Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T21:38:23.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EURIPIDES, CYCLOPS 375–6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

David Sansone
David Sansone*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
dsansone@illinois.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Odysseus has just entered the acting area following the choral song, during which he witnessed the Cyclops butchering, cooking and then eating two of his companions. In these lines Odysseus seemingly presents himself as being at a loss for words (τί λέξω), and claims that what he witnessed inside the cave is not to be believed (οὐ πιστά). These are, of course, nothing more than rhetorical ploys, with frequent parallels in Euripides and elsewhere. When Odysseus says οὐ πιστά he means not that what he is about to recount lacks credibility—he does, after all, expect the satyrs (and the audience) to accept his account as reliable—but that it surpasses the bounds of ordinary human experience. And the account that follows belies his apparent profession of being at a loss for words, since he is about to deliver what is in effect a messenger-speech of over fifty lines (382–436). Expressions of aphasia are common in Euripides, sometimes accompanied, as here, by lengthy exposition. Characters use such expressions to indicate that the circumstances in which they find themselves are beyond the power of language to convey. There is, therefore, something discordant in Odysseus immediately following his expression of aphasia by saying that what he has witnessed is ‘like stories’, especially when he is about to tell the story of the circumstances in which he finds himself. It is the purpose of this note to suggest that the words μύθοις εἰκότ’ have been universally misunderstood, and that Odysseus is here saying something quite other than that the events in the cave have a greater resemblance to stories than to reality.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 293 - 296
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

ΟΔ. ὦ घεῦ, τί λέξω, δείν’ ἰδὼν ἄντρων ἔσω 375
κοὐ πιστά, μύθοις εἰκότ’ οὐδ’ ἔργοις βροτῶν;

OD. O Zeus, what am I to say, when I've witnessed such terrible things inside the cave—things that are incredible, like stories but not like deeds of mortals?Footnote 1

Odysseus has just entered the acting area following the choral song, during which he witnessed the Cyclops butchering, cooking and then eating two of his companions. In these lines Odysseus seemingly presents himself as being at a loss for words (τί λέξω), and claims that what he witnessed inside the cave is not to be believed (οὐ πιστά). These are, of course, nothing more than rhetorical ploys, with frequent parallels in Euripides and elsewhere. When Odysseus says οὐ πιστά he means not that what he is about to recount lacks credibility—he does, after all, expect the satyrs (and the audience) to accept his account as reliable—but that it surpasses the bounds of ordinary human experience.Footnote 2 And the account that follows belies his apparent profession of being at a loss for words, since he is about to deliver what is in effect a messenger-speech of over fifty lines (382–436). Expressions of aphasia are common in Euripides, sometimes accompanied, as here, by lengthy exposition.Footnote 3 Characters use such expressions to indicate that the circumstances in which they find themselves are beyond the power of language to convey.Footnote 4 There is, therefore, something discordant in Odysseus immediately following his expression of aphasia by saying that what he has witnessed is ‘like stories’, especially when he is about to tell the story of the circumstances in which he finds himself. It is the purpose of this note to suggest that the words μύθοις εἰκότ’ have been universally misunderstood, and that Odysseus is here saying something quite other than that the events in the cave have a greater resemblance to stories than to reality.

Let us begin with the words/deeds antithesis which features prominently in our passage (μύθοις … ἔργοις) and which is a favourite topos in the works of Euripides and his contemporaries.Footnote 5 The topos is more commonly conveyed using a form of λόγος, but there is considerable variety in the way in which the contrast between words and deeds is expressed, including use of μῦθος.Footnote 6 There are two ways in which Euripides employs the topos. The first, which may be categorized as contrastive, corresponds to what Adam Parry calls the ‘popular’ strand in the development of the antithesis, where a character is portrayed ‘placing value on ἔργον as unquestioned reality, and condemning λόγος as something purely delusive’.Footnote 7 Typical of this use of the antithesis is Admetus’ characterization of his parents as friends in name alone, λόγῳ γὰρ ἦσαν οὐκ ἔργῳ φίλοι.Footnote 8 The second, and somewhat less frequent, way in which Euripides employs this topos is in what I would call the complexive use, that is, treating words and deeds not as antithetical but as embracing the range of human activity. We see this in Polyxena's injunction that Hecuba not obstruct her resolve by any means whatsoever, telling her mother: ‘Place no obstacle in my way, (either) by speaking or by acting’, σὺ δ’ ἡμῖν μηδὲν ἐμποδὼν γένῃ λέγουσα μηδὲ δρῶσα (Hec. 372–3). Teiresias expresses himself similarly when he says that he used every means possible in trying to head off fratricidal civil war, ἁγὼ τί οὐ δρῶν, ποῖα δ’ οὐ λέγων ἔπη; (Phoen. 878). Earlier in the same play Jocasta had sung about how she might express her joy at seeing her son in every way she can, καὶ χερσὶ καὶ λόγοισι (313). Similarly, the Argive herald in Heraclidae confidently claims that he is justified in using every means at his disposal to extradite the children of Heracles, δίκαι’ ἁμαρτῇ δρᾶν τε καὶ λέγειν ἔχων (138). This mode of ‘polar expression’ is common in Greek literature from Homer onwards, and is so pervasive that it is occasionally used even when one of the two terms is strictly speaking inappropriate.Footnote 9 It is a means of strengthening an expression and increasing its emphasis by making the statement universal.

Which of these uses, then, is represented here in Cyc. 376? The contrastive use, which sets solid reality in opposition to the insubstantiality of mere words, seems inappropriate to Odysseus’ apparent assertion that what he has in reality witnessed resembles words rather than deeds. Indeed, it would only serve to undermine the truthfulness of what he is about to relate.Footnote 10 I propose that this line has been consistently misunderstood by critics, and that we are dealing here with the complexive use of the topos. As it happens, the words μύθοις εἰκότ’ οὐδ’ ἔργοις βροτῶν are capable of two very different constructions, only one of which, as far as I am aware, has been entertained. Patrick O'Sullivan's translation, quoted above, reflects the way in which the text has been universally understood.Footnote 11 In support of this understanding of the text recent editors refer to Denniston, GP 191, who cites this passage, along with other examples from Homer, Herodotus, tragedy and comedy, of ‘οὐδέ for ἀλλ’ οὐ, holding apart incompatibles’.Footnote 12 Elsewhere, however, Denniston himself supplies equally strong support for an alternative view, one that has not previously been recognized as applicable to Cyc. 376. For it is also possible to understand οὐδέ as negating both μύθοις and ἔργοις, so that what Odysseus is saying is ‘things unparalleled in both the words and the deeds of mortals’.Footnote 13 In fact, one of the examples Denniston uses to illustrate this phenomenon is precisely the passage from Hecuba that we saw earlier as expressing the words/deeds antithesis in its complexive use (σὺ δ’ ἡμῖν μηδὲν ἐμποδὼν γένῃ λέγουσα μηδὲ δρῶσα, 372–3). Denniston notes that in that instance ‘the preceding negative … certainly makes the omission easier’, and the same is perhaps the case with Pind. Pyth. 3.29–30, where we are told that no god or mortal circumvents the will of Apollo, (either) by actions or by designs, κλέπτει τέ μιν οὐ θεὸς οὐ βροτὸς ἔργοις [NB] οὔτε βουλαῖς. But other examples cited by Denniston (and in the works referred to in n. 13 here) have no negative preceding and, in any event, the force of the negative in οὐ πιστά at Cyc. 376 may be felt to carry over, inasmuch as εἰκότα modifies the (unexpressed) noun to which οὐ πιστά refers. The reason, then, why Odysseus speaks of the terrible events he witnessed as incredible is that they surpass the bounds of ordinary human experience, nor can he produce a parallel for them from any realm of human experience, either in word or in deed.Footnote 14

References

1 The text is that of the lone manuscript and, punctuation aside, of all recent editions; the translation is that of Patrick O'Sullivan, in O'Sullivan, P. and Collard, C. (edd.), Euripides Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama (Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar. I invite my readers to join me in thanking the journal's anonymous referee, whose valuable comments have made significant improvements in both the substance and the readability of this note.

2 Compare Hec. 689 (with δεινά in 693), IT 328, 796, 1293, Hel. 1520 (with δεινά in the previous line), Ar. Pax 131, Av. 416, 421–2. For a discussion of this type of locution, see the illuminating article by T.C.W. Stinton, ‘“Si credere dignum est”: some expressions of disbelief in Euripides and others’, PCPhS 22 (1976), 60–89 (= Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy [Oxford, 1990], 236–64).

3 The noun ἀφασία is attested first in Euripides (HF 515, Hel. 549, IA 837); his use of it is parodied at Ar. Thesm. 904. Cf. Heracl. 535, HF 514, Hel. 483, 496, 564, 631, 656, Ion 1446, IT 777, 839, Phoen. 312.

4 Alc. 1082 (μᾶλλον ἢ λέγω), Hec. 667 (μᾶλλον ἢ λέγω), Suppl. 844 (κρείσσον’ ἢ λέξαι λόγῳ), HF 916 (οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι), IT 837 (κρεῖσσον ἢ λόγοισιν), 840 (λόγου πρόσω), 900 (μύθων πέρα); cf. Ar. Av. 1706 (μείζω λόγου).

5 For a survey of the topos down to the time of Euripides, see Parry, A.M., Logos and Ergon in Thucydides (New York, 1981; originally diss. Harvard, 1957), 15–57 Google Scholar; for Euripides, see Solmsen, F., ‘ὄνομα and πρᾶγμα in Euripides’ Helen ’, CR 48 (1934), 119–21Google Scholar, and Egli, F., Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössischer intellektueller Strömungen (Leipzig, 2003), 214–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 μῦθος/ἔργον Hom. Il. 9.443, 19.242, [Aesch.] PV 1080–1, Soph. OC 1581–2, Eur. fr. 282.26 (Autolycus) Kannicht, CGFP 76.22–3 Austin (Cratinus?); ἔπος/ἔργον Hom. Il. 15.234, Od. 3.99, 4.163, 15.375, Hymn. Hom. Cer. 65, 117, 199, Heraclitus B1 DK, Aesch. Pers. 174, Soph. El. 622–3; ἔπος εἰπών/ἔρξας Hes. Op. 710; ὄνομα/ἔργον Eur. Hipp. 501–2, Tro. 1233, Hel. 792, Or. 454; γλῶσσα/ἔργον Soph. Phil. 99; ῥῆμα/ἔργον Soph. OC 873; λόγος/χείρ Soph. OT 883–4, Eur. Phoen. 313; λόγος/ὅπλα Eur. Ion 1298. For the various ways in which the antithesis is expressed by Thucydides (whose vocabulary admits τὸ μυθῶδες, 1.21.1 and 22.4, but not μῦθος), see Parry (n. 5), 11–14.

7 Parry (n. 5), 15, with discussion at 47–51. Compare Mastronarde, D.J. (ed.), Euripides Phoenissae (Cambridge, 1994), 259 Google Scholar, on Phoen. 389: ‘this antithesis, found … frequently elsewhere in Eur. and Thuc., usually implies criticism of λόγος as insubstantial, insincere, or false.’

8 Alc. 339. Other instances are frr. 97.3, 360.13, 528.2, 572.4–5, 727c.21, 898.5–6, Hipp. 501–2, Andr. 239, 264–5, Suppl. 908, El. 893, Tro. 1233, Ion 1298, Hel. 792, Phoen. 389, Or. 287, 454. The fragment from Autolycus referred to above (n. 6) is the exception that stands out; in it the unnamed speaker controversially condemns, in terms reminiscent of Xenophanes fr. 2 West, the universal practice of the Greeks, who honour athletes rather than the just and sensible man, ‘who eradicates evil deeds by means of his words’ (ὅστις τε μύθοις ἔργ’ ἀπαλλάσσει κακά).

9 See Lloyd, G.E.R., Polarity and Analogy (Cambridge, 1966), 90–4Google Scholar. Lloyd ([this note], 92) cites Hom. Od. 15.374–5 οὐ μείλιχόν ἐστιν ἀκοῦσαι οὔτ’ ἔπος οὔτε τι ἔργον. Similar are Aesch. Pers. 173–4 μή σε δὶς φράσειν μήτ’ ἔπος μήτ’ ἔργον, Anaxagoras B7 DK μὴ εἰδέναι τὸ πλῆθος μήτε λόγῳ μήτε ἔργῳ, and Eur. Heracl. 537–8 τίς ἂν λέξειε γενναίους λόγους μᾶλλον, τίς ἂν δράσειεν (with τί λέξω preceding at 535).

10 Some scholars have, indeed, advocated a sceptical ‘metapoetic’ reading of the line, in which the reality of the entire story is questioned, as Heracles seems to question stories like that concerning his own divine birth (HF 1346 ἀοιδῶν οἵδε δύστηνοι λόγοι); but in such a case there are no actual deeds to contrast with the words fabricated about them, so the topos is out of place. For such a reading of the line, see Lämmle, R., Poetik des Satyrspiels (Heidelberg, 2013), 336–7Google Scholar, Seaford, R.A.S., Euripides Cyclops, Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar, ad loc. and Kassel, R., ‘Bemerkungen zum Kyklops des Euripides’, RhM 98 (1955), 279–86Google Scholar, who considers this line the clearest evidence (286) in support of his view (endorsed by Napolitano, M., Euripide Ciclope [Venice, 2003]Google Scholar, ad loc. and Lämmle [this note]) that Euripides is using disruption of the dramatic illusion in order to present the epic accomplishments of Odysseus in an ironic light. This is, however, the only place Kassel can point to where the irony is put into the mouth of Odysseus himself. In any event, a metapoetic reference does not require a sceptical reading. Euripides can be seen as calling attention to the ‘real’ events that will only later be treated in the stories of poets like Euripides and Homer in the same way Homer himself presents Helen reflecting on the stories that poets will tell in future about her: Hom. Il. 6.357–8; cf. Od. 8.579–80, 24.196–202, Hymn. Hom. Ap. 299.

11 The revision, by M. Griffith and G.W. Most (2013), of Arrowsmith's Chicago translation is freer, but reflects the same understanding: ‘Unbelievable horrors, the kind of things men hear about in myths, not in real life.’ (Arrowsmith's original translation [1956] was ‘myths and plays’.) Similar are the Loeb translation by D. Kovacs (Cambridge, MA, 1994) and the translations into Italian by L. Paganelli (Bologna, 1991) and Napolitano (n. 10), into German by D. Ebener (Berlin, 1980) and into French by L. Méridier (Paris, 1925). This understanding is at least as venerable as the Latin translation by Portus, M. Aemilius (fabulis similia, non operibus hominum), printed in W. Canter's edition of Euripides (Heidelberg, 1597)Google Scholar.

12 R.G. Ussher (Rome, 1978), W. Biehl (Leipzig, 1983), Seaford (n. 10). Denniston's reference to ‘Crates Fr. 29 Dem.’ is to fr. 1 (page 29) Demiańczuk; Soph. ‘Fr. 624’ is presumably fr. 838 Radt. Hom. Od. 9.408, of which Denniston quotes only δόλῳ οὐδὲ βίηφιν, is a special case, as the context (ὦ φίλοι, Οὖτίς με κτείνει δόλῳ οὐδὲ βίηφιν) shows. In addition to Cyc. 376, Denniston cites two other examples from Euripides, frr. 87 (Alcmeon) γυναῖκες, ὁρμήθητε μηδ’ ἀθυμία σχέθῃ τις ὑμᾶς and 418 (Ino) γίγνωσκε τἀνθρώπεια μηδ’ ὑπερμέτρως ἄλγει.

13 Denniston, GP 194 (οὐδέ; add Hel. 395, Theoc. Id. 11.28 and Epigr. 6.6) and 511 (οὔτε). This phenomenon, where the negative appears only with the second of two negated words, is widely attested in languages other than Greek; for examples from English, Italian, German, Old English, Old Norse and Old High German, see Kühner–Gerth II 291; Jespersen, O., Negation in English and Other Languages (Copenhagen, 1917), 108–9Google Scholar; Wackernagel, J. (Engl. transl. Langslow, D.), Lectures on Syntax (Oxford, 2009), 787–8Google Scholar. For French, see La Rochefoucauld's Maxime 26: ‘Le soleil ni la mort ne se peuvent regarder fixement.’

14 For the collocation ‘incredible’ and ‘unspeakable’, compare Ar. Av. 421–2 οὔτε λεκτὸν οὔτε πιστόν (paratragic; cf. Eur. Hipp. 875 οὐ τλητὸν οὐδὲ λεκτόν).