anno 20, 2022
- ISSN: 1971-2995
- Pagine: 276
- Abbrevazione assegnata da l'Année Philologique: IncidAntico
- Editore: Luciano Editore, Napoli
Contenuti:
This paper conducts an in-depth analysis of Diodoros Siculus’s account of the Battle of Chaironeia, written ca. 300 years after the events it relates to. Drawing upon Early Hellenistic sources, the first-century Diodoros re-elaborates them according to his own historical and historiographical sensitivity, thus providing modern readers with a true ‘Hellenistic’ perspective on Chaironeia. In so doing, he offers a valuable alternative to the long-lasting Athenocentric paradigm, which has proved crucial in establishing both the ancient and modern views about one of the greatest historiographical myths of the Classical past.
Battle of Chaironeia | Classicism | Hellenistic historiography | Diodoros | Philip II
Pittacus of Mytilene is the only one of the Seven Sages for whom tradition is not exempt from problems about the father’s name. This paper examines the two variants Hyrrhas and Hyrrhadios, with the related traditions and positions taken by more or less recent critics. As will be reiterated several times, the form to which value is preferred here is Hyrrhas, not so much for a datum of a quantitative order (greater number of occurrences) as for a qualitative one that counts in its favor: to know and accept this form it appears to be the Peripatus. Conversely, a patronymic function is recognized to the form Hyrrhadios (although not in the terms in which the sources do so); an explanation of its genesis is also proposed, making it equivalent to Ὑρραῖος, an Aeolic patronymic transmitted to us by an Alcaeus’ poem.
Pittacus | Hyrrhas | Hyrrhadios | Seven Sages | Peripatus
This article examines the early Hellenistic honorific decree for the Athenian general Aristeides of Lamptrai (I.Rhamnous 404). After discussing the decree’s date and the external evidence about the honorand, the article provides a detailed analysis of Aristeides’ meritorious deeds in the order in which they are recounted in the motivation clause of the decree. In particular, the article considers the ways in which this decree advances our understanding of the Athenian revolt against Demetrios Poliorketes in 287, of Athenian relations with the Antigonids in the late 280s and early 270s, and of the early phases of the Chremonidean War.
Aristeides of Lamptrai | early Hellenistic Athens | Athenian chronology | Demetrios Poliorketes | Antigonos Gonatas | Chremonidean War
This paper aims at drawing attention to the apparent synchronism between Germanicus’ death and the so-called Senatus consultum de sacris Aegyptiis Iudaicisque pellendis voted by the Tiberian senate in late 19 AD. Admittedly, our knowledge on the topic is scattered, and available sources are indeed at variance with each other. In order to trace back the intended purpose of the senatorial decree and who were the historical characters involved in this affair, we need to focus more on the connection between the ethnic and cultural identity of the sacra peregrina hit by the senatorial ban and the historiographical tradition about Germanicus’ last days in the East.
Germanicus | Tiberian age | sacra peregrina | Jews in the Roman Empire | Magic
In this paper, I present a compared analysis of the cemeteries of Cumae and Pithekoussai, the two Greek colonies established in Campania around the middle of the 8th c. BC. The identification of tumuli above inhumation graves is particularly studied, as it was used to demonstrate an indigenous origin of the Greek foundation. A comprehensive and serial analysis of the funerary evidence of both Pithekoussai and Cumae shows the limits of this conclusion. I finally present a reconstitution of the topography of the archaic Greek cemetery of Cumae, the Greek colony of Campania, allowing for a deeper comparison with Pithekoussai.
Greek colonial world | Pithekoussai | Cumae | funerary archaeology | archaeology of pre-Roman Italy
This paper analyzes the miniature pottery recovered fortuitously, in an unspecified period, in the site of Stragolìa Grande near Torre Mordillo of Spezzano Albanese (CS) and currently preserved at the Melissa Palopoli Archaeological Museum in Torretta di Crucoli (KR). It consists of fifty-eight miniature finds from the Classical and Hellenistic periods found in association with a large group of terracotta statuettes and a bronze statuette of Heracles in repose datable to the same period that were part of a votive deposit to be referred to a cultic complex to be located outside the Hellenistic walls of the Brettian settlement of Torre Mordillo, not far from the probable west gate of access to the fortified citadel.
Miniature pottery | votive deposit | Bruttians | Sybaris | Magna Graecia
This paper discusses the inscription of SEG 57.758, a metrical dedication of a statue by Krino of Paros to Artemis Delie, dated 4th century BC. The study analyzes the earlier scholars’ interpretation and exegesis of the text to provide a new reading of the inscription. Taking into consideration several parallels attested in other Greek authors (metric position and meaning-context), it is possible to suggest a new reading of the test.
Greek epigraphy | CEG | metrical inscription | Paros | Artemis Delie
From central and southern Italy, excluding Sicily, come six Greek inscriptions on mosaics datable between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC: these represent a small but significant dossier that allows you to monitor the phenomenon of Greek mosaic epigraphy in an era of transition from the Greek to the Roman age. The mosaics from Strongoli, Pompei, and Segni mention the names of the artists who created them, while the two documents from Palestrina, including the famous Nilotic mosaic, contain captions that explain the figurative context.
Mosaic | Epigraphy | Artist | Italy | Nilotic mosaic
Federica Zigarelli
Il titolo scelto da Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (d’ora in poi l’A.) coglie nella sua essenzialità i due punti nevralgici del volume che qui si recensisce, frutto delle prime lezioni tenute dall’A. presso il Collège de France tra il 2017 e il 2018 nella cornice del corso Polythéisme grec, mode d’emploi. Innanzitutto, il politeismo greco. Si tratta di una nozione da tempo acquisita nella storia degli studi, eppure ancora gravata da determinismi culturali difficili da scardinare. L’A. analizza un elemento chiave della religione greca, ma al tempo stesso l’aspetto che mette più a dura prova le categorie ‘etiche’ dell’osservatore moderno: la tensione tra generale e particolare, tra unità e pluralità. Questa articolazione dinamica, fil rouge che attraversa tutti i capitoli, non si esprime in termini di esclusività ma di equilibrio reciproco. L’obiettivo preposto è un’ampia riflessione su ciò che significa pensare e agire all’interno di un sistema religioso come quello della Grecia antica, così lontano dalla visione cristianocentrica dominante, che ha condotto in passato a giudicare le religioni politeistiche attraverso il pregiudizievole filtro dell’errore e del disordine. Alla luce di queste considerazioni preliminari, numerose domande si pongono all’attenzione degli specialisti. A fronte di un mondo costituito da poleis indipendenti e privo di un’autorità centralizzata, come spiegare l’esistenza di un sapere condiviso sul divino, i cui riflessi sono riconoscibili già nell’epos omerico ed esiodeo? Come coniugare questo sapere condiviso con la varietà dei culti locali, caratterizzati da specifiche modalità rituali e destinati a divinità che ricevono di volta in volta epiclesi differenti e distintive? E quale rapporto esiste tra questi due livelli, il piano condiviso dell’immaginario collettivo e il registro frammentario delle pratiche locali? Nella Introduzione che apre il volume è delineato il panorama storiografico dello status quaestionis. L’A. vi chiarisce l’impianto metodologico posto a sostegno della propria indagine, condotta nel segno dell’allontanamento da due principali linee di studio: da un lato l’impostazione evoluzionistica tesa a distinguere una religione popolare del culto e una successiva religione elitaria del mito; dall’altro, il più recente modello della personal-religion, in cui si profila la competizione tra dimensione intimistico-personale e dimensione collettiva. La novità della posizione dell’A. consiste nel riconoscere il dialogo tra unità e molteplicità che si instaura a più livelli nell’assetto politeistico, inteso come un singulier pluriel. Senza negare l’esistenza di un’agency individuale nelle pratiche quotidiane, ciò su cui si pone l’accento è il valore collettivo dell’esperienza religiosa greca, nella misura in cui il singolo individuo si definisce rispetto al gruppo di appartenenza attraverso la condivisione di norme e tradizioni, di cui la religione è parte integrante (cfr. V. Pirenne-Delforge, rec. di J. Kindt, Rethinking Greek Religion, Cambridge 2012, «ASDIWAL» 11, 2016, 222-224). In base al modello della polis-religion, in cui il piano individuale è a tutti gli effetti iscritto in quello collettivo, l’A. esamina il politeismo greco in quanto sistema organico di articolazioni simboliche e cultuali, plasmate reciprocamente in un rapporto di solidarietà fluida in cui sono implicate dinamiche generali e particolari. La forza dell’eredità degli studi sociologici e storico-antropologici francesi, da Émile Durkheim agli esponenti della cosiddetta ‘scuola di Parigi’, assume tutta la sua importanza, ed è significativo in questo senso che l’epigrafe del volume sia dedicata alla memoria di Marcel Detienne. Nell’avviare la propria analisi, l’A. affronta una questione epistemologica posta a monte di qualsiasi studio storico-religioso sulla Grecia antica. Il primo capitolo del volume, dal titolo esplicativo Religion et polythéisme: des mots aux concepts, svela la connotazione cristianocentrica delle moderne categorie di religione e politeismo attraverso un’accurata disamina storica dei processi culturali che ne hanno determinato la formazione e le rifunzionalizzazioni. Come ha notato anche Maurizio Bettini (Elogio del politeismo. Quello che possiamo imparare oggi dalle religioni antiche, Bologna 2014), entrambi i concetti, ignoti al greco antico e forgiati in contesti non-greci, assumono in ambiente giudaico-cristiano un orientamento ideologico fondato sui principi monoteistici dell’esclusività e della distinzione tra ‘vera’ e ‘falsa’ fede. Di fronte alla constatazione del milieu monoteistico che ha plasmato queste nozioni, è possibile adoperare religione e politeismo come utili categorie di indagine storica? Nonostante i rischi di anacronismo, l’A. considera entrambi «concetti operatori» (p. 54 e passim) ancora validi nella moderna discussione scientifica non solo in assenza di alternative adeguate, ma anche per il potenziale paradosso che si innescherebbe altrimenti: la ritrosia nell’estendere il concetto di religione a comunità non monoteistiche potrebbe celare in sé una visione culturalmente orientata in senso cristianocentrico. Religione e politeismo sono dunque delle nozioni ancora essenziali negli studi specialistici, ma la necessità di una definizione condivisibile si impone. Laddove il termine politeismo deve essere inteso non solo nel suo valore quantitativo, ma anche qualitativo (la duttilità strutturale delle religioni politeistiche consente infatti a ogni Potenza di essere in sé au pluriel, agendo in sfere e con modalità d’azione eterogenee), con ‘religione’ l’A. indica l’insieme «des relations qu’un groupe humain cherche à instaurer avec la sphère supra-humaine», quest’ultima costituita da «projections imaginaires culturellement déterminées, créatrices de discours et de pratiques qui, en retour, contribuent à l’élaborer et à la faire exister» (pp. 55-56). Senza alcuna pretesa di esaustività, la definizione deve essere costantemente sottoposta ai contesti specifici presi in esame. Come evocato nel titolo del volume, l’A. decide di mettere alla prova le categorie operatorie di religione e politeismo circoscrivendo un terreno d’indagine privilegiato: le Storie di Erodoto, la cui scelta è motivata nel secondo capitolo, Hérodote, la religion et l’histoire du polythéisme. Nelle vesti di «storico del politeismo greco» (p. 68) ante litteram, Erodoto presta attenzione non alle divinità in quanto esseri agenti, bensì alla costruzione culturale del divino, in altri termini all’esperienza umana della religione. La prospettiva erodotea è antropologica nella misura in cui la religione, parte integrante dei nomoi di un popolo, è considerata un’istituzione culturalmente determinata. Di qui la possibilità di confrontare i costumi ‘culturalmente alieni’ con le proprie categorie ellenocentriche mediante la strategia dell’inversione simmetrica, che permette di leggere per contrasto il quadro ‘emico’ di riferimento di un greco di V secolo a.C. Al di là dei dubbi sulla veridicità storica delle informazioni erodotee, ciò che trattiene l’attenzione dell’A. è la capacità dello storico di Alicarnasso di astrarre per ogni popolo un immaginario collettivo, costituito da minimi comuni denominatori che permettono all’enquêteur di ‘costruire dei comparabili’ a partire da sistemi religiosi differenti. Parlare di una religione greca al singolare ha dunque una propria validità analitica, in quanto consente agli specialisti di raccogliere i dati in un sistema coerente e organico, una cornice unitaria che già un ‘indigeno’ come Erodoto non ha avuto difficoltà a postulare. Il rapporto tra dimensione macroscopica e dimensione microscopica è il fulcro dei capitoli successivi: Dieux grecs, dieux des Grecs, Nommer les dieux, Sacrifier aux dieux e Dieux épiques, dieux topiques. Nel testo erodoteo la definizione di Hellenikon, costruita – oltre che sulla comunanza linguistica ed etnica – anche su una certa condivisione religiosa, qualifica la grecità come una comunità rituale raccolta attorno a centri cultuali di importanza sovraregionale. L’A. rileva l’uso ideologico dei santuari panellenici, di concetti quali la categoria erodotea di «dèi greci» e la formula «dèi dei Greci» attestata a Naucrati in contesti (retorici o cultuali) in cui si avverte la necessità di costruire un’identità greca unitaria, spesso in contrasto con un termine di confronto non-greco. Eppure, l’individuazione di un sapere condiviso sul divino non può non tenere conto della varietà dei culti locali: «le monde supra-humain des Grecs n’est pas une abstraction ‘hors sol’» (p. 203) e la comunicazione con esso avviene sempre in spazi localmente definiti. Gli dèi greci sono «topici» nella misura in cui è l’omaggio reso loro dalle comunità locali a definirne lo statuto e non un messaggio rivelato che ne affermerebbe dogmaticamente l’esistenza. Espressione emblematica dell’ancrage topique del politeismo greco è la polyonymie delle epiclesi distintive (cfr. G. Pironti, ‘Les dieux grecs entre polyvalence et spécificité’, «Europe» 964-965, 2009, 289-304), che segnalano le funzioni specifiche in virtù delle quali si sollecita l’intervento di una divinità in un dato contesto. L’A. precisa a questo proposito due elementi non immediatamente evidenti. Innanzitutto, la pluralità dei culti non implica la frammentazione dell’identità divina. Le epiclesi hanno valore predicativo-qualitativo, non ontologico, e permettono di circoscrivere segmenti dell’agency di una Potenza polisemica che resta saldamente sé stessa anche al plurale. Sebbene ‘distribuita’, l’identità divina è unitaria nella sua ‘serialità’ (cfr. M. Bettini, ‘Visibilità, invisibilità e identità degli dèi’, in Gli dèi di Omero. Politeismo e poesia nella Grecia antica, a cura di G. Pironti, C. Bonnet, Roma 2016, 29-58). Come aveva intuito Pierre Brulé (‘Le langage des épiclèses dans le polythéisme hellénique, l’exemple de quelques divinités féminines. Quelques pistes de recherches’, «Kernos» 11, 1998, 13-34), più che elementi individualizzanti, le epiclesi rappresentano uno strumento mediante il quale il linguaggio politeistico crea sfere di competenza e di condivisione. In secondo luogo, fondamentale è il rapporto tra il registro generale del sapere condiviso e il piano variegato dei culti, il livello epico e il livello topico. Esattamente come le epiclesi funzionali non sono nettamente separate dai teonimi permanenti riconosciuti da tutti gli ellenofoni (così lo Zeus Xenios non è ontologicamente altro rispetto allo Zeus Olimpico), allo stesso modo i culti locali non possono essere compresi nella loro complessità senza considerare l’immaginario collettivo, che resta un punto di riferimento essenziale. Così, nei giorni precedenti la definitiva instaurazione della democrazia clistenica ad Atene, la sagacia della risposta di Cleomene I alla sacerdotessa di Atena Polias può essere colta a pieno solo attraverso il modello omerico della supplica delle donne troiane all’Atena poliade di Ilio: qualificandosi come acheo di fronte alla sacerdotessa che vieta alla stirpe dorica l’ingresso nel santuario (Hdt. 5.72), il re spartano richiama il favore rivolto nell’Iliade da Atena all’esercito acheo, a dispetto della funzione tutelare esercitata dalla dea sull’acropoli troiana. La Potenza implicata in questi due contesti è la medesima, ma, a seconda delle ragioni contestuali, ha la possibilità di operare in maniera differente. Neppure la sfera sacrificale è immune alla tensione tra unità e pluralità. Nel capitolo Sacrifier aux dieux l’A., partendo nuovamente da Erodoto per poi estendere la ricerca ad altre fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche, pone in risalto la valenza collettiva della «‘trame’ sacrificielle» (p. 140 e passim) conosciuta dai Greci sotto il nome di thysia. Questa struttura minima è fondata sulla selezione, ripartizione delle porzioni destinate alle divinità (oggetto di combustione sull’altare) e ai sacrificanti, nonché sulla condivisione alimentare tra dèi e uomini che ristabilisce una comunicazione tra i rispettivi mondi. Come la trama di un tessuto, anche il nomos hellenikos in materia sacrificale ammette motivi variamente elaborati dalle comunità locali, in particolare per quel che riguarda la quantità e la tipologia di splanchna selezionati per gli dèi e gli officianti. Il sesto capitolo, Croire aux dieux?, è dedicato a un problema estremamente delicato. Per semi-citare il titolo di una celebre opera di Paul Veyne, la domanda che si pone è: i Greci hanno creduto ai loro dèi? Ancora una volta il concetto di religione può essere fuorviante a causa della sua matrice monoteistica. Le religioni politeistiche, non possedendo né un credo né dogmi, bensì credenze (intese come rappresentazioni dell’immaginario), non implicano una relazione esclusiva e personale tra un fedele e un ‘vero’ Dio (da qui la possibilità dell’interpretatio divina e il prestito di divinità straniere). Per i Greci νομίζειν τοὺς θεούς significa riconoscere lo statuto delle divinità e onorarle ritualmente in quanto parte dei nomoi stabiliti dalla propria comunità. Il caso emblematico portato all’attenzione del lettore è il noto capo di accusa con cui Socrate è imputato di asebeia. L’A. nota con arguzia come Senofonte, nel tentativo di scagionare il Maestro, ricordi la sua partecipazione alle norme civiche della polis che regolamentano l’eusebeia, in particolare la sua cura nel praticare il sacrificio (domestico e pubblico) e la divinazione. Nell’argomentazione senofontea è del tutto assente l’idea di un’attitudine fideistica legata a un messaggio rivelato: Socrate non è condannato in quanto non credente, ma poiché accusato di non aver rispettato i nomoi della polis in materia religiosa. Da qui la constatazione per cui i Greci non credono agli dèi per fede, ovvero attraverso un’adesione intimistica a verità dogmatiche che trascendono il piano concreto in cui l’individuo agisce, ma credono che gli dèi esistano e agiscano nel mondo in quanto garanti di giustizia, costituendo degli interlocutori efficaci in un rapporto flessibile e negoziabile a seconda dei contesti. Il volume delinea alcune delle principali domande ancora aperte nel panorama dei più recenti studi storico-religiosi, invitando a porre in discussione le moderne griglie interpretative mediante il confronto diretto con i dati ‘emici’ provenienti dalle fonti a nostra disposizione e una sapiente scelta di casi di studio. Grazie a una raffinata impostazione teorico-metodologica, che coniuga l’attenta analisi filologica dei testi all’applicazione di strumenti euristici ereditati dall’antropologia storica, l’A. offre un’aggiornata messa a punto di questioni cruciali non solo nel campo storico-religioso, ma più complessivamente all’interno degli studi di storia culturale della Grecia antica. Federica Zigarelli (f.zigarelli98@gmail.com)
Ioannis M. Konstantakos
The literary history of the monkey and its kindred primates is long and variegated, though not as illustrious as that of other, more familiar animals, such as the fox, the cat, or the horse. Monkey characters appear already in the earliest literary corpus of the world: in a Sumerian animal fable, from the end of the third millennium BCE, the monkey writes a letter to his mother and complains because he is held in the house of the chief musician of the city of Eridu. He is afraid of dying from the stale food and drink and asks for help. This age-old tragicomic parable introduces a number of seminal themes, which predominate in subsequent literary portrayals of simians, up to the present day. First and foremost, the monkey is connected with writing. Like the Sumerian captive, who writes his letter, two magical baboons in the Demotic Egyptian Story of Petese are commissioned to compile and note down a collection of moral tales. The theme persists into modernity; in a tale by Kafka, a captured ape composes a report to the Academy of Sciences, to describe how he was gradually metamorphosed into a humanized being by imitating the men in his environment. Another important motif is that of captivity and the relation to the human world. The Sumerian monkey suffers because of his confinement in the house; he is a creature of nature trapped inside an alien domestic milieu. The same fate befalls Kafka’s ape, who is oppressed by his imprisonment in a cage and decides to adopt the habits of men in order to secure his release. The first one of these themes is not explored in the book under discussion; the second one, by contrast, becomes the focus of extensive analysis. Marco Vespa’s large and richly documented monograph offers a cultural panorama of monkeys in the Graeco-Roman world, relying on their descriptions and representations in ancient Greek and Latin texts of all genres. The author ploughs a vast range of writings, from epic and iambic poetry to medical and zoological treatises, from physiognomic tractates and moralistic philosophy to mythographic compilations, paradoxography, and sympotic literature. However, the book is not a literary history of simian primates in antiquity; it is rather a cultural study of the human perceptions of these animals in the specific context of the Greek and Roman civilization. Vespa studied under Maurizio Bettini at the University of Siena; he is a good pupil of the Sienese school for the anthropological study of the ancient world, from which he draws his research aims and methods. His objective is to explore the use of the monkey as an ethological paradigm and a culture-oriented construct in the thought and imagination of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Because of this orientation, the material is not examined under particular literary genres or authors but is organized according to major conceptional themes, ideological patterns, and notional models: for example, the evaluation of the monkey’s anatomy and physiology by the ancients; monkeys as archetypes of otherness; monkeys viewed within their natural wild habitat or in their partial acculturation in the human milieu; monkeys and moral qualities, such as flattery, servility, malice, and fraudulence; monkeys and the process of mimesis. The thematic arrangement of the study is responsible for some lost grammatological opportunities: the more literary-minded readers will miss an in-depth and methodical examination of the role of monkeys in Aesopic fables or of the simian imagery in Greek and Roman comedy and satirical poetry. The lack of a literary-historical perspective also explains the author’s indifference towards the texts of other ancient cultures, especially those of the East (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India), in which monkeys are plentifully featured as story characters and poetic images. Setting out to explore the idea of the monkey specifically in Graeco-Roman civilization, Vespa does not need to look outside the familiar Greek and Roman space – although, in certain cases, the recourse to sources of the ancient Orient would have helped towards the understanding of a few strange Greek accounts. Nevertheless, the scope and breadth of the discussion are impressive. The study offers fascinating insights into the new research fields of historical ecology and (the somewhat paradoxically named) anthropozoology, which have seldom been explored with such keenness and thoroughness with regard to the ancient world. The book is divided into four large chapters. The first one focuses on the ancient scientific discourse about monkeys and other primates. Observations on the anatomy, biology, and ethology of these animals are found in zoological and medical treatises, from Aristotle to Galen, and are also reflected in the encyclopedias and popularized miscellanies of natural history, such as the works of Pliny and Aelian. Vespa notes an important factor regarding the distribution of the species of primates over the ancient world: the eight or nine species known to the Greeks and Romans, coming mostly from North Africa and India, did not include the larger and more anthropomorphic apes, such as the chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan, which are endemic in Central Africa and South-East Asia and were inaccessible to classical Graeco-Roman explorers. This is why it would have been impossible for an ancient author to conceive of a scenario such as the Planet of the Apes or Verne’s Le village aérien. Living in the age before Darwin, the ancients were also unapprised of the genetic relationship between the ape and the homo sapiens. In their eyes, the monkey was not a biological relative of the human race in the chain of natural evolution, but only an imperfect imitation of human beings, a laughable but also weird and disquieting parody of man. Ancient naturalists and scientists viewed the monkey as an intermediate and ambiguous animal species (epamphoterizōn), combining both characteristically human traits and typical attributes of quadrupeds. A basic dichotomy was established between the animal’s front and hinder parts: the monkey’s visage and hands bear similarities, in terms of appearance and structure, to the corresponding human organs, although the ancient authors take care to emphasize the imperfection of the animal’s physiology. By contrast, the monkey’s posterior is starkly different from human anatomy and was considered as a paradigm of dysfunction and ugliness. The ape’s feet are structured similarly to its hands; the skeletal and muscular system of its pelvis and legs are deficient; the buttocks are underdeveloped to the point of unseemliness (in the eyes of the Greeks, the monkey was notoriously apygos). As a result, the animal is unfit for the most emblematic human postures, such as standing erect and sitting down. The monkey finds it easier to go on all fours, like a quadruped. Thanks to its anatomical traits, it is also able to move on the vertical axis and climb on surfaces inaccessible to man. Overall, this chapter is one of the most valuable sections of the book. It is also the most coherent one in terms of genre, as it focuses on a particular grammatological class of texts (zoological, medical, and naturalistic literature) and fully exploits its hermeneutic potential. In the second chapter, the author studies the images of the monkey in different ecological environments: on one hand, the animal’s natural habitat in the wilderness, in faraway and exotic lands, where primates are autochthonous; on the other hand, the various urban and domestic spaces of human culture, in which the monkey is introduced and partially acclimatized. The biological dichotomies and polarities of the first chapter are now transposed to the fields of ethology and interspecies relations. The monkey emerges again as an intermediate creature, midway between savageness and civilization: it is a wild beast and can never become fully domesticated; but it may be imported into the world of men and assimilated to the human activities and lifestyle. This animal embodies a clash of different cultural horizons, and the ensuing tensions are exploited in ancient texts to produce various moral reflections and humorous effects. From fourth-century Athens to imperial Rome, monkeys were kept as pets, especially in the households of wealthy families, which bestowed on these creatures the kind of care and attention normally expected for one’s children. Moralist authors, of course, condemned this practice as a sign of luxuriousness and debauchery. The ape, nevertheless, was not easily tamed and controlled; there are plentiful stories about monkeys which escape over the rooftops or bite children at play, and have to be restrained in chains and collars. Monkeys are also present in the milieu of the symposium, in which they take over the attributes and functions of the well-known figure of the kolax: like the latter, monkeys act as jesters (gelōtopoioi), cause laughter with their antics, tolerate the insults at their expense, and feed on the simplest foodstuffs, such as fruits and nuts, which are scorned by regular guests. The author offers a full survey of this interesting ethological parallelism in classical sources, but misses an important conclusion which may be drawn from the distribution of the textual references. The association of the monkey with flattery is chiefly made by philosophers and moralists, from Plato and Aristotle to Plutarch and Lucian. The poets of Old Comedy use the ape as a simile for corrupt demagogues who deceive the people – a metaphorical cluster which has to do with the animal’s proverbial fraudulence and insidiousness rather than with its proneness to flattery. By contrast, in the rich comic repertoire regarding the stock scenic type of the kolax and parasite, which ranges from Epicharmus and Eupolis to New and Roman comedy, no comparison is made between this popular stage character and the monkey. There is also nothing relevant in the ethological typology of the Aesopic fables, in which the monkey incarnates other character foibles, mostly vanity, frivolity, and fickleness. This suggests that the connection of monkeys and kolakeia was a construct of ethical philosophy, which did not truly infiltrate into the popular imaginary of the ancients. Views of the ape in its natural habitat, in countries such as India and Libya, at the extremities of the earth, are encountered in ancient ethnographical writings, from Herodotus and Ctesias to the histories of Alexander the Great and their reverberations on later works of geography and paradoxography. Various graphic and marvellous tales are transmitted about Indian monkeys. Alexander’s troops encounter a horde of cercopitheci in the forest and mistake them for a tactical army. A tribe of sociable monkeys, in the area of the Prasii in East India, gather at the outskirts of the city at regular intervals and are offered a meal of cooked rice by the king. Beyond the river Hyphasis, the monkeys help the natives gather peppercorns from the higher branches of the trees; hence, the locals worship these monkeys as benefactors and protect them from lions. By contrast, the fierce apes of the Hindu Kush fight with stones against their pursuers. Vespa analyses these narratives from an ethological viewpoint and painstakingly uses them to explain a curious word coined by Strabo and Aelian for the friendly monkeys of India, which are deemed «human-minded» (ἀνθρωπόνους). He plausibly demonstrates that this term does not denote intelligence but rather a basic attitude of the primate animals, their curiosity for and attraction to the humans and their activities. Recourse to ancient Indian literature would have been helpful in order to shed further light on the genesis and interpretation of some of these stories, whose central motifs are well-paralleled in classical Indian compositions. An army of apes plays a central role in the latter books of the Rāmāyana, helping the hero Rama defeat his demonic enemies and recover his kidnapped wife. A large tribe of monkeys which infiltrate a human village in search of food is the theme of the Buddhist Tiṇḍuka-Jātaka. Rituals of offering cooked rice to monkeys, which gather at a shrine, are still practiced in parts of India. Reading the Greek narratives against the Indian background would have opened a fascinating perspective. The third chapter offers a mixed bag of topics revolving around the parallelism of apes and humans. The central axis is the idea of the monkey as a failed and incomplete imitation of humanity. This animal is frequently associated with defective, deformed, and mutilated specimens of mankind. It is likened to effeminates, catamites, and eunuchs, because of its submissive attitude, anti-virile features, and shrill voice. It is charged with the vilest ethical attributes, from malevolence and envy to fraudulence and insidiousness. Hence, the ape was viewed as an ill-omened beast, and its name was replaced by euphemisms in polite conversation. It was standardly described as a mimetic creature, but not in the Aristotelian sense – not the kind of mimesis which constitutes the common attribute of humanity and the root of poetic creation. On the contrary, the monkey exemplifies the wrong type of mimesis, which aims at deception and illusion; it is a perversion of the mimetic capacity of man. Many ancient authors highlight the excessive, inconsiderate, and unsuccessful effects of the monkey’s counterfeits of human activity. Even when the animal imitates the human deeds with precision and faithfulness, the results turn out to be catastrophic. The female ape attempts to copy the humans’ affectionate coddling of their babies and grasps her own infant in her lap, but ends up suffocating the poor child because she squeezes it too hard. The Indian hunters lure monkeys to reenact typically human procedures, such as applying cosmetics or putting on shoes, which however lead the animals into a trap. The fourth chapter is taken up by two traditional mythical examples which involve monkey imagery and emblematize the reception of the animal in the collective imaginary of the ancient world. Firstly, the Cercopes, two brother brigands who tried to rob Heracles but were seized and bound by him, are reported (by Ovid and ancient lexica) to have been transformed into apes by Zeus, because of their perjury and impiety. This mythical pair of knaves is equated with monkeys chiefly because of their common moral vices: malice, deceitfulness, and proneness to stealing. Vespa also strives to establish a structural connection between the Cercopes and leanness of buttocks (apygia), which was a proverbial mark of monkeys as well as an emblem of effeminacy, by contrast to the stout and hairy posterior of the melampygos Heracles, the Cercopes’ opponent. Secondly, Thersites, the worst of the Achaeans, is also compared with the monkey by various authors, from Plato to Lycophron, due to a number of analogies: ugliness, dastardly bullying, and sheer buffoonery (both Thersites and the monkeys are classified as gelōtopoioi). In this connection, it would have been interesting to examine other cultural figures of the same kind. Aesop, the famous fabulist, was also presented as a deformed buffoon, closely parallel to Thersites; in the fictionalized Vita Aesopi (87), he is significantly called pithēkōn primipilarios, «sergeant major of monkeys». On the other hand, Thersites is also a proto-iambic figure; his acrid speech in Iliad 2 represents a specimen of iambic lampoon emboxed into the Homeric epic. This might have led to a closer examination of the major role played by the monkey in Archaic iambography, e.g. in the epodes of Archilochus. Apart from apposite examples from a range of classical texts, Vespa occasionally adduces a few depictions of monkeys in monuments of ancient art. Unfortunately, the images of these objects, as printed in the book, are too small and of low quality. In some cases, more might have been deduced from the visual materials. For example, the picture of the monkey sitting on an altar, on an amphora in the British Museum (E 307), might be fruitfully read in comparison with the standard comic and iconographic theme of the runaway slave, who takes recourse to the altar in order to avoid punishment. The personified monkey is cast in the role of the unruly slave who tries to escape from confinement. As for the discussion of monkeys involved in children’s play, this might be supplemented with the quaint Egyptian toys discovered at Amarna, Akhenaton’s capital: many of those miniature statuettes portray monkeys engaged in human activities, such as rowing a boat or riding a chariot (as in Philostr. Imag. 2.17.13 and in a chous from Eleusis). The remarks noted above should not detract from the value and importance of this book. Within the confines of his method and aims, Vespa has done an exemplary job. Being the animal totem of Thoth, the Egyptian god of scripture, monkeys are good to write about. Ioannis M. Konstantakos (iokonstan@phil.uoa.gr)
Informazioni
Incidenza dell'Antico
incidenzadellantico@gmail.com
Edizioni ETS
Lungarno Mediceo, 16 - 56127 Pisa (PI), Italia
info@edizioniets.com www.edizioniets.com
Abbonamenti
Individuale
Italia: € 50,00
Europa: € 50,00
Mondo: € 60,00
Online: € 30,00
Cartaceo + online: € 80,00
Istituzionale
Italia: € 55,00
Europa: € 55,00
Mondo: € 65,00
Online: € 40,00
Cartaceo + online: € 95,00
© 2024 Incidenza dell'Antico - mail: incidenzadellantico@gmail.com