The role of the primary external narrator in Herodotus 3.50-3 is essential to develop the discourse and transform the fabula from historical facts into the structure of an Aristotelian tragedy. This essay will examine the role of the primary external narrator in the development of discourse from a literary perspective, comparing the narratological structure with Aristotle's tragic model; Literary techniques such as prolepsis, dramatic irony and irony are used to captivate the audience. In critically investigating Herodotus, we also consider how the narrator influences the perception of characters through language, and the significance of the secondary internal narrator in using persuasive narrative techniques, as well as the effect of being quoted directly by the audience and the progression of the story. speech. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't 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 goal of the digression. Despite Herodotus's stated goal to "showcase his inquiry, so that human achievements may not be forgotten in time," Gould writes that Periander's story "has a scale, power, and weight disproportionate to its overt it functions as an explanatory link in the larger narrative, and in this it resembles a whole series of other Herodotean stories".[2] This point is corroborated by Sourvinou-Inwood who 'finds that it is so shaped by mythic consciousness that the historical data they are almost beyond recovery',[3] and further by Griffiths who writes 'Herodotus... conceives historical narrative as a discourse requiring constant variation and enlivening by vivid digressions'.[4] Therefore, it is evident that the role of the narrator it is no longer to provide an accurate representation of historical facts, but rather to captivate secondary external narrators into a fascinating but probably invented version of events. Furthermore, the role of the narrator is to develop the external narrators' perception of the characters secondary. This is done effectively in the opening line: “Periander had killed his wife Melissa.”[5] We immediately dislike Periander and this follows the Aristotelian tragic model, in which a man of high esteem falls victim to his own arrogance and false self-perception of infallibility, which ultimately leads to his death. Furthermore, by mentioning Lycophron indirectly, it is difficult for the audience to build a relationship with the character. Using this narratological technique of exclusively indirect citation, Herodotus distances the secondary external Narateans from Lycophron, thus representing Lycophron's estrangement from his father, as Periander is the protagonist of this digression. Thus, Herodotus subtly but effectively couples narratology and discourse in illustrating to the audience the division between Periander and Lycophro. Using various dramatic devices, the narrator takes the audience on a literary journey. Dewald writes that Herodotus' readers "admire him as a stylist but not as a historian",[6] and so it makes sense to approach this passage as a literary rather than historical source, and evaluate the narratological devices accordingly. The narrator's role is to develop the discourse and, using the Aristotelian tragic model, with clear hamartia (3.50.0, 3.52.25), peripeteia (3.51.9) and anagnorisis (3.53.28), a micro tragedy is produced . Examples of this are also evident in other digressions in the stories, for example, the stories of Cypselus, Cyrus and Lycophro which all "show a common pattern and set of motifs",[7] which further diminishesthe historical reliability of the passage. The narrator's role is to play with the audience, using literary devices such as foreshadowing ("and another misfortune was that offollow"),[8] ensuring that the audience remains involved in the discourse. Prolepsis (3.53.1) is used to keep the audience engaged as the narrative fast-forwards to Periander's attempt at reconciliation in the second section, which shows the narrator's goal to keep this dramatized historical reconstruction concise. 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 while the audience knows this increases the tension of the speech to make the tale interesting and engaging for the audience Irony is also the key to the speech since the younger son's observation skills that would make him the best ruler in the land are the same skills that lead to the misfortune and death of both Periander and Lycophron. It is this presentation of the fabula that encourages critics to analyze the text not as historical data, but rather to approach it as a literary work, as the narrator has clearly fictionalized the facts to promote a more entertaining discourse. However, Baragwanath argues that "Herodotus foregrounds the fact that history is a contested territory: that different interpretations... of historical events and personalities arise from the perspectives of different individuals",[9] thus arguing that, although this does not is probably an accurate representation of the story in fact, it is an accurate account of the tale that people believed to be true, since "most of [Herodotus's] original material was somehow transmitted orally." This point is explored further by De Jong who states that "the Herodotean narrator is clearly indebted to the Homeric narrator".[11] Therefore, the role of the storyteller is to provide an account of the stories that people believe despite probable fabrications. The narrator's role in 3.50-3 is to invoke as much disgust for Periander as possible in the audience, and this is achieved succinctly in the tale's epilogue which ends abruptly with Lycophro suffering the worst punishment for his father's immoral actions. The speech ends with a sense of injustice as, although Periander suffers from the loss of his heir, Lycophron has felt the full force of his father's malice, consequently enduring exile and suffering death. By overshadowing Lycophro's attempt at justice with his unjust death caused by his father's actions, the Herodothean narrator's role in developing a malevolent portrait of Periander is completed. In examining the role of the narrator in the passage, it is important to analyze Periander's role as a secondary internal narrator. The Herodothean narrator's role in proceeding with Periander's appeal is to give the audience a sense of hope that the separation between son and father will be bridged to avoid any 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 squalor, which elicits slight empathy in the audience for Periander, as this tender moment illustrates a father who loves his son and is eager to resolve their differences. .[12] However, despite this appeal, Lycophro's abrupt refusal of his father's help reminds us, through the use of an indirect and impersonal quote, of the severity of Periander's crimes against his family, and disgust towards the tyrant among the public resumes. The narratological technique of having the primary external narrator paraphrase the response. 3.2.11