DOCSLIB.ORG

Euanthes and the World of Rhetoric in Achilles Tatius' Leucippe And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Euanthes and the World of Rhetoric in Achilles Tatius' Leucippe And Euanthes and the World of Rhetoric in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon KATHERINE A. MCHUGH The University of Edinburgh In Book Three of Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Cleitophon there is an ekphrasis of a painting, one of three within the entirety of the novel. The description takes place after the protagonists’ arrival at Pelusium, as they happen upon the Temple of Zeus and come across “double images” (εἰκόνα διπλῆν, 3,6,3) which have been signed by the artist Euanthes (3,6,3).1 The main aim of this article is to consider the name of this artist, as opposed to the painting itself; it seeks to prove that Euanthes was not a real figure, but a name created by Achilles which is imbued with rhetorical references in keeping with the intellectual climate of 2nd Century AD Greek literature. The name Euanthes and its possible rhetorical connotations will be explored in conjunction with a detailed consideration of Achilles’ use of ekphrasis throughout Leucippe and Cleitophon and his interest in rhetorical edu- cation in order to assert that some of the author’s playful in-jokes have been un- derstudied, and that they can provide us with a clearer picture of how the author strives to appeal to his reader; that is, a reader who is steeped in a rhetorical edu- cation himself. The article also considers the other two ekphraseis of paintings in Leucippe and Cleitophon (which occur in Books One and Five) in order to aid with an understanding of Achilles’ use of the rhetorical technique and how sig- nificant rhetoric is to his novel as a whole. It also examines some examples from other authors of the period (namely, Lucian and Aelius Theon) in order to support the suggestion of Euanthes as a word embedded in rhetoric. Before delving into the ekphrasis in Book Three, and the name Euanthes, a wider consideration of the treatment of the visual artist in Achilles Tatius is nec- essary to provide further evidence of the fact that he was highly invested in using his novel to both comment upon and compete with visual art, whilst also incorpo- rating ideas of rhetoric. To substantiate the argument that Achilles is interested in ————— 1 The Greek text is taken from Garnaud (1991); translations are my own. Ancient Narrative Volume 16, 1-14 https://doi.org/10.21827/an.16.35773 2 KATHERINE A. MCHUGH visual art, as well as the relationship between fictional literary and physical worlds of art, one may compare his work with the other imperial Greek novelists. Achilles often refers specifically to an artist in his work; the word γραφεύς (painter) is used five times in Leucippe and Cleitophon (1,1,4, twice at 3,3,4, 3,7,1 and 3,8,2) and not at all by the other three novelists. Another word for a visual artist, ζωγράφος, is used five times by Achilles (1,1,12; 3,6,3; 3,7,3; 5,3,4 and 5,3,7). It is used once by Chariton, not in an ekphrasis, but in a description attempting to evoke a beau- tiful image of Callirhoe holding her baby, “the sort of image which not even a painter had created” (Call.,3,8,6). The word for an artist or craftsman, τεχνίτης, is perhaps the most interesting to explore here if we also want to consider the rela- tionship between the visual artist and rhetorician. It is used only once by Helio- dorus in an ekphrasis of a carved stone (Aeth.,5,14,4), and in no place in Longus or Chariton; Achilles uses it twice in ekphrastic context (1,1,4 and 1,1,6). Most significantly, Xenophon of Ephesus uses it once, in a rhetorical context. Describ- ing the wealthy Aristomachus, Hippothous says that he is a “craftsman” (τεχνίτης) “of speeches” (λόγων) (Eph.,3,2,8). The fact that the same word can be used for a rhetorician and a visual artist is highly significant when it is put into the context of Achilles Tatius’ work; as will be explored further below, in the naming of Eu- anthes, Achilles was preoccupied with the relationship of the rhetorical, literary and visual worlds. The same phrase for a “craftsmen of speeches” may also have been used by Antonius Diogenes in his Wonders Beyond Thule. Photios, in his summary of the lost work, describes Dinias giving Cymbas tablets made of cy- press in a manner learned from a scribe, Erasinides, a τεχνίτης λόγων.2 Achilles uses the word τεχνίτης both times for a visual artist. However, its usage in other authors’ works in a context of the written word or that of speeches highlights how a craftsman of a visual work of art and one of a written work were associated. As we further explore the ekpraseis in Leucippe and Cleitophon, and how Achilles might be creating a deceit as he, the writer, is really the creator of the ‘visual’ art he describes, it becomes clear how closely related the worlds of the visual and rhetorical arts were. Having looked briefly at the evidence for the fact that Achilles was particu- larly interested in the visual artist and how their arts can be associated with rhet- oric, I now turn to look in-depth at the paintings by Euanthes in Book Three of Leucippe and Cleitophon. In doing so, I hope to illustrate that Euanthes the artist ————— 2 See Photios, Bibl. Cod. 166, 111a. The possible use of this phrase by Antonius Diogenes is particularly interesting because of the pseudo-documentary nature of the Wonders Be- yond Thule. If, as this article suggests, Euanthes is a literary figure constructed by Achilles to appear to be an historical figure, then this is in itself pseudo-documentarism. For more on pseudo-documentarism in ancient literature, see esp. Hansen (2003) and Ní Mheallaigh (2008) EUANTHES AND THE WORLD OF RHETORIC… 3 encapsulates the relationship between the visual and rhetorical, as his very name seems to fit into a world imbued with rhetorical education. In the ekphrasis of Euanthes’ artworks, Achilles appears to be suggesting a diptych, with one image of Andromeda and one of Prometheus. Cleitophon informs the reader of the con- nected themes between the two: “both are chained to rocks”, “wild beasts are the “executioners” of both” and “members of the Argive family are protectors of both” (Πέτραι μὲν ἀμφοῖν τὸ δεσμωτήριον, θῆρες δὲ κατ̓ ἀμφοῖν οἱ δήμιοι … ἐπίκουροι δὲ αὐτοῖς Ἀργεῖοι δύο συγγενεῖς, 3,6,4). The ekphrasis has an abrupt end at the close of 3,8 and then immediately the main narrative begins again at 3,9. Within the corpus of scholarship on Achilles Tatius, a great deal of attention has been paid to the ekphraseis, with many discussing their proleptic function. In this case, there has been a focus on the foreshadowing function of the two paint- ings; as Bartsch comments, they “foreshadow different aspects of the same event”.3 That is, the (false) sacrifice and disembowelment of Leucippe at 3,15. Clearly this is the case; both Andromeda and Leucippe are chained up, waiting for death. Andromeda’s position chained to the rock-hollow is described, and the narrator says that if someone were to see her beauty she would be like “a new statue” (ἀγάλματι καινῷ, 3,7,2), but if they saw the chains and the sea-monster, they would see the rock as an “improvised/contrived tomb” (αὐτοσχεδίῳ τάφῳ, 3,7,2). Leucippe, too, is “tied up with hands behind her back” (ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δεδεμένην, 3,15,1) and a σορός (tomb) has been made for her near to the altar (3,15,1). In terms of the painting of Prometheus, the violent image of the bird feeding upon his belly after having ripped it open (Ὄρνις ἐς τὴν τοῦ Προμηθέως γαστέρα τρυφᾷ· ἕστηκε γὰρ αὐτὴν ἀνοίγων, ἤδη μὲν ἀνεῳγμένην,4 3,8,1-2) is clearly reflected in the disembowelment of Leucippe, where her entrails “imme- diately leapt out” after she was cut open (τὰ σπλάγχνα δὲ εὐθὺς ἐξεπήδησεν, 3,15,5). The bird eats the insides of Prometheus, and after cutting Leucippe open the brigands, too, feast on their victim. Bartsch discusses how the “proleptic sim- iles” which are the paintings of Andromeda and Prometheus at first cause the reader to feel confident that they have discovered the link between the paintings and what later happens, but that this is Achilles’ deceit as it then turns out that the sacrifice and disembowelment of Leucippe was ultimately fake.5 The analysis of the ekphrasis which characterizes it as a foreshadowing technique is very likely, ————— 3 Bartsch (1989), 55. See also Morales (2004) for comments on the proleptic functions of the ekphraseis in Leucippe and Cleitophon. 4 “A bird fed on the stomach of Prometheus, and it stood there opening it up, or had already opened it”. 5 Bartsch (1989), 58-59. 4 KATHERINE A. MCHUGH and even more credit can be given to this interpretation when one considers that the painting of Europa in Book One does the same thing.6 However, it is not just through the subject matter of the paintings themselves in which Achilles is deceitful. He is, in fact, deceitful from the very outset when he names Euanthes. Few have commented on Euanthes, and when they do it is to dismiss him as an authorial creation without any further explanation, or to deter- mine that he must have been a real artist. Vilborg writes that the name was “cer- tainly … fictitious” without giving any further analysis or explanation.7 Phillips, on the other hand, states that Euanthes was a real artist (although attested nowhere else) and that Achilles’ description is of a painting by him.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clitophon's Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima
    Clitophon’s Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima Before I discuss the text in detail, I would like to briefly sketch the main line of arguments in the Clitophon which I am going to take up, just for the sake of anamnēsis of the readers : In the opening scene Socrates speaks to Clitophon in the third person and tells him that he heard from somebody else that Clitophon, in his conversation with Lysias, has criticised Socratic diatribai (pursuits), whereas he has lavishly praised his synousia (association) with Thrasymachus. Taking Socrates’ words as a sort of disguised criticism or complaint, Clitophon answers that the story was only half true, because although he did on the one hand criticise Socrates, he also on the other hand highly praised him. Then, he explains to Socrates why he must take such an ambiguous attitude towards him. In the first half of his speech he focuses on the aspect of Socratic teaching which he admires unreservedly, namely Socrates’ protreptic speech towards virtues. Here he refers to a lot of Socratic dicta which remind us of well known passages in the early dialogues of Plato. By contrast, in the latter half Clitophon explains where his deep frustration with Socrates lies. He says that, being already converted by Socratic protreptic and resolved to pursue virtues, what he expects now from Socrates is “what comes next”, that is a detailed account of the essence of virtues to be acquired and a piece of concrete advice on how to acquire them. But to these - Clitophon complains - neither Socrates’ company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48303-2 — the Moon in the Greek and Roman Imagination Karen Ní Mheallaigh Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48303-2 — The Moon in the Greek and Roman Imagination Karen ní Mheallaigh Index More Information Index Achilles’ shield. See Homer Callimachus, – Aëtius, – celestial bowls, – Aglaonice, – Cicero, Somnium Scipionis, –, , See Alcmaeon of Croton, , – selēnoskopia (or ‘view from Moon’) Alcman Cleomedes, , Partheneia (Maiden Songs), – cognitive estrangement. See selēnoskopia (view from Alexander of Abonouteichos, – Moon) amphiphōntes, Colin Webster, , – analogical drift, Corinna, – Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, , –, –, cup of Helios, – Cyrano de Bergerac, , n Anaximander of Miletus, – Anaximenes of Miletus, – Demetrius Triclinius, n, , – Ancient Greek calendar, See also parapēgmata Democritus of Abdera, –, Antiphanes of Berge, – Diogenes of Apollonia, antiphraxis, – dioptra. See Lucian, True Stories Antonius Diogenes, The incredible things beyond Thule earthshine, – and scholarly hoax, – Earthy Moon Theory (EMT), –, –, and the Arctic, – See Plutarch, De facie and the Moon, – problems/challenges, , – narrative complexity, – eclipse Apollo Noumēnios, lunar eclipse, – Apuleius mechanism of eclipse, – lunam despumari, – solar eclipse, , – Aristarchus of Samos, , Empedocles of Acragas, –, , – Aristotle Empedotimus, fire creatures on the Moon, – Endymiones, , – on nature of Moon, Ennius’ dream, – theory of elements, Epimenides of Crete, – Astraeus, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, astral travel. See soul projection Hermes. See selēnoskopia (or ‘view from astronomical observation, , See mountains Moon’) astronomy
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf
    Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Silencing the Female Voice in Longus and Achilles Tatius
    Silencing the female voice in Longus and Achilles Tatius Word Count: 12,904 Exam Number: B052116 Classical Studies MA (Hons) School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh B052116 Acknowledgments I am indebted to the brilliant Dr Calum Maciver, whose passion for these novels is continually inspiring. Thank you for your incredible supervision and patience. I’d also like to thank Dr Donncha O’Rourke for his advice and boundless encouragement. My warmest thanks to Sekheena and Emily for their assistance in proofreading this paper. To my fantastic circle of Classics girls, thank you for your companionship and humour. Thanks to my parents for their love and support. To Ben, for giving me strength and light. And finally, to the Edinburgh University Classics Department, for a truly rewarding four years. 1 B052116 Table of Contents Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………….1 List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….4 Chapter 1: Through the Male Lens………………………………………………………6 The Aftertaste of Sophrosune……………………………………………………………….6 Male Viewers and Voyeuristic Fantasy.…………………………………………………....8 Narratorial Manipulation of Perspective………………………………………………….11 Chapter 2: The Mythic Hush…………………………………………………………….15 Echoing Violence in Longus……………………………………………………………….16 Making a myth out of Chloe………………………………………………………………..19 Leucippe and Europa: introducing the mythic parallel……………………………………21 Andromeda, Philomela and Procne: shifting perspectives………………………………...22 Chapter 3: Rupturing the
    [Show full text]
  • Theagenes' Sōphrosynē in Heliodorus' Aethiopica
    Virtue Obscured: Theagenes’ Sōphrosynē in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica RACHEL BIRD Swansea University The concept of sōphrosynē has a central role in the genre of the Greek novel.1 The five extant texts have at their heart the representation of a mutual, heterosexual erotic relationship between beautiful, aristocratic youths and, in all of the novels apart from Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe, the protagonists’ possession of sōphrosynē is a crucial part of their identity. They must prove their sōphrosynē when faced with sexual advances from lustful antagonists, and they often prove their fidelity through their innate regard for this virtue. While as a term and con- cept sōphrosynē2 is semantically complex, encompassing the qualities and psy- chological states of temperance, moderation, sanity, self-control and chastity, in the novels it generally refers to sexual restraint and the motivation behind chastity. The texts differ in their respective treatments of sōphrosynē: there is a spectrum from the representation of mutual chastity in Xenophon of Ephesus’ novel, which has been labelled obsessive,3 to the irreverent subversion of chastity found in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.4 Despite these divergent treatments, the role of sōphrosynē is always fundamental to the ethics of these novels. Heliodorus’ Aethiopica has long been considered a complex work, particu- larly in terms of its narrative structure.5 The characterisation of its protagonists ————— 1 I consider the five extant works of Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus, Longus, Achilles Ta- tius and Heliodorus to be examples of the genre of the Greek novel. For discussion of sōphrosynē in the novels, see Anderson 1997; De Temmerman 2014; Kaspryzsk 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Gods: Epiphany and Narrative in the Greek Novels
    Seeing Gods: Epiphany and Narrative in the Greek Novels ROBERT L. CIOFFI Bard College The Greek world was full of the divine, and the imagined world of the ancient novels was no different.1 Divinity and its worship pervade the novels’ narra- tives, helping to unite, drive apart, and then reunite their protagonists. In this paper, I explore the relationship between ancient religion and literature, the transformation of literary tradition, and the place of the marvelous in the nov- els’ narratives by examining the role that one aspect of the human experience of the gods, epiphany, plays in the genre. Although the novelists describe very few scenes of actual epiphany,2 they make abundant use of the epiphanic met- aphor in what I will call “epiphanic situations,” when an internal audience reacts to the hero or, most often, the heroine of the novel as if he or she were a god or goddess. These epiphanic situations transform the common metaphor of divine beauty into a reality, at least as experienced by the internal audience,3 and they offer the novelists an alternative to ekphrasis for expressing ineffable beauty. ————— 1 Zeitlin 2008, 91 writes: “The novels are full of: temples, shrines, altars, priests, rituals and offerings, dreams (or oracles), prophecies, divine epiphanies, aretalogies, mystic language and other metaphors of the sacred (not forgetting, in addition, exotic barbarian rites).” 2 In the novels, mortals are most frequently visited by divinities during dreams: e.g., Chari- ton 2,3; X. Eph. 1,12; Longus 1,7-8, 2,23, 2,26-27, 3,27, 4,34; Ach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spell of Achilles Tatius: Magic and Metafiction in Leucippe and Clitophon
    The Spell of Achilles Tatius: Magic and Metafiction in Leucippe and Clitophon ASHLI J.E. BAKER Bucknell University Eros is “…δεινὸς γόης καὶ φαρμακεὺς καὶ σοφιστής…” (Plato, Symposium 203d) Introduction In the beginning of Book Two of Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon, the clever but thus far failed lover Clitophon witnesses a remarkable – and useful – scene. He passes by just as Clio, Leucippe’s slave, is stung on the hand by a bee. He sees Leucippe soothe Clio’s pain by singing incantations (ἐπᾴδω) she says she learned from an Egyptian woman.1 When Clitophon, determined to woo Leu- cippe, finds himself alone with her on the following day, he pretends that he too has been stung by a bee. Leucippe approaches, asking where he has been stung. In reply, Clitophon says, ————— 1 παύσειν γὰρ αὐτὴν τῆς ἀλγηδόνος δύο ἐπᾴσασαν ῥήματα· διδαχθῆναι γὰρ αὐτὴν ὑπό τινος Αἰγυπτίας εἰς πληγὰς σφηκῶν καὶ μελιττῶν. Καὶ ἅμα ἐπῇδε· καὶ ἔλεγεν ἡ Κλειὼ μετὰ μικρὸν ῥᾴων γεγονέναι. (2.7 - “…she would, she said, stop her pain by chanting two spells; she had been taught by an Egyptian woman how to deal with wasp- and bee-stings. As she had chanted, Clio had said that the pain was gradually relieved.”). All Greek text of Leu- cippe and Clitophon is that of Garnaud 1991. All translations are cited, with occasional alterations, from Whitmarsh 2001. I want to give special thanks to Catherine Connors for her insightful comments throughout the drafting of this paper. Thanks too to Alex Hollmann and Stephen Trzaskoma for feedback on earlier versions of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications 2020
    Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford: publications 2020 This list contains some of the work published by members of the Faculty with the year of publication 2020. Allan, W. (2020), ‘Poetry and Philosophy in the Sophists’, Araucaria 44: 285-302. Armstrong, R. (2020), ‘Hercules and the Stone Tree: Aeneid 8.233–40’ CQ 70.2. Ashdowne, R. (2020), ‘-mannus makyth man(n)? Latin as an indirect source for English lexical history’ in L. Wright (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English (Berlin & Boston), 411-441. Ballesteros. B. (2020), 'Poseidon and Zeus in Iliad 7 and Odyssey 13: on a case of Homeric imitation’, Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie 148: 259–277. Benaissa, A. (2020), ‘A Papyrus of Hermogenes’ On Issues in the Bodleian Library’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung 66.2: 265–272. Benaissa, A. (2020), ‘The Will of Haynchis Daughter of Isas’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 214: 230–235. Benaissa, A. (2020), ‘Late Antique Papyri from Hermopolis in the British Library I’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 215: 257–272. Benaissa, A. (2020), ‘P.Oxy. LXXVII 5123 and the Economic Relations between the Apion Estate and its Coloni Adscripticii’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 50 (forthcoming 2020). Beniassa, A. (2020), ‘An Official Deposition from the Early Fifth Century’, in J. V. Stolk and G. van Loon (eds.), Text Editions of (Abnormal) Hieratic, Demotic, Greek, Latin and Coptic Papyri and Ostraca. ‘Some People Love Their Friends Also When They Are Far Away’: Festschrift in Honour of Franscisca A.J. Hoogendijk (Leiden), 167–170. Benaissa, A. (2020),‘Notes on Oxyrhynchite Toponyms’, Tyche 35 (forthcoming 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 INTRODUCTION Achilles Tatius Despite the Explosion of Interest In
    Cambridge University Press 0521642647 - Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon Helen Morales Excerpt More information 1 INTRODUCTION Achilles Tatius Despite the explosion of interest in ancient fiction over the last few decades, Leucippe and Clitophon remains the least studied of the five major Greek novels. To my knowledge, this is the first published monograph on Achilles; so far Leucippe has been left on the shelf. ‘Most moderns,’ explains Ewen Bowie in his entry on Achilles Tatius in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, ‘uncertain how to evaluate him, prefer Longus and Heliodorus.’1 Graham Anderson concurs: ‘Even at the lowest level of literary criticism, at which writers receive one-word adjectives, one can do something for the rest of the extant novelists: Xenophon of Ephesus is na¨ıve, Heliodorus cleverly convoluted, Longus artfully simple: yet what is one to say about Achilles?’2 Scholarship on the novel is moving forward so quickly that these comments will soon seem dated. Nevertheless, they are symptomatic of a fundamental difficulty: there is no consensus about what to make of Achilles Tatius; at the most basic level, about how to read him. Parody? Pastiche? Pornography? It is, as John Morgan puts it, a ‘hyper-enigmatic’ novel.3 Part of the problem is that Achilles Tatius is frequently eval- uated against the norms of the genre (often as the Joker in the pack: ‘[Achilles Tatius] inverse syst´ematiquementles conventions du genre’;4 ‘He conducts a prolonged guerrilla war against the conventions of his own genre’5), and the norms and the genre are themselves problematic to define.6 It is important to note that recent approaches to the genre have been driven by the last few decades’ 1 OCD, 3rd edn (1996), 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading for Pleasure: Narrative, Irony, and Erotics in Achilles Tatius
    READING FOR PLEASURE: NARRATIVE, IRONY, AND EROTICS IN ACHILLES TATIUS Tim Whitmarsh Leucippe & Clitophon is exceptional among the corpus of extant Greek novels in that it is almost entirely narrated by a central pro- tagonist in the narrative.1 The opening words are those of an un- named figure explaining how he met Clitophon lamenting his experi- ences in love; and in response to his request, Clitophon narrated his tale. That tale then becomes the remainder of the novel (there is no return to the outer frame at the conclusion). This feature—so-called ‘ego-narration’ (or, to use a technical phrase, ‘character-bound nar- ration’2)—has often been remarked upon from a narratological per- spective: commentators have shown how subtly Achilles manipulates his readers’ knowledge and ignorance of events for the purposes of narrative tension and drama.3 In this essay I want to take a rather dif- ferent approach. What sort of narrator is Clitophon? How does his identity affect his selection and interpretation of material? And what pleasures are to be had from observing his partisanship and blind- spots? In other words, does Clitophon’s narrative dramatise a certain kind of approach to novel-reading, an approach that is itself explored, distanced, problematised, ironised? Ego-narratives are not in and of themselves ironical, they become so when they are read as such; when, that is, a gap (be it cognitive, moral or intellectual) opens up between the focalization of the nar- rator and that of the reader. But for a narrative to be read as ironical (rather than, say, simply contemptible), the reader must recognise a complicity with a figure (not necessarily a character, but an identifi- able perspective) within the text who shares her perspective.4 The 1 If we restrict the corpus to the canonical five, that is.
    [Show full text]
  • Author BC AD ACHILLES TATIUS 500? Acts of Paul and Thecla, of Pilate, of Thomas, of Peter and Paul, of Barnabas, Etc
    Author BC AD ACHILLES TATIUS 500? Acts of Paul and Thecla, of Pilate, of Thomas, of Peter and Paul, of Barnabas, etc. at the earliest from 2d cent. on AELIAN c. 180 AESCHINES 345 AESCHYLUS *525, †456 AESOP 1 570 AETIUS c. 500 AGATHARCHIDES 117? ALCAEUS MYTILENAEUS 610 ALCIPHRON 200? ALCMAN 610 ALEXIS 350 AMBROSE, Bp. of Milan 374 AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS †c. 400 AMMONIUS, the grammarian 390 ANACREON2 530 ANAXANDRIDES 350 ANAXIMANDER 580 ANDOCIDES 405 ANTIPHANES 380 ANTIPHON 412 ANTONINUS, M. AURELIUS †180 APOLLODORUS of Athens 140 APOLLONIUS DYSCOLUS 140 APOLLONIUS RHODIUS 200 APPIAN 150 APPULEIUS 160 AQUILA (translator of the O. T.) 2d cent. (under Hadrian.) ARATUS 270 ARCHILOCHUS 700 ARCHIMEDES, the mathematician 250 ARCHYTAS c. 400 1 But the current Fables are not his; on the History of Greek Fable, see Rutherford, Babrius, Introd. ch. ii. 2 Only a few fragments of the odes ascribed to him are genuine. ARETAEUS 80? ARISTAENETUS 450? ARISTEAS3 270 ARISTIDES, P. AELIUS 160 ARISTOPHANES *444, †380 ARISTOPHANES, the grammarian 200 ARISTOTLE *384, †322 ARRIAN (pupil and friend of Epictetus) *c. 100 ARTEMIDORUS DALDIANUS (oneirocritica) 160 ATHANASIUS †373 ATHENAEUS, the grammarian 228 ATHENAGORUS of Athens 177? AUGUSTINE, Bp. of Hippo †430 AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS †c. 390 BABRIUS (see Rutherford, Babrius, Intr. ch. i.) (some say 50?) c. 225 BARNABAS, Epistle written c. 100? Baruch, Apocryphal Book of c. 75? Basilica, the4 c. 900 BASIL THE GREAT, Bp. of Caesarea †379 BASIL of Seleucia 450 Bel and the Dragon 2nd cent.? BION 200 CAESAR, GAIUS JULIUS †March 15, 44 CALLIMACHUS 260 Canons and Constitutions, Apostolic 3rd and 4th cent.
    [Show full text]
  • Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens Tim Rood
    Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens Tim Rood To cite this version: Tim Rood. Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens. KTÈMA Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques, Université de Strasbourg, 2017, 42, pp.19-39. halshs-01670082 HAL Id: halshs-01670082 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01670082 Submitted on 21 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Les interprétations de la défaite de 404 Edith Foster Interpretations of Athen’s defeat in the Peloponnesian war ............................................................. 7 Edmond LÉVY Thucydide, le premier interprète d’une défaite anormale ................................................................. 9 Tim Rood Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens ...................................................................................... 19 Cinzia Bearzot La συμφορά de la cité La défaite d’Athènes (405-404 av. J.-C.) chez les orateurs attiques .................................................. 41 Michel Humm Rome, une « cité grecque
    [Show full text]