Bouchard ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 © 2010 Elsa Bouchard The Meaning of βλαβερϱόν in the Poetics Elsa Bouchard RISTOTLE’S CLASSIFICATION in Poetics 25 of the various objections raised against poetry and of the arguments that can answer them has been a notorious puzzle for generations of scholars. In the face of such an overwhelming history of unsuccessful attempts to clarify the chapter’s internal consistency,1 one must venture to propose new solutions only hesitantly. In fact this paper seeks solely to address a single detail among the chapter’s numerous intricacies. The case in question is that of τὸ βλαβερϱόν, numbered third, of a total of five, in the final enumeration of the technical objections (ἐπι- τιµήµατα) with which Aristotle laconically concludes his review of poetic “problems and solutions” (1461b22–24): The charges brought against poets fall under five headings: im- possibilities (ἀδύνατα), irrationalities (ἄλογα), [morally] harmful elements (βλαβερϱά), contradictions (ὑπεναντία), and offences 1 The main difficulty of this chapter lies in the alleged number of solu- tions (twelve) that Aristotle states to have proposed for the five objections listed at the end of the chapter (1461b22–25). There have been several attempts to identify these twelve solutions among the sixteen possibilities found in the chapter, and to establish their respective relations to the objec- tions. See inter alia G. Hermann, Aristotelis de arte poetica liber (Leipzig 1802) 189; T. Twining, Aristotle’s Treatise on Poetry2 (London 1812) 418; J. Vahlen, Beiträge zu Aristoteles Poetik (Vienna 1867) 390–391; M. Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics, c. xxv in the Light of the Homeric Scholia (Baltimore 1895). The various results of his predecessors are tabulated by D. de Montmollin, La Poétique d’Aristote, texte primitif et additions ultérieures (Neuchâtel 1951) 306–322, who is followed by D. W. Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics (Oxford 1968), in the conclusion that “something is wrong with the tradition” (251). A 310 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 against the true standards of the art (παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην).2 It is my contention that the meaning of βλαβερϱόν in this pas- sage has been repeatedly misunderstood by commentators and translators, partly because of their failure to recognize in this term a specific kind of artistic shortcoming which Aristotle, as well as the other literary critics of his time, were much more prone than us to detect. Although the correspondences to be established between the five types of ἐπιτίµηµα and Aristotle’s preceding remarks as to how to answer the objections remain highly problematic, the nature of the particular censures indicated in this list of ἐπιτι- µήµατα is comparatively easy to identify—that is, if we except the case of βλαβερϱά. τὰ ἀδύνατα and τὰ ἄλογα are closely re- lated categories and point to the impossible/irrational narrative elements of a story. τὰ ὑπεναντία obviously refers to the in- consistent factual details that happen to coexist within a poet’s work and that result from his occasional slips or lapses of at- tention. And τὰ παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην must have one of two possible meanings: either Aristotle is thinking of accidental poetic misrepresentations by reference to some tech- nical or scientific standard, such as the example given in this same chapter (1460b19) of a zoologically inaccurate portrayal of a horse throwing forward both its right legs at a time (in which case κϰατὰ τέχνην = κϰατά τινα τέχνην); or he means to isolate a particular set of artistic errors that are directly related to the poet’s expertise (in which case κϰατὰ τέχνην = κϰατὰ τὴν τέχνην, viz. τὴν ποιητικϰὴν τέχνην).3 In any case, even though 2 Transl. Halliwell, brackets mine. Unless otherwise specified, citations of the Poetics will be from S. Halliwell’s translation The Poetics of Aristotle (Chapel Hill 1986). The word βλαβερϱά is rendered simply with “harmful” in Hal- liwell’s more recent Loeb translation (1995), but his reference to Plato in the footnote ad loc. shows that he still gives a moral meaning to the word. See below. 3 Examples of scholars opting for the first possibility are: Twining, Ari- stotle’s Treatise 414; I. Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Oxford 1909) 350; ELSA BOUCHARD 311 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 none of them receives an explicit definition, Aristotle at least provides examples for each of these four ἐπιτιµήµατα, either in this same chapter or elsewhere in the Poetics.4 Only the ἐπι- τιµήµατα ὡς βλαβερϱά remain without any literary illustration. The word βλαβερϱόν itself does not occur elsewhere in the treatise and its meaning in the immediate context is anything but evident. Most commentators on the Poetics, when acknowledging the difficulty, hazard some kind of connection between βλαβερϱόν and Aristotle’s brief reference, a few lines before (1461b19–21), to the infamous attitude of Menelaus in Euripides’ Orestes (pre- viously alluded to at 1454a27). Accordingly, they propose to render βλαβερϱόν with “morally harmful,”5 a periphrastic ex- pression combining the regular meaning of the word (“harm- ful”) with the alleged ethical content of the ἐπιτίµηµα. In most cases though, this interpretation is either simply not argued or expressly given as a pis aller.6 ___ T. Rosenmeyer, “Design and Execution in Aristotle, Poetics ch. XXV,” CSCA 6 (1973) 231–252, at 252; R. Janko, Aristotle, Poetics I, with the Tractatus Coisli- nianus, Reconstruction of Poetics II, and the Fragments of the On Poets (Indianapolis 1987) 153. For the second possibility: Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics 24; Halliwell, The Poetics 63. Given the apparent irrelevance to Aristotle of inaccuracies of a non-poetic character, I am for my part inclined to join the second group. 4 See 333–335 below. 5 This translation, or an equivalent, is adopted by Twining, Aristotle’s Treatise 202 (“of immoral tendency”); S. H. Butcher, Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art (London 1911 [1895]) 107; Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics 21; Bywater, Aristotle 89 (“corrupting”); J. Hardy, Aristote Poétique (Paris 1961) 73 (“(in- utilement) méchant”); Rosenmeyer, CSCA 6 (1974) 252 (“vicious”); Halli- well, The Poetics 63; Janko, Aristotle 152 (translating with “harmful” but identifying it with “wickedness” in his commentary); A. Schmitt, Aristoteles Poetik (Berlin 2008) 40 (“absichtlich Böses”). De Montmollin’s “blâmables” (La Poétique 100) fails to indicate what is particularly blamable about τὸ βλαβερϱόν, since the notion of “blame” is already expressed in the word ἐπι- τιµήµατα. 6 Some hesitancy is expressed by Janko, Aristotle 153; Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 250; R. Dupont-Roc and J. Lallot, Aristote, La Poétique (Paris 1980) 402. 312 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 The purpose of this paper is to suggest that Aristotle uses the word βλαβερϱόν in this passage as a compact formula denoting a special type of narrative implausibility that relies on character motivation. More precisely, βλαβερϱόν should here be under- stood as a “character-focalized”7 judgment of a reader whose expectations about the aims pursued by a character are at odds with a narrated action (or speech) that is consequently criti- cized as “harmful.” Before I present my arguments in favor of this interpretation—an interpretation which, on reflection, con- sists in no more than giving the word its standard meaning, that of “harmful”—I shall first explain why the traditional moralistic interpretation of βλαβερϱόν is improbable. Moral criticism and the Poetics As pointed out above, the moralistic interpretation is usually adopted without argumentation. I can see only two reasons for this interpretation: (1) the nearby reference to Menelaus in- duces interpreters to think of flaws of character as a potential motive for objection; (2) it is generally expected that Aristotle’s list of frequent objections to poetry should include the moral- istic criticisms that are known to have been formulated by Plato (and by other earlier detractors of Homer). The relevance of Menelaus’ “wickedness” to our problem does not bear a close examination. Here is the relevant passage from the Poetics (1461b19–21): But it is correct to find fault with both illogicality (ἀλογίᾳ) and moral baseness (µοχθηρϱίᾳ), if there is no necessity for them (µὴ ἀνάγκϰης οὔσης) and if the poet makes no use of the illogicality 7 If it be allowed to make a catachrestic use of this oft-misrepresented narratological concept of “focalization” (cf. R. Nünlist, “Some Clarifying Remarks on ‘Focalization’,” in F. Montanari and P. Ascheri [eds.], Omero tremila anni dopo [Rome 2002] 445–453). I hereby voluntarily extend its application, usually confined to the internal world of the narrative, to the external position of the critical reader. This extension relies on the assump- tion that a reader who sufficiently internalizes the point of view of a fictional character can sometimes express a judgment based on this point of view rather than on his own aesthetic one. ELSA BOUCHARD 313 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 (as with Euripides and the case of Aegeus) or the baseness (as with Menelaus’s in Orestes). This passage implies that in cases of both “illogicality” and “baseness,” the issue is really the necessary vs. unnecessary character of the particular narrative element. It is precisely his focus on this universal criterion of necessity that explains how Aristotle can speak in such a compact form of such different matters as the “illogicality” and the “moral baseness” in poetic compositions: wickedness of character, in the same way as ir- rationality, is not condemnable in itself, but only insofar as it is not motivated by the story. And in fact this holds true for just about any feature of the poem, since necessity acts as the all- pervading principle of a cohesive narrative. There is thus no reason to believe that Aristotle made wickedness, or more gen- erally moral features, the object of a specific kind of offense against poetic necessity. The unnecessary wickedness of Mene- laus is merely an example of narrative gratuitousness in general —an example that was readily available since Aristotle had already used it in his discussion of characters in ch. 15. “Illogi- cality” (ἀλογία), on the other hand, represents a self-standing ἐπιτίµηµα that deserves a place in the final five-item list, be- cause the presence of an ἄλογον in a poem almost always gives the impression of a rupture in the causal chain, and is thus much more often open to the kind of criticism that is based on µὴ ἀνάγκϰης οὔσης. Moreover, when Aristotle first mentions Euripides’ Menelaus in ch. 15 (1454a27), it is to illustrate the violation of the first of a total of four requirements relative to character: goodness (χρϱηστόν), appropriateness (ἁρϱµόττοντα), likeness (ὅµοιον), and evenness (ὁµαλόν). Three of these requirements are provided with an example of their violation: there is no illustration of what it would mean for any given character to lack “likeness.”8 8 G. F. Else, Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge 1957) 468–469, ex- plains this peculiarity with the “rules of consistency—generic, specific, and particular” that apply in the cases of goodness, appropriateness, and even- ness, whereas likeness has to be tested by observing life itself. 314 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 But more importantly, the passage does not argue for any prioritization of goodness over the three other requirements, al- though goodness is mentioned first by Aristotle. Consequently, this text can hardly be cited as evidence to support the view that Aristotle believed wickedness of character to form par- ticularly serious grounds for criticism addressed to poetry. As regards the second reason I see behind the traditional understanding of βλαβερϱόν, I should like first to recall that Aristotle’s general attitude towards the moral status of poetry is far less clear-cut than that of other philosophers, most notably Plato’s. The sole aspects of Aristotle’s poetic theory where there is room for suspecting some kind of ethical standpoint are: the famous ἁµαρϱτία problem, to which no one yet has provided a definitive solution;9 the function of poetic justice in Aristotle’s hierarchy of dramas according to their denouement;10 and the quality of the tragic character, whom he vaguely defines as “good” as opposed to his “mediocre” comic counterpart. Whatever the precise interpretation given to these various notions, their presence in Aristotle’s account could merely reflect the simple fact that a play—or any other mimetic com- position, for that matter—must feature characters that are in- 9 This hotly debated question revolves around the precise meaning of the word ἁµαρϱτία in Poetics 1453a10. Is Aristotle thinking of a character flaw or simply of a plain factual “mistake”? For various views between these two possibilities, see (inter alia) R. D. Dawe, “Some Reflections on Ate and Hamartia,” HSCP 72 (1968) 89–123; Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 299–307; J. Bre- mer, Hamartia. Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy (Amster- dam 1969); T. C. W. Stinton, “Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy,” CQ 25 (1975) 221–254. 10 The debatable issues in this regard are the exact import of the words µιαρϱόν and φιλάνθρϱωπον at 1452b34–1453a3 as well as Aristotle’s general preference for either “happy” or “unhappy” endings. See D. de Mont- mollin, “Le sens du terme φιλάνθρϱωπον dans la Poétique d’Aristote,” Phoenix 19 (1965) 15–23; R. Lamberton, “Philanthropia and the Evolution of Dramatic Taste,” Phoenix 37 (1983) 95–103; J. Moles, “Philanthropia in the Poetics,” Phoenix 38 (1984) 325–335; S. A. White, “Aristotle’s Favorite Tragedies,” in A. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics (Princeton 1992) 221–240. ELSA BOUCHARD 315 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 evitably endowed with ethical attributes and that realize certain actions which are either “good” (that is, noble or successful) or “bad” (that is, dishonorable or unsuccessful). But nowhere in the Poetics is there any suggestion that poetry has the power of “morally harming” its public,11 as indeed is the case in Plato, whose conception of poetry as a morally degrading agent with- in the polis is dependent on a very personal and distinctive understanding of political reality.12 This single fact seriously undermines the case for such an interpretation of βλαβερϱόν in Aristotle’s Poetics. Even granted that moral flaws affecting char- acters were indeed, in his opinion, a strong motive for criticism —on account perhaps of the standards of loftiness that the epic and tragic genres ought to aspire to—the word βλαβερϱόν would still be a very peculiar way of phrasing this criticism. Naturally, it could be argued that Aristotle, in the context of Poetics ch. 25, is content with providing solutions to typical ob- jections raised against poetry that do not need to be valid in his own eyes. Leaving a space for criticism based on the “morally harmful” would then appear as a concession to previous critics holding different views about the purpose of poetry, and Aristotle would employ the word βλαβερϱά as some kind of reference to Plato’s use of it at Resp. 391E: “For, as we were saying, such utterances [those of the poets about the gods] are both impious and false … And they are furthermore harmful (βλαβερϱά) to those that hear them” (transl. Shorey). But if that is the case, one can legitimately wonder why Aristotle does not provide any means to answer objections of this nature. Indeed, βλαβερϱόν with such a meaning as “morally harmful” would be 11 At Pol. 1336b20–35 Aristotle does advise against allowing youngsters to attend comedies on account of the obscene language that such perfor- mances feature. But this stricture is far from a censure of the poets them- selves, especially those that are representatives of the “serious” genres, such as epic and tragedy. 12 On this topic see J. Lear, “Inside and Outside the Republic,” Phronesis 37 (1992) 184–215, who offers a limpid analysis of the psyche/polis interaction in the Republic. 316 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 the only one of the five basic ἐπιτιµήµατα to be left without any potential solution,13 although this sort of objection should certainly call for a serious defense. Considering that morality is incommensurable with technical skill, it would be useless to contest the argument µὴ ἀνάγκϰης οὔσης by pointing out the poetic necessity of any given immoral element in a poem, since the objectionable content would be no less “harmful” to the morals if it were poetically “necessary.” (By contrast, charges of ἀλογία, being directly concerned with poetic technique, are adequately answered by arguments that rely on this same tech- nique, such as the “necessity” argument.) Besides, Poetics ch. 25 has rightly been understood as a con- densed account of Aristotle’s own standards of criticism,14 as evinced especially in the fundamental distinction between the correctness (ὀρϱθότης) of poetry and that of other crafts (cf. 1460b13–15). Rather than a mechanical method of answering 13 Solutions for ἄλογα and ἀδύνατα, which are similar notions (see 330 below), often consist in showing the poetic advantage of introducing striking or marvelous ingredients in the poem (cf. 1460b23–26); a particular solution for “contradictions” is to “consider how many meanings are possible in the linguistic context” (1461a32); and objections regarding mimetic consistency, which I presume is the meaning of ἐπιτιµήµατα ὡς παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην (see 333 below), could be linked with the kind of solution that is hinted at in the following passage: “For even where an inconsistent person is portrayed, and such a character is presupposed, there should still be con- sistency in the inconsistency” (1454a25–27; cf. Arist. fr.391 Gigon). 14 See Halliwell, The Poetics 177. Strangely enough, Halliwell claims a few pages later that in fact this chapter “offers a defensive strategy against hostile critics of poetry, while the work as a whole contends for what Ar. sees as the finest standards inherent in the genres which he examines” (180). Halliwell’s view on the relation of ch. 25 to the rest of the treatise is far from clear: although he believes that the Poetics as a whole generally exhibits a “more prescriptive approach” compared with “the ‘liberal’ and accommo- dating quality of ch. 25,” he simultaneously asserts that “the treatise certainly eschews the more naive kinds of moralism or technical criticism which are rebutted in this chapter” (180). The simplest way to avoid such a contradictory conclusion is to admit that the chapter does not adopt a significantly different standpoint from what precedes and what follows it. ELSA BOUCHARD 317 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 previous attacks, however relevant they may be, the chapter seeks to identify what are genuine grounds for criticism and to provide, wherever possible, equally genuine solutions to them. Aristotle’s preoccupation with the legitimacy or the unfairness of his contemporaries’ censures is indeed perceptible at various points throughout the Poetics.15 It is thus unlikely that this chap- ter should make use of poetic criteria that have no direct ante- cedents in the extensive prescriptions of the previous chapters. The denunciation in ch. 25 of “morally harmful” elements in poetry would constitute a late encounter indeed for the reader, since Aristotle shows a persistent disinterest in this matter in the Poetics. “Harmful” actions in ancient literary criticism Given the uniqueness of Poetics ch. 25 as a systematic account of the ancient debates over “the problems and solutions” related to a critical study of the Homeric epic, it may be rewarding to turn to another set of texts that provide useful illustrations of what these debates looked like. The texts in question are the numerous literary ζητήµατα transmitted (mostly) in the ancient scholia to Homer, in particular those that have demonstrably been given attention by Aristotle.16 There are thirty-nine Aristotelian fragments listed under the heading Ἀπορϱήµατα Ὁµηρϱικϰά in Gigon’s edition (thirty-eight in Rose’s). Although one could wish for more, these are sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of Aristotle’s involve- ment in the literary debates of his time. Moreover, the various problems addressed by Aristotle can usually be adequately sub- 15 See e.g. 1458b5–7 on the “undeserved censure” of poetical diction (οὐκϰ ὀρϱθῶς ψέγουσιν οἱ ἐπιτιµῶντες τῷ τοιούτῳ τρϱόπῳ τῆς διαλέκϰτου), and 1453a24, where Euripides’ detractors are said to “err” (ἁµαρϱτάνουσιν) when they reproach him for his unhappy endings. 16 The comparison between Poetics ch. 25 and the pieces of Porphyry’s Homeric Questions found in the scholia has been duly exploited by Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics, who fails however to provide a satisfactory meaning for βλαβερϱόν. 318 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 sumed under the five types of ἐπιτίµηµα listed at the end of Poetics ch. 25,17 on condition that the ticklish term βλαβερϱόν be interpreted plainly as “harmful,” i.e. “contrary to one’s ad- vantage,” and that this harmfulness be understood as affecting a character within the narrative, instead of the audience. It seems to be a peculiar feature of ancient literary criticism, including Aristotle’s, to credit the epic heroes with a strong sense of self-interest and a proportionate amount of instru- mental intelligence to satisfy it. This feature accounts for the frequency with which Greek critics express a somewhat naive perplexity before a scene showing a character who acts in an obviously stupid, dangerous, or simply inexpedient manner. I say “naive” because this reaction seems to result from a some- what “day-to-day” perspective that the critic typically applies to the poetic world.18 This perspective is particularly visible in his tendency, when judging a character’s decisions and actions, to compare them with what he, or any other sensible man,19 would do in the same situation. Considering the heroic and divine status of the epic’s protagonists, the expectations con- cerning the cleverness of their doings are all the more in- flexible. This is true at least in the case of Greek characters, whose superiority over the barbarians is another assumption shared by ancient readers.20 For example Heraclitus, the first century A.D. author of Homeric Problems, gives the following ar- gument to support his view that the narration of the Iliad takes place in summer: And why should all those who had come as allies have been so careless of danger (ῥιψοκϰίνδυνος) as to settle down to besiege the 17 See 332 below. 18 Cf. R. Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge 2009) 14, 252–253. 19 Cf. Poet. 1461b16–19: the poet’s potential self-contradictions must be judged not only on the basis of his own literal statements but also by com- parison with “something which can be sensibly assumed” ( ὃ ἂν φρϱόνιµος ὑποθῆται). 20 Cf. Plut. Quomodo adul. 29D–E; Nünlist, The Ancient Critic 13. ELSA BOUCHARD 319 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 enemy in a bad season? … But suppose the barbarians, in their stupidity, did choose to do something contrary to their interests (τῶν ἀσυµφόρϱων21 … τι)? Why then do the Greeks, who are super- ior in intelligence in every way, pick their best men to send out on reconnaissance at night—with what conceivable possible suc- cess compared with the loss (βλάβη) consequent on their failure? A snow shower or a winter rainstorm might easily have drowned them both. (9.7–10; transl. Russell and Konstan) Such a pragmatic premise happens to be at the heart of a surprisingly large number of Homeric zetemata, whose signifi- cance is not obvious to a modern eye that does not spon- taneously accept the premise. No fewer than ten of the surviv- ing fragments from Aristotle’s Homeric Problems22 raise questions that are apparently prompted by the critic’s disappointment at a character’s incompetent or unintelligent handling of a par- ticular situation. The ten problems are the following: Why did Agamemnon test the Achaeans in such a way as to nearly cause a situation opposite to what he intended? (fr.366 Gigon,23 on the Διάπειρϱα episode in the Iliad) Why did Athena not choose one of the Trojans in order to violate the oaths, but rather chose one of the allies, although one of his own would have been more agreeable to Alexander [and thus even readier to satisfy Athena’s will]? (375, on Athena’s choice of Pan- darus at Il. 4.88) Why did Ajax reveal Achilles’ wrath? That was in no way necessary, and a sensible man (φρϱονίµου ἀνδρϱός) does not make his weak- nesses known to his enemies (381, on Il. 7.229) 21 On the proximity of ἀσύµφορϱον with βλαβερϱόν see 321 below. 22 Hintenlang’s list of fragments dealing with the “expediency” (Zweck- mäßigkeit) of some actions is very incomplete: H. Hintenlang, Untersuchungen zu den Homer-Aporien des Aristoteles (diss. Heidelberg 1961) 141. 23 References to Aristotelian fragments are based on the numeration of Gigon’s collection (1987), although Rose (1886) was generally more cautious in attributing the content of the relevant scholia to Aristotle. Rose’s editorial choices have been preferred to a large extent by B. Breitenberger in her recent translation of the fragments in H. Flashar et al. (eds.), Aristoteles Frag- mente zu Philosophie, Rhetorik, Poetik, Dichtung (Berlin 2006). 320 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 Why did Homer make the commanders deliberate outside the walls for their nocturnal council, when it was possible for them to do it safely (ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ ) within the walls? (384 on Il. 10.194) The position of the spears planted on their point seems ill chosen (φαύλη); indeed it is a well-known fact that a single fallen spear suffices to cause general confusion at night (383, on Il. 10.153) Why does Calchas give an interpretation of only that part of the omen where the birds are devoured by the snake, and say nothing about the snake’s ensuing lithification, although this was a real marvel that called for explanation? And if the lithification was a symbol of the Greeks’ return by sea after the war, it would be ridiculous (γελοῖος) of Calchas not to warn them that, according to the signs, they would never come back. (369, on Il. 2.305–329)24 Why did Odysseus tell the Phaeacians that he had mutilated the Cyclops, when we think that the Phaeacians are descendants of Poseidon, just like the Cyclops? (396, on Od. 9.345) Why did Odysseus act with such foolish (ἀνοήτως) contempt toward Poseidon when taunting the Cyclops about his wound being in- curable, even by his father Poseidon? (397, on Od. 9.525) Why did Odysseus refuse Calypso’s offer of making him immortal? (401, on Od. 23.337) Why did Odysseus not reveal in the first place his identity to Penel- ope as he had done with his son and his servants, even though she was an adult and she loved him [and could thus have provided him additional help]? (399, on Od. 16.188) To these ten problems we could possibly add fr.376 (schol. B Il. 4.297) on the disposition of Nestor’s army,25 and 402 (Strab. 13.1.36) where Strabo reports Aristotle’s view about the wall built by the Achaeans in Iliad 7 (whose future destruction is announced at the beginning of the twelfth book): “According to 24 I give here a shortened account of the content of this long and intricate zetema. On the psychological nature of this zetema, whose focus is on Calchas’ behavior rather than on the fantastic character of the omen, cf. R. Lam- berton and J. J. Keaney, Homer’s Ancient Readers: the Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes (Princeton 1992) xiv: “Aristotle, as often, seems [in fr.369] to have been concerned to pry into the motives and the latent dynamics of the interaction of the characters.” 25 On this fragment see n.55 below. ELSA BOUCHARD 321 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 Aristotle, the poet, having invented it, destroyed it” (ὁ δὲ πλά- σας ποιητὴς ἠφάνισεν, ὡς Ἀρϱιστοτέλης φησίν). Although its precise meaning is debatable, this last remark was presumably made in the context of an ancient discussion concerning the various peculiarities of this wall in the narrative, and in par- ticular the odd fact that the Greeks only thought of building such a protection in the last year of the war.26 The incon- ceivability of the Greeks’ foolishness (ἀπόνοια) on this matter, along with that of the Trojans’ cowardice (since they did not dare to attack the Greek vessels although they were vulnerable all that time), is in fact what worries Strabo in this passage. Aristotle’s remark, by stressing the fictional nature of the wall, could be understood as a way of allaying criticism against the inexpedient behavior of both Greeks and Trojans during the period preceding the building of the wall. But the interpre- tation of this meagre fragment must remain hypothetical.27 As regards the ten zetemata listed above, they all bluntly consist in pointing out the apparently harmful—or at the very least useless—nature of a character’s specific action with regard to his own interest or that of his near and dear. Although it is not actually used in these passages, I believe that the word βλαβερϱόν could adequately render this notion of “counterpro- ductiveness.” Indeed, not only does this term occur only once in the Poetics, but it is not found as a source of objection in the scholia either.28 A close equivalent, however, the word ἀσύµ- φορϱον, is used in at least one scholium addressing the same sort of problem as those listed above: at schol. A Il. 24.130, Aristo- nicus reports that Thetis’ words enjoining her son to stop grieving and predicting his imminent death (24.130–132) were athetized, partially on account of being “the least useful of all 26 Notably, Thucydides (1.11.1) speaks of this wall as if it had been erected upon the Greeks’ arrival at Troy. 27 See T. W. Boyd, “A Poet on the Achaean Wall,” Oral Tradition 10 (1995) 181–206, at 187, for a different interpretation of fr.402. 28 Cf. Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics 21. 322 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 (ἁπάντων ἀσυµφορϱώτατον), especially for those who are going to battle, since they rather need grit and spirit.”29 On the assumption that Aristotle’s phrase ἐπιτιµήµατα ὡς βλαβερϱά is meant to designate the critical objections that gave rise to this kind of zetema, these objections would then be the expression of the ancient readers’ puzzlement when they en- counter what appears to them as an incomprehensible course of action within their accepted paradigm of “pragmatic” psychology. The frequency of zetemata showing this sort of preoccupation makes it plausible that Aristotle would have included them in the final list of Poetics ch. 25. Moreover, the relatively high number of zetemata concerning actions whose author is the character Odysseus in this list (four out of ten) can also easily be explained with what I have termed the “prag- matic” premise of ancient criticism: Odysseus is a paradigmatic figure of intelligence and prudence, and so all the more ex- pected to behave sensibly.30 29 Another reason for the athetesis of these verses is of course the well- known prudishness of Alexandrian mores, who objected to the inappro- priate (ἀπρϱεπές) character of Thetis’ comment on the enjoyment of sex, but the scholium clearly distinguishes between the different motives for the athetesis: ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι τρϱεῖς, ὅτι ἀπρϱεπὲς µητέρϱα υἱῷ λέγειν “ἀγαθόν ἐστι γυναικϰὶ µίσγεσθαι.” ἔτι δὲ κϰαὶ ἁπάντων ἀσυµφορϱώτατόν ἐστι κϰαὶ µάλιστα τοῖς εἰς πόλεµον ἐξιοῦσι· χρϱεία γὰρϱ εὐτονίας κϰαὶ πνεύµατος. κϰαὶ τὸ λέγειν ὅτι ὁ θάνατός σου ἐγγύς ἐστιν, ἄκϰαιρϱον. 30 It is likely, though unprovable, that Odysseus had been the subject of numerous zetematic discussions among early Homeric scholars. This is partly hinted at by the fact that Euripides’ satyr play Cyclops ostensibly mod- ifies a number of details from the Cyclops episode in the Odyssey, notably omitting some of Odysseus’ most conspicuous bad decisions (such as his choice to wait for the Cyclops inside the cave, or his foolish hope to be offered presents of hospitality from its inhabitant). Considering that fifth- century tragedians, Euripides in particular, were well aware of the existence of scrupulous readers hunting for zetemata (cf. R. Scodel, Credible Impos- sibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy [Stuttgart 1999] ch. 7), the Euripidean version of Odysseus’ encounter with the Cyclops is conceivably a conscious attempt to provide the corrections necessary to avoid some notorious Homeric problems. ELSA BOUCHARD 323 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 By contrast, only three Aristotelian passages can safely be considered as referring to objections denouncing the morality of a particular action or character: fr.374 (on Paris being “miserable,” ἄθλιος, and “in an irrecoverable disposition,” ἀσώτως διακϰεῖσθαι), 389 (on Achilles’ dragging of Hector’s corpse “against the established laws”), and 403 (on Agamem- non’s alleged corruptibility in accepting a mare as compen- sation for a subject’s exemption from war service). It is also possible that Aristotle’s citation (Poet. 1461a21; cf. Soph.El. 166b) of a grammatical lysis provided by a certain Hippias of Thasos, who suggested to change δίδοµεν to διδόµεν at Il. 2.15, makes reference to a problem of a moral nature: the paroxy- tone form, an Aeolic imperatival infinitive, avoids making Zeus utter in the first person the deceitful words granting a false vic- tory to Agamemnon.31 In addition to frs.374, 389, and 403, H. Hintenlang32 admits 397, 379, and 368 into his list of Aristotelian problems that deal with the “morality” (Sittlichkeit) of some actions; but this classification reflects inattention to the details of the relevant problems. In 397 Aristotle is clearly concerned with the riskiness of Odysseus’ insulting Poseidon (considering the god’s future persecution of the hero), and not particularly with the latent impiety of his words. In 379, on the exchange of weapons be- tween Glaucus and Diomedes, he points out the inconsistency of the judgment expressed by the narrator on Glaucus with the latter’s noble disinterest. And in 368 he merely refutes the ap- 31 Interestingly enough, the problematic words δίδοµεν δέ οἱ εὖχος ἀρϱέσθαι are not found in our versions of the Homeric line, where we find instead Τρϱώεσσι δὲ κϰήδε’ ἐφῆπται (“far more anodyne,” A. C. Cassio, “Early Editions of the Greek Epics and Homeric Textual Criticism in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC,” in F. Montanari and P. Ascheri [eds.], Omero tremila anni dopo [Rome 2002] 105–136, at 120). According to Cassio, the shift was made on moral grounds, and “must be later than Aristotle but earlier than the Alexandrian scholars, who knew nothing of—or decided to ignore—the earlier version.” 32 Hintenlang, Untersuchungen 95–105. 324 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 parent inappropriateness (ἀπρϱεπές) of a personage such as king Odysseus running across the camp without his overcoat;33 there is no doubt that this instance of ἀπρϱεπές is to be inter- preted with its specifically technical meaning “incompatible with the character or the situation,”34 and not in a moralistic fashion. As regards the few cases that I have just singled out as true “moral” problems (374, 389, 403, along with Poet. 1461a21), although they reveal the presence of certain critical presupposi- tions concerning the noble status of epic characters, they can hardly qualify as instances of anything that could be called βλαβερϱόν—at least not in any straightforward way. Indeed, the exponents of the traditional understanding of βλαβερϱόν do not even cite any of these fragments in support of their view. βλαβερϱόν in the Poetics It was urged above that a moral use of βλαβερϱόν in the Poetics is unlikely given that no defense against charges for poetic immorality is provided by Aristotle. Some commentators35 ad- duce the following passage as offering precisely such a defense (1461a4–9): When asking whether someone has spoken or acted in a good or bad manner (κϰαλῶς ἢ µὴ κϰαλῶς), one should look to see not just if the deed or utterance is worthy or worthless (σπουδαῖον ἢ φαῦλον), but also to the identity of the agent or the speaker (εἰς τὸν πρϱάττοντα ἢ λέγοντα), to the person with whom he deals (πρϱὸς ὅν), and to the occasion (ὅτε), means (ὅτῳ), and purpose (οὗ ἕνεκϰεν) of what is done (e.g. whether the aim is to effect a greater good, or prevent a greater evil). (Halliwell, modified) 33 Cf. Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 158, who points out that πρϱέπων and ἁρϱµότ- των are synonyms, along with Rh. 1363a28 for a partial definition of τὰ ἁρϱµόττοντα as τά τε πρϱοσήκϰοντα κϰατὰ γένος κϰαὶ δύναµιν. 34 On which see M. Pohlenz, “Τὸ πρϱέπον. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes,” in Kleine Schriften I (Hildesheim 1965) 100–139. 35 See Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 250; Dupont-Roc and Lallot, Aristote 402– 403; Janko, Aristotle 148 and 152; Halliwell, The Poetics 135; Breitenberger, Aristoteles Fragmente 374; Schmitt, Aristoteles Poetik 707. ELSA BOUCHARD 325 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 The beginning of Halliwell’s original translation reads: “When asking whether someone has spoken or acted morally or other- wise, one should look to see not just if the deed or utterance is good or evil…” But this translation begs the question with regard to the moral connotation that can be perceived in Aristotle’s evaluation of the characters’ actions.36 The words actually used in this passage are quite noncommital,37 and I see no reason why, for example, we should not interpret this par- ticular instance of φαῦλον with the same meaning that it obviously has in fr.383 (cf. 320 above), where it describes the “inexpedient/harmful” position of the soldiers’ spears in the ground.38 The same can be said of the expression κϰαλῶς ἢ µὴ κϰαλῶς: according to Lucas—who still believes that the subject of this passage is “the ethical standards employed”—“κϰαλῶς in itself would be equally applicable in criticisms of aesthetic or moral quality.”39 It happens that κϰαλός and its cognates are regularly employed to express the ancient critics’ general ap- proval, whether it is prompted by the poem’s realistic, artistic, or moral features. Almost any aspect of a character’s action could thus be designated by the expression κϰαλῶς ἢ µὴ κϰαλῶς, 36 Janko (Aristotle 148) compares this passage to Eth.Nic. 1111a3 where Aristotle recommends taking account of similar circumstances in the context of judging an action. But, contrary to what Janko believes, this is not to be done as a means of “mitigating harsh moral judgments,” but rather to de- termine whether the action was intentional or unintentional: if the agent was ignorant of any one of these circumstances when doing his deed, then he cannot be said to have done it willfully. In the passage of the Poetics that concerns us, the ignorance of the circumstances surrounding an action is that of a careless reader, and not that of the (fictional) agent. 37 Notably, Halliwell’s 1995 Loeb translation is much more neutral: “When the question is whether or not someone has spoken or acted well, one should examine not only whether the actual deed or utterance is good or bad…” 38 Cf. Eth.Nic. 1154b4–5, according to which bodily pleasure is a “bad” thing (φαῦλον) when it is harmful, but an unobjectionable one if it is inoffen- sive (ὅταν µὲν οὖν ἀβλαβεῖς, ἀνεπιτίµητον, ὅταν δὲ βλαβερϱάς, φαῦλον). 39 Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 240; cf. de Montmollin, La Poétique 323 n.201. 326 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 including the level of success that this action is likely to pro- duce.40 For example, the notions of “beautiful” (κϰαλόν) and “fruitful” (συµφέρϱον) are closely coupled in the following com- ment on the rhetorical quality of Hector’s speech against Polydamas, after the latter has advised the Trojans to retreat inside the city walls: Hector’s speech contains utility along with beauty; that is to say, even what he says about the riches—that they were spent en- tirely on a long-lasting war—contributes to its utility, because the harm done to the besieged is greater than that which is done to those who give impetus to the engagement.41 In his speech Hector mentions how much wealth Troy has lost since the beginning of the war; since his speech meets with the Trojans’ acclamations (10.310), the point of the scholiast’s comment is precisely to explain the successful effect of his words. Moreover, to link βλαβερϱόν with wickedness would be in- consistent with Poet. 1461a4–9, because this passage makes no reference whatever to “character” but rather focuses on the value of particular actions accomplished by dramatic charac- ters. And although it is true that actions can also reveal moral character (cf. Poet. 1450a21), that is clearly not what Aristotle has in mind here. What is at stake is whether an action turns 40 Technically, Aristotle does at one point make a distinction between the “beautiful” (κϰαλόν) and the “useful” (συµφέρϱον), which along with the “pleasurable” (ἡδύ) are regarded as the three motives at the basis of an agent’s decisions (Eth.Nic. 1104b31). But as regards individuals who happen to be κϰαλοὶ κϰἀγαθοί, the useful in fact coincides with the beautiful (cf. Eth. Eud. 1249a10); and at Eth.Nic. 1140a26 he says that it is characteristic of a “sensible” man to be able to deliberate “beautifully” on what is good and useful to him (δοκϰεῖ δὴ φρϱονίµου εἶναι τὸ δύνασθαι κϰαλῶς βουλεύσασθαι περϱὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαθὰ κϰαὶ συµφέρϱοντα). Generally speaking, the words κϰαλόν and συµφέρϱον make a recurring pair in the Aristotelian corpus. 41 Schol. bT Il. 10.290: ὁ τοῦ Ἕκϰτορϱος λόγος µετὰ τοῦ κϰαλοῦ κϰαὶ τὸ συµ- φέρϱον ἔχει, τουτέστι συµφέρϱοντος µέρϱος ἐστὶ κϰαὶ τὰ περϱὶ τῶν χρϱηµάτων, ἅπερϱ πολυχρϱονίῳ πολέµῳ ἐξαναλῶσθαι λέγει, ὅτι µείζων ἡ βλάβη πολι- ορϱκϰουµένων ἢ τῇ συµβολῇ κϰρϱίσιν διδόντων. ELSA BOUCHARD 327 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 out to be “well” (κϰαλῶς) done, and not what sort of character did it. Consequently, it is indeed plausible that Poet. 1461a4–9 fur- nishes potential answers to the ἐπιτιµήµατα ὡς βλαβερϱά, by means of a reference to various circumstances (the characters concerned, their specific aims, etc.) within the narrative frame- work of the poem; I shall term this “the contextual argument.” But this does not in itself allow us to decide on the meaning of βλαβερϱόν, since an accusation ὡς βλαβερϱόν could be refuted by such an argument regardless of whether βλαβερϱόν means “morally harmful” or “inexpedient.” The fact that Aristotle here gives no example to illustrate the importance of these various circumstances does not help to settle the uncertainty. However, if we examine the actual application of this type of lysis in the Homeric zetemata, we shall find that it is especially suited to the alleged cases of inexpediency. The following are indisputable occasions where Aristotle’s solutions make use of the contextual argument: fr.375: Athena does not make a Trojan responsible for the breaking of the oaths because all the Trojans hated Paris, and among the allies she chose Pandarus because of his greediness and because he is a perjurer (solution based on πρϱὸς ὅν) fr.381: Ajax mentions Achilles’ wrath to Hector in order to prevent the latter from thinking that Achilles has retreated out of fear and because he wants him to be aware of the presence of other power- ful soldiers (solution based on οὗ ἕνεκϰεν) fr.384: The Achaean commanders made their council outside the walls because it was unlikely that the Trojans would make a des- perate nightly assault, since they were in a good situation at the time. Moreover, going a little ahead of the camp was only normal since they were about to send spies to the Trojans (solution based on ὅτε) fr.369: Perhaps Calchas failed to say anything about the meaning of the snake’s lithification because it was a symbol of slowness— something that already belonged to the past and that was no longer fearsome for the Greeks (solution based on ὅτε) fr.396: Odysseus does nothing foolish in telling the Phaeacians about the blinding of Polyphemus, since they were also enemies of the Cyclopes, who had once attacked them and deprived them of their 328 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 land (solution based on πρϱὸς ὅν) fr.397: Nor is he taking any risks with Poseidon when insulting the Cyclops, since he merely means to say that Poseidon shall never wish to heal him (solution based on οὗ ἕνεκϰεν). Accordingly, Posei- don’s anger over Odysseus’ blinding of Polyphemus is prompted by the fact that a mortal (like Odysseus) is not entitled to take justice into his own hands when gods, or their kin, are involved (solution based on εἰς τὸν πρϱάττοντα ἢ λέγοντα and πρϱὸς ὅν) fr.401: Odysseus refuses Calypso’s offer because he does not trust her (solution based on πρϱὸς ὅν), and he tells the Phaeacians about his refusal because he thinks it an expedient way (συνέφερϱε) to gain their sympathy and their help for his homeward journey (solution based on οὗ ἕνεκϰεν) fr.399: Odysseus did not reveal his identity to Penelope in order to avoid that her overwhelming joy would raise suspicions about his presence in the palace, since she was used to continuous crying (solution based on οὗ ἕνεκϰεν and πρϱὸς ὅν) fr.379 (on Il. 6.234): The poet blames Glaucus for having traded with Diomedes his superior weaponry not on account of its greater value but on account of the war that was going on, and of the use Glaucus was to make of the weaponry (solution based on ὅτε) fr.403 (on Il. 23.297–299): Agamemnon did well to bring a valuable mare along with him in his campaign, rather than the worthless man who owned it (solution based on πρϱὸς ὅν) In all these cases, except in the last two,42 solutions based on the contextual argument (that is to say, on the identity of the agent/speaker and of the other characters, on the precise goal the agent has in mind, or on various other circumstances) are 42 See 323 above for details on the respective problems corresponding to these solutions. The case of the exchange of weapons between Glaucus and Diomedes is particularly interesting: the zetema does not consist, as one could naturally think, in denouncing the foolishness of Glaucus’ trading of gold for bronze (in which case the zetema would be based on the notion of βλαβερϱόν as I understand it), but rather the inconsistent harshness of the narrator, who precisely calls Glaucus “foolish” although his gesture was prompted by φιλοτιµία and friendship. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1358b38–1359a5 where it is stated that authors of epideictic speeches often praise their subject for prioritizing a noble action over one’s personal interest. ELSA BOUCHARD 329 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 provided to solve problems that I singled out earlier as derived from the pragmatic perspective of “harmful” actions. These solutions consist in showing the particular appropriateness or expediency of a given action, when such an action displays a prima facie detrimental character. Of course, it is still possible to solve these problems by resorting to arguments of an entirely different nature, such as those that focus on the poet’s special aims: Agamemnon’s risky trial of his army, for example, is ex- ternally justified by the poetic benefit of introducing dangerous (and thus exciting) episodes (fr.366). Similarly, the awkward position of the spears finds some external justification in what Aristotle contends to be ancient practice (383). It is in fact the case that almost any type of lysis can be used to stand up to any type of zetema.43 But showing the rationale behind an ap- parently harmful action is obviously a particularly adequate defense against ἐπιτιµήµατα ὡς βλαβερϱά, as I propose to un- derstand them. It remains to be shown that βλαβερϱόν thus understood comes in as a consistent and natural complement of the four other types of ἐπιτίµηµα in Aristotle’s list. Especially necessary is a clarification of the distinction between ἀδύνατα, ἄλογα, and βλαβερϱά, since all three categories seem to involve an implau- sibility of some sort. ἀδύνατα and ἄλογα are in fact the hardest to tell apart, because “impossibilities” can naturally overlap with “irrationalities” and vice versa.44 Examples given by 43 This principle has been a fruitful guide to the analysis of Carroll (Ari- stotle’s Poetics) as is pointed out by Rosenmeyer, CSCA 6 (1974) 232 n.5. I am not suggesting that the contextual argument is used only to solve cases of in- expediency. In addition to frs.379 and 403 cited above, the zetemata treated in 380 and 373 are also answered with this argument, although they do not consist in charges of βλαβερϱόν (see below for a list of the Aristotelian frag- ments related to the various types of objection). 44 Cf. Lucas, Aristotle: Poetics 230: “it would seem natural that an ἄλογον in the structure would give rise to individual incidents which were ἀδύνατα.” It looks though as if the category of ἄλογα is more extensive than that of ἀδύνατα, since some “irrationalities” are not necessarily “impossibilities.” 330 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 Aristotle,45 supplemented with a study of the usage found in the scholia, suggest that the word ἀδύνατα might refer to those scenes in a poem that give a somewhat fantastic impression, whereas ἄλογα would be more generally the cases where a sud- den occurrence, or else some particular detail, violently—and unbelievably—deceives the reader’s natural expectations. At all events, the alogia that is denounced in these examples has certainly nothing to do with the sort of “irrationality” that can manifest itself in the behavior of an individual: the ἄλογον in Oedipus’ ignorance of the circumstances of Laius’ death is by no means the result of his own irrationality, but rather that of the narrative. But βλαβερϱά, in keeping with what has been said above, would be precisely those actions that are “irrational” on account of being both voluntary and contrary to a rational agent’s expected behavior, and thus correspond to a particular kind of psychological implausibility—one especially offensive to the ancient critics’ sensibilitites, as we have seen. βλαβερϱά appear to be extreme instances of what could be called, in modern terminology, a lack of “actorial motiva- tion,”46 with the essential difference that an action is here de- nounced as conflicting with the actorial-motivational context, instead of being merely poorly motivated. The ancient critics’ severity towards this lack is partially excusable considering that, according to I. J. F. de Jong, actorial motivation is usually ex- plicit. The implicitness of the motives underlying an action can thus be considered narrative “gaps” that need to be filled in. Regarding fr.399 (on Odysseus’ choice not to identify himself to his wife), R. Scodel believes that Aristotle’s interest was 45 See 333–335 below listing the examples. ἄλογον and its cognates are much more often used than ἀδύνατον: there is only one occurrence of the latter in the Poetics (“Hector’s pursuit” at 1460b26); but in fr.390 Aristotle deals with the ἀδύνατον of the wounds healing on Hector’s corpse. The scholia also sometimes use ἀδύνατον to describe supernatural occurrences (e.g. schol. B Il. 3.397 and 5.7). 46 See the definition of this narratological concept in I. J. F. de Jong, A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (Cambridge 2001) xi. ELSA BOUCHARD 331 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 justified because Odysseus’ behavior “requires naturalization, and ancient criticism treats all gaps as problematic.”47 Sim- ilarly, Calchas’ failure to explain the snake’s lithification (369), according to R. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney, qualifies as a “glaring omission.”48 By contrast with ἀδύνατα and ἄλογα, which seem to reflect the sort of judgment that a critic might pass on a painted scene as well as on a narrated scene, to qualify some element as βλα- βερϱόν demands that the critic adopt an internal standpoint in the narrative and evaluate the action with regard to what he believes to be the characters’ desires and aspirations. Such an assessment calls for a major involvement in the composition’s inner psychological workings, which is more easily conceivable in the case of a literary work than of any other form of art. In- deed, one could argue that “inexpediency” is even too specific a criterion: why is it that in the list of objections the sole item with a psychological tenor should be centered on precisely such a notion? That is perhaps explainable by the nature of fiction itself, whose potential of interest relies heavily on the introduction of actions capable of provoking excitement and other strongly emotional responses. Such actions can hardly be undertaken by characters with a fully rational and predictable conduct, so the epic poet will do well to allow even his “superior” characters a touch of piquant fallibility. Indeed, such elements as Odysseus’ choice of a mortal life, or his provocative words to the Cyclops, have an inescapable appeal for the audience—the first as an ex- pression of the sublimity of human condition, the second as a satisfying experience of cathartic vengeance. But on the prosaic level of “expediency” these can indeed be questionable courses of action, and a meticulous critic endowed with a rational con- ception of human behavior might easily be tempted to un- derline this tactical incredibility rather than the poetic qualities 47 Credible Impossibilities 21. 48 Homer’s Ancient Readers xiv. 332 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 associated with it. Or this critic could even go so far as to expose the artificiality of the motives underlying a specific occurrence in the narrative49 by pointing out the psychological implausibility of ascribing it to a character. That is precisely what Scodel envisions concerning the unbelievably foolish be- havior of Odysseus during the Cyclops episode in the Odyssey:50 Homer faces the danger that Odysseus’ decision to remain in the cave will seem to be Homer’s, understandable on the aes- thetic level (since otherwise there is no story), and so perhaps forgivable by the audience, but without sense mimetically, as part of the represented world, and so a flaw … when Odysseus points to his own folly in the cave, he transfers the mistake from the (primary) narrator to the character. As a final argument, I must point out that the critical objec- tions corresponding to the numerous zetemata presented above (319–320) can find a place in the epitimemata list of Poetics 25 only under the heading of βλαβερϱά, which is the only item left after all the other zetemata found in the remains of Aristotle’s Homeric Problems have been distributed and labelled as instances of ἄλογα, ἀδύνατα, ὑπεναντία, and παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην. I have just now presented my understanding of the meaning of the first two, and argued that this meaning is significantly different from the objections listed on pp.319–320. The same can be said of ὑπεναντία, the least problematic notion of the list, to which we can also assign a good number of Aristotelian fragments. Examples of objections that concern “technical correctness” are harder to identify, because the vagueness of the formula could well indicate a mixed category. Likely candidates for this group are elements that betray some sort of poetic in- consistency but cannot be qualified as downright factual “contradictions” (ὑπεναντία), such as Iphigenia’s “unevenness” 49 Much like what Aristotle does in fr.366, though without any traces of rebuke (cf. 329 above). 50 Credible Impossibilities 51. ELSA BOUCHARD 333 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 (ἀνώµαλον, 1454a30–33), or that of Menelaus, who happens to act differently in two similar situations separated by a short time interval (fr.380). The one instance of ἀπρϱεπές considered by Aristotle ought also to be included in this class, since it con- cerns the discrepancy between a character’s social status and the behavior that he displays (fr.368, cf. 324 above).51 In all these cases, the inaccuracy involved is certainly “technical” since it amounts to nothing less than bad imitation.52 Again, the formulations used to present these various problems have nothing in common with the objections of pp.319–320, which are thus, by the process of elimination, either left unattached or else assigned to the category of ἐπιτιµήµατα ὡς βλαβερϱά— “objections on account of the (implausibly) harmful course of action” taken by any given character in the poem. For convenience, the following list offers a recapitulation of the distribution of the zetemata corresponding to the five cat- egories of epitimema of Poetics ch. 25 as I propose to understand them, including both the fragments of Aristotle’s Homeric Prob- lems and the relevant passages of the Poetics.53 Since most of the texts do not make a direct use of the crucial terms to express the objections, this distribution is largely the result of deduc- tion; but the passages accompanied by an asterisk are those where the specific objection (as ἀδύνατον, ἄλογον, etc.) is ex- plicitly stated. ἀδύνατα frs.390* (wounds healing on Hector’s corpse), 395 (how can the Cyclops be born from two non-Cyclops parents?), 398 (Helios’ immortal cattle); Poet. 1460b26* (the pursuit of Hector, also labelled ἄλογον elsewhere; see below) 51 Although they do not involve the word ἀπρϱεπές, I am tempted to con- sider as close equivalents to fr.368 the three Aristotelian fragments that hint at a moral rebuke (cf. 323 above), since they can after all be explained in terms of “inappropriateness” (to the generally noble status of epic charac- ters) as well as in terms of “immorality.” 52 Cf. Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics 24–26. 53 Some fragments are too scanty to be assigned to any category. That is the case with frs.386, 392, and 402. 334 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 ἄλογα frs.366 (use of the µηχανή; cf. Poet. 1454b1–2(*)),54 371* (Helen’s ignorance of her brothers’ death), 400 (abrupt death of Odysseus’ dog); Poet. 1460a14–16* (the circumstances of Hector’s pursuit), 1460a30* (Oedipus’ ignorance of how Laius died), 1460 a31* (the report of the Pythian Games in Electra), 1460a32* (the silent character’s arrival in Mysia in the Mysians), 1460a35–36* (the disembarkation in the Odyssey), 1461b21* (how Euripides handles “the case of Aegeus”), 1461b4–9 (Telemachus’ failure to meet Icarius at Sparta) βλαβερϱά frs.366 (Agamemnon’s trial of the army), 369 (Calchas’ silence), 375 (Athena’s choice of Pandarus), 376 (the disposition of the army),55 381 (Ajax’s mention of Achilles’ wrath to the enemy), 383 (the spears’ position), 384 (the outdoor nocturnal council), 396 (Odysseus’ informing the Phaeacians of the blinding of Poly- phemus), 397 (Odysseus’ insult to Polyphemus and Poseidon), 399 (Odysseus not making himself recognized by Penelope), 401 (Odys- seus refusing immortality). ὑπεναντία frs.370* (number of cities in Crete), 372 (Homer’s handling of the perjury of the Trojans), 373 (can Helios “see every- thing” or not?), 377 (where exactly is Gorgo’s head?), 382 (Aga- memnon opening his speech as if only the leaders were present), 385 (just what portion of the night is passed?), 388/367 (meaning of τάλαντον),56 393 (what do gods drink?); Poet. 1461a33–34* (the 54 The use of the µηχανή, both in tragedy (Poet. 1454b1) and in epic (1454b1–2 and fr.366, following the text cited 319 above), should probably be understood as reprehensible in terms of ἀλογία, given that Aristotle’s mention in the Poetics of how ἄλογον must be avoided immediately follows his rejection of the poetic µηχανή (cf. A. R. Sodano, “Gli ἄλογα omerici nell’esegesi di Porfirio. La metodologia filologico-estetica di Aristotele,” AAP 15 [1965] 205–239, at 205). 55 Fr.376, on Nestor’s strange (ἄτοπον) disposition of the army, could also be assigned to another category (ἄλογα or παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην), depending on whether the focus is on Nestor’s military decision or on the general impression given by the scene. In the transmitted zetema it is unclear whether the subject of the sentence “Why did he make such a dispo- sition of the troops” (διὰ τί τὴν τάξιν ταύτην ἐποίησεν) is Nestor or Homer. 56 The content of Rose’s fr.164 is split by Gigon into two different frag- ments (388 and 367), although the passages address the same topic. ELSA BOUCHARD 335 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 meaning of “to be stopped”).57 παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην frs.42 [=144 Rose]58 (Men- elaus as the only soldier without a concubine), 368 (ἀπρϱεπές of Odysseus’ behavior), 374 (general mediocrity of Alexander), 378 (incongruous simile), 379 (inconsistent judgment on Glaucus), 380 (Menelaus’ contradictory attitude in the face of a proposed duel), 387 (Zeus swearing instead of simply nodding), 389 (Achilles’ un- lawful behavior towards Hector’s corpse), 391 (Achilles’ uneven character), 394 (Homer’s use of some epithets), 403 (Agamemnon’s corruptibility); Poet. 1454a27–32 (various shortcomings in charac- ter drawing). Conclusion The interpretation I propose for βλαβερϱόν in the final part of Poetics ch. 25 has a number of advantages. First, it corresponds to the usual meaning that the word carries in Greek, and in Aristotle in particular, where the vast majority of its instances have the plain meaning “harmful” (with regard to one’s in- terest) and where it is regularly contrasted with συµφέρϱον, “useful.”59 Second, it avoids the sudden intrusion of moral considerations into a context that otherwise presents a strictly technical discussion. Third, it evens up, so to say, the five-item list, since all the objections can now be understood as pointed towards internal deficiencies that are measured by poetry’s own standards: whereas βλαβερϱόν, when taken to mean “morally harmful,” ascribes some sort of overreaching quality to poetry, extending its influence beyond the poetic construct to the 57 The “contradiction” involved in this elliptic example is that a spear could be said to break through two layers of metal on a shield and be stopped by the gold layer, when the gold is supposed to be the first layer. 58 Fr.144 Rose was moved by Gigon to the dialogue Erotikos, but he is not followed by Breitenberger, Aristoteles Fragmente, who restores its original po- sition among the fragments of the Homeric Problems. Indeed the zetematic nature of the passage is obvious. 59 E.g. Rh. 1358b22, 1396a30; Eth.Nic. 1104b2; Pol. 1253a15. The noun βλάβη and the verb βλάπτειν also occur regularly in discussions concerning justice, to designate the prejudice suffered by the suing party (e.g. Rh. 1373 b30). 336 THE MEANING OF ΒΛΑΒΕΡΟΝ IN THE POETICS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010) 309–336 “real” world, βλαβερϱόν as a description of a character’s self- damaging course of action is a criticism that remains within the boundaries of the mimetic art,60 just as is the case with ἀδύ- νατα, ἄλογα, ὑπεναντία, and also with objections ὡς παρϱὰ τὴν ὀρϱθότητα τὴν κϰατὰ τέχνην—at least if one reads this expression as referring to the poetic craft, as indeed I do (cf. above n.3). Finally, it seems to account remarkably well for a large number of Homeric zetemata to which Aristotle paid attention and which cannot otherwise find a counterpart in his apparently comprehensive list of objections.61 May, 2010 Université de Montréal / Université Paris IV-Sorbonne elsa.bouchard@umontreal.ca 60 This conforms with what Halliwell thinks to be the main purport of ch. 25, namely “to offer a series of arguments for a style of criticism which works with, rather than from outside, the intrinsic aims and techniques of the individual art or genre” (The Poetics 179). 61 I wish to acknowledge the support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada while I was preparing this article, as well as by the Fondation Hardt, where part of the work was completed during a funded research stay. Finally my thanks go to Professor Vayos Liapis and to an anonymous referee for GRBS who both presented helpful comments on a previous version.