In Herodotus 3.50-3, the role of the external primary narrator is crucial in developing the dialogue and transforming fabula into an Aristotelean tragic structure. This essay examines the role of the external primary narrator from a literary point of view by comparing Aristotle’s tragedy model with the narrative structure. To captivate the reader, literary techniques such as dramatic irony, prolepsis or irony will be used. The narrator’s influence on perceptions is crucial to the analysis of Herodotus. Other factors include the role of the internal secondary narrator, how they use persuasive narrative methods, and their effect on the audience.
It is crucial to determine the purpose of the digression when examining Herodotus Histories 3.50-3. Gould states that Herodotus stated goal was to ‘display [his] inquiry so that humanity’s achievements would not be forgotten over time'[1], but that the Periander story ‘has an enormous power and weight, which is out of proportion to the fact that it serves as a link to the larger narrative’. In this way, the Periander story resembles other Herodotean Stories. Sourvinou Inwood echoes this view, stating that “the mythic consciousness is so strong in the storyline that it makes historical data almost impossible to recover”[3]. Griffiths also agrees with Sourvinou Inwood’s assessment. The narrator’s role is to create a compelling, yet fabricated, version of the events that will captivate secondary external naratees. The narrator also has to help the secondary external naratees form their own opinions about characters. This is achieved in the first line of the story: “Periander killed his wife Melissa”. This is done effectively in the opening line: ‘Periander had murdered his wife Melissa’. The audience is also unable to form a bond with the character because he quotes Lycophron.
Herodotus demonstrates Lycophron’s growing distance from Lycophron by using this exclusive indirect quote narratological method. In this digression Periander takes the lead, and Herodotus is subtly integrating narratology with discourse to illustrate the divide between Lycophron & Periander. Herodotus uses narratology to illustrate the division between Lycophron and Periander. The narrator uses a variety of dramatic devices to take the audience on an literary journey. Dewald writes that Herodotus’ readers ‘admire him only as a writer, not a historian’[6]. It is therefore logical to read this passage as more of a literary work than as historical material, and assess the narrative devices in accordance. In order to create a micro-tragic, the narrator uses the Aristotelian model of tragedy, which includes hamartia (3.50, 3.52, 35.25), peripeteia (3.51, 3.51.9), and anagnorisis (3.53.28). Other digressions, such as the stories of Cypselus Cyrus and Lycophron, also show this pattern. The narrator’s role is to keep the audience engaged by using literary tools like foreshadowing. The narration uses prolepsis to keep audiences engaged. It fast-forwards from the first section to the second, where Periander is reconciled.
The narrator uses dramatic irony to make the story more interesting. Periander doesn’t know why Lycophron ignored him after visiting Procles, but the audience knows. The tension created by this literary device makes the story more interesting for the audience. Irony plays an important role in this discourse. Periander, and Lycophron both suffer from the consequences of his younger brother’s superior observational abilities. This fictionalisation by the narrator is what encourages critics, not to look at the text in the same way as historical facts, but to see it as literary work. Baragwanath claims that Herodotus “foregrounds that history… is contested territory, that differing interpretations… come from different perspectives”[9] and that this may not accurately represent historical facts but it does give a good account of what people believed as true. De Jong explains this further by saying that the Herodotean narrative owes its debt to Homeric narration. [11] The narrator has to tell the story of what people believed in spite of their fabrications. The narrator of 3.50-3 has the task to instill as much hatred for Periander among the audience. He achieves this by having the story’s denouement end abruptly, with Lycophron being punished for his dad’s immorality. Lycophron is left with an unjust feeling as he has not only suffered death but also exile because of Periander’s malice. Lycophron’s quest for justice is mirrored by his unjust deaths caused by his father. Thus, Herodotean’s role of developing a malicious portrayal Periander has been completed.
When analyzing the role of the internal narrator, Periander is an important character to consider. The Herodotean narration’s purpose is to convey to the audience that Periander will succeed in his plea to bridge the gap between father and son to prevent further tragedy. (As hinted at in 3.50.1). The audience is given a sense of empathy for Periander by the description that ‘the heart melted’ at the sight of the son living in poverty. Lycophron, however, dismisses this gesture of kindness from his father, and the audience’s distaste for Periander returns. The use of a primary external narrator to paraphrase Lycophron’s reply to Periander’s heartfelt, yet untruthful plea emphasizes Lycophron’s dismissal. By paraphrasing rather than directly quoting Periander (3.52.11), the narrator emphasises the importance and urgency of Periander’s plea that Lycophron returns home. Analysing Periander’s narratological purpose in greater detail is crucial. Periander wants to demonstrate Lycophron’s choice by contrasting a life of tyranny with his current ‘beggars’ lifestyle. Periander plays the role of a secondary internal voice, urging Lycophron back home. His persuasive syntax is also meant to create catharsis among the audience. After all, his hubristic actions and megalomania have brought him to this unfortunate fate. This literary device can be found in Oedipus, where hubris leads to the downfall of the protagonist.
The primary external narrator’s role in Herodotus 3.51-3 is to engage and entertain the audience by using the Aristotelean tragedy model. In addition, the role of a narrator is discussed in relation to the development of audience perceptions about characters. The literary devices which help to develop the dialogue in the most engaging and entertaining way are also examined. In the second part, the author examines how a direct Periander quotation can influence a predominantly omniscient text. He also explains the importance of a secondary internal narrative.
Bibliography Baragwanath E. (2008, Motivation and Narratives in Herodotus De Jong I. J. F. 2014, Narratology, Classics and a Practical Guide Dewald C. Herodotus. The American Journal of Philology. 117, no. 3 Griffiths A. H. (2007), “Stories & storytelling In The Histories”, Dewald-Marincola eds. The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge. Griffiths p.176 Mole Skin [5] 3.50 [6] Dewald, 1987, 151 [7] Gray, 1996, 367 [8] Hdt. 3.50.1 [9] Baragwanath, 2008, 2 [10] Griffiths p.177 moleskin [11] De Jong, 2014, 172 [12] Hdt. 3.2.11
Author
