Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:46:27.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imaginary Greek mountains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Richard Buxton
Richard Buxton
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is hardly controversial to assert that recent work on Greek mythology is methodologically diverse. However, there is one body of writing which seems to have become a reference point against which scholars of many persuasions–not excluding orthodox positivist philologists and adherents of psychoanalysis–feel the need to define their own position. I mean structuralism. G.S. Kirk and, later, W. Burkert have conducted their dialogues with it; C. Segal and more unreconstructedly R. Caldwell have tried to accommodate Lévi-Strauss and Freud under the same blanket; a glance at bibliographical citations in studies of tragedy over the last twenty years will show how J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet have moved from the periphery to the centre (much as Finley did some time ago in ancient history). The polemical attitudes being struck by M. Detienne (from within the movement) and C. Calame are directly generated by over-confident structuralist attempts to map out the mental territory they claimed as their own.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 112 , November 1992 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. the variety of approaches to be found in the collections by Bremmer, J.N., Interpretations of Greek mythology (London 1987)Google Scholar and Edmunds, Lowell, Approaches to Greek myth (Baltimore 1990).Google Scholar The enigmatic state of contemporary mythological studies is typified by the Sphinxes displayed on the dust-jackets of the collections by Bremmer, and by Calarne, C. (Métamorphoses du mythe en Grèce antique [Geneva 1988])Google Scholar, as I noted in a review of Calame's book, CR n.s. xl (1990) 324–6. That was before I saw a copy of Edmunds (another Sphinx).

2 Kirk, G.S., Myth: its meaning and functions in ancient and other cultures (Cambridge/Berkeley 1970)Google Scholar; Burkert, W., Structure and history in Greek mythology and ritual (Berkeley 1979).Google Scholar

3 Segal, Charles, ‘Pentheus and Hippolytus on the couch and on the grid: psychoanalytic and structuralist readings of Greek tragedy’, in Segal's, Interpreting Greek tragedy: myth, poetry, text (Ithaca 1986), 268–93Google Scholar; Caldwell, Richard, The origin of the gods (New York/Oxford 1989).Google Scholar

4 See Detienne, M., L'invention de la mythologie (Paris 1981)Google Scholar; Calarne (n.1) 7–14, and his article ‘Illusions de la mythologie’, Nouveaux actes sémiotiques no. 12 (1990).

5 Motte, A., Prairies et jardins de la Grèce antique (Brussels 1973)Google Scholar; Bernand, A., La carte du tragique (Paris 1985)Google Scholar; Chalkia, I., Lieux et espace dans la tragédie d'Euripide (Thessaloniki 1986)Google Scholar; and the essays by Zeitlin (‘Thebes’) and Padel (‘Making space speak’) in Winkler, John J. and Zeitlin, Froma I. (eds), Nothing to do with Dionysos? (Princeton 1990).Google Scholar

6 Kynthos: Str. x 5.2. Kronion: Paus. v 21.2; vi 20.1 (altitudes taken from Philippson, A., Die griechischen Landschaften [Frankfurt am Main 1950–1959.]).Google Scholar Fluid meaning of oros: Buck, C. D., A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages (Chicago 1949) 23Google Scholar; Pritchett, W.K., Studies in ancient Greek topography i (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965) 66.Google Scholar For an apparently anomalous, Argive use of oros see Vollgraff, W., ‘Novae inscriptiones Argivae’, Mnemosyne xlii (1914) 330–54Google Scholar, at 333; Caskey, J.L. and Amandry, P., ‘Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949’, Hesperia xxi (1952) 165–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 218. For oros in Strabo see Baladié, R., Le Péloponnèse de Strahon (Paris 1980) 124ff.Google Scholar

7 Arr. An. vii 9.2. For the plain/oras opposition see Thphr. HP i 8.1 and iii 11.2. For plain/non-plain contrasted in warfare see Osborne, R., Classical landscape with figures (London 1987) 144Google Scholar, with reference to Plb. xviii 31. ‘Plainsmen’ and ‘men from beyond the hills’ form two political constituencies in the time of Peisistratos: Hdt. i 59; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 13.4 (with Rhodes' commentary ad loc).

8 Cf. Martin, R., L'urbanisme dans la Grèce antique 2 (Paris 1974) 32.Google Scholar Like the oros, the acropolis may be contrasted with the plain: Aristot. Pol. 1330b (an acropolis is ‘oligarchic’ and ‘monarchical’; level ground is ‘democratic’).

9 One of JHS's referees made the interesting comment that ‘in English the nearest corresponding word [sc. to oros] is probably not “mountain” or “hill” but “moor”.’ But the connotations of ‘moor’ are essentially non Mediterranean; the same goes for ‘heath’.

10 Cf. Cadell, H. and Rémondon, R., ‘Sens et emplois de to τὀ ὅρος dans les documents papyrologiques’, REG lxxx (1967) 343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Pease, A.S., ‘Notes on mountain climbing in antiquity’, Appalachia cxxxii (1961) 289–98Google Scholar; Fehling, D., Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde (Munich 1974)Google Scholar eh. 2 (‘Fernsicht’).

12 See Georgoudi, S., ‘Quelques problèmes de la transhumance dans la Grèce ancienne’, REG lxxxvii (1974) 155–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skydsgaard, J.E., ‘Transhumance in ancient Greece’, in Whittaker, C. R. (ed.), Pastoral economies in classical antiquity (Cambridge 1988) 75–86.Google Scholar

13 The data are reviewed by Robert, L. in Hellenica vii (1949) 152–60Google Scholar and x (1955) 28–33, and in AC xxxv (1966) 383–4. See also Whittaker (n. 12).

14 Cf. Georgoudi (n. 12) 180–1; Sartre, M., ‘Aspects économiques et aspects religieux de la frontière dans les cités grecques’, Ktèma iv (1979) 213–24.Google Scholar

15 Aigina: IG IV 127, with Robert (1949) (n.13) 154–5‥ Hymettos, : AJA vii (1903) 292–3.Google Scholar = IG I2 778. Although in both cases some scholars have read a proper name instead of ‘goatherd’—i.e. Αὶπόλου for αίπόλου (Aigina) and hΑίπολος for hαιπόλος (Vari)—the locations of the finds are at the very least consistent with the sense ‘goatherd’.

16 See e.g. Georgoudi (n.12); Halstead, P., ‘Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe: plus ça change?’, JHS cvii (1987) 77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 79–80; Rackham, Oliver, ‘Ancient landscapes’, in Murray, O. and Price, S. (eds), The Greek city from Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990), 85–111.Google Scholar

17 D. xlii 5–7; Gow on Theoc. 13.25f.

l8 Thphr. HP. iii 3.7; iii 12.4, etc. For wood-cutting on Mount Ida see Theoc. 17. 9–10, with Gow ad loc.

19 IG I2 1084 = Hansen, P.A., Carmina epigraphica graeca i (Berlin 1983) no. 87Google Scholar; cf. Himmelmann, N., Über Hirten-Genre in der antiken Kunst (Opladen 1980) 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 And. fr. 4 Blass. See further Lacey, W.K., The family in classical Greece (London 1968) 53Google Scholar and 256 n. 13. For a modern example of the charcoal-burner's marginality one may compare the dissident, radical charcoal-burners of the Mount Pelion area in 1921–2. (I owe this information to M. Llewellyn Smith.) Note also the clandestine movement in 19th century Italy whose members styled themselves i carbonari.

21 On the question of the ‘space’ in which hunting was conducted see Schnapp, A., ‘Représentation du territoire de guerre et du territoire de chasse dans l'oeuvre de Xénophon’, in Finley, M.I. (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1973) 307–21.Google Scholar

22 X. Cyn. 9.11; 9.17; 10.22.

23 Paus. iii 20.4.

24 D.Chr. Or. vii 11.

25 ‘Helikon in history: a study in Greek mountain topography’, ABSA xliv (1949) 313–23, at 322 (italics in original). This and ‘Thermopylae and Callidromos’ (in Studies presented to D.M. Robinson i 480–9) are described by W.K. Pritchett as ‘the two best articles ever published on Greek mountain terrain’ (Pritchett [n. 6] iv 207).

26 Paus. x 33.3; viii 12.8; x 22.8.

27 Il. iii 10–11; Lucian D.Mort. 22.2.

28 Hdt. viii 32, cf. viii 27; Paus, iv 17.10; iv 24.6.

29 Livy xl 21–2.

30 Plb. x 43–7.

31 See Pritchett, W.K., The Greek state at war ii (Berkeley 1974) 170.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Ducrey, P., Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1985) 11 Of.Google Scholar

33 This has been repeatedly shown by Pritchett in his great study (n. 31).

34 The absence of a developed mountain strategy in Greek warfare is discussed by A.W. Gomme at pp. 10–15 of his commentary on Thuc. i.

35 Cf. Vidal-Naquet, P., Le chasseur noir (Paris 1981) 154Google Scholar, with particular reference to Crete.

36 Cf. my remarks in Bremmer (n. 1) 60–79.

37 Paus. iii 23.9. (In his commentary ad loc. Frazer's comparatist approach is at its most beguiling: he turns up the flinging of tufts of grass [amongst the Masai] and the hurling of ‘vast numbers of hogs’ [Hawaii] into the relevant volcano.) For Etna one may compare the anecdotal ‘death’ of Empedokles, ‘luckily’ accepted by the crater (D.L. viii 69).

38 NH xxv 1. Much plant-gathering, however, will have had more to do with everyday needs than with ‘research’: Thphr. HP ix 10.2–4. (black hellebore best from Helikon, white from Oita).

39 Thphr. Sign. 4; Philo Prov. ii 27; Philostr. VA ii 5; Petron. Sat. 88 (Eudoxos); lamb. VP. 3.14–15 (Pythagoras). N.B. also Hadrian's ascent of Etna ‘ut solis ortum videret arcus specie, ut dicitur, varium’ (SHA, Vit.Hadr. 13).

40 Zeus: a study in ancient religion (Cambridge 1914–40) i 165.

41 Langdon, Merle K., ‘A sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos’, Hesperia Supp. xvi, esp. 81Google Scholar, to be looked at in conjunction with Lauter, H., Der Kultplatz auf dem Turkovuni, MDAI(A) Beiheft xii, esp. 134ff.Google Scholar

42 Cf. also Graf, F., Nordionische Kulte (Schweizerisches Institut in Rom 1985) 202–3Google Scholar on Zeus Ὕπατος.

43 Cf Burkert, W., Greek religion (Eng. tr. Oxford 1985) 140.Google Scholar

44 Paus. i 32.2; ii 36.8; viii 21.4.

45 Paus. ii 24.3; Polyain, v 1.1 (see Cook [n.40] i 122–3.); Burkert, W., Homo necans (Eng. tr. Berkeley 1983) 136Google Scholar with n. 2.

46 Some examples noted by Pausanias: iii 20.4 (Helios); ii 24.5, ii 25.3, viii 13.1 (Artemis); iii 22.2 (Dionysos); viii 10.1 (Demeter); viii 24.4, viii 36.8 (Pan); ix 23.6 (Apollo); viii 17.1 (Hermes). For the ‘Mother’ cf. Hdt. i 80, Paus. v 13.7; Der kleine Pauly s.v. ‘Kybele’.

47 The text is very fragmentary (Page, D.L., Corinna [London 1953] 19–22)Google Scholar, but Huxley, G.L. seems to be right in observing ‘ΟΡΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ [Maximus Tyrius 2.8]’, LCM iii [1978] 71–2.)Google Scholar that Korinna ‘comes close to identifying [the god Helikon] with the mountain’.

48 Der Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin 1931–2) i 93–5.

49 See Huxley (n. 47).

50 E. Cyc. 114; Apollod. iii 12.5; Hom. h.Ven. 53–5; Hom. h.Merc. 69ff.

51 S. O.T. 1133ff.

52 Ant. Lib. xxii; cf. Borgeaud, Ph., The cult of Pan in ancient Greece (Eng tr. Chicago 1988) 61–2.Google Scholar

53 E. Med. 3–4; E. Tro. 534; Hom. Il. xxiii 117.

54 E. HF 240ff.

55 Praepar. Evang. v 190A (Migne PG xxi); cf. Lane Fox, R., Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth 1988) 131–2.Google Scholar

56 Call. Hymn v 75 (Teiresias); Apollod. iii 4.4 (Aktaion); schol. A.R. iv 57–8 Wendel (Endymion); Apollod. iii 13.3 (Peleus, Akastos).

57 E. Rh. 282ff.

58 Paus. viii 4.6.

59 Paus. i 40.1 (Megaros); Apollod. i 7.1, Paus, x 6.2 (Pamassos); cf. Paus, iv 34.10 re Asine.

60 Arat. Ph. 127.

61 Birth and upbringing: see below. Zeus and the oros: cf. Burkert (n. 43) 126.

62 Hes. Th. 632. Cf. Apollod. i 6: the combat between Zeus and Typhon moves from Kasios to Nysa to Haimos to Etna.

63 Hes. Th. 1 (Muses); Horn. h.Pan 6–7, D.Hal. Ant.Rom. i 38.1 (Pan); Horn. Il. xxiv 614ff, Horn. h.Ven. 257–8 (Nymphs).

64 Od. vi 102–3; E. Tro. 551.

65 Douglas, Mary, ‘The Lele of Kasai’, in Forde, D. (ed.), African worlds (Oxford 1954) 1–26, esp. 4–6Google Scholar; McLeod, M.D., The Asante (London 1981) 20–40Google Scholar; Lienhardt, G., Divinity and experience: the religion of the Dinka (Oxford 1961) 63.Google Scholar

66 For some Biblical material see Dozeman, Thomas B., God on the mountain (Atlanta 1989) 13 n. 48.Google Scholar

67 Il. i 267–8. Cf. Apollod. ii 5.4 (Centaurs on Mounts Pelion and Malea).

68 E. Ph. 806; Paus, ix 26.2. Apollodoros locates the Sphinx on Mount Phikion (iii 5.8); cf. Moret, J.-M., Oedipe, la Sphinx et les Théhains (Geneva 1984) 69 with n. 1.Google Scholar

69 Apollod. iii 5.1.

70 Pl. Crat. 394e.

71 S. O.T. (Oidipous); Paus, i 38.9 (Amphion/Zethos); Paus, ii 26.4 (Asklepios; Hom. h.Aesc. 3 gives another version: ‘…in the Dotian plain’); Apollod. iii 12.5 (Paris); Apollod. ii 7.4, iii 9.1 (Telephos).

72 The kindness of strangers (Harmondsworth 1988).

73 Op. cit. (n. 72) 6–7. Along the way B. makes some fascinating observations, e.g. 97, where he questions the fictionality of the topos of being saved by a shepherd: ‘it is worth noting that there was actually legislation in the later empire prohibiting the upper classes from “handing their children over to shepherds”’.

74 Cf. the disagreement between Engels, D., ‘The problem of female infanticide in the Greco-Roman world’, CPh lxxv (1980) 112–20Google Scholar, and Golden, M., ‘The exposure of girls at Athens’, Phoenix xxxv (1981) 316–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Patterson, C.B., ‘“Not worth the rearing”: the causes of infant exposure in ancient Greece’, TAPA cxv (1985) 103–23.Google Scholar Boswell himself reviews discussions of the Greek evidence, from Glotz onwards, at op. cit. (n. 72) 40–1, n. 96.

75 This applies to foundlings in mythology, but not to those in romance (compare Chloe in Daphnis and Chloe and the Queen of Ethiopia's daughter in Aithiopika) or New Comedy, If it is true, as is often taken for granted, that abandonment of female infants was in real life commoner than that of males, it may be that we should see romance and New Comedy as extending mythical patterns in ‘realistic’ directions (though in each case within a highly artificial framework).

76 Apollod. i 7.2 (Deukalion); schol. Hom. Il. xx 215–16. (Dardanos).

77 H.Merc. (Hermes); Hes. Th. 53–62 (Muses). For Zeus' Cretan birth see Frazer's Loeb edn. of Apollodoros, vol. i pp. 6–7, n. 2; Cook (n. 40) i 148–54 Paus, viii 38.2 (Lykaion), iv 33.1 (Ithome).

78 Apollod. iii 13.6 (Achilles); Pi. Pyth. iii, Apollod. iii 10.3 (Asklepios); Apollod. iii 4.4 (Aktaion); A.R. ii 509–10 (Aristaios).

79 Ida/Troy: E. I.A. 1283ff, with Stinton, T.C.W., Euripides and the judgement of Paris (London 1965) 29ffGoogle Scholar; Apollod. iii 12.5. On Ida see further Elliger, W., Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung (Berlin 1975) 263ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Hes. Th. 22ff; Hdt. vi 105.

81 Apollod. iii 13.5.

82 Apollod. iii 6.7.

81 Paus. ii 36.If.

84 The afterthought is the concluding sentence of Cyn. (= iii 18).

85 Cf. TrGF iii (Radt) pp. 138–40; West, M.L., ‘Tragica VI’, BICS xxx (1983) 63–71.Google Scholar

86 Dearum iudic. 7.

87 Cf. the Nurse's reaction at 232–8.

88 Paus. viii 18.7.

89 See Brunvand, J.H., The vanishing hitchhiker (New York 1981).Google Scholar

90 Paus. ix 3 (daidala on Kithairon); for Lykaion, cf. n. 36; Paus. ix 29.6 (Muses).

91 The fragment from which the passage comes is listed under Dikaiarchos in Müller FHG ii, p. 262; for the attribution to Herakleides see RE viii (1913) col. 484, and the edn. with commentary by Pfister, F., ‘Die Reisebilder des Herakleides’, SAWW ccxxvii (1951) 1–252, at fr. 2.8 (p. 208).Google Scholar

92 Cook (n. 40) i 420–1.

91 Cook (n. 40) iii 31–2, qualifying his scepticism expressed at loc. cit. (n. 92).

94 Burkert (n. 45) 113–14.

95 Langdon (n. 41) 83.

96 But there is something over-elaborate about Burkert's attempt to link the Pelion ritual with the story of Aktaion (loc. cit. in n. 94, following Pfister [n. 91] 209–12).

97 Paus. viii 1.5, 4.1.

98 Od. xiv 530–3, 518–19.

99 Paus. x 4.3.

100 Henrichs, A., ‘Greek maenadism from Olympias to Messalina’, HSCP lxxxii (1978) 121–60Google Scholar, and ‘Changing Dionysiac identities’, in Jewish and Christian self-definition iii (ed. Meyer, Ben F. and Sanders, E.P.) (London 1982) 137–60Google Scholar; Seaford, Richard, ‘Dionysiac drama and the Dionysiac mysteries’, CQ xxxi (1981) 252–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bremmer, J.N., ‘Greek maenadism reconsidered’, ZPE lv (1984) 267–86Google Scholar; Vernant, J.-P., ‘Le Dionysos masqué des Bacchantes d'Euripide’, in Vernant, J.-P. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Mythe et tragédie ii (Paris 1986) 237–70.Google Scholar

101 Let us admit that, although marginality is a useful analytical tool, it can be (and has been) overdone. See the wise remarks of H.S. Versnel, ‘What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: myth and ritual, old and new’, in Edmunds (n. 1) 25–90.

102 F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) no. 181; discussed by Henrichs 1978 (n. 100) 155–6.

103 See Dodds on E. Ba. 654–5.

104 xlvii 117.

105 ix 28.1.

106 1301ff.

107 H.Merc. 491–2; S. Hodkinson in Whittaker (n. 12) 35–74.

108 See Gould, J., ‘Mothers' Day: a note on Euripides' Bacchae’, in Papers given at a colloquium on Greek drama in honour of R.P. Winnington-Ingram ed. Rodley, L. (London 1987) 32–9, at 37.Google Scholar

109 Cf. Pliny NH. xvi 62 ('sepulchra, muros rumpens’). For this reference I am indebted to John Gould, who in an unpublished paper discusses the role of ivy in Bakchai.

110 Here I differ from Jan Bremmer (n. 100) 276, who observes that ‘in the Bakchai…the mountain appears as a lush place where it is very pleasant to be.’ The portrayal of Kithairon in fact varies subtly with different narrators, as I have sought to demonstrate in ‘News from Cithaeron: narrators and narratives in the Bacchae’, Pallas xxxvii (1991) 39–48.

111 Cf. Dodds' edn., pp. 243–4.

112 Cf. Dodds' edn., pp. 243–4.

113 I borrow the useful notion of ‘separation’ from Oudemans, Th. C.W. and Lardinois, A.P.M.H., Tragic ambiguity (Leiden 1987).Google Scholar

114 Versions of this paper have been put before audiences in Dublin, Lausanne, Oxford, Paris, Strasbourg and Utrecht; colleagues in Bristol have also advised me on various matters. I am grateful to all who have offered comments, in particular to J.N. Bremmer, G.L. Huxley, S. Saïd, F. Shaw, H.S. Versnel and the JHS referees. I am indebted in a different way to the people of S. Vito di Cadore, where I began to learn about mountains.