BMCR 2009.01.35, Carlo Scardino, Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden

Carlo Scardino, Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und
Thukydides. Beitraege zur Altertumskunde, Bd. 250.  Berlin:  Walter De
Gruyter, 2007.  Pp. xi, 858.  ISBN 9783110195118.  EUR 148.00.

Reviewed by Edith Foster, Kenyon College ([email protected])
Word count:  3077 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-01-35.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/01/20090135.html
-------------------------------

In this astonishingly ambitious book Carlo Scardino (S.) undertakes a
close reading and comparison of the speeches in books seven through
nine of Herodotus and books six and seven of Thucydides. His method is
to describe each historian's speeches in narrative context, and on the
basis of this description to analyze their functions and rhetorical
structure. Finally, he compares his analysis of the speeches in
Herodotus to his analysis of the speeches in Thucydides. S.'s
determination to maintain continuous contact with the narrative context
of the speeches determines the character of his descriptions of the
texts, which resemble commentaries. Hardly enough good things could be
said about these commentaries and the resulting analyses: over hundreds
of pages S. balances perceptive reading with respect for each
historian's particular choices and careful reflection on copiously
cited scholarship. The outcome is that S. establishes a description of
the historians' relationship to one another that is unprecedented in
its comprehensiveness.

The introduction begins with a comparison between modern and ancient
historiography. This comparison frames the work: S. returns to it at
the very end (769-790). For the introduction S. reminds us that modern
historical writing rejects the ancient format, in which the historian
composes speeches for his characters and historical events are
focalized through perspectives other than the narrator's, which is only
rarely explicit (1-2). He provides a review of ancient criticism of the
speeches which shows that in antiquity the speeches in historical works
were taken for granted, and were analyzed for their rhetorical
qualities, not their historiographical values (3-6). A review of the
modern scholarship, on the other hand, shows our developing
appreciation for both the historiographical and artistic values of the
historians' speeches (6-26). No overarching analysis and comparison of
the speeches had been attempted, however, until S. undertook his
monumental work.

The second section of the introduction is devoted to Aristotle and
Homer. To begin, S. outlines the view of history taken in Aristotle's
Poetics, and establishes his differences from this view: S. will show
that Herodotus and Thucydides resemble Aristotle's poets as much as his
historians (34-35, cf. 58-59). Next, S. provides an outline of
narratological method, justifying his use of this method by reference
to the fact that the historians composed works characterized by
techniques learned from fictional writing (36-46). To found this
description of the historians S. delineates Homer's central importance
for their speeches.  The three main functions of the speeches, namely:
to dramatize the events, to characterize the speaker (who is an
historical agent) according to type, and to interpret and comment on
events at the level of the fabula, originated in Homer and were adopted
by the historians. Given this fundamental similarity between the two
historians, S. sets out to discover what the differences between them
may be, and what conceptual and rhetorical bases determine those
differences (59).

S. begins his examination of Herodotus with a review of the first
sentence of the Histories that isolates Herodotus' main interests (the
spatium humanum, and particularly the great deeds performed in this
arena, the analysis of conflict and of the responsibility for the war,
64), and continues by describing the corresponding structure of
Herodotean narrative: "The structure of the narrative is in its
foundation always the same: after an often modest beginning and
successful growth the insatiable impulse to conquest brings it about
that the (oriental) monarch at the height of his power attacks a
comparatively poor but defensible people, and loses" (66).

Over the next ten pages (67-77) S. provides a chart that records the
plot and shows the placement and main themes of all direct speeches in
the text. The chart demonstrates the unity of Herodotus (80), and
constitutes a defense of the historian; in the subsequent sections S.
describes and defends Herodotus' historiographical method, including
his ordering of material (82-83) and use of evidence, despite its
well-known problems, as essentially "serious, reliable, and
non-partisan" (86).

Finally, S. addresses the question of human and divine causation in
Herodotus. S. argues that the divine constitutes "the strongest
determinant" in Herodotus (101), but that parallel causes remain very
important. In particular, and consistent with his explanations of the
structure of the Histories, he argues that in Herodotus "since the
human pursuit of power and property is hardly possible to avoid, a
necessary process of history results (103)."  The injustices that arise
from this pursuit are corrected in the human, or if not, in the divine
sphere (104-105). Regardless of whether divine or human forces act as a
corrective, the process of justice in the world can be verified through
empirical observation, i.e. <greek>i(stori/a</greek> (102).

This description of Herodotus' particular themes and world view is
followed by discussions of more formal concerns: general
characteristics of Herodotus' style (109-110), the complexity of the
Herodotean narrator, and the role of speeches in indirect discourse
(111-116) are described before S. undertakes to characterize the direct
speeches.

It is actually surprising how little of Herodotus is devoted to
speeches: about 18% of the entire Herodotean text is comprised of
direct speeches, the portion of the text devoted to speeches being
greatest in the final books, where it is closer to 25% (117). (By
contrast, about 50% of the Iliad is composed of direct speeches, cf.
47.) The general character of these speeches will be familiar to
Herodotus' readers. Speakers are not distinguished from one another
through their style, but the style of the speeches is in general more
elaborate than that of the narrative (118). Speeches occur in pairs and
larger groupings (119-120), and are without exception the product of
free invention (124).

By contrast to the introduction we have just reviewed, in which very
large topics were introduced and summarized, the description of
Herodotus' last three books (126-318) is detailed and specific.
Descriptions of clauses and sentences construct the descriptions of the
speeches and groups of speeches, each of which is treated with a short
interim analysis as S. moves through the selected material.
Narratological terminology is almost completely absent: the description
relies on ancient rhetorical terms for its categories. The sound of
phrases and sentences is frequently noted.

The analysis follows the description. Drawing together all of his
examples, S. argues that his initial characterization of the complexity
of the Herodotean narrator (326-331) and the role of indirect discourse
in Herodotus (332-335) were justified, and shows that Herodotus'
speeches fulfill the three Homeric functions (dramatization of events,
characterization of speakers, and development of motifs that enable
interpretation of the text). Of these the first two seem
straightforward, and the last is most important for the comparison to
Thucydides. In his analysis S. argues that "the direct speeches reveal
to the recipient a polyphonic network of suggested meanings and
frameworks for interpretation" (350). This network is constructed, in
his view, through the use of recurring motifs that "transcend the
specific situation" (350). These motifs sometimes correspond to words
(<greek>no/mos</greek>, for instance), and sometimes to themes, such as
envy, the justice of the gods, glory and honor, etc. that are
referenced with a variety of words. They also correspond to rhetorical
practices, such as the practice of offering interpretations of the past
that intend to instruct us for the future, or of referring to
difficulties of communication. Key to reader reception of these motifs
is their repetition by different speakers in different situations,
since this problematizes a simple or one-sided understanding and in
this way draws us into the interpretation of events. In the closing
section of his analysis S. explains a large variety of such motifs and
demonstrates their development in the speeches he has discussed. For a
list of motifs S. isolates as common to Herodotus and Thucydides, see
footnote one.

The dumbfounded reader now turns to what is essentially another entire
book, since S. gives Thucydides the same full treatment as he shows to
Herodotus. S. begins his introduction to Thucydides by describing the
Archaeology and its aims (to show the growth of power, 384). He pauses
on Thucydides' statement of the causes of the war (Spartan fear, 385),
and then offers a chart of the whole text, marking all direct speeches
(387-394). After this S. reviews the debate of the analysts and
unitarians (394-399; conclusion: we cannot tell where and how much
Thucydides revised his work, 399), and provides an overview of
Thucydides' historical method and use of evidence. On pages 402-416, S.
discusses chapter 22, book one of Thucydides, which contains both
Thucydides' statement of his divergent treatment of speeches and the
narrative of events and also his statement of the utility of his work.
Scholarly support is massive throughout, and S. maintains moderate
views, while giving his opponents frequent opportunities to speak for
themselves.

S. next discusses Thucydides' philosophy of history, and main theme
("The question of the nature and management of power, in particular its
manifestation in Athenian "imperialism"...whereby the war gradually
dissolves the ethical categories valid in peacetime", 418). His remarks
on the centrality of the unchanging human condition for Thucydides'
writing, in which the "reduction of reality to rationally intelligible
patterns" leads to "stripping events of their temporal
particularity"("eine Entzeitlichung des Geschehens" 425), argue that
Thucydides' diagnoses, like medical diagnoses, apply to all potential
readers. The ensuing argument takes note of Thucydides' didactic aims
(426), and introduces some main teachings on topics such as the
helplessness of hope and power of chance, rationality, military virtue,
crowd psychology, and political leadership (432-440).

S. then addresses Thucydides' style and the structure of his narrative,
discussing Thucydides' advertised adoption of chronological order, and
the structural relation between the speeches and the narrative: in
fact, thematic and didactic priorities determine the rhythm of the
presentation (441-444). S. shows that Thucydides' narrator disappears
to an extent not as evident in Herodotus, and addresses narrator
interventions, internal focalizers, and speeches in indirect discourse
(444-449) before providing a formal description of Thucydides' style
(450-452).

This introduction accomplished, S. can turn to the speeches themselves,
as he did for Herodotus. Twenty to twenty-five percent of Thucydides'
text is composed of direct speeches (453). After discussing the speech
frames (i.e. the narrator's introductory and closing remarks to direct
speeches, 454-455), and the prominence of speech pairs in Thucydides
(as opposed to the looser, more conversational organizations favored by
Herodotus 456-457), S. broaches a description of the functions of
Thucydides' speeches: the dramatizing and characterizing functions
remain similar to those in Homer and Herodotus. An intensification of
the third function is visible, however: "Most important is the function
[of the direct speeches] as an unmitigated dramatic, analytic, and
implicitly interpretive commentary in the place of explicit authorial
reflection and interpretation, whereby the opinions expressed by the
speaker do not agree with those of the historian, but rather must be
brought into relation with narrative connections and authorial
statements" (461).

The description of Thucydides' speeches follows (464-648). Once again,
we enter the world of specificity; S. is perhaps an even more
perceptive reader of Thucydides than of Herodotus: particularly
impressive to this reviewer was a short essay on the Melian dialogue
(468-483). The subsequent analysis of Thucydides' speeches (648-701)
bases itself on the by now familiar Homeric triad of speech functions,
clearly laying its weight on the last, or "commentary" function. Just
as he did for Herodotus, S. offers a detailed presentation of the
commentary function of Thucydides' speeches, reviewing a large number
of motifs. The Thucydidean motifs that create "a toolbox for
interpreting the events recounted by the narrator" (701) are largely
the same motifs as were found in Herodotus' speeches, although
important differences do emerge. The most important difference,
perhaps, is a conspicuous enlargement in the number of motifs created
from abstract terms (675, cf. 685). Again, see footnote one for a list
of the motifs S. ultimately draws in to his comparison of the two
historians.

The suggestion that Herodotus and Thucydides have such a similar cast
of mind will be controversial for many readers. The comparison between
the two (702-744) begins with a table showing the similarities between
Herodotus' narration of Xerxes' expedition to Greece and Thucydides'
narration of the Athenians' expedition to Sicily (702-705). This
comparison is not new (cf. 707-709), but is here differentiated,
detailed, and comprehensive. Though the parallels between the two
narratives are clear, S. does not argue that Thucydides is imitating
Herodotus. "The parallels speak less for direct dependence, above all
when one takes account of the differences, than for a common
intellectual foundation..." (710). He is also not dogmatic in his view
that the similarities he has described are more important than the
differences he can describe equally well. On the following pages S.
clearly and persuasively describes the structural differences between
the two narratives (710-711), and then goes on to describe other basic
contrasts between the two authors. For Thucydides the human being
according to his <greek>fu/sis</greek> is the "exclusive subject and
object of history" (713): this causes the fundamental difference to
Herodotus. S. also discusses differences between the historians'
narrators, their presentation of battle narratives, the status of
religion and suffering in their narratives, and their divergent
conceptions of the causes of military/political victory and defeat, for
example, capping these with a discussion of indirect discourse in the
two historians (716-717).

For the direct speeches, however, he argues that the similarities
between the historians outweigh their differences (717, cf. 743). The
functions of the speeches do show some differences: the dramatizing
function of the speeches is less important in Thucydides than in
Herodotus (717), whereas characterization of the speaker through
characteristic speech (ethopoiesis) is more Thucydidean (718). S. pays
most attention to a comparison of the themes ("motifs") of the speeches
(723-44), however. Here individual differences and commonalities
emerge; the main finding, however, is that Herodotus and Thucydides
share many important themes, which they develop in the direct
speeches.[[1]]  Furthermore the direct speeches have a common and
centrally important function in both historians: the direct speeches
"augment authorial commentary and the thoughts expressed in the
indirect speeches with detailed argumentation , [that is] the
production and discussion of the categories relevant to the actors
(most prominently in reference to the topical <greek>telika\
kefa/laia</greek>), that breaks through the level of the particular and
attains the general thanks to the use of gnomai, definitions, and
through ana- and  prolepses with which they [the speeches] widen the
spectrum of possible interpretation..." (752).[[2]]

For S. the speeches thus serve a foundational role in enabling
interpretation of the text, and not only this, but also in some way
define historical writing against other available paths: The speeches
"show the restrictions and possibilities of human action and transcend
the unique historical situation, but at the same time [and] by contrast
to the speculations of contemporary sophists and the fictional world of
poetry, guarantee the knowledge they lift to the level of the general
with a relation to historically verifiable reality" (752).

Needless to say, S.'s hypothesis about the character and function of
thematic development in the speeches will be discussed for some time to
come, as S. also suggests it should be (753). To the reader's final
amazement, S. finishes his magnum opus with a description of Polybius'
treatment of speeches and narratorial authority, which contrasts to
that of the classical historians, and with his closing essay on modern
historiography, in which he compares the goals and audience of ancient
and modern historians. The book is thus a complete and closed form.

Three remarks. First, a small point: Unless I somehow missed this, S.'s
many discussions of indirect speech in the historians neglect to
mention that any speech expressed in indirect discourse falls under the
narrator's direct control (i.e. speeches in indirect discourse record
the narrator's selection from the things the speaker said). This
control is sometimes made explicit through narratorial interventions,
and more frequently emphasized through verbs of speaking and
grammatical structures that demonstrate that the speech is being
reported. S. remarks for both historians that it is difficult to tell
why a speech might be set in indirect, rather than direct discourse
(e.g. 334, 659, 717); perhaps a consideration of which speeches the
author wishes to subordinate to the narrator's control could be a
useful additional aid for considering this question.

Second (another small point), S. argues that in Herodotus no character
appears who understands both the compulsions of power and his own
desires, and who knows how to control the passions of the people,
whereas in Thucydides, Pericles achieves this, by contrast to the
leaders who follow him (749-750). This is a difficulty: Herodotus has
Solon (cf. e.g. Rengakos 2006), and Thucydides' Pericles is definitely
not immune to the allure of power and glory (cf. e.g. Samons
2007).[[3]]

Finally, a tentative suggestion about the main point of the book.
Scardino has done yeoman's labor in providing a detailed,
differentiated, and comprehensive comparison of the two historians in a
breadth never before attempted. His book is a watershed publication
that will at a single stroke improve the quality of our comparisons of
the two historians. His attention to the motifs of the speeches
provides much (but definitely not all, as the basic line of comparison
to the Homeric paradigm does not rely on this) of his proof for the
similarity between the two authors. Clearly, one has a range of such
motifs to choose from, and the motifs one chooses to discuss will
determine the similarities and differences one describes. S.'s choices
struck me as absolutely accurate, but also as representing a
perspective on the speeches that privileges abstract and therefore
shared motifs. As for abstraction, I missed basic motifs such as polis,
<greek>paraskeuh/</greek>, or even navy or wealth. S. frequently
mentions these concepts, but they do not rise to the dignity of motifs:
yet they are important for constructing precisely the relationship to
reality he argues separates poetry and philosophical speculation from
historical writing. In my view, therefore, the final analysis of the
speeches as Scardino has so responsibly produced it for us represents
them as somewhat more abstract than even Thucydides' speeches really
are. This could be a problem for readers who do not take into account
S.'s entire argument (i.e. description as well as analysis), since
abstract concepts in particular may appear to be related when they are
considered in general, whereas in context the arguments they undergird
may not be as similar as the connections of the extracted concepts
suggest. This observation is not to detract from anything S. does say,
but to add a perspective and a suggestion.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Common motifs of speeches in Herodotus and Thucydides: I am
providing these motifs untranslated for fear of misrepresenting some
concept and its relation to the pertinent Greek words.

Inhaltliche Motive und Argumente der Reden
1. Abstrakte handlungsmotivierende und exegetische Kategorien (e.g.
Herodotus: <greek>no/mos, e)leuqeri/h, doulosu/nh</greek>; Thucydides:
<greek>a)nqrwpei/a fu/sis, a)rxh/, a)na/gkh, e)leuqeri/a,
doulei/a</greek>)
2. Gerechte Vergeltung und Verwandtschaft als offizieller Grund
(<greek>di/kaion</greek>)
3. Die ethnische Zugehoerigkeit und der Volkscharakter
4. Ruhm und Ehre (als <greek>kalo/n</greek> beziehungsweise
<greek>ai)sxro/n</greek>)
5. Der Nutzen (<greek>sumfero/n</greek>), die Leichtigkeit
(<greek>r(a/|dion</greek>) und die Machbarkeit
(<greek>dunato/n</greek>)
6. Das Thema der Sicherheit (<greek>de/os, a)sfa/leia</greek>) und des
Praeventivkriegs
7. Die Tapferkeit und die Kriegskunst
8. Die irrationalen Affekte
9. Die Interpretation der Vergangenheit als Erfahrungsschatz fuer die
Zukunft
10. Der Wert der Wohlberatenheit (<greek>eu)bouli/a</greek>) und
rationale Elemente
11. Das Problem der Kommunikation
12. Die Uneinigkeit und Zerstrittenheit der Parteien
13. Ueberlegungen zur Verfassung
14. Das Thema der Jugend (<greek>h( neo/ths</greek>)
15. Argumentum a persona


2.   (The <greek>telika\ kefa/laia</greek> referred to above are words
that directly provide motifs for a speech: e.g. <greek>di/kaion</greek>
at Thucydides 1.32.)

3.   References: Antonios Rengakos, "Thucydides' Narrative: The Epic
and Herodotean Heritage," in Brill's Companion to Thucydides, Brill,
Leiden and Boston, 2006, and L. J. Samons, "Pericles and Athens," in
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2007.