Truth, Falsehood, and Reciprocity in Pindar and Aeschylus Arum Park A dissertation submitted to ...

180 Pages·2009·0.86 MB·English

Truth, Falsehood, and Reciprocity in Pindar and Aeschylus

Arum Park

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Department of Classics.

Chapel Hill
2009

Approved by:

Advisor: Peter M. Smith

Reader: James J. O’Hara

Reader: Owen E. Goslin

Reader: Cecil W. Wooten

Reader: Sharon L. James
© 2009
Arum Park
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
AAAABBBBSSSSTTTTRRRRAAAACCCCTTTT

ARUM PARK: Truth, Falsehood, and Reciprocity in Pindar and Aeschylus
(Under the direction of Peter M. Smith)

The numerous studies of truth and falsehood in Greek thought are quite varied in
scope and methodology but tend to fall into one of two categories: detailed word-studies
that identify and explicate terms for truth and falsehood, usually in the poetry of Homer
and Hesiod, or general explorations of the nature of truth and the processes for its
formation across Greek literature.
This study seeks to fill the gaps left by these two approaches by combining
meticulous examination of Aeschylus’ and Pindar’s terms for truth and falsehood with a
broader discussion of how truth and falsehood operate in their poetry. The focus is on
passages that explicitly mention truth and falsehood, an approach that generates
conclusions both about the use of these terms and about the influence of these concepts
on a poet’s self-conscious purpose. The major claims are that Aeschylean and Pindaric
truth and falsehood are generically determined concepts and are incorporated in
relationships or cycles of reciprocity integral to each poet’s genre.
Thus truth and falsehood cannot be understood without adequate consideration of
genre and purpose. As a praise poet, Pindar’s aims are twofold: he must convince his
audience of his devotion to the person he is tasked with praising (the laudandus), and he
must persuade them that his claims about the laudandus are accurate. He thus
incorporates truth into the relationship he constructs between himself and the laudandus
iii
by espousing a truth that combines sincerity with accuracy and by denouncing falsehood
for the threat it poses to this relationship.
Aeschylus likewise assimilates truth and falsehood to his poetic purpose. Since
his primary concern as a tragedian is to present plots of retributive violence, ideas about
truth and falsehood appear in contexts of belief or disbelief. Thus characters who speak
truth are believed or disbelieved in accordance with what will facilitate plots about
violent reprisal; similarly, whether characters successfully or unsuccessfully enact a
deception depends on what is required to tell a story of reciprocal aggression.
iv
To Oma and Dori
v
AAAACCCCKKKKNNNNOOOOWWWWLLLLEEEEDDDDGGGGEEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS

This project could not have seen the light of day without the help of many people,
some of whom I will undoubtedly neglect to mention here. Thanks are owed to my two
advisors: William Race patiently oversaw the project in its inceptive stages, and Peter
Smith, a veritable font of encouragement, enthusiastically and good-naturedly walked
me—and when necessary, pushed me—through its completion. I am grateful to my
readers: James O’Hara provided needed support in the form of quick but careful
readings, challenging suggestions, and humorous anecdotes; Sharon James helped me
think about the bigger picture of this project and identified its promising contributions;
Cecil Wooten reminded me to be meticulous and straightforward; Owen Goslin, who
gamely stepped on board in the late stages of the project, nevertheless provided
admirably incisive comments and an endless supply of helpful advice.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Amherst College and Five Colleges, Inc. for a
dissertation fellowship funding my writing and research and for the supportive
friendships I formed during my year in Massachusetts. Thanks to Becky, Dale, and
Melba Sinos, Andreola Rossi, Christopher Trinacty, Sara Upton, Laurie Moran, Melissa
Mueller, Alicia Ellis, Raina Uhden, and NAPOF (Emily, Tim, Sara, Jun, and Michael).
Heartfelt thanks to my Chapel Hill family. Anderson Wiltshire, Rebekah Smith
(thanks for the dissertation monkey!), John and Franny Henkel, Rob and Courtney
Vander Poppen, Erika Zimmermann Damer, Liz Robinson, Amanda Mathis, Cinnamon
Weaver and Kim Miles always lent friendly ears to my concerns. I have had more than
vi
one intellectually stimulating/humbling conversation with Derek Smith and John
Esposito. Lucy Schenkman, Andy Desimone, and Isaac and Rayna Weiner each did their
bit to preserve my sanity.
Thanks also to Victor Bers and Lauren Apfel, who have kept in touch with me
since my life in Classics began.
I would never have survived graduate school, much less the dissertation, without
the endless love of my family. Thanks to Wyatt and Trixie for making me laugh and to
my mother Youngtae Shin, my sister Dawn Park Hamilton, and my husband David
Carlisle, all of whom believed in me, served as my role models, listened to me, and never
stopped cheering me on.
vii
TTTTAAAABBBBLLLLEEEE OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOONNNNTTTTEEEENNNNTTTTSSSS

CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR OOOONNNNEEEE:::: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR TTTTWWWWOOOO:::: TERMS FOR TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD.......................................................17
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................17
LSJ................................................................................................................................18
FλHθεια......................................................................................................................18
Mτυµος/SτHτυµος........................................................................................................21
FπUτη, δXλος.............................................................................................................21
ψεZδος.......................................................................................................................21
AESCHYLUS...................................................................................................................22
TRUTH.......................................................................................................................22
FALSEHOOD...............................................................................................................31
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................36
PINDAR..........................................................................................................................37
TRUTH.......................................................................................................................37
FALSEHOOD AND DECEPTION.....................................................................................43
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................46
CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR TTTTHHHHRRRREEEEEEEE:::: TRUTH, FALSEHOOD, AND XENIA IN PINDAR........................................48
PART ONE: TRUTH AND XENIA.........................................................................................48
TRUTH AND PRAISE: OLYMPIAN 1.............................................................................50
TRUTH PERSONIFIED..................................................................................................55
viii
REALITY AND POETRY: NEMEAN 7............................................................................65
PART TWO: FALSEHOOD, DECEPTION, AND XENIA........................................................76
PSEUDOS AND XENIA: THREE TYPES OF OPPOSITION................................................77
1. The Interweaving of Poetic Obligation and Myth in Olympian 1...................77

2. Pseudos as Punishment for Violating Xenia: Ixion in Pythian 2....................82

3. Sex, Lies, and the Guest-Host Relationship:
The Hera-Cloud, Koronis, and Hippolyta.............................................................89

EXCURSUS: MALE SEDUCTION................................................................................104
CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................112
CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR FFFFOOOOUUUURRRR:::: WHAT IS TRUTH TO AESCHYLUS?.........................................................114
VERBAL ALETHEIA......................................................................................................114
OPPOSITIONS................................................................................................................114
Manipulating the Contrast Between Truth and Hope.............................................117
WHERE IS THE TRUTH TO BE FOUND? WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH?...............................121
1. Nonverbal Signals..............................................................................................121
2. Messengers.........................................................................................................129
3. Prophecy............................................................................................................132
GENDER AND CREDIBILITY?........................................................................................139
TRUTH, FALSEHOOD, AND EXCHANGE.........................................................................150
CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................156
CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR FFFFIIIIVVVVEEEE:::: CONCLUSION..........................................................................................158
BBBBIIIIBBBBLLLLIIIIOOOOGGGGRRRRAAAAPPPPHHHHYYYY................................................................................................................164

ix
CCCCHHHHAAAAPPPPTTTTEEEERRRR OOOONNNNEEEE:::: IIIINNNNTTTTRRRROOOODDDDUUUUCCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNN

This dissertation addresses the topics of truth and falsehood in the poetry of
Pindar and Aeschylus. Studies of aletheia in Greek thought have been abundant,
probably because of a modern fascination with the idea of truth, but most of the work has
focused on Homer and to some extent Hesiod. For example, Luther’s 1935 book
examines Homeric and Hesiodic terms for truth and lies,1 while Levet follows up forty
years later with a more detailed study of such words and their contexts in Homer.2
Luther makes a valuable contribution with his implicit argument that aletheia can cover a
range of meanings, as Heidegger himself pointed out,3 and his insight that truth has wide-
ranging implications for speech, poetry, and justice. Levet argues that aletheia/alethes
denotes an absence of concealment; his word-study concludes that the various Greek
words for truth and falsehood reflect the psychological disposition of the Greeks and thus
cannot find exact equivalents in modern languages.4
The scholar most persistently focused on aletheia is Detienne, whose influential
1960 article “La notion mythique d’bλHθεια” argues forcefully for an opposition between

1 Luther 1935.

2 Levet 1976.

3 See Luther 1935, 14: “Heidegger…unterscheidet zwischen FλHθεια als „Charakter der Aussage“ und
FλHθεια, die die „Sachen selbst“ bedeutet, „das Seiende im Wie seiner Entdecktheit“.”

4 Levet 1976, 17. Adkins 1972, 12 seems to disagree: “True statements about present events which fall
within the experience of the person making them have the same relation to ‘the facts’ in any society, literate
or non-literate and are confirmable in the same manner; and if an individual wishes to know the truth about
an important (recently) past event in a non-literate society, the fact that he is a member of a society makes it
possible for him to ask other members about the event; and if different people give him the same account,
their agreement will be more in the forefront of his mind than the fact that, had they forgotten what
happened, they would be unable to tell him anything. These situations are surely the majority, and
certainly suffice to produce a concept of truth quite familiar to ourselves.”