|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: BMCR 2007.04.41, Warren S. Smith , Satiric Advice on Women - msg#00041List: education.publications.bryn-mawr-classical-reviewWarren S. Smith (ed.), Satiric Advice on Women and Marriage: from Plautus to Chaucer. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005. Pp. xiv, 295. ISBN 0-472-11426-3. $70.00. Reviewed by Vibeke Roggen, University of Oslo (vibeke.roggen@xxxxxxxxxxxx) Word count: 3585 words ------------------------------- To read a print-formatted version of this review, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-04-41.html ------------------------------- [Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.] The book under review was composed around a thesis: "the belief that there is a continuity of thought, ideas, and vocabulary throughout Latin satiric literature, from Plautus and Lucretius to Walter Map [12th century] and beyond." (p. vii) The offspring of the book is neither a conference nor a collaborative research project; the editor got an idea and gathered people who agreed to write contributions for the book. The twelve contributions are presented as chapters, not individual articles. A main problem of the volume lies here, in the difficulty of making a unified book out of the individual contributions, which treat a variety of authors and genres and explore a range of different questions. An afterword might have proved helpful in order to collect the threads. The present review first treats each chapter, and then turns to the book as a whole. Chapter 1. Warren S. Smith: Satiric Advice -- serious or not? The important first chapter (written by the editor) is presented as follows in the preface (p. vii): Chapter 1 ... looks at the authors who discuss women and marriage from the point of view of what we can deduce about their attitudes and intentions: what makes such advice "satiric" and how the genres of satire and comedy influence our attitude toward the narrative voice, how seriously its message may be intended, and the reader for whom the message is intended. This programme is ambitious, and perhaps also unrealistic. The editor's way of solving the task that he has given himself is to present a number of central concepts in recent scholarship concerning satire, for example the satirist's persona, his "pattern of apology", and "boundary violation", but the presentation is not very helpful. Then the chapter turns into a brief discussion of -- as it seems -- (nearly all) the following chapters. But arguably the introduction would have needed instead to demonstrate that there are connections between Juvenal and Jerome, for example, and it would have been better if Smith had concentrated here on answering the question of "what makes such advice 'satiric'". It is emphasised that the line between misogyny and misogamy is blurred. However, when some of the authors advise against marriage because Christians (men and women) should remain virgins, whereas others maintain that men should avoid marriage because man is good and woman is evil, the line seems clear enough. Chapter 2. Richard Hawley: "In a Different Guise": Roman education and Greek rhetorical thought on marriage. Hawley sets out to "consider how Greek literature was embedded in the Roman educational system from an early stage" (p. 26). His article contains interesting examples, but it hardly brings new conclusions regarding the Greek influence on the Romans through their education; it is too superficial. As the author acknowledges, Greek epic and drama contain not only negative but also positive female characters, and, similarly, not all Greek philosophical treatises on the state of marriage attack the institution and are hostile towards women; thus, it seems somewhat problematic to explain the origin of stereotypes and commonplaces from these origins. Furthermore, the article would have benefited from more careful proof-reading, as there are some unfortunate repetitions and other flaws. For example, Juvenal 6 is introduced twice, and even with different plans for how it will be treated in the chapter: "I shall restrain my comments here to Juvenal's relationship to earlier Greek comic motifs and to rhetorical commonplaces" (p. 32), and (with reference to Courtney, Winkler and Braund[[1]]), "I shall here simply summarize their findings" (p. 33). It is hard to agree that Caesennia's husband in Juv. 6.136 ff. is presented as stupid and as an example of the character of the henpecked husband from Greek comedy. The man may be henpecked, but it is his greed and lack of morals that are targeted -- not his stupidity: uidua est, locuples quae nupsit auaro. [She is single, the rich woman who has married a greedy man.] Chapter 3. Susanna Morton Braund: Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce in Roman Comic Drama. Susanna Morton Braund demonstrates her skills as a scholar who is very familiar with Roman comedy and who knows how to lead the reader into the problems raised by the three plays she has identified as unusual: Plautus' Amphitruo and Menaechmi, and particularly Terence's Hecyra. These plays have in common that they treat marriage in an unusual way for comedia palliata: instead of working up to the usual boy-gets-girl ending, these three plays have adultery and divorce as central themes. But -- given that the bulk of the Greek new comedies have not survived -- one may question the use of the word "experiment" related to these Roman plays. Chapter 4. Warren S. Smith: "The Cold Cares of Venus": Lucretius and anti-marriage literature. In his chapter on Lucretius, Smith sees the treatment of love in De rerum natura as "one of several major stopping-off places on his survey of the irrational, using his poetry to interconnect love with other destructive forces that assault our minds and bodies, such as the hallucinations of dreams, the terrors of hell, the destructiveness of war, attacks by wild beasts, hunger and thirst, and physical disease" (p. 72). The chapter is structured according to this description, and, like De rerum natura, the chapter ends with the plague in Athens. Thus, the closest one gets to a conclusion comes in the introduction. Along the way the author discusses Lucretius' vocabulary, and also his influence on later poetry. In the treatment of the terms used to describe love and passion in Latin poetry, Vergil's vulnus in Aen. 4.2 might have been added to ardor, rabies, and furor. The Epicurean warns against love, but it is not clear "what makes such advice satiric", to use Smith's own words in the preface (p. vii). That these themes also occur in satire does not necessarily make the text satiric. Chapter 5. Karla Pollmann: Marriage and Gender in Ovid's Erotodidactic Poetry The works treated are Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris. In the first part of the chapter, Pollmann discusses Ovid's attitudes to marriage and "free" affairs, in contrast to the Augustan legislation on these matters. She characterizes (p. 94) as a "bold novelty" the fact that Book 3 of Ars amatoria is addressed to women; sex manuals existed, with advice from one prostitute to others, but not anything like this. The starting point in the section on gender is the contrast with the tendency to explain problems in marriage as stemming from the innate wickedness of women; Pollmann then goes on to analyse how Ovid treats both genders "in and out of wedlock" (p. 101). She presents an excellent explanation of Ovid's understanding of men's and women's characters on the basis of the advice he gives to each gender, and, even more importantly, she connects the character traits and the given advice to each gender's position in society. Chapter 6. Warren S. Smith: Advice on Sex by the Self-Defeating Satirists (Horace Sermones 1.2, Juvenal Satire 6, and Roman satiric writing) Broad as it is in its scope, the chapter must have been a challenge for its author. It is also a challenge for the reader because of its somewhat loose composition. The introduction gives some versions of the so-called marriage joke; e.g. Cicero's in De oratore (2.278): A Sicilian, when told by a friend that his wife had hanged herself from a fig tree, replied, "Please give me some shoots from that tree to plant" (p. 112). This material might as well have been located in the introductory chapter. In its place one would have wished for an introduction to and a plan for the chapter. But, as it turns out, the central passage is a comparison between Horace and Juvenal's attitudes to sex and marriage. One finds interesting observations, but also passages that merely paraphrase Juvenal. The reference to self-defeat in the title might well have been explained in the chapter; apparently, it refers to a "pattern of apology" that Kenney has found in these satirists, and which Smith has treated briefly in Chapter 1 (p. 6).[[2]] In a section on the satirist or narrator under the heading "Physician, heal thyself", Smith presents various examples of the usual contradictions between what the narrator in satiric writings says and his message. In my opinion, this trait is an essential part of what makes a text satiric, and Smith's opinion should have been presented in Chapter 1, as promised in the Preface. Taken as a whole, the chapter is rather general in character; one wonders if it may originally have been written as an introduction? Chapter 7. Regine May: Chaste Artemis and Lusty Aphrodite: The portrait of women and marriage in three Greek and Roman novels May's chapter treats female characters in ancient Greek and Roman novels on the basis of the view that there are two main types of novel: ideal romance and comic realism. Women in the ideal novels are chaste heroines with traits borrowed from drama and epic, as opposed to the ordinary folk who are protagonists in the latter category with traits borrowed from lower genres. These observations form the basis for May's analysis of marriage as a theme in, e.g., Satyricon, and of the female characters. The chapter is well written, but nevertheless the link to the overall themes of the book-- not only women and marriage, but satiric advice -- is weak. Chapter 8. Elisabeth A. Clark: Dissuading from Marriage: Jerome and the asceticization of satire Clark's chapter, which is both learned and well written, discusses the relationship between Jerome and Tertullian concerning asceticism and marriage. It creates difficulties for the reader that essential parts of the chapter are presented in the end notes; the 164 notes fill 9 pages, which is 1/3 of the chapter as a whole. Clark is not the first to characterize certain of Jerome's works as satiric;[[3]] nevertheless, this is a crucial point. Clark notes that Jerome "deploys the satiric techniques of exaggeration, construction of a fictive adversary, and mimicry of opponents' voices; he depicts his satiric targets through diminutive and demeaning adjectives and nouns" (pp. 154 f.). But it can be argued that these techniques are also used in other genres, and when they occur without any trace of humour, they might rather be summed up as traits of deliberative rhetoric. The problem occurs again on p. 160, where Clark argues that in Adversus Helvidium "we find a highly satirical depiction of the matron's lot." What Jerome does, as illustrated by a long quotation, is to describe a day in the life of a housewife, with the argument that all her duties will take time away from prayer; cf. Paul's instruction that Christians should "pray always" (1 Thess. 5:17). But not everybody would agree that this is satirical. Chapter 9. Barbara Feichtinger: Change and Continuity in Pagan and Christian (invective) Thought on Women and Marriage from Antiquity to the Middle Ages Feichtinger asks why Christians turned to "the traditions of ancient misogamy or to pagan ideals of monogamy and cultic virginity when looking for arguments in favor of their ascetically motivated skepticism toward marriage" (pp. 182 f.). She is completely right in stating that "classical arguments for and against marriage were not simply taken over but underwent a complex process of adaptation" (p. 183). After an excellent analysis of central social functions of the antigamous and misogynic literature (pp. 185 f.), Feichtinger sums up the main points in which early Christian misogamy differs from that of the pagan tradition. Among these is the shift in audience, when women became addressees of the Christian anti-marriage propaganda. Her reflections are essential -- also to the volume as a whole -- but as they stand, they have not achieved the position they deserve, as part of the basis for the volume as a whole. Chapter 10. Ralph Hanna III and Warren S. Smith: Walter as Valerius: Classical and Christian in the Dissuasio This brief chapter treats Walter Map's Dissuasio Valerii ad Ruffinum 61485; a tract that was widely disseminated during the Middle Ages (131 manuscripts). Map's style and ideology are compared to that of his younger contemporary, Gerald of Wales, in an epistle to Map. It is argued (p. 214) that the image of "honey" is "itself rich in sensuous overtones"; one might add that honey is used in various ways in literature, e.g. as an image of eloquence.[[4]] Regarding the translation of "pene conscius" as "feels the pain" (p. 218), it is tempting to suggest as an alternative, "almost a conjuror" 61485; interpreting 1485; a tract that was widely disseminated during the Middle Ages (131 manuscripts). Map's style and ideology are compared to that of his younger contemporary, Gerald of Wales, in an epistle to Map. It is argued (p. 214) that the image of "honey" is "itself rich in sensuous overtones"; one might add that honey is used in various ways in literature, e.g. as an image of eloquence.[[4]] Regarding the translation of "pene conscius" as "feels the pain" (p. 218), it is tempting to suggest as an alternative, "almost a conjuror" 61485; interpreting 1485; interpreting pene as paene instead of poenae. The contribution makes demands of the reader; for example, Canius -- mentioned alongside Ulysses and Jason (p. 217) -- might well have been presented. Chapter 11. P.G. Walsh: Antifeminism in the High Middle Ages Walsh argues, convincingly, that a primary reason for the growth of antifeminist literature in the High Middle Ages was the "interest of insuring greater numbers of well-qualified ordained clergy", since "once married, they could not be ordained, and their path to a career in the church was accordingly closed" (p. 226). A second reason may have been a need to weaken the image of the ideal lady of twelfth century courtly poetry by Chre/tien de Troyes and others (p. 227). The sources for the antifeminist literature were classical Latin texts and works by the Church Fathers, like Jerome. On the use of Juvenal, Walsh writes that "what this poet of the wit wrote tongue in cheek was enthusiastically seized upon by bitter misogynists among the medieval clergy." Various examples are presented of antifeminist poems, collections of women's vices, etc. The love story of Abelard and Heloise may also be placed in this context, since Heloise rejected Abelard's proposal with reference to Jerome's tract Adversus Jovinianum. Chapter 12. Warren S. Smith: The Wife of Bath and Dorigen Debate Jerome Jerome's Adversus Jovinianum was his answer to a tract in which the monk Jovinianus argued that, from a Christian point of view, marriage is on a line with celibacy. Jerome's text goes far in antifeminism and misogamy. Through a series of quotations from Jerome and Chaucer respectively, Smith demonstrates how Alison, Chaucer's Wife of Bath, argues against Jerome's polemic and how she adopts an Augustinian -- and centrist -- position on marriage. A central question is related to Jerome's attitude. As stated above, this reader is not convinced that Jerome's work should be characterised as satiric, nor, for that matter, that the following passage in Adversus Jovinianum (on widows) should be labelled "mocking": If more than one husband be allowed, it makes no difference whether he be a second or a third, because there is no longer a question of single marriage. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient" [1 Cor 6:12, 10:23]. I do not condemn second, third, nor, pardon the expression, eighth marriages; I will go still further and say that I welcome even a penitent whoremonger. Things that are equally lawful must be weighed in an even balance (p. 248, Adversus Jovinianum 1.15). The reason why I wanted to read this book was the promise extended by the four key words in the title: satiric, advice, women and marriage. True, it is difficult to define "satire" as a genre, and the adjective covers an even broader field -- but one possible starting point for the discussion could have been Rudd's reflections in the introduction to his classical Themes in Roman Satire: Roman satirists may be thought of as functioning within a triangle of which the apices are (a) attack, (b) entertainment, and (c) preaching. If a poem rests too long on apex (a) it passes into lampoon or invective; if it lingers on (b) it changes into some form of comedy; and if it remains on (c) it becomes a sermon. In this triple function preaching appears to have a less important status than the other two.[[5]] Even though findings from more recent scholarship should be taken into account, these elements would have been useful in this particular book. The second concept, "advice", is also problematic. Whereas, e.g., Ovid's erotodidactic poems are advisory in their character, the same cannot be said about comedies. Even the specifications of "women and marriage" do not apply for all the authors and works treated: the Christian authors strongly recommend celibacy to both genders. Also Ovid creates problems, since he directs his advice to both genders; moreover, its content is related to liaisons more than marriage. There are few cross-references between chapters, even when the same material is treated. And when certain examples and anecdotes are referred to more than once, it is as though each time is the first. Let us take the famous speech of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, quoted by Gellius, as an example. The fullest treatment of his speech is given on p. 42, where the speech is quoted in Latin, with a translation and a brief commentary by Braund. On p. 183 the speech is quoted again, this time in English only, in a different translation from Braund's, and commented upon by Feichtinger. And the speech is referred to for the third time on p. 215 (by Hanna and Smith): "Gellius is the sole source for a famous antigamous oration by one Metellus." If we leave aside the question of antigamous, one gets the impression that Metellus was an obscure character, and again -- in a chapter of which the editor is a co-author -- there is no reference to the treatment in two preceding chapters. The index has the censor and orator as Macedonicus, with reference to p. 62 (Braund's conclusion), and as Metellus, with references to pp. 42 and 183 -- not to p. 215. A Pammachius occurs on p. 245; he is not in the index, and he should have been presented in the text. The same, as already noted, is the case with Canius, who is mentioned as a hero, alongside Ulysses and Jason, but is unknown to this reader. The number of apparently unintended repetitions suggests that the book might have profited from re-editing. In Chapter 1 one finds references to Plutarch's Moralia (the same passage, the same example) on two successive pages. Also in Chapter 1 the same argument (relating to Susanna Morton Braund's view on Juvenal's sixth satire) is presented twice (p. 4 and p. 12). Galatians 3.28 is paraphrased on p. 14, quoted on p. 15. On p. 121, the claim (with reference to Lucr. 4.1278-87) that "a persistent woman, even without physical charm", will have her way is repeated only few lines later in slightly different words: "Lucretius, at the end of De rerum natura 4, admits with some resignation that a woman, even one of plain appearance, will finally succeed in conquering her man by her winning ways ...". Furthermore, there are some factual errors. In the presentation of the so-called marriage joke in Chapter 6, the Greek version is translated in a way that affects the analysis that follows. <greek>kako\n gunai=kes</greek> does not mean "women are evil"; it means "women are an evil". It is anachronistic when it is said, on a passage by Ovid in Ars amatoria, that it "is a kind of critical rephrasing of Seneca [the Younger]'s statement ..." (p. 95). Similarly, on p. 27, Menander is mentioned among authors who may have influenced (among others) Xenophon and Aristotle in their treatment of marriage. The majority of the chapters are good, and all chapters present interesting material. However, this reviewer feels that the thematic concept of this book, which was potentially its main strength, turned out to be its main weakness. The absence of a concluding discussion leaves the reader without a clear perspective on the literary treatment accorded to the themes of misogyny and misogamy from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. **Contents** ------------ W.S. Smith, Satiric Advice -- serious or not?, p. 1 R. Hawley, "In a Different Guise": Roman education and Greek rhetorical thought on marriage, p. 26 S.M. Braund: Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce in Roman Comic Drama, p. 39 W.S. Smith: "The Cold Cares of Venus": Lucretius and anti-marriage literature, p. 71 K. Pollmann: Marriage and Gender in Ovid's Erotodidactic Poetry, p. 92 W.S. Smith: Advice on Sex by the Self-Defeating Satirists (Horace Sermones 1.2, Juvenal Satire 6, and Roman satiric writing), p. 111 R. May: Chaste Artemis and Lusty Aphrodite: The portrait of women and marriage in three Greek and Roman novels, p. 129 E.A. Clark: Dissuading from Marriage: Jerome and the asceticization of satire, p. 154 B. Feichtinger: Change and Continuity in Pagan and Christian (invective) Thought on Women and Marriage from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, p. 182 R. Hanna III and W.S. Smith: Walter as Valerius: Classical and Christian in the Dissuasio, p. 210 P.G. Walsh: Antifeminism in the High Middle Ages, p. 222 W.S. Smith: The Wife of Bath and Dorigen Debate Jerome, p. 243. ------------------ Notes: 1. E. Courtney: A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal, London 1980, M.M. Winkler: The Persona in Three Satires of Juvenal, Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 10, Hildesheim 1983, and S.M. Braund: "Juvenal: Misogynist or Misogamist? JRS 82 (1992): 71-86. 2. Smith refers to E.J. Kenney: "The First Satire of Juvenal." PCPS 8 (1962): 29-40. 3. Cf. David S. Wiesen: St. Jerome as a Satirist: A Study in Christian Latin Thought and Letters, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1964. 4. See, for example, Ennodius, Epist. 1.9.1. 5. Niall Rudd: Themes in Roman Satire, London: Duckworth, 1986, p. 1. Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewBMCR 2007.04.40, Giuseppe Lentini , Il 'padre di Telemaco' (fwd)Giuseppe Lentini, Il 'padre di Telemaco': Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Biblioteca di 'Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici', 18. Pisa: Giardini, 2006. Pp. 215. ISBN 88-427-1450-X. EUR 92.00. Reviewed by Christian Werner, Universidade de Sa~o Paulo (crwerner@xxxxxx) Word count: 1926 words ------------------------------- To read a print-formatted version of this review, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-04-40.html ------------------------------- Table of Contents (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/casalini05/07936419.pdf) Il 'padre di Telemaco', by Giuseppe Lentini (hereafter L.), a "tesi de perfezionamento" submitted at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa in 2004, is, strictly speaking, a book addressed to readers of Homer. The author does not bother translating the Greek text or contextualizing it to someone not well acquainted with the Iliad and the Odyssey. He goes straight to what concerns him most. Nevertheless, most passages he selects to build his arguments are well known and often discussed (some cruces among them). L.'s main interpretative presuppositions (drawn mainly from neoanalysis) could be summarized this way: a) in so far as both poems belong to the same oral tradition of epic composition, they share narrative motives (or themes); b) these motives allow the poet (or are his privileged medium) to characterize his characters; c) the tradition associates some of these motives particularly with a specific hero, and they are transmitted that way; d) in case of Odysseus, some motives associated with him broadly compose a fundamental episode, his adventure in Ithaca, which, in turn, generates "riproposizione" (re-presentations).[[1]] So, behind the Iliadic Odysseus L. tries to identify the same main motives that had characterized this hero in the Odyssean tradition. L. supports his reading by way of two main passages, each one composing a leitmotiv of a part of the book: Odysseus' denomination of himself as "Telemachus' father" in Iliad 4; and the conflict between Odysseus and Achilles in Iliad 19. In his first chapter, L. argues that the <greek>nei=kos</greek> is a motive fundamentally associated with Odysseus (another leitmotiv, but of the whole book), since it reappears many times during his return to Ithaca narrated in the Odyssey and determines also Odysseus' verbal performances in Iliad 2 and 4. In the following chapters, L. tries to show how the narrator of the Iliad, in the books just mentioned, depicts some of his characters by means of a double but interlaced opposition: fathers and sons, older and younger men. These oppositions help to explain the authority exerted by some heroes, especially Odysseus, and so it is not by mere chance that Agamemnon and Athena, in Iliad 4 and 5 respectively, narrate to Diomedes heroic feats of his father Tydeus. According to L., these feats present some motives that in both poems are connected with Odysseus, for example, the recruitment of an army, a mission as an ambassador, a fighting of one against many. Both Odysseus and Tydeus are not only described as paradigms to their sons, but they also express a "kind of competition" (p. 62) between generations, another Odyssean motive that we may especially follow in the double defeat that Odysseus inflicts on the young suitors (bow-contest and massacre), but that is also re-presented in other episodes like the Phaeacian games. These oppositions and motives appear also in the games in honour of Patroclos narrated in the Iliad (ch. 6). First, in the chariot-race, when Diomedes, a young man, and the values he represent gain the upper hand. But then, in the foot race, Odysseus beats the lesser Ajax, who not only had got involved before in a <greek>nei=kos</greek> situation with Idomeneus, but now is also the target of a derisive laugh by the other Achaeans. All that sums up another series of Odyssean motives gathered together to characterize Odysseus and the kind of hero he epitomizes. Before turning to the second part of the book, let me make some remarks about the first. L. is certainly right in his attempt to develop his analysis of a fixed text (the Iliad) by means of the reconstruction of a diachronic development (the characterization of Odysseus built inside the limits of an Odyssean tradition and so prior to its fixation in our text of the Odyssey). Nevertheless his attempt seems to be strictly bounded by (his reading of) the two texts and by Odysseus' characterization in both of them. If we had at our disposal a larger number of poems,[[2]] or if L. tried a comparative approach as well, would it not be the case that the combination of (some) motives that L. defends to be specially pertinent to the characterization of Odysseus depicts heroic feats of other heroes as well in a more independent way than that defended by L. in his reading of Tydeus' stories? Not only does the Homeric narrator envisaged by L. turn out to be quite free to invent the biographies of his heroes, but L.'s Iliadic Odysseus has an ideological and aesthetical status he has nowhere else in Archaic and Classical poetry than in the Odyssey.[[3]] Further, the re-presentation of this cluster of motives -- or some "extended narrative pattern"[[4]]-- through the Odyssey is not enough to prove the diachronic precedence of one bit of the story over the others. How can we possibly be so sure that the episode of the Polyphemus' cave was shaped according to the events in Ithaca and not the other way around, for example? So the expression "Telemachus' father" does not seem enough to prove that the motives of Odysseus' adventure in Ithaca as depicted in our Odyssey shaped other adventures of the hero in the Odyssey and his characterization in the Iliad. L. very often minimizes differences and maximizes likenesses to demonstrate his readings. For instance, he never discusses the fact that Tydeus is the victim of an ambush prepared by warriors younger than him, whereas Odysseus himself prepares an ambush against the young suitors. Are we then entitled to affirm that the likenesses between both episodes are more decisive than the differences, the supremacy of strength in one case, of wiliness in the other? Generally speaking, the bibliography of the book is quite comprehensive. However, some texts would have contributed to the discussion: D. Bouvier's Le sceptre et la lyre offers a sustained reading on the topic of filiation;[[5]] A. Kahane "Hexameter progression and the Homeric hero's solitary state" might have modulated L.'s thesis that the motive of "one against many" is deeply linked to Odysseus;[[6]] P. Rousseau, in "Le deuxie\me Atride: le type e/pique de Me/ne/las dans l'Iliade",[[7]] shows not only that in Iliad 17 Menelaus is much more than just a non-Odysseus, as affirmed by L. (p. 53), inasmuch as he does not fight alone against many, but, by discussing Menelaus' characterization in the Iliad, Rousseau alerts us that the valour of a hero depends on the campaign as a whole and so on the traditional ideological components traceable in the epos. L.'s implicit suggestion that Odysseus is the best, because the most complete, hero represented in the Iliad seems to go too far. In the second part of the book, comprising 8 chapters, L. develops again a set of oppositions that enhances Odysseus' singular kind of heroism. Now the starting point chosen by the author is Iliad 23: Why does Odysseus' <greek>mh/tis</greek> win in the foot race if Diomedes, a substitute figure of Achilles throughout the poem, wins in the chariot-race, specially since Antilochos' <greek>mh/tis</greek> is confronted with its limits? In the first chapter, L. interprets Demodocus' first and third songs, which together would compose an Iliad seen through the lens of the Odyssey. Nevertheless, L. only superficially discusses the difficult question of the relation between the composition and/or function of an embedded story -- to use the expression established by narratologists -- in view of the knowledge of an audience. Besides, L. omits Demodocus' second song, which is essential to understanding that a) the dispute between <greek>bi/h</greek> and <greek>mh/tis</greek> is central in the whole Odyssey 8 and b) that such a dispute does not go without some ambiguities.[[8]] In the next chapter, L. starts his analysis of Iliad 19, central to the following discussions. Whereas the narrator characterizes Odysseus as self-controlled and wise, Achilles is supposedly depicted as someone almost beastlike (his divine traits being downplayed by L.), a young warrior subdued by his <greek>qumo/s</greek> and <greek>me/nos</greek> (both seen at their most negative faces).[[9]] Based on that frame, L. offers the most challenging section of the second part of his book, the interpretation of Odysseus' scar (ch. 4). L. argues that the story narrated in Odyssey 19 shows a moment in Odysseus' heroic path when he still behaves like an excessively self-confident young man, someone who still ignores the consequences of his actions. That amounts to saying that he acts like an Achilles, and so he would have been incapable of "restraining a potentially damaging instinct" (p. 121). The scar points to a risk that Odysseus should avoid in Ithaca, where he could unwisely launch into a direct fight against the suitors as he once did against the boar. In the next chapter, L. does not show the same interpretative precision when he tries to demonstrate that Achilles, especially in his final Iliadic <greek>a)ristei/a</greek>, and the Odyssean Polyphemus share many and important resemblances. Here as elsewhere, L. has a clear purpose of enhancing likenesses (both do not restrain their <greek>qumo/s</greek> and so do not show any <greek>tlhmosu/nh</greek>) and ignoring differences. For example, nowhere does L. discuss what Achilles' exceptional (more than excessive) demonstration of mourning means. Does it really reflect a savage behaviour or does it somehow represent someone who knows (as does the external audience of the Iliad) he will shortly die? The discussion about the complex relation between the depiction of Achilles' mourning for Patroclus' death and his own following one seems to be irrelevant for L.'s reading. But does Achilles' privileged knowing not distinguish him from us, completely human beings? When Achilles resumes his fighting against the Trojans, he will not act like the young Odysseus in the hunting; he knows exactly what he will find. Finally, in chapter 6 L. characterizes Odysseus as an hero who does not disconnect the work of a farmer (and that amounts to saying the production of food that sustains human life) from the tasks that must be performed during a war, especially by a just and reasonable king-farmer; and in chapter 7, Odysseus is depicted as the most authentic representative of the king who solves <greek>nei/kh</greek>, even in the games that honour Patroclus. In this part of his book, too, L. does not refer to some modern interpretations that could make his reading less schematic and polarized, as for example, Nicole Loraux' analysis of the insatiability of war and S. Douglas Olson's discussion about Odysseus' role as a king in the Odyssey.[[10]] On the other hand, many quotations in the footnotes operate almost as an adornment, as testified by the reiterated use of the adjective "interessante" as the only comment on the content of a quotation. L.'s book is well-written, with hardly any misprints and even fewer mistakes (the only one I can mention is a reference to the Goat-Island as the Cyclops' one in p. 150). Its complete index of sources is indispensable in a book that moves constantly between the Iliad and the Odyssey; there is also an small index of "words and notable things". To sum up, I would like to emphasize that Il 'padre di Telemaco' not only presents a provoking argumentation (less by its methodology than by its theme, Odysseus' coherent characterization in both poems), but that it will be a fundamental book for discussion of some passages, like the stories of Tydeus in the Iliad and the story of Odysseus' scar in the Odyssey. Nevertheless, the book also suffers from an excess of simplifications and generalizations, signs of a search of peremptory conclusions which are often problematic in the discussion of Homer, as Ahuvia Kahane has recently shown in his Diachronic Dialogues. ------------------ Notes: 1. I should also mention that, although L. defends the idea that the Iliad and Odyssey result from different traditions (and in that context "tradition" is understood by the author basically as "story": the story of Achilles' anger and the story of Odysseus' return), he disagrees with such an interpretation as developed by Pietro Pucci in Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad (Ithaca, 1995/1987) and The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer (Lanham, 1997), according to which there would be an agonistic tension between these traditions. A recent book important for that -- in my opinion inconclusive -- discussion is Ahuvia Kahane Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition (Lanham, 2005). 2. And so, even coincidences in diction are hardly ever a conclusive proof of a direct relation between two or more passages, either as an allusion, or the same motive linked to a specific character (see, for example, n. 3 on p. 61 of L.'s book). 3. Sophocles' Ajax is obviously a possible exception, and therefore the opposition between Ajax and Odysseus would be mutatis mutandis an interesting test case for L.'s reading of the Homeric poems. 4. See Bruce Louden, The Odyssey: Structure, Narration and Meaning, Baltimore, 1999. 5. Grenoble, 2002. 6. In Egbert J. Bakker and Ahuvia Kahane (edd.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance and the Epic Text, Cambridge, Mass., 1997. 7. In ed. M.-M. Mactoux and E. Geny, Me/langes P. Le/ve^que 5, Paris, 1990. 8. That is argued by Martin Steinru+ck in Kranz und Wirbel: Ringkompositionen in de Büchern 6-8 der Odyssee, Hildesheim, 1997. 9. In that part of the book, structural anthropology (by means of the opposition between cooked and raw) and, specially, its use by James Redfield in Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (London, 1994/1975) is essential for L.'s argumentation. 10. Respectively in "L'Iliade moins les he/ros", in L'inactuel 1, 1994, 29-48; and Blood and Iron: Stories and Storytelling in Homer's Odyssey, Leiden, 1995. Next Message by Date: click to view message previewBMCR 2007.04.42, Susan Walker , Cleopatra. Ancients in Action (fwd)Susan Walker, Sally-Ann Ashton, Cleopatra. Ancients in Action. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2006. Pp. 125. ISBN 1-85399-673-4. $20.00 (pb). Reviewed by Susan Sorek, University of Lampeter (SUSANZOREK@xxxxxxx) Word count: 1791 words ------------------------------- To read a print-formatted version of this review, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-04-42.html ------------------------------- In this series of short incisive books the general reader is introduced to events in the lives of some of the major figures of the ancient world. In the Preface to this volume the authors set out their agenda to "recount the major events of Cleopatra's extraordinary life, setting her behaviour in the historic context of Ptolemaic Egypt and its relations with Rome, focusing on the major players in the fall of Egypt to Rome." Last but not least the authors also explore the very positive image that Cleopatra VII has enjoyed since antiquity in Egypt. In their review of the major events in the life of Cleopatra, they discuss the various images created in antiquity by Greek and Roman historians tracing their later transmission into the art and literature of western culture. Chapter 1, "From Heroic Suicide to Banknote Icon: Modern Views of Cleopatra," sets the scene by examining the reception "of all things Egyptian during the early 19th century. It was Napoleon's Egypt expedition that brought the ancient world of the Pharaohs to a western audience, who subsequently developed a liking for the exotic. Cleopatra was perhaps 'unnaturally' viewed as an eastern exotic temptress, and this early European image of the queen was to become the standard by which the west would subsequently evaluate her contribution to an axial period of history. The authors explore the theory propounded by the 19th century writer Hawthorne, and artist William Wetmore Story that Cleopatra had black African origins;[[1]] a theory which has, in more recent times, received a great deal of attention from the modern black feminist movement. The final section in this chapter examines the image of Cleopatra in modern Egypt, where it appears she is regarded as a "national treasure." The authors add that all of these images of Cleopatra are of considerable interest in exploring the attitudes that various societies have taken towards one of the most charismatic of all historical figures. Chapter 2, "The Historical Cleopatra," comprises the greater part of the work, and is divided into subsections which trace the major events in Cleopatra's life. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the history of the Ptolemies and includes an informative, if condensed, family tree (pp. 30-1). The authors provide a very interesting section on the Ptolemaic Queens, including an important discussion centred on Cleopatra I (the wife of Ptolemy V) who significantly developed her role as Queen by elevating her status as mother of the pharaoh, to set a precedent for all future Ptolemaic queens. Cleopatra I was also was the first Queen to achieve the status of goddess during her lifetime, taking the title 'Thea,' and this resulted in greater autonomy and power for future Ptolemaic women. However, it would be the two subsequent Queens Cleopatra II and III who paved the way for Cleopatra VII. Indeed the authors regard Cleopatra III as the role model for her great granddaughter.[[2]] The major problem in this section is lack of dates, as reference to the family tree provides no timeline, and the inclusion of which would have been very useful, especially for those readers who are unfamiliar with this period. There then follows a section on Cleopatra and her immediate family, dealing with Cleopatra's early links with Rome, Caesar and Pompey, as revealed in a dedication made in Athens indicating Cleopatra accompanied her father, Ptolemy XII to Rome in 57 BC, during the period of his exile. According to the authors it seems highly likely that she co-ruled with her father on his return from exile up to his death in 51 BC; certainly it is clear she later adopted many of his policies, and implemented many of his proposed building projects. This is followed by a section detailing Cleopatra's relationship with Julius Caesar. Here the authors give a brief yet very interesting discussion concerning the theory that Caesarion, the son of their union, may not have been born prior to Caesar's assassination in 45 BC, hence the fact he was not mentioned in Caesar's will despite being his legitimate heir. This omission of Caesarion by Caesar in his will has baffled scholars especially taking into consideration the divine honours Caesar granted Cleopatra by placing a statue of her, represented as the Egyptian goddess Isis, in the temple of Venus Genetrix in Rome. This act clearly implied that they shared a desire for recognition as divine rulers, and therefore Caesarion, who would, as an Egyptian ruler, be divine from birth, would be the natural successor to his father; whose attempts to establish his own divinity in Rome would have in part been responsible for his assassination. On Cleopatra's return to Alexandria, after Caesar's assassination, she began to consolidate her rule as Queen of Egypt; it was during this period she developed a relationship with Caesar's general, Mark Antony; recorded nearly two centuries later by Antony's biographer, the Greek historian Plutarch. It is this source that William Shakespeare used upon which to base his play Antony and Cleopatra, which strongly influenced the image of the queen and her consort in western minds. The famous scene in Plutarch describing the meeting of Cleopatra and Antony, as Isis meeting the god Dionysus, (for Antony was already being associated with the god in the Greek world), cemented the impression of Oriental decadence The story of Antony's liaison with Cleopatra culminating in the fatal battle of Actium, needs little further comment. However, the authors add to the story by supplying a brief overview of Antony's family history, including his first marriage to Fulvia and his second to the sister of Octavian, demonstrating in the process how Antony was seen by Rome to be a betrayer of all Roman virtues. The 'Ceremony of the Donations,' which took place in Alexandria in 34 BC, is also covered in more detail. After Antony's eastern campaign he chose to celebrate his triumph in Alexandria rather than Rome, and made generous gifts to his children and his queen, all of which was seen by the Romans as an affront to their gods. It was at this ceremony that Caesarion was given the title 'King of Kings,' and recognised by Antony as Caesar's legitimate son. "All these actions could only be understood as an enactment of a Greek version of the Egyptian concept of divine kingship." These actions by Antony gave Octavian all the justification he needed to go to war with Egypt. There are two further sections worthy of comment, which add greatly to the book and give a fuller insight into the image of the queen propagated by the Romans. First "Antony as Victim,"in which the authors demonstrate how Octavian (later Augustus), presented Antony as a victim of the queen, and thereby deprived her of any individual identity; instead she represented an emblem of eastern monarchy, which in turn was associated with decadence and depravity. Through this subtle use of propaganda Octavian was able to exaggerate the threat of Cleopatra and make her a credible enemy worthy of defeat, even in a civil war. Much of this propaganda survived for posterity in the works of Horace, Virgil and Propertius, as well as the works of Plutarch, and the authors demonstrate how Cleopatra became the 'fatal monster' to be chained by Caesar (Octavian) in Horace's Odes (1.37). By contrast in the final section entitled "Octavian as a foil to Cleopatra's integrity," the authors make a credible case to demonstrate, despite Roman propaganda, one aspect of the relationship between Octavian and Cleopatra that showed Cleopatra in a favourable light, and that concerned her negotiation with Octavian after the fall of Alexandria. Cleopatra demonstrated more integrity than Octavian and for the authors this makes her death her ennoblement. The fact that she was capable of great personal integrity is a virtue even Horace could not help but celebrate in his Ode cited above. Chapter 4, "Cleopatra as Queen of Egypt," contrasts the Graeco-Roman image of Cleopatra with the image portrayed by the Egyptians. The authors examine how the Egyptian representational process for its rulers developed through antiquity, followed by an explanation of the representations of the early Ptolemaic queens. The section that follows comprises a review of Egyptian statues of Cleopatra placing them firmly within their Egyptian context. The temples of the Pharaohs performed a political as well as religious function and this can been clearly seen in the temples most associated with Cleopatra those at Denderah and Armant,[[3]] especially where her dedications appear to be "quite deliberate and obvious choices reflecting her personal history." The temple dedicated to Caesar erected by Cleopatra in Alexandria also showed Cleopatra protecting the interests of her son Caesarion, by fostering his connection with Julius Caesar's divinity. There follows a brief discussion of the Koptos crown which may or may not have been the type worn by Cleopatra, and a brief discussion of Cleopatra's tomb, the location of which still remains a mystery. Her fame lived on in Egypt into the late antique and early Arab/Muslim period. Her patriotism was called upon in the 3rd century AD by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (Syria), in her revolt against Rome in AD 270, styling herself the 'new Cleopatra.'[[4]] Graffiti inscribed on a pillar at the temple of Philae at Aswan dated to the 4th century AD revealed that Cleopatra was being worshipped as a goddess. The 6th century AD Coptic Bishop John of Nikiou praised the queen as "the most illustrious and wise amongst women." Four centuries later the Arab historian Al-Masudi characterised Cleopatra as "the last of the wise women of Greece." There is a stark contrast between the eastern and western perceptions of Cleopatra; the east praises her intelligence and education, while the west mainly focuses on her sexuality and decadence. The final chapter, "Coda: The Meaning of Cleopatra's Death," briefly examines the significance of Cleopatra's chosen method of suicide by the bite of an asp, to ascertain whether or not there is any religiously symbolism inherent in this action. The authors take just over a page to reach the conclusion that as historians we are left with little tangible evidence about Cleopatra's beliefs, and so can never find an answer to the question. This is an extremely well written and well illustrated book, containing much relevant information on the life of this most intriguing of all the ancient queens, and an ideal source with which to begin any serious historical or archaeological study of the period. Unlike the majority of works on Cleopatra,[[5]] this work also evaluates her role as an Egyptian ruler, the last of the Ptolemies, using a wide range of source material from the literary to the archaeological. The only drawback is lack of references for some of the evidence presented, for example the graffiti at Philae. ------------------ Notes: 1. N. Hawthorne, The Marble Faun. 1860, rep. London 2000. This is a commentary on the marble statue of Cleopatra perceived by the artist William Story. He gave the Queen many Nubian features, so making her an icon for the white liberal movement in their struggle for black emancipation from slavery. 2. Cleopatra III died in 101 BC, murdered by her favourite son Ptolemy X. 3. This temple is also known as the Temple of Montu, the so-called birth house (Mammisi) of Cleopatra VII. 4. Zenobia clamed she was related to Cleopatra, although there is no exact proof to this effect. 5. See my review of P. Jones, Cleopatra: A Sourcebook, BMCR 2006.11.39, for comparison. Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewBMCR 2007.04.40, Giuseppe Lentini , Il 'padre di Telemaco' (fwd)Giuseppe Lentini, Il 'padre di Telemaco': Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Biblioteca di 'Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici', 18. Pisa: Giardini, 2006. Pp. 215. ISBN 88-427-1450-X. EUR 92.00. Reviewed by Christian Werner, Universidade de Sa~o Paulo (crwerner@xxxxxx) Word count: 1926 words ------------------------------- To read a print-formatted version of this review, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-04-40.html ------------------------------- Table of Contents (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/casalini05/07936419.pdf) Il 'padre di Telemaco', by Giuseppe Lentini (hereafter L.), a "tesi de perfezionamento" submitted at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa in 2004, is, strictly speaking, a book addressed to readers of Homer. The author does not bother translating the Greek text or contextualizing it to someone not well acquainted with the Iliad and the Odyssey. He goes straight to what concerns him most. Nevertheless, most passages he selects to build his arguments are well known and often discussed (some cruces among them). L.'s main interpretative presuppositions (drawn mainly from neoanalysis) could be summarized this way: a) in so far as both poems belong to the same oral tradition of epic composition, they share narrative motives (or themes); b) these motives allow the poet (or are his privileged medium) to characterize his characters; c) the tradition associates some of these motives particularly with a specific hero, and they are transmitted that way; d) in case of Odysseus, some motives associated with him broadly compose a fundamental episode, his adventure in Ithaca, which, in turn, generates "riproposizione" (re-presentations).[[1]] So, behind the Iliadic Odysseus L. tries to identify the same main motives that had characterized this hero in the Odyssean tradition. L. supports his reading by way of two main passages, each one composing a leitmotiv of a part of the book: Odysseus' denomination of himself as "Telemachus' father" in Iliad 4; and the conflict between Odysseus and Achilles in Iliad 19. In his first chapter, L. argues that the <greek>nei=kos</greek> is a motive fundamentally associated with Odysseus (another leitmotiv, but of the whole book), since it reappears many times during his return to Ithaca narrated in the Odyssey and determines also Odysseus' verbal performances in Iliad 2 and 4. In the following chapters, L. tries to show how the narrator of the Iliad, in the books just mentioned, depicts some of his characters by means of a double but interlaced opposition: fathers and sons, older and younger men. These oppositions help to explain the authority exerted by some heroes, especially Odysseus, and so it is not by mere chance that Agamemnon and Athena, in Iliad 4 and 5 respectively, narrate to Diomedes heroic feats of his father Tydeus. According to L., these feats present some motives that in both poems are connected with Odysseus, for example, the recruitment of an army, a mission as an ambassador, a fighting of one against many. Both Odysseus and Tydeus are not only described as paradigms to their sons, but they also express a "kind of competition" (p. 62) between generations, another Odyssean motive that we may especially follow in the double defeat that Odysseus inflicts on the young suitors (bow-contest and massacre), but that is also re-presented in other episodes like the Phaeacian games. These oppositions and motives appear also in the games in honour of Patroclos narrated in the Iliad (ch. 6). First, in the chariot-race, when Diomedes, a young man, and the values he represent gain the upper hand. But then, in the foot race, Odysseus beats the lesser Ajax, who not only had got involved before in a <greek>nei=kos</greek> situation with Idomeneus, but now is also the target of a derisive laugh by the other Achaeans. All that sums up another series of Odyssean motives gathered together to characterize Odysseus and the kind of hero he epitomizes. Before turning to the second part of the book, let me make some remarks about the first. L. is certainly right in his attempt to develop his analysis of a fixed text (the Iliad) by means of the reconstruction of a diachronic development (the characterization of Odysseus built inside the limits of an Odyssean tradition and so prior to its fixation in our text of the Odyssey). Nevertheless his attempt seems to be strictly bounded by (his reading of) the two texts and by Odysseus' characterization in both of them. If we had at our disposal a larger number of poems,[[2]] or if L. tried a comparative approach as well, would it not be the case that the combination of (some) motives that L. defends to be specially pertinent to the characterization of Odysseus depicts heroic feats of other heroes as well in a more independent way than that defended by L. in his reading of Tydeus' stories? Not only does the Homeric narrator envisaged by L. turn out to be quite free to invent the biographies of his heroes, but L.'s Iliadic Odysseus has an ideological and aesthetical status he has nowhere else in Archaic and Classical poetry than in the Odyssey.[[3]] Further, the re-presentation of this cluster of motives -- or some "extended narrative pattern"[[4]]-- through the Odyssey is not enough to prove the diachronic precedence of one bit of the story over the others. How can we possibly be so sure that the episode of the Polyphemus' cave was shaped according to the events in Ithaca and not the other way around, for example? So the expression "Telemachus' father" does not seem enough to prove that the motives of Odysseus' adventure in Ithaca as depicted in our Odyssey shaped other adventures of the hero in the Odyssey and his characterization in the Iliad. L. very often minimizes differences and maximizes likenesses to demonstrate his readings. For instance, he never discusses the fact that Tydeus is the victim of an ambush prepared by warriors younger than him, whereas Odysseus himself prepares an ambush against the young suitors. Are we then entitled to affirm that the likenesses between both episodes are more decisive than the differences, the supremacy of strength in one case, of wiliness in the other? Generally speaking, the bibliography of the book is quite comprehensive. However, some texts would have contributed to the discussion: D. Bouvier's Le sceptre et la lyre offers a sustained reading on the topic of filiation;[[5]] A. Kahane "Hexameter progression and the Homeric hero's solitary state" might have modulated L.'s thesis that the motive of "one against many" is deeply linked to Odysseus;[[6]] P. Rousseau, in "Le deuxie\me Atride: le type e/pique de Me/ne/las dans l'Iliade",[[7]] shows not only that in Iliad 17 Menelaus is much more than just a non-Odysseus, as affirmed by L. (p. 53), inasmuch as he does not fight alone against many, but, by discussing Menelaus' characterization in the Iliad, Rousseau alerts us that the valour of a hero depends on the campaign as a whole and so on the traditional ideological components traceable in the epos. L.'s implicit suggestion that Odysseus is the best, because the most complete, hero represented in the Iliad seems to go too far. In the second part of the book, comprising 8 chapters, L. develops again a set of oppositions that enhances Odysseus' singular kind of heroism. Now the starting point chosen by the author is Iliad 23: Why does Odysseus' <greek>mh/tis</greek> win in the foot race if Diomedes, a substitute figure of Achilles throughout the poem, wins in the chariot-race, specially since Antilochos' <greek>mh/tis</greek> is confronted with its limits? In the first chapter, L. interprets Demodocus' first and third songs, which together would compose an Iliad seen through the lens of the Odyssey. Nevertheless, L. only superficially discusses the difficult question of the relation between the composition and/or function of an embedded story -- to use the expression established by narratologists -- in view of the knowledge of an audience. Besides, L. omits Demodocus' second song, which is essential to understanding that a) the dispute between <greek>bi/h</greek> and <greek>mh/tis</greek> is central in the whole Odyssey 8 and b) that such a dispute does not go without some ambiguities.[[8]] In the next chapter, L. starts his analysis of Iliad 19, central to the following discussions. Whereas the narrator characterizes Odysseus as self-controlled and wise, Achilles is supposedly depicted as someone almost beastlike (his divine traits being downplayed by L.), a young warrior subdued by his <greek>qumo/s</greek> and <greek>me/nos</greek> (both seen at their most negative faces).[[9]] Based on that frame, L. offers the most challenging section of the second part of his book, the interpretation of Odysseus' scar (ch. 4). L. argues that the story narrated in Odyssey 19 shows a moment in Odysseus' heroic path when he still behaves like an excessively self-confident young man, someone who still ignores the consequences of his actions. That amounts to saying that he acts like an Achilles, and so he would have been incapable of "restraining a potentially damaging instinct" (p. 121). The scar points to a risk that Odysseus should avoid in Ithaca, where he could unwisely launch into a direct fight against the suitors as he once did against the boar. In the next chapter, L. does not show the same interpretative precision when he tries to demonstrate that Achilles, especially in his final Iliadic <greek>a)ristei/a</greek>, and the Odyssean Polyphemus share many and important resemblances. Here as elsewhere, L. has a clear purpose of enhancing likenesses (both do not restrain their <greek>qumo/s</greek> and so do not show any <greek>tlhmosu/nh</greek>) and ignoring differences. For example, nowhere does L. discuss what Achilles' exceptional (more than excessive) demonstration of mourning means. Does it really reflect a savage behaviour or does it somehow represent someone who knows (as does the external audience of the Iliad) he will shortly die? The discussion about the complex relation between the depiction of Achilles' mourning for Patroclus' death and his own following one seems to be irrelevant for L.'s reading. But does Achilles' privileged knowing not distinguish him from us, completely human beings? When Achilles resumes his fighting against the Trojans, he will not act like the young Odysseus in the hunting; he knows exactly what he will find. Finally, in chapter 6 L. characterizes Odysseus as an hero who does not disconnect the work of a farmer (and that amounts to saying the production of food that sustains human life) from the tasks that must be performed during a war, especially by a just and reasonable king-farmer; and in chapter 7, Odysseus is depicted as the most authentic representative of the king who solves <greek>nei/kh</greek>, even in the games that honour Patroclus. In this part of his book, too, L. does not refer to some modern interpretations that could make his reading less schematic and polarized, as for example, Nicole Loraux' analysis of the insatiability of war and S. Douglas Olson's discussion about Odysseus' role as a king in the Odyssey.[[10]] On the other hand, many quotations in the footnotes operate almost as an adornment, as testified by the reiterated use of the adjective "interessante" as the only comment on the content of a quotation. L.'s book is well-written, with hardly any misprints and even fewer mistakes (the only one I can mention is a reference to the Goat-Island as the Cyclops' one in p. 150). Its complete index of sources is indispensable in a book that moves constantly between the Iliad and the Odyssey; there is also an small index of "words and notable things". To sum up, I would like to emphasize that Il 'padre di Telemaco' not only presents a provoking argumentation (less by its methodology than by its theme, Odysseus' coherent characterization in both poems), but that it will be a fundamental book for discussion of some passages, like the stories of Tydeus in the Iliad and the story of Odysseus' scar in the Odyssey. Nevertheless, the book also suffers from an excess of simplifications and generalizations, signs of a search of peremptory conclusions which are often problematic in the discussion of Homer, as Ahuvia Kahane has recently shown in his Diachronic Dialogues. ------------------ Notes: 1. I should also mention that, although L. defends the idea that the Iliad and Odyssey result from different traditions (and in that context "tradition" is understood by the author basically as "story": the story of Achilles' anger and the story of Odysseus' return), he disagrees with such an interpretation as developed by Pietro Pucci in Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad (Ithaca, 1995/1987) and The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer (Lanham, 1997), according to which there would be an agonistic tension between these traditions. A recent book important for that -- in my opinion inconclusive -- discussion is Ahuvia Kahane Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition (Lanham, 2005). 2. And so, even coincidences in diction are hardly ever a conclusive proof of a direct relation between two or more passages, either as an allusion, or the same motive linked to a specific character (see, for example, n. 3 on p. 61 of L.'s book). 3. Sophocles' Ajax is obviously a possible exception, and therefore the opposition between Ajax and Odysseus would be mutatis mutandis an interesting test case for L.'s reading of the Homeric poems. 4. See Bruce Louden, The Odyssey: Structure, Narration and Meaning, Baltimore, 1999. 5. Grenoble, 2002. 6. In Egbert J. Bakker and Ahuvia Kahane (edd.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance and the Epic Text, Cambridge, Mass., 1997. 7. In ed. M.-M. Mactoux and E. Geny, Me/langes P. Le/ve^que 5, Paris, 1990. 8. That is argued by Martin Steinru+ck in Kranz und Wirbel: Ringkompositionen in de Büchern 6-8 der Odyssee, Hildesheim, 1997. 9. In that part of the book, structural anthropology (by means of the opposition between cooked and raw) and, specially, its use by James Redfield in Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (London, 1994/1975) is essential for L.'s argumentation. 10. Respectively in "L'Iliade moins les he/ros", in L'inactuel 1, 1994, 29-48; and Blood and Iron: Stories and Storytelling in Homer's Odyssey, Leiden, 1995. Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewBMCR 2007.04.42, Susan Walker , Cleopatra. Ancients in Action (fwd)Susan Walker, Sally-Ann Ashton, Cleopatra. Ancients in Action. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2006. Pp. 125. ISBN 1-85399-673-4. $20.00 (pb). Reviewed by Susan Sorek, University of Lampeter (SUSANZOREK@xxxxxxx) Word count: 1791 words ------------------------------- To read a print-formatted version of this review, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-04-42.html ------------------------------- In this series of short incisive books the general reader is introduced to events in the lives of some of the major figures of the ancient world. In the Preface to this volume the authors set out their agenda to "recount the major events of Cleopatra's extraordinary life, setting her behaviour in the historic context of Ptolemaic Egypt and its relations with Rome, focusing on the major players in the fall of Egypt to Rome." Last but not least the authors also explore the very positive image that Cleopatra VII has enjoyed since antiquity in Egypt. In their review of the major events in the life of Cleopatra, they discuss the various images created in antiquity by Greek and Roman historians tracing their later transmission into the art and literature of western culture. Chapter 1, "From Heroic Suicide to Banknote Icon: Modern Views of Cleopatra," sets the scene by examining the reception "of all things Egyptian during the early 19th century. It was Napoleon's Egypt expedition that brought the ancient world of the Pharaohs to a western audience, who subsequently developed a liking for the exotic. Cleopatra was perhaps 'unnaturally' viewed as an eastern exotic temptress, and this early European image of the queen was to become the standard by which the west would subsequently evaluate her contribution to an axial period of history. The authors explore the theory propounded by the 19th century writer Hawthorne, and artist William Wetmore Story that Cleopatra had black African origins;[[1]] a theory which has, in more recent times, received a great deal of attention from the modern black feminist movement. The final section in this chapter examines the image of Cleopatra in modern Egypt, where it appears she is regarded as a "national treasure." The authors add that all of these images of Cleopatra are of considerable interest in exploring the attitudes that various societies have taken towards one of the most charismatic of all historical figures. Chapter 2, "The Historical Cleopatra," comprises the greater part of the work, and is divided into subsections which trace the major events in Cleopatra's life. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the history of the Ptolemies and includes an informative, if condensed, family tree (pp. 30-1). The authors provide a very interesting section on the Ptolemaic Queens, including an important discussion centred on Cleopatra I (the wife of Ptolemy V) who significantly developed her role as Queen by elevating her status as mother of the pharaoh, to set a precedent for all future Ptolemaic queens. Cleopatra I was also was the first Queen to achieve the status of goddess during her lifetime, taking the title 'Thea,' and this resulted in greater autonomy and power for future Ptolemaic women. However, it would be the two subsequent Queens Cleopatra II and III who paved the way for Cleopatra VII. Indeed the authors regard Cleopatra III as the role model for her great granddaughter.[[2]] The major problem in this section is lack of dates, as reference to the family tree provides no timeline, and the inclusion of which would have been very useful, especially for those readers who are unfamiliar with this period. There then follows a section on Cleopatra and her immediate family, dealing with Cleopatra's early links with Rome, Caesar and Pompey, as revealed in a dedication made in Athens indicating Cleopatra accompanied her father, Ptolemy XII to Rome in 57 BC, during the period of his exile. According to the authors it seems highly likely that she co-ruled with her father on his return from exile up to his death in 51 BC; certainly it is clear she later adopted many of his policies, and implemented many of his proposed building projects. This is followed by a section detailing Cleopatra's relationship with Julius Caesar. Here the authors give a brief yet very interesting discussion concerning the theory that Caesarion, the son of their union, may not have been born prior to Caesar's assassination in 45 BC, hence the fact he was not mentioned in Caesar's will despite being his legitimate heir. This omission of Caesarion by Caesar in his will has baffled scholars especially taking into consideration the divine honours Caesar granted Cleopatra by placing a statue of her, represented as the Egyptian goddess Isis, in the temple of Venus Genetrix in Rome. This act clearly implied that they shared a desire for recognition as divine rulers, and therefore Caesarion, who would, as an Egyptian ruler, be divine from birth, would be the natural successor to his father; whose attempts to establish his own divinity in Rome would have in part been responsible for his assassination. On Cleopatra's return to Alexandria, after Caesar's assassination, she began to consolidate her rule as Queen of Egypt; it was during this period she developed a relationship with Caesar's general, Mark Antony; recorded nearly two centuries later by Antony's biographer, the Greek historian Plutarch. It is this source that William Shakespeare used upon which to base his play Antony and Cleopatra, which strongly influenced the image of the queen and her consort in western minds. The famous scene in Plutarch describing the meeting of Cleopatra and Antony, as Isis meeting the god Dionysus, (for Antony was already being associated with the god in the Greek world), cemented the impression of Oriental decadence The story of Antony's liaison with Cleopatra culminating in the fatal battle of Actium, needs little further comment. However, the authors add to the story by supplying a brief overview of Antony's family history, including his first marriage to Fulvia and his second to the sister of Octavian, demonstrating in the process how Antony was seen by Rome to be a betrayer of all Roman virtues. The 'Ceremony of the Donations,' which took place in Alexandria in 34 BC, is also covered in more detail. After Antony's eastern campaign he chose to celebrate his triumph in Alexandria rather than Rome, and made generous gifts to his children and his queen, all of which was seen by the Romans as an affront to their gods. It was at this ceremony that Caesarion was given the title 'King of Kings,' and recognised by Antony as Caesar's legitimate son. "All these actions could only be understood as an enactment of a Greek version of the Egyptian concept of divine kingship." These actions by Antony gave Octavian all the justification he needed to go to war with Egypt. There are two further sections worthy of comment, which add greatly to the book and give a fuller insight into the image of the queen propagated by the Romans. First "Antony as Victim,"in which the authors demonstrate how Octavian (later Augustus), presented Antony as a victim of the queen, and thereby deprived her of any individual identity; instead she represented an emblem of eastern monarchy, which in turn was associated with decadence and depravity. Through this subtle use of propaganda Octavian was able to exaggerate the threat of Cleopatra and make her a credible enemy worthy of defeat, even in a civil war. Much of this propaganda survived for posterity in the works of Horace, Virgil and Propertius, as well as the works of Plutarch, and the authors demonstrate how Cleopatra became the 'fatal monster' to be chained by Caesar (Octavian) in Horace's Odes (1.37). By contrast in the final section entitled "Octavian as a foil to Cleopatra's integrity," the authors make a credible case to demonstrate, despite Roman propaganda, one aspect of the relationship between Octavian and Cleopatra that showed Cleopatra in a favourable light, and that concerned her negotiation with Octavian after the fall of Alexandria. Cleopatra demonstrated more integrity than Octavian and for the authors this makes her death her ennoblement. The fact that she was capable of great personal integrity is a virtue even Horace could not help but celebrate in his Ode cited above. Chapter 4, "Cleopatra as Queen of Egypt," contrasts the Graeco-Roman image of Cleopatra with the image portrayed by the Egyptians. The authors examine how the Egyptian representational process for its rulers developed through antiquity, followed by an explanation of the representations of the early Ptolemaic queens. The section that follows comprises a review of Egyptian statues of Cleopatra placing them firmly within their Egyptian context. The temples of the Pharaohs performed a political as well as religious function and this can been clearly seen in the temples most associated with Cleopatra those at Denderah and Armant,[[3]] especially where her dedications appear to be "quite deliberate and obvious choices reflecting her personal history." The temple dedicated to Caesar erected by Cleopatra in Alexandria also showed Cleopatra protecting the interests of her son Caesarion, by fostering his connection with Julius Caesar's divinity. There follows a brief discussion of the Koptos crown which may or may not have been the type worn by Cleopatra, and a brief discussion of Cleopatra's tomb, the location of which still remains a mystery. Her fame lived on in Egypt into the late antique and early Arab/Muslim period. Her patriotism was called upon in the 3rd century AD by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (Syria), in her revolt against Rome in AD 270, styling herself the 'new Cleopatra.'[[4]] Graffiti inscribed on a pillar at the temple of Philae at Aswan dated to the 4th century AD revealed that Cleopatra was being worshipped as a goddess. The 6th century AD Coptic Bishop John of Nikiou praised the queen as "the most illustrious and wise amongst women." Four centuries later the Arab historian Al-Masudi characterised Cleopatra as "the last of the wise women of Greece." There is a stark contrast between the eastern and western perceptions of Cleopatra; the east praises her intelligence and education, while the west mainly focuses on her sexuality and decadence. The final chapter, "Coda: The Meaning of Cleopatra's Death," briefly examines the significance of Cleopatra's chosen method of suicide by the bite of an asp, to ascertain whether or not there is any religiously symbolism inherent in this action. The authors take just over a page to reach the conclusion that as historians we are left with little tangible evidence about Cleopatra's beliefs, and so can never find an answer to the question. This is an extremely well written and well illustrated book, containing much relevant information on the life of this most intriguing of all the ancient queens, and an ideal source with which to begin any serious historical or archaeological study of the period. Unlike the majority of works on Cleopatra,[[5]] this work also evaluates her role as an Egyptian ruler, the last of the Ptolemies, using a wide range of source material from the literary to the archaeological. The only drawback is lack of references for some of the evidence presented, for example the graffiti at Philae. ------------------ Notes: 1. N. Hawthorne, The Marble Faun. 1860, rep. London 2000. This is a commentary on the marble statue of Cleopatra perceived by the artist William Story. He gave the Queen many Nubian features, so making her an icon for the white liberal movement in their struggle for black emancipation from slavery. 2. Cleopatra III died in 101 BC, murdered by her favourite son Ptolemy X. 3. This temple is also known as the Temple of Montu, the so-called birth house (Mammisi) of Cleopatra VII. 4. Zenobia clamed she was related to Cleopatra, although there is no exact proof to this effect. 5. See my review of P. Jones, Cleopatra: A Sourcebook, BMCR 2006.11.39, for comparison. Loading Comments...
|
|
