MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375835071 · doi:10.1353/phx.2021.0038

Epiphanies and Dreams in Greek Polytheism: Textual Genres and "Reality" from Homer to Heliodorus by Michael Lipka

2021· article· en· W4375835071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mirjam E. Kotwick

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphanyGreeksAncient GreekNarrativeLiteratureDreamPhilosophyDramaGreek literatureJargonApolloArtClassicsPsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Epiphanies and Dreams in Greek Polytheism: Textual Genres and "Reality" from Homer to Heliodorus by Michael Lipka Mirjam E. Kotwick Epiphanies and Dreams in Greek Polytheism: Textual Genres and "Reality" from Homer to Heliodorus. By Michael Lipka. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter (MythosEikonPoiesis Band 13). 2022. Pp. 319. Michael Lipka's book is clear about the thesis it defends. It wants to debunk the scholarly assumption that the ancient Greeks regarded epiphanies as real.1 Lipka denies that "epiphany-mindedness" (1 and passim) was ever widespread in ancient Greek culture; however, there was "dream-mindedness" (4 and passim). He argues that if Greeks generally believed epiphanies to be real phenomena, we would find epiphanic experiences represented across all genres (2). But since they appear only in specific genres and with specific narrative or dramatic functions, Lipka concludes, there was no widespread belief in the reality of epiphanic encounters with the divine. Lipka moves cursorily through an impressive range of Greek literature from Homer to Neoplatonic treatises to show that apart from epos and drama, actual reports of gods appearing to humans are few and far between. Since the book's goal is a negative one—to show that there was no Greek "epiphany-mindedness"—it covers a lot of ground without being engaged in detailed analysis of how (and why) ancient authors appropriated the concept of epiphany for their own purposes. Lipka works with a narrower definition of epiphany than most of the scholars he argues against. For him epiphanies are "visible apparitions of temporary, metaphysical manifestations of human-like entities to human individuals in a waking state" (4; Lipka's italics). In his emphasis on "visual contact" (4), Lipka constricts the wider understanding of epiphany as "various forms of divine presence"' (5) but grants that the ancient [End Page 373] term epiphaneia was wider in meaning. An epiphany dream is given when an epiphany occurs in a dream (6). Yet, it seems that Lipka is not interested in such dreams for their own sake but as a foil through which epiphany comes into sharper relief. Lipka operates with complex concepts such as reality and fiction which he leaves underexplored. While he addresses reality in the introduction, distinguishing three "modes of reality" ("lifeworld reality," "intentional reality," and "invented reality = fiction," 18–19), Lipka neither problematizes the application of the term "fiction" to a great variety of ancient texts nor discusses the crucial question of precisely how fiction sheds light on what he calls the "mindedness" of an audience or authors. Additionally, given that the notion of "belief" has received considerable interest in the study of ancient religion for some time, a theoretically informed reflection on what is implied in the question of an ancient belief in epiphany would have been helpful to the project. Lipka's focus lies elsewhere. Most important is genre, which plays a two-fold role. First, genre guides his approach to epiphany. (He writes: "genres offer numerous patterns for the representation of epiphanies . . . . [I]t is a primary goal of this book to identify these genre-bound patterns," 13). More generally, Lipka calls on religious studies to pay more attention to the generic parameters of their sources (1, 3, 12). Second, genre structures the book, with each chapter looking at a different one (e.g., Epic, Narrative Hymns, Didactic Poetry, Sappho's Lyric, etc.). The first chapter, "Epic" (25–50), looks at epiphany in Iliad and Odyssey, Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautica, and Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica. In Homer, epiphanies are mostly part of type scenes and their "stereotypy suggests representational . . . conventions" (26). Lipka concludes: "unless proven otherwise, they are artificial poetic devices without any claim to relevance to—or veracity in—the lifeworld of the poet" (26). Whereas Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica imitates Homer closely, the Argonautica moves consciously beyond "Homeric conventions" (35). Homer is the starting point for the concept of Greek epiphany. From Plato to modern scholars, epic epiphanies are considered as expression of "polytheistic 'lifeworld' reality" (46). Against this assumption Lipka holds that they are fiction and were perceived as such by Homer's audience (49–50). The chapter "Narrative...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207