Allegorical Debate

Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Some Features of the Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature Author(s): M. C. Waites Reviewed work(s): Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 23 (1912), pp. 1-46 Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310446 . Accessed: 30/04/2012 07:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
SOME
FEATURES
OF THE ALLEGORICAL GREEK LITERATURE

By M. C. WAITES
DEBATE
IN
the resultsof whichare embodied in the followinvestigation, instanceto providematerial in thefirst ing pages,was undertaken of the requirements fora Latin dissertation in partialfulfilment written for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of the Classics at RadcliffeCollege. I expected my dissertationto containa complete account of the allegoricaldebate as it presentsitself tolerably in the literatures of Greece and Rome. The fieldof mylabors,however, so that I was obliged to limit myselfto certainphases of proved fertile the allegoricaldebate observablein Greek literature before the birthof Christ. The wider task is still far fromcompletion. I have, indeed, scarcelystaked the boundaries of my "claim," and yet, if merelyfor I have thought the consecrationof myTerminus, thata briefdiscussion of materialso farcollected mightnot be devoid of interest. In order to present the subject adequately, I shall occasionallyrepeat conclusions elsewhere summarized.' The tendencieswhich lead to the productionof allegoricaldebates are, of course, world-wide. Wherevermen have been able to compreof lifeand present them as abstractions hend the contrasts thisliterary Such has arisen. are however, tendencies, type peculiarlyHellenic. Of all men, the Greek loved best to clothe the inanimatewithhuman vesture and to conceive it as inspired with emotions like his own. is the desire to analyze, to separate and contrast Equally characteristic components. In the very structureof Greek speech, two particles, l4v and 4', remain as a result of this attitude.2
THE
1 See Some Aspects theAncient Debate in Studiesin 'English of and Allegorical Literature and present Students at Radcliffe by former Comparative College (Ginn & E. K. Rand, Co., 1910), pp. 75 ff. The subjectwas suggestedto me by Professor adviceand friendly counselI am deeplyindebted. to whoseilluminating 2 Cf. Kemmer, Die Polare Ausdrucksweise in der Gr. Literatur(Beitraige zur Syntaxdergr. Sprache,Heft 15), Wiirzburg, kistorischen 1903.
I
M.
C. Wa ites
the combinationof these two proEverywherein Greek literature cesses evolves types suggestiveof the allegorical debate. In order, to define the genre closely, careful limitation of terms is therefore, necessary. By an allegoricaldebate, I mean a verbalcontestin which are eithernot humanor don forthe nonce the garb of the participants mortals merely in order to depict in more vivid colors the strifeof class as an allegoricaldebate opposing principles.' So one mightfairly a between the so-called Dialogue Chrisdan and a Jew,2because, though is labelled witha name of his own, he is, nevereach contestant neatly to intended his religion. The dialogue,therefore, theless, merely typify is an approach to a purely allegorical contest between Church and the divine fireshining Synagogue." To the Greek,who saw everywhere the between the allegorical and the commonplace, boundary through was vague indeed. the mythical is imAs to the procedure of the typical debate, precise definition at least that each combatant shall demand We defend, may possible. some one view,oftenmerelythe idea withan approach to consistency, of his own superiority. We shall not find the allegorical debate proof itsown. Rather,each writer a stage-setting vided witha background, on altercation his own environment, willfurnish modellinghis imaginary his withwhichhe has become familiar the controversies through personal or literary experience. An Aesopic fable may suggest to him the idea of contrastingtwo animals or two plants; a rhapsodic contest may or an actual dispute maybe removedfrom providehimwithhis scenery,
of Dr. J. Holly Hanford,Origin and Developdissertation Cf. the interesting Harvarddissertation Debatein MedievalLiterature, ment (unpubof theAllegorical be called lished), 19o09, p. 2: "Only a small portionof these poems may fairly in the form inherent element allegorical. There is, however,a certainallegorical thatthe characters are recurrent.Note first and incidental itself allegoricalfeatures areon thewaytoward as typesand personifications to be allegorical incline themselves and personifications as thesetypes contend, theytakepartin allegory. Furthermore, actionand so the poems as a whole approachallegory.. . . In this characteristic limited sense,then,the term mayserve." allegorical ? paos 2 AtdXo-yos drvca^S 'Iov'Ialo . .. yev6tevo b v 'AXe?avypelG KaL0 Xpwrartavo See Harnack, Texte und ^s ab4s TrbXews. ro0 dyutrdcrov ppX(etrtoKrwovU KvplXXov Romanum,IX, pp. xi ff. I, 3, p. 75; A. Mai, Spicilegium Untersuchungen, S. Mauri, 3 Cf. St. Aug. Op. (ed. Monach.ordinisS. Benedictie congregatione Paris, 1837), vol. V, pt. I, p. 93c.
The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature
the court-room or the rostrum to add reality to the structure of allegory. For convenience, I shall consider firstthe debate among the lyric in the drama. I shall poets, next in rhetoricand philosophy, thirdly then discuss briefly some developmentsof the debate duringthe Alexandrian Age. Lastly, to give an idea of later developments,I shall select two prominentwritersof the second-century Renaissance and treatthe debates whichappear in theirworks.'
I
THE ALLEGORICAL DEBATE AMONG THE LYRIC POETS
The tendencyto personify may often,without any idea of contestor an allegorical debate. So, for dispute, produce somethingresembling instance, Sappho in a beautifulfragment(Io9) sings of a maiden's despairingappeal to her maidenhood:
u HapOcvla, rapOcvta, irot
And Virginity answers,
XL our
(7,ot);
cLW, <OUKETLJe> rw 1p'T ( &,OKCL d.2 OV'KCT' As soon as a somewhatpolemical dialogue between two such figures is suggested,we have what is practically an allegorical debate. Such a case will be apt to occur in any formof lyricwhichemploysresponsive songs. For example,ProfessorSmythin his Melic Poets, p. cxv, thus describesthe Epithalamium : " The chorusconsistedeitherof girls alone, or of girlsand youthswho danced and sang responsively. .... In the amoebean song, the maiden friends of the bride laud her beauty,protest
II have found no workof importance whichdeals exclusively withtheallegorical debatein the classics. Helpfulsuggestions may be foundin the following:T. C. of Chicago dissert.),pp. Burgess,EpideicticLiterature(Chicago, 1902, University 234 ff.; 0. IHense,Die Synkrisisin der antikenLiteratur,Prorektorats-Program (Freiburg,1893), passim; R. Hirzel,Der Dialog (Leipzig, 1895), see index under
2 The poetess Telesilla seems to have two allegorical comparedor contrasted re: 'Ex r7S Kcarr figures. The scholiast,on Odys 13, 289, notes, KaXT re -wydXy Co18 Ka ro obrovOEd'r 818-ot, KcxO& C ,79r? tv KOLAbrL6Trro al KLcalo8o YO<^I XaG i 'Ap-yera 'Aperi KcLI KaXoK&yor lacselb6ra. TeX4tAXXa 8tacypdovort
and Diatriben; E. Norden, Antike (Leipzig, 19o9), I, pp. avyKplaetL Kunsprosa 129 ff.; T. Sinko, Studia Nazianzenica (Cracow, 90o6),pp. 3 ff.; U. von WilamoIV (I88I), 292 ff. witz-M6llendorff, Untersuchungen, Philologische
M. C. Waites
chant the blesagainst the crueltythat separates her fromher mother, . . . sedness of the virginstate, heap reproacheson the bridegroom On the other hand, the band of youthsdefend and congratulatetheir fortunate comrade,deprecate theconditionof the 'unprofitable virgin,"' etc. Catullus 62, a poem modelled closely on Greek precedent,provides an example. The youthsand maidens here are not individuals; they are meant merelyto representthe opposition of the sexes. Contrast the song of the maids, lines like 20 ff., crudelior " Hespere, qui caelo fertur ignis? Qui natam possis complexuavellere matris, avellerenatam Complexu matrisretinentem Et iuveniardenticastam donare puellam. Quid faciunthostescapta crudeliusurbe? "withthe chant of the youngmen (26 ff.): "Hespere, qui caelo lucet iucundiorignis? conubia flamma, Qui desponsa tua firmes ante parentes, Quae pepigereviri,pepigerunt Nec iunxerepriusquam se tuus extulitardor. Quid datur a divis felicioptatiushora? " Somewhat similiaris the situationin Alcman's famous Partheneion. of (frg. 23, Bergk.). Here (fromvv. 39-59) are sung the praises first the beautifulAgido, then of the scarcely less fair Hagesichora. The verses are much discussed. Whether,however,we conceive them as of the virginrecitedby the poet', by a girl-soloist 2, or by two members chorus" is of little intrinsic importance,though the last supposition would perhaps make the debate most clear. The poem turnsfirstto a Agido (v. 39, ~yv 8' ed&o 'Ayt&i r' 4,&s), but almostimmediately V oJ intrudes VLV to Hagesichora reference C' (ei oTE 7rawvv LwLSoacL receivesa OW8 a'L,; i4 ) and in vv. 51 ff. her beauty SKXEVVa Xopayo of her rivalis the superiority guerdonof lovelylines,althoughforthwith " . . . TO recognized. (a SpaletTatL.) eS" '"AytS'v FedLS vSevrTpa
I
CXXXV (1896), 14.
Bergk. P. L. G. III,
p. 832;
cf. Jurenka, Vienna Academy, Sitzungsberichte, p. 259.
2 Wilamowitz, Hermes,
XXXII (1897), 3 Blass, Hermes,XIII (1878), p. 30.
The versesby no means constitute a regular allegoricaldebate. Still, the antiphonal praise of the two maidens with the incessant contrast betweenthemcauses an approachto theconventional form. So Plutarch in the Life of Lycurgus (c. 21) explains that at the Lacedaemonian festivalstherewere threechorusescorresponding to threeages of man. The old men began, aLXKLUOL VCaVL"L. 'Ap~~' 7TOK" 7/LES To whichthe youthsreplied,
Se at Se "A/ues -" q'ILC's" X.ys,avyarusco. the chorus Finally boys' sang,

S ys ccd<O-ea roXXw 'Apks" Kappoves. Of all the lyrists, Pindar was most richlydoweredwiththe abilityto to opposing see, as it were,both sides of the shield,to listenalternately voices, cf. Isth. 7 [6]. The poet beginsin joyfulmood (1-15):
7roapO, u)V OvuXO v rcov KaGv C7rLXo)poov tocrra pa XaXKOKpdOTO CVApaVal"; 7rapco8pov AaLrCpoL %VL&KE pvXarTaV avrTLXac ALLovvo . .
TL(v T(i^v
ldKALapa ?rjaL,
qau S
Kva's ,7r
; K.T.X. TcoLpe-ao flovXa,
The sadder voice interposes, "XX'

e*VSCX~pL,'
OTL
u71 OLcl;
Yyip 'aXa,. S eZ flporoTL, avalov W)rTOV

aKpOV
KXvrTal s7rOW v
ELK7T7rLL oalroLv tUyV.
But thereis a sure remedy,

(VV VILVWL V Ko)/ULas E7rfTECV aSVUClXEAE L& peL p7p a ( y'p 'I0,Lot coE . . . vaT 7rayKpaTLO) VLKV
M. C. Wa ites Again the gravernote intrudes(31-48), rT Sl, AtoTdroLO 7rat,...

Av' 7rpoa(OV avi' Cdrervvewras
oAov . . .
XLK&av
o" irXavS 7rervOos faro6v" Again the sharp contrast, vvvuOt .XXa. PaLioXoEvoSav dorarrcv EK XEL/ULVOT.daOl/AaL Xat oTV 07CVOL~LVdp?O(OV"
Religion adds its caution, /? VO St S 8 0ardmOVaT) ~1 OpaaaET( 4Oovof. TKV pov riiervo7v
~ yvypass Lrv /V pa-LLOv EKaXo 71TEu awi yap O/AL&Trav7TE va. OvcrTKOAEV 8Kav TO. 7rap" uVE'L yXvKV TeXEVrr. The poem closes, as it began, in joy.' If we are to trustProfessor Gildersleeve,'part of the second Pythian (72 ff.) nearlyapproaches an allegorical debate. This scholar,as he reads, hearkens firstto a Al&atos,then to an "ALtKOg Aoyos. Pindar and Righteousness fromAristophanes differs triumphs. Such ultimately even if not conand ingenious, an analysisof the passage is interesting the the most opposition of ideas is not part, however, vincing. For debate. a for clearlyenough expressed I have elsewherediscussed8 the most perfectexample of the debate in the lyric poets. It occurs in a mutilatedpoem by Corinna, pubGrieckische lished byWilamowitz, II (1907), p. 26. Dickter-Fragmente, we can discerna contest,probablyin song, From the sorryremnants, held between Helicon and Cithaeron in the presence of the gods.
t Cf. Pyth. 4, 288 ff.; PytI. I, 1-31; 81 ff. and PytkianOdes (1890), p. 255The Olympian Debate,pp. 92 f. oftheAncientAllegorical 3 SomeAspects
2
&O)KOW TL Tfp7rVoV 4%CqEpOV
7rKP07oT~Ta
When we are permittedto view the struggle, Cithaeron is apparently singingof the birthof Zeus;
16. [Tr]KavKa VLV KXVtI

rt/AaV. Ul)Xc
PLVa, /1A.[K?]pa r' [&]Ocav'ov [*jJs [/~yc]hXav
At the conclusionof the song, the gods cast theirvotes and Hermes as heraldproclaimsCithaeronvictor. The agon has a tragic postlude, for Helicon in wrath snatches a huge bowlder and hurls it upon ' countless multitudes,'doubtless the membersof an attentive mortalaudience. ProbablyCithaeron'ssong was preceded by some proofof Helicon's will prowess,musical or otherwise. The contestof the two mountains a formula then follow so generalas to be practically a conventionof the of cases, the contestant destinedto allegoricaldebate. In the majority defeatbegins the dispute. How far the mountainsare to be regarded as allegorical figures is difficultto determine. Perhaps, as Corinna embellished her poem, Helicon and Cithaeronwere in her mind mere personifications quite forexample,fromthe Zeus that dwelt on Olympus; though, different, as a matterof fact, preciselyparallel to that divinity. On the other hand, her descriptionwould certainly were implythat the combatants to her hoary giants, sincerelyregarded as actual patron deities of theirrespectivepeaks'. The elementof debate is diminishedby the fact thatthe performance is obviouslymodelled on a rhapsodiccontest, so thatthe contestantsare opposed merely in theirrecitations, not in fundamental character. II
THE DEBATE IN RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY
Certainspecial influences were earlyat workto turnthe thoughts and mode of expressionof philosophersinstinctively toward the allegorical debate. One of the most important was the customof allegorical inand explain sundry terpretation, applied to refine revolting passages of
Cf. Wilamowitz, 1. c., pp. 48 f. One may comparethe contestbetweenPan and Apollo in Ovid, Met. I I, 153 ff., whereTmolusactsas judge and seats himself monte suo.
M. C. Waites
Greek Mythology. Theagenes of Rhegium,to whom is attributedthe inventionof this compromisebetween savageryand civilization,was to interpretthe Homeric contests inclined, according to Porphyry, where deity encountersdeity as allegoricallysymbolizing the strifeof natural forces. Sometimes,too, the names of the gods were said to like Wisdomand Folly.1 opposing abstractions, allegorically typify Certainof the placita of the philosophershave also a bearingon our problem. So Empedocles,frg.20 (Diels, Fragmenteder Vorsokratiker), thusdescribes the eternalconflictbetweenLove and Hate:
EL ue'v jXXoTr 4)kdryT (VVCPXOEOV elCV aXXOTCr ' avTre KaKTqtL 8aT/a.lOIVT' 'Ep3OeITOL rkXadcrat av&tx' eKacrTa 7rcptppqvlyitV Lo.
ravra . . ,
for he, according to Diogenes Protagoras is especially significant, E4C7 a 7' t 7raVTo" 7TrpdyjLTro Laertius, 9, 51, p7rPTro sqvo XOdov c7"ra in the Antilogiai of Prosees dVTiLKMEViOV dA7XXo&7.2 Hirzel,8indeed, the debate of the two Xo'yoL influence which not the shaped only tagoras in the Clouds of Aristophanesbut, albeit to an opposite issue, the amused the Carneades, too, we are informed,4 Republic of Plato. Roman litteratiduring his embassy by arguing one day in praise of 1 Schol. Venet. ad Y 67: o0 d0v/l/A6pov repZ Olei /h~v X6bos, Ka(6XOU oXETaL ibrp T OV Oew^VtOOUS 70rlV. boloWS 6U Kar TOv aCrperouv O6 yTp irpErovwra 7T0-o o S 7a irpbs 6U 7T) TOLat7rV q1-dVra dXX-7yopig XEOWS KaT7'yOpOUVTEs, olf v db rAI vU otov ras dvavrtdo(eLo /6ews, p J' OeCoV r7-7 TCiV rTOL(EWv BOrT elpOaCr volt4obures rT$V 6 pbv 7r rypy . . . gaxeOat KaZKTKO6DOV KaZ ydp caL Tr7P . . dXa 7o /8ape. "Hq5aaroY, 8 &aTlOeoOat [cabr6v] 8tovocd~ovra7b Kra "HXALOVJKa vY 7rp 'Arb6XXwva Kai Kdtav6pov . . . ~0' 6T Ka TaL UV68wp oo-etbwva Tb 6'v6arTa
&taO&eorv Oeov 7 rv 'AOuavY, T 86' dpoorv 7Y Iy6 ov T6v "Apea . . T- tYvqpov'r5EL TrOdvat, .orors '0 droXoylas apXatos v rvuiv cadrb Oeay7vov TO7 'P~rylvov, <6) rpb6ir irp&TroS K rs Xeews. 7 typa/e rept 'Owh5pov, rotof-r6s d7Y dTrb fuisse et paratas a Protagorarerumillustrium quae nunc communes disputationes, appellantur rerumlaudes vituperationesque loci; quod idem fecisseGorgiam,cum singularum conscripsisset." SDer Dialog; I, 56 4. Romam missus esset disCic. R. P. 3, 6, " is cum legatusab Atheniensibus suam postridie contraria putavitde iustitiacopiose. . . . Sed idem disputationem sustulit." et iustitiam, subvertit quam pridielaudaverat, disputatione der Griechen (188o), III, I, 334 f. 2 Cf. Cic. Brut. 12, 46: " Itaque ait Aristoteles . . . scriptas.
of the Labors of Heracles,Zeller, Cf. also on Cleanthes'sinterpretation Philosophie
Justice and the next, with even greater enthusiasm,in defence of Injustice. A verytypicaland important allegorical debate was evolved by Prodicus and recounted by Xenophon (Afemorab.2, I, 21) in the wellknownstoryof Heracles at the Cross-roads. In fact,no bettermethod of illustrating the growthand developmentof such contestscould be found thana carefulexaminationof the sources and imitators of Prodicus. The debate is in structure elaborate. The young Heracles is fairly representedas having reached the boundarybetween boyhood and at the cross-roads beforedecidingwhether to pursuethe youth, hesitating path whichleads to Virtueor that whose end is Vice. His uncertainty presentsitself in tangibleform,' for two fair figuresapproach him as he sits in solitude. The contrasting descriptionsare worthquoting: ' And it seemed to him that two women of great staturecame toward her him,one comely to see and noble, her body adorned with purity, a woman clothed in eyes with modesty,her form with wise restraint, whiterobes; the otherinclined to plumpnessand delicacy of body, her complexion embellishedso as to seem both rosierand fairerthan it reallywas,her eyes boldlyopen, her clothingarrangedin a mannerbest fittedto reveal herfairform.' The lady does not belie herappearance. Hastening to pass her modest companion, she rushes up to Heracles and proceeds to unfoldto him the manifold advantagesof life's journey X-v in her company. (&'v oiv i ~t Tqv o apuevos,[Cit-] 78L-Trv rot. IE oTW KCTWV 4r Te KaL pcTTKl7v OSOv V rrv v EVo3 Oc' 1yEVo'ros Ea'L, 0.) TWV Se In response to a question, Xxahecrv 7rctpo s Kx..h.) StafLW, she introducesherselfas Happiness (E SatMovia), admitting, however, At thispoint,her comrade, that her traducerscall her Vice (KaK'a). Virtue, intervenes. She makes no specious promises (rtiv yap vVroTV ayaOwvKaltKaXwjvo8;ev lev 7rrovoV lt 60LSOcLtv dvOp4Kaoti7tqJeXLa. O.o withthe contemptuousKaKta, 7ro~1); in fact,one feelssome sympathy who remarksthatthe paths of her opponent are anything but waysof an This tirade from indignant produces Virtue, who pleasantness.
a doubleallegory Thereis in reality here. The possiblechoicesare symbolized, first by the two paths,then by the two women. I should suggestthat the latter himself. He could thus best emphasize the maywell be due to Prodicus conception in his apologue. moralelement
10o
. C. Wa ites
vituperatesher adversary and praises herself with equal generosity. The resultof the contest may be determinednot fromXenophon,but fromthe Scholium to Clouds, 361 0) eV 7(arcOt7K 1perat 86 Kal tlpo8&Kov 8L/Xov y2patL, yCLypa0dVO/vov
TOY cHpaKX a T7 qpT7
Ka1 T
KaK
TVTVyXaVOVTa,
Kat
KaXOVO l;
EKa-
T? ar7~, TOV "HpaKXda rEpas~ Ka? apTT7y r& LTr7 TOVO 7rpoOrK.vaL ~ 7T1; KaKlas 8ov 7TOV cKlvfY &Sp(oa 7rpoKptvatL iv. 7rpoOKatpov We have, then, a youth at the turning-point in his life, a crisis indicated The cross-roads. possible ways his life may allegorically by take are further indicated by two contrastingfemale figuresbetween which, after some argument,he makes his choice. Now in the first place, we have already seen enough of the ease withwhich the Greek clothed abstractionsin concrete form to make us certain that later writers would not necessarily be obliged to turn, fortwo opposingalleto the of will need to Prodicus. Such gorical figures, apologue figures of 'Aper?7 to the forms their title considerable resemblance prove by very and KaKla beforewe shall be sure that theyare not independentcreawe find in an allegorical debate the figureof the tions. If, however, used again, or a young man settlinghis career forever cross-roads by a and especiallyif these two feachoice betweentwo allegorical figures, of Prodicus. turesare combined,we may suspect the influence We maynote,in passing,thatin all probability Xenophon has stripped the debate of much of its original adornment. For Socrates in the his versionof the allegory: Memorabilia thussummarizes
' T/V 'HpaKXCK ov 7rO 8teOKL IPdKO' r"' 'AperT, 7raCEvcUTLV' 0 7 (T PIjlcTLV 7T yVW7a/ETL EyaVXELOT iKdO(T/V EYVTOL 6y V V. pOLP
o0V"
The figureof the two roads did not originatewith Prodicus. It a passage quoted in Hesiod ( Works and Days, 287-292), occurs first of Prodicus: just beforehis summary by Xenophon himself T
2 XLl7) pIqr7U;oL TT& pcpnT7n
&O4vaTro
KcKvT7T KyKa p vl yc
L CoTLv (XECTOaL XaSoOv o S' EyyV'OL /ia'Xa YvaIL. c'S,, Cv/i

7rporappoLt& iOKaY Kat OpOLO;
'7f8C OOC 1 ; 1 S'
wop0)Ta 8aOW Tro 7rp(o)TOV

7rfXAL,
*/AaKpO
C' aV2 7V
KaL,
Kat 7pT pv)L&7)q
JLKpOV
E'rELTa &,l
XaXcrr
irep
oi~ua.'
Cf. also the Ways of Truthand Errorin Parmenides's poem,33 ff.
II
A well-known symbolof the Pythagoreanphilosophywas the letter forkthe of whichrepresented the road to Vice, the right Y, the leftfork road to Virtue.' This conception may well have influenced Prodicus.2 Heracleitus is said to have remarked 68~V cEi -: avvyro,/Aowdrv E6S$'av r' yev' Oat dyaOdv,and the Cynics consideredtheirphilosophy as this"short cut." 4 Letter 30 attributedto Diogenes explains how Antisthenes made use of the figure of the Ways in a mannerpossibly Prodicus's The fable. suggested by supposed Diogenes there relates that Antisthenes, to illustratea point in his lectures,led his pupils throughthe city to the Acropolis and compared the two paths which one shortand rugged,the other long and gave access to the summit, to the which roads conduct mankindto Happiness. level, the scholium Remembering quoted on p. 3, Welcker5 suggests Telesilla as anotherpossible source forProdicus. The commentof Athenaeus (5 io c) suggestsa connection between our apologue and the Judgment of Paris:
86 . KcL T27V T0 y 7ro 7TO at Sov^17 7Tp' TV &pv
ap
WO KpWLV
OvyKpfLV-' 0TV
W T
LOTEpto OU0
7Te7T/
ovo taY
7rpOKPLt OC'TY
a a~vr i8rri"v " " 'A4poo3rlr', ov1o, -7rvCLra rvvcrapayXO. 7 TWVVrcp* Ka7 T-V s jtv 'HpaKX&a 76V Ka okaXo riiv 5 687c.6 pET77V Cf. ibid. 15, rve-XaK-vat. C.vo ieevOvv /.LVOOV
j
KO
L O
KE
Cf. Lact. 6, 3, 6; Pers. 3, 56; Stob. Eclog. II, 9, 6 (Wachsmuth); Ausonius, i66, 124 (ed. Peiper); F. P. G. (ed. Mullach), I, p. 511; Isidore, Orig. 1, 3, 7. The figure of the two roadsand its significance forthe earlyChristians, as wellas its withthe Pythagorean connection is fullydiscussed letter, by C. Pascal, I1 Bivio della Vita, in Miscellanea Ceriani (Milan, 1910), pp. 57 ff. 2 Cf. Ps.-Theognis, 91I if.: iv rplo8p (T) 8' 9orgac -i' elot rd olIo= -rp6iOev 601
w Kc1LK67'qt, v 77 IAnv 5aravrv 7pdYw plov reXwiv i7 7 w repirv@'s 0'1ya. fcpya

Gnom. Vat. (ed. Sternbach), n. 315 ( WienerStudien, Io (1888), p. 250). 4 Cf. Epist. Gr. (ed. Hercher), 12, p. 238; 37, p. 252. 5 Kleine Schriften, II, 469 20. ' The Etruscan are citedby Schultz(Heraklesam Scheidewege, mirrors Philologus, 68 (191o), p. 490 and n. 5), in hisattempt to establish a version olderthan Prodicus, of the Judgment of Paris,in which Areteis replacedby the figure yetindependent of Minerva. He refers Etruskiscke especiallyto Gerhard, Spiegel,155 (i. e., I51?) and 156. These mirrors, as a classsucha curious however, present (perhapsOrphic ?)
'o t 4?povrtic ro6,wvV rvrL
v rporipqy
12
M. C. Waites
theremay be a connection betweena mythlike the JudgHistorically, ment of Paris and the fable of Prodicus. But in thought, the difference in the numberof the allegoricalfigures,' the exactlyopposite issue, and above all the markedmoral and didactic purpose of Prodicus show the slightnessof the kinship. Far nearer in spirit is the mythof Hippolytus. Hense 2 has a fewpages of excellentcomment upon the significance of this debate. It exemplifiesthe law of precedence by which the partyto be defeated regularly begins the argument. This debate is a little peculiar in that the figureof Virtue is introducedfirst. Later, however (? 23), the ill-bredhaste of Vice urges her to open the conof a train of versation. The wordsof Virtue offera slight suggestion attendantsby whom, in the originalversion,Vice may have been ac4pov<ov sv roi" Om~crov companied. (Cf. ? 31: ~1 ri' roXzCj<rCLCv roo9 common featureof the alleSuch a of is a subordinates troop rvat;) elaborated and often artificial gorical debate. So, too, is the carefully contrastbetween the adversaries. The didactic note of thiscontention is also, as we shall see, highly characteristic. Oftendoubtlessthe setting wished when later writers of the Prodicean fable provided a suggestion to introduce allegorical figuresas simply and naturallyas possible. however,the strife prefaceor apology. begins without Frequently, The figure of Heracles had much to do withthespeedy popularization and philosophicala personage of the tale. We shall see how influential the son of Alcmenebecame. a and reproducers, I now turnto the long list of Prodicus's imitators list which I thinkit worthwhile to record,partlybecause it shows the wide influenceexercised by thisone debate and partlybecause I have not foundall the passages collected elsewhere.
the to Minervathat one cannotsafelydetermine of Hercules's relation conception other in Hercules with her and which the scenes of appears properinterpretation Minerva. A male and a femalefigure figures. In 161, e. g., Herculesis carrying face him (Venus and Mars?) and behindhimis another cap personwitha Phrygian as a symbolic and a staff(Paris?). This, as well as 155, seems best interpreted of Herculesand Minerva. of themarriage representation This maynotbe essential. See below, p. 27. SDie Synkrisis, pp. 14 ft.
I3
of part of Xenophon's Cicero, de Offic. 1, 32, I 8 gives a translation account. It is possible that Panaetius upon whose famous work VrCEp the de Ofciis is based, may also have quoted the 70ro KaN'Ororo apologue. Id. de Fin, 2, 14, 44: " Ita ceterorumsententiissemotis relinquitur 1 certatio: non mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuticum voluptate quam quidem certationemhomo et acutus et diligens Chrysippusnon contemnittotumquediscrimen summiboni in earum comparationepositum We infer from this also was influenced putat." passage that Chrysippus Prodicus's in the work Ka0Xot by example,perhaps 7rcpt Ka 0Svo where, as Aulus Gellius records (14, 4), he drew a graphicpictureof Justice. De Fin. 2, 21, 69: "'Pudebit te,' inquam, 'illius tabulae quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. lubebat eos qui audiebant secum ipsos cogitare pictam in tabula Voluptatem,pulcherrimovestituet ornatu regali in solio sedentem: praesto esse Virtutes ut ancillulas. .'" ... It is hardly feltthe influence likelythat Cleanthesin thisdescription of Prodicus.2 The interesting debate in Ovid, Amor. 3, I has the followingpoints of resemblanceto Prodicus: (i) the solitary meditationof the person to whom the allegoricalcharacterspresentthemselves; (2) the crucial Tragedyand Elegy. choice,--in thiscase between two modes of poetry, Tragedy and Elegy are each representedby one speech, and thislack of extendedargumentis characteristic of those classical debates which were produced under the influenceof Rhetoric and Philosophy. The apologue of Prodicus is peculiar in the fact that,thoughthe claims of Virtueare plainlyin the sophist's mind farmore important than those of Vice, he nevertheless allows KaKla to interrupt her rivaland take the stage again fora briefspace. Among the figuresin the Tabula of 'Cebes,' we find the contrast between IIHaSlda and IcvSo7raLSdlaemphasized in a way reminiscent of Prodicus. An old man interprets to a passing strangeran allegorical painting hanging in the forecourtof the temple of Cronus. Certain
Cf. the version in Philo. St. Augustine enlarges on the idea in De Civ. Dei, 5, 20; cf. Seneca, De Vit. Beat. I I. Cleanthesdoubtlesspaintedhis word-picture "in iis librisquos scripsit
2
contra voluptatem " (Nat. Deor. I, 14, 37).
I4
M. C. C. Waites
are thererepresented, who having squanderedall the gifts spendthrifts of Fortune, wander in abject miserytill they fall into the power of and introducesto Merdvoua. She relieves themfromtheirmisfortunes them certain Opinions, one of which will prove a guide to 'AXqOtv'jn llaLSe'a, the other to IcvEo7razLSe'a. The steep path of True Learning leads finally and Endurance, to two fairwomen typifying Self-Control who presentthe pilgrims whose aid they withreliablecomrades through influenceof the attain the but debate is The finally petrified, goal. of the Prodicus is apparent. One significant is interposition change the guides and interpreters. Philo Iudaeus' begins in these words a long contention between Pleasure and Virtue: the ' With everyman of us dwell two women,hostileand unfriendly one to the other. . . . One of these we are fond of, regardingher as easy to deal withand to manage,and a good friendand intimate. Her name is Pleasure. The otherwe hate, thinkingher our worst enemy. Her name is Virtue.' afterthe mannerof The appearance of Pleasure is described entirely Prodicus. ('H
TCOpV/L/LVqY ,
/LEv o0Yv rpoopXErat

7T)
7r0pvr19Kal Xa/laptGvLr Toyv7pO7TOV

...
KCKXaaT/rEV^)
C/AXfirovcrc&
...
73cptepyq)
^l.AaTL ta 7a'Ta 7J-OLKLX
7 TI
O.apaoT KecaXLX?
.,/Tum
7PLtXcLaVO.XVTLo.Xcv &varLrE7TXey-
An appalling train of familiarsattends her, of whom Impiety, Injustice,and Deceit may be mentionedas representative. Withflattering words,Pleasure strives to allure the mind, promisinggratification of everysensual lust and desire. Virtue,in fear that her companion's with a statement beguilementsmay produce their effect,interferes of her own claims. Philo exhausts himself in praising her purity and modestyand enumeratesher trainof more than thirty--satellites followsthe consuch as Piety,Truth,and Temperance. Virtueherself herrivaland lavishly ventionalrble,vituperating laudingherown charms. the mind obedientlyrejectsPleasure At the conclusionof her argument, and ensues Virtue. The lengthof Philo's debate is due to his tiresomeand characteristic prolixity. The long train of attendants has been evolved from the of Vice in Xenophon's account. simpleOKacros
I de Sacr. Abelis et Caini, 20 ff. (Cohn & Wendland, I, p. 209).
15
Philo's very diction is indeed so reminiscent of the version in the Memorabilia thatthiswas certainly his sources. one of But, as Wendland has demonstrated,' work. Novs takes at thereare otherinfluences the place of Heracles and 'HWov" of KadKa. This last change pointsin the directionof the Stoico-Epicureancontest and suggeststhat Philo had access to some Stoic source,possiblyChrysippus.2 As Wendland further remarks,the speech of Virtue is practicallyan encomium of which seems to showa Cynicinfluence. But,on the otherhand, irovos,8 it. Cf. Prodicus,according to the version of Xenophon,foreshadows -yp ovWv ayaOv oaxv vv Gvev Ka't ? 28: Tw"v KV KaXt 7rovov 47rtctU u'as Philo had before him the Tabula also avOp4prots. Perhaps 0eo' 6&0arvw of Cebes.4 In the fifteenth book of Punica (i8 ff.),Silius Italicus depicts the like the young Heracles, in solitude. To him apyoung Scipio sitting, first. She Virtus herself and pear Voluptasof whomVoluptasintroduces is the legitimatedescendantof Prodicus'sfancy: "Altera Achaemenium spirabatverticeodorem, ambrosiasdiffusa comas et veste refulgens... ." Virtueis interestingly different fromher predecessors: "Alternisdispar habitus: fronshirtanec umquam compositamutatacoma; stans vultus,et ore incessuque viro propior." The Cynic note is plainlyto be heard here. Dio Chrysostom 13 M.) introducesHermes as "guide, (Or. I, 65 ff., " to lead the young Alcides over a path inacphilosopherand friend cessible to mortal feet and reveal to him a mountain so lofty that its two peaks, Kingly Power and Tyranny, appear from the foot one summit.
NeuentdeckteFragmente Philos, Berlin, 1891, pp. 14o ff. Cf. Hense, Die Synkrisis, p. 22. 3 Cf. the words of Virtue,41 (Cohn & Wendland,I, p. 218): 5oxe YdYp poA I Y 7ipprTKEY cL Ja/ALYt r6vosT'Y aGrlrbv rb 77v yoW auTrr7 rpoTpoEdTOca Trpo4 KaOcreiTep m avKapoaara Kai 7& d& 7 Nv drcawa o rOVTI KKal gatw? ibr6os pyL a TE Kal rdcO2,
2
iKKep4acKEY
CavroTu
Ceb. Tab., 1903, p. xii. p. 96, and van Wageningen,
4 So
Praechter, Cebetis Tabula quanam
r& dya0c4.
aetate conscripta esse videatur, I885,
16
MA. C. Waites
As we anticipate,two widelydissimilar paths giveaccess to the peaks. we notice an interesting, Here, however, though natural,variant. For the Way of KinglyPower is broad and safe, that of Tyranny a narrow and tortuous defile. Upon the peaks sit their mistresses, Basileia and is modelled somewhat closelyupon the Tyrannis. The former 'Aperof Prodicus,though the whole account is naturally motived to fitthe scheme of the oration. She is attended by AL'Kfl, ErvoAta,Eiprjv, Nod'os. Tyranny's throne is far loftierand finer,her garmentsare manycolored and in her mannershe endeavorsto imitateher rival. But she cannot sit peacefullyon her unsteady seat and all her splendors are ' meretricious. Her servants are O[fto7rs, "Yflpp, 'Avoutda, T"rdoas, KoXaKea. Heracles, upon examination,spurns Tyrannis and all her forBasileia. ways,and vehemently expresseshis admiration as this version of our Unique apologue appears, we need not assume an intermediate source between Dio and Xenophon. What Dio could do in the wayof personification maybe seen fromOr. IV, 83 ff.(72 M), where Diogenes, in reply to a question fromAlexander,representsas incline.' Probably, daimonesthe sortsof lives to whichmen principally however,the influenceof Cleanthes and Cebes may be traced in the to pure description.2 tendencyto turnfromthe debate-form Essentiallythe scheme of the Choice of Heracles is reproduced in Lucian's Dream (c. 6 ff.). A youngman and his careerare the objects and Culture,each of whommakes one of contentionbetweenStatuary long speech. Statuary dooms herselfto defeat by beginning. As modelled on Cebes, we elsewhere"Lucian paints a picture professedly of IIlatSa here. may assume the influenceof the Tabula in the figure Justin Martyr (Apaol. 2, c. i i) gives an abbreviationof Prodicus's fable, mentioningXenophon as the source. Touches of the Cynic is the emphasislaid on descriptionof Virtue are evident. Interesting in the attireof the two contestants. the difference
was perhaps 2 The introduction of the mountains by Simonides (fr. 58. suggested Bergk.). It occursalso in Cebes. (See Weber,op. cit., p. 250.)
" De Merc. Cond. 42; Rhet. Praec. 6 ff.
Studienfi-r Classische Philologie, X (1887), p. 171.
1The idea may, of course, have been due to Diogenes.
Cf. Weber,Leipziger
I7
QUX/0
rCrovr)KUl" 7 apeT KaL K007/.L-qlLL KcLLcLvv7ro&17T7) 7TC7tOfLCVr) , ' C 4LLN ELd iq' ELyyVWo0KE 0EV 7?'VvTo, 1E067a, KatLY&V Evax1JoILOV.
Maximus of Tyre (Dissert. 20o, init.) and Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2, 1o, ? IIo, p. 236(P) ; Strom.5, p. 664(P)) made directuse of the apologue of Prodicus. The change of KaKdato 'Htovi in theformer indicatesStoic influence and possiblyClement had Philo in mind. In Philostratus( Vit. Apollon. 6, Io (239))x we have a description derivedfromProdicusand also from some Cynic source,as the following account of Virtueproves: 8 opWaca,rov Se a 1U rpoo-4cp))s, rpaLXv
p/LEV T'qV XLTV)
01qXCl'
The words,however,may have been written withno idea of imitation, the better to express the thoughtof the narrator, Thespesion, who is deliveringan encomium on Frugality. Then comes a striking development. Apolloniusin replyto Thespewho him exhorts to sion, choose, like Heracles, between the wisdomof the Indians and that of the Egyptians,declares that Philosophyhad once revealed herselfto him and exhibited to him her various sects in the formof beauteous womenwho stroveto allurehimby theirpromises of pleasure. One alone stood silent, apart from the rest, and her induced to speak, provedanywords,when she was finally introductory but alluring: thing ' .tLptKLov,'G7V,,
O4s ' )7) 4
Here followsa long explanation of the hardshipsshe entails,but also whichawait her followers. Apolloniusends of the unspeakablerewards this the Pythagorean. philosophy, by choosing has felt the Basil, too, Cynic touch. He repeats the Prodicus story de libris legend. gent.4), but his Virtue,squalid and emaciated, (Orat. the alien influence. betrays reviews the dialogue of Prodicus. Themistius (Or. 22, 280) briefly he after continues, Heracles, choosingVirtue as his guide, is directed which her to two seem froma distance to unite into one. peaks by for one is the shrine of True They are, however,widely different, of the other Friendship, Hypocrisy. The virginwho sits upon the
Cf. Vit. Soph.,p. 482.
LEr ,'Kai
7 rOV'Vv.'
I8
M. C. Wacites
height of Friendship is describedafterthe Cynic manner (v;es /pv on the otherhand, in striking resemblance oi, Gpata e'). Hypocrisy, to Tyranny,is constantlystriving to liken herselfto her rival. The influence of Dio is unmistakable. an instructive Finally,Gregoryof Nazianzus affords example of the way in whichthe idea of contentionbetween the allegoricalcharacters could disappear. In his ?pqvo w7rept 7r7,arToP qvx~ ,raOov1 he describes (35 ff.) the strifeof Soul and Flesh. Then, with line 205, appears the influenceof Prodicus:
0 ttaXa, 7ivtKa8S 4epvV &raXo';, rda" ov /Lmv 7raZt Erqv EyypoA/3CTaL, EOOXW)v 'q8&KaKWvdCLKvoI
XOVcTa, VO?7/LaTLV OV7Wo LV cTT-CpCOL0cL CL8O 7rpoa 'OUL S' aXX07plo; XapaaO-oluVm.
and Temperance, As he sleeps, two fair,white-robed maidens,Chastity descend to him from heaven,wheretheystand in the sight of Christ himself. They have come, theyannounce,to imbuethe soul of Gregory withthe love of virginity.Having accomplished theirpurpose in entire theydepart. Gregoryhas drawnhis materialfromProdicus harmony, and Lucian, yet his resultis absolutelyalien to theirspirit. the This reviewhas, I hope, shownhow easily the Greeks could shift so that the apologue of same materialinto and out of the debate-form, Prodicus appears now static, viewed as a painting, now full of life and action, regardedas a dispute of allegoricalfigures. It has shown, too, how readilythe settingof a debate maybe modifiedor the allegory enriched. Finally,we have proved that,in one case at least, the alleso farunaltered forcenturiesin a form goricaldebate was able to survive still be detected. that the hand of the originator may of Heracles at the cross-roads down to We have carriedthe history the very thresholdof the Middle Ages. In order to take the next step, I relyon the De Eodem et Diverso of Adelard of Bath (fl. ca. of this treatiseis as follows: 1130 A.D.).2 The argument
e congreg.S. Mauri,Paris, 1778-1840, Greg. Naz. Op., ed. mon. S. Benedicti vol. II, Carmina, pp. 919 ff. 2 See Willner,Des Adelard v. Bath Traktat, Miinster,1903 (Beitriigezur derPhil. desMittelalters, Geschichle IV, I).
I9
As the young Adelard is sittingin peaceful meditation(ubi me nihil praeter odores forum et Lqgeris fluminis fragores inquietant), two women invade his solitude. The one on the rightis Philosophia,of whom even her votaries have slight knowledge. Seven virgins,the seven liberalarts,attend her. On the left,Philocosmia,the darling of the vulgar,is followedby fivesubordinates, Divitiae, Potentia,Dignitas, she describes to Adelard,promising Fama, Voluptas, whose attractions him rich rewards if he will join her train. Then it is the turn of Philosophia. She makes a long speech warning Adelard to follow Reason alone, and the youth, finallypersuaded in her favor, rejects her defendsPhilosophiaand refutes Philocosmia,and himselflengthily rival. As a reward,Philosophia discloses to him the natureand character of the seven liberal arts. Severalsources,such as MartianusCapella, Boethius,and the Proverbs of Solomon, may be mentionedas contributing to Adelard's allegory. But manydetails- such as the introduction of the youth deciding in meditationhis futurecareer; the two chief figures, solitary essentially Virtue and Vice; the forbidding, Cynic aspect of Philosophia; the attendantmaidens; the opening speech by the characterdestined to - point to the influence defeat; the final triumphof Righteousness of the Prodicean apologue. Greek sources are not, I think, to be excluded here. Adelard was an eager student of Plato; he frequently uses Greek terms; he knew who spent Arabic,for he translatedEuclid; he was a great traveller some timein Greece and the East. He may at least have knownthe debate as treatedby Cicero, Ovid, and Philo. Beforetakingfinalleave of Prodicus, I wish to emphasize again the tendency of many classical debates, especially those produced under the influence of philosophy, to confineeach allegorical character within the limitsof one speech. This is largelydue to a pervadingmoral of the dramatic elepurpose whichwas likelyto involvea curtailment ment and an insistance on description, by means of whichthe lesson could be developed at leisure. That is to say,the limitation was purely artificial. It did not arise fromthe intrinsiccharacter of the ancient debate itself,as we shall find on turningto contentionsshaped by other literaryinfluences.
20
M. C. Waites
and contrastedthe Body and the Democritus apparently personified an allegoricaldebate. so as to Soul produce something resembling Plut. Fragm. de Libid. et Aegr. 2 : ' This lawsuitof the Body against of the former, on by the sufferings the Soul, brought appears to be of to the Soul, our hard luck So Democritus,referring long standing. for the to its suit leave that if the obtained pain and bring Body says life and he act as all should it endured has judge of through suffering the complaint,he should be glad to condemn the Soul.' Cf. De Sanit. Praec. 24, p. 135 E. In the same strain Galen informsus' that Democritusrepresentedthe senses as inveighingagainst the mind in these words: TrdXava pi7v,irap' ?//lW'vXafpovcra 7teL as ra' slrct7 Adv. Cf. Sext. Math. wrTwaLI 7, I36. rotL KardLPXpLa. Kara/pc3tns; betweenReason and Passion: Cleanthes2inventeda conversation
AoyrOw-y:
Ovwdo":
A.:
?Lotcfpdaov. rL rPO'XCL, @OVe; rovrod AoyuOa, t7roLtcv. poXAotaL l reav *EXw,

7rX2lvJ? dt
ro'v 7rdXtv.
t' 7o r 1ro0T
Ovws TraV^9 ?.: %~v av 7vOtVw^)r, yevvrCraLt. There is obviouslynothingof the contentionhere. on the other hand, produced a singularly perfectexample Crantor," of our genre. He conceives an assembly of the Pan-Hellenes into variouspersonified whichhe introduces Blessingsof Life whichproceed to contend witheach otherwhile the Greeks act as judges.
7rpTov pVU ...
V70o8CLSe;
3aortXLKv 4T7t.
as) pe7 IIX0oiJo rraparrlqSr
Ko'Y/rov llavXXlvcw;,
K.T.X.
Ka't TrlV XXqrlvdroXavcLv
arraLtvav rap7Xwv pdWOLot u Xp8j7srl7 CL/U voOYOVYL
ETc -T7a) KLL74

Kal
pye, Z
avspo; Kal 4ah
VytalvovOt
The Greeks applaud his words and are on the point of presenting withproofof the instability himwiththe prizewhen Pleasure intervenes of the palm and the of Riches. She declares that she alone is worthy assemblyagree with her. At this juncture Health approaches,proves when the entrance her superiorclaims and is about to departvictorious, of Fortitude,surrounded by a crowd of heroes,createsa freshsensation.
De Medic. empir.frg., ed. H. Sch6ne (Berlin Academy,Sitzungsberichte, I901, 1259, 8 ff.). 2 See Galen, De placitisHippocr. etPlat., lib. 5, 476. 3 Sext. Empir.Adv. Math. I I, 51-59.
I
21
that" the She claims and receives and on theprinciple thefirst award, lastshallbe first are awarded shallbe last,"theother and thefirst prizes the orderof their to Health,Pleasure, and Riches,exactlyreversing appearance. A linkbetween debateand the philosophical theallegorical dialogue is furnished as MoralPhilosophy defines' which Norden bytheAtaUrp/3 in themantle ofRhetoric. The declaimer takestheplace of boththe or is supcontestants in an argument.On theone side,he represents, a he introduces other to his own for the posed views; represent,
fictitious or the like.2 opponent,oftenwiththe words rTL lv or,'w 4ar is to be broken to this of the it characteristic Owing origin, a'arpLf,8
up into terse sentences. It is always didacticand its moralizing assumessometimes the stern the tone of laughing satire,sometimes it is of the so one-sided invective Not sermon. reproof infrequently thattheopponent gets smallchance to statehisviews. He tendsto and and consequently personifications growmoreand moreabstract to abstract are in human qualitiesrepresented guise particularly likely occurin thediatribe. One maydistinguish threestages. In thefirst, the writer a shadowy a 7r&or aliquis. In the confronts adversary, is introduced a personification to arguewith him. Rarely, the second, humancontestant and two personifications take the field. disappears This finaldevelopment differs littlefrom the allegorical debate producedunderphilosophical influence.The dictionof a diatribe, hownot long, set speeches. ever,fallsinto jerky, sentences, unpolished The imaginary thusresembles conversation a stichomachy suchas one findsin debates evolvedunderthe influence of the dramaand the theunsubstantial character of thedialogue is always pastoral. Moreover, in the mindof the writer of the diatribe. His inanimate characters do not dispute, of humanlife but,had they possessedthe attributes he asserts, have disputed in themanner and speech, which would, they he proceeds to demonstrate.
Kunst/prosa, I, p. 130o. Antike oratio: Hie aliquis Cf. Quintil.9, 2, 36 and 37: "Est et incertae personaeficta et dicataliquis."
2
22
M. C. Waites
As Norden remarks,'the germof the diatribemaybe tracedin those Platonic dialogues where Socrates, forsaking the ordinarycourse of an imaginary dialectic,introduces opponent,usingoftenmost elaborate his for in the Republic (487c) Adimantus refutation. So arguments the case of who disapproves of the words of an represents adversary Socrates.2 In Phaedrus,27 2c, the shadow is introducedby the proverb 7 ro^ X KOVd~riv and in the next paragraphSocrates &SKaLov OTL KaLt states the wolf'sargument. In Laws, 885c ff.,the challenge of those who do not believe in the gods is stated and answered. In 9oic ff., in like manner,the arguments of otheroffenders are dealt with." The supposed opponent representsartistically a distinct decline in force. Not oftendoes the Greek of the classical period refuseto allow the brightcolors of his fancy to vivify such shadows. It is therefore in that thisstage of thediatribeshould be especiallyfrequent significant ascribed to Plato. A fineexample occurs in Hi5p. the dialogues falsely whereHippias again and again inquires the name of Mai., pp. 286c ff., and Socrates finally his adversary, answers,'You wouldn't know him, even if I should tell you his name.' In the Minos, Hipparchus,I Iep Ahumiovand HIep' 'Aper s, the opponents of Socrates are designated merely as 'Ercapot. Even Socrates has vanished in the Demodocus, leaving a pair of shadows to carryon the argument. The lovers in the dialogue which bears their name (132d; cf. Hirzel, Der Dialog, I, PP. 341, 408) defend,one the cause of the GymnasticArt,the other a contestof two abstractions.4 thatof Music. This is practically in is confronted Plato where a humancontestant To turnto instances the in the of the Laws vs. we find Crito dispute by a personification, in the the debate of Socrates (50oa ff.); Gorgias Philosophyand Callicles (482); in the Protagoras (361) the contest of the Argument ' v A1prT against Protagoras and Socrates. (Kal[to'ot Ke0d tioS0o "
TOW Xo'ywv (torlep
avpWrOs
KarflyOpCLv
reT
Kal KLa7aycXaV, Kal
poVqV
Kunst/rosa, Antike I, pp. 129 ff. SCf. Reub. bk. IV, init.; 452 b ff.; 465 e; Protag. 35ze ff. are the Eleaticstranger in the Sophist and 3 Furthercases of shadowyopponents in the Laws. the Athenian 4 An approachto the spiritof the debate may be foundin Repub.36oeff.(cf. 476 a ff.; Theaet.172 ff.),whereGlaucon ' polishesup fordecision' the imagesof the Justand the Unjust.
The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature EL,7r l cLV Xcaoo,

oT7rrOl 7~/Te0) j w
23
KpaTe7TE KrEa
Ilpway70pa,
,,.r.X.)1 Of the third
we have stage, the contentionof two personifications, an example in Phaedr. 26odff.,where certainArguments (Aoyot) array themselvesagainst Rhetoric. Such specimens are apt, as in thiscase, to develop fromdiatribesof the second class. Chief among thewriters was Bion Borysthenites2 of 8tarppLal (fl.third centuryB.c.). The fragment preservedfromTeles in Stob. Flor. I, 98 (W), shows a diatribeof the second class. '" So," says Bion, "if Things should acquire a voice like ours and be able to plead their own cause, wouldn't Povertyspeak firstof all and say, 'Fellow, what quarrel have you with me?' Just as a slave that had taken refugeat a shrine pleads his cause withhis masterand says, 'What quarrel have you with me? I have n't stolen anything of yours,have I? Don't I performall the work you lay out forme? . . .' So Povertywould say to her accuser, 'What quarrel have you withme? You haven't been deprived of any fairpossessionthrough me, have you? Not of self-control?nor of justice? nor of valor? You aren't in want of any necessaries? Aren't the roads fullof greens, and the springsof water? Don't I furnish in winter the you dwellings, baths,in summerthe shrines? . . .' If Poverty should speak in this whatanswercould you make? I thinkI should be speechless."' strain, Weber" thinksother personifications were introducedbeside evit'a. Their nature,according to him, can be judged fromTeles ap. Stob., 17 is Flor. I, 98, p. 40, 4 f.: XX a.aXXov Tq2v lavrGov X' rvra alatW~/LS0a TO 7 Tpa, rCwLav, 8v(Tro7TpraV KatLKaK0aLovlv, 7Tv 7Tv dravyrqaVra, TrVVluppav, TrV 'paV, roV rdrov.0 Cf. p. 43, 3; P-. 40, IOf. From the close correspondencebetween the words of Bion here and those of Stilpo in Teles 7rp't ^vy; (ap. Stob. Flor. XL, 8, 11. I ff.), Weber concludes that Bion used Stilpo as a source,modifying him to suit his own brand of new and "flowery" rhetoric.
2 Cf. Diog. Laert. 2, 77, and see also 4, 52 (ca-IAXewyv7r' a'TroOrbv 'EpacroTW'srpW^ros WOCY, BIw riP' XAhooqiaP d'Otw&hIp5uovE). Bion may have imitated
Cf. Phaedo,87a.
who is said (D. L. 2, 84) to have composedsix books of diatribes. See Aristippus further Hense, Teletis Reliquiae, Prolegom., 1889, and Heinze,De Horatio Freiburg, Diss. Bonn, 1889. Bionis imitatore, 3 De Dione Chrys. Cyn. Sect.in Leip. Stud.f. Class. Phil. X, 1887, p. 163 f.
24
M. C. Waites
A similarconceptiongave rise to Diogenes's parodyof Iliad A, 335, a 0 quoted by Teles (&6' 4Oyrwv KaKlal cavrLT2v oy'rw1 /vAF oKKOelvaL (7w`avlJ1 &XX' l;OVTL9 ;CLOL TWV8X,XO; aLTLO/LCf7 and to aT'), C,&taVL'oo, the reprimand of Natura Rerum in the thirdbook of Lucretius. It remains to cite, as an excellent instance of a &taf7PL34, the fragmentfromDemetrius of Phalerum in Stob. Flor. VIII, 20. Here we have reallyan intervening stage betweenthesecond and the thirdforms of the diatribe. The piece is essentiallya debate between opposing qualities,but the human figureis retained,though by a slightchange he mightbecome superfluous. The fragment deservestranslation: ' For example,suppose Valor and Cowardice should stand beside a warrior alreadyrangedin his place, how much do you thinktheirargumentswould differ? Wouldn't Valor bid him stay and keep his place ? "But they will hit me!" " Bide !" "But I shall be wounded!" "Bear it ! " " But I shall die ! " "Die, then,sooner than leave your post! " fromthe shoulder. But what Cowardice has ' Hard words,straight bids the to say,by heaven,will be kindlyand tender. For he, forsooth, cowardto withdraw. "But myshieldbothersme !" " Throwit away !" !" "So does my corselet! " "Take it off 'Everybody would be sure to think his words gentlerthan Valor's. And so withotherthings. source," says Self-Control. '" Don't take anythingfroman improper die "Don't eat, don't drink,bear up, endure! If worstcomes to worst, ratherthan do whatyou oughtnot." ' But Incontinencesays: " Drink when you wish. Eat whatever you like best. Does your neighbor'swife please you? Work your will! Are you in wantof funds? Borrow. Suppose, when you've borrowed, you can't pay? Then don't! Can't you finda creditor? Steal !" 'A great difference here, too! But who doesn't know that such pleasures lead to the destructionof those who receive them,whereas the opposite path.'1 safetylies in following
to the occasionaluse of allegorical by figures DiogenesLaertius(6, 9) testifies afterthe manner of a diatribe. (7rpb~ d Antisthenes ro arrb rc rb 7rapao-qXuaar erJ /Ilo,' irdor7a f/fl70, 'el k~wvie CEg/4pdKtOy,'Ei Xdfot 6 XaXK6g, Ir1rIz' ev oretfcfto Diimmler, 1882,p. 14,and Philol.L (x892), Antisthenica, ') According uvvOvac; debate. was an allegorical of Antisthenes the 'HparXre7 rTepl pp. 289 ff., #'pov~aewg Cf. Kaibel, Hermes,XXV (189o), p. 589, and Weber,ofP. cit., pp, 241 ff.
25
No discussion of the influenceof Rhetoric and Philosophy in the development of the allegorical debate would be complete withouta considerationof the curious little work known as Ilepi 'O/rpov #ca oI' tvov 'Hao'Sov ca' ro 'sAy&vo; avr&w. As my previous article K. dealt withthisquestionat some length (pp. 83 ff.), I shall here merely state the conclusionstherereached. The disputeis embedded in the largerworkwhich is referred to the time of Hadrian (cf. 11. 29ff.) and usually cited as The Florentine Tractate. The nucleus containing the debate has been proved by Nietzsche' to be due to Alcidamas,the rivalof Isocrates. The author of the Tractate merelycombinesexcerpts fromAlcidamaswitha conventionallifeof Homer. Alcidamas describesthe meetingof Homer and Hesiod at Chalcis in Euboea and theircontestat the funeralgames of King Amphidamas. Hesiod, in the r6le of catechizer, asks Homer "test questions," 71 oEHaving successfully 4.pTrardTOV fporoTiot; 7t apw'rov; OVr7roL0YV to passed thisordeal, Homer is subjected alur'floXot yvu/aa,- incomplete and puzzlingsentenceswhichit is his task to complete in a way that shall make sense. The contest ends with recitation, each poet what he considersthe finestpassage fromhis poems. Despite offering the plaudits of the multitude, who openly favor Homer, the prize is awarded to Hesiod. Nietzsche regardsthe Homer of the 'Aywvas an allegoricalfigure, the ready eloquence of Gorgias and his school (i.e., of Alcitypifying damas himself). Homer, however, is defeated by Hesiod and a reason forthismay be foundif, like Rohde2 and Meyer,8 we see in the work of Alcidamas remainsof a far older account, an 'Aydv in whichHesiod was the victor. Such a precedent our rhetorwas, according to my theory,obliged to follow, though he cleverlymade Hesiod's victory worthlessby attributing it entirely to the partiality of a biased judge. I endeavored to find a trace of this earliest versionin the pseudoPlutarch's Banquet of the Seven Sages (io), where the r6les of the participantsare reversed and Hesiod is representedas conquering 1 Rheinisches Museumf r Philologie, XXV, 528ff.,and XXVIII,
Rh. Mus. XXX, 418, and cf. Anhang. Hermes,XXVII, 377.
21
2 3
I ff.
26
M. C. Waites
Homer fairly. The figure of Hesiod in the 'Ay'v of Alcidamas I also determined to be allegorical. Possibly he representsthe enemy of Alcidamas, Isocrates. be an additionalpersonal animus There may,as has been suggested, in the 'Ay'v. Perhaps Alcidamas was smartingfroma recent defeat to show the hollownessof his opponent's and used this opportunity triumph. In conclusion, let me enumerate a few passages from the Attic whichmight, if developed,lead oratorsshowinga tendencyto personify to allegoricaldebates. They are: Demosthenes,Olyn. I, 2; De Falsa Leg. 81, 119; Aeschines,In Ctes. 155. The influence of Rhetoric on the debate cannot be exaggerated. schools did not, it is true,originatethe debate, but they The rhetorical and fyK66/m were particularly sustained it. The iofryot and preserved As in Hense this connection.' remarks, praise has only to important in orderto furnish forth of a debate. become self-praise Such tenpart dencies probably began with Protagorasand Gorgias (cf. Cic. Brut. Indeed, when one observes how the allegorical debate is 12, 46 f.). engendered,developed, and broughtto its decadence in the rhetorical schools and how closelyit is connected withall the artificial "fictiones one is to described by Quintilian, apt forget that its personarum" due to the of was unartificial, entirely ability the Greek to entirely origin and an Hellenic love of argument. withlife, endow everything speech, III
THE DEBATE IN THE DRAMA
Few examples of the AllegoricalDebate are to be foundin Tragedy. The well-known passage (Persians, 181 ff.) in whichAtossa relatesher near the type,although the portentousdream approaches measurably one. a verbal is not contest theredescribed
esoa$or1v
Iq pEV
/A ot
yVvaLK
EVUEL/OVE,
7rf7rXOLctLII93cYKOLS
q' -j
L O*IPiV/lOXeLV, a rAWPLKOIOv, E T) VVV 7iroXi, CKrperreoYTara TEy
17)KrLE'V1)7
See Some Aspectsof the Ancient Allegorical Debate, pp. 8I f.

T' al/U w, KCAXIEL KaG.KaoLtqTa y7vovV
27
.. SreXcEV fv tXXrXatur Cf. Prom. 1-51 ; Agamn. 65off.; Choeph.31of., 461, 497, 726f. In Antghone, 227 if., the guard representshis hesitationbeforevento announce the burial of Polynices as a sortof debate between turing the two parts of his mind:
qJvXYY
yap
17v&
7oXc
vo rrL.dac, 7T X(p ~c
7XV)LWV", /ALevet av;
/LOL /VOOV~LEVl'
oXAv s;dWEL 8LKvV;

TaWS clo-aL
"
KEG
Kpcwv
O"i \Xov 7rap' dvspo6,7TW
&
OV &Xyvvd; o
One is remindedof the wrathof Achilles (I1. A. 188 ff.) when 'his heartwithinhis shaggybreastwas divided in counsel.' Frag. 334 N (Ath. 15, 687c).
8' 0 rOL'r17t'v Kp-o-L (Kp'o-ct,Tyrwhitt)Wr 8pua/L T)V tFLV flovtVTV dXovwrryct~o/v /P) T 8aqwova ovo-v 7tva IA4SPpoUt-qv
7rapayeL
Kat
' YO4~OKXs
KaTo7rTptopA'EVqv,,
o apeTT)aV cXapt xpi'v-tv
TrvV 'A9rvav 4po'vrvcn7v o'xrav Kat yv/ALvati.o/V7.
Kat vowv,
ITL
to noticehere the same apparentelimination of Hera It is interesting whichwe observedin a former quotation fromAthenaeus (p. 12). It is quite possible that these two passages preservean older myththan the conventionalJudgment of Paris. On the other hand, the fable of Prodicus may have influencedSophocles, and Athenaeus may have drawnhis conception of the Judgment of Paris solelyfromthe Orest. From Euripides I may cite A4c. 28ff.; Hippolyt. 928 ff.;Kp.t'o. 55Iff. The two sons of Antiope,Amphion and Zethus, seem in the legend to be representative of the opposing claims of rusticand artisticlife.' So far as one can judge, Euripides developed this contrastin such a
Cf. Apollod. 3, 5, 5:
51av '(KeM,
6bros airrc^ X6pav 'EpIAoV.
Z7Oo7 /hv otv
dreXeLEo
3ovuop3iov, 'A/'lloo
KtOapp-
28
M. C. Wa ites
way that part of his drama formeda debate between these opposing types.1 188 N we may perhaps discern part of the peroration In fragment of Zethus's argument. He gives his brothera word or two of sage of the artistic life. advice anent the futility ravo-aLucX8&v, S&67"? cLovcrt'av roXov TotLavTaCLSC Kai 8O'$ct 'bpoveiv, 7rOqLLOL cTKaVTwV, apwv -oV, 47or.TTaTOV, T'L rav^7 aXXots 004UL-T'7a, 'a4elt
KO/Lp'a SWV KCVOLTLV
J(TKCL
In 189,
EYKaTOLK?7OECL 8O/OL19.
'In everymatterof two arguments A contestone mightmake if shrewdin speech,'2
we seem to have the beginning of Amphion's refutation. It would appear, indeed, that he shifted the argumentin the course of his defence. Cf. Auctor ad Her. 2, 27, 43: "item verendumest, ne de sit...uti apud Pacuvium alia re dicatur,cum alia de re controversia de musica inducta est, controversia Zethus cum Amphione; quorum consumitur." utilitatem et virtutis rationem in disputatio sapientiae So Cicero, de Inv. I, 50, 94: "ut Amphion apud Euripidem,item apud Pacuvium,qui vituperatamusica sapientiamlaudat." Some sortof discussion urging the respectiveclaims of Wealthand Povertyappears to have taken place in the Danae. The speaker of the verses preserved in frgs.326-328 N praises Wealth; his adverpoor men. sary (329) prefers
Halle, 1884, p. 41, and Browning, Aristophanes' i See Graf,Die Antiope-Sage, with Active Life, Zethos of Life Contemplative 'The Match ff.: 289 Apology, Amphion.' against Cf. Dion. Chrys.Or. LXXIII, Io (635 M): TroX y&pefiv ro17 ZjOov avXbrepos
9rLrTAW1S, , '
c
rotaura 7repi Kal
Kisdvos
/AovILK?P
aTpijeL1v AoDatv
tO ot& 9K
9doapra
od Tvb eX46v, 0K dvovO&eL drv rL' AeLaV 1TwV 1i5wv1 7rv 7riv
dedjA#opov
eld7er*v
Vrpa9Lv, 2
O1K dp7v
Odlr'b, el XVye&v I aooh. dayitva
av Worep 4Tw1 vWTOU bAVTOL TwI' Xp Xouvov ob1' O&L st , 7ravrts a1' TLr srpdyA/aTOr 5w8Coii' X6y7w
^V ot&0 XOoO41 aL'Trbv LftW * e U & aTbTv do7r6rv rLva ) ef 7rOLS Kai r& 7fl Ti irpoppOacr uXbv Toh
ows. aT7ql4eeX7t
29
Beforebeginning a discussion of the AllegoricalDebate in Comedy, we should firstconsider the influenceof the 'Aydv in the work of is the termapplied Aristophanes.' The 'Aywv,according to Zielinski,2 out of to thatpart of a comedy in which the two opposing principles, whose warp and woof the plot is woven,face each other in the crucial struggle. The most primitiveform of the 'Aydv will appear in the response of one singer to another,as in the Threnos,Hymenaios,and Phallic-Song. Out of such simple lyrics,develops the more complex type to be foundin Aristophanes. The two opposing elementswhich defined are to meet each otherin the 'AyWv have been alwayscarefully and expounded duringthe wholepreviouscourse of the drama. Therein the 'Aytv, their arguattain personification fore,when theyfinally ments are apt to be crystallized, concerned with some one consistent, in favored by Clouds the and the the cause subject. Except Plutus,8 the poet is victorious. Moreover, in several comic agones judges appear,4and always the chorus and the audience maybe regarded as interested in the decision. All thesequalifications lead in the direction that of the typicalallegoricaldebate, and it is therefore not surprising furnishes several of the Aristophanes examples genre. In the minor agon of the Knights,a vituperativestichomachy between the Paphlagonian and the Sausage-selleris interrupted by the chorus at v. 302. a for first The ensues. Presently struggle place the him of the coveted Sausage-seller gains impudence privilegeand makes him one of the rare exceptions to the rule that the first speaker ends in a scuffle in whichthe Paphlais doomed to defeat. The affair gonian is worsted. The principal agon (756-940) findsthe same two
we should,as Couat (Aristophane, I Possibly p. 354) suggests, regardthe 'Ayd' of Aristophanes, insteadof recognizing in it a universal as an idiosyncracy ruleof Old Atticae Attic Primordiis, Diss., o906, (De Comoediae Comedy. Sieckmann G6ttingen see BerlinerPhilologische the 'Aycb to the 1907, 1379) wouldextend Wockensckrift, Dorian Comedy. 2 Die Gliederung der alt-attischen Komoedie, Leipzig, I885, p. I 1o. in the Clouds, Demus in the Knights. This Dionysusin theFrogs,Phidippides as Zielinski to represent third thespirit of explains (p. I I6), is present chiefly person, thesomewhatseriousproblems ofthe agon. His funccomedyand thus to enliven somewhatfromthat of the judge in the ordinary differs tion,therefore, allegorical debate.
4
3 Ibid. 113.
oM. 30
C. Waites
charactersin disputebeforeJudgeDemus. The Sausage-seller wins by to Demus's immediate ministering needs, thusgainingfavorand barring all his adversary'sclaims. The disguise of Cleon is here very thin. in the PaphlaEvery spectatorwould immediately recognizehis features as the his real name till character is not ticketedwith gonian. Still, the age of the Alexandrian grammarians,' as as well the Sausagehe, be as seller,may regarded allegorical. The Clouds presentsus withthefamousdebate betweenthe Justand the Unjust Cause. As in the Knights,the contest begins witha noisy at v. 934 by the chorus who propose that each quarrel interrupted Cause shall set forthhis claims in regularform. In 961, accordingly, the Just Cause, having gained the doubtfulprivilegeof startingthe argument,expounds the educational theories of the good old days, his remarksby companion word-pictures of the properly illustrating trainedyouthand the spoiled product of a degenerateage. At 1023 he concludes his speech and, aftera fewlines of heartycommendation withan by the chorus,the Unjust Cause begins. He contents himself attack on the details of his opponent's speech, forcingthe latter to fear admit thatall the most profligate citizenslive in happinesswithout of punishment. The Just Cause is finallybrought to acknowledge defeat. Hirzel, in a passage to which I have referred (p. 8), would derive of both this dispute and certainpassages in Plato fromthe 'Avr7Aoyt'aL use Protagoras. The titleof thisworkpossiblysuggested the frequent The Wasps (526-724) introducesus t6 the dispute of Philocleon and Bdelycleonabout the blessedness of the Heliast's life. The charpersoniacters,thoughtypicalas theirnames show,are not sufficiently to renderthisa good instanceof an allegoricaldebate, though fications it certainly approaches thatcategory. In the agon of the Plutus (487-626) occurs a debate between and Povertywho defendsher cause so zealouslyas to prove Chremylus thatZeus is either poor himselfor else a sordid miser. This agon is like a diatribeof the second class, i.e., one charconstructed obviously is acter only allegorical.
to noteson Equites. introduction 'Dindorf, in the Clouds (901, of the verb daVtLXycLv 938, 1040).
31
Other approaches to the debate may be foundin Aristophanes. For example, in Wasps, 893 ft.,we have the mock-trialof the two dogs, ably defended by Xanthias and Bdelycleon. These dogs, according to the scholiast, represent Cleon and Laches. In Acharnians too is (10o97 ff.), the contrastbetween the peace-partyand the war-party of a debate. The chorus sharply pointed by a stichomachy suggestive between the adversaries, and emphasizes the difference (1143-1149) the play ends with a contrast of the same sort where Lamachus is the spiritof Tragedy,Dicaeopolis of Comedy. virtually of Aristophanes, one finds in the Turning now to the fragments Banqueters a kind of roughsketchof the contest of the Ao'yo in the - Modest, broughtup under the good, olddispute of two brothers, a product of Sophistic training. fashioned discipline, and Profligate, brother's ridicules his simple ways (20o6,207 K) Profligateapparently and boasts of his own accomplishments (209 K), whilein frg.2 6, his commentson the discouraging resultsof his son's education. old father In the Horae, Aristophanesdescribed a verbal conflictjudged by Erechtheusbetweenthe old gods of Attica and the outlandishdeities of later days. Compare, especially,frg.569 K, whereAtheneor some otherrepresentative of the older fashioncontendswithan alien goddess as to whichhas conferredupon Athens the greaterbenefits. We are indebted to Cicero, Leg. 2, 37, forinformation as to the expulsion of the intruder: "Novos deos et in his colendis nocturnaspervigilationes sic Aristophanes. . . vexat, ut apud eum Sabazius et quidam alii di iudicati e civitateeiciantur." Naturally we cannot judge how peregrini the to these divinitieswere, poet's conception, allegorical,according how far"Athene" representedmerelythe good old Athens,her rival the degenerate worshipof an evil time. We cannot, then, fromthe determinehow nearly this comedy resembledan allegorical fragments debate. was by no means the onlywriter of comedyto introduce Aristophanes such disputes. For instance, in the Archilochi,Cratinus,according conceived a contestbetweenArchilochus, to one theory,' representing Cratinus himself,and other poets, especially Homer, who may be regardedas the mask forsome one of the author'srivals. If thistheory
Glied. 241 f.
32
M. C. Waites
be correct,Cratinus'swork formeda prototype forAlcidamas. Little, can safelybe inferred fromthe fewobscurefragments. however, us as to the argumentof the The scholiaston Knights,400, informs who Py/ine. It contained the complaintsof Comedy,wifeof Cratinus, sues fora divorceand blames her husband fordesertingher and yieldof Drunkenness. Here, then,we have a contest ing to the allurements of two allegoricalcharacters, fragments thoughno one of the preserved to MEA1.1 Perhaps the play resembled rather can surelybe attributed the typeof the Plutus. In the Wild Beasts (0?ppla) of Crates, Kock and others see (frgs. I4 and I5) a debate between a eulogizer of the simple life and a champion of more luxuriousliving.2 In another fragment (17 K) we remonstrates who a of some animal, probably bull, have the speech witha man against the cruel practice of flesh-eating. In like manner Pherecrates,in the Savages, apparentlyportrayed an altercationbetweenVegetariansand Anthropophagi(13 K).* His contained a debate Persians, according to the conjecture of Ritter,4 unknownopponent. and an of her one or between Poverty, advocates, In the same author's Chiron,whichdealt withthe degenerationof the in the guise of a woman,her body betraying art of Music,Music herself the marks of her disfigurement, appeared to plead her cause before Justice5(I45 K). Finally Eupolis (224, 225, 232, 233 K) described the various cities, and bearingits special emblems,as inveighing each personified against of Atheniansupremacy. the hardships Heniochus, also, if the followingfragment(5 K) may be trusted, devised a contestbetweenallegorical characters: 8 aVTa 80 TVwE orapa'rrcrOV yvva!KC aC 89aT7ipa 8vhoKpacTUa ctvvovc"aLA 7TLT TtOarpa dpWTorKpaTla ovot. 7l at as
7rC7rnppVKacrLv q7TOXXa'KLt. qS-l the injured as Comedy, i Hirzel,Dialog, II, 3o02, would regardthe contestants wife,and Wine, a fair youth. Cf. Lucian's Bis Accus. 2 The two passages are, however, alike in sentiment. For a different singularly cf. Miirchen-Kombdie Zielinski, Petersburg, (St. I885), pp. 57 f. theory, 3 See MAirchen-Kom., p. 26. Pluto, 75; cf. Frg. 130 K. * De Aristoph. Plut. Mor. 1141.
The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature r8
33
From the Sicilian comedy I may cite two plays of Epicharmus, and AdoyoKaG Aoylva,whichpossiblycontainedmateKal ?ciXacrca rial akin to the AllegoricalDebate.' The freedomof the dramaticdebate, as compared to the debate in rhetoric or philosophy, is at once apparent. The didactic elementhas largelydisappeared; the interest lies in the humorousopposition of contrasting personalities. These debates are oftenstichometric, losing in entirely, the quick interchangeof gibe with gibe, the pedantryof thescholasticdisputation. The debate has come forth from thescholar's closet to the stage; a later developmenttransports it to Arcadia.
IV
ALEXANDRINE DEBATES
If we accept the dictumof Wachsmuth,2 the first book of the YLkUOL of Timon of Phlius containedthe elements of an allegoricaldebate. In this book, according to Wachsmuth'sreconstruction, Timon told the tale of his descent to Hades and the XoyopaXt'a which he therewitnessed between the shades of famous philosophers. One at least of the contestants, Zeno, appeared, not in his proper person,but in the guise of an old Phoenician crone,witha wickerbasket forthe trapping of souls. Frg. 8:
7raVTOJV
Ka'l toLvUtc-av 18ovXLXVypavvKLO~CPO) TVo V - 0

L/ZCtpovcrav?
cXTacOVa KLVSOLqoL0o. XCV" Another allegorical figure, "Epts, urges on the fight PfpooAoyoy which after it has ragedwithunexampled quiets, Pyrrho finally (Frg. 14) of fury argument. Mnasalcas of Sicyon (Ath. 4, 163) wrotean epigram in whichappears contrastbetweenVirtueand Pleasure,a petrified the well-worn debate:
3WV, /tLKpOo VOV VS ' "A ' ciK La'rk/OV O'ApT&7rapa T8 KKLTCKO7L Th KcLpaLcvv7rXoOKc.Lov,; ahrXLYTWoJ
"ppCL
y pya9op aVTV)
'H8Sov., OVLV aXCL
T'P qL9 'O K(Koqpwv
ty(/a/3oX'Xva,
v 7rcp 6/LOU KEKpLTaL. &va7,rat.v KPE6TOOV 0
See Berliner Philologische 1907, 1379. Wochensckrift, De Timone Phliasio ceterisque Sillographis Graecis, Leipzig, 1859, pp. x5ff.
34
Waites M1. C.
Another epigram, from Meleager. the Cynic, shows us the poet debating with his heart:
3c/3X#0Ow Kv/3OC
a7rTc, r70pCV070/Lal. ?7 vL8C, TOA/La.
EXCElbpovrTlsa; oivo/3ape,T"LV rt KwO/ao/-aL. 8" *EpWTL TpEflr7; lol, OVLE, L; XOyLUO'; KowLoatro 7 Xo'ywv Xa7Qre arXO,. O." 7-qrpo'OE iLcX'E'r7; o roXT *'v Ldvovo18a ippt'0Owo r7vo" olas 'TL K KaL ZrpvXXL Epws.' KaOeLXCv oT0" This same Meleager was the authorof a ivyKpL0TLXCKL'ovKaLiaKV/F (Ath. 4, I57b) which Hense and others2would fain recognize as a debate. We have, unfortunately, absolutelyno ground forthe suppoit mightbe temptingto follow Hense and connect sition. Otherwise, with this contest the certamenwith which Asellius Sabinus amused Tiberius.8 The meaning of the word ;yVKpL0L1,4 hoveringas it does is often ambetween a peaceful comparisonand a sanguinary contest, the verb ovyKP'VCLEv may mean eitherto compareor biguous. Similarly, to contrastand so oppose. For example, Timaeus, as we are told by Polybius (12, 28, 8 f.), when Ephorus could not answer the arguments of men who contended thatmore capacity,hard work,and preparation were needed forrhetoricalthan for historical work,7reLpaTraL cvyK LVCeLV oXV/T AdyOL3. It is posLav TOL E'7rLSLKTLKOLS TV aVTOr dK 7rapa
io'rop for thebasis a debate here andTimaeus siblethatEphorus presented
in Fifty translation Poems A. P. 12, 117: Headlam givesthe following spirited (Macmillan,I89o), p. 43: ofMAeleager Trythehazard! lighttorches! I'll go! come,be bold! Thou drunkard,whatmeanest? A revelI'll hold. A revel? Mind, whither? What's logicto Love? vain shall itprove? ! Our longreasoning, Quick,a torch Awaywiththe laborsof wisdom! I know low. This only,thatZeus too by Love was brought 2 E. der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, g., Susemihl,Geschichte I, 46 '46 3 Suet. donavit(Tiberius)pro dialogo ducenta Tib. 42: " AsellioSabino sestertia et ostreaeet turdi certamen induxerat." in quo boletiet ficedulae a reminiscence of thiscertamen ? "Paene May not Pliny(Epist. I, 7, 6) preserve fuit, accepisseme careotes optimas praetereundum quod minime quae nunc praeterii, habent." boletis certandum et cumficis AncientAllegorical 4 See SomeAspects Debate,pp. 75-82. of/the
35
in which the contestantswere " The Rhetorician" and "The Historian."x Alcaeus of Messene, too, according to Polybius (32, 6, 5), wrote 2IvyKpLar~s,full of witty gibes against his opponents. Here, the contest,allegoricalor not, has turnedin the direction apparently, of personal satire. The Alexandrianage broughtto literary a class of poetry perfection destinedto produce and to influence The essence debates. allegorical of the Pastoral is a strifeof song between shepherds who may be or may introduceallegoricalthemes. Their proallegoricalthemselves ductions are often submittedto a judge and a prize awarded to the victor. All this is suggestively like the conventional debate. The alternatingverses of the shepherds' songs where rival answers rival remindone of the stichomachiesof Aristophanes. But the settingis new. The debate has been transported to the country; it has entirely become at once more homelyand untrammeled, and the advantagesof this fresh background captured the fancyof later poets. There are few instancesof genuine allegorical debates in the workof Theocritus and his imitators, Bion and Moschus. The followingapproximations to the typeshould,however, be noted. Idyl 5, 11.80 ff.,presents a singing-match, judged by Morson, between a goat-herd, Comatas, and a shepherd,Lacon. Each character is typical of his occupation and lays stress on it; Comatas is sure to mentionhis goats, Lacon his sheep. Comatas labors under the inevitable disadvantage of the contestantwho begins the match. Strictly speaking, Lacon should have begun the match, for he (11. 2I ff.) is the challenger. Such is the usual rule even in pastoral (cf. Id. 6, 1. 5). Lacon's part is to outdo his rival's boast and in general he succeeds. Compare especiallythe skilfulturnhe gives to vv. 94 and 95 and i34 and I35. Once he loses his temper in an unsportsmanlike manner (cf. 120 ff.) and occasionally (as I I4 f.) his reply lacks point, but obviouslyhe deservesto win and Morson's judgmentis a clear instance of partiality. Possibly thisis the poet's way of provingthe unconvenof the pastoral; it is truer to rusticlife,if not so faithful to tionality the precedentsof literary debate.
a contestbetweenPoetry,represented who by prominent poets, and Thucydides, advocatedthe cause of History. Cf. Hirzel, Dialog, I, 311, and Hermes,XIII (1878), 46 ff.
1 Cf. Hirzel, op. cit.,
I, 452, n. 2.
So Praxiphanes, in his 7replo-ropias,recounted
36
M. C. Waites
Idyl 6 is not amoebean. Daphnis sings of Polyphemus'slove for the Cyclops, and thus Galatea and Damoetas answers,impersonating adding a dramatic element to the pastoral. This contestends inconas is not uncommonin the regulardebate. clusively, Idyl 7 is the only probable instance in Theocritusof the pastoral are notgenuinerustics; Lycidasconceals masquerade. The contestants " and old cloak the personality of some beneath his "tawny goat-skin of and Leonidas Simichidas real contemporary Tarentum, poet, perhaps is Theocritushimself. Such a contestmay fairlybe called allegorical. Like the previous one, it ends withoutthe bestowal of prizes. The contestantssimply part in all good fellowshipand go their several ways. In Idyl 8, the amoebean strifeis combined withlongersongs which conclude the encounter. Of the two contestants,Daphnis, the cowherd,and Menalcas, the keeper of goats, it is a foregoneconclusion that Daphnis, the challenged singer and the famous hero of pastoral, shall conquer. The judge is a goatherd, the prizes are pipes. The contestis much more amicable than the one presented in Idyl 5, the singersvie in mutual good wishes (32 ff.) and seem in general much than Lacon and Comatas. less typicaland less rusticfigures Far shorteris the contest in Idyl 9, where Daphnis and Menalcas both sing in pastoralstrainand receive reward. The favorite idyl, Daphnis appears once more in the twenty-seventh attributedto Theocritus,and at least modelled upon his work and for Bion's. The shepherdand the maid of his choice (a mere rustic, this Daphnis bears not the least resemblance to the chaste hero who unto death) engage in livelyamoebean loved a nymphand was faithful - the argument till the suitor at length prevails. These characters lover and his lass - may also be regarded as rather typical than individual. Idyl 30 finds the poet at war with his own heart. He 'calls his heartbeforehim' (1. i i) and reproaches it for an untimelylove and of Eros. his heartin answerpleads the invincibility a debate betweenthe note we Bion Of fragment14, practically may of Atossa's dream in 6 reminiscent of Moschus,Europa, ff., Seasons; a debate between of a adumbration beautiful and i, fragment Aeschylus, Land and Sea.
37
of Daphnis as victorin The poet Sositheosalso introducedthe figure a pastoral contest. (Schol. Theoc. 8 argum.: A ATrvC'p0 wavLs Se V"4 ov VLKLOKvCqaLL MCVaXKav YowrOcoq XC'ycL ACVLV .. ycv0,Lvov0, as torn by conflictingemotions. The passage (Argon. 3, 65I ff.) resembles an allegorical debate: 8' 7OCSc epO' EvOa Kal vOa" TfAJTLOL qTOL07 LGVcetLCJ, WCV(V8o0cv E(pvKE ' al8(s atlSo "pyov"lv Opar3s L poS "7PiVVCKEV. In the fourthbook of the Argonautica,Medea's Phaeacian maids are moved to merriment at the scanty sacrificethe stormbound Argonauts are forcedto make.
1725
.) ..av..[Kal Medea at the crisisof her fate is represented by Apollonius Rhodius
Vt).lcWV] KpltVaOv.
/LoXot T)p Aov V17' IVL Tora yvvaTLKCS dVMpcrL ,OT 87pLO'awVLL, OvviX 'A7ro'XMwva 'Avc4)vs TrL/A4opov AiyXkTrv Lka(KwOVTaL.
ras 8' 7cS arToiECKov ErCrqLV a8rXpols qqpoeW 8' V y XXC yXvKCp?' avE8aL'E TOLTLV r1OLvo" V) KV7T V KOS K KEpTOrpt77 Ka EOXOV. ^,
(Cf. Theoc. Id. i, 33 ff.) The best of Alexandriandebates was the workof Apollonius'sgreat recovered in a rival, Callimachus. Part of the lambi, fortunately of papyrus1recentlybrought to light,contains the heated arguments Olive-Tree and Laurel. The firstversesof the fragment refer, accordingto the conjectureof A. S. Hunt, "to a legend of a reversalof the commonorderof nature in the reign of Saturn, when the sphere of men and beasts were exchanged." In 11. I71 ff. Callimachus alludes to an Aesopic fable recounting this myth (TaTra 8' A[Zoowaros W'ap38L7v<o~> .reCv). the Though not found among the extant fables of Aesop or Babrius, of Crates wherethe lifeof the Golden storyremindsone of the EOhpla Age is described. Accordingto the apparent meaningof the fragments of the comedy,when thathappy timeis restoredanimalswill be able to will move about responsive to the willof man. speak, and even furniture
OxyrkynchusPapyri, Pt. VII, 191o, No. IoII, pp. 20 ff.
38
M. C. Waites
This is all that can be decipheredon the first page of the fragment. On the second (11. 192 ff.) two unknownsmeet, one of whomperhaps recountsto the otherthe quarrel of the trees. Laurel began the conaftera few indistinguishable us test,and the fragment, lines,introduces to her jeeringspeech,
218
0 8'
pLa-Tepos Le'v XcvK0' Ta
'sTa' 'XorL0X% o
[7r] YV oXkvx/&
sV8pov
yaCtT7rp,
aL.
It is obviousthatthe Laurel is commenting unfavorably upon her rival's in these appearance. The editorof the Papyrusnotes: " The reference two lines is obscure. It can hardly be to the olive, with regard to whichthe distinction of rightand leftwould be inapposite; nor do the olive's leaves or fruitshow any such variationof color as is here indicated. Murray suggests that a person wearing an exomis is meant, perhapsApollo, who is sometimesso represented." But surelyLaurel would not referto her greatpatron,Apollo, by any such comparisonas
XmKco W' 9SpOV yao-11P.
Moreover,the leaves of the olive do show just such a variationin color as Callimachusimplies.' As to the distinctionof rightand left,if we thatthe exomis was adopt part of Murray's suggestionand remember simile have run somelower not Laurel's of the the dress classes, may as follows? what ' Your leaves mark you as inferior. You are like a slave wearingan exomis,whose left shoulder is white like a snake's belly,whereas his the exposed shoulder,is smittenby the sun' (and so darker like right, the upper surfaceof the leaf). Laurel continues,boastingof the high uses to whichshe is put. The Pythia makes her couch of laurel,laurel is used at the Pythiandance is associated and for all Apollo's ritual. The Olive, on the contrary, withburial. the taunt. She counts her connection Olive succeeds in rebuffing withfuneralritesas an honor. She accompanies heroes to the tomb and in the great festivalat Olympia she formsthe prize. The birds among her brancheshave told her scandal about her adversary. The
Dictionary(1890o),Vol. IV, p. 41o3: "... 1 See Century aboveand silvery and lance-shaped, beneath." dark-green The leavesare small
39
of Athene's contenearthproduced Laurel, but Olive was the offspring tion with Poseidon. 'That is one fall for the Laurel' (265). The Olive also is far more useful. Fall numbertwo! And last of all, the olive-branch is the suppliant'sfriend. A third party here intervenes(294 ff.) and endeavors to reconcile the opponents. Laurel,however, receivesthe attemptwithvituperation and the fragmentends in uncertainty. Another bit of the story (Callim.frg. 93 b) gives us a phrase of Olive's:
mustbelong to the finalscene of reconciliation, Such humility or, more it is likely, bitterly ironical.? This debate is unique." In it contend no longerVirtuesand Vices, shadowyabstractsfroma philosopher'sbrain,but common trees,gifted as in the happy Golden Age with eloquent and even rhetorical speech. The humanizinginfluenceof the pastoral is here combined with the fairy-taleatmosphere of the beast fable where animal argues with animal, plant with plant. This tendency, too, was destined to be potentin the allegoricaldebates of later ages. V The Renaissance under Hadrian and his successorsproduced,among other literaryblessings,a crop of allegorical debates. Often such a contestmay springfromthe crvyKp4crCL so fashionablein the rhetorical schools. I have alluded above to the ambiguityexistingin the term itself. acyKpLcTLt Such "comparisons" appealed to Plutarch. Aftereach of seventeen pairsof Lives he adds a cr'yKPL0L in whichthe points,now of likeness, now of difference, between the two heroes are discussed. In one case,
rOr'7LKWV.
IracVTv JVS0V8PWV ELtL.d
The words are quoted underthe captiondai-eeraps in Cod. Oxon. ireplrp&rwv
of possibledebatesin otherfragments ofCallimachus. In 2 Thereare suggestions the Hecale birdsspeak,among themthe Crow whom the Olive humorously chides of Laurel's deficiencies.The Owl has a wordto sayelsewhere (278) forchattering told the tale of the strife of Poseidonand Athenejudged (frg. 164). Callimachus for a debate, by Cecrops (frg. 384). This may have containedat least material in it actions probably spoke louderthanwords. though
40
M. C. Waites
a comparisoninvolving fourcharacters is provided. Plutarchrecognizes the element of contrast as well as of comparison.1 In general, the qualities of the two Lives underdiscussion are evenly balanced in the Flamininus,ch. 3, ? 3, and in the double Comparison of Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi,ch. 5, ? 6) he actually awards the palm for special virtuesto one contestantor the other. The likenessbetween Demosthenes and Cicero is itself expressed in the form of a contest between Natureand Fortune.2 Many also of Plutarch'sessays occupy this middle groundbetweena simple comparisonand a contest. Sometimesthe debate is clearlyin the writer's is absent. So in the mind,even thoughthe dialogue-form an Plutarch the side of Water,and first on Aqua Ignis Utilior, argues then,with even greater vehemence,on the side of Fire. The Atheist and the SuperstitiousMan are emphaticallycontrasted in the De and the whole essay on Quomodo Adulator ab amico Superstidione internoscatur is in essence, thoughnot in form, a debate of characters like those of Theophrastus. Man is, as it were,divided against himselfand the calamitieswhich fall to his lot contrasted in Animine an Corporis Afec/fones sint Peiores, 500 c : caXawv &Oxcrar0vSIWY daVlyOpEVLCwVOV, d i8Cow avTor av7'$ oVYKpLVW/hEV, KaKOV dy va WoiUaKaL v Sv &apovre ... De Libidine el Aegritudine, ch. 2, introducesDemosthenes's statement as to the supposed accusation of Body against Soul. This is of Theophrastus.8 In contrastedwiththe preciselyopposite statement the followingparagraphs the contradictory opinions of philosophers upon the question are discussed and contrasted. That the writer regardsthe essay as in some sorta contestbetween the claims of Soul
Life of Theseus, ch. I, ? 2. of Demos., ch. 3, ? 4: dor' El 7,'VOLTO V 6OEL Kai Tr rXT 7 KaOdrep xaXerws &v 5LaKpLOfvaL I 7Tro^L r6repov a'r?) rol rpb67ros rpdyuaotvv reXvliraLs&lALXXa, OloroTCpovu asdrelpyacTraL. CKetv) To-r &vkpas "3Oe6qpao-ro & TrovaJitov POb-q 7 T(r^ dart roXXoL rv VIvX'lv 1voLKEZIv,6MXyou rtaS T& Xp6vov 0XoXls ra 70rok @6ovs Tr brorTXo7'av, TAr I/AlcOobr -LsrOvla at' Ev cEW Wpv ru7rlar,3aped OiEipo6'v7 IrEplTi 7ro av aTqr 8LKdO(TO rb wa BLKatL&EPpov )rTJ r al 3palwv C4' ots KarTXETal,Kal U/3pEWv Jv 0 Kai Xo03ope^Tal, rTWP rTLXeX7TraK, do6 Ti&valrtasoi6 7rpoG)Ki6vrTs. IKElvoU KaKwvdVaEsXOyVjl.)
SLife
II/ACK
<rVYKPLGLr.
Sometimes and of Philopoemon (as in the Comparison
8'
7E OxTp
?VtLKoj^Va
oTO KaKO&LLOVaLA
f'AW VOrO Krl
The Allegorical
Debate in Greek Literature
41
and Body is clear fromhis wordsin chapter3: 'AywovLurrov oiv {reip a X7 KaXo y op dyv. IndXCL"ay An Vitiositas ad Infelicitatem 3, 498f ff.,PlutarchproSufficiat, poses that Fortune and Vice shall vie with each other in plans for makinga man's lifeunhappy. The debate is sketched,but not developed, forVice alone speaks. The Amatorius,written by Plutarchor a memberof his school, is in as realitya debate between Lawfuland UnlawfulLove. The situation, ~ PrpS4acts, Plutarch realizes, is dramatic (cf. 749 3, ?) a:^ 04 N XOp 7 oL rcLcL Ka' 71 (Lp,.L?1797av tXyo, Nv aLLr r^ G-Kt q 19 8 The principal charactersof the drama are SpOdaTroso)Sev AXXCLrec). Anthemion,the cousin,and Pisias, the admirerof Baccho. Ismenodora, a wealthywidow,loves Baccho. Anthemionupholds this match, Pisias opposes it. Plutarch and his friends(ch. 3) act as umpiresin the controversy and judge the arguments of Protogenes,who speaks for and who as acts advocate. In chapter Anthemion's Pisias, Daphnaeus, and Pisias speak themselvesand in chapter9, Plutarch 6, Anthemion pleads the cause of Lawful Love, so that we may conjecturallyaward the prize of victory to Daphnaeus, the second speaker. The discussion is terminated (ch. Io) by the sudden announcementof Ismenodora's marriageto Baccho. Again, De Gloria Atheniensium mightbe condensed into a debate on the question,Resolved that theSword is mzighder than thePen. In its present state, the treatise is very one-sided, for Plutarch firmly espouses the cause of the Sword. From chapter3 on the impression of contest grows clearer, till in chapter 6 a phantom procession of two groupscome off poets, actors,and generalsmarchesby. The first but poorly, whereas the generals receive enthusiasticpraise for the benefits theyhave bestowed upon the city. More developed specimens of the debate appear in essays like the firstoration on Alexander (chs. 1-3), where that hero speaks in his own defence against the assertionof Fortune that she alone is responsible forhis greatness. The workbegins as if it were in continuation of one in whichFortune's claims had been fullyrepresented. Other speeches addressed to Fortune appear in the second oration (ch. 4, 337 a; ch. 9, 340 f).x
to his advocacyby Hermes and his acquittalby all the gods. Horus forbastardy,
In De Iside et Osiride, I9, p. 358 d, Plutarch alludes to the impeachment of
42
M. C. Waites
Virtue De Fortuna Romanorumis concernedwiththe querywhether or Fortune was more responsiblefor the foundingand greatnessof Rome. Chapter 3 describesthe meetingand opposite qualitiesof the characters involved. Here again it is interesting to see how vividly Plutarch envisages the contention (cf. 317 c: Nvv S' /uoL SoKG TO^)
' IT T1V T Yt Kal KcLOOpC*v d7rO cOYKO7T7S la7019 QMY7TV cTVyrpuyLV 7pOftkX' r~ Virtue KaI Fortune and 7nv n7v TivXv 'AperTIv fla8ttoofas). adyw^va
in the Choice of resemblethe corresponding strongly allegoricalfigures Heracles. Virtue is modest and serious and her statelytrainis composed of the heroesof the Roman past. Fortune,like Vice, boldlyand her rival. She holds a horn of plentyin her hand outstrips arrogantly in her such as Sulla and and includes company her Roman favorites, In the Romans themselvesare Numa Pompilius. chapter 5, 318 d, in chapter 8. The cited as witnessesto Fortunewho speaks forherself of Virtueis unforpart of the essay which introducedthe arguments lost. tunately on the same plan as Amatorius, but farmoreinteresting, Constructed and Phaedimus is the debate in De Soller'ia Animalium. Aristotimus discussion of the a have offered, propositionthat "all during general to defend, are in some manner partakersof understanding," creatures one the titleof the land-animalsto being considered more intelligent, the other that of the sea-animals (ch. 2, 96o0a). They are preparing forthe dispute. Meanwhile Soclarus and Autobuluscontinuethe discussion of the previousday. They are interrupted by the arrivalof the adherents their with (ch. 8). Optatus,Soclarus,and Autodisputants bulus are the umpires(965 d). are allowed to begin. The land-animals, representedby Aristotimus, He discusses the craftycontrivancesof swallows, spiders,bees, geese, various etc. Ants and elephantsgive him lengthyillustrations. After anecdotes, endingwithinstancesof the propheticpower of animals,he concludes with a denunciationof fishesand the sea (975 c). Phaedimus is then exhorted in significant words,'to present his side of the
involved. to the characters interpretation Later (54, 373 B) he gives an allegorical World,Hermes is Reason. This turnsthe Horus is the Image of the Intellectual debate. intoan allegorical trial i T&s 4dXec~Palipc,Kal o7Z Eot VXOS KalG &tiyycpe o-Eawrbv 4'pfr 7- Xp O- ora&8&& 'Avaye -Lc1cLLs a ToO X6yov yoyov, IAXV ippW.SvorZo dyCjP Kai jPt7ropdia 7?7lL
K&yKXi8WV
17rt5ovUoa KaiZ thllcLaTos.
The Allegorical
Debate in Greek Literature
43
but argument. Animalsof the sea, he explains,are just as intelligent, not so well-known or so wellnot so accessible to man and, therefore, trained as land-animals. They are more helpful to each other and oftenmuch more cunning. The halcyonis a notable example of affection. The dolphin is also instanced. Then (ch. 37) the judges are asked to pronounce sentence. They decide that both parties have been champions against those who seek to rob animalsof reason and intelligence. This decision is somewhatsurprising. It corresponds, to be sure,to the main question,1 but the whole debate has turnedin the directionof the comparativeclaims of land- and sea-animals. On this point the contest remains undecided. The result, like the attitudeof the writer of the Amatorius,shows a leaning toward compromiseand reconciliaout of contest,which,howeverunfavortion,a desire to bring harmony able to the development of thetypicaldebate, is eminently characteristic of Plutarch'slovable nature. Not only Hellenes, but foreigners felt the spell of the Allegorical Debate. In Lucian, the mild, antiquarian spiritof Plutarch has disappeared; an eminentlymodern humor,satire trenchantas Bernard Shaw's, takes its place. Of the works which contain more or less definite resemblancesto the typeunder discussion,I may mentionfirst the flermotimus, ch. 25 ff., wherethe variousroads leading to the city of Virtue and the guides to each are contrasted in a way probably suggestedby the apologue of Prodicus,(cf.ch. I5.) Suggestiveof thisis the descriptionin the RhetorumPraeceptor, of the two roads leading to the stately figureof Rhetoric (ch. 6 ff.). The first road is a mere and flowery. path, thornyand rough, the other, broad, well-watered, The guide of the rough track is a strong,severe man who exhorts pilgrimsto follow in the foot-stepsof Plato, Demosthenes,and other ancientworthies. Many yearsof hard toil are requiredof his disciples. The didaskalos recommendsdismissinghim and turning to the other road where the learnerwill finda perfumedfavoriteof Aphrodite and the Graces who will teach Rhetoricin a twinkling. The speech of this the rhetor, fop follows(i3 ff.). As he is supposed to represent Julius
I
Hirzelloses sightofthis. See Dialog, II, 178.
44
M. C. Waites
Pollux, we mayconsiderthe passage as a near approach to an allegorical debate. The essay on QuomodoHistoria Conscribendca Sit contains(ch. 8 ff.) a arvYKpUtTL of Poetryand Historywhich,as usual, furnishes us withthe elementsof a debate. The Toxaris turns on the question whether Greeks or Scythians make betterfriends. The contestants are a typicalGreek and a typical each of whom the honor of his fatherland. They Scythian, upholds to an and end theircontestin an eminently forget appoint umpire(62) Plutarchian with vows of eternal style friendship. The ludicium Vocaliumcontainsan exciting"action forassaultwith robbery,"2 vs. T. Tau's defence is not presented,but Sigma's imof Tau (io) as evidence passioned pleadingand his citingof thevictims are both amusingand unique. variedare the sources fromwhichLucian drewsuggestions Infinitely of thePlutus is the scene (Timon, forhis debates. Under the influence ch. 38) wherethe god of Wealth repliesto Timon's chargesin 36. As consentsto become a millionaire a resultof his speech,Timon reluctantly once more. In the De Domo, Lucian uttersa panegyricon the hall wherehe is to oratory (4). speaking, urging that its magnificenceis stimulating him AnotherThought or Theory, however,keeps tryingto interrupt and, when it has finallysucceeded in breaking the threadof his discourse, it opposes him, maintainingthat the very beauty of the hall the makes it an unfitplace for an oratorto hold forth by distracting of both speaker and hearers(14). The Theory thencomes attention forwardand formally pleads its cause (15 ff.) before the audience as of the rest The essay is occupied with its argumentsand its jury. descriptionof the pictures which adorn the hall. The Theory ends to the audience to favorthe speaker by shutting witha recommendation theireyes duringhis discourse. A conversationbetween Lucian' and Theomnestus in the Amores of the writer's leads to the narrative journeyto Cnidus and the opposite impressionsproduced on his two companions,Charicles and Callicratidas, by the Aphrodite of Praxiteles. Lucian himself (18) is the
I
Or pseudo-Lucian. See Hirzel,Dialog, II, 282.
45
judge of the debate which thenarises as to the pleasuresof Lawfuland UnlawfulLove. The lot gives Charicles,championof LawfulLove, the privilegeof beginningand therebydooms him to defeat. Lucian's of the Amatoriusand, attitudeis directlyopposed to thatof the writer as Hirzel' pointsout, the piece has probably direct,polemical connection withthe Plutarchian dialogue. In the Piscator, the philosopherswhom Lucian has maligned rise fromHades to attack him. He proposes (9) thattheyshould forma court to try him with Philosophy as president. Philosophyappears, and other approaccompanied by Virtue,Temperance,Truth, Justice, the All for the trial forecourt of Athene to assistants. proceed priate Polias. Lucian, in reply to Philosophy,gives himselfthe significant name Parrhesiades. Diogenes (25 ff.), in behalf of his comrades, accuses Lucian of deriding the philosophersand enticingfrom their rankstheirold friends, Dialogue and Menippus. Parrhesiadesdefends it was only the apish imitators that himself the and degraders plea by whom he reviledand he calls on Truth (37 fin.) to of true philosophy his words. This importantwitness takes his part and all the confirm in the discussion acquit him. This scene is foreshadowed philosophers between Dicaeopolis and the chorusin the Acharnians.2 Perhaps the most famous and amusingof allegoricaldebates is that in the SomniumbetweenSculptureand Culture. The fableof Prodicus transformed. The struggleof the two conappears here humorously of the young Lucian is so violentthathe is almost testants forthe future torn in two by their exertions (6). Sculpture begins, is therefore to stone. defeated,and in her rage turnsappropriately Richest in debates is the Bis AccusatuswhereJusticeand Hermes at the command of Zeus descend to offerto all litigantsa free trial. The first case on the docket is " Drink vs. Academy on the charge of kidnappingPolemon." Here again, the influenceof the old comedy, is evident. Drink is unfortunately notably of Cratinus, incapacitated by her chronic failingand unable to plead her cause. But Academy kindlyundertakesto be her rival's advocate (i 6) and followsthisplea by one in her own behalf (17), winningher case by a vote of six to one. Porch vs. Pleasure,represented by Epicurus,resultsin an unan1
Dialog, II, 281.
2 Hirzel, Dialog, II, 306 f.
46
M.
C. Waites
imous verdict for the defendant and an appeal to Zeus on the part of Porch. The nextcase of Luxuryvs. Virtuestands over tillZeus decides the appeal of Porch in her similarsuit. The trialof Bank vs. Diogenes and the next is postponed while Diogenes pursueshis fleeingadversary, case goes to plaintiff by default. Last come the famous suits against the Syrianbrought by Rhetoric, his deserted wife,and Dialogue, his new companion. The firstcase is of Cratinus. The pathetic plea of the desertedwife again reminiscent of husband the benefits (26 ff.) who has bestowed upon an ungrateful of her the account traveland education is made ridiculousby Syrian's coquettishqualities. Dialogue's plaint that his friendhas undesirably degraded him and deprived him of the wing6dmagic of poetryis ably for degradation, who substitutes, answered by his adversary popularizafeat. In both cases, the juryare all the himself tion and prides upon but unanimousin the Syrian'sfavor. chs. 25 and 26, contains a diatribe in which the Pseudo-Logistes, the ignominioustasks imposed upon it as is tongue imagined resenting and the replyof its ownerto the charge is indicated. The allegorical debate has reached in Lucian its fullest development in classical literature. It has entered a sort of comic-opera fairyland where no flightof fancy is impossible and no material unavailable. in it fromthe first. LyricPoetry, was inherent And yet this flexibility to make have all contributed the Pastoral Rhetoric, Drama, Philosophy, and one of the most typicalproductsof it one of the most interesting Hellenic imagination.

Allegorical Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Allegorical Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

OF THE ALLEGORICAL GREEK LITERATURE

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

And Virginity answers,

CXXXV (1896), 14.

cf. Jurenka, Vienna Academy, Sitzungsberichte, p. 259.

XXXII (1897), 3 Blass, Hermes,XIII (1878), p. 30.

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

Se at Se "A/ues -" q'ILC's" X.ys,avyarusco. the chorus Finally boys' sang,

; K.T.X. TcoLpe-ao flovXa,

The sadder voice interposes, "XX'

Yyip 'aXa,. S eZ flporoTL, avalov W)rTOV

ELK7T7rLL oalroLv tUyV.

But thereis a sure remedy,

M. C. Wa ites Again the gravernote intrudes(31-48), rT Sl, AtoTdroLO 7rat,...

&O)KOW TL Tfp7rVoV 4%CqEpOV

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

16. [Tr]KavKa VLV KXVtI

PLVa, /1A.[K?]pa r' [&]Ocav'ov [*jJs [/~yc]hXav

of the Labors of Heracles,Zeller, Cf. also on Cleanthes'sinterpretation Philosophie

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

L CoTLv (XECTOaL XaSoOv o S' EyyV'OL /ia'Xa YvaIL. c'S,, Cv/i

wop0)Ta 8aOW Tro 7rp(o)TOV

Kat 7pT pv)L&7)q

Cf. also the Ways of Truthand Errorin Parmenides's poem,33 ff.

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

w Kc1LK67'qt, v 77 IAnv 5aravrv 7pdYw plov reXwiv i7 7 w repirv@'s 0'1ya. fcpya

'o t 4?povrtic ro6,wvV rvrL

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

contra voluptatem " (Nat. Deor. I, 14, 37).

/LEv o0Yv rpoopXErat

7r0pvr19Kal Xa/laptGvLr Toyv7pO7TOV

^l.AaTL ta 7a'Ta 7J-OLKLX

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

Ceb. Tab., 1903, p. xii. p. 96, and van Wageningen,

Praechter, Cebetis Tabula quanam

aetate conscripta esse videatur, I885,

Studienfi-r Classische Philologie, X (1887), p. 171.

1The idea may, of course, have been due to Diogenes.

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

?Lotcfpdaov. rL rPO'XCL, @OVe; rovrod AoyuOa, t7roLtcv. poXAotaL l reav *EXw,

as) pe7 IIX0oiJo rraparrlqSr

Ka't TrlV XXqrlvdroXavcLv

arraLtvav rap7Xwv pdWOLot u Xp8j7srl7 CL/U voOYOVYL

ETc -T7a) KLL74

avspo; Kal 4ah

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

Kal KLa7aycXaV, Kal

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature EL,7r l cLV Xcaoo,

,,.r.X.)1 Of the third

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

L O*IPiV/lOXeLV, a rAWPLKOIOv, E T) VVV 7iroXi, CKrperreoYTara TEy

See Some Aspectsof the Ancient Allegorical Debate, pp. 8I f.

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature

oXAv s;dWEL 8LKvV;

O"i \Xov 7rap' dvspo6,7TW

o apeTT)aV cXapt xpi'v-tv

TrvV 'A9rvav 4po'vrvcn7v o'xrav Kat yv/ALvati.o/V7.

6bros airrc^ X6pav 'EpIAoV.

Z7Oo7 /hv otv

'In everymatterof two arguments A contestone mightmake if shrewdin speech,'2

rotaura 7repi Kal

Odlr'b, el XVye&v I aooh. dayitva