BMCR 2004.10.16, Andreas Bagordo, Reminiszenzen fru+her Lyrik

Andreas Bagordo, Reminiszenzen fru+her Lyrik bei den attischen
Tragikern: Beitra+ge zur Anspielungstechnik und poetischen Tradition.
Zetemata, Heft 118.  Mu+nchen:  C.H. Beck, 2003.  Pp. 286.  ISBN
3-406-51743-9. EUR 59.90.

Reviewed by John Davidson, Victoria University of Wellington
(John.Davidson@xxxxxxxxx)
Word count:  1819 words
-------------------------------

This reworking of a 2001 Freiburg Habilitationsschrift begins with a
quote from Sir Kenneth Dover: 'agnostic to the point of nihilism'. This
decidedly negative tone is then confirmed by the programmatic opening
sentence, which proclaims that the book deals with (many) loci similes
which have unjustifiably progressed to the status of 'Reminiszenzen',
and (a few) loci similes which have undeservedly retained this status.
This is slightly misleading, however. After going on to consider some
108 cases of close verbal similarity between tragedy and lyric (used as
a blanket term which includes iambic and elegiac poetry), Bagordo (B.)
is in fact prepared to give strong support to the claims of 22 of these
to be allusions (Anspielungen) as such, and more tentative support to 8
more.

B. offers us a 23 page Introduction and a 10 page Conclusion, the bulk
of the book (189 pages) being devoted to the discussion of the 108
cases. B. wisely organises his material from the perspective of the
'lyric' poets, considering in turn passages from Archilochus (7),
Hipponax (3), Semonides (2), Tyrtaeus (1), Mimnermus (2), Solon (5),
Xenophanes (2), Theognis (8), Alcman (2), Stesichorus (6), Ibycus (1),
Sappho (12), Alcaeus (11), Anacreon (3), Simonides (3), Bacchylides
(10), Pindar (27), Ion of Chios (1), Carmina Popularia (1), and Carmina
Convivialia (1), these passages being, in each case, placed alongside
their look-alikes from the tragic corpus. The passage discussions vary
in length and complexity, sometimes involving a consideration of the
theoretical and interpretative issues raised in the Introduction.

This Introduction, which could be better organised, is nevertheless
useful in establishing the platform from which B. operates, although it
naturally covers much well-trodden ground. B. canvasses the range of
different possible relationships where similar expressions occur in the
work of two poets. In the context of his survey of related scholarship,
he commends Richard Garner's book on poetic allusion[[1]] both in
general, and also in terms of its formulation of an 'anatomy of
allusion' and the new light thrown on the role of Pindar and
Bacchylides as models for Euripides in particular. However, he also
endorses the criticisms that Garner doesn't really discuss the question
of the motivation behind the tragic poets' use of allusion, and that he
doesn't deal anywhere with the connection between 'Anspielung,
"Kollusion", Imitation, Entlehnung und Anklang'. Interestingly though,
B. himself doesn't really try to deal with this definitively either,
nor with the precise relationship between these terms and
'Reminiszenz', 'Reflex' and 'Ru+ckgriff'. He characterises the concept
'Intertextualita+t' as applied to Greek literature (at least to the end
of the fifth century) as a 'contradictio in adiectis' (mainly on the
basis of the pesky interference of orality in the mix), but basically
puts the attempt to come up with a new term into the too-hard basket
and signals that he will use the term occasionally. He notes in this
context problems with the term 'Literatur' as well, but again concedes
that he must fall back on conventional usage.

B. deals sensibly with the question of where Homer fits into any study
of the lyric poets and the tragedians, concluding that where the
tragedians take over an expression found in both Homer and lyric poetry
the source can be assumed to be the former (he acknowledges the
possibility of a common source behind post-Homeric and Homeric poetry
itself). The prerequisite for identifying a lyric 'Reminiszenz' in the
tragedians, he concludes, is its 'Nicht-Homerizita+t'.

In the subsection entitled 'Anatomie einer Reminiszenz' (pp. 23-8), B.
suggests that the sole criterion for establishing a 'Reminiszenz' in a
loci similes context lies in the degree of particularity of the locus.
Where there's a certain degree of lexical or syntactical 'Pra+gnanz'
and recognizability, he continues, so the affinity of one locus with
another or its dependence on it is more obvious. And he adds that
'Pra+gnanz' doesn't necessarily imply complexity.

The next stage of the argument is that where the conditions mentioned
above exist, the second poet's intentionality in adopting the first
poet's words can be taken as certain -- which, while a reasonable rule
of thumb, does not allow for the possibility that, on occasion, the
second poet may just be drawing subconsciously on his personal poetic
memory bank even if it indeed happens to be the first poet who has
contributed this particular expression to it.

A related issue, which B. usefully discusses, concerns the level of
education in general among the different groups who will have made up
the tragedians' audience, and more specifically their familiarity with
the different types of 'lyric' poetry. This is tied up too with other
questions such as the means of transmission of this poetry, the history
of an institution such as the symposium, the possible adaptation of
'choral' lyric to a monodic context, and the extent to which a
tragedian desired or indeed could rely on particular members of his
audience to identify allusions. Touched on too is the change-over from
a basically oral tradition to more of a 'book culture', which is seen
as being given a boost in the last third of the fifth century.

The significance of comedy is also discussed, the basis of a comparison
with tragedy being that the types of reference to lyric poetry in the
former are generally, though not exclusively, parody-orientated. The
specific mention by name in the surviving comic corpus of the majority
of the nine canonical Melic poets, taken in conjunction with the
numerous verbal reflections discussed by Chr. Kugelmeier,[[2]] is seen
as the best evidence for knowledge of such poetry on the part of at
least a certain percentage of the fifth-century theatre audience.

The final and in some ways most important aspect considered in the
Introduction concerns gnomic and proverbial language. While B. notes
the close relationship between the 'literary' and the 'proverbial'
traditions, he basically rules out the possibility of any literary
'Reflex' in a locus characterised by 'proverbial' language. We're
simply dealing in this situation, he assumes, with general poetic
language and a nameless literary tradition.

It's not possible here to offer a comprehensive discussion of the
merits of B.'s interpretations of the individual passages, and so a few
examples must suffice (B., of course, while promising to present his
material as objectively and thoroughly as possible, acknowledges the
high degree of subjectivity involved in the process of categorising,
and concedes that some readers will find him too mean, and others too
generous, in his choice of passages to be counted as genuine
'Anspielungen' as he condemns the others to the more shadowy realms of
the poetic tradition).

In connection with Archilochus, B. rightly categorises Dionysus' words
at E. Ba. 614 'I saved myself' as a purely linguistic parallel with
Archil. Fr. 5, 3 W. He also, again rightly in my opinion, sees the
expression '(with souls) in the arms of the waves' (Archil. Fr. 213 W)
as a common enough metaphor which is in a number of fifth-century
dramatic contexts -- which therefore disqualifies 'the arms of the sea
(are teeming with monsters...' A. Ch. 587f) as an 'Imitation', as has
been suggested. B. has similarly good grounds for ruling out Aeschylus'
use of the epithet <greek>mhlotro/fos</greek> to qualify Asia (Pers.
763) as a reference to Archil. Fr. 227 W, given the use of the epithet
elsewhere as a qualifier of Libya, Arcadia and Thessaly. More
debateable perhaps is B's scepticism about any significant direct
connection between the Archilochean fable of the fox and the eagle and
the parodos of the Agamemnon. But it must be admitted that the fable
tradition itself, and a possible Homeric model as well, muddy the
waters.

B. does accept the description of Menelaus at E. Or. 1531f as a
'Reminiszenz' of Archilochus' vain and implicitly cowardly general, and
appears to have good grounds for doing so, even if the stereotype,
which may indeed well emanate from the poem of Archilochus, might have
become for some members of the audience at least simply a traditional
stereotype, the precise source being forgotten. Similarly convincing
(on account of shared vocabulary, especially the rare word
<greek>lewrgo/s</greek>) is B.'s acceptance of a direct link between
lines 3-5 of the PV and Archil. Fr. 176 and Fr. 177 W. He is in two
minds about the suggested connection between A. Ch. 123 and Archil. Fr.
126 W.

Turning to Pindar, we find that B. discusses 27 tragic passages as
possible candidates for 'Anspielung' status, but accepts the claims of
only four of these unconditionally. The lucky four are the references
to first the Typhon myth and then the Themis oracle in the PV, plus two
supposed compliments associated with Pindar's native city -- the
opening two words of the parodos of the Antigone (identical to the
opening of the surviving fragment of Pindar's 9th paean), and A. Th.
774 (reading <greek>polu/batos</greek>) as connected with the Theban
poet's qualification of the Athenian agora. B. only considers four of
the other Pindaric passages to be even possible as direct sources, and
provides detailed demolitions of the case for other direct
Pindar/tragedy links, for example the idea that certain features of the
language used by the chorus in the parodos of the Ajax present an
epinician hero. Most potential examples are argued simply to reflect
the common poetic language or poetic tradition.

For the record, B.'s 22 definitely accepted cases also include five
from the elegists (three from Solon, two from Xenophanes), one each
from Alcman, Anacreon, Simonides, Bacchylides, Ion of Chios and the
Carmina Popularia, and two each from Sappho and Alcaeus (two of the
'Anspielung' passages are actually parodies found in E. Cyc., the link
with comedy being noted). The regrettable loss of so much lyric poetry
(and tragedy for that matter!) which might radically alter the picture
is, of course, admitted.

Much has been written in recent years about intertextuality, allusion
or whatever, and so there is little in B.'s book that could be
described as new and exciting. He has, however, done scholarship a
service by offering such a comprehensive account specifically of the
tragic/lyric nexus -- this is confined, of course, to linguistic
considerations, broader aspects such as motifs, myth in general and
connections of a metrical, musical and compositional nature being
specifically excluded. B. has also done well in demonstrating the
danger of being too quick to conclude that loci similes must somehow be
more than, well, just loci similes.

The book is, in general, tidily presented. I had difficulties from time
to time in understanding exactly what B. was driving at, and there
appeared even to be the occasional quasi-contradiction. This may,
however, say more about my comprehension of German than about B.'s
ability to express himself clearly at all times. Without claiming to
have applied the eagle eye, I did notice a few glaring misprints, most
notably three within three pages in the Conclusion (gewo+hliche for
gewo+hnliche p. 227, Gendakenguts for Gedankenguts p. 228, and
Delisches for Delphisches [presumably] p. 229).

------------------
Notes:


1.   Richard Garner, From Homer to Tragedy: The Art of Allusion in
Greek Poetry, London and New York 1990.

2.   Chr. Kugelmeier, Reflexe fru+her und zeitgeno+ssischer Lyrik in
der Alten attischen Komo+die, Stuttgart und Leipzig 1996.