BMCR 2008.12.38, Andreas Willi, Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur

Andreas Willi, Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im
griechischen Sizilien (8.-5. Jh. v. Chr.). Biblioteca Helvetica Romana
XXIX.  Basel:  Schwabe Verlag, 2008.  Pp. xvii, 477.  ISBN
9783796522550.  EUR 47.50.

Reviewed by Susana Mimbrera Olarte, Cambridge/Madrid
([email protected])
Word count:  2695 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-12-38.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/12/20081238.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

This is the most recent book by Professor Willi, his
Habilitationsschrift for the Faculty of Classics in Basel, which is
devoted to the language, literature and culture of Greek Sicily from
the 8th to the 5th century B.C. The author studies Stesichorus,
Epicharmus, Empedocles, Gorgias and the inscriptional evidence down to
the 5th century, when Athens became the cultural and political hub of
the Greek world. As such, it will be of great interest to those
concerned with the pre-Greek languages in Sicily, the Greek language
(epichoric dialects and literary languages), Greek literature (choral
lyric, comedy, rhetoric, philosophy) and, more generally, the cultural
history of Sicily.

The most remarkable thing about this excellent and beautiful work is
that it combines a philological, linguistic, literary and cultural
approach, all fields in which the author displays an astonishing
expertise. Indeed this combination of perspectives characterizes his
research, as the readers of The languages of Aristophanes will know. At
the centre of this book is the issue of how colonization shaped
Sicily's cultural production, not only because of the colonists'
contact with the indigenous population, but also due to the need to
acquire an independent identity with respect to their mother-cities.
This is, I think, the only work to present a truly holistic study of
the language and literature of ancient Sicily.

He takes several hypotheses as his starting point (chapter one): the
fact that Greeks met indigenous people when they settled in Sicily must
have sharpened their linguistic awareness, which inspired them to
creative experimentation (Hybridisierung) in order to acquire an
independent identity and to make a new centre from what was originally
a cultural periphery.

In chapter two the author takes a sociolinguistic approach to the
relationship between Greek and the indigenous languages of Sicily and
the phenomena that arose from it: interference (as a result of which
Sicilian Greek had a characteristic accent that distinguished it from
other types of Greek), loans and hybrid formations. He also discusses
the typology of linguistic contact between Greek and the indigenous
languages of Sicily and the disappearance of the latter. After this, he
addresses the internal dynamics of Greek in Sicily, where an
international form of Doric predominated, centred on the dialect of
Syracuse. The result was that Greek Sicily gradually became a
Kulturregion, with its Greek being innovative due to the mixture of
diverse elements, centrifugal with respect to continental Greek,
centripetal or integrative in Sicily due to koineization, and dominant,
with the eventual death of the indigenous languages. All these features
contributed to the creation of a Sicilian identity.

In chapter three, the author studies the language of Stesichorus from a
phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical viewpoint. The
author rejects the usual view that Stesichorus essentially uses the
language of epic, with a superficial dialectal colouring. Instead, he
convincingly argues that his language is typical of Doric lyric,
although it is relexified (its vocabulary and diction are not Doric,
but Epic). He also discusses the issue of Stesichorus' performance, and
thinks it possible that his poems were sung by a choir, as was the case
with choral lyric. According to Willi, Stesichorus' originality lies in
the fact that he rethematizes the lyrical form with themes from Epic
poetry. The fact that Stesichorus, who comes from a Chalcidian (Ionic)
colony, adopts the genre and dialect of Doric choral lyric, is another
instance of what Willi calls "hybridization". Therefore Stesichorus can
be considered a literary exponent of Vallet's cultural koine/, which is
confirmed by the fact that the poet shows his preference for the
mythical themes that had a special importance in the colonial
environment and also by the fact that the reception of his work in the
Ionic colonies is well-documented. Summing up, his poetry is the proof
that a new common identity had arisen in Sicily.

In chapter four Professor Willi analyzes the Geryoneis and the Lille
papyrus and concludes that Stesichorus portrays his characters from a
psychological and individualized point of view through the words and
speeches that they utter, in a different way from Epos. Another crucial
aspect of Stesichorus's work, admirably explored in Willi's discussion
of the Lille papyrus, is the recurring theme of the relationship
between language and reality. A recurring motif in many other fragments
of Stesichorus is the concept of Sprachrelativismus (the tenet that
linguistic expressions can be independent from external realities and
in this way can be relative), when, for example, he depicts the speaker
fearing that his words are not going to be taken seriously or believed.
In this way the action is more complex from a psychological or dramatic
viewpoint. Willi shows that this can be translated or transferred into
the sphere of the art of poetry, which means that even the words of a
recognised poet can lead astray. We see this most clearly in the
Palinody, where the Homeric and Hesiodic version of the myth of Helen
is reappraised and condemned as a fiction, and is rejected in favour of
an alternative one, bringing about Stesichorus' healing. Therefore Epic
poets are not mai^tres de ve/rite/; only the Muse is. In this way,
Stesichorus overthrows the old traditions. Colonial myths are as valued
as the myths coming from the mother cities, and the canonical texts
containing these are now considered pure fiction, their account being
replaced by a different version. Therefore Stesichorus is not only the
poet of colonial unity, but also the poet of colonial emancipation. The
question of the relationship between word and reality is a leitmotiv in
Stesichorus and soon becomes a central issue of Greek thought in the
Western colonies, e.g. in Gorgias, Epicharmus and Empedocles.

In chapter five Professor Willi turns to Epicharmus, whose language he
analyses from every possible perspective. The conclusion is that his
language is representative of everyday Syracusan, since there is very
little polymorphy and the little that there is can be explained in
terms of synchronic variation. Also, Epicharmus uses specifically local
features in terms of vocabulary, idioms and morphological and
derivational formations. Whenever Epicharmus deviates from this
everyday Syracusan, it is for comical-satirical purposes. The language
of Epicharmus has a colloquial foundation and sometimes shows
vulgarisms, as does Aristophanes. Stylistically Epicharmus is also very
close to Aristophanes. An interesting difference is that in Sicily
there was no tragedy, so it is very remarkable that, for the first time
in the Greek world, we find an open genre that claims literary status
without a Kunstsprache. This markedly colonial language is intended for
a public for whom there was no literature before. That the raising of
everyday Sicilian to a literary language has taken place precisely in
Sicily is understandable, if we take into account that Epicharmus' goal
was not only to contrast popular with elitist literature, but also
Sicilian literature with foreign literature.

Chapter six focuses on the question of how Epicharmus deals with the
Sprachkultur of his time, especially with Epos and rhetoric. Despite
the brevity of his fragments, we can glimpse that his comedy was highly
developed both in literary technique and with regard to the topics
discussed. Epicharmus' literature is democratic, in that he places a
positive value on colloquial language, critizises Xenophanes'
intellectualism, makes fun of Aeschylus' language, mistrusts
professionalised rhetoric and overthrows epic heroes. Epicharmus also
questions canonical values, and that is the reason why he attacks epic
and myth, which were the cultural property of wide swathes of the
population. To value traditional and accepted things in a different way
is a necessary act for a colonial author, who tries to create something
new and different from what we find in the Greek mother cities, and for
a comic author.

Chapter seven is devoted to Empedocles, who is different from the
philosophers of nature before him and from his contemporaries. Instead
he appears as an innovator, both with respect to the signifier and with
respect to the signified. Professor Willi discusses in detail the
lexical, morphological and syntactic innovations, with which the
philosopher tries to achieve a distinct poetic style and tries to
distance himself both from the language of Epic and from normal
language. He also deals with a very important component of Empedocles'
style: metaphors and paretymology (by which a word takes on a new
meaning as the result of an innovative association with a phonetically
similar word). Therefore the public must intuitively understand the
lexeme. The effect can be named studied ambiguity (Kahn). The result of
all this is that an unequivocal interpretation of Empedocles is not
possible. Empedocles' work seems to have been conceived as an oracle or
an initiation enigma.

Chapter eight explores the three different facets of Empedocles, who
appears sometimes as a teacher, sometimes as a prophet and sometimes as
a god. Important in this connection is Empedocles' presupposition that
there are two distinct languages: one language agrees with the/mis and,
therefore, is sanctioned by the divinity. The other language is human.
His use of the divine language makes Empedocles appear as a  mantis or
a true god. That language is central for Empedocles is discussed at
length by Willi, who argues that for Empedocles the spoken language is
the basis of the Weltordnung. For Empedocles, only the person with a
disposition to learn can acquire the knowledge of the mantis, so it
seems that Empedocles' speech is aimed at an elite. However, each
person has the power to develop the right disposition to learn (that
is, to analyse Empedocles' words and to understand the logos), which
constitutes a democratization of the elite. With this the rhetoric is
expanded, as it incorporates the Sprachpsychologie. In all of these
ways, Empedocles creates a poetry that moves away from Homer.

Chapter nine discusses the relationship between Gorgias' thought and
that of Empedocles. On some points it seems that Gorgias accepts
Empedoclean postulates: for example, when discussing sensory
perception, where he says that language is an  ainigma and it is the
task of the hearer to decipher the logos, or when he maintains that
human behaviour can be influenced by logoi. Also as in Empedocles, the
power of a logos depends on the mental disposition of the hearer. Yet
on a number of points Gorgias moves away from Empedocles. For example,
for Empedocles it is sometimes arduous to persuade, whereas for Gorgias
the logos that has peitho overcomes resistance, even if this resistance
is rational. Gorgias and Empedocles also differ on the issue of
absolute truth. For Gorgias truth is a relative thing, because, when
two speakers have agreed to a common concept of truth and have
established a convention, the truth or lack of truth of a statement can
be measured. The truth is not defined in each communication act. That
is why the first task of the orator is to assess the audience and the
situation (kairos). Rhetoric for Gorgias must concentrate on the art of
convincing, and the issue of truth is not central. Gorgias also
criticises Epos (for example in the Helena, where he uses a logismos,
rational thinking, or in Palamedes). Gorgias' rhetoric is democratic,
because it allows anyone to master a technique that was previously the
preserve of the few. Willi argues that it is also democratic in the
sense that Gorgias adopts the Attic dialect, because he addresses his
speeches to an Attic audience.

Chapter ten. In literature we have seen that Empedocles and Gorgias can
be defined as democratic authors. As for Stesichorus and Epicharmus,
they undermine the position of the epos as a canonical text. This
chapter deals with possible parallels in Sicily for a "democratization
of the authorised word" in the non-literary sphere. For example, Willi
relates the emergence of rhetoric to the development in Sicily of
democracy and egalitarian structures (the parity of men and women in
some respects), although rhetoric must also have been boosted by the
legal disputes concerning the possession of land which arose as a
result of the frequent transfer of populations in Sicily. The
publication of laws in Sicily also constitutes a democratic act, since
it manifested the fact that everyone was subject to the same laws.
Democratization is also apparent in the fact that, although magic must
originally have been the preserve of specialists, in Sicily women and
the lower strata of society wrote defixiones.

In chapter eleven the author summarizes his conclusions. Contact with
the indigenous population increased the linguistic awareness of
Sicilian Greeks, who tried to transform their cultural periphery into a
new centre. Professor Willi shows how Sicilian Greek was innovative,
centrifugal, integrative and dominant. He also points to the fact that
similar phenomena to the ones we find in Sicily have arisen in modern
postcolonial literatures. Many of the cultural developments that were
to take place in Greece proper were first initiated in Sicily.
Innovation, the critical questioning of authorities and relativism are
key issues in sophistics, so it is correct to say that without Sicily
there would have been no sophistics.

The book concludes with an appendix dedicated to the pre-Greek
languages of Sicily.

This is an extraordinary work and I fully endorse Willi's main theses.
However, there are some minor and rather marginal details that I do not
agree with. They are all linguistic issues. For example, as proof for
the realization of aspirated plosives as unaspirated voiceless stops
due to Sicel substrate influence, Willi includes the examples
<greek>e)nta/de</greek> and <greek>exqo/s</greek> (which he considers
hypercorrect). I'm not so sure that they are to be interpreted in this
light, since they are also attested in other dialects where no such
linguistic phenomenon (nor such substrate influence) is attested, which
suggests that there must be another explanation for these forms: El.
<greek>e)ntau=ta</greek>, Argol. <greek>e)nta/de</greek>, perhaps
influenced by <greek>tau=ta</greek>, <greek>ta/de</greek>.[[1]] We also
find Delph., Locr., Arg. <greek>e)xqo/s</greek>
(*<greek>e)ks-to/s</greek>), where the aspiration is probably caused by
the sibilant.[[2]]

Also, the author is perhaps too ready to accept Bartonek's theory of a
Syracusan-based koina (pp. 45-47), which is more a theoretical and
historical construct than something underpinned by the data: the only
indication of dialect levelling according to Bartonek is the spreading
of mitior vocalism to the Rhodian-Cretan colonies. However, it is
possible that these colonies had mitior vocalism from the start[[3]].
Therefore, the presence of this feature in the Rhodian-Cretan colonies
may not indicate dialect levelling at all. That there was a
Syracusan-based koina in the 5th century is in itself a plausible idea,
but mitior vocalism alone is not enough to prove it.

Finally, the author explains the presence of the athematic infinitive
ending -<greek>mein</greek> (typical of the Rhodian-Cretan colonies) in
Epicharmus' Syracusan alongside the expected -<greek>men</greek> by
claiming (following Cassio) that infinitives in -<greek>mein</greek>
were created independently in Syracusan, which seems possible but
unlikely. It is easier to suppose that Epicharmus' -<greek>mein</greek>
is a Rhodian-Cretan feature present in Syracuse since 485 B.C., when
part of Gela's population was transferred to Syracuse by Gelon. In fact
even Willi does not wholly discard this possibility, which would not
contradict his main thesis that Epicharmus' dialect is basically
everyday Syracusan.

However, this is rather petty quibbling. This very valuable book is
essential reading for anyone interested in Sicilian language and
literature. Among its merits are the excellent examination of literary
and non-literary sources, the new interpretation of some problematic
texts (in particular the superb reconstruction and analysis of the
Odysseus automolos), and the clarity of exposition (the author gives
numerous tables) which will certainly be of help to those still
grappling with their German.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. Einleitung
2. Die Insel der Sprachen  (Zur Soziolinguistik des antiken Sizilien)
3. Auf der Suche nach einer gemeinsamen Sprache (Stesichoros' neue
Chorlyrik)
4. Die Wahrheit der Fiktion (Zu Stesichoros' Umgang mit dem Mythos)
5. Die Literarisierung des Alltags (Epicharms Komoedie als
paradigmatische Gattung)
6. Raffinierte Redner und feige Heroen (Themen und Parodien bei
Epicharm)
7. Ein Epos der Verfremdung  (Empedokles als Sprachschoepfer)
8. Dichtung zwischen Menschensprache und Goettersprache (Zur
Sprachphilosophie des Empedokles)
9. Die Entdeckung der Kommunikation (Gorgias und die 'Erfindung' der
Rhetorik)
10. Eine sizilische Aufklaerung (Rhetorik, Magie und Gesetzgebung im
kolonialen Raum)
11. SchlussbetrachtungAppendix: Die vorgriechischen Sprachen Siziliens
------------------
Notes:


1.   Cf. Buck Greek Dialects, p. 60, paragraph 65.

2.   Cf. Buck op.cit., p. 60, paragraph 66, Lejeune Phone/tique
historique, p. 74, paragraph 62, n. 5.

3.   Cretan probably had mitior vocalism, cf. R.J.E. Thompson, "Long
mid vowels in Attic-Ionic and Cretan", PCPS 52, 2006, 81-101. In fact,
it is possible that all dialects once had mitior vocalism (with only
some of them simplifying the vocalic system according to the Doris
media or severior types); cf. G.A. Sheets (1979), "The dialectological
implications of secondary mid-vowels in Greek: a clarification", AJPh
100, pp. 559-567, J. Me/ndez Dosuna (1985), Los dialectos dorios del
Noroeste. Grama/tica y estudio dialectal, Madrid, pp. 275/6, M. del
Barrio Vega (1998), "Vocalisme mitior, innovation ou archai+sme? E/tat
de la question", Mnemosyne 51, 257-281, esp. 272ff.