Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-jbkpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T01:52:10.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pathetic Fallacy in Hellenistic Pastoral1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

J. L. Buller
J. L. Buller*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Extract

Thee, shepherd, thee the woods, and desert caves And all their echoes mourn.

Milton, Lycidas

Webster's Third International Dictionary defines the ‘pathetic fallacy’ as ‘the ascription of human traits or feelings to inanimate nature.’ While this definition is in substance what John Ruskin meant when he first spoke of the pathetic fallacy more than a century ago, the great critic intended not merely to describe a movement in art, but to denounce that movement:

All violent feelings … produce in us a falseness in all our impressions of external things, which I would generally characterize as the ‘Pathetic fallacy.’… The temperament which admits the pathetic fallacy, is … that of a mind or body in some sort too weak to deal fully with what is before them or upon them; borne away, or over-clouded, or over-dazzled by emotion …

Ruskin rejected the pathetic fallacy when artists reduced it to a stock attribute of nature which neither they nor their public believed to reflect the truth. When, however, the pathetic fallacy did convey the artist's true feelings about nature — as groundless in reality as that feeling might have been — the artist was somehow less culpable: the truth of the sentiment mitigated the violation of empirical Truth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , 1981 , pp. 35 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

Parts of this paper were first presented as ‘The Pathetic Fallacy and Hellenistic Aesthetic’ at the Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South on March 29, 1980. The source for the texts cited in the following pages is A. S. F. Gow, Bucolici Graeci (Oxford, 1952). Also consulted were: for Theocritus, A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus, volumes 1 and 2 (Cambridge, 1952) and R. J. Chomeley, Theocritus (London, 1930); for Moschus' Europa, W. Buehler, Die Europa des Moschus (Wiesbaden, 1960); for The Lament for Bion, V. Mumprecht, Epitaphios Bionos (Zurich, 1964). This paper has been restricted to pastoral poetry for two reasons: to provide the greatest possible focus in a subject which embraces an entire period, not merely a single author or work; to illustrate how the pathetic fallacy served the needs of poets who wished to convey certain impressions of the bucolic world. While I have found nothing in Callimachus, Apollonius and Aratus to contradict the points made in the following pages, those poets were concerned for matters in which the pathetic fallacy was simply less likely to occur. Lycophron (see note 19 below) is a special case and must be so regarded. Particular thanks must be extended to B. H. Fowler of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for her gracious help throughout this project.

References

NOTES

2. The OED does not define the term as such, but lists Ruskin's original use of it (see text below) under the definition of ‘pathetic’ as ‘pertaining or relating to the passions or emotions of the mind.’ General discussions of the pathetic fallacy in Hellenistic literature can be found in Rosenmeyer, T. G., The Green Cabinet (Berkeley, 1969) 248–250Google Scholar and Dick, B. H., ‘Ancient Pastoral and the Pathetic Fallacy’, Comp. Lit. 20 (1968) 27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Ruskin, J., Modern Painters, volume 3 (London 1888Google Scholar; first edition, 1856) 155, 158. See also: Miles, J., The Pathetic Fallacy in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, 1942) 7Google Scholar; Boas, G., Philosophy and Poetry (Norton, Massachusetts, 1932) 10–11Google Scholar; Lowell, A., Six French Poets (New York, 1915) 215Google Scholar; Logan, J. V., ‘Wordsworth and the Pathetic Fallacy’, MLN 55 (1940) 187–191; and Dick (n.2 above) 27Google Scholar.

4. Ruskin (n.3 above) 157-172.

5. ‘Now so long as we see that the feeling is true, we pardon, or are even pleased by, the confessed fallacy of sight which it induces.’ Ruskin (n.3 above) 160.

6. Indeed, some authors go so far as to define the pathetic fallacy as ‘the literary device in which nature is made to react to a human situation’ (Dick, n.2 above, 27) with no immediate mention of the anthropopathic quality of that ‘reaction’.

7. I refer to the author as ‘pseudo-Moschus’ throughout. On the question of authorship, see Gallivotti, C., ’Bione di Smirne e il suo Epitafio,’ BPEC 16 (1968) 65–75Google Scholar. On the poem as a whole, see Barigazzi, A., ‘Sull' epitafio di Bione,’ Maia 19 (1967) 363–369Google Scholar.

8. The ethical dative is further intensified by the rhyme of ailina moi … kai potamoi … nun phuta moi in the same feet in successive lines. The repetition of nun pervades lines 1 through 7.

9. See Trypanis, C. A., ‘Some Observations on [Biōnos] Epitaphios Adōnidos,’ CP 67 (1972) 133–134Google Scholar.

10. Here again, as in The Lament for Bion, the pathetic fallacy is intensified by repetition and rhyme: tēnon in 71-72, pollai (reinforced by par, possi and porties) in 74-75, the play of ōrusanto and ōduranto. Rosenmeyer believes that Theocritus is ‘making a conscious effort’ to refrain from assigning human actions and emotions to wildlife throughout the first idyll and that animals react here in manners appropriate to them. (See Rosenmeyer, n.2 above, 249-250.) This observation is in some ways correct, but it would be wrong to see Theocritus' restraint here as a statement about ‘the externality of nature’ (Rosenmeyer 249). The pathetic fallacy, as we have seen and shall see again, does appear in Theocritus: if he uses it sparingly, then this is because, like most artists except for pseudo-Moschus, he has no desire to overtask the metaphor. See Peters, F. E., The Harvest of Hellenism (New York, 1970) 202–203Google Scholar.

11. See Dutoit, E., La Thème de l' adynaton dans la poésie antique (Paris, 1936Google Scholar) and Rowe, G. O., ‘The Adynaton as a Stylistic Device,’ AJP 86 (1965) 387–396Google Scholar.

12. See Segal, C., ‘Since Daphnis dies. The Meaning of Theocritus' First Idyll,’ MH 31 (1974) 1–22Google Scholar; Gershenson, D. E., ‘Theocritus Idyll 1 and the Reversal of Nature,’ SCI 1 (1974) 24–28Google Scholar; Braun, L. ‘Adynata und versus intercalaris in Lied Damons (Vergil, Eel. 8),’ Philologus 113 (1969) 292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar. ‘ . . At [Daphnis'] death all nature weeps as for a lost friend’. Kynaston, H., Theocritus, fifth edition (Oxford, 1892) 125Google Scholar.

13. The same image appears at Od. 19.205 and Callimachus Hymn 6.91.

14. Honey is especially associated with poets, prophets and bards of all sorts: see Lament for Bion 33-36 and compare the story of Iamos in Pindar, Ol. 6.43-51.

15. This device may have been a common image even in the non-poetic laments of the Hellenistic age. The reader may recall the well-known story of the prediction issued at the death of Alexander the Great that the whole earth would soon reek with the foul odor of decay in response to the loss.

16. See Irigoin, J., ‘L'Europé de Moschos,’ REG 76 (1963) 421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. See Couat, A., La Poésie Alexandrine (Paris, 1882) 437–438Google Scholar.

18. On this song of Lycidas, see Lawall, G., ‘The Green Cabinet and the Pastoral Design. Theocritus, Euripides and Tibullus,’ Ramus 4 (1975) 87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar and von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Hellenistische Dichtung, volume 2 (Berlin, 1924) 140–141Google Scholar.

19. There is, to be sure, a great deal of somewhat comparable animal and nature imagery in Lycophron's Alexandra: seashores abide the snorting of horses, and the wolf (who is obviously Achilles) causes a spring to burst from the sand (243-248); the wave will carry Ajax, son of Oileus, like a diving kingfisher (387-389). But this is the language of prophecy and not mere poetic imagery. Lycophron's metaphors are, on the whole, attempts to embody the veiled language of Cassandra's oracles and do not reflect the same development as can be seen in bucolic poetry and the epigram.

20. The reading of this passage, however, and even its authenticity are hotly debated. See Chomeley (n.1 above) and Gow, Theocritus, volume 2 (n.1 above) in their notes on these lines.

21. See Lawall, G., Theocritus' Coan Pastorals (Cambridge, Mass., 1967Google Scholar), chapter four on ‘Animal Love and Human Love,’ especially p.49.

22. A similar image appears at Theoc. 11.45-49.

23. ‘[Animal sculpture] finally emerged in the Hellenistic period of the third to first century with realistic representations comparable to our nineteenth-century art.’ Richter, G., Animals in Greek Sculpture (Oxford, 1930) xGoogle Scholar. The parallel between Hellenistic art and nineteenth-century art is itself telling: the latter period is precisely when Ruskin will coin the expression ‘pathetic fallacy’ in the criticism of art. See Miles (n.3 above) 7.

24. See Richter, G., A Handbook of Greek Art (London, 1959) 289–291Google Scholar; Robertson, C. M., ‘Greek Mosaics,’ JHS 85 (1965) 72–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Greek Mosaics: a Postscript,’ JHS 87 (1967) 133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. See, as but one example, the controversial ‘Attack of the Laestrygonians’ from the Odyssey frieze in the Vatican museum: Havelock, C., Hellenistic Art (Greenwich, Conn., 1968) 264–265Google Scholar.

26. In the Palatine Anthology, see Archias 7.214, Anyte 7.215, and Antipater of Thessalonica 7.216.

27. See Antipater of Sidon 7.210.

28. See Phaennus 7.197, Archias 7.213, Mnasalcas 7.192, Aristodicus 7.189, and Meleager 7.195 and 7.196.

29. Even on those occasions in earlier poetry, notably archaic lyric and Old Comedy, where there is a focus upon a sensual, pastoral life, the unity of man and nature never reaches the level it does in Alexandrian poetry. For example, Victor Ehrenberg, on the subject of Aristophanes, says The idealization of a peaceful and sensual life [which can be found in Old Comedy] is not the romantic glorification of bucolic existence as with Theokritos; that was unknown to the earlier Greeks. Even the comedians of the fifth century, though they praised to the utmost the peasant's life, did not deny its hardships and difficulties.' See The People of Aristophanes, second edition (Oxford, 1951) 88Google ScholarPubMed.

30. See Körte, A., Hellenistic Poetry, translated by Hammer, J. and Hadas, M. (New York, 1929) 285Google Scholar and van Sickle, J., ‘Theocritus and the Development of the Conception of Bucolic Genre,’ Ramus 5 (1976) 18–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. ‘[The archaic] poets were not so much interested in the expression of passion as they were intent upon describing the phaenomena of their world as they saw, heard, touched and smelled it. They were fascinated by the variegated nature of the objects of their senses: the sound, color, and movement of birds, insects, fishes, and animals; the subtle variations of pitch in music; the color, texture, and fall of clothing and other dyed stuffs; the touch, color, and scent of flowers; and, above all, the play of light upon surfaces of all kinds.’ B. H. Fowler, ‘The Archaic Aesthetic,’ QUCC, forthcoming.

32. Descriptions in pastoral are intense and vivid; green leaves of poplars and elms arch above a spring (Theoc. 7.7-9); a couch will be piled deep in fleabane, asphodel and parsley (Theoc. 7.67-68); udders ‘gush’ (pidōsin) with milk and calves are fat (Theoc. 8.41-42).

33. Water ‘murmurs’ (kelaruze: Theoc. 7.137); cicadas ‘chirp’ (lalageuntes: Theoc. 7.139); owls are to ‘cry’ (garusainto: Theoc. 1.136) to the nightingales; birds ‘twitter’ (lalageunti: Theoc. 5.48); the shore ‘murmurs gently’ (hasucha kachlazontos: Theoc. 6.12).

34. A tawny skin from a bushy goat smells of fresh rennet (Theoc. 7.15-16); Zeus as the bull smells ‘heavenly’ (ambrotos odmē: Mosch. Eur. 91); a cup smells ‘fine’ (kalon: Theoc. 1.149).

35. See Lattimore, R., The Poetry of Greek Tragedy (New York, 1958) 97–98Google Scholar.

36. See Theoc. 7.51.

37. See Lloyd, G. E. R., Greek Science After Aristotle (London, 1973) 140–141Google Scholar.

38. On Bolus, see Diels, H., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, tenth edition, volume 2 (Berlin, 1960) 251Google Scholar. Diels gives the entry of the Suda which preserves the title of Bolus' work (pages 211-212).

39. Nilsson, M. P., Greek Piety, translated by Rose, H. J. (New York, 1969) 103Google Scholar. See also Cassirer, E., An Essay on Man (New Haven, 1944) 82–84Google Scholar.

40. See von Arnim, H., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, volume 2 (Leipzig, 1903) 145, 170Google Scholar.

41. In this poem, sympathetic magic is used with regard to sprinkling (21), burning (24-26), melting (28-29), whirling (30-31), raving (48-51) and wiping (60-62).

42. See Nilsson, M. P., A History of Greek Religion, translated by Fielden, F. J., second edition (New York, 1964) 88, 97Google Scholar; Rose, H. J., Religion in Greece and Rome (New York 1959) 24-25, 121–122Google Scholar.

43. See Rose (n.42 above) 122.

44. For Nechepso-Petosiris, see Reiss, E., ‘Nechepsonis et Petosiridis Fragmenta Magica,’ Philol. 6 Suppl. (1891–1893) 325–394Google Scholar; for Hermes Trismegistus, see Nock, A. D. and Festugière, A. J., Hermes Trismégiste: Corpus Hermeticum, volumes 1 and 2, second edition (Paris, 1960) and volumes 3 and 4 (Paris, 1954Google Scholar); for Vettius Valens, see Kroll, W., Vettius Valens (Berlin, 1908) 5Google Scholar.

45. On the role of Bolus and sympathy in the history of alchemy, see Taton, R., History of Science: Ancient and Mediaeval Science, translated by Pomerans, A. J. (New York, 1963) 336–338Google Scholar.

46. See Rose (n.42 above) 122.

47. See Dick (n.2 above) 28.

48. This image would later by picked up by the Hellenistic poets: see Call. Del. 260.

49. ‘Wie im Hymnos die Insel Delos blüht aus Freude über die Geburt des Gottes, so sehen wir hier [on Athens Nat. Mus. 3961.911] die mannigfaltigsten Pflanzen die unerhörte Pracht des göttlichen Zuges umgeben.’ Schefold, K., Frühgriechische Sagenbilder (Munich, 1964) 28Google Scholar.

50. See Ehrenberg (n.29 above) 164 and Dover, K.J., Aristophanic Comedy (Berkeley, 1972) 30–48Google Scholar.

51. Herodotus also has a form of adynaton at 5.92: Sosicles of Corinth tells the allies of the Spartans that if they institute despotism, then earth and sky, men and fish will change places.

52. See the introduction to Perry, B. E., Aesopica, volume 1 (Urbana, 1952Google Scholar).

53. Fable continued to exert its influence, and even had something of a renaissance, in Hellenistic literature. This is perhaps most apparent in the works of Callimachus: see Clayman, D. L., ‘Callimachus' Fourth Iamb,’ CJ 74 (1979) 142–148Google Scholar.

54. Ancient sources for most of the names mentioned will be given in the text below. Those not mentioned later are: Taras (Paus. 10.10.8), Leonidas of Byzantium (Ael. 2.6). See also the RE entry ‘Delphin’; Berard, C., Anodoi: Essai sur l'imagerie des passages chthoniens (Rome, 1974Google Scholar); Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (New York, 1921) 39–47Google Scholar; Moon, W., ‘An Enigmatic Vase from Centuripe,’ Elvehem Art Center Bulletin (1975–1976) 13Google Scholar.

55. Euripides, although he does not mention the dolphin, alludes to Ino's jump from the cliff with Melicertes in her arms (Med. 1284-1286).

56. See Pliny NH 9.25, 33; the story of the unnamed boy from Iasus in Caria, at Plut. De Soll. An. 984E-F and Ael. NA 6.15; the story of the dolphin of Hippo, at Pliny, Ep. 9.33.

57. Cavafy intensifies this image in his The Horses of Achilles (1897): it is precisely because the horses are cut off from the ordinary course of nature (including death) that they are outraged, distressed and confused by the death of Patroclus. Their grief, in Cavafy's poem, derives at least in part from a feeling that those who must die are subject to a perplexing injustice.

58. It is, to be sure, a very difficult problem to determine when a Greek author is viewing Ouranos and Gaia as elements of nature without personality and human shape or when he is viewing them as gods (with little enough personality as it is): the distinction certainly meant less to the ancients than it does to us. But in the present case, the matter is somewhat clearer. Bowra's reading of the line is certainly correct: Pindar has in mind the gods more than the forces of nature. Ouranos/ouranos may be ambiguous, but the expression Gaia matēr points to personification.

59. Dick (n.2 above) 28.

60. See Farnell (n.54 above) 35-39. One must reconstruct this story partially from Ovid Metam. 4.416-561 and Apollod. 3.28-29.

61. Bernard Knox, for instance, views the plague as resulting from a situation far removed from the ordinary course of mortal life: a perverted hieros gamos of a king who has a magical effect on fertility. See Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven, 1957) 114Google ScholarPubMed.

62. The land of the Cyclopes is wholly different, however, in terms of the function of the narrative. The Cyclopes are meant to be depicted as devoid of any culture or civilization, without even the most rudimentary necessities of human society. This is their reason for lacking agriculture: not paradise, but savagery.

63. Dick (n.2 above) 30.

64. Dick gives the reference to Curtius as: Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, fourth edition (Bern and Munich, 1963) 106 ffGoogle Scholar.

65. See Segal (n.12 above) 1-22 and Gershenson (n.12 above) 24-28.

66. ‘Nature can no longer be concordant, for Daphnis is dead.’ Dick (n.2 above) 31.

67. On this passage, Dick is closer to the mark: ‘The poem moves through the various forms of life — plant, animal, man — and all become bound up in a cosmos of suffering from which every creature, except man, can extricate himself.’ Dick (n.2 above) 34.

68. Lewis Thomas has dealt specifically with this phenomenon on a number of occasions. ‘It is a natural marvel. All of the life of the earth dies, all of the time, in the same volume as the new life that dazzles us each morning, each spring. All we see of this is the odd stump, the fly struggling on the porch floor of the summer house in October, the fragment on the highway. I have lived all my life with an embarrassment of squirrels in my backyard, they are all over the place, all year long, and I have never seen, anywhere, a dead squirrel.’ Thomas, L., ‘Death in the Open,’ from The Lives of a Cell (New York, 1974) 97–98Google ScholarPubMed; see also his ‘On Natural Death,’ in The Medusa and the Snail (New York, 1979) 102–105Google ScholarPubMed. All of this hidden death, Dr. Thomas feels, serves to make human death seem unique and unusual, and we so treat it.

69. The mystery cults sought release from the heimarmene, the fated end, of death. They did this by the initiate's association with a savior deity who was either firmly a part of nature (hence capable of natural regeneration) or completely cut off from nature (hence unaffected by the natural end of death). See Nilsson (n.39 above) 150-154.

70. ‘The poet may wish he could become another Orpheus and rescue Bion, but in the real world of death a descent to the underworld is meaningless; it can happen only in myth.’ Dick (n.2 above) 34.