University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Spring 2011 Conceptions of the Poetic in Classical Greek Prose Alison Traweek [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Traweek, Alison, "Conceptions of the Poetic in Classical Greek Prose" (2011). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 303. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/303 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/303 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conceptions of the Poetic in Classical Greek Prose Abstract CONCEPTIONS OF THE POETIC IN CLASSICAL GREEK PROSE Alison C. Traweek Dr. Sheila Murnaghan This dissertation explores how prose authors of the Classical period envisioned literary distinctions, particularly how and when they labeled a particular utterance ‘poetic’. The first chapter addresses fifth- century prose authors whose work survives in significant degree (Herodotus, Thucydides), or whose projects are inherently interested in literary categorization (Gorgias). The second chapter continues the investigation, looking now at relevant fourth-century authors who show an explicit interest in literary categories and, especially, the place of poetry (Isocrates, Plato). The final chapter addresses Aristotle’s treatment of poetry. The foundation of the project is a semantic analysis of the language used to describe or single out a work or production as poetic. The primary terms are various POI- root words (e.g. poivhma, poihthv~); various words of song (e.g. ajoidov~, mevlo~); and several adjectives and adverbs that consistently appear in the period in discussions of literary distinctions. There emerges, when these terms are traced through time, a clear picture of the ongoing instability of literary categories. Meter is consistently put forward as a formal feature that marks off poetry from prose, for instance, but it is just as consistently rejected by the same authors as a satisfying distinction; instead, further categories defined by subtler features are introduced to more accurately describe literary productions, and those productions’ relationship to the poetic. Studying how the authors of this period distinguished literary categories makes it clear that our emphasis on the contrast between prose and poetry is too simplistic. Rather, the continual negotiations we see these authors engaged in when trying to define the poetic alerts us to the relative nature of literary categories, and how poetry only becomes what it is in contrast to what it is not. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Classical Studies First Advisor Dr. Sheila Murnaghan Second Advisor Dr. Ralph Rosen Third Advisor Dr. Peter Struck Keywords Greek, poetry, genre, classical Greek, prose Subject Categories Classical Literature and Philology This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/303 CONCEPTIONS OF THE POETIC IN CLASSICAL GREEK PROSE Alison C. Traweek A DISSERTATION in Classical Studies Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2011 Supervisor of Dissertation _________________________ Dr. Sheila Murnaghan, Alfred Reginald Allen Memorial Professor of Greek Graduate Group Chairperson __________________________ Dr. Emily Wilson, Associate Professor of Classical Studies Dissertation Committee Dr. Ralph Rosen, Rose Family Endowed Term Professor Dr. Peter Struck, Associate Professor of Classical Studies COPYRIGHT CONCEPTIONS OF THE POETIC IN CLASSICAL GREEK PROSE 2011 Alison C. Traweek iii To my mother, who instilled in me a lasting love of poetry. iv Acknowledgements This project is indebted in so many ways to the classes, conversations, and colloquia related to the department that I can say, without exaggeration, that it would not have been possible without the whole set of the specific, and remarkable, faculty, staff and colleagues of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Particular thanks are due to my advisor, Bridget Murnaghan, who took even my most abstract and unformed ideas seriously, and had the patience and good humor to read through the earliest drafts with care. My readers Ralph Rosen and Peter Struck, similarly, have supported me at every step, and helped me see the forest when I was lost among the trees. Special appreciation goes to Jeremy Lefkowitz and Emily Modrall, who have been friends and mentors since my earliest days at Penn, and have seen me through to the end. Jason Nethercut and Sarah Scullin deserve far more than this brief mention for the generosity and hospitality they have shown me over the years; they have not only made my last several years easier by opening their home to me, but have made it richer by sharing their time and friendship. I do not know how to begin to thank my family, who has taken every one of my sometimes questionable life choices in stride, and has never doubted me. Finally, a proper accounting of the myriad ways in which I am indebted to Douglas Carman would require a dissertation of its own, so I will say here only that I am extremely grateful for all he has done, and, perhaps more importantly, for all that he has been willing to endure, to bring this dissertation into being. v ABSTRACT CONCEPTIONS OF THE POETIC IN CLASSICAL GREEK PROSE Alison C. Traweek Dr. Sheila Murnaghan This dissertation explores how prose authors of the Classical period envisioned literary distinctions, particularly how and when they labeled a particular utterance ‘poetic’. The first chapter addresses fifth-century prose authors whose work survives in significant degree (Herodotus, Thucydides), or whose projects are inherently interested in literary categorization (Gorgias). The second chapter continues the investigation, looking now at relevant fourth-century authors who show an explicit interest in literary categories and, especially, the place of poetry (Isocrates, Plato). The final chapter addresses Aristotle’s treatment of poetry. The foundation of the project is a semantic analysis of the language used to describe or single out a work or production as poetic. The primary terms are various POI- root words (e.g. poivhma, poihthv~); various words of song (e.g. ajoidov~, mevlo~); and several adjectives and adverbs that consistently appear in the period in discussions of literary distinctions. There emerges, when these terms are traced through time, a clear picture of the ongoing instability of literary categories. Meter is consistently put forward as a formal feature that marks off poetry from prose, for instance, but it is just as consistently rejected by the same authors as a satisfying distinction; instead, further categories defined by subtler features are introduced to more accurately describe literary productions, and those productions’ relationship to the poetic. Studying how the authors of this period distinguished literary categories makes it clear that our emphasis on vi the contrast between prose and poetry is too simplistic. Rather, the continual negotiations we see these authors engaged in when trying to define the poetic alerts us to the relative nature of literary categories, and how poetry only becomes what it is in contrast to what it is not. vii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Defining Poetry in the Fifth Century 7 Gorgias 8 Herodotus 17 Thucydides 35 Chapter 2: Defining Poetry in the Fourth Century 53 Isocrates 55 Plato 74 Chapter 3: Aristotelian Poetics 119 Conclusions 168 Bibliography 171 1 Introduction Dr. Diana Deutsch, a professor of psychology at the University of California in San Diego, studies sound perception, and particularly how we perceive music. Among her findings are a number of what she calls ‘musical illusions,’ situations where our brain recategorizes the musical sounds it is hearing into something quite different from what is actually being played.1 She found that the brain does something similar with speech, a phenomenon she labels ‘phantom words.’ When a given phrase or sentence is repeated exactly, as by playing a recording again and again, the brain begins to assign a pattern to its intonations, a melody: the words gradually come to be perceived as sung rather than spoken. Once this has happened, there is no way of turning the words back into speech. Even when that sentence or phrase is returned to its context and heard as it was originally intended to be, it remains song rather than speech; the brain hears the reintegrated words as if the speaker, who had been going along normally, suddenly burst into song, and then returned, seamlessly, to normal speech.2 That is, the brain has permanently marked those words, permanently differentiated them from ordinary speech. Considering the nature of Greek poetry, Dr. Deutsch’s ‘phantom words’ provide an unusually clear illustration of the issue at the heart of this project: most of us, if presented with a segment of language, would be able to categorize it as song or speech immediately, but Dr. Deutsch has shown 1 Discussions and sound files of her so-called ‘musical illusions’ are available on her website, http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/deutsch_research1.php. 2 An example and discussion by Dr. Deutsch of this phenomenon of ‘phantom words’ can be found at http://philomel.com/phantom_words/sometimes.php.