Gnomes in Bacchylides

7/28/2019 Gnomes in Bacchylides

1/4

Gnomes in Bacchylides

Poetische Argumentation. Die Funktion der Gnomik in den Epinikien des Bakchylides by J.StengerReview by: Douglas CairnsThe Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 2006), pp. 282-284Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3873638 .

Accessed: 02/06/2013 04:26

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.177.2.101 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:26:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3873638?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3873638?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/4

282 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWGNOMES IN BACCHYLIDES

STENGER J.) Poetische Argumentation.Die Funktion der Gnomikinden Epinikiendes Bakchylides.(Untersuchungen zur antiken Literaturund Geschichte 69.) Pp. xiv + 383. Berlin and New York: Walter deGruyter,2004. Cased, ?98, US$137.20. ISBN: 3-11-018127-4.doi:10.1017/S0009840X06001491In this thorough and persuasive study (a shortened version of the author's 2003 Kieldissertation) Jan Stenger shows how Bacchylidean gn6mai are a crucial means bywhich the poet fulfils his encomiastic purpose. Epinician gn6mai form the linkbetween the victor's self-representation and the self-representation of the poethimself. They reflect the genre's rootedness in the community, and their aim is thepersuasion of a specific audience; but this aim is achieved by the image of the poet asguarantor of pronouncements whose universal validity elevates agonisticachievement to a paradigmatic status that transcends both the victory and itscelebration. In adapting the general moral and religious categories of Greek cultureto specific cases and social contexts, gn6mai embody the tension inherent in epinicianas an occasional yet universalising genre.The book is in four sections. The first surveys the nature and function of gnomicutterances in Greek poetry and in ancient rhetorical theory, offers generalconsideration of epinician as a genre and concludes with a brief outline of thebook's scope and argument. The most substantial part of the book is Part 2 (pp.57-263), which discusses in detail the gn6mai of the well-preserved major odes 3, 5,13, exploring carefully the links between the gnomic passages themselves andbetween them and the rest of the ode, and demonstrating the centrality of thegnomic element to the articulation of the argument. The same procedure is thenapplied to the more fragmentary odes 1, 10 and 14. S. follows scrupulously thesequence of thought as it unfolds in each ode, explicating each gnomic passage as aspecific step in a particular argument. Thus he is able to show that superficiallysimilar gn6mai serve different purposes in different contexts and that the relationbetween linked gnomic utterances may be either progressive or antithetical. Part 3explores the political background of the same odes, arguing that theirargumentative strategies differ according to the socio-political status of the victorand the political orientation of his community. The book concludes with anexamination of the self-presentation of the poet, showing how the persuasivefunction and universalising claims of gnomic wisdom require the adoption of aparticular ethos on his part. This explains the extensive concern of Pindar andBacchylides with the nature of the poet's task, their status as poets and the relationbetween laudator and laundandus.The chief strength of S.'s book is its combination of close analysis of individualpassages with an appreciation of the way that elements of the poet's art that are oftenmerely noted and labelled constitute dynamic elements in a deliberate rhetoricalstrategy that reflects the function of epinician in its cultural context. This is asignificant advance on previous accounts of epinician gn6mai. In proceeding inthis way, S. is firmly in the current of recent, more 'historicist', trends in epin-ician criticism. This also means, however,that the work is largely one of synthesis, andthat the elements of S.'s approach, though they form a cohesive and convincingargument, will be thoroughly familiar to students of epinician poetry. Both S.'s ownThe ClassicalReview ol. 56no. 2 ? TheClassicalAssociation 006;allrights eserved

This content downloaded from 86.177.2.101 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:26:00 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 283disagreementswith previous scholarship and the points at which other scholars mighttake issue with his interpretationsexist at the level of detail.This is especially the case with Part 2, where the minuteness of the discussion seemsoccasionally to lead to over-interpretation. Another failing of this section is thatpassages that are not in any way obscure are discussed at considerable length (see e.g.pp. 175-81 on 13.58-66). Many specific arguments are buttressed by an extensivebackground excursus, e.g. on phthonos (pp. 159-60), on kudos (pp. 202-4) and onpederasty as a means to reputation (pp. 230-2). Assertions, even if uncontroversial,are extensively documented (e.g. the five lines of p. 210 n. 504 on the particle toiintroducing general statements). Pp. 213-14 offer an extensive discussion of the(obvious) meaning of the infinitive eumarein n 1.175, including referencesin n. 517 toeight scholars who also get it right;one thereforewonders why this issue is said to be a'gr6BereSchwierigkeit'(p. 213).Another problem is the decision to devote over 200 pages to detailed exegesis of themeaning of the gndmai as part of the odes' argument, only to follow this with aself-contained treatment of their socio-political aspects in Part 3. Repetition isacknowledged as unavoidable (p. 269), but it is substantial, especially in the discussionof odes 1, 10 and 14, where the 'argument', given the fragmentary contexts, amountsto little more than the gn6mai themselves, and where the repetition of these'arguments' in Part 3 adds rather little. A more succinct exegesis and a closer linkbetween rhetorical and socio-political interpretation would have given the studygreater impact.Part 3 acknowledges the work of scholars such as Kurke and Mann in examiningthe odes' relation to ruler,aristocratic or polis ideologies. This yields a (well-known)distinction between Odes 3 and 5 for the tyrant Hieron and the more polis-orientedodes 1, 10, 13 and 14. It is good to see these constructs interrogated on anode-by-ode basis, yet the categories with which S. works remain somewhatschematic and can on occasion be crude: on p. 273 the individualistic, non-polis-oriented ideology of archaic aristocrats is said to be inspired by the model of theHomeric hero, and this is supported (n. 37) by the incredible claim that in the Iliadonly Hector - once at 12.243 - shows genuine concern for the community (thoughthe over-statement 'lediglich Hektor einmal' is somewhat undercut by 'vgl. 3. 50f.').The point is further supported by reference to the 'Kritik aus der Sicht der Polis' ofTyrtaeus (12 W) and Xenophanes (2 W); but though Xenophanes does claim(2.15-19) that athletic success contributes nothing to good governance, his criticismis not that sport is elitist and individualistic, but that athletes are accorded far toomuch prestige by the community (1-10, 20-2), and this is not evidence for athletes'indifference to the claims of the polis. As for the lack of attention paid to the victor'scommunity in the two great odes for Hieron, is this because Hieron wishes to presenthimself as a ruler whose success reflects only on himself, or is it perhaps because,even if they were first performed at Syracuse, the odes' intended audiences do notconsist primarily of other Syracusans?This is a very good dissertation, typeset with impeccable skill by the author himself.Any British external examiner would be delighted to receive work of this quality. Butwithout revision even the best dissertations can be less successful as monographs. Theexhaustive coverage required by the examination process does not help the publishedwork meet the needs of a specific audience. There can be a failure to prioritise what isnew and too much material that is at once inaccessible to beginners and unnecessaryfor specialists. Despite the competence and assuredness that the author displays



4/4

284 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWthroughout, the form in which his work has been presented limits its appeal and itsreadership.Universityof Edinburgh DOUGLAS [email protected]

TRAGEDY AND EARLY LYRICBAGORDO (A.) Reminiszenzen friiher Lyrik bei den attischenTragikern.Beitriige zur Anspielungstechnikundpoetischen Tradition.(Zetemata 118.) Pp. 286. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003. Paper, ?59.90.ISBN: 3-406-51743-9.doi: 10. 1017/S0009840X06001508In this useful and careful book, which began life as the author's Habilitationsschrift,Bagordo examines the loci similes between Attic tragedy and 'early' Greek lyric. B.construes 'early' lyric broadly - he includes elegiac and iambic poets, and poets aslate as Pindar,Bacchylides and Ion of Chios (the last perhaps roughly the same age asEuripides). The book divides into two main parts, the Introduction, in which B. setsout his approach, and the Einzelinterpretationenwhich form the bulk of the book,arranged into iambic, elegiac and 'melic' poets (and within these groups bychronology). In this latter section B. carefully examines lyric passages to whichvarious scholars have suggested there are possible allusions or reminiscences invarious Greek tragedies.In the Introduction of just over twenty pages, B. touches on a number of issuesrelevant to his study: whether one can talk about 'intertextuality' when dealingwith orally performed/received poems and plays, the problem of the subjectivityof one's assessment of the similarity of two passages and the possibility of anallusion by one to the other, the difficulties of working with fragmentary material(both lyric and tragic), the importance of recognising different levels of literaryknowledge and ability in the audience of a tragedy, etc. B.'s discussion shows thathe is well aware of the complexities involved in a study such as his, but he does nottreat any of these more theoretical issues in a systematic fashion, promising toreturn to them throughout the book. In fact, the tenor of B.'s book in general ispractical: how can we be certain that a perceived similarity between lyric passage Xand tragic passage Y adds up to an intentional reminiscence in Y of X? He sets outhis criteria for such reminiscences in the Introduction (esp. ?1.5, 'Anatomie einerReminiszenz'): no Homeric parallel, a certain individuality of words/thought in thelyric passage rather than a gnomic/proverbial character or a general 'poetic' aspect,and the presence of a verbal/syntactical echo. This final element is important: B.does not deal with tragic poets' use of lyric themes, ideas, narrative techniques,narrative content, narrative or musical structure, etc. His focus is on the degree ofsimilarity of particular passages and whether such similarity can be accepted as adeliberate reminiscence by the later poet. A good example of his method at work ishis exclusion of an allusion at E. HF 637ff. to Mimn. frr.4, 5 W2, on the miseries ofold age. B. does not count this as a reminiscence because of the lack of a directverbal echo, and the commonness of the ideas and vocabulary Euripides employsfor old age. Many scholars would perhaps still like to read an allusion toThe ClassicalReview ol. 56 no.2 ? The ClassicalAssociation 006;allrightsreserved


Documents

Gnomes in Bacchylides