Les origines de Thèbes: Cadmos et les Spartes by Francis Vian

Review by: Joseph Fontenrose

Classical Philology, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1966), pp. 189-192
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268686 .
Accessed: 11/06/2014 05:13

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.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.138 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:13:25 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOKREVIEWS
Les origines de ThUbes: Cadmos et les
Spartes. By FRANCISVIAN. ("IPtudes
et Commentaires,"Vol. XLVIII.) Paris:
Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1963. Pp. 259
+ 12 pls. Fr. 36.
On page 54 of Professor Vian's book we
read, "Cadmos, le fondateur de cette
Cadmee sur laquelle on n'a pas reussi en-
core ' deceler des traces d'influence ph'-
nicienne...." Just about the time of the
book's publication, excavators on the
Kadmeia of Thebes uncovered "over 80
oriental cylinder seals with figured scenes,
some of which have cuneiforminscriptions"
(E. Vanderpool, AJA, LXVIII, 293). So the
Kadmos legend appears to reflect a Phoe-
nician (Canaanite) settlement at Thebes
after all, just as the Greeks themselves
always said. In truth, it has always been
obvious that Kadmos was a Phoenician
in the original Greek legend of his found-
ing of Thebes, and that he represented the
Phoenicians who came to trade in Greece,
if not to settle there (evidence of Phoe-
nicians at Thebes itself is rather more than
we had hoped for). Kadmos' name is not
Greek, but is plainly formed from Semitic
QDM "east": Kadmos is the easterner. In
the legend when we first meet it Kadmos
came to Greece from Phoenicia (only the
homonymity of Egyptian Thebes gives
him an Egyptian origin in some sources).
He was credited with the introduction of
the alphabet, unquestionably a Phoenician
importation. Nothing that I say about
Kadmos should be taken to mean that I
consider him historical: he is, among other
things, the legendary representative of
the Phoenician people who came to Greece.
Regretfully, an anti- Semitic or anti-
Asiatic tendency appears occasionally
among Hellenists. Some scholars want
ancient Greece to have as little as possible
to do with western Asia or with Semitic
peoples. They seem to believe that any
189
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.138 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:13:25 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
debt to Asiatic nations is unworthy of the
Greeks,whose civilization, in their opinion,
should be a spontaneous product of the
Hellenic genius, or at least Indo-European
in origin. So some have tried to make
Kadmos a Cretan; and therefore, it seems,
a red man called phoinix-hence the con-
fusion about a Phoenician Kadmos. Vian
takes a different tack: he points to Hesy-
chius' definition of kadmos as "spear,"
"crest," "shield," in Cretan. This leads
him to speak of kadmos as nom commun
in the Cretan dialect; but Hesychius' entry
is the only evidence for it.
The recent finds at Thebes dispose
effectively of a non-Phoenician Kadmos
and vitiate a good part of Vian's book,
since he argues that the Phoenician taint
did not come upon the originally Cretan
or Hellenic Kadmos until 650-550 B.C.
However, an originally Phoenician Kadmos
is perhaps consistent enough with Vian's
central thesis, that the legend reflects the
sociopolitical structure of prehistoric
Thebes. The Spartoi, he maintains, are
the legendary representatives of a warrior
caste or class in prehistoric Thebes. This
caste was one part of the tripartite struc-
ture of Indo-European communities
(about which we hear a good deal, for Vian
accepts Dumezil's theory of early Indo-
European institutions: rulers political and
religious, soldiers, workers and peasants.)
Vian sees the same warrior caste (though
not of Thebes) reflected in Gigantes,
Phlegyans, and other belligerent com-
panies of myth and legend. In this inter-
pretation he is indebted to Jeanmaire's
Couroi et Couretes(and ultimately, I sup-
pose, to Van Gennep) for that ritualistic
interpretation which derives myths from
initiation rites.
That a ritual interpretation is not at all
inconsistent with a rationalistic or euhe-
meristic interpretation of myth, as some
190
ritualists suppose, is evident in the con-
clusions that Vian draws from his study
of the Kadmos legend: he also finds true
history in it. There was a Kadmos (whom
Eusebius dates correctly, Vian says)-not
a Phoeniciani,of course-who was the true
founder of Thebes (Amphion and Zethos
are rejected). As sovereign he was asso-
ciated with the Spaitoi, the Theban mili-
tary arm. Vian tries to support his view of
early Theban institutions from both Linear
B tablets and the Homeric epics, believing
that the latter reflect Mycenaean socio-
political organization. But Page has shown
in History and the HonmericIliad that the
Mycenaean state structure revealed in the
tablets was very different from the Homer-
ic. In any case do we find anything like
a special military class in any Greek polis,
Dorian or other? Vian believes that the
prehistorictripartite organizationpersisted
in Theban institutions, affecting the his-
toric city's structure. We know too little
about Mycenaean cities and kingdoms;
but in the Homeric and classical city every
able-bodied citizen was a soldier, subject
to service when his city went to war or
suffered attack. The workers, peasants,
merchants, landowners, and city gover-
nors were also the warriors. This is as true
of Sparta as elsewhere: we may speak of
a Spartan military caste in Lacedaemon;
but we must realize that it was also the
entire citizen-body, a minority in a mostly
noncitizen population.
Vian's interpretation of the legend as a
reflection of early Theban institutions, in
which the Spartoi were the military asso-
ciates and dependents of King Kadmos,
leads him to take exception to my own
interpretation of the Kadmos legend in
Python. In the battle of Spartoi, sprung
from the dragon's teeth, I saw in part (for
I grant other meanings) a vestige of Gigan-
tomachy, a feature of the ancient combat
myth. So Vian uses his fourth chapter
('Le Dragon et la source d'Ares") for a
critique of that section of chapter xii of
Python in which I deal with the Kadmos-
dragon combat. He accepts several of my
interpretations, but where he disagrees,
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.138 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:13:25 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOKREVIEWS
he misstates or misunderstands what I
have written. For example, .". . le combat
du dieu ou du h6ros contre le monstre
peut prendre des significations et recevoir
des fonctions fort diverses. J. Fontenrose
a meconnu cette polyvalence en le rame-
nant, d'une fa9on uniforme, a un conflit
entre les puissances du Chaos et du Cos-
mos" (p. 99). On the contrary, I make
very plain in Python that the meaning of
the combat myth became changed in many
variants (as in the Kadmos legend); they
were no longer told as tales of the world's
beginnings in a combat of Chaos' forces
with those of Cosmos, although traces of
the cosmogonic myth may cling to them.
Some variants became exciting tales of
dangerous conmbatwithout ulterior mean-
ing. And it is just this change in meanings
and purpose that gives individuality and
character to the various myths, legends,
and folktales of this type, so that identity
of type may not be immediately evident to
someone who hears or reads two or more
of them. Python gives full recognition to
the unique qualities of each of the several
myths discussed. The common pattern
emerged from my analvtic study of these
myths (although I placed the theme list in
my Introduction it is not an a priori con-
struction, as onle or two reviewers have
apparently supposed); Vian grants this
comlmon pattern as "un scheme ideal",
but not as "un scheme originel" that pre-
supposes an original myth which after
transmission in space and time was trans-
formed into many variants. Yet the latter
hypothesis fits the evidence better. The
diffusion of a type is, moreover, much more
likely than independent invention of the
same complex scheme among many peoples
(especially when these peoples are neigh-
bors); and we know that types are diffused.
The main question in Python is this: Is
there a type of combat myth ? This Vian
seems to grant.
Am.ong Vian's misstatements and mis-
understandings I point out the following.
It is incorrect to say that I identify the
champion god with the dying fertility god,
or that I try to make a dying fertility god
 BOOK REVIEWS
out of Kadmos. In fact, I distinguish
sharply between the sky-god, who as
champion suffers a temporary death in the
combat, and the dying fertility god (Py-
thon, pp. 127, 247-55A466), who usually
has a subordinate role in the combat myth,
if he has any at all. Sometimes the sky-
god may be identified with the fertility god
for obvious reasons (the former sends the
fertilizing rains, for example); contrari-
wise, the divine Enemy may be identified
with the fertility god, as was Mot in
Ugaritic mythology.
Vian states my Theme 7F (The Enemy
fled during the combat) as "L'Adversaire
finit par perdre le combat." This theme is
illustrated in Typhon's flight from Zeus
in course of combat, both before and after
Zeus's temporary defeat and loss of
sinews, as Apollodoros tells the story, and
in the wounded Python's flight from
Delphi to Tempe (Plut. QG 12). That is,
this is a flight during conflict, not the end
of the battle. Notice that after Typhon's
first flight he turned about and got the
upper hand for a time.
Vian's rejection of some evidence as late,
rationalized, or poetic is arbitrary. One
gathers from a chorus of Euripides' Phoe-
nissae that Ares sent the Sphinx to plague
the Thebans; Vian says, "il s'agit d'une
libre invention du poete" (p. 97, n. 2), all
because such a feature does not suit him.
And the rationalized versions of Palae-
phatus and others he dismisses as sans
valeur. They are not without value, since
we can often penetrate the rationalistic
veneer and reach the prerationalized myth
beneath. For Vian, it seems, a myth or
legend has an orthodox version; all others
are aberrations and not authoritative. The
truth is that there is no orthodox version.
There was an original myth, no doubt,
which became altered into various forms
in transmission, each equally authentic.
So it is dangerous to condemn a version
as late or valueless. We must heed Levi-
Strauss's dictum, that the myth consists
of all its versions.
According to Vian, my attempt to
associate Pelaqon and pelagos was sans
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.138 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:13:25 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
191
succes (pp. 92, n. 1, 98). He does not ex-
plain why. It appears to me that the name
is obviously related to the common noun,
although my interpretation of the mythi-
cal person Pelagon is admittedly conjec-
tural; yet it does make sense in the con-
text of the combat myth. Moreover, my
identifications of Ogygos, Drakon, and
Pelagon are not at all arbitrary: I give my
reasons in chapter xii and they rest upon
my findings in chapter x. Furthermore I
do not add Agenor and Phoinix to these
three as two more names for the "demon
du chaos et des eaux primordiales" (p. 98).
I interpret Agenor or Phoinix as the
superseded father in the divine-succession
myth. Agenor, brother of Belos, corre-
sponds to Kronos, the deposed god who be-
came the chaos-dragon's ally (Python
p. 312).
That under Theme lOD I pass "entie-
rement sous silence l'acte essentiel de
Cadnios, la fondation meme de Thebes"
(p. 98) is true enough: that is not in itself
a founding of cult, ritual, festival, or
temple. The city foundation, of course,
implies the founding of its religious insti-
tutions, and all those attested as Kadmos'
foundations I adduced to illustrate Theme
lOD. And surely the founding of Thebes
is constantly present, mentioned and un-
mentioned, throughout my discussion of the
Kadmos legend. The Thebes of this legend
succeeds to the cosmos of the old myth.
The city founding is the main subject of
the legend; and it is in no way inconsistent
with my thesis that the legend as a whole
is an adaptation of the combat-myth type.
The Kadmos legend reflects little
historical truth; it is true that Phoeni-
cians had something to do with prehistoric
Thebes (and this is precisely what Vian
rejects). Vian looks upon the legend (as
represented in literature) as a historical
document; and so he accepts or rejects
testimonies as if he were dealing with
historical documents. It is vain to set the
Kadmos tale against the Amphion-Zethos
tale and to debate which is the authentic
foundation legend. Learned Greeks of the
classical and later periods had a problem
192
here, since they considered these legends
to be true history. We have no such prob-
lem: we receive both legends, however in-
consistent with each other, as part of the
traditional lore pertaining to Thebes.
The book contains many errors and
dubious statements, of which I shall
mention only the following in addition to
those already noticed.
P. 101, n. 8: IUgaritic scholars no longer
distinguish Yam from Lotan and Tannin.
These are three names for the great dragon
who is Sea.
P. 158: As an example of monstre totally
unlike the mother, Vian cites Pegasos as son
of Medusa. He overlooks the early vase
relief which shows a horse Medusa, a sort of
female centaur.
P. 167: Vian finds support for his view of
the Spartoi in Pindar's Theban Hymn, where
Pindar couples Kadmos with Zsopt&v i?p6v
y6vos (&v8p&v: "Le poete pr6sente donc les
Spartes comme un geno8, une famille occu-
pant une place a part dans la cit6. . ." Surely
all that Pindar means is the Thebans collec-
tively, the offspring of the Spartoi; this is
the obvious way to understand genos here.
And to consider Hesiod's basileia to be a
genoain Vian's sense is pure misinterpretation
(p. 236).
P. 173: Vian's interpretation requires that
the slain Spartoi of the legend be "les
premices de ces hommes qui ont germe du
sol, comme des epis," which Thebes had to
offer to the gods. In the legend all but five
Spartoi were killed. Was not a rather large
proportion of the crop destroyed as first
fruits in this instance ?
P. 238: Surely Agamemnon and Achilles did
not constitute a double command of the
Achaean army before Troy, i.e., king and
military chief. As I read the Iliad, Achilles
commanded only the Myrmidons, only those
men whom he withdrew from the war, his
own contingent, and had no more authority
over the whole army than Odysseus or
Diomedes had. Vian's other examples of
double command are equally dubious.
Such forms as Cycno8, Cadmo8, and Car-
cinos are customary in French writing, com-
bining Latin C with Greek os. But what can
justify such forms as Kycno8 (p. 109) and
Carkino8 (a deux reprife8, pp. 227-28) ? How
does one choose between K and C in repre-
senting kappa in these instances? Again,
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.138 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:13:25 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BooK REvIEWs
why Proserpine instead of Pers4phone in a
translation of Pindar (p. 118) ?
In sum, although Vian's book treats an
important myth, makes occasional good
observations, and brings together all rele-
vant sources, the now demonstrable error
about Kadmos, the unsound central thesis
about the Spartoi, and the several mistakes
of detail mean serious weakness in both
foundations and superstructure, rendering
the whole unconvincing. It cannot be
considered an authoritative work on the
foundation legend of Thebes.
In conclusion-to indicate some merits
-I wish to point out the useful list of
monuments figur!s (pp. 35-44) which
illustrate the Kadmos legend; also the
list of foundation legends which have the
feature of animal guide (pp. 77-82, 89).
I should also mention the useful bibliog-
raphy, index of texts, and illustrations
on plates.
JOSEPH FONTENROSE
University of California, Berkeley
MatthewArnoldand the Classical Tradition.
By WARREN D. ANDERSON. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press, 1965.
Pp. x + 293. $7.00.
The subject of this book is twofold: the
influence of Matthew Arnold's classical
reading on his poetry, and the interpre-
tation of the classical tradition which he
gave in his prose works.
Arnold's knowledge of the classics was
both wide and detailed. Anderson gives a
full account of his reading at Winchester,
Rugby, and Oxford, and of the way in
which classical authors were studied in
these courses. Arnold was fortunate in his
schools; at Winchester (and from there
his father Thomas Arnoldbrought the same
approach to Rugby) translation of whole
passages from classical authors was the
rule, rather than isolated sentences treated
as parsing exercises. Thomas Arnold de-
manded also that boys should "vary their
language and their phraseology, according
to the age and style of the writer whom