The role of the main external narrator in Herodotus 3.50-3 is essential in the development of the discourse and in the transformation of the fabula of historical facts into the structure of an Aristotelian tragedy. This essay will examine the role of the main external narrator in shaping the discourse from a literary perspective by comparing the narratological structure to Aristotle's tragic model; Literary techniques such as prolepsy, dramatic irony, and irony are used to captivate the audience. In a critical investigation of Herodotus, one must also consider how the narrator influences the perception of characters through language, and the importance of the secondary internal narrator in the use of persuasive narrative techniques, as well as the effect of being quoted directly on the audience and the progression of the story. speech.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In examining the role of the primary external narrator in Herodotus' Histories 3.50-3, it is important to identify the purpose of the digression. Despite Herodotus's stated goal of "presenting his investigation, that human achievements may not be forgotten in time,"[1] Gould writes that Periander's story "has a breadth, power, and weight beyond of any proportion to its manifest content. function as an explanatory link in the wider narrative and, in this, they resemble a range of other Herodotean stories”.[2] This point is corroborated by Sourvinou-Inwood who "finds that it is so shaped by mythical consciousness that the historical data are almost irretrievable"[3], and by Griffiths who writes "Herodotus...conceives the historical narrative as a discourse which requires a constant variation and animation by means of a living digression”.[4] Therefore, it is evident that the role of the narrator is no longer to give an accurate representation of historical facts, but rather to captivate secondary external narrators in a fascinating but probably fabricated version of events. Furthermore, the role of the narrator is to develop the perception of the characters by the secondary external narrators. This is done effectively in the first line: “Periander had murdered his wife Melissa.”[5] Instantly we dislike Periander and this follows the Aristotelian tragic model, where a man of high esteem falls victim to his own hubris and false perception of infallibility, which ultimately leads to his demise. Additionally, by quoting Lycophron indirectly, it is difficult for the audience to build a relationship with the character. Using this narratological technique of exclusive indirect quotation, Herodotus distances the secondary external narrators from Lycophron, thus representing Lycophron's estrangement from his father, as Periander is the protagonist of this digression. Therefore, Herodotus subtly but effectively combines narratology and discourse to illustrate to the audience the division between Periander and Lycophron. Using various dramatic devices, the narrator takes the audience on a literary journey. Dewald writes that Herodotus's readers "admired him as a stylist but not as a historian"[6], and so it makes sense to approach this excerpt as a literary rather than a historical source, and to evaluate the narratological devices accordingly. The role of the narrator is to develop the discourse and using the Aristotelian tragic model, with a clear hamartia (3.50.0, 3.52.25), a peripeteia (3.51.9) and anagnorisis (3.53.28), a microtragedy is produced. Examples of this are also evident in other digressionsin the stories, for example, the stories of Cypselus, Cyrus and Lycophron which "all show a common pattern and set of motifs",[7] which further diminishes the historical reliability of the passage. The role of the narrator is to play with the audience, using literary devices such as foreshadowing ("and another misfortune was defollow'),[8] ensuring that the audience remains engaged in the speech. Prolepsis (3.53.1) is used to keep the audience engaged as the narration moves quickly toward Periander's attempt at reconciliation in the second section, which shows the narrator's goal of keeping this dramatized historical reconstruction succinct. Dramatic irony is another literary device used by the narrator to add interest to the speech as Periander does not know why Lycophron ignores him after visiting Procles even though the audience knows. This adds to the tension of the speech to make the tale interesting and engaging for the audience. Irony is also key to the speech, because the younger son's observational skills that would make him the best ruler of the country are the same ones that lead to the misfortune and disappearance of Periander and Lycophron. It is this presentation of the fabula that prompts critics to analyze the text not as historical data, but rather as a literary work, the narrator having clearly fictionalized the facts to promote a more entertaining discourse. However, Baragwanath argues that "Herodotus emphasizes that history is contested territory: that different interpretations...of historical events and personalities arise from the perspectives of different individuals",[9] thus arguing that even if This is probably not an accurate representation of the story. In fact, it is an accurate account of the story that people believed to be true, because "most of [Herodotus's] sources have been one way or another transmitted orally.”[10] This point is further explored by De Jong who states that "the Herodotean narrator is clearly indebted to the Homeric narrator".[11] Thus, the role of the narrator is to report the stories that people believed despite probable fabrications. The role of the narrator in 3.50-3 is to invoke as much disgust for Periander as possible within the audience, and this is succinctly achieved in the denouement of the tale which ends abruptly with Lycophron suffering the worst punishment for his immoral actions. father. The speech ends with a sense of injustice because, although Periander suffered the loss of his heir, Lycophron felt the full force of his father's wickedness, consequently enduring exile and suffering death. By overshadowing Lycophron's attempt at justice with his unjust death caused by his father's actions, the role of the Herodotean narrator in crafting a malevolent portrait of Periander is completed. In examining the role of the narrator in the excerpt, it is important to analyze Periander's role as a secondary internal narrator. The role of the Herodotean narrator in response to Periander's plea is to give the audience a sense of hope that the separation of son and father will be bridged to prevent further tragedy (as foreshadowed in 3.50.1). This is achieved by describing how "the father's heart melted at the sight" of his son living in misery, which sparks a slight empathy within the audience for Periandre, as this moment of tenderness illustrates a father who loves his son and is eager to resolve their differences. .[12] However, despite this appeal, Lycophron's brutal rejection of his father's efforts reminds us, through the use of an indirect and impersonal quote, the seriousness of Periander's crimes against his family, and the disgust towards the tyrant takes over within the public. The technique. 3.2.11