de vries. remarks on historiography

Remarks on the Historiography of Greek LiteratureAuthor(s): G. J. de VriesSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 36, Fasc. 3/4 (1983), pp. 241-259Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431246 .

Accessed: 20/02/2014 13:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 164.73.224.2 on Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:53:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431246?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVI, Fase. 3-4 (1983)

REMARKS ON THE HISTORIOGRAPHY

OF GREEK LITERATURE

BY

G. J. DE VRIES

1. The present paper will not contain a full-blown (and new)

methodology of Greek literary history. For that a more intimate ac-

quaintance with modern literary theory than the author can boast

of would be required (some acquaintance with it every literary scholar should have). Though the paper will end on some sugges-

tions, it will mainly consist of remarks on existing histories of Greek

literature. These remarks will often be critical;?this does not impair the author's respect for most of the criticized works, nor his admira-

tion for some of them.

2. During the previous century writing a history of literature was

regarded as a scholar's almost supreme achievement. Afterwards it

knew its temps de m?pris, and for several decades it has been looked

upon as a vile officium1). Those who occupied themselves with it

were at best pitied for having to spend their time and energy on a

subject that was beneath a real scholar's dignity. The tide has turn-

ed, and composition of literary history is again acknowledged as a

serious scholarly activity, though perhaps its aim and its methods

have to be changed. A veteran scholar like Bateson still expatiates on its difficulties2). But Fayolle is fully confident about its

possibilities3), and Mounin proclaims in a provocative way "une

r?habilitation raisonnable de l'histoire litt?raire, y compris la

chasse aux sources et aux influences"4). And whereas an American

scholar advocates the in her country still fashionable "existential"

1) Perhaps less so in the world of classical scholarship where the impact of modern literary theory and criticism has been rather late.

2) F. W. Bateson, Literary history; non-subject par excellence, New Literary History 2 (1970), 115-122.

3)R. Fayolle, D'une histoire litt?raire ? l'histoire des litt?ratures, Scolies 2 (1972), 7-23. 4) G. Mounin, La litt?rature et ses technocraties (1978), 178.



242 THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF GREEK LITERATURE

approach of the subject5), M. Fuhrmann is not afraid to look at

nineteenth-century models and dares invoke Ranke as his patron6).

Anyhow, literary history cannot be abandoned. We are confronted

with a sequence of literary products ("sequence" avoids the com-

mitment of "development"); the challenge of finding some pattern in it must be answered. Amidst the roaring methodological battle of

the specialists7), a layman may keep to the belief that a diachronic

survey is not impossible. 3. Historiography of a literature cannot restrict itself to a descrip-

tion of its highest achievements. As Wellek rightly remarks, such a

"limitation to the great books makes incomprehensible the con-

tinuity of literary tradition, the development of literary genres, and

indeed the very nature of the literary process, besides obscuring the

background of social, linguistic, ideological and other conditioning

circumstances"8). Bowra described the great books as 'landmarks';

now landmarks serve to facilitate the crossing of a region ? Bowra

has at least attempted to make them do that. But the gain to be won

by not making a too limited choice is to be seen in many depart- ments of Greek literature; very clearly in the field of epigrammatic

poetry. In no genre the tradition is richer. But even there one must

not restrict the treatment to the treasures of the Anthology. Not only

because, together with masterpieces, it has preserved very poor

poems, but especially because, in order to see the development of

the genre, it is necessary to take also into consideration the

epigrams which have been preserved on stones. There are

thousands of them, and each year brings new ones. From these

5) Judith Perkins, Literary History, Arethusa 14 (1982), 241-249.

6) A great part of the present paper had been written when Professor M. Fuhrmann gave his lectures on the historiography of Greek and Latin literatures in Amsterdam (March 1982). Under the titles Die Geschichte der

Literaturgeschichtsschreibung von den Anf?ngen bis zum 19. Jahrhundert and Die Epochen der

griechischen und r?mischen Literatur these will be published in ?, Cerquiligni and ?. U. Gumbrecht (edd.), Der Diskurs der Literatur- und Sprachhistorie; Wissenschafts- geschichte aL? Innovationsvorgabe. References are to the typescript which the author

very kindly put at my disposal. 7) Cp. H. Verdaasdonk, Histoire de la litt?rature et science de la litt?rature, in Ch.

Grivel et A. Kib?di Varga (edd.), Du linguistique au textuel (1974), 178, 182.

8) R. Wellek and A. Warren, Theory of Literature (19633), 21. Cp. M. Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (1951), 136, and ?. Quinn, Texts and Contexts

(1979), 7.



THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF GREEK LITERATURE 243

lapidary epigrams one can gauge the artistic level of a chosen period

(as Wifstrand9) has demonstrated in an exemplary way), and so

rightly appreciate the achievements of the well-known poets. 4. When trying to assess the compass of the Greek literary corpus

and to define what has to be regarded as Greek literature, the

scholar will in the first place look at Greek theory and practice. By

doing so he will expose himself to the reproach of "historicism"10). At the same time, as Teesing11) rightly argues, he must find a

starting-point in the literary theories of his own time. Like Plato's

philosopher, he must ?at? t?? t?? pa?d?? e????... s??a?f?te?a

???e?? (Soph. 249 d). The theories of his own time ? certainly not

those of the nineteenth century, in which no real help is to be found.

Fed by the romantic movement, this century (even when it turned

fiercely anti-romantic) regarded literature exclusively as the self-

expression of either a solitary artist or of a nation or another com-

munity. These tenets are still working in Schadewaldt's statements, when he defines literature as "der sprachlich angemessene Ausdruck des Denkens einer Kultur, einer Nation und

Gesellschaft, des Denkens als einer Form der dem Menschen

aufgegebenen Weltbew?ltigung" and as "derjenige sprachliche und rednerische Ausdruck des Denkens, der, dem allgemeinen Geist der Zeit entsprungen, f?hig ist, f?r den allgemeinen Geist der

Zeit, in Gegenwart und Zukunft, konstitutiv zu werden"12).

Perhaps this is sound sociological doctrine; but it says nothing about the specific character of literature. No better is Vogt's con-

tention that philosophy, historiography etc. belong to Greek

literature (in the "historicistic" or in the modern view?) because

they originated as a reaction to the epic: "Seinem in der Berufung auf das Wissen der Musen zum Ausdruck kommenden Anspruch, 'erinnerte' Kunde zu geben, setzen sie ihren eigenen Wahrheits-

anspruch entgegen"13). This statement can partly be justified (it does not cover the emergence of all new genres); but, again, there is

more sociology in it than literary theory or history.

9) A. Wifstrand, Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos (1933). 10) Wellek & Warren, o.i, 32. 11) ?. P. H. Teesing, Der Standort des Interpreten, Orbis Literarum 19 (1964), 37. 12) W. Schadewaldt, Hellas und Hesperien I (21970), 782. 13) E. Vogt (ed.), Griechische Literatur (1981), 2.




The historicistic approach is made more difficult by the fact that

the Greeks never made a concept or a definition of literature. There

is a very important passage in Plato's Phaedrus (278 c, foreshadowed

257 c ff.) in which oratory, poetry and the composition of laws are

put on a par. Here a high grade of generalizing abstraction is reach-

ed; the opposition poetry ? rhetoric, which starts with Aristotle

and has been very influential after him, is overcome in advance.

But when Plato puts this down, his interest is concentrated on the

philosophical justification of writing; as often in the dialogues, an

important hint is given in passing. Aristotle, in the Poetics, moves on

an equally high level of abstraction, and his examples serve as

illustrations. Properly speaking, the same can be hold of Rhetoric

III, notwithstanding its wealth of details.

The late theorists (including the perceptive Hermogenes) are too

exclusively bent on rhetorical practice to be of use. So we are left

with Demetrius, Dionysius and 'Longinus' (their dates make clear

that no Greek scholar can ever hope to produce a companion volume to Leeman's great book14): when they write, the greatest

period of Greek literature is long past, whereas in Latin literature

during the period 100 B. C. ? 200 A. D. creative artists and critics

are often contemporaneous and sometimes identical). Now these

three critics apparently treat as literature: epic, including didactic

and bucolic poetry, mime (at least the old mime), drama, lyric

poetry in all its forms, history, oratory, dialogue and letters. Not

epigrams; perhaps they regarded these as cognate with elegy; they

do, however, not aim at a complete enumeration of genres. Not the

romance, which never has been acknowledged in antiquity as a

literary genre. Not scientific and technical prose (see infra).

Knowing this can at least serve as an antidote against modern

theories of literature in which (exception made for the litt?rature

engag?e and for some recent ideas and products) fictionality is the

criterion of 'literarity'. This was born from the supremacy of lyric

poetry and the novel in literature since 1800, and it strengthened this supremacy. Admittedly this concept may help to refute

biographical or psychological fallacies, but its disadvantages are

greater than its advantages. Anyhow, when used as a criterion, it

14) A. D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio (1964).




produces an amputation of the literary corpus. By far preferable is

the position taken half a century ago by Jan Mukafovsky, that

literature is to be found wherever the way in which the linguistic medium is handled forms an essential part of the Message'. This

might seem to invite subjectivism, as the iiterary' character of a

text would depend on the reader's reaction, but is only apparently

so, because objective discussion of the literary level is possible. As

compared with fictionality, this criterion has the advantage that it is

positive, moreover it is *open\ A didactic poem, an abhorrence to

modern taste and modern theory alike, can be regarded as

literature; a legal text as well. This theory can justify the wide com-

pass which Greek literature covers in historiography. The question remains whether scientific or technical prose can be

regarded as literature (either in the "historicistic" or in the modern

view). On the first page of his most famous book Norden15) stated

that in Antiquity a scientific author who wanted to be read widely was obliged to write "elegantly". Galen is an illustrious example. Now one sees in the first centuries A. D., growing from

hypomnematic writing, the birth of a "genre particulier", the

treatise which "... vise lui aussi, non sans doute ? trouver la beaut?

proprement dite, mais au moins ? exercer un certain charme, ?

plaire et, ? sa mani?re, ? convaincre et ? toucher, ? enseigner

enfin"16). These treatises are free from Galen's pr?tentions; one

may acknowledge their occasional felicitous turns without therefore

regarding them as works of literature. But in the prose works writ-

ten between 300 B. C. and 200 A. D.17) one finds ?????? ...

?pe?sa?t?? ?e? ??d?? ????ta?, ?????? d? t?? a???e?a? t? ??????

?p?de?????ta?18) with unmistakeable literary qualities, as for instance

in Theophrastus and Archimedes. These have been ignored by an-

cient criticism, a fact which roused Wilamowitz' indignation: "Die

naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften des Aristoteles und die

Pflanzengeschichte des Theophrast, die stilistisch wohl noch h?her

15) E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1898, 41923), 1. 16) A. M?hat, Etude sur les Stromates de Cl?ment d'Alexandrie (1966), 525. 17) Cp. L. Rydbeck, Fachprosa, Vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament

(1967). 18) Theodoretus, Graec. ?ff. Cur. VIII 1.




steht, werden von der antiken Stillehre gar nicht gerechnet"19). He

continues: "Daraus sollen wir abnehmen, dasz diese Stillehre un-

zureichend ist". He is right: this is a case where Teesing's idyllic

symbiosis does not work, and here we must resolutely take the

modern viewpoint. Functional beauty can fulfil Mukafovsky's con-

dition for acknowledgement as literature. In the Hippocratic collec-

tion there are passages which even the ancient critics could have

used as illustrations of af??e?a20). Wellek argues that admitting scientific writings among literature may lead to preferring

popularizers to great originators. The warning is superfluous:

nobody will be tempted by Galen's purple passages to place him

higher in the history of medicine than Soranus; no more will

anybody be seduced by the beautified introductions of scribblers

like Polyaenus or Cleomedes to regard them as writers of standing. 5. Mallarm?'s saying "ce n'est pas avec des id?es qu'on fait un

po?me, c'est avec des mots" still holds true. Yet rigid formalism is

inadmissible. We seem to be rejected to the old pair of opposites form ? content. Mooij prefers, probably rightly, to speak of * form'

and Substance', arguing that the subtility of form is a partial effect

of the substance with which it is coupled, and the importance of the

substance a partial effect of the form which has been used21). A

history of Greek literature cannot but be also a history of the Greek

mind, of Greek thought and sentiment; but thought and sentiment

which have found artistic verbal expression. As is often the case, we

can learn from 'Longinus', who enumerates as sources of ???? im-

pressive thoughts, strong emotion, figures of thought and speech,

nobility of diction, and 'composition'. Treatment of intellectual achievements in a history of literature

cannot be restricted to "... cases ... when ideas incandesce, when

figures and scenes not merely represent but actually embody ideas, when some identification of philosophy and art seems to take

place"22). This would be the 'highlights'-practice, already rejected

19) U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums, in P.

Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart I 8 (31912), 101.

20) Demetrius (4, 238) quotes at least the Aphorisms. 21) J. J. A. Mooij, Idee en verbeelding (1981), 64: "De subtiliteit van de

vormgeving is mede een uitvloeisel van de bijbehorende substantie, en het belang van de substantie mede een gevolg van de toegepaste vormgeving".

22) Wellek * Warren, o.L, 123.




above, which is the enemy of history. If it is avoided, Wellek's

remark seems to be pertinent that the treatment of non-fictional

authors... "is rarely limited to their strictly aesthetic merits. In

practice, we get perfunctory and inexpert accounts of these authors

in terms of their speciality"23). Now the philologist is confronted

with an enormous variety of texts: this forces him time and again to

seek information from all kinds of trades. Of course he will, when

coming across Archimedes or Rufus, ?eek a mathematician's or a

physician's advice. His main interest, however, will be concen-

trated on the verbal expression of thought and sentiment. Chrysip-

pus dominates the Old Stoa, but for his notoriously bad style he

deserves only a very modest place in a history of literature. No

mention at all should be made of the many writers on scientific sub-

jects of which only the names are known24). These may compare in

histories of astronomy, medicine, philology etc.; but a history of

literature need not emulate the p??a?e? of the Alexandrian library. And how about Socrates? He has not written a single line; yet men-

tion of him is inevitable in a history of Greek literature. This,

however, does not justify the ten pages given to him by Lesky25), let

alone the sixty-odd by Schmid26), in which the 'Socratic question' is

examined in detail.

Whenever the 'content' of literature is discussed, treatment of

the * formal' traits should not be perfunctory or absent. When

speaking about Hesiod, one has to introduce mythology, an-

thropology, sociology, folklore, agronomy and even the possible links with Hittite mythology must be mentioned. But it is a mistake

not to discuss the stylistic qualities which won Hesiod the admira-

tion of the Alexandrian poets. Mme de Romilly27) reports that

Xenophanes wrote verses, but omits to note what in these qua

23) Wellek & Warren, o.I., 21. 24) Exception must be made for the cases in which a judgement, favourable or

unfavourable, about the stylistic qualities of such authors has been transmitted. Even if Strabo's famous sentence were all we knew about Posidonius, his name should compare in a history of literature.

25) A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (M971), 555-564. 26) W. Schmid-O. St?hlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I III 1 (1940),

217-280. 27) J. de Romilly, Pr?cis de litt?rature grecque (1980). The references are to pp. 59,

118-121, 195-199, 152-160.




literature is the most curious part, to wit his S???<? with their mix-

ture of dactylic hexameters and iambics. She describes the ideas of

Antiphon, not his style (a strange omission by a scholar who has

edited Thucydides). She discusses the action and the characters of

Menander's comedies, but she says nothing about his limpid style and versification. Eight pages (rather much on a total of 250) are

spent on the quasi-philosophical and political ideas of Isocrates, but

no more than a few (not very penetrating) remarks are made on

what accounts for his place in the history of literature, his terribly tedious but highly influential prose. Gigon traces the development of Greek philosophy and science28) in a recently published textbook

on Greek literature: it is a specialist's survey which would fit very well in any history of philosophy; but on the properly literary traits

of his subject-matter he offers no more than a few rather vague remarks. Entirely mistaken is the mixing of categories. In the

chapter on archaic literature of his (in many respects admirable) book Lesky entitles some subdivisions as * Altere Lyrik',

* Anfange

des Dramas', other ones as 'Religi?se Literatur', * Anfange der

Philosophie', Thilosophie des Seins'.

6. Biography is a highly respectable branch of historical studies.

It has its place in literary history: the relation between the literary work and its maker is better not severed (as is done in some modern

schools of literary theory which, in a new kind of mythology, make

the work exist as a ????st??). Knowledge of the makers' lives will be

useful inasmuch as it is relevant to the understanding of their works

(Sophocles' indictment by his son Iophon may serve as an

example)29). The importance of biographical data varies with the

character and the work of the authors. Information about the life of

Archilochus would be far more welcome30) than in the case of

Thucydides or Aristotle. We would like to know more about

Callimachus's literary feuds, rather than about his sojourn in

28) O. Gigon, Philosophie und Wissenschaft bei den Griechen, in E. Vogt (ed.), o.l., 231-304.

29) But one should pay attention to the salutary warnings contained in M. Lefkowitz' The Lives of the Greek Poets (1981).

30) Though disagreement about the amount to be welcomed may remain, cp. the review byj. M. Bell, Phoenix 33 (1979), 266, of H. D. Ranking, Archilochus of Paros (1977).




Eleusis. For several compositions by Pindar it is important to know

their date; this is far less the case with Anacreon.

What is commonly known as the 'biographical fallacy' has been

overcome in the main stream of literary theory: it is (though not

generally) agreed that there is not a direct link between an author's

(inner or outer) life and his work, and that sentiment and ex-

perience undergo a transposition when entering a literary work.

Dover's remark that the Greeks did not "value self-expression for

its own sake"31) can be made to bear on this point; Bremer32) offers

a sound assessment of the question. Yet the nineteenth-century

predilection for genetic explanation is still working; sometimes one

must deem fortunate that we do not know too much about the lives

of their authors, a fact which may keep us from indulging ourselves

in the biographical fallacy. Even Gian grande, who knows the ways of epigrammatists as few others, tried to explain a passage in

Philodemus by referring to the poet's wide sexual experience33). But it is especially the works of Sappho, Pindar and Plato34) to

which the biographical approach has been wrongly applied.

Muschg found in the fragments that Sappho started writing poetry as a compensation for her lack of physical beauty35), and Galiano

tells us how she, after an unhappy youth and an unsuccessful mar-

riage, in d?d??e ??? ? se????a mourns her desolate old age36).

Sometimes, however, the progress of time helps: since thirty years we know that in a? pa?????? ess??a? Sappho does not speak in propria

persona. These tendencies are objectionable when they appear in the

explanation of individual passages or works; they become perverse, when dominating in a history of literature, which then (at best!) will

degenerate into a series of biographies. Baudelaire called Sappho

31) ?. J. Dover and others, Ancient Greek Literature (1980), 2. 32) J. M. Bremer, Het gemaskerde ik (1978). 33) G. Giangrande, Sympotic Literature and Epigram, in A. E. Raubitschek and

others, L'?pigramme grecque ( 1968), 173. 34) Cp. H. Cherniss, The Biographical Fashion in Literary Criticism, Un. of Calif.

Pubi, in Class. Philol. XII 15 (1943), 279-292 = Selected Papers (1977), 1-13; D. C. Young, Pindaric Criticism, Minnesota Rev. 4 (1964), 584-641 = W. Calder and J. Stern (edd.), Pindaros und Bakchylides (1970), 1-95; G. J. de Vries, Ergocentrisch, met mate, Lampas 4 (1971), 225-237.

35) W. Muschg, Tragische Literaturgeschichte (1948), 266. 36) M. Fernandez Galiano, Safo (1958), 41, 62.




"l'amante et le po?te"; in Flaceli?re's book37) which after all

presents itself as a literary history only the "amante" appears. Our data are far too scanty not to make the introduction of

psychoanalytical methods into biography an unjustifiable affair. If

applied with utmost caution, they may perhaps be useful in the ex-

planation of individual passages (a recurrent metaphor, for in-

stance). When, however, they are used as leading principles in a

general survey38), the result is utterly objectionable. 7. What is the position of literature in society, what is its in-

fluence? These, and many other of their kind, are legitimate questions of sociology. Some of them will also be put by the

historiographer of literature, though with different aims. A few * social' facts which Greek literary history has to state and some

questions which it has to put may be listed, more or less picked at

random. First of all, of course, the question of oral poetry and the

introduction of writing39). The rules for dramatic performances in

Athens, which gave to Attic tragedy and comedy its compact shape and size. How many spectators were sufficiently educated to

appreciate all the niceties of pa?at?a??d?a? Did they have texts at

their disposal? When did books begin to be spread? What was the

social position of authors (from Homer to Paulus Silentiarius?). What kind of public did they address? On which level moved the

mimes of Sophron, and those of Herondas? Who read the

romances? Were these written for edification or for amusement?

The at present much used concept of 'horizon of expectation' cer-

tainly falls partly under sociology: what were the expectations which an author had to presuppose in the minds of his readers40)? The same goes for the equally much discussed 'aesthetics of reception'. Pindar was regarded as old-fashioned in Athens in the second

half of the fifth century: this is a sociological fact which belongs into

Greek literary history. Similarly the evidence that the Alexandrian

poets were not popular in their own time; also the classicist reac-

37) R. Flaceli?re, Histoire litt?raire de la Grece (1962), 125-129.

38) As, for instance, in E. Howald, Die Anf?nge der europ?ischen Philosophie (1925) and Gilberte Aigrisse, Psychanalyse de la Grece antique (1960).

39) On this point cp. the very pertinent remarks by L. A. Stella, Tradizione micenea e poesia dell' Iliade (1978), 324.

40) Cp. (for a different field) E. Auerbach, Literatursprache und Publikum in der la- teinischen Sp?tantike und im Mittelalter (1958).




tion, to be found in the Greek epigrams of the Anthology, to the

admiration they had won with the Latin poets of the first century B.

C.; not, however, this admiration itself: this can be dealt with in a

book which describes the Nachleben of the Alexandrian poets41). The sociological approach can easily deteriorate into

sociologism42). This is to be found in the doctrines of Taine which

dominated part of the nineteenth century and are still (sometimes under modified names) influential. In our days we meet them most-

ly in their Marxist variant. Now Marxist tenets are seldom ap-

plicable in the history of Greek literature. There is no connection

between this literature and the modes of economic production. The

social provenience of the authors has some importance, but it is not

decisive (after all, Marx himself was a born bourgeois). Economic

factors must be taken into account; but the emergence of great literature does not depend upon them; as Marx himself

acknowledged, there need not be a direct connection: epic poetry reached great heights in Greece, Scandinavia, Iceland and Serbia

during times of poverty and distress.

Marxist theory and interpretation has more to offer than

Bilinski's rhetoric43). But the rigid orthodoxy of R. M?ller's fairly recent publication44) is disappointing. An (admittedly limited)

reading of the works of neo-Marxist theorists (Luk?cs, Adorno,

Benjamin, Kraus, Derrida), though often highly stimulating, has

not convinced me that they open new roads for the understanding of our subject. If the fashionable (not exclusively Marxist) slogan 'social (or political) relevancy' is raised, this leads to an "Entwurf

einer politischen Didaktik, die sich konkreter fachlicher

Gegenst?nde (z.B. von Lesest?cken ...) als Vehikel politischer

41) R. Pfeiffer has sketched the fortune of Callimachus up to the present century in The Future of Studies in the Field of Hellenistic Poetry, Journ. Hell. St. 75 (1955), 69-73 = Ausgew. Sehr. (1960), 148-158. For a comparison of Callimachus with Mallarm? cp. B. A. van Groningen, La po?sie verbale grecque (1952), 65, 92; for the "feed-back" Mallarm?-Gongora-Callimachus cp. G. J. de Vries, Hellenistische poezie, Lampas 2 (1969), 2, 13-15.

42) This is very clear in the (interesting and often intelligent, but fundamentally mistaken) book by J. Svenbro, La parole et le marbre (1976); cp. the reviews by S. Fogelmark, Gnomon 50 (1978), 113-124, and H. Vos, Mnemosyne IV 33 (1980), 374-377.

43) In Acta Congressus Madvigiani (1958), 165-168. 44) R. M?ller (ed.), Kulturgeschichte der Antike I (1977).




Bewusztwerdung und Ver?nderung bedient"45). This may give us

a sermon with illustration by means of selected passages from

Greek authors, certainly not a history of Greek literature.

The Marxist scholar George Thomson has argued that Ionian

philosophy could start because the Ionian people were engaged in

the exchange of commodities and so were free from taboos46). This

is not a specifically Marxist thesis; it is in the line of Taine. Thom-

son takes a favourable condition for a cause. There are comparable cases. In thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Florence trade and

industry have freed people from taboos: this can explain the

emergence of Leone Alberti, not of Dante.

8. During two thousand years the concept of genre had pride of

place in literary theory. Towards the end of the eighteenth century it began to lose it, and a century later Croce treated it with con-

tempt. But since then it has regained much of its former lustre47); at

present it is especially the * generic expectation' which wins interest

for it. The main advantage of the generic approach is that it is

literary ('intrinsic' in the terminology of Wellek-Warren), unless

the old triad epic-lyric-dramatic is used for the description of

human attitudes: this is the mixture of anthropology and general

stylistics to be found, e.g., in the works of E. Staiger48). As to the old triad, on the one hand it encompasses not enough:

Menippean satire will not fit into it. On the other hand it is too

general and covers too much, and thereby says too little49). 'Lyric

poetry' is too wide a term to be workable50). Agamemnon is a

45) D. Richter, Geschichte und Dialektik der materialistichen Literaturtheorie, in V. ?megac* and ?. ?kreb (edd.), Zur Kritik literaturwissenschaftlicher Methodologie (1973), 224.

46) G. Thomson, Studies in Ancient Greek Society II (1955), 135. 47) Cp., e.g., G. Hough, An Essay in Criticism (1966), 83-86, and E. D. Hirsch,

Validity in Interpretation (1967), 63-126, 258, 264. These works are mentioned because their authors both, probably independently, react to the question what sort of congruity constitutes a literary kind by referring to the notion of *

family resemblance' which is to be found in L. Wittgenstein, Philos. Investigations (1953), 32, 66 f.

48) E. Staiger, Grundbegriffe der Poetik (1946). 49) A different opinion is held by H. Rahn, Morphologie der antiken Literatur

(1969), 53-66. 50) Cp. M. Kridl, Observations sur les genres de la po?sie lyrique, Helicon 2 (1939),

147-155.




tragedy; so is Orestes: it is understandable that Kitto used the terms

'tragicomedies' and 'melodramas'51) for some of Euripides' later

works. Still more confusing is the situation in epic poetry: under the

same heading fall Homer's poems, Hesiod's, the Margues, the

Batrachomyomachia, the Arimaspea, the Hecale and the Phaenomena. If

the formal criterion of ancient criticism is applied, the poems by Parmenides and Empedocles can also be called epic. Even poems like Theocritus 2, 14, 15, properly speaking mimes, fall under the

rubric.

Certainly, genres are never completely fixed, and occasionally "a system will absorb a new work and legitimate it as a normative

model on the strength of some structural connection between the

new model and the existing classes"52). But a) too often poetic form

has been identified with metrical structure, b) too much

absorption will widen a genre's compass, but weaken its structural

cohesion.

Working with smaller units (not 'lyric poetry', but 'wedding-

song', 'triumphal ode', or, if a formal determinant is preferred,

'dithyramb', 'stasimon') can be useful. Cairns' impressive book

starts from such smaller units, as described by late theorists of

rhetoric; his genres originate in "real" life. Generic studies of this

kind are perhaps not to such a degree exclusive of historical description as he assumes53).

Historiographers of Greek literature usually (the most notable

exception being Wilamowitz) present their subject-matter by

sketching the development of one genre after another, at least for

the archaic and classical periods. Quite as usually they justify their

method by pointing out that "sich die T?tigkeit der griechischen Dichter und Schriftsteller Jahrhunderte hindurch im wesentlichen

jeweils auf eine bestimmte Gattung beschr?nkt. Die Gefahr, dass

bei dem genannten Vorgang das Werk bedeutender Autoren in

unangemessener Weise auseinandergerissen w?rde, ist mithin ge-

ring"54). This will certainly not hold for the post-classical times.

The clearest counter-instance is the case of the Alexandrian

51) H. D. F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy (1939, M961), 309, 320. 52) C. Guillen, Literature as System (1971), 384. 53) F. Cairns, Generic Composition in Greek and Latin Poetry (1972), 32. 54) E. Vogt (ed.), o.L, III, quoted as a specimen.




poets55). But the disadvantage of the method is to be seen in

classical times, too: it obscures the view on literary life at a given moment. For a full appreciation of Choerilus it is necessary to con-

sider that he wrote epic poetry at a time when tragedy had already

passed its zenith, when philosophical, historical and technical prose had been written, and when the new dithyramb had become

popular. 9. In order not to have to contemplate an indiscriminate stream

of literary events periodization is used. The periods should be

established by induction and by purely literary criteria. "A period is not a type or a class but a time-section defined by a system of

norms embedded in the historical process and irremovable from

it"56). Now many historiographers, of Greek literature too, use

periods in accordance with political changes; these, however, do not

necessarily introduce changes in literature. Flaceli?re's divisions

are entirely objectionable, even if it is taken into account that his

aim is not to write a history of Greek literature but a literary history of Greece. Sappho is dealt with under the heading "approches de la

d?mocratie", Bacchylides and Pindar under the "d?mocratie

triomphante", Menander under the "derni?res luttes pour la

libert?"57). The year 480 is almost generally accepted as a turning-point. Yet

Dover rightly argues: "Any causal connection between the defeat

of the Persian invasion and contemporaneous developments in

politics, art and literature must, however, be highly speculative,

seeing that the crucial steps in those developments had been taken

before the Greeks had discovered for sure that they could defend

their freedom against Persia"58). Therefore West prints as a

heading 'Die klassische Zeit (525-330 B.C.)'59). Quite as general as

about 480 is the agreement about 338 (or 330) as a crucial year.

Nobody will deny its importance; yet it should be kept in mind that

in Athens it does not mark a literary change.

55) Cp. Ph.-E. Legrand on 'la confusion des genres' (in Etude sur Th?ocrite, 1898, 413 ff.) and W. Kroll on the 'Kreuzung der Gattungen' (in Studien zum Verst?ndnis der r?mischen Literatur, 1924, 202 ff.).

56) Wellek & Warren, o.L, 265.

57) R. Flaceli?re, o.L, 122, 156, 159, 375.

58) K.J. Dover, o.L, 2.

59) M. L. West in E. Vogt (ed.), o.L, 110.




Wilamowitz (?.?, 6) held that "die Perioden sondern sich von

selbst durch die grossen geschichtlichen Einschnitte", and as the

next turning-point after 338 he regards 222, "Epochenjahr schon

fur Polybios". Now Polybius wrote political history, and the

definitive decline of Sparta can hardly be thought to have had any

literary importance. The next incision chosen by Wilamowitz is

133, because in that year the 'Roman revolution' starts. Un-

doubtedly the civil wars of the first century B.C. have been

disastrous for the economical and cultural life of Greece; but it is a

moot question whether the decline had not started earlier in the se-

cond century. Then 31 B.C.: certainly the battle of Actium and its

consequences are important for Greek literature: Greece enters ful-

ly into the Roman empire, and the social consequences for its

writers must not be underrated. But far more important for

literature is the linguistic-literary event of about the same time, the

beginning of Atticism and, to a certain degree60), of classicism.

Here sociologism must be avoided: classicism is not only born from

a desire to ply the Roman masters with what they appreciated; these masters had fully enjoyed Asianism and often continued to

enjoy it. ? Attempts to use generations as markers for periodiza-

tion have, in the history of Greek literature, had no more success

than elsewhere. The arbitrariness in handling the central concept is

evident61). In an impressive series of works62) Webster has tried to present a

parallel history of Greek art and literature. He does so (mainly in

his earlier books) by describing short periods in which he finds a

unity of style. Several objections can be made. Schematization has

not always been avoided. There is a danger of illegal transport of

terms, as often in stylistic studies ('Hellenistic Rococo' etc.)63). A

60) Cp. W. Aly, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (1925), 302 f., on the exact time of the beginning of classicism.

61) Cp. E. Drerup, Das Generationsproblem in der griechischen und r?mischen Kultur (1933).

62) T. ?. L. Webster, Greek Art and Literature 530-400 B. C. (1939); Art and Literature in Fourth-century Athens (1956); From Mycenae to Homer (1958); Greek Art and Literature 700-530 B. C (1959); Hellenistic Art and Poetry (1964).

63) Even Aly can write (o.l., 64) that Heraclitus gives "inmitten der form- vollendeten oder begrifflich klaren ionischen Klassik eine Ahnung ihres Gegen- pols, eines Barocks, der innerlich mit der Mystik, in der Pythagoras, der Samier, wurzelt, verwandt ist".




parallel development of art and literature is all too easily assumed:

in seventeenth-century Italy music and architecture take opposite

directions, and in two brilliant chapters Huizinga64) has shown how

fifteenth-century poetry and prose lag far behind painting in power of expression. Yet Webster's approach can be very useful; his sen-

sitivity for cultural context makes his books highly valuable for the

interpretation of individual passages. 10. "By common convention (especially in the English-speaking

world)", writes Dover65), "ancient Greek literature means the

literature which was written in Greek in the pre-Christian cen-

turies, and by non-Christians in the first six centuries of the Chris-

tian era". Dover offers no justification for this 'common conven-

tion' (which is fairly recent, dating from nineteenth-century

'neohumanism'). But Rose does: "The vast Christian and the con-

siderable Jewish literature written in Greek have been wholly omit-

ted, not that they lack importance, but that they represent a dif-

ferent spirit from that of the Greeks themselves"66). Without

pressing the point that here apparently 'content' is the sole criterion

one may ask what similitude of spirit can be found between Heron-

das and Plotinus, Thucydides and Jamblichus. The argument can

even be reversed. No pagan author of his time preserves the best

scholarly traditions of Alexandrian philology better than Or?genes does in the Hexapla. Wilamowitz, certainly not a clericalist, com-

paring John Chrysostomus' explanations of biblical passages with

Proclus' commentaries on Platonic dialogues, found the heritage of

Socratic thought in the former, not in the latter (o.l., 296). In the

work of the fathers of the Church, Athanasius, the great Cappado- cians and others, there is so much Greek thought that many con-

temporary theologians reject their ideas as being tainted with

"Hellenism". These theologians, at least, have read those works

(so one must hope); but classical scholars generally ignore them,

although they have given Greek forms to European thought during

64) J. Huizinga, Herfsttij der middeleeuwen (31928), ch. XX, "Het beeld en het woord", ch. XXI, "Het woord en het beeld".

65) K.J. Dover, o.L, 1.

66) H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek Literature (41950), VII f. ; Rose is at least con- sistent. Several authors include the Jewish literature in Greek, while excluding the Christian Greek writings. Was Philo more "hellenized" than Synesius?




more than a millennium. Perhaps Marrou, in his last publication,

rightly suspected behind this neglect "un d?dain a priori pour tout

ce qui est chr?tien"67). The 'common convention' can produce strange effects: some

authors must be split up. Synesius' neoplatonic hymns will be in-

cluded, as well as Nonnus' Dionysiaca; but not the former's letters

nor the latter's paraphrase of St John's Gospel. Of commentators

on Aristotle, Simplicius, being a pagan, will be mentioned; not

Philoponus. As to purely literary merits, it is possible to dislike all

that the Roman period produced. Ogilvie regarded in the entire

period only Lucian and Julian as readable68). He might at least

have added some pages by John Chrysostomus and the letters

of Synesius. Anyhow, any letter of Synesius outweighs, in my

opinion, the complete works of Eunapius. 11. Most histories of Greek literature have 529 A.D. as their ter-

minus. Not so Dihle69), who regards the middle of the first century B.C. as the end: what is written in Greek during the Roman period is the Greek part of the bilingual literature of the Roman empire.

Though acknowledging a 'Vorhandensein eigenst?ndiger lite-

rarischer Traditionen', he rejects separate treatment of the two

literatures. This is sheer sociologism. One need not go all the way with some Greek universities in which 'Greek literature' covers the

period from the Pylos tablets to Kazantzakis to reject Dihle's op- tion. If ? 50 B.C. is chosen as a terminus, it should be on literary-

linguistic grounds (the beginning of Atticism). The closing of the Platonic Academy in 529 A.D. is certainly an

important event, though not as momentous as it is often made to

be. One would prefer to find a 'literary' boundary. Entirely ar-

bitrary is the choice made by Bowie: "It is convenient to see the

classicistic products of this era" (to wit, after Constantine) "as the

last monuments of Greek literature, and to group its explicitly Christian literature, even when traditional informy with that of middle

Byzantium"70) (my italics). This is begging the question. What

about the circle of Agathias and Paulus Silentiarius? Bowie men-

67) H.-I. Marrou, D?cadence romaine ou antiquit? tardive? (1977, posth.), 115. 68) R. M. Ogilvie, Iulianus redivivus, ?ranos 57 (1959), 51. 69) A. Dihle, Griechische Literaturgeschichte (1967), 421. 70) E. Bowie in ?. J. Dover and others, o.L, 174, 176.




tions only Paul's e?f?as?? of Aya Sophia; but in the epigrams of

Paul and his friends the motifs are as traditional ("pagan") as the

form. Bowie's final sentence "... from the sixth century its" (to

wit, of Greek literature) "spirit was Christian rather than Greek, and the works of Nonnus and Paul, like that of Theophylact

Simocatta, appropriately reflect the transition from pagan Hellenism to Byzantine Christianity", needs at least qualification

(moreover, it is based on a wrong opposition). ?

Perhaps it is

possible to find a literary criterion for the transition to the Byzan- tine period in the changes of prosody and versification; these,

however, cannot exactly be dated. Some are found in Nonnus ?

but nobody will therefore regard him as a Byzantine poet. Possibly it is justified to regard Romanos and Georgios Pisides as opening the Byzantine era.

12. Inspired by F.A. Wolf, Bernhardy produced a history of

Greek literature71), divided into an inner history ("eine Biographie des Volksgeistes") and an outer one ("eine ?ussere

Pinakographie"). The idea could be taken up72), but other and

more divisions would be needed. The result would not be a book

which makes nice reading, but the reader would be enabled to build

himself his literary history, provided that not too scanty quotations are given (this is an essential condition). In periods as short as the

available material allows (this is Webster's strongest point) a

diachronic survey may show the development of literary life.

Parallel sections could treat of:

a) Biographical data about the authors with a sketch of the

political and economical situation in which they worked; in all the

three cases if and inasmuch these data are relevant to their works.

b) Social factors: public, position, 'horizon of expectation', 'aesthetics of reception'.

c) Ideas and sentiments the expression of which has literary value. Here thematology, though nowadays little esteemed, could

appear.

71) G. Bernhardy, Grundriss der griechischen Literatur (1836; I M876, II M867, 1872). The quotations are from I4 203-204.

72) The same suggestion is made by M. Fuhrmann. He proposes separate treatment of authors, genres and periods; a different division is suggested below.




d) Formal structure (which implies generic composition). We

have a wealth of observations on individual authors, and some com-

parisons between several of them73). A diachronic survey should

show how the different metres have been used74). Their ???? deserves special attention; here Masqueray's books75) can be

stimulating, though their metrical doctrine is antiquated.

e) Stylistics. More than thirty years ago Chantraine drew a list of

what had been done and what could be done in this field76). Scholars have not been idle: much can be found in monographs and

commentaries. Struggling through Schmid's massive tomes is

always rewarded. But again, what is needed is a diachronic survey. Webster's books are helpful, if his schematization and his

sometimes uncritical references to parallels in fine art are dis-

counted (of course, where such parallels can be found, they are

highly valuable). A few pages by Dover77) show what diachronic

stylistics can yield.

Wolfheze, Duitsekampweg 28c

73) Cp., e.g., W. Kranz, Stasimon (1933); A. Wifstrand, o.L, 155-178. 74) A sketch is. given by U. von Wilamowitz-MoellendorfT, Griechische Verskunst

(1921), 86-136. 75) P. Masqueray, Th?orie des formes lyriques de la trag?die grecque (1895); Trait? de

m?trique grecque (1899). 76) P. Chantraine, La stylistique grecque (1951). 77) K.J. Dover, Theocritus. Some Problems (1971), XLVIII-LI.



de vries. remarks on historiography

Documents