, Euripides: Heraclidae (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1993), p. 188: ‘the speech of Eurystheus stands in the place of an ex machina
speech, and his report of the oracle covering his heroization and the Spartan
invasion is equivalent to the aition expected at the end of a Euripides play’.
w h e th e r th e au d ien ce h a d d etailed (ra th e r th a n general) know ledge
o f E u ry sth e u s’ fa te in A ttica, recognising th a t th e scene p resen ts him
as a source w hose claim s are o p en to q u estio n in g m ay solve a lo n g
stan d in g p ro b le m in reconciling o u r n o n -E u rip id e a n evidence fo r th e
cu lt w ith w h a t E u ry sth eu s says in th e play. T h o u g h we h av e n o in d e
p e n d e n t evidence fo r this specific cu lt a t P allene, acco rd in g to S trab o
(8.6.19), E u ry sth e u s’ b o d y w as b u rie d n e a rb y (a t G a rg e tto s), th o u g h
his h e a d elsew h ere .22 I f this w ere th e a n a lo g u e o f divine in terv e n tio n ,
th e n we m ig h t expect, as m o st scholars h ave, th a t E u ry sth eu s p red icts
a tru th a b o u t his fu tu re h e ro isa tio n w hich th e audience registers as
re lev an t to th e ir locale. B u t it is q u ite im p o rta n t th a t E u ry sth e u s’ role
as ex p lain er b e n o t en tirely secure. Is h e th e in te rp re te r o f oracles th a t
h e claim s to be? H is re p o rt o f th e oracle h ere conceals b lu ste r th a t is
n o t en tirely accu rate. H e p re d ic ts his cu lt in ap p ro x im a te ly its co rrec t
p lace b u t does n o t k n o w th a t in fact it will be only his headless b o d y
th a t will lie th ere. Such a slip w o u ld be in keeping w ith his ch a rac te r,
a m a n w ho ig n o re d th e oracle h e w as given a n d ends u p d ea d despite
his fo re w a rn in g .23
T h e m essy m a rk e tp la c e o f seers a n d th e ir co m p etin g , co n tin g en t
e x p lan a tio n s a b o u t p a s t a n d fu tu re fo re g ro u n d s th e w ay p re d ic tio n
alw ays in v o lv ed differences in perspective, selection a n d aim . T h a t
h u m a n figures ac tiv a te analogies w ith th e practices o f seers is n o t
surp risin g , b u t I w o u ld go fu rth e r a n d suggest th a t divine speakers,
th ro u g h th e act o f p re d ic tio n , likew ise c a n n o t be th o u g h t o f by an cien t
audiences u n c o lo u re d by an a lo g o u s m o rta l practices. T o u n d e rs ta n d
th e actio n s o f a n y figure o n stage, audiences m u st a ttrib u te in ten tio n s,
desires a n d b ias in w ays th a t d ra w o n a w ealth o f h u m a n in tera ctio n s
su rro u n d in g fo u n d a tio n s. R ece n t research in th e cognitive sciences
show th a t in d iv id u als m a k e im m ed iate a n d a u to m a tic inferences
a b o u t p o te n tia l fu tu re b eh a v io u rs o f an y o th e r in d iv id u al by, in p a rt,
c reatin g a w o rk in g m o d el o f a n o th e r p e rs o n ’s m in d .24 A udiences
25 J. Gould, Myth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and
Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 203-34, noted also in R.
Buxton, ‘Metamorphoses of gods into animals and humans’, in J. Bremmer and
A. Erskine (eds), The Gods o f Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), pp. 81-91, at p. 90.
26 Elsewhere in tragedy: Hecuba 1267, Iphigenia among the Taurians 711 and
1128, Bacchae 298, Euripides fr. 1110. Outside of tragedy: Plato, Phdr. 244c, Laws
686a, Euth. 3c, Hom. Hym. Hermes 533-8, Archilochus fr. 298 W.
27 On anthropomorphism, see A. Henrichs, ‘What is a Greek god?’, in
Bremmer and Erskine, Gods o f Ancient Greece, pp. 19-39, at pp. 32-5.
28 On the divine side of such scenes, see esp. C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Tragedy
and Athenian Religion (Lanham: Lexington, 2003), pp. 459-511. She effectively
critiques the view of tragic gods as artificial as expressed in J. D. Mikalson,
Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1991). In addition to the evidence she provides, I would
emphasise the less spectacular though probably individually important acts of
divine visitation attested by dedicatory inscriptions such as those collected in
G. Renberg, ‘“Commanded by the gods”: An epigraphical study of dreams and
visions in Greek and Roman religious life’ (diss., Duke University, 2003).
EURIPIDEAN EXPLAINERS 137
29 Besides the Iphigenia stories that were the subject of plays by all major
tragedians, Artemis would also have played some role in a number of lost plays
(Aeschylus’ Callisto, Euripides’ and Sophocles’ Meleager plays).
a n d d istin ct fro m th a t o f A rtem is o r T hetis. D iffering subjects a n d
m o d es o f ex p la n a tio n are, fo r b o th play w rig h ts, an im p o rta n t to o l o f
ch a rac te risatio n .
A s c h a ra c te rs sp eak differently, th e ir distinctive in terests a n d p e r
spectives o n th e fu tu re shape th e k in d o f in fo rm a tio n th ey p ro v id e
an d , co n seq u en tly , an y h isto ry o f fo u n d a tio n e x tra c te d fro m trag e d y
com es p a c k a g e d w ith th e b ias o f th e ch a ra c te rs voicing it. So,
fo r exam ple, in A n d r o m a c h e , T h etis describes th e fu tu re to m b o f
N e o p to lem u s a t D e lp h i as ‘a re p ro a c h (ovsiSog) to th e D e lp h ian s, so
th a t his g rave m ay p ro c la im (anayysAAni) th a t h e w as violently slain
b y th e h a n d o f O restes’ (1241-3). S cullion, in a carefully a rg u e d n o te,
claim s th a t th e v erb anayysAAni is n o w h e re else u sed m etap h o ric ally
a n d ca n on ly im ply th a t th ere w as an in scrip tio n a t D e lp h i to this
effect .30 D en y in g E u rip id es a novel use o f m e ta p h o r is d an g e ro u s
g ro u n d , b u t th e m o re pressin g p ro b le m is th a t n e ith e r S cullion n o r
S eafo rd (w ho rig h tly m ak es th e case ag a in st S cullion’s use o f this
p o in t as evidence fo r E u rip id e a n in v en tio n o f cult) gives T h etis an y
ro le in th e in te rp re ta tio n o f this speech .31 B u t T hetis is n o d istan ced
observer. T h a t th e to m b w as m a rk e d is sufficient fo r it to be, in the
eyes o f N e o p to le m u s’ g ra n d m o th e r, th o u g h t o f as a n in scrip tio n
w hich will p ro c la im his violent d ea th . In P in d a r, N e o p to le m u s’ to m b
is th e o b serv er o f th e p ro c essio n a n d ju d g e o f th e sacrifice (N em .
7.47, ‘o v erseer’). R u th e rfo rd suggests th a t N e o p to le m u s h a d a role
in D e lp h ic th e o x e n ia , actin g as a rb ite r o f th e division o f m e a t a n d
th u s rev ersin g th ro u g h cu lt his actio n s as d isru p te r o f sacrifice in the
m y th .32 W h a t T hetis says in A n d r o m a c h e co n ju res a n im age o f this cult
in term s w hich h ig h lig h t th e injustice d o n e to N e o p to le m u s th ro u g h
a n a lo g y w ith th e general script o f ac tio n fo r th e cult. T h e censure
w hich th e to m b sh o u ts o u t m im ics th e scenario w herein N e o p to lem u s
co rrec ts th e different so rt o f v io len t slau g h ter, th a t is, sacrifice, w hich
th e D e lp h ia n s p erfo rm . T his m ig h t explain som e o f th e fo rced m e ta
p h o ric a l re ach in th e to m b th a t re p o rts w ith o u t im plying a n in scrip
tio n , b u t it also hig h lig h ts th e w ay th a t such ju d g e m e n t d epends on
T h e tis ’ p a rtic u la r h o p es fo r th e fu tu re cu lt a n d its p o te n tia l in te rp re ta
tio n , one w hich is n o t d isin terested o r w ith o u t a p a rtic u la r perspective.
T h ere is n o t space h ere to tre a t o th e r cases a t length, th o u g h
I w o u ld su b m it, in general, th a t d eb ates over th e veracity o f cult
in fo rm a tio n in tra g ic aetio lo g y are a false p ro b lem , a n d th a t this
Jeffrey Henderson
xaSs yp&9 ©, &g ^oi Soks! dAn0sa sivai- oi yap 'EAA^vrov Aoyoi
n o M o t s Kai ysAoioi, ©g s^o i ^aivovTai, siaiv. (H e cata eu s o f
M iletu s, F G r H is t 1 F 1a)
6 For B. Bravo and M. W^cowski, ‘The hedgehog and the fox: Form and
meaning in the prologue of Herodotus’, JH S 124 (2004), pp. 143-64, Herodotus
offers the reciprocal abductions only to ridicule, indeed to parody, the sort of
uncritical explanation of the origins of great wars then common in Greek poets
and prose-writers.
ab le to trav e lle rs’ re p o rts o f th e so rt d ra m a tise d a n d rid icu led in th e
p ro lo g u e o f A c h a r n ia n s .
R id icu le o f such re p o rts does suggest th e p o ssib ility th a t in th e re cip
ro c al a b d u c tio n s ‘we sh o u ld see n o t so m u ch A risto p h a n e s p a ro d y in g
H e ro d o tu s , b u t ra th e r H e ro d o tu s a n d A risto p h a n e s as d o in g the sa m e
th in g here. B o th are “p a ro d y in g ” p o p u la r m en tality - p ro v id e d . . . we
do n o t ta k e “p a r o d y ” to o crudely as a sheer deflating tech n iq u e, b u t
ra th e r as a p ro v isio n o f a m o d el to b u ild o n a n d refer t o .’7 T h is does
n o t re q u ire us to assum e th a t A risto p h a n e s a n d his aud ien ce ap p re c i
a te d th e h isto rio g ra p h ic a l d istin c tio n betw een ‘p o p u la r m e n ta lity ’
a n d a m o re credible ‘m o d e l’, only th a t th e com ic exam ple o f p o p u la r
m en tality be recognisable as such; n o r ca n th e p a ro d y be o f th e ‘sheer
d eflatin g ’ type, fo r D icaeo p o lis, w ho in th e p ro lo g u e h a d rid icu led
in cred ib le tales in o rd e r to illu stra te th e m en d ac ity o f fo reig n a m b a s
sad o rs a n d th e gullibility o f th e A th e n ia n assem bly, w o u ld h a rd ly h av e
offered in his o w n a c c o u n t o f th e w a r’s m o tiv a tio n s an e x p la n a tio n
d esigned to so u n d rid icu lo u s o r im plausible.
T h e p a ro d ic elem ent in D ic a e o p o lis’ recip ro ca l ab d u c tio n s is m o re
com plex. A t this p o in t h e is disguised as E u rip id e s’ crip p le-h ero
T elep h u s, fro m w hose speech to th e G reeks h e h a s b o rro w e d his
ow n speech to th e A c h a rn ia n s (a n d b e y o n d th em , th e audience).
H is m o st strik in g a rg u m e n t is n o t his self-defence b u t his defence
o f th e S p artan s, so it is re a so n a b le to assum e th a t in E u rip id e s’ p lay
T elep h u s h a d sim ilarly d efen d ed th e T ro ja n s; in d eed if T elephus h a d
d efen d ed o nly h im self a n d his fellow M ysians, h e w o u ld h av e been
m u ch less ap p e alin g as a m o d el fo r D icaeo p o lis. A defence o f th e
T ro ja n s w o u ld h av e cited G re ek m isdeeds to m a tc h T ro ja n m isdeeds,
p rin cip a lly th e a b d u c tio n o f H elen. T h is gives us th e tit-fo r-ta t m o tif
also fo u n d in H e ro d o tu s b u t p ro b a b ly n o t re cip ro ca l ab d u c tio n s: th a t
w as n o t p a r t o f T ro ja n W a r m y th o lo g y , a n d if E u rip id es h a d in v en ted
th e v a ria n t o r a d o p te d it fro m som e u n a tte s te d earlier a c co u n t, th e
absence o f testim o n ia fo r it, a n d in such a fa m o u s play, is surprising.
B u t if n o t fro m T elep h u s a n d n o t fro m H e ro d o tu s, th e n w here did
A risto p h a n e s get th e id ea o f re cip ro cal ab d u c tio n s? P ro b a b ly n o t
fro m a m y th ic ex em p lar a t all, b u t fro m recen t h isto ry . T h e clue is
th a t D icaeo p o lis n a m e s th e w hore, S im aetha, a n d th e audience w as
p re su m a b ly ex pected to k n o w so m eth in g a b o u t h e r .8 N o d o u b t th ere
7 C. Pelling, Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London and New York:
Routledge, 2000), p. 155.
8 So D. M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), pp. 61-7; T. Braun, ‘The choice of dead politicians in Eupolis’ Demoi:
Themistocles’ exile, hero-cult and delayed rehabilitation; Pericles and the origins
of the Peloponnesian War’, in D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds), The Rivals o f
really h a d b een a n episode involving fights over w hores betw een y o u n g
A th en ian s a n d M eg a rian s, fights th a t h a d been am o n g , o r co u ld be
com ically p lace d o n a p a r w ith, th e m a n y recip ro ca l co m p lain ts m e n
tio n e d by T h u cy d id es as leading to w a r .9 I f so, A risto p h a n e s’ in n o
v a tio n w as to u p d a te th e ro le o f H elen in th e ru n -u p to th e T ro ja n
W a r (p a ro d ic) by including a recen t episode involving A sp a sia a n d
p riv ileg ed y o u n g m en asso c ia te d w ith P ericles 10 th a t co u ld be c o n
n ec te d w ith th e ru n -u p to th e P elo p o n n esian W a r (topical). P lu ta rc h
(P ericles 3 1 -2) a n d D io d o ru s (12.39 = E p h o ru s F G r H 70 F 196) cite
o th e r such atta c k s o n Pericles a n d (by p ro x y ) o n his friends sh o rtly
b efo re th e o u tb re a k o f th e w ar o r ju s t a fte r ;11 fro m a m o n g these
A risto p h a n e s w o u ld h av e chosen this p a rtic u la r in cid en t because o f
its su itab ility fo r in te g ra tio n in to th e T elep h u s m y th , n o t because
th e in cid en t h a d an y m o re cu rren cy as a casus b elli th a n o th e r such
in cid en ts seized o n by P ericles’ o p p o n e n ts in o rd e r to discredit his
policies.
In d e e d fo u r years la te r A risto p h a n e s w o u ld ag ain tra c e th e origin
o f th e w a r to P ericles’ e x p lo ita tio n o f th e M e g a ria n issue as a m a sk
fo r p erso n a l m otives, b u t this tim e th e alleged m o tiv e w as to d istract
a tte n tio n fro m a scan d al involving his frie n d P heidias th a t im p licated
h im self (P e a c e 6 0 5 -2 7 ).12 L ines 615-18 b o th reveal A ris to p h a n e s ’
re a so n fo r co n n ectin g this p a rtic u la r scandal w ith th e d isap p ea ran c e
o f th e goddess P eace (rep resen ted in th e p la y as a large statu e) a n d
signal its n o v elty (b u t n o t fictionality) in c o n n e ctio n w ith th e ru n -u p
to w ar:
(footnote 8 continued)
Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London and Swansea: Classical
Press of Wales, 2000), pp. 213-14; A. H. Sommerstein, Aristophanes Wealth
(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2001), p. 233.
9 Th. 1.67.4 and 1.139.2: ‘Among others who came forward with various
complaints of their own were the Megarians, who pointed to a great many
disagreements . . . But the Athenians neither accepted the other demands nor
annulled the decree, accusing the Megarians of cultivating sacred and unowned
land and of receiving runaway slaves.’
10 The scholia state (without citing a source) that Simaetha was a lover of
Alcibiades.
11 In connection with Pericles’ trial in 430 (Th. 2.65.3-4); Thucydides does not record
the charge but Plato, Gorgias 516a, says that it was embezzlement of public funds
(kXotc^). As Bakola, Cratinus, pp. 216-17, 309-10, points out, the indictment
could well have been brought many months before the actual trial, when the
debate about Megara was still under way.
12 Pheidias was convicted of embezzling gold and/or ivory from the chryselephantine
statue of Athena, which he had created for the Parthenon as an element of
Pericles’ controversial building programme, and also of religious impropriety for
depicting Pericles fighting an Amazon on the goddess’ shield.
(T ry g aeu s) W ell, by A p o llo , n o o n e ever to ld m e th a t, n o r h a d I
h e a rd h o w P heidias w as co n n e cted to (npoo^Koi) th e goddess.
(C h o ru s L ea d er) N o r I, u n til ju s t now . So t h a t ’s w hy h e r face is so
lovely, b eing re la te d to (auyysv^g) h im !13 T h e re ’s lots we d o n ’t
k n o w a b o u t.
(footnote 16 continued)
conflate and somewhat jumble different sources, do not state that the dedication
and the trial were contemporaneous, only that the trial took place ‘after’ the statue
had been completed; the indictment could of course have been lodged at any time
thereafter. For detailed analysis see Bakola, Cratinus, pp. 305-12.
17 ‘The absurdity of these accounts of the war in no way proves that Ar. did not
intend or expect them to be taken seriously as arguments against the justice and
expediency of beginning or continuing it’ (Sommerstein, Knights, p. 233).
18 Cf. fr. 722, where Agamemnon apparently declines to risk his life simply to
help Menelaus recover Helen.
19 S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides. Volume I: Books I-II I (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 111, argues that Thucydides took practically no
account of the popular tradition connecting personal scandals with the Megarian
decree(s) because ‘he found the personal aspect of the vulgar story distasteful,
perhaps; Pericles’ mistress Aspasia was supposedly behind it, and it would be out
of character for Th. to give prominence to this Herodotean female angle’.
M u c h o f th e persu asiv e p o w e r o f A ris to p h a n e s ’ p a ro d y , o r ra th e r
recycling, o f T elep h u s lies precisely in th e m o d e o f m y th ical th in k in g
th a t still in fo rm e d p o p u la r h isto ry in this p erio d : epic a n d trag e d y h a d
n o p ro b le m w ith a face th a t lau n ch e d a th o u s a n d ships, a n d n eith er
d id th e ir audiences. C o m ed y co u ld o p e ra te w ith in this m o d e as well
a n d a t th e sam e tim e still re p resen t th e real w o rld , a t least a t th e tim e
o f A ch a rn ia n s. A c h a rn ia n s, fo r all its p io n eerin g b rilliance in p a ra tra g -
edy, w as in fact u n ex c ep tio n al in u sing h ero ic m y th as th e p rim a ry lens
fo r view ing th e p a st, in clu d in g th e recen t p ast.
A s is am ply n o te d by P lu ta rc h a n d evident in plays like C ra tin u s’
D io n y sa le x a n d e r, N e m e sis a n d P lo u to i a n d H e rm ip p u s’ M o ira i, the
com ic p o ets h a d long been attac k in g Pericles in this m o d e, in m y th o
logical p lo ts th a t assim ilated Pericles to Z eus, a n d A sp asia variously
to H e ra, H elen, O m p h ale a n d D e ian eira, a n d th a t th u s p o rtra y e d the
m o tiv a tio n s fo r th e S am ian W a r a n d th e n th e P elo p o n n esian W a r as
selfish a n d p e rs o n a l .20 In view ing even th e recent p a s t th ro u g h th e lens
o f h ero ic m y th d ra w n fro m epic, ch o ral lyric a n d trag e d y - th e h is to ri
cal m o d els m o st fam iliar a n d congenial to th eir audiences - th e com ic
p o ets so u g h t b o th to clarify a n d to en hance th e p o w e r o f th eir engage
m en t w ith to p ical issues .21 W h a t they w ere d o in g in th e com ic m o d e was
n o t so different fro m th e m yth o lo g ical lensing em ployed by A eschylus
in P e rsia n s a n d E u m e n id e s, a n d n o d o u b t E uripides in T elephus, w hich
w as w hy D icaeo p o lis th o u g h t th e p lay so suitable fo r recycling.
A n d n o t o nly p oets: in this p e rio d m y th w as also th e m o d e in w hich
A th e n ia n p u b lic m o n u m e n ts dep icted th e p a st, p o rtra y in g n o h is to ri
cal figures o r events o th e r, o r m o re recen t, th a n th e ty ran n icid es a n d
th e P ersian W a rs, w hich w ere cast in th e tim eless a n d h e ro ic m o d e
th a t en sh rin e d m em o ry o f an c estral d ee d s .22 P olitical, deliberative
a n d d ip lo m a tic speeches w o u ld occasionally, fo r p ra c tic a l p u rp o se s
in a d isp u te, h av e a p p e aled to th e m o re re cen t p a s t in n o n -p o e tic /
m y th o lo g ised fa sh io n , b u t b ey o n d co m m o n ly ag reed facts, such as
an in scrib ed re c o rd o r a g reem en t ,23 these ap p eals w ere selective,
(footnote 23 continued)
current interests, for example Th. 5.11 (when constituting Brasidas as their founder
after his death in 422, the Amphipolitans destroyed all record of the previous
founder, Hagnon); 5.56 (the footnote to the peace treaty of 421 inserted by the
Athenians in winter 419/8 and criticised in 411 in Lysistrata 513); IG i2 43 (378/7),
the decree moved by Aristoteles for the second Athenian league, prescribing that
the Athenian council be empowered to destroy any stelai in Athens that member
cities might consider objectionable thereafter.
24 V. Frangeskou, ‘Tradition and originality in some Attic funeral orations’,
C W 92 (1999), pp. 315-36, at p. 320 n. 23.
In th e a re n a o f m y th a n d o n th e role o f p o ets as th e ch ief a u th o rities
fo r th e p a st, A risto p h a n e s re sp o n d e d defensively. In C louds th e so p h
ists, alo n g w ith th e o ra to rs a n d litig an ts w ho e m b ra ced th e ir m eth o d s,
are d en o u n c ed fo r a critical tre a tm e n t o f m y th s th a t allow s th e m to
be literalised a n d m isap p lied , a n d E u rip id es is d en o u n c ed fo r trivialis-
ing a n d sen satio n alisin g m y th s. In A ris to p h a n e s’ view, these in n o v a
tio n s served to deprive m y th o lo g y o f its larg e r-th an -life dignity a n d
its n o rm a tiv e a n d in sp irin g fu n c tio n s, leaving h u m a n ity to its ow n,
in ev itab ly low a n d m u ta b le , m o ra l devices. T w o passages fro m C louds
(p ro d u c e d a t th e D io n y sia o f 423, in com pletely revised c. 417) will
serve to exem plify these claim s ag a in st th e sophists o n th e one h a n d
a n d E u rip id es o n th e other:
(footnote 29 continued)
of Aeschylus’, QUCC 63 (1990), pp. 41-52; cf. C. Preiser, Euripides: Telephos
(Spudasmata 78; Zurich and New York: Olms, 2001), pp. 51-9).
30 In this regard the absence of Themistocles among the resurrected politicians
in Eupolis’ Demes is probably significant; cf. I. C. Storey, Eupolis: Poet o f Old
Comedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 132-3.
31 We can imagine Thucydides’ response to such claims! All the same, these Old
Men may well echo their actual counterparts: A. H. Sommerstein, Aristophanes
Lysistrata (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1990), pp. 168-9, notes that Lysistrata
‘is the last Aristophanic play in which the chorus have recollections of the period
514-480, and in Eccl. (304) the (pretended) old men’s memories of their youth are
of the days of Myronides (i.e. in the 450s)’.
b a rb a ria n inv aders. A n d so th e O ld M en co m p a re them selves to
H a rm o d iu s a n d A risto g eito n , assum ing th e very p o s tu re o f th e b ro n z e
statu es o f th e y o u n g ty ran n icid es th a t sto o d in th e A g o ra (631-5), a n d
th ey co m p a re th e w om en to A rte m isia a t Salam is a n d to th e in vading
A m az o n s b a ttle d by T heseus, as d ep icted in M ic o n ’s p ain tin g s in th e
P eisian acteu m (672-9).
A fte r L y sistra ta h a s m a d e b o th th e A th e n ia n s a n d th e S p a rta n s h er
cap tiv e au d ien ce a n d p ro ceed s to b ro k e r a peace n eg o tia tio n , she sys
tem atically co rrects th e O ld M e n ’s recollections in o rd e r to d iscredit
th e h isto rical case fo r co n tin u in g th e w ar. H e r ow n cred en tials fo r
speak in g a b o u t th e p a st, like th e O ld M e n ’s, are b ase d o n p erso n a l
reco llectio n a n d tra d itio n :
32 For example, Thucydides 4.20.4 (424), 5.29.3 (421, cf. Aristophanes Peace
107-8, 406ff, 1082), Andocides 3.21, Isocrates Panegyricus passim, Xenophon,
Hellenica 6.5.33ff, Demosthenes 9.30-1.
h isto rical facts is ten d en tio u s, fo r exam ple h e r evidence o f m u tu a l
ben efactions:
33 Even a century later an orator could appeal to family stories to enhance the
authority of a historical fact, e.g. Aeschines, On the Embassy 77-8: o t i y a p n a p a
T& v d X X oT plrov d X X a n a p a to C n& vTrov o iK sio r & T o u r a C r a s n u 0 a v 6 ^ n v . . . r o a r s o iK si&
^ o i K a i o u v ^ 0 n T a Tqg nO A srog d r u x n ^ a T a s i v a i r o i g r o a iv d K o u s iv (‘for I learned of
these events not from outsiders but from my very closest relative . . . and so the
city’s misfortunes are family stories that I am accustomed to hearing’).
OLD cOMEDY AND POPULAR HISTORY 159
H. A. Shapiro
I am most grateful to John Marincola for the invitation to participate in the Leventis
Conference.
(footnote 6 continued)
Archaeology o f Athens and Attica under the Democracy (Oxford: Oxbow Books,
1994), pp. 123-9, esp. p. 124, following A. E. Raubitschek, ‘Two monuments
erected after the victory at Marathon’, AJA 44 (1940), pp. 53-9, esp. pp. 58-9, n.
2; and several scholars of the early twentieth century cited by Raubitschek.
7 See S. Brunnsaker, The Tyrant-Slayers o f Kritios and Nesiotes (Lund: Hakan
Ohlssons Boktrycheri, 1955), pp. 84-95.
8 As stressed by Holscher, ‘Images and political identity’, pp. 158-60.
9 W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen (Berlin: Wasmuth, 1968),
and, most recently, M. Meyer, ‘Bild und Vorbild: Zu Sinn und Zweck von
Siegesmonumenten Athens in klassischer Zeit’, OJh 74 (2005), pp. 277-312.
10 Louvre Cp 10793; J. de la Geniere, ‘Une pelike inedite du Peintre de Pan au Musee
du Louvre’, REA 62 (1960), pp. 249-53; R. Osborne, ‘The erection and mutilation
of the hermai’, PCPS 211 (1985; n.s. 31), pp. 47-73, esp. pp. 61-3, pl. 3.
11 Hamburg, Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe 1981.173; K. Schauenburg,
‘EYPYMEAON EIMI’, AthM itt 90 (1975), pp. 97-121; D. Wannagat,
‘“Eurymedon eimi”: Zeichen von ethischer, sozialer und physischer Differenz in
der Vasenmalerei des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’, in R. von den Hoff and S. Schmidt
(eds), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002), pp. 51-71, with
earlier references.
12 For very different interpretations of the scene on the pelike see Osborne, ‘Erection
and mutilation of the hermai’, pp. 61-3, and C. W. Clairmont, Patrios Nomos
(Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1983), pp. 151-3, the latter arguing that
it is a kind of ancient ‘political cartoon’, satirising Kimon and his followers. I do
agree there is a self-conscious humour about it, but not in Clairmont’s sense.
Figure 10.1 Three herms. Attic red-figure pelike, Louvre Cp 10793. C. 470.
22 A. Erskine, Troy between Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001), pp. 61-92; D. Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth-
Century B . C. Athens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), pp. 102-9.
An even earlier expression of this parallel would be Simonides’ recently discovered
elegy on the battle of Plataea, assuming it was written directly after the battle in
479: D. Boedeker and D. Sider, The New Simonides: Contexts o f Praise and Desire
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
23 E. Cingano, ‘A catalogue within a catalogue: Helen’s suitors in the Hesiodic
Catalogue of Women (FF 196-204 M-W)’, in R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic
Catalogue o f Women: Constructions and Reconstructions (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005), pp. 118-52.
Figure 10.3 D eparture of Greek heroes for Troy. Attic black-figure
kantharos, Berlin, Antikenmuseum F 1737. C. 550.
30 A third, less heroic instance of Akamas’ involvement in the sack of Troy is hinted
at by a vase of c. 490, the Brygos Painter’s well-known cup Louvre G 152; A R V 2
369, 1; L. Giuliani, Bild und Mythos (Munich: Beck, 2003), pp. 215-18, fig. 44. In
a panoramic depiction of the Ilioupersis (death of Priam, Andromache defending
herself with a pestle), a warrior labelled Akamas is shown leading Polyxena by
the hand. Given the context, we may assume Polyxena is being led to her death,
sacrificed to appease the ghost of Achilles. Euripides, Hecuba 123-5, knows of the
involvement of the sons of Theseus in the sacrifice of Polyxena.
31 M. D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, ‘Polygnotos’s Iliupersis: A new reconstruction’, AJA
93 (1989), pp. 203-15, esp. pp. 207-8, fig. 3. Cf. Kebric, Paintings in the Cnidian
Lesche, pp. 16-31, who argues strongly for the pro-Athenian, pro-Kimonian
flavour of Polygnotos’ painting at Delphi, no less so than in the second version
of the same subject that he executed in the Stoa Poikile in Athens. For depictions
of the rescue of Aithra see L IM C I 426-7, s.v. Aithra I [U. Kron]. Attempts to
recognise the scene on black-figure vases of the sixth century (e.g. Kron p. 426,
nos. 59-65) remain speculative: see M. Mangold, Kassandra in Athen (Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer, 2000), p. 104.
32 LIM C I 436; 442, s.v. Akamas et Demophon [U. Kron]; M. A. Tiverios, ‘Peri
Palladiou: Oti duo klepseian Diomedes kai Odysseus’, in Schmidt, Kanon, pp. 324-30.
33 St Petersburg B 649; A R V 2 460, 13; N. Kunisch, Makron (Mainz: Phillip von
Zabern, 1997), pp. 134-5, pl. 113. Cf. the discussion of U. Kron, Die zehn attischen
Phylenheroen (AthMitt 5; Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1976), pp. 150-1, and Kron, in
LIM C I 442, who points out that the episode recorded on this cup is not attested
in any literary source before the fourth century.
34 See Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, p. 150, for the sources.
Figure 10.4 Odysseus and Diomedes competing for the Trojan Palladion,
with Akamas, Dem ophon and Agamemnon. Attic red-figure cup, St
Petersburg, Herm itage B 649. C. 480.
35 On this much-discussed scene, see Kunisch, Makron, p. 134, with earlier references.
I have discussed it again most recently in H. A. Shapiro, ‘Mother and son:
Theseus’s farewell to Aithra’, in C. Weiss and E. Simon (eds), Folia in Memoriam
Ruth Lindner Collecta (Dettelbach: J. H. Roll, 2010), pp. 89-94.
Figure 10.6 Farewell of Theseus and Aithra. Interior of the cup in
Fig. 10.3.
36 Plutarch, Themistokles 10; cf. the Themistokles decree, line 8: Meiggs and Lewis,
Greek Historical Inscriptions, p. 48.
37 Pausanias 1.23.8; Raubitschek, Dedications, pp. 208-9, no. 176; Hurwit, Athenian
Akropolis, p. 229; F. W. Hamdorf, ‘Zur Weihung des Chairedemos auf der
Akropolis von Athen’, in N. Kontoleon (ed.), Stele: Tomos eis mnemen Nikolaou
Kontoleontos (Athens: Friends of Nikolaos Kontoleon, 1980), pp. 80-1. The
monument seems to be referred to in both Aristophanes’ Birds (1128) and
Euripides’ Trojan Women (13-14), produced in 414 and 415, respectively. The date
c. 420 for the monument is partly an assumption that it will have been a recent
addition to the Akropolis landscape when the two playwrights mention it.
in its to p o g ra p h ic a l settin g .38 T h o u g h K im o n ’s ep ig ram o n th e E io n
h e rm h a d n a m e d only M en esth eu s, it n o w seem s clear th a t h e w a n te d
to evoke th e w hole A th e n ia n a n d S alam in ian co n tin g en ts a t T ro y ,
in clu d in g th e fam ily o f T heseus.
B u t h o w are we to reconcile all these p a trio tic tra d itio n s w ith th e
very different story, b est k n o w n fro m P lu ta rc h ’s L ife o f T h eseu s 34-5,
o f M en esth eu s as th e evil u s u rp e r w ho seized p o w e r in A th e n s w hile
T heseus a n d P erith o o s w ere o ff in H ad es; w elcom ed th e D io sk o u ro i
w hen th ey in v ad ed A ttik a to reco v er th e ir sister H elen afte r T heseus
h a d a b d u c te d h e r fro m S p arta; a n d th en , o n T h eseu s’ re tu rn to
A th en s, d ro v e th e hapless h e ro in to exile a n d a tre a c h e ro u s d e a th
a t th e h a n d s o f K in g L ykom edes o f Skyros? T h o u g h several o th e r
a u th o rs also re p o rt th e story, all are o f a t least im p erial d a te .39 T he
several A ttic tragedies th a t deal w ith T h eseu s’ k in g sh ip nev er h in t
a t th e u s u rp a tio n o f M enestheus. H ip p o ly to s h a s T heseus in exile
a t T ro izen , b u t u n d e r very different circu m stan ces.40 T h e lik elih o o d
sh o u ld , I believe, be co n sid ered th a t th e co n n e cted n a rra tiv e th a t we
fin d in P lu ta rc h , a n d especially th e villainous role o f M enestheus,
p o s t-d a te th e fifth cen tu ry . A s a m o ralisin g b io g ra p h e r, P lu ta rc h h a d
to h a v e T heseus com e to a b a d e n d o n a c c o u n t o f his reckless b e h a v
io u r in late m id d le age, a b d u c tin g th e u n d er-ag e H elen a n d going o n
th e ill-advised ad v e n tu re to th e U n d e rw o rld w ith P erith o o s. T h ere is
n o evidence w h a te v er fo r a neg ativ e tre a tm e n t o f M en esth eu s in eith er
th e a rt o r lite ra tu re o f th e fifth cen tu ry , startin g w ith th e E io n ep ig ram
a n d in clu d in g th e T ro ja n H o rse o f S tro n g y lio n a n d th e p a trio tic cu p
by th e K o d ro s P a in te r o f c. 430, to w hich we shall tu rn next. T h o u g h
n o h e ro cu lt o f M en esth eu s is yet a tte ste d in A th e n s o r A ttik a , th is is
surely ju s t a n accid en t o f p re se rv a tio n , as E rik a S im on h a s recently
w ritte n .41 P a u san ias saw th e sp o t at th e o ld h a r b o u r o f P h a le ro n
w hence M en esth eu s a n d th e fifty ships set sail fo r T ro y (1.1.2), a n o th e r
lin k w ith T h eseus, w ho left fro m th e sam e h a r b o u r fo r C rete in th e
p re v io u s g en e ratio n (P lut. T h eseu s 17.6; P au san ias 1.1.2).
T h e w ell-know n cu p in B o lo g n a th a t gives his n a m e to B eazley’s
Figure 10.8 Theseus and Phorbas setting out for war. Side B of the cup in
Fig. 10.7.
a n d a y o u th fu l, a rm e d A jax. T h e goddess lo o k s b a c k to w a rd s a n o th e r
y o u th , M en esth eus, a n d a w o m an n a m e d M elite. T h e co m p o sitio n o n
side B is ro u g h ly sim ilar (Fig. 10.8), w ith th e cen tral figure n o w M ed ea,
h o ld in g u p a helm et. T h e o ld er/y o u n g er p a ir to th e left o f h e r is A egeus
a n d T heseus, fa th e r a n d son, w hile a b e a rd e d a n d a rm e d w a rrio r,
P h o rb a s, strides u p fro m th e rig h t, a n d A ith ra stan d s quietly beh in d .
T h e th em e o f this cu p is clear - ‘m obilising fo r w a r’ - w ith in te re st
ing p arallels betw een th e tw o sides. Side A show s th e d e p a rtu re o f
th e A th e n ia n c o n tin g en t a t T ro y , led, a p p ro p ria te ly , b y M enestheus.
A jax h a s b y n o w lo n g since b een fully c o -o p te d as a n A th e n ia n h ero .
T h e p o in t is d riv en h o m e b y p lacin g th e v ig o ro u s A th e n a betw een
these tw o hero es. She seems to b e h u rry in g M en esth eu s along,
p e rh a p s rem in d in g h im to ch ange o u t o f his tra v e lle r’s g a rb a n d in to
his a rm o u r. M elite is a fu rth e r re m in d e r o f A ja x ’s in te g ra tio n in to
th e A th e n ia n p olis, since th e h e ro shrine o f his son E u ry sak es, w hich
d o u b le d as th e trib a l shrine o f A ian tis, w as lo c a te d in th e dem e M elite,
in ce n tral A th e n s.43 L y k o s is p e rh a p s less co n n e cted to th e figures o n
44 So also Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, p.138, following Carl Robert.
45 E.g. the dinos London 1899.7-21.5; A R V 2 1052, 29; S. B. Matheson, Polygnotos
and Vase-Painting in Classical Athens (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1995), p. 452, PGU 34, 165, pl. 143. This vase also includes Akamas, a unique
instance of father and son fighting side by side. Euripides, Suppliants 680, refers to
Phorbas as a fighting companion of Theseus.
46 On the cup attributed to Euphronios, London E 41; A R V 2 58, 51 (at that
time attributed to Oltos); Euphronios der Maler. Exhibition catalogue (Berlin:
Antikenmuseum, 1991), pp. 190-2.
47 Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, p. 137.
48 For the motif see N. Kunisch, ‘Zur helmhaltenden Athena’, AthM itt 89 (1974), pp.
85-104.
49 Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality, pp. 134-74.
50 See especially Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Cup Bologna PU 273’ for this approach, though
she sees both Medea and Menestheus here as sinister figures, which I do not believe.
fu n e ral o ra tio n s (e p ita p h io i lo g o i ) sto o d to th e b attles (including th o se
o f th e P e lo p o n n esian W a r) th a t th ey m em orialised. In these speeches,
th e A m a z o n o m a c h y is o n e o f a ca ta lo g u e o f m y th o lo g ica l exem p la fo r
th e b ra v e ry a n d th e su p erio rity o f A th en s. N icole L o ra u x fam ously
show ed h o w th e A th e n ia n s ‘in v e n te d ’ th e ir p a st th ro u g h th e m ed iu m
o f th ese speeches,51 a n d I w o u ld arg u e th a t v ase -p ain tin g w as able to
do so m eth in g sim ilar. T h e T ro ja n W a r, how ever, so p ro m in e n t o n
th e vases, is p o in ted ly o m itte d fro m th e e p ita p h io i logoi, fo r reaso n s
L o ra u x h a s e x p lo re d .52
E ven b efo re th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e e p ita p h io s logos, a ca ta lo g u e
o f th e g lo rio u s deeds o f th e A th e n ia n s ap p e a rs in th e speech deliv
ered b y a n A th e n ia n b efo re th e b a ttle o f P la ta ia a n d re c o rd e d by
H e ro d o to s (9.27). O f th e fo u r deeds fro m th e d ista n t p a s t (M a ra th o n
is th e fifth a n d m o st recent), tw o are th o se re ferred to o n th e K o d ro s
P a in te r’s cup: th e defeat o f th e A m az o n in v asio n a n d th e A th e n ia n
c o n trib u tio n a t T ro y (vaguely describ ed as ‘second to n o n e ’). T he
o th e r tw o are th e recovery o f th e bo d ies o f th e d efeated Seven ag ain st
T heb es a n d th e ir b u ria l a t Eleusis, w hich to o k p lace in th e kingship o f
T heseus (E u rip id es, S u p p lia n ts ), a n d th e friendly re cep tio n o f H yllos
a n d th e H e rak leid ai a n d th e defeat o f th e ir evil co u sin E u ry th eu s,
w hich to o k p lace in th e reign o f T h ese u s’ son D e m o p h o n (E uripides,
H e r a k le id a i).53 In o u r c o n tex t, it is o f p a rtic u la r in tere st th a t w h a t
links all five episodes in th is ca ta lo g u e (including M a ra th o n , w here
T heseus a p p e a re d in a n ep ip h an y ) is th e p a rtic ip a tio n o f T heseus o r
his sons, o r b o th .
T h e allu sio n to c o n te m p o ra ry events m issing fro m th e ex terio r o f
th e cu p m a y well be fo u n d in th e to n d o (Fig. 10.9). T h e w a rrio r is
K o d ro s , th e A th e n ia n king w hose n a m e becam e sy n o n y m o u s w ith
h e ro ic self-sacrifice o n b e h a lf o f th e city d u rin g a n early in v asio n
o f A th e n s b y a P e lo p o n n esian a rm y .54 H is co m p a n io n in th e to n d o
Figure 10.12 Apollo and others. Side B of the cup in Fig. 10.11.
60 Berger, ‘Zur Deutung einer neuen Schale des Kodrosmalers’; Kron, ‘Zur Schale
des Kodros Malers in Basel’. For a different interpretation, Avramidou, Codrus
Painter, pp. 40-2.
61 Berlin, Antikenmuseum F 2538; A R V 2 1269, 5; K. Schefold and F. Jung, Die
Urkonige: Perseus, Bellerophon, Herakles und Theseus (Munich: Hirmer, 1988),
p. 234, fig. 282; Avramidou, Codrus Painter, pp. 39-40.
Figure 10.13 Theseus and a woman (Argeia?). Interior of the cup in
Fig. 10.11.
62 See LIM C I 435-6, s.v. Akamas et Demophon [U. Kron]. The two heroes seem
to be depicted in their role as oikists on a slightly earlier vase, the pelike now in
Kyoto, Greek and Roman Museum; E. Simon, The Kurashiki Ninagawa Museum
(Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1982), pp. 94-9, no. 40.
63 Florence 4209; ABV 76, 1; see Simon and Hirmer, Die griechischen Vasen, pp.
73-4 and fig. 2 (printed reversed), for a detail of the Theseus frieze and discussion
of Epiboia.
fancy h e r fo r h im self.64 B u t th e full story m u st h av e been eith er quite
recen tly in v en ted o r little k n o w n w hen th e K o d ro s P a in te r u n fo ld ed
it in th e u n iq u e im ages o n th e B asle cup. S o p h o k le s’ A ja x , p ro b a b ly
p ro d u c e d in th e 440s, m ak es n o m e n tio n o f it (o r o f T heseus, fo r th a t
m a tte r, in an y co n te x t).65 W e m a y also recall th a t o n e o f th e m o st
sp ec ta cu lar re n d itio n s o f T h ese u s’ y o u th fu l deeds fills th e inside a n d
th e o u tsid e o f a cup, n o w in th e B ritish M u seu m , by n o n e o th e r th a n
o u r sam e a rtist, th e K o d ro s P a in te r.66
T h is p a in te r w as a p a rtic u la r devote o f A th e n ia n h ero es a n d early
genealogies. H is re n d erin g o f th e b irth o f E ric h th o n io s, fo r exam ple,
o n a n o th e r cu p in B erlin, is o n e o f th e finest a n d m o st com plex
we h a v e .67 A m o n g th e v ario u s ‘w itnesses’ to th e b irth are n o t only
E rech th eu s, th e king this divine ch ild will grow u p to be, b u t also
T h ese u s’ fa th e r A egeus, th u s creatin g a lin k fro m T heseus reach in g
all th e w ay b a c k to th e first A th e n ia n king, K e k ro p s th e a u to c h to n ,
d ep icted o n th e fro n t o f th e c u p .68 In this w ay, th e sem blance o f a
c o n tin u o u s a n d u n in te rru p te d d y n asty o f early kings is c re a te d w here
n o n e is ever re c o rd e d by th e m y th o g ra p h e rs.
T his is an astonishing, a n d p e rh a p s u n iq u e, situ atio n , in w hich a
single v ase-p ain ter perfectly ca p tu res th e A th e n ia n Z e itg e is t o f a criti
cal decade, th a t o f th e 430s. A th en s w as busily w riting a n d rew riting its
early h isto ry , n o t in th e pages o f h isto rian s like T hucydides, w ho largely
ignores m y th ical figures like E rechtheus, T heseus o r K o d ro s, b u t in
m an y o th e r m edia, fro m genealogical p o e try a n d trag e d y to big sculp
tu ra l m o n u m en ts o n th e A k ro p o lis a n d elegant d rin k in g cups p assed
a ro u n d at th e sym posia o f th e aristocracy, w ho co n tin u ed to p a rty like
it w as 475, even as th e storm -clouds o f w a r g a th ered o n th e h o rizo n .
Lin Foxhall
MATERIALITY
M a te ria lity is a b ro a d n o tio n w idely a n d v ario u sly u sed by a rc h a e
ologists a n d an th ro p o lo g ists to en co m p ass h o w th in g s becom e w oven
in to th e fa b ric o f h u m a n social life a n d re la tio n sh ip s, b lu rrin g the
d istin c tio n betw een subject a n d object. T h ere is co n sid erab le d e b a te in
th e scholarly lite ra tu re a b o u t precisely w h a t it does o r d o e sn ’t m ean.
‘T h in g s’ n eed n o t b e sim ply co n crete item s o r arte fac ts, b u t ca n also
in clude o th e r kinds o f less o bviously co n c rete th in g s such as im ages,
th e in tern e t, m usical w o rk s a n d even in stitu tio n s; basically an y th in g
w hich ca n b e objectified. H ow ever, th e v arie d a n d in tere stin g lite ra
tu re re p resen tin g c u rre n t d eb ates o n m a te ria lity in a n th ro p o lo g y a n d
arch aeo lo g y sch o larsh ip co n c en trate s heavily o n m a jo r m o n u m e n ts
a n d ‘n o ta b le ’ o r ‘special’ o b jects,2 a n d m u ch o f b o th th e a rc h a e o
logical a n d an th ro p o lo g ic a l research h a s fo cu sed o n ‘a r t ’ in o n e fo rm
o r a n o th e r. A nalysis h a s p rim arily c e n tre d o n th e social a n d p o litical
re la tio n s o f m ateria lity , in arch ae o lo g y o ften specifically o n th e links
betw een m o n u m e n ta lity a n d m e m o ry .3 T h e th in g s w ith w hich I will
be m o st co n c ern e d in this c h a p te r are con crete arte fac ts generally o f
th e m o st m u n d a n e kind.
T ech n o lo g ies th e re fo re also p la y a key m ed iatin g ro le in dialectic
b etw een p e rso n a n d th in g , a n d th u s th e b lu rrin g o f subject a n d object.
T ech n o lo g y is som etim es seen as a p erfo rm a n c e , actin g o u t a re la tio n
ship w ith th e m a te ria l w o rld .4 C ertain ly n u m e ro u s eth n o g ra p h ic
studies h av e ex p lo red h o w p eople, especially ch ild ren , learn skills a n d
crafts, by w atch in g , im itatin g , p a rtic ip a tin g a n d p ra ctisin g w ith skilled
w o rk ers as p a r t o f a social g ro u p . A n d as a p e rso n p ractises a skill, th e
ta s k becom es m o re a n d m o re fam iliar a n d e m b o d ied so th a t th e ta s k
2 L. Meskell, ‘Objects in the mirror appear closer than they are’, in D. Miller
(ed.), Materiality (Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press, 2005),
pp. 72-87; C. Tilley, The Materiality o f Stone (Oxford: Berg, 2004).
3 E.g., N. J. Saunders, ‘Crucifix, cavalry and cross: Materiality and spirituality
in Great War landscapes’, World Archaeology 35 (2003), pp. 7-21.
4 L. Douney and M. Naji, ‘Editorial’, Journal o f Material Culture 14 (2009),
pp. 411-32.
FAMILY TIME 185
30 Apart from the Peisistratids, always portrayed as villains, the three Athenian
families which Herodotos discusses in detail are the Philaidai, the Gephyrai
(the descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, the tyrant-slayers), and the
Alkmeonidai (Thomas, Oral Tradition, pp. 144-54). All of these families had
living descendants in Athens over the period when Herodotos was active there
(Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, pp. 472-7, 379-83, 304-8). In the case
of the Alkmeonidai he makes reference to contemporary or near-contemporary
family members, Pericles (Hdt. 6.131) and Alcibiades’ father Kleinias (Hdt. 8.17).
31 Cf. Hdt. 5.57.1, where he gives the Gephryais’ own account of their origins
and his preferred alternative; Thomas, Oral Tradition, p. 98.
32 See Thomas, Oral Tradition, pp. 161-73, and Davies, Athenian Propertied
Families, pp. 298-307.
33 J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997), pp. 77-99.
34 Thomas, Oral Tradition, pp. 164-5.
b e g a t A u to p h o n , a n d h e b eg a t P hilaios, a n d h e b eg a t A g am esto r,
a n d h e b eg a t T eisan d er, a n d h e b eg a t M iltiades, a n d h e b eg at
H ip p o k leid es w ho w as a rc h o n w hen th e P a n a th e n a ic festival w as
estab lish ed , a n d h e b eg a t M iltiad es w ho fo u n d e d th e co lo n y o f
th e C h erso n n e se.35
B u t fo r y o u , K leis, I h av e n o w ay o f o b ta in in g a d e c o ra te d h e a d
b a n d ; b u t . . . th e M y tile n ean . . . to h av e . . . if . . . d e c o ra te d . . .
(th e city has?) these m em o rials o f th e exile o f th e sons o f K lean ax ,
fo r th ese (o f ours?) . . . w aste d aw ay d read fu lly . . .(S ap p h o fr.
98a & b)
Table 11.1 Metaponto survey data (numbers of loom weights per site)
1 57 (70%)
2 or more: 24 (30%)
2 18
3 4
5 1
6 1
58 L. Foxhall, ‘The loom weights’, in J. C. Carter and A. Prieto (eds), The Chora
o f Metaponto 3: The Archaeological Survey Bradano to Bassento vol. 2 (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2011), pp. 539-54.
59 A. Quercia and L. Foxhall, ‘Temporality, materiality and women’s networks:
The production and manufacture of loom weights in the Greek and indigenous
communities of southern Italy’, in K. Rebay-Salisbury, L. Foxhall and A.
Brysbaert (eds), Material Crossovers: Knowledge Networks and the Movement
o f Technological Knowledge between Craft Traditions (London: Routledge,
forthcoming).
60 N. Cahill, Household and City Organization at Olynthus (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2002), pp. 51-2: D. M. Robinson, The Hellenic House: Olynthus
VIII (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938), pp. 88-9, 90, 96, 128,
136, 209.
T h ro u g h o u t th e G re e k w o rld (a n d b ey o n d ) m an y , th o u g h by n o
m ean s all, lo o m w eights are m a rk e d , a n d a g re at m a n y o f these m ark s
a p p e a r to in d icate p erso n a l p o ssession a n d p e rh a p s fam ily identity.
T h e m a rk s m o st co m m o n ly k n o w n are stam p s fro m signet rings
(eith er stam p seals m a d e fro m gem s o r sim ply en g rav ed in to th e m etal
o f th e rin g itself). A p a rtic u la rly large p ro p o rtio n o f th e lo o m w eights
reco v ered in th e M e ta p o n to assem blages w ere stam p ed in this w ay,
in d icatin g h o u seh o ld s w ith w om en sufficiently w ealth y to ow n such
jew ellery.
F o r th e m o st p a r t these gem s a n d seals h av e n o rm a lly been stu d ied
as ‘a r t’ ra th e r th a n fo r th e ir significance as p e r s o n a l seals. ‘I f gem s a n d
rings w ere w o rn b y w om en it w o u ld p ro b a b ly be fo r th e ir value as je w
ellery ra th e r th a n fo r th e ir use as signets.’61 H ow ever, we k n o w fro m
o th e r sources th a t such signet rings w ere co m m o n ly u sed fo r p erso n a l
id en tificatio n in classical a n tiq u ity , so m ew h at as we use P IN n u m b ers
to d a y . A n d , as w ith P IN n u m b ers, n o tw o stam p seals w ere identical.
T h ere seems to be n o o b vious re aso n w hy they w o u ld n o t be u sed in
th is w ay by w o m en as well as by m en. In d e ed , lo o m w eights co u ld be
m a rk e d in m a n y o th e r w ays, including in scrib ed letters, n am es a n d
o th e r graffiti, fin g erp rin ts, a n d im pressions o f o th e r o bjects such as
seeds, ea rrin g s, dress p in s (fibulae), p e n d a n ts, tw eezers a n d gam ing
pieces (a stra g a lo i, th e k n u ck le b o n es o f sheep) (F igs 11.1a a n d 11.1b).
T h e use o f jew ellery o th e r th a n signet rings a n d co sm etic p a r a p h e r
n a lia , fem inine p e rso n a l item s, strongly su p p o rts th e id ea th a t th e
m a rk in g o f lo o m w eights, a t least in m o st p a rts o f th e G re e k w orld,
w as e n ta n g le d w ith p erso n a l a n d fam ily identities. T h is tak es o n p a r
tic u la r significance w ith objects specifically u sed by w om en w o rk in g
to g e th e r in g ro u p s, a n d in situ atio n s w here a w o m a n ’s w o rk in g g ro u p
m ig h t ch an g e d u e to circum stances largely b e y o n d h e r co n tro l, e.g. o n
m arria g e, div o rce o r th e d e a th o f a h u sb a n d .
C o n crete exam ples show h o w we ca n tra c k links betw een w om en
v ia th e lo o m w eights they left behind. F ig u res 11.2a a n d b show tw o
lo o m w eights (2 2 1 -L 2 a n d 3 58-L 1) w ith identical ‘fo o tp rin t’ stam ps.
S tam p s in this fo rm are extrem ely u n u su a l in th e G re ek w orld,
a lth o u g h a n u m b e r o f v a ria n t fo o tp rin ts are fo u n d a t M e ta p o n to , sug
gesting th a t th is is som ething o f a local h a b it o r fashion. T h e closest
p arallels fo r th e M e ta p o n to ‘fo o tp rin t’ stam p s are generally fo u n d in
areas w ith a significant P h o en ician o r P u n ic presence such as C y p ru s
a n d S ard in ia. T h o u g h we c a n n o t b e ce rtain , it is th u s possible th a t
th e fo o tp rin t a t M e ta p o n to re ta in e d som e k in d o f ‘e th n ic ’ o r g ro u p
61 J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings, 2nd edn (London: Thames and
Hudson, 2001), p. 236.
Figure 11.1a and b Pantanello, M etaponto: loom weights impressed with
(a) a fibula (dress pin) and (b) earrings.
Figure 11.3a and b M etaponto survey: two loom weights with identical
rosette stamps.
w eight a n d seem to b elo n g to g eth er. T h is one, how ever, is som ew hat
lig h ter, a n d m a y be slightly e arlier in type, p e rh a p s earlier in th e fo u rth
century: it lo o k s as if this o n e h a d been jo in e d w ith a n o th e r ‘set’.
H ow ever, b o th th e shape o f th e stam p a n d th e m o tif, a deity h o ld in g
tw o h o rses in a k in d o f p o tn ia th ero n (‘m istress o f th e a n im a ls’) pose,
suggest a six th -cen tu ry d a te fo r th e stam p. T h e closest p arallels I h av e
been able to find fo r th e m o tif com e fro m th e lead figurines in th e san c
tu a ry o f A rtem is O rth ia in S p a rta .63
T h e arch aeo lo g ical re c o rd in c o n ju n c tio n w ith w h a t we k n o w a b o u t
w o m en ’s w o rk in g p ractices a n d lives suggests p ro fo u n d engagem ents
w ith o th e r w o m en th ro u g h th e p ra ctice o f textile m a n u fa c tu re . It
seems clear th a t th e to o ls them selves b ecom e a deeply em b ed d e d p a r t
o f th ese n e tw o rk s o f w om en a n d literally com e to show th e m a rk s o f
th e ir re la tio n sh ip s. T h e very concreteness o f th e lo o m w eights a n d
o th e r to o ls w hich w om en u sed to g e th e r in w o rk in g g ro u p s m a y h av e
served as a solid ev o c atio n o f em o tio n a l a tta c h m e n t across tim e a n d
space, in a w o rld w here w om en som etim es h a d little c o n tro l o v er th eir
CONCLUSION
In th is c h a p te r I h av e p u lle d o u t a n d follow ed w idely d isp a ra te th rea d s
o f evidence, w hich in tertw in e to show us G re ek p a sts below th e ra d a r
o f co n v e n tio n a l h isto rical texts. T hese p a sts a p p e a r to be fo u n d e d
largely o n fam ilial re la tio n sh ip s, real o r perceived. H ow ever, b o th th e
co n c ep tu alisatio n s o f ‘fa m ily ’ a n d th e kinds o f stories a n d m em ories
tra n s m itte d v ary alo n g th e lines o f statu s, a n d even m o re, o f gender.
T h e stories o f elite m en are, n o t surprisingly, th o se m o st likely to
p e n e tra te th e w ritte n re c o rd o f th e lite rate, collective p ast. T h e ex ten t
to w hich w o m en w ere reg u larly ‘w ritten o u t’ o f such m em ories, even
w hen th ey p ro v id e d crucial links b etw een m en, is significant. R eg u larly
fam ilial m em o ries are lo d g ed in m a te ria l objects, w hich m a y th u s serve
as foci o f fo r th e ir tran sm issio n , b u t th e kinds o f objects, as well as th e
kin d s o f m em ories th ey evoke, m a y v ary co n sid erab ly . Such objects
m ay be m o n u m e n ta l, b u t even h u m b le a n d n o n -m o n u m e n ta l objects
p reserv ed altern ativ e p a sts, m o stly n o w b e y o n d o u r reach. H ow ever,
th e w id er v alue o f c o m p a rin g these altern ativ e p asts is to expose one
asp ect o f th e com plex a n d d y n am ic rela tio n sh ip s betw een gender,
space a n d tim e as p ra c tise d in an cien t G re e k societies.
COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND THE
CONTESTATION OF HISTORY IN SOME
FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENIAN TRIALS
Jon Hesk
1 See S. Perlman, ‘The historical example, its use and importance as political
propaganda in the Attic orators’, SH 7 (1961), pp. 150-66; M. Nouhaud,
L ’utilisation de l’histoirepar les orateurs attiques (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982);
J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology and the Power
o f the People (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 319-22. On
references to Solon as a nostalgic strategy to criticise present behaviours and
policies, see M. Hansen, ‘Solonian democracy in fourth-century Athens’, C & M
40 (1989), pp. 71-99.
2 See L. Pearson, ‘Historical allusions in the Attic orators’, CPh 36 (1941), pp.
209-29; R. D. Milns, ‘Historical paradigms in Demosthenes’ public speeches’,
Electronic Antiquity 2.5 (1995).
3 E.g. I. Worthington, ‘History and oratorical exploitation’, in Worthington (ed.),
Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 109-29.
4 E.g. Isoc. Pangyr. 7-10 and Panath. 149-50 with the discussion of J.
Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 276-9. See also the discussion and
bibliography of M. Fox and N. Livingstone, ‘Rhetoric and historiography’, in
(the e p ita p h io i log o i ) d id th e ir p o w erfu l ideological w o rk by c o n
stru ctin g a stable a n d yet a d a p ta b le version o f A th e n ia n h isto ry as
‘a lo n g c o n tin u u m th a t relies o n th e re -en a ctm e n t o f g re at deeds by
each g e n e ra tio n ’.5 Several re cen t studies focus o n th o se speeches o f
D e m o sth en e s, A eschines a n d L y cu rg u s w hich w ere delivered in p o liti
cally ch a rg ed cases in th e a fte rm a th o f C h aero n ea. T hese speeches
fro m ‘L y cu rg an A th e n s’ c o n tra st p re se n t depravities in p o litical
p ro c e d u re a n d p erso n a l c o n d u c t w ith a heavily id ealised p a s t o f c o n
stitu tio n a l o rd e r, p o litical d ec o ru m a n d g re at m ilitary achievem ents.
T h ey do th is to shape th e ju r y ’s o u tlo o k o n th e case a t h a n d . B u t they
are also em b lem atic o f ‘a n intense p re o c c u p a tio n w ith, engagem ent
a n d focus o n th e city ’s o w n p a s t’ in L y cu rg an A th e n s.6 T his ‘p ast-
co n n e ctiv ity ’ w as a resp o n se to a sense o f decline in c o m p a riso n w ith
th e S o lo n ian a n d fifth -cen tu ry glory days. A n d it d ro v e all m a n n e r o f
fresh p o litical, religious a n d cu ltu ra l initiatives as L y cu rg u s a n d o th e r
p ro m in e n t p o liticia n s so u g h t to re sto re th e city ’s stren g th , confidence
a n d self-im age to line u p w ith th a t idealised p a s t.7
T h is c h a p te r atte m p ts to c o n trib u te fu rth e r to o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f
ap p eals to th e p a s t w hich a p p e a r in speeches fro m high-profile p u b lic
trials b etw een 345 a n d 330. B ut I will focus o n a p a rtic u la r re ad in g o f
th e significance o f these ap p eals w hich is p u t fo rw a rd in an a d m ira
ble, fa scin atin g a n d p ro v o c ativ e recen t b o o k by Jo siah O b e r en title d
D e m o c ra c y a n d K n o w led g e: In n o v a tio n a n d L e a rn in g in C lassical
A th e n s . T h e o v erarch in g claim o f this b o o k is th a t d em o cratic A th en s
w as a successful state because it w as able to overcom e b a rrie rs to
collective a c tio n th ro u g h th e efficient a g g reg atio n a n d ap p lica tio n
o f know ledge. A n d w hile I am sy m p ath etic to its in n o v ativ e ex p lo
ra tio n o f A th en s as an ‘ep istem ic’ o r ‘d elib erativ e’ d em ocracy, m y
(footnote 4 continued)
I. Worthington (ed.), A Companion to Greek Rhetoric (Malden, MA, and Oxford:
Blackwell, 2007), pp. 542-60, at pp. 551-3.
5 J. Grethlein, The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth
Century b c e (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 123. See also the
classic account of N. Loraux, The Invention o f Athens: The Funeral Oration in the
Classical City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).
6 S. Lambert, ‘Some political shifts in Lykourgan Athens’, in V. Azoulay and P.
Ismard (eds), Clisthene et Lycurgue d’Athenes: Autour du politique dans la cite
classique (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2011), pp. 175-90, at p. 187.
7 See e.g. H. Yunis, ‘Politics as literature: Demosthenes and the burden of the
Athenian past’, Arion 8 (2000), pp. 97-118; F. Hobden, ‘Imagining past and
present: A rhetorical strategy in Aeschines 3, Against Ctesiphon’, CQ 57.2 (2007),
pp. 490-501; Lambert, ‘Some political shifts’; V. Azoulay, ‘Lycurgue d’Athenes
et le passe de la cite: Entre neutralisation et instrumentalisation’, Cahiers des
Etudes Anciennes 46 (2009), pp. 149-80; Azoulay, ‘Les metamorphoses du koinon
athenien: Autour du Contre Leocrate de Lycurgue’, in Azoulay and Ismard,
Clisthene et Lycurgue d’Athenes, pp. 191-217.
COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND THE CONTESTATION OF HISTORY 209
19 Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, p. 185. See also (with a different emphasis)
the important discussion of L. Rubinstein, ‘Arguments from precedent in Attic
oratory’, in E. Carawan (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Attic Orators (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 359-71.
20 D. S. Allen, ‘Changing the authoritative voice: Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates’,
Classical Antiquity 19 (2000), pp. 5-33, at p. 10.
G re ek freed o m (46-9). B u t h e links th e ir fine c o n d u c t to th e statu es o f
generals, ty ran t-sla y ers a n d ath letes fro m earlier tim es w hich can be
seen th ro u g h o u t th e city: th e v a lo u r show n a t C h a e ro n e a is exp lain ed
by th e fa ct th a t ‘alo n e o f th e G re e k s’ th e A th e n ia n s k now h o w to
h o n o u r g o o d m en (50). B u t ju s t as A th e n s fosters m o re g re at deeds by
h o n o u rin g th em , it m u st also p u n ish th e crim es o f m en like L eo crates
(51-2).
A fte r som e a n tic ip a tio n o f L e o c ra te s’ a rg u m e n ts, L ycurgus
lau n ch es in to a passag e o f h isto rical a n d p o e tic p a r a d e ig m a ta th a t
ex ten d s fo r 64 o f th e speech’s 150 sections. W e h av e th e follow ing
exam ples: th e A th e n ia n s’ role in en su rin g v icto ry at S alam is a n d th e
c ity ’s g lo rio u s h eg em o n ic a fte rm a th (6 8 -7 4 ); th e ephebic o a th a n d th e
ro le o f o a th s in p reserv in g dem o cracy (7 5 -9 ); th e b ra v e o a th sw orn
by th e G reek s a t P la ta e a a n d th e p a rtic u la r glory w hich th a t victory
co n ferre d o n A th en s (80-2); th e sto ry o f h o w K in g C o d ru s sacrificed
h im self fo r A th en s d u rin g a w a r (83-8); th e story o f h o w th e D e lp h ic
oracle e n a b le d th e execu tio n o f th e A th e n ia n p o liticia n C allistra tu s
(92-3); th e fab le o f h o w th e gods re w ard e d a y o u n g Sicilian m a n fo r
n o t desertin g his fa th e r, involving th e ‘P lace o f th e P io u s’ (95-7);
P ra x ith e a ’s sacrifice o f h e r d a u g h te r v ia a fifty-five-line q u o ta tio n
fro m E u rip id e s’ E re c th e u s (98-101); q u o ta tio n s fro m th e I lia d a n d
T y rta e u s w hich exem plify th e im p o rta n c e o f m ilitary d u ty , including
an a c c o u n t o f th e la tte r’s h isto rical c o n trib u tio n to S p a rta n discipline
a n d h o p lite ideology (102-8); th e S im onidean tex t o f th e m o n u m e n t to
th e A th en ian s a t M a ra th o n a n d o f th e m o n u m e n t to th e S p a rta n s at
T h erm o p y la e, a c co m p an ied by n a rra tiv e o f th e ir achievem ents (108
10); fo u r n a rra tiv e s o f ex em p lary a n d co n sisten t p u n ish m e n ts m eted
o u t to A th e n s ’ tra ito rs in th e fifth ce n tu ry (111-23); th e stele set u p in
th e a fte rm a th o f 404/3 w hich re c o rd e d th e im m u n ity g ra n te d to th o se
w ho th w a rt ty ra n n ic a l subversion o f th e dem o cracy (1 2 4 -6 );21 th e
S p a rta n s ’ tre a tm e n t o f th e ir king P a u san ias a n d th e ir law ag a in st co w
ard ice (128-9); a n d q u o ta tio n s fro m tw o a n o n y m o u s p o ets (92, 132).
A ll th e w ay th ro u g h this to u r de fo rc e we h a v e L e o c ra te s’ c o n d u c t
co n d e m n e d by c o n tra st o r an a lo g y (e.g. 74, 82, 89, 97, 110). A n d it
is m a d e clear th a t L eo c rates m u st be co n v icted if th e ju ry them selves
are to b e fa ith fu l to th e values, pledges, c o n d u c t a n d sacrifices o f th eir
an cesto rs, all o f w hich h av e en su red A th e n s ’ glory a n d th e survival o f
its d em o cracy (e.g. 74, 82, 89, 123, 127).
22 It is undoubtedly significant that the nearest parallels are the passages of quotation
found in Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon and Demosthenes’ On the Crown, which
were pitted against each other only a few months after the trial of Leocrates.
Although many speeches before 331/30 use historical examples and a few use
quotations from classical and archaic poetry, these three speeches must represent
something of a shift in tone and tactics. See Hobden, ‘Imagining past and present’;
Lambert, ‘Some political shifts’, pp. 187-90, for some explanations.
23 Allen, ‘Changing the authoritative voice’.
24 Azoulay, ‘Lycurgue d’Athenes et le passe de la cite’.
w ho fell a t M a ra th o n a n d T h erm o p y la e, L ycurgus says these lines
offer ‘p ra ise a n d glory fo r o u r city w hich will alw ays be re m e m b e re d ’
(snaivog Kai xfi no^si So£,a as^v n o x o g , 110). B y c o n tra st, L eo crates
h a s ‘d elib erately disg raced th e glory th e city h a s b u ilt u p th ro u g h all
tim e ’ ( sk&v x^v e£ anavxog xou ai&vog auvnBpoia^evnv xfl no^si So£,av
Kax^oxuvsv, 110).
O b e r focuses o n o n e o f L y cu rg u s’ stories a b o u t fifth -cen tu ry
A th e n s ’ ex em p lary p u n ish m e n t o f tra ito rs . H ip p a rc h u s, a p ro m in e n t
A th e n ia n o f th e early fifth cen tu ry , fled th e city ra th e r th a n face tria l
fo r tre a so n (117-19). W e are to ld th a t th e A th e n ia n s sentenced him
to d e a th in his absence. T h en , ‘as they d id n o t secure his p e rso n to
an sw er fo r th e crim e, th ey to o k do w n his statu e fro m th e A cropolis
a n d , m eltin g it d ow n, m a d e a stele o f it, o n w hich th ey decreed th a t
th e n am es o f w ro n g d o e rs a n d tra ito rs w o u ld be inscribed. H ip p a rc h u s
h im self h a s his n a m e re c o rd e d o n th is stele a n d o th e r tra ito rs to o ’
(117). L y cu rg u s n ex t directs th e clerk o f th e c o u rt to re a d th e decree
w hich a u th o ris e d th e ta k in g do w n o f H ip p a rc h u s ’ statu e a n d tells him
also to re a d th e stele’s in scrip tio n a n d list o f tra ito rs (118). L ycurgus
th e n draw s th e lessons fro m this h isto rical exam ple: first, A th en ian s
th e n w ere n o t over-lenient as th ey are to d ay . By o b lite ra tin g his
m em o rial, th ey d id all they co u ld to p u n ish a n d h u m iliate H ip p a rc h u s
in his absence. S econd, ‘th e sim ple fact o f m eltin g d ow n th e b ro n z e
statu e w as n o t en o u g h fo r th em ; th ey w ished to leave b e h in d to th eir
successors a lastin g exam ple (p a ra d e ig m a ) o f th e ir a ttitu d e to tra ito r s ’
(119). F o r O b er, th is is excellent evidence o f th e w ay in w hich p u b lic
ac tio n co m m itm en ts (in this case th e p u n ish m e n t o f tra ito rs ) are m ad e
credible th ro u g h m ech an ism s o f p u b licity a n d c o m m o n know ledge:
31 It is possible that these speeches may have been revised and lengthened for
publication. They may thereby develop their critiques of the other side in more
extended and pronounced ways. See I. Worthington, ‘Greek oratory, revision of
speeches and the problem of historical reliability’, C & M 42 (1991), pp. 55-74
and Worthington, ‘History and oratorical exploitation’. Evidence in the texts for
revision prior to publication after these three trials is limited to one or two specific
cases. See E. M. Harris, Aeschines and Athenian Politics (Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 10-15.
T hese speeches are A eschines’ A g a in s t T im a rc h u s (A eschines’ p ro se c u
tio n o f T im arc h u s in 345); D e m o sth e n e s’ On th e F a lse E m b a s s y a n d
A esch in es’ On th e E m b a s s y (D e m o sth e n es’ p ro se c u tio n o f A eschines
fo r a m b a ssa d o ria l m isco n d u ct in 343); a n d A eschines’ A g a in s t
C tesip h o n a n d D e m o sth e n e s’ On th e C row n (A eschines’ p ro se c u tio n
o f C tesip h o n over his p ro p o sa l to a w a rd a cro w n to D e m o sth en e s in
330). W e d o n o t h av e D e m o sth e n e s’ defence speech fro m th e tria l o f
his frien d T im arc h u s, b u t A eschines’ speech is c o m m en ted u p o n by
D e m o sth en e s in O n th e F a lse E m b a s sy . Space p erm its m e to offer only
a few b rie f a n d highly selective illu stra tio n s.
W e h a v e seen h o w D e m o sth en e s slam m ed A eschines fo r th e alleged
irrelev an ce o f his references to ‘prizes a n d b attles a n d deeds o f o ld ’ in
O n th e C row n (18.209). D e m o sth en e s is talk in g a b o u t a very p o w e r
ful section o f A eschines’ p ro se c u tio n speech (A esch. 3.181-90). In
o rd e r to arg u e th a t D e m o sth en e s is u n w o rth y o f th e h o n o rific crow n
w hich C te sip h o n p ro p o se d , A eschines c o n tra sts D e m o sth e n e s’ alleged
lip o ta x ia (d esertio n ) w ith th e victories o f T hem istocles a n d M ilitiades
d u rin g th e P ersian W a rs (3.181). H e also invokes th e d em o cratic forces
fro m P hyle a n d A risteides ‘th e J u s t’. A eschines even calls D e m o sth en e s
‘th is b e a s t’ ( to u to th e rio n ), saying th a t it is n o t rig h t to n a m e h im on
th e sam e d ay as these h ero es o f th e an c estral city (181-2). A eschines
goes o n to p o in t o u t th a t n o w ritten o rd e r w as m a d e to cro w n these
an cestral figures fo r th e ir efforts. In ste a d th ey w ere h o n o u re d by
gain in g a p lace in th e im m o rta l m em o ry o f all A th e n ia n s ‘to this d a y ’
(182). T h en h e gives th e ju ry a to u r o f th e S to a o f th e H erm s, th e S to a
P oikile a n d th e M e tro o n , in o rd e r to exam ine in scrip tio n s a n d p a in t
ings c re a te d in ce le b ratio n o f key m o m e n ts in A th e n s’ histo ry : b attles
ag a in st th e P ersian s a t E io n a n d a t M a ra th o n , fighting o n th e p lains
o f T ro y , a n d th e v ictory o f th e d em o crats fro m P hyle over th e T h irty
a n d th e ir S p a rta n allies (3.183-7, 190). A t each m o n u m e n t, A eschines
‘p erfo rm s a re a d in g ’ o f th e buildings, th e ir in scrip tio n s a n d im ages, to
show th a t in th e o ld days th e A th e n ia n s h o n o u re d th e collective v alo u r
o v er a n d ab o v e th e achievem ents o f in d iv id u a l lead e rs.32 H is p o in t is
th a t th is o ld h a b it b e tte r served A th en s th a n th e p re se n t-d a y p ractice
o f cro w n in g in d iv id u a l b en e fac to rs a n d un d eserv in g scoundrels like
D e m o sth en e s. A s F io n a H o b d e n show s, A eschines’ tactics h ere are
skilful, creative (w ith o u t being id io sy n cratic) a n d striking; a n d w hile
th ey p la y fa st a n d loose w ith th e sym bolism o f th e in scrip tio n s a n d
p a in tin g s h e in te rp re ts, they are very p e rtin e n t to th e case a t h a n d .33
Kathryn A. Morgan
The author wishes to express her thanks to Claudia Rapp, Andrea Nightingale, Alex
Purves and Mario Telo.
1 R. Weil, L ’‘archeologie’ de Platon (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1959), pp. 26, 45. For
an example of Plato’s intertextual relationship with Herodotus see the discussion
of Plato’s Solon in Egypt below. For Thucydides and Plato see S. Hornblower,
Thucydides (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 112-25. For
a recent discussion of the Menexenus (and connections with the funeral oration)
see S. D. Collins and D. Stauffer, ‘The challenge of Plato’s Menexenus’, Review o f
Politics 61 (1999), pp. 85-115; F. Pownall, Lessons from the Past: The Moral Use
o f History in Fourth-Century Prose (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
2004), pp. 38-64. On the whole I align myself with Loraux’s view of the oration in
the Menexenus as an ironic manipulation of generic commonplaces (N. Loraux,
The Invention o f Athens, tr. A. Sheridan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1986), pp. 176, 189, 264-70; first published as L ’invention d’Athenes:
Histoire de l’oraison funebre dans la ‘cite classique’ (Paris: Mouton, 1981)).
flav o u r. S urveying these n a rra tiv e s will allow us to c o n c e n tra te on
som e d istinctive featu res o f P la to ’s a p p ro a c h to th e p ast: th e w ay th a t
th e p a s t a n d th e in v estig atio n o f it are cu t o ff fro m th e p re sen t, a n d
th e circu m stan ces u n d e r w hich th e p a s t m ay b e allow ed to in fo rm
o u r c u rre n t p ro jects. A fte r sketching th e c o n te n t o f these cosm ic h is
to ries, I shall lo o k briefly a t a n influential p a ra d ig m fo r in te rp re tin g
P la to ’s ‘th e o ry o f h isto ry ’ b efo re suggesting a ch an g e in focus: ra th e r
th a n ask in g w h e th e r P la to th o u g h t h isto ry co n fo rm ed to a p a tte rn ,
we sh o u ld exam ine h o w h e h istoricises th e h isto rio g ra p h ic im pulse
a n d th e ro le a n d usefulness h e assigns to h isto rical know ledge. In this
c o n n e c tio n it will p ro v e significant th a t P la to c o n stru c ts a universe
w here lo n g -term ac cu ra te h isto rical know ledge tu rn s o u t to be b o th
im p o ssib le a n d p o ssib ly irrelev an t.
HISTORIES OF CATACLYSM
Issues o f h isto rical tim e a n d n a rra tiv e are n o t p ro m in e n t in P la to ’s
early a n d m id d le dialogues. T his is in keeping w ith th e ir ethical focus;
discussion centres o n u n d e rsta n d in g th e soul a n d its v ario u s virtues.
T h e te m p o ra l p erspective u n d e r w hich we are to view th e soul is a long
one, since th e soul is im m o rta l a n d will b e re b o rn (R e sp . 4 9 8 c-d ) a n d
in d iv id u a l lifetim es are trivial in co m p a riso n w ith all o f tim e (R esp .
6 0 8 c-d ). In som e o f th e la te r dialogues, how ever, we see a g re ater
in tere st in (tru ly u n iv ersal) h isto ry a n d in th e p rocess by w hich h is
to ric a l n a rra tiv e s are c o n stru c te d . T h e co n tex t o f these ac co u n ts is
co sm ic h isto ry (an alo g o u s to th e longue d u ree in w hich we m u st place
th e soul), a n d leaves ro o m fo r th e c o n sid e ra tio n (in S ta te s m a n a n d
T im a e u s ) o f th e activity o f a c re a to r deity. T hese ac co u n ts all spring
fro m th e p o s tu la tio n o f cosm ic u p h ea v al a n d deploy a p a rtic u la r h is
to rio g ra p h ic strategy: th a t o f th e ra tio n a lisa tio n o f m yth.
L et us s ta rt w ith th e S ta te s m a n . H ere (268d-269c) an E leatic
S tran g er tells th e y o u n g er S ocrates th a t th ey m u st use a ‘g re at m y th ’
in th e ir search fo r th e definition o f a king - p a rtic u la rly a p p ro p ria te
since y o u n g S ocrates is only ju s t b e y o n d c h ild h o o d .2 In this instance
th e m y th s in q u estio n are, first, th e sto ry o f A tre u s a n d th e reversal
o f th e co u rse o f th e sun a n d o th e r h eavenly bodies in th e sky; second,
th a t o f th e A ge o f C ro n u s; a n d th ird , a u to c h th o n y .
2 For the connection between myth and childhood, see L. P. Brisson, Plato the
Myth Maker, ed. and tr. G. Naddaf (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998),
pp. 62, 82-3; K. A. Morgan, M yth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 175-7, 251-2.
A ll o f th ese arise fro m th e sam e event, a n d in ad d itio n to these
co u n tless o th e rs even m o re am azin g th a n these, b u t because o f
th e len g th o f tim e som e o f th e m h av e fa d ed fro m m em o ry , w hile
o th ers are sp oken o f separately, sca tte red each fro m th e o th er.
N o o n e h a s to ld th e event th a t causes all o f th em , b u t it m u st now
be to ld . F o r telling it will be fittin g fo r o u r d e m o n stra tio n o f the
king.
6 Hdt. 1.1, Thuc. 1.1.3: ‘What happened before [this war] and even earlier was
impossible to discover because of the amount of time (aaqxag |isv stipsiv Sia xpovou
nXfjBog aSwaxa qv).’ Cf. Weil, L ’‘archeologie’ de Platon, p. 17.
a n d h isto ricisin g ra tio n a lisers o f m y th seem sm all by c o m p ariso n .
O n e w ay o f u n d e rsta n d in g th e c o n tra st is to view it as reflecting th e
difference betw een cosm ology (w ith its u n iversal in terests) a n d h is
to rio g ra p h y (w ith its focus o n res g e s ta e ). T h is is in d eed a g erm ane
d istin c tio n , b u t w h a t is m o st in tere stin g fo r p re se n t p u rp o se s is th a t
th e k in d o f cosm os we in h a b it (one ch a rac te rised by c a ta stro p h e a n d
d isco n tin u ity ) d ictates th e n a tu re o f h isto rio g ra p h y a n d its co n n e ctio n
w ith th e disco u rse o f m y th .7 T h e im p o sitio n o f p e rio d ic c a ta stro p h e
m ean s th a t h isto rical a n d m y th o lo g ica l in v estig atio n m u st address
issues o f ra d ic al d isco n tin u ity . M o re o v er, because c a ta stro p h e creates
c u ltu ra l d isco n tin u ity a n d tra u m a , m y th o lo g isin g becom es a n in es
c a p ab le asp ect o f th e in v estig atio n o f th e p a st, ra th e r th a n (as it is fo r
T h u cy d id es) a p o e tic o r sen tim en tal ten d en cy th a t can b e overcom e
by th e rig o ro u s a p p lic a tio n o f strin g en t m eth o d o lo g ic al stan d ard s.
T h e d e stru c tio n o f c u ltu re a t th e tim e o f c a ta s tro p h e w o u ld also en tail
th e d e stru c tio n o f an y h isto rio g ra p h ic sta n d a rd s. P o p u la r m y th s
a b o u t floods a n d co n fla g ratio n are all th a t is left a n d access to lo n g
te rm h isto ry is th u s th ro u g h ra tio n a lisa tio n o f m y th , so th a t m y th ical
p a tte rn s ta k e a p rivileged a n d fo u n d a tio n a l role.
A PATTERN OF DECADENCE?
T h e recu rren ce o f p a tte rn s o f catacly sm h a s te m p te d som e to re a d
‘d ec ad en c e’ as P la to ’s g o verning n o tio n o f h isto ry . In 1951, R . G .
B u ry p re se n te d a succinct su m m ary o f this a p p ro a c h . W e h av e seen
alre ad y h o w in th e S ta te s m a n th e w o rld slow ly decays w hen g o d
rem oves his h a n d fro m th e tiller o f th e cosm os. T h is is cau sed by th e
b o d ily elem ent in th e cosm os, w hich g ra d u ally causes th e w o rld to
m o v e to w a rd s its o rig in al d ish arm o n y u n til it is in d a n g e r o f d e stru c
tio n (a t w hich p o in t g o d a g a in tak es over) (273a-e). In th e R e p u b lic
th e id ealised p o lis is subject to decline: ‘since ev erything th a t is b o rn is
subject to d estru c tio n , n o t even a c o n stitu tio n like this will e n d u re fo r
all tim e, b u t it will b e d issolved’ (8.546a). A fte r th is in tro d u c tio n , we
are p re se n te d w ith th e g ra d u a l d eg e n era tio n o f th e city in to ty ran n y .
So to o in th e T im a e u s/C ritia s we observe A tla n tis sinking (so to
speak) in to vice a n d defeat because o f th e fa d in g o f th e divine elem ent
in its kings a n d th e co n c o m ita n t g ro w th o f greed. F in a lly B o o k 3 o f
th e L a w s n a rra te s th e d e te rio ra tio n o f th e D o ria n states (except fo r
S p arta), as well as th a t o f A th en s a n d P ersia (th e rep resen tativ es o f
p u re d em o cratic a n d m o n a rc h ic c o n stitu tio n s).8 I f we a d d to this
13 Yet even here, the comments made by the Eleatic Stranger about the Age
of Cronus make us doubt whether many ethical or intellectual advances were
made when mankind was managed directly by god. At Plt . 272b-d he remarks
that if humans in that age did not use their leisure for inquiry and philosophical
discussion, their state would be inferior to our own. As J. Dillon, ‘Plato and the
golden age’, Hermathena 153 (1992), pp. 21-36, at pp. 28-30, points out, it is by no
means certain from the text that their leisure was so employed. For an optimistic
reading of human progress in the Statesman myth, see Carone, ‘Reversing the
myth’, esp. pp. 106-7.
14 See S. Broadie (2001), ‘Theodicy and pseudo-history in the Timaeus’, OSAP 21
(2001), pp. 1-28, at pp. 2-6, for an illuminating examination of how issues of
theodicy are not connected with cataclysm in the Timaeus account.
re a d P la to n ic ac co u n ts o f catacly sm as expressing a m a te ria l reflec
tio n o f th e o p e ra tio n o f th e soul in h isto ry o r as in d icatio n s o f som e
belief P la to m a y h av e h e ld a b o u t th e w ay th e universe really w orks. It
is d o u b tless tru e to say th a t th e p ro b le m a tic s o f th e h u m a n soul are
ce n tral to an y P la to n ic n o tio n o f h isto ry , b u t it is equally tru e to say
th a t T h u cy d id es th in k s th a t h u m a n n a tu re is th e p rim a ry d riv er o f h is
to rica l change. T h e in tere st is in h o w this n o tio n cashes o u t a n d w h a t
difference it m ak es in th e k in d o f h isto ry th a t each o f th e m envisions.
P la to ’s p seu d o -h isto ries are n o t going to tell us a n y th in g a b o u t w h a t
really h a p p e n e d o r even a b o u t w h a t P la to th o u g h t really h ap p e n ed .
It m a y be fru itfu l to sideline issues o f divine g o v ern an ce a n d cosm ic
o rd e r in fa v o u r o f a focus o n cu ltu ra l know ledge a n d o n th e o p e ra tio n
o f c o n stru c tin g h isto ry . P erio d ic d estru c tio n s m a y (o r m a y n o t) be a
m a tte r o f divine p u rg a tio n , b u t th ey are p re -em in en tly a fa ct o f n a tu re
w ith p a rtic u la r cu ltu ra l effects. W e sh o u ld n o te th e convenience o f
th e cyclic d e stru c tio n scenario fo r these dialogues w hose in terests
are so largely po litical. E ach p e rio d o f d e stru c tio n creates a n alm o st
b la n k slate th a t ca n re n d e r m o re accessible, fo r th e o re tic a l p u rp o se s,
th e d ev elo p m en t o f society a n d th e id en tificatio n o f forces a t w o rk
fo r ch an g e. T h e scenario fu n c tio n s as a h eu ristic device ra th e r th a n
em p h asisin g a p ic tu re o f h isto ry as decadence.
A BLANK SLATE
T h e c re a tio n o f a cu ltu ra l b la n k slate allow s P la to ’s speakers to
exp lo re th e ro le o f h isto rical know ledge w ith in a developing society.
T his is m o st explicit in T im a e u s /C r itia s , w here th e co n c ern w ith the
co n stru c tio n o f h isto rical m o d els is cen tral. I t is h ere th a t, as we h av e
seen, G re ek m e th o d o lo g ic al ig n o ran c e is fo reg ro u n d ed : G reeks are
in tellectu al ch ild ren because th e ir h isto rical sensibility does n o t ta k e
cyclic d e stru c tio n in to a c c o u n t (T i. 22 b -c). G re e k ig n o ran c e o f the
ra tio n a lise d tr u th th u s com es as a rev elatio n (in c o n tra s t to th e L a w s ,
w here th e p rin cip le o f ra tio n a lisa tio n is accep ted as com m onplace).
A c co rd in g to th e E g y p tian p riest th e G reeks h av e n o an cien t k n o w l
edge. T h e p erio d ic d e stru c tio n o f m a n k in d in m o st areas m ean s th a t
o nly th o se w ho are w ith o u t letters a n d w ith o u t c u ltu re are left. As
so o n as cities anyw here sta rt to ac q u ire th e a ttrib u te s o f civilised life,
th e d e stru c tio n com es again. A t th e beg in n in g o f th e C ritia s, C ritias
explains h o w only th e n am es o f h isto rical a c to rs survive in o ral
tra d itio n :
(footnote 18 continued)
a form of memory. These recollective memories thus correspond to the vague
traditions (perhaps only names) that, as has been noted above, the survivors of
cataclysms bring with them into their new world and then pass on.
19 See in particular C. Gill, ‘The genre of the Atlantis story’, CPh 72 (1977), pp.
287-304; C. J. Rowe, ‘Myth, history and dialectic in Plato’s Republic and Timaeus-
Critias\ in R. Buxton (ed.), From M yth to Reason? Studies in the Development
o f Greek Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 263-78. Cf. M.
Detienne, The Writing o f Orpheus: Greek Myth in Cultural Context, tr. J. Lloyd
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp. 146-9 (first published as
L ’ecriture d’Orphee (Paris: Gallimard, 1989)).
h a d exercised b o th H e ro d o tu s a n d T hucydides) in L a w s a n d T im a e u s/
C r itia s .
O ne o f th e core passages fo r th e m ingling o f m y th a n d h isto ry in
P la to is R e p u b lic 2 .3 8 2 c-d . T h e co n tex t is th e fa m o u s discussion o n
th e cen so rsh ip o f p o e try co n sid ered u n tru e a n d h arm fu l. A fte r a d is
cu ssio n o f th e in iq u ity o f re a l fa lse h o o d , n am ely fa lse h o o d in th e soul,
S o crates passes o n to th e q u estio n o f fa lse h o o d in w ords. T h is can
som etim es b e useful a n d th u s does n o t deserve o u r h a tre d . W e co u ld
use it ag a in st enem ies, o r as a m edicine fo r a friend, o r ‘in th e m y th ical
tales we w ere ju s t n o w speaking a b o u t, b ecause we do n o t k n o w w h a t
th e tru th is a b o u t an cien t m a tte rs, we m a k e th e m useful b y likening
fa lse h o o d to t r u th ’ (Kai sv aig vuvS^ sXsyo^sv ta ig ^'u0 oXoy^a1,g, Sia to
^ siSevai onfl TaXn0sg exsi nspi trov naXai&v, a^o^oiow T sg t© aXn0si
to ysuSog o ti ^aX iota, out© xp^oi^ov noiou^sv). T h e m a in focus o f
th e p assag e as a w hole is a critiq u e o f p o ets w ho re p resen t th e gods
as liars: n o g o d w o u ld n ee d to m a k e u p stories a b o u t th e p a s t because
h e d id n o t k n o w (Sia to ^ siSsvai Ta naX aia a^o^oi& v av ysriSoiTo),
S o crates goes o n to say, a n d so th ere is n o lying p o e t in g o d (2.382d). It
is significant, how ever, th a t S ocrates dism isses, alm o st in p assin g , th e
p o ssib ility o f k n o w in g an y th in g a b o u t an cien t m a tte rs. T his does n o t,
o f cou rse, p re clu d e th a t one m ig h t h a v e ac cu ra te know ledge a b o u t th e
m o re re cen t p a st, b u t it does re m in d us, fo r exam ple, o f T h u cy d id e s’
fra n k av o w al o f th e difficulty o f a c cu ra te know ledge a b o u t w h a t h a p
p e n e d b efo re th e P elo p o n n esian W a r (Ta yap npo aw & v Kai Ta s ti
naX atcspa oa^& g ^sv supsiv Sia xpovou nXf0og a S u v ata ^v, 1.1.3), a
difficulty h e solves by m ak in g inferences a b o u t th e p a s t b ase d o n w h a t
h e sees in th e p re s e n t.20
S o cra te s’ co m m en t locates in q u iry a b o u t th e p a st firm ly in th e
re alm o f p o etic en d eav o u r; h isto rical re c o n stru c tio n is a m a tte r o f
in fo rm e d inference, ideally g o v ern ed by p rin cip les o f m o ra l utility.
T h e co m m en t is also a p o in te d re w o rk in g o f th e an n o u n c e m e n t o f
th e M u ses in H e sio d ’s T h e o g o n y , ‘we kn o w h o w to sp eak m a n y false
th in g s like gen u ine th in g s, b u t also h o w to p ro c la im tru e th in g s, w hen
we w ish ’ (iS^sv ysriS sa noXXa Xsysiv btu^oioiv o ^o ia, / iS^sv S’ s u t’
80sX©^sv aXn0sa ynptioao0ai, Theog. 2 7 -8 ).21 P la to m ak es S ocrates
(footnote 21 continued)
who, with Gill, ‘Plato’s Atlantis story’, pp. 66-70, understands the distinction as
one ‘between factual truth and representative truth’.
22 For further considerations on extrapolation in Thucydides, see J. Morrison,
‘Memory, time, and writing: Oral and literary aspects of Thucydides’ History ’,
in C. J. Mackie (ed.), Oral Performance and its Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
pp. 95-116, at pp. 98-100.
23 Gill, ‘Plato’s Atlantis story’, p. 76, argues that in the Atlantis myth of the
Timaeus and Critias, Plato is playing the ‘game of fiction . . . presenting the false
as true’, although he later disavowed the utility of fiction as an analytic category
in Plato (C. Gill, ‘Plato on falsehood - not fiction’, in C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman
(eds), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1993),
pp. 38-87, at pp. 46, 51, and passim ).
24 For Brisson, Plato the Myth Maker , pp. 91-102, the discourse of mythos in
Plato is in principle unfalsifiable because its referent is inaccessible to the intellect
or belongs to a distant past of which an author has no experience. Faced with
our problematic passage in Republic 2, he explains the connection of myth with
false discourse by positing a change in perspective whereby standards of truth and
falsity have changed, now confirming to the higher discourse of the philosopher
(pp. 105-9).
th e m u sefu l.25 In S ta te s m a n , T im a e u s a n d L a w s th e cosm os itself
g u aran tees th e tr u th o f S o cra te s’ asse rtio n in th e R e p u b lic th a t we
c a n n o t really k n o w a b o u t th e d ista n t p a st. A d a m re m a rk s ta rtly in his
c o m m e n ta ry o n th e R e p u b lic th a t ‘P la to seems to h av e su p p o sed th a t
an cien t h isto ry a n d m y th o lo g y co u ld b e m a n u fa c tu re d to o rd e r’,26 a n d
th is seems to be largely justified. T h e ethical a n d p o litica l usefulness o f
an y given n a rra tiv e is p rim ary .
Saying th a t th a t P la to p ro d u c es a m y th o lo g ised h isto ry th u s m eans
b o th th a t m y th a n d h isto ry are in tertw in ed fo r h im a t th e level o f
m eth o d o lo g y , a n d th a t w hen h e refers to h isto rical o r q u asi-h isto rical
events h e uses th e m to m ak e a m o ra l o r p o litical p o in t.27 T h e A tlan tis
m y th is an obv ious a n d acknow ledged exam ple o f this. I h av e arg u ed
elsew here th a t P la to ’s p re se n ta tio n o f th e m y th in T im a e u s/C ritia s
fo reg ro u n d s th e tra n s fo rm a tio n o f h isto ry in to m y th a n d vice versa.
O n th e one h a n d , th e w a r betw een A th en s a n d A tlan tis is a m o ralised
tra n sp o sitio n a n d a m a lg a m a tio n o f th e P ersian a n d P elo p o n n esian
W a rs, to g e th e r w ith A th e n ia n am b itio n s fo r regaining em pire in the
fo u rth ce n tu ry a t th e tim e o f th e Social W a r. T his is h isto ry m y th o lo
gised to m a k e th e m o ra l clearer: la n d p o w e r (good) ag ain st sea p o w er
(b ad ), th e tem p ta tio n s o f em pire (bad), law fulness a n d au sterity
ag ain st opu len ce a n d greed.28 Y et th e n a rra tiv e also m odels explicitly
a n d o u trag e o u sly th e tra n sfe rra l o f th e id ealised a n d m y th o lo g ised
state o f th e R e p u b lic in to th e w o rld o f h isto ry . T h e in terlo cu to rs in the
d ialo g u e assert a n d accept th a t these events really h a p p e n ed . C ritias
rem em b ers th e story o f A th en s a n d A tlan tis th a t S olon to ld his g ra n d
fa th e r C ritias, a n d p ro p o se s to use it to satisfy S o crates’ desire fo r an
a c co u n t th a t will set in to n a rra tiv e m o tio n th e ideal citizens o f a state
like th a t w hich we see o u tlin e d in th e R ep u blic. S ocrates is delighted:
th e deed o f th e an cien t A th en ian s is ‘n o t m erely sp oken of, b u t actually
h a p p e n e d ’ (ou ^syo^svov ^ev, ©g Ss npax0sv ovxrog, 21a). T h e ideal state
M O V IN G F R O M M Y T H T O H IS T O R Y IN T H E L A W S
29 And have been so studied: Brisson, Plato the Myth Maker, pp. 25-39.
30 Gill, ‘Plato’s Atlantis story’, p. 74.
31 Gill, ‘Genre of the Atlantis story’, pp. 294, 299; cf. Gill, ‘Plato’s Atlantis
story’, pp. 75-6.
32 Gill, ‘Plato’s Atlantis story’, p. 75.
33 Gill, ‘Genre of the Atlantis story’, p. 301: ‘the interest in . . . surveying historical
events to formulate descriptive generalizations’.
by h im as m a rk in g a ch an g e in P la to ’s a p p ro a c h to h isto rical m ateria l.
W eil acknow ledges th a t P la to ’s fa b ric a tio n s o f h isto ry are designed
to m a k e a p o in t, b u t also suggests th a t h isto ry becom es m o re a n d
m o re im p o rta n t fo r P la to u n til, in th e L a w s , we leave th e re alm o f
leg en d a n d are p re se n te d w ith a system atic h isto ry o f ev en ts.34 H ere
to o th e re is a com m ingling o f m y th a n d h isto ry , as stories o f cyclic
catacly sm give w ay to events k n o w n fro m o th e r sources,35 b u t w h a t
P la to is d o in g is serious h isto ry . E ven c h a m p io n s like W eil, how ever,
co n ced e th a t th e h isto rical sketch in L a w s 3 is schem atic, reductive
a n d p a rtly im ag in ary . Q uite a p a rt fro m th e d isco n tin u ities o f civili
satio n d ea lt w ith in th e first p a r t o f this ch a p te r, th e p a r t o f th e n a r
ra tiv e th a t focuses o n G reece in (w h at we call) th e h isto rical p e rio d
is hu g ely superficial; n o b o d y w o u ld ever co n su lt L a w s 3 to find o u t
w h a t ac tu ally h ap p e n e d . It is, again, m o ralisin g h istory: th e ac co u n t
o f th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e th ree D o ria n k in g d o m s o f A rg o s, M essenia
a n d L aced ae m o n ia , w here early h o p es fo r law -ab id in g a n d v irtu o u s
m o n arc h ies are d ash ed , is follow ed by th e ju x ta p o sitio n o f A th en s a n d
P ersia as th e tw o fo u n d a tio n a l types o f g overnm ent: dem o cracy a n d
m o n arc h y . B o th s ta rt o u t well b u t e n d badly: th e A th e n ia n s lose th eir
h a b it o f obed ience to th e law s a n d th e P ersian m o n a rc h s are overcom e
by a rro g a n c e a n d am b itio n . I f we ask w here ‘h is to ry ’ resides in this
ac co u n t, we m u st reply th a t we recognise th e n a rra tiv e s b ecau se we
alre ad y k n o w th em fro m elsew here. W e w o u ld n o t use th em as a basis
fo r h isto rical reco n stru ctio n .
W h a t, th en , are we to m a k e o f th e m a rk e d tra n s itio n m a d e by th e
A th e n ia n S tran g er fro m th e tim e o f m y th to a tim e w ith in th e in te l
lectu al g rasp o f th e p resen t? T his m o v e is, o f course, m a d e b o th by
H e ro d o tu s a n d T hucydides. H e ro d o tu s (1.5) c o n tra s ts th e stories o f
Io , H elen a n d o th ers w ith th e m a n w h o m h e h im self know s first to
h av e c o m m itte d aggression to w a rd s th e G reeks. T h u cy d id es (1.1), in
tu rn , is unw illing to tru s t h e a rsa y even a b o u t th e events im m ediately
p reced in g th e P elo p o n n esian W a r, n o t to m e n tio n th e stories a b o u t
re m o te an tiq u ity . W h e re does th e S tran g er d ra w th e line? H is n a r r a
tive h a d started , as we h av e seen, w ith th e c e rta in ty th a t civilisations
are p erio d ically destro y ed . H e follow s this w ith his re c o n stru c tio n o f
early societies a n d u rb a n isa tio n , startin g a t th e p o in t w here all spe
cialist kn o w led ge w as lo st fo r ten s o f th o u s a n d s o f years. T h ere was
n o city o r leg islation, n o w a r o r s ta s is , since p eo p le w ere lonely a n d
th e re fo re sociable: sim ple g o o d m en, living p ro b a b ly u n d e r a k in d
o f p a tria rc h a l ro y a lty . Slow ly larg e r co m m u n ities developed, as did
37 It is troubling, of course, that this axiom has not been previously stated in the
course of the Laws; cf. E. B. England (ed.), The Laws o f Plato, 2 vols (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1921), vol. 1, pp. 360-1 ad 683e5.
n o w d ealing w ith fact ra th e r th a n a b stra c t d iscu ssio n .38 W h a t g u a ra n
tees th e a u th e n tic ity o f th e p ro c e d u re , it seem s, is th a t th e m a jo r p lay er
in th e scenario, L ac ed ae m o n , is still in existence.
W h e n we exam ine th e re c o n stru c tio n o f th e failures o f th e D o ria n
cities p ro d u c e d by th e S tran g er, we see th a t it is, in d eed , a n exercise in
h isto rical im ag in atio n designed to p ro d u c e useful conclusions. T h u s
it is ‘p re tty c le a r’ th a t th e p u rp o se o f th e ir alliance w as p ro te c tio n
ag a in st enem ies (685b-c). I t is likely (steog) th a t th e fo u n d e rs expected
th e ir c o n stitu tio n a l a rra n g e m e n ts to last (to w hich M egillus re sp o n d s
‘O f co u rse i t ’s likely’) (686a). T h e decline o f A rg o s a n d M essene m u st
h av e s ta rte d w hen th e kings becam e a rro g a n t a n d eager fo r luxury,
as ‘m o st in stan ce s’ suggest (to ^sv steog Kai to noAu, 691a). I t is,
m o reo v e r, p o ssible to ‘guess m o st re a s o n a b ly ’ (^sT pim aT a Tonaoai)
w h a t h a p p e n e d in th e p a s t (691d). T h e en tire sequence is a conjec
tu ra l re c o n s tru c tio n .39 T his is, o f course, n o sin in itself. H isto ria n s
alw ays w o rk w ith a n d m a n ip u la te w h a t is p lau sib le in o rd e r to create
th e ir vision o f th e p a st, a n d th e crite rio n o f lik elih o o d w as a n o b vious
a n d fa v o u re d o p tio n w hen dealing w ith events in th e h ero ic p a s t.40
Y e t w hen we ju x ta p o se th is n a rra tiv e o f D o ria n decline a n d (p a rtia l)
p re se rv a tio n w ith th e statem en ts o f th e A th e n ia n S tran g er co n sid ered
ab o v e (on th e h a p p y arriv al a t th e te rrito ry o f h a r d facts), it is h a r d
n o t to feel d isco m fo rt. In spite o f th e rh e to ric o f ch an g e fro m m y th to
w h a t ac tu ally h ap p e n e d , th e m a te ria l o n o n e side o f th e divide is ju st
as co n jec tu ral as th a t o n th e o th er. T h e m e th o d o lo g y is c o n tin u o u s.
W h y th e n does P la to m a k e his S tran g er choose th e fo u n d a tio n o f
S p a rta as th e tra n sitio n to th e realm o f th e verifiable, th e sp a tiu m his-
to ric u m ? T h is issue is all th e m o re pressing because b o th H e ro d o tu s
a n d T h u cy d id es h a d m a d e th e ir h isto rical space com m ence m u ch later,
w ith C ro esu s a n d th e fifth ce n tu ry respectively. P la to , by c o n tra st,
p u sh es b a c k m a n y centuries b efo re them . H e m ay n o t h av e been the
first to d raw th e line w here h e did. E p h o ru s (later in th e fo u rth century)
b eg an his u n iversal h isto ry w ith th e re tu rn o f th e H eracleid ae (th a t
is, th e arriv al o f th e D o ria n s), a n d w as p ro b a b ly acting u p o n p re c
ed en t. A s F o rn a r a re m a rk s, ‘It c a n n o t b e coincidence th a t H ellanicus
o f L esbos, a stro n g influence o n E p h o ru s, h a d te rm in a te d his m an y
m y th o g ra p h ic a l w orks precisely a t this p o in t.’41 Y et even if P la to does
m ak e h isto rical tim e begin w here H ellanicus en d ed th e ages o f m y th ,
we still n eed to explain w hy h e u sed H ellanicus as his m o d el here.
42 The Stranger’s qualification ‘or, if you wish, race’ is curious and deserves
further attention, transporting us, as it does, to a quasi-Hesiodic world of
successive races. The Dorians self-represented as an ethnic group, but it is striking
that the fourth city receives ethnic qualification when no prior one did.
43 Athens, the heroine of the Atlantis story, could not hope to be a paradigm of
continuity in the Laws because it was a paradigm case of democracy. This entailed
A s th is c h a p te r d raw s to a close it is w o rth p au sin g over W eil’s q u es
tio n , o n e h e p o se d even as h e co n ced ed th a t th e n a rra tiv e o f L a w s 3
w as largely im aginary: d o we n o t n ee d to explain P la to ’s system atic
reco u rse to a h isto ry th a t w as relatively well kn o w n ?44 Y es we do. I
re m a rk e d earlier th a t th e ra tio n a lisin g a p p ro a c h to m y th s o f c a ta
clysm w as ta k e n fo r g ra n te d only in th e L a w s , as o p p o se d to T im a eu s
a n d S ta te s m a n w here it cam e as a rev elatio n . In th e L a w s th ere is
a sm o o th n ess o f in tellectu al texture: everyone agrees to th e ra tio n
alising a p p ro a c h , everyone agrees th a t th e h isto ry o f M essene a n d
A rg o s is one o f p leo n ectic kingship gone m ad . In spite o f cataclysm ,
ev eryone ca n see a co n tin u o u s h isto rical d ev elo p m en t fro m th e re tu rn
o f th e D o ria n s to th e p re sen t. T h is p e rc e p tio n o f c o n tin u ity betw een
p a s t a n d p re se n t m ak es th e h isto rical n a rra tiv e o f th e L a w s rh e to ri
cally effective in co n tex t. A s o p p o se d to th e p ro c e d u re in S ta te s m a n
a n d T im a e u s , h isto rical lessons are ap p lied to c o n te m p o ra ry a n d
q u a si-c o n te m p o ra ry societies, a lth o u g h in carefully co n tro lle d cir
cum stan ces. W e d o n o t find a real desire to in v estig ate recen t a n d
n o t-so -rece n t h isto ry , b u t to find exem plification in it o f m o re general
co n clu sio n s a b o u t th e o p e ra tio n o f co n stitu tio n s. A crucial aspect o f
th e S tra n g e r’s re c o n stru c tio n o f th e p a s t is to m o d el strategies o f h is
to rica l in v estig atio n a n d th e ir re cep tio n , a n d th e com plexities o f his
rh e to ric su rro u n d in g th e fo u n d a tio n o f L a c ed ae m o n m u st be seen in
th e co n tex t o f th is p ro ject. W h a t is it we learn a b o u t th e uses o f h isto ry
(a n d p a rtic u la rly in th e co n tex t o f a discussion a b o u t state-building)?
T h a t a n in v estig ato r a n d his aud ien ce derive th e g re atest intellectual
p ro fit w hen th ey can see a c o n tin u u m a n d m a k e co n n e ctio n s betw een
p a s t a n d p re sen t, b u t also w hen th ey feel th ey can d istin g u ish th e p o in t
at w hich th e o ry o r m y th o lo g y becom es fact a n d tru th . T h e issue is
in tellectu al c o n tro l over th e m a te ria l, a n d as we h av e seen, th e m ove
to say, ‘th is is m a te ria l th a t I c o n tro l’ is m a d e b y b o th H e ro d o tu s a n d
T h u cy d id es. T he id en tical im pulse to c o n tro l a n d v alid ate th e p a s t
is m o d elled by P la to ’s c h a ra c te rs even w hen th e m a te ria l o n th e one
side o f th e divide betw een m y th a n d h isto ry is n ea rly as m y th ical o r
th eo re tic al as th a t o n th e o th er. It is th e gesture th a t is im p o rta n t.
P la to uses th e fa m iliar o u tlin es o f a rc h a ic a n d classical h isto ry in
th e L a w s because th e fam iliarity lends verisim ilitude to his ethical a n d
p o litica l traje cto ries a n d because h e h a s realised th a t ‘designer h is to ry ’
is m o st effective w hen co n n e cted to , ra th e r th a n cu t o ff fro m , a p re sen t
(footnote 43 continued)
eliding the Peisistratid tyranny that came before it, so that Athens enters the scene
at 698b as possessing an ‘ancient constitution’.
44 Weil, L ’‘archeologie’ de Platon, p. 33 n. 4.
reality . L ike an y o ra to r, P la to uses h isto ry to m a k e his p o in t a n d h as
n o q u alm s a b o u t m ak in g an y a d ju stm en ts th a t are necessary to ensure
a g o o d fit.45 H e is, o f course, p a in tin g a b ro a d e r can v as th a n th e
h isto ry o f an y p a rtic u la r city; th e scale is cosm ic. In v e n tio n a n d sche-
m a tis a tio n do n o t su rp rise; w h a t is m o re su rp risin g (in th e case o f th e
L a w s ) is a p r io r i in v en tio n in a co n tex t th a t p u rp o rts to b e a n in d u c
tive in v estig atio n in to th e prin cip les a n d results o f state-fo rm atio n .
It is even m o re startlin g a n d p a ra d o x ic a l to co m b in e this w ith a
cosm ic stru c tu re designed to b lo ck lo n g -term h isto rical sensibility a n d
en c o u rag e a p r io r i reco n stru ctio n .
A t th e e n d o f th e eschatological m y th o f th e P h a e d o , S ocrates says:
‘I t is in a p p ro p ria te fo r a sensible m a n to insist th a t th ese m a tte rs are
exactly as I h av e n a r ra te d them . N evertheless, th a t eith er these things
o r th in g s like th em are th e case . . . this, it seem s to m e, is a fitting
su g g estio n ’ (114d). O ne m ig h t, w ith som e m o d ificatio n , ta k e th is as
em b lem atic o f P la to ’s h isto rical re co n stru ctio n s also. H e h a s n o desire
to b eco m e b o g g ed do w n in details o r in th e ex p la n a tio n o f m a tte rs he
deem s u n im p o rta n t. H e carves th e p a s t o f th e cosm os in to p re d ic tab le
ch u n k s. H e p a ra d e s ra tio n a lisa tio n as an in te rp re ta tiv e to o l b ecau se it
is a p ra ctice th a t allow s one to p ick a n d ch o o se as genuine th e pieces o f
th e p a s t th a t are con d u civ e to o n e ’s p u rp o se s. B u t like S ocrates in th e
P h a e d ru s w h en faced w ith th e ra tio n a lisin g possib ility th a t th e ra p e o f
th e A th e n ia n p rincess O re ith y ia b y th e w in d g o d B oreas w as m erely a
case o f a y o u n g girl getting b lo w n o ff a ro c k b y accident, h e refuses to
get d ra w n in to o far. I f h e w ere to p la y th a t gam e, h e w o u ld be obliged
to sp en d his tim e explaining ce n ta u rs a n d G o rg o n s a n d o th e r m y th i
cal m o n sters (P hdr. 229b-e). H e h a s bigger fish to fry. N o t fo r P la to
T h u cy d id e s’ ta la ip o ria .46 H e is p e rh a p s m o re in tere ste d in h o w th e
m a n y tu rn to re ad y -m ad e m o d els, since h e w o u ld h av e dism issed w ith
c o n te m p t th e n o tio n th a t a h isto ry o f fifth -cen tu ry G reece c o u ld be a
p o ssessio n fo r all tim e.
N a rra tiv e s o f catacly sm th u s h av e an im p o rta n t m e th o d o lo g i
cal a n d h eu ristic p a r t to p la y in P la to ’s m a n ip u la tio n o f th e p a st.
S. D. Lambert
2 For a recent survey of appeals to the past in the fourth century, mostly in
the orators, see P. J. Rhodes, ‘Appeals to the past in classical Athens’, in G.
Herman (ed.), Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy: Proceedings o f a
Conference in Jerusalem, 2009, in memory o f A. Fuks (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011),
pp. 13-30.
3 The weight of this significance is illustrated by the first six inscriptions listed in the
Appendix, which all restore the title of proxenos to men whose awards are said
to have been annulled by or under the Thirty; in no. 2 the proxeny actually is the
stele. The city expresses its collective will by erecting inscriptions which express it
or pulling down earlier inscriptions which contradict it; e.g. in the Prospectus of
the Second Athenian League (no. 10), any stelai at Athens unfavourable to any
city that joins will be torn down. See also no. 11, no. 16.
o f these tw o su p p o sed ‘d o c u m e n ts’, set u p in th e tem ple o f A res in
A c h a rn a i a t a ro u n d th e sam e p e rio d .4
T h is p h e n o m e n o n is e lo q u en t w itness to a n in creasing in ten sity o f
in tere st in th e p a s t as th e fo u rth ce n tu ry pro g ressed ; a n d to a focus
o n in scrip tio n s, a u th e n tic o r otherw ise, as sources o f know ledge o f
th e p ast; b u t th e in scrip tio n s I am going to discuss d o n o t belo n g to
this categ o ry o f d iscovered o r in v en ted ‘d o c u m e n ts’ o f th e p a st. T hey
are all g enuine c o n te m p o ra ry law s a n d decrees, p ro p o s e d b y in d i
v id u al p o litician s a n d p asse d by th e collective o f A th e n ia n citizens
sitting in p le n a ry as th e A ssem bly o r in co m m ittee, as th e C ouncil
o r as n o m o th e ta i. O ver 750 such in scrip tio n s survive fro m th e fo u rth
cen tu ry . M o st o f th em b elo n g to one o f th ree categories: in te r-sta te
treaties, religious re g u la tio n s a n d , easily th e m o st n u m e ro u s, h o n o rific
decrees.
H o n o rific decrees are n o t on ly th e m o st n u m e ro u s categ o ry , they
are also th e m o st liable to include explicit references to th e p a st,
becau se th e h o n o u rs are in v aria b ly ju stified in term s o f p a s t actions.
Som etim es these are sim ply th e p a s t ac tio n s o f th e h o n o ra n d , b u t
q u ite freq u en tly th ey include th e actio n s o f his an cesto rs. T h e highest
h o n o u r A th en s n o rm a lly besto w ed o n foreigners w as th e A th e n ia n
citizenship, b y definition a h e re d ita ry statu s, a n d o th e r h o n o u rs
w ere also o ften h e re d ita ry , in clu d in g th e m o st co m m o n a w ard ed in
in scrib ed decrees, th e p ro x en y , w hich fo rm ally b esto w ed o n th e h o n o -
ra n d th e d u ty o f rep resen tin g A th e n ia n in terests in his h o m e city. T his
h e re d ita ry ten d en cy m e a n t th a t h o n o rific decrees supplied a n a tu ra l
p eg o n w hich to h a n g references to th e p a st, a n d this re tro sp ectiv e
asp ect can be expressed in th e ph y sical a rra n g e m e n ts fo r inscribing
them : it is n o t u n c o m m o n fo r th e tex t o f a decree to refer to an earlier
one in th e sam e lo c a tio n h o n o u rin g an an c esto r, a n d fo r th e la te r
decree to specify th a t it be in scrib ed o n o r n ex t to th e earlier one.
I m a d e a s ta rt o n this to p ic elsew here, w here m y focus w as specifi
cally o n th e L y k o u rg a n p e rio d .5 T h is c h a p te r re p o rts th e results o f a
survey I h av e n o w c a rrie d o u t o f all th e c. 550 in scrib ed A th e n ia n law s
a n d decrees o f 403-321. T h e A p p e n d ix lists th e th irty -th re e w hich I
(footnote 7 continued)
and M. Strothmann (eds), Zwischen Monarchie und Republik: Gesellschaftliche
Stabilisierungsleistungen und politische Transformationspotentiale in den antiken
Stadtstaaten (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010), pp. 13-30, on the contribution made by the
memory of the Thirty to the stability of the fourth-century democracy.
8 Well discussed by Shear, ‘Cultural change’.
in w o rd in g w hich echoes th e earlier one. Y o u r o r y o u r fa th e r’s p a r
tic ip a tio n in th e re sto ra tio n o f th e dem o cracy w as so m eth in g th a t was
p a te n tly still g u a ra n te e d to m ak e y o u p o p u la r in A th en s a g en e ratio n
afte r th e events. In terestin g ly , th ere are (u n c ertain ) in d icatio n s th a t
E u k les m ay originally h av e been a fo reig n er w ho w as a w a rd e d th e
citizen sh ip fo r his services; a n d interestingly to o , like th e re sto re d
p ro x en ies, it seem s th a t th e decrees w ere in scrib ed a t th e h o n o ra n d ’s
ow n in itiativ e a n d expense. T his is n o t so m u ch th e city m ak in g a
statem en t a b o u t th e d em o cratic cred en tials o f P hilokles a n d his fam ily
as P h ilo k les m ak in g a statem en t a b o u t his fa m ily ’s ow n d em o cratic
cred en tials.9
B efore 350 th e only o th e r specific references to a p a s t th a t is at
all d ista n t fro m th e im m ed iate co n tex t occurs in decrees co n cerning
re la tio n s betw een states, a n d th e reference is in v aria b ly to th e K in g ’s
Peace, m a d e in 386 (a n d su b sequently renew ed), o r to events in th e
G re ek w o rld th a t h av e ta k e n p lace since th e K in g ’s Peace. In n o . 9,
o f 384/3, A th en s is very an x io u s to p u t across th e m essage th a t its
alliance w ith C hios is n o t in te n d e d in an y w ay to th re a te n o r u n d e r
m in e th e K in g ’s P eace m a d e tw o years earlier, a n d th e decree refers
explicitly to th a t Peace, a n d in q u ite a w o rd y fash io n . In n o . 10, th e
P ro sp ec tu s o f th e S econd A th e n ia n L eague in 378/7, eight years after
th e Peace, th e A th e n ia n s state explicitly th a t one o f th e p u rp o se s o f th e
new L eague is ‘so th a t th e peace a n d frien d sh ip sw orn by th e G reeks
a n d th e K in g in a c co rd a n ce w ith th e ag reem ents m ay b e in force a n d
e n d u re ’; a n d th e collective w eight a n d significance o f these in scrib ed
w o rd s is co n firm ed by th e fa ct th a t, a t som e su b seq u en t p o in t in th e
h isto ry o f th e L eague, th ey w ere d eliberately erased fro m th e stone.
T en years later, a fte r th e S p a rta n defeat a t L e u k tra h a d sh ak en u p th e
b alan c e o f p o w e r, p u sh in g A th en s in to alliance w ith S p a rta ag ain st
T heb es a n d raisin g q u estio n s in p e o p le ’s m in d s a b o u t th e co n tin u in g
relevance o f th e S econd A th e n ia n L eague, th e K in g ’s P eace is still
b eing re ferred to as th e setter o f th e d ip lo m a tic fram ew o rk . W h en
envoys fro m D io n y sio s o f Syracuse com e to A th en s in 369/8 (no. 13)
th ey are p ra ise d n o t only because they are g o o d m en w ith re g a rd to th e
p eo p le o f A th en s a n d th e allies, b u t b ecause th ey ‘com e in s u p p o rt o f
th e K in g ’s Peace, w hich w as m a d e b y th e A th e n ia n s a n d th e S p artan s
a n d th e o th e r G re e k s’; a n d w hen, in th e sam e year, envoys fro m
M y tilen e com e to A th en s in q u irin g a b o u t th e fu tu re o f th e S econd
A th e n ia n L eag u e (no. 14), A th en s carefully spells o u t in its reply th a t
APPENDIX:
R E F E R E N C E S T O T H E P A S T I N IN S C R IB E D A T H E N IA N
L A W S A N D D E C R E E S , 403-321 bc
A b b rev iatio n s:
Ag. 16: A. G. Woodhead, The Athenian Agora. Vol. XVI: Inscriptions. The
Decrees (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997).
Davies (2011): J. K. Davies, ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: An underrated politician’,
in S. D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man: Essays in Greek Social History in Honour
o f Nick Fisher (Swansea: Classical Print of Wales, 2011).
Lambert (2004): S. D. Lambert, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1-322/1:
I Decrees honouring Athenians’, Z P E 150 (2004), pp. 85-120 = Lambert,
Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 35211-32211 bc : Epigraphical Essays
(Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), pp. 3-47.
Lambert (2005): S. D. Lambert, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1-322/1:
II Religious regulations’, Z P E 154 (2005), pp. 125-59 = Lambert, Inscribed
Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1-322/1 b c , pp. 48-92.
Lambert (2006-7): S. D. Lambert, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1-322/1:
III Decrees honouring foreigners. A. Citizenship, proxeny and euergesy’. Z P E
158 (2006), pp. 115-58, and ‘B. Other awards’, Z P E 159 (2007), pp. 101-54 =
Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1-322/1 b c , pp. 93-183.
Lambert (2007): S. D. Lambert, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1-322/1:
1. I G I I 2 6; S E G 29.83
Date: A fte r 403
Description: R e sto ra tio n o f p ro x e n y fo r E u ry p y lo s a n d fo u r b ro th e rs
[from T hasos?]
Proposer: M o n ip p id es (n o t otherw ise kn o w n )
Text: . . . since th e stele o n w hich w as th e ir p ro x e n y w as d estro y ed
u n d e r th e T h irty , th e secretary o f th e C o u n cil shall inscribe th e stele at
th e expense o f E u ry p y lo s . . .
2. I G I I 2 52
Date: A fte r 403
Description: R e sto ra tio n o f p ro x e n y fo r g ra n d so n o f X a n th ip p o s
Proposer: -
Text: . . . since his [grandfather?] X a n th ip p o s w as p r o x e n o s a n d the
T h irty d estro y e d th e p ro x e n y , th e secretary o f th e C o u n cil shall
inscribe th em as p r o x e n o i a n d b en e fac to rs o f th e A th e n ia n s . . .
Comment: T h e o rig in al stele fo r X a n th ip p o s m ay be I G I 3 177.
3. A g. 16.39
Date: A fte r 403
Description: R e sto ra tio n o f p ro x en y
Proposer: -
Text: . . . th e secretary o f th e C o u n cil shall inscribe th e decree o n a
sto n e stele o n th e acro p o lis, since th e stele set u p fo r th e m p reviously
w as d estro y e d u n d e r th e T h irty . . .
4. IG I I 2 9; S E G 14.35; 32.41
Date: A fte r 403
Description: R e s to ra tio n o f p ro x e n y
Proposer: -
Text: . . . since th e stele set u p fo r th e m prev io u sly w as d estro y e d u n d e r
th e T h irty , th e secretary o f th e C ouncil shall inscribe . . .
Comment: T h e o rig in al decree (o f 410/9?) w as p e rh a p s in scrib ed below
th is decree.
6. A g. 16.37
Date: A fte r 403
Description: R e sto ra tio n o f p ro x e n y fo r fam ily fro m Ialysos
[R hodes]
Proposer: -
Text: . . . since th e ir [father?] w as p r o x e n o s a n d b e n e fa c to r a n d th e
stele w as d estro y e d u n d e r th e T h irty , th e secretary o f th e C ouncil shall
in scrib e h im a n d his b ro th e rs p r o x e n o i a n d b en e fac to rs a t th e expense
of . . .
7. A g. 16.36; N a t. D 8
Date: 394/3
Description: C itizenship g ra n t to th e m a n tis S thorys o f T h aso s, fo r
services a t sea-b attle (= K n id o s)
Proposer: -
Text: . . . since his an cesto rs w ere p r o x e n o i a n d b en e fac to rs . . . since
S th o ry s h a s c o n tin u e d his p rev io u s e n th u siasm fo r th e A th e n ia n s . . .
h e is a g o o d m a n . . . a n d his an cesto rs prev io u sly . . . inscribe this
decree a t th e expense o f S thorys o n a stele w here th e p re v io u s decrees
fo r h im h av e b een in scrib ed . . .
Comment: S th o rys is m e n tio n e d c. 389 in decree h o n o u rin g T h asian s,
IG I I 2 24.14-15.
8. IG I I 2 31; N a t. P T 31
Date: 386/5
Description: D ecree h o n o u rin g H ebryzelm is, king o f O d ry sian
T h ra ce
Proposer: -
Text: . . . h e shall h av e ev erything g ra n te d to his an cesto rs [ ? c itize n
sh ip ] . . .
9. I G I I 2 34; R O 20
Date: 384/3
Description: A lliance w ith C hios
Proposer: -
Text: . . . th e co m m o n discussions w hich to o k p lace a m o n g the
G reek s, h av e been m in d fu l to preserve, like th e A th e n ia n s, th e peace
a n d frien d sh ip a n d th e o a th s a n d th e existing ag reem en t w hich the
k ing a n d th e A th e n ia n s a n d th e S p a rta n s a n d th e o th e r G reek s sw ore
[= K in g ’s Peace, 386] . . . th ere shall rem a in in force th e peace a n d
th e o a th s a n d th e ag reem en t . . . m a k e th e C h ian s allies o n a basis o f
freed o m a n d au to n o m y , n o t c o n tra v e n in g an y o f th e th in g s w ritte n on
th e stelai a b o u t th e P eace . . .
10. I G I I 2 43; R O 22
Date: 378/7
Description: P ro sp ec tu s o f th e S econd A th e n ia n L eague
Proposer: A risto teles (m in o r p o liticia n )
Text: . . . so th a t th e S p a rta n s shall allow th e G reek s to b e free a n d
a u to n o m o u s, a n d to live a t peace occupying th e ir ow n te rrito ry in
security [[and so th a t th e p eace a n d frien d sh ip sw orn by th e G reeks
a n d th e K in g in ac co rd a n ce w ith th e agreem ents m a y be in force a n d
endure]] . . . fo r th o se w ho m ak e alliance w ith A th e n ia n s a n d the
allies, th e p eo p le shall re n o u n ce w h a te v er A th e n ia n possessions th ere
h a p p e n to be, p riv a te o r p u b lic, in th e te rrito ry o f th o se w ho m ak e
th e allian ce . . . fo r w hichever o f th e cities m a k in g th e alliance th ere
h a p p e n to b e u n fa v o u ra b le stelai in A th en s, th e C ouncil . . . shall be
em p o w ered to d estro y th e m . . .
11. A g. 16.46
Date: 375?
Description: A lliance w ith K e p h alle n ia
Proposer: -
Text: . . . a n ti-A th e n ia n law s in K e p h a lle n ia to be d e s tr o y e d a n d era se d
12. R O 29
Date: 373/2
Description: D ecree re la tin g to P aro s
Proposer: -
Text: . . . in ac co rd a n ce w ith tra d itio n (k a ta ta p a tr ia ) a n d (the
P a ria n s shall) send fo r th e P a n a th e n a ia a cow a n d p a n o p ly a n d fo r th e
D io n y sia a cow a n d p h a llu s as a co m m e m o ra tio n (m n e m e io n ) since
th ey h a p p e n to be co lo n ists o f th e A th e n ia n p eo p le . . .
14. IG I I 2 107; R O 31
Date: 369/8
Description: D ecree re la tin g to M ytilene
Proposer: K a llistra to s (politician)
Text: . . . rep ly to th e envoys w ho h av e com e th a t th e A th en ian s fo u g h t
th e w a r fo r th e freed o m o f th e G reeks a n d w hen th e S p artan s w ere
ca m p aig n in g ag ain st th e G reeks, c o n tra ry to th e o ath s a n d th e agree
m e n t [= K in g ’s Peace], they them selves w ent in su p p o rt, a n d they called
o n th e o th e r allies to go a n d re n d e r th e s u p p o rt d u e to th e A th en ian s,
ab id in g by th e o ath s, ag ain st th o se c o n tra v en in g th e tre a ty . . .
Comment: C o n tex t is th a t M y tile n ean envoys h av e com e to A th en s
w ith q u estio n s a b o u t fu tu re o f th e S econd A th e n ia n L eague follow ing
S p a rta ’s defeat a t th e b a ttle o f L eu k tra .
16. IG I I 2 111; R O 39
Date: 363/2
Description: D ecree co n cern in g Io u lis o n K eos
Proposer: A risto p h o n (general w ho h a d im p o sed settlem ent o n Ioulis
afte r rev o lt)
Comment: T ext co n tain s extensive d etail a b o u t b a c k g ro u n d to decree:
C h a b ria s h a d settled th e islan d a fte r in itial revolt; th e n th ere h a d been
a co u n te r-re v o lu tio n by m en w ho h a d th ro w n over th e stelai (i.e. th o se
re co rd in g th e settlem ent im p o sed by C h a b ria s), killed m em bers o f
p ro -A th e n ia n p a r ty etc.
Julia L. Shear
18 IG II2 644; 645; 682.21-4; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 88-9;
Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 237; M. J. Osborne, ‘The archonship of Nikias
Hysteros and the secretary cycles in the third century B.c.’, Z P E 58 (1985),
pp. 275-95 at pp. 275-82; Bayliss, ‘Athens under Macedonian domination’, pp.
106-7; cf. Plut. Demetr. 34.5.
19 IG II2 646.1-3, 22-3.
20 Stratokles: SEG XLV 101.
21 Plut. Demetr. 13.1-3.
22 Plut. Demetr. 12.1-2.
23 IG II2 646.
24 Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 90-1; S. V. Tracy, Athens
and Macedon: Attic Letter-Cutters o f 300 to 229 B . C. (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2003), pp. 12-13; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, pp. 240-1; Meritt,
‘Athenian archons’, p. 172; Shear, Jr., Kallias o f Sphettos, pp. 53-5.
25 [Plut.] Mor. 851F; SEG XXVIII 60.80-3.
26 SEG XLV 101.
27 IG II2 682.24-47.
28 Paus. 1.26.1; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 95-6.
in 292/1 in d icates his lack o f co n c ern fo r th e n a tu re o f th e regim e,
a n d th e exiles will h av e h a d g o o d re aso n to s u p p o rt h im fu rth e r.29
In th e absen ce o f a g o v ern o r, th e king h a d to rely o n th ese oligarchic
A th e n ia n s.30
N o t all A th e n ia n s s u p p o rte d th e oligarchy, a n d th e city w as evi
d en tly divided. P h a id ro s’ h o n o ra ry decree states th a t, in 288/7, ‘w hen
difficult tim es (Kaip&v SuoKo^rov) en co m p assed th e city, P h aid ro s
p reserv ed th e p eace in th e co u n try sid e . . . a n d h e w as responsible
fo r b rin g in g in th e c o rn a n d o th e r cro p s fro m th e co u n try sid e ’.31 T he
p h ra se ‘difficult tim e s’ suggests u n re st w ith in th e city, as well as in th e
c o u n try sid e ,32 a n d division o v er th e co rrec t co u rse o f actio n . T h a t
P h a id ro s fo u g h t o n b e h a lf o f th e ‘co m m o n safety’ (Koiv^g ow tnplag)
ra th e r th a n th e safety o f th e d e m o s o r po lis, like m en h o n o u re d after
th e re v o lu tio n , reinforces this im p ressio n o f strife betw een A th e n ia n s.33
T h e stress in P h a id ro s’ decree th a t th e law s o f th e city w ere still in force
a t th e e n d o f his te rm as general suggests th a t th e in te rn a l situ a tio n
w as still u n d e r c o n tro l.34 A s general in th e follow ing year, P h a id ro s is
d escrib ed as c o n tin u in g to do ‘ev erything acco rd in g to b o th th e law s
a n d th e decrees o f th e b o u le a n d th e d e m o s '? 5 T his p h ra se ju stify in g
his b e h a v io u r im plies th a t n o t everyone saw his actio n s as a p p ro p ria te
a n d in th e b est in terests o f th e city. S ta s is , accordingly, acco m p an ied
th e re v o lu tio n a n d A th e n ia n s w ere divided, as th ey h a d b een in th e
290s w hen L ach ares w as ty ra n t. In 286, th e A th e n ia n s n ee d ed b o th to
re-estab lish d em o cracy a n d to free them selves fro m M a c e d o n ia n rule.
29 Return of exiles: Dion. Hal. Dein. 2-3, 9; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F67, 167;
[Plut.] Mor. 850D; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 90-1.
30 No evidence supports Habicht’s contention that Olympiodoros served as
Demetrios’ ‘commissar or representative’; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to
Antony, pp. 90-1.
31 IG II2 682.30-6; Shear, Jr., Kallias o f Sphettos, p. 69. I remain unconvinced
that the ‘corn and other crops’ are the same as the ‘corn’ brought in by
Kallias, as suggested by Habicht and Osborne; SEG XXVIII 60.23-7; Habicht,
Untersuchungen zurpolitischen Geschichte, pp. 52-4; Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros’,
pp. 185-6.
32 Shear, Jr., Kallias o f Sphettos, p. 69.
33 IG II2 682.32-3. Safety of the demos: IG II2 650.18-19; SEG XXVIII 60.30
2; safety of the polis: IG II2 654.20-1; 657.32-3; cf. IG II2 666.9-14; 667.1-2.
34 IG II2 682.38-40; Shear, Jr., Kallias o f Sphettos, p. 69. Hence the lack of evidence
for intervention by the Macedonian soldiers; contrast SEG XXVIII 60.12-16,
which describes the revolution itself.
35 IG II2 682.45-7.
DEMOCRACY AFTER DEMETRIOS
Since th e re v o lu tio n fro m D e m e trio s also involved sta sis a n d the
o v erth ro w o f oligarchy, re-estab lish in g d em o cracy in A th en s w as
n o t sim ply a m a tte r o f freeing th e city fro m M ac e d o n ia n co n tro l o r
even ch o o sin g new co uncillors a n d m ag istrates. In ste a d , th e ru le o f
th e d e m o s n ee d ed to be show n as a viable a n d fu n c tio n in g system
w hich w o u ld n o t b e o v e rth ro w n again. T o this en d , th e A th en ian s
u sed a n u m b e r o f strategies. H o n o ra ry decrees p ro v id e d a p a rtic u la rly
useful m ed iu m because they w ere p ro d u c ts o f th e dem o cracy a n d they
m o n u m e n ta lise d its processes. T he co n ten ts o f th e d o cu m en ts re w a rd
ing citizens fu rth e r fo cu sed o n th e ru le o f th e d e m o s a n d em p h asised
its im p o rtan ce . T h ey also h elp ed to delineate h o w th e g o o d A th e n ia n
sh o u ld b eh av e w hen dem o cracy w as th rea ten ed .
In re-estab lish in g d em ocracy, decrees a n d o th e r h o n o u rs w ere
p a rtic u la rly suitable b ecause th ey h a d to be p ro p o se d , discussed
a n d a p p ro v e d b y th e b o u le a n d th e d em o s b efo re th e texts co u ld
be in scrib ed a n d th e h o n o u rs aw ard ed . S ubsequently, th e in scrip
tio n s a n d b ro n z e statu es served to c o m m e m o ra te th e activities o f
th e d em o cracy a n d also th e p rocess o f th e ir creatio n , a significant
d y n am ic w hich sets th e m a p a rt fro m m o st o th e r m e m o ria ls.36 R ead in g
th e decrees served to re p e rfo rm th e earlier ac tio n s in th e A ssem bly,
a n d it c re a te d a n d m a in ta in e d m em o ries o f these actions. In this
p e rm a n e n t fo rm , th ey show ed th e d e m o s p e rp e tu a lly in th e process
o f ru lin g th e city. T hese dynam ics w ere n o t new a t this tim e: they
h a d been u sed to very g o o d effect afte r th e oligarchies o f 411 a n d
404/3, as I h av e discussed elsew here.37 T h e increase in th e n u m b e r o f
in scrip tio n s a fte r th e d em o crats re g ain ed co n tro l o f th e city38 suggests
th a t th ird -c e n tu ry A th e n ia n s w ere conscious o f these dynam ics. T he
d o cu m en ts include h o n o u rs fo r v ario u s indiv id u als, b o th A th en ian s
a n d fo reig n ers, w ho h elp ed th e d e m o s to reg ain co n tro l, a n d th ere
are in d irect in d icatio n s th a t n o t all th e decrees w hich w ere p asse d are
preserv ed . T h e h o n o ra ry d o cu m en ts fo r n o n -A th e n ia n s m a y be quite
specific a b o u t th e ir actio n s, such as th e decree fo r Z e n o n , o r th ey m ay
be co u c h ed in ra th e r m o re general term s, as, fo r exam ple, th e decree
36 Monuments usually ignore the processes which brought them into being; J.
E. Young, The Texture o f Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 14; J. L. Shear, Polis and Revolution:
Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2011), p. 8. Exceptional nature of inscriptions: Shear, Polis and Revolution,
pp. 8-9, 105-6.
37 Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96-106, 159-65, 247-57.
38 Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 245.
fo r A rte m id o ro s o f P e rin th o s.39 U n lik e th e decrees fo r citizens, they
do n o t focus p a rtic u la rly o n dem ocracy.
In c o n tra s t, th e rule o f th e d e m o s is a n im p o rta n t focus b o th o f th e
re q u est fo r th e h ig h est h o n o u rs fo r D e m o c h are s a n d o f th e h o n o ra ry
decree fo r K allias o f S p h etto s. In th e d o cu m en t a b o u t D e m o c h a re s’
rew ard s, th is im p o rta n c e is flagged u p im m ediately b y th e fo rm o f th e
text: it req u ests th e b o u le a n d d e m o s to g ra n t th e h ig h est h o n o u rs .40
T h ey sh o u ld so h o n o u r D e m o c h are s ‘because h e w as a b en e fac to r
a n d a g o o d ad v iser to th e d e m o s o f th e A th en ian s a n d h e benefited th e
d e m o s as fo llo w s’.41 T his p h ra se stresses th a t his activities to o k place in
th e d em o cratic city, a n d it brings o u t th e im p o rta n c e o f th e ru le o f th e
d e m o s becau se ac tio n s in re la tio n to o th e r entities are n o t considered.
T h e em p h asis o n th e A th e n ia n p eo p le co n tin u es in th e d escrip tio n o f
D e m o c h a re s’ services to th e city. H is early activities led to his b a n ish
m e n t b y ‘th e m en w ho o v erth rew th e dem os’.42 H is recall b y th e d em o s
in th e a rch o n sh ip o f D io k les in 286/5 in a u g u ra te s a second p h a se o f his
career. T hese first tw o sections em phasise th a t D e m o c h are s w as p o liti
cally active o nly u n d e r d em ocracy, a n d they d e m o n stra te th e p o w e r o f
th e p eo p le w hich recalled a m a n exiled o n its behalf. T h e final section
o f th e re q u est focuses fu rth e r o n D e m o c h a re s’ re la tio n sh ip to th e
d e m o s . H ere, we are to ld specifically th a t D e m o c h are s w as exiled o n
b e h a lf o f th e d em ocracy, th a t h e h a d n o p a r t in th e oligarchy, a n d th a t
h e h e ld n o office a fte r th e d e m o s w as o v e rth ro w n . N o r d id h e p lo t to
ch an g e th e d e m o c ra tic p o lite ia . By his actio n s, D e m o c h are s also m ad e
th e law s a n d th e co u rts a n d th e ir ju d g e m e n ts safe fo r ‘all A th e n ia n s’.
T h e law s a n d th e c o u rts are in teg ra l p a rts o f th e dem o cracy a n d ap p ly
to ev eryone re sid e n t in th e city, b u t they m u st be c a rrie d o u t by th e
actio n s o f th e in d iv id u a l citizens. W e are p re se n te d w ith a p a rtic u la r
p ic tu re o f th e h o n o ra n d : a m a n active only o n b e h a lf o f dem ocracy,
w hich is im p o rta n t en o u g h fo r h im to go in to exile o n its behalf.
T his tex t also sets u p p a tte rn s o f b e h a v io u r, b o th po sitiv e a n d
n eg ative. T h e g o o d A th e n ia n is easily identified. H e is a d e m o c ra t w ho
w o rk s o n b e h a lf o f th e d e m o s a n d m ak es safe c h a rac te ristic aspects o f
its ru le fo r everyone. H e defends th e dem o cracy b o th b y w o rd a n d by
deed a n d h e is w illing to go in to exile o n its behalf. T h e actio n s o f th e
b a d A th e n ia n are also delineated: h e is a n o lig arch w ho p lo ts ag ain st
d em o cracy a n d h o ld s office a fte r th e d e m o s h a s b een o v erth ro w n .
B o th by w o rd a n d by deed, h e h a rm s dem o cracy a n d h e does n o t care
39 Zenon: IG II2 650; Artemidoros: IG II2 663; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 172.
Since I place the revolution in 286, I associate these inscriptions with those events.
40 See above, n. 1.
41 [Plut.] Mor. 851D.
42 [Plut.] Mor. 851E.
a b o u t ‘all th e A th e n ia n s’. T his im agery is extrem ely u n co m p ro m isin g ,
p a rtic u la rly in th e a fte rm a th o f a re v o lu tio n w hich involved n o t only
fighting ag a in st M ac ed o n ian s, b u t also s ta sis w ithin th e city. In the
a fte rm a th o f th e events, th is id en tity will n o t h av e been co m fo rtin g
to a n y o n e w ho w as n o t a n a rd e n t d e m o c ra t d u rin g th e re v o lu tio n ,
a n d it leaves little ro o m fo r in teg ra tin g these m en b a c k in to ‘all th e
A th e n ia n s ’. T h e focus h ere o n th e g o o d A th e n ia n as d e m o c ra t also
reinforces th e im p o rta n c e o f d em o cracy in this d o cu m en t.
T h e em p h asis o n th e rule o f th e d e m o s a n d o f a m a n ’s actio n s on
its b e h a lf are also im p o rta n t dynam ics in th e lo n g h o n o ra ry decree
fo r K allias o f S p h etto s, w ho p la y e d a n im p o rta n t role in th e re v o lu
tio n (F ig. 15.1).43 T h e design o f th e decree im m ediately b rings o u t th e
im p o rta n c e o f th e people: d e m o s is th e very first w o rd o f th e tex t a n d
th e p h ra se ‘it w as decreed by th e bo u le a n d th e d e m o s’ is set o ff in its
o w n line.44 T h ere ca n b e n o q u estio n a b o u t th e a u th o rity b e h in d this
d o cu m en t. W hile K a llia s’ n a m e is a p p ro p ria te ly th e second w o rd in
th e decree p ro p e r, it is im m ed iately follow ed b y th e p h ra se ‘w hen the
re v o lu tio n o f th e d e m o s to o k p lace ag a in st th o se o ccupying th e c ity ’,
a n d th e n ex t tw en ty -n in e lines describe in d etail K a llia s’ actio n s on
b e h a lf o f th e d e m o s .45 T his w o rd ap p e a rs re p eated ly in this section o f
th e in scrip tio n a n d th ere ca n be n o d o u b t a b o u t its im p o rtan ce . T hese
lines also m ak e th e re la tio n sh ip betw een K allias a n d th e p eo p le clear:
‘K allias fo u g h t o n b e h a lf o f th e d e m o s a n d , atta c k in g w ith his soldiers,
a lth o u g h h e w as w o u n d e d , h e d id n o t at a n y m o m e n t sh rin k fro m an y
d a n g e r o n b e h a lf o f th e safety (oroxnptag) o f th e d e m o s’.46 A t th e tim e
o f th e peace p rocess, K allias, a t th e re q u est o f th e generals a n d the
b o u le, ‘served as a n envoy o n b e h a lf o f th e d e m o s ’.47 W hile th e sections
w hich follow in lines 4 3 -7 8 co n cern K a llia s’ services to th e city in
th e years a fte r th e rev o lu tio n , th e final clauses a b o u t his ca ree r com e
b a c k to th e events in 286. H ere, we learn th a t K allias d id som ething
o n b e h a lf o f th e p a tr is w hen th e d e m o s h a d b een o v e rth ro w n , a n d he
allo w ed his p ro p e rty to be co nfiscated u n d e r th e o ligarchy ‘so as no[t]
to do [a n y th in g a]gainst eith er th e law s o r th e dem oc[rac]y o f all the
A th e n ia n s ’.48 A g ain , th e focus is o n th e d e m o s a n d its rule a n d , as in
D e m o c h a re s’ re q u est, th e law s are a n im p o rta n t p a r t o f this system .
K a llia s’ actio n s h ere m a tc h th o se o f D e m o c h are s a n d are described in
exactly th e sam e term s.
148-60, at pp. 150-3; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96-9. Responses to fifth-
century oligarchies: Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96-106, 247-57.
50 Andok. 1.96.
51 Andok. 1.97.
52 Lykourg. Leok. 124-5.
53 For an example of these dynamics, see Lykourg. Leok. 126-7; Shear, Polis and
Revolution, pp. 159-63.
54 IG II2 657.48-50, with Gauthier’s restoration of [nsnpax|s[v] in line 49; P.
Gauthier, ‘Notes sur trois decrets honorants des citoyens bienfaiteurs’, RP 56
(1982), pp. 215-31, at p. 222 n. 28. This phrase occurs nowhere else in the corpus
of Attic inscriptions.
Figure 15.2 Plan of the Agora in c. 300 b c e . Earlier, in the fifth century,
the structure of the M etroon was the city’s (Old) Bouleuterion.
55 His connection with the revolution is further suggested by lines 31-2, which
record that ‘when the demos had recovered its freedom, he continued doing and
saying what was advantageous for the safety of the city’. This passage constructs
Philippides as an Athenian active on behalf of the safety of the city, an image
which we have already seen in connection with Kallias.
56 SEG XXVIII 60.81-3.
In b o th instan ces, these references em phasise th e tw o h o n o ra n d s ’
statu s as g o o d d em o cratic A th e n ia n s w ho w ere in exile w hen th e
ru le o f th e d e m o s w as o v e rth ro w n a n d so co u ld n o t h o ld office u n d e r
a n o th e r regim e. In th e case o f P h ilip p id es’ d o cu m en t, th e reference to
D e m o p h a n to s ’ decree show s th a t, alre ad y in 283/2, th e re sto re d d e m o
c rats w ere asso ciatin g th e ir re v o lu tio n fro m D e m e trio s w ith th e events
a t th e e n d o f th e fifth ce n tu ry .57
W hile D e m o p h a n to s ’ decree describes p o litica l regim es o th e r th a n
d em o cracy , it does n o t use th e te rm ‘o lig arch y ’.58 In c o n tra st, b o th th e
re q u est fo r D e m o c h are s a n d K a llia s’ decree explicitly use this te rm ,59
a n d th ey set u p a n o p p o sitio n betw een o ligarchy a n d dem ocracy. T his
strateg y finds its p arallel in th e responses to th e T h irty . F o r exam ple,
T h e o z o tid e s’ decree re w ard in g th e sons o f d ea d d em o crats sets u p an
explicit c o n tra s t betw een d em ocracy, w hich th e d ea d m en aided, a n d
o lig arch y , u n d e r w hich th ey d ied .60 In th e d o cu m en ts re co rd in g th e
sales o f th e p ro p e rty o f th e T h irty a n d th e ir su p p o rters, th e oligarchs,
w hose p ro p e rty is being sold, are ju x ta p o s e d w ith th e d e m o s , w hich
is d o in g th e selling.61 T h e ep ig ram fro m th e decree h o n o u rin g th e
living A th e n ia n s w ho b ro u g h t b a c k th e d e m o s ju x ta p o se s th e ir actions
w ith th e ir o p p o n e n ts ’: ‘th ey first b eg an to d epose th o se ru lin g th e city
w ith u n ju st statu tes (Bso^olg) a n d h a z a rd e d th e ir lives’.62 A lth o u g h
th e w o rd u sed h ere is th e sm o s, th e em phasis o n law s, b o th g o o d a n d
b a d , recalls th e claim s th a t D e m o c h are s m a d e th e law s safe a n d th a t
K allias n ev e r ac te d ag a in st th e law s. A th e n ia n law s h a d been th e focus
o f m u ch a tte n tio n b o th a fte r 411 a n d afte r 404/3 w hen th ey w ere co l
lected a n d re o rg a n ise d .63 M em o ries o f th o se events m a y lie b e h in d th e
(footnote 63 continued)
97 (2002), pp. 353-99; M. Gagarin, Writing Greek Law (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), pp. 182-8; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 72-96, 229-30,
232, 238-47.
64 IG II2 487.4-10; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, p. 70; W. S.
Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay (London: Macmillan, 1911), pp.
103-4; Gagarin, Writing Greek Law , pp. 228-9.
65 E.g. Lys. 12.57-8; 13.47; 14.33; 24.25; 25.18, 20-2; 26.2; fr. 165.34-8 (Carey); Isok.
16.12-14; Aischin. 3.187; cf. Lys. 2.61; A. Wolpert, Remembering Defeat: Civil
War and Civic Memory in Ancient Athens (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2002), pp. 91-5; S. Forsdyke, Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy: The Politics
o f Expulsion in Ancient Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.
260-4.
66 [Plut.] Mor. 851D; SEG XXVIII 60.95-6. At some later date, the statue for
Demochares was transferred to the Prytaneion; [Plut.] Mor. 847D, E.
THE POLITICS OF THE PAST 291
REMEMBERING STASIS?
B o th th e re q u est fo r D e m o c h are s a n d th e decree fo r K allias focus
a p p ro p ria te ly o n th e ac tio n s o f th e h o n o ra n d s . T his strategy, how ever,
cre a te d gaps in to w hich m em ories co u ld fall a n d so be fo rg o tten .
A lth o u g h b o th texts re fer to th e o v erth ro w o f th e d em o s, they are very
coy a b o u t w ho exactly d id th is terrib le d eed a n d w h a t h a p p e n e d in
th e city. T h e stress o n ‘all th e A th e n ia n s ’ in b o th d o cu m en ts im plies
d isu n ity a n d th e acco m p an y in g s ta sis. T his term , how ever, is distinctly
av o id ed , a n d only th e co g n a te ep a n a sta sis is u sed once in K a llia s’
decree to describe th e actio n s o f th e d e m o s ag a in st th o se occupying the
city .74 C ivil strife c a n n o t be re m e m b ered as such because it involves
citizens p itte d ag a in st each o th e r.75 In th e a fte rm a th o f th e re v o lu tio n ,
th e A th e n ia n s faced th e p ro b le m o f h o w to re m e m b er these events.
T h e so lu tio n w as to tu rn th em in to ex tern al w a r in m u ch th e sam e w ay
72 Shear, ‘Cultural change’, pp. 107-8, 110; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 277-8.
73 Shear, Jr., Kallias o f Sphettos, pp. 1-2 with n. 1.
74 SEG XXVIII 60.12.
75 Shear, Polis and Revolution, p. 295; cf. N. Loraux, The Divided City: On Memory
and Forgetting in Ancient Athens (New York: Zone Books, 2002), p. 101.
th a t th e events o f 404/3 w ere m a d e in to v icto ry over ex tern al enem ies,
h en ce m o d e rn sch o lars’ n a rra tiv e s o f lib e ra tio n fro m a fo reig n king.
D e m o c h a re s’ re q u est tells us very little a b o u t his o p p o n en ts: they
are sim ply th e m en w ho o v erth rew th e d em o s. In p a rt, this decision
m u st h a v e b een d ic ta te d by his lack o f p a rtic ip a tio n in th e re v o lu tio n
itself. In c o n tra s t, K a llia s’ decree describes exactly these events. H ere,
to o , th e d esc rip tio n o f th e o p p o n e n ts is circum scribed. T hey a p p e a r
in itially as th e m en w ho w ere o ccupying th e city a n d th e soldiers
expelled fro m th e a s ty .16 W e h e a r also o f h o stile forces in th e fo rt
o n th e M o u seio n H ill a n d in th e P eiraieus, w hile D e m e trio s a n d his
arm y a p p e a r several tim es.11 T h e effect is to o b scu re an y p a rtic ip a
tio n by A th e n ia n s a n d to shift th e focus o n to ex tern al enem ies: th e
M a c ed o n ian s a n d D e m e trio s. T h is strateg y ap p e a rs even m o re clearly
in th e h o n o ra ry decree g ra n tin g a c e rta in S tro m b ic h o s citizenship in
re tu rn fo r his services to th e city in th e C h re m o n id e a n W a r.18 T h e tex t
re p o rts th a t, ‘w hen th e d e m o s to o k u p arm s o n b e h a lf o f its fre e d o m ’,
S tro m b ich o s, a M a c e d o n ia n officer, w as p e rsu a d e d to ch an g e sides
a n d h e jo in e d in besieging th e M o u seio n w ith th e d em o s. H e ac te d fo r
th e freed o m o f th e p eo p le a n d h e w as jo in tly resp o n sib le fo r th e deliv
eran ce (so teria ) o f th e city. In 266/5, som e tw en ty years a fte r th e events
in 286, in te rn a l dissent does n o t a p p e a r in th e text; in stead , th e focus
is o n th e m ilitary forces a n d th e a tta c k o n th e M ou seio n .
T h e decrees fo r b o th S tro m b ich o s a n d K allias co m b in e th e ir m ili
ta ry actio n s w ith th e ir focus o n th e so te ria o f th e city o r dem o s. In
K a llia s’ case, n o m ilitary d an g ers d e te rre d h im fro m actio n s o n b e h a lf
o f th e safety o f th e d e m o s .19 L in k in g so te ria w ith m ilitary ac tio n
locates th e safety o f th e d e m o s /city in re la tio n to ex tern al enem ies,
a n d it rein fo rces th e c o n stru c tio n o f th e re v o lu tio n as w ar ag ain st
M a c ed o n ian s ra th e r th a n civil strife betw een A th en ian s. T h is sam e
strateg y ap p e a rs in th e h o n o ra ry decree fo r Z e n o n , a c o m m a n d e r o f
u n d ec k ed w arsh ip s fo r P to lem y I. In ad d itio n to h elp in g to secure
th e city ’s c o rn supply, h e is also described as ‘jo in in g in th e f[ighting]
(ouvay©viZo[^evog]) [for the] safety [of th e dem ]os’.80 A s w ith o u r
o th e r exam ples, this p h ra se directs a tte n tio n to enem ies o u tsid e th e
THIRD-CENTURY STRATEGIES
In th e a fte rm a th o f th e re v o lu tio n o f 286, th e A th e n ia n s h a d to re sto re
d em o cracy a n d to decide h o w to rem em b er th e difficult events w hich
h a d o ccu rred . In so do in g , th ey lo o k e d b a c k to th e w ays in w hich th eir
an cesto rs h a d collectively re sp o n d e d to th e oligarchies in th e late fifth
ce n tu ry , a n d h ere they discovered a series o f h elpful d o cu m en ts a n d
strategies: th e decree a n d o a th o f D e m o p h a n to s, th e stress o n d em o c
racy a n d th e display o f its actio n s, re s to ra tio n fro m exile, rem em b erin g
th e events as ex tern al w a r a n d fo rg ettin g sta sis. A s th e ir an cesto rs h a d
d o n e, so they, to o , u sed th e A g o ra , w hich h a d been re m a d e in th e late
fifth a n d early fo u rth centuries in to th e space o f th e d em o cratic citizen.
T h e p arallels w ith th e fifth -cen tu ry strategies also em p h asised th a t th e
re s to ra tio n o f d em o cracy in 286 h a d b een achieved b y citizens, ra th e r
th a n a n o u tsid e p o w er, as it h a d b een in 307. W hile th e A th en ian s w ere
clearly using th e p a s t in o rd e r to deal w ith th e p re sen t, th ey d id n o t
86 Lys. 2.64; N. Loraux, The Invention o f Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical
City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 35-6, 200; Shear,
Polis and Revolution, p. 292.
87 SEG XXVIII 46; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 291-4.
88 Lys. 2.63; S. C. Todd, A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1-11 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), pp. 262-3; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 298-9.
89 Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 294-301.
a d o p t all th e strategies fro m th e fifth cen tu ry . In ste a d , th ey to o k over
o nly th o se fe atu res w hich w ere re le v an t to th e ir ow n situ atio n , a n d
th ey h a d to acknow ledge b o th th e c o n tin u in g M a c e d o n ia n c o n tro l o f
th e P eiraieu s a n d th e ir dep en d en cy o n aid fro m fo reig n kings. Sim ply
rev ertin g to th e strategies o f th e late fifth a n d early fo u rth centuries
w o u ld n o t solve th e p ro b lem s facing th e city afte r 286.
T h e re v o lu tio n fro m D e m e trio s b ro u g h t freed o m only to th e city
itself becau se th e P eiraieus a n d th e fo rtresses in A ttic a re m a in ed in
M ac e d o n ia n h a n d s. In 285/4, th e decree in h o n o u r o f th e P a io n ia n
k ing A u d o le o n re co rd s his p ro m ise o f fu tu re s u p p o rt a n d his assis
tan ce ‘to w a rd s th e recovery o f th e P eiraieus a n d th e freed o m o f th e
c ity ’.90 In 283/2, P h ilip p id es’ h o n o u rs re p o rt th a t, afte r th e re v o lu
tio n , h e re q u ested m o n ey a n d c o rn fro m L ysim achos ‘so th a t the
d e m o s rem ain s free a n d th e P eiraieus a n d th e fo rts m ig h t be reco v
ered as quickly as p o ssib le’.91 In th e follow ing year, E u th io s is given
p erm issio n to seek fu rth e r benefits ‘w hen th e P eiraieus a n d th e a s ty
are re u n ite d ’.92 D esp ite a t least o n e failed a tte m p t to re c a p tu re the
sea p o rt, it re m a in ed u n d e r M ac e d o n ia n c o n tro l a n d w as n o t re u n ite d
w ith th e city .93 O f th e fo rts, E leusis w as b a c k in A th e n ia n c o n tro l by
284/3, w hen P hilippides as a g o n o th e te s first p u t o n e x tra gam es fo r
D e m e te r a n d K o re ‘as a m em o rial o f th e [freedom ] o f th e d e m o s’ 9 By
th e s ta rt o f th e C h re m o n id e a n W a r, A th en s h a d also re g ain ed co n tro l
o f R h a m n o u s, b u t th e circum stances a n d d a te re m a in u n k n o w n ; o th e r
in stalla tio n s re m a in ed in M a c e d o n ia n h a n d s .95 P a rtic u la rly in the
96 Demochares: [Plut.] Mor. 851E; other references: e.g. IG II2 650.10; 663.3-4, 17; cf.
Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 172.7. Audoleon’s name appears in IG II2 655.
d o cu m en ts also d o n o t h e sita te to m e n tio n fo reig n kings well disposed
to w a rd s th e city, an elem ent w hich h a s n o p arallel in th e fifth century.
C o p y in g all aspects o f th e earlier responses w o u ld n o t solve th e c ity ’s
p ro b lem s; in stead , th e A th e n ia n s h a d to p ick a n d choose th e a p p ro p ri
ate strategies fro m th e ir a n c e sto rs’ ea rlier actions. N o t all aspects o f
th e p a s t w ere n o w re le v an t a n d som e o f th em h a d to be ig n o re d a n d so
fo rg o tten .
T h a t th e th ird -c e n tu ry responses to th e re v o lu tio n are th e re su lt o f
co n scio u s choice is b ro u g h t o u t b y a final d o cu m en t w hich also recalls
th e events: th e h o n o ra ry decree fo r P h a id ro s o f S p h etto s w hich w as
p asse d so o n afte r th e e n d o f th e C h re m o n id e a n W a r.97 Som e tw enty-
th re e lines o f this len g th y in scrip tio n co n c ern th e years betw een 288/7
a n d 286/5, b u t th ey p re se n t a very different p ic tu re (Fig. 15.3).98
D esp ite extensive su b seq u en t erasu res, th ere are n o traces o f exile o r
o f fighting o n b e h a lf o f th e d e m o s, as th ere are in th e o th e r texts. Since
th e erasu res w ere m a d e in 200 b ce w hen references to M a c e d o n ia n
kings w ere re m o v e d fro m A th e n ia n d o cu m en ts,99 th e ir c o n te n t m u st
h av e c o n c ern e d D e m e trio s ra th e r th a n an y o f th e o th e r kings. T he
tex t em phasises keeping th e peace, counselling th e d e m o s a n d follow
ing th e law s a n d decrees o f th e b o u le a n d d e m o s, b u t it carefully does
n o t in d icate th e n a tu re o f th e reg im e.100 P eru sal o f ea rlier sections o f
th e decree also show s th a t P h a id ro s w as general w hen L ac h are s w as
ty r a n t,101 a n d h e ce rtain ly h eld office u n d e r th e su b seq u en t o ligarchic
regim e. T his tex t p resen ts a very different im age b o th o f th e re v o lu tio n
a n d o f th e h o n o ra n d fro m th o se o f th e o th e r d o cu m en ts. U n lik e o u r
o th e r h o n o ra n d s, P h a id ro s w as n o t re w ard e d a fte r th e re v o lu tio n an d ,
in d eed , his ca ree r seems to h av e languished. W h e n th e city w as once
ag ain u n d e r close M a c e d o n ia n c o n tro l in th e 250s, P h a id ro s co u ld
finally get his h ig h est h o n o u rs, b u t do in g so re q u ire d th e c reatio n o f
a very different m em o ry o f th e re v o lu tio n ag a in st D e m e trio s. B o th
th e strateg ies o f th e 280s a n d 270s a n d th e influence o f fifth -cen tu ry
Emily Kearns
1 F. Staal, ‘The meaninglessness of ritual’, Numen 26 (1979), pp. 2-22; Staal, Rules
Without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras and the Human Sciences (Frankfurt: Peter
Lang, 1989). With different overall aims and interests, Maurice Bloch reaches an
allied and perhaps even more radical conclusion: ‘Religion is the last place to find
anything “explained” because . . . religious communication [that is, for Bloch,
ritual] rules out the very tools of explanation’ (M. Bloch, ‘Symbols, song, dance
and features of articulation: Is religion an extreme form of traditional authority?’,
European Journal o f Sociology [= Archives Europeennes de Sociologie] 15 [1974],
pp. 55-81, at p.71). Staal admits (in the Numen article, p. 3) that ‘such absorption
[in the correct performance of ritual], by itself, does not show that a ritual cannot
have symbolic meaning’.
2 Cf. Staal, ‘Meaninglessness of ritual’, p. 3, listing possible reasons given by
brahmins for performing rituals: ‘we do it because our ancestors did it; because we
are eligible to do it; because it is good for society; because it is good; because it is
our duty; because it is said to lead to immortality; because it leads to immortality’.
He claims that symbolic explanations are given only seldom and in relation to
minor specifics. My own experience of listening to Tamil brahmins has been that
they are usually very keen to explain the symbolic significance of their actions to
participants and spectators in the ritual.
3 N. J. Lowe, ‘Thesmophoria and Haloa: Myth, physics and mysteries’, in S.
Blundell and M. Williamson (eds), The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece
(London and New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 149-73, esp. p. 162.
w ho p ro p o s e d it, w o u ld n o t h av e q u ite th e sam e statu s o f u n a lte ra b le
tru th th a t th e ritu a l itself possessed. It m ig h t be su p p lem en ted by
o th e r ex p lan a tio n s, o r even w ith tim e su p ersed ed entirely; th e p o in t is
th a t ex p lan a tio n s te n d to be supplied. P la to , in a w ell-know n passage
fro m M e n o , a ttests th e existence o f p riestly p erso n n el w ho ‘h av e ta k e n
th e tro u b le to be able to give a n a c c o u n t o f th e p ractices th ey engage
in ’.4 H is im m ed iate co n tex t relates to ideas w ith a n ‘O rp h ic ’ o r sim ilar
flav o u r, co n cern in g th e im m o rta lity o f th e soul; his w o rd s suggest th a t
a t least som e p riests a n d priestesses m ig h t be expected to supply o th er
ty p es o f e x p la n a tio n as well.
In general, religious ritu a l h a s tw o featu res, o r a p p a re n t featu res,
w hich m ig h t seem to m a k e it p a rtic u la rly p ro n e to th e n eed fo r an
ex p lan a tio n . F irs t, th ere is a degree o f fixity, w hich o ften m ak es it
a p p e a r th a t th e sequence o f actio n s can n ev er change, a n d m u st
th e re fo re d a te b a c k to tim e im m em orial. A n d it is o f co u rse tru e th a t
alth o u g h in p ra ctice ritu a l m a y a lte r eith er suddenly o r g ra d u ally , it
c a n n o t sim ply be ch a n g ed at will. Second, th e actio n s p re scrib ed in
ritu a l seem freq u en tly stran g e, even co u n terin tu itiv e. S om etim es th e
stran g en ess is d u e to som e divergence fro m th e n o rm in a p a rtic u la r
case, a n d som etim es it is th e n o rm itself w hich m ig h t seem p o o rly
calc u lated to p lease th e divine a n d to cem en t d iv in e -h u m a n relatio n s.
T h e G re e k co n tex t supplies m a n y exam ples o f local a n d p a rtic u la r
ritu als d etails o f w hich stru ck observers (a n d n o d o u b t p ra c titio n e rs)
as o d d , a n d it is clear also th a t th e n o rm a l d istrib u tio n o f th e sacrificial
m e a t, in w hich th e divine recipients are a llo tte d a scanty p o rtio n o f less
a ttra c tiv e m e a t th a n th a t received by th e ir w o rsh ip p ers, w as a p ra ctice
a ro u sin g som e c u rio sity .5
In G reece as elsew here, fo r som e p a rtic ip a n ts th e d efau lt e x p la
n a tio n w o u ld n o d o u b t suffice: it is so because it is so, o r in a m o re
n u a n c e d w ay, because it is in ac co rd a n ce w ith an c estral p ra ctice - Kaxa
xa naxpia. B u t going b e y o n d this, it seems th a t th e re are p e rh a p s th ree
m a in types o f ex p la n a tio n fo r ritu al. T h e first relates specific cultic fe a
tu res to th e in te n d e d recip ien t (g o d o r h ero ) - th u s th e p re sc rip tio n o f
a d a rk -c o lo u re d sacrificial victim m ig h t be re la te d to th e fact th a t th e
deity th u s h o n o u re d is co n n e cted w ith th e e a rth o r th e U n d e rw o rld .6
(footnote 6 continued)
offered to them, but this hypothesis is now more controversial. See R. Schlesier,
‘Olympian versus chthonian religion’, Scripta Classica Israelica 11 (1991-2),
pp. 38-51, challenging the assumption; S. Scullion, ‘Olympian and chthonian’,
Class. Ant. 13 (1994), pp. 75-119, attempting to reinstate it partially; R. Hagg
and B. Alroth (eds), Greek Sacrificial Ritual Olympian and Chthonian (Stockholm:
Paul Astroms, 2005); G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals o f Greek Hero-Cults
in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (Kernos suppl. 12, Liege: Centre
International d’Etude de la Religion Grecque Antique, 2002). However, the
simple observation that dark victims are sometimes offered to ‘earthy’ deities is
incontestable, e.g. Il. 3.103-4, IG II2 1358 (Tetrapolis calendar, Attica, fourth
century bce), LSCG 96.25 (Mykonos, third/second century bce).
7 FGrHist 328 F 173; see R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 204.
8 See the formulation of Barbara Kowalzig, Singing fo r the Gods: Performances
o f M yth and Ritual in Classical Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
p. 53: ‘All rituals carry with them if not elements of a real past, certainly of a
perceived one.’
m y th o lo g ica l tim e.9 T h e o th e r fo rm , if p e rh a p s fro m o u r p o in t o f view
eq u ally speculative, refers to su p p o sed lifestyle differences betw een
n o w a n d th e re m o te p a st, a n d is less re lia n t o n m y th o lo g ica l elem ents.
It is clear th a t this la tte r so rt o f c o n n e ctio n can very easily be m o d i
fied, so th a t in ste a d o f th e ex p la n a tio n itself fo rm in g a b rid g e betw een
tw o givens, th e ritu a l a n d th e view o f th e p a st, ritu a l p ractices becom e
ac tu a l evidence fo r th e life o f earlier ages. In p a rtic u la r th e m o d a li
ties o f sacrifices are ta k e n to give in fo rm a tio n a b o u t an cien t diets, th e
m a in subject o f this c h a p te r.
T his p ro cess ca n b e seen in q u ite a d eveloped fo rm in a p assa g e fro m
B o o k 6 o f th e L a w s , w here P la to is using a th e o ry w hich suits his a rg u
m en t, b u t w hich w o u ld p ro b a b ly also be recognised by his audience:
15 Artemis at Brauron: two myths refer to the shedding of blood, one in sacrifice,
Suda s.v. apKiog ^ Bpauprovioig, Phanodemus FGrH 325 F 14; the ritual details
are uncertain. Tauropolos at Halai, Eur. I T 1458-61; on these see H. Lloyd-
Jones, ‘Artemis and Iphigeneia’, JH S 103 (1983), pp. 87-102. A. Orthia: Paus.
3.16.7-11. On the wider diffusion of this type of Artemis, see F. Graf, ‘Das
Gotterbild aus dem Taurerland’, A W 10.4 (1979), pp. 33-41, and in general, P.
Bonnechere, Le sacrifice humain en Grece ancienne (Liege: Centre International
d’Etude de la Religion Grecque Antique, 1994), esp. pp. 26-62; D. D. Hughes,
Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London and New York: Routledge, 1991), pp.
71-138. Euripides in particular has been suspected, perhaps rightly, of inventing
aitia, but for our purposes it does not make much difference whether the aition
was a ‘traditional’ one, developing gradually from a local basis, or whether it
came into existence as the creation of a historian or tragedian; ‘literary’ aitia have
a tendency to gain wider acceptance. More radical is the view that the tragedians,
again particularly Euripides, invented cult practice, including the supposed rites
of Artemis Tauropolos at Halai: see F. M. Dunn, Tragedy’s End: Closure and
Innovation in Euripidean Drama (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press
1996), esp. pp. 62-3; S. Scullion, ‘Tradition and invention in Euripidean aitiology’,
in M. Cropp, K. Lee and D. Sansone (eds), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the
Late Fifth Century (Champaign, IL: Stipes, 2000 = IC S 24-5 [1999-2000]), pp.
217-33; for a more balanced view, Romano in this volume. I cannot, however,
accept the point that Menander, Epitr. 415-17, disproves Euripides’ version of
the Tauropolia by showing the real character of the festival, since festivals (for
instance the Anthesteria) may exhibit quite diverse ‘characters’ at different points
and for different participants. More generally, I believe that even if Euripides was
inventing details, they must at least have been details which would make sense to
his audience because they belonged to a familiar type.
to h a n g o n this cu lt com plex a n d its ac co m p an y in g m y th .16 M o re
recently we h a v e becom e a c cu sto m ed to re g a rd such an aty p ical rite
w ith ca u tio n , a n d it is certain ly n o t m y in te n tio n to use th e B o u p h o n ia
to m a k e an y general p o in ts a b o u t sacrifice; I m erely observe th a t
w hile th e sto ry explaining th is b izarre cu lt p ra ctice certain ly relates
one specific event to one specific cult, it also c o n ta in s in its n a rra tiv e
fram e th e tra d itio n o f a p a s t tim e in w hich th e sacrifice a n d th ere fo re
th e co n su m p tio n o f th e p lo u g h in g ox, p e rh a p s o f all anim als, w as n o t
th e n o rm ; it is clear in th e sto ry th a t th e cakes o r grains w hich w ere
p lace d o n th e a lta r a n d w hich th e u n fo rtu n a te ox a te w ere th e sacrifi
cial cu rren cy o f th e ‘p re -m o d e rn ’ age, a n d also th a t th a t age cam e to
an e n d w hen th e oracle ratified th e killing o f th e ox a n d co m m an d e d
its a n n u a l re p etitio n . A t least by th e fo u rth cen tu ry , th en , a n d d e m o n
strab ly earlier in th e case o f th e ‘e n d o f h u m a n sacrifice’ m o tif, the
ritu als o f ce rta in cults co u ld be ta k e n as re ferrin g to th e sacrificial a n d
p e rh a p s d ietary n o rm s o f p a s t ages (a lth o u g h m y th generally shrinks
fro m in tro d u c in g ca n n ib a lism in to G re ek sacrificial c o n te x ts 17) a n d to
th e m o m e n t w hen th a t n o rm w as ch an g ed , to create th e cu sto m s o f th e
p re se n t day.
21 D.L. 8.53 (from Favorinus); Athen. 1.3e; the tradition gives a chapter title
to Detienne’s discussion of Pythagorean dietary prescriptions (M. Detienne,
Les jardins d’Adonis (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), pp. 71-114; revised edn (Paris:
Gallimard, 2002), pp. 58-90).
22 Chionides fr. 7 K-A, Athen. 4.137e: o Ss xoiiq siq XiroviSqv ava^spo^svouq
nxro%ouq novqaaq xouq ABqvafouq qrqav, oxav xoiq Aioamupoiq sv npuxavstai apiaxov
‘REMEMBERING THE ANCIENT WAY OF LIFE’ 311
n p o x iB r o v x a i , s n i xrov T p a n s^ r o v T iB s v a i T u p o v K a i ^ u a r q v S p u n s n s iq x ’s X a a q K a i
n p a a a , m o ^ v n a i v n o i o u ^ s v o u q Tflq a p ^ a q a y r o y q q .
23 Bacchylides fr. 21 Maehler. On ritual theoxenies, see M. Jameson,
‘Theoxenia’, in R. Hagg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical
Evidence (Stockholm: Paul Astroms, 1994), pp. 35-57.
24 See J. Wilkins, The Boastful Chef: The Discourse o f Food in Ancient Greek
Comedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 110-23. The point is noted
already in Athenaeus, who collects these passages at 6.267e-70a.
25 Herodotus 9.73, perhaps from the Theseid; Xen. Hell. 6.3.6; Plut. Thes. 33.2.
acco rd in g to P a u san ias w as n e a r to th e ir sa n c tu a ry )26 in w hich the
A n a k es w ere received in to citizenship, in w hich case th e ‘an c ie n t life
style’ w o u ld be th a t o f A ttic a in th e h e ro ic age. N o t p rim itiv e tim es,
th en , w hen p eo p le m ig h t be eith er can n ib als o r vegetarians; a lth o u g h
th e m eal is in fact a v eg e ta rian one, it seem s very unlikely th a t an y o n e
jo in in g u p th e d o ts w o u ld h av e su p p o sed th a t T heseus a n d the
D io s k o u ro i a b sta in e d fro m m eat. T h e p o in t is th e sim plicity o f the
m eal, n o t its exclusion o f a d o u b tfu l m a te ria l. A n d a fu rth e r p o in t
w o u ld surely be th a t this w as som ehow th e ch arac te ristic , th e ‘re a l’
fo o d o f A ttica; th e ‘recollection m a d e ’ co u ld n o t h av e been a n e u tra l
m a tte r o f su p p o sed h isto rical fact, b u t a c e le b ratio n o f th e k in d o f
fo o d th a t m a d e A ttic a great. A sim ilar id ea m ay h av e b een b e h in d the
so-called k o p is feasts in S p a rta , w hich A th e n a e u s tre a ts in a n a d jo in
ing section. T hese w ere h eld in c o n n e ctio n w ith v ario u s festivals, a n d
th e ‘an cien t sim plicity’ m o tif is suggested by th e fact th a t th e diners
reclin ed o n ro u g h m attresses o r beds o f straw (s tib a d e s ) in specially
c o n stru c te d ten ts o r bo th ies. T h e k o p is w as ce rtain ly n o t veg etarian ,
b u t th e o nly an im als sacrificed w ere g o ats, a n d each d in er w as given
a m eal o f set fo rm a n d in g red ien ts - m e a t p ro d u c ts, a special cake,
cheese a n d tra g e m a ta o r ‘n ib b le s’ o f b ea n s a n d figs. A g ain , th o u g h all
S p a rta n m eals seem ed n o to rio u sly sim ple, p o o r even, to o th e r G reeks,
th is m a y h av e b een th o u g h t to in d icate th e kinds o f fo o d av ailab le at
a n early stage o f c u lin ary dev elo p m en t - n o b oiling o f p e a soup, fo r
in stan ce - b u t lo o k e d a t fro m a n o th e r p erspective co u ld also h av e cel
e b ra te d th e in stitu tio n o f civilised eating; th e co o k in g o f d o m esticated
an im als, th e use o f th e ir m ilk, a n d ab o v e all p e rh a p s a system o f eatin g
b ase d o n a g ric u ltu re - cereals, fru its a n d vegetables.
W h e th e r o r n o t this id ea belongs in th e S p a rta n k o p is, it is ce rtain ly
a th em e w hich grow s in p o p u la rity w ith a u th o rs seeking to explain
th e o rigins o f civilisation. V a rio u s advances w ere ca n v assed as the
cru cial o ne w hich p u t an e n d to a p rim ev al ‘w ild ’, o ften cannibalistic,
diet; m o st o ften , a n d m o st convincingly, th e cu ltiv atio n o f cereals, b u t
also th e discovery o f h o n ey a n d o f figs (as we shall see shortly). T h a t
th e id ea ce rtain ly becam e a fam iliar o n e is show n by a frag m en t o f the
co m ic d ra m a tist A th e n io n , w ho m ak es o n e o f his c h a rac te rs e x p o u n d
in g re at a n d p a ro d ic detail h o w th e a rt o f c o o k in g m e a t is ac tu ally
w h a t p u t a n e n d to ca n n ib a lism a n d en a b le d th e b irth o f civ ilisatio n .27
B u t th e ro o ts o f th e id ea are certain ly well estab lish ed in th e fo u rth
Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
9 Miller, ‘Art, myth and reality’, pp. 23-39. I suggest that the griffin in the scene
takes its inspiration from the Achaemenid-style Homa-bird found on column
capitals at Persepolis and elsewhere.
hunts in the great paradeisoi of the empire.10 The mythologisation of
the Persian hunt occurs in the fifth century too, but Margaret Miller
reads the Xenophantos lekythos as a definitive turning point in the
mythologicalisation and marginalisation process of the Persian image,
in which they ultimately morph into the eastern combatants of griffins
in the Arimasps myth.11
What can be done, though, with the names of the hunting Persians?
They are, of course, credible Achaemenid names in their (Latinised)
Greek forms: Darius and Cyrus are the names par excellence of the
kings and princes of the Achaemenid royal house,12 while we find that
an Abrokomas was a satrap of Syria at the end of the fifth century
under Artaxerxes I, who thereafter sent him to Phoenicia, perhaps in
preparation for an Egyptian campaign (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.3.20;
Isocrates 4.140; Diodorus 14.20.5); Artamis might be cognate with the
city of Adramyttion (in the satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia), while
Seisames ‘the Mysian’ is listed as one of the Persian dead in Aeschylus’
Persai (322).13 Herodotus, however, tells the story of Seisames who was
killed by Cambysses (5.25), and of another Seisames who commanded
troops in Xerxes’ expedition (7.66), while Sekunda has suggested that
Seisames might have been the name of an early fifth-century satrap
of Mysia.14 Whatever the reality, there is little doubt that Seisames
is a well-attested Persian name.15 Of course the decidedly Hellenic
names Eurylaos, a name shared with one of the Epigoni, who was
also an Argonaut and who led the Argives at Troy (Pausanias 2.20.5;
Apollodorus 1.9.13, 3.7.2; Homer, Iliad 2.565), and Klytios, the name
of one of the brothers of King Priam of Troy (Homer, Iliad 3.146), are
16 Tiverios, ‘Die von Xenophantos’, p. 278. Certainly the hunters are easily
recognisable as Persians and wear long-sleeved tunics over trousers; some also
wear the kandys, a coat with hanging sleeves. They wear the kidaris on their
heads. The appearance of the hunters on the Xenophantos lekythos is carefully
constructed, which, together with their Persian names, leaves little doubt that they
are supposed to represent Persian courtiers.
17 See further Hdt. 7.26.3.
18 See Miller, ‘Art, myth and reality’, although see further arguments by H.
M. Franks, ‘Hunting the eschata: An imagined Persian Empire on the lekythos of
Xenophantos’, Hesperia 78 (2009), pp. 455-80, esp. p. 480, who suggests that the
lekythos ‘illustrates Persian territorial aspirations, which extend to the very limits
and most extreme places of the world, and which, as the product of hubristic
ambition, must ultimately go unfulfilled’.
their own important intervention in the flow of Persian history? Were
the Greeks content to settle for a nebulous ‘once upon a time’ quality
in their involvement with the Persian past?
On one level, that question can be answered with an affirmative,
reflected in a tendency in fourth-century literary sources, as in the
Xenophantos lekythos, to create a standardised ‘Great King’ - a
depersonalised description allowing for an open identification of any
(or all) Persian kings as a single entity.19 Isocrates, for instance, rou
tinely equates Xerxes with Artaxerxes II (5.42; 12.157-8), while Lysias
(2.27) attributes the battle of Marathon to the campaigns of Xerxes.
Aeschines (3.132) too creates a confluence of Xerxes with an unnamed
king of the fourth century:
22 A mistake: Isocrates is possibly thinking more generally about the Athenian defeat
in the Peloponnesian War in which Sparta received Persian assistance; Artaxerxes
II acceded to the throne in 405 bce, the year of the battle of Aegospotami, the last
major battle of the war.
bring up. These women reared them from their formative years
as though they were already ‘Heaven’s Chosen-Ones’, and
fawned over them accordingly. They wouldn’t allow anyone
to scold their god-sent darlings in anything, and they forced
everyone to rhapsodise about whatever the child said or did.
You can imagine the type of person they produced.
CLEINIAS: A great education it must have been, to judge from
what you say!
ATHENIAN: It was a womanish education, conducted by the
royal harem. The teachers of the children had recently come
into considerable wealth, but they were left all alone, without
men, because the army was preoccupied in the field.
CLEINIAS: That makes sense.
ATHENIAN: The children’s father . . . just didn’t notice that
women and eunuchs had given his sons the education of a
Mede [i.e. of great luxury] and that it had been debased by
their so-called ‘heaven-sent’ status. That is why Cyrus’ chil
dren turned out as children naturally do when their teachers
have never corrected them. So when, on the death of Cyrus,
they succeeded to their inheritance they were living in a riot of
unrestrained luxury . . . [But] Darius was no royal prince, and
his upbringing had not encouraged him to self-indulgence . . .
But Darius was succeeded by Xerxes, whose education reverted
to the old royal practice of pampering . . . So Xerxes, being a
product of this kind of tutoring, naturally had a career that
resembled that of the misfortunate Cambyses, and ever since
hardly any king of the Persians had been truly ‘great’ except
in title and magnificence. I hold that the reason for this is not
just bad luck, but the shocking life that children of despots and
fantastically wealthy parents almost always lead.
Here, then, Plato argues that under Cyrus, Persia had witnessed an
age when freedom of speech, liberty, community and co-operation
reigned, only to be quashed by the oppressive regime of his succes
sor Cambyses. Under the lawgiver-king Darius, Persia experienced
a renaissance of thought (and deed), which once again gave way to
the megalomaniac autocracy of Xerxes; from thereon in, says Plato,
in a passage informed more by Greek prejudice than historical fact,
‘the Persians have failed to halt on the downward slope of decadence
(truphe)’ (697c).23
23 The contrast between the fate of the two pairs of kings (Cyrus-Darius/Cambyses-
Xerxes) is equally unreal. The pairing occurs elsewhere in Plato: Epistle 332AB,
It would appear from Plato’s Laws that the dynastic squabbling
of the sons of Cyrus II and the eventual seizure of the throne by
Darius was a pivotal moment in Achaemenid history well known to
the Greeks - versions of the story are delivered by Aeschylus (Persai
773-80),24 Herodotus (3.1-87)25 and Ctesias (F13 § 11-18)26 (and there
were no doubt others too)27 - and it is also known that the history
of Cyrus the Great (and the legends that sprang up around his life)
always enjoyed great renown in the Greek-speaking world.28 Plato’s
explanation of the political development of Achaemenid history fits in
neatly with the general Greek discourse; he regards the entire thrust of
Persian history as being determined by the relationships of the royal
family and the duty of the kings to educate their successors in the
ideals of freedom. Persian degeneracy was inevitable, he propounds,
since even at the beginning of the process of creating an empire, Cyrus’
campaigns away from the political heartland meant that his sons were
reared by the women and eunuchs of the court and, with the excep
tion of Darius, who was not a king’s son and therefore not exposed
to dangerous harem tutorage, all subsequent Persian monarchs have
been degenerate by definition of their womanly education.
Plato uses the chronological development of Persian history to
320D; Phaedrus 258C. Antisthenes apparently wrote two dialogues on the pairing
of Cyrus and Darius.
24 See comments by H. D. Broadhead, The Persae o f Aeschylus (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp. 278-82; Hall, Aeschylus: Persians, pp.
161-3; Garvie, Aeschylus: Persae, pp. 300-5.
25 See comments in D. Asheri, A. Lloyd and A. Corcella, ed. O. Murray and A.
Moreno, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I - IV (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007), pp. 397-478.
26 See D. Lenfant, Ctesias de Cinde: La Perse, L ’Inde, autre fragments (Paris:
Les Belles Lettres, 2004), pp. 118-21; L. Llewellyn-Jones and J. Robson, Ctesias’
History o f Persia: Tales o f the Orient (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 179-80.
27 The first author of a Persica proper was Dionysus of Miletus, who seems to have
attempted an outline of Persian history from the end of the reign of Cambyses II
(522 bce) to the end of the reign of Darius the Great (486 bce); see R. Drews, The
Greek Accounts o f Eastern History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1973), p. 36; D. Lenfant, ‘Greek historians of Persia’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007),
vol. I, pp. 201-9, esp. p. 201. The Persica of Charon of Lampsacus, who seems to
have written a concise narrative (in only two books) of Persian history from its
legendary origins to the time of Themistocles’ meeting with Artaxerxes I, must
have covered Darius I’s appropriation of the throne. It is also clear that Hellanicus
of Lesbos covered the events of early Achaemenid history, including the murder
of Cambyses’ successor and the accession of Darius the Great. As a contemporary
of Herodotus, it is possible that Hellanicus’ Persica worked as a parallel (if more
concise) redaction of the better-known Histories. See Drews, Greek Accounts, pp.
23-4; Lenfant, ‘Greek historians of Persia’, p. 202; Llewellyn-Jones and Robson,
Ctesias, pp. 48-9.
28 See especially Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, pp. 14-16.
support his stance; he lists, in the correct order, the main players in
Persia’s slide into degeneracy: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes - the
‘gang of four’ who for the Greeks fundamentally defined the Persian
experience. Interestingly, while Plato clearly knows about Artaxerxes
I, the Great King of his own day (see, for instance, Alcibiades
121b, 123c-123d), he writes him out of the Laws. The ostracism of
Artaxerxes from the text is deliberate and serves Plato’s purpose: to
show that the enfeebled kings of the present day are nameless entities
of little political or military clout compared with the Great Kings of
an earlier, more noble age.
Indeed, a similar tack is taken in many of the great orations of the
early fourth century. Isocrates’ Panathenaikos of 380 bce, for example,
has been seen as the defining moment in the negative stereotyping of
the barbarised Persian;29 his agenda is to belittle and deride the Persia
of his day and he does so by once again marginalising all mention of
its current rulers. The spirit of Xerxes looms comparatively large in
the Panathenaikos (12.49ff, 161, 189) but the name of Artaxerxes II is
conspicuous by its absence.30 Even in his Evagoras of around 370 b ce
there is no mention of this king, or of his predecessor Darius II, who
was so frequently at loggerheads with the Cypriot ruler (see Ctesias
F30).31 In praising Evagoras’ exploits, Isocrates is content to say, with
one breath, that he was so superior a person that ‘when the kings of
that time beheld him they were terrified for their power’ (9.23), while
with another that Evagoras equalled the elder Cyrus in greatness. He
expands (9.37):
Of those who lived later, perhaps indeed of all, the one hero
who was most admired by the greatest number was Cyrus,
who deprived the Medes of their kingdom and gained it for the
Persians. But while Cyrus with a Persian army conquered the
Medes, a deed which many a Greek or a barbarian could easily
47 In the autumn of 331 bce, Darius III used Arbela as his base before he marched
to Gaugamela, where he was defeated by Alexander and his forces. An inscription
above the relief, referring to Alexander, reads: ‘I am a relative of Heracles and
Zeus, son of Philip and Olympias’; another, beneath the relief, says: ‘Kings and
their peoples, as many as the Ocean allots the lands of the earth, cowered before
my spear.’ See IG XIV. 126. See also M. Fuhrmann, Philoxenus von Eretria
(Gottingen: Gottingen University Press, 1933), pl. 3.
48 See Shapiro, ‘Invention of Persia’, p. 86. For the Stoa Poikile see T. L. Shear, ‘The
Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1980-1982’, Hesperia 53 (1984), pp. 5-19; for the
Marathon paintings see M. D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, ‘The painting programme of
the Stoa Poikile’, in J. M. Barringer and J. M. Hurwit (eds), Periklean Athens and
its Legacy (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005), pp. 73-87.
steered the outcome of the event - as is suggested on the Darius Vase
too.49
The scene on the vase is conceived of in an entirely Greek style and
depicts the Persians in a way that conforms wholly to their views of
Achaemenid hierarchy. The Great King sits above his subjects’ heads,
although a meaningful interaction between sovereign and councillors
is suggested - an image drawn from Herodotus’ constitutional debate
of Book 3 of the Histories, and other such Greek conceptions of the
Great King in council. Yet the vase-painter steers us towards believing
that we are observing life at a historically verifiable Persian court, at
an exact moment in time. The middle register is, of course, a formal
audience scene, while the lower register allows us to look at the work
ings of the imperial bureaucracy inside the palaces’ treasuries.
The Greeks were fascinated by the affairs of the royal and satrapal
courts of the Persian Empire, and they correctly envisage the Great
King’s palace as an impenetrable fortress, not just of stone and wood,
but of ceremony and etiquette: as Aristotle puts it, ‘[The king] himself,
so it is said, established himself at Susa or Ecbatana, invisible to all,
dwelling in a wonderful palace; many gateways one after another, and
porches many stades apart from one another, were secured by bronze
doors’ (Aristotle, Mund. 398a).
From the offset, the Greek imagination attempted to peer into the
halls and chambers of the palaces of the Great King: Aeschylus’ Persai
takes us into the heart of the court at Susa, and even presents Xerxes’
much-honoured Mother and her opulent trappings to the hungry gaze
of the Athenian audience. Herodotus takes us into the council cham
bers, banqueting halls and even harem quarters of the royal palaces,
and by the early fourth century the Great King’s court became the locus
classicus of the popular Persica of Ctesias, Dinon and Heracleides, so
much so that I think we can classify them properly as court histories.50
I have little doubt that these populist histories, and Ctesias’ novelistic
work in particular, had a profound effect upon the representations of
Persian life we see in fourth-century Greek iconography, where we are
truly encouraged to enter into the world of ‘le roi imaginaire’.
Tales of defiant Greeks, like Herodotus’ Bulis and Sperchis
(Histories 7.136), appearing in audience before the Great King
must have been popular, since the theme has a long history,51 and
49 See Shapiro, ‘Invention of Persia’, p. 84. He notes that ‘the fate of nations is
in the hands of the gods; the Justice of Zeus protects the Hellenes’.
50 Llewellyn-Jones and Robson, Ctesias, pp. 66-8.
51 Compare Aelian VH 1.29, who recounts Ismenias’ ruse of dropping a ring in front
of the Great King so that he might be thought to be performing proskynesis as he
stooped to pick it up.
probably drew on a folk-tale motif whereby Greek sophrosyne was
seen to triumph over Persian servility. The theme is still active as
late as Philostratus’ third-century c e Imagines, which is imbedded
in generic Greek stories of the Great King’s court.52 His ekphrasis
of Themistocles’ famous audience with Artaxerxes I in Babylon
(Imag. 2.31) draws upon a single historical event briefly outlined by
Thucydides (1.138) and elaborated on by Plutarch (Them. 29.5-6)
and Nepos (Them. 9.5).53 Philostratus creates the picture of the
sophisticated Greek, noble in his confinement within the gilded cage
that is the Persian court, lecturing the Great King and his eunuchs,
who are posed before him in a kind of theatrical tableau ‘iridescent
in gaudy costumes against an opulent palace setting’.54 Undeniably,
Philostratus’ description has some remarkable parallels with the
theatre-like scene painted on the Darius Vase; it begins with a descrip
tion of the physical features of the court itself and then examines the
scene which unfolds therein:
For I believe that Themistocles the son of Neocles has come from
Athens to Babylon after the immortal victory at Salamis because
he has no idea where in Greece he might be safe, and that he is
58 For the brickwork representations see Perrot, Palais de Darius, pp. 323,
335. For the Persepolis reliefs see, for instance, H. Kokh, Persepolis and its
Surroundings (Tehran: Yassavoli, 2006), pp. 60, 70-1.
59 Root, King and Kingship, p. 186, pl. VI fig. 6.
60 This theme is very well explored by M. Millar, Athens and Persia in the Fifth
Century b c : A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997), esp. pp. 56ff. On the cultural and artistic interaction between
Greece and Persia, especially in Asia Minor, see E. R. M. Dusinberre, Aspects o f
Empire in Achaemenid Sardis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003);
L. Llewellyn-Jones, ‘The big and beautiful women of Asia: Ethnic conceptions
of ideal beauty in Achaemenid-period seals and gemstones’, in S. Hales and
T. Hodos (eds), Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 171-200; C. H. Roosevelt,
The Archaeology o f Lydia, from Gyges to Alexander (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009). For a fuller picture of the cultural interaction see S. M. R.
Darbandi and A. Zournatzi (eds), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural
Encounters (Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2008).
61 On the dissemination of the imperial image see especially L. Allen, ‘Le roi
imaginaire: An audience with the Achaemenid king’, in O. Hekster and R. Fowler
(eds), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome
(Munich: Steiner, 2005), pp. 39-62. See also Root, King and Kingship.
Figure 17.3 Reconstruction of the audience scene, originally from the
northern A padana staircase at Persepolis and later moved to the Treasury.
64 Jenkins, Greek Architecture, pp. 186-202. The seated figure might be interpreted
as the Lydian satrap himself, but the likeliest solution to the figure’s identity is to
name him as Erbinna himself, the ruler who commissioned the monument and
who was interred in its burial chamber.
65 On the conflict between the reality and later reputation of Darius III see
Briant, Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre.
least familiar in our present trio of monarchs, that I wish to examine
further here. Known to us best, perhaps, from the mentions he war
rants in the works of Thucydides (8.5.4-6, 80.1-2), Xenophon (Hel.
1.4.1-7; 5.8-9; Anab. 1.1-1) and Ctesias (F 15 § 48-52), Darius II, the
sixth Achaemenid King of Kings, came to the throne late in 423 bce,
having already been satrap of Hyrcania. His father was Artaxerxes
I; his mother, according to Ctesias, was a Babylonian concubine,
Cosmartidene (F 15 § 47); Greek authors therefore wrongly consid
ered him a bastard (and nicknamed him nothos), perhaps not fully
understanding the institution of royal concubinage.66 The Athenians
were familiar with Darius II from the outset of his reign, and they
appear to have begun negotiations with the king almost immediately
upon his accession to the throne. Margaret Miller has explored the
comparatively rich evidence for Athenian embassies to the Persian
court early in the reign of Darius, and she stresses the fact that in this
period many Athenians of upper rank had visited his court.67 This
might well help explain the new red-figure vogue for scenes of the
Great King enjoying the pleasures of the court: his female fan-bearers,
his gorgeously attired courtiers, and his dancers and musicians (a
topos scene of oriental hedonism similarly expounded on the stage by
Euripides in his Orestes of 408 b c e ).68
Athenian-Persian relations soured quickly when in 413 bce the
Athenians interfered in Persian affairs by supporting the rebel
Amorges against the throne. From thereon in, Darius’ reign, as we
have had occasion to note, became conspicuous for frequent revolts,
led partly by satraps but more threateningly by his own blood-kin. His
two eldest sons, Artaxerxes and Cyrus (the Younger), both aimed for
the throne. Deciding to keep Artaxerxes close to him at court, Darius
sent the younger son, Cyrus, to Ionia to coordinate Persian efforts
as Darius began to create a more cohesive Greek policy. Angered by
the Athenian championship of Amorges, he decisively sided with the
Spartans. Consequently, Cyrus began to pump Persian gold into the
Spartan war effort as new warships were constructed and troops were
66 For the Greek idea of illegitimacy see D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996); for Persian concubinage see the discussion in L.
Llewellyn-Jones, ‘“Help me Aphrodite!” Representing the royal women of Persia
in Oliver Stone’s Alexander’, in F. Greenland and P. Cartledge (eds), Responses to
Alexander (Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 2009), pp. 150-97, esp. 264-6.
67 M. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B . C.: A Study in Cultural
Receptivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 27, 89, 111.
68 See in particular a red-figure bell-krater , c. 400, Vienna Kuntshistorisches
Museum 158; A R V (2) 1409, 1; Shapiro, ‘Invention of Persia’, p. 79, fig. 3.18, with
p. 81, fig. 3.20, for a Persian dancer performing the ‘oklasma’ (Athens, National
Archaeological Museum 12683, c. 400 bce).
levied. On the back of this, the Persians restated their old claim on the
sovereignty of the cities of western Asia Minor, and Cyrus bought
the services of Greek mercenaries, many of whom were garrisoned in
the Persian-controlled cities of Ionia. In the autumn of 405 bce, just
as the Spartan grip on Athens was tightening, Darius II became ill and
summoned Cyrus to rejoin the court at Babylon.69
Interestingly, coinage issued at this troublesome time demonstrates
how the image of the Great King penetrated the Greek psyche. An
Attic tetradrachm, for example, was used by the Persian authorities
to pay Greek mercenaries; the reverse shows the bearded and crowned
head of a Great King, in all probability Darius II, at the foot of
Athene’s owl.70 Another Attic tetradrachm, however, shows a clean
shaven crowned head stamped on Athene’s cheek - this, it is argued, is
an image Cyrus the Younger himself, stamped on a coin issued by the
prince for recruiting his Greek forces in Asia Minor.71
It is against this background that Aristophanes produced his
comedy Frogs in 405 bce. Alan Sommerstein persuasively suggests
that we can read into the play something of the Athenian reaction to
Darius II’s Greek policy and his Spartan partisanship.72 In 405, only
two things might possibly have saved a battered, bruised and hungry
Athens: a negotiated peace with the Spartan enemy and their Persian
allies, or the death of the Great King, which would, at the very least,
plunge the empire into chaos and, best of all, probably halt (if only
temporarily) the Persian funding of the Peloponnesian fleet. It is little
wonder then that in Frogs Dionysus gleefully recalls enjoying best in
Aeschylus’ old tragedy, Persai, the scene where the chorus listened
to the dead Darius and lamented and mourned the loss of their king
(1026-9):
Artaxerxes’ bastard son, Darius, who led the Persian people and
took the throne from his legitimate son, Sogdius, when he became
king sent a messenger to Poulydamas, because he knew of his
wonderful deeds, and persuaded him, with promises of gifts, to
come to Susa for Darius to see him. At Susa, Poulydamas chal
lenged three of those Persians who were called Immortals, and
fought alone against three of them together and killed them.
Some of the deeds I have mentioned are on the pedestal at
Olympia, and others are explained in the inscription.
The scene on the relief depicts the Great King sitting on his throne
wearing the long-sleeved oriental robe, but with a Greek-style himat-
ion slung over it, where it falls in folds on his lap; the long flaps of his
tiara headdress fall forward down to his chest.75 The king’s left hand
holds a sceptre (originally crafted as a metal fixture and now lost),
which was once picked out in paint.76
Poulydamas stands in front of the monarch, lifting the flailing
and kicking body of the Immortal well above his head, as the soldier
struggles to break free. To the right of the group stand four female
figures - a queen and concubines, possibly. These court ladies are
certainly conjured from the Greek imagination and are dressed in
Greek chitones and himatia, much in the style of the depictions of
75 On the tiara see C. Tuplin, ‘Treacherous hearts and upright tiaras: The Achaemenid
king’s head-dress’, in C. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses: Political and Cultural
Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales,
2007), pp. 67-97.
76 His upraised right hand somewhat breaks with artistic convention and
perhaps is meant to show Darius surprised and overawed by the strength of the
Greek athlete.
Hellas and Asia on the Darius Vase. The female at the front of the
group is shown in a standard Greek way as she raises a section of her
robe in a veiling gesture.77 The presence of the royal women dovetails
neatly with standard Athenian images of the Great King created
from the latter part of the fifth century onwards;78 superficially these
are imagined scenes of court life or the royal harem where the focus,
says Shapiro, is on the male as a ‘truly Persian peacock’.79 It is worth
noting, however, that a series of seals and gemstones from Persian-
occupied Asia Minor, no doubt commissioned by and for satrapal and
local princely courts, also show the image of nobles with their women,
although in these Anatolian scenes both parties are always depicted in
Achaemenid dress.80
While we have in the Poulydamas relief a stop-frame moment in real
time, an event that historically took place at Darius II’s court at Susa
at some point between 410 and 405 bce, I think that it is possible to
read the scene in another context entirely, reflecting the date in which
the base was commissioned and crafted, that is to say, around the time
of Alexander’s conclusive triumph over Darius III at Gaugamela. It is
possible to read the relief scene as a moment in the past (some eighty
years earlier) projected into the present. The relief is not only a flagrant
inversion of the normal regularity of the imperial Achaemenid audi
ence scene, but a metaphor for the overthrow of the Persian Empire
itself. This is endorsed by the depiction of Poulydamas’ wrestling a
lion. Undeniably Heraklean in its inspiration, the scene has simultane
ous Achaemenid undertones which cannot be ignored. In Achaemenid
royal ideology the lion symbolises strength, while the image of the
slaughtering of a lion by a hero-king, regularly seen in Persian monu
mental and glyptic art, is used to underline the Great King’s power
over his empire and the forces of chaos that threaten it.81 It is pos
sible to see the same ideology incorporated into the Poulydamas
scene, but here combined with the victory over the Persian military
represented by the defeated Immortal. Darius II, in effect, becomes
conflated with his namesake, Darius III, who witnesses, first-hand,
the shock and awe of the overthrow of his realm by a Greek force that
turned out to be even greater than its reputation had heralded. For
It would appear that the Greeks of the late classical period understood
the workings of Persian history; the Greek historians, in particular
those working within the genre of Persica, ensured that they had access
to a chronological outline of Persian history, at least as far as they saw
it. The Greeks, we have seen, could use the Persian past with great
precision (or an attempt at precision at least): Aeschylus had already
demonstrated that in his bid to chronicle Median and Persian royal
genealogy in his Persai (lines 765-81) of 472 b c e .82 Nevertheless, the
Greeks were equally capable of overwriting Persian history and willing
to do so, skewing the historical process for their rhetorical, cultural or
theoretical needs, omitting and ostracising persons and events from
the picture. But the Greeks could also reflect on the workings of the
historical process, allowing past events to be paralleled by the present.
Literary sources were clearly revelling in this practice: the Cyrus the
Great of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is, of course, the Cyrus the Younger
of the Anabasis; we are familiar with that. We are less familiar perhaps
with the way in which fourth-century iconography utilises the cultural
indica of Persian civilisation to create a picture of a ‘real’ historical
Persia whilst simultaneously adjusting the focus of the scene so that we
shift backwards and forwards in a moment of time. When we accept
that the process of history can be filtered through non-historical texts
and images, we must acknowledge that the Greeks were capable of,
and enjoyed, creating a sophisticated interplay with the Persian past.
I
All societies tell or write versions of the past. Any such version of
the past could have a claim to be called history. The subtitle History
without Historians, however, invites us to consider an opposition
between the history told by historians and the history told by other
writers or tellers of stories of the past (and that is how the authors
of this volume take it). This opposition is integrally and significantly
implicated with the self-definition of history by historians (and by
historians I mean for the moment the self-defining set of historiogra
phers starting for most of us, as for most ancient Greeks and Romans,
with Herodotus and Thucydides). There are multiple models of how
the past is conceived not just within the historiographical tradi
tion but also within a single author as multi-layered as Herodotus.1
Nonetheless, there are some assumptions without which it would be
hard for any writer to affiliate himself to the historiographical tradi
tion: history needs to be critical, critical of other versions of the past,
of how the past is to be understood and what its implications for today
are; history needs to postulate a coherent and explanatory narrative;
history is committed to telling a story of the past which is true (though
we could leave open how such truth is determined, for all that accurate
representation of the past is likely to be involved).
If we take such an account of historiography and of the subtitle of
the collection, it seems to me that the consequences are likely to be as
1 See esp. R. Thomas, Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art o f
Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); also D. Lateiner, The
Historical Method o f Herodotus (Toronto and London: University of Toronto
Press, 1989); J. Gould, Herodotus (London, 1989); J. Marincola, Authority and
Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997). This short piece could be very heavily annotated, but that would not be in
the spirit of the invitation to write it.
follows: we will find multiple versions of the past extant in the ancient
world from before and after the invention of historiographers’ history;
these will include Homer, the Stoa Poikile’s images, Greek tragedy,
plenty of oratory including the funeral orations, Plato’s accounts of
Socrates, and many other prose and verse texts from throughout the
Graeco-Roman world. In each case, especially those I have cited by
name, it would be easy to show that they are not history by the histori
ographer’s self-defining categories (though each has in contemporary
scholarship become part of the arsenal of those writing ancient history
today). We could thereby dismiss them as bad history (a naive move
few would explicitly adopt); or we could postulate a different type of
writing about time, the past and its relation to the present - against
which Herodotus and Thucydides set themselves - which also makes
historiography the yardstick but is a far more subtle version of the
easy dismissal. We could even see these other versions of the past
as eventually competitive with historiography (as some would claim
Plato in Laws 3 is). But it seems to me that one danger of taking this
approach is that we may be committing ourselves to a Whiggish nar
rative of the development of the writing of history (triumphing in the
nineteenth century’s familiar lauding of Thucydides as the paradigm
and founder of the critical history which is a dominant genre of the
nineteenth century and its so-called ‘historical self-consciousness’).
Such a definition of the canon of the genre of historiography (with the
usual games about marginal inclusion and exclusion) distorts what
might be at stake in postulating a historical self-awareness in ancient
culture. At its most extreme, such an approach threatens to conclude
that although there are multiple views of the past circulating in ancient
culture, there is no ‘real history’ except that written by historians:
history is the product of a self-defining club, then and now. There is
no history without historians, without what historians say is to count
as history. Myth, entertainment, poetry, art, records, inscriptions . . .
but no history.
A counter-case would start with Homer. Homer provides Greek
culture with a view of the past; it knows it is a view of the past (‘Ten
men of today . . .’); and it knows that epic itself is constructing a
memorial of the past for the present and discusses such construction
within its performance.2 You can visit Homer’s Troy with Alexander
or with Caesar or with Lucan. Pindar’s myths link present and past
in a significant and causal manner, and offer correctives to impious
2 See esp. A. Ford, Homer: The Poetry o f the Past (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1992); J. Grethlein, The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory, History in
the Fifth Century b c (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
versions of the past, and although his poetry may have been written
for a sung celebration of victory, you can read Pindar inscribed on
a temple; tragedy is a machine for rewriting the myths of the past
as stories for the modern polis, and the texts are kept, we are told,
as state archives; the funeral orations offer the more recent past as
exemplary and normative models; so too do the monumentalising art
and epigraphic habits of the fifth-century culture of the polis, which
has its own political agendas and strategies of representation. Cities
need to construct genealogical arguments as part of the diplomacy of
interaction at the political level. From Isocrates through to Lucian
(‘How to write history’), from the Second Sophistic’s well-known
obsession with a classical past to oratory’s skills in telling a past narra
tive, there are self-conscious techniques for telling the past, self-aware
constructions of different narratives of the past. Every budding orator
- which means pretty well every educated Greek - was encouraged to
imagine himself into the role of figures from the past, and to declaim
accordingly.
This view would remind us that historians in the sense of self-defined
historiographers are a particular and peculiar breed. Aristotle, whose
every step can be defined as historia, whether it is an inquiry into the
nature of animals, the development of the Athenian constitution or
the history of the genre of tragedy, demonstrates the fluidity of the
categories of intellectual inquiry marked out by historia. Following
this line of argument, every text or object that purports to repre
sent the past is history, and the historiographers are only one rather
extreme position in a broad range of accounts of the past. Indeed,
one could argue that the historiographers were not only extreme but
even rather marginal to the discursive authority of ancient culture in
the fifth century and far beyond. The category of ‘history’ as a genre,
unlike rhetoric or philosophy or medicine or tragedy, is rather late in
achieving anything like firm lineaments. (What is the Greek for his
torian, after all? Sungrapheus has nothing like the purchase of rhetor,
philosophos, sophistes, iatros, tragodopoios; historikos is rare until
later periods.) This approach concludes that all versions of the past,
written, oral, visual, are history, and that therefore the idea of ‘history
without historians’ has little explanatory purchase: most history is
not written, painted, inscribed or told by self-defining historians,
and although the later canon will make Herodotus and Thucydides
the fathers of history, this retrospective narrative has little value for
how the past is conceived or narrated in ancient Greek culture. At
its most extreme: any representation of the past is a history, anyone
who produces a history is a historian: there can be no history without
historians.
These two approaches towards disambiguating the subtitle ‘History
without Historians leave us therefore in two dead ends, for all that
the travelling towards them can be revelatory: either history is really
only what historians write, or every representation of the past is really
a history (and some small section gets formed as a self-serving but
scarcely determinative canon of historiography).
I would like therefore to re-pose the question of how a historical
self-consciousness in the ancient world might be conceptualised: what
is historical discourse in the classical polis?
The nineteenth century provides a model it is hard to escape from,
but which I think is deeply distorting for the ancient world. For the
nineteenth century (to oversimplify grotesquely), critical history is
a master discourse, not only providing best-sellers for the swelling
reading classes, but also developing a world-view of nationhood,
the individual self and the placement of the self within time.3 It also
provides a dominant paradigm of scholarship at one level, and an
expectation of popular culture at the other - from George Grote to
Walter Scott, as it were. We are its heirs, not just in our commitment
to the so-called good old days of Merrie England, but also in our
conceptualisations of progress, of the burden of the past, of our duty
to the past in heritage, our notions of modernity as a way of thinking
about the here and now. This Romantic sense of history is, I would
claim, barely visible in the ancient world, and perhaps nowhere in
the classical city. (The best case for similarity, I would suggest, might
be Pausanias, whose narrative is imbued with a sense of a lost past,
a decaying landscape, scarred by the development of empire, and a
material world of the past whose stories speak in fragments to the
contemporary world - and, perhaps above all, with the sense that the
pepaideumenos, the subject of the periegesis, needs this sense of history
to find himself within the landscape of Greece.) It is customary to
describe the fifth-century b ce in particular as an age of rapid cultural
3 See esp. R. Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics for Historical Time, tr.
K. Tribe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985); Koselleck, The
Practice o f Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts, tr. T. Pressner
et al. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002) - with whom my argument
here is most pertinently in dialogue; also J. Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian
Historians and the English Past (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); P.
Bowler, The Invention o f Progress: The Victorians and Their Past (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989); P. Fritzsche, Stranded in the Present: Modern Time and
the Melancholy o f History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004); B.
Mellman, The Culture o f History: English Uses o f the Past 1800-1953 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006). I have had my go at this in S. Goldhill, Victorian
Culture and Classical Antiquity: Art, Opera, Fiction, and the Proclamation o f
Modernity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
transformation, and, with that, one might expect there to have devel
oped a strong sense of historical self-consciousness, a strong recogni
tion of change and hence an awareness of the difference between the
past and present as a question to be explained. As if - to continue
the misleading nineteenth-century parallel - the Persian Wars were
the French Revolution of the Greek world, the event which changes
everyone’s sense of time and historical self-awareness. This turns out
to be only partly the case. So if we ask how a sense of history defines a
sense of self, what parameters can we give for the classical polis? Let us
begin with some propositions that I hope are uncontentious.
Genealogy matters for individuals and for cities. Quality is defined
in part by descent and it brings normative expectations.
Memorialisation of the past for the future is central to social ambi
tion, political commitment, private and civic celebration. It marks the
discourse and landscape of the city.
So the exempla of the past become the models for the present: the
Persian Wars can be recognised and dismissed as an encouragement to
virtue and manliness by Plutarch because of their long and continuing
tradition of use. Homer’s heroes speak to the classical polis.
Corollary to this is the recognition of distance: the past can be
nobler or more backward, more glorious or more squalid, than today;
a model to be lived up to or a model to be spurned.
There is some recognition, therefore, with whatever ironies - in
Aristophanes, say, or Plato - that the good old days have disappeared
in modern manners and attitudes. There is, in other words, some
limited awareness of ‘the age in which we live’. As the age of heroes
has passed, so the age of noble simplicity that our forefathers knew
has passed. New music exists.
But these propositions need a further framework. The structures
for ancient education remain poetry, rhetoric and philosophy. Each
of these technai is in an important sense anti-historical. As Aristotle’s
no doubt tendentious argument has it, poetry is more philosophical
than history because of its commitment to to eikos - generalisation,
likelihood - rather than history’s interest in the mere sequence of
events. ‘Wie es eigentlich gewesen’ is explicitly dismissed as a valid
basis for argument in the rhetorical handbooks: to eikos is the key
to to pithanon. Exempla also have a timeless quality. The orator who
imagines himself into the role of Alexander is not exploring the past
as a foreign country, nor is he open to correction in historiographi
cal terms: there is no issue of sources or accuracy, but of plausibility.
Self-definition - again, to speak in the very broadest of terms - is
organised around polarities that do not include modernity as a frame
work: Socrates is pleased to have been born a Greek, a male, a human;
someone else might have added Athenian, educated, rich, handsome,
healthy and so forth. Would ‘in this age’ have ever have been a crucial
term? By the Roman imperial period, it was possible, even necessary,
for at least most elite Romans to distinguish between the Republic and
the empire, and then between dynasties. But even in the empire there
is little equivalent in Greek writing of the same period (as even Aelius
Aristides’ Roman Orations or Plutarch’s attempt to explain the fortune
of the Romans shows). Similarly, despite Thucydides’ Archaeology,
which postulates progress from the past to what now obtains, and
despite Protagoras’ myth of the coming of dike in Plato’s Protagoras,
a sense of progress stretching into the future is not generally part of
the self-definition of Athenian technology or politics (unlike the poli
tics and technology of the nineteenth century).4 How the world might
change has a very limited range of expectation. Although a story of
the past can explain how things are as they are, man’s continuing and
present placement in time is not a pressing question.
So if we read through Hellenistic literature from the New Comedy
of Menander, through Callimachus, Theocritus and Apollonius, we
find little sense of an acute sense of placement within time - a sense
of a fundamental self-definition through history as constructed by
historiographers, although there are flashes of influence of historio
graphical texts in Apollonius in particular. Contrast this with Virgil,
whose intertextual reconstruction of Theocritus in the Eclogues is
distinguished precisely by its introduction of a political history, just
as the Aeneid, although it takes Apollonius as a model for Book IV
in particular, is quite different from Homer or Apollonius in its sense
of epic as a foundation of historical self-awareness. Aeneid VI’s vision
of the Underworld contrasts tellingly with Odyssey XI exactly in its
historical consciousness.
What strikes me as particularly interesting (especially in contrast
to the Victorian paradigm) is that while the historia of Herodotus
and Thucydides can and should be seen as part of the contest of dis
courses that make up the fifth-century polis, and while a tradition of
historiography subsequently develops as a genre, nonetheless there is
precious little influence of historiography in what we have been calling
4 Classic accounts in J. B. Bury, The Idea o f Progress: An Inquiry into its Origin
and Growth (London: Macmillan, 1920), and E. R. Dodds, The Ancient Concept
o f Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1973); see also S. Blundell, The Origins o f Civilization in Greek and Roman
Thought (London and Dover, NH: Croom Helm, 1986); T. Cole, Democritus
and the Sources o f Greek Anthropology (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve Press,
1967; repr. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), and esp. G. Lloyd, The Revolutions
o f Wisdom (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press,
1987).
historical consciousness outside the more narrowly circumscribed his
toriographical tradition in Greek writing (until Pausanias and perhaps
some other writing of the Second Sophistic: texts, that is, from deep
within the Roman Empire). There are, of course, exceptional and con
tentious cases, such as Plato’s Laws 3 or Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates.
Rather, it is rhetoric (and in some circles philosophy) that has a far
more insidious and powerful effect. It is the tradition and training of
rhetoric that continue to dominate the elite representation of the past
in Greek culture. So however we construct history without historians,
we can’t have history without rhetoric.
Simon Goldhill
II
One hundred years after the fundamental article of Felix Jacoby on
the development and growth of Greek historiography, the Leventis
conference organised by John Marincola in 2009 aimed at indirectly
illuminating its status by looking at ‘the vast variety of engagement
with the past that is everywhere visible in Greek culture’ (Marincola,
p. 13) and confronting that with the founding fathers of history,
Herodotus and Thucydides. The various chapters in this volume focus
on ‘hot’ (Assmann) or ‘intentional’ (Gehrke) ‘memory’ embedded in
various literary genres : archaic epic (Grethlein on Homer and Currie
on Hesiod, early lyric (Boedeker and Bowie), Pindar (Pavlou), tragedy
(Scodel and Romano), Old Comedy (Henderson), orators (Hesk)
and Plato (Morgan), visual arts of the fifth (Shapiro) and fourth
(Llewellyn-Jones) centuries, inscriptions of the fourth (Lambert) and
third (Shear) centuries bce. There are also two attempts to deal with
more unusual sites of memory: Kearns focus on the modalities of
sacrifices which ‘are taken to give information about ancient diets’
(p. 305) and Foxhall uses the marked loom weights found in the chora
of Metaponto to show us ‘Greek pasts below the radar of conven
tional historical texts’ (p. 183) and reconstruct a female past founded
largely on familial relationships. One is much tempted to ask for more
and to regret the absence of chapters devoted to later texts.
Such a collection invites us not only, after Strasburger and Bowie,
to enlarge our view of the ancestors of Greek historiography and
better contextualise historiography as a genre. It may also help us to
reconsider our conception of historical method (or methods), question
the opposition between the most ancient past - what we usually call
myth - and the recent one, and partly blur the boundaries between
historiography and other literary genres by pointing out the poetry
o f H e ro d o tu s ’ h isto ries, th e H e ro d o te a n co-existence o f v ario u s
logoi o n th e p a s t in H e sio d ’s Works and Days (C u rrie) o r th e use o f
fa m iliar h isto rical tro p e s in P la to ’s d iscourse o n th e p a s t (M o rg a n ).
L a st b u t n o t least, this ju x ta p o s itio n o f v ario u s c h a p te rs o ften leads
to suggestive a n d u n ex p e cted co n n ectio n s. I w o u ld like h ere to focus
o n th e ch a p te rs d ev o ted to lite rary texts a n d a tte m p t to ev a lu a te th eir
c o n trib u tio n to these questions.
W ith o u t q u estio n in g H o m e r’s statu s as th e first iaxopiKog (P lu tarch ,
Essay on the life andpoetry of Homer 74) b ecau se o f his to p ic (the Iliad
p u rp o rts to be a tru e n a rra tiv e g u a ra n te e d by divine eyew itnesses) a n d
his m im etic p re se n ta tio n o f events a n d c h a rac te rs (including th e use
o f d irect speeches), as well d e m o n stra te d by S trasb u rg e r, G re th le in
focuses o n th e H o m eric (m ostly Iliadic) view o f th e p a st, a p a s t in h a b
ited by h ero es w hose su p erio rity to th e m en o f to d a y (oioi vuv Ppoxoi
s ia ’: 4 x ) is ta k e n fo r g ra n te d a n d sep a rated fro m th e p re se n t o f the
p o e t a n d his audience by a n u n b rid g ea b le g u lf (all th e allusions to
‘m en o f th e fu tu re ’ o r ‘p o ste rity ’ are nev er fo u n d in th e n a rra tiv e b u t
o n ly in speeches). B esides this p a st, th ere is also a ‘p lu p a s t’ (G reth lein ),
th a t is, th e p rev io u s p a s t em b ed d e d in th e n a rra tiv e s o f th e w ra th o f
A chilles a n d th e re tu rn o f O dysseus. T his p a s t is relatively recent. It
u su ally stretches b a c k only o n e o r tw o g en eratio n s, excepting som e
genealogies w hich ex ten d to eight (A eneas), six (G lau co s) o r fo u r
(D io m ed es a n d T heoclym enes) g en eratio n s. B ut it is alw ays p o rtra y e d
as a fa raw a y tim e (the w ra th o f M eleager is ‘a n ac tio n o f o ld a n d n o t
a n ew th in g ’, Il. 9.5 2 7 -8 ) a n d its m en are u su ally ‘fa r b e tte r’ ( Il. 1.260)
th a n th e h ero es o f th e poem : only N e sto r, w ho belongs to fo rm e r
g en eratio n s, is able to lift his cu p a n d n o A c h aea n , w ith th e exception
o f A chilles, ca n w ield th e sp ear o f Peleus. T his su p erio rity , w hich is
on ly co n teste d tw ice in th e Iliad (4.404-6 a n d 15.641-3), ‘p ro v id es
ex em p la w ith special a u th o rity ’ (p. 19). A s o p p o se d to th e epic p a st,
w hich left n o tra c e w h a tso e v er in th e p re se n t o f th e audience (the w all
b u ilt by th e A ch aean s w as to ta lly erased by A p o llo n a n d P o seid o n in
Il. 12.13-33), this p lu p a st, m o stly k n o w n th ro u g h speeches echoing
th e tra d itio n , h a s left som e m a te ria l traces in th e epic p resent: objects
(in th e Iliad th e sceptre o f A g a m e m n o n , th e club o f E re u th a lio n , the
h elm et o f M erio n , th e corselet o f M eges, th e bow l o f silver w hich is th e
p rize o f th e fo o t race, o r in th e Odyssey th e b ow o f O dysseus), w alls
a n d u n id en tified stones. G rav es are also th e visible sign o f th e kleos o f
th e w a rrio r o r his v icto rio u s adversary.
T h e H esio d ic p a s t o f th e Works and Days is in som e w ays identical
w ith th e H o m eric one: its reality is g u a ra n te e d by th e M uses a n d it
is cu t fro m a n d c o n tra s te d to th e p re se n t in th e m y th o f P ro m eth eu s
a n d P a n d o ra , as well as in th e m y th o f th e races, w hich p o rtra y s five
discrete and successive races - a complex text subtly read by Currie.
On the other hand, the confrontation between Herodotus’ Histories
and the Works and Days also enables us to perceive some similarities
in purpose and method. In purpose, with the construction of a past
that illuminates the present from an ethical standpoint. In method,
with the implicit criticism of other accounts of the past (since the
Muses are not only able to tell the truth if they wish, but also to tell lies
similar to the truth), the concern to establish some coherence between
the discrepant Greek and Near Eastern accounts in the myth of the
races, and the inclusion of incompatible accounts of the past, such
as the myth and Prometheus and Pandora and the myth of the races,
even if one may be reluctant to push further the analogy and explain
their agreement on certain key points as a way of highlighting what
is meant to stand as historical fact and a prefiguration of Herodotus’
method, as did Currie.
As opposed to Homeric poems, in archaic lyric the present and
the poet come to the fore and one may point out some similari
ties with Herodotus. Boedeker reminds us that Stesichorus, in his
Palinode, exposed, before Herodotus’ new version of the Helen story
and Thucydides’ Archaeology, the lack of reliability of the Homeric
song, and Ibycus (fr. 151 PMGF) openly criticised the accuracy
of the Homeric Catalogue of Ships and chooses to celebrate the
beauty of three young heroes neglected or ignored by Homer in
order to praise the contemporary Polycrates better. Alcaeus, before
Herodotus, explicitly echoed ‘what is said’ (®g ^oyog, fr. 42 V v.1)
and ‘does not take responsibility for the tale’s veracity’ (p. 70). With
Sappho, ‘the present illuminates the past as much as the past does the
present’ (p. 76). In a sequel to his influential papers demonstrating
how several elegiac poets, who narrated at some length both the early
and the more recent past of their cities, were ‘ancestors of Herodotus’,
Bowie turns to the accounts of the most ancient past (that is, ‘myth’)
given by two melic poets originating from western Greece, Stesichorus
of Himera and Ibycus of Rhegium, and opposes their various ways
of reconstructing it. In order to emphasise his own Greekness,
Stesichorus often chose to tell some traditional Greek myths as well
as stories set in mainland Greece that bear no relation to the main
body of mythology. But he also told myths located in his native city
(Daphnis), whereas Ibycus relocated in Sicily well-known myths such
as the abduction of Ganymede or probably referred to the foundation
of his own city.
Pindar’s Epinicians are mostly concentrated on the present and
the praise of contemporary victorious athletes. But, as pointed out
by Pavlou, they give much place to a past which spans from myth
to contemporary history. In contrast to Homer and Hesiod, Pindar
replaced the Muses with tradition as the main source of information
and did not hesitate to criticise former accounts of the past openly.
He also broke with the linearity of the epic narrative and its presen
tation of a ‘past . . . “walled off” or cast as superior to the present’,
for his ‘primary concern was . . . to draw analogies between past and
present’ (pp. 105, 101) and to stress the continuity of the family, from
its mythical ancestors to the victor.
The two papers on tragedy (Scodel and Romano) both emphasise
in their own way the complexity of the tragic past where anachronism
is not the exception but the rule, to quote B. Knox. Scodel points
out obvious discrepancies in the portrait of the past by different
characters according to their self-interest in the Troades (Helen and
Hecuba) and in Sophocles’ Electra (Clytemnestra and Electra). She
establishes a convincing parallel between these tragic characters and
Herodotean figures who present versions of the past that make their
own nations appear guiltless. In the Troades, she draws attention to a
rational rewriting of Helen’s story by Hecuba, who treats Aphrodite
as a metaphor for Helen’s attraction to Paris, as did Gorgias in his
Helen, without denying, as the sophist did, Helen’s responsibility.
In the Orestes, Scodel also interprets Tyndareus’ claims that Orestes
should have followed a law established by the ancestors long ago by
prosecuting his mother and throwing her out of his house (494-5,
500-3, 512-15) as ‘a deliberate transfer of a contemporary kind of
argument about the past to a remote past’, specially appealing at a
time when ‘democrats and oligarchs both claimed ancestral support’
(pp. 119-20). On the other hand Romano, who questions any inter
pretation of Euripidean aetiologies of the prophetic form as a direct
exchange between playwright and audience, chooses to locate his
human seers (Polymestor in Hecuba and Eurystheus in the Heraclidae)
in the contemporary Athenian landscape of divination. In Iphigeneia
in Tauris he dismisses Orestes’ report of the foundation of Athenian
Choes as a kind of historical explanation and interprets it as a self
serving argument. He refuses any authoritative value to the predic
tions of divine speakers such as Artemis, Thetis and Apollo, since they
only reflect their character. Yet his conclusion suggest a convincing
parallel between these biased and subjective aetiologies and the his
torical discourse about foundations, which was also self-serving.
The chapters of Henderson on Old Comedy and Hesk on fourth-
century oratory provide us a glimpse of a ‘popular’ or, better,
‘civic’ past that contrasts with the allegedly scientific historiography.
Henderson attempts to define the Aristophanic past and its sources
by looking at four plays, Acharnians, Peace, Knights and Lysistrata ,
performed between 425 and 411. Obviously this past, known only by
hearsay (Trygaeus in the Peace and Lysistrata) or personal memories
(the chorus of old men in Lysistrata), has nothing to do with the one
reconstructed by the historians. Accordingly, Henderson excludes
any influence of Herodotus’ prologue on Ach. 523-9, which traces the
origin of the Peloponnesian War to reciprocal abduction of women.
His comparison between Thucydides’ explanation and the comic
presentation of the causes of the war by Dicaeopolis in Acharnians
and Hermes in Peace, both contrasting a trivial beginning with its
disastrous consequences, only allows us to measure the gap between
a critical historian, who looks for ‘the true though unavowed’ cause
of the war and minimises the importance of the Megarian decree
and ‘some other grounds of complaint’ (1.67.4) put forward by the
Megarians, and a comic poet relying on the popular view privileging
Pericles and the Megarian decree. Aristophanes also exposes a tenden
tious reading of the mythical or historical past: in Clouds (1075-92)
he criticises the use of mythological precedents by the Euripidean
characters, and condemns in Frogs (1049-55) the negative examples
he set by staging women committing adultery. Elsewhere his target
is the tendentious use of the Athenian past by orators. In Knights
the appeal to the great figures of Athenian past by contemporary
politicians, such as Creon’s self-comparison with Themistocles, is
deemed totally inapt. In Lysistrata he exposes the official depiction
of Athenian civic historical myths, such as that of the tyrant-slayers
Harmodius and Aristogiton, by the chorus of old men, as well as the
carefully edited version of the good old days where Athens and Sparta
were helping each other given by Lysistrata, and in Ecclesiazusae he
makes fun of the opposition between an idealised fifth-century past,
the time of Myronides, imbued with a deep commitment to the city,
and a present characterised by individual selfishness. The chapter by
Hesk on ‘Common Knowledge and the Contestation of History in
Some Fourth-Century Athenian Trials’ also looks at the uses of a
popular and civic past and strongly criticises Ober’s recent contention
that ‘a shared repertoire of common knowledge along with a commit
ment to democratic values meant that . . . jurors would often align in
more or less predictable ways’.5 Hesk convincingly demonstrates that
Athenian decision-making was informed by a much more sceptical
attitude. Through a reading of the few cases where we happen to have
the arguments used by both sides (Aeschines’ Against Timarchus and
its criticism later on by Demosthenes, On the Embassy; Aeschines’ and
Suzanne Said
III
The past mattered. It mattered already to Homer’s heroes, harking
back to those earlier days when mortals were better and stronger
(Grethlein); it mattered to Homer’s hearers and then his readers,
dwelling on that world when gods mingled more readily and visibly
on earth. It may have mattered to Epimenides, with his purification of
Athens (Marincola). It mattered to Pindar’s athletes, linked poetically
with their ancestors (Pavlou). It mattered to Sappho as she mused
first on Helen and then on Anactoria, and the two musings meshed
(Boedeker). It certainly matters in the plots of tragedy, where events
from the back-story hang heavily over play after play. It was how it
mattered that was difficult to track, and needed to be contested rhetor
ically. Enough was at stake for it to be worthwhile for tragic characters
to have their own heavily charged narratives of earlier happenings,
especially of their personal pasts (Scodel); for a ‘memory politics’ to
develop (Shear); and for fourth-century orators to produce their own
slanted version of how they, or their domestic or foreign enemies, fitted
into the long narrative of Athenian history (Hesk), where warfare may
have changed but the required resilience and commitment had not.
Importance, contestation, rhetoric: the three go together. And, what
ever view we form of the debt of other genres to historiography or the
differences between them, those three are constants in historiography
too. Herodotus’ programmatic homing-in on the aitie of the great war
(proem) becomes, at least initially, a discussion of who was to blame,
‘the Persian word-experts say that Phoenicians were aitioi for the rift’
(1.1.1): historiographic techniques of attaching or deflecting blame,
and crafting the narrative story to suit, have something in common
with the rhetorical deftness so clear in Antiphon’s Tetralogies, even
if the infrastructure of the argument is not usually laid so bare as it
is by Polybius in his attack on Fabius Pictor (3.8) - eikos arguments,
ad hominem questioning and so on. And, in historians as in orators,
silences can be as telling as words. Xenophon’s reader is not allowed
to know about the Second Athenian Confederacy, and we can trace
skilfully combative silences in Thucydides too: this was not Pericles’
war, not a matter of Megarian decrees; you needed to look further
back, to the 470s and to the first forty rather than the last ten of those
crucial fifty years. And all this was worth doing because a lot was at
stake. Understanding what was important about the present meant
delving into the past, and in ways where it could be anticipated that
people would disagree. Cases needed to be made.
So in one way no ‘bridge between past and present’ (Romano,
p. 130) needed building; it was already there, and it was the sort of
bridge, and where it led, that needed to be argued. Awareness of the
links did not, of course, mean blindness to the ways in which the past
had changed, whether in decline - not necessarily simple or linear
decline, as Hesiod (Currie) and Plato (Morgan) show - or in techni
cal progress or power structures or moral values. It is true, too, that
the aetiological explanations of tragedy are often counterintuitive or
problematic, and that some of tragedy’s prophecies imply future nar
ratives that are themselves contestable (Romano again), just as the
characters’ own past narratives are sometimes incompatible with one
another. But need it follow that talk of that ‘bridge between past and
present’ is inappropriate for such aetiological passages? One could
equally argue that the emotional engagement of particular speakers
with such partisan narratives, well brought out by Romano, implies
an even closer bridge: the present mattered to the past, just as the past
still matters to the present. If some of the aetiological suggestions seem
rum or off-key, then that is no surprise. They can seem rum or off-key
to characters in the play as well, morally if not factually, as they do
to Electra, Orestes, and the chorus at Eur. El. 1292ff; one suspects too
that Hippolytus might have found cold comfort in Artemis’ promise of
a marital hair-cutting custom at Hipp. 1423-30, marking the moment
when girls give up the virginity that was his pride. Relating the mythi
cal past to the present may be as unstraightforward for the tragic
audience as relating their own pasts to the dramatic present is for the
characters within the plays themselves; the aetiological passages may
well be selective as well as partisan, with their unsettling elements and
their half-truths; but the relation can still be there, and the texture of
explanation can be right even if one knows that the particular details
may not be. It points to the right place to look.
But surely - one might say - incompatible versions of the past
cannot all be true? Surely historiography has more of a commitment
to truth, to ironing out inconsistencies in one’s conceptual scheme of
how the past came about? This raises the point addressed by Currie, as
he reflects on the various versions of the past in Works and Days and
the complications in putting them altogether into a coherent scheme:
how far does this imply ‘a discourse with truth-values’ (p. 57)? That
recalls the fundamental question posed by Paul Veyne - not so much
as it is put in his book’s title, Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?,1
but rather, did they believe in their myths in a different way from the
way they believed in the truth or falsity of more everyday matters? It is
doubtless right to think that, say, the ‘myth’ of the origin of justice in
Plato’s Protagoras or the ‘social contract’ theory set out in Republic 2
are not to be taken as a literally accurate reconstruction of past events.
Morgan shows in this volume how ‘diachronic presentation in Plato
can sometimes be a heuristic device for untangling a complex syn
chronic reality’ (p. 234, citing Frutiger). Cynthia Farrar also had good
things to say about this in her Origins of Democratic Thinking, par
ticularly (again) in connection with Plato’s Protagoras.8 Something
similar may be true of Hesiod’s myth of the ages (Currie), though
there we will be dealing not so much with ‘a complex synchronic
reality’ as with a simplified model of diachronic development, one
which produces a fable-version which reflects but drastically reduces
the complexities of real history. Such a picture may indicate the deep
structure embedded in the messiness of historical reality, it may be
what that historical progress amounted to; it acknowledges that a
sophisticated cultural feature is a consequence of development over
time and helps you to understand that development, and it is histori
cal in that it shows a sense of the importance of history; but it does
not imply that everything really happened in quite so toy-town a way.
It may capture a truth, but does so in an idiom that invites belief in a
different way, more symbolic than literal.
10 Henderson assumes there was some genuine recent ‘episode involving fights
over whores between young Athenians and Megarians’: that is the point where we
part company (C. B. R. Pelling, Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London
and New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 153-4).
11 Gould, Herodotus.
12 T. Rood, ‘Herodotus’ proem: Space, time, and the origin of international
relations’, ApiaSvq 16 (2010), pp. 43-74, at pp. 56-8.
of the suitor-contests of the Odyssey and, more especially, Pelops’
wooing of Hippodameia, with Cleisthenes’ clash with Hippocleides
a less murderous equivalent of prospective father-in-law and son-in-
law; Thucydides’ version of the Sicilian adventure may be a complex
and godless and unsettling version of the traditional nexus ate-hubris-
nemesis;13 the Liberation of the Cadmeia in 378 reruns the Seven
Against Thebes in contemporary terms (Xen. Hell. 5.4.1-12).14 None
of those counterparts is exact or one-to-one, but in each case histo
rians borrow and ‘build on’ a mythical model, and reflection on that
model can help their readers to reflect on both the continuities and the
differences of history.
So historiography is a capacious way of writing. There are moods
and contexts in which historians can distinguish what they do from
‘the mythical’, as Thucydides does in waving to away from
his own writing (1.22.4), or indeed as Herodotus does in doubting the
presence of Helen at Troy. There are also moods and contexts where
historians approximate much more closely to the ways in which other
writers and genres handle traditional material. In historiography too
we see the combination of generalisation and homing-in on particular
moments (Llewellyn-Jones), as particular case studies are made to
support a broader patterning that in its turns adds credibility to the
inflection given to the case studies (Kearns); the alertness to parti
san bias (Romano) in weighing variant versions, and the likelihood
that evaluation of a character will guide our readiness to believe his
or her story (Scodel); the importance of family traditions in mould
ing and preserving memory (Foxhall); an awareness of the fragility
of historical knowledge (Morgan), so that there are times when one
accepts that knowledge may have disappeared, ‘wiped out through
the passing of time’ (Hdt. proem), so that the distant past may only be
recovered ‘sufficiently, given how long ago it happened’ (Thuc. 1.21.1,
cf. 1.1.3 and Morgan, p. 232); an acknowledgement of particular vari
ations which may reflect local manipulation for ideological reasons
(Shapiro), but may also point to the multifaceted quality of human
experience itself, just as - to take the most extreme case - Helen herself
remains as ambiguous and variegated as she ever was, and as capable
of inspiring differing responses (Boedeker). The past may rhyme with
the present but not in ways that correspond exactly (Shear), and that
is why inspirational lessons may be learned (Lambert) but with some
Christopher Pelling
INDEX LOCORUM
I. LITERARY SOURCES
ph
su
elT
el
1028 134 fr. 393 129 n. 8 2.146 238
1038-40 134 2.156 5n. 10
Trojan Women 2.156.3 127 n. 1
Hippolytus 13-14 129 n. 8, 172 3.1-87 327
29-33 129 n. 8 n. 37 3.12 127n.1
1419 136 919-22 122 3.29 35n.72
1423 136 955-60 120 3.32 57 n. 84
1423-30 360 991-7 121 3.33 35
998-1001 120 3.38.1-4 61
Hippolytus Veiled 1012-14 120 3.39-60 35
fr. 429 129 n. 8 1015-19 121 3.40.2 35 n. 71
1020-2 121 3.80.1 362
Ion 3.80-2 362
661-2 129 n. 8 Hecataeus of Miletus 3.108 127n. 1
1577-81 129 n. 8 (FGrHist 1) 3.120-5 35
F 1a 9 n. 19, 145 3.125.2 35 n. 71
Iphigeneiaat Aulis F 27 232 3.126.1 56 n. 81
90 125 FF 26-7 57 4.43 127n. 1
1262 125 F 305 5n. 10 4.205 35, 56n. 81
5.25 322
Iphigeneiaamong the Hellanicus of Lesbos 5.57.1 191 n. 31
Taurians (FGrHist 323a) 5.77 161
532-4 70 n. 21 F 24 19 n. 15 5.90 7
711 136n. 26 6.34-41 190
939-86 139 Heraclitus (D-K 22) 6.43.2 362
947-60 305 n. 9 B40 62 6.61-2 68 n. 16
958-60 130 B42 109n. 57 6.84.3 56 n. 81
1128 136n. 26 B 56 109n. 57 6.103-4 189-90
1458-61 307 n. 15 B 57 109n. 57 6.105 67 n. 6, 163
1459 137 B 63 51 n. 57 6.109 190
B94 56 n. 81 6.121-4 362
Melanippe the Wise 6.126-31 363
fr. 484 129 n. 8, 157 Herodotus 6.131 191 n. 30
proem 34 6.132-6 190
Orestes 1.1 232 n. 6 6.140 190
491-539 113 1.1.1 360, 364 7.6 7
494-5 114, 356 1.1-4 363 7.26.3 323n. 17
500-3 114, 356 1.4 19 7.66 322
512-15 115, 356 1.5 245 7.125 127n. 1
536 116 1.61 193 7.136 335
580-4 117 1.91 127n. 1 7.152.3 54
591-9 117 1.96-101 362 8.17 191 n. 30
891 117 1.116 359 8.94 362
1058-9 116 2.25-6 127n. 1 8.105 56 n. 81
1643-7 129 n. 8 2.43-4 60 8.128 127n. 1
1660-1 116 2.44.5 60, 61, 63 8.129 127n. 1
1666-7 137 2.47.2 127n. 1 9.8 127n. 1
1669 137 2.48.3 127n. 1 9.27 177
2.51.4 127n. 1 9.33.3 133
Phoenician Women 2.55-7 57 9.73 173n. 39, 311
396 70 n. 21 2.62.2 127n. 1 n. 25
854-7 133 2.81.2 127n. 1 9.93 127n. 1
2.112-20 34
Phrixos 2.120 362 Hesiod
fr. 819 129 n. 8 2.120.5 34 Catalogue of Women
2.121ff. 41 Fr. 10(a).18 42
Suppliants 2.142.1 41, 59 Fr. 204.98 41 n. 23
680 176n. 45 2.142-3 100 n. 15, 238, Fr. 234 45 n. 40
Fragments 129 47 n. 47 280-5 48
Fr. 283 107 n. 45 130-1 43 618-94 49
Fr. 358 67 n. 9 134-5 43, 44 n. 32 632-62 49
135-6 53 634 49
Theogony 135-7 43 638 49
21 41 138 44 n. 32, 53 650-1 49
22-34 49 n. 53 140 38 n. 7, 40 651-3 49
26-8 52 n. 13 654 49
27-8 241-8 141 61 655-6 49
30-1 67 143 38 n. 7, 40 658-9 49 n. 53
33 41 n. 13, 41 661 49
44 41 n. 23 702-5 53
50 41 143-51 45
105 41 144 47 n. 47 Hesychius
148-50 80 145 45 s.v. r|yr|Tr|pia 314n. 31
161 42 146 44
192 53 n. 71 150-1 45 Himerius
498-500 63 151 46 Or. 27.27 90 n. 21
535 53 152-3 44
535-61 303 n. 5 154 50 Homer
538-41 53 156 38 n. 7, 40 Iliad
590 42 n. 13 1.250-2 40
1011-16 43 n. 26 158 47 1.259-64 15
159 38 n. 7, 40 1.260 354
Works andDays n. 13, 61 1.260-72 40
10 52 160 38 n. 7, 40, 43 1.261-7 102 n. 24
11-12 42 n. 26 1.271-2 16
42 53 161-5 44, 48 1.474 21 n. 28
47 53 163 44 2.1-282 68 n. 12
48-105 37, 52 164-5 49 2.484-93 80
50 53 166 47 2.485-6 108n. 47
57 53 166-8 51, 53 2.552 167
61 45 n. 40 167 47 2.554 167
81-2 63 170 48 2.556 167
90 41 n. 21 172 48 2.557-8 169
94-104 53 172-3 48 2.565 322
96-9 53 173a 48 2.707 102 n. 24
106-8 37 173d 40 n. 13 2.732 305 n. 9
106-201 37 174 40 2.852 41
107 63 174-5 51 n. 60 3.103-4 304 n. 6
108 38 n. 4, 51 176 38 n. 7, 40, 41 3.144 169
n. 60 n. 17 3.146 322
109 38 n. 7, 40 179 53 n. 71, 54, 58 3.173-5 76
n. 13, 41 n. 89 3.173-80 72 n. 26
n. 17, 41 180 38 n. 7, 40 3.351ff. 102 n. 23
n. 23, 45 n. 13, 41 3.351-4 25
111 48 n. 23 4.51-3 39
111-12 53 183 44 4.123 17 n. 10
112 48 184 44 4.372-5 18
115 48 195-201 53 4.404-6 354
115-16 53 n. 71 199 41 n. 21 4.405 40
116-17 48 202 37 4.485 n. 15
117 48 202-12 56 5.302-4 17
119 53 n. 71 225-47 48 5.441-2 41 n. 21
121 38 n. 7, 40 231 48 5.636-7 40
n. 13 236 48 5.638-42 23 n. 37
121-6 63 237 48 5.703 105 n. 37
127 38 n. 7, 40 239 44 n. 32 5.801-11 18
n. 13, 47 240 51 6.48 17 n. 9
n. 47 245 44 n. 32 6.146-9 27
128 45 246-7 48 6.344-58 72 n. 26
6.352ff. 102 n. 23 24.524-33 27 Ibycus
6.444-6 18 24.543-6 39 S151 76-81, 91
6.476-81 18 24.614-17 63 n. 22, 355
6.859-61 30 S151.4 79
7.87-91 23 Odyssey S151.5 81
7.87ff. 102 n. 23 1.32-4 26 S151.8-9 79
7.141 17 1.154 21 S151.10-11 79
7.161 168 1.302 102 n. 23 S151.16-17 80
7.451-3 23 1.325-7 21 S151.20-2 80
7.473 17n. 9 1.340-1 21 S151.21 80 n. 47
8.273 105 n. 37 1.347 21 n. 28 S151.23-4 79
8.300-8 27 1.422 21 n. 28 S151.25-6 79
9.189 21 n. 28 4.145 72 n. 26 S151.27-31 79
9.524-99 18 4.235-89 121 S151.31 80
9.527-8 16, 354 5.245 38 n. 6 S151.32-4 91
10.261-70 22 n. 32 8.33-6 21 S151.33 80
10.265 38 n. 6 8.72-82 21 S151.46-8 81
10.379 17n. 10 8.91 21 n. 28 S151.48 79
10.414-16 23 8.266-366 21 S166 85 n. 8
11.133 18n. 11 8.367-9 21 S166-S219 91 n. 23
11.241-7 28 8.368 21 n. 28 S176.18 91 n. 24
11.602-4 29 8.429 21 n. 28 S220 91
11.632-7 17 8.432-3 22 S221 92 n. 30
11.692-5 80 8.499-520 21 S222 91 n. 26
12.3-33 16, 24 8.521-31 21 S223(a).6-7 92 n. 28
12.15-33 39, 354 8.542 21 n. 28 S227 93
12.23 40 n. 13, 43 9.196-11 22 n. 34 282A Campbell 85 n. 8
n. 26 9.224ff. 32
12.256-62 24 11.100-37 32 Isocrates
12.319-412 169 11.367-9 21 4.7-10 207 n. 4
12.381-3 17 11.368 37, 38 n. 6 4.28 313 n. 28
12.445-9 17, 102 12.37-110 32 4.140 322
14.55-6 24 12.188 21 n. 28 4.145 324 n. 21
14.250-6 23 n. 37 13.393-415 32 5.42 324
15.25-30 23 n. 37 16.381-2 116 5.90 324 n. 21
15.361-6 24 17.341 38 n. 6 5.99-100 324-5
15.641-3 354 17.385 21 n. 28 6.42 20
16.46-7 30 17.518-21 21 9.23 328
16.140-4 17 17.606 21 n. 28 9.37 328
16.684-7 30 18.304 21 n. 28 9.56-7 291 n. 69
17.201-3 30 20.212 41 9.58 324 n. 21
18.34 n. 16 21.11-41 22 12.49ff. 328
18.95-6 31 21.44 38 n. 6 12.104 207 n. 4
19.387-91 17 21.405-9 21 n. 23 12.106 328 n. 30
19.420-3 31 21.430 21 12.149-50 207 n. 4
20.144-8 23 22.330 21 12.157-8 324
20.213-41 15 23.197 38 n. 6 12.161 328
20.285-7 17 12.162 328 n. 30
20.300-8 43 n. 26 Homeric Hymns 12.189 328
21.405 61 ToDemeter 16.12-14 290 n. 65
21.441-7 23 310 41 n. 23 16.18 324 n. 21
22.442-6 31 386-440 193-4
23.261 17n. 9 Josephus
23.30 17n. 9 ToHermes Against Apion
23.326 24 309 41 1.6-13 7
23.331-3 24 533-8 136 n. 26
23.332 61 Justin
23.790 61 Hyginus 10.3.2 319 n. 4
23.834 17n. 9 79 173n. 39 10.3.2-5 340
23.850 17n. 9
24.257 80 n. 48
Livy 2.64 295n. 86 10.10.3 84 n. 4
31.44.4-9 298 n. 99 12.57-8 290 n. 65
13.47 290 n. 65 Phanodemus (FGrHist 325)
Lucian 14.33 290 n. 65 F 14 305 n. 9, 307
Dialogues of the Courtesans 24.25 290 n. 65 n. 15
7.4 313 n. 30 25.18 290 n. 65
25.20-2 290 n. 65 Pherecrates
Lucretius 26.2 290 n. 65 F 11 PCG 273
5.1241-2 45 n. 37 fr. 165.34-8 290 n. 65
5.1281-96 45 n. 37 Pherecydes (FGrHist 3)
Menander F2 102 n. 25,
Lycurgus Dyskolos 191-2
Against Leocrates (1) 447-53 303 n. 5 F 59 102 n. 25
16 210, 214
25 214 Epitrepontes Philochorus (FGrHist 328)
26 214 415-17 307 n. 15 F 67 281 n. 29
31 218 F 121 149
46-9 213 Imbrioi F 167 281 n. 29
50 213 test. 1PCG 279 n. 13 F 173 304 n. 7
51-2 213
53 211 n. 17 Samia Philostratus
55 216 21-46 193 Imagines
55-9 216 2.31 336
57 214 fr. 142 303 n. 5
60 211 Photius
63-7 211 Moschion (TgrF97) s.v. r|yr|Tr|pia 314n. 31
68 216 Themistocles
68-74 213 F1 331 Pindar
68-9 216 Dithyrambs
70 217 Moschus 2.24 111
71 217 2.8.15 334 75.13 111
74 213
75-9 213 Nepos Fragments
80-2 213 Themistocles fr. 150 111
82 213 9.5 336 fr. 52f.6 111
83-8 213
89 213 Orphica Isthmians
92 213 fr. 216 Bernabe 51 n. 57 1.13 97 n. 7
92-3 213 1.64-5 106
95-7 213 Parthenius 6.19 103n. 27
97 213 Erotika Pathemata 6.45 182 n. 65
98-101 213 29 90 6.66-7 107 n. 43
102-8 213 8.32-6 104n. 30
108-10 213 Pausanias 8.57-8 106
110 213, 215 1.1.2 173 8.65 97 n. 9
111-23 213 1.3.2-3 291n. 69
116 214 1.18.1-3 312 n. 26 Nemeans
117-19 215 1.23.8 172 n. 37 1.34 97 n. 7
123 213 1.25.7 279 nn. 13, 15 2.6-7 102
124-6 213 1.26.1 280 n. 28 3.12-17 104n. 33
126-7 287 n. 53 1.26.1-2 294 n. 83 3.19 79 n. 41
127 213 1.26.1-3 294 n. 85 3.31 96
128-9 213 1.29.10 279 n. 14 4.46-53 103n. 27
132 213 1.29.13 294 n. 82 4.91-2 108n. 48
141-9 211 1.29.16 261 nn. 11, 12 5.5.22-3 106
2.20.5 322 5.8 n. 33
Lysias 3.16.7-11 307 n. 15 5.14—18 110 n. 64
1.20 193 6.5.7 343 5.16-18 111
2.27 324 7.5.13 87 n. 14 6.36 97 n. 9
2.61 290 n. 65 8.14.5-6 305 n. 9 6.42 97 n. 9
2.63 295 n. 88 8.34.1-3 305 n. 9 7.14—16 111
7.20 109 4.3 106 683e 247
7.20-3 110 n. 60 4.10 99 683e-684a 247
7.24-7 104n. 30 4.25-6 98 684d-e 247
7.38-47 138 n. 32 4.42-57 104n. 30 685b-c 248
7.47 138 4.47-9 99 686a 136 n. 26, 248
7.77-9 112 n. 68 4.48 99 n. 12 688d 248
7.78 106 4.65 99 691d 248
7.84 107 n. 42, 112 4.104 98 697c 326
n. 68 4.131-3 98 698b 250 n. 43
8.18 97 n. 7 4.277-8 107 n. 43 713b-e 234
9.11 97 n. 7 5.60-2 104 782c-d 305 n. 11
9.13 97 n. 7 5.96-103 103n. 28 782d 305 n. 12
9.52 97 n. 9 6.21 107 n. 42
10.25 97 n. 9 6.21-3 107 Meno
10.26 106 6.22 107 n. 44 81a 303 n. 4
10.83-8 104n. 30 6.43 102 n. 22
8.27-8 41 n. 19 Phaedo
Olympians 8.33 102 n. 22 99a 127n. 1
1.26b-27 62 n. 105 9.5 97 n. 7 114d 251
1.28-9 110 n. 60 9.59-65 96 n. 5
1.36 103 n. 27, 109 9.94-6 107 n. 43 Phaedrus
1.46 98 9.105 97 n. 7 229b-e 251
1.90 102 n. 22 243a-b 66
1.112 106 Plato 243b 68
2.15-17 109 n. 53 Alcibiades 244c 136n. 26
3.4-6 105 n. 36 121b 328 258c 327 n. 23
3.13 97 n. 7 123c-d 328
6.24-5 41 n. 19 123c 324 n. 21 Republic
6.35-45 96 n. 5 364b-c 132 n. 14
6.71-3 102 Cratylus 364e-365a 133n. 16
7.21 109 398a4-6 46 n. 41 376c-398b 155n. 28
7.30, 34 97 398a8-b1 51 n. 57 382c-d 241, 243 n. 25
7.54 107 n. 42 382d 241
7.55 97 n. 7 Critias 414b-415d 240
7.71 98 109d-110a 236-7 468e4-469a3 51 n. 57
8.78-80 103 498c-d 228
9.9 97 n. 7 Epistles 501a 240
9.35-41 110 n. 64 320d 327 n. 23 540d-541a 240
9.42-6 45 n. 40 332a-b 326 n. 23 546a 233
9.47-9 112 n. 68 565d 306n. 13
9.49 102 n. 22 Euthyphro 608c-d 228
9.94 79 n. 41 3c 136 n. 26
10.31 98 Statesman
10.35-6 98 Gorgias 257d 187
14.20-4 103 n. 28 516 148a n. 11 268d-269c 228
269c-271a 229
Paeans Hipparchus 271a-d 229
5.45 111 228B-229D 166n. 19 272b-d 235 n. 13
6.6 111 273a-e 233
6.103-20 138 n. 32 Laws 273e-274a 229
639c-698a 325-6
Parthenion 677a-c 43 n. 27, 230-1 Timaeus
1.5-6 111 676c 244 19b-c 229
677a 231 21a 243, 249
Pythians 677b-d 237 22a-23a 43 n. 27
1.16 97 n. 7 679c 237 22a-b 60
1.17 102 n. 22 682e 246 22b 239
2.58 98 682e-683a 246 22b-c 236
3.38-46 96 n. 5 683a 249 22b-d 230
3.74 97 683a-b 246 22c-e 239
3.89-91 106 683c-d 246 22d 235
23a-b 235 851E 283 n. 42, 297 Sophocles
23e 60 n. 96 Ajax
26c-d 244, 249 851F 289 n. 59 569 182 n. 65
26e 244 851F 280 n. 25
852 263-4, 275 Electra
Plutarch 852B 261 n. 11 256-7 125
Lives 523-4 126
Alcibiades [Plutarch] 525 126
19.3 190 Essay on the Life andPoetry 535-41 123
22.4 190 of Homer 549-50 126
74 354 561-2 125
Cimon 563-5 124
7 162 Polybius 566 123
7.5 166 3.8 360 570-1 123
8.5-6 160 n. 1 575 123
Porphyry 619-21 126
Demetrius de abstinentia
8.4-7 278 n. 6 2.10 308 n. 16 Trachiniae
9.3 278 n. 7 2.29-30 308 n. 16 274-9 124
10.4-11.1 278 n. 9
12.1-2 280n. 22 Proclus Stesichorus
13.1-3 280n. 21 Chrestomathy fr. 277 86
24.6-11 278 n. 9 1 80 n. 48 fr. 192 66-9
26.1-4 278 n. 9 fr. 193 86 n. 10
30.4 279 n. 12 Sappho fr. 223 90
33.1 279 nn. 13-14 fr. 1 67 fr. 278 86
33.1-34.1 279 n.16 fr. 16 69, 73-6, 82
33.8 279 n. 13 fr. 16.11 75 Strabo
34.5 280 n. 18 fr. 16.6-7 76 8.3.20 86
34.6-7 279 n. 17 fr. 16.7-8 76 8.6.19 135
fr. 98a 194
Pericles fr. 98b 194 Synagoge Lexeon Chresimon
30.4 150 fr. 132 194 (Bekker, Anecdota GraecaI)
31-2 148 fr. 166 107 n. 42 445.1-13 305 n. 9
Solon Tacitus
10 19 n. 17 Scholiasts Agricola
ad Lycophron 513 173 44 39
Themistocles n. 39
10 172n. 36 ad Apoll. Rhod. 3.114-17 Theocritus
29.5-6 336 92 n. 29 1.64-9 88
7.72-5 89
Theseus Semonides 7.73 89
17.6 173 fr. 7 46 8.93 89 n. 17
33.2 311 n. 25
34-5 173 Servius Theodectas (TgrF72)
36.1-2 160 n. 1 ad Aen. 2.61 173 n. 39 Mausolus
ad Aen. 6.21 173 n. 39 T 6-7 331
Moralia 173 n. 39
A
n.
21
ad
e
6.
III. PAPYRI
P. Oxy. 1399 331 n. 36 P. Oxy. 1790 see Ibycus P. Oxy. 2082 fr. 1 279
P. Oxy. 1235.105-12 279 S151 n. 14
n. 13 P. Oxy. 2081 see Ibycus P. Oxy. 2082 fr. 2 279
S151 n. 14
Daniel 2:31-45 39
Daniel 2:32-6 59
Daniel 2:39-41 59
Mahabharata 3.148 39, 59
Mahabharata 3.187 39, 59
INDEX