ALEX ANDRIA: THE OXFORD U N D E R G R A D UAT E C L A S S I C S JOURNAL
E DI TOR IA L T E A M editor-in-chief:
Evie Atmore editor-in-chief
elect:
Annabel Holt
Branwen Phillips Phoebe Hyun Myesha Munro J o a n a N e v e s Te i x e i r a Sophie Park Lindsay Igoe Lauren Coleman director:
editors:
creative
Cat Bridges Dominic Kane Leo Kershaw Grace Gentle Thomasina Smith Allyson Obber
Emily Wigoder illustrators:
Deniz de Barros Sophie Park
A L E T T E R F ROM T H E E DI TOR These are trying times for us all, and I want to take a moment, a sentence, to hope that all our readers, our editors, and our contributors are safe, inside, and well. Nevertheless, we have attempted to carry on as normal as possible, and so I bring you the 5th issue of Alexandria. As always, thank you so much to all our authors for their ideas, and my editors, who make my job a h u n d r e d t i m e s e a s i e r. T h i s i s t h e i s s u e o f r e c e p t i o n s t u d i e s , i t seems, with a wide range of interpretations considering modern p o e t r y, t e l e v i s i o n , a n d e v e n g r a p h i c n o v e l s , a s w e l l a s i n d e p t h considerations of Aratus and Justice in Christian Rome. This is my last issue as editor-in-chief of Alexandria, and indeed, the last issue with my involvement (remote exams call, after all). Thank you to everyone who has been a part of my three years with Alexandria and to everyone who has read the journal. It has been a pleasure. I pass on Alexandria to a new team, led by Annabel Holt; Alexandria is in safe hands. Ev ie Atmore, Editor-in-Chief
(2019-20)
TA B L E OF C ON T E N T S
Stellar Justice in Aratus' Phaenomena:
3-8
Commentary on 96-136 MEGAN BOWLER
Tw o A n g r y M e n : Wr a t h a n d I d e a l i s m i n t h e I l i a d
9-17
Ax i a l Vis i ons : Appro a che s to St ate s i n Am m i anus '
18-26
a n d M r. R o b o t S O P H I E PA R K
Res G estae and Augustine's City of G o d T O B I A S PAT E R S O N
'One Bad Day': The Descent into Horror in Medea
27-31
and Batman: The Killing Joke HARRY DEARLOVE STILL
Liquid Reception: Alice Oswald's Nobody 32-38 F R E YA C H A M B E R S
L a t i n Ve r s e C o m p o s i t i o n FELIX STOKES
39-40
S T E L L A R J U S T I C E I N A R AT U S ' P HA E NOM E NA : C OM M E N TA RY ON 9 6 - 1 3 6
Megan B owler
At line 96 of t he Pha enome na , Ar atus di g re ss e s f rom h is te ch ni c a l de s cr ipt i on of st ar constel l at ions to de s c r ib e t he Par t he non c onstel l at i on i n p o e t i c a l te r ms, e ngag ing inter textu a l ly w it h He s i o di c and E mp e do cl e an accounts of t he co smo s. Pos it ione d just b elow t he fe e t of B o ö e te s ( t he ‘Pl ou g h man’ constel l at i on) , its br ig htest st ar is Spic a . The p ass age op e ns : “ Ἀ μ φ οτέρ ο ι σ ι δ ὲ πο σ σ ὶν ὕπο σ κ έπτο ι ο Β ο ώτε ω / Παρ θ έ ν ον” (“ b e ne at h b ot h fe e t of B o ö e te s , s e e t he Mai de n” ) ; its e cho i n li ne 136, “ Παρ θ έ ν ο ς , ἐ γ γ ὺ ς ἐ ο ῦ σ α π ολυ σ κ έπτο ι ο Β ο ώτε ω” ( “t he Mai de n, e st abl ishe d ne ar to far- s e en B o ö etes” ) s i g n i f i e s t he e nd to t he de s cr ipt i on of t h is st ar and its ass o ci ate d my t hs . T he my t hol o g i c a l e xc u rsus is t hus f rame d by its ast ronom i c a l c ontex t , a l l ow ing t he nar r at ive to shi f t b a ck ag ai n i nto cel e st i a l phe nome na af te r t he Phaenomena’s l ongest p o e t i c a l el ab or at i on on an i mage. 1 Init i a l ly, Par t he non (‘Maiden’ ) is imbu e d w it h e ar t h- go dde ss ass o c i at i ons ( such as t he c u lt of D e me te r and Kore). She c ar r ies an e ar of c or n , de s c r ib e d w it h t he Home r i c adj e c t ive αἰγλήε ν τα (“sh ining” ). T his is a mot i f w hi ch is char ac te r ist i c of div i ne e ncom i a literar y express ions of pr ais e t y pi f i e d by p ar t i c u l ar t he mat i c i nte re sts and ge nre fe atu res – t hou g h in gene r a l ass o c i ate d w it h t he charac te r ist i cs i n p ar t i c u l ar of D emete r as t he prote c tor of ag r i c u ltu r a l pro sp e r it y. 2 Howe ve r, Aratus t he n i nt ro duces f u r t her p oss ibi l it i e s for Par t he non’s i de nt it y and ge ne a l o g y. The st r uc ture of “εἴτ᾿ … ε ἴτε … ἄ λ λο ς ” ( “w he t he r… or … anot he r [t a l e ]” ) is t ypi c a l of a hy m ni c pr i amel st r u c tu re in w hi ch di f fe re nt ve rs i ons of a my t h are dism iss e d i n f avour of an aut hor it at ive one. Yet Ar atus’ i nte re st s he re are more compl e x ; rat he r t han s e ek i ng to prov ide a d ef init ive sy mb ol i c me an i ng for t he c onstel l at i on, he is i nte re ste d i n t he i nter pl ay b et we en d if fere nt , c on f l i c t i ng He s i o di c ve rsi ons and l ong st andi ng human le gends ab out t he st ars . 3 His appro a ch is t he re fore one of s chol arly Hel l e nist i c i nterest in my t hog r aphy, r at he r t han re v is i on ist arg ume nt for a ‘t r ue’ account. The f irst opt ion is t hat Par t he non m i g ht b e a d au g hte r of Ast rae us, re fe r re d to and li kely invente d in Hes io d’s T he o gony as t he my t hol o g i c a l f at he r of t he st ars. 4 Th is opt ion wou ld me an t hat Par t he non w as a lw ay s a st ar, and s o is i ncomp at ibl e w it h t he sub s e qu ent p oss ibi l it y of he r b e i ng ‘Di ke’ ( ‘Just i c e’ ) , e st abl ishe d i n t he myt hol o g i c a l t r a dit ion – and els e w here i n He s i o d - as t he d au g hte r of Z e us and The m is w ho was k at aster is e d (t r ans for me d i nto a c onstel l at i on ) . 5 Ki dd note s t hat t he s e v ar i ants are t re ate d w it h a cr it ic a l and amus i ng tou ch: t he f i rst ve rsi on s el f -re fe re nce s its Hes io dic or ig ins w it h “ φ α σ ιν ” ( “me n s ay…” ) , de monst rat i ng t hat Aratus is not lo ok ing for t r ut h but r at he r t he a e t i ol o g i e s and l e ge nds t hat humans de vel op ( and 1 2 3 4 5
Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) Schiesaro, A. (1996) ‘Aratus’ Myth of Dike’, Materiali e Discussioni 37 Gutzwiller, K. (2007) A Guide to Hellenistic Literature (Malden MA) Hesiod, Theogony 378-82 Hesiod, Works and Days 248-274; Gee, E. (2013) Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (Oxford)
here, Hes io d in p ar t ic u l ar, w ho has o ste ns ibly for mu l ate d an ‘Ast rae us’ to prov ide a conven ient p ate r n it y for t he st ars ) . T he s e cond p o ssibi l it y, w h i ch ant icip ates Par t henon’s a lte r nat ive i de nt i f i c at i on w it h Di ke at l i ne 1 0 5 , is int ro duc e d s imply as “ τε υ ἄ λ λο υ” ( “or [ chi l d of ] s ome ot he r g uy ” ) , i mply i ng Di ke’s fat her Z eus w it h pl ay f u l i mp e r t i ne nc e. 6 T he fol l ow i ng : “ ε ὔκηλο ς φ ο ρ έ ο ιτο” (“u nt rouble d b e he r c ou rs e !” ) a c qu i re s a mo ck-ap ol o ge t i c tone af te r t he nar rat ive’s cha l l enge to he r anc e st r i e s , and ant i cip ate s he r ass o ci at i ons w it h b ot h t he gent le, f avou r abl e ( “ ε ὔκη λο ς” ) Di ke and t he st ars’ c ycl i c move me nts (“φ ο ρ έ ο ιτο” ). Ar atus t he n opt s for a ‘ λόγ ο ς ἄ λ λο ς’, ‘anot he r t a l e’ ab out Par t henon w h ich he opt s to e x p and on ; he a l lu de s to He si o d’s pre f aci ng of t he ‘Myt h of R a ces’ as a ‘ἕτερ όν λόγ ον ’ ( ‘a lte r nat ive a c count’) , si g na l l i ng t hat he intends to d r aw on el e me nt s of t his nar r at ive and t he w i de r conce pt i on of Di ke in t he Work s and D ay s. 7 R at he r t han t he my t ho g r aph i c a l l ist i ng of di f fe re nt legends tol d ab out Par t he non amou nt i ng to a c as e of conf us e d i de nt it y, Aratus is arg u ably s ett ing up he r me ne ut i c p o ss ibi l it i e s : t he re ade r is e ncourage d to t a ke on an ana ly t ic a l rol e i n i nte r pre t i ng c om mon re s onance s and unde rly i ng did ac t ic pr incipl es in t he di f fe re nt i nte r pre t at i ons of t he st ars’ att r ibut i ons. R at her t han t he D emete r c on not at i ons , for i nst anc e, b e i ng ant it he t i c a l to t ho s e of Di ke, D emeter was a ls o a c c re dite d w it h c re at i ng l aws and p e ace by me ans of her ag r ic u ltu r a l role. C a l l i ma chus’ Hy mn to D e me te r p o sits t he go dde ss as a t hes mophoros (‘l aw- g ive r’ ) w ho g ive s c it i e s ordi nance s and pre ve nts mora l t rans g re ss ions ; t he s im i l ar it y of t his div i ne asp e c t to a p e rs oni f i e d Di ke t hus s er ves to st rengt hen t he share d u nde rly i ng pre mis e of an i nte rconne c t i on b et we en ag r ic u ltu r a l orde r w it h har mon i ous rel at i ons on e ar t h . 8 Aratus’ ow n vers ion of t he He s i o di c ‘My t h of R a c e s’ i nt ro duce s t h re e ( rat he r t han f ive) ages char a c te r is e d by a de cl i ne re su lt i ng f rom human f au lts t hat le ad to an incre as ing ly dist ant rel at i onship w it h Di ke. Af te r b e i ng on f r i e nd ly ter ms w it h hu mans du r i ng t he G ol de n Age, a t i me t ypi f i e d by t he go ds interac t ing w it h mor t a ls , she re t re at s to t he mou nt ai ns, and f i na l ly to t he sky. The des cr ipt ion of a G ol de n Age u n fol ds , de s c r ibi ng a t i me w he n Di ke ( w ho s e naming , l i ke t he ‘gold e n’ r a c e, is del aye d s o t hat she is i de nt i f i e d prol e pt i c a l ly ) was dire c t ly involve d w it h hu man l i fe. T he p ar t i cl e ‘δῆ θ ε ν ’ ( ‘re a l ly ’) sug ge sts an ironic a l incre du lit y - “she w as re a l ly he re on e ar t h”. Th is s o ci e t y is e nv is age d w it h t he us e of l itotes to c re ate a marke d c ont r ast b e t we e n Di ke’s for me r di re c t interac t ions w it h p e opl e and he r dist anc e f rom t he mor t a l worl d nowad ays: “ οὐ δ έ π οτ ᾿ ἀν δρ ῶν / ο ὐ δ έ π οτ᾿ ἀρχα ί ων ἠν ήν ατο φ ῦλα γ υν α ι κῶν, / ἀ λ λ᾿ ἀν α μὶ ξ ἐκάθ ητο, κα ὶ ἀ θ αν άτ η π ερ ἐ ο ῦ σ α ” ( “nor di d she dis d ai n i n t he ol de n d ays t he t r ib es of men nor wome n” ) . Ma l e and fe ma l e c om munit i e s are b ot h re fe r re d to dist inc t ly ; as wel l as b e i ng pr i mar i ly e mphat i c , t his cou l d a ls o a l lude to Stoi c att itu des regard ing p ol it i c a l e qu a l it y of me n and wome n i n t he com munit y, or p erhaps su g gest t hat t he pr a c t i c a l it i e s of just i c e e nt ai l e d di f fe re nt t h i ng s among dif ferent s e c t ions of s o c i e t y. 9 In “ass e mbl i ng” ( “ ἀγ ε ιρ ο μέ ν η” ) and pre si di ng ove r her ow n cou nci l, D i ke issu e s “ δη μ οτέρ α ς θ έμ ι σ τα ς” ( “ judge me nts k i nde r to t he p e ople” or “more p opu l ar ju dge me nt s”) . T he c omp arat ive i mpl i e s judge me nts 6 7 8 9
Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) Hesiod, Works and Days 106 Callimachus, Hymn 6, 18-21 Schiesaro, A. (1996) ‘Aratus’ Myth of Dike’, Materiali e Discussioni 37
w h ich are sp e cif ic a l ly i n t he i nte re st s of t he p e opl e rat he r t han of t he r u l e rs. 10 The ex ter na l qu a l it y of Just i c e as de r iv i ng f rom a div i ne s ource, rat he r t han const r u c te d by hu mans i n p o s it i ons of p owe r, has le vel l i ng i mpl i c at i ons: r u l e rs must r u l e in t he u nd erst andi ng t hat just i c e is a pr i ncipl e h i g he r t han t he m and a k in to a d eit y to w h ich t he y must p ay du e de fe re nce. Di ke’s sp e e ch i n issui ng t hes e ju d gements is d e s c r ib e d w it h “ ἤει δ ε ν ”, an e pi c ve rb for “she s ai d”, addi ng an archaic maj est y ; t he pro c e ss of de cl i ne i n rel at i ons w it h just i ce and a s e ns e of t he sh if t in t ime is h ig h l i g hte d i n he r ange re d, non -el e v ate d sp e e ch ( “ εἰπο ῦ σ ”, a more com mon ver b for “she s ai d”) i n t he Si lve r Age and l ack of com muni c at i on ent irely in t he Bronz e Age, e xc e pt by app e ar i ng to mor t a ls at ni g ht as a nonverb a l s ig n . 1 1 T he G ol de n Age is char a c te r is e d i n ter ms of nume rous t ypi c a l and pre ce d ente d fe atu re s ; t he ab s e nc e of w ar, i mpl i e d i n He si o d’s ch ronol o g y, a ls o re c a l ls E mp e d o cl e s’ age of pr i m it ive i n no c e nc e pr i or to co sm i c dis orde r t h rou g h t he share d epi c word ‘ κ υ δ ο ιμ ο ῦ’ for t he ‘chaot i c di n’ of b att l e. 12 As in Hes io d’s Work s and D ay s , t he p e r i l ous and a l mo st hubr ist i c p o ssibi l it i e s of s e afar ing are abs ent f rom t he G ol de n Age i dy l l : “ χα λ επ ὴ δ᾿ ἀπ έκ ειτο θ ά λα σ σ α ” ( “far f rom t hem was t he d ange rous s e a”) i ndi c ate s t hat t he s e a is conce ptu a l ly as wel l as phy s ic a l ly dist ant . 13 C ro ss i ng t he b ou nd ar i e s del i ne ate d by nature ( charac ter is e d not ably i n He ro dotus’ Histor i e s , for i nst ance, as an i nnately i l l fate d t r ans g ress ion) is b e yond hu man c onc e pt i on i n t h is s el f -suf f i ci e nt s o ci e t y. Howe ver, Ar atus a ls o c ons c i ously de p ar t s f rom t he He si o di c t radit i on, i n w h i ch G olden Age hu mans have no ne e d to toi l ove r c u lt iv at i on due to a st ate of natu ra l prov id ence, by i nc or p or at i ng ag r i c u ltu re as an ac t iv it y of t he G ol de n Age: t he pl ou g h and oxe n i n a ddit i on to Di ke supply t he i r ne e ds. 14 The i nclusi on of ag r ic u ltu re is f irst ly f itt i ng on an ast ronomi c a l l e vel : t he constel l at i on is ass o ci ate d w it h t he ‘Pl ou g hman’ B o ö e te s . C e r t ai n ly, Aratus is i nte re ste d i n draw ing con ne c t ions b e t we e n t he st ars to i de nt i f y t he m as p ar t of a w i de r Z e usg iven ‘s ig n s y stem’, 1 5 and Par t he non’s br i g hte st st ar Spi c a was ass o ci ate d w it h t he har vest t ime. By employ i ng a Stoi c c onc e pt i on of a l l t he human ar ts b e i ng as ol d as man, Ar atus ma kes e x pl i c it t he s y nchron i c p o ss ibi l it i e s, w h i ch we re l ate nt i n Hesio d’s a ccou nt, for a re tu r n to asp e c t s of sup e r i or for me r Age s. In pre s e nt i ng ag r ic u ltu re as an a c t iv it y t hat has a lw ay s e x iste d and w i l l a lways b e ne ce ss ar y, he pres ents t he mor a l l e ss on as ate mp or a l and i mpl i e s t hat it is p o ssibl e to re conne c t w it h D i ke - a lb e it as a c el e st i a l mo del r at he r t han di re c t ly - and apply just ice i n mo d er n t ime s . 16 T his arg u ably c onst itute s a de e p e r e x pl orat i on of Hes io di c u nd erc u r rent s of opt i m is m r at he r t han an i nnov at i on f rom s cratch . 17 10 Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) 11 Volk, K. (2012) ‘Letters in the Sky: Reading the Signs in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, American Journal of Philology 133 12 Empedocles, fr.128 13 Hesiod, Works and Days 618-694; Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) 14 Hesiod, Works and Days 115-121 15 Volk, K. (2012) ‘Letters in the Sky: Reading the Signs in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, American Journal of Philology 133 16 Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) 17 Sider, D. (2014), ‘Didactic Poetry: the Hellenistic Invention of a Pre-existing Genre’, in R. L. Hunter, A. Rengakos and E. Sistakou (eds.) Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads: Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts (Boston)
In empl oy ing a f ive- st age a c c ou nt of hu man mor a l de cl i ne w h i ch is nonline ar, s ince t he Heroi c Age re ve rs e s t he de ge ne r at ive p atte r n by succe e di ng t he Bron z e Age as a “more just and sup e r i or” r a c e of de m i go ds, He si o d s ig na ls t hat t h is is not me rely a bl e a k di a chron i c pi c ture. 18 S ome for tu nate hero es e ven att ain G ol de n Age c ondit i ons i n de at h. 19 Thoug h he de sp ai rs of t he c ur rent Iron Age st ate, t he re is an i mpl i c it g l im me r of opt i m ism i n t he p oss ibi lit y t hat t h is to o c ou l d b e ove r tu r ne d. Not on ly m i g ht t he ne x t race b e a b etter one, but e ven i n t he Iron Age l iv i ng a just and pi ous l i fe cou l d e nac t G olden Age happiness , de spite t he i ne v it abl e ne c essit y of work fol l ow i ng t he op ening of Pand or a’s b ox , on a m i c ro c o s m i c l e vel. Th is p ote nt i a l is b et raye d met a - textu a l ly by t he w ay t hat He s i o d’s nar rat ive cont i nue s to of fe r det ai le d et h ic a l and ag r i c u ltu r a l g u i d anc e. 20 If t he mo del accom mo d ate d no p oss ibi lit y for hu man i mprove me nt , and t he G ol de n Age we re de voi d of any t ransfe r abi l it y, t he d i d a c t i c pre mis e of t he Work s and D ay s wou l d b e come re du nd ant – it wou l d b e f ut i l e for t he e nv is age d addre ss e e to aspi re to mora l improvement and t he y wou l d s i mply have to a c c e pt unjust ci rc umst ance s ( su ch as t hos e inst igate d by Pe rs e s ) as i n he re nt asp e c ts of t he age t he y l ive in. R eg ard l ess of how ‘ge nu i ne’ t he aut hor i a l di d a c t i cism m i g ht b e, t he nature of t he gen re he nc e ne c e ss it ate s a de g re e of mora l opt i m ism for an inst r u c t ive nar r at ive to f u nc t i on ; t he hu man c ondit i on c annot b e const r uc te d as ir re d e emabl e if t he p o e t i c voi c e is s e tt i ng out to of fe r re de mpt ive adv i ce. Aratus t hus t a kes a si mi l ar tone i n t he w ay t hat D i ke, t houg h dist ance d and no longer inter a c t ing w it h hu mans du e to an i r re ve rsibl e p ast f au lt, re mai ns in t he n ig ht sky as a mor a l e xe mpl ar. 21 It is a ls o t he ol o g i c a l ly appropr i ate t hat Aratus incor p or ate s work as a fe atu re of t he G ol de n Age, due to t he Phaenomena’s u nd erly i ng Stoi c c onc e pt i on of a b ene vol e nt Z e us w ho e nsure s t hat mor t a ls c an not l ive i n u npro du c t ive lu x u r y. Th is v i e w is c apture d i n t he op ening , in w h ich Z e us is de s c r ib e d: “ ὁ δ᾿ ἤπι ο ς ἀν θρ ώπο ι σ ιν / δ ε ξι ὰ σ η μ αίν ε ι , λα οὺ ς δ ᾿ ἐ πὶ ἔργ ον ἐ γ είρ ει, / μ ιμ ν ῄ σ κων β ι ότο ι ο ” ( “ he i n h is k indne ss to men / g ive s f avou r abl e s i g ns and rous e s t he p e opl e to work, / remind ing t hem of t he i r me ans of l i fe” ) . 22 T he pro e m cont i nue s to e nv is age Z eus as of fer ing ag r ic u ltu r a l i nst r u c t i ons to hu mans, e ncourag i ng t he m by prov id ing p os it ive s i g ns and de v is i ng t he c onstel l at i ons and s e as ons. 23 Z eus , t hen, is a go d c onc e r ne d w it h mor t a l i nte re sts, and has de te r m i ne d t hat hu mans must exe r t e f for t i n prov i di ng for t he ms elve s s o t hat t he y may st r ive towards in nov at i on and s el f - i mprove me nt. 24 Thus, t he re are et h ic a l imp er at ives , c e nt r a l to t he ve r y pre mis e of t he Phae nome na, t hat me an a G ol d en Age e x iste nc e c an not b e i ndol e nt – human i d l e ne ss wou l d b e f und ament a l ly inc ons iste nt w it h t he char a c te r is at i on of t he G ol de n Age 18 Currie, B. G. F. (2012) ‘Hesiod on Human History’, in L. Llewellyn-Jones, J. Marincola and C. A. Maciver (eds.) History without Historians: Greeks and their Past in the Archaic and Classical Age (Edinburgh) 19 Hesiod, Works and Days 156-173 20 Verdenius, W. J. (1985) A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days vv. 1-382 (Leiden) 21 Schiesaro, A. (1996) ‘Aratus’ Myth of Dike’, Materiali e Discussioni 37 22 Aratus, Phaenomena 5-7 23 Aratus, Phaenomena 7-14; Gee, E. (2013) Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (Oxford) 24 C.f. Virgil, Georgics 1.118-124, 129-135
as one of sup er ior v ir tu e. Ar atus c ons c i ously probl e mat is e s t he t radit i ona l concept ion of a G ol de n Age as f re e f rom work by raisi ng t he ph i l o s oph i c a l issu e t hat work has e du c at ive mor a l v a lu e for hu man l ive s – cou l d a tor pi d ex istence w it hout cha l l e nge s to b e ove rc ome by toi l and cre at iv it y re a l ly br i ng genu ine s at is fa c t ion, or e ve n ma ke any v i r tu e ( l e t a l one t he mo st e xe mpl ar y k ind) p oss ible? T he Si lver and Bronz e Age s t he n e na c t a l i ne ar p atte r n of Di ke’s w it hdrawa l and t he incre as ing w i cke dne ss of hu mans . In t he G ol de n Age, Di ke was const r u e d b ot h in ter ms of he r p e rs on i f i e d rol e as a dramat i c charac te r and in ter ms of t he rel at i ona l v i r tu e b e t we e n hu mans t hat she br i ng s – t he nar rat ive b a l ances t he fo c us b e t we e n Di ke and t he s e ns e of p e ace f u l ac t iv it y in t he mor t a l com mun it y. Di ke’s f avou r abl e pre s e nce is t he re fore di re c t ly cor rel ate d to hu man b ehav i ou r – hu mans are i n c ont rol of t he st ate of t he i r commu n it y t h rou g h t he i r ow n a c t i ons . 25 In t he Si lve r Age, by cont rast, a l l t he a c t ions have D i ke as t he i r subj e c t , w it h t he mor t a ls re ce iv i ng he r dis d ain and express ing s or row for he r de p ar tu re. The Si lve r Age ac ts as an inter me d i ate st age in t he pro c e ss of mor t a l re j e c t ion of Di ke, acce ntu ate d by t he r ing comp os it ion of t he e pis o de i n t he w ay Di ke come s to rebu ke humans f rom t he mou nt ains ( a l o c us e mb o dy i ng a pr i m it ive st ate of de t ach me nt, i n cont rast to her for me r i nvolve me nt i n t he he ar t of p ol it i c a l l i fe ) and re t re ats t here again in anger, c re at i ng a no st a l g i a for he r atte nt i ons i n t he G ol de n Age. 26 D i ke a d d ress es t he Si lve r R a c e to w ar n t he m of t h is mora l c u lp abi l it y – it is t heir f ai l ings t hat are to bl ame for t he assu me d de te r i orat i on i n t he i r condit ions , and she is c omp el l e d to ma ke go o d he r t h re at to ab andon E ar t h . Di ke t hus has a prophe t i c qu a l it y, t hou g h he r l e av i ng is b as e d not on an ine v it abi lit y but a mor a l r u l e she has pl ai n ly out l ine d. She ant i cip ate s t he i r t ransit ion f rom ‘χ ρ ύ σ ει ο ι’ ( ‘gol de n’ ) to ‘ χειρ οτέρ ην ’ ( ‘wors e’) to wors e st i l l ( ‘κακώτερ α ’). T he Bron z e Age is marke d by t he ons e t of war and a condit i on of unpu nishe d l aw less ne ss , as Di ke w ar ne d – t he y forge t he sword and e at t he plou g h ing oxen . The Bron z e Age c ont r ast s to t he ve ge t ar i anism w h i ch was a t y pif y ing fe atu re of t he G ol de n Age. T hou g h ass o ci ate d w it h c u lt i c rest r ic t ions of O r ph is m and P y t hagore an is m, ke e pi ng oxe n for pl oug h i ng rat her t han u nne cess ar i ly c onsu m i ng a v a lu abl e re s ource was p e rhaps more s imply a pr a c t ic a l me asu re. Hopk i ns on note s f u r t he r t hat t he re we re archai c l aws w h ich for b a d e me n to e at oxe n t hat help e d work t he i r l and. 27 T herefore, t he k at aste r is m of Di ke, a l re a dy hi nte d prol e pt i c a l ly w it h t he way she ‘r is es’ (‘ἤρχε το’) at ‘su ns e t’ ( ‘ ὑπ ο δ εί ε λο ς’ ) , c ont i nue s to e nnobl e and e x u lt her st atus d espite her ang r y dis e ng age me nt f rom t he mor t a l re a l m ; af te r once b eing v is ible in d ay t i me, she t he n e me rge s at dusk i n t he Si lve r Age, and f ina l ly on ly at nig ht. 28 Ye t f u nd ame nt a l ly, Di ke “st i l l app e ars” ( “ ἔτι φ α ίν ετα ι ” ) as one of Z eus’ mot iv at i ona l c o s mol o g i c a l s i g na ls . As a constel l at i on, she watche s over t he E ar t h and c ont i nu e s to c ommu n i c ate a f i xe d me ss age of 25 26 27 28
Schiesaro, A. (1996) ‘Aratus’ Myth of Dike’, Materiali e Discussioni 37 Kidd, D. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge) Hopkinson, N. (1988) A Hellenistic Anthology (Cambridge) Gee, E. (2013) Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (Oxford)
mora l a d mon it ion. 2 9 T hou g h go ds no l onge r mi ng l e w it h humans on E ar t h , fol low ing p ast exempl ars and l o ok i ng to Di ke as an e x te r na l e mb o di me nt of Just ice remain p er mane nt p o ss ibi l it i e s . R at he r t han rel e g at i ng Par t he non to a relic of by gone age, Ar atus c re at ively dr aw s on t he way t hat He si o d’s ‘My t h of R aces’ subt ly pres e nt s a pre c e de nte d c ap a c it y for human i mprove me nt, in orde r to af f ir m t he c onstel l at i on’s ongoi ng s y mb ol i c rel e v ance. 30 In a s imi l ar st r u c tu re to He s i o d, Ar atus move s f rom t he t he ore t i c a l, e x pl ai ni ng in t he pro em t hat t he re are s i g ns e ve r y w he re f rom Z e us, to w hat we re by t h is t ime convent iona l di d a c t i c c onc e it s of of fe r i ng ‘prac t i c a l’ g ui d ance, g iv ing infor mat ion on s ome sp e c i f i c s i g ns to a c c ustom t he i mag i ne d pupi l to not icing t hem and c ons i de r i ng t he i r me an i ng s . 31 Wit h t he f ram i ng e f fe c t cre ate d by t he retu r n to B o ö e te s , Ar atus c a l ls an e nd to t h is e x te nde d f abl e and s o retu r ns to h is c at a l o g u e of c onstel l at i ons , prompt i ng re f l e c t i on on t he lite r ar y d is cou rs e he has de vel op e d b e t we e n ast ronom i c a l f ac t and it s p o e t ic inter pret at i ons by hu mans . His appro a ch t hus e ng age s w it h t he in herent compl exit ies of apply i ng t he c ol l e c t ive i mag i nat i on of my t h to inst r u c t ive contexts . He de n i e s t hat c el e st i a l my t hs of fe r aut hor it at ive cl ar it y, draw ing attent ion to t he i r c on f l i c t s and shor tc om i ng s, but none t hel e ss inclu des su ch mater i a l i n his pro c e ss of c onst r u c t i ng t he constel l at i ons as a ‘s emi ot ic’ s y stem . 3 2 In a l lu di ng to a plu r a l it y of f i c t ive ae t i ol o g i e s ab out t he constel l at ion Par t he non and e x te ndi ng t his nar rat ive of t he ‘Myt h of Di ke’ b e yond t he exp e c te d p ar ame te rs of t he ge n re’s af fe c t at i on of prac t i c a l inst r u c t ion , Ar atus ma ke s t he c as e t hat t he re is her me ne ut i c v a lue i n re count ing t he re ceive d mor a l w is dom of fol k l ore, e ve n i f t he s e stor i e s are not to b e t a ken at fa c e v a lu e.
29 Volk, K. (2012) ‘Letters in the Sky: Reading the Signs in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, American Journal of Philology 133; Schiesaro, A. (1996) ‘Aratus’ Myth of Dike’, Materiali e Discussioni 37 30 Currie, B. G. F. (2012) ‘Hesiod on Human History’, in L. Llewellyn-Jones, J. Marincola and C. A. Maciver (eds.) History without Historians: Greeks and their Past in the Archaic and Classical Age (Edinburgh) 31 Volk, K. (2010), ‘Aratus’ in Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. (eds.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (Malden MA) 32 Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. L. (2004) Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge)
T WO A NG RY M E N : W R AT H A N D I DE A L I SM I N T H E I L IA D A N D M R . ROB OT
S ophie Park
C omp o s e d by Homer rou g h ly 3 , 0 0 0 ye ars ago and s e t dur i ng t he Troj an War, t he I li a d is an epic p o em ab out a qu ar rel b e t we e n t he anc i e nt Gre ek he ro e s Ach i l l e s and Agamemnon. Mr. R ob ot, w hi ch t a ke s pl a c e i n Ne w York ci rc a 2 0 1 5 , is a tel e v isi on s e r ies cre ate d by Sam E s mai l. It tel ls t he stor y of c y b ers e c ur it y e ng i ne e r E l l i ot A lders on, w ho is re cr u ite d by a g roup of v i g i l ante ha cke rs ( k now n as “f s o ci e t y” ) to s ave t he world. A lt hou g h t he re are many di f fe re nc e s b e t we e n t he Il i ad and Mr. R ob ot , b ot h nar r at ives fol l ow t he e mot i ona l j ou r ne y s of e x t raordi nar y i ndiv i du a ls, pushe d to t he marg ins of s o c i e t y by v i ol e nc e. Tr ag i c a l ly, i n t he i r atte mpts to t a ke c ont rol of t heir lives , b ot h Achi l l e s and E l l i ot su c c u mb to t he ve r y force s t he y s e ek to dest roy. When one ana ly z e s t he i de nt it y of e a ch prot agonist, t he conve nt i ons of t heir resp e c t ive s o ciet ies, and t he natu re of v i ol e nc e, f as ci nat i ng si m i l ar it i e s e me rge b e t we en t he t wo s e em ing ly disp ar ate stor i e s . Even t hou g h anger is a d e f i n i ng char a c te r ist i c for b ot h he ro e s, E l l i ot’s rage i nit i a l ly li e s h idden b ene at h a m i l qu e to ast de me anor w hi l e Ach i l l e s’ w rat h has an i m me di ate, p ower f u l phy s ic a lit y emb o di e d by t he te r m χόλο ς, “a w hol e -b o dy re ac t i on, t he ad rena l su rge w h ich d r ive s me n to v i ol e nt sp e e ch and ac t i on.” 1 Whe n Ach i l l e s l e ave s for Troy, Pel eus war ns h i m , “My chi l d, for t he matte r of st re ng t h , At he ne and He ra w i l l g ive it/ if it b e t he i r w i l l, but b e it you rs to hol d f ast i n your b o s om / t he anger of t he prou d he ar t , for c ons i de r at i on is b e tte r.” 2 Addit i ona l ly, Ach i l l e s s ays of h ims elf t hat he is “su ch as no ot he r of t he bronz e -ar more d Achai ans/ i n b att le, t hou g h t here are ot he rs a ls o b e tte r i n c ou nc i l,” 3 ye t e ve n i n h is sp e e ch , he has a st ar t ling , a l most v i ol e nt , cl ar it y of i ntel l e c t , and he “g ive s h i ms el f ove r to t he situ at ion as he p erceive s it .” 4 T his i ntel l e c tu a l cl ar it y and i nte ns e p assi on are e sp e ci a l ly not abl e in h is de a l i ng s w it h Ag ame mnon . In ot he r words, Ach i l l e s do e sn’t have t he p at ience for conte mpl at ive pl e as ant r i e s and dipl omac y —he is natura l ly a man of imme d i ate a c t ion and re a c t i on . A lt houg h v iolent tend enc i e s are n’t u n i qu e to Achi l l e s, h is div i nit y ampl i f i e s t he i r e f fe c t to t he p oint w here his r age su r p ass e s t he l i mit s of human ange r and b e come s e qu a l to t he w r at h of t he go ds . Eve n t hou g h t he go ds ac t l i ke re a l p e opl e, it’s “ i mp or t ant to a ck now le d ge… t he el e me nt s of t he f ant ast i c and i mpl ausibl e and bi zar re w h ich t he [p o em ass e r t s ] as b e i ng i ne x t r i c ably p ar t of t he ac t i on of t he d iv ine.” 5 Wit h t he pres enc e of t he s e “f ant ast i c el e me nts”, t he audi e nce c an i nte r pre t t he go ds “as elements of natu re ( t he s o -c a l l e d ‘phy s i c a l a l l e gor y ’) , or as qu a l it i e s
1 2 3 4 5
Redfield (1975), 14 Latimore (2011), Il. 9.254-6 Latimore (2011), Il. 18.105-6 Redfield (1975), 13 Feeney (1991), 51
( ‘mora l’ a l l egor y ).” 6 For i nst anc e, Po s e i don c ou l d b e t he p e rs oni f i c at i on of t he s e a , and At hena c ou l d b e t he ant hrop omor phism of w is dom . Eve n t he human - li ke b o d ies of t he go ds are char a c te r ist i c a l ly f ant ast i c: ... and bl o o d im mor t a l f l owe d f rom t he go dde ss , ichor, t hat w h ich r u ns i n t he ve i ns of t he bl e ss e d div i nit i e s; s ince t hes e e at no fo o d, nor do t he y dr i n k of t he sh i ni ng w ine, and t herefore t he y have no bl o o d and are c a l l e d i m mor t a l. 7 T hus, d espite t heir p s ychol o g i c a l and phy s i c a l s i m i l ar it i e s, go ds and mor t a ls are dist inc t cl ass es of char a c te r, and one of t he mai n conf l i c ts t hat Ach i l l e s faces is st r i k ing a b a l anc e b e t we e n his div i n it y and h is humanit y. Whe n he let s h is d iv in it y overc ome hi m and w it hdr aw s f rom t he f i g ht i ng , he br i ng s de vast at ion up on t he Achai ans . By s e ek i ng to he a l t h roug h re t r ibut i on, just as a go d wou l d, he d o es not f i nd p e a c e i n t he su f fe r i ng of t he Troj ans. Ach i l l e s is u lt imately a mor t a l, but l i ke a go d, he c an de t a ch h i ms el f f rom humanit y, t ransfor m ing h ims elf i nto a forc e of pu re de st r u c t i on. Even t hou g h E l l i ot is n’t an e xc e pt i ona l w ar r i or, ne it he r of h is p are nts is liter a l ly im mor t a l, and he has a ho st of me nt a l dis orde rs ( i ncludi ng diss o ci at ive id ent it y dis orde r, de pre ss i on , and s o c i a l anx i e t y dis orde r) , he is a ls o a f u r ious d em i- go d of s or t s w ho s e p owe r c ome s f rom natura l t a l e nt and intens e, innate r age. Inste a d of phy s i c a l prowe ss and a div i ne mot he r, E l l i ot has sup erhu man ha ck i ng sk i l ls and a f ami ly of a lte r nate i de nt it i e s to help h im pro cess h is t r au mas . T he f i rst p e rs ona l it y E l l i ot cre ate s is Mr. R ob ot, a “prote c tor p ers ona l it y… c re ate d to re pl a c e his [ de ce as e d, abusive ] f at he r [and] to prote c t h im f rom i ntol e r abl e s itu at i ons .” 8 E l l i ot a ls o re i mag i ne s h is abs ent mot her as a “p e rs e c utor, bl ami ng [ hi m ] for t he abus e [and] i nsist i ng t hat he [ne e ds ] to p ay for it ,” and he re c re ate s a younge r ve rsi on of h i ms el f to hand le “t he abus e he [ c an’t ] tol e r ate.” 9 In a ddit i on to t h is subst itute f am i ly, E l liot c onceives t he au di e nc e as “voye u rs w ho t hi n k t he y are n't a p ar t of t h is, despite b eing here for a l l of it . " 10 T he n , i n his f i na l s e ssi on w it h Kr ist a, h is t herapist, he le ar ns t hat he is n’t E l l i ot at a l l, but rat he r “a p e rs ona l it y cre ate d to c ar r y E l l iot' s r age, t he v i g i l ante ha cke r E l l i ot a lway s i mag i ne d b e i ng , t he one w ho s ou g ht venge anc e, t he p e rs ona l it y t hat had g ai ne d s o much cont rol he forgot he was on ly just anot he r p e rs ona l it y : t he Maste r m i nd.” 11 To prote c t t he re a l E l l iot f rom t he ove r w hel m i ng p ai n of his e x iste nce, t he Maste r m i nd h ij acks h is re a lit y and l o ck s hi m i n a sub c ons c i ous f ant asy w he re he l e ads a happy, nor ma l l ife d e voi d of chi l d ho o d t r au ma , e c onom i c cor r upt i on, and de at h . L i ke Ach i l l es at his mo st v i ol e nt , t he Maste r m i nd is l e ss of a man and more of an abst r a c t ion s o e x t re me t hat it has e x pl o de d f rom t he b ounds of 6 7 8 9 10 11
Feeney (1991), 10 Latimore (2011), Il. 5.339-42 Esmail (2019), S04 E13 Esmail (2019), S04 E13 Esmail (2019), S04 E13 Esmail (2019), S04 E13
human cons cious ness and g ai ne d a phy s i c a l for m. For b ot h charac te rs, w hat init i a l ly sp ark s t heir ange r is s o c i e t a l i njust i c e. Ab ove a l l, v iol e nc e r u l e s t he worl d of t he Il i ad, and “t he com munit y’s ne e d for s e c u r it y and for de fe ns ive w ar f are ge ne r ate s a war r i or e t h i c.” 12 T he com mu nit y incent iv i z e s me n to b e w ar r i ors by of fe r i ng pr iv i l e ge s t hat “s er ve b ot h to mark t he w ar r i or’s sp e c i a l st atus and rol e and to hol d h i m to t he exe c ut ion of h is t ask .” 13 As a re su lt , “ he rois m is i nit i a l ly a s o ci a l t ask; it t hen b e comes a d ef i n ite s e t of v i r tu e s ass o c i ate d w it h t he p e r for mance of t h is t ask .” 1 4 Hero es not on ly de fe nd t he i r c om munit i e s but a ls o r u l e ove r t hem, and t heir m i l it ar y c ont r ibut i ons just i f y t he i r p o sit i ons as r u l e rs. A lt houg h herois m “ is on ly a s o c i a l i l lus i on ,” it i mbue s de at h , and t he re fore life, w it h a h ig her pu r p o s e. 15 In br i e f, t he re is a c ont rac t b e t we e n a he ro and h is com mu n it y : if t he he ro de vote s hi ms el f to de fe ndi ng t he com munit y, t he commu n it y w i l l re ward hi m . In Achi l l e s’ c as e, t he com munit y re wards h is mar t i a l sk i l l w it h Br is e is , w ho s e subju g at i on is a p ote nt sy mb ol of v i c tor y over an enemy in b att l e and v i r i l it y. Whe n Ag ame m non t a ke s Br is e is away, he depr ives Ach i l l es of w hat he has r i g ht f u l ly e ar ne d and e mas c u l ate s h i m . Viol ence a ls o gove r ns t he worl d of Mr. R ob ot. In t he pi l ot e pis o de, E l liot e xpl ains , “ T here ' s a p owe r f u l g roup of p e opl e out t he re t hat are s e cret ly r u n n ing t he worl d. I ' m t a l k i ng ab out t he g uys no one k nows ab out, t he guys t hat are inv is ibl e. T he top 1 % of t he top 1 % , t he g uy s t hat pl ay G o d w it hout p er m iss ion.” At f i rst , he b el i e ve s t he s e go ds are t he l e ade rs of “E C or p,” but he e ventu a l ly l e ar ns t hat t he c ong l ome rate is si mply “t he worl d's big gest f ront” for t he “D e us Group,” an i nve st me nt g roup of “t he worl d's we a lt h iest, most p owe r f u l me n … [ man ipu l at i ng ] g l ob a l e ve nts for prof it.” 16 Even “D eus” is a f ront for it s c re ator, t he my ste r i ous Wh ite ro s e. 17 Init i a l ly int ro duce d to E l l iot and t he au di e nc e as t he l e a de r of t he “D ark Ar my,” 18 Wh iteros e has u n l im ite d a c c e ss to e ve r yone’s mo st i nt i mate de t ai ls as wel l as t he me ans to we ap on i z e t hat i n for mat i on . Af te r a l i fe t i me of p ai n, 19 she re cog n izes t hat “p e opl e l i ke Phi l l ip Pr i c e do not re sp e c t me rc y. You on ly ge t t heir attent ion w it h forc e and a l ot of it . T hat is t he on ly c ur re nc y w it h t he s e men.” 2 0 Sim i l arly to t he Home r i c w ar r i or e t hi c , her co de of conduc t re wards and p e r p etu ates v iole nc e w it h mone y, p owe r, and i nf lue nce. Howe ve r, w h i l e t he Homer ic war r ior e t hi c is fou nde d up on t he wel l -b e i ng of t he com munit y, Wh iteros e has ha cke d s o c i e t y to s e r ve he r ne e ds a l one, and he r co de is pre dic ate d on a ver y c y n i c a l out l o ok on hu man nature. Th roug hout t he s e r i e s, 12 Redfield (1975), 101 13 Redfield (1975), 100 14 Redfield (1975), 100 15 Redfield (1975), 101 16 Esmail (2019), S04 E02 17 Whiterose created “Deus” to fund the construction of a machine that would create “a world where we were meant to be all along” (S04 E11). 18 The “Dark Army” is a dangerous mercenary hacking group. 19 For Whiterose’s tragic backstory, see S04 E03. 20 Esmail (2019), S03 E08
p e ople w ho d emonst rate go o d char a c te r i n t he f a c e of cor r upt i on e it he r suf fe r hor r ibly or b e come mor a l ly c omprom is e d. T he s o ciet a l i njust i c e t hat s e t s of f Achi l l es and E l l i ot di f fe rs b e c aus e Ach i l les fe els w ronge d by a s y ste m t hat he has f ait h f u l ly subs cr ib e d to w h i le E l l iot has a lway s re a l i z e d t hat his s o c i e t y is cor r upt, and one d ay t he acc u mu l at ion of w rong s ag ai nst hi m is s i mply to o much to hand l e. Howe ve r, b ot h hero es rej e c t t he i r c om mu n it i e s i n re sp ons e to t he p ai n t he y e x p e r i e nce f rom b eing a p ar t of s o c i e t y. Af te r qu ar rel i ng w it h Ag ame m non, Ach i l l e s b elie ve s t hat he has b ehave d “ i n a w ay he has b e e n tol d is adm i rabl e and t hen is b af f le d to f ind t hat , i n me e t i ng t he de cl are d e x p e c t at i ons of h is commu n it y, he comes i nto c on f l i c t w it h it .” 21 Af te r t he com munit y punishe s h im for a c t ing in its b e st i nte re st , he b e c ome s dis i l lusi one d, “a man on t he marg in b et we en c u lture and natu re.” 22 T his fe el i ng is b e st e nc apsu l ate d by t he ter m ν έ με σ ι ς , r ig hte ous ange r w hi ch “ is provoke d by any ac t w h i ch is b ot h improp er and u nexp e c te d.” 23 To s ome de g re e, Achi l l e s’ t roubl e s st ar t w he n a s ome w hat u nd erst and abl e ν έμ ε σ ι ς, t he ange r he fe els towards Ag ame m non, ex acer b ates h is in nate χόλο ς. Whi l e ν έμ ε σ ι ς is ro ote d i n a conce r n for commu na l exp e c t at ions , χόλο ς is s i mply v is c e r a l ange r, w h i ch is more dif f ic u lt to cont rol. The more Achi l l e s s e p ar ate s h i ms el f f rom s o ci e t y, t he more his ν έ με σ ι ς tu r ns i nto pu re χόλο ς. In cont r ast, E l l i ot l e ar ne d at an e arly age to e x p e c t t he worst f rom ot hers. T he or ig in of his a l i e nat i on ( as wel l as his me nt a l dis orde rs) is h is abus ive f at her, w ho a c c ordi ng to s o c i e t a l e x p e c t at i ons was supp o s e d to b e a p osit ive role mo d el and a s ou rc e of l ove and supp or t. The t rauma of t h is b et raya l not on ly le a ds to E l l i ot’s diss o c i at ive i de nt it y dis orde r but a ls o proves to b e to o p ain f u l for hi m to t hi n k ab out . Howe ve r, de spite t he f ac t t hat E dward A l d ers on s e x u a l ly abus e d his s on , he was a ls o “t he on ly one [E l liot ] cou ld t a l k to.” 24 Whe n he di e s , E l l i ot masks t he shame of f ai l i ng to prote c t h ims el f w it h t he g u i lt of f ai l i ng to s ave his f at he r, and he di re c ts t he anger he fe els f rom his s itu at i on tow ards t he e ne m i e s of p e opl e he c are s ab out ( e.g . R oh it Meht a , L e n ny “Mi cha el Hans e n” Shan non, “E C or p” ) . 25 E sp e ci a l ly af ter t he Master m ind p e rs ona g ai ns dom i nanc e, E l l i ot re s or ts to s o ci a l ly u nconvent iona l me ans to help his l ove d one s : t he more he t r i e s to f i x s o ci e t y, t he more he v iol ates it s nor ms . Wit h e ve r y ha ck , h is disi l lusi onme nt g rows, and w hen Kr ist a ask s hi m w hy s o c i e t y is s o dis app oi nt i ng , he re pl i e s: T he world its elf ' s just one bi g ho a x . Sp am m i ng w it h our r unni ng com me nt ar y of bu l lsh it mas qu er a di ng as i ns i g ht , ou r s o c i a l me di a f a k i ng as i nt i mac y…. I'm not s ay ing any t h i ng ne w. We a l l k now w hy we do t h is, not b e c aus e Hunge r 21 Redfield (1975), 104 22 Redfield (1975), 103 23 Redfield (1975), 117 24 See the scene in Ron’s Coffee (S01 E01) and the scene when Mr. Robot pushes Elliot off Coney Island pier (S01 E05). 25 Esmail (2015), S01 E01
Games b o ok s ma ke us happy but b e c aus e we w an na b e s e d ate d. B e c aus e it's p ainf u l not to pretend, b e c aus e we ' re c ow ards . Fuck s o ci e t y. 26 T here are ind iv idu a ls l i ke Angel a and Shay l a , w it h w hom he l ong s to l ive a nor ma l l ife. Yet w he n he w it ne ss e s t he i r su f fe r i ng , he’s re m i nde d of t he int r insic g re e d and cor r upt i on of s o c i e t y, and he c an’t br i ng h i ms el f to p ar t icip ate in su ch an i nst itut i on . T hus , he b e c ome s just as dist ance d f rom re a lit y as t he men w ho pl ay go d w it hout p e r m iss i on. O nce Ach i l l e s and E l l i ot de c i de to tu r n t he i r b acks on t he i r commu n it ies , t he on ly p e opl e anchor i ng t he m to s o ci e t y are re sp e c t ively Pat ro clus and Angel a . B ot h char a c te rs are cl o s e chi l d ho o d f r i e nds of t he i r cor resp ond ing prot agon ist s , and b ot h st and out as “one of t he go o d one s” i n t he e yes of t heir com mu n it i e s and t he i r b e st f r i e nds. 27 Among t he Achai ans, Pat ro clus p oss ess es a “dist i nc t char a c te r : k i nd, e asi ly move d to pit y, remark ably f re e f rom … he roi c s el f -ass e r t i on .” 28 By f ar “t he swe e te st and mo st comp ass ionate of t he Home r i c w ar r i ors ,” 29 he is t he e pitome of comp assi on, t he on ly p ers on in t he w hol e p o e m de s c r ib e d as μεί λιχο ς ( ge nt l e ) , and four of t he f ive o cc u r re nc e s of ἐ ν ηή ς ( k i ndne ss ) re fe r to h i m . 30 A lt houg h many Achai ans v is ibly che r ish Pat ro clus and mour n h is de at h , no one is as clos e to h im as Ach i l l e s . B e fore his miss i on to su r m is e t he condit i on of t he Achai ans , Pat ro clus a lw ay s app e ars by Achi l l e s’ s i de. In B o oks 1 and 9 , w he n Ach i l les is in t he m idst of his c on f l i c t w it h Ag ame m non, Pat ro clus is t he re to supp or t h im : ὣ ς φ άτο, Πάτρ ο κ λο ς δ ὲ φ ί λῳ ἐπ επ εί θ ε θ᾽ ἑτα ίρ ῳ ( S o he sp oke, and Pat rok l os ob e ye d his b el ove d c omp an i on ) . 31 Not on ly are Pat ro clus and Ach i l les φ ί λο ι ἑ τα ίρ ο ι ( b el ove d c omp an i ons ) , but Pat ro clus’ de at h a ls o marks t he dest r u c t ion of an i de a l re a l it y, i n w hi ch t he t wo me n re tur n home and g row old, t hat w i l l t rag i c a l ly ne ve r b e. L i ke Pat ro clus , Angel a is a s o c i e t a l e xe mpl ar— she’s smar t, b e aut i f u l, and ambit ious , and she has a re sp e c t abl e j ob and a nor ma l b oy f r i e nd. In E l l i ot’s sub cons cious , she s y mb ol i z e s t he l i fe he’s a lw ay s wante d, 32 and t h roug hout h is life, she has b e en his cl o s e st c on f i d ante. Just as Pat ro clus’ de at h sp arks Ach i l les’ r amp age, Angel a’s mu rde r pushe s E l l i ot i nto ove rdr ive, mot iv at i ng h im to go af ter Wh ite ro s e more u rge nt ly t han e ve r b e fore to t he p oi nt w he re he’s to o fo c us e d to nar r ate to t he au di e nc e. Inste a d, Mr. R ob ot pi cks up t he nar rat i on for t he maj or it y of t he f i na l s e as on , b e c om i ng t he voi ce of re st rai nt over E l l iot’s a l l - consumi ng r age. Wit hout a j ob, or e ve n a s o ci a l g roup l i ke “fs o ciet y ” to inter a c t w it h on a d ai ly b as is , E l l i ot is a shadow of a p e rs on w ho b arely e ats , sle ep s , or i nte r a c t s w it h ot he r p e opl e. 26 Esmail (2015), S01 E01 27 Esmail (2015), S01 E01 28 Parry (1972), 11 29 Parry (1972), 10 30 Parry (1972), 11 31 Il. 1.345 and 9.205: trans. Latimore (2011) 32 See Elliot’s withdrawal hallucination in S01 E04 and the alternate reality he created in S04 E12 and E13
Ach i l les’ ends up in a s i mi l ar st ate of is ol at i on . Eve n af te r he of f i ci a l ly re conc i l es w it h t he Achai ans , t he de at h of Pat ro clus p e r mane nt ly a l i e nate s h im f rom mor t a ls , and he ne ve r f u l ly re j oi ns his com munit y. Whe n t he Achai ans are we ar y f rom b att l e and s it dow n to fe ast, Ach i l l e s re f us e s to e at b e c aus e “fo o d and dr i n k me an not hi ng to my he ar t/ but bl o o d do e s, and sl au g hter, and t he g ro an i ng of me n i n t he hard work.” 33 Once he ne e ds sustenance, t he go ds fe e d hi m ambro s i a and ne c t ar i nste ad of fo o d and w i ne. F ina l ly, w hen Ach i l l e s do e s ge t to f i g ht , he “app e ars not as a l e ade r of me n, but as an is ol ate d d est roye r— a k i nd of natu r a l force, l i ke f i re or f l o o d.” 34 D u r ing h is ar istei a (a he ro’s f i ne st mome nt i n b att l e ) , Ach i l l e s is “ l i ke s omet h ing more t han a man ,” 35 or, e ve n more e x pl i cit ly, “ l i ke an i m mor t a l,” 36 yet w hat shou ld b e t he mo st g l or i ous mome nt of h is l i fe is “on ly an ac t of mou r n ing .” 3 7 Ad d it iona l ly, his de t a chme nt is not on ly cl e ar i n h is ac t i ons but a ls o h is words : “ he l o ok s b a ck at c u ltu re f rom t he outsi de. He b e come s a s o ci a l cr it ic.” 3 8 War b e c ome s a g ame, and “d ange r b e come s an abst rac t i on; t he lives [he] d est roys are l i ke toy s broke n by a chi l d, and quite as i nc ap abl e of fe el ing .” 3 9 When he c ome s a c ro ss Ly k a on , one of h is pre v i ous v i c t i ms, Ach i l les shows no me rc y : ‘Po or fo ol, no longer sp e a k to me of r ans om , nor arg ue it. In t he t ime b efore Pat rok l o s c ame to t he d ay of his de st i ny t hen it was t he way of my he ar t’s choi c e to b e sp ar i ng of t he Troj ans , and many I to ok a l ive and disp o s e d of t he m . Now t here is not one w ho c an e s c ap e de at h, i f t he go ds s e nd h im against my hands i n f ront of I l i on , not one of a l l t he Troj ans and b e yond a l l ot he rs t he chi l dre n of Pr i am . S o, f r ie nd, you d ie a ls o. 40 Ach i l les no longer va lu e s hu man c ustoms or l i fe as ot he r humans do, br ut a l ly rej e c t ing Ly k a on’s suppl i c at i on . T he on ly v a lue t hat l i fe c ar r i e s is as rep ay ment for t he de at h of Pat ro clus , w hi ch he is re sp onsibl e for : “di e a l l an e v i l d e at h , t i l l a l l of you / p ay for t he de at h of Pat rok l o s and t he sl aug hte r of t he Achai ans / w hom you k i l l e d b e s i de t he r u n ni ng sh ips, w he n I was not w it h t hem .” 4 1 Wit hout any hop e of a f utu re w it h Pat ro clus, he l o s e s t he abi l it y to emp at h ize w it h ot he r hu man b e i ng s as wel l as any i nce nt ive to s e r ve h is commu n it y. Inste a d of j oi n i ng t he re st of t he Achai ans i n cl e ansi ng , fe ast i ng , and rest ing af ter a l ong d ay i n b att l e, Achi l l e s , w ho hasn’t b e e n f i g ht i ng at a l l up to t h is p oint, is e age r to re tu r n to b att l e. And s o, “once he is e xclude d f rom t he f abr ic of c u ltu re, Achi l l e s c an f i nd no me ani ng i n h is l i fe, no us e s
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Latimore (2011), Il. 19.213-4 Redfield (1975), 107 Latimore (2011), Il. 20.447; 493 Latimore (2011), Il. 21.18 Redfield (1975), 107 Redfield (1975), 103 Weil (1957), 19 Latimore (2011), Il. 21.99-106 Latimore (2011), Il. 21.133-5
for h is st rengt h . He has b e c ome a me re c re atu re i n nature.” 42 By a d her ing to his ow n i nte r pre t at i on of t he war r i or e t h i c and rej e c t i ng hu man it y for not fol l ow i ng it , Achi l l e s f ai ls to f i nd s ol ace. Th is fai lure o cc u rs b e c aus e t he w ar r i or e t hi c , a s y ste m t hat is supp o s e d to comb at v iolenc e, p er p etu ates it , nor do e s it re w ard it s p ar t i cip ants b as e d on p e rs ona l mer it . T he on ly way a w ar r i or c an prove hi ms el f is i f he is succe ssf u l i n b att le and able to gai n s e c u r it y for his p e opl e, but i f t he re’s no b att l e to b e g i n w it h , t he war r ior has no w ay of prov i ng hi ms el f. Addit i ona l ly, t he outcome s of b att les are not d ete r mi ne d by mor t a ls but by t he w i l l of t he go ds. At any moment, a go d c an w hisk a p e rs on to s afe t y or bl ow a we ap on of f cours e, and t here’s not h ing a mor t a l c an do ab out it . In shor t, t he war r i or e t h i c is an in herent ly r and om and c ont r a di c tor y s y ste m, but t he re is no a lte r nat ive : to rej e c t t he war r ior e t hi c is to re j e c t t he c ommu n it y, e sp e ci a l ly i n a worl d p er vad e d by v iolence. T he on ly way a p ers on c an t r u ly put an e nd to v i ol e nce is not by ad he r i ng to t he war r ior et h ic but r at he r by re c o g n i z i ng t hat an e ne my isn’t s o di f fe re nt f rom t he s el f and by e mpl oy i ng on ly “a mo de r ate us e of force… [w h i ch ] wou ld enabl e man to e s c ap e b e i ng e n me she d i n” v i ol e nce. 43 Howe ve r, i n t he i r attempt to rej e c t t he v i ol e nt s y ste ms t hat gove r n t he i r s o ci e t i e s, b ot h Ach i l l e s and E l liot l e ar n t hat “e xc e ss is … an i r re s ist ibl e te mpt at i on,” and t he y b e come just as a d d ic te d to v i ol e nc e as t he i r e ne m i e s . 44 In a hast y re conci l i at i on w it h Ag amem non, Ach i l l es a ck now l e dge s , “g a l l, w hi ch ma ke s a man g row ang r y for a l l h is g re at m ind, / … s w ar ms l i ke s moke i ns i de of a man’s he ar t/ and b e comes a t h ing s we e te r to hi m by f ar t han t he dr ippi ng of hone y.” 45 E l l i ot do es n’t e ven re a l ize t hat he’s b e e n c onsu me d by e xce ssive, v i ol e nt ange r. When Mr. R ob ot rem i nds hi m t hat “t his us e d to b e ab out s av i ng t he worl d. You're ma k ing it to o p e rs ona l. You ' re ma k i ng t his ab out w hat t he y di d to Angel a . You ' re lett ing you r fe el i ng s cl ou d you r ju dg me nt,” E l l i ot re pl i e s: “We let t h is go, it' l l b e b a ck to bus i ne ss as usu a l for Wh ite ro s e and he r f r i e nds. T he more she gets aw ay w it h t his , t he wors e t his ge ts. S o f uck my fe el i ng s. I'm done w it h t he t he r apy s e ss i ons . T his is a l l I ' m fo c us e d on.” 46 He on ly b eg ins to re cog nize h is monst rous t r ans for mat i on af te r Ol iv i a ( an “E C or p” employe e t hat he d ate s for a fe w d ay s ) , sl it s he r w r ists i n re sp ons e to a r ut h less d e cept ion . Ne ver t hel ess , b ot h he ro e s f i nd mome nt s of re st r ai nt. Ach i l l e s che cks h is χόλο ς f irst by organ i z i ng Pat ro clus’ f u ne r a l, w hi ch l e ts h i m re conci l e w it h s o ciet y, and t hen by a c c e pt i ng Pr i am’s r ans om for He c tor’s b o dy, w h i ch a l l ows h im to g ive Pr i am and t he Troj ans a s e ns e of cl o sure i n mour ni ng and a ls o to f ind s ol a ce for h ims el f. In a ddit i on to t he i r mate r i a l v a lue, Pr i am’s δ ῶρ α , … 42 43 44 45 46
Redfield (1975), 104 Weil (1957), 18 Weil (1957), 18 Latimore (2011), Il. 18.107-10 S04 E01
τά … θ υ μὸν ἰ ήν ῃ 4 7 (“g i f t s , … w hi ch … s of te n his ange r” 48 ) are more pre ci ous t han Agamem non’s b e c aus e of t he i r s i nc e re s y mb ol i c v a lue. Whe n Ach i l l e s f inds it in h is he ar t to a c c e pt t he r ans om, he l e t s go of h is div i ne ange r and let s h ims elf he a l. T he l ast i mage of hi m is “ b e s i de Br is e is ( 2 4 .6 7 6 ) , t hus br ing ing to an end h is p e rs iste nt i ns omn i a at t he b e g i nni ng of B o ok 2 4 and restor ing h is rel at ionship w it h t he one w ho w as t he fo c us of st r i fe i n t he f i rst pl ace.” 4 9 Even t hou g h Achi l l e s’ p e a c e f u l l i fe is te mp orar y, and he is f ate d to die in b att le, he has fol l owe d his f at he r’s a dv i c e, 50 and he ge nui nely mour ns w it h Pr i am : τὼ δ ὲ μν ησ α μέ ν ω ὃ μ ὲ ν Ἕκτο ρ ο ς ἀν δρ ο φ όν ο ι ο κ λαῖ᾽ ἁ δ ιν ὰ πρ οπ άρ ο ι θ ε π ο δ ῶν Ἀχι λῆ ο ς ἐ λυ σ θ εί ς, αὐτὰρ Ἀχι λ λ ε ὺ ς κ λα ῖ ε ν ἑ ὸν π ατέρ ᾽ , ἄ λ λοτε δ ᾽ αὖτε Πάτρ οκ λον. 5 1 ...and t he t wo rememb e re d, as Pr i am s at hu dd l e d at t he fe et of Ach i l l eus and we pt cl o s e for mansl aug hte r i ng Hektor and Ach i l l eus wept now for his ow n f at he r, now ag ai n for Pat rok l os . 5 2 By t he end of t he p o e m , Achi l l e s re tu r ns “to his b e st s el f, one of cour te sy and generos it y const ant ly a l lu de d to i n his b ehav i or b e fore ἔρ ι ς disr upte d h is l i fe and c aus e d t he ‘d est r u c t ive w r at h’, to a t i me w he n he rans ome d pr is one rs and bu r ie d e ven enemy k i ng s w it h f u l l honors ( 6 . 4 1 7 -4 1 9 ) .” 53 E l liot und ergo es a s imi l ar t r ans for mat i on , f i rst w he n he de ac t iv ate s Wh iteros e’s ma ch ine, and t he n w he n he g ive s c ont rol b ack to t he re a l E l l i ot. Even t hou g h h is rel at i onship w it h his f at he r is p ar t of t he re as on for h is s el f hat re d and d r ive for v i ol e nc e, his mome nt of he a l i ng re s e mbl e s Ach i l l e s’ i n t hat he f inds it by emp at hi z i ng w it h his e ne my and by re co g ni z i ng t he l ove ot hers have for h im . Just as Pel e us l ove s his s on , D arl e ne l ove s he r brot he r. In t wo “t r u ly he ar t- bre a k i ng [ e xe r t i ons ] of t he p owe rs of ge ne ro sit y,” E l l i ot ack now l e d ges t hat he de s e r ve s l ove, t hat White ro s e has a lways b e e n just as lonely and in p ain as he hi ms el f, and t hat he ne e ds to l e t t he re a l E l l i ot live h is life. 5 4 T he re a l E l l i ot c re ate d t he Maste r m i nd to s ave t he worl d, and t hat’s exa c t ly w hat he a c c ompl ishe d. L i ke Achi l l e s, E l l i ot l e ts go of h is ange r, foregoing h is d iv in it y and a c c e pt i ng t he l i fe of a man.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
Il. 24.112-9 Lattimore (2011), Il. 24.112-9 Race (2014), 721-2 See footnote 2 Il. 24.509-12 Lattimore (2011), Il. 24.509-12 Race (2014), 722 Weil (1957), 22
BIBLIOGRAPHY S . E s mai l, Mr. R ob ot (2 0 1 5 -2 0 1 9 ) D.C. Fe ene y, T he G o ds i n Epi c , ( Ox ford, 1 9 9 1 ) C h. 1 Homer, Ili a d R . L att imore, T he Ili a d of Home r ( C hi c ago, 2 0 1 1 ) G . L e db etter, “Ach i l l es’ S el f - Addre ss”, Ame r i c an Jou r na l of Ph i l ol o g y 1 1 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , 481-491 A. Par r y, “L angu age and C har a c te r i z at i on i n Home r”, Har v ard Studi e s i n C l assi c a l Ph i lolo g y 7 6 (1 9 7 2 ), 1 - 2 2 W. H. R ace, “Ach i l l es ' ϰυ̑ δ ο ς i n ‘I l i a d’ 2 4 ”, Mne mo s y ne 6 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) , 7 0 7 -7 2 4 J. R e df ield, Natu re and Cu ltu re i n t he I l i a d ( C hi c ago, 1 9 7 5 ) , 3 -3 0 ; 9 9 -1 2 7 S . Wei l ( t r ans . M. McC ar t hy ) , “ T he I l i a d, or t he Po e m of Force”, C h i c ago R e v i e w 1 8 (19 65) , 5-3 0
AX IA L V I SI ON S : A P P ROAC H E S TO S TAT E S I N A M M IA N U S’ R E S G E S TA E A N D AU G U S T I N E’ S C I T Y OF G OD
Tobias Paters on
R .A. Markus b egan h is work , S a e c u lu m , w it h a c omp ar is on b e t we e n Am m i anus Marcel linus , Au gust ine, and O ro s ius . Au g ust i ne di f fere nt i ate d h i ms el f f rom Ammi anus by ma k ing it cl e ar t hat he wou l d not w r ite a h istor y of e ve nts; t hat k i nd of h istor y was t he pres er ve of ‘p ag ans’. 1 Markus us e d t h is p oi nt of de p ar ture as a me ans for invest igat ing w hat C hr ist i ans , and sp e c i f i c a l ly Aug ust i ne, di d t h i n k ab out histor y in t he fou r t h and f i f t h c e ntu r y. 2 T he pu r p o s e of t h is e ss ay is to t a ke anot he r p oint of dif ference b et we e n Amm i anus and Au g ust i ne and to i nve st i g ate w hat si g nif ic ance it has on t he i r ow n c onc e ptu a l is at i ons of t he l ate R oman Empi re. Ammi anus' h istor y p os it s t hat c e r t ai n g roup s do not de si re p e ace and t hus have no b as is for for m ing a st ate. By c ont r ast , Au g ust i ne pre s e nts t h is as a natura l i nst i nc t i n a l l of G o d' s cre at ion. T h is di f fe re nc e c an a ls o b e v i e we d i n l i g ht of a de vel opme nt of t he Ax i a l Age: t he int ro du c t i on of mu nd ane and t r ans ce nde nt a l pl ane s of e x iste nce. T his is to s ay t hat t here w as an i nc re as i ng phi l o s ophic a l e mphasis pl ace d on t he s e p arat ion b et we en an e ar t h ly and a hi g he r, or he ave n ly, re a l m . Aug ust i ne’s work c an b e v ie we d as a pro du c t of t his c u ltu r a l f r ame work and how t h is op e ne d up ne w p oss ibi lit i es for t he cr it i qu e of p ol it i c a l i nst itut i ons . I. Anci ent an d Mo d er n Appro a c h e s Ammi anus was a s ol d ier tu r ne d s chol ar, b or n i n t he e arly four t h ce ntur y i n Sy r i a. It is t houg ht t hat h is nat ive l ang u age w as Gre ek t hou g h he w rote i n L at i n. Af te r work ing as a s old ier, most not ably u nde r t he E mp e ror Ju l i an, he w rote h is h istor y i n R ome in t he 3 8 0 s . T h is a c c ou nt de t ai l e d e ve nt s f rom t he acce ssi on of Ne r v a to t he d e at h of Va l ens at Ad r i anopl e i n 3 7 8 . Au g ust i ne’s bi og raphy di f fe rs i n many way s. He w as b or n in T hagaste, p ar t of t he prov i nc e of Nu m i di a, i n 3 5 4 . Aug ust i ne cre ate d an i nt r ig u ing l iter ar y p ers ona , mo st not ably i n his C on fe ssi ons ( c.3 9 7 ) , w h i ch pur p or ts to g ive an a ccou nt of h is c onve rs i on to C at hol i c is m . In 4 2 6 he compl e te d D e civ it ate D ei cont ra p aganos (O n t he C it y of G o d ag ai nst t he Pag ans) , h is mo st e x te nsive and i mp or t ant work . Au gust i ne ha d a l re a dy c ons i de re d t he i mpl i c at i ons of t he i ncre asi ng f r ag i lit y of t he R oman E mpi re and it s rel at i onship to C h r ist i anit y i n h is S e r mon on t he Sack of R ome (c.4 1 0 ) . Au g ust i ne us e d t he C it y of G o d to not on ly de fe nd C h r ist i anit y f rom cr it icis ms c onc e r n i ng t he re c e nt s a ck of R ome, but a ls o to cr it i cis e any p o ss ible con ne c t ions b e t we e n R ome’s su c c e ss and t he worsh ip of p ag an go ds. In t he s e cond ha lf of t he work ( B o ok s X I - X X I I ) he dis c uss e d t he dist i nc t i on b e t we e n t he E ar t h ly C it y and t he C it y of G o d. S o far I have on ly d es cr ib e d t he nar row histor i c a l c onte x t of t he s e t wo aut hors. The pur p os e of t h is ess ay is a ls o to c ons i de r w hat c an b e gai ne d by e x am i ni ng t he i r 1 pp.1-2. 2
Markus, R.A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine (Cambridge, 1970), Ibid, p.3
dif fere nces in l ig ht of t he ‘Ax i a l Age’. T he Ax i a l Age is a ph ras e us e d by Karl Jasp ers in h is 1 9 4 9 work , T he Or i g i n and G o a l of Histor y. 3 The ph ras e or ig ina l ly was i nte nde d to de s c r ib e t he c u ltura l h istor y of t he f i rst mi l lenniu m B C , howe ve r, it s i ns i g ht s are us e f u l i f appl i e d to succe ssive p er io ds of h istor y. 4 What are t he s e i ns i g ht s ? Mo st cr uci a l is t he s e p arat i on b et we en a t r ans cend e nt a l and a mu nd ane sphe re i n t he t houg ht of ph i lo s ophers and t h i n ke rs du r i ng t his p e r i o d. 5 R el i g i ous ph i l o s ophe rs w it h in t hes e s o ciet ies we re i n t he pro c e ss of for mu l at i ng an unde rst andi ng of how hu man h istor y w as te mp or a l and p ar t of a w i de r unive rs a l h istor y. 6 For ex ample, in t he Gre ek worl d, Pl ato i nt ro du c e d a s e p arat i on b e t we e n a world of for ms and a worl d of mate r i a l e x iste nc e. S o ci a l rel at i ons and concept ions of agenc y we re a ls o change d by t his . 7 D ur i ng t he Ax i a l Age t here were changes in s o c i e t i e s , and i n t he i r c o s mol o g i c a l and ontol o g i c a l t he or ie s , mo d if y ing t he w ay p ar t s of s o c i e t i e s t houg ht and conce ptu a l is e d t hems elves . T hes e change s happ e ne d i n s o c i e t i e s acro ss Eurasi a. For our pur p os es , t he emerge nc e of a di f fe re nt i at i on b e t we e n t rans ce nde nt a l and mund ane worlds , a long w it h it s rel at i onship to i mp e r i a l for ms of p ol it i c a l org anis at ion , w i l l b e us e d i n an e x ami nat i on of Am m i anus and Aug ust i ne. Au gust ine and Am m i anus c an b e stu di e d w it hi n t h is f rame work b e c aus e b ot h were in f lu ence d by Pl aton i c i de as , a p ar t of t he Ax i a l Age’s de vel opme nts, t houg h t he y d re w d if fe re nt c onclus i ons f rom t he m. Th is, I arg ue, is b e c aus e Au gust ine' s inter pret at i on is t he ol o g i c a l ly C hr ist i an. The us e of t h is c u ltura l and g lob a l h istor ic a l p ar a di g m is us e f u l b e c aus e t he s e rel i g i ous di f fe re nce s u nder pin t he ones in t he i r t he or i e s of t he st ate. 8 II. Am mi anus an d Au g u sti n e on t h e St ate B ot h aut hors w rote, i n s ome w ay, ab out t he di f fe re nt for ms of t he st ate. When I s ay ‘st ate’ I am us i ng t he word i n it s archai c s e ns e, t hat is to s ay t he p olit ic a l organis at i on of c ommu n it i e s . 9 B ot h w rote i nf lue nce d by t he t radit ion of Pl ato, Ar istot l e, and S o c r ate s . What conce r ns us he re is how Ammi anus and Au gust i ne de f i ne w ho c an org an is e t he i r com munit y around a desire for p e a ce. Au g ust i ne and Amm i anus di f fer, u lt i mately, b e c aus e Au gust ine' s v is ion of t he st ate w as i n for me d by his rel i g i ous v i e ws: cr uci a l ly, t he y shap e d h is u nd e rst andi ng of t he natu re of man k i nd. 3 Wittrock, B. ‘The Axial Age in Global History: Cultural Crystallizations and Societal Transformations’ in R.N. Bellah and H.Joas ed. The Axial Age and its Consequences (Cambridge MA, 2012), pp.108-9; see criticisms in Tsonis, J. 'Review: The Axial Age and Its Consequences (ed. H. Joas 4 See Brown, P. ‘Society and the Supernatural: A Medieval Change’, Daedalus 104/2 (1975), p.147, for his consideration of the sharpening of the divide between sacred and profane in the twelfth century AD. 5 Wittrock, ‘The Axial Age in Global History’, p.108. 6 Ibid, p.108; c.f. Eisenstadt, S.N. ‘The Axial Conundrum between Transcendental Visions and Vicissitudes of Their Institutionalizations: Constructive and Destructive Possibilities’, in R.N. Bellah and H.Joas ed. The Axial Age and its Consequences (Cambridge MA, 2012), p.207. 7 Wittrock, ‘The Axial Age in Global History’, p.109. 8 For general discussion of influence of the Axial Age and possible effects of religion on political structure see, Strathern, A. Unearthly Powers: Religious and Political Change in World History (Cambridge, 2019). 9 Or as Mitteis has argued, the pre-modern state is built around an ‘association of persons’, Mitteis, H. The State in the Middle Ages (Elsevier, 1953; Eng. trans. 1975), p.5.
Ammi anus w rote h istor y i n an a l mo st e t hno g r aph i c way. Am m i anus pre s e nts h is ob s er v at ions as indu c t ive, dr aw i ng c onclus i ons f rom i n de pt h de s cr ipt i ons of s o ciet ies . T h is cont r ast s w it h Au g ust i ne ' s e f for ts i n t he Cit y of G o d, w h i ch works in t he invers e w ay, as it b e g i ns w it h phi l o s oph i c a l i nqui r y and t he n demonst r ates h is arg u me nt s t hrou g h histor i c a l e x ampl e s t hat subst ant i ate and expl ore ph i los ophi c a l arg u me nt s . Am m i anus de s cr ib e s t he Ha l ani as not desir ing p e a ce. T h is de s c r ipt i on t a ke s pl a c e i n t he conte x t of t he cr isis of t he 370s , in w h ich t he ar my u nde r Va l e ns f a c e d t he probl e m of de a l i ng w it h t he G ot hs d r iven f rom t he i r l ands by t he Ha l an i and t he A l ans: Just as qu iet and p e a c e f u l me n f i nd pl e asu re i n re st, s o t he Ha l ani del i g ht in d anger and war f are. T he re t he man is ju dge d happy w ho has s acr i f i ce d h is life in b att le, w h i l e t ho s e w ho g row ol d and de p ar t f rom t he worl d by a natura l d e at h t he y ass ai l w it h bitte r re pro a che s , as de ge ne rate and coward ly ; and t here is not h ing i n w hi ch t he y t a ke more pr i de t han i n k i l l i ng any man w hate ver : as g l or ious sp oi ls of t he sl ai n t he y te ar of f t he i r he ads, t he n st r ip of f t heir sk ins and hang t he m up on t he i r w ar-hors e s as t rappi ng s. ( Ammi anus , 3 1 .2 .2 2 , t r. J. C . R ol fe ) 10 In t h is way, Am m i anus s e t s t he Ha l an i ap ar t i n how v i ol e nt t he y are, de f i ne d by t hei r inabi lit y to re st ; t he b as is of s o c i e t y w as b el i e ve d to b e i n s e tt l e me nts and const r u c t ion . T h is is supp or te d by t he i r ge ne ra l l ack of i nf rast r uc ture and t he b as is for a st ate : t he y di d not have any roy a l re st rai nt - as t he y consu lte d as a g roup - t he y ha d no rel i g i on as i de f rom t he worsh ip of a war go d, and t he on ly cr ite r i on to el e c t chi e f s w as e x p e r i e nce i n war. 11 Am m i anus charac ter is es t h is as a s o c i e t y w hi ch l a ck s any k i nd of h i e rarchy and t hus any org anis ing pr incipl e as i de f rom u nc ont rol l e d de s i re to conque r and f i g ht. His a l lus ion to t he t re at me nt of t he el de rly is p ar t i c u l arly of note, si nce it cont rasts w it h h is f amous de s c r ipt i on of R ome i n B o ok XIV. In t hat s e c t i on, Ammi anus ut i l is es age as a me t aphor for t he de s c r ipt i on of t he R oman Empire: R ome, t hen i n he r ol d age, w as p e a c e f u l and t h is shou l d have b e e n admire d. 1 2 T he age and w hite hai r of he r s e nators is a sy mb ol of re sp e c t; ag ing br ings on w h ite hai r, s y mb ol i c of auste r it y and re st rai nt. 13 Ta k i ng t he s e t wo p ass ages toget he r, we c an s e e t hat Amm i anus conce ive d of t he succe ssf u l and prop er st ate as bu i lt up on a pr i nc ipl e of p e a c e w h i ch orde re d t he v ar i ous p ar t s of t he st ate. Su ch pr i nc ipl e s and orde r i ng are abs e nt i n h is de s cr ipt i on of t he Ha l an i. T herefore, b e yond t he b orde rs , it app e ars Am m i anus b el i e ve d t hes e s o ciet ies inc ap abl e of appre c i at i ng a t r u e s e ns e of t he com mon go o d. T he context to t hes e b el i e f s is i mp or t ant . T he dist i nc t i on i n Grae co -R oman t houg ht b et we en t hes e u lt r a - s av age p e opl e s and t he ms elve s is pre di c ate d 10 Ammianus Marcellinus, History, Volume III: Books 27-31. Excerpta Valesiana tr.J. C. Rolfe. (Cambridge, MA, 1939), 31.2.22. 11 Ibid, 31.2.7,23,25. 12 Ammianus Marcellinus, History, Volume I: Books 14-19. tr. J. C. Rolfe (Cambridge, MA, 1950), 14.6.4 13 Ibid, 14.6.6.
up on d if ferent e conom i c s y ste ms - one s e de nt ar y, t he ot he r nomadi c. 14 Wh i lst t he f irst Gre ek to c onc e r n hi ms el f w it h de s cr ibi ng t he s e s o ci e t i e s was He ro d otus , it was Ar istot l e w ho for mu l ate d t h is i nto a dis cours e. From his p ersp e c t ive, t he s e de nt ar y s o c i e t y us e s pro duc t ive l ab our and t he noma d ic us es non -pro du c t ive. 15 T he noma di c s o ci e t y is cons e que nt ly s er v i le to natu re as t he y c an not e xe r t forc e up on t he l and. 16 For Am m i anus, as many b efore h im b el i e ve d, r a c e w as t he pro du c t of t he e nv i ronme nt. 17 More over, Am m i anus’ Ha l an i are re pre s e nte d as sl ave s to t he i r ow n i mpu ls e s; t he y are cons istent ly pre s e nte d as hav i ng no c ont rol, e ve n l ack i ng m i l it ar y dis cipl ine. 1 8 C ons e qu e nt ly, t he y not on ly l a cke d a de si re for p e ace, but t he y did not e ven have t he dis c ipl i ne to c re ate e f fe c t ive i nst itut i ona l st r uc ture s and to t a ke t he a c t ions ne c e ss ar y for a st ate. How do es Au gust ine di f fe r on t he s e p oi nt s ? Cr u c i a l to Aug ust i ne’s t he ol o g y is a s ens e of u nivers a l just i c e t hat ste ms f rom G o d. 19 Th is c an on ly b e f u l ly att aine d in G o d and i n his Cit y. T his u n ive rs a l is m , as wel l as t he i mp or t ance of t he s ep ar at ion b et we e n not i ons of t he e ar t h ly and he ave n ly, is i mp or t ant i n t h is comp ar is on. Au g ust i ne dis c uss e s t he i mp or t ance of t he e nd of p e ace and just ice in b ot h t he mu nd ane and go d ly c it i e s i n t he ni ne te e nt h b o ok of h is Cit y of G o d. He a ls o e st abl ishe s t hat a l l p e opl e s s e ek p e ace : But let us imag ine a man su ch as e pi c and my t hi c a l p o e t r y de s cr ib e, one s o u ns o ci able and w i l d t hat t he y have p e rhaps pre fe r re d to c a l l h i m a s e m i -man rat her t han a man. A lt hou g h, t he n , his k i ngdom w as t he s ol itude of a disma l c ave, and a lt hou g h he hi ms el f w as s o e xc e e di ng ly b ad t hat h is name de r ive d f rom it [t he Gre ek for “ b a d” is k a ko s , and C a c us was h is name ]... as t he p o e t s ays , a l l t hat he d es ire d w as p e a c e u n mol e ste d by any, a p e ace w ho s e c a l m was u nt rouble d by any man’s v i ol e nc e or t he fe ar of it. In a word, he l onge d to b e at p e a ce w it h h is ow n b o dy ; and s o f ar as he succe e de d i n t h is, a l l was wel l w it h h im . His l imb s ob e ye d his c om mands ; and i n orde r to p aci f y w it h a l l p oss ibl e sp e e d h is mor t a l natu re w he n it reb el le d ag ai nst h i m t h roug h its imp over ish ment, and i nc ite d hu nge r to w age a c iv i l war t hat ai me d to s e ve r and ej e c t h is s ou l f rom his b o dy, he r av ishe d, sl e w and de voure d… How much more is a man move d by t he l aw s of his natu re, s o to sp e a k, to e nte r up on a fel lowsh ip w it h a l l h is fel l ow me n , and to mai nt ain p e ace w it h t he m , s o f ar as he c an, s ince e ven w i cke d me n w age w ar to prote c t t he p e ace of t he i r ow n fel lows , and wou l d ma ke a l l me n t he i r ow n , i f t he y cou l d, s o t hat a l l me n and a l l t h ings m ig ht s e r ve one maste r. And how c ou l d t hat b e, un l e ss t he y accepte d h is p e a ce eit he r t hrou g h l ove or t hrou g h fe ar? S o pr i de is a p e r ve rs e imit at ion of G o d. For it abhors a s o c i e t y of p e e rs unde r G o d, but s e eks to 14 Shaw, B. Rulers, Nomads, and Christians in Roman North Africa (London,1995), p.6. 15 Ibid, p.17. 16 Ibid, p.18. 17 Weisweiler, J. ‘From Empire to World State’ in M. Lavan, R.E. Payne, and J.Weisweiler Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (Oxford, 2016), p.202. 18 Ammianus, 31.2.8. 19 Augustine, Confessions, tr. Henry Chadwick (Oxford, 1991), III.vii
imp o s e its ow n r u le, i nste a d of his , on s o c i e t y. In ot he r words, it abhors t he just p e a ce of G o d, and l ove s it s ow n u njust p e a c e ; but p e ace, of s ome k i nd or ot her, it c an not help l ov i ng . For no c re atu re’s v i c e is s o compl e tely at o dds w it h natu re t hat it d e st roy s t he ve r y l ast t r a c e s of nature. ( Aug ust i ne, XIX.1 2 , t r. W.C. Gre en) 2 0 Ever y man c an l ong for p e a c e i n Au g ust i ne’s phi l os ophy b e c aus e e ve r y man longs for p e a ce in h is ow n b o dy. Au g ust i ne c ont i nue s h is arg ume nt t hat ac t ions t a ken in war are a ls o de s i g ne d to e nsu re p e ace. S o e ve n t he s av age, u nciv i l is e d b ar b ar i an c an de s i re it . Au g ust i ne t a ke s t he Pl atoni c conce pt i on of t he just ice of t he Cit y as m i r ror i ng t he b a l anc e and just i ce of t he s ou l, and he us es t h is s o as to prove t hat t his is t he pu r p o s e of a l l b e i ng s. 21 Th is stems f rom t he pro of Au g ust i ne e st abl ishe d i n B o ok XIV i n w h i ch he s ay s t hat man , p ost- Fa l l, is u nabl e to c ont rol his w i l l and b o dy ; b o dy, s ou l, and w i l l are u nb a l ance d. 22 T he t r ans c e nde nt a l pl ane Aug ust i ne e nv isi ons re qui re s a re cons id er at ion of s o c i a l org an is at i on and de f i nit i on i n t he mund ane. If t he R oman E mpire d id not g u ar ante e just i c e and p e a c e i nde f i nitely t he n t he re must b e s omet h ing h i g he r and more u n ive rs a l t hat c an b e obt ai ne d, and it shou ld b e obt aine d by a l l. 23 T hat a l l have a d es ire for p e a c e and just i c e is e st abl ishe d by Aug ust i ne, a long w it h an argu me nt t hat re j e c t s t he i de a t hat p e ace and just i ce are p oss ibl e in t h is worl d. T his ma ke s t he subve rs ive cl ai m t hat t he R oman st ate is not b as e d on a not i on of just i c e, and it i nvolve s a di re c t rebutt a l of Cicero’s u nd erst and ing of t he re s publ i c a . Ci c e ro’s de f i nit i on for it was: t he ‘mu lt itu d e j oine d toge t he r by one c ons e nt of l aw and t he i r com mon go o d’. Au gust ine ma kes just i c e a re qu i re me nt of t he l aw, and he t houg ht i n t he abs ence of just ice on E ar t h t he re w as a ls o no l aw. 24 A t r ue re s publ i c a is not p oss ibl e in t h is worl d. 25 T he re are ot he r i mp or t ant consi de rat i ons to b e made ab out Au gust ine’s rebutt a l of C i c e ro. Ci c e ro’s st ate me nt on t he re s publ i c a is supp os e d to come f rom a dre am of S c ipi o’s , c omi ng af te r t he dis c ussi on w it h King Mas in iss a ab out t he re publ i c . 26 T he t r a dit i ona l v i e w of t he re publ i c as u niqu e by comp ar is on w it h t he b ar b ar i an k i ngdom is t hus e st abl ishe d. Howe ver, Au gust ine’s e nt i re me ss age is t hat R ome has no g re ate r cl ai m to just ice t han any ot he r st ate or e mpi re. If we re tu r n to t he p ass age ab ove we 20 Augustine. City of God, Volume VI: Books 18.36-20. tr. William Chase Greene (Cambridge, MA, 1960), XIX.12. 21 Ibid, XIX.13, in the Heavenly City all parts will be ordered and in perfect harmonious relationship with God. 22 Augustine. City of God, Volume IV: Books 12-15. Tr. Philip Levine (Cambridge, MA, 1966), XIV.15, cf. Leyser, C. and Cooper, K. ‘The Gender of Grace: Impotence, Servitude, and Manliness in the Fifth‐Century West’, Gender and History 12/3 (2000), p.542, for further discussion on these points. 23 Augustine, City of God, XIX.21, Rome never guaranteed justice. Augustine, Confessions, III.vii, not only is God’s law ‘unaltered everywhere and always’, man cannot harmonize the different customs and values of different and past societies. 24 Markus, Saeculum, discussing City of God, XIX. 21.1, p.64. 25 Ibid, p.65. 26 Cicero, The Republic and Laws, tr. N. Rudd (Oxford, 1998), Rep. 6.9-10.
c an add to Markus’ ana ly s is on t his p oi nt . Au g ust i ne re marks t hat a l l st ate s f ig ht and exp and in orde r to e nsu re p e a c e. In Ci c e ro’s work, t h is is w hy t he ‘supreme go d’ in S cipi o’s dre am re w ards hi m . 27 Howe ve r, Aug ust i ne st ate s t hat pres er v at ion of t he commu n it y is w hat e ve r y st ate ai ms for, and t r ue p e ace is on ly f u lf i l l e d in he ave n . His c omme nt s are t he re fore h i g h ly subve rsive i n t hat t he y we a ken any sp e c i a l cl ai m to just i c e t hat R ome m i g ht have made. But August ine a ls o a d ds i n t he ab ove p ass age w hy t r ue p e ace and just i ce is not p oss ibl e in t h is worl d: it re qu i re s submiss i on to anot he r maste r as ide f rom G o d, and t his e nc ou r age s pr i de i n me n and i m it at i ons of G o d. Au gust ine t hus d ep ar t s f rom t r a dit i ona l Gre c o - R oman t houg ht ag ai n: just i ce and p e a ce are d es ire d by a l l, but c an not b e a chi e ve d by any on t h is E ar t h . III. Th e Roman E mpi re i n L ate Anti qu ity Ammi anus and Au gust i ne dive rge on t he p oi nt of w ho c an de si re p e ace and just ice and w hy man de s i re s t he s e t hi ng s . What is t he i mp or t ance of t h is to t he de vel opment of t he R oman E mpi re i n t he fou r t h and f i f t h ce ntur i e s? How do es t his conne c t w it h t he de vel opme nt s of t he Ax i a l Age ? Joh n Weis wei l er argu e s t hat t he R oman E mpi re i n t he four t h and f i f t h centu r ies b egan to org an is e it s el f as a more u n ive rs a l ist i nst itut i on. Inste ad of repres ent ing and f a c i l it at i ng t he ‘mi n i - re publ i c s’ t hat comp o s e d Gre e ce and As i a Minor, a s y ste m w hi ch supp or te d pu rely ar isto crat i c r u l e, t he emp eror and t he empi re c ame to re pre s e nt a l l t he i n habit ants. 28 Th is c ame in p ar t du e to t he d ive rs i f i c at i on of i mp e r i a l i nst itut i ons: Naz ar ius, i n 3 2 1 , as a cons e qu ence of C onst ant i ne’s re for ms , c ou l d charac te r is e t he S e nate as a ‘t rans - reg iona l g roup’. 29 T he i mp e r i a l mo del of a p ol it i c a l core i n R ome and It a ly, su r rou nd e d by a p e r iphe r y, w as b e c om i ng l e ss i nf lue nt i a l. The emphas is on incor p or at i on of dive rs it y mi g ht b e consi de re d to b e a p ar t of a long u e du ré e (a l ong p e r i o d of t i me du r i ng w hi ch s o ci a l pro ce ss e s and st r u c tu res change) pro c e ss w hi ch b e g an w it h C ar ac a l l a’s 2 1 2 e di c t t hat g rante d cit iz ensh ip w it hi n t he e mpi re and D e c ius’ e f for t to e nforce or t ho dox y in c u lt pr a c t ice a cross t he e mpi re i n 2 4 9 . In t his e volve d e mpi re t he e mp e ror was supp os e d to t r ans c e nd ge o g r aphi c a l, cl ass and c u ltura l di f fe re nce s; t he y reg u l ate d t he d if ferent p owe r broke rs and a c te d as t he fount of just i ce. 30 In t he or y at le ast, t he emphas is shi f te d f rom t he e mpi re supp or t i ng v a lue s t hat were d eter m ine d on a l o c a l l e vel by el ite s , to t he s e v a lue s b e i ng e nforce d f rom t he top d ow n by t he e mp e ror. T he Isr a el i s o ciol og ist Shmu el N. E is e nst a dt note s t hat s o ci a l and p ol it i c a l org anis at ion , du r ing and af te r t he Ax i a l Age, b e c ame l e ss b ound by te r r itor i a l 27 Ibid, 6.13. 28 Weisweiler, ‘From Empire to World State’, p.193, 199. 29 Ibid, pp.206-7. 30 Weisweiler, J. 'Populist Despotism and Infrastructural Power in the Later Roman Empire', in C.Ando and S. Richardson (eds.), Infrastructural and Despotic Power in Ancient States, Empire and After, (Philadelphia 2017), p.152, 164, 166.
or k insh ip u n its and f r ame work s . 31 T he c ons e qu e nce of re org anis at i on was of ten exp ans ion . 32 T his arg u me nt shou l d not b e t a ke n to o f ar - t he inst itut iona lizat ion of Ax i a l v is i ons t hat E is e nst a dt de s cr ib e s was a lway s incompl ete or d iverge nt f rom t he or i g i na l t he ore t i c a l v isi on. 33 What is interest ing ab out Au g ust i ne’s ‘v is i on’ is t hat its ax i a l nature de ni e s t he u n ivers a l it y of t he R oman st ate, c ont r ar y to how Eis e nst adt arg ue d ph i lo s oph ic a l d e velopme nt s and t he i r prop one nt s wou l d i nte rac t w it h an ex p anding and cent r a l is i ng st ate. 34 T hou g h Au g ust i ne b el i e ve d t hat e mp e rors cou ld b e ju d ge d by a C hr ist i an st and ard, and shou l d ad he re to G o d’s just i ce, t h is cou l d ne ver b e f u l ly a chi e ve d. As su ch, t he e mpi re was made disp e ns abl e in Aug ust ine’s t he ol o g y. 35 His c r it i qu e is a l l t he more re markabl e i n t he contex t of t he im me di a c y of t he R oman E mpi re to Aug ust i ne. Af te r 4 1 0 , R oman ar isto cr ats we re c ommon i n Nor t h Af r i c a and Aug ust i ne was i n commu n ic at ion w it h i mp e r i a l of f i c i a ls . 36 Au g ust i ne wou l d have unde rsto o d t he imp or t ance of app e a l i ng to t he u n ive rs a l st and ards of t he e mpi re, for b ot h subj e c t s and r u l ers of t he e mpi re, and t he s i g n i f i c ance of t he col l aps e of t he div ision of core and p e r iphe r y. 37 Howe ve r, Au g ust i ne’s p o sit i on on t he e mpi re ag re es w it h h is st ance on e ar t h ly matte rs more ge ne ra l ly. Aug ust i ne att acke d t he elit ist C h r ist i ans w ho cl ai me d to b e abl e to f u l ly unde rst and G o d i n t h is world. 3 8 T he e vents of t he 4 1 0 s and t he 4 2 0 s sho ok h is worl dv i e w to t he core ; t he cor r upt ion of memb e rs of t he cl e rg y c onv i nc e d h i m of t he fol ly of worl d ly p owe r. 3 9 No inst itut ion , not e ve n t he chu rch, c ou l d cl ai m to b e t r u ly just or wor t hy of el e c t ion to G o d’s worl d. In t his worl d t he church is on ly a sy mb ol p oint ing towards t he t r u e C hu rch - on ly af te r t he s ae c u lum cou l d we t r u ly k now w ho w i l l re ceive G o d’s g r a c e. 40 By cont r ast, Am m i anus’ c onc e pt i on of t he st ate - ro ote d i n t he dist i nc t i on b et we en p e oples t hat are c re ate d by t he e nv i ron me nt - is unwave r i ng i n its ass ess ment of t he ne c e ss it y of t he e mpi re, de spite t he f ac t t hat h is conce pt i on of empire was outd ate d by t he l ate 4 t h c e ntu r y. For Am m i anus, t he issue was 31 Eisenstadt, ‘The Axial Conundrum’, pp.278-9. 32 Ibid, p.284. 33 Ibid, p.285. 34 Ibid, p.291; arguably these ‘tensions’ always existed within the Axial Age developments, see Schmidt-Hofner, S. ‘Plato and the Theodosian Code’, Early Medieval Europe 27/1 (2019), pp.3560 on how Plato’s Laws came to be read in the 5th century as a text advocating a higher justice which should be used to judge and restrain monarchs . 35 Augustine, Sermon on the Sack of Rome, tr. M. O’Reilly (Washington, DC 1955), 8, c.f. T.S. De Bruyn, 'Ambivalence Within a "Totalizing Discourse": Augustine's Sermons on the Sack of Rome', Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1/4, (1993), p.406, the point is to push aside anything secular and pagan. 36 McLynn, N.B. ‘Augustine’s Roman Empire’, Augustinian Studies 30/2 (1999), p.34, 44. 37 Shaw, B.D. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine (Cambridge, 2011), that after all was the lesson of the Antinonus affair, p.404. 38 Leyser, C. Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000), p.7. 39 Ibid, pp.19-20. 40 Markus, Saeculum, p.179.
t hat p e opl e f ai l e d to appre c i ate t he anc i e nt v a lu e s up on w h i ch it was bui lt. T he non- a xi a l v is ion w as more supp or t ive of t his e volv i ng , ce nt ra l isi ng empire. IV. C on c lusi on T he sig n if ic ance of t his c omp ar is on has b e e n t wofol d. Fi rst ly, i n e x am i ni ng t he dif ferences b et we e n Am m i anus and Au g ust i ne we c an s e e t he i mp or t ance of how t he qu est ion of w ho de s i re s p e a c e and just i ce cou l d i nf lue nce t he i r concept ions of t he st ate. S e c ond ly, by c ons i de r i ng t h is w it h i n t he g l ob a l contex t of t he af ter mat h of t he Ax i a l Age, we c an e x am i ne t he rel at i onsh ip b et we en abst r a c t and t he ore t i c a l, c re ate d by t hi n ke rs i n L ate Ant i quit y, and how t hes e in f lu ence d, or di d not i n f lu e nc e, t he s o ci a l, p ol it i c a l and e conom i c change s c aus e d by, and c aus i ng , t he de vel opme nt of t he R oman Empi re. By lo ok ing at Au gust ine we c an s e e t he ne e d for a s e r i ous consi de rat i on of how t he de vel opments of t he Ax i a l Age, t hat matu re d i n C h r ist i an t he ol o g y i n L ate Ant iqu it y, pres e nte d a s e r i ous c r it i qu e of a l l for ms of e ar t h ly p owe r. 41 T h is a ls o s er ves to d e monst r ate just how u n i qu e Aug ust i ne’s t he ol o g y was at t he t ime, a p oint Markus st re ss e d w he n dr aw i ng our atte nt i on to how many C h r ist i ans a c t ively supp or te d t he E mpi re. Su ch ob s e r v at i ons accord wel l w it h t he re cent res e arch by Profe ss or Ian Wo o d on t he de vel opme nt of a ‘temple s o ciet y ’ in t he e arly me di e v a l p e r i o d. T hat to o rel i e s up on s e e i ng t he t rans ce nd ent a l ist id e as i n C hr ist i an it y op e n i ng up t he p o ssibi l it y t hat ac t i ons c an b e t a ken outs id e of t he c omp e te nc e and sphe re of t he ce nt ra l is e d st ate. 42 T hou g h by a ls o l o ok i ng at Amm i anus , a w r ite r dr aw i ng on an Ax i a l Age t h in ker, Pl ato, we c an a ls o s e e t hat t he s e de vel opme nts di d not have to l e ad to t hes e c onclus ions .
BIBLIOGRAPHY Primar y wor ks Am m i anus Marc el l i nus , Histor y, Volu me I: B o oks 1 4 -1 9 . t r. J. C. R olfe ( C ambr id ge, M A , 1 9 5 0 ) Histor y, Volu me I I I : B o ok s 2 7 - 3 1 . E xc e r pt a Va l e si ana t r.J. C. R ol fe. ( C ambr id ge, MA , 1 9 3 9 ) Au gust ine, S e r mon on t he S a ck of R ome, t r. M. O’ R e i l ly ( Wash i ng ton, D C 195 5 ) C onfess ions , t r. He n r y C ha dw i ck ( Ox ford, 1 9 9 1 ) , C it y of G o d, Volu me I V: B o ok s 1 2 - 1 5 . Tr. Ph i l ip L e v i ne ( C ambr i dge, MA, 19 6 6 ) 41 See K. Chambers, ‘"When We Do Nothing Wrong, We Are Peers": Peter the Chanter and Twelfth-Century Political Thought’, Speculum, 88/2 (2013), p.415, on the influence of City of God, XIV.15, a passage which also critiques earthly masters for imitating God’s mastery. 42 The basis for his remarks in Prof. Ian Wood’s Hilary Term seminar series, ‘Towards a Temple Society’, given at Corpus Christi College are found in Brown, P. Through the Eye of a Needle : Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton, 2012), pp.83-4.
C it y of G o d, Volu me V I : B o ok s 1 8 . 3 6 -2 0 . t r. Wi l l i am C has e Gre e ne ( C ambr id ge, MA , 1 9 6 0 ) C icero, T he R e publ i c and L aw s , t r. N. Ru d d ( Ox ford, 1 9 9 8 ) S e c ond ar y wor ks Brow n , P. ‘S o c i e t y and t he Sup e r natu r a l : A Me di e v a l C hange’, D ae d a lus 1 0 4 / 2 (1 9 7 5 ) T h rou g h t he Eye of a Ne e d l e : We a lt h, t he Fa l l of R ome, and t he Ma k ing of C h r ist i an it y i n t he We st , 3 5 0 - 5 5 0 A D ( Pr i nce ton, 2 0 1 2 ) D e Br uy n, T.S . ' Ambiv a l e nc e Wit hi n a " Tot a l i z i ng Dis cours e ": Au gust ine' s S er mons on t he S a ck of R ome ' , Jou r na l of E arly C h r ist i an Studi e s, 1/4, ( 1 9 9 3 ) E is enst a dt, S . N. ‘ T he Ax i a l C onu ndr u m b e t we e n Trans ce nde nt a l Vis ions and Viciss itu de s of T he i r Inst itut i ona l i z at i ons: C onst r uc t ive and D est r u c t ive Poss ibi l it i e s’, i n R . N. B el l a h and H . Jo as e d. The Ax i a l Age and its C ons e qu ences (C ambr i dge M A , 2 0 1 2 ) K. C hamb ers, ‘ " Whe n We D o Not hi ng Wrong , We Are Pe e rs": Pe te r t he C hanter and Twel f t h- C e ntu r y Pol it i c a l T hou g ht’, Sp e c u lum , 8 8 / 2 ( 2 0 1 3 ) L e y s er, C . and C o op e r, K . ‘ T he G e nde r of Grace : Imp ote nce, S er v itud e, and Man l i ne ss i n t he F i f t h‐ C e ntu r y We st’, G e nde r and Histor y 1 2 / 3 ( 2000) L e y s er, C . Aut hor it y and As c e t i c is m f rom Aug ust i ne to Gre gor y t he Gre at (Oxford, 2 0 0 0 ) Markus , R .A . S a e c u lu m : Histor y and S o c i e t y i n t he The ol o g y of St Au gust ine (C ambr id ge, 1 9 7 0 ) McLy nn , N .B. ‘Au g ust i ne’s R oman E mpi re’, Aug ust i ni an Studi e s 3 0 / 2 ( 1999) S ch m idt- Hof ne r, S . ‘Pl ato and t he T he o dosi an C o de’, E arly Me di e v a l Europ e 2 7 / 1 (2 0 1 9 ) Shaw, B. Ru le rs , Noma ds , and C hr ist i ans in R oman Nor t h Af r i c a ( L ondon,1 9 9 5 ) Sa cre d Viol enc e : Af r i c an C hr ist i ans and S e c t ar i an Hat re d i n t he Age of Aug ust ine (C ambr i dge, 2 0 1 1 ) St r at her n, A . Une ar t h ly Powe rs : R el i g i ous and Pol it i c a l C hange i n World Histor y (C ambr i dge, 2 0 1 9 ) Ts on is , J. ' R e v i e w : T he Ax i a l Age and It s C ons e que nce s ( e d. H. Jo as & R . B el l a h )' , A lter nat ive Spi r itu a l it y and R el i g i on R e v i e w 3 / 2 ( 2 0 1 2 ) Weis wei ler, J. ‘From E mpi re to Worl d St ate’ i n M. L av an, R .E. Pay ne, and J.Weis wei ler C os mop ol it an is m and E mpi re : Unive rs a l Ru l e rs, L o c a l E lites , and Cu ltu r a l Inte g r at i on i n t he Anc i e nt Ne ar E ast and Me dite r rane an ( Ox ford, 2 0 1 6 ) ' Popu list D esp ot is m and In f r ast r u c tu r a l Powe r i n t he L ate r R oman Empire' , in C .And o and S . R i chards on ( e ds . ) , In f rast r uc tura l and D e sp ot i c Power in Ancient St ate s , E mpi re and Af te r, ( Phi l adelph i a 2 0 1 7 ) Witt ro ck , B. ‘ T he Ax i a l Age i n Gl ob a l Histor y : Cu ltura l Cr yst a l l izat ions and S o c i e t a l Tr ans for mat i ons’ i n R .N. B el l a h and H.Jo as e d. T he Ax i a l Age and its C ons e qu e nc e s ( C ambr i dge M A , 2 0 1 2 )
‘ON E BA D DAY ’ : T H E DE S C E N T I N TO H OR ROR I N M E DE A A N D BAT M A N : T H E K I L L I N G JOK E
Har r y D earlove Still
O f a l l t he u nsp e a k able t hi ng s t hat lu rk i n ou r l ite r ature, t ho s e de pi c te d i n Eur ipi de s’ Me de a and A l an Mo ore’s T he Ki l l i ng Joke are su rely among t he mo st disturbi ng , t he for mer a t a le of venge anc e and i n f ant i c i de, t he l atte r of v i ol e nce and i ns anit y. Me de a, a woman spu r ne d by he r for me r hus b and Jas on, k i l ls h is ne w br i de and murders her ow n ch i ld re n ; t he Joke r, a sup e r v i l l ai n out to prove a p oi nt, t r i e s to s end a man ma d by sho ot i ng his d au g hte r i n t he spi ne, t he n subj e c t i ng h i m to a t w iste d g host t r ain r ide. Wit hout doubt , t he hor ror i n t he s e works, s e p arate d t hou g h t he y are by more t han t wo mi l l e n n i a , ab ou nds. Ye t t he i r aut hors go f ur t he r t han t hat . T he y pl ay w it h ou r s y mp at hi e s , i nc it i ng pit y and disg ust for t he i r prot agonists in a lmost e qu a l me asu re. T he y tel l stor i e s i n w h i ch t he v i l l ai ns are as t rag ic as t heir v ic t ims . More t han any t hi ng , t he y d are to ask w hy one human b e i ng wou ld e ver inf lic t su ch br ut a l p ai n , and how u nde rst andi ng a p e rs on’s de s ce nt i nto hor ror, shap es ou r v ie w of t he m. C omp ar i ng t he i nters e c t i ons and dive rge nce s of t hes e p or t r ay a ls of t h is de s c e nt she ds l i g ht not on ly on an i nt r i g ui ng jux t ap o sit i on b et we en Gre ek t r age dy and t he g r aphi c novel, but on t he rel at i onsh ip b e t we e n ancient and mo d er n s o c i e t i e s . Th is rais es t he qu est ion of w hi ch ‘s o c i e t i e s’ we me an : t ho s e i n t he te x ts or t ho s e t hat pro duce d t he texts ? T he t wo t hi ng s are f ar f rom mutu a l ly e xclusive, si nce re a l worl ds of ten have a profou nd i n f lu e nc e on te x tu a l worl ds . Thus, m i r ror i ng conte mp orar y At hens, Eu r ipid es’ C or i nt h is char a c te r is e d by t he pr i ncipl e ‘not h i ng i n e xce ss’, 1 w hi le Mo ore’s G ot ham , home to t he u nc ar i ng mob ste rs i nst r ume nt a l i n t he Joke r’s or ig ins, cl os ely res embl e s t he r u ndow n me g a c it i e s of t he l ate ’8 0 s ( such as Ne w York, for inst ance, w here T he Ki l l i ng Joke w as f i rst pr i nte d) . 2 Howe ve r obv i ous it may s e em, it’s v it a l ly imp or t ant to st re ss t he l i n k b e t we e n te x tu a l worl ds and re a l worl ds, b e c aus e t h rou g h t hat l in k Eu r ipi de s and Mo ore are abl e to e x am i ne t he rol e s o ci e t y has to pl ay in t he d es ce nt i nto hor ror, b ot h i ns i de and outsi de of te x ts. Is it s o ci e t y t hat’s resp ons ibl e for cre at i ng k i l l e rs l i ke Me de a and t he Joke r, or s ome t h i ng els e ? From t he outs et of Me de a , is ol at i on re s i de s at t he he ar t of its prot agonist’s t roubl e s: b et raye d by her hus b and Jas on for t he pr i nc e ss of C or i nt h and ab out to b e e x i l e d a l ong w it h her t wo s ons f rom t he re g i on by Ki ng Cre on h i ms el f, t he unfor tunate Me de a has now here l ef t to tu r n . T he e mpt y w ishe s at t he op e ni ng of t he pl ay ( ‘If on ly t he Argo ha d ne ver s ai l e d / t hrou g h t he d ark C l ash i ng R o cks to t he l and of 1 μηδὲν ἄγαν, a concept familiar to the ancient Greeks more generally but particularly applicable to Athens, who, as Phillip Vellacott writes, ‘claimed to be the champion of the Greek way of life, and the firm opponent of barbarism and all its ways.’ — Vellacott [1963], p 8 2 In a 2015 interview, Frank Miller, fellow employee of DC Comics and author of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, published just two years before The Killing Joke, described the severity of the situation: ‘Crime was rampant and I had been mugged a few times.’
C olch is !’) 3 and at its cl o s e ( ‘Wou l d t hat I ha d ne ve r had t he m [my ch i l dre n], / ne ver s e en t hem d e a d by you r hand!’ ) 4 a c c e ntu ate t h is s e ns e of ab andonme nt; much l i ke t he Argo su r rou nde d on e it he r s i de by t he C l ash i ng R o cks, t he drama is temp or a l ly c on f i ne d at b ot h b e g i n n i ng and e nd by de si re s t hat c an ne ver b e f u l f i l l e d. T he is ol at i on of Me de a i n p ar t i c u l ar is a ls o conve ye d sp at i a l ly v i a Eu r ipid e s’ re ve a l i ng l ang u age choi c e s. In t he ve r y f i rst s ce ne, for ex ample, t he Nu rs e a l lu de s to t he bre a kdow n of Jas on and Me de a’s rel at ionsh ip as one in w hi ch a w i fe l ite r a l ly ‘st ands ap ar t’ f rom he r husb and, 5 and notes how her m ist re ss has b e e n ‘s e ve re d f rom he r f at he rl and.’ 6 Me de a’s s ex intens if ie s he r fe el i ng s of s e p ar at i on and conf i ne me nt. As a woman, she has ver y l itt l e c ont rol ove r he r l i fe, ‘for divorce br i ng s i l l -re pute for women and it is i mp o ss ibl e to re f us e a man .’ 7 He re, an At he ni an audi e nce wou ld b e comp el l e d to c ons i de r how t he i r ow n c u lture force s ce r t ai n g roups of p e ople, su ch as wome n l i ke Me de a , to t he e dge, si nce ‘t he mar r i age s itu at ion Me d e a d es c r ib e s is e x a c t ly t hat of f i f t h-ce ntur y At he ns and not a t h row b a ck to s o ci a l pr a c t i c e s i n archai c C or i nt h.’ 8 Eve n b e yond t he conf i ne s of t he pl ay, s o ciet y has a hand i n g a lv an is i ng Me d e a’s de s ce nt i nto hor ror. The prolo gu e infor ms us t hat he r f i rst re c orde d a c t of cr uelt y was to t r i ck Pel i as’ d aug hters into k i l l ing t he i r ow n f at he r. T hou g h Me de a may have e ng i ne e re d t he cr ime, it was Jas on w ho sto o d to b e ne f it . 9 As f ar as Me de a’s conce r ne d, her ac t ions against Pel i as and his d au g hte rs we re c ar r i e d out i n t he name of s er v ing her hus b and, w hom s o c i e t y ha d e nc ou r age d he r to c are for ab ove a l l els e. A lt hou g h one cou l d arg u e t hat Me de a f i nds s ome s ol i d ar it y as a woman w it h t he C hor us of C or i nt hi an wome n , she a ck now l e dge s t hat t he i r ‘situ at i on and mi ne are not a l i ke.’ 10 Whi l e t he C or i nt hi an wome n dwel l i n t he i r ow n l and w it h t heir ow n k i n , Me de a fe els utte rly a l i e nate d and a l one, unt i l Ae ge us of fers her s anc tu ar y i n At he ns . L i ke w is e, T he Ki l l ing Joke is a t a l e hau nte d by l onel i ne ss. Once a st r ug g l i ng come di an, t he Joker l o s e s his s an it y af te r a s e r i e s of f re a k acci de nts, w h i ch resu lt not on ly in t he de at h of his g i rl f r i e nd and t he i r unb or n ch i l d, but a ls o in h is ow n d is f igu reme nt . By e n hanc i ng t he Joke r’s t rag i c or i g i n stor y w it h c aref u l s cr ipt ing , Mo ore p ai nt s t he v i l l ai n as a v i c t i m w ho’s as l o st i n h is ow n ins anit y as t hos e w hom he dr ag s i nto it . Whe n Joke r f i rst s e e s h is re f l e c t i on in a pu d d le, s ix s ma l l, e qu a l ly s i z e d p anels are fol l owe d by a f ar l arge r one t hat s e ep s of f t he e d ge of t he p age. In t his f i na l ‘ bl e e d’ ( a p anel w it h s ome 3 Εἴθ᾽ ὤφελ᾽ Ἀργοῦς μὴ διαπτάσθαι σκάφος / Κόλχων ἐς αἶαν κυανέας Συμπληγάδας — Eur. Med. 1-2 4 οὓς μήποτ᾽ ἐγὼ φύσας ὄφελον / πρὸς σοῦ φθιμένους ἐπιδέσθαι — Eur. Med. 1413-14 5 ἥπερ μεγίστη γίγνεται σωτηρία / ὅταν γυνὴ πρὸς ἄνδρα μὴ διχοστατῇ — Eur. Med. 15-16 6 ἔγνωκε δ᾽ ἡ τάλαινα συμφορᾶς ὕπο / οἷον πατρῴας μὴ ἀπολείπεσθαι χθονός — Eur. Med. 35-36 7 οὐ γὰρ εὐκλεεῖς ἀπαλλαγαὶ / γυναιξὶν οὐδ᾽ οἷόν τ᾽ ἀνήνασθαι πόσιν — Eur. Med. 236-37 8 Rehm [1985] p 47 9 Pelias was Jason’s uncle. The myth went that he had somehow taken the throne of Iolcus from Jason’s father, making Jason the rightful heir. — Buxton [2004], p 108 10 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ αὑτὸς πρὸς σὲ κἄμ᾽ ἥκει λόγος — Eur. Med. 252
or a l l of its b ord ers m iss i ng ) , his f i g u re, su r rou nd e d by a crowde d s qu are of u ncont rol l abl e l au g hte r, l o oms b e yond t he c onve nt i ona l b orde rs of t he com i c, cre at ing a s ens e of me nt a l de s ol at i on . Ye t e ve n b efore he b e come s t he Joke r, he fe els over w helme d by mone y wor r i e s and c ut of f f rom t he worl d. Wit h t he except ion of h is g irl f r i e nd, e ve r yone, i nclu di ng his l and l ady, ‘hate s’ h i m . 11 Wh i le Eu r ipid es cre ate s a p e r v as ive s e ns e of is ol at i on t h roug h t he l ang u age of sp ace, ar t ist Br i an B ol l and a chi e ve s a s i m i l ar tone t h roug h h is choi ce of colour. 1 2 Ever y t h ing i n t he f l ashb a ck s e qu e nc e s is mono ch rome — e xce pt for st ar t ling p op s of re d. T his te chn i qu e is e sp e c i a l ly e f fe c t ive i n a b ar s ce ne w here a p air of mobste rs rop e t he pro sp e c t ive Joke r i nto t he i r s ordi d af f ai rs. T he e ye a l most im me di ately fo c us e s on a s i ng l e p atch of re d: a b aske t of sh r imp t he t r io are shar i ng at t he t abl e. T he l one re dne ss of t he sh r i mp am i d a s e a of mono ch rome p ar a l l els t he Joke r’s a l i e nat i on i n a disma l, hop el e ss world. Sim i l arly to t he shr i mp, he is u n k now i ng ly ab out to b e tor n ap ar t. For a l l t heir d if ferences , t he Joke r is as mu ch of an outsi de r as Me de a. Why els e is he s o d eter m ine d to de monst r ate t hat he’s e x a c t ly t he s ame as e ve r yone els e, t hat anyone in h is s itu at i on wou l d have gone i ns ane ? Is it b e c aus e, l i ke Me de a , he fe els a l one ? But how do p e opl e w i nd up a l one i n t he f i rst pl ace ? Me de a and t he Joker tu r n ag ai nst t he i r s o c i e t i e s b e c aus e t ho s e s ame s o ci e t i e s pushe d t hem into t he sha dow s . S o ciet y robb e d Me d e a and t he Joke r of t he i r dome st i c s afe t y s o t he y b ot h att ack t he d omest ic s afe t y of ot he rs , s y mb ol is e d by t he p e ne t rat i on of t he do or, ‘a d om inant s y mb ol of t he home’ 13 : Me de a go e s b eh i nd t he do or of he r hous e to k i l l her ch i l dre n , w hi l e B ar b ar a G ordon op e ns t he do or to t he Joke r b efore he sho ots her i n t he spi ne. By p e r p e tu a l ly ot he r i ng and i g nor i ng t ho s e ‘out t here on t he e d ge’, s o c i e t y put s not on ly Me de a and t he Joke r, but a ls o it s elf, in p er i l. 1 4 Yet t he texts a ls o re ve a l, t hrou g h t he us e of t he do or, a f und ame nt a l dif fere nce in t he way t he i r s o c i e t i e s v i e w hor ror, and on w hom t he y fo c us w it h in it. Where as in Me de a we s e e t hi ng s f rom t he p e rsp e c t ive of t he p er p et r ator of t he cr i me, af te r w hi ch t he do or is cl o s e d and we are l e f t to imag ine t he d e at hs of t he p o or b oy s c r y i ng out for help, i n The Ki l l i ng Joke we are pl a ce d in t he sho e s of t he v i c t i m. We’re b eh i nd t he do or w it h B arb ara w hen she op e ns it and we e x p e r i e nc e he r te r ror at t he si g ht of t he man w ho hau nts her n i g ht mare s st andi ng r i g ht i n f ront of he r. Howe ve r, t h is is n’t on ly a change i n p e rsp e c t ive. What Me de a and The Ki l l i ng Joke b ot h d emand of t heir au di e nc e is cl o su re : t he ‘phenome non of obs e r v i ng t he 11 Moore & Bolland [2008] p 8 12 The original of 1988 was coloured by John Higgins, whose colour choices Bolland thought ‘startlingly at odds with what I had in mind’. In 2008, Bolland was given the opportunity to digitally recolour the artwork as he wanted it for the deluxe edition. Where Higgins’ palette was bright and garish, Bolland’s is moody and unsettling. 13 E.H. Haight [1950], p 28 14 Moore & Bolland [2008] p 44
p ar t s but p erceiv ing t he w hol e’. 15 Whi l e Me de a , w it h a l l v i ol e nce forbi dde n on t he At hen i an st age, re qu i re s v isu a l cl o su re — t he cr i e s for help f rom Me de a’s ch i ld ren c an b e he ard i ns i de t he hous e but we as t he audi e nce have to const r u c t ou r ow n i mage of t he i n f ant i c i de — The Ki l l i ng Joke, f i l l e d by Mo ore’s famous s i lent p anels , re qu i re s au r a l cl o sure — t he s ound of B arb ara crash ing t h rou g h t he c of fe e t abl e and onto t he f l o or. Pe rhaps, just l i ke t he change in p ersp e c t ive, t his c ont r ast i n t he s e ns or y e x p e r i e nce of hor ror a ls o re f le c ts a d e ep er c u ltu r a l di f fe re nc e b e t we e n t he t i me s of Mo ore and Eur ipid es . In a worl d bu rst i ng w it h t he g r aphi c re a l ism of l ive ac t i on T V dramas and blo ckbuste r mov i e s , t he man i fe st at i on of hor ror i n i mage s has come to r iv a l, if not sup e rs e de, it s man i fe st at i on in word. Me de a and T he Ki l l ing Joke re ve a l t hat t he re’s pl ent y to b e g ai ne d by re cog n is ing w hat text s and t he i r s o c i e t i e s — b ot h anci e nt and mo de r n — have to share w it h one anot he r. Now, more t han e ve r, s o ci e t y ne e ds to b e cons ci ous of st ay ing i n tou ch w it h it s mo st is ol ate d. By ke e pi ng t he channels t hat conne c t us to our p ast as op e n as t he g aps t hat st and b e t we e n us i n our pres ent, may b e we c an re a ch l onely i ndiv i du a ls b e fore t he y f a l l to o de e ply into t rage dy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Eur ipid es , Me d e a (f irst p e r for me d 4 3 1 B C ) Haig ht, E lizab e t h Ha z l e ton , T he Sy mb ol ism of t he Hous e D o or i n C l ass ic a l Po et r y (L ong mans , Gre e n & C o. , In k . 1 95 0 ) McC lou d, S cott , Unde rst andi ng C omi c s : The Inv isibl e Ar t ( Mor row 1993) Mi l l er, Fr an k, B at man : T he D ark Kn i g ht R e tur ns, 3 0 t h Annive rs ar y E dit ion (D C C om ics 2 0 1 6 , or i g i na l publ ishe d 1 9 8 6 ) Mo ore, A l an & B ol l and, Br i an , B at man : T he Ki l l i ng Joke, D eluxe E dit ion (D C C om ics 2 0 0 8 , or i g i na l publ ishe d 1 9 8 8 ) R eh m , Rush , ‘ T he Agon and t he Au di e nc e: A Study i n Eur ipi de s’ Me de a , Her a cl es , and Ion’ ( Un ive rs it y Mi c rof i l ms Inte r nat i ona l, 1 9 8 6 ) Vel l a cott, Phi l ip, ‘Int ro du c t i on’ i n Eu r ipi de s, Me de a and O t he r Pl ays ( Peng u in C l ass ics 1 9 6 3 )
15
S. McCloud [1993], p. 63
L IQ U I D R E C E P T I ON : A L I C E O S WA L D ' S NOB ODY
Fre ya Chambers
In An Unt roubl e d Mind, Ag ne s Mar t i n w r ite s : C l ass icist s are p e opl e t hat l o ok out w it h t he i r b a ck to t he worl d. It [cl ass icis m ] repres ents s ome t hi ng t hat is n’t p o ss ible i n t he worl d. 1 Mar t in c aptu res t he not i on t hat to l o ok for cl ass i c is m is to fo c us one’s g az e on s omet h ing id e a lis e d and u natt ai nabl e, to tu r n one’s b ack on t he i mp e r fe c t i ons of t he worl d. We f ind t h is s e nt i me nt e cho e d i n t he f i na l p arag raph of Johann Winckelman n’s Histor y of Anc i e nt Ar t f rom 1 7 6 4 : Just as a woman in l ove, st andi ng on t he shore of t he o ce an, s e ek i ng out w it h te arf i l le d e yes her d ep ar t ing l ove r w hom she has no hop e of e ve r s e e i ng ag ai n, t h i n ks she c an g limp s e in t he d ist ant s ai l t he i mage of he r b el ove d; we, l i ke t he woman i n l ove, have remaining to us , s o to sp e a k , on ly t he sha dow y out l i ne of our de si re s: but t h is ma kes t he d es ire for t he obj e c t s we have l o st e ve r more arde nt, and we e x am i ne t he c opies of t he or ig ina l maste r pi e c e s w it h g re ate r atte nt i on t han we wou l d have done we re we to b e in f u l l p oss e ss i on of t he m. 2 T he cl ass ic a l h istor i an is re nde re d a l ove s i ck woman pi ni ng for a l ove r ‘w hom she has no hop e of e ver s e eing ag ai n’ ye t l o ok s for any w ay, ‘st andi ng on t he shore of t he o c e an’ w it h her b a ck to t he worl d. L i ke he r, we histor i ans l o ok b ack i nto t he p ast and f i nd on ly ‘t he sha d ow y out l i ne of ou r de s i re s .’ Wi nckel mann, l i ke Mar t i n, unde rl i ne s t he t ant a lis ing ly u natt ai nabl e natu re of cl ass i c is m, ‘s ome t h i ng t hat isn’t p o ssibl e i n t he world’, as w hat ma ke s t he pu rsu it of cl ass i c is m s o de si rabl e. In Wi nckel mann’s si mi le, t he o ce an t hat s e p ar ate s t he l ove r f rom b el ove d is t he e x p ans e of t i me t hat s e p arates t he h istor i an f rom k now l e dge of t he cl ass i c a l p ast: t he s e a for ms an e pistemolog ic a l bre a k t hat t he cl ass i c ist l ong s to ove rcome, but c annot. A lice Os wa ld’s Nob o dy b e g i ns w it h t he i mage of a p o e t, ἀ ο ι δ ό ς, a l one on an isl and, lo ok ing out a cross t he s e a - su r f a c e tow ards t he hor i z on. Oswa l d re tur ns to t he i mage ag ain and again t h rou g hout t he p o e m, and, i ns of ar as t he p o e m has a pre si di ng p e rsp e c t ive, t he nar r at ive is ste e re d by t his ἀ ο ι δ ό ς on t he isl and. The ἀ ο ι δ ό ς is o stensibly t he man s et up by Ag ame mnon to g u ard C ly te m ne st ra, w ho Ae g ist hus ab andone d on an isl and at O dy ss e y 3 . 2 6 7 , and Os w a l d charac te r is e s t he p o e m ‘as i f s ome one s et out to s ing t he O dy ss e y, but w as rowe d to a stony isl and and ne ve r d is covere d t he p o em’s endi ng .’ 3 Nob o dy, t he n , is an e x p e r i me nt i n e piste mol o g i c a l li m it at ions : t he p ersp e c t ive of t he ἀ ο ι δ ό ς is b ou nde d by t he shore and t he hor i z on. Even t he id ent it y of t h is ἀ ο ι δ ό ς is l e f t u nc e r t ai n , as Oswa l d e s che ws prop e r name s 1 2 3
Martin, A. (2012). Winckelmann, J. & Potts, A. (1994), 49. Oswald, A. (2019), preface.
for more nebu lous voi c e s . It is O dy ss e us , hi ms el f an ἀ ο ι δ ό ς of s or ts, w ho is e voke d by t he p o em’s op e n i ng i mage ( a s i m i l e, i n t r ue Home r i c st y l e ) : As t he m ind f lutters i n a man w ho has t r avel l e d w i dely and h is qu ick - w inge d e ye s l and e ve r y w he re I w ish I was t here or t he re he t hi n k s and his m i nd imme di ately as if p ass ing its b e am t hrou g h c abl e s f l ashes t h rou g h a l l t hat w ate r and l ands less t han a s e cond l ate r on t he hor i z on and s ome one w it h a tel e s c op e c an s e e his t i ny t houg ht-for m f lo at ing on t he s e a - su r f a c e wonde r i ng w hat ne x t 4 L i ke Homer, Os wa ld b e g i ns he r tel l i ng of t he O dyss e y w it h a man, ἄν δρ α ( O d. 1.1) , w ho has t r avel l e d w i dely, π ολ λὰ π λάγ χ θ η ( O d. 1 .1 -2 ) , and w ho s e qui ck mind t a kes h im here and t he re a c ro ss t he o c e an . At t he b e g i nni ng of t he O dyss e y, to o, we f ind O dy ss e us t r app e d on an isl and i n t he s e a, l o ok i ng out towards t he hor iz on: π όν τον ἐ π ᾽ ἀτρ ύγ ε τον δ ερ κ έ σ κ ετο δ άκρ υ α λ είβ ων ( O d. 5 .8 4 ; 5 .1 5 8 ) He wou ld lo ok out ove r t he u n re st i ng s e a , she ddi ng te ars. C a lyps o j oins t he t h rong of nar r at ive voi c e s l ate r i n Oswa l d’s p o e m : she tel ls t he mess enger w ho has c ome ‘to re move my l ove r / w ho is t i re d of t h is hotel life’: …you’ l l f ind h im s itt ing on t he du nes i n te ars as a lw ay s st ar ing at t he s e a’s rou nd e ye of c ou rs e 5 T he pres id ing ἀ ο ι δ ό ς of Nob o dy, w he t he r O dy ss e us or t he man rowe d to a stony isl and by Aeg ist hus , c an i nde e d b e fou nd st ar i ng at t he s e a i n t he p o e m ‘as a lway s’. It is on ly t he m i nd t hat move s , ‘as i f p assi ng its b e am t h roug h c ables’, 6 not t he b o dy ; a l l t he π ολύτρ οπ ο ι, ‘mu ch- tur ni ng’, t ravel l i ng s t hat charac ter is e Homer’s O dy ss e y are i n Nob o dy c on f i ne d to a ‘t houg ht-for m / f lo at ing on t he s e a - su r f a c e wonde r i ng w hat ne x t’. 7 The p o e m is compr is e d of t hes e wond er ings , r at he r t han w ande r i ng s . Os w a l d’s re ce pt i on, t he n, wou l d s e em to b e t r u e to Wi nckel man n or Mar t i n’s mo del of cl assi cism : we t r y to ge t at t he compl ete Home r i c f abu l a ( stor y ) f rom ou r i ncompl e te p e rsp e c t ive on t he shore. As Os wa l d s ay s i n he r pre f a c e : ‘ T his p o e m l ive s i n t he murk i ne ss b et we en t hos e stor ies [ of t he no stoi ( re tu r ns ) of Ag ame m non and O dyss e us].’ 8 4 5 6 7 8
Oswald, A. (2019), 1. Oswald, A. (2019), 69. Oswald, A. (2019), 1. Oswald, A. (2019), 1. Oswald, A. (2019), preface.
In hon ing in on t he isl and-b ou nd ἀ ο ι δ ό ς, Os w a l d is re adi ng ‘t h roug h’ t he tex t , ex p and ing on w hat Home r sk ip s ove r and pi ck i ng up t he t h re ad t hat Homer l e aves d ang l ing . 9 L i ke t he f ate of t he Pha e a ci ans or O dy ss e us’ j our ne y in l and, t he stor y of Ag ame mnon’s ἀ ο ι δ ό ς has no e ndi ng w it h i n t he O dyss e y ; Nob o dy, for a l l its embr a c i ng of l i mite d p e rsp e c t ive s, i n s ome s e ns e st r ive s towards a p er fe c t O dy ss e y, ‘s ome t hi ng t hat is n’t p o ssibl e i n t he worl d.’ The f ig u re of Agamem non’s ἀ ο ι δ ό ς is f l e she d out ; my r i ad voi ce s e nte r t he worl d of t he p o em w ho are abs e nt f rom t he Home r i c te x t ( Ic ar us, Ph i l o c te te s, A l c yone and C e y x); Os wa ld imag i ne s c onve rs at i ons b e t we e n C ly te m ne st ra and Aeg ist hus , or b et we e n C a ly p s o and He r me s , of w hi ch we he ar not h i ng f rom Homer. If re cept ion is a for m of de s i r i ng c ompl e t i on, of f i l l i ng i n a f rame, t hen Nob o dy wou ld s e e m to b e cl ass i c a l re c e pt i on fol l ow i ng t he Wi nckel mann mo del: a lo ok ing b a ck to Home r and ye ar n i ng . Howe ver, if Os wa l d is f i l l i ng i n a f r ame i n Nob o dy, it is a sp at i a l f rame : t he s e a, t he sky, t he shore. In t his s e ns e, she is u n l i ke Wi nckel mann. He r ἀ ο ι δ ό ς, as Oswa l d notes in he r pre f a c e, is l i m ite d to ‘a cl o s e i nsp e c t i on of t he s e a t hat su r rounds h im’ and Nob o dy is i n many w ay s a nature p o e m as much as it is a Homer ic re cept ion . 10 T he p o e m ab ou nds w it h des cr ipt i ons of t he we at he r, birds , and s e a - cre atu re s , and w it h atte mpt s to c apture i n words t he shap e sh if t ing natu re of t he s e a : Prote us , Os w a l d tel ls us, is t he p o e m’s ‘pre si di ng spir it’. Ind e e d, t he p o e m mi g ht b e re a d as a c onvers at i on b e t we e n t he l onely ἀο ι δ ό ς and t he s e a its el f : you k now f u l l wel l he s ai d t his is on ly t he w ate r t a l k ing to us … …. how ling t he s ame qu e st i on ove r and ove r and on h is ro ck t he p o e t shu f f l e s ab out l i g ht -sl e e pi ng e ver y s o of ten ans wer i ng b a ck 11 Wh i le t he m ind of t he ἀ ο ι δ ό ς mi g ht f lutte r tow ards t he hor i z on and i mag i ne t he goings - on b e yond it , t he s e a is b ot h t he fo c us and t he i nspi rat i on: t he s e a’s epistemol og i c a l bl an k ne ss is i f any t hi ng a prompt for t he p o e t’s wonder ings . By anchor i ng t he p o e m i n t he s e a , Oswa l d p aradox i c a l ly go e s b e yond t he ge og r aphi c a l ly - e x p ans ive Home r i c te xt. Home r b e come s a st ar t ing- p oint on ly for a p o e m t hat is mu ch more t han a t ransl at i on—ch i m i ng w it h Os wa ld’s prog r am mat i c st ate me nt t hat ‘a t r ansl at i on on ly re a l ly works if it is its ow n ne w p o e m… you c an on ly re a l ly t r ansm it w hat’s a l ive ab out a p o em if you w r ite a w hol e ne w p o e m.’ 12 It is Os wa ld’s fo c us on ‘w hat’s a l ive’ ab out Home r t hat s e ts Nob o dy ap ar t f rom Ag nes Mar t in’s c onc e pt of cl ass i c is m as ‘s ome t h i ng t hat isn’t p o ssibl e in t he worl d.’ Nob o dy is ro ote d i n t he re a l, l iv i ng worl d, i n t he t i de s of t he s e a and t he f lig ht of bi rds . Os w a l d is not l o ok i ng b e yond t he hor i z on, but 9 10 11 12
Oswald, A. (2011), preface. Oswald, A. (2019), preface. Oswald, A. (2019), 65. Cox, F. & Oswald, A. (2013).
at t he s e a its el f— and i n doi ng s o, e mbr a c e s an i mp e r fe c t k now l e dge of t he O dyss e y ’s fabu l a . T h is k i nd of re c e pt i on , t hat e mbrace s i ncompl e te ne ss and pu r p os ef u l ly rende rs f r ag me nt ar y a cl ass i c a l te x t, is at o dds w it h t he no st a lg i a of Winckel man n for t he ‘maste r pi e c e s’ of t he cl assi c a l p ast. The s e a and it s epistemolog ic a l sl ipp e r i ne ss are ke y to Nob o dy ’s cl assi cism w it hout no st a lg i a . L iqu id it y in ant iqu it y, as Bro oke Hol me s note s , ‘maps a re a l m of ge ne rat ive p oss ibi lit y but a ls o one of r a di c a l r isk and dis orde r.’ 13 Oswa l d e x pl oits b ot h t hes e f u nc t ions of l iqu i dit y i n t he tel l i ng of Nob o dy, fo c a l is e d t h roug h t he st r u g g l es of t he ἀ ο ι δ ό ς w ho must tel l his p o e m am i dst a b ackdrop of wate r : t he s ame ir id es cent sw i f t ne ss and t he s ame u ncer t ain cer t aint y e it he r br i m m i ng or r ippl e d or swel l ing over of hol l ow i ng w ate r as one t hou g ht le a ds to anot he r i f you st and here on t hes e b ou l d e rs w it h you r b a ck to t he e ar t h you c an s e e t he w hole stor y of t he we at he r … and no- one c an d e ciphe r t his lu c i d shor t - l ive d chor us of waves … 1 4 T he s e a is at once b ot h u nc e r t ai n and c e r t ai n ; no -one c an de ciphe r it, ye t its waves s ing l i ke a chor us ; you c an ‘s e e t he w hol e stor y ’ but on ly i f you tur n your b a ck to t he e ar t h. As mu ch as t he s e a i nspi re s ( ‘one t houg ht l e ads to anot her’), w it h liqu idit y c ome s c ommu n i c at i on bre a kdow n: as Ae g ist hus s ay s to C lytem nest r a (a lt hou g h ne it he r are name d among t he p o e m’s many voi ce s) : w hat d o es it matter w hat he s i ng s t here is a l l t h is water b e t we e n us and it is blind a k ind of bl i nd blu e e ye 15 Water in Nob o dy is a k i nd of e piste mol o g i c a l bl a ck hol e. The s e a its el f is charac ter is e d as blind and de af, ‘a k i nd of bl i nd blue e ye’ ( br i ng i ng to m i nd t he bli nd e d c yclop s , Poly phe mus ) , and s o for ms a b ar r i e r to t he t ransm issi on of stor ies : blin ks bl in k s and s e e s not hi ng how ls how ls and he ars not hi ng 16 T he f rag ment at ion of hu man c ommu n i c at i on a c ro ss t he wate r is c apture d by t he re c u r r ing ref r ain of ‘or is it’ and ‘c an you he ar’: 17 l i qui dit y re nde rs stor i e s u ncer t ain and elus ive — voi c e s c ome to t he p o e t on h is isl and t hat cou l d b e 13 14 15 16 17
Holmes, B., Marta, K., Joannou, D., et al. (2017). Oswald, A. (2019), 42. Oswald, A. (2019), 3. Oswald, A. (2019), 23. Oswald, A. (2019), 57.
one t hing or anot her, or t hat are not qu ite au dibl e. As far as a man c an shout a c ro ss w ate r and h is shout w it h bl ow n -b a ck w i ng s lo s es its b e ar ings and is ne ve r he ard of ag ai n and anot her man c an he ar t he c r y i ng w ave s but h is ans wer diss olves in water li ke an ov a l of s o ap 18 A man’s voice m ig ht ‘ l o s e it s b e ar i ng s’ or ‘diss olve i n wate r l i ke an ov a l of s o ap’ w hen con f ronte d w it h t he l i qu i d mass of t he s e a. Ide nt it i e s, to o, dis inte g r ate at s e a : Os w a l d’s omiss i on of prop e r name s unde rl i ne s how t he s e a renders e ver yone a nob o dy : a man is a nob o dy u nde r ne at h a bi g w ave 19 Yet at t he s ame t ime, Nob o dy re c o g n is e s t he s e a as cr uci a l to t he t ransm issi on of stor ies . T he Home r i c l ands c ap e is l i qu i d, ye t stor i e s i n t he O dyss e y di f f us e rapid ly a cross t he map, s ome t i me s ai de d by s e af ar i ng ( such as Tel e machus’ j our ne y to P y l os and Sp ar t a to f i nd out ab out his f at he r) , at ot he r t i me s spre ad more int ang ibly t hrou g h t he go ds ( su ch as Prote us’ t a l e to Me nel aus re counte d in B o ok 3 ) or t hrou g h bi rd ome ns . Eve n t he Phae aci ans, dist ant as t he y are, have he ard of O dy ss e us and t he Troj an war ; t he i r p o e t D e mo do c us re counts t he stor y of t he Troj an hors e as i f he has b e e n t he re h i ms el f, t han ks to t he Mus e’s inst r u c t i on i n t he ο ἴμ α ι, ‘w ay s of s ong’. The ἀ ο ι δ ό ς, t houg h is ol ate d on h is isl and, is not c ut of f f rom voi c e s on t he w i nd and t he f l i g ht of birds , nor f rom t he inspi r at i on of t he Mus e : T hes e stor ies f lutter ab out as fast as torch l ig ht … … have you not he ard e ven out here t hes e stor i e s 20 ‘Even out here’ stor ie s st i l l re a ch t he p o e t — i nde e d, t he p o e t’s prox i m it y to t he s e a is w hat ma ke s su ch a fe r t i l e st ar t i ng - p oi nt for an e x pl orat i on of O dy ss e an voices . The s e a is c e nt r a l to stor y - tel l i ng i n Home r, and t he O dyss e y ne ver t a kes pl a c e f ar f rom t he s e a . As P ur ve s note s, O dyss e us’ i n l and j our ne y (w h ich t a kes pl a c e b e yond t he chronol o g ic a l b ounds of t he p o e m ) t a kes h im to a p e ople w ho have no k now l e dge of t he s e a ( m ist a k i ng an o ar for a w innow ing f an) , and as su ch c an have no k now l e dge of Gre ek e pi c and Troj an hero es li ke O dy ss e us . 21 What Os wa l d c aptu re s w it h Nob o dy ’s disp ar ate c acophony of w i nd-b or ne voices is s omet h ing f u nd ame nt a l to Home r i c p o e t i cs: t he s e a ne ve r cre ate s 18 19 20 21
Oswald, A. (2019), 11. Oswald, A. (2019), 23. Oswald, A. (2019), 2. Purves, A. (2010), 67.
an ab s ence of stor ies, on ly an ab s e nc e of c e r t ai nt y or t r ut h —e ve n w he n Telema chus is wait ing i n It ha c a to he ar ne w s of his f at he r, t he re is no abs e nce of stor ies , merely an ab s e nt of ne w s t hat is not f a ls e r umour. Nob o dy re vels in t h is epistemol og ic a l te ns i on : t he s e a is i nde e d ‘a re a l m of ge ne rat ive p oss ibi lit y ’, a bl an k c anv as w hi ch prompt s t he p o e t’s m i nd to f lutte r toward t he hor izon and to sp e c u l ate on w hat is goi ng on b e yond its l i m it. Ye t e ver y stor y is u n rel i abl e and sp e c u l at ive : mu ch l i ke i n B o ok 3 w he n Home r has Me nel aus and Hel e n tel l c ont r a di c tor y Troj an war stor i e s, we f i nd mu lt ipl e imag inings of c onve rs at i ons b e t we e n C lyte m ne st ra and Ae g ist hus; Ag amem non’s mu rd er is i mag i ne d, t he n he app e ars ag ai n ‘unmurde re d’. 22 T he voices Nob o dy c aptu re s are ‘f a di ng c ont r ai ls of s ong’ t hat a sw i m me r at s e a ‘t h in k s he c an he ar … w hi ch ne ve r t hel e ss e s c ap e s h i m’. 23 Oswa l d ke e ps t he p o em ro ote d in t he p e rsp e c t ive of t he l onely ἀο ι δ ό ς, t r y i ng to tel l h is p o em w it h p ar t i a l k now l e dge, br i ng i ng to m i nd t he que st i onabl e rel i abi l it y of O dy ss eus’ ap ologoi, ‘stor i e s’, of B o ok s 9 -1 2 . T he probl e m of t r y i ng to tel l a stor y f rom a l im ite d, s e a - b ou nd p e rsp e c t ive is e x pl i cit ly probl e mat is e d by t he rep e ate d ref r ain : How do es it st ar t t he s e a has e nd l e ss b e g i n n i ng s 24 L i ke Homer’s O dy ss e y, w hi ch b e g i ns i n me di a re s and do e s not re ach its ch ronolog ic a l b eg inn i ng p oi nt u nt i l B o ok 9 , Nob o dy e mbrace s an ant i -l i ne ar st r u c tu re; it is li ke w atchi ng t he p o e t ass e mbl e his mate r i a l w it hout e ve r f inding t he st ar t ing p oi nt . Nob o dy, t hen , es c ap e s t he no st a l g i c cl ass i c is m of Wi nckel mann or t he ide a lis ing cl ass icis m of Mar t i n l argely by w ay of its e piste mol o g i c a l l i qui dit y. Just as t he s e a s ep ar ate s t he ἀ ο ι δ ό ς f rom t he hor i zon, s o we are s e p arate d f rom t he cl ass ic a l p ast . As B orge s put it , ‘w he n we sp e a k of t he “w i ne -d ark s e a,” 25 we t h in k of Home r and of t he t hi r t y c e ntu r i e s t hat l i e b e t we e n us and h i m .’ Nob o dy is i n t his w ay a me dit at i on on how to appro ach cl assi c a l re cept i on: how to l o ok b a ck at ant i qu it y w he n t he p ast is unatt ai nabl e. Oswa ld embr a ces ou r i nc ompl e te and f r ag me nt ar y rel at i on to Home r and ant iquit y, t he d ist anc e b e t we e n t he shore and t he hor i z on, w h i l e at t he s ame t ime c aptu r ing ‘w hat’s a l ive’ i n an anc i e nt te x t . We s e e Oswa l d, t h roug h t he f ig u re of t he Home r i c ἀ ο ι δ ό ς, i n t he pro c e ss of for m i ng a p o e m , and s o w it ness Homer ic p o e t i c s i n pr a c t i c e — p e rhaps a more ‘t ransluce nt’ way of appro a ch ing a cl ass i c a l te x t , e sp e c i a l ly one t hat is a pro duc t of an ora l t radit ion. 2 6 It rem inds us t hat : It ex ists in t he m ind B efore it is repres ente d on p ap e r it ex ist s in t he m ind 2 7 22 23 24 25 26 27
Oswald, A. (2019), 65. Oswald, A. (2019), 4. Oswald, A. (2019), 13; 37. Borges, J.L. (2000), 14. Oswald, A. (2011), preface. Martin, A. (2012).
BIBLIOGRAPHY B orges, J.L . (2 0 0 0 ), T h is Cr af t of Ve rs e ( C ambr i dge, MA ; L ondon) . C ox , F. & Os wa l d, A . ( 2 0 1 3 ) , ' A l i c e Os w a l d' , Pr a c t it i one rs’ Voi ce s i n C l assi c a l R e cept ion Stu d ies . Holmes , B., Mar t a , K. , Jo an nou, D. , e t a l. ( 2 0 1 7 ) , L i qui d Ant i quit y ( G e ne v a, Sw it zerl and ). Mar t in, A . (2 0 1 2 ), ' An Unt roubl e d Mi nd' , i n Gl i mche r, A . B. ( e d) , Ag ne s Mar t in: Paint ings , Wr it i ng s , R e me mbr anc e s ( L ond on) . Oswa ld, A . (2 0 1 1 ), Me mor i a l : an E xc av at i on of t he Il i ad ( L ondon) . Oswa ld, A . (2 0 1 9 ), Nob o dy ( L ondon ) . Pu r ves , A . (2 0 1 0 ), ' Pat hs and Me asu re s : Epi c Sp a c e and t he O dy ss e y ', i n Sp ace and Time in Ancient Gre ek Nar r at ive ( C ambr i dge ) , pp. 6 5 –9 6 . Winckelmann , J. & Pott s , A . ( 1 9 9 4 ) , F l e sh and t he Ide a l : Wi nckel mann and t he Or ig ins of Ar t Histor y ( Ne w Have n ) .
L AT I N V E R SE C OM P O SI T I ON
Felix Stokes
QU OD S C R I P T U M E S T A M Ī C Ā C A R M I NA QUA E DA M S A P P HŌN I S I N C A M P Ō N O C T E R E C I TA N T E nox a de st , i am s ī de r a tōtō i n orb e c u m su ā c a elu m pupu gē re lūce, vō c e dī c e nt ī f r u i mu r p o ē t ae du l c i a r īsū. dē nu ō l i ng u ā qu e v ibr ante c anto ! p e rdi dī s e nsūs , v i de or v i d ē re nu l l a pr a e te r tē, tu a ve r b a , ve rsūs, no c te m e t ab e ss e.
W R I T T E N W H E N A F R I E N D WAS R E C I T I N G S OM E OF S A P P HO’ S P OE M S I N A F I E L D AT M I DN IG H T It’s n i g ht , and a l re a dy a c ro ss t he w hol e sky t he st ars have pr i cke d t he sky w it h t he i r l i g ht; we e nj oy t he voi c e of t he p o e t , sp e a k i ng s we e t t hi ng s , w it h a l au g h . Move you r tong u e to s i ng ag ai n! I have l o st my s e ns e s , I s e e m to s e e not hi ng but you, you r words , your p o e t r y, and t he f a c t t hat n i g ht has dis app e are d.
I N FA N DUM , M E DI C U S , I U B E ĀS R E N OVĀ R E D OL ŌR E M in fandu m, me di c us , iub e ās re nov āre dol ōre m , ōr a que ap e r t a n i hi l c ēl e nt qu o d ubī que c uc ur r it at, dupl i c īs f r ust r a te nde ns a d g uttura l i ng u ās et i am te rqu e qu ate rqu e ite r u m c ōnātus, ab e st vōx . nōx o c u l ō s e x pl ē v it , ubī qu e e t i n aur ibus hae sit cl āmor, nōn a l ite r Trōi a e c u m p e rdi dit urb e m Ae nē ās ips e ante o c u l ō s , i nc e ndi a p assi m i amqu e v i ās te nu īs sp e c t ans e x pl e nt i aque ar tūs, est it a l i ng u a p e r ūst a m i hī, c i ne rē s que dol ōrē s.
I N FA N DUM , M E DI C U S , I U B E ĀS R E N OVĀ R E D OL ŌR E M T her apist, you wou l d ask me to re op e n an unsp e a kabl e wound, and my op en mout h wou l d hi de not hi ng w hi ch has b e e n r unni ng ab out i n my he a d, but, d r ag g i ng my spl it tong u e ( I f ai l ) towards my t h ro at, hav ing t r ie d t hre e and fou r t i me s now, my voi ce has gone. Nig ht has f i l l e d my e ye s , and i n e ve r y cor ne r of my e ars l ou d nois e s st ay, as w he n he l o st t he cit y of Troy Aene as - b efore his ve r y e ye s , w atchi ng t he f i re s e ve r y w he re, f i l l i ng t he nar row st re e t s and h is l i mbs: T h is is how my tong u e has bu r ne d r i g ht up, and my wounds have tur ne d to ash.
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