This volume on Homeric reception attempts to highlight further the educational aspect of the Iliad and the Odyssey, admittedly a commonplace in antiquity, by focusing on their function as Princes’ Mirrors, namely instructional manuals for young kings that perpetuate the idea of good kingship through the multiplicity of the heroic exempla they provide. In the introduction the editors trace the concept of the Prince's Mirror from its first articulation in the twelfth century ad back to Rome, Greece and the earlier Near Eastern Traditions (pp. 1ff.). Despite the lack of a term or a specific genre, the editors argue that the tradition of advising the king is universal and occurs often enough in ancient cultures. The volume takes its starting premise from this argument, and as the editors explain, sets off to explore the ways in which the Homeric text was employed as a Prince's Mirror throughout Greek and Roman antiquity. Although the term ‘Prince's Mirror’, as the editors admit, does not appear before the twelfth century, the editors make the case that in terms of royal education, the Homeric text was there first (p. 11). The danger with that claim lies of course in stating the obvious, since the use of Homer as an instructional manual was not only pervasive but also widely acknowledged in all eras of antiquity. Not all contributions in the volume succeed in steering away from that danger, but overall the articles offer a new and often refreshing approach to the subject, which allows the reader to explore new dimensions of the use of Homeric paideia in antiquity.
I.J.F. de Jong's article sets the tone for the rest of the volume by arguing for the birth of the Prince's Mirror in Homer's epics (p. 22), but is careful to separate the poet's intentions from the later use of the works. De Jong, however, chooses somewhat arbitrarily to discuss only those cases where a positive model is given by a speaker, thus not considering instruction through negative exempla as part of the Prince's Mirror (p. 23), even though such exempla were used extensively, from Homer to Machiavelli, as part of a ruler's education.
The next article, by W. Desmond, focuses on the concept of kingly piety in Homer and in the final part argues for Achilles’ and Odysseus’ pious stance as a motivation for Alexander the Great and the emperor Julian. The main issue here is that the concept of piety is somewhat problematic in Homer, with both Agamemnon and Achilles standing as examples of impiety par excellence, yet maintaining the favour of the gods, not due to their actions, but rather due to their closeness to the divine, one as the ruling king, the other through his direct divine lineage. Further to that, some important issues are addressed in a somewhat casual manner, for example the topic of sacrifice and the king's role in it, which has attracted significant attention in Homeric studies, but here is treated in quite a broad manner (p. 47, Achilles’ abnormal sacrifice comes to mind). There are also a few factual slips, for instance the staff that Achilles throws on the ground (Il. 1.234–7) is not the same as Agamemnon's sceptre in Iliad 2 (p. 43), or the fact that θάμβος (‘surprise, awe’) and τάρβος (‘fear’) might show a semantic conflation at times while an etymological link cannot be taken for granted (pp. 52–3, the etymology of τάρβος being notoriously obscure, cf. Frisk, LfgrE s.v.). Nevertheless, Desmond's reading of Homer helps elucidate further Aristotle's view of the Homeric kings as leaders of sacrifice, which in turn legitimised in antiquity the religious role of the monarch through a reinterpretation of the Homeric model.
Klooster's contribution is an excellent example of reception done right and to good effect. By tracing the use of Phoenix' speech from the Homeric scholia up to the early Christian era, Klooster amply demonstrates not only how the use of the Homeric text changed through the centuries, but also how views on the important qualities a king should have changed with it. The case of Phoenix’ speech gives one excellent grounds to work on, and Klooster gets the point across convincingly.
P.G. Lake's chapter, ‘Plato's Homer’, takes a new approach to an old and much discussed issue, namely the ways in which the philosopher appropriates the Homeric text as a sometimes positive but ultimately negative educational model. Lake's conception of ‘implied censorship’ (pp. 90ff.) shows, convincingly I believe, that there is at least as much to be read in what Plato leaves out of his Homeric quotes as in the lines that he employs, particularly when it comes to political instruction. The chapter is original and offers a refreshing reading of several important passages in which Plato engages with Homer.
The next chapter, by E. Bouchard, sheds light on the understanding of Agamemnon's character in antiquity, arguing that it is quite different from that of modern scholarship, which tends to adopt a monolithic criticism of the Achaean king as vile and incompetent. As in Klooster's case, the chapter demonstrates the practical value of reception studies by helping the reader rediscover the multiplicity of Agamemnon's persona through the eyes of readers much closer chronologically to the Homeric texts than us.
M. Gerolemou's contribution traces the importance of the wandering king, based on the model of Odysseus’ travels. It shows how readers’ perspectives changed slowly over time, starting from an understanding of travelling as necessary for a prince's education (as in the case of Telemachus) and moving towards ‘bookish knowledge’ for the student of history and the prospective king, who do not need to experience travelling themselves but ‘can simply read about his [Odysseus’] adventures’ (p. 129). This shift in the use of Homer, from the Classical era onwards, further supports the point that has been made in the previous chapters, namely the adaptation of the educational aspects of Homer's poetry to suit the needs of a changing Greek world.
The next chapter follows along the same lines by offering an analysis of Philodemus’ On the Good King. J. Fish does not reach any particular conclusions, due largely to the fragmentary nature of the text, which makes concrete analysis difficult, but succeeds in demonstrating clearly the dependence on Homer's approach to kingship for the assessment of Philodemus’ contemporary political leaders, albeit through the relevant filter of Epicureanism.
In the next contribution, C.C. de Jonge takes the reader into the Roman world by showing the ways in which, in the first century bc, Eumaeus, the ‘noble’ swineherd, is elevated to a role model of piety and moral excellence, values that found particular favour in Augustan Rome. This shift once again shows the versatility of the Homeric text, which maintained its position at the centre of the educational culture of Greece and Rome, yet could be mined for different examples that suited different periods and their particular needs. This paper ties in nicely with the previous contributions, offering a holistic image of the development and adaptation of Homer's educational value in antiquity.
D.F. Driscoll's contribution focuses on Plutarch's approach to Homer, in particular in the Quaestiones Convivales and the episode in which Alexander the Great meets Diogenes and they both quote the Iliad at each other. Driscoll demonstrates the importance of this episode for understanding the use of Homer as an authority in Plutarch's times, arguing that the intellectual contest in which Alexander and Diogenes engage shows clearly the importance of (Homeric) paideia in Graeco-Roman society. Driscoll's points are valid and thought-provoking although he admits that Homer is quoted as an authority for pretty much everything and not particularly as the educator of princes and kings.
In the next chapter E. Pyy returns to Latin literature and offers an engaging survey of the Punica that underlines the ways in which Silius Italicus employs the Homeric models as foils for his historical protagonists, albeit with a different effect from that of the Iliad: the context and the needs of Roman society at the time required different things or at least less selfish approaches than those of even the most successful Homeric heroes, or, as in the case of Scipio, a combination of them.
The next two chapters, by van den Berg and F. Pontani, move the volume to the Christian era and the Byzantine empire. Van den Berg discusses Eustathius’ approach to the Iliad as a text through which rhetoric can be taught and elevated as an art, leading the Bishop to create several parallels between the most eloquent Homeric heroes and the emperor Manuel. Pontani moves forward to the sixteenth century and Kondoleon's Anthology of Homeric Passages Concerning the Best General and Soldier, a text that has received little attention from either Classicists or Byzantinists. Pontani's argument focuses on the concept of autourgia, the ability to do things for oneself instead of relying on others. This concept appears to be central in Kondoleon's work as ammunition against the lavish lifestyles of his contemporary emperors and nobility in general. Kondoleon, perhaps unsurprisingly, draws his examples from the Homeric kings who could easily fend for themselves, thus revealing yet another facet of Homeric paideia that had not been as prevalent before.
The final chapter, by L. McKenzie, is a long leap of four centuries forward in time, examining Graves's approach to and translation of the Iliad. It is hard to see how this chapter fits with the rest of the volume. One suspects that it is an attempt at completeness, by covering roughly every period in reception terms; however, in my view, there is little justification for the selected topic. The contribution is an informative and well-presented analysis of Graves's personal anxieties, fuelled by his war experiences, that influenced his understanding of the Homeric heroes as intended caricatures, a criticism as it were by the poet of the ills of war.
Overall, this volume offers an important survey of the value of the Homeric text as an educational manual throughout Graeco-Roman antiquity and beyond. Perhaps the focus on the education of princes is not always justified, since Homeric paideia permeates every section of ancient education, but, nevertheless, by exploring its significance, the editors and contributors succeed in highlighting the unbroken line of Homeric reception through the span of more than ten centuries, drawing attention at the same time to the versatility of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which allows them to be adapted to the socio-political and educational needs of any period. In conclusion, this volume, despite some ups and downs, is a useful tool for every scholar and student of Classical reception.
