Reciprocity, Truth, and Gender in Pindar and Aeschylus by Arum Park (review)

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

• Reciprocity, Truth, and Gender in Pindar and Aeschylus by Arum Park
• Georgios Spiliotopoulos

Arum Park. Reciprocity, Truth, and Gender in Pindar and Aeschylus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2023. Pp. xi, 241. $70.00. ISBN 978-0-472-13342-0.

Publishers are invited to submit new books to be reviewed to Professor Lawrence Kowerski, Classical Studies Program, Hunter College, 695 Park Ave., New York, NY 10065; email: lawrence.kowerski@hunter.cuny.edu.

Arum Park’s book provides an insightful comparison of Pindar and Aeschylus through the lens of reciprocity, truth, and gender. The inherent broadness of these terms poses an a priori challenge to the author. The study is also complicated by its focus on two poets with fundamentally different poetic forms. Park not only acknowledges and tackles these challenges effectively from the beginning but offers much more: a comparative approach to these notions, which leads to a better understanding of their complexity and highlights the complementarity of Pindar and Aeschylus.

The book is characterized by its symmetry: the first three chapters deal with the works of Pindar, and the last three deal with Aeschylus. In the opening chapter, Park delves into the theme of reciprocity and notes that both poets view truth, aletheia, as a reflection of reciprocal relationships. Pindar personifies truth as Alatheia, a deity tied to guest-host obligations; Aeschylus focuses on revenge as a reciprocal act. The language and rhetoric of both poets, especially their use of parallelism and repetition, accentuate reciprocity.

In the second chapter, Park explores reciprocity and truth in Pindar’s epinicians. Pindar balances mythological references with the theme of truth to establish a symbiotic bond between poet and patron. Truth and praise are depicted as mutually reinforcing with myths illustrating both their harmonious and conflicting aspects. In Nemean 7, celebrating Sogenes’ victory, he emphasizes that truthful representation depends on reciprocal poet-patron relations and critiques Homer for misalignment between poetic portrayal and reality.

Chapter 3 considers the negative stereotypes of women in epinician poetry by examining their influence on reciprocal relationships. Pindar frequently portrays women, like the Hera-cloud in Pythian 2 and Coronis in Pythian 3, as deceptive. These women embody seduction and deception and, thus, underscore the risks to reciprocity and the poetic balance between truth and persuasion. Contrarily, male figures like Aegisthus and Jason are not portrayed as deceptive.

The subsequent three chapters turn to Aeschylus. Chapter 4 examines the role of gender in Aeschylean tragedy through the concepts of reciprocity and truth. While Pindar’s female figures often challenge the relationship between these concepts, Aeschylus’ females, particularly the chorus in the Seven Against Thebes, strengthen it with their interpretive skill. Their insights, however, linking past, present, and future events, are disregarded by male characters. This opposition highlights the gender dynamics and the narrative-shaping role of women in Aeschylus.

Chapter 5 focuses on the Danaids in Aeschylus’ Suppliants. Unlike the chorus of the Seven, the Danaids actively shape their narrative to impact their truth. They craft a hybrid identity, weaving together Greek and Egyptian elements, and link their lineage to Io to lessen their foreignness. Intertwining supplication and justice, they advocate for asylum by highlighting a shared history and future with [End Page 227] the Argives. Their narrative, however, reveals a paradox. While they wield verbal power, their dependence on male intervention underscores their limited agency and the ensuing tension within the play.

The sixth chapter turns to the Oresteia. Park emphasizes how the trilogy’s concepts of reciprocity, gender, and truth evolve. In Agamemnon, Clytemnestra and Cassandra stand out, communicating their truths rooted in a preordained future and understood through their intricate relationships with male characters. The distinction between genders highlights how female characters possess a deep grasp of the cycle of reciprocity and challenge the limited insights of men to lead the narrative’s progression.

One could argue that Park should have addressed the Persians and Prometheus Bound. The reasons not to include them are justified, as the former historical play is not part of a trilogy, and the latter’s authorship is disputed. This decision, however, leaves out two important tragedies that could perhaps offer further insights: How, for example, a gradually...