A História segundo Xenofonte: Historiografia e usos do passado
Carregando...
Data
2016-04-27
Autores
Cerdas, Emerson [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo deste trabalho é a análise de três narrativas de Xenofonte, as Helênicas, a Anábase e a Ciropedia, questionando a sua tradicional classificação como obras historiográficas. Considerando a historiografia um gênero literário, que manifesta estruturas linguísticas e narrativas próprias, buscamos comparar como Xenofonte constrói suas narrativas de modo autônomo e inovador diante da tradição do gênero instituído por Heródoto e Tucídides. A historiografia, com a obra desses autores, criou um discurso próprio a respeito do passado, instituindo uma forma específica de se trabalhar a história recente do povo grego. No entanto, desde Homero, a história estava presente na literatura grega através dos mitos que compunham as narrativas da história dos gregos. Desse modo, compreendemos que a presença de eventos históricos em forma narrativa não garante, por si só, o enquadramento genérico como obra historiográfica. O que garante esse enquadramento é a própria atitude do autor que o organiza os eventos de modo historiográfico, atualizando os recursos linguísticos e estruturais que compõem o gênero. Diante disso, compreendemos que apenas as Helências preenchem esse requisito, pois nela Xenofonte atua como um historiador consciente do gênero. Diferentemente, na Anábase e na Ciropedia, embora baseadas em eventos reais, a estrutura dessas narrativas se distancia daquela da historiografia, apresentando, desse modo, novas e inovadoras formas de se trabalhar o passado em forma narrativa. A Anábase é construída como uma narrativa de aventura e de retorno, em uma relação de intertextualidade com a Odisseia de Homero, enquanto, na Ciropedia, Xenofonte utiliza o passado do rei persa Ciro, o velho, para ficcionalizar um modelo de líder, criando uma narrativa que podemos chamar de proto-romance.
The aim of this paper is the analysis of three Xenophon’s narratives, the Hellenica, the Anabasis and the Cyropaedia, questioning their traditional classification as a historiographical works. Considering the Historiography as a literary discourse, which manifests themselves linguistics and narratives structures, we seek to compare how Xenophon builds his narrative in autonomous and innovative way towards of genre tradition instituted by Herodotus and Thucydides. The Historiography, with the work of these authors, created a discourse itself about the past, establishing a specific way of working the recent history of Greek people. However, since Homer, the history was present in Greek literature through the myths that made narratives of the history of the Greeks. Thus, we understand that the presence of historical events in narrative form doesn’t guarantee, by itself, the generic framework as a historiographical work. What guarantees this framework is the very attitude of the author who organizes the events the historiographical way, updating the linguistic and narrative structures that make up the genre. Therefore, we understand that only Hellenica meet that requirement because, in this work, Xenophon acts as a conscious gender historian. Unlike, in Anabasis and Cyropaedia, although based on real events, the structure of these narratives is distant from that of historiography, presenting thereby new and innovative ways to work with the past in narrative form. The Anabasis is built as a narrative adventure and return in a intertextual relationship with Homer’s Odyssey, while in Cyropaedia Xenophon uses the past of the Persian king Cyrus to fictionalizing a leader model, creating a narrative that we call proto-novel.
The aim of this paper is the analysis of three Xenophon’s narratives, the Hellenica, the Anabasis and the Cyropaedia, questioning their traditional classification as a historiographical works. Considering the Historiography as a literary discourse, which manifests themselves linguistics and narratives structures, we seek to compare how Xenophon builds his narrative in autonomous and innovative way towards of genre tradition instituted by Herodotus and Thucydides. The Historiography, with the work of these authors, created a discourse itself about the past, establishing a specific way of working the recent history of Greek people. However, since Homer, the history was present in Greek literature through the myths that made narratives of the history of the Greeks. Thus, we understand that the presence of historical events in narrative form doesn’t guarantee, by itself, the generic framework as a historiographical work. What guarantees this framework is the very attitude of the author who organizes the events the historiographical way, updating the linguistic and narrative structures that make up the genre. Therefore, we understand that only Hellenica meet that requirement because, in this work, Xenophon acts as a conscious gender historian. Unlike, in Anabasis and Cyropaedia, although based on real events, the structure of these narratives is distant from that of historiography, presenting thereby new and innovative ways to work with the past in narrative form. The Anabasis is built as a narrative adventure and return in a intertextual relationship with Homer’s Odyssey, while in Cyropaedia Xenophon uses the past of the Persian king Cyrus to fictionalizing a leader model, creating a narrative that we call proto-novel.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Xenofonte, Historiografia, Gênero literário, Mito, História, Xenophon, Historiography, Gender literary, History, Ficção, Myth, Fiction