Reliably conceptualizing what a ‘monster’ should be or what it means to be ‘monstrous’ is a challenge at which even scholars of the topic recoil, a Hydra that itself only sprouts more heads the more one attempts to vanquish it. This becomes an even more Herculean task when considering monstrosity in the ancient Greek world, which is markedly different from the (post-)Christianized ideas of monsters that pervade modern European culture. Appropriately, then, Fiona Mitchell’s book opens with a thorough discussion of previous scholarly assessments of monstrosity, crucially decentring ancient monsters from their most famous role as beasts-to-be-slain by heroic protagonists in myths like that of Heracles and the Hydra (2). Laying aside other potential approaches, such as defining monsters based on human emotive reactions, she focusses on monstrosity as the physically anomalous (6). Her study is an examination of creatures and bodies deemed monstrous, specifically with regard to three genres of ancient Greek literature: cosmogony (chapters 1 and 2), ethnography (chapters 3 and 4), and biology (Chapter 5).
Chapter 1 concerns Hesiod’s Theogony, a text that contains obvious examples of physically abnormal monsters (for instance, the Hundred-Handers), discussions of which are well-worn ground among studies of ancient monstrosity. The most useful section of this chapter highlights the associations of Hesiodic monsters with peripheral spaces (37–45), a feature more apparent in ethnography. Chapter 2 then concerns less well-trodden ground for monster studies: the extant fragments of Orphic cosmogonies, and primarily the depiction of the gods Chronos and Phanes. While the Hesiod chapter does not significantly deviate from the standard assessment of the text’s monsters in other scholarship, the inclusion of this Orphic material and general comparison between the two cosmogonies is instructive. These Orphic gods, though physically monstrous, are never opponents of the Olympians, as was the case for many Hesiodic monsters. Thus, with these monstrous gods free of antagonistic associations, Mitchell puts forth the intriguing argument that physical abnormality in this case is ‘an external manifestation of their creative power’ (67–68).
Chapter 3 focusses on Herodotus. This opens with a strong critique of scholarly attempts to rationalize the seemingly fantastical parts of the Histories, most famously the giant gold-digging ants and winged snakes, as a means of ‘rescuing’ the text’s historical content (79–81). Mitchell, by contrast, explores throughout how monsters are intimately related to Herodotus’ project of describing the world. Chapter 4, meanwhile, concerns the works of Ctesias and Megasthenes. As with Part 1, though to a lesser degree, Mitchell’s discussion of these three texts individually occasionally makes noteworthy comparisons between them. She highlights, for instance, the tendency of Megasthenes’ monsters, in comparison to those of Ctesias, to be even more peripheral within India and less connected with human populations (144).
Chapter 5 on Aristotle is the most impressive chapter for its originality and expert handling of Aristotle’s complex terminology and his departures from cosmogonic and ethnographic notions of monstrosity. It is unfortunate that Part 3 does not contain an additional chapter on another work of ancient biology, but this is no fault of the author. As she correctly explains (155–56), other Greek works that might fit this genre (for example, those of Hippocrates and Galen) rarely touch upon monstrosity. Nevertheless, even without intra-genre comparison, this chapter’s analysis is especially insightful, providing nuance to the overall topic, such as the fact that monstrosity, for Aristotle, seems to have been understood as existing on a spectrum (160–63).
Mitchell’s monograph is a welcome addition to the study of classical monsters. It provides thoughtful discussion on these texts, consistently maintaining focus on the issue of understanding differences within ancient conceptions of monstrosity. She effectively combines conventional material for the subject (Hesiod, Herodotus, Ctesias and Megasthenes) with lesser-studied material (the Orphic fragments and Aristotle). While by no means being an exhaustive study of Greek monstrosity, it does furnish helpful insights, primarily on aspects of monstrosity and its causes between genres, but also an assortment of minor features throughout that are not often commented on (for example, colouration, abnormal consumptive patterns, generational deviations, misplaced internal organs, connections to divinity and possession/absence of human-like intelligence). The book does contain a higher-than-average number of typographical errors, usually as omitted/misplaced articles or prepositions, and there are occasionally more significant, though understandable, slips (for instance, ‘it is usurping that Ctesias’ should be ‘unsurprising’ on page 121). Generally, these do not impact comprehension. The Hydra of fully understanding ancient monstrosity still persists (as it likely always will). Yet scholars of the subject will find Mitchell’s adept and thorough study, containing much original and meaningful analysis, to be a valuable resource in combating the many heads of ancient Greek monstrosity.
