THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 13 stands outside his own poem, weaving together the strands that pull Achilles away from Troy and those, like Calchas, that pull him back. The next two chapters are on Briseis and Patroclus, and the major difference here is that they, unlike Deidamia, are present in the Iliad. Hence these two central chapters rely heav- ily upon F.’s superb ability to read the sometimes rebarbative polemics of the Homeric scholia with sympathy and even-handedness. Ancient readers who understood Achilles’ relationship with Briseis and Patroclus as sentimental, erotic liaisons necessarily relied upon tendentious and partial readings of Homer. F. starts by clearly affirming the ana- chronistic and erroneous nature of these interpretations; he then tries to understand what the ancient exegetical tradition can tell us about these interpretative strategies. The payoff comes when we move past the scholia to poetic traditions that were informed by them. It is no longer news to say that the Latin epic tradition was heavily influenced by Hellenistic scholarship on Homer; F. convincingly shows that this was no less the case for the treat- ment of Briseis in Latin elegy. The question of a sexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus has a long and well-known history, which F. surveys authoritatively. Once again the major payoff comes on the Latin side of the tradition, providing a particularly rich backdrop for an inter- pretation of the Nisus and Euryalus episode in Virgil’s Aeneid and the episode of Hopleus and Dymas in Statius’ Thebaid. The book concludes with a brief chapter on Penthesileia. In addition to considering the Amazon’s role in the cyclic Aethiopis, Propertius, Quintus of Smyrna and Nonnus, F. wonders why the hero of the Aeneid did not fall in love with her Italian counterpart, Camilla. Perhaps Aeneas already had, in a way. It is precisely while Aeneas is gazing intently at a painting of Penthesileia in the Temple of Juno that Dido makes her first appearance. Both are women who dared to vie, in different ways, with men (Aen. 1.493 with Austin ad loc.). In the end, we discover just how many ancient writers blithely disregarded Horace’s command to represent Achilles always as impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer, which may be a hint that Horace’s po-faced prescriptivism was, as often in the Ars poetica (121), meant ironically (contra pp. 10–12). F. demonstrates several clear lines of develop- ment from early debates about the Iliad to sentimental representations of the character of Achilles in later poetry. This is not the sort of argument that lends itself to a tidy, unified thesis; hence the book ends without an explicit conclusion. It is rather a work whose value lies in the quality of the individual details. The extremely subtle interpretations and the sur- prising intertextual juxtapositions contained in this book will make it essential reading for anyone interested in the post-Homeric Achilles, and perhaps even to Homerists as well. Indeed, anyone who enjoys reading literary criticism of the highest calibre will find this book a great pleasure. Durham University PETER HESLIN [email protected] CALAME ON MYTHOLOGY C ALAME (C.)Qu’est-ce que la mythologie grecque? Pp. 732. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 2015. Paper, E10.20. ISBN: 978-2-07-044578-3. doi:10.1017/S0009840X15003108 This is an updated re-edition (C. calls it a ‘redaction’, p. 19) of Poétique des mythes dans la Grèce antique (2000), published in English as Greek Mythology: Poetics, Pragmatics and The Classical Review 66.1 13–15 © The Classical Association (2016) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:54:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X15003108 14 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW Fiction (2009). The new publication preserves the chapters in the same order as the original (with titles slightly changed) and has three more chapters, devoted to Theseus, Heracles and Prometheus. These three studies effectively complete C.’s survey of Greek mythology, allow him to demonstrate yet again the validity of his approach with further examples, and offer a deeper engagement with the iconography of the myths. This is a hefty volume. Its 732 pages, in a small font, are characteristically dense. The updated bibliography runs to 61 pages and the notes, which occupy 125 pages, contain a wealth of information (followed by a general index). The ‘table de matières’ offers synop- ses of each chapter’s contents and can serve as a guide for readers. After an ‘avant-propos’ explaining the origins and design of the volume, come eleven chapters: ‘Mythe et Mytho-logiques’; ‘Creátions narratives et poétiques’; ‘Bellérophon, le passage à l’âge adulte et la pragmatique du récit homérique’; ‘Clytemnestre, Oreste et la célébration poétique d’une victorie aux Jeux pythiques’; ‘Iô, les Danaïdes, l’étranger et l’autochtone: l’inflexion tragique’; ‘Hélène, la guerre de Troie et les desseins de l’historiographie’; ‘Thésée l’Athénien en héros iconographique: légitimation d’une politique d’expansion maritime’; ‘Héraclès, héros tragique et victime sacrificielle: entre drame et culte’; ‘Prométhée et la justice civique dans le dialogue philosophique’; ‘Le devin Tirésias, la déesse Athéna et le poète savant d’Alexandrie’; ‘Artémis, Hippolyte et l’espace cultuel de Trézène raconté par un géographe’. A short ‘Conclusion. Réalités virtuelles et fictions référentielles’ rounds out the volume. In the first chapter C. restates once again his position concerning the concepts of ‘myth’ and ‘mythology’ as modern (not indigenous) categories (p. 17). He examines the ancient uses of the terms mythos and logos, and warns against the opposition mythos/logos which, he affirms, is a creation of the eighteenth century, whereas in the fifth century B.C. the terms were practically synonymous. This provides C. with the occasion for a historical survey of ‘myth’ interpretation and hermeneutics in the West. C. reminds us of the need to reflect on our methodology, espe- cially since this has, according to C., become increasingly difficult of late, due to the con- straints that neoliberal ideology, dominant since the eighties, has imposed on freedom of thought in the humanities (pp. 17–18). In his methodological critique, C. is reacting specifically to what he feels have been abuses of structuralism at the hands of some scholars, who take it to very high levels of abstraction and, by excessive concentration on what is common to all versions, end up neglecting the specificities of the stories that we call ‘myths’. Those stories, as the ancients understood them, cannot be torn from the texts that embody them and which belong to a certain time, genre, historical and social situation, and cultic and performance context (they are characterised by intra-and extra-discursive elements, in C.’s terminology). The rest of the book consists of analyses of well-chosen narratives in various Greek texts that survey Greek literature from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter and the story of Bellerophon in Iliad 6 to Pindaric lyric, tragedy, Herodotus, Hellenistic poetry and Pausanias. The ancients, C. states, were always sensitive to the pragmatic functions of the texts that appear to us to contain ‘myths’. Since it is impossible to do justice to all C.’s analyses in a short review, I have selected a few illustrative cases. The first text analysed, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, is closely connected to the ritual of the Eleusinian Mysteries, which the hymn both institutes and, at the same time, performs or enacts. Again, in C.’s interpretation of Pythian 11, Pindar’s treatment of Orestes’ story (his matricide is glossed over and the stress is put on the double murder of Agamemnon and Cassandra by Clytemnestra, p. 173) is motivated by the performance of the poem in honour of a Theban victor, Thrasydaeus, to whose ritual heroisation the ode, as an ‘acte de parole chanté et ritual’ Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:54:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X15003108 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 15 (p. 161), is a contribution. C. includes here some excellent reflections on the ‘I’ of the lyric poet, who delegates his voice to the chorus in the ode’s performance but still retains the authority to approve the figures of both Orestes and Agamemnon as successful men with excellent reputations and to present Clytemnestra’s crime as the worst possible offence. The gnomic component of the ode exhibits a parallel contrast between praise and criticism: C’est en effet uniquement par contraste, sinon par antiphrase, que l’évocation narrative de la séquence des meurtres provoqués ou commis par Agamemnon, Clytemnestre et leurs fils Oreste peut contribuer à l’héroïsation de la victoire athlétique du jeune Thébain. Le processus d’héroïsation n’est guère assuré que par la tension poétique entre mômos, reproche, et épainos, éloge. (p. 184) And yet, the process of heroisation is only fully achieved at the end of the ode, with the mention (and implicit connection to Thrasydaeus) of the Theban hero Iolaus, Heracles’ nephew, and the Dioscuri, all of whom received a cult. It is only here that the boy Thrasydaeus, fully assimilated to these heroic figures, attains within the performative space of the poem his own heroic status. Unlike the immortality granted by epic, which is acquired through death, Pindar offers his victors a living glory. Pindar’s proclamation of Thrasydaeus’ success is the more powerful and effective in that it takes place as part of a ritual celebration.