Gnomes in Bacchylides Poetische Argumentation. Die Funktion der Gnomik in den Epinikien des Bakchylides by J.

Stenger Review by: Douglas Cairns The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 2006), pp. 282-284 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

282

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

GNOMES

IN BACCHYLIDES

STENGER(J.) Poetische Argumentation.Die Funktion der Gnomikin den Epinikien des Bakchylides. (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 69.) Pp. xiv + 383. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Cased, ?98, US$137.20. ISBN: 3-11-018127-4.
doi: 10. 1017/S0009840X06001491

In this thorough and persuasive study (a shortened version of the author's 2003 Kiel dissertation) Jan Stenger shows how Bacchylidean gn6mai are a crucial means by which the poet fulfils his encomiastic purpose. Epinician gn6mai form the link between the victor's self-representation and the self-representation of the poet himself. They reflect the genre's rootedness in the community, and their aim is the persuasion of a specific audience; but this aim is achieved by the image of the poet as guarantor of pronouncements whose universal validity elevates agonistic achievement to a paradigmatic status that transcends both the victory and its celebration. In adapting the general moral and religious categories of Greek culture to specific cases and social contexts, gn6mai embody the tension inherent in epinician as an occasional yet universalising genre. The book is in four sections. The first surveys the nature and function of gnomic utterances in Greek poetry and in ancient rhetorical theory, offers general consideration of epinician as a genre and concludes with a brief outline of the book'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 and between them and the rest of the ode, and demonstrating the centrality of the gnomic element to the articulation of the argument. The same procedure is then applied to the more fragmentary odes 1, 10 and 14. S. follows scrupulously the sequence of thought as it unfolds in each ode, explicating each gnomic passage as a specific step in a particular argument. Thus he is able to show that superficially similar gn6mai serve different purposes in different contexts and that the relation between linked gnomic utterances may be either progressive or antithetical. Part 3 explores the political background of the same odes, arguing that their argumentative strategies differ according to the socio-political status of the victor and the political orientation of his community. The book concludes with an examination of the self-presentation of the poet, showing how the persuasive function and universalising claims of gnomic wisdom require the adoption of a particular ethos on his part. This explains the extensive concern of Pindar and Bacchylides with the nature of the poet's task, their status as poets and the relation between laudator and laundandus. The chief strength of S.'s book is its combination of close analysis of individual passages with an appreciation of the way that elements of the poet's art that are often merely noted and labelled constitute dynamic elements in a deliberate rhetorical strategy that reflects the function of epinician in its cultural context. This is a significant advance on previous accounts of epinician gn6mai. In proceeding in this way, S. is firmly in the current of recent, more 'historicist', trends in epinician criticism. This also means, however, that the work is largely one of synthesis, and that the elements of S.'s approach, though they form a cohesive and convincing argument, will be thoroughly familiar to students of epinician poetry. Both S.'s own The Classical Review vol. 56 no. 2 ? The Classical Association 2006;all rightsreserved

This content downloaded from 86.177.2.101 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

283

disagreements with previous scholarship and the points at which other scholars might take issue with his interpretations exist at the level of detail. This is especially the case with Part 2, where the minuteness of the discussion seems occasionally to lead to over-interpretation. Another failing of this section is that passages 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 extensive background excursus, e.g. on phthonos (pp. 159-60), on kudos (pp. 202-4) and on pederasty 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 toi introducing general statements). Pp. 213-14 offer an extensive discussion of the (obvious) meaning of the infinitive eumareinin 1.175, including references in n. 517 to eight scholars who also get it right; one therefore wonders why this issue is said to be a 'gr6Bere Schwierigkeit' (p. 213). Another problem is the decision to devote over 200 pages to detailed exegesis of the meaning of the gndmai as part of the odes' argument, only to follow this with a self-contained treatment of their socio-political aspects in Part 3. Repetition is acknowledged as unavoidable (p. 269), but it is substantial, especially in the discussion of odes 1, 10 and 14, where the 'argument', given the fragmentary contexts, amounts to 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 link between rhetorical and socio-political interpretation would have given the study greater impact. Part 3 acknowledges the work of scholars such as Kurke and Mann in examining the 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-oriented odes 1, 10, 13 and 14. It is good to see these constructs interrogated on an ode-by-ode basis, yet the categories with which S. works remain somewhat schematic and can on occasion be crude: on p. 273 the individualistic, non-polisoriented ideology of archaic aristocrats is said to be inspired by the model of the Homeric hero, and this is supported (n. 37) by the incredible claim that in the Iliad only Hector - once at 12.243 - shows genuine concern for the community (though the 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' of Tyrtaeus (12 W) and Xenophanes (2 W); but though Xenophanes does claim (2.15-19) that athletic success contributes nothing to good governance, his criticism is not that sport is elitist and individualistic, but that athletes are accorded far too much 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's community in the two great odes for Hieron, is this because Hieron wishes to present himself 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 not consist 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. But without revision even the best dissertations can be less successful as monographs. The exhaustive coverage required by the examination process does not help the published work meet the needs of a specific audience. There can be a failure to prioritise what is new and too much material that is at once inaccessible to beginners and unnecessary for specialists. Despite the competence and assuredness that the author displays

This content downloaded from 86.177.2.101 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

284

THE CLASSICAL

REVIEW

throughout, the form in which his work has been presented limits its appeal and its readership. DOUGLAS CAIRNS Universityof Edinburgh douglas.cairns@ed.ac.uk

TRAGEDY

AND EARLY

LYRIC

BAGORDO (A.) Reminiszenzen friiher Lyrik bei den attischen Tragikern. Beitriige zur Anspielungstechnikund poetischen Tradition. (Zetemata 118.) Pp. 286. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003. Paper, ?59.90. ISBN: 3-406-51743-9.
doi: 10.1017/S0009840X06001508

In 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 as late as Pindar, Bacchylides and Ion of Chios (the last perhaps roughly the same age as Euripides). The book divides into two main parts, the Introduction, in which B. sets out his approach, and the Einzelinterpretationenwhich form the bulk of the book, arranged into iambic, elegiac and 'melic' poets (and within these groups by chronology). In this latter section B. carefully examines lyric passages to which various scholars have suggested there are possible allusions or reminiscences in various Greek tragedies. In the Introduction of just over twenty pages, B. touches on a number of issues relevant to his study: whether one can talk about 'intertextuality' when dealing with orally performed/received poems and plays, the problem of the subjectivity of one's assessment of the similarity of two passages and the possibility of an allusion by one to the other, the difficulties of working with fragmentary material (both lyric and tragic), the importance of recognising different levels of literary knowledge and ability in the audience of a tragedy, etc. B.'s discussion shows that he is well aware of the complexities involved in a study such as his, but he does not treat any of these more theoretical issues in a systematic fashion, promising to return to them throughout the book. In fact, the tenor of B.'s book in general is practical: how can we be certain that a perceived similarity between lyric passage X and tragic passage Y adds up to an intentional reminiscence in Y of X? He sets out his criteria for such reminiscences in the Introduction (esp. ?1.5, 'Anatomie einer Reminiszenz'): no Homeric parallel, a certain individuality of words/thought in the lyric 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 of similarity of particular passages and whether such similarity can be accepted as a deliberate reminiscence by the later poet. A good example of his method at work is his exclusion of an allusion at E. HF 637ff. to Mimn. frr. 4, 5 W2, on the miseries of old age. B. does not count this as a reminiscence because of the lack of a direct verbal echo, and the commonness of the ideas and vocabulary Euripides employs for old age. Many scholars would perhaps still like to read an allusion to Association The Classical Review vol. 56 no. 2 ? The Classical 2006;all rightsreserved

This content downloaded from 86.177.2.101 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions