allegorical debate

7/30/2019 Allegorical Debate

1/47

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Some Features of the Allegorical Debate in Greek LiteratureAuthor(s): M. C. WaitesReviewed work(s):Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 23 (1912), pp. 1-46Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310446 .

Accessed: 30/04/2012 07:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/310446?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/310446?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu


2/47

SOME FEATURES OF THE ALLEGORICAL DEBATE INGREEK LITERATUREBy M. C. WAITES

THE investigation,heresults fwhich re embodied n thefollow-ingpages,wasundertakenn thefirstnstance oprovidematerialfora Latin dissertationwrittenn partialfulfilmentf therequirementsfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy n the Departmentof theClassics at RadcliffeCollege. I expectedmydissertation o containatolerably ompleteaccountof theallegoricaldebate as it presentstselfinthe iteraturesfGreece and Rome. The field fmy abors,however,provedso fertile hat was obligedto limitmyself o certainphases oftheallegoricaldebate observable n Greek literature efore the birth fChrist. The widertask is still far fromcompletion. I have,indeed,scarcelystaked the boundariesof my"claim," and yet, if merely ortheconsecration fmyTerminus, have thought hat briefdiscussionofmaterial o farcollectedmightnotbe devoid of interest. In orderto present the subject adequately, shall occasionallyrepeat conclu-sions elsewheresummarized.'The tendencieswhichlead to the productionof allegoricaldebatesare, ofcourse,world-wide. Wherevermenhave been able to compre-hend the contrasts f lifeand presentthemas abstractions his iterarytype has arisen. Such tendencies,however,are peculiarlyHellenic.Of all men,the Greek loved best to clothe the inanimatewithhumanvesture and to conceive it as inspiredwith emotions like his own.Equally characteristics the desire to analyze,to separateand contrastcomponents. In the very structure f Greek speech, two particles,l4v and 4', remain as a result of this attitude.2

1 See SomeAspects f theAncientAllegoricalDebate in Studies n 'English ndComparativeiterature yformerndpresenttudents t RadcliffeCollege Ginn&Co., 1910), pp. 75 ff. The subjectwas suggested omebyProfessor. K. Rand,towhose lluminatingdvice ndfriendlyounsel amdeeplyndebted.2 Cf. Kemmer, ie Polare Ausdrucksweisen der Gr. Literatur Beitraige urkistorischenyntaxdergr. Sprache,Heft15), Wiirzburg,1903.I


3/47

2 M. C. Wa itesEverywheren Greek literature he combinationof these two pro-cesses evolves types suggestiveof the allegoricaldebate. In order,therefore,o define the genre closely,careful limitation of terms isnecessary. By an allegoricaldebate, I mean a verbal contest n whichtheparticipantsre eithernot humanor don for the nonce thegarb ofmortalsmerely n order to depict in more vivid colors the strifeofopposingprinciples.' So one might airly lass as an allegoricaldebatethe so-calledDialogue between Chrisdan and a Jew,2because,thougheach contestants neatly abelled with name of his own,he is,never-theless, ntendedmerely o typify is religion. The dialogue, herefore,is an approach to a purely allegoricalcontest between Church andSynagogue." To theGreek,who saw everywherehedivinefire hiningthrough he commonplace,the boundarybetween the allegoricalandthemythicalwas vague indeed.As to the procedureof the typicaldebate, precise definition s im-possible. We maydemandat least that each combatant shall defend,with n approachto consistency,ome one view,oftenmerely he ideaof his own superiority.We shall not find the allegoricaldebate pro-

videdwith background, stage-settingf its own. Rather, ach writerwillfurnish is ownenvironment, odellinghis maginaryltercation nthecontroversies ithwhichhe has become familiarhrough ispersonalor literaryxperience. An Aesopicfablemay suggestto himtheideaof contrasting wo animals or two plants; a rhapsodiccontestmayprovidehimwithhis scenery, r an actual disputemaybe removedfromCf.the interestingissertationf Dr. J. Holly Hanford,Originand Develop-ment ftheAllegorical ebate n MedievalLiterature,Harvarddissertationunpub-lished), 19o09, p. 2: "Only a smallportion f thesepoemsmayfairly e calledallegorical. There is, however, certain llegorical lementnherentn the formitselfnd ncidentalllegorical eaturesre recurrent.Notefirst hatthe charactersthemselvesncline obe allegoricals types ndpersonificationsreontheway owardallegory.Furthermore,s thesetypes nd personificationsontend,hey akepart ncharacteristicction nd so the poemsas a whole approach llegory. . . In thislimitedense, hen, heterm llegoricalmay erve."2 AtdXo-yospwrartavo aL0Iov'I lo . .. yev6tevo bv 'AXe?avypelGrv a^S paosKvplXXovo0dyutrdcrovpX(etrtoKrwovUs ab4s TrbXews.ee Harnack,TexteundUntersuchungen,, 3, p. 75; A. Mai, Spicilegium omanum, X, pp. xiff.

3 Cf. St. Aug. Op. (ed. Monach.ordinisS. Benedicti congregatione. Mauri,Paris,1837), vol. V, pt. I, p. 93c.


4/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 3thecourt-roomr the rostrumo add reality o thestructure fallegory.For convenience, shall consider firstthe debate among the lyricpoets,next in rhetoric nd philosophy, hirdlyn the drama. I shallthendiscussbrieflyome developmentsof the debate during heAlex-andrian Age. Lastly, to give an idea of later developments, shallselect two prominentwriters f the second-century enaissance andtreatthedebates which ppear in theirworks.'

ITHE ALLEGORICAL DEBATE AMONG THE LYRIC POETS

The tendency o personifymayoften,without nyidea of contestordispute,produce somethingresembling n allegoricaldebate. So, forinstance,Sappho in a beautifulfragment Io9) sings of a maiden'sdespairing ppeal to hermaidenhood:HapOcvla, rapOcvta,rot XLour (7,ot);And Virginitynswers,OV'KCT'LW, w 1p'T ( &,OKCL d.2As soon as a somewhatpolemical dialogue between two suchfiguresis suggested,we havewhat s practically n allegoricaldebate. Such acase will be apt to occurin anyform flyricwhichemploysresponsivesongs. For example,Professor myth n his Melic Poets,p. cxv,thusdescribes heEpithalamium " The chorus onsisted ither fgirls lone,or of girls nd youthswho danced and sang responsively.... In theamoebeansong,the maidenfriends fthebride aud herbeauty, rotest

II have found oworkof importance hichdeals exclusively ith heallegoricaldebate n the classics. Helpful uggestionsmaybe found n thefollowing:T. C.Burgess,EpideicticLiteratureChicago,1902, Universityf Chicagodissert.),pp.234 ff.; 0. IHense,Die Synkrisis n der antikenLiteratur, rorektorats-Program(Freiburg, 893),passim; R. Hirzel,Der Dialog (Leipzig, 1895), see index underavyKplaetL nd Diatriben; E. Norden, Antike Kunsprosa (Leipzig, 19o9), I, pp.129 ff.; T. Sinko,Studia Nazianzenica (Cracow, 90o6), p. 3 ff.; U. vonWilamo-witz-M6llendorff,hilologischentersuchungen,V (I88I), 292 ff.2 The poetessTelesilla seemsto have comparedor contrasted wo allegoricalfigures. The scholiast, n Odys 13, 289, notes,KaXT re -wydXye: 'Ex r7S Kcarr,79r? tv KOLAbrL6TrroL alo8o Ka18 ro obrovOEd'r 818-ot, KcxO& aG YO


5/47

4 M. C. Waitesagainst thecruelty hat separatesherfromhermother, hantthe bles-sedness of the virgin tate,heap reproaches n the bridegroom . .On the otherhand,the band of youthsdefendand congratulate heirfortunateomrade,deprecatethe condition f the unprofitable irgin,"'etc.Catullus62, a poem modelled closelyon Greek precedent, rovidesan example. The youthsand maidenshere are not individuals; theyare meantmerely o represent he oppositionof the sexes. Contrastlines ike 20 ff., hesongof themaids," Hespere, qui caelo ferturrudeliorgnis?Qui natampossiscomplexuavellerematris,Complexumatris etinentemvellerenatamEt iuveniardenti astamdonarepuellam.Quid faciunthostescapta crudeliusurbe "-withthe chantof theyoungmen (26 ff.)

"Hespere, qui caelo lucet iucundior gnis?Qui desponsa tua firmesonubiaflamma,Quae pepigereviri,pepigerunt nte parentes,Nec iunxerepriusquam se tuusextulit rdor.Quid datura divisfelicioptatiushora?"Somewhatsimiliar s the situation n Alcman's famous Partheneion.

(frg.23, Bergk.). Here (fromvv. 39-59) are sungthepraisesfirst fthe beautifulAgido, thenof the scarcely ess fairHagesichora. Theversesare much discussed. Whether,however,we conceive themasrecitedby thepoet', bya girl-soloist,or bytwo members f thevirgin-chorus" is of little intrinsic mportance, houghthe last suppositionwould perhapsmake the debate most clear. The poem turnsfirst oAgido (v. 39, ~yv 8' ed&o 'Ayt&i r' 4,&s),but almost mmediatelyreference o Hagesichora intrudes ei VC'oJ 7rawvvTE LwLSoacLVLVSKXEVVa Xopayo OW8 a'L,; i4 and in vv. 51 ff.her beautyreceivesguerdonof lovely ines,althoughforthwithhesuperiorityf her rival srecognized. (a vSevrTpa S" '"AytS'vTOFedLS . . . SpaletTatL.)

I Bergk. P. L. G. III, p. 832; cf. Jurenka, Vienna Academy, Sitzungsberichte,CXXXV (1896), 14.2 Wilamowitz, Hermes, XXXII (1897), p. 259.

3 Blass,Hermes,XIII (1878), p. 30.


6/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 5The versesbyno meansconstitute regular llegoricaldebate. Still,the antiphonalpraiseof the two maidens withthe incessantcontrastbetween hem auses an approachto theconventional orm. So Plutarchin the Life of Lycurgus c. 21) explains thatat the Lacedaemonianfestivals herewerethreechorusescorresponding o three ges of man.The old menbegan,

'Ap~~' 7TOK"/LESLXKLUOLCaVL"L.To whichtheyouths eplied,

"A/uesSe -" q'ILC's"t Se X.ys, vyarusco.Finallytheboys' chorus ang,'Apks" ys ccd


7/47

6 M. C. Wa itesAgain thegravernote intrudes 31-48),

rT Sl, AtoTdroLO rat,...avi'Cdrervvewras XLK&av7rpoa(OV v' oAov . . .

irXavS 7rervOos" faro6v"Again thesharpcontrast,.XXa. vvuOtPaLioXoEvoSavdorarrcvEKXEL/ULVOT.daOl/AaL at oTV7CVOL~LVdp?O-(OV"

Religionadds itscaution,S 8 0ardmOVaT)/? OpaaaET( Oovof.t riiervo7v ~1pov TKV VOo TL Tfp7rVoV 4%CqEpOV&O)KOWEKaXo ~1TEuyvypas /Vrv pa-LLOvawia. OvcrTKOAEVap O/AL&Trav7TETO. 7rap" KavyXvKV7rKP07oT~TaVE'LTeXEVrr.The poem closes,as it began,in joy.'If we are to trust rofessorGildersleeve,'partof the second Pythian(72 ff.) nearly pproaches an allegoricaldebate. This scholar,as hereads, hearkensfirst o a Al&atos, hen to an "ALtKOgAoyos. PindardiffersromAristophanesnd Righteousness ltimatelyriumphs. Suchan analysis f thepassage is interestingnd ingenious, ven if notcon-

vincing. For the most part, however,the oppositionof ideas is notclearlyenoughexpressedfora debate.I have elsewherediscussed the mostperfect xampleof thedebatein the lyricpoets. It occurs in a mutilatedpoem by Corinna,pub-lishedbyWilamowitz, rieckische ickter-Fragmente,I (1907), p. 26.From the sorryremnants,we can discern contest,probablyn song,held between Helicon and Cithaeron in the presence of the gods.t Cf. Pyth. 4, 288 ff.; PytI. I, 1-31; 81 ff.2 The Olympiannd PytkianOdes 1890), p. 255-3 SomeAspects f heAncientAllegorical ebate,pp. 92 f.


8/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 7When we are permitted o view the struggle, ithaeron s apparentlysinging f the birth f Zeus;16. [Tr]KavKaLVKXVtI/1A.[K?]pa PLVa,[/~yc]hXav ' [&]Ocav'ov [*jJsUl)Xct/AaV.At theconclusionof thesong,the gods cast theirvotesand Hermes asheraldproclaimsCithaeronvictor.The agon has a tragic postlude, for Helicon in wrath snatches ahuge bowlder and hurls t upon ' countless multitudes,' oubtlessthemembers f an attentivemortal udience.ProbablyCithaeron's ongwas preceded bysome proofof Helicon'sprowess,musicalor otherwise. The contestof the twomountainswillthenfollow formula o generalas to be practically convention f theallegoricaldebate. In themajority fcases, thecontestant estinedtodefeatbeginsthedispute.How farthe mountains re to be regardedas allegoricalfiguressdifficult o determine. Perhaps, as Corinna embellished her poem,Helicon and Cithaeronwere in her mindmere personificationsuitedifferent,orexample,fromthe Zeus that dwelt on Olympus; though,as a matterof fact, preciselyparallel to thatdivinity. On the otherhand, her descriptionwould certainlymplythat the combatantswereto her hoary giants,sincerely regarded as actual patron deities oftheirrespectivepeaks'. The elementof debate is diminishedby thefact that theperformances obviouslymodelledon a rhapsodiccontest,so that the contestants re opposed merelyn theirrecitations, ot infundamentalharacter.

IITHE DEBATE IN RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY

Certainspecial influences ereearly t work o turn hethoughtsndmode of expression f philosophers nstinctivelyowardtheallegoricaldebate. One of themost importantwas the customof allegorical n-terpretation,pplied to refine nd explain sundry evolting assagesofCf.Wilamowitz, . c., pp. 48 f. One maycomparethe contestbetweenPanand Apollo in Ovid,Met. I I, 153 ff.,whereTmolus ctsas judgeand seatshimselfmonte uo.


9/47

8 M. C. WaitesGreek Mythology. Theagenes of Rhegium,to whom is attributed heinventionof this compromisebetween savageryand civilization,wasinclined,according to Porphyry, o interpretthe Homeric contestswheredeityencountersdeityas allegorically ymbolizing he strife fnatural forces. Sometimes,too, the names of the gods were said totypifyllegorically pposingabstractions,ike Wisdomand Folly.1Certainof theplacitaof thephilosophershave also a bearingon ourproblem. So Empedocles,frg. 0 (Diels, FragmentederVorsokratiker),thusdescribesthe eternal onflict etweenLove and Hate:

jXXoTr e'v)kdryT (VVCPXOEOVlCVL ravra . . ,aXXOTCr ' avTre KaKTqtL 8aT/a.lOIVT'Ep3OeITOLrkXadcrat av&tx' eKacrTa 7rcptppqvlyitV Lo.Protagoras is especially significant, or he, according to DiogenesLaertius,9, 51, p7rPTroE4C7qvo XOdov c a t7"ra 7' 7raVTo" 7TrpdyjLTrodVTiLKMEViOV dA7XXo&7.2 Hirzel,8 ndeed, sees in theAntilogiai of Pro-tagorastheinfluencewhich haped not onlythe debate of the twoXo'yoLin the Clouds of Aristophanesbut, albeit to an opposite issue, theRepublic of Plato. Carneades, too, we are informed,4mused theRoman litteratiduringhis embassyby arguingone day in praise of

1 Schol. Venet. ad Y 67: o0 d0v/l/A6povh~v repZOleioXETaLa(6XOU X6bos,boloWS 6U Kar TOv aCrperouv O6 yTp irpErovwra 7T0-o brp T OV Oew^V OOUS 70rlV.irpbs 6U 7T) TOLat7rV rAIvU olf v dba S XEOWS KaT7'yOpOUVTEs, XX-7yopig1-dVraelpOaCr volt4oburesOrT p r7-7 TCiV rTOL(EWv' /6ews, otov ras dvavrtdo(eLo rT$V OeCoVKaZydp caLTr7- pbv 7r rypy . . . gaxeOat KaZKTKO6DOV7o P/8ape. . . dXa8 &aTlOeoOat [cabr6v] 8tovocd~ovra7b vY7rp 'Arb6XXwva ra "HXALOVJKaHq5aaroY,Tb UV68wp oo-etbwva ai Kdtav6pov . . ~0' 6T Ka TaL &taO&eorv'v6arTaOeovTrOdvat, - tYv pov'r5EL v 'AOuavY, T 86' dpoorv 7Y6v"Apea . . .orors Iy6 ov


10/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 9Justiceand the next, with even greaterenthusiasm, n defence ofInjustice.A very ypical nd important llegoricaldebate was evolved byPro-dicus and recountedby Xenophon (Afemorab.2, I, 21) in the well-known tory f Heracles at theCross-roads. In fact,no bettermethodof illustratinghe growth nd developmentof such contestscould befoundthana carefulexamination f the sources and imitators f Pro-dicus.The debate is in structure airly laborate. The youngHeracles isrepresented s havingreached the boundarybetween boyhood andyouth, esitatingt the cross-roads eforedecidingwhether opursue hepathwhich eads to Virtueor that whose end is Vice. His uncertaintypresents tself n tangibleform,'for two fairfigures pproach him ashe sits in solitude. The contrasting escriptions re worthquoting:' And it seemed to himthat twowomenof great staturecame towardhim,one comelyto see and noble,her body adorned withpurity, ereyes withmodesty,her form withwise restraint, womanclothed inwhiterobes; the other nclined to plumpness nd delicacyofbody,hercomplexion embellished so as to seem both rosierand fairer than itreallywas,hereyes boldlyopen,herclothing rranged na mannerbestfitted o revealherfairform.' The ladydoes not belie herappearance.Hastening to pass her modest companion,she rushesup to Heraclesand proceedsto unfold o him themanifold dvantagesoflife's ourneyin her company. (&'v oiv it X-vrot. o apuevos, Cit-] Tqv 78L-TrvTe KaL pcTTKl7vSOv 0.) Oc' KCTWV E 4rrrvvTW EVo31yEVo'rosa'L,TWV Se Xxahecrv 7rctpos StafLW, Kx..h.) In response oa question,she introducesherself s Happiness (E SatMovia), admitting, owever,thather traducers all herVice (KaK'a). At thispoint,hercomrade,Virtue, ntervenes. She makes no specious promises rtiv yap vVroTVayaOwvKalt aXwjv 8;ev lev 7rrovoVKaoti7tqJeXLa. O.ot 60LSOcLtvvOp4-7ro~1); infact,one feels some sympathy iththecontemptuousKaKta,whoremarks hatthe paths of her opponent are anything utwaysofpleasantness. This produces an indignanttirade fromVirtue,who

There s inreality double llegory ere. The possiblechoices re symbolized,first y the two paths,thenby the two women. I shouldsuggest hat the latterconceptionmaywell be due toProdicus imself. He could thusbestemphasize hemoral lementnhisapologue.


11/47


12/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature IIA well-known ymbolof the Pythagoreanphilosophywas the letter

Y, the eftfork fwhichrepresented he road to Vice, theright ork heroad to Virtue.' This conceptionmaywell have influenced rodicus.2Heracleitus is said to have remarked-: avvyro,/Aowdrv8~V cEiE6S$'av r' yev' Oat dyaOdv,and theCynicsconsideredtheirphilosophyas this"short cut." 4 Letter30 attributed o Diogenes explainshowAntisthenesmade use of the figure f the Ways in a mannerpossiblysuggestedby Prodicus's fable. The supposed Diogenes thererelatesthat Antisthenes, o illustrate point in his lectures, ed his pupilsthrough he cityto the Acropolisand compared the two pathswhichgave access to the summit, ne short nd rugged, he other ong andlevel,to theroadswhichconductmankind o Happiness.Rememberingthe scholium quoted on p. 3, Welcker suggestsTelesilla as anotherpossible sourcefor Prodicus.The comment f Athenaeus 5 io c) suggests connectionbetweenourapologue and theJudgmentfParis:y 86 . KcL T27V T0 ap WO KpWLV 0TV T LOTEpto 7Te-7ro7TOat Sov^17 7Tp' &pvV ovo taY OvyKpfLV-' 7rpOKPLtOC'TY OU0 7T/

'A4poo3rlr',~vr "8rri"v j ov1o, -7rvCLravvcrapayXO. O L KEKa okaXos jtv C.vo iivWVVrcp* 75 76V 'HpaKX&aa7 T-VpET77V/.LVOOVeevOvv rve-XaK-vat. Cf. ibid. 15, 687c.6Cf. Lact. 6, 3, 6; Pers.3, 56; Stob.Eclog. II, 9, 6 (Wachsmuth); Ausonius,i66, 124 (ed. Peiper); F. P. G. (ed. Mullach), I, p. 511; Isidore,Orig.1,3, 7.The figurefthetwo roadsand its significanceor heearlyChristians,s wellas itsconnection ith hePythagoreanetter,s fully iscussed yC. Pascal, 1 Bivio dellaVita, n Miscellanea Ceriani (Milan, 1910), pp. 57 ff.2 Cf.Ps.-Theognis,1I if.:iv rplo8p (T) 8' 9orgac -i' elot rdrp6iOev 601lIo=

4?povrtic ro6,wvV rvrLo t rporipqy77Anv 5aravrv7pdYwlov vc1LK67'qt,i7 w repirv@'scpya eXwiv '1ya.Gnom.Vat. (ed. Sternbach), . 315 ( WienerStudien, o (1888), p. 250).4 Cf. Epist. Gr. (ed. Hercher), 12,p. 238; 37, p. 252.5Kleine Schriften,I, 46920.' The EtruscanmirrorsrecitedbySchultzHerakles m Scheidewege,hilologus,68 (191o), p. 490 andn. 5), in his ttempto establish versionlder hanProdicus,

yet ndependentf theJudgmentf Paris, nwhichArete s replacedbythefigureof Minerva. He refers specially oGerhard, truskisckepiegel, 55 i. e., I51?)and 156. Thesemirrors,owever, resents a class uch curiousperhapsOrphic)


13/47

12 M. C. WaitesHistorically,heremaybe a connection betweena myth ike theJudg-mentofParisand thefableofProdicus. But in thought,hedifferencein thenumber ftheallegoricalfigures,' he exactlyopposite ssue,andabove all themarkedmoral and didactic purposeof Prodicusshowtheslightness f the kinship. Far nearer in spirit s the mythof Hip-polytus.Hense 2 has a fewpages of excellentcommentupon the significanceof this debate. It exemplifies he law of precedence by which theparty o be defeated regularly egins theargument. This debate is alittlepeculiar in that the figure f Virtue s introducedfirst. Later,however ? 23), the ill-bredhaste of Vice urges herto open thecon-versation. The wordsof Virtue offer slightsuggestion f a trainofattendantsbywhom, n the originalversion,Vice mayhave been ac-companied. (Cf. ? 31: ~1ri'v 4pov


14/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature I3Cicero,de Offic. , 32, I 8 givesa translationfpartof Xenophon'saccount. It is possible that Panaetius upon whose famous workVrCEp70ro KaN'Ororo the de Ofciis is based, may also have quoted theapologue.Id. de Fin, 2, 14, 44: " Ita ceterorum ententiis emotis relinquiturnon mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuti um voluptate certatio: quamquidem certationemhomo et acutus et diligens Chrysippusnon con-temnit otumquediscrimen ummiboni in earumcomparatione ositumputat." We infer rom hispassagethatChrysippuslso was influencedby Prodicus'sexample,perhaps n thework7rcpt a0XoKa 0Svo where,as AulusGelliusrecords 14, 4), he drew a graphicpictureofJustice.De Fin. 2, 21, 69: "'Pudebit te,' inquam, 'illius tabulae quamCleanthes sane commode verbis depingeresolebat. lubebat eos quiaudiebantsecum ipsos cogitare pictam n tabula Voluptatem, ulcher-rimovestituet ornaturegali in solio sedentem: praesto esse Virtutesut ancillulas. ... .'"It is hardly ikely hatCleanthes n thisdescription eltthe nfluenceofProdicus.2The interesting ebate in Ovid, Amor.3, I has thefollowing ointsof resemblance o Prodicus: (i) the solitarymeditation f thepersontowhomtheallegorical haracters resent hemselves; (2) thecrucialchoice,--in thiscase between twomodes ofpoetry, ragedy nd Elegy.Tragedyand Elegy are each representedbyone speech,and this ackof extendedargument s characteristic f thoseclassicaldebates whichwereproduced under theinfluence f Rhetoricand Philosophy. Theapologue of Prodicus is peculiar in the factthat, hough he claims ofVirtue re plainly n the sophist'smind farmore important hanthoseofVice, he neverthelessllowsKaKla to interrupt er rival nd take thestage again for brief pace.Amongthe figuresn the Tabula of 'Cebes,' we find the contrastbetweenIIHaSlda and IcvSo7raLSdlaemphasized in a wayreminiscent fProdicus. An old man interpretso a passingstranger n allegoricalpaintinghanging n the forecourt f the templeof Cronus. CertainCf. theversionn Philo.2 St. Augustine enlarges on the dea inDe Civ. Dei, 5, 20; cf. Seneca, De Vit.Beat. I I. Cleanthesdoubtlesspaintedhis word-picturein iis libris uos scripsitcontravoluptatem" (Nat. Deor. I, 14, 37).


15/47

I4 M. C.C. Waitesspendthriftsre thererepresented, ho having squanderedall the giftsof Fortune,wander in abject miserytill theyfall into the power ofMerdvoua. She relievesthemfrom theirmisfortunesnd introduces othem certainOpinions, one of which will prove a guide to 'AXqOtv'jnllaLSe'a, the other to IcvEo7razLSe'a.The steeppath of True Learningleads finally o two fairwomen typifyingelf-Control nd Endurance,whopresent hepilgrimswithreliable comradesthrough hoseaid theyfinally ttain the goal. The debate is petrified, ut the influenceofProdicus is apparent. One significant hange is the interposition ftheguidesand interpreters.Philo Iudaeus' begins in these words a long contention betweenPleasureand Virtue:' With everymanof us dwell twowomen,hostile nd unfriendlyheone to the other. . . . One of thesewe are fond of,regardingher aseasyto deal with nd to manage, nd a good friend nd intimate. Hername is Pleasure. The otherwe hate,thinkingher ourworstenemy.Her name is Virtue.'The appearanceof Pleasure s describedentirelyfter hemanner fProdicus. ('H /LEv o0Yv rpoopXErat 7r0pvr19Kal Xa/laptGvLr Toyv7pO7TOVTCOpV/L/LVqY , KCKXaaT/rEV^) 7T)

^l.AaTL...

O.apaoT .,/Tum aVO.XVTLo.XcvC/AXfirovcrc& ... 73cptepyq) 7J-OLKLXa 7a'Ta TI KecaXLX? 7PLtXcL &varLrE7TXey-An appallingtrain of familiars ttends her, of whom Impiety, n-justice,and Deceit maybe mentioned s representative.Withflatter-ingwords,Pleasure strivesto allure the mind, promisinggratificationofevery ensuallust and desire. Virtue, n fear that her companion's

beguilementsmay produce their effect, nterfereswith a statementof her own claims. Philo exhausts himselfin praisingher purityand modesty nd enumerateshertrainof more than thirty--satellitessuchas Piety,Truth, nd Temperance. Virtueherself ollows hecon-ventional ble, ituperatinger rival nd lavishlyaudingher owncharms.At theconclusion f herargument,he mindobediently ejectsPleasureand ensuesVirtue.The lengthofPhilo's debate is due to his tiresome nd characteristicprolixity. The long trainof attendantshas been evolved fromthesimpleOKacrosfVice in Xenophon'saccount.

I de Sacr. Abelis et Caini, 20 ff. Cohn & Wendland, I, p. 209).


16/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 15Philo's verydiction is indeed so reminiscent f the version n theMemorabiliathatthiswas certainly ne of his sources. But,as Wend-land has demonstrated,'here re other nfluencestwork. Novs takestheplace ofHeracles and 'HWov"f KadKa. This last changepoints nthe directionof the Stoico-Epicureancontestand suggeststhat Philohad access to some Stoic source,possiblyChrysippus.2 As Wendlandfurther emarks, he speech of Virtueis practically n encomiumof

irovos,8which eemsto show Cynic nfluence. But,on theotherhand,Prodicus, ccording to the versionof Xenophon,foreshadowst. Cf.?28: Tw"vypovWv ayaOvV KaXt vax vv Gvev rovov a't7rtctUu'as

0eo' 6&0arvwvOp4prots. Perhapsalso Philo had beforehimthe TabulaofCebes.4In the fifteenthook of Punica (i8 ff.),Silius Italicus depicts theyoungScipio sitting,ike theyoungHeracles, in solitude. To himap-pearVirtus ndVoluptasof whomVoluptas ntroduces erself irst. Sheis thelegitimate escendantofProdicus'sfancy:"Altera Achaemenium pirabatverticeodorem,ambrosiasdiffusa omas et vesterefulgens. . ."Virtue s interestinglyifferentromherpredecessors:"Alternisdisparhabitus fronshirtanec umquamcompositamutatacoma; stansvultus, t oreincessuqueviropropior."The Cynicnote is plainlyto be heardhere.Dio ChrysostomOr. I, 65 ff., 3 M.) introducesHermesas "guide,philosopher nd friend to lead the youngAlcides overa path nac-cessible to mortalfeet and reveal to him a mountain so loftythatits two peaks,Kingly Power and Tyranny,ppear fromthe foot onesummit.

NeuentdeckteFragmente Philos, Berlin, 1891, pp. 14o ff.2 Cf. Hense, Die Synkrisis, p. 22.3 Cf. thewords of Virtue, 1 (Cohn & Wendland, , p. 218): 5oxe YdYpoAr6vosT'Y aGrlrbvpoTpoEdTOcaL Ja/ALYtrpo4 I aOcreiTepoW uTrr7b 77v7ipprTKEYgatw? avKapoaara Kai 7& d& 7 Nv drcawayL a TE Kal rdcO2,rOVTI KKalbr6os

iKKep4acKEY CavroTu r& dya0c4.4 So Praechter, Cebetis Tabula quanam aetate conscripta esse videatur, I885,p. 96, and vanWageningen, eb. Tab., 1903,p. xii.


17/47

16 MA. C. WaitesAs we anticipate, wowidelydissimilar athsgiveaccess to thepeaks.

Here, however,we notice an interesting,houghnatural, ariant. FortheWayof KinglyPower is broad and safe,that of Tyranny narrowand tortuous efile. Upon thepeaks sit theirmistresses, asileia andTyrannis. The former s modelled somewhatcloselyupon the 'Aper-of Prodicus,thoughthe whole account is naturallymotivedto fit hescheme of the oration. She is attended by AL'Kfl,ErvoAta,Eiprjv,Nod'os.Tyranny'sthrone is far loftier nd finer,her garments re many-colored and in her manner he endeavorsto imitateher rival. But shecannot sit peacefullyon herunsteadyseat and all her splendorsaremeretricious. Her servants are 'O[fto7rs, "Yflpp, 'Avoutda, T"rdoas,KoXaKea. Heracles, upon examination, purns Tyrannisand all herways, nd vehemently xpresseshis admiration orBasileia.Unique as this version f our apologue appears,we need not assumean intermediate ource between Dio and Xenophon. What Dio coulddo in thewayofpersonification aybe seen fromOr. IV, 83 ff. 72 M),whereDiogenes, in replyto a question fromAlexander, epresents sdaimonesthe sortsof lives towhichmenprincipallyncline.' Probably,however, he influenceof Cleanthes and Cebes maybe traced in thetendency o turnfrom hedebate-form o puredescription.2Essentially he scheme of the Choice of Heracles is reproduced nLucian's Dream (c. 6 ff.). A youngmanand his career re theobjectsof contentionbetweenStatuary nd Culture, ach of whommakes onelong speech. Statuarydooms herselfto defeat by beginning. Aselsewhere" ucian paints a pictureprofessedlymodelled on Cebes, wemayassumethe influenceof the Tabula in thefigure f IIlatSa here.JustinMartyr Apaol. 2, c. i i) gives an abbreviationof Prodicus'sfable, mentioningXenophon as the source. Touches of the Cynicdescription fVirtue are evident. Interestings the emphasis aid onthedifferencen the attireof the twocontestants.

1The idea may,of course,have been due to Diogenes. Cf.Weber,LeipzigerStudienfi-r ClassischePhilologie, X (1887), p. 171.2 The introductionf the mountains asperhaps uggested ySimonidesfr.58.

Bergk.). It occurs lso in Cebes. (See Weber, p. cit., p. 250.)" De Merc. Cond. 42; Rhet. Praec. 6 ff.


18/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature I 7Maximus of Tyre (Dissert. 20o, init.) and Clement of Alexandria

(Paed. 2, 1o, ? IIo, p. 236(P) ; Strom.5,p. 664(P)) made directuse oftheapologue ofProdicus. The changeofKaKda o 'Htovi intheformerindicatesStoic influence nd possiblyClementhad Philo in mind.In Philostratus Vit.Apollon.6, Io (239))x we have a descriptionderivedfromProdicus and also from some Cynicsource,as the follow-ingaccount ofVirtueproves:a 1U rCrovr)KUl" /LEVpoo-4cp))s, rpaLXv opWaca, ov SeQUX/0 7TC7tOfLCVr)K007/.L-qlLL cLLcLvv7ro&17T7) apeT KaL XLTV) 'qV

1E067a, KatLY&V ' C 4LLN?'VvTo, ELd iq' ELyyVWo0KE-EV 01qXCl'Evax1JoILOV.The words,however,mayhave been writtenwithno idea of imitation,the better to expressthe thought f the narrator, hespesion,who isdelivering n encomium on Frugality.Then comes a striking evelopment. Apollonius n reply o Thespe-sion,whoexhortshimto choose, like Heracles, between the wisdomofthe Indians and that of the Egyptians, eclares that Philosophyhadonce revealedherself o him and exhibitedto him hervarious sects inthe form fbeauteous womenwhostrove oallurehimbytheir romisesof pleasure. One alone stood silent,apart fromthe rest, and herintroductoryords,when she was finallynducedto speak, provedany-thingbutalluring:

' .tLptKLov,'G7V,, ' )7)4s 4 ,'Kai Er 7 rOV'Vv.'Here follows long explanationof the hardshipsshe entails,but alsoof theunspeakablerewardswhich waither followers. Apollonius ndsbychoosingthisphilosophy,hePythagorean.Basil, too,has felttheCynictouch. He repeats the Prodicusstory(Orat. de legend. ibrisgent.4), but hisVirtue, qualid and emaciated,betrays he alien influence.Themistius Or. 22, 280) briefly eviewsthe dialogue of Prodicus.Heracles, he continues, fterchoosingVirtue as his guide, s directedbyher to two peaks which seem froma distance to unite into one.They are, however,widelydifferent, or one is the shrine of TrueFriendship,the other of Hypocrisy. The virginwho sits upon theCf. Vit.Soph.,p. 482.


19/47

I8 M. C. Wacitesheightof Friendship s describedafter he Cynicmanner (v;es /pvoi, Gpata e'). Hypocrisy, n the otherhand, n striking esemblanceto Tyranny, s constantly triving o liken herself o her rival. Theinfluence f Dio is unmistakable.

Finally,Gregory f Nazianzus affords n instructive xample of thewayin whichthe idea of contentionbetween theallegorical haracterscould disappear. In his ?pqvo w7reptr7, rToP qvx~ ,raOov1 he de-scribes (35 ff.) the strifeof Soul and Flesh. Then, with line 205,appears the influence f Prodicus:7raZt Lmvrqv raXo';, rda" 0ov ttaXa,7ivtKa8SepvVEOOXW)vq8&KaKWvdCLKvoIEyypoA/3CTaL,OV7WoLV cTT-CpCOL0cLO?7/LaTLVCL8O XOVcTa,'OUL S' aXX07plo; 7 poa XapaaO-oluVm.

As he sleeps,twofair,white-robedmaidens,Chastity nd Temperance,descend to him fromheaven,wherethey tandin the sightof Christhimself. Theyhave come,they nnounce,toimbuethe soul ofGregorywiththelove ofvirginity.Having accomplishedtheirpurpose n entireharmony,heydepart. Gregoryhas drawnhis materialfromProdicusand Lucian,yethis result s absolutely lien to their pirit.This reviewhas, I hope, shownhoweasilythe Greeks could shift hesame material ntoand out of the debate-form,o thattheapologue ofProdicus appears now static,viewed as a painting,now full of lifeand action,regarded s a dispute of allegoricalfigures. It has shown,too,howreadily hesetting f a debate maybe modified r theallegoryenriched. Finally,we have provedthat, n one case at least,thealle-goricaldebatewas able to survive or enturies n a form o farunalteredthatthehand oftheoriginatormaystillbe detected.We have carriedthehistory f Heracles at the cross-roads own tothe verythresholdof the Middle Ages. In order to take the nextstep,I relyon the De Eodem et Diverso of Adelard of Bath (fl. ca.1130 A.D.).2 The argument f this treatise s as follows:

Greg.Naz. Op., ed. mon. S. Benedicti congreg. . Mauri,Paris,1778-1840,vol. II, Carmina,pp. 919 ff.2 See Willner,Des Adelard v. Bath Traktat,Miinster, 903 (Beitriige urGeschichleerPhil. desMittelalters,V, I).


20/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature I9As the youngAdelard is sitting n peacefulmeditation ubi me nihilpraeter odoresforum et Lqgeris fluminis fragores inquietant), twowomen invade his solitude. The one on the right s Philosophia, fwhom even her votaries have slight knowledge. Seven virgins, heseven iberal rts, ttend her. On the left,Philocosmia, hedarlingofthevulgar, s followedbyfive ubordinates, ivitiae,Potentia,Dignitas,Fama, Voluptas,whoseattractions he describes to Adelard,promisinghim rich rewards f he will join her train. Then it is the turn ofPhilosophia. She makes a long speech warningAdelard to followReason alone, and the youth,finallypersuaded in her favor,rejectsPhilocosmia, nd himself engthily efendsPhilosophiaand refutes errival. As a reward, hilosophia discloses to him the nature nd char-acter of theseven iberalarts.Severalsources, uchas MartianusCapella,Boethius, nd theProverbsof Solomon,maybe mentioned s contributing o Adelard's allegory.But manydetails such as the introduction f the youthdeciding insolitarymeditationhisfuture areer; the two chief figures,ssentiallyVirtue and Vice; the forbidding,Cynic aspect of Philosophia; theattendantmaidens; the opening speech by the characterdestined todefeat; the final triumph f Righteousness point to the influenceof theProdiceanapologue.Greek sources are not, I think, o be excluded here. Adelard wasan eagerstudentof Plato; he frequentlyses Greek terms; he knewArabic,forhe translatedEuclid; he was a great travellerwho spentsome time n Greece and the East. He mayat least have known hedebate as treatedby Cicero, Ovid, and Philo.Beforetaking inal eave of Prodicus, wish to emphasize again thetendencyof manyclassical debates, especially those produced undertheinfluence fphilosophy, o confine ach allegoricalcharacterwithinthe limitsof one speech. This is largelydue to a pervadingmoralpurposewhichwas likelyto involve curtailment f the dramaticele-ment and an insistance on description, ymeans of whichthelessoncould be developedat leisure. That is to say,the limitation as purelyartificial. It did not arise from he intrinsic haracterof theancientdebate itself, s we shall findon turning o contentions haped byother literarynfluences.


21/47

20 M. C. WaitesDemocritusapparently ersonifiednd contrasted he Bodyand theSoul so as to producesomething esemblingn allegoricaldebate.Plut. Fragm. de Libid. etAegr. 2 : ' This lawsuitof theBody againsttheSoul, brought n by thesufferingsf theformer,ppears to be oflong standing. So Democritus,referringur hard luck to the Soul,says that if the Bodyobtainedleave to bring ts suitforthepain andsufferingthas enduredall through ife and he shouldact as judge ofthecomplaint,he shouldbe glad to condemntheSoul.' Cf. De Sanit.Praec. 24, p. 135 E. In the same strain Galen informsus' thatDemocritusrepresented he senses as inveighing gainst the mind in

these words: TrdXava pi7v, rap' ?//lW'vXafpovcraa'slrct7 7teL asKara/pc3tns; wrTwaLIotL KardLPXpLa. Cf. Sext. Adv.Math. 7, I36.Cleanthes2 nvented conversation etween Reason and Passion:AoyrOw-y: t'o1ro0T rL rPO'XCL, @OVe; rovrodLotcfpdaov.Ovwdo": EXw,AoyuOa,eav loXAotaL7roLtcv.A.: 3aortXLKv 4T7t. 7rX2lvJ? dt o'v 7rdXtv.?.: %~v av 7vOtVw^)r,raV^9vws yevvrCraLt.There is obviouslynothing f the contentionhere.Crantor," n the other hand,produced a singularly erfect xampleof our genre. He conceives an assemblyof the Pan-Hellenes intowhichhe introduces ariouspersonified lessingsof Life whichproceedto contendwith ach otherwhiletheGreeksact as judges.

7rpTov pVU .. o IIX0oiJo rraparrlqSrs)e7 p pye, Z avspo;llavXXlvcw;,o'Y/rov ap7XwvrraLtvavpdWOLot 74LLETc -T7a) Kal4ahV70o8CLSe; Ka't TrlV XXqrlvdroXavcLv Xp8j7srl7 CL/U voOYOVYL Kal VytalvovOtK.T.X.The Greeks applaud his wordsand are on thepointof presentinghimwiththeprizewhen Pleasure ntervenes ithproof f the nstabilityof Riches. She declares thatshe alone is worthy f thepalm and theassembly greewithher. At this junctureHealth approaches,proveshersuperior laimsand is aboutto departvictorious,whentheentranceofFortitude, urrounded ya crowdofheroes, reates fresh ensation.I De Medic. empir.frg., ed. H. Sch6ne (Berlin Academy,Sitzungsberichte,

I901, 1259, 8 ff.).2 See Galen,De placitisHippocr. etPlat., lib. 5, 476.3 Sext.Empir.Adv.Math. I I, 51-59.


22/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 21She claims ndreceives hefirstward,nd on theprinciplehat thelastshallbefirstndthefirsthall elast," he ther rizesreawardedto Health, leasure, nd Riches, xactly eversingheorder f theirappearance.

A linkbetweenhe llegoricalebate nd thephilosophicalialogueis furnishedy heAtaUrp/3 hichNorden efines' sMoralPhilosophyinthemantle fRhetoric. The declaimerakes heplace ofboth hecontestantsnanargument.On theoneside,herepresents,r issup-posed to represent,is ownviews; for the otherhe introducesfictitiouspponent,oftenwith thewords4ar rTL v or,'wor thelike.2Owingto thisorigin, t is characteristic f the a'arpLf,8o be brokenup into tersesentences. It is alwaysdidactic nd its moralizingassumes ometimes he tone of laughingatire, ometimeshesternreprooff theinvectiveermon. Not nfrequentlyt is so one-sidedthat heopponent etssmall chanceto statehisviews. He tends ogrowmoreand more bstractnd consequentlyersonificationsndabstractualities epresentedn humanguise reparticularlyikelyooccurnthediatribe. Onemaydistinguishhree tages. In thefirst,the writeronfronts shadowy dversary, 7r& r aliquis. In thesecond, personifications introducedo arguewith im. Rarely,hehuman ontestantisappearsnd twopersonificationsake thefield.Thisfinaldevelopmentiffersittlefrom heallegorical ebatepro-ducedunderphilosophicalnfluence.The diction f a diatribe,ow-ever,falls nto erky, npolished entences, ot long,set speeches.The imaginaryonversationhusresembles stichomachyuch s onefindsn debatesevolvedunderthe influence f thedrama nd thepastoral.Moreover,heunsubstantialharacterf thedialoguesalwaysin themindof the writer f the diatribe. His inanimateharactersdo notdispute, ut,had they ossessed heattributesf human ifeandspeech, heywould, e asserts, avedisputednthemanner hichheproceedso demonstrate.

AntikeKunst/prosa,, p. 130o.2 Cf.Quintil. , 2, 36 and37: "Est et ncertae ersonae icta ratio:Hie aliquiset dicat liquis."


23/47

22 M. C. WaitesAs Norden remarks,' hegermof thediatribemaybe traced n thosePlatonic dialogues where Socrates, forsakingthe ordinary ourse ofdialectic, ntroduces n imaginarypponent,usingoftenmost elaborateargumentsforhis refutation. So in the Republic (487c) Adimantusrepresents he case of an adversarywho disapprovesof the words ofSocrates.2 In Phaedrus,27 2c,the shadow s introducedbytheproverb

&SKaLov OTL KaLt ro^ X KOVd~rivand in the next paragraphSocratesstatesthe wolf's rgument. In Laws, 885c ff.,the challenge of thosewho do not believe in the gods is stated and answered. In 9oic ff.,in likemanner, hearguments fotheroffendersre dealt with."The supposed opponent represents rtistically distinctdecline inforce. Not oftendoes theGreek of the classicalperiodrefuse o allowthe bright olors of his fancyto vivify uch shadows. It is thereforesignificanthat this tageof the diatribe houldbe especiallyfrequentnthedialoguesfalsely scribed to Plato. A fine xampleoccurs n Hi5p.Mai., pp. 286c ff.,whereHippias again and again inquiresthe name ofhis adversary,nd Socrates finallynswers,You wouldn't know him,even if I should tell you his name.' In the Minos, Hipparchus, ep

Ahumiovand HIep' Aper s, the opponents of Socrates are designatedmerelyas 'Ercapot. Even Socrates has vanished in the Demodocus,leavinga pairof shadows to carry n theargument. The loversin thedialogue which bears theirname (132d; cf. Hirzel, Der Dialog, I,PP. 341, 408) defend,one the cause of the GymnasticArt, he otherthat of Music. This is practically contestof twoabstractions.4To turn o instances n Plato where humancontestants confrontedbya personification,e findin the Crito the disputeof theLaws vs.Socrates (50oaff.); in the Gorgiasthe debate of Philosophy nd Cal-licles (482); in the Protagoras (361) the contest of the Argumentagainst Protagorasand Socrates. (Kal[ o'ot Ke0d " v 'A1prTioS0oTOW Xo'ywv (torlep avpWrOs KarflyOpCLvreTKal KLa7aycXaV, Kal t poVqV

Antike unst/rosa,, pp. 129 ff.SCf. Reub. bk. IV, init.; 452bff.; 465e; Protag.35ze ff.3 Further ases of shadowyopponentsre the Eleatic trangern theSophistndtheAthenianntheLaws.4 An approachto the spirit f the debatemaybe found n Repub.36oeff. cf.476a ff.; Theaet.172 ff.),whereGlaucon polishesup fordecision' theimages ftheJust ndtheUnjust.


24/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 23Xcaoo,L,7r l cLV oT7rrOl 7-/Te0) j w KpaTe7TErEa Ilpway70pa,,,.r.X.)1Of the thirdstage,the contention f twopersonifications,e havean examplein Phaedr. 26odff.,where certainArgumentsAoyot)arraythemselves gainst Rhetoric. Such specimens are apt, as in thiscase,to developfromdiatribes fthe second class.Chiefamongthe writers f8tarppLal asBionBorysthenites2fl.thirdcenturyB.c.). The fragment reservedfromTeles in Stob. Flor. I,98 (W), shows a diatribe f the second class.'" So," says Bion, "if Things should acquire a voice like ours andbe able to plead theirown cause,wouldn't Poverty peak first f alland say, 'Fellow, what quarrelhave you with me?' Justas a slavethathad takenrefuge t a shrinepleads his cause withhismaster ndsays, What quarrel have you with me? I have n't stolen anythingof yours,have I? Don't I perform ll the workyou layout forme?. . .' So Povertywould say to her accuser, What quarrelhave youwithme? You haven't been deprived of anyfairpossession throughme, have you? Not of self-control? nor of justice? nor of valor?You aren't in want ofanynecessaries? Aren't theroadsfullofgreens,and thesprings fwater? Don't I furnish ou dwellings,n winter hebaths, n summer he shrines? . .' If Povertyshould speak in thisstrain,what answer ould youmake I think shouldbe speechless."'Weber" thinksotherpersonifications ere introducedbeside evit'a.Their nature, ccording to him,can be judged fromTeles ap. Stob.,Flor. I, 98, p. 40, 4 f.: X'X 7 is rvra.aXXov alatW~/LS0aq2v lavrGov8v(Tro7TpraVatLKaK0aLovlv, TO Tpa, 7Tv rCwLav,7Tv dravyrqaVra,TrVV uppav, TrV 'paV, roV rdrov.0 Cf.p. 43, 3; P-. 0, IOf. Fromthe close correspondencebetween the words of Bion here and thoseof Stilpo in Teles 7rp't ^vy; (ap. Stob. Flor. XL, 8, 11. I ff.),Weberconcludes that Bion used Stilpo as a source,modifying im tosuit his own brandofnew and "flowery"rhetoric.

Cf.Phaedo,87a.2 Cf. Diog. Laert.2, 77, and see also 4, 52 (ca-IAXewyv r' a'TroOrbvEpacroT-WOCY,W's pW^rosBIw r P'XAhooqiaP d'Otw&hIp5uovE). Bion mayhave imitatedAristippus ho s said (D. L. 2, 84) to have composed ixbooks of diatribes.Seefurtherense, Teletis eliquiae,Prolegom., reiburg, 889,andHeinze,De HoratioBionis imitatore, iss. Bonn,1889.3 De Dione Chrys.Cyn.Sect. nLeip. Stud.f. Class.Phil. X, 1887,p. 163f.


25/47

24 M. C. WaitesA similar onceptiongave riseto Diogenes's parodyof Iliad A, 335,

quoted byTeles (&6' 4Oyrwv oy'rw1 /vAF aoKKOelvaLaKlal cavrLT2vaLTLO/LCf7;OVTL9 ;CLOL TWV8X, XO;C,&taVL'oo, &XX'7w`avlJ1aT'), and tothereprimand fNatura Rerum in the thirdbook ofLucretius.It remains to cite, as an excellentinstance of a &taf7PL34,hefrag-ment fromDemetriusof Phalerum n Stob. Flor. VIII, 20. Here wehave really n interveningtagebetween he econd and thethirdformsof the diatribe. The piece is essentially debate betweenopposingqualities,but the human figure s retained, houghbya slight hangehe mightbecome superfluous. The fragment eservestranslation:' For example, upposeValor and Cowardice should stand beside awarrior lreadyranged n his place, howmuch do you think heir rgu-mentswould differ? Wouldn'tValorbid himstayand keep hisplace?"But they will hit me!" " Bide !" "But I shall be wounded!""Bear it " " But I shall die ! " "Die, then, ooner than leave yourpost! "' Hard words, traight rom he shoulder. But what Cowardice hasto say,byheaven,will be kindly nd tender. For he,forsooth,ids thecowardtowithdraw. "But my hieldbothersme !" " Throw t away ""So does mycorselet " "Take it off "'Everybodywould be sure to thinkhis wordsgentler han Valor's.And so withotherthings.'" Don't takeanything rom n improper ource,"saysSelf-Control."Don't eat,don't drink,bearup,endure Ifworst omes to worst, ierather han do whatyououghtnot."' But Incontinence ays: " Drink whenyouwish. Eat whatever oulike best. Does your neighbor'swifeplease you? Workyourwill!Areyou in wantoffunds? Borrow. Suppose,whenyou've borrowed,youcan't pay? Then don't! Can't you find creditor? Steal !"'A great difference ere, too! But who doesn't know that suchpleasureslead to the destruction f thosewho receivethem,whereassafetyies in followingheopposite path.'1

DiogenesLaertius6, 9) testifieso the occasionaluse of allegorical iguresyAntisthenesfterthe manner of a diatribe. (7rpb~ b 7rapao-qXuaaro drrb rcirdor7aEg/4pdKtOy,EirJ/Ilo,' f/fl70, 'el k~wviedfot6 XaXK6g, Ir1rIz' e oretfcf-uvvOvac;) AccordingoDiimmler, ntisthenica,882,p. 14,and Philol.L (x892),pp. 289 ff., he 'HparXre7 rTepl 'pov~aewgf Antisthenesas an allegorical ebate.Cf. Kaibel,Hermes,XXV (189o), p. 589, andWeber, fP.it.,pp, 241ff.


26/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 25No discussion of the influenceof Rhetoricand Philosophyn the

developmentof the allegoricaldebate would be complete withoutconsiderationof the curious little work known as Ilepi 'O/rpov#ca'Hao'Sov ca' ro I' tvov K. 'sAy&vo; avr&w. As my previousarticledealt withthisquestionat some length pp. 83 ff.), shall heremerelystate theconclusions herereached.The dispute s embedded n the largerworkwhich s referred o thetime of Hadrian (cf. 11.29ff.) and usually cited as The FlorentineTractate. The nucleus containingthe debate has been proved byNietzsche' to be due to Alcidamas, herival of Isocrates. The authorof the Tractatemerely ombinesexcerptsfromAlcidamas witha con-ventional ife ofHomer.Alcidamasdescribesthemeeting fHomer and Hesiod at Chalcis inEuboea and their ontestat the funeralgames of King Amphidamas.Hesiod, in the r6le of catechizer,asks Homer "test questions,"714.pTrardTOVE- fporoTiot; 7t OVr7roL0YVpw'rov; Having successfullypassed thisordeal,Homer is subjected to alur'floXot vu/aa,- incom-plete and puzzling entenceswhich t is his task to complete in a waythat shall make sense. The contest ends withrecitation, ach poetoffering hat he considersthe finestpassage fromhispoems. Despitethe plauditsof the multitude,who openly favorHomer, the prize isawarded to Hesiod.Nietzscheregards he Homer of the 'Aywv s an allegoricalfigure,typifyinghe readyeloquence of Gorgiasand his school (i.e., ofAlci-damas himself). Homer,however,s defeatedbyHesiod and a reasonforthismaybe found f,like Rohde2 and Meyer,8we see in theworkof Alcidamas remains f a farolderaccount,an 'Aydv n whichHesiodwas the victor. Such a precedentour rhetorwas, according to mytheory,obliged to follow,thoughhe cleverlymade Hesiod's victoryworthless y attributingt entirelyo the partialityf a biased judge.I endeavored to find a trace of this earliestversion n the pseudo-Plutarch'sBanquet of the Seven Sages (io), where the r6les of theparticipants re reversed and Hesiod is representedas conquering

1Rheinisches useum r Philologie, XV, 528ff., ndXXVIII, 21 I ff.2 Rh.Mus. XXX, 418, andcf.Anhang.3 Hermes,XXVII, 377.


27/47

26 M. C. WaitesHomerfairly. The figure f Hesiod in the 'Ay'v ofAlcidamas I alsodetermined to be allegorical. Possiblyhe representsthe enemy ofAlcidamas, Isocrates.There may, s has been suggested, e an additionalpersonalanimusin the Ay'v. Perhaps Alcidamaswas smarting roma recentdefeatand used this opportunity o show the hollownessof his opponent'striumph.In conclusion, let me enumerate a few passages from the Atticorators howing tendency o personify hichmight,fdeveloped, eadto allegoricaldebates. They are: Demosthenes,Olyn. , 2; De FalsaLeg. 81, 119; Aeschines, n Ctes.155.

The influenceof Rhetoric on the debate cannot be exaggerated.The rhetoricalchools did not, t is true,originate he debate,buttheypreservedand sustained t. The iofryotnd fyK66/m wereparticularlyimportantn this connection.' As Hense remarks, raisehas onlytobecomeself-praisen order to furnish orth artofa debate. Such ten-dencies probablybegan with Protagorasand Gorgias (cf. Cic. Brut.12, 46 f.). Indeed, when one observeshow the allegoricaldebate isengendered, eveloped,and broughtto itsdecadence in therhetoricalschoolsand howclosely t is connectedwith ll the artificialfictionespersonarum" described by Quintilian,one is apt to forgetthat itsoriginwas entirely nartificial,ue entirelyo theability f theGreektoendoweverything ith ife, peech,and an Hellenic love ofargument.

IIITHE DEBATE IN THE DRAMA

Few examplesof theAllegoricalDebate are to be found n Tragedy.The well-known assage (Persians, 181 ff.) n whichAtossa relatesherportentousdream approaches measurably ear the type, lthoughthecontesttheredescribed s nota verbalone.esoa$or1v otA o yVvaLK EVUEL/OVE,Iq pEV 7rf7rXOLctL I93cYKOLS 17)KrLE'V1)7-j' a rAWPLKOIOv, E O*IPiV lOXeLV,

TEy T) VVV KrperreoYTarairoXi,See Some Aspectsofthe Ancient Allegorical Debate, pp. 8I f.


28/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 27KCAXIEL ' al/U w, KaG.KaoLtqTa7vovV

SreXcEV vtXXrXatur.Cf. Prom. 1-51 ; Agamn. 5off.; Choeph.31of., 461, 497, 726f.In Antghone,27 if.,the guard representshis hesitationbeforeven-turing o announce theburial of Polynicesas a sort of debate betweenthetwopartsof his mind:

qJvXYY yap 17v& 7oXc /LOLVOOV~LEVl'rrL.dac,T X(po ~c oXAv s;dWEL "LKvV;7XV)LWV", /ALevet av; KEG TaWS clo-aL Kpcwv\Xov7rap'dvspo6,7TWO"i & OVo &Xyvvd;

One is remindedof the wrathof Achilles I1. A. 188ff.)when hisheartwithinhis shaggybreastwas divided n counsel.'Frag. 334 N (Ath. 15, 687c).YO4~OKXs 8' 0 rOL'r17tv Kp-o-L(Kp'o-ct,Tyrwhitt)Wr 8pua/LT)V tFLV A4SPpoUt-qvlovtVTVtva ovo-vaqwova /P) TXovwrryct~o/v

7rapayeL Kat KaTo7rTptopA'EVqv,, TrvV 'A9rvav 4po'vrvcn7v o'xrav Kat vowv, ITLapeTT)aV cXapt oxpi'v-tv Kat yv/ALvati.o/V7.It is interestingo noticehere the same apparentelimination f Herawhichwe observed n a former uotation fromAthenaeus p. 12). Itis quite possiblethat these two passages preservean oldermyththantheconventionalJudgment f Paris. On the otherhand,the fable of

Prodicus may have influencedSophocles, and Athenaeus may havedrawnhisconceptionoftheJudgment f Paris solelyfrom he Kp.t'o.From Euripides I may cite A4c. 28ff.; Hippolyt.928 ff.; Orest.55Iff.The two sons ofAntiope,Amphionand Zethus,seem in the legendto be representativef the opposing claims of rustic nd artistic ife.'So far as one can judge,Euripides developed this contrast n such aCf. Apollod. 3, 5, 5: Z7Oo7 /hvotv dreXeLEo 3ovuop3iov,A/'lloo 5 KtOapp-51av '(KeM, 6bros airrc^ X6pav 'EpIAoV.


29/47

28 M. C. Wa iteswaythat part of his drama formed a debate betweentheseopposingtypes.1In fragment 88 N we mayperhaps discernpart of the perorationof Zethus's argument. He gives his brother word or two of sageadvice anent thefutilityf theartistic ife.

ravo-aL cX8&v,roXov& 7"? cLovcrt'avJ(TKCL TotLavT-CLSC Kai 8O'$ct 'bpoveiv,cTKaVTwV,pwv-oV, 7rOqLLOL47or.TTaTOV,XXots'L KO/Lp'a rav^7a4elt 004UL-T'7a,SWV KCVOLTLV EYKaTOLK?7OECL 8O/OL19.In 189, 'In everymatter f twoargumentsA contestone mightmake if shrewd n speech,'

we seem to have the beginningof Amphion's refutation. It wouldappear, indeed, that he shifted the argument n the course of hisdefence. Cf. Auctor ad Her. 2, 27, 43: "item verendumest,ne dealia re dicatur,cum alia de re controversia it...uti apud PacuviumZethus cum Amphione; quorum controversiade musica inducta est,disputatio n sapientiaerationemet virtutis tilitatem onsumitur."So Cicero,de Inv. I, 50, 94: "ut Amphionapud Euripidem, temapud Pacuvium,qui vituperatamusicasapientiam audat."Some sortof discussionurgingthe respective laimsof WealthandPoverty ppears to have taken place in the Danae. The speakerofthe verses preservedin frgs.326-328 N praises Wealth; his adver-sary 329) prefers oormen.i See Graf,Die Antiope-Sage, alle, 1884,p. 41, and Browning, ristophanes'Apology,289 ff.: 'The Match of Life Contemplative ith ActiveLife, ZethosagainstAmphion.'Cf.Dion. Chrys.Or. LXXIII, Io (635 M): TroXy&p fivo17 ZjOov avXbreposrotaura 9rLrTAW1S, c Kisdvos dvovO&eL Tvbrv eX46v, odK LftWV XOoO41 aL'Trbvt&0

7repi /AovILK?P ' aTpijeL1v 9doapra 7rv 7rivTwV 1i5wv1L' AeLaV e & aTbTv do7r6rv rLvaKal dedjA#opov AoDatv eld7er*v Worep av uXbv ef 7rOLS Kai r&Toh Tifl irpoppOacrVrpa9Lv, O1K dp7v ot&O Xouvovb1' &L st Xp 4Tw1 bAVTOL TwI'vWTOU aT7ql4eeX7tws.2 9K 7ravrts a1' TLrrpdyA/aTOr 5w8Coii' X6y7wdayitvadlr'b, el XVye&vI aooh.


30/47


31/47

30M. C. Waitescharacters n disputebeforeJudgeDemus. The Sausage-sellerwinsbyministeringo Demus's immediate eeds,thusgainingfavor nd barringall his adversary's laims. The disguise of Cleon is here verythin.Every spectatorwould mmediately ecognizehis featuresn thePaphla-gonian. Still, s the character s not ticketedwithhis real name tillthe age of the Alexandriangrammarians,' e, as well as the Sausage-seller,maybe regarded s allegorical.The Cloudspresentsus withthefamousdebate betweentheJust ndthe Unjust Cause. As in theKnights, he contestbeginswitha noisyquarrel interruptedt v. 934 by the chorus who propose that eachCause shall set forthhis claims n regular orm. In 961, accordingly,the Just Cause, having gained the doubtfulprivilegeof starting heargument, xpounds the educational theoriesof the good old days,illustrating is remarksby companion word-pictures f the properlytrainedyouth nd the spoiled productof a degenerate ge. At 1023he concludes his speech and, after few ines of hearty ommendationby thechorus, heUnjustCause begins. He contentshimselfwithanattack on the details of his opponent's speech, forcing he latter toadmitthatall themostprofligateitizens ive in happinesswithout earof punishment. The Just Cause is finallybrought to acknowledgedefeat.

Hirzel, in a passage to which I have referredp. 8), would deriveboththisdisputeand certainpassages in Plato from he 'Avr7Aoyt'aLfProtagoras. The titleof thisworkpossibly uggested thefrequent seof the verb daVtLXycLvn the Clouds (901, 938, 1040).The Wasps (526-724) introducesus t6 the dispute of Philocleonand Bdelycleonabout theblessednessof the Heliast's life. The char-acters,though ypical s theirnamesshow, re not sufficientlyersoni-fications o render hisa good instance of an allegoricaldebate, thoughit certainly pproachesthatcategory.In the agon of the Plutus (487-626) occurs a debate betweenChremylusnd Povertywho defendsher cause so zealously s to provethatZeus is eitherpoor himself r else a sordid miser. This agon isobviously onstructedike a diatribe f the second class, i.e., one char-acteronly s allegorical.'Dindorf,ntroductiono notesonEquites.


32/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 31Otherapproachesto thedebate maybe found n Aristophanes. For

example, n Wasps, 893 ft.,we have the mock-trial f the two dogs,ably defended by Xanthias and Bdelycleon. These dogs, accordingto the scholiast,representCleon and Laches. In Acharnians too(10o97ff.),the contrastbetween the peace-party nd the war-partyssharply ointed bya stichomachyuggestive f a debate. The chorus(1143-1149) emphasizesthe difference etween the adversaries,ndthe play ends witha contrastof the same sort where Lamachus isvirtuallyhespirit fTragedy,Dicaeopolis ofComedy.Turningnow to the fragments f Aristophanes, ne finds n theBanquetersa kindof rough ketchof the contestof the Ao'yo in thedispute of two brothers, Modest, broughtup under the good, old-fashioneddiscipline,and Profligate, productof Sophistic training.Profligate pparently idicules his brother's impleways (20o6, 07 K)and boasts of his ownaccomplishments209 K), while n frg. 6, hisold father omments n thediscouraging esultsof his son's education.In the Horae, Aristophanesdescribed a verbal conflict udged byErechtheusbetweenthe old gods of Attica and the outlandish eitiesof later days. Compare,especially, rg. 69 K, whereAthene or someotherrepresentativef theolder fashion ontendswith n aliengoddessas towhichhas conferredupon Athens the greater enefits. We areindebted to Cicero,Leg. 2, 37, for nformations to the expulsionoftheintruder: "Novos deos et in his colendis nocturnaspervigilationessic Aristophanes . . vexat, ut apud eum Sabazius et quidam alii diperegriniudicatie civitate iciantur." Naturallywe cannot udge howallegorical, ccording to the poet's conception, these divinitieswere,how far"Athene" representedmerely he good old Athens,her rivalthe degenerateworshipof an evil time. We cannot, then, from hefragments eterminehow nearlythis comedyresembled n allegoricaldebate.

Aristophanes as byno meanstheonlywriter fcomedytointroducesuch disputes. For instance, n the Archilochi,Cratinus,accordingto one theory,' onceived a contestbetweenArchilochus, epresentingCratinus himself, nd other poets, especially Homer, who may beregarded s themaskfor ome one ofthe author'srivals. If thistheoryGlied. 241 f.


33/47

32 M. C. Waitesbe correct,Cratinus'sworkformed prototype orAlcidamas. Little,however, an safelybe inferred rom he fewobscurefragments.The scholiaston Knights, 00, informs s as to the argumentof thePy/ine. It contained thecomplaints fComedy,wifeof Cratinus,whosues for divorceand blames her husbandfordesertingher and yield-ing to the allurements fDrunkenness. Here, then,we have a contestoftwoallegoricalcharacters, houghno one of thepreserved ragmentscan surelybe attributed o MEA1.1 Perhapsthe playresembledratherthetypeof the Plutus.In the Wild Beasts (0?ppla) of Crates,Kock and others see (frgs.I4 and I5) a debate between a eulogizerof the simple life and achampion of more luxurious iving.2 In anotherfragment17 K) wehave the speech of some animal, probablya bull,who remonstrateswith managainstthe cruelpracticeofflesh-eating.In like manner Pherecrates, n the Savages, apparentlyportrayedan altercationbetweenVegetarians nd Anthropophagi13 K).* HisPersians, according to the conjectureof Ritter,4 ontained a debatebetweenPoverty, r one of her advocates,and an unknown pponent.In thesame author'sChiron,whichdealtwiththe degenerationof theart ofMusic,Music herselfn theguiseofa woman,herbodybetrayingthe marksof her disfigurement,ppeared to plead her cause beforeJustice5 I45 K).FinallyEupolis (224, 225, 232, 233K) described the various cities,each personifiednd bearing ts special emblems, s inveighinggainstthehardships fAthenian upremacy.Heniochus, also, if the followingfragment 5 K) may be trusted,deviseda contestbetween llegoricalcharacters:yvva!KC aVTa 80rapa'rrcrOV VwEaCctvvovc"aL-8vhoKpacTUa9aT7ipaovot.A 7TLT7l dpWTorKpaTlatOarpaat as 7rC7rnppVKacrLvS-l7TOXXa'KLt.

i Hirzel,Dialog, II, 3o02,wouldregard he contestantss Comedy, he injuredwife, ndWine,a fair outh. Cf. Lucian'sBis Accus.2 The two passagesare,however, ingularlylike in sentiment.Fora differenttheory,f.Zielinski,Miirchen-KombdieSt. Petersburg,885), pp. 57 f.3 See MAirchen-Kom.,. 26.* De Aristoph. luto,75; cf.Frg. 130 K.Plut.Mor. 1141.


34/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 33From the Sicilian comedy I may cite two plays of Epicharmus,

r8 Kal ?ciXacrca nd AdoyoKaGAoylva,whichpossibly ontainedmate-rial akin to theAllegoricalDebate.'The freedom f the dramaticdebate, as compared to the debate inrhetoric r philosophy,s at once apparent. The didactic elementhaslargelydisappeared; the interest ies in the humorousoppositionofcontrasting ersonalities. These debates are often tichometric,osingentirely,n the quick interchange f gibe withgibe, the pedantry fthescholastic isputation. The debate hascomeforth rom hescholar'scloset to thestage; a laterdevelopment ransportst to Arcadia.IV

ALEXANDRINE DEBATESIf we accept thedictumofWachsmuth,2he first ook of the YLkUOLofTimon of Phliuscontainedthe elements fan allegoricaldebate. Inthis book, according to Wachsmuth'sreconstruction,imon told thetale of his descent to Hades and the XoyopaXt'a hichhe therewit-nessed between the shades of famousphilosophers. One at leastofthe contestants, eno, appeared,not in his properperson,but in theguiseof an old Phoeniciancrone,with wickerbasket forthetrappingofsouls. Frg. 8:

Ka'loLvUtc-av18ovXLXVypavvKLO~CPO)V TVo7raVTOJV L/ZCtpovcrav?0 "ppCL y pya9op aVTV)/tLKpOoWV, VOV 8S XCV"XTacOVaLVSOLqoL0o.Another allegorical figure,PfpooAoyoy Epts, urges on the fight

(Frg. 14) whichPyrrho inallyuiets, fter t hasragedwithunexampledfury fargument.Mnasalcas of Sicyon (Ath.4, 163) wrote n epigramnwhich ppearsthe well-wornontrast etweenVirtue nd Pleasure, petrified ebate:"A ciK hLa'rk/OV O'ApT&7rapa T8 KKLTCKO7L'H8Sov., hrXLYTWoJcLpaLcvv7rXoOKc.Lov,;OVLV aXCLy(/a/3oX'Xva, v 7rcp0&va7,rat.vO(Koqpwv T'P L9 KPE6TOOV 6/LOUKEKpLTaL.

See Berliner PhilologischeWochensckrift, 907, 1379.2 De Timone Phliasio ceterisqueSillographis Graecis, Leipzig, 1859, pp. x5ff.


35/47

34 M1. C. WaitesAnotherepigram,from Meleager. the Cynic, shows us the poet

debatingwith his heart:3c/3X#0Owv/3OC a7rTc, r70pCV070/Lal. ?7 L8C, TOA/La.oivo/3ape,T"LVXCEl povrTlsa;KwO/ao/-aL.KowLoatro; lol, OVLE, pEflr7;t 8" *EpWTLXOyLUO';Xa7QrerXO,.." 77-qrpo'OEXo'ywviLcX'E'r7;ippt'0Owoolaso r XT r7vo" 'v Ldvovo18aoT0" KTL KaL ZrpvXXL KaOeLXCvpws.'This same Meleagerwas the authorofa ivyKpL0TLXCKL'ovKaL aKV/F

(Ath. 4, I57b) which Hense and others2would fain recognizeas adebate. We have,unfortunately,bsolutelyno groundfor the suppo-sition. Otherwise,tmightbe tempting o followHense and connectwith this contest the certamenwith which Asellius Sabinus amusedTiberius.8 The meaningof the word ;yVKpL0L1,4hovering s it doesbetween a peaceful comparison nd a sanguinary ontest,s often am-biguous. Similarly,he verb ovyKP'VCLEvmay mean either ocompare rtocontrast nd so oppose. For example,Timaeus, as we are told byPolybius 12, 28, 8 f.), whenEphoruscould not answer the argumentsof menwho contendedthat morecapacity,hardwork, nd preparationwereneeded forrhetorical han for historicalwork,7reLpaTraLvyK LVCeLVaVTOr dK 7rapa XV/TV io'ropav TOL E'7rLSLKTLKOLSdyOL3. t is pos-sible hat phorusndTimaeusresentedere hebasis or debate

A. P. 12, 117: Headlamgives he followingpirited ranslationnFifty oemsofMAeleagerMacmillan,I89o), p. 43:Trythe hazard! light orches! I'll go! come,be bold!Thoudrunkard,whatmeanest? A revel 'll hold.A revel? Mind,whither? What's ogic oLove?Quick,a torch Our longreasoning, ain shall tprove?Awaywith he aborsof wisdom! I knowThisonly, hatZeustoobyLove wasbroughtow.2 E. g., Susemihl,GeschichteerGriechischenitteraturn derAlexandrinerzeit,I, 46 '463 Suet. Tib. 42: " AsellioSabino sestertia ucenta onavitTiberius)prodialogoinquo boleti t ficedulae tostreae t turdi ertamennduxerat."MaynotPliny Epist. I, 7, 6) preserve reminiscencefthis ertamen "Paenepraeterii,uod minime raetereundumuit, ccepissemecareotes ptimas uae nunccumficis tboletis ertandum abent."4 See SomeAspectsf/thencientAllegorical ebate,pp. 75-82.


36/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 35in which the contestants were " The Rhetorician" and "The His-torian." Alcaeus of Messene, too, accordingto Polybius 32, 6, 5),wrote 2IvyKpLar~s,full of witty gibes against his opponents. Here,apparently, he contest, llegoricalor not,has turned n the directionof personal satire.The Alexandrian ge broughtto literary erfection class ofpoetrydestined to produceand to influence llegoricaldebates. The essenceof the Pastoral is a strife f song between shepherdswho may beallegoricalthemselves r may ntroduce llegoricalthemes. Their pro-ductions are often submitted o a judge and a prize awarded to thevictor. All this is suggestivelyike the conventional debate. Thealternatingverses of the shepherds'songs where rival answersrivalremindone of the stichomachies f Aristophanes. But the setting sentirely ew. The debate has been transportedo the country; it hasbecome at once morehomely nd untrammeled,nd the advantagesofthis freshbackgroundcaptured the fancyof later poets. There arefew nstancesof genuineallegoricaldebates in the workof Theocritusand his imitators, ion and Moschus. The following pproximationsto the typeshould,however, e noted.Idyl 5, 11. 0 ff.,presentsa singing-match,udged by Morson,be-tween a goat-herd, omatas,and a shepherd,Lacon. Each characteris typicalof his occupation and lays stresson it; Comatas is suretomentionhisgoats,Lacon his sheep. Comataslabors undertheinevit-able disadvantageof the contestant who begins the match. Strictlyspeaking,Lacon should have begun the match, for he (11.2I ff.) isthechallenger. Such is the usual ruleeven in pastoral cf. Id. 6, 1.5).Lacon's part is to outdo his rival'sboast and in generalhe succeeds.Compareespeciallythe skilful urnhe gives to vv. 94 and 95 and i34and I35. Once he loses his temper n an unsportsmanlikemanner(cf. 120 ff.) and occasionally (as I I4 f.) his replylacks point,butobviouslyhe deserves towinand Morson's udgment s a clear instanceof partiality. Possibly this s the poet'swayof proving heunconven-tionality f the pastoral; it is truerto rustic ife, f not so faithful otheprecedentsof literary ebate.

1Cf. Hirzel, op. cit., I, 452, n. 2. So Praxiphanes, in his7rep o-ropias, ecounteda contestbetweenPoetry, epresentedy prominentoets, and Thucydides,whoadvocatedthe cause of History. Cf. Hirzel,Dialog, I, 311, and Hermes,XIII(1878), 46 ff.


37/47

36 M. C. Wa tesIdyl 6 is not amoebean. Daphnis sings of Polyphemus's ove forGalatea and Damoetas answers, mpersonatinghe Cyclops,and thusaddinga dramaticelement to the pastoral. This contestends incon-clusively, s is not uncommon n theregulardebate.Idyl 7 is the only probable instance in Theocritusof the pastoralmasquerade. The contestantsre notgenuinerustics; Lycidasconcealsbeneathhis "tawny goat-skin and old cloak the personalityf somereal contemporaryoet,perhapsLeonidas ofTarentum, nd Simichidasis Theocritushimself. Such a contestmay fairlybe called allegorical.Like the previousone, it ends withoutthe bestowalof prizes. The

contestantssimplypart in all good fellowship nd go theirseveralways.In Idyl 8, the amoebean strife s combined with onger ongswhichconclude the encounter. Of the two contestants,Daphnis, the cow-herd,and Menalcas, the keeper of goats, t is a foregoneconclusionthat Daphnis,the challenged singerand the famous hero of pastoral,shall conquer. The judge is a goatherd,the prizes are pipes. Thecontest s much more amicable than the one presented n Idyl 5, thesingers ie in mutualgood wishes (32 ff.) and seem in general muchless typical nd less rusticfigures hanLacon and Comatas.Far shorter s the contest in Idyl 9, whereDaphnis and Menalcasbothsing n pastoral train nd receivereward.The favorite aphnis appears once more n the twenty-seventhdyl,attributedto Theocritus, nd at least modelled upon his work andBion's. The shepherdand the maid of his choice (a mererustic, orthisDaphnis bears not the least resemblanceto the chastehero wholoved a nymph nd was faithfulntodeath) engage in lively moebeanargumenttill the suitor at length prevails. These characters thelover and his lass may also be regarded as rather typical thanindividual.

Idyl 30 findsthe poet at war withhis own heart. He 'calls hisheartbeforehim' (1. i i) and reproaches t for an untimely ove andhis heart n answerpleads theinvincibilityfEros.Of Bion we maynote fragment 4, practically debate betweentheSeasons; ofMoschus,Europa, 6 ff.,reminiscent f Atossa's dream inAeschylus,nd fragment, a beautiful dumbration f a debatebetweenLand and Sea.


38/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 37The poet Sositheos lso introduced hefigure fDaphnis as victor n

a pastoralcontest. (Schol. Theoc. 8 argum.: AwavLs ATrvC'p0 -YowrOcoqe XC'ycLCVLV .. ycv0,Lvov0,V"4 ov VLKLOKvCqaLLCVaXKav..av..[Kalt).lcWV]pltVaOv.)Medea at the crisisof her fate s represented y ApolloniusRhodiusas torn by conflicting motions. The passage (Argon. 3, 65I ff.)resembles an allegoricaldebate:TfAJTLOL' 7OCSc epO'EvOa Kal vOa"qTOL07 LGVcetLCJ,E(pvKEWCVV8o0cval8(s

atlSo'"pyov"lv Opar3s L poS "7PiVVCKEV.In the fourth ook of the Argonautica,Medea's Phaeacian maids aremoved to merrimentt the scantysacrifice he stormbound rgonautsare forced to make.

1725 ras 8'8rXpols qqpoeWcS arToiECKov ErCrqLVXXC yr1OLvo" yXvKCp?'8' avE8aL'E TOLTLVKEpTOrpt77a V KOSEOXOV. K V) KV7T/LoXot,T)p Aov V17' IVLTora yvvaTLKCSdVMpcrL 7pLO'awVLL,OT 'A7ro'XMwva vviXAiyXkTrvAvc4)vs rL/A4opovka(KwOVTaL.

(Cf. Theoc. Id. i, 33 ff.)The best of Alexandriandebates was theworkofApollonius'sgreatrival, Callimachus. Part of the lambi, fortunately ecovered in apapyrus1recentlybroughtto light, ontains the heated arguments fOlive-Treeand Laurel.The first ersesof thefragmentefer, ccordingto theconjecture fA. S. Hunt, "to a legendof a reversal f the commonorderofnaturein the reign of Saturn,when the sphere of men and beasts wereexchanged." In 11. I71 ff.Callimachus alludes to an Aesopic fablerecounting this myth (TaTra 8' A[ZoowarosW'ap38L7v .reCv).Though not found among the extantfables of Aesop or Babrius, hestoryreminds ne of the EOhpla f Crateswherethe lifeof theGoldenAge is described. According o theapparentmeaningof thefragmentsof thecomedy,whenthathappytime s restored nimalswill be able tospeak,and even furniture illmoveabout responsive o thewill ofman.

OxyrkynchusPapyri, Pt. VII, 191o, No. IoII, pp. 20 ff.


39/47

38 M. C. WaitesThis is all that can be decipheredon the first age of thefragment.On the second (11.192 ff.) two unknownsmeet,one of whomperhapsrecounts o the otherthe quarrelof the trees. Laurelbegan thecon-test, nd thefragment,fter few ndistinguishableines, ntroduces sto her eering peech,

218 pLa-Tepos Le'v XcvK0' Ta sV8pov yaCtT7rp,0 8' 'XorL0X% osTa' [7r]Xkvx/&V aL.It is obviousthattheLaurel is commenting nfavorably ponher rival'sappearance. The editor f thePapyrusnotes: " The referencen thesetwo lines is obscure. It can hardlybe to the olive, withregardtowhichthe distinction fright nd leftwouldbe inapposite; nor do theolive's leaves or fruit how any such variation f coloras is here indi-cated. Murray suggeststhat a person wearingan exomis is meant,perhapsApollo,who is sometimes o represented." But surely aurelwouldnot refer o her great patron,Apollo,by any such comparison s

XmKco W'SpOV yao-11P.Moreover, he eaves of the olive do show ustsucha variation n coloras Callimachus mplies.' As to the distinction f right nd left, f weadopt part of Murray'ssuggestion nd remember hat the exomis wasthedressof thelowerclasses,may not Laurel's simile have runsome-whatas follows?' Your leaves markyou as inferior. You are like a slavewearing nexomis,whose left shoulder s white like a snake's belly,whereashisright, heexposed shoulder, s smittenby the sun' (and so darker iketheuppersurface f the eaf).

Laurel continues, oastingof thehighuses to which he is put. ThePythiamakes her couch of laurel, aurel is used at thePythiandanceand for all Apollo's ritual. The Olive, on the contrary,s associatedwithburial.Olive succeeds in rebuffinghe taunt. She counts her connectionwithfuneral ites s an honor. She accompanies heroes to the tomband in the great festival t Olympia she forms heprize. The birdsamongher brancheshave told her scandal about her adversary. The1 ee Century ictionary1890o),Vol. IV, p. 41o3: "... The leaves resmallandlance-shaped,ark-greenbove andsilveryeneath."


40/47

The Allegorical Debate in GreekLiterature 39earthproducedLaurel,butOlive was the offspringf Athene'sconten-tion with Poseidon. 'That is one fall for the Laurel' (265). TheOlive also is farmore useful. Fall number wo And last ofall, theolive-branchs thesuppliant'sfriend.A thirdpartyhere intervenes 294 ff.)and endeavors to reconciletheopponents. Laurel,however, eceivestheattemptwithvituperationand the fragment nds in uncertainty. Another bit of the story(Callim.frg. 93 b) givesus a phraseofOlive's:

IracVTvJVS0V8PWVELtL.dSuch humilitymustbelongto the final cene of reconciliation, r,morelikely, t is bitterlyronical.?This debate is unique." In it contend no longerVirtues nd Vices,shadowy bstracts rom philosopher'sbrain,but commontrees,giftedas in thehappyGolden Age witheloquentand even rhetorical peech.The humanizing nfluenceof the pastoralis here combined with thefairy-tale tmosphereof the beast fable where animal argues withanimal, plant with plant. This tendency,too, was destined to bepotent n theallegoricaldebates of laterages.V

The RenaissanceunderHadrian and his successorsproduced,amongotherliterary lessings,a crop of allegorical debates. Often such acontestmay spring rom he crvyKp4crCLo fashionable n the rhetoricalschools. I have alluded above to the ambiguity xistingn the termacyKpLcTLttself.Such "comparisons" appealed to Plutarch. After ach ofseventeenpairsof Lives he adds a cr'yKPL0L inwhichthepoints,nowof likeness,now ofdifference,etweenthetwoheroesare discussed. In one case,

The wordsare quotedunder he captiondai-eerapsn Cod. Oxon. repl p&rwvrOr'7LKWV.2 There resuggestionsf possible ebatesnother ragmentsfCallimachus. IntheHecale birds peak,amongthem he Crow whom theOlive humorouslyhides(278) forchatteringf Laurel's deficiencies.The Owl hasa word osayelsewhere

(frg. 164). Callimachus old the tale of the strifefPoseidon ndAthenejudgedby Cecrops frg. 384). This mayhave contained t leastmaterial or a debate,thoughn t actions robably poke ouder hanwords.


41/47

40 M. C. Waitesa comparison nvolving our haracterss provided. Plutarch ecognizesthe element of contrast as well as of comparison.1 In general,thequalitiesof thetwoLives underdiscussion are evenlybalanced in the


42/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 41and Body is clear fromhis words n chapter3: 'AywovLurroviv {reipX7 adXCL"ay KaXo y op dyv.In An Vitiositas d Infelicitatemufficiat,, 498f ff.,Plutarchpro-poses that Fortune and Vice shall vie with each other in plans formaking man's lifeunhappy. The debate is sketched,butnot devel-oped, forVice alone speaks.The Amatorius,written yPlutarch r a memberof his school, s inreality debate betweenLawful and Unlawful ove. The situation, sPlutarchrealizes, s dramatic (cf. 749 a:- ~ PrpS4acts,, ?)(Lp,.L?1797avLXyo, XOpvLLr r^ 7 rcLcL Ka'-Kt q ^ 19 8 04 N 71SpOdaTros )Sev AXXCLrec).The principalcharactersof the drama areAnthemion, he cousin, nd Pisias, the admirerof Baccho. Ismeno-dora,a wealthywidow, oves Baccho. Anthemionupholdsthismatch,Pisias opposes it. Plutarch and his friends ch. 3) act as umpires nthecontroversynd judge thearguments f Protogenes,who speaksforPisias,and Daphnaeus,whoacts as Anthemion's dvocate. In chapter6, Anthemion nd Pisias speak themselves nd in chapter9, Plutarchpleads the cause of LawfulLove, so that we may conjecturally wardtheprizeofvictory o Daphnaeus, the second speaker. The discussionis terminatedch. Io) by the sudden announcementof Ismenodora'smarriage o Baccho.Again,De Gloria Atheniensiummightbe condensed into a debateon thequestion,Resolvedthat theSword is mzighderhanthePen. Inits presentstate, the treatise is very one-sided, for Plutarch firmlyespouses the cause of the Sword. Fromchapter 3 on the impressionof contest growsclearer,till in chapter 6 a phantomprocessionofpoets,actors, nd generalsmarchesby. The first wogroupscome offbut poorly,whereas the generals receive enthusiasticpraise for thebenefits heyhave bestowedupon thecity.More developed specimensof the debate appear in essayslike thefirst rationon Alexander (chs. 1-3), where that hero speaks in hisowndefenceagainstthe assertionofFortune that she alone is respon-sibleforhisgreatness. The workbegins as if it were in continuationof one in whichFortune's claims had been fullyrepresented. Otherspeeches addressed to Fortune appear in the second oration (ch. 4,337 a; ch. 9, 340 f).x

In De Iside et Osiride, I9, p. 358 d, Plutarch alludes to the impeachment ofHorus forbastardy,o his advocacyby Hermesand his acquittal y all thegods.


43/47

42 M. C. WaitesDe FortunaRomanorum s concernedwiththequerywhether irtue

or Fortune was more responsiblefor the founding nd greatnessofRome. Chapter3 describesthe meeting nd opposite qualitiesof thecharacters nvolved. Here again it is interesting o see how vividlyPlutarch envisages the contention(cf. 317 c: Nvv S' /uoL oKGTO^)7pOftkX'a7019 QMY7TV7rO cOYKO7T7ScLOOpC*vIT T1VTVyrpuyLV KalYtadyw^vanv r~ TivXvKaI n7v 'AperTIv la8ttoofas). FortunendVirtuestronglyesemble he corresponding llegorical figuresn the Choice ofHeracles. Virtue is modest and seriousand her stately rain s com-posed of the heroesof theRoman past. Fortune, ikeVice,boldly ndarrogantlyutstrips errival. She holds a horn of plenty n her handand includes in her companyher Roman favorites,uch as Sulla andNuma Pompilius. In chapter 5, 318 d, the Romans themselves recited as witnesses o Fortunewhospeaks forherselfn chapter8. Thepart of the essay which introducedthe arguments f Virtue s unfor-tunatelyost.Constructed n thesame planas Amatorius, ut farmore nteresting,is the debate in De Soller'ia Animalium. Aristotimusnd Phaedimushave offered, uringa general discussionof the proposition hat "allcreatures re in some mannerpartakersof understanding,"o defend,one the titleof the land-animalsto being consideredmore intelligent,the otherthat of the sea-animals ch. 2, 96o0a). They are preparingforthedispute. Meanwhile Soclarus and Autobulus ontinuethe dis-cussionof thepreviousday. They are interrupted y the arrival fthedisputantswiththeiradherents ch. 8). Optatus,Soclarus,and Auto-bulusare theumpires 965 d).The land-animals, epresented y Aristotimus,re allowed to begin.He discusses the crafty ontrivances f swallows, piders,bees, geese,etc. Antsand elephantsgive him lengthy llustrations. After ariousanecdotes,endingwith nstances f thepropheticpowerof animals,heconcludeswitha denunciation f fishes nd thesea (975 c). Phaedi-mus is then exhorted n significantwords,'to presenthis side of theLater (54, 373B) he gives an allegoricalnterpretationo the charactersnvolved.Horus is the Image of the IntellectualWorld,Hermes s Reason. This turns hetrialnto n allegoricalebate.

'Avaye T&s4'pfr 4dXe ~Palipc, al&tiyycpe o-EawrbvZoo7Z Eot VXOS KalG-Lc1cLLs -ora&8&& 7- Xp?7lLToO X6yov yoyov, IAXV ippW.Svor dyCjP Kai jPt7ropdiaK&yKXi8WV 17rt5ovUoa KaiZ thllcLaTos.


44/47

The Allegorical Debate in Greek Literature 43argument. Animalsof the sea, he explains, re just as intelligent,utnot so accessible to man and, therefore,ot so well-knownr so well-trainedas land-animals. They are more helpfulto each other andoftenmuchmorecunning. The halcyon s a notable exampleofaffec-tion. The dolphin is also instanced. Then (ch. 37) the judges areasked to pronounce sentence. They decide that both parties havebeen champions against those who seek to robanimalsof reasonandintelligence.This decisionis somewhat urprising. It corresponds, o be sure,tothe main question,1 ut the whole debate has turned n thedirection fthe comparative laims of land- and sea-animals. On this point thecontest remains undecided. The result,ike the attitude fthewriterof theAmatorius, hows a leaning towardcompromise nd reconcilia-tion, desire to bring harmony ut ofcontest,which,howeverunfavor-able to thedevelopment f thetypical ebate, s eminentlyharacteristicofPlutarch's ovable nature.

Not only Hellenes, but foreigners elt the spell of the AllegoricalDebate. In Lucian, the mild,antiquarianspiritof Plutarchhas dis-appeared; an eminentlymodernhumor, atire trenchant s BernardShaw's, takes its place. Of the works which contain more or lessdefinite esemblances o thetypeunderdiscussion, maymention irsttheflermotimus,h. 25 ff.,where thevariousroads leading to thecityof Virtue and the guides to each are contrasted n a way probablysuggestedbytheapologue ofProdicus, cf.ch. I5.) Suggestive fthis sthedescription n the Rhetorum raeceptor, f the two roads leadingto the stately figureof Rhetoric(ch. 6 ff.). The first oad is a merepath, thorny nd rough,the other,broad, well-watered,nd flowery.The guide of the rough track is a strong, evere man who exhortspilgrims o followin the foot-steps f Plato, Demosthenes, nd otherancientworthies. Manyyearsof hardtoilare required fhisdisciples.The didaskalos recommendsdismissinghim and turning o the otherroad wherethelearnerwillfinda perfumed avorite f Aphrodite ndtheGraceswho will teach Rhetoric n a twinkling. The speech of thisfopfollows(i3 ff.). As he is supposed to representherhetor, ulius

I Hirzel osessight fthis. See Dialog, II, 178.


45/47

44 M. C. WaitesPollux,we mayconsider hepassageas a nearapproachtoan allegoricaldebate.The essayon QuomodoHistoria Conscribendcait contains(ch. 8 ff.)a arvYKpUtTL ofPoetry nd Historywhich, s usual,furnishes s withtheelements f a debate.The Toxaris turnson the question whetherGreeks or Scythiansmakebetter riends. The contestantsre a typicalGreekand a typicalScythian,each of whomupholds the honor of his fatherland. Theyforget o appointan umpire 62) and end their ontest n an eminentlyPlutarchian tylewithvows of eternalfriendship.The ludicium Vocalium ontains n exciting"action for ssaultwithrobbery,"2 vs. T. Tau's defence is not presented, ut Sigma's im-passioned pleadingand his citing f the victims f Tau (io) as evidenceare bothamusing nd unique.Infinitelyariedare the sources fromwhichLucian drewsuggestionsforhis debates. Underthe influence f thePlutus is the scene (Timon,ch. 38) where thegod of Wealthrepliesto Timon's charges n 36. Asa result f hisspeech,Timonreluctantlyonsents o becomea millionaireonce more.In theDe Domo, Lucian uttersa panegyricon the hallwherehe isspeaking,urgingthat its magnificence s stimulating o oratory 4).AnotherThought or Theory,however,keeps trying o interrupt imand, when it has finally ucceeded in breakingthe threadof his dis-course, it opposes him,maintaining hat the very beauty of the hallmakes it an unfitplace foran oratorto hold forth ydistractingheattention f both speaker and hearers 14). The Theorythen comesforward nd formally leads its cause (15 ff.)before the audience asjury. The rest of the essay is occupied with its arguments nd itsdescriptionof the pictureswhichadorn the hall. The Theory endswith recommendationo the audienceto favor hespeakerbyshuttingtheir yesduringhis discourse.A conversationbetween Lucian' and Theomnestus n the Amoresleads to thenarrative f the writer'sourney o Cnidus and theoppositeimpressionsproduced on his two companions,Chariclesand Callicra-tidas, by the Aphroditeof Praxiteles. Lucian himself 18) is the

I Orpseudo-Lucian. See Hirzel,Dialog, II, 282.


46/47


47/47

allegorical debate

Documents