Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:01:44.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hybris and Dishonour: II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

N. R. E. Fisher
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous article I argued that the most successful approach to the concept of hybris was through the definition of Aristotle, who placed the core of the concept in behaviour that was intended gratuitously to inflict dishonour and shame upon others; such an account, I argued, would be able adequately to explain the meaning and moral force of the term in authors from Homer to Aristotle, and was more precise than the account offered by D. M. MacDowell, who had defined hybris as self-indulgent misuse of energy or power. In a number of areas of Greek literature, however, different interpretations of hybris have been and still are widely held; I wish here to suggest briefly how my account will stand in these areas as well.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 1979, pp. 32 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1979

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

1. See G & R 23 (1976), 14 ff. and 177 ffGoogle Scholar.

2. See Whitman, C. H., Sophocles (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 29 f. and n. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lattimore, R., Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (London, 1964), pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar; Kaufmann, W., Tragedy and Philosophy (New York, 1968), pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar; Vickers, B., Towards Greek Tragedy (London, 1973), pp. 29Google Scholar ff.

3. A few examples: Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1951), pp. 31 and 48Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie 2 (Göttingen, 1954), p. 181Google Scholar; Will, E., Le Monde grec et l'orient (Paris, 1972), I pp. 598 ff.Google Scholar; Solmsen, F., Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment (Princeton, 1975), pp. 126 f.Google Scholar

4. Cf. for Herodotus O. Regenbogen, Herodot und sein Werk, reprinted in Herodot, ed. W. Marg (Darmstadt, 1962), pp. 57 ff.; Pohlenz, M., Herodot (Leipzig, 1937), pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar; Solmsen, F., Two Crucial Decisions in Herodotus (Amsterdam, 1974), pp. 5 and 11Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 68 ffGoogle Scholar. For Thucydides, de Romilly, J., Thucydide et l'impérialisme athénien (Paris, 1947), pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar; Cornford, F. M., Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907), pp. 182ff.Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, H., op. cit., pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar

5. Especially Phaedrus 237—8, on which see Rosenmeyer, T. G. in Hybris, Man and Education (Bellingham, Washington, 1959)Google Scholar, and MacDowell, art. cit.

6. Line 304 has caused difficulties: I take it to mean ‘[laughing at] how great an outrage [sc. the insult involved in denying him the arms] he had avenged on them by his visit’, with the implication that they now suffered equal or greater hurt, but deservedly. Cf. Aes. Sept. 406, Gorgias DK 82B6, II, p. 286, line 7.

7. As is argued, with some plausibility, by Reeve, M. D., GRBS 14 (1973), 161Google Scholar.

8. Contrast, e.g., Jones, John, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London, 1962), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar, who invokes the notion of ‘tragic guilt’ and refers inevitably to lines 762 ff.

9. Cf. Kitto, H. D. F., Form and Meaning in Drama (London, 1956), pp. 195 ff.Google Scholar; Stanford, W. B., Sophocles' Ajax (London, 1963), pp. xxxii ff.Google Scholar, and xlvi ff. On the issues involved in the denial of burial, cf. also Hester, D. A., Mnem. 24 (1971), 19 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For other passages where a clear distinction needs to be made between mega phronein and hybrizein, cf., e.g., Xen. Hell. 2.3.40 ff. and Cyr. 3.1.21 ff., Isocr. Panath. 47.

10. Cf., e.g., Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy (London, 1965), p. 99Google Scholar; North, H., Sophrosyne (New York, 1966), pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar; Opstelten, J. C., Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam, 1952), p. 51Google Scholar; Gellie, G. H., Sophocles (Melbourne, 1972), p. 20Google Scholar.

11. Cf. Aes. Sept. 377–520, esp. 406, 440 ff., 502: and cf. also Homer, , Iliad 4.408 ff.Google Scholar; Eur, . Suppl. esp. 494 ff.Google Scholar, Phoen. esp. 119 ff., 179 ff., 1090 ff.; Salmoneus, cf. Hes. fr. 30M.–W.

12. Cf. Pind, . Pyth. 2.20 ff.Google Scholar

13. Thus the fact that Aristotle does not mention hybris in Poetics Ch. 13 deserves commendation rather than criticism, which it received from Bateson, F. W. in Essays in Criticism 8 (1958), 119 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. e.g. Eur, . Med. 255Google Scholar, Andr. 624, El. 58, 947, Med. 782, Hec. 1257, El. 902, Her. 454, Suppl. 235, 575, 728, Bacch. 247, 779, and passages cited in my first article.

15. Soph., El. 790–2Google Scholar; Eur., Phoen. 179–82Google Scholar. The supposed correlation between hybris and nemesis has been enormously exaggerated; in fact what may arouse nemesis, indignation at undeserved good fortune (see Arist, . Rhet. II.9)Google Scholar, either among men or gods, may well not be hybris, nor does nemesis necessarily involved any decisive action.

16. Aes., Prom. 82Google Scholar; Eur., Suppl. 495Google Scholar, Troad. 69, Bacch. 374, 516, 555, 1297, 1347, Rhes. 917; Aes., Suppl. 79ff.Google Scholar, 104 ff., 418 ff., 528, Sept. 406, 502; Soph., Trach. 280Google Scholar; Eur., Suppl. 512Google Scholar, 633, 743 ff., Phoen. 179, 1663.

17. Eur., Hipp. 446Google Scholar, Ion 506, Bacch. 9, and cf. Bacch. 616; this phenomenon seems connected with the general Euripidean willingness to encourage the suggestion that the gods pursue their desire for their honour, and their resentment when affronted, to excessive lengths.

18. Cf. Whitman, , op. cit., p. 254 n. 23.Google Scholar

19. Jones, John, op. cit., p. 72Google Scholar; cf., e.g., Adams, S. M. in Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood, Phoenix Suppl. No. 1 (1952), pp. 46ff.Google Scholar

20. Cf. Fowler, B. H., Classica et Mediaevalia 28 (1969), 1ff.Google Scholar

21. Cf. Broadhead, H. D., The Persae of Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1960)Google Scholar, ad loc.

22. Contrast Broadhead on lines 821–2.

23. e.g. Kitto, , Form and Meaning in Drama, pp. 56ff. and 58 ff.Google Scholar; cf. the same author's Greek Tragedy 3 (London, 1961), p. 75Google Scholar.

24. The text of this stanza is of course very corrupt, but the general sense seems clear. Cf. Denniston, J. D. and Page, Denys, Aeschylus, Agamemnon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, ad loc.

25. On the stasimon, cf. above all Dover, K. J., JHS 77 (1957), 230ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The only other use of a hybris-word in the trilogy is Ag. 1612, where the chorus express strong disapproval of Aegisthus' triumphing at the death of Agamemnon.

26. For the connections between this and earlier passages in the trilogy, cf. Lebeck, A., The Oresteia, a Study in Language and Structure (Washington, 1971), p. 163Google Scholar.

27. On the themes of justice and honour in general in the trilogy, cf. Macleod, C., Maia 25 (1973), pp. 267ff.Google Scholar; Vickers, , op. cit., pp. 405ff.Google Scholar

28. Solmsen, , Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca, 1949), p. 198 n. 74Google Scholar.

29. Cf. Hom, . Od. 17.383ff.Google Scholar and 23.63 ff.; Hes, . Op. 191 and 212ff.Google Scholar; Thuc. 3.45.4; Dem. 21.42 ff.; Arist. Pol. 1267b 37–9 and 1295b 5–11.

30. Paus. 1.28.5; cf. Jacoby, F., F Gr Hist Dritter Teil b (Supplement) 1635 f.Google Scholar

31. This is far worse, and more hybristic, than her speech boasting of the wealth of the house (958 ff.), but the reverse is often stated or implied: e.g. Easterling, P., G & R 20 (1973), 18Google Scholar, Jones, , op. cit., p. 90Google Scholar.

32. Cf. Lesky, , JHS 86 (1966), 80ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perradotto, J. J., Phoenix 23 (1969), 237ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dover, , JHS 93 (1973), 58ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Cf. Jones, , op. cit., pp. 85ff.Google Scholar; Easterling, , art. cit., 10ff.Google Scholar

34. On this stasimon see most recently Ingram, R. P. Winnington, JHS 91 (1971), 119ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There seems to me to be no need to emend hybris phuteuei tyrannon.

35. Cf., e.g., the comments of Gould, T., Oedipus the King by Sophocles (Englewood Cliffs, 1970)Google Scholar, ad loc.

36. Cf., e.g., Winnington-Ingram, art. cit., and Kitto, , Poiesis (Berkeley, 1966), pp. 225ff.Google Scholar

37. See, e.g., 1.114,6.137, 1.106, 3.80–2, 3.48, 5.74, 5.77, 8.3.

38. See the references in n. 4.

39. 4.98.5,6.28.1.

40. e.g. 8.74, 8.45, 1.38.2 and 5, 3.39,4, 1.68.2.

41. See especially 1.84.2, 2.65.9,4.18.2, and the references in n. 4.

42. e.g. Prot. 355 c, Laws 774 c, 777 d, 808 d, Tim. 25 b, Laws 874 c, 849 a, 661 e, and above all Laws 884 ff.

43. See also Phd. 81 e, Phil. 45 d, Soph. 229 a Laws 835 b–842 a.

44. Republic 4; cf. Larson, C. W. R., AJPh 72 (1951), 395ff.Google Scholar; Vlastos, G., Platonic Studies (Princeton, 1973), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar and 111 ff.

45. Cf. especially Laws 783 a, 835 b–842 a 10, 726 a–728 c, 863 e; cf. Morrow, G. R., Plato's Cretan City (Princeton, 1960)Google Scholar, Ch. 8; Dodds, , The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays (Oxford, 1973), pp. 117ff.Google Scholar

46. This will be offered in a book, to be published shortly. My warmest thanks are again due to Professor J. K. Davies, Mr. D. E. Hill, Professor John Gould, Professor P. Walcot, and my wife.

47. See now Stinton, T. C. W., CQ 25 (1975), 221ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Redfield, J. M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago, 1975)Google Scholar, Ch. 2.