Title: Time and Narrative in Ancient Historiography: The "Plupast" from Herodotus to Appian by Jonas Grethlein and Christopher B. Krebs
Abstract: BOOK REVIEWS 245 seercraft, priesthood, and magic), but that authority hardly matches the singular strengths of the Sophoclean hero: the worldly prerogatives gained and lost, the special closeness to the gods, the uncompromising will and sense of self, the driving awareness of deprivation and injustice—powers conveyed in tragedy through heightened, hyper-poetic language. As the author of this language, it is Sophocles who emerges from Nooter’s suggestive treatment as an impressively powerful poet. SHEILA MURNAGHAN University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] * * * Time and Narrative in Ancient Historiography: The “Plupast” from Herodotus to Appian. Edited by Jonas Grethlein and Christopher B. Krebs. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pp. ix + 257. Hardcover, $99.00. ISBN 978-1-107-00740-6. The collection of ten essays, stemming from a 2006 conference, under review investigates those instances in historical narrative where reference is made, either by characters within the narrative or by the narrator, to events that happened before the events of the narrative proper,i.e. events of the “plupast.” As the editors explain in a clear and helpful introduction (1–11), these prior events can be evoked any number of ways: e.g. characters’ speeches, inter- or intratextual references, mention of material objects. Often times, though, these references to the more distant past, especially when made by or focalized through internal characters, can function as a mise-en-abyme and, by mirroring the work of the historian or text, they offer implicit, or “metahistorical,” commentary on the role of the historian and/or his text. Students of ancient historiography and of ancient narrative in general may say this all sounds suspiciously familiar and that this phenomenon of the “plupast” could also be described as (internal or external) analepseis, exemplarity, allusion or inter-/intratextuality among others. The editors, though, take pains to argue (esp. 4–5) that, while the concept of the “plupast” is indebted to narratology, the “plupast” is more comprehensive than the aforementioned categories since it may be evoked not just by references to specific texts and events but by broader references to, e.g. topoi, material objects or a general 246 BOOK REVIEWS knowledge of past events (it should be noted that Cynthia Damon’s 2009 PLLS article appeared too late to be of use for this collection). The very breadth of the category “plupast” is at once both its greatest strength and weakness. On the one hand, it provides a handy, succinct way to refer to an important phenomenon in ancient historiography. On the other hand, because it can be evoked in so many different ways it is often too broad and therefore still in need of further clarification or specification. While the novelty and necessity of the term “plupast” may be debatable, the value of the approach is not and the essays, by and large, yield interesting results and insights concerning authors and passages that have been intensively studied for some time, e.g. Thucydides and Livy, as well as for those that have only been attracting attention more recently, e.g. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Appian. On a side note, the criteria used to select the included authors are neither explicitly stated nor implicitly clear. To begin a book on ancient (i.e. “GrecoRoman ”) historiography with Herodotus is understandable, to end it with Appian less so. Similarly, the phrase “from Herodotus to Appian” is misleading since there are no essays on authors such as Polybius or Josephus. Further, if Plutarch is included, why exclude Nepos? Explanations for these choices will be sought in vain. On the bright side, anyone working on authors excluded from this study still hasplentyofroom towork. It is most likely that readers will consult this book not in its entirety but according to their individual interests. Those readers will most likely find much to their liking. As previously stated, the results are by and large interesting and the discussions fruitful. While the limits of space preclude individual treatment of each essay, let me add to the general comments already given with specific reference to a few contributions. As the editors point out, a historian’s evocation of the “plupast” can invite comparison to that historian’s own methodology...
Publication Year: 2013
Publication Date: 2013-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot