Collins, Derek. 2004. Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek Poetry. Hellenic Studies Series 7. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_CollinsD.Master_of_the_Game.2004.
11. Xenophanes
Most vicious and explicit in his criticism of epic, by which is meant Homer and Hesiod, is of course Xenophanes of Colophon (frr. 21 B 11 and 12 DK from his Silloi), and it is important to establish the vantage point of his critique. Xenophanes was not only said to have composed hexametric poetry but also to have performed his own poetry rhapsodically. [1] He therefore issues his critique from the perspective of one who can both compose and perform epic poetry in rhapsodic fashion, although unfortunately we possess no indications of what the content was of his epic poetry. While we may speculate that everyone who attended local and Panhellenic festivals would have knowledge of rhapsodic contests, it is certainly not the case that everyone possessed the specialized training and techniques of rhapsodes like Xenophanes. So for example, consider the following line (fr. 21 B 7 DK):
νῦν αὖτ᾽ ἄλλον ἔπειμι λόγον, δείξω δὲ κέλευθον
Now in turn I will approach another tale, and I will show a path.
Now in turn I will approach another tale, and I will show a path.
Because this is an elegiac, as opposed to an epic, hexameter, we may interpret Xenophanes to mean that his taste is turning away from the themes of epic to sympotic poetry. [2] But there is more here than meets the eye. This line distinctly recalls the standard ending of many Homeric Hymns, where the voice of the poet says that he will finish off the present song and then turn to another one. [3] The end of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite is especially relevant (293):
σεῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον.
Having begun with you I, for my part, will pass to another hymn.
Having begun with you I, for my part, will pass to another hymn.
These endings have been plausibly identified as narrative turning points created by rhapsodes in competition, who are at that moment ready to move on to another hymn or to the performance of epic. [4] Hence Xenophanes in the fragment above is playing the rhapsode at the same time that he is rejecting traditional epic, and a rhapsodic stance, in favor of sympotic poetry and themes. The “I” in the Xenophanes passage above is both rhapsode and symposiast.
Elsewhere the traditional content of epic is more explicitly rejected by Xenophanes as an unsuitable theme for the symposium. For him the after-dinner poetic performances—in other words, those contained in the symposium proper—must concern themes appropriate to the symposium as a festive and at the same time harmonious occasion, with due reverence for divine sanction. [5] We have already seen what a typical program for the symposium looks like, and it accords only in relative terms with Xenophanes’ view that poetic performance should proceed from a proper state of mind (B 1.13–24 West = 21 B 1 DK = Athenaeus 462c–f):
χρὴ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν θεὸν ὑμνεῖν εὔφρονας ἄνδρας
εὐφήμοις μύθοις καὶ καθαροῖσι λόγοις·
15 σπείσαντάς τε καὶ εὐξαμένους τὰ δίκαια δύνασθαι
πρήσσειν· ταῦτα γὰρ ὦν ἐστι προχειρότερον
οὐγ ὕβρεις· πίνειν ὁπόσον κεν ἔχων ἀφίκοιο
οἴκαδ᾽ ἄνευ προπόλου μὴ πάνυ γηραλέος
ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ αἰνεῖν τοῦτον ὃς ἐσθλὰ πιὼν ἀναφαίνει,
20 ὥς ἦι μνημοσύνη καὶ τόνος ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετῆς,
οὔ τι μάχας διέπειν Τιτήνων οὐδὲ Γιγάντων
οὐδέ <τι> Κενταύρων, πλάσμα<τα> τῶν προτέρων.
ἢ στάσιας σφεδανάς, τοῖς οὐδὲν χρηστὸν ἔνεστι,
θεῶν <δὲ> προμηθείην αἰὲν ἔχειν ἀγαθήν.
εὐφήμοις μύθοις καὶ καθαροῖσι λόγοις·
15 σπείσαντάς τε καὶ εὐξαμένους τὰ δίκαια δύνασθαι
πρήσσειν· ταῦτα γὰρ ὦν ἐστι προχειρότερον
οὐγ ὕβρεις· πίνειν ὁπόσον κεν ἔχων ἀφίκοιο
οἴκαδ᾽ ἄνευ προπόλου μὴ πάνυ γηραλέος
ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ αἰνεῖν τοῦτον ὃς ἐσθλὰ πιὼν ἀναφαίνει,
20 ὥς ἦι μνημοσύνη καὶ τόνος ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετῆς,
οὔ τι μάχας διέπειν Τιτήνων οὐδὲ Γιγάντων
οὐδέ <τι> Κενταύρων, πλάσμα<τα> τῶν προτέρων.
ἢ στάσιας σφεδανάς, τοῖς οὐδὲν χρηστὸν ἔνεστι,
θεῶν <δὲ> προμηθείην αἰὲν ἔχειν ἀγαθήν.
20 ἦι emend. West, ᾖ Ahrens, η A; τόνος emend. Koraes: τὸν ὃς codd. 22 τι add. Meineke; πλάσμα<τα> corr. Schweighäuser: πλασμάτων προτέρων AE. 24 δὲ add. Camerarius.
First it is necessary for reasonable men to hymn the god
in reverent speeches and pure tales:
after making libations and praying to be able to accomplish
just deeds; for these are a duty,
not acts of hybris: to drink however much so that you arrive
home without a servant, except if you are really old;
and to praise the man who after drinking displays noble
thoughts, so that there is memory [6] and striving for virtue,
and no treatment of battles of Titans and Giants
nor anything of Centaurs, fictions of those who lived before,
nor violent strifes; there is nothing of value in these.
But one must always have noble respect for the gods.
in reverent speeches and pure tales:
after making libations and praying to be able to accomplish
just deeds; for these are a duty,
not acts of hybris: to drink however much so that you arrive
home without a servant, except if you are really old;
and to praise the man who after drinking displays noble
thoughts, so that there is memory [6] and striving for virtue,
and no treatment of battles of Titans and Giants
nor anything of Centaurs, fictions of those who lived before,
nor violent strifes; there is nothing of value in these.
But one must always have noble respect for the gods.
Despite the textual difficulties, the main line of thought in this passage is clear. Xenophanes’ vision of the symposium is one of quiet order and hallowed reverence, which was surely not characteristic of most symposia, even in his own time. But that does not detract from, and maybe motivates, his desire for order and proper philosophical discourse. For him, as for many symposiasts afterward, a delicate balance had to be struck between drinking and the physical excesses to which it could lead on the one hand, and the opposite extreme of too much sobriety with its consequent restraint on public χάρις on the other. [7] This is well exemplified when Xenophanes alludes in the passage above to the story of the centaur Eurytion in the Odyssey, not least to the fateful and self-ironic words of Antinoos that introduce it (21.293–94):
οἶνός σε τρώει μελιηδής, ὅς τε καὶ ἄλλους
βλάπτει, ὃς ἄν μιν χανδὸν ἕλῃ μηδ᾽ αἴσιμα πίνῃ.
βλάπτει, ὃς ἄν μιν χανδὸν ἕλῃ μηδ᾽ αἴσιμα πίνῃ.
Honey-sweet wine injures you, which harms others too,
if one takes too much of it and does not drink in measure.
Not having symposia at all was not an option, of course, since these occasions had long been the preserve of aristocratic groups and subgroups of aristocrats based on perceived affinities, whether familial, social, political, or other. [8] As Wolfgang Rösler has argued, such groupings were not fortuitous: individuals “met together at the symposion precisely because they had common aims and interests outside it.” [9] Symposia must take place, and for Xenophanes harmony obtains so long as the drinking leads men to discourse properly on the gods and to display noble thoughts. Proper discourse for Xenophanes explicitly means not only choosing suitable topics for poetry, but more importantly restraining oneself from discoursing at all on certain poetic themes, especially those involving strife among the gods or heroes (21–22, above) or strife within the polis (line 23, above). [10] Topics to be avoided, as Xenophanes illustrates in the passage already quoted, are those from Hesiod’s Theogony and the Odyssey. Xenophanes himself can even wittily summarize his desire by stressing respect, or forethought (προμηθείη), for the gods in a reference to the hybristic Prometheus himself. [11] Provided the goal of poetic performance and philosophical discussion is the recalling and striving for virtue (ἀρετή), the symposium will remain within socially productive bounds. But for Xenophanes, social productivity excludes physical competition, which can be taken as an analogue to his resistance to the physical excesses that may result from too much drinking. Even if a man were to win at the Olympian games in the most prestigious athletic event, chariot racing, says Xenophanes (B 2.11–14 West):
οὐκ ἐὼν ἄξιος ὥσπερ ἐγώ· ῥώμης γὰρ ἀμείνων
ἀνδρῶν ἠδ᾽ ἵππων ἡμετέρη σοφίη.
ἀλλ᾽ εἰκῆι μάλα τοῦτο νομίζεται, οὐδὲ δίκαιον
προκρίνειν ῥώμην τῆς ἀγαθῆς σοφίης.
ἀνδρῶν ἠδ᾽ ἵππων ἡμετέρη σοφίη.
ἀλλ᾽ εἰκῆι μάλα τοῦτο νομίζεται, οὐδὲ δίκαιον
προκρίνειν ῥώμην τῆς ἀγαθῆς σοφίης.
14 ἠγαθέης Ε.
He is not worthy like me; for my poetic skill is better than
the strength of men or horses.
But this is quite randomly esteemed, and it is not right
to prefer strength to good poetic skill.
the strength of men or horses.
But this is quite randomly esteemed, and it is not right
to prefer strength to good poetic skill.
Thus physical competition, as with the extreme physical ends and rivalry that can result from excessive drinking, are incompatible with the type of poetic skill and display that Xenophanes believes should be reserved for symposia. But I hasten to add that the denial of physical competition in no way implies a denial of intellectual competition, because, as we have seen, the symposium is an arena for the display of philosophical skill exemplified through competitive poetic performance. As others have argued, the archaic concept of σοφία ‘skill’ is discretely performative. [12] It is not a latent ability but rather a summary of talents displayed through active and improvised performance. [13] So what Xenophanes rejects at the physical level of athletic competition, he takes for granted in the intellectual atmosphere of the symposium.
For Xenophanes the display of poetic expertise and the recalling and striving for virtue through poetic performance are meant to reinforce the distinctly ethical aims of the symposium. It is foremost in this respect that Xenophanes parts philosophical company with rhapsodes. Rhapsodes, Xenophanes implies, recite poetry without regard for its possible negative influence on the behavior of the audience, while poetic performance in the symposium, by avoiding themes having to do with civil strife and warfare, is intended to edify and instruct its participants, indeed to intensify social cohesion. Doth Xenophanes protest too much?
Footnotes
[ back ] 1. Diogenes Laertius 9.18: ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐρραψώιδει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ “But also he himself performed his own poetry rhapsodically.” Rudberg 1972[ 1948]:282 argues that Xenophanes was not a rhapsode “[i]m gewöhnlichen Sinn des Wortes” (“in the usual sense of the word”) because of his view of Homeric poetry, but this is too narrow a criterion by which to define a rhapsode or the ability to perform rhapsodically.
[ back ] 2. So Reitzenstein 1893:50.
[ back ] 3. E.g. Homeric Hymns to Demeter 495, Apollo 546, Hermes 580, 6.21 (Aphrodite), 9.9 (Artemis), 10.6 (Aphrodite), 19.49 (Pan), 25.7 (Muses and Apollo), 27.22 (Artemis), 28.18 (Athena), 29.14 (Hestia), 30.19 (Gê), 33.19 (Dioscuri).
[ back ] 4. Cf. Ford 1992:115n31 on the verb λήγω ‘leave off’ as the technical expression by which a rhapsode signaled the end of a performance. The competitive context of hymnic perfofmance is expressly stated at Homeric Hymn 6.19–20. For the view that the expression άλλου ές ϋμνου means “to the rect of the song” rather than “to another song,” see Nagy 2002:73 with his bibliography.
[ back ] 5. Vetta 1983:XLIX.
[ back ] 6. The importance of this concept, with due awareness of the textual difficulties, is discussed , in Rösler 1990.
[ back ] 7. Slater 1990:213.
[ back ] 8. A broad conception of the symposium as social institution is discussed by Murray 1983a and 1983b.
[ back ] 9. Rösler 1990:233.
[ back ] 10. Rösler 1990:231. In this respect it is pertinent to compare Ibycus (fr. S151 Davies), who similarly rejects the themes of epic at the beginning of the second strophe, while claiming that they are the preserve of the Heliconian Muses at the beginning of the third, even as he invokes them (without sublinear dots): νῦ]ν δέ μοι οὔτε ξειναπάτ[α]ν Π[άρι]ν | . . | ἐπιθύμιον οὔτε τανί[σφ]υρ[ον | ὑμ]νῆν Κασσάνδραν | Πρι]άμοιό τε παίδας ἄλλου[ς “but now it is neither my wish to hymn cheater-of-hosts Paris nor slender-ankled Cassandra and Priam’s other children (fr. S151.10–13 Davies);’’ and καὶ τὰ μὲ[ν ἂν] Μοίσαι σεσοφ[ισμ]έναι | εὖ Ἑλικωνίδ[ες] ἐμβαίεν ✝λoγω[ι ·| Θνατ[ὸ]ς✝ δ᾽ οὔ κ[ε]ν ἀνὴρ | διερὸς τὰ ἕκαστα εἴποι “the skilled Heliconian Muses might embark on the story, but no mortal man alive could tell the details (fr. S151.23–26 Davies).” Brief discussion of these lines in Vetta 1983:LI–LII.
[ back ] 11. We have already seen that such double entendres are characteristic of poetic performance at symposia.
[ back ] 12. Martin 1998.
[ back ] 13. Cf. Certamen 170–71.