Read an Excerpt
Ancient Greek and Contemporary Performance
Collected Essays
By Graham Ley University of Exeter Press
Copyright © 2014 Graham Ley
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-85989-983-3
CHAPTER 1
Hypokrinesthai in Homer and Herodotus, and the Function of the Athenian Actor1
The study of the origins and development of Attic tragedy has always relied to a great extent upon the construction of hypotheses, since they alone can provide the possibility of a coherent interpretation of the remaining plays and fragments. Once such series of hypotheses has arisen over the question of the original meaning of hypokrites, the standard Attic term for actor. Since the noun first appears late in the fifth century, already fixed in the theatrical sense which it was to retain, our understanding of the original function of this 'actor, performer on the stage' can only come from securing an exact meaning for the verb (given in the infinitive) hypokrinesthai.
The debate over the meaning of hypokrinesthai has, at certain times, attracted considerable attention. It was waged with customary acrimony in the nineteenth century, and was revived vigorously after the Second World War. This has left us, broadly speaking, with two contradictory views. This first was most fully expressed by Albin Lesky: that is, that we should understand hypokrinesthai as 'auslegen, deuten' (to interpret), certainly in the Attic dialect, and the hypokrites as an 'interpreter'. The second was elaborated by Gerald Else, who in an article which concluded several studies of theatrical terminology suggested that the hypokrites was an 'answerer', and might well be identified with that recurrent figure of tragedy, the messenger.
The arguments presented by both scholars have two related characteristics in common: they are concerned principally with the pre-theatrical meaning of hypokrinesthai, and as a result rely heavily upon the seven passages in the Homeric poems in which the verb is found. From the recent silence on the whole question, it is clear that others have accepted this approach, and reconciled themselves to a choice of views.
In contrast, my feeling is the impasse is unnecessary; but that to move beyond it requires a different, tangential approach. This can be supplied by directing the search towards the evidence that exists for the non-theatrical meaning of hypokrinesthai in general, and proceeding from that point to an attack on the main question, that of the original function of the actor.
The additional evidence for non-theatrical usage is in fact readily available in the Histories of Herodotus, and the first aim of this essay will be to determine the degree of correspondence between the meaning of the verb in that source and in the Homeric poems. This investigation leads beyond the choice that is at present offered us between the two verbal equivalents, 'answer' or 'interpret', to a determination of the full significance of the verb in poetic and historical discourse. On this broad basis I should like to propose a slight amendment to a traditional view, which may be of interest in its implications for the critical appreciation of the extant plays.
1 — Hypokrinesthai in Herodotus
There are thirty-two instances of hypokrinesthai listed by J.E. Powell in his lexicon to Herodotus. Of these, two are conjectural. For the abstract noun hypokrisis five instances are given, of which two are, once again, conjectural.
The meaning of hypokrinesthai in the Histories has never been disputed. Powell follows Liddell and Scott in offering the translation 'reply, make answer'. Correspondingly, for hypokrisis Powell gives 'reply', and Liddell and Scott 'reply, answer'.
In the following investigation I shall accept 'answer', 'reply', as approximate verbal equivalents for hypokrinesthai. But in order to achieve a more accurate definition of meaning, I shall examine the evidence for usage under two headings: the nature of the action or activity designated by the verb in Herodotus, and the nature, or quality, of the agent.
The nature of the action
At I.164 Herodotus is describing the siege of the city of the Phoceans by Harpagus, the Persian commander. Harpagus sets out the conditions under which he will leave the Phoceans in peace. The narrative then continues: 'The Phoceans, aggrieved at slavery, said they wished to debate this for a day and then hypokrinesthai' (I.164,2). The delivery of the answer is considered as an event or action separate from the deliberation which determines its content. This distinction applies equally to individuals as to communities. The wife of the Persian noble Intaphernes, condemned to death with his children and household, after pitiful complaints to her sovereign Darius is offered the unenviable task of selecting only one of the captives for salvation. Once spoken, her reply is final, and Herodotus' words are precise: 'she considered and hypokrineto as follows' (III.119,4). As we know from the frequent citations of this passage in connection with the Antigone of Sophocles, she chooses her brother.
In both these examples the activity distinguished from the delivery of the answer is deliberation, represented by bouleusasthai. But the distinction may equally be made between the essence of the reply and its delivery. In I.78 Herodotus records a portent which appeared to Croesus, the King of Lydia, some time before he was captured by the Persians along with his capital city, Sardis. Croesus immediately sends to the exegetes of Telmessus, whose skill lay in the interpretation of such omens. They correctly divine that a foreign army will appear and put paid to the Lydians: 'The Telmessians made this judgement', followed by the substance of their interpretation. But for Herodotus the accuracy of their divination is subsidiary to the real irony of the incident, which rests upon the timing of their reply. The stingin-the-tail is that the delivery of their response by messengers came after Croesus had been captured by Cyrus: 'The Telmessians now hypekrinanto to Croesus, but he was already captured'.
These last three passages in themselves are a conclusive demonstration that pragmatic or psychic reflection can certainly form a part of the context of hypokrinesthai but is absolutely distinct from the activity the word signifies, which is the delivery of the 'answer'. This is also apparent from the number of passages where hypokrinesthai as an action takes its place in a sequence of actions or events.
The sequence is seen at its simplest in an anecdote about the prelude to the battle of Plataea. Mardonius, the Persian commander, sends a herald to the Spartans attempting to provoke them into engaging in a limited contest of arms. Herodotus gives us Mardonius' proposal in the mouth of the herald, and continues with a brief sketch of what follows: 'After he had said this he waited for a while, but when no one hypokrineto, he went back' (IX.49,1). The sequence of actions follows an established pattern which has the formality of diplomatic procedure: there is a moment for the reply, and it is not taken. In an account of the siege of the city of Andros the circumstances are different (an answer is given), but the sense of hypokrinesthai as an activity in a sequence is again dominant: 'the Andrians hypokrinamenoi in this way and refusing to give money faced the beginning of a siege' (VIII.111,3). The decision is announced, and the finality of it is plain in the consequences.
The instance which best demonstrates this aspect of the use of hypokrinesthai is another occasion on which Herodotus employs the meaning of the word to achieve a particular effect. In the course of his expedition to Greece the Persian king Xerxes has been entertained along with his whole army by a Lydian, Pythius. Relying on this lavish display of hospitality, Pythius foolishly requests that just one of his five sons, the eldest, might be spared military service. Xerxes loses his temper, and autocratically replies that for his presumption that son shall suffer death. Execution follows immediately upon Xerxes' reply: 'as soon as he hypokrinato in this way, Xerxes immediately ordered those with who were entrusted with this task to carry it out' (VII.39,3). The sequence of distinct activities is thrown into the limelight by its horrific speed and consequence.
The quality of the agent
In the final example of those given above it is particularly apparent how little of the significance of the word can be rendered by the words 'reply' and 'answer'. As verbal equivalents, they are inadequate. The finality of the 'answer' given by the Persian autocrat is horrifyingly enhanced by the power he has to execute his decision. Whether considered in terms of power or consequence, the sense of the verb in all the passages so far reviewed would be conveyed more accurately by translating 'respond', 'deliver a response'. The adoption of a rendering of this kind is further justified when the quality, or status, of the agents of hypokrinesthai in Herodotus is taken into account.
The action signified by hypokrinesthai is only appropriate to those who have a particular status, and only on occasions of great moment. This is most charmingly seen in IX.16, where the occasion is a feast of impressive formality. Fifty of the noblest Persians are dining with fifty of the noblest Boeotians (Greeks). One of the latter is Thersander, the most important man in Orchomenos, a principal town of Boeotia, and his account of a conversation with a neighbouring Persian is given by the historian. It is the opening which is of interest: 'When they had finished dining and were drinking, the Persian reclining next to Thersander, using the Greek language, asked him where he came from, and Thersander hypokrinesthaithat he was an Orchomenian' (IX.16,2). The conversation cannot be casual: Thersander is the representative of his city.
What such men do is important, certainly for Herodotus, and his use Of hypokrinesthai conforms perfectly to this historical awareness, which is not always shared by the agent himself. In II.162 Apries, the King of Egypt, sends an envoy to his rebellious general Amasis calling upon him to return to obedience and to his side. Amasis is unimpressed: he rises on his horse and offers the envoy a fart as his reply to Apries. The envoy recovers his composure and reminds Amasis of the need to take royal demands seriously. The general then delivers a more telling response (hypokrinesthai) to the envoy (II.162,4): he will return, but at the head of his army. With that pronouncement Amasis becomes historical.
Both status and occasion make hypokrinesthai appropriate to the responses given by the oracle at Delphi. Enquiries often came from prestigious individuals or the representatives of a community, and the status of the oracle depended upon the reliability of the pronouncements, which were often of great consequence to the enquirer. For Herodotus the classic example is, of course, Croesus. His complaint to Delphi (I.90) after the disastrous crossing of the river Halys takes its substance from the unparalleled authority that the god lent to the priests who ultimately delivered his responses.
Dignity, authority, and status: all three words are reflections of the prevailing sense of consequence which is attached to this verb through its subjects. A list which brings together those agents already mentioned in this paper and the others from the examples in the Histories brings this fact into view. From this section: Thersander, the chief of man of Orohomenos; Amasis, the chosen general of the King of Egypt, and himself a future king; the Pythia. From the section above: the Phocean people; the wife of the influential Persian noble, Intaphernes; the Telmessian exegetes; the Spartans; the Andrians; Xerxes himself. Those remaining: Histiaeus, on behalf of the Ionian commanders, tyrants in their own cities (IV.139,2); the Royal Judges of Persia (III.31,4); Polycrates, tyrant of Samos (III.121,2); Lycophron, son of the tyrant of Corinth (III.63,5); the kings of five of the eight nations bordering on Scythia (IV.119,1); the Hellenes of prehistory, who had been involved in the rape of Medea (I.2,3); the Athenians, in reply to a Tegean claim (IX.27,1); the Ephors at Sparta, faced by an Athenian demand (IX.8,1); two Spartiates, members of the clan of state heralds, the Talthybiadae (VII.135,3); the Spartans, in reply to a Samian request (III.46,1 & 2); the Corcyrans, in reply to envoys of the allied Greeks (VII.168,1); the Athenians, in reply to Alexander of Macedon and to the Spartan envoys (VIII.143,1 and 144,1 & 5); the Argive Boule, in reply to the envoys of the allied Greeks (VII.148,4 & 149,1); and the Spartan envoys, in their reply to the Argives (VII.149,2).
It is possible within this impressive list to distinguish three kinds of consequence attached to the principals. There is the category of those who exercise absolute power, kings and tyrants, of whom the type is Xerxes. There was a finality to their decisions and actions which dismayed the historian. Authority is also an attribute of the second group, but an authority which comes from competence rather than power. The Telmessian exegetes, whose reply received attention above, were consulted because they were credited with a skill. In the case of Delphi, the position is more complicated, but essentially the same. The Pythia takes her authority from the god, and the dignity of the priests arises from their unique competence to make the final pronouncements.
This second group is distinct from the first in as much as those who are merely competent, as opposed to those with absolute power, can be held to account. The seriousness of this control might vary. When Croesus complained to Delphi, he was no longer a powerful king. But when Cambyses went to the Royal Judges of Persia to ask if he could marry his sister, they were forced to use their supreme authority as exegetes of the traditional laws in a manner which ensured their own safety: 'hypekrinonto ... both justly and safely' (III.31,4). As Herodotus pointedly notes, they only held office for life.
The notion of a competence directly allied to accountability leads to the third group, which embraces the majority of the subjects of hypokrinesthai in the Histories. Relations between states in antiquity depended upon the security of receiving an authoritative response to a question, demand, or proposal. The examples given so far, with the exception of the Phoceans, all fall outside the normal range of Hellenic diplomacy. But the final part of the list given above is composed exclusively of men entrusted with diplomatic responsibility by their community. Herodotus' narrative does not always reveal the identity of the principals or give an exact definition of their role, but in a sufficient number of cases the pattern of practice is quite clear. At Sparta, duties were divided between the Ephors, the immediate authority in Sparta itself, and the heralds to whom embassies abroad were delegated. These Spartan heralds were drawn from one clan, the Talthybiadae, and competence in the arts of diplomacy was passed from father to son. The distinction between home and abroad is similar in other Greek communities. Replies to embassies are given at home by the appropriate authority, and envoys sent abroad are delegates, whose competence is clearly defined, and who will be held to account for whatever they say on behalf of their country.
Conclusions
It is in this diplomatic setting that the full force of hypokrinesthai is apparent. Our understanding of the nature of the action marries perfectly with the exact quality of the agent to reveal the significance of the decisive pronouncements. The word is used in conjunction with the procedure almost paradigmatically in the account given by Herodotus of the transactions between the Argives and the allied Greeks, allies because they have taken an oath of alliance (VII.148–152). The bare bones of this extensive passage are as follows. The allies send representatives with a request that the Argives help to defend Greece against the Persians. The representatives enter the council chamber and deliver the request. The Argive council, as the authoritative body, makes the response ('the story is that the Council hypokrinesthai in this way'). The reply consists of two statements: the Argives are prepared to establish a peace for thirty years with their old enemies, the Spartans, but they also insist on sharing the leadership of the whole alliance, which until this moment had rested with the Spartans alone. The Spartan representatives amongst the allies reply to this in rigid accordance with the authority delegated to them. They will take back the peace proposal to the appropriate body (the Apella in Sparta), but they already have instructions on the response they should give (hypokrinesthai) on the matter of the leadership. They in fact demur, but the substance of the reply is for our purposes immaterial.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Ancient Greek and Contemporary Performance by Graham Ley. Copyright © 2014 Graham Ley. Excerpted by permission of University of Exeter Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
