Tragedy and Archaic Greek Thought

313 Pages·2013·2.47 MB·English

by  Douglas Cairns (Editor)

T
RAGEDY
AND
A G
RCHAIC REEK
T
HOUGHT
Editor
Douglas Cairns
Contributors
William Allan, Douglas Cairns, P. E. Easterling,
Fritz-Gregor Herrmann, Vayos Liapis, Michael Lloyd,
Richard Seaford, Alan H. Sommerstein
The Classical Press of Wales
First published in 2013 by
The Classical Press of Wales
15 Rosehill Terrace, Swansea SA1 6JN
Tel: [phone]
www.classicalpressofwales.co.uk
Distributor in the United States of America
ISD, LLC
70 Enterprise Dr., Suite 2, Bristol, CT 06010
Tel: [phone]
www.isdistribution.com
© 2013 The authors
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the
publisher.
ISBN 978-1-910589-16-8
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Typeset, printed and bound in the UK by Gomer Press, Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales
–––––––––––––––––
The Classical Press of Wales, an independent venture, was founded in 1993, initially to support the work
of classicists and ancient historians in Wales and their collaborators from further afield. More recently it
has published work initiated by scholars internationally. While retaining a special loyalty to Wales and
the Celtic countries, the Press welcomes scholarly contributions from all parts of the world.
The symbol of the Press is the Red Kite. This bird, once widespread in Britain, was reduced
by 1905 to some five individuals confined to a small area known as ‘The Desert of Wales’ –
the upper Tywi valley. Geneticists report that the stock was saved from terminal inbreeding
by the arrival of one stray female bird from Germany. After much careful protection, the Red
Kite now thrives – in Wales and beyond.
CONTENTS
Page
Preface vii
Introduction: Archaic Thought and Tragic Interpretation ix
Douglas Cairns (University of Edinburgh)
1 Ate¯ in Aeschylus 1
AlanH.Sommerstein(UniversityofNottingham)
2 Aeschylus, Herakleitos, and Pythagoreanism 17
RichardSeaford(UniversityofExeter)
3 Eteocles’ Decision in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes 39
Fritz-GregorHerrmann(SwanseaUniversity)
4 Creon the Labdacid: Political Confrontation and the 81
Doomed Oikos in Sophocles’ Antigone
Vayos Liapis (Open University of Cyprus)
5 Divine and Human Action in the Oedipus Tyrannus 119
DouglasCairns
6 ‘Archaic’ Guilt in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus and
Oedipus at Colonus 173
William Allan (University of Oxford)
7 Sophocles and the Wisdom of Silenus: A Reading of 193
Oedipus at Colonus 1211–48
P. E. Easterling (University of Cambridge)
8 The Mutability of Fortune in Euripides 205
MichaelLloyd(UniversityCollegeDublin)
Bibliography 227
Indices 253
v
PREFACE
ThisvolumehasitsgenesisinaconferenceheldinEdinburghinJune2008
andorganizedbymyselfandMichaelLurje.IamgratefultoMichaelforhis
role in making the conference a success and to the School of History,
Classics,andArchaeology(Edinburgh),theClassicalAssociation,andthe
SocietyforthePromotionofHellenicStudiesforfinancialsupport.Several
of the papers delivered at the conference could, for various reasons, not
be published here, but the conference itself was greatly enriched by
the participation of Alex Garvie, Lutz Käppel, Michael Lurje, Scott
Scullion, Simon Trépanier, and Robert Zaborowski. Alex Garvie’s paper
wasincorporatedintotheintroductiontohiseditionofAeschylus’Persae
(Garvie2009),andSimonTrépanier’sappearedaspartofalargerstudyin
J.N.BremmerandA.Erskine(eds),TheGodsofAncientGreece:Identitiesand
transformations (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 5, Edinburgh 2010) 273–317.
Thesediscussionsareavaluablecomplementtothepaperscollectedhere,
allofwhichhavebeenthoroughlyrevisedforpublicationtogetherintheir
currentform.
Contributors have been allowed their preferences in the spelling of
GreeknamesandtransliterationofGreekwords,andsothereisvariation
between chapters in that regard (e.g. Tiresias in one chapter, Teiresias in
another;hybris,butalsohubris).Referencestoancientauthorsandworksare
forthemostpartthosegiveninLSJ,withoccasional(butwhollyfamiliar)
deviationsandexpansionsintheinterestsofintelligibility.
For their assistance in the production and editing of this volume I am
greatly indebted to Anton Powell, to Louise Jones of Gomer Press,
typesetter, to John Holton for his help with the Index Locorum, and to
myResearchAssistantduringmystayatFloridaStateUniversityinSpring
2012, Travis King. My thoughts on the Antigone, some of which are
reflectedintheIntroductiontothiswork,weregreatlyinspiredbytheFSU
graduateclassofwhichTraviswasamember.ToreadSophocles’playwith
thatlivelyandindustriousgroupofcommittedyoungscholarswasoneof
thegreatpleasuresofmycareer.Iammostgratefultothemfortheirwork
andtheirwelcome,andtomycolleaguesinClassicsatFSUforinvitingme
andformakingmystaysucharewardingexperience.
DLC
Edinburgh
June2012
vii
INTRODUCTION: ARCHAIC THOUGHT
AND TRAGIC INTERPRETATION
Douglas Cairns
1.General
The impetus behind this volume is the claim that the understanding of
archaic Greek thought is an indispensable aspect of the interpretation of
Greektragedytowhichresearchersmustnowreturn.Sincethe1980s,the
focusofmuchscholarlydiscussionofGreektragedyhasbeenontheplays’
contemporarycivic,political,ritual,andperformativecontexts.1Thisshift
wasessentialandhasprovedsalutary,yieldingmanyenduringinsightsnot
onlyintotragedy’scontexts,butalsointoitscontent.Behindthismovement
layaclearsensethatthetraditionalemphasisontheinterpretationofthe
primary intellectual, religious, and ethical aspects of tragedy had, for the
meantime,runitscourse.Thissenseseemstopersist.Arecentandvaluable
collectionofessaysonSophocleseditedbySimonGoldhillandEdithHall
(published in honour of one of the present volume’s most distinguished
contributors)hasanintroductorychapterentitled‘Sophocles:thestateof
play’.2 Yet the approaches that the authors regard as current and topical
(concentrating on politics, performance, linguistic ambiguity, and
reception,pp.19–20)havenowbeencurrentformorethan30years,firmly
inthetraditionofwhatThomasRosenmeyeralreadyin1993referredtoas
‘theneworthodoxy’.3GoldhillandHallthemselvestracetheshiftinfocus
to the seminal works of intellectual history cum structuralism collected in
thevolumesofVernantandVidal-Naquet;butthesedatetothe1960sand
1970s.4 For Goldhill and Hall (and, as they rightly imagine, p. 12, most
scholars of their generation) the classics of interpretative scholarship on
Sophocles remain, as they were in the 1980s, the works of Reinhardt,
Bowra,Kitto,Knox,Whitman,andWinnington-Ingram.5
Thegulfthatishereidentified–bytwoscholarswhoseownworkhas
been influential in shifting the focus of research on tragedy – is in many
respectsarealone.Butitisagulfthatcannotbeleftunbridged.Thesense
thatthereareclassicinterpretationsofSophoclesinparticularoroftragedy
ingeneraldoesnotmerelyreflectthenaivetyandreactionaryconservatism
ofthoseclassicistswhoareuncomfortablewithexcitingnewtheoriesand
methods, but involves a recognition that there is abiding worth in
approaches from which those who wish to position themselves at the
cutting edge of scholarship have largely turned away. Yet whatever the
ix
DouglasCairns
insightsofclassicscholarshipmaybe,theyossifyiftheyarenotsubjected
to repeated questioning and criticism. Not much of this is happening.
Abandoned as the focus of primary research, the discussion of tragedy’s
roots in the popular and philosophical thought of archaic Greece, if it
occurs at all, has been left largely to undergraduate textbooks and
companions(manyofwhichareintheirowntermsofveryhighquality).
Theseagain,forsuchissues,relyontheclassicworksofthepast.Thegreat
interpretativescholarshipofthenineteenthandearliertwentiethcenturies,
scholarship that grappled intensively with tragedy’s place in the
developmentofGreekthought,isnolongerpartofthetoolkitwithwhich
the scholar seeks to come to terms with the meaning of tragic texts, but
instead has become the focus of reception studies, of the history of
interpretation,andofthesociologyofknowledge.6Therearemanyreasons
forthis:chiefamongthemisnodoubttheanthropologicalturntakenby
classical scholarship in the period under discussion, but (at least in the
United Kingdom) the premium placed on novelty in an environment of
increasinglyintensecompetitionforPhDscholarshipsandexternalresearch
grants has also played a substantial role, as has the rise of non-linguistic
ClassicalCivilizationdegreeprogrammes,encouragingashiftfromtextual
to broader cultural questions, as well as factors such as the declining
knowledgeofGermanamongAnglophonestudentsandscholars.
This volume does not advocate a return to some lost golden age of
classicscholarship.Butitscontributorsdomaintainthatclassicscholarship
on tragedy focuses on questions that are essential for any interpretative
approachtothegenre,questionsrootedintragedy’soriginsinandresponses
toitstraditionalbackgroundinarchaicGreekthought–questionsofthe
roleofthegodsandfateinhumanaction;ofthejusticeorotherwiseofthe
gods and of the world over which they preside; of the causes of human
sufferingandofthestability,indeedofthenatureandpossibilityofhuman
happiness.Wecannotsimplyregardsuchissuesassettled:oldanswerswill
nolongersuffice,butoldquestionsremainliveandneedtobeanswered
inourowncontemporaryterms.Ifthereisonethingthatunitesusinour
professionasscholarsandteachersitissurelythatallorthodoxies,oldand
new,needtobesubjectedtocontinuingexaminationandscrutiny.
Classic,especiallyGerman,scholarshipmayhavefocusedonaspectsof
intellectualhistorythatarefundamentaltotheinterpretationoftragedy,but
with its rootedness in the post-Enlightenment philosophical tradition, it
often did so in progressivist and teleological terms, assuming linear
intellectualandspiritualdevelopmentbothwithinGreekcultureitselfand
over the centuries that separate Greeks and moderns. To take just one
example: the best extended discussion of the archaic notion of ate¯, the
x
Introduction:ArchaicThoughtandTragicInterpretation
subjectofAlanSommerstein’schapterinthisvolume,isa1950Göttingen
dissertation(notpublisheduntil1968)byJosefStallmach.7Thisisawork
ofgreatinsightandskillinitscarefulanalysisofindividualpassages.Itis
sensitive to all the questions that anyone who seeks to understand the
phenomenoninquestionwillneedtoconsider–inwhatcircumstancesat¯e
ismentioned,withwhatscenariositisassociated,whatitssupposedorigins
are, how it affects human responsibility for action, how its presentation
changesovertimeandfromonegenretoanother,andsoon.Butitsgreat
demerit is an a priori assumption, widely shared by studies of its type and
period, that there is inevitably a progression, both from earlier to later
Greekauthorsandfromantiquitytomodernity,fromprimitive,irrational,
and supernatural explanations to naturalistic, rational, and sophisticated
ones. The general validity of such approaches has been decisively
undermined by scholars such as Bernard Williams and Christopher Gill;8
but if one looks for the direct influence of these newer approaches to
intellectual history in substantive works of tragic interpretation, one will
searchlargelyinvain.9Thereare,ofcourse,morerecentdiscussionsofat¯e
that take a different approach;10 but the point is that these questions are
typicallypursuedinworksofintellectualhistory,nolongerininterpretative
studiesoftragedyitself.AndthusSommerstein’schapterisneeded.
Sommerstein himself argues for a degree of development in the
conceptualizationof at¯e betweenHomerand Aeschylus,at least inso far
ashesuggeststhatinthelatter‘theultimatecauseofat¯ehasarguablybeen
secularized’(p.12below),11butthisisforhimnosimplelinearprogression
frommoretolessprimitive,firstbecauseheisperfectlyawarethatneither
Homer’s conception nor Aeschylus’ is primitive, but more importantly
becausehisownaccountofat¯e’ssemantichistoryisnotastraightforward
oneofprogressivesecularization–thenotionofat¯e,Sommersteinargues,
wasnotoriginallyareligiousone,butratheraneverydaytermmeaningnot
‘delusion’ (divinely inspired or otherwise), but ‘harm’, ‘damage’, or ‘loss’.
Since this is the predominant meaning also in later tragedy (especially
Euripides:seeSommersteinbelow,pp.11–12),thesimpledevelopmental
schemesofolderscholarshipareuntenable.12Sommerstein’sinterpretation
argues for development in the semantics of at¯e, but that development is
notsimple,andcertainlynotteleological.
2.Ate¯andarchaicthoughtinSophocles’Antigone:atestcase
If we apply Sommerstein’s approach to the analysis of at¯e in Sophocles’
Antigone(atopicthatarisesinLiapis’chapter),wecangaugesomethingof
theimportanceofthecentralconceptsofarchaicGreekthoughtthatare
exploredbythecontributorstothisvolume.
xi
DouglasCairns
First, there are ten instances of the noun, ate¯, in the play (one,
unfortunately, in a corrupt passage at Ant. 4), two of the verb or
ἀτάω
, and one of the adverb (485). In all of its occurrences, the
ἀτάοµαι ἀνατεί
noun means ‘harm’ or ‘ruin’; in each of the two uses of the verb, the
present participle middle or passive means ‘harmed’ or ‘ruined’; and the
adverb means ‘with impunity’.13 This fits very well with Sommerstein’s
accountoftheterm’ssemantichistory.Butitwouldbewrongtoconclude
fromthisthatthereisthereforenotraceofat¯einitsprototypicalHomeric
sense,ofthementalimpairmentthatleadshumanbeingstotheirruin.
Fouroftheplay’stenusesofthenoun,at¯e,occurinthesecondstasimon
(583–625),acentralexhibitinLiapis’demonstrationthatthearchaicnotion
of cycles of suffering in successive generations of a single family is an
important element in the play’s meaning. In each of these cases, the
immediate reference of the term is to ruin or disaster: ‘Blessed are those
whose life has not tasted evils’, sing the Chorus at the beginning of their
song(583–5),‘forwhenahouseisshakenbythegods,thereisnoelement
ofdisaster(at¯e)thatdoesnotadvancetowardsthefamily’smembers,inall
theirnumbers.’Thoughthetextisuncertain,itisclearthattheendofthe
firststanzaofthesecondstrophicpairanswersthissentiment:either‘great
wealth does not come to mortals without ate¯’ or ‘nothing that is great
comestothelifeofmortalswithoutat¯e’.14Thesongthenconcludeswith
an endorsement of the wisdom of the ‘famous saying’ (620–1), that ‘bad
seemsgoodtoamanwhosemindagodisleadingtowardsat¯e;hefaresbut
theshortesttimewithoutat¯e’(622–5).Inallfourcasesat¯e isthecalamity,
whatever it is, that impairs mortal eudaimonia (or, in the worst cases,
destroys it utterly). But such disaster affects one’s mind as well as one’s
fortunes( ,623–4).15Accordingly,thecause
ὅτῳφρένας|θεὸςἄγειπρὸςἄταν
ofdisasteristracedtothemind:thelastscionoftheHouseofOedipusis
threatened by ‘folly of logos and an Erinys of the mind’ (603),16 both
expressions clear periphrases for at¯e in its subjective sense.17 In the final
stanzaoftheirsong,theChorusconclude:hopemaybebeneficialinsome
circumstances(616),butitis‘much-wandering’andthuspronetodelusion
( ,615);18formanyitamountstonomorethatthe‘deception
πολύπλαγκτος
ofempty-headedpassions’( ,617).Thus,
πολλοῖςδ’ἀπάτακουφονόωνἐρώτων
byapopularetymologyalreadyfamiliarinHomer,at¯e(delusionordisaster)
is brought into relation with apat¯e, deception.19 The victim of deception
(the singers go on) knows nothing until it is too late (618–19),20 because
(as we have seen) bad seems good to those whose minds the gods are
leadingtodisaster(620–5).Where,ashere,thereisadivineagentbehind
thedelusionormisapprehensionthatconstitutesat¯e,at¯eandapat¯ecoalesce.
WemightcomparenotonlyTheognis402–6andtrag.adesp.455,21ascited
xii
Introduction:ArchaicThoughtandTragicInterpretation
byJebbandGriffith,butalsoAeschylus’Persians93–100,lineswhichare
worthquotinghereinfull:22
δολόµητινδ’ἀπάτανθεοῦτίςἀνὴρθνατὸςἀλύξει;
95
τίςὁκραιπνῷποδὶπηδήµατοςεὐπετέοςἀνάσσων;
φιλόφρωνγὰρ<ποτι>σαίνουσατὸπρῶτονπαράγει
βροτὸνεἰςἄρκυστ<ατ᾽>Ἄτα·
100
τόθενοὐκἔστινὑπὲρθνατὸνἀλύξανταφυγεῖν.
Whatmortalmancanescapethegod’streacherousdeceit?Whoisthelord
ofaneasyjumpwithnimblefoot?Forfawningonhimatfirstwithfriendly
intentAteleadsamanastrayintohernets.Fromtherenomortalcanfree
himself;thereisnoescape.
TheAeschyleanpassageencompassestheentireat¯e-sequencefromdelusion
(ordeception)todisasterandmakesthesameassociationbetweenat¯eand
apat¯easdoesourSophocleanode.IfnotthesourceforSophocles’version,
itatleastpresentsacloselysimilarconception.Thethoughtthatthegods
leadonthosewhoareheadedforruinrecurslaterinAeschylus’play.To
Darius’ incredulous question about Xerxes’ closing of the Bosporos, the
Queenreplies,‘Yes,Isupposethatsomedaim¯ontookholdofhisjudgement’
( ,724),andDariusagrees:‘Alas,
ὧδ’ἔχει,γνώµηςδέπούτιςδαιµόνωνξυνήψατο
greatindeedwasthedaim¯onwhosearrivalruinedhisjudgement’(
φεῦµέγας
, 725). That the intervention of the
τις ἦλθε δαίµων ὥστε µὴ φρονεῖν καλῶς
malign and deceptive daim¯on does not relieve the human agent of
responsibility emerges from Darius’ realization, at 739–42, that Xerxes’
invasionanditsconsequencessignifythefulfilmentofanoldoracle:23
φεῦταχεῖάγ’ἦλθεχρησµῶνπρᾶξις,ἐςδὲπαῖδ’ἐµὸν
Ζεὺςἀπέσκηψεντελευτὴνθεσφάτων·ἐγὼδέπου 740
διὰµακροῦχρόνουτάδ’ηὔχουνἐκτελευτήσεινθεούς·
ἀλλ’,ὅτανσπεύδῃτιςαὐτός,χὠθεὸςσυνάπτεται.
Alas, the achievement of oracles came swiftly, and Zeus has hurled the
fulfilment of prophecies down upon my son. I had prayed that the gods
wouldsomehowtakealongtimetobringthemtopass.Butwhenaman
himselfiseager,thegodalsojoinsin.
Hence Xerxes bears full responsibility for his youthful impetuosity (744,
782), his folly and derangement (749–51), his impiety (808–12), and the
arroganthybristhatleadsonetodespiseone’scurrentfortune,destroyone’s
prosperity,andbringforthacropofat¯e (808,818–31).
AsinthePersians,at¯einthesecondstasimonoftheAntigonebringswith
itawholesetofwiderassociations(thegapbetweenaimsandoutcomes,
theinstabilityofwealthandprosperity,andthenotionthatthisinstability
hascausesbothinhumans’ownerrors,delusions,andtransgressionsand
xiii