Animus Classics Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1

ANIMUS

CLASSICS

JOURNAL

Winter2023

Volume3

No.1

Universityof

Chicago

CoverartbyE.G.Keisling

ANIMUS1THEUNDERGRADUATECLASSICSJOURNALOF

THEUNIVERSITYOFCHICAGO

VOLUMEIII,NO.1

WINTER,2776A.U.C

ALISTOFTHEARTICLESINTHISVOLUME

12 HORACE’S“CLEOPATRAODE”

PriscillaE.Lee

16 LANDSCAPEPAINTINGS&PORTRAITUREOFTHE

‘MYSTERIOUS’ETRUSCANS:ANOTHERSTORYOF

ETRUSCANERASURE

RinaRossi

36 MINDYOURLANGUAGE,MISTER!ACASESTUDY

INARISTOPHANICHUMOR

M.I.Rehan

52 THEGOLDENBOUGH

MorellOld

58 DEADMENHAVENOSOULS:THEPROBLEMOF

THEPRINCIPLEOFHOMONYMYINARISTOTLE

RebekahLocke

76 REFRAMINGROME:IMPERIALNARRATIVEAND

THETEMPLEOFAUGUSTANCONCORD

MamieMurphy

96 EPITAPHFORBASSA

KateWhitaker

p.6 1 p.7 1

ACADEMIC

JosephineDawson

SectionEditor

RobertGorman

KenJohnson

JacobBotaish

Asst.SectionEd.

BillBaker

KatarinaBirimac

IsabellaCisneros

GabrielR.Clisham

SpencerDalton

JosephineDawson

AdrianGilly

ElizabethHarrison

BenjaminHuffman

GwendolynJacobson

AhnaKim

ShannonKim

AlexanderLapuente

HarrisLencz

RobertLuo

DanielMark-Welch

NatalieNitsch

SimonSeignourel

DellaraSheibani

AimeeStachowiak

MatthewTurner

AlexanderUrquhart

AnushreeVashist

SarahWare

KatherineWeaver

KateWhitaker

BillBaker

KatarinaBirimac

SpencerDalton

BenjaminHuffman

GwendolynJacobson

AnjaliJain

ElizabethJohnson

AhnaKim

RobertLuo

DanielMark-Welch

AveryMetzcar

RowanShih

PenelopeToll

SarahWare

KatherineWeaver

KateWhitaker

BOARDOFTHEANIMUSCLASSICSJOURNAL

REVIEWERS&COPYEDITORS

CREATIVE

REVIEWERS

COPYEDITORS

TRANSLATION

NatalieNitsch&SarahWare

Editors-in-Chief

DanielMark-Welch

ManagingEditor

ElizabethHarrison

Secretary

AlexanderLapuente

GeneralAssistant

JackHoward

DesignEditor

JacobKeisling

Consultant

GabrielR.Clisham

SectionEditor

AnjaliJain

ShannonKim

Asst.SectionEd.

AlexanderUrquhart

SectionEditor

ErinChoi

MatthewTurner

Asst.SectionEd.

BLOG

LucyNye

SectionEditor

IsabellaCisneros

RyanCairns

Asst.SectionEd.

p.8 1 p.9 1

LETTERFROMTHEEDITORS

ofAnimus.AssistantSectionEditors,whojoinedourstaff

duringoursecondvolume’scycle,havecontinuedtobean

importantstepofourreviewprocess,allowingustoprovide

morein-depthfeedbackforallofoursubmittingauthors

whilealsousingtheirdiversebackgroundsforthebenefitof

ourdecision-makingprocess.

Wearealsogratefulfortheongoingsupportofpreviously

involvedAnimusstaffmembers,whohaveactedasadvisors

evenfromgreatgeographicaldistances.Weespeciallywant

to thank our outgoing Blog Editor Lucy Nye for her

foundationaleffortsontheAnimusblog.Thankstoherhard

work,ourbloghaspublishedworkfromundergraduates

across the world on a wide variety of relevant issues,

addressingquestionsofidentityandrepresentationinthe

Classics.

Gratitude

forourformerStaff

Everyday

life

returns

L ifeattheUniversityofChicagohassettledbackinto

itsusualhecticrhythmafternearlytwoandahalf

yearsofCOVIDrestrictions.Aswediscussedinour

Spring2022Letter,theadventofafully-in-personAnimus

wasareliefandajoy;eightmonthslater,itcontinuestobe

bothofthosethings.OurweeklyBoardmeetings,chats

aboutpiecesinHarperCafé,andstrollsaroundtheMain

Quad,ruminatingonpiecedecisionsandcitationstyles,

havebeenapleasureandaprivilege.

WewouldalsoliketothankJacobKeislingforhistireless

work on the design of this issue.This issue combines

elementsofKelmscottPressbookdesign,medievaland

Venetial influences, and contemporary AI-generated

illustrationinamoderninterpretationoftraditionalbook

design.Ourworriesabouttheformattingofcitationsare

allayed,atleastsomewhat,bytheknowledgethatreaders

will instead focus on the beauty of the layout and

illustrations.

Onour

design

Gratitude

forour

Staff

Nowinourthirdyear,Animushasseenthegrowthofour

stafftoinvolveUniversityofChicagostudentsfrommany

disciplines, whose wide-ranging perspectives have

contributed to the success of our journal. First and

foremost,ourReviewersandCopy-Editorshavecontinued

tobethestrongbackboneofAnimus,withoutwhichour

journalwouldnotbepossible,andwethankthemendlessly

for their many hours of hard work and dedication.

ReviewersandCopy-EditorswerefoundationaltoAnimus

sinceitscreationinWinter2020;wehavecontinuedto

trainthenextgenerationofReviewersandCopy-Editors,

andwelookforwardtowhattheywillbringtofutureissues

Asalways,wewouldliketothanktheClassicsDepartment

attheUniversityofChicagofortheirsupport,especially

KathyFoxandProfessorsJonahRaddingandDavidWrayfor

theirassistance.WewouldalsoliketothanktheUniversity

ofChicago’sStudentGovernmentandtheClassicsSociety

fortheirfinancialsupportasweseektobringthisissueto

ourreaders.

Warmly,asalways,

NatalieNitschandSarahWare

Final

thanks

p.10 1 p.11 1

NOTEFROMTHETRANSLATOR

I firstwrotethistranslationinProfessorKirunKapur’s

“PoetryinTranslation”course.Iwasstruckbythe

rhythmoftheopeningphrase,Nuncestbibendum,

andwasguidedbyittocreatealively,drivingbeat.Iplaced

thewordssothatyoureyeswouldmoveacrossthepagein

rhythm(or,atleast,that’smyhope).Iespeciallylikethe

slightliltofgoingfromtheendofonelinetothebeginning

ofthenext,andIplayedwithenjambmentandspacingto

diminish, emphasize, or reposition these lilts. In this

translation, however, rhythm and other effects were

secondarytothestory,whichItriedtomakeasclearas

possible,eventoreaderswhodon’thavethehistorical

context.Intheending,especially,Itranslatedmorefreely

sothatthescenewouldn’tgetlost.Itwasimportanttome

tokeep“triumpho”asthefinalwordofthepoem,sothat

afterreadingaboutCaesar’sgreatvictoryandCleopatra’s

quietdignity,youwonderwhosetriumphitreallywas.On

thewhole,IenjoystickingtoLatinwordorderandchoosing

cognates(evenfalsecognates)wheneverIthinkIcanget

awaywithit.

PriscillaE.Lee

CITATION

Hor.Od.1.37

Horace.Horace,OdesandEpodes.Edited byPaulShorey

andGordonJ.Laing.Chicago.Benj.H.Sanborn&Co.1919.

HORACE’S“CLEOPATRAODE”1BOOK1,POEM37

PRISCILLAE.LEE,TRANSLATOR

AMHERSTCOLLEGE

p.12 1 p.13 1

Now,wedrink!Stampyourfeet

tothebeatofFreedom’searth.

Nowisthetime!Fillthealtarwithfeasts

fitforthegods,

mycomrades!

Before,poortasteitwastopourthecellar-aged

Caecuban.ForourCapitol

manic-maddingQueenwithrabidhoard

(disturbedandsickeningmen)

hadruinousDeathinstore—

forEmpiretoo!

Mustbeunreined,no,drunk!

onmostdeliriousluck!to

thinkshecoulddoit.

Butthen—herfuryebbedasallbutone

ofhershipsweredippedinflames,

joltedfromthemirageofEgypt'swinesto

soberingsightofCaesar

vaultingacrosstheItalianskieslike

huntinghawktocooingdove,or

cutthroatbladetowoodlandhare

(nestledinsnowyblankets)

(nowboundinshacklesofdeath)

Unzippedherself:

nowMotherofdeathindignity.No

fearofthesword,no

flighttoscallopedshores,

Resolved,shelookedinsteadon

sinkingfortress,faceserene—

inStrength,sheclaspedtheserpent,closed

herlipsaroundblackmouthofpoison,drank

withfearsomethirsttopurgeamostrevoltingfate:

Anexposedshow-girlforsavage

Liburnians?

No,never.

ThisnobleWomanwouldnotbeledintriumph.

nuncestbibendum,nuncpedelibero

pulsandatellus;nuncSaliaribus

ornarepulvinardeorum

tempuseratdapibus,sodales.

antehacnefasdepromereCaecubum

cellisavitis,dumCapitolio

reginadementisruinas

funusetimperioparabat

contaminatocumgregeturpium

morbovirorumquidlibetinpotens

sperarefortunaquedulci

ebria.sedminuitfurorem

vixunasospesnavisabignibus

mentemquelymphatamMareotico

redegitinverostimores

CaesarabItaliavolantem

remisadurgens,accipitervelut

molliscolumbasautleporemcitus

venatorincampisnivalis

Haemoniae,daretutcatenis

fatalemonstrum.quaegenerosius

perirequaerensnecmuliebriter

expavitensemneclatentis

classecitareparavitoras.

ausaetiacentemvisereregiam

voltusereno,fortisetasperas

tractareserpentes,utatrum

corporeconbiberetvenenum,

deliberatamorteferocior;

saevisLiburnisscilicetinvidens

privatadeducisuperbo,

nonhumilismulier,triumpho.

i

ix

xvii

xxv

p.15

p.14

TheCleopatraOde

TheCleopatraOde

1.Smith,The

Etruscans:A

VeryShortIntroduction,1.

2.Izzet,The

Archaeology

ofEtruscan

Society,55.

3.Smith,1.

4.Smith,1.

LANDSCAPEPAINTINGS&PORTRAITUREOFTHE

‘MYSTERIOUS’ETRUSCANS1ANOTHERSTORYOF

ETRUSCANERASURE

2RinaRossi,Univ.OfCalifornia,Berkeley

D espitethelackofsurvivingwrittenrecords,theancient

Etruscans’ historical legacy can be marked by their

substantialcollectionofsarcophagiandwallpaintings,

fromtherecliningbanquetersdepictedontheTombofthe

Diverpainting,tothepaintedmulticoloredbirdsflyingabove

thewaterintheTomboftheHuntingandFishingfresco. 1 The

Etruscans were known to have created and embraced

intricately decorated sarcophagi, landscape paintings that

beautifullycapturedthebalancebetweennatureandman,

organizedelaboratebanquets,andledasocietythatallowed

womenformoresexualfreedom 2 .Despitebeingthefoundersof

thesenumerousinnovations,theEtruscans’achievementsare

oftencreditedtoGreeceandRome,andtheyarecontinuously

accused by Greco-Roman scholars of copying other

civilizations’ideas.Namely,theEtruscansstillhaveyettobe

creditedinmodernwesternMediterraneanscholarshipasthe

foundersoflandscapepaintinginancientItaly,aslandscape

paintings have long been attributed to the Romans.

Additionally, the Etruscans’ extensive portraiture and

distinctivefocusonemphasizingspecificphysicalattributesin

humanportraitureareovershadowedbyscholars’attributionof

portraitureasadistinctlyGreco-Romaninvention.Neglecting

torecognizetheEtruscansasthefirstproducersoflandscape

paintingsinancientItalycontributestothecontinuederasure

ofEtruscansbyGreco-Romanscholars.Similarly,attributing

portraitureasbeingdistinctlypartofGreco-Romanculture

largely erases the Etruscans’ revolutionary achievements in

portraiture.

TheEtruscanswereanancientgroupofpeoplefromancient

Italywholivedaround900–400B.C.E.Reigningasthe“most

innovative,powerful,wealthy,andcreativepeople”inancient

Italy,theyinhabitedtheplainsandhillsofcentralItalyandlived

inelaboratecities. 3 TheEtruscanempirestretchedfromthePo

ValleyintheNorthtoCampaniaintheSouth(seeFigure1) 4 ,and

16LANDSCAPEPAINTINGS

theytradedacrosstheMediterranean,spreadingtheirloveof

sport, wine, religion, music, technology, and art 5 .Yet, the

Etruscans’creativeinfluencehasbeenlargelyovershadowedby

the skepticism many Greek scholars have toward the

authenticity of Etruscan artistic achievements. One such

skepticoftheEtruscans’contributionstoancientarthistoryis

classicalarchaeologistJohnBoardman,whoarguedinhisbook

TheGreeksOverseas:TheirEarlyColoniesandTradethatEtruscan

art simply emerged out of their trade with the Greeks.

Additionally,BoardmancomparesEtruscanartwithGreekart

and asserts that the Etruscans lacked the creativity and

originalitythattheGreeksillustratedintheirwork.Claiming

thattheGreeksunderwentanextensiveprocesstouniquely

developtheirownculture,Boardmanpresentsthisclaimin

contrasttotheEtruscans,whohearguesoftencopiedorpaid

theGreekstoproducesomeoftheirartwork,statingthat

The Etruscans accepted all they were offered, without

discrimination.Theycopied—orpaidGreeksandperhaps

immigranteasternerstocopy—withlittleunderstandingof

theformsandsubjectswhichservedasmodels(200).

Boardman’s skepticism regarding the Etruscans’ artistic

innovationsisflawedbecausehefailstoaccuratelydescribethe

artisticrelationshipthattheEtruscansandGreekshad,oneof

sharingtheirownartistictechniquesthroughtrade,notof

mimicryorplagiarism.Inparticular,theArchaicandClassical

EtruscansworkedwithGreekartistswhocreatedpaintingsthat

werespecificallycateredtoanEtruscanmarket.Thus,the

EtruscansincorporatedelementsfromGreekmythologyand

combinedaspectsofGreekandEtruscanculturetocreate

funeraryandhistoricalsceneswithintheirpaintings. 6 Similarly,

the Etruscans also influenced the Greeks with their art,

particularly in their tomb and landscape paintings, often

displayingmorecreativityintheirartpiecesincomparisonto

the Greeks.This is most notably shown in the differences

betweenthelevelofcreativity,precision,andartisticdetailof

theEtruscanTomboftheHuntingandFishingpaintinganda

similarGreekpaintingcalledTomboftheDiveratPaestum. 7

LANDSCAPEPAINTINGS17

5.Smith,2.

6.Naso,Etruscology,947.

7.Hurwit,

“TheRepresentationof

Naturein

EarlyGreek

Art”,39.

8.Immerwahr,Aegean

paintinginthe

BronzeAge.

9.Pieraccini,

“Etruscan

WallPainting:

Insights,Innovations,

andLegacy,”

251.

Interestingly,theEtruscanswerecreatinglandscapepaintings

beforesimilarpaintingsweremadeinHellenisticGreece,aswell

asbeforetheywereseeninRomanhomesandvillas.Whileitis

true that landscape paintings were found in Minoan wall

paintings,GreekwallpaintingsdidnotappearinVerginauntil

the 4th century B.C.E., and scholars have yet to uncover

evidence of wall paintings in both Archaic and Classical

Greece. 8 Despitethis,landscapepaintingsarestillnotproperly

attributedtotheEtruscans. 9 Thislikelystemsfromthefactthat

RomannaturalistandphilosopherPlinytheElderincorrectly

attributedthefounderoflandscapepaintingstoStudius,who

wasanAugustanpainter.InhisNaturalHistory,Plinystatesthat,

Studiustoo,oftheperiodoftheDivineAugustus,mustnotbe

cheatedofhisdue.Hefirstintroducedthemostattractive

fashionofpaintingwallswithvillas,porticoes(harbours?),

and landscape gardens, groves, woods, hills, fish-pools,

canals,rivers,coasts-whateveronecouldwish,andinthem

various representations of people strolling about, people

sailing,peopletravellingoverlandtovillasondonkey-backor

incarriages,andinadditionpeoplefishing,fowling,hunting,

orevengatheringthevintage(35.116–117).

Pliny’sattributionoflandscapepaintingstoStudiusisboth

historically and archaeologically disputedasitisunclearif

StudiusevenexistedinancientRomanhistoryduetotherarity

ofhisnameinLatininscription.Also,Studiuswasdocumented

tohavecontributedgreatlytoaparticulargenreoflandscape

painting,ratherthanmanagingtobringthewholeconceptof

landscapepaintingtoRome. 10 Ultimately,Pliny’saccreditation

of landscape paintings to the Romans erased one of the

Etruscans’mostimportantcontributionstoartinancientItaly,

whichsetanunfortunateandinaccuratethemeofreinforcinga

Roman-centric lens when analyzing all ancient western

MediterraneanartformanyscholarsthatsucceededPliny,such

asBoardman.

TheEtruscanswerenotonlythefirstpeopleinancientItalyto

producelandscapepaintings,buttheyalsowerethefirstto

introducespecificsymbolicscenes,likeaharbor,intheirart.


Additionally,theirlandscapepaintingsweremainlypaintedon

the walls of their elaborate tombs.The Etruscans’ earliest

survivingtombwallpaintingsarefromthefirsthalfofthe7th

centuryB.C.E.,thefirstofsuchinthewesternMediterranean. 11

TheEtruscansalsocreatedtheillustriousTomboftheShip(see

Figure2),alandscapepaintingfromthemid-5thcenturyB.C.E.

thatistheearliestwallpaintinginancientItalythatfeaturesa

harborscene. 12 Thepaintingdepictsnotonlytheharborbutalso

theactionsoftheindividualsinthewholescene.TheTombof

theShipfeaturesbanquetersonthebackwallandacargoship,

smallerships,cliffs,androcksintheseascapeontheleftwall.A

man,whoislikelydeceased,isalsoportrayedlookingatthe

seascapewithhisarmintheair,whichmaymeanthatthecargo

shipsymbolizedthedeceased’sexpeditiontotheafterlife. 13

Interestingly,theseascapescenedepictedintheTombofthe

ShipissimilartovariousRomanpaintingsfoundinVesuvian

towns that also portray harbor scenes. 14 Nonetheless, it is

largelymissingfromscholarshipinclassicalstudiesthatthe

TomboftheShipwasthefirstdepictionofaharborsceneina

wallpainting,andthislackofacknowledgmenterasesthe

Etruscans’significantcontributionstoarthistory.Inthecaseof

theTomboftheShip,failuretocredittheEtruscansthereby

reinforces a Roman-centric perspective of ancient

Mediterranean art history as there is little discussion in

academiaaboutancientItalysurroundingthepossibilityofthe

Etruscan influence onVesuvian paintings ofharbor scenes.

Furthermore,incontrasttoBoardman’sallegationthatthe

Etruscans lacked originality and often copied from other

cultures,theharborscenesfoundinRomanpaintingssuggest

the mere opposite and point to the possibility that the

EtruscansproducedoriginalscenesintheTomboftheShipthat

werereplicatedbyothercultures.

TheEtruscansalsoexperimentedwithwallpaintingsheavilyin

thesouthernEtruscancitiesofCaereandVeii,wherethey

practiced unique forms of clay coating and painting. In

particular,artisansinCaereoftenpainteddirectlyontufawalls,

often around doors or on ceilings. 15 In contrast, Etruscan

artisansinVeiioftenplacedclaycoatingsontufawallsuntilthey

ultimatelydecidedtoplasterthewallspriortopaintingthem.

Perhapstheseuniquearttechniquesthatdifferedbetweenthe


11.Naso,The

Originsof

TombPainting

inEtruria,67.

12.Petrarulo,

“NewConsiderationsRegardingthe

Seascape

Frescointhe

Tombofthe

Ship(Tomba

dellaNave)at

Tarquinia,”15.

13.Colonna,

“Osservazioni

sullaTomba

Tarquiniese

dellaNave,”

74.

14.Ling,Romanpainting,

148.

10.Ling,

“Studiusand

theBeginningsofRomanLandscapePainting,”pp.2–3.

15.MacIntosh,et.al,

331.

16.Naso,81.

17.Giuliano,

“Protoattici

inOccidente,”70.

18.Naso,pp.

69–71.

19.Naso,64.

20.Hurwit,

“EarlyGreek

Walland

PanelPainting,760–480

B.C.”66.

21.Pieraccini,

248.

two Etruscan cities signaled that elements in Etruscan art

emphasizeduniqueaspectsoftherespectivecities’cultures

and local traditions. Ifthis is true, this refutes the notion

espousedbymanyGreco-RomanscholarsthattheEtruscans

werenotcreativeintheirartworks. 16 Nasoalsoarguesthatthe

plasteringtechniqueusedbytheartisansinVeiiwasindigenous

totheEtruscans(82).Despitethis,wallpaintingsareoften

associated with the Greeks, as well as the Romans, who

scholars believe adapted wall paintings from the ancient

Greeks.Forexample,theTombadelleAnatre,aVeiianartwork

madearound680-660B.C.E.,hasbeencreditedtotheancient

Greeks,inparticular,aEuboeanpainter. 17 Thistombpainting

depictsafriezewithfiveredbirdsmovingtowardafunerary

bird located on the left side of the tomb (See Figure 3).

However,theirlongbeakssuggestthatthesebirdsarewater

birds, which were portrayed frequently in Etruscan tomb

paintingsandmayhaveplayedanimportantroleinEtruscan

religion. 18 Thus,thelandscapepainting’sclearincorporationof

animalsimportanttoEtruscanreligioncannotbeattributedto

theEuboeans. 19 Furthermore,itisunlikelythatwallpaintings

were first made by the Greeks, as Etruscan wall paintings

predateGreekones. 20 Mostimportantly,thereislittleexisting

evidenceoftombpaintingsfromArchaicandClassicalGreece,

whereastheEtruscanshave“thelargestrepertoire”oftomb

paintingsfromthistimeperiod,asmadeclearbytheirillustrious

worksliketheTomboftheHuntingandFishing,TomboftheDiver,

andtheTomboftheShip. 21 Asaresult,suggestingthattheTomba

delle Anatre originated in Greece is both historically and

culturallyunlikely.

InadditiontothelackofcreditgiventotheEtruscansfor

creatinganewgenreofart,theEtruscansstillhavenotbeen

recognizedforthelevelofcreativityandartisticprowesstheir

artisansdisplayedintheirlandscapepaintings,alevelofartistic

masterynotevidentinsimilarrenditionsmadebytheancient

GreeksorRomans.Inparticular,theEtruscans’artisticprowess

was marked by their ability to depict a beautiful balance

betweenmanandnature.ShownexquisitelyintheEtruscan

TomboftheHuntingandFishinglandscapepainting,aTarquinian

fresco likely created in 530 B.C.E., the Etruscan artisans

providedviewerswithanalmostphotographiclookintothe


dailylivesoftheEtruscansontheTyrrhenianshore(SeeFigure

4).TheTomboftheHuntingandFishingdepictsred,blue,and

orangebirdssoaringthroughthepanelandmendivingbelow

thewatertocatchfish.Meanwhile,dolphinsjumpinandoutof

the water at the bottom ofthe panel.At the same time,

Etruscanbanquetersreclineatthetopofthepanel,andadiver

fromasmallislandontheleftwallwatchesthescene,overall

depictinga“circleofevents…inaKodak-likepictureoflife.” 22 The

multitudeofeventspaintedintheTomboftheHuntingand

FishingexhibitstheEtruscans’abilitytonotonlyfocuson

merelyillustratingalandscapebutondisplaying“movement

andharmonybetweenmanandnature.” 23 Inthepainting,the

Etruscanartisanmanagedtoconveynumerousaspectsofdaily

lifethatwereimportanttothem,suchasholdingbanquetsand

reclining.Inaddition,theartisanincludeseventsinthepainting

thatwerecrucialtothesurvivalofacivilization,suchasthe

fishermen hunting fish, likely for their families to eat.

Altogether,thepaintingprovidesadetailedinsightintowhatan

ordinarydaymighthavelookedlikefortheEtruscans.

ThelevelofdetailtheEtruscansdepictedintheTombofthe

Hunting and Fishing has not been found in similar Greek

paintings.WhiletheArchaicGreeksdepictedsomeelementsof

manandnatureintheirvasepaintings,itisunlikelythatthe

EtruscanswereinspiredbytheGreeksandreplicatedsimilar

elementsintheirlandscapeart.ThisisbecausetheArchaic

Greekpaintersonlyincludeddirt,treesandsomeindividuals

bathing, and these elements were portrayed in the Greek

landscapepaintingsassmallpartsoftheoverallpicture.In

contrast,JeffreyHurwitassertsthattheEtruscanspaidproper

homagetothenaturalworldbyplacinghumansinproportion

to how small they are in comparison to nature. 24 R. Ross

Hollowaysimilarlyacknowledgesthatanimalslikedolphinsand

birds,aswellasfigureslikedivers,canbefoundinGreekvase

art,buthearguesthattheywerenotdepictedwiththesame

levelofdetailastheEtruscans,notingthat

[T]heirexistenceinthetraditionofGreekdrawinginwhich

thepaintersoftheTarquiniitombswereschooleddoesnot

meanthatanyGreekpaintingexistedasaprototypeofthese

scenes.ArchaicGreekartneverproducedanythinglikethe


22.Pieraccini,251.

23.Pieraccini,251.

24.Hurwit,

TheRepresentationofNatureinEarly

GreekArt,36.

25.Hurwit,

36.

26.Dawson,

Romano-Campanian

mythological

landscape

painting,12.

effectofthisopenskyfilledwithpassingbirds,theexpanseof

water,thelowhorizon,andtheisolatedsmallhumanfigures

(342).

TheexplicitdifferencesbetweentheEtruscans’andGreeks’

abilitytoemphasizetherelationshipbetweenmanandnature

aremostclearlyseenwhencomparingtheEtruscanTombofthe

HuntingandFishingtotheGreekTomboftheDiveratPaestum.

Specifically,adiversimilartotheonedepictedintheTombof

theHuntingandFishingisportrayedintheTomboftheDiver,

madearound500-480B.C.E.,whichfeaturesasilhouetteofa

figuredivingintoasmallgraypileofwater(seefigure5).The

paintingalsofeaturestwothingraytreesandfourpalmettes

situatedaroundthediver.UnliketheTomboftheHuntingand

Fishing,whichportraysawidearrayofmulticoloredanimalsand

individualsplayingdifferentrolesinthelandscapepainting,the

TomboftheDiverfailstocapturethe“joyous”relationship

betweenmanandnatureanddoesnotrevealanythingabout

Greekdailylifeandculture. 25 Additionally,thefocusofthe

panelisnotontherelationshipbetweenmanandnature,but

ratheronthediver.IntheGreekpanel,natureisnotdepictedin

adetailedandmulticoloredfashion,asthetreesandtheir

leavesaregrayand“spindly”likebroomsticks. 26 Thelackof

detail depicted in the trees contrasts with the illustrious

palmettesonthecornersofthepanel,leadingscholarslike

Jeffrey Hurwit to question if nature was “intentionally

subverted” in the Tomb of the Diver, since the naturalistic

elementsofthepanelareseeminglygivenlittleattentionto

detail(39).Similarly,thetreesandpalmettesallpointtothe

diver, purportedly implying that nature is an additional

embellishmenttothediver.TheGreeklidintheTombofthe

Diveralsofailstoaccuratelyillustratetheproportionsinwhich

thediver,cliff,water,andtreeswouldhaveappearedinreallife.

Inthepanel,thediverjumpsoffofacliffthatisbiggerthanthe

smallpileofwaterbelow.Infact,thebodyofwaterissolow

thatitappearstolookmorelikeapuddle,whichwouldhave

mostlikelyresultedinthediverbreakinghisneck(Hurwitt,39).

Thus,theTomboftheDiverlacksbothcreativityandattention

toartisticdetailbecauseofthedisproportionalitybetween

manandnature.


WhiletheTomboftheHuntingandFishingclearlydisplaysa

greaterlevelofartisticaptitudethantheTomboftheDiver,the

TomboftheDiverisstillpraisedforitsallegedartisticprowess.

Specifically,theTomboftheDiver,whichalsodepictsrecliners

onthelateralslab(seeFigure6),hasbeendescribedas“an

exceptionalpaintedtomb”thatportrays“aGreekbanquet”. 27 It

isimportanttonotethatthebanquetingindividualsinthe

TomboftheDiverarerecliningjustliketheEtruscansintheTomb

oftheHuntingandFishingaswellastheTomboftheShip,bothof

whichareolderthantheGreekTomboftheDiver.Again,the

completedisregardfortheEtruscans’creationoflandscape

paintinginancientItalyisaclearexampleoftheEtruscans’

innovations being erased by Greco-Roman intellectuals.

Scholars like Boardman allege that the Etruscans lacked

creativityandoftencopiedtheachievementsoftheGreeksand

Romans,butthisclearlycannotbeproventrueiftheEtruscans

werethefirsttointroduceagenreofarttoancientItaly.Rather

thantheEtruscanscopyingandtakingothercivilizations’art

forms“withoutdiscrimination”,itappearsthattheGreekstook

andcopiedtheEtruscans’landscapepaintingsandcredited

themselvesforinventingthem. 28 Likewise,scholarswhoanalyze

arthistorythroughaGreeklensfailtoacknowledgetheclear

influencethattheEtruscansplayedintheGreekTombofthe

Diver,aswellasneglecttocomparetheTomboftheDiverand

TomboftheHuntingandFishing’sartisticachievements,thereby

erasingtheEtruscans’importantanduniqueimpactonfuture

Greekworks.

InadditiontotheEtruscans’revolutionaryachievementsin

landscapepaintingsfallingvictimtoerasurebyGreco-Roman

scholars, the Etruscans also have yet to be widely

acknowledgedfortheircontributionstoancientportraiture.

WhileportraitureisacceptedasaGreco-Romaninvention,the

Etruscansworkedwithavarietyofartisticmediumstocreate

artthatwashighlypersonalizedinawaythathadnotbeen

donebeforeintheClassicalworld.Forinstance,Etruscanartists

highlightedphysicaldifferencesintheirportraitsubjectssuch

asage,physicalappearance,health,and“socialpersona”. 29 This

artistictechniquewasuniquetotheEtruscans,whooften

focusedonemphasizingphysicaldifferencesofhumans’chests

and heads, rather than following in the footsteps of their


27.Alberghina,

“TheTombof

theDiverand

thefrescoed

tombsin

Paestum

(southern

Italy):New

insightsfrom

acomparativearchaeometricstudy,”

2.

28.Boardman,199.

29.Carpino,

“Portraiture,”

inTheEtruscanWorld,

1007.

30.Carpino,

1007.

31.Brendel,

Etruscanart,

103.

32.Carpino,

1008.

33.Brendel,

3.

ancientGreekcontemporaries,whofocusedonportrayingthe

whole human body. 30 Highlighting physical differences

distinguishestheEtruscansasthefirstpeopletomake“the

transitionfromgenerictospecificrepresentations”intheir

portraiture,aimingtoproducetheserepresentationsbecause

theywere“essential”inaccuratelyportrayinghumans. 31 Brendel

alsoarguedthatEtruscansculptorscreatedthefirstportraits

foundinwesternart(87).DespitetheEtruscans’numerous

original achievements in the foundation of sculpture and

representation,theystillhaveyettoreceivewiderecognitionin

the study of portraiture, which is often viewed as a

Greco-Roman field of art. The transition to specific

representations of physical characteristics and age in

portraitureissignificantandisatechniqueinportraitureart

thatisstillusedtoday.Despitethis,theEtruscanscontinueto

beerasedinthehistoryofportraituresincetheirachievements,

whileimportantininfluencingtheirsuccessors’artwork,arestill

notwidelycredited.

The Etruscans also contributed widely to ancient funerary

portraiture.Thisisbecausetheearliestportraituretraditionlay

intheirabilitytocreateuniquefuneraryportraitureinthe7th

centuryB.C.E,mainlyatChiusi.Duringthisperiod,Etruscan

artistssculptedportraitsonbronzeandterracottacinerary

urns,whoselidstooktheformofahumanhead(seeFigure7).

Due to the Etruscan tradition of making specific

representationsintheirportraiture,thesefuneraryvesselswere

stylized to convey the personalities, characteristics, and

physicaltraitsofthedead. 32 InotherEtruscancities,artisans

usedstone,bronze,andterracottatocreatestatuesthatthey

placedinsidetombsforthedead.Namely,thewomenandmen

depictedinsidethePietreraTombwereintricatelydecorated

withnecklacesandhairstyles,suggestingthattheartistwished

toconveythatthosedeceasedindividualswerepartofthe

aristocracy. 33 Similarly,theEtruscanscreatedstatuesofwomen

(SeeFigures8and11),men(SeeFigure7),andcouples(See

Figure10)whichwerefoundoncineraryurnsandsarcophagi

during the Classical and Hellenistic periods.These statues,

according to Brendel, “support the claim that a genuine

conceptofportraiture,equaltothemodern,materializedin

Etruscanartforthefirsttimeinhistory”andconfirmthelong


historyandtraditionofEtruscanmemorialportraiture(392-3).

Furthermore,theEtruscansalsocreatedportraituretohonor

theirgodsandgoddessesandmayhavemaderevolutionary

stridesinthedepictionofthedivineinarthistory.Forexample,

thereexistsabronzebustofafemalefigureinthe“Isis”Tombat

Vulci,whichisa“possibleportrait”ofIsis(SeeFigure11). 34

Brendelarguesthatthefigurecouldhavebeenaportraitofan

individual,whosecharacteristicsdeviatefromthatofahuman

(104-105).Ontheotherhand,SybilleHaynesassertsthatthe

bronzebustisindeedagoddess,arguingthatitis“oneofthe

oldestsurvivingcultimagesofagoddess”(155).Whilethereis

clearroomforthisbust’sinterpretation,thereisalackof

discussioninmodernacademiasurroundingthepossibilitythat

theEtruscanswerethefirsttocreatecultimagesofagoddess.

Again,weseeherethattheEtruscans’innovations,beittheir

extraordinary ability to personalize their dead within

portraitureortheirpotentialcontributionstothefoundationof

cult images, are overlooked, ignored, and erased when

examiningancientMediterraneanportraiture.

Aswehaveseen,theEtruscansstillhaveyettobecreditedin

modernwesternMediterraneanscholarshipasthefoundersof

landscape painting in ancient Italy, and their extensive

portraiture and distinctive focus on emphasizing specific

physicalattributesinhumanportraitureareovershadowedby

scholars’ characterization of portraiture as a distinctly

Greco-Romaninvention.Theabsenceofrecognitionofthe

Etruscansastheinnovatorsoflandscapepaintingsinancient

Italy,aswellasignoringtheiruniqueportraiture,contributesto

thecontinuederasureofEtruscansbyGreco-Romanscholars,

whooftenaccusethe“mysterious”Etruscansofcopyingfrom

neighboringancientgroups. 35 Whiletherearefewsurviving

writtenrecordsoftheEtruscancivilization,thelegacyofthe

Etruscansishardlymysteriousorconcealedatall.Indeed,their

enormouscollectionofpaintedsarcophagiisatestamentto

Etruscangrandeurandprovidesevidenceofthenumerousways

inwhichEtruscanartinfluencedtheGreeksandRomans.Yet,

sincearthistoryoftheancientwesternMediterraneanhasbeen

told largely through a predominantly Greco-Roman

perspective,thisbegsthequestionofwhetherthecurrent

understandingofancientwesternMediterraneanartiseven


34.Carpino,

1010.

35.Smith,1.

historyatallifsomanyinnovationsoftheEtruscansandlikely

othersmallcivilizationsareerased.Ifancienthistoriansare

aimingtorevealthetruehistoryofthepast,itisparamount

thattheyrecognizethebiasesthattheymayhavetoward

Greco-Romancultureandreanalyzeclassicalantiquity.Doing

this,aswellasproperlycreditingandpraisingtheEtruscansand

delvingfurtherintouncoveringEtruscantruths,isnecessaryfor

classicalarthistorytobeanaccuratestory.

IMAGES

FigureI.

MapofItalydepictingtheEtruscan,

VillanovanandGreeksettlements,

ChristopherSmith.



FigureII.

TomboftheShip,c.mid-5th

centuryB.C.E,ARTstor.

FigureIII.

TombadelleAnatre,c.680–

660B.C.E.Frieze,FromVeii.

Photo:RegioneLazio

FigureV.

TheTomboftheDiver,lidc.480-470B.C.E.

Fresco,FromPaestum.Photo:Museo

ArcheologicoNazionale,Paestum,Italy/The

BridgemanArtLibrary

FigureIV.

TheTomboftheHuntingand

Fishing,c.530B.C.E.Fresco,

FromTarquinia.Photo:

BridgemanImages:The

BridgemanLibrary.

FigureVI.

TheTomboftheDiver,lateralslab.c.480–

470B.C.E.Fresco,FromPaestum.Photo:

MuseoArcheologicoNazionale,Paestum,

Italy/TheBridgemanArtLibrary



FigureVII.

Male“Canopic”cineraryurn

fromDolciano,lateseventhearlysixthcenturyB.C.E.

MuseoArcheologico

Nazionale,Chiusi.

FigureX.

Detailoftheheadsofthelidfigures(amarried

couple)onaterracottacineraryurnfrom

Volterra,latesecond-earlyfirstcenturybce.

MuseoEtruscoGuarnacci,Volterra,Inv.613.

FigureVIII.

Paintedterracotta

sarcophagusofSeianti

HanuniaTlesnasafrom

PoggioCantarello,near

Chiusi,secondcenturyB.C.E.

TheBritishMuseum,London,

Inv.GR1887.6–8.9

FigureIX.

Stonesarcophaguslidofan

anonymouseliteEtruscan

man,earlythirdcentury

B.C.E.MuseoArcheologico

Nazionale,Florence

(Photograph:Courtesyof

MicheleMyraArchila).

FigureXI.

Bronzebustofafemalefromtheso-called

“Isis”TombinVulci,earlysixthcenturybce.

TheBritishMuseum,London,Inv.434



BIBLIOGRAPHY

PrimarySources0

Anon,Bronzebustofafemalefromtheso-called“Isis”Tombin

Vulci,earlysixthcenturyBCE.TheBritishMuseum,London,

Inv.434.

Anon,Detailoftheheadsofthelidfigures(amarriedcouple)on

aterracottacineraryurnfromVolterra,latesecond-earlyfirst

centuryBCE.MuseoEtruscoGuarnacci,Volterra,Inv.613.

Anon, Painted terracotta sarcophagus of Seianti Hanunia

TlesnasafromPoggioCantaello,nearChiusi,secondcentury

BCE,TheBritishMuseum,London

Anon(2013)Male“Canopic”cineraryurnfromDolciano,ca.late

seventh-early sixth century BCE Museo Archeologico

Nazionale.

Anon(2014)Fishermeninaboatandbirdsflying,fromtheTomb

of Fishing and Hunting, ca. 520-510 BC (wall painting).

BridgemanImages:TheBridgemanArtLibrary.

Anon(2014)PaintingfromtheTomboftheDiverfromthe

southern cemetery at Paestum, 480-470 BC (fresco).

BridgemanImages:CulturalCollection.

Anon(2014)Symposiumscene,ca.480-490BCdecorative

frescoofnorthwallofTombofDiveratPaestum,Campania,

Italy,AncientGreekcivilization,MagnaGraecia,5thCentury

BC.BridgemanImages:DeAgostiniLibrary.

Archila,MicheleMyra.Stonesarcophaguslidofananonymous

elite Etruscan man, early third century BCE, Museo

ArcheologicoNazionale,Florence.

Etruscan.TomboftheShip,n.d.

Pliny.NaturalHistory,VolumeIX:Book35,pp.116-117.Cambridge:

HarvardUniversityPress,n.d.

TombadelleAnatre.RegioneLazio.

SecondarySources0

Alberghina, Maria Francesca, Chiara Germinario, Giovanni

Bartolozzi,SusannaBracci,CelestinoGrifa,FrancescoIzzo,

MauroFrancescoLaRussa,etal.“TheTomboftheDiverand

theFrescoedTombsinPaestum(southernItaly):NewInsights

fromaComparativeArchaeometricStudy.”PloSone15,no.4

(2020):e0232375–e0232375.

Boardman,John.TheGreeksOverseas:TheirEarlyColoniesand

Trade.4thed.London:ThamesandHudson,1999.

Brendel,Otto,andFrancescaR.SerraRidgway.EtruscanArt.

2nded./withanadditionalbibliographybyFrancescaR.

SerraRidgway.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1995.

Carpino, Alexandra A. ‘Portraiture,’ In The Etruscan World.

[Online].1055-1064.Routledge,2013.

Colonna,G.“OsservazionisullaTombaTarquiniesedellaNave.”

InA.Minetti,ed.,63-77.2003.

Dawson, C. M. Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape

Painting.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1944.

Giuliano,A.‘ProtoatticiinOccidente’.InAdembri,B.(ed.),

Aeimnestos: Miscellanea di studi per Mauro Cristofani

(Florence),2003.

Haynes,S.Etruscancivilization:aculturalhistory.LosAngeles:J.

PaulGettyMuseum,2000.

Holloway,R.“ConventionsofEtruscanPaintingintheTombof

Hunting and Fishing at Tarquinii.” American Journal of

Archaeology,no.69.4(October1965):341–347.

Hurwit,Jeffrey.“EarlyGreekWallandPanelPainting,760-480

B.C.”66-93.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014.



Hurwit,J.M.“TheRepresentationofNatureinEarlyGreekArt,”

StudiesintheHistoryofArt.NationalGalleryofArt,no.32

(1991):33-39.

Immerwahr,S.A.AegeanpaintingintheBronzeAge.University

Park:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1990.

Izzet,Vedia.TheArchaeologyofEtruscanSociety.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress,2007.

Ling, R. Roman painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press,1991.

Ling, R. “Studius and the Beginnings ofRoman Landscape

Painting,” Journal of Roman Studies. Cambridge University

Press,no.67(November1977):1–16.doi:10.2307/299914.

MacIntoshTurfa,Jean,andAshwiniTambe.TheEtruscanWorld.

London:Routledge,2013.

Naso,Alessandro.Etruscology.Volume1.EditedbyAlessandro

Naso.Boston:DeGruyter,2017.

Naso,Alessandro.TheOriginofTombPaintinginEtruria,2010.

Petrarulo,G.&DeLeeuw,J.“NewConsiderationsRegardingthe

SeascapeFrescointheTomboftheShip(TombadellaNave)

atTarquinia.”Etruscanstudies,no.15.2(November2012).

Pieraccini,LisaC.“EtruscanWallPaintingInsights,Innovations,

andLegacy.”247–260.MALDEN:Wiley,2016.

Smith, Christopher John. The Etruscans: A Very Short

Introduction.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014.



MINDYOURLANGUAGE,MISTER!1ACASESTUDYIN

ARISTOPHANICHUMOR

2M.I.Rehan,Univ.OfCalifornia,LosAngeles

F romKeats’saccusationthatNewtonhaddestroyedthe

beautyoftherainbowbyreducingittoprismaticcolors 1

toE.B.White’sclaimthat“humorcanbedissected,asa

frogcan,butthethingdiesintheprocessandtheinnardsare

discouragingtoanybutthepurescientificmind,” 2 skepticism

arounddestroyingthebeautyinpoeticphenomenathrough

scientificinquiryabounds.Yetwewillputthesedisagreements

aside,wheretheybelong,andmakeheadwayintoanalyzing

Aristophanic humor. 3 For that, we must first know what

Aristophanichumoractuallyis. 4 Iexaminethisbyanalyzingthe

agōnofPeisetairos,theAristophanicheroandmaincharacterof

Birds,withswift-footedIris,thegoddessfamiliartomostfrom

Homeric epic. In Aristophanes’ Birds—right after the birdmessengerhasannouncedtheendofconstructionworkonthe

bird-wallandPeisetairos,inametatheatricalcomment,has

comparedthewalltoa“packoflies” 5 —thearrivalofIrispassing

throughChaos,theplaceofthebirdcity,andherbreachofthe

bird-wallcreatecontinuouschaosonstageforahundredlines.

Inthispaperthen,Iexaminetheaccumulationofvariouscomic

elementsinthisscene(Av.1161–1261)—obscenities,disruptive

1.Dawkins,UnweavingtheRainbow:Science,Delusion,andtheAppetiteforWonder,x.

2.White,“Preface,’’xi–xxii.

3.Thispaperisheavilyinfluencedbythehumorousandinsightful

discussionsofHumorTheoryanditsapplicabilitytoAristophanes

andthereceptionofhiscomediesinAristophanicHumor:Theoryand

Practice.EditedbyPeterSwallowandEdithHall.(BloomsburyAcademic,2020).

4.M.S.Silk’sAristophanesandtheDefinitionofComedyisawholly

captivatingandthoroughlyinsightfulstudyofthedifferentcomedic

techniquesofAristophanes,andtheshiftylinguisticidiomsofAristophanes’characters.

5.Aristophanes,Aves,line1166.Translationsthroughoutaremyown,

exceptwhenindicatedotherwise.TheeditionusedisSommerstein,

Birds.Vol.6.(ArisandPhillips,1987).InblockquotationsofBirds’

text,Ihaveindentedthesentencestoreflecttheinterruptionsin

speech,andwhereverthemetricalschemaismaintaineddespitethe

speakerchange.

36MINDYOURLANGUAGE

andunstablelinguisticidioms,non-linguisticincongruities—to

argue that we can understand Aristophanic humor as an

interwovenmeshoflinguisticandnon-linguisticincongruities

thatreinforceeachotherforanexaggeratedcomiceffect.

DuringhisaggressiveinterrogationofIris,whohasstopped

mid-flight, 6 Peisetairos lets go a stream of foul language

ascending in depravity, from risqué to obscene. 7 Since

obscenityishardtoclassifyanddependsheavilyonitscultural

context,aworkingdefinitionofobscenitycanhelpusanalyze

thelanguage.JeffreyHendersonprovidessuchadefinitioninhis

seminalworkontheobscenelanguageoftheAristophanic

corpus:

Byobscenitywemeanverbalreferencetoareasofhuman

activityorpartsofthehumanbodythatareprotectedby

certaintaboosagreeduponbyprevailingcustomandsubject

toemotionalaversionorinhibition.Theseareinfactthe

sexualandexcrementalareas.Inordertobeobscene,sucha

referencemustbemadebyexplicitexpressionthatisitself

subjecttothesameinhibitionsasthethingitdescribes.Thus,

toutteroneofthenumerouswords,tobefoundinany

language,whichopenly(noneuphemistically)describethe

tabooedorgansoractionsistantamounttoexposingwhat

shouldbehidden.(Henderson,TheMaculateMuse,2)

AlthoughHendersonisinterestedonlyinobscenelanguage,I

willalsoanalyzetheeuphemisticvocabularythatbuildsupto

the obscene language and the non-euphemistic verbal

referencestotabooedareasofhumanactivitytoshowthatthe

interrogationofIrishassustainedsexualundertones.Thefoul

languageofPeisetairoscanbeclassifiedintothreecategories—

6.Aristophanes,Aves,lines1201–1202.

7.Aristophanes,lines1205–1256.Acriticalcaveathere:Thedefinition

ofobscenityanditsculturalcontextin5thcenturyAthensdoesnot

operateonthesameprinciplesofinhibitionasinmostmodernEuropeansocieties.Henderson

persuasivelyshowsthattheGreekdefinitionofobscenityrevolvesaroundtheconceptofaischros“shameful”

—theopenproclamationofactsinthepublicspherethatbelongin

theprivatesphereoflife.Hurlingobscenitiesisnotassociatedwith

guilt,butratherwithshame.SeeHenderson,5ff.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE37

double entendres, euphemistic vocabulary, and obscene

language—whichIexamineinturn.

Thefirstdoubleentendrecomesshortlyintotheinterrogation

ofIris,asPeisetairosindignantlyordersherarrest—ταυτηνί τις οὐ

ξυλλήψεται/ἀναπτάμενος τρίορχος;(won’tathree-leggedhawk

flyupandgrabher?) 8 —towhichashockedIrisreplies ἐμὲ

ξυλλήψεται;/τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τουτὶ τὸ κακόν;(Grabme?/What’sthis

wretchedness?) 9 NanDunbarwritesthatthereis“probablya

word-playon τρεῖς ὄρχεις,taking τρίορχοςaswiththreetesticles

i.e.unusuallylecherous.” 10 Dunbar’ssuggestionhasitsmerits

becausemetonymicwordplayforhumorouseffectiscertainly

consistent withAristophanic tendencies, 11 more so when it

concernsmetonymicalwordplaywithsexualconnotations. 12 It

seemsalsothatwiththemiddledeponentof συλλάμβανω,(to

seize,layholdof) 13 thesexualallusionwouldbehardtomiss.In

anotherquestion,laterintotheinterrogation,thestringof

doubleentendresunderminesIris’positionforcomiceffect:

Πε. ἤκουσας αὐτῆς, οἷον εἰρωνεύεται;

πρὸς τοὺς κολοιάρχους προσῆλθες; οὐ λέγεις;

σφαγῖδ᾽ ἔχεις παρὰ τῶν πελαργῶν;

Ιρ.

Τί τὸ κακόν;

Πε. Οὐκ ἔλαβες;

Ιρ.

ὑγιαίνεις μέν;

Πε. οὐδὲ σύμβολον ἐπέβαλεν

ὀρνίθαρχος οὐδείς σοι παρών;

Ιρ. μὰ Δί᾽ οὐκ ἔμοιγ᾽ ἐπέβαλεν οὐδεὶς ὦ μέλε.

Pe. Doyouhearher,howshemimicsMissManners?

DidyoucomeontotheChiefJackdaws?Speak,won’t

you?

Doyouhaveastampfromthestorks?

Ir. What’sthiswretchedness?


9.Aristophanes,lines1207–1208.

10.Dunbar,adloc.

11.Silk,AristophanesandtheDefinitionofComedy,122ff.

12.Robson,“SlippingOneIn:TheIntroductionofObsceneLexical

ItemsinAristophanes,”41.

13.LSJ,s.v.“συλλαμβάνω.”

38MINDYOURLANGUAGE

Pe. Youdidn’tgetit?

Ir. Youaresane,no?

Pe. AndnoChiefBirdwasaroundtostickastamponyou?

Ir. ByZeus,nobody’sbeenstickingme,mister!

(Aristophanes,Aves,lines1211–1216)

Dunbaralsoseesthissequenceofinterrogationasladenwith

doubleentendres,whichshebelievescouldhavebeenmade

explicitbyfurthergesticulation. 14 Shepositsthat προσῆλθες

“might contain a double entendre,” 15 but she sees surely

obsceneundertonesin σφραγῖδ᾽ ἔχειςand σύμβολον ἐπέβαλεν.

She suggests that σφραγίς and σύμβολoν are used

synonymously to refer to “semen-deposit.”The only other

referenceto σφραγίςintheplaysupportsherconclusionsinceit

alsooccursinasexualizedcontextearlier: ἐπιβάλλειν σφραγῖδ’

αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ψωλήν (stick a seal on their hard pricks), 16

announcing Peisetairos as the punishment for adulterous

male-godswhileconvincingthebirdstojoinforces.Thenhe

recyclesthejokeagainstIris,agoddess,astheaudienceis

already primed for sexual undertones of σφραγίς from the

earlierpassage.Iris’responses—thecolloquial τί τὸ κάκον,the

unusual μένimplyingPeisetairos’insanity,andtheempathic

rebuttalshuttingdownthediscourseon σφραγίς—underscore

boththecomicalnatureofthesituationandtheincreasingly

sexualizednatureofinterrogation.AlthoughDunbarclassifies

alltheelementsinthisexchangeasdoubleentendres,Iris’

commentat1215tellsusthatshehasinterpretedthedouble

entendreasaeuphemisticallusiontosexualintercoursewith

thebirds—anassertionwhichjustifiablyangersher.

YetPeisetairoshasplausibledeniabilityonhisside.Buthe

abandonsitscomfortingembracetoembarkonadiscourseof

all-outobscenitiesashisattemptstothreatenIrisprovefutile.

Afterthreateningtosendanassortmentofavianattackers,

eaglesandsixhundredPorphyrins,toburndownthehouseof

Zeus(1246–1252), 17 Peisetairos,asalastresort,threatensto

sexuallyassaultIris:

14.Dunbar,adloc.

15.Dunbar,adloc.


17.Aristophanes,lines1246–1252.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE39

Πε. σὺ δ᾽ εἴ με λυπήσεις τι, τῆς διακόνου

πρώτης ἀνατείνας τὼ σκέλει διαμηριῶ

τὴν Ἶριν αὐτήν, ὥστε θαυμάζειν ὅπως

οὕτω γέρων ὢν στύομαι τριέμβολον.

Pe. Andifyoudistressmeatall,

thenI’lltakeontheservantfirst-raiseupher

legsandscrewher,soastoamazeherhowatmyage

I’mstillhardenoughlikeathree-shipsbeak.


Inthishair-raisingthreatofsexualviolence,thetrulycoarse

vocabularycomesout: διαμηριῶ, στύομαι—bothclassifiableas

primaryobscenities. 18 Theseobscenitiesformtheclimaxofthe

sexualizedcontextestablishedfiftylinesearlier.Theascending

orderoffoulness,thegradualbuild-uptotheobscenewith

doubleentendresandthecontinuationofobscenitiesoncethe

primary obscenity is introduced follows an Aristophanic

tendency,whichRobsondubsthe“build-up”technique. 19 The

audienceisprimedfortheintroductionofobscenities,which

heretakestheformofaremarkableoutburstdeflatingthe

hostilityofIris,whocannowthinkofnowittyresponseand

concedesdefeattoPeisetairos’language: διαρραγείης ὦ μέλ᾽

αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν(Blastyou,mister,andyourutterings). 20

However,theleapbetweenthelevelsofobscenityiselsewhere

notaccompaniedbyathoroughdeflationofwhatRobsondubs

“high-flownlanguage,” whichisusuallyreservedforanother

Aristophanictendency:the“obscenityoutofnowhere”without

ahintofsexualizedcontext. 21 Also,thelanguagewhichRobson

labels“high-flown”istragiclanguage,butthereareonlyfleeting

tracesoftragiclanguageinPeisetairos’responsetoIris’threat.

Thereis,however,adeflationof“high-flown”languagehere.The

languagethatPeisetairosdeflatesishisownmarkedlysophistic

languageonwhoseheelstheobscenitiescomeinhotanddisrupt

18.Henderson,TheMaculateMuse,5.






40MINDYOURLANGUAGE

theestablishedsophisticidiom:

Πε. ἄκουσον αὕτη: παῦε τῶν παφλασμάτων:

ἔχ᾽ ἀτρέμα. φέρ᾽ ἴδω, πότερα Λυδὸν ἢ Φρύγα

τὴν Ἶριν αὐτήν, ὥστε θαυμάζειν ὅπως

ταυτὶ λέγουσα μορμολύττεσθαι δοκεῖς;

Pe. Listenhere,you:stopyourbubblings:

Staystill!Lookhere,doyouthinkIamsomeLydianor

Phrygian

thatyouwillhavescarecrowedsayingthesethings?


InPeisetairos’outburstofprofanity,thenoun πάφλασμαand

the verb μορμολύττομαι securely establish the idiom as

sophistic.Inhisexaminationofthelinguisticfeaturesofthe

variouslanguagesanddialectsinAristophanes’plays,Andreas

Willi(2006)includestheabstract μα-nounsunder“Sophistic

Innovations.” 22 Whilehementionsthattheclassof-μαnounsis

old and that stylistically unmarked -μα nouns exist (e.g.,

πρᾶγμα, πνεῦμα), the hapax legomenon, the Aristophanic

neologism πάφλασμα(< παφλάζω“tosplutter”,“tobluster” 23 )is

anythingbutstylisticallyunmarked, 24 especiallybecauseofits

collocation with μορμολύττομαι, which is only found in

contemporary usage in philosophical texts. In Xenophon’s

Symposium, Charmides playfully retorts Socrates’ claim of

self-controlagainstkissingboysinthebloomofyouth.He

retortsthatSocratesisscaringthemawayfrombeautifulbeings

(μορμολύττη ἀπὸ τῶν καλῶν),whenhedoestheverythingwith

Critobolus. 25 Theverb μορμολύττομαιisusedinsimilarcontexts

22.Willi,TheLanguagesofAristophanes:AspectsofLinguisticVariation

inClassicalAtticGreek,136–141.

23.LSJ,s.v.“πάφλασμα.”

24.AsProfessorSarahMorrishaspointedouttome,thenoun

πάφλασμαmightalsoechoAristophanes’favoritetargetCleon,the

Paphlagonian,fromAnatoliawithaplayon παφλάζω—especially

sinceAristophanesxenophobicallyridiculestheNear-EasternPhrygiansandLydiansinthenextline;therebyAristophaneswouldnot

onlyhavetargetedtheprevalentsophisticlexiconbutalsosnuckin

ridiculeofCleon,ashedoesinhisearlierplaysKnightsandClouds(cf.

Ar.Kn.2,6;seealsoAr.Cl.581).

25.Xenophon,Symposium,4.26–4.27.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE41

ofafeignedthreatinPlato’sCrito 26 andPhaedo. 27 Itmightalso

underscoreafeignedthreatintheAristophanicpassage,butit

certainlyunderscoresstylisticallysophisticlanguage.

The collocation then of the sophistic with the coarse,

intellectualwiththeobscene,makesforanexaggeratedcomic

effect(onetypicalofAristophanes)sincetheobscenities,as

Robson argues, “can also serve to emphasize a figure’s

non-conformitywithsocialconventionsand/orlackofsocial

sophistication.” 28 In a matter of few lines, Peisetairos

establisheshimselfasanintellectualtrainedintherhetorical

arts,onlytoexposehimselfbyresortingtocoarsevocabulary

whenthesituationcompels.Idonotmeantoimplythata

sophistcannothavecoarsevocabularyintheirrepertoire,only

thatPeisetairosseeminglyrevealshishiddencoarsenessfrom

underthesophisticgarbthathehadputonearlierintheplay. 29

Whenbrainfailshim,heturnstobrawn,toopenthreatsof

sexualviolence.AnditisnotonlyPeisetairos’languagethatis

seemingly inconsistent—Iris is a worse offender against

AristophaniclinguisticnormsthanPeisetairos.

While Iris is misgendered continuously in the messenger’s

descriptionofagod’sassaultonthebird-walls, 30 andinthe

chorus’lamentatthebreachoftheperimeterwall, 31 Peisetairos

26.Plato,Crito,46c.

27.Plato,Phaedo,2.468.




30.Aristophanes,lines1174–1184.Theparticipialandpronominal

endingsrevealthemisgenderingofIris:inhisdistraughtstate,the

Bird-Messengerreferstotheinvaderas“someoneofthegods”(τῶν

γὰρ θεῶν τις,1172)andthenelaboratesonthemaneuversofthegod

whohasevaded(m.)thejackdawsondaytime-watch-duty”(λαθὼν

[emphasismine] κολοιοὺς φύλακας ἡμεροσκόπους,1174).Peisetairos

sustainsthewrongidentificationinhislament(ὦ δεινὸν ἔργον καὶ

σχέτλιον εἰργασμένος[emphasismine],1175),andthenordersthe

brigadeofbirdstolaunchanoffensive“againsthim”(κατ᾽ αὐτὸν).Finally,inhisdescriptionoftheoffensiveagainstIris,theBird-Messengerrevealsthediscombobulatedstateoftheether(thefictional

stagelocation): ἀιθὴρ δονεῖται τοῦ θεοῦ ζητουμένου[emphasismine]

“Theetherisspinning,andthegod(m.)isbeingsought”(1183).


42MINDYOURLANGUAGE

correctly identifies her gender as she draws near: αὕτη

[emphasismine] σύ, ποῖ ποῖ ποῖ πέτε;“Heyyou(f.),wherewhere

whereareyoujettingin?” 32 Evenafterthecorrectidentification

ofhergender,however,herdialoguewithPeisetairosbetrays

the features of “Female Speech” that Willi identifies and

classifies. 33 Nowheredoessheidentifyherfather,whichWilli

seesasapreliminarytoanunambiguouslyunmarriedfemale

characterinAristophaniccorpus. 34 Instead,whenaskedfrom

whereshehails—ποδαπή; λέγειν ἐχρῆν ὁπόθεν ποτ᾽ εἶ(What

country?Youshouldreallytellmewhereinthehellyouare

comingfrom.) 35 —sheprovidesagenericanswer: παρὰ τῶν θεῶν

ἔγωγε τῶν Ὀλυμπίων(IhailfromtheGods,theOlympianGods.

) 36 Thus,heridentificationasafemalecharacteronlinguistic

criteriaisalreadyonshakyground,eventhough,asHenderson

argues,sheisconceptualizedasawoman. 37 Also,intheanalysis

ofconditionalparticles(e.g., ἄν, ὅπως—alsoaconjunction),

Willifindstheconclusionmoreappealingthat“women’sspeech

ismoresubjective.” 38 However,Irisusesonlyindicativeand

imperativeverbs,andavoidsthesubjectivemoods—optative

andsubjunctive—altogether.Theinstabilityoflanguage,then,

andtheviolationoflinguisticnorms,bothbyPeisetairosand

Iris,createsanaccumulatedcomiceffectwithashiftingand

disruptivelinguisticidiom.

Inadditiontothelinguisticincongruities—bywhichImeanthe

shiftinglinguisticidioms,andthesystematicexploitationof

Greek morphology, and dialectal and sociolectal

variation—understoodinPragmaticsasacceptableviolations

of Grice’s cooperative principles (maxims that allow us to

communicateeffectively), 39 mostofthehumorouseffectinthis

32.Aristophanes,Aves,line1190.


inClassicalAtticGreek,157–197.

34.Willi,170.


36.Aristophanes,line1202.

37.Henderson,“PherekratesandtheWomenofOldComedy,”137.


inClassicalAtticGreek,177.

39.ForadiscussionofGrice’scooperativeprinciplesandthetypologyoftheirviolationscontributingtoHumor,seeAttardo,Salvatore.

“TheCooperativeNatureofHumor,”272–277.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE43

scenederivesfromnon-linguisticincongruities.Inanalyzingthe

non-linguisticincongruitiesofthisscene,IuseCraigJendza’s

theoryofthe“BroadenedCooperativePrinciple”(BCP)that,in

hiswords,“incorporatesnotjustlanguagebuttheentiresetof

standardsthatallowustonavigateourculturesuccessfully:

gender, clothing, sexuality, obscenity, violence, and even

conceptslikeliterarygenre.” 40 Hecontendsthat“humoris

generatedthroughtheviolationofBCP,andthatthisisprimarily

accomplished through the perception and resolution of

incongruities. 41 In this scene, the non-linguistic

incongruities—the opposition of immortal Iris and the

transcendedmortalPeisetairos,hisfeeblethreatsofsexual

violence against an out-of-reach Iris on the mēchanē, the

costumingofPeisetairosasabirdandIrisasaship—runthe

gamut.Iexaminetheseincongruitiesinturntoillustratethe

accumulation of comic effect through a diverse range of

non-linguisticincongruitiesthatrunparalleltothelinguistic

onesdiscussedbefore.

Peisetairos’utterdisdainforIrisandherfeeblepropheciesof

violenceagainsthimdeflatesherstatusasagoddess.Treated

withdisdainfromthestart,sheisexpelledfromthebird-city

withanoutburstofobscenities.InthecontextoftheDionysian

festival, Peisetairos vehemently mocks the caricature of a

goddess,andthisispresumablyviewedasacceptable.Since

non-linguisticincongruitiesdependontheviolationofBCP,as

Jendza contends, explaining the violation of BCP—the

exploitationofaframewith“robust,”“firmlydefined,”and

“easilytransgressable” 42 standards—requirestheestablishment

ofaframe.Inthisinstance,theframeistheconundrumof

(im)mortality.That(im)mortalityisaframeofthesortJendza’s

theoryrequiresasevidentfromPeisetairos’threattokillIris:

Πε.

ἆρά γ᾽ οἶσθα τοῦθ᾽, ὅτι

δικαιότατ᾽ ἄν ληφθεῖσα πασῶν ἰρίδων

ἀπέθανες, εἰ τῆς ἀξίας ἐτύχγανες;

Ιρ. ἀλλ᾽ ἀθάνατός εἰμ᾽.

40.Jendza,“AristophanicIncongruities,”39.

41.Jendza,41.

42.Jendza,44.

44MINDYOURLANGUAGE

Πε. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἄν ἀπέθανες.

Pe. Doyouknowthis,thatifyougot

yourdesertsyou’dhavehadthestrongestclaim

outofallrainbowstobeseizedandputtodeath?

Ir. ButI’mimmortal!

Pe. Doesn’tmatter,you’dstillhavebeenputtodeath.


Theframeofoppositionbetweenmortalityandimmortalityis

evidentfromPeisetairos’senselessthreattokillIrisandher

quickbutineffectualretort.Theframe,however,isestablished

when Peisetairos turns a deified natural phenomenon, the

goddess Ἶρις,backintoanaturalphenomenon ἶρις(rainbow),

resolvingthenon-linguisticincongruitybetweenmortalityand

immortality:ThegoddessRainbowcannotdie,butsurelythe

phenomenonrainbowcould.ThethreattokillIris,agoddess,in

adeeplyreligioussocietyseemscontroversialandperhapsnot

humorous,but,asMartinRevermannwrites,“whenexamining

comedy’srelationshipwithdivinityandreligiouspracticewe

witnessadegreeoflicenseandelasticity.” 43 WhileImakeno

wholesaleclaimforcomediclicensehere,Iwillarguethat

AristophaneschoosesIrisasthetargetformockerybecauseof

heralreadydeflatedstatusinAtheniansociety.

Theportrayalandcaricature,andevenblatantmockery,ofIris

startstobecomeintegratedintoAthenianculturallifeatthe

beginningofthe6thcenturyBCE.Onvasepaintingsstartingin

the late 6th century BCE and extending into the mid 4th

centuryBCE,therearenumerousrepresentationsofIrisbeing

molestedbythesatyrsofDionysus. 44 TheentryinLIMConthis

mythexplainsthemythologicalcontentthus:

HeraistDionysosfeindlichgesonnenundschicktihreBotinI[ris]

aus,umOpferanDionysoszuverhindernbzw.dieOpferstücke

vomAltarzurauben.DochdieSatyrnwollendiesalstreueDiener

ihresHerrnnichtzulassenundgreifenein,indemI[ris]fangenund

ihrGewaltantunwollen.

43. Revermann,“DivinityandReligiousPractice,”275.

44.LIMCIris,105–120.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE45

HeraharborshostilitytowardsDionysusandsendsouther

messengerIristopreventsacrificestoDionysus,ortostealthe

sacrificial pieces from the altar. But the satyrs, as loyal

servants of their master, do not want to allow this and

intervene by capturing Iris and want to commit acts of

violenceagainsther.(LIMCs.v.“IrisimdionysischenKreis,”

751–752)

TherivalryoftheDionysiansatyrsandIrisinthemythplaysout

astherivalryofPeisetairosandIrisonthestage.Bykeepingthe

sacrificialpretextfromthemythasIrisdeclaresherintentto

bolstersacrificesonZeus’behalf, 45 Aristophanesseamlessly

fusesanotherwiseincongruousattackontheimmortalIriswith

themythologicalcontentonthevasepaintings.IntheLIMC

entry,Kossatz-Deissmannoffersaconjectureaboutthehistory

ofthemythitself:LiterarischeQuellenzudiesemStoffsindnicht

erhalten,dochmußdasThemaaufeinSatyrspielzurückgehen

(Sourcesforthismaterialhavenotbeenpreserved,butthe

thememustgobacktoasatyrplay). 46 Ifthisconjectureistrue,

themythmusthavebeenapartoftheearliestperformedsatyr

plays,sincevasepaintingswiththismythstartedappearingin

thelate6thcenturyBCE. 47 Inanycase,themythmusthave

beenextremelyoldand,asDunbar,enumeratingthesatyrplays

inwhichIriscouldhaveappeared,writes,“Iristhreatenedwith

sexual assault, as here by Peis. (1253–1256), was a familiar

theatricalspectacle.” 48 Thus,thenon-linguisticincongruities,

themaltreatmentofIrisandtheoppositionoffiguresdressedin

Dionysiangarb,wouldhavebeenalsofamiliargenerallyto

Aristophanes’ audience from vase paintings and theater

performancesofsatyrplays,which,Icontend,incentivizes

45.Aristophanes,Aves,lines1230–1233

46.LIMC,751–752

47.Theabsolutedatingofthefirstsatyrplaysremainscontroversial,

butweseethefirstdepictionofsatyrsinAtticvasepaintingstarting

in520BCE,afewyearsbeforethedateDunbarproposesforthefirst

satyrplayinvolvingIris.SeeCollardandO’Sullivan“GeneralIntroduction,”22–28.

48.Dunbar,Birds,417.Seealsothesynopticdiscussionofthe“Iris

andtheSatyrs”iconographicmotifanditsconjecturedinfluenceon

AristophanesinElizabethW.Shaffenberger, “Peisetairos’‘Satyric’

TreatmentofIris:AristophanesBirds1253-6,”TheJournalofHellenic

StudiesVol.115(1995):172–173.

46MINDYOURLANGUAGE

Aristophanestoridiculeheralreadydeflatedstatus.

However,thatseemsantitheticaltothehintsofIncongruity

TheoryinAristotle’sRhetoricwherehearguesthat“humourcan

arisewhenaverbalunitproceeds‘μη… πρὸς τὴν ἔμπροσθεν

δόξαν῾(᾽not according to previous expectation,’ 3.11 49 ).” 50 If

Peisetairosbehavesinawaythattheaudiencealreadyexpects,

there would hardly be sustained humor. Aristophanes,

however,hasafewtricksuphissleeves.Insteadofdressing

Peisetairosinasatyrcostume,healludestohuman-birds,a

differentkindofanimal.TereusgavePeisetairosandEuelpides

“someroot”(τι ῥιζίον)togrowwings, 51 andtheeffectsofthe

aviantransformationareapparentrightaftertheparabasisof

Birds,asPeisetairoslikensEuelpidestoa“goosepaintedonthe

cheap” and Euelpides, in congenial reciprocity, likens

Peisetairostoa“blackbirdwithabowlpluck.” 52 Euelpideshas

longgoneoff-stagebythetimeIrisarrives, 53 buthuman-bird

Peisetairos,thechorusdressedasBirds,andthebird-messenger

are still on stage. Aristophanes has re-imagined the

mythological scene on stage, where Peisetairos through

increasinglycoarselanguagetakesonamoresatyr-likepersona.

ButAristophanestherebycreatesanotherincongruitywiththe

myth:Irisisoutofthe“satyr”Peisetairos’reach.

Whilethereisnovisualevidence—testimoniaorvasepaintings

ofthescene—thatIriswasonthemēchanē,thelanguageduring

theencounterofIrisandPeisetairossuggeststhatIrisisabove

thestage-level.AsDunbarwrites,“[t]hemanyreferencesinthis

episodetoIrisasflying…suggestthatsheappearedonthe

μηχανήorflying-machine.” 54 SoPeisetairos’vilethreatsstay

49.Aristotle’terminologymightbefamiliartothereaderfromits

Englishderivative“paraprodoskian”inmodernliterarycriticism.For

anoverviewofparaprodoskianasoneofa“numberoffamiliar

Aristophanicmaneuvers”discussedusuallyinisolation,seeM.S.Silk,

“LanguageandStyle,”137ff.

50.Swallow,“Introduction:DissectingtheFrog(s),”4.


52.Aristophanes,lines805–806.TranslationshereareSommerstein’s.


54.Dunbar,Birds,416.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE47

futile.Hehasturnedintoasatyrand,onthemēchanē,withher

lightgownthatbillowsoutlikeasail, 55 Irisbecomesaship.And

thisnon-linguisticincongruityofmetamorphoses,ofPeisetairos

intoasatyrandIrisintoaship,becomesthebuttofmanyjokes.

PeisetairosinquireswhichshipoftheAthenianfleetmightshe

be(ὄνομα δε σοι τί; Πάραλος ἤ Σαλαμινία;(what’syourname?Isit

Paralos,orSalaminia?),andthencompareshertoaπλοῖον

“merchant-ship.” 56 Intwootherplacesaswell,(ναυστολεῖς) 57 —

[< ναῦς+στολέω]lit.“carry,orconveybyship” 58 —and στύομαι

τριέμβολον“anerectionlikeathree-shipsbeak,” 59 Aristophanes

sneaks in ship metaphors. Metonymical wordplay on the

stage. 60 Butcentraltothereinforcementofthenon-linguistic

incongruity—the breaking of the theatrical illusion as the

language alludes to Iris’ costuming—are the linguistic

incongruities that underscore the comicality of the scene.

Similarly,Peisetairos’increasinglycoarselanguagereinforceshis

appearanceasasatyr.

understood as a budding feedback loop of linguistic and

non-linguisticincongruitiesthatthenultimatelyburstsintoa

remarkableclimax.However,weneedtoexercisecautionas

onlyameticulousandprotractedanalysisofthelanguageitself

revealsaspectsofcostumingandstagedirections.Inadaptinga

scenelikethis,then,withnotestimoniaorvase-paintingsofthe

stagechoreographyandcostuming,liestheopportunityto

employelementsofstaging(e.g.,music,lighting)tochallenge

thepatriarchalhumor-inducingnormsofAristophanesand,

withintheframeworkofAristophanichumor,re-imaginehis

comediesforourtimes. 61

Αsaprinciplethen,inthisagōnofPeisetairosandIris,the

linguisticincongruitiesmirrorthenon-linguisticincongruities,

andAristophanes employs both for an exaggerated comic

effect whereby the language itself is a variegated guise

characters assume and disown contingent on the comic

impulseoftheplaywright.JustasPeisetairos’languagebetrays

hissophisticpersona,hissatyr-likenatureemergesinthescene

throughtheslowbuild-upofcoarsevocabulary.Irisbecomesa

shipandPeisetairosevenmodifieshisobscenevocabularyto

reinforce the non-linguistic incongruities of Iris’ costuming.

Aristophanichumor,usingthissceneasacasestudy,canbe

55. Sommerstein,Birds,143.



58.LSJ,s.v.“ναυστόλεω.”s


60. SeealsoAristophanes’Acharnianswhere“King’seye”entersinan

absurdcostumeandiscomparedtoaship: ὤναξ Ἡράκλεις/πρὸς τῶν

θεῶν, ἄνθρωπε, ναύφαρκτον, βλέπεις;/ἢπερὶ ἄκραν κάμπτων

νεώσοικον σκοπεῖς;“LordHercules!/“Bythegods,man,doyoulook

ship-fenced?!/Orareyouscopingoutthedockwindingroundthe

headland?!”(92–96).TheeditionusedisOlson,DouglasS.Aristophanes:Acharnians.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),2002.Thanks

toProfessorMorrisforpointingthisouttome.

48MINDYOURLANGUAGE

61.IwouldliketothankProfessorsDustinDixon(GrinnellCollege)

andSarahMorris(UCLA)forreadingmanydraftsofthispaperand

forprovidinginvaluablefeedback.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE49

WORKSCITED

Attardo,Salvatore.LinguisticTheoriesofHumor.BerlinandNew

York:MoutondeGruyter,1994.

Collard,C,andPatrickO’Sullivan.Euripides:CyclopsandMajor

Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama. Liverpool: Liverpool

UniversityPress,2013.

Dawkins,Richard.UnweavingtheRainbow:Science,Delusion,

and the Appetite for Wonder. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company,1998.

Dunbar,Nan.Birds.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.

Henderson,Jeffrey.TheMaculateMuse:ObsceneLanguagein

AtticComedy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1970.

Henderson, Jeffrey. “Pherekrates and the Women of Old

Comedy”InTheRivalsofAristophanes:StudiesinAthenianOld

Comedy,135–150.EditedbyDavidHarveyandJohnWilkins.

LondonandSwansea:DuckworthandTheClassicalPressof

Wales,2000.

Jendza, Craig. “Aristophanic Incongruities.” In Aristophanic

Humor:TheoryandPractice,39–52.EditedbyPeterSwallow

andEdithHall.London:BloomsburyPublishingPlc,2020.

Fowler,HaroldNorth.Plato:Euthyphro.Apology.Crito.Phaedo.

Phaedrus.TranslatedbyHaroldNorthFowler.LoebClassical

Library36.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1914.

Liddell,HenryGeorge,RobertScott,andHenryStuartJones.A

Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement.

Oxford:Clarendon,1996.

LexiconIconographicumMythologiaeClassicae(LIMC).6Vols.

Zürich:Artemis,1990.

Marchant, E. C. Xenophontis Opera Omnia. Vol. 2. Oxford:

OxfordClassicalTexts,1921.

50MINDYOURLANGUAGE

Olson, Douglas S.Aristophanes:Acharnians. Oxford: Oxford


Revermann,Martin.“DivinityandReligiousPractice.”InThe

CambridgeCompaniontoGreekComedy,275-287.Editedby

MartinRevermann.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,

2014.

Robson,James.“SlippingOneIn:TheIntroductionofObscene

Lexical Items in Aristophanes.” In Ancient Comedy and

Reception:EssaysinHonorofJeffreyHenderson,editedby

DouglasS.Olson,29–50.Boston:DeGruyter,Inc.,2013.

Scharffenberger,E.W.“Peisetairos’‘Satyric’TreatmentofIris:

AristophanesBirds1253–6,”TheJournalofHellenicStudies.

Vol.115(1995):172–173.

Silk,M.S.AristophanesandtheDefinitionofComedy.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress,2000.

Sommerstein,AlanH.Birds.Vol.6.Liverpool:Aris&Phillips,

1987.

Sommerstein,AlanH.Clouds.Vol.3.Warminster:Aris&Phillips,

1982.

Sommerstein, Alan H. Knights. Vol. 2. Warminster: Aris &

Phillips,1981.

Swallow, Peter. “Introduction: Dissecting the Frog(s).” In

AristophanicHumor:TheoryandPractice,1–9.EditedbyPeter

SwallowandEdithHall.London:BloomsburyPublishingPlc,

2020.

Willi, Andreas. The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of

LinguisticVariationinClassicalAtticGreek.Oxford:Oxford


White,E.B.“Preface.”InASubtreasuryofAmericanHumor,

xi-xxii.EditedbyE.B.WhiteandKatherineS.White.New

York,NY:Coward-McCann,1941.

MINDYOURLANGUAGE51


I usedEnglishfreeverse,prioritizingconversational

Englishstyleoverfaithfulnesstotheexactgrammar

oftheoriginalLatintext.IalsousedEnglishpast

tenseinsteadofVergil’spresenttenseforstylisticreasons.I

translatedcunctantem(211)as“itdelayed,”usingthefinite

verbinsteadoftheparticipletomakeitsoundbetterin

English.Ichose“delay”because“delayer”istheusualEnglishtranslationofQuintusFabius’agnomen,Cunctator,and

becausethebranchcanonlybepluckedaccordingtofate

andthereisnoresistingfate,onlydelayingit.

Iaddedacompletelyoriginalmetaphorinthelastlineofmy

translation(“adutifulhoundplayingfetch”)becauseAeneas

is described as pius (i.e., dutiful) throughout the

Aeneid.Thegrandquesthehastocompletetogettotheunderworldisnothingmorethanfetchingastick.Callinghim

ahoundacknowledgeshisstrengthandintelligence,as

huntingdogs,butheislessdefinedbyhisstrengththanby

hisloyaltyandobediencetothegods––masterswhoarein

acompletelydifferentclassofbeingandwhoseendgoals

hecannotunderstand.

MorellOld

THEGOLDENBOUGH1AENEID6.183-211

MORELLOLD,TRANSLATOR

GRINNELLCOLLEGE

p.52 1 p.53 1

p.55

Aeneaspulledhisweight,

andencouragedhiscompanionsincarryingouttheSibyll’s

orders,

butinhismournfulhearthewasstillthinkingofthegolden

bough.

Withanaxelimpinhishandhestudiedtheforest,

amassofbrownsandgreens,

gettinghishopesupeverytimehesawsomething

justalittlebityellow–

afallenleaf,orapatchoffungus.

Andthen,whenhehadwanderedfarenoughthathismen

wouldn’thear,

hespokealoud:“Ifonlythatgoldenboughwouldshowitself!

Oh,

Misenus,ifonlythatseerhadn’tbeensorightaboutyou.”

NecnonAeneasoperaintertaliaprimus

hortatursocios,paribusqueaccingiturarmis.

Atquehaecipsesuotristicumcordevolutat,

aspectanssilvaminmensam,etsicvoceprecatur:

“Sinuncsenobisilleaureusarboreramus

ostendatnemoreintanto,quandoomniavere

heunimiumdetevates,Misene,locutaest.”

Hehadhardlyclosedhismouth

whentwodovesswoopedjustunder

hisnoseandalightedonthegrass.

Aeneas,greatherothathewas,

recognizedthemasthebirdsofhismother.

Heprayedfurther:

“Please,showmetheway,

ifanyexistsforme,

throughthisimpossiblegrovetothegoldenbough.

Andoh-”

withthishisgazeflickedskyward

“-goddess,mother,don’tleaveme,

whenthingsaresouncertain.”

Vixeafatuserat,geminaecumfortecolumbae

ipsasuboraviricaelovenerevolantes,

etviridisederesolo.Tummaximusheros

maternasagnoscitaves,laetusqueprecatur:

“Esteduces,O,siquaviaest,cursumqueperauras

dirigiteinlucos,ubipinguemdivesopacat

ramushumum.Tuque,O,dubiisnedeficerebus,

divaparens.”Siceffatusvestigiapressit,

observansquaesignaferant,quotenderepergant.

Thedovesneverlefthissight

ashefollowedtheirpathlikescatteredbirdseed.

HesmelledtheopeningtoAvernusbeforehesawit,

allfoulmistlikethemalodorousmawofsomecarnivorous

beast.

Thetwodovesslippedupthroughtheclearairand

pickedtheirpositionsonatree

wheregoldgleamedunnaturallybrightthroughtheleaves.

Pascentesillaetantumprodirevolando,

quantumaciepossentoculiservaresequentum.

IndeubivenereadfaucesgraveolentisAverni,

tolluntseceleres,liquidumqueperaëralapsae

sedibusoptatisgeminaesuperarboresidunt,

discolorundeauriperramosaurarefulsit.

clxxxiii

cxc

cxcix

p.54

TheGoldenBough

TheGoldenBough

Justasmistletoegrowsbrightgreen

onawinter-browntree,thespawnofanother,

sothebranchappeared,

goldfoilrattlinginabreathofbreeze.

Aeneassnatcheditoffthetree,whereitdelayed

justlongenoughforpanic

tojoltthroughhisheart

butcameawayinhisheroichandsoonenough.

Thisgoldenbough

hebroughtbackbeneath

theroofsoftheSibyll,

adutifulhound

playingfetch.

Qualesoletsilvisbrumalifrigoreviscum

frondevirerenova,quodnonsuaseminatarbos,

etcroceofetuteretiscircumdaretruncos,

taliseratspeciesaurifrondentisopaca

ilice,siclenicrepitabatbratteavento.

CorripitAeneasextemploavidusquerefringit

cunctantem,etvatisportatsubtectaSibyllae.

ccvi

TheGoldenBough

p.56 p.57

TheGoldenBough

1.Aristotle,

DeAnima,

412a1–5.

2.Aristotle,

DeAnima,

412b4–5.

3.Thomas

Ainsworth,

“Formvs.

Matter”.

4.J.T.Ackrill,

“Aristotle’s

Definitionsof

‘Psuche,’”

120.

DEADMENHAVENOSOULS1THEPROBLEMOFTHE

PRINCIPLEOFHOMONYMYINARISTOTLE

2RebekahLocke,UniversityofNewOrleans

I nthebeginningofbooktwoofDeAnima,Aristotleasks

thereaderto“startanew,asifthebeginning”inhis

conceptionofthesoul. 1 Hesayswemustendeavor“to

determinewhatthesoulis,whatitsmostcommonaccount

would be.” 2 Ultimately, Aristotle argues for a hylomorphic

conceptionofman:heclaimsthatlivinganimals,including

humans,arecomposedofbothformandmatter.Theterm

hylomorphismcomesfromacombinationoftheGreekwordfor

matter—hulê—andtheGreekwordforform—morphê. 3 What’s

more,“Aristotleregularlydistinguishesform,matter,and‘the

composite.’Thelastistheactual(‘separable’)thing,andto

speakofformandmatteristospeakoftheformandthematter

ofsuchathing.” 4 Hylomorphism,then,isthecompositionof

both form and matter, where the matter constituting the

compositebeingcanbe“pickedout”:

Inorderthatthematter-formdistinctionshouldbeclearly

applicabletoanything,thatathingshouldbecapableof

beingseenasacompositeofmatterandform,itisnecessary

thatthematerialconstituentshouldbecapableofbeing

pickedout.(Ackrill,“Aristotle’sDefinitions,”124)

Aristotlefurtherexplainsthehylomorphismofmanasthe

combinationofthe“soul,”whichistheformofman,withthe

flesh,blood,andboneofthebody,whichisthematterofman

withthepotentialforlife.InthesecondbookofDeAnima,

Aristotle also brings up the concept of homonymy in

conjunctionwiththesoul,namelythatahumanbodyisonlya

properhumanbodywhenitisensouled.Homonymyisthe

sharing of name between objects with no other shared

characteristics:

Whenthingshaveonlyanameincommonandthedefinition

ofbeingwhichcorrespondstothenameisdifferent,theyare

calledhomonymous.Thus,forexample,bothamananda

pictureareanimals.Thesehaveonlyanameincommonand

58DEADMENHAVENOSOULS

thedefinitionofbeingwhichcorrespondstothenameis

different;forifoneistosaywhatbeingananimalisforeachof

them, one will give two distinct definitions. (Aristotle,

Categories:Chapter1-5,1a1–4.)

5.AlthoughIfocusonthehomonymyofpersonsinthispaper,Aristotleextendedthis

principletoalllivingthings,includinganimalsandevenplants:“Moreover,giventhat

heevidentlyregardsthebodiesofallensouledcreaturesashomonymous,including

Aristotelianhomonymypresentsadifficultywhenconfronting

thehylomorphismofman. 5 Aristotleclaimedthatbecauseman

ishylomorphic—composedofmatterandform—forapersonto

beatruepersonhemustbe“ensouled.”But“unensouled”

bodies—suchasdeadbodiesthatnolongerhavesouls—are

onlybodiesinname,orhomonymy.Becausedead,andthus

unenformed,bodiescannotfulfilltheirdefiningfunctions,they

areonlybodieshomonymously:

He[Aristotle]arguesthatanorganismanditspartsaretobe

definedbytheirfunctions,sothatsomethinglackingthe

functionsofahandcannotbeahand.Adeadhandstilllooks

likeahand,butitcannotdowhatahanddoes;inthesetwo

waysitissimilartoapaintedorsculptedhand.Thepainted

handisnohand,butjustanexpanseofpaint;thedeadhand

isnohandbutjustalumpofmatter.(T.H.Irwin,“Homonymy

inAristotle,”528)

Thismeansthathumanbodiesmustnecessarilybeensouledto

beconsideredhuman:“Forit[Aristotle’shylomorphism]entails

thatnohumanbodyiscontingentlyensouled;rather,every

humanbodyisessentiallyensouledandgoesoutofexistenceat

themomentitlosesitssoul,thatis,atthemomentofdeath.” 6

However,becausemattercansurviveaccidentalchanges,“any

matterwhichunderliesgeneration[andsuchchanges]isonly

contingentlyenformedbytheformwhichitacquiresinthe

process of generation.” 7 This raises the problem that—for

Aristotle—manisbothcontingentlyandnecessarilyensouled:

Matter, according to hylomorphism, is contingently

DEADMENHAVENOSOULS59

thoseofanimalsand

plants,Aristotle’spoint

isreally

quitegeneral.”

Christopher

Shields,

“The

Homonymy

oftheBody

inAristotle,”

3.

6.ChristopherShields,

“Aristotle’s

Psychology.”

7.Shields,

“Aristotle’s

Psychology.”

8.Ainsworth,

“Formvs.

Matter.”

enformed;so,bodies,treatedbyAristotleasmatter,should

alsobecontingentlyenformed.If,however,bodiesareonly

homonymouslybodieswhentheyhavelosttheirsouls,then

bodies are necessarily enformed: bodies are necessarily

actuallyalive.So,humanbodiesarebothcontingentlyand

necessarilyenformed.(Shields,“Aristotle’sPsychology”)

Therefore,ifAristotlecommitshimselftoboththehylomorphic

conception of man and the homonymy of a dead or

“unensouled”bodyasonlyabodyinname,heisfacedwitha

contradiction.J.L.Ackrillsumsupthisprobleminhisarticle

“Aristotle’sDefinitionsof‘Psuche’”:

To sum up, Aristotle's definitions of psuche resist

interpretationbecause(i)thecontrastofformandmatterin

acompositemakesreadysenseonlywherethemattercanbe

pickedoutinsuchawaythatitcouldbeconceivedasexisting

withoutthatform,but(ii)hisaccountofthebodyandbodily

organsmakesunintelligible,giventhehomonymyprinciple,

thesuggestionthatthisbodyortheseorgansmightlackor

havelackedpsuche.(Ackrill,“Aristotle’sDefinitions,”126)

To demonstrate the difference between form and matter,

Aristotleusesananalogyofahouse:thebricks,mud,stones,

etc.,arethematterofahousewhilethehouseitselfhasa

specificfunction,thatofashelterforotherbeings.Thehouse

hasapurposeandadefinitionbeyondthephysicalstuffthat

makesitup.Formiswhatgivesacompositeartifactorbeingits

functionwhilematteristhephysicalinstantiationofindividual

forms:“Inthesecases,thethingthatunderliesisthematterof

thesubstance.Whensomeonebuildsahouse,itisthebricks

whichpersistthroughthechange.Theytransitionfromastate

ofnotbeingahousetoacquirethepropertyofbeingahouse.” 8

Thisisalsotrueofman.Theensouledbodyismadeofboth

matterandform,andthisistheonlytypeofhumanexistence

thatAristotleendorses:

Nevertheless, the same analysis holds in the case of

organisms, which are the substances proper: when an

organismiscreatedordestroyed,whenanacornbecomesan

oaktree,orahumandies,theremustbesomematterwhich

persiststhroughthechange.Tosayotherwisewouldbetosay

thatthingscancometobeoutof,orvanishinto,nothing,and

Aristotle understandably agrees with his predecessor

Parmenidesthatthisisimpossible(Physicsi8,191a23–b17).

(Ainsworth,“Formvs.Matter”)

Tobeclear,thesoulasform“isnotamerearrangementof

materialcomponents.Ratheritisacausalpowerthatcomesto

be in the body when it has reached a certain level of

organization.” 9 In living organisms, form—the soul—is what

makesindividualbeingstruebeings:

The word “form” may misleadingly suggest that what is

acquiredinacaseofsubstantialgenerationissimplyashape,

andthisimpressionisreinforcedbysomeoftheexamples

thatAristotleuses,especiallywhenfocusingonartefacts:

plausiblytheformofabronzestatuejustisitsshape.When

weconsiderorganisms,however,itbecomesapparentthat

havingtherightshapeisnotsufficienttopossesstheform.A

thing’sformisitsdefinitionoressence—whatitistobea

humanbeing.(Ainsworth,“Formvs.Matter”)

However,lookingtothePrincipleofHomonymyasexplained

later, homonymy predicates living beings as necessarily

ensouled.

InhisMetaphysics,Aristotleclaimsthatweputformintomatter

inordertoproduceacompoundbeing.Thismeansthatboth

thematterandtheformmustexistpriortotheexistenceofthe

compoundbeing.However,thematterofahumanbodyisnot

evenpotentiallyabodyuntilitisenformedbythesoul.Itisthe

ensoulmentitselfthatcreatesahumanbody:“Bronzecanexist

asanindeterminatelump,beingpotentiallybutnotactually

thestatueofagreathero.Thereisnoreadyanalogueinthecase

ofthebody:thebodyisnotsomuchstufflyingaboutwaitingto

beenformedbyasoul.Rather,inoneimportantsense,human

bodiesbecomehumanbodiesbybeingensouled.” 10 Thematter

ofahumanbodydoesnotexistinapotentialstatelikethe

bricks that make up a house.This creates a problem for

9.FredD.

Miller,“Aristotle’sPhilosophyofSoul.”

10.FredD.

Miller,“Aristotle’sPhilosophyofSoul.”



11.JulieWard,

“Aristotelian

Homonymy,”

577.

12.Ward,

“Aristotelian

Homonymy,”

576.

Aristotle’shylomorphismbecauseinclaimingthatabodyisonly

a body when ensouled, one ends up with illogical and

unintendedconsequences:

Briefly,thisconsequenceseemstoupsettheverytermsof

hylomorphism within which Aristotle’s entire theory is

adumbrated:ifthewaxisthematterofthecandle,andthe

shapeisitsform,thenthewaxisonlycontingentlythematter

ofacandlepreciselybecausethesamewaxcouldsustaina

differentformandsoserveasthematterofsomethingother

thanthecandle,forinstanceafigurine.If,bycontrast,abody

isabodyonlywhenensouled,thenthebodyisnecessarily,

andnotcontingently,ensouled.(Aristotle,DeAnima,165)

Thehumanbodyisnecessarilyensouled;abodywithoutasoul

isonlyabodyinname.Itisherethatweencountertheproblem

ofthePrincipleofHomonymy.

PartoftheAristotelianPrincipleofHomonymyisthenotion

thattwobeingsorartifactscanshareanamewithoutsharinga

definitionorfunction.Thusariverbankandafinancialbankare

bothbanks,buttheydonotsharethesamedefinitionor

function. 11 Thingssharingacommonnamecanhavediffering

relationstothetermtheyareidentifiedwithiftheirmatter,

form,function,orcharacterarenotthesame. 12 JulieWardgives

another example ofAristotelian homonymy in “Aristotelian

Homonymy”:

[W]eemploytheterm“animal”homonymouslyifweapplyit

toahumanbeingandadrawingofahuman.Thesethingsare

homonymous in the sense that they do not share

animality—thepropertyofbeingananimalasdoahuman

beingandanox.Tomentionbutoneobviousdifference,

“animal”inonecasereferstoabiologicalpropertywhileit

does not refer to the same property in the case of the

drawing. Since the term “animal” picks out different

properties in each kind of thing, it is being used

homonymously(Cat.1a1–4).(Ward,“AristotelianHomonymy,”

576)

Wemaycallapictureofapersonaperson,butbecausethe

picturecannotfulfillthefunctionsofanactualperson,itisnot

thesamethingasaliving,ensouledperson.Apictureisonly

homonymouslythesamethingaswhatitrepresentsbecauseit

differsindefinitionalfunctionandmatter:“Onthis[Aristotle’s]

accountxandyarehomonymouslyFifandonlyifthename‘F’

appliestobothxandy,butadifferentdefinition(‘accountof

being’)mustreplace‘F’in‘xisF’andin‘yisF.’Thisisadefinition

ofhomonymousthings.” 13 Therefore,eventhoughweusethe

sameterm—body—foralivinganddeadbody,thetwoareonly

homonymouslyrelated;theyshareonlyanameandnota

functionordefinition.

In his paper “The Homonymy of the Body in Aristotle,”

Christopher Shields proposes a solution to the problem of

homonymybylookingataFunctionalDeterministicaccountof

thehomonymyoftheensouledbodyversustheunensouled

body.Insum:“(FD[FunctionalDeterminism]:Anindividualawill

belongtoakindofclassFiff:acanperformthefunctionofthat

kindofclass.” 14 Shieldsexpoundsuponthisthusly:

Aristotle contends that the body is homonymous (DA

412b20-25, 412b7-13a2), and supposes this claim to be of

service in his hylomorphic analysis of soul and body. He

suggests,infact,thatadeadbodyisnotabodyexcept

homonymously…and evidently takes this to shore up his

contentions that human beings have characteristic

functions…ofadeterminatesort,andthathumanbodieshave

these functions in virtue of being ensouled. (Shields,

“HomonymyoftheBody,”1)

Shieldsarguesthatitisthespecificfunctionsofthehuman

bodythatmakeitwhatitis,namely,alivingperson.The

contentionthatadeadbodyisnotatruepersonbutonlya

bodyhomonymouslyleadsShieldstotheviewthatthePrinciple

ofHomonymycanbemetwithafunctionalistapproachto

bodiesandtheircapacities:“[Aristotle’s]viewwouldseemtobe

thatafunctionallyspecifiedhumanbodymustbeableto

engageincomplicatedsortsofactivitiesincludingnutritionand

perception,andthatdeadbodiesfailtoqualifyforthesimple

13.Irwin,

“Homonymy

inAristotle,”

524.

14.ChristopherShields,

“The

Homonymy

oftheBody

inAristotle,”

9.



15.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

8.

16.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

2–3.

17.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

11.

reasonthattheylacktheseabilities.” 15 Thismeansthatdead

bodiesdonotoverlapwithlivingbodiesfunctionallyatallbut

only in name, only homonymously. Shields citesAristotle’s

MeteorologicalaterinhispaperwhenheclaimsthatAristotle

assertsathesisofFunctionalDeterminismandthatthistheory

hasclearramificationsforthePrincipleofHomonymy:

Allthingsaredefinedbytheirfunctionfor[inthosecases

where]thingsareabletoperformtheirfunction,eachthing

trulyis[F],e.g.aneyewhenitcansee.Butwhensomething

cannot[performthatfunction]itishomonymously[F],likea

deadeyeoronemadeofstone,justasawoodensawisno

moreasawthanoneinapicture.Thesame,then,[holdstrue]

offlesh…Meteorologica390a10-15.(Shields,“Homonymyof

theBody,”28)

Underthisdefinition,unensouled/deadbodiesarenotthesame

asensouled/livebodiesbecausetheycannotperformthesame

functions that an ensouled/live body can.This presents a

problemforAristotle’shylomorphicconceptionoflivingbeings

becauseadead,andthereforeunensouled,bodyisunenformed

andonlyabodyinname.Itseemsthatthesamematterthat

madeupthelivingandensouledbodylosesitsformandthus

ceasestobeatrue“body”:“Tobeginwith,itwouldseemthatif

thebodyishomonymous,andifdeadbodiesarenotreally

humanbodiesatall,humanbodies,nolessthanhumansouls,

gooutofexistenceatthemomentofdeath.” 16 Inorderto

resolvetheproblemofthehomonymyofthebodyinAristotle,

Shieldsgivesanaccountoftherelationshipbetweenorganic

andnon-organicbodies.

InhisattempttosolvetheProblemofHomonymybetweena

livingbodyandadeadbody,ChristopherShieldsturnsto

Aristotle’s idea of the connection between organic and

non-organicbodies.Organicmatterislivingmatter;theorganic

bodyisthelivinghumanbody:“[A]ccordingtothisdefinition[of

organicbodies],somethingisanorganicbodyonlyifitcan

performtheactivitiesfunctionallydeterminativeofahuman

being,andhasthiscapacitynecessarily.” 17 Asorganicmatteris

necessarily ensouled, only non-organic matter could be


potentiallyorconditionallyensouled.Shieldsarguesthata

non-organicbodycouldpotentiallybeanorganicbodyatsome

point—presumablyonceitisensouled—eventhoughitisnot

necessarilyaliveatalltimes:“Theclassofnon-organicbodies,

then,donothavehumancapacitiesnecessarily,butrather

contingently. Hence, non-organic bodies are simply organic

bodieswithoutthismodalproperty.” 18 Thiswouldmeanthat

therecouldbesomesubstance,somematter,thatpersists

throughgenerationanddestruction—itjustisn’ttheorganic,

ensouled body. Organic bodies are necessarily enformed

because of their mere existence as organic bodies. But a

non-organicbodythatcanbecomeanorganicbodycould

thereforebethematterofahumanbodybeforeitisensouled

andafterithasdied:“Corpsesareaphaseoftheexistenceof

non-organicbodies,butnon-organicbodiesexistbeforeand

survive the death of the organism.” 19 According to Shields,

non-organicbodiesarelikethebricksofthehouse:onlythe

bricks—or the proximate matter—can properly be said to

constituteahouse.However,theclaythatunderliesthebricks

ofthehouseexistedbeforethehouseoreventhebricksthat

constitutethehouseexistedandcontinuestoexistafterthe

househasfallendownorthebrickschangeshapeandfunction:

“Non-organic bodies, like the clay of which bricks are

compounded,constituteorganicbodies,whichinturnserveas

theproximatematterofindividualsouls.” 20 Thebricks—likethe

organsandbodypartsofahuman—aretheproximatematterof

thehouse,whilethematterthatconstitutesthebricksisthe

non-proximatematter.ThisishowShieldsexplainsthenature

ofnon-organicbodies:non-organicbodiesarecompounded

andconstituteorganicbodieswhenenformed,andorganic

bodiesserveastheproximatematterofindividualcompound

beings.Itispossible,Shieldsargues,foranon-organicbodyto

existatthesametimeandinthesamespaceasanorganicbody:

“Asentitieswhichexactlyoverlapspatio-temporallysolongas

theorganicbodyexists,organicandnon-organicbodieswill

have all their non-modal, non-intentional properties in

common.Andthisissufficientforconstitution.” 21 Anorganic

bodyissimplyanensoulednon-organicbody.Shieldsfurther

explains the relationship between organic bodies and

non-organicbodieswithananalogyofanax.Theironthatisthe

matterthattakesontheformoftheaxisthus“ax-matter,”and


18.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

11.

19.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

28.

20.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

29.

21.Shields,

“Homonymy

oftheBody,”

29.

22.Shields,

“The

Homonymy

oftheBody,”

23.

itexistedbeforeitwasshapedorenformedtobeanax.The

matterisonly“ax-matter”inthattheenformedcompoundcan

carryoutthefunctionsofanax,thefunctionofchopping.

Whenthisiron,“ax-matter,”ceasestobeabletochop,itceases

tobeanax,evenifitresemblesanaxineveryotherway.The

sameistrueofthehumanbody:

An “ax” which cannot chop, Aristotle maintains, is a

spuriously homonymous ax (DA412bl3-15).This seems to

entailthatonlymatterinacertainconditioncountsasanax.

Matterwhichfallsoutofthisconditionisnolongerthe

materialofanax,butofsomethingwhichhasasuperficial

resemblance to an ax. Axes, like human beings, are

functionallydefined:allandonlythosethingswhichcanchop

countasaxes.Somethingwillcountasthematterforanax,

then,onlywhenitisthematterofsomethingwhichcanchop.

Consequently,“ax-matter”,aswemightcallit,necessarilyhas

the property of constituting an ax. When it ceases to

constituteanax,itceasestobeaxmatter,eventhoughitwill

remainpotentiallyamatter,thatis,potentiallyconstitutive

of something which chops. (Shields, “Homonymy of the

Body,”22)

Just as the pre-enformed and de-enformed iron is only

“ax-matter”whenitcanchop,thehumanbodyisonlyan

organicbodywhenitcanfulfillthefunctionsofalivinghuman.

Like an ax made of wood—an ax that cannot chop—a

non-organic body can have the shape and same physical

appearanceasanorganicbody,asisinthecaseofdeadbodies,

manikins, and statues. 22 Therefore, the unenformed human

body,likeawoodenax,isonlyabodyhomonymously,not

becauseitlacksacertainphysicalformbutbecauseitlacksa

certain“essence”:

ThewoodensawsintroducedatMeteorologica390a10—15,

forexample,maybearasuperficialresemblancetorealsaws,

eventhoughtheylackthecapacitiesrequisiteforbeingactual

saws.Theproblemwithwoodensawsisnotthattheyhave

thewrongshape,butratherthatinvirtueoftheirmatterthey

cannotperformcertainfunctions.Theirmatterisincapableof


realizingacertainform,functionallyconstrued,eventhough

it can take on the superficial shape which normally

accompaniesthatform.(Shields,“HomonymyoftheBody,”

23)

This allows Aristotle to classify dead—and thus

non-organic—bodiesashomonymouslybodiesbecause,while

theysharethephysicalformofthebody,theydonotsharea

function.Thenon-organicbody,then,istheproximatematter

oftheorganicbody.Thenon-organicbodyisthematterthat

existsbeforeensoulmentandcontinuestoexistafterdeath.

However, a major problem with Shields’ proposed

understandingofthePrincipleofHomonymyandthebodyis

thathegivesnoexplanationofhoworwhenanon-organicbody

becomesanorganicbody.Hearguesthattheorganicbody

becomesaninorganicbodyafterdeath,afteritsunensoulment,

buthedoesnotgiveanyaccountoftheopposite,howa

non-organicbodybecomesorganic.ChristopherMirusandFred

Miller, however, do explain this process in their articles

“HomonymyandtheMatterofaLivingBody”and“Aristotle's

PhilosophyofSoul,”respectively.

InChristopherMirus’“HomonymyandtheMatterofaLiving

Body,” he explains that the matter of the natural body is

“enformedbythesoul,isnecessarilyalive,andthusnecessarily

ensouled.” 23 MirusalsopointsouttheconflictthatthePrinciple

ofHomonymycreatesbetweenAristotle’sDeAnimaandthe

Physics.InthePhysics,Aristotleintroducesmatterasasubject

thatmayormaynotbeenformedandassuchcanchangein

bothaccidentalandsubstantialways:“InPhysicsii,however,

matterisintroducedasasubjectthatmayormaynotbe

informedinagivenway,andcanthusaccountfortheexistence

ofchange.” 24 InDeAnima,however,Aristotlearguesthatthe

bodyisnecessarilyensouled,meaningthatitsmatter—the

humanbody—couldonlyexistasanensouled,livingbeing.Any

bodythatisnotensouled,suchasadeadbody,isthusonlya

body homonymously. Mirus also explains the difference

between “homogeneous bodies”—what Shields calls

“non-proximatematter”—andmorecomplex,heterogeneous

bodies—Shields’ “proximate matter”: “In short, the

homogeneousbodiesaretheuniform,continuoussubstances


23.ChristopherV.Mirus,

“Homonymy

andtheMatteroftheLivingBody,”

357.

24.Mirus,

“Homonymy,”

357.

25.Mirus,

360.

26.Mirus,

369.

27.Mirus,

363.

28.Mirus,

368.

ofwhichthemorecomplexlivingandnon-livingbodiesare

composed.” 25 Heterogeneouspartsaretheproximatematterof

livingbeingswhilehomogeneousparts—thatwhichmakeup

theheterogeneousparts—arethenon-proximatematterof

livingbeings. 26 Itisthesehomogeneousbodiesthatpre-exist

morecomplexcompoundedbodiesandcontinuetoexistafter

the death or destruction of these entities. Mirus also

acknowledgesthefunctionaldefinitionalaspectofcompound

bodies:“Inotherwords,thecomplexbodiesclearlyhavea

functionthatmakeseachthingwhatitreallyis(theyexist‘for

thesakeof’it).Forexample,acorpseisnotreallyaman,

becauseitcannotperformthehumanfunction,andaneyeis

notreallyaneyeunlessitcansee.” 27 Homogenouspartscanthus

becontingentlyenformedwhereasheterogeneouspartsand

bodiesarenecessarilyenformed:

IntheGenerationofAnimals,[Aristotle]writesthat“thereisno

suchthingasafaceorfleshwithoutsoulinit;itisonly

homonymouslythattheywillbecalledfaceorfleshifthelife

hasgoneoutofthem,justasiftheyhadbeenmadeofstone

orwood”(ii1.734b27-27).ThesameconclusionappearsinOn

GenerationandCorruption,wherewefindthatbecausethe

distinction between matter and form is clearer in the

heterogeneousthaninthehomogeneousparts,“thereisa

greatertendencytosupposethatcorpsestillpossesfleshand

bonethanthatitstillhasahandoranarm”(i5.321b29-32).

(Mirus,“Homonymy,”365)

Mirus also notes the functional determinability of

homogeneouspartsoflivingbeingsandartifacts,butheargues

that,becausetheseconddefinitionofhomogeneouspartsof

thebodyisacompositionalone—thefirstdefinitionbeinga

functionaldefinition 28 —itgivesnomentiontothelivingor

ensoulednatureofabody,andisthereforenotaffectedbythe

PrincipleofHomonymy:

Theseconddefinition[ofhomogeneousbodies],however,is

compositional; it specifies the proportions in which the

various elements are found in the part. Because this

compositionaldefinitionmakesnoreferencetotheliving

body,thehomogeneouspartsthusdefinedarenotsubjectto

thehomonymyprinciple.Beingonlycontingentlyinformed,

theycansurvivethelivingthing’sdeathandthuscanserveas

itsmatterinthestrongsensethatthePhysicsseemsto

require.(Mirus,“Homonymy,”366)

Thedestructionofanyhomogeneouspartthatispartofaliving

substanceis“anindirectandsubsequenteffectofthedeathof

thatsubstance.” 29 However,homogeneouspartscansurvivethe

deathofthelivingsubstanceofwhichtheycompose,andsothe

physicalbodypartororgancanbesaidtocontinuetoexist

aftertotalbodilydeath:

Itshouldnowbeclearthattheheterogeneouspartstoo,

insofar as they are bodily structures composed of

homogeneousbodies,cansurvivethedeathofthelivingbody

whosepartstheyare.Forexample,inanotherwisehealthy

animal dies ofheart failure, its eyes, as actually existing

organs, simultaneously cease to exist. Nevertheless, the

bodilystructurethatwashypotheticallynecessaryforsight

maycontinuetoexistforatime.(Mirus,“Homonymy,”371)

And it is clear, to Mirus, that Aristotle considers these

homogeneouspartsofthebodymateriallyaswellasformally:

“InPartsofAnimalsii1,Aristotleconsiderstherelationship

betweenthehomogeneousandtheheterogeneouspartsofa

livingbody.Heclearlyhasinmindthehomogeneousparts

consideredmaterially,forhedescribesthemasmatternotonly

for heterogeneous but also homogeneous living parts.” 30 If

describedmaterially,thehomogeneouspartsofalivingbody

arenotnecessarilyensouledandcanbespokenofaspersisting

throughdeathor“putrefaction.” 31

ThestrongerandmoreinterestingsolutionMirusoffersforthe

ProblemoftheHomonymyofman—thesolutionheshareswith

Miller—isthatbodiesreceivetheirforms—theirsouls—fromthe

semenprovidedbythemaleparticipantinsexualreproduction.

This solution fixes Shields’ problem of not providing an

explanationofhowandwhenanon-organicbodybecomesan

organicbody.MiruscitesapassagefromOntheGenerationof

29.Mirus,

370.

30.Mirus,

369.

31.Mirus,

370.



32. Mirus,

367.

33.Miller,

“Aristotle’s

Philosophy,”

323.

AnimalsinwhichAristotleclaimsthatwhatmakesfleshflesh

andboneboneisthe“movementsetupbythemaleparent,

whichisinactualitywhatthatoutofwhichtheoffspringis

madeinpotentiality.” 32 InpartoneofBookiiofAristotle’sOn

theGenerationofAnimals,hewrites:

Buthowiseachpartformed?Wemustanswerthisbystarting

inthefirstinstancefromtheprinciplethat,inallproductsof

Natureorart,athingismadebysomethingactuallyexisting

outofthatwhichispotentiallysuchasthefinishedproduct.

Nowthesemenisofsuchanature,andhasinitsucha

principleofmotion,thatwhenthemotionisceasingeachof

thepartscomesintobeing,andthatasaparthavinglifeor

soul.Forthereisnosuchthingasfaceorfleshwithoutlifeor

soulinit;itisonlyequivocallythattheywillbecalledfaceor

fleshifthelifehasgoneoutofthem,justasiftheyhadbeen

madeofstoneorwood.Andthehomogeneouspartsandthe

organiccomeintobeingtogether…whatmakesthemisthe

movementsetupbythemaleparent,whoisinactualitywhat

thatoutofwhichtheoffspringismadeisinpotentiality.

(Aristotle,OntheGenerationofAnimals,48–9)

MirusandMillerbothexplaintheensoulmentofanorganic

body as the actuality of the male parent’s semen (gonệ)

“ensouling”ormakingactualthematterofthefemaleparent’s

contribution (katamenia)—roughly translated as menses or

menstrualblood. 33 Semen,then,isthe“proximatematter”with

the potential to give actualization to a living body. This

idea—thatthesemenisthesoul/formoractualizingpowerin

reproduction—canbefoundinAristotle’sbiologicalworks,such

asOntheGenerationofAnimals,andsavesAristotlefromthe

problemofthehomonymyofdeadbodies.This“proximate

matter” (semen) is able to potentially be a proper living,

ensouledbodybecausethesemenfromwhichthebodyis

alreadyenformediswhatgivesmatteritssoul,and,therefore,

theactualityofanensouledbody.

Fred Miller also offers this solution to the Problem of

Homonymy—thatalivingbeing’sformorsoulcomesfromthe

semenofthemaleparent—inhisarticle“Aristotle’sPhilosophy

ofSoul.”Hewrites:“OnAristotle’sviewthisindependentcause

isapreexistingcompound,suchasthefatherinthecaseofan

animal.Theformoftheoffspringderivesfromtheformofthe

parent.Sexualreproductioninvolvesthereplicationofaform,

and the growth and survival and development and

perpetuationofsuchforminasuitablematerialbase.” 34 Miller

continuestoexplainthat,inAristotle’sOntheGenerationof

Animals,themaleparentinsexualreproductionisthesourceof

theform(soul)andtheprincipleofmovement,whilethefemale

parentisthesourceofthematter(body):

Forinsexualreproductiontheanimalisconstitutedoutofthe

matterfromthemotherby“thepowerfromthemaleand

presentinthesemen.”Theformoperatesviamovements

whicharepresentinthesemenandlaterinthebloodofthe

embryo.Reproductioninvolvesthetransferofmovement

fromthemaleparentthroughitsresidue(semen)tothe

femaleresidue(menses)andisperpetuatedinthefetusand

offspring.(Miller,“Aristotle’sPhilosophyofSoul,335)

Therefore,theform—morepreciselythesoul—isfoundinthe

maleparent’ssemen.Thisallowsforlifeinpotentialitywithout

sacrificingthenotionthatalivingbodyisnecessarilyensouled.

Thisisbecause,beforetheorganismisevenborn,theprinciple

throughwhichabodyisensouledoranimatedispresentinthe

semenofthemaleparent. 35

Millergoesfurtherinhisexplanationoftheensoulmentthrough

semen than Mirus does. He explains that the epigenesis

interpretationofensoulmenthelpsAristotleexplainhowa

livingorganismcancometohaveaform—asoul—onlybecause

itiscreatedbyanothersubstanceorbeingthathassuchformor

soul in actuality. Quoting Aristotle’s On the Generation of

Animals,Millerwrites:“[T]hemovementofnatureexistsinthe

productitself,issuingfromanothernaturewhichhastheform

inactuality.” 36 Furthermore,themovementofreproductionis

setupbythemaleparent,“whoisinactualizationwhatthat

out of which the offspring is in potentiality.” 37 Again, this

potentialityfoundinthesemenofthemaleparentinsexual

reproductionallowsforpotentiallyensouledmatterthatcan

34.Miller,

334.

35.Miller,

335.

36.Miller,

336.

37.Miller,

336.



38.Miller,

336.

39.Shields,

“Aristotle’s

Psychology.”

become an actual living body through the process of

reproduction:“Theepigenesisinterpretationhelpstoexplain

whyAristotleinsiststhatalivingorganismcancometobewith

asoulonlyifitisbroughtintoexistencebyanothersubstance

whichhasthissoulinactuality.” 38 Andbecausetheformorsoul

oftheprogenyisdeterminedbytheformofthefather,Miller

swiftlyside-stepstheproblemofnecessaryensoulmentofliving

bodies.Animals—includinghumans—gettheirform,theirsoul,

fromthesemenofthemaleparentinsexualreproduction.

Aristotle’sPrincipleofHomonymy—especiallyasitislaidoutin

hisDeAnima—presentsaproblemwhentalkingaboutliving

bodies and hylomorphism. Living things are

hylomorphic—composedofbothmatterandform.Becauseof

thiscombinationandthePrincipleofHomonymy,anything

properlycalleda“body”mustbecomprisedofbothmatterand

form—form coming from the soul. However, according to

Aristotle’sargumentsinvolvingthePrincipleofHomonymy,a

bodywithoutasoul(form)—suchasadeadbody—isnotreally

a “body” at all, but only a body by name, only a body

homonymously.Thismeansthatalllivingbeingsarenecessarily

ensouled.ThiscreatesacontradictionforAristotlebetweenthe

hylomorphismoflivingbeingsandthehomonymyofdead

“bodies.”Ifwhatpersistsafterdeath—aftertheunensoulment

ofthebody—isnotthesameasthebodythatwasalive,

Aristotlecannotarguethatlivingbodiesaretruehylomorphic

compounds:“Ifhumanbodiesarenotbodieswhentheyarenot

ensouled,andifthesoulsofbodiesare,asAristotleclaims,their

forms,thenhumanbodiesarenotamenabletoahylomorphic

treatment.Theapplicationofageneralhylomorphicframework

tothecaseofthesoulandbodydoesnotevenseempossible.” 39

Hylomorphismentailsthecombinationofapre-existingform

withpre-existingmatter,andthismandatesthatbeingsare

contingently enformed. But if dead bodies are only

homonymouslybodies—lackingtheabilitytofunctionasa

“real” body—then bodies are necessarily ensouled and

necessarilyalive.ThisistheproblemcausedbythePrincipleof

Homonymy.

Together, Christopher Shields, Christopher Mirus, and Fred

Millerofferseveralpossiblesolutionstotheproblemscreated


by the Principle of Homonymy for Aristotle’s hylomorphic

account ofman. Shields takes a functionalist approach to

explaining how souls are the form—and therefore the

function—ofthelivingbeing.Whilethesoulistheformofan

organicbody,Shieldssuggeststhatnon-organicbodiescan

become organic bodies if and when they are ensouled,

returningtonon-organicbodiesaftertheydieorsomehoware

nolongerconnectedtotheirsouls.Thisaccountisultimately

lacking, however, because Shields does not explain how a

non-organicbodycouldbecomeanorganicbody.Thesolution

proposedbyMirusandMiller,however,makessenseandis

foundedinAristotle’sbiologicalworks.InOntheGenerationof

Animals,Aristotleclaimsthatitisthemale’ssementhatturns

thepotentialfemalemenses—or,rather,egg—intoanactuality:

“The male contributes a source of movement or dunamis

(power),which,astheargumentunfolds,turnsouttobea

specialsortofcapacitytoheatpresentinthesemen’spneuma

orair,whichispartofitsnature.” 40 Themalesemenislikeatool,

inthatitis“aninstrumentpossessingactivemotion,justasthe

toolsaremovedinthingsthatcometobebycraft.” 41 Itisthe

semen,therefore,thatcarrieswithitthemotionofactuality

and,assuch,theformorsouloftheindividual.Thisishow

unensouledorganicmattercomestohaveasoul,andhowthe

humanbodybecomesahumanbodyinactuality,notjustin

name, solving the problem created by the Principle of

Homonymy.


40.James

Lennox,

“Aristotle’s

Biology.”.

41.Lennox,

“Aristotle’s

Biology.”

WORKSCITED

Ackrill,J.T.“Aristotle’sDefinitionsof‘Psuche.’”Proceedingsof

theAristotelianSociety731972–3:119–33.https://www.jstor.

org/stable/4544837.

Ainsworth,Thomas.“Formvs.Matter.”InStanford

EncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta.

Stanford:StanfordUniversity,2020.https://plato.stanford.

edu/archives/sum2020/entries/form-matter/.

Aristotle.Categories:Chapter1-5.Translatedby.J.L.Ackrill.

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/520/Cats1-5.pdf.

Shields,Christopher.“Aristotle’sPsychology.”InStanford

EncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta.

Stanford:StanfordUniversity,2020.https://plato.stanford.

edu/archives/win2020/entries/aristotle-psychology/.

Shields,Christopher.“TheHomonymyoftheBodyin

Aristotle.”ArchivfürGeschichtederPhilosophie75,no.1

(1993):1–30.https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1993.75.1.1.

Ward,Julie.“AristotelianHomonymy.”v(April2009):575–585.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_

sdt=0%2C43&q=Ward%2C+Julie.

+“Aristotelian+Homonymy.”+&btnG=.

Aristotle.DeAnima.TranslatedandeditedbyChristopher

Shields.Oxford:ClarendonPress,2016.

Aristotle.OntheGenerationofAnimals.ElectronicScholarly

Publishing.http://www.esp.

org/books/aristotle/generation-of-animals/.

Irwin,T.H.“HomonymyinAristotle.”TheReviewof

Metaphysics34,no.3(March1981):523–44.https://www.

jstor.org/stable/20127534.

Lennox,James.“Aristotle’sBiology.”InStanfordEncyclopediaof

Philosophy,editedbyEdwardN.Zalta.Stanford:Stanford

University,2006.https://plato.stanford.

edu/archives/fall2021/entries/aristotle-biology/

Miller,FredD.“Aristotle'sPhilosophyofSoul.”TheReviewof

Metaphysics53,no.2(December1999):309–337.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20131355.

Mirus,ChristopherV.“HomonymyandtheMatterofthe

LivingBody.”AncientPhilosophy21,no.2(Fall2001):

357–373.https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?

openform&fp=ancientphil&id=ancientphil_2001_0021_

0002_0357_0374.



2. v

1.Roncaglia,

“Continuity

Through

Change:Augustusanda

ChangeWithoutaBreak,”

91–106.

REFRAMINGROME1IMPERIALNARRATIVEANDTHE

TEMPLEOFAUGUSTANCONCORD

2MamieMurphy,UniversityofKansas

E verythingneedstochange,soeverythingcanstaythe

same”:aphrasefromGiuseppediLampedusa’snovel

TheLeopardthatdocumentsthesocialtransformation

ofSicilyduringthe19th-centuryItalianUnification.Alessandro

Roncalgiawasamongthefirsttorecognizethatthisphrasealso

speakstoaperiodmuchearlierintheItalianPeninsula’shistory:

AugustanRome. 1 Brieflystated,theRomanSenateawarded

Octavian (esteemed statesman and adopted son of Julius

Caesar)withthetitleAugustusandthehonorificpositionof

princepsin27BCEfollowinghisvictoryoverpoliticalrivalsMark

Antony and CleopatraVII.Augustus’ assumption of power

effectivelyendedtheturmoiloftheLateRepublicandbegan

Rome’sshifttoanautocraticempire.Thetransitionalperiodof

fantasticnavalbattles,ghastlyassassinations,andstar-crossed

loveaffairsisnotablyreferencedinShakespeare’sfamousplays

JuliusCaesarandAntonyandCleopatra,Dante’sepicpoemThe

Divine Comedy, and Joseph Mankiewicz’s hit-film Cleopatra

starringElizabethTaylor.However,Augustus’risetopowerwas

notascharmingaslegendmayassert.Inreality,theAugustan

administrationdesignedacalculatedvisualprogrammetoearn

supportfromtheRomanpublic.

2.ThoughthehonorificofficeofprincepsisnowassociatedwithRomanemperors,

theofficewasnotoriginallyintendedtosanctionauthoritarianism.Infact,theword

hadahealthyrelationshipwiththeRomanRepublic,asthepluralofprinceps

(principes)wasoftenusedinrepublicanRomanliteraturetoreferto“chiefmanof

thestate.”UndertheRepublic,thismanwasoftentheprincepssenatus—the

Senate’sleadingmember.

Forfurther

discussionof

thistopic,see

Hornblower,

Spawforth

andEidinow,

TheOxford

ClassicalDictionary.

ThoughtheofficeofprincepsisnowassociatedwithRoman

emperors,theSenatedidnotoriginallyintendfortheposition

topavethewayforautocracy. 2 Infact,asthefirstmantohold

thepositionofprinceps,Augustusneededtoquellconcernsof

dictatorshiptoavoidmeetingthesameendashisadoptive

father.Augustusemphasizedbothhishumilityasacivilservant

andasachampionoftheRepublicinhisautobiographyRes

GestaeDiviAugusti(TheDeedsoftheDivineAugustus),insisting

thatthoughhe“tookprecedenceofall[Romans]inrank[as

princeps],”hepossessednomorepowerthananyothermember

76REFRAMINGROME

oftheSenate. 3

Thus,AugustusintertwinedhimselfwiththefabricofRome

morediscreetlytoavoidalarmingtheSenateorthepublic.If

eitherentityfelttheprincepsnolongercontributedtoRome’s

stabilityorerredtoomuchonthesideofdictatorship,they

could toppleAugustus and incite civil war once again.To

combatthis,Augustusdevelopedanimperialnarrativethat

reinforcedhisvitalroleinRomanpoliticsanddisseminatedthe

narrativethroughtheconstructionofmonumentalbuilding

projects embedded with a curated programme of familiar

Romanlegendsandvalues.Repairing82templesinhisfirstyear

alone,AugustusisfamouslycitedinSuetonius’ssecond-century

collectionofbiographiesDeVitaCaesarum(TheTwelveCaesars)

forclaimingthathe“foundRomeacityofbrickandleftitacity

ofmarble.” 4 Augustuslikelyspokemetaphorically,however,

commentingmoreonhowhisactionsasprincepsconverted

Romeintoacityworthyofinternationalprestigeratherthanon

thebuildingprojectsthemselves.

Though scholars have conducted extensive research on

Augustanarchitecture,theAedesConcordiaeAugustae(Temple

ofAugustanConcord)islargelyabsentfromtheconversation

(seefig.1).Incontrast,thisstudyrecognizestheintegralrolethe

templeplayedintheAugustanvisualprogrammeandexamines

thetemple’sreinforcementofAugustus’authorityoverthe

Roman Empire.This study’s analysis of the temple will be

framedthroughtheRomanvaluesofconcord,triumph,and

continuity,allofwhichAugustusreframedtosuithisimperial

aims.

LocatedatthefootoftheCapitolineHill,thetemplestandsin

almosttotalruinbehindtheArchofSeptimiusSeverusandin

frontoftheTabulariumonthenorthwestsideoftheRoman

Forum(seefig.2). 5 Archaeologistsbeganexcavationin1812,

discoveringthecella(innerchamber)andafewremnantsof

sculptureatthesite.Thethresholdoftheinnerchamberisstill

intactandconsistsoftwomassiveslabsofpink-grayChian

marble.Archeologistsmovedthetemple’sextantartifactsto

REFRAMINGROME77

3.Augustus,

ResGestae

DiviAugusti,

34.3:“After

thattimeI

tookprecedenceofall

inrank,but

ofpowerI

possessedno

morethan

thosewho

weremycolleaguesin

anymagistracy”;I

translateall

Latinthat

appearsin

thispaper.

4.Suetonius,

TheTwelve

Caesars,

28.3.1.

5.Claridge

andToms,

“Templeof

Concordia

Augusta,”77.

6.Gorskiand

Packer,The

RomanForum:AReconstructionand

Archeological

Guide,171.

the Tabularium in the 19th century and conserved the

architecturalruinsintheRomanForum. 6

Figure1

Artist’srecreationoftheTempleofAugustanConcordasit

stoodinthefirstcenturyCE,LashaTskhondia

ARomansestertius,nowhousedintheBritishMuseum,helpsto

roundouttheinformationmissingfromthetemple’sminimal

remains.Mintedbetween34-35CEbyAugustus’adoptedson

and successor Tiberius, this sestertius provides the most

accuratedepictionofthetemple’sexterioruncoveredthusfar.

Augustusoftenincludedwell-knownsymbolsofhisruleon

coinstoevokeasenseofRomanprideinthepublic.Tiberius

likelymirroredhisstepfather,selectingtheTempleofAugustan

ConcordasacirculatableemblemofthePaxRomana(Roman

peace)—aperiodthatbeganunderAugustus. 7 Thereverseof

theTiberiansestertiusincludesanillustrationofthetemple’s

facade, identifiable by the cult statue of Concordia (the

goddessofpeace)positionedinthecenter(seefig.3).Onthe

obverseistheLatininscriptionthattranslatesto“‘Tiberius

Caesar,sonofdivineAugustus,emperor[Augustus],highpriest,

holderoftribunicianpowerforthe36thtime’”(seefig.3). 8

7.Wallace-Hadrill,

“Imageand

Authorityin

theCoinage

ofAugustus,”

71.

8.Numista,

“Sestertius:Ti

CaesarDivi

AvgFAvgvst

PMTRPot

XXXVI;Victoria”;Elkins,

Monumentsin

Miniature:Architectureon

Roman

Coinage,70.

Figure2

ExtantruinsoftheTempleofAugustanConcordastheystand

today,CassiusAhenobarbus

78REFRAMINGROME

Figure3

ThereverseandobverseoftheTiberiansestertiicoinsdisplaying

theTempleofAugustanConcord,firstcenturyCE,TheTrustees

oftheBritishMuseum

However,Augustusisnottheonlyleadertorecognizethevalue

ofbuildingaunifyingnarrative.Eventoday,nations’social

institutionsdeterminewhichculturalaspectsdistinguishtheir

societyfromotherstoproduceasharedidentity. 9 Modern

scholarsrefertothisideaascollectivememory,buttheconcept

dates back to nearly a century beforeAugustus’ reign.An

anonymousauthorwritinginthelate80sBCEdiscussedthe

REFRAMINGROME79

9.Orlin,“AugustanReconstruction

andRoman

Memory,”

138.

10.[Cicero?],

Rhetoricaad

Herennium,

22.3.

11. [Cicero?],

Rhetoricaad

Herennium,

21.5:“Now,

sinceinnormalcases

someimages

arestrong

constructionofcollectivememoryinhisbookonpersuasive

rhetoricRhetoricaadHerennium(RhetoricforHerennius).The

bookwaspublishedduringtheturbulenceoftheLateRepublic,

claiming memory could be used as a political tool for

unification.

The text states that though humans rarely remember the

mundane, they do remember the “exceptionally base,

dishonorable,extraordinary,great,unbelievable,orlaughable”

storiesfromhistory. 10 Thisanalysisofmemorysuggestedthat

Romanleadersshouldcapitalizeonthe“striking”moments

fromtheirhistorytoremindtheRomansoftheirsharedpast. 11

TheRomanpublicwaslargelyilliterate,leadingtheRomanelite

toheavilyrelyonavisuallanguageofrecognizablesymbols

associated with certain ideas to convey information. 12 The

curationofthesefamiliarsymbolsintheartandarchitectureof

Romeprovedtobeoneofthemosteffectivemannersforthe

widedisseminationofinformationandforgaininginfluence,as

the public viewed the symbols every day, ingraining the

associatedmessagesintotheirminds. 13

andsharp

andsuitableforawakeningrecollection…wemayknowwhichimagestoavoidand

whichtoseek”;[Cicero?],RhetoricaadHerennium,22.8:“Letart,then,imitatenature,findwhatshedesires,andfollowasshedirects”;[Cicero?],RhetoricaadHerennium,22.10:“Weought,then,tosetupimagesofakindthatcanadherelongestin

thememory.Andweshalldosoifweestablishlikenessesasstrikingaspossible…”.

12.Vasaly,Representations:ImagesoftheWorldinCiceronianOratory,99.

13. Galaty,“Introduction:CollectiveMemoryDefined,”3;Orlin,“AugustanReconstruction,”118-119;Favro,TheUrbanImageofAugustanRome,86;Galinsky,“MemoriaRomana:MemoryinRomeandRomeinMemory,”2.

14.Inge

Nielsen,“CreatingImperial

Architecture,”

45.

TemplesspecificallyplayedanimportantroleinRomanpolitics.

TheRomansdidnotseparatereligionfromgovernment,leading

themtomakepoliticaldecisionsinreligiousspacesinhopesof

receivingdivineguidance. 14 Forexample,republicangenerals

often visited temples to strike deals with the gods before

engaginginmilitarycampaignsandbuilttemplestoshowtheir

gratitudeforvictory. 15 Templeswerealsoamongthelargest

buildingsinRome,allowingthemtofunctionascomfortable

80REFRAMINGROME

meetingspacesfortheSenate. 16 Therefore,theRomanswere

notstrangerstothepoliticizationoftheirreligiousspacesand

werelikelyunfazedbyAugustus’useoftheTempleofAugustan

Concordinhisimperialnarrative.

Infact,theTempleofAugustanConcordpossessedalengthy

historyofpoliticizationbytheAugustanage.Romanstatesman

MarcusFuriusCamillusfirsterectedthetemplein367BCE.

ThensimplyreferredtoastheAedesConcordiae(Templeof

Concord),thetemplecelebratedtheexpandedrightsofthe

plebeiansandemphasizedtheSenate’sdedicationtoquelling

civil disputes. 17 In Vitae Parallelae (Parallel Lives), Plutarch

recordedaconflictbetweentheSenateandtheplebeiansin

thefourthcenturyBCEthatnearlyescalatedintoariotinthe

RomanForum.PlutarchstatedthatCamillusquicklygathered

the senators to develop a bloodless resolution, but first

stoppedtopraytothegodsandvowedtobuildatempleto

celebratepeaceifthegodspacifiedtheplebeians'discontent. 18

When the Senate announced the Licinian-Sextian Laws

followingthemeeting,theplebeiansimmediatelyapproved

andharmonywasrestoredinRome.Aspromised,Camillusbuilt

theTempleofConcordtohonorthenewfoundpeace. 19

TwocenturiesafterCamillus’construction,Romanpolitician

LuciusOpimiusrefurbishedthetempleinanotherattemptto

restore harmony. Once again, Plutarch recorded a massive

uprisingin121BCEwhenOpimiusexecutedGaiusGracchusand

his supporters in hopes of dispelling political opposition.

OpimiusthenrebuiltCamillus’TempleofConcordtoremind

thepublicoftheimportanceofovercomingcivilstrifeandof

Roman unity. 20 However, in reality, the renewed struggle

betweenthepatriciansandtheplebeiansonlyremindedthe

RomansoftheSenate’sinadequacyandthetemplefelloutof

favor. 21

IfAugustuswantedtoasserthisauthorityforthefuture,hefirst

needed to remedy the political failures of the past.Thus,

AugustuspermittedTiberiustospearheadthereconstruction

oftheTempleofConcordin7CE. 22 Regardlessoftheapathy

RomansfelttowardthetempleatthestartofAugustus’reign,

REFRAMINGROME81

15.Hekster

andRich,

“Octavian

andthe

Thunderbolt:

TheTemple

ofApollo

Palatinusand

RomanTraditionsofTempleBuilding,”

152.

16. Russell,

“TheDefinitionofPoliticalSpacein

theForum

Romanum,”

57.

18.Plutarch,

TheParallel

Lives,42.3.

19.Ovid,

Fasti,

1.641–644.

20.Appian,

TheCivil

Wars,1.3.26.

17.Orlin,“AugustanReconstruction,”122.

21.Orlin,“AugustanReconstruction,”122.

22.Cassius

Dio,Roman

History,

55.8.2;

56.25.1.

23.Lobur,

Consensus,

Concordiaand

theFormation

ofRomanImperialIdeology,95.

24.Orlin,

“Augustan

Reconstruction,”123.

25.Orlin,

“Augustan

Reconstruction,”

123–124.

26.Gorski

andPacker,

TheRoman

Forum,172.

theTempleofConcordservedasanimportantpieceofRoman

historythatcouldnotbeignored.Yet,Augustuscouldalsonot

simplyerasetheunfavorablememoriesandassignnewmeaning

tothetemplewithoutanyhistoricalsupport.Traditionheldthe

highest authority in ancient Rome and thereforeAugustus

neededtoadheretothetemple’soriginalassociationwith

peacetonotraiseconcernabouttheintentionsofhisbuilding

projects. 23

Instead,Augustusreframedthetemple’sexistinghistoryto

betterfithisimperialnarrative.Whenrenovationsconcludedin

10CE,theAugustanadministrationtooktheirfirststeptoward

reframingthetemplebyrenamingittheTempleofAugustan

Concord, connecting Augustus to Rome’s most prevalent

symbolofpeace.Aftertherenamingofthetemple,thepublic

couldnolongerseparateAugustusfromthecivilharmonythe

templehistoricallyrepresented.Thetemple’snewnamealso

overrodethememoriesoftherepublicantemple,astheyno

longercontributedtothestoryAugustussoughttotell. 24

The Augustan administration also adjusted the temple’s

dedicationdayfromCamillus’July22ndtoJanuary16thinorder

tofurtherconnectthetempletoAugustus.Thededicationday

ofaRomanmonumentspurredmassivecelebration,typically

including a public procession through the streets, a

commemoration of the story or value the monument

represented,andajubileeforthemonument’sfounder.January

16th,27BCEwasthedayOctavianreceivedthetitleofAugustus

fromtheSenate,leadingthetemple’snewdedicationdayto

encouragetheRomanpublictocelebrateAugustuseachyear,

asopposedtocelebratingthelesseffectiveleadersofthe

temple’spast(atleastaccordingtotheimperialnarrative). 25

Inadditiontochangingthetemple’snameanddedicationday,

the Augustan administration reconfigured the temple’s

exterior. A.M. Ferroni uncovered evidence that Camillus

originallybuiltthetempleintherectangularEtruscanstyle

typicallyutilizedinearlyRomanarchitecture,measuring135

feetx98feet. 26 However,theAugustanversionofthetemple

appearedstrikinglydifferent.Tiberiusredesignedthetempleto

82REFRAMINGROME

beroughly148feetx75feetandcrossedtheporticoandthe

innerchamberinsteadofmaintainingtheoriginalrectangular

shape.Tiberiusalsomovedthetemple’sfacadetothelongest

sideofthebuildingtoallowforagreatertowerofstepsleading

totheentranceandanarrowerporchatthetop. 27 Thedramatic

reconstructionofferedacleanslateforthetempletoserveas

animperialmouthpiecewithoutitsnegativeassociationsfrom

theRepublic. 28

Augustus’ imperial narrative deliberately emphasized his

adherence to the authentic culture of Rome through the

preservation of traditional values and monuments.Though

Augustus’totalcontrolofRomewasunprecedentedandhe

overrodeanumberofrepublicanassociationswithimperial

messaging,Augustusdidsoasastaunchrepublicanwiththe

intention of restoring Rome to its former glory.Therefore,

Augustus presented imperial Rome as an unadulterated

extensionoftheRomanpastbecause,tohim,therewasno

differentiation.Bothindesignandmessaging,theTempleof

AugustanConcordreframedthreetraditionalRomanvalues:

concord,triumph,andcontinuity.Thispaperbrieflydiscusses

the origins of the three values and analyzes theAugustan

administration’s appropriation of each value through an

examinationofthetemple’sartandarchitecture.

Concord

TheRomansviewedconcordasanintegralpieceofRoman

morality.AconceptadoptedfromtheGreeks,theRomans

regardedgreedasthesourceofallconflict,believingconflict

onlyoccurredwhenanindividualoragrouptookmorethan

their fair share of power, land, or resources from other

individuals.Therefore,theRomansregardeddisharmonyas

immoralanddeemedharmonytobetheresultofsimplicityand

thrift.WheneachRomanlivedamodestlife,societyremained

peacefulbecauseeachcitizenhadthenecessaryresourcesto

flourish.Wheneachcitizenflourished,Romeunitedandwas

abletothrivemilitarilyandtechnologically.However,when

someRomansdemandedmorepowerandresourcesthanother

Romans,balancefalteredandRomefellintounproductive

chaos. 29

REFRAMINGROME83

27.Claridge

andToms,

“Templeof

Concordia

Augusta,”77.

28.Orlin,

“Augustan


29.Lobur,

Consensus,

Concordiaand

theFormation

ofRomanImperialIdeology,40–41.

30.Sallust,

Bellum

Jugurthinum,

10.5.

31.Claridge

andToms,

“Templeof

Concordia

Augusta,”77;

TheBritish

Museum,

“Coin.”

32.Reber

andMarceau,

“TheTemple

ofConcordin

theRoman

Forum,”73.

Duetothemoralgravityofconcord,thecivilstrifeoftheLate

RepublicprovedparticularlytraumaticfortheRomans.They

viewedtheturmoilasevidenceofRome’srisinggreedand,in

particular,theimmoralitycausedbypoliticiansstrayingfrom

traditional Roman values. The Roman historian Sallust

observed the need for concord in 41 BCE in his historical

monographBellumJugurthinum(TheJugurthineWar).Written

shortlyafterJuliusCaesar’scivilwaranddeath,thebookserved

asacritiqueofthemoraldeclineofRomanpoliticsinthefirst

century BCE. Sallust’s most notable remark from the text

displayed the Romans’ belief that political depravity could

destroyRome,reading:“smallstatesgrowthroughconcord,but

discordunderminesthegreatest.” 30

Thetemple’sexteriorstatuaryexploitedthepanictheRomans

feltduringtheLateRepublicandconvincedthemthatAugustus

alone was responsible for the restoration of peace. As

confirmedbytheTiberiansestertius,threegoddessstatues

stoodattheapexofthepedimentlinkingarms.Scholarsbelieve

thecentralfiguretobeConcordiawitheitherPaxandSalus(the

goddessesofpeaceandsalvation)orSecuritasandFortuna(the

goddesses of security and fortune) to her right and left. 31

Regardless of the accompanying figures, Augustus placed

Concordiainthemostvisibleandcommandingpositiononthe

temple, reiterating the importance of the concord she

represented.Twosmallerstatuesofsoldiersstoodoneither

sideofthethreegoddesses,likelydepictingTiberiusandhis

brotherDrusus.TheplacementofAugustus’stepsonsbeside

thegoddessesnotonlydisplayedthegods'approvalofthe

imperialfamily,butalsodirectlylinkedthemtotheharmony

thethreegoddessessymbolized.

The sestertius also indicates that statues of Mercury and

Herculesstoodatthetopofthetemple’sstaircase.Mercury

gripped his signature caduceus staff in his right hand—a

well-knownsymbolofpeaceintheMediterranean.Herculesis

amongthemostwidely-knownheroesfromantiquity,famous

forhisgooddeeds,fortitude,andcouragethatconsistently

reinstatedpeaceacrosstheregion. 32 Hercules’presenceatthe

temple encouraged Romans to recall Augustus’ similar

attributesandgoalsfortheEmpire. 33 Thecaduceussymbolwas

84REFRAMINGROME

alsoinlaidinbronzeonthestepsleadingintothetemple,once

againreiteratingtheimportanceofpeaceinAugustanRome. 34

Additionally, the Augustan administration curated the art

insidethetempletoexpressmessagesrelatingtoAugustan

concord.Archaeologistsuncoveredthebasesofthreestatues

onthetemple’srearwall,likelyservingasthelocationfora

fantastictributetoConcordia.ThestatueofConcordiawould

haverestedonthecentralbaseprojectingfromthewall,with

the two narrower bases on either side supporting smaller

statues of Augustus and his wife Livia. 35 The statues of

Concordia,Augustus, and Livia likely carried an analogous

sentimenttothestatuesofConcordia,Tiberius,andDrususon

theexteriorofthetemple.Concordia’slargersizesignifiedthat

shewasthestrongestforceintheEmpire,whiletheinclusionof

AugustusandLiviaassertedthatAugustusandtheimperial

familyworkedalongsideConcordiatoupholdstabilityinRome.

Justasavisitortothetemplewouldnotbeabletoisolateone

statue from the other two when observing the display,

separatingconcordfromAugustuswasintendedtobeequally

difficult.

Theinteriorofthetemplealsoincorporatedimageryofminor

godsconnectedtoconcord.Forexample,Tiberiusincluded

statuesofthegodAsclepiusandthegoddessHygeiaintheinner

chambertorepresenthealingandplenty. 36 Augustuswanted

theRomanpublictofeelasthoughhisrulehealedthemfrom

theimmoralityanddiscordoftheLateRepublicandinstead

offeredthemmoralabsolutionandanabundanceofRoman

pride.Further,theAugustanadministrationincludedstatuesof

theRomangodsoftheseasonsandelementsasoneofthe

centraldisplaysinthetemple.Theeightgodstogetherrecalled

theGreektraditionofHarmonia,whichsymbolizedthenatural

balanceoftheuniverse.AugustusadaptedtheGreekconcept

usingtheRomancounterpartstoassertthatAugustanRome

establishedanewsenseofbalanceintheuniverse—abalance

asnaturalasGreekHarmonia. 37

REFRAMINGROME85

33.Claridge

andToms,

“Templeof

Concordia

Augusta,”77.

34.Kellum,

“TheCity

Adorned:

ProgrammaticDisplay

attheAedes

Concordiae

Augustae,”

279.

35.Reber

andMarceau,

“TheTemple

ofConcord,”

75.

36.Pliny,

NaturalHistory,

34.19.80.

37.Kellum,

“TheCity

Adorned,”

279.

38.Popkin,

TheArchitectureofthe

RomanTriumph:Monuments,MemoryandIdentity,21–22.

39.Popkin,


RomanTriumph,21.

40.Popkin,


RomanTriumph,22.

41.Pliny,NaturalHistory,

36.67.2–4.

Triumph

Romefunctionedasawarriorsociety,leadingthevalueof

triumph to serve as a crucial aspect of Roman culture.

EspeciallyasRomebeganexpandingacrosstheMediterranean,

theRomansinterpretedtheirknackforimperialismtobea

qualitythatdifferentiatedthemfromothercivilizations. 38 To

further emphasize Rome's unique ability to triumph, the

Romansparticipatedintriumphalprocessionsthroughoutthe

city.Triumphalprocessionstypicallycelebratedavictorious

militarygeneralandoftenshowcasedthewarbootypillaged

fromtheconqueredterritory,astheRomanstatesmensought

to“deliberatelyset[theRomanpublic]inopposition”tothe

civilizationstheydefeated.Thestatesmenalsowantedthe

publictointerprettheirromanitas(Romanness)assuperiorto

theidentitiesoftheirconqueredprovinces. 39 Theostentatious

theatricsoftheprocessionsonlyfurtherencouragedtheRoman

publictofeel confidentinthedistinctivenessoftheRoman

abilitytoimperialize,causingtriumphtofurtherembeditself

intotheRomanvaluesystem.

The Augustan administration capitalized on Augustus’

figurativetriumphoverRome’simpendingself-destructionin

theLateRepublicanperiod.Accordingtotheimperialnarrative,

Rome only possessed the ability to continue imperializing

becauseAugustusquelledcivilunrest. 40 IfAugustushadfailed,

corruptsenatorsorexternalcivilizationscouldhaveoverrun

Rome,abandoningtraditionalRomancultureandmemory.The

Augustan administration wanted the Roman populace to

believethatAugustus’triumphovertheRepublic’sdiscordwas

avictoryforallRomansandthereforetriumphandAugustus

couldnotbeseparated.

In Naturalis Historia (Natural History), Pliny describes “four

elephantstatues[inthetemple]carvedoutofsolidobsidian”so

grand that evenAugustus referred to them as “something

marvelous.” 41 Though the Romans rarely used elephants in

battle,elephantsheldamilitaristicconnotationinantiquityas

aresultofAlexandertheGreat’sconquestsinAsia. 42 TheGreeks

(namelyAlexander’sPtolemaicsuccessors)usedtheelephantto

symbolizetheirconquestofforeignlands.TheRomanslikely

inheritedthesymbolfromthePtolemies,asthePtolemaic

86REFRAMINGROME

42.VanOppende

Ruiter,“Mondynasty

ruled Egypt from the fourth century BCE until

Cleopatra’sdeathin30BCE. 43

Thus, the Augustan administration likely intended for the

elephantstatuesintheTempleofAugustanConcordtorecall

memoriesoflegendaryRomanvictoriesinforeignlands.Much

likehowelephantswereunfamiliartotheItalianPeninsula,the

customsandlootedobjectsofRome’simperialprovinceswere

unfamiliar to the Romans. The Romans channeled their

bewildermentintothedesiretospreadtheir(assumed)superior

Romanidealsandculturetoexternalcivilizations. 44

AnumberofAugustanobjectsincludedimageryofelephantsas

asymbolofRomantriumphoverforeignfoes.Themostnotable

exampleistheCoupeàl'Afrique,asilverdishuncoveredina

cisternoftablewareattheVilladellaPisanellainBoscoreale,

Italy.TheeruptionofMountVesuviusin79CEpreservedthe

collectionofoveronehundredsilverartifacts,nicknamedthe

BoscorealeTreasure,whichiscurrentlyhousedintheLouvre 45 .

ThecupdatestotheAugustanperiodanddepictsCleopatra

andAntony’soldestdaughterCleopatraSelenewearingan

“exuviaelephantis(thespoilsofanelephant)”whileimprisoned

inRome.ThepatricianslivingattheVilladellaPisanellalikely

sought to accentuate Cleopatra Selene’s exoticness as an

Egyptian to exaggerate Augustus’ victory over external

opposition(Cleopatra)andtraitorousRomansthatcolluded

with foreigners (Antony) when designing the dish. 46 The

elephantsintheTempleofAugustanConcordsoughttoconvey

thesamemessage.

Theinnerchamberofthetemplealsoshowcasedanimpressive

collectionofGreekart.Ornatelydecorated,theinnerchamber

emphasizedthe“far-reachingmilitarysuccess”thatallowed

Rometogatherthebestartistsintheknownworldtodecorate

the temple. Archaeologists uncovered evidence of famous

Hellenistic statues, such as a statue of Hestia (the Greek

goddessofhearth)thatTiberiusallegedlylootedduringhis

conquestofParos,Greece.Additionally,thetempledisplayed

fiveHellenisticbronzesculpturesandopulentpanelpaintings

from famous Greek artists Zeuxis, Nikias, and Theodoros.

REFRAMINGROME87

stersofMilitaryMight:

Elephantsin

Hellenistic

Historyand

Art,”29.

43.Martiz,

“FromRoman

AfricatoRomanAmerica,”462.

44.Martiz,

“FromRoman

AfricatoRomanAmerica,”461.

45.Draycott,

“Dynastic

Politics,Defeat,Decadenceand

Dining:

CleopatraSeleneonthe

So-Called

‘Africa’Dish

fromtheVilla

Della

Pisanellaat

Boscoreale,”

50.

46.VanOppende

Ruiter,“MonstersofMilitaryMight,”

11.

47.Cassius

Dio,Roman

History,

55.9.6;Gorski

andPacker,

TheRoman

Forum,168;

Aicher,“The

RomanForum,”95;

Claridgeand

Toms,“TempleofConcordiaAugusta,”77-78.

48.Davies,

Rome,Global

Dreamsand

International

Originsofan

Empire,31.

49.Augustus,

ResGestae

1.2;Augustus,ResGestae6.1.

Though the Romans revered Greek culture, the Augustan

administration intended for the art collection to reiterate

Rome’sabilitytotriumphovereventhemostimpressiveof

civilizations. 47

Continuity

Finally, the Augustan administration used the temple’s

reconstructiontohighlightAugustus'dedicationtopreserving

theRomanpast.PreservingRomanhistoryandtraditionheld

theutmostimportanceinRomansociety.TheRomansviewed

theircultureasthefoundationforcivilizationbecauseofits

connection to the Greeks. The Greeks focused on the

exploration of logic, reason, and science instead of the

superstitionthathadbeencommonintheancientworld.Their

pursuitofrationalknowledgedevelopedintoWesternhistory’s

firstintroductiontohumanism,inspiringtheGreekstowrite

thrilling tales of imperfect heroes, encourage public

participation in politics, and represent the human body

accuratelyinart.TotheRomans,nootherculturepossessed

thesamesophisticationastheGreeks.Thus,Romefeltan

obligationtocontinuetheuniquerefinementofancientGreece

throughRomanculture. 48

AugustusintentionallyframedtheEmpireasacontinuationof

theRepublic,astheRomansvaluedtheirhistorytoomuchfor

Augustustodemonizetherepublicanpast.Instead,inRes

Gestae, Augustus spoke of “restoring liberty to the

Republic…and [to the] many traditions of [republican]

ancestors.” 49 Augustus’useoftheword“restore”indicatesthat

Augustusdidnotseektoreplacethepast,butrathertobuild

uponit,encouragingthepublictoembracetheEmpireunder

the assumption that supporting Augustan Rome was

supportingthepreservationofRomanmemory.Accordingto

theimperialnarrative,Augustuscouldhavetorndownthe

originalTempleofConcordandbuiltanentirelynewstructure,

butheinsteadchosetorestoreitbecausethetempleheld

immense significance in Roman history. 50 Demolishing the

templewouldhavefullyeraseditfromRomanmemory,creating

aproblematicdividebetweenthepastandthepresent.

To prove this point, theAugustan administration included

statuesoftheGreekgodApollointhetempleinorderto

intertwine Augustus with Rome’s mythological past. 51 The

RomanspossessedaspecialaffinityforGreekmythology,even

incorporatingGreekcharactersintoRomanlegend.Apollowas

amongtheselectedGreekgods,servingasthedeityofthesun,

music,dance,healing,andtruth.AsoneofRome’sfavorite

gods,theRepubliccelebratedApollothroughtheinfamouscult

of Apollo, the Ludi Apollinares (Apollonian Games), and

extravaganttemples. 52

50.Orlin,

“Augustan


51.Pliny,NaturalHistory,

34.19.128–129

52.Zanker,

“Townscape

andIdeology

intheAgeof

Augustus,”in

Pompeii:PublicandPrivate

Life,80.

AugustuscapitalizedonhisfabledrelationshipwithApolloto

positionhimselfindirectoppositiontoAntony. 53 AsAntony

continuedtorevelinEgypt,theRomanslikenedhimtothe

GreekgodDionysus.TheRomansassociatedDionysuswiththe

East, claiming an Asian woman mothered him before he

traveledtotheMediterranean.Antonyupheldtheassociation,

spendingthemajorityofhisdaysindulginginEgyptianpleasures

with Cleopatra. 54 Augustus, on the other hand, presented

himselfasa‘Westernman’onlyinterestedinRomanculture,in

hopesofgainingsupportfromtheRomanpublic. 55 TheRomans

had adopted the Greeks’ view ofApollo and Dionysus as

antithesesandcontrastedAugustusandAntonyusingsimilar

paradoxes,suchasWesternversusEasternorRomancontinuity

versusforeignchaos.Augustusfurthersolidifiedhisconnection

toApollo in 28 BCE when he dedicated the AedesApollo

Palatinus(TempleofApolloonthePalatineHill)andevenlinked

theterraceofthetempletohisprivateresidence. 56

TheAugustan administration’s use ofApollonian art in the

TempleofAugustanConcordframedAugustusasaleaderwho

fiercelyappreciatedRomantradition.Aspreviouslymentioned,

AugustuswantedtheRomanpublictofeelasthoughtherewas

nodividebetweenrepublicanandimperialRome.Therefore,

AugustusrelatedhimselftoApollotoemphasizethathewas

not easily lost in Eastern viewpoints or a lifestyle that

53.RomanlegendholdsthatthecultofApollothatexistednearActiumallowed

ApollotohelpleadAugustustovictoryattheBattleofActium.Forfurtherdiscussionofthis

topic,see

Hoff,“Augustus,Apollo

andAthens,”

228.

54.Hoff,“Augustus,

Apolloand

Athens,”228;

Miller,Apollo,

Augustusand

thePoets,

26.

55.Hoffad

loc.

56.Zanker,

“Townscape

andIdeology

intheAgeof

Augustus,”

80;Coarelli,

Romeand

Environs:An

Archeological

Guide,142.

88REFRAMINGROME

REFRAMINGROME89

57.Gowing,

Empireand

Memory:The

Representationofthe

RomanRepublicinImperialCulture,

145.

58.Claridge

andToms,

“Templeof

Concordia

Augusta,”77.

contradicted the virtues of Greco-Roman heroes, unlike

Antony.

In addition to preserving the past, the Romans also felt

obligatedtoensurethefutureofRomancivilization.Through

thetemple’simageryalludingtodynasticsuccession,Augustus

and the imperial family established a sense of eternal

continuity.AugustuswantedtheRomanpublictobelievethat

aslongashislineheldpower,Romewouldpeacefullyendure. 57

Asreferencedwhendiscussingthevalueofconcord,statuesof

TiberiusandDrususstoodbesidethethreegoddessstatuesat

theapexofthepediment. 58 ThestatuesofAugustus’stepsons

not only linked the imperial family to concord, but also

confirmedTiberiusandDrususasAugustus’heirs.Justasthe

TempleofAugustanConcordsymbolizedAugustus’dedication

tothecontinuityofRome,TiberiusandDrusus’presenceonthe

templeconnectedthemtothesamevalue.

Every civilization requires a unifying narrative to survive.A

leader’s motive for curating the narrative is seldom

ill-intentioned,butratherisafundamentalaspectofbuildinga

cohesive and functioning society. Rome’s transition from a

republic to an autocratic empire demanded Augustus to

constructanimperialnarrativethatsubstantiatedthemassive

politicalshift.Asinmanysocieties,theRomanslookedtotheir

coins,architecture,andstatuarytointerpretwhichlegendsand

values held the most importance in Roman culture. The

imperialnarrativedidnotseektostandalonefromthehistory

oftheRomanRepublicandcertainlydidnotintendtocausea

cultural divide between Rome’s past and present. Instead,

Augustus’ imperial narrative utilized integral elements of

republicanRomeandreframedthemtofitwithastorythat

supported Augustus and the continuation of the Roman

Empire.Today,societiesrallybehindtheircivilizations’unique

story using similar tactics, such as public education, flags,

nationalanthems,andmonuments.Withoutasharedhistorical

interpretationandanagreed-uponsetofideals,therewouldbe

nobasisforsocietalunity.

SOURCESFORFIGURES

Ahenobarbus,Cassius.VestigesdutempledelaConcorde,

ForumRomanum.Image.https://commons.wikimedia.

org/wiki/File:Temple-concorde-vestiges.

jpg#/media/File:Temple-concorde-vestiges.jpg.Creative

CommonsLicense(CCBY-SA3.0),https://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en.

TheTrusteesoftheBritishMuseum.Reverseandobverseof

sestertiuscoinR.6385.Image.https://www.britishmuseum.

org/collection/object/C_R-6385.CreativeCommonsLicense

(CCBY-NC-SA4.0),https://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

Tskhondia,Lasha.ADerivativeWorkofa3DModel.Image.

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?

mid=5fcb88a24340ad116626df250d84698&ct=mdrm&prev

start=0.CreativeCommonsLicense(CCBY-SA3.0),

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en.

90REFRAMINGROME

REFRAMINGROME91

REFRAMINGROME93

92REFRAMINGROME

WORKSCITED

PrimarySources0

Appian.TheCivilWarsBook1.TranslatedbyBillThayer.Loeb

ClassicalLibrary,1913.https://penelope.uchicago.

edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/appian/civil_wars/1*.html.

Augustus.ResGestaeDiviAugusti.TranslatedbyFrederickW.

Shipley.LoebClassicalLibrary,1924.https://penelope.

uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_

Gestae/home.html.

CassiusDio.RomanHistory.TranslatedbyBillThayer.Loeb

ClassicalLibrary,1978.http://penelope.uchicago.

edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html.

[Cicero?].RhetoricaadHerennium.TranslatedbyHarryCaplan.

LoebClassicalLibrary,1954.http://www.laits.utexas.

edu/memoria/Ad_Herennium_Passages.html.

Suetonius.TheTwelveCaesars.TranslatedbyBillThayer.Loeb


edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/suetonius/12caesars/augustus*.

html.

Ovid.Fasti.TranslatedbythePresidentandFellowsof

HarvardCollege.LoebClassicalLibrary,2021.https://www.

loebclassics.com/view/ovid-fasti/1931/pb_LCL253.3.xml.

Pliny.NaturalHistory.TranslatedbyTrevorMurphy.Oxford,

England:OxfordUniversityPress,2004.

Plutarch.TheParallelLives.TranslatedbyBillThayer.Loeb


edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Camillus*.html.

Sallust.BellumJugurthinum.TranslatedbyRev.JohnSelby

Watson.PerseusDigitalLibrary,1899.Sallust,The

JugurthineWar,chapter1(https://www.perseus.tufts.

edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0126).

SecondarySources0

Aicher,PeterJ.“TheRomanForum.”InRomeAlive:A

Source-GuidetotheAncientCity.Mundelein,IL:

Bolchazy-CarducciPublishers,2004.

Coarelli,Filippo.RomeandEnvirons:AnArcheologicalGuide.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2014.

Claridge,AmandaandToms,Judith.“TempleofConcordia

Augusta.”InRome:AnOxfordArcheologicalGuide,Oxford,

England:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.

Davies,SarahH.Rome,GlobalDreamsandInternationalOrigins

ofanEmpire.Leiden:BrillPublishers,2020.

Draycott,Jane.“DynasticPolitics,Defeat,Decadenceand

Dining:CleopatraSeleneontheSo-Called‘Africa’Dishfrom

theVillaDellaPisanellaatBoscoreale.”PapersoftheBritish

SchoolatRome,vol.80(2012):45–64.

Elkins,NathanT.MonumentsinMiniature:Architectureon

RomanCoinage.NewYork:TheAmericanNumismatic

Society,2015.

Favro,Diane.TheUrbanImageofAugustanRome.Cambridge:


Galaty,MicahelL.“Introduction:CollectiveMemoryDefined.”

InMemoryandNationBuilding:fromAncientTimestothe

IslamicState.Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2018.

Galinsky,Karl.“Introduction.”InKarlGalinsky’s“Memoria

Romana:MemoryinRomeandRomeinMemory.”Memoirsof

theAmericanAcademyinRome.SupplementaryVolumes,vol.

10(2014):1–15.

Gorski,GilbertJ.andPacker,JamesE.TheRomanForum:A

ReconstructionandArcheologicalGuide.Cambridge:


Gowing,AlainM.EmpireandMemory:TheRepresentationofthe

RomanRepublicinImperialCulture.Cambridge:Cambridge


Hekster,OliverandRich,John.“Octavianandthe

Thunderbolt:TheTempleofApolloPalatinusandRoman

TraditionsofTempleBuilding.”TheClassicalQuarterly56,no.

1(2006):152.

Hoff,MichaelC.“Augustus,ApolloandAthens.”InMuseum

Helveticumvol.29,no.4(1992):223–232.

Hornblower,Simon,AntonySpawforth,andEstherEidinow,

eds.TheOxfordClassicalDictionary,FourthEdition.Oxford:


Kellum,B.A.“TheCityAdorned:ProgrammaticDisplayatthe

AedesConcordiaeAugustae.”InBetweenRepublicandEmpire:

InterpretationsofAugustusandHisPrincipate.Berkeley:

CaliforniaUniversityPress,1993.

Lobur,JohnAlexander.Consensus,ConcordiaandtheFormation

ofRomanImperialIdeology.NewYorkCity:Routledge

Publishing,2008.

Martiz,JessieA.“FromRomanAfricatoRomanAmerica.”In

TheClassicalWorld106,no.3(2013):461–82.

Miller,JohnF.Apollo,AugustusandthePoets.Cambridge:


Nielsen,Inge.“CreatingImperialArchitecture.”InACompanion

toRomanArchitecture.Hoboken,NJ:BlackwellPublishing,

2013.

Numista.“Sestertius:TiCaesarDiviAvgFAvgvstPMTRPot

XXXVI;Victoria.”AmericanNumismaticSociety(ANS),2022.

Orlin,Eric.“AugustanReconstructionandRomanMemory.”In

MemoryinAncientRome&EarlyChristianity,Oxford,England:


Popkin,MaggieL.TheArchitectureoftheRomanTriumph:

Monuments,MemoryandIdentity.Cambridge:Cambridge


Reber,HornerF.andMarceau,Henri.“TheTempleofConcord

intheRomanForum.”InMemoirsoftheAmericanAcademyin

Romevol.5(1925):53–77.

Roncaglia,Alessandro.“ContinuityThroughChange:Augustus

andaChangeWithoutaBreak.”InActaClassicaUniversitatis

ScientiarumDebreceniensis,vol.54(2018):91–106.

Russell,Amy.“TheDefinitionofPoliticalSpaceintheForum

Romanum.”InThePoliticsofPublicSpaceinRepublicanRome.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.

VanOppendeRuiter,BrankoF.“MonstersofMilitaryMight:

ElephantsinHellenisticHistoryandArt.”InArts8,no.4

(2019).

Vasaly,Ann.Representations:ImagesoftheWorldinCiceronian

Oratory.Columbia,SC:TheUniversityofSouthCarolina

Press,1996.

Wallace-Hadrill,Andrew.“ImageandAuthorityintheCoinage

ofAugustus.”InTheJournalofRomanStudies76(1986):

66–87.

Zanker,Paul.“TownscapeandIdeologyintheAgeof

Augustus.”InPompeii:PublicandPrivateLife.Translatedby

DeborahLucasSchneider.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity

Press,1998.

94REFRAMINGROME

REFRAMINGROME95


Perhaps one would not expect to find such profound

philosophicalobservationsinasimplemaritalepitaph,but

Laberius’ touching tribute to his wife challenges those

expectations.WritinginRomeinthelatethirdcentury,the

poet interweaves in his description of his wife the

transcendent spiritual love they share with physicality,

elevating both. He compares their resting place–

cepotaphium,agardentomb–totheirbodiesinaneternal

embrace.Thisperpetualrecognitionandlove,implyingan

activeimmortallife,isfascinatingbecauseofitsbreakfrom

traditional conceptions of death. Before the

ChristianizationofRome,philosophieslikeEpicureanism

andStoicismheldprominence,thelatteragnosticaboutan

afterlifeandtheformereschewingitentirely.Evenolder

influences,likeHomerandPlato,saynothingofrecognition

orrelationshipsbeyondthegrave.Platoconcernshimself

only with the matter of philosophizing, while Homer

reduces the shades to semi-corporeal zombies. Here,

however,wecanstillseetheinfluenceofPlatonicthought

onLaberiusthroughhislastsentence,wherehemakesan

almostPhaedo-esquedeclarationaboutthecyclicalnature

oflifeanddeathandtheimmortalityofthesoul.Thepoet

reachesbackintime,ayoungmanofancientcustoms,to

holdhiswifeforever.

KateWhitaker

THEEPITAPHFORBASSA1LABERIUS

KATEWHITAKER,TRANSLATOR

UNIVERSITYOFCHICAGO

p.96 1 p.97 1

v

x

xv

Bassa,thewifeofthepoetLaberius,restshere,inthedeep

bosom

OfherfruitfulmotherEarth,ayoungwifeofancientcustoms.

Herblessedspiritiswithherhusband,hersoulisreturnedto

heaven.

Arrangearoom;letourmarriagevowsuniteourlovingbodies

Togetheragain,butthistime,forever.

Youareawashinhoneysuckleandcinnamon,fragrantmyrrh

andcardamom.

Fromthere,Ipraythatanewplantorflowermayrise,

WithwhichI,strickenwithgrief,maycrownthealtarandmy

poetryandmyself.

Thevine,paintedwithpurpleclustersofgrapes,

Embracedfourelmtreeswithitssweetboughs.

Letthescenicgarlandsweaveatwinshadowhere,

Theloftytreeandthebondsofitstenderlover.

HereisthebodyofthepoetLaberius,forhisspiritreturned

there

Fromwhereitrose.Seekthesourceofthesoul.

WhatIwas,Iamnolonger,butIwillbeagainwhatIamnotnow.

Risingandsetting,lifeanddeatharethesame.

Bassa,vatisquaeLabericoniuga,hocaltosinu

frugaematrisquiescit,moribuspriscisnurus.

animussanctuscummaritost,animacaeloredditaest.

Paratohospitium;caraiungantcorpora

haecrursumnostrae,sedperpetuae,nuptiae.

Inspicaetcasiaes,benedorastactaetamomo.

indeorogramenvenovumvelflosoriatur,

undecoronemamensaramcarmenquemeumetme.

purpureovarumvitisdepictaracemo

quattuoramplesastulmosdepalmitedulci.

scaenalesfrondesdetexanthincgeminamumbram

arboreamprocaerametmollisvinclamaritae.

HiccorpusvatisLaberi,namspiritusivit

illucundeortus.quaeritefontemanimae.

Quodfueramnonsum,sedrursumeroquodmodononsum.

ortusetoccasusvitaquemorsqueitidest.

EpitaphforBassa

p.98 p.99

EpitaphforBassa

Animus Classics Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?