1 What are modes and how are they related to ancient Greek theater?

According to Arrowsmith modes are generic states and phases of existence. Ancient tragedy can be understood as modal theater in the sense that it represents archetypes and universals which correspond to generic states (such as kingship and slavery) and phases (such as youth, old age, motherhood, adolescence, mourning) of human and divine existence.

2 What type of language do the Greeks use to distinguish the generic states and phases of human (and divine) existence?

The ancient Greek language of necessity distinguishes between the generic states and phases of human existence that Arrowsmith calls modes. This language extends from “expressions of force and strength through persistent verbal images of pressure or constraint or binding, to the well-developed vocabulary of authority, coercion, deference, and obligation…”

3 Describe the hierarchy of being by which human and divine beings are represented within the Odyssey.

Greek literature, represents men and events within a “hierarchy of being which runs from absolute, untrammeled Olympian possibility at the top to sheer wretched subjection to total necessity at the bottom.” Along the great hierarchically arranged gamut of being, each order suffers the cumulative ananke of the orders above it in an ascending curve of freedom and power. Within the species of existence proper to humankind (both mortal and aware of personal mortality) we can further distinguish between a variety of modal degrees. These modal degrees are determined by a variety of additional limits imposed upon individuals and groups—such as political oppression, old age, suffering, sexuality, slavery.

4 What is Ananke?

Ananke is the Greek concept of fate. It is manifest in the modes of existence and the further modal degrees—such as political oppression, old age, suffering, sexuality, slavery—that form the limits of a particular individual. These limits, taken together, form the molds of necessity that shape an individual’s fate and they can be referred to globally as Ananke.

5 What is arete?

Arete may be defined as fully flourishing human excellence

6 Explain the arete of the hero.

The hero is a possessor of magnificent yet ambivalent arete (fully flourishing human excellence). The hero’s arete is ambivalent because the hero also possesses the hybris of great men and women whose “greatness dislikes limits.” Thus, the hero is a possessor of magnificent arete who fails to recognize his or her personal limits.

The total arete of the hero—the fully flourishing human excellence that involves all virtues and aspects of a human being—is generally elevated by a particular excellence or charisma.

Achilles’ courage is like Odysseus’ mother-wit and Paris’s looks, a charisma. Every power a being possesses is pertinent to determining his or her place along the great hierarchically arranged gamut of being.

7 How does Arrowsmith conceive the relation between the hero’s particular charisma and the divine theophanies of the god(s) who favour that hero.

Homer’s gods are functional descriptions of the modes of great men; thus, a hero is a hero not because he enjoys the favor of a god but because his arete requires a god’s presence to account for it. The arete reveals divinity, almost summons the gods.

8 What is the difference between the ancient Greek hero and the sophron?

The hero is typically defined in relation to the sophron. The hero, on the one hand, is a man or woman suffering the imbalance of excess. The hero’s achievements and failures exceed all prior limits, confounding old modalities and redefining the boundaries between human and god. The hero is a possessor of magnificent yet ambivalent arete (fully flourishing human excellence) who fails to recognize his or her personal limits. The sophron, on the other hand, is a character of sound, sober, and balanced mind: a possessor of sophrosyne (healthy, balanced, self-understanding sanity) who knows who he or she is. When the character and fate of the hero are finally revealed, their contours may be powerfully emphasized through immediate contrast with those of the sophron.

 9 Use Odysseus and Alcinous as illustrative examples of these two types of character.

Alcinous and Arete together present an image of ideal Greek leadership and sophrosyne. Odysseus describes the type of man a people will willingly follow and revere: “a god … crown[s] his words with beauty, charm, / and men look on with delight when he speaks out. / Never faltering, filled with winning self-control, / he shines forth at assembly grounds and [as a result] people gaze / at him like a god when he walks through the streets” (8.196-200). Arete has been described as possessing these same qualities: she is “dear to her loving children, to Alcinous himself and all our people. They gaze on her as a god, saluting her warmly on her walks through town. She lacks nothing in good sense and judgment—she can dissolve quarrels, even among men, whoever wins her sympathies” (7.81-86).

In Odysseus’s description of the exemplary king Alcinous we read that such a man shines particularly in assembly—an arena of persuasive speech—where his words delight those who listen. He is further described as filled with “winning self-control” which suggests, that he possesses the sophron’s self-knowledge, since one must know and understand something in order to effectively control it. In Nausicaa’s description of Arete, Homer offers a further detail concerning the qualities associated with revered leadership: Arete is admired as god-like in part for the good sense and judgment that enables her to “dissolve quarrels”, just as Alcinous dissolves the quarrel between Odysseus and Broadsea. In resolving the dispute between Odysseus and Broadsea, Alcinous’s unfaltering words display his winning self-control; the Phaeacian king not only resolves a potentially dangerous tension but re-establishes harmony to the delight of all in attendance.

Just as Odysseus indirectly describes the particular excellencies that distinguish Alcinous’s sophrosyne, Alcinous indirectly identifies the fault or flaw in Odysseus that demonstrates the great hero’s lack of sophrosyne. When Odysseus recounts his earlier fear that Alcinous might take offense seeing him in the company of Nausicaa, the Phaeacian king’s noble daughter, Alcinous replies: “Oh no, my friend… I’m hardly a man for reckless, idle anger” (7.351,353-4). Odysseus’ potentially violent exchange with Broadsea clearly demonstrates that the long-suffering hero is exactly what Alcinous disavows—a man given to “reckless, idle anger.” If “[b]alance is best in all things,” as Alcinous states, Odysseus clearly fails to achieve it (7.355). Odysseus is a man whose greatness dislikes limits: he is a man of surpassing arete, yet he lacks the balanced and winning self-possession of the sophron.