Alexandria: The Oxford Undergraduate Classics Journal - Third Issue

ALEXANDRIA: THE OXFORD UNDERGRADUATE CLASSICS JOURNAL

E DI TOR IA L T E A M editor-in-chief:

creative

Evie Atmore

Emily Wigoder

editors:

Cat Bridges Dominic Kane Annabel Holt Leo Kershaw Charlie Willis Grace Gentle Thomasina Smith

director:

illustrators:

Deniz de Barros Alex Haveron-Jones

A L E T T E R F ROM T H E E DI TOR S o m e t h i n g o l d , s o m e t h i n g n e w‌ a s y o u c a n s e e , A l e x a n d r i a h a s had a bit of a facelift and we are thrilled to share the fruits of our labours with you, dear readers! With a new creative team, a number of new editors, and a new editor-in-chief (hello there), Alexandr ia, t he Oxford Underg raduate Jour na l is big ger and b e t t e r t h a n e v e r.

As always, our articles are as varied as they are informative.

From the shores of Ireland to the banks of the Nile, from t h e T h i r d P u n i c Wa r t o C h a u c e r a n d O v i d ; t h e r e i s a l i t t l e something for ever yone in this issue. With special thanks to our contributors, our new creative team, and as always my fantastic editorial team; we hope you all enjoy the third issue of Alexandria.

Ev ie Atmore, Editor-in-Chief

TA B L E OF C ON T E N T S " F r o m t h e s u n s e t " : N a u k r a t i s a n d t h e N i l e

3-8

in the Geographia of Ptolemy OSCAR BEIGHTON

T h e A p o l o g o i : I n T h e r a p y w i t h O d y s s e u s

9-12

WILLIAM CROSS

Historian or Stor yteller : A defence of Hero dotus’

13-19

historiographical style JASMINE SAHU

D o m i n e , q u o v a d i s ?

20-25

KINGA NESSELFELD

A S y b i l o n t h e S h o r e l i n e ? R e a d i n g Ve r g i l i n a

26-33

M e d i e v a l I r i s h Vo y a g e - Ta l e J E N Y T H E VA N S

‘A l t h i s m e n e I b y l o v e ’ : L o v e a n d C l a s s i c i s m

34-40

in Chaucer and Gower HARRY CARTER

O n t h e R o m a n p r o v o c a t i o n o f t h e T h i r d P u n i c Wa r MARTIN CUDDEN

41-6

“F ROM T H E SU N SE T ” : NAU K R AT I S A N D T H E N I L E I N T H E G E O G R A P H IA OF P TOL E M Y

Os car B eighton

In 1884 Sir Wi l l i am Matt he w F l i nde rs Pe t r i e i de nt i f i e d t he site of anci e nt Nau k rat is (f ig . 1) at Nebireh in t he we ste r n Ni l e D elt a . His dis cove r y was a st roke of luck – a for tunate coincid ence he l ate r de s c r ib e d as re su lt i ng f rom a chance e ncounte r w it h an ant iquit ies vend or at Gi z a ; t he ve ndor brou g ht a f rag me nt ar y a l ab aste r f i g ur i ne of a s oldier to h is attent i on w hi l e he w as on ass i g n me nt w it h t he Eg ypt E x pl orat i on Fu nd ( EEF; now t he Eg y pt E x pl or at i on S o c i e t y, E E S ) . The f i g ure, “pl ai n ly of archai c Gre ek or Cy pr iote work”, ha d de t ai ls of a hel me t and ar m l e ts; he purchas e d it and w as told it c ame “f rom Nebi reh [ … ] s ome w he re ne ar D aman hur”. 1 On an i nit i a l re connaiss ance m iss ion i n Janu ar y 1 8 8 4 2 he dis c ove re d “a l ong l ow mound of tow n r uins, of w h ich a l l t he c ore ha d b e e n du g out by t he nat ive s for e ar t h […] w he re ve r I w a l ke d in t h is cr ater I t ro d on pi e c e s of Archai c Gre ek p otte r y”. 3 R e tur ni ng l ate r t hat ye ar, he dis covere d an ins c r ib e d de c re e t hat op e ne d “ ΗΠΟΛ ΙΣΗΝΑΥ ΚΡΑΤΙΤ…” ( f i g .

2) and re a l is e d t he s ig n i f i c anc e of his dis c ove r y. 4 Hav ing lo c ate d Nau k r at is , Pe t r i e atte mpte d to re c onc i l e h istor i c a l e v i de nce w it h its ac tu a l lo c at ion , a proj e c t w hi ch prove d di f f i c u lt du e to unce r t ai nt y ove r t he l o c at i on of t he anc ient C anopic br anch of t he Ni l e – l ong e x t i nc t and by t he n i nv isibl e. He fo c us e d pr imar i ly on C l au dius P tol e my ’s G e o g r aphi a , w h i ch he arg ue d “e x pre ssly d es cr ib es Nau k r at is as b e i ng on t he we st of t he Gre at R ive r”, 5 supp or t i ng t h is b el i e f w it h t he Tabu l a Peut inge r i ana as it s distor te d for m none t hel e ss ag re e d w it h h is i nter pret at ion of t he r ive r’s c ou rs e. 6 S ome w hat probl e mat i c a l ly, howe ve r, St rab o e xplicit ly p os it ione d t he tow n on t he e ast b an k of t he r ive r. 7 Fur t he r rely i ng on ancient and s ome w hat ina c c u r ate l ong itu di na l and l at itudi na l d at a prov i de d by P tolemy, Pet r ie t herefore su g ge ste d t hat Nau k r at is l ay at l e ast t wo m i l e s we st of t he C anopic br anch prop er, and t hat i nste a d a c ana l p ass e d t he tow n on t he we st si de, w hich St r ab o ha d m ist a ke n for t he r ive r it s el f. In t his i nte r pre t at i on, b ot h s ource s c an b e cor re c t d espite app are nt i nc ons iste nc i e s . 8 The ac tu a l cou rs e of t he r ive r has b e e n he av i ly deb ate d i n subs e que nt s chol arsh ip.

Ho gar t h c onteste d b as e d on “mu ddy s and” at t he b ottom of s e ve ra l te st pits t hat t he C anopic sk ir te d el- Ne q r ash and Kom G e’i f, r u n n i ng a l ong t he e aste r n b orde r of t he tow n . 9 Vi l l as , u nde r t he Ame r i c an Nau k r at is Proj e c t he ade d by C ou ls on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Petrie 1893, 38.

Drower 1985, 72.

Petrie 1893, 36-7; Drower 1985, 74; see also Villing for excerpt from Petrie’s journal.

Petrie 1893, 38; 1885, 202 ; 1886, pl.XXX.3.

Petrie 1886, 1, 92-3; after Ptolemy 4.5.49 ed. Nobbe.

Petrie 1886, 2-3.

Strabo, 17.1.23: positions Naukratis on the left relative to sailing upstream through the delta (i.e. south), therefore east.

Petrie 1886, 92-3.

Hogarth 1905, 122-3.

and L e onard, conclu d e d a s out hwe st - nor t he ast f l ow on t he b asis of ge ol o g i c a l ana lysis of ten b orehol e dr i l l i ng s a c ro ss t he s ite, l e adi ng he r to sug ge st t hat f rom it s fou nd at ion to t he R oman p e r i o d a chan nel bis e c te d t he s e tt l e me nt ( f i g .

3 ) . On t h is b as is , she i n fe r re d phy s i c a l ly dist i nc t s ett l e me nts for Eg ypt i an and Gre ek p opu l at ions . her i n it i a l su g ge st i on of a s out he ast-nor t hwe st f l ow on t he s ame ge ol og ic a l e v id enc e, howe ve r, e mphas is e s t he unce r t ai nt y of t he study and cr it ics have h ig h li g hte d t he i mp o ss ibi l it y of t he r ive r hav i ng p ar t it i one d t he wel l- d o c u mente d de ns e s e tt l e me nt i n t he c e nt re of t he site. 10 Mo st re ce nt ly, reg iona l el e c t r ic res ist iv it y ana ly s is t r a c i ng t he anci e nt C anopi c i nconclusively sug geste d t he existenc e of a chan nel e it he r s i de of t he tow n. 11 The t r u e extent and cou rs e of t he r ive r ne x t to Nau k rat is has on ly re ce nt ly b e e n publishe d fol l ow ing a pro g r am me of p a l e o e nv i ron me nt a l sur ve y s conduc te d by B enj ami n Penn ington i n 2 0 1 5 as p ar t of t he Br it ish Mus e um’s Nau k rat is proj e c t.

Au ger su r ve y s condu c te d a c ro ss t he s ite and su r roundi ng are a, combi ne d w it h ele c t r ic a l res ist iv it y tomo g r aphy, have prov i de d “f i r m e v i de nce” t hat t he channel ran west of t he s ite and re ve a l e d “no i ndi c at i on” 12 of e it he r an e aste r n channel or a branch bis e c t int he tow n . Stu dy of t he chan nel l e d Pe nni ng ton to de te r m i ne t hat t he br anch was ex te ns ive, sp an n i ng c . 2 0 0 me t re s w it h an ave rage de pt h of 5 met res, re a ch ing c. 3 .2 to 4 . 3 me t re s a l ong t he b an ks – suf f i ci e nt for ye ar-round t rading for sh ip s w it h a dr af t of t wo me t re s and prob ably more. The C anopi c ret aine d t h is prof i le unt i l c . 4 0 0 B C , l i kely b e i ng t he l arge st and de e p e st branch of t he D elt a du r ing t he L ate Pe r i o d ( 6 6 4 to 3 3 2 B. C.) , af te r w h i ch – b e t we e n 4 50-330 B.C . and 2 0 0 - 3 0 B. C. – t he chan nel m i g r ate d we st rapi d ly, l e av i ng a s wampy b a ckwater and l ate r a marsh abutt i ng t he tow n. On t he b asis of Pennington’s su r ve y, we now k now c onclus ively t hat Nau k rat is s at on t he e ast b an k of t he C anopic r ive r prop e r. 13 Wit h t his in m ind, we ou g ht to s e ek to u nde rst and t he prol onge d conf usi on, and re cons id er t he s ou rc e s . T he he ar t of t he m isu nde rst andi ng l i e s i n Ptol e my ’s G e o g raph i a : t he rel e v ant l i ne re a ds “ κα ὶ πρ ὸ ς τῷ Με γ ά λῳ ποτα μῷ ἀπὸ δυ σ μῶν / Ναύκρ ατι ς π όλι ς ”, 1 4 w hi ch Pe t r i e app e ars to have t ransl ate d 15 as “and a l ong t he Gre at R iver [i.e. C anopi c ] , on t he we st , / Nau k rat is tow n” – i mply i ng t hat Nau k rat is l ay on t he we st b an k . We shou l d i nste a d, howe ve r, re ad “ ἀπὸ δυ σ μῶν ” litera l ly as “away f rom t he su ns e t” 16 – t hat is , t hat Nau k rat is l ay away f rom t he west , on t he e ast b an k. 17 Pe t r i e app e ars to have dis re g arde d t he pre p o sit i on. The conf us ion may have b e e n c omp ou nde d by his app are nt m ist ransl at i on of t he pre ce ding ph r as e “ με τα ξὺ δ ὲ το ῦ Με γ ὰ λο υ π οτα μ ο ῦ κα ὶ το ῦ ( Θερμο υ θ ι αχο ῦ ἢ) Φερμ ο υ θ ι αχοῦ π οτα μοῦ π όλ ει ς α ἵ δ ε…” 18 as “t he Gre at R ive r and t he The re nut h is 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

Villas 1996, 171-4, fig. 67 & 68; Coulson et al. 1982, 75; cf. Thomas & Villing 2013, and Rathbone & Coulson 1998, 636, for criticism.

El-Gamili 1994.

Pennington and Thomas, 2016.

Pennington and Thomas, 2016.

Ptolemy 4.5.49 ed. Nobbe.

He did not record a direct translation but rather a paraphrased interpretation. δυσμή being translated as sunset.

Thanks are due in particular to Hugo Shipsey for helping to refine my translation, and for drawing my attention to the similar occurrence in Arrian’s Anabasis.

Ptolemy 4.5.49 ed. Nobbe.

r iver are b et we en t he [ fol l ow i ng ] tow ns …” w he n i n f ac t t he cor re c t s e ns e is “ b et we e n t he Gre at R ive r and t he T he re nut his r ive r are t he [fol l ow i ng ] tow ns…”.

To my k now le d ge t hes e e r rors have not b e e n not i c e d i n any subs e que nt work, but t he cor re c te d re a d i ng ma ke s re du nd ant Pe t r i e’s e x pl anat i on of St rab o’s ‘ incor re c t’ p os it ion ing of t he r ive r – St r ab o is , i n fac t, cor re c t i n pl aci ng t he r iver it s elf on t he tow n’s i mme di ate e dge, and no c ana l e x iste d s e p arately f rom t he C anopic br anch in t his are a .

A simi l ar exampl e is fou nd i n Ar r i an’s Anab as is , l i ke w is e comp o s e d i n t he s e cond centu r y A D (p e rhaps rel e v ant w it h re sp e c t to conte mp orar y l ite rar y convent ions , a lb eit a l l ow i ng for s i g n i f i c ant ge o g r aph i c a l s e p arat i on) , w h i ch ma kes us e of su n r is e as wel l as su ns e t to de s c r ib e di re c t i on: “ σ ὺ δ έ, ὦ β α σ ι λ ε ῦ, ἔ φ ασ αν ο ἱ Χα λδ α ῖ ο ι , μ ὴ πρ ὸ ς δυ σ μ ὰ ς ἀ φ ο ρ ῶν αὐτὸ ς μηδ ὲ τ ὴν σ τρ ατι ὰν ταύτ ῃ ἐπ έχο υ σ αν ἄγ ων π αρ ε λθ εῖν, ἀ λ λὰ ἐκπ ερ ι ε λθ ὼν πρ ὸ ς ἕ ω μᾶ λ λον.” 19 . Br unt’s t ransl at ion 2 0 conf us ing ly re c ords t hat t he C ha l d a e ans adv is e d A l e x ande r “... do not you rs el f l o ok towards t he s e tt i ng su n , and do not e nte r at t he he ad of your ar my fa cing in t hat d i re c t i on , but t a ke a de tou r and come i n rat he r on t he e ast side.” L i ke Pet r ie, Br unt has he re s e i z e d, i n t he s e c ond i nst ance, up on t he ac t i on of t he su n as a repres e nt at i on of a c ardi na l di re c t i on w h i l e f ai l i ng to apply t he prep o s it ion - d espite hav i ng t r ansl ate d t he for me r i nst ance i n its l ite ra l s e ns e.

His t ransl at ion , t herefore, c ont r a di c t s it s el f, t he C ha l d ae ans b ot h f avour i ng and rej e c t ing an appro a ch f rom t he e ast . 21 Br unt , cr u ci a l ly, by m iss i ng t he pre p o s it i on , has change d t he s e ns e of t he des cr ipt ion mu ch as Pe t r i e di d. It shou l d i nste a d re ad “... but t a ke a de tour 22 and come in towards t he d aw n [ i. e. he a di ng e ast w ard] .” In b ot h c as e s t he aut hors employe d met aphor ic a l i di oms to g ive a s e ns e of t he di re c t i on - πρ ὸ ς and ἀπὸ b ot h us e d in rel at ion to t he su ns e t to e mpl oy it i n de s cr ibi ng t wo di f fe re nt dire c t ions , toward (we st w ard) and aw ay f rom ( e ast ward) . By ab andoni ng t he prep o s it ions and t he l ite r a l s e ns e of su n r is e and suns e t and i nte r pre t i ng t he m as st r ic t ly repres ent at ive of we st and e ast re sp e c t ively, b ot h Pe t r i e and Br unt f ai l e d to cor re c t ly infer t he t r u e me an i ng . It app e ars t hat t he us e of sunr is e and suns e t in des cr ibing d ire c t ions are ( or at l e ast we re for Pet r i e and Br unt) s o st rong ly e qu ate d w it h e ast and we st t hat b ot h t r ansl ators u ncr it i c a l ly unde rsto o d t he m , w it hout attent ion to conte x t .

Perhaps t h is is s omet hi ng of an u n ne c e ss ar y p oi nt , as Pe nni ng ton’s sur ve y has a lre ady conclus ively show n t he t r u e top o g r aphy of Nau k rat is and t hus re move d t he rele v ance of h istor i c a l te x t s f rom t he dis c uss i on of t he C anopi c r ive r’s cou rs e. R egard l ess , id e nt i f y i ng Pe t r i e’s e r ror do e s much to e x pl ai n w hy t he p o s it ion of t he C anopi c br anch w as s o v ar i ably i nter pre te d for such a prol onge d p er io d, w hen in re a l it y it c ou l d have b e e n pi np oi nte d w it h rel at ive ce r t ai nt y e ven f rom t he f irst s e as on of e xc av at i on 19 20 21

22

Arr. An. 7.16.6.

Arr. (Brunt ed.) 7.16.8 This mistake has also been repeated more recently in Pamela Mensch’s translation in The Landmark Arrian.

Or perhaps “go about the other way”.

p ar t ic u l arly in l ig ht of Pe t r i e’s dis c ove r y of a c onsi de rabl e cor pus of mar it i me mater i a ls in a b e d of t hi ck bl a ck mu d a l ong t he tow n’s we ste r n b orde r. 23 More over, t he cor re c t i on go e s s ome w ay i n re c onc i l i ng Ptol e my’s G e o g raph i a, w h ich m ig ht ot her w is e app e ar to have b e e n u nde r m i ne d t h roug h its supp o s e d cont ra d ic t ion w it h t he ge ol o g i c a l and archa e ol o g i c a l e v i de nce. The re may e ven b e s ome va lu e in a dis c uss i on of t he us e of t he p ass age of t he sun as a literar y convent ion in ge o g r aphi c a l de s c r ipt i ons , t houg h t hat matte r go e s f ar b e yond t he s cop e of t his stu dy. Ne ve r t hel e ss , it is i mp or t ant t hat t h is e r ror b e re cog n is e d if for no ot he r re as on t han to e mb ol de n Pe nni ng ton’s conclusi ons and to u nd erst and t he c on f us i on i n p ast ana ly s e s of Nau k rat is and its rel at i on to t he Ni l e.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ar r i an, and Br u nt, P. A . ( t r ans . ) Ar r i an . C ambr i dge, Mass : L ondon: Har v ard

U P ; Heineman n , 1 9 7 6 . Pr i nt . L o eb C l ass ic a l L ibrar y Ar r i an, and Mens ch , P. ( t r ans . ) , R omm , J. S . ( E d. ), and C ar t l e dge, Pau l.

T he L and mark Ar r i an : T he C amp ai g ns of A l e x ande r ; Anab asis

A l exand rous : A Ne w Tr ansl at i on . F i rst e d. Ne w York, 2 0 1 0 . Pr i nt.

L and mark S e r.

C ou ls on, W.D.E ., 1 9 9 6 . Anc i e nt Nau k r at is . Volu me II, p ar t 1 , The sur ve y at

Nau k r at is , Ox ford.

C ou ls on, W., L e onard, A . & Wi l k i e, N. , 1 9 8 2 . T hre e S e as ons of E xc av at i ons

and Su r ve y at Nau k r at is and E nv i rons . Jour na l of t he Ame r i c an

R es e arch C ente r i n Eg y pt , 1 9 , pp. 7 3 – 1 0 9 .

Drower, M.S. 1 9 8 5 , Fl i nde rs Pe t r i e. A L i fe i n Archae ol o g y, 2 nd e d.

E l-G am i l i, M.M., Sha ab an , F. F. , & E l - Mors i, O. A . , 1 9 9 4 , ‘E l e c t r i c a l re sist iv it y

mapping of t he bu r i e d st re am chan nel of t he C anopi c branch i n t he

wester n Ni le D elt a , Eg y pt’, Jou r na l of Af r i c an E ar t h S ci e nce s, 1 9 ( 1 ) , pp.1 3 5 – 1 4 8 .

Ho gar t h , D. G., H. L . L or i me r, and C. C . E dg ar. " Nau k rat is, 1 9 0 3 ." The

Jou r na l of Hel l e n i c Stu di e s 2 5 ( 1 9 0 5 ) : 1 0 5-3 6 . Web. Pennington , & T homas . ( 2 0 1 6 ) . Pa l e o e nv i ron me nt a l sur ve ys at Nau k rat is &

t he C anopic br anch of t he Ni l e. Jou r na l of Archae ol o g i c a l S ci e nce :

R ep or ts , 7 , 1 8 0 - 1 8 8 .

Pet r ie, W.M.F., 1 8 8 5 , ‘ T he Dis c ove r y of Nau k r at is’, The Jour na l of Hel l e ni c

Stu d ies , 6 , 2 0 2 - 2 0 6 .

Pet r ie, W. M. F lind ers , C e c i l Harc ou r t Sm it h, E r ne st Ar t hur Gardne r, and

B arcl ay V. He a d. Nau k r at is . L ondon : Tr übne r, 1 8 8 6 . Pr i nt. Me moi r

(Eg y pt E xplor at i on Fu nd) ; 3 .

Pet r ie, W.M.F., 1 8 9 3 , Te n ye ars ' di g g i ng i n Eg y pt , 1 8 8 1 -1 8 9 1 ( 2 nd e d.,

re v is e d. e d.), L ondon .

23

Petrie 1886, 10

Ptolemy, & Nobb e, K . F. A . ( t r ans . ) , 1 8 4 3 , C l au di i Ptol e mae i G e o g raph i a

(E d it io stere ot y p a . e d. ) . L ips i a e : Su mpt ibus e t t ypis C arol i Tauch nit i i.

R at hb one, D. & C ou ls on , W. D. E . , 1 9 9 8 . Anc i e nt Nau k rat is II, Pt. 1 : The

Su r ve y at Nau k r at is . Ame r i c an Jou r na l of Archae ol o g y, 1 0 2 ( 3 ) , p.6 3 5 .

St rab o & Jones , Hor a c e L e onard, 1 9 3 1 . T he ge o g r aphy of St rab o R e v is e d

and repr inte d. , L ondon : C ambr i dge, Mass: He i ne mann; Har v ard

Un ivers it y Pre ss .

T homas , R . I. and A . Vi l l i ng . 2 0 1 3 . ‘Nau k r at is re v isite d 2 0 1 2 : Inte g rat i ng

ne w f iel dwork and ol d re s e arch.’ B M S A E S 2 0 : 8 1 –1 2 5 . http:/ / w w w.br it ish mus e u m . org /re s e arch/on l i ne _j our na ls/ bms ae s/ issue _2 0 / t homas & v i l l i ng . aspx Vi l l as , C .A . 1 9 9 6 , ‘G e ol o g i c a l i nve st i g at i ons’, i n C ou ls on 1 9 9 6 , 1 6 3 –7 5

F ig . 1: Map of Nau k rat is i nc or p or at i ng a l l pre v ious f iel dwork and prel i m i nar y ge ophys ics resu lts . © T he Nau k r at is Proj e c t , Tr uste es of t he Br it ish Mus e u m. Map by R o ss T homas .

Fig 2: A Gre ek de cre e f rom Nau k rat is

on d ark blue l i me stone, Pe t r i e 1 8 8 6 pl. 3 0 . 3

F ig 3: Poss ibl e l o c at ion of a chan nel, 2 5 0 0 -3 0 0 0 y. b.p., Vi l l as 1 9 9 6 f i g . 6 7

T H E A P OL O G OI : I N T H E R A P Y W I T H ODYS SE U S

William Cross

By re cou nt ing h is f ant ast i c a dve ntu re s to t he ass e mbl e d Phae aci ans i n h is Ap ol o goi, or “stor ies”, t he “ hero of many de v i c e s”, O dy ss e us , e ng age s i n a rhe tor i c a l e xe rcis e.

Ye t he a ls o b eg ins a pro c e ss of s el f -u nde rst andi ng w h i ch tur ns h i m towards h is j our ne y home, con ne c t ing t he e x p e r i e nc e s of his p ast w it h t he cha l l e nge s of h is pres ent . O dy ss eus’ t a l es are e as i ly re a d as e xe rc is e s i n ly i ng : “t hus he made t he many fa ls eho o ds of h is t a l e s e e m l i ke t he t r ut h…”, t he nar r ator l ate r conf i de s ( O d.1 9 .2 0 3 ) . 1 O n my re a d ing , O dy ss eus do e s not me rely l i e to t he Phae aci ans, but rat he r come s to his ow n u nd erst and ing of t he t r ut h.

O n one le vel, O dy ss eus’ nar r at ive is a re sp ons e to a pre ssi ng probl e m : t he ho spit a l it y of t he Pha e a ci ans . 2 A lt hou g h A l c i nous ask s t he my ste r i ous st range r to tel l h i m w hich “st ranger- lov ing” c it i e s he has e nc ou nte re d on h is wande r i ng s, t he Phae aci ans t hems elves fai l to b e go o d ho st s . 3 Ne stor de monst r ate s at P y l o s t hat a g ue st shou l d re ceive fo o d b efore ans we r i ng any qu e st i ons , and Me nel aus i nsists i n L ace d ae mon t hat a g u est shou l d b e s e nt aw ay at t he prop e r t i me. 4 Ye t t he Phae aci an k i ng i nqui re s i nto O dyss eus’ id ent it y b e fore he has e ate n , 5 and t hre ate ns O dyss e us’ home com i ng w it h t he p oss ibi lit y of mar r i age to Naus i c a a and by t w i ce de fe r r i ng h is de p ar ture. 6 In resp ons e, war y of t h is ne w l and and u rge d to m ist r ust t he Phae aci ans b ot h by Nausic aa and by At hena , O dy ss e us i nclu de s i n his nar rat ive a c at a l o g ue of b ad ho st s. 7 T he Cycl op es , t he L a e st r y gon i ans , S c y l l a and C har y b dis, monste rs t houg h t he y are, a l l f ai l to re ceive st r ange rs i n t he prop e r w ay by t r y i ng to consume t he m . 8 The L otus E aters , C irce, t he Si re ns and C a ly ps o a l l us e dr ug s, s e x or s ong to del ay O dyss eus at t he prop er t i me of his de p ar tu re. 9 In a sp e e ch l a d en w it h re fe re nc e s to his de s i re to re tur n home and h is anx i e t y to d e p ar t t h is ne w l and, t he s e e x ag ge r ate d p ar a di g ms ma ke a p owe r f u l arg ume nt to h is audience. 1 0 A lt hou g h Naus i c a a is no go dde ss , she re pre s e nts t he s ame a l lur i ng r isk of del ay as C irce or C a lyps o ; and w hi l e t he Pha e a c i ans wou l d ne ve r conte mpl ate c annib a lism , t heir k ing t re a ds up on t he pr i nc ipl e of prop e rly fe e di ng a g ue st l i ke t he Cyclop es . 11 Subt ly t h re ate ne d by his wel c ome i n Pha e aci a, O dyss e us t hus us e s t he 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6

Emlyn-Jones (1981) Most (1989) Od.8.575-6 Od.3.67-71, 15.68-79 Od.7.215-6 Od.7.311-4, 189-98, 317-8, 8.26-45 Od.6.119-21, 273-85, 7.32-33 Od.9.291-3, 10.116, 12.256, 12.237-43 Od.9.94-7, 10.275, 12.39-4, 7.259 Od.9.27-36, 7.151-2, 222-4 Od.6.149-50 (“are you a goddess or mortal?”); 6.4-5 (“these dwelt of old near the Cyclopes”) cf. 7.204-

sp ot lig ht to a d d ress t he f ai lu re s of his ho st and a ch i e ve h is ow n e nds. Wit h h is stor y over, t he Pha e a c i ans not on ly g ive hi m g i f ts 12 but O dyss e us, one step clos er to h is retur n home, de p ar t s on his w ay w it h j oy f u l e age r ne ss: “Fare wel l ! A l l t hat my he ar t de s i re d has b e e n broug ht to p ass…”. 13 Howe ver, t he Ap ol ogoi a ls o re sp ond to anot he r cha l l e nge : t hat of t he he ro’s Ili adic p ast. T he s ong of t he Si re ns , 14 as P u c c i not i ce s, is i nsiste nt ly Il i adi c in it s d es cr ipt ion of O dy ss e us . 15 He is “mu ch- pr ais e d” ( πολύ α ιν ο ς) , just as he is des cr ib e d in h is mome nt s of g re ate st su c c e ss and i nge nuit y i n t he Il i ad. 16 He w i l l b e “w is er” (π λ εί ον α εἰ δ ώ ς) , just as i n t he Il i ad Z e us, Po s e i don and Ach i l les a l l b o ast of t he i r sup e r i or k now l e dge ove r t he i r opp one nts. 17 Ye t, as we le ar n in D emo d o c us’ a c c ou nt , su ch no st a l g i a for O dy ss e us’ p ast Il i adi c re a lit y c an prove s el f -de st r u c t ive. T hat me mor y of κ λ έ ο ς, t he “f ame” he won at Troy, re du ces O dy ss e us t he v i c tor to a c apt ive v i c t i m we e pi ng , “as a woman wai ls and t h rows hers el f up on he r de ar hus b and….”. 18 In t he Il i ad, Hel e n lo oks a he a d to a t ime w he n t he su f fe r i ng of t he Troj ans w i l l ma ke t he m t he subj e c t of s ong (ἀ ο ί διμ ο ι) ; 19 i n t he O dy ss e y, O dy ss e us l o oks b ack at Troy and ex p er iences t he p ain of t hat w ar ag ai n .

What is more, t he Sire ns t he ms elve s sp e a k i n t he l ang u age of t he Mus e s: t he i r s ong is “s we et- voice d” ( μ ε λίγ ηρ υν ) , l i ke t he “s we et” ( ἡδ εῖ αν ) g i f t t he Mus e s g rant t he bl ind D emo do c us , and t he i r k now l e dge of t he p ast is compl e te ( ἴ δμ ε ν γ άρ το ι π άν θ ᾽ ὅ σ ᾽ ἐ ν ὶ Τρ ο ίῃ ε ὐρ είῃ Ἀργ εῖ ο ι Τρ ῶ έ ς τε θ ε ῶν ἰ ότ ητι μ όγ η σ αν...: “we k now a l l t he toi ls t hat i n w i de Troy t he Arg ive s and Troj ans endure d t h rou g h t he w i l l of t he go ds . . .” ) , l i ke t he om nis ci e nt Mus e s of t he Ili ad. 20 Yet O dy ss eus and his me n have b e e n a ls o war ne d ag ai nst t he s e Il i adi c Mus es: C irce d e cl ares t hat w it h t he i r “cl e ar- tone d s ong” t he y rob me n of t he i r home com ing , w h i le O dy ss e us rel ate s to his me n he r i nst r uc t i ons to avoi d t heir “wond rous voic e”. 21 For a l l t he i r k now l e dge of h is Il i adi c p e rs ona, t he Sirens prove u nabl e to ove rc ome t he O dy ss e an he ro and, ag ai nst t he me mor y of h is g lor ious d e e ds at Troy, O dy ss e us tu r ns to t he pre s e nt, usi ng t he k now le d ge gaine d on his a dve ntu re s w it h t he b e w itch i ng Ci rce. 22 Thus, rat he r t han t r y ing to change his p ast , i n t he c ou rs e of his nar rat ive we s e e O dy ss e us b eg inning to tu r n tow ards his ne w one : “Whe n we cou l d no l onge r he ar t he i r voice or s ong , t hen qu i ck ly my t r ust y c om r a de s to ok away t he wax w it h w h i ch I had anointe d t heir e ars and f re e d me f rom my b onds…”. 23 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Od.11.336-41, 13.7-19 Od.13.40-1 Od.12.184-91 Pucci (1979) Od.12.184 cf. the embassy (Il.9.673), Doloneia (10.544) and slaughter of the sons of Hippasus (11.430) Od.12.188 cf. Il.13.355, 21.440, 19.219 Od.8.521-32 Il.6.358 Od.12.187, 189-91 cf. Demodocus (Od.8.64) and the Muses (Il. 2.484-91) Od.12.39-54, 158-64 Od.12.192-4, 10.364 Od.12.197-200

F ina l ly, O dy ss eus’ Ap ol o goi a ddre ss one more asp e c t of h is ne w re a l it y : h is s ens e of agenc y. As C hr iste ns e n ob s e r ve s , 24 w hi l e Z e us at t he op e ni ng of t he p o em pl a ces resp ons ibi l it y up on t he fo ol ishne ss of me n, A l ci nous’ i nqui r y f rames t he go ds as t he c aus e of O dy ss e us’ su f fe r i ng s. 25 In h is re ply, O dyss e us de velop s a g row ing unde rst andi ng of his a c t i ons . From t he outs e t he marks h is intent ion to organ is e his stor y ( “w hat sha l l I tel l you f i rst, w hat l ast? ” ) 26 and de s ig nates h is publ i c s el f as t he fo c us for his ana lysis ( “I am O dy ss e us, s on of L a er tes …” ). 2 7 The n , as t he nar r at ive pro g re ss e s, h is aware ne ss of h is ow n re sp ons ibi lit y b e c ome s g r a du a l ly more a c ute : ag ai nst t he Ci cone s, it was h is fo ol ish men and an e v i l f ate f rom Z e us t hat c aus e d t he i r m isfor tune ; in t he l and of t he L otus E ate rs , O dy ss e us’ ow n w i l l as l e ade r is is ol ate d as t he re as on for t hei r e s c ap e ; and f i na l ly, ag ai nst t he Cycl ops, O dyss e us’ deter m inat ion in pl an n i ng t he miss i on , c ont r iv i ng an e s c ap e and b o ast i ng of h is ow n name emerge s as t he pr i nc ip a l re as on for t he i r di f f i c u lt i e s. 28 Inde e d, at t he pivot a l mome nt of his t au nt i ng of Polyphe mus, a cr it i c a l u nderst and ing of h is p ast s el f b e g i ns to l i n k up w it h h is pre s e nt situ at i on: just as O dy ss eus’ ar ro g ant he ar t is re sp ons ibl e for provok i ng Poly phe mus and ne e d lessly re ve a l ing his i de nt it y, s o it a ls o s e t s i n t rai n t he w rat h of Po s e i don and h is l ong- d el aye d home c om i ng . 29 L i ke w is e, i n t he Neky i a i n w h i ch O dyss eus v is its t he g ho st s of t he Unde r worl d, his me e t i ng w it h Te i re si as op ens up anot her prol e ps is , c on ne c t i ng O dy ss e us’ pr i de w it h h is l ong home com ing: in spite of his w i l f u l ne ss - and b e c aus e of it - he may e ventu a l ly ar r ive home. 30 Af te r his k at ab as is , O dyss e us re tur ns to bur y E lp enor, not d r iven by c i rc u mst anc e but cho o s i ng to re t race h is ste ps. 31 T he t heme of mor t a l w i l f u l ne ss and div i ne w r at h has b e e n e st abl ishe d f rom t he pro em’s op ening re fe re nc e to t he c att l e of Hel i o s: “e ve n s o he di d not s ave h is com r a d es , for a l l his de s i re, for t hrou g h t he i r ow n bl i nd fol ly t he y p er ishe d…”. 3 2 Yet, in his re tel l i ng and ove rl ay i ng of h is me mor i e s, O dy ss e us s ig nif i c ant ly compl ic ate s t he pi c tu re. T he Ap ol o goi do not i nve r t h is pre v i ous ident it y but j oin up h is i de nt it y b ot h as v i c tor and v i c t i m , g rant i ng t he “ he ro of many d e v ices” t he f l e x ibi l it y to c ont i nu e his j our ne y.

In su m , I f ind t hat t he nar r at ive of O dy ss e y 9 -1 2 is b e st unde rsto o d not as an exercis e in ly ing but an e xe rc is e i n t he r apy. In dramat i c te r ms, it succe e ds in l ay ing emphas is on t he l e ss on of ho spit a l it y and s e c ur i ng O dyss e us’ onwards j ou r ne y ; in p o e t i c te r ms , it re sp onds to t he pre ssure of t he Il i adi c t radit ion and f re es O dy ss e us f rom t he lu re of his pre v i ous i de nt it y ; and i n 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Christensen (2018) Od.1.33-4 cf. 8.577-80 Od.9.14 Od.9.19-20 Od.9.39-44, 53, 98, 315-30, 420-4, 500-1 Od.9. 532-6 Od.11.105-7 Od.12.1-15 Od.1.6-9

ps ycholog ic a l ter ms , it b e g i ns to a c c om mo d ate t he he ro’s p ast ac t i ons w it h h is f utu re t r aj e c tor y. L ate r i n t he p o e m, up on O dy ss e us’ s e cre t re tur n to It hac a, t he s w ineherd Eu ma e us mus e s a l ou d up on t he bitte rswe e t pl e asure of stor ytel l ing: “We t wo w i l l dr i n k and fe ast i n t he hut, and w i l l t a ke del i g ht i n t he ot her’s g r ie vous wo e s , as we c a l l t he m to m i nd.” 33 In t h is way, I s e e i n t he world of O dy ss e y 9 - 1 2 a c at har t i c sp a c e – b ot h for t he p o e t and for h is l ong su f fer ing prot agon ist .

BIBLIOGRAPHY C h r istens en , Jo el (2 0 1 8 ) , ‘ T he C l i n i c a l O dy ss e y : O dy ss e us’s Ap ol o goi and

Nar r at ive T he r apy ’, Are t hus a 5 1 . 1 , 1 -3 1 Em ly n - Jones , C h r is , ‘ Tr u e and Ly i ng Ta l e s i n t he O dyss e y’ G & R 3 3 ( 1 9 8 6 ) 1-10 Mo st , Gl en n (1 9 8 9 ), ‘ T he St r u c tu re and Fu nc t i on of O dyss e us’ Ap ol o goi’,

TA Ph A 1 1 9 , 1 5 - 3 0 Pu cci, Piet ro (1 9 7 9 ) ‘ T he S ong of t he Si re ns’, Are t hus a 1 2 : 1 2 1 -1 3 2 Tex t and t r ansl at ion : http s : //w w w. l o eb cl ass i c s . c om/ 33

Od.15.398-402

H I S TOR IA N OR S TORY T E L L E R : A DE F E N C E OF H E ROD OT U S’ H I S TOR I O G R A P H I C A L STYLE

Jasmine S ahu

What ex ac t ly is t he coloss a l work of He ro dotus of Ha l i c ar nassus? Tradit i on c a l ls it The Histor ies , but to a mo de r n au di e nc e, a c c ustome d to t he k i nd of h istor yw r it ing avai l abl e at any h i g h-st re e t b o ok shop, t his mi g ht s e e m to b e s ome t h i ng of a misnomer. But w hy ? What is it t hat s e p ar ate s T he Histor i e s f rom its de s ce nd ants?

A convent iona l ans wer m i g ht b e t hat it s c onte nt , f i l l e d as it is w it h f abl e s, prophe cies , and fant ast ic a l o c c u r re nc e s , is at o dds w it h t he ge nre i n que st i on - t hat such f lig hts of f anc y are more appropr i ate to t he c r af t of a stor ytel l e r t han to t he w r it ings of a h istor i an. To c ons i de r He ro dotus’ work i n t h is way, howe ve r, is to appro ach t he text in an e nt i rely ana chron ist i c and f a l l aci ous manne r. Fi rst ly, it is e ss ent i a l to re cog n is e t hat su ch c ate gor is at i on wou l d have b e e n e nt i rely a l i e n to Hero dotus’ contemp or ar i e s ; w he n he w rote his Histor i e s, t he re was no such t h i ng as a histor i an , and t he output of a stor y tel l e r w as c e r t ai n ly not re st r i c te d to t he re a l m of imag ine d fant as y. Af te r a l l, Home r, w ho w as l au de d as t he g re ate st of stor y tel l e rs, w as t hou g ht to b e rel at ing t he t r u e t a l e of t he Troj an War ; howe ve r much t he de t ai ls of h is rend it ion were qu e st i one d, t he u nde rly i ng re a l it y of t he conf l i c t was t a ke n for g rante d. 1 S e cond ly, t he div is i on of histor i an and stor ytel l e r, w h i ch de p e nds up on t he i d e a t hat histor y repres e nt s t he “a c tu a l” and stor y tel li ng t he “p o ssibl e” 2 ( or i nde e d t he imp oss ibl e), is a probl e mat i c assu mpt i on for histor y-w r it i ng of any p e r i o d. It i mplies t hat t he subj e c t of histor y is s ome t hi ng w hi ch e x ists w hol ly i nde p e nde nt ly f rom t he me d iu m w h ich re pre s e nt s it . T his i de a has l ong si nce b e e n cha l l e nge d by t he work of t he liter ar y s chol ar, Hayde n White, howe ve r. For h i m , h istor y is as much a “verb a l f ic t ion” 3 as any ot he r pi e c e of l ite r atu re s i nce, un l i ke s ci e nt i f i c dis cours e s (w here t he subj e c t is d ef i ne d t hrou g h e x p e r i me nt at i on and obs e r v at i on) , h istor y b ot h cre ates and ar r ange s t he mate r i a l it dis c uss e s ; t he subj e c t is re nde re d t h roug h t he des cr ipt ion of t he h istor i an and is t he re fore ne c e ss ar i ly me di ate d t h roug h t he i r i ndiv idu a l pre concept ions .

If we u nde rst and t he issue i n t his w ay, it is cl e ar t hat He ro dotus’ work is unde ni ably a pie ce of h istor y - w r it ing , a lb e it one w hi ch ma ke s t he l ite rar y nature of t he ge nre abund ant ly e v id ent. T he f ant ast i c a l el e me nt s of his work no l onge r s e e m l i ke an ab er rat ion , but r at her s e r ve as a re mi nde r t hat t he a ccount is f i lte re d t h roug h Hero dotus’ b elief s , c u lture and l ite r ar y e x p e c t at i ons . As a re su lt, The Histor i e s c an b e s e en as t he p er fe c t vehi cl e for e x pl or i ng Hayde n Wh ite’s i de as and e x p o si ng t he i n f luence of t he h istor i an’s m i l i e u on t he pro du c t of h is l ab ours.

1

2 3

See Thucydides 1.11, where it is argued that had Agamemnon brought greater supplies and had therefore been able to mount a complete siege of Troy, the city would have fallen much sooner. The logic of the decisions of the Achaean commanders is here discussed in a manner which assumes the basic facts of the conflict to have been true.

Hayden White (1978): 1543 ibid: 1537

* T he cent r a l argu ment of Hayde n White’s t he or i e s is t hat a h istor i an us e s t he stor y-p atter ns k now n to t he i r p ar t i c u l ar c u ltu re i n orde r to ma ke s e ns e of h istor ic a l mater i a l. It is a pro c e ss of f am i l i ar is at i on w h i ch t ransfor ms t he u n k now n matter of t he p ast i nto a k now abl e and unde rst and abl e for m for t he re a d er. 4 More t han t his , howe ve r, White arg u es t hat, si nce t he h istor i an must us e f igu r at ive l ang u age to c on f i g u re t he subj e c t of t he i r i nqui r y, t he “empl ot ment” of t he histor i c a l nar r at ive b e g i ns t he n, e ve n b e fore t he pro cess of ar r angeme nt c om me nc e s . 5 A histor i an mi g ht fe el t hat t he y are dis cover ing t he stor y-p atte r ns w it hi n t he i r mate r i a l, but i n re a l it y, it is t heir c ons cious ness of p o ss ibl e p atte r ns t hat i mbue s h istor i c a l matte r w it h st r u c tu res to b e fou nd; as White p oi nt s out , no s itu at i on is “ i n he re nt ly t rag i c, comic, or romant ic”. 6 For t he maj or it y of mo de r n w r itte n h istor y, i de nt i f y i ng t he p atter ns w it h w h i ch t he nar r at ive w as for me d is a l e ng t hy e xe rcis e in literar y ana ly s is ; i n T he Histor i e s , howe ve r, He ro dotus ma ke s e x pl i cit reference to t he p atte r ns w hi ch gove r n his re ndit i on and orde r h is nar rat ive, t hus enabl ing us to cr y st a l l is e t he w ay t his pro c e ss works w it h unusu a l cl ar it y. Appropr i ately, we c an f i nd t he s e ar t i c u l at ions at t he b e g i nni ng of t he nar rat ive. When Hero dotus rel ate s t he e x t r a ordi nar y conve rs at i on b e t we e n S olon and C ro esus , t he Lydi an k i ng is dis app oi nte d t hat S ol on do e s not name h im as t he most bl e ss e d man , but r at he r a l ong de ad At he ni an, Tel lus.

When aske d to expl ai n hi ms el f, S ol on i ns ist s , “ σ κοπ έ ειν δ ὲ χ ρὴ παν τὸ ς χ ρή μ ατο ς τ ὴν τε λ ε υτ ὴν κῇ ἀπ ο βή σ ετα ι· π ολ λο ῖ σ ι γ ὰρ δὴ ὑπο δ έ ξα ς ὄλβ ον ὁ θ ε ὸ ς πρ ορ ρ ί ζου ς ἀν έ τρ ε ψ ε” 7 - it is ne c e ss ar y to c onsi de r t he e nd of t he w hol e af fair, in w hat way it w i l l tu r n out ; for t he go d, hav i ng a l l owe d a bl e ssi ng to many, r u ins t hem utte rly. Cro e sus’ stor y s o on b e ars out S ol on’s ass e ssme nt: b efore one of t he r iche st r u l e rs of t he age, c ommandi ng v ast t rac ts of l and, he is f i na l ly brou g ht l ow by t he p owe r of Cy r us’ e me rg i ng Pe rsi an e mpi re.

Fur t he r more, t he re ve rs a l is e x pl i c it ly att r ibute d to t he go ds t h roug h t he resp ons e C ro esus re c e ive s f rom D elphi : t he pr i e st s t he re e x pl ai n t hat t h is outcome was ord aine d as a re qu it a l for t he c r i me s com m itte d by Cro e sus’ ancestor, Gy ges . A cle ar p atte r n is t hus e st abl ishe d: for tune s r is e and f a l l accord ing to t he w i l l of t he go ds , s o t hat one w ho ach i e ve s g re at he i g hts may ex p e c t a cor resp ond ing ly de v ast at i ng re ve rs a l.

If we now cons id er He ro dotus’ work as a w hol e, it w i l l b e come cl e ar how p er vas ively t h is p atte r n is w r itte n i nto it . We s e e it i n Cy r us’ de at h at t he hands of t he Mass age t ans ( div i nely s anc t i one d by a m isi nte r pre te d dre am Cy r us has b efore t he b att l e ) , and i n C amby s e s’ a c ci de nt a l de at h at E cb at ana ( w h ich is pre d ic te d to hi m by an or a cl e ) . Xe r xe s’ de fe at at Sa l am is, howe ve r, is t he cl e arest exampl e of how t he p atte r n is re a l is e d on a bro ad s c a l e.

Hero dotus dwel ls in l ov i ng de t ai l on t he e nor mous ar mame nt w h i ch Xe r xe s ass embles a he a d of h is i nv as i on of Gre e c e, 4 5 6 7

ibid: 1540 ibid: 1548 ibid: 1540 Herodotus 1.33.1; translations of Greek throughout this piece are my own.

bu i lding t he impress i on t hat Pe rs i a’s p owe r is at its z e nit h . As wel l as prov id ing l engt hy d es c r ipt i ons of e a ch c ont i nge nt , f i l l i ng a l mo st for t y s e c t ions , he names s e ve r a l ot he r e x p e dit i ons ( i ncludi ng t he Gre ek ass au lt on Troy ) and w r ites “ αὗτα ι α ἱ π ᾶ σ α ι, κα ὶ ο ὐ δ ’ εἰ ἕτερ α ι πρ ὸ ς ταύτ ῃσ ι πρ ο σ ε γ έ ν ον το σ τρ ατ η λα σ ί α ι, μ ιῆ ς τ ῆ σ δ ε ο ὐ κ ἄ ξι α ι ” 8 - a l l t he s e, e ve n i f ot her ar m ies were a d de d to t he m , wou l d not have b e e n wor t hy of t h is one. T he ine v it abi lit y of Xe r xe s’ de fe at , more ove r, is prove n not on ly by mu lt ipl e omens and p or te nt s , su ch as t he dust cl oud w it ne ss e d by Di c ae us and D e mar atus t hat t r avels f rom E l e us is to S a l am is c ar r y i ng w it h it t he cr y, ‘Iacchus’, 9 but a ls o by t he w ay Xe r xe s’ e x p e dit i on m i r rors D ar ius’ f ai l e d c amp aig n against t he S c y t hi ans ( p ar t i c u l arly w it h re g ard to t he p onto on br idge h is pre d e cess or rel i e s on ) . T he p oi nt he re is t hat, w h i lst He ro dotus cou ld not a lter t he f a c t Xe r xe s w as de fe ate d, his t re at me nt of t he i nci de nt fo c us es on its a d here nc e to t his stor y p atte r n . An a lte r nat ive account of t he defe at m ig ht re du ce it to a mi nor s e t b a ck i n an ot he r w is e succe ssf u l m i l it ar y c amp aig n ; Hero d otus’s a c c ou nt , howe ve r, has del ib e rately e mphasis e d it. Th is is pre cis ely w hat Hayde n White me ans w he n he s ays t hat, “ i n h istor y w hat is t rag ic f rom one p ersp e c t ive is c omi c f rom anot he r” ; 10 f rom He ro dotus’ Gre ek p ersp e c t ive, 1 1 Xer xes’ de fe at f it s t he p atte r n of a d iv i nely s anc t i one d f a l l, but it wou ld b e u n l i kely to f rom a Pe rs i an one.

In h is rend it ion of t he mai n e ve nt s of his nar r at ive, t he re fore, He ro dotus amply d emonst r ates how t he aw are ne ss , and sub s e que nt e mpl oy me nt, of a p ar t ic u l ar stor y p atte r n c an b e us e d to shap e histor i c a l mate r i a l. Ye t T he Histor ies are a ls o l itte re d w it h nu me rous de t ai ls and i nci de nts w h i ch s e em to have rel at ively l itt l e to do w it h t he ove r a l l st r uc ture of t he work.

It is imp or t ant, howe ve r, to s e e t hat t he p atte r n i de nt i f i e d ab ove is b e i ng mobi lis e d t h rou g h t he s e el e me nt s a ls o. A cl e ar c as e i n p oi nt is t he t a l e ab out D ar ius’ clo a k in B o ok T hre e. In t his i nte rlu de, Hero dotus e x pl ai ns how a Gre ek, Sy los on , ha d g i f te d a cl o a k to D ar ius w he n he was an uni mp or t ant s oldier, and t hen , onc e t he obj e c t of his k i ndne ss had b e come Ki ng , had retu r ne d to cl aim a favou r. 12 T homas Har r is on has p oi nte d out t hat any h istor i an’s s el e c t ion of mate r i a l w i l l l i kely b e i n f lue nce d by a re t ro sp e c t ive u nderst and ing of e ve nt s , 13 and t his is c e r t ai n ly t r ue i n He ro dotus’ c as e. Ye t in h is rend it ion of t he i nc i de nt , He ro dotus su g ge sts t hat t he re is a de e p e r s ig nif i c ance at work . He de s c r ib e s Sy l o s on as handi ng ove r t he cl o a k, “ θ εί ῃ τ ύχῃ χ ρ ε ώμε ν ο ς ”, 1 4 hav i ng b e e n f u r n ishe d w it h div i ne go o d for tune. Thus, it is not merely t hat Sy l o s on’s a c t i ons g ai n i mp or t ance re t ro sp e c t ively – Hero dotus d o es not, for i nst anc e, s ay t he g i f t i ng of t he cl o a k si mply ‘tur ne d out’ to b e a go o d t h ing – but r at he r t hat i n t he mome nt w he n t he ac t i on to ok 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

Herodotus 7.21.1 Herodotus 8.65 White (1978): 1539 Here I use this slippery term in order to highlight the opposition between Herodotus’ perspective (and that of the readers accessing his text in Greek) and, for example, the perspective of the Persian court.

See Herodotus 3.139-140 Harrison (2003): 244 Herodotus 3.139.3

pl ace, t he w i l l of t he go d w as i n op e r at i on , and t he div i nely orde re d nature of e vents was re ve a l e d. 15 T he c ont r ibut i on of t he e pis o de to t he bro ade r st r u c tu re of Hero d otus’ work , t he re fore, is to re f l e c t t he p e rsp e c t ive t hat g ives Hero d otus’ mai n stor y p atte r n it s p e rsu as ive force.

To u nderst and t h is , it is v it a l to re c a l l t he c u ltu r a l b ackdrop ag ai nst w h i ch t he h istor i an was w r it i ng . He ro dotus w as re sp ondi ng and cont r ibut i ng to a s o ciet y in w h ich t he p owe r of t he go ds and t he i r p ar t i n human e ve nts was a common ly a ccepte d re a l it y. T his p e rc e pt i on of t he worl d is atte ste d now he re more cle arly t hat in t he l ite r atu re of t he age, p ar t i c u l arly Att i c Trage dy and Homer ic p o et r y. B ot h of t he s e ge n re s e x pl ore t he charac te rs and i mp ac t of div ine b eings on t he hu man worl d, and i n s o doi ng re f l e c t a pre o cc up at i on of t hei r exp e c te d au di e nc e s . Give n t hat t his w as t he s o ci e t y i nto w h i ch Hero dotus was br ing i ng his Histor i e s , t he re fore, it is l itt l e wonde r t hat, i n const r u c t ing a ne w pro s e ge n re e x am i n i ng t he de vel opme nt of e ve nts, he us e s s imi l ar st r u c tu res and te chn i qu e s f rom his l ite r ar y pre de ce ss ors. C onsi de r, for inst ance, t he pre v a l e nc e of re ve rs a ls , su ch as t he de ci mat i on of Pr i am’s pro sp er it y w h ich provoke s Achi l l e s’ pit y i n t he f i na l b o ok of t he Il i ad, 16 or t he pit i abl e re du c t ion of O e dipus , e na c te d i n S opho cl e s’ f amous pl ay. A p ar t ic u l arly go o d exampl e c an b e s e e n Eu r ipi de s’ B acchae. D ur i ng t he cours e of t he pl ay, we have w it ne ss e d Di ony sus’ s y ste mat i c de st r uc t i on of Pe nt he us, t he t y r ant w hos e towe r i ng c on f i de nc e at t he b e g i nni ng of t he pi e ce s e e s h i m w i l ling to t a ke up ar ms ag ai nst t he go d. Whe n , howe ve r, C admus compl ai ns t hat t he t re at ment of his f am i ly has b e e n to o harsh , Di onysus re pl i e s t hat “π ά λαι τά δ ε Ζ ε ὺ ς οὑ μ ὸ ς ἐπ έ ν ε υ σ ε ν π ατ ήρ ” 17 my f at he r Z e us orde re d t he s e t h ings long ago; t he re ve rs a l of for tu ne e na c te d i n t he drama is u lt i mately re ve a le d to b e t he resu lt of div i ne w i l l. T he e f fe c t of t h is si m i l ar it y is cl e arly l aid out by Wh ite. He st ipu l ate s t hat “ [ t ] he re a de r, i n t he pro ce ss of fol l ow i ng t he h istor i an’s a ccou nt [ … ] g r a du a l ly c ome s to re a l is e t hat t he stor y he is re ading is of one k ind r at he r t han anot he r [ … ] And w he n he has p e rce ive d t he cl ass or t y p e […] he e x p e r i e nc e s t he e f fe c t of hav i ng t he e ve nts i n t he stor y expl aine d to h im”. 18 In ot he r words , t he re c og nit i on of a stor y -p atte r n ass o ci ate d w it h t r age dy pre c ipit ate s a s e ns e of d aw ni ng unde rst andi ng for t he audience. B eing wel l - ve rs e d i n t he t r ag i c ge n re, t he y k now w hat t h is p atte r n me ans in its liter ar y c onte x t and s o fe el t hat t he y now p e rce ive w hat t he h istor ic a l a ccou nt me ans t hrou g h t he ass o c i at i on .

In lig ht of t h is , Joh n G ou l d’s ob s e r v at i on of He ro dotus’ us e of t he ph ras e “ἔμ ε λ λ ε ν ἔ σ ε σ θ α ι ”, it w as goi ng to happ e n , 19 is e sp e ci a l ly i nt r i g ui ng . Th is, he arg u es, is rem in is cent of s i m i l ar e x pre ss i ons e mpl oye d by Home r i n h is e pi c p o et r y. 2 0 As D eb or a h B o e de cke r has arg u e d, it is not ne ce ss ar y for He ro dotus to b e d ire c t ly qu ot ing Home r, or for t he phr as e to re c a l l a sp e ci f i c i nst ance 15 16 17 18 19 20

Harrison (2003): 245 see Iliad 24.546 – they say that you, old man, excelled these in wealth and in sons.

Euripides, Bacchae 1349 White (1978): 1540-1 for example, Herodotus 3.65.4 Gould (1989): 77

f rom t he Il i a d or t he O dy ss e y, for t he g re at p o e t to b e e voke d; for an audi e nce as fami li ar w it h Home r as He ro dotus’ wou l d have b e e n, e ve n t he e mu l at i on of t he s or ts of d ic t ion us e d i n e pi c wou l d b e e noug h . 21 Whe re ve r a col l e c t i on of words l i ke “ ἔ με λ λ ε ν ἔ σ ε σ θ α ι” w as us e d, t he re fore, t he pre s e nce of Home r i c st y le wou l d b e felt. It is tel l i ng , t he n , to c ons i de r w he n He ro dotus cho o s e s to us e t h is ph r as e. G ou l d p oi nt s out t hat it is c ommon ly us e d w he n t he h istor i an is mark ing a moment of re a l is at i on , w he n “a ge ne ra l t r ut h ab out t he human ex p er ience” 2 2 comes i nto fo c us . To i l lust r ate t his , G ou l d us e s t he e x ampl e of C amby s es’ d e at h . He arg u e s t hat He ro dotus re pre s e nts t h is app are nt accident as t he c u l m i nat i on of a s e r i e s of c aus at i ons: 23 t he re vel at i on t hat it was Smerd is t he Mag us , not Sme rdis his brot he r, w hom C ambys e s’ dre am had war ne d h im ab out c aus e s C amby s e s to l e ap hast i ly onto h is hors e, w he re up on he is wou nd e d by h is ow n s word i n t he s ame sp ot t hat he had e arl i e r st abb e d t he Apis bu l l, and s o f i nds hi ms el f dy i ng i n t he ver y pl ace t hat t he oracl e i n Buto ha d told h im he wou l d. 24 As we have a l re a dy s e e n, t h is i nci de nt f its i nto t he p atter n of a d iv inely ord ai ne d re ve rs a l of for tune e ve n by t he me re f ac t of t he ora cle’s pre d ic t ion . We c an t a ke t he p oi nt f u r t he r, howe ve r, by p oi nt i ng out t he way t hat, as w it h t he i nc i de nt of Sy l o s on’s cl o a k, e arl i e r i nci de nts are show n to have ret rosp e c t ive s i g n i f i c anc e t hrou g h t he i r ass o ci at i on w it h t h is e vent ; t he var ious d e t ai ls He ro dotus has i nclu de d ab out C amby s e s’ re i g n s e e m to converge on t h is s i ng l e p oi nt . Ne ve r t hel e ss , to s ay t h is of fe rs not h i ng ne w to t he argu ments we have a l re a dy dis c uss e d. What is re a l ly si g ni f i c ant ab out G ou ld’s obs er v at ion, howe ve r, is t he w ay it a c c ords w it h Wh ite’s arg ume nts.

Just as t he us e of c u ltu r a l ly re c o g n is abl e stor y p atte r ns help t he re ade r to fe el as t hou g h t he e ve nt s de s c r ib e d w it hi n a histor i c a l nar rat ive are f a l l i ng into an exp e c te d and f am i l i ar orde r – a l mo st as t houg h t he y we re div i nely ord aine d to d e velop i n t hat w ay – He ro dotus’ us e of Home r i c ph rasi ng to h ig h lig ht a moment w he re t he t hre a ds of his nar r at ive conve rge, not on ly reinforces h is ow n us e of t he ‘div i nely approve d re ve rs a l of for tune’ p atte r n, but a ls o h ig h l ig hts t he su it abi l it y of t hat p atte r n to t he ge ne ra l e f fe c t such p atter ns have in h istor y w r it i ng . T he s e ns e of r i g ht ne ss prof fe re d by t he go d-s anc t ione d re vers a l c or re sp onds to t he s e ns e of r i g ht ne ss i nspi re d by t he h istor i an’s us e of stor y p atte r ns .

T h is , t hen , s e ems to b e a dist i nc t ly s at is f y i ng w ay of i nte r pre t i ng He ro dotus’ for m of h istor y - w r it i ng . T he re is , ne ve r t hel e ss , a p ote nt i a l draw-b ack.

A prominent fe atu re of He ro dotus’ st y l e i n T he Histor i e s is t he way he f re quent ly p er m its h is ow n voi c e to i nt r u de up on t he nar rat ive. Th is issue is p ar t ic u l arly h ig h l ig hte d by C aroly n D e w a l d, w ho hol ds up Thuc ydi de s ( of te n cite d as t he mo d el for mu ch sub s e qu e nt histor i o g raphy ) as a comp arator.

T huc yd id es on ly r arely i nte r p o s e s his ow n p e rs ona i nto t he te x t and, w he n he do es s o, it is for t he pu r p o s e of re i n forc i ng t he aut hor it y of h is nar rat ive. 25 A lt houg h Hero d otus o c c as i ona l ly i nte r j e c t s for a si m i l ar re as on, t he maj or it y 21 22 23 24 25

Boedeker (2002): 100-101 Gould (1989): 74 Gould (1989): 75 Herodotus 3.64 Dewald (1987): 160

of h is aut hor i a l com me nt s pro du c e e nt i rely t he opp o site e f fe c t. For e x ampl e, he of te n us es h is inte r ve nt i ons to i nt ro du c e a lte r nat ive accounts of t he e vent s he is nar r at ing : w he n de s c r ibi ng D ar ius’ s el e c t i on as Pe rsi an Ki ng , he rel ates t wo d if fere nt ve rs i ons and rou nds t he t a l e e pis o de of f by st at i ng t hat “γ ὰρ ἐ π ’ ἀ μφ ότερ α λ έ γ ετα ι ὑπ ὸ Περ σ έ ων ”, 26 for it is tol d b ot h way s by t he Pers i ans . Mo d er n histor i ans wou l d at l e ast s e ek to i ndi c ate w h i ch stor y t he y fou nd more pl aus ibl e ; He ro dotus , howe ve r, ma ke s h is audi e nce aware of t he fa c t t hat he has a lte r nat ive a c c ou nt s , t he n l e ave s t he m g ue ssi ng .

E qu a l ly u ns ett ling , we may arg u e, is He ro dotus’ habit of op e n ly avow i ng h is ig nor ance on cer t ai n p oi nt s ; w he n de s c r ibi ng t he ass e mbl age of Xe r xe s’ ar my, for inst ance, he a dm it s t hat he do e s n’t k now w h i ch gove r nor won t he k ing’s re ward for t he b e st e qu ipp e d t ro op s . 27 T his m i g ht b e s e e n as a probl e m for ou r us e of Wh ite’s i de as b e c aus e his t he or y assume s t he pre s e nce of a cohere nt nar r at ive inte r pre t at i on of e ve nt s . T he pr i ncipl e s he out l i ne s are draw n to a l arge exte nt f rom his stu di e s of 1 9 t h c e ntur y h istor i ans, for w hom admitt ing ig nor ance i n su ch a bl at ant and re c u r rent f ash i on wou l d have b e e n an anat hema . Fa ce d w it h He ro dotus’ i nc ons iste nt and unce r t ai n nar rat ive, t herefore, we m ig ht wel l b e te mpte d to arg u e t hat h is st y l e of h istor y-w r it i ng is incomp at ibl e w it h White’s e x pl anat i ons .

B efore cons ig n ing t his i nte r pre t at i on to t he s c r ap he ap, howe ve r, it is imp or t ant to cons id e r w hy He ro dotus e mpl oy s su ch an i nt r usive aut hor i a l voice. As D e wa ld p oi nt s out , t he i ne v it abl e c ons e que nce of He ro dotus’ dis r upt ion of t he nar r at ive is t hat it dr aw s atte nt i on to t he l ab our t hat has gone into for m ing it. 28 It is “de s i g ne d to ma ke us re me mb e r t hat t he nar rat ive su r face is its elf an ar te f a c t ; l i ke g l ass it c on ne c t s but a ls o i ne v it ably s e p arate s us f rom w hat we wou l d s e e t hrou g h it”. 29 In ot he r words, D e wa l d i nte r pre ts Hero dotus’ aut hor i a l voi c e as a del ib e r ately s el f - cons ci ous atte mpt to e ng age t he audience in t he pro c e ss of c re at i ng a histor i c a l nar rat ive. The v a lue of su ch an u nd erst andi ng of He ro dotus’ voi c e, is t hat it accords wel l w it h Hayden Wh ite’s s ens e of t he b e ne f it s of hi g h l i g ht ing t he l ite rar y nature of h istor iog r aphy. He arg u e s t hat re c o g n i z i ng “t he f i c t ive el e me nt” i n h istor i c a l nar rat ives “wou ld s er ve as a p ote nt ant i dote to t he te nde nc y of h istor i ans to b e come c apt ive of id e ol o g i c a l pre c onc e pt i ons”. 30 In many re sp e c ts, t he re fore, Hero dotus c an b e s e e n to b ehave a l mo st l i ke White’s i de a l h istor i an. A lt houg h he und oubte d ly us es stor y p atte r ns and op e r ate s w it h i n a dist i nc t i de ol o g i c a l f rame work , he d o es not of fe r s o pr ist i ne a nar r at ive as to obs c ure t he f ac t of h is ow n a c t of const r u c t i on . Inde e d, by avow i ng h is work as a h istor i an and it s limit at ions , he enabl e s t he re a de r to b e tte r e v a lu ate t he pro duc t of h is l ab ours for w hat it is : an i nte r pre t at i on .

T he Histor ies is u nd oubte d ly a c ompl e x and di f f i c u lt te x t to i nte r pre t. Its she er siz e is enou g h to g u ar ante e t hat mo st atte mpts to prov i de a si mpl e 26 27 28 29 30

Herodotus 3.87 Herodotus 7.26 Dewald (1987): 148 Dewald (1987): 150 White (1978): 1552

ex pl anat ion of its proj e c t w i l l prove t he ms elve s i nade qu ate. Ne ve r t hel e ss, t he us e of Hayd en White’s i de as ab out histor i o g r aphy do e s help us to go s ome w ay towards u nde rst andi ng He ro dotus’ i nc or p orat i on of el e me nts t hat wou l d s e em w hol ly out of pl a c e i n mo de r n e xampl e s of h istor y w r it i ng .

T he fant ast ic a l asp e c t of T he Histor i e s is a pro du c t of t he f ac t t hat a l l h istor iog r aphy is u lt i mately a c u ltu r a l ly de te r m i ne d pro duc t i on. By v i r tue of op erat ing w it h in a s o c i e t y t hat ge ne r a l ly c ons i de re d t he div i ne as a p ote nt force i n t he worl d, He ro dotus natu r a l ly re a che s for stor y-p atte r ns t hat confor m to t h is p erce pt i on i n his atte mpt to e x pl ai n t he subj e c t of h is work.

T he t r u ly fas cinat ing p ar t of t his i nte r pre t at i on , howe ve r, is how p e r fe c t ly t he ancient h istor i an’s appro a ch re f l e c t s t he pro c ess Wh ite de s cr ib e s. His cent ra l stor y - p atter n c an a l mo st b e s e e n as a me t aphor for t he e f fe c t stor yp atter ns pro du ce in ge ne r a l. Eve n more e x t r a ordi nar y t han t h is, howe ve r, is t he fac t t hat one of t he mo st probl e mat i c a l asp e c t s of He ro dotus’ w r it i ng , h is aut hor i a l voice, in f a c t p o s it i ons hi m as an e xe mpl ar y mo del of a h istor i an.

A lt houg h he res id es at t he ve r y b e g i n n i ng of his ge nre, h is i nt r usi ons i nto t he nar rat ive re ve a l h im to b e a dist i nc t ly s el f -aw are prac t it i one r and a l l ow h i m to of fer a h istor ic a l pro du c t w hi ch, i f us e d e f fe c t ively, may avoi d many of t he pit fa l ls Wh ite id ent if i e s i n l ate r histor y w r it i ng . Any re ade r of The Histor i e s c annot f ai l to b e aware t hat t he y are e ng ag i ng w it h t he work of He ro dotus of Ha lic ar nassus , and as a re su lt , t he rol e of i nte r pre t at i on i n h istor y w r it i ng is made abu nd ant ly cle ar.

BIBLIOGRAPHY B o e deker, D eb or a h (2 0 0 2 ) " Epi c He r it age and My t h i c a l Patte r ns i n

Hero d otus " i n Br i l l ' s C omp an i on to He ro dotus. Br i l l, L e i de n.

D e wa ld, C aroly n (1 9 8 7 ) " Nar r at ive Su r f a c e and Aut hor i a l Voi ce i n He ro dotus'

' Histor ies ' " in Are t hus a . v 2 0 . 1 pp. 1 4 7 – 1 7 0 G ou ld, Joh n (1 9 8 9 ) He ro dotus . St Mar t i ns Pre ss , Ne w York.

Har r is on , T homas (2 0 0 3 ) “Prophe c y i n re ve rs e ? He ro dotus and t he Or i g i ns of

Histor y ” in He ro dotus and his Worl d: E ss ay s f rom a C onfe re nce i n

Memor y of G e orge For re st . Ox ford Un ive rsit y Pre ss, Ox ford.

Wh ite, Hayd en (1 9 7 8 ) “ T he Histor i c a l Te x t as L ite rar y Ar te f ac t” i n Nor ton

Ant hol og y of T he or y and Cr it i c is m. 2 nd e d. ( 2 0 1 0 ) E d. Vi nce nt B.

L eitch . W.W. Nor ton & C o, L ondon .

D OM I N E , QU O VA DI S ?

Kinga Ness elfeld

The Ap o cr y pha l Ac ts of Pe te r tel ls t he stor y of Pe te r’s v isi on of C h r ist, w he n t he for mer w as f le eing R ome to e s c ap e c r u c i f i x i on .

“D om ine, qu o v a dis ? ” Aske d Pe te r. [ Whe re are you goi ng , my l ord] “E o R omam iter u m c r u c i f i g i.” S ai d C hr ist . [ I am goi ng to R ome to b e cr uci f i e d ag ai n . ] 1 Peter’s v is ion conclu d es and he re tu r ns to R ome to f ace h is de at h as a mar t y r. The fo otpr ints of w here C h r ist supp o s e d ly sto o d re mai n i n t he marbl e and c an now b e fou nd in t he chap el of D om i ne Q u o Va dis a l ong t he Vi a Appi a. Fitt i ng ly, t he chap el is lo c ate d in f ront of t he c ampus of R e di c u lus – t he R oman go d of re tur n.

Th is pie ce w i l l s et out t he c onte x t of Pe te r’s f l i g ht i n t he pro s e c ut i on of C h r ist i ans fol low ing t he f ire at R ome i n 6 4 A D. Pe te r’s e nc ou nte r w it h C h r ist w i l l b e e xplore d for its re cept ion i n l ite r atu re, fo c us i ng on how t he s ce ne was ut i l is e d to c ommu ni c ate id e as ab out t he not i on of f re e dom . In tur n, re ce pt i on of t h is s ce ne i n ar t w i l l re ve a l w hat t he l e ge nd me ant for t he C hu rch. Dis c ussi on w i l l b e dr ive n by t he aim of f ind ing com mon g rou nd b e t we e n t he re c ept i on and e mpl oy me nt of t h is topic in t he t wo genres re pre s e nte d by t he b o ok t it l e d Q uo Vadis, and t he p ai nt i ng t it le d D om ine Q u o Va dis re sp e c t ively.

The supp os e d context of Pe te r’s f l i g ht f rom R ome is b as e d on Tacitus’ account: ‘But neit her hu man help, nor i mp e r i a l mu n i f i c e nc e, nor a l l t he mo de s of pl ac at i ng He aven, c ou ld st if le s c and a l or disp el t he b el i e f t hat t he f i re had t a ke n pl ace by order. Therefore, to s cotch t he r u mou r, Ne ro sub st itute d as c u lpr its, and punishe d w it h t he ut most ref ineme nt s of c r u elt y, a cl ass of me n, l o at he d for t he i r v i ce s, w hom t he crowd st y l e d C h r ist i ans’. 2 It has b e en su g geste d t hat t he te r m ‘C hr ist i an’ c ame as a re t ro sp e c t ive i nve nt i on si nce t he g roup in qu est i on w as not ye t l arge e nou g h to b e brande d e x te r na l ly or i nter na l ly, and t hus ‘t he sp e c i f i c c on ne c t i on of C hr ist i ans w it h t he f i re i n R ome as t he p ers ons w ho were pu n ishe d for t he c on f l ag r at i on s omehow de vel op e d l ate r’, as argue d by Brent Shaw. 3 Howe ve r, Jone s su g ge st s t hat Pl i ny ’s us e of t he te r m C h r ist i an i re af f ir me d at l e ast a c onte mp or ar y a ck now l e dge me nt of t he col l e c t ive t arget of t he pros e c ut ion , w hi ch w i l l su f f i c e for now. 4 1 2

3

4

James, M. (1924). The apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tacitus, P., & Jackson, J. (1937). Tacitus Annals. (Volume V) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 15.44 (p.283) A summary of Shaw’s argument in Jones, C.P. (2017) The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw, NTS 63.1, p.151 Jones, C.P. (2017) The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw, NTS 63.1, p.152, using A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and social Commentary (Oxford:

L et us tu r n ou r attent i on to Pe te r : his f l i g ht f rom t he aut hor it i e s of t he Neroni an reg ime s e ems to pu rsu e a f re e dom t hat is f und ame nt a l ly phy si c a l in natu re, as he is es c api ng t he phy s i c a l re a ch of t he p owe r p e rs e c ut i ng h i m for pra c t is ing C h r ist i an it y. Inde e d, t he phy s i c a l di me nsi on of h is f re e dom is fairly s impl e as t he dist anc e, w it h his de st i nat i on un k now n, was to b ar r i c ade h im f rom t he R oman pr a c t i c e of i nve nt i ng g r u e s omely cre at ive way s to i nf l i c t p ain and e ventu a l d e at h onto t he mar t y rs : ‘der is ion a ccomp anie d t he i r e nd: t he y we re c ove re d w it h w i l d b e asts' sk i ns and tor n to d e at h by do g s ; or t he y we re f aste ne d on cro ss e s, and, w he n d ay lig ht fai l e d were bu r ne d to s e r ve as l amps by ni g ht’. 5 T he image of relig ious p e rs e c ut i on as a c u ltu r a l ly e mbl e mat i c st apl e of an era c an natu r a l ly enou g h prompt us to dr aw a p ara l l el b e t we e n t he Ne roni an p ers e c ut ion and t he Sp an ish Inqu is it i on . It is note wor t hy, howe ve r, t hat t he for mer ou g ht not to b e p e rc e ive d as an anc i e nt versi on of t he l atte r. Wh i l e t he Sp an ish Inqu is it ion op e r ate d s y ste mat i c a l ly and ai me d to e ncomp ass a l l are as t hat were u nd er roy a l c ont rol, R oman p e rs e c ut i on c an b e de s cr ib e d b est t h rou g h a s ens e of opp or tu n is m and sp ont ane it y, of te n prompte d by t he temp or ar y intere st of t he re g i me. T he t r a dit i ona l anna l ist i c account of Nero’s re as ons for ne e di ng to ave r t p opu l ar re s e nt me nt towards C h r ist i ans h ig h lig hts t he rol e of i ndiv i du a l i nte re st : ‘Hence, in spite of a g u i lt w hi ch ha d e ar ne d t he mo st e xe mpl ar y punish me nt, t here aros e a s ent ime nt of pit y, du e to t he i mpre ssi on t hat t he y we re b e i ng s acr if i ce d not for t he wel f are of t he st ate but to t he fe ro cit y of a si ng l e man.’ 6 T hus, we c an s e e t hat t he Ne ron i an p e rs e c ut i on was l e ss do g mat i c t han its me die va l ‘cou nter p ar t’. More i mp or t ant ly, it w as ne it he r an e mpi re w i de op erat ion b efore A D 2 5 0 , nor w as it p e rs iste nt ly and e xclusively di re c te d at C h r ist i ans . 7 T herefore, t he phy s i c a l f re e dom af forde d to Pe te r t h roug h h is dep ar tu re cou ld fe as ibly have b e e n p e r mane nt and e nabl e d h i m to c ar r y on w it h h is ap ostolic dut y to f i g ht for t he g row t h of C h r ist i anit y. Th is is t he br ief c ontext in w h ich Pe te r’s de c is i on to re tu r n b e come s b ot h me ani ng f u l and pu zz ling . T he pu r p o s e of Pe te r’s f l i g ht w as to s acr i f i ce h is ‘f i g ht’ for C h r ist i an it y in R ome i n orde r to pre s e r ve hi ms el f and t he reby e nabl e h i m to c ar r y on w it h t he ap o stol i c miss i on els e w he re. His re tur n, howe ve r,

5

6

7

Clarendon, 1996).

Tacitus, P., & Jackson, J. (1937). Tacitus Annals. (Volume V) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 15.44 (p.285) Tacitus, P., & Jackson, J. (1937). Tacitus Annals. (Volume V) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 15.44 (p.285) Cairns, Earle E. (1996). "Chapter 7: Christ or Caesar". Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

AND Rives, J. (1999). The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire. The Journal of Roman Studies, 89, p.137

gu arante e d h is c apture. It is c u r i ous t hat for Pe te r it was e mphat i c a l ly not a c as e of f lig ht or f ig ht , but f l i g ht and f i g ht . S o w hy di d Pe te r cho o s e ne it he r ( rat her t han b ot h )? The ans we r must l i e w it h a re t h i n k i ng of w hat k i nd of f re e dom h is retu r n to R ome, i n t he f a c e of c e r t ai n de at h , cou l d of fe r h i m .

One may argu e t hat phy s i c a l f re e dom c ou l d on ly b e r iv a l l e d by t he f re e dom of cons cience: an eter na l e as e of mi nd for t ho s e f re e of g ui lt. Th is conce pt of g u i lt is imp or t ant b e c aus e it g ive s us a f u r t he r i nsi g ht to t he stor y.

Peter’s f lig ht, r ig ht ly s o, wou l d have b e e n i nte r pre te d by t he aut hor it i e s as an a d m iss ion of gui lt , w it h his c r i me b e i ng t he prac t is e of C h r ist i anit y.

T herefore, h is retu r n is e ss e nt i a l ly a re f us a l to a c t as a cr i m i na l for s ome t h i ng he did not cons id er a c r i me. He w as f re e f rom l e tt i ng t he do c t r i ne of t he Neroni an reg ime d ic t ate his a c t i ons and he w as , at l ast, f re e f rom comprom is e b e c aus e he sub ord inate d hi ms el f to t he do c t r i ne s of C h r ist i anit y on ly.

Anot her u nd erst and i ng of f re e dom i n t he re c e pt i on of t h is stor y c an b e s aid to lie w it h t he not i on of C hr ist i an it y ’s c ol l e c t ive f re e dom f rom R oman r u le emb o d ie d by Pete r’s c r u c i f i x i on . T he b o ok of t he Nob el Pr i z e w i nne r Sien k ie w icz, b e ar ing t he t it l e Q u o Va dis , e mpl oy s p owe r f u l i mage r y of R ome as t he w hore of B aby l on , qu e nche d w it h t he bl o o d of C h r ist i an mar t y rs: ‘C aes ar w ishe d to d row n a l l me mor y of t he f i re i n bl o o d, and ma ke R ome dr un k w it h it; hence ne ve r ha d t he re b e e n a g re ate r prom is e of bl o o dshe d’. 8 R ome is p ers istent ly ass o c i ate d w it h t he g re e d of B aby l on t hat de st roye d Jer us a lem in 5 8 7 B C , w he reby C hr ist i an it y s e r ve s as an a l l e gor y for t he Russ i an subju gat ion of Pol and t hat char a c te r is e d Si e n k i e w i cz’s ow n t i me of t he l ate 1 9 t h centu r y. 9 T he i de nt i f i c at i on of R oman i mp e r i a l p owe r as t he enemy of e arly C h r ist i an it y hol ds as l ong as we reme mb e r t hat R ome was not t he ‘ imp er iu m s ine f i ne’ ( ‘e mpi re /p owe r w it hout e nd’) t hat Vi rg i l’s Jupite r des cr ib e d her to b e, 1 0 s i nc e de at h is t he f i n is of it’s i mp e r ium and b e yond de at h l ies f re e d om f rom R oman i mp e r i a l p owe r. Pe te r’s v isi on re ite rate s to t he re a d er t hat t ime is on his s i de b e c aus e his c r uci f i x i on on ly c uts shor t h is t ime sp ent u nd er R oman r u l e, and his de at h op e ns t he g ate to a ‘re a l m’ not r u l e d by R ome. In t his w ay, t he re fore, it is e asi e r for Pe te r to acce pt t he appro a ch ing end of h is t i me on e ar t h. Si e n k i e w i c z’s de s cr ipt i on of Pe te r’s cr u cif ixion pl ay s into t his i de a : ‘st andi ng on t he he i g ht, w it h h is e x te nde d r ig ht hand ma d e t he s i g n of t he c ro ss , bl e ss i ng i n t he hour of de at h , — Urbi et orbi! (t he cit y and t he worl d) ’. 11 T he nar r at ive t he n l ate r p ays t r ibute to t he imp or t ance of t ime as a marke r of u lt i mate v i c tor y i n its f i na l l i ne s: 8 9

10

11

Sienkiewicz, H., & Curtin, J. (1897). "Quo vadis". Toronto: G.N. Morang. Chapter LI. Kuzmic, T. (2016). Quo Vadis: Polish Messianism and the Proselytizing Heroine. In Adulte rous Nations: Family Politics and National Anxiety in the European Novel (pp. 155- 180). EVANSTON, ILLINOIS: Northwestern University Press. Available at: https://www.js tor.org/stable/j.ctt22727pw.10?seq=11#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 23 Apr. 2019] p.165 Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid: Books 1-6. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Revised

by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library 63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Book 1, line 279 Sienkiewicz, H., & Curtin, J. (1897). "Quo vadis". Toronto: G.N. Morang. Chapter LXX.

‘And s o Nero p ass e d, as a w hi rlw i nd, as a stor m , as a f i re, as war or de at h p ass es; but t he b as i l i c a of Pe te r r u l e s t i l l now, f rom t he Vat i c an he i g hts, t he cit y, and t he world. Ne ar t he anc i e nt Por t a C ap e na st ands to t h is d ay a l itt l e chap el w it h t he ins cr ipt i on , s ome w hat wor n : Q u o Vadis, D om i ne ? ’ 12 T he legend of Q u o Va dis f i nds it s el f shi n i ng t hroug h ar t for di f fe re nt re as ons, as t he t ime of re cept i on w as shot t hrou g h w it h di f fe re nt s o ci a l t he me s.

Annib a l e C ar r a cci’s p ai nt i ng , ‘C hr ist app e ar i ng to Sai nt Pe te r on t he Appi an Way ( D om ine, Q u o Va dis ? ) ’ 13 c aptu re s Pe te r’s v is i on i nte re st i ng ly. The depic t ion of C h r ist has a de f i n ite s e ns e of at h l e t i cism ( C ar racci is t houg ht to have us e d a live mo del to a chi e ve a f lu i dit y of move me nt) , w it h t race s of h is wou nd and t he sha dow he c ast s atte st i ng to his cor p ore a l it y. 14 Phy si c a l st rengt h is pivot a l to t he p o stu re and app e ar anc e of C ar racci’s C h r ist but p erhaps it was employe d to i ndi c ate t he pre s e nc e of a di f fe re nt k i nd of st rengt h : t he dy nam ic move me nt of t he b o dy proj e c ts de te r m i nat i on t hat int ro duces t he more ab st r a c t i de a of me nt a l st re ng t h . The de pi c t i on of Peter is a p ower f u l and natu r a l ly pu r p o s e f u l c ont rast to t hat of C h r ist. The ex ag ger ate d and r ig id st i f f ne ss of Pe te r’s p o stu re cont r ibute s to t he a l mo st st atues qu e ess ence of his f i g u re t hat su c c e ss f u l ly conve ys t he sho ck e f fe c t of h is encou nter w it h C hr ist . T he t wo f i g u re s are e ss e nt i a l ly t he i nve rs e of one anot her : Peter is dre ss e d, w hi l e C hr ist is b arely cove re d, Pe te r f l e e s t he p oss ibi lit y of a mar t y r de at h, w hi l e C hr ist e mbr a c e s it. C onsi de r i ng t hat C h r ist is st r ic t ly a pro du c t of Pe te r’s v is i on , t he l atte r’s e x pre ssi on of fe ar re quire s attent ion: is Pe te r f r i g hte ne d by t he re a l is at i on t hat h is v isi on of ide a l C h r ist i an conduc t , e mb o di e d by C hr ist , is i n f ac t t he i nve rs e of h is ow n condu c t? In t he af te r mat h of t he v is i on , he t a ke s t he l ite ra l di re c t i on of C h r ist as if t he v is ion showe d not ne c e ss ar i ly C hr ist but a b e tte r ve rsi on of Peter h ims elf. In t h is i nte r pre t at i on , it ma ke s e ve n more s e ns e t hat t he t wo f ig u res shou ld b e t he i nve rs e of one anot he r b e c aus e to ge t he r t he y for m t he w hole of Peter ; b ot h mor t a l fe ar and mar t y r f ate.

Cu r iously, t he d ire c t i on of C hr ist’s ge stu re tow ards R ome is ac tu a l ly p oint ing towards t he v i e we r, w hi ch put s us i n t he uncom for t abl e p o sit i on of hav i ng to id ent if y w it h bl o o dt hi rst y R ome. T his del ib e rate atte nt i on to t he ‘ps ychol og ic a l involve me nt’ of t he v i e we r b e ars t he t rade mark of t he imme di a c y fou nd in B aro qu e ar t , w hi ch de vel op e d a l ong si de t he e ve rchang i ng relig ious cl i mate. 15 T he c i rc u mst anc e s of t he p ai nt i ng’s pro duc t i on, 12 13

14

15

Sienkiewicz, H., & Curtin, J. (1897). "Quo vadis". Toronto: G.N. Morang. Epilogue (p.541) "Annibale Carracci - Christ appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way". The National Gallery, London. Archived from the original on 25 March 2015. Available at: https://www. nationalgalleryimages.co.uk/imagedetails.aspx?q=NG9&ng=NG9&view=lg&frm=1 Wga.hu. (2019). Domine quo vadis? by CARRACCI, Annibale. [online] Available at: https:// www.wga.hu/html_m/c/carracci/annibale/2/quovadis.html [Retrieved 7 Apr. 2019].

Dr Palermo, M. (2019). Carracci, Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way. [online] Khan Academy. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/monarchy-enligh tenment/baroque-art1/baroque-italy/a/carracci-christ-appearing-to-saint-peter-on-the-ap pian-way [Accessed 15 Apr. 2019].

howe ver, are slig ht ly pu z z l i ng : i n t he w a ke of t he 1 6 0 0 s, Annib a l e C ar racci was com m iss ione d by C ardi na l Pi e t ro A l dobr andi ni, w ho s e name s ai nt was f itt ing ly Saint Peter, and w ho w as c om m itte d to rebu k i ng Prote st ant cr it i cism of Pap a l d o c t r ine. 1 6 S e e m i ng ly, t he p ai nt i ng p ay s due t r ibute to t he rol e of R ome as t he cent re of C hr ist i an it y and to Pe te r as t he f i rst p op e. But it must b e rememb ere d t hat i n t he c onte x t of Pe te r’s v is i on, R ome was st i l l t he ‘w hore of B aby l on’, w ho s at isf i e d he r app e t ite for bl o o d t h roug h t he p e rs e c ut i on of C h r ist i ans . T hus , remi ndi ng t he v i e we r of R ome’s i nit i a l ‘rel at i onsh ip’ w it h C h r ist i an it y is not ne c e ss ar i ly an e f fe c t ive arg u me nt for t he ne ce ssit y of t he bishop of R ome. More ove r, Pe te r is de pi c te d we ar i ng t he ke y s t hat sy mb ol is e h is aut hor it y as bishop of R ome and t he reby s e t t he pre ce de nt for t he inst itut ion of p ap a c y. But ag ai n , Pe te r’s f l awe d b ehav i our, i f anyt h i ng , is more of a cou nter argu ment ag ai nst t he p ap a c y b e c aus e t he ve r y f i rst p op e is show n in a moment of we a k ne ss , w he re he l a ck s t he mora l sup e r i or it y ass o ci ate d w it h t he supp os e d ly i n f a l l ibl e p ap a c y.

Perhaps t he emphas is on Pe te r’s f l awe d char a c te r and t he i nit i a l ly b e st i a l image of R ome c an b e re c onc i l e d w it h t he i r e ve ntu a l rol e as t he found at i on and cent re of C h r ist i an it y : t he c r u c i f i x i on of Pe te r ‘e ar ns’ h is cre dibi l it y as t he v ic ar of C h r ist , and R ome s e r ve s as an e ve rl ast i ng re m i nde r t hat C h r ist i an it y out l ive d it s p e rs e c utors . Ne ve r t hel e ss, I mai nt ai n t hat C ar racci’s choice of s cene is an o dd one, w hi ch fo ste rs s ome te nsi on w it h t he rel i g i ous climate of h is ow n t ime and t he rel i g i ous st anc e of h is p at ron. St rangely enou g h, C ard ina l Pie t ro A l dobr andi n i l i ke d t he p ai nt i ng s o much t hat he re warde d C ar r a cci w it h a gol de n chai n , w hi ch go es to show t hat t he e x te nt of subj e c t iv it y in re cept i on is prop or t i onate to t hat of t he mate r i a l its el f. 17 In conclus ion, t he stor y of Pe te r’s v is i on i nspi re d l ite rature to re f l e c t on f re e dom of b o dy and of m i nd, as wel l as prompt i ng b ot h l ite rature and ar t to conclu d e t hat t he p owe r of t i me st ands by t he u lt i mate w i nne r of a g ive n conf lic t. T he p ower dy nami c s of R ome and C hr ist i anit y found a way to b e rele vant in t he 1 6 0 0 s , w he n Prote st ant is m w as qu e st i oni ng t he l e g it i mac y of t he Pap a c y, and in t he 1 8 0 0 s , w he n t he i r re s ist ibi l it y of Russi an p owe r fancie d its elf as t he R oman e mpi re of it s age. C ardi na l Pi e t ro A l dobrandi ni lo oke d to t he p ast to s e ek t he b e g i n n i ng of t he p ap ac y and re af f i r m it, w here as Sien k ie w icz e mpl oye d his rel i g i ous a l l e gor y to f i nd com for t i n t he long-ter m t r iu mph of t he u nde rdo g s . T he ve rs at i l e re ce pt i on and us age of t h is legend shou ld com for t us t hat C l ass i c s w i l l a lways f i nd its way i nto contemp or ar y c u ltu re.

16

17

Dr Palermo, M. (2019). Carracci, Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way. [online] Khan Academy. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/monarchy-enligh tenment/baroque-art1/baroque-italy/a/carracci-christ-appearing-to-saint-peter-on-the-ap pian-way [Accessed 15 Apr. 2019].

Dr Palermo, M. (2019). Carracci, Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way. [online] Khan Academy. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/monarchy-enligh tenment/baroque-art1/baroque-italy/a/carracci-christ-appearing-to-saint-peter-on-the-ap pian-way [Accessed 15 Apr. 2019].

BIBLIOGRAPHY R ives, J. (1 9 9 9 ). T he D e c re e of D e c ius and t he R eli g i on of Empi re. The

Jou r na l of R oman Stu di e s , 8 9 , p. 1 3 5 -1 5 4 .

Shaw, B.D., (2 0 1 5 ) ‘ The My t h of t he Ne ron i an Pe rs e c ut i on’ JRS 1 0 5 p.7 3 -1 0 0 Jones, C .P. (2 0 1 7 ) T he Histor i c it y of t he Ne ron i an Pe rs e c ut i on: A R e sp ons e to

Brent Shaw, N T S 6 3 . 1 , p1 4 6 - 1 5 2 Tacitus , P., & Ja ck s on , J. ( 1 9 3 7 ) . Ta c itus An na ls . (Volume V ) C ambr i dge,

Mass .: Har v ard Un ive rs it y Pre ss .

Sien k ie w icz, H., & Cur t i n , J. ( 1 8 9 7 ) . " Q u o v a dis " . Toronto : G.N. Morang .

Virg i l. E cl ogu es . G e org i c s . Ae ne i d: B o ok s 1 - 6 . Tr ansl ate d by H. Rushton

Faircl ou g h . R e v is e d by G . P. G o ol d. L o eb C l assi c a l L ibrar y 6 3 .

C ambr id ge, M A : Har v ard Un ive rs it y Pre ss, 1 9 1 6 .

C air ns, E arl e E . (1 9 9 6 ) . " C hapte r 7 : C hr ist or C a e s ar". C h r ist i anit y Th roug h

t he C entu r ies: A Histor y of t he C hr ist i an C hurch . Grand R api ds,

Mich igan : Z onde r v an P ubl ishi ng Hous e.

Kuzmic, T. (2 0 1 6 ). Q u o Va dis : Pol ish Me ss i an is m and t he Pro s ely t i z i ng

Heroine. In Adu lte rous Nat i ons : Fam i ly Pol it i cs and Nat i ona l

Anxiety in t he Europ e an Novel (pp. 155-180). EVANSTON, ILLINOIS:

Nor t hwester n Un ive rs it y Pre ss . Av ai l abl e at: https:/ / w w w.j stor.

org/ st able/ j.c tt 2 2 7 2 7 pw. 1 0 ? s e q = 1 1 # me t a d at a_i nfo _t ab_conte nts

[Access e d 2 3 Apr. 2 0 1 9 ] Dr Pa ler mo, M. (2 0 1 9 ) . C ar r a c c i, C hr ist App e ar i ng to Sai nt Pe te r on t he

Appi an Way. [ on l i ne ] K han Ac a de my. Av ai l abl e at: https:/ / w w w. k hana c a d emy. org /hu man it i e s /monarchy - e n l i g hte nme nt/ b aro que -ar t1 / b aro qu e- it a ly/a /c ar r a c c i -chr ist - app e ar i ng-to -s ai nt-p e te r-on-t he -

appi an- way [ Ac c e ss e d 1 5 Apr. 2 0 1 9 ] James , M. (1 9 2 4 ). T he ap o c r y pha l Ne w Te st ame nt. Ox ford: C l are ndon Pre ss.

Wga.hu. (2 0 1 9 ). D omi ne qu o v a dis ? by CA R R AC CI, Annib a l e. [on l i ne ]

Av ai l abl e at: http s : //w w w. w g a . hu /ht m l _ m/ c/ c ar racci / annib a l e / 2 /

qu ova d is .ht m l [ Ac c e ss e d 7 Apr. 2 0 1 9 ] . " Annib a l e C ar racci - C h r ist

app e ar ing to S ai nt Pe te r on t he Appi an Way". The Nat i ona l Ga l l e r y,

L ond on . Arch ive d f rom t he or i g i na l on 2 5 March 2 0 1 5 .

A SY B I L ON T H E SH OR E L I N E ? R E A DI N G V E RG I L I N A M E DI E VA L I R I SH VOYAG E TA L E

Jeny th Evans

Irel and's p os it ion on t he f r i nge s of t he R oman e mpi re me ant t hat t he isl and's i n habit ants ne ver ne e d e d to a c qu i re L at i n as a nat ive l ang u age. 1 Howe ve r, Irel and's c onvers ion to C h r ist i anit y b e t we e n t he l ate f i f t h and s e ve nt h ce ntur i e s me ant t hat Ir ish C h r ist i an cl er i c s ha d to a c qu i re L at i n as a lite rar y l ang u age. 2 To me e t t his demand, excel l ent s ou rc e s of L at i n , su ch as Ve rg i l 's Ae ne i d, had to have b e e n avai l able f rom an e arly st age.

Howe ver, for a long t ime s chol arship pr i or it is e d v i e w i ng e arly me di e v a l Ir ish literatu re as w ind ows onto t he isl and' s p ag an p ast , or as pre s e r v at i ons of pre C h r ist i an mater i a l, r at he r t han e x pl or i ng t he i r i nte r te x tu a l it y w it h , for e x ampl e, cl ass ic a l te xts . Wh i l e s ome of t he e arl i e st ve r na c u l ar te x ts pre s e r ve s ome el e me nts of pre-C h r ist i an t a l es or or a l t r a dit i ons , by t he t i me t he y we re w r itte n i n t he i r nowe xt ant for ms , t he y were l ong re move d f rom any k i nd of pre -C h r ist i an, p ag an conte x t.

T his is pr imar i ly b e c aus e t he y are w r itte n ove r w hel m i ng ly i n pro s e. The re fore, t he s e te x t s c annot pres er ve pre - l ite r ate mate r i a l v i a or a l c omp o sit i on mo dels i n t he s ame w ay as , for example, Home r ' s I l i a d. 3 S e c ond ly, Vi k i ng i nv asi ons acro ss t he ni nt h and te nt h centu r ies d est roye d many Ir ish monaste r i e s , w hi ch had pre s e r ve d manus cr ipts of t hes e ver na c u l ar texts. Su ch t r au ma t r i g ge re d a re f l e c t i on up on l ite rature w h i ch sur v ive d t hes e r aids in t he el e ve nt h and t wel f t h c e ntur i e s. Th is me ant t hat on ly te x t s w h ich t he monast ic el ite c ons i de re d wor t hy of pre s e r v at i on we re re copi e d and c ompi le d into l arger col l e c t i ons . 4 As a re su lt , a l ong w it h t he isl and's notor i ously d amp climate (p er fe c t for rott i ng vel lu m) , ne arly a l l of our e arl i e st manus cr ipts d ate f rom t he t wel f t h centu r y, l ong af te r t he c onve rs i on p e r i o d. 5 Howe ve r, t he mo st i mp or t ant p oint to ke ep i n m i nd is t hat a l l e x t ant me di e v a l Ir ish te x ts have sur v ive d as a resu lt of t he s ele c t ive pro c e ss e s of a l ite r ate, cl e r i c a l el ite, w ho we re f lue nt i n L at in as a l iter ar y l angu age.

Af ter t h is context was f ir m ly e st abl ishe d, s chol arship has si nce fo c us e d more on u nt ang ling p oss ibl e cl assi c a l i nte r te x tu a l re a di ng s t hroug hout many s cél a ( nar rat ive 1

2

3

4

5

I am particularly grateful to Dr M. Williams and R. Runge for kindly reading and offering suggestions on drafts of this discussion.

For example, for reading the Bible and celebrating the liturgy; see K. Hughes, 'The church in Irish society, 400-800', in Ó Cróinín ed. A new history of Ireland, i (Oxford, 2005), 301-16.

Some elements of, for example, the Táin Bó Cúailnge ('The Cattle Raid of Cooley') (c. 7th C.) show that it probably originated as an oral composition. However, not nearly enough is extant or distin guishable from its nature as a literary product to determine how much is pre-Christian and how much is not. See T. Charles-Edwards, 'Táin bó Cúailnge, hagiography and history' in J. Carey, K. Murray, C. Ó Dochartaigh & M. Herbert, eds. Sacred histories : a festschrift for Máire Herbert (Du blin, 2015), 86-102.

For an overview of the raids, see F.J. Byrne, 'The Viking Age' in Ó Cróinín ed., A new history of Ireland (Oxford, 2005), 609-617. E. Johnston, Literacy and Identity (Woodbridge, 2013), 16-26, summarises and adds to the debate surrounding their impact on surviving texts.

R. Chapman Stacey, 'Texts and Society' in Charles-Edwards, After Rome (Oxford, 2003), 236-8.

t a les) . 6 O ne su ch e arly t a l e is Imm r am Br ai n ( T he Voyage of Bran) ( c. 7 t h C.) .

Even w it h in t he rel at ively s ma l l c ate gor y of e x t ant i m m rama ( voyage -t a l e s) , it is v ie we d as an enig mat i c ' u g ly du ck l i ng ' . 7 T hrou g hout t h is dis c ussi on, I w i l l attempt to elu cid ate s ome pu z z l i ng el e me nt s w hi ch may i ndi c ate t hat a fe ma l e charac ter in Im m r am Br ai n c an b e re a d as a p ar a l l el, or p e rhaps a di re c t reference to, Verg i l' s Sy bi l, and ass e ss w hat i mp a c t t h is has on t he stor y as a w hole.

B efore d elv ing into s ome te x tu a l ana ly s is , t he pl ot of Im m ram Brai n shou l d b e br ie f ly su m mar is e d, as wel l as it s c u r re nt st ate of s chol arsh ip. The t a l e fol lows Br an, s on of Feb a l, as he e mb ark s on a s e a voy age and re tur ns to Irel and. It b eg ins as Br an he ars a my ste r i ous s ong w h i ch he c annot f i nd t he s ou rce of, and w h ich e ve ntu a l ly lu l ls hi m to sl e e p. Up on awa ke ni ng , he f i nds a s i lver br anch in h is hand, w hi ch he t he n br i ng s to a me e t i ng of p e opl e i n h is cour t. A my ster ious woman has i nt r u de d on t his g at he r i ng , de spite t he ent ire roy a l complex b e i ng cl o s e d of f, and no one k nows w ho she is. She s ing s to Br an, and t he te x t i mpl i e s on ly he c an he ar w hat she s ays. As t he s ong cl os es , she c a l ls on Br an to j ou r ne y to Tí r na m B an ( 'The Isl and of t he Women ' ), and she d is app e ars af te r forc i ng t he br anch to jump f rom Bran's hand i nto hers . Br an t he n s e t s s ai l for t his l and. Fi rst of a l l, he e ncounte rs a man on a char iot r id i ng ove r t he s e a tow ards hi m. Th is f i g ure a ls o si ng s to h im, des cr ibing an a lte r nat ive re a l it y i n w hi ch he r i de s h is char i ot on a pl ai n, w h ich Br an s e es as t he o c e an . He e nds his s ong w it h an e x hor t at i on for Bran to cont inu e on h is j ou r ne y.

Af ter a br ief interlu de at anot he r isl and, Br an f i na l ly ar r ive s at Tí r na mB an. He and h is me n st ay on t he isl and and de s i re not h i ng for many ye ars, a lt houg h app arent ly it fe els as i f ve r y l itt l e t i me has p ass e d. Howe ve r, one of t he s ai l ors , Ne cht an , ge t s home s i ck and ask s to re tur n to Irel and. The women of t he isl and w ar n ag ai nst t his , but Br an s e ts out any way, and w he n he retu r ns home no one re c o g n is e s hi m . Whe n he me nt i ons h is name, t he y s ay t hat t he Im m r am Br ai n is one of t he i r ol de st stor i e s. Ne cht an jumps f rom t he sh ip but tu r ns to ash as s o on as he tou che s t he shore. Bran mour ns h i m w it h a qu at rain , tel ls t he re st of his stor y to t he p e opl e of Irel and, t he n s e ts of f again, and t he text ends by s ay i ng w hat he di d af te r wards was un k now n.

Mo st s chol ars re a d t he t a l e as a C hr ist i an a l l e gor y, de monst rat i ng a di f f i c u lt j our ne y to a p ar a d is e w hi ch c ou l d b e s e e n as a j our ne y to spi r itu a l 6

7

K. McCone, Pagan Past and Christian Present in early Irish literature (Maynooth, 1990), especially 1-5. The most recent and important reassessments in terms of classical recep tion in medieval Irish narrative tales can be found in B. Miles, Heroic saga and classical epic in medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 2011).

Quote from T. O. Clancy, 'Subversion at Sea: Structure, Style and Intent in the Immrama' in J. M. Wooding, The otherworld voyage in Early Irish literature: An anthology of criticism (Dublin, 2000), 195. This is no small feat for this grouping of tales, in which one story (Immram curaig Maele Dúin, 'The voyage of the boat of Máel Dúin', c.700-900) has a cat transform into a meteorite and shoot through a man, turning him to ash as punishment for not respecting hospitality rules, and a beast which is described as whirling in its own skin. See Immram curaig Maele Dúin, ed. H.P.A.

en lig hten ment. T h is is a st and ard i nte r pre t at i on of i m m rama i n ge ne ra l, w h ich have b e en inv ar i ably c on ne c te d w it h t he Ir ish cl e r i c a l t radit i on of emig rat ing to t he cont i ne nt as p e r i g r i n i i n orde r to answe r a c a l l f rom G o d, or t he c a l l of t he chu rch. 8 Br an ' s re tu r n to Irel and, for e x ampl e, de monst rate s br ing ing t h is C h r ist i an e n l i g hte n me nt to t ho s e st i l l l iv i ng i n si n. More imp or t ant ly, t he woman w ho app e ars i n Br an ' s c our t pl ay s a de e ply sy mb ol i c role, an emb o d iment of t he c a l l to e mb ark on a C hr ist i an voyage, w he t he r f rom t he C hu rch or G o d hi ms el f . Howe ve r, I w i l l atte mpt to de monst rate t hat t h is role c an b e at l e ast p ar t i a l ly char a c te r is e d by a p ara l l el w it h Ve rg i l 's Sy bi l. By re a d ing an i nte r te x tu a l re fe re nc e to t he pr i e ste ss, it not on ly demonst r ates t he l e ar ne dne ss of t he Ir ish aut hor (cl assi c a l re fe re nce s, w he n us e d in me d ie v a l Ir ish te x t s , we re of te n e mpl oye d for such a pur p o s e ) , but elucid ates s ome of t he ove r a l l t he me s of Br an ' s j our ne y.

It wou l d b e appropr i ate to me nt i on t hat t he st r u c ture of a l l i m m rama fol l ow genera l ly t he s ame p atte r n , w he re a ma l e prot agonist e mb arks on a s e avoyage to an ' ot her worl d ly ' de st i nat i on , w it h v ar i ous stops on d ange rous isl ands . T h is is im me di ately re mi n is c e nt of Ve rg i l's re f l e c t i on of t he O dyss e y in Aeneid III. Howe ve r, t a l e s l i ke i mm r ama , w hi ch a ls o fo c us on a re tur n j our ne y to t he prot agon ist ' s home, are e as i ly re f l e c t ive of Ae ne i d VI, w h i ch fo c us es on a j ou r ne y to t he u nde r worl d and, c r u c i a l ly, t he prot agonist's retu r n w it h h is ne w k now l e dge or re assu r anc e s reg ardi ng t he p at h he is t a k i ng . 9 Wh i le h ig h ly a l lus ive, t he pre s e nc e of a fema l e, g ui di ng f i g ure, w ho has s ome p ower t hat e xc e e ds t he u nde rst andi ng of he r mor t a l audi e nce, and w ho g u id es t he prot agon ist of a stor y on his j ou r ne y to an ot he r worl d, c an a l l b e s e en as st rong s ig na ls of a Sy bi l -e s qu e e vo c at i on.

Since t h is d is c uss ion w i l l fo c us mo st ly on t he Sy bi l, it is a ls o us e f u l to quick ly su m mar is e he r p o ss ibl e pre s e nc e i n s ome ot he r pi e ce s of me di e v a l Ir ish liter atu re. Brent Mi l e s has arg u e d t hat a b an f áit h ( fe ma l e prophe t) i n me die va l Irel and ' s mo st f amous and e x te ns ive s c él ( s ag a) , Tái n B ó Cú ai l nge ( 'T he C att l e R aid of C o ol e y ' ) ( c . 7 t h C) , has st rong conne c t i ons w it h t he Sy bi l. Fe d elm ' s om inous pre mon it i on of ' Atchíu forde rg , atch íu r ú ad', 'I s e e it cr ims on , I s e e it re d' e cho e s t he Sy bi l ' s i mage of t he Tib e r fo am i ng w it h blo o d, and Fe d el m ' s re fe re nc e to s e e i ng s ome one w ho is l i ke 'f r i C oin Cu l aind ' , ' li ke Cú C hu l ai n n ' , is a ls o st r i k i ng ly si m i l ar to t he Sy bi l 's de cl arat ion t here is an ' a l ius Achi l l e s ' , ' anot he r Ach i l l e s' i n It a ly. 10 Howe ve r, t he image cou ld have b e e n b or rowe d t hrou g h a Verg i l i an re m i nis ce nce of t he qu ote in St at ius ' T heb ai d. Mi l e s c onclu de s t hat t h is pre s e nce of such a f ig u re at t he st ar t of t he Tái n , i f re a d as an e vo c at i on of t he Sy bi l, si g na ls a 8 W. F. Thrall, 'Clerical Sea Pilgrimages and the Immrama', in The otherworld voyage in Early

Irish literature: An anthology of criticism (Dublin, 2000), 15-26, and J. Carney, Studies in

Irish literature and history (Dublin, 1955), 280-94.

9 Mac Mathúna discusses the phenomena of underworld tales as a whole and mentions in

passing Aeneas' katabasis as one of the many stories which employ this motif. See S. Mac

Mathúna, Immram Brain (Tübingen, 1985), 238-85.

10 TBC-1, 67-84, text and translation from Miles, Heroic saga, 150-163, compared with Aen. 6.84-94

cl ass iciz ing prog r am t hrou g hout t he re st of t he stor y. 11 Mark Wi l l i ams has a ls o note d conne c t ions b e t we e n a sup e r natu r a l - div i ne f i g ure, t he Mor r í g an, and t he Sy bi l in C at h Mai ge Tu i re d ( ' T he B att l e of Mag h Tui re ad h ') ( c.

9t h C). T he text ends w it h a t wo - fol d prophe c y sp oke n by t h is 'div i nit y of c ar r ion and c ar nage' , w hi ch is st r i k i ng ly s i mi l ar to a t ransl at i on of a Sy bi l l i ne prophe c y in Au gust ine of Hipp o ' s D e c iv it ate D e i ( 'Cit y of G o d') . Wi l l i ams arg u es t hat cho os ing a fe ma l e, p ag an f i g u re su ch as t he Mor r í g an to sp e a k su ch a prophe c y cou l d b e an i ndi re c t re fe re nc e to t he Sy bi l i n t h is conte x t. 12 T he natu re of t hes e c on ne c t i ons e mphas is e t he hig h ly a l lusive nature of many Verg i li an references , but ne ve r t hel e ss one s w hi ch c an pro duce pro duc t ive and infor mat ive inter textu a l re a di ng s of Ir ish te x t s .

One of t he most st r i k i ng fe atu re s of Ae ne as ' k at ab asis is t he re qui re me nt of t he gol d en b ou g h for Ae ne as to i n it i ate his j ou r ne y. It is not me nt i one d i n any ot her ancient tex t c onc e r n i ng Ae ne as ' j ou r ne y e xce pt af te r Ve rg i l, and is t herefore of ten assu me d to b e a sp e c i f i c a l ly Ve rg i l i an i nve nt i on. 13 In t he Aeneid, t he Sy bi l re qu i re s t he br anch as an of fe r i ng to Pro s e r pi ne as she and Aene as d es cend t h roug h t he u nde r worl d. Ae ne as s cours t he sur roundi ng forest s u nt i l Venus d iv i nely g u i de s hi m w it h a p ai r of dove s to t he t re e 's lo c at ion. 1 4 Br an' s d is c ove r y of his ow n bi z ar re br anch is de s cr ib e d i n t he fol low ing man ner : A nd ofois ich as a chot l a d c o n - ai c c ai i n c ró eb n -ai rcit f u a bl át h f i nd i na f ar r u d, na - pu hass e e t ars c ar a d a bl át ha f r issi n croíb.

When he awoke f rom his sl e e p, he s aw a s i lve r branch i n w h ite bl o om b e si de h im , and it was not e as y to dist i ng u ish it s bl o ss oms f rom t he branch . 15 Fur t he r more, t he woman app e ars to mag i c a l ly s natch t he branch out of Bran's hands : Lu id in b en ú a d aib í arom, a n ná d-fe t at ar c i a - lui d, o c us bi r t a croíb l e e.

L ebl aing in ch roíb d i l ái m i n na m ná c o mb oí for l ái m Brai n, o c us ní -b oí ne r t i l l ái m Br ai n do g ab ái l i n na croíb e.

The woman went f rom t he m t he n , w hi l e t he y di d not k now w he re she we nt, and she to ok her br anch w it h he r. T he br anch had spr ung f rom Bran's hand s o t hat it was in t he woman ' s hand, for t he re w as not st re ng t h i n Bran's hand to hol d t he br anch. 16 11 12 13

14 15

16

Miles, Heroic saga, 150-163.

M. Williams, Fiery Shapes (Oxford, 2010) 29-30, quote from 30.

See Austin's comment on Aeneid VI lines 138f in R.G. Austin, Aeneidos Liber Sextos (Oxford, 1977).

Aen. 6.190-2.

Text and translation from Immram Brain, ed. S. Mac Mathúna, Immram Brain, section 2. All further quotes will be from this edition.

Immram Brain, section 31.

F irst of a l l, t here are a nu mb e r of st r ange st i ck s t h roug hout Ir ish me di e v a l literature, of ten ass o c i ate d w it h a dr u i d or s ome k i nd of sp el l c aste r, and are s omet imes us e d to t r ans for m char a c te rs i nto anot he r for m . Howe ve r, de spite b eing mag ic a l ly re c a l l e d by t he woman i n t his t a l e, t he st i ck he re do e s not s e em to s er ve as an inst r u me nt or p owe r, but r at he r as s ome k i nd of si g ni f i e r for Bran to b eg in h is j ou r ne y, or s ome k i nd of of fe r i ng t hat must b e made b efore it b eg ins . A ls o, w hi l e t he c ol ou rs of s ome of t he mag i c a l branche s are des cr ib e d or note d (for e x ampl e, i n To chmarc Ét aí ne ( 'The Wo oi ng of Ét aí n') ( c. 8-9 t h C ), Ét aín is t r ans for me d by a row an s w itch w it h pur pl e buds) , none s e em to b e d es c r ib e d i n a s i lve r or me t a l l i c f ash i on. 17 The re fore, t he p oss ibi lit y remains it c ou l d b e an e vo c at i on or re fe re nce to s ome t h i ng els e, su ch as t he met a l l ic, gol de n b ou g h de s c r ib e d i n Ve rg i l 's Ae ne i d. The b asi c p ara l lel, t herefore, is t hat b ot h Br an and Ae ne as have s ome ne e d to br i ng a myster ious , met a l l i c br anch to t he i r re sp e c t ive fe ma l e g ui de s. Whe re as Aene as is d iv inely gu i de d to his br anch, Br an has h is myste r i ously app e ar b es ide h im . Howe ver, b ot h a c qu i re t he i r s a c re d t w i g s by s ome mach i nat i on of fate, or d est iny.

Fur t he r more, in t he Ae ne i d t he Sy bi l de s c r ib e s t he gol de n b oug h i n t he fol low ing f ash ion : pr i mo av u ls o non de f i c it a lte r aure us , e t s i mi l i f ronde s c it v i rga me t a l l o.

Wit h t he f irst b eing tor n aw ay, anot he r gol de n one do e s not f ai l, and t he b ou g h b e ars l e ave s w it h a s i mi l ar ore. 18 T he excess ive d es cr ipt i on of t he br anch' s f l owe rs b e i ng di f f i c u lt to dist ingu ish f rom t he br anch is st r ange i n Im m r am Brai n, but p e rhaps it ma ke s s ens e for an Ir ish aut hor to ha l f - re me mb e r t he ' s i m i l i me t a l l o ', and re m i nis ce it as a br anch ' na - pu hass e e t ars c ar a d a bl át ha f r issi n'. I prop o s e t hat t he s e s imi l ar it ies ind ic ate t he pre s e nc e of t he br anch is me ant to, at l e ast p ar t i a l ly, ac t as a rem in is cence to a mome nt i n t he Ae ne i d just b e fore t he prot agonist emb arks on an ot her worl d j ou r ne y.

In t he l ater me d ie v a l Ir ish t r ansl at i on -a d apt at i on of t he Ae ne i d, Imt he acht a Aeni as a (' T he Wand e r i ng s of Ae ne as ' ) ( c . 1 1 7 5 ) , t he Sy bi l is name d a b anf áit h ( fema le prophet). 1 9 T his is t he e x a c t s ame te r m us e d to de s cr ib e Fe del m i n t he ex ample f rom Tái n B ó Cú ai l nge dis c uss e d ab ove. The re fore, it s e e ms 17

18

19

In Tochmarc Étaíne, ed. Osborn Bergin and R. I. Best, Tochmarc Étaíne in Ériu 12 (Dublin, 1938), I.16, 'Fuamnach co fleiscc caerthinn corcrai', 'Fuamnach struck her [Étaín] with a rod of scarlet quickentree'. See also J. R. Reinhard and V. E. Hull, Bran and Sceolang, in Speculum 11 (1936), 42-58, for an overview of texts which describe the transformation of Fionn mac Cumhaill's dogs from human to canine form, often with the use of some kind of slat ('rod, branch of a tree').

Text and translation (edited) from Aen. 6.143-4, ed. H. R. Faircloughand G. P. Goold, Virgil (Cambridge, MA, 2014).

Imtheachta Aeniasa, ed. G. Calder, Imtheachta Aeniasa, (London, 1907), line 1242.

t hat w it h in t he liter ar y c ons c i ous ne ss su r rou ndi ng t h is stor y, t he Sy bi l f its natura l ly f irst and fore mo st as a prophe t i c f i g u re. A lt houg h t he woman i n Immram Br ain is not e x pl i c it ly name d as a b an f áit h , she obv i ously ac ts i n su ch a role by pre d ic t i ng Br an ' s j ou r ne y. He r prophe c y has a t wo -t i e re d st r u c tu re; f irst ly, she de s c r ib e s Br an ' s i mme di ate j our ne y to Tí r na m B an.

Howe ver, t he woman a ls o re c ite s a supr a - prophe c y to Bran's j our ne y, and des cr ib es w hat c an on ly b e t he c omi ng of C hr ist : Ticfa mórgein í ar mb e t haib nád-bi a for forcl et haib ; mac mná ná d - fester c él e, géb aid fait h na n - i l m í l e.

F l ait h cen toss a ch cen forc e n n , do-ró s at bit h co coitche n n ; dos-roir b e t a l am o c us mu i r, is mairc bí as fo a étu i l.

Is é do - r ig ni n ime, cé ( i) n - mair d i a - mb a f i ndchr i de ; g l ainf i d slú agu t re l in n ng l an , is é ícfas for te d man.

A g re at bir t h w i l l come af te r age s w h ich w i l l not b e in hi g h pl a c e s ; t he s on of a woman w ho w i l l not k now a mate, He w i l l assu me t he k i ng ship of t he many t hous ands.

A k ing w it hout b eg in n i ng , w it hout e nd; He has cre ate d t he w hol e worl d His are l and and s e a , Wo e to h im w ho w i l l b e u nde r His displ e asu re.

It is He w ho has ma de t he he ave ns , Happy he w hos e he ar t w i l l b e pu re ; He w i l l pu r if y hosts by me ans of a holy p o ol ; it is He w ho w i l l he a l you r s i ck ne ss e s . 20 T herefore, t he t wo- t i e re d st r u c tu re of t he woman 's prophe c y i n Im m ram Brain ref le c ts not on ly t he Sy bi l ' s de s c r ipt i on of Ae ne as' i m m i ne nt j our ne y into Ha d es , but a ls o how she de s c r ib e s Ae ne as ' ove rarch i ng f ate, t hat he must j our ne y to It a ly, and t he t roubl e s he w i l l f a c e t he re, i n Ae ne i d VI, l i ne s 8 3 -9 7 .

T h is is esp e ci a l ly s ig n i f i c ant s i nc e, v i a Au g ust i ne of Hipp o 's D e Civ it ate D e i, Aene as ' j ou r ne y was of te n v i e we d as an a l l e gor y for a j our ne y f rom si n ( Troy) to G o d (R ome, t he mo st i mp or t ant c it y to t he C hr ist i an f ait h at t h is t i me ) .

T herefore, by t h is re a di ng , t he Au g ust an pro g r am me of prol e psis 20

Immram Brain, sections 26-28.

is t rans for me d into a prophe c y of t he S av i ou r a l ong t h is Aug ust i ni an pro g ram me.

A lt houg h t he ab ove has arg u e d a hi g h ly a l lus ive re fe re nce to Ve rg i l, ne ste d w it h in s e ver a l l ayers of re fe re nc e s , t his k i nd of i nte r te x tu a l it y is t y pi c a l of Ir ish me d ie v a l l iter atu re, as e x ami ne d br i e f ly ab ove i n re fe re nce to ot he r references to t he Sy bi l. In a ddit i on , t he C hr ist i an el ite w ho w rote, copi e d, and re a d t hes e k inds of te x t s , w hi l e prob ably not work i ng w it h a copy of t he Aeneid b es id e t hem at a l l t i me s , ne ve r t hel e ss must have b e e n h i g h ly i mp ac te d by aut hors su ch as Ve rg i l du r i ng t he i r L at i n e du c at i on. The Ae ne i d and ot he r su ch texts were prob ably s ome of t he e arl i e st te x t s t he y re ad i n t he i r L at i n studies . 2 1 Aeneid V I wou l d have b e e n e sp e c i a l ly p oi g nant to t he C h r ist i an cler ics, g iven its imp or t anc e i n re af f i r mi ng Ae ne as' f ate to j our ne y to found R ome, w h ich wou l d b e c ome t he c it y of G o d it s el f.

S o, w hat d o t hes e re a di ng s me an for ou r i nte r pre t at i on of t he te x t? By est ablish ing a Sy bi l l i ne f i g u re at t he b e g i n n i ng of t he work, it f its wel l w it h t he 'cl ass icizing prog r am ' Mi l e s has e st abl ishe d i n ot he r me di e v a l Ir ish tex t s . 22 As w it h h is inte r pre t at i on of a Sy bi l l i ne re adi ng of Fe del m , it is a s ig np o st of an e du c ate d and s ophist i c ate d re fe re nce, and cre ate s susp e ns e for re aders of t he text. It a ls o put s i nto c onte x t anot he r h i g h ly a l lusive Ve rg i l i an reference l ater in t he te x t . As a cl ass i c ist may have note d, Mannanรกn mac L ir, t he f igu re w ho r i de s i n a char i ot ove r t he o c e an, is st r i k i ng ly si m i l ar to how Neptu ne is d e s c r ib e d i n t he Ae ne i d and ot he r L at i n te x ts. Wi l l i ams notes t h is s im i l ar it y and a dds t hat t his i mage a ls o app e ars i n a p ap a l l e tte r of C olu mb anus . T h is w as w r itte n at s ome p oi nt i n t he l ate si x t h ce ntur y but most imp or t ant ly, e arl i e r t han Imm r am Br ai n . It d e s cr ib e s C h r ist i n t he e x ac t s ame fash ion ; a f igu re r i di ng on a char i ot a c ro ss an o ce an i n orde r to s ave man k ind f rom its s in . 23 T he re fore, we s e e ag ai n cl assi c a l re fe re nce s e mpl oye d to ma ke a w id er com me nt on t he di f f i c u lt i e s of C h r ist i anit y, and t wo references of su ch a k i nd wou l d c re ate a c ont i nu ous, i nte r te x tu a l di a l o g ue t h roug hout t he Im m r am Br ai n .

T he text, howe ver, d o e s ma ke a p oi g nant de p ar tu re f rom t he Ve rg i l i c mo del.

T h is woman , u n l i ke t he Sy bi l, do e s not a c c omp any he r prot agonist on h is j our ne y. Howe ver, he r ab s e nc e af te r t he t a l e ' s i nt ro duc t i on re i nforce s t he is ol at ion of man ' s st r u g g l e ag ai nst s i n , and p e rhaps e ve n t he di f f i c u lt i e s of C h r ist i an l ife w hen one is w it hout a cl e ar i de a of G o d's w i l l or g ui d ance.

Bran's j ou r ne y is e ven more i mpre ss ive t han Ae ne as', as he e mb arks on it w it h a blind, C h r ist i an f ait h, i l lu m i nate d by br i e f mome nts of cl ar it y, such as w it h Manannรกn ' s a l lus ive re assu r anc e s . Ae ne as , w hi l e he i nde e d suf fe rs t h roug hout h is j our ne y and r ai ls ag ai nst his f ate, has c ons istent re assurance s and guid ance f rom h is mot he r Ve nus and t he Sy bi l as a g ui de i n one of h is mo st 21

22 23

See M. Williams, Ireland's Immortals (Oxford, 2016), 56-68, for a discussion of the impact of Latin education upon classical references in Irish texts.

Miles, Heroic Saga, 150-152 Williams, Ireland's Immortals, 62-8.

f raug ht j ou r ne y s . T he re fore, re a di ng t his woman as sy mb ol i c of t h is c a l l of G o d, and s e cond ly as a Sy bi l l i ne p ar a l l el, e mphas is e s t he p owe r of a g ui di ng force e ven in abs ent i a , and he r ass o c i at i ons w it h Ae ne as' arduous j our ne y s ig na l f rom t he ver y b e g i n n i ng of Im m r am Br ai n t he d ange rous nature of Bran's ow n voy age.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pr imar y Texts Aust in , R . G., 1 9 7 7 . Ae ne i do s L ib e r S e x tus . Ox ford: C l are ndon Pre ss.

B erg in , O. & B est, R . I . , 1 9 3 8 . To chmarc Ét aí ne. Ér iu, Volume 1 2 , pp. 1 3 7 - 196.

C a lder, G., 1 9 0 7 . Imt he a cht a Æ n i as a = T he Ir ish Æne i d : b e i ng a t ransl at i on

made b efore A.D. 1400 of t he XII b o oks of Verg i l's Æneid into Gaelic.

L ond on : Ir ish Te x t s S o c i e t y.

Fairclou g h , H. R . & G o ol d, G . P. , 2 0 1 4 . Vi rg i l. C ambr i dge, MA : Har v ard

Un ivers it y Pre ss .

Mac Mat hú na , S., 1 9 8 5 . Imm r am Br ai n . Tübi nge n : M. Ni e me ye r.

Oskamp, H., 1 9 7 0 . T he Voy age of Má el D ú i n . Groni nge n: Wolte rs-No ord hof f.

S e cond ar y R e a d ing By r ne, F. J., 2 0 0 5 . T he v i k i ng age. In : D. Ó Crói n ín, e d. A ne w h istor y of

Irel and, Volu me I : Prehistor i c and E arly Irel and. Ox ford: Ox ford

Un ivers it y Pre ss , pp. 6 0 9 - 6 3 4 .

C harle s - E dwards , T., 2 0 1 5 . Tái n b ó Cú ai l nge, hag i o g raphy and h istor y. In:

J. C are y, K. Mu r r ay, C . Ó D o char t ai g h & M. He rb e r t, e ds. Sacre d

h istor ies : a fe st s chr i f t for Mái re He r b e r t . D ubl i n: Four C our ts Pre ss,

pp. 8 6 - 1 0 2 .

C harle s - E dwards , T. M . , 2 0 0 0 . E arly C hr ist i an Irel and. C ambr i dge :

C ambr id ge Un ive rs it y Pre ss .

Hu g hes , K., 2 0 0 5 . T he C hu rch i n Ir ish S o c i e t y, 4 00 -8 0 0 . In: A ne w h istor y of

Irel and, Volu me I : Prehistor i c and E arly Irel and. Ox ford: Ox ford

Un ivers it y Pre ss , pp. 3 0 1 - 3 3 0 .

Joh nston , E ., 2 0 1 3 . L ite r a c y and Ide nt it y i n Me di e v a l Irel and. Wo o dbr i dge :

T he B oyd el l Pre ss .

McC one, K., 1 9 9 0 . Pag an Past and C hr ist i an Pre s e nt i n E arly Ir ish L ite rature.

May no ot h : An S ag ar t .

Mi les , B., 2 0 1 1 . Heroi c s ag a and cl ass i c a l e pi c i n me di e v a l Irel and.

C ambr id ge: D. S . Bre we r.

R ein hard, J. R . & Hu l l, V. E . , 1 9 3 6 . Br an and S c e ol ang . Sp e c u lum , 1 1 ( 1 ) , pp.

42-58.

Wi l li ams , M. A ., 2 0 1 0 . F i e r y shap e s . Ox ford: Ox ford Unive rsit y Pre ss.

Wi l li ams , M. A ., 2 0 1 6 . Irel and' s i m mor t a ls : a histor y of t he go ds of Ir ish

my t h . Oxford : Pr i nc e ton Un ive rs it y Pre ss.

‘A L T H I S M E N E I B Y L OV E’ : L OV E A N D C L AS SIC I SM I N C HAU C E R A N D G OW E R

Har r y C ar ter

L ove is a p otent, u ns olvabl e c onu ndr u m for C hau c e r and G owe r, w h i ch is b ound up i n t he cl ass icis ing l iter atu re of f i n’amor ( ‘re f i ne d l ove’) . The Parl i ame nt of Fow ls op ens w it h an u ncer t ain subj e c t : ‘ T he ly f s o shor t , t he craf t s o l ong to l e r ne’ ( 1 , ‘ The life s o shor t, t he cr af t s o l ong to l e ar n’ ) . 1 T his r i dd l i ng f i rst l i ne cou l d re fe r e qu a l ly to t he ‘cr af t’ of l ove or to t hat of p o e t r y. T he word ‘craf t’, i nde e d, no ds to O v id’s Ars Amator i a , a te x t p opu l ar i n l ate -me di e v a l s cho ols, w h i ch was t ransl ate d

by C h ret ie n d e Troyes , 2 and w hi ch it s el f c ombi ne s t he craf ts of l ove and p o e t r y i n its p o et ic love- a dv ice. C hau c e r c ont i nu e s w it h t he ox y moroni c, Pe t rarchan ph ras e s ‘ The d re df u l j oye’ and ‘Nat wot I wel w he r t hat I f l e te or s y n ke’ ( 3 , ‘ The dre adf u l j oy’; 7 , ‘I don’t k now wel l w het he r I f l o at or s i n k’ ) : C hau c e r’s h i g h ly -w roug ht conve nt i ona l te r ms demonst r ate t hat a lt hou g h t he nar r ator o ste ns ibly dis c uss e s l ove, t he i nte ns ely literar y, cl ass icis ing f igur at i on of l ove i n c onte mp or ar y p o e t r y me ans t hat a t re at ment of l ove const ant ly e voke s l ite r atu re it s el f. Fol l ow i ng O v i d’s Ars Amator i a (‘Ar t of L ove’), t hen , C hau c e r w i l l t re at b ot h subj e c t s at once. L ove and l ite rature, i nde e d, s e em inext r ic ably l i n ke d w he n t he nar r ator re ve a ls, absurd ly, ‘I k nowe nat L ove in de d e’, but t hat he k now s ab out ‘ his my r a k l e s and h is cre wel y re’ f rom re adi ng b o oks ab out Cupid (8 , ‘I do not k now l ove t hrou g h a c t i ons’; 1 1 , ‘h is m i racl e s and h is c r uel ange r’). C hau cer’s nar r ator, t he n , s e ek s to l e ar n ‘t he craf t’ of l ove si mply by re a ding .

D e veloping t h is O v id i an i mbr i c at i on of l ove and l ite rature, C hauce r and G owe r s el f c ons ciously f lir t w it h t he de s i re s of t he re a de r to t he e x te nt t hat t he pro ce ss e s of re a ding and w r it ing are s e x u a l is e d. G owe r, i n t he prol o g ue to t he C onfe ssi o Amant is (‘L over’s C on fess ion’), d e cl are s t hat he wou l d l i ke to :

w r y te a b ok b et we n t he t we i e, S omw hat of lust, s ome w hat of l ore ( 1 8 - 1 9 ) 3

w r ite a b o ok b et we e n t he t wo, In s ome resp e c ts for pl e asu re, i n s ome re sp e c ts for l e ar ni ng

In a st r i k i ng ly s im i l ar for mu l at i on , t he nar r ator of T he Parl i ame nt of Fow ls de cl are s, 1 All references to Chaucer’s works refer to Geoffrey Chaucer, The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry

D. Benson and others, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). Line-numbers will be cited in-text.

2 C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1936), p. 20; Marilynn Desmond, ‘Venus’s Clerk: Ovid’s Amatory Poetry in the Middle Ages’, in A

Handbook to the Reception of Ovid, ed. by John F. Miller and Carole E. Newlands (Chichester: John

Wiley and Sons, 2014), pp. 161-173 (pp. 162, 164).

3 All references to John Gower’s Confessio Amantis refer to the three-volume edition edited by Rus

sell A. Peck, 2nd ed. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2006). The line-numbers will be

cited in-text.

O f us age – w hat for lust and w hat for l ore – O n b okes re d e I of te. . . ( 1 5 - 6 )

O ut of habit – w he t he r for pl e asu re or for l e ar ni ng – I re a d b o ok s of te n . . .

Wh i le ‘lust’ c an d enote s i mply ‘pl e asu re’ or ‘de s i re’ i n Mi dd l e Eng l ish , it c an a ls o su g gest t he s exu a l man i fe st at i ons of t he s e fe el i ng s, and p ar t i c u l arly do es s o in t hes e works i n w hi ch s e x is s o of te n i mpl i c ate d. The m i x ture of t he du lce (ple as ant) and t he ut i l e ( us e f u l ) w hi ch Horace advo c ate s i n t he Ars Po et ic a (‘Ar t of Po et r y ’ ; anot he r te x t us e d i n t he me di e v a l s cho ol ) t a ke s on an O v id i an f l avou r in G owe r’s work 4 i n w hi ch t he s e x u a l de si re s of me n are cont inu a l ly foi le d. T he t a l e s of Ac te on , Narc issus , C onst ance, and P y ramus and Th is b e are f i l l e d w it h ma l e f i g u re s w ho s e s e x u a l hop e s are f r ust rate d.

T h is rep e ate d ly re- f ig u re d f r ust r at i on of de s i re, howe ve r, cre ate s t he ‘lust’ of t he re a d er, w ho await s re s olut i on i n t he shap e of s e x u a l succe ss.

T h is res olut ion , howe ve r, ne ve r c ome s . In t he p o e t’s f are wel l at t he e nd of B o ok 8 , he s ay s of l ove t hat it is a lw ay s

of to mo che or of to l ite, T hat f u l ly mai no man dely te ( 8 . 3 0 9 5 -6 ) 5

to o mu ch or to o l itt l e, S o it c annot del i g ht any man f u l ly

T he Parl i ament of Fow ls has a s i mi l arly diss at is f y i ng f i na l e, w it h t he for mel defer r i ng her d e cis ion of a mate for a ye ar ( 6 4 7 - 6 5 3 ) . The uns at isf i e d nar rator- d re amer wa ke s and i m me di ately ‘ot he r b oke s tok me to’ ( 6 9 5 , ‘to ok mys elf to ot her b o oks’ ) . R e a di ng is t hus f i g u re d as an atte mpt to f i nd an org as m ic res olut ion w hi ch is a lw ay s de fe r re d. G owe r’s cl ai m t hat ‘f u l ly mai no man d ely te’ in l ove is fou nd to b e e qu a l ly t r u e of l ite rature, w it h w h i ch , as we have s e en , l ove is e ng age d i n an ongoi ng , s y mbi ot i c me t aphor.

T h is met aphor extends to t he pro c re at ive asp e c t of l ove and s e x . C hauce r rep e ate d ly us es t he me t aphor of ‘g l e ny ng he re and t he re’ f rom t he fe r t i l e ‘ol de f ields’ of ‘old e b o ok s’ f rom w hi ch ‘c ome t h a l t his ne we cor n f rom ye r to ye r’ ( L egend of G o o d Wome n , F 7 5 ; Parl i ame nt of Fow ls, 2 2 -4 , ‘g l e ani ng he re and t here… comes a l l t h is ne w c or n e ve r y ye ar’ ) . T his me t aphor is p ar t i c u l arly app osite in T he L ege nd of G o o d Wome n , w hi ch a d apts O v i d’s He roi de s i n its cl ass ic a l stor ies of t he re p e ate d f r ust r at i on of a l ove -rel at i onsh ip. L i ke w is e, t he prol ogu e to G owe r’s C on fe ss i o Amant is op e ns w it h t he i de a of w r it i ng 4

5

Karsten Friis-Jensen, ‘The reception of Horace in the Middle Ages’, in The Cambridge Com panion to Horace, ed. by Stephen Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 291-304 (p.291).

All references to sections of the Confessio Amantis in which the recensions are presented separately in the Peck edition are to the Ricardian Recension.

‘of ne we s om mat iere, / E ss ampl e d of t he s e ol de w ys e’ ( 6 -7 , ‘s ome matte r in a ne w way, / Fol l ow i ng t he e x ampl e of t he s e ol d, w is e [aut hors]’) , t hus ma k ing t he b o ok s ‘O f he m t hat w r ite n ous tofore’ ne w ag ai n ( 1 , ‘of t ho s e w ho w rote b efore us’): agai n , t he p ar a l l el w it h pro c re at i on is cl e ar. Me anw h i l e, i n C hau ce r’s d re am p o ems , as B oit an i p oi nt s out , ‘w he n C hauce r dre ams, a b o ok ine v it ably pro du ces anot he r b o ok .’ 6 Howe ver, at t he end of T he Parl i ame nt of Fow ls , C hauce r’s nar rator re sp onds to h is d iss at is f a c t ion w it h his dre am by re a di ng more b o oks, i n t he hop e

...s ome d ay T hat I sha l me te s om t hy ng for to f are T he b et (6 9 7 - 9 )

...s ome d ay

T hat I sha l l d re am s ome t hi ng i n orde r to f are B etter What do es t he nar r ator me an by ‘f are t he b e t’ ? One p o ssibl e me ani ng rel ate s to t he comp ar is on b e t we e n w r it i ng and pro c re at i on: ‘f are’ is a v ar i ant for m of ‘far row’: ‘ int r. O f a s ow : To l itte r.’ 7 T he nar r ator may t hus de si re a b e tte r dre am, repres ent ing a b e tte r p o e t i c e nd-re su lt of h is dre ams’ pro cre at ive pro cess of t r ans for m i ng an ol d i nto a ne w p o e m. Inde e d, p e rhaps t he nar rator’s d is app oint me nt ste ms f rom an ass o c i at ion of h i ms el f w it h t he u nsu cc ess f u l e ag l es : he de s i re s a dre am i n w hi ch t he i r de si re ( w it h its intens ely liter ar y expre ss i on ) a chi e ve s it s e nd.

Anot her p oss ible me an i ng of ‘f are’ is ‘ To ‘go on’, b ehave, conduc t one s el f, ac t .’ 8 Th is e vokes t he i de a i n b ot h C hau c e r and G owe r t hat t he ‘l ore’ of literature c an f u l f i l an e du c at ive f u nc t i on , w hi ch t he Parl i ame nt’s nar rator want s to b enef it f rom, l e ar n i ng t he ‘c r af te’ of l ove by re adi ng more b o oks w h ich inc u lc ate it. This s e nt i me nt is e sp e c i a l ly rel e v ant to t he O v i di an inf luence w h ich I have char te d, g ive n t hat t he c onte mp orar y acce ssus ad auc tores (int ro du c t ions to t he aut hors ) of b ot h t he Ars Amator i a and t he Heroid es (‘ T he Heroi ne s’ ) fo c us e d on t he e t hi c a l i nst r uc t i on t ho s e works were p erceive d to prov i de to l ove rs . 9 Apt ly, anot her p oss ibl e me an i ng of ‘f are’ is ‘ To dep ar t f rom l i fe ; to di e.’ 10 C hau ce r’s L egend of G o o d Wome n fol l ow s O v i d’s He roi de s, and G owe r’s C onfess io Amant is fol l ow s b ot h t he He roi de s and O v i d’s Me t amor pho s e s, i n 6

7 8 9

10

Piero Boitani, ‘Old books brought to life in dreams’, in The Cambridge Companion to Chau cer, 2nd ed., ed. by Piero Boitani and Jill Mann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 58-77 (p. 63). fare, v.2, OED Online (entry first published 1895, accessed 20/11/2017). fare, v.1, sense II.4a, OED Online (entry first published 1895, accessed 20/11/2017).

R.J. Hexter, Ovid and Medieval Schooling: Studies in Medieval School Commentaries on Ovid’s Ars amatoria, Epistulae ex Ponto, and Epistulae Heroidum (Munich: Bei der Arbeo -Gesellschaft, 1986), p. 157. fare, v.1, sense I.2.c, OED Online (entry first published 1895, accessed 20/11/2017).

b eing f i l l e d w it h t a le s of l ove rs w ho s e u ns at is f i e d de si re s f i nd t he i r e nd on ly in de at h (and, in s ome c as e s , sub s e qu e nt t r ans for mat i on) . 11 In t he C onfe ssi o, e ven t he t a le of C onst anc e ( i n w hi ch C onst anc e apt ly unde rgo e s a t ransl at i o ( ‘t ransp or t ing’ or ‘t r ansl at i on’ ) f rom R ome to E ng l and and b ack) f ai ls to end w it h t he clima c t i c happi ne ss of C onst anc e’s re uni on w it h he r husb and and fat her : inste a d, and r at he r distu r bi ng ly, it pro ce e ds to rel ate t he de at h of A l le e, of C onst ant i ne and t he n of C onst anc e he rs el f. The e ndi ng of The B o ok of t he D u chess is e qu a l ly f i x ate d on t he f i na l it y of de at h . In t he man i n bl ack’s absu rd ly pl e onast i c and r ambl i ng Pe t r archan rel at i on of h is l ove af f ai r, it is not enou g h for h i m to s e tt l e for one s i mi l itu d o ( comp ar is on) : af te r comp ar ing h is l ove’s go o dne ss to ‘Pe nel op e of Gre ce’, he de e ms it ne ce ss ar y a ls o to comp are her go o dne ss to ‘t he nobl e w i f Lucre ce’ ( 1 0 8 1 -2 ) . The n, i n h is consu m mate cl ass ic a l l ite r ar i ne ss , he me nt i ons his s ource for t he prove rbi a l go o dness of t hes e wome n : ‘ T he R omay n , Ty tus Ly v yus’ ( 1 0 8 4 , ‘t he R oman, Titus L iv ius’). T h is cl ass i c is i ng di l at i on e nds , howe ve r, w it h t he abr upt exchange :

“She y s d e d !” “Nay !” “Yis , b e my t rout he !”

“Is t hat you re l o s ? B e G o d, hy t y s rout he !” ( 1 3 0 9 -1 0 )

“She is d e a d !” “No !” “Ye s , by my t r ut h!”

“Is t hat you r l o ss ? By G o d, it is a pit y !”

T he rhy m ing coupl et he re ma ke s a c on ne c t i on b e t we e n ‘t rout he’ and ‘rout he’ w h ich is rep e ate d t h r i c e i n t he p o e m ( 5 9 1 -2 ; 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 0 ) . We t hus s e e, i n b ot h t h is work and in t he t a l e of C onst anc e, t he re a l it y of de at h and g r i e f c utt i ng shor t t he s e em ing ly i nte r mi nabl e O v i di an de fe r r a l of t he c u l m i nat i on of l ove.

C l ass icis ing r ambl ing is me t w it h t he abr upt ne ss of de at h , at w h i ch p oi nt, to b or row t he dy ing words of C ana c e to Ma chai re i n Lydg ate’s Fa l l of Pr i nce s, ‘t here is no mor to s e ye’ ( 1 . 6 9 1 1 , ‘t he re is no more to s ay’) . 12 T h is st r ateg y of d i l at i on and de at h is e sp e c i a l ly e f fe c t ive i n lur i ng i n t he re ader b efore g iv ing t he m a su dde n , u ne x p e c te d e ndi ng . In The B o ok of t he D u chess t he k nig ht’s f i n’amor p o e t i c is ms mai nt ai n t he re ade r’s ‘lust’ ( ‘de si re’) to he ar t he c aus e of t he k n i g ht’s s or row ( or, at l e ast, to he ar it out l i ne d cle arly enou g h t hat e ve n t he obl iv i ous nar r ator c an g rasp it) . L i ke w is e, i n t he t a le of C onst ance t he aw aite d happy e ndi ng of sp ous a l har mony is re p e ate d ly defer re d du e to t he ma chi nat i ons of t he mot he rs of C onst ance’s suitors. The e ventu a l res olut ion of b ot h t a l e s is de at h. O n t he f ace of it, G owe r’s cl ai m t hat love (and, concom it ant ly, l ite r atu re ) ‘f u l ly mai no man dely te’ ( 8 .3 0 9 6 , ‘c annot d elig ht any man f u l ly ’ ) s e e ms just i f i e d, b e c aus e, i n t he s e works, t he end of l ove (d e at h) is fore g rou nde d i n it s f r ust rat i on of t he ‘lust’ of t he re ader.

11

12

Gower, like Chaucer in The Book of the Duchess’ Seys and Alcione story, often elides the metamorphosis found at the end of tales adapted from Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

John Lydgate, Lydgate’s Fall of Princes, ed. by Henry Bergen (London: Oxford University Press, 1924-27), ɪ (1924), p. 195.

Howe ver, b ot h t a l es i n f a c t e nd w it h i nt i mat i ons of e nd l e ssne ss. In t he C onfess io, C onst ance’s s on , Mor is , is c row ne d ( 2 . 1 5 9 5 ) , and G e nius pre p are s to tel l anot her exemplu m w it h a s i m i l ar mor a l ( 2 . 1 6 0 9 -1 2 ) . In The B o ok of t he D u chess , t he nar r ator re s olve s ‘to put t his s we ve n i nto r y me’ ( 1 3 3 2 , ‘to put t h is d re am into rhy me’ ) , w a k i ng up w it h t he b o ok ‘Of A l ci one and S e y s... in my n hond f u l e ven’ ( 1 2 2 7 - 9 , ‘of A l c yone and C e yx … st i l l i n my hands’) , su g gest ing t hat d re ams are a p ar t of t he pro c e ss of one b o ok b e com i ng anot her, as B oit ani out l i ne s . G owe r, t he n , c re ate s an O v i di an ‘p e r p e tuum … c ar men’ (Met amor pho s e s 1 . 4 , ‘c ont i nu ous s ong’ ) t h roug h t he l ite rar y s el f p er p etu at ion of v ir tuo s i c e xe mpl ar it y, pre ve nt i ng t he re ade r’s ‘lust’ for res olut ion f rom e ver diss ip at i ng . C hau c e r, me anw h i l e, cl o s e s w it h an i mage of end l ess p o et ic pro c re at i on w hi ch f l it s b e t we e n dre am and re a l it y t h roug h t he me d i at ion of cl ass i c a l mo dels . An i nt i mat i on of e nd l e ssne ss, t he n, is t he note w h ich b ot h p o et s cho o s e to e nd on . R e s olut ion, e ve n i n spite of de at h , is defer re d.

T h is is apt, in t hat d e at h is , of c ou rs e, not f i na l for C h r ist i ans, nor by any me ans d o es it sp el l an e nd to G o d’s l ove for us . In a f i na l e re m i nis ce nt of C hau ce r’s Troi lus and C r is e yde w he n Troi lus

d ampne d a l ou re we rk t hat fol owe t h s o T he bly nd e lust , t he w hi ch t hat may nat l aste, And shol d en a l ou re he r te on he ve n c aste ( 5 .1 8 2 3 -5 ) ,

d am ne d a l l ou r a c t i ons t hat fol l ow T he blind d e s i re, w hi ch may not l ast , T hou g h we shou l d c ast ou r w hol e he ar t on he ave n

G ower cl os es h is work w it h an a dmon it i on to us to change t hat l ove ‘ That f u l ly mai no man d ely te’ ( 8 . 3 0 9 6 ) for ‘t hi l ke l ove w h i ch t hat... st ant of char ité con fer me d’ (8 . 3 0 9 8 -3 1 0 0 , ‘t he k i nd of l ove w h i ch … is conf i r me d by char it y ’), s o t hat in he ave n , ‘Whe r re ste t h l ove. . . O ur j oye mai b e e n e ndel e e s’ ( 8.3112 - 4 , ‘w here love re s i de s … O u r j oy may b e e nd l e ss’) . If we re ad ‘f are’ as me aning ‘to d ie’, t he n t he nar r ator of t he Parl i ame nt’s de si re ‘to f are t he b et’ by l e ar ning ‘t he c r af te’ of l ove b e fore he di e s t a ke s on a ne w, he ave n ly s ig nif i c ance. T he end l e ss ne ss of l ove i n t he l ate me di e v a l m i nd ma ke s l ove a p otent met aphor for t he natu re of l ite r atu re and its t radit i on. For C hauce r and G ower as t he y re i mag i ne O v i d, l ove and l ite r ature are i ns e p arabl e i n t heir mutu a l con ne c t i on to de s i re, pro c re at i on and p aradis e.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pr imar y S ou rces : C hau ce r, G e of f re y, The R ive rs i de C hau c e r, e d. by L ar r y D. B e ns on and ot he rs,

3 rd e d. (Oxford: Ox ford Un ive rs it y Pre ss , 1 9 8 8 ) G ower, Joh n , C on fess i o Amant is , e d. by Russ el l A. Pe ck, 2 nd e d. ( Ka l amaz o o :

Me d ie va l Inst itute P ubl i c at i ons , 2 0 0 6 ) Lydgate, Joh n , Lyd gate’s Fa l l of Pr i nc e s , e d. by He nr y B e rge n, 4 vols, EET S

E S, 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 4 ( L ondon : Ox ford Unive rsit y Pre ss, 1 9 2 4 -7 ) S e cond ar y S ou rces : B oit ani, Piero, ‘Old b o ok s brou g ht to l i fe i n dre ams’, i n The C ambr i dge

C omp an ion to C hau c e r, e d. by Pi e ro B oit ani and Ji l l Mann, 2 nd e dn

(C ambr id ge: C ambr i dge Un ive rs it y Pre ss , 2 0 0 3 ) , pp. 5 8 -7 7 D esmond, Mar i ly n n , ‘Ve nus’s C l e rk : O v i d’s Amator y Po e t r y i n t he Mi dd l e

Ages’, in A Handb o ok to t he R e c e pt i on of O v i d, e d. by Joh n F. Mi l l e r

and C arole E . Ne w l ands ( C hi che ste r : John Wi l e y and S ons, 2 0 1 4 ) , pp.

161-173 Fr iis -Jens en , Karsten , ‘ T he re c e pt i on of Hor a c e i n t he Mi dd l e Age s’, i n

T he C ambr idge C omp an i on to Hor a c e, e d. by Ste phe n Har r is on

(C ambr id ge: C ambr i dge Un ive rs it y Pre ss , 2 0 0 7 ) , pp. 2 9 1 -3 0 4 Hex ter, R .J., O v id and Me di e v a l S cho ol i ng : Stu di e s i n Me di e v a l S cho ol C omment ar ies on O v i d’s Ars amator i a , Epistu l a e e x Ponto, and Epistu l ae

Heroidu m (Mu n i ch: B e i de r Ar b e o -G e s el ls chaf t, 1 9 8 6 ) L e w is , C .S., T he A l l e gor y of L ove : A Stu dy i n Me di e v a l Tradit i on ( Ox ford:

Oxford Unive rs it y Pre ss , 1 9 3 6 ) T he Mid d l e E ng l ish Di c t i onar y. 1 9 5 2 - 2 0 0 1 . E d. by R ob e r t E. L e w is and ot he rs

(An n Ar b or : Un ive rs it y of Mi chi g an Pre ss) . On l i ne e dit i on i n Mi dd l e Eng lish C omp end iu m , e d. by Fr anc e s Mc Sp ar r an and ot he rs ( Ann Arb or :

Un ivers it y of Mi chi g an L ibr ar y, 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 8 )

ON T H E ROM A N P ROVO C AT I ON OF T H E T H I R D P U N I C WA R

Mar tin Cudden

The T h ird P u n ic War was f u nd ame nt a l ly di f fe re nt f rom t he pre v i ous t wo wars as it is quite e as y to ass ig n bl ame for t he T hi rd P u n i c War. The re c an b e no doubt t hat t he T h ird War was d el ib e r ately provoke d by R ome 1 i n a way w h i ch was a p e r mane nt st ain on t he R epubl ic’s honou r and i de a ls . 2 T his is cl e ar i n its c y ni c a l e x pl oit at i on of C ar t hage’s d es ire for p e a c e by e x t r a c t i ng c onc e ss i ons w h i ch e nsure d t hat R ome wou ld b e f ig ht ing a we a ke ne d e ne my. T his displ ay of t r i cke r y is more e g re g i ous t han any e xample of ‘Pu n i c t re a che r y ’. 3 Howe ve r, not a l l R omans r ushe d he ad l ong i nto war, w it h a nu mb er of t he p at re s ( l it . f at he rs , re fe r r i ng i n t h is c as e to s e nators) opp o s ing t he d e cl ar at ion . T he re fore, to su g ge st t hat t he w hol e R oman p opu l at i on w as mad ly b el l igerent wou l d b e an u n f ai r s i mpl i f i c at ion of t he p ol it i c a l re a l it y.

Addit iona l ly, t he d el ib erate de c is i on to de st roy t he c it y of C ar t hage must b e e xplore d i n ord er to gain a g re ate r u nde rst andi ng of R ome’s me nt a l it y and t he ways i n w h ich it wage d war.

In order to i l lust r ate t he i mp or t anc e of R oman t re a che r y i n t he provo c at i on of t he Th ird Pun ic War, it is ne c e ss ar y to c ons i de r w he t he r C ar t hage had b e e n a l oya l a l ly of R ome s ince t he conclus i on of t he S e c ond P u n i c War, as wel l as t he e x te nt to w h i ch it wante d to avoid war w it h R ome i n 1 4 9 B C. Af te r t he S e cond Puni c War, C ar t hage loya l ly suppl ie d R oman ar mi e s w it h g r ai n , and i n 1 9 1 B C s e nt ha l f of t he i r re duce d nav y to ass ist R oman forc e s ag ai nst Ant i o chus . 4 C ar t hage a ls o annu a l ly p ai d its i ndemnit y to R ome (w h ich op e r ate d e f fe c t ively as a t a x ) 5 unt i l its conclusi on i n 1 5 1 B C. It was a ls o C ar t hag in i an nobl e s w ho re p or te d Hannib a l’s a l l e ge d de a l i ng s w it h Ant io chus and w ho in 1 9 3 B C ar re ste d his age nt , Ar iston of Ty re w ho had b e e n s e nt to s e ek C ar t hag in i an supp or t ag ai nst R ome. 6 Addit i ona l ly, C ar t hage acce pte d R oman ar bit rat ion in f re qu ent b orde r dispute s w it h Nu mi di a , de spite t he f ac t t he y “a lway s c ame of f s e cond b est at R ome, not b e c aus e t he y ha d not r i g ht on t he i r si de, but b e c aus e t he ju d ges were c onv i nc e d t hat it w as i n t he i r ow n i nte re st to de ci de ag ai nst t hem.” 7 In 150 B C C ar t hage ref us e d t he re su lt s of R oman ar bit rat i on; cl e arly, s ome t h i ng had change d in C ar t hage’s att itu de as t he f i na l i nde mnit y p ay me nt l o ome d and t he y no longer felt it ne cess ar y to st r i c t ly fol l ow R oman orde rs and de mands: 8 it was on ly R ome t hat b elie ve d t hat , onc e de fe ate d, t he l o s e r shou l d adopt a sub ordi nate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 331.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 333.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 331.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 331.

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979, pg. 234.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 331.

Polybius 31.21.6.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 235.

st atus to t he v ic tor in p e r p e tu it y. 9 T his R oman v i e w of war and its re su lts was at o d ds w it h ot he r p owe rs , for w hom de fe at i n a war was no more t han a temp or ar y s etb a ck w hi ch wou l d not i nvolve su r re nde r i ng tot a l cont rol of foreig n p ol ic y. Ult i mately, C ar t hage de c i de d to de fe nd its el f ag ai nst t he Nu mid i an King Mas i n iss a and f i el de d 2 5 , 0 0 0 s ol d i e rs ag ai nst h i m . A lt houg h t h is te ch nic a l ly broke t he i r t re at y w it h R ome, it w as l argely just i f i abl e as t he a lter nat ive was t he l o ss of t he i r re mai n i ng te r r itor y. C ar t hag i ni an ref us a l was us e d as t he pre te x t for w ar de spite t he de cisi on to s e ek war w it h C ar t hage hav ing a lre a dy b e e n ma de i n R ome. 10 Howe ve r, C ar t hage’s l ack of indep end ent m i lit ar y a c t iv it y for f i f t y ye ars me ant its ar my was e asi ly defe ate d by Mas iniss a , w it h t he C ar t hag i n i ans b e ing sl aug hte re d more or less to a man. 1 1 T h is cl e arly show s t hat C ar t hage w as not f it for a war w it h R ome, s omet h ing t he p at re s wou l d no doubt have s e e n cl e arly. C ar t hag i ni an we a k ne ss c an a ls o b e s e e n onc e w ar w as de cl are d by R ome i n 1 4 9 B C, as C ar t hage im me d i ately su r re nde re d and hande d ove r 3 0 0 ho st age s f rom t he i r le ading fam i lies . Whe n t he c onsu ls ar r ive d i n Af r i c a w it h an ar my and a f l e e t, C ar t hage a ccepte d t he i r de mand to hand ove r 2 0 0,0 0 0 suits of ar mour and 2,000 c at apu lts . Wit h C ar t hage now f at a l ly we a ke ne d, t he consu ls de mande d t hat t he cit y b e move d 1 0 m i l e s i n l and ( t he dist ance re com me nde d by Pl ato to ensu re t hat a cit y wou l d avoi d t he b e ne f it s of s e a -b or ne com muni c at i on) 12 as R ome intend e d to r a z e t he c it y. It w as on ly at t his st age t hat C ar t hage cou l d no longer comply w it h R oman de mands and de c i d e d to re sist. Th is b ait i ng was li kely t he intent i on b ehi nd t his de mand by t he consu ls, w ho we re e age r for g lor y and more t han happy to f a c e a f u r t he r we a ke ne d e ne my. D e spite t h is delib er ate attempt to e nsu re a we a k e ne my re a dy to sur re nde r, C ar t hag i ni an cit izens d ef i ant ly d efe nde d t he i r c it y, ma k i ng we ap ons and for t i f i c at i ons out of any t h ing t hat w as av ai l abl e. Wome n app are nt ly g ave t he i r l ong hai r to ma ke rop e for t he c at apu lt s i n t he f i na l st r u g g l e. 13 Force d i nto war, t he p e opl e of C ar t hage res olve d to f i g ht u nt i l t he bitte r e nd ag ai nst a fo e w h i ch was r ut h less and d eter m ine d to w i n .

In orde r to f u l ly u nde rst and w hat s e e ms to b e R oman provo c at i on, it is v it a l t hat we gain an u nde rst andi ng of t he R oman de si re to go to war w it h C ar t hage for a t h ird t i me. From t he su r v iv i ng f r ag me nts of Poly bius, we k now t hat t he S enate ha d d e c i de d l ong b e fore 1 4 9 B C to go to war w it h C ar t hage but fe are d foreig n opi n i on i f t he y we nt to w ar w it hout any pre te x t. 14 At t h is p oint , it is us ef u l to l o ok at t he rol e of i ndiv i du a ls i n t he march to war. Of t hes e, t he most imp or t ant w as C ato w ho, af te r p ar t i cip at i ng i n an e mb assy to Af r ic a c.1 5 3 B C 1 5 , re tu r ne d to R ome w it h t he c onv i c t i on t hat C ar t hage must b e fou g ht and de st roye d. To t his e nd, he u nde r to ok a f amous pi e ce of t he at re in t he S enate : he “c ont r ive d to drop a L ibyan f i g i n t he S e nate, 9 10 11 12

13 14 15

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 333.

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979, pg. 237.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 235.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 134.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 234.

Polybius 36.2.1.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 333.

as he sho ok out t he fol ds of his to g a , and t he n , as t he s e nators adm i re d its s ize and b e aut y, s aid t hat t he c ou nt r y w he re it g re w was on ly t h re e d ays' s ai l f rom R ome” 1 6 C ato e x ag ge r ate s to ma ke his p oi nt; it was ac tu a l ly a 6 -d ay j our ne y in su m mer. 1 7 He w ar ne d t he S e nate t hat R ome wou l d on ly b e abl e to s e c u re its f re e d om onc e it ha d de st roye d C ar t hage ; 18 he a ls o e nde d e ve r y sp e e ch he ma d e w it h ‘C ar t hago del e nd a e st’ ( C ar t hage must b e de st roye d) . 19 C ato c apit a l is e d on and p e rs on i f i e d R oman fe ars t hat a nat i on w h i ch had once brou g ht R ome to t he br i n k of de fe at c ou l d agai n b e come st rong and indep end ent. 2 0 T here was a ls o a g row i ng i ns e c u r it y among st t he p at re s and t he w i de r cit izen r y t hat, af ter t he v i c tor i e s i n t he e arly S e c ond C e ntur y B C by me n hardene d and exp er ie nc e d i n t he S e c ond P u n i c War, t he ne w ge ne rat i on of s oldiers were u naware of t he ne e d for r i gorous t r ai ni ng , c are f u l l o g ist i c a l prep ar at ion and sk i l l e d l e a de rship ; i nste a d, t he y b e g an to b el i e ve t hat succe ss was s imply t heir bir t hr i g ht as R omans . 21 T his w as re f l e c te d i n t he s e r i e s of Sp anish d efe ats in t he l ate 1 5 0 s B C and t he di f f i c u lt c amp ai g ni ng of t he 1 4 0 s in Sp ai n. T he cr is is i n Sp ai n w as e x a c e r b ate d by t he annu a l re pl ace me nt of prov inci a l gover nors and t he rel at ive r ar it y of pro -mag ist rate s, as t h is encourage d com mande rs to s e ek out g l or y i n t he i r ye ar i n com mand rat he r t han ef fe c t ively t r ain i ng t he i r ar my ; t his ha d b e e n l e ss of a probl e m e arl i e r in t he centu r y w hen R ome’s manp owe r p o ol w as l argely made up of ve te rans f rom t he S e cond Pu n i c War. 22 T his c r is is of c on f i de nce ar isi ng f rom t he f ig ht ing in Sp ain was not a t hre at to R ome di re c t ly but had an e f fe c t on its prest ige, t hereby t h re ate n i ng t he v a l i dit y of R ome’s s anc t i f i e d prote c t i on up on w h ich its g row i ng e mpi re w as bu i lt . 23 T he C ar t hag i ni ans, as R ome’s ne w here dit ar y enemy af te r t he G au ls , 24 we re t he re fore t he natura l t arge t for an ins e c u re R ome to re ass e r t it s mi l it ar y dom i nanc e.

Addit i ona l ly, t he R omans we re ve r y aw are of t he e x te nt to w h i ch C ar t hage, pre v iously t he r ichest c it y i n t he worl d b e fore it s l ast de fe at, 25 had re cove re d it s e conom ic p os it ion . T he e x te nt of t his e c onomi c re cove r y is made cl e ar by t he g r and har b ou r c onst r u c te d i n C ar t hage b e t we e n t he S e cond and T h ird P u n ic Wars and t he C ar t hag i n i an of fe r to p ay t he re mai nde r of an indemnit y to R ome in a lu mp su m , as wel l as to out f it an e nt i rely ne w f l e e t to s end against Ant io chus . 26 T his of fe r w as hast i ly re f us e d by t he S e nate, w h ich ins iste d t hat t he re mai nde r of t he i nde m n it y b e p ai d i n i nst a l me nts as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27.1.

B. Kiernan, The First Genocide: Carthage, 146 BC, in Diogenes 51, 2004, pg. 29.

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979, pg. 236.

Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27.1 A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 333.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 334.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 334.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 335.

Y. Le Bohec, The “Third Punic War”: The Siege of Carthage (149-146 BC), in A Companion to the Punic Wars, ed. D. Hoyos, 2011.

Polybius 18.35.9.

Livy 36.4.

was l ai d out by t he t re at y c onclu di ng t he S e c ond P uni c War. Ne ve r t hel e ss, despite t h is e conom ic re c ove r y C ar t hage w as st i l l ve r y we a k as re st r i c t i ons on ma k ing war imp os e d af te r t he S e c ond P u n i c War had l e f t it w it hout an ef fe c t ive ar my. T here fore, e c onom i c re c ove r y shou l d not b e conf us e d w it h a re cover y in C ar t hage’s m i l it ar y p owe r.

A lt houg h C ar t hag ini an e c onomi c st re ng t h l i kely inspi re d a de g re e of fe ar i n t he p at res , it d o es not just i f y t he w ar ; e ve n dow n to t he 1 5 0 s B C t he re was ne ver any re a l d oubt ab out C ar t hag i n i an l oy a lt y as C ar t hage suppl i e d R oman ar mies w it h g r ain a long s i de of fe r i ng to ai d i n t he war ag ai nst Ant i o chus. 27 A lt houg h R ome were w i l l i ng to have l oy a l a l l i e s w ho we re m i l it ar i ly and e conomic a l ly st rong , it w as ne c e ss ar y t hat t he y b e cl e arly i nfe r i or to R ome ; t h is is most usu a l ly s e e n i n R oman fore i g n p ol i c y conce r ni ng subjug ate d enemie s . Howe ver, as we have s e e n C ar t hage w as w i l l i ng to t a ke fore i g n af fairs into its ow n hands w he n forc e d to, t he reby v i ol at i ng t he app are nt nature of t heir rel at ionship w it h R ome. Eve n b e fore t he war b e t we e n C ar t hage and Nu m id i a it was cl e ar t hat t he p at re s’ att itu de towards C ar t hage had hardene d. 2 8 T h is was t he c ombi ne d re su lt of C ato’s rhe tor i c and t he i nt r i nsi c fe ar of C ar t hage stem mi ng f rom Han n ib a l’s i nv as i on of It a ly. More ove r, a genera l d es ire to exp and R oman p owe r abro a d and to wage a war i n a more promising t he at re t han t he di f f i c u lt c ondit i ons of Sp ai n a ls o pl aye d a rol e in harden ing R ome’s att itu de tow ards C ar t hage. 29 Wit h e x p ansi on i n Sp ai n b e com ing d if f ic u lt d e spite t he r i che s f l ow i ng i n f rom m i ni ng ( e.g . t he si lve r mines ne ar Ne w C ar t hage ) , t he re w as no b e tte r a lte r nat ive to f u l f i l t h is de si re and restore R oman con f i de nc e t han a w ar w it h C ar t hage. A suit abl e pre te x t for war was a l l t hat w as ne e de d, w hi ch w as to b e del ive re d af te r C ar t hage was force d to d efend its el f ag ai nst Mas i n iss a .

A lt houg h t he maj or it y of t he S e nate w as cl e arly i n f avour of war w it h C ar t hage, it wou ld b e i nc or re c t to s ay t hat supp or t for t he de st r uc t i on of C ar t hage was u nan imous . For e x ampl e, S c ipi o Nasi c a, t he s on-i n-l aw of Af r ic anus , matche d C ato’s rhe tor i c by s ay i ng : ‘In my opi ni on, C ar t hage must b e sp are d.’ 3 0 He argu e d t hat hav i ng a r iv a l l i ke C ar t hage wou l d s e r ve to ke e p R ome in ord er 3 1 and t he reby avoi d t he s or t of de cli ne fe are d by t he l i ke s of C ato. Nas ic a s e ems to su g ge st t hat C ar t hage w as e qu a l to R ome and not ne cess ar i ly b ene at h it . Howe ve r, t his w as i mpl ausibl e af te r t he e nd of t he S e cond P u n ic War and t he sub s e qu e nt re st r i c t i ons on C ar t hag i ni an m i l it ar y ac t iv it ies ; if C ar t hage shou l d b e c ons i de re d an a c tu a l t h re at to R ome it is i n an e conom ic context, and e ve n t he n it is u n l i kely t hat it cou l d have matche d R ome’s g row ing empi re. War w it h C ar t hage, Nas i c a arg ue d, wou l d ke e p i nt ac t t he R oman v ir tu es w h i ch ha d l e d to su c c e ss i n t he p ast ( t h is was to b e come a 27

28 29 30 31

E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 1958, reprinted 1984, pg. 125 and A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 331.

E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 1958, reprinted 1984, pg. 125.

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979, pg. 238.

Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27.1.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 143.

fami li ar l ament in t he c omi ng c e ntu r y as R ome fel l i nto civ i l war) . 32 Howe ve r, Nasic a’s concer ns were ove rc ome by C ato’s rhe tor ic, w h i ch conv i nce d t he s enate maj or it y ; C ato app e are d to p e rs on i f y t he maj or it y opi ni on i n t he S enate. 3 3 A lt hou g h supp or t for b ot h w ar ag ai nst C ar t hage and its de st r uc t i on was not u nan imous among st t he p at re s , t he opi n i on of t he S e nate maj or it y s aw to it t hat t heir w i l l w as c ar r i e d out .

T he de cis ion to a c tu a l ly de st roy C ar t hage must a ls o b e e x am i ne d. A us e f u l comp ar is on for t h is is t he de st r u c t i on of C or i nt h, w h i ch o cc ur re d i n t he s ame ye ar (1 4 6 B C ). In b ot h c as e s , R ome w as ma k i ng a st ate me nt usi ng t he dest r u c t ive l angu age of t he anc i e nt worl d, i n w hi ch t he r ui nat i on of a cit y was as g re at an a ch ie ve me nt as t he fou nd at i on or b e aut i f i c at i on of one. 34 D est r u c t ion on su ch a mass ive s c a l e e voke d t he a c t i ons of Ki ng Xe r xe s at At hens or, most imp or t ant ly du e to it s rol e i n R ome’s my t h i c a l foundi ng t h roug h Aene as , t he de st r u c t i on of Troy. 35 T he de st r uc t i on of b ot h C ar t hage and C or int h was , t he re fore, i nte nde d to i nst itute R ome among t he g re at p owers of t he Me dite r r ane an t hrou g h e ve nt s w h i ch we re e p o ch ma k ing by d es ig n, 3 6 and s e t t he tone for R ome’s dom i nance ove r t he ne x t centu r y. 3 7 R ome’s t re at me nt of b ot h C ar t hage and C or i nt h s e r ve d to s e t an u ncom for t ably cle ar e x ampl e of t he f ate w hi ch awaite d t ho s e w ho wou l d def y R ome. 3 8 It a ls o c or re c te d t he s e e m i ng i nabi l it y of R ome to e nac t sw i f t venge ance on t hos e w ho de f i e d it ' s w ishe s ( e. g . i n Sp ai n) . The de st r uc t i on of Nu mant i a in 1 3 3 B C fol l owe d t he pre c e de nt s e t i n 1 4 6 B C by t he de st r uc t i on of b ot h C ar t hage and C or i nt h, 39 f u r t he r displ ay i ng t he f ate of t ho s e w ho attempte d to res ist R oman he ge mony.

It is e v id ent ly cle ar t hat t he T hi rd P u n i c War w as e nt i rely at t he i nst i g at i on of R ome, w it h C ar t hage b e i ng to bl ame on ly s o f ar as t he y had a natura l r i g ht to defend t hems elves ag ai nst bi as e d ar bit r at i on and a ho st i l e ne i g hb our.

A lt houg h d efens ive t hi n k i ng and fe ar may have pl aye d a rol e i n de te r m i ni ng R oman p olic y, on b a l anc e t he b ehav i ou r of R ome shou l d b e s e e n as ambit i ous.

T h is is ma d e cl e ar in it s de cl ar at i on of w ar, w hi ch was b as e d on t he te ch nic a l it y of C ar t hage u nde r t a k i ng a de fe ns ive war ag ai nst Num i di a af te r R oman ar bit r at ion ha d re p e ate d ly b e e n show n to b e unf ai r. 40 Fur t he r more, a lt houg h su r v ivors of t he s a ck i ng of C ar t hage we re s ol d i nto sl ave r y rat he r t han sl au g htere d, R ome’s b ehav i ou r c an arg u ably b e l ab el l e d as a for m of 32 33 34

35

36

37

38 39 40

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 333.

A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars, 2000, pg. 333.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 133.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 133.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 143.

N. Purcell, On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth, in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Stu dies for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 1995, pg. 144.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 239.

N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC, 2012, pg. 238.

W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., 1979.

geno ci d e; t he C ar t hag i n i ans’ c it y and c u ltu re w as de st roye d, a l ong si de a l arge chu n k of t he p opu l at i on , i n orde r to s at is f y R ome’s de si re to ach i e ve tot a l v ic tor y and g l or y. T h is ne e d for g l or y w as at t he he ar t of R ome’s provo c at i on of t he T h ird Pu nic War. R ome c ou l d not su f fe r a r iv a l, e ve n an i mag i nar y one : C ar t hago d elend a est .

BIBLIOGRAPHY E. B adi an, Foreig n C l i e ntel a e, 1 9 5 8 , re pr i nte d 1 9 8 4 Y. L e B ohe c, T he “ T h i rd P u n i c War”: T he Si e ge of C ar t hage ( 1 4 9 -1 4 6 B C) , i n

A C omp an ion to t he P u n i c Wars , e d. D. Hoyo s, 2 0 1 1 A. G ol ds wor t hy, T he P u n i c Wars , 2 0 0 0 B. Kier nan , T he F irst G e no c i de : C ar t hage, 1 4 6 B C, i n Di o ge ne s 5 1 , 2 0 0 4 W.V. Har r is , War and Imp e r i a l is m i n R e publ i c an R ome 3 2 7 -7 0 B.C., 1 9 7 9 L iv y, B o ok 3 6 Plut arch , L ife of C ato t he E l de r Poly bius , T he Histor i e s N . Pu rcel l, O n t he Sa ck i ng of C ar t hage and C or i nt h , i n Et h i cs and R he tor i c.

C l ass ic a l Stu di e s for D ona l d Russ el l on his S e ve nt y-Fi f t h Bi r t hd ay, 1995 N . R o s enstein, R ome and t he Me dite r r ane an 2 9 0 -1 4 6 B C, 2 0 1 2

Proud of a tutorial essay?

Interested in writing or illustrating?

Want editorial and publishing experience?

GET INVOLVED IN ALEXANDRIA Alexandria: The Oxford Undergraduate Classics Journal is Oxford University’s academic journal for undergraduate students of Classics and related subjects. We publish academic articles on a wide varieties of Classical topics.

These span across history, archaeology, philosophy, literature, reception and philology.

We also publish articles more closely related to CAAH and COS as well as Latin and Greek prose and verse compositions.

If you are interested in getting involved, there are lots of ways you can join in!

• Contribute to the journal by sending in your work to us at alexandriaclassicsjournal@gmail.com • Join our editorial or creative teams to help publish our journal each term