Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Greeks and their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE

2009; University of Toronto Press; Volume: 53; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/mou.2009.0009

1913-5416

Andrew Wolpert,

Classical Antiquity Studies

Reviewed by: The Greeks and their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE Andrew Wolpert Jonas Grethlein. The Greeks and their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. US $95/ CDN $102.95/ £55. ISBN 978-0521110778. Applying phenomenological and hermeneutical theories to the study of ancient memory, Grethlein traces the different ways the past is confronted in the literature of fifth-century bc Greece. Seeking to show how non-historical texts can be as useful as historical for the study of memory, he rightly resists an evolutionist explanation and suggests that differences in the genres reflect different attitudes about the past and its utility for the present. Memory studies have generally treated historical works as reacting against popular representations of the past, and they have tended to privilege either physical objects, such as public monuments and civic memorials, or non-historical texts, such as nursery tales and fables, as sites of popular memory. So the inclusion of poetry and oratory in a memory study does not require special justification. Moreover by finding that Herodotus and Thucydides question traditional uses of the past, Grethlein maintains the distinction between history and other media that memory studies have increasingly challenged. In other ways, his study is unique. In contrast to previous studies that use sociological approaches, Grethlein draws on Hegel and Gadamer to develop a philosophical framework for understanding memory. He suggests that the primary goal of any representation of the past is to manage the tension that exists between past experiences and human expectations. Narratives attempt to free individuals from the anxiety that they face over the contingencies of chance by directing their attention to continuity, regularity, development, or inevitability of chance in history, thereby narrowing the gap between experience and expectation (5–11). [End Page 210] Part 1 brings together non-historical texts to show the different ways that narratives resolve contingencies of chance. Beginning with Olympian 2, Grethlein suggests that Pindar uses Oedipus as a foil to Theron, whose athletic victory reveals his fulfillment of his family’s destiny (28, 33). Although Oedipus is a powerful reminder that all men can be victims of chance, Theron’s genealogy provides other exempla that reaffirm expectations and highlight continuity in the family’s history (43–44). Similarly, the use of heroic vocabulary and the heroization of recent events in the “New Simonides” fragments place the past and present on the same continuum, even as the poems recognize that individuals are vulnerable to chance (54–59, 73). For obvious reasons, Grethlein chose to focus on Aeschylus’ Persae for his chapter on tragedy. Although the historical setting of the Persae makes it exceptional, Grethlein suggests that this allows us to understand better those features that are distinctive to tragedy (98–99). Temporal distance is usually achieved through the use of mythical time. The Persae, by contrast, achieves this distancing spatially—with the action taking place in the Persian court—and through a “heroic vagueness” that distances the audience from the actors by presenting their actions in an epic light (75–79). This explains why Aeschylus could cast the Persian Wars on stage even after Phrynichus had angered his audience for retelling the sack of Miletus. In contrast to epinician and elegiac poetry, continuity and regularity in Persian history does not diminish the finality of the Persian defeat. Instead the audience is buffered from contingency of chance by the continuity and regularity of the rituals of the City Dionysia, which place the stability of the polis in sharp contrast to the plight of the Persians (97). To include oratory in his study, Grethlein extends his discussion beyond the fifth century bc. This may explain the selection of Lysias 2 and Andocides 3, since both were delivered in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War. More surprising is the omission of forensic oratory. Although legal speeches generally contain less discussion of historical events than epideictic or deliberative oratory, many of them discuss past events at least as extensively as Pindar and Simonides (e.g., Aesch. 1, [Dem.] 59, Lys. 12). As a result, Grethlein neglects to consider studies that affect his findings.1 The epitaphios...