Early Greek Epic: Language, Interpretation, Performance 9783110981384, 9783110993721, 9783110981407, 2022917159

Citation preview

Christos Tsagalis Early Greek Epic: Language, Interpretation, Performance

Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes

Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Associate Editors Stavros Frangoulidis · Fausto Montana · Lara Pagani Serena Perrone · Evina Sistakou · Christos Tsagalis Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabé · Margarethe Billerbeck Claude Calame · Kathleen Coleman · Jonas Grethlein Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis Giusto Picone · Alessandro Schiesaro Tim Whitmarsh · Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 138

Christos Tsagalis

Early Greek Epic: Language, Interpretation, Performance

ISBN 978-3-11-099372-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-098138-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-098140-7 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022917159 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Editorial Office: Alessia Ferreccio and Katerina Zianna Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com



For Jonathan Burgess

Preface Τhe 20 studies included in this volume represent a portion of my research in the field of early Greek epic during the last 20 years. They are preceded by an Introduction and are organized in four parts: Homer, Hesiod, the Epic Cycle, and the performance of epic. In the Introduction, I offer a general presentation of the progress made in the field of archaic Greek epic in the last decades and explain where my own contribution falls within this research field. In parts I-III, I begin with studies dealing with general topics, then I present those pertaining to more than one epic, and finally those concerning individual poems. Part IV begins with a general topic pertaining to performance, while the other three studies are presented according to the chronological order of the material they contain. Some of the studies included in this volume are reprinted in their original form, while others have been revised with additions and further bibliography. The purpose of this selective updating is to remedy certain infelicities, to engage with studies which appeared after the initial publication of my own work, as well as to make more thorough certain points which I have revisited in the course of time. All translations of Homeric passages are based on Lattimore 1951 and Rieu 2003 for the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively. For Cyclic epic, I have used the translation of Burgess 2001. For Apollodorus and Hyginus, I have consulted the translation of Scott Smith and Trzaskoma 2007. When I provide my own translation, I note it in a footnote. I am grateful to the editors of TCSV Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos, for including this book in their highly successful series. The dedication to Jonathan Burgess is a token of appreciation to a scholar who has been a source of inspiration for me during the last 20 years. Christos Tsagalis Thessaloniki, April 2022

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-202

Contents Preface  VII List of Abbreviations  XI List of the Original Publication Venues  XIII List of Tables  XV Introduction  XVII

Part I: Homer 

Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis  3



Detextualizing Homer: Intonation Units, Background Knowledge, and the Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey  34



The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics  43



Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character  68



Epic Space Revisited: Narrative and Intertext in the Episode between Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.119–236)  83



Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers  110



Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610  133



Iliad 11.662: A Note  155



Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle: Odysseus’ False Tale to Eumaeus (Od. 14.199–359)  163

X  Contents

Part II: Hesiod 

Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus  209



Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women  256

Part III: The Epic Cycle 

The Gods in Cyclic Epic  283



γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων: Interformularity and Intertraditionality in Theban and Homeric Epic  312



Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration  355



Telegony  384



Verses Attributed to the Telegony  407

Part IV: The Performance of Epic 

Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions  427



Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods  463



Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period  511



Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period  543

Bibliography  577 General Index  609 Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  623

List of Abbreviations DELG

P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris  [st ed.  – ].

D-K

H. Diels and W. Kranz (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin .

EDG

R.S.P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek,  vols. Leiden .

EGEF

C. Tsagalis, Early Greek Epic Fragments I: Genealogical and Antiquarian Epic. Berlin .

EGF

M. Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Göttingen .

EGM

R.L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography,  vols. Oxford –.

EKM

L. Gounaropoulou and M.B. Hatzopoulos (eds.), Επιγραφές κάτω Μακεδονίας (μεταξύ του Βερμίου όρους και του Αξιού ποταμού), Α´ Επιγραφές Βέροιας. Athens .

EM

T. Gaisford (ed.), Etymologicum Magnum. Oxford .

FGrHist

F. Jacoby et al., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden –.

GDK

E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Göttingen .

GEF

M.L. West, Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge, MA .

GEW

H. Frisk, Griechisches etylomogisches Wörterbuch,  vols. Heidelberg – .

HED

J. Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin/New York .

Hesych.

Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon,  vols., edited by: I.C. Cunningham (I: Α-Δ); I.C. Cunningham (II: Ε-Ο); P.A. Hansen (III: Π-Σ); P.A. Hansen and I.C. Cunningham (IV: Τ-Ω). Copenhagen/Berlin/New York –.

IChios

D.F. McCabe and J. V. Brownson, Chios Inscriptions. Princeton .

ICret

M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae,  vols. Rome –.

IDelos

Inscriptions de Délos.  vols. Paris –. Vol.  [], Nos. –, ed. André Plassart (); vol.  [], nos. –, ed. Jacques Coupry (); vol.  [], nos. –, ed. Félix Durrbach (); vol.  [], nos. –, ed. Félix Durrbach (); vol.  [], nos. –, ed. Félix Durrbach and Pierre Roussel (); vol.  [], nos. –, eds. Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey (); vol.  [], nos. –, eds. Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey ().

IEG

M.L. West (ed.), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati,  vols. Oxford – [st ed. –].

IEphesos

H. Wankel et al., Die Inschriften von Ephesos, IGSK, –. Bonn –.

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae

IK

Inschriften griechischer Städte Kleinasiens

IPergamon

M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Berlin –.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-204

XII  List of Abbreviations ISalamis

T.B. Mitford and I. Nicolaou, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Salamis. Nikosia .

ISide

J. Nollé, Side im Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse, Band II, IGSK, .. Bonn .

ISmyrna

G. Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna, IGSK –.–. Bonn –.

IThesp

P. Roesch, Les Inscriptions de Thespies: digital edition by G. Argoud, A. Schachter, and G. Vottéro.

Lexilogus

Ph. Buttmann, . Lexilogus oder Beiträge zur griechischen Worterklärung hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod,  vols. Berlin .

LfgrE

B. Snell, et al. (eds.). Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos,  vols. Göttingen/ Oakville, CT –.

LIMC

Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Zurich, –.

LSJ

H.G. Liddel, R. Scott, H.S. Jones and R. McKenzie (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon, with Revised Supplement by P.G.W. Glare. Oxford .

OCD

Oxford Classical Dictionary.

OMS

L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta: Epigraphie et antiquités grecques. Amsterdam –.

PEG

A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci: Testimonia et Fragmenta. vol. I. Stuttgart/Leipzig .

PMG

D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford .

PMGF

M. Davies, Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Oxford .

RE

G. Wissowa et al. (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart –.

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.

Severyns

A. Severyns, Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos: la Vita Homeri et les sommaires du Cycle, Paris .

SH

Supplementum Hellenisticum.

TAM I

E. Kalinka, Tituli Asiae Minoris collecti et editi auspiciis Caesareae Academiae Litterarum Vindobonensis, I, Tituli Lyciae conscripti. Vienna .

TAM II

E. Kalinka, Tituli Asiae Minoris collecti et editi auspiciis Caesareae Academiae Litterarum Vindobonensis, II –, Tituli Lyciae Graeca et Latina conscripti. Vienna. –.

TrGF

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta.

List of the Original Publication Venues 1. ‘Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis’, TC 3 (2012) 209–244. 2. ‘Detextualizing Homer: Intonation Units, Background Knowledge, and the Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Eranos 103 (2005) 55–62. 3. ‘The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hypertextuality, TC 2 (2010) 323–347. 4. ‘Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character’, in E. Karamalengou and Eu. Makrygianni (eds.), Ἀντιφίλησις. Studies in Honor of Professor I.-Th. Papademetriou. Stuttgart 2009, 34–47. 5. ‘Εpic Space Revisited: Narrative and Intertext in the Episode between Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.119–236)’, in: Ph. Mitsis and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic and Rhetorical Praxis. Berlin 2010, 87–113. 6. ‘Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers’, in: C. Tsagalis and A. Markantonatos (eds.), The Winnowing Oar: New Perspectives in Homeric Poetry. Berlin 2017, 191–214. 7. ‘Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609-610’, in: E. Gasti (ed.), δόσις ἀμφιλαφής: τιμητικός τόμος για την ομότιμη καθηγήτρια Κατερίνα Συνοδινού. Ioannina 2020, 787–816. 8. ‘Iliad 11.662: A Note’, SIFC 113 (2020) 61–68. 9. ‘Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle: Odysseus’ False Tale to Eumaeus (Od. 14.199–359)’ in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homer in the 21st Century. Berlin 2012, 309–345. 10. ‘Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden 2009, 131–177. 11. ‘Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Poetry in Fragments: The Hesiodic Corpus and its Afterlife. Berlin 2017, 191–215. 12. ‘The Gods in Cyclic Epic’, in: J. Clauss, M. Cuypers, and A. Kahane (eds.), Gods in Poetics: Writing Polytheism in Greek Hexameter Poetry. Stuttgart 2016, 95–117. 13. ‘γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων: Interformularity and Intertraditionality in Theban and Homeric Epic’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Theban Resonances in Homeric Epic, TC 6.2 (2014) 357–398. 14. ‘Cypria, fr. 19 (PEG 1 & West): A Reconsideration’, RFIC 140.2 (2012) 1–33.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-205

XIV  List of the Original Publication Venues 15. ‘Telegony’ in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception. Cambridge 2015, 380–401. 16. ‘Verses Attributed to the Telegony’, CQ 64 (2014) 448–461. 17. ‘Ἀοιδός και ῥαψῳδός: μεθοδολογικά προβλήματα και ερευνητικές προϋποθέσεις’, in: C. Tsagalis, Τέχνη ραψωδική: η απαγγελία της επικής ποίησης από την αρχαϊκή έως την αυτοκρατορική περίοδο. Thessaloniki 2018, 17–55. 18. ‘Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods’, in: J. Ready and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homer in Performance: Rhapsodes, Narrators, and Characters. Austin 2018, 29–75. 19. ‘Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period’, in: J. Ready and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homer in Performance: Rhapsodes, Narrators, and Characters. Austin 2018, 98–129. 20.‘Ραψωδοί και ραψωδικές εκτελέσεις στην αυτοκρατορική περίοδο’, in: C. Tsagalis, Τέχνη ραψωδική: η απαγγελία της επικής ποίησης από την αρχαϊκή έως την αυτοκρατορική περίοδο. Thessaloniki 2018, 155–189.

List of Tables Tab. 1: Tab. 2: Tab. 3: Tab. 4: Tab. 5: Tab. 6:

Undeveloped Orality.  31 Characteristics of Developed Orality and Literacy.  32 Achaean Heroes in the Teichoscopia and Helen’s Suitors.  189 Shared Features in the Episodes of the Cicones, Thrinacia, and Egypt.  195 Shared Features in Iliad 21 and the Telephi epyllium.  337 The Order of Victors in Athenaeus’ Report Describing Events of 324 BC (Left Column) and in a Hellenistic Inscription (Right Column) Pertaining to the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea.  469 Tab. 7: Instances of Rhapsodes Competing in more than one Type of Contest.  518 Tab. 8: Rhapsodes in the Imperial Period.  574

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-206

Introduction The study of early Greek epic was always at the forefront of research activity in the field of Classics. One, and perhaps, the main reason was Homer, a poet who has been an icon of Greek poetry and culture throughout the centuries. It was only to be expected that the Iliad and the Odyssey would still attract intense scholarly interest, as they had already done in antiquity. In the last fifty years major developments have taken place, both in the field of Homeric studies and in the rest of early Greek epic. These developments have not only created a more solid basis for studying the Homeric epics, but they have also broadened our horizons with respect to the place of Homeric poetry within a larger cultural milieu. The impressive advances in Hesiodic studies, the more systematic approach to the Epic Cycle, the more nuanced use and re-evaluation of dominant twentieth-century theories like Neoanalysis and Oral Theory, the study of other fragmentary Greek epic, the cognitive turn, narratology, the performance of epic poetry in the ancient and modern world, the fruitful utilization of IndoEuropean material, and the widely accepted recognition of the close relation between Homer and the mythology and literature of the ancient Near East have virtually shaped anew the way we read and understand Homer. The studies collected in this volume, which represent part of my work during the last twenty years and are informed by most of the aforementioned sub-fields, span four research areas: (i) Homer; (ii) Hesiod; (iii) the Epic Cycle; (d) the performance of epic. They owe a lot to a host of scholars, whose scientific contributions have made me think, re-evaluate, and explore further the fascinating world of early Greek epic. In what follows, I offer a brief presentation of my own research input within the on-going dialogue pertaining to early Greek epic. (i) In the field of Homeric studies, Neoanalysis and Oral Theory have been injected with new blood. Several scholars have opted for a more nuanced and methodologically consistent version of the theoretical basis on which rests each of these two schools of Homeric criticism. Others have considerably broadened the range of material which can be employed as a backdrop for testing all relevant arguments. Georg Danek1 has masterfully applied the neoanalytical Quellenforschung to the entire Odyssey, while being alert to the impressive advances of the Oral Theory concerning traditionality and performance. On a methodological level, his main contribution is the notion of Zitat (‘citation’). Danek argues that the

 1 Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-207

XVIII  Introduction Odyssey consistently ‘cites’ its sources by recourse to a system of references embedded into the text. Another principal contribution of Danek is his systematic and thorough exploration of alternative versions of Odysseus’ return that the Homeric Odyssey regularly employs as cues for its audience. In the Englishspeaking world, the main contributions are those by Jonathan Burgess2 and Bruno Currie.3 Both scholars have had a significant input with respect to several methodological issues, which an earlier form of neoanalytical criticism ignored. They have addressed crucial matters pertaining to the function of allusion in early Greek epic and discussed the controversial issues of text-fixity and symptomatic versus intentional thematic and phraseological repetition. Currie has also extended the scope of neoanalytical research by bringing into the discussion Greek hymnic and ancient Near Eastern poetry. Another strong voice is that of Margalit Finkelberg who has both enlarged the neoanalytical source-pool4 and offered refined and subtle arguments as regards the metacyclic nature of Homeric epic5 and the relation between oral-formulaic theory and the individual poet.6 Michael Reichel7 has meticulously studied the intratextual references in the Iliad, which display a remarkable precision and cohesion which he explained as the work of a single poet who used writing in the composition of the poem. Reichel has also debated the orality of Homeric poetry favoring the neoanalytical method. A special place is occupied by Ernst Heitsch8 who stands between Analysis and Neoanalysis. Heitsch claimed that a short poem on Aeneas is a source on which draw both the Iliad and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. He also accepts the basic neonalytical view about the influence of the Aethiopis on the Iliad. For him Homer is the last poet of the Iliad who gave the epic its final shaping in seventh-century Athens.

 2 ‘Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of Homeric Motif Transference’, 2006, 148–189; The Death and Afterlife of Achilles, 2009. 3 ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition’, 2006, 1–45; ‘The Iliad, Gilgamesh, and Neoanalysis’, 2012, 543–580; ‘Perspectives on Neoanalysis from the Archaic Hymns to Demeter’, 2012, 184– 209; The Art of Allusion, 2016. 4 ‘The Sources of Iliad 7’, 2002, 151–161 (= 2020, 140–149). 5 ‘Meta-Cyclic Epic and Homeric Poetry’, 2015, 126–138 (= 2020, 169–181). 6 ‘Oral Formulaic Theory and the Individual Poet’, 2012, 73–82 (= 2020, 95–103). 7 Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias, 1994; ‘How Oral is Homer’s Narrative?’, 1998, 1–22. 8 Aphroditehymnos, Aeneas und Homer: Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum Homerproblem, 1965; Epische Kunstsprache und homerische Chronologie, 1968; Altes und Neues zur Ilias: Überlegungen zur Genese des Werks, 2006.

Introduction  XIX

As regards the Oral Theory, Gregory Nagy has been the principal driving force behind its application to technical matters,9 interpretation,10 and the shaping11 of Homeric epic. His evolutionary model, which involves five periods corresponding to degrees of gradually increasing crystallization12 has given to the Oral Theory a depth that was lacking from its first stages. The evolutionary model amounts to a ‘response’ to criticism pertaining to the question of fixity and the process of fixation of Homeric poetry and is against the dictation theory13 that aimed at finding a middle ground between an oral and a writing Homer.14 A welcome ‘turn’ to the dictation theory has recently been suggested by Jonathan Ready,15 who draws on the testimony of folklorists and ethnographers engaged with the study of modern instances of the textualization of oral traditional works, and opts for a textualization of Homeric epic by means of a process involving a collector who had a poet dictate his version of the Iliad and the Odyssey to a scribe. For Ready, the Homeric text should be seen as the cocreation of the performer, collector, and scribe. Further boost to the Oral Theory

 9 Origins and function of the dactylic hexameter: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter, 1974. 10 The Homeric hero: The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, 1979; Early Greek Myth: Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, 1990; Greek Mythology and Poetics, 1990. 11 The early transmission of the Homeric text: Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond, 1996; Homeric Questions, 1996; Homeric Responses, 2003; Homer’s Text and Language, 2004; the changing notions of ‘Homer’ and ‘Homeric’ poetry in the Pre-Classical, Classical, Hellenistic, and Imperial Greco-Roman world: Homer the Classic, 2009; Homer the Preclassic, 2012. 12 This evolutionary model postulates the existence of the following five phases: (a) a fluid period with no written texts from the 2nd millenium to ca. 750 BC; (b) a more formative period from 750 to 550 BC, during which the Homeric poems acquire Panhellenic status (still without written texts) and begin to be performed in Athens; (c) a more definite period (550–300 BC), centralized in Athens, during which the Homeric poems are used as transcripts accompanying (not substituting) performance; (d) a standardizing period (300–150 BC) marked by the reform of performance traditions and the creation of an official Athenian state script of Homer by Demetrius of Phalerum; (e) a last phase (after 150 BC) marked by the philological activity of Aristarchus that leads to an even more standardized text. 13 See the important contributions by M. Skafte Jensen (The Homeric Question and OralFormulaic Theory, 1980) and R. Janko (‘The Homeric Poems as Oral Dictated Texts’, Classical Quarterly 48, 1998, 1–13). 14 B. Powell (‘Homer and Writing, in A New Companion to Homer, 1997, 3–32) linked the invention of the Greek alphabet with the pressing need to record the dactylic hexameter, which is the meter used in epic composition. 15 Orality, Textuality, and the Homeric Epics: An Interdisciplinary Study of Oral Texts, Dictated Texts, and Wild Texts, 2019.

XX  Introduction has been given by John Miles Foley whose methodical, meticulous, and exceptionally erudite studies have substantially enlarged the reach of the oral theory and improved our knowledge of oral poetry across the globe.16 A special place among oralists is occupied by Oliver Taplin,17 who envisages an oral Homer, trained in oral traditional epic and composing the Iliad by employing the techniques of oral composition. Taplin explains the cohesion, interaction between scenes separated by thousands of verses, and structural unity of the Iliad by suggesting that Homer performed different parts of his epic at different venues throughout his life and continued to work on it, implementing changes, omissions, and adaptations. Taplin’s theory of an oral poet working over an extended period of many years is analogous to M.L. West’s theory of two poets who are also trained in oral traditional epic but compose the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively by recourse to writing over an extended period of his life.18 Oral Theory has also gained a great deal both by its creative use of linguistics and by using formulaic material in a more nuanced and interpretively meaningful way. In the field of linguistics, the contribution of Egbert Bakker is of special merit. By applying linguistic theory to the study of Homeric style, Bakker argued that formulas should be studied within the framework of spoken speech.19 For him, epic language contains devices which allow the performer of epic song to bring the past to the present. By employing discourse analysis, he has demonstrated that epic employs an entire deictic system that creates vividness, which lies at the heart of the performance of Homeric poetry.20 A chief representative of the study of the inspired and resourceful use of diction in Homeric epic is Richard Martin,21 who has studied direct speech in the Iliad. Being alert to the advances made in ethnography, sociolinguistics, literary theory and folklore studies, Martin treats speeches as authoritative speech-acts, where traditionality and spontaneity coexist. The surprising ways speakers combine, alter, adapt, and even misuse traditional diction results in the creation of individual idiolects that

 16 Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research. An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography, 1985; The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology, 1988; Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song, 1990; Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic, 1991; The Singer of Tales in Performance, 1995; Homer’s Traditional Art, 1999. 17 Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad, 1992. 18 The Making of the Iliad. Disquisition and Analytical Commentary, 2011; The Making of the Odyssey, 2014. 19 Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse, 1997. 20 Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics, 2005. 21 The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad, 1989.

Introduction  XXI

mark each character’s voice as unique. Significant are also the contributions of Pietro Pucci and Ruth Scodel. Pucci showed how the interaction between the two Homeric epics on the level of phraseology creates meaning. His intertextual approach is bidirectional: from the Iliad to the Odyssey and from the Odyssey to the Iliad.22 Scodel has studied how oral poets tailored individual nuances to their audiences, while dealing with traditional material that they had learned from earlier poets. She has argued that the oral poet, while pretending that the content of his song is familiar to his audience, makes sure that all kinds of listeners can follow and enjoy it. Innovation and originality could hardly be identified by the audience, since Homeric epic tends to traditionalize what is new with respect to the performance and, at the same time, present it as authoritative.23 These are some of the studies which have played a key role in the fields of Neoanalysis and Oral Theory. Furthermore, progress in Homeric research has been also made possible by new textual editions and commentaries. The publication of the scholia vetera (Hartmut Erbse)24 and the D-scholia (Helmut van Thiel)25 to the Iliad, the ongoing publication of the scholia to the Odyssey (Filippomaria Pontani)26 the completion of the authoritative Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos,27 the new Teubner editions of the Iliad28 and the Odyssey29 by M.L. West (accompanied by his Studies on the Text of the Iliad30 and his two commentaries),31 the extensive and detailed commentaries on the Iliad and the Odyssey by Cambridge32 and the Fondazione Valla33 respectively, as well as the ongoing publication of the Basler Kommentar34 on the Iliad have put at our disposal impressive and trustworthy research tools for the study of Homer.

 22 Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad, 1987; The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer, 1998. 23 Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience, 2002. 24 Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, 7 vols. 1969–1988. 25 Scholia D in Iliadem (proecdosis aucta et correctior), 2014. 26 Scholia Graeca in Odysseam, 4 vols. (I: α-β; II: γ-δ; III: ε-ζ; IV: η-θ), 2007–. 27 B. Snell, et al. (eds.). Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, 25 vols. 1955–2001. 28 Homerus: Ilias, 1998–2000. 29 Homerus: Odyssea, 2017. 30 Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad, 2001. 31 See p. XVIII, n. 18 (this volume). 32 The Iliad: A Commentary, edited by G. Kirk, 6 vols., 1985–1993. 33 Omero: Odissea, edited by A. Privitera, 6 vols., 1981–1986 (translated and published in English by Oxford University Press, 1988–1992). 34 Edited by J. Latacz, 2000–.

XXII  Introduction The aim of my contribution has been to combine the insights of oralformulaic theory and Neoanalysis. I have argued that intertextual references operate between oral epic traditions and that a level of fixity, which is required for varying levels of allusion, can be achieved by a stable pool and established order of events, a consistent anchoring of characters to specific episodes, the success and subsequent wide diffusion of an authoritative version. The Iliad and the Odyssey have been composed orally and have been shaped during a long process by generations of singers. They draw not only on pre-Homeric oral cyclic epics as master-manifestations of cyclic myth pertaining to the Theban and Trojan War sagas, but also on a variety of other epic traditions, which involve an epic version of the story of Meleager, pre-Homeric poetry about Heracles, oral epics on the Pylian wars, pre-Homeric hymnic poetry on Aphrodite, a pre-Homeric *Argonautica, alternative versions of Odysseus’ return, and NearEastern poetry (the Dumuzi-Inanna Sumerian Songs, the Royal Hymns of the Sumerians, the epic of Gilgamesh in its standard Babylonian version). I have also maintained that phraseological transference beyond typical verbal reiteration is also possible between oral epic traditions, provided that the range of the repetition is extremely limited or that repetition is employed in a highly distinctive manner. Homeric poetry is deeply meta-poetic since it is characterized by a constant penchant to delineate its own identity. Its self-awareness is achieved by its systematic thematizing of both a large range of events falling outside its plot and various alternative versions of a potential deployment of the plot which are mentioned and rejected as poetically inferior, so that the audience realizes the poem’s claim to originality and success. Allusion is not a side-effect or secondary feature of Homeric storytelling. It lies at the heart of Homeric compositional technique and defines it pervasively. It is the trademark of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Ιn treating specific interpretive issues I have made ample use of various theoretical tools, ranging from traditional philology to historical linguistics, from meter and formulas to cognitive theory and narratology. It is my firm belief that as scholars we should use all means available to shed light on a problem that has not been treated adequately. To defend a transmitted verse of the Iliad (11.662) or unlock the function of a given distich (11.609–610) I have resorted to traditional philology, narratology, and the comparative method. Likewise, to study the use of Helen’s name I combine metrical observations, word localization, and verse-structure, showing how the traditional diction of Homeric epic has shaped epic action. Tackling complex semantical conundrums like the formula ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης requires the joint use of different methodological tools: lexicography, historical linguistics, and the utilization of Indo-European

Introduction  XXIII

and Near Eastern mythology and ritual. It is only then that a dictional fossil comes back to life and allows us to comprehend and appreciate the multifarious and convoluted but fascinating process of shaping of Homeric diction. To explore lists and catalogues in Homeric epic, I resort to cognitive theory that allows us to investigate the mental process behind the organization of dictional and thematic material. I interpret the friendly outcome of the famous encounter between Diomedes and Glaucus in Iliad 6 by revisiting the complex use of space: simple story space designating the setting of the episode, embedded story space pertaining to the places mentioned in the inset narratives of the speeches of the two protagonists of the scene, and another form of extratextual space which concerns the Greek and Lycian epic tradition. These different forms of space are effectively merged to bring the ancestors of the Greek hero Diomedes and the Lycian hero Glaucus close, thus turning the potential duel between them into a friendly encounter sealed by the exchange of gifts. (ii) The considerable progress made in the field of Hesiodic studies is observable in two areas: the interpretation of the two genuine works of Hesiod, the Theogony and the Works and Days, and the important advances in the exploration of the Catalogue of Women. The two monumental commentaries of M.L. West on the Theogony (1966) and the Works and Days (1978) have laid down the necessary groundwork for more nuanced interpretive studies, which would restore Hesiod to his proper status. Special attention was paid to the relation between these two poems and to various narratological issues concerning the persona of the narrator, the function of the Dichterweihe in the Theogony, the role of Perses as an internal addressee in the Works and Days, the different types of narrative employed in various passages of these two epics, and the poetic voice. Jenny Strauss Clay has argued for a complementary reading of the Theogony and the Works and Days which share a symbiotic relation embracing the divine and human worlds. This approach brings to the limelight the unity of the two major Hesiodic works and sees the Catalogue of Women as a work feeding not only on earlier catalogue poetry but also on the genuine Hesiodic epics.35 With respect to the Catalogue of Women, there has been impressive progress. On the basis of the work he had done together with Merkelbach with respect to determining the order of the news papyrus fragments pertaining to the Catalogue, M.L. West cut new ground in the study of catalogue poetry.36 Following suit, several scholars attempted to study the Catalogue as a work of art in its own right and explored new topics, such as the presentation of women in com 35 Hesiod’s Cosmos, 2003. 36 The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 1985.

XXIV  Introduction parison to the Theogony and the Megalai Ehoiai, as well as generic issues concerning the nature of this poem and the place it occupies within catalogue poetry as a whole. One of the most stimulating studies was carried out by Ian Rutherford who focused on the thorny issue of the generic classification of the Catalogue.37 According to Rutherford, at a certain point during the Archaic Period non-genealogical ehoiai that employed catalogue-like principles for organizing their subject-matter underwent the influence of a Panhellenic tendency for organizing the Greek mythical past by recourse to genealogical schemata. The direct result was that narrations belonging to independent ehoiai were attached to a genealogical super-structure. At a later stage, ehoiai-narratives evolved into a secondary feature of this novel, generic amalgam through the process of automatization. Rutherford’s theory is a type of generic archaeology. By disclosing the existence of an early phase in the evolution of ehoiai-poetry Rutherford shed light to the generic identity of this new sub-genre. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women is an epic hybrid, which marks the generic crossing of narratives of the ehoiai type with a catalogue-based genealogical structure. His work is paired up with a detailed commentary by Hirschberger (2004) on the Catalogue of Women and the Megalai Ehoiai. The establishment of the Catalogue as an indispensable part of Hesiodic poetry is reflected in the publication of a volume of collected essays, with the telling title The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions.38 This volume had a significant impact on the study of the Catalogue, especially in view of the wealth of its relevant approaches. The Catalogue was studied as a poetic work exhibiting a special kind of plot (R. Osborne), as part of a trilogy, next to the Theogony and the Works and Days (J. Strauss Clay), as well as an epic associated with sympotic culture and ideology (E. Irwin). It was also explored through the study of individual characters (Heracles: J. Haubold) and episodes (Mestra: I. Rutherford, Helen’s suitors: E. Cingano), by means of the relation between the Catalogue and other Hesiodic works (Aspis: R. Martin; Megalai Ehoiai: G.-B. D’Alessio), Greek Lyric (Pindar and Bacchylides: G.-B. D’Alessio), as well as with respect to the reception and influence of this epic in Greek (R. Hunter, H. Asquith) and Roman literature (Ph. Hardie; R. Fletcher). The tendency for a re-evaluation of the order of the fragments of the Catalogue marks the new Loeb edition of Hesiod by Glenn Most which replaced the earlier edition (1914) by H. Evelyn-White. This rich interpretive harvest created the need for an updated presentation and critical assess 37 ‘Formulas, Voice, and Death in Ehoie-Poetry, the Hesiodic Gunaikon Katalogos, and the Odyssean Nekuia’, 2000, 81–96. 38 The volume was edited by R. Hunter in 2005.

Introduction  XXV

ment of the progress made so far, especially since 33 years had passed after the publication of the relevant volume in the series Wege der Forschung. The Brill’s Companion to Hesiod published by F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (2009) offered a balanced exposition of the status quaestionis of various aspects of Hesiodic poetry. Interest in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women has continued ever since. Kirk Ormand39 has examined the intertextual relation between this epic and Homer, Hesiod (Theogony and Works and Days) and Cyclic epic.40 The Catalogue’s rich literary background is interpreted by Ormand against the backdrop of political and social changes in archaic Greece. The author argues that the poem’s emphasis on the importance of noble birth throughout the Greek world, as mapped by the various catalogues of the Greek gene, amounts to a reaction against the new political realities of the sixth-century polis and in favor of the old aristocratic values. It is against this background that I have been interested in exploring the poetry and poetics of the three major Hesiodic works. The generic variety observed when one compares the Theogony with the Works and Days and the Catalogue offers a unique opportunity for exploring matters pertaining to the role of the poet, the tradition, and the creative interaction by means of intertextual association between them. Whereas previous scholarship has focused on the relation between Homeric and Hesiodic epic, especially with respect to matters pertaining to ideology, divine presentation, and phraseology, my research focuses on issues of generic identity and poetic distinctiveness. I argue that each of the three main Hesiodic epics is an idiosyncratic poetic experiment that deviates in stunning manner from the generic orthodoxy of its relevant sub-genre. The Hesiodic Theogony is not a typical example of theogonic epic, the Works and Days is anything but a regular wisdom epic, and the Catalogue is an innovative epic hybrid of catalog-based genealogies cross-fertilized by ehoiai poetry. What matters more is that their generic hybridity is not an issue detected by modern hyper-interpretation but is observable in their structure, themes, and plot. It reflects their effort to find a place within their proper sub-genre of epic as well as within archaic Greek epic at large. The study of the hybrid nature of the Catalogue of Women has crucial interpretive consequences. It requires a special poetics, which reveals the inner mechanics of catalogue-based poetry that is enriched with narrative snapshots, the ehoiai, which have been transferred to

 39 The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and Archaic Greece, 2014. 40 Throughout this book I capitalize the first letter of the word Cyclic when it refers to the poems of the Epic Cycle, whereas I write ‘cyclic’ when I designate oral epic traditions reflecting the poems of the Epic Cycle, as well as when I refer to cyclic myth.

XXVI  Introduction its complex structure. To this end, I have also been interested in studying one important feature of catalogue-based poetry, i.e. names. In contrast to widely held views about the purely ornamental and impressionistic aspect of lists of names, I have explored how names of every sort (proper, geographical etc.) are selected and deployed to achieve specific poetic goals. In this name-based poetic universe sound-effects are deftly exploited to highlight associations, prepare the presentation of a certain theme, conjure up an image, give vividness, enforce an idea, enhance parallelism, underscore an etymological link, draw attention, facilitate the unlocking of analogy on the part of the audience. (iii) Another field of intensive research activity concerns the Epic Cycle and fragmentary Greek epic of the Archaic and Classical Periods. Jasper Griffin41 and Malcolm Davies42 have shown the quantitative and qualitative differences between Homeric and Cyclic Epic. Burgess has trodden new ground with a thorough reconsideration of the way cyclic epic traditions interact with Homeric epic.43 The study of the Epic Cycle has been particularly promoted by the learned commentary of M.L. West,44 the series of commentaries that are being published by Malcolm Davies on individual poems of the Cycle,45 and the Companion to the Epic Cycle46 that has been edited by Marco Fantuzzi and me and covers a wide range of material pertaining to the notion and origin of the Cycle, the individual epics, language, narrative, aesthetics, artistic record on cyclic myth, and reception from Stesichorus and Ibycus to Imperial epic. In the field of fragmentary Greek epic, a major advance has been made possible after the publication of three standard editions of early Greek epic fragments by Alberto Bernabé,47 Malcolm Davies,48 and M.L. West,49 which have replaced Kinkel’s long outdated edition of epic fragments (1877). In the light of these editions, I have started a long-term project to provide fully-fledged commentaries on the extant remains of early Greek fragmentary epic, apart from the Epic Cycle, about which we are well served by the commentaries of M.L. West and M. Davies mentioned above. Two volumes have been published until now, one on Antiquarian

 41 ‘The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer’, 1977, 39–53. 42 The Greek Epic Cycle, 1989. 43 The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle, 2001. 44 The Greek Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics, 2013. 45 The Theban Epics, 2014; The Aethiopis: Neo-Neoanalysis Reanalyzed 2016; The Cypria 2019. 46 The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion, 2015. 47 Poetae Epici Graeci: Testimonia et Fragmenta. vol. I, 1987. 48 Epicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 1988. 49 Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, 2003.

Introduction  XXVII

and Genealogical Epic50 and another one on Creophylus’ Oechalias Halosis and Pisander’s Heraclea.51 Two more (one on Panyassis’ Heraclea and the Theseis, and one on Choerilus’ Persica) are in the pipeline. Apart from these commentaries, my personal contribution to the study of Cyclic epic concerns theoretical, technical, and interpretive issues. In a joint study with Marco Fantuzzi, we have explored the evolution of the meaning and function of the Epic Cycle, tracing a process beginning with a notional Epic Cycle, continuing with a Panathenaic Cycle in sixth-century Athens, the actual invention of the Epic Cycle in the Classical Period, the limitation of the Cycle to a prose summary, and the final phase in which the Cycle is reduced to an excerpt accompanying the Iliad. On a technical level, I have studied the Cypria and the Telegony, showing how cautious we should be with respect to assigning a given fragment to a poem or author, the more so since we are faced with various problems originating by the diverse citation practice of different sources. As regards interpretive issues, I have explored both phraseological repetition in early Greek epic and the role of gods in the Epic Cycle. By investigating transferred phraseology and transferred motifs from the Theban and Trojan oral cyclic epic traditions to the Odyssey, I have argued that interformularity and intetraditionality operated between oral epic traditions of the Archaic Period which had achieved considerable stability in terms of diction and theme. Realizing that the Epic Cycle is a powerhouse for exploring the function of the gods in early Greek epic, I have studied several topics pertaining to the role of the divine in Cyclic epic. The emerging picture concerns a dichotomy not only between typical (wrath, rivalry, counseling, prophecies and signs, love, parentage of immortal and mortal children, joint intervention, messengers) and untypical epic themes (divine metamorphoses, conferring immortalization to humans) in the framework of which operate gods and mortals alike, but also between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ forms of divine activity, the former being instrumental for the narrative, the latter playing no role in the unraveling of the plot. If these results are placed next to the neoanalytical theory that Cyclic epic reflects preHomeric oral epic traditions which functioned as sources for the Homeric epics, then we can see that the typical role of gods in oral cyclic epic was put in use by the Iliad and the Odyssey, whereas part of the untypical function of gods (im-

 50 Early Greek Epic Fragments I: Antiquarian and Genealogical Epic, 2017. 51 Early Greek Epic Fragments II: Kreophylos and Peisandros, 2022.

XXVIII  Introduction mortalization of humans)52 was transformed into heroic experience in Homeric epic.53 (iv) In the wake of the Oral Theory, the ‘word’ performance has become a buzz word in Homeric criticism. José M. González’s imposing monograph The Epic Rhapsode and his Craft: Homeric Performance in a Diachronic Perspective (2013) studies the performance of Homeric poetry across an impressive time span. It also calls attention to the ways mantic discourse, drama, and rhetorical practice help us understand how epic rhapsodes worked. Another important contribution that may be singled out is the volume Homer in Performance: Rhapsodes, Narrators, and Characters (2018), edited by Jonathan L. Ready and myself, with important contributions both about the history of rhapsodic performance and the function of Homeric narrators and characters as speakers. My own work, which consists in two chapters in the aforementioned edited volume and the monograph Τέχνη ραψωδική: η απαγγελία της επικής ποίησης από την αρχαϊκή έως την αυτοκρατορική εποχή (2018), focuses on the investigation of the performative context of epic poetry, and the historical and epigraphical study of rhapsodic performances of epic poetry from the Archaic to the Imperial Period. I lay special stress on the creative use of various elements of Homeric epic, which have been regularly employed as stylistic features, and treat them as performative pretexts, i.e. as cues that allow us to comprehend why they were used as props by rhapsodes while performing epic poetry. By surveying rhapsodic performances of epic poetry throughout the Greek world, I have argued for the wide geographical diffusion of performance venues of epic, a fact that testifies to the prestige of epic in the Archaic and Classical Period, as well as its use for the promotion of political aspirations. Following the spread and form of rhapsodic performance during the Hellenistic period, we see the process of creation of the rhapsodic profession. Rhapsodes no longer operate as individual performers of epic but belong to guilds of artists. New forms of epic are introduced and performed, and new epics are composed and performed next to Homer. The line drawn between the traditional rhapsode and the poet becomes gradually blurred, as the latter may perform his own poetry. The rise of the Homeristae who perform epic poetry in the theater is also a new development. This is a period of increase mobility, of multiple big festivals across the Greek world featuring rhapsodic contests, in which separate prizes are awarded for the best new

 52 A special case is presented by divine metamorphosis, which though narratively inactive in Cyclic epic became narratively significant in Homeric epic. 53 See also L. Slatkin, The Power of Thetis, 1991, 39, 121–122; M. Finkelberg, ‘Meta-Cyclic Epic and Homeric Poetry’, 2015, 137–138 (= 2020, 179–181).

Introduction  XXIX

epic poem and the best rhapsodic performance. This stunning diffusion of rhapsodic performance of epic poetry is turned on its head during the Imperial Period, when the geographical range of venues where rhapsodic performances are held dwindles, being mainly limited to areas associated with Homer and Hesiod, the two emblematic forefathers of Greek epic. Rhapsodic contests are now held only in a few places, and rhapsodes gradually lose their status, being restricted only to the performance of new epics or being subsumed by the Homeristae whose histrionics are better appreciated. The four parts of this volume (Homer, Hesiodic poetry, the Epic Cycle, and the performance of epic) delineate the framework of my research activity for the last twenty years. They reflect my belief in a balanced, multifarious, and nuanced study of early Greek epic that has not ceased to fascinate me.



Part I: Homer

 Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis The aim of this study is to offer a critical reassessment of the progress made in recent years with respect to two of the most fruitful schools of interpretation in Homeric research, i.e. Neoanalysis and Oral Theory. Though it is no novelty to argue that interpreting Homer in the 21st century asks for a holistic approach that allows us to reconsider some of our methodological tools and preconceptions concerning what we call Homeric poetry, there is still a ‘Great Divide’ in the scholarly community between Neoanalysis and Oral Theory.1 This division, which until recently was also a geographical and perhaps a cultural one, since most Neoanalysts came from the German-speaking world whereas most Oralists from the English-speaking countries,2 has often hindered open-minded discussions on a number of thorny issues, the more so since dogmatic approaches became so popular that a priori elimination of valuable arguments coming from the ‘other side’ was the rule.3 Before embarking on the presentation and exploration of a number of theoretical issues concerning these two schools of Homeric research, I would like to state that I strongly believe that both the neoanalytical and oral ‘booms’, which have to a large extent influenced the way we see Homer today, may be reevaluated if we are willing to endorse a more flexible approach to certain scholarly taboos pertaining to these two schools of interpretation. Song-traditions, formula, type-scenes, performance on the one hand, and motivgeschichtliche Forschung, Epic Cycle, on the other may not be so incompatible as we often tend to think. It is against this backdrop that I would like to discuss possible links and connections. In particular, some of the questions I would like to address are the following: is it possible to bypass the chronological barrier and see how oral epic traditions may have shaped, influenced, or even challenged the Homeric tradition? In what ways can the analysis of the formulaic system of Homeric language go beyond mere technical classification and open a window to specific

 1 See Fowler 2004, 230 n. 42: ‘It is difficult to reconcile Neoanalysis with an oral perspective, as the former thinks in terms of interrelations between fixed, if not written, texts’. He admits though that ‘[a]ny solution to these problems implies a view on Homer’s sense of text’. 2 For surveys of neoanalytical research in English, see Clark 1986, 379–384; Willcock 1997, 174–189. 3 See the apt expression by Thomas (1992, 35) with respect to the ‘Great Divide’ between ‘oral’ and ‘literary’ critics of Homer: ‘the result is deadlock and mutual disregard’. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-001

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis interpretive approaches?4 If certain formulas display features, which have been explained by their stemming from given formulaic prototypes, why is it not possible to trace the larger poetic and thematic patterns they belong to? If audience reception has played its role in the shaping of a tradition of Panhellenic authority, then what does it tell us about the other end of the communicative spectrum? What is the kind of tradition that emerges in this light? The nonlinear (strictly speaking) narrative progression of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, which is so much at odds with the chronological unraveling of the plot in the Cyclic Epics, has been explained as the result of the exquisite art of one or two monumental composers of the Homeric epics. But if we put aside the unprovable explanation of a historical poet, how are we to interpret the sophisticated management of time in the Iliad and the Odyssey? Why did these two traditions absorb and internalize so thoroughly specific narrative techniques, which have taken their ancient audiences by storm as early as the Archaic Period? Since orality rarely addresses questions like this and Neoanalysis ‘invents’ the solution of a historical poet (or at least it employs it as an end-product and a master key to quality), it is tempting to explore how a song tradition becomes qualitatively different (or even better) from other thematically and dictionally relevant song traditions. I have decided to classify the abovementioned questions into five separate sections that represent key aspects of what are generally thought to be the basic differences between Neonalysis and Oral Theory.5

. Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity By the term textuality I designate a number of attributes that comprise a text, while by the term ‘textualization’ I refer to the act or process of rendering as text, i.e. the ‘setting down as concrete and unchanging’.6 In the phrase ‘the novel textualizes the emotions’, the fact that the novel is composed in writing is not a necessary prerequisite for the creation of ‘concrete and unchanging emotions’. It is the ‘universe’ of the novel as a dynamic form of literature that de 4 For an excellent discussion of the flaws inherent in the equation between ‘formulaic’ and ‘oral’, see the pertinent remarks by Thomas 1992, 40–44. To rephrase what she has said, it is now beyond doubt that neither all oral poetry is formulaic nor is all formulaic poetry oral. 5 For two well-balanced discussions of similar theoretical issues, see Burgess 2006, 148–189; Currie 2006, 1–45. 6 Merriam-Webster s.v. ‘textualize’. I use this term almost in the same way with Ready (2019, 18) who employs the term ‘entextualization’.

Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity  

creases the fluidity of the emotions by embedding them into a cohesive system with its own rules and constraints. By the term ‘textification’7 I define the act or process of rendering as text by means of putting into writing, which can be either contemporaneous with the creation of the text or can operate as a transcript. In tandem with the aforementioned observations, textuality and textification represent two different forms of textual fixity: what is textualized is not necessarily textified though it can be textually fixed, and what is textified is textualized and usually, but not necessarily, textually fixed.8 A couple of examples will make this point clearer: a number of oral-derived epics such as the Nibelungenlied, Chanson de Roland, Mahabharata, or Digenes Akrites show high degrees of textuality before being textified, i.e. being put down to writing. Their textual fixity is thus prior and independent from their appearance in writing versions, provided that we do not interpret it in terms of textual variation, i.e. by means of variant readings in the manuscript tradition, but through factors such as diffusion, self-awareness, cross-referencing, and ‘a stable skeleton of narrative’.9 Let us turn our attention to an example in the Odyssey: when in 24.192– 202, the shadow of Agamemnon praises the absent Odysseus in the Underworld, he explicitly employs poetological terminology pertaining to an epic tradition of the *Nostoi that is later reflected in the post-Homeric Nostoi attributed to Agias of Troezen. Relative chronology proves beyond doubt that the Odyssey is here aware of an oral epic tradition (as indicated by the expression στυγερή ἀοιδή) dealing, at least partly, with the Atreidon kathodos and the murder of Agamemnon by Clytaemestra and Aegisthus. In other words, the oral epic tradition of the *Nostoi had acquired a high degree of textuality, since it is treated by the later epic tradition of the Odyssey as cohesive, having a specific identity, and being suitable for cross-referencing within the context of epic rivalry that can go so deep so as to suggest even thematic association through opposition.10 We can see in this example that text-fixity, as an identifiable and ‘stable skeleton of narrative’,11 has been achieved by means of textuality, not through textification, since the terminology employed in the aforementioned passage pertains solely and exclusively to song-traditions (στυγερή ἀοιδή — χαρίεσσα ἀοιδή).

 7 I use this term almost in the same way with Ready (2019, 108–109) who employs the term ‘textualization’. 8 See Finkelberg (2000, 9), who uses the thematic variation over secondary elements in the Cypria to show that writing does not necessarily lead to text-fixity. 9 Lord 20002, 99. 10 On the ‘internal’ expansion of the Odyssey, see Kullmann 1991, 447–449 (= 1992, 122–125). 11 Lord 20002, 99.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis During its first steps Neoanalysis argued that since the Iliad and the Odyssey clearly echo the Cyclic epics, then they should be dated after them.12 When it became evident that such a position was virtually untenable and given that some of these hypothetical unattested epics were, partly at least, ‘retraceable’ from the content of the Cyclic poems, Neoanalysts shifted to a more ‘mild’ position, according to which Homer had before his eyes a number of epic poems, parts of which have been later shaped in what we know as the poems of the Epic Cycle. In fact, Neonalysts attempted to reconstruct hypothetical written poems pre-dating Homer. To refer to a famous example, the second part of the postHomeric Aethiopis by Arctinus of Miletos is based on a lost pre-Homeric epic, the *Memnonis, which Schadewaldt attempted to reconstruct after using various sources and organizing the relevant material in four Books. Oral Theory was reluctant to accept the existence of written texts, at least as a prerequisite for performance. Written texts did exist but not before the end of the formative period of the Homeric tradition. According to Nagy’s evolutionary model for the making of Homeric poetry, it is first during phase 3 (from the middle of the 6th to the later part of the 4th century BC) that texts started to be used as transcripts in Athens.13 As a matter of fact, oralists who were ‘liberated’ from the idea of written texts predating ‘Homer’ could more easily accept that the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey represent song-traditions that have been formed through a systematic interaction with other song-traditions, among which cyclic traditions occupied a prominent place. Seen from this angle, the disparity between Neoanalysis and Oral Theory refers, as far as this matter is concerned, to the existence of written texts predating ‘Homer’. In fact, we would not be far from truth if we were to argue that the problem concerning written versus oral composition of the Iliad and Odyssey had been ‘transferred’ to the sources of Homeric poetry. Despite this obvious divergence between the two theories, few people would argue that, no matter what stance we take, it is extremely plausible that oral cyclic epics in the form of hexameter song-traditions pertaining mainly, but not solely, to the Trojan War mythical material would have existed before the definitive shaping of the Iliad and the Odyssey. In this respect, one should keep in mind that both these epic traditions and the Homeric epics may have shared  12 See e.g. the early attempts of Pestalozzi 1945, Schadewaldt 19654, and Kullmann 1960. Dihle 1970 rightly expressed his doubts about the priority of the Cycle. See also Griffin 1977, 39 n. 5, who was in favor of the idea that other, earlier poems dealing with the same themes may have influenced the Iliad and the Odyssey. For a revival of the old neonalytical belief that Homer had access to written texts like an*Achilleis or a *Memnonis, see Kopff 1983; Dowden 1996; Ballabriga 1998, 22–32. 13 Nagy 1996a, 42; 2003, 2–3; 2004, 27.

Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity  

certain central elements or pivots,14 which would also, at a later date, permeate the written epics of what we now call the post-Homeric Epic Cycle. I argue for the existence of such oral cyclic epics as master-manifestations of cyclic myth, namely of mythological traditions pertaining to the Theban and Trojan War sagas.15 The crucial question is though (a) what features we regard as constituting the nucleus of Cyclic poetry and (b) what reasons may have shaped this subtype of epic song in the Archaic Period.16 With respect to (a), I would basically repeat Monro’s, Rzach’s, Kullmann’s, and Griffin’s lists referring to the following features, which I classify into two groups comprising qualitative and stylistic-narrative elements:17 Qualitative: 1. The fantastic and exotic: the daughters (Oeno, Spermo, and Elais) of Anius in the Cypria produced what their names suggest and fed the Achaeans in Troy for nine years. 2. The miraculous: Medea rejuvenated Aeson in the Nostoi and Thetis took various shapes to escape from Peleus in the Cypria. 3. The romantic: Paris and Helen fell in love in Sparta, while Menelaus was absent (Cypria); Achilles had a love affair with Deidameia in Scyros (Cypria); Odysseus had a son from Penelope (Telemachus), a son from Calypso or Circe (Telegonus), and a son, Polypoetes, from the Thesprotian princess Callidice (Telegony). 4. Immortalization: Memnon was immortalized in the Aethiopis and Achilles was transported after his death by Thetis to the White Island. 5. Presentation of low human types and motives: heroes tried to avoid military service (Odysseus in the Cypria), Amphiaraus was also unwilling to participate in the expedition against Thebes (Thebais). 6. Individual villains: Tydeus had cannibalistic instincts and Capaneus was a blasphemer (Thebais). 7. Human relationships are neither deeply dramatized nor are they presented in their complexity. Over-simplification is the rule.18 In the Ilias parva, as far  14 Schoeck 1961, 101. 15 West (2011a, 36–37) re-employs the old analyst term Einzellied and offers a list of selfcontained episodes, which the poet of the Iliad himself had performed. 16 See Burgess 2006, 148–149. 17 Monro 1884, 1–41; Rzach in RE 8.2 s.v. ‘Kyklos’; Griffin 1977, 39–43. 18 See Rutherford 2001, 122–123. Only two or three features from Rutherford’s list can be employed with some degree of safety in drawing the line between the Homeric poems and Cyclic epic.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis as we can judge from the extant summary of Proclus, characters like Philoctetes and Neoptolemus on the Achaean side or Deiphobus in the Iliou persis on the Trojan side do not question the heroic code but are simply used as pawns that bring the war closer to its end.19 Likewise, Odysseus in the Telegony is not preoccupied at all with his return to Ithaca nor is he concerned with his military failure as leader of the Thesprotians against the Brygoi. 8. Predilection for oracles and prophecies: Helenus foretells the outcome of Paris’ journey to Sparta (Cypria); Cassandra prophesies about the future of Troy (Cypria); Helenus prophesies that Troy will only fall when the Achaeans bring Philoctetes from Lemnos and Neoptolemus from Scyros (Ilias parva).20 9. Realistic aspect: this is a noteworthy oxymoron of Cyclic epic,21 given its strongly deterministic character because of the oracles and prophecies and the romantic and miraculous features noted above. Still, episodes like the wounding of Philoctetes, the strife among the Achaeans, the famine, the passion for booty are some of the most typical manifestations of a historically oriented realism that the Iliad systematically downplays in favor of an internalization that seems to be lacking in Cyclic epic.22 Stylistic and Narrative: 1. Lack of a single protagonist around whose life and action the epic unfolds. There are multiple protagonists, each in one or two episodes, in the Cyclic epics. The Aethiopis and the Telegony seem to stand apart but more careful consideration shows that they are also different from the Homeric epics in this respect, since they represent a rather loose concatenation of events pertaining to the life of Achilles and Odysseus respectively, until their death. The Penthesilea and Memnon episodes are not linked but through Achilles, and they are very different in nature. The same is the case with the Elis and Thesprotia journeys of Odysseus in the Telegony, which are carried out for different reasons. In both epics, the first episode (Penthesilea, Elis) was more restricted in length and dramatic than the second one (Memnon, Thesprotia), after the completion of which the protagonist participated in a  19 Contrast the Iliad, in which both Achilles and Hector, the best heroes of the Achaean and Trojan armies respectively, are figures whose reactions to the heroic code are strongly problematized. 20 Kullmann (1960, 221–223) lists 17 cases of oracles and prophecies in the Epic Cycle. 21 This observation reinforces the argument presented in chapter 9 (this volume) about the ‘Proto-Panhellenic’ nature of Cyclic poetry. Typical of this early stage of Panhellenization was the co-existence of realistic and supernatural, magical, and fantastic features. 22 See Kullmann 1960, 223.

Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity  

brief third episode (fighting against Apollo and Paris, returning to Ithaca and facing Telegonus respectively) during which the hero died. Finally, both epics ended with one more episode: the Aethiopis with the strife for the arms of Achilles, the Telegony with the double marriages in Aeaea of Telemachus with Circe and of Telegonus with Penelope. 2. Speeches are not used as the main arena for conflicts between heroes or important developments for the plot. Their rhetorical and emotional impact may have been limited. The curse of Oedipus to his sons in the Thebais is left to the narrator and is given in reported speech.23 The situation is very different from Homeric epic, in which the narrator offers limited comments on the personalities of its heroes.24 3. Repetition and over-elaboration: the use of repetitive diction even in passages of prime importance (curse of Oedipus on his sons in the Thebais); there are too many epithets in the description of Aphrodite’s preparation for the Judgment of Paris (Cypria). 4. Fondness for doublets (Motivdubletten):25 the double prophecies of Calchas and Anius about the duration of the Trojan War (Cypria); the double deliverance of the Achaeans from the famine, first by the daughters of Anius and then by Palamedes (Cypria); the duplication of the prerequisite for the fall of Troy, as both Philoctetes and Neoptolemus need to be brought to Troy by Odysseus (Ilias parva). 5. Hastiness: in the Cypria Lynceus sees Castor and Pollux hiding in a hollow oak and the next moment he is attacking them at the tree. 6. Episodic narrative lacking a unifying thread:26 all the Cyclic epics progress in linear manner, containing various small episodes, some of which could  23 Griffin 1977, 49. In this respect, Cyclic poetry stands closer to Hesiod. See e.g. the episode of Pandora in Works and Days that is given solely in indirect discourse, despite the fact that it contains at least three occasions in which direct speech could have been employed (Zeus’ orders to the various gods, Hermes’ order to Epimetheus, and Prometheus’ advice to Epimetheus). 24 Rutherford 2001, 122. The conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles in the Iliad is basically the result of a series of speeches uttered by both heroes and some other Achaean leaders in Book 1. 25 Doublets are also attested in Homeric poetry, but the difference from Cyclic epic is that in Homer they do not refer to the same event, whereas in the Cycle they do. Homeric epic is particularly fond of the so-called ‘anticipatory doublets’, i.e. the ‘foreshadowing of a coming event, theme or scene by a minor replica of itself. The latter instance is usually more fully developed, emotionally intense, and significant’ (de Jong 2001, xi). 26 This does not mean that Cyclic epic is deprived of anachronies, i.e. analepses and prolepses or other sophisticated narrative techniques like retardation, on which see Rengakos 2015a,

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis be easily taken out without harming the plot.27 This is impossible in the case of the Iliad and the Odyssey where every single episode is crucial for the plot, the only exception being perhaps the Doloneia.28 As far as (b) is concerned (i.e. the reasons that have shaped Cyclic epic in the Archaic Period), I would like to postulate an early stage of the Panhellenic phenomenon, during which the strongest elements pertaining to epichoric or local traditions were able to make their way into the Panhellenizing tendency of Cyclic epic. The process of epicization and Panhellenization was not one and the same,29 since I believe that not only there were epic song-traditions that did not evolve into Panhellenic epic but also that there were different phases in the process of Panhellenization. In an early Panhellenic stage that I would like to call ‘Proto-Panhellenism’, proto-cyclic poetry that emerged from various songtraditions dealing with the two great heroic sagas of the Theban and Trojan wars, which related two great expeditions and were thus reflecting the rising Panhellenic phenomenon, was characterized by (i) a blending of epichoric material and a generalizing tendency overriding local versions, (ii) suppression but not elimination of supernatural features that were gradually ‘degraded’ into secondary elements,30 (iii) presentation of low human types and motives, and  160–161. The episodic nature of Cyclic poetry is evident in the clearly discernible building blocks of the plot, which create the impression of ‘piling up’ material. This becomes clear when one considers even the most typical examples of the alleged dramatic Cyclic epics, the Aethiopis and the Ilias parva: in the former, the episode of Penthesilea is solely connected to that of Memnon through Achilles, since it does not contribute in any significant way to the final countdown for Achilles; in the latter that has been rightly called ‘a fast-pace episodic epic with a lot of ground to cover’ (Holt 1992, 319), multiple prophecies concerning the fall of Troy do not bring any result, although the Achaeans carry them out without fail (Philoctetes is brought to Troy from Lemnos, the Palladium is stolen, and Neoptolemus is brought to Troy from Scyros). The poet of the Ilias parva seems to have tried to include in the plot too many different episodes that took place after the end of Achilles and before the sack of Troy. The scorn of Aristotle (Po. 1459b) seems reasonable. 27 On the cyclic impulse of episodic narratives in Odysseus’ false tales, see Tsagalis 2012a. 28 For contrasting views concerning Iliad 10, see Danek 1988; Dué and Ebbott 2010; Tsagalis (forthcoming (b) and (c)). 29 Contra Hölscher 19903, 170. 30 Supernatural features do exist in Cyclic epics, but they are not spread to the entire plot nor do they permeate their thematic agenda wholesale. Thus, there is no Cyclic epic in which crucial events are decided by a miraculous phenomenon. The daughters of Anius feed the entire Achaean army, but their function is subordinated to the Palamedes-Odysseus conflict. The fall of Troy requires the stealing of the Palladium but does not cancel the stratagem of the Wooden Horse.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

(iv) a strongly episodic nature.31 To use a telling example, in an alternative version of Odysseus’ return as reconstructed by Odysseus’ false tales, we can still discern traces of the three aspects of ‘Proto-Panhellenic’ cyclic epic as described above: a visit to Thesprotia, the use of poisonous arrows by Odysseus for killing the suitors, a Phoenician cheat, and narrative linearity with the various selfcontained episodes of his wanderings involving heroes and/or armies coming from different places. Thus, it is plausible that cyclic poetry is an early manifestation of the phenomenon of Panhellenism, occupying the middle ground between ‘Pre-Panhellenic’ song-traditions and the full-blown Panhellenic Homeric epics.

. Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry Whereas Neoanalysis has stressed that motif transference ‘the secondary Homeric reflection of a primary specific motif that exists in oral traditions’32 is a touchstone of Homeric poetics, Oral Theory has time and again emphasized that motifs and themes are typical and to that extent the very idea of priority becomes pointless. This is a rather thorny issue, both because the dichotomy between originality and typology has been treated as absolute and rigid and because both schools of thought have opted, at least at some point in the history of their development, for a kind of interpretive orthodoxy that leaves little, if any, room for significant and self-critical reappraisals.33 My analysis will take the form of a careful consideration of a list of criteria that I consider appropriate  31 Welcker (18822, 2.235–236) had drawn the line between chronographic epic (Cypria and Ilias parva) and dramatic epic (Aethiopis and Iliou persis), the former being a loose concatenation of various episodes with only a broad thematic unity and various protagonists, the latter concentrating on a limited space and time and a single character (Achilles) or episode (sack of Troy). According to this line of interpretation, the Nostoi (see Bethe 1922, 277) represent a combination of these two types of classification (chronographic and dramatic), since they are marked by ring-composition with respect to their structure (they begin and end with the Atreidai) and by the so-called ‘interlace technique’, i.e. that of interweaving parallel storylines. The Telegony may also be considered as oscillating between chronographic epic (in the sense that it is not limited to a single place and time) and dramatic epic in the manner of the Aethiopis (focusing on a single hero, Odysseus). All Cyclic epics, whether chronographic or dramatic, display an episodic nature. See Rengakos 2015a, 154–163. 32 Burgess 2006, 161. 33 Notable exceptions: Kullmann 1984, 307–323 (= 1992, 140–155); Burgess 2001; 2006; Currie 2006; Marks 2008; Tsagalis 2008.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis for dealing with the matter at hand, and then of a critical discussion of the notion of ‘metacyclic’ with respect to Homeric poetry at large.34 The criteria for discussing issues pertaining to arguments about the limits and limitations of typology are the following:

.. Limited Repetition Repetition is not in itself a feature pertaining solely to typical structures, for it permeates both traditional and non-traditional storytelling, oral and written alike. Limited repetition of motifs or themes is often significant. Pairing of elements points to stronger correspondence by decreasing the level of systemic coincidence which is endemic in typical structures. The fact that only Achilles in the Iliad and Memnon in the Aethiopis possess a suit of armor made by Hephaestus cannot be either accidental or typical. This is obvious from both the fact that other heroes have special weapons (Philoctetes has the bow of Heracles, Rhesus has magnificent horses, Achilles has horses with speaking abilities), but not a Hephaestus-made armor, and also because the fates of Achilles and Memnon are intricately entwined.

.. Weaker and Stronger Aspects within an Associative Mechanism We must distinguish between parallel and derivative (or anticipatory) doublets. With respect to the former, their duplication is not meaningful or significant but symptomatic. For example, in his longest false tale to Eumaeus in Od. 14, Odysseus the storyteller tells the swineherd that he was twice deceived by Phoenician and Thesprotian pirates. This doublet is a result of the use of a typical motif that is reiterated in the process of the false tale as it belongs to the larger narrative pattern ‘Double Salvation at Sea and on Shore of a Man Returning Home’. Conversely, in the case of derivative (anticipatory) doublets,35 one of the two elements is more peripheral to the semantical nucleus of the doublet, while the other is central and constitutes the target at which the association aims. Although the very idea of a doublet points to reiteration, there are at least two criteria that can help us examine the possibility of a relationship between them:

 34 On the term ‘metacyclic’, see Finkelberg 1998, 154–155; 2002, 160; 2003, 79. 35 Fenik 1968, 213–214; Edwards 1987, 50–51; 1991, 19–20.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

(i) the distinction between weaker and stronger aspects,36 and (ii) the relative importance of each of the elements of the doublet in the overall structure of an episode or epic. Let us look at the following example which has been time and again discussed in the past.37 The flame burning around the heads of Diomedes (Il. 5.4–8) and Achilles (Il. 18.205–214, 225–227) is not an accidental phenomenon but may well indicate a deeper association, since both of the above criteria are met: (i) Diomedes represents the weaker aspect, for the appearance of the flame above his head is used at the beginning of his aristeia in Book 5 that will have no significant result for the Iliad, whereas Achilles’ flame is used before his entrance to battle, which will lead to the death of Hector and will bring the Iliad to its destined end. Achilles is undoubtedly the stronger aspect of this associative mechanism, the ‘end’ — so to speak — at which the doublet aims.38 (ii) Apart from the fact that the link between Diomedes and Achilles is indeed extensive in the entire poem,39 the significance of Achilles for the Iliad is by far greater than that of Diomedes, a hero belonging to the core of the Theban tradition of the Epigonoi who has been ‘imported’ to the myth of the Trojan War and who, though a first-rank hero, is not directly linked to the theme of µῆνις.

.. Narrative Inconsistency Narrative fissures are often due to motif-transference from a context, in which they were primary and organically linked to the whole, to a new context where they have been adapted. Motifs are, when seen within the whole system of epic song-making, typical but through a process of structuration they can become specific, i.e. be tied to certain characters and actions. In other words, they are diachronically typical but synchronically specific. As such, their transference from a context where they are primary to a context where they are secondary

 36 See Olrik 1992, 97 § 157: ‘[…] it may also happen that a narrator imitates already existing ones out of his desire to create new episodes. In this way a derived doublet comes into existence, whose characteristic feature will be that throughout it is weaker than its model’. 37 Schoeck 1961, 75–80; Alden 2000, 169–175; see also Burgess 2006, 157 and n. 22: ‘Trojans explicitly compare the two at 6.96–101. Their prayer that Diomedes will fall at the Scaean gates at 6.306–307 could be an allusion to Achilles’ fate’. 38 I am not arguing that the motif ‘Flame about a Hero’s Head’ was used in the Theban or another oral tradition and was taken by the Iliad from there. On the contrary, the motif was reduplicated to be used peripherally for Diomedes within the context of his being a mirror of Achilles in the early parts of the Iliad. 39 See Wehr 2015, 15–48.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis often results in narrative dysfluencies.40 Thus, narrative inconsistencies in Od. 19.96–604 can be explained as a result of the adaptation of scenes and sequences from an earlier poem about Odysseus. In this poem Penelope herself washed Odysseus’s feet and not Eurycleia (Odyssey), then recognized her husband, plotted with him the killing of the suitors, and started to execute this plan by proposing the contest of the bow. In this way, dysfluencies like that of Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus having no consequence for the plot and the rather awkward fact of Penelope not recognizing the clothes of Odysseus, since they are part of a narrative set in the past, have resulted from the adaptation of material employed in an earlier epic tradition featuring an equivalent episode but with a radical shift in meaning.41

.. Intertextuality Given that there are stronger and weaker forms of intertextuality,42 allusive interaction between poetic versions is very much at work within epic songtraditions. This referencing can take the form of: (a) quotation of the source, which involves close and significant correspondence between two versions43 and is often expressed in poetological terms, i.e. the source is acknowledged not through verbal repetition or correspondence but by means of paying tribute to its existence as a distinct and identifiable poetic tradition:44 Ἀργὼ πᾶσι µέλουσα in Od. 12.70 (*Argonautica),45 στυγερή ἀοιδή in Od. 24.200 (*Nostoi). (b) Explicit or implicit references that amount to orientation of the audience towards recognizable song-traditions: when Diomedes (Il. 5.115–120) asks for the assistance of Athena who has helped his father Tydeus in the past,46 so that he may kill his opponent who boasts that he will put Diomedes to death, the audience would easily recall that Tydeus’ cannibalism in the Thebais may have been triggered by similar reasons.47 Tiresias’ prophecy that Odysseus will be finally free from suffering when he appeases the wrath of Poseidon by wandering with an oar on his shoulder in a land where people do not know of the sea in Od. 11.100–137 (=  40 See Rutherford 1996, 71; Currie 2006, 7. 41 Danek 1998, 41–71; Currie 2006, 16–20. 42 On intertextuality in Homeric epic, see Tsagalis 2008; 2011b, 413–414. 43 Currie 2006, 6; 2016, 47–55. 44 In this respect my classification is slightly different from that of Currie (2006, 6). 45 The phrase πᾶσι µέλουσα clearly indicates poetry that is widely sung. 46 An event of which the audience has been reminded in Il. 4.390. 47 See Torres-Guerra 1995, 59; Kullmann 2002a, 168.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

23.263–287) keys the audience to an oral epic tradition whose plot is the continuation of Odysseus’ saga after the end of the Odyssey and which is partly reflected in the Cyclic Telegony by Eugammon of Cyrene.48 (c) Epic self-reflexive tendencies, i.e. meta-traditional intertextuality: Helen’s reference to her own self as the subject of future song (Il. 6.357–358) and Agamemnon’s designation of the Odyssey as a χαρίεσσα ἀοιδή (Od. 24.197–198) constitute self-referential comments of the Homeric epics within the wider framework of oral songtraditions. (d) Implicit allusion to alternative versions of a given song-tradition which are not attested independently: the alternative Odyssey(s) lying behind the false tales of Odysseus and some other passages scattered here and there throughout the Odyssey allude to rival versions of the hero’s return.49 (e) Inversion of the source, in which the text- or tradition-receiver uses a source and turns it on its head: the Theban tradition of attacking a walled city has been employed by the Iliad so as to reverse aggressors and defenders. While there is hardly a siege of Troy since the Trojan army constantly exits the city and fights in the plain, the motif is inverted by means of the siege of the Achaean Wall by the Trojans. In this way, the Achaeans who are attacking Troy are turned into defenders, as they struggle to save their ships. Briseis may be a mirror of Helen as presented in the Epic Cycle at large but the Iliad partly inverts the context within which she functions: while Helen is the cause of the Trojan War between two peoples (Achaeans and Trojans), Briseis does the very same thing but within the Achaean army. (f) Parody of the source: the lion simile in Od. 6.130–136, in which Odysseus who tries to hide his nakedness with a branch is compared to a lion ready to attack sheep or cattle because it is forced by hunger (κέλεται δὲ ἑ γαστήρ), plays with an Iliadic lion simile (12.299–306), in which the formula κέλεται δὲ ἑ θυµὸς ἀγήνωρ is appropriately used for the carnivorous appetite of the lion. The fact that this parody works only for us as external audience reinforces the likelihood that it is an Iliadic resonance. For the internal audience of Nausicaa and her maids it is shockingly realistic.50 (g) Diachronically diffused associations between Homer and non-identifiable traditions reconstructed by the exploration of older Indo-European or Near Eastern strata: this is the weakest form of intertextuality, which many scholars would simply degrade to the level of a resonance. But the fact that we are not able to determine the specific poetic tradition from which the source stems should not deter us from treating this as a

 48 See Tsagalis 2008, 63–90. 49 On this topic, see Hölscher 19903 passim; van Thiel 1988; Schwinge 1993; Danek 1998. 50 See Rutherford 2001, 139–140.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis form of interactive evocation,51 a less strong form of allusive reference that refuses reference.52 The meaning of the formula νυκτὸς ἀµολγῷ53 may represent a diachronically diffused association that does not belong to a single text or tradition but can be reconstructed by means of various attestations of the mythical context from which it has originated as reflected in different Indo-European and partly Near-Eastern traditions. In this case, what Homeric epic ‘refuses’ is not the reference but its acknowledgment. (h) Window of allusion,54 in which an allusive reference points first to a given tradition (A) and then, through this tradition, to other older ones (B), parts of which have made their way into (A). The Thesprotia episode that recurs in Odysseus’ false tales passes through the ‘window’ of an alternative epic on Odysseus’ return and leads to epichoric traditions on Odysseus’ wanderings extending in a south-north Western Greek axis. Odysseus’ visit to the Underworld points to Greek katabasis traditions (e.g. Heracles), which go back to older Near-Eastern traditions, one of which we can still trace in the Utnapishtim episode in the epic of Gilgamesh.

.. Bifurcation or Splitting of the Source According to this Homeric technique, ‘the qualities of one character are split and distributed among two other parallel characters’.55 Bifurcation or splitting of the source can be either internal or external. The splitting and distribution of certain features of Achilles to the two second-best Achaean warriors, Diomedes and Ajax the Telamonian, is an example of internal bifurcation or splitting as it does not stem from an external source. On the other hand, two famous cases of external bifurcation or splitting are the following: ‘Memnon in the *Memnonis (Aethiopis) is reflected on both Hector and Sarpedon in the Iliad’.56 The CalypsoCirce doublet is the result of the split and subsequent distribution of qualities pertaining to the goddess Siduri in the epic of Gilgamesh (concealment through  51 On relevant terminology, see Currie 2016, 33–36. 52 Currie 2006, 7. 53 See Tsagalis 2003, 5–40 (= 2008, 153–187). 54 On the various types of allusion, see Thomas 1986, 171–198. 55 Louden 2006, 317 s.v. ‘bifurcation’. 56 Currie 2006, 38 and n. 167 and 2016, 55–67. Memnon-Hector (both kill Achilles’ best friend and are subsequently killed by Achilles; both are wearing at the moment of their fatal duel with Achilles a Hephaestus-made armor); Memnon-Sarpedon (their bodies are removed from the battlefield by Dawn and Hypnos and Thanatos respectively. Differently, Burgess 1997, 1–19; West 2003c, 1–14; Allan 2005, 1–16; Burgess 2009, 76–81.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

clothing — Calypso meaning ‘the Concealed’ and knowledge about the Underworld — Circe).57

.. Versioning By ‘versioning’ I define the creation and storing of a personal contribution within a given version or a hint to present performance. Versioning can take the following forms: (a) epic hesitation in the form of rhetorical questions: when the singer hesitates about how to begin a catalogue or narrative, he is employing what seems to be a completely traditional technique of rhetorical questions pertaining to the order in which he should present his material (‘whom should I mention first? Whom should I mention last?’). The strongly metaleptic effect of this mechanism is at the same time a ‘recording’ of the bard’s own process of delivering his song, but it has become during the shaping of Homeric poetry a typical device that is embedded, so to speak, in the system of traditional epic. At some stage in the process of the creation and shaping of Homeric song it may have represented an original feature of certain performances, the more so since it would signal to the audience that this specific singer is pointing to other versions of a given catalogue that his listeners had heard before, presumably by another bard. (b) If-not situations (Beinahe Episoden),58 in which the singer moves away from the predetermined course of the plot and seems to endorse a different approach. Whether we are dealing with entire episodes or the simpler contrary-to-fact conditionals (καί νύ κεν / ἔνθά κεν … εἰ µή / ἀλλά…) the emphasis lies on what has been coined ‘suspense of anticipation’. Apart from the dramatic effect of this narrative mechanism, the bards may have used this device to remind their audience of the constraints imposed by the core of the Trojan War saga which simply excluded certain options. The continuation of the unraveling of the epic’s plot is then presented through the lens of an alternative course of events that is never materialized. By creating and then annulling the illusion of a different outcome, the bards covertly reminded the audience of their being part of a system of rules allowing them only a partial shaping of the plot. (c) Ending a catalogue: the point at which the singer decides to stop a catalogue or list may be still seen in certain Homeric examples. In the catalogue of Nereids in Iliad 18 the final line (18.49: ἄλλαι θ’ αἳ κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν) points to the singer’s choice to select only a given number of Nereids from the stock of  57 On Calypso and Siduri, see Crane 1988, 131 and 134 n. 20 with further bibliography. 58 See Nesselrath 1992.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis names he is aware of and to indicate when he wants his list to be over.59 (d) Acknowledgment of the bard’s limited capacities: what seems a typical feature of Homeric poetry, i.e. the inability of the singer to remember the past without the help of the Muses, is at the same time a sophisticated way of avoiding blame for his performance. His ‘inability’ to recall the names and leaders of the Achaeans and Trojans makes more sense if seen within the framework of his concern for a positive reception by the audience. Such remarks have become crystallized as traditional rhetorical mechanisms of epic diction, but they reflect the very politics of the performance and as such contain in fossilized form features pertaining to individual contributions made by the singers. (e) Indirect reference to the present performance that is included in the totality of previous performances:60 the use of ἡµεῖς in Il. 2.486, µοι in Od. 1.1 and καὶ ἡµῖν in Od. 1.10 indicates that the present performance, though distinct and particular, belongs to a sum of previous performances by multiple bards. With respect to Il. 2.486, the here-and-now of the actual performance will soon (Il. 2.488–493) become evident by means of the first-person verbal forms (µυθήσοµαι, ὀνοµήνω, ἐρέω), the dative of the personal pronoun (µοι that is used twice), and by the indexicality of the particle αὖ (again, now).61 In the case of καὶ ἡµῖν in Od. 1.10, the bard may be simply saying that he asks the Muse to tell the story of Odysseus to him and his audience here-and-now. The enigmatic καί (‘too’) may, in my view, point to the actual performance (‘tell us too, as you have told others’, i.e. bards and audiences).62 (f) Covert allusion to different kinds of audiences by means of presenting contrasting models of an internal audience:63 given that Eumaeus and Alcinoos as internal audiences of Odysseus’ tales are so markedly different and that Odysseus has the opportunity to experience as an internal audience of Demodocus’ songs the fame he has already acquired as a hero of the Trojan War,64 it is not unthinkable that the Odyssey has internalized a variety of its own perfor-

 59 On this verse, see the pertinent observations of Kakridis 1949, 75. Differently Edwards 1991, 150; cf. Tsagalis 2010, 325 n. 6. 60 Nagy 1997, 188–189. 61 See Bonifazi 2008, 35–64. 62 Differently Bakker 2009, 134, who takes ‘too’ as indicating ‘in addition to Odysseus’, because the events narrated in the proem are the adventures of Odysseus as told by Odysseus. Apart from the fact that only a single adventure is mentioned (Thrinacia), it would be very awkward to ask the Muse for a singing ability which she will give to Odysseus only after the completion of 8 Books. Moreover, if that was the case, then the bard would not have asked for divine help with respect to narrating the rest of the Odyssey. 63 Louden 1999, 60. 64 Murnaghan 1987, 153.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

mance conditions. Different categories of audiences and circumstances of performance have been, therefore, filtered in and become a significant part of the poem’s agenda. In this light, the second-person apostrophe to Eumaeus may designate him ‘as a significant internal audience’.65

.. Explanation of Events by Reference to Fate or Divine Will This may be a sophisticated way that the system of epic song has developed, in order to refer to its avowal (κατὰ µοῖραν) or disavowal (ὑπὲρ µοῖραν) to tradition.66 Demodocus is asked by Odysseus to sing the story of the Trojan Horse κατὰ µοῖραν, which means ‘according to destiny’, i.e. according to the traditional version that epic song presented as the one prescribed by fate. On the contrary, when Poseidon intervenes so that Aeneas is saved, the audience (as well as Aeneas) are told that the Trojan’s death would have been ὑπὲρ µοῖραν (‘beyond destiny’), which means against the tradition determining that Aeneas will not die at Troy. Along the same lines, the ‘Will of Zeus’, which points to a preHomeric motif, has become in the Iliad synonymous with the largest part of the plot. The ‘Will of Zeus’ pertaining to the support he offers to the Trojans until the Achaeans realize how much they have insulted Achilles, is thus an alias of the Iliadic version of the theme of µῆνις.

.. Diachronic Skewing By diachronic skewing I define, following Nagy,67 ‘the ability and tendency of the medium of epic song to refer to itself in terms of earlier stages of its existence’. Thus, the presentation of Phemius and Demodocus in the Odyssey as performing their songs in the accompaniment of a stringed instrument (the κίθαρις or the φόρµιγξ) is at odds with the reduced melody and the lack of instrumental accompaniment that characterizes epic hexameter in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. In the words of Nagy, ‘just as the Homeric testimony about the performance of epic by singers at feasts belies the synchronic reality of the performance of epic by rhapsodes at Panhellenic festivals, so also the  65 Louden 1999, 62. 66 Pestalozzi 1945, 40; Kullmann 1956; Fränkel 19622, 62–64; Matthews 1976; Richardson 1990, 194; Nagy 19992, 40 and § 17 n. 2; Janko 1992, 6; Currie 2006, 7. 67 Nagy 1990a, 394 (= 2003, 39).

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis Homeric testimony about the singer’s singing to the accompaniment of the lyre belies the synchronic reality of the rhapsode’s reciting without any accompaniment at all’.68 In other words, the way Phemius and Demodocus are presented in the Odyssey ‘may be diachronically valid without being synchronically true’.69 Diachronic skewing can also create the illusion that it projects itself in time: one can see that in Il. 3.125–128, when Helen is described weaving a tapestry on which the deeds of the Achaeans and Trojans are depicted, the medium of epic song is embedding in its plot a proleptic reference to its future fame. The Trojan War and, by a slight inference, the Iliad have become poetry, i.e. they have been crystallized to such an extent that they cite themselves as future cultural creations. What Helen does is diachronically valid, though synchronically it is not. As it can be inferred from these two examples, the medium of epic song is able to ‘see’ itself within its diachronic evolution, by offering a glance to different stages of its history. Thus, a fifth-century audience listening to the Homeric epics would have realized that the Iliad and the Odyssey display even an awareness of the medium they belong to and the status they have, not only of the process of their own shaping.

.. Elliptical Reference and Traditional Referentiality The abbreviated and highly condensed nature of allusive references may be indicative of a telling gesture made by the singer to his audience, whose knowledge of other versions is assumed and put into use.70 In Il. 3.146–148, Tithonus is missing from the list of Trojan elders on the walls of Troy, because ‘Homer’ has changed the traditional simile based on the cicada-Tithonus imagery into a simile that is consonant with the Iliadic instead of the Aethiopic content of the epic.71 When the ellipsis of Tithonus’ name in the list of Trojan elders is combined with the simile of the cicadas a few lines later (Il. 3.151–152: ἐσθλοί, τεττίγεσσιν ἐοικότες οἵ τε καθ’ ὕλην/δενδρέῳ ἐφεζόμενοι ὄπα λειριόεσσαν ἱεῖσι), then it becomes clear that the singer is making a telling gesture to the audience: by assuming that they are aware of the transformation of endlessly ageing Tithonus into a cicada, he invites them to fill in the missing details and realize this carefully designed innuendo: what the elders do momentarily in the  68 Nagy 1990a, 24 (= 2003, 43). 69 Nagy 1990a, 394 (= 1996b, 20 n. 27 = 2003, 39). 70 Currie, 2006, 7. 71 Danek 2006, 66–67.

Criteria for Originality and the Metacyclic Nature of Homeric Poetry  

world of the simile (speaking like cicadas) Tithonus has been condemned to do for ever in real life. The term traditional referentiality has been used to describe the fact that formulaic expressions or themes acquire their full semantical potential when they are interpreted within a galaxy of signifiers reflecting the entirety of their uses within epic song. In the words of Foley: traditional referentiality […] entails the invoking of a context that is enormously larger and more echoic than the text or work itself, that brings the lifeblood of generations of poems and performances to the individual performance or text. Each element in the phraseology or narrative thematics stands not simply for that singular instance but for the plurality and multiformity that are beyond the reach of textuality.72

Traditional referentiality ‘makes notionally present what is dictionally absent, i.e. it makes the text yield to the tradition, the individual formula ‘return’ to the family of formulas from which it originated’.73 Seen from this angle, ellipsis can be seen as one of the main features of traditional referentiality. This point is further strengthened, if we take into account that traditional phraseology functions as an index to various manifestations (be it a character, an object, or an event) of a wholeness encompassing the entire tradition.74 In both cases, invoking an absent context is at work, the difference being what kind of context (a given tradition or the tradition at large) we envisage this to be. The aim of this detailed presentation was to map out as consistently as possible the metacyclic nature of Homeric epic, which employs mythological traditions and cyclic epic material to implement its full meaning on the one hand,75 and displays a self-awareness both with respect to its status and medium on the other. Such a highly interactive character and self-consciousness indicate that allusive intertextuality was indeed operating between gradually fixed performance traditions. In this vein, an oral, intertextual neoanalysis76 is possible, one allowing for active reprise or evocation by motif transference. Oral, intertextual neoanalysis favors the idea of creative interaction between oral epic traditions and highlights narrative fissures as markers discernible by the audience.77 There  72 Foley 1991, 7. 73 Tsagalis 2008, 188. 74 See the pars pro toto principle of Foley (1999, 20). 75 Burgess 2006, 149. 76 See Burgess 2006, 166–177. 77 Burgess 2006, 170. Interaction with other epic traditions is a basic parameter of artistic creativity, which an inspiration-oriented tradition amply uses. See Finkelberg (1990, 293–303), who draws the line between South Slavic and Greek epic traditions, arguing that while the

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis is, however, a necessary caveat, which may take the form of an important question: in a highly oral medium such as early Greek epic, are we allowed to speak of intentionality either in terms of a historically determined author or a developed poetic tradition? In other words, is oral intertextual neoanalysis a product of authorial (personal or tradition-oriented) intentionality or simply a product of the system of traditional oral song, even a means by which oral epic grew and shaped itself? This demanding but important issue I will now try to explore.

. The ‘cf.’ Dilemma: Multiplicity of Traces and Significant Allusion In an exemplary essay published some years ago, Don Fowler spoke about the ‘cf. theory’, which refers to the almost inherent obsession of our commentarymarked discipline to gather parallels.78 By adding the word ‘dilemma’ in the title of this subsection, I emphasize the importance of discussing the direction towards which parallels work, how they interact with the ‘text’ in question and create meaning. This question is further complicated by the fact that, like human beings, texts or oral traditions do not exist in isolation but have grown out of their interaction (‘reading’ in some sense) of other texts or traditions, for otherwise they would have been virtually incomprehensible. There is no conceptio immaculata with respect either to the creation or the interpretation of any form of literature. Having said this, I would like to consider the following scenario, which abides by my approach concerning the applicability of an oral, intertextual neoanalysis to Homeric epic. In tandem with this approach, the ‘cf. theory’ needs to be seen with respect to the dilemma between the multiplicity of traces left by earlier poetic traditions and the possibility of significant allusion. Of course, various constraints need to be taken into consideration: (a) the distinction between mythological and epic traditions, (b) the determination of criteria for evaluating different audiences, and (c) the performance context. (a) If allusion is widely employed in the case of Homeric poetry, how are we to decide whether it is a ‘generic’ or a ‘systemic’ feature working on the level of myth and not one pointing to specific epic traditions? This question is different from the one posed in the previous section in that this time it is not allusion that is questioned but its application. It is no novelty of course to argue that ancient  former ‘are premised on the authority of the tradition’, the latter ‘are premised on the authority of divine inspiration’ (302–303). 78 Fowler 2000, 116–117.

The ‘cf.’ Dilemma: Multiplicity of Traces and Significant Allusion  

audiences possessed a collective knowledge of myth that they brought to a performance. This undoubtable fact seems to undermine the claim that ancient audiences were able to recognize allusive references, but the apparent distinction between mythological traditions floating in various forms in specific epic traditions, though prima facie categorical and rigid, is a form of modus tollens. Since epic poetry had reached a level of wide diffusion, acceptance, and an unprecedented status in archaic Greece, it is not unthinkable that mythological traditions would have acquired the status of epic traditions. Members of the audience had been aware about the Meleager myth through various media (general storytelling, epic songs, lyric, perhaps vase-painting), but the way it is presented and used in the Iliad would have keyed the audience to an epic note, since an extended narrative about him would have acquired fame and status basically through epic storytelling, which means a diffused tradition about this Aetolian hero sung in dactylic hexameter poetry. To use an example based on modern experience, rock concerts don’t inspire intertextual thought of sonatas, even if an audience member knows both rock and Bach. The elliptical nature of the myth as presented in Iliad 9 and its deeply rooted connection to the situation of Achilles does not speak of a vestigial, multiform trace, but of a specific cross-reference to an oral epic about Meleager.79 (b) Multiplicity of audiences has almost led to the acceptance of varying degrees of audience familiarity with other traditions, as well as ‘different levels of ability and interest’.80 Although I am not against the idea of individual differences, I would like to suggest that there is a fundamental and indispensable level of familiarity with tradition that is based on what we often call ‘immersion’ of the listeners in epic poetry. The average listener of Homeric song did not need to be introduced by the singer either to the rules governing epic storytelling or to the particularities of heroic myth. Nor was there any need, as the Homeric poems themselves amply testify, to offer a summary of previous events or ex-

 79 This interpretation is further strengthened by the entry on the Aetolian contingent being led by Thoas in Il. 2.638–642. This is the only case in both the Catalogue of Ships and the Catalogue of Trojans and their Allies in which the storyteller goes off his way to explain why the contingent under presentation is headed by a particular leader and not by another one. It is highly likely that this could only make sense if the audience was expecting someone of Oeneus’ offspring, like Meleager, as leader of the Aetolian contingent. The singer is probably trying to anticipate and answer a possible question or complaint raised by members of the audience, who would have been surprised to see Thoas as leader of the Aetolians. This is an overt allusion to an oral epic about Oeneus and Meleager, the more so since they are designated as would be chief commanders of the Aetolian army. 80 Scodel 2002, 1–41; Burgess 2006, 173.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis plain numerous other details whose knowledge by the audience was taken for granted. Homeric epic systematically refrains from making distinctions between different levels of mythical material: with respect to familiarity, myth is regarded as uniform, since it is considered well-known in its entirety. Seen from this angle, the cumulative uniformity of the audience is not unthinkable at all. In fact, the homogeneity of myth bespeaks the homogeneity of the audience as far as its acquaintance with myth is concerned.81 (c) The performance context is a decisive factor for screening out the multiplicity of traces and consolidating the function of significant allusion. The practicalities of the performance, few of which are retrievable today, would have exercised substantial pressure on the interpretation of mythological traces employed in Homeric epic.82 A useful comparandum may be the example of a modern rock concert. Huge crowds, great enthusiasm that often is out of control, shouting and responding to the rock star’s gestures,83 lack of space between the numerous spectators, standing instead of seating, loud noise, casual or provocative dress-code followed by both the rock band and the spectators are some of the performative circumstances that function as generators and constraints of meaning: the provocative content of many rock songs is thus mirrored on the entire performance procedure and, by extension, on the audience itself. It does not really matter whether spectators belong to different social strata or educational levels. Performance context erases difference and absorbs variation, when the band appears on stage.84 I would like to argue that performance con-

 81 The same is the case with respect to the way Homeric epic presents bardic performance: lack of contamination, fiction of ultimate independence of the singer, evaluation of the narrative on the basis of the pleasure it offers, unsuspicious reception. All these factors indicate a homogeneous reaction of the audience qua performance. See Scodel 1998, 171–194. 82 See Zumthor 1990, 118: ‘The text of a fixed performance tends to immobilize its superficial reflections, to harden them into a thick shell surrounding an ancient storehouse, a precious deposit that warrants enclosure: we stand at attention for the national anthem; we go to church on Christmas Eve if we want to hear the midnight service. In the end, the poem remains incomprehensible outside the situation’. 83 On the ‘corporeal structuration’, see Zumthor 1990, 153–164. 84 See Zumthor (1990), who explores conventional performance situations, i.e. cyclical time whose rhythm is fixed by custom. Ritualized human events and normalized social time marked by strong periodicity would also have colored the function of oral song. When listening to a religious service in the church, we are, as long as the service lasts, attuned to this particular kind of religious poetry, not to our overall knowledge of Christian beliefs. Likewise, we prefer listening to rembetika in Modern Greece (something like the ‘blues’) in the traditional environment of a special kind of taverna and not in a concert hall. The re-enactment of an original performance conditions interpretive variation by creating strong associative mechanisms with

The ‘cf.’ Dilemma: Multiplicity of Traces and Significant Allusion  

text was even stronger in archaic Greece as far as epic songs are concerned. A symposium or a religious festival as the locus of the performance, the bard, the size of the poem, the unchanging tone of the dactylic hexameter, the musical accompaniment of the phorminx, the silence of the audience, the duration of the performance, and of course the status of epic song itself would have channelled mythical allusion towards other songs performed under similar conditions. As modern rock fans would be tuned to the specific musical universe of a rock festival and not to that of a classical concert (even if both were dealing with the same topic, say love), so ancient audiences would be keyed to a specific poetic note, when listening to an epic performance, and not to myth in general. Under such conditions, mythological reference equals oral intertextual reference, and oral intertextual reference becomes poetic allusion. Multiplicity of traces has been mainly conceived as defying the very idea of temporal relation with earlier and later texts, which means that it has been based on the ‘nuclear’ idea of lack of any sort of chronological linearity. But as is the case with diachronic skewing, the medium’s ability and tendency to refer to itself in terms of earlier phases of its own existence, there can also be intertextual/intertraditional skewing, i.e. the use of a motif that mutates within a given system but with respect to which we are able to discern specific, textual or tradition-dependent manifestations, which create the tendency for correlation and referencing. Multiplicity may, therefore, be redefined by means of a less rigid interpretation of its ever-expanding mutation, since it is progressively anchored, within the thematic universe of a given poetic or cultural tradition, to specific characters as they function in specific sagas.85 Mutation then becomes particularized, and the evolutionary process arrives at a turning point after which a motif becomes an integral part of an epic tradition which it marks with its own lasting imprint. Seeing oral epic storytelling as a system allows us to conceive of crossreferencing as an innate feature of the web of myth, whose interrelated fabrics  the content of this kind of songs. Within this framework, allusive references acquire a specific meaning. Human types, like the typical for rembetika drug addict, i.e. a socially marginalized individual, become familiar and comprehensible even by audiences belonging to very different social strata and being strongly opposed to the kind of living such decadent figures used to symbolize. 85 Multiplicity or multiformity of narrative themes is not incompatible in the case of Homeric epic with a thematic text-fixity. See Finkelberg (2000, 1–11), who offers a good discussion of this topic. Fluidity in wording and in the unnecessary narrative parts of the story leaves ample room for Lord’s ‘stable skeleton of narrative’ and Kullmann’s (1960, 12–13, 15, 185, 234–235, 361) Faktenkanon. See also Dowden 1996, 51–53.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis invite the audience to access the entire wealth of mythical variations. In other words, intertextuality, which need not be private, author-based, and literaryoriented cross-reference, is a systemic element of epic storytelling. However, there is an important aspect in the case of Homeric poetry, a qualitative difference from the rest of cyclic epic: motif-transference86 as one of the most significant forms of intertextuality pertains to the metacyclic nature of Homeric epic, since it influences its thematic core, it shapes its Weltanschauung, it affects the formation of its principle characters. Motif-transference is not an idiosyncratic aspect of oral intertextuality. It grows ‘out of the methods of comparison and “reflection” that were inherent in oral traditions and in everyday life itself’.87 At the same time it is not a secondary, coincidental, and casual feature of Homeric epic. Lying at the very heart of significant allusion, it is the trademark of its distinctive nature, the emblematic crowning of its qualitative supremacy over cyclic poetry.

. Tradition and the Question of Authorship One of the most complicated issues belonging to the core of the neoanalysisorality ‘dissension’ is centered on the question of whether it is the individual poet or the tradition that shapes Homeric epic. My approach to this issue tries to eschew extreme positions not because a ‘third way’ is generally preferable due to its in-built tendency to refrain from taking sides and adopting a compromising tone, but because, as I will attempt to show, it stems from a synthetic understanding of the exigencies of archaic Greek epic. Although singers are not entirely free to choose their own paths with respect to the unraveling of the plot,  86 Motif transference was widely employed in metacyclic, i.e. Homeric epic, and a certain type of it, indirect reflection (e.g. of the scale observed in Iliad Books 2–7) stamps the contextuality of the Iliad as intertextual per se. Pucci (1987) has suggested that the two Homeric poems share a symbiotic relationship in the sense that they are highly interactive, though in practice it is the Odyssey that is more reactive to the Iliad. Nagy adopts a viewpoint that is not difficult to reconcile with the insights of Pucci, who has rightly highlighted the element of rivalry between the two Homeric poems. According to Nagy, intertextuality between the Homeric (and also Hesiodic) traditions amounts to a long-term influence and creative responsiveness, during a period of evolution and continuous shaping. Intertextuality is a complex phenomenon, which permeates Homeric epic tradition. It needs to be studied not only horizontally with respect to Cyclic epic, as Burgess rightly argues, i.e. with a thematic widening of its scope, but also vertically, through a distinction of its various sub-categories. 87 Burgess 2006, 176. On the different, yet comparable, poetic techniques used in mythological paradigms and motif transference, see Burgess 2009, 68.

Tradition and the Question of Authorship  

and their ability for innovation is not unlimited, they nonetheless are the agency which reproduces the thematic structure of the epic and gives to it its distinctive, ‘individual’, and unique identity. Homeric epic embodies the tension between a gradual process of formation under the influence of one set of rules and constraints pertaining to the tradition of epic poetry at large, and another set of choices made by, what I would like to coin, ‘poetic agency’, a term that I will immediately explain. The vagueness of this term may seem deliberate, in order to avoid using the term ‘poet’ or ‘singer/bard’, which would betray some sort, at least, of commitment to the neoanalytical or orality-oriented camps. On the other hand, ‘poetic agency’ may be just what is needed, if we intend to accept that an authority or authorities, after having mastered and followed the set of rules imposed by the tradition, become(s) at a certain point another form of structure, one that is not imposed by the system of epic poetry but one that an internal ramification developed within the tradition imposes upon it.88 In this way, the ‘individuality’ or distinctiveness that is so characteristic of the neoanalytical credo is seen as stemming from an internal development of the tradition, but this internal development becomes so strong that it virtually imposes itself on it, although it has grown from it in the first place. The connection between deep structure and agency is a fundamental element of this theory, for it comprises a duality that cannot be conceived of apart and is — at the end of the day — a ‘duality of structure’.89 At a basic level, this means that poetic agency has shaped Homeric epic, but is at the same time constrained by it. Poetic agency and traditional structure cannot be analysed separately, as structures are created, maintained, and changed through poetic agency, while poetic agency acquires meaning only against the background of and as an internal development or a distinct part of the structure: after a certain point, the line of causality runs to both directions making it impossible to determine what is changing what. Homeric epic is both made by poetic agency, and at the same time furnishes the material and becomes the medium for the constitution of a given poetic agency. In tandem with these observations, I will examine the structuration of the system of Homeric poetry, i.e. the creative interaction between generative rules, constraints, and resources on the one hand and human agents whose activity

 88 See Niles (1999, 24) on the singer as ‘tradition-bearer’. 89 Thomas (1992, 39–40) argues in favor of an oral poet who works and corrects his song over a period of years. Stability is thus achieved, if the poet finally shapes his song in a way that satisfies him. There is indeed improvisation during his performances but there are different levels of improvisation, which do not prevent either creativity or stability.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis within the structure and in relation to the responsiveness of general phenomena (Panhellenism) are manifested in the structure by providing common frames of meaning. The set of rules, constraints, and resources does not simply allow poetic agency to create a new synthesis; it enables it. The structuration of Homeric epic aims to trace its compositional dialectics that represent a dynamic relationship within the ‘duality of structure’ described above. In contrast to the standard tension between individuality and plurality, author and tradition, I suggest that the evolution and shaping of Homeric songtraditions must be seen rather through a process of self-actualization than by means of the intervention of an external authority, the historical poet, who through the use of writing reappropriates the tradition for himself. On the other hand, when I argue that ‘tradition’ should be treated as a dynamic process and not a static artefact, I do not mean that ‘text-fixity’ cannot be realized orally,90 but that the inherent dynamism of the oral medium conditions and is conditioned by the degree of its actualization, i.e. by (i) its performative communication with the audience, (ii) its interaction with other epic song-traditions, (iii) its reaction to larger cultural phenomena, and (iv) the reasons explaining why Homeric diction is used the way it is.91 The gradual shaping of Homeric epic is determined by changes made by the bards, but this kind of ‘poetic agency’ represents the reaction and creative response of the medium to the four factors mentioned above. In the case of the Iliad and the Odyssey, I posit the following levels of selfactualization: (i) Performative communication with the audience: performer-audience interaction is a given for any form of oral performance and as such it is not particular to Homeric epic. On the other hand, the various elements that form a tradition may have become the locus of constant interaction between singer and audience.92 The gradual erasure or downplaying of local elements, the emphasis on a Panhellenic viewpoint (see above ‘The “cf.” Dilemma’), the conditioning or regularization of the performance under the ritualized framework of a festival or a Panhellenic event, the increasing demand for competence and rivalry are only  90 Text-fixity is not the necessary result of written composition. Just as there are written uniform texts and written multiform texts (see Finkelberg 2000, 9 who argues that this is the case with the Cypria), so oral uniform traditions (with respect to the stable skeleton of narrative themes or the Faktenkanon) and oral multiform traditions are also conceivable. 91 García 2002, 34–35. 92 Scodel (1996, 65–66) rightly argues that self-correction and stylized pseudo-spontaneity indicate that both fully extemporaneous (by skilled singers) and thoroughly rehearsed performances were possible.

Tradition and the Question of Authorship  

some of the aspects of this interaction. The emphasis given in the Odyssey on the presentation of singers and epic singing, as well as of storytelling in general, may well mirror a higher degree of self-awareness that is fully compatible with the emergence of a new context for performance, where competence would be a key factor. (ii) Interaction with other epic song-traditions: the famous Spiegelungseffekt of Homeric poetry stands at the crossroads of tradition and ‘poetic agency’. The constant evocation of and meaningful allusion to other oral epic traditions, mainly but not solely those of cyclic epic, is a manifestation of the inherent dynamism of Homeric epic. Dynamic and creative contact between epic traditions requires both the operation of a system of rules and resources for the activation of such mechanisms, and knowledgeable singers, who employ these rules and resources that they have mastered in the course of time. Thus, to the question concerning who or what reacted to other traditions or general cultural phenomena so as to shape Homeric epic, my answer is ‘the system of epic song in its dual structure’, the set of rules, constraints and resources called ‘tradition’, and the poetic agents of this system, called ‘singer’, ‘bard’ or, with the caveats described above, ‘poet’.93 (iii) Reaction to larger cultural phenomena: the phenomenon of Panhellenism in its various manifestations and through its globalizing impact reinforced the diffusion of traditions endorsing a Panhellenic viewpoint. This approach is, I am afraid, one-sided, for it treats Panhellenism only as an external factor modifying and fixing Homeric epic. But if we posit (see above) a first phase of Panhellenism (‘Proto-Panhellenism’)94 that is reflected in oral cyclic traditions, then we see that Homeric epic, which belongs to a second, more mature phase in the development of the Panhellenic phenomenon, becomes itself a remarkable manifestation of Panhellenism and a means for its further stratification.95 In

 93 For a similar observation on the basis of breaches in the formulaic system of Homeric poetry, see Finkelberg 2012: ‘it is probable, then, that quite a few breaches in formulaic economy were due to the poet’s intention to express something for which his tradition has provided no ready-made solution. This testifies to the fact that the individual poet cannot be regarded as in every respect identical to the system of formulaic diction: rather than acting as a passive medium of his tradition he employs this tradition ad hoc in his own idiosyncratic manner’. 94 See Marks 2008, 102–103. 95 An equivalent, mutatis mutandis, phenomenon may be seen in the transition of the eighth/ seventh-century Panionia to the sixth-century Delia, and then the early sixth-century Panathenaea and the later fifth-century Panathenaea with respect to the performance of Homeric poetry. On this topic, see Murray 19344, 191–192; Durante 1957, 106 n. 44 and 1976, 197 n. 2; Frame 2009, 553 n. 97; Nagy 2010, 18–27, 50–58, 69–73.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis other words, I would argue for a dynamic interaction between Panhellenism and Homeric epic, comprising two phases: in the first early phase, poetic agents react to Panhellenism (mainly but not solely manifested in oral cyclic traditions) and shape Homeric epic so as to acquire strong and distinctive Panhellenic aspects (but without complete removal of local elements), whereas in the second phase, the modified set of rules, constraints, and resources of Homeric epic becomes the mouthpiece of the Panhellenic perspective. (iv) The reasons explaining why Homeric diction is used the way it is: the study of dialect mixture in early Greek epigram has shown that there was such a widespread substitution of local forms by their epic equivalents even when there was no metrical reason, that it is fair to argue that ‘though meter plays a role in the arrangement and patterning of poetic diction, it cannot be said to motivate the diction per se’.96 If what has been observed in the case of metrical inscriptions can be extended to Homeric epic, then it becomes obvious that metrical rules and constraints can neither explain the basically epicized Ionic dialect of the Homeric poems nor can they tell us why the compulsion to use the dactylic hexameter did not result in the substitution of all local forms, archaisms, and loan words. Poetic agency (in the way I have defined it above), i.e. as reflecting a different part of the structure of oral song, may have conditioned the extent to which linguistic variation would be used. Archaisms or local forms may have been employed by the bards within the ritual context of the performance so as to index specific situations.97 The language of the gods in Homeric epic, to use a representative example, does not simply hint to the gulf separating the divine from the human world, but covertly attests to the role of poetic agency in using linguistic variation in this marked form of ritual speech. Marking a situation as special may well be the outcome of the singer’s contribution to the performance.

. Degrees of Orality The discussion about orality and literacy in Homeric epic has taken until now the form of two different, yet complementary questions: (a) is our Iliad and Odyssey the result of the use of alphabetic writing either as a means for a different kind of composition or on the basis of the dictation theory? Or, put differently, are we allowed to talk about orally derived texts that have been standardized  96 García 2002, 34. 97 See García 2002, 50–53.

Degrees of Orality  

and shaped by writing? (b) Is it possible that in the case of Homeric poetry we are facing a complex situation and that it is more productive to speak of different levels of orality sharing some of the standard features of written literature? This is, of course, a topic that exceeds by far the scope and limits of the theoretical considerations presented in this study. In this light, the sole aim of this section will be a brief discussion of different levels of orality and their relation to literacy. I, therefore, posit two degrees of orality that increasingly share more common features with literate texts.98 Tab. 1: Undeveloped Orality.

1.

practically no textuality (limited diffusion, no self-awareness and crossreferencing) 2. text-fluidity 3. mechanical repetition of dictional elements 4. rigidness of formulas, lack of expansion or mutation 5. symptomatic reuse of material featuring in other fluid traditions 6. lack of self-awareness of the medium 7. no reference to performance conditions In the first steps of the evolution of oral epic traditions, the lack of a coherent set of rules, constraints, and resources due to the underdevelopment of the medium and the instability of performance conditions would have resulted in both high degrees of fluidity with respect to certain features and in low degrees of sophistication with respect to the operation of internal structures. In this kind of orality, there is yet no developed system of oral song, but only loose performance contexts, mechanical use of repetition, and absence of a sense of cohesion of the tradition. In the process of time, orality evolves as performance contexts become more stable, singers get better by being trained by other singers, proliferation and diffusion of epic song creates higher expectations by more trained audiences, and the medium begins to shape itself by more profound processes of selfactualization. This developed form of orality, which will experience the advent of literacy in the Archaic Period, may have acquired independently certain features

 98 I am not talking about types of orality in the text, on which see Oesterreicher 1997, 190–214. I am discussing levels of orality in an oral medium like traditional epic poetry sung or recited in performance.

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis that literacy itself also developed.99 According to my approach, it would not make sense to assume both that orality did not evolve in the process of time and that the introduction of alphabetic writing led so quickly to a level of sophistication just by the use of a new medium.100 In the case of developed orality, most (but not all) of the constituent markers of (developed) literacy may have been shaped.101 Tab. 2: Characteristics of Developed Orality and Literacy. Developed Orality

Literacy

. textuality

. textuality . textification

. text-fixity (potential)

. text-fixity (potential)

. symmetrical organization

. symmetrical organization

(microstructure)102 . authentic linguistic variation (within the system)

(macrostructure) . simulated orality (borrowed variation)

. oral cross-referencing

. written cross-referencing

. self-awareness of the medium

. self-awareness of the medium

. reference to performance conditions

. reference to the act of writing

 99 See Thomas 1992, 49: ‘writing in the eighth and seventh centuries probably merely duplicated orally composed poetry than cutting it dead’. 100 This argument is outmoded. Sophistication, like text-fixity, is not the necessary outcome of written composition. 101 See Thomas 1992, 30, who rightly argued that ‘literacy and orality are flexible and highly variable in their manifestations, indeed that we should blur the line usually drawn between ‘literate’ and ‘oral’ and examine their interpenetration’. She also observes that ‘[d]iscussion of orality is still often too generalized, uncritical, and woolly, the alleged character of ‘orality’ surprisingly often a matter of faith rather than evidence’. Ong’s (1982, 37–57) list of various properties of orally based thought and expression seems to me off the mark, if seen as drawing the line between orality and literacy. Most of the properties he discussed are also observable in written literature and some of his generalizations are not true for oral traditions. Additive style is not, for example, restricted to oral cultures nor is it true that ‘oral culture has no vehicle so neutral as a list’ (1982, 42). Is Proclus’ additive style typical of an oral culture or what about the list of Nereids in Il. 18.39–48, who are not presented in the process of some activity like the Greek leaders in the Catalogue of Ships? Such features cannot be used as an argument for orality, in the same way that formulaic style is not the definitive proof or orality, since (as noted above) there are non-formulaic oral traditions as there are formulaic written poems. See Thomas 1992, 40–44. 102 On the symmetrical organization on the micro- and macro-level with respect to Homeric epic as markers of orality and literacy, see Gordesiani 1986, 26–67.

Degrees of Orality  

These observations, which are readily applicable to a special kind of epic song such as Homeric epic, show that different degrees of orality can explain even the most elaborate features of the Iliad and the Odyssey. The advent of literacy was no doubt a very important cultural event; it must be evaluated, though, within the wider matrix of cultural changes that shaped archaic Greece and not as the watershed for a profound internal development of early epic poetry.103 Orality and literacy coexisted for a very long period by following parallel routes.104 The eclipse of the former, at least as a means for performing poetry, happened much later, under very different political, social, and cultural circumstances.105 It was then that the almost residual orality106 of Greek epic traditions was replaced by textification, even a belated one.107

 103 See Scodel 1996, 62: ‘it seems very unlikely that writing, in the archaic period, was an important medium for the transmission and reception of poetry on an everyday basis. It may not have been very central to composition either. But it can hardly fail to have had an effect as a way to stabilize and preserve texts, to protect them from tampering and guarantee them. The various stories about early texts being dedicated in temples — Hesiod and the Theogony, the Book of Heraclitus — point in this direction’. 104 See Thomas 1992, 48. On orality’s tenaciousness, see Ong 1982, 115–116. 105 See Nagy 1996b, 110 (periods 3 and 4 of his evolutionary model). 106 See Havelock 1982 and 1986, who argued that Greek society was principally oral down to the fourth century BC. 107 I have borrowed the term ‘residual orality’ from Tziovas 1989, 321–335. On the enormous ‘oral residue’ of primary oral and early literate cultures, see Ong (1982, 69–71), who argues that outsized heroic figures (or bizarre beings) are generated because it is with them that oral memory works effectively. The choice, though, between the typified heroic figures of Homeric epic instead of bizarre or exotic beings that would have been equally memorable is an internal one, i.e. produced by the particular nature of Homeric epic and not one imposed by oral memory at large.

 Detextualizing Homer: Intonation Units, Background Knowledge, and the Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey The proems1 of the Iliad and the Odyssey have attracted much scholarly attention2 with respect to both their similarities and differences and their sufficiency, i.e. their appropriateness as introductions to the two epics respectively. The aim of this study is to briefly reconsider the similarities between the two proems from the interpretive angle of Oral Poetics, and in particular through discourse analysis. Discourse analysis, I will argue, is able to shed light on matters concerning the relation between the Iliadic and the Odyssean proems not in terms of a more or less sophisticated imitation of the former by the latter but as manifestations of the kind of discourse Homer is, i.e. as special speech.

. Structure Even a cursory reading of the two proems reveals multiple resemblances in word-order and syntax. This striking likeness can be exemplified if we focus our attention on the following features: 1. The very first word (the accusative of a non-proper name used as the object of the main verb) of both proems describes the main epic theme (μῆνιν – ἄνδρα). 2. There is a divine invocation of an anonymous female deity, the Muse of epic poetry in the very first line (θεά – Μοῦσα). 3. The basic epic theme which was denoted by the proems’ first word is modified by a four-syllable word that stands in apposition (οὐλομένην – πολύτροπον). 4. This adjective is used as a starting point for further elaboration and is expanded by a relative clause (ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκε – ὃς μάλα πολλὰ |

 1 On how Greek and Roman poems begin, see Romeo 1985; Race 1992, 13–38. 2 The secondary literature on the proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey is vast. For the proem of the Iliad, see especially Griffin 1980, 118–119; Kirk 1985, 51–53; Latacz 19973 [1985], 98–104; 2000, 11–23. For the proem of the Odyssey, the best studies include: Basset 1923, 339–348; van Groningen 1946, 279–294; Rüter 1969, 28–52; Clay 1976, 313–326; Lenz 1980, 49–64; Clay 1983, 9–53; Dimock 1989, 5–12; Ford 1992, 18–31; Pedrick 1992, 39–62; Walsh 1995, 392–403 [385– 410]; Pucci 1998, 11–29; de Jong 2001, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-002

Structure  

5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

πλάγχθη) adding more information about the initial theme (μῆνιν – ἄνδρα) and the way it has been characterized by the two four-syllable words (οὐλομένην – πολύτροπον).3 The relative clauses are further elaborated by δέ-clauses, three in the Iliadic proem (πολλὰς δ᾿… | ἡρώων. αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια … | οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι· Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή), two in the Odyssean (πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀνθρώπων … ἔγνω, | πολλὰ δ᾿ ὅ γ᾿ ἐν πόντῳ … θυμόν). In both proems the vastness of the topic of each poem is systematically underscored through the use of adjectives modifying certain aspects of the main epic theme (μυρί᾿ … ἄλγε᾿, πολλὰς δ᾿ ἰφθίμους – πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα, πολλὰ … ἄλγεα). Both proems emphatically indicate that the woes to be described are linked to the epic’s principal topic (ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκε – πάθεν ἄλγεα). Some form of ring-composition4 can be detected in both proems. This is more obvious in the Odyssey (μοι ἔννεπε Mοῦσα – θεά, εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν), where one can trace both the existence of an internal ring-composition pattern with respect to the order of the elements constituting the external ringcomposition (A: [dative of personal pronoun – μοι], B: [verb – ἔννεπε], C: [vocative of invocation – Mοῦσα]/ C: [vocative of invocation – θεά] B: [verb – εἰπέ], A: [dative of personal pronoun - ἡμῖν]), and the transition from singular (μοι) to plural (ἡμῖν). In the Iliad, the ring-composition pattern is less obvious, but still the verse μῆνιν … Ἀχιλῆος is linked to ἐρίσαντε … Ἀχιλλεύς. In both proems a god is involved (Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή – Ὑπερίονος Ἠελίοιο … ὁ τοῖσιν ἀφείλετο νόστιμον ἦμαρ). Both proems presuppose a general familiarity with the epic tradition.5 The audience could easily locate Achilles’ wrath in the tenth year of the Trojan War and, likewise, the reference to πολύτροπος ἀνήρ would make Odysseus emerge at once in the listeners’ mind.6 In both proems one can easily notice the speed with which the poet brings the audience to the beginning of his tale.7 In both proems, there is an effort to determine a departure point for the unraveling of the plot (ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα- τῶν ἁμόθεν γε).

 3 Cf. Bassett 1923, 340. 4 On ring-composition, see van Otterlo 1944; Gaisser 1969a, 1–43; Lohmann 1970, 12–30; Thalmann 1984, 8–12; Edwards 1991, 44–48. 5 West 1988, 67. 6 Bassett 1923, 341. 7 Bassett 1923, 339.

  Detextualizing Homer

. Homeric Discourse and Epic Openings These similarities have been until now examined in a linear manner: the Odyssey poet, composing his song after his Iliadic counterpart, used the proem of the Iliad as his model ‘attempting an exercise of auxesis upon the Iliadic pattern’.8 Such an approach presupposes not only that the Odyssey postdates the Iliad, but also, and more importantly, that both the Iliad and the Odyssey are fixed texts in the modern sense of the word and that they are tightly linked to a fixed chronology, which represents their literary birth. Oral Poetics adopts a different stance, one that examines what we call the Iliad and the Odyssey not as texts composed by writing and, consequently, tied to a fixed date, but as oral compositions representing rival poetic traditions that coexist and grow parallelly during the Archaic Period. In addition, formal characteristics (as those listed above) are not to be interpreted from a rhetorical point of view, namely as traits pertaining to a literary perspective. Paratactic or adding style versus hypotactic organization, ‘primitive’ versus ‘developed’ are terms belonging to the established philological approach to written literature and as such aim at explaining stylistic subtleties by adopting a historical or even genetic approach. The picture is very different when we study Homer as oral poetry. Bakker has argued that Homeric discourse functions as special speech. By using the path-breaking discoveries of the linguist Chafe, he divides Homeric passages into intonation units, i.e. speech-segments which verbalize relevant foci of consciousness.9 In this way, Bakker is able to detextualize the salient properties of Homeric style and reevaluate them in ‘terms of the spoken discourse of which our text is a transcription’.10 With these observations in mind, let us then proceed to analyze the two proems as speech-segments starting with the Iliadic proem (Il. 1.1–7). (a) Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεά (b) Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος (c) οὐλομένην, (d) ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκε, (e) πολλὰς δ᾿ ἰφθίμους ψυχάς (f) Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν (g) ἡρώων, (h) αὐτοὺς δ᾽ ἑλώρια τεῦχε (i) κύνεσσιν  8 Pucci 1998, 13. 9 Chafe 1980, 9–50; 1994. 10 Bakker 1997a, 292.

Sing of the wrath, goddess, of the son of Peleus, of Achilles, the accursed [wrath] which caused numerous woes to the Achaeans. and many brave souls, [it] sent [them] forth to Hades, of heroes, and made them a feast, for the dogs

Homeric Discourse and Epic Openings  

(j) οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, (k) Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή, (l) ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα (m) διαστήτην (n) ἐρίσαντε (o) Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν (p) καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς

and all the birds, and Zeus’ will was being fulfilled, from the moment when –see– for the first time they stood in division after they had quarreled both [the] son of Atreus, the lord of men and godlike Achilles.

Let us now proceed by applying the same speech-segment analysis to the Odyssean proem (Od. 1.1.–10): (a) ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Mοῦσα, (b) πολύτροπον, (c) ὃς μάλα πολλὰ | πλάγχθη, (d) ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσε (e) πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα (f) καὶ νόον ἔγνω. (g) πολλὰ δ᾿ ὅ γ᾿ ἐν πόντῳ πάθεν ἄλγεα (h) ὃν κατὰ θυμόν, (i) ἀρνύμενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν (j) καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων. (k) ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὣς ἑτάρους ἐρρύσατο, (l) ἱέμενός περ (m) αὐτῶν γὰρ σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὄλοντο, (n) νήπιοι, (o) οἳ κατὰ βοῦς Ὑπερίονος Ἠελίοιο | ἤσθιον (p) αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖσιν ἀφείλετο νόστιμον ἦμαρ (q) τῶν ἁμόθεν γε, θεά, (r) θύγατερ Διός, (s) εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν.

Tell me, Muse, about the man, the resourceful one, who has wandered a great deal, after he sacked the holy citadel of Troy; and [he] saw the cities of many men and became aware of their minds, and [he] suffered much at sea in his own heart, trying to save his own soul and [make possible] the return of his comrades But still he did not save [his] comrades despite his will; for out of their own wrongdoings [they] perished, fools, who devoured the cattle of Hyperion’s son, Helios; but he deprived them from their day of return. From some place or other, goddess, daughter of Zeus, tell us too

The above speech-segment analysis should be read with a rather mandatory caveat in mind: the translation offered is deliberately idiosyncratic as it tries to bring out as clearly as possible the peculiarities of the Homeric text. Using this analysis as our guide, we can now tackle each of the similarities of the two proems, not from the viewpoint of a mimetic process according to which the Odyssean proem has been composed upon the pattern offered by its famous Iliadic predecessor, but as exemplifying a mental process of orientation, framing and organization οf information.

  Detextualizing Homer 1.

2.

Similarities 1–2 concerning the epic theme (μῆνιν – ἄνδρα) and the divine invocation (ἄειδε, θεά – ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα) belong to the same intonational unit, which coincides with a metrical slot, the central third-foot caesura (masculine in Il. 1, feminine in Od. 1). In the process of retrieving information that will be used in the proem, the speaking voice begins with the first focus of consciousness that comes to mind: the principal theme. However, the principal theme can be triggered only through the appeal to divine assistance (ἄειδε, θεά – ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα). Therefore, the grammatical particularities observed by traditional critics (such as the initial accusative, the vocative used for divine invocation) have not so much to do with the mimetic tendency of the Odyssean proem with respect to the Iliadic one, but rather with the information-processing organized by the human mind.11 The description of the main epic theme first by a single word in apposition (οὐλομένην – πολύτροπον), second by relative clauses (ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκε – ὃς μάλα πολλὰ | πλάγχθη), and third by δέ-clauses (πολλὰς δ᾿… | ἡρώων. αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια … | οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι· Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή – πολλῶν δ᾿ ἀνθρώπων … ἔγνω, πολλὰ δ᾿ ὅ γ᾿ ἐν πόντῳ … θυμόν)12 is typical of the so-called expansion aesthetic, one of the expressive highlights of Homeric discourse.13 The thematic nucleus is expanded by appositional devices, in the manner of either one-word adjectival forms or relative clauses or strung-on paratactic δέ-clauses. Items 3–5 in the above list virtually fall into this category of additional material supplemented within the same framing. These item-pluses are true landmarks of epic verse-making,14 since they exemplify a specific mental strategy in the deployment of information around an initial thematic kernel. Moreover, they play a key-role in the listener’s orientation. The detailed, albeit brief, description of the central theme, directs the audience to the kind of song they should be expecting to hear.

 11 The beginnings of two cyclic epics, the Thebais and the Epigonoi display a similar trait. The former (fr. 1 GEF: Ἄργος ἄειδε, θεά, πολυδίψιον, ἔνθεν ἄνακτες) begins with the designation of Argos, the city associated with the army of the Seven who will attack Thebes; the latter (fr. 1 GEF: νῦν αὖθ᾽ ὁπλοτέρων ἀνδρῶν ἀρχώμεθα, Μοῦσαι) starts with the designation of the younger generation, the Epigonoi, who will lead a new, this time successful, expedition against Thebes. Although these epics may have been composed by writing, they presuppose earlier versions which circulated orally. In this vein, their beginnings still reflect the same attempt of the bards to start their song with the principal theme or an aspect pertaining to it. 12 These word-groups also form intonation units representing the dictional verbalization of specific foci of consciousness. 13 The expansion aesthetic is a term coined by Martin 1989, 206–230. 14 Russo 1994, 374; Bakker 1997b, 90.

Homeric Discourse and Epic Openings  

These orientation devices look at the same time backwards and forwards. They are anaphoric (in the sense that they are related to left-located, or at times dislocated, terms) and deictic (since they acclimatize the listener to the exigencies of the plot and align him to the epic’s perspective). This orientation process aims at limiting the wide scope of the basic theme, thus enabling the listener to situate himself/herself within the coordinates of the plot. Items 12–13 (general familiarity with the epic tradition and speed in situating the listener at the beginning of the plot) also stem from the nature of the orientation technique explained above. Homeric discourse aims at placing the audience within a specific version of a well-known myth with remarkable speed. Any delay may highlight other rival stories belonging to the same mythical pool, which the epic voice deliberately and systematically downplays. Homeric speech15 speedily moves to the beginning of its own cherished version of events in the same way human discourse hastens to promote its own undisputed authority. 3. Items 6–7 refer to the vastness of human losses. The analysis into speechsegments shows that each mention of a loss is presented by a single intonation unit.16 At first glance, one may get the impression that the Odyssean proem is imitating the Iliadic, in fact this has been interpreted as a form of auxesis. The correspondence between intonation units and completion of syntactical clusters shows that we may be dealing here with another authority-conferring technique. The story to be told is of great importance and status among other stories of the same kind because it may deal with a single theme (the wrath of Achilles – Odysseus, the Man), but the implications of this theme are, indeed, of outstanding proportions. It is not the version of the theme that is vast, but what results from this version. We are dealing with a mental process of emphasizing the momentousness of the story to be told. Speech advertises itself and promotes its special power and supremacy. The cornucopia of πολυ- compounds and πολλά adjectives in both proems is not based on rhetorical effect but rather manifests a conferringauthority process typical of Homeric discourse. 4. Ring-composition has been felicity coined ‘an index of the ways in which this [archaic] style, as special speech, draws on the resources of ordinary speech’.17 The repetition of some form of the basic idea expressed in the beginning of the ring-composition structure should not be seen as a return to  15 Cf. Hor. De arte poetica, 148: semper ad eventum festinat. 16 See the analysis above. 17 Bakker 1997b, 120.

  Detextualizing Homer or recapitulation of previous meaning but as a statement made by the speech itself. It amounts to acknowledging the new reality which has been produced after the previewed initial reference. Homeric discourse as a form of special speech should be considered a flow of speech through time. It is in this respect that what lies between the two statements, initial and catalectic, of any ring-composition device displays the narrative movement from point A to point B and, what is more important, the realization of this movement by speech itself through phraseological repetition.18 Viewed in this light, the reiterated phraseology occurring towards the end of the two Homeric proems (item 8) is a feature pertaining to human discourse at large, and is parallel to topic boundary markers which represent topic-shifts in written discourse. These topic boundary markers are, in the case of spoken discourse, called paratones;19 they are a sort of speech paragraphs employed by speakers to mark a topic-shift. Thus, ring-composition may be seen as a feature of spoken discourse, a device of special speech (such as Homeric speech) indicating the flow of speech, the realization of this flow and the preparation of speaker and audience for making one narrative step forward. 5. General familiarity with the entire epic tradition (item 10) on the part of the audience must be taken for granted. What has escaped notice, however, is that such form of assumed knowledge is typical of mental structures employed for organizing information in an economical way and, moreover, of interpreting reality upon established patterns like tradition-innovation and whole-part.20 Homeric speech, as a form of special speech, cognitively involves the audience in the ‘processes that create both language and story’.21 Psycholinguists have long debated on determining the importance of one or multiple factors (sentential form, focal stress, speaker-dependent intonation) in the process of signaling information status. In the case of Homeric speech, ‘strong syntactic and rhythmic expectations established by the formulaic style, together with the metrical and specifically colometric constraints demanded by the hexameter, provide ideal frames for carrying out the more

 18 On ring-composition and the grammar of discourse, see Bakker 1997b, 115–121. 19 The term paratones has been coined by Brown 1977, 86. 20 See Hornby 1972, 632–642; Clark and Clark 1977, 93; Brown and Yule 1983, 176–189. 21 See Russo 1999, 169.

Homeric Discourse and Epic Openings  

stylized or ‘ritually expected’ features of the language’.22 Therefore, the audience’s familiarity with the topic which is taken for granted in both the Iliadic and the Odyssean proems is manifested by the elliptical and condensed nature of the informational data processed (brevity, lack of a summary of the plot), but most of all by the implied and evoked entities (situational and current-textual)23 triggered in the audience’s consciousness after the initial theme, the left-most constituent element in the linear organization of our printed text. Typographical considerations tend to iconize the central theme by locating it at a spot readily seen by the human-eye, thus making it easily discernible by the modern reader. In an oral performance, emphasis is created by the placement of the epic theme in the first foot of the hexameter (one of the most emphatic positions), where thematic staging is best effected.24 Thus, among the implied entities, which the audience would associate with the words μῆνις/ἀνήρ, are the par excellence ‘wrath’, i.e. that of Achilles, and the par excellence ‘man’, i.e. Odysseus;25 likewise, the most prominent evoked situational entities by the Iliadic proem would be the tenth year of the war and by the Odyssean proem the post-war wanderings of Odysseus. Current-textual evoked entities are, as Chafe has neatly put it, ‘lexically attenuated’, and are expressed with substitutive devices such as pronouns.26 The anaphoric pronouns αὐτούς in Il. 1.4 and αὐτῶν in Od. 1.7 express endophoric relations, tying cohesively the previous references to heroes (in Il. 1.3) and to the comrades (in Od. 1.5–6) with what follows. The heroes and the comrades are thus entities well known to the audience and, therefore, the singer feels free to cut several corners in the presentation of his material and point to them with minimalistic pronominal forms. 6. The search for a temporal point to begin the narration (item 12) finds its rest towards the end of the proems, and displays a specific mental strategy used

 22 Russo 1999, 163. Russo points to ‘the tendency for relative and other subordinate clauses to begin most regularly in the fifth or fourth colon (ὃς μάλα πολλά, Od. 1.1) and secondarily in the second colon (οὐλομένην, in Il. 1.2), or with a conjunction linking the first to the second colon (πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης, Od. 1.2)’ (163). 23 Brown and Yule 1983, 184–187. 24 On ‘staging’, see Brown and Yule 1983, 134–138. Another ‘strong’ position for effecting ‘staging’ within the metrical constrains of the hexameter is the end of the verse. See Bakker 1997b, 162–183. 25 The systematic suppression of Odysseus’ name in the beginning of the Odyssey shows that the audience could easily recognize Odysseus through the reference to a ‘man’ and that no confusion would be created. 26 I owe this reference to Brown and Yule 1983, 185.

  Detextualizing Homer in human discourse with respect to material-organizing. It is only after the explicit reference to the most important element surfacing human thought that the mind is able to retrieve the causal incipit. This is done towards the end of the initial frame set by the proem and only when the description has been regarded as complete. The above observation will no doubt strike a familiar note to discourse analysts and linguists at large, since it is this scientific discipline which has determined that in representing background knowledge the human mind uses scenarios, ‘extended domains of reference’ employed as interpretive devices behind a text. One particular element of the scenario-based comprehension (corroborated by relevant experiments with real subjects) is that understanding and effectiveness speeds up (item 11) when a specific scenario is mentally activated. It is noteworthy that in both proems, just before the temporal localization of the plotdeparture point, there is a specific mention to the role of a god (item 9), Zeus in the Iliadic proem, Helios in the Odyssean. It seems that the speaking voice in both proems tries to find a rest, a pause in mapping the scope of his theme, and that this stop is reached at the moment a specific divine action is stated. The reference to concrete action (note the opposition between the anonymous losses of heroes or comrades and the action of eponymous gods) creates a juncture in the speaker’s consciousness, as if a red light has been suddenly turned on. When the mind moves from the general to the particular, the introduction can be regarded as complete: it is now time for the poem to begin.

 The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics Electronic hypertext catalogues provide an important channel for information provision. One relatively traditional set of tools for creating hypertext in Homeric oral song is names. For example, names within the web of oral epic song provide users with visual maps linked together by meter. Hypertextual lists and catalogues challenge the very foundations of producing unified, coherent texts, narrative and poetry. Consider the following formulation by Pucci: The catalogue, as a speech act, manifests a prowess of memory, and points to poetry as its privileged means. Cataloguing constitutes the supreme distillation of poetry’s capabilities for truth, rigor, order, history, sequentiality: mere names, mere numbers, and no mêtis; or as we would say no connotations, no rhetoric, no fiction. Almost no poem.1

Catalogues, as hypertextual tools, advocate teaching a ‘rhetoric of expectations and arrivals’2 that encourages listeners to understand where certain nameentries working like nodes may lead them and how they should respond to these nodes. Since name-nodes are, within the environment of epic catalogues, bi-focal, they can create hypertextual spaces leading the audience to multiple conceptual strata. Hypertextual catalogues also involve listening in a different manner. Within the medium of oral epic song, the audience realizes that the catalogue invites them to transgress a linear approach and instead make a leap to an entryleading world, where the given item of a list can be the focal point of interest or simply an item in another list. While listening to the list, the audience may follow the order offered by the singer and then engage in interpretation. By selecting a name, the bard opens a path to the hypertextual web of myth, to a labyrinthine mental adventure where relevance is open-ended and conceptual navigation the norm.

 1 Pucci 1996, 21. 2 Bolter and Grusin 1998, 10. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-003

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics

. From List to Catalogue Lists and catalogues are often employed as synonymous among Homerists, although the latter is an elaborated version of the former. Consider the following formulation by Sammons:3 A catalogue is a list of items which are specified in discrete entries; its entries are formally distinct and arranged in sequence by anaphora or by a simple connective but are not put into any subordinating relation to one another, and no explicit relation is made between the items except for their shared suitability to the catalogue’s specified rubric. […] By rubric I mean the stated category or class which legitimates the inclusion or exclusion of potential items; by entry I mean the component which is marked off by anaphora or connective and contains the specified item; by item I mean that person, thing, place etc. which is specified in the entry and whose specification is sufficient to render the entry intelligible under the rubric. All content of the entry not necessary to render the entry intelligible under the rubric, I will call elaboration. For the sake of this definition, I will assume that a catalogue has at least three entries.4

Let us consider three Homeric examples, one of a list (a), a second one of a simple catalogue (b), and a third one of a complex catalogue (c): (a) List of Nereids in Il. 18.37–49: θεαὶ δέ μιν ἀμφαγέροντο, πᾶσαι, ὅσαι κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν. ἔνθ’ ἄρ’ ἔην Γλαύκη τε Θάλειά τε Κυμοδόκη τε, Νησαίη Σπειώ τε Θόη θ’ Ἁλίη τε βοῶπις, […] ἔνθα δ’ ἔην Κλυμένη Ἰάνειρά τε καὶ Ἰάνασσα, Μαῖρα καὶ Ὠρείθυια ἐϋπλόκαμός τ’ Ἀμάθεια, ἄλλαι θ’ αἳ κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν. and the goddesses gathered around her, all who along the depth of the sea were daughters of Nereus. For Glauke was there, Kymodoke and Thaleia, Nesaie and Speio and Thoë, and ox-eyed Halia; […]

 3 Sammons 2007, 11–12. Various terms have been employed to describe the entries or items of a list or catalogue. See Beye 1964; Powell 1978; Edwards 1980; Barney 1982, 191–192; Thalmann 1984; Minchin 1996, 4–5; 2001, 74–76. 4 See Matz 1995 for three entries. Conversely, Minchin (2001, 75) argues for a minimum of four entries.

From List to Catalogue  

Klymene was there, Ianeira and Ianassa, Maira and Oreithyia and lovely-haired Amatheia, and the rest who along the depth of the sea were daughters of Nereus.

This is a typical example of a Homeric list, whose rubric is ‘Nereids’. The list contains 33 items, which are organized into entries juxtaposed by connective particles (καί and τε). In this case, entries cannot be distinguished from the individual items, since the list is virtually deprived of elaboration, except for the epithets βοῶπις, ἀγακλειτή and ἐϋπλόκαµος. The list is not complete,5 but seems to be a mere selection from a longer list or catalogue. It is pointless to ask whether the singer has chosen the abovementioned entries at random and stitched them together or whether he has cited them verbatim. Aural associations, assonance and alliteration as well as the Hesiodic Catalogue of Nereids show that observations of this kind stem from systemic features of hypertextual lists and catalogues since they are ‘listener- and singer-friendly’, i.e. they facilitate composition, memorization and interest. (b) Od. 11.225–332: νῶϊ μὲν ὣς ἐπέεσσιν ἀμειβόμεθ’, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ἤλυθον, ὤτρυνεν γὰρ ἀγαυὴ Περσεφόνεια, ὅσσαι ἀριστήων ἄλοχοι ἔσαν ἠδὲ θύγατρες. […] ἔνθ’ ἦ τοι πρώτην Τυρὼ ἴδον εὐπατέρειαν, ἣ φάτο Σαλμωνῆος ἀμύμονος ἔκγονος εἶναι, τὴν δὲ μέτ’ Ἀντιόπην ἴδον, Ἀσωποῖο θύγατρα, ἣ δὴ […] τὴν δὲ μετ’ Ἀλκμήνην ἴδον, Ἀμφιτρύωνος ἄκοιτιν, ἥ ῥ’ […] μητέρα τ’ Οἰδιπόδαο ἴδον, καλὴν Ἐπικάστην, ἣ […] καὶ Χλῶριν εἶδον περικαλλέα, τήν ποτε Νηλεὺς […]  5 Homer omits the rest from a bigger Nereid list, on which he has drawn his material, (Kakridis 1949, 75 argued that this list was part of a Pre-Homeric *Achilleis), since the same expression is used in verse-initial position in a list of deities in Hom. Hymn 3.95, where the omission argument does seem probable, especially since both lists are organized in the same way (Hom. Hymn 3.92–95: θεαὶ δ᾽ ἔσαν ἔνδοθι πᾶσαι, | ὅσσαι ἄρισται ἔσαν, + list + ἄλλαι τ᾽ ἀθάναται νόσφιν λευκωλένου Ἥρης – Il. 18.37–49: θεαὶ δέ μιν ἀμφαγέροντο, | πᾶσαι ὅσαι κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν + list + ἄλλαι θ’ αἳ κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν). The case of Il. 2.649, used by Edwards 1991 on Il. 18.49 against Kakridis 1949, is different since there is no initial πᾶσαι cut short by ἄλλαι. See also Sammons 2007, 13.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics καὶ Λήδην εἶδον, τὴν Τυνδαρέου παράκοιτιν, ἥ ῥ’ […] τὴν δὲ μέτ’ Ἰφιμέδειαν, Ἀλωῆος παράκοιτιν, εἴσιδον, ἣ δὴ […] Φαίδρην τε Πρόκριν τε ἴδον καλήν τ’ Ἀριάδνην, κούρην Μίνωος ὀλοόφρονος, ἥν ποτε Θησεὺς […] Μαῖράν τε Κλυμένην τε ἴδον στυγερήν τ’ Ἐριφύλην, ἣ […] And now, impelled by august Persephone, there came up all the women who had been the wives or the daughters of the great […] The first I saw was high-born Tyro, who told me that she was the daughter of the noble Salmoneus […] The next I saw was Antiope, the daughter of Asopus, who […] After Antiope I saw Alcmene, Amphitryon’s wife, who […] Then I saw Oedipus’ mother, the lovely Epikaste, who […] Next I saw the great beauty Chloris, whom once upon a time Neleus […] Then I saw Leda, wife of Tyndareus, who […] After her, I saw Iphimedeia, the consort of Aloeus, who […] Phaedra I also saw, and Procris, and the lovely Ariadne, that daughter of baleful Minos whom Theseus once […] Maera too and Clymene I saw, and the hateful Eriphyle, who […]

This Catalogue of Heroines contains 13 items, 9 of which receive considerable elaboration by being expanded into and specified by entries. The rubric under which they all fall is ‘wives and daughters of important men’. The various entries are introduced by the ‘τὴν δέ µέτ’ ἴδον’ formula. Such a technique recalls the ἠ’ οἵη formula, which is used in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Elsewhere I have argued:6 West contends that the ἠ’ οἵη formula with its ‘disjunctive’ nature presupposes an initial paradigm, which would have been introduced by a simple ‘οἵη’ and that this may have been the case with Pyrrha.7 This is an attractive hypothesis. In other epic catalogues or lists containing internal catalogue-features, a word is usually repeated with the addition of a particle indicating the addition of further items. An interesting example is the description of the shield of Achilles in Il. 18.478–608. The scenes depicted in each band of the shield are introduced by the ecphrastic-descriptive formula ‘ἐν δὲ’, which recapitulates a single ‘ἐν µὲν’ employed only for the central boss of the shield, which is described first. The same is the case with the ‘τὴν δὲ µέτ’ ἴδον’ formula, which is used in the first Nekyia (Od. 11.225–332). This stereotypical lemmatization mechanism is based on the expression ‘πρώτην + acc. of feminine noun + ἴδον’, which introduces the first entry in the Catalogue of Heroines, Tyro.8 Given that this technique is similar to the use of the ἠ’ οἵη formula in the Catalogue of Women, West’s suggestion is strengthened even more. It seems that this

 6 Tsagalis 2009, 165 (= chapter 11, p. 243, this volume). 7 West 1985, 56; Rutherford 2000, 83. 8 See Rutherford 2000, 93–94.

From List to Catalogue  

mechanism of creating an internal taxomonical principle of organization, which would be based on an initial itemizing device, is corollary to the technique of ‘increment recall’ employed in list-learning.9 According to this method of memorization, a person first learns a part of a list and rehearses it several times, until the list has been firmly memorized. He then proceeds by learning another part, which he rehearses separately and then, when memorized, adds to the first part. The learner can go on in this way, building only upon solid memory-acquired foundations. In this light, the use of an itemizing device based on an initial taxonomical mechanism (such as the ‘οἵη formula’ or the ‘ἐν μὲν formula’) facilitates ‘seriation’,10 the practice of sequential data-processing, since the repetition of such an ‘oral lemma’ would key the singer or the performer of a list on the required note and trigger in his memory the subsequent chunk of relevant material.

The only entries, which are deprived of any elaboration are the ones embedded in three-item verses, where only the last item is expanded by a relative clause (Φαίδρην τε Πρόκριν τε ἴδον καλήν τ’ Ἀριάδνην, […] ἥν ποτε Θησεύς — Μαῖράν τε Κλυµένην τε ἴδον στυγερήν τ’ Ἐριφύλην, ἥ […]). The rest of the entries are further divided into sub-entries, which allow the singer to provide not just genealogical information but also short (in general) but extended (for catalogue standards) narratives. In certain cases, these narratives do not concern the initial entry but one of the sub-entries. The item ‘Iphimedeia’ becomes an entry by the addition of a relative clause referring to her husband Poseidon (τὴν δὲ µέτ’ Ἰφιµέδειαν, Ἀλωῆος παράκοιτιν, | εἴσιδον, ἥ δὴ φάσκε Ποσειδάωνι µιγῆναι); this is further elaborated by reference to her offspring, Otus and Ephialtes. At this point, a new sub-entry is created, which is expanded by a whole narrative about her two sons (καὶ ῥ’ ἔτεκεν δύο παῖδε […], οὓς δὴ …). The last two verses, just as it is the case with the list of Nereids in Iliad 18, indicate that the catalogue is incomplete: πάσας δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, | ὅσσας ἡρώων ἀλόχους ἴδον ἠδὲ θύγατρας· (Od. 11.328–329). This almost formulaic way of indicating the inability of the singer to perform a complete catalogue has been interpreted as a way to highlight the importance of the Muses in the performance of his song (cf. Il. 2.488–490). Alternatively, the lack of a full catalogue may be seen as a covert statement of the fact that no oral catalogue can be complete, that all epic catalogues refer to other catalogues with which they constitute a totality disrupted or destabilized by the particular epic performance. In other words, the authority of a catalogue lies exactly in its  9 See Baddeley 1990, 40–42, 156–158. See also Minchin 2001, 89 n. 41, to whom I owe the previous reference. 10 On ‘seriation᾽, see Mandler and Dean 1969, 207–215. I owe this reference to Minchin 2001, 89 n. 41.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics lack of completeness not only internally, i.e. in reference to the lack of a cohesive narrative, but also externally, i.e. with respect to its fragmented, dispersed, transient, borderless nature. It seems that the declaration of the singer’s inability to complete his task constitutes an implicit statement of his loss of control over his catalogue, particularly of its beginning and end. As the entries begin to become independent, to take a life of their own and be aware of the innate thematic principle of the rubric they seem to partake of, they defy linearity and progression. To use an example from the Catalogue of Heroines, the entry of Epicaste, mother of Oedipus, constitutes a fragment which is self-contained to the extent that it has no vertical associations with other parts of the catalogue. At the same time, it is a kind of dispersed text, since it is horizontally linked to other texts pertaining to Theban myth, like the Thebais, the Oedipodia, the Epigonoi. When the audience listens to this material, it would at once activate in its mind myths pertaining to the Theban tradition, with the result that this fragmented text would be disseminated, almost ‘spilled over’ into the Theban material.11 This part of the catalogue is also transient: its force is temporary, fleeting, ephemeral, since it flows out of the Homeric tradition or the Odyssean plot and crosses over to another epic tradition. What seems at first glance static, unchanging and rigid thus becomes kinetic and open-ended, coming alive every time an audience hears it performed. To this extent, this thematic unit of the catalogue is boundless, for its borders are only present in its encapsulation within the Odyssean Catalogue of Heroines. In fact, this is only a link, treading a path to other mythical material, a window determining the end but also an exit, an everexpanding, incomplete threshold defying the fetishism of a closed object. (c) Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.484–510): ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι— ὑμεῖς γὰρ θεαί ἐστε, πάρεστέ τε, ἴστέ τε πάντα, ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν— οἵ τινες ἡγεμόνες Δαναῶν καὶ κοίρανοι ἦσαν· […] ἀρχοὺς αὖ νηῶν ἐρέω, νῆάς τε προπάσας. […] Βοιωτῶν μὲν Πηνέλεως καὶ Λήϊτος ἦρχον Ἀρκεσίλαός τε Προθοήνωρ τε Κλονίος τε, οἵ θ’ Ὑρίην ἐνέμοντο καὶ Αὐλίδα πετρήεσσαν

 11 See also Ebbott 2010.

From List to Catalogue  

[…] τῶν μὲν πεντήκοντα νέες κίον, ἐν δὲ ἑκάστῃ κοῦροι Βοιωτῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι βαῖνον. Tell me now, you Muses who have your homes on Olympos. For you, who are goddesses, are there, and you know all things, and we have heard only the rumour of it and know nothing. Who then of those were the chief men and the lords of the Danaans? […] I will tell the lords of the ships and the ships numbers. […] Leïtos and Peneleos were leaders of the Boiotians, with Arkesilaos and Prothoenor and Klonios; they who lived in Hyria and rocky Aulis […] Of these there were fifty ships in all, and on board each of these a hundred and twenty sons of the Boiotians.

The Catalogue of Ships (CS) has been regarded as the Homeric catalogue par excellence, with the result that in the Hellenistic period the entire second Book of the Iliad where it belongs was named after it. The CS is a complex form of catalogue for although its rubric is expressed in a straightforward manner, it is basically subdivided into two (occasionally three) items featuring in each entry. As early as 2.493, the poet defines his rubric as ‘leaders of the ships and all the ships’ (ἀρχοὺς αὖ νηῶν ἐρέω νῆάς τε προπάσας); he then proceeds to describe the individual items, which are developed into two-level entries, one for each leader and one for the number of ships. Although reference to geographical location is constantly made and the CS follows some sort of geographical blueprint,12 it is fair to say that geography is not the guiding principle, since ‘no entry begins with a relative marker such as “to the north, south of there”’.13 The CS is a good example of the transformation of time into space that is so typical of catalogues. The lack of subordination characterizing the CS is best seen in the complete absence of any temporal markers, the most elementary prerequisite of all narrative. Conversely, spatial pointers are abundantly attested, translating chronological references to the Mycenaean past into a threecycle spiral movement of the CS based on geographical contiguity. By creating a notional map with respect to the origin of the Achaean army, the Iliadic tradition invites its listeners to leap back in time as they ‘move’ from one place to  12 Various theories have been put forward concerning the way the CS proceeds with respect to the geographical placement of the Greek troops. See Visser 1997 and Brügger et al. 2003, 153– 154 with a summary of previous bibliography. 13 Sammons 2007, 17 n. 28.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics another. By interpreting time in terms of space, the various entries of the CS resemble hyperlinks, which allow the audience to ‘traverse the linked units without regard to their serial structure’14 and de-emphasize or even erase temporality by parataxis, fragmentation, and omission of temporal references. In this light, the role of the audience becomes even more central, as listeners visualize the past by adapting it to their own mental template of the distribution of Achaean kingdoms in the Greek-speaking world. The CS aims at anchoring the distant past of the Homeric world into the audience’s cognitive scripts, which will, in their turn, allow for the reactivation of schemas of coherence, turning unknown time into familiar space.15

. Hyperlinks: Explicit and Implicit Hypertextuality By using techniques pertaining to epic dialect itself, lists and catalogues function as a hypetextual network whose nodes (items or entries) can be tailored to the audience’s knowledge and needs but also to the tradition’s specific aspirations. The result is a dynamic hypertext, formed by high-flexibility catalogues and lists able to cater for a significant amount of variation that goes far beyond name-chains prepared in standardized form for nonspecific use and lacking originality or individuality as if mass-produced (canned seriation). One of the primary, defining features of Homeric lists and catalogues is that they can be used to create hypertextual links between various oral traditions. In creating such links, rather than being limited to one single text or tradition, the boundaries between singer and audience are blurred and listeners begin to build a dynamic interaction with both the material within their text as well as with that which the specific items or entries can conjure up from other traditions. Unlike the printed catalogues with their singular arrangement, in oral Homeric lists and catalogues, remediated on a specific register, the arrangements are plural. Items do not simply represent an information pile but are defined by links. By creating both internal and external links, oral lists and catalogues generate multiple contexts, strata, and layers: in such a hypertextual world, arrangement and delivery are integral aspects of invention. Eschewing the impasse of rigidity and solidification, Homeric lists and catalogues use names not simply as lexical items but as putative links to a larger totality, a

 14 See Routledge Encyclopedia of Literary Theory, s.v. ‘digital narrative’, p. 108. 15 This function of the CS is very different and should, therefore, not be confused with Bakhtin’s (1981) chronotopes or timespaces, the convergence of time and space.

Hyperlinks: Explicit and Implicit Hypertextuality  

brilliant creation of oral song inviting audiences to break free from the oppressive constraints of sequential writing and navigate in the high seas of archaic myth. Let us consider the following case, which is based on the Iliadic and Hesiodic Catalogues of Nereids:16 Νησαίη Σπειώ τε Θόη θ’ Ἁλίη τε βοῶπις, Κυμοθόη τε καὶ Ἀκταίη καὶ Λιμνώρεια καὶ Μελίτη καὶ Ἴαιρα καὶ Ἀμφιθόη καὶ Ἀγαυὴ Κυμοθόη Σπειώ τε Θόη θ᾽ Ἀλίη τ᾽ ἐρόεσσα Πασιθέη τ᾽ Ἐρατώ τε καὶ Εὐνίκη ῥοδόπηχυς καὶ Μελίτη χαρίεσσα καὶ Εὐλιμένη καὶ Ἀγαυὴ Nesaie and Speio and Thoë, and ox-eyed Halia; Kymothoë was there, Aktaia and Limnoreia, Melite and Iaira, Amphithoë and Agauë (Il. 18.40–42) Kymothoë and Speio and Thoë and beloved Halia and Pasitheë and Erato and Eunike of the rosy arms, and Melite the graceful, and Eulimene and Agauë (Th. 245–247)

The similarities of these verses are striking. Verses 40 and 245 follow the same pattern, which is filled by identical entries in the exact same order with the exception of the first entry (Νησαίη — Κυµοθόη) and the epithet-modifier of the last entry (βοῶπις — ἐρόεσσα). This is a case of explicit hypertexuality, since the shift at the two ends of the verse highlights the fact that the two catalogues belong to a totality which transgresses the two epic traditions, the Homeric and the Hesiodic. The question of priority or the search of an Ur-catalogue of Nereids is pointless for — apart from being completely arbitrary — it falls into the trap of historic reductionism. As listeners mentally navigate in a ‘sea of epic traditions’, it becomes clear to them that this process is decentralized or rather recentralized, since their own organizing principle can be the only guiding nous.17 At the same time, the flow of names within a catalogue transcends verse boundaries and creates small networks of interconnections with no top or bottom, a Barthian plurality of associations.18 In this vein, explicit hypertextuality is accompanied by implicit hypertextuality. The latter, unlike the former, is not  16 In Th. 245 I have opted for the proper name Θόη (printed in OCT) than the epithet θοή (West 1966). 17 Landow 19972, 36–37. 18 Pagels 1989, 20.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics generated by specific links placed on the aural platform of the verse; it is created through the interaction of small networks of nodes distributed over a series of verses. Implicit hypertextuality emerges within a ‘forest of links’ defying a clear-cut structural blueprint. In the Iliadic passage from the Catalogue of Nereids quoted above, the entry Κυµοθόη, which is not part of the verse-limited series of links in verse 40, appears in the very beginning of the following verse introducing a three-name sequence (Κυµοθόη — Ἀκταίη — Λιµνώρεια). Another three-name sequence (Πασιθέη — Ἐρατώ Εὐνίκη) is attested in Th. 246, i.e. in the verse following the use of Κυµοθόη in the verse-limited link discussed above. In addition, verses 42 and 247 are introduced and capped by the same links (καὶ Μελίτη and καὶ Ἀγαυή respectively). This network of links challenges linearity as it unfolds unexpected associations. It turns out that the entry Κυµοθόη is not simply a direct node leading to another entry-link of the Hesiodic tradition but an indirect link generating the reactivation of a network of links tagged on the incipient entry Κυµοθόη. In this way, oral hyperlinks help listeners go beyond simply accessing and processing information, since they encourage them to construct and reflect on mythical knowledge. The very performance of a catalogue, whose entries are not mere lemmata in a dictionary-fashioned manner but links to other relevant material, are easily reactivated within the web of myth. Such an approach simply defies our concept of myth as a vast storehouse of knowledge or an enormous databank of information. Names in a list or catalogue are virtual pathfinders as they facilitate the continuous creation of a dynamic, open-ended performance, one that is created by listeners who are invited to challenge all the basic tenets of our Aristotelian notion of a text. Characterized by atemporality, lack of narrative sequentiality and almost complete absence of syntactical structure, Homeric catalogues resemble Barthes’ writerly text, ‘a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds’,19 which annuls the literary dichotomy between author and reader or singer and audience. Seen from this vantage point, variations between epic catalogues dealing with the same material should not be traced to the dependence of one catalogue on the other (as it has been argued for the Catalogue of Nereids in the Iliad and the Theogony respectively) but must be rather seen as a systemic feature of the hypertextual nature of oral catalogues, who lack a fixed center and a narrative goal.

 19 Barthes 1974, 5.

Etymologizing as a Hypertextual Note  

. Etymologizing as a Hypertextual Note Tagging or annotating lists may result in catalogues. In oral epic song this is mainly done by etymologizing or adding explanatory information with respect to a ‘favorite’ entry. The use of relative clauses to effect tagging or annotating specific entries of a catalogue should not simply be seen on the level of syntax but also on that of creating reference markers that are aurally superimposed upon the main name-list. In this way, the tagging relative clause with its clearly defined beginning (introduced by a relative pronoun) and end (before the appearance of a following entry) constitutes an almost independent aural document, not an auxiliary accretion upon the main list.20 The Homeric list and the Hesiodic catalogue of Nereids should not be seen within the limits of the vexed question concerning their relative chronology and priority of the one versus the other. Rather, they represent within the maze of lists and catalogues of gods and heroes current during the Archaic Period two hypertextual versions aiming at pursuing their own agenda by using different built-in goals which they try to fulfill, directing listeners to items or entries particular to their objectives. The etymologizing principle permeating the Hesiodic version, which evolves during the process of its performance from a list into a catalogue, may be seen as exploiting long-term discourse history by making use of a strategy into which the audience has been initiated in the preceding Hesiodic (Theogonic) discourse. This pointing backward technique of selecting a given name (focused entity) for etymological explanation is produced when reference is made to another entity which is either (a) a potential point of confusion with respect to the focused entity from which it needs to be distinguished or (b) easily recognizable by the listeners and therefore suitable for comparison and description of the new entity. In Th. 252–253, Κυµοδόκη is followed by a relative clause explaining her specific function, while special emphasis is given to her being distinct from Κυµατολήγη, whose similarity of name may result in confusion. Likewise, in Th. 262 Νηµερτής is etymologized on the basis of a salient feature of her father Nereus, who is an effective comparator by which the new entity can be described, since he has been already introduced to the audience as, among other things, a flawless divinity (νηµερτής).21

 20 See Landow 19972, 5–6. 21 Th. 233–236.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics

. Reconfiguring Authorship Freedom of exploring information seems to be restricted by coherence arising from the goals or targets which a particular poetic tradition aims at accomplishing. Since etymologizing is a form of hypertextual note that the Hesiodic tradition consistently uses to append or tag an entry, then it becomes clear that it attempts to exercise a considerable amount of control over the links it makes available to the audience. This is certainly true but given the hypertextual web of myth and the high accessibility of mythical material, listeners tend to continually reflect on the relevance and quality of the information made available to them. The result is a ‘shuttering’ of centrality, a questioning of privileged descriptions and presentations. The authoritative voice of the tradition is not annulled but challenged by an antihierarchical tendency for evaluation that is made possible by hypertextual nodes. The phenomenological distance between singer and listener is considerably narrowed, since the two ends of the performative spectrum are significantly entwined. Oral epic catalogues testify to what might be called collaborative authorship, a reconfiguration of the historical author effected by the joint efforts of singer and listener, poetic tradition, and audience. Before the advent of the hypertext, there were three traditional modes of collaboration: (a) ‘sequencing’, when the first person produces a small part of a piece of work (e.g. a line of a song) and the second corrects or comments on it; (b) ‘editing’, when the first person produces a draft of the whole work and the second person makes additions, corrections etc.; (c) ‘assembly-line model’, when two individuals divide from the beginning the whole work into two parts and work independently.22 The hypertext has made it possible to combine all three previous modes into one by ‘emphasizing the presence of other texts and their cooperative interaction’ and by making ‘all additions to a system simultaneously a matter of versioning and of the assembly-line model’.23 Thus, a catalogue can be framed by a clear declaration of collaborative work, which is presented in the form of a pressing need: the singer is unable to carry out his task without the help of the Muses whom he invokes. The difficulty of this task is not only explained by the amount of material the bard must retrieve in his memory but also, as I maintain, by his covert reference to his audience:

 22 See Landow 19972, 104–105. 23 Landow 19972, 105.

Reconfiguring Authorship  

ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι— ὑμεῖς γὰρ θεαί ἐστε, πάρεστέ τε, ἴστέ τε πάντα, ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν— οἵ τινες ἡγεμόνες Δαναῶν καὶ κοίρανοι ἦσαν· πληθὺν δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, οὐδ’ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ’ εἶεν, φωνὴ δ’ ἄρρηκτος, χάλκεον δέ μοι ἦτορ ἐνείη, εἰ μὴ Ὀλυμπιάδες Μοῦσαι, Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο θυγατέρες, μνησαίαθ’ ὅσοι ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθον· ἀρχοὺς αὖ νηῶν ἐρέω, νῆάς τε προπάσας. Tell me now, you Muses who have your homes on Olympos. For you, who are goddesses, are there, and you know all things, and we have heard only the rumour of it and know nothing. Who then of those were the chief men and the lords of the Danaans? I could not tell over the multitude of them nor name them, not if I had ten tongues and ten mouths, not if I had a voice never to be broken and a heart of bronze within me, not unless the Muses on Olympos, daughters of Zeus of the aegis, remembered all those who came beneath Ilium. I will tell the lords of the ships and the ships numbers. (Il. 2.484–493)

The fluctuation between the plurals ἡµεῖς, ἀκούοµεν, ἴδµεν and the singulars ἐγώ µυθήσοµαι, ὀνοµήνω, and ἐρέω is not simply a matter of syntactical variation but an issue pertaining to singer-audience relations. The well-known phrase ‘I could not tell over the multitude of them,24 not if I had ten tongues and ten mouths, not if I had a voice never to be broken and a heart of bronze within me’ is rather puzzling when seen in the light of the aforementioned discussion. What does it really mean to have ten tongues and ten mouths? Is this a covert statement pointing to a bard with outstanding abilities or to a group of bards working together? Is it possible that the epic is saying that even if ten bards collaborated, they would not have been able to do what the Muses (also plural) can do? Is the plurality of the Muses to be taken as symmetrical to a putative plurality of epic singers hidden behind the plurals, ἡµεῖς, ἀκούοµεν and ἴδµεν? The singular ἐγώ µυθήσοµαι οὐδ’ ὀνοµήνω seems to refute this interpretation but, even if this is so, the singer may be taken as if representing his own profession, i.e. bards in general who find recourse to divine assistance to perform a catalogue.

 24 On this interpretation of πληθύν, cf. Il. 15.295–296. I owe this observation to Ford 1992, 72– 73.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics Viewed from this vantage point, this framing inescapably leads, to another, equally important question: why is divine help sought, apart from the proem, before the beginning of some catalogues such as the CS?25 The answer must be sought in the very content of the CS, which contains ‘factual material’, mere data about the past and can therefore be contentious and politically dangerous. In fact, the emphasis given on a superlative ability of the Muses to possess a complete knowledge of the past (ἴστέ τε πάντα) is consonant with the singer’s attempt to assert the authority of his catalogue. In the words of Scodel:26 The passage [2.484–493], then, is an implicit defense against anyone who wants the catalogue to be different. The poet does not imply here that human report is wrong, but he needs the Muse to guarantee the passage.

The CS is clearly Panhellenic in scope, but this does not mean at all that it is void of local contentions and disputes. Given that different audiences may have reacted differently with respect to a given part of the catalogue, the bard aims at bestowing to his endeavor undisputed authority, of the kind that only the Muses can bequeath. To this extent, the collaborative participation of the audience is an indispensable part of the performance of epic song. Evaluation of the content of a ‘historically overloaded’ chunk of song like the CS was, in all probability, even more demanding, the more so since the bard had to deal with a large variety of expectations depending on local claims and other politically colored aspirations. Such a performance was undoubtedly fraught with high risk and always imbued with the danger of failure, of letting down audiences or being judged as incompetent. The constant disclaimers concerning both the singer’s inability for absolute accuracy (Il. 2.488–492) and completeness (Od. 11.328–329) are audience-oriented and in this respect testify to the notion of hypertextual collaborative authorship. Ford has argued that the ‘gap between the multifariousness of experience and an account of it in speech […] is repeatedly portrayed by Homer as a gap between the powers of sight and speech’.27 I tend to view this gap as being part of a performance strategy adopted by the singer who is commissioned with the task of reminding his external audience that his song is an authoritative instantiation of the past and that the joint effort of his listeners is required so that his version of the story is enriched via the reactivation of the links he puts at their  25 See Cingano 2005, 118–152. 26 Scodel 2002, 72. 27 Ford 1992, 75.

Reconfiguring Authorship  

disposal. In Odyssey 3 Nestor replies to Telemachus’ question about Odysseus in the following way: ὦ φίλ᾽, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἔμνησας ὀϊζύος, ἣν ἐν ἐκείνῳ δήμῳ ἀνέτλημεν μένος ἄσχετοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν, ἠμὲν ὅσα ξὺν νηυσὶν ἐπ᾽ ἠεροειδέα πόντον πλαζόμενοι κατὰ ληΐδ’, ὅπῃ ἄρξειεν Ἀχιλλεύς, ἠδ᾽ ὅσα καὶ περὶ ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος μαρνάμεθ᾽· ἔνθα δ᾽ ἔπειτα κατέκταθεν ὅσσοι ἄριστοι· ἔνθα μὲν Αἴας κεῖται ἀρήϊος, ἔνθα δ’ Ἀχιλλεύς, ἔνθα δὲ Πάτροκλος, θεόφιν μήστωρ ἀτάλαντος, ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐμὸς φίλος υἱός, ἅμα κρατερὸς καὶ ἀμύμων, Ἀντίλοχος, περὶ μὲν θείειν ταχὺς ἠδὲ μαχητής· ἄλλα τε πόλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς πάθομεν κακά· τίς κεν ἐκεῖνα πάντα γε μυθήσαιτο καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων; οὐδ᾽ εἰ πεντάετές γε καὶ ἑξάετες παραμίμνων ἐξερέοις, ὅσα κεῖθι πάθον κακὰ δῖοι Ἀχαιοί· πρίν κεν ἀνιηθεὶς σὴν πατρίδα γαῖαν ἵκοιο. Ah, my friend, what memories the name of Troy brings back! The miseries we fierce Achaeans endured there — raid after raid across the misty seas in search of plunder wherever Achilles led, fight after fight around the very walls of royal Priam’s town! There our best men fell. There warlike Ajax lies. There lies Achilles, there Patroclus, wise in counsel as the gods. There too Antilochus, my own dear son, as strong as he was handsome, a fast runner, and what a fighter too! Nor is that the full sum of what the noble Achaeans endured at Troy. There is no man on earth who could unfold to you the whole disastrous tale, not though you sat and questioned him for half a dozen years, by which time you would have grown weary and gone home. (Od. 3.103–117)

After a short list of heroes who perished in Troy, Nestor refers to time as the reason explaining human inability to find out what happened in such a long period in the past. However, the focalization is that of Telemachus and not that of Nestor, for the emphasis is on asking about the past, not on telling someone about it. In other words, the capping frame of this list highlights the importance of the audience (both internal and external) in the shaping of the ensuing narrative. Since it becomes clear that the storyteller’s narration is, partly at least, conditioned by his audience, then the names in the list function as nodes conjuring up in the listeners’ minds information that the following narrative will not deal with. In fact, Nestor’s brief list contains only names of heroes who died in the war (Ajax, Achilles, Patroclus, Antilochus), whereas the story that the Pylian king will tell Telemachus refers to the returns of certain Achaean leaders. It may then be assumed that the bard expects from his audience to activate their knowledge of material pertaining to the Trojan War, while he will offer them a selected version of post-war events.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics In Odyssey 4 Helen adopts the language of the poet and declares her inability to narrate all the stories she knows about Odysseus: πάντα μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ᾽ ὀνομήνω, ὅσσοι Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονός εἰσιν ἄεθλοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἷον τόδ᾽ ἔρεξε καὶ ἔτλη καρτερὸς ἀνὴρ δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ὅθι πάσχετε πήματ’ Ἀχαιοί. It is, of course, beyond me to describe or even number all the daring feats of dauntless Odysseus. But here is one marvelous exploit which he had the nerve to conceive and carry through in Troy when you Achaeans were hard pressed. (Od. 4.240–243)

Instead of invoking the Muses, Helen reminds her audience (Menelaus, Telemachus, and Pisistratus) of the unsurpassable power of Zeus, who can give at one point each mortal what is good and later to another what is bad (Od. 4.235–237). The reference to Zeus’ ability to achieve all things (ἅπαντα) is implicitly opposed to that of Helen who cannot describe or number all the deeds of Odysseus (πάντα μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, | ὅσσοι Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονός εἰσιν ἄεθλοι).28 This initial framing of the ensuing narration becomes all the more significant given that the ineffable πάντα alludes to other stories about Odysseus which the audience or parts of the audience, both internal (Menelaus) and external, have heard about him. It should be also taken into consideration that prior to this speech the narrator has informed us (Od. 4.220–221) that Helen has given a φάρµακον […] | νηπενθές τ’ ἄχολόν τε, κακῶν ἐπίληθον ἁπάντων to all those present, who are going to be her audience so that they forget their sufferings. It is no wonder that her story offers a positive outlook at Odysseus’ past, an outlook that will bring healing. Her choice is also conditioned by her audience, both Telemachus who must find out about an exceptionally dauntless and ingenious deed of his polytropic father, and Menelaus who takes up the narrative after her and narrates the story of the Trojan Horse. Even this last episode narrated by Menelaus is conditioned by the partly new (Helen), partly stable (Telemachus) internal audience, since Helen’s cunning tricks are outdone by Odysseus’ even greater resourcefulness. In this process, storytellers and audiences shift. In the first case, Helen is the narrator and Menelaus and Telemachus the audience, while in the second, it is Menelaus who becomes the storyteller and Helen and Telemachus the audience. This is an exceptional case of collaborative storytelling with no catalogues. Menelaus’ story silences a putative catalogue of Greek he-

 28 Od. 4.240–241.

Reconfiguring Authorship  

roes inside the Trojan Horse whom Helen addressed by name. It is clear that what happens in the plot is analogous to what the singer attempts to do on the level of the performance: as the stories about Odysseus’ past are endless, the bard allows different characters to select individual episodes of the hero’s life and narrate them alternatively, assuming that his audience will understand that the choice of these incidents is conditioned by their own knowledge of events, that the collaborative effort of storytellers and audiences on the level of the plot mirrors the collaborative effort of singer and audience on the level of the performance. Helen’s inability to narrate everything is an implicit indication to the audience that they will hear only part of Odysseus’ past and that as Menelaus as audience works together with her and adds another story to her initial narrative, so their collaborative effort is required so that Odysseus’ past comes alive within the multitude of stories they have undoubtedly heard or know themselves about the great king of Ithaca. In Od. 11.516–537 Odysseus selects only two episodes of Neoptolemus’ Trojans exploits: (a) the death of Eurypylus (Od. 11.516–522) and (b) the Trojan Horse (Od. 11.523–537): (a) πολλοὺς δ’ ἄνδρας ἔπεφνεν ἐν αἰνῇ δηϊοτῆτι. πάντας δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, ὅσσον λαὸν ἔπεφνεν ἀμύνων Ἀργείοισιν, ἀλλ’ οἷον τὸν Τηλεφίδην κατενήρατο χαλκῷ, ἥρω’ Εὐρύπυλον, πολλοὶ δ’ ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι Κήτειοι κτείνοντο γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων. κεῖνον δὴ κάλλιστον ἴδον μετὰ Μέμνονα δῖον. Many were the men he brought down in mortal combat. I could not tell you of all those he killed in battle for the Argives, nor give you their names; but well I remember how the heroic Eurypylus son of Telephus fell to his sword, and how many of his Hittite men-in-arms were slaughtered at his side, all on account of a bribe that a woman had taken. He was the handsomest man I ever saw, next to the godlike Memnon.

Odysseus’ selection of these two episodes is based on the addressee of his speech, Achilles, who — he assumes — will at once use his own knowledge of events to fill in the necessary gaps and complete the story. As far as the episode of Eurypylus is concerned, the framing πάντας δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, | ὅσσον λαὸν ἔπεφνεν ἀμύνων Ἀργείοισιν is followed by the introduction of a single person not by his name but by his patronymic (Τηλεφίδην), which functions as a hyperlink leading both the internal audience (Achilles) and the external to the reactivation of supplementary information. As Odysseus expects that Achilles will immediately recall that during the Teuthranian expedition he had wounded the Mysian king Telephus, so the singer assumes that

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics his audience will conjure up in their memory not only the story of Telephus but also that of Priam’s bribing Astyoche, Eurypylus’ mother, to convince her son to take part in the war after the death of Achilles. In fact, the whole phrase πολλοί δ’ ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι | Κήτειοι κτείνοντο γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων functions like a link facilitating access to the episode of Priam’s giving a golden vine made by Hephaestus to Astyoche (γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων). Both incidents, which were undoubtedly part of pre-Homeric saga, formed part of the Cyclic epics, the wounding of Telephus featuring in the Cypria (arg. ll. 126–128 Severyns), the bribing of Astyoche (fr. 29 PEG = 6 EGF = 6 GEF) and the death of Eyrypylus in the Ilias parva (arg. ll. 219–220 Severyns).29 (b) αὐτὰρ ὅτ᾽ εἰς ἵππον κατεβαίνομεν, ὃν κάμ᾽ Ἐπειός, Ἀργείων οἱ ἄριστοι, ἐμοὶ δ’ ἐπὶ πάντα τέταλτο, ἠμὲν ἀνακλῖναι πυκινὸν λόχον ἠδ’ ἐπιθεῖναι, ἔνθ᾽ ἄλλοι Δαναῶν ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες δάκρυά τ᾽ ὠμόργνυντο, τρέμον θ᾽ ὑπὸ γυῖα ἑκάστου· κεῖνον δ᾽ οὔ ποτε πάμπαν ἐγὼν ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν οὔτ᾽ ὠχρήσαντα χρόα κάλλιμον οὔτε παρειῶν δάκρυ’ ὀμορξάμενον· ὁ δέ με μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἱκέτευεν ἱππόθεν ἐξέμεναι, ξίφεος δ᾽ ἐπεμαίετο κώπην καὶ δόρυ χαλκοβαρές, κακὰ δὲ Τρώεσσι μενοίνα. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ Πριάμοιο πόλιν διεπέρσαμεν αἰπήν, μοῖραν καὶ γέρας ἐσθλὸν ἔχων ἐπὶ νηὸς ἔβαινεν ἀσκηθής, οὔτ᾽ ἂρ βεβλημένος ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ οὔτ’ αὐτοσχεδίην οὐτασμένος, οἷά τε πολλὰ γίνεται ἐν πολέμῳ· ἐπιμὶξ δέ τε μαίνεται Ἄρης. Then again, when we Argive captains took our places in the Wooden Horse that Epeus had constructed and it rested with me to throw the door of our ambush open or to keep it shut, all the other Danaan chieftains and officers were wiping the tears from their eyes and every man’s legs were trembling beneath him. But not once did I see your son’s handsome face turn pale or catch him brushing a tear from his cheek. On the contrary he begged me time and time again to let him jump out from the Horse and kept handling his sword-hilt and his heavy bronze spear in his eagerness to inflict disaster on the Trojans. And when he had brought Priam’s city tumbling down in ruins, he took his share of the spoils and his special prize and embarked safe and sound on his ship without a single wound either from a flying spear or from a sword at close quarters. Such wounds are common in battle: the War-God in his fury is no respecter of persons.

In the second episode Odysseus highlights Neoptolemus’ lack of fear (κεῖνον δ’ οὔ ποτε πάμπαν ἐγὼν ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν | οὔτ’ ὠχρήσαντα χρόα κάλλιμον οὔτε  29 See chapter 13 (this volume).

Versioning  

παρειῶν | δάκρυ’ ὀμορξάμενον), eagerness for battle (ὁ δέ με μάλα πόλλ’ ἱκέτευεν | ἱππόθεν ἐξέμεναι, ξίφεος δ’ ἐπεμαίετο κώπην), and invulnerability (ἀσκηθής, οὔτ’ ἂρ βεβλημένος ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ | οὔτ’ αὐτοσχεδίην οὐτασμένος). His underscoring of these characteristics of Neoptolemus has been determined by the fact that he is speaking to Achilles, whose lack of fear, excellence and desire for fighting, and invulnerability were ironically cut short by his epic fate: he abstained from war because of his wrath against Agamemnon and he was killed by the concerted efforts of Paris and Apollo. By reminding Achilles of his own fate, Odysseus emphasizes the positive side of Neoptolemus even more. The singer expects from the audience to use the mere references that Odysseus makes to different incidents of the Trojan War saga as pathways leading to the retrieval of relevant material. The bard offers them a starting point, an initial hyperlink turning on their storehouse of mythical material. By collaborative effort, meaning is constructed based on the retrieval of other traditions and their cooperative interaction, through a plurality regained via the active participation of the audience in the performance.

. Versioning Versioning is a technical term used in hypertext technology to describe the storage and management of previous copies of a piece of information, for security, diagnostics, and interest. This term is directly applicable to the performance of oral poetry since it allows us to explore the possibility that some bards may have been interested in showing their own contribution to traditional material during the performance. Moreover, if a singer aimed at storing a given version in such a way that he could claim authority, he should be able to demonstrate what his personal input was. Is it possible to trace certain cases where a ‘personal’ version or piece of information has been ‘stored’? Let us consider the Catalogue of Zeus’ concubines in Il. 14.315–328: οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ μ’ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεὶς ἐδάμασσεν, οὐδ’ ὁπότ’ ἠρασάμην Ἰξιονίης ἀλόχοιο, ἣ τέκε Πειρίθοον, θεόφιν μήστωρ’ ἀτάλαντον· οὐδ’ ὅτε περ Δανάης καλλισφύρου Ἀκρισιώνης, ἣ τέκε Περσῆα πάντων ἀριδείκετον ἀνδρῶν· οὐδ’ ὅτε Φοίνικος κούρης τηλεκλειτοῖο, ἣ τέκε μοι Μίνων τε καὶ ἀντίθεον Ῥαδάμανθυν· οὐδ’ ὅτε περ Σεμέλης οὐδ’ Ἀλκμήνης ἐνὶ Θήβῃ, ἥ ῥ’ Ἡρακλῆα κρατερόφρονα γείνατο παῖδα· ἣ δὲ Διώνυσον Σεμέλη τέκε χάρμα βροτοῖσιν·

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics οὐδ’ ὅτε Δήμητρος καλλιπλοκάμοιο ἀνάσσης, οὐδ’ ὁπότε Λητοῦς ἐρικυδέος, οὐδὲ σεῦ αὐτῆς, ὡς σέο νῦν ἔραμαι καί με γλυκὺς ἵμερος αἱρεῖ. For never before has love for any goddess or woman so melted about the heart inside me, broken it to submission as now: not that time when I loved the wife of Ixion who bore to me Peirithoös, equal of the gods in counsel, nor when I loved Acrisius’ daughter, sweet-stepping Danaë, who bore Perseus to me, pre-eminent among all men, nor when I loved the daughter of far-renowned Phoenix, Europa who bore Minus to me, and Rhadamanthys the godlike; not when I loved Semele, or Alcmene in Thebe, when Alcmene bore me a son, Heracles the strong-hearted, while Semele’s son was Dionysus, the pleasure of mortals; not when I loved the queen Demeter of the lovely tresses, not when it was glorious Leto, nor yourself, so much as now I love you, and the sweet passion has taken hold of me.

Although the rubric of this catalogue is ‘Zeus’ concubines’, special emphasis is given to his offspring in the sense that they are the products of the materialization of his erotic desires.30 This female catalogue with its emphasis on genealogy bears similarities to a specific form of genealogic poem, the Ehoiai or Catalogue of Women.31 The catalogue of Zeus’ concubines consists of seven entries (daughter of Ixion, Danae, daughter of Phoenix, Semele, Alcmene, Demeter, Leto) briefly expanded by references to Zeus’ solely male offspring: Peirithoos, Perseus, Minus and Rhadamanthys, Heracles, Dionysus. In the two last entries (Demeter and Leto) there is no mention of children. The first three entries are organized in distichs, the first having the form of ‘when I loved X-woman’ and the second ‘who bore to me X’, the next two (Semele and Alcmene) are juxtaposed in a single verse and their offspring are given one verse each but in ring form (Semele-Alcmene-Aclmene’s son Heracles-Semele’s son Dionysus), whereas the last two, which are deprived of any mention of offspring, occupy one verse each. The catalogue has the following shape (A1/A2-B1/B2-C1/C2-D1+E1/ E2/D2-F1/G1): Entry 1 (A1): … not that time when I loved the wife of Ixion (A2) who bore to me Peirithoös, equal of the gods in counsel,

 30 See Sammons 2007, 103–104. 31 I am not referring to the Megalai Ehoiai because it cannot be used for my argumentation due to lack of material.

Versioning  

Entry 2 (B1): nor when I loved Acrisius’ daughter, sweet-stepping Danaë, (B2) who bore Perseus to me, pre-eminent among all men, Entry 3 (C1): nor when I loved the daughter of far-renowned Phoenix, Europa (C2) who bore Minus to me, and Rhadamanthys the godlike; Entries 4–5 (D1-E1): not when I loved Semele, or Alcmene in Thebe, (E2) when Alcmene bore me a son, Heracles the strong-hearted, (D2) while Semele’s son was Dionysus, the pleasure of mortals; Entry 6 (F1): not when I loved the queen Demeter of the lovely tresses, Entry 7 (G1): not when it was glorious Leto

What gives this catalogue its special tone is the use of the priamel. This is a rhetorical device employed in lists, which aims at highlighting the preeminence of the last element that is approved after the rejection of a series of other items belonging to the same rubric. Seen from the vantage point of epic versions abbreviated into items of the genealogical type that we encounter in Zeus’ catalogue of concubines, the priamel indicates not only that the last item-version in this list is the authoritative one but also that the bard is fully aware of the other items/versions which relate that Zeus had slept with various women. The singer aims at pointing to his audience that it is his versioning of traditional mythical material referring to Zeus’ love affairs that results in accentuating the ‘current’, Iliadic version of making love to Hera. By storing mythical data within a catalogue, the singer can present them in miniature form to his audience and underscore the authority of the performance at hand, the one emphasizing — through a priamel — the supremacy of the singer’s preferred version. Another form of versioning, i.e. of data storage in the hypertext technical lingo, is the relvar (relation variable). In a relational database, all data are stored and accessed through relations, which are sometimes called base relvars. Some relvars do not have their data stored in them but are a result of applying relational operations to other relvars, which are sometimes called derived relvars, meaning that their information is derived from other sources. In oral epic song, when an element or entry in a given chain is different from a metrically equivalent element of the same chain in another set or list, then we can see that it is not a question of priority of the one list versus the other but of the two possible values of a given element. By belonging to the same chain of items, Νησαίη (Il. 18.40) and Κυµοθόη (Th. 245) are relational variables. In a hypertextual environment they both constitute the two possible expressions of the same element of a given set or chain. To this extent there is no substitution of one by the other but two manifestations of the same entry in a list using a catalogue-specific

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics language, which has its own Boolean grammar: it is relational and bi-focal. This aspect of the hypertext may strike a familiar note to all oralists who are used to formulaic flexibility. This time though there is no replacement strategy at hand but activation of the hypertextual web of myth, whose nexus of associations is a systemic feature, a built-in, so to speak, quality. In fact, navigating may be conditioned but not really determined as listeners are able, partly at least, to select the labyrinthine path they wish to follow. In the words of Bakker,32 [l]ike text or the internet, the world of myth is a network within which one has to find one’s way, and the one who is capable of weaving the primary units of mythic narrative may not have control over the paths that connect them.

When the singer decides to use the names of the Achaean leaders, of the Nereids, of the Underworld heroines, of Zeus’ concubines or of the suitors of Penelope and to present them in the special register of a catalogue form, which, unlike narrative, defies any form of subordination, then these names are turned from mere items or entries into hyperlinks, i.e. they cease to exist by themselves.

. Beginnings and Endings How does an oral epic catalogue begin or end? On what grounds does the singer decide about the point he should begin his listing of items or entries and when does he consider it fit to bring his catalogue to a halt? Is completeness synonymous to the ‘end’ or is it better to turn, once more, to plurality and talk about ‘beginnings’ and ‘endings’? Beginning is, by definition, pointing to the future, to a later time, whereas the end is looking backwards to a prior time. This is of course only one of the two ways the beginning and the end can be constructed. It is also possible to talk about them not in terms of presence, but of absence: in this respect, a beginning defines a time, place or action not-after something else, while the end describes a time, place or action not-before something else. This double-aspect of beginning and end is of crucial importance for the hypertext since the ability of readers to navigate from whatever point they choose renders the very idea of a beginning null and void. Within the world of oral epic song, the beginning of a catalogue is often determined with exceptional emphasis since the singer either invokes the Muses or expresses his inability to perform this task on his own or both. Such preoccu-

 32 2001b, 149–160.

Beginnings and Endings  

pation with determining the starting point reminds one of the proems of the two Homeric epics:33 In the process of retrieving information that will be used in the proem, the speaking voice begins with the first focus of consciousness that surfaces the mind: the principal theme. But this theme can be triggered only through appeal to divine assistance (ἄειδε, θεά — ἔννεπε, Mοῦσα). Therefore, the grammatical particularities observed by traditional critics (such as the initial accusative, the vocative used for divine invocation) have not so much to do with the mimetic tendency of the Odyssean proem with respect to the Iliadic one, but rather with information-processing organized by the human mind.

The rubric of a catalogue is expanded by appositional devices in the manner of relative clauses or strung-on paratactic δέ-clauses. These item-pluses are bifocal and play a key-role in the audience’s orientation since they look at the same time backwards and forwards. They are anaphoric (in the sense that they are related to left-located, or at times dislocated, terms) and deictic (since they acclimatize the listener to the particulars of the rubric). Homeric speech34 speedily moves to the beginning of its own cherished version of events in the same way human discourse hastens to promote its own undisputed authority. Reiterated phraseology occurring in oral epic catalogues (like the Homeric list of Nereids in Iliad 18 and the Hesiodic catalogue of Nereids in the Theogony) and general familiarity with the epic tradition as a whole on the part of the audience stand for typical mental structures employed for organizing information in an economical way and, moreover, for interpreting reality upon a given-new pattern.35 Homeric speech, as a form of special speech, cognitively involves the audience in the ‘processes that create both language and story’.36 The search for a point of exit in a catalogue or list is conditioned by a specific mental strategy employed in hypertext technology with respect to material organizing.37 Another possible form of hypertextual literary organization involves parataxis, which is produced by repetition rather than sequence. Barbara Herrnstein Smith explains that in literary works that employ logical or temporal organization, ‘the dislocation or omission of any element will tend to make the sequence as a whole incomprehensible, or will radically change its effect. In paratactic structure, however (where the principle of generation does not cause any one element to ‘follow’ from another), thematic units can be added,  33 Tsagalis 2005, 61–62 (= pp. 41–42, this volume). 34 Cf. Hor. de arte poetica, 148: semper ad eventum festinat. 35 See Hornby 1972, 632–642; Clark and Clark 1977, 93; Brown and Yule 1983, 176–189. 36 See Russo 1999, 169. 37 Landow 19972, 186–187.

  The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics omitted, or exchanged without destroying the coherence or effect of the poem’s thematic structure’. According to Smith, ‘variations on a theme’ is one of the two most obvious forms that paratactic structure may take. The other one is the “list”’. The main problem with which parataxis, like hypertext, confronts narrative is that any ‘generating principle that produces a paratactic structure cannot in itself determine a concluding point’ (Poetic Closure, 99–100).38

Given the multimodal, performative nature of oral epic song, bards tend to employ aural means as part of creating links between the entries included in their lists and catalogues. Since these aural links however cease to exist when the singer is about to ‘abort’ his catalogue, they produce a satisfying halt by creating both the illusion of an end, although they are only closures, and a ‘promise’ for a new beginning, once they are encountered in another list. The following elements describe certain aural links observed in the list of Nereids in Il. 18.39–48. It is to be noted that assonance and alliteration of the sort described hereafter are clearly associative, i.e. they effect connections and enhance transitions. It is exactly this quality of this aural network that informs the audience that what they hear is only the aural nature of links and not their borders, just as memory-friendly addresses in the web have beginning and end, but the texts they lead to are virtually borderless and can be endlessly expanded. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(h)

word-initial and verse-initial assonance: ∆ωτώ / ∆εξαµένη / ∆ωρίς ‘progressive’ assonance and alliteration: Θάλειά τε Κυµοδόκη — Θόη θ’ Ἁλίη — Κυµοθόη — Ἀµφιθόη — Ἀµφινόµη verse-initial word-initial and terminal assonance: ∆ωτώ τε Πρωτώ τε verse-internal word-terminal assonance: Ὠρείθυια — Ἀµάθυια verse-internal word-initial assonance: Ἰάνειρά τε — καί Ἰάνασσα verse-terminal assonance and alliteration: Καλλιάνασσα — καί Ἰάνασσα verse-internal alliteration: τε Θόη θ’ Ἁλίη τε ἀγακλειτὴ Γαλάτεια two- (44, 46, 47)39 or three-step (39, 43, 45) progressive syllable increase: ∆εξαµένη — Ἀµφινόµη — Καλλιάνειρα (4–4–5)40

 38 Landow 20063, 223–224. 39 Two-digit numbers in parenthesis indicate verses. 40 One-digit numbers in parenthesis indicate number of syllables per word.

Beginnings and Endings  

Νηµερτής — Ἀψευδής — Καλλιάνασσα (3–3–5) Κλυµένη — Ἰάνειρα — Ἰάνασσα (3–4–4) Γλαύκη — Θάλεια — Κυµοδόκη (2–3–4) ∆ωτώ — Πρωτώ — Φέρουσα — ∆υναµένη (2–2–3–4) ∆ωρίς — Πανόπη — Γαλάτεια (2–3–4)

Acoustic associations between juxtaposed names and more sophisticated aural patterns should be regarded not only as means facilitating memorization but also as effective tools attracting the audience’s attention and collecting data in the form of compact aural chains. In any oral epic catalogue, each item is presented by a single intonation unit.41 This convergence is directly paralleled to one of the most basic features of hyperlinks where each item corresponds to a different link. The highlighting of the singer’s inability to offer a complete catalogue is a ‘clinch’ to the audience that conclusiveness and stability should not be expected and that closure is heavily conditioned by performance-practicalities. In this respect, catalogues have no end, only ‘endings’, whose plurality is an invitation to the audience to go on in their own mind, to conjure up more information from other traditions or sources, to transcend the limitations of any given list, to be alert to the existence of a totality that song can never fully achieve.

 41 See the analysis above.

 Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character . Introductory Remarks This study investigates how localization, meter and verse-structure play a significant role in determining the semantic function of a Homeric character, in this case Helen. Since traditional epic diction has played an important role in the shaping of epic, it can be plausibly argued that it has also influenced the way epic characters are presented. Clader has shown how the epithet system and the themes associated with Helen in archaic epic poetry have been shaped by traditional epic diction.1 I will therefore argue that Helen’s special status in the Iliad is not only manifested ‘in the epithets and themes through which the tradition defines her’2 but also in the treatment of her name.3

. Localization, Text and Semantics Here follows a complete list of all the attestations of Helen’s name in the Iliad:

.. Helen in the Nominative Case 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

τὸν δ’ Ἑλένη μύθοισιν ἀμείβετο δῖα γυναικῶν τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειθ’ Ἑλένη Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα τὸν δ’ Ἑλένη τανύπεπλος ἀμείβετο δῖα γυναικῶν ὣς ἔφατ’· ἔδδεισεν δ’ Ἑλένη Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα ἔνθα καθῖζ’ Ἑλένη, κούρη Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο Ἀργείη δ’ Ἑλένη μετ’ ἄρα δμῳῇσι γυναιξίν τὸν δ’ Ἑλένη μύθοισι προσηύδα μειλιχίοισιν τῇσι δ᾽ ἔπειθ’ Ἑλένη τριτάτη ἐξῆρχε γόοιο

(3.171) (3.199) (3.228) (3.418) (3.426) (6.323) (6.343) (24.761)

In the nominative, Helen’s name is never employed in verse-terminal position, which should be considered a typical heroic feature.4 Is this because she is de 1 See Clader 1976, 41–61. 2 Clader 1976, 40. 3 I have decided to limit my investigation of Helen’s name to the Iliad. 4 See Kahane 1994, 119. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-004

Localization, Text and Semantics  

prived of any heroics or is it simply due to metrical constraints dictated by her name’s prosody? Since the metrical shape of Helen’s name (⏑ ⏑ −) makes its localization at verse-end impossible, it seems that the question we have asked is easily answered. However and before embarking on an examination of the treatment of Helen’s name in the nominative we should consider the way the Iliad deals with the only mortal woman,5 whose name presents the same metrical peculiarities as Helen’s name:6 Hecuba (⏑ ⏑ −). Hecuba’s name is attested 5x7 in the nominative case: 3x between positions 3.5–7 and 2x between positions 5.5–7.8 Therefore, Hecuba’ name is never placed at verse-terminal position. The same observation applies to other women. Andromache’s name is attested 6x in the nominative case: 3x between 3–5 and 3x between 1–3; Briseis’ name is found 2x in the nominative: 1x between positions 1–3 and 1x between 3–5; Cassandra’s name 1x between 3–5; Chryseis’ name 1x between 3–5. From the information gathered above, it becomes obvious that none among the chief female mortal characters has its name placed in verse-terminal position. The question we have initially set still stands; for we have not yet shown how the Iliad handles a name that did not fit the metrical needs of the hexameter’s terminal position but was expected to belong to an important epic figure and, therefore, should be placed in verse-terminal position. This is the case with proper name nominatives referring to female divinities. Thetis’ name (⏑ ⏑) cannot fit the last foot of the hexameter, but the Iliad is able to accommodate her PNN (proper-name nominative) at positions 9–10 by having it followed by the epithet ἀργυρόπεζα occupying the terminal adonic.9 The same is the case with the PNN of Artemis that is placed quite often towards the end of the hexameter, either between positions 9–10 (followed by a two syllable-word occupying the spondee of the sixth foot) or between positions 7.5–8 (followed by the epithet ἰοχέαιρα occupying the terminal adonic).10 Traditional epic diction attributes typical epic features to characters whose status is considered to have a certain grandeur (and this is the case with goddesses par  5 The focus here is on the relation between semantics and localization within the hexameter with respect to female characters. 6 All statistics concern the Iliad. 7 The sign ʻxʼ stands for the number of times a word is attested in the Iliad. 8 For the metrical structure of the hexameter, see O’ Neill 1942, 113; Higbie 1990, 15, and Kahane 1994 (metrical notation). 9 Attested 9x Il.: 9.410; 16.222; 18.127 (= 19.28), 18.146, 18.369, 18.381; 24.89, 24.120. Cf. the socalled default mode: (1.538 = 1.556) ἀργυρόπεζα, Θέτις θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος. 10 9x Il.: 5.51, 5.53, 5.447; 6.205, 6.428; 9.533; 19.59; 20.39; 24.606. Cf. the default mode: Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα, κασιγνήτη Ἑκάτοιο.

  Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character excellence) and employs their PNNs as close as possible to the verse-end which is reserved for the expression of heroic features. The emblematic nature of this localization typifies the role of an important character.11 This approach is corroborated by the localization at verse-terminal position of the PNNs of key goddesses such as Hera, Athena and Aphrodite.12 In the Iliad, their PNNs are placed at the end of the hexameter 59x, 87x and 22x respectively. The above data confirm the special status of these characters whose names were metrically suitable for the ‘privileged’ verse-terminal position.13 Now, it is time to return to the name of Helen. The way the Iliad treats her PNN shows that she neither has a heroic identity (like the male epic protagonists) nor does she share any typical heroic features. Therefore, she is treated as a typical mortal woman (whose PNN is not localized at verse-end as she is not an epic protagonist). However, she possesses certain divine features by sharing an epithet system, which is used for goddesses14 (κούρη Διός, ἠΰκομος, τανύπεπλος are all epithets attributed exclusively or mainly to female divinities).

.. Helen in the Genitive Case 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

τείσασθαι δ’ Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε τείσασθαι δ’ Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε δῖος Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο δῖος Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο δῖος Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο Ἀτρείδης; ἦ οὐχ Ἑλένης ἕνεκ’ ἠϋκόμοιο; αὐτὰρ Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο εἰ μὴ Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο εἵνεκα ῥιγεδανῆς Ἑλένης Tρωσὶν πολεμίζω

(2.356) (2.590) (3.329) (7.355) (8.82) (9.339) (11.369) (11.505) (19.325)

Helen’s PNG (proper-name genitive)15 is attested 9x in the Iliad (2x between positions 3.5–5 and 7x between 5.5–7) making the metrical slot after the mascu 11 See Kahane, 1994, 119–120. 12 On naming women in Homer, see Higbie 1995, 111–145 and, for Helen in particular, 127–129. 13 On the validity of quantitative factors as interpretive means in epic poetry, see Kahane 1997, 326–342. 14 Clader (1976, 41–44) offers an exhaustive list of all the epithets attributed to Helen in the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Homeric Hymns. 15 Kahane 1994 examines PNVs (proper-name vocatives) and PNNs (proper-name nominatives), which are not oblique cases. He also considers what he calls ‘accusative theme-word

Localization, Text and Semantics  

line caesura the most prominent one regarding Helen’s PNG. The above list of Helen’s PNGs can be divided into two distinct categories: (a) those attested in narrator-text and (b) those attested in character-text.16 (a) Helen’s PNG is attested (2x) between positions 3.5–5 (items 1–2). Let us examine each of these two cases after quoting the exact passages: τὼ μή τις πρὶν ἐπειγέσθω οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι, πρίν τινα πὰρ Tρώων ἀλόχῳ κατακοιμηθῆναι, τείσασθαι δ’ Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε. Therefore let no man be urgent to take the way homeward until after he has lain in bed with the wife of a Trojan to avenge Helen’s longing to escape and her lamentations. (Il. 2.354–356)

Nestor tells the Achaeans that they should not hasten to return home before lying in bed next to a Trojan’s wife and taking revenge for Helen’s longing to escape and the grief she has caused. The old king of Pylos usually speaks like an ἀοιδός, being an intermediary between a remote past, which he uses as a paradigm for his fellow warriors, and the present in which he participates. Conversely, in this passage the focalization is that of the subject of the infinitives κατακοιμηθῆναι and τείσασθαι and not of Nestor himself.17 He assumes the position of the soldiers who are the addressees of his speech and tries to persuade them to stay at Troy until their goal is accomplished.18 Nestor acts as an authoritative figure foreshadowing the Catalogue of Ships that will soon follow and presents

 patterns’ because of the thematic function of the accusative (1994, 43–79) through pattern deixis. My approach to the attestations of Helen’s name in the genitive case tries to combine what we know about localization patterns and attributive discourse or, in general, the distinction between narrator and character-speech. In this study, I try show how an internal narrator (character-speech) can alter even the most traditional pattern with respect to the inflection of a person’s name, in order to express his own reaction to that person. 16 Narratological considerations have come to the foreground of Homeric studies since the pioneering work of de Jong 1987. On other important contributions; see e.g. Richardson 1990; de Jong 2001. The differences between narrator’s and characters’ diction in Homer have been carefully sketched by Griffin 1986, 36–57. 17 See de Jong 1987, 30–40; Maronitis 1995, 65–66 (= 2004, 124–126 = 20052, 179–180). 18 For a thorough discussion of Nestor as an authoritative figure, the similarities he shares with Calchas and the function of his placement after the negative example of Thamyris in Il. 2.594–600, see Dickson 1995, 47–100.

  Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character the army’s point of view, namely a negative picture of Helen who is regarded as a cause of struggles (ὁρμήματα) and groans (στοναχάς).19 τῶν οἱ ἀδελφεὸς ἦρχε, βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Mενέλαος, ἑξήκοντα νεῶν· ἀπάτερθε δὲ θωρήσσοντο, ἐν δ’ αὐτὸς κίεν ᾗσι προθυμίῃσι πεποιθώς, ὀτρύνων πολεμόνδε· μάλιστα δὲ ἵετο θυμῷ τείσασθαι Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε. Of these his brother Menelaus of the great war cry was leader, with sixty ships marshalled apart from the others. He himself went among them in the confidence of his valor, driving them battleward, since above all his heart was eager to avenge Helen’s longing to escape and her lamentations. (Il. 2.586–590)

This passage belongs to that part of the Catalogue of Ships where the external narrator refers to the kingdom of Menelaus and the army he brought with him from Greece. It is exactly at this point that he explains Menelaus’ eagerness to fight because of his determination to avenge the struggles and groans Helen has caused. Unlike the case of Nestor (Il. 2.356), the focalization here is that of Menelaus, who is the grammatical subject of ἵετο θυμῷ (Il. 2.589) on which the expression τείσασθαι Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε syntactically depends. Therefore, the external narrator avoids the dilemma of Helen’s innocence or guilt and focalizes Menelaus’ own opinion, namely that Helen has been a cause of pain and grief. All five attestations (items 3–5 and 7–8) of Helen’s name in the genitive between positions 5.5–7 are found in narrator-text and belong to the same whole 19 There is a long-standing controversy concerning the meaning of this line, since the ‘struggles and groans’ could either belong to Helen or be caused by her. The first interpretation (with a subjective genitive Ἑλένης) has been supported by the following scholars: Ameis and Hentze 1882–1900, ad Il. 2.356; Groten 1968, 33–39; Kakridis 1971, 25–53; Homeyer 1977, 6; Erbse 1986, 97–98. The latter option (with an objective genitive Ἑλένης) has been advocated by Leaf 1900, on Il. 2.356; Linsday 1974, 17; see also Kirk 1985, 153 on Il. 2.356, who rightly emphasizes the absurdity of what Priam tells Helen in Il. 3.164 (οὔ τί μοι αἰτίη ἐσσί, θεοί νύ μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν), if she had been innocent and the ‘struggles and groans’ belonged to her in a subjective sense. Moreover, how could the Achaeans (Il. 2.356) and Menelaus (Il. 2.590) be willing to pay back (τείσασθαι) the struggles and groans belonging to Helen herself? See also Il. 3.126–128, where Helen is weaving a great web with a representation of the numerous struggles (of both armies) ‘which they endured because of her’ (οὓς ἕθεν εἵνεκ’ ἔπασχον). I side with those who take the genitive as objective, referring to the struggles and groans Helen has caused to others. For a typical neo-analytical approach to this issue (namely in relation to the sources of the Iliad), see Kullmann 1960, 248–256.

Localization, Text and Semantics  

line formula: (− ⏑) Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο. So, it seems that a pattern can be discerned in this case, especially since Alexander is formulaically defined as the husband of Helen.20 The origin of such an expression remains obscure, but it is a tempting hypothesis that it has been metrically accommodated upon the old phrase πόσις Ἥρης ἠϋκόμοιο (Il. 10.5).21 The ‘non-priority’ of the expression used for Helen is indicated by the metrical inconvenience of the false long syllable at the masculine caesura: (− ⏑) Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο ( ⏑ | − − | −5 ⏑ ⏑ | − ⏑ ⏑ | − ⏑ ⏑ | − −). (b) Helen’s PNG is also twice attested between positions 5.5–7 in characterspeech, when the speaker is Achilles. Achilles is the only character in the Iliad who gives a negative color to Helen’s picture,22 complaining because he has found himself fighting for her sake a war he detests (items 6 and 9 in the list above). In both these cases, Helen’s PNG forms part of a prepositional phrase with ἕνεκα/εἵνεκα, although the epithets attributed to Helen are quite different (the generic ἠϋκόμοιο in 9.339 and the hapax ῥιγεδανῆς in 19.325). Achilles either alters the formula Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο or creates a new coin (ῥιγεδανῆς). His treatment of the formulaic system referring to Helen is linked to his main preoccupation with the heroic code, as he moves away from the external narrator’s typical representation of Helen and offers (through the use of ἕνεκα/ εἵνεκα) an explanation for his involvement in the war.23 The examination of Helen’s PNG has shown that textual considerations when combined with word placement within the hexameter help us understand the interaction between localization, name-inflection and meaning. If my approach is correct, then it is at least plausible to argue that Helen’s PNG is used to allude to her defaming tradition:24 Nestor and the external narrator present the focalization of the Achaean army and Menelaus respectively by referring to

 20 Helen and Hera are the only women in the Iliad whose epithet-name system is employed to describe their husbands. On the similarities between Hera and Helen and the control they exercise on their husbands, see Clader 1976, 14–15 and Higbie 1995, 127. 21 See Clader 1976, 47–48 who points to the expression ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης (Il. 7.411; 10.329; 13.154; 16.88; Od. 8.465; 15.112, 15.180). 22 I exclude Nestor (Il. 2.356), since he expresses the established view about Helen, i.e that she is to be held responsible for the sufferings of the Achaeans. This is also the view of the external narrator. 23 For a detailed analysis of Achilles’ idiosyncratic use of formulas and his special speaking patterns, see Martin 1989, 146–205. 24 There are reasons to believe that there was a defaming tradition about Helen reflected in Homeric epic. See Graver 1995, 41–61; Worman 2001, 19–37; Tsagalis 2008, 112–134.

  Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character this tradition in general terms, whereas Achilles offers his personal, highly involved, and emotionally overloaded tone with respect to Helen.

.. Helen in the Dative Case 1. 2. 3.

συμβάλετ’ ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι μάχεσθαι οἴους ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι μάχεσθαι Ἶρις δ’ αὖθ’ Ἑλένῃ λευκωλένῳ ἄγγελος ἦλθεν

(3.70) (3.91) (3.121)

Helen’s name is attested 3x in the dative in the entire Iliad and is placed between position’s 3.5–5. The cases available to us for studying the semantics of Helen’s PND (proper-name dative) are extremely limited, and so any attempt to establish a recurrent pattern would be based on insufficient data. With extreme caution I will draw attention to the fact that in all the above attestations of Helen’s PND the context points to her conjugal status. In Il. 3.70 and 3.91 (items 1 and 2) the connotative meaning of the PND is reinforced by the following verses (the two passages are virtually identical, as Hector is repeating verbatim what Alexander had just said: Alexander: συμβάλετ’ ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι μάχεσθαι· ὁππότερος δέ κε νικήσῃ κρέσσων τε γένηται, κτήμαθ’ ἑλὼν εὖ πάντα γυναῖκά τε οἴκαδ’ ἀγέσθω to fight together for the sake of Helen and all her possessions. That one of us who wins and is proved stronger, let him take the possessions fairly and the woman, and lead her homeward. (Il. 3.70–72)

Hector: οἴους ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι μάχεσθαι· ὁππότερος δέ κε νικήσῃ κρέσσων τε γένηται, κτήμαθ’ ἑλὼν εὖ πάντα γυναῖκά τε οἴκαδ’ ἀγέσθω· to fight alone for the sake of Helen and all her possessions. That one of them who wins and is proved stronger, let him take the possessions fairly and the woman, and lead her homeward. (Il. 3.91–93)

In lines 3.70 and 3.91 Helen is paratactically linked to κτήμασι ‘possessions’ (ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ καὶ κτήμασι πᾶσι) whereas in 3.72 and 3.93 the two terms are placed

Localization, Text and Semantics  

together in reverse order (κτήμαθ’ ἑλὼν εὖ πάντα γυναῖκά τε οἴκαδ’ ἀγέσθω). These chiastic structures25 show that the references to Helen in 3.70 and 3.91 are semantically ‘equal’ to the expression γυναῖκά τε οἴκαδ’ ἀγέσθω in 3.72 and 3.93 respectively, which mean ‘to carry home as a wife, i.e. to marry’. In Il. 3.121 (item 2) Helen is designated by the epithet λευκώλενος (24x for Hera and 3x for Andromache in the Iliad) which, despite Parry’s contention about its generic nature,26 may be safely regarded as an epithet particular to Hera (24x attestations) ‘borrowed by the poet for other ladies’.27 But what are the specific semantics of this epithet which triggered the idea of using it for both Helen and Andromache? Metrical reasons must be excluded, for Hera’s name scans − −, Helen’s ⏑ ⏑ −, and Andromache’s – ⏑ ⏑ −. The semantics of λευκώλενος seem to relate to the conjugal status of these three female characters. In fact, the Iliad expands the use of this epithet, traditionally linked to Hera (who is the divine consort par excellence) to two mortal women, who represent two contrasting examples of the poem’s preoccupation with the theme of marriage: Andromache is the positive example of the wife and Helen the negative one.28 The context in 3.121 reinforces this interpretation. The ancient scholia interpreted Iris’ summoning of Helen with the following explanation (I 379 Erbse): δηλονότι παρὰ τοῦ Διός· οὐ γὰρ αὐτάγγελος. θῆλυ δὲ θήλεϊ πείθεται· ἐρωτική τε θεός ἡ Ἶρις (b[BCE3 E4]T). καὶ εἰ συμπαροῦσα τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ Ἶρις (b[BCE3E4]). I don’t agree with Kirk who thinks that in this case the ancient scholia offered a superficial explanation.29 The following remarks will corroborate, I hope, my line of argument. When Iris visits Helen, she takes the form of Laodike, one of Alexanders’ sisters: Ἶρις δ’ αὖθ’ Ἑλένῃ λευκωλένῳ ἄγγελος ἦλθεν, εἰδομένη γαλόῳ, Ἀντηνορίδαο δάμαρτι, τὴν Ἀντηνορίδης εἶχε κρείων Ἑλικάων, Λαοδίκην, Πριάμοιο θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην. τὴν δ’ ηὗρ’ ἐν μεγάρῳ· ἣ δὲ μέγαν ἱστὸν ὕφαινεν, δίπλακα μαρμαρέην, πολέας δ’ ἐνέπασσεν ἀέθλους Tρώων θ’ ἱπποδάμων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων, οὓς ἕθεν εἵνεκ’ ἔπασχον ὑπ’ Ἄρηος παλαμάων.

 25 The underlined phrases and the bold characters are used to show which phrases are paralleled: A (Ἑλένῃ), B (κτήμασι πᾶσι), B (κτήμαθ’ ... πάντα) A (γυναῖκα). 26 Parry 1971, 148–152. 27 Clader 1976, 45. 28 See Maronitis 1995, 55–73 (= 2004, 117–132 = 20052, 167–191). 29 Kirk 1985, on Il. 3.121.

  Naming Helen: Localization, Meter, and Semantics of a Homeric Character Now to Helen of the white arms came a messenger, Iris, in the likeness of her sister-in-law, the wife of Antenor’s Son, whom strong Helicaon wed, the son of Antenor, Laodice, loveliest looking of all the daughters of Priam. She came on Helen in the chamber; she was weaving a great web, a red folding robe, and working into it the numerous struggles of Trojans, breakers of horses, and bronze-armored Achaeans, struggles that they endured for her sake at the hands of the war god. (Il. 3.121–128)

The family term γαλόῳ (nom. γαλόως) shows that Helen is regarded as a member of Priam’s royal family. Moreover, she is doing what wives usually do at home: she is weaving a great web, a shining folding robe, in the manner of Andromache in Il. 22.441, who was also weaving at home while waiting for Hector. A comparison of the two verses shows remarkable similarities: δίπλακα μαρμαρέην, πολέας δ’ ἐνέπασσεν ἀέθλους (Il. 3.126)30 δίπλακα πορφυρέην, ἐν δὲ θρόνα ποικίλ’ ἔπασσεν (Il. 22.441)

Andromache is the typical example of the good wife and Helen’s assimilation to her (in this respect) is an attempt to emphasize her marital status, which is to be decided in the ensuing scenes. Iris addresses Helen as νύμφα φίλη (Il. 3.130) and tells her that Menelaus and Alexander will fight for her sake and that she will be proclaimed wife of the winner of this duel (Il. 3.136–138: αὐτὰρ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ἀρηΐφιλος Mενέλαος | μακρῇς ἐγχείῃσι μαχήσονται περὶ σεῖο· | τῷ δέ κε νικήσαντι φίλη κεκλήσε’ ἄκοιτις). In addition, Iris’ speech, left in Helen’s heart sweet desire for her previous husband, her city, and her parents (Il. 3.139–140: ὣς εἰποῦσα θεὰ γλυκὺν ἵμερον ἔμβαλε θυμῷ | ἀνδρός τε προτέροιο καὶ ἄστεος ἠδὲ τοκήων). The above analysis does not deal with PNDs in general and there is no assumption concerning their overall placement and use within the hexameter. What I have tried to map here is the coincidence between case-inflection and meaning with respect to a single character’s PND. On the other hand, the localization of Helen’s PNDs only between positions 3.5–5, namely after a word-end at position 3 and before a word-end at position 5.5, may be a significant factor reinforcing the interpretation presented above. For it has been argued that ‘metrical pauses, at positions 3, 8, 5, 5.5, 2 and 7, which correspond to the conventional system of metrical pauses, are also the most distinct positions at which  30 The comparison is striking even if we adopt (following West 1998 ad loc.) the reading μαρμαρέην instead of πορφυρέην in Il. 3.121.

Localization, Text and Semantics  

sense-pauses occur’.31 In this vein and on the basis of my analysis on (a) wordlocalization at a position where a sense break usually occurs, (b) metrical shape that is determined by case-inflection, and (c) context-associations, I would like to put forward a tempting suggestion, according to which Helen’s PND is used by the Iliad to denote her marital status.

.. Helen in the Accusative Case 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Ἀργείην Ἑλένην, ἧς εἵνεκα πολλοὶ Ἀχαιῶν Ἀργείην Ἑλένην, ἧς εἵνεκα πολλοὶ Ἀχαιῶν οἳ δ’ ὡς οὖν εἴδονθ’ Ἑλένην ἐπὶ πύργον ἰοῦσαν ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφαν· Πρίαμος δ’ Ἑλένην ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῇ αὐτὸς ἔπειθ’ Ἑλένην ἐχέτω καὶ κτήματα πάντα Tρῶας ἔπειθ’ Ἑλένην καὶ κτήματα πάντ’ ἀποδοῦναι αὐτὴ δ’ αὖθ’ Ἑλένην καλέουσ’ ἴε· τὴν δ’ ἐκίχανεν ὑμεῖς δ’ Ἀργείην Ἑλένην καὶ κτήμαθ’ ἅμ’ αὐτῇ αὖτις δ’ Ἀργείην Ἑλένην Mενέλαος ἄγοιτο Ἀργείην Ἑλένην· σέο δ’ ὀστέα πύσει ἄρουρα τὴν ὁδόν, ἣν Ἑλένην περ ἀνήγαγεν εὐπατέρειαν δεῦτ’ ἄγετ’, Ἀργείην Ἑλένην καὶ κτήμαθ’ ἅμ’ αὐτῇ μήθ’ Ἑλένην. γνωτὸν δέ, καὶ ὃς μάλα νήπιός ἐστιν αἵ κε μετ’ Ἀργείην Ἑλένην κάλλισται ἔωσιν αἵ κε μετ’ Ἀργείην Ἑλένην κάλλισται ἔωσιν οὐκ εἴασχ’ Ἑλένην δόμεναι ξανθῷ Mενελάῳ καί οἱ ὑπόσχωμαι Ἑλένην καὶ κτήμαθ’ ἅμ’ αὐτῇ

(2.161) (2.177) (3.154) (3.161) (3.282) (3.285) (3.383) (3.458) (4.19) (4.174) (6.292) (7.350) (7.401) (9.140) (9.282) (11.125) (22.114)

Helen’s PNA (proper-name accusative) displays the largest number of examples in the Iliad. In almost half of them Helen’s proper name is preceded by the epithet Ἀργείην, an awkward choice for Helen of Sparta.32 Clader has argued in favor of an interpretation connecting Argos to ἀργός (νέομαι, νόστος) means ‘return to life and light’,34 Clader suggests that ‘Helen’s epithet Ἀργείη ( ‘sea’ > ‘salty water’ > ‘salt’? Let us turn our attention to the use of this word as a place name and then to its nuanced treatment by various authors.  20 See Puhvel, HED vol. 5 s.v. lapana- (a ‘Luwianism’) with all the relevant examples from the Ulmi-Tessub treaty. 21 In Bo 86/299 ll. 4–5, it is decreed that no goat/sheepherder is allowed to enter the area delineated by the Hūlaya river, which is the boundary of the land of Tarḫuntašša. The continuation of the text of the treaty shows that this prohibition is made with an eye to the saltlick rights of Kuruntas in the land of Tarḫuntašša. It seems then that, at least in this case, measures were taken against bringing goats and sheep to a saltlick to feed.

Goats and Waves  

. The Place Name Αἰγίλιψ (Il. 2.633) Janko argues that the use of Αἰγίλιπα (qualified as τρηχεῖαν, Il. 2.633) as a place name on Ithaca ‘is surely invented, since our Ionian bard knew little of Ithake but that it is αἰγίβοτος and τρηχεῖα (Od. 4.606; 13.242)’. His interpretation is based on the assumption that this place name pertains to the island of Ithaca, which would then have been designated with three names in a single entry in the Catalogue of Ships. This approach goes back to Leaf22 and is repeated in most modern commentaries. Though a plausible suggestion, I would like to entertain an alternative explanation. With respect to the place name Αἰγίλιψ, ancient testimonia offer contradictory information, Stephanus Byzantius (s.v. Κροκύλειον) opting for a place name on Ithaca, Strabo (10.2) for a place name on the mainland (Acarnania). Visser (1997, 592–594) opts for Strabo’s view with strong arguments, taking Αἰγίλιψ to be a rock used as a landmark on the mainland. The epithet τρηχεῖαν (‘steep’) has been conditioned by the way the bards understood Αἰγίλιπα. If taken as ‘steep’ (according to LSJ), then τρηχεῖαν is a pleonasm, though not an awkward one. It does not need to be built on the metonymical meaning of Αἰγίλιπα, it can simply be a general epithet designating a common feature of almost any Greek landscape. The same is the case with the other ‘competitive’ etymology. If the word means ‘sea-washed cliff’, then we are again dealing with a pleonastic use of τρηχεῖαν since cliffs are by definition steep. In the case of Αἰγίλιπα τρηχεῖαν we should (tentatively) argue that the bards understood the place name as meaning simply ‘of goats’, perhaps as a place where goats were nourished (Goat Island; see Eustathius’ interpretation under [4] above), i.e. a steep, rocky place, a typical Mediterannean Goat Island. All in all, it seems likely that the incomprehensibility of the etymology of αἰγίλιψ led to a new interpretation and, in fact, to one that was conditioned by its use as adjective or place name.

. Goats and Waves In light of the preceding observations, we are faced with an odd situation: a dictional fossil that is anything but transparent on the basis of its etymology has survived the test of time either within a formulaic expression or as a place

 22 Leaf 1900 ad loc.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers name. The relevant term has lost its original denotations but has active connotations that are part and parcel of its use. In cases like this we should draw a clear line between the etymology of the word and the way it is employed. The reason lying behind this approach is that the origins of the word’s meaning are not recognizable by its users, with the result that some of them have interpreted it by recourse to the most widespread meaning of the first part of the compound, i.e. αἴξ (‘goat’). In fact, we have examples in which this process is almost guaranteed and, what is even more remarkable, it applies to the meaning and use of the word αἴξ in the plural (‘goats’ and ‘waves’). The first relevant passage is Herodotus, 8.19–20: νόῳ δὲ λαβὼν ὁ Θεμιστοκλέης ὡς εἰ ἀπορραγείη ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρβάρου τό τε Ἰωνικὸν φῦλον καὶ τὸ Καρικόν, οἷοί τε εἴησαν τῶν λοιπῶν κατύπερθε γενέσθαι, ἐλαυνόντων τῶν Εὐβοέων πρόβατα ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ταύτῃ συλλέξας τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ἔλεγέ σφι ὡς δοκέοι ἔχειν τινὰ παλάμην τῇ ἐλπίζοι τῶν βασιλέος συμμάχων ἀποστήσειν τοὺς ἀρίστους. ταῦτα μέν νυν ἐς τοσοῦτο παρεγύμνου, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖσι κατήκουσι πρήγμασι τάδε ποιητέα σφι εἶναι ἔλεγε, τῶν τε προβάτων τῶν Εὐβοϊκῶν καταθύειν ὅσα τις ἐθέλοι (κρέσσον γὰρ εἶναι τὴν στρατιὴν ἔχειν ἢ τοὺς πολεμίους), παραίνεέ τε προειπεῖν τοῖσι ἑωυτῶν ἑκάστους πυρὰ ἀνακαίειν· κομιδῆς δὲ πέρι τὴν ὥρην αὐτῷ μελήσειν ὥστε ἀσινέας ἀπικέσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἑλλάδα. ταῦτα ἤρεσέ σφι ποιέειν καὶ αὐτίκα πυρὰ ἀνακαυσάμενοι ἐτρέποντο πρὸς τὰ πρόβατα. οἱ γὰρ Εὐβοέες παραχρησάμενοι τὸν Βάκιδος χρησμὸν ὡς οὐδὲν λέγοντα οὔτ᾽ ἐξεκομίσαντο οὐδὲν οὔτε προεσάξαντο ὡς παρεσομένου σφι πολέμου, περιπετέα τε ἐποιήσαντο σφίσι αὐτοῖσι τὰ πρήγματα. Βάκιδι γὰρ ὧδε ἔχει περὶ τούτων ὁ χρησμός· φράζεο, βαρβαρόφωνος ὅταν ζυγὸν εἰς ἅλα βάλλῃ βύβλινον, Εὐβοίης ἀπέχειν πολυμηκάδας αἶγας. Τούτοισι δὴ οὐδὲν τοῖσι ἔπεσι χρησαμένοισι, ἐν τοῖσι τότε παρεοῦσί τε καὶ προσδοκίμοισι κακοῖσι παρῆν σφι συμφορῇ χρᾶσθαι πρὸς τὰ μέγιστα. Themistocles thought that if the Ionian and Carian nations were removed from the forces of the barbarians, the Greeks might be strong enough to prevail over the rest. Now it was the custom of the Euboeans to drive their flocks down to the sea there. Gathering the admirals together, he told them that he thought he had a device whereby he hoped to draw away the best of the king’s allies. So much he revealed for the moment, but merely advised them to let everyone slay as many from the Euboean flocks as he wanted; it was better that the fleet should have them, than the enemy. Moreover, he counselled them each to order his men to light a fire; as for the time of their departure from that place, he would see to it that they would return to Hellas unscathed. All this they agreed to do and immediately lit fires and set upon the flocks. Now the Euboeans had neglected the oracle of Bacis, believing it to be empty of meaning, and neither by carrying away nor by bringing in anything had they shown that they feared an enemy’s coming. In so doing they were the cause of their own destruction, for Bacis’ oracle concerning this matter runs as follows

Goats and Waves  

when a strange-tongued man casts a yoke of papyrus on the sea, then take care to keep bleating goats far from the coasts of Euboea.23 To these verses the Euboeans gave no heed; but in the evils then present and soon to come they suffered the greatest calamity.

Standard commentaries explain Bacis’ oracle by endorsing a literary interpretation of πολυμηκάδας αἶγας. The epithet πολυμηκάδες is a hapax legomenon in Greek literature. It immediately recalls the Homeric expression μηκάδες αἶγες (‘bleating goats’: Il. 11.383, 23.31; Od. 8.124, 244, 341). The compound πολυμηκάδες seems to have been formed to fit this particular oracle.24 What should be highlighted here is that while in the narrative immediately preceding the oracle, Herodotus attempts to bridge Themistocles’ advice to the Euboeans with the content of the oracle, he utterly fails. First, the oracle refers exclusively to goats, whereas Themistocles to cattle in general.25 Second, Themistocles did not advise the Euboeans to keep the animals away from Euboea but to sacrifice them, in order to hinder their use as food by the Persian army. Primary prophetic speech is context-determined; it is a sign, not a meaning, a sign that needs to be decoded within the context to which it belongs. Oracles attested by means of a literary source, such as Herodotus, are the result of a filtering, often to be attributed to the priests in Delphi, who ‘translated’ the primordial, exclamatory suspension of prophetic speech into a secondary form of deixis pertaining to polysemy, ambiguity, and homonymy, as they are expressed by double entendre, sense pauses, syntactical vagueness with respect to the subject or object, contradictions, animal imagery, adynata, kennings, synecdoche, metonymy, etc.26 Herodotus is citing an oracle the deliberate ambiguity of which he does not comprehend. The expression πολυμηκάδας αἶγας ‘plays’ with the semantic oscillation between ‘much-bleating’ (πολύ–μηκάομαι) and ‘very long’ (πολύ–μῆκος)

 23 Translation by Godley (1920) with slight modifications. 24 The false etymology from μῆκος is already recorded in the ancient scholia to the Odyssey (on 9.124 Dindorf: μηκάδας] ἤτοι μηκωμένας, ἀπὸ τῆς φωνῆς. Q V μηκὴ γὰρ λέγεται ἡ τῶν αἰγῶν φωνή. ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπὶ μήκη κίειν, ὅ ἐστι πορεύεσθαι V). 25 This is probably the correct rendering of πρόβατα here, which do not mean exclusively ‘sheep’; for this meaning in Hdt., see e.g. τὰ λεπτὰ τῶν προβάτων (‘small sheep and goats’) in 1.33, 8.137. 26 See Christidis 2001, 1024–1025. Although not solely devoted to oracular speech, the recent work of Beta (2016) is a valuable contribution to the study of oracles.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers paired by the double entendre ‘goats’ and ‘waves’ (αἶγας).27 Herodotus understands the oracle only in relation to the first widespread meaning of αἴξ, which determines the sense of the hapax legomenon πολυμηκάδας, in accordance to the Homeric expression μηκάδες αἶγες (‘much-bleating goats’).28 Thus, the oracle may have well ‘played’ with the semantical ambiguity of πολυμηκάδας αἶγας in an attempt to suggest to the inhabitants of northern Euboea to stay away from the ‘very long waves’29 [falling on the shores] of this region of the island. The same semantical interplay between the two meanings of the word αἴξ (‘goat’ and ‘waves’ in the plural) is at work in the following passage from Longus (2.15): ἤλθομεν εἰς τούτους τοὺς ἀγροὺς θηρᾶσαι θέλοντες. τὴν μὲν οὖν ναῦν λύγῳ χλωρᾷ δήσαντες ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκτῆς κατελίπομεν, αὐτοὶ δὲ διὰ τῶν κυνῶν ζήτησιν ἐποιούμεθα θηρίων. Ἐν τούτῳ πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν αἱ αἶγες τούτου κατελθοῦσαι τήν τε λύγον κατεσθίουσι καὶ τὴν ναῦν ἀπολύουσιν. εἶδες αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ φερομένην, πόσων οἴει μεστὴν ἀγαθῶν; οἵα μὲν ἐσθὴς ἀπόλωλεν, οἷος δὲ κόσμος κυνῶν, ὅσον δὲ ἀργύριον. τοὺς ἀγροὺς ἄν τις τούτους ἐκεῖνα ἔχων ὠνήσαιτο. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἀξιοῦμεν ἄγειν τοῦτον, πονηρὸν ὄντα αἰπόλον, ὃς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης νέμει τὰς αἶγας ὡς ναύτης. We came into these fields to hunt. Wherefore with a green sallow-with we left our ship tied to the shore while our dogs were hunting the grounds. Meanwhile his goats strayed from the mountains down to the sea, gnawed the green cable in pieces, set her at liberty, and let her fly. You saw her tossing in the sea, but with what choice and rich good laden! What fine clothes are lost! What rare harness and ornaments for dogs are there! What a treasury of precious silver! He that had all might easily purchase these fields. For this damage we think it but right and reason to carry him away our captive, him that is such a mischievous goatherd to feed his goats upon those other goats, to wit, the waves of the sea.30

Another example is offered by the word Αἰγαῖος,31 which is employed to designate both land and sea: a mountain in Crete (Hes. Th. 484: Αἰγαίῳ ὄρει), a plain near Crisa in Phocis ([Hes]. Cat. fr. 220 M-W: Αἰγαῖον πεδίον), and the Aegean  27 Papanastasiou 2000, 407–408; Bowie (2007, 112) suggests that πολυμηκάδας αἶγας may be a reference to the ‘many different languages spoken in the Persian army’. This interpretation seems to me very strained, given that it is not supported at all by the context (see 8.19–20). 28 Il. 11.383, 23.31; Od. 9.124, 244, 341. 29 It is also possible that the pair πολυμηκάδας αἶγας could mean ‘much-sounding’ waves. 30 Translation by Thornley 1916, 89 and 91. 31 Carruba’s suggestion (1995, 7–21) that there was a pro-Greek form *Αἰγα (seen in Hittite Aḫḫijā), by which the Greeks designated the coastal Asianic area and the Aegean islands (hence the adjective Αἰγαῖος was formed), and that the root *Αἰγ- and Aḫḫijā go back to Indo-European *akw-ā seems to me far-fetched, a case of mere ‘straight-jacketing’. Interestingly enough, Carruba does not discuss at all the meaning ‘waves’ for αἶγες.

Goats and Waves  

Sea as πόντος or πέλαγος or κῦμα (e.g. Ibyc. S151.28 PMGF; Aesch. Ag. 659; Hdt. 2.97.1, 4.85.4 etc.; Eur. Hel. 130, 776, Tr. 88; Thuc. 1.98.2, 4.109.2; Strabo 1.2.20, 2.5.21, 7.7.4 etc.; Plut. Cimon 8.5; Paus. 1.1.1, 2.22.1, 5.21.10 etc.; Opp. Hal. 5.427). The use of both meanings of the stem αἰγ- (‘goat’ and ‘waves’ in the plural) for different place names testifies to the fact that they were both current at a very early period. Moreover, the examples offered with respect to the use of Αἰγαῖος for the Aegean Sea show that it was ‘initially’ connected to the notion of ‘stormy sea’, in particular with reference to the return of the Greeks from Troy.32 A third example is given by the use of the stem αἰγ- in proper names or epithets modifying proper names. Again, the root is attested in both its meanings: Αἰγίπαν (‘Goat Pan’: [Erat.] Catast. 27; Plut. 19.311b), Αἰγεύς (Theseus’ father who alternates with Poseidon in various mythical versions: e.g. Bacch. 17.33–36; Apollod. 3.15.7; Plut. Thes. 2c; Paus. 2.33.1), Αἰγαῖος Ποσειδῶν (Pher. 28 EGM) and Αἰγαίων θεός (sc. Ποσειδῶν: Callim. Aet. fr. 59.6 Pf. = 54i.6 Harder), Αἰγαῖον πέλαγος (through Αἰγεύς), Αἰγαίων (different name of the sea-creature Briareos; see Il. 1.403–404: ὃν Βριάρεων καλέουσι θεοί, ἄνδρες δέ τε πάντες | Αἰγαίων’, ὃ γὰρ αὖτε βίην οὗ πατρὸς ἀμείνων and Eum. Tit. fr. 3 EGEF where he lives in the sea and is designated as son of Gaia and Pontos).33 All three examples show that the stem αἰγ- was contextually determined and that it was employed either with respect to the widespread meaning ‘goat’ or with the less known meaning ‘waves’, ‘sea’.34 There is, though, an important consideration that decidedly weakens this meaning in the compound αἰγίλιψ. Although the stem αἰγ- in the plural is a secondary meaning for the ‘goats of the sea’ (waves) and constitutes a metaphor with widespread diffusion and representation in various IE languages,35 to be tempted to treat it as a direct translation of the Luwian expression ‘saltlick’ and to equate it with salt on the basis of

 32 For a review of the relevant cases, see Papanastasiou 2000, 412. 33 On Aigaion/Briareos in Eumelus, see Tsagalis 2017a, 26, 47 n. 68, 49, 53–57, 59, 78, 87, 97– 98, 108. 34 A brief note on the semantic field designated by the words αἰγίς, ἐπαιγίζω, καταιγίζω: the word αἰγίς designates the goaskin of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, but because of its magical force the verbs ἐπαιγίζω and καταιγίζω (‘to rush upon’) display a variety of uses, since they are applied to the winds (Il. 2.148; Od. 15.293; see also Aesch. Sept. 63), streams, (Opp. Hal. 2.125), dolphins ([Opp.] Cyn. 2.583) etc. Again, we see that the stem αἰγ- can express, even within the same family of words, different meanings. 35 I draw the following examples from Papanastassiou 2000, 409: ‘white horses’ (British English) and ‘white caps’ (American English), ‘palomas’ (= ‘doves’ in Spanish), ‘cavalloni’ (= ‘white horses’ in Italian), ‘moutons’ (= ‘sheep’ in French), ‘προβατάκια’ (= ‘small sheep’ in Modern Greek) etc.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers the fact that the waves are tautological to the sea and sea water (which is salty) is a precarious interpretive leap requiring the metonymical metamorphosis of a metaphor. And that is, obviously, too much.

. Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals In cases in which the data available from a given language are not completely illuminating, it is advisable to turn our lens to relevant material from other languages, especially (but not exclusively) those belonging to the same family. In this vein, I will now follow the path trodden by eminent Indo-Europeanists and examine pertinent cases in Hittite culture that partially share phraseology with the Homeric examples at hand. I begin with a presentation of the ‘Homeric’ material. The compound αἰγίλιψ is attested 4x in Homer (only in the Iliad) and 1x in the Homeric Hymn to Pan: A1. Il. 2.632–635: οἵ ῥ᾽ Ἰθάκην εἶχον καὶ Νήριτον εἰνοσίφυλλον καὶ Κροκύλει᾽ ἐνέμοντο καὶ Αἰγίλιπα τρηχεῖαν, οἵ τε Ζάκυνθον ἔχον ἠδ᾽ οἳ Σάμον ἀμφενέμοντο, οἵ τ᾽ ἤπειρον ἔχον ἠδ᾽ ἀντιπέραι᾽ ἐνέμοντο. Τhose who held Ithaca and leaf-trembling Neriton, those who dwelt around Crokyleia and rigged Aigilips, those who held Zakynthos and those who dwelt about Samos, those who held the mainland and the places next to the crossing.36

A2. Il. 9.13–15: ἂν δ᾽ ᾿Aγαμέμνων ἵστατο δάκρυ χέων ὥς τε κρήνη μελάνυδρος ἥ τε κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης δνοφερὸν χέει ὕδωρ· and Agamemnon stood up before them, shedding tears, like a spring dark-running that down the face of a rock impassable drips its dim water.

 36 Although, I have printed the translation ‘impassable’ for αἰγίλιπος, I do not agree with it. This is done only for convenience.

Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals  

A3. Il. 13.62–65: αὐτὸς δ᾽ ὥς τ᾽ ἴρηξ ὠκύπτερος ὦρτο πέτεσθαι, ὅς ῥά τ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης περιμήκεος ἀρθεὶς ὁρμήσῃ πεδίοιο διώκειν ὄρνεον ἄλλο, ὣς ἀπὸ τῶν ἤϊξε Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχθων. and burst into winged flight himself, like a hawk with quick wings who from the huge height of an impassable rock lifting leans to flight to pursue some other bird over the wide land; so Poseidon shaker of the earth broke away from the Aiantes.

A4. Il. 16.2–4: Πάτροκλος δ᾽ ᾿Aχιλῆϊ παρίστατο ποιμένι λαῶν δάκρυα θερμὰ χέων ὥς τε κρήνη μελάνυδρος, ἥ τε κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης δνοφερὸν χέει ὕδωρ. Meanwhile Patroclus came to the shepherd of the people, Achilles, and stood by him and wept warm tears, like a spring dark-running that down the face of a rock impassable drips its dim water.

A5. Hom. Hymn to Pan (19) 1–4: ἀμφί μοι Ἑρμείαο φίλον γόνον ἔννεπε Μοῦσα, αἰγιπόδην δικέρωτα φιλόκροτον ὅς τ’ ἀνὰ πίση δενδρήεντ’ ἄμυδις φοιτᾷ χοροήθεσι νύμφαις αἵ τε κατ’ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης στείβουσι κάρηνα ……………………………………………………………………………. σὺν δέ σφιν τότε νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες λιγύμολποι φοιτῶσαι πυκνὰ ποσσὶν ἐπὶ κρήνῃ μελανύδρῳ μέλπονται, κορυφὴν δὲ περιστένει οὔρεος ἠχώ·

4 19

About Hermes’ dear child tell me, Muse, the goat-footed, two-horned rowdy, who roams about the wooded fields together with the dance-merry nymphs: along the precipitous crag they tread the summits ……………………………………………………………………………. with him then the clear-singing mountain nymphs tripping nimbly by a dark spring, dance and sing: the echo moans round the mountaintop.37

 37 Translation by West 2003b, 200.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers In examples (A2) and (A4),38 the compressed nature of the fountain simile applies to Agamemnon and Patroclus respectively. The repeated simile associates two characters both reacting to Achilles’ refusal to return to battle. From the point of view of cognitive science, visual patterning of this sort is primarily mental: the epic tradition has thematized simile space by making ‘the dark spring symbolize in its pictorial metalanguage ‘distress’ in the face of a difficult situation’.39 This thematization conjures further associations resulting from the traditional language of lament. The default idea ‘he cried’ is so effectively intensified by its visual representation as a constant flow of water that it is developed into a whole simile which in turn reshapes the specific manifestation of the default idea. The falling of water from a cliff makes a sound (see also e.g. Pi. fr. 52 f.1 — 11 Snell-Maehler: ὕδατι γὰρ ἐπὶ χαλκοπύλῳ | ψόφον ἀϊὼν Κασταλίας) that is interpreted as ‘heavy groaning’ (βαρὺ στενάχων), a formulaic expression of lament that surfaces in both passages where the fountain simile is employed (Il. 9.16; Il. 9.20).40 Passages (A1)-(A5) from Homer and the Homeric Hymn to Pan should be combined with the imagery of the black-water spring that is also part and parcel of the majority of the examples above: B1. Il. 16.156–162: οἳ δὲ λύκοι ὣς ὠμοφάγοι, τοῖσίν τε περὶ φρεσὶν ἄσπετος ἀλκή, οἵ τ’ ἔλαφον κεραὸν μέγαν οὔρεσι δῃώσαντες δάπτουσιν· πᾶσιν δὲ παρήϊον αἵματι φοινόν·  38 (A1) has already been discussed above; (A3) containing only the imagery of the formula ἀπ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης has been ‘reduced’ to a connotative field of such meanings as ‘high’ (notice περιμήκεος) and ‘steep’; (A5) is clearly imitating the Homeric similes but dissociating the two sets of imagery, the rock-face (ἀπ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης) and the spring (κρήνη μελάνυδρος). 39 Tsagalis 2012b, 325. 40 See Ready 2011, 165–173, especially 172–173; also Σ on Il. 9.16a that explain στενάχειν as including δακρύειν which was mentioned before. The simile, though only two verses long is remarkable for its symmetry and aural effects: both lines end in a near-similar sound (υδρος – ὕδωρ); the same verb is repeated in both verses (χέων – χέει) and placed just after the simile’s beginning and end (third word from the beginning and second word from the end); blackness is highlighted twice (μελάνυδρος – δνοφερόν); the designation of the place from where water falls is effected by two bisyllabic feminine nouns of the first declension both containing a consonantal cluster ‘stop+liquid’ and two long e sounds (κρήνη – πέτρη); the liquid ρ is appropriately repeated no less than six times in these two verses either within a cluster or on its own so as to imitate the flowing of tears/water (δάκρυ, κρήνη, μελάνυδρος | πέτρης, δνοφερόν, ὕδωρ).

Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals  

καί τ᾽ ἀγεληδὸν ἴασιν ἀπὸ κρήνης μελανύδρου λάψοντες γλώσσῃσιν ἀραιῇσιν μέλαν ὕδωρ ἄκρον ἐρευγόμενοι φόνον αἵματος And they, as wolves who tear flesh raw, in whose hearts the battle fury is tireless, who have brought down a great horned stag in the mountains, and then fed on him, till the jowls of every wolf run blood, and then go all in a pack to drink from a spring of dark-running water, lapping with their lean tongues along the black edge of the surface and belching up the clotted blood

B2. Il. 21.257–264 ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἀνὴρ ὀχετηγὸς ἀπὸ κρήνης μελανύδρου ἂμ φυτὰ καὶ κήπους ὕδατι ῥόον ἡγεμονεύῃ χερσὶ μάκελλαν ἔχων, ἀμάρης ἐξ ἔχματα βάλλων· τοῦ μέν τε προρέοντος ὑπὸ ψηφῖδες ἅπασαι ὀχλεῦνται· τὸ δέ τ᾽ ὦκα κατειβόμενον κελαρύζει χώρῳ ἔνι προαλεῖ, φθάνει δέ τε καὶ τὸν ἄγοντα· ὣς αἰεὶ ᾿Aχιλῆα κιχήσατο κῦμα ῥόοιο καὶ λαιψηρὸν ἐόντα As a man running a channel from a spring of dark water guides the run of the water amongst his plants and gardens with a mattock in his hand and knocks down the blocks of his channel; in the rush of the water all the pebbles beneath are torn loose from place, and the water that has been dripping suddenly jets on in a steep place and goes too fast even for the man who guides it; so always the crest of the river was overtaking Achilles for all his speed of foot

The simile of text (B1) refers to a pack of wolves ‘lapping with their lean tongues along the black edge of the surface of a spring with dark water’ (ἀπὸ κρήνης μελανύδρου | λάψοντες γλώσσῃσιν ἀραιῇσιν μέλαν ὕδωρ).41 λάψοντες is fut. part. of λάπτω, which (as argued above) is cognate with Hittite lap(h)- (IE *lab [h]‐), Old English lapian, Armenian lap̔em, Alb. lap, Lat. lambo, Old High German laffan. All these verbs mean either ‘lick’ or ‘drink by licking’. Here, then, is  41 In the RV (3.33.1), river water flows down in great speed ‘like two bright mother cows who lick their calves’. This association does not seem to pertain to the Homeric examples, where the licking concerns the water and not the offspring of the animals. In the example from the RV, the tertium comparationis is the huge size of the cows’ tongues. On this example, see West 2007, 275.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers a case attested in the context of a Homeric simile, of an imagery pertaining to the etymology suggested above (6). Given that the κρήνη μελάνυδρος appears together with the expression κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης in Il. 9.13–15 and 16.2–4, we may be dealing with the complementary distribution of the connotations inherent in two separate imageries (the black water spring and the goat-licked rock face), which suggests that λάπτω (aor. ἔλαψα, fut. λάψω) and the noun λάψις (‘licking’)42 may be cognate with λιψ-, i.e. the second part of the compound αἰγίλιψ. But how was this Luwian expression transferred into Greek? There are two possible scenarios. For the sake of a balanced discussion, I will mention both of them, though I am inclined to endorse the second, as will become apparent from what follows. (a) It is possible that in the formula αἰγίλιψ πέτρη we can trace a process similar to that suggested by Watkins43 with respect to ἠλίβατος (πέτρη). As it may well be that the first part of the compound (ἠλι‐) comes from the Luwian adjective āli- (‘high’, ‘steep’, ‘lofty’), as in Latin al-tus, and that ‘may have been borrowed, perhaps as a toponym, by Mycenean Greek speakers and transformed into ἀλίβατος (πέτρα Pindar, Aeschylus) and ἠλίβατος (πέτρη Homer)’, so it is possible that αἰγίλιψ (πέτρη) that is derived from αἰγ- (‘goat’) and λάπτ-ω (‘lick’, ‘drink by licking’) was borrowed by the Myceneans who had contacts with populations speaking Luwian, perhaps (but not necessarily) by means of a place name, and was later transformed because of its incomprehensibility into ‘pertaining to goats’, i.e. ‘high’, ‘steep’, ‘difficult to access’.44 It may not be accidental that the Bronze Tablet treaty, in which the expression šalli lāpani’ wāniya (‘great saltlick rock face’) is attested, concerns the king of Tarḫuntašša45 that like Karkamis (another kingdom of the Luwian south zone) and Taruwisa/ Tru(w)isa (Troy) were places where Mycenean Greeks had contacts with Luwian populations.

 42 See Hesych λ 468 s.v. λάψοντες (γλώσσῃ) [II 730 Cunningham]: τῷ ἄκρῳ τῆς γλώσσης πίνοντες. 43 Watkins 1995, 145. 44 It should be noted that, as argued by Watkins (1995, 145 n. 19), in the ‘Conjuration of Water and Salt’ (a bilingual Hittite-Luwian text of the 14th c. going back to a 15th c. archetype) the place where salt comes from is designated as āli- (‘high’, ‘steep’, ‘lofty’) and modifies unwāni(‘rock face’, ‘cliff’, ‘escarpment’), while the Bronze Tablet treaty of the king of Tarḫuntašša makes provisions that the livestock is driven from the Ḫulaya river to the šalli lāpani’ wāniya (‘great saltlick rock face’). 45 Tarḫuntašša derives its name from the storm-god Tarḫunna or Tarḫunta (Luwian Tarḫunza, Palaic Taru); see West 2007, 247.

Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals  

(b) The second scenario is based on the assumption that the way this idiom had penetrated Greek is closely associated with its most typical manifestation in Homeric Greek, i.e. within the environment of a simile. In a path-breaking and admirable balanced article, which Hellenists have rather overlooked, Puhvel has carefully set the methodological framework within which a fruitful exploration of the antecedents of Homeric similes should be developed. Given the importance of Puhvel’s approach for my topic, I quote this passage in full: Compared to such vague echoings, cultural universals, and diffusional debris, which tend to wash over Hellenism in periodic waves of eastern flotsam like those of the Cyrus Gordon […], a firm grasp on our topic requires a narrower gauge and straiter gate. We need to compare actual records of adjacent, interacting, perhaps overlapping people, places, and times, in order to determine whether under the surface ‘noise’ of the text there may lurk a coherent thematic structure still discernible in formulaic petrifaction.46 Even if the yield should be meager, such is the only rigorous way of comparing Homeric and Hittite similes. The Iliadic elaborated simile is […] an innovational extravaganza in its own right, and there is little point in trying to find antecedents or parallels. The simple comparison or embryonic simile, on the other hand, is so basic that thematic matchings are probably random […] Some may be poetic […], some hyperbolic (Iliad 9.14 δάκρυ χέων ὥς τε κρήνη μελάνυδρος ‘shedding tears like a dark-watered spring’; KUB VIII 48 I 18 [Gilgāmeš] nu-ssikan ishahru parā PA5.HI.A-us mān [arser ‘his tears flowed like irrigation ditches’). But there remains a distinct middle ground where precise comparison of Homeric and Hittite similes is possible. This is the well-balanced extended simile, expanded beyond the embryonic but not elaborated out of joint, with both parts in expressional equilibrium. In Hittite this type is common in utterances of analogic magic where verbatim matching of parallels is essential to the efficacy of the procedure.47

Puhvel’s approach is on the right track, insightful but not overambitious, as it warns us of the various caveats of such an undertaking. Having said this, I would like to note that it is really a pity that one of his Iliadic examples (‘the dark-watered spring’) is cited only partially and not in its fullness. Puhvel is right that the ‘shedding tears like a spring’ simile is so elementary that it may well be called ‘universal’. In such cases, tracing specific antecedents is almost malpractice, not least because this approach silently adopts the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But we need to draw a line between the embryonic simile and the short one, the abbreviated and elliptical nature of the latter camouflaging its expressive potential and, sometimes, its antecedents. In this light, I suggest that we follow Puhvel’s insight concerning the link between certain Homer 46 My own emphasis. 47 Puhvel 1991, 23 (with slight modifications of punctuation). For analogic magic in Hittite, see Oettinger 1976.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers ic similes and Hittite expressions of analogic magic and ritual utterances or spells, which are marked by the same inbuilt parallelism, between the Wie-Satz and the So-Satz the former, and between its two parts the latter. To make this point clear, let us quote one of Puhvel’s examples:48 izzan GIM-an Im-anza pittenuzzi n-at-kan aruni parranta pedai kēll-a parnas ēshar papratar QATAMMA pittenuddu n-at-kan aruni parranda pedāu as the wind sweeps chaff and carries it over the sea, let it likewise sweep the blood-defilement of this house and carry it over the sea (KUB XLI 8 II 15–19)

Now, compare Od. 5.368–370: ὡς δ’ ἄνεμος ζαὴς ἠΐων θημῶνα τινάξῃ καρφαλέων, τὰ μὲν ἄρ τε διεσκέδασ᾽ ἄλλυδις ἄλλῃ, ὣς τῆς δούρατα μακρὰ διεσκέδασ’ as a gale wind scatters a heap of dry chaff and spreads it all over, thus it shattered the long timbers of the raft …

The internal parallelism between the two parts of the Hittite ritual and the parallelism between the Wie-Satz and the So-Satz of the Homeric simile are based not only on their structural scaffoldings but also on repeated phraseology (n-atkan aruni | διεσκέδασ᾽). It is exactly this dictional reiteration that reinforces the two parallelisms, which pertain not only to situations but also to specific objects or people. In this light, we may focus our attention on several Hittite rituals using the phraseology pertaining to saltlike imagery, which we have posited as the phraseological antecedent of the Homeric formula ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης. The first example has been called ‘the conjuration of water and salt’ and pertains to the Puriyanni, a private household ritual of sympathetic magic to ward off evil. The relevant text is bilingual, the first paragraph being in Hittite, the second in Cuneiform Luwian.49 nu=ššan ANA GAL GIR4 kuit wātar lāḫuwan MUN=ya=kan anda išḫuwān n=at=kan É-ri anda papparašzi ANA BEL SISKUR=ya=ššan šarā papparašzi nu kiššan memai

 48 Puhvel 1991, 26. 49 I print the text and translation from Watkins 1995, 144–145.

Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals  

—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—––wāarša=tta ÍD-ti [nan]amman MUN-ša=pa ālāti uwā[niyati] upamman wāarša=tta zīl[a ÍD-i] anda nāwa iti MUN-ša=pa=[tta z]ila āli uwāniya nā[wa it]i (Hittite) The water which is poured into the clay bowl and the salt which is shaken in it he sprinkles in the house and sprinkles on the celebrant and speaks as follows: —–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—–-—––(Luwian) The water is led from the river and the salt is brought from the steep rock face; the water to the river nevermore will go back and the salt to the steep rock face nevermore will go back.

Commenting on this bilingual text Watkins draws attention to ‘the rhythmic, grammatically parallel, syntactic strophic style of the Luvian spell, which is clearly verbal art’.50 Water and salt are here used positively, i.e. as protective devices, that will ‘cleanse’ the household and keep pollution away. The second case study concerns a parturition ritual performed when pregnancy comes to an end. In this ritual the Sun-God is invoked, whereafter she comes and has a feast, so that the gods Anzili and Zukki are appeased, and the pregnant woman overcomes the suffering of delivery. At a certain point it is stated that ‘as the salt of the meadow from the saltlick is not exhausted, […] and [may] this one [i.e. so the life of the offerand] forever after [not be exhausted]’.51 Here salt symbolizes permanence.52 A third example is offered by the magic ritual of fḪantitaššu (CTH 395.1 A) in Kbo XVI 14 I 20 ff.:53 š]e-er-ra-aš-ša-an ZÍD.DA ZÍZ MUN-ya šu-uḫ-ḫa-I nu kiš-an me-ma-i M]UN-an GIM-an UDUḪI.A li-li-pa-an-ti nu ú-id-du kụ-u-uš ḫ-u-uk-ma-uš dUTU-uš QA-TAM-MA li-li-pa-iš-ki-iddu nu IGI-zi pal-ši ud-da-na-aš EN-aš dUTU-i kiš-an ḫu-u-uk-zi On it [the smoking cedarwood, oil, and honey] he sprinkles spelt-meal and salt, and speaks as follows: ‘as sheep lick salt, so may the Sun-God come and lick these conjurations’. And for the first time the sacrificer conjures [before] the Storm-God as follows.54

 50 Watkins 1995, 145. 51 Beckman 19832, 76–77; Moga 2009, 269. 52 See Moga 2009, 269. 53 For its duplicate (KUB XLIII 57 I 20′-24), see Watkins 1975, 182 (= 1994, 481).

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers This text comes from the Ritual of Hantitassu of Hurma that was performed when a person’s years ‘are mobilized/disturbed’.55 In this case, salt has negative connotations. It must be absorbed, ‘licked away’ by the Sun-God, as happens with sheep that lick and swallow it in a saltlick. The material we have gathered indicates that salt and salt-licking imagery were used in incantations and spells pertaining to Hittite ritual. We have also adduced evidence from the Hittite Ulmi-Tesub treaty that saltlicks were important resources indicating wealth and prestige. In this light, I would like to argue that ritual constitutes the performative framework by means of which imagery like a ‘saltlick cliff’ passed to Greek speakers in geographical areas where the two peoples, Greeks and Hittites, met and communicated. This cultural transmission is especially pertinent to the case of the Homeric simile, which shows traces of borrowings from Hittite ritual.56 The antiquity57 of the expression ‘as sheep lick salt’ that is attested, as we saw above, in the magic ritual of fḪantitaššu amounts to ‘sheeplicked salt’ and, by a small extension indicating the locale of this activity, further to ‘sheepfrequented saltlick’. This means that the ‘saltlick cliff’ of the Hittite Ulmi-Tesub treaty functionally equals ‘an animal frequented saltlick rock or cliff’, i.e. an αἰγίλιψ πέτρη. Such a process, which must have taken some time, resulted in the semantic defamiliarization of an arcane Hittite idiom that entered epic language as a dictional fossil. Since the formula αἰγίλιψ πέτρη was incomprehensible to the Ionian bards (having lost its denotative force pertaining to salt-licking), the licking aspect was recontextualized and associated with a familiar imagery (Il. 16.156–162), i.e. that of a mountain spring, where animals satisfy their thirst, licking with their tongues the flowing, clean water.58 The similes in Il. 9.13–15 and 16.2–4 may  54 Text and translation from Watkins 1975, 181 (= 1994, 480). 55 See Bachvarova 2016, 94 n. 71. 56 On this matter, see Puhvel 1991, 21–29. 57 See Watkins 1975, 181–182 (= 1994, 480–481), who argues that Latin and Hittite both offer ‘two entirely homologous structures as models of religious and cultural behavior’ with respect to two rituals in which salt plays a pivotal role. He also forcefully maintains that on linguistic grounds the utterance ‘as sheep lick salt’ reinforces the ‘antiquity of the presence of salt in the [Hittie] ritual’. 58 On μελάνυδρος, see Σ (A) Il. 9.14b (II 399 Erbse): πολύυδρος – τὸ βάθος; Σ (bTa) Il. 16.3b (156 III Erbse): ἡ βαθύυδρος, ᾗ κατὰ τοὺς φυσικοὺς μέλαν ἐστὶ τὸ ὕδωρ; Suda μ 464 s.v. μελάνυδρος [III 351 Adler]: βαθεῖα, κυρίως δὲ καθαροῦ ὕδατος; Hesych. μ 656 s.v. μελάνυδρος [II 806 Cunnignham]: ἐν βάθει τὸ ὕδωρ ἔχουσα An. ἢ πολύϋδρος; Eust. on Il. 9.14 (II 647 van der Valk): μελάνυδρος μὲν οὖν κρήνη οὐ μόνον διότι καθόλου τὸ ὕδωρ μέλαν εἶναι δοκεῖ μὴ φωτιζόμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐκ βάθους ἀνάγουσα τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ὡς πολύϋδρος. See also Οd. 20.158 (αἱ μὲν ἐείκοσι

Homeric Formulas and Hittite Rituals  

have resulted from the combination of two types of imagery, the saltlick rock to which animals (goats included) are attracted, in order to lick the salt on the mineral surface, and the clean-watered spring where animals drench their thirst. For the Ionian bards αἰγίλιψ πέτρη had lost its original meaning, but (as is the case with iconyms) had preserved some of its connotations: the rock face on which minerals are found, the image of the animals licking, the rural environment. Although the multiple examples in various modern languages pertaining to the analogy of tears and fountain or spring suggest that the imagery is almost universal (given the liquid form shared by tears and water), there are interesting parallels between Ugaritic, Hittite, and Homeric usage of the weeping idiom. In the words of West, [t]wice in the Iliad a hero who is about to make a lachrymose speech is described as standing and shedding tears like a fountain whose water pours down a steep rock-face. In a fragment of the Hittite version of Gilgāmesh, Enkidu related his doom-laden dream, and then ‘he lay before Gilgāmesh, and his tears [flowed] like irrigation channels’ before he spoke again. We cannot say whether the simile was in the Akkadian original, but it is paralleled in other Hittite texts.59

In the context of a rock face environment, it may have been reinforced by the psychological phenomenon of pareidolia (< παρά + εἴδωλον) that involves an external stimulus, which the human mind reinterprets (by recourse to a familiar pattern) as something that does not exist. Through the process of formation, weathering, or erosion, rocks and cliffs may come to mimic various recognizable

 βῆσαν ἐπὶ κρήνην μελάνυδρον), where Euryclea commands the female servants to fetch water from a dark-water fountain, i.e. a fountain with a lot of clean water. This interpretation of black water pertains to spring water at large. Given the weeping context of the similes in Il. 9.13–15 and 16.2–4, the stress on the darkness of water is clearly aimed to create an analogy with the black tears of Agamemnon and Achilles respectively. Hainsworth (1993, 61 on Il. 9.14–15) argues against Fränkel’s (1921, 21) association of δνοφερός and μελάνυδρος with Agamemnon’s dark mood on the basis of the fact that these epithets do not always have gloomy connotations, but in the context of this visual image Fränkel’s observations are correct; see the pairing of the ‘neighboring’ similes of Il. 9.4–8 and 14–16 (κῦμα κελαινὸν … | ἔχευεν – δάκρυ χέων… μελάνυδρος | δνοφερὸν χέει ὕδωρ). The former simile uses wind-water imagery for the distress and desperation of the Achaeans, the latter employs water imagery for the distress and desperation of Agamemnon. As a big black wave casts huge seaweed along the shore, so a black-water spring makes tears pour over Agamemnon’s cheeks. The black water falling from a spring situated on a cliff (κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης) is paired to the image of the black wave rising and falling on the shores of the Troad. 59 West 1997, 231 and n. 47 for other references in Hittite texts.

  Ἀπ᾽/κατ᾽ αἰγίλιπος πέτρης: Homeric Iconyms and Hittite Answers forms such as a human face, a common feature of pareidolia. In Jewish tradition, certain rock-salt formations on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea were thought to ‘picture’ Lot’s wife who was turned into a stele of salt because of her lack of faith.60 Likewise in ancient Greek culture, the weeping rock with Niobe’s face (who was punished for her arrogance towards Leto) is a well-known example of this phenomenon.61

 60 See Latham 1982, 70. 61 Il. 24.613–617 (ἣ δ’ ἄρα σίτου μνήσατ’, ἐπεὶ κάμε δάκρυ χέουσα. | νῦν δέ που ἐν πέτρῃσιν, ἐν οὔρεσιν οἰοπόλοισιν, | ἐν Σιπύλῳ, ὅθι φασὶ θεάων ἔμμεναι εὐνάς | νυμφάων, αἵ τ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ᾿Aχελώϊον [᾿Aχελήσιον quiam ap. Σ (Τ): ᾿Aχελήϊον agn. Σ (AD), As: ᾿Aκελήσιον West] ἐρρώσαντο, | ἔνθα λίθος περ ἐοῦσα θεῶν ἐκ κήδεα πέσσει). Dué (2010, 291) has argued that the fountain simile in Il. 9.14–16 ‘recalls the iconic lamenter of Greek myth, Niobe, whose example is invoked by Achilles as he and Priam mourn for fathers and sons in the lament-filled Iliad 24. Niobe in her grief for her twelve children was transformed into such a weeping rock’.

 Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 Iliad 11.609–610 has been under the spotlight of critics since the earliest phases of analytical scholarship. It constitutes an interpretive crux with large repercussions for the poem. In this paper, I will revisit this passage to clarify some misconceptions which, in my view, still persist today, at least in a part of modern scholarship. My take on these lines employs both oral theory and other modern interpretive tools (such as narratology) and uses them to show that raised eyebrows because of over-skepticism are sometimes marked by a tendency to see the tree instead of the forest. νῦν ὀΐω περὶ γούνατ᾽ ἐμὰ στήσεσθαι Ἀχαιούς λισσομένους· χρειὼ γὰρ ἱκάνεται οὐκέτ’ ἀνεκτός. It is now that I think the Achaeans will come to my knees and stay there in supplication, for a need of past endurance has come to them. (Il. 11.609–610)

Few other lines of the Iliad have attracted so much scholarly interest as 11.609– 610, which for all analytical scholars constituted one of the strongest indications that the Embassy (Iliad 9) did not belong to the Ur-Ilias and that it was added to the epic at a later phase by another poet.1 For several scholars Achilles’ words are a strong hint that the Embassy has not yet happened. I will soon review many of the arguments employed in the past to support this approach, but before I embark on this task, it is instructive to alert the readers to the fact that the same end-result, i.e. an Iliad without an Embassy, is also adopted by scholars who do not belong to the analyst camp. Currie2 who takes a neoanalytical stance, considers the possibility that in 11.609–610 the Iliad refers to an earlier version from which it is departing. West,3 who is a unitarian since he thinks that the Iliad has been composed by a single poet who worked on the poem with additions, adaptations, expansions etc. throughout an extended period of his life, maintains that these lines were composed when the poet of the Iliad ‘still intended to place the Embassy during the following night’. We may pause for a moment and consider the views of Currie and West before focusing on the analytical arguments. Both approaches have the merit that they accept the text as it  1 For a detailed presentation and discussion of the various analytical and unitarian views in 19th-century scholarship, see Ameis and Hentze 1887, 118–135; on Il. 11.609–610, see Ameis and Hentze 1888, 75–76. 2 Currie 2016, 74. 3 West 2011a, 259. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-007

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 is. Currie explains these lines by recourse to an earlier version which we may call another Iliad that did not have an Embassy and from which our Iliad is departing. The essential point is that the poet of the Iliad composed his poem with an Embassy but when he wrote lines 11.608–610 and 16.72, he had in mind another Iliad which did not feature an Embassy. The aim of the poet of our Iliad was to recall the earlier version without an Embassy by highlighting for his audience narrative inconsistency. However, problems remain. If the previous approach is adopted, we would have a case in which our Iliad reacts to an Iliad without an Embassy by introducing an Embassy (Book 9) but then alludes to that other Iliad (which does not have an Embassy) by means of a passage which falls completely outside the framework of the Embassy of Book 9. Currie’s argument would work well for cases in which the ‘new’ section of the text contains signs of its reaction to an ‘earlier’ version. I remain skeptical with respect to 11.609–610 since it is not part of the Embassy. Moreover, Currie draws attention to the duals in Iliad 9, which may be reminding the audience of another version of the Iliad, in which the Achaeans sent two, not three, envoys to Achilles.4 This latter line of thought concerning the duals is possible, but complicates the issue. For, in that case, we would have an Iliad without an Embassy to which Il. 11.609–610 reacts and another Iliad with an Embassy involving two envoys to which Il. 9.182–198 responds. This line of thought requires that our Iliad reacts in two (or three) different passages to two earlier versions, one without an Embassy and another one with an Embassy with two envoys. This is a fascinating explanation, though more demanding. West’s view is based on the idea of a single poet who composes by writing. He worked on his text over many years and initially planned to place the Embassy ‘during the following night’, which means after the long day of fighting that begins with Il. 11.1 and ends with Il. 18.617.5 West endorses a long-held view that the poet of the Iliad composed at a first stage Books 1–2 (without the Catalogue of Ships), 11, and 16 (without the death of Sarpedon), which he then expanded by ‘tectonic’, episodic, and subepisodic additions.6 According to this view, lines 11.609–610 fit perfectly the initial composition (primary layer), since they are corroborated by a few passages in Book 16 (see below).7 The poet neglected to make the necessary altera-

 4 Currie 2016, 74. 5 West 2011a, 259. 6 West 2011a, 58. 7 West (2011a, 251–252) sees in Zeus’ words to Iris (that Hector should hold back until Agamemnon is wounded and takes to his chariot) a pointer to the fact that at an initial stage Book 16 came immediately after Book 11.

Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610  

tions after inserting the Embassy (it is not clear whether Books 3–9 were inserted all at once). This is a completely different explanation to the one suggested by Currie. ‘Intention’ has now given its place to ‘neglect’.8 West also thinks that the notorious duals in Book 9 result from a similar neglect by the poet of the Iliad. He first composed an Embassy with two envoys (Odysseus and Ajax), in which the duals made perfect sense, and at a later stage introduced a third envoy, Phoenix. The poet wrote an entire new speech for Phoenix, an answer by Achilles, made several adjustments to Book 9 concerning Phoenix’s stay with Patroclus and Achilles after the departure of the envoys from Achilles’ hut, but neglected to change the duals. Hence the problem with the three envoys and the dual forms. This ‘solution’ seems to me puzzling. Here we have a poet who is negligible à la carte:9 he does not forget to make adjustments for Phoenix at the end of Iliad 9 but forgets to change the duals; he intends to make a serious and important insertion in the poem by means of the introduction of the Embassy but neglects to change 11.609–610 (as well as a few passages in Book 16)10 which were supposedly written before he inserted an Embassy. In other words, this poet desires to improve his work and returns to it continuously through his lifetime, inserting new scenes, adapting material, probably re-writing some passages, but fails, at times, to bring the new material in line with the old one he had already written. This kind of reasoning can be used to explain almost any problem. Discrepancies can be thus screened out by recourse to ‘neglect’. Be that as it may, we should be alert to the way ‘discrepancies’ are defined. What I mean is that the criteria by which discrepancies are determined are often filtered by each scholar’s (or school’s) interpretation of Homeric poetry. To return to the problem at hand, we should ask ourselves whether all forms of request are of equal weight.11 Is the offering of gifts of the same force as mere supplication? Is speech and argumentation of the same tone with begging? If, for a moment, we change perspective and look at things not from the viewpoint of

 8 The same kind of reasoning pertains to West’s explanation of the notorious readings known to Zenodotus in Od. 1.93 and 285 Κρήτην instead of Σπάρτην; on this issue, see my discussion in chapter 9 (this volume). 9 The same observation applies to the often rehearsed claim that there was a poet of the Doloneia, who neglected to create links with the following books of the rest of the epic, although he did the exact opposite with respect to the preceding Books of the Iliad (e.g. 10.12: reevokes 8.553–554, 9.77, 234; 10.59: 9.80–86; 10.106: 9.651–655; 10.251–253: presupposes Book 9). This line of thought assigns to the poet of the Iliad and the poet of the Doloneia the same occasional neglect. 10 See West 2011a, on Il. 11.609–610. 11 Page (1959, 305–306) wrongly treats the Embassy as a supplication.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 the party making the request but from the viewpoint of the party asked, then we may see that there is a crucial difference between an organized, fully rational, and formal attempt aiming to lure somebody to a course of action and a spontaneous, informal, and utterly desperate effort of begging.12 The former is about satisfaction and compensation, the latter about compassion and pity.13

. Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages The debate about the authenticity of 11.609–610 involves the consideration of various passages, which the analysts adduced as evidence for the late addition of the Embassy into the Ur-Ilias. These passages are of varying importance, since some of them are employed by most analytical scholars, while others by Unitarians.14 I will present them in the order they appear in the text of the Iliad. (a) Il. 9.421–422, 9.520–522, 9.626–627, 9.640–642: ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς μὲν ἰόντες ἀριστήεσσιν Ἀχαιῶν ἀγγελίην ἀπόφασθε, τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ γερόντων do you go back therefore to the great men of the Achaeans, and take them this message, since such is the privilege of the princes ἄνδρας δὲ λίσσεσθαι ἐπιπροέηκεν ἀρίστους κρινάμενος κατὰ λαὸν Ἀχαιϊκόν … he has sent the best men to you to supplicate you, choosing them out of the Achaean host

 12 See in the section ‘From Request to Supplication’, the discussion on Il. 9.301–303. 13 Wilson (2002, 10), who argues that Agamemnon offers Achilles ἄποινα (‘ransom’), whereas Achilles feels he is owed ποινή (reparation’), interprets Agamemnon’s offer as an attempt to ‘subjugate’ Achilles by making him abandon the idea of reparation. On a different note, it should be noticed that Agamemnon’s offer in Il. 9.120 is a dramatic replay of Chryses’ offer to Agamemnon in Il. 1.20, the more so since they are both expressed in similar diction. Agamemnon is experiencing by means of Achilles in Iliad 9 the same negative attitude and rejection he has shown to Chryses in Book 1. This time, though, he is willing to return a slave girl (Briseis) to Achilles, while in Iliad 1 he was the one who refused to return a slave girl (Chryseis) to her father. 14 The three passages of greater weight (Il. 16.52–59, 72–73, 85–86) are also cited by both Currie and West in their respective studies.

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

… ἀπαγγεῖλαι δὲ τάχιστα χρὴ μῦθον Δαναοῖσι … … it is best to go back quickly and tell the story to the Danaans …

… ὑπωρόφιοι δέ τοί εἰμεν πληθύος ἐκ Δαναῶν … … see, we are under the same roof with you from the multitude of the Danaans …

In 9.421–422, 626–627, and 640–642 the envoys have been sent not just in the name of Agamemnon (9.520–522) but of the entire army as well.15 Why is then Achilles still waiting in 11.609–610 for an embassy by the Achaeans? The answer is that Achilles is not waiting for a second embassy, i.e. a formal plea by anyone.16 What he is expecting is a different kind of call for help by the Achaeans, not an attempt to convince him to fight by gifts and arguments. In 9.111– 113, when Nestor first suggested that an embassy is sent to Achilles, he described it as a formal effort to satisfy and convince Peleus’ son by pleasing gifts and soothening words (ὥς κέν μιν ἀρεσσάμενοι πεπίθωμεν | δώροισίν τ᾽ ἀγα-

 15 Bethe (1914, 75 n. 5) rightly rejects older Unitarian arguments drawing a line between Achilles’ feelings towards Agamemnon and the army. Differently Duckworth (1933, 87), who stresses the fact that the offer made to Achilles in Iliad 9 emanates from Agamemnon and the council of first-rank heroes, not from the assembly of the army. This is a valid point, the more so since it (partly) explains the double assemblies in the beginning of Iliad 9, that of the army (which has no result) and that of the chiefs (which decides to send and embassy to Achilles). 16 See Eust. on Il. 11.609–610 (III 263 van der Valk): ὅτι ἀνάγκης καὶ κατεπείξεως τὸ ‘νῦν οἴω περὶ γούνατ᾽ ἐμὰ στήσεσθαι λισσομένους Ἀχαιούς· χρειὼ γὰρ ἱκάνεται οὐκέτ᾽ ἀνεκτός’. ἐρεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ ὁ ἐλπίζων ἱκετευθῆναί ποθεν κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην. […] σημείωσαι δὲ ὅτι ἀναθεὶς ὁ ποιητὴς τὸν τοιοῦτον νοῦν τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ ἐμφαίνει δύνασθαι καὶ δευτέραν πρεσβείαν ἄρτι στεῖλαι εἰς Ἀχιλλέα. καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐποίησεν ἂν οὕτω, εἰ μὴ τὸ μονοειδὲς ἐξέκλινε, προτιμώμενος τὸ ἑτέρως πως ἐξαγαγεῖν τὸν ἥρωα εἰς μάχην καὶ μὴ διὰ πρεσβείας κοινῆς, ἣν φθάσας ἐκεῖνος ἀπεδοκίμασε. (Achilles says) ‘It is now that I think the Achaeans will place themselves around my knees in supplication, since a need has come to them that cannot be endured any longer’. This is said by somebody who believes that at some point he will be supplicated because of necessity. […] Note that the poet, having given such a way of thinking to Achilles, indicates that he is able to send now a second embassy to Achilles. And he would had done it, if he did not avoid uniformity, preferring to bring the hero out to battle in some other way and not by means of an ordinary embassy, which that man (Achilles) had already rejected.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 νοῖσιν ἔπεσσί τε μειλιχίοισιν). In 11.609–610 Achilles is waiting for something quite different. (b) Il. 13.115: ἀλλ᾽ ἀκεώμεθα θᾶσσον· ἀκεσταί τοι φρένες ἐσθλῶν no, sooner let us heal it, for the hearts of great men can be healed

This verse, spoken by Poseidon to a group of young Achaeans immediately after referring to the insult of Agamemnon to Achilles, has been interpreted as an attempt to placate Achilles.17 This argument is based on a misunderstanding of Poseidon’s words. Verses 13.108–119 make it clear that Poseidon (having taken the shape of Calchas) has explained the Trojan advance to the ships as a result not only of Achilles’ refusal to fight but also because of the ‘hanging back of our people who have made their quarrel with him, and will not stand in defense of our fast-running ships, but instead they are killed against them’.18 It is exactly this ‘hanging back of the army’ (μεθημοσύνη) that Poseidon/Calchas wants to change. Agamemnon’s insult to Achilles and the latter’s abstaining from war is no reason for the army to hang back from defending the ships (13.114: ἡμέας γ᾽ οὔ πως ἔστι μεθιέμεναι πολέμοιο). The troops, flattered by expressions like πάντες ἄριστοι ἐόντες ἀνὰ στρατόν (13.117) are urged to recall their fighting spirit and save the ships. By placing the ‘indirect reminder of Achilles’ obduracy’ (13.115)19 between these two direct references (114 and 117) to what the army needs to do, Poseidon/Calchas makes his message sound loud and clear: ‘no, sooner let us heal it; for the minds of brave men can be healed’ (ἀλλ᾽ ἀκεώμεθα θᾶσσον· ἀκεσταί τοι φρένες ἐσθλῶν).20 The brave men are the warriors to whom Poseidon/Calchas tries to instill courage. In fact, his words are perfectly in tune with 11.609–610. There Achilles was expecting the Achaeans to fall on their knees and supplicate him.21 Here Poseidon/Caclhas tells them that Achilles’  17 See the discussion in Kiene 1864, 326–327. 18 ἡγεμόνος κακότητι μεθημοσύνῃσί τε λαῶν, | οἳ κείνῳ ἐρίσαντες ἀμυνέμεν οὐκ ἐθέλουσι | νηῶν ὠκυπόρων, ἀλλὰ κτείνονται ἀν᾽ αὐτάς. 19 Janko 1992, 58. 20 According to the exegetical scholium on Il 13.115c, some ancient scholars thought that this phrase was meant for Achilles. This line of argument is clearly wrong. The explanation offered by the scholium is typically aestheticizing: ‘for an erring behavior by good men can be corrected more easily᾽ (ῥᾷστον γὰρ πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν τὸ ἁμαρτηθὲν τοῖς ἐναρέτοις ἀνδράσιν). 21 Notice the stress on Achilles’ (who is the supplicandus) knees. Knees, chin, and hands are those body parts to which the suppliant directs his/her gestures (Gould 1973, 96); on the sa-

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

obstinacy can be left aside. The army can and must remedy the situation with its own strength. It is not Achilles’ anger that must be healed but rather the way of thinking of the entire army. Instead of supplicating, the Achaeans must act and save themselves.22 (c) Il. 16.52–59: ἀλλὰ τόδ᾽ αἰνὸν ἄχος κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἱκάνει, ὁππότε δὴ τὸν ὁμοῖον ἀνὴρ ἐθέλῃσιν ἀμέρσαι καὶ γέρας ἂψ ἀφελέσθαι, ὅ τε κράτεϊ προβεβήκῃ· αἰνὸν ἄχος τό μοί ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ. κούρην ἣν ἄρα μοι γέρας ἔξελον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν, δουρὶ δ᾽ ἐμῷ κτεάτισσα πόλιν εὐτείχεα πέρσας, τὴν ἂψ ἐκ χειρῶν ἕλετο κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων Ἀτρείδης ὡς εἴ τιν᾽ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην. But this thought comes as a bitter sorrow to my heart and my spirit when a man tries to foul one who is his equal, to take back a prize of honor, because he goes in greater authority. This is a bitter thought to me; my desire has been dealt with roughly. The girl the sons of the Achaeans chose out for my honor, and I won her with my own spear, and stormed a strong-fenced city, is taken back out of my hands by powerful Agamemnon, the son of Atreus, as if I were some dishonored vagabond.

The repetition of γέρας, which is effectively paired with ἂψ ἀφελέσθαι and ἔξελον (referring the former to Agamemnon, the latter to the army), the jingle between ἔξελον and ἐκ χειρῶν ἕλετο (pertaining the former to the army, the latter to Agamemnon), and the use of the phrase ὡς εἴ τιν᾽ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην (‘as if I was some dishonored vagabond᾽), all these features indicate that Achilles is still thinking in terms of the insult Agamemnon committed against him. The return of Briseis to him cannot change the fact that he has been insulted in the eyes of the army. This is because it was the army that had consented to Achilles’ getting Briseis as an award for his military exploits. The insult is about the very recognition of Achilles’ heroic identity, of receiving the respect he deserves within the community of heroes to which he belongs. By saying that Agamemnon has deprived him of the γέρας he has been bestowed by the army,  credness of these parts of the body, see Onians (19882, 97, 132–133, 174–175, 180–181, 198 n. 1, 233, 235). 22 Il. 13.117–119: οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἔγωγε | ἀνδρὶ μαχεσσαίμην ὅς τις πολέμοιο μεθείη | λυγρὸς ἐών· ὑμῖν δὲ νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ κῆρι.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 Achilles is not ignorant of the Embassy and Agamemnon’s promise to return Briseis. On the contrary, the verbatim repetition of 9.648 (= 16.59) shows that Achilles is alluding to the Embassy, where the same line has been employed by him. The syntax in 9.648 is smooth, here rather forced. The accusatives τιν᾽ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην are in apposition to μ᾽ ἀσύφηλον (ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἔρεξεν | Ἀτρείδης) in 9.647, whereas here there is no preceeding accusative designating Achilles to which τιν᾽ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην can be tagged. In this light, Achilles is emphatically stressing that his feelings are the same as in Iliad 1. For him the insult remains. (d) Il. 16.72–3: εἴ μοι κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων | ἤπια εἰδείη (‘if powerful Agamemnon | treated me kindly’)

This is the cornerstone of anti-Embassy analytical criticism.23 The phrase ἤπια εἰδείη is considered an uncontestable indication that Agamemnon has not sent an embassy to Achilles. Previous attempts by Unitarians were rather unconvincing, since in the pre-Parryan period of Homeric philology scholars lacked an understanding of how traditional phraseology works.24 The focus, therefore, will be on the expression ἤπια + οἶδα. This phrase is used for Odysseus and Agamemnon in the Iliad and for Eumaeus in the Odyssey.25 In the Iliad it is nobody else than Agamemnon himself who declares to the son of Laertes that he (like him) has only ideas of kindness in his heart. The use of this expression only by Agamemnon (Il. 4.361) and for Agamemnon (Il. 16.72–73) suggests that its function is particularized, i.e. that it pertains to the role of the king of Mycenae in the Iliad. The expression ἤπια + οἶδα is also used in the Iliad by Achilles, who complains that Agamemnon ‘did not have kind thoughts in his mind with respect to him’. It is no chance that the other person involved in this dictional game is Odysseus, the first and perhaps most important of the three envoys in the Em 23 See Page 1959, 310. 24 E.g. Fäsi (non vidi; I owe this reference to Bonitz 18815, 54–55) argued that ‘the proud Achilles still does not want to admit that the main reason of the disaster that had occurred lies in him, and in particular does not remember that Agamemnon in Book 9 has offered everything possible for a reconciliation. He does not want to be in the wrong’. Bonitz (18815, 67) rightly refuted this psychological explanation by stating that ‘Fäsi could hardly deny that to achieve such an aim the poet had to use and apply other means. The explanation (of Fäsi) substitutes the text with something else’ (both translations are my own). This is Bonitz’s second refutation of a Unitarian argument with respect to Il. 11.609–610. 25 I am excluding the expression ἤπια φάρμακα (Il. 4.218, 11.515, 11.830), which pertains to the use of drugs for the healing of a wound.

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

bassy sent to Achilles in Iliad 9. In fact, Achilles’ reply to Odysseys touches upon the hypocrisy of speakers who say one thing but have something different in their mind (ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύλῃσιν, | ὅς χ᾽ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ).26 This statement is Achilles’ negative comment to the ‘kind thoughts’ (ἤπια) of Agamemnon and Odysseus. It does not matter that Achilles has not heard what Agamemnon had told Odysseys in Book 4. What matters is that the phrase ἤπια + οἶδα has undergone an even more pointed particularization. By having Achilles resent in Il. 16.72–73 that Agamemnon ‘had kind thoughts’ (ἤπια εἰδείη), i.e. reject the way of mind Agamemnon had attributed to Odysseus (the strongest mouthpiece of the Embassy) and to himself, the epic brings to the limelight the huge gap between Agamemnon and Achilles. The audience now knows that Agamemnon has not displayed the attitude (ἤπια εἰδέναι) he regards as typical of himself and of his principal envoy. When Achilles uses the expression ἤπια εἰδείη in Iliad 16, he is overtly referring to his quarrel with Agamemnon in Iliad 1 but covertly to Odysseus’ speech in the Embassy, where Laertes’ son acted as the mouthpiece of Agamemnon. This is because the phraseology ἤπια + οἶδα carries with it the full semantical arsenal that stems from its traditional referentiality and activates the entire referential range of this set phrase.27 (e) Il. 16.83–86: πείθεο δ᾽ ὥς τοι ἐγὼ μύθου τέλος ἐν φρεσὶ θείω, ὡς ἄν μοι τιμὴν μεγάλην καὶ κῦδος ἄρηαι πρὸς πάντων Δαναῶν, ἀτὰρ οἳ περικαλλέα κούρην ἂψ ἀπονάσσωσιν, ποτὶ δ᾽ ἀγλαὰ δῶρα πόρωσιν. But obey to the end this word I have out upon your attention so that you can win, for me, great honor and glory in the sight of all the Danaans, so they will bring back to me the lovely girl, and give me shining gifts in addition.

‘What in Book 9 Achilles had rejected, the return of Briseis and other gifts with her, is exactly what he describes as the aim of his quest᾽. It is by these words that Erhardt28 summarized what he considers to be a stark opposition between

 26 Il. 9.312–313. 27 For the term ‘traditional referentiality’, see Foley 1991, 24; Danek 2002, 3–19. 28 Erhardt 1894, 285. Bethe 1914, 72 calls it ‘der schärfste Widerspruch der Ilias’ (‘the sharpest contradiction of the Iliad’), which indicates that ‘hier stoßen zwei unvereinbare Vorstellungen

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 9.336–337 (τῇ παριαύων | τερπέσθω ‘let him lie beside her | and be happy’) and 16.84–86.29 Page adds that Achilles has renounced Briseis and the gifts ‘forever, unconditionally᾽ in Il. 9.378–391.30 What Erhardt and Page (as well as others) have missed is that 16.84 reshuffles what has been said by Odysseus to Achilles in 9.301–303 (σὺ δ᾽ ἄλλους περ Παναχαιούς | τειρομένους ἐλέαιρε κατὰ στρατόν, οἵ σε θεὸν ὣς | τείσουσ᾽· ἦ γάρ κέ σφι μάλα μέγα κῦδος ἄροιο ‘at least take pity on the other | Achaeans, who are afflicted along the host, and will honor you | as a god. You may win very great glory among them’). Towards the end of his long speech to Achilles in the Embassy, Odysseus opted for what I would call ‘plan B᾽ or ‘second line of defense’ of his argumentation. To this end, he drew a dividing line between Agamemnon and the rest of the army, requesting from Achilles to pity the troops, in case he did not care for Agamemnon and his gifts. In 16.84–6 Achilles basically transfers to Patroclus the practical aspect of Odysseus’ request to him in 9.301–303, keeping the end-result unaltered: (9.303) ἦ γάρ κέ σφι μάλα μέγα κῦδος ἄροιο (‘for you may win very great glory among them᾽) – (16.84–85) ὡς ἄν μοι τιμὴν μεγάλην καὶ κῦδος ἄρηαι | πρὸς πάντων Δαναῶν (‘so that you win great honor and glory for me in the sight of all the Danaans᾽). It is here that Achilles seems to be following ‘plan B᾽ of the request suggested to him by Odysseus in 9.301–303 with the all-important change of the person who is going to satisfy the practical aspect of fighting off the Trojans. Odysseus had asked for Achilles, Achilles sends Patroclus. Why is that? Because Achilles receives a supplication, just as he had expected in 11.609–610, albeit a figurative one.31 This supplication is not expressed by the Achaeans themselves but by Patroclus who becomes their mouthpiece. The situation is partly being shaped as Achilles had foreseen, but the important difference, i.e. that Patroclus (the silent figure during the Embassy at Iliad 9, the person who has heard Odysseus ‘plan B’ and has repeated verbatim Nestor’s request [11.794–803 = 16.36–46]) becomes the supplicating proxy of the Achaeans to Achilles, results in the par-

 des Haupthelden der Ilias aufeinander’ (‘here two incompatible concepts of the Iliad’s main hero collide’: 73). 29 Immediately after making this statement Erhardt added that it would amount to rush judgment to consider Iliad 9 a late addition to the epic, since there are other passages which display knowledge of or agree with Iliad 9 (on which see the section ‘From Request to Supplication’). 30 Page 1959, 309. 31 For the difference between complete and figurative supplication, see Kopperschmidt 1967, 20–21; Gould 1973, 77. On other supplication scenes in the Iliad, see e.g. 1.500–502 (and 512), 8.371–372, 9.451, 10.454–455, 24.478–479 (prepared by 465–467).

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

tial change of his friend’s mind.32 By a superb shift, the Iliad changes the bearer of the request, turning the envoy into a suppliant. Still, this is an incomplete supplication, at least in Achilles’ eyes. Just as the Achaeans did not come themselves to supplicate him but it was his friend who acted on their behalf, so it will be his friend, not Achilles himself, who shall help them. This is effected by the transfer of the divine arms from Achilles to Patroclus, a brilliant device not only for immediate-practical reasons (the Trojans will retreat thinking Patroclus is Achilles) but also in the long run (Hector will take Achilles’ armor from the dead Patroclus, Achilles will get a new armor from Thetis etc.). Before I turn my attention to the claim that Patroclus’ request amounts to a supplication, I would like to briefly dwell on Page’s claim that Achilles has renounced Briseis and the gifts unconditionally. Achilles’ stance about the course of action that he will follow has been changing ever since he quarreled with Agamemnon: he first declared that he will return to Phthia (Il. 1.169–171, 9.357–363 and 428–429), he then stated that he will decide the next day whether to go back or not (Il. 9.619), and he finally stated to Ajax that he will stay and fight when Hector arrives at the huts and ships of the Myrmidons (Il. 9.650–655). The statement made in Il. 11.609–610 presupposes an Achilles who has decided to stay in Troy and this statement has been clearly made to Ajax in Il. 9.650–655. The gradual shift in Achilles’ stance is paralleled by his stance with respect to Briseis and the gifts. In Il. 9.378–91, Achilles rejects Agamemnon through Briseis and the gifts but after Phoenix’s speech it is clear that the gifts acquire a new function. They are not a means of compensation but of bestowing honor to Achilles. Page both misattributes Phoenix’s words to Achilles (Il. 9.602–605) and fails to see that Phoenix anchors the gifts to the theme of major importance for Achilles, the restoration of his honor. He is also mistaken in saying that ‘he (Achilles) openly recognized (I 602–605) that whatever action he might take in the future would now have to go unrewarded, ἄτερ δώρων, as in the example of Meleager’.33 These are the words of Phoenix who in contrast to Meleager’s story urges Achilles to accept the gifts (‘with gifts promised go forth’)34 since ‘if without gifts you go into the fight

 32 By the expression ‘supplicating proxy’ I indicate that Patroclus is acting as the mouthpiece of the troops, who are supplicating Achilles qua his friend. The real suppliant is the army. 33 Page 1959, 309. 34 Il. 9.602–603: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ δώρων | ἔρχεο.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 where men perish, | your honor will no longer be as great, though you drive back the battle’.35 Reading Patroclus’ request as supplication asks for some justification. Such an approach is on the right track for the following reasons: (i) the simile in 16.7– 11; (ii) the promotion of the army to the main reason for a change of plan or at least a concession by Achilles (16.17–18); (iii) the way the narrator-text caps Patroclus’ speech (λισσόμενος: 16.46, λιτέσθαι: 16.47), which is in agreement with 11.609–610 (νῦν ὀΐω περὶ γούνατ᾽ ἐμὰ στήσεσθαι Ἀχαιούς | λισσομένους). The simile of the girl in tears asking her mother to take her into her arms has been discussed repeatedly. It follows another simile, that of a spring of black water, which also features in Il. 9.13–16, where it is applied to Agamemnon. The context is in both cases that of suffering for the grim situation of the Achaean army. Within this context, the simile of the girl in tears goes one step further, since it visually enacts a supplication. This is how Achilles interprets Patroclus’ behavior: 36 a human being in great need of something (girl who wants to be placed in her mother’s lap) is portrayed as going after the person from whom he/she asks a favor (the standard verb ἱκάνω/ἵκω is here replaced by θέουσ᾽ and the verb λίσσομαι by ἀνώγει), and as being on a lower level,37 like all suppliants who fall on their knees (the girl does not need to kneel for she is on a lower level because of her smaller size). As is the case with supplication scenes, so here the girl turns her eyes in entreaty towards the supplicandus who is on a higher level (16.10: δακρυόεσσα δέ μιν ποτιδέρκεται) and instead of touching the legs and/or chin she clings to her mother’s dress, holding it back when she tries to hurry (16.9: εἱανοῦ ἁπτομένη, καί τ᾽ ἐσσυμένην κατερύκει).38 According to a standard idiom in Homeric epic, a speaker who wants to find about something asks his/her interlocutor by presenting him/her with a list of

 35 Il. 9.604–605: εἰ δέ κ᾽ ἄτερ δώρων πόλεμον φθισήνορα δύῃς, | οὐκέθ᾽ ὁμῶς τιμῆς ἔσεαι πόλεμόν περ ἀλαλκών. 36 It should be noted that the νηπίη-reference represents the narrator’s focalization, not Achilles’. It is a case of παράληψις: only the narrator is aware that just as the girl in the simile, so Patroclus in reality is seeking his own destruction without realizing it (see 16.46–47); on παράληψις, see Genette 1980, 195–197; de Jong 1987, 108–109; on focalization (λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου) in ancient criticism, see Nünlist 2009, 116–134. Eustathius (on Il. 16.46 [III 804–805 van der Valk]) observes that with μέγα νήπιος the narrator transcends Achilles’ sarcasm with νηπίη (Il. 16.8), but fails to see that νηπίη represents the narrator’s focalization. 37 Notice that the behavior of the girl in the simile reproduces the behavior of the suppliant. In both cases complete self-abasement is the common denominator; see Gould 1973, 94. 38 These are all typical gestures occurring in supplication scenes: approaching the supplicandus, lowering the body, touching the body of the supplicandus; see Gould 1973, 76.

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

possible answers, the last of which is the correct one. This mechanism, which replicates in positive form the structure of the priamel, puts the stress on the last possibility. So here Achilles entertains the thought that Patroclus has come to him to beg for the army. He does not explicitly acknowledge it, but he implies it by means of the simile he has just used. The important point is that he interprets the army’s sufferings as resulting from arrogance (16.18: ὑπερβασίης ἕνεκα σφῆς).39 Achilles has now realized that the army for which he used to care so much,40 which was yet to comprehend how important he is for the war since he was expecting to be supplicated,41 has now fully understood that the only way to its salvation is Achilles. His declaration that one day ‘a desire for him will come to all the Achaeans’,42 when Agamemnon will not be in a position to help them, for the losses will be great by Hector and the Trojans, has come true. ὑπερβασίη (‘transgression’) is not only an emotionally loaded word but also a technical term that covertly indicates that Patroclus’ request amounts to a figurative supplication by the Achaean army. Ample confirmation of this association is offered by Il. 9.500–501: λοιβῇ τε κνίσῃ τε παρατρωπῶσ᾽ ἄνθρωποι | λισσόμενοι, ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ.43 Transgressing the boundaries (ὑπερβαίνειν) can be remedied by re-establishing them through supplication that acknowledges Achilles’ standing above the army. This line of argument is corroborated by Eusthatius’ illuminating comments on this passage:44 … μέθοδος Ὁμήρῳ εἰς πλατυσμὸν γραφῆς καὶ αὕτη. ὅτ᾽ ἄν τι πρᾶγμα γένηται ἢ γίνηται, πλάττει τινὰς ἀγνοοῦντας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐρωτῶντας αἴτια διάφορα, καθ᾽ ἃ γενέσθαι εἰκὸς ἐκεῖνο τὸ πρᾶγμα. ἐφ᾽ οἷς μὴ εὐστοχήσαντος τοῦ ἐρωτῶντος ἐπάγει λοιπὸν τὸ ἀληθὲς αἴτιον ὁ ἐρωτώμενος, λέγων ὡς οὔτε τόδε οὔτε τόδε ἀλλὰ τόδε ἐστίν. […] ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὸ ὁμοειδὲς τῶν τοιούτων ἐρωτήσεων ἐκκλίνων ὁ ποιητὴς ποιεῖ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα τά τε μὴ ὄντα αἴτια ἐρωτήσαντα καὶ τὸ ἀληθὲς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἐπισυνάψαντα. ἐρωτήσας γὰρ τὸν Πάτροκλον, εἴ τι διὰ τοὺς Μυρμιδόνας λέξει ἢ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἢ διὰ τὸν Πηλέα ἢ διὰ τὸν Μενοίτιον, ‘τῶν’, ἤγουν ὧν, φησί, ‘μάλ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ἀκαχοίμεθα τεθνειώτων’, ἐπάγει τὸ ἀληθὲς ‘ἠὲ σύ γ᾽ Ἀργείων ὀλοφύρεαι ὡς ὀλέκονται’. καὶ ἐπισυνάπτει εὐθὺς καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν αἰτίασιν τὸ  39 Half-way to this outcome he has tried to place the army on a par with him (Il. 9.315–316: οὔτ᾽ ἔμεγ᾽ Ἀτρείδην Ἀγαμέμνονα πεισέμεν οἴω | οὔτ᾽ ἄλλους Δαναούς) declaring to the envoys that there is no support for Agamemnon’s continuation of the war. His care for the troops was already great in Il. 11.600–601 when he stands on his ship’s stern and watches the ‘sheer work of war and the sorrowful onrush’. 40 1.56: κήδετο γὰρ Δαναῶν, ὅτι ῥα θνῄσκοντας ὁρᾶτο. 41 11.609–610. 42 1.240–241: ἦ ποτ᾿ Ἀχιλλῆος ποθὴ ἵξεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν | σύμπαντας. 43 This is the only figurative use of ὑπερβαίνειν in Homeric epic, where it is used 6x. ὑπερβασίη is employed 7x in Homer, always in metaphorical sense. 44 On Il. 16.12–17 (III 796–797 van der Valk).

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 ‘ὑπερβασίης ἕνεκα σφῆς’, ἤγουν ἰδίας, ἀμβλύνων τῷ Πατρόκλῳ τὸ εἰς ἱκεσίαν πρόθυμον διὰ τὸ τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ἐφαμάρτους εἶναι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. … this is also a Homeric method aiming at the amplitude of a list. Every time something happens, (Homer) presents some people as ignorant and for this reason asking about the various reasons according to which that thing seems to have happened. Having missed the mark with these questions, the person asked brings then on the real cause, saying that neither this nor this but this is (the real cause). […] In this case the poet changes the similarity of such questions and makes Achilles attach himself at the end the real reason after asking about causes that do not apply. For after asking Patroclus, if he will say something about the Myrmidons or about himself or about Peleus or about Menoetius, […] he brings on the real reason ‘or are you mourning over the Argives and how they are dying’. And he immediately attaches the blame against them, i.e. the (expression) ‘by reason of their arrogance’ […] decreasing Patroclus’ eagerness for a supplication because the Achaeans have committed an offense against him (Achilles).

Eusthathius’ remarks are to the point. Achilles’ effort to decrease Patroclus’ eagerness to supplicate him originates from the fact that he understands that his friend intends to speak on behalf of the army, who in his eyes has offended him. Achilles’ words result only in changing the form of Patroclus’ supplication, not in rendering it null and void. Instead of a complete supplication, a figurative one will take place. The kneeling Achaeans whom Achilles is expecting since 11.609–610 give their place to Patroclus, the typical gestures of supplication are transferred to the simile of the little girl, the soft and diplomatic language of the suppliant is partly replaced by the abruptness of Patroclus’ tone who thus tries to balance his friend’s own abruptness. Like Achilles, the narrator sees Patroclus’ request as a figurative supplication. This can be gathered from the fact that the narrator-text caps Patroclus’ speech with standard supplication vocabulary (λισσόμενος: 16.46, λιτέσθαι: 16.47).45 To avoid any misunderstanding, let me state up front that I am not suggesting that the verb λίσσομαι in Homer necessitates a supplication. My argument is cumulative: the capping of Patroclus’ speech by λισσόμενος and λιτέσθαι forms part of a series of elements that make a case for a figurative supplication. It is, one may argue, very much in tune with Achilles’ words in 11.609–610 (νῦν ὀΐω περὶ γούνατ᾽ ἐμὰ στήσεσθαι Ἀχαιούς | λισσομένους ‘now I think that the Achaeans will come to my knees and stay there | in supplication’). There a supplication was expected, here a supplication is performed, albeit a metaphorical one.

 45 Eustathius (on Il. 16.38–47 [III 804 van der Valk]) also treats Patroclus’ appeal as a supplication.

Τhe Analytical Arsenal: Revisiting ‘anti-Embassy’ Passages  

(f) Il. 16.273–274: γνῷ δὲ καὶ Ἀτρείδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων | ἣν ἄτην, ὅ τ᾽ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισεν (‘so Atreus’ son wide-ruling Agamemnon may recognize | his madness, that he did no honor to the best of the Achaeans’).46

Il. 9.115–120, where Agamemnon states that it was infatuation (ἄτη) that took control of his mind making him insult Achilles, seems to be against 16.273–274, in which Patroclus urges the Myrmidons to fight so that Agamemnon realizes ‘his ἄτη, that he did do no honor to the sons of the Achaeans’. The difference between these two passages lies in the way Agamemnon and Patroclus understand the ways of ἄτη. Agamemnon explicitly states that it was by means of sending ἄτη that Zeus ‘has honored’ Achilles (9.118: ἔτεισε) and ‘has beaten down’ (9.118: δάμασσε) the Achaeans. According to Agamemnon, Achilles has been honored and the army dishonored. Conversely, Patroclus states that Achilles, the ἄριστος of the Achaeans, has been dishonored. Only now, after the Myrmidons join the fighting and the Achaean army rises victorious will Agamemnon be able to comprehend that he had dishonored Achilles. In Il. 9.115– 120 Agamemnon says that the Zeus-sent ἄτη (after clouding Agamemnon’s mind and causing his quarrel with Achilles) has resulted in the suffering of the army and the honoring of Achilles, while according to Patroclus’ speech in 16.273–274 ἄτη has had the exactly opposite result, i.e. the dishonoring of Achilles. In fact, I would go one step further and maintain that this passage looks back at Il. 9.115–120 aiming to render it null and void. The unbridgeable gap between Agamemnon’s and Achilles’/Patroclus’ viewpoint is thus underscored. The storyteller is aware of the Embassy with which he engages in a creative and critical dialogue.

 46 These lines have been also used by Achilles in his encounter with Thetis in Il. 1.411–412. Schadewaldt (19663, 81) rightly observes that there is no contradiction between the behavior of Achilles in Il. 1.408–412, in which he desires to see the Achaeans defeated by the ships at the hands of the Trojans, and in Il. 9.650–655, where he determines the time he will intervene in the fighting, i.e. when his ships are in danger. In tune with these passages, the triumph of Achilles’ wrath seems to be reaching its apex, when he envisages a supplication by the desperate Achaeans in Il. 11.609–610. The same is the case in Il. 14.139–141, when Poseidon (having taken the shape of an old man) tells Agamemnon how pleased Achilles is with the death and flight of the Achaeans.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610

. From Request to Supplication Having tackled various analytical arguments with respect to the authenticity of Iliad 9 in association with Il. 11.609–610, I will now turn my attention to several passages of Book 9 to which passages from other Iliadic Books allude. Ι will restrict myself, with two exceptions,47 only to those passages which either link Iliad 9 with the first part of Iliad 16, when the crucial meeting between Patroclus and Achilles takes place, or directly support Il. 11.609–610. (a) In Il. 16.36–39,48 Patroclus repeats Nestor’s words from Il. 11.794–79749 pertaining to a possible explanation of Achilles’ inertia. It is about a prophecy concerning Achilles’ short life in case he participates in the war. This motif (transferred to the Iliad from the *Memnonis) has been used for the first time by Achilles himself in his meeting with his mother Thetis in Il. 1.352 and will be employed in Il. 1.416, 9.410–411, 17.408–409, 18.59–60, 18.95–96, 18.329–332 etc.50 As soon as Patroclus brings forward this scenario, Achilles rejects it (Il. 11.50–51). Why, then, does Nestor in Iliad 11 and Patroclus in Iliad 16 consider the possibility that Achilles is not fighting because of a prophecy (θεοπροπίη) given to Thetis by Zeus about her son’s fate? The answer can only be because Achilles has already made that argument in the context of his abstaining from war. This has not happened in Iliad 1, when Achilles was talking to his mother by the seashore but in Il. 9.410–411, when Achilles delivered his long answer to Odysseus (Patroclus being present in the scene): μήτηρ γάρ τέ μέ φησι θεὰ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα | διχθαδίας κῆρας φερέμεν θανάτοιο τέλος δέ (‘for my mother Thetis the goddess of the silver feet tells me | I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death’). Whereas in Il. 1.352–356 Achilles’ short life is used as an argument for the honor Zeus should have granted to him, in Il. 9.410–420 it is employed as an argument for not fighting, for leaving Troy and returning to Greece.

 47 See (f) and (g) below. 48 εἰ δέ τινα φρεσὶ σῇσι θεοπροπίην ἀλεείνεις | καί τινά τοι πὰρ Ζηνὸς ἐπέφραδε πότνια μήτηρ, | ἀλλ᾽ ἐμέ περ πρόες ὦχ᾽, ἅμα δ᾽ ἄλλον λαὸν ὄπασσον | Μυρμιδόνων, ἤν πού τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένωμαι (‘but if you are drawing back from some prophecy in your own heart | and by Zeus’ will your honored mother has told you of something, | then send me out at least, let the rest of the Myrmidon people | follow me, and I may be a light given to the Danaans’). 49 εἰ δέ τινα φρεσὶν ᾗσι θεοπροπίην ἀλεείνει | καί τινά οἱ πὰρ Ζηνὸς ἐπέφραδε πότνια μήτηρ, | ἀλλὰ σέ περ προέτω, ἅμα δ᾽ ἄλλος λαὸς ἑπέσθω | Μυρμιδόνων, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένηαι (‘but if you are drawing back from some prophecy in your own heart | and by Zeus’ will your honored mother has told you of something, | let him send you out, at least, the rest of the Myrmidon people | follow you, and you may be a light given to the Danaans’). 50 For a full list of attestations, see Kullmann 1960, 308–314.

From Request to Supplication  

Seen from this vantage point, Il. 11.794–797 and 16.36–39 presuppose Il. 9.410– 411.51 (b) In 9.626–627 Ajax’s words (οὐ γάρ μοι δοκέει μύθοιο τελευτή | τῇδέ γ᾽ ὁδῷ κρανέεσθαι ‘I think that nothing will be accomplished by argument on this errand’) imply that Achilles may be persuaded in the future and that another appeal is to be expected. The errand mentioned by Ajax can be no other than the Embassy in which the three envoys take part. Ajax is clearly leaving open the possibility of another mission to Achilles, who is listening to his cousin’s words. (c) At the end of his long speech to Nestor before the envoys set out for Achilles’ headquarters, Agamemnon argues that Achilles must ‘give way’ (δμηθήτω) and yield place to him because he is ‘kinglier’ (βασιλεύτερoς) and ‘born the elder’ (γενεῇ προγενέστερος).52 Odysseus repeats almost verbatim Agamemnon’s words in his speech to Achilles but tellingly omits what Agamemnon has said in 9.158–161. This is a wise strategy, since Achilles must not be aware that even at this moment Agamemnon uses his status and age as arguments necessitating his (sc. Achilles’) subordination. In the eyes of Achilles this would mean that nothing has changed in Agamemnon’s behavior since their quarrel in Iliad 1.53 In his reply to Odysseus, Achilles complains about the disparity between the position of Achilles and that of the other Achaean kings with respect to the spoils (οὐδέ τί μοι περίκειται in 321 prefigures τοῖσι μὲν ἔμπεδα κεῖται in 335) adding that ‘his heart has gone through its afflictions’ since he is forever setting his life at peril by fighting (9.321–322: ἐπεὶ πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ | αἰεὶ ἐμὴν ψυχὴν παραβαλλόμενος πολεμίζειν). The diction employed in 16.54–56 (καὶ γέρας ἂψ  51 This is the second part of Nestor’s advice to Patroclus, which is followed with utmost precision (Il. 11.794–803 ≅ 16.36–45). On the typical epic convention of verbatim repetition of orders, messages, requests etc., see Bowra 1952, 254–258; Kakridis 1971, 76–88; Létoublon 1987, 123–144; de Jong 1987, 241–245. Reichel (1994, 139–142) observes that this Fernbeziehung involves the greatest textual distance between two repeated passages in the Iliad (more than 2600 verses as opposed to the usual distance of around 100 verses), which the storyteller effectively bridges by means of the fact that Patroclus had been sent to ask for information by Achilles himself and that contrary to the pattern characterizing such repetitions, Patroclus (the messenger) does not state who is the source of the message he brings to Achilles. 52 Il. 9.158–161: Ἀΐδης τοι ἀμείλιχος ἠδ᾽ ἀδάμαστος, | τοὔνεκα καί τε βροτοῖσι θεῶν ἔχθιστος ἁπάντων· | καί μοι ὑποστήτω ὅσσον βασιλεύτερός εἰμι | ἠδ᾽ ὅσσον γενεῇ προγενέστερος εὔχομαι εἶναι. Notice that in Nestor’s reminder to Patroclus of Menoetius’ advice in Phthia (11.786: γενεῇ μὲν ὑπέρτερός ἐστιν) γενεή denotes descent (not age as in Il. 9.58 and 161) and refers to Achilles’ superiority because of his partly divine parentage. Patroclus’s older age is mentioned in the next verse (Il. 11.787: πρεσβύτερος). 53 See especially 1.185–187.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 ἀφελέσθαι, ὅ τε κράτεϊ προβεβήκῃ | αἰνὸν ἄχος τό μοί ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ. | κούρην ἣν ἄρα μοι γέρας ἔξελον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν) is closely tied to the theme of Achilles’ dishonor by Agamemnon and the Achaeans with respect to the spoils of war and its grim consequences for all:54 Agamemnon’s status55 is again mentioned by Achilles as an argument legitimizing the taking of Briseis and the hero’s sufferings are underscored with exactly the same phraseology that occurs nowhere else in the Iliad.56 The relevant passages are remarkably in tune, the one in Iliad 16 being a compressed version, of features which were found in Agamemnon’s speech to Achilles and Achilles’ own speech to Odysseus in Iliad 9. (d) Il. 9.650–65557 and Il. 16.62–6358 both concern the time of Achilles’ intervention. As in the previous case, the passage in Iliad 16 is an abbreviated form of the expanded version of a motif or topic already mentioned in Iliad 9. That 16.62–63 is a reworking59 of Il. 9.650–655 can be seen from (a) the omission of ‘his [Achilles’] former stipulation (9.653) that the ships must be ablaze’ and (b) the ‘convoluted syntax’ with ἀλλ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ following οὐ πρίν instead of the expected second πρίν.60 Further evidence for his line of thought can be found in Il. 11.664–668, where Nestor speaks to Patroclus by relating to him what Achilles had told the envoys in Il. 9.650–655. Nestor’s ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι νῦν (Il. 11.790) presupposes an earlier attempt to persuade Achilles.61 (e) Ιn 9.698–700, Diomedes tells Agamemnon that his request to Achilles by means of many gifs has resulted in increasing his anger. The emphatic νῦν αὖ … πολὺ μᾶλλον, which means ‘now more than before’, implies that not only has the formal request utterly failed but Agamemnon has managed to drive Achilles

 54 See also the programmatic reference to this topic in Il. 1.2–4: μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε, | πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν | ἡρώων. 55 See also Il. 2.100, 186; 9.37. Focke (1954, 262) states that the envoys stress Agamemnon’s Machtstellung. 56 πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ occurs one more time (Il. 18.397) but in a totally different context (Hephaestus refers to what would have happened to him if he was not saved by Eurynome and Thetis) and without a preceding ἐπεί. 57 οὐ γὰρ πρὶν πολέμοιο μεδήσομαι αἱματόεντος | πρίν γ᾽ υἱὸν Πριάμοιο δαΐφρονος Ἕκτορα δῖον | Μυρμιδόνων ἐπί τε κλισίας καὶ νῆας ἱκέσθαι | κτείνοντ᾽ Ἀργείους, κατά τε σμῦξαι πυρὶ νῆας. | ἀμφὶ δέ τοι τῇ ἐμῇ κλισίῃ καὶ νηῒ μελαίνῃ | Ἕκτορα καὶ μεμαῶτα μάχης σχήσεσθαι ὀΐω. 58 οὐ πρὶν μηνιθμὸν καταπαυσέμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἂν δὴ | νῆας ἐμὰς ἀφίκηται ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε. 59 Erhardt 1894, 286–287. 60 Janko 1992, on Il. 16.61–63. Since ἔφην (16.61) means διενοήθην (‘I intended’, this being Aristarchus’ view; see Σ on Il. 16.61d) and not ‘said’, it cannot be argued on these grounds that 16.61 refers to 9.560–565. That said, Achilles’ words here are perfectly in tune with what he had said in the Embassy. 61 See Focke 1954, 275–276.

From Request to Supplication  

even deeper into his pride and that Achilles may require in the future something even greater in order to join the fighting, i.e. it works just like νῦν in Il. 11.609– 610.62 Like Ajax before him, Diomedes leaves open the possibility of another appeal to Achilles. This line of argument is further supported by the seemingly odd use of λίσσεσθαι, which is employed only here in the context of the Embassy.63 Diomedes speaks of the Embassy as a supplication just because Achilles does not, just because Achilles is expecting a supplication all the way from Il. 11.609–610 to his meeting with Patroclus in the beginning of Iliad 16. Achilles’ ironic comments about Diomedes (and Agamemnon) in Il. 16.74–77 presuppose knowledge of what Diomedes said in Il. 9.697–709. This is the interpretation of the scholia64 that call this phenomenon κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον (Achilles implicitly knows what he has not heard) but it may even better be treated as a case of παράληψις, since the narrator intrudes in Achilles’ speech and imposes on him his superior knowledge of past events. (f) The analogy between Odysseus’ and Nestor’s reminiscences in Il. 9.252– 260 and Il. 11.765–790 respectively is strong. These two embedded external analepses complement each other: each of the two envoys to Peleus’ palace before the war recalls what pertains to the addressee of his speech: Odysseus targets Achilles, Nestor targets Patroclus. The absent and silent figures of the Embassy in Iliad 9 (Nestor and Patroclus), who were present in the pre-war embassy to Achilles, are tellingly activated in Iliad 11.65 (g) Α straightforward and incontestable reference to the Embassy is given by Thetis’ report to Hephaestus in Il. 18.448–450: τὸν δὲ λίσσοντο γέροντες | Ἀργείων, καὶ πολλὰ περικλυτὰ δῶρα ὀνόμαζον, ἔνθ᾽ αὐτὸς μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἠναίνετο  62 This passage rebuts the first of Bonitz’s three refutations (18815, 66–67) of Unitarian arguments with respect to Il. 11.609–610. Ameis and Hentze (1888, 75–76) complain that the force given to νῦν (11.609) by Unitarian critics (e.g. Nitzsch 1852, 239) who take it as ‘now above all’ is misconceived. According to Ameis and Hentze, in order to interpret νῦν in this way, the following words would need to indicate by comparison what the speaker had in mind. This critique is also invalidated by Il. 9.700. Equally stumbling is the use of the unique expression περὶ γούνατ᾽ ἐμὰ στήσεσθαι λισσομένους as an indication of linguistic oddity. Reinhardt (1961, 262), who takes this phrase to mean ‘Furchtbarer den je’, is on the right track. 63 I do not count its use in Phoenix’s speech, since there it pertains to his autobiography, the Λιταί, and the story of Meleager. 64 The Σ Il. 9.698a (II 543 Erbse) and 9.709a (II 545 Erbse) seem to have been repeated there from Il. 16.74a-b2 (IV 178 Erbse). 65 This is a completely different line of thought from the erring argument of Fäsi (non vidi; I owe this reference to Bonitz 18815, 54–55) that because Il. 11.765–90 frequently recalls Il. 9.252– 260, the latter must have served as its model. Bonitz’s third refutation (18815, 67), which is based on the lack of ‘factual reference’ between the two passages, is equally off the mark.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι (‘and the leaders of the Argives entreated | my son, and named the many glorious gifts they would give him. | But at that time he refused himself to fight the death from them’).66 The force of this reference is so undeniable that the supporters of the view that the Embassy is a late addition to the Iliad seem helpless. Page67 refers to this passage saying that lines 18.444–56 have been athetized by Aristarchus who took them as ‘an intruder upon the standard text’. Aristarchus’ approach did not prevail. These lines are well preserved in the manuscript tradition and are not bracketed by either the OCT or the BT editions of the Iliad. An exegetic scholium (ad Il. 18.444–456 bT) criticizing Aristarchus’ view makes clear that this is an ἀνακεφαλαίωσις (‘repeating summary’).68 Moreover, as the scholium notes, it would have been ‘strange’ (ἄτοπον) for Thetis to refer to her marriage to Peleus, i.e. to a past event known to all, but to remain silent about the reason that prompted her visit to Hephaestus. Last, if these lines are athetized, it would remain inexplicable to Hephaestus why Achilles needs a new armor, since it is in these lines that Patroclus’ death while wearing the armor of Achilles is mentioned.69

. Conclusion The Analysts have used 11.609–610 as a strong indication that Iliad 9 is a late addition to the epic, which in its earliest phase did not contain an Embassy to Achilles. Unitarians have counterargued that the Iliad composed in a short period by a single poet through the use of writing included an Embassy and that each and every analytical argument can be refuted. For Oralists this kind of problem does not really exist, since the epic tradition of the Iliad was shaped in the course of time by multiple singers who performed and reperformed it. NeoUnitarians, who accept the influence of the oral tradition in the shaping of the epic (with varying levels of impact with respect to the end-product) claim that either a single poet or a single bard who worked on or performed the poem throughout his life had either developed the idea of an Embassy to Achilles at a  66 See Focke 1954, 276. 67 Page 1959, 330 n. 10. 68 On the use of ἀνακεφαλαίωσις as an argument against ἀθέτησις, see Nünlist 2009, 45 n. 75. 69 West (2011a, 55 and on Il. 18.448–452) draws attention to Il. 9.574 claiming that the expression τὸν δὲ λίσσοντο γέροντες in Il. 18.448 has been taken from the Embassy. This would be in tune with West’s gradual composition of the Iliad by a single poet, since he believes that books 17–24 have been added to the text after the fortifications and the Embassy, which they presuppose.

Conclusion  

late stage in the composition of his epic and/or initially planned to place it during the night following the long day of fighting that begins with Iliad 11. Neoanalysts do not address this topic directly, though they think that lines 11.609–610 may reflect an Iliadic reflex to another Iliad without an Embassy. In the throes of rigorous and wide-ranging interpretive approaches with respect to the composition of the Embassy, I do not intend to offer here a new suggestion. My goal has been rather modest. Before forming an opinion with respect to such a thorny issue, we should scrutinize every passage that has been used as a hint, indication or even proof that the Iliad as we have it shows traces of an earlier phase in which it was either deprived of an Embassy to Achilles or was composed so as to have an Embassy placed later in the plot. Through a detailed examination of the relevant passages, I suggest that such an argument cannot be supported on the basis of the passages adduced by both Analysts and Neo-Unitarians. Verses 11.609–610 are well integrated in the poem as we have it, since they function as one of the steps leading from the formal request of the Embassy in Iliad 9 to the figurative supplication of Achilles in Iliad 16. In contrast to Analysts and Neo-Unitarians, I have also maintained that Il. 11.609–610 followed by Patroclus’ supplication would have been unthinkable without an Embassy in Iliad 9,70 where the leading figures of the Achaeans are played out as envoys, numerous gifts are offered by Agamemnon, and Achilles’ criticism on Agamemnon and the heroic code is spelled out. Patroclus’ appeal to Achilles makes sense in our Iliad only when it follows the failed Embassy of Iliad 9,71 when the key Achaean figures had been used up either as envoys and/or as warriors. Patroclus’ supplication of Achilles in Iliad 16 is unthinkable both without an Embassy in Iliad 9 and without Il. 11.609–610, since in that case Nestor’s suggestion in Iliad 11 (repeated to Achilles by Patroclus in Iliad 16), i.e. that Patroclus should ask Achilles to become his surrogate, put on his armor and fight in his place, would be inconceivable. Nestor’s suggestion makes sense only if he had been convinced that Achilles will not return to the war.72 This  70 I had arrived at this conclusion independently, but I was too glad to see that a similar suggestion had been made by Focke (1954, 275): ‘ihn (Achill) kniefällig anflehen würden, denn ein letzter Appell ist gemeint —, dann ist eine schlichtere aber vergebliche Form des Bittens offenbar schon erfolgt, ein ‘I’ also vorauszusetzen’; see also Reinhardt (1961, 262), who says that in Il. 11.609–610 Achilles remembers the first appeal of the Achaean envoys in Iliad 9. 71 Montanari (2017, 43–55) argues that the Embassy is an invention of the poet of the Iliad. His aim was precisely to make the Embassy fail, in order to make the plot reach an impasse. At that crucial juncture, a new plotline is created, which overrides the former one. 72 See Il. 11.796–803. Otherwise, why would Nestor suspect that Achilles will refuse to return to the fighting? See point (a) in the section ‘From Request to Supplication’.

  Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610 conviction can only be explained if Achilles has already rejected a formal request from the Achaeans. The storyteller has conceived a plan, according to which all three elements pertaining to the Embassy must be changed: envoy, form, and content of the appeal. Nestor’s suggestion to Patroclus is about the first and the third elements (envoy and content of the appeal). No mention is needed about the second element (form of the appeal), because the narrator has made Achilles determine it himself in 11.609–610.

 Iliad 11.662: A Note οἱ γὰρ ἄριστοι ἐν νηυσὶν κέαται βεβλημένοι οὐτάμενοί τε. βέβληται μὲν ὁ Τυδεΐδης κρατερὸς Διομήδης, οὔτασται δ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς δουρὶ κλυτὸς ἠδ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων· βέβληται δὲ καὶ Εὐρύπυλος κατὰ μηρὸν ὀϊστῷ· τοῦτον δ᾽ ἄλλον ἐγὼ νέον ἤγαγον ἐκ πολέμοιο ἰῷ ἀπὸ νευρῆς βεβλημένον. For the bravest are lying up among the ships with arrow or spear wounds. The son of Tydeus, strong Diomedes, was hit by an arrow, and Odysseus has a pike wound, and Agamemnon the spear-famed, and Eurypylus has been wounded in the thigh with an arrow. And even now I have brought this other son, Machaon, out of the fighting hit by an arrow from the bowstring. (Iliad 11.658–664)

In his edition of the Iliad for the Bibliotheca Teubneriana West brackets Il. 11.662 contra Monro and Allen (OCT) that treat the verse as authentic. The line is attested by four papyri and six manuscripts,1 but is absent from the rest of the mediaeval tradition. The two main arguments against the authenticity of Il. 11.662 are (a) that ‘Nestor has no knowledge of Eurypylus’ wounding, as he left the field before it happened’, and (b) ‘it is (to all appearance) all news to Patroclus when he meets the invalid on his way back to Achilles at 806–811.’2 Before I examine the first argument, I will deal with what seems to have been its ancient version. In the critical apparatus of the edition of the scholia vetera, Erbse notes: 662 nullum signum ante versum in A; tamen Aristonicus in scholio deperdito docuisse vid. versum 662 (= Π 27), qui nunc in compluribus codicibus deest, sed in libro Π ab omnibus traditur, a grammaticis quibusdam omissum esse, fort. etiam ab ipso Aristarcho, cf. Valk II 516

 1 Papyri: 𝖕𝖕 60 (P.Morgan = Pack2 870; s. iv); 𝖕𝖕 96 (P.S.I. 10 = Pack2 833; s. iv); 𝖕𝖕 481 (P.Strasb. inv. Gr. 2675 = Pack2 789; papyrus codex, s. iv); 𝖕𝖕 495 (P.Strasb. inv. Gr. 1600a-b + 1624 + 1632b + 1654a-b + 1660b = Pack2 885; s. iv). Manuscripts: Dm (Laur. 32.15, saec. x sed in A-Δ saec. xiii); B2 (Marc. gr. 821 [olim 453], saec. xi); Cm (Laur. 32.3, saec. xi–xii); T (Lond. Bibl. Brit. Burney 86, ann. 1059); T (Oxon. Bodl. Auct. T.2.7, saec. xii); V (Vat. gr. saec. xiii). Explanation of superscripts: m = in margine, 2 = manus recentior. 2 West 2001, 214. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-008

  Iliad 11.662: A Note If indeed Aristonicus had mentioned in a lost scholium that Il. 11.662 had been omitted by some ancient scholars, among whom we may include Aristarchus, then it is possible to argue that the reason for this omission was the same as that put forward by West, i.e. that Nestor who had left the battlefield before Eurypylus was wounded, could not have possibly known about this injury. How, then, could he report it to Patroclus? To this logical objection van der Valk counterargued that ancient scholars were not aware of the mechanics of oral versemaking. To back up his case, he draws attention to Il. 20.447 (ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος), which is printed by most modern editions,3 even though it is transmitted by a very limited number of MSS. The reason for treating Il. 20.447 as genuine is that the same verse occurs in Il. 5.438 and Il. 16.786 in exactly the same context, which pertains to the topic ‘hero attacks three times + the fourth something happens’, which is a subgroup of the general pattern ‘three times but the fourth time’.4 We are thus dealing with a pattern, to which Il. 20.447 conforms. Van der Valk explains the weak attestation of this line in the paradosis by recourse to the philological activity of Aristarchus, who may have decided to omit the verse, when it occurred in the same context for the third time.5 What van der Valk does not state is that Il. 11.662 equally belongs to a pattern of anaphora, which contains three or more items linked in the following manner: ‘A μὲν/δὲ + B δὲ + C δὲ (καὶ) + …’. Examples of this anaphorapattern are attested throughout the Homeric epics: Il. 2.382–384: Il. 5.385–395: Il. 7.237–241: Il. 11.494–495: Il. 20.201–203: Il. 20.236–240: Il. 20.432–444:6 Il. 23.30–32: Od. 1.3: Od. 3.109–111: Od. 3.430–435: Od. 4.184–186:

εὖ μέν τις …, εὖ δ᾽ …., εὖ δέ τις …, εὖ δέ τις. τλῆ μὲν Ἄρης … τλῆ δ᾽ Ἥρη … τλῆ δ᾽ Ἀΐδης εὖ οἶδα … οἶδ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιά, οἶδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ … οἶδα δ᾽ … οἶδα δ᾽ πολλὰς δὲ … πολλὰς δέ τε … πολλὸν δέ τ᾽ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς … ἴδμεν δ᾽ … ἴδμεν δὲ Ἶλος δ᾽ αὖ τέκεθ᾽ … Λαομέδων δ᾽ ἄρα … τέκετο … Ἀσσάρακος δὲ Κάπυν, ὃ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἀγχίσην … αὐτὰρ ἔμ᾽ Ἀγχίσης, Πρίαμος δ᾽ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς … οἶδα δ᾽, ἐγὼ δὲ πολλοὶ μὲν βόες … πολλοὶ δ᾽ … πολλοὶ δ᾽ ὃς μάλα πολλὰ … πολλῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων … πολλὰ δ᾽ ὅ γε ἔνθα μὲν Αἴας κεῖται … ἔνθα δ᾽ Ἀχιλλεύς, | ἔνθα δὲ Πάτροκλος, … ἔνθα δ᾽ ἐμὸς φίλος υἱός, ἦλθε μὲν … ἦλθον δὲ … ἦλθε δὲ χαλκεὺς … ἦλθε δ᾽ Ἀθήνη κλαῖε μὲν Ἀργείη Ἑλένη, … κλαῖε δὲ Τηλέμαχός τε καὶ Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος, | οὐδ᾽ ἄρα Νέστορος υἱὸς ἀδακρύτω ἔχεν ὄσσε

 3 West (1998) omits it. For a discussion of his arguments, see below. 4 See also Il. 16.705 and Il. 22.208. 5 Van der Valk 1964, 517. 6 Although οἶδα is not stated in the third item, it is easily understood from the syntax.

Iliad 11.662: A Note  

Examples like the ones mentioned above do not exclude the existence of a twofold pattern, as is the case with Od. 9.45, 12.289–291, 22.47, 23.304–305, but in terms of statistics the threefold (or multiple-fold) pattern is by far the most common one.7 Modern Greek folk song (δημοτικό τραγούδι) offers a little explored storehouse of examples of three- and fourfold patterns of this type appearing either in the same or in two or more verses. Let us, then, look closely to some relevant cases that extend to more than a single verse:8 Ἔχεις μηλιὰ στὴ θύρα σου, κλῆμα μὲς στὴν αὐλή σου, ἔχεις καὶ χρυσοκάντηλο στὴ μέση τοῦ σπιτιοῦ σου You have an apple tree at your door, a vine in your yard, you also have a gold-candle in the midst of your house Νὰ στείλω μῆλο σέπεται, κυδώνι, μαραγκιάζει, νὰ στείλω μοσκοστάφυλο, κι ἐκεῖνο σταφαδιάζει If I send an apple it gets rotten, (if I a send) quince it wizens, If a send a muscatel, it also withers σέρνεις λιθάρια ριζωτά, πεῦκα ξεριζωμένα, σέρνεις καὶ μιὰ γλυκομηλιὰ στὰ μῆλα φορτωμένη You drag rooted stones, pines uprooted, you also drag a sweet apple-tree loaded with apples Διψοῦν οἱ κάμποι γιὰ νερὸ καὶ τὰ βουνὰ γιὰ χιόνια, διψάει κι ἡ δόλια ἡ Ἀρετὴ γιὰ μιὰ σταλιὰ νεράκι Thirsty are the plains for water and the mountains for snow, thirsty is also poor Arete for a drop of water ν᾽ ἀκούσω γερακιοῦ φωνὴ καὶ φάλκο νὰ λαλήσει, ν᾽ ἀκούσω καὶ τὴν πέρδικα να συχνοκακαρίσει If only I can listen to the hawk’s voice and to a harrier eagle to warble, if only I can also listen to the partridge clucking frequently

 7 For Indo-European examples, see West 2007, 108–109; for Near-Eastern literature, see West 1997, 254–255. 8 All cited material is taken from Sifakis 1988, 171–172, who offers a thorough analysis of various types of two-, three-, and fourfold patterns in modern Greek folk song.

  Iliad 11.662: A Note Τὸ λὲν οἱ κοῦκκοι στὰ βουνὰ κι οἱ πέρδικες στὰ πλάγια, τὸ λέει κι ὁ πετροκότζυφας στὰ κλέφτικα λημέρια The cuckoos say it in the mountains and the partridges in the slopes, the blackbird says it too in the haunts of the kleftes9

These threefold patterns are strikingly similar to Il. 11.660–662. The repetition pertains to the beginning of the third part of the pattern. In the modern Greek examples, the second part of the pattern takes the form of a synonymous or parallel expression to the first part (κλῆμα μὲς στὴν αὐλή σου / κυδώνι, μαραγκιάζει / πεῦκα ξεριζωμένα / τὰ βουνὰ γιὰ χιόνια / φάλκο νὰ λαλήσει / οἱ πέρδικες στὰ πλάγια), and it is only in the second verse that there is ample room for expanding the third and last member of the pattern. The same is the case mutatis mutandis in Il. 11.660–662. βέβληται (660) is repeated in the beginning of the third part (662), whereas the second is occupied by a virtually synonymous term (661: οὔτασται). Moreover, it is only in the third part that the nuclear idea ‘has been wounded’ is expanded by a reference to the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted (662: κατὰ μηρὸν ὀϊστῷ),10 i.e. in addition to the name of the person who has been injured (660: Διομήδης; 661: Ὀδυσεὺς and Ἀγαμέμνων; 662: Εὐρύπυλος). The expansion at the end of this brief ‘list’ is in tune with the general pattern of highlighting the last element of a series of items or themes.11 The modern Greek examples show beyond doubt how this threefold pattern employs the post-positive closural καί/κι, always placed after the third part of the pattern (ἔχεις καί, νὰ στείλω … κι, σέρνεις καί, διψάει κι, ν᾽ ἀκούσω καί, τὸ λέει κι), i.e. exactly as δὲ καὶ in Il. 11.662 is placed after βέβληται, the third part of the pattern. There is no doubt that in Il. 11.660–662 we are dealing with a threefold pattern, which means that 11.662 is surely its last part. Having clarified this matter, I will now turn my attention to the two arguments put forward by West with respect to the authenticity of Il. 11.662. The first argument is undermined by the fact that Nestor should be equally ignorant of the wounding of Diomedes and Odysseus. These major heroes had been wounded at the center of the battle (Il. 11.167 and 11.172),12 i.e. in the area

 9 The kleftes (κλέφτες) were men of paramilitary groups living in the mountains during the period of the Ottoman occupation of Greece. They took part in the Greek War of Independence. 10 Notice that this feature occurs in all passages pertaining to Eurypylus in Il. 11.583–584, 810, 844. 11 The Priamel is a well-known example of this cross-cultural feature. 12 Il. 11.167: μέσσον κὰπ πεδίον; Il. 11.172: κὰμ μέσσον πεδίον.

Iliad 11.662: A Note  

where the fighting takes place at Il. 11.166, whereas Nestor is clearly located at the left side (where Hector has moved after his withdrawal in Il. 11.360).13 It is explicitly said that Hector was not aware of what was happening in the area Ajax was fighting, i.e. at the center, ‘because he was at the left side’ (497–501), where Nestor and Idomeneus were located.14 This means that he had seen neither Diomedes’ wounding nor the intervention of Ajax and Menelaus who rushed to save Odysseus when he called for them, since these events occurred after his withdrawal from the center in Il. 11.360. The only wounding Hector had seen is that of Agamemnon (Il. 11.284),15 which had happened before his withdrawal from the center. It is Cebriones, Hector’s charioteer, who recognizes Ajax by means of his shield and tells Hector that they need to move back to the center (Il. 11.523–530).16 Standing on Hector’s chariot, Cebriones was able to locate Ajax because of his big shield and that is all. The storyteller carefully refrains from giving more details. The distance prevents a clearer view. Hector follows Cebriones’ suggestion and soon they are both positioned again at the center. Now, since Nestor was continuously on the left side, he could not have seen any wounding that happened at the center (just as Hector as long as he was on the left side). This means that he should have been unaware that Agamemnon, Diomedes, Odysseus, and Eurypylus were all wounded, the three first because the injuries happened at the center, the last both because the injury took place at the center and because Nestor had already returned to the ships when Eurypylus was wounded. Still, Nestor reports to Patroclus all four injuries. In this light, if West’s first argument is applied to the entire scene, then we should have to bracket Il. 11.660–661 too, which refer to the wounding of Diomedes, Agamemnon, and Odysseus about whom Nestor is equally ignorant. It should be stressed that when Idomeneus advises Nestor to take Machaon on his chariot and return to the ships, the reason is to treat Machaon’s wound, so that he will be able at a later stage to cure the wounds of others as a doctor. There is no reference whatsoever to the injuries of specific heroes. Being continuously on

 13 ἐξέλασ᾽ ἐς πληθύν. 14 … οὐδέ πω Ἕκτωρ | πεύθετ᾽, ἐπεί ῥα μάχης ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ μάρνατο πάσης | ὄχθας πὰρ ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου, τῇ ῥα μάλιστα | ἀνδρῶν πῖπτε κάρηνα, βοὴ δ᾽ ἄσβεστος ὀρώρει | Νέστορά τ᾽ ἀμφὶ μέγαν καὶ ἀρήϊον Ἰδομενῆα. 15 Ἕκτωρ δ᾽ ὡς ἐνόησ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνονα νόσφι κιόντα. 16 Ἕκτορ νῶϊ μὲν ἐνθάδ᾽ ὁμιλέομεν Δαναοῖσιν | ἐσχατιῇ πολέμοιο δυσηχέος· οἱ δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι | Τρῶες ὀρίνονται ἐπιμὶξ ἵπποι τε καὶ αὐτοί. | Αἴας δὲ κλονέει Τελαμώνιος· εὖ δέ μιν ἔγνων· | εὐρὺ γὰρ ἀμφ᾽ ὤμοισιν ἔχει σάκος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς | κεῖσ᾽ ἵππους τε καὶ ἅρμ᾽ ἰθύνομεν, ἔνθα μάλιστα | ἱππῆες πεζοί τε κακὴν ἔριδα προβαλόντες | ἀλλήλους ὀλέκουσι, βοὴ δ᾽ ἄσβεστος ὄρωρεν.

  Iliad 11.662: A Note the left side of the battlefield, Idomeneus does not know who has been wounded at the center. The second argument against the authenticity of Il. 11.662 is that Patroclus has no clue that Eurypylus is wounded when he meets with him in 809–848.17 This claim is an assumption that is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the text. As soon as Eurypylus comes across Patroclus on the latter’s way to Achilles’ hut, he asks him if there is any chance that the Achaeans can hold back Hector, or he will reach their ships (Il. 11.820–821).18 Eurypylus’ question is fully in tune with the poet’s plan and the advice Nestor had given to Patroclus. Machaon’s wounding (observed by Achilles who was watching the fighting from his ship)19 was a pretext for having Achilles send Patroclus to Nestor. The real reason was the implementation of the poetic plan to have Patroclus return to the fighting and in extension to have Achilles join the war. This plan is akin to what Achilles himself had declared already in Il. 9.650–655. It is this line of thought that Nestor reiterates in 11.666–667 (ἦ μένει, εἰς ὅ κε δὴ νῆες θοαὶ ἄγχι θαλάσσης | Ἀργείων ἀέκητι πυρὸς δηΐοιο θέρωνται) and to which Eurypylus hints at Il. 11.823–824 (οὐκέτι διογενὲς Πατρόκλεες ἄλκαρ Ἀχαιῶν | ἔσσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν νηυσὶ μελαίνῃσιν πεσέονται). The meeting with Eurypylus gives Patroclus more strength to convince Achilles that something must be done for the army to be saved. The wounded hero corroborates Nestor’s description of the desperate condition of the Achaeans. The exaggeration that ‘the aristoi’ (Il. 11.658) are wounded fulfills this goal. There is absolutely nothing in the encounter between Patroclus and Eurypylus indicating that the former is ignorant of the latter’s wounding. The storyteller describes the injury of Eurypylus (Il. 11.844–846) by emphasizing the actual wound, the blood flowing etc., i.e. the physical aspects of the wounding. Even a glimpse at Il. 11.583–58420 shows that when Eurypylus was wounded the storyteller offered his audience a very brief reference to the actual wounding on the thigh, sparing his listeners of all the details pertaining to the description of the actual injury. It is amply clear that he reserved the description of the physical aspects of the wound for the encounter between Eu-

 17 He should have known, if indeed Nestor had told him in Il. 11.662. 18 ἤ ῥ᾽ ἔτι που σχήσουσι πελώριον Ἕκτορ᾽ Ἀχαιοί, | ἦ ἤδη φθίσονται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δουρὶ δαμέντες; 19 Il. 11.599–600: τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐνόησε ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς· | ἑστήκει γὰρ ἐπὶ πρυμνῇ μεγακήτεϊ νηΐ. 20 καί μιν βάλε μηρὸν ὀϊστῷ | δεξιόν· ἐκλάσθη δὲ δόναξ, ἐβάρυνε δὲ μηρόν.

Iliad 11.662: A Note  

rypylus and Patroclus (Il. 11.809–813).21 The reason is straightforward: Patroclus will be the one to cure the wound (Il. 11.843–848).22 Seen from this vantage point, none of the two arguments advanced against the authenticity of 11.662 seems convincing. That the verse is attested in Il. 16.27 within a cluster of lines that also occur in Il. 11.659–662 does not indicate that it had been transferred to 11.661 from there, since such repetition of verse-groups is typical in oral poetry. On the contrary, what Eurypylus says to Patroclus in Il. 11.825–82723 is almost a verbatim repetition of what Nestor had told Patroclus in Il. 11.658–659, i.e. that the best Achaeans have been wounded and have withdrawn from the fighting. Eurypylus thus takes his place next to first-rank heroes (Diomedes, Agamemnon, and Odysseus) who have been wounded. He can do so because his wounding is important for the plot, not because his status has been suddenly elevated. That all this is about poetic planning can be also seen by the fact that nobody seems to bother (and rightly so) about how Eurypylus knows that Machaon has been wounded and is in need of a doctor. What is important for the storyteller is that Eurypylus’ wound must be cured by Patroclus and that Eurypylus must ask for help so that Patroclus delays to bring Nestor’s request to Achilles. To this end, it is fitting for Eurypylus to tell Patroclus that he (Patroclus) alone can help him, since Machaon is wounded and unable to assist.24 Considering the abovementioned discussion, I suggest that 11.662 is treated as a genuine line. It is attested by a part of the paradosis and is consonant with the context and style of Homeric narrative. As to the question pertaining to the manner Nestor (and later Eurypylus with respect to Machaon) has found out about the injury of Eurypylus (as well as those of other key Achaean heroes), it suffices to mention the technique of metakenosis. The term is used to describe ‘the transfer of knowledge from the narrator to a character (see e.g. Σ on Il. 16.844–845: ὃ δὲ ᾔδει ὁ ποιητής, τοῦτο τῷ ἡρωικῷ προσώπῳ περιέθηκε).25 This

 21 ἔνθά οἱ Εὐρύπυλος βεβλημένος ἀντεβόλησε | διογενὴς Εὐαιμονίδης κατὰ μηρὸν ὀϊστῷ | σκάζων ἐκ πολέμου· κατὰ δὲ νότιος ῥέεν ἱδρὼς | ὤμων καὶ κεφαλῆς, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἕλκεος ἀργαλέοιο | αἷμα μέλαν κελάρυζε· νόος γε μὲν ἔμπεδος ἦεν. 22 θεράπων δὲ ἰδὼν ὑπέχευε βοείας. | ἔνθά μιν ἐκτανύσας ἐκ μηροῦ τάμνε μαχαίρῃ | ὀξὺ βέλος περιπευκές, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δ᾽ αἷμα κελαινὸν | νίζ᾽ ὕδατι λιαρῷ, ἐπὶ δὲ ῥίζαν βάλε πικρὴν | χερσὶ διατρίψας ὀδυνήφατον, ἥ οἱ ἁπάσας | ἔσχ᾽ ὀδύνας· τὸ μὲν ἕλκος ἐτέρσετο, παύσατο δ᾽ αἷμα. 23 οἱ μὲν γὰρ δὴ πάντες, ὅσοι πάρος ἦσαν ἄριστοι, | ἐν νηυσὶν κέαται βεβλημένοι οὐτάμενοί τε | χερσὶν ὕπο Τρώων· τῶν δὲ σθένος ὄρνυται αἰέν. 24 He tells him that his brother Podaleirius too is unable to help, since he is fighting (Il. 11.833–836). 25 Kakridis 1982, 5–12.

  Iliad 11.662: A Note is a standard practice of the Homeric storyteller, according to which ‘a character displays knowledge of something which, strictly speaking, he cannot know, but which the narratees do know’.26 It is a form of paralepsis: ‘a speaker provides more information than he should, when the narrator intrudes with his superior knowledge into the embedded focalization of a character, or could, when a speaking character has more knowledge than is possible’.27

 26 De Jong 2001, xviii. 27 De Jong 2001, xvi; see Bassett 1938, 130–140; Taplin 1992, 150 and n. 4; Nünlist 2009, 123– 124.

 Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle: Odysseus’ False Tale to Eumaeus (Od. 14.199–359) The aim of this study is (a) to offer a close reading of Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus and discuss how and to what extent it mirrors another epic of return; (b) to present a scenario for such an alternative Odyssey ; (c) to determine part of the process of transformation and transition to our Odyssey ; and (d) to consider the possibility that oral cyclic epic may have influenced not only Homeric epic but also an alternative version of one of the Homeric poems, i.e. a rival version of our Odyssey.

. Preliminary Considerations Before I embark on a detailed analysis of Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus, I would like to make some preliminary remarks pertaining to the methodological framework of my research, the more so since it will be crucial to my interpretation of this false tale. One of the theoretical premises of this study is that the false tales (narrated by Odysseus himself in direct speech in the second half of the Odyssey) constitute an extensive epic Zitat1 pointing to a group of epic versions of Odysseus’ return, which we may designate by the term alternative Odyssey. There is an almost impossible interpretive conundrum concerning the contents of the false tales: how can we determine among their features those created by the tradition of our Odyssey and those stemming from other epic traditions? This is, of course, extremely slippery ground, the more so since Odysseus the storyteller uses conflicting versions mainly with respect to the Cretan2 element permeating his tales. This is hardly the place to treat this matter fully, but a general rule that can be applied concerns a distinction between (i) the typical, context-free features on the one hand, and (ii) the surface (ii.a) and deep structure (ii.b) elements of the false tales on the other. In other words, there are features that are typical and as such are not significantly meaningful (i), whereas there are other elements of which some have been conditioned by the immediate Odyssean context (ii.a), some that have been shaped through their interaction with the material found in the other register of Odysseus’ ad-

 1 See Danek 1998. 2 On the richness of Crete with respect to oral traditions, see Camerotto 2010, 33; Levaniouk 2012. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-009

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle ventures, i.e. the Apologos (ii.b1), and others that may have been connected to specific poetic manifestations, that is to say may have acquired contextual identity through their characteristic use in oral epic traditions (ii.b2).3 The narrative grammar of the false tales is thus a variegated tapestry, including all these interwoven threads. In tandem with these observations, my aim is to demarcate the different categories to which these features pertain and shed light on the way Odysseus as a gifted storyteller repeats, expands, compresses, and alters certain motifs4 that point to alternative traditions of his return.5 On a larger scale, essential for my argument is the use of interaction,6 which I employ with respect to the relationship between the Odyssey and alternative epic versions narrating Odysseus’ return to Ithaca. I will be employing the terms proto-Odyssey and alternative Odyssey designating different song-traditions that can be distinguished, the former on the basis of its interaction, during its first phase, with various non-cyclic epic traditions, the latter solely with cyclic myth and its epic version, i.e. cyclic epic.7 As the work of Danek has shown, there are numerous passages in our Odyssey that testify to alternative versions of Odysseus’ return. The deep structure features traced in these passages point to two distinct groups of versions, one that I call (for lack of a better term) protoOdyssey and one that scholars usually designate as alternative Odyssey. The former represents those versions that had been influenced by the epic of Gilgamesh,8 an oral epic *Argonautica,9 early oral epic traditions about Heracles,10 women-catalogue poetry,11 as well as widely diffused folk material.12 This group of versions was, in all probability, marked by features and techniques we can trace in the abovementioned epic traditions: significant mythopoiesis marked by  3 See Burgess 2006, 148–189; Currie 2006, 1–45. 4 Scott 1989, 397. 5 I have organized this study on the basis of the various places to which Odysseus refers. 6 See Currie 2016, 35. 7 See Burgess 2006, 148 n. 2. 8 On the relation between the Odyssey and the epic of Gilgamesh, see West 1997, passim; Burgess 1999, 171–210; Bakker 2001a, 331–353. Differently Kullmann (1995, 148 n. 5 with further bibliography), who believes that the journey of Gilgamesh to Uta-napisti must be compared to Odysseus’ journey to the Cimmerians and not to the Phaeacian episode. 9 See Meuli 1921; Rutherford 1992, 2; Dräger 1993, 17–18; Danek 1998, 23, 252–253, 255–257; West 2005, 39–64. Hölscher (19903, 170–185) approaches this matter in a different way. 10 See Kullmann 1992, 131; Schischwani 1994, 197–201; Danek 1998, 23–24. 11 Hirschberger 2001, 123–151. 12 See Page 1955, 1–20; 1973; Glenn 1971, 133–181; Hölscher 1978, 51–67; Hansen 1990, 241– 272; 1997, 442–462; Burgess 2001, 94–114. On the similar narrative grammar shared by the Lot tale (Genesis 2.16–3.19) and the Odyssey, see Louden 1999, 69–103.

Preliminary Considerations  

a predilection for katabasis literature,13 genealogies, and a fondness for the supernatural. The latter group (alternative Odyssey) was characterized by a tendency to identify events of Odysseus’ homecoming with well-known geographical locations in the Mediterranean, episodic narrative linearity (telling one tale after the other according to the episodic style of cyclic epic), drawing the character of the main hero in terms of his desire for profit, as well as a strong influence of an oral cyclic tradition of *Nostoi. There were further phases in the development and shaping of our Odyssey, one of which may have been the gradual influence of a cyclic tradition of *Nostoi and of the Oresteia myth on the proto-Odyssey group, which began to acquire certain cyclic features on the level of theme. If this holds true, then the alternative Odyssey group, which may have been shaped only after the proto-Odyssey group was formed, may have been the vehicle for the gradual influence of the versions belonging to the older protoOdyssey group. The interaction between an older, markedly exotic epic of Odysseus’ return with strong Near-Eastern overtones on the one hand, and a later tradition containing a more ‘realistic’ set of adventures of Odysseus on the other, was so strong that at a certain point led to a fusion of the two groups into our Odyssey. The impetus for this revolutionary event may have been complex but, I think, we are not off the mark if we trace it in the wider cultural phenomenon that took the Greek world by storm and reshaped it once and for all: Panhellenism. To be more specific, the combination of two markedly different groups of versions concerning the post-war fate of Odysseus may have been related to the rise of Panhellenism during the Archaic Period: (a) The aim to reach a wider public may have led to a tendency of inclusion, according to which the supernatural element of the Argonautic tradition and katabasis literature (as reflected in the Apologos) could be combined with the ‘realistic’ but locally limited tracing of Odysseus’ adventures to given locations in the Eastern Mediterranean and mainland Greece (false tales). Given that these two groups of versions could not be combined in a single plotline, the Odyssey invented a sophisticated system of inclusion that evolved around its principal hero Odysseus and presented the former group as real and the latter as false. In my view, Odysseus as a master storyteller of true and false stories is a creation of the Odyssey: it was the need to combine these two distinct groups of versions that may have determined the solution we are familiar with from our Odyssey. The advantages of such a solution are, of course, multiple, and are

 13 See Kullmann 1995, 147–155; Tsagarakis 2000, 26–37.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle partly responsible for the great success of the Odyssey from as early as the Archaic Period. (b) The rise and diffusion of traditions concerning the fates of other Achaean leaders on their way home after the Trojan war is part of the larger Panhellenic phenomenon. In this light, the external expansion14 of the Odyssey described above was also coupled by an internal expansion15 of its hero with respect, this time, to his dramatic output. This process of psychological elaboration and of the refinement of the figure of Odysseus may have been triggered, at least to some extent, by the growing importance of traditions concerning the returns of other Achaean heroes. Otherwise, Odysseus would have been painted in a purely positive way, i.e. deprived of his greed for adventures, in the versions pertaining to the alternative Odyssey group, which – as we know – is not the case. The fact that the tradition of an oral *Nostoi or even an *Atreidon kathodos has conditioned the nature of the Odyssey’s dramatic output by opposing, and often acknowledging, in poetological terms the fate of Agamemnon and Clytaemestra (explicitly) and of Menelaus and Helen (implicitly) to that of Odysseus and Penelope, indicates that the internal expansion may have taken place only after the fusion of the two aforementioned groups of versions (the proto-Odyssey group and the alternative Odyssey group)16 had started to take place. This is additionally inferred from the fact that while some of the deep structure features of the alternative Odyssey group, like narrative linearity or a given time frame for the various adventures, are also shared by the tradition of an oral *Nostoi, others (like Odysseus’ greed for wealth) are not. (c) The influence of the tradition of the Iliad must also be seen within the larger Panhellenic framework. There are numerous instances that prove beyond doubt that the Iliadic tradition has had an impact on the Odyssean and vice versa.17 In this vein, it is argued that the phenomenon of Panhellenism is mainly, if not solely, responsible for the highly developed self-consciousness of the Odyssey: in particular, the poem’s self-awareness18 and referentiality19 may have  14 See Kullmann 1992, 125–129. 15 See Kullmann 1992, 120–122. 16 On alternative epic versions of Odysseus’ return, see pp. 167–182. 17 See Usener 1990; Maronitis 1983, 279–291 (= 2004, 133–146 = 20052, 246–266). On the influence of an Odyssean theme on the Iliad, see Tsagalis 2008, 135–149. 18 On the Odyssey’s self-awareness, see Bowie (1993, 18–19), who rightly emphasizes the contrast between the various tales told in the poem. By offering a wide range of modes of storytelling, the tradition of the Odyssey reveals both part of the process of its shaping and of its awareness of this process.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

grown out of (i) the process of combining the two major groups of alternative versions of Odysseus’ return, and (ii) its creative interaction with a number of oral traditions, such as that of the Iliad, the *Nostoi and the *Memnonis. So strong is the self-awareness permeating the Odyssey from beginning to end with respect to questions of storytelling and poetics, that it may be argued that, like its synthesis, it is directly derivative of the early manifestations of the rising Panhellenic ideology: like Archaic Greece, the Odyssey came to know itself by a process of eclectic interaction, creative synthesis, and above all dramatic internalization.

. Crete and an Alternative Odyssey Crete is directly linked to a different version of Odysseus’ return,20 since it is closely associated with elements that invite us to speculate about the interaction of our Odyssean version with the plot of an alternative epic of Odysseus’ nostos. Internal evidence supporting the hypothesis of a Cretan Odyssey can be summarized in the following observations:21

 19 See Rengakos 2002, 173–191. 20 Crete is the habitat of the storyteller in a number of false tales, the only exception being that addressed to Laertes (Book 24), where Crete is replaced by Sicily, though the motifs of the ‘Storm’ and the ‘Gifts’ play the role of linking mechanisms. According to Hölscher (19903, 212) and Grossardt (1998, 32) the cohesion of the false tales is the work of the poet of the Odyssey. Internal aberrations and differences are conditioned basically by the specific interests of the various addressees. On this topic, see Woodhouse 1930, 127–131; Trahman 1952, 39–41 and 43; Burrows 1965, 36; Blümlein 1971, 149; Walcot 1977, 1; Del Corno 1978, 836; Emlyn-Jones 1986, 3; Hölscher 19903, 212; Fuchs 1993, 37; Grossardt 1998, 33. 21 Several theories have been put forward with respect to the constant reference to Crete in the false tales. I hereby offer a brief summary: (a) by saying ‘I am a Cretan’ Odysseus would have evoked in the audience’s mind a tradition presenting the Cretans as liars (Eustathius 1741; Meuli, Blümlein, Krehmer, McLennan); (b) Crete was the place of origin of Odysseus that was later absorbed by the widely diffused tradition of the Odyssey that presented him as Ithacan (Faure); (c) Crete had featured as the most important station of Odysseus’ homeward journey in an alternative Odyssey (Woodhouse, S. West, Reece); (d) Odysseus has been associated with Crete in the false tales by means of certain common features he shares in both the Iliad and in hero cult with the Cretan Meriones (Haft); (e) Crete is quite suitable for the false tales, since its great distance from Ithaca brings the possibility of anyone contradicting Odysseus close to zero (Trahman, Walcot, Emlyn-Jones, Hoekstra); (f) Crete is a symbol of the Underworld and therefore stands for a figurative death of Odysseus (Schmoll); (g) Crete functions as an effective contrast to Ithaca with respect to size and wealth, the former being large and rich, the latter

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle (a) the proem’s assertion about Odysseus’ wanderings corresponds to his false tales rather than the Odyssey itself;22 (b) Odysseus as storyteller systematically emphasizes his Cretan identity;23 (c) there is a ‘remarkable contrast between our poet’s vague notion of the topography of the Peloponnese to his quite detailed knowledge of Crete’;24 (d) Eumaeus explicitly says in Od. 14.379–385 that an Aetolian25 has told him that he had seen Odysseus in Crete at Idomeneus’ palace, repairing the damage his ships had suffered in a gale and that he would return to Ithaca in the summer or by autumn together with a fortune and his friends.26 The labelling of this story as Aetolian may be a hint to the story’s incredibility, just as is the case with the Aetolian hero Thoas who is portrayed rather negatively in the Odyssey. This may well be a case in which ‘Aetolian’ is a mark for non-canonical versions of Odysseus’ return. By tagging the information about Crete as a story told by an Aetolian, the Odyssey ‘alludes to themes that were central to some versions of Odysseus’ return but were antithetical to the Odyssey itself’.27

 small and poor (Grossardt); (h) Crete stands for a ‘real’ space that bridges East and West and is easily contrasted to the ‘unreal’ space designated in the Apologos (Krummen); (i) potentially significant are also the references to Crete in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (3.30, 393, 470) and (especially) Demeter (123): the island has become established as an ‘other’, in like manner to Cape Maleia (on the SE coast of Laconia) that has become a symbolic entry point into unknown spaces and/or difficult circumstances (Marks). Of all these theories, (a) (c), (e), (g), (h), and (i) are not incompatible between themselves and seem to function properly. If (c) is right, (a), (e), (g), (h), and (i) work perfectly well for an alternative Odyssey as well. 22 The proem’s assertion (Od. 1.3: πολλῶν δ’ άνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα) is developed in 15.492 (πολλὰ βροτῶν ἐπὶ ἄστε’ ἀλώμενος ἐνθάδ’ ἱκάνω), 19.170 (πολλὰ βροτῶν ἐπὶ ἄστε’ ἀλώμενος, ἄλγεα πάσχων), and 16.63–64 (φησὶ δὲ πολλὰ βροτῶν ἐπὶ ἄστεα δινηθῆναι | πλαζόμενος). 23 Od. 13.256–258, 260; 14.199–210, 252, 300–301; 17.523; 19.172–202, 338. On the centrality of Crete in early Greek epic, see S. West 1988, 156–159; Reece 1994, 166 n. 12. 24 Reece 1994, 165. 25 See Marks 2003, 209–226, who argues that the ‘Odyssey’s deployment of Aitolians … can be understood as a kind of ainos, and that one way the ainos may have been decoded is as a message that “Aitolian” stories can impress even an experienced audience like Eumaios, but that this audience, again like Eumaios, is to recognize these false stories as “false”. [A]lthough traditions about Thoas and Odysseus post Odysseam are incompatible with Odyssean thematics, the Odyssey responds, not by condemning to oblivion these “Aitolian” traditions, but instead by providing a lens through which they could be seen in Odyssean, and therefore Panhellenic, terms’. 26 The italics are my own. 27 Marks 2003, 220.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

External evidence reinforcing the scenario of a Cretan version amounts to two different sources:28 (a) two readings by Zenodotus,29 who suggested that in both Od. 1.93 Athena intended to send Telemachus to Crete and Idomeneus rather than to Sparta and Menelaus and in Od. 1.285 she advised the young Ithacan prince to travel from Pylos to Crete to king Idomeneus; (b) a version of Odysseus’ return with a strong Cretan component offered by Dictys Cretensis.30 Since the Zenodotean readings are crucial for the hypothesis of a Cretan Odyssey, I think that they should be treated more extensively. Let us first see what they are about: Od. 1.93: πέμψω δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα πέμψω δ’ ἐς Κρήτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα

MSS Zenodotus’ reading (schol. 3.313)

Od. 1.285 κεῖθεν δὲ Σπάρτηνδε παρὰ ξανθὸν Μενέλαον· κεῖθεν δ’ ἐς Κρήτην τε παρ’ Ἰδομενῆα ἄνακτα· ὃς γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν Ἀχαιῶν χαλκχιτώνων

MSS Zenodotus’ reading (schol. 3.313)

With respect to these Zenodotean readings, Stephanie West has argued that since they confirm one another, could not have been the result of scribal error, and could not have been conjectures made by Zenodotus as they are so strongly against the plot of the epic, they must have been genuine readings either attested in a number of manuscripts or by one of great importance.31 In other words, the astounding oddity of these readings, together with the scholium on 2.359

 28 Reece (1994, 157–173) offers a well-balanced and convincing scenario. 29 Scholia on Od. 3.313. See S. West 1981, 173–174; Reece 1994, 166–168. 30 There is no reason to repeat here the convincing arguments of Allen (1924, 146–169) and Reece (1994, 168–169) with respect to the sources of the strongly ‘Cretan’ Odyssey narrated by Dictys Cretensis (see the Latin edition by Eisenhut 1958). Both scholars argued for a preHomeric version, which was also the source for the Epic Cycle. 31 S. West 1981, 173–174.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle (οὐδ’ ἐνταῦθα μνήμη τίς ἐστι τῆς Κρήτης), strongly indicate that Zenodotus introduced no conjecture nor did he alter the text.32 A different explanation was put forward by Aristarchus through a scholium by Aristonicus, who reflects the views of Aristarchus. Given the importance of this scholium, I am quoting it in full: Ariston. γ 313 a. καὶ σὺ φίλος; οὗτος ὁ τόπος ἀνέπεισε Ζηνόδοτον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἀποδημίας Τηλεμάχου διόλου τὴν Κρήτην ἀντὶ τῆς Σπάρτης ποιεῖν. οἴεται γὰρ ἐκ τούτων τῶν λόγων κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον ἀκηκοέναι τὸν Νέστορα παρὰ τοῦ Τηλεμάχου ὅτι καὶ ἀλλαχόσε περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς πευσόμενος παρεσκεύαστο πλεῖν. διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ α´ ῥαψῳδίᾳ ἔγραψε «πέμψω δ᾽ ἐς Κρήτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα» [α 93] καὶ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ ἀλλαχοῦ «πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον ἐλθέ … | κεῖθεν δ᾽ ἐς Κρήτην τε παρ᾽ Ἰδομενῆα ἄνακτα | ὃς γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων» [cf. α 284–5] HMa ‘You too, friend’: This passage convinced Zenodotus to make it ‘Crete’ throughout instead of ‘Sparta’, in the verses pertaining to Telemachus’ journey. For he thinks that because of these words Nestor has implicitly heard from Telemachus that he had prepared himself to sail to another place too, to find out about his father. For this reason in Book 1 (Zenodotus) wrote ‘I will send him to Crete and sandy Pylos’ (Od. 1.93) and elsewhere Athena (says) ‘first go to Pylos … and from there to Crete to king Idomeneus, who came back last of the bronze-armored Achaeans’ [Od. 1.284–285].

Aristarchus (Aristonicus) argued that Zenodotus replaced Sparta with Crete in Od. 1.93 and 1.185 because in 3.31333 he thought that Nestor implied (κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον) that Telemachus was planning to go elsewhere in search of his father. This is nothing more than a mere guess. This can only mean that Zenodotus ‘changed’ Sparta into Crete in all the relevant references before 3.313 (ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἀποδημίας Τηλεμάχου διόλου τὴν Κρήτην ἀντὶ τῆς Σπάρτης ποιεῖν), which is the verse on which the scholium comments and pertains to Nestor’s suggestion to Telemachus to go to Sparta.  32 By using information from Near-Eastern sources, Burkert (1999, 135) argues that Odysseus’ attack on Egypt as narrated in Book 14 may be reflecting historical events concerning a raid on Egypt between 738 and 664 B.C. He also argues that the replacement of Crete by Sparta was the outcome of the growing importance of Sparta that had become a center of commerce, culture and music as a result of her victory in the first Messenian war and the subsequent subjugation of the entire region of Messenia from the beginning of the 7th century. The disappearance of Messenians from the victor-lists in the Olympic games post 700 B.C., the offer of Messenian cities by Agamemnon to Achilles in Il. 9.150–152 = 9.252–294, the absence of Messenia from the Catalogue of Ships, as well as its designation as part of Lacedaemon (Od. 21.13–38), constitute, according to Burkert, cumulative indications concerning a possible dating of the Odyssey in the 7th century. 33 See Σ ad Od. 3.313a (Pontani).

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

The fact that the scholia mention Crete instead of Sparta only in 1.93 and 1.285 is explained by the poor condition of our scholia. After all, we do not have a scholium on 1.93 and another one on 1.285 informing us about the Zenodotean readings but one on 3.313 with an account of the Zenodotean readings on 1.93 and 1.285. This is factual information that is reported by Aristonicus. He could not have possibly said that Zenotodus’ text had ‘throughout’ before 3.313 ‘Crete’ instead of ‘Sparta’, if he or his source did not have access to Zenodotus’ text. This factual report should be trusted. On the contrary, the attempt to explain this factual information is his own guess. Surprised by the systematic (‘throughout’) substitution of ‘Sparta’ by ‘Crete’ in Zenodotus’ text, Aristonicus or his source sought for an explanation. His theory was that it was Zenodotus who implemented this change before 3.313, because it was this passage (in which Nestor tells Telemachus to go to Sparta) that made Zenodotus (according to Aristonicus or his source) imply that Telemachus was meant to go to Crete from Pylos. The implication of this theory is that the references to Crete in Zenodotus’ text are emendations made by Zenodotus and not genuine readings. Another scholar, of much later date commented on Od. 3.313 in the following manner: οὗτος μὲν ὁ τόπος διὰ τὸν μὲν σύνδεσμον ἀνέπεισε τὸν γραμματικὸν Ζηνόδοτον ἐν τῇ α´ ῥαψῳδίᾳ γράψαι […] «πέμψω δ᾽ ἐς Κρήτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον ἠμαθόεντα» καὶ «πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Πύλον ἐλθέ, κεῖθεν δ᾽ ἐς Κρήτην τε παρ᾽ Ἰδομενῆα ἄνακτα | ὃς γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν». οἴεται γὰρ ὁ Ζηνόδοτος κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον ἀκηκοέναι τὸν Νέστορα παρὰ τοῦ Τηλεμάχου ὅτι καὶ ἀλλαχόσε παρεσκεύασται πλεύσειν, οἷον καὶ ἐς Κρήτην, ὅθεν ἐκείνου μὲν τοῦ πλοῦ ἀποτρέπει, μάλιστα δὲ προτρέπει ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὸν Μενέλαον, ὃς νέον ἐλθὼν δεύτατος ἦλθεν ὡς προδεδήλωται. ἵνα λέγῃ ὁ Νέστωρ ὅτι ἐς μὲν Μενέλαον κέλομαι ἀπελθεῖν, εἰς Κρήτην δὲ οὔ. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο καλῶς ὑπενόησεν ὁ Ζηνόδοτος, εἴη ἂν ὁ Νέστωρ τῆς μυθικῆς Ἀθηνᾶς συνετώτερος. This passage, they say, convinced the grammarian Zenodotus to write in Book 1 […] ‘I will send him to Crete and sandy Pylos’ (Od. 1.93) and ‘first go to Pylos … and from there to Crete to king Idomeneus, who came back last’ (Od. 1.284–285). For he thinks that Nestor has implicitly heard from Telemachus that he has prepared himself to sail to another place too, i.e. to Crete. He (sc. Nestor) discourages him from making that sea journey, while he strongly encourages him to go to Menelaus, who having recently arrived home he came last, as mentioned before. So that Nestor means that ‘I urge you to go to Menelaus, not to Crete’. If Zenodotus has assumed this rightly, Nestor would be wiser than the legendary Athena.

Eustathius’ comment is based on Aristonicus’ scholium. This is his source, which he reproduces faithfully, trying to make more explicit and straightforward to his readers what Aristonicus meant. Two points deserve attention: first that Eustathius observes that Nestor discourages Telemachus from sailing to

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle Crete, and, second, that Nestor’s suggestion to Telemachus to go to Menelaus stems from the fact that Menelaus returned to Sparta recently, i.e. he is the last of the Achaeans to return home. These two points are important. Eustathius assumes that Nestor discourages Menelaus from sailing to Crete on the basis of Menelaus’ troubled sea voyage to Crete and Egypt, which he has just related in considerable detail to Telemachus (Od. 3.276–311). In this vein, the expression μὴ δηθὰ δόμων ἄπο τῆλ᾽ ἀλάλησο (‘do not wander for long far away from home’, Od. 3.313) is based on the negative experience of Menelaus who wandered for eight years before returning home. However, Crete is not the only place where he had gone. Egypt is equally, if not more, suitable for this kind of reasoning, since Menelaus spent there much more time that on Crete and, moreover, Egypt is further than Crete for someone located in mainland Greece, which would be in tune with Nestor’s advice μὴ δηθὰ δόμων ἄπο τῆλ᾽ ἀλάλησο. Eustathius’ explanation of the reason that made Zenodotus think of Crete (οὗτος ὁ τόπος ἀνέπεισε τὸν γραμματικὸν Ζηνόδοτoν), and not another place, is a mere guess, which is not supported by the context. Egypt could have been another alternative. As for the second point, Eustathius stressed the fact that Zenodotus suggested to Telemachus to go to Sparta because Menelaus had recently arrived there, i.e. he was the last of the Achaeans to return home. In this way, we may assume, Telemachus had more chances of finding out about his father’s whereabouts. In this case, we must distinguish between the way the Odyssey brings forward the idea of a journey to Sparta and what Zenodotus thought. Nestor suggests Sparta because Menelaus has just returned from the war and could well know of Odysseus, as well as because Sparta is not considered to be far away from Ithaca, at least since Telemachus is already in Pylos, which is close to it. However, this cannot have persuaded Zenodotus that Nestor thought that Telemachus intended to sail to Crete. In fact, if Zenodotus’ text initially (before Zenodotus’ intervention) read in Od. 1.285–286 κεῖθεν δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην παρὰ ξανθὸν Μενέλαον | ὃς γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν Ἀχαιῶν χαλκoχιτώνων (as Aristonicus and Eusthatius thought), why would Zenodotus change it to κεῖθεν δ’ ἐς Κρήτην τε παρ’ Ἰδομενῆα ἄνακτα· | ὃς γὰρ δεύτατος ἦλθεν Ἀχαιῶν χαλκoχιτώνων, thus making Idomeneus the last Achaean returning home? The fact that in Od. 19.191–192 Nestor had told Telemachus that Idomeneus brought home to Crete all his comrades, who fled from war, and that none of them died at sea (πάντας δ᾽ Ἰδομενεὺς Κρήτην εἰσήγαγ᾽ ἑταίρους, | οἳ φύγον ἐκ πολέμου, πόντος δέ οἱ οὔ τιν᾽ ἀπηύρα), shows that he (sc. Nestor) did not regard Crete as the symbol of a dangerous journey.34  34 Contra Beck 2020, 369.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

Other arguments, recently35 adduced in favor of the interpretation of Aristonicus and Eusthathius seem to me unconvincing. (a) The metrically equivalent form of the toponyms Κρήτη and Σπάρτη only show that in any given verse they are interchangeable, not that Zenodotus thought of changing them in only two places. Moreover, the very first time that Nestor tells Telemachus to go to Sparta he uses the form Λακεδαίμων,36 which speaks volumes about the limitations of the interchangeability argument. (b) Even more off the mark, seem to me the arguments that Zenodotus was misled by the Cretan (false) tales narrated by Odysseus and by the poet’s detailed knowledge of Crete. That Zenodotus decided to change Sparta by Crete in Od. 1.93 and 1.285 because Crete looms large in the false tales and because the poet knew well the topography of Crete is a leap of fate. West accepts the view that the Zenodotean readings are not ‘casual mistakes’ but must have been part of the text he used, Moreover, he treats as inconceivable the idea that there was a version of the Odyssey in which Telemachus went to Idomeneus in Crete instead of Menelaus and Helen in Sparta. West argues that the peculiar Zenodotean readings are the last tell-tale relics of a version that Q37 was planning while he composed α but never executed. By the time he reached γ he had changed his mind and substituted a journey to Sparta for the one to Crete. Most early copies were naturally corrected to bring the α reference into conformity with the subsequent narrative, but Zenodotus happened to own an uncorrected one.38

In other words, there are two ‘culprits’: the poet of the Odyssey and Zenodotus. The former had planned a journey by Telemachus to Idomeneus in Crete but changed his mind without changing the text in 1.93 and 1.285. The latter did not notice that these two references are contradicted by the plot of the epic, since Telemachus goes to Menelaus and Helen in Sparta and not to Idomeneus in Crete and did not change the text. I regard this view as untenable for the following reasons: (a) even if we accept West’s approach for a poet composing by writing, the idea that he worked exclusively in a linear manner, from beginning to end, and did not rework various sections of his epic is very unlikely. West

 35 Beck 2020, 370–371. 36 Od. 3.326: ἐς Λακεδαίμονα δῖαν, ὅθι ξανθὸς Μενέλαος. 37 Q is West’s way of referring to the poet of the Odyssey, who is different from the poet of the Iliad (West’s P). 38 West 2014, 108. Cf. S. West 1988, 43: ‘yet even if the poet himself had failed to notice the anomaly, we should expect it to have been eradicated in the course of transmission’.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle himself imagines him shaping his epic over his lifetime. This means that it is improbable that his original written text had not been corrected by himself, especially since the non sequitur of ἐς Κρήτην in 1.93 and 1.285 concerns a place name pertaining to an entire episode that he narrated in detail in Book 4. (b) If West was right in saying that ‘by the time he (sc. the poet) reached γ he had changed his mind and substituted a journey to Sparta for the one to Crete’, it is all the more surprising that he was careful to stick to his new plan in Od. 2.214 and 359, where Telemachus says that he will go to Sparta and Pylos,39 but was not diligent enough to do the same in Od. 1.93 and 1.185. (c) West assumes that the error was in the original written copy produced by the poet of the Odyssey and that in most copies it was corrected except in the one Zenodotus had at his disposal. This means, if West’s line of thought is adopted, that Zenodotus had a single copy in which the error was not corrected. That a learned scholar like Zenodotus had access only to one copy of the Odyssey in which the error had not been corrected and that he also failed to notice such an enormous blunder is very unlikely. (d) West assumes a series of mistakes that are improbable to have occurred cumulatively: the poet failed to change his text in 1.93 and 1.285, the copyist of an early copy failed to notice the mistake and correct it, Zenodotus had solely this single, uncorrected copy in his hands, Zenodotus failed to notice the mistake and correct it on his own.40 Danek41 has offered a plausible explanation of the function of the readings adopted by Zenodotus in Od. 1.93 and 1.285. Zenodotus deliberately did not change the readings he found in a few manuscripts or in one that he considered of great importance because the reference to a journey to Crete in Odyssey 1 is not contradicted by the plot, since the audience does not yet know by which route Odysseus will return from Ogygia to Ithaca. The Phaeacians come to the foreground in the second divine assembly in Odyssey 5, when Zeus reacts to Athena’s account of the events in Books 1–4 and determines that Odysseus will return from Ogygia to Ithaca via Scheria. The implication of this approach is that the gods decide that Odysseus will return to Ithaca via Scheria only after Telemachus goes to Sparta. Until this divine decision is taken, the audience could assume that Odysseus may go from Ogygia to Crete, where Telemachus  39 See also Od. 2.326–327 (ἤ τινας ἐκ Πύλου ἄξει ἀμύντορας ἠμαθόεντος | ἠ᾽ ὅ γε καὶ Σπάρτηθεν, ἐπεὶ νύ περ ἵεται αἰνῶς). 40 See S. West (1988, 43), who rightly notes that since Zenodotus did not substitute Sparta with Crete in Od. 2.214, 327, and 359, he was not ‘systematically altering the text in accordance with some private theory’; see also Aristonicus’ scholium on Od. 2.359 [Pontani]: οὐδ᾽ ἐνταῦθα μνήμη τίς ἐστι τῆς Κρήτης. 41 Danek 1998, 47–49.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

would meet him.42 According to this line of thought, the readings featuring Crete as the second place where Telemachus should go looking for Odysseus created the expectation to the audience that Telemachus would indeed go there after Pylos. This is what Athena told Zeus in 1.93 and what she told Telemachus 1.285. Zenodotus’ manuscript(s) must have also mentioned Crete instead of Sparta in 2.214 and 2.359, where Telemachus announces to the suitors and Eurycleia respectively where he is going. In this vein, Telemachus would have followed Athena’s advice and traveled to Crete after Pylos, if it was not for Nestor, who made him change his mind and suggested that he goes to Menelaus. The reason for this change of plan can be seen in 3.191, where Nestor informs Telemachus that Idomeneus and his comrades returned safely to Crete. Like Nestor himself, the Cretan king could not possibly be helpful to Telemachus, since in contrast to Odysseus he returned easily and safely home. Moreover, Crete is far away and there is no reason for Telemachus to wander far away from Ithaca.43 Nestor’s suggestion that Telemachus should go to Sparta stems from Nestor’s previous report, according to which Menelaus is the last of the Greek leaders who returned home after a long and troubling journey and is, therefore, likely to know something about Odysseus’ whereabouts. In addition, Menelaus is instrumental to our version of the Odyssey because he can channel into the narrative more information about the story of Orestes, which the Odyssey has been systematically employing as a foil for the story of Odysseus’ return. This is made amply clear even from Nestor’s list of the returns of Achaean heroes from Troy, since Aegisthus is tagged to Agamemnon’s ‘entry’, which is the last in the list and comes right after the ‘entry’ of Idomeneus. The ending of this catalogue triggers Telemachus’ interest and he soon asks Nestor about the death of Agamemnon by Aegisthus and the fate of Menelaus (3.247–252). Nestor’s account of Menelaus’ return is a further hint to the way the Odyssey exploits the νόστος of Menelaus for determining Telemachus’ journey to Sparta. Like both the real Odysseus, whose fleet is blown off course when it reached cape Malea on his return journey from Troy (9.80), and the fictive Odysseus whose fleet suffers the same fate on his way to Troy and is blown off course to Amnisos in Crete (19.185–188), Menelaus’ fleet is also blown off course at the same place with the result that some of his ships were driven to Crete and others to Egypt. That both Crete and

 42 Danek 1998, 48–49. In this way, as Danek (1998, 50) states, the audience that is familiar with the Cretan version expects that the first aim of Telemachus’ journey, i.e. to learn about his father, will be concretely expressed by a meeting between father and son. The plot of our Odyssey would have taken the audience by surprise. 43 Od. 3.313: καὶ σύ, φίλος, μὴ δηθὰ δόμων ἄπο τῆλ᾽ ἀλάλησο.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle Egypt44 feature in Odysseus’ false tales and that Menelaus wanders like Odysseus and gathers much substance and gold like the fictive stranger in the false tales shows the intricate link between the returns of Menelaus and Odysseus in the Odyssey. Danek’s explanation gains further support from the fact that the characters who are not involved in the change of the initial plan (i.e. that Telemachus goes to Sparta instead of Crete) speak exclusively of Pylos without mentioning Sparta at all (Od. 14.180; 16.24, 142; 17.42; 24.152).45 Danek’s argumentation offers crucial support to the assumption that Zenodotus’ textual variants were not emendations but genuine readings and that they must be associated with a Cretan Odyssey. As a result, an audience that was familiar with the Cretan version of the Odyssey would expect that the first goal of Telemachus’ journey, i.e. to learn about his father, will be concretely expressed by means of a meeting between father and son. However, the plot of our Odyssey takes the audience by surprise. Father and son will not meet during the latter’s travels but later in Eumaeus’ hut in Ithaca.46 To this line of thought, I would like to offer further support by highlighting the fact that our Odyssey contains signs of a ‘nod’ to a previous version or versions in which Telemachus had been instructed by Athena to go to Pylos and Crete: (a) The extended narrative of Nestor to Telemachus (Book 3) pertaining to the return of Menelaus is set apart from the preceding catalogue-like presentation of the nostoi of several Achaean heroes (3.181–198), including Diomedes, Nestor himself, Neoptolemus, Philoctetes, Idomeneus, Agamemnon. By having Nestor give Telemachus a detailed account of Menelaus’ troubled return (3.276– 312), our Odyssey justifies Nestor’s suggestion that Telemachus continues his journey to Sparta (and not to another place) after Pylos. (b) Although Telemachus knows too well that he is heading to Sparta after Pylos, he does not respond to Nestor’s suggestion by informing him that this was his own plan too. He only tells him ‘you have recounted this duly’ (3.331: ταῦτα κατὰ μοῖραν κατέλεξας) and urges him to procede with a libation to Poesidon and the other immortals. The expressions κατὰ μοῖραν and ὑπὲρ μοῖραν amount to a refined way developed by the system of epic song to indicate its avowal (κατὰ μοῖραν) and disavowal (ὑπὲρ μοῖραν) respectively to tradition.47 Telemachus’ response is an implicit acknowledgment of the compliance  44 Od. 14.246, 257–259, 275, 17.426–427, 448; on Egypt, see pp. 193–196. 45 Danek 1998, 48. 46 Danek 1998, 50. 47 Tsagalis 2011a, 226.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

of our Odyssey to this tradition featuring a second journey to Sparta instead of another tradition featuring a journey to another place situated further than Pylos. (c) In Od. 4.313, Menelaus asks Telemachus why he came to Lacedaemon ‘upon the broad back of the sea’ (ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης). This formula is always used in Homeric epic for a sea journey (Il. 8.511, 20.228; Od. 3.142, 4.362, 4.560, 5.17, 5.142, 17.146). Menelaus’ use of this expression to designate Lacedaemon would have conformed to epic idiom if Telemachus had traveled to Sparta by ship. However, this is not the case. Telemachus and Pisistratus have reached Sparta from Pylos by chariot. Menelaus’ idiosyncratic designation of Lacedaemon as a place ‘upon the broad back of the sea’ is odd on a geographical basis, since Sparta was situated inland, at some distance from the sea. I concur that this oddity is intentional. It pertains to an allusive strategy, strongly manifested in Books 3 and 4 of our Odyssey, to quote an alternative version, in which Telemachus traveled after Pylos to Crete. In fact, the formula ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης may be a verbatim citation from that alternative version, in which someone in Crete (Idomeneus?) could have asked this question to Telemachus after his arrival at his island by ship. (d) On their way to Sparta Telemachus and Pisistratus stayed at the house of Diocles (Od. 3.488–489, 15.186–187), whose father Ortilochus had once stayed in Messene where he had met Odysseus (Od. 21.15–16). We know from the Iliad (5.542, 546, 547, 549) that Ortilochus I was the son of the river Alpheus, and that Diocles was his son. Diocles’ twin sons, Crethon and Ortilochus II, took part in the Trojan War and were killed by Aeneas. Telemachus’ stay at the house of Diocles may have signified to an audience aware of the Iliad that his host was a man who had lost his twin sons in the war. This is, then a case, where our Odyssey ‘cites’ the Iliad and expects from its audience to ‘join the dots’. Given the heavy metapoetic load of Book 3 as a whole (citation of the *Nostoi) and the quotational function of the Diocles-Ortilochus reference from the Odyssey > Iliad, searching for citation of alternative versions of Odysseus’ return would not be out of place. (e) In Od. 3.323–325, Nestor puts forward to Telemachus two alternative ways of traveling to Sparta, i.e. by ship or land. More accurately, he first tells him to travel by his own ship. i.e. the one with which he came to Pylos from Ithaca, but then presents the possibility of a journey by land: ‘if you want to go on foot, a chariot and horses are before you, and before you are my sons, who’ll be your escorts’. However, Telemachus does not immediately reply to Nestor about how he will go to Sparta. On the contrary, it is the disguised Athena who tells the Pylian king that Telemachus will travel by land. This triangular discus-

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle sion about the manner of Telemachus’ journey to Sparta seems to be one more sign of the way our version aims at recording its reaction to an alternative version in which Telemachus could only travel by ship to his second destination, since this would be an island (Crete). By having Athena in 3.368–370 tell Nestor to send Telemachus to Sparta by land, our Odyssey makes her ‘correct’ what she had told Telemachus in an earlier version, in which she had advised Telemachus to go to Crete after Pylos (see the readings reported by Zenodotus in 1.93 and 1.285). This would of course mean that he would travel by ship. The use of the same character, Athena, in such a role strengthens the quotation, since it increases the thematic load linking the two versions. The discussion about the way Telemachus will reach Sparta amounts to a ‘response’ of our Odyssey to an alternative version in which Telemachus traveled to Crete by ship. Traveling by land after Pylos to his next destination stands for a differentiation from a version in which he traveled to his next destination by sea. In this context, traveling by land ‘means’ traveling to Sparta because in another version traveling by ship after Pylos meant traveling to Crete. (f) Eumaeus (14.189, 16.24 and 142), Penelope (17.42), and Amphimedon (24.152) all know only of Pylos as Telemachus’ itinerary in search of Odysseus. This means that the idea of Telemachus traveling to Sparta originated with Nestor in Book 3 and not in Book 1 with Athena. Moreover, the fact that Pylos alone is always mentioned as an itinerary of Telemachus shows that it was also included in alternative versions of Odysseus’ return. Pylos belongs to the ‘deep’ structure of Telemachus’ journey, Crete and Sparta to the ‘surface’ structure. The reason can only be one: Pylos is tagged to Nestor, who represents the swift and safe return from Troy. Conversely, Idomeneus and Menelaus were the last of the Achaeans (except Odysseus) who returned home, and as such epitomize the long journey of return. When the oral *Nostoi acquired status as offering an authoritative version of Menelaus’ return as the last of the heroes who featured in this poem’s plot, then a mirror version of Odysseus return journey was shaped, which was very different from the poem that existed at the time about Odysseus, the proto-Odyssey in which Odysseus returned home after facing most of the troubles we know from the Apologos. In this alternative version Odysseus was presented (like Menelaus) as wandering in the eastern Mediterranean and passing some time in Crete. To foster this version, the *alternative Odyssey exploited the tradition of Idomeneus’ late return and had Telemachus look for his father in Pylos and Crete, the former symbolizing the swift return, the latter the long one. (g) The name Orsilochus or Ortilochus (according to a varia lectio in Od. 3.489 and 15.187) is used for Idomeneus’ son in Odysseus’ false tale to Athe-

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

na (Od. 13.260). In that tale, Orsilochus/Ortilochus is a nomen loquens, since he ambushed the fictive Odysseus and tried to steal from the possessions he had acquired in Troy, a detail to which I will soon return. Attempting to save himself, the fictive Odysseus embarks on a Phoenician ship and asks the sailors to take him to Pylos and Elis, though they deceive him and bring him to Sidon. The entire tale situates the fictive Odysseus in the tradition of the returns of the Achaeans after the end of the Trojan War. In fact, he is about to make the reverse journey from the one Telemachus may have undertaken in an alternative version. He aims to return from Crete to Pylos. In such a context, Or(s)tilochus, the ambusher of Odysseus in the false tale, may well be a ‘nod’ of our Odyssey to a version in which there was an Ortilochus, son of Idomeneus, with whom Odysseus and Telemachus met in Crete. Our Odyssey seems to have used another epic as a backdrop against which it would promote itself as a ‘happier’ song: a good Ortilochus, son of Idomeneus, in an alternative Odyssey has been changed into an evil one in a false tale of our Odyssey. In this way, the older Cretan version is presented as inferior to the version of our Odyssey in which Telemachus encounters only friendly heroes in both Pylos and Sparta. A similar effect can be observed in the comparison between our Odyssey and the *Nostoi, the former naming itself a χαρίεσσα ἀοιδή (Οd. 24.197–198) while labelling the latter as στυγερὴ ἀοιδή (Οd. 24.200). When examined against this background, the Zenodotean readings concerning Telemachus’ journey to Crete show that in another version of the Odyssey Telemachus went there after Pylos in search of his father. It is possible that in this version it was in Crete where he met with Odysseus on his way home from Troy. In other words, the stories told by Eumaeus to Telemachus in Od. 14.379–38548 (about an Aetolian who had told him that he had seen Odysseus in Crete at Idomeneus’ palace, fixing the damage his ships had undergone in a tempest) and by Odysseus-the-beggar to Penelope in 19.172–18049 (that he had seen Odysseus in Crete, where he was blown off by the winds on his way to Troy) may have been accommodated from an alternative epic of return where  48 ἐξ οὗ δή μ’ Αἰτωλὸς ἀνὴρ ἐξήπαφε μύθῳ, | ὅς ῥ’ ἄνδρα κτείνας πολλὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἀληθεὶς | ἤλυθ’ ἐμὸν πρὸς σταθμόν· ἐγὼ δέ μιν ἀμφαγάπαζον. | φῆ δέ μιν ἐν Κρήτεσσι παρ’ Ἰδομενῆϊ ἰδέσθαι | νῆας ἀκειόμενον, τάς οἱ ξυνέαξαν ἄελλαι· | καὶ φάτ’ ἐλεύσεσθαι ἢ ἐς θέρος ἢ ἐς ὀπώρην, | πολλὰ χρήματ’ ἄγοντα, σὺν ἀντιθέοισ’ ἑτάροισι (‘since the time an Aetolian man deceived me with this story, who killed a man, wandered over much of the earth, | and came to my house. I welcomed him warmly. | He said he’d seen Odysseus among the Cretans, beside Idomeneus, | repairing ships that windstorms shattered. | He said he’d be coming back, either by summer or by fall, | bringing much property, with his godlike comrades’). 49 Contra van Thiel 1988, 183.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle Odysseus was driven to Crete by unfavorable winds after the end of the Trojan War.50 There are also certain narrative inconsistencies51 concerning the matter at hand, which may well be due to their transference from a context where they were primary and organically linked to the whole, into a new context to which they have been adapted. Verses Od. 16.222–224 (‘by what ship did sailors bring you here in Ithaca? Who were they?’)52 constitute a crucial interpretive conundrum, since upon meeting his father after so many years Telemachus does not ask him what happened to him after the end of the Trojan War. Of course, Telemachus seems to be picking up from where Proteus left the story about Odysseus in Od. 4.555–560,53 where it was said that he cannot get away from Calypso’s island because of lack of ships and sailors. Still, since Telemachus has never found out about the rest of Odysseus’ adventures, the puzzle remains unsolved. This paradox is further reinforced by the oddity of having Odysseus tell his son only of his last adventure (Phaeacians) and, more evocatively, only of the fact that they brought him to Ithaca by ship. There may be an alternative scenario explaining both Telemachus’ question and Odysseus’ answer. This scenario is couched in the assumption that Telemachus’ question would have made more sense, if Telemachus had been told by Odysseus himself about the rest of his adventures during their meeting in Crete, which must have featured in an alternative tradition relating Odysseus’ return from Troy.54 If father and son had then decided to follow a specific plan, according to which Odysseus would go to Thesprotia to fetch poisonous arrows in order to be able to fight against a whole army of suitors, while Telemachus would have gone immediately to Ithaca and wait for his father in Eumaeus’ hut in an attempt to gather as many supporters as possible among shepherds and other folk leaving outside the city of Ithaca,55 then Telemachus’ lack of interest in his father’s sufferings and wanderings would make perfect sense. How more appropriate this would

 50 West 1981, 171. 51 Differently Hansen (1972, 59), who treats narrative inconsistency as the manifestation of ‘the influence of similar and therefore potentially confusing material’, but not as indicative of other epic versions. 52 ποίῃ γὰρ νῦν δεῦρο, πάτερ φίλε, νηΐ σε ναῦται | ἤγαγον εἰς Ἰθάκην; τίνες ἔμμεναι εὐχετόωντο; 53 This is not a form of metakenosis, for the narrator does not bestow on Telemachus information that he could not possibly have obtained on his own. On metakenosis, see Kakridis 1982. 54 See Reece 1994, 169. 55 Implied in Od. 16.238–239: ἤ κεν νῶϊ δυνησόμεθ’ ἀντιφέρεσθαι | μούνω ἄνευθ’ ἄλλων, ἦ καὶ διζησόμεθ’ ἄλλους.

Crete and an Alternative Odyssey  

have been, if Telemachus knew (because of their earlier meeting in Crete) that his father had been to Thesprotia and was only unaware of the men who brought him by ship to Ithaca, i.e. only of a single feature of his last journey. When our Odyssey was shaped and the meeting between father and son had to be transferred from Crete to Ithaca, some details pertaining to the previous encounter were not completely erased, hence the narrative dissonance discussed above. The typology of recognition was violated by recourse to its specific manifestation in a reconstructed oral version of the hero’s return. The correspondence is here derivative, as the re-use of a typical motif in a new context has led to adjustments that are not free of peculiarities.56 Let us briefly trace the various steps of one version of the Cretan Odyssey hypothesis: (a) Odysseus and Telemachus meet in Crete after the former’s second arrival on the island, when his Egyptian and Phoenician adventures are over;57 (b) after a recognition scene, Odysseus narrates to Telemachus all his previous adventures; (c) they decide to return to Ithaca and kill the suitors but depart separately; (d) Odysseus travels to Ephyra in Thesprotia in order to get poisonous arrows for the killing of the suitors;58 (e) he is then brought to Ithaca by a Thesprotian ship; (f) he meets with Telemachus in Eumaeus’ hut, because they had planned to gather a small army against the suitors.59 In this context, Telemachus’ ques 56 See Burgess 2006, 157–159. 57 According to Danek (1998, 49), the motif of a person who is away from home for a long time and comes across his son unrecognized in a foreign land lurks in the figure of Theoclymenus. Telemachus lets the seer Theoclymenus embark on his ship in Pylos, where Telemachus’ journey branches off from the Cretan version. Danek interprets this feature as a signal that Telemachus is re-introduced into the Cretan version in his homeward journey and that Theoclymenus, whose flight and wandering in the Peloponnese before arriving at Pylos reflects his unsuitability for the version of our Odyssey, takes the place Odysseus occupied in other versions of the story. In Ithaca, Theoclymenus undertakes tasks that Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, cannot fulfill. Odysseus may well have been disguised as a seer in other versions (see Od. 14.149–164; 19.300–307, 554–558). 58 See Od. 1.259–266; S. West (1981, 175) rightly suggests that there may have been ‘a causal connection between a visit to Crete and a visit to Ephyra’. The tradition of our Odyssey has inherited from an alternative journey of return with its strong Cretan component both Odysseus’ ability to use the bow and arrows (Cretans were famous archers), i.e. weapons less heroic than the spear, and the fascination with lies. Thus, it may have been in Crete that the idea of a visit to Thesprotia was conceived, for it would be from there that Odysseus would get poisonous arrows in order to inflict lethal wounds to the suitors. See S. West 1981, 174–175. For Ephyra and Dodona, see below. 59 There are several passages that suggest such an alternative scenario: in Od. 13.404–411, Athena advises Odysseus to stay with Eumaeus and ask him about everything he wants to find

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle tion is natural, for he does not need to ask his father for more information, since he has been already instructed by him in Crete.

. Openings Before beginning his longest false story, Odysseus sets the stage for a narrative of epic proportions: he employs a technique typical of an oral performance, namely the singer’s inability to recount events of the past. This epic mannerism is here deprived of its concomitant recourse to the divine help of the Muses so that it can be reduced to an impossible wish (Od. 14.192–198):60 τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι ταῦτα μάλ’ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω. εἴη μὲν νῦν νῶϊν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἠμὲν ἐδωδὴ ἠδὲ μέθυ γλυκερὸν κλισίης ἔντοσθεν ἐοῦσι, δαίνυσθαι ἀκέοντ’, ἄλλοι δ’ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἕποιεν· ῥηϊδίως κεν ἔπειτα καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ἅπαντα οὔ τι διαπρήξαιμι λέγων ἐμὰ κήδεα θυμοῦ, ὅσσα γε δὴ ξύμπαντα θεῶν ἰότητι μόγησα.

 out, until she fetches back Telemachus from Sparta; in Od. 15.335–336, Eumaeus tells Odysseus to stay with him since nobody among his companions finds him a nuisance; in Od. 16.82–84, Telemachus tells Eumaeus that he will send clothes and food for the stranger, so that he is not a burden to Eumaeus and his men; in Od. 16.454–459, Athena turns Odysseus into an old man dressed in rags, lest Eumaeus recognize him and reveal the secret to Penelope; Eumaeus has a number of companions in his hut, who do not play any role in the plot of our Odyssey (see e.g. Od. 15.302, 307). Danek (1998, 327–328) convincingly argues that all these passages would remind the audience of other versions in which Odysseus’ stay at Eumaeus’ hut aimed at his gathering information and help before killing the suitors. See also Od. 16.239, where Odysseus leaves open this possibility. In other versions, Laertes may have also taken part in the mnesterophonia; see 22.184–185, 334–336 and Danek 1998, 433. 60 Drawing on the opposition between ‘cognitive human limitations’ (in the poet’s recusatio in Il. 2.484) and time constraints, Bakker (2009, 135) argues with respect to Od. 14.196–198 that the hero’s tale poses risks to the poet’s tale, although they both complement and need each other. Without disagreeing with this point, I consider all such recusationes as indicative of ‘versioning’, i.e. creating and storing a singer’s contribution to a given version. The same observation may be applicable to the famous epic hesitation before the performance of a catalogue (‘whom shall I mention first? Whom shall I mention last?’). In Od. 14.192–198, Odysseus’ words replay the conditions of a formal performance of epic song: when heard by an ancient audience, they would not doubt have stricken a familiar chord, since individual auditors would have thought of the actual performance they were listening to. On ‘versioning’, see Tsagalis 2010, 341–344.

Crete  

I will give you a true account of all you ask. If only you and I had an endless supply of food and wine, here in the hut, and so could eat in peace while the rest got on with the work! I would find it easy to talk to you for a whole year without coming to the end of my sorrows and all the hardships that the gods have made me endure.

A crucial aspect of this innovative preamble is that poetic inability is translated into chronological impossibility. Instead of emphasizing human impotence with respect to narrating his story, Odysseus-the-beggar highlights the lack of sufficient time for such a grand undertaking. In short, the important lesson to be learned from this introduction is that, by omitting the Muses, the Odyssey invites its audience to consider the possibility that, since Odysseus’ tale does not depend on divine authority, it is non-Odyssean and may well belong to another epic tradition of return. In fact, Odysseus’ insistence that he will give a true account of all Eumaeus asks (τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι ταῦτ’ μάλ’ ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύσω) is ironical only in the sense that the listeners are expected to interpret the beggar’s narrative as non-Odyssean. This carefully designed and timely executed plan suggests that truth and falsehood have been transformed from moral into performative terms, that the story Odysseus is about to tell reflects an alternative epic of return, the vestigial remains of which can be reassembled by a careful consideration of the entire corpus of Odysseus’ false tales, among which the story told to Eumaeus is the most extended one. This ‘false proem’ is followed by a linear narrative containing six distinct phases or episodes: (a) Crete; (b) Troy; (c) Egypt; (d) Phoenicia; (e) Thesprotia; (f) Doulichion-Ithaca.

. Crete The Cretan phase (14.199–234) of Odysseus’ false story to Eumaeus can be divided into two parts, the first of which (14.199–210) is about his life in Crete, while the second (14.211–234) refers to his military skills that made him famous among the Cretans. The way the Cretan phase is narrated here by Odysseus is replete with typical motifs that cannot be assigned to any specific tradition: Odysseus as an internal storyteller deftly uses them in order to help him structure this first stage of his false tale. These typical motifs, which I shall now explore, contain some surface structural elements that are conditioned by the immediate context and make Odysseus’ narrative more effective. I will discuss each of these elements within the framework of the typical motif in which they are attested.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle Odysseus as a teller of false stories systematically assumes a Cretan identity:61 in 14.199–206 he begins his tale to Eumaeus by stressing his Cretan persona (14.199–210): ἐκ μὲν Κρητάων γένος εὔχομαι εὐρειάων, ἀνέρος ἀφνειοῖο πάϊς· πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι υἷες ἐνὶ μεγάρῳ ἠμὲν τράφον ἠδ’ ἐγένοντο γνήσιοι ἐξ ἀλόχου· ἐμὲ δ’ ὠνητὴ τέκε μήτηρ παλλακίς, ἀλλά με ἶσον ἰθαιγενέεσσιν ἐτίμα Κάστωρ Ὑλακίδης, τοῦ ἐγὼ γένος εὔχομαι εἶναι· ὃς τότ’ ἐνὶ Κρήτεσσι θεὸς ὣς τίετο δήμῳ ὄλβῳ τε πλούτῳ τε καὶ υἱάσι κυδαλίμοισιν. ἀλλ’ ἦτοι τὸν κῆρες ἔβαν θανάτοιο φέρουσαι εἰς Ἀΐδαο δόμους· τοὶ δὲ ζωὴν ἐδάσαντο παῖδες ὑπέρθυμοι καὶ ἐπὶ κλήρους ἐβάλοντο, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ μάλα παῦρα δόσαν καὶ οἰκί’ ἔνειμαν. I am a native of the broad lands of Crete, and the son of a rich man. He had a number of other sons who were born and brought up in the house; but they were the lawful issue of his wife, whereas my mother was a concubine he had bought. In spite of this difference my father, Castor son of Hylax, put me on an equal footing with his legitimate sons. The Cretans of his day respected and honoured him like a god for his good fortune, his riches, and his splendid children, but his time came and Death bore him off to Hades’ Halls. His high-handed sons then split up the estate and cast lots for the shares, assigning to me a meagre pittance and a house to match.

There are certain elements in the Cretan part of Odysseus’ false story to Eumaeus that belong to the immediate Odyssean context and are clearly surface ele-

 61 In 13.256–257 Odysseus-the-beggar tells disguised-Athena that he fled from Crete after killing Orsilochus, the son of Idomeneus, and in 19.172–180 he presents himself to Penelope as the brother of Idomeneus, son of Deucalion, grandson of Minos, and adds that it was in Crete that he met Odysseus on his way to Troy. Odysseus’ association with Crete in the false tales may be echoing an oral epic tradition, which narrated his return home in the form of an antithesis to Menelaus’ journey to Crete before the war, during the very period of the abduction of Helen. Whereas Menelaus’ journey to Crete (see Cypria, 98–100 Severyns = § 10 Kullmann καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Μενέλαος εἰς Κρήτην ἐκπλεῖ, κελεύσας την Ἑλένην τοῖς ξένοις τὰ ἐπιτήδεια παρέχειν, ἕως ἀπαλλαγῶσιν) was enough for Helen to allow herself to be seduced by Paris, Odysseus’ stay in Crete on his way home to Ithaca did not make Penelope yield to the offers and pressure of the suitors for marrying one of them. This opposition would be very much in accordance with the studied contrast between the daughters of Tyndareus (Clytaemestra and Helen) and the daughter of Icarius (Penelope). Given that the Odyssey emphasizes time and again the contrast between Clytaemestra and Penelope, it is possible that another oral epic tradition about Odysseus could have accentuated the antithesis between Helen and Penelope.

Crete  

ments: the name Κάστωρ Ὑλακίδης (‘Castor, son of the Barking one’), for example, may have been coined on the basis of its acoustical similarity to κύνες ὑλακόμωροι,62 the ‘baying dogs’ attacking Odysseus outside the hut of Eumaeus in 14.29.63 The Cretan phase of this false tale is based on a combination of certain typical manifestations of the general motif ‘Reversal of Fortune’.64 In particular, we encounter the following sub-motifs:65 (a) ‘Abused son of a younger co-wife becomes hero’ (Thompson, L 10.2): the mother of Cretan Odysseus is a παλλακίς (and probably younger than Castor’s first wife); her son, the Cretan Odysseus, is deceived by his brothers from a different mother with respect to the division of their father’s property after his death; the abused son excels in warfare and acquires fame (14.216–234). (b) ‘Bastard hero’ (Thompson, L 111.5): 14.202–203 (see [a] above). (c) ‘Lowly hero marries princess’ (Thompson, L 161): Cretan Odysseus marries a wealthy woman, despite his low origin (14.211–212). (d) ‘Marriage of poor boy and rich girl’ (Thompson, 161.1): the Cretan Odysseus becomes poor, after being deceived by his legitimate brothers in the division of their father’s property (14.210). However, he marries a rich girl because he was neither a fool nor a coward (14.211–213).66

 62 Such surface elements that were triggered by the immediate context could easily be nested in made-up names of fictive characters. In the only false tale attested in the Iliad (24.396–401), Hermes (notice the accidental link to Odysseus through his grandfather Autolycus) pretends to be one of the Myrmidons, whose father is named Πολύκτωρ (‘of many possessions’, πολύ+ κτέρας), a very rich man indeed (24.398: ἀφνειὸς μὲν ὅ γ’ ἐστί). The point is subtle, for Hermes will lead Priam to the Achaean camp, in order to offer numerous gifts to Achilles as ransom for the body of Hector. The name Πολύκτωρ is also used in Od. 17.207, 18.299, 22.243. 63 See Hoekstra 1989, 207 on Od. 14.204, who leaves open the possibility that Odysseus is punning, since the class-noun κάστωρ (‘beaver’) ‘could originally denote a certain race of dogs (cf. καστόριαι [κύνες], X. Cyn. iii 1)’; see also Grossardt 1998, 94 n. 357; Alden 2017, 274 with n. 111. 64 See Thompson L 10.2, 111.5, 161, 161.1. 65 Grossardt (1998, 92–116) offers the most detailed and thorough presentation of this false tale by listing no less than 17 features and motifs. However, he does not make the important distinction between the various strata these features and motifs belong to. His interpretation thus operates only on a vertical axis. 66 It should be noted that all Odysseus’ false personas respond to the internal audience: as Eumaeus (the addressee of this false tale) is a compromised elite, by virtue of his having been born an elite and then enslaved, so is Odysseus’ Cretan persona, because of his mixed parentage.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle The victorious course that the hero’s life follows, though, is thematically materialized by recourse to the typical theme of ‘ambush’,67 whose narrative pattern is put here into use. As we shall see, this typical theme acquires a specific filtering. It is intricately entwined with certain aspects of Odysseus’ epic persona in Homeric and cyclic epic. In their study of the theme of ‘ambush’, Dué and Ebbott determine the typical sub-themes of this narrative pattern: (a) selection of best men; (b) preparation and arming for the ambush; (c) selection of a location where the ambush will take place; (d) concealment of the ambushers and enduring of discomfort; (e) surprise attack; and (f) return home.68 Sub-themes (a), (b) and (e) are indeed attested in Odysseus’ false tale, since he explicitly says that ‘he planned the ambush and picked the best men’ ([a+b]: 217–218: ὁπότε κρίνοιμι λόχον δὲ | ἄνδρας ἀριστῆας) and that ‘he would leap out before all the rest’ ([e]: 220: ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρώτιστος ἐπάλμενος).69 Analogous sub-themes occur in Odysseus’ spying mission and ambush par excellence, i.e. in Iliad 10, as well as in the Epic Cycle: in the Ilias parva Odysseus ambushes the priest Helenus,70 takes part (with Diomedes) in a secret mission to Troy to steal the Palladion,71 and plays a key role in the surprise attack that makes Troy fall (as a member of the group of heroes inside the Wooden Horse).72 In order to explicate the function of the theme of ‘ambush’ here, we first need to remind ourselves that it shares some common features with raids (especially cattle-raids) and spying missions:73 as far as the immediate context is concerned, Odysseus the storytell 67 Idomeneus and Odysseus (on whose relation see below) are associated by means of the theme of λόχος (‘ambush’); Camerotto (2010, 15) draws attention to a number of passages, in which the theme of ‘ambush’ is employed with respect either to Idomeneus (Il. 6.436; 13.275– 294) or Odysseus (Il. 10.228–232 [notice the reference to Idomeneus’ fellow Cretan, Meriones]; Od. 13.259–266; 14.217). The two heroes are also representative paradigms of the safe and easy (Idomeneus) and the delayed and troublesome (Odysseus) return after the sack of Troy; another polar antithesis between them concerns speed: Idomeneus is slow because of his age (Il. 13.512–515; conversely, his comrade Meriones is swift [Il. 13.249]), while Odysseus is swiftfooted (Il. 23.790–792); see Levaniouk 2011, 76–77. 68 Dué and Ebbott 2010, 70. 69 The military skills depicted in 14.216–218 are generic qualities of the epic hero filtered by the theme of ‘ambush’. Differently King (1999, 82–83), who finds resonances in Iliadic Achilles and Ajax, arguing that they ‘are not isolated instances of intertextual play but suggest that Odysseus’ fictional heroic persona is constructed so as to be in some sense, Odysseus’ antithesis’. 70 Arg. l. 211 Severyns. 71 Arg. ll. 228–229 Severyns and fr. 11 GEF; see also Odysseus’ second false tale to Eumaeus (Od. 14.462–506). See Dué and Ebbott 2010, 82. 72 Frs. 12–13 GEF. 73 See Dué and Ebbott 2010, 80–84.

Troy  

er specifically refers to the raiding of cities and the acquisition of wealth (14.130–233), while with respect to the larger context we should not forget that he is seated in disguise in Eumaeus’ hut trying to collect information in accordance with the advice of Athena (13.411). In light of these observations, it can be plausibly argued that we are dealing with the mutations of a typical theme74 that is often employed in connection with Odysseus, but its use in this context serves a specific poetic purpose: it is embedded within the larger framework of ambush that links Telemachus with the suitors and both of them with Odysseus. Father and son will finally make a surprise attack on the suitors, who tried unsuccessfully to ambush Telemachus earlier in the poem.75 Interestingly enough, Odysseus as the ambusher par excellence is armed with a bow in the climactic ambush of the mnesterophonia, but also, and tellingly so, in his spying mission and ambush in the Doloneia, though he does not employ it, given that all the killings are carried out by Diomedes.76

. Troy The section on Troy (14.235–242) begins with a mustering of the Cretan troops under the command of Idomeneus (14.237–238), continues with a brief reference to the sack of the city of Priam in the tenth year (14.239–240), and ends with a ‘new beginning’, the scattering of the Greek fleet on its return home (14.242). Its highly compressed form, which is explained by the audience’s assumed familiarity with the Iliad and the Trojan War at large, makes it a perfect ‘bridge’ for a swift transition to the wanderings of the Cretan Odysseus. In contrast to the previous section, this one is solely formed by three motifs that have been transferred here from cyclic epic, in particular from the oral precursors of the Cypria and the Nostoi. The first of these three motifs, with which I shall now begin my

 74 Usener 1990, who studied 15 episodes of interaction between the Iliad and the Odyssey, did not include in his research the episode at hand, although the theme of ‘ambush’ spills over to the entire second half of the Odyssey. 75 Line 14.224 (ἀλλά μοι αἰεὶ νῆες ἐπήρετμοι φίλαι ἧσαν) is an intratextual resonance of the standard topic (Od. 4.559, 5.16, 5.141, 17.145), i.e. of Odysseus’ inability to leave the island of Calypso because of lack of a ship. 76 It is the Cretan Meriones who gives Odysseus his bow (Iliad 10), since the king of Ithaca had left it at home when he went to Troy.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle analysis, lurks in the figure of Idomeneus, with whom Odysseus has, as we shall see, a special connection.77

.. Idomeneus According to the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Odysseus (fr. 198.1–8 M-W) and Idomeneus (fr. 204.56–65 M-W) were the only suitors of Helen who deviated from the standard behavior of all the other competitors. Whereas all the suitors sent their gifts to Tyndareos by proxy, Odysseus was the only one who did not send  77 When Odysseus the storyteller refers to Crete, this is mainly done through his consistent references to Idomeneus. This may, of course, be because Idomeneus comes unavoidably to the singer’s mind since he was a well-known Cretan king who participated in the Trojan war, and to this extent he may be seen as a by-product of the strong Cretan element characterizing an alternative tradition concerning the return of Odysseus. This approach, however, just pushes back the problem without explaining it, since it fails to answer the question why Odysseus in the alternative song of return was so closely linked to Crete (and Idomeneus). This question may be rephrased: is Idomeneus evoked because of Crete or is Crete anchored to Idomeneus in the epic tradition? The question may seem, at first glance, unanswerable and, perhaps, trivial, but it lies at the heart of the process of motif transference and is crucial to this investigation. Certain scholars (Shewan 1911, 169; Lowenstam 1975, 140–141, Clay 1983, 84–88) have argued that Odysseus creates in his false tales a fictive self, bearing striking similarities to Meriones, the closest comrade of the Cretan king Idomeneus: both Meriones and Odysseus are excellent archers, have a special talent in organizing an ambush and are close to Idomeneus. The similarities with Meriones have thus been interpreted within the wider matrix of the Odyssey, which aims at promoting its own version against not only alternative Odysseys but also against the Iliad. As with the song of Demodocus (Clay 1983, 106), so in the false stories the Odyssey looks at other epic traditions and recasts them through its own themes and viewpoint. By inference, the same applies to the case of Odysseus, the main hero of the Odyssey. The fictive Odysseus whom he constructs is molded in such a way so as to remind the audience of the pre-eminence of the Odyssean tradition. Odysseus usurps the identity of Meriones, an Iliadic hero par excellence, and applies it to the persona he had in alternative poems of return as presented through the focus of the Odyssey. The ruse does justice to both the hero of the Odyssey and the Odyssean tradition that constantly rival other traditions (Clay 1983). In my view, the similarities with Meriones are undoubtedly there but cannot explain the strong Cretan element and link with Idomeneus that permeated other oral traditions narrating the return of Odysseus. The typical theme of ‘ambush’ and the related sub-theme of ‘archery’ may have been the bridge for such later developments. See Clay (1983, 88) on a tradition related by Plutarch (Life of Marcellus 20.3) that Odysseus and Meriones had consecrated spears and helmets in a temple built by Cretans at the Sicilian city of Engygium. This late data may well be reflecting a much older connection between Meriones and Odysseus, going back to the latter’s latent Cretan identity. On Meriones, Odysseus, ambush, and archery, see also Dué and Ebbott 2010, 45–46, 52–53, 57– 58.

Troy  

any gifts, and Idomeneus was the only one who did not send his gifts by proxy, since he travelled himself to Sparta to see beautiful Helen with his own eyes. If the Caalogue echoes an older pre-Homeric lay, we have here an indication of a deroutinization process within a typical structure. Two items of the Catalogue of Suitors, Odysseus and Idomeneus, break loose from its typology.78 What confirms this line of thought is that this deviation is also reflected in the mini-Catalogue of Heroes in the Iliadic Teichoskopia. Let us first compare the two lists: Tab. 3: Achaean Heroes in the Teichoscopia and Helen’s Suitors. Homer, Iliad 

Hesiod, Catalogue of Women

Agamemnon

Agamemnon

Odysseus

sons of Amphiaraus Odysseus Thoas Podarces and Protesilaus Menestheus

Ajax

Ajax Elephenor

Idomeneus

Idomeneus

unnamed heroes

others (missing in the papyrus)

What is clearly visible here is that the four Achaean leaders whom Helen describes to Priam are also present in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Helen’s suitors, and what is even more intriguing, in the very same order. The tradition of the Iliad is here using material from an older pre-Homeric Catalogue of Helen’s suitors that could very well have been part of cyclic epic (oral *Cypria) and is mirrored in the Hesiodic Catalogue. But there is more to it. In the Teichoskopia Idomeneus is the only Achaean leader whom Helen describes without responding to Priam’s question as if there was a reason for doing so. Helen mentions Idomeneus standing next to Ajax and adds that ‘[m]any a time warlike Menela-

 78 For a similar phenomenon in the case of Odysseus and Thoas, see Marks (2003, 209–226), who argues that epic geography offers a partial explanation for their association and that their rivalry in the Odyssey evokes tensions between different versions of Odysseus’ return.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle us would entertain him | in our own house when he came over from Crete’.79 What we see here at work is that Menelaus, Odysseus, and Idomeneus, sharing a special connection with respect to an episode standing at the very foundations of the Trojan War myth, were associated as suitors of Helen. In fact, Odysseus and Idomeneus gradually came to symbolize two directly opposite attitudes towards marrying Helen (one accepted his defeat by not sending gifts, the other tried to marry her even if he had to travel all the way from Crete). In the course of time, a tradition narrating the nostos of Odysseus used the link pertaining to the cyclic epic tradition of the Contest of Helen and was strengthened by a significant mythical analogy: as Odysseus and Idomeneus epitomized two symmetrically aberrant behaviors with respect to the Contest of Helen, so they symbolized two symmetrically opposite traditions of nostos, Odysseus being the trademark of the troublesome and long journey home,80 Idomeneus the paragon of the safe return.81

.. ‘Unwillingness to Participate in the Trojan War’ Another relic of cyclic epic82 lurking in Odysseus’ Cretan narrative is the motif of ‘unwillingness to participate in the Trojan War’, which is alluded in Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus in 14.238–239:

 79 Il. 3.232–233: πολλάκι μιν ξείνισσεν ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος | οἴκῳ ἐν ἡμετέρῳ ὁπότε Κρήτηθεν ἵκοιτο. As the Iliad knows of Idomeneus constantly visiting Sparta and Menelaus, so our Odyssey knows of Telemachus visiting Sparta in search of Odysseus (Book 4), and Menelaus arriving because of a storm at Crete before going to Egypt (Od. 3.281–300). 80 This is also the case with Menelaus (see below). 81 Od. 3.191–192: πάντας δ’ Ἰδομενεὺς Κρήτην εἰσήγαγ’ ἑταίρους, | οἳ φύγον ἐκ πολέμου, πόντος δέ οἱ οὔ τιν’ ἀπηύρα (‘again, Idomeneus brought all his men to Crete, all, that is, who had survived the war. The sea got none from him’). By ‘safe return’ I am only referring to the return journey, not to the situation Idomeneus faced when he arrived home. In any case, Apollodorus’ version (Epit. 6.10), according to which Idomeneus was exiled by Leucus who had killed his wife Meda and his daughter Cleisithyra and had taken under his control ten Cretan cities, is not reflecting the stock in which the alternative Odyssey is couched, for Odysseus’ stay in Crete presupposes a peaceful environment. 82 See Griffin (1977, 45–46), who rightly points to the cases of Amphiaraus, whose wife was bribed so as to convince him to participate in the expedition against Thebes, and to the case of Achilles who was hiding in Scyros. The episode of Achilles hiding in Scyros did not feature in the Cypria, as reconstructed on the basis of the summary of Proclus; see chapter 14 (this volume).

Troy  

δὴ τότ’ ἔμ’ ἤνωγον καὶ ἀγακλυτὸν Ἰδομενῆα νήεσσ’ ἡγήσασθαι ἐς Ἴλιον· οὐδέ τι μῆχος ἦεν ἀνήνασθαι, χαλεπὴ δ’ ἔχε δήμου φῆμις. And they pressed me and the famous Idomeneus to lead our ships to Ilium. There was no way of avoiding it: public opinion was too much for us.

This piece of information is consonant with a cyclic motif, which is attested in the Cypria (ll. 119–121 Severyns), in Apollodorus (Epitome 3.7), in Philostratus (Heroicus 33.4), and is also implicitly alluded to in the Odyssey, i.e. a motif concerning Odysseus’ effort to avoid taking part in the expedition to Troy. Cypria (ll. 119–121 Severyns): καὶ μαίνεσθαι προσποιησάμενον Ὀδυσσέα ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ θέλειν συστρατεύεσθαι ἐφώρασαν, Παλαμήδους ὑποθεμένου τὸν υἱὸν Τηλέμαχον ἐπὶ κόλασιν ἐξαρπάσαντες. And they caught Odysseus pretending to be insane because he did not want to join up, after Palamedes advised them to seize his son Telemachus threateningly.83

Apollodorus, Epitome 3.7: ὁ δὲ (sc. Ὀδυσσεύς) οὐ βουλόμενος στρατεύεσθαι προσποιεῖται μανίαν. Παλαμήδης δὲ ὁ Ναυπλίου ἤλεγξε τὴν μανίαν ψευδῆ, καὶ προσποιησαμένῳ μεμηνέναι παρηκολούθει· ἁρπάσας δὲ Τηλέμαχον ἐκ τοῦ κόλπου τῆς Πηνελόπης ὡς κτενῶν ἐξιφούλκει. ὁ δὲ Ὀδυσσεὺς περὶ τοῦ παιδὸς εὐλαβηθεὶς ὡμολόγησε τὴν προσποίητον μανίαν καὶ στρατεύεται. Odysseus who did not wish to take part in the expedition (to Troy) pretends to be mad. Palamedes, son of Nauplius, showed that his madness was fictitious, and watched carefully Odysseus who pretended to rave; and after snatching Telemachus from Penelope’s lap he drew his sword as if he would kill him. And Odysseus, fearing that his son would be killed, acknowledged his pretended madness and took part in the expedition.

Philostratus, Heroicus 33.4: τὸν δὲ λόγον, ὃς πολλοῖς τῶν ποιητῶν εἴρηται, ὡς στρατεύοι μὲν ἐπὶ Τροίαν ἡ Ἑλλάς, Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐν Ἰθάκῃ μανίαν πλάττοιτο καὶ πρὸς ἀρότρῳ εἴη βοῦν ἵππῳ συμβαλών, Παλαμήδης τε αὐτὸν ἐλέγξειε τῷ Τηλεμάχῳ, οὔ φησιν ὑγιᾶ εἷναι. The story, which has been reported by many poets, that, when Greece was leading an expedition against Troy and Odysseus feigned madness in Ithaca and put an ox and a horse

 83 The translation is by Burgess 2001.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle under the yoke of a plough, Palamedes checked him by means of Telemachus, Protesilaus denies that this story is sound.

Od. 24.115–119: ἦ οὐ μέμνῃ, ὅτε κεῖσε κατήλυθον ὑμέτερον δῶ ὀτρυνέων Ὀδυσῆα σὺν ἀντιθέῳ Μενελάῳ Ἴλιον εἰς ἅμ᾽ ἕπεσθαι ἐϋσσέλμων ἐπὶ νηῶν; μηνὶ δ᾽ ἐν οὔλῳ πάντα περήσαμεν εὐρέα πόντον, σπουδῇ παρπεπιθόντες Ὀδυσσῆα πτολίπορθον. Don’t you remember the time when I came over to your house in Ithaca with godlike Menelaus to persuade Odysseus to join forces with me and sail against Ilium? It was a full month before we completed our voyage over the wide sea, so hard was it to win over Odysseus, sacker of cities.

Od. 11.447–451: ἦ μέν μιν νύμφην γε νέην κατελείπομεν ἡμεῖς ἐρχόμενοι πόλεμόνδε· πάϊς δέ οἱ ἦν ἐπὶ μαζῷ νήπιος, ὅς που νῦν γε μετ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἵζει ἀριθμῷ, ὄλβιος· ἦ γὰρ τόν γε πατὴρ φίλος ὄψεται ἐλθών, καὶ κεῖνος πατέρα προσπτύξεται, ἣ θέμις ἐστίν. [The wise Penelope!] She was a young woman when we said goodbye to her on our way to the war. She had a baby son at her breast. And now, I suppose, he has begun to take his seat among the men. Fortunate young man! His loving father will come home and see him, and he will kiss his father. That is how things should be.

The presence of a cyclic motif that is shared by the Cypria, the Odyssey, and the false tale to Eumaeus is at odds with the emphasis placed on the military prowess of the anonymous Cretan. This strongly contrasting view can only be the result of a fusion, within the framework of the false tale to Eumaeus, of two divergent views of Odysseus: whereas cyclic epic (as mirrored in the tradition of the Cypria) and metacyclic epic (the Odyssey)84 accentuate Odysseus’ love for his family and lack of interest in the war (this last feature applies to the former epic), an alternative Odyssey may have highlighted his warlike abilities, as well

 84 On metacyclic epic, see Burgess (2006, 149), who draws the line between three levels of narrative (Level A: cyclic myth, Level B: cyclic epic, Level C: Homeric epic) and argues that Homeric epic is metacyclic in the sense that it employs Level A (mythological traditions) and Level B (cyclic epic) in order to implement its full meaning. On the meta-epic aspect of Homeric poetry, see also Finkelberg 1998, 154–155; 2002, 160 = 2020, 149; 2003, 79 = 2020, 320.

Troy  

as his greed for adventures and wealth. Odysseus’ narrative to Eumaeus is the most complete of all the narratives offered in the false tales, for it not only combines a pre-Trojan War phase, an Iliadic phase and a ‘nostos’ phase, i.e. it spans the entire tradition concerning Trojan War myth, but it also contains features pertaining to another version of his return, where Odysseus was presented in a different light.

.. ‘Besieging Troy for Nine Years and Sacking the City on the Tenth’ Given that the Iliad and the myth of the Trojan War are well known to the audience, Odysseus as storyteller does not feel the need to give details about his Trojan War exploits.85 His brief mention of the Trojan War takes the form of the motif of ‘besieging Troy for nine years and sacking the city on the tenth’, which lies at the heart of cyclic myth and is typical of the entire Trojan War tradition. The Odyssey, where the nostos of Odysseus happens on the tenth year after the end of the war, is clearly following the model of a widely circulating cyclic motif endorsed by the Iliad, where it is stated that Troy will fall on the tenth year after the arrival of the Achaeans: ὣς ἡμεῖς τοσσαῦτ’ ἔτεα πτολεμίξομεν αὖθι, τῷ δεκάτῳ δὲ πόλιν αἱρήσομεν εὐρυάγυιαν. So for years as many as this shall we fight in this place and in the tenth year we shall take the city of the wide ways. (Il. 2.328–329)

This motif is typical of oral narratives (‘X + 1’ years or times),86 but within the context of Trojan War epic traditions the ‘9+1 years’ and the ‘20 years’ numerical patterns had become associated specifically with the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively. The former designated the duration of the Trojan War, while the latter epitomized the length of Odysseus’ absence from Ithaca.

 85 See the expressions ἀπὸ Τροίηθεν (‘from Troy’) and Ἰλιόθεν (‘from Ilium’) used by Odysseus in the very beginning of the Apologos (Od. 9.38–39). These brief expressions suffice for keying his audience to a post-Trojan War note. 86 This is a variation of the ‘Law of Final Stress’ that is employed in oral narratives; see Olrik 1992, 52–54 (§ 75). See also Bannert (1988, 40–57), who examines the use of the expression ‘three times’ (τρὶς μέν-τρὶς δέ) and ‘three times–the fourth time’ (τρὶς μέν-τρὶς δέ-τὸ τέταρτον) as a scene marker.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle

. Egypt The Egyptian adventure of Odysseus displays a threefold stratification, since it is virtually a mixture of elements pertaining to the three distinct levels discussed above. It contains (a) independent typical elements, (b) typical features that interact with analogous features attested in the Apologos, and (c) features representing cyclic motifs. With respect to independent typical elements (a), the Egyptian adventure shows clear traces of the use of the motif of ‘Adaptability to Overpowering Force’.87 When the fictive Odysseus realizes that he cannot possibly defeat the Egyptians, he takes off his helmet and shield, throws away his spear and supplicates the Egyptian king by kissing his knees. His cleverness in dealing with an overpowering force saves his life, since the king spares him despite the insistence of other Egyptians that the stranger be put to death (14.282–283). By supplicating the king, the fictive Odysseus comes under the protection of Zeus Xenios, whom even the king of Egypt respects (14.279, 283–284).88 On a deeper level we can trace typical elements that acquire their specific role in the false tale by interacting with analogous typical features attested in the Apologos. These features are indeed typical but have been so strongly contextualized after their use in the Apologos that they are unavoidably keyed on a particular Odyssean tone. They include: (a) the ‘6+ 1 days’ pattern, (b) the motif ‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’, and (c) the motif ‘Enemy Arrives with Huge Force’. Although the ‘6 + 1 days’ pattern is a manifestation of the Law of ‘Final Stress’ (sub-type: ‘X + 1’ years or days),89 its specific use in this false tale includes a meaningful resonance from the Thrinacia episode of the Apologos. The same is the case with the two other typical motifs, i.e. that of ‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’ and ‘Enemy Arrives with Huge Force’, which are both employed in the Cicones90 episode of the Apologos. Alt-

 87 See Thompson, J 830. 88 On the fictionality of the presentation of Egypt in the Odyssey, see von Lieven 2006, 61–75. 89 The ‘6 + 1 days’ pattern is employed 4x in the Odyssey: 10.80–81 (Laestrygonians), 12.397– 399 (Thrinacia), 14.249–252 (false tale to Eumaeus), 15.476 (Eumaeus’ tale to Odysseus). Odysseus is always the speaker except in the last case. 90 See Od. 9.44–46. Blümlein (1971, 29–30) draws an analogy between the Cicones episode in the Apologos and the Egyptian adventure of Odysseus in his first false tale to Eumaeus but does not consider arguments like the ones I have discussed above. Fuchs (1993, 29–31) refers to possible links with the Thrinacia episode, like the motif of the warning to the comrades (12.320–323) and the ‘7+1 years’ pattern, but fails to see the larger picture. Having said this, I

Egypt  

hough interaction concerns all three episodes, I will opt for a closer association between the Thrinacia and Egyptian adventures, since (i) the motif ‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’ is employed in the Cicones episode only after Odysseus has sacked the city of Ismaros and has divided the spoils with his comrades (Od. 9.40–42), i.e. after having committed his wrongdoing, while in the Thrinacia and Egyptian episodes the same motif is used right at the beginning, i.e. before the comrades and Odysseus respectively commit any wrongdoings, and (ii) in the Cicones episode Odysseus loses six comrades from each ship and escapes with the rest of his fleet (Od. 9.60–61), whereas in the Thrinacia and Egyptian adventures he is the only one who is saved (Od. 12.420–453 and 14.273–284 respectively). This last point is by far the most important within the process of interaction that I have described above, for the key-element is that the extermination of all the comrades and the salvation of Odysseus must be used only in the last adventure (Thrinacia-Egypt) before the arrival at the safe haven of the Phaeacians and Thesprotians respectively.91 Let us compare the three episodes by presenting the interaction between some of their constituent elements: Tab. 4: Shared Features in the Episodes of the Cicones, Thrinacia, and Egypt. Cicones (Book )

Thrinacia (Book )

Preparation: many sufferings ()

Egypt (Book ) Preparation: many sufferings ()

‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’ (–)

Advice of Leader is not Fol‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’ (– lowed by Comrades’ (–) , –, –) ‘+ days pattern’ (–) ‘+ days pattern’ (–)

Sea Journey-Fair Wind ()

Sea Journey-Fair Wind (–)

Sack of the city of the Cicones, take captive women and possessions, and divide them (–) Drink and slaughter sheep at

Sea Journey ends, arrival at Egypt (–) Plunder fields, take women and children, kill the men (– )

Slaughter cattle at the sea-

 am discussing the interaction of all three episodes, though I consider the link between Thrinacia and Egypt the stronger one. 91 There are other episodes (the Lotus-Eaters and Aeolus), in which the comrades are the source of trouble, but Odysseus advises his comrades in neither of them.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle

Cicones (Book )

Thrinacia (Book )

the sea-shore (–)

shore (–)

Cicones ask for help ()

Lampetie asks for help (– )

Egypt (Book ) Noise of murder is heard (– )

Enemy comes with huge force Zeus strikes with force in the early in the morning (–) seventh day (–)

Zeus, who rejoices in thunder, strikes panic into Odysseus’ comrades (–)

Achaeans are defeated and six The rest of the comrades die comrades die from each ship, but Odysseus is the only one while the rest escape (–) who is saved (–)

Many die, others are enslaved, but Odysseus is the only one saved (–)

The range of resonances is so extended that it becomes clear that Odysseus as storyteller is aiming at drawing an analogy between the Thrinacia and Egyptian episodes, while he is also using features of the Cicones episode. In contrast to Eumaeus, who as the internal addressee of the false tale cannot possibly associate the three episodes because the first two are completely unknown to him, the external audience is invited to trace the link and to admire the hero’s ability in mixing ‘fact and fiction’.92 By giving this ability to Odysseus, who is the very trademark of the authority of the Odyssey, the epic allows us to glance at the process of its own formation. The analogy between the Thrinacia and Egyptian episodes is so intense that it shows how events stemming from two different mythical cycles (an Argonautic and a cyclic),93 and associated with Odysseus’ return, were creatively combined by our Odyssey, which invented their split into the two separate registers of the Apologos and the false tales that are both narrated by its emblematic hero-storyteller, Odysseus. With respect to cyclic material (c), the Egyptian adventure contains three motifs: ‘7 + 1 years’, ‘second departure’, and ‘being defeated in a foreign land’. As in the previous case, the core of these motifs is typical, but their specific epic manifestation is shaped by cyclic myth and here used in Homeric epic.

 92 See Walcot 1977, 12–14. 93 See Od. 4.83–85. The list of places Menelaus visited on his way home from Troy evokes the list of places mentioned in Odysseus’ maritime itinerary in his longest false tale to Eumaeus (Egypt, Phoenicia, Libya).

Egypt  

.. The ‘7+1 years’ motif Both cyclic (Nostoi) and metacyclic epic (Odyssey) know of Menelaus’ long stay in Egypt, which had been fixed to a period of 8 years.94 Schischwani95 has argued that brevity and vagueness of the Egyptian reference in the summary of Proclus may well be indicative of an oral tradition closely linked to the Nostoi. If so and in light of the fact that Menelaus’ Egyptian adventure formed part of the Nostoi (arg. ll. 285–287 Severyns), it is likely that the placement of Proclus’ reference to the completion of Menelaus’ return from Egypt to Sparta at the very end of his summary (arg. l. 303 Severyns = § 113 Kullmann), i.e. at the end of the Nostoi and long after the description of the returns of all the other Achaeans, strongly suggests a long stay in Egypt: μεθ’ οὓς [sc. Diomedes and Nestor] ἐκπλεύσας ὁ Μενέλαος μετὰ πέντε νεῶν εἰς Αἴγυπτον παραγίνεται, τῶν λοιπῶν διαφθαρεισῶν νεῶν ἐν τῷ πελάγει. (285–287 Severyns) Menelaus sails off after these [sc. Diomedes and Nestor] and arrives at Egypt with five ships, the rest destroyed at sea. καὶ Μενελάου εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἀνακομιδή. (303 Severyns) and the arrival home of Menelaus.

In the false tale to Eumaeus, Odysseus explicitly says to the swineherd that he stayed in Egypt for 7 years (14.285), and that, on the completion of the eighth year, after being deceived by a Phoenician who promised to take him to Phoenicia, he was sold to a group of men who were sailing towards Libya (14.287–297). This time-period matches the 8 years of Menelaus’ journey of return but is also strikingly similar to the period Odysseus stayed with Calypso and Circe (7+1 years). In fact, Odysseus’ words to Eumaeus96 (14.290–292)97 indicate that Odys-

 94 See Od. 4.82 (ὀγδοάτῳ ἔτει ἦλθον); Apoll. Epit. 6.30: ὀκτὼ δὲ πλανηθεὶς ἔτη [sc. Μενέλαος] κατέπλευσεν εἰς Μυκήνας, κἀκεῖ κατέλαβεν Ὀρέστην μετεληλυθότα τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς φόνον. ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς Σπάρτην τὴν ἰδίαν κτήσατο βασιλείαν. 95 1994, 127. For the view that the adventures of Menelaus have been modelled upon those of Odysseus, see Hölscher 19903, 94–102; Danek 1998, 93–94. 96 The Phoenician story contains typical features that would be especially meaningful to Eumaeus, who would recognize elements familiar to him from his own life story (cf. 15.403– 484). See Trahman 1952, 37; Walcot 1977, 12–14). 97 ἔνθα παρ’ αὐτῷ μεῖνα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτόν. | ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ μῆνές τε καὶ ἡμέραι ἐξετελεῦντο | ἂψ περιτελλομένου ἔτεος καὶ ἐπήλυθον ὧραι (‘and there I stayed with him for a whole

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle seus is clearly building his tale on a fixed pattern, which I would like to reconstruct as follows: Odysseus’ stay at Calypso’s island for 7 years and his departure on the 8th year have been modelled both on the tradition of an alternative Odyssey in which Odysseus stayed in Egypt as captive of the Pharaoh for the same time period and on Menelaus’ stay in Egypt for 7 years and his departure on the 8th. The opposite alternative simply does not work, for the Calypso episode cannot be primary, since the motif of the hero being held captive by a lovestricken goddess is based on the epic of Gilgamesh and the function of the goddesses Siduri and Ishtar, and, as the Circe episode shows, it is not exclusively connected to Calypso.98

.. The Motif of ‘Second Departure’ Another cyclic motif detectable in the false story to Eumaeus is that of the second departure. The fictive Cretan stays only for one month in Crete after his safe return from Troy (Od. 14.244–245)99 and departs again, this time for Egypt (Od. 14.246–247).100 The motif of a second departure, which is known from both the Odyssey and the Telegony,101 is cyclic,102 but its aim must have been profoundly different: whereas in cyclic myth it was linked to the hero’s inner journey until he reached a state of final happiness, in an alternative epic of return it was triggered by lust for adventures and wealth. This marked difference is accompanied by another one, albeit less important: in cyclic myth, the hero’s second depar-

 year. But when the days and months had mounted up, and a second year began its round of seasons’). 98 On the various analogies between the doublets Calypso-Circe and the divine alewife Siduri in the epic of Gilgamesh, see West 1997, 404–412. See also Crane 1988 passim; Nagler 1996, 141– 161. 99 μῆνα γὰρ οἶον ἔμεινα τεταρπόμενος τεκέεσσι | κουριδίῃ τ’ ἀλόχῳ καὶ κτήμασιν (‘I had spent only a month in the delights of home life with my children, my wife and my possessions’). 100 Αἴγυπτόνδε με θυμὸς ἀνώγει ναυτίλλεσθαι, | νῆας ἐῢ στείλαντα, σὺν ἀντιθέοισ’ ἑτάροισιν. (‘the spirit moved me to fit out some ships and sail to Egypt with heroic companions’). 101 The double departure for Troy (in their first sail to Troy the Achaeans arrive by mistake to Teuthrania) in the Cypria is of a different kind, for it is not particularly associated with a single hero, whereas that of the Odyssey (11.121–122 and 23.267–270) and the Telegony (arg. ll. 309 and 315 Severyns) are specifically linked to Odysseus. 102 The fact that Odysseus and his comrades depart twice from the island of Aeolus does not undermine this claim, for the second departure is triggered by the motif ‘Advice of Leader is not Followed by Comrades’.

Phoenicia and Thesprotia  

ture was a lonely adventure, while in the false tale and, may be in an alternative Odyssey, it amounts to an entire expedition (Od. 14.248).103

.. The Motif of ‘Being Defeated in a Foreign Land’ This cyclic motif known is from the story of the Cicones in Od. 9.39–61, and secondarily and only partly by the expedition to Teuthrania and the fighting against the Mysoi and Telephus in the Cypria,104 as well as the unsuccessful participation of Odysseus at the side of the Thesprotians against the Brygoi in the Telegony.105 It also contains two sub-motifs: (a) ‘The Return of the Enemy with Enormous Forces’ (Od. 9.51–52 ~ Od. 14.266–268)106 and (b) ‘Fighting with the Locals by the Ships’ (Od. 9.54 ~ Arch. fr. 17a Swift 10–11 ~ Pind. Ol. 9.72–73).107

. Phoenicia and Thesprotia The Phoenician and Thesprotian episodes are marked by a complex stratification that is analogous to that of the Egyptian adventure. We can draw the line between four different strata: (a) typical features dispersed in both adventures that, when put together, comprise a typology; (b) elements interacting with material found in the Odyssey with a special reference to the Apologos;108 (c)  103 ἐννέα νῆας στεῖλα, θοῶς δ’ ἐσαγείρατο λαός (‘I got nine vessels ready and the crews were soon mustered’). 104 Arg. ll. 125–128 Severyns: ἔπειτα ἀναχθέντες Τευθρανίᾳ προσίσχουσι καὶ ταύτην ὡς Ἴλιον ἐπόρθουν (‘then setting out they reach Teuthrania and plunder it as if Ilium’). 105 Arg. ll. 318–319 Severyns: ἐνταῦθα Ἄρης τοὺς μὲν περὶ Ὀδυσσέα τρέπεται (‘then Ares routes the followers of Odysseus’). 106 Od. 9.51–52: ἦλθον ἔπειθ’, ὅσα φύλλα καὶ ἄνθεα γίνεται ὥρῃ, | ἠέριοι (‘at dawn they were on us, thick as the leaves and flowers in spring’); Od. 14.266–268: οἱ δὲ βοῆς ἀΐοντες ἅμ’ ἠόϊ φαινομένηφιν | ἦλθον· πλῆτο δὲ πᾶν πεδίον πεζῶν τε καὶ ἵππων | χαλκοῦ τε στεροπῆς (‘the townsfolk, roused by the alarm, poured out at dawn. The whole place was filled with infantry and chariots and the glint of arms’). 107 Od. 9.54: στησάμενοι δ’ ἐμάχοντο μάχην παρὰ νηυσὶ θοῇσι (‘they fought a pitched battle by the swift ships’); Arch. fr. 17a.10–11 Swift: … οἱ̣ δ᾽ ἐπὶ θῖ̣ ν̣α̣ πολυφλοίσβοι[ο θαλάσσης | χέρσ’] ὕ̣ π᾽ ᾽ἀμειλίκτου φωτὸς ἐναιρό[μενοι (‘[the Achaeans] slain at the (hands) of a pitiless man, turned away headlong towards the shore of the much-resounding [sea]’, transl. by Swift 2019, 77); Pind. Ol. 9.72–73: ὅτ᾽ ἀλκᾶντας Δαναοὺς τρέψαις ἁλίαισιν | πρύμναις Τήλεφος ἔμβαλεν (‘when Telephus put in flight the mighty Danaans and attacked the sterns of their ships’). 108 The names Φείδων and Ἄκαστος seem to have been conditioned by the immediate context, as is the case with Κάστωρ Ὑλακίδης at the beginning of this false tale. See Blümlein

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle cyclic features; (d) an epichoric lay over which the cyclic features have been superimposed. (a) According to the analysis of Scott,109 the Phoenician phase (14.287–313) of Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaeus and some parts of the Thesprotian phase (14.314–359) are structured on an almost independent narrative vignette, which could be epitomized as ‘Double Salvation at Sea and on Shore of a Man Returning Home’ and is typical of oral narratives. This vignette contains the following segments: 1. A man is taken on board a ship to be sold into slavery; 2. there is a storm and the ship is destroyed; 3. the protagonist is saved through divine help; 4. after being washed ashore, he is given a friendly welcome by the locals; 5. the king offers hospitality to the castaway, gives him gifts and sends him on a ship home; 6. the crew takes him as prisoner; 7. he is saved when they go ashore. Considerable variation and rearrangement of features belonging to a traditional narrative pattern110 is a standard form of mutation of a typical structure, but their splitting within two phases of the same false tale is indicative of the fact that, although typical features operate on the horizontal axis and permeate the entire structure, they cannot be responsible for phenomena taking place on the vertical axis, where a generative process is at work. By dispersing and distributing the elements of this narrative typology into two subsequent phases of the same false tale, the tradition of our Odyssey shows that it has been conditioned not only by larger thematic patterns but also by specific choices pertaining to various other levels. (b) Apart from the narrative pattern discussed above, the Thesprotian episode contains the following features that have been conditioned by their interaction with elements found in the Odyssey with special reference to the Apologos:

 (1971, 25 nn. 1–2), who points to the role of ἀπριάτην (14.317) with respect to the former, but opts for the etymology alpha privativum + καίνυμαι with respect to the latter. 109 Scott 1989, 391. 110 These elements are also used in Odysseus’ false tale to Athena (Od. 13.272–286).

Phoenicia and Thesprotia  

1.

2.

3.

‘Clothing’ motif:111 Odysseus is clothed twice in this false tale, i.e. both by the Thesprotian king Pheidon who offers him a cloak and tunic (14.320) and by the Thesprotian thieves, who take his cloak and tunic and give him the rags he is wearing now that he is speaking to Eumaeus. It is clear that the ‘clothing’’ has been acclimatized both to the immediate context, since the disguised Odysseus asks Eumaeus for clothes as a reward in case he has real news about Odysseus (14.152–157, 395–396),112 as well as by the larger context of the Apologos, since it is a key feature of Odysseus’ meeting with Nausicaa: Odysseus asks for clothing (6.178–179), Nausicaa reassures him that he will not be in need of clothes as long as he is among the Phaeacians (6.192), and her servants give him a tunic and a cloak (6.214). The interplay between proper (tunic and cloak) and improper clothing (rags) with all its social connotations is thus reflected in the two clothing scenes of the long false tale to Eumaeus. The motif ‘Son/Daughter Takes the Stranger/Castaway to the Palace and Presents him to his/her Father’: in the Thesprotian episode, the motif is clearly secondary and plays no significant role, while in the Nausicaa episode it is primary, since it is crucial for the character-drawing of Odysseus and the continuation of the narrative (marriage of Nausicaa, athletic contests etc.). This motif may well have been inserted in the false tale as a reflection of a partly analogous scene in the Apologos, with certain necessary changes (Nausicaa as a parthenos cannot escort Odysseus to the palace but she can provide the means for him going there as a noble man). ‘Gift/Riches and Stealing’ motif: having acquired wealth on his own while being in Egypt, Odysseus is robbed on board in the Phoenician episode; the same is the case in the Thesprotian episode, when Thesprotian sailors try to reduce him to slavery. Both these complementary events stand in stark contrast to the gifts offered to Odysseus by king Alcinous and the good Phaeacians who take him to Ithaca and place his gifts on shore. The motif is typical but its use in the false tale clearly interacts with the Phaeacian episode in the Apologos.

 111 The ‘clothing’ motif is associated through the Apologos, the false tales, and the second part of the Odyssey at large with both Odysseus’ return and his constant use of lies in his encounters with various characters of the plot (Telemachus, Penelope, Eurymachus), who promise, for different reasons, to give Odysseus clothes. The systematic use of the ‘clothing’ motif with respect to Odysseus shows that it is particular to him. See Grossardt 1998, 74–82. 112 See de Jong 2001, 350.

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle 4. ‘Hiding’ motif: after being robbed by the Thesprotian pirates, Odysseus the storyteller unties himself while they take their supper ashore and hides behind a thicket of flowering shrubs (14.353–354). In the Nausicaa episode, Odysseus hides behind some bushes and covers his naked manhood with a leafy bough from a thicket. This is another case of interaction and variation of the same motif: questions of priority in this case are hard to pinpoint, even if in the Nausicaa episode hiding soon turns into concealment.113 (c) + (d) With respect to the Phoenician episode, I will only repeat what I have said before, namely that it is based on the ‘7+1 year’ cyclic motif, since Odysseus the storyteller says that he stayed in Phoenicia for one year before leaving for new adventures (Od. 14.292–294).114 As far as the Thesprotian episode is concerned, the search for cyclic motifs should be paired with the search for local lays on which they have been superimposed, for the Thesprotian adventure of Odysseus constitutes one of the most deeply rooted elements that have been embedded in our Odyssey. The prophecy of Tiresias, the last phase of Odysseus’ first false tale to Eumaeus, the cyclic Telegony, and even a mention of a lost Thesprotis by Pausanias,115 are some of the most important traces of a trans-epic view of Odysseus’ nostos. In Od. 14.327, Odysseus the storyteller tells Eumaeus that, when he was in the palace of king Pheidon in Thesprotia, he was told that Odysseus had gone to the oracle of Dodona ‘to learn the will of Zeus from the great oak-tree’ (ἐκ δρυὸς ὑψικόμοιο Διὸς βουλὴν ἐπακούσῃ). The Διὸς βουλή (Od. 14.327 = 19.297) is particularly associated to a specific choice Odysseus needs to make concerning how he should return to Ithaca, i.e. openly or in secret (ἢ ἀμφαδὸν ἦε  113 See also Homeric Hymn 2.125–144. 114 ἔνθα παρ’ αὐτῷ μεῖνα τελεσφόρον εἰς ἐνιαυτόν. | ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ μῆνές τε καὶ ἡμέραι ἐξετελεῦντο | ἂψ περιτελλομένου ἔτεος καὶ ἐπήλυθον ὧραι (‘and there I stayed with him for a whole year. But when the days and months had mounted up, and a second year began its round of the seasons’). 115 Paus. 8.12.5. I side with Marks (2008, 104 n. 44), who postulates the existence of a ‘relatively more epichoric Thesprotis’ and of a ‘relatively more Panhellenic Telegony’, though it is not clear if he is referring to the epic written by Eugammon of Cyrene. According to my view, a ‘relatively more epichoric Thesprotis’ belonged to a group of oral epic traditions about Odysseus that were prominent in Western Greece. Another tradition, which we may call Thesprotian-Telegonian and was rather more extended in scope and included basically Odysseus’ postIthacan adventures in Western Greece, lies behind Eugammon’s post-Homeric Telegony. The Panhellenic Odyssey shows traces of both the more limited in scope Thesprotis and of a wider Thesprotian-Telegonian oral epic tradition. See Tsagalis 2008, 63–90. Differently, Malkin 1998, 126–127.

Phoenicia and Thesprotia  

κρυφηδόν).116 Since the Διὸς βουλή motif in the Odyssey, as expressed in the divine councils in Books 1 and 5, concerns the completion of Odysseus’ return, we are able to see that it becomes progressively attenuated. Such a process is the reverse of what happens in the notorious Cypria-Iliad junction, where the general ‘Relief-of-Earth’ motif with its strong Near-Eastern overtones117 is compressed into the theme of giving satisfaction to Achilles by making the Trojans victorious. The motif of Διὸς βουλή, which has a long pre-Homeric history,118 is here employed in its cyclic aspect, i.e. in its proto-Panhellenic and still relatively epichoric coloring that marked an alternative tradition of Odysseus’ return.119 This is also the case with the mysterious references to Odysseus’ visit to Ephyra to get poisonous arrows.120 What we see here at work is the reflection of two

 116 This hint to his own condition remains completely unnoticed by Eumaeus. See Fuchs 1993, 31. 117 See Kullmann 1955, 185–186; Jouan 1966, 45; Burkert 1992, 100–106; Mayer 1996, 1–15; West 1997, 480–482; Marks 2002, 19. 118 See Kullmann 1955, 185–186. Differently Allan 2008, 204–216. 119 A predilection for oracles and prophecies is typical of cyclic epic. See Kullmann (1960, 221), who lists 17 such cases attested in the scant remains of the Epic Cycle; see also Griffin 1977, 48. 120 Od. 1.257–264. Ephyra is also mentioned by some anonymous suitor (2.325–330) together with Pylos and Sparta as a possible destination of Telemachus’ itinerary. This passage is important, for it may be reflecting not only alternative versions concerning Telemachus’ journey, but also alternative ways of killing the suitors (2.235–237). A careful look at the passage shows that Pylos and Sparta are associated with gathering allies to launch an attack on the numerous suitors in Ithaca, while Ephyra is linked with the δόλος of poisoning the suitors after getting a deadly poison and dropping it in the wine-bowl from where the suitors are drinking (2.238– 240). The question why the suitors thought of Ephyra, if it is in Thesprotia, has led Levaniouk (oral presentation) to argue that this is Elean Ephyra, a much more ‘reasonable’ Peloponnesian itinerary for Telemachus. This credible impossibility, which is only aimed at the audience, is not about geography but about alternative versions of the conflict between Telemachus (with Odysseus) and the suitors. To begin with, the suitors ‘see’ Odysseus behind Telemachus and express their fears in disguise. Both the ‘gathering of an army’ and the ‘poisoned wine’ motifs must have formed part of alternative, less heroic versions, which our Odyssey knows and systematically downgrades. In contrast to the widely held view that Ephyra in the Odyssey is always the Thesprotian one (S. West 1988; Malkin 1998; Nicolai 2002), Levaniouk thinks Elean Ephyra is here referred to, mainly because of a tradition connecting this location with poison, and that what is said here for Telemachus was true for both Odysseus and Telemachus in other versions. In my view, Od. 1.257–264 and 2.325–330 are referring to two different Ephyrai, the former in Thesprotia, the latter in Elis. What is important is that both Ephyrai are situated in a Western Greek axis and seem to belong to some sort of Western Greek koine that represented Western Greek epichoric traditions with a distinct regional character with respect to stories concerning Odysseus (Marks 2008, 108–109; Odysseus’ journeys to Elis and Thesprotia in the

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle different versions of Odysseus’ return with respect to the Thesprotian adventure, the one featuring Ephyra and the incident of the poisonous arrows, the other Dodona and the consultation of the oracle of Zeus. We may even speculate that the latter developed at a point when the oracle of Zeus started acquiring Panhellenic authority and thus ‘replaced’ the super-natural or magical element inherent in the theme of the poisonous arrows theme. This must have happened at an early stage of the Panhellenic phenomenon, when local traditions, especially in Western Greece, were still prominent. The confusion between Thesprotian and Elean Ephyra mirrors exactly this persistence of epichoric traditions about Odysseus during a ‘proto-Panhellenic’ stage.121 In tandem with these observations, the three separate registers comprising (a) a local lay characterized by strong links between Ithaca and the mainland, (b) typical oral features such as the hospitality of king Pheidon and his son, and (c) the cyclic motif of the Διὸς βουλή were fused into a Thesprotian adventure featuring in an alternative Odyssey. According to this version, the Cretan Odysseus is well received by the local king and his son, who, Nausicaa-like, leads him to the palace and gives him clothing before he travels to Dodona to find out from Zeus whether he should return to Ithaca openly or secretly.  post-Homeric Telegony by Eugammon of Cyrene may be going back to pre-Homeric Western Greek epichoric traditions). In this light, we may be dealing with two different versions of the alternative/Cretan Odyssey sub-group I have discussed in the beginning of this chapter: according to that mirrored in Book 1, Odysseus went to Thesprotian Ephyra and got poisonous arrows with which he killed the suitors, while according to another that lurks behind the anonymous suitor’s words in Book 2, he went together with Telemachus to Elean Ephyra and received θυμοφθόρα φάρμακα. The common denominator in all these versions is the way the suitors will be killed. Places thematize manners of killing and –by extension– heroic valour or lack of it. By opting for a version featuring few comrades (Eumaeus and Philoetius) and only his son as allies and avoiding super-weapons (poisonous arrows from Thesprotian Ephyra) or treacherous poisoning (from Elean Ephyra) or a small army of supporters (either from the Peloponnese or from Ithaca itself), the tradition of our Odyssey has elevated Odysseus’ exploit into an ἀριστεία shaping the heroism of its hero once and for all. 121 See Marks (2003, 224 n. 35), who argues that ‘the Elean tradition, associated as it was with the Panhellenic Olympic festival, may have included an alternative, ‘proto-Panhellenic’ account of Odysseus’ return with which the Odyssey competed for Panhellenic authority over Odysseus’ story’. See also by the same author (2008, 100–104, 109–111, and esp. 104): ‘rites and aitia relating to the oracles of Zeus, the dead, and Odysseus in Thesprotia, then offer plausible contexts for the development of epichoric and proto-Panhellenic narrative traditions. This is not to say that Thesprotia was an unrecognized cultural dynamo of the Archaic period, but rather that certain Thesprotian religious centers may have sponsored a vigorous Odysseustradition. […] Pausanias speaks of a Thesprotis that could represent one of the better-known of the west Greek traditions with which the Odyssey engages’.

The False Tales, ‘Proto-Panhellenism’, and the Rise of the Odyssey  

During the shaping and emergence of the Panhellenic tradition of our Odyssey a further development took place: just as the Egyptian and Phoenician episodes were ‘mapped on to’ the Calypso-Circe doublet122 by means of the cyclic ‘7+1 years’ motif, so the visit to Dodona (or even the confusion between an Elean Ephyra and a Thesprotian Ephyra close to the nekyomanteion) and the ‘hospitality of Pheidon and his son’ were split into the Nekyia-Phaeacian episodes respectively.123 This change was effected because the cyclic motif of the Διὸς βουλή (superimposed on the proto-Panhellenic tradition of divine consultation in Dodona) was replaced by a consultation of Tiresias in the Underworld, while the hospitable king Pheidon and his son were replaced by king Alcinous and Nausicaa. ‘7 +1 years’ motif (father/son)

Divine consultation + hospitality

Egypt + Phoenicia

Thesprotia

↓ 


Typical elements

↙

Calypso

↘

Circe

↙ Nekyia

↓

↘ Alcinous/Nausicaa

. The False Tales, ‘Proto-Panhellenism’, and the Rise of the Odyssey Odysseus’ longest false tale to Eumaeus displays a complex stratification including (a) typical, context-free elements, (b) typical features that interact with the narrative of the Apologos, (c) elements conditioned by the immediate context, and (d) traditional motifs that acquire their specific identity by means of being intricately entwined with Odysseus’ persona in Homeric and cyclic epic. It is against this backdrop that I will draw the larger picture with respect to the false tales as a whole. The false tales constitute one of the most extensive epic quotations (Zitat)124 embedded in the Odyssey, an intertextual window to alternative oral traditions of Odysseus’ return. By following a process of de-geographization, delinearization, and de-authorization of what in the false tales is and in an

 122 See Reinhardt 1960, 77–87; Crane 1988, 15–29; Steinthal 1991, 502–504; West 1997, 404; de Jong 2001, 130. 123 See Danek 1998, 286; Malkin 1998, 129; Marks 2008, 102–103. 124 See Danek 1998. The same observation applies to the ‘true’ tales (e.g. Nestor’s in Od. 3).

  Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle *alternative Odyssey was real geography,125 narrative linearity, and local versions concerning Odysseus’ return, the Odyssey was able to create two separate registers through which its relationship with the oral antecedents of the Epic Cycle could be communicated to the audience: while Odysseus’ adventures represent a fusion of motifs pertaining both to a pre-Homeric *Argonautica and mainly (but not solely) to the Utnapishtim episode in the epic of Gilgamesh, the false tales constitute a carefully designed allusion, mainly to cyclic myth featuring linear, episodic, local, and geographically traceable trajectories from Troy to Ithaca. The turning point may have been the decision made by the poet or tradition of our Odyssey to use motifs from the epic of Gilgamesh and of the *alternative Odyssey that the pre-Homeric oral *Argonautica did not supply.126 Part of the motivation behind this choice was perhaps to create a Panhellenic master myth for Odysseus’ return that would span these three traditions. As the Panhellenic viewpoint of this new song aimed at reaching a Panhellenic audience, it consistently, but also gradually, as far as the false tales are concerned, deauthorized other versions referring to Odysseus’ return.127 Seen from this vantage point, an intermediate ‘Proto-Panhellenic’ phase may be postulated, during which certain epichoric elements, especially those pertaining to Western Greek local traditions about Odysseus, were so strongly embedded in some versions narrating Odysseus’ return that they still survived in the *alternative Odyssey. When the Panhellenic phenomenon had finally erased or downplayed local epic traditions about Odysseus, the fusion of the exotic and fantastic world of the ‘Argonautic’ Apologos and the real and locally colored realm of the false tales reflecting a ‘Proto-Panhellenic’ *alternative Odyssey was complete. The Apologos with its pre-eminently unreal topography and characters transgressed borders and time constraints and allowed the Panhellenic tradition of the Odyssey to rise and replace the real world with an imaginary one, and — what is even more striking — to label the former as false and the latter as real. By appropriating the dichotomy between false and true myths and translating it into terms of epic rivalry, the Odyssean tradition was thus able to play masterfully with pseudea and alethea, i.e. with intratextual lies and intertextual truth.

 125 The false tales transfer the narrative of wanderings (in contrast to the Apologos) to the realm of what is real and familiar. See Hölcher 19903, 213; Rutherford 1992, 71; Grossardt 1998, 31. 126 See West 2005, 39–64. 127 Contra Hölscher 19903, 169: ‘der Prozeß der Episierung und Panhellenisierung der Sage ist ein und derselbe’.



Part II: Hesiod

 Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus Standing in the enormous shadow cast by Homer, Hesiod has been considered a poet of inferior status from an insignificant Boeotian town, which he himself describes in negative terms (Op. 640: Ἄσκρῃ, χεῖμα κακῇ, θέρει ἀργαλέῃ, οὐδέ ποτ’ ἐσθλῇ). Yet the uncertainty surrounding Hesiod is entirely different in type from that surrounding Homer. In contrast to the external narrator of Homeric epic, who never reveals his identity, Hesiod lavishes his audience with information concerning his own self: his father came from Cyme in Asia Minor (which had been founded by Aeolian colonists), but migrated to Ascra. We also learn of a brother named Perses, who is the constant recipient of advice in the Works and Days. I consider that later biographical accounts of Hesiod’s life resulting from the overabundance of information in Hesiodic poetry itself aim to promote a historically defined creator on a par with Homer.1 In this light, Hesiod is used in this chapter to refer to the poetic tradition epitomized in his name, irrespective of the question pertaining to a historical poet of the Theogony and the Works and Days. As regards the Catalogue of Women, I treat this poem as being chronologically incompatible with the Theogony and the Works and Days but as belonging to the same tradition of Hesiodic poetry. It is this poetry and poetics of this Hesiodic tradition that I will be examining regardless of whether Hesiod is a poet with flesh and bones2 or he should be ‘considered an idealized creation of the poetry in which he has an integral function’.3

. Theogony Despite being generally treated as simplistic in comparison with Homeric epic, the Theogony engages its listeners in a profound game with questions of genre, identity, and singer-audience relations. Given the wide scope of this topic, I intend to focus my attention on three aspects of Hesiodic concern with poetics, namely the acquisition of a distinct generic identity as expressed in the proem, by far the most dense poetological passage of the Theogony, the poetic aspirations and Panhellenic scope of this epic as shown in the interpretively arcane Hymn to Hecate, and last — but certainly not least — the interaction between  1 Lamberton 1988, 1–11. 2 See e.g. West’s commentaries on the Theogony 1966 and the Works and Days 1978a. 3 Nagy 1990a, 52. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-010

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus narrator and audience that will be studied under the narratological rubric of ‘commentary’.

.. The Proem of the Theogony The presence of the Muses in the proems of all three main Hesiodic poems indicates that they function as a catalyst in Hesiodic poetry, the more so since the invocation of the Muse(s) is an established theme in archaic Greek epic.4 References to the Muse in the proems of the Iliad (1.1), the Odyssey (1.1; 1.10) and the Homeric Hymns to Hermes (4.1) and Aphrodite (5.1) take the form of typical epic invocations. Yet the proem of the Theogony (1–115) makes these references more specific and by recording them on the level of divine revelation attempts to link the Hesiodic composition to its divine ‘hypostasis’, the Muses that inhabit Mt. Helicon.5 The regular use of ἄρχομαι (Hes. Th. 1, Homeric Hymns to Demeter 2.1, to Athena 11.1, to Demeter 13.1, to Asclepius 16.1, to Poseidon 22.1, to the Muses and Apollo 25.1, to Dionysus 26.1, to Athena 28.1) follows an established pattern.6 Yet in essence, in the proem of the Theogony it functions in a more elaborate manner. The substitution of the hymnic singular (ἄρχομαι) by the plural (ἀρχώμεθα) is not a grammatical detail.7 It suggests that the poet and Muses are to be treated as collaborators, even though the initial relationship between them was probably that of teacher and pupil. The Hesiodic song cannot but begin with the Muses, given that it had its beginnings in the Muses, who taught the insignificant shepherd the art of song. Manner and causative affinity are treated as identical here, paving the way for the recounting of a metaphorical encounter, which sets out the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Hesiodic poetic journey. From this point of view, ἀρχώμεθα acquires a secondary, figurative meaning in a poem like the Theogony, which shows such a keen interest in first beginnings. Thus, an epic on the origins of the gods and the world opens with the staging of poetic genesis, which is, after all, a precondition for its own creation. The advent of the Muses and ensuing poetic ‘birth’ of Hesiod, squeezed between the two songs of the Muses, act both backwards and forwards within the

 4 For a structural division of the proem of the Theogony, see Kambylis 1965, 34–35. 5 On the proem of the Theogony, see Kambylis 1965, 31–68; Lenz 1980, 123–181. 6 Hymn 25.2–5 (to the Muses and Apollo) reproduces verses 94–97 of the Hesiodic Theogony. 7 See the present participle ὑμνεῦσαι, which constitutes an internal indication of the genre of the Muses’ song and the nature of the proem.

Theogony  

framework of a tripartite structure. The Muses’ words are presented as embedded secondary focalization. This choice increases their importance, since the process of Hesiod’s poetic initiation (Dichterweihe) can be presented not only from the Muses’ point of view (26–28), but also from his own (30–34), as is the case with the second part, which is related in indirect speech through the voice of the primary narrator. The Muses’ words are framed by repeated reference to their divine, in this case Olympian, identity (25), and their descent from Zeus (29). The triple reference to the shepherds (26: ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι, κάκ’ ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες οἶον) shows that Hesiodic epic highlights the distinction between gods and men as the main thematic motif in the process of poetic initiation.8 This is indicated by the reproachful tone in the Muses’ words, attributing animal traits to the shepherds. The same intent is clear in the distinction between ἔτυμα (27) and ἀληθέα (28),9 which refer to human and divine truth respectively.10 In this case, a distinction is not drawn between truth and falsehood, as is the case in the Odyssey,11 but rather between two kinds of truth—the ἀληθέα, eternal truths which lie beyond the restrictive limitations of any sense of time, and ἔτυμα, truths relating to the real world. The second kind of truth (ἔτυμα) appears to be a kind of falsehood since it is prone to constant change. The contrast between truth and falsehood is not absent from the Muses’ speech. It is undoubtedly present, yet not dominant, since it is clearly subject to the distinction between human and divine truth that is fundamental to Hesiodic poetry. The arcane tone of the Muses’ speech is the

 8 Stoddard 2004, 74–85. The reference to the bellies denotes deception and lies. See Svenbro 1976, 50–59; Arthur 1983, 102; Pucci 1987, 191–208; Marsilio 2000, 10–13; Murnaghan 2006, 99. 9 On the semantic nuances of the terms ἔτυμα and ἀληθέα in archaic epic, see Krischer 1965, 161–174; Leclerc 1993, 212–221; Levet (1976, 161–162) attributes the sense of conjectured reality to ἔτυμος, and those of seemingly logical and confirmed reality to ἐτεός and ἐτήτυμος respectively. 10 With respect to the Muses’ speech, there are three more poetological theories: (a) the Hesiodic tradition uses the terms ἔτυμα and ἀληθέα to invite a striking comparison to Homeric poetry (Od. 19.203; see Verdenius 1972, 234–235; Murray 1981, 91; Puelma 1989, 75; Pöhlmann 1989; Arrighetti 1996); (b) Hesiod’s aim was to promote the authenticity of his own theogonic tradition on the basis of verisimilitude (see Stein 1990, 11; Rudhardt 1996, 30); (c) ψεύδεα refer to local versions of the Theogony indigenous to particular areas, whereas ἀληθέα point to theogonies known throughout the Greek world (see Nagy 1990a, 44–47). A different view has been put forward by Heiden (2007, 153–175), who has argued that the word ὁμοῖα does not designate resemblance but equivalence and that (171) ‘the Muses do not blame the poets for telling lies [but] blame the shepherds for not understanding what the Muses’ lies are’. 11 See Odysseus’ false tales, which are characterized as ‘lies similar to true things’ (ψεύδεα ... ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα, Od. 19.203).

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus hallmark of their divine advent. In combination with another quintessentially enigmatic phrase (35: ἀλλὰ τίη μοι ταῦτα περὶ δρῦν ἢ περὶ πέτρην;), which follows on,12 it creates an intentionally opaque framework that serves as interpretive guide: the enigmatic speech of the Muses is consonant with the riddling nature of the beginning of the Theogony.13 The cryptic pitch of line 35 does not aim to level the internal semantic distinction between truth and falsehood;14 on the contrary, it is an attempt to tell the audience to tune in to an interpretive wavelength, which is difficult to trace, yet essential if the Hesiodic Theogony is to be fully understood. This distinction is reinforced by the use of different verb forms for ἔτυμα and ἀληθέα. The verb λέγειν, which is employed in the former instance, merely denotes speech production and not its evaluation, as is the case with the infinitive γηρύσασθαι. By recalling religious language, the latter is imbued with the prestige associated with any theological revelation. ἔτυμα are equal to ψεύδεα, in the sense that they are incapable of expressing the eternal truth because they are subject to the limitations imposed by the evanescent world of mortals. In this conception, despite the fact that line 27 (ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα) recalls Odysseus’ false stories (Od. 19.203: ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγων ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα), the Hesiodic line is clearly heading to a distinct semantic direction.15 The aorists encountered in the passage on poetic initiation should also be placed within this interpretive framework. The Hesiodic tradition uses a false past tense (such as the aorist) to refer to the performance of the Theogony itself. In following Bakker16 and Stoddard,17 I believe that the aorists should be interpreted as a mechanism for the creation of vividness (ἐνάργεια). By employing them, epic poetry presents events belonging to a distant past as if happening right in front of the audience’s eyes, at the moment the bard sings them.18 The

 12 On the meaning of this enigmatic phrase, see West 1966, 167–9; Hofmann 1971, 90–97; Nagy 1990a, 181–199; Schmoll 1994, 46–52; O’Bryhim 1996, 131–138; Stoddard 2004, 87 n. 57. 13 Stoddard 2004, 84–85. 14 Pratt 1993, 110. 15 Finkelberg 1998, 160 offers a different interpretation of the reference to the Muses’ ability to tell ‘truths similar to lies’. According to this view, Hesiod’s insistence on the unorthodox presentation of the Muses as divinities who can also tell lies arises from his poetic conservatism, since he wished to preserve the typologically established conviction that poets were divinely inspired. 16 Bakker 2002, 63–81 (= 2005, 135–153). 17 Stoddard 2004, 134–135. 18 Bakker 1999, 50–65; 2001c, 1–23 (= 2005, 114–135).

Theogony  

aorists do not simply underscore the fact that the Muses are subject to the framework of human time, but also self-referentially project the Hesiodic Theogony as the reconstruction of divine advent par excellence. The expression νύ ποθ’ (Th. 22), accompanied by the ensuing (augmented) aorist ἐδίδαξαν, also functions within the same framework for ‘remembering’ or ‘evoking’ a past event, which comes to life at the moment the Theogony is performed.19 Indeed, the internal analepsis, which the expression νύ ποθ’ appears to inaugurate in archaic poetry, is virtually nullified in temporal terms and acquires the character of a conjunction, since ποθ’ is linked to the narrative present (1: ἀρχώμεθ’). At the moment of its performance, epic poetry acquires an almost religious or cultic function, since the Hesiodic Theogony recreates the divine advent of the Muses, retrieved from poetic memory and repeated in epic time and space, in the hic et nunc of the performance, in front of a real audience. More specifically, the handling of time is the poetic metalanguage used by the Hesiodic Theogony to translate divine atemporality or perhaps extemporality into a linear sequence with genealogically organised features relating to descent, thus rendering them both more accessible to human experience and more recognisable to an audience familiar with catalogue poetry in general. The Hesiodic focus pertains to a mortal looking through his narrative lens at the world of the immortals, enabling the human gaze to glance at the atemporal divine horizon.

.. The Hymn to Hecate The hymn to Hecate has been the object of extensive research, for scholars have always been intensely preoccupied with a number of primary issues relating to: (a) its length; (b) its position, by way of an insertion between genealogical catalogues; (c) the fact that it is clearly laudatory in nature, albeit for a secondary divinity. According to a now virtually abandoned theory that we may call analytical, the hymn to Hecate is a later addition to the main corpus of an Ur-Theogonie, which, along the lines of the Ur-Ilias, would have borne the indelible imprint of its one and only creator, the historically verified Boeotian poet Hesiod.20 Supporters of the biographical theory believe that the hymn to Hecate reflects features relating to the worship of the goddess and Hesiod’s special relation to it.21 The religion-

 19 Stoddard 2004, 136. 20 Fick 1887, 17; von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1931, 169–170. 21 Mazon 1928, 5; Pfister 1928, 8; Aly 1966, 65 n. 23; West 1966, 276–280.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus based theory proposed by Judet de la Combe22 and Wismann23 sees Hecate as a representative of chthonic powers descended from Gaia, while Boedecker24 stresses the triple functionality of Hecate (power, strength and productivity), which in some way replicates the three basic functions typical of both the protoIndo-European religious world and the heroic pantheon. Allied to Boedecker’s latter proposal is Zeitlin’s25 gender-oriented theory, according to which the main feature of the hymn to Hecate is the way in which it acts as a counterpoint to the myth of Pandora appearing soon afterwards in the narrative course of the Theogony. According to another view, the religious dimension of Hecate is textually oriented.26 Clay,27 who also adopts a textual approach, highlights Hecate’s willingness that is seen as an attempt at intercession between mortals and immortals, so that the former can gain what they seek from the latter via the process of ritual sacrifice. The poetological approach taken by Griffith,28 and still more that by Nagy,29 marks a turning point in the interpretation of the hymn to Hecate. Griffith argues that Hecate symbolizes the transition from an older to a newer order, with reference to the overall conceptualization of the world as emerging in the Hesiodic Theogony. Nevertheless, her role is more a question of poetic taxonomy than of biographical textualization. Nagy views Hecate as a composite divinity of Panhellenic orientation. Her presence in the Theogony is consistent with a conscious attempt by the Hesiodic tradition to broaden the range of listeners interested in a song of such scope.30 This view is also espoused by Stoddard, who is poised between a purely poetological interpretation and a text-centred one. The present contribution makes use of several of the findings of the aforementioned theories, with the exception of the analytical and biographical ones. Indeed, it may be argued that far from undermining the clear poetological dimension to the hymn to Hecate, Clay’s textual interpretation and Zeitlin’s gender-oriented approach further reinforce it. The textual interpretation accounts for the position of the hymn, and the gender-oriented and religion-based ones highlight Hecate’s relation to Zeus, yet none offers a convincing explanation for the length or structure of the hymn. Though clearly visible, the poem’s Panhel 22 Judet de la Combe 1996, 263–299. 23 Wisman 1996, 23. 24 Boedecker 1983, 85. 25 Zeitlin 1996, 53–86. 26 Rudhardt 1993, 204–213. 27 Clay 1984, 34–37. 28 Griffith 1983, 51–55. 29 Nagy 1982, 64. 30 See Nagy 1982, 43–73.

Theogony  

lenic orientation must also be linked to an attempt by the Hesiodic tradition to acquire Panhellenic authority. The hymn is an early form of hallmarking, an internally declared indicator that this particular Theogony is Hesiodic par excellence.31 This theory rests on the following evidence: (a) the rhetorical features of ring composition, anaphora, and assonance tune the hymn to a recognizably Hesiodic tone, as is the case with the appearance of similar features in another passage of indisputable poetological hue, the proem of the Works and Days. (b) The length of the hymn as well as the fact that it is grafted onto purely genealogical material set out in catalogue form, indicates that the Hesiodic tradition aims at making its own distinct voice heard. In this sense, the traditional genealogical material must be interspersed with something eminently personal and exceptionally Hesiodic. (c) The use of the name Perses in the Theogony for Hecate’s father cannot be unrelated to Hesiod’s brother Perses, the internal addressee in the Works and Days. These features indicate that like Hesiod, so Perses too should perhaps be seen as a textual-poetic mirror inextricably bound up with Hesiodic epic tradition. (d) The reference to ἄεθλα (Th. 435–438) indicates a competitive framework, recalling the poetological framework in the Nautilia of the Works and Days, where there is a specific reference to the poetic triumph won by Hesiod at the funeral games in honor of Amphidamas at Chalcis. Hecate stands by and assists those competing, just as the Muses assisted Hesiod through the gift of song, thus rendering his victory at the poetic contest at Chalcis possible. (e) The use of vocabulary encountered in poetologically colored passages of the Works and Days (such as the proem and the Nautilia) highlights its distinctly Hesiodic tone: δυσπέμφελος Th. 440—Op. 618, ῥεῖα Th. 419, 438, 443, ῥηιδίως Th. 442—ῥέα Op. 5, ῥεῖα Op. 6, ἀτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης Th. 413—πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης Op. 648, ἐξ ὀλίγων βριάει καὶ ἐκ πολλῶν μείονα θῆκεν Th. 447—ῥέα μὲν γὰρ βριάει, ῥέα δὲ βριάοντα χαλέπτει | ῥεῖα δ’ ἀρίζηλον μινύθει καὶ ἄδηλον ἀέξει Op. 5–6. (f) Lines 445–447 echo the Agriculture section in the Works and Days, which also contains poetological metaphors.32 (g) The honor33 which Zeus has lavished on Hecate, and her willingness34 as regards the  31 The Iliad and the Theogony allude to a rich theogonic epic tradition. The latter uses allusion to earlier theogonic poetry to carve its position within theogonic song and, in extension, to acquire and promote its identity. All three main Hesiodic poems (Theogony, Works and Days, Catalogue of Women) are hybrid epic compositions that represent innovative and highly successful reactions to putative source poems of a theogonic, didactic, and catalogic nature respectively. 32 Marsilio 2000, 51–52. 33 Th. 412, 414–415, 418, 422, 426, 428, 449, 452. 34 Th. 429–430, 432, 439, 443, 446.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus benefaction of mortals, may be an indirect encomium of the poetic tradition which reserves a special place for this outstanding goddess. An important poem on the origins of the gods requires important deities, recognisable to the gamut of any potential Greek-speaking audience, since the aim is not a composition of local scope, limited to the confines of Boeotia, but rather an ambitious, Panhellenic composition. The Hymn to Hecate is effectively grafted into the poetics of the Hesiodic Theogony for one more reason: it embeds in the poem features from the hymnic genre. By engulfing hymnic poetry and bestowing to it a Hesiodic identity of a fine-grained manner, the Hesiodic Theogony stands out from all other thematically related theogonic and hymnic traditions.

.. Commentary Narratology has used the term ‘commentary’ to designate comments made to the audience or readers via the narrative voice of the external narrator, who is the author’s textual representative within the text. Stoddard has argued that the narrator of the Hesiodic Theogony uses commentary, i.e. ‘speech acts that go beyond narrating, describing, or identifying’35 so as to allude to his own persona.36 According to Richardson,37 this commentary may concern both the story and the discourse. One early form of commentary has been termed ‘explanatory’, since it provides the audience with information that the Hesiodic narrator knows by means of divine inspiration. One of the ways an ancient audience would have interpreted the use of name etymology is as a sign of poetic authority,38 since etymologizing implicitly evaluates catalogue citation. The use of names in an oral epic composition before a real audience does not have the same function as name citation in a written text. In summoning various gods and goddesses into the present of the performance, it renders them accessible to the audience. The singer shows his listeners that his version of a theogonic song is the most valid one, since it creates a link between language and ‘reality’. Thus, when we hear that Κύκλωπες δ’ ὄνομ’ ἦσαν ἐπώνυμον, οὕνεκ’ ἄρά σφεων | κυκλοτερὴς ὀφθαλμὸς ἕεις ἐνέκειτο μετώπῳ (Th. 144–145), we can see that the singer displays his knowledge of the link between signifier and signified, since he explains to his audience that

 35 Chatman 1978, 228. 36 Stoddard 2004, 162. 37 Richardson 1990, 140. 38 Stoddard 2004, 170–172.

Theogony  

the name Κύκλωπες reflects an anatomical feature of the Cyclopes: the round eye these creatures have on their forehead. Another form of commentary is the so-called ‘critical’ commentary. In this case Hesiod does not address his audience directly, but instead expresses a judgement — hence the term critical commentary — on some character of the plot. This is usually accomplished by means of adjectives.39 In this way, the narrator makes a move towards his listeners: by expressing his personal view, he preempts and influences their judgement. Yet at the same time this method attests to the poetological establishment of Hesiodic poetry. Its identity is by now recognisable, the appropriation of epic conventions clear and its personal style well marked. From the undifferentiated citation of elements organized in catalogue form, it moves on to articulate its own distinct voice, which spills over into the main narrative, as in the following instructive example (Th. 950–955): Ἥβην δ᾽ Ἀλκμήνης καλλισφύρου ἄλκιμος υἱός, ἲς Ἡρακλῆος, τελέσας στονόεντας ἀέθλους, παῖδα Διὸς μεγάλοιο καὶ Ἥρης χρυσοπεδίλου, αἰδοίην θέτ᾽ ἄκοιτιν ἐν Οὐλύμπῳ νιφόεντι, ὄλβιος, ὃς μέγα ἔργον ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν ἀνύσσας ναίει ἀπήμαντος καὶ ἀγήραος ἤματα πάντα. The strong son of beautiful-ankled Alcmene, Heracles’ strength, made Hebe, the daughter of great Zeus and of golden-sandaled Hera, his reverend wife on snowy Olympus, after he had completed his painful tasks — happy he, for after having accomplished his great work among the immortals he dwells unharmed and ageless for all his days.

The ‘entry’ Ἥβη in the catalogue of divinities in the Theogony is organized in the same way as other lemmata on the same theme, i.e. on the basis of her union with Heracles, son of Alcmene. The narrator takes advantage of the opportunity offered by the mention of a hero-cum-symbol of the human world in the Theogony, a hero who has already been used poetologically in the narrative digressions of the passages on the descendants of Ceto and Prometheus. By embedding in the entry Ἥβη a personal comment lying outside the plot, the Hesiodic tradition leaves its audience with the impression that it has full control of the version being cited; that in reality, what resembles an annotated mythological handbook bears the lasting imprint of a strict choice. In using the epithet ὄλβιος, the Hesiodic tradition looks upon the material being listed in perspec 39 This method is also common in the Homeric epics, the renowned νήπιοι in the proem to the Odyssey (1.8) being an early attestation of critical commentary.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus tive, from the future, as only the creator of the Theogony himself could do. In addition, since among the entries dedicated to deities in this section of the Theogony this is the only one in which the focus (as emerges from the reference to deification) does not concern a female figure, but exclusively a male one (Heracles), it becomes clear that his case is set apart. This differentiation is dictated by the critical commentary itself, since the relative clause ὃς μέγα ἔργον … ἤματα πάντα (Th. 954–955) extends the poetic comment. Furthermore, given that this divergence from the norm is correlated with the particular significance Heracles has in the Theogony as a link between the divine and mortal worlds, ὄλβιος acquires an implicit poetological tone. The third and final category of commentary may be called ‘interpretive’, since the narrator tries to impose on his audience his own particular interpretation of mythical material. The Typhonomachy or section on Typhoeus represents a kind of interpretive commentary.40 The narrator begins by drawing a distinction between the favorable winds (Notos, Boreas, Zephyrus) and the destructive ones on the basis of their genealogy, the former being the offsprings of the gods and the latter of Typhoeus. By explaining natural phenomena in terms of divine pedigree as presented in his own theogonic version, Hesiod introduces to his audience a world that he alone can know, due to his divine authorization by the Muses.41 Interpretive commentary may also be working as a ‘nod’ to earlier poetry which the Hesiodic Theogony knows. In 378–380, we are told that Eos conceived by Astraeus ‘Zephyrus, the scouring West Wind, Boreas, rushing and fleet-footed North Wind and Notus the South Wind’. These winds, which are ‘a magnificent blessing for mankind’ (θνητοῖς μέγ᾽ ὄνειαρ, Th. 871) are related to their stepbrother Memnon, son of Eos and Tithonus (Th. 984). These winds are presented in a positive light as they are differentiated from the winds associated with Typhoeus who bring destruction to men both at sea and on land (Th. 872– 880). By reading the positive-negative polarity of the two groups of winds in terms of their genealogy, Hesiod moves away from earlier theogonic or typhonomachic epic and places himself next to what would become the mainstream epic tradition.42 Apart from the story, commentary also concerns the discourse. Nünlist and Stoddard have argued that the narrator of the Theogony uses direct references to poetic composition itself and to the very performance of the poem. Lines 369– 370 of the Theogony are a typical case:  40 Stoddard 2004, 170–172. 41 Nünlist 2004, 29; Stoddard 2004, 172. 42 On allusions of the Hesiodic Typhonomachy to earlier epic poetry, see Currie (forthcoming).

Works and Days  

τῶν ὄνομ᾽ ἀργαλέον πάντων βροτὸν ἀνέρ᾽ ἐνισπεῖν, οἳ δὲ ἕκαστοι ἴσασιν, ὅσοι περιναιετάωσιν The names of them all it is difficult for a mortal man to tell, but each of those who dwell around them knows them.

The narrator openly declares his presence by stressing his inability to give the names of the rivers, which represents a typologically established epic technique.43 This is not merely aimed at indirect (in this case unacknowledged) recognition of the Muses’ poetic contribution, but rather at the ‘evaluation of the act of narration itself’.44 Indirect commentary either on the level of the story or on the level of the narrator’s art is aimed at the audience.45 Direct mention of the identity of the audience may be absent, but so is direct mention of the narrator’s identity. The approach recommended here is inextricably bound up with the fact that the very performance of heroic song renders direct reference to the audience’s identity impossible, precisely because the singer targets heterogeneous potential audiences by means of a composition of Panhellenic aspirations. The only way out available to him is to adopt internal conventions reflecting the act of performing theogonic poetry that rests on the narrator–audience-song triptych. With respect to the Theogony, these conventions have been internalized into a whole set of narrative rules, the shepherd-poet Hesiod, the advent of the Muses, insistence on relating the immortal world to that of mortals and, finally, apparent inability to recall and present details, which of course only acquires meaning before an audience.

. Works and Days The poetics of this undoubtedly multifarious and idiosyncratic work are of equal interest with the Theogony. Poetological signs point to two different but complementary directions: being symmetrically distributed between the two distinct parts this poem is roughly divided into, the mythological and the practical, they aim at placing the Works and Days both within the framework of Hesiodic poetry as delineated by the Theogony and at determining its special nature within the wider corpus of archaic Greek epic. In what follows, I will first deal with sections belonging to the mythological part, such as the proem and the myth of

 43 See Il. 2.488–492. 44 Nünlist 2004, 29. 45 Pace Nünlist 2004, 30.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus races, and then with sections pertaining to the ‘manual of practical advice’ such as the Agriculture and Nautilia, where the emphasis is both on the figure of the poet as a skilled artisan and on the nature of Hesiodic didactic poetry as represented by the Works and Days.

.. The Proem of the Works and Days While not as long as the proem of the Theogony, the poetological interest of its counterpart in the Works and Days is beyond doubt. Its striking originality lies in the fact that it has two distinct addressees, the Muses (1–2) and Zeus (9–10). The Muses, who are linked to Pieria (Op. 1: Πιερίηθεν), are the addressees of the opening invocation. The word δεῦτε (2) expresses in the most tangible manner the hic et nunc of the performance, which is devoted to the praise of Zeus. The reference to the greatest of gods (2: Δί’—σφέτερον πατέρ’) sets in motion the expansion of the main subject, in accordance with the practice typologically established in the Homeric proems.46 The internal structure of this reference is contrived with the utmost care. Verses 3–4 are organized around two causal references to Zeus, which open (ὅν τε διά) and round off (4: Διός μεγάλοιο ἕκητι) the two verses in the form of ring composition. Within this framework, the total dependence of human beings on the god’s power is emphatically stressed, as the preceding statement (3) is followed by a chiastic pattern (A-: A+/ B+ : B-) which rests on the repetition of the root of the antithetical terms: ἄφατοι: φατοί—ῥητοί: ἄρρητοι. Schematically, the entire distich can be represented as follows: ὅν τε διὰ βροτοὶ ἄνδρες ὁμῶς ἄΦΑΤΟΙ τε ΦΑΤΟΙ τε, ῬHTOI τ’ ἄPPHTOI τε Διὸς μεγάλοιο ἕκητι. Through whom mortal men are unfamed and famed alike, and named and unnamed, by the will of great Zeus.

The rhetorical sophistication that is a component of hymnic language culminates in the three ensuing lines:47

 46 I am referring to the modification of the main theme (expressed in the accusative as the subject of the main verb) by accumulation of relative clauses. 47 The various types of characters used here connote correspondences and repetitions, while numbers above lines indicate syntactic similarities further reinforced by syllabic equivalence and symmetrical positioning.

Works and Days  

ῥέα μὲν γὰρ BPIAEI, ῥέα δὲ BPIAONTA χαλέπτει, 4 3 3 3 ῥεῖα δ’ ἀρίζηλον μινύθει καὶ ἄδηλον ἀέξει 3 3 4 2 ῥεῖα δέ τ’ ἰθύνει σκολιὸν καὶ ἀγήνορα κάρφει

The sequence comprising a four-syllable adjective + a three-syllable verb (4:3/ ἀρίζηλον: μινύθει) and a three-syllable adjective + a three-syllable verb (3:3 / ἄδηλον: ἀέξει) is repeated in almost inverted form in the following line with a three-syllable adjective + a three-syllable verb (3:3/ ἰθύνει: σκολιόν) and a foursyllable adjective + a two-syllable verb (4:2 / ἀγήνορα: κάρφει). The ring between the beginning (ὅν τε διὰ) and the end (Διὸς μεγάλοιο ἕκητι) of lines 3–4 lays the groundwork for the cumulative enumeration of the multiple aspects of Zeus’ power. The particular emphasis placed on the ease with which divine punishment is meted out by Zeus (5: ῥέα ..., ῥέα ... / 6: ῥεῖα ... / 7: ῥεῖα ...) is completed in verse 8: Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης, ὃς ὑπέρτατα δώματα ναίει. Whereas the initial invocation to the Muses probably rested more on its typological foundation than on any organic relationship with the proem of the Works and Days, the second address highlights the role of Zeus-sent justice.48 Last, but certainly not least, the poetic voice is felt in the final verse by (a) an emphatically expressed first-person declaration (ἐγώ), (b) an addressee designated by name (Πέρσῃ), and (c) recognisable Hesiodic poetological terms (ἐτήτυμα, μυθησαίμην). The elaborate construction of this proem compensates for its marked brevi49 ty. Its dual addressees, its studied sophistication, the almost mannerist pursuit of emphatic repetition and architecturally structured contrast, together with the striking first-person declaration of both the poetic ego and the internal listenercum-addressee of the poem, all show that for Hesiodic tradition the proem of the Works and Days constitutes the established framework for the pronouncement of its goal.50

 48 This second address, which is accompanied by a paratactic citation of important aspects of Zeus’ activity (9: κλῦθι ἰδὼν αἰών τε), leads to a narratively defined invocation: δίκῃ δ’ ἴθυνε θέμιστας | τύνη (9–10). 49 The term brevity is employed in comparison to the expanded proem of the Theogony. 50 On the proem of the Works and Days (1–10), see Lenz (1980, 182–252), who argues that its aim is to associate the order, justice and decorum symbolized by Zeus with the personal context of Hesiod’s life (249).

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus .. The Myth of Races In examining the poetics of one of the most famous passages in the Works and Days, I shall first discuss the poetological introduction in lines 106–108. After a critical engagement with the theories advanced thus far on the interpretation of the myth of races, I shall explore the kind of intertextual relationship shared by the divine genealogy in the Theogony and the human genealogy in the famous myth of races. ... The Poetological Introduction The poetological reading of the myth of races rests on the three introductory verses, with which the narrator opens his mythological digression: εἰ δ᾽ ἐθέλεις, ἕτερόν τοι ἐγὼ λόγον ἐκκορυφώσω εὖ καὶ ἐπισταμένως, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν. ὡς ὁμόθεν γεγάασι θεοὶ θνητοί τ᾽ ἄνθρωποι. If you wish, I shall recapitulate another story, correctly and skillfully, and you lay it up in your spirit: how the gods and mortal human beings came about from the same origin.

From the very outset, the narrator declares his ability to recount a λόγος (106) or didactic narrative. The emphasis placed on the acquiescence of Perses, as recipient of the digression, in hearing Hesiod’s λόγος recalls the proem of the Theogony, in which the Muses stress their ability regarding the telling of the truth (28). The difference between the two passages lies in the shift of focus from the speaker in the Theogony to the listener in the Works and Days. In poetological terms, this shift in focus is interpreted as a deviation from the pattern established by the Muses as portrayed in the Theogony. Divine speech is by definition authoritative and audience acceptance is taken for granted. In the Works and Days, however, Perses as an internal recipient of Hesiodic teaching must be willing to receive the advice and admonitions of the main narrator. By the expression λόγον ἐκκορυφώσω (106) the narrator unreservedly expresses his intention not only to reveal the central theme of the ensuing λόγος but also to bring it to its conclusion.51 The expression εὖ καὶ ἐπισταμένως (107) indicates

 51 See West 1978a, on Hes. Op. 106–107, and the Σ ad loc. (106–108 Pertusi): τὸ ἐκκορυφῶσαι δηλοῖ τὸ ἀποκαλύψαι καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄκραν γνῶσιν ἡμᾶς ἀναπέμψαι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. Δηλοῖ τὸ ἐπαγόμενον.

Works and Days  

that, just like the singer of the Odyssey52 and the narrator in the Theogony,53 Hesiod in the Works and Days will recite a story worthy of the audience’s attention. The second, adjunct meaning of the intra-carminal54 future ἐκκορυφώσω underlines its poetological dimension, since the narrator’s attention focuses on the very moment of performance, by recreating it. Likewise in the ensuing introductory verses of the myth about the hawk and the nightingale, the intracarminal future ἐρέω (202) enunciates the act of narration. ... Interpretive Approaches to the Myth of Races The linear theory adopts a vertical reading of the five races, seeing the gold race at the top and the iron one at the lowest point of a literally and metaphorically descending scale.55 Smith’s psychological theory56 argues that each race corresponds to a distinct age in human life, seen in ascending order, from childhood to old age. Attempts to identify Hesiod’s sources (orientalizing theory) began several years ago.57 The fundamental problem lies both in the race of heroes, which is interposed between the four metals, and in the fact that in the Works and Days, the myth of races is used in a way that differs radically from Eastern traditions: in the latter, the scale of four metals is used to predict the future, whereas in Hesiodic tradition the same scale, augmented by the race of heroes, is used to organize the past.58 Structuralist models mark a turning point, since the myth of races is not interpreted in a linear fashion, but rather on the basis of converging and diverging elements revealed by the analysis of the structure of each race. The first decisive contribution was made by Vernant,59 who argued that we are here dealing with six races rather than five, since the last in the chain, the iron race, can be further separated into two races, one of which relates to the present and the other to the future. According to Most’s structuralist model,60 the initial Hesiodic five-race division has two distinct levels. The first encompasses a tripartite categorization of the races into (a) gold, (b) silver and

 52 See Od. 11.368: μῦθον δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ ἀοιδὸς ἐπισταμένως κατέλεξας. 53 See Th. 86–88: ... ὃ δ᾽ ἀσφαλέως ἀγορεύων | αἶψά κε καὶ μέγα νεῖκος ἐπισταμένως κατέπαυσεν. 54 On the term ‘intra-carminal’ future, see Pelliccia 1995, 317–334. 55 Meyer 1966, 471–522 (= 1924, 15–66). 56 Smith 1980, 145–163. 57 See West 1997, 312–319. 58 See Smith 1980, 149. 59 Vernant 1960, 21–54 (= 1985, 19–45 = 1990, 13–43). 60 Most 1997, 104–127.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus (c) bronze, heroic, iron, and the second a four-part classification into (a) gold, (b) silver, (c) bronze and (d) heroic, iron. The tripartite categorization rests on two observations: firstly, Hesiod accompanies the introductory transition to the silver race with the note that ‘like the golden one neither in body nor in mind’ (129: χρυσέῳ οὔτε φυὴν ἐναλίγκιον οὔτε νόημα), and the respective preliminary reference to the bronze race with the clear statement that ‘not similar to the silver one at all (144: ... οὐκ ἀργυρέῳ οὐδὲν ὁμοῖον). Secondly, since no such explicit or latent comment is made on the other three races, it is clear that the Hesiodic tradition wishes to distinguish them from the two previous ones. Criteria for setting them apart are their biological make-up, descent and fate after death. The four-part classification rests on the fact that the Hesiodic tradition deliberately blurs the boundaries between the heroic and bronze races, the more so since there is no clear explanation of how the latter was created.61 Like Vernant’s horizontal structuralism, Most’s evolutionary model focuses on the heroic race, but differs from it in the way it sees its function. Setting out from the acknowledgment of the heroic race’s enigmatic eccentricity, which arises from its inclusion in a myth of races of eastern provenance, Most even speaks of the ‘trapping’ of an initial thematic core in the rationale of this epic. The greatest contribution made by this model lies both in its functional exploitation of the structural break represented by the heroic race within the continuity of the myth of races, and in its intertextual perspective, according to which the myth of races is incorporated in the wider framework of Hesiodic poetry and is interpreted by comparison with the divine archaeology of the Hesiodic Theogony.62 ... Poetics The heroic race should not be interpreted solely as arising from the pressure exercised by the Greek heroic tradition. The mode of its presentation is of vital significance. The insistence on the Theban and Trojan generation of heroes amounts to a statement of poetic beliefs, since through them Hesiodic poetry hints at the respective poetic traditions they emblematize. The unfulfilled nature of Hesiod’s wish (174–175) amounts to an implicit expression of his admiration for the poetic traditions represented by the heroes in Theban and Trojan myth. Beyond the narrative-based interpretation offered by Clay,63 the expres 61 See Most 1997, 111–113. This interpretive approach allows Most to account for the insertion of lines 173a–e that refer to the destruction of the heroic race by Zeus and to the creation of the iron race by the same god. 62 Most 1997, 127. 63 Clay 2003, 82–83.

Works and Days  

sion ἔπειτα γενέσθαι (175) could indicate Hesiod’s desire not to live in a time when evil has dominated the world and no poetic creation has any meaning. In extending Clay’s interpretation, I argue that Hesiodic poetry offers a poetological filter for the reference introducing the iron race in lines 174–175. It is preferable for a poet either to belong to a great epic tradition such as the Theban or the Trojan one or to live in a time when poetry is entirely absent, rather than to compose poetry about a world in which justice yields to injustice. Rather than undermining or invalidating Clay’s text-centred approach, the self-referential dimension of a poetological interpretation actually broadens its scope, by offering an explanation for Hesiodic insistence on interposing the race of heroes in the typologically established catalogue of races. Such introspection brings about functional realignments in the roles played by the bronze and iron generations. In the case of the Theogony, the Hesiodic tradition interrupts genealogically established catalogues relating to the gods to lend a particular interpretive tone to its own version. By analogy, whether with its Indo-European counterpart or its Eastern prehistory, the myth of races is built on the catalogue substructure that is so familiar in epic poetry. The four-metal race mythological pattern is interrupted by a ‘Greek interpolation’, which differentiates the function of the entire construct. Moreover, the internal breach in the iron race, whether in terms of the temporal bisection proposed by Vernant or the evolutionary dimension offered by Clay, presupposes the crucial role of the heroic race. It is thus no exaggeration to claim that it owes its importance to the fact that it is embedded at precisely this point in the catalogue-shaped myth of races.

.. Agriculture One of the most noteworthy forms of metaphor in epic poetry concerns the presentation of the poet as a skilled artisan. Schmitt and Campanile have convincingly shown that such poetological metaphors reflect Indo-European practice. The poet is a τέκτων ἐπῶν and his activity is equal to that of a professional.64 In two of the core sections of the Works and Days, the Agriculture and the Nautilia, Hesiodic poetry consistently employs poetological metaphors. The Agriculture section (383–617) contains such an extensive network of similarities between the lives of farmer and poet, that certain scholars have suggested a

 64 Schmitt 1967, 295–306; Campanile 1977, 35–54.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus figurative reading.65 By presenting the specialized knowledge possessed by the farmer as analogous to that of the poet and by connecting the skills of both these craftsmen to Zeus, the guiding principle permeating the entire poem, the Hesiodic tradition is able to introduce itself in emphatic manner, likening the poet to a craftsman whose work is familiar to the audience. The ‘labor and beggary’ sub-section (383–404) begins by determining the right season for undertaking farming activities, such as ploughing and harvesting. The initial phrase Πλῃάδων Ἀτλαγενέων ἐπιτελλομενάων | ἄρχεσθ᾽ ἀμήτου, ἀρότοιο δὲ δυσομενάων (383–4) containing the verb ἄρχομαι recalls its programmatic use in the proem of the Theogony and the proems of the Homeric Hymns.66 The poetological function of ἄρχομαι is guaranteed by its traditional referentiality67 and metonymic use in epic poetry. Given that the Agriculture section begins in the same way as Hesiodic poetry (Th. 1), the farmer-poet scenario becomes more likely. Moreover, the disappearance of the Pleiades from the sky for a period of forty days and nights must be interpreted as indicating a negative condition the farmer has to endure until he is allowed to begin cultivating the land.68 The farmer is advised to plough the earth after the rising of the Pleiades in the sky, just as Hesiod begins his song only after the divine epiphany of the Muses on Helicon. The analogy between farming and poetry is also implied by the expressions οὗτός τοι πεδίων πέλεται νόμος (388) and ἀχρεῖος δ᾽ ἔσται ἐπέων νομός (403).69 Of these two verses the former determines how agriculture is practiced, whereas the latter refers to Perses’ ‘meadow of words’,70 which will be completely useless when he asks for his neighbours’ assistance.71 Hesiodic tradition presents land cultivation (denoted by the former expression) as the antithesis of beggary (delineated by the latter). The language of Perses, his ἔπεα, being that of beggary,

 65 On the Agriculture section in Hesiodic poetry, see Tandy and Neale 1996; Nelson 1997; Marsilio 1997, 2000; Tsagalis 2006a, 94–102. 66 See above. 67 On traditional referentiality in Homer, see Foley 1991, 6–7; Kelly 2007a, 5–14 and n. 20. 68 The language of this passage recalls the beginning of the Theogony. Note the dictional similarities: κεκαλυμμέναι ἠέρι πολλῷ (Th. 9)—κεκρύφαται (Op. 386), πρώτιστα (Th. 24)—τὰ πρῶτα (Op. 387). 69 See West (1978a, on Hes. Op. 403), who offers the following parallel passages: Il. 20.248– 249; Hom. Hymn to Apollo 20–21; Pind. Nem. 3.82. Agriculture is used as a metaphor for poetry not only in Greek but also in Vedic tradition. See Nünlist 1998, 135. 70 Note the semantical and aural interplay between νόμος and νομός. 71 See Marsilio 2000, 8–9. Murnaghan (2006, 103–104) argues that ‘by making farming the main subject of his poem, Hesiod enhances his authority as a poet’.

Works and Days  

will be rejected both by his brother Hesiod (396–397)72 and by his neighbours. Being ἀχρεῖος, the ‘meadow of words’ Perses is using will not bear fruit, whereas the undertaking of agricultural work at the right season (394: ὥρι’ ἀέξηται) will eventually lead to a decent life. Extending this figurative antithesis further, one may plausibly argue that the πεδίων νόμος in the Agriculture section is a trace of the poetological dialect of the Works and Days in epic and didactic disguise.73 Furthermore, the Agriculture section displays a special interest in creating an analogy between the literal storing of the harvest by the farmer and the metaphorical storing of Hesiod’s advice in Perses’ mind. This analogy is exemplified by the following terms: (a) the verb φράζεσθαι is employed both for the advice given to Perses (404: φράζεσθαι χρειῶν τε λύσιν λιμοῦ τ’ ἀλεωρήν) and for the advice offered to the farmer (448: φράζεσθαι δ’ εὖτ’ ἂν γεράνου φωνὴν ἐπακούσεις); (b) the apostrophe νήπιε/μέγα νήπιε is employed both for Perses (286: σοὶ δ’ ἐγὼ ἐσθλὰ νοέων ἐρέω, μέγα νήπιε Πέρση, 396–397: ... ἐγὼ δέ τοι οὐκ ἐπιδώσω | οὐδ’ ἐπιμετρήσω· ἐργάζεο, νήπιε Πέρση, 633: ὥς περ ἐμός τε πατὴρ καὶ σός, μέγα νήπιε Πέρσῃ) and for the farmer (456: νήπιος, οὐδὲ τὸ οἶδ’·...);74 (c) the verb τίθεμαι is employed not only with respect to Perses (27: ὦ Πέρση, σὺ δὲ ταῦτα τεῷ ἐνικάτθεο θυμῷ) but also in reference to storing at home what is needed for building a carriage (456–457: νήπιος, οὐδὲ τὸ οἶδ᾽· ἑκατὸν δέ τε δούρατ᾽ ἀμάξης. | τῶν πρόσθεν μελέτην ἐχέμεν οἰκήια θέσθαι); (d) the importance of reciprocity in farming activities (349–350: εὖ μὲν μετρεῖσθαι παρὰ γείτονος, εὖ δ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι, | αὐτῷ τῷ μέτρῳ, καὶ λῴον, αἴ κε δύνηαι) as well as in recognizing Hesiod’s debt to the Muses (656–659: ἄεθλ᾽ ἔθεσαν παῖδες μεγαλήτορος· ἔνθα μέ φημι | ὕμνῳ νικήσαντα φέρειν τρίποδ᾽ ὠτώεντα. | τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ Μούσῃς Ἑλικωνιάδεσσ᾽ ἀνέθηκα, | ἔνθα με τὸ πρῶτον λιγυρῆς ἐπέβησαν ἀοιδῆς) is emphasized. Finally, another aspect of the poetological connotations of the Agriculture is the cicada imagery (582–584), which employs poetical vocabulary to suggest a dou-

 72 ἐγὼ δέ τοι οὐκ ἐπιδώσω | οὐδ᾽ ἐπιμετρήσω·. See also Op. 648: δείξω δή τοι μέτρα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης and Op. 694: μέτρα φυλάσσεσθαι. 73 Apart from the ‘meadow of words’ (see e.g. Choer. fr. 2.2 PEG), archaic epic employs two other ‘agricultural’ metaphors for poetic speech: (a) καρπός and (b) ploughing, sowing or pasturing. For examples, see Nünlist 1998, 135–141. 74 On the address νήπιος, νήπιε, μέγα νήπιε in Hesiodic poetry, see Clay 1993, 23–33.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus ble-edged analogy, the positive side of which refers to the Hesiodic poet, the negative side to Perses. Both intratextual associations75 and intertextual analogies76 clearly point to the metaphorical connection between poet and cicada.77 Petropoulos has suggested that this analogy may even, through the notorious laziness and lack of prudence of the cicada, constitute a veiled criticism of Perses.78 The cicada passage leads to further considerations concerning the poetics of the Agriculture. Ornithological (γέρανος, κόκκυξ) or entomological (τέττιξ) imagery indicates seasonal change: the crane (448–452) is associated with winter, the cuckoo (486–490) with spring, and the cicada (582–596) with summertime. In addition to the mechanisms used to link these forms of imagery, the activity of these three birds replays on the level of poetics what happens with respect to farming as seasons change. Beginning with winter and the crane, moving on to the cuckoo and spring, the internal narrator is clearly heading towards the summer and the cicada, whose activity he is willing to assimilate to that of the singer. The selection of the summer is not a random choice. It functions as a proleptic advance mention of the analogy that will be suggested in the ensuing Nautilia section between the literal sea journey and the metaphorical sailing on the sea of poetry, activities which must also take place in summertime.

.. Nautilia The Nautilia (seafaring) section has gained renown on account of a selfreferential poetological mention by Hesiod and a covert acknowledgement of Hesiodic epic. The poet refers to a poetic contest in which he took part at nearby Chalcis, where he won a tripod that he dedicated to the Muses on Helicon. The brief reference to Aulis, whence the poet crossed to Chalcis, serves as the springboard for a daring poetological leap: the bay at Aulis is linked to the departure of the Achaeans for Troy to win back Helen, and, as has been argued, by

 75 See Op. 1: ἀοιδῇσιν κλείουσαι—583: ἀοιδήν, 583: λιγυρὴν καταχεύετ’ ἀοιδήν—659: ἔνθα με τὸ πρῶτον λιγυρῆς ἐπέβησαν ἀοιδῆς, 583: δενδρέῳ ἐφεζόμενος —593: ἐν σκιῇ ἑζόμενον. 76 See Op. 582: ἠχέτα τέττιξ—Archilochus 223 IEG: τέττιγος ἐδράξω πτεροῦ, Callimachus, fr. 1.29–30 Pfeiffer: τῷ πιθόμη]ν· ἐνὶ τοῖς γὰρ ἀείδομεν οἳ λιγὺν ἦχον | τέττιγος, θ]όρυβον δ’ οὐκ ἐφίλησαν ὄνων. 77 See Nagy 19992, 302 n. 11; Rosen 1990, 107–109; Marsilio 2000, 77 n. 113. 78 See Petropoulos 1994, 77 n. 29.

Works and Days  

extension to Homeric poetry itself.79 Rosen has shown that the passage on seafaring functions as a pictorial triptych (113), in which the first and third parts present mercantile marine activities literally, while the autobiographical sphragis elucidates them by means of its poetological function.80 Thus the expressions ναυτιλίης δυσπεμφέλου ἵμερος αἱρεῖ (618), μέτρα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης (648), μέτρα φυλάσσεσθαι (694), ἔργων μεμνημένος εἶναι | ὡραίων πάντων (641–642), οὔτε τι ναυτιλίης σεσοφισμένος οὔτε τι νηῶν (649), τόσσόν τοι νηῶν γε πεπείρημαι πολυγόμφων (660), λιγυρὴν καταχεύετ’ ἀοιδήν (583), λιγυρῆς ἐπέβησαν ἀοιδῆς (659), the association of literal destitution with poetic poverty (see Op. 20–26) and the metaphor of the ship and wings (627–629) were cited by Rosen as evidence for an implicit statement on poetics permeating the entire section on seafaring. Both the first and third sections of the tripartite, ring-structure of the Nautilia, which contain advice given by the poet to his brother Perses, are didactic in tone and can be subdivided into three shorter parts, which are interrupted by the sphragis (646–662): ... Structure of the Nautilia (A) a. Bad weather: 618–629 b. Good weather: 630–640 c. A large cargo: 641–645 (B)

Sphragis: 646–662

(C)

b´. Good weather: 663–677 a´. Bad weather: 678–688 c´. A small cargo: 689–694

... Trade and Poetry The emphatic repetition of κέρδος (profit) and φόρτος (cargo) in the Nautilia is indicative of their importance. Profit is twice associated with the word ‘cargo’,81 making it clear that any attempt to offer a metaphorical interpretation of the former must rest on the similarly figurative meaning of the latter. In addition to

 79 Nagy 1982, 66; Hamilton 1989a, 69; Tsagalis 2006a, 105–113, pace Nicolai 1964, 126–127. West (1978a, 55) has argued that the sphragis had been initially composed as a proem of the Nautilia. 80 Rosen 1990, 99–113. See also Tsagalis 2006a, 105–113; 2006b, 232–252; 2007, 269–295. 81 Κέρδος—φόρτος: Op. 631–632, 644–645.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus the two cases already mentioned, the word φόρτος is encountered a further three times in the Nautilia, twice as a noun and once as a verb.82 With regard to lines 632 and 673, there is a striking insistence on the mention of οἶκος, where Perses must transport his profit or return quickly. In the third case (693), Hesiod is not referring to the sea, but to land transport on a wagon of a load so excessive that the axle breaks and the goods are destroyed. Nevertheless, the expression φορτία μαυρωθείη (693) used to describe the destruction of the cargo is colored by the verb (ἀ)μαυρόομαι, which is encountered twice more in the poem. In Op. 284 the adjective ἀμαυρός83 is used to describe the race of the perjurer, who is condemned to fall into obscurity and oblivion, in contrast to the faithfull man’s race, which is termed ἀμείνων (285). Furthermore, in Op. 325 (ῥεῖα δέ μιν μαυροῦσι θεοί, μινύθουσι δὲ οἶκον) it is clearly stated that the gods can easily bring about the destruction of one who steals or deceives. Indeed, if the phrase μινύθουσι δὲ οἶκον is interpreted as a more specific reference to the divine retribution awaiting the swindler, then the verb (ἀ)μαυρόομαι is being used by Hesiod in both its literal and metaphorical sense. It is worth remembering that the metaphorical use of the verb is known both from Solon84 and Simonides.85 The metaphorical use of the verb (ἀ)μαυρόομαι points to the metaphorical use of the noun φορτία, which, though referring to a load transported by land, corresponds to the danger of disaster at sea described earlier (687). Dougherty86 has argued that the Odyssey insists on appropriating the vocabulary of trade relating to the opposition of profit and deceit, so as to accord a positive evaluation to Odysseus’ song and a negative one to that of the swindler poets.87 Odyssean insistence on economic and trade imagery branches off in the presentation of a model of mutual generosity linked to the aristocratic ideal of gift exchange on the one hand, and the unilateral threat to stable economic activity posed by piracy on the other. Just as in the Odyssey and in Pindar,88 trade imagery is used in Hesiodic poetry to denote poetic competition. The metaphorical function of the word φορτίον, as intimated by the use of the verb (ἀ)μαυρόομαι, recontextualizes the meaning of profit and stresses the difference between a large vessel and a small one, and thus between a large and a small cargo.89 Within this  82 Op. 672 (φόρτος), Op. 693 (φορτία), Op. 690 (φορτίζεσθαι). 83 Op. 282–285. 84 4.34 IEG: τραχέα λειαίνει, παύει κόρον, ὕβριν ἀμαυροῖ. 85 531.5 PMG: ἐντάφιον δὲ τοιοῦτον οὔτ’ εὐρὼς | οὔθ’ ὁ πανδαμάτωρ ἀμαυρώσει χρόνος. 86 Dougherty 2001, 38–60. 87 See Od. 11.362–369. 88 Pind. Pyth. 2.62–68; Nem. 5.1–6. 89 Op. 643–645.

Works and Days  

framework, it is suggested that just as a large ship capable of bearing a large cargo is a necessary precondition for acquiring a large profit, so a grandiose epic composition is necessary for acquiring poetic fame. Hesiod appears to prefer a small ship,90 for all the profit to be gained by a large cargo.91 Later, in the third part, he advises his brother to load only a small portion of his goods on ship, leaving the greater part behind.92 With these instructions to poetic seafarers, Hesiod won the poetic contest at Chalcis with the less ambitious composition of the Theogony. Ring-composition reinforces and further specifies the cargo-metaphor: the small ship symbolizes a short epic composition that will offer a small but safer profit, while the larger ship denotes a large epic, i.e. Homer, which may bring great glory to the poet but is fraught with inherent risks. In this light, Hesiod leads us both into the world of poetry by means of the word φορτίον, and into the realm of poetic reward via the expression κέρδος ἄρηαι, which depends for its interpretation on the metaphorical φορτίον (‘cargo’). The findings of historical linguistics confirm that the association of profit with poets and poetry was initially taken for granted. According to Watkins93 and Campanile,94 in Celtic and more specifically Welsh tradition, the term equivalent to the Greek word κέρδος is rendered in the form cerdd, which means work and profession in general as well as poetic work, poetry, and music. In Greek poetic tradition, especially though not exclusively in Pindar’s epinicians, poetry is metaphorically presented as ‘redemption from a financial obligation or debt’.95 Returning to Hesiod, we see that the resemblance of κέρδος ἄρηαι (Op. 632) to its Homeric equivalent κλέος ἀρέσθαι and its formulaic allomorphs εὖχος, κῦδος ἀρέσθαι suggests that a distinct poetic voice begins to emerge in the disguise of an extended metaphor, proposing a new kind of poetic gain: no longer the Homeric κλέος, εὖχος or κῦδος but the κλέος of Hesiodic poetic composition, humbler but just as inspired as its Homeric counterpart. A comparison between the Hesiodic sphragis (Op. 646–662) with Odyssey 8.159–164 shows that Hesiodic poetry introduces a new, more complex interpretation of the word ἄεθλα/ἆθλα. Just as Odysseus is compared to a seafarer who attends both to the cargo he is transporting and to easy profit, so in the Works  90 Op. 643: νῆ’ ὀλίγην αἰνεῖν. 91 Op. 644: μείζων μὲν φόρτος, μεῖζον δ᾽ ἐπὶ κέρδει κέρδος. 92 Op. 689–690: μηδ᾽ ἐν νηυσὶν ἅπαντα βίον κοΐλῃσι τίθεσθαι· | ἀλλὰ πλέω λείπειν, τὰ δὲ μείονα φορτίζεσθαι. 93 Watkins 1995, 76. 94 Campanile 1977, 37. 95 See Nünlist 1998, 284–290.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus and Days, Perses must attend to seafaring (642–643) and also to the cargo he is transporting. Yet immediately thereafter, that same cargo becomes metaphorical, as Hesiod’s poetic output and the ἄεθλα/ἆθλα are not war or athletic competitions but rather poetic contests. Nevertheless, the latter are colored neither by the aristocratic ideal of reciprocity nor by the rapacious greed of deceit, but instead by the wisdom and knowledge of mercantile success, the reaching out of poetic creation to a wider public, no longer in miserable Ascra but in Chalcis, the metaphorical gate to poetic fame. Hesiod’s poetic contests and the prizes awarded for his victory call for the mind of a sea trader who, being aware of the μέτρα of seafaring, will successfully sail the sea of poetry. Comparison of the way in which the Odyssey and Hesiod’s Nautilia present maritime trade determines the frequency we must tune to if we are to apprehend the extent of Hesiodic emancipation from Homeric tradition. The Odyssey capitalizes on the contrast between two distinct variants of nautical activity, which are epitomized by two seafaring communities, the Phaeacians and the Phoenicians. According to Dougherty,96 these communities share certain traits, such as impressive wealth accumulation and remarkable proficiency in weaving, ships and maritime activity in general. Nevertheless, the two peoples can be radically differentiated as regards the way in which they conduct trade. The Odyssey even presents the Phaeacians and Phoenicians as occupying diametrically opposed positions, since the former do not engage in profit-making activities, despite the fact that they are excellent sailors, while the latter are famed merchants and gifted sailors. The Phaeacians inhabit an imaginary world, where the everlasting fertility of the earth and the bounty of agricultural produce enable them to practise almost altruistic gift exchange, while the Phoenicians have turned to merchant maritime activity by force of need. The Odyssey ‘attempts to carve out a position for the Greeks somewhere between the idealized model of gift exchange represented by the Phaeacians and the negative image of trade as a kind of piracy projected by the Phoenicians’.97 Comparison of maritime activity as presented by the Odyssey and Hesiod reveals that the Works and Days renegotiate the middle ground which the Odyssey reserves for Odysseus himself and, through him, for the Greeks. In the Works and Days, however, the middle ground is defined as a personal difference between two brothers, Hesiod and Perses. While the Odyssey mingles Phaeacian and Phoenician traits in the multifaceted personality of Odysseus, the Works and Days deliberately engage in the projection of a dynamic correspondence between productive work and well organized  96 Dougherty 2001, 102–121, and especially 112. 97 Dougherty 2001, 112.

Works and Days  

maritime trade on the one hand, and idleness and risky profiteering on the other. In addition, in the Works and Days Hesiodic poetry takes further advantage of this thematic backdrop, using it as both a starting point and a pretext for poetological reflection stemming from the creative appropriation and transcendence of the Odyssey tradition. The interpretation proposed here is lent further support by the reference to the award bestowed on Hesiod in lines 656– 659. As a symbol of athletic triumph victors dedicated wreaths to their cities, which would accord them protection of sorts, as an almost magical deterrent against danger. In the same way, Hesiod dedicated the tripod he won at the poetic contest in Chalcis to the Muses on Helicon who first taught him the art of song. Kurke98 has argued that κῦδος, as projected in Pindar and Bacchylides’ epinician odes, is a political adaptation of its Homeric predecessor, whereby the city takes the place of the Homeric king who received the victor’s glory. As for the Hesiodic sphragis relating to the bestowal of an award on the poet at Chalcis, athletic terminology (ἆθλα, νικήσαντα) and dedication of the tripod to the Muses are framed by seafaring and mercantile metaphors. To paraphrase the title of the aforementioned article by Kurke, the Nautilia is transformed into the symbolic economy of Hesiodic κλέος. Just as maritime trade competition yields profit, so poetic competition yields poetic profit. The twofold meaning of ἆθλα, which designate both poetic contests and the victor’s prize, makes the games in honor of Amphidamas at Chalcis the perfect occasion for Hesiodic poetry to promote its output and become known to a public different from that in insignificant Ascra. Clay99 has argued that Hesiod’s autobiographical references are metaphorical rather than literal, and that the reference to Cyme as the homeland of Hesiod’s father may reflect an attempt to downplay Hesiod and Homer’s common descent (according to Herodotus’ Vita Homeri), in order to promote their subsequent differentiation within the framework of epic poetry. In this conception, the entirely negative presentation of Ascra should be interpreted in terms of poetic metaphor rather than historical geography. In mapping out the dangers of his poetic isolation, Hesiod is attempting to make his poetry reach out to a wider public. Ascra and Chalcis, or poetic isolation and the publicization of his poetry, may constitute the two poles of Hesiodic poetic topography, which itself knows of ‘well-bolted’ (πολύγομφα) ships and the μέτρα of the wild sea, i.e. it knows— more hesiodeo—

 98 Kurke 1993, 137–138. 99 Clay 2003, 181.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus how to sail the sea of archaic epic. In this light, the following poetic strategy, as argued by Obbink,100 becomes very important: In the archaic and early classical period such extreme sphragidization, which we may define as the embedded assertion of the identity of the poet with his narrative persona, betrays anxieties over the ownership of poetry and its status as property. The introduction of addressee(s) is one way in which the relationship between the poet and his audience may be articulated or negotiated, in such a way that a poet nominally retains control over the poem as created artifact, but initiates its transfer to a general audience through the mediation of an elite exclusive addressee.

Τhe property dispute is no more real than Hesiod himself and Perses, who are mere masks behind which Hesiodic tradition, appropriating contemporary epic and lyric conventions, reveals its character, public and goal. The Hesiodic poetic tradition of didactic epic fabricated the property dispute with an ‘intimate’ addressee, Perses, to renegotiate its relationship with its audience. The fraternal relationship between Hesiod and Perses is a functional analogy serving the poetry’s admonitory nature. Other noteworthy examples of addressees are Cyrnus in the corpus Theognideum, Pausanias in Empedocles, Theodorus in Dionysius Chalkous, and Moschus in Archestratus of Gela.101 Typically, the preference is for an addressee of equal status to the person offering advice. In contrast to Eastern poetic traditions, in which the addressee is usually the son of the counsellor, the above examples show that the choice of equal status for the person acting the role of advisor or teacher is of crucial significance in didactic poetry. This interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that Hesiod’s apparently different poetic personae as an advisor or judge in the Works and Days and as eulogist of the divine world in the Theogony are interconnected by his selfpresentation as an immigrant. Martin102 has argued that Hesiod’s autobiographic references in the Works and Days (whether they concern the poet himself, his father or his brother Perses), certain distinguishing features of his dialect (such as a number of aeolisms), the tendency to use maxims and, finally, the preference shown for rare words over more common ones (ἀνόστεος, φερέοικος)103 should be evaluated in relation to the audience. Hesiod is presented as a foreigner offering advice precisely because he is thus more likely to persuade his audience. The didactic character of this poetry necessitates the creation of spe 100 Obbink 1993, 79 n. 61. 101 On the function of a poetic sphragis, see Kranz 1961, 3–46 and 97–124. 102 Martin 1992, 11–33. 103 On Hesiodic ‘Riddle-Words’ (Rätselwörter) in the form of Kennings, see Troxler 1964, 21– 28. On Kennings in general, see Waern 1951.

The Catalogue of Women  

cial textual conditions for the articulation of its respective message. By fabricating a brother, Perses, instead of a son to whom his didache would be addressed, Hesiod disposes of the typical opposition between teacher and student, father, and son or an older and younger man precisely because the position from which he wishes to speak is that of a wandering bard,104 and not that of an old sage. In adopting the wisdom of an immigrant, Hesiod and his tradition can tune the audience to their own particular note, and lay claim to the success of their admonitory teaching.105

. The Catalogue of Women One of the most fascinating aspects of the Catalogue of Women is closely connected to its nature as a catalogue, which becomes even more significant given the catalogue-form of a large part of the Theogony. Recent studies on the Catalogue of Women have rekindled interest in the reconstruction and function of this work within the Hesiodic corpus. In the case of the Catalogue of Women, more than in any other poem of the Archaic Period, reconstruction and interpretation represent complementary philological desiderata, since the way the Catalogue of Women is structured is directly linked to the way it has been structured, to the process through which it has come into being. By extension, the formation and shaping of the Catalogue of Women is relevant to its place within Hesiodic poetics.

.. The Hesiodic Nature of the Catalogue of Women The Catalogue of Women aims at presenting a Panhellenic overview of the Heroic Age, spanning a large part of the Greek world. If we adopt West’s fourfold organization of the genealogical material, reflected in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, then we can see that the world of heroes is presented through a progression from the very beginnings of the world of mortals to the heroic age. In this respect, the Catalogue of Women shows itself to be strongly Hesiodic, in that it abides by the built-in linearity characteristic of the genealogical Hesiodic epic

 104 Wanderers are associated with both truth and lies. See Montiglio 2005, 91–100. Murnaghan (2006, 99) observes that ‘wanderers have access to information that is beyond the purview of their audiences because it is removed in space or even other-wordly’. 105 See Martin 1992, 11–33.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus par excellence, the Theogony.106 In fact, the Catalogue of Women presupposes knowledge not simply of theogonic material but of the Hesiodic Theogony itself. As early as the proem of the Catalogue of Women the audience is invited to enter the performance at the point the Theogony came to completion (Th. 1021– 1022 = Cat. 1–2). At the same time, much of what is said before the invocation to the Muses is recapitulated (Cat. fr. 1.9: τάων ἔσπετε Μ[οῦσαι) does not recall any particular passage of the Theogony but partly107 what is said about the race of gold in the Works and Days. The last part (vv. 10–22) of the proem108 is in bad shape but the order of divine names, which we can still discern, ‘seems to correspond to the gods enumerated in the list contained in vv. 930–961 of the Theogony’.109 The proem of the Catalogue of Women shows itself to be truly Hesiodic, in the sense that it forms integral part of an unattested Hesiodic Cycle of epic poetry, whose ‘each individual section both mirrors the theme of the whole and goes into making it’.110 The Prometheus and Pandora episodes form a bridge that links the three principal epics of the Hesiodic corpus, the Theogony, the Works and Days, and the Catalogue of Women. However, the function, size, and placement of these two episodes reveal a significant shift of emphasis and scope. Whereas in the Theogony, the reference to Pandora is basically subordinated to an entire mythical episode featuring Zeus and Prometheus as its protagonists, in the Works and Days the Prometheus episode functions as a prelude to the larger and more important Pandora episode that follows. In the Theogony, the Prometheus episode is narrated retrospectively, i.e. after the Hesiodic narrator has told his audience about the punishment of Prometheus and his salvation by Heracles. Conversely, the Works and Days follow a linear unravelling of the story, but they pick up the Prometheus episode only after Zeus has discovered that he has been deceived, at the point where he informs the arrogant descendant of Iapetus that he, together with mortal men, will be punished. Whereas in the Theogony it is

 106 See West 1985, 125–130. Osborne (2005, 8 n. 4) dissociates this issue from the problem of dating the three major Hesiodic poems. 107 The heroes sit next to the gods and feast with them, but some of them seem to age, unlike their counterparts in the golden race. See Clay 2005, 26–27. 108 The proem of the Catalogue of Women has a tripartite structure: (a) vv. 1–2: first invocation to the Muses; (b) an extended description of the subject matter of this epic, initiated by a relative clause and accumulating information that is organized in parataxis (very much in the manner of the proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey); (c) recapitulation of the initial invocation (see Od. 1.1 and 1.10) and determination of a starting point (Cat. 16: πρῶτα, see Il. 1.6). 109 Clay 2005, 27. The first who made this observation was Treu 1957, 173 n. 8. 110 Nelson 2005, 334.

The Catalogue of Women  

the Prometheus episode that looms large, in the Works and Days it is the story of Pandora. In addition, although both epics seem to use these episodes in order to highlight the fact that Zeus cannot be deceived (Th. 613, Op. 105), the Works and Days problematize the power of logos, since there is an incongruity between Zeus’ orders and their execution by various gods.111 In the Catalogue of Women, the Prometheus and Pandora references are not presented separately but as a foil for the generation of the first mortal couple, Deucalion and Pyrrha. Once the transition from the theogonic environment to the mortal world is effected, the Catalogue of Women moves on to Hellen whose three sons (Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus) represent the beginnings of the Greek heroic world. With respect to placement, and if we treat the three major Hesiodic works as parts of a whole, we may observe a regressive tendency, according to which Prometheus and Pandora (who always appear together in the Hesiodic corpus) are placed closer to the beginning of the epic as we move from the Theogony to the Works and Days and then to the Catalogue of Women. In particular, whereas in the Theogony the two episodes are placed in the second part of the poem, in the Works and Days they are located roughly at the beginning of the mythical first part, and in the Catalogue of Women right after the proem. By dint of these observations, it can be plausibly argued that the sequence of the Prometheus and Pandora references mark the Catalogue of Women as a Hesiodic composition par excellence. Likewise, Heracles is not just a mythical figure but also a device underlying the Hesiodic nature of the Catalogue of Women. The reversal of the chronological order of the events pertaining to his life (since his death precedes his birth) has been explained as ‘a move from the cosmogonic to the heroic: the life of Heracles provides a link between the two, with his death a part of the ordering of the cosmos and his labors belonging to the realm of the heroic’.112 By juxtaposing the birth of Heracles with the beginning of the Trojan War, the Catalogue of Women brings the theogonic cosmogony to an end and makes the transition to the heroic world. Heracles is, therefore, transformed into a figurative linchpin that stitches together the divine cosmos and the world of heroes.113 Given that  111 On this issue, see Robert 1914, 28; West 1978a, on Hes. Op. 73–75; Clay 2003, 122 n. 56; Tsagalis 2006b, 191–193; Wolkow 2007, 247. 112 Fletcher 2006, 3. 113 See Haubold 2005, 95–98. This is a development that should be examined against the backdrop of early Greek epic focusing on Heracles. If the shaping of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women is dated to the middle of the fifth century BC, then it is preceded by epics featuring on Heracles, such as the Oechalias Halosis by Creophylus of Samos and the Heraclea by Pisander of Camiros. The former epic is centred on a single episode, the bride contest for Iole and sack of Oechalia by Heracles, while the latter contained all of the hero’s labors and some other deeds

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus Hesiodic poetry at large stands in stark contrast to the narrative seamlessness of Homeric epic,114 the audience is thus reminded that the Catalogue of Women is not a series of human genealogies but a prismatic, sophisticated narrative with multiple temporalities, voices, and registers115 and a distinct and recognisable Hesiodic tone.

.. Genealogical Organization and Lemmatization The Catalogue of Women displays a complex structure, which consists of an external geographical organization with genealogical material that is fused with non-genealogical lemmata. This conflated form of genealogical material, which has been thematically organized in cycles but dictionally in lemmata introduced by the ehoie-formula, results in the disruption of narrative linearity and creates ‘ruptures in the chronological fabric of the story’.116 The ἠ’ οἵη-formula is an elliptical expression employed to introduce a story or a genealogy. It seems that it is a relic of an older epic phase, in which it functioned as an ‘oral lemma’ within a series or chain of women stories.117 The use of the ehoie-formula has been aptly called ‘resumptive-progressive’,118 so that the poet can ‘leap back from the end of the branch of the genealogy to a higher point in an earlier one’.119 In fact, the Catalogue of Women exhibits a tension between the ehoieformula and a larger genealogical superstructure. This tension consists of two opposing forces, a centripetal one that is expressed by the genealogical framework, and a centrifugal one indicated by the ehoie-formulas. These antithetical forces may stem from the fusion of two pre-existing genres, genealogical poetry and non-genealogical catalogues of women using the ehoie-formula. According to Rutherford’s analysis, the ehoie-formula is nothing more than a vestigial

 (see Tsagalis 2022, 76, 118 and 181). The rise of epic poetry in which Heracles was the linchpin holding the entire plot together, especially in the case of the episodic epic by Pisander, may have functioned as a model or at least as an example of how Heracles could be employed as a unifying device of the plot. On Creophylus’ Oechalias Halosis and Pisander’s Heraclea, see Tsagalis 2022. 114 Nelson 2005, 333–335. 115 Haubold 2005, 96–98. 116 Haubold 2005, 96. 117 See Hirschberger 2004, 30. 118 Rutherford 2000, 83. 119 Rutherford 2000, 83.

The Catalogue of Women  

element within the overall organization of the Catalogue of Women.120 Even though the intersection of the centripetal and centrifugal forces described above is a literary phenomenon, it may also have social and political resonances. The more we think about the kind of audience that would have been interested in such poetic hybrids as the Catalogue of Women, the more we realize that it must reflect a reaction to the social meddling brought about by the emerging Greek polis of the sixth century BC.121 The way various genealogies are presented in the Catalogue of Women is the result of conflation of material stemming from local genealogies (except the Pelasgid and Attic stemmata) with material created as a result of tendencies of expansion and interpolation, which exercised their influence on the older genealogical substratum either because there was a need to incorporate additional territories and/or because specific political interests had to be catered for.122 Given that the Catalogue of Women seems to follow a geographical progression from western to eastern Greece, the use of a ‘para-Hesiodic’ tradition such as the ehoie-formula may have originated in a place where the Deucalionid stemma, which abounds in ehoiai, is particularly prominent, i.e. North-West Greece/Western Peloponnese.123 It is in that region that its first phase can be located, though it seems a plausible hypothesis that it originated from East Locris, an area with strong genealogical background and a matrilinear system of inheritance. West postulates a final but formative stage in the encyclopaedic shaping of the Catalogue of Women as we have it, a stage particularly connected to Attica.124

.. Typology: Form, Content, Narrative The Catalogue of Women displays a number of typical features with respect to its form, the more so since it represents the culmination of a tradition of catalogue poems. Before determining and discussing in brief some of these formal charac 120 Rutherford 2000, 93. 121 See Irwin 2005, 35–84 (with criticism by Fletcher 2006 and Aloni 2017, 3–28); Ormand 2014. 122 See West 1985, 164–165. 123 West 1985, 166–168. 124 West 1985, 168–171. Cf. Fowler (1998, 1–19), who argues that the Catalogue of Women presupposes knowledge of the political situation of the Delphic Amphictyony in the early sixth century BC; Hirschberger (2004, 32–51) places the composition of the Catalogue of Women between 630 and 590 BC.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus teristics, a necessary caveat should be taken into account: given our limited knowledge of this genre, it is likely that some of these features do not pertain to its deep structure but are concomitant with catalogue-poetry in its broader sense. The Catalogue of Women systematically assigns names, often not distinctive, to female figures.125 It is not at all rare to find in it the names of women who feature in myths known from other sources but are not named there.126 The fact that these names are always specified indicates not only that they are not important per se but also, and perhaps pre-eminently, that the pressure of the genealogical background of this genre is so strong that it almost requires specification of names. Sometimes aesthetic purposes are at work, as is the case with the colorless Clidanope, whose artificial name ‘serves only to make a genealogical link’.127 With respect to names embedded in lists, usually one- or two-verse long, certain phonological factors pertaining to the surface features of epic song (rhythm, alliteration, assonance, formulaic nature of epic diction) exercise their own influence in selecting and assembling a group of names within a given chunk of verses.128 Associative and semantic prompts must be also taken into account, but they are significantly harder to determine. Given that they are relevant to place names, not just personal ones, and that the Catalogue has a strong geographical aspect, I will deal with them when I discuss the performance context and function of this epic. As far as phonological devices with respect to the selection and order of personal names are concerned, I have detected the following sound patterns: (a) word-initial assonance (fr. 33[a] 9 M-W): Εὐαγόρην τ]ε καὶ Ἀντιμένην καὶ Ἀλάστορα [δῖον129 (b) word-terminal assonance (fr. 25.19 M-W): Ὕλλον καὶ Γλῆνον καὶ Κτήσιππον καὶ Ὀνείτην (c) a + b combined (fr. 33[a] 11 M-W): Δηΐμαχόν τε] καὶ Εὐρύβιον κλειτόν τ’ Ἐπίλαον

 125 Lyons 1997, 54; Rutherford 2000, 83. 126 Lyons 1997, 54. 127 West 1985, 88. I owe this reference to Lyons 1997, 54. 128 On assonance and other sound-based associations in Hesiod, see the next chapter in this volume. 129 On stock names like Ἀλάστωρ (‘Avenger’) stemming from war epic traditions (Il. 4.295; 5.677; 8.333) and their pragmatic use in list-making, see Minchin 2001, 93.

The Catalogue of Women  

(d) verse-initial word-terminal + verse-internal word-terminal assonance (fr. 25.15–16) M-W: Φηρέα θ’ ἱππόδαμ[ον καὶ ἐυμ]μελίη̣[ν Ἀγέ]λαον Τοξέα τε Κλύμενό[ν τε ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ.[ον] Ἄρηϊ (e) verse-internal word-terminal + verse-terminal word-terminal assonance (fr. 33[a] 11–12 M-W): Δηΐμαχόν τε] καί Εὐρύβιον κλειτόν τ’ Ἐπίλαον Νέστορά τε Χ]ρομίον τε Περικλύμενόν τ’ ἀγέρωχον (f) three-step progressive syllable increase (fr. 23.a.5 M-W): Λήδη [τ’ Ἀλθαίη τε Ὑπερμήστρη τε βοῶπις

Similar sound-patterns have been discerned in lists and catalogues attested both in Homeric poetry, such as, inter alia, the Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.494– 759), the Catalogue of Trojans and their Allies (2.819–877), the Catalogue of Nereids (18.39–48), and the catalogue of Phaeacians (Od. 8.111–114), and in the Hesiodic Theogony, in which one can find abundant examples of list-making. Paratactic structure is a general feature of Archaic epic and so its preeminent use in the Catalogue of Women should not be considered a typical characteristic of this genre. On the other hand, the built-in paratactic structure of catalogue-poetry stems from the fact that every item and entry is treated as of equal importance by the tradition and that information is assessed through a process of ‘replaying a single event or action’.130 In this conception, parataxis facilitates the processing of high-density data and counterbalances the lack of a sequence of events, as found in the case of regular narrative. Some ehoiai have a tripartite structure: (a) in the first part (‘presentation/ Vorstellung’) the main female character is introduced; (b) in the second (‘procreation myth/Zeugungsmythos’) the narrative concerning the love-story of a god with a mortal woman is unraveled;131 (c) and in the third and final part descendants (‘offspring/Nachkommenschaft’) are named.132 Since this structure, which is often reshaped and modified, represents a typical structural principle followed in Greek epic of the Archaic Period, we do not know whether it belongs

 130 Minchin 2001, 79. 131 Davies (1992, 7) suggests that an elaboration may increase to such an extent that ‘it overwhelms the catalogue format’, when a story ‘grows in length and involvement [and] the emphasis changes from each entry as a part of the whole catalogue to each entry as a selfcontained unit’. 132 I owe the German terms to Trüb 1952, 54.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus to the ‘deep structure’ of ehoie-poetry, even though it is also observed in Homeric, not only, Hesiodic ehoiai.133 Recurrent formulas attested in the ehoiai are: ὑποδμηθεῖσα (‘subdued [in marriage]’ and ὑποκυσαμένη γείνατο/τέκε (‘after conceiving she begot’), λέχος εἰσαναβᾶσα (‘[she] is going up into [somebody’s] bed’), and ἵπποισίν τε καὶ ἅρμασι κολλητοῖσι (‘[lead off to marriage with a dowry of] horses and closelyjoined chariots’), ὑπέσ]χετ[ο] μυρία ἕδνα (‘innumerable wedding gifts promised or offered’).134 Other recurrent dictional features include the following: a praising epithet referring either to female beauty or chastity or to the children a mortal woman begets to a god (e.g. Μήστρη ἐυπλόκαμος [fr. 43a.4 M-W], παρθένος ἀδμής [fr. 59.4 M-W],135 ἀγλαὰ τέ]κνα [fr. 31.2 M-W]), and the separation of divine from mortal children, who are introduced by the expression τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους ... [τέκ’] (fr. 25.14 M-W). These characteristics are all related, directly or indirectly, to the themes of marriage and lovemaking, which are frequently attested in the Catalogue of Women.136 The language of the Catalogue of Women, at least with respect to women, is traditional. Although most of the epithets used to modify a female figure are also attested in Homeric and Hesiodic epic as well as the Homeric Hymns,137 there is evidence showing that new combinations138 of traditional elements do occur and new phrases139 are created by analogy. Cohen, who has studied the ‘female language’ of the Catalogue of Women, has argued that in the case of women who are also known from early epic poetry the poet of the Catalogue of Women ‘appears to be more specific and rather more expansive’140 because he wants to emphasize the fact that ‘it was women such as these who attracted the amorous attention of the gods’.141  133 See Trüb 1952, 53–54. 134 Fr. 43a21 M-W. 135 See Hirschberger 2004, 336. 136 Trüb 1952, 53–54; see also Rutherford 2000, 83 and 264 n. 10 for a complete list of relevant attestations. 137 See Cohen 1989, 16–20. 138 Fr. 30.25 M-W: Τυρὼ ἐυπ]λόκαμος ἰκέλη χ[ρ]υσῇ Ἀφρο[δ]ίτ[ῃ. ἰκέλη χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ is used in Homer with respect to Briseis (Il. 19.282), Cassandra (Il. 24.699), and Penelope (Od. 17.37, with an internal expansion that includes Artemis). For more examples see Cohen 1989, 21. 139 Frs. 73.3 M-W (Atalante), 43a.4 M-W (Mestra), 196.6 M-W (Helen): Χαρί]των ἀμαρύγματ’ ἔχο[υσα seems to have been created by analogy to Χαρίτων ἄπο κάλλος ἔχουσα (fr. 215.1–2 M-W with respect to Cyrene) and Od. 6.18 (referring to Nausicaa’s maids). For more examples see Cohen 1989, 22. 140 Cohen 1989, 26. 141 Cohen 1989, 27.

The Catalogue of Women  

Given that the ἠ’ οἵη formula has been treated above, I will now discuss only certain aspects of its function that have not been previously dealt with. West contends that the ἠ’ οἵη formula with its disjunctive nature presupposes an initial paradigm, which would have been introduced by a simple οἵη and that this may have been the case with Pyrrha.142 This is an attractive hypothesis. In other epic catalogues or lists containing internal catalogue-features, a word is usually repeated with the addition of a particle indicating the addition of further items. An interesting example is the description of the Shield of Achilles in Iliad 18.478–608. The scenes depicted on each band of the shield are introduced by the ecphrastic-descriptive formula ἐν δὲ, which recapitulates a single ἐν μὲν employed only for the central boss of the shield, which is described first. The same is the case with the τὴν δὲ μετ’ ... ἴδον formula, which is used in the first Nekyia (Od. 11.225–332). This stereotypical lemmatization mechanism is based on the expression ‘πρώτην + acc. of feminine noun + ἴδον’, which introduces the first entry in the Catalogue of Heroines, Tyro.143 Given that this technique is similar to the use of the ἠ’ οἵη formula in the Catalogue of Women, West’s suggestion is further strengthened. It seems that this mechanism of creating an internal taxonomical principle of organization, which would be based on an initial itemizing device, is corollary to the technique of increment recall employed in list-learning.144 According to this method of memorization, a person first learns a part of a list and rehearses it several times, until the list has been firmly memorized. He then proceeds by learning another part, which he rehearses separately and then, when memorized, adds to the first part. The learner can go on in this way, building only upon solid memory-acquired foundations. In this light, the use of an itemizing device based on an initial taxonomical mechanism (such as the ἠ’ οἵη formula or the ἐν μὲν formula) facilitates seriation,145 the practice of sequential data-processing, since the repetition of such an oral lemma would key the singer or the performer of a list on the required note and trigger in his memory the subsequent chunk of relevant material. With respect to content, the Catalogue of Women focuses on women, although one can discern a tendency to use female stories as the frame within

 142 West 1985, 56; Rutherford 2000, 83. 143 See Rutherford 2000, 93–94. 144 See Baddeley 1990, 40–42, 156–158. See also Minchin (2001, 89 n. 41), to whom I owe the previous reference. 145 On ‘seriation’, see Mandler & Dean 1969, 207–215. I owe this reference to Minchin 2001, 89 n. 41.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus which male stories will be narrated.146 A typical example of this tendency is the ehoie of Alcmene, where the myth of Alcmene is, in fact, an introduction to the story of Heracles.147 The Catalogue of Women treats women stories by adopting an encomiastic stance. Female aretalogies are not spelled out in the most emphatic manner but praise is clearly a high priority. This observation is corroborated by the fact that in the Catalogue of Heroines in Odyssey 11, Alcinoos intervenes by shelving the Catalogue of Women poetry and asks Odysseus to talk about male heroic epic.148 His request reflects the tendency to obliterate female poetry and highlight the importance of male-centred epic traditions. Rutherford’s claim that the Catalogue of Heroines in the Odyssey preserves an older phase in the evolution of ehoie-poetry is thus reinforced, since it indicates that the tradition of the Odyssey promotes encomium only for its own protagonists, Odysseus and Penelope, by highlighting the former’s supremacy concerning his Iliadic and other Cyclic rivals (Agamemnon, Achilles, Ajax), and by downplaying potential female epic rivals for the latter, such as ehoie-poetry heroines (Tyro, Alcmene)149 or Cyclicepic antagonists (like Clytaemestra in the Nostoi).150 Alcinoos, who is interested in the Iliadic stories of Odysseus, requests that Odysseus change genre and move from female catalogues to male heroic poetry. In fact, he phrases this request by leaving the ehoie-part of Odysseus’ account completely unmentioned and by using the word οἷα (11.364), which in this context might allude to ehoiepoetry.151 Rutherford has underscored the light tone of a fair number of women stories of the Catalogue of Women.152 In spite of some exceptions,153 his observation is correct but begs, I think, for an explanation. Fantastic, almost superhuman,  146 On this tendency as an argument concerning the shaping of the Catalogue of Women and its relation to the Odyssey, see below on Genre. 147 Rutherford 2000, 86. 148 Most (1992) argues that in the first Nekyia of the Odyssey there are allusions to the epics of Return (Odyssey, Telegony), ehoie-poetry, Iliadic and Cyclic epic pertaining to the Trojan War (Iliad, Aethiopis, Ilias parva), and to the Hesiodic Theogony. 149 See Od. 2.118–122. The genealogical information embedded in the Catalogue of Heroines allows for connections between the various entries, in the manner of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Sammons (2007, 164–165) argues that even ‘in transforming genealogy into catalogue proper, the result is a disarticulated and fragmentary vision of history’. 150 See Od. 24.192–202. 151 Skempis and Ziogas 2009. 152 Rutherford 2000, 86. 153 Fragments 131–132 M-W (Proitides) and 176 M-W (about the daughters of Leda) are far from being light in tone.

The Catalogue of Women  

deeds (like Iphiclus who ‘upon the fruiting tops of asphodel he ran and did not break them’), pastoral scenes (fr. 70 M-W), and even comic stories (the ehoie of Mestra)154 that are equally attested in the Catalogue of Women may well be related to the light tone of female episodes mentioned above. More light tone scenes and a fondness for the grotesque are typical of the poems of the Epic Cycle and, as has been repeatedly shown, the key feature distinguishing the highly selective Iliadic and (to a lesser extent) Odyssean traditions from their Cyclic rivals.155 Viewed from this vantage point, the light tone of certain women stories featured in the Catalogue of Women seems to be a built-in characteristic of this genre. Other motifs attested in the Catalogue of Women are divine punishment (e.g. Zeus vs Salmoneus,156 Zeus and Hera vs Alcyone and Ceyx),157 divine care and gifts offered to mortals (e.g. Harmonia receives for her marriage to Cadmus a peplos from Athena),158 metamorphosis (e.g. the daughters of Porthaon are turned into Sirens)159 and immortality (e.g. Heracles)160 in the form of apotheosis,161 emphasis on marriage, birth and envy. In particular the last motif seems to be the most developed in the Catalogue of Women and is further divided into the following sub-motifs: (a) a woman has children by a god but is married to a mortal after whom the children are named (Molione gives birth to twin sons, who take their name not from their father Poseidon but from Actor, the mortal husband of Molione; 162 likewise Iphimedea’s sons are named after her mortal husband Aloeus, not from Poseidon who is their real father);163 (b) women fall in love with gods (Demodice);164 (c) a girl is abducted by a god, who brings her to a place where they have sex and where the children are born; sometimes the maiden is named after this place and their offspring become kings there (Europa is brought to Crete by Zeus, where they mate and have three sons, Sarpedon, Minos, and Rhadamanthys);165 (d) Nymphs mingle with gods (Melaneus is the

 154 Robertson 1984. 155 Forsdyke 1956, 110–111; Griffin 1977, 39–40; Davies 1989, 9. 156 Fr. 30.1–24 M-W. 157 Fr. 10a.84–98 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 79–81. 158 Fr. 217.7–8 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 80–81. 159 Fr. 27 M-W. 160 Frs. 25, 229 M-W. 161 Rutherford 2000, 87–8; Hirschberger 2004, 79. 162 Fr. 17b M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 74. 163 Fr. 19 M-W. 164 Fr. 22 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 75. 165 Fr. 141 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 75.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus son of Apollo who mingled with a Nymph);166 goddesses or nymphs have sex with mortal men (Selene and Endymion);167 (e) divine envy that often has a fatal outcome is sometimes presented within an erotic-marriage context (Coronis is killed by Apollo who envied her because she married Ischys);168 (f) other stories which often end in marriage between humans are a mythological reflex of girls’ initiation rites (Eurythemiste, Stratonice, Sterope, who are the daughters of Porthaon, accompany the Nymphs and the Muses on Mount Parnassos);169 (g) in certain cases, an unmarried maiden gets pregnant (Periboia gets pregnant by Hippostratus and her father Hipponous sents her to Oeneus who is asked to kill her; instead, Oeneus has a son by her, Tydeus);170 (h) the motif of ‘Potiphar’s wife’, according to which a married woman falls in love with a younger man who visits her house; when he rejects her, she makes a slanderous attack on him telling her husband that he made her have sex with him; as a result her husband tries to kill him (Peleus and the wife of Acastus).171 In general, there is little about death, especially of women, in the Catalogue of Women.172 Biographies ‘are stripped to their essentials’.173 Seduction, abduction, concealment do exist but only in embryonic form. Heroines are in the Catalogue of Women ‘best’ (ἄρισται), exactly like heroes in male-centred epic, but their appearance in a ‘collective epic’174 stems from the fact that they are the wives and daughters of pre-eminent men, and that they form an integral part of the dynastic context of the age of heroes.175 These motifs show that the Catalogue of Women shares certain similarities with the poems of the Epic Cycle, which also favor themes like divine punishment, metamorphosis and immortality.176 Therefore, with respect to content the Catalogue of Women marks itself out from the Iliad and the Odyssey not only by giving primary position to female figures but also by highlighting themes which are not emphasized in Homeric epic.

 166 Fr. 26.25 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 76. 167 Fr. 10a.60–62 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 76. 168 Frs. 59–60 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 76. 169 Fr. 26.5–21 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 77–78. 170 Fr. 12 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 78. 171 Frs. 208–209 M-W. See Hirschberger 2004, 78–79. 172 Lyons 1997, 20. 173 Lyons 1997, 20. 174 Sistakou 2005, 354. On catalogue-poetry in general, see Trüb 1952, 44–83. 175 Lyons 1997, 10–13, 20. 176 See chapter 12 (this volume).

The Catalogue of Women  

With respect to narrative, the Catalogue of Women with remarkable speed177 semper ad feminam festinat.178 Digressions are practically absent. The narrative moves smoothly through the intermediate phases of a story until it reaches the target-point. Rapidity is, of course, an almost innate characteristic of catalogues but this should not exclude the possibility that it has not been used effectively.179 The individual narrative parts of the Catalogue of Women are not loosely connected just because there is no plot. Unity in this generic context does not spring from the various narrative units giving cohesion to the whole but from the whole that unifies all narrative sections. The geographical range of this genealogical panorama presented in catalogue-form, which spans the Greek world, represents a cohesive preamble to the Trojan War that brought the age of heroes to its end. Catalogue-organization permeates the entire poem, since it also occurs in narrative sections. In the Wooing of Helen, the formula ‘(ἐ)μνᾶτο + nominative of suitor’ (sometimes with patronymic), which constitutes an itemizing-entry mechanism facilitating mnemonic recall of information, links the various items of the list of Helen’s suitors, replacing other linking devices which would be regularly employed in a genealogical catalogue. In other words, even when the genealogical framework is not followed, catalogue-poetry features are still put into use.180 In the same section, the place of a suitor’s origin is regularly stated,181 and suitors often send a representative instead of going to the bride’s home themselves. These features indicate that a special kind of ehoie, the wedding-ehoie,182 might have become a sub-category of ehoie-poetry and that, by extension, other forms of ehoiai might have existed with their own typology. Direct speech is extremely limited and what is noteworthy is that women never deliver any direct speech. Catalogue-poetry is understandably lacking in direct speech, but the situation in the Odyssean Nekyia seems rather different,

 177 See frs. 10a, 43a M-W. 178 This phrase is based on the famous Horatian expression semper ad eventum festinat (Ars poetica 148). 179 Rutherford 2000, 85 with note 15. 180 Rutherford 2000, 85. 181 See Od. 16.245–251, where place names are given together with the overall number of Penelope’s suitors. 182 See Cingano (2005, 131), who shows that each hero is introduced in the Catalogue of Suitors in a rather typical way. Thematically, his genealogy, origin, and procedure of wooing are described, and dictionally ‘each entry is introduced by the expression ἐκ (ἀπό) + place of provenance at the beginning of the line (cf. frs. 197.7, 198.2, 199.4, 200.3, 204.44, 52, 56) + the verb ἐμνᾶτο’.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus since some of the heroines in the Underworld report their own stories to Odysseus, who in his turn reports them in indirect speech to his Phaeacian audience. This observation may strengthen Rutherford’s suggestion that the Odyssean Nekyia represents an earlier stage of non-genealogical ehoie-poetry.183 In this conception, it may be argued that this pre- and non-genealogical ehoie-poetry would have included direct speech. The proximity of the Catalogue of Women to the Epic Cycle, with respect to the light tone observed in several women-tales, can be applied mutatis mutandis to its episodic nature, which (like the Cyclic epics, as Aristotle has rightly argued)184 can supply multiple plots. This time, though, the Catalogue of Women represents a third narrative option, which can be better described in terms of a three-fold development: the Catalogue of Women has an almost zero-degree plot line,185 the Epic Cycle is based on an episodic and linear unraveling of the plot,186 whereas the Iliad and the Odyssey display sophisticated narrative strategies, which are partly responsible for their acclaimed status. As to the relation between the Catalogue of Women and other early Greek epic, I would like to draw attention to archaic and classical epic on Heracles, like the Heraclea by Pisander of Camiros and the Heraclea by Panyassis of Halicarnassos. Since both epics included at least the Dodekathlos, they must have been highly episodic. After all, this was the main complaint made by Aristotle, who condemned the poems on Heracles and the poems on Theseus that erroneously conceived the unity of plot on the basis of the existence of single protagonist, Heracles and Theseus respectively. However, the stark contrast between the compressed nature of Pisander’s epic that included only two books and the extended form of Panyassis’ epic that included 14 books is instructive, especially when put against the backdrop of its episodic structure. These two epics bare  183 Rutherford 2000, 94. 184 Poetics 1459b. 185 The lack of both a clear-cut plot line and of temporal sequence is also observed in another catalogic device that is regularly employed in epic poetry, the priamel, which Faraone 2005, 253) treats as ‘a variant of the catalogue form’. Sammons (2007, 96) observes that ‘the main difference between a priamel and an ordinary catalogue is that the last “item” is given a privileged status in comparison to the other items, such that the latter can be viewed collectively as a “foil” to the final, preeminent item’. Race (1982, 24–27) associates the priamel with the tendency observed in ordinary catalogues to expand the last entry, which becomes the most important, albeit not superior to the others. See also Davies 1992, 9. These remarks are especially relevant to the Catalogue of Women, where the last big entry, the section on the ‘Wooing of Helen’, is elaborated more fully than the previous entries. It is clear that with this section, the Catalogue of Women reaches its telos, i.e. both its end and its purpose. 186 Ar. Po. 1459b1–7.

The Catalogue of Women  

an interesting analogy to the Catalogue of Women and the Megalai Ehoiai. The two Heracleiai seem to be cyclic with respect to their concatenated structure but they are also ‘Hesiodic’ with respect to their ability to expand a given topic, the story of Heracles. Catalogue- and episode-based epics display a remarkable flexibility, which allows them to appear in compressed or expanded form, the Catalogue of Women and the Heraclea of Pisander manifesting the former type, the Megalai Ehoiai and the Heraclea of Panyassis the latter.

.. Performance: Organization and Context With respect to the organization of the mythological material and the preparation of the performance, we can postulate four different levels: (a) the first level of assembling the material by creating a schema, a ‘chronotopic map’, preserving information about places (geographical distribution of the various stemmata and chronological depth of various pedigrees); (b) the second level, in which the ehoie-formula, an elliptical oral lemma, minimizes the itemizing tone of catalogue-poetry by facilitating internal flexibility, moving to-and-fro between genealogies; (c) the third level consists of the nesting of further information in certain entries through the cognitive (re)activation of lower-level, secondary data (non-visual elements, other heroes and their stories). This is the case with place names that trigger other references with which they have been closely tied within the taxonomy of epic memory; (d) the fourth level includes visual cues originating not from epic memory but from spatial memory.187 In this last case, the recall of material is facilitated by the combination of visual imagery, which stores data and verbal codes creating mental sequences. Information is thus processed through two paths, as Paivio’s ‘dual coding’ hypothesis suggests.188 The performance context of the Catalogue of Women poses insurmountable difficulties. Some of the female figures featuring in the poem had their own heroine cults,189 but the fact that there is so little about death in this epic makes the scenario of performance of the Catalogue of Women in the context of the cult of heroines rather unlikely. If the audience of this epic included girls and young women, then it would have been possible to draw an analogy with the perfor-

 187 See Minchin 2001, 84–87. 188 See Paivio 1986. I owe this information to Minchin 2001, 27–28. 189 Chloris in Argos; Alcmene in various places. See Rutherford 2000, 88.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus mance occasion of other genres.190 Another approach to the performance context, which can be better mapped, concerns neither the occasion nor the gender of the audience but their possible reaction to the performance of the Catalogue of Women. This audience would have been impressed by the Panhellenic span of this poem, the attractive proem, which, through the invocation to the Muses, would have indicated to the listeners that an impressive feat of memory was to be performed, and most of all the speed of the actual performance. The bard who would sing this extended catalogue with the flawless and continuous introduction of personal names, place names, and various family trees, crossed local geographical boundaries and allowed members of the audience to identify their own or their ancestors’ connection to a given pedigree stretching back in time. The present of the performance would thus be linked to the distant past of the heroic predecessors, and this would, no doubt, generate enormous excitement among individual listeners. In such a performance context all elements, entries, and family trees count equally.191 The astounding sequences of names, which would have been highlighted by the repetition of syntactical devices and recurrent grammatical forms, would have made the whole process very demanding for the singer, who did not want his audience to get bored. The extremely thin and narrow, almost non-existent, plot line was a serious drawback when performing a list-song. On the other hand, the genealogical framework, the catalogue-form, and last, but certainly not least, the ehoie-structure, created, for all the restrictions inherent in the genre of catalogue-poetry, a multiwrought mythical tapestry. In fact, its three components would have captivated the attention of various audiences, just as the different colors of a tapestry would have attracted the visual interest of viewers. Seen from this angle, the success of the Catalogue of Women would have depended, perhaps more than any non-catalogue-poem, on its delivery. Asking for the help of the Muses before delivering a list-song was not mere commonplace: it amounted to a covert acknowledgment of the inherent difficulty of such a task. In this light, Cingano is probably right in suggesting that there was a second invocation of the Muses before the long catalogue of Helen’s suitors at the beginning of Book 5.192 The divine invocation was not only an appeal for information, but also an indirect  190 See Rutherford (2000, 88), who argues that the Leucippides formed ‘the subject of the myth-section of Alcman’s best preserved Partheneion (PMG 1)’. Irwin’s attempt (2005, 35–84) to place the Catalogue of Women within a sympotic context has been criticized by Fletcher 2006, 2. 191 This reconstruction of a possible performance context is heavily dependent on Minchin 2001, 90–92. 192 Cingano 2005, 122. For the function of the invocation in Homeric and Hesiodic catalogues, see Minton 1962, 118–212.

The Catalogue of Women  

statement of the difficulty of the task to be undertaken by the singer. This observation fits very well with a performance scenario according to which the invocation to the Muses was movable and could be transferred in some abbreviated or alternative form inside the poem, every time the bard had to answer to a request from a member of an audience193 to sing a catalogue-poem concerning the women of the past.194 This was, after all, a way of reminding his listeners that he was going to undertake a difficult job and that they should appreciate his effort till it is brought to an end.

.. Genre A significant question concerns the fact that the aretalogical element,195 which seems to have been a built-in feature of the genre culminating in the Catalogue of Women, did not develop into expanded epic narrative dealing with κλέα γυναικῶν. This generic confinement may have been caused and/or intensified by the following factors: (a) Female-centred encomiastic narratives were subordinated to male expanded narratives and divine aretalogies, i.e. in traditional epic and hymnic poetry. The widespread diffusion of Homeric poetry, which soon acquired Panhellenic status and undisputed authority on the one hand, and the impressive rise of hymnic poetry on the other, may have exercised considerable pressure on traditional mythical material linked to women, with the result that it was confined to a single, catalogue-oriented genre. (b) The Wooing of Helen in the last part of the Catalogue of Women (fr. 196– 204 M-W) and the emphasis given to an aretalogy for Penelope, with intertextu-

 193 See Od. 11.370–372, where Alcinous as a member of Odysseus’ Phaeacian audience requests a change of subject, from ehoie to male-centered epic. As Sammons (2007, 131) observes, ‘the subject of women is dropped by audience request, and the next section of the Nekyia begins’. 194 Individual entries could have been performed independently and expanded versions of individual ehoiai may have existed, even if the Megalai Ehoiai are not an expanded version of the Catalogue of Women but a separate poem belonging to the same tradition (D’Alessio 2005, 176). An ehoie could sometimes function as the introduction to another poem, as is the case with the Hesiodic Shield. See Rutherford 2000, 88. On the Megalai Ehoiai, see D’Alessio 2005, 176–216. 195 On aretalogical poetry, see Lipka 2018, 208–231.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus al prompts to both ehoie-poetry (Od. 2.124–125)196 and the oral tradition of the Returns later reflected in the Cyclic Epic Nostoi (Od. 24.192–202), covertly indicate that only certain female figures who were linked to Trojan and post-Trojan epic were endowed with their own narrative. Certain key-episodes of their mythical lore that could be accommodated into male epic concerning the Trojan War received a privileged treatment, sometimes allowing us to assume that they are based on lost female narratives, perhaps in the form of ehoiai.197 (c) Since most of these heroines could not be incorporated into the Trojan War saga, given that their marriage stories were of local interest, they were completely overshadowed by the Panhellenic pre-eminence of Homeric poetry. Rutherford, who speaks of a generic ‘crossing’,198 argues that when catalogue-like, non-genealogical ehoie-poetry was faced with the general tendency observed in the Archaic Period to organize the Greek past by means of genealogies, it was first subordinated to a Panhellenic genealogical framework (such as that seen in the Catalogue of Women), and then through the process of ‘automatization’ it became a secondary concomitant, a formal rather than a principal feature.199 According to Rutherford, the Catalogue of Heroines in Odyssey 11 ‘preserves for us an earlier stage in the development of ehoie-poetry, that in a sort of intimation of Bakhtinian polyphony, it deploys the generic voice of the catalogue genre.’200 This is certainly true, but one should always bear in mind that the Odyssean Catalogue of Heroines is a special case and that, as suggested above in (b), under the pressure of male-centred epic as well as various changes solidifying Panhellenic trends during the Archaic Period, ehoie-poetry may have been appropriated and subordinated by Homeric epic.201 In this light, I would like to propose a slight modification to Rutherford’s otherwise convincing sketch of development of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. This change is based on the problem concerning the dating of the ‘generic

 196 See Sammons (2007, 101), who suggests that Antinous’ list of women may be evoking ‘a catalogue poem in which women serve merely to articulate a larger genealogical structure. In this view, there would be the implication that Penelope’s unprecedented cleverness is that of a character capable of sustaining the plot of an epic devoted, in Homer’s manner, to a single tale’. 197 Rutherford 2000, 93. 198 Rutherford 2000, 92. 199 Rutherford 2000, 92. 200 Rutherford 2000, 94. 201 The Teichoskopia list in Iliad 3 echoes the first contest for Helen, the story of Penelope’s suitors in the Odyssey mirrors the first contest for her that was also won by Odysseus, the list of Zeus’ erotic consorts in Iliad 14 recalls hymnic material referring to the god’s concubines.

Conclusion  

crossing’, which Rutherford places before the composition and/or crystallization of the Odyssey. If this scenario is adopted, then the non-development of ehoie-poetry into κλέα γυναικῶν cannot be explained. Although this is a complicated issue, I would like to suggest that the immediate antecedents of the Catalogue of Women, which included a non-genealogical structure and the ehoie-formula, must be dated to a period when Homeric epic had acquired a rather standard form. This scenario better explains the fact that although in Homeric epic we find non-genealogical catalogues of women using itemizing devices resembling the ehoie-formula (as is the case with the Catalogue of Heroines in Odyssey 11), we do not possess any epic poem dealing with female κλέα. In fact, it can be plausibly argued that the ‘generic crossing’, so aptly described by Rutherford,202 must have taken place too late for a further expansion into encomiastic epic narrative such as that referring to the κλέα ἀνδρῶν. An argumentum e silentio for this claim is the tendency of the Catalogue of Women ‘to subordinate male stories to female stories, telling the former within the frame of the later’.203

. Conclusion Hesiodic poetry, which has been regarded, through comparison with its Homeric counterpart, as ‘secondary-level’ poetry, is replete with poetological signs concerning aspects of generic identity, scope and aim of composition, internal differentiation between martial (Theogony) and non-martial (Works and Days) epic, as well as the creation of a prismatic, sophisticated narrative with multiple temporalities, voices and registers and a distinct and recognisable Hesiodic tone (Catalogue of Women). Hesiodic song lays great emphasis on its own special intra-generic identity. By describing in detail in the proem of the Theogony the process of acquiring the authority to sing, Hesiod turns the course of poetic initiation into a statement of his own poetic credo. Having defined its special nature, the poetry of the Theogony aspires to broaden the scope of its subject matter and reach beyond local audiences. The embedding of a hymn to a Panhellenic goddess such as Hecate within the narrative scaffolding of genealogies and catalogues reflects the epic’s desire to surpass the limits of Boeotia and become the theogonic song of the Greek world par excellence. Such broadening of its scope is concomitant to

 202 Rutherford 2000, 91–93. 203 Rutherford 2000, 86.

  Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus aspirations of distinctiveness, uniqueness and, finally, pre-eminence among other rival theogonies that may have been less innovative. To this end, the Hesiodic tradition of the Theogony attempts to break loose from the dull monotony and suffocating embrace of traditional catalogues, lists and genealogies by incorporating comments offered by the narrator alluding to his own persona. The Works and Days are stamped by the bold step of creating an internal narrator (Hesiod) who constantly addresses an internal narratee (Perses). Hesiodic insistence on interposing the race of heroes within the typologically established catalogue of races with its considerable Eastern or Indo-European prehistory has the result of emphasizing its Panhellenic outlook to the archaic world. Bearing the dictional armature of didactic epic but not necessarily its limited scope, the Works and Days enrich and even redetermine its cross-textual relations with other rival traditions, such as Homeric poetry, or with other poems, now lost to us, but belonging to the same tradition of didactic or wisdom poetry (Melampodia, Idaean Dactyls, Cheironos Hypothekai, Astronomy, Kaminos or Kerameis). By restricting the mythological features to the non-rivalry-oriented part of the poem, i.e. in the non-didactic core, the Works and Days focus on matters of poetics. The epic becomes not the diegesis of a professional rivalry but the display of the rivalry in the hic et nunc of the performance. It is not about what Mopsus and Chalchas did, or about how Homer, a figure of the past, won a prize, or about how a Centaur advised Achilles (Cheironos Hypothekai), but about how real people (in the sense that they are presented as real), Hesiod and his brother Perses, deal with matters pertaining to daily life. Hesiod’s poetic victory in Chalcis is not a mythical event but a tangible reality, achieved in the present by a real (or presented as real) person. The localization of the mythical element at the beginning of the epic may have been a practical solution to the problem of fusing mythological material into a non-mythological poem, given that complete deletion of mythological material was unthinkable. The mythical features that the Works and Days include in their subject matter are neither hero- nor region- nor tradition-dependent but belong to a specialized mythology that this poem wants to label ‘practical’. Myth is used in the Works and Days as an extended preamble, explaining the present state of affairs and making the need for such an epic indispensable. Instead of suggesting an alternative, laborbased pattern for an overall evaluation of its subject matter, this epic exploits traditional work-oriented terminology and imagery (Agriculture) and a wellknown reference to the sailing of the Greek fleet from Aulis to Troy as the Homerically colored, mythical catch-episode (Nautilia) to rechristen its main theme by imbuing it with metapoetic connotations. In this way, the Hesiodic tradition makes its voice widely heard and by almost encroaching on the kleos

Conclusion  

of its great Homeric rival, ambitiously accentuates its presence and claims its own space in archaic Greek epic. The Catalogue of Women represents the rather idiosyncratic combination of an external geographical organization with genealogical material that is fused with non-genealogical lemmata. This conflated form of genealogical material, which is thematically organized in cycles but dictionally in lemmata introduced by the ehoie-formula, results in the disruption of narrative linearity and in creating ruptures in the chronological fabric of the story. The main features of this eccentric cross-generic poem are the following: parataxis, tripartite structure for some ehoiai, language that is partly formulaic and partly more specific and expansive, and female stories — basically imbued with an encomiastic tone — that are often used as a frame for male stories. The main motifs include divine punishment, divine care and gifts offered to mortals, metamorphosis, immortality in the form of apotheosis, stress on marriage, birth and envy, and limited reference to death. The narrative is characterized by speed, catalogue-type organization permeates even the narrative sections, direct speech is extremely limited, and brief plots of a purely episodic nature comprise the overall composition. The Catalogue of Women has come into being through ‘generic crossing’: catalogue-like, non-genealogical ehoie-poetry is first subordinated to a Panhellenic genealogical framework and then through the process of automatization it becomes a secondary concomitant, a formal rather than a principal feature. This ‘generic crossing’ occurred too late for a further expansion into encomiastic epic narrative such as that referring to the κλέα ἀνδρῶν. It must have happened only when the Homeric epics had been consolidated and diffused, at a stage when it was not possible for women to acquire epic fame independently.

 Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women Although much work has been done with respect to the formulaic diction of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women,1 scholars have not shown similar interest in studying its style.2 Part of the explanation is that catalogic poetry seems unattractive for stylistic studies because of the lack of continuous narrative and the high proportion of proper names. Add to the above the fragmentary condition of the Catalogue and the scholarly neglect of the stylistic features of this epic is explained. Scholars have basically focused their attention on Hesiodic diction.3 As in antiquity so in modern times, they have been principally concerned with its relation to Homeric phraseology.4 This line of investigation is understandable, since the shadow cast by the monumental Homeric compositions has resulted in ‘anchoring’ Hesiod to Homer. It is also pertinent to questions of relative chronology and the overall evolution and shaping of epic diction in the Archaic Period. On the other end, it is fair to say that a work like the Catalogue, the Hesiodic authorship of which has been forged by the tendency to attribute much of non-Homeric archaic epic to the poet from Ascra, is a very different case. First and foremost, it is a hybrid catalogue, created by the cross-generic combination of catalogue with ehoie-based poetry under the umbrella of a genealogical superstructure. As such, it is marked by stylistic devices that are part and parcel of its being a catalogue-ehoie blend. Seriation (catalogue) and lemmatization (ehoie) require a delicate balance between the smooth flow of information and the selective highlighting of specific entries. Style in all its aspects (sound, figures of speech, word-patterns in proper names) is crucial for an epic marked by generic crossing.5 In this novel mixture, style has a new role to play.

 1 See e.g. Krafft 1963; Neitzel 1975; Meier 1976; Mureddu 1983; 2008, 97–112; Cohen 1986, 127– 142; 1989, 12–27; Davies 1992. 2 A notable exception is Hunter (2009, 253–269; 2014, 282–315), but his approach mainly concerns the way the ancients treated Hesiod’s style. Hunter’s focus is on the Theogony and the Works and Days. 3 On this point, see Richardson 1980, 284: ‘the modern tendency to pay special attention to the traditional or formulaic character of the verse does not encourage sensitivity to the way in which the poet fits sound to sense in particular contexts, whereas the ancient emphasis on mimesis naturally led to appreciation of this’. 4 See the bibliography cited in n. 1 (this chapter). 5 On this generic crossing, see Rutherford 2000, 93–94; Tsagalis 2009, 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-011

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

. Soundplay One of the most notable aspects of style is soundplay, especially in a poetic tradition with a clear oral background. Aural effects are not, of course, restricted to oral poetry, but they are systematically exploited in oral media, since they constitute an essential aspect of performance. These observations are extremely relevant to Ancient Greek, ‘a euphonious language, with a high proportion of vowels, less collocation of consonants than many languages, and no heavy stress accent’.6 In this chapter I intend to explore the full range of wordplay in the ‘Hesiodic’ Catalogue. Classification of the relevant phenomena will be undertaken, but with an aim both to enhance interpretation and to make general judgments with respect to the sophistication and poetic qualities of this generic hybrid.

. Assonance (παρήχησις) The Greeks were alert to the significance of assonance, especially with respect to whether a given sound was appropriate for the meaning of a specific passage. Sound effects had been discussed by ancient critics, e.g. Aristotle (Rhetoric), [Demetrius] (On Style), Dionysius of Halicarnassos (De Compositione Verborum), and Philodemus (Rhetoric, On Poems), and in the post-classical period theories of sound were developed, the best known being that of the so-called ‘euphonists’ who claimed that sound was more important than content.7 Since in antiquity there was no overall consensus with respect to terminology, I have decided to use modern classifications, although ancient Greek terms will creep in from time to time. The most straightforward approach is that of Silk in the entry ‘assonance’ of the OCD. It is his categorization that I will hereby follow. My only addition is the Greek term παρήχησις (‘resemblance in sound’, ‘assonance’), which is used by Hermogenes (Inv. 4.7), and under which I group (1) alliteration, (2) vocalic repetition, (3) syllabic repetition or near-repetition of stem syllables, (4) syllabic repetition or near-repetition of final syllables, and (5) more complex cases marked by a combination of some of the above.8

 6 Edwards 1987, 117. 7 See Janko 2000, 120–200; Nünlist 2009, 217. 8 For this categorization, see Silk OCD, s.v. ‘assonance’, p. 186.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women .. Alliteration (Word-Initial Rhyme) Under the term ‘alliteration’ I group cases of consonantal repetition (wordinitial or stem-initial). In the Catalogue alliteration is the least employed of the five forms of assonance described above. Alliteration often draws attention to the link between the various constituent items. In the ehoie of Mestra the alliteration of –d– first highlights the inability of mortals to decide about whether Erysichthon/Aithon or Sisyphos is right (43a.38 M-W: ο]ὐδ̣’ ἄρα τις δικάσαι [δύ]νατο βροτός· ἀλλ’ αραπ̣ [), and then showcases the ability of a goddess or woman to make this decision (43a.40 M-W: ἀ]τρεκέως διέθηκ[ε] δίκην δ.[).9 The effect of this soundplay is further enhanced by the syllabic repetition of the stem syllable –ep– in the ensuing verse (43a.39 M-W: ἐπ]έτρεψαν καὶ ἐπῄνεσαν· ἣ δ’ ἄρα τοῖ̣ [σιν). Father and husband left it to Athena or Mestra to decide who is right and who is wrong. The syllabic repetition links the two verbs (ἐπ]έτρεψαν and ἐπῄνεσαν) and intensifies the joint decision of the two opposing sides. Sometimes alliteration acquires a ‘proleptic’ function.10 It draws the listener’s attention to two items whose initial sound will be soon repeated within the aural environment of a different alliteration. In cases like this, the former alliteration works as a bridge to the latter. The result is that what is linked here are not simply two items but two chains of items by means of two alliterative devices. In fr. 43a.62 M-W (ἔπραθεν ἱμερόεντα πόλιν, κε[ρ]άϊξε δὲ κώμας), the consonantal repetition of –k– highlights the plundering of Coan villages by Heracles. A few verses later (43a.66 M-W: Μήστρη δὲ προ]λιποῦσα Κόων ποτὶ πατρίδα γαῖαν), we are told that Mestra left Cos to return to her fatherland. The placement of the word Κόων within the three items of the alliterative unit (προ]λιποῦσα Κόων ποτὶ πατρίδα) interrupts its autonomy and invites the audience to connect the idea of Mestra’s return home with Heracles’ ravaging of Cos. The word-initial –k– sound in the word Κόων facilitates the ‘carrying over’ of the initial alliterative repetition of –k– to the triple consonantal repetition of –p– a few lines below. There are cases in which alliteration is not an isolated aural phenomenon but interacts with other forms of soundplay occurring in its immediate context. Thus, ἵκετο δ’ ἐς Φυλῆα φίλον μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν (fr. 176.4) is interwoven within  9 It is not clear who this woman is, Athena (West, crit. app. of editio maior; 1985, 169) or Mestra (Kakridis 1980, 150–151); on this problem, see Hirschberger 2004, 277 on Cat. fr. 37.38–39 (= fr. 43a.38–9 M-W). 10 On ‘aural preparation’, see Silk 1974, 187–191.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

a nexus of aural associations involving the preceding and two following verses that intensify and deepen the meaning of the relevant passage: Τιμάνδρη μὲν ἔπειτ’ Ἔχεμον προλιποῦσ’ ἐβεβήκει, ἵκετο δ’ ἐς Φυλῆα φίλον μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν· ὣς δὲ Κλυταιμήστρη λιποῦσ’ Ἀγαμέμνονα δῖον Αἰγίσθῳ παρέλεκτο καὶ εἵλετο χείρον’ ἀκοίτην Timandra left behind Echemus and ran away, and came to Phyleus, who was dear to the blessed gods: so too, Clytaemestra, leaving behind godly Agamemnon, lay beside Aegisthus and preferred a worse husband; so too Helen shamed the marriage-bed of blond Menelaus

The vocalic repetition of –e– in ἔπειτ’ Ἔχεμον προλιποῦσ’ ἐβεβήκει is contrasted to the alliteration of Φυλῆα φίλον in the next verse. Timandre, Tyndareos’ first daughter, left Echemus and went to Phyleus, who was dear to the gods. Clytaemestra, Tyndareos’ second daughter, left Agamemnon and joined Aegisthus, who (contrary to Phyleus) was not dear to the gods — in fact he was a worse husband. This contrast is aurally stressed for the listeners by a new soundplay, the vocalic repetition of –a–, which provocatively correlates Ἀγαμέμνονα, Αἰγίσθῳ and ἀκοίτην. This time the relevant words are apart but complex patterning (παρέλεκτο καὶ εἵλετο) both within the sub-unit of the couplet pertaining to Tyndareos’ second daughter (Clytaemestra) and between the sub-units of Timandra and Clytaemestra (προλιποῦσ’ – λιποῦσ’) bring into focus the overall contrast: rejection of marriage for the sake of a new household. Alliteration can also be used to conjure an image or to give vividness to an existing image. In μαρνάσθην [ἔτι] μητρ̣ [ὸς ἐόντ’ ἐν γαστέρι κοίλῃ (fr. 58.13 M-W) the alliterative link created by the word-initial consonantal repetition of –m– illuminates the image of the twins Crisus and Panopeus fighting in their mother’s womb. Action (fighting) and place (mother’s womb) are aurally associated, as they are associated in the actual image described here. Alliteration is also employed to build a link between its constituent items. Here belongs σὺν τῷ πῦρ̣ [πνείουσαν ⏑–⏑⏑–⏑ Χίμαιραν (fr. 43a.87 M-W). No effect is discernible, only a stress on a given activity, i.e. that Chimaera breaths fire.11  11 I have not taken into account fr. 43a.77 M-W (ἔγνω· ὁ μ[ὲν δώροις διζ]ήμενος ἦλθε γυνα[ῖκα) because I regard the supplement ἕδνοις instead of δώροις as being much more plausible because of Od. 16.391 and 21.161 (μνάσθω ἐέδνοισιν διζήμενος; see Hirschberger 2004, 283 on fr. 37.77 (= 43a.77 M-W); ἕδνοις is also printed in Most’s Loeb edition.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women Weak alliteration is likely to occur in conventional collocations and formulas.12 Here the aural link is downplayed by the fact that the listener’s ear hears the two words as a single semantic unit. So, in Φθίην ἐξίκετο μητέρα μήλων (frs. 211.1 and 212.8 M-W) the perceptibility of the aural association is low.

.. Vocalic Repetition Vocalic repetition can isolate a given term from its context. The reason for this isolation is not always obvious nor is there any general rule that is applied here. When dealing with proper names, vocalic repetition aims at stressing a specific list-entry. A case worth examining is offered by fr. 25.16 M-W (Τοξέα τε Κλύμενό[ν τε ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον] Ἄρηϊ). The syntagma ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον] Ἄρηϊ (fr. 25.16) is a Hesiodic hapax. In Homer only the formula ἀτάλαντον Ἄρηϊ (Il. 5.576; 15.302; 17.72) is used, which is likely to have a limited perceptibility as far as the word-initial vocalic repetition is concerned. The Hesiodic syntagma ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον] Ἄρηϊ seems to be an expansion of the Homeric formula and is clearly built on vocalic repetition. The series of five consecutive –a– sounds and (after the brief interruption of an –o– sound in ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον]) a sixth word-initial –a– sound (Ἄρηϊ) isolates the proper noun Clymenus which it modifies from the ‘naked’ reference to Toxeus in the same verse (Τοξέα τε Κλύμενό[ν τε ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον] Ἄρηϊ). As noted above, the reason for this isolation is not clear, but it may be the case that for some reason Clymenus, the last entry in the short list of Althaea’s sons (other than Meleager) needs to be highlighted. Isolation of a term stresses its importance for a given scene or episode. Fragment 165 begins with the tattered remains of a speech that ends by stressing that somebody (offering hospitality and raising Auge) would be very pleasing to the immortals (fr. 165.3 M-W: .......]μ̣ά̣λ̣α̣ δ̣’ ε̣ ὔ̣α̣δ̣εν ἀθα̣[νάτοισιν]). We do not know who is the speaker but we know that the addressee is Teuthras, who agreed to do as the gods commanded. The narrator’s text following the speech picks up the last word ἀθα̣[νάτοισιν and reiterates it in the second-to-next line (fr. 165.5 M-W):13 ἀθανά]των̣ ο̣ ἵ ̣ οἱ τότ’ ἐναργέες ἄντ’ ἐφάνησα̣ν̣ . Repetition is strengthened by the assonance of ο̣ ἵ̣ οἱ that functions as an isolation mechanism keeping ἀθανά]των apart. This time, aural isolation is ancillary to verbal repetition. Together they

 12 See Silk 1974, 174 and OCD s.v. ‘assonance’, p. 186. 13 On adjacency across lines, see Guggenheimer 1972, 114–116; Frédéric 1985, 48; Lausberg 19903, 314–315; Wills 1996, 394–397.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

corroborate the content of the passage: Teuthras abided by the will of the gods and they were pleased with him.14 Vocalic repetition is wont to be noticed by listeners, even within a formulaic environment, under the proviso that it is based on intensive recurrence. Unlike its Homeric counterpart ἐπήρατον ἐντὸς ἔεργεν |-ει (Il. 18.12; 22.121), the Hesiodic formula ἐπήρατον εἶδος ἔχουσα[ν (frs. 25.29; 136.2 M-W) is used to draw attention to the formula’s meaning, as sound repetition aims at underlining the formula’s expressive force: excessive beauty. The same is the case with ἣ εἶδος ἐρήριστ’ ἀθανάτῃ]σ̣ιν (frs. 35.12; 180.14 M-W), in which the triple word-initial vocalic recurrence of the sound –e– stresses the content of the expression (i.e. that a mortal woman rivals the immortal goddesses), as well as with Ἑλένη]ς ἕνεκ’ ἠ̣υ̣[κόμοιο (fr. 200.11 M-W), in which the word-initial –e– sound, enhanced by the liquid/nasal sequence in the first two words within a series of six –e– sounds in total, binds Helen and ‘fair-haired’ together, underscoring her beauty. Another relevant expression is ἀνδράσι τ’ ἀλφηστῇσιν ἀρῆς ἀλκτῆρα φυτεύσαι (fr. 195.36 M-W = Sc. 29). The juxtaposition of two formulas, each consisting in two words beginning with the –a– sound (followed by nasals or liquids) creates a firm joint that highlights the content of the verse: Heracles will be a protector of mortal men. To this end, the placement of θεοῖσιν (that syntactically plays the same role with ἀνδράσι) at the very end of the previous verse makes it fade. The main role of Heracles is to ward off evil from humans. The aural association of the two formulas is so strong that it does not seem excessive to argue that it also exploits ‘traditional’ sound-patterns that are particular to Heracles. In this light, the interplay effected by the –a– sound (followed by nasals or liquids) would have aurally ‘recalled’ the typical patronymic ᾿Aλκείδης, partly echoed in the expression πάις ᾿Aλκαίοιο that is used three lines before (fr. 195.33 M-W = Sc. 26). On the contrary, when low-level vocalic repetition is nested in a formula, it usually remains unnoticed by the audience. εἴαρο[ς ὥρῃ (fr. 70.13 M-W) is such a case, the more so since the syllable repeated at the beginning of the two ensuing words is not exactly the same. The expression is imbued with a certain melody (perceptible when the verse is heard), but its only artistic purpose seems to be euphony. Vocalic repetition can enforce an idea that has been already expressed by renewing its force or by following it to its next phase. In fr. 43.76–7 M-W, Sisyphus’ efforts to get Eurynome are unable to win the mind of Zeus (ἀλλ’ οὔ τι Διὸ]ς νόον αἰγιόχοιο | ἔγνω). This is a situation analogous to the one that already occurred when Sisyphus tried to get Mestra for his son Glaucus a few verses  14 On this fragment, see Merkelbach 1957, 40–41; Hirschberger 2004, 338–341.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women earlier (fr. 43a.51–2 M-W: ἀ]νδρῶν δὲ προὔχεσκε νοήματά τε πραπ[ίδας τε | ἀ]λλ’ οὔ πως ᾔδει Ζηνὸς νόον αἰγιόχοιο). In the case of Mestra, the semantic antithesis between Sisyphus’ excessive mental skills and his inability to rival Zeus’ mind is highlighted by the aural interplay between νοήματα and Ζηνὸς νόον.15 In the analogous case of Eurynome, Sisyphos’ second failure to ‘read’ Zeus’ mind is initially expressed by the formula ‘verb οἶδα + Διὸς/Ζηνὸς νόον’. Τhis time, though, the essential idea is carried through to its next step: Zeus expresses his denial to Sisyphus’ offer by throwing back his immortal head (fr. 43a.79 M-W: ἀθανάτῳ ἀ[νένευσε] κ̣αρήατι). Aural association may explain the poet’s choice of a dialectic form instead of the standard epic one. In fr. 70.21 M-W, the epichoric form Ἐρχομενοῦ (IG VII 3171) is employed instead of the form Ὀρχομενοῦ,16 which may have been used two more times in the same fragment (see fr. 70.30 and 70.35 M-W). The reason for this choice is probably the creation of an aural link in fr. 70.23 M-W (καί τε δι’ Ἐρχομενοῦ εἱλιγμένος εἶσι δράκω⌋ν ὥς).17 The aim is to attach aurally place names to nearby terms (such as εἶσι) and thus generate an onomatopoeic effect.18 Such a mechanism is not ‘reserved’ to fr. 70.23 M-W but is observed (through syllabic or near-syllabic repetition) in fr. 70.18 M-W (ὅς τε Λιλαίηθεν προΐει καλλίρ⌋ροο⌊ν⌋ ὕδωρ) and 70.21 M-W (ὅς παρὲκ Πανοπῆα διὰ γ⌋ληχῶνα τέρειναν).19 The effect is impressive: the listeners follow the course of the river Cephisos from Lilaea to Panopeus to Erchomenos by means of aural links that emphasize each of the three phases of this ‘journey’. Α similar case is that of Ἄτλαντός τ’ ὄρος] α̣ἰπὺ̣ κ̣[αὶ Αἴτν]η̣ν παιπαλόεσσαν (fr. 150.25 M-W). The vocalic repetition of word-initial –a– connects Atlas’ high and steep mountain to rugged Aetna and the link is further reinforced by the near-syllabic repetition between α̣ἰπὺ and παιπαλόεσσαν, which modify the two place names, Atlas’

 15 It should be noted that the emphasis on mental ability may have been also expressed in the highly fragmented lines 43a.44–50 (e. g. 43a.50: …]εν ελασσωνουν[). Merkelbach (ap. app. cr.) restores verses 49–50 as follows: ὃς δή] τοι μακάρων, [οἳ Ὀλύμπια δώματ᾽ ἔχουσιν, εἶχ]εν ἐλάσσω νοῦν. 16 On these forms, see Hirschberger 2004, 261. 17 Silk (1974, 184–187) presents various cases of alliteration as enforcement of interaction, especially in similes or simple comparisons. In fr. 70.23 M-W the expression εἱλιγμένος … δράκω⌋ν ὥς is appropriate to the course of the river Cephisos but there is no aural association at work whatsoever. Instead, it is only εἱλιγμένος that interacts with the place name Ἐρχομενοῦ and the verb εἶσι. 18 On etymological links in the Catalogue of Women, see below (this chapter) and Davies 2017, 86–92. 19 See section 1.3 (this chapter).

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

mountain and Aetna respectively. As in the previous example (fr. 70 M-W, see above), so here toponyms indicating the regions from which the Boreads pass in their pursuit of the Harpies are highlighted by means of soundplay: .... παρ’ Ἠριδανοῖ]ο βα[θυρ]ρ̣[ό]ου αἰπὰ ῥέεθρα (fr. 150.21 M-W)20 and … Ὀ]ρ̣τ̣ υγίην Λαιστ[ρ]υ̣[γον]ίην τε γενέθλην (fr. 150.26 M-W). Vocalic repetition can operate not just on the level of the verse but of a series of verses sharing a common idea. In the Atalanta-ehoie (frs. 73–76 M-W)21 repetition of a word-initial –a– lays emphasis to the main idea of the passage, i.e. Atalanta’s rejection of humans and especially of men. Before I go on with further details, a necessary caveat must be presented and briefly discussed. It is true that ‘recurrence over a longer space tends to be less perceptible’,22 but systematic repetition organized with respect to a theme lying at the kernel of a passage or section may counterbalance the disadvantage of textual dispersion. In fact, the soundplay orchestrated around the word-initial –a– is unfailingly tied to the thematic thread unraveled in the entire Atalanta-ehoie: Fr. 73.1– 5 M-W: ἀγακλε]ιτοιο ἄνακτος [ ]σ̣ι ποδώκης δῖ’ Ἀταλάν[τη [ Χαρί]των ἀμαρύγματ’ ἔχο[υσα [ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀ]παναίνετο φῦλον ὁμιλ[εῖν ἀνδρῶν ἐλπομένη φεύγ]ε̣ ιν γάμον ἀλφηστάων̣ [. very gl]orious lord [ ] swift-footed godly Atalanta [ ] possessing Graces’ radiance she refused to associate with the tribe [of all human beings hoping to escape] marriage [with men] who live on bread

 20 Compounds like βαθύρρος were thought to convey grandeur and conciseness, since they could stand for an entire phrase; see [Demetrius] On Style 93: ὄνομα γὰρ τεθήσεται ἀντὶ ὅλου τοῦ λόγου (‘one word will stand for an entire phrase’, Innes 1995, 409). 21 On the Atalanta-ehoie, see Hirschberger 2004, 458–460. On the problem related to whether it belongs to the Catalogue of Women or the Megalai Ehoiai, see D’Alessio 2005, 213–216 with further bibliography. 22 Silk 1974, 174.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women Fr. 75.24 M-W: ]α̣ ἀνιηρὸν ἄεθλον ] grievous contest

Fr. 76.4–6 M-W: ἦχ’ ὑποχωρήσασ’· οὐ̣ γ̣ὰ̣ρ̣ ἴ̣σ̣[ον ἀμφοτέροισιν ἆθλον ἔκειθ’· ἣ μέν̣ ῥ̣α π[οδώκης δῖ’ Ἀταλάντη ἵετ’ ἀναινομένη δ̣ῶρα̣ [χρυσῆς Ἀφροδίτης she, retreating a little; for unequal for the two of them was the contest: for she, [swift-footed Atalanta, sped refusing the gifts of [golden Aphrodite

The words beginning with an –a– aurally summarize the thematic nucleus of an essential part of the story: Atalanta of the flashing steps (Ἀταλάντη / ἀμαρύγματα), daughter of a famous king (ἀγακλειτοῖο ἄνακτος), refused the company of mortals and (trying to avoid marriage with) men (ἀνθρώπων ἀπαναίνετο / ἀνδρῶν ἀλφηστάων). […] A troublesome prize was set (ἀνιηρὸν ἄεθλον) for the one who would surpass her in speed, a prize not equal to her and the one who would compete with her (ἀμφοτέροισιν / ἆθλον), for she was running because she refused Aphrodite’s gifts (ἀναινομένη / Ἀφροδίτης), while he was running for his life. Vocalic repetition can at times cooperate with other linking mechanisms (μέν-δέ) to enhance parallelism or to bring a given term in the limelight. In fr. 129 M-W, where we hear about the sons of Abas, word-initial vocalic repetition is balanced by syllabic repetition a few verses later (‐to- / -ti- / -ti- / -to‐): Zeus gives to Acrisius, one of the sons of Abas, the city of Argos (fr. 129.10 M-W: Ἀκρίσιος μὲν ἄρ’ Ἄ]ρ̣γ̣ει ἐυκτί̣ [τ]ῳ ἐμβασί[λ]ευεν) and to the other son Proetus the well-built citadel of Tiryns (fr. 129.16 M-W: Προῖτος δ’ αὖ Τίρυ]ν̣ θ̣ α ἐυκ[τ]ίμε[νο]ν πτολίεθρον). In fr. 165.11 M-W (ἐν Ἀσ[ί]δι ἔτραφεν αἴῃ), the vocalic repetition of –a– in word-initial position in the first sedes of feet 4 and 6 of the verse is reinforced both by the hyperbaton and metonymy (Ἀσ[ί]δι … αἴῃ). The result is the stress on Asia, the place where both the Heracles-Laomedon episode took place and the birthplace of Telephus.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

.. Syllabic Repetition or Near-Repetition of Stem Syllables Syllabic repetition or near-repetition of stem syllables is observable both on the level of a single verse and in longer units consisting either of couplets or a few lines of text. From a methodological point of view, though, textual space does not determine the role of syllabic repetition. In this light, it is better to present the results of my analysis on the basis of the function of this form of aural association. The simplest form of syllabic or near-syllabic repetition occurs with respect to proper names, whether personal or place names. In οἳ δὲ καὶ εἰς Ἄργος Προῖ̣[το]ν̣ πά̣[ρα δῖον ἵκοντο (fr. 37.10 M-W), ὅς τε Λιλαίηθεν προΐει καλλίρ⌋ροο⌊ν⌋ ὕδωρ (fr. 70.18 M-W), and ὅς παρὲκ Πανοπῆα διὰ γ⌋ληχῶνα τέρειναν (fr. 70.21 M-W) the aural associative link functions as an emphatic mechanism that brings a proper name into the spotlight. A more intricate (and perhaps stylish) type of syllabic repetition or nearrepetition of stem syllables aims at accentuating the content of a given verse or passage. In Ἄγριον ἠδὲ Λατῖνον … | κούρη δ’ ἐν μεγάροισιν ἀγαυοῦ Δευκαλίωνος | Πανδώρη Διὶ πατρὶ θεῶν σημάντορι πάντων | μιχθεῖσ’ ἐν φιλότητι τέκε Γραικὸν μενεχάρμην (fr. 5.1–4 M-W), the syllabic triplet –pa– in Πανδώρη … πατρὶ … πάντων binds Pandora and Zeus together and aurally differentiates them from the previous verse in which Pandora had been designated as the daughter of Deucalion.23 The transition from koure to concubine is thus visually represented by the shift from verse 2 to verse 3 and aurally by the emphatic link between the proper name (Πανδώρη) and the periphrastic designation of Zeus (πατρὶ θεῶν … πάντων). A bolder interpretive take on this fragment would even entertain the thought that parallelism (κούρη – Πανδώρη and δ’ ἐν μεγάροισιν ἀγαυοῦ Δευκαλίωνος – Διὶ πατρὶ θεῶν σημάντορι πάντων) enhances this interplay and toys with the idea that Zeus’ extended designation as the ‘father of all gods’ replaces (as a lover!) Pandora’s human father Deucalion. In τὴν πέρι δ]ὶς πόλεσαν π̣ε̣ρί τ’ ἀμφί τε κυκλώσαντο (fr. 150.28 M-W), the aural flanking of πόλεσαν by περί (reversed the first time and in tmesis the second) stresses through anaphoric duplication24 the idea of the double (δ]ὶς) ‘going around and encircling’ of Ortygia. Emphasis on the content of a single verse is also observable in τάων ἃς θνηταὶ θνητοῑς τέκον εὐνηθεῖσαι (fr. 195.13 M-W = Sc. 6). Here, the word-initial  23 On Pandora, see Aloni 2017, 8–9; Davies 2017, 85, 87; Koning 2017, 105–108; Cardin and Pontani 2017, 274, 276, 281. 24 On multiple anaphora in the same verse with examples from both Greek and Latin poetry, see Wills 1996, 363–371.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women suprasyllabic repetition of –thnet–, which is further enhanced by polyptoton, creates through aural association a solid joint that resonates in the second-tonext participial form εὐνηθεῖσαι (–neth–) describing the sexual union between mortal women and men. Syntactical coordination between subject (θνηταὶ), dative of accompaniment (θνητοῖς), and verb (εὐνηθεῖσαι) is thus ‘imitated’ by acoustical coordination. Sound mirrors syntax. Syllabic repetition may acquire subtler forms. A relevant case is that with two examples of syllabic or near-syllabic chiastic gemination. In the first example, this phenomenon, observable in a single verse, follows a ‘preparatory’ manifestation of its constituent elements, whereas in the second it basically precedes its elaborate coagulation in the second verse of the relevant couplet. So, in Νέστορά τε Χ]ρομίον τε Περικλύμενόν τ’ ἀγέρω⌊χον, | ὄλβιον, ᾧ⌋ πόρε δῶρα Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχθων | παντο⌋ῖ’ (fr. 33a.12–14 M-W), the initial –peri– in the first part of the proper name Periclymenus is picked up by the chiastic poRE …RA po (πόρε δῶρα Ποσειδάων) in the very next verse. Sophisticated syllabic interplay of this kind is attuned to the narrative unraveling of Pylos’ siege by Heracles. Periclymenus, last in the list of Neleus’ sons mentioned in the previous lines, is endowed by his father Poseidon with gifts of every sort (παντο⌋ῖ’). Perhaps his most impressive ability, no doubt a gift from his father, is his ability to change shapes. In fact, the ensuing narrative dwells on this special skill of Periclymenus whom Heracles is able to kill with Athena’s help only after suffering severe casualties. Seen from this vantage point, the placement of the nearsyllabic chiastic gemination at the outset of the Periclymenus narrative draws the audience’s attention to the key element of the entire passage to follow. In ἔξοχον ἀνθ̣[ρώπων ἀρ]ε̣τῇ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γ[αῖαν. | τῷ δὲ καὶ η[….. πα]τὴρ πόρε Πήγασο[ν ἵππον (fr. 43a.83–84 Μ-W) the chiastic aural association of re … EP … PE … ro (ἀρ]ε̣ τῇ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα) suggests through the aural link between terms that are juxtaposed but syntactically unconnected (ἀρ]ε̣ τῇ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα) that Bellerophon’s virtue has no limit. This aural ‘suggestion’ is consonant with the meaning of the actual phrase, since we are told that his virtue spans the boundless earth. This elaborate aural association enhances a further interplay in the ensuing verse that is orchestrated initially by a further acoustic chiasmus repeating the two constituent items of the preceding line, and then by an intensification of one of them: πα]τὴρ πόρε Πήγασο[ν ἵππον. This double aural chiasmus, which is further strengthened by single syllabic near-repetition, is one of the most impressive soundplays of the whole Catalogue. The result of this refined interplay in two consecutive verses is arresting: the second verse of the

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

couplet discloses the recognition of Bellerophon’s virtue on the boundless earth by his father Poseidon by means of the gift of the horse Pegasos.25 Syllabic repetition can also enhance parallelism by calling attention to a ‘dormant’ semantic relation between its constituent items. In [ἐ]πεὶ τέκε παῖδα Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι | [ αἰν]όμορον πατέρα ὃν πορσαίνεσκεν (fr. 43a.68–9 M-W), the aural symmetry ABAB (pa-po / pa-po) alludes to Mestra’s balanced life as Poseidon’s concubine and as Erysichthon’s daughter: ‘she bore a son to lord Poseidon – she provided for her doomed father’.26 A special kind of syllabic or near-syllabic repetition involves sound recurrence both at the end of a given verse and the beginning of the next verse. The phenomenon has been aptly called ‘adjacency across lines’27 and, although it has been initially employed with respect to word repetition, it is equally applicable to aural association. Adjacency of an aural pattern across lines leads to the carrying over of a sound, often to suggest or expand or specify a meaning or relation that is not explicit. In τῆς μὲν Σίσυφο]ς Αἰολίδης πειρήσατο βουλέων̣ | βοῦς ἐλάσα[ς (fr. 43a.75–76 M-W), the near-repetition of –boule– / –bousel– at the end of one verse and the beginning of the following creates an aural link and specifies how Sisyphus ‘made trial of her (Eurynome’s) plans, i.e. by ‘driving away cattle’. The second constituent item in this soundplay is thus coordinated with the first, effecting a smooth transition to the next phase of Sisyphus’ plan. Although it is not clear whose cattle Sisyphus steals – nor are details of this story in general clear – it is noteworthy that this plan that is aurally underscored by –boule– / –bousel– resonates in the expression βουλῇ ᾿Aθ[ηναίης (fr. 43a.78 M-W), which Sisyphus follows in his attempt to get Eurynome for his son Glaucus. The implicit point of this aural association is the triggering of a semantic interaction between the adjacent aural link of lines 75–76 and the ‘will of Athena’ in line 78: the cattle Sisyphus raided, which must have been connected to Eurynome, amount to literal or metaphorical marriage gifts,28 per Athena’s will. Another relevant example of near-syllabic adjacency across lines is attested in ἐν δ’ ἄνδρες ναίουσι πολύρρηνες πολυβοῦται | πολλοὶ ἀπειρέσιοι φῦλα

 25 Along this interpretive line, I would not be surprised if verse 85 (ὠκύτατον [.]μ̣ ινεπτε[) contained some form of the root πτερ- (Pegasus is after all a winged horse), as it has been suggested by Schwartz (in the critical apparatus of the edition by M-W) who reads πτερ̣[όεντι. 26 Note the semantically antithetical but structurally parallel use of ἄνακτι – αἰνόμορον, the former modifying Poseidon, the latter Mestra’s father Erisychthon. 27 See Wills 1996, 394–397. 28 Hirschberger (2004, 283 on fr. 37.76 = 43a.76 M-W) considers various scenarios, of which none is certain, as she rightly acknowledges.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων (fr. 240.3–4 M-W).29 Prosodic variation in the first part of the adjacent compounds like πολύρρηνες πολυβοῦται is cut short (because the first polu scans as ⏑ – (short / long) due to the double ρρ in πολύρρηνες, whereas the second polu scans as ⏑ ⏑ (double short)), but the near-recurrence of the sound poll at the very beginning of the ensuing verse is very strong; so strong, that by carrying over the sense of ‘mass numbers’ to the next line it facilitates the asyndeton that spans this couplet. Syntax and sound are, therefore, effectively orchestrated to call attention to the fact that Ellopie is a region of many animals (‘rich in sheep and rolling-footed cattle’ (fr. 240.1–2 M-W: ἔστι τις Ἑλλοπίη πολύλήϊος ἠδ’ εὐλείμων | ἀφνειὴ μήλοισι καὶ εἰλιπόδεσσι βόεσσιν) and many inhabitants (fr. 240.4 M-W: πολλοὶ ἀπειρέσιοι φῦλα θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων). Near-syllabic repetition can also highlight an etymological bond between two items. If they are adjacent, their association is characterized by high levels of perceptibility. In θεσσάμενος γενεὴν Κλεοδαίου κυδαλίμοιο (fr. 231 M-W), the proper name Κλεοδαίου resonates in its bordering epithet κυδαλίμοιο. The repetition of –k– in word-initial position and the consonantal chiasmus l-d / d-l stresses the etymological link between these two words. One may not be wrong to argue that κυδαλίμοιο has been used here simply to make sound and sense co-operate in highlighting the glory (kleos) of Cleodaeus’ race.30 Lastly, I will visit a case in which double syllabic repetition in word-initial position is illusive, even though it is observed in two adjacent words, i.e. in what is the ‘default’ mode of aural association. In [ ]ι̣ πολύστάφυλον πο[λυγηθέα (fr. 70.6 M-W), the aural link between polu-polu is misleading, since the prosodic variation of the repetend (resulting from metrically different ‘neighbors’) undermines the acoustic connection which is only visual, i.e. created by the printed text. The first polu scans as ⏑ – (short / long) because the cluster στ in πολυστάφυλον makes the syllable λυ long (πολυσ.τάφυλον), whereas the second polu scans as ⏑ ⏑ (double short), since it is followed by the single consonant γ (πολυ.γήθεα).31

 29 On this couplet, see also ‘Complex Cases’ (below). 30 On etymology in Hesiodic fragments, see Davies 2017, 86–92. 31 Hopkinson (1982, 162–177) offers a large number of cases of juxtaposed prosodic variants in Greek and Latin poetry; on variation of repetends, mainly but not solely in Latin poetry, see Wills 1996, 461–471.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

.. Syllabic Repetition or Near-Repetition of Final Syllables Syllabic repetition or near-repetition of final syllables is a form of rhyme facilitating memorization and list-learning of proper names. In Ὕλλον καὶ Γλῆνον κα̣ὶ̣ [Κτή]σ̣ιππον καὶ Ὀνείτην (fr. 25.19 M-W), the first three proper names rhyme at word-terminal position. The effect is made clearer by the placement of καὶ after each name to make the preceding short syllable of second-declension nouns long by position. The last item in this verse tellingly begins with the same sound (Ὀνείτην) in which all previous three names end. Here, sound similarity draws attention to the last name but immediately differentiates it by means of prosodic variation (its initial syllable being short). The same euphonic and mnemonic effect is observed in Φηρέα θ’ ἱππόδαμ[ον καὶ ἐυμ]μελίη̣[ν ᾿Aγέ]λ̣ αον | Τοξέα τε Κλύμενό[ν τε ἄνακ]τ’ ἀτάλαντ̣ [ον] Ἄρηϊ (fr. 15.15–16 M-W) by means of parallel syllabic repetition of –ea– (reinforced by the same accentual pattern) and word-terminal –on that is lengthened by position or in Δηΐμαχόν τε] καὶ Εὐρύβιον κλειτόν τ’ Ἐπίλαον | Νέστορά τε Χ]ρομίον τε Περικλύμενόν τ’ ἀγέρω⌊χον (fr. 33a.11–12 M-W) through a simple word-terminal assonance of –on and –on t(e). In Εὐρ]υθεμίστην τε Στρατ̣ [ο]νίκην [τ]ε̣ Σ̣τ̣[ε]ρ̣ό̣π̣ην̣ τε (fr. 26.9 MW), morphological correspondence of first-declension feminine nouns and syntactical coordination are fully exploited so as to a create a triple soundplay of –en te.

.. Complex Cases Ἄκρως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ σύνοδος τῶν σχημάτων εἴωθε κινεῖν, ὅταν δύο ἢ τρία οἷον κατὰ συμμορίαν ἀνακιρνάμενα ἀλλήλοις ἐρανίζῃ τὴν ἰσχὺν τὴν πειθὼ τὸ κάλλος (‘the combination of several figures often has an exceptionally powerful effect, when two or three combined cooperate, as it were, to contribute force, conviction, beauty’).32 What [Longinus] (On the Sublime 20) says with respect to figures of speech is also true for the combination of sound-patterns. Under the category of ‘complex cases’ I group verses or passages in which more than one of the above forms of soundplay are orchestrated to facilitate interaction and create or emphasize meaning.

 32 Halliwell 1995, 237.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women ... Progressively-Developed Aural Associations Aural association can operate not only in single verses or couplets but also in longer stretches of text by means of various forms of acoustic links. The effect is to ease the flow of the narrative by aurally drawing attention to some of its constituent elements. In [ ]εος γαιηό̣ χ̣ου ἐννοσιγαίου· | ἣ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐνὶ μεγ]άροις διδυ̣μάονε γείνατο τέκ[νω | Ἄκτορι κυσαμ]ένη καὶ ἐρικτ̣ ύ̣π̣ῳ ἐννοσιγαί̣ [ῳ, | ἀπλήτω, Κτέα]τ̣ ό̣ ν τε καὶ Εὔ̣ρυτον, οἷσι πόδες [μ]έ̣ ν̣ .[ | ἦν τέτορες, κ]εφα̣λ̣α̣ὶ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ δ̣ύ̣ω̣ ἰ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ χ̣εῖρες εεισ̣[..]ν̣ (fr. 17a.13–17 M-W), Poseidon’s fatherhood is stressed by the ‘preparatory’ syllabic recurrence of gai in the first and second part of two adjacent compound adjectives (γαιηό̣ χ̣ου ἐννοσιγαίου) pointing to ἐννοσιγαί̣ [ῳ in the next line. This is however, only the first phase of aural associations that are effected as the narrative unravels. Later, the new fathering by Actor will be presented next to that of Poseidon. Their being on par with one another is highlighted by both their syntactical coordination (καὶ) and aural chiasmus (Ἄκτορι … ἐρικτ̣ ύ̣π̣ω̣ῳ), which will resonate in the hypogrammatic echo of the names of the male offspring (Κτέα]τ̣ ό̣ ν … Εὔ̣ρυτον) in the next verse.33 Once this aural interplay is exhausted, the poet will reactivate an aural element that was pregnant in the near-syllabic repetition of διδυ̣μάονε that designated the twins to be born. The near-syllabic repetition of de-du-de in κ]εφα̣λ̣α̣ὶ̣ δ̣ὲ δ̣ύ̣ω̣ ἰ̣ δ̣ὲ̣ χ̣εῖρες echoes the twin nature (διδυ̣μάονε) of Cteatus and Eurytus and brings this progressive aural interaction to completion. In καὶ δὴ ἔχεν δύο μῆλα ποδώκης δῖ’ ᾿Aτ[αλάντη· | ἐγγὺς δ’ ἦν τέλεος· ὃ δὲ τὸ τρίτον ἧκε χ̣[αμᾶζε (fr. 76.20–21 M-W), the near-syllabic repetition of de-dudi underscores the link between Atalanta and the two apples that she catches, while the aural association between to-t-to acoustically reenacts the semantic differentiation between the first two apples and the third, which is paramount for the unraveling of this story. Various forms of assonance can be progressively combined to draw attention to place names that delineate the geographical framework within which a given episode will take place. In ἠ’ οἵη Διδύμους ἱεροὺς ναίουσα κολωνοὺς⌋ | Δωτίῳ ἐν πεδίῳ πολυβότρυος ἄντ’ Ἀ⌋μύροιο | νίψατο Βοιβιάδος λίμνης πόδα παρθέ⌋νος ἀδμής (fr. 59.2–4 M-W), the near-syllabic repetition of di-du (Διδύμους) is coupled in the same verse by the triple repetition of the wordterminal syllable –ous (Διδύμους ἱεροὺς … κολωνοὺς) which is also repeated one more time in word-internal position (ναίουσα). In the next verse, the high 33 See Watkings (1995, 189–190), who has traced various hypogrammatic echoes in Greek poets, among whom is Hesiod (Op. 1–2: Μοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν ἀοιδῇσι κλείουσαι, | δεῦτε Δί’ ἐννέπετε, σφέτερον πατέρ’ ὑμνείουσαι).

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

lighting of place names is achieved by the word-terminal syllabic repetition of íoi-íoi and is strengthened by a similar accentual pattern (Δωτίῳ ἐν πεδίῳ) and by syllabic repetition in word-initial position that is aurally facilitated by the ensuing nasals (ἄντ’ ᾿A⌋μύροιο). Lastly, in fr. 59.4 M-W emphasis on lake Boebias is carried out by the near-repetition of Boi-bias (Βοιβιάδος). ... Short-Range Aural Association Aural links of different kinds operate even on the level of a single verse, so as to call attention to semantic association or to make semantic suggestions that are not explicitly expressed. Since there are numerous examples of this phenomenon, I will restrict myself only to those I consider most noteworthy. In fr. 33a.28 M-W (νήπιος, οὐδ’ ἔδδεισε Διὸς ταλασίφρονα παῖδα) consonantal repetition of –d– in three adjacent syllables (οὐδ’ ἔδδεισε) is immediately followed by the near-syllabic repetition of se-os (ἔδδεισε Διὸς) interrupted by a further d–beginning syllable (ἔδδεισε Διὸς). This elaborate chiasmus stresses the irony of Periclymenus’ behavior. The point is that the man whom he did not fear was none other than Zeus’ son, i.e. someone superior to any descendant of Poseidon (Periclymenus was Poseidon’s grandson who had been endowed with the ability to shapeshift). In this way, the text, which had marked the last phase of their encounter by ring composition (fr. 33a.25 M-W: ἤ]τοι ὁ μὲν ζυγοῦ ἄντα βίης Ἡρακληείης – fr. 33a.30 M-W: ἀλλὰ] τ̣ό̣ τ’ ἀντίος ἦλθε βίης Ἡρακληείης), underscores the fated end of Periclymenus (called a ‘fool’ [νήπιος]) by Heracles. Another relevant case of consonantal alliteration combined with adjacent near-syllabic repetition is offered by frs. 198.10 M-W (δί]ου ᾿Aρητιάδαο· δί[ου] δ᾽ ἀπε[ρείσια ἕ]δ̣να), 204.61 M-W (Τ̣υ̣νδαρέου ποτὶ δῶμα δαΐφρονος, ὄφρ̣[α ἴδοιτο), and 204.136 M-W (δεινὸς ὄφις κατὰ νῶτα δα[φοιν). In fr. 198.10 M-W, the nexus of aural associations highlights the offering of marriage gifts to Helen by Thoas, who is first in the list of suitors mentioned after Odysseus. By aurally emphasizing the offering of wedding gifts by Thoas, the poet of the Catalogue wanted to indicate to his audience the difference between him and Odysseus, who ‘did not send any gifts for the long-ankled maiden’ (fr. 198.4 M-W: δῶρα μὲν οὔ ποτ’ ἔπεμπε τανισφύρου εἵνεκα κούρης). In fr. 204.61 M-W, the acoustic link between δῶμα δαΐφρονος and ὄφρ̣[α ἴδοιτο underscores the fact that Idomeneus did not send a proxy to Sparta but travelled on his own ‘so that he could see’ Helen ‘in the house of wise’ Tyndareos. The function of the nexus of assonantal devices is to draw attention to the semantic interaction of the two constituent items (δῶμα δαΐφρονος and ὄφρ̣[α ἴδοιτο), highlighting Idomeneus’ deviation from the proxy-sending tactics of the other suitors. In fr. 204.136

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women M-W, the epithet δα[φοινός is prefigured by the preceding phrase δεινὸς ὄφις in the same verse.34 Although the fragmentary condition of the text does not allow for further arguments, it may not be too bold to note that both the kenning ‘hairless’ (129: ἄτριχος)35 and the typical designation of the snake (137: ὄφις) trigger aural associations in the immediate context. Often highlighted by ancient scholiasts and grammarians, a repetition of consonantal clusters imitating by their harshness of sound Zeus’ mighty thundering is observed in fr. 54a.7 M-W (σκ]λ̣ηρ[ὸν] δ’ ἐβ[ρόντησε καὶ ὄβριμον, ἀμφὶ δὲ γαῖα).36 A closer look, though, shows that various ‘ancillary’ aural links are activated so as to make the most of the expressiveness of this harshness of sound: a consonantal cluster skl is placed at verse-initial position, and moreover the repeated consonantal clusters tied to near-supra-syllabic repetition of sound (ebr-obr) and other near-syllabic repetition (ond-ont) create an impressive chiasmus (ond–ebr–obr–ont). Although formulas are marked by a low perceptibility of aural effects, Ζεὺς δ’ ἄμ]μ’ ἐπιμάρτυρος ἔστω (fr. 75.17 M-W) seems to be an exception. For the homoeoteleuton37 with the previous verse (fr. 75.16 M-W: ]οι εἰρημένος ἔστω) and the assonance of –e– in word-initial position are carried over to the ensuing formula Ζεὺς δ’ ἄμ]μ’ ἐπιμάρτυρος ἔστω through parallel repetition (ἐπιμάρτυρος ἔστω). In this light, the amm-ma acoustic link is not hidden in the formulaic expression but flanked by the parallel assonance of –e– sounds. The result of this intricate interplay is the stress on Zeus’ being witness to Schoeneus’ words, as if repetition of sound imitated the force of the oath.

 34 See Watkins (1995, 189), who draws attention to an analogous phenomenon in Homeric Hymn 3.362 (φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσ’, ὁ δ’ ἐπηύξατο Φοῖβος ᾿Aπόλλων), in which word-initial segments of the sequence φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσ’ refigure the word-initial segments of the god’s name in the sequence Φοῖβος ᾿Aπόλλων. 35 On ἄτριχος, see under ‘middle-range aural association’ (below); on kennings, see Waern 1951. 36 See Goslin (2010, 364), who draws attention to the use of this formula, which is coupled in Th. 839–849 with another formula (σμερδαλέον κονάβησε) that ‘regularly occurs in epic poetry to register the effect of a powerful force, whether a voice or physical blow, on its environment’. In both the Typhonomachy passage from the Theogony and in Cat. fr. 54a Μ-W, harshness of sound pertaining to Zeus’ activity is followed by a reference to the earth (Th. 839–840: σκληρὸν δ’ ἐβρόντησε καὶ ὄβριμον, ἀμφὶ δὲ γαῖα | σμερδαλέον κονάβησε – Cat. fr. 54a.7–8 M-W: σκ]λ̣ηρ[ὸν] δ’ ἐβ[ρόντησε καὶ ὄβριμον | ἀμφὶ δὲ γαῖα | κ[ι]νήθ̣[η). 37 On an ancient definition of homoeoteleuton, see [Demetrius] On Style 25: ὁμοιοτέλευτα δέ ἐστι τὰ εἰς ὅμοια καταλήγοντα, ἤτοι εἰς ὀνόματα ταὐτά … ἢ ὅταν εἰς συλλαβὴν καταλήγῃ τὴν αὐτήν (‘Homoeoteleuton is when clauses end similarly, either with the same word … or with the same syllable’, translation by Innes 1995, 365).

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

Prosodic variation of supra-syllabic word-initial pendants can be combined with other aural associative devices such as near-syllabic repetition. In fr. 150.22 M-W, (]φέρβουσα̣ π̣[ολ]υσπερέας πολύφορβος) prosodic variation of the suprasyllabic word-initial πολυ-pendants38 (πολυσ.περέα—πολύ.φορβος) is flanked by stem repetition in word-initial and word-terminal position (φέρβ-φορβ). The modification of φέρβουσα by πολύφορβος is a hapax that has disturbed Rzach who thought it to be the result of the visual influence of the preceding φέρβουσα, arguing that the poet of the Catalogue had initially written πολυφύλους in asyndeton. I have decided to follow the transmitted text which is, correctly, in my view, printed in the standard modern edition by Merkelbach and West. The chiastic structure pherb-polu-polu-phorb is based on the fact that πολύφορβος echoes in reverse order the preceding φέρβουσα̣ π̣[ολ]υ(σπερέας), intensifying what has already been expressed. This well-known form of repetition in ancient Greek can take various forms: noun- or pronoun-shifts (e.g. Il. 4.62–63: ὑποείξομεν ἀλλήλοισι, | σοὶ μὲν ἐγώ, σὺ δ᾽ ἐμοί), verb-shifts (e.g. Sappho fr. 117 Voigt: †χαίροις ἀ νύμφα†, χαιρέτω δ᾽ ὁ γάμβρος), and even category-shifts (e.g. Il. 5.560–561: καππεσέτην … | τὼ δὲ πεσόντ᾽ ἐλέησεν).39 Fragment 150.22 M-W resonates with Od. 11.264–265 (… οἷά τε πολλοὺς | βόσκει γαῖα μέλαινα πολυσπερέας ἀνθρώπους), in which both similar vocabulary and a similar repetition pattern are used. The recurrence of the simple adjective πολλοὺς in the compound πολυσπερέας (Od. 11.364–365) is analogous to the repetition of the participle φέρβουσα in the compound πολύφορβος in fr. 150.22 M-W.40 In fact, the Catalogue also offers an example of the reverse phenomenon, which involves what is known as ‘compound-simplification’41 (the repetition of only one part of a compound): ἐν δ’ ἄνδρες ναίουσι πολύρρηνες πολυβοῦται | πολλοὶ ἀπειρέσιοι φῦλα θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων (fr. 240.3–4 M-W). ... Middle-Range Aural Association In fr. 43a.41–2 M-W (ε]ὖτέ τις ἀντ’ ὤνοιο̣ χατίζῃ χ[̣ρῆ]μ̣’ ἀνελ[έσθαι | ἀ]μφὶ μάλα χρῆν ὦν[̣ον .......]. τῖμον̣ [), syllabic repetition of chre capped by nasals (m-n) aurally associates χ[̣ρῆ]μ̣’ and χρῆν in two successive verses. The function of this aural link is the creation of an elaborate chiasmus with ὤνοιο̣ | ὦν̣ [ον. The  38 Repetition of the first part of a compound (like φιλο- and πολυ-, a preposition, and α privative) is common in many Greek authors; see Denniston 1952, 130. 39 For a detailed study of these forms of repetition in Latin poetry (with some examples from Greek authors too), see Wills 1996, 272–328. 40 For the ‘simplex-compound’ association, see Wills 1996, 443–445. 41 See Wills 1996, 319.

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women distribution of the constituent items of the chiasmus in the two successive verses (ὤνοιο̣ … χ[̣ρῆ]μ̣’ | χρῆν ὦν[̣ ον) aims at stressing the balance between the thing to be exchanged and its purchased price.42 In fr. 62.1–3 M-W (ἄκρον ἐπ’ ἀνθερίκων καρπὸν θέεν οὐδὲ κατέκλα, | ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πυραμίνων ἀθέρων δρομάασκε πόδεσσιν | καὶ οὐ σινέσκετο καρπόν), nearsyllabic repetition at word-initial position (ἄκρον … καρπὸν … κατέκλα | καρπόν) reinforced by other aural forms of acoustic association like syllabic repetition (ἀνθερίκων … θέεν | ἀθέρων) and word-terminal syllabic recurrence in the arsis or first sedes of two bordering feet (ἀνθερίκων καρπὸν | πυραμίνων ἀθέρων) may be distributed in three successive verses, in order to draw attention to the content of the story: Iphiclus used to run (θέεν) on the ‘fruiting tops of asphodel’ (ἄκρον ἐπ’ ἀνθερίκων καρπὸν) without breaking them (κατέκλα); he would race upon the wheaten tassels (πυραμίνων ἀθέρων) on his feet and would not damage the fruit’43 (καρπόν). The soundplay orchestrated by tectals44 can be noteworthy. In fr. 133.3–5 MW, the alliteration of –k– and –kh– together with syllabic repetition at wordinitial position45 spans three verses describing the disease sent by Hera as a punishment to the daughters of Proitos (καὶ γάρ σφιν κεφαλῇσι κατὰ κν⌋ύος αἰνὸν ἔχευ⌊εν· | ἀλφὸς γὰρ χρόα πάντα κατέσχεν, αἱ δέ νυ χαῖται | ἔρρεον ἐκ κεφαλέων, ψίλωτο δὲ καλὰ κάρηνα). Sound repetition allows the listener to follow mentally the spread of the illness on the heads of the Proetids: itching (κν⌋ύος) is ‘poured on’ (κατὰ ἔχευ⌊εν) their heads, dull-white leprosy spreads over their skin (χρόα … κατέσχεν), their hair (χαῖται) begins to fall from their heads (ἐκ κεφαλέων), their beautiful heads (καλὰ κάρηνα) are made hairless. The same mechanisms of aural highlighting (alliteration of –d– together with syllabic or near-syllabic repetition of adjacent words) are employed in fr. 141.1–3 M-W and 6 (] Διὸς δμηθεῖσα δόλοισι./ τῇ δὲ μίγη φιλότητι] πατὴρ καὶ δῶρον ἔδωκεν | πα]τ̣ ρὶ φέρων· ὃ δὲ δέξατο δῶρο̣ [ν). In this episode of the love affair between Zeus and Europa, her subjugation to Zeus’ wiles is aurally asso-

 42 I am hereby following the text printed in Casanova (1977, 25–30) and reprinted in Most (2007, 138 and 140). For the various problems concerning the meaning of these lines, see Hirschberger 2004, 277–278 on Cat. fr. 37.41–3 (= fr. 43a.41–43 M-W). 43 Translation by Most 2007, 129. 44 ‘Tectals’ is the current scientific term for ‘gutturals’; for ancient Greek, see NE s.v. ‘gutturals’ [Steinbauer]. 45 A single-verse example of aural association by tectals (gutturals) is offered by Cat. fr. 26.12 Μ-W: ἄκρ̣α̣ κάρηνα; for Homeric examples, see Edwards 1991, 58.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

ciated with Zeus’ ensuing offer to her of a golden necklace, which Hephaestus made and gave to Zeus in the first place. The same phenomenon is observed in fr. 204.87–90 M-W: (πλεῖ̣ [στ]α πορών. Χε̣ ί̣ ρων δ’ ἐν Πηλίῳ ὑλήεντι | Πηλείδην ἐκ̣ό̣μιζε πόδας ταχύν, ἔξοχον ἀνδρῶν, | παῖδ’ ἔτ’ ἐόν[τ’·] οὐ γάρ μιν ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος | νίκησ’) by means of alliteration of –p– and syllabic repetition of –pe–. The stress is on the antithesis between the victory of Menelaus in the suitors’ contest for the hand of Helen by means of multiple gifts (πλεῖ̣ [στ]α πορών) and the absence of Achilleus from the contest who was raised by Chiron at mount Pelion. The passage is nicely flanked by a ring composition (85–86: … ἀλ̣λ̣’ ἄ̣[ρα πάντας | ᾿Aτρε[ίδ]ης ν̣ [ίκησε]ν ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος and 89–90: οὐ γάρ μιν ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος | νίκησ’) that accentuates the nexus of aural links. Other forms of alliterative and/or syllabic or near-syllabic repetition are found in frs. 204.94–95 M-W (ἄελπτον. πάντες δὲ θεοὶ δίχα θυμὸν ἔθεντο | ἐξ ἔριδος· δὴ γὰρ τότε μήδετο θέσκελα ἔργα), 204.124–129 M-W (πο⌋λλὰ δ’ ἀπὸ γλωθρῶν δενδρέων ἀμύοντα χαμᾶζε | χ̣ε̣ύετο καλὰ πέτηλα, ῥέεσκε δὲ καρπὸς ἔραζε | π]ν̣είο̣ν̣τος Βορέαο περιζαμενὲς Διὸς αἴσῃ, | .]′̣λ̣εσκεν δὲ θάλασσα, τρόμ{ε}εσκε δὲ πάντ’ ἀπὸ τοῖο, | τ̣ρ̣ύ̣χ̣εσ̣κεν δὲ μένος βρότεον, μινύθεσκε δὲ καρπός), and 204.130 M-W (γ]α̣ί̣[η]ς̣ ἐν̣ κευθμῶνι τρίτῳ ἔτεϊ τρία τέκνα). In the first case, the usual alliteration of –th- in θεοί-τίθημι/-μαι is combined with syllabic repetition of -the- pointing to the ‘wondrous deeds’ (θέσκελα ἔργα) devised by Zeus for the race of men. In the second case, the homoeoteleuton χαμᾶζε /ἔραζε calls into attention the falling of trees and leaves on the earth and paves the way, through the harshness of sound created by the five-fold supra-syllabic repetition –eske– (ῥέεσκε | .]′̣λ̣ εσκεν … τρόμ{ε}εσκε | τ̣ ρ̣ύ̣χ̣εσ̣κεν … μινύθεσκε), to the destruction caused by Zeus. In the third case, the chiasmus of nearsyllabic repetition of tri-te-tri-te in four successive words (τρίτῳ ἔτεϊ τρία τέκνα) emphasizes the connection between the birth of three offspring by the snake in the third year. This middle-range aural association may have been created under the influence of the phrase ὅτε τ’ ἄτριχος οὔρεσι τίκτει (fr. 204.129 M-W) that is also marked by recurrence of –t– sounds in various combinations and is syntactically linked to τρίτῳ ἔτεϊ τρία τέκνα. After all, the kenning ‘hairless’ (ἄτριχος) functions as an attention-drawing device by means of its colloquial character. Fragment 204.131 M-W (ἦρο]ς ̣μὲν κατ’ ὄρος καὶ ἀνὰ δρυμ{ν}ὰ πυκνὰ καὶ ὕλην) offers a rare (for the Catalogue of Women) form of aural association: nearrepetition of two almost adjacent words. This sound repetition seems to function as a link to ὥ̣ρ̣ῃ ἐν εἰαρινῇ, ὅτε τ’ ἄτριχος οὔρεσι τίκτει (204.129). The near-repetition of ἦρο]ς̣ – ὄρος recapitulates the ὥ̣ρ̣ῃ ἐν εἰαρινῇ – οὔρεσι

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women interplay,46 as the focus is still on the snake giving birth in the spring and going along ‘down from the mountain and up among the dense corpses and forest’.47 ... Long-Range Aural Association Long-range aural association is based on the repetition of the same or similar sound in an extended textual segment. The ‘nuclear’ aural feature is first presented as an ‘advance mention’ only to be picked up later and then exhaustively employed. In σκληρὸν δ’] ἐ̣ βρόντ[ησεν ἀπ’] οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος (fr. 30.13 MW), the word-initial cluster br seems to interact with other preceding and ensuing consonantal clusters such as skl-nd (σκληρὸν δ’) and nd (ἐ̣ βρόντ[ησεν), since harshness of sound created by series of consonants was thought to imitate noise, here the noise made by Zeus’ thundering.48 But the unraveling of the narrative shows that the poet aims at creating a much more sophisticated interplay, since Zeus’ thundering will be aurally connected to the insolent king Salmoneus and the punishment of his transgression: βῆ δὲ κατ’ Ο]ὐλύμποιο [χο]λούμενος, αἶψα δ’ ἵκανεν | λαοὺς Σαλμ]ωνῆος ἀτ[ασ]θάλου, οἳ τάχ᾽ ἔμελλο̣ ν πείσεσθ᾽ ἔρ]γ᾽ ἀΐδηλα δι᾽ ὑβ̣[ρ]ι̣ σ̣τὴν βασιλῆα· | τοὺς δ᾽ ἔβα]λ̣εν βροντῇ [τε κ]αὶ αἰθαλόεντι κεραυνῷ. | ὣς λαοὺς ἀπε]τίνεθ᾽ ὑπερβ[ασίην] βασιλῆος | τὸν δὲ λα]βὼν ἔρριψ’ ἐς Τ[ά]ρταρον ἠερόεντα | ὡς μή τις] βροτὸς ἄλλος [ἐ]ρ̣ί̣ ζ̣ο̣ι̣ Ζηνὶ ἄνακτι (fr. 30.15–23 M-W). This is a telling example of how a ‘nuclear’ aural feature (br) functions as the vehicle for a long-range acoustic interplay which will make use of the same or similar sound pattern: ἐβρόντησεν, ὑβριστὴν βασιλῆα, ἔβαλεν βροντῇ, ὑπερβασίην49 βασιλῆος, βροτός. In fact, this list of acoustically associated terms amounts to an ‘aural summary’ of the relevant episode. The preparatory mention of a low-perceptibility ‘nuclear’ aural element occurs again in the same fragment, this time in the context of the Tyro-Poseidon episode. Tyro was the only member of Salmoneus’ family who was dear to the immortal gods, since she constantly rebuked and contended with her arrogant

 46 See also the soundplay in fr. 70.13 M-W (εἴαρο[ς ὥρῃ) and my comments under ‘vocalic repetition’ (11.2.2). 47 Translation by Most 2007, 237. 48 On such effects with emphasis on the Homeric scholia, see Richardson 1980, 283–285. 49 The abstract noun ὑπερβασίη is attested one more time in the entire Hesiodic corpus; see Op. 828 and West 1978a, 364–365 on Op. 828, who defends the verse as genuine against the view (Σ Hes. Op. 828; see also Paus. 9.31.5) that it (or 826–828) was added to make a transition to the poem Ornithomanteia, also attributed to Hesiod. Writing before the edition of Hesiodic fragments by Merkelbach and West in 1967, Krafft (1963, 71) discussed ὑπερβασίη in Op. 828 as a hapax legomenon.

Assonance (παρήχησις)  

father and let no mortal challenge the gods. This episode begins right after the completion of the one pertaining to the destruction of Salmoneus’ house by Zeus. At the very first verse, the only person of Salmoneus’ family escaping destruction is introduced as πάις … φίλη and then by her name (Τυρώ). The ‘nuclear’ aural associative mechanism (alliteration of the sound –p– in pais-phile) can hardly be noticed per se by the audience but the emphasis on the justification of Tyro’s salvation would no doubt have attracted attention. The two lines devoted to it, which are both full of repetitive features underscoring her continuous rebuke of Salmoneus (νεικέεσκε, συνεχές, εἴασκε), are completed by the phrase βροτὸν ἰσοφαρίζειν, which echoes the ‘nuclear’ aural element of the previous episode. This elaborate interplay between sound and narrative unraveling can hardly be accidental. The continuation of the plot verifies this assumption. The alliterative ‘nuclear’ element –p– that introduced Tyro as πάις … φίλη soon becomes the acoustic pivot around which the rest of a longrange aural association revolves. Verses 31–35 (αὐτὰρ ἐπεί] ῥ’ ἥβης πολυηράτου ἐς τέλος ἦλθεν | ..... . τῆ]ς γ’ ἐράεσκε Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχθων | ] φιλότητι θεὸς βροτῷ, οὕνεκ’ ἄρ’ εἶδος πασάων | προὔχεσκε γυναι]κῶν θηλυτεράων | ἣ δ’ ἐπ’ Ἐνιπῆος πωλέσκετο] καλὰ ῥέεθρα) exploit several alliterative or near-syllabic recurrences rotating around the love affair between Poseidon and Tyro. When the young girl arrived at the end of her much-desired puberty (ἥβης πολυηράτου), Poseidon fell in love with her, a god with a mortal (Ποσειδάων … φιλότητι θεὸς βροτῷ), since she surpassed all mortal women in beauty (πασάων προὔχεσκε), and she would travel to the river Enipeus (ἐπ’ Ἐνιπῆος πωλέσκετο), where Poseidon, taking the form of the river-god, would make love to her. Thus, the long-range aural interplay follows and highlights the narrative: the young girl at her puberty, the god in love, the girl’s excessive beauty, the river she frequents as the place of their intercourse, all crucial elements of this episode are accentuated by means of the associative (alliterative and nearsyllable based) repetition of the sound –p–. The soundplay is in this example so elaborately constructed that it not only interacts with the aural associations of the previous episode (see fr. 30.27 M-W: βροτὸν) but links them to their new environment, always in tune with the narrative content. I am referring to verse 33 (φιλότητι θεὸς βροτῷ) where the consonantal cluster –br– that aurally marked the previous episode is almost juxtaposed (tellingly interrupted by θεὸς) to the alliterative device –p– of this episode. Previously, one god (Zeus) destroyed a family of arrogant mortals, now another god (Poseidon) falls in love with the one mortal who honored the gods. Another noteworthy example of long-range aural association is found in fr. 33 M-W. As in the previous case, the ‘nuclear’ element surfaces early in the text,

  Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women at a significant distance from the passage where its linking potential will be fully operable. To cater to its enormous separation from the ‘target’ text, its advance mention takes the form of a complete syllabic and near-syllabic repetition that marks an entire verse: Νηλέα κα]ὶ̣ Πελίην πολέσιν λαοῖσι̣ [ν ἄνακτας (fr. 33a.2 M-W). By employing the le-pel-pol-la aural chiasmus, the poet aims to introduce his listeners to the aural and rhythmic ‘grammar’ of the ensuing episode. The high-perceptibility of this full-fledged acoustic device can stay in the audience’s mind, in order to be evoked later when Heracles attacks Pylos. Periclymenus, one of Neleus’ sons, ‘destroyed many other men fighting around the wall of glorious Neleus, his father, and he brought many to black death by killing them’ (33a.19–21 M-W: β⌊ο⌋υλ⌊ῇ⌋ ᾿Aθηναίης· πολέας δ’ ἀπόλεσσε καὶ ἄλλους | μαρνάμενος Νηλῆος ἀγακλειτοῦ περὶ τεῖχος | ο[ὗ] πατρός, πολέας δὲ μελαίνῃ κηρὶ πέλασσε).50 Definitive proof that this mechanism of aural association is at work in this episode is offered by fr. 35 M-W, which is concerned with the same theme, i.e. the struggle between Periclymenus and Heracles. In verses 2–5 (ὄφρα μὲν οὖν ἔζ]ωε Περικλύ[μ]ενος θε[ο]ειδής, | οὐκ ἐδύναντο Πύ]λον πραθέειν μάλα περ μεμαῶτες· | ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ θανάτο]ι̣ο Π[ε]ρικλύμενον λάβε μοῖρα, | ἐξαλάπαξε Πύλοιο πόλιν Δι]ὸς ἄ[λ]κιμο[ς] υἱός), near-syllabic repetition is evenly distributed in four consecutive verses and further reinforced by parallelism (per-pyl-per-pyl) and other aural devices underscoring the sack of Pylos (pyl-pr, pyl-pol). ... Formula-Bounded Aural Elements Interacting with Other Features Syllabic or supra-syllabic repetition or near-repetition can happen between aural elements contained in a formula and aural features beyond its borders. By creating an aural expansion of part of a formula, the poet reads the formula anew, suggesting to his audience a novel function that is determined by the semantic content of the narrated story. This is the case with τῆμος ἄρ’ ἄγγελος ἦλθε κόραξ ἱερῆς ἀπὸ δαιτὸς | Πυθὼ ἐς ἠγαθέην καί ῥ’ ἔφρασεν ἔργ’ ἀΐδηλα | Φοίβῳ ἀκερσεκόμῃ, ὅτι Ἴσχυς γῆμε Κόρωνιν | Εἰλατίδης, Φλεγύαο διογνήτοιο θύγατρα (fr. 60.1–4 M-W). The ake-eko supra-syllabic near-repetition in the formula Φοῖβος ἀκερσεκόμης is flanked by the interplay between the two kor (κόραξ–Κόρωνιν). The selection of this formula may, in fact, have been conditioned by the poet’s will to ‘refresh’ the aural association between κόραξ and Κόρωνιν, which (because of their separation in the text) would be characterized by low perceptibility. The result is that the crow, Apollo, and Coronis are aurally

 50 Translation by Most 2007, 93.

Conclusions  

linked just as they are semantically associated in this story. Likewise in Φοῖβος ἀκερσεκόμης ἀέκων κτάνε νηλέ]ϊ δίσκῳ (fr. 171.8 M-W), the ake-eko suprasyllabic near-repetition of the formula Φοῖβος ἀκερσεκόμης is exploited by the poet who uses it to create an aural interaction with the ensuing ἀέκων, beginning with the sound aek. The placement of ktane immediately afterwards reveals the studied soundplay: Apollo killed Hyacinthus by accident.

. Conclusions The Catalogue of Women is a treasure house of soundplay ranging from simple alliteration to vocalic, syllabic, and near-syllabic repetition in both word-initial and word-terminal position. Soundplay operates not only on verse-level but also on short, middle- and long-range parallel and corollary passages. It is preeminently, but not exclusively, in cases like these that entire nexuses of aural associations are orchestrated to highlight what is overtly expressed in the narrative snapshot of a given episode or part of an ehoie. Sometimes aural links are used covertly to ‘suggest’ an interpretation that is not explicitly stated in the text. From a generic perspective, the wealth, variety, and sophistication of soundplay that has been explored in this chapter must be understood together with the fact that the Catalogue of Women represents a novel crossing-over of ehoie-poetry to catalogue-poetry. It is exactly under the scope of the generic fusion of these sub-species of Greek epic that we should be studying the richness and intricacy of soundplay. To put it simply, these features of soundplay may well reflect the efforts of a cross-generic hybrid like the Catalogue of Women seeking to find its own style.



Part III: The Epic Cycle

 The Gods in Cyclic Epic The role of the divine in Cyclic epic is multifarious, covering a wide range of themes such as wrath, rivalry, foretelling of the future, love and parentage of both immortal and mortal children, counseling, metamorphoses, and immortalization. The aim of this study is to map the function of gods in Cyclic epic and explore, where this is feasible, their role in unraveling the plot. Before examining each theme in detail, a preliminary observation about the state of the material available is required. The Epic Cycle comprises three sections: a ‘theogonic’ (Theogony, Titanomachy), a Theban (Oedipodea, Thebais, Epigonoi, Alcmeonis), and a Trojan (Cypria, Aethiopis, Ilias parva, Iliou persis, Nostoi, Telegony). The information that has survived with respect to the epics belonging to each of these sections shows a pattern of ‘ascending improvement.’ Whereas we possess an extremely limited amount of material concerning the ‘theogonic’ epics, we are better informed about the Theban section, and much better about Trojan epics for which we are fortunate to possess plotsummaries by Proclus.1 For the ‘theogonic’ section, and to some extent for the Theban one, our ability to develop arguments about the roles of the gods is seriously limited. Nevertheless, some of the material found in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, used with caution, allows us to make a few assumptions also about these epics, despite the lack of detailed summaries of their content.2

. Divine Wrath in the Theogony and Titanomachy Wrath constitutes one of the central themes of Archaic Greek epic at large. The wrath of Achilles in the Iliad, of Poseidon and Helius in the Odyssey, of Zeus in the Hesiodic Theogony, of Athena in the Nostoi not only determines the course of the plot of these poems but is also deeply enmeshed in their poetics. The view of the world presented in this epic universe is colored by anger and revenge, which led to an ongoing and profound reconsideration of the limits and limitations of key concepts of archaic ethics, such as heroism, hybris, justice, and friendship.

 1 On Proclus as a source for the poems of the Epic Cycle, see Severyns 1938a, 1953; Davies 1986, 91–111; Burgess 2001, 12–46; West 2013, 4–11; Fantuzzi and Tsagalis 2015, 1–40; Currie 2016, 55–56 and 229–233. 2 On the Bibliotheca and the Trojan epics of the Cycle, see now West 2013, 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-012

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic In the ‘theogonic’ section3 of the Epic Cycle it is virtually impossible to develop any consistent argument with respect to the theme of wrath. The only general observation that can be made is based on comparison with the Hesiodic Theogony. The succession wars among the immortals follow a structure marked by attempts of the father (Uranus, Cronus) to protect himself from his descendants by incarcerating them (either in Tartarus or in his belly).4 These tactics of ‘preventive self-protection’ stem from the almost built-in tendency of each generation to pose a threat to the previous one in a world marked by anger and revenge. Divine fathers, unlike mortal ones, are not normally worried about family continuity, nor are their sons concerned with showing respect to them. The absence of an end of life makes kingship everlasting. The same observation applies to possessiveness and wrath. Strife is in the divine world almost a reflex and revenge is its unavoidable side-effect. In the Cyclic Titanomachy attributed to Eumelus,5 the divine wars may have covered a very wide range of struggles for the rule of the cosmos, extending well beyond the Titanomachy itself, i.e. the clash between the Titans and the Olympians. We are in no position to know what role wrath played in all these conflicts, but we should remind ourselves that neikos among gods in epic is mainly (but not solely) inter-generational wrath. The following example is indicative of this. The re-imprisonment of the Cyclopes in Tartarus by Cronus, after the help they have provided in the castration of Uranus, who had incarcerated them in Tartarus in the first place, seems to pave the way for their subsequent release by Zeus, since they will fight on his side against the Titans. Since the second summoning of the Cyclopes from Tartarus and their provision of special weapons to the Olympians is based on their wrath against the Titans who had incarcerated them there, the support they provide to the Olympians becomes a cardinal event of the Titanomachy’s plot — an event that should not be treated as a thematic sine qua non of the tradition. In Eumelus’ poem, Zeus’ release of the Cyclopes amounts to a foreshadowing of his future victory, since the weapons the Cyclopes provide (thunderbolt to Zeus, trident to Poseidon, and helmet of invisibility to Hades) mirror the ensuing distribution of the world in three spheres between Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades (see fr. 6* GEF, EGEF).

 3 See p. 283 (this volume). 4 On the ‘Succession Myth’ in the Hesiodic Theogony and its oriental predecessors, see West 1966, 18–31; 1997, 288–305. On the incarceration of divine opponents and Near-Eastern parallels, see West 1997, 297–300. 5 See Davies 1989, 13–18; D’Alessio 2015, 202–212; Tsagalis 2017a, 42–82.

Divine Wrath in the Theban Epics  

. Divine Wrath in the Theban Epics In the Theban section of the Epic Cycle, divine wrath looms large. Pisander’s elaborate testimony allows us to reconstruct the plot of the Oedipodea (arg. Oedipodea, pp. 17–19 PEG = apud Σ Eur. Phoen. 1760).6 The narrative incipit is based on Hera’s wrath for the incestuous love of Laius for Chrysippus. As a goddess who protects marriage, she is angered at Laius and Thebes and sends the Sphinx against the city, while Chrysippus commits suicide out of guilt. The fundamental role of Hera’s wrath in the Oedipodea is also seen in her final appeasement by means of Oedipus’ second marriage to the parthenos Euryganeia. As in the case of ‘theogonic epic,’ divine wrath is inherited from one generation to the next. But whereas in the purely immortal world of the Cyclic Theogony and Titanomachy its consequences are limited due to the fact that it concerns only the immortal gods, in the mortal world it can end in disaster. The suicide of Chrysippus and the killing of the Sphinx do not put an end to Hera’s anger but only mark its first stage. By solving the riddle of the Sphinx, the mortal Oedipus for a second time, like his father Laius, commits the crime of questioning divine power.7 As a consequence, the wrath of Hera is renewed and transferred to him in a sequence of events that will involve himself, his father and mother, and of course the very means by which Oedipus had challenged Hera’s might, i.e. human knowledge and its limitations. At the end of the Oedipodea, Oedipus’ marriage with Euryganeia, an epic model of the ideal wife, brings the epic full circle. The lack of a comprehensive summary for the other three Theban epics of the Cycle does not allow us to draw solid conclusions regarding the treatment of the theme of divine wrath. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty is that divine anger played a smaller role in the Thebais and the Epigonoi but a more important one in the Alcmeonis. In the Thebais, we find divine anger, for example, in Erinys’ role in carrying out Oedipus’ curse against his sons (fr. 2 PEG [= EGF, GEF]), Zeus’ disapproval of the expedition of the Seven, and Athena’s wrath at Tydeus’ cannibalism; but none of these interventions (even Zeus’) drives the poem’s plot in the way Hera’s anger stamps the Oedipodea.8 Likewise in the Epigonoi, in which the gods favor the expedition of the sons of the Seven.9 In the Alcmeonis, the main example of divine anger is Erinys’ wrath against

 6 See Davies 1989, 19–31, and 2014; Cingano (Oedipodea) 2015a, 213–225; Torres-Guerra (Thebais) 2015, 226–243; Cingano (Epigonoi) 2015b, 244–260; Debiasi (Alcmeonis) 2015, 261–280. 7 Fr. 2 GEF. 8 See Davies 1989, 22–28; Davies 2014, 27–98; Torres-Guerra 2015, 226–243. 9 See Davies 1989, 29–31; Cingano 2015b, 244–260; Davies 2014, 107–114.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic Alcmaon for killing his mother Eriphyle.10 In contrast to the Thebais and the Epigonoi, this wrath permeates the entire poem, as the wanderings of Alcmaon, persecuted by Erinys, form the Alcmeonis’ main theme. Looking at the Theban epics of the Cycle as a section, we can see that divine wrath is central to the Oedipodea and perhaps to the Alcmeonis but secondary to the Thebais and the Epigonoi. In the former pair of epics, it constitutes their narrative incipit, runs through the entire plot and is centered on the epic protagonists (Laius and Oedipus – Alcmaon).

. Divine Wrath in the Trojan Epics In the Trojan epics of the Cycle divine wrath prevails. Although it is not present in every single poem, it drives the divine master plan to bring the Age of Heroes to an end. The first poem of this section, the Cypria, begins with Zeus and Themis devising a plan to alleviate the earth from the burden of human overpopulation by causing the Trojan War (arg. Cypr. ll. 84–85 Severyns). A closer look shows that divine wrath in this poem is instrumental as it figures as the driving force of the plot in many of its episodes. What is equally important is that nearly all five parts in which we can subdivide this epic begin and end with divine or divinerelated action,11 sometimes taking the form of anger, as the following overview illustrates (arg. Cypr. ll. 86–169 Severyns): a. Marriage of a goddess, Thetis, and a mortal, Peleus (86–105) 1. Neikos, theon krisis, wrath of Hera and Athena (86–90) 2. Aphrodite sets her plan in motion (91) 3. Prophecies by Helenus and Cassandra about Paris and Troy (92–94) 4. Aphrodite brings Paris and Helen together; they leave Sparta (95–102) 5. Hera sends a storm against them; they arrive at Troy and marry (103–105) b. An army is mustered to get Helen back (106–124) 1. Zeus grants Helen’s brothers heteremerian in the Underworld (106–109) 2. Iris tells Menelaus what happened during his absence (110–111) 3. He consults Agamemnon (111–112)

 10 See Debiasi 2015, 264, 276. 11 By ‘divine-related action’ I am designating action that is carried out by humans but involves a god (e.g. sacrifice).

Divine Wrath in the Trojan Epics  

4. They visit Nestor: stories of Epopeus, Oedipus, Heracles’ madness, Theseus and Ariadne, i.e. stories of human folly or ate punished by the gods (112–117) 5. They muster an army; Odysseus is recruited. Army is gathered at Aulis (118– 122) 6. Sacrifices. Prophecy of Calchas (snake eating sparrows) about the length of the war (122–114) c. Expedition to Teuthrania (125–134) 1. Siege of Teuthrania. Telephus repels the Greek army and kills Thersander (125–127) 2. Achilles wounds Telephus when Dionysus traps him in a vine (127–128) 3. The Achaean army sails away from Mysia. Achilles arrives at Scyros after a storm. He leaves Deidameia pregnant (129–131) 4. Telephus goes to Delphi to ask the god how he will have his wound cured (132) 5. Following Apollo’s advice he goes to Argos, where he is cured by Achilles. Telephus promises to show the Achaeans the way to Troy and that neither he nor anyone among his descendants will fight against them (133–134) d. Second gathering of the army in Aulis and journey to Troy (135–147) 1. Agamemnon arrogantly kills a deer and insults Artemis claiming that he is better than her in hunting (135–137) 2. Due to Artemis’ wrath the winds do not blow and the ships cannot sail (137– 138) 3. Calchas says that Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigenia must be sacrificed so that the goddess is appeased (138–141) 4. They bring Iphigenia from Argos. At the sacrifice Artemis snatches her and takes her to the land of the Taurians where she makes her priestess at her temple (141–143) 5. The army departs. They stop at Tenedos. Achilles kills Tenes who attacked the Achaeans by throwing stones at them, not heeding Thetis’ warning that Apollo would avenge the death of his son and/or priest. While sacrificing to appease Apollo, Philoctetes is wounded by a snake coming from the altar. Because of the disgusting smell of his wound, Odysseus, on Agamemnon’s orders, conveys him to Lemnos and leaves him there with Heracles’ bow and arrows (144–147)

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic e. Beginning of the war, first hostilities (148–169) 1. Thetis advises Achilles not to jump first from his ship in order to avoid death. Protesilaus, who is the first to set foot on the shore, is killed by Hector. Achilles routs the Trojans and kills Cycnus, son of Poseidon (148–151) 2. The Achaeans negotiate with the Trojans asking for the return of Helen and her possessions but no agreement is reached. Hostilities begin anew (152–154) 3. The Achaeans sack small cities in the Troad (155–156) 4. Achilles desires to see Helen. Aphrodite and Thetis make this possible (157–158) 5. Achilles restrains the Achaeans who are eager to return home. He sacks Lyrnessos and Pedasos and kills Troilus in an ambush at the temple of Thymbraean Apollo. He captures Lycaon and has Patroclus sell him as a slave to Lemnos. He captures more cities in the Troad (159–163) 6. The Achaeans divide the spoils. Achilles takes Briseis, Agamemnon, Chryseis (164–165) 7. Palamedes is killed by Odysseus (who holds a grudge against him, since he had revealed Odysseus’ effort to avoid recruitment to the war by simulating madness (166; fr. 30 PEG = 20 EGF, 27 GEF) 8. Zeus’ plan to help the Trojans by making Achilles withdraw from battle. Catalogue of Trojan allies (167–169) Divine wrath is instrumental for the narrative unraveling and Weltanschauung of the Cypria.12 The fact that this epic begins and ends with Zeus’ planning the Trojan War and end with him planning the temporary defeat of the Achaeans indicates both the extent and the weight of divine intervention in the human world. Zeus’ anger against the world of men that sets in motion the plot of the Cypria creates the framework within which this epic (as well as the entire Trojan Cycle) will operate. Coming from the supreme deity this wrath is targeted not at a single hero or nation but at the entire human race.13 This is a profound statement by the poet of the Cypria, since the context within which Zeus’ plan is activated is the wedding of a goddess (Thetis) and a mortal (Peleus) that represents the meeting between these two worlds. Given that catalogic epics like the Catalogue of Women (Ehoiai)14 and the Megalai Ehoiai treat the marriages between immortals and mortals, the product of which is the Race of Heroes, it can  12 See Currie 2015, 281–305; Davies 2019. 13 On the theme of Διὸς βουλή in the Cypria, see the emblematic work of Kullmann 1955, 167– 192 (= 1992, 11–35); important recent contribution by Marks 2002, 1–24. 14 See pp. 235–253 (this volume).

Divine Wrath in the Trojan Epics  

be no coincidence that the Epic Cycle sets out with Zeus’ plan to bring the Race of Heroes to an end. This is a powerful metapoetic move, which brings about a narrative epic that will ‘end’ all catalogic epic poetry. Zeus’ plan to help the Trojans by making Achilles withdraw from battle echoes a theme of paramount importance for the Iliad. Of course, the beginnings and endings of Cyclic epics as they have come down to us through the summaries of Proclus may have been adapted to the epics following and preceding them, either within the Cyclic canon or the wider thematic canon of Trojan epics including the Iliad and the Odyssey.15 In this case, what Proclus describes as the final episode of the Cypria fits the beginning of the Iliad so closely that it may have been shaped just for that purpose by the source on which Proclus depended for his summaries. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Cypria depends upon an oral epic tradition of almost the same content, a tradition whose last episode was taken by the Iliadic tradition and used as the platform upon which to base the epic’s plot. Other instances of divine wrath in the Cypria involve Hera and Athena after the episode of the θεῶν κρίσις; Artemis who is insulted by Agamemnon in Aulis (μηνίσασα, arg. l. 137 Severyns); and Apollo who is insulted by Achilles in Tenedos. The former pair (Hera and Athena) will evolve into the principal divine supporters of the Achaeans and enemies of the Trojans in their expedition to Troy, while the latter (the siblings Artemis and Apollo) will be key antagonists of the Achaeans and protectors of Troy. Creating a balance between the Achaean and Trojan sides, these four gods will be intricately interwoven with the fate of specific heroes throughout Cyclic and Homeric poetry: Hera’s wrath becomes immediately manifest when she drives Paris off course to Sidon early in the Cypria;16 she and Athena will play a key role in the destruction of Troy in the episodes of the stealing of the Palladium in the Ilias parva and of the Wooden Horse in both the Ilias parva and the Iliou persis. Artemis and Apollo, on the other hand, will be closely associated with the fate of Agamemnon (Iphigenia’s return from the land of the Tauri immediately precedes the murder of Agamemnon in the Nostoi) and Achilles (Apollo will help Paris kill Achilles in the Aethiopis). In this way, it can be argued that divine wrath in the Cypria is instrumental for the plot of this epic but also programmatic for the entire Epic Cycle. In the Aethiopis, Achilles kills two children of gods (Penthesilea, daughter of Ares and Memnon, son of Eos) and becomes the target of divine wrath, but not from their respective parents: his death, undoubtedly the emotive pinnacle  15 See chapter 14, p. 377 n. 79 (this volume). 16 On the importance of this episode for early Greek criticism on Homer, see Currie 2021, 5–13.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic of this epic, results from Apollo’s wrath over the murder of his son Tenes in Tenedos. Apollo’s anger at Achilles is a long-lasting and pervasive feature of the Trojan myth, the more so since its cause was handled in the Cypria and its end in the Aethiopis, where it is likely that in the Aethiopis Achilles was killed by being hit at the sole vulnerable part of his body, his heel. The interpretive consequences of this motif within the framework of divine anger deserve consideration.17 If Achilles was invulnerable with the exception of his heel, this presupposes not only an effort made by Thetis to make him immortal but also that Apollo knew the hero’s weak spot and revealed it to Paris. The same two gods are directly involved in the episode of the killing of Tenes by Achilles in the Cypria, Thetis having advised her son not to kill Apollo’s son. Moreover, in both the Cypria and the Aethiopis Achilles is involved in a purification sacrifice to Apollo. In Tenedos, the sacrifice does not appease the god’s anger who sends a snake from his altar that wounds Philoctetes. In the Aethiopis, Achilles after killing Thersites offers sacrifices to Artemis, Apollo, and their mother Leto on Lesbos, and he is purified by Odysseus.18 Given that Proclus refers to the arrival of Memnon (opening the second part of the poem that culminates in the death of Achilles) immediately after the purification rituals on Lesbos, we should ask ourselves why Achilles offered sacrifices to these three particular gods. Leto is of course the mother of the twins Artemis and Apollo, but why should they have

 17 Davies (1989, 55–56 and 58) argues in favor of an invulnerable Achilles (with the exception of his heel) in the Cyclic Aethiopis, and leaves open the possibility of an invulnerable Telamonian Ajax in Cyclic epic by drawing attention to Aeschylus’ Thracian Women (fr. 83 TrGF 3), in which Aeschylus seems ‘to have described the difficulty Ajax encountered in committing suicide because of his invulnerability’ (58). The same view is shared by Rengakos (2015b, 308), who draws attention to Apollodorus’ Epitome (5.4) and a now lost sixth-century amphora from Chalcis (LIMC s.v. ‘Achilleus’, nr. 850, pp. 182–183), which both indicate that Achilles was presented as invulnerable. The earliest source to explicitly mention Achilles’ invulnerability is Statius in the first century AD (Achilleid, 1.134–140). The tradition of Thetis trying to make her son immortal is first attested in Ap. Rh. 4.869–879 (third century BC), but this does not mean that we should identify immortality with invulnerability. In the Iliad (21.166–168, 568–570), Achilles is presented as liable to wounding. On Thetis making up the story of dipping Achilles in the Ocean’s waters to reinvigorate his invulnerability, see Fantuzzi 2012, 75. 18 On the role of Odysseus and the relation between the Thersites episode in Iliad 2 and the Aethiopis, see Kullmann 1960, 146–150; Reinhardt 1961, 114–115; Ebert 1969, 159–175; Marks 2005, 1–31. For a typical analytical approach to this issue, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1916, 268–270. See also West (2013, 43), who argues that this role ‘is inspired by his mission to Chryse in Il. 1.308–311, 430–474, when he took propitiatory sacrifices to Apollo in the context of purification from a plague (313–316)’.

Divine Wrath in the Trojan Epics  

been angered at Achilles because of the death of Thersites?19 In the full version of this episode, which can be reconstructed from Propertius (3.11.15–16) and Quintus of Smyrna (1.630–674), Achilles (like the Achaean army as a whole) is impressed by the beauty of the dead Amazon Penthesilea once her helmet is removed, and is ‘filled with remorse that he has killed her instead of taking her back to Phthia as his bride’.20 It would appear, then, that Achilles was ‘defiled’ by two murders, that of Penthesilea and that of Thersites, for which he felt remorse. Proclus’ ‘he is purified from the killing’ (καθαίρεται τοῦ φόνου, singular), which is a rather vague expression in tune with the elliptical style of his summary, should not deter us from assuming the obvious, i.e. that Achilles was purified on Lesbos from both murders.21 If the beginning of the Aethiopis indeed included the story (reported by Apollod. Epit. 5.1–2) that Penthesilea had been purified by Priam after accidentally killing the Amazon Hippolyte, as an explanation why the Amazons came to support the Trojans, then Achilles’ sacrifices on Lesbos would constitute a ‘doublet’ of the purification ritual earlier in the poem, which suggests a connection between the two. For the selection of the

 19 Aeth. arg. ll. 180–184 Severyns: ‘and Achilles kills Thersites after being abused by him and insulted over his alleged love for Penthesilea (τὸν ἐπὶ τὴν Πενθεσίλεια λεγόμενον ἔρωτα). This results in a dispute (στάσις) among the Achaeans about the killing of Thersites. Achilles then (μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα) sails to Lesbos, and after sacrificing to Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, he is purified from the killing by Odysseus’ (trans. West, GEF, 111). In contrast to the Thersites episode in Iliad 2, in which Theristes fails to win the support of the army as his criticism against Agamemnon is ‘cast by the narrator as a self-generated (?) minority view’ (Rosen 2007, 94), in the Aethiopis his death at the hands of Achilles whom he had ridiculed is endorsed by the Achaean army and results in strife. From this perspective, Rosen (2007, 97) is right that there was something very problematic with Achilles’ reaction and killing of Thersites that caused so much turmoil among the army that Achilles had to sail to Lesbos, offer sacrifices to Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, and then be purified by Odysseus. Critics have tried to explain the στάσις that arose in the Achaean army by recourse to Thersites heroic pedigree (Agrius, Thersites’ father was the brother of Oeneus, Diomedes’ grandfather; see Quint. Smyrn. 1.766–781; on his parentage, see Kullmann 1960, 148; Gantz 1993, 621–622; Spina 2001, 3; Marks 2005, 2 n. 3). A second explanation that has been suggested, not contradictory to the previous one, is that in contrast to Iliad 2 Thersites in the Aethiopis may have engaged in satirical mockery of Achilles’ behavior, a stance that is quite different from his subversive criticism in Iliad 2 (Rosen 2007, 93). I am sympathetic to both of these explanations, although none of them deals with the specific gods involved in the purification (our first example of this practice, on which see Parker 1983, 130–143) or explicates the trip to Lesbos. 20 West 2013, 141, whose reconstruction I am following here. 21 For a similar short-cut, see Proclus’ summary of the Telegony (arg. ll. 312–313 Severyns), where he seems to cover only the second set of sacrifices ordered by Tiresias to Odysseus in the Odyssey (first sacrifice to Poseidon, 11.130–131; second sacrifice to all the gods, 11.132–134).

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic three particular gods to whom Achilles sacrifices on Lesbos (Apollo, Artemis, and Leto) there may have been several reasons. Apollo as a god of purification may have attracted Artemis and Leto, even if this triad is generally associated with Delos rather than Lesbos.22 But a more specific rational suggests itself. It would have made good sense for Achilles to sacrifice to Artemis to expiate his killing of Penthesilea, an Amazon whose wild life and virginity were under the remit of the divine protector of virginity, Artemis herself.23 Regarding Apollo’s involvement in the sacrifices, would it be too bold to argue that, since in the cases of Tenes, Troilus, and Thersites Achilles had not restrained his own anger, Apollo’s wrath against him would be somehow renewed? It is also possible that Apollo’s anger against Achilles had grown stronger because he had taken as slave Polyxena after killing Troilus at the temple of Apollo Thymbraeus (Cypr. arg. l. 162 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 3.32).24 In any case, Apollo’s anger against an arrogant Achilles in the Aethiopis must have concluded a theme featuring in the poems of the Cycle from its very beginning. Seen from this perspective, the murder of Thersites is narratively entrenched in the general blueprint of Cyclic myth and may have been only the pretext for the last and failed attempt by

 22 West (2013, 43), observing the connection of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto as a triad with Delos, entertains the idea that Calchas sent Achilles to Delos. But Proclus explicitly says Lesbos and, as West himself notes, Achilles is also regularly connected to this specific island in the Iliad (9.129, 271, 664). I fully agree with the following observation by Sammons (per litteras electronicas): ‘Apollo’s role would be natural in connection with purification for homicide, and one could imagine that Leto and Artemis received sacrifice as well because these three are often worshiped together. However, in that case it would still be strange for the two goddesses to be mentioned in Proclus’ summary, which is usually not generous with incidental details. In other words, if the sole point of the episode was that Achilles was purified after appealing to Apollo, probably only Apollo would be mentioned. This implies that the sacrifice to Artemis and Leto should have been more than just incidental in the original poem’; see also Sammons (2017, 197 n. 66), where he refers to the possibility that Penthesilea ‘herself was a favorite of the goddess, and Achilles had to appease her wrath in order to obtain Apollo’s favor’. 23 Penthesilea’s association with Artemis may have been either generic or personal. Diodorus represents Amazons as hunting together with Artemis (4.16) and offering sacrifices to Artemis Tauropolos (2.46). With respect to the city of Pyrrichos in the Peloponnese (named after Achilles’ son Pyrrhus), Pausanias mentions local cults of Artemis Astrateia (named after the fact that it was there that the Amazons ended their expedition) and Apollo Amazonios, founded by the Amazons themselves (3.25.3). A personal association between Artemis and Penthesilea may lie behind Quintus of Smyrna’s report that Penthesilea had accidentally killed her sister Hippolyte in a deer hunt (1.18–25). 24 See Lambrou 2018, 75–85.

Divine Wrath in the Trojan Epics  

Achilles to appease the wrath of the gods, especially Apollo, before his approaching death near the Scaean Gates.25 In the other epics comprising the Trojan section, divine wrath is almost solely associated with Athena who is both the chief helper of the Achaeans in their attempt to sack Troy and the avenger of their wrongdoings during the capture of the city.26 Athena’s decision to punish the impious Achaeans is first conceived in the Iliou persis, after Ajax son of Oileus throws down the goddess’ xoanon while dragging Cassandra violently from her temple (Il. pers. arg. ll. 261–262 Severyns). Her wrath is fully expressed in the very beginning of the Nostoi, when she causes strife between Agamemnon and Menelaus about the departure of the fleet for Greece (Nost. arg. ll. 279–280 Severyns). The death of the Locrian Ajax at the sea near Caphareus may not have been caused only by her (Poseidon having struck the final blow), but her role is clearly instrumental in his punishment for the sacrilege he had committed in her temple at Troy (Nost. arg. ll. 294–295 Severyns). The Telegony, the last poem of the Epic Cycle, may have included a scene in which Odysseus performs sacrifices in Ithaca to all the immortal gods, according to Tiresias’ advice in Od. 11.132–134 (Tel. arg. ll. 313–314 Severyns).27 The aim of these sacrifices may have been to appease the gods’ anger for his mistreatment of the bodies of the suitors, who were only buried after the intervention of Athena. It is clear that in the epics of the Trojan section of the Cycle, the theme of divine wrath is, again, unequally represented. It looms large in the Cypria, where it is not attached to a single deity, it is instrumental in the Aethiopis, in which it is associated with Apollo, and then re-emerges in the Iliou persis and the Nostoi through the figure of Athena, who has become hostile to the Achaeans because of their insolent behavior during the sack of Troy.28

 25 A point that seems to have escaped attention is that whenever a στάσις erupts among a group of people in Cyclic epic, it is somehow connected to Achilles or Odysseus or both. In the Cypria, although the term στάσις is not employed by Proclus, Achilles restrains the Achaeans who desire to return to Greece (this can hardly be unconnected to a στάσις; see arg. ll. 159–160 Severyns). In the Telegony Odysseus leaves Ithaca due to a στάσις of the suitors’ relatives (arg. l. 308; see Merkelbach 1969, 146; Tsagalis 2008, 90; see also chapter 15, p. 384 [this volume]). The Aethiopis seems to represent a more complicated case, since it involves both Achilles (who is ultimately responsible for the στάσις of the army because he killed Thersites) and Odysseus (who purifies him at Lesbos). 26 Apollo is another god whose action in the episode of Laocoon may have been instigated by anger. 27 See Tsagalis 2014, 456–461 and 2015, 380. 28 On the function of the cardinal theme of Athena’s wrath in the Odyssey, see Clay 1983.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic

. Divine Rivalry Divine rivalry is a standard theme of Cyclic epic. It takes two forms, as it refers to either the inter-generational struggle between gods for the rule of the cosmos or to intra-Olympian rivalries over support given to favored mortals or reconfirmation of divine status. In the ‘theogonic’ section of the Cycle, inter-generational clashes are subordinated to the succession process that marks divine wars. These conflicts amount to the central driving force of the narrative, up to the point when the rule of Zeus is established for good. In the Titanomachy,29 the Olympian gods go to war against the Titans. There is no reason to assume that this poem would have also involved a Gigantomachy30 and/or a Typhonomachy, i.e. the conflict between Zeus as ruler of the world and the Giants and Typhoeus respectively, who aimed to overthrow the Olympians after their defeat of the Titans.31 For the Theban epics, no solid argument can be put forward, due to the paucity of the material available to us, but it seems that there were no intraOlympian rivalries of the form that we know in the Trojan epics. Hera’s anger against Thebes is not balanced by the support offered by a specific rival deity. Zeus’ punishment of the Seven and his disapproval of the expedition did not stem from his enmity to Hera; and although Athena may have temporarily supported Tydeus, there is no indication that the Olympians were split between a pro-Theban and a pro-Argive group. Intra-Olympian rivalries seem to be particular to the Trojan epics. Since we only have a limited number of fragments and other information concerning the plots of these poems, we are missing the details of scenes in which it is likely, that, as in the Iliad, gods would have competed with each other by means of supporting the Trojans or the Achaeans. What is clear is that Cyclic epic about the Trojan War contained numerous battle scenes, and it is virtually unthinkable that the gods would not have played a role in them. They may well have instigated the action of a given individual or set in motion a small-scale plan that drove the plot for some part of the poem. A clear example occurs in Proclus’ summary of Eugammon’s Telegony: in this epic, while ruling in Thesprotia as king, Odysseus, with Athena on his side, fights a war against the Brygoi, who are supported by Ares. The clash is interrupted by the intervention of Apollo (Tel. arg. ll. 317–320 Severyns). Since this is the only instance where Proclus

 29 On the Titanomachy, see Davies 1989, 13–18; D’Alessio 2015, 202–212; Tsagalis 2017a, 42–82. 30 See Davies 1989, 13–14. 31 See D’Alessio 2015, 208–209; Tsagalis 2017a, 77–82.

Divine Rivalry  

explicitly mentions an intra-Olympian rivalry, manifested in alliances with warring armies, we may explore in brief its function within the Telegony. Eugammon’s decision to make Athena the Thesprotians’ supporter is unsurprising, since their leader is the goddess’ constant favorite, Odysseus. The non-Greek Brygoi, on the other hand, belong to the barbarian tribes of the North, notorious for their ‘uncivilized’ way of life (and perhaps of fighting), which explains why they enjoyed the support of the cruel god of war, Ares, similar to the Amazons. The intervention of Apollo separates the parties and causes the episode to end in a stalemate, making it seem pointless. Moreover, none of the above elements explains why Proclus and/or his source considered the episode important enough to include it in a summary of the epic. Can its inclusion be due to mere chance or to its size within the Telegony? Perhaps it must be seen as an attempt made by Eugammon to rival the closing scene of the Odyssey, where Athena, heeding a sign sent by Zeus, intervenes to avoid an imminent clash between the relatives of the suitors and Odysseus (Od. 24.539–548). The judgement of the goddesses in the Cypria is the perfect example of intraOlympian rivalry. Here three goddesses of first rank (Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite) compete with respect to their beauty. Zeus decides that a mortal should adjudicate and Hermes escorts the three goddesses to Ida near Troy, where the shepherd Paris is asked to resolve the conundrum (Cypr. arg. ll. 86–90 Severyns). Within the Cypria, the episode is the first step in Zeus’ plan to alleviate the burden of humans on the earth by causing the Trojan War that will considerably decrease their numbers. By making a human decide the outcome of an intra-Olympian rivalry, Zeus inaugurates a more systematic involvement of the gods in the world of humans. The gods’ support of one or the other side in the ensuing war ultimately stems from Paris’ choice, which was in turn induced by Zeus’ divine will. Αnother example of divine rivalry, though with different stakes, seems to have been the scene of the psychostasia (technically a kerostasia) in the Aethiopis, in which Eos and Thetis, the divine mothers of the two adversaries Memnon and Achilles, watched Zeus weighing the souls of their sons before their fatal conflict. Although Proclus does not refer explicitly to it, scholars almost unanimously accept that such a scene formed part of the Aethiopis.32 Divine rivalry

 32 See Aeschylus’ Psychostasia (frs. 279–280 TrGF); West 2000, 343–347; cf. Kullmann 1960, 32–47, 316–335. That a psychostasia/kerostasia scene was included in the Aethiopis is further supported by several vases dating before Aeschylus’ time that represent this scene; on which see LIMC s.v. Memnon, nrs. 16–25; s.v. Achilleus, 172; see also Heitsch 2001, 241–242; 2005, 434–435, and Il. 8.69–74; 22.209–213; Rengakos 2015b, 307–308; Davies 2016, 17–18 and 25–31.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic would have underpinned the dramatic effect of this episode, as even immortal mothers cannot save their mortal sons from what fate decides. Divine rivalry can thus take different forms and have various functions within the scope of a single epic or set of epics. It ranges from functioning as a guiding principle for the succession process in the ‘theogonic’ section of the Cycle to shaping the form of a specific episode or serving as the cause of the entire Trojan War.

. Divine Counseling Providing advice certainly formed part of the range of roles played by the gods in Cyclic epic. Divine counseling scenes may have even occurred in contexts where humans are not involved, in the ‘theogonic’ section of the Cycle. It is possible that the reference in the pseudo-Aeschylean Prometheus Bound (197– 241) to Prometheus advising the Olympians how to defeat the Titans (after the Titans had failed to listen to Prometheus’ counsel in the first place) reflects an episode in the Titanomachy. If such an episode formed part of Eumelus’ epic, then it might have made a significant contribution to the development of the plot and the final outcome of the clash between the Olympians and the Titans.33 Advising favored mortals is something that we expect the gods to do. Aphrodite advised Paris and Aeneas in the Cypria (arg. l. 90 Severyns) and Athena advised Epeus in the Ilias parva (arg. ll. 222–223 Severyns). Divine counseling of mortals seems to follow a specific narrative pattern comprising the following phases: 1. god/goddess advises individual heroes, reassuring them about the final success 2. advice involves a general plan 3. god/goddess tells the hero how to carry out this plan with specific undertakings In the Cypria, Aphrodite reassures Paris after he gives her the apple of Discord that she will fulfill her promise and deliver to him the most beautiful woman in the world (a, arg. ll. 89–90 Severyns). Aphrodite’s advice involves a general

 33 Prometheus’ role in the Titanomachy as a herald of the Titans is based on fr. 5* GEF = EGEF (= Hesych. ι 387 [II 449 Cunningham]: Ἴθας· ὁ τῶν Τιτήνων κῆρυξ, Προμηθεύς. τινὲς Ἴθαξ), an old suggestion by Welcker 18822, 2.415, repeated by Pohlenz 1916, 588 n. 2, and given new life by West 2002, 113.

Divine Counseling  

plan: Paris must be re-instituted as prince in Troy and then bring Helen of Sparta to Troy (b).34 Aphrodite advises Paris to build a ship or ships and instructs Aeneas to sail with him to Sparta.35 In Sparta, she brings Paris and Helen together as lovers and makes sure that they return safely to Troy (c, arg. ll. 91–105 Severyns). In the Ilias parva, Athena advised Epeus and Odysseus, the former concerning the building of the Trojan Horse, the latter on how to use it to sack Troy. Her counseling may have followed the same narrative blueprint, with the materialization exceeding the limits of this epic and stretching into the Iliou persis: Athena decided to bring the war to an end by advising Epeus and Odysseus (a). Her general plan was that Epeus should build a Wooden Horse and Odysseus realize that Troy can be sacked only by deceit (b).36 She then told both of them how to implement the plan with specific undertakings. The Horse was to be built, using wood from Mt. Ida, with a hollow belly to hide troops. The fleet should withdraw to Tenedos, while Sinon, left behind, would tell the Trojans that the Wooden Horse is a gift to Athena from the Achaeans, who have decided to sail home after realizing that they cannot capture Troy.37 Once the Wooden Horse would be inside the city, the soldiers should come out at night, open the gates and send a signal to the fleet to sail back to Troy. Then the city will fall (c).38 Two cardinal moments in the Trojan saga, the abduction of Helen and the sack of Troy, were presented in the Cyclic epics as dependent on a divine plan that is materialized by the advice given to specific individuals by the goddesses

 34 Although Proclus’ summary is silent about this stage of the myth, it is likely that it featured in the Cypria and was not invented by the tragedians (Sophocles and Euripides in their plays entitled Alexandros): the prophecies of Helenus and Cassandra and Aeneas’ participation in Paris’ journey (Cypr. arg. ll. 91–94 Severyns) all point to a previous recognition of Paris by Priam and Hecuba. Paris cannot have been a Trojan prince from the start of the poem, as he leaves unexplained what he was doing on Mt. Ida, where the three goddesses and Hermes visited him. 35 Proclus’ summary is inconclusive on the number of ships (ναυπηγεῖται, συμπλεῖ). Apollod. Epit. 3.2 assumes more than one (νῆας); Pherecydes (fr. 138 EGM) and Lycophron (Alex. 101) mention nine. 36 Il. parv. arg. ll. 222–223 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 514; cf. also Od. 8.492–495; Stes. Il. pers. fr. 100.10–12 Davies and Finglass; Eur. Tr. 9–12. 37 Arist. Po. 1459b, where ‘Apoplous’ and ‘Sinon’ are mentioned as episodes of the Ilias parva; also the Tabula Iliaca Capitolina, with West 2013, 204. 38 Il. parv. arg. ll. 230–232 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 5.14–15. The dismantling of a part of the Trojan walls in order to bring the Wooden Horse inside the city may, as Anderson (2011, 941) observed, ‘reflect a tradition that the city walls, built by Poseidon and Apollo, were impregnable (cf. Il. 7.452–453 and 21.441–457).’

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic Aphrodite and Athena. This observation is crucial not only with respect to the importance the gods have for the progression of the epic plot, but also on the level of poetics. The beginning and end of the epic narrative are carefully planned, reflecting the fact that divine agency both causes the war and brings it to completion.

. Divine Metamorphoses In Cyclic epic change of shape occurs especially in scenes involving intercourse.39 In the Titanomachy, Cronus changes his shape into that of a horse and mates with the Oceanid Philyra to produce the Centaur Chiron (fr. 10 PEG = 9 EGF = 12 GEF).40 This process is, of course, based on the idea that the creature born from such an intercourse will have to resemble his father, hence the need for Cronus to take the shape of a horse in order to produce a ἱπποκένταυρος. From a narrative point of view, we cannot be sure if this story occurred early in the epic, as the involvement of Cronus might suggest, or if it was mentioned as a brief flashback digression much later, when Chiron is introduced into the narrative. The latter option seems preferable. It would imply that temporary divine transformation into animal form was employed as a means for the creation and introduction into the plot of a character who would play an important role in a following episode and the overall plot. Chiron was culture-hero in the manner of Prometheus or Palamedes (fr. 11 PEG = 6 EGF = 13 GEF),41 and it is plausible that in the Titanomachy he played a significant role in the transition to the mortal world, with which the poet would have dealt in the last section of his poem. In the Thebais, Poseidon is transformed into a horse in order to mate with Erinys. The offspring of this union is Arion, Adrastus’ divine horse that is re 39 Given the paucity of information available, it would be risky to argue that gods do not take the shape of a human in the manner, e.g. of Athena-Deiphobus in the Iliad and Athena-Mentes in the Odyssey. Viewed from this angle, the observation that divine metamorphosis in the Epic Cycle pertains to scenes of mating with mortals describes the material we have at our disposal and should, in no way, be treated as restrictive. On the special role of divine metamorphosis into animals in procreation contexts, see West 2007, 152 n. 112. 40 ὁ δὲ τὴν Γιγαντομαχίαν ποιήσας φησιν ὅτι Κρόνος μεταμορφωθεὶς εἰς ἵππον ἐμίγη Φιλύρᾳ τῇ Ὠκεανοῦ, διόπερ καὶ ἱπποκένταυρος ἐγεννήθη Χείρων. τούτου δὲ γυνή Χαρικλώ. The designation of Chiron as son of Cronus and Philyra is in perfect agreement with Σ Ap. Rhod. 1.554 (pp. 47.20–48.2 Wendel = fr. 10 PEG = fr. 9 EGF = fr. 12 GEF), which is ascribed to the Titanomachy offering the same genealogical details. In this light, it is likely that Apollod. Bibl. 1.2.9 is drawing (with respect to this feature) on Eumelus’ poem. 41 See Davies 1989, 16.

Divine Metamorphoses  

sponsible for his salvation in the expedition of the Seven against Thebes (fr. 8 PEG = fr. 6C EGF = fr. 11 GEF).42 The narrative potential of this metamorphosis would have been considerable, the more so since transfer of the horse from Poseidon to Adrastus was anything but direct. Arion was first presented as a gift to Copreus, king of Boeotian Haliartos, then passed on to his guest Heracles, who used it to defeat Cycnus, son of Ares, in a horse race, and finally given to Adrastus.43 It is attractive to think that in the Thebais, Poseidon’s metamorphosis into a horse initiated a narrative digression, covering the stories of Arion, Copreus, Heracles, and Cycnus, that would have either prepared for or provided gravity to the poem’s apparent narrative climax: the ‘miraculous’ salvation of the leader of the Seven. In the Cypria, Nemesis changes forms until she has to accept the fact that she cannot escape from Zeus’ sexual advances (frs. 9–10 PEG = 7–8 EGF = 10–11 GEF). Nemesis and Zeus finally couple in the form of a goose and a gander. The offspring of this mating is Helen, who grows in a large egg, the expected product from such a union. The transfer of the motif of shape-shifting from Thetis being unwilling to marry Peleus to Nemesis trying to escape from Zeus must have been determined by the fact that Thetis had already been ‘rewarded’ by Hera with Peleus (the greatest mortal alive and dearest to the gods) as her husband for rejecting Zeus’ sexual desires in the past.44 The paramount importance of this event is reflected in the central role of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis for the conception and plot of the Cypria and the entire Trojan War saga. The episode of the mating of Nemesis with Zeus may have been part of a speech by Aphrodite to Paris, in which she would have given him advice about the people

 42 Poseidon’s epithet κυανοχαίτης (‘dark-maned’) that may indicate his association with horses is tellingly applied to his horse-son Arion in the Thebais (7 PEG = 6A EGF = 11 GEF: εἵματα λυγρὰ φέρων σὺν Ἀρίονι κυανοχαίτῃ). This observation was made as early as Pausanias (8.25.8: αἰνίσσεσθαι οὖν ἐθέλουσι τὰ ἔπη Ποσειδῶνα Ἀρίονι εἶναι πατέρα). On the use of κυάνεος for gods’ hair in Homer under the influence of an Egyptian tradition claiming that the gods’ hair was of pure lapis-lazzuli, see Griffith 2005, 329–334. 43 Cf. Σ (Τ) on Il. 23.347; Apollod. Bibl. 3.6.8. 44 For Thetis’ shape-shifting to elude Peleus, cf. e.g. Apollod. Epit. 3.13.5; Pind. Nem. 4.62–65; see also Forbes Irving 1990, 181 n. 49; Ormand 2014, 101–103. On the transfer of this motif to Nemesis evading Zeus, see RE 19.1 s.v. ‘Peleus’. col. 298 (Lesky); Davies 1989, 39; West 2013, 81. For Peleus as especially dear to the gods, see Il. 24.61; [Hes.] Cat. fr. 211.3 M-W, and Davies 1989, 34–35. For the marriage with Peleus as Hera’s reward to mitigate Zeus’ punishment of making Thetis live with a mortal man, see Cypr. fr. 2 PEG = EGF = GEF, and Davies 1989, 30. Cf. West 2013, 70: ‘the story of his pursuit of her will have been dealt with in a parenthesis giving the background to her union with Peleus’.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic he would meet in Sparta.45 If this reading is correct, this story of divine transformation into animal shape, again in a context of mating and procreation, was narrated by a goddess, who as the counselor and guide of Paris, played a crucial role in the poem; and just like in the Thebais and Titanomachy, it introduced a figure with a key-function in the plot. There are, then, close similarities between the instances of divine metamorphosis found in the Cyclic epics and marked differences from the metamorphoses in Homeric epic. In Homer the main form of divine transformation is into human shape, and although we find the shape-shifter Proteus (Odyssey 4) and cases in which the gods take the form of birds, the contexts of divine metamorphosis are very different. Homeric gods do not change shape to mate and procreate, or avoid doing so; they take human shape in order to counsel, deceive or help mortals, or turn themselves into birds in order to observe or make a speedy exit.46

. Joint Intervention In Homeric epic gods sometimes intervene in human affairs jointly, but there is no example in which two gods of different status undertake the same role in the same episode and for the same reason. In the Cypria, Aphrodite and Thetis bring together Achilles and Helen (arg. ll. 157–158 Severyns): καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Ἀχιλλεὺς Ἑλένην ἐπιθυμεῖ θεάσασθαι, καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ Ἀφροδίτη καὶ Θέτις. And after these events Achilles desires to look upon Helen, and Aphrodite and Thetis brought them together.

If we try to reconstruct this episode, we must postulate another scene, elided by Proclus, in which Achilles would have asked Thetis to have Zeus tell or order

 45 Kullmann 1955, 183 (= 1992, 26); Davies 1989, 37; West 2013, 80. West also notes the use of πέπρωται, the tense of which suggests that this fragment comes from a speech. 46 See Il. 7.58–60, 14.289–291, where Apollo and Athena and Sleep respectively take the shape of birds and sit on tree branches, in order not to be noticed; also Il. 13.62, 15.237–238, 19.350– 351; Od. 1.320, 3.372, 22.240. See West 2007, 153 and n. 114, and, for Semitic parallels, West 1997, 185. It is not always clear whether the poet is referring to divine transformation into a bird or he is simply using a simile; on this issue, see also Dirlmeier 1967, 2; Kirk 1990: 239–240 on Il. 7.59–60; West 2011a, 189 on Il. 7.58–61.

Joint Intervention  

Aphrodite to arrange a meeting between Achilles and Helen.47 Apart from the traditional links between Aphrodite and Helen and Achilles and Thetis, we should bear in mind that Thetis and Aphrodite are both goddesses of concealment, who transfer their loved ones from one place to another.48 It was in this manner that Achilles’ desire to see Helen was fulfilled ― a desire that was probably motivated by the fact that he had never set eyes on her, since he was not one of her suitors. The narrative thrust that such an episode, featuring a double divine intervention, may have had is suggested by its similarity to the start of the Iliad. Just as in the Iliad Achilles tells Thetis to go to Zeus and ask him to grant victory to the Trojans as long as he abstains from battle, so in the Cypria Achilles told Thetis to ask Zeus to instruct Aphrodite and facilitate a meeting between himself and Helen. It is not a coincidence that Achilles’ desire and its fulfillment occur immediately after the Trojans had refused a settlement by returning Helen to the Achaeans who are besieging their city and raiding the countryside and smaller cities in its vicinity. From this point onwards, Achilles undertakes various initiatives and becomes, as in the Iliad, the central figure of the narrative: he meets with Helen, restrains the Achaeans who desire to return to Greece, drives away Aeneas’ cattle, sacks Lyrnessos and Pedasos, takes Briseis captive, quarrels with Agamemnon, and withdraws from battle.49 Seen from this vantage point, the double divine intervention that makes possible the meeting between Helen, the cause of the war, and Achilles, the greatest Achaean hero, brings Achilles to the limelight and functions as a kind of introduction to the ensuing ‘Achillean’

 47 On this ‘intermediate’ scene, see Tsagalis 2008, 96–106. Differently West 2013, 119. On the meeting place between Helen and Aphrodite, see my remarks (2008, 97 n. 14): ‘Aphrodite would easily have transported Helen close to the ships where she would meet Achilles. Although Aphrodite rescues Paris twice by transporting him far from the battlefield (Iliad 3 and 20, respectively), Helen refers ironically (Il. 3.400–401) to Aphrodite in terms of her ability to transport Helen to one of the goddess’ best loved cities’. See also Clader 1976, 73–74. 48 In the Iliad, Aphrodite sweeps away Paris (3.380–382) and Aeneas (5.311–318); Thetis at the end of the Aethiopis snatches Achilles’ body from the pyre and transfers him to the White Island. The motif seems to have been transferred from the Indo-European goddess *Ausos, represented in Greek mythology by Eos (Indic Uṣas), who swept away her beloved Tithonus (Homeric Hymn 5.218–238); Slatkin 1991, 28. See further Tsagalis 2008, 99–100. 49 As I have argued elsewhere (2008, 106) the purpose of Achilles’ restraint of the Achaeans was to show the profound influence the meeting with Helen had exercised on Achilles; the same view is shared by West 2013, 119. Differently, Konstan 2015, 169 n. 15, who places too much emphasis on the force of εἶτα in Proclus’ summary. Temporal markers like εἶτα (attested only twice in Proclus’ summaries of the Trojan epics) or μετὰ ταῦτα or ἔπειτα show nothing with respect to the causal links between episodes.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic section of the epic. Moreover, it would not be far-fetched to argue that this whole scene is imbued with metapoetic overtones, the more so since the two goddesses involved, Aphrodite and Thetis, are key figures in the wedding of Thetis and Peleus, which triggers the entire Trojan saga. In any case, the Cypria seems to have supplemented the poetic traditions reflected in the Hesiodic Catalog of Women (fr. 204.87–92 M-W), according to which Achilles was not among Helen’s suitors, since he was brought up by Chiron at Mt Pelion.50 We are in no position to know what the content of this scene with latent erotic tension between Achilles and Helen may have been,51 what these two figures may have said to each other ― the presence of Thetis and Aphrodite would lent the episode special status and authority. As in the psychostasia scenes, in which goddesses (like Thetis and Eos in the Aethiopis) stand by their beloved ones but cannot influence their fate, so Aphrodite and Thetis may have stood by Helen and Achilles knowing the inevitability of what is to ensue. Achilles will now be deeply involved in a war he has not caused and is not bound by oath to fight, and Helen will stay inside the walls waiting for the disastrous end of a war she herself has provoked.

. Prophecies and Signs Gods also make their presence known through prophecies and signs, which loom large in the Epic Cycle, both in the Theban and in the Trojan section.52 Prophecies are mainly expressed by seers, but they can also be conveyed either by an official oracle (e.g. Apollo’s oracle to Telephus concerning his healing; see Cypr. arg. ll. 132–133 Severyns) or by the gods themselves (e.g. Thetis).53 In addition, the gods manifest themselves by means of tokens expressing divine will (e.g. the two snakes coming our of the sea and killing Laocoon and one of his sons (Il. pers. arg. ll. 248–251 Severyns). In the Oedipodea, there must have been a reference to the oracle of Apollo that Laius’ son would bring destruction to his father’s kingdom. And although  50 See Tsagalis 2008, 102. 51 With the word ‘latent’ I express my agreement with West 2013, 119 (contra Davies 1989, 48 who thinks that Proclus’ phrasing indicates that Achilles and Helen made love), who opts for the expression ‘romantic attachment’. 52 See Stockinger 1959, 86–94; Kullmann 1960, 221–223 counts 17 oracles and wondrous signs in the Trojan section of the Epic Cycle (without counting the Nostoi and the Telegony). 53 Thetis foretells Achilles that he will die by the hand of Apollo, if he kills in the first place his son Tenes (Apollod. Epit. 3.26).

Prophecies and Signs  

there is no surviving fragment or information concerning the role of the seer Tiresias in the poem, it is hard to think of an Oedipodea without him, since he is a figure belonging to the deep structure of Theban myth.54 In the Thebais, the central role of Amphiaraus would have in all probability been linked to the interpretation of divine signs. While we lack direct evidence for such signs, the Iliad refers to ill omens from Zeus that deterred the Mycenaeans, who were initially favorable to Polynices’ cause, from marching against Thebes (Il. 4.376– 381). Although Polynices’ and Tydeus’ recruitment visit to Mycenae ‘not otherwise attested, is surely invented ad hoc to account for Agamemnon’s knowing about Tydeus,’55 the specific reference to the Mycenaeans’ change of mind because of Zeus’ ‘unfavorable signs’ (παραίσια σήματα, Il. 4.381) and the following reference to Tydeus’ ‘obeying the omens of the gods’ (θεῶν τεράεσσι πιθήσας, 398) to spare Maeon during an ambush of the Cadmeans, seem to be reflections of an important motif of the Theban saga, according to which there were ill and favorable omens before the expeditions of the Seven and the Epigonoi respectively.56 It seems plausible that in both epics Amphiaraus was the one who interpreted these omens.57 The Iliad has simply transferred this motif to a Mycenaean context, in order to explain why the Mycenaeans did not take part in the expedition, although they were favorable to it. The absence of a reference to the king of Mycenae at the time of the presbeia, together with the abrupt change of mind of the Mycenaeans, shows that there was no tradition of their participation in the war.58 In the Epigonoi, in any case, Amphiaraus appears to have prophesied, from his oracle below the earth, that the signs of Zeus are favorable and that this time Thebes would fall.59 In addition, Tiresias advised the Thebans to abandon their city before the Argives’ arrival.60 This epic also dealt in considerable detail with his daughter Manto, who after her father’s death at the spring Tilphoussa, was sent to Delphi to offer a tithe to Apollo and to marry the first mortal she encountered after leaving the god’s sanctuary (Rhacius, son of Lebes). She then went to  54 See Cingano 2015a, 216 and n. 10. 55 West 2011a, 146–147 on Il. 4.376–381. 56 See West 2011a, 147 on Il. 4.408. 57 Stockinger 1959, 88 n. 11 highlights the following verbal similarity between Il. 4.381 (ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς ἔτρεψε [the Mycenaeans]) and Σ in Od. 11.326 (ὁ μὲν Ἀμφιάραος ἀπέτρεψε τοὺς Ἀργείους καὶ τὸν ἐσόμενον ὄλεθρον προεμαντεύετο); see also Apollod. Bibl. 3.6.2 (Ἀμφιάραος … τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀπέτρεπε and Ἀμφιαράου δὲ ἀποτρέποντος). 58 West 2011a, 146–147 on Il. 4.376–381. 59 Il. 4.408 with Davies 2014, 109–110; also Pind. Pyth. 8.49. See Stockinger 1959, 89. 60 Diod. 4.66.4–5, 67.1; Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.3; Paus. 9.33.1.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic Claros, named after her tears for the fall of her city, where she founded an oracular shrine of Apollo (fr. 3 PEG = 3 EGF = 4 GEF). Here we see something that can also be observed in other Cyclic epics: seers, apart from interpreting the gods’ will, also play a central role in new foundations through their wanderings, as the poets associate ktisis myths with well-known manteis.61 Given that the foundation of new settlements presupposed a favorable oracle to signal the god’s approval, the role of seers was of the utmost importance in this context. In the Alcmeonis, Apollo revealed through an oracle that Eriphyle, already bribed by Polynices to convince her husband Amphiaraus to join the Seven, had been bribed a second time by Polynices’ son Thersander, who gave her the robe of Harmonia in order to convince her son Alcmaon, a seer like his father Amphiaraus, to participate in the expedition of the Epigonoi (Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.5).62 The god also made it clear that victory would come for the Argives only if Alcmaon was their leader (Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.2). This oracle led to the murder of Eriphyle by Alcmaon, who started wandering as he was persecuted by Erinys (Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.5). At this point, a second oracle given to Alcmaon by Apollo determined that his wanderings would be over when he would find a land not seen by the rays of the sun at the moment of his mother’s murder. This turned out to be the newly formed silt deposits at the mouth of the river Acheloos (Apollod. Bibl 3.7.5). Thus the Alcmeonis associated two cardinal events in the story of Alcmaon, his participation in the expedition and the end of his wanderings, with the expression of Apollo’s will. If seen within the wider framework of the Theban epics, of which the Alcmeonis was the final one, we may argue that prophecy as a manifestation of divine will framed the Theban saga, which began in the Oedipodea with Apollo’s oracle to Laius that the birth of his son would be disastrous for him and his kingdom, and ended in the Alcmeonis with Apollo’s oracle to Alcmaon and his deliverance from Erinys at the mouth of the river Acheloos.

 61 See Cingano 2015b, 257: ‘Alcmaon, Amphilochus, Tiresias, Manto, Mopsus, Chalcas, all are mantic characters connected to mantic contests and/or oracles in various parts of the Greek world; they represent different areas and epic traditions and, as was the case with the Melampodea (frs. 270–279 M-W), their contests, marriages and journeys sketch out a broad map of the sacred places and mantic genealogies of the Greek world, connecting East and West, Acarnania and Anatolia. If one looks at the fragments and at the title, centered on the name of the protagonist, the same considerations of antiquarian and mythological lore combined with the theme of the traveling hero in a colonial world apply to the poem Alcmeonis.’ 62 On the motif of the second bribing of Eriphyle, see Gantz 1993, 525; Olivieri 2004, 83–85; cf. Prinz 1979, 174–176); Breglia Pulci Doria 1991–1994, 129. The second bribing may have also featured in Stesichorus’ Eriphyle (fr. 93 Davies and Finglass).

Prophecies and Signs  

In the Trojan section of the Epic Cycle, prophecies seem to have been frequently employed, especially in the Cypria.63 This poem probably included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

the oracle of Helenus to Paris (l. 91 Severyns) the prophecy of Cassandra for the fate of Troy (ll. 91–92 Severyns) the Delphic oracle ordering Agamemnon to sacrifice to Dionysus Sphaltes (? Lyc. 206–210) Calchas’ interpretation of the snake-sparrows sign in Aulis (ll. 123–124 Severyns) the oracle of Apollo to Telephus about his healing (ll. 132–133 Severyns) the Delphic oracle to Agamemnon that the sack of Troy depends on an argument between Odysseus and Achilles (Od. 8.75–82) the prophecy of Calchas about the sacrifice of Iphigenia (ll. 138–140 Severyns) Anius’ prophecy that Troy will fall in the tenth year (? Σ in Lyc. 570, Pherec. fr. 140 EGM, Od. 6.162–165) Thetis’ prophecy to Achilles that he will be killed by Apollo if he kills Apollo’s son Tenes (Apollod. Epit. 3.26) Thetis’ warning to Achilles not to be the first to set foot on Trojan soil, lest he die (Apollod. Epit. 3.29; cf. Σ in Lyc. 245, Ov. Her. 13.93–95).64

It has been rightly observed that prophecies function as (homodiegetic) prolepses or flash-forwards to future events, and that ‘the anticipatory mode of narrative was particularly characteristic of this epic’.65 The unusually high density of prophecies in a single epic would have made the gods’ presence in the Cypria’s plot very strong; and given that the majority of these prophecies come from, or have to do with, Apollo, we can plausibly state that the Cypria highlighted the power of this god and anticipated his important future role in the Trojan saga as a whole. Equally remarkable in the Cypria are the prophecies of Thetis. Her advice to Achilles not to kill Tenes and not land first in Troy is indicative of her general role in the Trojan saga: she will act as a ‘seer’ throughout, but only with respect to her son Achilles.66 Calchas’ prophecies, meanwhile, are so closely associated with the first and second gathering of the army in Aulis that they may have been employed as a way of emphasizing his role as the official seer of

 63 See Rengakos 2015a, 158. 64 See Stockinger 1959, 90–91. 65 Rengakos 2015a, 157–158; see also Kullmann 1960, 221–223. 66 See Aethiopis (below) and Thetis’ role in Iliad 1.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic the Achaeans. Finally, it should be noted that there is considerable overlap between some of the poem’s prophecies: those of Helenus and Cassandra constitute a pair referring to the future of Paris and Troy, and Anius’ prophecy basically repeats what Calchas had already foretold during the first gathering in Aulis, namely that the war would last ten years. Although not as frequent as in the Cypria, prophecies are anything but rare in the other Trojan epics. In the Aethiopis, Thetis foretold to Achilles ‘the events concerning Memnon’.67 In the Ilias parva, all prophecies are related to the sack of Troy, spreading ‘a superstitious glow’ over this epic:68 Calchas prophesies that Helenus must be captured to reveal to the Achaeans which oracles must be fulfilled to sack Troy (Apollod. Epit. 5.9); Helenus tells the Achaeans that Troy will fall if Philoctetes and Neoptolemus join the Achaean army, if the Palladium is stolen from Troy and the bones of Pelops are obtained (Il. parv. arg. ll. 211–212 Severyns and Apollod. Epit. 5.10); Cassandra warns the Trojans that the Wooden Horse will bring destruction (Apollod. Epit. 5.17, Tabula Iliaca). In the Iliou persis Laocoon tries to warn the Trojans about the Wooden Horse but he is killed by a creature coming out of the sea, together with one of his sons (Il. pers. arg. ll. 248–249 Severyns). The portent’s differentiation between the sons of Laocoon, one dying and one surviving, appears to refer to the distinct fates of the two lines of Troy’s royal house: the line of Priam perishes, that of Aeneas survives.69 Of the epics relating the events after the Trojan War the Nostoi undoubtedly contain the largest number of prophecies:70 Calchas foretold that Ajax Oileus would be punished for violently dragging Cassandra from Athena’s temple; the contest between the seers Calchas and Mopsus included the interpretation of signs; the ghost of Achilles spelled disaster before the Achaean fleet’s departure for Greece (Nost. arg. ll. 291–293 Severyns); Thetis specifically warned Neoptolemus against crossing the Aegean and Helenus later guided him to the place where he was fated to settle (Nost. arg. ll. 296–297 Severyns; Apollod. 6.12);71 and Proteus predicted an afterlife in Elysium for Menelaus and Helen (Od. 4.561–569). In the Telegony, Odysseus carried out in Ithaca the sacrifices Tiresias had told him to perform, when he visited the Underworld (Tel. arg. ll. 313–314 Severyns). As in the case of the Cypria, the prophecies in these two epics mainly

 67 Aeth. arg. ll. 186–187 Severyns: τὰ κατὰ τὸν Μέμνονα προλέγει. See Stockinger 1959, 91. 68 Welcker 18822, 277: ‘ein abergläubischer Schein’. 69 Robert 1881, 193, 1920–19264, 1249; Bethe 19292, 254–255. See Il. pers. arg. ll. 250–251 Severyns: ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ τέρατι δυσφορήσαντες οἱ περὶ τὸν Αἰνείαν ὑπεξῆλθον εἰς τὴν Ἴδην. 70 See Stockinger 1959, 93–94; Danek 2015, 375. 71 See West 2013, 263.

Divine Parentage  

function as internal prolepses, foreshadowing events after the Trojan War, and the Nostoi resemble the Cypria, both in oracle-density and in the relatively large number of characters foretelling the future (Calchas, Thetis, Helenus). Even a cursory look at the prophecies featuring in the post-Iliadic epics shows that they refer to central themes of the individual poems: the fate of Memnon and Achilles, the sack of Troy, and the subsequent fate of the Achaeans. In this way, the core events of the Trojan War saga are presented against the backdrop of divine will, which sets the pace and tone for developments in the mortal world.

. Divine Messengers A well-known difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey is that while in the former Iris is the standard divine messenger, in the latter it is Hermes who fulfills this function. For the Epic Cycle, it is difficult to draw any safe conclusions regarding the role divine messengers may have played, or their identity. The terse summaries of Proclus do not mention them when their mediation might be surmised, with the exception of one reference to a divine messenger in the Cypria, where Iris informed Menelaus about what happened in Sparta during his absence to Crete (Cypr. arg. ll. 110–111 Severyns). This silence could be due to elision, but since the most elaborate accounts of Apollodorus’ Epitome offer the same picture, it may be the case that divine messengers of the type we know from the Homeric epics were in fact rarely used in the Epic Cycle. If so, the reason for their absence may be that, in these epics, the ‘lesser’ gods intervened directly in human affairs, carrying their message to humans in person, and that Zeus’ role was more limited, obviating the need to have his dictates transmitted to humans by a divine messenger. However this may be, it is unlikely to be true that the Cyclic epics’ widespread and systematic use of prophecies to progress the narrative made the disclosure of divine will through messengers redundant. After all, prophecies also abound in Homeric epic, in which divine messengers are frequently used.72

. Divine Parentage Mortals with divine parentage feature prominently in the Theban and Trojan sections in the Epic Cycle. They can be usefully subdivided into two categories:

 72 See Stockinger 1959, 15–85.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic the offspring of a god and a mortal woman, and children born from a goddess and a mortal man. The former category includes a significant number of characters who are all killed in battle by other sons of gods or goddesses. In the Thebais, Cycnus, son of Ares and Pelopia or Pyrene, is defeated and killed by Heracles, son of Zeus (fr. 8 PEG = 6 EGF = 11 GEF). In the Cypria, Tenes, son of Apollo (and Procleia?) and Cycnus, son of Poseidon and Calyce, are both killed by Achilles (Apollod. Epit. 3.26; arg. ll. 149–150 Severyns). In the Aethiopis, the Amazon Penthesilea, daughter of Ares and Otrere, is also killed by Achilles (arg. ll. 175–177 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 5.1). Slightly different is the case of the Dioscouroi, Castor (Leda’s son by Tyndareos) and his twin Polydeuces (her son by Zeus). Interestingly, Castor, who is mortal, is killed by Idas, son of Poseidon and twin brother of Lynceus; both twins are subsequently killed by Polydeuces (Cypr. arg. ll. 106– 109 Severyns).73 With respect to his death, Memnon, son of Tithonus and the goddess Eos, also belongs to this group, since he is killed by Achilles, the son of Thetis (Aeth. arg. l. 189 Severyns). What can be gathered from this list is that mortals of divine parentage were treated as a special category of heroes, whose death had to be caused by another hero of the same semi-divine origin. What also emerges is the special status of Achilles within this group. He is responsible for killing no less than four pre-eminent children of gods in single combat: Tenes, Cycnus, Penthesilea, and Memnon. These duels indicate that, in contrast to the Iliad, Cyclic epic highlighted his semi-divine origin and his special status as Thetis’ son, painting a very different kind of hero. As far as the offspring of mortals and goddesses are concerned, Memnon (son of Eos and Tithonus), Achilles (son of Thetis and Peleus), and Telegonus (son of Circe and Odysseus) are all linked by means of two motifs stemming from their semi-divine origin: the first pertains to the involvement of their mothers in, and virtual absence of their fathers from, the Trojan saga, the second to their immortalization, which I will treat in more detail together with the fate of some other heroes in the next section. Eos and Thetis both actively engage with the fate of their sons: they give their sons divine armor made by Hephaestus;74 are present in the psychostasia scene before their final clash, and

 73 The conflict between the two pairs of twins of whom one brother is of divine parentage follows an old, Indo-European pattern. On the Dioscouroi and their Vedic and Baltic counterparts (called ‘sons of Dyaus’ [Vedic: divó nápātā] and sons of the sky-god [Baltic: Dieva dēli, Dievo sunėliai] just as the Dioscouroi are called ‘sons of Zeus’), see Ward 1968; Frame 2009, 72– 73. 74 Thetis: Iliad 18; Eos: Aeth. arg. ll. 185–186 Severyns.

Immortalization  

achieve immortality for their sons after their death (Aeth. arg. ll. 189–190, 199– 200 Severyns). In sharp contrast, Tithonus and Peleus stay completely out of the picture, both of them being firmly associated in the tradition with the theme of old age, which in Tithonus’ case has become emblematic for the unbridgeable gap between mortals and immortals.75 The case of Telegonus is somewhat different. His mother Circe must have played an active role in the first and last phase of his journey to seek his father Odysseus, but the tragic and accidental patricide that follows their meeting shows Odysseus’ active involvement in the story (Apollod. Epit. 7.36). Overall, we see a marked difference between the two groups of mortals with divine parentage. The children of gods and mortal women are presented as detached from their divine fathers. They are a special category of semi-divine heroes who meet their death at the hands of other semi-divine warriors. For the offspring of goddesses with mortal men, on the other hand, our evidence shows the mothers’ active involvement in the fate of their sons and their close communication; and these divine mothers succeed in making their sons immortal.

. Immortalization In Cyclic epic, gods are directly involved in the immortalization of the mortals they favor,76 securing a change of condition mainly, but not exclusively, after they pass away. In the Thebais, Athena intends to make Tydeus immortal, but changes her mind at the last moment when she witnesses him devour the brains of the Theban Melanippus (Apollod. Bibl. 3.6.8). In the Cypria, Artemis immortalizes Iphigenia as she is sacrificed and transfers her to Tauris, leaving a deer in her place (Cypr. arg. ll. 141–143 Severyns). In the Aethiopis, both Memnon and Achilles are immortalized after their death, the former through the successful entreaty of his mother Eos to Zeus, the latter by being transferred by Thetis to the White Island (Aeth. arg. ll. 189–190, 199–200 Severyns). In the Telegony, Athena ensures that Telemachus, Telegonus, and Penelope are all transferred to Aeaea, where Circe makes them immortal before they intermarry, Telemachus with Circe and Telegonus with Penelope (Tel. arg. ll. 327–330 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 7.37). Immortalization is, therefore, not only fairly frequent in the Cyclic epics but also directly related to the function of the gods. It shows the level of

 75 Homeric Hymn 5.218–238; see Richardson 2010, 247–248 on ll. 218–238. 76 I have deliberately refrained from mentioning the immortalization of Heracles, since it is not certain that this event would have been included in the Titanomachy.

  The Gods in Cyclic Epic their involvement in human affairs. The contexts in which immortalization is manifested display a remarkable variety, which testifies to the fact that immortalization is not, as some scholars have thought (especially regarding the Telegony), the sign of the literary taste of a later age, but a deeply-seated feature of archaic epic.77 Immortalization is presented as a divine reward for military prowess (Tydeus), virginity (Iphigenia), mother-son relationship (Memnon, Achilles), or alternatively as resulting from some purely exotic and, perhaps, magic force (Telemachus, Telegonus, Penelope).78 Its recurrent appearance in Cyclic epic stands out as one of its key differences from Homeric epic, where, in sharp contrast, the gods express pain and grief for their inability to change the doom of their favored humans.79 In the Epic Cycle, the gods are equally unable to prevent what has been determined by fate, but their ability to confer immortality after death provides them with a second best alternative.

. Conclusion Some of the roles undertaken by gods in the poems of the Epic Cycle pertain to typical epic themes that are equally shared by Homeric epic: wrath, rivalry, counseling, foretelling of the future, love and parentage of both immortal and mortal children. Other forms of divine activity, notably metamorphosis and immortalization, are virtually absent from Homeric epic, giving to the Cycle an exotic flavor. From the point of view of the narrative, divine wrath, rivalry, counseling, and prophecies play a major role in the plot of the individual Cyclic epics, whereas metamorphosis and immortalization do not seem to be instrumental to the telling of the story. One might, therefore, suggest, with a considerable amount of caution, that wrath, rivalry, counseling, and prophecies constitute ‘unmarked’ forms of divine activity, whereas metamorphosis and immortalization ‘marked’ ones. ‘Unmarked’ forms of divine engagement, to stick to linguistic terminology, derive their regularity from being almost the standard epic ‘response’ to the role of the gods. In contrast, marked types of  77 Monro 1884, 15, 17 and 1901, 361, 377; Jebb 19057, 153–155; Forsdyke 1956, 130–131; Jouan 1980, 102–103; see Burgess 2001, 167 for a rebuttal of this position. 78 Here the mother-son relationship is used almost comically. 79 A typical example of this phenomenon is the scene in Iliad 22 in which Zeus expresses pain for his inability to prevent the death of Hector. Given that this happens within the context of a psychostasia, the analogy with the Cyclic Aethiopis is even more telling. Immortalization is not unknown in Homer, but in contrast to the Cycle, it is peripheral and ‘unusual, not primary’ (Burgess 2001, 167 with emphasis on note 148).

Conclusion  

divine involvement deviate from the ‘default mode’ of divine action and seem to pertain to the Cycle’s taste for the exotic, the fantastic, and the miraculous. The dichotomy between ‘unmarked’ and ‘marked’ forms of divine activity, the former being instrumental for the narrative, the latter playing no role in the unraveling of the plot in Cyclic epic, has far reaching consequences for Homeric epic too. If placed next to the neoanalytical theory that Cyclic epic reflects preHomeric earlier epic traditions which functioned as sources for the Homeric epics, then we can see that those divine roles which had a narrative impact were the ones put in use by the Iliad and the Odyssey. On the other hand, part of those which were narratively inactive in oral Cyclic epic (immortalization of humans)80 were transformed by Homeric epic into heroic experience.81

 80 A special case is presented by divine metamorphosis, which though narratively inactive in Cyclic epic became narratively significant in Homeric epic. 81 See Slatkin 1991, 39, 121–122; Finkelberg 2015, 137–138 (= 2020, 179–181).

 γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων: Interformularity and Intertraditionality in Theban and Homeric Epic One of the most salient issues pertaining to the ongoing debate about written versus oral or oral-derived literature is the discrepancy between repetition and recurrence. Here is a recent presentation of this difference: To repeat is to do something again, with the rhetorical force of the second and subsequent repetitions stemming from their imitation or echoing of the initial item. On the other hand, to recur is to arise idiomatically — not because of a specific prior occurrence, but rather because the element or pattern is itself associated with the compositional and artistic task and redolent with inherent, embedded meaning. Formulas and typical scenes and storypatterns do not repeat in oral traditional epic. Homer does not resort to ‘rosy-fingered dawn’ at any given juncture because he deployed the phrase recently and wishes to capitalize on that salient usage. Nor do the elaborate scenes of feasting in the Odyssey or lamentation in the Iliad depend primarily on parallel instances that happen to precede them. The Odyssey is one very prominent recurrence of the Return pattern that proliferates throughout Indo-European story traditions. Formulas, typical scenes and story-patterns index the epic tradition, serving as lemmata to a finally untextualizable body of story. In this vein, they do not repeat; they idiomatically recur as the poet (re-) makes the poeminstance.1

If then repetition is intentional, whereas recurrence is symptomatic, are they representative of written versus oral or oral-derived literature or is the general picture rather blurred, as meaningful and intentional repetition can be observed in oral or oral-derived literature and recurrence in written literature? A second question connected with the prior one concerns a particular form of duplication in Greek epic tradition, namely the doublet.2 Is the doublet a manifestation of repetition or recurrence? Is it intentional and derivative or symptomatic and formulaic? It is these questions that I will aim to answer by recourse to a telling example of phraseological and thematic duplication in the Odyssey that resonates through both the Theban and Trojan sections of the Epic Cycle. But before I turn my attention to the Odyssey and Cyclic epic, I would like to dwell on the theoretical debate around which the following analysis will unfold. The question pertaining to the use of meaningful allusion in early Greek hexameter tradition is a notorious interpretive crux that has been treated in divergent

 1 Foley and Arft 2015. 2 See Bowra 1930, 94–96; Schadewaldt 19663, 150 and n. 2; Fenik 1968, 213–214; 1974, 142–207; Edwards 1987, 50–51; 1991, 19–20; Scodel 2002, 26–27; Kelly 2007b. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-013

Transferred Phraseology and Transferred Motif  

ways from different scholars and schools of interpretation. According to oral theory, phraseology and theme are both traditional in the universe of early Greek epic, and as such they do not repeat but only recur. This does not mean that meaningful allusion does not exist for oralists, but that it is created by manipulation of the audience’s familiarity with traditional structures. For oralists, meaningful allusion comes ‘from within the song’ that is pars pro toto of the song-tradition it belongs to. For them allusion is never derivative, as the very idea of priority is excluded within the universe of oral song.3 Conversely, neoanalysts argued that the most fundamental form of meaningful allusion in early hexameter poetry is text-based intertextuality, which in the case of Homeric epic takes a very particular form known as ‘motif-transference’: by studying the function of a motif in the ‘target text’ neoanalysts trace its ‘history’ all the way back to the ‘source text’. This is made possible, according to the neoanalyst argumentation, because motifs have progressively become particularized to a given context in the stable skeleton of narrative or the Faktenkanon of early Greek epic. This distinction between a ‘primary’ and a ‘secondary’ text or poem results in the re-use of the motif in a novel, non-traditional way in the ‘target text’. For neoanalysts derivative allusion can only result from the genious of the individual poet and requires a level of fixity that can be solely provided by written texts.4 According to a third line of interpretation, meaningful allusion of an intertextual nature is possible within the universe of oral poetry. The proponents of this approach argue for an oral neoanalysis and opt for a textless intertextuality.5 Meaningful allusion and derivative resonance are fully operable in oral poetry that has reached a degree of fixity by means of diffusion, selfawareness, cross-referencing, and a ‘stable skeleton of narrative’.6

 3 See, for example, Kelly (2012, 3–24), who stresses the importance of a scene’s ‘structural grammar’ and studies ‘how the poet manipulates his audience’s familiarity with that grammar in order to create uncertainty, excitement, and meaning, to direct, misdirect, and control their response, and on the smallest scales of narrative’ (3). 4 Some main proponents: Pestalozzi 1945; Kakridis 1949; Kullmann 1960, 1991, 425–455 (= 1992, 100–134), 2002a, 162–176; Reichel 1994, 1998, 1–22; Willcock 1997, 174–189; Griffin 1977, 39–53; Currie 2006, 1–45, 2016, 1–38. 5 Main proponents: Burgess 1997, 1–19; 2001, 2006, 148–189, 2009; Finkelberg 2000, 1–11 and 2011, 197–208; Tsagalis 2008, 2011a, 209–244, 2012a, 309–345; see also Introduction, pp. XV– XVI and chapter 1, pp. 3–33 (this volume). 6 For the term ‘stable skeleton of narrative’, see Lord 1960/20002, 99; see also Tsagalis 2011a, 211 and chapter 1, pp. 5, 25, n. 85, 28 n. 90 (this volume).

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων

. Transferred Phraseology and Transferred Motif My investigation focuses on a case of repeated or recurrent phraseology and repeated or recurrent motif respectively. The phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων is used in Od. 11.519–521 (in the context of the Nekyia) and 15.243–248 (in the context of the genealogy of the seer Theoclymenus). ἀλλ᾽ οἷον τὸν Τηλεφίδην κατενήρατο χαλκῷ, ἥρω᾽ Εὐρύπυλον, πολλοὶ δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι Κήτειοι κτείνοντο γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων. (Od. 11.519–521) But well I remember how the heroic Eurypylus son of Telephus fell to his sword, and how many of the Ceteioi, his men-at-arms, were slaughtered at his side, all on account of a bribe that a woman had taken. Ἀντιφάτης μὲν ἔτικτεν Ὀϊκλῆα μεγάθυμον, αὐτὰρ Ὀϊκλείης λαοσσόον Ἀμφιάραον, ὃν περὶ κῆρι φίλει Ζεύς τ᾽ αἰγίοχος καὶ Ἀπόλλων παντοίην φιλότητ᾽· οὐδ᾽ ἵκετο γήραος οὐδόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὄλετ᾽ ἐν Θήβῃσι γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων. τοῦ δ᾽ υἱεῖς ἐγένοντ᾽ Ἀλκμαίων Ἀμφίλοχός τε. (Od. 15.243–248) Antiphates became the father of the bold Oicles, and Oicles in his turn, of that great leader Amphiaraus, a man whom aegis-bearing Zeus and Apollo loved and blessed with every mark of their favour. Even so he never trod the path of old age, but fell at Thebes, the victim of a woman’s avarice, leaving two sons, Alcmaon and Amphilochus.

Is the expression γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων traditional or has it been constructed by the Odyssey? As far as the dictional and metrical constraints of early hexameter poetry are concerned, the phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων occupies the same metrical position, i.e. after the feminine or trochaic caesura, in verses ending in a strong pause that is marked by the lack of any form of enjambment. In other words, its two sole attestations in the entire Homeric corpus show that it is used at verse-end but also at the end of a short section devoted to a specific motif.7 The phrase at hand flags for both singer and audience the completion of a brief thematic unit (Od. 11.519–521 and Od. 15.243–248) embedded to a larger one, the exploits of Neoptolemus at Troy (Od. 11.510–537) and the genealogy of Theoclymenus (Od. 15.223–256) respectively.

 7 The convergence of phraseological- and motif-completion indicates the existence of a thematic surplus that is synchronically contextual and diachronically intertextual. See also the last section of this chapter.

Transferred Phraseology and Transferred Motif  

The epithet γυναίων is employed only in these two cases, in Moschus (2.45), and the Orphic Argonautica (673: γυναίων εἵνεκα φίλτρων) in the whole of Greek literature. In Homer, the word δῶρα (10x in the Iliad and Odyssey) is attested only three times at verse end,8 but it is only in Od. 11.521 and 15.248 that is preceded by εἵνεκα. The highly abbreviated and elliptical form of the two references, in which the phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων belongs, covertly shows that the audience was familiar with the relevant contexts, which it could easily evoke. I believe that these contexts were epic and not lyric or artistic. This is what I have argued elsewhere:9 The performance context is a decisive factor for screening out the multiplicity of traces and consolidating the function of significant allusion. The practicalities of the performance, few of which are retrievable today, would have exercised considerable pressure on the interpretation of mythological traces employed in Homeric epic. A useful comparandum may be the example of a modern rock concert. Huge crowds, great enthusiasm that often is out of control, shouting and responding to the rock star’s gestures, lack of space between the numerous spectators, standing instead of seating, loud noise, casual or provocative dress-code followed by both the rock band and the spectators are some of the performative circumstances that function as generators and constraints of meaning: the provocative content of many rock songs is thus mirrored on the entire performance procedure and, by extension, on the audience itself. It does not really matter whether spectators belong to different social strata or educational levels. Performance context erases difference and absorbs variation when the band appears on stage. I would like to argue that performance context was even stronger in archaic Greece as far as epic songs are concerned. A symposium or a religious festival as the locus of the performance, the single bard, the size of the poem, the unchanging tone of the dactylic hexameter, the musical accompaniment of the phorminx, the silence of the audience, the duration of the performance, and of course the status of epic song itself would have channelled mythical allusion towards other epic songs performed under similar conditions. As modern rock fans would be tuned to the specific musical universe of a rock festival and not to that of a classical concert (even if both were dealing with the same topic, say love), so ancient audiences could be keyed to a specific poetic note, when listening to an epic performance. Under such conditions, mythological reference could often equal oral intertextual reference, and oral intertextual reference could become oral epic allusion.

Is it possible, then, that this phrase has been transferred or adapted from a context10 in which it would specifically refer to the ‘archetypal’,11 within the uni-

 8 In the genitive plural (δώρων): Il. 24.68; Od. 11.521; Od. 15.248. 9 Tsagalis 2011a, 231–232. 10 That this context was poetic and not simply mythological can be seen by the ‘transfer of phrasing’. In this case, allusion not only ‘embraces the lexical level’, it is also signalled in it; on this point, see Currie 2012, 572.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων verse of archaic Greek epic, deception through bribery, i.e. the case of Eriphyle who is the only figure bribed twice by gifts (by Polynices and Thersander) in early hexameter poetry? In fact, our ancient sources inform us that such a transfer was possible and, moreover, was made with respect to the very same motif, i.e. ‘the gifts of Eriphyle’. According to Clement (Strom. 6.12.7),12 Agias of Troezen adapted a verse referring to the gifts of Eriphyle in the Epigonoi, and used it in a scene relating to Eriphyle in the Underworld that featured in his own poem, the Nostoi. Ἀντιμάχου τε του Τηΐου εἰπόντος (Epig. fr. 4 PEG 1 = 2 GEF) ἐκ γὰρ δώρων πολλὰ κάκ᾽ ἀνθρώποισι πέλονται, Ἀγίας ἐποίησεν (Nost. fr. 8 PEG 1 = 7 EGF = 7 GEF) δῶρα γὰρ ἀνθρώπων νόον ἤπαφεν ἠδὲ καὶ ἔργα. And where Antimachus of Teos had said For from gifts much ill comes to mankind, Agias wrote: For gifts delude peoples minds and (corrupt) their actions.

This example makes it plain that there was transference of phraseology and motif within Cyclic epic, and that the story of Eriphyle was fertile for exactly this kind of resonance between two different epics. Moreover, it shows that transference was possible between the different sub-sections of the Epic Cycle, i.e. the Theban section (Epigonoi) and the Trojan section (Nostoi). The case presented above is also instructive as far as the ‘mechanics’ of transference of phraseology  11 Eriphyle is the ‘archetype’ of the evil woman; see Rivero García 2008, 274–279. 12 Clement’s citation must be placed within the context of a standard topic in Christian apologetic literature written in Greek, namely whether the Greeks had taken their knowledge from the Jews. A further ramification of this topic is ‘Greeks drawing their knowledge from other Greeks’. The ‘theft of the Greeks’ topic seems to dominate in Stromateis I and V. This observation has led Bousset 1915 to argue for the existence of an intermediary source, different from his famous ‘Pantaenus-Quelle’ (the notes of Pantaenus that were used and published by his disciple Clement) which had been employed in the Excerpta, the Eclogae, and the Stromateis VI and VII. This theory, though refuted by Munck 1933, is not to be wholly discredited, for even if the scenario of the ‘Pantaenus-Quelle’ and intermediary sources are not on the right track, still the stress given to the topic ‘theft by the Greeks’ is valid.

Going to War: Female Guile and Male Prowess  

are concerned. The phrase ἐκ γὰρ δώρων … ἀνθρώποισι (Epig. fr. 4 PEG = 2 GEF) has become δῶρα γὰρ ἀνθρώπων (Nost. fr. 8 PEG = 7 EGF = 7 GEF), which shows that the key elements of the motif, i.e. gifts (δώρων ― δῶρα) and their destructive force on humans (ἀνθρώποισι ― ἀνθρώπων) were preserved when the transference was effected, since they belonged to the deep structure of the motif. What is perhaps the most important conclusion one should draw from this example is that the deep structure of the motif (δώρων | δῶρα ― ἀνθρώποισι | ἀνθρώπων) is analogous to the Odyssean phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων,13 and (tellingly enough), the phrase ἐκ γὰρ δώρων of the Cyclic Epigonoi corresponds exactly to the Odyssean expression εἵνεκα δώρων. Given that the Cyclic Epigonoi and the Nostoi are later than the Odyssey and that the abbreviated form of these references in the Odyssey by means of the phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων amounts to mere citations of epic sources, it is plausible that the Odyssey has transferred and, perhaps, adapted a motif and its built-in phraseology from an oral epic tradition, where they would have been at home. Since one of the attestations of this motif in the Odyssey alludes to the Theban cycle (15.243–248),14 while the other to the Trojan cycle (11.519–521),15 it is worth exploring the question pertaining to the reason(s) and way(s) this interconnection was developed in the first place. Once this is done, we will be able to draw some more general conclusions with respect to the nature and function of the link between the Theban and the Trojan epic traditions.

. Going to War: Female Guile and Male Prowess One of the most important motifs of early hexameter poetry is that of a hero’s or heroes’ departure for war. The two main strands of martial epic, the Theban and Trojan traditions had placed considerable emphasis on the mustering and departure of the Argive and Achaean armies to Thebes and Troy respectively. Both traditions had also put enormous stress on the departure of individual heroes, whose role in the relevant expeditions was going to be crucial. In the Theban tradition, the departure of Amphiaraus in the first, unsuccessful expedition of  13 By ‘analogous’ I refer to a certain degree of adaptation: while in the Odyssean passages the emphasis is on the gifts taken by women, in the Cyclic fragments the stress is on humans in general. 14 The first bribery of Eriphyle by Polynices belongs to the Thebais (see fr. 7* GEF) but could very well have been mentioned in the Epigonoi (fr. 4 PEG = 2 GEF) (and en passant even in the Alcmeonis). 15 See Il. parv. fr. 29 PEG = 6 EGF = 6 GEF. See also Σ Od. 11.520–1 (II 517–518 Dindorf).

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων the Seven, and the subsequent departure of his son Alcmaon in the second, successful expedition of the Epigonoi were integral parts of the stable skeleton of narrative pertaining to the Theban War epic tradition.16 Knowing, due to his ability as a seer to see the future, that the expedition of the Seven would fail, Amphiaraus was reluctant to take part in the war. But Amphiaraus was bound by oath to follow his wife’s (Eriphyle) advice in case there was another dispute between himself and Adrastus, since Adrastus had given him his sister Eriphyle as wife (with the proviso that she would arbitrate between them in the future). Taking advantage of this fact, Polynices, who had convinced Adrastus that an expedition should be organized against Thebes, bribed Eriphyle by offering her the golden necklace of Harmonia, a gift from the gods for Harmonia’s marriage to Cadmus. When Eriphyle advised Amphiaraus to take part in the war, he could not refuse, although he knew that the expedition would be unsuccessful. He told his son Alcmaon to avenge his death and departed for Thebes where he died. Before the expedition of the Epigonoi, in which the sons of the Seven attacked and sacked Thebes, Eriphyle attempted to bribe her son Alcmaon by accepting a gift (the robe of Harmonia) from Thersander, Polynices’ son. Alcmaon remembering his father’s words for revenge killed his own mother, either before or after the expedition. He then wandered around Greece persecuted by the Erinyes in search of a place on which the sun would not have set his rays. This was the new riverbanks of Acheloos. Even this cursory narrative makes it plainly clear that the theme of the departure of father (Amphiaraus) and son (Alcmaon) for the war constituted a doublet that dramatized important heroic issues, such as fate and heroism, human vanity, love for profit, deception, and revenge. In the Trojan War epic tradition, a hero’s departure for war is an equally important theme. According to the Cypria, Menelaus and Nestor travelled through Greece to muster an army by reminding various Greek leaders of the oath they had given to Tyndareos as suitors of Helen, by which they were bound to help Menelaus and Helen in case they were faced with danger.17 The Trojan War tradition must have thematized the departure of the two key figures of the Trojan expedition, i.e. Achilles and Odysseus, who were not bound by oath to take part in the war. Although the former’s willingness to participate in the war

 16 For an excellent review of the legend of Amphiaraus before Pindar, see Braswell 1998, 27– 41 with bibliography; see also Sineux 2007. 17 [Hes.] Cat. fr. 204.78–85 M-W; Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.9; see also arg. Cypr. ll. 118–119 Severyns: ἔπειτα τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἀθροίζουσιν ἐπελθόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα (‘then they gather the leaders after going around Greece’).

The Typology of the Motif  

was not doubted by either the Iliad or the written Cypria, a version narrating his hiding at Scyros may have featured in some other oral version of the Cypria or in some lyric tradition.18 In the case of Odysseus, his faked madness that was exposed by Palamedes was undoubtedly narrated by the Cypria.19 Although bribery is not linked in the Trojan War tradition with either Achilles or Odysseus, it features with respect to the participation of another important hero in the war, Eurypylus, son of Telephus, the Mysian ally of the Trojans. What makes this information particularly relevant to this investigation is that Eurypylus is killed in Troy by Neoptolemus, Achilles’ son who is fetched from Scyros after his father’s death. As for Eurypylus, he is convinced to join the Trojans against the Achaeans by his mother, Astyoche, who is bribed by her brother Priam with the golden vine of Dionysus,20 i.e. of the same god who had trapped Telephus’ horse in a vine when wounded in the thigh by Achilles during the Teuthranian expedition.21 This connection becomes all the more important, if one bears in mind that Telephus had killed, before being wounded by Achilles, Thersander,22 one of the Epigonoi who had attempted to bribe Eriphyle with the robe of Harmonia and had joined the expedition to Troy like other Epigonoi (Diomedes, Sthenelus, and Euryalus).

. The Typology of the Motif Amidst a wealth of mythological details, it is crucial (a) to locate the salient or primary features pertaining to the deep structure of the motif, (b) to determine the secondary features manifested as variations of the deep structure features, (c) to map the way both primary and secondary motifs are interwoven with specific mythical figures in early hexameter poetry, and (d) to detect and pinpoint a number of truly peripheral elements that belong to the ‘epic staging’ of this motif and have been developed when the motif and the mythical figures it had

 18 On this issue, see Tsagalis 2012c, 257–289, especially 278–283. For an analogy with Amphiaraus’ reluctance to participate in the expedition of the Seven, see Apollod. Bibl. 3.60. 19 Arg. Cypr. ll. 119–121 Severyns: καὶ μαίνεσθαι προσποιησάμενον Ὀδυσσέα ἐπὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν στρατεύεσθαι ἐφώρασαν, Παλαμήδους ὑποθεμένου τὸν υἱὸν Τηλέμαχον ἐπὶ κόλασιν ἐξαρπάσαντες (‘and they caught Odysseus pretending to be mad because he was reluctant to take part in the expedition with them, after Palamedes advised them to seize his son with the intention of harming him’). 20 See Il. parv. fr. 29 PEG = 6 EGF = 6 GEF. 21 Cypr. fr. 20 PEG 1. See also arg. Cypr. ll. 127–128 Severyns. 22 Arg. Cypr. ll. 126–127 Severyns.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων been attached to had become canonical during the process of shaping of epic traditions. This step-by-step process is indispensable for exploring the motif’s full potential as a dynamic mechanism producing meaning.

.. Primary Features (Deep Structure) The chief features of the motif ‘woman receives gifts to convince an unwilling hero to go to war’ belongs to the larger story pattern ‘unwilling hero is convinced to go to war’. In the latter women often play a key role, but mainly by being offered as a marriage gift by a third party, so that the hero can be persuaded to join up an expedition or the fighting. Another alternative is to have a woman close to the hero exercise all her persuasive force in order to make him change his mind. In the motif under examination the salient features comprising its deep structure are the following: A1. A hero is unwilling to go to war. A2. A third party is interested in making the hero take part in the war because he is an excellent warrior. A3. A female character, the wife or mother of the hero, is bribed by a third party in order to convince her husband or son to join the war. A4. The hero goes to war. A5. The hero dies in the war.

.. Secondary Features The secondary features of this motif are in fact internal ramifications developed around the main elements presented above. They never occur all at one given version of the motif but are diffused at random in all its variants. B1. The hero’s reluctance to join the war is due to the fact that he knows that he will die or because he is bound by an oath. B2. A third party offers to a female character associated with the hero a gift made by the gods. B3. A third party may or may not be related to the woman. B4. The hero may or may not find out about the bribery of his wife or mother. B5. The hero does not die in the war, but his ordeal has just begun.

The Typology of the Motif  

.. Epic Staging: Phase I In light of the aforementioned lists of primary and secondary features, let us now see how the various elements comprising the motif at hand are distributed within the stable skeleton of Theban and Trojan myth as manifested in early hexameter poetry. The focus will be the tales of Amphiaraus-Alcmaon and Eurypylus. Amphiaraus was unwilling to join the war (A1) because he knew that the expedition was not supported by the gods (B1), but Polynices (B3), who wanted him to take part in the expedition due to his excellent fighting skills (A2), bribed his wife (A3) Eriphyle with the golden necklace of Harmonia, a divine gift (B2) in order to convince Amphiaraus to take part in the expedition. Amphiaraus found out about the bribery (B4) but had to go to the war (A4) because he had accepted her as arbitrator between himself and Adrastus, who was supporting Polynices’ cause and was to lead the expedition. Amphiaraus died in the war (A5). Alcmaon was unwilling to go to the war (A1) because he was angry at his mother Eriphyle, who had been bribed by Polynices with the golden necklace of Harmonia in order to persuade Alcmaon’s father Amphiaraus to march against Thebes. Eriphyle was bribed again, this time by the son of Polynices, Thersander (B3), who offered her the golden robe of Harmonia, a divine gift (B2) in order to convince Alcmaon to go to the war (A3), since he was indispensable for an Argive victory against the Thebans (A2). Alcmaon, who knew about the first bribery but did not want to oppose his mother, was convinced and joined the expedition (A4). After sacking Thebes, he returned home and upon discovering that his mother had been bribed a second time (B4), he killed her. Persecuted by the Erinys, he fled and underwent various troubles until he was finally killed (B5). Eurypylus was unwilling to go to war (A1) because he had been advised by his father Telephus (B1), who had given this promise to Achilles when he healed the wound which he had inflicted to Telephus in the Teuthranian expedition. His mother, Astyoche, who was the sister of Priam (B3), was bribed by her brother who gave her a golden vine made by Hephaestus (B2),23 in order to con 23 Fr. 29 PEG 1 = 6 EGF = 6 GEF. On Astyoche as Priam’s sister, see Apollod. Bibl. 3.146; Serv. on Virg. Ecl. 6.72; Quint. Smyrn. 6.135–136; Σ Od. 11.521 (II 518 Dindorf); Eust. on Od. 11.521 (I 431 Stallbaum). A different genealogy is given by Dict. Cret. 2.5 and Hyg. Fab. 101.5. Eustathius (on Od. 11.521 [I 431 Stallbaum]) leaves open the possibility that the expression γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων may alternatively refer to Hermione, Menelaus’ daughter, offered to Neoptolemus as a future wife, if he would come to Troy. This explication is at odds with the story of the vine in the Ilias parva (fr. 29 PEG = 6 EGF = 6 GEF). Moreover, it is not attested in other sources and

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων vince Eurypylus to assist the Trojans against the Achaeans (A3). Priam had asked Eurypylus for help earlier, since Eurypylus was, like his father, a warrior of first rank (A2), but Eurypylus had refused. Astyoche was able to persuade Eurypylus to go to the war (A4), where he was killed (A5). At this first phase of ‘epic staging’, the primary features of the motif that belong to its core are fused with secondary features that accompany them without changing the motif’s structure.

.. Epic Staging: Phase II While the blending of primary and secondary features produces variants belonging to the same kernel, another process begins to make itself felt. As the Theban and Trojan War myths have attained a level of stability within the universe of early hexameter poetry, as far as the Faktenkanon of events and characters they comprise is concerned, the first phase of ‘epic staging’ was followed by a second one, which amounts to the epic contextualization of the motif according to the set of rules and constraints pertaining to the ‘mythical data’ of the Theban and Trojan War traditions. As the motif begins to be tied to particular events and figures of the two great epic traditions, it becomes internally recontextualized, i.e. it begins to acquire further features that are part and parcel of the epic texture it is incorporated in or it further develops in more detail existing features belonging to the standard mythical armature of certain figures or situations. This phase is characterized by a tendency to enhance the unity of primary and secondary features by creating new associations and analogies, by fully exploiting the ‘epic apparatus’ of traditional song so as to make each singer’s epic idiolect conform to the ‘epic register’ of features and phraseology pertinent to the specific motif. We can trace this ‘epic register’ with respect to the tales of AmphiarausAlcmaon-Eriphyle and Telephus-Eurypylus by locating common or analogous features in the versions of the tales offered by later poets, such as Stesichorus, Archilochus, and Pindar. These similarities and analogies cannot be explained by means of internal imitation between these poets. This is an unavoidable conclusion, since e.g. Archilochus (in the Telephus elegy) cannot have imitated Stesichorus (Eriphyle)24 due to a chronological non sequitur nor could Pindar  seems to be Eustathius’ own explanation based on the assumption that γυναικεῖα δῶρα (sic) may refer to the ‘female gifts’ given to Neoptolemus, not the gifts given to Astyoche. 24 On Stesichorus’ Eriphyle, see Finglass 2014, 344–354.

The Typology of the Motif  

(e.g. Nem. 9) have imitated Archilochus with respect to a different story. The pairing of these features must have happened earlier and oral epic traditions pertaining to the Theban and Trojan Wars must have been the place where this ‘nesting’ of elements had originated. Such a pairing was not a result of imitation but a much more complex process pertaining to ‘epic staging’, as I had described it above. In what follows, I will offer a list (with brief analysis) of each one of these features.

.. Children of the Gods If taken at face value, the phrases π̣αῖδές τ̣ ᾽ ἀ̣θανάτων (Arch. P.Oxy 4708, fr. 1.14) and παῖδες θεῶν (Pind. Nem. 9.27–28) do not fit either context, since the former is awkwardly used for the Achaean army in Archilochus and the latter is clearly inappropriate for the fleeing Amphiaraus in Pindar.25 Although there are a number of examples showing that men of the heroic age were collectively called ἡμίθεοι,26 the addition of ἀδελφεοί to π̣αῖδές τ̣ ᾽ ἀ̣θανάτων in the Archilochus elegy (fr. 1.14) is unexpected and hard to explain,27 even if its meaning (‘brothers in arms’) is rather clear. A crucial feature in determining whether this phraseology was not only used collectively for men of the heroic age but was particularly applied to some of them is the motif of flight. It is only in the Archilochus and Pindar passages that this phraseology is applied to heroes fleeing from the enemy. Without rejecting the collective use of the phrase, we may examine cases in which it would have been appropriately employed for specific heroes who are the children of gods and are persecuted by an enemy. Scholars have pointed to Cycnus, son of Ares, who routs Heracles (Stesich. fr. 166 Davies and Finglass) and Aeneas who is persecuted by Achilles (Il.

 25 The frustration about the function of these expressions is apparent in the commentaries of both Obbink 2005 and Braswell 1998 for Archilochus and Pindar respectively. 26 Ιl. 12.23; Hes. Op. 160; [Hes.] fr. 204.100 M-W; Simon. 523.1–2 PMG and 11.18 IEG; τέκνα θεῶν ([Hes.] fr. 204.101 M-W); παῖδες … τε φωτῶν καὶ θεῶν (Pind. Pyth. 4.13); see D’Alessio 2006, 21 with further examples from the classical period onwards. 27 West (2006, 14) acknowledges that ἀδελφεοί is ‘an unexpected addition’ and tries to explain it by saying that ‘anyone fathered by Zeus would be the half-brother of several gods and goddesses’. Obbink (2005, 36) rightly calls it a ‘striking collocation’ and adds that ‘the present expression may be an analogous expansion based on cases like Achilles’.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων 20.89–98 and 188–194; Cypr. arg. l. 160 Severyns and Apollod. Epit. 3.32).28 Let us explore them in detail. In the Theban tradition, Heracles, son of Zeus, defeats Cycnus, son of Ares, in a chariot race by using his horse Arion, whereas in the Heracles saga it is Cycnus who routs Heracles who in the end defeats him.29 The fact that Arion is a central feature of this episode is of particular interest to our inquiry because in the Thebais he is fathered by Poseidon. Arion is the thematic link between this episode and that of the flight of Adrastus in the expedition of the Seven, since Adrastus is the only one of the Seven who was able to get away alive due to his divine horse.30 The use of the epithet κυανοχαίτῃ (‘sable-haired’) for Arion in the Thebais is an indication that his father was Poseidon.31 Given that the HeraclesAdrastus link is a strong one in the Theban tradition via Arion, it is no wonder that the feature ‘children of gods fleeing’ was transferred together with Arion from Heracles to Adrastus. Why is it then applied to Amphiaraus in Pindar’s Nemean 9? It is no coincidence that the Pindaric maxim about the children of gods fleeing in the midst of panic is applied to Amphiaraus immediately before Pindar refers to the imminent blow on the hero’s back (i.e. while fleeing) by Periclymenus.32 Given that (a) Adrastus is a son of Talaus, who escapes with his divine horse Arion, fathered by Poseidon (Theb. fr. 11 GEF), (b) Parthenopaeus, one of the Seven, who is equally a son of Talaus in the Thebais (fr. 10 GEF) and so Adrastus’ brother, is slain by Periclymenus, and (c) Pindar applies this maxim to the fleeing Amphiaraus before being stabbed in the back by Periclymenus, it is possible that an expression like παῖδες θεῶν/ἀθανάτων καὶ ἀδελφεοί ‘children of gods/immortals and brothers’ would have suited Adrastus and his brother Parthenopaeus, while fleeing from the enemy. Pindar’s earlier reference to Ταλαοῦ παῖδες (Nem. 9.14) shows that he may have Adrastus and Parthenopaeus in mind. Since he is offering a positive presentation of Adrastus who is associated with Chromius, the laudandus of the epinician ode, Pindar would have liked to downplay Adrastus’ flight. This line of interpretation is further  28 See Braswell 1998, 97. 29 Heracles defeats Cycnus in a charior race: Theb. frs. 7–8 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 11 GEF; Cycnus routs Heracles: Stesich. fr. 166 Davies and Finglass; Pind. Ol. 10.15–16; Σ Pind. Ol. 10.19a-b, 20, 21a (I 315–317 Drachmann). 30 The association has been made by Σ (D) Il. 23.346 (van Thiel). See Severyns 1928, 220–221. 31 See Paus. 8.25.7–8: ‘εἵματα λυγρὰ φέρων σὺν Ἀρίονι κυανοχαίτῃ’. αἰνίσσεσθαι οὖν ἐθέλουσι τὰ ἔπη Ποσειδῶνα Ἀρίονι εἶναι πατέρα (‘his clothes in sorry state, with Arion the sable-haired’. So they want the verse to hint that Poseidon was father to Arion’). 32 Nem. 9.22–27; see also Apollod. Bibl. 3.77: Ἀμφιαράῳ δὲ φεύγοντι παρὰ ποταμὸν Ἰσμηνόν … καὶ Ζεὺς ἀθάνατον αὐτὸν ἐποίησεν.

The Typology of the Motif  

strengthened if we take into consideration that Pindar has followed the same practice in the case of the lack of propitious omens (Zeus’ failure to lighten when the Seven were ready to depart for Thebes).33 Seen from this vantage point, the transfer of a form of the expression ‘children of gods fleeing’ to Amphiaraus seems a reasonable choice. In the Trojan tradition this feature is interwoven with the role of Achilles, the more so since in the Cypria he routs both Telephus,34 son of Heracles, and especially Cycnus,35 son of Poseidon, when the Achaeans land at Troy (inner doublet).36 That this association was operative in antiquity is clearly seen in the poetry of Pindar, who stresses, by means of a series of rhetorical questions in asyndeton, that Cycnus, Hector, Memnon, and Telephus were all killed by Achilles.37 Is it a coincidence that the two heroes Achilles routs in the Cypria (Telephus and Cycnus, the former trying to escape on his horse) are linked with the Heracles-Cycnus episode in the Theban tradition, Telephus being Heracles’ son and Cycnus being Poseidon’s whose horse Arion had made Heracles victorious over the other Cycnus, son of Ares? The Achilles-Cycnus encounter offers a strong parallel of how the phrase παῖδες θεῶν/ἀθανάτων may have been used for both collective and hero-specific routing pertaining to the same episode, since in the Cypria Achilles routs the Trojans immediately after killing Cycnus: ἔπειτα Ἀχιλλεὺς αὐτοὺς τρέπεται ἀνελὼν Κύκνον τὸν Ποσειδῶνος (Cypr. arg. ll. 149–150 Severyns). Although technically Telephus is the son of a demi-god (Heracles) and grandson of a god (Zeus), the inner doublet with Cycnus (Telephus and Cycnus being the main warriors38 killed by Achilles in the Cypria) may have led to the transfer of this phraseology to him as well. Archilochus’application of the  33 See Braswell 1998, 81–82. 34 Fr. 20 PEG (= Σ (D) Il. 1.59 [15 van Thiel]: … ὁρμήσαντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν Τήλεφον) Ἀχιλλέως οὐ μείνας ἐδιώκετο. 35 See Janko (1986, 56), who rightly claims that ‘[t]he association [of Cycnus] with Achilles, a Thessalian hero, accords with the usual [Thessalian] location of our [the one associated to the Heracles saga] Cycnus; the Cycni were originally one and the same’; see also Robert 1920-19264, 81–82. 36 Cypr. arg. ll. 149–150 Severyns. In addition, Achilles made Aeneas, son of Aphrodite, flee (Cypr. arg. l. 160 Severyns and Apollod. Epit. 3.32). 37 Pind. Isth. 5.39–42: λέγε, τίνες Κύκνον, τίνες Ἕκτορα πέφνον, | καὶ στράταρχον Αἰθιόπων ἄφοβον | Μέμνονα χαλκοάραν· τίς ἄρ᾽ ἐσλὸν Τήλεφον | τρῶσεν ἑῷ δορὶ Καΐκου παρ᾽ ὄχθαις; (‘say, who slew Cycnus, who Hector and the fearless leader of the Aethopians, Memnon of the bronze armor? Who wounded brave Telephus with his own spear by the banks of Caicos?’); see also: Σ Pind. Ιsth. 5.48a-b (III 246 Drachmann). 38 Next to Troilus, another son of a god.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων expression to the fleeing Achaeans may be an adaptation of this phraseology from an epic featuring Achilles routing Telephus, Cycnus,39 and the Trojans. But what about the use of ἀδελφεοί after παῖδες ἀθανάτων in Archilochus’ elegy? Is it possible that the Theban and Trojan traditions shared such a feature? This answer escapes us due to lack of information but some thoughts about a possible bridge between the two traditions are under way. The historical reality lurking behind Cycnus, son of Poseidon, is instructive. If Kukkunnis was Alaksandu’s predecessor as king of Wilusa,40 his equation in early Greek mythical tradition with Cycnus is worth pursuing. The aural similarity between Kukkunnis and Cycnus explains only part of the story, since it leaves unanswered the question pertaining to his identification with Poseidon’s son Cycnus, instead of Ares’ son Cycnus. The preference for Poseidon’s instead of Ares’ offspring lies in the fact that, although Heracles had sacked Troy for the first time,41 his entire mythical entourage (even that belonging to non-Trojan adventures like the defeat of Cycnus, son of Ares) could not be carried wholesale to the second expedition against Troy in which he had no role. The great hero of the new expedition against Troy was Achilles, who had to show himself worthy of the great exploits of his predecessor. Being both children of gods, the analogy between them was enhanced even more.42 When the Aeolian settlers of the western part of Asia Minor next to Lesbos started hearing stories about a great king of Wilusa named Kukkunnis, they had to make him confront their great hero, Achilles. The story of Heracles, who had sacked Troy first because of the divine horses promised but not given to him by Laomedon, gave them a nice example to compete with. Cycnus, son of Ares, defeated by Heracles who had a divine horse Arion, fathered by Poseidon, became Cycnus son of Poseidon whom Achilles, their own hero, would defeat, as he had defeated Telephus, Heracles’ son. The change of father between the two ‘Cycni’ reflects an effort to make them fit the mythical saga they belong: as Ares’ role in Theban myth was well founded, since the first event of this saga was the marriage of his daughter

 39 On Cycnus, see West 2011a, 40–41. 40 West 2011a, 40. 41 On the ‘epic biography’ (Homeric and Hesiodic) of Heracles, see Bernardini 2010, 387–391. On his presence in the epos minore of the archaic period, see Bernardini 2010, 392–400. 42 See West (2018, 265–280), who sees a line leading from the epic of Gilgamesh to the Iliad through the intermediary of a lost epic on Heracles that was directly influenced by the epic of Gilgamesh. This line of thought could be extended to the three great heroes: Gilgamesh > Heracles > Achilles.

The Typology of the Motif  

Harmonia to Cadmus,43 so Poseidon loomed large in Trojan myth, given that he had built (together with Apollo and Achilles’ grandfather Aeacus)44 the walls of the city that Heracles sacked, the very walls Achilles would fail to take. By having Achilles fight against Cycnus,45 Poseidon’s son, the Trojan War tradition recalled the god’s role in the early mythical history of Troy.46 In this light, it is not unthinkable that if Heracles’ Arion became the vehicle for the transfer of phraseology and features to the myth of the Seven, then given Heracles’ association to Achilles and the Trojan saga, some of these features could also be transferred to the Trojan myth as well. Telephus and Cycnus were strong connecting points.

 43 The Theban and Trojan traditions were also paired by means of Cadmus and Peleus, in whose weddings to the daughter of a god (Harmonia, daughter of Ares, and Nereus’ daughter Thetis) lie their very beginnings. See Pind. Ol. 2.78–83: Πηλεύς τε καὶ Κάδμος ἐν τοῖσιν ἀλέγονται· | Ἀχιλλέα τ᾽ ἔνεικ᾽, ἐπεὶ Ζηνὸς ἦτορ | λιταῖς ἔπεισε, μάτηρ· | ὃς Ἕκτορα σφᾶλε, Τροίας | ἄμαχον ἀστραβῆ κίονα, Κύκνον τε θανάτῳ πόρεν, | Ἀοῦς τε παῖδ᾽ Αἰθίοπα (‘Both Peleus and Cadmus are numbered among them; and his mother, since she persuaded Zeus’ heart with prayers, carried Achilles there, who felled Hector, the invincible, upright column of Troy, and gave death to Cycnus, the Aethiopean son of Eos’); see also Σ Pind. Ol. 2.147a-e, 148 (I 96–97 Drachmann). For the weddings of Cadmus and Peleus in Pindar, see Pyth. 3.88–95 and, for the marriage of Peleus, Nem. 4.66–68. See also Ov. Met. 12.86–94, where Cycnus highlights the gap of power between his own father Poseidon ‘who rules both Nereus and his daughters and the whole sea besides’ (12.93–94: qui | Nereaque et natas et totum temperat aequor) and Achilles’ ‘second-rank’ divine ancestor, Nereus (with the analysis of Papaioannou 2007, 59–67). 44 See Pind. Ol. 8.30–44, where it is also stated that Troy would fall because part of the walls was built by the mortal Aeacus; see Σ Pind. Ol. 8.41a-b, 44a-d (I 247, 248 Drachmann). 45 The death of Cycnus by a stone thrown at him by Achilles is reflected in the duel between Telamonian Ajax and Hector in Iliad 7, where Ajax wounds Hector by throwing a stone at him; see Finkelberg 2002, 251–261 (= 2020, 140–149). 46 It is perhaps not a matter of sheer chance that both Achilles’ father Peleus and Amphiaraus’ father Oecles took part with Heracles in the first expedition against Troy. Heracles, who had saved Troy (together with Telamon and Oecles) from a sea monster sent by Poseidon because Laomedon did not pay him back for building the walls of Troy (Il. 7.451–453; 20.145–148; 21.442–457), was also deceived by Laomedon who had agreed to give him the horses his ancestor Tros had received from Zeus as compensation for his abduction of Ganymedes. When Heracles came back later with a whole army, he sacked Troy and slew all of Laomedon’s sons (who had earlier killed Oecles trying to protect the Greek ships) with the exception of Podarces who saved himself by giving Heracles Hesione’s golden veil and was renamed Priam (Apollod. Bibl. 2.134–136).

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων .. Flight The motif of flight in the expedition of the Seven is associated with the successful flight of Adrastus who escapes because of his horse Arion (frs. 7–8 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 11 GEF), the unsuccessful flight of Amphiaraus who is ‘saved’ from his opponent Periclymenus, his body disappearing under the earth47 and immortalized (Pind. Nem. 9.24–27),48 and of course the defeat of the Seven.49 In the abortive expedition to Teuthrania, the Achaeans flee under the attack of Telephus,50 but when Achilles fights back, the Mysian king flees and is wounded in the thigh by Achilles’ spear (Cypr. arg. ll. 125–128 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 3.17; cf. Σ (D) Il. 1.59 [van Thiel]). We now know that Archilochus had referred (fr. 304 IEG) to Neoptolemus dancing the pyrrhiche after the defeat of Eurypylus and, as West has suggested, this reference may have occurred in the lost part of the Telephus elegy, by reminding his audience ‘how the Telephus saga ended: with the hero’s son slain and his opponent performing a victory dance’.51 If this suggestion holds true, then it is not unthinkable, given that Archilochus ‘will not have been the first to connect the pyrrhiche with Pyrrhos’,52 that he may have taken both his version of the Telephus episode and the final victory of Neoptolemus/Pyrrhus over Eurypylus from a lost epic or pair of epics relating the entire Telephus myth from the arrival of the Achaeans in Mysia to the death of Eurypylus in Troy. Along these lines and given that Eurypylus’ arrival at Troy is described in terms of an aristeia (Il. parv. arg. ll. 219–221 Severyns: Εὐρύπυλος δὲ ὁ Τηλέφου ἐπίκουρος τοῖς Τρωσὶ παραγίνεται, καὶ ἀριστεύοντα αὐτὸν ἀποκτείνει Νεοπτόλεμος), it is not unthinkable that in this lost

 47 For the topic of the vanishing body of a hero, see Coppola 2008, especially (for Adrastus and Melanippus in Sicyon) 147–148; for the disappearance of Amphiaraus’ body, see Bener 1945, 47–50; Currie 2005, 212. Within the larger framework of the Amphiaraus-Achilles analogy, it is interesting to note that in the Cyclic Aethiopis (arg. ll. 199–200 Severyns) Achilles’ body is transferred to the White Island after his death by his mother Thetis. 48 See also Pind. Ol. 6.12–17; Nem. 10.8–9. 49 The ‘flight’ feature is also used, in a different scope, earlier in the same Pindaric ode (Nem. 9.13: φεῦγε γὰρ Ἀμφιάρην) with respect to Adrastus’ fleeing from Amphiaraus before the expedition to Thebes; see D’Alessio 2006, 20. 50 See [Hes.] Cat. fr. 165.14–15 M-W: αὐτὰρ Τήλεφος] ἔτραπ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτών[ων and (perhaps) fr. 165.20 M-W: πεφοβημένο̣ [. 51 West 2006, 17. 52 West 2006, 17.

The Typology of the Motif  

epic Eurypylus may also have routed the Achaeans,53 before being killed by Neoptolemus, just as his father Telephus had routed them in Mysia, before being wounded by Neoptolemus’ father Achilles. Since these episodes belonged to the Faktenkanon of early epic, the use of analogous phraseology in Pindar (Nem. 9.26–7: ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν) and Archilochus’ elegy on Telephus (φεύγ[ειν δέ τις ὥρη] (3) — ἐφόβησε (6) — ἐ̣ φόβε̣ ι̣ (7) — φύζαν (24)) points to the sharing of the same feature within the scope of the same motif linking the stories of AmphiarausEriphyle-Alcmaon and Telephus-Astyoche-Eurypylus.

.. Μόνος Although a hero’s exceptional prowess in war is typically presented as a characteristic he alone possesses in contrast to the rest of the army, it seems to have been put into a specific use in the context of the Theban and Trojan myths. In the expedition of the Seven, Adrastus is the only one who survives (Theb. frs. 7– 8 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 11 GEF; Apollod. Bibl. 3.60). His good fortune is reversed in the expedition of the Epigonoi, since his son Aegialeus is the only one dying at the hands of Laodamas (Pind. Pyth. 8.51–53: Ἄδραστος ἥρως· τὸ δὲ οἴκοθεν | ἀντία πράξει. μόνος γὰρ ἐκ Δαναῶν στρατοῦ | θανόντος ὀστέα λέξαις υἱοῦ; Apollod. Bibl. 3.83: καὶ Λαοδάμας Αἰγιαλέα κτείνει). The Archilochus elegy stresses the fact that Telephus alone was able to put the Achaeans into flight: P.Oxy. 4708 fr. 1.5: κ̣α̣ὶ̣ π̣ο̣τ̣ [ε μ]οῦν̣ ος̣ ἐ̣ ὼν̣ Τήλεφος Ἀ̣ρκα̣[σίδης fr. 1.25: ἤ]ρ̣ειδε[ν μο]ῦ̣ν̣ ος̣

The same feature is employed by Pindar (Ol. 9.70–73) with respect to Patroclus standing with Achilles against Telephus,54 at a point when the Mysian king has routed the rest of the Danaans to their ships: τοῦ παῖς ἅμ᾽ Ἀτρείδαις | Τεύθραντος πεδίον μολὼν ἔστα σὺν Ἀχιλλεῖ | μόνος, ὅτ᾽ ἀλκντας Δαναοὺς τρέψαις ἁλίαισιν | πρύμναις Τήλεφος ἔμβαλεν.

 53 See Fowler EGM II, 542, who rightly notes that ‘the Odyssey passage and a depiction of Eurypylos slain by Neoptolemos on a late sixth-century hydria (LIMC Eurypylos no. 1) indicate the same conclusion’. 54 See below under ‘Healing’.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων whose son, brought with the Atreidae in the plain of Teuthras, stood by Achilles alone, when Telephus routing the mighty Danaans hurled them against their beached ships.

The multiple similarities between Ol. 9.70–73 and Archilochus’ elegy on Telephus (fr. 1.7: ἄλκι̣ μ̣[οι — Ol. 9.72: ἀλκντας; 1.12: προ]τ̣ ροπάδην — Ol. 9.72: τρέψαις; 1.13: ἐς νέας ὠ[κ]υ̣π̣όρ[ο]υ̣ς̣ — Ol. 9.72–73: ἁλίαισιν | πρύμναις) are indicative of the fact that both Archilochus and Pindar draw on an earlier epic on Telephus. The μόνος feature is also applied to Patroclus55 (and Achilles) standing on their ground to fight Telephus. This earlier epic and the Theban epic tradition may have shared the analogy of the solitary fate of individual heroes, such as Adrastus, Aegialeus, Telephus, and Achilles when faced with great danger. Once more, the symmetrical development is more about situations than individuals.

.. Horses In the Theban tradition, Heracles with his horse Arion defeats Cycnus, son of Ares, and Adrastus escapes with the help of the same horse (frs. 7–8 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 11 GEF), while Amphiaraus fails to flee with his chariot (Pind. Ol. 6.13– 14; Nem. 9.24–27). In the Telephus episode in the Trojan tradition, Telephus fails to escape on horseback from Achilles (fr. 20 (II) PEG = Eust. on Iliad p. 46.36). Other authorities (Σ (D) Il. 1.59 [van Thiel] and Apollod. Epit. 3.17) do not mention Telephus’ horse but refer to his running away and pursuit by Achilles. (a) Eust. on Iliad p. 46.36: πέπονθε δὲ τραῦμα δεινὸν ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως ἀμπέλου ἕλικι συμποδισθέντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἵππου κατὰ Διονύσου πρόνοιαν καὶ πεσόντος εἰς γῆν. He suffered a terrible wound by Achilles, when his horse was entangled in the tendril of a vine, according to the forecast of Dionysus, and fell to the ground.

(b) Σ (D) Il. 1.59 (15 van Thiel): ὁρμήσαντος δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως οὐ μείνας ἐδιώκετο· ἐν δὲ τῷ τρέχειν ἐμπλακεὶς ἀμπέλου κλήματι τὸν μηρὸν τιτρώσκεται, νεμεσήσαντος αὐτῷ Διονύσου, ὅτι ἄρα ὑπὸ τούτου τιμῶν ἀφῄρητο.

 55 On the role of Patroclus in this episode, see below under ‘Healing’.

The Typology of the Motif  

After Achilles rushed on him, he did not hold his ground and was pursued; while running he was entangled in a vine and wounded on his thigh, Dionysus being angered at him, because he had deprived him from due honor.

(c) Apollod. Epit. 3.17: ὁρμήσαντος δὲ Ἀχιλλέως ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν οὐ μείνας ἐδιώκετο· καὶ διωκόμενος ἐμπλακεὶς εἰς ἀμπέλου κλῆμα τὸν μηρὸν τιτρώσκεται δόρατι. After Achilles rushed on him, he did not hold his ground and was pursued; while being pursued he was entangled in a vine and wounded on his thigh by a spear.

The phrasing in these two last sources is so similar that they must be drawing on a common source. Since Apollodorus has omitted the reference to Dionysus, which is attested in both Eustathius and the Σ (D) Il. 1.59 (15 van Thiel),56 then it is probable that Eustathius’ version is the most accurate. This line of thought is central to the role played by the horses in this episode, given the overall contextualization of this motif. In fact, if the son of Thetis was chasing Telephus with his own chariot, driven by the divine horses Balius and Xanthus, who were Poseidon’s gifts in the wedding of his father Peleus,57 the sequence Poseidon > Heracles > Adrastus (Arion) in the Theban tradition would correspond to the sequence Poseidon > Peleus > Achilles (Xanthus and Balius) in the Trojan tradition.58 Poseidon’s horse(s) would guarantee the success of their owner, whereas  56 See above sources (a) and (b). 57 See Cypr. fr. 3 PEG = fr. 3 EGF = fr. 4 GEF. 58 After Xanthus talks to Achilles in Il. 19.408–417, the narrator caps the horse’s speech by referring to the Erinyes who put an end to his talking ability, given to him by Hera (Il. 19.407). Dietrich (1964, 9–24) has argued that the Erinyes are involved because they are associated with the Harpyiai (Σ Il. 23.347 [V 324–325 Erbse]), one of whom (Podarge) had fathered to Zephyrus Achilles’ horses Xanthus and Balius. The analogy is telling. Arion was born to Erinys and Poseidon (Theb. frs. 7–8 PEG = 6 EGF = 11 GEF); see Edwards 1991, 285; Heubeck (1986, 154), argued that the Erinyes may have acted in this way ‘not to end the unnatural phenomenon of a talking horse […] but to prevent the disclosure of some secret or prophecy which must not be revealed to mortals; this may have been their role in the obscure Melampous story (Od. 11.291– 293, 15.234)’. Another potential explanation is that what we see in Il. 19.408–417 is analogous to what may have happened in the Theban epic tradition with respect to Arion. Is it possible that Arion told Adrastus that the rest of the Seven would perish and that only he would survive? The tradition of the Iliad (that is aware of Arion’s divine parentage [23.347]) may be reflecting such a story. This would explain why Hera is the one who makes Xanthus speak (Il. 19.407). In Theban epic, the pro-Argive and anti-Theban Hera may have done the same with Arion at the crucial moment of the fall of the Seven so as to tell Adrastus that it is time for him to flee.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων their lack would make even the son of Heracles (Telephus) fail to escape, very much unlike Adrastus. In this way, the entire epic contextualization of this feature would gain in depth. Furthermore, the substitution of the immortal horses of Tros (given to him by Zeus in compensation for the abduction of his son Ganymedes), a version followed by the Iliad (5.265–267), by a divine vine made by Hephaestus (and given to Zeus) in the Ilias parva (fr. 29 PEG) would be indicative of the effort of this Cyclic poem not just to disagree with the Iliadic tradition, but also to remind audiences that Eurypylus would go to his death by means of a Dionysiac vine (ἄμπελος), exactly like his father Telephus. Like father, like son.59 Seen from this vantage point, the stress put by both Archilochus and Pindar on the armies of the Achaeans and the Seven going to their ruin, men and horses alike, is far from accidental (Arch. P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.18–19: … [μ]έ̣νο̣ς πνείοντες̣ ὁμῶς αὐτο̣[ί τε καὶ ἵπποι | ἀ̣φ[ραδί]ῃ, μεγάλως θυμὸν ἀκηχέ̣[μενοι·60/ Pind. Nem. 9.21–2: φαινομέναν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐς ἄταν σπεῦδεν ὅμιλος ἱκέσθαι | χαλκέοις ὅπλοισιν ἱππείοις τε σὺν ἔντεσιν).61

.. Heroic Foreknowledge Being a seer, Amphiaraus was aware that the expedition of the Seven was doomed to fail and that he would die in the war,62 but he had to join up. Pindar

 59 See Kelly 2015, 342. 60 ‘Breathing ferocity, they [and their horses] alike, in their f[olly], greatly sore at heart’ (transl. by West 2006, 12). 61 ‘But this crowd hastened to its plainly shown destruction with bronze armor and horses and weapons’. Pindar’s emphasis on horses in this Ode ties well with the fact that Chromius was victor in the chariot-race. On the other hand, verses 80–81 reflect the typical motif of ‘all forms of combat’ (see Sappho fr. 16.1–2 Voigt). 62 Apollod. Epit. 3.60: Ἀμφιάραος δὲ ὁ Οἰκλέους, μάντις ὢν καὶ προειδὼς ὅτι δεῖ πάντας τοὺς στρατευσαμένους χωρὶς Ἀδράστου τελευτῆσαι, αὐτός τε ὤκνει στρατεύεσθαι καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀπέτρεπε. It is also worth observing that what is said by Pindar (Pyth. 8.50: ὄρνιχος ἀγγελίᾳ; Nem. 9.18–19: αἰσιᾶν | οὐ κατ᾽ ὀρνίχων ὁδόν) parallels what is said by Aeschylus (Sept. 597: τοῦ ξυναλλάσσοντος ὄρνιθος βροτοῖς) in reference to Amphiaraus and his prediction that the expedition was doomed to fail. Another striking parallel attested in the same context in both Pindar’s Nem. 9 and Aesch. Sept. is the expression πίαναν καπνόν (Nem. 9.23) and τήνδε πιανῶ χθόνα (Sept. 587), again in the context of Amphiaraus’ involvement in the expedition. Since the Septem is dated to 467 BC, it seems that Aeschylus is imitating Pindar with respect to Nem. 9 (474? BC). But how are we then to explain this with respect to the other parallel between Pindar and Aeschylus concerning Amphiaraus (Ol. 6.17: ἀμφότερον μάντιν τ᾽ ἀγαθὸν καὶ | δουρὶ μάρ-

The Typology of the Motif  

probably knew by means of the Cyclic Thebais that Zeus’ failure to lighten at the moment the Seven were ready to depart for Thebes was a sign known to the seer Amphiaraus.63 Although a similar feature marks the beginning of the Achaeans’ abortive expedition to Teuthrania, since Calchas64 informed the army that this was a sign sent by Zeus,65 just as with Amphiaraus before the departure of the Seven, and that it would take them ten years to sack Troy, the analogy is rather typological and not derivative or specific. On the other hand, Telephus seems to be the hypostasis of ‘ein wissende Dämon’ (a knowledgeable demon) with connections to the Underworld through (mainly but not solely)66 the adventures of his father Heracles with respect to cattle-rustling and the world of the dead.67 His knowledge of the way the Achaeans should follow to reach Troy is telling in this respect.68 According to the prophecy of Amphiaraus (Pind. Pyth. 8.44–55),69 Alcmaon should lead the expedition of the Epigonoi in order to sack Thebes. Pindar’s version is compatible with another piece of information relating that Amphiaraus advised his other son Amphilochus as well by means of the so-called ‘norm of the polyp’, according to which his son should be, octopus-like, adaptable ‘to whatever people he comes across’.70 Given that this prophecy cannot  νασθαι — Sept. 569: ἀλκὴν ἄριστον μάντιν, Ἀμφιάρεω βίαν)? The time difference is extremely tight (Ol. 6.15: 468 BC — Sept. 467 BC) and, what is more significant, we know that (according to the Σ Pind. Ol. 6.15) Asclepiades of Mirlea said that this verse was taken from the Cyclic Thebais (fr. 10 PEG = 7 EGF = 6 GEF). Drawing material from different Pindaric epinician odes with respect to a single character (Amphiaraus) and piling it in the same passage of the same work (Septem) seems to me a technique less likely to be used by Aeschylus than adapting this material directly from the Thebais. 63 See Braswell 1998, 81. 64 Cypr. arg. ll. 122–124 Severyns; Apollod. Epit. 3.15. 65 κατὰ Διὸς βούλησιν γεγονέναι αὐτοῖς τὸ σημεῖον τοῦτο. 66 Davies (2000, 9 n. 16) notes that the name of Telephus’ son Eurypylus can be traced back to associations with the Underworld. Telephus’ father Heracles has, after the first sack of Troy, fought against the Coans and their king Eurypylus. The name may have been transferred to Heracles’ grandson from that adventure. 67 Davies 2000, 9, n. 16. 68 Amphiaraus may be treated as a hypostasis of a chthonic Poseidon or a Hades who is confused with Dionysus. On his association to chthonic Erinys, see Legras 1905, 12–13. In Od. 15.244 he is modified by the epithet λαοσσόος (‘rousing/stirring the people’), which is regularly employed for war-deities (Ares: Il. 17.398; Eris: Il. 20.48; Athena: Il. 13.128, Od. 22.210; Apollo: Il. 20.79). 69 See also Pind. Pyth. 8.39–43. 70 ‘πουλύποδός μοι, τέκνον, ἔχων νόον, Ἀμφίλοχ᾽ ἥρως, | τοῖσιν ἐφαρμόζειν, τῶν κεν κατὰ δῆμον ἵκηαι, | ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἀλλοῖος τελέθειν καὶ χροιῇ ἕπεσθαι’ (Theb. fr. 4 PEG = “Hom.” 3 EGF =

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων have been given to Alcmaon and Amphilochus when Amphiaraus was departing for the war, since Alcmaon was only a boy and Amphilochus a baby,71 the most likely context for Amphiaraus’ appearance from his underground oracle to both his sons, who were now grown up men and skilled warriors, would have been an oracular consultation before the sack of Thebes by the Epigonoi, an episode that must have featured in the Alcmeonis.72 Likewise in the Trojan tradition, in which according to the prophecy of Helenus (Apollod. Epit. 5.9),73 Neoptolemus (like Alcmaon) should come to Troy, so that the city can be sacked. Amphiaraus’ appearance to his son is equally paralleled by Achilles’ to Neoptolemus74 just after the latter’s arrival from Scyros to Troy and immediately before his military exploits, among which the killing of Telephus’ son Eurypylus is the most prominent one. It is to be noted that when Achilles appears to Neoptolemus, he has just received his father’s armour, i.e. he will soon be a ‘second Achilles’.75 In both cases a prophecy makes it clear that the son of the greatest warrior who took part and died in the first expedition against Thebes (Amphiaraus)76 and the second expedition against Troy (Achilles) respectively, is a prerequisite for the success of the aggressors. In this way, father and son are more closely connected to each of these stories, the more so since the two sons will play equivalent roles while being on the battlefield: Alcmaon will kill the chief Theban leader Laodamas (son of Eteocles), who has previously killed Aegialeus (son of Adrastus), and Neoptolemus will slain Eurypylus (son of Telephus), who has previously killed important Achaean warriors such as Machaon (son of Asclepius) and Peneleus. Moreover, in both cases the dead father appears and advises his son(s), who after the sack of Thebes and Troy respectively will wander.  *8 GEF). I am following Debiasi 2013, 195–207, and 2015, who attributes this fragment to the Alcmeonis. 71 See Gantz 1993, 507. 72 See Debiasi 2013, 195–207. 73 See also the compressed version of this prophecy in Il. parv. arg. ll. 211–213 Severyns. 74 Il. parv. arg. ll. 217–218 Severyns: καὶ Νεοπτόλεμον ἐκ Σκύρου ἀγαγὼν τὰ ὅπλα δίδωσι τὰ τοῦ πατρός· καὶ Ἀχιλλεὺς αὐτῷ φαντάζεται. 75 The analogy between Amphiaraus’ sons Alcmaon-Amphilochus and Achilles’ son Neoptolemus can be also seen in their respective wanderings. On Alcmaon, see Apollod. Bibl. 3.87–90; on Amphilochus, see Apollod. Epit. 6.2; on Neoptolemus, see Nost. arg. ll. 296–300 Severyns. On Alcmaon’s mythic geography that is mapped on the basis of his wanderings, see Olivieri 2010, 299–314. 76 Both Amphiaraus (‘Simonides’ 6.3.4 FGE; Aesch. Sept. 587–589; Hdt. 7.221) and Achilles (Σ (D) Il. 19.326 [van Thiel]) knew that it was fated for them to die in Thebes and Troy respectively.

The Typology of the Motif  

.. Suffering at the River In both Archilochus P.Oxy. 4708 and Pindar’s Nemean 9, the central scene of the fight between the Achaeans and the Seven takes place next to a river, Caicos and Ismenos respectively: Arch. P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.8–9: … ἐϋρρείτ̣ ης δὲ Κ[άϊκος π]ι̣ π̣τ̣ό̣ ν̣ των νεκύων στείνετο καὶ [πεδίον Μύσ̣ι̣ ο̣ν̣

Pind. Nem. 9.22: … Ἰσ-μηνοῦ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὄχθαισι …

Pindar’s emphasis on fighting at a river is also seen from the comparison between Chromius (the laudandus of the Ode) and Hector, whose ‘fame is said to have grown … near the streams | of Scamander, and by the steep banks of Heloros’ (39–40: Ἕκτορι μὲν κλέος ἀνθῆσαι Σκαμάνδρου χεύμασιν | ἀγχοῦ, βαθυκρήμνοισι δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀκταῖς Ἑλώρου).77 It should be made clear that in both Archilochus and Pindar, the feature under examination consists in the suffering and not just the fighting taking place by Caicos and Ismenos respectively. In both cases the attacking side (Achaeans and the army of the Seven) are defeated with great losses by the riverbanks. This element is typical of the last phase of the process I have described as ‘epic staging’ (phase II), during which rules and constraints pertaining to the ‘mythical data’ of the Theban and Trojan War traditions are put into use. Caicos and Ismenos are typical features of the myths of Teuthrania and the Seven and they form integral part of their epic rendering. The analogy between Ismenos and Caicos seems to go deeper than a mere parallelism. In the Hellenistic or post-Hellenistic hexameter poem (P.Oxy. 214 = P.it.Lond. 39 = CA pp. 76–78) on the story of Telephus (and perhaps Eurypylus) there is, among other features, a clear reference to the Argives turning red [because of their blood] the great stream of Caicos (15–16):78 (Ἀργεῖοι) ξανθοῦ φοινί-

 77 See D’Alessio 2006, 20–21. On Chromius and Hector, see Braswell 1998, 120–121. 78 The presentation of the river Caicos turning red because of the carnage taking place there during the fight between Telephus and the Achaeans is also attested in Accius’ Tel. fr. 15 (D’Anto 633 = Klotz [619 W] = Non. p. 488, 10–11): flucti cruores volverentur Mysii. According to

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων ξαντε̣ς ἐ[πεὶ] μ̣έ[γα] χ̣ε̣ῦ̣μα Καΐκου | Τηλέφου τ̣ό̣[σοι δάμεν οὐ]κέτι θωρηχθέντες.79 According to an ingenuous suggestion by Weil,80 we should read Ξάνθου instead of ξανθοῦ, since the speaker of this entire passage may well be Astyoche, mother of Eurypylus, who is praying to the immortals (10: [κλ]ῦτ̣ έ μοι ἀθάνατοι) asking them not to duplicate the carnage inflicted upon the Argives by her husband Telephus but to strike an agreement between Trojans and Greeks (13: [σ]υνθεσίη Τρώεσσι καὶ Ἀ[ργ]είοισι γε[ν]έσθω). She makes it clear that she is not praying that the Argives die after turning red (by their blood) Xanthos as it has happened in Caicos when they were slaughtered by Telephus. This typically Hellenistic approach to the Telephus and Eurypylus story is telling for many reasons. By reversing the archaic version of the story in which Astyoche was bribed by Priam in order to send her son Eurypylus to the war, here she speaks with a clear intention of putting an end to the bloodshed. What is particularly relevant to our investigation is that (a) the Telephus and Eurypylus episodes are effectively linked in a single epyllium, and (b) that the encounter between the fathers (Telephus and Achilles) at Caicos is paralleled by the encounter between the sons (Eurypylus and Neoptolemus) at Xanthos (Scamander). Is this last feature, i.e. the reference to a clash between Eurypylus and Neoptolemus at Xanthos, an innovation introduced by the poet of the Telephi epyllium or a much older feature that had been developed when the Eurypylus story was shaped as to duplicate that of Telephus? And, if so, what does this tell us about the association between Ismenos, Caicos, and Xanthos/Scamander within the context of the link shared by the Theban and Trojan sagas? To answer this question, we should bear in mind that Archilochus, who is our earliest source for the Telephus and Eurypylus tales, had dealt with both the episode of Telephus routing the Achaeans at Caicos and Eurypylus killing Neoptolemus. Although we do not know whether in his own poetry he had presented Eurypylus facing Neoptolemus at the river Xanthos, his elegy on Telephus preserves an almost verbatim repetition of phraseology pertaining to the cramming of a river with corpses by Achilles in the Iliad (21.220: στεινόμενος νεκύεσσι — Arch. P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.9: νεκύων στείνετο).81 This is the only time in archaic Greek poetry that the expression στείνεσθαι νεκύων is employed with reference

 Stanley 1663, 712, Accius’ model may have been Aeschylus’ Telephus. Handley (1957, 25–27) and Jouan (1966, 224) rightly suggest caution, though they do not exclude this possibility. 79 I owe this reference to West 2006, 13. 80 See Weil 1900, 97–98; Pellin 2010, 533. 81 See also Il. 21.208 (χέρσ᾽ ὕπο Πηλείδαο) and Arch. P.Oxy. 4708 fr. 1.11 (χέρσ᾽] ὕ̣π᾽ ἀμειλίκτου φωτὸς ἐναιρό[μενοι).

The Typology of the Motif  

to a river.82 The imitation is unmistakable. But the μάχη παραποτάμιος in Iliad 21 is imitated not only by Archilochus but also by the poet of the Telephi epyllium. In this case, the imitation is wholesale: Tab. 5: Shared Features in Iliad 21 and the Telephi epyllium. Iliad 

Telephi epyllium

–: εἰ δύναταί τι | χραισμεῖν

: χραισμῆσαι

: τὸν ἄριστον ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ

: τὸν ἄριστον ἐν Ἀργείοις [Ἀχιλῆα

: ἶφι δαμέντα

: ἶφι τ̣ ό̣̣ [σοι δάμεν

: ἔνθ᾽ ἕλε Θερσίλοχόν τε Μύδωνά τε …

: ἔνθα δέ κεν Μενέλαος ἐκέκλιτο,83 ἔν̣ [θ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων

: καί νύ κ᾽ ἔτι πλέονας κτάνε Παίονας ὠκὺς : [οὔ] κ̣εν ἔτι ζώοντες ἐς Ἴλιον ἦλθον Ἀχιλλεύς

[Ἀχαιοί

–: ἐναρίζων | πρὶν ἔλσαι κατὰ ἄστυ

: ἐξενάριξε πρὶν Ἕκτορος ἀντίον καὶ

Τρῶας πειρηθῆναι | ἀντιβίην

ἐλθεῖν

: Τρώεσσι … καὶ ἀμύνειν

: τ[ῷ] ἀμυνέμεν

Why would both Archilochus and the poet of the Telephi epyllium imitate the Iliadic μάχη παραποτάμιος by the banks of Xanthos/Scamander featuring a completely different episode? This would have made sense, only if the Hellenistic poet had imitated Archilochus, which is not the case. The answer lies both in the fact that Achilles features in the carnage at river Caicos as well as in the slaughter of the Trojans at Xanthos/Scamander in Iliad 21, and in the association between Xanthos/Scamander with the encounter between Eurypylus and Neoptolemus that must have featured in an archaic epic on the Telephus myth which both the Iliad and Archilochus were aware of. It can hardly be a coincidence that in the same context (Il. 21.146) Scamander is called with his divine name, i.e. Xanthos. The sharing of this feature within the context of the story of TelephusEurypylus and the Seven must go back to relevant epic traditions of the Archaic Period followed by Archilochus and Pindar. This is highly probable since Pindar refers to the river Caicos in Mysia and to the Mysian plain in the context of Tele 82 Pellin (2010, 534) offers a list of late authors using a relevant expression, among whom only Quint. Smyrn. (7.100) and Triph. (543–544) employ the expression στείνεσθαι νεκρῶν | νεκύων. 83 See also Arch. P.Oxy. 4708 fr. 1.12: ἀπ̣έ̣κλινον ἐϋκν̣ ήμ̣[ιδες Ἀχαιοί.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων phus’ wounding by Achilles (Isth. 5.41–42: … τίς ἄρ᾽ ἐσλὸν Τήλεφον | τρῶσεν ἑῷ δορὶ Καΐκου παρ᾽ ὄχθαις; Isth. 8.48–50: ἀρετὰν Ἀχιλέος· | ὃ καὶ Μύσιον ἀμπελόεν | αἵμαξε Τηλέφου μέλανι ῥαίνων φόνῳ πεδίον). In fact, Amphiaraus’ fleeing by the river Ismenos before being hit at the back by Periclymenus is also mentioned by Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.77: Ἀμφιαράῳ δὲ φεύγοντι παρὰ ποταμὸν Ἰσμηνόν, πρὶν ὑπὸ Περικλυμένου τὰ νῶτα τρωθῇ, Ζεὺς κεραυνὸν βαλὼν τὴν γῆν διέστησεν), in a passage whose phrasing points to Pindar as Apollodorus’ source. Ismenos as the area where the battle took place (more precisely at the Ismenion ‘past which the river Ismenos flows’)84 is also mentioned by Pausanias (9.10.2), who also seems to be drawing on a standard feature of the expedition of the Seven. Under the scope of the analysis presented above, Ismenos, Caicos, and Xanthos/Scamander may have formed a nexus of geographical references whose association with the myths of the Seven and Telephus-Eurypylus must have been shaped as early as the Archaic Period in the context of the interaction between the Theban and Trojan epic traditions.

.. Fighting Spirit D’Alessio85 has drawn attention to the correspondence between ἄλκιμοι – αἰχμηταί (P.Oxy. 4708 fr. 1.7–8) and μαχατάν | θυμόν and θυμὸν αἰχματάν used for Amphiaraus and the laudandus Chromius respectively (Pind. Nem. 9.26–27 and 37). ἄλκιμος is also used in Arch. frs. 95 (ἀλκίμῳ) and 148 IEG (]ρους ἀλκίμους), as well as adesp. iamb. 38.10 IEG (ἀλκιμωτέρους). The combination θυμός with ἄλκιμος is attested in Callin. fr. 1.1 IEG (ἄλκιμον ἕξετε θυμόν) and Tyrt. fr. 10.17, 24 IEG (ἄλκιμον … θυμόν). αἰχμητής is common in Archilochus (fr. 24.13 IEG: χερσὶν αἰχμητέων ὕπο; fr. 91.5 IEG: αἰ]χμητὴς ἐών; see also fr. spur. 324.3 IEG: αἰχμητά δύω, i.e. Heracles and Iolaus).86 The combination of θυμός with μαχατάς/αἰχμητάς is unique in Pindar who prefers θυμός ‘with a proper name or a general term such as ἀνήρ, γυνή, φώς’).87 The verbal echo in Pindar’s ode shares with Archilochus’ elegy the same context, namely the fleeing of Amphiaraus and the Achaeans respectively. Fighting spirit seems to have been used as an associative mechanism of fathers and sons in the Theban and Trojan traditions of the Seven and Telephus.

 84 Braswell 1998, 87. 85 D’Alessio 2006, 20. 86 I owe these parallels to Obbink 2005, 34 on 7 and 8. 87 Braswell 1998, 96 on Nem. 9.26–27; see also 117 on Nem. 9.37.

The Typology of the Motif  

Thersander’s fighting spirit in the Cypria (arg. ll. 126–127 Severyns; Paus. 9.5.14) may be reflecting his equivalent fighting spirit in the Epigonoi. It is perhaps no coincidence that Thersander and Peneleus (a skilled warrior and next king of Thebes, since Thersander’s son Tisamenus was not yet of age), were killed by Telephus (who excelled against the Achaeans) and Eurypylus (ἀριστεύοντα) respectively (the last two being equally wounded/killed by a father and a son, Achilles and Neoptolemus also excelling in the battlefield). The general feature of ‘fighting spirit’ appears to have acquired a specific function in the last phase of the epic staging of the motif under examination.

.. Healing Healing skills are equally a feature that must have been associated with the role certain persons played in Theban and Trojan saga. Amphiaraus was considered to possess healing abilities, like his ancestor Melampus.88 These abilities may well be attributed to him at a much earlier date than it is generally thought. According to Herodotus (8.134), a certain Mys was sent by Mardonius, who was waiting with his army in Thessaly for the winter to pass, to consult the oracle of Amphiaraus. The fact that this consultation involved incubation makes it clear that next to the oracular there was also a medical side in Amphiaraus’ sanctuary.89 Herodotus is no doubt drawing on some earlier source that goes back to at least the sixth century BC.90 In this respect, Amphiaraus’ connection to Asclepius is also telling. As early as Stesichorus (Eriphyle, fr. 92a-e Davies and Finglass) Asclepius is hit by Zeus’ thunderbolt because he had risen Capaneus and Lycurgus (the latter a floating member of the Seven) from the dead,91 an episode that brings in mind Amphiaraus’ ‘death’ by Zeus’ thunderbolt in the Theban tradition, as well as Amphiaraus’ fight with Lycurgus in the context of the Nemea

 88 See Löffler 1963, 14–16. 89 See Schachter 1981, 23. 90 Terranova (2013, 19) draws attention to the fact that Amphiaraus was recognized as a θεός by the Megarians (as early as the Archaic Period?; see Dion. Byz. Anaplous Bosphori 227 Gilles) and by the Oropians (end of fifth century BC, see relief in the National Museum at Athens [NM 1397]). She rightly, in my view, speaks of an intermediate phase in the evolution of Amphiaraus from hero to healing divinity associated with Asclepius. See also Petsalis-Diomidis (2006, 212), who draws attention to the fact that in the Amphiareion at Oropos Amphiaraus is sometimes presented on a chariot, a tendency reflecting the belief that his shift from heroic to divine status was closely associated with the episode of his disappearance on his chariot. 91 See Torres 2012, 523.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων incident. It should not escape our attention that this version of the death of Asclepius is related by Stesichorus in his Eriphyle, a poem dealing with the core of Theban epic saga. Moreover, in the Amyclaean throne and a shield band from Olympia dated to 575–570 BC, Amphiaraus is involved in a quarrel with Lycurgus that Adrastus and Tydeus try to stop.92 Given the fact that Asclepius’ healing abilities are as old as the Iliad (2.731; 4.194; 11.518), we wonder whether he did not share this feature with Amphiaraus. The fact that they both had a daughter called Iaso is no doubt a later feature that underlines their medical role, but it seems to be an extension of an older association with respect to their healing abilities.93 In Pindar (Pyth. 3.5–8) Chiron is referred to as the one who taught Asclepius how to cure every kind of disease.94 Likewise, in the Cypria Achilles heals Telephus after wounding him.95 Since Telephus does not die from the wound and Achilles’ healing spear is a gift of Chiron to Peleus in his wedding according to the Cypria,96 it must go back to an early phase of the story that antedates the Cypria and must come from the source on which Archilochus drew for his elegy on Telephus. Achilles’ healing abilities in this episode can be also seen on a Red-Figure drinking bowl from Vulci by the painter Sosias (around 500 BC)97 depicting Achilles placing a bandage on Patroclus’ wounds. If this piece of information is combined with Pindar’s reference to Patroclus standing together with Achilles to face Telephus who is routing the Achaean army in Mysia (Ol. 9.70–73), then it is plausible that this scene must have featured at least in the Cypria, if not in an earlier epic poem on Telephus (given the similarities between Ol. 9.70–73 and the Archilochus elegy on Telephus that precedes the written Cypria). In fact, the wounding of Patroclus would have functioned as a neat explanation of Achilles’ routing and wounding of Telephus.98 The existence of a Hesiodic epic Precepts of Chiron (Χείρωνος Ὑποθῆκαι) in the Archaic Period shows that Achilles’ healing abilities were widely known and explained as the result of his education by the Centaur Chiron.99 This is confirmed inter

 92 Amyclaean throne; shieldband, Olympia, c. 575–550. 93 See Σ in Aristoph. Pl. 701e (Chantry). 94 See also Apollod. 3.10.3. 95 See Cypr. arg. ll. 132–134 Severyns: ἔπειτα Τήλεφον κατὰ μαντείαν παραγενόμενον εἰς Ἄργος ἰᾶται Ἀχιλλεὺς ὡς ἡγεμόνα γενησόμενον τοῦ ἐπ᾽ Ἴλιον πλοῦ. 96 Fr. 3 PEG = 3 EGF = 4 GEF; see also Apollod. Bibl. 3.170. 97 Berlin, Antikenmuseum, F 2278. See LIMC 1.1, 114–115, s.v. ‘Achilleus’ [Kossatz-Deissmann]; for the attribution of this scene to the Cypria, see Kullmann 1960, 193–194. 98 Preiser 2000, 50. 99 Such pairing of activities is also shared by Heracles and Achilles whose ‘chiastic’ relation is also worth mentioning: both wound and try to heal or save from unending pain individuals

The Typology of the Motif  

alia by the fact that the Iliad (11.830–832)100 refers to Achilles’ possession of ἤπια φάρμακα and knowledge of healing techniques by Chiron,101 despite the fact that it deviates from its standard presentation of Achilles as having grown up in his parents’ palace in Phthia. This ‘healing’ feature continues to be linked with the Telephus story, since one of the eminent Achaeans killed by his son Eurypylus was no other than Asclepius’ son Machaon,102 whose healing abilities had been put into good use just before, when he cured Philoctetes’ wound.103

.. Second Gathering of the Army One of the most notorious cruces of the Cypria pertains to the arrival of the wounded Telephus at Argos, where he would be healed by Achilles. This piece of information is offered by Apollodorus, a Homeric scholium on the Iliad, and Proclus. Let us look carefully at all these passages:

 closely associated to the other member of the pair (Heracles wounds and tries to put an end to Chiron’s (Achilles’ tutor) endless suffering; likewise, Achilles wounds and heals Telephus (Heracles’ son). 100 ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἤπια φάρμακα πάσσε | ἐσθλά, τά σε προτί φασιν Ἀχιλλῆος δεδιδάχθαι (δεδάασθαι: Zenodotus), | ὃν Χείρων ἐδίδαξε δικαιότατος Κενταύρων; contrast Il. 9.438–439; see also, Σ (A) Il. 11.832a (ΙΙ 289 Erbse): : ὅτι Ὅμηρος δεδιδάχθαι μέν ϕησιν ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἰατρικὴν ὑπὸ Χείρωνος τὸν Ἀχιλλέα, περὶ μέντοι τῆς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τροφῆς οὐδὲν συνέστακεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὐναντίον διὰ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ, τροφέα τὸν Φοίνικα συνεστακὼς τούτου; see Preiser (2000, 47) with further bibliography; West 2011a, 262 on Il. 11.830–832. 101 See Eust. on Il. 1.54–55 (I 73 van der Valk): τὴν δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἰατρικὴν δηλοῖ; Σ (Α) on Dio’s Or. 18.72 (Dilts): ἐπεπαίδευτο γὰρ καὶ τὴν ἰατρικὴν Ἀχιλλεὺς ὡς παρὰ Χείρωνι τραφείς and Σ (Pr) on Dio’s Οr. 18.72 (Dilts): (Τήλεφος) … ἀπῆλθε παρ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῖ ἰάσεως εἵνεκα, ὑπὸ Χείρωνος πάλαι πεπαιδευμένῳ καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστήμην μετὰ τῶν τακτικῶν. 102 Il. parv. fr. 30 PEG = 7 EGF = 7 GEF: Μαχάονα δὲ ὑπὸ Εὐρυπύλου τοῦ Τηλέφου τελευτῆσαί φησιν ὁ τὰ ἔπη ποιήσας τὴν μικρὰν Ἰλιάδα. See Fowler (EGM II, 542 n. 63), who draws attention to the fact that since ‘Eurypylos is also the name of the king of Kos defeated by Heracles (Pher. fr. 78; § 8.5.3), and the Asclepiad Machaon is Eurypylos’ main victim at Troy[,] scholars have sometimes thought of a transferral from Kos to Mysia, or perhaps of a doubling’. 103 Il. parv. arg. l. 213 Severyns: ἰαθεὶς δὲ οὗτος [sc. Φιλοκτήτηϛ] ὑπὸ Μαχάονος. See also Il. 4.218–219, in which Machaon heals Menelaus’ wound by sucking the blood and spreading ἤπια φάρμακα which he had acquired through his father Asclepius, who had received them from Chiron (see Pind. Pyth. 3.5–7). The fact that Machaon cures Philoctetes’ wound, which had been caused by a snake, points to his father’s (Asclepius’) early association with snakes.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων Apollod. Epit. 3.18–21: [18] … τοὺς Ἕλληνας παρασκευασαμένους στρατεύεσθαι, ἀναχωρήσαντας δὲ ἀπὸ Μυσίας εἰς Ἑλλάδα μετὰ ἔτη ὀκτὼ πάλιν εἰς Ἄργος μεταστραφέντας ἐλθεῖν εἰς Αὐλίδα. [19] συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν Ἄργει αὖθις μετὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν ὀκταετίαν, ἐν ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ πλοῦ πολλῇ καθεστήκεσαν, καθηγεμόνα μὴ ἔχοντες, ὃς ἦν δυνατὸς δεῖξαι τὴν εἰς Τροίαν. [20] Τήλεφος δὲ ἐκ τῆς Μυσίας, ἀνίατον τὸ τραῦμα ἔχων, εἰπόντος αὐτῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τότε τεύξεσθαι θεραπείας, ὅταν ὁ τρώσας ἰατρὸς γένηται, τρύχεσιν ἠμφιεσμένος εἰς Ἄργος ἀφίκετο, καὶ δεηθεὶς Ἀχιλλέως καὶ ὑπεσχημένος τὸν εἰς Τροίαν πλοῦν δεῖξαι θεραπεύεται ἀποξύσαντος Ἀχιλλέως τῆς Πηλιάδος μελίας τὸν ἰόν. θεραπευθεὶς οὖν ἔδειξε τὸν πλοῦν, τὸ τῆς δείξεως ἀσφαλὲς πιστουμένου τοῦ Κάλχαντος διὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μαντικῆς. [21] ἀναχθέντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀπ’ Ἄργους καὶ παραγενομένων τὸ δεύτερον εἰς Αὐλίδα, τὸν στόλον ἄπλοια κατεῖχε. [18] The Greeks went to war after making their preparations. Then eight years after withdrawing from Mysia to Hellas they returned to Argos and went to Aulis. [19] So they assembled again in Argos after the aforementioned eight-year period, but without a guide who could show them the way to Troy they were entirely ignorant of where to sail. [20] But Telephus arrived dressed in rags from Mysia in Argos with his wound unhealed. Apollo had told him that he would be healed when the one who wounded him became his physician, so he came and begged Achilles and promised to show them the route to Troy. He was healed when Achilles scraped the rust off of Peleus’ spear. Once healed, he revealed to them the route, and Calchas verified the accuracy of his information through his divination. [21] But after they sailed from Argos and came to Aulis for the second time, the fleet was detained by a lack of wind.

Σ (D) Hom. Il. 1.59 (van Thiel): A 59/Ys … οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὸ Ἄργος. Τήλεφον δὲ ἀνίατον ἔχοντα τραῦμα ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἐθεράπευσε κατὰ πεῦσιν τινὸς τῶν θεῶν (YAR). … The Greeks returned to Argos. Achilles, being told by one of the gods, cured Telephus who had an unhealed wound.

Procl. Cypr. arg. ll. 132–134 (Severyns): ἔπειτα Τήλεφον κατὰ μαντείαν παραγενόμενον εἰς Ἄργος ἰᾶται Ἀχιλλεὺς ὡς ἡγεμόνα γενησόμενον τοῦ ἐπ᾽ Ἴλιον πλοῦ. Then Telephus, having come to Argos in accordance to an oracle, is healed by Achilles, so as to guide the sail to Ilion.

Coming from three different sources these passages make it clear that the healing of Telephus took place in Argos, where Achilles and the Achaeans had gathered after the aborted expedition to Teuthrania. It was from Argos that they went to Aulis and from there to Troy, following the advice of Telephus about the

The Typology of the Motif  

route they should take. Here is then a crucial non sequitur according to Proclus’ summary, since the episode between Telephus and Achilles at Argos is flanked by contradictory information. We have been just told that Achilles was driven to Scyros by a storm on his way back from Teuthrania, and we will be informed that the second gathering of the Achaean army took place, like the first one, in Aulis.104 What was Achilles doing in Argos? This is undoubtedly the city in the Argolid and not the whole of the Peloponnese or Greece. Things become even more complicated, if we take into account that the phrasing of part of Apollodorus’ passage indicates that this is the second time the Achaeans are gathering in Argos (Epit. 3.18: … τοὺς Ἕλληνας παρασκευασαμένους στρατεύεσθαι, ἀναχωρήσαντας δὲ ἀπὸ Μυσίας εἰς Ἑλλάδα μετὰ ἔτη ὀκτὼ πάλιν εἰς Ἄργος μεταστραφέντας ἐλθεῖν εἰς Αὐλίδα. 3.19: συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν Ἄργει αὖθις). So, when did they Achaean army or leaders reassemble before in the Argolid? As early as 1929, Bethe105 tried to explain this paradox by arguing that in the Cypria Telephus had been healed by Achilles in Aulis and that all our sources (Apollodorus, the Homeric scholia, and Proclus) had been contaminated by the influence of Euripides’ Telephus, in which the healing takes place in Argos. This line of interpretation is misleading. Cingano has shown that even if we admit the influence of Euripides on Apollodorus, this is unlikely for Proclus’ summary. Moreover, I would add, it is hard to believe that the Euripidean play had such a powerful impact on all these three sources. To find a way out of this impasse, Severyns106 suggested, on the basis of an Aristarchean scholium, that Agamemnon’s kingdom was placed at Argos according to the Cypria and not at Mycenae, as is the case in the Iliad,107 and that (on the basis of a scholium in Eur. Phoen. 125) Mycenae and Argos were treated by the neoteroi as identical.108 Severyns’

 104 There is a striking parallel between the Teuthranian expedition and the expedition of the Seven with respect to their function as a time frame for the ensuing Trojan and Epigonoi expeditions respectively. In each case the second expedition occurred ten years after the first (for the Teuthranian expedition, see Apollod. Epit. 3.17–19; for the Epigonoi, see Apollod. Bibl. 3.7.2). On this topic, see Terranova 2013, 16; on time-reckoning with respect to Calchas’ prophecy about the duration of the Trojan War, see West 2013, 104–105. 105 Bethe 19292, 239–241; see also Jouan 1966, 226, 245, 250. 106 Severyns 1928, 294. 107 Il. 2.569, 4.376, 8.180, 9.44. When Argos is designated as the place of Agamemnon’s kingdom in Homer, it stands for the Argolid in which the city of Argos belongs (Il. 1.30, 2.108, 4.171, 9.141 = 283). 108 See Σ Il. 11.46 (III 133 Erbse): ἐν Μυκήναις τὰ Ἀγαμέμνονος βασίλεια, οὐκ ἐν Ἄργει, ὡς οἱ νεώτεροι.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων hypothesis is bound to fail for two reasons, as Cingano has convincingly argued:109 first, it does not explain why after the abortive expedition to Teuthrania the Achaeans gathered first in Argos and not immediately in Aulis, and second, it stems from a scholium that cannot have been known to Apollodorus or Proclus. We are in no position to know whether the entire corpus of Cyclic poetry relocated Agamemnon’s kingdom at Argos, as is the case with early lyric that places his palace either in Sparta (Stesichorus and Simonides)110 or at Amyclae (Pindar).111 My take on this issue follows the suggestion of Cingano with a slight modification. The surfacing of Argos as the place of the assembling of the Achaean army both before the Teuthranian and the Trojan expeditions belongs to the general pattern of doubling certain episodes or features pertaining to the Theban and Trojan epic traditions. Argos was the natural place of gathering for the Argive armies of the Seven and the Epigonoi in the first and second Theban wars respectively. As such it may have influenced the Cyclic tradition of the Cypria, which tried to accommodate both the ‘Theban’ gathering at Argos and the ‘Trojan’ gathering at Aulis. Given the technical difficulties of gathering the Achaean fleet twice each time, first in Argos and then in Aulis (not to mention the absurdity of gathering the fleet at an inland location such as Argos), the Cypria may have featured gatherings only of the Achaean leaders at Argos before and after the Teuthranian expedition, leaving Aulis for assembling the entire fleet. Conversely, the Iliad opted for Mycenae as Agamemnon’s kingdom, leaving Argos to Diomedes, thus referring only to the gathering of the fleet in Aulis before the Teuthranian and Trojan expeditions.112

 109 Cingano 2004, 74. 110 Stes. fr. 177 Davies and Finglass; Sem. fr. 549 PMG; see Σ Eur. Or. 46 (I 102.21–24 Schwartz). 111 Pyth. 11.16, 11.32, Nem. 8.12, 11.34. 112 For the gathering of the Achaean army first in Argos and then in Aulis, see also Ibyc. S151.27–30 PMGF and (perhaps) ll. 36–37 (with respect to Cyanippus, provided that Barron’s supplement Κυάνι]ππ[ο]ς in l. 37 is correct). According to Apollod. (Bibl. 1.9.13), Cyanippus was the grandson of Adrastus and son of Aegialeus who was the only Argive leader to die in the successful expedition of the Epigonoi against Thebes. Ibycus is the sole source for the participation of Cyanippus in the Trojan war. As Cingano (2004, 75) has put it ‘Il distacco di Ibico dalla tradizione omerica evidenzia in filigrana il permanere in ambito argivo di tradizioni legate al ciclo tebano, che integravano il silenzio della tradizione epica. Grazie a queste riorganizzazioni genealogiche i Biantidi Egialeo e Cianippo, entrambi figli di Adrasto, erano inscritti nelle due diverse scansioni temporali e narrative dell’epica: Egialeo nel ciclo tebano, dove è l’unico di cadere in battaglia; Ciannipo è invece assente a Tebe e approba – seppur tardivamente – a Troia nel ciclo troiano’.

The Typology of the Motif  

.. Dionysus When Thersander was killed by Telephus, his son Tisamenus was to succeed him in the throne of Thebes, but due to his young age Peneleus became king. At that point, the gods (Dionysus: Paus. 9.19.1) send the Teumesian fox against the city. After this event and as the Achaeans were mustering their fleet for the second time at Aulis, Peneleus joined the expedition. He was a skilled warrior (see Iliad, in which he is mentioned several times and is one of the leaders of the Boeotian contingent), but he was killed by Eurypylus, son of Telephus (Paus. 9.5.15; Quint. Smyrn. 7.105; Dict. Cret. 4.17).113 Pausanias’ version that Dionysus sent the Teumesian fox against Thebes as a punishment because the Thebans made Peneleus their king, although he was not a descendant of Cadmus, is analogous to Dionysus’ role in the Telephus and Eurypylus story: he causes the former’s wounding and uses the latter as the means for the killing of Peneleus, who had succeeded Thersander in Thebes against Dionysus’ will. In this light, it is clear that Dionysus featured in both the Theban and the Trojan114 part of this story, since the old king (Thersander) and the new king (Peneleus) of Thebes participated in the Teuthranian and Trojan expeditions and were killed by father (Telephus) and son (Eurypylus) respectively. What is also important is that if the Teumesian fox featured in the Epigonoi (fr. 5 PEG = incerti loci 1 p. 74 EGF = *3 GEF), then it is very likely that in this poem there may have been a reference to the future killing of Thersander by Telephus, since the Teumesian fox pertains to a stage when Peneleus, successor of Thersander, is the king of Thebes. If this line of thought holds true, then we have ample evidence that the reduplication of the doublet between the two Theban expeditions and the Teuthranian and Trojan expeditions was operative at an early stage and independently from the Homeric epics.

 113 See Kullmann 1960, 69. 114 See Preiser (2000, 49), who draws attention to a krater by the painter Phintias (around 500 BC), on which is depicted Patroclus (on the left) in retreat looking at Diomedes who is bending forward because he is dragging something, perhaps the corpse of Thersander. On the right, a seated Dionysus is depicted, whose hand as well as his name are partly preserved. See Preiser (2000, 49) with further bibliography.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων .. Admonition to Abstain from the War According to Σ Juv. 6.655115 (see Kullmann 1960, 213),116 Telephus had advised his son Eurypylus not to take part in the war. In this version, which must be quite old, Eurypylus is bribed by his wife whose name is Eriphyle. Since this name is used twice in the same scholium, it cannot be a scribal error. But why would the scholiast have made such a reference on commenting Juvenal’s ‘Eriphylae’ (6.655)? Why didn’t he refer to the widely known Eriphyle, wife of Amphiaraus and mother of Alcmaon, as he got right Clytaemestra and the other figures from Greek mythology mentioned by Juvenal in this context? West117 says that the scholiast confused the two versions, but his confusion seems rather awkward, since he did get right all the other details. For example, why did he confuse only a name and not the rest of the narrative? And if he had drawn material from the famous Theban tale of Eriphyle, which Juvenal seems to refer to in the verse the scholiast is commenting on, why did he present Telephus as advising his son not to take part in the war on the Trojan side, in contrast to Amphiaraus who explicitly (Pind. Pyth. 8.44–46) said that the expedition of the Epigonoi would be successful only if Alcmaon was their leader? How is it possible that the scholiast was confused with respect to the most famous heroine of this tale, namely Eriphyle? In fact, it seems unlikely that the scholiast commenting on the name Eriphyle, who is mentioned by Juvenal together with the Danaids and Clytaemestra as negative examples of women who had killed their husbands, transferred the right name to the wrong story, which he quoted in detail, although it did not involve the murder of any husband. The only reasonable explanation is that he had found this name used in the same version in which he had found the information about Telephus’ admonition to Eurypylus not to fight at the side of the Trojans. After all, this would effectively explain why he designated Eriphyle as wife of Eurypylus and not as his mother. Being influenced by her designation as wife of Amphiaraus, he made her also wife of Eurypylus.  115 ‘atque Eriphyle’: Eriphyle, uxor Eurypili, filii Telephi. Qui Telephus cum venisset ad auxilium Priamo, plagatus est ab Achille, et cum non posset curari, sortitus est, ab Achille se solo posse curare. Venit supplex, petit se curari, promisso hoc, ut nunquam iam auxilio ferat Troianis, nec ipse, nec de suis aliquis. Curatus est; recessit. Post mortem huius, filius Eurypilus [sic] vir fortis fuit. Hunc saepius ad auxilium petit Priamus. Ille negavit, monitus scilicet a patre suo. Ergo cum non posset aliter Priamus eum sollicitare, fecit vitem ex auro, et misit ad uxorem eius Eriphylem. Haec, accepto munere tanto, marito persuasit. Venit in Troiam auxilium ferens. Hunc occidit Pyrrhus filius Achillis. 116 See also EGM II, 542–543. 117 West 2013, 191.

The Typology of the Motif  

According to fr. 22 PEG / Σ (D) Il. 1.59 (van Thiel), Telephus had sworn an oath that he would not help the Trojans in the future, if Achilles healed his wound. In addition, he would also need to show the Achaeans the route to Troy:118 Τήλεφος δὲ ἀνίατον ἔχων τὸ τραῦμα, εἰπόντος θεοῦ μηδένα δύνασθαι αὐτὸν θεραπεῦσαι ἢ τὸν τρώσαντα, ἦλθεν εἰς Ἄργος, καὶ πίστιν δοὺς μὴ ἐπικουρήσειν Τρωσὶν ἐθεραπεύθη ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδειξε τὸν ἐπὶ Τροίαν πλοῦν. ταῦτα μὲν οἱ νεώτεροι· ὁ δὲ ποιητὴς λέγει Κάλχαντα ἀφηγήσασθαι τοῦ ἐπὶ Ἴλιον πλοῦ. Telephus, his wound refusing to heal, and the god (sc. Apollo) having told him that none could heal him but the one who wounded him, came to Argos, and after pledging that he will not assist the Trojans he was cured by Achilles and showed (the Achaeans) the way to Troy. This is what the neoteroi say. However, Homer says that Calchas told them about the way to Troy.

The phrase καὶ πίστιν δοὺς μὴ ἐπικουρήσειν Τρωσὶν may well be, given the highly compressed and abbreviated style of the scholia, an indication that Telephus’ oath extended not only to the immediate but also to the distant future, i.e. that neither himself nor anyone among his descendants would help the Trojans. To this piece of evidence, we should also connect the following information given by the Σ Od. 11.520 [II 517 Dindorf]):119 Εὐρύπυλος ὁ Ἀστυόχης καὶ Τηλέφου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους παῖς λαχὼν τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχὴν τῆς Μυσίας προΐστατο. πυθόμενος δὲ Πρίαμος περὶ τῆς τούτου δυνάμεως ἔπεμψεν ὡς αὐτὸν ἵνα παραγένηται σύμμαχος. εἰπόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ὡς οὐκ ἐξῆν αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν μητέρα, ἔπεμψεν ὁ Πρίαμος τῇ αὐτοῦ μητρὶ δῶρον {Ἀστυόχῃ} (secl. Jac.) χρυσῆν ἄμπελον. ἡ δὲ λαβοῦσα τὴν ἄμπελον τὸν υἱὸν ἔπεμψεν ἐπὶ στρατείαν (στρατὸν Q: ἐπιστρατεύειν dub. Jac. in ap. cr.) ὃν Νεοπτόλεμος ὁ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως υἱὸς ἀναιρεῖ. ἡ δὲ ἱστορία παρὰ Ἀκουσιλάῳ (fr. 40c EGM). Eurypylus, son of Astyoche and Telephus who was Heracles’ son, was ruler of Mysia, having got the power from his father. When Priam learned about his power, he sent him a herald asking him to become his ally. After Eurypylus’ reply that this was not possible for him because of his mother, Priam sent as gift to Eurypylus’ mother {Astyoche} a golden vine. She received the vine and sent her son to the expedition. Eurypylus was killed by Neoptolemus, son of Achilles. The story is attested in Acusilaus.

What does the phrase διὰ τὴν μητέρα refer to? That Eurypylus would not participate in the war because his mother did not allow him to go to Troy? Why was she unwilling to help her brother Priam trying to save his city against the  118 The story is told in similar form by Apollod. Epit. 3.20. 119 See Σ Eur. Or. 1391 (Schwartz); Od. 11.520–522; also Acus. fr. 40c EGM.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων Achaean host? Obviously because she was afraid that her son would die, if he went to Troy. She probably reminded him of Telephus’ promise to Achilles when he healed his wound that neither he nor anyone of his descendants would help the Trojans against the Achaeans.120

.. Setting Foot on Foreign Land Both Archilochus121 and Euripides122 lay stress on the first landing of the Achaeans in Mysia. Although this is a typical motif,123 the transfer of phraseology is unmistakeable: P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.9–10: [πεδίον] Μ̣ύσ̣ι̣ ο̣ν̣ P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.21: ἐπάτευν Μυσίδα Tel. fr. 696.1: στρατὸς τὰ Μυσῶν πεδί᾽ ἐπ[ι]στρωφῶ̣ν̣ πατεῖ

Since it is unlikely that Euripides had used as his model Archilochus where this form is attested only once, he must be drawing on Aeschylus’ Telephus,124 since Euripides uses this phraseology only in this case in the entire corpus of his plays, whereas Aeschylus employs it eight times (without counting compound forms like ἐμπατεῖν), of which two together with the root πεδ-: Ag. 1356–1357: τῆς μελλοῦς κλέος | πέδοι (Hermann: πέδον codd.) πατοῦντες Ch. 643: λὰξ πέδοι (Hermann: πέδον M) πατουμένας

If this is the case and given (a) that its use in Archilochus occurs in the same context with Aeschylus’ play, and (b) that Aeschylus is less likely to be drawing πατεῖν from Archilochus (since the verb is very common in tragedy),125 it is plausible that the expression ‘tread under foot’ (the Mysian plain) goes back to a lost archaic epic on Telephus.

 120 See EGM II, 542–543. 121 P.Oxy. 4708, fr. 1.9–10 and 1.21. 122 Tel. fr. 696.16 TrGF; see Obbink 2006, 9. 123 See Tsagalis 2012a, 337. 124 That certain features of Euripides’ prologues may be working as a Zitat to earlier plays on the same topic, see Danek 1992, 19–37. On Aristophanes’ use of Aeschylus’ Telephus in Ach. 332 (and discussion of the relevant scholium designating Aeschylus as Aristophanes’ model), see Platter 2007, 149 and n. 27 with further bibliography. 125 Only in Il. 4.157. I owe this observation to Obbink 2006, 9, who fails to note that πατεῖν accompanied by the root πεδ-is attested only in Aeschylus.

Doubling a Doublet  

. Doubling a Doublet The deep interaction between these two traditions based on similarity pertaining to both situations and characters is possible only if the Theban and the Trojan War sagas had acquired a stable skeleton of myth through their shaping by means of various oral versions of epic song. In this light, it is not unthinkable that Hesiod’s designation of the Theban and Trojan sagas as emblematic for the race of heroes (Op. 161–165) is equally true on the level of epic traditions.126 It seems that certain situations and characters functioned as a bridge between the two sagas and, what is more telling, that such resonances were conscious and meaningful, as the Odyssey examples show. As the Teuthranian expedition is a doublet of the successful expedition to Troy in the Trojan War epic tradition, so the expedition of the Epigonoi is a doublet of the expedition of the Seven. There are various features that corroborate these two analogies. Given this observation, the pairing of a motif inherent in the phrase γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων by the Odyssey brings to the fore a thorny but fascinating question: are we entitled to speak of doubling a doublet between the Theban and the Trojan War epic traditions? Is it possible that the Trojan War tradition has developed the idea of a first, unsuccessful assault at Mysia in the light of the first failed expedition of the Seven against Thebes? If a whole nexus of associations between the Theban and the Trojan myth shows that the Trojan War tradition has used elements organically pertaining to the Theban one (e.g. the transfer of heroes like Diomedes, Sthenelus, and Euryalus belonging to the expedition of the Epigonoi to the Troy War saga), is it not fair to argue that it has also aimed at duplicating the entire doublet ‘first unsuccessful expedition’ — ‘second successful expedition’? As Bethe has argued, Amphiaraus lies at the center of interest for the Theban expedition, more or less as Achilles for the Trojan one. The former’s departure for the war was a crucial point in the entire Theban saga. His anger against Eriphyle must have been of paramount importance, as was Achilles’ wrath in the Iliad. I am not sure that the so-called Ἀμφιαράου ἐξέλασις was an independent poem, but what is very plausible is that it reflects an earlier oral tradition or traditions that emphasized the seer’s role in the Theban expedition. Such a lay must have been very deeply embedded in the Theban saga, in fact so well builtin that it may have triggered a whole range of resonances with Achilles and his connection to the Trojan War, the more so since the hero initially came from a different mythical environment and had his own sweep of activities in ‘an area  126 See Krafft 1963, 118–119.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων reflecting the interests of Aeolic Greeks based on Lesbos’.127 It is exactly his gradual association with ‘a confederation of heroes from central and southern Greece whose one target was Troy’128 that necessitated a series of adjustments so that he could be presented as the principal hero taking part in the expedition. The resonances between Theban and Trojan epic myth discussed above show how deep and early is the interaction between the Theban and Trojan epic traditions. We are now in a position to assert that Archilochus treated both the Telephus and the Eurypylus story (fr. 304 IEG). West129 has suggested that he may have heard an epic poem or a pair of epic poems in which father and son featured in a single story as protagonists. The focus of this epic or epics would have been the whole mythical scope from the arrival of the Achaeans in Mysia to the death of Eurypylus at the hands of Neoptolemus. Such a suggestion caters well for the cross-generational dimension that is so characteristic of the Theban Cycle, as West130 himself observes. Extending this line of thought further, the Telephus-Eurypylus story as treated in Archilochus and the Epic Cycle makes it likely, given the wealth of similarities and analogies presented above, that it reproduced to a considerable extent and, of course, with the necessary modifications a story pattern that had been linked at an early stage with Amphiaraus and Alcmaon. Is it accidental that these were the only characters of Theban myth associated with independent poems or epic traditions, the Ἀμφιαράου ἐξέλασις and the Ἀλκμαιωνίς respectively? Is it mere chance that the Ἀλκμαιωνίς may have contained apart from the story of Alcmaon that of his father Amphiaraus as well?131 Isn’t this, among other things, a reflection of their belonging to a common mythical thread? Seen from this angle, the interconnection between the Theban and the Trojan Cycle with respect to this motif and the characters associated with it becomes a reasonable possibility. Perhaps, oral epics antedating the Homeric Odyssey had already stroke that chord, which is indicative of the existence of a notional Theban and Trojan Cycle long before their actual combination into a rigid canon, and is also representative of the powerful way these traditions resonated during the shaping of early hexameter poetry in the Archaic Period.

 127 West 2011a, 43. 128 West 2011a, 43. 129 West 2006, 16–17. 130 West 2006, 17. 131 See Debiasi 2015.

Interformularity and Intertraditionality  

. Interformularity and Intertraditionality I hope that the preceding analysis has shown that even a typical motif (such as that of a ‘woman receiving gifts to convince an unwilling hero to go to war’) has been gradually attached (within the framework of the larger story-pattern ‘unwilling hero is convinced to go to war’) to specific individuals in the Theban and Trojan epic traditions. In this light, we can now take a step back, return to our departure point recalling that our entire investigation started by means of the repetition of the expression γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων in the Odyssey, and ask ourselves on a rather theoretical level about the implications for our larger picture of archaic epic of the evocative power of thematic resonances woven in the fabric of formulaic expressions. In a recent study on the Odyssey, Bakker devoted his Epilogue to the reexamination of the time-old question ‘can deliberate repetition be formulaic’ or ‘can formulas be quotes’? Bakker opts for the term interformularity,132 a new coin in the already rich storehouse of terminology developed around formulas in Homeric diction. He argues that the evocative power of formulaic phrases is determined by their specificity, which is measured on the basis of their position on what he calls ‘the interformularity scale’.133 In his own words, [T]he more restricted an expression, the more specific the context in which it is uttered, and the higher the point at which it can be placed on the scale. (On the other hand, a high frequency of a context to which a given phrase is restricted will lower its position on the scale, since frequency diminishes specificity). It is also important to observe that the continuum of increasing specificity is quintessentially cognitive: it is based on the judgment of the performer/poet and the audience as to the degree of similarity between two contexts: the more specific a formula and/or the more restricted its distribution, the greater the possible awareness of its recurrence and of its potential for signalling meaningful repetition.134

Bakker reminds us of two key examples of meaningful repetition of formulas: the first one observed by Austin in 1975 pertains to the fact that 62 out of 66 occurrences of the formulaic phrase πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς are preceded by the speech-introductory formula τὸν δ᾽ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη.135 This is a telling example of what Bakker calls a ‘staging-formula’,136 i.e. a standard phrase em 132 Bakker 2013, 158. 133 Bakker 2013, 159. 134 The italics are mine. 135 Austin 1975, 28–29; Bakker 2013, 162. 136 Bakker 1997b, 162–165; 2013, 163.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων ployed for the epiphany of an epic figure ‘whose formula it precedes in the verse’.137 Apart from the metrical constraints pertaining to the use of this nounepithet formula, there is no doubt that there is a specific context that is hereby evoked, since every time Odysseus will speak he is staged as a man of metis. This is an example that belongs to the low end of Bakker’s scale of interformularity. At the middle of this scale are placed expressions specific to a given episode, like the line ἥμεθα δαινύμενοι κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ occurring no less than six times in the Odyssey (9.161–162; 9.556–557; 10.184–185; 10.467–468; 10.476–477; 12.29–30). The first-person plural imposes a first-level restriction to the use of this expression since it must belong to a character’s speech. The thematic resonances of the essential idea ‘and then we had a lavish meat’ leads to a further restriction and, subsequently, specification, as the phrase is used only in Odysseus’ Apologos.138 Next, we can posit a third-level restriction, since the theme of ‘pre-cultural plenitude as opposed to Ithacan limitations’ brings to the limelight the antithesis between the world of the Wanderings and the real world of Ithaca to which Odysseus strives to return. At the highest end of the scale are placed expressions that either ‘extend across the boundary of the work’139 or have minimal distribution. By drawing attention to Il. 2.488 and Od. 11.328 featuring the lines πληθὺν δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ᾽ ὀνομήνω140 and πάσας δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ᾽ ὀνομήνω141 respectively, Bakker makes the important step that crosses over to another epic tradition, even if he avoids the word ‘text’ or ‘poem’ with its strong literate connotations. There are multiple examples of this last kind, which have been thoroughly discussed in the past in the context of an interaction of a sort between the Iliadic and Odyssean traditions.142 The crucial step is here that interformularity or oral intertextuality, as others have named it, can reach even the level of intertraditionality, i.e. it can refer to the performances of different epic traditions that become gradually crystallized in the course of time and share a considerable degree of symbiotic relationship. Internal interformularity within a given epic tradition or external interformularity between different epic traditions that amounts to intertraditionality has been systematically treated in two studies that have not attracted the atten-

 137 Bakker 2013, 163. 138 Bakker 2013, 164. 139 Bakker 2013, 168. 140 ‘I could not tell over the multitude of them nor name them’. 141 ‘I could not tell you the tales, not give you the names, of all’. 142 See e.g. Pucci 1987; ith a 1990; Tsagalis 2008.

Interformularity and Intertraditionality  

tion they deserve in the English-speaking world. In a detailed study of a number of iterata143 in the Iliad and the Odyssey Usener has shown that repeated phraseology extending to more than one verse in the Iliad and the Odyssey is regularly characterized by what one may call, following Mueller, a ‘high contextual surplus’, i.e. the sharing of a number of features between the two formulaic expressions ‘that are not required by the meaning of the line(s) in question’.144 For example, Il. 1.245–246 and Od. 2.80–81 that reiterate similar phraseology share a high contextual surplus for they both pertain to situations that seem to be paralleled: Achilles in a state of distress and anger against the injustice of Agamemnon has just expressed his decision to withdraw from the fighting. He swears an oath and makes a powerful symbolic gesture: he dashes to the ground the scepter, studded with golden nails, and sits down. In a while, when the assembly will be over, he alone will walk along the seashore and pray to his mother Thetis to persuade Zeus to give victory to the Trojans. Likewise, in Od. 2.80–81 Telemachus in a state of distress and anger against the suitors who are consuming his father’s fortune dashes to the ground the scepter in tears. When the assembly is over, he alone, like Achilles in Iliad 1, walks along the seashore and asks for the help of Athene. This is a typical case where the ‘high contextual surplus’ of these two scenes is not required by the reiterated phraseology. Telemachus did not ‘need’, so to speak, do what Achilles did after the end of the assembly in another epic tradition nor is the dashing of the scepter to the ground something that heroes regularly do when they are angered and in a state of distress. The two scenes belonging to two different epic traditions are, then, closely linked. The restriction of this iteratum or doublet to a set of characters is essential for understanding the function of what Mueller has coined ‘high con- textual surplus’. And this is the case with the example at hand. Conversely, a weak form of contextual surplus is at work when doublets are restricted to the same or adjacent books of the same epic.145 In a similar vein, Reichel has studied what he calls Fernbeziehungen (‘crossreferences’) in the Iliad. Treading on the path opened by the work of Basset and Schadewaldt,146 Reichel meticulously mapped a dense network of crossreferences in the Iliad that amounts to a massive mechanism associating persons, scenes, and situations. Leaving aside the sophisticated manipulation of time through an entire system of advance mentions, flashbacks, and para-

 143 On a useful collection of iterata in the Iliad and the Odyssey, see Strasser 1984. 144 Mueller 1984, 151. The italics are my own. 145 See Mueller 1984, 158. 146 Basset 1938, Schadewaldt 19663.

  γυναίων εἴνεκα δώρων narratives that stand beyond the scope of my study, I would like to draw attention to Reichel’s methodological treatment of the Iliadic iterata that makes a strong case in favor of planned and meaningful repetition and not just mechanical reiteration of phrase units. Although my final take on the explanation of this phenomenon is not the same with that advocated by Reichel who thinks that this can only be the result of written composition, his list of criteria for the establishment of intentional cross-referencing is extremely valid:147 1. repetition occurs (no matter whether it is required by the wording) inside a given plotline or a specific context; 2. repetition is supported by an implicit cross-reference through an explicit cross-reference to the same context; 3. within the environment of two or more passages, in which the repetition occurs, there are other repetitions too; 4. the repeated element occurs only very rarely or at minimum twice; 5. repetition involves a longer passage; 6. repetition is very specific with respect to its phraseology and hence applicable only to a very limited number of situations. The more criteria are met, the more probable is that we are dealing with meaningful and intended repetition. Reichel was able to reveal the existence of an internal system of references, a real Vernetzung (‘web of associations’), integral part of which are the so-called iterata (next to the repetition of longer passages, the structural and thematic parallel shaping of speeches and speech-based scenes separated by long chunks of text, and the sophisticated manipulation of time).148 Considering all the above observations, it is clear that the expression γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων, which meets most of the criteria for deliberate allusion, is not a mechanical reiteration of wording but a meaningful repetition amounting to an intertraditional cross-reference or an oral intertextual citation.

 147 Reichel 1994, 42. 148 Reichel 1994, 370.

 Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration In this chapter I will reconsider the value of the ancient evidence indicating that the episode of Achilles’ hiding at Scyros,1 in order to avoid recruitment for the Achaean expedition to Troy, formed part of the Cypria. The relevant material has been treated differently in the three major editions of the fragments of archaic Greek epic poets: whereas it is classified as fr. 19 PEG = 19 GEF, it is not included in Davies’ edition.2 In the first part of this article, I will cite all ancient authorities attributing this piece of information to the Cypria3 and explore the Homeric and relevant material offered by Proclus, and in the second, I will discuss the nature and function of the ancient evidence quoting this episode.

. Homer and the Cycle Ι. Σ (D) Hom. Il. 19.326 ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα ἱστορία ἔχει οὕτως· Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἑλένην ἁρπάσαντος Ἀγαμέμνων καὶ Μενέλαος τοὺς Ἕλληνας κατὰ τῶν Τρώων ἐστρατολόγησαν. Πηλεὺς δὲ προγινώσκων ὅτι μοιρίδιον ἦν ἐν Τροίᾳ θανεῖν Ἀχιλλέα, παραγενόμενος εἰς Σκῦρον πρὸς Λυκομήδην τὸν βασιλέα παρέθετο τὸν Ἀχιλλέα. ὁ δὲ γυναικείαν ἐσθῆτα ἀμφιάσας αὐτὸν ὡς κόρην ἀνέτρεφε μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων. χρησμοῦ δὲ δοθέντος μὴ ἁλώσεσθαι τὴν Ἴλιον χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως, ἐπέμφθησαν ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων πρὸς Πηλέα Ὀδυσσεύς, Φοῖνιξ καὶ Νέστωρ. τοῦ δὲ Πηλέως ἀρνουμένου παρ’ αὐτῷ παῖδα μὴ τυγχάνειν, πορευθέντες εἰς Σκῦρον καὶ ὑπονοήσαντες μετὰ τῶν παρθένων τὸν Ἀχιλλέα τρέφεσθαι, ταῖς Ὀδυσσέως ὑποθήκαις ὅπλα καὶ ταλάρους ἔρριψαν σὺν ἱστουργικοῖς ἐργαλείοις ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ παρθενῶνος. αἱ μὲν οὖν κόραι ἐπὶ τοὺς ταλάρους ὥρμησαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ὁ δ’ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀνελόμενος τὰ ὅπλα κατάφωρος γέγονε καὶ συνεστρατεύσατο. πρότερον δὲ ταῖς παρθένοις συνδιατρίβων ἔφθειρε Δηϊδάμειαν τὴν Λυκομήδους, ἥτις ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐγέννησε Πύρρον τὸν ὕστερον Νεοπτόλεμον κληθέντα, ὅστις τοῖς Ἕλλησι νέος ὢν συνεστρατεύσατο μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ πατρός. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς. The other version is the following. After Alexander abducted Helen, Agamemnon and Menelaus recruited the Greeks against the Trojans. Knowing in advance that Achilles was fated to die at Troy, Peleus sent him to king Lycomedes at Scyros. Clothing him (sc. Achilles) with a woman’s dress, Lycomedes raised him as a girl among his daughters. When an

 1 On Achilles on Scyros in both Greek and Roman poetry, see Fantuzzi 2012. 2 EGF. 3 In this light, I will only deal with material designating, at least implicitly, the Cypria. By implicit citation I refer basically to a collective citation (κυκλικοί, νεώτεροι), which could, theoretically, include the Cypria. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-014

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration oracle was given that Ilium would not be sacked without Achilles, Odysseus, Phoenix, and Menelaus were sent to Peleus by the Greeks. After Peleus told them that his son was not in his house, they went to Scyros. Assuming that Achilles was reared together with the young girls (sc. Lycomedes’ daughters), they threw, on Odysseus’ advice, weapons and baskets together with weaving tools in front of the girls’ appartements. The girls rushed to the baskets and the rest, while Achilles, after picking up the weapons, was revealed and joined the army. Before this incident and while he was living together with the girls, he seduced Deidameia, daughter of Lycomedes, who bore to him Pyrrhus, who was later called Neoptolemus and took part in the war (sc. at Troy), while being young, after his father’s death. This story is attested in the Cyclic poets.

ΙΙ. P.Berol. 13930 (Pack2 1203). Based on Luppe 1985, 10: ]καις ἐπει (δὴ) | ὅτε (τοῖς Ἕλλησιν | αὐτοῖς)] ἐξέπεσε χρησμὸς χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως Ἴλιον μὴ πο]λ̣εμ̣οῦν, ἐξέπεμψαν πρὸς Πηλέα περὶ τοῦ υ̣]ἱ̣[ο̣]ῦ̣ λόγον ἀξιώσοντας. κρυφθείσης δὲ περὶ Ἀχι]λ̣λ̣έ̣α̣ τ̣ῆ̣ς [ἀλη]θείας Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Διομήδης] ἐπὶ ζήτησ[ι]ν̣ [ἐ]τράπησαν αὐτοῦ δι’ Ἑλλάδο]ς. παρ’ [ἀ]κοήν δέ, ὅτι παρά Λυκομήδει ο]ὗ̣τος ἦ]ν, ἐπὶ Σκῦρον παρεγένοντ[ο. αἱ δὲ παρθένοι Λυκομήδους ἠξίουν [μὴ ἐλθεῖν αὐτοῖς εἰς ἐπίδειξ[ι]ν. [ὁ δὲ] ἀγνοε̣ ῖ̣ ν̣ [ἔφησε νεανίαν ἐν τῇ οἰκίαι τρεφόμεν̣ [ο]ν̣ π̣α̣[ρ’ αὑτῷ οὐδένα. ὑπονοήσας δὲ Ὀδυσσεὺς ... [ .]. ρειτο ἐπιτρέφ[ ]ν ὅπλ̣[α κτλ. πα]νοπλ[ίαν) ].[ ]… when an oracle was given to the Greeks not to fight against Ilium without Achilles, they sent envoys to Peleus to ask for his son. Since the truth was hidden from them about Achilles, Odysseus and Diomedes turned to a search for him throughout Greece. When they heard that he was at Lycomedes’ palace, the went to Scyros. Lycomedes’ daughters considered appropriate no to show themselves to them (sc. the envoys). Lycomedes said that he did not know of any young man being reared in his house. However, Odysseus suspecting … [ … ] rear[ … ] weap[ons … etc. ar]m(or) ] . [

Homer and the Cycle  

ΙΙΙ. Σ Hom. Il. 9.668b (II 538 Erbse): Οἱ μὲν νεώτεροι ἐκεῖ (sc. ἐν Σκύρῳ), τὸν παρθενῶνά φασιν, ἔνθα τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἐν παρθένου σχήματι τῇ Δηϊδαμείᾳ συγκατακλίνουσιν. The neoteroi say that the girls’ appartements were there (sc. in Scyros), and it is there that they make Achilles, who was disguised as a girl, share a bed with (sc. have intercourse) Deidameia.

ΙV. Ptolem. Chenn. apud Phot. Bibl. p. 147a 18 (III 53, 18 Henry) = p. 17, 26 (Chatzis): ὡς Ἀχιλλλέα μὲν Ἀριστόνικος ὁ Ταραντῖνος (FGrHist 57 F1) διατρίβοντα ἐν ταῖς παρθένοις παρὰ Λυκομήδει Κερκυσέραν καλεῖσθαί φησιν καὶ Ἴσσαν καὶ Πύρραν. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἄσπετος καὶ Προμηθεύς. Aristonicus of Tarentum says that Achilles, who spent a period of time among the girls in the hourse of Lycomedes, was called ‘Kerkysera’, ‘Issa’, and ‘Pyrrha’. He was also called Aspetos and Prometheus.4

The obvious reaction to the information presented above is that Achilles was sent by his father Peleus to Scyros where he stayed among Lycomedes’ daughters and was later revealed by an Achaean embassy with either Odysseus, Phoenix, and Nestor or Odysseus and Diomedes, who were initially sent to Phthia to recruit the best of the Achaeans to the war.5 Things begin, however, to become complicated when we turn our attention to the few references to Scyros in the Homeric epics and to Proclus’ summary of the Cypria. In Homeric epic Achilles is only associated with Scyros by means of his son, Neoptolemus: in Il. 19.326 and 19.332, it is said that Neoptolemus is growing up in Scyros, and in Od. 11.506–509 Odysseus travels to Scyros,6 in order to bring Neoptolemus to Troy, where he excels in fighting and kills among others Eurypylus, the son of Telephus. In contrast to the picture painted by the scholiastic

 4 The meaning of these names is disputed. The first three are female and point to the fact that Achilles wore women’s clothes. Κερκυσέραν (< κέρκος, ‘tale’ or ‘penis’) has been emended into Κερκουρᾶν (‘the one who urinates from his tale’); Ἴσσαν may be either associated with the city Issa in Lesbos, named thus after the daughter of Macar or being a name play with the Latin forms Issa and Issus, which were colloquial forms of ipse/ipsa; as for Πύρραν, it may have meant ‘Read-Head’; conversely, Ἄσπετος and Προμηθεύς are male names, meaning ‘immense’, ‘great’ and ‘forethinker’ respectively; see Cameron 2004, 141. 5 This is also the opinion of Burgess 2001, 21. 6 According to Apollod. Epit. 5.11 and P.Rylands 22.7–8, Odysseus is accompanied by Phoenix.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration sources mentioned above and Ptolemaeus Chennus, Peleus willingly sends him (and Patroclus) to the war: Odysseus (Il. 9.252–259) reminds Achilles of the advice Peleus gave his son when he sent him to the war, and Nestor (Il. 11.765–772) recalls in a more detailed manner the episode of his visit (together with Odysseus) to Peleus’ palace in Phthia, as well as the advice Peleus gave to his son before sending him to Troy. The fact that Neoptolemus is presented as both being in Scyros and of an age that he can take part in the war indicates that Homeric epic is aware of an epic tradition in which Achilles had stayed in Scyros, where he had an affair with Deidameia. This version is attested in the Cypria (arg. ll. 129–131 Severyns: ἀποπλέουσι δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς Μυσίας χειμὼν ἐπιπίπτει καὶ διασκεδάννυνται. Ἀχιλλεὺς δὲ Σκύρῳ, προσσχὼν γαμεῖ τὴν Λυκομήδους θυγατέρα Δηϊδάμειαν),7 and is not to be confused with another version (reported by an exegetical scholium on Il. 9.668b), according to which Achilles sacked the island of Scyros at the time of the first recruitment in Aulis to subjugate the Dolopes who had revolted from the rule of Peleus.8 This last version featuring a heroic Achilles sacking Scyros is consonant with Il. 9.668, where it is said that ‘he sacked steep Scyros, the citadel of Enyeus’ (Σκῦρον ἑλὼν αἰπεῖαν, Ἐνυῆος πτολίεθρον).9 We do not need to get involved into fanciful explanations, of the kind entertained by ancient scholars10 who argued that the Scyros Homer is referring to in Il. 9.668 may have been a city and not the island on the NE of Euboea or that Achilles liberated the island from the Dolopes, who had revolted against Peleus. It is understandable that such explanations stemmed from the paradox of having Achilles sack the island11 where he had been offered hospital 7 ‘As they sail away from Mysia, a storm falls upon them and they are scattered. Achilles sets in at Scyros and marries the daughter of Lycomedes, Deidameia’. 8 εἷλε δὲ τὴν Σκῦρον (sc. Ἀχιλλεύς), ὅτε εἰς Αὐλίδα ἐστρατολόγουν, διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐκεῖ Δόλοπας ἀποστάντας τῆς Πηλέως ἀρχῆς· ἔπλεον εἰς Σκῦρον Δολοπηίδα (fr. epic. auct. ignoti) τότε δὲ καὶ τὸν Νεοπτόλεμον ἐπαιδοποιήσατο. εἴκοσι δὲ ἔτη ἐστὶ πάσης τῆς παρασκευῆς τοῦ πολέμου, ὥστε δύναται ὁ Νεοπτόλεμος ὀκτωκαιδεκαέτης στρατεύειν. 9 This version reflects the school of Aristarchus; see Σ Il. 9.668a [II 538 Erbse] (ὅτι διὰ τούτων καὶ τὴν Σκῦρον πεπολιορκημένην ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων πόλεων παραδίδωσιν). 10 See scholia vetera (ad loc.). 11 Proclus does not mention the sack of Scyros by Achilles, who is constantly presented in the Iliad as plundering and destroying various cities (Scyros: 9.668; Lesbos: 9.129; 9.271; 9.664; Tenedos: 11.625; Lyrnessos: 2.691; 19.60; 20.94; 20.191; Pedasos: 20.92; Hypoplacian Thebe: 1.366; 2.691; 6.415; 16.153). But Scyros is a different case, for it cannot be associated with Achilles’ activity in the wider Troad. Scyros is close to mainland Greece and far away from Troy and, most importantly, it was not pro-Trojan. The scholia vetera (T) Il. 9.668 try to explain this reference as the result of Achilles’ attempt to liberate the island from the Dolopes, who had revolted against Peleus. Achilles seems to have had his own tradition of sacking cities (independently

Homer and the Cycle  

ity in the past. This paradox though is based on the belief that Achilles’ hiding and cross-dressing episode at Scyros formed part of the Cypria. According to this line of thought, Homeric poetry had downplayed such a cyclic episode, although it may have been very much aware of its existence. The episode of Achilles’ arrival at Scyros after a storm may have also formed part of the Ilias parva,12 where in an analeptic reference, Odysseus may have told Neoptolemus, while they were still on Scyros, that part of his father’s past life which his mother Deidameia could not have possibly known, i.e. from his departure from Scyros until his death at Troy.13 Such a flashback may have included both Achilles’ forced landing on Scyros because of a storm after the abortive Teuthranian expedition (fr. 24 incerti operis, p. 82 PEG = Il. parv. fr. 4A EGF = Il. parv. fr. 4 GEF) and the description of the famous ‘Pelian’ spear, which was given to Peleus by Chiron and then passed on to Achilles (Il. parv. fr. 5 = PEG = Il. parv. fr. 4B EGF = Il. parv. fr. 5 GEF). This reference to Achilles’ spear may have been exploited by the poet of the Ilias parva during the fatal encounter between Neoptolemus and Eurypylus, Telephus’ son, in Troy. Achilles’ spear by which Eurypylus’ father was wounded and then healed by sympathetic magic, would thus become the ‘bridge’ between two pairs of episodes placed within the same context in the Cypria (Telephus: ll. 125–128 Severyns / Scyros: ll. 129–131 Severyns / Telephus: ll. 132–134 Severyns) and the Il. parv. (Scyros: ll. 217–218 Severyns / Eurypylus: ll. 219–220 Severyns) respectively. The fact that the episode at Scyros is placed next to the episodes with Telephus (Cypria) and Eurypylus (Ilias parva) shows that Telephus is ‘an old component of the Trojan legend’14 and his link with Achilles may be very deep. The Odyssey is clearly reflecting this ‘pairing’ of episodes, when (11.505–522) the analeptic reference to the recruitment of Neoptolemus from Scyros by Odysseus is immediately followed by the killing of Telephus’ son

 from the other Achaeans) and taking female slaves. When he was attached to the Trojan War expedition, his earlier activities were associated with the war against Troy; see West 2011a, 43. Other scholars argue that Achilles’ small-scale expeditions and sack of cities in the Troad belong to a traditional type of story, the ‘Tale of Foray’, and functioned as a kind of initiation rite for heroes who had not acquired their own oikos; see Leaf 1912, 242–248; Nagy 19992, 140– 141 and 272–273; Dué 2002, 3–4, 8–9, 61–65; Waldner 2000, 94–95. I owe this last observation and the bibliographical references to Fantuzzi 2012. 12 Bernabé (fr. 24 PEG) expresses doubts about this, whereas Davies (frs. 4A and 4B EGF) and West (frs. 4–5 GEF) adopt this view. 13 See Davies 1989, 64. 14 Kullmann 2011, 13–25.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration Eurypylus by Neoptolemus at Troy.15 The attempt to associate the fighting activity of the sons with that of their fathers would, thus, effectively create a link with the past as narrated in the Cypria. In a previous publication I have summarized the problem in the following way:16 These two traditions (Achilles hiding at Scyros versus Achilles arriving at Scyros after the Teuthranian expedition) are incompatible. Bernabé wrongly attributes to the Cypria (frs. 19 and 21 PEG) the episode mentioned by the scholia on Il. 19.326. Davies, more cautiously, lists both these fragments under ‘fragmenta incerti loci intra cyclum epicum’ (frs. 4–5 EGF). The Ilias parva may have been a better guess (see Il. 19.326 and Il. parv. 4Α [= fr. 24 incerti operis PEG], but also the problems associated with 4Β EGF). In my view, the Cyclic fragments reflect two rival traditions. In the first, Achilles, sent secretly to Scyros by either Thetis or Peleus to avoid going to Troy, has an affair with Deidameia, who will later give birth to Neoptolemus. In the second tradition, Achilles arrives at Scyros because of a storm, sacks the island, and marries Deidameia, who gives birth to Neoptolemus.

I will now offer further arguments supporting and elaborating my earlier thesis by scrutinizing Proclus’ summary of the Cypria (ll. 111–121 Severyns), by far the most authoritative account of the content of Cyclic epics: (arg. ll. 111–112) (arg. ll. 112–113) (arg. ll. 114–117)

(arg. ll. 118–119) (arg. ll. 119–121)

(arg. ll. 111–112) (arg. ll. 112–113) (arg. ll. 114–117)

(arg. ll. 118–119)

ὁ δὲ παραγενόμενος ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπ’ Ἴλιον στρατείας βουλεύεται μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ. καὶ πρὸς Νέστορα παραγίνεται Μενέλαος. Νέστωρ δὲ ἐν παρεκβάσει διηγεῖται αὐτῷ ὡς Ἐπωπεὺς φθείρας τὴν Λύκου θυγατέρα ἐξεπορθήθη, καὶ τὰ περὶ Οἰδίπουν καὶ τὴν Ἡρακλέους μανίαν καὶ τὰ περὶ Θησέαν καὶ Ἀριάδνην. ἔπειτα τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἀθροίζουσιν ἐπελθόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα. καὶ μαίνεσθαι προσποιησάμενον τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ θέλειν συστρατεύεσθαι ἐφώρασαν, Παλαμήδους ὑποθεμένου τὸν υἱὸν Τηλἐμαχον ἐπὶ κόλασιν ἐξαρπάσαντες. He returns and plans an expedition against Ilium with his brother, and Menelaus goes to Nestor. Nestor in a digression tells him how Epopeus seduced the daughter of Lykos and was destroyed, the story of Oedipus, the madness of Heracles, and the story of Theseus and Ariadne. Then they gather the leaders, traveling through Greece.

 15 Of all the enemies Neoptolemus has killed in Troy, it is only Eurypylus, Telephus’ son, who is mentioned to the dead Achilles by Odysseus. The wording may also be significant since the compound κατενήρατο (χαλκῷ) in Od. 11.519 is a hapax. 16 Tsagalis 2008, 259.

Homer and the Cycle  

(arg. ll. 119–121)

And they caught Odysseus pretending to be insane because he did not want to join up, after Palamedes advised them to seize his son Telemachus threateningly.

From the summary of Proclus it becomes obvious that the episode of Odysseus’ reluctance to take part in the expedition to Troy, his pretending to be insane, and his revelation by Palamedes, Nestor, and Menelaus occurred in the Cypria at the very end17 of their traveling all around Greece and recruiting the other Achaean leaders.18 This makes it quite unlikely that Odysseus had visited (together with Nestor) Peleus’ palace in Phthia to recruit Achilles. The problems caused by the D-scholium on Il. 19.326 are multiple: although the concluding phrase (ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς) makes the Cypria by far the most probable candidate,19 the complete silence of Proclus concerning such an episode as well as the unsolvable discrepancy between the ἔφθειρε of the D-scholium and the γαμεῖ of Proclus’ summary (arg. l. 131 Severyns) raise serious doubts. The use of ἔφθειρε (‘seduced’) for Achilles with respect to Lycomedes’ daughter Deidameia is at odds with the use of γαμεῖ (‘married’), which is employed for the marriage of Achilles and Deidameia upon his sack of Scyros on the way back from Teuthrania (arg. ll. 130–131 Severyns).20 Kullmann is right that absolute precision on the part of Proclus is not to be sought,21 but it is very surprising that Proclus had decided not to refer at all to the recruitment of Achilles, the best of the Achaeans. The most reasonable explanation is that contrary to Odysseus’ problematic and unheroic recruitment, Achilles had been sent willingly by his father Peleus to Troy and that Proclus, who may well have regarded this episode as of minor importance (in the manner of the recruitment of Palamedes that is also not mentioned in his summary), decided to omit it. It is highly unlikely that the Cypria dealt with two problemat-

 17 Proclus’ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα συνελθόντες εἰς Αὐλίδα θύουσι (Cypr. arg. l. 122 Severyns) indicates the completion of the recruitment and the transition to the next phase of the preparation for the war. 18 For a useful collection of ancient sources relating to the episode of Odysseus’ madness, see Zografou-Lyra 1987, 69–88. 19 Another, rather remote scenario, would be the Ilias parva, but see Tsagalis 2008, 258–261. 20 Since Proclus’ summary uses γαμεῖ only in the sense of ‘to marry’, e.g. Ilias parva (arg. l. 216 Severyns: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Δηίφοβος Ἑλένην γαμεῖ); Telegony (arg. ll. 315–316 Severyns: καὶ γαμεῖ Καλλιδίκην βασίλιδα Θεσπρωτῶν), I take that it also has this meaning with respect to Achilles and Deidameia. I pay attention, following Kullmann who agrees on this point, to Proclus’ own ‘narrative’ grammar, not to the general use of γαμεῖ, which can also have the meaning it has in Modern Greek, i.e. ‘to have sexual intercourse’. 21 Kullmann 1960, 259.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration ic and unheroic recruitments (Odysseus and Achilles) but Proclus decided to refer only to the former at the expense of the latter. This thematic predilection is against the principles governing his summarizing technique and can hardly be explained (unless, as argued above, Achilles’ case is not a problematic recruitment).22 Moreover, Proclus refers to traveling all around Greece and gathering the Greek kings (arg. ll. 118–119 Severyns) before turning to the episode of Odysseus (arg. ll. 119–121 Severyns); in other words, if the episode of Achilles at Scyros really formed part of the Cypria, it may have been placed before the episode of Odysseus, which was the last in the list. If this was the case and Odysseus did not form part of the embassy to Peleus, we may start considering the possibility that the Cypria did not include the theme of Achilles hiding in Scyros but an easy recruitment in Phthia at the house of Peleus. In a nutshell, if there is no Odysseus to reveal Lycomedes’ trick, then there may be — at this stage of the plot — no Lycomedes, and hence no Scyros.23 Internal evidence based on analogy further strengthens Kullmann’s scenario against a reluctant Achilles hiding in Scyros. A careful reading of the summary of Proclus shows that the only episode pertaining to the recruitment of Achaean heroes that is narrated is that of Odysseus’ fake madness. Nestor, who is mentioned before that, does not count, since he becomes a member of the embassy24 that recruits various kings from all over Greece. Moreover, Proclus (arg. ll. 112–113 Severyns) mentions that Menelaus first went to Nestor, stayed there for a while (as it can be surmised from the multiple stories Nestor narrates (arg. ll. 114–117 Severyns: (a) Epopeus and the daughter of Lycus, (b) Oedipus, (c) the madness of Heracles, and (d) Theseus and Ariadne), and only then the two of them (I am rather sceptical about Agamemnon) went around Greece to recruit other leaders. The episode of Nestor furnishes Menelaus with a wise ‘helper’ who accompanies him in his recruiting journey. Since Proclus mentions only one more king, Palamedes, who participated in the embassy to Odysseus in order to reveal his fake madness, it is highly unlikely that he would not have done the same thing with Odysseus, i.e. refer to his crucial role in the revelation of Achilles’ hiding at Scyros, should this episode had featured in the Cypria. In  22 See Kullmann (1960, 258–259), who regards the reference in Il. 9.252–256 as reflecting the subject matter of the Cypria. 23 This line of thought leaves us with the problem of Σ (D) Il. 19.326 (516–517 van Thiel) which explicitly mentions Odysseus not only as member of the embassy but also as the person who devised the trick to reveal Achilles; however, see my discussion below. 24 Notice the change from singular to plural: καὶ πρὸς Νέστορα παραγίνεται Μενέλαος (Cypr. arg. ll. 112–113 Severyns) — ἔπειτα τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἀθροίζουσιν ἐπελθόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα (Cypr. arg. ll. 118–119 Severyns).

Homer and the Cycle  

this light, the absence of any reference to Achilles in the recruiting episodes of the Cypria is better explained. Achilles went willingly to the war and so Proclus mentions in detail the only problematic recruitment, i.e. that of Odysseus, placed last in the list.25 The role of Palamedes is of paramount importance for explaining what is going on in this interpretive conundrum. There are two important elements to be taken into account stemming from the traditional role and function of Palamedes in the Cypria: the first is that Proclus mentions his involvement after ll. 118–120 (Severyns), i.e. after the completion of Menelaus’ and Nestor’s26 going around Greece and recruiting the Greek leaders. This is an indication ex silentio that if Achilles’ recruitment had featured in the Cypria, it should have been placed at this point of the plot. The second point is that Proclus’ summary bears a striking, albeit unnoticed, similarity to Σ (D) Il. 19.326 [van Thiel]: Palamedes and Odysseus, these two famous rivals in the field of polytropie in the Cypria,27 are the ones who devise the trick by which an Achaean leader who is unwilling to participate in the expedition is finally unmasked, namely Odysseus and Achilles respectively.28 The actual phrasing by Proclus (arg. ll. 120–121 Severyns: Παλαμήδους ὑποθεμένου) and Σ (D) Il. 19.326 (ταῖς Ὀδυσσέως ὑποθήκαις, 516– 517 van Thiel) is so similar that it may help us find a way out of this labyrinth. Odysseus plays the same role with Palamedes as the wise man who unfolds disguise,29 metaphorical in the case of ‘mad’ Odysseus and literal in the case of Achilles who is disguised in a woman’s clothes.30 We are not dealing with a

 25 The existence of an oracle according to which Achilles had to take part in the expedition to Troy so that the war may be won by the Achaeans (Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.8) is analogous to another oracle designating that Neoptolemus had to be brought to Troy (after Achilles’ death) so that Ilium may be sacked (Apollod. Epit. 5.9). This piece of information should not be used in reference to an embassy by Odysseus, Nestor, and Phoenix to Scyros (Σ [D] Il. 19.326 [516–517 van Thiel]), since the first oracle explains the dispatch of the embassy to Phthia and not the hiding of Achilles in Scyros, which results from Peleus’ or Thetis’ (Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.8; Σ [D] Il. 1.418 [49 van Thiel]; Hyg. fab. 96) foreknowledge that Achilles was doomed in Troy. 26 Kullmann (1960, 258) adds Agamemnon as a member of the Embassy. 27 See fr. 30 PEG. 28 On a comparison between Odysseus and Palamedes, see Kullmann 2002b, 166–167. 29 Although Odysseus and Palamedes belong to the same type of ‘wise man or hero’, they are traditionally distinguished with respect to the way they employ their mental skills. See Kakridis (1995, 93–94), who rightly notes that Odysseus can be described as a ‘débrouillard’, a person who uses all means at his disposal to achieve his goal, whereas Palamedes is better off in the realm of concrete innovations and practical solutions. 30 The ‘wise man’ or ‘wise hero’ traces his origins in Shamanism and is well attested in many cultures around the world. He excels mainly in the field of mental ability and manages to

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration substitution but with a rival version of the tradition of the Cypria, in which Odysseus together with Phoenix and Nestor visited first Peleus and then Lycomedes’ palace in Scyros. The presence of Phoenix in the place of Menelaus not only shows that there were variants as to the members of the embassy but also sheds light to the problem at hand. In fact, it implicitly tells us that we are dealing with a different version, since Menelaus (the key person in the recruitment because of his personal interest in the expedition) is absent. If we make the reasonable assumption that Phoenix was ignorant of Peleus’ plan to hide Achilles, then it is probable that the version offered by the D-scholium reflects a tendency strikingly different from the one attested in the Iliad, where Odysseus and Nestor went to Peleus’ palace, who at once sent Achilles to Troy together with Phoenix to keep an eye on his young son. It seems then that Σ (D) Il. 19.326 (516–517 van Thiel) reports a version that is the direct opposite from that attested in Iliad 19. The confusion between the two versions can be seen in later authors and commentators: Lycophron31 and Eustathius32 both confuse Odysseus with Palamedes and designate the latter as the one who revealed the disguised Achilles in Scyros.33 We must, therefore, distinguish between two different traditions, which I will call the D-scholium tradition and the Cypria-tradition. While the former emphasizes the positive side of Odysseus as a recruiter of Achilles, the latter highlights his rather negative role, since in the post-Homeric Cypria he tries to avoid his own recruitment and kills Palamedes by trickery with the help of Diomedes.34 With respect to the plot of the Cypria-tradition reflected in the postHomeric Cypria, the recruitment of Achilles may not be problematic at all, i.e. it

 overcome difficulties and solve problems by means of his intellectual supremacy (Kakridis 1995, 93). 31 Alex. 276–278: ὁ νεκροπέρνας, ὃς προδειμαίνων πότμον | καὶ θῆλυν ἀμφὶ σῶμα τλήσεται πέπλον | δῦναι, παρ᾽ ἱστοῖς κερκίδος ψαύσας κρότων. 32 On Il. 19.327 (IV 339 van der Valk): περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐν Σκύρῳ, τὸν Νεοπτόλεμον τρέφεσθαι τοιαῦτά φασιν οἱ παλαιοί· ὅτι Θέτις, οἷα πάνυ φιλόπαις, ἐκεῖ πρὸ τοῦ Τρωϊκοῦ πολέμου τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἐξέθετο, ἔνθα καὶ γυναικιζόμενον ὁ Παλαμήδης αὐτὸν ἤλεγξεν, ὡς καὶ ὁ Λυκόφρων ἱστορεῖ. 33 An argument ex silentio is the tendency of later authors to restore the ‘injustice’ of the Homeric tradition with respect to Palamedes; see Kakridis 1995, 98. The possibility that the Iliad has replaced Palamedes with Odysseus (pace Zografou-Lyra 1987, 88–89), in order to accentuate the latter’s positive role in the expedition, seems to me unlikely. Palamedes’ presence makes sense, as his role in the recruitment of Odysseus amply shows, only if Achilles was hiding at Scyros and a trick had to be devised to reveal Achilles’ deceit. 34 See fr. 30 PEG.

Homer and the Cycle  

may be consonant with the version offered by the Iliad.35 In other words, the dramatic reversal between two versions concerning Achilles’ recruitment may well be concerning the Iliad and the Cypria (as well as an earlier oral Cypriatradition) on the one hand, and the D-scholium tradition on the other. Seen from this angle, the Iliadic version of the recruitment of Achilles in Phthia deviates from the Cypria-tradition with respect to Odysseus’ participation36 and of course from his ‘verbatim’ report of Peleus’ words in Il. 9.254–258, which is clearly an Iliadic autoschediasma tailored to the epic’s main theme and the target of the embassy, i.e. to convince Achilles to stop his anger.37 The Iliad (see 9.252–259 and 11.765–772) aimed at presenting Achilles in a positive light, i.e. as willing to gain glory and support the Greek cause. His complaint in Il. 1.152–157 that the Trojans have never harmed him makes more sense against the background of someone who took part in the war willingly. By depriving Peleus of the ability to know Achilles’ fate and attempt to save his son, the Iliadic tradition increased the dramatic weight of Achilles’ lot and highlighted the irony of having the father send his son to his death. In this context, Odysseus’ attempt to convince Achilles to return to battle would be evaluated by the listeners against the backdrop of Odysseus’ fake ‘madness’ in a Cypria-tradition: on the one hand, the true hero Achilles who willingly went to the war is now advised to return to the battlefield by a swindler and trickster who had tried to  35 This suggestion is consonant with the Cypria’s presentation of Achilles as so determined to fight the war in Troy that he even holds back the Achaeans who are willing to return to Greece after the severe fighting going on in Troy (arg. ll. 159–160 Severyns: εἶτα ἀπονοστεῖν ὡρμημένους τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς Ἀχιλλεὺς κατέχει). It would have been very odd, if Achilles was trying to avoid taking part in the expedition by hiding at Scyros dressed in women’s clothes, and then being so willing to stay at Troy. 36 According to Il. 3.205–224, Odysseus had visited Troy together with Menelaus to convince the Trojans to give Helen back. This is an Iliadic mirroring of the traditional role of Odysseus as an embassy member, who is sent to achieve difficult tasks, i.e. just as is the case with the Iliadic version of Odysseus’ and Nestor’s visit to Phthia. Dictys Cretensis (1.4) includes a third member in the embassy sent to Troy for Helen before the war, Palamedes. The same is the case with the embassy to Phthia: according to Tzetzes (Allegoriae Iliadis Prolegomena 455–458) Palamedes went together with Nestor and Odysseus to Phthia to recruit Achilles. Palamedes’ rivalry with Odysseus with respect to his participation in an embassy can be also seen in the episode of his journey to the island of Delos to bring the Oinotropoi to Troy, who would save the Achaean army from famine (which caused Odysseus’ envy and resulted in Palamedes’ drowning by Odysseus and Diomedes, Cypr. fr. 30 PEG = fr. 20 EGF [Paus. 10.31.2 on Polygnotus’ paintings at Delphi]). A different tradition is reported by the 4th century rhetor Alcidamas (Odysseus 1.20), who says that Palamedes bribed Cinyras, king of Cyprus, and convinced him not to take part in the Trojan War; see Kakridis 1995, 95. 37 See Kullmann 1960, 258–259.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration avoid recruitment in the first place.38 The point is subtle but effectively made: Achilles who went to Troy on his own free will shall not return home, while Odysseus who did not want to join the expedition will finally return to Ithaca. Peleus and Laertes add further force to this antithesis, showing how elaborate the interplay between the various epic traditions, Homeric and un-Homeric, can be.

. The Nature and Function of the Principal Sources I will now turn my attention to the nature and function of the ancient evidence quoting this episode and will discuss the problem of subscription and the possibility of conflation of various sources. I will then venture on offering a scenario for the origins of the mythical episode of Achilles’ hiding in Scyros.

.. The Subscription at the End of the D-Scholium The citation ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς (Σ [D] Il. 19.326 [516–517 van Thiel]) is not a ‘blanket’ citation39 pertaining to the whole historia, but only to its last part, i.e. the birth of Neoptolemus, which is the core of the lemma. Van RossumSteenbeek40 observes with respect to subscriptions in the MH (Mythographus Homericus): […] subscriptions should not be regarded as real sources to which the historiae go back, but rather as references to authors who deal with the same subject. Sometimes the complete story, other times part of the story, a particular detail, or only the subject seems to have been told or mentioned by the author found in the subscription.

The subject or topic of this historia is the naming of Neoptolemus, which comes at the end but has triggered the entire lemma appended to Il. 19.326. In other words, it is the Iliadic reference to Neoptolemus being in Scyros that the scholiast aims at explaining, and for this reason he appends a whole historia that in its core reflects the MH. Given that ᾽the MH collection was originally meant to be  38 See Davies 2007, 149–150. 39 On this term, see Cameron (2004, 93), who classifies surviving mythographic works of the Roman period into two classes according to the way they cite their sources: (a) those quoting them in the text, when the reference is made (Apollodorus, [Eratosthenes], Hyginus); (b) those that give them as blanket citations ‘for the whole story at the close of a section (MH, [Plutarch], many of the scholia) or in the margins (Parthenius and Antoninus Liberalis)’. 40 van Rossum-Steenbeek 1997, 112.

The Nature and Function of the Principal Sources  

read or consulted together with Homer᾽,41 the subscription ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς may be simply reflecting the source mentioned originally to account for a particular detail, i.e. the birth of Neoptolemus. The reference42 that the neoteroi related that it was there, i.e. on Scyros, where the women’s quarters were found, in which Achilles dressed as a woman slept with (?)43 Deidameia, as well as the mention44 that some (τινές) authors say that it was there (on Scyros) that Thetis hid Achilles, cannot designate the poets of the Cycle. This can be clearly seen by the fact that the scholiast (Il. 19.326a1) immediately draws the line between their version (μὲν) and that (δὲ) offered by the poet of the Ilias parva, according to whom Achilles arrived at Scyros driven by a storm on his way back from Mysia. Since the presence of Achilles in Scyros dressed as a woman can only refer to the same version with Thetis’ hiding him there, it can be inferred that the phrase οἱ μὲν νεώτεροι (Il. 9.668b) does not designate the poets of the Epic Cycle. The fact that in this scholium (Il. 9.668b), the scholiast draws the line between the neoteroi and the poet of the Iliad who explains Achilles’ presence in Scyros as the result of his sacking activity shows that, in this matter, Homer adopted the same version which we see reflected in the Ilias parva and had also featured in the Cypria (arg. ll. 129–131 Severyns). Therefore, the reference to the neoteroi may here simply designate another source and not the Cyclic poets.

.. Conflation of Various Sources To identify the sources of the historia offered by the Σ (D) Il. 19.326, we must first examine what Apollodorus has to say on this matter.45 Apollodorus refers only to the episode of Achilles hiding in Scyros in the non-Trojan section of his work. This can be safely inferred from the fact that the reference in the Bibliotheca (3.13.8) belongs to the section devoted to the genealogy of Peleus, where the  41 van Rossum-Steenbeek 1997, 117. 42 See Σ (T) Il. 9.668b. 43 The text is uncertain: κατακλίνουσιν. 44 See Σ (T) Il. 19.326a1. 45 Bibl. 3.13.8: λέγοντος οὐ δύνασθαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ Τροίαν αἱρεθῆναι, Θέτις προειδυῖα ὅτι δεῖ στρατευόμενον αὐτὸν ἀπολέσθαι, κρύψασα ἐσθῆτι γυναικείᾳ ὡς παρθένον Λυκομήδει παρέθετο. κἀκεῖ τρεφόμενος τῇ Λυκομήδους θυγατρὶ Δηιδαμείᾳ μίγνυται, καὶ γίνεται παῖς Πύρρος αὐτῷ ὁ κληθεὶς Νεοπτόλεμος αὖθις. Ὀδυσσεὺς δὲ μηνυθέντα παρὰ Λυκομήδει ζητῶν Ἀχιλλέα, σάλπιγγι χρησάμενος εὗρε. καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἰς Τροίαν ἦλθε. συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ Φοῖνιξ ὁ Ἀμύντορος.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration context is not-Trojan at all, whereas the episode is completely missing from the Epitome, which agrees with Proclus’ version on the content of the Cypria.46 In fact, Apollodorus’ version47 clearly goes back to Euripides:48 in both versions Thetis is the one who dresses Achilles in women’s clothes before sending him to Scyros. Lycomedes is completely unaware of Achilles’ presence in Scyros. The picture we get from Σ (D) Il. 19.326 (reflecting to a large extent the MH) is not only quite different but also less coherent: Peleus, who plays the role of Thetis, just sends Achilles to Lycomedes, and it is the king of Scyros who dresses him in women’s clothes; Odysseus, Nestor and Phoenix as the three members of the embassy (instead of Odysseus, Diomedes, and Nestor)49 are an odd group, since we have to assume that Peleus is acting with the help of Lycomedes but against the will and knowledge of Phoenix. I will now argue that the scholiast conflates50 Iliadic with Cyclic material that did not come from the Cypria (the renaming of Neoptolemus makes sense only in the Ilias parva), and another source (with which I will deal in detail in the last part of this chapter). My argument is based on (a) the function of Peleus; (b) the composition of the embassy; and (c) the naming of Neoptolemus.

 46 For example, and with respect to the issue at hand, they both mention the effort of Odysseus to avoid recruitment, the episode of Telephus, and the recruitment of Neoptolemus and subsequent killing of Eurypylus (on which see below). 47 According to van der Valk (1963, 309), when the compiler of the MH started his work, he tried to cite his sources consistently, and so referred also to the Bibliotheca. In the course of his work, he changed attitude, since he realized that a standard mythographical compendium (a common manual, as Van der Valk calls it) would not enhance his status as a mythographer. He decided to avoid citing the Bibliotheca and restrict himself to other authors. In our case, it is unlikely that the source of the MH is the Bibliotheca and that the unknown commentator referred to Euripides by the term κυκλικός. The reference to the κυκλικοί would no doubt have created the impression that the commentator is a learned author, since in his era the Cyclic epics would have been read by very few people. On this point, see van der Valk 1963, 333. 48 See Jouan (1966, 206), who draws attention to the striking correspondence between the hypothesis of Euripides’ Scyrioi and the text of Apollodorus. 49 See Luppe 1985, 11. 50 A similar conflation can be seen in the scholia parisina (Cramer, An. Graec. Par. 3.26), where the diction pertaining to the Achilles episode in Scyros (as reported by the Σ [D] Il. 19.326) is used in the first part of the scholium parisinum and is then combined with the other version (post Teuthraniam), which featured in the Ilias parva (reported by Σ [bT] Il. 19.326).

The Composition of the Embassy  

. Peleus The only sources featuring Peleus as the parent who foresees his child’s future death in Troy are the P.Berol. 13930 and the Σ (D) Il. 19.326.51 All the other sources as well as artistic representations have Thetis playing this role. Given that this papyrus shares striking similarities in diction and theme with Σ (D) Il. 19.326 (see Appendix 3), we may safely conclude that the MH had used Peleus instead of Thetis. It is hard to speculate on the reasons of this change, but both the P.Berol. 13930 and the scholium D seem to be influenced by the immediate Iliadic context: when Achilles assigns (in a typically Homeric manner) to his θυμός his hope that it will be only himself who will die at Troy, he immediately recalls his father Peleus, an old man in Phthia, who may be by now dead (Il. 19.328–330). Such confusion may have resulted from the fact that ‘the MH collection was originally meant to be read or consulted together with Homer’.52

. The Composition of the Embassy It would have been completely unthinkable to make Phoenix look for Achilles, while Peleus would be trying to hide him. Phoenix, who is a μετανάστης, is made king of the Dolopes53 and is always supporting Peleus. How, then, can he participate in an embassy acting against Peleus’ will? In the P.Berol. 13930, in which the embassy includes only Odysseus and Diomedes, there is no such problem. The differences between the papyrus and the scholium are due to the influence of a source that enjoyed greater prestige because of Euripides with respect to the former, and the higher level of Iliadic influence with respect to the latter. Two features attested in the papyrus (Odysseus and Diomedes as well as the ignorance of Lycomedes about Achilles’ presence in Scyros) seem to be of Euripidean origin or of a source following Euripides (Apollodorus may have been a good guess but Diomedes is missing from the embassy there). Very much unlike the Cypria, in the historia offered by the scholium D there is a split between Agamemnon and Menelaus who recruited the other Achaean leaders (Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἑλένην ἁρπάσαντος Ἀγαμέμνων καὶ Μενέλαος τοὺς Ἕλλη 51 In the Heroicus (731–732), Philostratus the Elder gives a version, according to which Peleus sent Achilles to Scyros in order to avenge the death of his xenos Theseus, whom Lycomedes had killed. This story, which does not include the hiding motif, is of no value to our research. See Kossatz-Deissmann LIMC, s. v. ‘Achilleus’, 56. 52 van Rossum-Steenbeek 1997, 118. 53 See Il. 9.484 (Δολόπεσσιν ἀνάσσων) and Σ Il. 9.668b [II 538 Erbse].

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration νας κατὰ τῶν Τρώων ἐστρατολόγησαν) and Odysseus, Nestor, and Phoenix who recruited Achilles. In the Cypria, it is Nestor and Menelaus (we do not know about Agamemnon) that recruit all the Achaean leaders but Odysseus, since Palamedes is added to their embassy to carry out the difficult task of exposing the fake madness of the Ithacan king. Interestingly enough, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Odysseus, Nestor, Idomeneus and Phoenix are asked by Achilles to stay with him in Il. 19.310–311, just before starting to lament Patroclus and recalling Neoptolemus from Scyros (19.315–337). With the exception of Idomeneus,54 all the others are mentioned in Σ (D) Il. 19.326. Phoenix, as Edwards observes,55 rarely appears outside Iliad 9 (in Ιl. 16.196 as commander of the fourth regiment of Achilles’ Myrmidons; in Ιl. 23.360, where he is placed in a special position to inspect the chariot race in the Funeral Games for Patroclus — Ιl. 17.555 and 561 must be excluded, for it is Athena who takes the shape of Phoenix and addresses Menelaus). As to the three members of the embassy (in the scholium D), Odysseus, Nestor, and Phoenix also feature (Il. 9.252–259; 11.765–785) in the context of the visit of the first two to the house of Peleus to recruit Achilles. Phoenix could not have featured in this embassy, but he is both mentioned by Peleus in these two cases and participates in the new embassy to Achilles in Iliad 9. In my view, the scholiast (on Il. 19.326) is conflating details from his immediate and larger Iliadic context with the information he draws from his source about Achilles’ hiding at Scyros. This effectively explains the distinction in the scholium between the two Atreidae recruiting the rest of the Greeks and the embassy of Odysseus, Nestor, and Phoenix who go to Phthia and then to Scyros to recruit only Achilles.

 54 See Il. 13.376–382, where Idomeneus kills Othryoneus (who came to the war on the promise of Priam’s daughter, Cassandra) and utters an ironical taunt-speech offering to the dead Othryoneus the loveliest of Agamemnon’s daughters. Given this small digression, which seems to have been invented ad hoc, and the detail concerning Othryoneus’ coming to Troy at an early age (Il. 13.364), Idomeneus may be pointing to the situation in Iliad 9, in which Achilles, who also came to the war at a very early age, is offered (among other things) one of the daughters of Agamemnon as his wife (Il. 9.283–290). The short digression on Othryoneus may have been based on stark analogies with the stories of Agamemnon and Achilles: for Cassandra, whom Othryoneus wanted as his wife, will be brought back to Argos as Agamemnon’s slave, while his name (from Mt Othrys) may be reflecting Orestes’ name (from the word ὄρος). Tellingly enough, Achilles is promised to become (Il. 9.284) Agamemnon’s son-in-law on an equal status with Orestes. The Iliadic storyteller is clearly building on both the scene in Iliad 9 and the tradition of the Nostoi (where Cassandra will be murdered together with Agamemnon in Argos). 55 1991, 271 on Il. 19.311–313.

The Naming of Neoptolemus  

. The Naming of Neoptolemus Instead of explaining56 the metonomasia of Pyrrhus into Neoptolemus in terms of his father’s participation in the war at a young age,57 which is what all other sources unfailingly do,58 the scholium D on Il. 19.326,59 Eustathius (on Il. 19.327 [IV 338 van der Valk]),60 and Servius on Aen. 2.13 (= T III)61 ‘transfer’ the same explanation to Neoptolemus himself. This is a very strong indication that the scholiast and/or his source are using material from the Ilias parva,62 at a point just before the final subscription,63 and that this tradition is taken on by later authorities such as Eustathius and Servius. The naming of the son on the basis of the features pertaining to his father is common practice in Greek epic, as the names of Astyanax, Eurysaces, and Telemachus make evident.64 In the episode of the Ilias parva, Odysseus and Phoenix recruited Achilles’ son from Scyros. If the Ilias parva followed the Cypria only to the extent that Achilles had a son in Scyros, then Odysseus could very well had told Neoptolemus (whose name was changed from Pyrrhus by Phoenix once he convinced him to come to Troy) about his father’s past. Could this tale include the hidingepisode? I do not think so. The strongest among many other reasons is that Il. parv. fr. 4 (GEF) shows that Odysseus’ analeptic narrative to Neoptolemus in-

 56 Cebrián (2007, 386–387) distinguishes between a MH I, whose purpose was solely to place in comparison what was said in the Homeric and the Cyclic epics, and a MH II, who added etymological explanations. 57 Achilles being the youngest of the Achaeans must have belonged to the Faktenkanon of archaic Greek epic; see, beyond the Epic Cycle, [Hes.] Cat. fr. 204.85–93 M-W. On the motif of ‘young age’ in early epic and the cases of Cyanippus and Tisamenus, see Cingano 2010, 80–83. 58 See e.g. Σ (AaT) Il. 19.326a1; Paus. 10.26.4 (and the discussion below). 59 ἥτις ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐγέννησε Πύρρον τὸν ὕστερον Νεοπτόλεμον κληθέντα, ὅστις τοῖς Ἕλλησι νέος ὢν συνεστρατεύσατο μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ πατρός. 60 Νεοπτόλεμος δὲ ἐπεκλήθη ὁ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως οὗτος υἱός, διότι νέος ὢν ἐπολέμησε. 61 Pyrrus admodum puer euocatus ad bellum est; unde dictus est Neoptolemus vέος εἰς πτόλεμοv. 62 See also Jouan 1966, 214 n. 1, which he does not discuss further. 63 I agree with Cebrián (2007, 387) who notes that ‘there is no evidence that this episode was narrated in the Cypria, as one would suppose given its position in the structure of the Epic Cycle’, but I disagree with him, when he says that ‘under this generic formulation the MH encapsulates the entire epic tradition that is different from Homer […]. The negative portrayal of the Iliad’s protagonist, almost a caricature, makes us think of a late epic text’. 64 Marin 2008–2009, 230.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration cluded the storm,65 which means that it pertains to the events after Teuthrania. The same reasoning applies to the appearance of Achilles’ phantom to his son upon his arrival at Troy. Achilles could not have given a different version than Odysseus. Moreover, it would be odd to try to convince Neoptolemus to come to Troy, if his father had attempted to avoid participating in the expedition. That said, this scenario must be rejected.66 With respect to the renaming of Pyrrhus as Neoptolemus there is one more piece of information, which we need to discuss. It is listed, erroneously in my view, as Il. parv. fr. 21 (PEG) = fr. 16 (EGF) = fr. 19 (GEF) [= Paus. 10.26.4 (III 151 Rocha Pereira)]: τοῦ δὲ Ἀχιλλέως τῷ παιδὶ Ὅμηρος μὲν Νεοπτόλεμον ὄνομα ἐν ἁπάσῃ οἱ τίθεται τῇ ποιήσει: τὰ δὲ Κύπρια ἔπη φησὶν ὑπὸ Λυκομήδους μὲν Πύρρον, Νεοπτόλεμον δὲ ὄνομα ὑπὸ Φοίνικος αὐτῷ τεθῆναι, ὅτι Ἀχιλλεὺς ἡλικίᾳ ἔτι νέος πολεμεῖν ἤρξατο. Homer uses the name Neoptolemus for Achilles’ son in all his poetry. The Cypria say that he was given the name Pyrrhus by Lycomedes, but Neoptolemus by Phoenix because Achilles started fighting when he was still young.

What Pausanias says is that the Cypria narrated (a) that Lycomedes had named Achilles’ son ‘Pyrrhus’, and (b) that he was later named Neoptolemus by Phoenix, because Achilles started fighting (at Troy) while he was still young. Achilles’ son must have been born when Achilles was in Scyros, either hiding or after Teuthrania, for otherwise Achilles’ knowledge (Il. 19.326–327) about his son being raised in this island cannot be explained. In the Iliad, the birth of Neoptolemus is not explicitly stated but all references to Achilles’ son point to the direction of the event after the Teuthranian expedition. Kullmann67 is right to argue that Neoptolemus’ birth was critically placed at the very end of the whole undertaking of the Teuthranian expedition. In this way, the Iliad needs only to specify a tiny part of this first abortive expedition with which the birth of  65 The expression ἀργαλέον λιμένα does not refer to an upcoming danger, i.e. Achilles’ facing the Dolopians and sacking the island, but has the meaning of ‘difficult to attain, dangerous’, as Severyns (1938b, 239–241) has convincingly shown. 66 See also the pertinent remarks of Marco Fantuzzi (per litteras electronicas): ‘The “approach” to Scyros of Achilles in the Ilias parva involves a forced landing following a tempest; therefore, it seems a bit strange that this poem could be a palinode of the eroticized version of the Cypria. Besides, if the Σ (T) Il. 9.668 champions the martial dimension of the Ilias parva, it is simply not probable that this poem had both the forced landing and the stay of Achilles in Scyros under parental compulsion (in any case, the coexistence of these two motifs in a single poem is extrememly improbable)’. 67 Kullmann 1960, 266.

The MH on the Story of Eurypylus: Some Observations by Analogy  

Neoptolemus was associated, i.e. the Scyros event. If Neoptolemus was associated with the hiding of his father in Scyros, then the Iliad would not have linked Neoptolemus with Achilles’ arrival at the island after the expedition to Teuthrania. Phoenix’s naming of Neoptolemus could only take place in the Ilias parva, which may have well included by means of a flashback narrative by Phoenix the earlier arrival of Achilles at the island, the marriage to Deidameia, and the birth of Neoptolemus. This is a strong argument about the fact that Pausanias’ reference to the Cypria pertains only to Lycomedes’ naming of Achilles’ son. The use of μὲν...δὲ is not against this interpretation, while the subsequent causal clause clearly delineates the context within which the giving of the second name could only take place. After all, Phoenix was the only person who went twice to Scyros (in this context): the first time with Achilles’ army after Teuthrania and the second time as a member of the embassy (together with Odysseus), who recruited Neoptolemus from Scyros after the death of Achilles.

. The MH on the Story of Eurypylus: Some Observations by Analogy The D-scholia on the Odyssey (11.519–521) include a historia, according to which Eurypylus, the son of Astyoche and Telephus was ruling the Mysians. Priam, after finding out about Eurypylus’ strength (motif of ‘exclusive participation’), asked him to help the Trojans. When Eurypylus refused to do so because his father Telephus had promised that neither he nor his descendants would fight at the side of the Trojans (on which condition Achilles had healed the wound of Telephus), Priam bribed Astyoche by a golden vine,68 which had been made by Hephaestus and offered as present to Zeus, who gave it to Laomedon so that he would allow Zeus’ beloved Ganymedes to be sent to Olympus as a wine-pourer of the gods. From Laomedon it was passed on to his descendants until it

 68 The feature of the fatal vine is also present, though not as a bribing gift, in the story of Eurypylus’ father, Telephus. According to Σ (D) Il. 1.59, Telephus was caught up in a vine while trying to escape from the pursuit of Achilles in the Teuthranian expedition, because Dionysus was angry against him for not having received proper honor. In this light, Achilles, Telephus, and Eurypylus’ lives are linked in Trojan myth through Dionysus. This scholium is included in the Cypria only by Bernabé (fr. 20 PEG). See Aloni 2007, 87.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration reached Priam. Eurypylus was killed at Troy by Achilles’ son Neoptolemus,69 as a punishment for breaking his promise. This story, which is known to the Odyssey (11.521: γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων), is narrated by Acusilaus (fr. 40a EGM) and the Cycle (Σ Eur. Tr. 822 = ΙΙ 365 Schwartz; Eur. Or. 1391 = Ι 222 Schwartz; see also Σ Eur. Tr. 822 = ΙΙ 365 Schwartz), while others (Σ [D] Od. 11.521b) refer to another version, according to which Priam promised to give Eurypylus one of his daughters as wife, as he had done in the case of Othryoneus (Il. 13.365–369). The same scholium mentions even a third version, which stated that Priam bribed Eurypylus’ wife (how?) to convince her husband to fight on the side of the Trojans. The story of Eurypylus being unwilling to go to Troy is markedly reminiscent of the story of Achilles being unwilling, under the prophecy of his mother Thetis, to go to Troy. The same motif seems to have been used at least in one Sophoclean tragedy pertaining to the same subject-matter: in the Scyrians, Deidameia and Lycomedes attempted not to send Achilles to Troy (see Philostratus, Imagines 1a). Our information about **Eurypylus is so scant and problematic that it is better to refrain from making any judgement. In my view, there is one conclusion to be drawn: Eurypylus’ unwillingness to go to the war is strongly supported by the Odyssey, Acusilaus who is probably reflecting an epic tradition, Sophocles’ Scyrians (also **Eurypylus?),70 and the Σ Eur. Tr. 822 and Orestes 1391. All this information suggests that secondary factors, like the motif ‘unwillingness to go to war’ and the symmetrical presentation of the pairs of fathers and sons (Achilles-Telephus and Neoptolemus-Eurypylus) in the Trojan War myth as related by the Epic Cycle,71 should be also drawn into the wider picture of source mixing that I have described.

. Conclusion The results of my analysis concern both the multiple mythical versions pertaining to the relation between Achilles and Scyros, and the conflated Σ (D) Il. 19.326.

 69 The Tabulae Iliacae (Jahn nr. 63, see Valenzuela Montenegro 2004,110) include the defeat of Eurypylus by Neoptolemus, which is depicted in similar (and symmetrical terms with that of Memnon by Achilles). 70 In Sophocles’ Scyrians, Lycomedes and Deidameia (see Philostratus, Imagines 1b, 2f) wished to prevent him from going to Troy. There was a plan to send him to king Chalcodon, in Euboea. 71 On the pairs of fathers (Achilles-Telephus) and sons (Neoptolemus- Eurypylus) in Troy, see Cingano 2010, 86–88.

Conclusion  

With respect to the first issue, I believe that we can safely distinguish three different versions: (1) The version reflected in Il. 9.666–668 and supported by Σ Il. 9.668a-b (II 538 Erbse) presented Achilles sacking Scyros, looting it and distributing the spoils (slave women included) to his allies. He did not marry Deidameia, as in the Cypria, but had a sexual affair with her. The idea of subjugating the Dolopes,72 who had revolted from the rule of Peleus, is consonant with the fact that Peleus had made Phoenix rule the Dolopes, at the farthest ends of Phthia (Il. 9.484), while the mention of Enyeus (Il. 9.668) pertains to the naming of the city by means of its ancient oikistes.73 Presenting Achilles as a warrior who sacks cities points to a tradition independent from that having him hide at Scyros.74 The Iliad clearly feeds on this tradition not only by means of 9.668, but also by the motif of an ‘unmarried Achilles’. In Il. 9.284, 395–397, and 19.297–299 it is obvious that Achilles is not married; otherwise the possibility of a future marriage would be absurd.75 The Dolopes are mentioned in a fragment (183 S-M) by Pindar that has come down to us by means of Strabo (9.5.5).76 According to him, it was Phoenix, ‘who led a brave band of Dolopian slingers, who were to aid the javelins of the Danaans, tamers of horses᾽. This piece of information shows, as Strabo observes, that Phoenix took part in the expedition to Troy on the side of Achilles not only as his wise counsellor but also as commander of a contingent  72 Heslin (2005, 202–205), with whose interpretation I agree in general, does not examine the Dolopes version and, as a result, considers the Cypria version of forced landing at Scyros and the Iliadic one (9.668) pertaining to the sack of the island as one and the same. 73 See Marin 2008–2009, 223–224. 74 See Marin 2008–2009, 232–233. 75 Pace Kullmann 1960, 266. 76 Πρώτους δὴ καταλέγει τοὺς ὑπ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῖ τοὺς τὸ νότιον πλευρὸν κατέχοντας καὶ παρακειμένους τῇ τε Οἴτῃ καὶ τοῖς Ἐπικνημιδίοις Λοκροῖς «ὅσσοι τὸ Πελασγικὸν Ἄργος ἔναιον», «οἵ τ᾽ Ἄλον οἵ τ᾽ Ἀλόπην οἵ τε «Τρηχῖν᾽ ἐνέμοντο», «οἵ τ᾽ εἶχον Φθίην ἠδ᾽ Ἑλλάδα καλλιγύναικα», «Μυρμιδόνες δὲ καλεῦντο καὶ Ἕλληνες καὶ Ἀχαιοί». συζεύγνυσι δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ τῷ Φοίνικι καὶ κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν ποιεῖ τὸν στόλον. ὁ μὲν οὖν ποιητὴς οὐδαμοῦ μέμνηται Δολοπικῆς στρατιᾶς κατὰ τοὺς περὶ Ἴλιον ἀγῶνας· οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτῶν τὸν ἡγεμόνα Φοίνικα πεποίηκεν εἰς τοὺς κινδύνους ἐξιόντα, καθάπερ τὸν Νέστορα· ἄλλοι δ᾽ εἰρήκασι, καθάπερ καὶ Πίνδαρος μνησθεὶς τοῦ Φοίνικος «ὃς Δολόπων ἄγαγε θρασὺν ὅμιλον σφενδονᾶσαι, ἱπποδάμων Δαναῶν βέλεσι πρόσφορον». τοῦτο δὴ καὶ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον, ὡς εἰώθασι λέγειν οἱ γραμματικοί, συνυπακουστέον. γελοῖον γὰρ τὸ τὸν βασιλέα μετέχειν τῆς στρατείας, τοὺς δ᾽ ὑπηκόους μὴ παρεῖναι αὐτῷ· οὐδὲ γὰρ συστρατεύειν ἂν τῷ Ἀχιλλεῖ δόξειεν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐπιστάτης καὶ ῥήτωρ ἕπεσθαι, εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα, σύμβουλος. τὰ δ᾽ ἔπη βούλεται καὶ τοῦτο δηλοῦν· τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ «μύθων τε ῥητῆρ᾽ ἔμεναι πρηκτῆρά τε «ἔργων». It seems that the version of the Dolopes going to Troy must have been well-established before Pindar, and, if so, this would point to an earlier source. See also Leaf, 1900, 406 on Il. 9.484.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration of Dolopes, who fought on the side of the Myrmidons. Pindar’s lines must go back to a version in which Phoenix commanded the Dolopes at Troy, a version that may have been the same with that based on Iliad 9.666–668 and Σ Il. 9.668a-b (II 538 Erbse). Achilles may, during the time of the first recruitment in Aulis, have sailed (with Phoenix) and sacked Scyros, where the Dolopes had revolted from the rule of Peleus (and his sovereign Phoenix). The Homeric Iliad has retained from this epic version the idea of a sack of Scyros and the sexual affair with Deidameia (without a marriage), but erased the Dolopes, who are only mentioned as being under the rule of Phoenix in the remotest part of Phthia. (2) The version represented by the Cypria (arg. ll. 129–131 Severyns) and Ilias parva (fr. 24 PEG incerti operis [= fr. 4 EGF = fr. 4 GEF]) that is reported by Σ Il. 19.326a1–2 (IV 635–636 Erbse), presented Achilles landing on Scyros because of a storm after the abortive expedition to Teuthrania and the wounding of Telephus by Achilles.77 In my view, there is no problem with the same incident being mentioned twice, first in linear narrative progression (Cypria) and the second time in a flashback (Ilias parva).78 Repetitions of episodes may have occurred in the Epic Cycle, the more so since there are specific links between various epics. In particular, the subject matter of the Ilias parva was a fertile ground for this kind of association, since it ‘looked back’ both to certain events79 that began in the Cypria and remained dormant until they were continued in the Ilias parva (e.g.  77 See Griffin 1995, 145. 78 Differently Marin 2008–2009, 221, who argues that Σ (bT) Il. 19.326a1–2 (IV 635–636 Erbse) show direct knowledge only of the Ilias parva and not of the Cypria. She maintains (222) that Proclus’ reference to Achilles’ forced landing at Scyros has resulted from an interpolation from the relevant incident (fr. 24 incerti operis PEG [= fr. 4 EGF = fr. 4 GEF]) of the Ilias parva. In my view, this argumentation is flawed. It is not that the scholia bT do not directly know the content of the Cypria (but surprisingly know much better the less popular and much smaller Ilias parva), but simply that the episode of Achilles’ concealment in Scyros did not feature in the Cypria. Σ (bT) Il. 1.366a-b (I 108–1089 Erbse), which she adduces to support her argument, does not work, since it does not refer to the version of the Cypria (in which Chryseis was not held captive in Hypoplacian Thebes; see the summary of Proclus), but to that of the Iliad. In Σ (bT) Il. 1.366c (I 109 Erbse) the two versions are reported: the one, according to which Chryseis was arrested at Chrysa, and the second one in which she was caught at Hypoplacian Thebes, where she had gone to protect herself because that was a walled city (Σ [D] Il. 1.366 [45–46 van Thiel]). According to Σ (bT) Il. 1.366c (I 109 Erbse), Athena had informed Achilles that he would not be able to sack Chrysa because it was protected by Apollo. So, Achilles sacked Hypoplacian Thebes, where Chryseis had gone to stay with Eetion’s sister, Iphinoe. Seen form this angle, it can not be argued that the bT scholia demonstrate no direct knowledge of the Cypria. 79 See also the ὅπλων κρίσις, which featured both at the end of the Aethiopis (arg. ll. 202–203 Severyns) and the beginning of the Ilias parva (arg. ll. 208–210 Severyns).

Conclusion  

Philoctetes). It is this version that the Iliad is employing in 19.326–337 and 24.465–467, when it mentions Neoptolemus as a legitimate son of Achilles and dissociates Scyros from Peleus. A careful reading of the antiphonal laments for Patroclus by Briseis (19.287–300) and Achilles (19.315–337) shows that the ‘intervention of Patroclus’ is an autoschediasma of the Iliad that has to be interpreted within the lament context in which it is placed. In both dirges, the dead person is lamented by recourse to his particular connection to the mourner, i.e. by means of something he would have done for her (Briseis) and him (Achilles), if he survived the war. The fact that Patroclus would take Neoptolemus from Scyros to Phthia and show him his father’s possessions proves beyond any reasonable doubt both that he is his legitimate son and that Scyros is not connected to the realm of Peleus (otherwise this would have also been included in Achilles’ possessions).80 In this vein, this Iliadic passage (19.315–37)81 reflects a version that is independent from the Dolopes episode, a version according to which Achilles is married to Deidameia. (3) In the version reported by the Σ (D) Il. 19.326, the P.Berol. 13930 (MP3 1203), and the Σ (T) Il. 9.668b (II 538 Erbse) and Σ (T) Il. 19.326a1 (IV 635–636 Erbse), and some other sources (see Appendix 1), Achilles was sent by Thetis (or Peleus) to hide at Scyros in an attempt to avoid going to the war, in which he was destined to die. Dressed in women’s clothes he was revealed by an Achaean embassy, whose members vary in different versions with the exception of Odysseus. Finkelberg82 has convincingly argued that differences in narrative episodes between the summary of Proclus’ Cypria (arg. ll. 103–105 Severyns) and Herodotus (2.117)83 show that Herodotus and Proclus refer to different poems under the same title.84 In my view Herodotus is referring to different oral versions of the same tradition (meaning with the same thematic framework, agreeing in the course of the main plot with some differences in specific episodes but not with respect to the core of these episodes). Paris, in the example mentioned by Herodotus and Proclus sails to Troy with Helen (core of the episode which is attested in both versions). In Proclus he arrives after being driven by a storm to Sidon, which he sacks (detail), whereas in Herodotus he goes to Troy directly from Sparta in three days, enjoying a favorable wind and a calm sea (detail).

 80 See Kullmann 1960, 197. 81 See also Il. 24.465–467. 82 Finkelberg 2000, 6. 83 On Herodotus as a Homeric critic with detailed analysis of 2.117, see Currie 2021. 84 Proclus’ version is reflected in the Iliad (6.290–291), whereas Herodotus’ is not.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration That is why I think we should be talking about different versions of a single poetic tradition, i.e. about Cypria-versions.85 The Dolopes episode could well have existed in another version of the Cypria, in contrast to that of Achilles hiding in Scyros. The reason for this exclusion is that the latter is not martial and serious and was probably unknown not only to the Iliad, but also to the Epic Cycle as a whole. True, the motif of a hero being unwilling to go to the war (Amphiaraus, Odysseus) did feature in the Epic Cycle, but the real problem in Achilles’ case is the cross-dressing, not the hiding. In Greek epic, heroes can disguise themselves (Odysseus) to achieve a specific goal, military (Ilias parva) or personal (Odyssey), but never by changing their gender identity. In this light, I would be most compelled to argue that the episodes of the Dolopes and the forced landing on Scyros after Teuthrania reflect two different, oral Cypria-versions, which were both used by the Homeric Iliad, in contrast to the written Cypria that employed only the forced landing version. As to the origins of the hiding episode, we are really in the dark, though lyric poetry may be a reasonable, yet improvable, guess.86 As far as the conflated Σ (D) Il. 19.326 is concerned, I have argued that the MH (as reconstructed by the P.Berol. 13930 and Σ [D] Il. 19.326) stands at odds with the scholia vetera, which draw their material from the Cycle (Ilias parva) with respect to the episode of Achilles’ arrival at Scyros after the Teuthranian expedition. The MH lemma contains a historia conflated either by this unknown author and/or by his source. He may, after all, be simply using a Mittelquelle for this collective citation (scholium D), which specified the provenance only of the core of his historia, i.e. the birth of Neoptolemus.87

 85 See Finkelberg 2000, 8–9. Differently, Nagy 2001, 109–119. 86 See Bethe 19292, 238 n. 14: ‘Achill unter den Töchtern des Lykomedes stand nicht in den Kyprien. Woher die allerliebste naïve Geschichte stammt, weiss ich nicht sagen; Ich vermute aus der Lyrik’; Pfeiffer 1933, 5: ‘Sie (sc. die Geschichte) scheint dem Epos völlig fremd gewesen zu sein, aber wo und wie sie in der lyrischen Zeit auftauchte, ist einstweilen völlig dunkel’; Heslin (2005, 14 and 18) speaks of a local tradition that acquired wider authority after Cimon’s conquest of Scyros. 87 See Cebrián 2007, 215 for an analogous example with respect to Il. 1.59.

Appendix 1  

. Appendix 1 Iliad

Cypria

Ilias parva

[contra Dolopes]

[tempestatis causa]

[tempestatis causa]

(Σ T ad I 668b)

(Proclus)

(Σ Tb ad T 326)

post Teuthrania MH

νεώτεροι/τινες

παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς

P.Berol. 13930

(Σ [Τ] I 668b/Σ [T] T 326a )

(Σ [D] ad T 326)

[a Peleo missus]

[a Thetide missus]

[a Peleo missus]

1

OΔΥΣΣEΥΣ/ΔIOΜHΔHΣ

?

OΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ/ΝΕΣΤΩΡ/ΦΟΙΝΙΞ

ante Teuthraniam

Apollodorus

Euripides

Philostratus Junior

Bibl. 3.13.8

Scyrians

Imagines 1b, 2

[a Thetide missus]

[a Thetide missus]

[a Thetide missus]

OΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ

OΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ/ΔIOΜHΔHΣ/

OΔΥΣΣΕΥΣ/ΔIOΜHΔHΣ

ΝΕΣΤΩΡ Fig. 1: Achilles in Scyros.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration

. Appendix 2 Tab. 1: Achilles, Neoptolemus, and Scyros.

Ach. hides at Scyros

Iliad

Achaeans Ach. arrives recruit Ach. at and sacks from Phthia Scyros after Teuthrania .– & .– 

Neopt. kills Telephus’ son Eurypylus

.– 

.– 

.

.

TrGF (,) – (Thetis)

Scholia vetera .b (Iliad)

D scholium

Il. .; . (Thetis); . (Peleus)

Apollodorus, Bibl.

.. (Thetis)

.a+b

. (T) [IV  Erbse]; . (b) = [IV  Erbse]

Apollodorus, Epit. Cypria arg. ll. –  Severyns

Proclus

Ilias parva fr. incerti operis, p.  PEG = fr.A EGF = fr. GEF Ptol. Chenn.

Achaeans recruit Neopt. from Scyros

.; ., 

Odyssey Euripides, Scyrioi

Neopt. grows up in Scyros

apud Phot.

Ilias parva arg. ll. – Severyns

Appendix 2  

Ach. hides at Scyros

Achaeans Ach. arrives recruit Ach. at and sacks from Phthia Scyros after Teuthrania

Neopt. grows up in Scyros

Achaeans recruit Neopt. from Scyros

Neopt. kills Telephus’ son Eurypylus

Bibl. p. a  (III ,  Henry = p. ,  (Chatzis) = Arist. Tar. FGrHist  F  Hyg. Fab.

 (Thetis)

Σ (D) Il. .

Apollod. Bibl. ..

ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα ἱστορία ἔχει οὕτως· Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἑλένην ἁρπάσαντος Ἀγαμέμνων καὶ Μενέλαος τοὺς Ἕλληνας κατὰ τῶν Τρώων ἐστρατολόγησαν. Πηλεὺς δὲ προγινώσκων ὅτι μοιρίδιον ἦν ἐν Τροίᾳ, θανεῖν Ἀχιλλέα, παραγενόμενος εἰς Σκῦρον πρὸς Λυκομήδην τὸν βασιλέα παρέθετο τὸν Ἀχιλλέα. ὁ δὲ γυναικείαν ἐσθῆτα ἀμφιάσας αὐτὸν ὡς κόρην ἀνέτρεφε μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων. χρησμοῦ δὲ δοθέντος μὴ ἁλώσεσθαι τὴν Ἴλιον χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως, ἐπέμφθησαν ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων πρὸς Πηλέα Ὀδυσσεύς, Φοῖνιξ καὶ Νέστωρ. τοῦ δὲ Πηλέως ἀρνουμένου παρ’ αὐτῷ παῖδα μὴ τυγχάνειν, πορευθέντες εἰς Σκῦρον καὶ ὑπονοήσαντες μετὰ τῶν παρθένων τὸν Ἀχιλλέα τρέφεσθαι, ταῖς Ὀδυσσέως ὑποθήκαις ὅπλα καὶ ταλάρους ἔρριψαν σὺν ἱστουργικοῖς ἐργαλείοις ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ παρθενῶνος. αἱ μὲν οὖν κόραι ἐπὶ τοὺς ταλάρους ὥρμησαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ὁ δ’ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀνελόμενος τὰ ὅπλα κατάφωρος γέγονε καὶ συνεστρατεύσατο. πρότερον δὲ ταῖς παρθένοις συνδιατρίβων ἔφθειρε Δηϊδάμειαν τὴν Λυκομήδους, ἥτις ἐξ αὐτοῦ

ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἐνναέτης Ἀχιλλεύς, Κάλχαντος λέγοντος οὐ δύνασθαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ Τροίαν αἱρεθῆναι, Θέτις προειδυῖα ὅτι δεῖ στρατευόμενον αὐτὸν ἀπολέσθαι, κρύψασα ἐσθῆτι γυναικείᾳ ὡς παρθένον Λυκομήδει παρέθετο. κἀκεῖ τρεφόμενος τῇ Λυκομήδους θυγατρὶ Δηιδαμείᾳ μίγνυται, καὶ γίνεται παῖς Πύρρος αὐτῷ ὁ κληθεὶς Νεοπτόλεμος αὖθις. Ὀδυσσεὺς δὲ μηνυθέντα παρὰ Λυκομήδει ζητῶν Ἀχιλλέα, σάλπιγγι χρησάμενος εὗρε. καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἰς Τροίαν ἦλθε. συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ Φοῖνιξ ὁ Ἀμύντορος.

  Cypria fr. 19 (PEG, GEF): A Reconsideration

Σ (D) Il. .

Apollod. Bibl. ..

ἐγέννησε Πύρρον τὸν ὕστερον Νεοπτόλεμον κληθέντα, ὅστις τοῖς Ἕλλησι νέος ὢν συνεστρατεύσατο μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ πατρός. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς. Σ (D) Il. .

Apollod. Bibl. ..

. Πηλεὺς δὲ προγινώσκων ὅτι μοιρίδιον ἦν Θέτις προειδυῖα ὅτι δεῖ στρατευόμενον αὐτὸν ἐν Τροίᾳ, θανεῖν Ἀχιλλέα, ἀπολέσθαι . παραγενόμενος εἰς Σκῦρον πρὸς Λυκοκρύψασα ἐσθῆτι γυναικείᾳ ὡς παρθένον Λυκομήδην τὸν βασιλέα παρέθετο τὸν Ἀχιλλέα. ὁ μήδει παρέθετο δὲ γυναικείαν ἐσθῆτα ἀμφιάσας αὐτὸν ὡς κόρην ἀνέτρεφε μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων. . χρησμοῦ δὲ δοθέντος μὴ ἁλώσεσθαι τὴν Ἴλιον χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως

Κάλχαντος λέγοντος οὐ δύνασθαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ Τροίαν αἱρεθῆναι

. ἐπέμφθησαν ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων πρὸς Πηλέα Ὀδυσσεύς, Φοῖνιξ καὶ Νέστωρ. τοῦ δὲ Πηλέως ἀρνουμένου παρ’ αὐτῷ παῖδα μὴ τυγχάνειν, πορευθέντες εἰς Σκῦρον καὶ ὑπονοήσαντες μετὰ τῶν παρθένων τὸν Ἀχιλλέα τρέφεσθαι

Ὀδυσσεὺς δὲ μηνυθέντα παρὰ Λυκομήδει ζητῶν Ἀχιλλέα

. ταῖς Ὀδυσσέως ὑποθήκαις ὅπλα καὶ ταλάρους ἔρριψαν σὺν ἱστουργικοῖς ἐργαλείοις ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ παρθενῶνος. αἱ μὲν οὖν κόραι ἐπὶ τοὺς ταλάρους ὥρμησαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ὁ δ’ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀνελόμενος τὰ ὅπλα κατάφωρος γέγονε καὶ συνεστρατεύσατο.

Ὀδυσσεὺς δὲ σάλπιγγι χρησάμενος εὗρε. καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἰς Τροίαν ἦλθε.

. πρότερον δὲ ταῖς παρθένοις συνδιατρίβων ἔφθειρε Δηϊδάμειαν τὴν Λυκομήδους, ἥτις ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐγέννησε Πύρρον τὸν ὕστερον Νεοπτόλεμον κληθέντα

κἀκεῖ τρεφόμενος τῇ Λυκομήδους θυγατρὶ Δηιδαμείᾳ μίγνυται, καὶ γίνεται παῖς Πύρρος αὐτῷ ὁ κληθεὶς Νεοπτόλεμος

Appendix 3  

. Appendix 3 Tab. 2: Similarities in Diction and Theme between the P.Berol. 13930 (MP3 1203) and the Σ (D) Il. 19.326. P.Berol.  (MP )

Σ (D) Il. .

ἐξέπεσε χρησμὸς χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως Ἴλιον μὴ πολεμοῦν ἐξέπεμψαν πρὸς Πηλέα κρυφθείσης…τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ Σκῦρον παρεγένοντο ὑπονοήσας δὲ Ὀδυσσεὺς ... ὅπλα

χρησμοῦ δοθέντος χωρὶς Ἀχιλλέως μὴ ἁλώσεσθαι Ἴλιον ἐπέμφθησαν ... πρὸς Πηλέα τοῦ δὲ Πηλέως ἀρνουμένου πορευθέντες εἰς Σκῦρον ὑπονοήσαντες ... ταῖς Ὀδυσσέως ὑποθήκαις ὅπλα

 Telegony The Telegony (Τηλεγονία or Τηλεγόνεια)1 by Eugammon of Cyrene in two books brings the Epic Cycle to an end. Our knowledge of its content is largely, but not solely, based on the summary of Proclus,2 with Apollodorus3 offering some supplementary information that should be treated with caution.4 The Telegony poses various problems for anyone wishing to reconstruct its plot, the more so since the three principal critical editions available significantly differ with respect to the number of fragments they ascribe to the actual poem.5 Having said this, I will offer my own classification of the relevant fragments and discuss them in due course.

. Plot After the burial of the suitors by their relatives, Odysseus sacrifices to the Nymphs and sails off to Εlis to inspect his oxen-stables there.6 Polyxenus, who supervises his stables, offers him hospitality and gives him a bowl as a gift. The epic must have departed on a digression at this point, featuring an extended ekphrasis with respect to the story of Trophonius, Agamedes, and Augeas. After the completion of his inspection, Odysseus sails back to Ithaca and carries out the sacrifices Tiresias had told him to perform. He then travels to the land of the Thesprotians. After marrying Callidice, queen of the Thesprotians, Odysseus  1 The former spelling (Τηλεγονία) is given by Proclus, while the latter (Τηλεγόνεια) by Herodianus (from Choeroboscus), Gramm. Gr. iii.1.249.9, iii.2.451.20 Lentz and Eust. on Od. 16.118 (II 117 Stallbaum), who explains (on Il. 10 praef. [785.21]) this divergence in the following manner: προπαροξύνονται δὲ καὶ ἄμφω αἱ τοιαῦται λέξεις [sc. Δολώνεια, Πατρόκλεια] ὥσπερ καὶ Τηλεγόνεια κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν ὀρθογραφίαν ἡ κατὰ Τηλέγονον πραγματεία, καὶ ῾Ηράκλεια ἡ κατὰ ῾Ηρακλέα (‘both such words are accented on the antepenultimate syllable [sc. Dolonea, Patroclea], as is the case with the Telegonea, the treatment of the myth of Telegonus, according to the old spelling, and Heraclea, the treatment of the story of Heracles’). The spelling in –ία seems to be the correct one, despite a considerable number of variants in -εια; see West 2013, 288. 2 Arg. ll. 306–330 Severyns. 3 Epit. 7.34–38. 4 On the reservations and limitations concerning the use of Apollodorus’ mythographical collection, see the pertinent remarks by Davies 1989, 7. 5 PEG, EGF, GEF. 6 The reconstruction of the plot follows closely (with some additions, mainly but not solely from Apollodorus’ Epitome) Proclus’ summary. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-015

The Question of Authorship  

becomes king and decides to stay there. He has a son with her, whose name is Polypoites. When a war breaks out between the Thesprotians and the Brygoi, he leads the Thesprotian army but fails to defeat the enemy. Ares and Athena support the Brygoi and the Thesprotians respectively, but it is Apollo who brings the war to an end by calling for a truce. After Callidice’s death, Odysseus gives the throne to Polypoites and returns to Ithaca. Upon his arrival, he finds out that he has another son born to him by Penelope, Ptoliporthes/Arcesilaus. It is at this point that Telegonus, who has been told by his mother Circe that he is the son of Odysseus, arrives at Ithaca in search of his father and ravages the island. Odysseus tries to avert the danger but is killed by the ignorant Telegonus, who uses as a weapon a spear barbed with the spine of a stingray. When he realizes that he has killed his own father,7 Telegonus laments and brings the body of Odysseus together with Telemachus and Penelope to Aeaea, Circe’s island. Then, Telegonus is married to Penelope and Telemachus to Circe, who makes them immortal.

. The Question of Authorship The attribution of the Telegony to Eugammon of Cyrene is based on Proclus,8 Eusebius,9 Syncellus,10 and Clement.11 Eustathius12 refers to an anonymous poet from Cyrene, while Cinaethon’s authorship is supported by a single reference of Eusebius.  7 For the motif ‘son kills his father without knowing his identity’, see Potter 1902. 8 Procl. Chrestom.: μετὰ ταῦτά ἐστι ῾Ομήρου ᾿Οδύσσεια· ἔπειτα Τηλεγονίας βιβλία δύο Εὐγάμμωνος Κυρηναίου περιέχοντα τάδε (‘after this [sc. Nostoi] comes Homer’s Odyssey, and then the two books of the Telegony by Eugammon of Cyrene, with the following content, etc.’). 9 Euseb. (Hieron.) Chron. Ol. 56.2 year 555 BC p. 102B 1 Helm (cf. eundem (Armen.) Chron. Ol. 53.2 year 567 BC p. 188 Karst: Eugamon Cyrenaeus, qui Telegoniam fecit, agnoscitur (‘Eugamon the Cyrenean, who composed the Telegony, is recognized’). 10 Syncelli Eclog. Chronogr. 454 sine anno (p. 286 Mosshammer): Εὐγάμων Κυρηναῖος ὁ τὴν Τηλεγονίαν ποιήσας ἐγνωρίζετο (‘Eugamon the Cyrenean, who composed the Telegony, is recognized’). 11 Clem. Alexandr. Stromat. 6.25.1 (2.442 Stählin) = Euseb. Praep. Evang. 10.2.7 (1.559 Mras): αὐτοτελῶς γὰρ τὰ ἑτέρων ὑφελόμενοι ὡς ἴδια ἐξήνεγκαν, καθάπερ Εὐγάμμων [Dindorf: Εὐγάμων Clem., Εὐγράμμων Euseb.] ὁ Κυρηναῖος ἐκ Μουσαίου [VS 2 B6] τὸ περὶ Θεσπρωτῶν βιβλίον ὁλόκληρον (‘by their own initiative [the Greeks] have stolen other people’s works and brought them out as their own; as Eugammon [Dindorf: Εὐγάμων Clem., Εὐγράμμων Euseb.] of Cyrene stole from Musaeus his entire Book about the Thesprotians’). 12 Eust. on Od. 16.118 (II 117 Stallbaum): ὁ τὴν Τηλεγόνειαν γράψας Κυρηναῖος (‘the Cyrenean who wrote the Telegony’).

  Telegony With the notable exception of Wilamowitz, most modern editors consider Eugammon to be the author of the Telegony. The almost unanimous agreement of ancient testimonia on his authorship seems to turn the scales against Cinaethon from Lacedaemon, whose false authorship has been explained through an elaborate argument by Hartmann (see below).13 Although Eusebius (via Hieronymus) is notorious for confusing authors of the Cyclic epics (Arctinus and Eumelus being the best-known example), misattribution may in this case be very instructive with respect to the shaping of the Telegony. Ιt is generally agreed that we are not dealing with a change of Genealogias into Telegoniam in Eusebius’ (via Hieronymus) text,14 but with a reflex of the complex process through which the Telegony of Eugammon came into being. The attribution of the Telegony to Eugammon of Cyrene or a Cyrenean poet or redactor is based on the following argument and reflects the effort to associate one of the ancestors of the Cyrenaean dynasty with Odysseus.15 The first wave of immigrants from Greece must have arrived in Libya at some point in the late second millennium BC. These settlers, who came from the Peloponnese and must have departed from Cape Taenarum, had already been mingled with other Thessalian immigrants in the Peloponnese and brought with them traditions about Euphemus, their mythical leader.16 When, after 631 BC, a new wave of Dorian settlers from Thera came to Libya, their leader Aristoteles who founded Cyrene decided to be named after the Libyan title Βάττος. It is at this point that the new dynasty in its search for links with the past tried to associate itself not only with Odysseus, the archetypical traveller who in the Odyssey refers to a journey to Libya,17 but also with Euphemus, the mythical leader of the first colonization.18 The introduction of Arcesilaus as Odysseus’ son from Penelope (next to Telemachus) in the Telegony indicates both a Cyrenaean interest and a Spartan element: the arrival of new settlers after 570 BC coincides with the reign

 13 Hartmann 1917, 78–86. 14 See Rzach RE s.v. ‘Kinaithon’, cols. 462–463. Differently, West 2013, 32, 38. 15 See Rzach RE s.v. ‘Kyklos’, col. 2431; West 2013, 38–39. 16 On the relations between Thessaly, pre-Doric Peloponnese, Crete, and Libya, see Malten 1911, 126–142. 17 On the association between the Odyssey and Libya, see Debiasi (2004, 260), who draws attention to certain place names with clear Odyssean coloring (see EM s.v. ‘Κύκλωπες’; Hdt. 4.177 [Lotus-Eaters]; [Scyl.] 110 [Lotus-Eaters]). He also argues, on the basis of the Hyrieus version of the tale of Trophonius and Agamedes (Paus. 9.35.5–7) and Hyrieus being ‘un eponimo di un centro collegato all’Eubea’, that Euboea was the ‘bridge’ through which Odyssean features were brought to Cyrene. See also Vürtheim 1901, 22–41. 18 Ιn Hdt. 4.150 Aristoteles-Battus is called Εὐφημίδης τὸ γένος. See Malten 1911, 151.

The Question of Authorship  

of Battus II whose real name was Arcesilas and Odysseus’ son Arcesilaus was linked through his mother’s side to Sparta, since her father Icarius was settled there. Another link to Sparta may be seen in the tradition presenting Euphemus as son of Poseidon and Mecionice, daughter of Eurotas19 as well as the association of Telemachus with Thera20 and of a certain Taenarus as son of Icarius.21 In fact, there is also information concerning a Spartan instead of a Theran colonization of Cyrene22 and — along the same lines — specific references to Battus as a Spartan.23 The Peloponnesian settlers the Therans found in Cyrene upon their arrival in 631 BC considered Euphemus their mythical leader and had no place in their myths for Icarius and Penelope. In this vein, it is not unthinkable that, when genealogical material strengthening or suggesting a Spartan connection was brought into the picture, Cinaethon, who was famous for composing genealogies, started becoming associated with a developing tradition aiming at a fusion of Spartan, Cyrenean, and local elements. In tandem with this, it is possible that the misattribution of the Telegony to the Lacedaemonian Cinaethon is a distant echo of the complex situation described above. In other words, it is the Spartan influence that we should trace behind Cinaethon instead of looking for a real poet. Although the same may be the case with Eugammon, i.e. Cyrenean elements may explain the attribution to a Cyrenaean poet, the fact that we do not know him independently from the Telegony is an argument ex silentio against the falsification of the attribution. Other features have played their role too: the Schauplatz tale of Trophonius, Agamedes, and Augeas with its Egyptian coloring and Peloponnesian background,24 as well as the insertion of Telegonus, half-brother of Arcesilaus, into the Inachid genealogy (as a king of Egypt who

 19 See [Hes.] ME fr. 53 M-W. 20 In Σ Pind. Ol. 2.82: Telemachus is called Thera’s uncle. 21 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ταίναρος (Billerbeck and Neumann-Hartmann): ‘ [is a] city, [named] after Taenarus, brother of Geraestus, son of Zeus. After sailing together with his brother Calabrus and taking possession of some area in the Peloponnese, he founded a sanctuary of Poseidon, which is called . Taenarus is also the name of Icarius’ son after whom the city is named and the citadel and the port.’ 22 Isocr. Phil. 5: ‘such as the place the Lacedaemonians have settled the Cyrenaeans’; Josephus, bellum Judaicum 2.16.4: ‘neither the Cyreneans, the Laconian race’. 23 Amm. Marc. 22.16.4: ‘Cyrene is situated at the Libyan Pentapolis. It is an ancient but deserted city, which the Spartan Battus has founded’; Solin. 27, 125.10 (Mommsen, 2nd edn): ‘greater Syrtis exhibits a city they call Cyrene, which Battius [sic] the Lacedaemonian founded in the fourty-fifth Olympiad’. 24 See Huxley (1969, 171), who stresses the ample importation of Laconian pottery to Cyrene during the lifetime of Eugammon and of a shard on which Trophonius has been identified.

  Telegony married Io25 or as a son of Epaphus and brother of Libye)26 strongly indicate that the author of the Telegony must be Eugammon or an unknown Cyrenaean poet or redactor.27 This line of argument is much more convincing than the aetiological explanation of the name Euga(m)mon through the Doppelheirat at the epic’s end, since it explains sufficiently how the confusion between Euga(m)mon and Cinaethon may have originated.

. Date of Composition The Telegony was probably composed in the sixth century, with 570 BC operating as a terminus ante quem. This chronology rests on the following grounds: a. A Cyrenaean poet records that one of Odysseus’ sons was Arcesilaus. This name is irrelevant to the poetic tradition of the Telegony, unless it is associated with the Cyrenaean kings Arcesilaus I and II who ruled in the sixth century.28 b. Eusebius dates Eugammon in the fifty-third Olympiad (568–564 BC). c. In 570 BC king Arcesilaus II enlisted new settlers from various Greek cities, brought them to Cyrene, and was then able to defeat Pharaoh Apries in the battle of Irasa.29 Given (a) and (b), it is not unthinkable that the arrival of new, Peloponnesian colonists may have functioned as a catalyst for the creation of an epic poem aiming at associating the Cyrenaean Arcesilaus with Odysseus’ family through Sparta, where Penelope’s father came from (see above).30

 25 Apollod. Bibl. 2.9. 26 Σ Eur. Or. 932. 27 See West 1985, 88–89. In his commentary on the Trojan epics of the Cycle (2013, 289), he has suggested that the name Εὐγάμμων may be ‘the Hellenized form of a non-Greek name containing Ammon, who as Zeus Ammon was a principal god of Cyrene’. 28 Hdt. 4.159–160. 29 On Cyrene and Egypt during this period, see Malten 1911, 270. 30 See Hartmann 1917, 83–84; RE s.v. ‘Kyklos’, col. 2431.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

. Commentary on Selected Fragments Fr. 1∗ (a) = fr. 2 PEG, from Σ Aristoph. Nu. 508a = Charax FGrHist 103F 5; (b) from Paus. 9.37.5–731 (a) οὕτως ὁ Χάραξ ἐν τῷ δ´· ᾿Αγαμήδης ἄρχων Στυμφήλου τῆς ᾿Αρκαδίας ἐγάμει ᾿Επικάστην, ἧς παῖς ἦν Τροφώνιος σκότιος. οὗτοι τοὺς τότε πάντας ὑπερεβάλλοντο εὐτεχνίᾳ, τόν τε ἐν Δελφοῖς ναὸν ἠργολάβησαν, ἐν ῎Ηλιδι ταμιεῖον χρυσοῦν κατεσκεύασαν Αὐγείᾳ· ᾧ καταλείψαντες ἁρμὸν λίθινον, νυκτὸς εἰσιόντες ἔκλεπτον τῶν χρημάτων ἅμα Κερκυόνι, ὃς γνήσιος ᾿Αγαμήδους καὶ ᾿Επικάστης υἱός. ὡς δὲ ἠπόρει λίαν Αὐγείας, ἐπιδημήσαντα Δαίδαλον διὰ Μίνωος ἐλιτάνευσεν ἐξιχνεῦσαι τὸν φῶρα. ὁ δὲ παγίδας ἔστησεν, αἷς περιπεσὼν ᾿Αγαμήδης ἀναιρεῖται. Τροφώνιος δὲ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ τεμὼν πρὸς τὸ μὴ γνωρισθῆναι, ἅμα Κερκυόνι φεύγει εἰς ᾿Ορχομενόν. Αὐγείου δὲ κατὰ κέλευσιν Δαιδάλου πρὸς τὴν τῶν αἱμάτων ἔκχυσιν (πρὸς τὴν τῶν χρημάτων ἔκδοσιν [Vürtheim]) ἐπιδιώκοντος, καταφεύγουσιν ὁ μὲν Κερκυὼν εἰς ᾿Αθήνας· — Καλλίμαχος (fr. 204 Pf.: ὅς ῥ᾽ ἔφυγεν μὲν | Ἀρκαδίην, ἡμῖν δὲ κακὸς παρενάσσατο γείτων) —, ὁ δὲ Τροφώνιος ᾿Εργίνου εἰς Λεβάδειαν τῆς Βοιωτίας φεύγει· οὗ κατωρυχὴν ποιησάμενος οἰκήσας διετέλει. τελευτήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ μαντεῖον ἀτρεκὲς ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς καὶ θύουσιν αὐτῷ ὡς θεῷ. περιέλιπε δὲ υἱὸν ῎Αλκανδρον. (a) Thus Harax in Book 4. Agamedes, lord of Stymphalus in Arcadia, married Epicaste, whose bastard son was Trophonius. These men surpassed all others of their time in craftsmanship. They undertook by contract the construction of the temple at Delphi and built the golden treasury for Augeas in Elis. After leaving open a made-of-stone joint, they entered at night and started stealing the treasures together with Cercyon, who was the legitimate son of Agamedes and Epicaste. Since Augeas was at a great loss, he begged Daedalus who had come to him after fleeing from Minos to trace the thief. He then set traps, in which Agamedes fell and died. Trophonius cut his head so that he is not recognized and together with Cercyon fled to Orchomenus. While Augeas started chasing them, in accordance with Daedalus’ advice with respect to the shedding of blood (with respect to returning the treasures [Vürtheim]), Cercyon found refuge in Athens — Callimachus (fr. 204 Pf.: ‘who fled | to Arcadia and took up residence next to us, an evil neighbour’) —, and Trophonius son of Erginus in Lebadea in Boeotia. At this place he dug a cavern and made it his home. After his death, an oracle that speaks the truth appeared to them and they offer sacrifices to him (Trophonius) as to a god. He left a son, Alcandrus.32 (b) λαβόντι δὲ γυναῖκα αὐτῷ νέαν κατὰ τὸ μάντευμα Τροφώνιος γίνεται καὶ ᾿Αγαμήδης. λέγεται δὲ ὁ Τροφώνιος ᾿Απόλλωνος εἶναι καὶ οὐκ ᾿Εργίνου· καὶ ἐγώ τε πείθομαι καὶ ὅστις παρὰ Τροφώνιον ἦλθε ἤδη μαντευσόμενος. τούτους φασίν, ὡς ηὐξήθησαν, γενέσθαι δεινοὺς θεοῖς τε ἱερὰ κατασκευάσασθαι καὶ βασίλεια ἀνθρώποις· καὶ γὰρ τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι τὸν ναὸν ᾠκοδόμησαν τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖς καὶ ῾Υριεῖ τὸν θησαυρόν. ἐποίησαν δὲ ἐνταῦθα τῶν λίθων ἕνα εἶναί σφισιν ἀφαιρεῖν κατὰ τὸ ἐκτός· καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀεί τι ἀπὸ τῶν τιθεμένων ἐλάμβανον· ῾Υριεὺς δὲ εἴχετο ἀφασίᾳ, κλεῖς μὲν καὶ σημεῖα τὰ ἄλλα ὁρῶν ἀκίνητα, τὸν δὲ ἀριθμὸν ἀεὶ  31 An asterisk is attached to a fragment number of uncertain attribution. 32 All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated.

  Telegony τῶν χρημάτων ἐλάττονα. ἵστησιν οὖν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀγγείων, ἐν οἷς ὅ τε ἄργυρος ἐνῆν καὶ ὁ χρυσός οἱ, πάγας ἤ τι καὶ ἄλλο ὃ τὸν ἐσελθόντα καὶ ἁπτόμενον τῶν χρημάτων καθέξειν ἔμελλεν. ἐσελθόντος τοῦ ᾿Αγαμήδους τὸν μὲν ὁ δεσμὸς κατεῖχε, Τροφώνιος δὲ ἀπέτεμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν κεφαλήν, ὅπως μὴ ἡμέρας ἐπισχούσης ἐκεῖνος γένοιτο ἐν αἰκίαις καὶ αὐτὸς μηνυθείη μετέχων τοῦ τολμήματος. καὶ Τροφώνιον μὲν ἐνταῦθα ἐδέξατο ἡ γῆ διαστᾶσα, ἔνθα ἐστὶν τῷ ἄλσει τῷ ἐν Λεβαδείᾳ βόθρος τε ᾿Αγαμήδους καλούμενος καὶ πρὸς αὐτῷ στήλη. (b) Obeying the oracle he took to himself a young wife, and had children, Trophonius and Agamedes. Trophonius is said to have been a son of Apollo, not of Erginus. This I am inclined to believe, as does everyone who has gone to Trophonius to inquire of his oracle. They say that these, when they grew up, proved clever at building sanctuaries for the gods and palaces of men. For they built the temple for Apollo at Delphi and the sanctuary of Hyrieus. One of the stones in it they made so that they could take it away from the outside. So they kept on removing something from the store. Hyrieus was dumbfounded when he saw keys and seals untampered with, while the treasure kept on getting less. So he set over the vessels, in which were his silver and gold, snares or other contrivance, to arrest any who should enter and lay hands on the treasure. Agamedes entered and was kept fast to the trap, but Trophonius cut off his head, lest when day came his brother should be tortured, and he himself be informed of as being concerned in the crime. The earth opened and swallowed up Trophonius at the point in the grove at Lebadea where is what is called the pit of Agamedes, with a slab beside it.33

Only through a combination of the two versions of the story of Trophonius and Agamedes can we reasonably guess about the content of the ekphrasis on the bowl offered by Polyxenus to Odysseus,34 for the former story contains some ‘late and rationalizing elements’35 that can be easily omitted without damaging the tale’s kernel,36 while the latter does not include Augeas (who clearly belongs to the version offered by the Telegony). If we omit Cercyon and Daedalus on the one hand, and Hyrieus on the other, then we can safely reconstruct the content of the ekphrasis narrated in Odysseus’ Elis journey in the Telegony. Comparison with the Rhampsinitus story in Hdt. 2.121 shows that only the first part of the Greek version, that is the deceit–theft–punishment triad, bears striking similarities to its Egyptian counterpart. Since the story of Trophonius, Agamedes, and Augeas that featured in the Telegony ends with the foundation of Trophonius’ oracle in Lebadea, it must have been shaped only after the rise of the hero cult

 33 Translation by W.H.S. Jones (Loeb Classical Library). 34 Tel. arg. lines 310–312 Severyns: ‘and is entertained as a guest by Polyxenus and receives a bowl, and on it [is depicted] the story concerning Trophonius and Agamedes and Augeas’. 35 Davies 1989, 86. 36 Hartmann 1917, 66.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

under the influence of epic poetry.37 Its marked difference from another version of the Trophonius and Agamedes tale related by Pindar is very instructive.38 Agamedes and Trophonius after completing the construction of Apollo’s temple at Delphi asked for their wages from the god, who replied that they would receive their payment on the seventh day until which they could enjoy themselves in feasting. The two skilled architects followed the god’s advice, but on the seventh night and after going to sleep they died peacefully. The former version that functions as an aetiology for the foundation of the oracle of Trophonius in Boeotia is slightly later than the one ending with the death of Trophonius and Agamedes in Delphi and reflects two rival traditions between these major cult sites. In tandem with the Peloponnesian and Cyrenaean backgrounds of the Telegony, it is not unthinkable that the deceit–theft–punishment version of the Trophonius and Agamedes myth was transferred by Peloponnesian colonists from Greece to Cyrene; it was later transferred to Egypt, where it was enriched and expanded with certain Egyptian features, like the sealing of the doors39 and the prostitution of the king’s daughter (that Herodotus tellingly refuses to accept).40 Augeas may have been introduced in the story by Eugammon himself, since his wealth was both enormous and well known and, most evocatively, he could function as a bridge to the episode of Polyxenus, who was his grandson.41 Charax had taken the story from Eugammon or a plot summary and had added some further elements, like Cercyon and Daedalus. Pausanias’ version with its clear Boeotian coloring had no place for Augeas, since it had been shaped by the influence of the foundation of Trophonius’ oracle in Lebadea in Boeotia and did not aim at creating a link with Odysseus. What was the point of this long ekphrasis? Given that (a) like Augeas, Odysseus punished the suitors who were destroying his household, and (b) Augeas lived a long happy life honored by his people, Polyxenus’ offering of the mixingbowl to Odysseus would have functioned as a gesture expressing his wish that

 37 See Burkert 1985, 205. 38 See Pind. Paean 8 = 52i (100–111) and Plut. consol. Apoll. 109a; also Luc. Dial. mort. 10. 39 See Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella 2007, 327 on Hdt. 2.121. Hartmann thinks that the shaving of the guards’ beards is an Egyptian feature but he is likely to be mistaken. In fact, this detail is an argument ex silentio that the guards may have been foreign mercenaries in Egypt, for growing a beard was a very rare phenomenon in Egypt after the New Kingdom; see Kees 1933, 90 n. 8; Asheri, Lloyd, and Corcella 2007, 263 on Hdt. 2.36. On the Rhampsinitus story in Herodotus, see S. West 2007, 322–327. 40 See Hartmann 1917, 69. 41 Il. 2.623–624.

  Telegony his guest will also, in the manner of Augeas, live in happiness.42 Since the punishment of the suitors had already taken place, the story of Trophonius and Agamedes would have functioned as an introduction to the basic theme of the entire Telegony, the post-Odyssean future of Odysseus.43

Fr. 2 = fr. 1 EGF = fr. 3 GEF, from Pausanias 8.12.5 ... καὶ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ γῆς χῶμα ὑψηλόν· Πηνελόπης δὲ εἶναι τάφον φασίν, οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντες τὰ ἐς αὐτὴν ποιήσει Θεσπρωτίδι ὀνομαζομένῃ. ἐν ταύτῃ μέν γέ ἐστι τῇ ποιήσει ἐπανήκοντι ἐκ Τροίας ᾿Οδυσσεῖ τεκεῖν τὴν Πηνελόπην Πτολιπόρθην παῖδα. ... and on the right of the road is a high mound of earth. It is said to be the grave of Penelope, but the account of her in the poem called Thesprotis is not in agreement with this saying. For in it the poet says that, when Odysseus returned from Troy, Penelope bore to him a son, Ptoliporthes.

Pausanias goes on by saying that the Mantinean story, according to which Odysseus upon his return from Troy found Penelope responsible for bringing the suitors into the palace and exiled her, stands in contrast to a lost Thesprotis, in which Penelope bore to Odysseus upon his return from Troy a son, whose name was Ptoliporthes. This Thesprotis should not be taken as identical with an archaic epichoric tradition about Odysseus’ adventures in Thesprotia.44 It was, in all probability, a name for the first Book of the Telegony.45 Given that Ptoliporthes features as Odysseus’ son in Apollodorus (Epit. 7.35–36: καὶ εὑρίσκει ἐκ Πηνελόπης Πολιπόρθην αὐτῷ γεγεννημένον ‘and there he found Ptoliporthes, whom Penelope had borne to him’), without any specification of the source he is using, and that naming a son after a quality of his father46 was common epic practice,47 we can safely conclude that, despite Proclus’ silence on

 42 Differently West (2013, 294), who thinks that this story ‘has no perceptible relevance to Odysseus’. 43 See Tsagalis 2008, 80. 44 I am designating this tradition as *Thesprotis. 45 See Hartmann (1917, 59), who argued that the title Thesprotis may have been used for the entire poem in the manner of the Aethiopis, which designates a whole epic poem although it refers only to a part of it. See also West 2013, 288. 46 Πτολιπόρθης (‘sacker of cities’) recalls Odysseus’ designation as πτολίπορθος. 47 See Davies (1989, 89), who observes that Telemachus was named after his father’s fighting in a distant land and Neoptolemus after his father’s participation in the Trojan War.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

this issue, Odysseus had a second son from Penelope after his return to Ithaca, who was named Ptoliporthes.

Fr. 3 = fr. 3 PEG = fr. 2 EGF = fr. 4 GEF, from Eust. on Od. 16.118 (II 117 Stallbaum) ὁ δὲ τὴν Τηλεγονίαν γράψας Κυρηναῖος ἐκ μὲν Κίρκης [Muetzell: codd. Καλυψοῦς] Τηλέγονον υἱὸν ᾿Οδυσσεῖ ἀναγράφει ἢ Τηλέδαμον, ἐκ δὲ Πηνελόπης Τηλέμαχον καὶ ᾿Αρκεσίλαον. The Cyrenean author of the Telegony reports that Telegonus or Teledamus was the son of Odysseus from Circe, and Telemachus and Arcesilaus his sons from Penelope.

Since the Cyrenaean association of Arcesilaus,48 who must have been another name for Ptoliporthes,49 points to an innovation by Eugammon, it should be explained why the name Ptoliporthes had been created.50 It may be the case that when an older *Thesprotis, in which Odysseus died peacefully in Thesprotia, started to be linked to the Telegonus myth that necessitated Odysseus’ return to Ithaca, certain changes had to be made with respect to Odysseus’ offspring. The introduction of a son from Circe into the tale of Odysseus’ last days may, therefore, have resulted in the proliferation of Odysseus’ sons.51 When the older story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ was replaced by Odysseus’ marriage with Callidice, a new son named Polypoites was invented, who would become king of the Thesprotians, when Odysseus would return to Ithaca after Callidice’s death.52 In like manner, the prospect of the double marriages at the end of the play53 and the transfer of Telemachus, Telegonus, and Penelope to Aeaea necessitated that a

 48 Vürtheim 1901, 49 n. 3; Phillips 1953, 55; Huxley 1960, 24; 1969, 172. 49 First suggested by Schmidt 1885, 430; see also West 2003a, 171 n. 72. 50 Hartmann’s suggestion (1917, 86) that the Cyrenaean genealogy of Arcesilaus is an external accessory to the epic’s subject matter fails to explain why the name Ptoliporthes was invented in the first place, since he seems to play no role in the epic’s plot. 51 Eugammon was no doubt aware of various traditions concerning the non-Homeric proliferation of Odysseus’ sons: according to Hesiod (Th. 1011–1018), Odysseus had two sons from Circe (Agrius and Latinus) and two more from Calypso (Nausithoos and Nausinoos); on the interpolated verse 1014 introducing Telegonus as Odysseus’ son from Aphrodite (!), see West 1966, 434–435. 52 I am sceptical about any latent associations of Callidice and Polypoites with the Underworld; see Vürtheim 1901, 49–51. 53 Differently Hartmann (1917, 86), who states that the double marriages at the end of the Telegony leave no room for a second son of Odysseus from Penelope.

  Telegony second son to Penelope be left in Ithaca as the sole heir to Odysseus’ throne.54 This son was Ptoliporthes-Arcesilaus. In this way, after Odysseus’ death two of the sons born to him by different wives (Callidice and Penelope) were left to rule alone in Thesprotia and Ithaca respectively, while two other sons born to him by Penelope and Circe (Telemachus and Telegonus) were brought to Aeaea. It is obvious that the aural similarity in the first part of the two pairs of names (Πολυποίτης–Π[τ]ολιπόρθης/Τηλέμαχος–Τηλέγονος) given to Odysseus’ sons reflects Eugammon’s plan to couple their fate after the death of Odysseus. In this light, it is not unthinkable that while the name Arcesilaus reflects Cyrenaean political concerns of the Battiad dynasty, the name Ptoliporthes may have been invented to create an analogy with Polypoites, in the manner Eugammon had shaped Telegonus’ name after that of Telemachus. Moreover, all these nomina loquentia are associated with features pertaining either to Odysseus (Πολυποίτης < πολυποινίτης < πολύ ποινή ‘much-punished’,55 Πτολιπόρθης < πτολίπορθος < πτόλις + πέρθω ‘sacker of cities’) or to Ptoliporthes’/Arcesilaus’ future role (᾿Αρκεσίλαος < ἀρκεῖν + λαοῖς ‘protector of the people’).56

Fr. 4(a), from Σ Od. 11.134 (II 487 Dindorf); (b), from Σ Od. 11.134 (II 487-8 Dindorf); (c) = fr. 4 PEG = fr. 5 GEF, from Apollod. Epit. 7.3657 (a) ῎Ενιοι δέ ... φασιν ὡς ἐντεύξει τῆς Κίρκης ῞Ηφαιστος κατεσκεύασε Τηλεγόνῳ δόρυ ἐκ τρυγόνος θαλασσίας, ἣν Φόρκυς ἀνεῖλεν ἐσθίουσαν τοὺς ἐν τῇ Φορκίδι λίμνῃ ἰχθῦς· οὗ τὴν μὲν ἐπιδορατίδα ἀδαμαντίνην, τὸν δὲ στύρακα χρυσοῦν εἶναι, τὸν ᾿Οδυσσέα ἀνεῖλεν.58

 54 It should be noted that Apollodorus’ formulation (Epit. 7.35–36: καὶ εὑρίσκει ἐκ Πηνελόπης Πολιπόρθην αὐτῷ γεγεννημένον ‘and he finds Ptoliporthes born to him from Penelope’) indicates that Penelope had given birth to Ptoliporthes before the long absence of Odysseus in Thesprotia. Since he stayed there for many years (when he left Thesprotia, Polypoites, his son from Callidice, was old enough to take the throne), it is clear that Ptoliporthes was at least of an age that allowed him to take the throne in Ithaca after his father’s death and the subsequent departure of Telemachus for Aeaea. 55 It has been argued that Odysseus’ Thesprotian journey was a rationalistic reinterpretation of his journey to Hades and that it was from this association that Eugammon used the name Πολυποίτης (also employed for Peirithoos’ son) for his son with Callidice, whose name has been regarded as a euphemism for Persephone (quae bene ius dicit ‘who sets forth justice’); see Höfer 1897–1909, 2717. 56 See West 2013, 305. 57 On the Nachleben of Odysseus’ death by Telegonus in ancient Greek and Roman literature, see PEG, p. 105; for analysis of this episode, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884, 194–198; Vürtheim 1901, 55–58; Hartmann 1917, 106–135.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

(a) Some ... say that on a visit to Circe Hephaestus made Telegonus a spear from a stingray that Phorcys had killed when it was eating the fish in Phorcys’ lake. Its head was of adamant, and its shaft of gold. With it he killed Odysseus.59 (b) οἱ νεώτεροι τὰ περὶ Τηλέγονον ἀνέπλασαν τὸν Κίρκης καὶ ᾿Οδυσσέως, ὃς δοκεῖ κατὰ ζήτησιν τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς ᾿Ιθάκην ἐλθὼν ὑπ᾿ ἀγνοίας τὸν πατέρα διαχρήσασθαι τρυγόνος κέντρῳ. (b) Post-Homeric writers invented the story of Telegonus the son of Circe and Odysseus, who is supposed to have gone to Ithaca in search of his father and killed him in ignorance with the barb of a stingray.60 (c) καὶ ᾿Οδυσσέα βοηθοῦντα τῷ μετὰ χεῖρας δόρατι Τηλέγονος κέντρον τὴν αἰχμὴν ἔχοντι τιτρώσκει, καὶ ᾿Οδυσσεὺς θνῄσκει. (c) And Telegonus with the spear in his hands, which was tipped with a stingray spine, wounded Odysseus when he tried to stop him. Odysseus died.61

Fragment 4 points to the third and last part of the Telegony that includes the story of Telegonus. Not much later than Odysseus’ return to Ithaca, Telegonus, his son from Circe, sails from Aeaea in search of his father,62 whom he has never met. After landing at Ithaca, probably following the advice of his mother on how to find this island, he ravages the land (Proclus)63 and raids the cattle (Apollodorus).64 Though Proclus’ expression does not explicitly refer to a cattle-raid, which was after all a traditional epic theme, Apollodorus’ information on this particular point may well be right, since it creates a symmetrical effect, almost as a thematic ring, to Odysseus’ visit to his oxen-stables in Elis in the beginning of the epic, which he had entrusted to Polyxenus. Since the latter represents a conflation of the Iliadic Polyxenus with a Polyxenus from Heracles’ mythical saga (to whom the Taphians/Teleboans entrusted the stolen cows of Elec-

 58 I do not quote Eust. on Od. 11.134 (I 404 Stallbaum) since his version is clearly based on Σ Od. 11.134. 59 Translation by West 2003a. 60 Translation by West 2003a. 61 Translation by Scott Smith and Trzaskoma 2007, 93. 62 Hyginus’ version (Fab. 127.1–2) that Telegonus was driven to Ithaca by a storm (tempestate in Ithacam est delatus) is not incompatible with Circe’s advice; see Davies 1989, 89. On the dependence of Hyginus’ version on Sophocles’ ᾿Οδυσσεὺς ἀκανθοπλήξ ‘Odysseus wounded by the prickle’, see Hartmann 1917, 115–122 and West 2013, 303. 63 Tel. arg. l. 325 Severyns: τέμνει τὴν νῆσον (‘he lays waste the island’). 64 Apollod. Epit. 7.36: ἀπευλάνει τινὰ τῶν βοσκημάτων (‘he drives away some of the cattle’).

  Telegony tryon),65 it is not unthinkable that the cattle-raid by Telegonus may have been shaped under the influence of an analogous reference in the episode of Polyxenus during Odysseus’ journey to Elis. In this way, Odysseus was presented trying to look after his cattle in both the beginning and end of the Telegony. According to Oppian,66 when Telegonus set out in search of his father he carried with him the very weapon he was going to use to kill Odysseus, i.e. a spear barbed with the spine of a stingray, which he had received from his mother Circe. The scholia to the Odyssey67 and Eustathius68 add the significant detail that this was a Hephaestus-made weapon that Circe had asked the smith god to manufacture. Although it is difficult to contemplate about this gift from mother to son, it is plausible to detect a general Cyclic influence duplicating the motif of the divine weapons given to Achilles by his father Peleus before his departure to Troy (Cypria),69 as well as the Hephaestus-made weapons of Achilles and Memnon delivered by their mothers Thetis and Eos in the Iliad and the Aethiopis respectively.70 Eugammon had exploited this particular kind of weapon,71 so as to fit his reinterpretation of the Homeric expression ἐξ ἁλός,72 which he read as ‘from the sea’ and not in its Odyssean meaning ‘away from the sea’ (Od. 11.134 = 23.281). Circe, who could not have possibly known that Telegonus would kill his

 65 See Apollod. Bibl. 2.54–55. Polyxenus’ name as well as the fact that he was not killed in the Iliad made him ideal for his new role. See Severyns 1962, 18–19; Davies (1989, 86) rightly observes that ‘the expansion of a secondary figure from Homer is thoroughly typical of the Epic Cycle’. 66 Hal. 2.497. 67 Σ Od. 11.134 (II 487 Dindorf). 68 Eust. on Od. 11.134 (I 404 Stallbaum). 69 Cypr. fr. 3 PEG = EGF = fr. 4 GEF; see also Apollod. Bibl. 3.13.5. The same topic is reflected several times in the Iliad (16.140–144; 17.194–197; 18.84–85; 19.277; 19.388–391; 21.162; 22.133; 23.276–278). 70 See Il. 18; Aeth. arg. ll. 185–186 Severyns: Μέμνων δὲ ὁ ᾿Ηοῦς υἱὸς ἔχων ἡφαιστότευκτον πανοπλίαν παραγίνεται τοῖς Τρωσὶ βοηθήσων (‘Memnon comes, the son of Eos having an armor made by Hephaestus, in order to assist the Trojans’). 71 Σ Od. 11.134 = fr. 4 a+b (II 487-8 Dindorf). On the use of this motif in classical, Hellenistic, and Roman poetry, especially tragedy, see Hartmann 1917, 106–135. 72 This is the standard view that has been adopted by most scholars: see Scheliha 1943, 415– 416; Burkert 1983, 157–159; Edwards 1985, 227 n. 28; Ballabriga 1990, 26; Nagy 1990a, 214; Peradotto 1990, 63–74; Edmunds 1997, 423–424. Differently Burgess 2001, 153: ‘the prediction of the death of Odysseus seems to employ the motif of the misunderstood oracle. The Cyclic poem has not misused a Homeric passage; the Homeric poem is alluding to a traditional story of misinterpreted oracle that the Telegony happened to narrate’.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

own father, may have given her son this precious weapon73 to protect himself on his journey. The Telegony may have thus employed a traditional motif or riddle,74 according to which a set of conditions that seem impossible to meet must be fulfilled, so that a certain result may be achieved. In our case, Odysseus as the typical hero ‘of the sea’ will die ‘outside of the sea’ by something coming ‘from the sea’. The combination of these two conditions seems impossible, but for a sea-weapon used on land. In this light, Telegonus was equipped upon his departure with a weapon that made one recall his father’s sea adventures, but which, ironically, would cause Odysseus’ death. Long have scholars pondered on the cryptic words of Tiresias in Od. 11.134–137 (= 23.281–284), mainly because they thought it was necessary to explain how a death inflicted by a spear barbed with the spine of τρυγών (‘sting-ray’)75 could be called ἀβληχρός (‘gentle’).76 Both problems though are based on the assumption that Eugammon did not only alter the meaning of ἐξ ἁλός,77 but changed the entire prophecy of Tiresias as expressed in Od. 11.134–137 (= 23.281–284). Three solutions are possible with respect to ἀβληχρός: it either refers to the soft flesh of the stingray78 or we should understand the stingray to be poisonous79 or it does not mean ‘gentle’

 73 Its spearhead (ἐπιδορατίς) was made of adamant, while its spike (στύραξ) was golden. These details point to the divine craftsman who made it. West (2013, 303 and n. 18) thinks that this may derive from an epic source. 74 See West 2004, 1–9; 2013, 307–314. 75 On τρυγών (trygon pastinaca), see Thompson 1947, 270–271. Differently Hadjicosti (2005, 79), who argues that the use of the modifier θαλασσία (‘of the sea’) for τρυγών in Σ Od. 11.134 (II 487 Dindorf) and by Eust. on Od. 11.134 (1676.43) indicates that ‘the species that he referred to also had varieties that lived on land’ (79) and, therefore, it could be a turtle. This is not unthinkable but not on the grounds Hadjicosti argues, for: (a) another scholium (Σ Od. 11.134 [II 487 Dindorf]), Apollodorus (Epit. 7.36), and Oppian (Hal. 2.505) do not employ θαλασσία; (b) the use of the backbone of a turtle as a hard sharp point is incompatible with the ‘gentle death’ of Odysseus; (c) in Oppian’s Halieutica (2.497–505), τρυγών, which is designated as ἀλγινόεσσα (505: ‘painful’) and brought death [to Odysseus], with one blow’ (505: μιῇ κατενήρατο ῥιπῇ), causes ‘death from the sea’ (499: ἅλιον μόρον) but is not modified by the epithet θαλασσία. 76 The word πέφνῃ (‘shall kill’) has also caused some trouble, because it seems awkward to have ‘death’ as its subject, instead of a human or divine agent. According to Ballabriga (1989, 294–295), this is sufficient indication that there is a play on the obscurity of Tiresias’ oracle and an allusion to a tradition relating a violent death of Odysseus by Telegonus. In my view (Tsagalis 2008, 69–75), there is even an irony in Penelope’s reply (Od. 23.286–287) to Odysseus when he repeats Tiresias’ oracle to her (Od. 23.264–284). See also Vürtheim 1901, 51–52. 77 See Welcker 1865, 307–308. 78 Davies 1989, 90. 79 See Burgess (2001, 153), who argues that ‘the stingray has a venomous tail that at least one ancient source (Ael. NA 1.56) thought inflicted incurable wounds’.

  Telegony but ‘feeble’, ‘easily penetrable’, ‘mild’ and points to Odysseus in his old age dying at Telegonus’ hands.80

Fr. 5 (a), from Eust. on Od. 16.118 (II 117 Stallbaum); (b), from Apollod. Epit. 7.37; (c) fr. 5 PEG = fr. 2 EGF = fr. 6 GEF, from Hygin. fab. 127 (a) ὁ δὲ τοὺς Νόστους ποιήσας Κολοφώνιος Τηλέμαχον μέν φησι τὴν Κίρκην ὕστερον γῆμαι, Τηλέγονον δὲ τὸν ἐκ Κίρκης ἀντιγῆμαι Πηνελόπην. (a) The Colophonian poet of the Nostoi says that Telemachus afterwards married Circe, while Telegonus, the son from Circe, married Penelope.81 (b) κἀκεῖ τὴν Πηνελόπην γαμεῖ [Τηλέγονος]. Κίρκη δὲ ἑκατέρους αὐτοὺς εἰς μακάρων νήσους ἀποστέλλει. (b) There he married Penelope. Circe sent them both off to the Isles of the Blessed. (c) quem postquam cognovit qui esset, iussu Minervae cum Telemacho et Penelope in patriam reduxerunt in insulam Aeaeam; ad Circen Ulixem mortuum deportaverunt. ibique sepul-

 80 See Marks 2008, 95 and n. 15, giving various examples (Il. 5.337; 8.178) where ἀβληχρός means ‘feeble’ or ‘easily penetrated’. See also Peradotto 1990, 66 and 74; West (2013, 307–314) claims that ἐξ ἁλός can only mean ‘from the sea’ (307) and argues extensively (by drawing attention, among other passages, to Aesch. Psychagogoi, fr. 275 TrGF) that Odysseus’ death was ‘gentle’ because ‘Odysseus is not subjected to the agonies of being stung by the fish; the residual toxicity of its digested remains seeps into his balding scalp and he succumbs to it without pain. He has grown vulnerable because of his sleek (λιπαρόν) old age’ (314). I am sceptical about this interpretation; for one thing, the Odyssean passage explicitly refers to a ‘gentle death’ for Odysseus ‘surrounded by his prosperous people’ (11.136–137 = 23.283–284). How can his people surround him in happiness when Odysseus dies? See Tsagalis 2008, 63–90 and 2014, 460: ‘in an older Thesprotian tradition, Odysseus may have died peacefully in Thesprotia ἐξ ἁλός (‘away from the sea’), as Tiresias had prophesied in Od. 11.134. When the myth of Telegonus, which belonged to the typical story-pattern “son kills his father by accident”, was added to the older Thesprotian lay and the expression ἐξ ἁλός was reinterpreted so as to mean “from the sea”, Eugammon had to invent a reason for Odysseus’ departure from Thesprotia and return to Ithaca. This reason was Callidice’s death, which allowed Odysseus to leave the throne to Polypoites, the son he had by her.’ Moreover, ἐκ/ἐξ can regularly denote position (as well as place) in Homer; Od. 15.272 is very instructive on this, since Theoclymenus uses the phrase ἐκ πατρίδος ‘away from my country’ to answer Telemachus’ ἐξ ᾿Ιθάκης γένος εἰμί (‘my family comes from Ithaca’, 15.267). In this case, we have ample evidence for the two meanings of ἐκ/ἐξ used in the same context. 81 Translation by West 2003a, 171.

Commentary on Selected Fragments  

turae tradiderunt. eiusdem Minervae monitu Telegonus Penelopen, Telemachus Circen duxerunt uxores. (c) When he learned whom he had killed, Telegonus on Minerva’s orders returned to his home on the island of Aeaea along with Telemachus and Penelope. They returned Ulysses’ dead body to Circe and there laid him to rest. On Minerva’s orders, Telegonus took Penelope and Telemachus took Circe in marriage.

Comparison of Eustathius (on Od. 16.118 [II 117 Stallbaum]) with Apollodorus (Epit. 7.37) and Hyginus (fab. 127), as well as with fr. 382 (Eust. on Od. 16.118 [II 117 Stallbaum]), shows the kind of mistakes Eustathius has made: whereas in fr. 383 he had confused Κίρκη with Καλυψώ, this time he is right about the mother of Telegonus, with whom Telemachus is married, but wrong about the poem.84 The double marriages have been often treated with contempt but this may well be an impression created by the fact that we basically possess a plot summary of the Telegony,85 which deprives each episode from its context and offers only the ‘bare bones’ of its content. In this respect, a possible reconstruction may be telling: when Telegonus realized that he had killed his own father,86 he began to lament.87 After this rather moving scene, which may have been filled with compassion for the unwilling patricide, Athena appeared and advised88 Telegonus, Telemachus, and Penelope about what they should do: they all had to leave Ithaca, whose throne would be left to Ptoliporthes–Arcesilaus, and travel to Aeaea, Circe’s island. Odysseus’ two sons would marry Odysseus’ two wives/concubines (Circe and Penelope) and be subsequently immortalized in Aeaea.89 In this way, Odysseus’ Odyssean world would be emblematically im-

 82 Numeration by Tsagalis. 83 Numeration by Tsagalis. 84 Severyns 1928, 416; West 2003, 171 nn. 2–3. 85 Malkin 1998, 126; Burgess 2001, 170. See also Kullmann (1960, 46), who emphasizes that we should not treat erotic features as proof or even indications of late composition. Love stories stand at the very center of early Greek myth and of even earlier non-Greek literature. 86 Tel. arg. l. 327 Severyns: Τηλέγονος δ᾿ ἐπιγνοὺς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (‘Telegonus realizing his mistake’); Apollod. Epit. 7.37: ἀναγνωρισάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν (‘after recognizing him’); Hyg. Fab. 127: quem postquam cognovit qui esset (‘when he realized who he was’). 87 Apollod. Epit. 7.37 (καὶ πολλὰ κατοδυράμενος ‘and after excessive lamentation’). 88 Hygin. Fab. 127. 89 Tel. arg. ll. 327–330 Severyns. Although (according to Σ Lyc. Alex. 829) Circe brought Odysseus back to life, which would be exactly the point of transferring his body to Aeaea, the Telegony must have excluded Odysseus from the immortalizing process, the reason being that then Penelope could not marry Telegonus and the double-marriage end would be spoiled; see West 2013, 306; also pp. 309–310 (this volume). The information about the resurrection and immor-

  Telegony mortalized, while the hero’s new offspring would be left to rule the places their father had also ruled in the past, Polypoites in Thesprotia and Ptoliporthes– Arcesilaus in Ithaca. Under this perspective, the double marriages acquire a very different, and not at all contemptuous and disrespectful function. In tandem with this line of thought, the stress on mortality in the Homeric epics that stands in marked contrast to the recurrent immortalization of heroes in the Cyclic epics should not be interpreted in chronological terms, for it is a matter pertaining to dramatic impact and not to the literary taste of a later age.90 In this light, we need not regard the immortalization of the two couples at the end of the Telegony simply as a post-Homeric concept.

. Dubious There is no verse fragment that can be safely attributed to the Telegony. I hereby explain why the two anonymous verse fragments conjecturally assigned to the poem can hardly come from it.91

Fr. 1 PEG ‘Hom.” 10 EGF = fr. 1* GEF, from Athenaeus 10.412b26-d16 γέρων τε ὢν [᾿Οδυσσεὺς] ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾿ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ. And even as an old man [sc. ‘disguised as a beggar’] Odysseus was eating avidly abundant meat and sweet wine.

1.

2.

Since Athenaeus quotes his Cyclic or archaic epic source more than thirty times, it seems unlikely that he would not have done the same thing for Eugammon and the Telegony. Having explicitly indicated to his readers that his quotations in 10.412b26– d16 are from Homer at the very beginning of this section (καὶ τὸν ᾿Οδυσσέα δὲ ῞Ομηρος πολυφάγον καὶ λαίμαργον παραδίδωσιν ὅταν λέγῃ ‘Homer presents Odysseus too as eating a lot and greedy, when he says’), Athenaeus

 talization of Odysseus reflects a tendency to locate in the Μακάρων νῆσοι all immortalized heroes. 90 See Burgess 2001, 167 and 255–256 nn. 148–151. 91 For a detailed analysis, see Tsagalis 2014, where I argue extensively that neither of these two fragments belongs to the Telegony. West (2013, 297–298, 300) remains sceptical.

Dubious  

includes the verse under discussion within an Odyssean context.92 Since he indicates change of context and author by giving the author’s name (10.412d17: Θεαγένης δ᾿ ὁ Θάσιος ... ‘Theagenes of Thasos ... ’), it becomes clear that he regards the line ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾿ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ (‘he was eating avidly abundant meat and sweet wine’) as Homeric, and in particular as Odyssean. 3. The ‘problem’ has originated from the fact that γέρων does not designate Odysseus’ old age but the disguised Odysseus, who quite often is called a γέρων (‘old fellow’) in the second half of the Odyssey (for example in 14.37, 14.122, 14.166, 14.386, 14.508; 18.21, 18.74). Some of these uses of γέρων are attested within a context pertaining to excessive eating and drinking (in the hut of Eumaeus and in the episode with the glutton Irus). 4. What has probably happened is that Athenaeus, influenced by the formulaic line ἥμεθα δαινύμενοι κρέα τ᾿ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ (‘we lingered eating avidly abundant meat and sweet wine’) employed for Odysseus and the comrades five times in the Odyssey (9.162 = 9.557 = 10.184 = 10.477 = 12.30), made one of his banqueters create a line reading ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾿ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ (‘he was eating avidly abundant meat and sweet wine’) that sounds perfectly Odyssean. This line of thought becomes further strengthened, if one takes into account that it emphasized the theme of gluttony that was the topic of discussion in this particular part of the Deipnosophistae. A crucial point is that Odysseus had been presented as a glutton in the very same Odyssean context that he was called a γέρων, namely in Eumaeus’ hut. In fact, if Athenaeus had made one of the banqueters use the expression ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως (‘he was eating ravenously’) that is employed in alternate lines in Od. 14.109–110 for Odysseus alone,93 then the phrasing γέρων τε ὤν (‘and even as an old man’) for Odysseus would become evident: for in Od. 18.21–22 (immediately before facing the glutton Irus), almost the same expression had been used by Odysseus with respect to his own self (μή σε γέρων περ ἐὼν στῆθος καὶ χείλεα φύρσω | αἵματος ‘lest, though an old man, I stain your breast and lips with blood’).

 92 He also gives two other citations from Book 7 of the Odyssey (215–218 and 219–221). 93 ὣς φάθ᾿, ὁ δ᾿ ἐνδυκέως κρέα τ᾿ ἤσθιε πῖνέ τε οἶνον | ἁρπαλέως ἀκέων, κακὰ δὲ μνηστῆρσι φύτευεν (‘so he spoke, and Odysseus kept eating and drinking wine ravenously in silence, brooding his revenge against the suitors’); see also Od. 6.249–250 (ἦ τοι ὁ πῖνε καὶ ἦσθε πολύτλας δῖος ᾿Οδυσσεὺς | ἁρπαλέως· δηρὸν γὰρ ἐδητύος ἦεν ἄπαστος ‘and indeed muchenduring Odysseus drank and ate ravenously; for he had not tasted food for a long time’).

  Telegony Fr. 2* GEF, from Synesius, Epist. 14 οὐ γὰρ σφᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾿ ἐπιθρῷσκον for the rising wave does not awaken them at night

It is unlikely that the dactylic hexameter οὐ γὰρ σφᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾿ ἐπιθρῷσκον comes from Eugammon’s Telegony.94 I hereby present the basic arguments against such an attribution. 1. Synesius could hardly have access to a genuine verse from the Telegony. In the very same letter, he refers to a post-Odyssean adventure of Odysseus (the wandering with the oar episode in his attempt to appease Poseidon’s anger) by using a one-and-a-half lines from Od. 11.122–123 (23.269–270): οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλασσαν | ἀνέρες, οὐδέ θ᾿ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον εἶδαρ ἔδουσιν (‘men who do not know of the sea nor do they eat food mixed with salt’). This piece of evidence shows that, if Synesius knew the actual text of the Telegony, he would have referred to a post-Odyssean adventure of Odysseus with a verse of the Telegony, and not by an Odyssean verse. 2. Synesius’ diction shows that with respect to the wandering with the oar episode he is employing his general knowledge of the Homeric text: he uses the word πηδάλιον95 (‘steering paddle’, ‘rudder’) instead of ἐρετμόν (‘oar’) (εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν ‘well-fitted oar’, Od. 11.121 = 23.268). In fact, he may be mixing expressions like πηδάλιον μετὰ χερσὶ θεούσης νηὸς ἔχοντα (‘having the steering paddle of a running ship in his hands’, Od. 3.281) with ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔχοντ᾿ εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν (‘having in his hands a well-fitted oar’, Od. 23.268).96 It is noteworthy that Synesius does not substitute the Homeric word ἐρετμόν (‘oar’) with κώπη (‘oar’), which is synonymous, widely employed in later Greek, and regularly employed by Synesius himself in his Epistles.97 3. Livrea draws attention to the violation of Naeke’s rule,98 in order to argue that the verse is pre-Hellenistic. The diction of this line suggests otherwise: σφᾶς with a long α is attested once in the extant corpus of archaic Greek poetry (Hes. Th. 34: σφᾶς δ᾿ αὐτάς ‘themselves’), and even there it is placed in  94 Livrea 1998, 2. 95 The word πηδάλιον (‘steering paddle’, ‘rudder’) is also regularly used by Synesius in the Epistles; see e.g. Ep. 5.15, p. 15; 5.11, p. 16, 5.15, p. 21 (Garzya). 96 See Od. 11.121: λαβὼν εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν (‘after taking a well-fitted oar’). 97 See Ep. 4.26, Ep. 148.38 in Hercher 1873. 98 According to this rule, diaeresis after a spondaic fourth foot is generally avoided.

Dubious  

proclitic position,99 whereas in Synesius it is not. If the verse is archaic, we must consider the possibility that Synesius has substituted an original σφέας with synizesis by σφᾶς, but then how are we to explain the fact that ἐγείρω (‘rouse’, ‘stir up’) and ἐπιθρώσκω (‘spring’, ‘leap upon’) never occur with κῦμα (‘wave’) as subject in the extant corpus of archaic Greek epic? 4. The expression ἐκ νυκτός (‘after night-fall’) is puzzling; it seems to recall ἐκ νυκτῶν (‘after night-fall’) in Od. 12.286, where it is employed in the context of the Thrinacia episode. When Odysseus suggests to his comrades that they should depart immediately telling them of Tiresias’ advice not to eat the cattle of the Sun (Od. 11.107–115), Eurylochus disagrees and stresses how dangerous it is to sail away at night. Being trapped in Thrinacia because the winds sent by Zeus do not allow them to sail away, they run out of food. When Odysseus falls asleep, his comrades slaughter and eat the cattle of the Sun (Od. 12.279–396). This whole passage is marked by the stress given to the sound made by the sheep and cattle on the Sun’s island, both when Odysseus and his men first arrive (Od. 12.265–266: μυκηθμοῦ τ᾿ ἤκουσα βοῶν αὐλιζομενάων | οἰῶν τε βληχήν ‘I heard both the bellowing of the cattle lying in the court-yard and the bleating of sheep’) and most tellingly when the comrades roast and eat them (Od. 12.395–396: κρέα δ᾿ ἀμφ᾿ ὀβελοῖσι μεμύκει, | ὀπταλέα τε καὶ ὠμά, βοῶν δ᾿ ὣς γίγνετο φωνή ‘the flesh, both roasted and raw, bellowed on the spits, and the sound was as of cattle’). The same is the case, mutatis mutandis, with Synesius’ context: the dactylic hexameter under discussion is immediately followed by a statement that the people who are ignorant of the sea are only awakened at night by ‘the neighing of horses, and the bleating of goats and sheep and the bellowing of bulls’ (ἀλλ’ ἵππων χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ μηκάζον αἰπόλιον, καὶ προβατίων βληχὴ καὶ ταύρου μύκημα ‘only the neighings of horses, the bleating of a herd of goats, the cry of sheep, or the bellowing of a bull’).100 In this light, it becomes all the more likely that Synesius is exploiting his general knowledge of the Homeric text,101 where equivalent themes were used.  99 See Wackernagel 1916, 4–6; West 1966, on Hes. Th. 34. 100 Translated by Fitzgerald 1926. 101 See also the story of the Cyclops, in which some of these features appear: (a) the ‘they do not know of the sea’ motif (9.125–127); (b) the noise made by various animals (9.166–167; see in particular 9.439: θήλειαι δὲ μέμηκον ἀνήμελκτοι περὶ σηκούς ‘but the unmilked females bleated around their pens’); (c) (uninterrupted) sleep (9.150–151); and (d) movement of a wave (9.147–148). The very end of his letter, in which the Cyclops’ episode is explicitly mentioned, makes it clear that Synesius has also the episode of the Cyclops in his mind (p. 267, 1–6 [Garzya]).

  Telegony 5.

There is not a single example of Synesius mentioning a Cyclic poet by name or quoting a single verse from the Cyclic epics. This observation should not be confused with his knowledge of episodes featuring in the Cyclic epics, as Ep. 123.9–10 (cf. Nost. fr. 7 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 6 GEF) shows. 6. Scholars who are sympathetic to Livrea’s suggestion believe that the episode of Odysseus wandering with an oar on his shoulder and his appeasement of Poseidon by means of sacrifices after arriving at a land where people are ignorant of the sea would have been included in Eugammon’s Telegony.102

In my view, it is possible that Synesius had made up this verse. There are other cases where an author has created a metrical sequence or even an entire hexameter.103 West argues that it is not clear why Synesius may have composed this line.104 Perhaps the answer is that it was unintentional (a reflex of his mind operating within an Odyssean context), as the syntax of the entire quotation suggests: καὶ εἰκότα γε ἀγνοοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ σφᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾿ ἐπιθρῷσκον πελάγους, ἀλλ᾿ ἵππων χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ μηκάζον αἰπόλιον, καὶ προβατίων βληχὴ καὶ ταύρου μύκημα, πρώτης δὲ ἀκτῖνος ἐπιβαλλούσης τῶν μελιττῶν ὁ βόμβος, εἰς ἡδονῆς λόγον οὐδεμιᾷ παραχωρῶν μουσικῇ (‘and yet their ignorance is natural. For the onrushing wave of the sea awakens them not in the night — only the neighing of horses, the bleating of a herd of goats, the cry of sheep, or the bellowing of a bull; then at the first ray of sunshine the humming of bees, yielding the palm to no other music in the pleasure it gives’).105

. The Making of the Telegony The epic is divided into three parts that are narrated in two books: a journey to Elis and the adventure in Thesprotia were presented in the first Book, while Odysseus’ return and subsequent death in Ithaca occupy the second.106 Eugam-

 102 For the refutation of this argument, see Tsagalis 2008, 75–90; 2014, 448–461; and above. 103 See Davies 1980, 129–132; 1982, 267–269. 104 West 2013, 296, contra D. Russell (oral communication), who draws attention to a fragment of Aristeas’ Arimaspea ([Long.] subl. 10.4). 105 Translated by Fitzgerald 1926. 106 See Wilamowitz 1884, 187; Hartmann (1917, 73) has argued that at the end of Book 1, the poet’s attention may have turned to Circe’s island and the beginning of Telegonus’ search for his father. See also Vürtheim 1901, 43; Malkin 1998, 127; Debiasi 2004, 252. West (2013, 290– 291) draws attention to Clement’s assertion (Strom. 6.25.1) that Eugammon took wholesale from

The Making of the Telegony  

mon has used material from various sources, which he has molded into a new synthesis bearing the marks of some personal contributions. In particular, we can detect the following sources: (a) western-Greek local traditions about Odysseus; (b) a lost *Thesprotis narrating Odysseus’ journey to Thesprotia in order to appease the anger of Poseidon; (c) the story of Telegonus pertaining to the death of Odysseus; (d) Cyrenaean and Egyptian elements, which the poet wanted to insert into Odysseus’ post-Odyssey afterlife so as to validate historical claims of the Battiad dynasty that aimed at tracing its past to Odysseus.107 Western epichoric traditions about Odysseus are reflected in the Elis episode, which may have echoed in a *proto-Odyssey and has left some vague traces in our Odyssey. It is possible that Eugammon had employed some of these features that may have been brought to Cyrene by Peloponnesian settlers and combined them with Egyptian elements, as in the tale of Agamedes and Augeas. The bridge for this fusion may have been the figure of Polyxenus, who was known from both the Iliad and from Heracles’ mythical saga. With respect to an older, oral *Thesprotis, Eugammon decided to use its subject matter but made profound changes as far as the reason for Odysseus’ journey and subsequent long stay in Thesprotia is concerned. Having aimed at presenting an Odysseus who travels willingly,108 he decided to separate the journey to Thesprotia from Odysseus’ appeasement of and reconciliation with Poseidon.109 He, therefore,  Musaeus the entire Book on the Thesprotians. See West 1983, 43–44. Differently, Bethe 19292, 135. On balance, it should be noted that Apollodorus’ narrative (Epit. 7.34–38), omitting the Elis journey, is given in such a way as to suggest that he is excerpting his material from a single Book of the Telegony. 107 Οn the shaping of the Telegony, see Hartmann 1917, 218–221. 108 See Ballabriga (1989, 299–300), who claims that Odysseus’ errance is a voluntary one and suggests that it stems from a cyclic tendency that is reflected even in the hero’s false tales in the Odyssey (e.g. 14.244–246). 109 Merkelbach’s suggestion (1969, 145–146) that Odysseus went to Elis and then to Thesprotia, because he was exiled after the killing of the suitors (as covertly indicated by the initial phrase of Proclus’ summary) is based on his reading Proclus’ εἰς ᾿Ιθάκην (‘to Ithaca’) as εἰς τὴν ῎Ηπειρον (‘to Epirus’). For a refutation of this thesis, see Tsagalis 2008, 87–88 and 2014, 457– 459. It is important that Apollod. Epit. 7.40 refers to Odysseus’ exile only in a version (7.40: εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ λέγοντες ‘some say’) that is clearly distinct from the one pertaining to the Telegony (7.34– 37); see also Plut. Aetia Rom. et Graeca 14, 294cd = Arist. fr. 51.1 (Gigon). One should not fail to draw the line between the motivation and the function of Odysseus’ long absence from Ithaca. Its motivation may be an almost cyclic impulse for more adventures and traveling, but its function is linked to Eugammon’s aim to introduce a story of Cyrenaean associations with respect to Odysseus’ visit to Elis on the one hand, and prolong Odysseus’ stay in Thesprotia so that his son Ptoliporthes–Arcesilaus comes of age when he returns to Ithaca on the other. On the difference between motivation and function, see Peradotto 1985, 434–435.

  Telegony got rid of the story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ and replaced it with a troubling stay of Odysseus among the Thesprotians, since he wanted his hero to return to Ithaca for the continuation of the saga. The old theme of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ and a peaceful death among the Thesprotians that featured in the *Thesprotis were, therefore, eliminated, only to be substituted by a new marriage and especially a new son, Polypoites, who was to become the heir to the Thesprotian throne after Callidice’s death and Odysseus’ return to Ithaca. By changing the reason for Odysseus’ long stay among the Thesprotians, Eugammon was able to exploit it to introduce a second son from Penelope, Ptoliporthes–Arcesilaus, as a tribute to the Battiad dynasty of Cyrene. In this way, this new son would be of age upon Odysseus’ return to Ithaca from Thesprotia, and subsequently could receive the throne, after Odysseus’ death and the transfer of Telemachus, Telegonus, and Penelope to Aeaea. Last, the Cyrenaean poet invented the myth of Telegonus by means of the combination of two folk-tale motifs, i.e. that of ‘the son who kills his father through ignorance’ and that of ‘death away from the sea’.110 In order to put together these two motifs, Eugammon had to reinterpret the ‘death away from the sea’ motif that now acquired the meaning ‘from the sea’. This change was made possible by the borrowing of a third motif, that of ‘the poisonous barbed spine of the sting-ray’ weapon that would cause Odysseus’ death.111

 110 Tiresias’ prophecy in Od. 11 represents a reflection of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ story from the *Thesprotis with an Odyssean ending. Instead of dying peacefully among the Thesprotians, as it may well have been the case in the *Thesprotis with its marked local viewpoint, in the version given in the Odyssey the hero returns to Ithaca and dies there peacefully. The Odyssey has no room for the story of Telegonus, which may have been Eugammon’s own invention. 111 See West 2013, 290 and 307–315.

 Verses Attributed to the Telegony The huge differences characterizing the main editions of the Greek epic poets of the Archaic period are well known. The sparse amount of information available poses serious problems; so too does the lack of unanimous acceptance of the same methodological principles with respect to the attribution of a citation to a given author and poem. The case of the Telegony is typical: Bernabé (PEG) lists five fragments, Davies (EGF) two (only one in common with Bernabé), and West (GEF) six (four in common with Bernabé, one in common with Davies, and one published by Livrea1 ten years after the appearance of the editions of Bernabé and Davies). To alert the reader that the attribution of fragments 1 and 2 to the Telegony is conjectural and not based on ancient evidence, West attaches an asterisk to them.2 My aim is to discuss both what certain scholars have taken as one (and, for exactly 110 years, the only)3 of the two surviving lines from Eugammon’s Telegony, that is fr. 1 (PEG, Bernabé = *1 GEF) = fr. 2 (Allen), and also what appears as fr. *2 GEF.

. Telegony fr. 1 (PEG 1, Bernabé = *1 GEF) = fr. 2 (Allen) The Athenaeus passage reads as follows:4 καὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα δὲ Ὅμηρος πολυϕάγον καὶ λαίμαργον παραδίδωσιν ὅταν λέγῃ (Od. 7.215– 218)· ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὲ μὲν δορπῆσαι ἐάσατε κηδόμενόν περ· οὐ γάρ τι στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι κύντερον ἄλλο ἔπλετο, ἥ τ᾽ ἐκέλευσεν ἕο μνήσασθαι ἀνάγκῃ καὶ μάλα τειρόμενον καὶ ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει·5

 1 Livrea 1998, 2. 2 GEF, x. 3 See Diels 1888, 279, who argued that ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ (cited by Athen. 10.412d) came from Eugammon’s Telegony, and in particular from the episode of Odysseus’ visit to his cattle in Elis and his stay at the house of Polyxenus. See also Allen (1913, 191), who endorsed this view and printed this hexameter as fr. 2 in his edition of the Cyclic epics. Rzach (RE 11.2, cols. 2347–2435, and 2432), thought that, since Odysseus’ designation as an old man was more at home after his return from Thesprotia in the Telegony, it might have come from that particular part of Eugammon’s epic. 4 The text is that of Olson 2020 (see also Kaibel 1887–1890), 10.412b20–d12. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-016

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony ὑπερβάλλουσα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ϕαίνεται αὐτοῦ λαιμαργία μετὰ τοῦ μηδὲ ἐν δέοντι τὰ περὶ τῆς γαστρὸς γνωμολογεῖν· ἐχρῆν γάρ, εἰ καὶ ἐλίμωττε, διακαρτερεῖν ἢ μετριάζειν τὰ περὶ τὴν τροϕήν. τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον καὶ τὴν τελειοτάτην αὐτοῦ παρίστησι λαιμαργίαν καὶ γαστριμαργίαν (Od. 7.219–221)· ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ πένθος μὲν ἔχω ϕρεσίν, ἡ δὲ μάλ᾽ αἰεὶ ἐσθέμεναι κέλεται καὶ πινέμεν, ἐκ δέ με πάντων ληθάνει ὅσσ᾽ ἔπαθον, καὶ ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει. ταῦτα γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὁ Σαρδανάπαλλος εἰπεῖν ποτε ἂν ἐτόλμησεν. γέρων τε ὢν ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ. (∼ Od. 9.162) Homer presents Odysseus as well as a greedy gourmand, when he says (Od. 7.215–218): But let me eat my dinner, unhappy as I am. For nothing is more shameless than the miserable belly, which orders us to pay attention to it and gives us no choice, even when we are worn out, and demands to be filled. For in this passage Odysseus’ greed is shown to be excessive, and he offers an unnecessary sententious discussion of his belly; because even if he was famished, he should put up with the situation, or have eaten a modest amount. But his conclusion establishes his extreme greed and gluttony (Od. 7.219–221): Since I feel pain in my heart; but my belly relentlessly insists that I eat and drink, and makes me forget all my sufferings and demands to be filled. Not even the famous Sardanapallus would have dared to say this. And although he was an old man, he ravenously consumed boundless meat and delicious wine (Od. 9.162).6

The attribution of the verse ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ to the Telegony is based on the following arguments: a) Metrical, dictional, and stylistic considerations strongly suggest that the verse is archaic.7  5 The text of Odyssey 7.218 has ἐνὶ ϕρεσὶ πένθος ἔχοντα instead of ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει; cf. Od. 7.219 (πένθος μὲν ἔχω ϕρεσίν) and Od. 7.221 (ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει), both cited by Athenaeus below. See also n. 13 below. 6 Translation by Olson 2008. 7 ἁρπαλέως and ἄσπετα are not used in a similar context in Hellenistic and Imperial epic. The possibility that Athenaeus is drawing this verse from some parodic epic poem on matters gastronomical must be excluded for the following reasons: (i) Athenaeus regularly names his source and often the work from which he is drawing his citation; (ii) the line cited in Athen. 10.412d cannot come from epic parodists such as Archestratus of Gela (Hedypatheia) and Matro of Pitane (Attic Dinner Party), because neither the former’s didactic (pseudo-Hesiodic) style nor

Telegony fr. 1 (PEG 1, Bernabé = *1 GEF) = fr. 2 (Allen)  

b) The phrase γέρων τε ὤν that precedes the citation of the verse in question in Athenaeus’ text shows that the narrator portrays Odysseus avidly eating enormous quantities of meat and sweet wine. Given that the only archaic poem in dactylic hexameter where Odysseus featured as an old man was Eugammon’s Telegony, it is plausible that this verse does come from this epic poem. However, there are arguments that can be raised against this attribution. First, Athenaeus consistently cites (and sometimes even names) the authors of Cyclic epics and other archaic poets as well.8 A look at ‘Athenaeus’ in Bernabé’s Index Fontium shows that he quotes his Cyclic or archaic epic source more than thirty times. For example, he names Eumelus or Arctinus as the poet of the Titanomachy (1.22c, 11.470b), and he refers to the poet of the Thebais (7.317a, 11.465e), the Cypria (2.35c, 4.137e, 8.334b, 15.682d, 15.682f), the Ilias parva (3.73e), the Iliou persis (13.610c), the Νostoi, and/or the Atreidon kathodos (7.281b, 9.399a). Why would he then abstain from mentioning Eugammon and the Telegony, when he regularly does the exact opposite with respect to other Cyclic poets? Secondly, Athenaeus has clearly indicated to his readers that his quotations in 10.412b26–d16 are from Homer at the very beginning of this section (καὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα δὲ Ὅμηρος πολυϕάγον καὶ λαίμαργον παραδίδωσιν ὅταν λέγῃ). In particular, he has included the verse under discussion within an Odyssean context, after giving two other citations from Book 7 of the Odyssey (215–218 and 219–221). When he changes context and author, he makes it perfectly plain by giving the author’s name (10.412d17: Θεαγένης δ᾽ ὁ Θάσιος …). The fact that he does not follow this practice with respect to the line ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ strongly suggests that he regards it as Homeric and, in particular, as Odyssean.

 the latter’s technique of reshaping his Homeric or Hesiodic model by introducing alterations that ‘almost always have some recognizable motivation in humor or grammar’ apply to the context of Athenaeus’ ‘citation’; see Sens 2006, 228. Metrical considerations are also heavily against such an attribution; e.g. Archestratus ‘never allows hiatus after a word ending in a short vowel’ (Olson and Sens 2000, lxvi). On Matro, see Olson and Sens 1999. 8 This is in accordance with Athenaeus’ standard treatment of his sources. On his general reliability, see Zepernick 1921, 311–363; Brunt 1980, 481; Ambaglio 1990, 51–64; Arnott 2000, 41. At times Athenaeus makes mistakes that take the form of omissions, paraphrases, and replacements of part of the original text, though we should be careful to distinguish his own carelessness from that of the epitomator; see Sharples & Minter 1983, 154–156; Tronson 1984, 116–126; Bréchet 2007, 321–340.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony Thirdly, the key point is that γέρων does not designate Odysseus’ old age but the disguised Odysseus, who quite often is called a γέρων (‘old fellow’) in the second half of the Odyssey (for example in 14.37, 14.122, 14.166, 14.386, 14.508, 18.21, 18.74).9 Some of these uses of γέρων are attested within a context pertaining to excessive eating and drinking (in the hut of Eumaeus and in the episode with the glutton Irus).10 Finally, given this, I would like to argue that, under the influence of the formulaic line ἥμεθα δαινύμενοι κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ employed for Odysseus and the comrades five times in the Apologos (Od. 9.162 = 9.557 = 10.184 = 10.477 = 12.30), Athenaeus deliberately11 made one of his banqueters create a line reading ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ that sounds

 9 The way in which the actual text of Athenaeus is phrased in this case is rather misleading. One may think that the γέρων to whom he is referring is none other than Sardanapallus himself, the notorious Assyrian King Assurbanipal, whose name had become closely associated in Greek literature with extravagant luxury and effeminacy. Athenaeus offers an entire passage on the proverbial gluttony of Sardanapallus in 12.528f–530c, in which various accounts of the end of his life and their proper sources are listed. I take γέρων as referring to Odysseus for the following reasons: (i) there is no satisfactory explanation concerning Athenaeus’ use of a line with strong Homeric echoes for Sardanapallus; (ii) his old age is related to his effeminacy, the association of food and drink with old age being only secondary (see Suda σ 121 s.v. Σαρδανάπαλος [IV 325–326 Adler], σ 122 s.v. Σαρδαναπάλους [IV 365–367 Adler], and κ 497 s.v. καταγηρᾶσαι [III 42 Adler]). This becomes obvious in the section which Athenaeus devotes in Book 12 to ‘Female-Kings’ (12.528e–531a), on which see Gambiato 2000, 227–230, esp. at 230; (iii) Athenaeus gives on a regular basis the source he is employing by author’s name and/or work. When he does not know or has no direct knowledge of his source, he explicitly tells his readers (see e.g. 8.336d–e, where he cites twelve lines from Alexis’ The Instructor of Profligacy on the basis of On Timo’s Silloi by Sotion of Alexandria) and may at times even indicate the range of his knowledge. Here there is no ϕησί τις or any other expression indicating a different source than the one he has been employing since the beginning of this passage, i.e. Homer (see also 8.336b). 10 It should be noted that Eustathius of Thessalonica (on Od. 18.56 [II 167 Stallbaum]) cites this entire passage of Athenaeus on Odysseus’ gluttony (10.412b–d) in his discussion of the episode between Odysseus and Irus, i.e. when Odysseus is disguised and is called a γέρων, which shows that he considers the entire Athenaeus passage as relevant to that part of the Odyssey. 11 A mistake based on a slip of memory is much less likely because, although ἦσθεν/ἤσθιεν and ἁρπαλέως are attested in subsequent lines in Od. 6.249–250 and 14.109–110 respectively, they are separated by entire books from all five attestations of the formula κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ; see Bréchet (n. 10), 330–331, though both his other examples in 10.444e and 12.511b are, strictly speaking, of a different sort, since in the former the new hexameter is not forged by Athenaeus but by Hegesander of Delphi (fr. 20, FHG iv.417) or his source, and in the latter Athenaeus is substituting one Homeric word with another within a given expression.

Telegony fr. 1 (PEG 1, Bernabé = *1 GEF) = fr. 2 (Allen)  

perfectly Odyssean.12 Similar context had triggered and facilitated this display of knowledge and poetical virtuosity, since it emphasized the theme of gluttony, which was after all needed in this particular section of the Deipnosophistae, given that Athenaeus aimed at highlighting Odysseus’ excessive greed.13 For Odysseus had been presented as a glutton in the very same Odyssean context that he was called a γέρων, namely in Eumaeus’ hut. In fact, it is possible that Athenaeus made one of the banqueters use the syntagma ἤσθιεν ἁρπαλέως14 that is employed in alternate lines in Od. 14.109–110 (ὣς ϕύθ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ ἐνδυκέως κρέα τ᾽ ἤσθιε πῖνέ τε οἶνον | ἁρπαλέως ἀκέων, κακὰ δὲ μνηστῆρσι ϕύτευεν),15 where this diction had been employed by the narrator for Odysseus alone. This line of thought even explains Athenaeus’ expression γέρων τε ὤν, which has misled several scholars who have treated it as an allusion to Odysseus’ old age,16 a theme that could easily have been included in the time frame o Eugammon’s Telegony.17 Before facing the glutton Irus (Od. 18.21–22), Odysseus refers to himself in the following manner: μή σε γέρων περ ἐὼν στῆθος καὶ χείλεα ϕύρσω | αἵματος. We do not need to assume that Athenaeus changed the Homeric γέρων περ ἐών into γέρων τε ὤν. The standard use of γέρων for the disguised Odys-

 12 This explanation is consonant with Athenaeus’ practice in quoting Homer. He often cites a word or expression from a given line, then omits the rest of the line and continues with part of the next verse (there are multiple examples: see e.g. 1.9b, 1.10b, 1.14a, 1.24f). He also changes certain expressions when quoting a line or group of lines. A typical example of the latter tendency can be seen in the passage under discussion (10.412c), in which Od. 7.218 καὶ μάλα τειρόμενον καὶ ἐνὶ ϕρεσὶ πένθος ἔχοντα is cited as καὶ μάλα τειρόμενον καὶ ἐνιπλησθῆναι ἀνώγει. On Athenaeus’ practice in citing Homer, see Bréchet 2007, 321–340. 13 There is a vivid discussion in the scholia of both the Iliad (e.g. A on 8.231 [II 346 Erbse], bT on 9.206b [II 443 Erbse], AbT on 20.84a [V 19 Erbse]) and the Odyssey (on 7.216a-e [IV 59–60 Pontani]) with respect to whether certain eating and/or drinking habits are appropriate or inappropriate to the notion of the hero. Athenaeus’ line cannot have come from the scholia, since he systematically mentions his scholiastic sources, Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus being well-known examples; see Bréchet 2007, 331–335. 14 κρέα also features in the same Odyssean context. 15 See also Od. 6.249–250 (ἦ τοι ὁ πῖνε καὶ ἦσθε πολύτλας δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς | ἁρπαλέως· δηρὸν γὰρ ἐδητύος ἦεν ἄπαστος). 16 Most recently Debiasi 2004, 255 n. 52. 17 Since Odysseus had stayed among the Thesprotians for quite a few years, so that Polypoites, his son from Callidice, had reached the required age to take the throne after his mother’s death, it is assumed that he returned to Ithaca in his old age. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that this topic was exploited in the Telegony, though it may well have featured in an oral *Thesprotis, in which Odysseus died in his old age in the land of the Thesprotians (perhaps in the manner described in Od. 11.134–137 = 23.281–284); on this episode, see the Appendix 4.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony seus in Book 14 (especially when Odysseus is described eating avidly) suffices for the argument presented above. The attestation of the phrase γέρων περ ἐών in an Odyssean context pertaining to the theme of gluttony (this time Irus’ gluttony) may have further facilitated the process that I described above.18 Kaibel’s laconic note ‘versus non Homericus’ in the critical apparatus of his edition of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae turns out to be quite ironic: the verse is not Homer’s but is clearly Homeric, in the sense that I suggest above, and certainly not by Eugammon of Cyrene.19

. Telegony fr. *2 GEF It is now more than ten years since Enrico Livrea suggested that Synesius’ letter 148 to Olympius20 contains a fragment from Eugammon’s Telegony. Subsequently, West included it in his Loeb edition of Greek Epic Fragments.21 In what follows, I intend to examine whether this attribution is correct.22 In his letter to Olympius, Synesius presents the peaceful way of life and customs of the farmers and shepherds of the Cyrenaean hinterland.23 The text to be discussed runs as follows (148.1–66):24 ἀπέλιπον τὴν τάξιν τῶν ϕόρων. τί γὰρ ἦν ποιεῖν, οὐδενὸς Ἑλλήνων τῶν τὴν Λιβύην ἐπῳκηκότων θέλοντος εἰς τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θάλατταν ἐκπέμπειν ὁλκάδας; καὶ σὲ δὲ ἀϕίημι

 18 Notice that the reference to Sardanapallus also scans as a hexameter (ταῦτα γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὁ Σαρδανάπαλλος εἰπεῖν). With respect to Sardanapallus, the ‘naked’ reference to the notorious Assyrian king in 10.412d is explained on the basis that his famous self-composed epitaph (see εἰπεῖν ποτε ἂν ἐτόλμησεν) has already been discussed by the wise banqueters in 8.335f–7a. On a comparison between Sardanapallus’ epitaph and what is said in the Odyssey, see 8.336a–b; on the Assyrian king’s gluttony, luxuriousness, and effeminacy, see 12.528f–30c. 19 Olson (his edition, ad loc.) considers this verse almost identical to Od. 9.162 (ἥμεθα δαινύμενοι κρέα τ᾽ ἄσπετα καὶ μέθυ ἡδύ). 20 See Garzya 1979. 21 West 2003a, 168 (fr. *2). Being (rightly) sceptical about this attribution, West has attached an asterisk to this fragment number (see p. 448). 22 Livrea also suggested in the same article that Callimachus’ Hecale fr. 294 Pfeiffer = 49.9–10 Hollis ‘potrebbe non esser immune da reminiscenze di Eugammone, e perfino preservarne in qualche misura il Wortlaut, omaggio di Callimaco al suo lontano conterraneo’. I will not explore this attribution, since West has (rightly) excluded it from his edition. As Hartmann (1917, 66) has convincingly shown, Cercyon is a later addition to the Agamedes and Trophonius episode. See also Davies 1989, 86. 23 See Roques 1989, 110–112. 24 Livrea 1998, 2 (= fr. 2* GEF).

Telegony fr. *2 GEF  

τῆς συντάξεως· οὐδὲ γὰρ Σύροις ἐπιμελὲς καταίρειν εἰς τὰ Κυρηναίων ἐπίνεια. Λάθοι δ᾽ ἄν με τοῦτό ποτε καὶ γενόμενον· οὐ γάρ εἰμι γείτων θαλάττης οὐδ᾽ ἐλλιμενίζω συχνά, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνῴκισμαι πρὸς νότον ἄνεμον Κυρηναίων ἔσχατος, καὶ γείτονες ἡμῖν εἰσιν οἵους Ὀδυσσεὺς μετὰ τὴν Ἰθάκην τὸ πηδάλιον ἔχων ἐζήτει, μῆνιν Ποσειδῶνος ἐκ τοῦ χρησμοῦ παραιτούμενος, οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλασσαν ἀνέρες, οὐδέ θ᾽ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον εἶδαρ ἔδουσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴ λόγον ἄλλως οἰηθῇς τὸ μηδὲ μέχρις ἁλῶν τοὺς δεῦρο κεχρῆσθαι θαλάττῃ, μηδὲ μὴν ἄναλα διὰ τοῦτο κατεσθίειν ἡγοῦ τὰ κρέα τε καὶ τὰ πέμματα. εἰσὶ ῾νὴ τὴν᾽ ἱερὰν ῾Ἑστίαν᾽, εἰσὶν ἠπειρῶται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἅλες, ἀπέχοντες πρὸς νότον ἔλαττον ἢ πρὸς ἀπαρκτίαν ἡ θάλαττα. τούτους Ἄμμωνος καλοῦμεν τοὺς ἅλας. πέτρα δὲ αὐτοὺς ψαϕαρὰ καὶ τρέϕει καὶ κρύπτει, ἣν ὅταν ἀϕέλῃς ἐπιβεβλημένην ὥσπερ ἐϕελκίδα, ῥᾳστώνη πολλὴ καὶ χερσὶ καὶ σκαλίσιν ἀροῦν τὸ βάθος. τὸ δὲ ἀναχωννύμενον ἅλες εἰσίν, ἰδεῖν τε ἡδεῖς καὶ γεύσασθαι. ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως μὴ σοϕιστικὴν ἀπειροκαλίαν οἰηθῇς τὸ ἐπεξελθεῖν τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἁλῶν τῷ διηγήματι· ἥκιστα γὰρ τοῖς ἀγροδιαίτοις ἡμῖν προσιζάνει τὸ ϕιλότιμον πάθος. ἀλλὰ σὺ γὰρ ἀπαιτεῖς ἕκαστα παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν εἰδέναι. Ἀνέχου τοίνυν ἀδολεσχούσης ἐπιστολῆς, ἵνα καὶ τῆς ἀκαίρου πολυπραγμοσύνης δῷς δίκην. ἅμα δὲ καὶ χαλεπὸν εἰς πίστιν τὸ ἑκάστοις ἀπότροϕον. οὐ ϕαῦλον οὖν ἔργον Σύρον ἀναπεῖσαι περὶ χερσαίων ἁλῶν, ἐπεὶ καὶ δεῦρο πράγματα ἔχω περὶ νεῶν καὶ ἱστίων καὶ θαλάττης ἀνακρινόμενος. οἶσθα γὰρ ὡς ἐγὼ καὶ ϕιλοσοϕῶν ποτε ἅμα ὑμῖν ἐθεασάμην τὸ χρῆμα τοῦτο τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ πρὸς Φάρῳ καὶ πρὸς Κανώβῳ τὴν μεγάλην λίμνην τὴν λαμυράν. καὶ εἵλκετο ναῦς, καὶ ἀνήγετο πρὸς οὖρον αὕτη, κώπαις ἐκείνη. ἐγελᾶτε οὖν εἰκάσαντος αὐτὴν ἐμοῦ ζῴῳ πολύποδι. οἱ δὲ διάκεινται τὰς γνώμας ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, ὅταν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπέκεινα Θούλης ἀκούωμεν, ἥτις ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ Θούλη, διδοῦσα τοῖς διαβᾶσιν αὐτὴν ἀνεύθυνα καὶ ἀνεξέλεγκτα ψεύδεσθαι. ἀλλ᾽ οὗτοί γε, κἂν προσίωνταί ποτε τὰ περὶ τῶν νεῶν ἢ δόξωσιν ἐκεῖνο γελᾶν, ἀνὰ κράτος ἀπιστοῦσιν ὅτι δύναται τρέϕειν ἀνθρώπους καὶ θάλαττα· τοῦτο γὰρ μόνην ἔχειν ἀξιοῦσι τὴν μητέρα γῆν τὸ πρεσβεῖον. Ἐγὼ δέ ποτε αὐτοῖς ἀνανεύουσι πρὸς τὰ περὶ τῶν ἰχθύων, ἀναλαβών τινα κέραμον καὶ προσαράξας πέτρᾳ, ἔδειξα τῶν ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου ταρίχη συχνά· οἱ δὲ ὄϕεων πονηρῶν ἔϕασαν εἶναι σώματα, καὶ ἀναθορόντες ἔϕευγον, τὰς ἀκάνθας ὑποπτεύοντες ὡς οὐδὲν ἠπιωτέρας τοῦ διὰ τῶν ὀδόντων ϕαρμάκου. καὶ ἔϕη τις ὁ γεραίτατος καὶ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ ϕρενῶν ἐπηβολώτατος, σχολῇ γοῦν περὶ ὕδατος ἁλυκοῦ πιστεῦσαι καλόν τι αὐτόθι τρέϕεσθαι καὶ ἐδώδιμον, τῶν πηγαίων τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ποτίμων ναμάτων βατράχους καὶ βδέλλας γεννώντων, ὧν οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὁ μαινόμενος γεύσαιτο. καὶ εἰκότα γε ἀγνοοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ σϕᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾽ ἐπιθρῷσκον πελάγους, ἀλλ᾽ ἵππων χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ μηκάζον αἰπόλιον, καὶ προβατίων βληχὴ καὶ ταύρου μύκημα, πρώτης δὲ ἀκτῖνος ἐπιβαλλούσης τῶν μελιττῶν ὁ βόμβος, εἰς ἡδονῆς λόγον οὐδεμιᾷ παραχωρῶν μουσικῇ. I have neglected the duty to pay tribute, but what could I do? Not one of the Greeks settled in Libya is willing to dispatch merchantmen to your sea. At the same time, I release you from your contribution, for Syrians never take the trouble to call at the ports of the Cyrenaica, and if one did by chance come, I should never know of it. As a matter of fact, I do not

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony live near the sea, and I rarely come to the harbour. I have moved up country to the southern extremity of the Cyrenaica, and my neighbours are such men as Odysseus was in quest of, when he steered from Ithaca, to appease the wrath of Poseidon, in obedience of the oracle: ‘Men, who know not of the sea, nor eat food mixed with salt’. But do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that people here do not take to the sea, even for the purpose of getting their salt, nor yet suppose that thus they eat their meat and cakes unsalted. We have, I swear by holy Hestia, at a distance to the south less than that which separates us from the sea to the north, a native salt which comes from the earth and which we call Ammon’s salt. It collects under a scab, as it were, of crumbling stone, and when this scab, which conceals it, has been removed, it is easy enough to scoop out the depths with one’s hand or with a shovel, and the lumps that you may take up in this manner are salt, pleasant both to look at and to taste. Do not think it sophistical vanity on my part, this account of the salts found in this country. Rustic people such as we are the last to harbour vain glory. But you express a wish to learn from me about everything in my part of the world. Therefore be prepared for a loquacious letter, that you may pay the penalty for your untimely curiosity. At the same time, what is foreign to anyone is difficult of credence. A Syrian will not easily acknowledge the existence of salt from the earth, very much as people here are hard to convince when I answer questions about ships, sails, and the sea. You may remember that once when I was studying philosophy with you, I looked out upon this very thing, the sea, and the great deep lake which stretches from Pharos to Canopos. One ship was being towed in; another was moving with all sails set; another was propelled by oars. You laughed at me when I compared this last one to a centipede. Now the people here are in the same state of mind as we ourselves, whenever we listen to tales in the world beyond Thule, whatever Thule may be, which gives to those who have crossed it freedom to lie about it without criticism or censure. Even if they admit what is told them about vessels, or only seem to laugh at it, at all events they stoutly refuse to believe that the sea too is able to nourish mankind. According to their idea, this privilege belongs to mother earth alone. On one occasion, when they refused to believe in the existence of fish, I took a certain jar, and dashing it against a stone, showed them plenty of salted fish from Egypt, on which they said they were the bodies of evil snakes, sprang up and took to flight, for they suspected that the spines were as dangerous as the poison of a serpent’s fang. Then the oldest and most intelligent of them all said that he found it difficult to believe that salt water could produce anything good and fit to eat, since spring water, excellent though it be to drink, produces nothing except frogs and leeches, which not even a madman would taste. And yet their ignorance is natural. ‘For the onrushing wave’ of the sea ‘awakens them not in the night’ — only the neighing of horses, the bleating of a herd of goats, the cry of sheep, or the bellowing of a bull;

Telegony fr. *2 GEF  

then at the first ray of sunshine the humming of bees, yielding the palm to no other music in the pleasure it gives.25

I shall argue that the dactylic hexameter οὐ γὰρ σϕᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾽ ἐπιθρῷσκον does not come from Eugammon’s Telegony for the following reasons. First, when Synesius refers to what he considers a post-Odyssean adventure of Odysseus he uses one and a half lines from Od. 11.122–123 (= 23.269–270): οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλασσαν | ἀνέρες, οὐδέ θ᾽ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον εἶδαρ ἔδουσιν. If Synesius knew the actual text of the Telegony, as is taken for granted by those who are eager to accept that the verse οὐ γὰρ σϕᾶς ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐγείρει κῦμ᾽ ἐπιθρῷσκον comes from this lost epic, he would not have referred to its content by an Odyssean verse26 but with a verse of the Telegony.27 Secondly, the use of the word πηδάλιον (‘steering paddle’, ‘rudder’) instead of ἐρετμόν (‘oar’) (εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν, Od. 11.121 = 23.268) covertly indicates that Synesius is hereby employing his general knowledge of the Homeric text with respect to this episode.28 He is clearly operating on an Odyssean note, since it is very likely that he is mixing expressions such as πηδάλιον μετὰ χερσὶ θεούσης νηὸς ἔχοντα (Od. 3.281) with ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔχοντ᾽ εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν (Od. 23.268).29 Conversely, if he wanted to substitute the Homeric word ἐρετμόν with a synonym that was widely employed in later Greek, he would have used κώπη, which he regularly employs in his Epistles.30 Thirdly, before citing the dactylic hexameter in question, Synesius uses the phrase καὶ εἰκότα ἀγνοοῦσιν, which recalls the Odyssean expression οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλασσαν (11.122 = 23.269) quoted at the beginning of his letter to Olympius (148.12). This may indicate that he is still within the Odyssean framework set by his initial reference to Homer and that he is, therefore, operating on an Odyssean note.31 Fourthly, Livrea makes much of the violation of Naeke’s rule,32 which is regularly followed in the dactylic hexameter of the Hellenistic period, and ar 25 Translation by Fitzgerald 1926. 26 The alternative possibility, i.e. that Od. 1.122–123 (= 23.269–270) is a verbatim quotation from an oral, pre-Homeric Telegony, is simply untenable. 27 It is highly likely that Synesius considered the oar story to have been part of the Telegony, on which see the Appendix 4. 28 The word πηδάλιον is also regularly used by Synesius in the Epistles (see e.g. 5.15, p. 15; 5.11, p. 16; 5.15, p. 21 [Garzya]). 29 See Od. 11.121: λαβὼν εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν. 30 See Ep. 4.26, 148.38, in Hercher 1873. 31 See below (point 5). 32 According to this rule, diaeresis after a spondaic fourth foot is generally avoided.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony gues that the verse is archaic. The diction of this line suggests otherwise. In particular, σφᾰς is only attested once in Homer (Il. 5.567: μή τι πάθοι, μέγα δέ σϕας ἀποσϕήλειε πόνοιο) as an enclitic that has probably replaced σϕε to avoid hiatus,33 and is short in quantity. In the extant corpus of archaic Greek poetry it occurs one more time, in the beginning of the verse (Th. 34: σϕᾶς δ᾽ αὐτάς), and though it is long there, as in Synesius, it does not tell against our suggestion, since it is placed in proclitic position,34 whereas in Synesius it is not. Conversely, since Synesius’ σϕᾶς is long, it is rather unlikely to have existed in an archaic verse. Of course, one cannot exclude the possibility that it is Synesius who has substituted an original σϕέας with synizesis by σϕᾶς, but other dictional issues strongly indicate that the verse is not archaic. In particular, neither ἐγείρω nor ἐπιθρώσκω ever occur with κῦμα as subject in the extant corpus of archaic Greek epic. Fifthly, since Synesius’ ἐκ νυκτός recalls ἐκ νυκτῶν from Od. 12.286, it is worth examining the wider context of this Homeric hapax. Odysseus, who is with his comrades on the island of Thrinacia, suggests that they should depart immediately because Tiresias had specifically warned him not to eat the cattle of the Sun (Od. 11.107–115). Eurylochus argues that it is dangerous to sail away at night, when there are terrible winds that may destroy their ship. He suggests that they should stay ashore, eat what food is left in their ship, and depart at daybreak. Unfortunately, the next day Zeus sends menacing winds that do not allow them to leave the island. Problems arise when they run out of food. Finally, Odysseus’ advice is rejected and, when he falls asleep, his comrades slaughter and eat the cattle of the Sun (Od. 12.279–396). Throughout this entire passage (and even before) emphasis is given to the sound made by the sheep and cattle on the Sun’s island, both when Odysseus and his men first arrive (Od. 12.265–266: μυκηθμοῦ τ᾽ ἤκουσα βοῶν αὐλιζομενάων | οἰῶν τε βληχήν) and most tellingly when the comrades roast and eat them (Od. 12.395–396: κρέα δ᾽ ἀμϕ᾽ ὀβελοῖσι μεμύκει, | ὀπταλέα τε καὶ ὠμά, βοῶν δ᾽ ὣς γίγνετο ϕωνή). Likewise, Synesius’ dactylic hexameter is followed by his statement that the people who are ignorant of the sea are only awakened at night by ‘the neighing of horses, and the bleating of goats and sheep and the bellowing of bulls’ (ἀλλ’ ἵππων χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ μηκάζον αἰπόλιον, καὶ προβατίων βληχὴ καὶ ταύρου μύκημα). Seen from this vantage point, Synesius’ reference seems to be building on his

 33 Chantraine 1958–1963, I, 267. 34 See Wackernagel 1916, 4–6; West 1966, on Hes. Th. 166 34. The crucial point is that in Synesius’ text σϕᾶς is not followed by αὐτούς and is, therefore, anaphoric-deictic and not reflexive.

Telegony fr. *2 GEF  

general knowledge of Homer35 and in particular of the Thrinacia episode, where equivalent themes were used. These observations indicate that he has probably made up this verse and that he is still operating with an Odyssean context in mind.36 Since he is not citing anyone, he gives us this verse without indicating authorship.37 Sixth, Synesius never mentions a Cyclic poet by name, nor does he ever cite another line from the Cyclic epics. This observation should not be confused with his knowledge of episodes featuring in the Cyclic epics, as Ep. 123.9–10 (Nostoi fr. 7 PEG = fr. 6 EGF = fr. 6 GEF) shows. Seventh and finally, Livrea’s suggestion is based on his belief that the episode of Odysseus wandering with an oar on his shoulder and his appeasement of Poseidon by means of sacrifices after arriving at a land where people are ignorant of the sea38 would have been included in Eugammon’s Telegony.39 In my view, this is hardly the case, since (a) the episode is absent from Proclus’  35 Some of these features are also attested in the story of the Cyclops: (i) the motif ‘they do not know of the sea’ (9.125–127: οὐ γὰρ Κυκλώπεσσι νέες πάρα μιλτοπάρῃοι, | οὐδ᾽ ἄνδρες νηῶν ἔνι τέκτονες, οἵ κε κάμοιεν | νῆας ἐυσσέλμους, …); (ii) the noise made by various animals (9.166– 167: Κυκλώπων δ᾽ ἐς γαῖαν ἐλεύσσομεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντων, | καπνόν τ᾽ αὐτῶν τε ϕθογγὴν ὀίων τε καὶ αἰγῶν; cf. 9.439: θήλειαι δὲ μέμηκον ἀνήμελκτοι περὶ σηκούς); (iii) (uninterrupted) sleep (9.150–151: ἐκ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ βῆμεν ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης· | ἔνθα δ᾽ ἀποβρίξαντες ἐμείναμεν Ἠῶ δῖαν) and (iv) movement of a wave (9.147–148: οὔτ᾽ οὖν κύματα μακρὰ κυλινδόμενα προτὶ χέρσον | εἰσίδομεν). That Synesius also has the episode of the Cyclops in his mind, is clear from the very beginning of his letter (p. 267, 1–6 [Garzya]): ἀμέλει γελῶσιν, ὅταν περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγωσιν, ἡγούμενοι πέρυσιν ἐκτετυϕλῶσθαι τὸν Κύκλωπα, καὶ ὡς εἵλκετο μὲν ὑπὸ τῷ κριῷ τὸ γερόντιον, τὸ δὲ κάθαρμα τὴν θύραν ἐτήρει καὶ οὐραγεῖν ᾤετο τὸν ἡγεμόνα τῆς ποίμνης, οὐκ ἀχθόμενον τῷ ϕορτίῳ, τῇ δὲ αὐτοῦ συμϕορᾷ συναχθόμενον. 36 For comparable phenomena, see Davies 1980, 129–132; Davies 1982, 267–269. In these two studies, it is convincingly shown that metrical sequences (such as Ἄδρηστον μελίγηρυν in Plato’s Phaedrus 269a5) or even ‘entire hexameters’ (Τρώεσσ᾽ οἳ τότ᾽ ἴσαν Fελένας εἴδωλον ἔχοντες), which have been mistakenly attributed to Stesichorus, may have been either created by the author of the ancient source (Plato in the first case) or caused by a combination of various factors such as forgetfulness and misunderstanding of an earlier reference (Tzetzes in the second case). 37 See the Appendix 4. 38 Strictly speaking, the verse in question designates people who live far away from the sea (and are never awakened by the sound of waves) and not people who do not know the sea. 39 This is a different argument from the first one presented above, for there I tried to show that, even if Synesius thought that the episode with the oar occurred in the Telegony, he only had a vague idea of the epic’s content, the actual text not being extant in his time. Conversely, here the argument relates to Livrea’s belief that the episode with the oar belongs to the Telegony, and as a result the line in question may have come from the same context as ‘people who are ignorant of the sea’.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony summary of the Telegony, (b) Odysseus performs the sacrifices ordered by Tiresias after his return to Ithaca from his first journey to Elis and before his departure to Thesprotia, and (c) Odysseus’ journey to Thesprotia resulted from his Wanderlust.40 Thus, when measured cumulatively, the evidence marshalled above strongly suggests that the dactylic hexameter of unknown authorship quoted by Synesius does not come from Eugammon’s Telegony. Discomforting as it is, it may well be the case that not a single verse from this lost epic about Odysseus’ postOdyssean adventures has survived the test of time.

. Appendix 4 There are strong reasons for suggesting that the episode of Odysseus travelling to the land of the Thesprotians with an oar on his shoulder belonged to an older pre-Homeric Thesprotian tradition, but not Eugammon’s Telegony.41 Therefore, I shall try to explain my thesis in considerable detail. The first argument is that the episode with the oar is not mentioned by Proclus.42 Critics may argue that other details of the Telegony, such as Odysseus’ second son by Penelope (Ptoliporthes-Arcesilaus), are also left out by Proclus, whose version is after all a summary. There is, however, an important difference here: there are other features associated with this episode that, cumulatively valued, make it unlikely that the story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ would have featured in Eugammon’s epic. In other words, the lack of any reference by Proclus to the episode with the oar must be seen within a reshaping of the content of an older Thesprotian oral tradition, which Eugammon and the Odyssey un-

 40 For a detailed presentation of this final argument, see the Appendix 4. 41 Though essential, this argument is completely independent of all the others that I present above. As such, its rejection would not affect my central thesis, i.e. that fr. *2 (GEF) does not come from Eugammon’s Telegony. 42 Davies (1989, 7) rightly reminds us that, since Proclus’ summaries have been transferred to the MSS of the Iliad to facilitate the understanding of Homer’s epic, discrepancies with and repetitions of events attested in the Homeric epics had to be removed from them. In this light, the case of the sacrifices ordered by Tiresias is really problematic, for they should have been omitted. In other words, we would have expected an absence of any reference to these sacrifices, which are mentioned in the Odyssey. Referring to the sacrifices but omitting their prerequisite (the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ tale) is extremely awkward.

Appendix 4  

doubtedly knew.43 Clement’s statement that ‘the Cyrenaean [poet] stole from Musaeus the entire Book on the Thesprotians’44 may be a way of saying that a poetic tradition so old as to be attributed to a legendary figure such as Musaeus lies behind the Thesprotian section of Eugammon’s poem. We shall return to this point later: for the time being, suffice it to say that there are reasons for emphasizing Proclus’ silence about such an important episode that — according to the Odyssey — functioned as the aetiology for Odysseus’ journey inland. The second argument is that, in the Odyssey, Tiresias advises Odysseus to perform two sets of sacrifices: one for Poseidon (Od. 11.130–131) and one for the rest of the immortal gods (Od. 11.132–134). The former must include a lamb, a bull, and a boar (ῥέξας ἱερὰ καλὰ Ποσειδάωνι ἄνακτι, | ἀρνειὸν ταῦρόν τε συῶν τ᾽ ἐπιβήτορα κάπρον), and should take place in the land of the people who are ignorant of the sea, while the latter must be offered after Odysseus’ return to Ithaca (οἴκαδ᾽ ἀποστείχειν ἔρδειν θ᾽ ἱερᾶς ἑκατόμβας | ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι, τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι, | πᾶσι μάλ᾽ ἑξείης). According to Proclus’ summary, Odysseus performs the sacrifices ordered by Tiresias after his return to Ithaca from his first journey to Elis and before his departure to Thesprotia (arg. ll. 313– 314 Severyns: ἔπειτα εἰς Ἰθάκην καταπλεύσας τὰς ὑπὸ Τειρεσίου ῥηθείσας τελεῖ θυσίας). In order to avoid this obvious contradiction, scholars have come up with two suggestions. First, Merkelbach has argued that an original εἰς Ἤπειρον καταπλεύσας must at some stage have been changed into εἰς Ἰθάκην καταπλεύσας, since (according to his theory of Odysseus’ exile) Odysseus could not return to Ithaca after Elis.45 This proposal has at least four serious flaws. First, why would this change occur in the first place? Was it a scribal error or a deliberate change? Both alternatives are unlikely: the former could not have been the case, since a change of Ἤπειρον > Ἰθάκην is palaeographically implausible. With respect to the latter, even if we assume that this was an emendation introduced by someone who wanted to bring the summary into agreement with Homer, it remains obscure why he would have introduced a change that would be in line  43 See Ballabriga (1989, 298), who points to an interesting association between the funeral rites offered to Elpenor and the ‘planting of the oar’ motif. See Od. 11.77 (πῆξαι τ᾽ ἐπὶ τύμβῳ ἐρετμόν) and 11.129 (πήξας εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν). 44 Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.25.1 (2.442 Stählin) = Eus. Praep. Ev. 10.2.7 (1.559 Mras): ἤδη δὲ οὐ τὰς διανοίας μόνον καὶ λέξεις ὑϕελόμενοι καὶ παραϕράσαντες ἐϕωράθησαν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ ϕώρια ἄντικρυς ὁλόκληρα ἔχοντες διελεγχθήσονται· αὐτοτελῶς γὰρ τὰ ἑτέρων ὑϕελόμενοι ὡς ἴδια ἐξήνεγκαν, καθάπερ Εὐγάμμων (Dindorf; Εὐγάμων Clem.; Εὐγράμμων Euseb.) ὁ Κυρηναῖος ἐκ Μουσαίου (B 6 D–K) τὸ περὶ Θεσπρωτῶν βιβλίον ὁλόκληρον. 45 Merkelbach 1969, 147.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony with Homer with respect to the first set of sacrifices but against Homer as far as the second set is concerned. After all, there were two sets of sacrifices, both specified by Tiresias — one that would take place in the mainland and one in Ithaca after Odysseus’ return.46 Secondly, the word Ἤπειρος is never employed by Proclus, nor is it ever attested in archaic epic, nor is it used before the Classical Period to designate a wide geographical area in the north-west of the Greek mainland,47 of which Thesprotia is only one part.48 Given that Proclus systematically uses the Homeric or archaic versions of place names, it is unlikely that he could have used the word Ἤπειρον instead of Ἰθάκην. Thirdly, it misinterprets the usus scriptoris, for Proclus employs the verb καταπλέω (‘sail from the high sea to the land’, ‘put into port’, ‘put in’, or ‘sail back’) only for arrival by sea at an island, so it is much more likely that here it designates a journey of return and arrival, i.e. Odysseus’ return to Ithaca.49 Consequently, it is likely that Proclus would have used the participle ἀποπλεύσας and not καταπλεύσας, if he

 46 Od. 11.130–134 = 23.277–281. 47 The place name Ἤπειρος is attested in Apollodorus’ relevant passage (Epit. 7.34: πεζῇ διὰ τῆς Ἠπείρου βαδίζων εἰς Θεσπρωτοὺς παραγίνεται καὶ κατὰ τὰς τοῦ Τειρεσίου μαντείας θυσιάσας ἐξιλάσκεται Ποσειδῶνα), but after the completion of another set of sacrifices to Hades and Persephone (see Od. 10.521–540) that probably take place in Ithaca, and certainly after Odysseus arrives among the Thesprotians. In Proclus’ version, Tiresias’ sacrifices are performed in Ithaca before his departure to Thesprotia. 48 The alternative reading of Ἤπειρον as ἤπειρον, which is, of course, attested in archaic epic with the meaning ‘mainland’, does not fit so well, for Odysseus is already on the mainland (Elis), so it seems awkward to sail again to the mainland. Moreover, designation of a specific place is needed. 49 Proclus’ use of compound forms of πλέω in his summary confirms the abovementioned argument: συμπλεῖν (arg. ll. 92–93 Severyns) refers to Aeneas’ journey together with Paris to Sparta, ἐκπλεῖ (arg. l. 98 Severyns) designates Menelaus’ journey from Sparta to Crete, ἀποπλεύσας (arg. ll. 104–105 Severyns) denotes Paris’ journey from Sparta to Ilium, ἀποπλέουσιν (arg. l. 129 Severyns) is used for the departure of the Achaeans from Mysia, προσπλεύσαντες (arg. l. 254 Severyns) points to the sailing in of the fleet from Tenedos to Troy, ἀποπλέουσιν (arg. l. 266 Severyns) refers to the departure of the Greek fleet from Troy, ἐκπλεύσας (arg. l. 285 Severyns) designates Menelaus’ departure from Troy, ἀποπλεόντων (arg. l. 291 Severyns) indicates the sailing-away of Agamemnon’s fleet from Troy, and ἀποπλεῖ (arg. ll. 309–310 Severyns) points to a sailing-away journey from Ithaca to Elis. Apart from συμπλεῖν, which is not relevant to this argument, in all the other cases the meaning is ‘sailing away’ or ‘sailing away towards a place’. The only time that Proclus employs the verb καταπλέω (arg. l. 144 Severyns: καταπλέουσιν εἰς Τένεδον) he is clearly emphasizing not the place of departure but that of arrival. In particular, καταπλέω designates arrival by sea at an island, i.e. just as is the case with εἰς Ἰθάκην καταπλεύσας (arg. l. 313 Severyns). With respect to the arrival of the Achaeans at Tenedos, Apollodorus has προσέσχον (Epit. 3.23) and προσπλέοντας (Epit. 3.26).

Appendix 4  

wanted to designate a sailing-away from Elis to Thesprotia.50 Fourthly, Merkelbach’s suggestion tries to solve one problem, but ends up creating another: since Tiresias spoke of two sets of sacrifices, if Odysseus is presented as going from Elis directly to Thesprotia (according to Merkelbach’s argument) and performs Tiresias’ sacrifices there, then the second set of sacrifices will never be offered in Ithaca.51 The second suggestion comes from West, in his edition of the Greek Epic Fragments (GEF), where he combines some information given by Apollodorus’ Epitome with Proclus’ summary of the Telegony.52 He thus prints the following plot summary with respect to the passage in question: ἔπειτα εἰς Ἰθάκην καταπλεύσας τὰς ὑπὸ Τειρεσίου ῥηθείσας τελεῖ θυσίας. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰς Θεσπρωτοὺς ἀϕικνεῖται . Thus, we have a summary where two conflicting versions are combined. Since it is, I think, obvious that the same sacrifices (specified by Tiresias) cannot be mentioned twice, we are faced with an insoluble problem. Apollodorus must be used with great caution, for although he may at times offer information that must have belonged to the Telegony, this should not make us forget that he is writing a mythological compendium and not the summary of a given epic poem.53 Each piece of information that he gives us should, therefore, be judged on its own merit. A typical case is, for example, his complete silence about Odysseus’ journey to Elis, which was (beyond any reasonable doubt) part of the Telegony.54

 50 See Tsagalis 2008, 87–88. 51 There is one more point to be stressed, though not very much: if the sacrifices specified by Tiresias were carried out in Epirus and the story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ formed part of the Telegony, then the journey to Epirus would have included two major episodes, the ‘Oar’ and the tale of Callidice. This would run against the tendency of this epic to have a single focus in each episode: Elis — hospitality of Polyxenus, Thesprotia — Callidice, Ithaca — Telegonus. 52 See EGF, 166. 53 See Davies 1989, 7. 54 On the grounds of similarity of content and sometimes diction, Davies (1986, 105–106), has argued that Apollodorus and Proclus ‘derive ultimately from a common source, and that common source, filtered through an unknown and unknowable number of intermediate abridgements about which it would be futile to speculate further, consists of the Epic Cycle from Cypria to Telegony’. West (GEF, 12) asks for caution, ‘as Apollodorus has sometimes incorporated material from other sources such as tragedy’, but uses Apollodorus to complete Proclus’ summaries. Conversely, Kullmann 1960, 139, 156, and 2005, 12 n. 12, does not put Apollodorus on a par with Proclus with respect to the level of accuracy of information included in the actual poems of the Cycle. Scafoglio (2004, 42–44) argues that Proclus had read the actual poems of the Cycle that survived to his day and that Apollodorus also used them from time to time,

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony My third argument is that, since, according to Proclus’ summary, Odysseus performed the sacrifices specified by Tiresias in Ithaca, before his departure to Thesprotia, it becomes plausible that the purpose of Odysseus’ journey to Thesprotia was different. The fact that Proclus does not mention the reason for this journey has caused a lot of head-scratching, but Ballabriga’s claim that Odysseus’ wandering is a voluntary one and that it stems from his Wanderlust that is reflected even in the hero’s false tales in the Odyssey (e.g. 14.244–246) seems to me plausible.55 This scenario solves various problems, including Proclus’ clear designation of the reason for Odysseus’ journey to Elis (ἐπισκεψόμενος τὰ βουκόλια).56 We may even argue that Proclus’ phrase ‘in order to visit his cattle’ explains why Odysseus went to Elis (instead of another place), not why he left Ithaca. In the case of Thesprotia, there was no need to do that, since Odysseus’ Thesprotian adventure had become so closely associated with Odysseus’ postOdyssean fate that it hardly needed an explanation. In an older Thesprotian tradition, Odysseus may have died peacefully in Thesprotia ἐξ ἁλός (‘away from the sea’),57 as Tiresias had prophesied in Od. 11.134. When the myth of Telegonus, which belonged to the typical story pattern ‘son kills his father by accident’, was added to the older Thesprotian lay and the expression ἐξ ἁλός was  hence his similarities with Proclus with respect to content and diction (43). It is generally agreed that the sources of Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca are multiple: see Robert, 1873; Söder 1939; van der Valk 1958, 100–168. There are two important facts that should not be underestimated (i) Apollodorus never states that he offers the plot of any given epic; (ii) abridgements, bizarre selections (such as the absence of the Elis journey in the relevant section of Apollodorus’ Epitome), and the addition of minor points (such as Telegonus’ lamentation upon his realization that he had killed his own father) should in no way be treated as indications that the episodes or scenes were absent (Elis) or featured (lamentation) in the actual work that is summarized (Bibliotheca) and by extension in the Telegony, whose content we know from a different, reliable source (Proclus); see Brunt 1980, 478. 55 See Ballabriga 1989, 291–304. Merkelbach’s suggestion that Odysseus went to Elis and then to Thesprotia because he was exiled after the killing of the suitors (as covertly indicated by the initial phrase of Proclus’ summary) is based on his emendation of Proclus’ εἰς Ἰθάκην to εἰς τὴν Ἤπειρον. For reasons given above, I believe this exile scenario must be dismissed altogether. It is significant that Apollodorus (Epit. 7.40) refers to Odysseus’ exile only in a version (7.40: εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ λέγοντες) that is clearly distinct from the one pertaining to the Telegony (7.34–37); see also Plutarch, Moralia, 294 CD (Aetia Romana et Graeca 14 = Aristotle fr. 507 R.). 56 Arg. l. 310 Severyns. 57 West (2004, 5–6) puts forward a different possibility, suggesting that the ambiguity of the expression ἐξ ἁλός has resulted from the loss of the key to the story. If this Indo-European narrative pattern of ‘exclusive polarities’ is employed, it can be argued that ‘Odysseus … had been declared invulnerable to anything grown or made on the earth. (Perhaps also to any man born of a mortal woman, since Telegonos’ mother was a goddess)’.

Appendix 4  

reinterpreted so as to mean ‘from the sea’,58 Eugammon had to invent a reason for Odysseus’ departure from Thesprotia and return to Ithaca. This reason was Callidice’s death, which allowed Odysseus to leave the throne to Polypoites, the son he had by her. It therefore becomes plausible that the Thesprotian episode acquired a novel function in Eugammon’s Telegony, since it was used to create the necessary time lapse for two important developments or innovations introduced by Eugammon:59 the coming of age of Polypoites and PtoliporthesArcesilaus, the two sons Odysseus had acquired by Callidice and Penelope respectively. Both of them were of the utmost importance to the poet of the Telegony: the former would succeed to the throne in Thesprotia, the latter in Ithaca after Odysseus’ death, the double marriages of Telemachus with Circe and Telegonus with Penelope, and their transfer and subsequent immortalization in Aeaea. Given this, Proclus’ reference to sacrifices specified by Tiresias to be offered in Ithaca before going to Thesprotia may be a relic of the older Thesprotian lay. Tiresias’ sacrifices had, in the course of time, become so intricately entwined with the Thesprotian episode that reference to them remained even when their prerequisite, the story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’, was omitted. As Hansen has shown, the basic point of this story is its aetiological coda.60 In the Telegony, there is no purpose or aim in Odysseus’ visit to Thesprotia. In Proclus’ summary, the sacrifices specified by Tiresias may have designated only the sacrific-

 58 See (i) Σ Od. 11.134 (ΙΙ 487 Dindorf): ἔνιοι δὲ κατὰ παράθεσιν, ἐξ ἁλός, οἷον ἀπὸ θαλάσσης … καί ϕασιν ὡς ἐντεύξει τῆς Κίρκης Ἥϕαιστος κατεσκεύασε Τηλεγόνῳ δόρυ ἐκ τρυγόνος θαλασσίας, ἣν Φόρκυς ἀνεῖλεν ἐσθίουσαν τοὺς ἐν τῇ Φορκίδι λίμνῃ ἰχθῦς· οὗ τὴν μὲν ἐπιδορατίδα ἀδαμαντίνην, τὸν δὲ στύρακα χρυσοῦν εἶναι, τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἀνεῖλεν; (ii) Σ Od. 11.134 (ΙΙ 487 Dindorf): οἱ νεώτεροι τὰ περὶ Τηλέγονον ἀνέπλασαν τὸν Κίρκης καὶ Ὀδυσσέως, ὃς δοκεῖ κατὰ ζήτησιν τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς Ἰθάκην ἐλθὼν ὑπ᾽ ἀγνοίας τὸν πατέρα διαχρήσασθαι τρυγόνος κέντρῳ; (iii) Eust. Od. 11.134 (I 404 Stallbaum): θάνατος δὲ ἔξαλος ὁ ἠπειρωτικὸς καὶ ἔξω θαλάσσης, ἵνα λέγῃ ὅτι εἰ καὶ δυστυχεῖς ὦ Ὀδυσσεῦ κατὰ θάλασσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ θάνατός σοι οὐκ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω αὐτῆς. τινὲς δὲ ἐξ ἁλὸς γράϕουσι κατὰ παράθεσιν ἐν δυσὶ μέρεσι λόγου, λέγοντες ὡς Τηλέγονος ὁ Κίρκης καὶ Ὀδυσσέως ἡϕαιστότευκτον δόρυ ἔχων, οὗ ἀδαμαντίνη μὲν ἡ ἐπιδορατίς, αἰχμὴ δὲ κέντρον θαλασσίας τρυγόνος, χρυσοῦς δὲ ὁ στύραξ, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκ Τυρσηνίας εἰς ἀναψηλάϕησιν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ λεηλατῶν ἀγνοίᾳ τὰ ἠπειρωτικὰ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως κτήματα καὶ εὑρὼν ἀντίπαλον τὸν πατέρα, ἀνεῖλεν οὐκ εἰδώς. καὶ οὕτω τῷ κατὰ θάλασσαν ἀεὶ κακῶς πράττοντι ἐκ θαλάττης αὖθις ὁ θάνατος, ὃς ἔπεϕνεν αὐτόν, καθὰ καὶ Ὀππιανός (Hal. 2.497) ἱστορεῖ, τῷ τῆς τρυγόνος κέντρῳ, ἣν Φόρκυς ϕασιν ἀνεῖλεν ϕθείρουσαν τοὺς ἐν τῇ Φορκίδι λίμνῃ ἰχθῦς; (iv) Apollod. Epit. 7.36: καὶ Ὀδυσσέα βοηθοῦντα τῷ μετὰ χεῖρας δόρατι Τηλέγονος κέντρον τὴν αἰχμὴν ἔχοντι τιτρώσκει, καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς θνῄσκει. 59 See Hartmann 1917, 71–75. 60 Hansen 1977, 27–48; 2002, 371–378.

  Verses Attributed to the Telegony es to all the gods, namely only the second set of sacrifices ordered by Tiresias in the Odyssey. These sacrifices did not change place (since they were still carried out in Ithaca) but rather changed time. Odysseus’ second return to Ithaca (not after Elis but after Thesprotia) was caused in the Telegony by Callidice’s death and had, therefore, been completely separated from the story of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’.61 Another possible explanation is that, under the influence of the Thesprotian episode, Proclus mistakenly used the expression τὰς ὑπὸ Τειρεσίου … θυσίας, although he wanted to designate the sacrifices that Circe (10.521–5) had told Odysseus to perform in Ithaca (which are also mentioned in Apollod. Epit. 7.34).62 This scenario is further strengthened by the fact that both Circe’s sacrifices and Tiresias’ were connected by their Underworld element, the former due to Hades and Persephone, the latter because Tiresias was in the Underworld. As suggested above, it was the influence of the Thesprotian adventure that facilitated Proclus’ mistake.

 61 Huxley (1960, 23–28) suggested that Odysseus had performed the sacrifices to Poseidon in Elis and that it was in Arcadia that the tale of the ‘Sailor and the Oar’ took place. For a refutation of this theory, see Tsagalis 2008, 86–87. 62 See Debiasi (2004, 257 n. 74), who postulates ὑπὸ Κίρκης instead of ὑπὸ Τειρεσίου. This argument is different from Merkelbach’s change of Ἰθάκην to Ἤπειρον: since a sacrifice to Tiresias formed part of the sacrifices which Circe told Odysseus to perform in Ithaca (Od. 10.522–525), confusion was facilitated. Debiasi (2004, 253–254) also entertains the idea, on the basis of Clement’s assertion that Eugammon had stolen the entire Thesprotian Book from Musaeus (Strom. 6.2.25.1 = Euseb. Praep. Ev. 10.2.7), that the Telegony may have contained a Nekyia, which would have shared several similarities with its Odyssean counterpart. I am very sceptical about this suggestion, whose core was first suggested by Schwartz 1924, 140.



Part IV: The Performance of Epic

 Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions The exact interpretation of the words ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός is a thorny issue, even though their etymological analysis is explicit and indisputable. The Greeks may have indulged (partly, at least) in explanations based on folk etymology, but it should be acknowledged that these, too, are important towards understanding the meaning and function of these terms. The word ἀοιδός (‘singer’, ‘song-maker’)1 constitutes a poetological term that refers to the composition and performance of poetry. It is not particular to epic composition, although in modern research it has been closely connected to it. The ἀοιδός designates a person who composes and sings his own song(s) or the song(s) composed by others. However, the differentiation between these two meanings is often, especially in early epic poetry, indistinguishable. Most information at our disposal regarding the singers’ function in Greek epic comes from the Homeric epics2 and could be described as internal. It is necessary to distinguish it from external information, which derives from nonepic sources, especially since it has been filtered by the verbal and semantic environment where it has been incorporated.3 I will, therefore, begin by examining the material pertaining to singers and singing in Homeric epic and will then move on to information from other sources about the performance of epic poetry.

. Singers in the Iliad and the Odyssey Any examination of the role of singers in Homeric epic should start by considering whether the picture offered by the Iliad and the Odyssey is historically accurate. Is this an authorial self-insertion subtly hinting at real poets and performing practices of epic song?4 Scholars have provided different answers to this question. Nagy opts for authorial self-insertion, according to which the presentation of singers and singing in the Homeric epics does not correspond to or  1 From ἀείδω (Att. ἄιδω). 2 See the studies of Maronitis 1998, 57–75 (= 2004, 101–115 = 20052, 294–316); see also Maronitis and Polkas 2007, 51–68. 3 On rhapsodes in Greek epic, see Kraus 1955, 65–87; Maehler 1963, 9–34; Schadewaldt 19654, 54–87; Svenbro 1976, 18–38; Thalmann 1984, 157–184; Gentili 1988, 3–23; Goldhill 1991, 56–58; Ford 1992, 101–130; Segal 1994, 113–141; González 2013, 344–348, 419–421 and 2020, 196–198. 4 See Gainsford 2015, 85. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-017

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions reflect reality but has been constructed by the medium of epic poetry. He has coined a technical term to describe this phenomenon, i.e. ‘diachronic skewing’, an implicit reference of a certain tradition to the earlier stages of its formation. In a previous study, I have summarized this approach as following:5 In the Odyssey, the presentation of Phemius and Demodocus accompanying the performance of their songs with a stringed instrument (a kitharis or phorminx) does not comply with the restricted melodiousness6 and the absence of any instrument characteristic of epic hexameter poetry of the Classical and Hellenistic Period. According to Nagy (1990a, 24 = 2003, 43), just as Homeric evidence about the performance of songs by singers during festivities refutes the simultaneous reality of the performance of the epic poems by rhapsodes during Panhellenic festivals, so the Homeric evidence about performances accompanied by the lyre refutes the simultaneous reality of the recitation by a rhapsode, unaccompanied by any instrument at all. In other words, the way in which Phemius and Demodocus are depicted in the Odyssey might be accurate diachronically without being synchronically true.7

The image of the singer singing, accompanied by a stringed musical instrument (kitharis or phorminx) is mainly known by the presentation of Phemius in the Odyssey (8.67, 73). Because of (a) the melodiousness of his performance and (b) the use of a musical instrument, i.e. of elements which are characteristically absent from the body of surviving material regarding the performance of epic poetry in the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Period, it has been claimed that ‘the medium of ‘Homer’ has outgrown, as it were, the medium of Demodocus’.8 The presentation of singing activity in the Homeric epics constitutes a stylized regeneration of epic performances which is at odds with the reality of rhapsodic recitations. There is a stark contrast between the presentation of the singer, as well as of the performance framework within which he sings: the singer with the phorminx has been replaced by a rhapsode with no instrument, and the context of festivity has been substituted by a public celebration.9 The imagery that we encounter in the Odyssey is that of professional singers of epic poetry.10 Both Phemius in Ithaca (Book 1) as well as Demodocus in Sche-

 5 Tsagalis 2016, 38. 6 Nagy (1990b, 17–24) argues for reduced melody. 7 Nagy 1990a, 394 = 1996b, 20, n. 27 = 2003, 39. 8 Nagy 2003, 42. 9 González 2013, 87–88; Ebbott 2020, 10. 10 See Schadewaldt 19654, 68–71. For a useful overview of all Homeric passages that refer to songs and singers, see Grandolini 1996.

Singers in the Iliad and the Odyssey  

ria (Book 8), sing epic songs within the context of a banquet.11 According to the Odyssey, the performance of epic poetry follows a default ritual that agrees and (up to a certain point, at least) is enforced by festivity-related rules. It is indicative that the social aspect of festivity, i.e. the one concerning professional matters or entertainment, takes place only after the end of eating and drinking. The existence of a special formula for declaring that food consumption has come to an end (e.g. Il. 2.432: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο)12 testifies to the epic filtering of this ritual and a clear distinction between the two stages of the δαίς (‘banquet’), i.e. food consumption and the social aspect of festivity. Singers are depicted as extremely experienced (Od. 1.337–338) and some of them as self-taught (Od. 22.347).13 Phemius boasts that he has learned his art on his own (αὐτοδίδακτος), since he refers to himself as having composed all the songs he is singing, although the content of at least some of them was traditional (e.g. 1.325–327: τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός, οἱ δὲ σιωπῇ | εἵατ᾽ ἀκούοντες· ὁ δ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν νόστον ἄειδε | λυγρόν, ὃν ἐκ Τροίης ἐπετείλατο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη).14 This means that other singers had been trained by professionals who had greater experience.15 Training of course, in this context, does not necessarily mean learning a given epic and then re-performing it. It might just refer to learning the technique of public recitation or, more widely, the oral performance of a song.16 Singers enjoy wide recognition.17 In the Odyssey, nomenclature reflects the social acceptance of these professionals: Φήμιος Τερπιάδης (‘the Famous One, son of him who brings enjoyment’), Δημόδοκος (‘the one that is honored by the

 11 By ‘context of the banquet’ I am not designating the confined frame of the symposium in the Archaic Period, but the banquet that takes place in an official context, like the palace of a ruler in the Homeric epics. 12 Finkelberg 1998, 89–90. 13 Schadewaldt 19654, 73–74. 14 ‘He found them listening to a song which their famous bard was singing to them about the Achaeans’ return from Troy and the disasters that Pallas Athene made them suffer’. 15 See Schadewaldt 19654, 70–71; cf. Bonifazi 2012, 152–154; González 2013, 212–214. 16 Sealey (1957, 315–316) interprets this reference as an indication that other singers were not self-taught but were reciting already composed poems. He refers to the Finnish epic Kalevala, where Väinämöinen emphatically points out the authenticity of his recitation, emphasizing the power of divine inspiration that he has received: ‘I was born to sing. | I was made to be a speaker; | how, I do not ask in the village, nor do I learn my songs from strangers’ (XXI, 359–362). 17 Od. 1.325, 346, 336; 3.267–271; 4.17; 8.43, 62, 83, 367, 471, 479–481, 483, 487, 521, 539; 9.3–4; 17.385 (I deliberately omit Il. 18.604; see West’s edition). About the singer’s reward, see Schadewaldt 19654, 70, who refers to treats (Od. 8.475) and other gifts, like tripods (Il. 22.164, 23.264, 702). Fame was, of course, the greatest reward.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions people’). The same is the case with a declaration regarding a song performed by Demodocus, the fame of which had reached wide heaven (κλέος οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἵκανε, Od. 8.74).18 The performance of epic song was not a solitary process, but rather an interactive one. The singer not only took into account his audience but was in direct contact with it. It seems that listeners were familiar with the mythical material the singer was singing. This fact had both a positive and a negative aspect. The singer had to present a version of mythically established events (i.e. known to the members of his audience) in a manner that would spark their interest and attention. In view of the fact that listeners knew of versions of a story that were different one from the other regarding certain elements, though they were based on and shared the same stable skeleton of events, the singer was presented mainly with two possibilities: first, to use the thematic kernel that all members of his audience were aware of, but to proceed by changing some details or modifying some minor elements; second, to innovate as regards the way in which he would tell the story. Seen from this vantage point, determining the starting point of his song was of key importance.19 The proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey confirm this approach. The beginning of the story is specified at the end (1.6: ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε)20 and immediately after the end of the Iliadic proem (1.8: τίς τάρ σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι).21 In the Odyssey the proem ends with a request to the Muse to specify to the singer the point from which he is to start his story (1.10: τῶν ἁμόθεν γε, θεά, θύγατερ Διός, εἰπὲ καὶ ἡμῖν).22 The performance of a song could be interrupted: Alcinous stops Demodocus twice when his song makes Odysseus burst into tears (Od. 8.139–140, 536–543).23 Some listeners might ask the singer to sing a song of their choice, exactly like Odysseus does in Scheria with Demodocus (Od. 8.492–498). Interaction of this kind, which includes the performance of ‘requests’ by members of the audience, presupposes that singers had an extensive repertoire of songs, and they could sing (even with no further preparation)  18 Schadewaldt 19654, 70. 19 See Schadewaldt (19654, 97–98), who maintains that referring to song by means of diction pertaining to a ‘journey’ indicates how the singer searches for the path he should follow, i.e. the version that he should sing. 20 ‘Since that time when first there stood in division of conflict’. 21 ‘What god was it then set them together in bitter collision?’ 22 ‘Tell us this story, goddess daughter of Zeus, beginning at whatever point you will’. Burkert 1987, 48; Tsagalis 2005, 57 (see also chapter 1, pp. 35, 41–42 [this volume]). See also Hor. Ars Poet. 148–149; Quintil. Inst. Or. 10.1.48. 23 Finkelberg 1998, 90.

Singers in the Iliad and the Odyssey  

any of them, whenever their audience wanted. The adjective that refers to Phemius, πολύφημος (Od. 22.376), expresses his ability to sing many and various songs (Od. 22.347–348).24 The case of Demodocus is partially different from that of Phemius. Two of the songs he sings (the first and third one in Odyssey 8) are known to his audience (Phaeacians and Odysseus).25 If this fact is placed against a historical backdrop, it would mean that the singer had already sung those songs in front of multiple audiences and that some of the listeners might have already listened to them. Since these are obviously preexisting songs, Demodocus is able to meet his audience’s expectations regarding the authority of the songs he is performing. The term ‘authority’ refers to the accuracy and completeness of Demodocus’ recitation.26 Within the framework of the performance of epic poetry, authority is an extremely important factor for estimating the value of song recitals. This is the main proof of the song’s consolidation, the means to measure the degree of its crystallization within the oral universe of recitation, as well as the selfreferential acknowledgment of its integration in the meta-language pertaining to the public presentation of poetry. For this reason, this relation is described in the form of divine inspiration, which refers to the association of the poet with the prophet, the two professionals that are in direct contact with the world of gods.27 In contrast to Phemius, who advertises himself as a self-taught singer, the Odyssey emphasizes Demodocus’ poetical training in a famous passage (8.488– 491):28 ἢ σέ γε Μοῦσ’ ἐδίδαξε, Διὸς πάϊς, ἢ σέ γ᾽ Ἀπόλλων· λίην γὰρ κατὰ κόσμον Ἀχαιῶν οἶτον ἀείδεις,

 24 Ford 2011, 804. 25 See Schadewaldt (19654, 70–71), who examines terms like ἐπισταμένως (Od. 11.368), κατ᾽ αἶσαν (Od. 8.496) et al. which have a poetological tone, since they refer to the experience of the performance of the song. 26 González 2013, 176. 27 Schadewaldt 19654, 77–83; González 2013, 177. 28 Another difference between Phemius and Demodocus pertains to the former’s promise to Odysseus that he will recite the Odyssey (ἔοικα δέ τοι παραείδειν | ὥς τε θεῷ, ‘and I am worthy to sing for you as a god’, Od. 22.348–349), which is combined with his ability to sing cyclic epic (τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός, οἱ δὲ σιωπῇ | εἵατ᾽ ἀκούοντες· ὁ δ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν νόστον ἄειδε | λυγρόν, ὃν ἐκ Τροίης ἐπετείλατο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη, ‘he found them listening in silence to a song which their famous bard was singing to them about the Achaeans’ return from Troy and the disasters that Pallas Athene made them suffer’, Od. 1.325–327). On the other hand, Demodocus sings exclusively non-Οdyssean epic episodes (Book 8).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions ὅσσ’ ἕρξαν τ᾽ ἔπαθόν τε καὶ ὅσσ᾽ ἐμόγησαν Ἀχαιοί, ὥς τέ που ἢ αὐτὸς παρεὼν ἢ ἄλλου ἀκούσας. Either the Muse, Zeus’ daughter, taught you or Apollo; for you sing the Achaeans’ destiny in an extremely appropriate manner, what they did, what befell them and what the Achaeans went through, like you yourself were present or as if you heard this from someone else.

The phraseology used in this passage makes it clear that the authority of the song performed by the singer is acquired by means of divine inspiration. The subject of the verb ἐδίδαξεν is not some mortal singer but the Muse or Apollo. The disjunctive choice between these two deities constitutes the way Homeric epic underscores their connection, especially since Apollo is known as Μουσηγέτης, as the god who leads the Muses (Pl. Laws 653d3). The Muse and Apollo are divine instructors, and the singer is their student. The latter must sing κατὰ κόσμον (in an appropriate way): his song ought to be in harmony with the way the events happened.29 Therefore authority, in its two basic dimensions, that of accuracy and that of completeness, belongs to the special idiom of the singer’s art. In this context, the term κόσμος acquires a more specialized meaning, as it describes the song itself. The expression ἵππου κόσμον ἄεισον | δουρατέου (‘sing to us the stratagem of the Wooden Horse’, Od. 8.492) refers to the famous episode of the fall of Troy by the Wooden Horse. The semantic link to the phrase κατὰ κόσμον (‘in an appropriate, correct manner’) indicates Archaic practices of performing epic songs. The same is the case with the phrase κατὰ μοῖραν (Od. 8.496). Flirting with the possibility that the singer Demodocus has heard other songs about the sack of Troy, Odysseus urges him to sing κατὰ μοῖραν, which means that the expressions κατὰ κόσμον and κατὰ μοῖραν can be seen under the same perspective.30 The issue of authority is cogent to that of the identity of the song’s content. By the term ‘identity’ I refer to the set belief of ancient listeners that the song they are hearing is identical to all its previous performances. Even though this  29 See also Il. 9.528, where Phoenix reassures Achilles (but also the rest of the audience: Patroclus, Odysseus, Ajax, the heralds) that he will be singing κλέα ἀνδρῶν (Meleager’s story), ὡς ἦν (‘how it went’). Using Homeric terminology for epic poetry, Phoenix insists on the matter of fullness and accuracy. 30 González 2013, 194–196. On the poetological aspect of the expressions κατὰ μοῖραν | ὑπὲρ μοῖραν, see Pestalozzi 1945, 40; Kullmann 1956; Fränkel 19622, 62–64; Matthews 1976; Schadewaldt 19654, 71; Nagy 19992, 40 n. 2; Richardson 1990, 194; Janko 1992, 5–6; Currie 2006, 7; Tsagalis 2011a, 226; also pp. 19, 176 (this volume).

Singers in the Iliad and the Odyssey  

belief is diachronically proven to be untrue, what is of importance is that the ancient audience believed it and that this belief is a fundamental prerequisite of the prestige that the singing of epic poetry has gained. Such a belief is analogous, as it has been convincingly claimed,31 to the belief that mantic language and therefore mantic poetry resonate the language of the gods. As a seer conveys accurately and unerringly through language the god’s will for the future, so the epic poet conveys the knowledge of the past, identical and unaltered through divine inspiration. Singers could recite old, well-known songs or new ones which had been recently presented and had gained the audience’s praise and approval.32 The songs that were relevant to ἔργ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε (‘the deeds of men or gods’, Od. 1.338) are famous (Od. 1.337–338),33 while the painful return of the Achaeans (Od. 1.326–327)34 is called ‘the most recent song’ (νεωτάτη ἀοιδή, Od. 1.351–352). Demodocus’ songs reflect an older genre of songs (Od. 8.74), as they refer not only to the Trojan War as a whole (first song: Od. 8.85–72; third: Od. 8.499–520), but also to the deeds of gods, i.e. to stories that concern exclusively the world of the gods and are characterized by a funnier tone that attracts the audience’s interest (second song: Od. 8.266–366). Although I do not intend to extract any conclusions about rhapsodic performances from the performance of epic songs in the Odyssey, it can be assumed that the rule was to recite separate episodes and not whole epic poems.35 The banquet, as the frame in which epic poetry was performed, imposed temporal and social restrictions regulating the time and duration of an epic recitation. However, selectivity was perhaps part (not the whole) of historical reality. An 31 Nagy (2002, 141–149) links to this notion the early use of the verb ὑποκρίνεσθαι in Homeric epic; on ὑπόκρισις and ὑποκριτής, see also Koller 1957, 100–107. 32 According to Finkelberg (1998, 93–98), the audience’s attraction is exclusively caused by a new story or song, while the recitation of an already known song brings pleasure. Differently González 2013, 190–194. 33 Od. 1.337–8: Φήμιε, πολλὰ γὰρ ἄλλα βροτῶν θελκτήρια οἶδας | ἔργ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε, τά τε κλείουσιν ἀοιδοί (‘Phemius, with your knowledge of the ballads that poets have made about the deeds of men or gods you could enchant us with many other tales’). 34 See p. 450 n. 101 (this chapter). 35 Later testimonies (e.g. Ael. Var. Hist. 13.14) about the performance of specific episodes instead of complete epic compositions verify these observations; see also Slings 2000, 70. However, an absolute dichotomy between recitation of episodes or entire epics should be avoided. It is better to envisage a more flexible performance environment, even if the recitation of whole poems was not so frequent. Stesichorean poetry offers a useful analogy, though with respect to the number of performers: it was performed either by a single singer playing the kitharis or by a chorus. See Davies and Finglass 2014, 31–32; also pp. 443–445 (this chapter).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions cient listeners could follow the plot of a known story unfolding seamlessly, even when the singer would start his song36 or interrupt it at the point where part of the audience wanted him to,37 or when he was making the transition from one episode to another.38 The presentation of singers in the Homeric epics certifies that the place where one would expect to encounter them would be a ruler’s or king’s court. Although it is explicitly mentioned that people invite singers from various places (Od. 17.382–386),39 the only example of a wandering singer in the Homeric poems is Thamyris, who travels from one place to another performing his art.40 Thamyris, who boasted that he could beat even the Muses, was punished by paralysis and the loss of his ability to sing and play his lyre.41

 36 Od. 8.43–45: καλέσασθε δὲ θεῖον ἀοιδὸν | Δημόδοκον (‘and summon our divine bard, Demodocus’), Od. 8.254–255: Δημοδόκῳ δέ τις αἶψα κιὼν φόρμιγγα λίγειαν | οἰσέτω (‘and one of you run and fetch Demodocus his tuneful lyre’). 37 Od. 8.97–101: κέκλυτε, Φαιήκων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες· | ἤδη μὲν δαιτὸς κεκορήμεθα θυμὸν ἐΐσης | φόρμιγγός θ᾽, ἣ δαιτὶ συνήορός ἐστι θαλείῃ· | νῦν δ᾽ ἐξέλθωμεν καὶ ἀέθλων πειρηθῶμεν | πάντων (‘captains and counsellors of the Phaeacians, listen to me. We have eaten together and listened to the lyre, that goes with good food, to our heart’s content. Let us go outside now and try skills at various sports’); 8.536–543: κέκλυτε, Φαιήκων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες, | Δημόδοκος δ᾽ ἤδη σχεθέτω φόρμιγγα λίγειαν· | οὐ γάρ πως πάντεσσι χαριζόμενος τάδ᾽ ἀείδει. | ἐξ οὗ δορπέομέν τε καὶ ὤρορε θεῖος ἀοιδός, | ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ οὔ πω παύσατ᾽ ὀϊζυροῖο γόοιο | ὁ ξεῖνος· μάλα πού μιν ἄχος φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν. | ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ὁ μὲν σχεθέτω, ἵν᾽ ὁμῶς τερπώμεθα πάντες, | ξεινοδόκοι καὶ ξεῖνος, ἐπεὶ πολὺ κάλλιον οὕτω (‘hear me, captains and counsellors of the Phaeacians. Let Demodocus top playing his tuneful lyre; the theme of his song is not to everybody’s liking. Since we began our meal and our divine minstrel struck up, our guest here has been weeping bitterly without a pause. Some poignant sorrow must have overwhelmed his feelings. Let the bard stop playing, so that we can all be merry, hosts and guests alike. How much pleasanter that is!’). 38 Od. 8.492–493: ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ μετάβηθι καὶ ἵππου κόσμον ἄεισον | δουρατέου (‘but now change the theme and sing to us the stratagem of the Wooden Horse’); 8.501–502: ὣς φάθ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ ὁρμηθεὶς θεοῦ ἤρχετο, φαῖνε δ᾽ ἀοιδήν, | ἔνθεν ἑλών (‘he finished speaking, and the bard, beginning with an invocation of the gods, unfolded his tale’). 39 τίς γὰρ δὴ ξεῖνον καλεῖ ἄλλοθεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν | ἄλλον γ᾽, εἰ μὴ τῶν, οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι; μάντιν ἢ ἰητῆρα κακῶν ἢ τέκτονα δούρων, | ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἀείδων. | οὗτοι γὰρ κλητοί γε βροτῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν (‘who would of his own accord approach and invite a wandering stranger in unless he were a craftsman who worked for the whole community, a prophet, a physician, a carpenter, or even a divine minstrel who can give pleasure with his songs?’). 40 Power 2010, 254. 41 2.594–600: … ἔνθά τε Μοῦσαι | ἀντόμεναι Θάμυριν τὸν Θρήϊκα παῦσαν ἀοιδῆς | Οἰχαλίηθεν ἰόντα παρ᾽ Εὐρύτου Οἰχαλιῆος· | στεῦτο γὰρ εὐχόμενος νικησέμεν εἴ περ ἂν αὐταὶ | Μοῦσαι ἀείδοιεν κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο· | αἳ δὲ χολωσάμεναι πηρὸν θέσαν, αὐτὰρ ἀοιδὴν | θεσπεσίην

Singers in the Iliad and the Odyssey  

Even in that case, the notion of a poetic contest should not be taken literally. It is about Thamyris’ boastfulness that he could surpass even his source of inspiration, the Muses themselves, not about a particular contest that happened in some place.42 After all, Thamyris was a κιθαρῳδός, not a ῥαψῳδός, and in this vein his punishment is covertly reflecting the historically verified competition between kitharodes and rhapsodes, presented from the point of view of the rhapsodes.43 It is preferable not to count the Thamyris excerpt as evidence of singing contests.44 Phemius,45 Demodocus,46 and the two anonymous singers47 in Mycenae (Od. 3.267–271)48 and Sparta (Od. 4.17–19)49 are not wandering singers. They live and recite poetry in the royal courts of Odysseus, Alcinous, Agamemnon and Mene-

 ἀφέλοντο καὶ ἐκλέλαθον κιθαριστύν (‘where the Muses | encountering Thamyris the Thracian stopped him from singing | as he came from Oechalia and Oechalian Eurytus; | for he boasted that he would surpass, if the very Muses, | daughters of Zeus who holds the aegis, were singing against him, | and these in their anger struck him maimed, and the voice of wonder | they took away, and made him a singer without memory’). 42 For Thamyris, see Kirk 1985, 216; Grandolini 1996, 48–50; Maronitis and Polkas 2007, 51– 52; Brügger et al. 2003, on Il. 595; Tsagalis 2012b, 202–208. Wilson (2009, 50–51) claims that the etymology of the name Θάμυρις proves that ‘it is a very old, Aeolian name that was used in reference to a form of social gathering, for supra-local gatherings in a religious center’ and that it refers to the ‘centripetal force of the song, the gathering that projects unity and massiveness’, while the term οἴμη declares the centrifugal tendency of the singing recitation. See Hesych. θ 90 [II 388 Alpers and Cunningham] s.v. θάμυρις· πανήγυρις, σύνοδος, ἢ πυκνότης τινῶν. καὶ ὁδοὺς θαμυρὰς τὰς λεωφόρους. ἔστι δὲ καὶ κύριον ὄνομα· θ 91 [II 388 Alpers and Cunningham]: θαμυρίζει· ἀθροίζει, συνάγει. 43 See Power 2010, 205–209, 250–257. The kitharis players were also singing Homeric verses, accompanying them with the seven-stringed lyre (Schadewaldt 19654, 60). 44 Schadewaldt 19654, 64. Poetological declarations, whether they are referring to other epic traditions (e.g. Od. 24.196–201) or they are self-referential (e.g. Il. 6.357–358) do not shed any light at the issue examined here. 45 Maronitis and Polkas 2007, 54–57. 46 Maronitis and Polkas 2007, 57–65. 47 Maronitis and Polkas 2007, 54. 48 πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔην καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀνήρ, ᾧ πόλλ᾽ ἐπέτελλεν | Ἀτρεΐδης Τροίηνδε κιὼν εἴρυσθαι ἄκοιτιν. | ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή μιν μοῖρα θεῶν ἐπέδησε δαμῆναι, | δὴ τότε τὸν μὲν ἀοιδὸν ἄγων ἐς νῆσον ἐρήμην | κάλλιπεν οἰωνοῖσιν ἕλωρ καὶ κύρμα γενέσθαι (‘and besides, she had a minstrel with her, to whom Agamemnon when he left for Troy had given orders to watch over his queen. But when the fatal day came, appointed by the gods for her to yield, Aegisthus took this minstrel to a desert isle, left him there as carrion for the birds of prey’). 49 μετὰ δέ σφιν ἐμέλπετο θεῖος ἀοιδὸς | φορμίζων· δοιὼ δὲ κυβιστητῆρε κατ᾽ αὐτούς | μολπῆς ἐξάρχοντες ἐδίνευον κατὰ μέσσους (‘while a minstrel in the company sang divinely to the lyre, and two acrobats danced in time to his tune, and whirled in and out among the guests’).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions laus, and are not itinerant bards. On the contrary, they seem to constitute an integral part of the permanent staff of the palace. The Odyssey emphasizes the close relationship between festivity and certain activities that accompany it, like singing, dancing and playing the lyre. They are all considered to be ‘the pleasure of the banquet’ (ἀναθήματα δαιτός, Od. 1.152, 21.430), a feature that is attributed to the lyre as well (δαιτὶ συνήορός ἐστι θαλείῃ, Od. 8.99), which in fact the gods have made a companion to the feast (ἣν ἄρα δαιτὶ θεοὶ ποίησαν ἑταίρην, Od. 17.271).50 The Homeric epics do not refer to song contests. Nowhere in the text do we find two or more singers compete against one another.51 Multiple singers participate in the official lament for Hector (Il. 24.719–722)52 and Achilles (Od. 24.58– 62)53 but there is absolutely no mention of a contest. The same happens in many occasions where there is a clear reference to multiple singers, like the Achaeans singing the paean (Il. 1.472–474,54 22.391–39455), the Muses and Apollo (Il. 1.601– 604),56 Achilles and Patroclus (Il. 9.186–191),57 the maiden choruses singing and

 50 See Finkelberg 1998, 89. 51 See Schadewaldt 19654, 62. 52 οἳ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ εἰσάγαγον κλυτὰ δώματα, τὸν μὲν ἔπειτα | τρητοῖς ἐν λεχέεσσι θέσαν, παρὰ δ᾽ εἷσαν ἀοιδοὺς | θρήνων ἐξάρχους, οἵ τε στονόεσσαν ἀοιδὴν | οἳ μὲν ἄρ᾽ ἐθρήνεον, ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο γυναῖκες (‘and when they had brought him inside the renowned house, they laid him | then on a carved bed, and seated beside him the singers | who were to lead the melody in the dirge, and the singers | chanted the song of sorrow, and the women were mourning beside them’). 53 ἀμφὶ δέ σ᾽ ἔστησαν κοῦραι ἁλίοιο γέροντος | οἴκτρ᾽ ὀλοφυρόμεναι, περὶ δ᾽ ἄμβροτα εἵματα ἕσσαν. | Μοῦσαι δ᾽ ἐννέα πᾶσαι ἀμειβόμεναι ὀπὶ καλῇ | θρήνεον· ἔνθα κεν οὔ τιν᾽ ἀδάκρυτόν γ᾽ ἐνόησας | Ἀργείων· τοῖον γὰρ ὑπώρορε Μοῦσα λίγεια (‘the daughters of the Old Sea-God stood round you with bitter lamentations and wrapped your body in an imperishable shroud. The Nine Muses chanted your dirge in sweet antiphony and you would not have seen a single Argive without tears in his eyes, such was the clear-voiced Muses’ song’). 54 οἳ δὲ πανημέριοι μολπῇ θεὸν ἱλάσκοντο | καλὸν ἀείδοντες παιήονα κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν | μέλποντες ἑκάεργον· ὃ δὲ φρένα τέρπετ᾽ ἀκούων (‘all long they propitiated the god with singing, | chanting a splendid hymn to Apollo, these young Achaeans, | singing to the one who works from afar, who listened in gladness’). 55 νῦν δ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἀείδοντες παιήονα κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν | νηυσὶν ἔπι γλαφυρῇσι νεώμεθα, τόνδε δ᾽ ἄγωμεν. | ἠράμεθα μέγα κῦδος· ἐπέφνομεν Ἕκτορα δῖον, | ᾦ Τρῶες κατὰ ἄστυ θεῷ ὣς εὐχετόωντο (‘but now, young men of the Achaeans, let us go back, singing | a victory song, to our hollow ships; and take this with us. | We have won ourselves enormous fame; we have killed the great Hector | whom the Trojans glorified as if he were a god in their city’). 56 ὣς τότε μὲν πρόπαν ἦμαρ ἐς ἠέλιον καταδύντα | δαίνυντ᾽, οὐδέ τι θυμὸς ἐδεύετο δαιτὸς ἐΐσης, | οὐ μὲν φόρμιγγος περικαλλέος ἣν ἔχ᾽ Ἀπόλλων, | Μουσάων θ᾽ αἳ ἄειδον ἀμειβόμεναι ὀπὶ καλῇ (‘thus thereafter the whole day long until the sun went under | they feasted, nor was

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

dancing in honor of Artemis (Il. 18.182–183;58 Od. 6.102–108),59 the people depicted on Achilles’ shield singing the ὑμέναιος (Il. 18.493),60 and the Sirens (Od. 12.44, 52, 183).61

. Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances The etymological analysis of the noun ῥαψῳδός has been the subject of multiple and conflicting analyses since antiquity. Emblematic, not only for the history  anyone’s hunger denied a fair portion, | nor denied the beautifully wrought lyre in the hands of Apollo | nor the antiphonal sweet sound of the Muses singing’). 57 τὸν δ᾽ εὗρον φρένα τερπόμενον φόρμιγγι λιγείῃ | καλῇ δαιδαλέῃ, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀργύρεον ζυγὸν ἦεν, | τὴν ἄρετ᾽ ἐξ ἐνάρων πόλιν Ἠετίωνος ὀλέσσας· | τῇ ὅ γε θυμὸν ἔτερπεν, ἄειδε δ᾽ ἄρα κλέα ἀνδρῶν. | Πάτροκλος δέ οἱ οἶος ἐναντίος ἧστο σιωπῇ, | δέγμενος Αἰακίδην ὁπότε λήξειεν ἀείδων (‘and they found him [sc. Achilles] delighting his heart in a lyre, clear-sounding, | splendid and carefully wrought, with a bridge of silver upon it, | which he had won out of the spoils when he ruined Eetion’s city. | With this he was pleasuring his heart, and singing the men’s fame, | as Patroclus was sitting over against him, alone, in silence, | watching Aeacides and the time he would leave off singing’). Patroclus seems to be waiting for Achilles to finish his song and then respond with his own song (see δέγμενος). Nagy takes this instance as another example of diachronic skewing, in the sense that we are dealing with a stylized representation of a rhapsodic relay-performance, brought from 6th c. BC Panathenaea into the Homeric text (2003, 43– 45). 58 For these lines (Il. 18.182–183), see pp. 436–437 (this chapter). 59 οἵη δ᾽ Ἄρτεμις εἶσι κατ᾽ οὔρεα ἰοχέαιρα, | ἣ κατὰ Τηΰγετον περιμήκετον ἠ᾽ Ἐρύμανθον, | τερπομένη κάπροισι καὶ ὠκείης ἐλάφοισιν· | τῇ δὲ θ᾽ ἅμα νύμφαι, κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο, | ἀγρονόμοι παίζουσι, γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα Λητώ· | πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα, | ῥεῖα δ᾽ ἀριγνώτη πέλεται, καλαὶ δέ τε πᾶσαι· | ὣς ἥ γ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισι μετέπρεπε παρθένος ἀδμής (‘she looked like Artemis the Archeress, coming down from the mountain along the high ridge of Taygetos or Erymanthos for the joy of chasing the wild boar or the nimble deer, and the Nymphs of the countryside [daughters of aegis-bearing Zeus] join with her in the sport. And her mother Leto’s heart is gladdened, because she is a head taller than any of them and even though all are beautiful there is no question which is she. So did this young girl stand out among her maids’). 60 πολὺς δ᾽ ὑμέναιος ὀρώρει (‘and the loud bride song was arising’). 61 12.44: Σειρῆνες λιγυρῇ θέλγουσιν ἀοιδῇ (‘with their high clear song the Sirens bewitch him’); 12.52: τερπόμενος ὄπ᾽ ἀκούσῃς Σειρήνοιιν (‘you will listen with enjoyment to the Sirens’ voices’); 12.183: λιγυρὴν δ᾽ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν (‘and broke into their high, clear song’). From this catalogue I have omitted any references to recitations by one person, like that of Hector pertaining to an ancient war dance (Il. 7.241); that of an anonymous singer who is pictured on Achilles’ shield singing Linus’ song (Il. 18.570); that of another anonymous singer on Achilles’ shield, who sings to a chorus of boys and girls who are dancing in a circle (Il. 18. 590–605); that of Calypso (Od. 5.61), or of Circe (Od. 10.221), who both sing while weaving.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions but also for the essence of this issue, is the following Pindaric scholium (Nem. 2 [III 29–31 Drachmann]): Ὁμηρίδας ἔλεγον τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου γένους, οἳ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ᾖδον. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ οὐκέτι τὸ γένος εἰς Ὅμηρον ἀνάγοντες. ἐπιφανεῖς δὲ ἐγένοντο οἱ περὶ Κύναιθον, οὕς φασι πολλὰ τῶν ἐπῶν ποιήσαντας ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν. ἦν δὲ Κύναιθος τὸ γένος Χῖος, ὃς καὶ τῶν ἐπιγραφομένων Ὁμήρου ποιημάτων τὸν εἰς Ἀπόλλωνα γεγραφὼς ὕμνον ἀνατέθεικεν αὐτῷ. οὗτος οὖν ὁ Κύναιθος πρῶτος ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐρραψῴδησε τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη κατὰ τὴν ξθ´ Ὀλυμπιάδα, ὡς Ἱππόστρατός φησιν (FHG IV 433). ἄλλως. τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς οἱ μὲν ῥαβδῳδοὺς ἐτυμολογοῦσι διαὶ τὸ μετὰ ῥάβδου δηλονότι τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη διεξιέναι. Καλλίμαχος (fr. 138)· καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ ῥάβδῳ μῦθον ὑφαινόμενον ... ἠνεκὲς ἀείδω δεδεγμένος οἱ δέ φασι τῆς Ὁμήρου ποιήσεως μὴ ὑφ᾽ ἓν συνηγμένης, σποράδην δὲ ἄλλως καὶ κατὰ μέρη διῃρημένης, ὁπότε ῥαψῳδοῖεν αὐτήν, εἱρμῷ τινι καὶ ῥαφῇ παραπλήσιον ποιεῖν, εἰς ἓν αὐτὴν ἄγοντας. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Πίνδαρος ἐκδέδεκται. οἱ δέ, ὅτι κατὰ μέρη πρότερον τῆς ποιήσεως διαδιδομένης, τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν ἕκαστος ὅ τι βούλοιτο μέρος ᾖδε· τοῦ δὲ ἄθλου τοῖς νικῶσιν ἀρνὸς ἀποδεδειγμένου, προσαγορευθῆναι τότε μὲν ἀρνῳδούς, αὖθις δὲ ἑκατέρας τῆς ποιήσεως εἰσενεχθείσης, τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς οἷον ἀκουμένους πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ μέρη καὶ τὴν σύμπασαν ποίησιν ἐπιόντας ῥαψῳδοὺς προσαγορευθῆναι. ταῦτά φησι Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀργεῖος (FHG III 26). Φιλόχορος (FHG I 417) δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ συντιθέναι καὶ ῥάπτειν τὴν ᾠδὴν οὕτω φησὶν αὐτοὺς προσκεκλῆσθαι. δηλοῖ δὲ ὁ Ἡσίοδος λέγων (fr. 357 Μ-W)· ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοί μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν, Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ. ῥαψῳδῆσαι δέ φησι πρῶτον τὸν Ἡσίοδον Νικοκλῆς (FHG IV 464). Μέναιχμος δὲ ἱστορεῖ τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς στιχῳδοὺς καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ τοὺς στίχους ῥάβδους λέγεσθαι ὑπό τινων. ἄλλως. Ὁμηρίδαι πρότερον μὲν οἱ Ὁμήρου παῖδες, ὕστερον δὲ οἱ περὶ Κύναιθον ῥαβδῳδοί· οὗτοι γὰρ τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν σκεδασθεῖσαν ἐμνημόνευον καὶ ἀπήγγελλον· ἐλυμήναντο δὲ αὐτῇ πάνυ. αἰεὶ οὖν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐκ Διὸς ἐποιοῦντο προοιμιαζόμενοι, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ Μουσῶν. ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὅλος· ὅθεν δὴ καὶ οἱ Ὁμηρίδαι λεγόμενοι ἀοιδοὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ λέγειν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ποιοῦνται ἐκ Διὸς προοιμιαζόμενοι, ἐντεῦθεν καὶ οὗτος ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ Τιμόδημος τὴν καταβολὴν καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἀρχὴν τῶν ἱερῶν ἀγώνων ἐποιήσατο καὶ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν νίκην ἐδέξατο, ἀπὸ Νεμέας φημί, ὃς αὐτῷ τῷ Διὶ ἀνάκειται καὶ τελεῖται. In the old days, they called Homeridae the persons who were descended from Homer and were singing his poetry one after the other. After that, the rhapsodes who were not descended from Homer (were also called Homeridae). Those who were related to Cynaethus were very famous. It is said that, after having composed many verses in dactylic hexameter, they inserted them into Homer’s poetry. Cynaethus was of Chian origin. He was the one who, after having composed the Hymn to Apollo that belongs to the poems which are

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

attributed to Homer, dedicated it to him. This Cynaethus was the first to recite the Homeric epics during the 68th Olympiad in Syracuse, according to Hippostratus. Another version. Some explain the word ῥαψῳδοί with the word ῥαβδῳδοί by the fact that they recite the Homeric epics holding a staff (ῥάβδος). Callimachus says the story which is woven on a staff … I sing continuously, as I have received it Others claim that Homeric poetry had not been gathered in a single corpus but was scattered and divided in pieces; every time they recited it, they made it similar to a sequence and a seam, as they granted unity to it. This is how Pindar is using this reference. On the other hand, others claim that, since this poetry was performed in parts in the past, each one of the contestants was singing whichever part he wished. As the prize for the winners was a lamb, (they say that) they (the singers) were then named ‘lamb-singers’ and that, when each of the poems was being performed, they were named ‘rhapsodes’, because the contestants were listening to each section in comparison to the other and knew the whole poem equally well. This is what Dionysius of Argos says. Philochorus claims that they are named thus because they compose and weave the song together. That is obvious in Hesiod, too; he says in Delos, then, for the first time, Homer and I, bards, sang stitching together our song with new hymns, of Phoebus Apollo with his golden sword, whom Leto bore.62 Nicocles says that Hesiod was the first rhapsode. Menaechmus, on the other hand, relates that rhapsodes were called ‘verse-singers’ because their verses (στίχοι) were called staffs by some. Another version. Homeridae was the name of Homer’s children in the past, and later of the ‘staff-singers’ related to Cynaethus. For they were the ones who memorized and recited Homer’s scattered poetry. In fact, they damaged it seriously. They always started by performing a proem which most of the times began with Zeus, sometimes with the Muses. The whole point (of the Pindaric phrasing) is this: as the so-called Homeridae singers frequently begin their recitations by referring to Zeus in their proems, so Timodemus, laid the foundations and the beginning of the holy contests and managed to win in them (I mean the Nemean contest), which are dedicated and are being performed in honor of Zeus.

This Pindaric comment presents five separate versions on the origins of the term rhapsode. Every single one of these meanings is essentially an interpretation of both the relevant term and of the rhapsodic recitation and performance circumstances of epic poetry. I will present the individual versions first and then I will proceed to comment on them, focusing on their similarities.

 62 Translation by Most 2007, 355 (fr. 296 = 357 M-W).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions 1.

Rhapsodes were called ‘verse-singers’ because the verses they performed were called ‘staffs’ by some authors (Μenaechmus). 2. Professionals who were reciting epic were holding a staff during the recitation.63 However, when Homeric poetry, which had not been available as a unified corpus but was scattered and divided into parts, started being performed not as simple episodes, but in a sequence, the professionals who were reciting it were named ‘rhapsodes’ because they stitched the separate episodes together into a unified whole. This is how Pindar is using this reference. 3. The version, according to which as long as Homeric poetry was performed in parts, each of the contestants sang whichever part he wished, is coherent with the previous one. However, since the winners were given a lamb as a prize, they were named ‘lamb-singers’. At a later stage and because the contestants were listening to the poetic excerpts in comparison to each other and they knew the whole poem well, they were called ‘rhapsodes’ (Dionysius of Argos). 4. The name ‘rhapsodes’ has been given to professional singers who compose and compile (= stitch together) a song (Philochorus). 5. According to another interpretation, the term ‘rhapsodes’ represents the blending of two concepts, one pertaining to the joining of songs, the other to the origin of song-making. The use of a staff became a metonymy both for the professionals who recited epic and for the recital. This interpretation, without the clear reference to the use of the staff, was then paired with Homeric poetry and its supposed origins. The term ‘Homeridae’ that initially described Homer’s descendants was extended to only one group of professionals who recited Homer’s poetry, i.e. the ones who were related to the poet Cynaethus. Subsequently, the ‘staff-singers’ around Cynaethus were named ‘Homeridae’ and later epitomized an entire group of professionals: they became ‘rhapsodes’, i.e. the ones who performed the (previously scattered) poetry of Homer.64

 63 See Schadewaldt (19654, 56), who refers to the amphora from Vulci, claiming that the person holding a staff and reciting hexameters is a rhapsode. The staff as a symbol of rhapsodic recitation is also known to Pindar (according to Schadewaldt), as he mentions that Homer ‘has made him honored among mankind [and] set straight his entire achievement and declared it with his staff’ (Isthm. 4.37–39). 64 Although elements of the performance changed over the course of time, the figure of the rhapsode with his staff, who competes in burial contests and festivals honoring the gods remains stable; see Schadewaldt 19654, 59.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

These five interpretations converge with respect to the following elements: 1. They interpret the term ῥαψῳδός by means of external features of the recital (the use of a staff [ῥάβδος]): ῥαβδῳδοί; the awarded prize [lamb]: ἀρνῳδοί). 2. They provide a folk etymology of the term ῥαψῳδός by interpreting the term ῥαψῳδός as ῥαβδῳδός through the semantical equation ῥάβδος = στίχος). 3. They justify the etymological interpretation of the term ῥαψῳδός (from ῥάπτειν + ᾠδήν) by recourse to a development in the process of the recital of Homeric poetry, i.e. the transition from the random performance of episodes to rhapsodic performances that epitomize a partly organized recitation of episodes (εἱρμῷ τινι καὶ ῥαφῇ ... εἰς ἓν αὐτὴν ἄγοντας). The term ῥαψῳδός (< ῥάπτω + ᾠδή) describes ‘the person who stitches songs together’, i.e. the professional who recites epic poetry. The rest of the etymological links (to the words ῥάβδος [‘staff’ or ‘verse’] or *ἀρήν [‘lamb’]), with which ancient Greek tradition flirted, are wrong.65 The first (and more popular) one is a product of the typologically established description and iconographic depiction of a rhapsode with a staff instead of a musical instrument. The figurative naming of the professional reciter of epic poetry, partly based on another field of professional activity (ῥάπτω), is part of a widespread tendency to use metaphors from various professions to describe poets and poetic activity. Two well-known examples with both Greek and Indo-European background are the noun τέκτων and the verb ἀραρίσκω, which are employed as metaphors to describe the poet and the poetic activity respectively.66 The term ῥαψῳδός was created in analogy to other relevant terms that refer to poetry and poets. We are in no position to know with certainty how old the term ῥαψῳδός is. Its complex nature seems to be based on a post eventum interpretation, which must have resulted from the need to connect a development in the history of performance of epic poetry in general with the change that occurred in relation with the recitation of Homeric poetry, which was by far the most famous branch of epic production. The consequence of this process was that the use of this term in the 4th c. BC was extended to the professional who performs both epic (Homer [Pl. Ion 530b8] and Hesiod [Pl. Ion 531a2; Pl. Laws 658d]) as well as lyric and other poetry (Archilochus [Pl. Ion 531a2], Simonides and Empedocles

 65 Patzer 1952, 315–317; West 2011b, 745. 66 See Schmitt 1967.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions [Athen. 14.620cd]).67 On the other hand, and even though the relevant term is not attested before the late 5th c. BC, we cannot rule out the possibility that it was coined much earlier, given (a) the long prehistory of the oral performance of poetry in ancient Greece, especially the performance that concerns epic, and (b) its analogy to extremely old terms of Indo-European origin. A more careful review of the word ῥαψῳδός concerns the thorny issue associated with the first part (ῥάπτω) of this compound term. The notion of ‘stitching together’ refers to an unbroken recitation, provided that the ‘stitching together’ describes the combination of either different poetic genres, like a hymn and a simple song68 or of different sections of an extended poetic composition that would be recited continuously (i.e. following the development of the plot), but not in full (some episodes or scenes might have been omitted). Considering the circumstances of the recitation and the performance context, we cannot rule out the possibility that there is a middle ground solution between opting either for the recital of several episodes from Homeric epic or the performance of the entire Iliad and Odyssey. At any given occasion, a rhapsode could very well recite a series of episodes from each Homeric epic in a way that the audience would basically hear about the main topic of the poem and the unfolding of the plot, without the need to listen to the entire Iliad and Odyssey from beginning to end. This observation is crucial because of the way in which the Pindaric scholium discussed above (Σ Pind. Νem. 2.1–3) connects the term ῥαψῳδός with Homeric poetry. The stress on the ‘linking aspect’ of the action of the professional who recited epic poetry is also visible in the case of those who did not recite Homeric poetry, since they ‘stitched together’ a hymn-type proem to Zeus or the Muses with an epic that they were to perform immediately afterwards. In the case of Homeric poetry, this inter-generic ‘stitching together’ of a hymn and an epic gradually became secondary, as it receded in front of the much more important and clearly more extended ‘stitching together’ of whole episodes that belonged to the plot of the Iliad and the Odyssey.69 For many scholars, distinguishing the singer who sings from the rhapsode who recites seems a simplified approach that should not be wholesale adopted, at least for the Archaic Period.70 It is largely based upon the Homeric presenta 67 ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἔν τε ἄλλοις ποιηταῖς διατρίβειν πολλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ δὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἐν Ὁμήρῳ (‘it is necessary [for you] to study many other good poets and mostly Homer’). 68 See Pind. Nem. 2.1–3 (ὅθεν περ καὶ Ὁμηρίδαι | ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ πόλλ᾽ ἀοιδοί | ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου ‘like the Homeridae, the singers of stiched verses, who often start from Zeus in the proem’); also Pind. Σ Nem. 2.1. 69 See p. 446 (this chapter). 70 Gentili 1988, 6–7; Murray 1996, 97; González 2013, 219–290.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

tion of singers (Phemius in Ithaca and Demodocus in Scheria). West has argued that we can safely speak of a double tradition that includes song (sung delivery), accompanied by a phorminx, as well as recitation without any musical instruments (recitation in speech tones).71 The same scholar believes that ‘the eighth-century ἀοιδός with his phorminx and the classical rhapsode without it stand in a single line of tradition, the manner of delivery throughout being a kind of recitative that preserved the natural word accents but was (at least as long as the phorminx remained in use) pitched on definite notes’.72 Nevertheless, our sources are projecting the differences between ἀοιδoὶ and ῥαψῳδοὶ: the former perform epic songs at their host’s order, the latter recite epic in public venues and contests; the former compose and perform their own epic songs, the latter reproduce poetry composed by other poets who are not present in the occasion.73 Burkert’s theory74 regarding this issue is emblematic: it concerns the transition from the ἀοιδός who sings to the ῥαψῳδός who recites, as well as the early organization of rhapsodes in professional groups (guilds). The fundamental issue discussed by Burkert is related to the reason(s) and the process of transition from singing to reciting epic poetry. First and foremost, some preliminary remarks are in order: rhapsodes are not cited by ancient sources as artists who recite during banquets, but in public festivals, during which they participate in contests. The well-known excerpt from Heraclitus, in which the Ephesian philosopher claims that rhapsodes should be expelled from contests and whipped,75 is decisively reinforcing the existence of rhapsodic contests. What could have caused the shift from a singer singing in a banquet to a rhapsode reciting in a public festival? Stesichorus’ poetry offers a telling analogy. Composed in a strophic system (strophe, antistrophe, epode), Stesichorean poetry seems suitable to be performed by a chorus.76 Its clear differentiation from the poetry of Alcman and Ibycus, as well as of Pindar and Bacchylides, concerns the complete absence of any reference to a specific place of performance or audi 71 West 1981, 114. 72 West 1981, 114; see also Schadewaldt 19654, 61–62; Herington 1985, 13. 73 Graziosi 2002, 30–31. 74 See 1972, 74–85; 1987, 43–62. 75 2.42: τόν τε Ὅμηρον> ἔφασκεν καὶ ὁμοίως (‘he used to say that rhapsodes reciting Homeric poetry should be evicted from the contests and whipped, and that the same should happen to those reciting the poetry of Archilochus’). 76 This is Burkert’s opinion. On the contrary, West (1971, 307–313), Pavese (1972, 239–240), and Gentili (1988, 7) are in favor of the kitharis performance.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions ence.77 This feature should be interpreted as indicative of the fact that Stesichorean poetry could be performed at any location in the Greek-speaking world. What is more, it is not unlikely that this was an intentional choice reflecting Stesichorus’ aspiration concerning the diffusion of his poetry. Burkert assumes chorus performances of Stesichorean poetry during various public festivals by groups of wandering artists (like the later τεχνῖται περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον). In contrast to kitharodic performances that are suitable to the confined space of the banquet, choral performances are appropriate to festivals. Αccording to [Xenophon’s] Constitution of the Athenians (1.13), in the 6th c. BC the demos did not allow groups of athletes and musicians who entered the city to participate in contests. Instead, it replaced this older practice by the establishment of sponsorships (χορηγίαι and γυμνασιαρχίαι). In light of this information, Burkert claimed that the new poetic genre of the kitharoidia exercised considerable pressure to the performance of epic poetry.78 This line of thought is underpinned if we take into account that both epic and kitharoidia concerned (a) Theban and Trojan myth, as well as other traditional material that the rest of epic poetry had definitively been using (e.g. the saga of Heracles), (b) shared diction, since kitharoidia employed phraseology based on modification of epic vocabulary and formulaic system, and (c) a similar view with respect to central topics, such as dignity when facing death, but in a much richer and varied metrical form, accompanied by music and dance. According to Burkert, the Stesichorean experiment did not last for long. This sounds a bit paradoxical, the more so since it was now performed at public venues and not only, as before, within confined space of the banquet. Nevertheless, epic poetry had not said its final word. As the performance context shifted along with the emergence of the polis as the basic form of state organization, epic poetry responded in a dynamic manner: it offered the audience a simpler and thus more affable form of presentation of its subject matter. This form pertained to the banning of music from the performance of epic, which was now supported by a written text that had started being compiled by groups of professionals. In this way, epic poetry made, in a very short period of time, an impressive comeback, having made all the necessary adjustments to the new performance context. The Stesichorean epic-mythic

 77 Burkert 1987, 51. 78 However, the fact that the tyrant Cleisthenes in Sicyon banned rhapsodes from contests and not singers (Hdt. 5.67) shows that the change concerned the content of the recitation and not the poetic genre. On the other hand, Burkert (1987, 52) rightly draws attention to Aeschylus’ dependence on Stesichorus, as well as to the fact that Simonides (564 PMG) associated Homer and Stesichorus on the basis of the content of their poems.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

oratorium,79 as Burkert aptly observes, receded because of the arrival of rhapsodic recitation.80 A striking example is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, in which Burkert sees an attempt to establish the rhapsodic recitation of Homer by adopting a competitive form of the Stesichorean chorus performance, while simultaneously acknowledging the special status of Homeric poetry.81 In reference to the early organization of rhapsodes into professional groups (guilds), Burkert thinks that the Creophyleioi in Samos, along with the Homeridae in Chios first operated within the family level and subsequently became a guild of professionals performing and preserving the poetry of Creophylus. A similar process can be seen with respect to the Asclepiadae in Cos, who evolved into a professional class of doctors and claimed their origin from the legendary Asclepius. Fictive stories, based on geography, were created and shaped to support such claims. The Creophyleioi were also connected to a tradition according to which Homer had been hosted in Samos by Creophylus.82 The Homeridae were associated with Homer because of Chios that was considered to be the birthplace of Homer. It is not a coincidence that each one of these guilds was linked to a specific epic or epics: the Creophyleioi to the Sack of Oechalia and the Homeridae to the Iliad and the Odyssey. The same had happened with the Asclepiadae and the Hippocratic corpus.83 However, there are texts where the distinction between the ἀοιδoί and ῥαψῳδοί is not that clear.84 Following Graziosi,85 we can classify the relevant material into two groups: the first includes texts which pertain to a contestbased context, while the second is attested exclusively in Plato. One text, which

 79 Quintilian’s observation is characteristic (Inst. Or. 10.1.62): Stesichorum quam sit ingenio validus materiae quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem (‘Stesichorus’ genius is manifested by the material he is using: he sings of the greatest wars and the most glorious leaders and he supports with his lyre the weight of epic poetry’). 80 Burkert 1987, 53. Carey (2015, 53–55) adopts this approach and attempts (by partly developing one of Burkert’s observations) to explain the swift decline of the Stesichorean experiment of an epic-lyric, mythic-narrative genre under the light of not only rhapsodic recitations, but also of the development of tragedy in Athens. 81 Burkert 1987, 56. 82 On Creophylus and Homer, see Tsagalis 2022, 27–31. 83 Burkert 1972, 78–79; Nagy 19992, 165–166. Burkert draws attention to several common features in the Sack of Oechalia and the Iliad. 84 It will be useful to avoid the equation of recitation with oral speech. There might have been an in-between state, in which recitation would be accompanied by a few simple chords in the form of musical background; see Schadewaldt 19654, 59–60. 85 Graziosi 2002, 32–40.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions has been often scrutinized, is included in the Pindaric scholium examined earlier in this chapter (fr. 357 M-W): ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοί μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν, Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ. Then in Delos for the first time I and Homer, as singers we were singing, stitching song onto new hymns, Phoebus Apollo, the one Leto bore.

In this excerpt, Hesiod presents himself and Homer as ἀοιδοί participating in a poetic contest on the island of Delos. Since this event is nothing more than fiction, it is obvious that the poetic rivalry86 of the two greatest epic poets of Greek antiquity amounts to an attempt to invent an explanation for an original rhapsodic competition.87 The famous Pindaric phrasing referring to the Homeridae with the expression ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων ἀοιδοί (Nem. 2.1) seems to be on the same page. Pairing ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων with the term ἀοιδοί bridges the apparent gap between the ἀοιδός who sings and the ῥαψῳδός who recites, attributing to the former the activity of the latter. Seen together, these two instances neither reinforce the identification of the singer-composer of epic poetry with the rhapsode who recites it nor do they support the argument of an absolute distinction between the two terms.88 The same thing, mutatis mutandis, happens as regards the presentation of Homer as both a poet and a wandering rhapsode in the Certamen, where he competes with Hesiod in Chalcis, composes the Margites89 and recites his poetry in several cities. τινὲς δὲ συνακμάσαι φασὶν αὐτούς, ὥστε καὶ ἀγωνίσασθαι ὁμόσε ἐν Αὐλίδι τῆς Βοιωτίας. ποιήσαντα γὰρ τὸν Μαργίτην Ὅμηρον περιέρχεσθαι κατὰ πόλιν ῥαψῳδοῦντα.

 86 The presence of Homer and Hesiod in the same place should be distinguished from the motif of ‘poetic legacy’ which is based on their fictive relationship. According to that motif, Homer comes across some person to whom he gives one of his poems (sometimes his daughter too), in the context of a host-guest relationship (e.g. he gives Creophylus the Sack of Oichalia [test. 5 EGEF] and Stasinus the Cypria [test. 2 and 7 PEG]). In the case of Hesiod, his presence with Homer in the same place is accompanied by their poetic competition. 87 Janko 1982, 113–115; Graziosi 2002, 34–36. 88 West 2011b, 745. 89 See RE 14.2, s.v. ‘Margites’, cols. 1705–1708 [Radermacher].

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

Some, however, say that they (sc. Homer and Hesiod) flourished at the same time, so as actually to compete with each other after meeting at Aulis in Boeotia. For after composing the Margites, they say, Homer went round from town to town reciting. (Certamen 5 West) ἐκεῖθεν δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰς Κόρινθον ἐρραψῴδει τὰ ποιήματα. τιμηθεὶς δὲ μεγάλως παραγίνεται εἰς Ἄργος καὶ λέγει ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιάδος (2.559–568ab) τὰ ἔπη τάδε. From there he arrived in Corinth, and recited his poems. Receiving much honor there, he arrived in Argos, and spoke those verses from the Iliad. (Certamen 17 West)

The information provided by the Certamen is instructive. Homer’s wandering and recital of his poetry in various audiences in Greece is counterbalanced by Hesiod’s presentation as a poet who stayed in his hometown, Ascra, the only exception being his short trip to Chalcis. His famous victory against Homer at this location is part of the context of an intentional polarity between geographical proximity and distance. While in the autobiographical sphragis in the Nautilia section of Hesiod’s Works and Days (646–662) the antithesis between Hesiod and Homer is expressed in terms relevant to the content of their poetry,90 in the Certamen their opposition is explicitly described in terms referring to the poets themselves. In the Νautilia, the imposing fame of the epic tradition of the Trojan War that is metonymically expressed as the great trip of the Achaeans from Aulis to Troy, is counterbalanced by the hymnos with which Hesiod won in the funeral games in honor of Amphidamas in Chalcis, where he travelled crossing the narrow Euripus Strait. In the Certamen, the well-travelled Homer is competing against Hesiod who has never travelled before.91 How decisive this antithesis is against the poetological context of the Certamen92 can be seen by the fact that it has left its generic imprint on funerary epigrams,93 which toy with the polarity between the tagging of Hesiod to a specific geographical location and the wandering Homer.94

 90 See pp. 215, 233, 470 (this volume). 91 See Rosen 1990, 99–113; Tsagalis 2006a, 105–113; 2006b, 232–252; 2007, 269–295; 2009, 151–157. 92 See Hunter 2014, 302–315. 93 Apart from funerary epigrams, Hesiodic poetics are often contrasted to other poets during the Hellenistic period. See e.g. Call. AP 9.507 = epigram 27 Pf. From the huge bibliography on this epigram, see the Stewart 2008, 586–600; Hunter 2014, 292–301; van Noordern 2015, 172–174. 94 Graziosi 2002, 35.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions Homer: ἐνθάδε τὴν ἱερὴν κεφαλὴν κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτει, ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων κοσμήτορα θεῖον Ὅμηρον. Here the earth conceals the sacred head, adorner of war heroes, the godly Homer. (Certamen 18 West)

Hesiod: Ἄσκρη μὲν πατρὶς πολυλήϊος, ἀλλὰ θανόντος ὀστέα πληξίππων γῆ Μινυῶν κατέχει Ἡσιόδου, τοῦ πλεῖστον ἐν ἀνθρώποις κλέος ἐστίν ἀνδρῶν κρινομένων ἐν βασάνῳ σοφίης. Ascra, the rich cornland, was my home, but my dead bones the horse-goading Minyans’ country holds: mine, Hesiod’s, whose fame is greatest in the world when men are tested by the touchstone of art. (Certamen 14 West)

In Platonic references to ἀοιδοὶ and ῥαψῳδοί there is a clear distinction between the poet and the rhapsode, the latter being limited to the role of one who recites poetry which has been composed by someone else. The instances where such a distinction is not clear are few. A striking example of the complete differentiation between the poet who composes and the rhapsode who recites is the following excerpt (Rep. 373b7–c1): ποιηταί τε καὶ τούτων ὑπηρέται, ῥαψῳδοί, ὑποκριταί, χορευταί, ἐργολάβοι, σκευῶν τε παντοδαπῶν δημιουργοί, τῶν τε ἄλλων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν γυναικεῖον κόσμον. Poets and their followers, rhapsodes, actors, dancers, contractors, makers of all sorts of tools and utensils, especially of those relevant to women’s beautification.

Rhapsodes and actors are designated as the followers of epic and dramatic poets respectively. On the contrary, in a different part of the same work (Rep. 600d5–e2), Plato presents Homer and Hesiod as wandering rhapsodes who recite epic poetry:95 Ὅμηρον δ᾽ ἄρα οἱ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνου, εἴπερ οἷός τ᾽ ἦν πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὀνῆσαι ἀνθρώπους, ἢ Ἡσίοδον ῥαψῳδεῖν ἂν περιιόντας εἴων, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἂν αὐτῶν ἀντείχοντο ἢ τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ

 95 See Murray (1996, 207), who claims that in this specific excerpt the verb ῥαψῳδεῖν means ἀείδειν.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

ἠνάγκαζον παρὰ σφίσιν οἴκοι εἶναι, ἢ εἰ μὴ ἔπειθον, αὐτοὶ ἂν ἐπαιδαγώγουν ὅπῃ ᾖσαν, ἕως ἱκανῶς παιδείας μεταλάβοιεν; Thus, would the ones living during Homer’s era, if he had been able to help people achieve excellence, let him or Hesiod roam about rhapsodizing? Wouldn’t they be more attached to them than to gold and constrain them to dwell with them in their own homes or, if they could not convince them, wouldn’t they accompany them everywhere they went, until they had received a satisfying portion of their culture?

The image of Homer as a rhapsode wandering through the Greek-speaking world and reciting his poetry is a retrospective view of the prevalent and extremely widespread image of the wandering rhapsode in Plato’s era. In the Ion, where the topic of rhapsodes and the performance of epic poetry looms large, Socrates tells the rhapsode Ion (541b8): ῥαψῳδεῖς μὲν περιιὼν τοῖς Ἕλλησι you go about performing as a rhapsode to the Greeks

This perception96 has probably been formed under rhapsodic influence. Homer and Hesiod are not teachers of the new generation like the Sophists, neither are they part of a similar circle. They are rhapsodes who bring epic poetry back to life.97 In Ion, the protagonist of this dialogue downgrades Homer by equating him to rhapsodes. Plato’s tactics becomes apparent when he mentions the four types of musical activity, using the characteristic terms αὔλησις, κιθάρισις, κιθαρῳδία, ῥαψῳδία and their legendary πρῶτοι εὑρεταί (Olympus, Thamyris, Orpheus, Phemius). The presentation of Phemius, the well-known singer of Ithaca, as a rhapsode (Ion 533b-c) is not attested in any other source98 and has therefore attracted intense scholarly interest. Murray considers Ion’s comparison to his earlier famous fellow artists ironic,99 and Graziosi interprets the relevant identification as an improvised invention with which Socrates is teasing Ion.100 Replacing Homer with Phemius can be explained by the fact that in this dialogue it  96 Murray (1996, 130) draws attention to Plato (Rep. 6005d5–6), where Socrates expresses the opinion that people would never allow Homer and Hesiod to wander as rhapsodes (ῥαψῳδεῖν … περιιόντας), if they did indeed help people improve. 97 Graziosi 2002, 38. 98 Homer is mentioned as a rhapsode in other texts too: see e.g. Pl. Rep. 600d; Lg. 658b; Certamen 5 and 17; see also West 1981, 113–114. 99 Murray 1996, 112. 100 Graziosi 2002, 40 n. 75.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions is nowhere mentioned that Homer is a rhapsode, only that he recites his poems. This is of course an intentional anachronism. Phemius being a rhapsode, which is an idea that had been developed within rhapsodic circles and was common in the 4th c. BC, becomes the πρῶτος εὑρετής of epic poetry.101 Leaving aside the context of rhapsodic recitations in later periods,102 I will examine other aspects of rhapsodic activity, which I divide in two distinct categories: internal or central, and external or peripheral. The material which can be collected from various literary and non-literary sources regarding rhapsodic recitations during late Archaic and the entire Classical Period shows that we are dealing with a ‘staged’ and complex performance-related event. By using the word ‘staged’, which is taken from the field of the performative arts, I want to emphasize that, similarly to what happens in other forms of poetic recitation in front of an audience, the recitation of epic poetry includes various communication strategies, some of which are central, while others are peripheral to the performance. The distinction between central and peripheral elements aims at underlining the fact that, in the case of poetry that has been composed to be performed publicly, several elements of its performance in the presence of an audience are being embedded in the poem itself. Some of the internal or central elements used by rhapsodes are performance-based features that have originated from the epic diction. 1. Full-verse addresses of characters of the plot. Expressions like διογενὲς Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν᾽ Ὀδυσσεῦ (Il. 2.173) and Ἀτρείδη κύδιστε, ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον (Il. 1.677) are employed in the beginning of a speech. They are being used within a dialogue context and only when one speaker addresses the other for the first time in a given scene (when a second pair of speeches is included in the same dialogue scene, a shortened address is used). Diction here reflects the reality of recitation. When a character is introduced in an emphatic manner by a whole-line address, the rhapsode takes advantage of this extended mention at a  101 Heracleides Ponticus ([Plut.] De Musica 1132b) presents Phemius as a poet and kitharist. Pucci (1987, 230) interprets Phemius’ statement (Od. 22.348–349) ἔοικα δέ τοι παραείδειν | ὥς τε θεῷ (‘and I am worthy to sing for you as a god’) as a promise to sing the Odyssey. In the beginning of the epic (Od. 1.326–327), he has sung about the return of the Achaeans: ὁ δ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν νόστον ἄειδε | λυγρόν, ὃν ἐκ Τροίης ἐπετείλατο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη (‘he was singing to them about the Achaeans’ return from Troy and the disasters that Pallas Athene made them suffer’). See p. 431 n. 28 (this chapter); also ([Plut.] De Musica 1132b: νόστον τῶν ἀπὸ Τροίας μετ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἀνακομισθέντων ποιῆσαι [‘he composed the return of those who came back from Troy together with Agamemnon’]). See Graziosi 2002, 40. 102 See chapters 18–20 (this volume).

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

performance level to present this person to his audience in all its glory.103 In the formula διογενὲς Λαερτιάδη, πολυμήχαν᾽ Ὀδυσσεῦ, Odysseus is brought to the spotlight, along with all his epic ‘armature’: he is a man of noble origin (διογενές), the son of Laertes (Λαερτιάδη), the hero of special mental skills (πολυμήχαν᾽). Respectively, the formula Ἀτρείδη κύδιστε, ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγάμεμνον presents Agamemnon as the son of Atreus (Ἀτρείδη), extremely glorious (κύδιστε), and king (ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν). In both formulas, the hero’s name is heard last, right after the audience has been presented with the hero’s epic identity (Ὀδυσσεῦ/ Ἀγάμεμνον). 2. Stage formulas like τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐνόησε ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς (Il. 11.599) facilitate the introduction or evocation of a new (for the scene at hand) character, here of Achilles.104 The pronoun τόν functions as a starting point that makes the verb ἐνόησε enact in the present what Achilles did in the past: τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐνόησε ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς

him, when he saw he recognized, swift-footed, divine Achilles

A rhapsode who recited that verse could take advantage of the stage-related aspects of epic diction. Deixis, activated by the pronoun τόν, emphatically placed in the beginning of the hexameter, reinforces the mental visualization of this scene (‘him’, i.e. Machaon, who has just been mentioned in the previous verse) and makes the audience adopt the point of view of the new character that is introduced in this scene, Achilles. The rhapsode could very well emphasize the pronoun τόν, bringing Machaon ‘in front of’ the audience. Along with Achilles, the listeners ‘see’ Asclepius’ wounded son. What is past for the narrative is being turned into present by means of the performance. 3. Second-person apostrophe to characters by the external narrator (Il. 16.20: τὸν δὲ βαρὺ στενάχων προσέφης Πατρόκλεες ἱππεῦ). This special phenomenon, which involves a deliberate blending of narrative levels, has significant technical and interpretive aspects.105 Apart from them, however, it is also worth pondering what the potential rhapsodic usage of that mechanism could be. In the case of τὸν δὲ βαρὺ στενάχων προσέφης Πατρόκλεες ἱππεῦ, the narrator’s  103 See Kahane (1997, 261), who emphasizes that we should treat the Homeric singer as if he were ‘a native speaker of the language of epic’. 104 Bakker 1997b, 156–195. 105 See Kahane 1994, 107–113 and 153–155.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions voice is absorbed by that of the rhapsode reciting the poem. Instead of introducing Patroclus ‘on stage’ by presenting him to the audience with the anticipated pattern ‘adjective + name in nominative case’, the narrator withdraws behind the rhapsode who addresses Patroclus in the present. Bakker’s formulation is worth mentioning in this context:106 The direct address does not effect an epiphany, it presupposes one: Patroclus is already present in the performance for the performer to address him … he is a listener in the performance like ourselves.

A rhapsode employs this technique to reinforce the clarity of his recitation and dramatize the moment: the listeners feel like Patroclus is among them, ready to speak to Achilles. 4. Soundplay by means of alliteration and other similar techniques.107 A skilled rhapsode would use the dictional arsenal of the Kunstsprache during the recitation process to create specific effects. I am hereby offering some striking examples:

.. Onomatopoeia The sound of the hooves of the mules carrying wood for Patroclus’ pyre is described with impressive clarity by means of syllabic repetition in etymologically and morphologically relevant adjacent words within the same verse:108 πολλὰ δ’ ἄναντα κάταντα πάραντά τε δόχμιά τ᾽ ἦλθον (Il. 23.116). The sound of sails of one of Odysseus’ ships which are torn apart by the wind is reproduced through a highly effective alliteration: τριχθά τε καὶ τετραχθὰ διέσχισεν ἲς ἀνέμοιο (Οd. 9.71). The chiastic positioning of the consonantal clusters -τρ- and -χθ- is followed by yet another consonantal cluster (-σχ-), carefully placed in the word describing what the wind does (διέσχισεν). The repetition of a word-stem may intensify the force of the narration by enhancing its vivdness: Αἴας δ᾽ οὐκ ἔτ᾽ ἔμιμνε· βιάζετο γὰρ βελέεσσι· | δάμνα μιν Ζηνός τε νόος καὶ Τρῶες ἀγαυοὶ | βάλλοντες· δεινὴν δὲ περὶ κροτάφοισι φαεινὴ | πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχε,  106 Bakker 1997a, 173. 107 For matters of aural sensitivity, which are related to linguistic choices suitable for implementation during recitation, see Schadewaldt 19654, 71–73. 108 By ‘onomatopoieia’ I am referring to the use of sound effects to imitate an action; see Smyth 1920, 680, § 3034.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

βάλλετο δ᾽ αἰεὶ | κὰπ φάλαρ’ εὐποίηθ᾽· ὃ δ᾽ ἀριστερὸν ὦμον ἔκαμνεν | ἔμπεδον αἰὲν ἔχων σάκος αἰόλον· οὐδὲ δύναντο | ἀμφ᾽ αὐτῷ πελεμίξαι ἐρείδοντες βελέεσσιν (Il. 16.102–108). The stems -βελ- and -βαλ- are repeated five times within a few lines, underscoring the harshness of the fighting.109 On a smaller scale, but with a strongly felt ascending repetition, the alliteration of -χ-, followed by three different vowels in three adjacent words (χύντο χαμαὶ χολάδες: Il. 4.526) puts a spotlight on the horror of the warriors who are eviscerated.110

.. Paronomasia Rhapsodes employed paronomasia to create aural similarities between neighboring words that listeners could link semantically.111 In Il. 9.388, the phrase κούρην δ᾽ οὐ γαμέω Ἀγαμέμνονος, which is expressed by the angry Achilles, could very well be used by a rhapsode intonating γαμέ and Ἀγαμέ to stress Achilles’ refusal of Agamemnon’s offer: ‘I will not marry (= οὐ γαμέω) the daughter of the unmarried one (= Ἀ-γαμέμνονος)’.112 Hector’s name provided the opportunity for an impressive paronomasia with the verb ἔχω: Ἕκτορ πῇ δή τοι μένος οἴχεται ὃ πρὶν ἔχεσκες; | φῆς που ἄτερ λαῶν πόλιν ἑξέμεν ἠδ᾽ ἐπικούρων (Il. 5.472–473),113 Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο κάρη μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσα (Il. 24.724),114 ῥύσκευ, ἔχες δ᾽ ἀλόχους κεδνὰς καὶ νήπια τέκνα (Il. 24.730).115 Rhapsodes could highlight these aural associations and thus reinforce the poem’s presentation of Hector as Troy’s ultimate protector (Il. 5.472–473, 24.730). Phthia, Achilles’ birthplace, is turned in the Iliad into a symbol of the potential, though never to be fulfilled, return of the hero. The foretelling of his death away from Greece is aurally reflected in Achilles’ speech by means of an emotionally charged paronomasia: οἶον ἐμὲ φθίσεσθαι ἀπ᾽ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο | αὐτοῦ ἐνὶ Τροίῃ, σὲ δέ τε Φθίην δὲ νέεσθαι (Il. 19.329–330).116 A rhapsode could thus exploit the semanti-

 109 It is worth noting how the stem -βελ-, as if in an aural ring-composition, ‘encircles’ the stem -βαλ- which is used three consecutive times. 110 See Stanford 1967; Edwards 1987, 117–123; 1991, 57–58; 2002, 135–137, 140, 143–144. 111 It is not important whether the link was etymologically wrong. 112 See Martin 1989, 221. 113 ‘Where now, Hector, has gone that strength that was yours? You said once | that without companions and without people you could hold this city | alone’. 114 ‘And held in her arms the head of manslaughtering Hector’. 115 ‘You who guarded the city, and the grave wives, and the innocent children’. 116 ‘That I alone should die far away from horse-pasturing Argos | here in Troy; I hoped you would win back again to Phthia’.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions cal link between Φθία and φθίω117 and reinforce it by drawing his audience’s attention to it.

.. Figura etymologica The figura etymologica allowed for simple or complex semantic links. In Il. 17.196–197, the syllabic alliteration πα/ἔπο/παι/ὄπα showcases the offer of the divine armor to Peleus by the gods, and by him to Achilles (πατρὶ φίλῳ ἔπορον· ὃ δ’ ἄρα ᾧ παιδὶ ὄπασσε).118 However, this association paves the way for the figura etymologica of the very next line (γηράς· ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ υἱὸς ἐν ἔντεσι πατρὸς ἐγήρα)119 which constitutes the dramatic annulment of the deliberately deceptive impression showcased by the previous syllabic alliteration: Achilles will not grow old wearing the armor given to him by his father. In instances like this, one should also take into account the placement of the associated terms γηράς and ἐγήρα in emphatic positions like the beginning and the end of the verse respectively. In other cases, the figura etymologica is employed simply for vigor: ἦ νύ τί τοι Τρῶες τέμενος τάμον ἔξοχον ἄλλων (Il. 20.184).120

.. Polyptoton Repeating neighboring words in different cases allows the rhapsode to create emphasis. Rhapsodes would use polyptoton, perhaps stressing the pronunciation of the relevant syllables, in order to intensify the meaning of the relevant words. This technique may involve one pair of terms (Il. 11.83: ὀλλύντάς τ᾽ ὀλλυμένους τε·121 Il. 19.290: κακὸν ἐκ κακοῦ),122 two pairs (Il. 2.363: φρήτρη φρήτρηφιν ἀρήγῃ, φῦλα δὲ φύλοις·123 Il. 14.382: ἐσθλὰ μὲν ἐσθλὸς ἔδυνε, χέρεια δὲ χείρονι δόσκεν),124 three pairs Il. 16.215: ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε,

 117 See Nagy 19992, 184–185. 118 ‘(The gods) had given to his loved father’. 119 ‘And he in turn grown old had given it to his son; but a son who never grew old in his father’s armor’. 120 ‘Or have the men of Troy promised you a piece of land, surpassing all others’. 121 ‘And men killing and men killed’. 122 ‘Evil (takes over) from evil’. 123 ‘And let clan go in support of clan, tribe support tribe’. 124 ‘And the good fighter put on the good armor, and each gave the worse gear to the worse’.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾽ ἀνήρ),125 four pairs, extending into two consecutive lines (Od. 7.120–121: ὄγχνη ἐπ᾽ ὄγχνῃ γηράσκει, μῆλον δ’ ἐπὶ μήλῳ, | αὐτὰρ ἐπὶ σταφυλῇ σταφυλή, σῦκον δ᾽ ἐπὶ σύκῳ),126 or five pairs, also extending into two consecutive lines (Il. 13.130–131: φράξαντες δόρυ δουρί, σάκος σάκεϊ προθελύμνῳ | ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾽ ἀνήρ).127

.. Alliteration Rhapsodes would use alliteration128 to make the performance more vivid by showcasing certain links between words and making images, figures, and descriptions clearer. ... Consonantal Repetition at Word-Initial Position In the line μαρνάσθην [ἔτι] μητρ̣[ὸς ἐόντ’ ἐν γαστέρι κοίλῃ ([Hes.] Cat. fr. 58.13 M-W),129 the alliteration of -μ- in the neighboring words μαρνάσθην and μητρ̣ὸς is clearly showcasing the described image: the twins Crisus and Panopeus are fighting even in their mother’s womb. ... Syllabic Repetition at Word-Initial Position The simplest form of syllabic repetition pertains to proper nouns, both personal and place names. In οἳ δὲ καὶ εἰς Ἄργος Προῖ̣ [το]ν̣ πά̣[ρα δῖον ἵκοντο (Cat. fr. 37.10 M-W),130 ὅς τε Λιλαίηθεν προΐει καλλίρ⌋ροο⌊ν⌋ ὕδωρ (Cat. fr. 70.18 M-W),131 and ὅς παρὲκ Πανοπῆα διὰ γ⌋ληχῶνα τέρειναν (Cat. fr. 70.21 M-W),132 the rhapsode uses the alliteration to help his listeners notice the relation between the proper name and the events of the narrative.

 125 ‘For shield leaned on shield, helmet on helmet, man against man’. 126 ‘Pear after pear, apple after apple, cluster on cluster of grapes, and the fig upon fig’. 127 ‘Locking spear by spear, shield against shield at the base, so buckler | leaned on buckler, helmet on helmet, man against man’. 128 On alliteration, see chapter 11, pp. 258–260, 262 n. 17, 271, 274–275, 277 (this volume). 129 ‘The two of them fought while they were still in their mother’s hollow belly’. 130 ‘And they come to Argos, to holy Proetus’. 131 ‘That pours forth beautiful-streaming water from Lilaea’. 132 ‘That past Panopeus through the delicate pennyroyal’.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions ... Syllabic Repetition at Word-Terminal Position The repetition of syllables at the end of words functions as a kind of rhyme and is frequent in lists and catalogues. In the verse Ὕλλον καὶ Γλῆνον κα̣ὶ̣ [Κτή]σ̣ιππον καὶ Ὀνείτην (Cat. fr. 25.19 M-W), the first three names share a homoeteleuton. The final proper noun introduces a person who is different from the previous three, as becomes obvious from what follows in the narrative. Its differentiation could very well have been showcased by the rhapsode who recited the poem. He would merely have to highlight with his performance what the poet had already done in this brief snapshot: by placing the conjunction after each of the first three names (which belong to the second declension) so as to make the previous syllable long by position, he acoustically differentiates the fourth name that starts with the same sound (Ὀνείτην) as the one used at the end, but alters its prosody, since its first syllable is short. When the verse is recited (and not read silently), it will be realized that the rhythm accelerates as we reach the final name. ... Complex Cases Lists and catalogues, as well as episodic narrative consisting of brief snapshots were suitable for making the most of the aural potential of the epic dialect. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women offers many cases where this assumption can be tested.133 Let us look at an extraordinarily complex, yet impressive, instance, in which two pairs of complete or partial syllabic repetition develop chiastically. In the first pair (Cat. fr. 43a.83 M-W: ἔξοχον ἀνθ̣ [ρώπων ἀρ]ε̣ τῇ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γ[αῖαν)134 the aural chiasmus ρε … EP … PE ... ρο (ἀρ]ε̣ τῇ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα) highlights, through neighboring but not syntactically related terms, what is explicitly stated, i.e. that Bellerophon’s virtue knows no end. This connection lays the groundwork for a further link in the very next verse (84), which is in turn created via another chiastic alliteration, which repeats and intensifies the constituent parts of the alliteration in the previous verse: πα]τὴρ πόρε Πήγασο[ν ἵππον.135 These pairs of chiastic alliterations, placed one right after the other, constitute one of the most impressive aural achievements of the Catalogue of Women. The second verse (84) alerts the listeners to the acknowledgement of Bellerophon’s virtue on earth by means of the gift of Pegasus by his father Poseidon.

 133 For this issue, see Tsagalis 2017b, 191–215 (= chapter 11 [this volume]). 134 ‘Greatest of human beings for excellence on the boundless earth’. 135 ‘His father gave him the horse Pegasus’.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

5. Rhapsodes would make use of other possibilities offered by epic poetry, such as the differentiation between emotionally charged excerpts and simple name catalogues. The catalogue of the Nereids in Il. 18.39–49136 could be recited in a different tone and speed compared to the previous narrative and Thetis’ lament. In this way the exotic nature and large number of the Nereids would have made a strong impression to the audience. Thetis’ arrival from the depths of the sea along with her sisters would underline, through the colorful aural score of their names and the slower pace of the narrative, the importance of Achilles, for whom this development is taking place. No serious rhapsode would miss this opportunity.137 With respect to the external or peripheral elements of the performance of epic, I will focus my attention on the dress code, stage appearance, and preparation of the rhapsodes. According to Dionysius of Thrace,138 when the Homeridae were reciting excerpts from the Iliad, they used to wear a red wreath, the color of which symbolized the bloodshed of war, while when reciting excerpts from the Odyssey, they would prefer a blue one, the color of which symbolized the sea in which Odysseus wandered for many years. The same information is given by Eustathius,139 the only difference being that there is no mention of wreaths, but of garments. This material about the rhapsodes’ dress code could be related to the Great Panathenaea, as it regards recitation of Homeric poetry exclusively and reflects a trend, not just the personal preference of some rhapsode.140 Even though this conjecture is reinforced by the formality of the rhap 136 ἔνθ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔην Γλαύκη τε Θάλειά τε Κυμοδόκη τε | Νησαίη Σπειώ τε Θόη θ᾽ Ἁλίη τε βοῶπις | Κυμοθόη τε καὶ Ἀκταίη καὶ Λιμνώρεια | καὶ Μελίτη καὶ Ἴαιρα καὶ Ἀμφιθόη καὶ Ἀγαυὴ | Δωτώ τε Πρωτώ τε Φέρουσά τε Δυναμένη τε | Δεξαμένη τε καὶ Ἀμφινόμη καὶ Καλλιάνειρα | Δωρὶς καὶ Πανόπη καὶ ἀγακλειτὴ Γαλάτεια | Νημερτής τε καὶ Ἀψευδὴς καὶ Καλλιάνασσα· | ἔνθα δ᾽ ἔην Κλυμένη Ἰάνειρά τε καὶ Ἰάνασσα | Μαῖρα καὶ Ὠρείθυια ἐϋπλόκαμός τ᾽ Ἀμάθεια | ἄλλαι θ᾽ αἳ κατὰ βένθος ἁλὸς Νηρηΐδες ἦσαν ‘for Glauce was there, Cymodoce and Thaleia, | Nesaie and Speio and Thoe, and ox-eyed Halia; | Cymothoe was there, Actaea and Agaue, | Doto and Proto, Dynamene and Pherousa, | Dexamene and Amphinome and Kallianeira; | Doris and Panope and glorious Galateia, | Nemertes and Apseudes and Kallianassa; | Klymene was there, Ianeira and Ianassa, | Maira and Oreithyia and lovely-haired Amatheia, | and the rest who along the depth of the sea were daughters of Nereus’. 137 For the euphony of these names, see Edwards (1991, 147–150) with bibliography; some useful observations about the aesthetic effect that such name catalogues create can be found in Lamberton 1988, 82–84. 138 Dion. Thr. 316.15–19 Hilgard. 139 See vol. I, p. 9 van der Valk. 140 von Scheliha 1943, 403–404; West 2011b, 745.

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions sodic recitation of Homeric poetry during this famous Athenian festival, Eustathius’ exact phrasing allows for an alternative possibility. Before the cited excerpt, the text reads εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ὁμηρικὴν ποίησιν οἱ ὕστερον ὑπεκρίνοντο δραματικώτερον (‘if rhapsodes of a later period presented Homeric poetry in a more dramatic style’), which is placed in the context of a brief reference to the theatrical practice of naming the plays δράματα (dramas) and not γράμματα (written texts). The use of ὑπεκρίνοντο recalls the references we come across in Plato in relation to certain elements which are characteristic of the art of acting, but could also be seen in rhapsodic recitations (Rep. 373b7–c1; Ion 535e).141 Eustathius then goes on and claims that the dress code of the rhapsodes reciting the Iliad and the Odyssey constitutes a novel concept that belongs to a new era (σύμβαμα καὶ καινότερον ἐπινόημα τῶν ἐσύστερον), since even if the poem’s style was dramatic, it does not mean that the poet was composing a drama to be performed on stage (ὁ δὲ ποιητὴς εἰ καὶ δραματικῶς ἔγραψεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐδραματούργησε σκηνικῶς). Seeing things through this lens, we cannot rule out the possibility that the use of a special dress code by rhapsodes when reciting Homeric epic presupposes the influence of theatrical culture, something which in turn refers to a later stage in the history of rhapsodic performances. Moreover, this is what happens in Plato’s Ion, where it is said that ‘it is befitting to our art always to adorn our body and to appear as handsome as possible’142 and that rhapsodes are dressed ‘with an embroidered garment and golden wreaths’.143 When speaking of external or peripheral elements with respect to the performance of epic poetry we should take into account theatricality. With this term I do not exclusively refer to the systematic recitation of epic poetry in the theater during the Hellenistic and Imperial Period, but to the regular, under the influence of the theater, use of aspects of theatrical practice during the recitation of epic.144 First, it should be clarified that the correlation between the clothing of rhapsodes and the Homeridae is not an argument in favor of the Panathenaic theory. Furthermore, the reference to the colors of the wreaths (instead of dyed garments in Eustathius), apart from being overall strange (what would a painted wreath possibly look like?), shows that the source from which we extract this information has linked elements belonging to different phases or circumstances

 141 Graziosi 2002, 38. 142 Pl. Ion 530b6–8: τὸ γὰρ ἅμα μὲν τὸ σῶμα κεκοσμῆσθαι ἀεὶ πρέπον ὑμῶν εἶναι τῇ τέχνῃ καὶ ὡς καλλίστοις φαίνεσθαι. 143 Pl. Ion 535d2–3: ἐσθῆτι ποικίλῃ καὶ χρυσοῖσι στεφάνοις. 144 This phenomenon is more widespread and pertains to public life at large. For a detailed presentation of the relevant matter, see Chaniotis 2009.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

of the evolution of rhapsodic performances: on the one hand the Homeridae of the Panathenaea during the time of Hipparchus, and on the other artists wearing wreaths and rhapsodes with dyed garments of a later era. This clarification is important, as it allows us to assume that in the long course of the evolution of rhapsodic performances there was a phase in which the use of carefully selected costumes was extended from actors to rhapsodes. The direction of this influence becomes clearer, when we take into account that what was transferred from the theater to the rhapsodic recitations was not only the dress code, but also its association with the content of the poem, whether epic or dramatic. Just as an actor’s costume would be determined by the role (or roles) he had in a tragic or comic play, so the color of the rhapsodes’ dress would be determined by the subject matter of epic that was performed (red for the Iliad and blue for the Odyssey). The importance given to the dress code under the influence of the theater stands in sharp contrast to the rather simple costumes of rhapsodes during the Archaic and early Classical Period. The rhapsode’s main ‘tools’ were his voice145 and the status of the myths that were the core of the poetry he was reciting. The available information regarding the size of the audience in rhapsodic recitations is very limited. In general, audiences can be larger or smaller depending on the venue where a performance takes places. According to Plato (Ion 535d), 20000 spectators (δισμυρίοις ἀνθρώποις) watched the recitation of poetry in the theater at Epidauros, where the rhapsode Ion performed. This number is large (even when compared to modern day standards) but is in no way impossible when compared to the capacity of some ancient theaters. Given that the capacity of the theater at Epidauros, which is preserved in very good condition up to this day, was somewhere between 12000 and 15000 spectators, the clues provided by Ion the rhapsode are not extraordinary.146 In any case, the audience would vary in size according to the occasion, but public festivals as well as theaters (at a later stage) would be chosen by rhapsodes as venues because it was anticipated that crowds would gather there to listen to them. The gradual increase of the size of the audience should also be taken as a given, especially from 5th c. BC onwards.

 145 For the topic of εὐφωνία (euphony), see chapter 18, p. 501 (this volume). 146 Sometimes a number is formed under the influence of another fixed number that is emblematically stating a large size. According to Plato (Symp. 175e6–7), the works of the poet Agatho were performed in front of an audience that would exceed 30000 spectators (πλέον ἢ τρισμυρίοις). Every Athenian would understand that this number is extremely high, since this was the total amount of citizens in Athens (Murray 1996, 122).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions If what is said in Plato’s Ion represents reality (at least that of 4th c. BC), rhapsodes (mostly the inspired ones) would have special techniques during performance to explain to their listeners what the poet thought (τὸν γὰρ ῥαψῳδὸν ἑρμηνέα δεῖ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῆς διανοίας γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἀκούουσι, Pl. Ion 530c3–4). This interpretative process must be placed within the wider context of the performance of epic poetry, since poets interpret what the gods say and think, which means that poetry is associated with the divine (ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρώπινά ἐστιν τὰ καλὰ ταῦτα ποιήματα οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ θεῖα καὶ θεῶν, οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἑρμηνῆς εἰσιν τῶν θεῶν, 534e2–4). In this vein, rhapsodes are interpreters of other interpreters, as they convey to the audience what the poet thinks, who in turn understands and interprets the will of the gods (Pl. Ion 535a). Rhapsodes were aiming at associating their performances with the content of the poem they were reciting. For this reason, they would not hesitate bursting into tears when reciting a lament scene, or express their fear (possibly with some gesture or by changing the tone of their voice), when performing a scene that was inciting fear to one or more characters of the plot. Ion confesses that saying something φοβερὸν ἢ δεινόν (‘scary or formidable’) makes the hairs on the back of his neck stand up (Pl. Ion 535c7–8). This description might put an ironic grin on our faces, but the point it expresses, i.e. that gestures would be used by rhapsodes who were attempting to make their recitation vivid, is basically true. Their goal was to turn recitation into a real experience, where mind and senses would actively participate, making the listeners part of the world that the poem was trying to bring to life. By reenacting a story referring to a distant past, rhapsodes were turning the recitation into performance. That was an essential condition in order to gain prestige and, thus, become authentic interpreters of the poet’s mind (Pl. Ion 530c). The rhapsodes’ interest in promoting themselves as performers of epic poetry would no doubt presuppose that they dedicated time and effort to prepare for their performances. Preparation would have also included rehearsal of material.147 This line of thought does not exclude the existence of extemporaneous performances but rather stresses that rehearsing part of the material to be performed would no doubt lead to a considerable improvement and perfection of one’s recitation style.148 Rehearsing can hardly have started with rhapsodes. The ἀοιδοί would have also engaged in rehearsing parts of their songs. At that stage, rehearsal would have involved the interaction of the ‘new’ material the singer  147 See Minchin (forthcoming). 148 See Scodel 1996, 65–66.

Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Performances  

rehearses with other ‘stored’ material that he has learned by hearing the performances of other songs. The process of composition without the pressure of the real, performance conditions, i.e. at the singer’s own time and pace, would no doubt have allowed him to improve his rehearsal by other ‘stored’ material. In fact, the singer could have thought when hearing the performance of another story/song that a certain idea, motif, even phraseology was so arresting and successful that he may use it in his own song. Rehearsing, therefore, would gradually become a synthetic process. Homeric epic contains what seem to be ‘traces’ of such a process. I am referring to repeated ‘text-like chunks’,149 as well as lists and catalogues, which may have pre-existed the moment of utterance and indicate that the singer rehearsed material before the performance. Rehearsal, thus, was from early on a standard feature of the preparation for the performance of epic poetry, marked by a gradual decrease of change of the material ‘stored’ in the performer’s mind. Sometimes, rhapsodes had at their disposal written copies of the poems they were reciting. In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Socrates asks Euthydemus, who has in his own library many of the works of famous poets and sophists, as well as a complete Homeric text, whether he intends to become a rhapsode.150 It is obvious that this is not an ordinary situation. The meaning of the relevant reference is that few citizens had a complete written copy of the Homeric epics and that rhapsodes were more likely to belong to that privileged category.151 Some rhapsodes did not only recite Homeric poetry but also gave speeches on it. Isocrates (Helen 65)152 mentions that some Homeridae claimed in their speeches that Helen had visited Homer in person and suggested he compose an epic about the Trojan War, because she wanted the deaths of the heroes in Troy to become more glorious than other people’s lives.153 We do not know what other topics the

 149 See Ready 2019, 16–74. 150 Xen. Mem. 4.2.1: καταμαθὼν γὰρ Εὐθύδημον τὸν καλὸν γράμματα πολλὰ συνειλεγμένον ποιητῶν τε καὶ σοφιστῶν τῶν εὐδοκιμωτάτων; 2.8–10: τί δὲ δὴ βουλόμενος ἀγαθὸς γενέσθαι, ἔφη, ὦ Εὐθύδημε, συλλέγεις τὰ γράμματα; … ἀλλὰ μὴ ῥαψῳδός; ἔφη· καὶ γὰρ τὰ Ὁμήρου σέ φασιν ἔπη πάντα κεκτῆσθαι. 151 West 2001, 20. 152 λέγουσιν δέ τινες καὶ τῶν Ὁμηριδῶν ὡς ἐπιστᾶσα τῆς νυκτὸς Ὁμήρῳ προσέταξεν ποιεῖν περὶ τῶν στρατευσαμένων ἐπὶ Τροίαν, βουλομένη τὸν ἐκείνων θάνατον ζηλωτότερον ἢ τὸν βίον τὸν τῶν ἄλλων καταστῆσαι· καὶ μέρος μέν τι καὶ διὰ τὴν Ὁμήρου τέχνην, μάλιστα δὲ διὰ ταύτην οὕτως ἐπαφρόδιτον καὶ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὀνομαστὴν αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τὴν ποίησιν. 153 In Plato’s Ion (533c, 536d), Ion the rhapsode is described as able to recite Homer better than other poets because he is overcome by frenzy when doing so (536d: κατεχόμενος καὶ μαινόμενος).

  Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions rhapsodes might have analyzed in their speeches. The lack of testimonies regarding that matter should make us extremely wary of the pre-Alexandrian tendency to correct the Homeric text based on its ἀπρέπεια154 (indecency) towards the gods or in relation to established values or aesthetic principles.

 154 On πρέπον in ancient Greek criticism, see Pohlenz 1933, 57–59; Schenkeveld 1970, 167– 170; Schironi 2018, 426–433.

 Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Whereas Gainsford1 reviews aspects of the performance of Greek epic poetry, such as pitch and melody, and González2 offers a diachronic analysis of the rhapsode’s craft, here I present a panorama of the occasions and places of rhapsodic performances throughout the Greek world from their beginning to the end of the Classical Period. For the most part, I structure this chapter by place, as Csapo and Wilson3 structure their succinct and helpful survey of reperformances of tragedy outside Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. But given the fact that rhapsodic performances took place in different contexts, the classification of the relevant material should take into account this factor too. I therefore assign the material to three separate categories of increasing importance: hors concours performance; funeral games; and public festivals, by far the most common venue for the recitation of epic poetry and suitable for displaying its often agonistic character. Within each context, I then sort the data by geographical location. It will frequently be necessary to distinguish within a specific region, such as Asia Minor, the various sites where rhapsodic recitals were held. We are in a position to identify from the sources available a variety of performance milieux and venues as well as the names, approximate dates, origins, and performance contexts of a dozen rhapsodes, of whom only one antedates the fifth century BC.4

. Hors Concours Performance Epic was recited in hors concours — non-competitive — performances. In recent years some scholars have argued in favor of the symposium as a possible milieu for non-competitive rhapsodic recitals of Homeric epic. Since this claim has been connected even with the raison d’être of at least one of the two monumental epics, I begin with some thoughts on the Homeric poems and then proceed to the case of Hesiodic epic, for which a similar claim has been made.

 1 Gainsford 2015, 75–82. 2 González 2013, 2–8. 3 Csapo and Wilson 2015. 4 See Appendix 5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-018

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Taplin argues that ‘the Iliad was created to be performed through three successive nights in the banqueting-hall of a lord’,5 with the same suggestion being applied to the Odyssey, although within the time frame of two consecutive nights.6 For Taplin the picture given by the Odyssey reflects historical reality at the time of the composition of the Homeric epics. Taking the Homeric ἀοιδός singing at the δαίς and the rhapsode reciting in the symposium as belonging to a single line of tradition, Murray7 envisions the performance of the Odyssey as ‘a series of separate but doubtless consecutive banquets’: ‘the narrative itself is structured as a series of “cantos”, in which each canto presents an episode which is suited to be told within the context of a single banquet’. As for the Iliad, he postulates that it was designed for a more public performance, such as a festival. These are rich but speculative arguments. To begin with, one should not conflate the Homeric δαίς and the aristocratic symposium of the Archaic Period. Murray8 rightly draws attention to the ‘greater exclusivity and sense of separateness achieved with the reclining banquet’ in contrast to the seated banquet as depicted in Homeric epic as well as to the radical decrease of the audience’s size given the restrictions of what Bergquist9 coins ‘the dynamics of sympotic space’ — that is, the limited number of couches that could be placed within the ἀνδρών. Moreover, to accept these reconstructions, we have to think exclusively of the performance of selected episodes of the Homeric epics. Yet the main problem with this line of thought is that if rhapsodic recitals took place in the aristocratic symposia of the Archaic Period, it must be explained why our sources are silent about them, whereas they shower us with information concerning lyric and elegiac poetry at the symposium. Murray10 offers no ancient testimony in support of his claim that the rhapsode is ‘rediscovered in the grand tyrannical symposium of the late archaic age’. The silence of ancient authors with respect to the inclusion of epic poetry in that phase of the banquet when the λόγος συμποτικός assumes the form of a contest is noteworthy and has not been explained by the adherents of the theory of epic ‘sympotic’ recitals.11

 5 Taplin 1992, 39. 6 Taplin 1992, 30–31. 7 Murray 2008, 167. 8 Murray 2008, 162. 9 Bergquist 1990. 10 Murray 2008, 163. 11 This is typical, for example, with otherwise first-rate work on the symposium such as that of Pellizer 1990 and Rösler 1990.

Hors Concours Performance  

We can safely say that epics could have formed part of the general musical display that demonstrated the symposiarch’s status as well as his desire to entertain his guests. When Xenophon’s Niceratus says, ‘I listen to rhapsodes [recite Homeric poetry] almost daily’ (Symp. 3.6), this must be an indication of more intimate performances, not public festivals.12 What would be the nature of these daily intimate performances? The symposium can hardly be ruled out. The fact that Niceratus’ father made him learn the entire content of the Iliad and the Odyssey by heart so that he could recite them (Xen. Symp. 3.5–6) supports the designation of the symposium as one of the intimate occasions in which Homeric epic was recited, since the point is that there were occasions in which Niceratus could show off his ability to sing whatever part of Homer his listeners wished to hear. The more sumptuous a banquet, the greater the opportunity for the host to show off. Regarding Hesiod, I will discuss the Theogony’s agonistic performance context in the section devoted to funeral games. As for the Works and Days, its segmental internal organization has been recently interpreted as amounting to a sylloge in the manner of the poetry of Phocylides or the Theognidea.13 I am sceptical about this proposal, but it does alert us to the generic adaptability of a semi-didactic hybrid like the Works and Days. I also have reservations concerning the suggestion that the symposium was the performance context for this kind of wisdom poetry.14 In any case, what we gain from such proposed scenarios is a chance to reconsider the generic identity of certain epics and to suggest that their generic fluidity may be relevant to the widening of their performance scope, at least from the local to the regional level. After all, the extended mythical first part of the Works and Days covertly points to the effort to connect agricultural and seafaring instructions to beliefs about mortals’ condition and relationship to the gods. Put differently, this is an attempt to reach a larger audience. We are faced with similar problems when we try to examine potential scenarios for the performance context of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Some of the epic’s women had their own hero cults, such as Chloris in Argos and Alcmene in various places.15 Yet the poem’s dearth of material with respect to the theme of death renders an association between the epic’s performance  12 Murray 1996, 20. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 13 Aloni 2017, 3–28. 14 Irwin 2005, 35–84; Aloni 2017, 3–28. With respect to the performance of Hesiodic poetry, Koning (2010, 46–51) surveys the limited evidence and postulates a similar picture, albeit on a smaller scale, with that pertaining to the performance of Homeric epic. He argues that Hesiodic poetry was studied in schools, sung in the symposium, and performed at festivals. 15 Rutherford 2000, 88.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods and a heroic cult rather unlikely. One might imagine audiences of women and girls, but the analogy offered by Sapphic and Alcmanic lyric should not be pressed. The notion of an exclusively female audience for the Catalogue can be safely put aside. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the symposium.16 Audience response is an underestimated factor as far as performance context is concerned. But it represents an important aspect of any performance venue, the more so since concerns about the kind of audience a poem would be addressed to may have conditioned a whole series of choices pertaining to the poem’s structure and content. In fact, some of the Catalogue’s features may have been shaped with an eye to the epic’s performance. Take, for example, the poem’s size, which I would not hesitate to call ‘impressive,’ since we would not expect a catalogue poem to be so long. Given that size in this case means comprehensiveness, we can recognize that the poem’s scope reflects an effort to encompass an enormous amount of mythical material, stretching from the beginnings of the Greek world to the end of the race of heroes. The epic’s scope would make it suitable for performance in various places, since there would hardly be any Greek who would not find in the epic genealogies of the Catalogue his own mythical ancestors. Another feature of the Catalogue that may have been shaped with an eye to audience response is the initial invocation of the Muses, who are called to assist the poet in relating the sexual unions between gods and mortal women. By anchoring the abovementioned theme to the traditional device of invoking the Muses in the proem, the poet of the Catalogue telescoped the epic’s content so as to have it operate as a continuation of the Theogony, which also contains multiple lists that become quite pronounced as the poem approaches its end. The Theogony and the Catalogue would have also formed, if only notionally, a sort of small Hesiodic cycle, albeit in the form of a pair of epics. Perhaps the existence of a longer poem of the same scope, the Megalai Ehoiai, is indicative of a general tendency to couple the Theogony with a poem that would take the world’s story to the end of the race of heroes. This time though, and in marked contrast to the Epic Cycle, the poetic means to this end would be the catalogue.17 Also aimed at gaining the audience’s approval is the rapidity with which the Catalogue unfolds. The rhapsode performing this epic would be able

 16 Irwin 2005, 35–84; cf. the criticism of Fletcher 2006 and Aloni 2017, 3–28. 17 More speculative is the suggestion that the Megala Erga (if a separate poem) contained agriculturally oriented instructions of the sort we find in the farming section of Hesiod’s Works and Days. If so, the parallel circulation of thematically related epics of the Hesiodic type may have been more prevalent than we think.

Hors Concours Performance  

to reach quickly the various genealogical trees of the Greeks and thereby cater to various ethnic groups. Furthermore, such a detailed, panoramic presentation of the entire Greek world no doubt allowed audiences to link past and present in an emotionally fulfilling way. Extended genealogies gave depth to their family lines, and depth meant authority and pride. By reaching far back in time genealogies made it possible for personal memory to meet collective memory, and the new mixture would link the heroic age with the archaic world. Place names, proper names of mortals and immortals, family trees — all these features created an intricate mosaic.18 Nevertheless, the rather monotonous marshalling of names, reinforced by extensive parataxis and reiterated diction, was a challenge to the poem’s success. Keeping the audience’s attention was no easy task. Even more than is the case with Homeric epic, a renewal of the poem’s beginning was needed. In this light, the reuse of a traditional attention-drawing device such as the invocation to the Muses before the beginning of the fifth Book should come as no surprise.19 The authority of divine inspiration goes hand in hand with the inherent exigencies of rhapsodic recital, and perhaps it was employed to introduce a part of the epic that could be separated from the rest. Who would not like to have heard on its own a presentation that started with the catalogue of Helen’s suitors and proceeded to the end of the heroic race? Leaving behind the putative association of epic poetry with the symposium, I look to Athenaeus’ discussion of the lavish organization of wedding ceremonies organized by Alexander the Great at Susa in 324 BC. Rhapsodic recitals were included among the musical performances (12.538e–539a Olson): ἐπὶ πέντε δὲ ἡμέρας ἐπετελέσθησαν οἱ γάμοι, καὶ ἐλειτούργησαν πάνυ πολλοὶ καὶ βαρβάρων καὶ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς θαυματοποιοὶ ἦσαν διαπρέποντες 20 Σκύμνος Ταραντῖνος καὶ Φιλιστίδης Συρακόσιος Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ Μυτιληναῖος· μεθ’ οὓς ἐπεδείξατο ῥαψῳδὸς Ἄλεξις Ταραντῖνος. παρῆλθον δὲ καὶ ψιλοκιθαρισταὶ Κρατῖνος Μηθυμναῖος, Ἀριστώνυμος Ἀθηναῖος, Ἀθηνόδωρος Τήιος· ἐκιθαρῴδησαν δὲ Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ Ταραντῖνος καὶ Ἀριστοκράτης ὁ Θηβαῖος. αὐλῳδοὶ δὲ παρῆλθον Διονύσιος ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης, Ὑπέρβολος Κυζικηνός· παρῆλθον δὲ καὶ αὐληταί, οἳ πρῶτον τὸ Πυθικὸν ηὔλησαν, εἶθ᾽ ἑξῆς μετὰ τῶν χορῶν, Τιμόθεος, Φρύνιχος, Καφισίας, Διόφαντος, ἔτι δὲ Εὔιος ὁ Χαλκιδεύς. καὶ ἔκτοτε οἱ πρότερον καλούμενοι Διονυσοκόλακες Ἀλεξανδροκόλακες ἐκλήθησαν διὰ τὰς τῶν δώρων ὑπερβολάς· ἐφ᾽ οἷς καὶ ἥσθη ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος. ὑπεκρίθησαν δὲ τραγῳδοὶ μὲν Θεσσαλὸς καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος καὶ Ἀριστόκριτος, κωμῳδοὶ δὲ Λύκων καὶ

 18 Minchin 2001, 90–92. 19 Cingano 2005, 122. On the function of invocations in Homeric and Hesiodic epic, see Minton 1962. 20 A part of the Greek text is missing.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Φορμίων καὶ Ἀρίστων. παρῆν δὲ καὶ Φασίμηλος ὁ ψάλτης. οἱ δὲ πεμφθέντες, φησί, στέφανοι τηνικαῦτα ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβευτῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταλάντων ἦσαν μυρίων πεντακισχιλίων. The marriage-celebrations went on for five days, and enormous numbers of barbarians and Greeks performed: the Indian magicians were outstanding. Scymnus of Tarentum, Philistides of Syracuse, and Heraclitus of Mytilene; after them, the rhapsode Alexis of Tarentum put on a show. The psilokitharistai Cratinus of Methymna, Aristonymus of Athens, and Athenodorus of Teos also appeared; and Heraclitus of Tarentum and Aristocrates of Thebes played the lyre and sang. The aulodes Dionysius of Heracleia and Hyperbolus of Cyzicus were also there, as were the pipe-players Timotheus, Phrynichus, Caphisias, and Diophantus, along with Euius of Chalcis; they first played the Pythian piece and then performed immediately afterward with their choruses. From then on the individuals previously referred to as Dionysokolakes (‘Dionysus flatterers’)21 were known as Alexandrokolakes [‘Alexander flatterers’], because of the extravagance of the gifts made to the performers Alexander enjoyed. The tragic actors Thessalus, Athenodorus, and Aristocritus gave performances, as did the comic actors Lycon, Phormio, and Ariston. The harp-player Phasimelus was also there. The garlands sent by the ambassadors and the other guests, says (Chares), were worth 15,000 talents.22

Athenaeus’s source is the tenth Book of Ἱστορίαι περὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου by Chares of Mytilene. Chares, a member of Alexander’s court, was responsible for introducing strangers to the king during his expedition to Asia. This report does not tell us what precisely a performer of a given genre performed or the order of presentation of the performers, and one might compare to this narrative agonistic lists from various festivals of the Hellenistic era, which likewise do not designate what specific piece a performer presented but almost always mention the victors in the same order, by category of performance.23 Table 6 lays out this analogy in a schematic manner. Perhaps Chares, Athenaeus’s source, had access as a member of Alexander’s entourage to some inscribed record created to commemorate this event. If so, it is a reasonable assumption that even if the actual rhapsodic recitals had not taken the form of a contest — despite Alexander’s fondness for musical competitions24 — the way it was de-

 21 Cf. Ar. Rh. 1405a23–5; González 2013, 446. 22 Translation by Olson 2010. 23 Pallone 1984, 157–158; West 2010, 7–10. 24 See Plutarch’s description of Alexander’s musical taste (Alexander 4.11.4–5): ‘At any rate, though he instituted very many contests, not only for tragic poets and players on the flute and players on the lyre, but also for rhapsodists, as well as for hunting of every sort and for fighting with staves, he took no interest in offering prizes either for boxing or for the pancratium’ (translation by Perrin 1967).

Hors Concours Performance  

scribed by Chares reflected conventions pertaining to regularly held and/or formalized contests.25 Tab. 6: The Order of Victors in Athenaeus’ Report Describing Events of 324 BC (Left Column) and in a Hellenistic Inscription (Right Column) Pertaining to the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea. Athenaeus’s Report (Describing events of  BC)

IG VII  = EO  (Amphiaraea and Rhomaea at Oropos, st c. BC) σαλπιστής: Θεόφραστος Ἀσκληπιάδου Αἰγινήτης κῆρυξ: Γλαυκίας Σωσάνδρου Θηβαῖος ἐνκωμίῳ λογικῷ: Μόσχος Ἀναξ{ξ}ίππου Προυσιεύς ἐνκωμίῳ ἐπικῷ: Ἀμινίας Δημοκλέους Θηβαῖος

θαυματοποιοί: Σκύμνος Ταραντῖνος καὶ Φιλιστίδης Συρακόσιος Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ Μυτιληναῖος ἐπῶν ποιητάς: Ἀμινίας Δημοκλέους Θηβαῖος ῥαψῳδὸς Ἄλεξις Ταραντῖνος

ῥαψῳδός: Εἰέρων Ἀριστοβούλου Θηβαῖος αὐλητάς: Νίκων Εὐωνυμοδώρου Θηβαῖος

ψιλοκιθαρισταὶ Κρατῖνος Μηθυμναῖος, Ἀριστώνυμος Ἀθηναῖος, Ἀθηνόδωρος Τήιος

κιθαριστής: Μητρόδωρος Διονυσίου Νικομηδεύς

ἐκιθαρῴδησαν δὲ Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ Ταραντῖνος κιθαρῳδός: Δημήτριος Δημητρίου Καλχηδόνιος καὶ Ἀριστοκράτης ὁ Θηβαῖος σατύρων ποιητής: Κάλιππος Κάλλωνος Θηβαῖος αὐλῳδοὶ δὲ παρῆλθον Διονύσιος ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης, Ὑπέρβολος Κυζικηνός παρῆλθον δὲ καὶ αὐληταί, οἳ πρῶτον τὸ Πυθικὸν ηὔλησαν, εἶθ᾽ ἑξῆς μετὰ τῶν χορῶν, Τιμόθεος, Φρύνιχος, Καφισίας, Διόφαντος, ἔτι δὲ Εὔιος ὁ Χαλκιδεύς ὑπεκρίθησαν δὲ τραγῳδοὶ μὲν Θεσσαλὸς καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος καὶ Ἀριστόκριτος κωμῳδοὶ δὲ Λύκων καὶ Φορμίων καὶ Ἀρίστων

παρῆν δὲ καὶ Φασίμηλος ὁ ψάλτης

 25 See chapter 19.

ποιητὴς τραγῳδιῶν: Λυσίστρατος Μνασέου Χαλκιδεύς ὑποκριτής: Γλαυκίας Σωσάνδρου Θηβαῖος ποιητὴς κωμῳδιῶν: Ἀρίστων Χιόνου Θηβαῖος ὑποκριτής: [Κ]αλλίστρατος Ἐξακέστου Θηβαῖος [τραγῳ]δί[α]ν παλαιάν:…………….ιος

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods

. Funeral Games The funeral games for Pelias included a poetic contest (ἀγὼν ποιήματος) organized by Acastus, which Sibyl won (Plutarch Quaestiones convivales 675a). According to Hyginus (Fabulae 273), Olympus won in the aulos contest, Orpheus in the kithara, and Linos and Eumolpos as singers who accompanied the two instrumentalists.26 This event belongs to the realm of myth, but that musical contests took place during funeral games need not be a fiction. Hesiod’s Works and Days is yet more suggestive about rhapsodic performance at funeral games. In a famous autobiographical passage with rich poetological overtones (Op. 646–659), Hesiod tells us about his short journey from Aulis in Boeotia to Chalcis, his performance of a hymn (the Theogony?) at the funeral games held for Amphidamas, his victory, and his dedication of his prize (a tripod) to the Helikonian Muses, who taught him the art of song (654–659): ἔνθα δ’ ἐγὼν ἐπ’ ἄεθλα δαΐφρονος Ἀμφιδάμαντος Χαλκίδα [τ’] εἰσεπέρησα· τὰ δὲ προπεφραδμένα πολλὰ ἄεθλ’ ἔθεσαν παῖδες μεγαλήτορες· ἔνθα μέ φημι ὕμνῳ νικήσαντα φέρειν τρίποδ’ ὠτώεντα. τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ Μούσῃσ’ Ἑλικωνιάδεσσ᾽ ἀνέθηκα ἔνθα με τὸ πρῶτον λιγυρῆς ἐπέβησαν ἀοιδῆς. There I myself crossed over into Chalcis for the games of valorous Amphidamas—that great-hearted man’s sons had announced and established many prizes—and there, I declare, I gained victory with a hymn, and carried off a tripod with handles. This I dedicated to the Heliconian Muses, where they first set me upon a path of clear-sounding song.27

This example refers to a poetic contest and to a prize-winning poet. Presumably other poets took part in a contest organized within the framework of the funeral games in honor of Amphidamas. Although Hesiod uses this bit of autobiography to praise himself, we should not dismiss it all as a fabrication. Sumptuous funeral games may have included both athletic and musical contests, including competitions in epic.28 After all, they provided a suitable agonistic milieu, as is the case with athletic contests held within the framework of funerals.29  26 West 2010, 1. According to Eumelus’ Corinthiaca (fr. *22 GEF = *23 EGEF), musical contests were also held at the first Isthmian Games, and Orpheus won the kitharodic contest. 27 Translation by Most 2006. 28 I disagree with Power, who entertains the possibility that the contest in the funeral games of Amphidamas in Chalcis was ‘lyric in nature’ (2010, 429). The autobiographical filtering of

Public Festivals  

. Public Festivals The rise of the polis created a new context for the performance and dissemination of archaic epic and Homeric poetry in particular. The singer’s audience grew considerably in both size and range, and people of different classes gained access to the medium of epic poetry. The new socioeconomic framework within which epic performances were now placed invited and perhaps even intensified rivalry. Itinerant rhapsodes began to compete with each other in performing their own compositions as well as those from a standard repertoire of poems composed by others.30 In fact, the term ῥαψῳδία may well reflect poetry that is ‘stitched’ (ῥάπτειν + ᾠδή), and it (together with its cognates) may have been ‘either formed or disseminated in connection with poetic competitions’.31 Rhapsodic performances included both recital of one’s own compositions and recital of episodes from famous epic poetry or other stichic verse, such as Hesiodic (fr. dub. 357 M-W; Pl. Rep. 600d, Ion 531a1–2, 531c2, 532a5–6, Lg. 658d; Isocr. Panath. 18.33) and Phocylidean gnomic hexameter poetry.32 Such competitions spanned most of the Greek world, and they firmly attest to the growing popularity in the Archaic Period of rhapsodic performances of dactylic hexameter poetry, especially but not solely Homeric epic.33 By the end of the fifth and certainly in the fourth century, the rhapsodic repertoire had expanded. We hear of Simonides of Zakynthos reciting Archilochus (Pl. Ion 531a1–2, 531c2, 532a5–6; Athen. 14.620c–d), although Archilochus may well have been included in rhap-

 the entire sphragis in the Nautilia section of the Works and Days is based on a comparison between Hesiodic and Homeric epic (Tsagalis 2006a, 105–113; 2007, 269–290; 2009, 151–157). 29 On the agonistic context and the performance of epic, see Gainsford’s useful remarks (2015, 84–85). He stresses the importance of a ‘direct, more personal style of competition,’ drawing attention to the contests between Homer and Hesiod (Certamen) and Lesches and Arctinus (Phanias fr. 33 Wehrli), with Hesiod and Lesches being victorious, and to the attacks on Homer by Syagrus and on Hesiod by Cercops (Diog. Laert. 2.46). Poetic duels like those between the seers Mopsus and Calchas ([Hes.] Melamp. fr. 214 M-W) or Thamyris and the Muses (Il. 2.599– 600) should also be taken into account. 30 West 1981, 125. Ford (1988, 306) thinks that other forms of stichic verse, like the sort of elegies performed at dinner parties, were also included in rhapsodic performances in the Classical Period. Cf. Gentili 1988, 156. 31 Ford 1988, 306. Patzer’s view — that only epic poets were called rhapsodes, since they strung together one dactylic hexameter verse after the other (1952) — is true as far as the stringing of verses is concerned. The same principle also applies to other unmelodic verse, which was not sung, such as elegy and iambus. 32 West 1981, 125. 33 Patzer 1952, 324.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods sodic contests as early as the late Archaic or early Classical Period, since Heraclitus tells us that ‘Archilochus’ — that is, the rhapsodes who recite his poetry — should be beaten with a stick and banned from contests (D-K 22 B 42 apud Diog. Laert. 9.1). We hear of the rhapsode Mnasion reciting Simonides’s iambics and of the rhapsode Cleomenes reciting Empedocles’ hexameters (Athen. 14.620c–d), perhaps at the Olympic Games (Diog. Laert. 8.63.6).34 As to the forms of rhapsodic competition, it has been argued that there were at least three distinct modes of rhapsodic performance:35 (a) stitching; (b) inserting new verses into Homer’s poems; and (c) other improvisational techniques (hexameter exchanges of questions and answers of a gnomic or philosophical nature;36 completing verse couplets, or capping; recitation of passages). We are in no position to ascertain which of these modes were employed in which festivals, but there is a case to be made that some of them were practiced in the late Archaic Period and others in the Classical Period.

. Asia Minor Epic poetry was widely diffused and performed in the coastal Greek cities of Asia Minor. Homeric poetry must have been at the forefront of rhapsodic recitals as early as the Archaic Period. For Ionians, in particular, Homeric epic was at the heart of their religious festivals, since it occupied a special place in the shaping of their collective identity.

.. Claros The Homeric Hymn to Artemis (Homeric Hymn 9) refers to the goddess driving her chariot through Ionia from the river Meles via Smyrna to Apollo’s shrine at Claros. This short hymn may have been recited at the famous sanctuary in Claros in the context of a musical contest associated with the festival in honor of

 34 Diogenes tells us that Empedocles recited his poetry on his own (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐρραψῴδει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, 9.18). See also West 2011b. 35 Collins 2001, 132–137. 36 This would have been in tune with the tendency to recite Hesiod and Phocylides in addition to Homer in the Archaic Period: see West 1978b, 164 n. 3 (Chamaeleon fr. 28 Wehrli [Athen. 14.620c]) and 1981, 125.

Asia Minor  

the siblings Artemis and Apollo.37 The first lines (9.1–6) of the hymn point in this direction.

.. Ephesos/Mycale: Panionia Thucydides provides our earliest piece of information about the Ephesia, which he mentions in conjunction with the Delia (3.103–104). ἦν δέ ποτε καὶ τὸ πάλαι μεγάλη ξύνοδος ἐς τὴν Δῆλον τῶν Ἰώνων τε καὶ περικτιόνων νησιωτῶν· ξύν τε γὰρ γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶν ἐθεώρουν, ὥσπερ νῦν ἐς τὰ Ἐφέσια Ἴωνες, καὶ ἀγὼν ἐποιεῖτο αὐτόθι καὶ γυμνικὸς καὶ μουσικός, χορούς τε ἀνῆγον αἱ πόλεις. There had been also in the distant past a great gathering of the Ionians and neighboring islanders at Delos. They used to come there to the festival with their wives and children, just as the Ionians now go to the festival at Ephesos, and they used to hold contests there in athletics, poetry, and music, each city producing its own chorus.38

Thucydides’s reference to the Ephesia of his time (424 BC) makes it likely that the comparison with the older festival of the Delia pertains to not only the gathering of all Ionians but also the content of the festival itself. What happened in the Delia in the past probably happened in the Ephesia of 424 BC: it also included ‘contests in athletics, poetry, and music,’ and ‘each city produced its own chorus.’ What, then, about the Panionia? This was an old festival celebrated at Mycale until its replacement by the Ephesia in the 490s BC, when the Persians crushed the Ionian Revolt. The Ephesia, which must have had the same content as the Delia as far as musical contests were concerned, may well have taken over all kinds of events from the Panionia. The Panionia was associated with the Panionion cult center at Mycale, where Ionians celebrated Poseidon Heliconios. This must have been a grand occasion for them, given the status of this festival for their collective consciousness. The cult of Poseidon Heliconios (see Hdt. 1.148) may have reminded the Ionians of their ancestors’ war against Melia (the Meliac War), the acquisition of its territory, and the use of a common shrine of the same god that existed there before the war.39

 37 Baumeister 1860, 344; Müller 18753, 121–122; Reisch 1885, 3. 38 Translation by Warner 1972 (adapted). 39 Wade-Gery 1952, 2–6.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Since the Iliad explicitly refers in a simile to the sacrifice of a bull in honor of ‘the Heliconian lord’ (Il. 20.403–405), it has been thought that it was recited at the Panionia festival in the Archaic Period. After all, this was the festival of the Panionian League and as such a likely context for the rhapsodic performance of Homeric poetry, including but not limited to the Iliad and the Odyssey.40 At that time Homer was regarded as the author of other epics too, including the Thebais and the Epigonoi, as references in the works of Pausanias and Herodotus as well as in the Certamen (the narrative of an imagined poetical contest between Homer and Hesiod) make clear. According to Pausanias (9.9.5), Callinus attributed the Thebais to Homer. Given the dating of Callinus to the middle of the seventh century BC and his Ephesian origin, two conclusions emerge. First, Callinus (and many others, as Pausanias says) considered Homer the poet of the Thebais almost a hundred years before the time of Pisistratus. This view must have prevailed also in the sixth century, as shown by Herodotus’ reference to the Thebais by means of the phrase τῶν Ὁμηρείων ἐπῶν εἵνεκα (‘because of the Homeric poems’, 5.67).41 Second, Callinus’ attribution of the Thebais to Homer must reflect not his personal opinion but a belief widespread during his lifetime in Ephesos, his native city. The best context for the circulation of such a view would have been the festival of the Panionia held in honor of Poseidon Heliconios. With respect to the Epigonoi, Herodotus’ reference to this epic as Homeric (4.32), an attribution about which the historian is anything but certain, indicates not only that Herodotus knew from other sources that the Epigonoi was considered Homeric but also that this attribution must go back to the Archaic Period. In fact, since the Thebais and the Epigonoi form a thematic pair, their attribution to Homer must have happened around the same time.42 Since we

 40 Müller (18362, 28 n. 2), Mazon (1942, 217), and von der Mühll (1952, 307) hold that the poet of the Iliad had taken part in or observed a bull sacrifice at the Panionia festival. West agrees and adds that ‘he [the poet of the Iliad] had very likely captivated crowds there with his recitals’ (2011a, 20). 41 See pp. 485, 501–504 (this chapter). 42 The Certamen credits Homer with the authorship of both the Thebais and the Epigonoi. Apart from the equal length (7000 verses) of both poems and the first verse of each that is cited in the Certamen, we learn that Homer began to recite ‘his’ Theban epics while wandering (περιερχόμενος) after his defeat in the contest against Hesiod. According to the Certamen, Homer is the author only of Theban and Trojan epic, and in the latter case of only the Iliad and the Odyssey. He is not credited, as happens in other sources, with the composition of other Cyclic and hymnic poetry, such as the Cypria, the Aethiopis, the Ilias parva, the Nostoi, or the Hymn to Apollo. The date of the Certamen is late, but there is general agreement that it rests on much

Asia Minor  

know that Callinus attributed the Thebais to Homer, then the same may apply to the Epigonoi, and if that holds true, then the attribution of Theban epic to Homer must have been connected to a specific context, such as an early festival. In my view, the festival of the Panionia is a legitimate candidate. The Homeric Hymn to Poseidon (Homeric Hymn 22) praises the god as lord of both Helicon and Aegae in Achaea in the northern Peloponnese. Some scholars conjectured that ‘Helicon’ here is an error for ‘Helice’ — since Helice and Aegae in Achaea are attested together as places sacred to Poseidon (Il. 8.203) — and suggested that the Panionia was the context for which this hymn was composed.43 This scenario remains likely irrespective of whether the epithet ‘Heliconios’ is to be derived from Mount Helicon in Boeotia (Aristarchus) or from the city of Helice in Achaia (most other ancient authorities).44 The confusion over  earlier material. The tradition on which the Certamen ultimately draws must have presented Homer as the author of Theban and Trojan epic. 43 Differently, Baumeister (1860, 357–358), who argued that the Boeotian Helicon is meant here (on the basis of Hegesinous fr. 1 EGEF and Homeric epigram 6.2). Several scholars agree with Baumeister: Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1936, 413–414); Càssola (1975, 578–579); Zanetto (20063, 306). West (2003b, 18) follows the conjecture of Martinus 1605. 44 The attestation of a handful of Boeotian place names (Mycale recalling Mycalessos, Thebes under Mycale, Cadme instead of Priene, etc.) around the altar of Poseidon Heliconios at the Panionion prompted Wade-Gery to argue that Poseidon’s epithet Heliconios derived from Mount Helicon in Boeotia (1952, 64 n. 16). For the Boeotian origin of the epithet Heliconios, see Aristarchus (Σ [D] Il. 5.422 [247 van Thiel]), who argued against the association of the epithet Heliconios applied to Poseidon with the Achaean city of Helice, claiming that (a) if an Achaean connection existed, then we would expect the epithet Ἑλικήϊος, not Ἑλικώνιος, which comes from Ἑλικών in Boeotia, and (b) the entirety of Boeotia was sacred to Poseidon (ἡ Βοιωτία ὅλη ἱερὰ Ποσειδῶνος), a not very strong argument given that the entirety of the Peloponnese was also sacred to Poseidon (τὸ παλαιὸν τὴν Πελοπόννησον οἰκητήριον γεγονέναι Ποσειδῶνος, καὶ τὴν χώραν ταύτην ὥσπερ ἱερὰν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος νομίζεσθαι, καὶ τὸ σύνολον πάσας τὰς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πόλεις μάλιστα τῶν ἀθανάτων τὸν θεὸν τιμᾶν τοῦτον, [‘(because they thought) that in the days of old the Peloponnese was the habitat of Poseidon, and that this land is considered to be sacred to Poseidon, and that the sum of all the cities in the Peloponnese honor this god most of the immortals’], Diod. 15.49.4). Differently, Σ (AbT) Il. 8.203b–c (II 340 Erbse) and Σ (bT) Il. 20.404b–c (V 65–66 Erbse), which derive ‘Heliconios’ from ‘Helice,’ a city of Poseidon in the Peloponnese, and identify Aegae, which appears together with Helice in this Homeric verse, with an island close to Euboea. See Prinz 1979, 343–5. Nevertheless, most ancient authorites tried to explain the formation ‘Heliconios’ as coming from the genitive plural of Ἑλίκη (Ἑλικῶν), like ἀνέμη (ἀνεμῶν) > ἀνεμώνιος: see GG 3.2, p. 879.9 (Lentz); Eust. on Il. 20.403 (IV 427 van der Valk); Et. Guid. 550.16; EM 387.38. Wade-Gery also maintained that the Ionians inhabited Boeotia at a very early date, before moving to Attica, where they founded a shrine of Poseidon Heliconios on the summit of Agrae on the hill Ardettos (see Cleidemus FGrH 323 F 1; also Wade-Gery 1952, 64 n. 17). It is possible that, when they led an organized colonial expedi-

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods the etymology of ‘Heliconios’ is a separate issue from the fact that one way or the other the Ionians had brought the cult of Poseidon Heliconios to Asia Minor after their migration, perhaps after passing through Athens (Hdt. 1.148; Strab. 8.7.2, 14.1.20; Paus. 7.24.5–6). As to the particularities of epic performance at the Panionia, various theories have been proposed. One of the most recent is that it spanned a twelve-day period, each day seeing the performance of what now are four books of the Iliad and the Odyssey.45 The fact that the Panionian League included twelve cities may have been a crucial factor for the regulation of these performances, which must have involved a number of singers.46 Others, who also see in the Panionia a suitable venue for epic performances, do not associate them with the aforementioned theory about the formation and shaping of the Homeric epics.47

.. Phocaea The existence of the epic Phocais and of two Phocaean poets, Thestorides ([Herodotus], Vita Homeri 16 West: as author of the Phocais) and Prodicus (Paus. 4.33.7: as author of the Minyas),48 indicates poetic activity at Phocaea at some period, probably before the Phocaeans’ evacuation of the city in 540 BC to avoid subjugation to the Persians (Hdt. 1.164–168; Stra. 6.1.1). The Phocais might have dealt with the foundation legend of Phocaea or with more recent historical events in the manner of Mimnermus’ elegiac Smyrneis. We cannot rule out the possibility that it was recited in Phocaea. However, the Phocais, like perhaps the Coan Meropis, might be a pseudo-archaic poem created in the Hellenistic age (West [per litteras]), and the poet Thestorides nothing more than a fiction. The matter seems impossible to decide on the basis of the information available.

 tion to Asia Minor, they did the same thing with the shrine of Poseidon at Mount Mycale (WadeGery 1952, 5). 45 On the four-book segments, see Davison 1965; differently, Thornton (1984, 18 and n. 46), who believes that the Iliad was performed ‘during three consecutive nights, or, at a later stage, days, each performance lasting about nine hours’ either in the festival of Apollo on Delos or in the Panionia at Mycale. 46 Frame 2009, 551–620. 47 West 2011a, 20. 48 See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21.131.3; Plut. De Pythiae oraculis 25, p. 407b; Suda o 658 (III 565 Adler).

Attica  

. Attica All the information that has come down to us with respect to rhapsodic performances in the rest of Attica outside of Athens should be treated with caution. It is unlikely that rhapsodic performances took place solely during the Panathenaea in Athens and that recitals did not occur elsewhere in Attica. Still, the ancient evidence presents a blurry picture.

.. Apatouria A speech by Critias in Plato’s Timaeus provides the sole bit of information about rhapsodic performances at the festival of the Apatouria (21b1–7): ἡ δὲ Κουρεῶτις ἡμῖν οὖσα ἐτύγχανεν Ἀπατουρίων. τὸ δὴ τῆς ἑορτῆς σύνηθες ἑκάστοτε καὶ τότε συνέβη τοῖς παισίν· ἆθλα γὰρ ἡμῖν οἱ πατέρες ἔθεσαν ῥαψῳδίας. πολλῶν μὲν οὖν δὴ καὶ πολλὰ ἐλέχθη ποιητῶν ποιήματα, ἅτε δὲ νέα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ὄντα τὰ Σόλωνος πολλοὶ τῶν παίδων ᾔσαμεν. Now the day was that day of the Apatouria which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and many poems of many poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, since they were new at that time.49

Although the text speaks only of rhapsodic contests and not of their content, the ‘many poems of many poets’ are likely to have included some epic and possibly Homer.50 The Pseudo-Herodotean Life of Homer (2.29–31) discusses at length Homer’s participation (συνεορτάσοντα) in the Apatouria festival that took place on Samos. His invitation by clansmen, his presence there during a sacrifice to the Courotrophos, his reclining and eating together with clansmen in a feast — all these features are remarkably similar to the situation we encounter in the passage from Plato’s Timaeus. The date of the event described by Critias must be placed in the fifth century, but both the festival and the rhapsodic performances are much older. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that Critias compares Solon’s poetry with that of Homer and Hesiod, calling Solon’s poems ‘new at that time.’ His phrasing implies that Solon’s poetry would be recited in the old Apatouria, since it had not yet fallen out of fashion. Since Solon predates the specific Apatouria to  49 Translation by Jowett 19313 (adapted). 50 West 2010, 7.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods which Plato’s text seems to refer, the meaning of ‘new’ for Solon’s poems is ‘new at this festival.’ This interpretation suggests that at least some of the ‘many poems of many poets’ that were included in these rhapsodic recitals were not new, that they had been regularly performed in the Apatouria for some time so as not to be considered ‘newcomers’ to the festival. Their regular performance would mean that they remained in fashion. Of course, in this case we are talking about recitals not by professional rhapsodes but by youths, who recited poetry as part of a contest that accompanied the third phase of the Apatouria, the Coureotis, the whole festival marking the transition of Athenian youths from their family proper to their phratry. This line of interpretation is consistent with the fact that Athenian youths were educated in Homeric poetry as part of their upbringing, and so the inclusion of Homeric epic in the contests of the Apatouria is to be expected.

.. Brauronia I begin with an entry from Hesychius’s Lexicon (β 1067 [I 463 Cunningham]): Βραυρωνίοις· τὴν Ἰλιάδα ᾖδον ῥαψῳδοὶ ἐν Βραυρῶνι τῆς Ἀττικῆς. καὶ Βραυρώνια ἑορτὴ Ἀρτέμιδι Βραυρωνίᾳ ἄγεται καὶ θύεται αἴξ. Brauroniois: Rhapsodes used to sing the Iliad at Brauron in Attica. The festival Brauronia is celebrated in honor of Artemis at Brauron and a goat is sacrificed.

We cannot extrapolate from Hesychius’ entry that rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea originated at this location in rural Attica just because it was Pisistratus’ hometown.51 Davison52 states, ‘there is nothing in Hesychius’ words to show when the Brauronian practice originated or the source from which it was derived, what form it took, how long it went on, or what influence it exerted (if any)’. He also draws attention to the danger of making the exact opposite assumption — that Hipparchus established rhapsodic contests in Brauron to create the impression that the Panathenaic contests originated in Brauron. Still, Hesychius’s entry has its value. It is indisputable that Brauron was Pisistratus’ hometown, and it is indisputable that tyrants, and especially the Pisistratidae, were eager to manipulate certain facts in order to promote their own interests (cf. Herodotus 1.60). I would not be surprised if some new piece of  51 Pace RE 3.1 s.v. ‘Brauronia’ (2), cols. 825–826 (Kern) and Zschietzschmann 1931, 59. 52 Davison 1958, 29.

Attica  

evidence reveals that, after the introduction of rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea, the Pisistratidae introduced rhapsodic contests in Brauron in order to show that what happened at the Panathenaea had already happened in their hometown of Brauron.53 Let us not forget that Pisistratus aimed at strengthening the links between his hometown of Brauron and the city of Athens. The establishment of a Brauronion, a sanctuary on the Acropolis in the sixth century BC, where Artemis Epipyrgidia had been honored since the Bronze Age,54 is in keeping with such a political strategy. In this light, one cannot exclude the possibility that Pisistratus or his sons had undertaken a similar activity with respect to the rhapsodic recitals at Brauron.55 That said, no currently available evidence supports this theory. In fact, it is odd that the Hesychian entry does not mention the association of Pisistratus with rhapsodes in his Attic hometown.56 The entry does not specify who established rhapsodic performances in Brauron, when this individual did so, and if there was any connection with the Panathenaea. Why, then, are scholars willing to speculate about a link with the Pisistratidae? Just because Brauron was Pisistratus’ hometown and because the Pisistratidae are so closely connected with the introduction of rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea? But if the Hesychian entry originated in a source reflecting Pisistratid interests, then it would have included some reference to the Pisistratidae themselves. Since the entry contains no such hint, it seems to me unlikely that either the entry itself or its source is forged. Forgery happens for a reason, and as the entry stands there is no reason to consider it forged. One cannot rule out that the Pisistratidae invented such stories, but that scenario would require a new piece of evidence (beyond the Hesychian entry) that mentions the Pisistratidae. Other components of the entry lead in the same direction. That Hesychius speaks solely of the Iliad militates against the notion that the entry depends on a source forged by the Pisistratidae. The Pisistratidae belonged to the deme of Philaidae ([Plato] Hipparchus 228b; Plutarch, Solon 10.4) and traced their origins to Pylos and Pisistratus, the son of Nestor the Neleid (Hdt. 5.65; Diog. Laert. 1.53). On a mid- seventh-century relief pithos from Pikermi (close to Brauron in north-eastern Attica), the name Antilochus appears next to a warrior figure. Given that ‘its date ... is unusually early for a Trojan subject’ and that Antilo-

 53 See Tsagalis 2020b, 194. 54 Simon 1969, 158 and 1983, 83; Travlos 1971, 124–125. 55 See Tsagalis 2020b, 193–195. 56 Shapiro 1998, 103, 106 n. 41; cf. Hamilton 1989b, 459 n. 18 and 460 n. 23.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods chus is ‘a relatively minor figure in the epic’,57 the possibility arises of rhapsodic performances of the Iliad at Brauron, although Shapiro interprets the presence of Antilochus as a sign of Pisistratid interest in the family’s Neleid origins (Antilochus being the grandson of Neleus). As far as I can see, a Pisistratid forgery would make more sense if the Hesychian entry mentioned either the Odyssey alone or the Odyssey together with the Iliad. The Pisistratid connection aside,58 the Hesychian entry points toward the rhapsodic performance of the Iliad at the festival of the Brauronia.59 Given that this was an annual festival, held on a larger scale every four years (Arist. Ath. Pol. 54.7), and that the entry does not specify an episode or episodes from the Iliad performed during the Brauronia, West60 speculates that the entire Iliad may have been recited ‘on these bigger occasions’ every four years.

.. Eleusis The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Homeric Hymn 2) is so closely associated with Eleusis and the foundation of the Eleusinian Mysteries that it was likely composed for recitation at the games held there three years out of every four.61 The hymn belongs to the Archaic Period, probably the first half of the sixth century BC.62 That it does not mention Athens or any Athenian has made some scholars opt for a date before Pisistratus.63 We would then need to postulate an establishment of the games a whole century earlier than their first attestation around 500 BC (IG I2 5).64 A more difficult question pertains to the performance context of the hymn to Demeter found in P.Berol. 13044 (HymnDemPBerol). Currie65 argues that the HymnDemPBerol is a direct source for the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, which would mean that the audience of the latter was familiar with the former, that is, with the earlier version of Persephone’s rape, so as to be able to appreciate the  57 Shapiro 1983, 89–90. 58 Scheliha 1987, 49. 59 After all, Brauron and Thoricos were the two minor centers in Attica at the expense of which Athens grew during the sixth century (Boersma 2000, 52). 60 West 2010, 6. 61 Müller 18753, 121, 127; Richardson 1974, 12; West 2003b, 8. 62 Richardson 1974, 5–11; Janko 1982, 183; Foley 1994, 29–39; West 2003b, 9. 63 Allen, Halliday, and Sikes 1936, 114 and 126. 64 Deubner 1969, 91; Richardson 1974, 42. 65 Currie 2012, 184–209; 2016, 79–104.

Attica  

allusion of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter to the HymnDemPBerol. What then would the performance context of the HymnDemPBerol have been? Eleusis is, in my view, a legitimate possibility, since all the attested hymns to Demeter are in one way or another linked to Attica. Indeed, according to Pausanias (1.22.7, 4.1.5, 9.27.2, 9.30.12), the genos of the Lycomidae at Phyle in Athens used in their mystery cult the hymns to Demeter by Musaeus, Pamphus, and Orpheus.66

.. Hephaestia The Homeric Hymn to Hephaistus (Homeric Hymn 20) refers to the cooperation of Hephaestus and Athena, who teach ‘splendid crafts to mankind on earth’ (20.2– 3). These two gods are often mentioned together in Athenian myth and cult: their close association, a purely Attic phenomenon, can be best seen in their sitting next to each other in the groupings of the Twelve Gods on the Parthenon frieze, as well as in the setting of a statue of Athena Hephaestia next to the statue of Hephaestus in the temple built in his honor close to the Athenian Agora.67 The hymn may have originated at an Athenian festival,68 and the Attic Hephaestia around the second half of the fifth century BC is a reasonable candidate.69 The idea of the evolution of human civilization emerged in the sixth century (Asius fr. 8 EGEF; Phoronis frs. 1–2 EGEF) but reached its heyday in the fifth due to the teaching of the sophist Protagoras. Another candidate is the Attic festival of the Chalceia, celebrated on the last day of Pyanepsion (mid-October). This old festival was dedicated to both Hephaestus and Athena, the former being the god of smiths (χαλκεῖς).70

 66 Currie 2012, 190 n. 46. 67 Parke 1977, 92–93. 68 Baumeister (1860, 356) refers to ‘Athenian games’ (ludis Atheniensibus) without further specification. 69 West 2003b, 18. Cf. the arguments of Càssola (1975, 374), who does not refute the possibility of an Athenian performance context but observes that Hephaestus and Athena constituted a pair in the canon of the Twelve Gods and that ‘the poet could have cited Athena in a celebration dedicated only to Hephaestus.’ 70 Allen, Halliday, and Sikes 1936, 410; Deubner 1969, 35–36; Parke 1977, 92–93.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods .. Marathon In the eighteenth century, scholars such as Groddeck71 and Ilgen72 argued that the Homeric Hymn to Heracles (Homeric Hymn 15) was recited as an exordium to an epic about Heracles. They had in mind something like the Heraclea of Pisander of Camiros73 and an epic with the same title by Panyassis of Halicarnassos. The failure to find any context for such a recital worked decisively against this theory. When scholars began to realize the importance of the performance context, another suggestion was put forward — that the Homeric Hymn to Heracles was recited at the festival held at Marathon in Heracles’ honor every four years,74 although some label this thesis ‘a mere supposition’.75 It was in Athens that Heracles received divine honors for the first time in the fifth century BC (Eur. Her. 1330–1337; Diod. 4.39; Paus. 1.15.3, 1.32.4). There were other festivals for Heracles in Attica, among which the one in Cynosarges must have been especially important.76 These festivals at Marathon and Cynosarges in honor of Heracles stand out. Herodotus stresses that after the Battle of Marathon, the Athenian army hastened from the Heracleion at Marathon to the Heracleion of Cynosarges in order to protect Athens from the Persian fleet, sailing at full speed after its defeat at Marathon (6.116). The way Herodotus links the two Heracleiai shows their symbolic importance for the Athenians. The Athenian collective consciousness associated the sanctuaries of Heracles with Athens’ mythical history, since, after his liberation from Hades by Heracles, Theseus renamed as Heracleia all but four of his own sanctuaries that were until then called Theseia (Plut. Thes. 35). In the end, the festival at Marathon seems the most likely site for a performance of the hymn, since we know from Pindar (Ol. 9.89–90, 13.110) that the event included athletic contests.77

 71 Groddeck 1786, 48. 72 Ilgen 1796, 590. 73 See Tsagalis 2022. 74 Baumeister 1860, 348; West 2003b, 18. 75 Allen, Halliday, and Sikes 1936, 396. 76 Deubner 1969, 226. 77 Deubner 1969. 227; see Shapiro 1992, 57, referring to a local festival at Marathon in which musical contests were held. A Red-Figure pelike (in Bulgaria) shows a victorious kithara player surrounded by four Νίκαι, each representing the festival whose name is inscribed above her: Panathenaea, Marathon, Nemea, and Isthmia.

Attica  

.. Panathenaea The best-known context for rhapsodic performances in the Archaic and Classical Periods is the Panathenaea — that is, the Greater Panathenaea — in Athens. Recitals of epic poetry by rhapsodes may have begun with the festival’s reorganization in 566 BC.78 Although the festival took place before the sixth century BC (Il. 2.550–551),79 it was expanded and embellished during the 566 boom by the addition of new contests.80 Eusebius, our single source, speaks only of an ἀγὼν γυμνικός (a gymnastic contest): agon gymnicus, quem Panathenaeon vocant, actus (Eusebius Chronicon = Jerome 102a–b Helm). Yet other contests could have been included even at this early stage, the more so since equestrian races may have existed even before the gymnastic contest was introduced to the Panathenaea in 566 BC. After all, Eusebius is interested in telling us not which contests were included at the early Panathenaea, but only when the ἀγὼν γυμνικός was first introduced. On the basis of Panathenaic amphorae bearing the inscription ΤΟΝ ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΟΝ and the impressive increase in the representation on Attic vases of epic themes during the same period, scholars have suspected that a crucial change occurred in Athens with respect to the performance of epic poetry by rhapsodes.81 This cardinal event was probably the transformation of the older festival into a largescale spectacle that included rhapsodes, kitharodes, aulodes, and auletes82 competing for prizes in 566 BC. As for who led the process of expanding and embellishing the Panathenaic festival, Pisistratus has his rivals. The fact that the Panathenaea (in their expanded form) were established in the archonship of Hippocleides (Marcellinus Vita Thucydidis 2–4 = FGrH 3 F 2) makes the Philaidae reasonable candidates. A less likely but still legitimate candidate is Lycurgus, the head of the Plainsmen

 78 See Tsagalis 2020a, 187–189. 79 Davison 1958, 25. 80 The growth of the Panathenaea must have been triggered both by the influence of the Olympic festival and by the political aspirations of Pisistratus. The expansion of the Panathenaea must, on a secondary level, be seen within the larger context of the establishment of Panhellenic games throughout Greece during the same period (Pythia 586 BC, Isthmia 582 BC, Nemea 573 BC). See Shapiro 1989, 19. 81 The relation between iconography and epic poems is a hotly debated question. Lowenstam (1992; 1993; 1997; 2008) and Shapiro (1983; 1992; 1998) illuminate the ways iconographical representations and epic communicate with each other. 82 See West (1992, 338), following Davison 1958, 37, 42. See also Shapiro 1992, 1998 and the prize list (IG II2 2311) for the events at the Panathenaea of c. 380 BC.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods around 560 BC (Hdt. 1.59). Pisistratus’ status and impact work in his favor, even if he first rose to power five years (561/0 BC) after the reorganization of the Panathenaea in 566 BC. In an effort to bypass this problem, Shapiro83 imagines that ‘Pisistratus later promoted and laid down rules for competitions which had been introduced shortly before he came to power’. The content of early rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea is not known, but it seems a fair assumption that the work of Homer was included. In this period Homer was regarded as the poet of a variety of epic poems, among which the Iliad and the Odyssey were only the ones that would always be attributed to him. The performance of Homeric epic at the Panathenaea, then, included but went beyond the Iliad and the Odyssey. This supposition accounts for the remarkable growth of representations on vases of episodes from the Trojan War during this period, which stands in sharp contrast to the paucity of depictions on vases of Iliadic and Odyssean episodes.84 The festival likely saw rhapsodic performances of (what we label as) Cyclic epic (Theban and Trojan) as well as of the Iliad and the Odyssey.85 Although the pairing of Theban and Trojan epic at the early Panathenaea reorganized by Pisistratus in 566 BE may strike one as odd, multiple factors could have prompted such a political and cultural agenda. According to Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia (17.3–4), Pisistratus had friendly relations with Argos because he was married to the Argive Timonassa, daughter of Gorgilus.86 Timonassa was previously the wife of Archinus from Ambracia who belonged to the Cypselidae. With this Timonassa, Pisistratus had two more sons, Iophon and Hegesistratus, nicknamed Thettalus.87 Aristotle says that this marriage was the reason for Pisistratus’ friendship with the Argives, a friendship evidenced in the support one thousand Argives led by Hegesistratus (Thettalus) offered Pisistra-

 83 Shapiro 1989, 20; cf. RE 18.2 s.v. ‘Panathenaia’, col. 459 (Ziehen). 84 Friis Johansen 1967. 85 For an analogous situation, see the analysis regarding Sicyon (pp. 501–504 [this chapter]). Cf. Cingano 1985, 2004; Shapiro 1998, 103; Burgess 2001, 129. 86 For the close ties between Argos and Pisistratus and his family, see also Forrest 1981, 134: ‘That the Hippias-group and the Peisistratos-group were somehow related is put beyond doubt by the name which one fourth-century Hippias and one fourth-century Pisistratus gave to their sons. Given what we know of the Athenian family’s ties with Argos, Argeios Peisistratou (IG xi 598) and Argeios Hippiou (SEG xix 580) are no accident.’ 87 Hippias and Hipparchus were Pisistratus’ sons from his first wife (Ar. Ath. Pol. 17.3).

Attica  

tus at the Battle of Pallene.88 Aristotle also finds that the pro-Argive sentiments of Pisistratus and his family explain the Spartans’ eagerness to restore democracy and overthrow the Pisistratidae (Ath. Pol. 19.4). Pisistratus, then, had every reason to endorse the recital of Theban epic at the Panathenaea, since it highlighted Argos and the Argives. After all, the opposite had already been done in Sicyon, where Cleisthenes’ anti-Argive policy made him ban all rhapsodic performances of Theban and Trojan epic because of the Argives’ prominent role in both.89 That Pisistratus used poetry for the promotion of his political agenda is well known. The Neleidae from whom Pisistratus’ family came were descendants of Nestor, the only survivor from Heracles’ legendary attack on Pylos. According to Herodotus (5.65), the Pisistratidae were Pylians and Neleidae, and Pisistratus was named after the son of Nestor. Herodotus adds that two of the early Athenian kings (Codrus and Melanthus)90 were descendants of the Neleidae. Here we find strong evidence that the recital of the Odyssey at the Panathenaea would be in accord with the mythical past of Pisistratus’ family, thus functioning as a bridge between his claim to power and the authority of Homer, whose poetry had begun to operate on a political, or rather cultural-political, level too. Relevant as well is that after Pisistratus’ first exile the Alcmeonid Megacles called Pisistratus back to Athens (around 545 BC), offering him the hand of his daughter. The marriage did not last, since Pisistratus did not want to get that close to the Alcmeonidae, but Megacles’ helping Pisistratus had larger political implications. The tyrant Cleisthenes of Sicyon, the same one whose anti-Argive sentiment manifested itself in the banishment of Theban and Trojan epic from his city, married his daughter Agariste to none other than the Alcmeonid Megacles. In this light, the Alcmeonidae aimed at having it both ways, creating strong ties to both anti-Argive Sicyon and pro-Argive Pisistratid Athens. If we add that the Alcmeonidae, too, as Pausanias reports (2.18.8–9), came from one of the two branches of the Neleid family91 that settled in Athens (the other being the Paeonidae) and that their ultimate ancestor was Alcmeon, son of Amphiaraus,92 father and son being involved in the first — unsuccessful — and the  88 It is not clear when this marriage took place. According to Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 17.4), some argued that it happened when Pisistratus was first exiled (ἐκπεσόντα τὸ πρῶτον), whereas others say that it took place while he was in power (κατέχοντα τὴν ἀρχήν). 89 See pp. 501–504 (below). 90 For Melanthus’ descent from Neleus, see also Hellanicus fr. 125 EGM. 91 There were three Neleid branches that fled from Messenia after Heracles sacked Pylos. 92 On Amphiaraus, see LIMC s.v. ‘Amphiaraos.’ I.1, 691–713 (Krauskopff); on possible elements in the Thebais that appear on vases, see Torres Guerra 1995, 272–316.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods second — successful — Argive expeditions against Thebes, respectively, it is a fair assumption that the Alcmeonidae who played a key role in Athens also had reasons to endorse Theban epic. Apart from their interest in promoting ties with Argos, the Pisistratidae emphasized their links to Boeotian Thebes and in particular to the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Acraephia as a response to Alcmeonid interest in Delphi. Whereas there is no record of Pisistratid activity at Delphi, the Alcmeonidae were constantly involved with the sanctuary. When the Alcmeonidae had to abandon Athens, they went to Phocis. Megacles participated in the First Sacred War against Crisa, and Alcmeon served as an envoy to Delphi for Croesus in the sixth century BC. After the destruction of Apollo’s temple in 548 BC, the Alcmeonidae paid for its reconstruction, sparing no expense to make the temple more lavish than before. All these events show that there was little, if any, room for Pisistratid activity in Delphi. The Pisistratidae then turned their attention to other sanctuaries of Apollo, among them that of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia and the sanctuary of Apollo Pythios, which they themselves founded in Athens.93 Shapiro94 shows that the Pisistratidae supported non-Delphic sanctuaries in order ‘to mitigate the influence of the Alcmeonids in Delphi’. So, Pisistratid activity in Ptoion had a political aim, as was the case with everything the Pisistratidae did. We are lucky to possess a dedication by Hipparchus to Apollo Ptoios (probably erected before 519 BC), inscribed on a simple base of local Boeotian stone. More revealing is an earlier dedication (IG I3 1469) at the same sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios by Alcmeonides son of Alcmeon, brother of the Alcmeonid Megacles, and one of the key figures of this famous family during this period. Scholars have interpreted the Pisistratid dedication as an effort to balance the Alcmeonid offering and to counter Alcmeonid interest and active involvement in Delphi. I will pass over for the moment other aspects of Pisistratid involvement with sanctuaries of Apollo, but I point here to the signs of building activity by the Pisistratidae in the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios — in fact they may have built a temple and a treasury there95 — which would testify to their special interest not simply in Apolline cult but in Apolline cult in Boeotia. Pisistratid connections to this area, which was under the control of Thebes, are further witnessed by the fact that Pisistratus received financial support from the Thebans for his final

 93 For a discussion of Pisistratid activity in Boeotia and the Pisistratid nexus of Athenian– Boeotian interests, see Larson 2014, 420–426. 94 Shapiro 1989, 52; cf. Larson 2000, 211 n. 77. 95 Winter 1993, 223.

Attica  

return to Athens (Hdt. 1.61; Arist. Ath. Pol. 15.2). All in all, the sponsoring of Theban epic (the Thebais and the Epigonoi featuring the victories of Thebes and Argos respectively) provided the Pisistratidae with a unique opportunity to stress the mythical importance of both these great cities in Boeotia and the Argolid.96 At the early Panathenaea rhapsodes performed only portions of Homer (and perhaps other epic poetry) within the framework of a contest. Hipparchus, the culture-oriented son of Pisistratus, gave a further boost to rhapsodic performances by organizing a serial performance of the Iliad and the Odyssey after 522 BC, even if we are in the dark as to whether these two epics were recited from beginning to end.97 Certain scholars maintain that the ‘Panathenaic Rule’ — or ‘Panathenaic Regulation’ — functioned as the bottleneck for the ensuing narrowing of the range of epics assigned to Homer. This bottleneck only gradually led to the separation of the Iliad and the Odyssey from the rest of Cyclic epic until their final and exclusive attribution to Homer.98 Hipparchus may have initiated this process, but he did not bring it to completion: much later Herodotus (5.67) seems to employ the term Ὁμήρεια ἔπεα for both the Thebais and the

 96 Larson 2000, 208–219. We can also look for internal Pisistratean links to Theban epic. Poseidon’s metamorphosis into a horse and his mating with Erinys and subsequent siring of Arion, Adrastus’ horse — to which Adrastus owes his salvation in the first Argive expedition against Thebes — is such a case. The association of the Pisistratidae with Poseidon was strong. Neleus was the son of Poseidon, whose depiction (together with Athena) in the work of such celebrated artists as Execias and the Amasis Painter points to the old cults of Poseidon Hippios and Athena Hippia on Colonos Hippios (Shapiro 1983, 91). In the Odyssey (3.4–61), Telemachus and the disguised Athena arrive at Pylos, offer sacrifices to Poseidon, and are welcomed by Nestor’s son Pisistratus, whom Athena admires (3.36–53). Shapiro speculates that the Neleidae ‘brought the cult of Poseidon with them from Pylos to Attica at the end of the Bronze Age’ and highlights the ‘coincidence’ between, on the one hand, Poseidon’s equine associations and Nestor’s horsemanship (Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ) and, on the other hand, the equine (ἱππο-) first part of the names of Pisistratus’ two most well-known sons (Ἱππίας, Ἵππαρχος) (1983, 92– 93). Pausanias adduces the Thebais (fr. 11 GEF) and the Iliad (23.346–347) as evidence that Poseidon is the father of Arion, Adrastus’ horse (8.25–27). This pairing of the Thebais and the Iliad with respect to Poseidon’s siring of Arion shows how these epics could be used to promote or highlight the role of Poseidon. What has escaped attention is that Nestor, emphatically called ‘Neleian’ in this particular context, utters these lines in the Iliad. This case indicates that the connection between Poseidon, the Neleidae, and Pisistratus’ family could appear in both Theban and Trojan epic. The early Panathenaea may well have been a possible context for the pairing of Theban and Trojan epic. 97 For two different views, see West 1992, 340 (supporting the relay performance of the entire epics) and Burgess 2004, 11–16. For a balanced appraisal of this issue, see Ford 1997. 98 Nagy 2001.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Iliad.99 The existence of dozens of sixth-century black- and early red-figured vases showing musical performances in a Panathenaic setting proves the existence of mousikoi agones at the early Panathenaea, long before Pericles’ assumed introduction of musical contests in the fifth century.100 This case can serve as an analogue for the case of Hipparchus, who may have done (with respect to the older contests) what Pericles probably did later — namely, reorganize the musical contests by adding or reshaping certain events and dropping others.101 As to the extent of the epic material presented at the early Panathenaea, various clues indicate the recital of self-contained episodes instead of entire epics. According to Aelian (VH 13.14) ‘rhapsodes of old’ (οἱ παλαιοί) performed previously selected (πρότερον διῃρημένα) episodes from Homeric poetry, like the Πατρόκλεια (‘the Patroclus episode’), the Λύτρα (‘the Ransom’), the ἆθλα ἐπὶ Πατρόκλῳ (‘the [funeral] games in honor of Patroclus’), the Ἀλκίνου ἀπολόγους (Κυκλώπειαν καὶ Νέκυιαν καὶ τὰ τῆς Κίρκης) (‘the stories told by Odysseus to Alcinous [the Cyclops story and the visit to the House of the Dead and the Circe episode]’), and the Νίπτρα (‘the episode of washing Odysseus’s feet’). Vase paintings suggest the same thing: as early as 580 BC the painter Sophilus seems to have been familiar with the designations of epic episodes, since he used the title Πατρόκλου ἆθλα (‘the [funeral] games in honor of Patroclus’) in a vase painting.102 The audience’s familiarity with Cyclic epic would have eased the transition from one episode to the next. This episodic performance of epic poetry resem-

 99 Shapiro 1992, 73. 100 See Tsagalis 2020a, 189. 101 Cf. Shapiro 1992, 57. A Panathenaic amphora by the Cleophrades Painter (dated shortly after 500 BC) is inscribed with what seems to be the beginning of a hexameter (ὧδε ποτ᾽ ἐν Τίρυνθι; cf. Il. 2.559), providing a parallel for the required lengthening of the first syllable of Τίρυνθι. According to Davison (1958, 37 n. 22) and Shapiro (1998, 95–96), the fact that this halfverse does not come from the Iliad or the Odyssey renders the possibility of the Cleophrades amphora depicting a rhapsodic contest at the Panathenaea remote, if not impossible, given the dating of the vase. Herington argues (1985, 14–15) that this half-verse came from an epic poem about Tydeus or Diomedes, given their connection to Tiryns, or one about Heracles, who is regularly associated in myth with Tiryns. Shapiro suggests that we should leave the Cleophrades amphora out of the discussion of rhapsodic performance at the early Panathenaea, especially because the two sides of this amphora (1998: figs. 21–22, pp. 96–97) may belong to the same scene and because the figure holding a staff on a bema, whom others have labelled a rhapsode, is really an aulode, as the flute player on the other side suggests. Cf. Bundrick 2018, 95 n. 10. 102 Shapiro 1998, 103.

Attica  

bles cyclic or syntagmatic iconographical representations in which different images appear next to each other according to narrative sequence. These images ‘share a connection ... but they illustrate separate actions, with a narrative gap between’.103 The same phenomenon applies mutatis mutandis to the rhapsodic recitals of episodes from epics based on a stable skeleton of myth with a fixed narrative sequence.104 A turning point with respect to rhapsodic recitals at the Panathenaea came in 522 BC, when Pisistratus’ elder son Hipparchus, designated by Aristotle as φιλόμουσος (Ath. Pol. 18.1), ‘brought the Homeric epics to this land [sc. Athens] and compelled the rhapsodes at the Panathenaea to go through them in sequence by relay, just as they do even nowadays’.105 But what exactly did Hipparchus bring (ἐκόμισεν) to Athens? It seems to me unlikely that he brought a written copy of a full-blown version of the Iliad and the Odyssey106 and that some official supervised the relay-recitations,107 ensuring that rhapsodes abided by the new rules and followed this written copy.108 Such a scenario would require rehearsals, organized supervision, and a number of other practicalities.109 According to another interpretation, Hipparchus brought the Homeridae to Athens and ‘arranged for a complete performance of the poems of Homer’.110 This suggestion accords with his practice of inviting and bringing to Athens famous poets of his time, like Anacreon and Simonides,111 but difficulties concerning the time needed for a complete performance of the entire Iliad and Odyssey remain.

 103 Burgess 2004, 10. 104 Cf. Fantuzzi and Tsagalis 2015, 15: ‘the existence of an earlier stage or phase during which the Epic Cycle represented a connected whole of epic traditions facilitated the filling-in of narrative gaps by means of a mythologically oriented pars pro toto principle.’ 105 καὶ τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη πρῶτος ἐκόμισεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ταυτηνί, καὶ ἠνάγκασε τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς Παναθηναίοις ἐξ ὑπολήψεως ἐφεξῆς αὐτὰ διιέναι, ὥσπερ νῦν ἔτι οἵδε ποιοῦσιν, [Pl.] Hipparchus 228b7–c1. 106 Merkelbach 1952. 107 See Diog. Laert. 1.57: τά τε Ὁμήρου ἐξ ὑποβολῆς γέγραφε ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι, οἷον ὅπου ὁ πρῶτος ἔληξεν, ἐκεῖθεν ἄρχεσθαι τὸν ἐχόμενον (‘He [Solon] wrote a law that Homer’s works should be recited by rhapsodes, so that wherever the first stopped, from that point the next [rhapsode] should begin’). 108 Nagy (1996a, 65–112) adduces various arguments against the idea of a standard written text; see also Slings 2000, 68–69; Graziosi 2002, 221. 109 One such practicality concerns prizes for rhapsodes, on which see IG II2 2311 (= SIG III 1055, dated to 380 BC) and the comments of West (2010, 3–4) and Rotstein (2012, 102–106). 110 West 1999, 382. 111 Cf. Slings 2000, 60–66.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods The recital of the entire Iliad and Odyssey may have taken 26.9 and 20.7 hours respectively, if James Notopoulos’112 calculation of the recital speed of modern Cretan and Cypriot singers can be accurately applied to ancient rhapsodic performance.113 West114 — a staunch supporter of the assertion that a complete recital of both Homeric epics took place at the Panathenaea after Hipparchus’ reorganization of the festival — builds an argument on (perhaps) too many assumptions: (1) that the division of each epic into twenty-four rhapsodies reflects the recitation units assigned to the entire group of rhapsodes reciting each poem; (2) that the Panathenaea lasted four days;115 (3) that the recitations took place over all four days; (4) that the Iliad and the Odyssey ran concurrently, with six rhapsodies of each per day (meaning that the same individual could not attend both performances from beginning to end), or were squeezed into two days apiece (which would mean around thirteen hours of recital of the Iliad per day and around ten of the Odyssey per day!). This second solution does not solve the problem of the exact meaning of the phrase τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη used in the Hipparchus. Do ‘the verses of Homer’ refer to all the poetry attributed to Homer or only to the Iliad and the Odyssey? Scholars have leaned heavily on this expression, but it does not cover the range of epic recited at the Panathenaea. The passage tells us only what Hipparchus did for the first time (πρῶτος), not what happened in the rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea. It also explains that the Panathenaic Rule reformed a practice according to which only some favored episodes were recited and those in a random order, with each rhapsode singing whatever episode he wanted, irrespective of what the previous rhapsode had done.116 Another relevant and equally puzzling passage reports that a law required rhapsodes at the Panathenaea to recite only ‘the verses of Homer’ (Lycurgus Against Leocrates 102). Again, it is unclear whether only the Iliad and the Odyssey are meant, especially since the law described belongs to the Athenian past (οἱ πατέρες ... ὥστε νόμον ἔθεντο).117

 112 Notopoulos 1964, 4–7. 113 Cf. Jensen 1980, 46–50; Thornton 1984, 47–48; Taplin 1992, 27. 114 West 2001, 19 n. 47. 115 For ancient sources, see West 2001, 19 n. 47. 116 See also Sealey (1957, 349), who aptly notes that the relay performance of the Homeric epics makes sense only if the poems had not been reduced to writing. 117 Differently, Slings (2000, 68), who takes the reference to Homer as designating the poet only of the Iliad and the Odyssey and seems to accept that the law mentioned by Lycurgus is genuine.

Attica  

In 446 or 442 BC, Pericles implemented further changes to the rhapsodic recitals of epic at the Panathenaea, in tandem with a broader reshaping of the festival’s musical contests. This information comes from a much-debated passage from Plutarch (Pericles 13.9–11). Davison118 interpreted Plutarch’s phrasing πρῶτον ἐψηφίσατο (13.11) as meaning that a decree was passed for the first time according to which musical contests would be held at the Panathenaea. Given that earlier festivals were the sites of musical contests, Pericles’ initiative makes sense only if we postulate that musical contests had been interrupted at some point in the fifth century. But no evidence for an interruption exists. The absence of musical scenes on sixth-century prize amphorae stems from the fact that the prize at these competitions was not olive oil. 119 Likewise, the building of a spectacular venue, the Odeion, where the contests would now take place120 does not imply that rhapsodes and kitharodes had lacked a place to compete in the past: Hesychius refers to ‘a place where rhapsodes and kitharodes used to compete before the theater was built’ (τόπος ἐν ᾧ πρὶν τὸ θέατρον κατασκευασθῆναι οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ κιθαρῳδοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο, ω 39 [IV 257 HansenCunningham]). The purported passing of a decree by Pericles does not mean that the musical contests had ceased for some time. The information about the building of the Odeion and the holding of the musical performances there after the assembly approved Pericles’ proposal may be correct, as may be Plutarch’s discussion of the election of ἀθλοθέται (judges awarding the prizes) to supervise the musical competitions, among whom Pericles may have featured. Most likely, Pericles gave a boost to musical performances by creating an impressive venue for them and by introducing ‘new contests in music by awarding prizes in certain categories for the first time’.121 Plutarch’s phrasing leaves much to be desired. We cannot trust his story that Pericles thought of building the Odeion when he saw himself depicted in Cratinus’ Thracian Women with the Odeion on his head (fr. 73 PCG). Equally mistaken is Plutarch’s attribution to Pericles of the introduction of the musical contests at the Panathenaea.122

 118 Davison 1958, 33–36. 119 Zschietzschmann 1931, 58. 120 Shapiro 1989, 41. 121 Shapiro 1989, 41. 122 Pace West 2010, 4.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods .. Other Occasions in Attica The Homeric Hymn to the Earth Mother of All (Homeric Hymn 30) seems to be associated with the cult of Magna Mater in Phrygia and may have been recited by rhapsodes in various cities in Asia Minor.123 Since the poem provides no indications of place or date, it is hard to specify the cities in which it was performed. Hesychius refers to the festival of the Galaxia in Athens: ‘a festival in which they boil the galaxias; it is barley-made porridge in milk’ (ἑορτὴ ἐν ᾗι ἕψουσι γαλαξίαν· ἔστι δὲ πόλτος κρίθινος ἐν γάλακτι, γ 80 [I 483 Cunnigham]). The only inscription (IG2 1011.13) we possess referring to the Galaxia is an honorary decree dated to 106/5 BC, but if the festival was celebrated before the Hellenistic period, it could have provided a context for the recital of this hymn. The endings of the Homeric Hymn to the Sun and the Homeric Hymn to the Moon (Homeric Hymns 31 and 32) show that they probably functioned as preludes to epics about famous heroes.124 Càssola125 rightly stresses that only these two Homeric hymns end not with a promise for a future song but with a specific reference to the function of the hymns as preludes ‘a un racconto epico, o ad una serie di racconti epici’.126 A single poet may have composed these two hymns, although Càssola,127 opting for a late Classical or even Hellenistic date, advises caution and argues that the similarities between the two hymns may only be due to their belonging to the same rhapsodic school. Their performance context remains unknown. West128 suggests an Attic venue on the basis of the reference to the Moon’s daughter Pandie (32.15), who features in an Attic genealogy (Apollodorus FGrH 244 F 162)129 as ‘the wife of Antiochus, the eponymous hero of the Antiochid phyle’.130 Some ancient sources refer to the Attic festival of the Pandia, held during the month of Elaphebolion, immediately after the City Dionysia (Photius π 137 [III 150 Theodoridis]; EM

 123 Müller 18753, 122. 124 Baumeister 1860, 366 and 368. 125 Càssola 1975, 440; cf. Zanetto 20063, 312. 126 Gelzer argues that these two hymns are not preludes to epic poems but astral hymns dedicated to gods of the universe and should be interpreted allegorically (1987, 166). 127 Càssola 1975, 440. 128 West 2003b, 19. 129 Henrichs 1975, 13 n. 40. 130 Others have suggested an association with the Pandionid phyle through Pandion: Müller 18753, 123; Hermann 1846, § 59, 5; Deubner 1969, 176–177 (on the basis of Demosthenes 21.8); Parke 1977, 136.

Cyprus  

651.21–24 [Gaisford]; Poll. I, 37).131 This festival of Zeus would have been a good place to perform the Hymn to the Moon, with its reference to Pandia’s father, Zeus (32.14).

. Cyprus Performances of epic poetry must have taken place on Cyprus as early as the Archaic Period. After all, a major Cyclic epic, the Cypria, is associated with the island. The second and shorter Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (Homeric Hymn 6) self-reflexively refers to its own performance at a competition (lines 19–21):132 χαῖρ’ ἑλικοβλέφαρε γλυκυμείλιχε, δὸς δ’ ἐν ἀγῶνι νίκην τῷδε φέρεσθαι, ἐμὴν δ’ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν. αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ ἀοιδῆς. I salute you, sweet-and-gentle-one of curling lashes: grant me victory in this competition and order my singing. And I will take heed both for you and for other singing.133

We can perhaps be more specific by thinking of Old Paphos as the particular venue for the performance of this hymn, since it was in that place that men and women from various cities gathered to celebrate and honor Aphrodite on an annual basis. The hymn may have functioned as a prelude to the performance of an epic poem. 134 Similar suggestions have been made for another Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (Homeric Hymn 10), since it refers to Cyprus and Salamis and requests that Aphrodite grant the poet ‘beautiful singing’ (3–5): χαῖρε θεὰ Σαλαμῖνος ἐϋκτιμένης μεδέουσα πάσης τε Κύπρου· δὸς δ᾽ ἱμερόεσσαν ἀοιδήν. αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ᾽ ἀοιδῆς. I salute you, goddess, queen of well-cultivated Salamis and of all Cyprus: grant me beautiful singing. And I will take heed both for you and for other singing.

 131 See also the designation of the Moon as πανδία (Allen, Halliday, and Sikes 1936, 435). 132 Baumeister 1860, 355; Müller 18753, 121; Reisch 1885, 3; West 2003b, 16. 133 Τranslation by West 2003b. 134 Martin 2000, 410–411; West 2010, 1–2.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods Some scholars135 thought that rhapsodes at Salamis on Cyprus recited both of these hymns to Aphrodite (Homeric Hymns 6 and 10) but West’s suggestion of a performance of hymn 6 at Old Paphos is a legitimate possibility.

. Delos Regarding the festival of the Delia held on Delos in the Archaic Period, we possess information from (a) the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (verses 146–178, especially 146–150),136 (b) Thucydides (3.104), and (c) a spurious Hesiodic fragment quoted by Philochorus (FGrH 328 F 212; [Hesiod] fr. 357 M-W in Σ Pind. Nem. 2.1d [III 31 Drachmann]).137 Combining these three sources, scholars have argued that Pisistratus saw to the purification of Delos and the reestablishment of the festival at which the poetry of Homer was performed in order to demonstrate that he possessed the real Homer, given to him by the Homeridae, a group of Chian rhapsodes claiming descent from Homer himself. Pisistratus’ attempt to link Homer the Ionian to Athens was a carefully planned political move, and an effective one at that. The same is the case with the tyrant Polycrates of Samos, who also features with respect to Delos in the aforementioned passage of Thucydides (3.104). Polycrates’ effort to create a Samian maritime empire in the Aegean passed through Delos. In a masterly symbolic move, he chained the nearby island of Rheneia to Delos and organized an event involving the combination of two festivals, the Delia and the Pythia, to be celebrated on Delos. This combination of the Delia and Pythia festivals into a single event bears a striking similarity to the combination of a Delian part and a Pythian part in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo that was performed at the Delia.

 135 Baumeister 1860, 355; Müller 18753, 121; Reisch 1885, 3. 136 ‘But it is in Delos, Phoebus, that your heart most delights, where the Ionians with trailing robes assemble with their children and wives on your avenue, and when they have seated the gathering they think of you and entertain you with boxing, dancing, and singing’ (trans. West 2003b) (ἀλλὰ σὺ Δήλῳ Φοῖβε μάλιστ᾽ ἐπιτέρπεαι ἦτορ, | ἔνθα τοι ἑλκεχίτωνες Ἰάονες ἠγερέθονται | αὐτοῖς σὺν παίδεσσι καὶ αἰδοίῃς ἀλόχοισιν. | οἱ δέ σε πυγμαχίῃ τε καὶ ὀρχηθμῷ καὶ ἀοιδῇ | μνησάμενοι τέρπουσιν ὅταν στήσωνται ἀγῶνα, 146–150). 137 ‘In Delos, back then at the very beginning, I and Homer, singers, | sang-and-danced, stitching together a song in new humnoi, | making Phoebus Apollo the subject of our song, the one with the golden weapon, the one born of Leto’ (trans. Nagy 2010, 71) (ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοὶ | μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν, | Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ).

Delphi  

Special mention must be made of Cynaethus, a Chian poet credited by some scholars with the composition of a Delian hymn in honor of Apollo. This hymn was to be recited at a Delian festival attended by Ionians from various regions.138 The hymn does not duplicate the Delian section of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo as we have it but shares with it certain verses. When Polycrates ‘announced that he was going to celebrate a combined Delian and Pythian festival on Delos in honour of Apollo,’ in 523/2 BC, Cynaethus may have produced for this occasion ‘a combined Delian-Pythian hymn by conflating the older Pythian hymn with his own Delian one’.139 He would have made several changes to the two preexisting hymns so that they fit together in a single, unified composition.140

. Delphi The first Pythian Games of 586 BC may have been the context for the recital of the Pythian hymn to Apollo, at a point before Cynaethus combined it with the Delian hymn to the same god.141 The games would have been a suitable occasion for its recital, since the hymn refers to central Greece and the events that followed the First Sacred War, when the Delphic sanctuary was freed from Crisa’s control after Crisa was destroyed (591/0 BC) by the Amphictyonic League. The Pythian hymn describes Apollo’s journey to Pytho through central Greece, his building of the temple and killing of the serpent, his subsequent journey around the Peloponnese to Crisa, and the institution of his cult there. The earlier version of the Pythian hymn, which must not have been very different from the one preserved, may well have been performed in the Pythian Games of 586 BC.142

 138 See Burkert 1979, 52–62; Janko 1982, 112–115, 200, 228–231; West 2003b, 11–12; Richardson 2010, 13–14. 139 West 2003b, 11. 140 Differently, Aloni (1989, 35–68 and 117–124), who suggests that there was a second version of the Pythian hymn compiled by the Peisistratidae. For a useful survey of various arguments, see Clay 1997, 501–502. 141 West 2003b, 10–11. 142 See Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1936, 199–200), who observe that the Pythian hymn was written before 586 BC, when the Pythian Games were established, since verses 264–271 show that chariot races had not yet been instituted.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods

. Dodona Rhapsodic recitals must have taken place at the sanctuary of Dodona in northwestern Greece during the Classical Period. We possess two tripods, one of which was dedicated (à la Hesiod) to the sanctuary. It bears the inscription ‘Terpsicles the rhapsode dedicated [me] to Zeus Naios’ (Τερψικλῆς τῷ Δὶ Ναΐῳ ῥαψῳδὸς ἀνέθηκε, GDI 5786) and has been dated to the fourth century BC (SEG 46.2312).143 The dedication of a tripod to Zeus accompanied by the designation of the dedicatee not only by his name but also by his profession hints at the reason behind the dedication. Terpsicles may have taken part in rhapsodic recitals at Dodona, hence his dedication of a tripod. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that Terpsicles, whose rare name is an indication that he may have come from a family of rhapsodes,144 recalls Phemius, who is called Terpiades in the Odyssey (22.330). With respect to another tripod, bearing the inscription Κλέαρχος Διομέδοντος ῥαψῳδὸς μ᾽ ἀνέθκε, Robert145 suggests that, despite its unknown provenance and its equally uncertain connection to Olympia, it comes from Dodona. Like the Terpsicles inscription, it includes both the dedicatee’s name and his profession. If Robert’s suggestion is correct, then we can assume that both inscriptions point to rhapsodic performances at Dodona.

. Eretria A fourth-century decree dating to around 340 BC institutes musical contests at the Artemisia in Eretria in Euboea (IG XII.9 189.15–21). The contests would begin four days before the end of the month of Anthesterion and would involve rhapsodes, aulos-players, kitharists, kitharodes, and parodists. All the participants in the contests were expected to perform a prosodion (processional song) before the sacrifice and to wear the same clothes at that stage that they would wear during the contest. The prizes for rhapsodes were 120 drachmas for the first, 30 drachmas for the second, and 20 drachmas for the third. Since the same inscription determines the prizes for kitharists (110 drachmas for the first, 70 for the second, and 55 for the third), kitharodes (200 for the first, 150 for the second, and 100 for the

 143 See González 2013, 497. 144 West 2010, 7. 145 Robert 1936, 39.

Naupactos  

third), and parodists (50 drachmas for the first, 10 for the second, and no third place prize), we can draw some conclusions concerning the status of rhapsodes in this festival. A comparison of the prizes given for the first, second, and third places in these three contests shows that kitharists and kitharodes were more esteemed than rhapsodes, of whom the winner of the first prize received considerably more money than the other two, but still not as much as the first kitharist and kitharode. West146 observes that the best rhapsode received almost the same amount of money as the third-best kitharode. Only the prizes given to parodists were smaller than those given to rhapsodes. The decree’s meticulous concern for the daily needs of the contestants, the existence of a preliminary trial (προαγών), the stress on compliance with certain rules, the breaking of which would incur a penalty from the chief magistrates of the city, and the participation of all the competitors in the procession before the sacrifice — all these details testify to the festival’s elaborate organization and, perhaps, to its attracting a considerable number of competitors for the musical contests.

. Naupactos The existence of the epic entitled Naupactia or Naupacti(a)ca implies the performance of epic poetry in Naupactos in the Archaic Period. Given that the title does not refer to the epic’s content, it is likely that this poem ‘was current in the Naupactus area or believed to originate from there’.147 The currency of this epic in the area of Naupactos would entail a special link with this region, but such a connection must be dissociated from the origin of its poet. Following Charon of Lampsakos (FGrH 262 F 4), Pausanias attributed the poem to a certain Carcinus from Naupactos, against all other authorities (unknown to us) who assign it to a Milesian (10.38.11). Pausanias’ opposition to the widespread view about the epic’s Milesian author is based on the disjunction between the poem’s content and its title. This kind of reasoning — since the poem is called Naupactia, its author must be a Naupactian, not a Milesian — misses the mark, for we do not have any other example of a poem named after the provenance of its author. In truth, epics are identified by their popularity in a specific region (Cypria, Phocais)148 and are usually ‘transmitted without an

 146 West 2010, 6. 147 West 2003a, 33; cf. Marckscheffel 1840, 257. 148 West 1999, 365.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods author’s name, from naïve interest in their contents: it was the scholars who looked for the “poet,” only to resign themselves to uncertainty’.149 We are therefore left with the possibility that the Naupactia or Naupacti(a)ca was composed and/or systematically performed in the area of Naupactos. Since we know of a flourishing epic tradition in western Greece, and given Pausanias’s reference to the poem’s special association with women, Huxley150 suggested that this epic ‘was well suited to recitation at a festival of Ariadne’.151 This reconstruction relies on a theory of the existence of a genealogical school of epic poetry active in the region of Naupactos.152 Huxley’s suggestion is pure speculation, but this school may very well have existed, perhaps competing against one in Orchomenos in Boeotia: both cities claimed to have in their territory the grave of the greatest representative of genealogical epic in the Archaic Period, Hesiod himself.153 The inhabitants of the city of Thespiae in Boeotia argued that Orchomenos’ claim that Hesiod’s body was brought back to Orchomenos was not accurate and that the poet’s body remained hidden at the precinct of Zeus Nemeios in western Locris.154 According to Schwartz,155 a real rivalry must have existed between Chalcis and Naupactos, the former having been the place in which Hesiod emerged victorious against Homer. With respect to our inquiry, it is likely that in this case we have traces of a performance context for early genealogical poetry in which the Naupactia or Naupacti(a)ca would have had its proper place.156  149 Burkert 1972, 75 (translation by West 1999, 365–366). 150 Huxley 1969, 69. 151 Huxley’s suggestion is based on Lérat (1952, 167–169), who argued in favor of a cult of Ariadne in western Locris. 152 RE 16.2 s.v. ‘Naupaktos’, col. 1984 (Trowbridge and Oldfather); Huxley 1969, 69; Matthews 1977, 189 n. 4. 153 Mazon 1928, xiii; Schwartz 1960, 504. 154 Plut. Banquet of the Seven Sages 19 [162c–e]; see Nagy 2009, 305. 155 Schwartz 1960, 503–504. 156 Debiasi suggests a different line of interpretation (2003). He argues that the Naupactia may have taken its name from the building of the Argo, just as the city of Naupactos had been named ‘from the ship-building that was carried out at that place, whether it was the Heracleidai who built their fleet there or, according to Ephorus, the Lokrians who had made ships there earlier on’ (ἀπὸ τῆς ναυπηγίας τῆς ἐκεῖ γενομένης, εἴτε τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἐκεῖ ναυπηγησαμένων τὸν στόλον, εἴθ᾽—ὥς φησιν Ἔφορος [FGrH 70 F 121]—Λοκρῶν πρότερον παρασκευασάντων, Strabo 9.4.7). This explanation would require that an epic was named Naupactia because it referred to the building of the ship Argo, although the building of this ship took place at Pagasai, which had been named in its own turn ‘from the ship-building of the Argo’ (ἀπὸ τῆς ναυπηγίας τῆς Ἀργοῦς, Strabo 9.15). Moreover, if it were the case that the title of the epic referred to the building of the Argo, it would not follow that the city of Naupactos was named after the

Peloponnese  

. Peloponnese Performance of epic poetry in the Peloponnese must have been fairly widespread in the Archaic and Classical Periods. The existence of the Danais and the Phoronis, two epics centered on the region of Argos, is noteworthy, especially if they promoted an Argive viewpoint — the Danais offering a new home for the Danaidae, and the Phoronis highlighting the pre-eminent position of Phoroneus and Argos in the history of human civilization. We know of rhapsodic performances at Epidauros, Olympia, and Sicyon.

.. Epidauros We have two pieces of information with respect to rhapsodic recitals at Epidauros. The first pertains to the Homeric Hymn to Asclepius (Homeric Hymn 16), which Matthiae157 suggested was composed for the festival of the Asclepieia held at Epidauros. More cautiously, one may imagine the Asclepieia to have been a venue for the hymn’s performance (Epidauros being the major cult center for Asclepius), irrespective of whether it was composed for this festival. After all, Asclepius was honored in other places too, such as Acragas, Athens, and Cos, and nothing in the hymn itself suggests a specific association with the games at Epidaurοs.158 An argument in favor of a performance in Epidaurοs requires attending to external factors. Themistius’ victory in boxing and the pankration proves the existence of athletic contests at the Asclepieia in Epidauros as early as 530 BC (Pind. Nem. 5.52–53). The games held there were of Panhellenic importance and scope, since they were called ‘sacred’ (ἱεροί) like the Olympian, the Pythian, the Isthmian, and the Nemean Games (Σ Pind. Nem. 5.96 [III 100 Drachmann]) and the judges of the contests were called ῾Ελλανοδίκαι (IG IV2 1, n. 98).

 epic. The city has no connection with it. But Charon’s evidence (FGrH 262 F 4) tends to confirm the assumption that the epic was connected with the city. 157 Matthiae 1800, 95. 158 In Athens, the festival in honor of Asclepius was called Epidauria (Paus. 2.26.9; Philostr. Vita Apollonii 4.18); see Roscher, Lexikon I.1: 631; E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein 1945, 195–199; West 2003b, 18. In later times, games in honor of Asclepius were held at festivals in the following places: Ancyra, Calymna, Carpathos, Carthage, Cyzicos, Ephesos, Lampsacos, Laodiceia, Nicaea, Pergamon, Prousias, Soloi, Rhodiopolis, Termessos, Thyateira, and Tyros (Nilsson 1906, 413).

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods As for musical contests, they must have been introduced at Epidaurοs toward the end of the fifth century BC. That timing would explain Socrates’ astonishment at hearing that the rhapsode Ion had gone to Epidauros to compete in reciting epic: ‘the Epidaurians do not host a contest of rhapsodes, do they?’ (μῶν καὶ ῥαψῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τιθέασι τῷ θεῷ οἱ Ἐπιδαύριοι; Ion 530a5–6).159 The performance of tragedies and comedies there in the Classical Period prompts the same conclusion. According to Aelian, the tragic poet Aristarchus of Tegea, an older contemporary of Euripides, wrote and dedicated (which probably means ‘presented’) a play with the same name as the god (fr. 101 = Suda ε 3893 [I 352 Adler]). The comic poet Theopompus, a contemporary of Aristophanes, also likely dedicated a comedy to the god (Suda θ 171 [II 697–698 Adler]). Both poets wished to thank Asclepius for curing them. Finally, Legrand160 suggested that the Greek original for Plautus’s Curculio (‘The Weevil’) was written and performed at Epidauros. In light of the sustained and broad range of musical contests held at Epidauros, the performance of the hymn at the celebration of the Asclepieia becomes probable.161 Plato’s Ion presents a much more straightforward case. In this dialogue, the wandering rhapsode Ion of Ephesos, who earns part of his income from the prizes he gains in rhapsodic contests (535e4–6), has just won first prize by reciting Homer at the festival of the Asclepieia held in Epidauros. Ion informs us that he has come to Athens to compete in its much more glamorous and esteemed festival, the Panathenaea. Pindar (Nem. 3.84, 5.52; Isthm. 8.68) testifies to the presence of athletic contests at the festival in honor of Asclepius in Epidauros much earlier than Plato’s Ion, but we are in no position to ascertain whether musical contests were held there as early as the mid-fifth century BC.162

 159 E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein 1945, 210. 160 Legrand 1905. 161 E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein 1945, 211. 162 E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein 1945, 208–211; Murray 1996, 99. Plato’s Ion is particularly useful with respect to the performances given by rhapsodes: they stand on a platform (535e2) wearing impressive clothes and golden garlands (530b6–8 and 535d2–5), deliver their verses with ‘a certain incantatory quality, above the level of ordinary colloquial utterance but well below the level of song’ (Herington 1985, 13), and resemble to some extent actors (532d6–7) as they impersonate their characters, although outright imitation must have been, as Aristotle had argued (Poetics 26), more restrained in the case of rhapsodic performance (Herington 1985, 12–13).

Peloponnese  

.. Olympia Olympia was a likely venue for the performance of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Homeric Hymn 4). The sacrificial procedures carried out by Hermes upon killing two stolen cows by the Alpheios River recall the sacrifices to the Twelve Gods at Olympia. One of the six altars at Olympia was dedicated to Apollo and Hermes, the two main gods of the hymn.163 Diodorus (14.109) refers to a group of first-class rhapsodes sent by Dionysius I of Syracuse to Olympia (together with several tethrippa) in 388 BC.164 A huge crowd gathered to listen to their performance, since these particular rhapsodes were famous for their vocal skills. But as soon as they started reciting Dionysius’ poetry, the audience began to laugh at it. This anecdote reveals the following: first, that rhapsodes could perform outside the regular program, which does not seem to have included rhapsodic contests per se; second, that a good voice (εὐφωνία) could attract large crowds, since even the performance of the best poetry would fall flat if the rhapsode lacked this attribute; and third, that content mattered more than a good voice, since Dionysius became a laughing stock because of the low quality of the poetry performed. This last point shows that on this particular occasion the rhapsodes did not perform Homer, Hesiod, or Archilochus, which Plato’s Ion included in their standard repertoire (531a1–2, 531c2, 535a5–6). Indeed, the designation of the poetry performed as Διονυσίου τὰ ποιήματα suggests that the rhapsodes recited Dionysius’ own verses.

.. Sicyon The third case in point is the city of Sicyon in the northeastern part of the Peloponnese and close to the cities of Corinth and Argos.165 The key political figure

 163 West 2003b, 13–14; Faulkner 2008, 3. For alternatives pertaining to the origin of the poet of this hymn and the place of its composition (not of its performance), see Càssola 1975, 174. West also draws attention to verses 124–126, in which Hermes spreads out the hides of the cows on a rugged rock, ‘as even now in after time they remain long-lasting through the ages in a fused mass,’ arguing that the poet has in mind some ‘rock formation that looked like a pair of spread hides’ (2003b, 14; his translation). 164 Murray 1996, 20; West 2010, 6–7. 165 Sicyon was a city with a rich musical tradition. We know of a Lysander of Sicyon who excelled in ψιλὴ κιθάρισις (solo — lit. ‘bare’ — lyre-playing) and is dated around the beginning of the fifth century. He is thought to have been responsible for several improvements in the performance of solo lyre-playing without the accompaniment of song (West 1992, 69). ψιλὴ

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods here is the tyrant Cleisthenes, who ruled Sicyon from 600 until 560 BC. According to Herodotus (5.67), while at war with Argos, Cleisthenes undertook two initiatives to downplay the importance of what he considered to be Argive propaganda or Argive influence in Sicyon. On the one hand (τοῦτο μέν), he put an end to the rhapsodic contests taking place in Sicyon ‘because of the Homeric poems’ (τῶν Ὁμηρείων ἐπῶν εἵνεκα), ‘since the Argives and Argos were the main themes of the songs’ (ὅτι Ἀργεῖοί τε καὶ Ἄργος τὰ πολλὰ πάντα ὑμνέαται). On the other hand (τοῦτο δέ), Cleisthenes desired to cast out of the land the shrine of the hero standing in the agora of the Sicyonians, that is, of Adrastus son of Talaus, an Argive. According to an argument first put forward by Grote166 and developed more fully by Cingano,167 Herodotus tells us that Cleisthenes banned the performance of Theban epic because it too often mentioned the Argives and that he replaced the cult of Adrastus, the leader of the Argive army against Thebes, with the cult of the Theban hero Melanippus, responsible for the killing of the Argive hero Tydeus. The Thebais included this last mythical episode (fr. 9 PEG = 5 EGF = 9* GEF) and also referred to the special connection between Adrastus and Sicyon, since Adrastus had fled there after his dispute with Amphiaraus, who had killed Adrastus’ father, Talaus (fr. 7* GEF). Several arguments prove that Herodotus refers here to both Theban and Trojan epic.168 I will draw attention to one that merits special recognition. The  κιθάρισις was invented by Aristonicus of Argos and was introduced at the Pythia in 558 BC (Menaechmus FGrH 131 F 5; Paus. 10.7.7). Given that Cleisthenes of Sicyon organized a Pythia festival in Sicyon too (Σ Pind. Nem. 9, title [III 149 Drachmann]), it is not unthinkable that it contained solo lyre-playing (among other events), thus contesting Argive kitharisis. After all, the Sicyonian monopteros at Delphi depicting Orpheus standing next to a kithara-holding Philammon exemplifies another effort by Cleisthenes to create a bridge between the kitharodic traditions of Delphi and Sicyon. See Power 2004; 2010, 275–276. Another Sicyonian musical VIP was the late sixth-century Epigonus, after whom a kind of zither was named (ἐπιγόνειον), as well as a school of harmonic theorists (West 1992, 78–79). 166 Grote 18692, 129–130. 167 Cingano 1985; 2004, 75–76. 168 One indirect piece of evidence pertains to Theban epic. A century after Cleisthenes’s banishment of Theban epic from Sicyon, the cult of Adrastus was restored in an effort to invigorate Sicyon’s political ties with the other Dorians of the Peloponnese among whom Argos played a key role. A specific poetic rendering of Theban myth drawing heavily on the Thebais reinforced the oligarchic Dorian-oriented sentiment in the city: namely, Pindar’s Nemean 9, in which Pindar assigned the foundation of the Sicyonian Pythia not to the anti-Dorian Cleisthenes but to Adrastus, the symbol of pro-Dorian sentiment in Sicyon (Hubbard 1992; Athanassaki 2009, 178–183). Chromios’ (the ode’s laudandus) decision to take part in the local games at Sicyon, after winning at the much more prestigious Panhellenic games at Nemea, reflected a joint effort

Peloponnese  

two measures undertaken by Cleisthenes to downplay the Argive element in Sicyon are interrelated.169 The banishment of the rhapsodic contests of Theban epic and the replacement of Adrastus’ shrine by that of Melanippus work toward the same political goal. In addition to these measures, which stemmed from anti-Argive feeling in Sicyon during the war against Argos, Cleisthenes implemented a third measure aiming at erasing all traces of pro-Dorian sentiment in Sicyon: he changed the names of the Dorian tribes so that they did not have the same names in Sicyon and Argos. He called his own tribe ‘leaders of the people’ (Ἀρχέλαοι), while naming the other Dorian tribes after three different animals (Ὑᾶται, Ὀνεᾶται, Χοιρεᾶται [᾽Swinites, Assites, Porkites᾽]). Herodotus refers to this third measure immediately after the other two prompted by the war with Argos (5.68). He thus delineates a whole set of political measures implemented by Cleisthenes in his attempt to suppress the Argive and pro-Dorian element in Sicyon. It is within the framework of these anti-Argive and anti-Dorian politics of Cleisthenes that we should interpret the tyrant’s decision to marry his daughter Agariste to the Athenian Megacles, a notable member of the powerful family of the Alcmeonidae. Herodotus offers a detailed presentation of the contest for her hand with suitors coming from various areas of Greece and beyond (Italy) to woo Agariste (6.126–131). In a context endowed with rich Homeric overtones, the favorite Hippocleides of Athens loses, and Megacles emerges the unex by Chromius and Hiero of Syracuse to strengthen their ties with the Peloponnesian Dorians. Such a political initiative was in tune with the fact that Hiero had already drawn from the Peloponnese no less than half of the ten thousand colonists who settled in Sicilian Aetna (Diod. 11.49.1). In support of the view that Herodotus refers to Trojan epic as well, see Certamen 17 (West) in which Homer, reciting certain verses from the Iliad (2.559–568ab), delights some Argive officials by praising their city and race. The Argives honor him with various gifts, among which are daily, monthly, and yearly sacrifices to him in Argos and every five years on Chios. The aforementioned verses recited by Homer mention the Argive heroes who participated in the Trojan War. For Argos and Homer, see Graziosi 2002, 153–154. Cleisthenes’ measure would not make any sense unless both Theban and Trojan epic were associated in the minds of the citizens of Sicyon (and, of course, more widely) with Argos and the Argives. 169 Torres Guerra (2012, 520–528) suggests that the Thebais was performed in the festival of the Nemea, Nemea being an area with a strong Argive element. He adds that the episode of the strife between Amphiaraus and Lycurgus that gained in prominence from 570/560 BC onwards (see LIMC s.v. ‘Amphiaraos.’ I.1, 691–713 [Krauskopff]) and was widespread in the Peloponnese (it is attested both in Sparta and Olympia; see LIMC s.v. ‘Amphiaraos.’ I.1, 691–713 [Krauskopff] nos. 32, 33) may have featured in the Thebais. What is particularly relevant to our inquiry is the anti-Cleisthenic, pro-Argive sentiment in Nemea and the city of Cleonae that controlled Nemea. If this scenario obtains, then a date for the performance of the Thebais after 573 BC, when the Nemean Games became a Panhellenic festival, seems plausible.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods pected victor, much as Menelaus unexpectedly won Helen’s hand. The marriage of Megacles to Agariste made the Alcmeonidae famous all over Greece (καὶ οὕτω Ἀλκμεωνίδαι ἐβώσθησαν ἀνὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, 6.131). What Herodotus does not tell us is that, behind the inset narrative of the wooing of Agariste, Hippocleides’ self-ridicule and failure, and Megacles’ victory, lies Cleisthenes’ systematic advancement of his anti-Dorian political agenda. Such a marriage, strengthening the ties between Sicyon and Athens, was a well-planned political manoeuvre.170 Cleisthenes aimed at nothing less than bringing Sicyon closer to Athens.

. Samos The Homeric Hymn to Hera (Homeric Hymn 12) may have been composed for the Heraea (Ἡραῖα) or some other festival in Hera’s honor on Samos. The same or a similar venue (again on Samos) may have seen performances of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Homeric Hymn 18). West171 observes that the rare epithet ‘giver of joy’ (χαριδῶτα, 12) attributed to Hermes is also applied by Plutarch (Aetia graeca et romana 303d) to Hermes in the context of a Samian festival.172 Rhapsodic or rhapsodic-like contests took place at the festival of the Heraea on Samos at least in the Classical Period.173 Plutarch describes the event (Lysander 18.4): Σάμιοι δὲ τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς Ἡραῖα Λυσάνδρεια καλεῖν ἐψηφίσαντο. τῶν δὲ ποιητῶν Χοιρίλον μὲν ἀεὶ περὶ αὑτὸν εἶχεν ὡς κοσμήσοντα τὰς πράξεις διὰ ποιητικῆς, Ἀντιλόχῳ δὲ ποιήσαντι μετρίους τινὰς εἰς αὐτὸν στίχους ἡσθεὶς ἔδωκε πλήσας ἀργυρίου τὸν πῖλον. Ἀντιμάχου δὲ τοῦ Κολοφωνίου καὶ Νικηράτου τινὸς Ἡρακλεώτου ποιήμασι Λυσάνδρεια διαγωνισαμένων ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸν Νικήρατον ἐστεφάνωσεν, ὁ δὲ Ἀντίμαχος ἀχθεσθεὶς ἠφάνισε τὸ ποίημα. The Samians, too, voted that their festival of Hera should be called Lysandreia. And the poet Choerilus was always kept in his retinue to adorn his achievements with verse; while with Antilochus, who composed some verses in his honor, he was so pleased that he filled his cap with silver and gave it to him. And when Antimachus of Colophon and a certain Niceratus of Heracleia competed with one another at the Lysandreia in poems celebrating

 170 On traces of an attempt to affiliate Sicyon with Athens in the early sixth century BC, see Hesiod (Cat. fr. 224 M-W), who makes Sicyon son of Erechtheus, and Asius (fr. 11 PEG = EGF = GEF = EGEF), who makes him the son of the Erechtheid Metion (West 1985, 107 and 2002, 122). 171 West 2003b, 18. 172 Ilgen took verse 12 as an interpolation by a rhapsode (1796, 589) and was followed by Baumeister (1860, 349). Allen, Halliday, and Sikes (1936), Càssola (1975), and Zanetto (20063) keep verse 12. West (2003b) omits verses 10–11 and keeps 12. 173 Herington 1985, 165.

Syracuse  

his achievements, he awarded the crown to Niceratus, and Antimachus, in vexation, suppressed his poem.

This passage informs us that rhapsodic contests of some kind were held at the Samian Lysandreia, a festival that replaced the older Heraea after the battle at Aigos Potamoi (405 BC). Since Lysander appears to have been the judge at this festival, his death in 395 BC provides a terminus ante quem for dating the contest between Antimachus and Niceratus. Choerilus was a Samian, whom Lysander admired and kept by his side, hoping the Samian poet would praise him in one of his compositions. Although Choerilus composed historical epic — he wrote an epic poem called Persica or Perseis about the Persian Wars — he never devoted a single verse to Lysander. Conversely, when the epic and elegiac poet Antimachus of Colophon and a certain Niceratus from Heracleia competed by composing poems (epic?) in honor of Lysander at the Lysandreia, the Spartan general garlanded Niceratus. This story shows that at the Lysandreia performers recited new poems in the context of a poetic competition and that these poems had a common topic, in this case Lysander himself. It is not possible to ascertain whether these rhapsodic contests (with different epics altogether) were carried over to the Lysandreia from the earlier festival of the Heraea. In light of the performance of hymnic poetry at the Heraea, I would neither exclude nor endorse this possibility.

. Syracuse According to the historian Hippostratus, the rhapsode Cynaethus from Chios, an eminent Homerid, first recited the Homeric epics in Syracuse (FGrH 568 F 5 = Σ Pind. Nem. 2.1d [III 30 Drachmann]): Ὁμηρίδας ἔλεγον τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου γένους, οἳ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ᾖδον· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ οὐκέτι τὸ γένος εἰς Ὅμηρον ἀνάγοντες. ἐπιφανεῖς δὲ ἐγένοντο οἱ περὶ Κύναιθον, οὕς φασι πολλὰ τῶν ἐπῶν ποιήσαντας ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν. ἦν δὲ ὁ Κύναιθος τὸ γένος Χῖος, ὃς καὶ τῶν ἐπιγραφομένων Ὁμήρου ποιημάτων τὸν εἰς Ἀπόλλωνα γεγραφὼς ὕμνον ἀνατέθεικεν αὐτῷ. οὗτος οὖν ὁ Κύναιθος πρῶτος ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐρραψῴδησε τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη κατὰ την ξθ´ Ὀλυμπιάδα, ὡς Ἱππόστρατός φησιν. ‘Homeridai’ was the name given anciently to the members of Homer’s family, who also sang his poetry in succession. But later it was also given to the rhapsodes, who no longer traced their descent back to Homer. Particularly prominent were Cynaethus and his school, who, they say, composed many of the verses and inserted them into Homer’s work. This Cynaethus came from a Chian family, and, of the poems that bear Homer’s

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods name, it was he who wrote the Hymn to Apollo and laid it to his credit. And this Cynaethus was the first to recite Homer’s poems at Syracuse, in the 69th Olympiad (= 504/1 BC), as Hippostratus says.174

The performance is dated to the sixty-ninth Olympiad (504–501 BC). Given that dating by Olympiads is also attested in F 4 and that Hippostratus may have taken this practice from the historian Timaeus of Tauromenium (FGrH 362 F 5, p. 595 [commentary]), I do not see any special reason to doubt the authenticity of this information. As to the precise date of Cynaethus’ performance, Hippostratus may have consulted a list of victors in a rhapsodic competition that featured Cynaethus first. The date would be consistent with the contemporary practice of keeping victor lists for tragedy and dithyramb in Athens. Jacoby (FGrH 362 F 5, p. 596 [commentary]) objects with respect to the dating of this contest in Syracuse that the numbering by Olympiads could not have been reported by tradition, especially since we know nothing about official victor lists for games taking place in Syracuse. Moreover, it is unlikely that specific dates were available for local Sicilian poets. Conversely, West175 argues that Hippostratus drew this information from the association of Cynaethus’ performance ‘with some other event that yielded a synchronism with the tyranny of Cleander of Gela, which began in 505’. West176 reminds us that Gela’s and Syracuse’s histories would soon be intertwined and that a statue in Gela bearing the inscription ‘I am the s[tat]ue of [C]ynaethus the son of Epochus’ (κ]υναιθο εμι το α[γαλ]μα το Εποχο) may designate the rhapsode Cynaethus, since this name is quite rare. The matter is not easy to decide, but I am rather inclined to accept West’s suggestion, since the existence of a contest in Syracuse is independent of a performance by Cynaethus there. Since the scholium does not refer to a contest, we do not need to look (necessarily) for victor lists. After all, Cynaethus must have acquired enough fame (at least after the performance of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo on Delos in 523/2 BC, which the scholium mentions immediately before his recital in Syracuse) to receive an official invitation to recite Homeric poetry at Syracuse. Perhaps his performance, if a success, paved the way for more sustained and organized musical activity in the city under the patronage of Hiero some years later (477–466 BC).

 174 Translation by West 1999, 368. 175 West 1999, 368. 176 West 1999, 368.

Varia  

. Varia Clearchus of Soloi reports that rhapsodes performed Homeric hymns or poems of the same type at a Dionysiac festival that had died out (fr. 91a Wehrli = Athenaeus 7.275b). We are not told the name of the city in which it was held, but we are informed that more than one rhapsode participated in an actual recital honoring one or more gods.177 The presence of a series of rhapsodes may indicate that different hymns were performed. Equally inconclusive is the sole piece of evidence for rhapsodic recitals on Crete, in Sparta, and in the Dorian-inhabited part of Libya provided by Maximus of Tyre: ‘for late did Sparta turn to rhapsodizing, late also did Crete, and late too the Dorian race living in Libya’ (ὀψὲ μὲν γὰρ Σπάρτη ῥαψῳδεῖ, ὀψὲ δὲ καὶ Κρήτη, ὀψὲ δὲ καὶ τὸ Δωρικὸν ἐν Λιβύῃ γένος, 17.5 [Trapp]).178 We know neither when rhapsodic recitals were introduced in these Doric-speaking areas nor the contexts in which the rhapsodes performed. It is pointless to speculate, especially since the extant information about the festival of the Carneia at Sparta speaks exclusively of other musical contests without any reference to rhapsodic performances. Yet the wide range of musical contests held in Sparta starting in the Archaic Period renders the possibility of a complete absence of rhapsodic recitals less probable, if not remote. Likewise, although we know of the epic poetry of the Cretan Epimenides, we lack evidence for the performance of his poetry in his native land. The same situation obtains when it comes to Cyrene in Libya. Although we are aware of an archaic epic, the Telegony written by Eugammon of Cyrene, there is not even a single hint about its recital there. Nevertheless, we could easily imagine such a scenario: the poem alludes to King Arcesilaus II of Cyrene when it has Odysseus sire two sons with Penelope, Telemachos and Arcesilaus (Eust. on Od. 16.123 = II 117 Stallbaum). The Homeric Hymn to Dionysus (Homeric Hymn 26) ends with a prayer in which the god is asked to grant to humans that they come to his festival in happiness in due time again and again for many years to come. This ending suits the context of an annual festival held in honor of Dionysus. The sole geographical reference in this short hymn is to Mount Nysa, mentioned as Dionysus’ birthplace, as it is in hymn 1 to the same god. West179 rightly questions whether the reference to Mount Nysa should be treated as an indication of the prove-

 177 West 2010, 6. 178 Herington 1985, 175. 179 West 2003b, 2.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods nance of this hymn. Baumeister180 entertained the possibility that hymn 26 was recited at the Dionysia in Brauron on the basis of Suda β 521 (I 493 Adler) Βραυρών: τόπος τῆς Ἀττικῆς, ἐν ᾦ τὰ Διονύσια ἤγοντο Brauron: a place in Attica, in which the Dionysia were held.

Yet Dionysia were celebrated in various places, and there is no hint whatsoever that the hymn bears a specific connection with Brauron.

. Conclusion The overall picture of rhapsodic recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods can be summarized as follows. 1. The main venue for rhapsodic performances was the public festival. This preference arises from various factors: (a) The time frame of several days allowed rhapsodes to recite extended parts of epic poems. (b) Massive attendance played a role, since it attracted professional rhapsodes, who would be able to perform their art in front of large audiences. (c) This was the ideal venue for an agonistic context, since different rhapsodes tried to show their skill in a place where they could win acclaim and recognition. The information we possess with respect to other venues is limited. The case of the symposium is certainly a legitimate possibility, but it has to be approached with caution. Perhaps we should not be speaking of rhapsodic recitals but of the use of epic verses or short passages at that phase of the banquet when the λόγος συμποτικός assumed the form of a contest. Another public occasion that probably included, though to a limited extent, rhapsodic recitals with an agonistic tinge was the funeral, when it took the form of a lavish, grand-scale event that included athletic contests and musical performances. 2. Rhapsodes performed throughout the Greek world: Asia Minor (Claros, Ephesos, Mycale, Phocaea), Attica (Athens, Brauron, Eleusis, Marathon), the Aegean (Delos, Samos), Cyprus, central and northern Greece (Delphi, Dodona, Eretria, Naupactos), the Peloponnese (Epidauros, Olympia, Sicyon), and Syracuse. This diffusion testifies to a great interest in epic poetry. Itinerant rhapsodes flocked to the festivals held in these places and recited epic. This was the standard picture on a local, regional, and Panhellenic level.

 180 Baumeister 1860, 360.

Appendix 5: Rhapsodes in the Archaic and Classical Periods  

3. Tyrants tried to promote their political image and agenda by banning (Cleisthenes in Sicyon), endorsing and aggrandizing (Hipparchus at the Panathenaea), or lavishly financing (Dionysius I at Olympia) rhapsodic recitals either at home or abroad. This aspect of the recital of epic poetry was undoubtedly conditioned by the principal performance venue, the public festival, where attendance by large audiences offered the perfect opportunity for increasing one’s political capital.

. Appendix 5: Rhapsodes in the Archaic and Classical Periods Reference

Name181

Place of Origin

Place of Performance

Occasion

Stephanis 

Ἄλεξις

Tarentum

Susa

Alexander’s wedding  BC

Plato, Ion

Ἴων

Ephesos

Epidauros

Festival of Asclepios th c. BC

Stephanis 

Κλεομένης

Olympia

Olympic Games

th-th c. BC

() Delos () Syracuse

() Festival for Apollo

th c. BC

Epideixis

th-rd c. BC182

Rhapsodic contest

th c. BC

Rhapsodic contest

th c. BC

Epideixis

th c. BC

Σ Pind. Nem. Κύναιθος .c/e Stephanis 

Μνασίων

Stephanis 

Nικήρατος

Stephanis 

Πράτυς

Diodorus .

Ῥαψῳδοὶ Διονυσίου (tyrant of Syracuse)

Chios

Heracleia (?)

Syracuse

Olympia

Date

 181 The names of rhapsodes are alphabetized according to the Greek alphabet. Despite discussing Hesiod’s case in the main text of this chapter, I have decided not to include him in the list of rhapsodes proper. The same goes for Empedocles, who was not a rhapsode. 182 Given the uncertain date for Mnasion, I include him both in this Appendix and in the one pertaining to rhapsodes of the Hellenistic period in chapter 19 (Appendix 6). The fifth-third centuries BC range is determined by the fact that this rhapsode recited Simonides’ iambs (late sixth-early fifth centuries BC) and is mentioned by the third-century BC grammarian Lysanias in the first Book of his work On Iambic Poets. See González 2013, 496.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Archaic and Classical Periods

Reference

Name

Place of Origin

Stephanis 

Σιμωνίδης

Zakynthos Athens

Stephanis 

Σωσίστρατος

Stephanis 

Τερψικλῆς

Stephanis 

]στρατος

Place of Performance

Occasion

Date

Recital in the theater th-early rd c. BC th c. BC (?)

Dodona Sicyon

th c. BC – BC or / BC

 Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Greek epic poetry continued to be recited during the Hellenistic Period both in the same type of venues as in the Archaic and Classical Periods and in new ones. For this period, however, a slightly different picture emerges as far as performances are concerned. A clear distinction can be drawn between agonistic and non-agonistic epic, the former recited in festivals and theatres and the latter in multifarious contexts, such as symposia and weddings. The scant literary evidence is at times helpful in regard to identifying the kind of epic poetry performed, whereas the abundant epigraphic testimonia are silent about the content of the epics. True, Homeric poetry may have by this time become more the object of reading than recitation, but it was still performed in competitive and non-competitive contexts. Victor lists from festivals, and to a lesser extent lists of participants in the Sοteria at Delphi, are the most important source of relevant information for the Hellenistic period. They testify to the different kinds of epic poetry performed: the ἐγκώμιον ἐπικόν (a eulogy in hexameters combining features of the ancient lyric encomium with newer elements from the encomium in prose) and new epic poetry.1 In a similar vein, performers of epic include not only the traditional rhapsode but also the poets themselves, who could at times recite their own poetry, as well as the Homeristae (Ὁμηρισταί), who represent a more dramatic phase in the performance of epic poetry in the theaters.2 From the information available, we can glean forty-six occasions of rhapsodic performance, of which we often (but not always) know the names of the rhapsodes themselves (see Appendix 6).

. Theaters Rhapsodic performance in the theater is mainly a feature of the Hellenistic (and Imperial) periods, but it began in the late fourth century BC under Demetrius of Phalerum, ruler of Athens from 317 to 307. The source of this information is

 1 Pallone 1984, 163. González (2013, 490–491) claims that it is impossible to know whether the dividing line between the epic encomium and the new epic poems recited in the Hellenistic period was that the former pertained to individuals and the latter to deities or cities. 2 Collins 2001, 152; González 2013, 466. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-019

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Athenaeus, who makes some interesting remarks on the so-called Homeristae (Ὁμηρισταί) (14.620a–d [IV.A 204.3–26 Olson]): οὐκ ἀπελείποντο δὲ ἡμῶν τῶν συμποσίων οὐδὲ ῥαψῳδοί· ἔχαιρε γὰρ τοῖς Ὁμήρου ὁ Λαρήνσιος ὡς ἄλλος οὐδεὶς εἷς, ὡς λῆρον ἀποφαίνειν Κάσανδρον τὸν Μακεδονίας βασιλεύσαντα, περὶ οὗ φησι Καρύστιος ἐν Ἱστορικοῖς Ὑπομνήμασιν ὅτι οὕτως φιλόμηρος ὡς διὰ στόματος ἔχειν τῶν ἐπῶν τὰ πολλά· καὶ Ἰλιὰς ἦν αὐτῷ καὶ Ὀδυσσεία ἰδίως γεγραμμέναι. ὅτι δ’ ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ καὶ Ὁμηρισταὶ Ἀριστοκλῆς εἴρηκεν ἐν τῷ περὶ Χορῶν (fr. 10, FHG iv.331). τοὺς δὲ νῦν Ὁμηριστὰς ὀνομαζομένους πρῶτος εἰς τὰ θέατρα παρήγαγε Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεύς. Χαμαιλέων δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ Στησιχόρου καὶ μελῳδηθῆναί φησιν οὐ μόνον τὰ Ὁμήρου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ Ἡσιόδου καὶ Ἀρχιλόχου, ἔτι δὲ Μιμνέρμου καὶ Φωκυλίδου. Κλέαρχος δ’ ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ περὶ Γρίφων (fr. 92 Wehrli) τὰ Ἀρχιλόχου, φησίν, [ὁ] Σιμωνίδης ὁ Ζακύνθιος ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις ἐπὶ δίφρου καθήμενος ἐραψῴδει. Λυσανίας δ’ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Ἰαμβοποιῶν Μνασίωνα τὸν ῥαψῳδὸν λέγει ἐν ταῖς δείξεσι τῶν Σιμωνίδου τινὰς ἰάμβων ὑποκρίνεσθαι. τοὺς δ’ Ἐμπεδοκλέους Καθαρμοὺς ἐραψῴδησεν Ὀλυμπίασι Κλεομένης ὁ ῥαψῳδός, ὥς φησιν Δικαίαρχος ἐν τῷ Ὀλυμπικῷ . Ἰάσων δ’ ἐν τρίτῳ περὶ τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἱερῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι φησὶν ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ θεάτρῳ ὑποκρίνασθαι Ἡγησίαν τὸν κωμῳδὸν τὰ Ἡσιόδου,3 Ἑρμόφαντον δὲ τὰ Ὁμήρου. Our parties also featured rhapsodes. For Larensius was more fond of Homer’s poetry than anyone you can imagine — fond enough to render insignificant Cassander, the king of Macedon, who Carystius in his Historical Commentaries [fr. 8, FHG iv.358] claims liked Homer so much that he routinely recited long passages from the poems. Cassander also owned an Iliad and an Odyssey that had been privately copied for him. Aristocles in his On Choruses [fr. 10, FHG iv.331] reports that rhapsodes were also referred to as Homeristae. The first person to introduce the individuals known today as Homeristae into the theaters was Demetrius of Phalerum [fr. 33 Wehrli = fr. 55A Fortenbaugh-Schütrumpf]. According to Chamaeleon in his On Stesichorus [fr. 28 Wehrli], it was not just Homer’s poems that were recited, but also those of Hesiod and Archilochus, and of Mimnermus and Phocylides as well. Clearchus says in Book I of On Riddles [fr. 92 Wehrli]: Simonides of Zacynthus used to recite Archilochus’ poems in the theaters while seated on a stool. Lysanias in Book I of On Iambic Poets reports that the rhapsode Mnasion gave public performances in which he acted out some of Simonides’ iambs. The rhapsode Cleomenes recited Empedocles’ Purifications [31 A 12 D-K] at Olympia, according to Dichaearchus in his History of Olympia [fr. 87 Wehrli = fr. 85 Mirhady]. Iason in Book III of On Alexander’s Offerings [FGrH 632 F 1] claims that the comic actor Hegesias performed Hesiod’s poems in the large theater in Alexandria, and that Hermophantus performed Homer’s.4

According to Athenaeus, whose source is Aristocles’ On Choruses, the Homeristae had performed Homeric epic in the theater at Athens since the time of Deme 3 I have adopted the conjecture of Meineke (Ἡσιόδου), which is accepted by Kaibel in his edition, instead of Ἡροδότου, which is given by mss A, C, and E and adopted by Olson in his own edition. 4 Translation by Olson 2011 (with spelling modifications).

Theaters  

trius of Phalerum. They differed from rhapsodes like Ion, who competed in festivals, probably in their more dramatic and expressive performance of Homeric poetry. The Homeristae may represent a further phase in the evolution of rhapsodic performances of Homer, far removed from the restrained rhapsodic recitals of the Archaic and early Classical Periods. The Homeristae embody a more developed theatricalization of rhapsodic performance.5 In fact, Athenaeus’ use of the term ‘present-day Homeristae’ (οἱ νῦν Ὁμηρισταί) makes sense only if there were ‘old-time Homeristae’, who can be none other than the rhapsodes, as Aristocles would have it in his work On Choruses.6 It is a mistake to think that it was solely the new theatrical setting that led rhapsodes to perform Homeric epic in a dramatic fashion. The setting no doubt intensified the histrionic components of recital, but it did not create them. After all, Ion, who competes in a festival at Epidauros, incorporates dramatic elements when performing. Perhaps Demetrius of Phalerum, who was acquainted with the progressive introduction of dramatic features by rhapsodes themselves in their recitals, decided to go one step farther and bring them to the theater, where audiences could watch them perform in even greater numbers. At this point the influence of the theatrical venue, in which different actors/performers acted out the words of various types of texts (Hesiod, Archilochus’ iambs, Mimnermus, Phocylides, Simonides’s iambs, Empedocles, tragedy, comedy), would have made the performances of rhapsodes even more dramatic. Athenaeus informs us that the Homeristae acted out (ὑποκρίνασθαι) Hesiod and Homer not only in Athens but also in the great theater of Alexandria. Here, too, the wide variety of poetry performed in the theater must have had a significant influence on the performance of Homeric poetry. That the comedians Hegesias and Hermophantus performed Hesiod and Homer, respectively, in Alexandria reflects an additional phase in the theatricalization of Homeric performance.7 In the Hellenistic period the Homeristae signed contracts with the people who hired them to act out Homer.8 These legal documents determined the fees to be paid to the Homeristae and indicate that they sometimes performed with mimes, the Homeristae reciting Homer while the mimes emphasized the actions described therein. To be more specific, we may postulate that the Homeristae

 5 Nagy 1996b, 161–162; Collins 2001, 152–153. 6 See González 2013, 449–451 and 451 n. 62 with bibliography on the Homeristae. 7 Collins 2001, 153. On Hegesias and Hermophantos, see González 2013, 499 and 502. 8 Husson 1993; Collins 2001, 154–155. For payments received by the Homeristae, see González 2013, 458, 460, 463.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period acted out scenes from Homer, while the mimes further intensified the presentation by not using speech at all. Although the papyri detailing these contracts do not designate the content of the performances, Homer must have been included among other, more recent compositions, otherwise the name Homeristae would have been an empty shell,9 especially at a time when extreme specialization was the norm. The venue of these performances may have been public, to judge from the existence of contracts and the competitive context.10 At least one papyrus refers to ‘a poetic contest’ (ἀγὼν ποιητῶν, P.Oslo III 189.19 [text 2 in Husson 1993]). It is not clear whether the performances of the Homeristae in private venues (like dinner parties) also took place during the Hellenistic period, since the relevant sources belong to the Imperial Period.11

. Gymnasia Dating to the second century BC (Stephanis 1708) or first half of the first century BC12 a victor list from Chios (IChios 57.10 = SIG III 959.9 = GDI 5660) pertains to musical and athletic games held at the gymnasium on the island (see Boeckh on CIG 2214; also SIG III 959). A certain Miltiades son of Dionysius from Chios won the rhapsodic contest. The majority of the contests recorded in this inscription are athletic. The competitors sacrificed to the Muses because they were engaged in musical contests and to Heracles as the regular protector and patron of gymnasia and palestrae (SIG III 959.6: ἔθυσαν ταῖς τε Μούσαις καὶ τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ). The musical competitions, placed before the athletic ones on the victor list, are the psalmos (playing a stringed musical instrument with the fingers), the rhapsodic contest, and the kitharismos (playing the box-lyre with a plectrum [West 1992, 51]). The purpose of these contests was to demonstrate that the youths of Chios excelled in music and sport (SIG III 959, n. 2; cf. SIG II 578.32, 717.42, 717.96).

 9 González 2013, 449 n. 57. 10 González (2013, 459–460) is right to claim that even if the verb ἀγωνίζεσθαι (as Robert 1983, 184 argues) need not have indicated a typical competition between various contestants, it could hardly have been completely non-agonistic: a single performer would have aimed at gaining the favor of the audience. 11 West 2010, 5 n. 12. 12 West 2010, 10.

Festivals  

. Festivals The standard venue for rhapsodic recitals during the Hellenistic period was a festival that hosted musical contests. Even a cursory look at the available data shows that in this context Boeotia looms large. This region of mainland Greece hosted numerous festivals: the Ptoia and the trieteric Soteria in Acraephia, the Basileia in Lebadeia, the Charitesia in Orchomenos, the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea in Oropos, the Sarapieia in Tanagra, the Rhomaea in Thebes, and the Mouseia in Thespiae. Rhapsodic recitals were also held in Amarynthos, Delos, Delphi, Keos, and Rhodes. I include in this catalogue only cases in which the inscriptional record specifically refers to a recital by a rhapsode. Festivals are presented in alphabetical order (English alphabet) of the places in which they were held. I start with Boeotian festivals under the general heading ‘Boeotia.’

.. Boeotia ... Acraephia: The Ptoia and Trieteric Soteria We first hear about musical contests at the festival of the Ptoia, celebrated in honor of Apollo, in the context of their reorganization in 228–226 BC, although this reorganization may have consisted of the introduction of musical contests.13 The relevant victor list contains seven entries: a trumpeter, a herald, a rhapsode, an epic poet, an aulete, a kitharist, and a kitharode. Four of them come from Boeotia, Thespiae being best represented among the victors. The others are an Ephesian, a Sicyonian, and an Athenian. The geographical distribution of the winners shows that the festival attracted professionals from different parts of the Greek world, even from across the Aegean. Boeotians predominated, and understandably so, since the festival of the Ptoia took place in Boeotia, where there was a branch of the Peloponnesian guild of technitai Dionysou. Indeed, most winners of festivals held in Boeotia ‘were primarily citizens of Boiotian cities or of cities near Boiotia (Athens, Chalcis, Opous)’.14 One victor in the rhapsodic competition in this pentaeteric Ptoia was Agathon son of Damas from Thespiae (Stephanis 24), who prevailed at some point between the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BC. In the extant victor list he is mentioned immediately before Χρύσιππος Ἀρίστωνος  13 Schachter 1981, 70–71. 14 Chaniotis 2010, 260.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Ἀκραιφιεύς, who won the prize as the best ἐπῶν ποιητής. This Chrysippus was competing on home ground, since the Ptoia was celebrated in Acraephia. Rhapsodes rarely won on their home turf, inscriptions indicate. There are only four cases (in the Hellenistic Period) in which a rhapsode won in a contest taking place in his home town: Habron son of Philoxenus from Thebes and Aeimnastus son of Euphraeus from Thebes both won the rhapsodic contest at the Theban Rhomaea;15 Miltiades son of Dionysius from Chios16 won the first prize in the musical games held in the gymnasium on Chios (see p. 102); and Boucattes son of Glaucus from Tanagra won as a rhapsode at the Sarapieia.17 Another rhapsode who won at the pentaeteric Ptoia was Archias son of Soteridas from Thebes (Stephanis 441). The archon of Acraephia, when Archias won, was Caphisotimus, who is probably the same person as the father of Polyxenus from Acraephia who won with an ἐγκώμιον λογικόν (an encomium in prose) in the trieteric Soteria held also in Acraephia in the first century BC after the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontos by Sulla in the First Mithridatic War.18 This Caphisotimus may also have been the brother of a certain Lysitheus (see Leb. 11A.19),19 delegate of the city of Acraephia to the festival of the Basileia in Lebadeia.20 In these trieteric Soteria a rhapsodic contest was held but the name of the victorious rhapsode does not survive on the stone. In IG VII 2727, this rhapsode is mentioned immediately after the epic poet Protogenes son of Protarchus from Thespiae. ... The Basileia in Lebadeia Dated to around the middle of the second century BC, an agonistic inscription containing a victor list shows that the festival of the Basileia in Lebadeia in Boeotia included rhapsodic recitals (SEG 3.368 = Manieri Leb. 9).21 We can infer  15 With respect to the victory of Aeimnastus, I follow Knoepfler’s suggestion that the relevant festival was the Rhomaea (2004, 1262–1264); see also González 2013, 504–505. 16 West 2010, 9. 17 See pp. 520–522, 525 n. 69. 18 The contests may have been interrupted by the war and then reorganized after the reaffirmation of Roman supremacy in Boeotia; see Manieri 2009a, 131–132. 19 Manieri 2009a, 157. 20 Manieri calls Polyxenus an epic poet (2009a, 111; also 132), but this is clearly a mistake, since in the relevant inscription (IG VII 2727) he is a victor with an ἐγκώμιον λογικόν. In fact, he is immediately followed in the same victor list by a certain Protogenes son of Protarchus from Thespiae, who won the first prize as an epic poet (and also as comic and epinician poet, according to the same victor list). 21 Manieri 2009a, 153–154.

Festivals  

that the contest mentioned in this list was organized by the Boeotian confederacy, since all victors from Boeotia are designated by the ethnic Βοιώτιος and not by the name of their city of origin.22 The name of the rhapsode who won in the contest does not survive on the stone (Stephanis 2919); we know only that he came from Boeotia. It has been suggested that the victorious herald from the city of Pyramos in Antiocheia (whose name does not survive in the inscription) was the rhapsode Zenodotus son of Sopatrus from Antiocheia (Stephanis 1024), who won the rhapsodic competition at the Mouseia in Thespiae at some point between 210 and 203 BC (IG VII 1762.5 = IThesp 163 = Thes. 18).23 This should come as no surprise, since rhapsodes had strong voices and could also excel in a contest of heralds. Moreover, all these artists belonged to guilds of professionals who travelled around and at times competed in more than one event in a musical context (see table 7, p. 518).24 ... The Charitesia in Orchomenos Although the cult of the Charites at Orchomenos was an ancient one and may have involved dancing in the goddesses’ honor, musical contests were introduced, according to the epigraphical evidence, only in the first century BC. This development must be connected to the policy of Sulla, who sought to regain the support of the Boeotians after his victory against Mithridates VI of Pontos. The musical competitions were thus added to the pre-existing celebrations in honor of the Charites, just as additions were made to the Soteria in Acraephia and the Erotid(e)ia in Thespiae.25 The musical contests of the Charitesia display prosopographical affinities with the musical contests at Oropos, Thespiae, and Acraephia, since various artists appear in the victor lists of more than one of these festivals during the same period. The same holds true for rhapsodes: one won in both Oropos and Orchomenos, and another in Orchomenos and Amarynthos in Euboea.

 22 Manieri 2009a, 154. 23 Manieri 2009a, 376–378. 24 Aneziri 2009, 218–220. 25 Manieri 2009a, 180–181.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Tab. 7: Instances of Rhapsodes Competing in more than one Type of Contest.26 Stephanis 

(χορευτής), [αὐλῳ]δός, [ῥαψῳ]δός

Stephanis , , 

(ᾠδός), (τραγικὸς συναγωνιστής), ῥαψῳδός

Stephanis 

(κωμικὸς ὑποκριτής), (ῥαψῳδός)

Stephanis 

κωμῳδός, (ῥαψῳδός)

Stephanis 

[ποιη]τής, μελοποιός, ῥαψ[ῳδός], θεολόγος

Stephanis 

κῆρυξ, [τραγ]ῳδός, κωμικός, ῥαψῳδός

Stephanis , , 

κῆρυξ, ῥαψῳδός

Craton son of Cleon from Thebes (Stephanis 1502) won the rhapsodic contest at both the Charitesia in Orchomenos (IG VII 3195.11–12 = Manieri Orc. 23)27 and the festival of the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea held in Oropos (IG VII 418.7 = EO 524 [pp. 426–427] = Manieri Oro. 18).28 In the relevant victor list, he is mentioned immediately after the poet Mestor son of Mestor from Phocaea (Stephanis 1686), who is also recorded as a poet above the rhapsode Theodotus son of Pythion from Athens (Stephanis 1146) in another victor list from the festival of the Mouseia in Thespiae (IG VII 1760.17 = IThesp 172 = Manieri Thes. 33).29 In contrast to IG VII 3196 and VII 3197, this victor list does not include the victors in the festival of the Homoloia, which was also held in Orchomenos. In this light, it is fair to argue that IG VII 3195 refers only to the agon of the Charitesia that preceded the contests mentioned in IG VII 3196 and VII 3197. This older agon, which included thymelic competitions between tragic and comic poets, either represented the renewal of a pre-existing contest or was simply added to the ancient display in honor of the Charites. The use of the Boeotian dialect would contribute to the consecration of the solemnity of the new contest, almost like a rebirth of the ancient Agrionia, the relevant inscriptions of which had always used the local dialect.30 Another rhapsode who won at the Charitesia in Orchomenos around the beginning of the first century BC was Mentor son of Apollodorus from Heracleia  26 This material is derived from Chaniotis 1990 and González 2013, 486–487. I follow with slight modifications the practice used in González 2013, 486 nn. 36–37: parentheses indicate that the relevant term has been inferred from the context; underlining indicates uncertainty; and the Roman font shows that the inference is certain. 27 Manieri 2009a, 199–200. 28 Manieri 2009a, 246–248. 29 Manieri 2009a, 402–404. For this Mestor in other victor lists, see González 2013, 510. 30 Manieri 2009a, 206; cf. González 2013, 512.

Festivals  

(Stephanis 1667; IG VII 3196 = Manieri Orc. 24),31 although we do not know which Heracleia: Chaniotis32 proposes the one in Thessaly. This individual may have been the same Mentor who won a contest for rhapsodes held in Amarynthos in Euboea (IG XII.9 139.10). In contrast to the victor list recording Craton’s victory in the rhapsodic recital, this inscription is not marked by its ‘archaizing Boeotian orthography’ (West 2010, 9).33 Moreover, and against what seems to have been common practice, the rhapsode’s name precedes that of the poet. The same is the case with another victor list from Orchomenos, in which the Athenian Noumenius son of Noumenius (Stephanis 1893) is mentioned before the epic poet Aminias son of Democles from Thebes (IG VII 3197 = Manieri Orc. 25).34 ... Oropos: The Amphiaraea and Rhomaea The establishment of musical contests at the festival in honor of the hero Amphiaraus begins at least in the fourth century BC.35 We have a victor list from the Megala Amphiaraea in which after the initial formula ([οἵδε ἐνίκων Ἀμφιαράϊα] τ̣ ὰ μεγάλ[α]) comes a list of musical contests with the names of the winners (IG VII 414 = EO 520). Unfortunately, the part of the inscription immediately after the initial formula is missing, with the result that we are not sure whether a rhapsodic contest was included. But since the rest of the list mentions the poet of a prosodion, the boy kitharist, the boy aulode, the adult kitharist, the adult aulode, the aulete, the kitharode, and the sophist, we may ask what else could have been recorded between the initial formula οἵδε ἐνίκων Ἀμφιαράϊα] τ̣ ὰ μεγάλ[α] and the surviving list. On the basis of the extant victor lists in musical contests held at various festivals during the late Classical and Hellenistic Periods, we may postulate that epic poetry would have been mentioned. We are in no position to decide whether it would have been new epic poetry, an epic encomium, or rhapsodic recital.36 All the information pertaining to rhapsodic recitals in Oropos belongs to a later reorganization of the festival in honor of Amphiaraus after Sulla’s victory in the First Mithridatic War, when the Megala Amphiaraea was renamed the

 31 Manieri 2009a, 200–202. 32 Chaniotis 2010, 260 n. 14. 33 The use of the Boeotian dialect in IG VII 3195 (the victor list recording Craton the rhapsode) has been interpreted in various ways by different scholars: see Manieri 2009a, 205–206 with the relevant bibliography. 34 Manieri 2009a, 202–207. 35 Manieri 2009a, 211–218. 36 West 2010, 9.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Amphiaraea and Rhomaea. I list the contests included in the five Amphiaraea and Rhomaea festivals for which we possess epigraphical records and highlight the relevant information about the winning rhapsodes: EO 521 = Manieri Oro. 15 (2009a, 241–243): trumpeter, herald, encomium for the god in prose, epic encomium, ἐπῶν ἱερὸς ῥαψῳδός (Biottus son of Menelaus from Chalcis [Stephanis 524; González 2013, 508 no. 44]), α[ὐ]λητῶ̣[ν ἱ]ερός and kitharist, kitharode. IG VII 416 = EO 523 = Manieri Oro. 16 (2009a, 243–245): trumpeter, herald, encomium in prose, epic encomium, rhapsode (Artemon son of Isidotus from Athens [Stephanis 422; González 2013, 508 no. 42]), epic poet, aulete, kitharist, kitharode, satyr-poet, tragic actor, comic actor, tragic poet, comic poet, epinicion. IG VII 418 = EO 524 = Manieri Oro. 18 (2009a, 246–248): encomium in prose, epic encomium, rhapsode (Craton son of Cleon from Thebes [Stephanis 1502; González 2013, 511 no. 50] who won also at the Charitesia in Orchomenos in the early first BC), epic poet, aulete, kitharist, kitharode, tragic actor, comic actor, satyr-poet, actor, tragic poet, comic poet. IG VII 419 = EO 526 = Manieri Oro. 19 (2009a, 248–250): trumpeter, herald, encomium in prose, epic encomium, epic poet, rhapsode (Eieron son of Aristoboulus from Thebes [Stephanis 820; González 2103, 509 no. 46]), aulete, kitharist, kitharode, satyr-poet, tragic poet, actor, comic poet, actor, old tragedy. IG VII 420 = EO 528 = Manieri Oro. 20 (2009a, 250–251): trumpeter, herald, encomium in prose, epic encomium, epic poet, rhapsode (Theophanes son of Socrates from Thebes [Stephanis 1186; González 2013, 510–511 no. 48]), aulete, kitharist, kitharode, satyr-poet, actor of old tragedy, actor of old comedy, poet of new tragedy, actor, poet of new comedy, actor.

The range of musical contests and the wide distribution of the places of origin of the various contestants show that the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea was a festival celebrated on a grand scale.37 ... The Sarapieia in Tanagra The Sarapieia held in the city of Tanagra, situated in the southeast corner of Boeotia, was the only festival dedicated to the Egyptian god Sarapis that includ-

 37 Apart from Boeotians, the contestants in the musical agones at the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea came from Neapolis, Echinos, Scarpheia, Miletos (EO 523), Taras (2), Myrine in Aeolis (EO 524), Aegina, Proussa, Nicomedeia, Calchedon, Chalcis (EO 526), Tarsos (2), Chalcis, Amphipolis, Mallos, Tralleis, Syracuse, and Opous (EO 528).

Festivals  

ed musical contests.38 The cult of Sarapis, often together with the cult of Isis, became widespread in the Greek world starting in the third century BC. From the agonistic inscription recording the participation of two rhapsodes in the musical contests held in Tanagra, we learn that Sarapis and Isis were honored together with other gods: [εἰς τὴ]ν θυσίαν τῷ Σαράπιδι καὶ τῇ Ἴσιδι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις θεοῖς (IG VII 540.48). In Athens there was a sanctuary dedicated to Sarapis on the Acropolis (Pausanias 1.18.4) as well as an association active as early as the middle of the third century BC that was responsible for Sarapis’ cult, the Sarapiastae (IG II2 1292). Sarapis’ cult was also in Boeotia. Apart from Tanagra, we know that the cities of Cheroneia, Coroneia, Cope, Orchomenos, Thebes, and Thespiae had all welcomed Sarapis’s cult.39 The musical contests in Tanagra took place every five years, during the month of Homoloios,40 and attracted artists from the entire Greek world, from Asia Minor to Italy. At least twenty-three competitors are named: the Athenians won eight prizes, and the Boeotians (including four Tanagrans) nine.41 The Athenians were probably members of the guild of technitai Dionysou (Διονυσιακοὶ τεχνῖται) who had also participated in the fourth Pythais in Delphi.42 Although an association of Sarapiastae is not mentioned in the extant victory list in which the two rhapsodes appear, it is likely that such an association dealt with the logistics of the festival and the musical contests. In fact, the family of the rhapsode Boucattes, a Tanagran local, seems to have been responsible for the organization and supervision of the festival and the contests. According to IG VII 541–543 (see Manieri Tan. 2;43 SEG 19.335, 25.501), the agonothetes named Glaucus and the president of the commission named Caphisias were the sons of Boucattes (I), the city archon and priest of Sarapis. The rhapsode Boucattes (II) and the satyric poet Alexandros must have been the sons of the agonothetes Glaucus, that is, grandsons of Boucattes (I).44 Apart from Boucattes (II), IG VII

 38 There is no extant information concerning musical contests at the Sarapieia of Amorgos and Mythemna on Lesbos. 39 Manieri (2009a, 263) suggests that the introduction of the cult of Sarapis in Boeotia indicates the friendly relations between Boeotia and Egypt in the third century BC. Both Orchomenos (IG VII 3166) and Tanagra (IG VII 507) issued proxeny decrees for Sosibius, the highest magistrate of Ptolemy IV. 40 Roller 1989, 114. 41 Roller 1989, 114. 42 Manieri 2009a, 273. 43 Manieri 2009a, 268–277. 44 For the family tree of Boucattes, see Calvet and Roesch 1966, 331; cf. Stephanis 533; González 2013, 508–509.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period 540.25 offers us the name of another rhapsode, Aristodicus son of Democrates from Opous, who won the second prize in the rhapsodic competition. The values of the prizes offered to the first and second victor in each category of the musical contests reveal that the rhapsode, and by extension the rhapsodic contest itself, belonged to the category that received the lowest prizes.45 The following lists of prizes in this contest indicate the different statuses of the various victors:46 1. aulete, kitharode, ancient tragedy, epinician: first prize =168¾ drachmas; second prize = 50 drachmas; 2. tragic poet, comic poet, epic poet, kitharist, ancient comedy: first prize = 135 drachmas; second prize = 50 drachmas for the tragic poet and 40 drachmas for the epic poet, the kitharist, and the ancient comedy; 3. aulode: first prize = 112¾ drachmas; second prize = 40 drachmas 4. rhapsode, poet of satyrical drama, trumpeter, herald, actor of new tragedy and comedy: first prize = 101¼ drachmas; second prize = 40 drachmas only for the rhapsode and the poet of satyrical drama. According to this list, Boucattes son of Glaucus received 101¼ drachmas for his victory in the rhapsodic contest, while Aristodicus son of Democrates, who was second in the same contest, got only 40 drachmas. ... The Rhomaea in Thebes As many as three musical contests were held in Thebes during the late Hellenistic period: the Agrionia, the Heracleia, and the Rhomaea. Only one surviving victor list pertains undoubtedly to the Rhomaea (SEG 54.516 = Manieri Theb. 31).47 The founding of the Rhomaea occurred after L. Mummius’ victory over the Greeks and the destruction of Corinth (146 BC), hence the naming of the new games after Rome.48 The victor list shows that Theban victors dominated the Rhomaea. The victorious rhapsode is Habron son of Philoxenus from Thebes (Stephanis 12), who also won at the festival of the Mouseia in Thespiae (IThesp

 45 The sponsor Charilaus provided the funds for the organization of the Sarapieia, prizes included (Schachter 1981, 203–204 n. 1 [SEG 31.496]; Roller 1989, 114). 46 Manieri 2009a, 265. 47 Manieri 2009a, 299–301. 48 Knoepfler dates the only victor list that undoubtedly comes from the Theban Rhomaea to shortly after 118 BC on the basis of the ‘defection’ of Theban artists from the guild of artists from the Isthmus and Nemea (2004, 1277).

Festivals  

171 = Manieri Thes. 31;49 cf. Roesch 1982: 494; Knoepfler 2004, 1260). Only the victorious trumpeter is from Delphi. The same is the case for IG VII 2448 (Stephanis 54 = Manieri Theb. 10),50 another victor list from Thebes, in which we hear about a certain Aeimnastus son of Euphraeus from Thebes, who won the rhapsodic contest (and also the heraldic agon).51 On the basis of this Theban dominance (with the exception of an Aeginetan trumpeter), the Theban Rhomaea becomes a more plausible candidate than the Agrionia for this inscription, too, despite the fact that the inscription as we have it contains no specific information about the festival to which it pertains.52 Moreover, the order in which the victors are recorded is the same with one exception: in the inscription in which Aeimnastus appears, the rhapsode’s name is given before that of the epic poet, while in the inscription in which Habron appears, he is mentioned after the epic poet.53 Knoepfler54 and Manieri55 interpret the Theban dominance in these two victor lists from the Theban Rhomaea as the result of the conflict between different groups of artists. They postulate a local, Boeotian guild that defected, so to speak, from the mother-guild of Dionysiac artists of the Isthmus and Nemea, one of the three main guilds of techitai Dionysou during the Hellenistic Period (the other two being the Athenian guild and that of Ionia and the Hellespont).56 This schism would explain why the Thebans who belonged to the local guild of Theban artists take precedence in both victor lists. This proposal can only remain speculative in the absence of lists of contestants in the Theban Rhomaea. If we had those lists, we could check whether Thebans dominated the ranks of contestants just as they dominated the victor lists.57 ... The Mouseia in Thespiae Schachter leaves open the possibility that ‘an agon of some sort may have been celebrated in honor of the Muses of Helicon as early as the fifth century BC’  49 Manieri 2009a, 399–400. 50 Manieri 2009a, 302–303. 51 On the same person winning as both herald and rhapsode, see pp. 516–517 on the Basileia held in Lebadeia. 52 Knoepfler 2004, 1262–1263; Manieri 2009a, 303. 53 West 2010, 9. 54 Knoepfler 2004, 1271. 55 Manieri 2009a, 37–38, 287–288, 301. 56 See Aneziri 2009, 218–220; also SEG 54.516. 57 Manieri 2009a, 301; Chaniotis 2010, 260 nn. 14–15. We know of only two rhapsodes who were not Boeotians (Zenodotus from Antiocheia on Pyramos and Mentor from Heracleia [in Thessaly?]) who won rhapsodic contests at Boeotian festivals.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period (1986, 163), but the earliest secure piece of information about the inclusion of a musical contest in the festival of the Mouseia in Thespiae dates to the middle of the third century BC (SEG 15.320). At that stage the musical contests likely consisted of competitions in dithyramb, tragedy, and comedy.58 Rhapsodic contests, together with contests of epic poets, auletai, aulodes, kitharistai, and kitharodes, were added during a major reorganization of the Mouseia at some point between 217 and 205 BC.59 The Mouseia was one of the most important festivals in the Hellenistic (and Imperial) Period, attracting professional artists from all three main guilds of Διονύσου τεχνῖται.60 We know of four rhapsodes who won the first prize at the Mouseia. The earliest among them is Zenodotus son of Sopatrus from Antiocheia in Cilicia61 (Stephanis 1024; see IG VII 1762 = IThesp 163), who probably took part in the reorganized games at some point between 210 and 172 BC. Zenodotus is immediately preceded in the victor list by a certain Heliodorus son of Heliodorus, who comes from the same Antiocheia. It is possible that these two victors belonged to the guild of Dionysian artists of Ionia and the Hellespont and had travelled all the way to Thespiae to participate in the reorganized Mouseia that had just started to include contests for epic poets and rhapsodes.62 Another victorious rhapsode is recorded in IThesp 170.22 (= Manieri Thes. 63 30), which dates between 118 and 112 BC. Only the ending –ος survives on the stone, but given that both his father’s name and the city of his origin are identical with Εἴρανος Φρυνίδου Ταναγραῖος (Stephanis 822),64 who had won as a comic actor at the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea in Oropos (IG VII 416.26 = EO

 58 Feyel 1942, 115; Schacter 1986, 163. 59 See Schachter 1986, 164–165 (who follows Feyel) and the detailed analysis of Manieri (2009a, 315–326) for the Hellenistic period. 60 Manieri 2009a, 315. 61 From Pyramos (ἀπὸ Πυράμου). Notice that the immediately preceding victor in the victor list also comes from Antiocheia; Manieri says that only the place name Antiocheia (without further specification) is mentioned in the case of Heliodorus, although the text she prints clearly has Ἀντιοχεὺς ἀπὸ Πυράμου (see also IThesp 163) for both the epic poet Heliodorus and the rhapsode Zenodotus (2009a, 378). Thinking that in the case of Heliodorus the Syrian Antiocheia is meant, Manieri considers the possibility (following Bonnet 2001, 57) of some sort of link with the Seleucidae of Syria. West rightly asserts that these two Asian Greeks ‘must have come to Thespiae in partnership’ (2010, 8). 62 West (2010, 8) draws attention to the fact that a number of victor lists from the Mouseia at Thespiae record epic poets but no rhapsodes (IThesp 161, 164, 165, 174). 63 Manieri 2009a, 397–399. 64 González 2013, 505–506.

Festivals  

523.26 = Manieri Oro. 16),65 scholars have restored [Εἴραν]ος in IThesp 170.22. In addition to his success as a rhapsode and a comic actor, Eiranus also won at the Ptoia in Acraephia (BCH 44 [1920]: 261 = Manieri Acr. 14)66 in the heraldic competition, in two other contests (neither surviving on the stone) (IG VII 542.1 = Manieri Tan. 3.1),67 and as a tragic actor (IG VII 543.1–4 = Manieri Tan. 4.1–4).68 He also prevailed at the Sarapieia in Tanagra.69 In contrast to the victor list discussed earlier, only local Boeotians appear in this inscription: three Thespians, two Tanagrans, and one Theban. The sequence in the victor list is the following: poet of prosodion, trumpeter, herald, epic poet, rhapsode, auletes, [aulode]. A fair number of these victors are also known from other victor lists: the epic poet Democles son of Ameinias from Thebes also won the contest of epic encomia in Oropos (Manieri Oro. 16) and prevailed as epic poet in Thebes (Manieri Theb. 10). He may well be the father of Ameinias, who won double victories at the Charitesia in Orchomenos as epic poet and poet of a satyr-drama (Manieri Orc. 25) and at the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea in Oropos (Manieri Or. 19) with a new epic poem and an epic encomium.70 Habron son of Philoxenus from Thebes (Stephanis 12) appears as winner of the rhapsodic recital in another victor list (IThesp 171 = Manieri Thes. 31).71 He is the same Habron who had won (shortly after 118 BC?) a rhapsodic contest at the Theban Rhomaea. The sequence of victors in this list is the same (poet of prosodion, trumpeter, herald, epic poet, rhapsode, auletes, aulode) as in IThesp 170, but the winners are not all Boeotians (as in IThesp 170). Thespians dominate (three overall), but there is an Argive trumpeter (Praxocles), a Theban rhapsode (Habron), and even a Pamphylian aulode (Polyxenus). The same sequence of winners is also observed in IThesp 172 (Manieri Thes. 33),72 although this time the victor list records, after the aulode, a kitharist, a  65 Manieri 2009a, 244. 66 Manieri 2009a, 107. 67 Manieri 2009a, 277. 68 Manieri 2009a, 278. 69 We do not know in which contest he was victorious. Unsure of the restoration [Εἴραν]ος, West observes that given that (i) in the same inscription from Oropos we have a clear example of two brothers being mentioned, one (Artemon son of Isidotus from Athens) a rhapsode and the other (Straton son of Isidotus from Athens) a comic actor, and (ii) in IG VII 540 we find Boucattes son of Glaucus from Tanagra as rhapsode and his brother Alexander as poet of satyrdrama, it is likely that the victorious rhapsode recorded in IThesp 170.22 is the brother of the comic poet Εἴρανος Φρυνίδου Ταναγραῖος, who won at Oropos (2010, 9 n. 20). 70 Manieri 2009a, 399. 71 Manieri 2009a, 399–400. 72 Manieri 2009a, 402–404.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period kitharode, a poet of satyr-drama, and two actors, one of old tragedy and one of old comedy. The victorious rhapsode, Theodotus son of Pythion from Athens, also participated in the fourth Pythais in Delphi, in which he competed as both a rhapsode and a tragic actor.73 Most of the victors mentioned in this list pertaining to the musical contest of the Mouseia in Thespiae are also known from other victor lists, mainly from Boeotia. The epic poet Mestor son of Mestor from Phocaea, who is mentioned immediately before the rhapsode Theodotus, also won as an epic poet in Orchomenos (Manieri Orc. 23) and with an epic encomium in Oropos (Manieri Oro. 18).

.. Delos Two rhapsodes are recorded in a list of artists (IG XI.2 105.27–28) from Delos dated to 284 BC. The inscription is not a victor list but belongs to the tabulae archontum.74 It records the choregoi for the Apollonia and for the Dionysia for boys and then proceeds with a list of those artists who performed noncompetitively in honor of Apollo (οἵδε ἐπεδείξαντο τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ Ἀριστοκρίτου ἄρχοντος). The list comprises tragic and comic actors, an aulete, kitharodes, a psaltes, a kitharist, and the two rhapsodes who (contrary to the usual practice in victory lists) are placed at the end of the catalogue. The listing of the homelands of the participants shows that Delos attracted artists from all over the Greek world (Megara, Chalcis, Athens, Sinope, Thebes, Ambracia, Methymna, Argos, and Thessaly). The two rhapsodes are Archelas from Thessaly (Stephanis 435)75 and Glaucus from Athens (Stephanis 549).76 In sharp contrast to the choregoi, who are only recorded by their patronymics, the artists are mentioned by their proper name followed by their ethnic; this is because the choregoi were citizens of Delos and metics, whereas none of the artists comes from Delos.77 We do not know whether Archelas and Glaucus participated in the actual contest, although it is reasonable to assume so. At any rate, they recited hors concours epic poetry at Delos, probably of traditional content.78

 73 Manieri 2009a, 404; González 2013, 510 no. 47. 74 Robert 1936, 244; Sifakis 1967, 19. 75 González 2013, 498 no. 15. 76 González 2013, 499 no. 16. 77 There is a kitharode named Philodamus (IG XI, 2 105.24) whose place of origin is not recorded. Was he a Delian, or did the stonecutter simply not know where he came from? 78 See 535 n. 105 (4).

Festivals  

.. Delphi ... The Amphictyonic Soteria The festival of the Soteria was established in Delphi in commemoration of the salvation of the Delphic oracle and Greece in general from the invasion of the Gauls (279/278 BC). In the case of the Amphictyonic Soteria, we are fortunate to possess not only victor lists but also catalogues of contestants.79 The latter aid the reconstruction of musical contests in the Hellenistic period, given that they furnish information that victor lists by definition exclude. In the case of rhapsodic activity, we can now see how large the actual contest was and how many artists and rhapsodes took part. In two inscriptions the formula is ‘the following competed’ (ἠγωνίσαντο δὲ οἵδε, SEG 1.187a; SEG 18.230), and in several others ‘the following competed in the contest at the Soteria’ (οἵδε ἠγωνίσαντο τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Σωτηρίων, SEG 18.235; GDI 2563, 2564, 2565, 2566). I list here in alphabetical order the rhapsodes who took part in the Amphictyonic Soteria. This list is taken from West’s article80 with the addition of Aristomenes son of Aristomenes (GDI 2565). 1.

Ἀγαθῖνος Κριτοδήμο[υ Σικ]υώνιος (Stephanis 18); GDI 2565 = Nachtergael 1977: 420 no. 9, line 9 (258/257 or 254/253 BC)

2.

Ἀρισταγό[ρας] (Stephanis 306); SEG 1.187a = Nachtergael 1977, 408 no. 3, line 5 (ca. 265–258 BC) Ἀριστείδης Ἀρίστωνος [ . . . ]ς (Stephanis 318); GDI 2565 = Nachtergael 1977, 420 no. 9, line 10 (258/257 or 254/253 BC)

3.

4. Ἀριστομένης Ἀριστομένου [ . . . ]ιος (Stephanis 362); GDI 2565 = Nachtergael 1977, 420 no. 9, line 11 (258/257 or 254/253 BC) 5.

[Eὐθ]ύδημος Χάρητος Ἀθηναῖος (Stephanis 948); GDI 2566 = Nachtergael 1977, 423 no. 10, lines 9–10 (257/256 or 253/252 BC)

6. Καλλίας Ἀρχετίμου Συρακ[όσιος] (Stephanis 1325); SEG 18.230 = Nachtergael 1977, 409 no. 4, line 13 (ca. 265–258 BC) 7.

Κλειτόριος Ἀριστείδου Ἀρκάς (Stephanis 1429); SEG 18.230 =

 79 Sifakis 1967, 63. 80 West 2010, 8.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period Nachtergael 1977, 409 no. 4, line 12; GDI 2563 = Nachtergael 1977: 413 no. 7, line 11; GDI 2564 = Nachtergael 1977, 416 no. 8, line 10; GDI 2566 = Nachtergael 1977, 423 no. 10, lines 8–9 (ca. 265–252 BC) 8. Πολύμνηστος Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀρκάς (Stephanis 2106); GDI 2563 = Nachtergael 1977: 413 no. 7, line 10 (260/259 or 256/255 BC) [. . 4–5 . .]ν Θρασωνίδου Σινωπεύς (Stephanis 2729); GDI 2564 = Nachtergael 1977, 416 no. 7, line 11 (259/258 or 255/254 BC) 9. . . . .]ράτης Καλλιφ [ . . . (Stephanis 2762); SEG 18.235 = Nachtergael 1977, 411 no. 5, line 11 (262/261 or 258/257 BC) 10. [ . . . ]ς Ἀθηναῖος (Stephanis 2886); SEG 18.235 = Nachtergael 1977, 411 no. 5, line 12 (262/261 or 258/257 BC) On the basis of this list of rhapsodes who participated in the Amphictyonic Soteria, we can make the following observations: 1. The maximum number of rhapsodes taking part in the same contest is three, but regularly the competition is between two. One observes that the same reference appears under more than one name, meaning that these rhapsodes competed in the same contest in the Amphictyonic Soteria. 2. In sharp contrast to the musical contests held in Boeotia, at the Amphictyonic Soteria in Delphi there was no contest involving the presentation of new epic poems. In the extant inscriptional material no ποιητὴς ἐπῶν is ever mentioned. Rhapsodes, usually recorded in victor lists after the ποιητὴς ἐπῶν, are here placed first in the lists of participants. 3. A certain Cleitorius son of Aristeides from Arcadia was a frequent competitor in the Amphictyonic Soteria at Delphi. In a short span, he participated no less than four times (SEG 18.230; GDI 2563, 2564, 2566):81 he appears first among the competing rhapsodes three times and second once. 4. The geographical range of participants in the rhapsodic contest of the Amphictyonic Soteria covers Arcadia, Athens, Sicyon, and distant places to the east and west, like Sinope and Syracuse.

 81 Pace West (2010, 8), according to whom Cleitorius participated three times in the Amphictyonic Soteria.

Festivals  

... The Aetolian Soteria The Amphictyonic Soteria did not last for long. The Aetolians, who had occupied Delphi since the beginning of the third century BC, reorganized the festival in an attempt to turn it into a Panhellenic event under their control. They changed its periodicity from annual to quadrennial, added athletic contests to the musical ones, and introduced Zeus Soter to be honored along with Apollo. By asking the Greek cities to recognize the musical contests as isopythian and the athletic one as isonemean, they turned the Soteria into a stephanites agon, which was typical for all Panhellenic games.82 The program of the Aetolian Soteria basically followed the program of the older Amphictyonic Soteria that it replaced.83 As I did for the Amphictyonic Soteria, I offer a list of the victors in the rhapsodic contests in alphabetical order.84 West provides a similar list in chronological order.85 The formulaic heading before the commemoration of the winners is now ‘the following were victorious’ (οἵδε ἐνίκων, FD III 4.125), or ‘the following were victorious at the Soteria’ (οἵδε ἐνίκων τὰ Σωτήρια, SEG 2.260.2, 260.5, 260.6; FD III 4.126, 127, 128): 1.

Εὐρύβιος Λυκίσκου Μεγαλοπολίτης (Stephanis 982); SEG 2.260 = Nachtergael 1977, 479 no. 63, line 6 (225/224 BC); FD III 4.125 = Nachtergael 1977, 480 no. 64, line 6 (221/220 BC) 2. Νικίας (vacat) (Stephanis 1820); FD III 4.126 = Nachtergael 1977, 481 no. 65, line 7 (217/216 BC) 3. Π[ . . . (Stephanis 1971); SEG 2.260 = Nachtergael 1977, 476 no. 59, line 6 (241/240 BC) 4. Σίμακ?]ος Σατύρου Ἀργεῖος (Stephanis 2273); SEG 2.260 = Nachtergael 1977, 478 no. 62, line 5 (229/228 BC) 5. Φιλοκράτης Λυσίππου Ἀργεῖος (Stephanis 2530); FD III 4.127 = Nachtergael 1977, 482 no. 66, line 7 (213/212 or 205/204 BC) 6. Ι.ΑΛΛΗΣ (vacat) (Stephanis 2979); FD III 4.128 = Nachtergael 1977, 483 no. 68, line 6 (209/208 or 205/204 BC)

 82 Sifakis 1967, 64. 83 Sifakis 1967, 83; Nachtergael 1977, 359. 84 See González 2013, 499–504. 85 West 2010, 8.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period On the basis of these victor lists of rhapsodes who participated in the Amphictyonic Soteria, we can make the following observations: 1. As far as rhapsodic contests are concerned, it seems that no change was introduced in the Aetolian Soteria. According to the usual practice in victor lists of artists competing in festivals during the Hellenistic period, only the first victor is mentioned. A partial exception comes in IG VII 540.25 from the Sarapieia in Tanagra, the first part of which is a victor list. The name of the rhapsode who was second in the rhapsodic competition is not given in the actual victor list but later on, when the exact prizes are recorded.86 2. A certain Eurybius son of Lyciscus from Megalopolis carried two successive victories in the rhapsodic contest in 225/224 and 221/220 BC.87 3. With respect to the geographical range of the winners, all our admittedly scant information refers to Peloponnesian victors, an Argive (Simacus) and a Megalopolitan (Eurybius). ... The Pythais An inscription shows that three rhapsodes belonging to the Athenian guild of Dionysiac artists participated in the fourth Pythais of 98/97 BC and recited epic poetry (FD III 2.48.31).88 They are Callon son of Callon (Stephanis 1368),89 Theodotus son of Pythion (Stephanis 1146),90 and Xenophantus son of Eumachus (Stephanis 1913).91 Of these three, Theodotus, who is also known from his victory in the rhapsodic contest at the festival of the Mouseia in Thespiae (after 85 BC) (IG VII 1760.17 = IThesp 172 = Manieri Thes. 33),92 did not function only as a rhapsode in the fourth Pythais.93 He was also a member (FD III 2.48.26) of a group of artists, ‘the ones who will sing the paeans and the chorus’ (τοὺς ἀισομένου[ς] τούς τε παιᾶνας καὶ τὸν χορὸν, FD III 2.48.20), and, together with  86 See p. 522. 87 For problems with the quadrennial periodicity of the Aetolian Soteria, see Sifakis 1967, 69– 70. 88 For the Athenians’ Pythais to Delphi, see Sifakis 1967, 86–88, 90–92 (on the fourth Pythais). 89 González 2013, 511 no. 49. 90 González 2013, 517 no. 47. 91 González 2013, 513 no. 53. 92 Manieri 2009a, 402–404. 93 Since my study concerns only rhapsodic recitals, I have not included references to epic poets winning in festivals when no rhapsode is mentioned. I exclude, then, Sosicles from Coroneia, who won at the Pythian Games in Delphi (Plut. Quaest. Conv. 2.4.1), and the poetess Aristomache from Erythraea, who won twice at the Isthmian Games and dedicated a golden book in the Sicyonian Treasury in Delphi (Plut. Quaest. Conv. 5.2); see Pallone 1984, 162–163.

Festivals  

the other two aforementioned rhapsodes, Callon and Xenophantus, he belonged to another group of artists, ‘the ones who competed with them ...’ (τοὺς τούτοις συναγωνιξαμένους Κάλ[λ]ων Κάλλωνος, Θεόδοτον Πυθίωνος, Φιλόνικο Ἕρμωνος, Νίκωνα Ἀριστίωνος, Ξενόφαντον Εὐμάχου, FD III 2.48.37–38). In the list of Athenian artists of Dionysus who took part in the fourth Pythais, the three rhapsodes are recorded after the three epic poets, in accordance with the general practice that we find in lists of participants and victor lists.

.. Euboea The only information we have with respect to a rhapsodic contest held in Euboea is based on Wilhelm’s restoration of the text of a victor list recording the names of victors at the games held in Amarynthos around the beginning of the first century BC.94 The relevant text (IG XII.9 139) runs as follows: ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ· ἐπὶ πολε[μάρχου] Θεοκλέους τοῦ Ξένω[νος] δημαρχούντων [Φ]ιλοφάνου τοῦ Ἀρισ— —] Σωστράτου τοῦ Ἀριστ [— — —] οἵδε ἐνίκων· ἐπῶν ποητή[ς] Δημόδοτος Ἡρακλείτ[ου] α[ψῳδός] [Μ]έντω[ρ Ἀπολλοδότου] [Ἡρακλεώτης].

5

10

Good luck. When Theocles, son of Xenon, was polemarchos, Philophanes, son of Aris[— —] and Sostratus, son of Arist[— — —] held the office of demarch; these were the victors: epic poet: Demodotus, son of Heraclitus; rhapsode: Mentor, son of Apollodotus from Heracleia.

 94 This victor list may pertain to the festival of the Tamyneia (Kourouniotis 1899, 141) or the Artemisia (Knoepfler 1988, 388 n. 26) in honor of Artemis Amarysia. According to Pausanias (1.31.5), this festival was transplanted to the deme of Athmonia in Attica (again in honor of Artemis) and celebrated there in no less splendor. Strabo (10.448), who testifies to the magnificence of this festival, reports that he had seen in the temple of Artemis Amarynthia a column with an inscription recording that in the past the Eretrians celebrated the festival in majestic grandeur: the processions comprised 3,000 hoplites, 600 horsemen, and 60 chariots.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period If Wilhelm’s supplement is correct, then this Mentor son of Apollodorus95 — Wilhelm’s ‘Apollodotus’ (1905, in IG XII.9 139.10) is clearly wrong — from Heracleia may be the same Mentor son of Apollodorus from Heracleia (Stephanis 1667), who prevailed during this period in the rhapsodic contest at the festival of the Charitesia in Orchomenos (IG VII 3196 = Manieri Orc. 24).96 In comparison with other victor lists, it must be noted that after the formula οἵδε ἐνίκων introducing the contests and the respective victors, the first contest recorded is that in epic poetry, after which the rhapsodic contest is immediately mentioned. There is no reference to a contest of trumpeters and heralds, which is often placed at the top of the victor list. The epic poet Demodotus son of Heraclitus is not accompanied by his place of origin, and no other contest is recorded.

.. Keos An unnamed rhapsode is mentioned in an early third-century BC decree from the city of Coresia on the island of Keos in the Cyclades (IG XII.5 647.35 = SIG III 958). The decree makes provisions for the winners of athletic games accompanying a local festival. The πρόβουλοι are responsible for establishing the athletic contest, electing the γυμνασίαρχος, and providing the prizes. The games involve archery and javelin contests for men and boys. The prizes differ with respect to age category: the men will be awarded weaponry, the boys a portion of meat. It is at this point that we learn that a rhapsode will also get a portion of meat. The decree declares that the names of the winners of the contests should be written on a white tablet (regularly used for public purposes) by the γραμματεύς and also, if allowed by the law, inscribed on a stele to be erected in the sanctuary (IG XII.5 647.40–42: ἀναγράφειν δὲ εἰς λεύκωμα ἑξῆς τοὺς ἀεὶ νικῶντας τὸγ γρα-|ματέα· ἂν δὲ δόξει ὁ νόμος, ἀναγράψαι εἰς στήλην καὶ στῆσαι | εἰς τὸ τέμενος). No mention is made of a rhapsodic contest, and yet the rhapsode will get the same award as the boys who win the archery and javelin contests. West97 suggests that the rhapsode was present ‘to lend a suitably heroic colour to the martial contests’. We might note the resemblance between this decree and a victor list from Chios (IChios 57 = SIG III 959 = GDI 5660) in which a musical contest of stringed instruments and a rhapsodic competition precede the athlet 95 González 2013, 512–513 no. 51. 96 Manieri 2009a, 200–202; see also pp. 517–519 (this chapter). 97 West 2010, 7.

Conclusion  

ic contests taking place at the gymnasium, although in the inscription from Keos no provision is made for musical agones.

.. Rhodes A rhapsode called [Ni]comed[es] (Stephanis 1858)98 is mentioned in a thirdcentury BC victor list pertaining to the festival of the Megala Erethimia held in honor of Apollo Erethimius on Rhodes (BCH 99 [1975], 102 face B.1, col. I.4–5). We are in no position to tell whether this [Ni]comed[es] was a Rhodian or from some other place, since the patronymic or ethnic that followed his name on the stone has been lost: Rhodians are mentioned by their name and patronymic, and others by their names and ethnic. The rhapsode is recorded first in the list, even before the trumpeter and the herald, who are here mentioned only after two kitharists and two aulodes (one a boy contestant, and the other an adult male contestant) and immediately before the victors in the athletic contests. As on the victor list from Chios that combines musical and athletic contests (see the previous section), there is no epic poet or any other poet recorded in the list. The contests, musical and athletic alike, seem to have attracted participants from all over the Greek world: an Opountian and a Coan (musical contests), two Locrians, four Milesians, a Samian, an Ephesian, and an Alabandian (a city of Caria or Phrygia).

. Conclusion We can draw the following picture of rhapsodic performances in the Hellenistic period. 1. Rhapsodes do not operate as free agents but tend to belong to guilds of artists. We know that there were three large guilds of technitai Dionysou during the Hellenistic period: an Athenian guild, one of the Isthmus and Nemea, and one of Ionia and the Hellespont. Rhapsodic professionalism did not, of course, start in the Hellenistic period, but it certainly acquired a new form. In fact, we may postulate a situation in which the polis organizing a given festival would assign professional administrators the duty of providing whatever was needed for the staging of the festival. The state officials would have been in contact with the representatives of the guilds of Dionysiac artists and not with performers  98 González 2013, 503 no. 25.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period individually.99 Various honorific decrees testify to the granting to artists of the right of proxenia, ateleia, and the like.100 2. Mobility increases. We find rhapsodes (and artists at large) participating in more than one festival and at venues far away from their place of origin. The competition would involve two or three rhapsodes. Mobility was, no doubt, enhanced by professionalism and motivated by the new conditions prevailing in the Hellenistic world, such as the increased flow of money, and by the privileges given to artists by those who organized the actual festivals. 3. Rhapsodic competitions take place at all major festivals and all over the Greek world: Boeotia (Acraephia, Orchomenos, Oropos, Tanagra, Thebes, Thespiae), Delos, Delphi, Euboea, Keos, and Rhodes. Coupling this feature with the fact that new epic compositions were recited at all major festivals, we can see that epic poetry survived and flourished in an agonistic context but also in a way that must have been distinct from the production of Alexandrian literary epic.101 4. Under the influence of dramatic performances, rhapsodes intensified their attempts to make their recitals livelier for the audience. Again, as Plato’s Ion informs us, this phenomenon was at work already in the fourth century BC, but it became more pronounced during Hellenistic times. Although acting out parts of epic is traditionally assigned to the Homeristae, I am inclined to attribute some aspects of this practice, which of course may have varied in intensity, to professional rhapsodes as well. 5. The content of epic recitals must have undergone serious changes after the Classical Period. Although Athenaeus reports that Homer, Hesiod, and Phocylides were recited by rhapsodes in the theaters (14.620a–d [IV.A 203.26– 204.29 Olson]), there is no extant source, literary or epigraphic, designating what rhapsodes actually recited in festivals during the Hellenistic Period. In the extant victory lists, rhapsodes are often preceded (and less often followed) by epic poets (ἐπῶν ποιηταί), who wrote new epic poems with which they competed.102

 99 González 2013, 479. 100 González 2013, 480. 101 Pallone 1984, 159. 102 In general, the order in which different victors and contests are recorded in victor lists corresponds to the order in which the relevant contests took place at the festival. Chaniotis (per litteras electronicas) draws my attention to the fact that kitharodes (who received bigger prizes than rhapsodes) are recorded in the middle or end of victor lists (but not at the beginning), which may in itself indicate that kitharodic contests had pride of place at the festival.

Conclusion  

In this light, there are three alternatives. First, epic poets recited their new poems, while rhapsodes recited traditional epic (Homer, Hesiod, etc.), and separate prizes were awarded because the two contests were different.103 Second, rhapsodes recited solely new epic poems, but two prizes were awarded, one for best poem and one for best rhapsode.104 This scenario seems unlikely, since there are cases in which rhapsodes performed in the absence of contests for epic poets. For instance, the lists of participants at the Amphictyonic Soteria at Delphi include the names of the various competing rhapsodes but not of epic poets.105 It would have been odd if rhapsodes performed new epic poems written for this occasion in the absence not only of the poet himself but of an actual contest in which this poet competed. Third, rhapsodes recited both new epic poems and traditional epic. Two possibilities arise: (a) the rhapsode whose name is recorded in a victor list is the one who recited the new epic poem that won the competition or (b) the rhapsode who won the competition of rhapsodic recital is not the same as the rhapsode who recited the epic poem that was awarded the first prize. We should recall that victor lists regularly record the first victor.106 Gonzá107 lez draws attention to the order in which epic poet and rhapsode appear in the victor lists. He argues that when the name of the epic poet follows that of the rhapsode in the victor list, the rhapsode did not perform the poetry of the epic  103 Fantuzzi 19882, xxxvi; González 2013, 488–499. The rhapsode Ion emphasizes that it was his performance that earned him the victory crown, not the poetry of Homer itself (Pl. Ion 530d7–8). 104 West 2010, 7. Pallone leaves the question open (1984, 161–162). 105 For cases in which a rhapsode is recorded without any mention of an epic poet, consider the previously discussed items: (1) The inscription from Chios reporting that Miltiades son of Dionysius from Chios won the rhapsodic contest (see pp. 514 and 516). The absence of any reference to the performance of a new epic poem — an absence understandable in the venue of a gymnasium frequented by παῖδες, ἔφηβοι, and νέοι — suggests that the young Miltiades sang traditional epic. (2) The decree from the city of Coresia on the island of Keos in the Cyclades mentioning an unnamed rhapsode (see pp. 532–533). The decree makes provisions for the winners of athletic games accompanying a local festival. (3) The victor list pertaining to the festival of the Megala Erethimia in honor of Apollo Erethimius on Rhodes mentioning a rhapsode named [Ni]comed[es] (see p. 533). The name of the rhapsode appears first in the victor list and is not preceded or followed by that of an epic poet. (4) Archelas from Thessaly and Glaucus from Athens, who recited at Delos hors concours (ἐπεδείξαντο) epic poetry (see p. 527). On Democles son of Ameinias from Thebes, see p. 536. 106 Even if we had both the lists of participants in the actual contest and the victor lists, we would not know who recited which epic. 107 González 2013, 508 no. 45, 509 n. 124, 511 no. 48, 512 no. 51.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period poet. Since, for example, in a victor list from the Amphiaraea and Rhomaea held in Oropos (IG VII 420) the tragic and comic poets are recorded before the tragic and comic actor, it is likely that the same order would have been followed in the case of epic poet and rhapsode should the former have recited the poetry of the latter. But since the rhapsode precedes the epic poet, the rhapsode probably did not recite the poetry of the epic poet. I am inclined to endorse this argument. But does it mean that when the rhapsode followed the epic poet he recited the latter’s new epic poetry? González suggests that there are cases in which the rhapsode may have still recited traditional epic. In EO 523, Democles son of Ameinias from Thebes appears under the category of epic encomium and is the same person who won as epic poet in IThesp 170. This shows, apart from the ‘close relationship between epic encomiast and epic poet,’ that ‘the rhapsode at Thespiae would have performed not a new composition but one from the traditional repertoire’.108 In EO 526, Aminias109 (sic, not Ameinias) son of Democles from Thebes won both as an epic encomiast and an epic poet: he must have recited his new epic, just as he performed the epic encomium. The rhapsode Eieron son of Aristoboulus from Thebes who follows in the list recited traditional epic.110 EO 521 is particularly interesting, since after the epic encomiast, but before the rhapsode, no award for the epic poet is recorded, although the list contains an entry for such an event.111 Another argument in support of González’s claim pertains to the mechanics involved in having a rhapsode perform a new epic poem composed for performance in a given festival. Here the similarity with but also the difference from actors is worth considering. Both rhapsodes and actors as performers must have been familiar with the text they would perform. It is unthinkable that rhapsodes and actors would read for the first time the new epic or drama at the actual festival. To argue that rhapsodes would perform new epic poems, one must accept that rhapsodes, like actors, would have been presented with a written copy beforehand. This means that the epic poet would have been in touch with the guild of artists to which the rhapsode belonged and that some sort of agreement would have been reached for the recital of the poet’s new epic. In the case of

 108 González 2013, 505. 109 This Aminias must have been a rather gifted poet, since he is also listed as ἐπῶν ποιητής and ποιητὴς σατύρων in a victor list (IG VII 3197.10 and 25) from the Charitesia in Orchomenos (beginning of first century BC). 110 González 2013, 509. 111 González 2013, 509 n. 124.

Conclusion  

drama, which requires a lengthy process of production, it is easier to picture such a scenario. Perhaps sometimes this was also the case with epic poetry.112 Unfortunately, the only instance of the same person being both poet and rhapsode dates from the second century AD and so falls outside this chapter’s purview. Still, it is indicative of what may have happened on certain occasions: an epic poet could also be a rhapsode. This poet-rhapsode was Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Πομπηϊανὸς Παίων (Stephanis 1979), who is recorded in the famous inscription on the Colossus of Memnon (IK 11.1 no. 22, lines 1–6): Ε]ἰσηγησαμένου Ποπλίου Αἰλίου Πομπη[ϊανοῦ] Παίονος Σιδήτου καὶ Ταρσέ[ως] καὶ Ῥοδίο[υ,] [ποιη]τοῦ πλειστονείκου, μελοποιοῦ καὶ ῥαψ[ῳδοῦ] [θε]οῦ Ἁδριανοῦ θεολόγου ναῶν τῶν ἐν Π[εργάμῳ,] [ἀγ]ωνοθέτου ἀποδεδειγμένου τῶν Σεβ[αστῶν] Πυθίων On the proposal of P. Aelius Pompeianus Paeon of Side, Tarsos, and Rhodes, winner of many poetry contests, lyric poet and rhapsode of the god Hadrian, theologos of the temples of Pergamon, appointed agonothetes of contests of the Sebasta Pythia.

Perhaps the designation θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ immediately following the title of rhapsode was needed to differentiate this Παίων from other rhapsodes reciting Homer.113 This particular rhapsode was known as ‘the new Homer’ (νέου Ὁμήρου, ISide 70).114 I think we should be satisfied with the most economical scenario: when only rhapsodes are mentioned, they are likely to have recited traditional (meaning not new) epic. As for the coexistence of new epic poets and rhapsodes in the  112 The content of these new epic poems was of the traditional type, whether mythological or reflecting local history: see Ziegler’s list of epopoioi (19882, lvii–lxxxviii); Fantuzzi 19882, xxxvi; González 2013, 488 n. 40. 113 Gangloff (2018, 144–146) surveys various interpretive scenarios. She endorses removing the comma after Ἁδριανοῦ and rendering Paion the theologos of the god Hadrian in the temples of Pergamon. 114 See Chaniotis (2019, 42): ‘By analogy with expressions such as ὑμνῳδοὶ θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ θεᾶς Ῥώμης, ὑμνῳδὸς Θεοῦ Αὐγούστου, and ὑμνῳδὸς Θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ, we should read μελοποιὸς καὶ ῥαψῳδὸς Θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ and separate this function from that of a theologos serving in the temple of the Imperial cult in Pergamum. As a μελοποιὸς καὶ ῥαψῳδὸς Θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ, Paeon composed melic and epic poems that had the deified Hadrian as their subject — not poems to be recited to Hadrian. Hadrian’s hunting exploits, and possibly also his relationship to the deified Antinoos, which could easily be assimilated to that of the epic heroes Achilleus and Patroclus, offered suitable subject matter for such poems, with which Paeon could have earned the designation “New Homer”. Paeon’s activity as a rhapsode of Hadrian is comparable to that of ποιηταὶ εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα in Thespiae’.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period same victor list, it is possible that while rhapsodes continued to perform traditional epic, the new epic poets made their appearance as performers-composers (in the manner of Hesiod in the Archaic Period or Antimachus of Colophon [Plut. Lys. 18.4] in the Classical Period) and recited their new compositions either in agonistic or epideictic contexts.115 6. As for the length of these rhapsodic recitals, if we accept that rhapsodes in most cases performed traditional epic (that is, Homer, Hesiod), then we can be sure that they recited selected parts from these well-known poems. The same may have been the case with new epic poems. Of course, one is entitled to ask what would be the meaning of reciting sections of an epic poem that nobody had heard or read before. Yet anthologized performances, if I may employ this term, of new epics could have made sense to the audience, since they were of a traditional form and based on either mythology or local history.116 Perhaps we should allow for the possibility that epic poets submitted, independently of the performance, a complete written text to be judged by the κριταί.

. Appendix 6: Rhapsodes in the Hellenistic Period Reference

Place of Origin

Place of Performance

Occasion

Date

Stephanis  Ἅβρων Φιλοξένου

Thebes

() Thebes () Thespiae

() Festival of the Rhomaea () Festival of the Mouseia

() c.  BC

Stephanis  Ἀγαθῖνος Κριτοδήμο[υ

Sicyon

Delphi

Festival of Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Stephanis  Ἀγάθων Δαμᾶ

Thespiae

Acraephia

Festival of Ptoia

nd–st c. BC

Stephanis  Ἀείμναστος Ε[ὐφ]ραίου

Thebes

Thebes

Festival of the Agrionia (?) or Rhomaea (?)

late nd–early st c. BC

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

– BC

Stephanis 

Name117

Ἀρισταγό[ρας]

 115 Cf. González 2013, 489. 116 Cf. Fantuzzi 19882, xxxvi. 117 The order of the rhapsodes’ names is alphabetical (Greek alphabet).

() c. – BC

Appendix 6: Rhapsodes in the Hellenistic Period  

Reference

Name

Stephanis 

Ἀριστείδης Ἀρίστωνος [. . .]ς

Stephanis 

Ἀριστόδικος Δημοκράτους

Stephanis 

Ἀριστομένης Ἀριστομένου [ . . .]ιος118

Stephanis 

Ἀρτέμων Ἰσιδότου

Stephanis 

Place of Origin

Place of Performance

Occasion

Date

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Tanagra

Festival of the Sarapieia

– BC

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Athens

Oropos

Festival of Amphiaraea and Rhomaea

after the First Mithridatic War

Ἀρχέλας

Thessaly

Delos

Epideixis

 BC

Stephanis 

Ἀρχίας Σωτηρίδου

Thebes

Acraephia

Festival of Ptoia

st c. BC

Stephanis 

Βίοττος [Μ]ε[ν]ελάου

Chalcis

Oropos

Festival of Amphiaraea and Rhomaea

after the First Mithridatic War

Stephanis 

Βουκάττης Γλαύκου

Tanagra

Tanagra

Festival of the Sarapieia

– BC

Stephanis 

Γλαῦκος

Athens

Delos

Epideixis

 BC

Stephanis 

Εἰέρων Thebes Ἀριστοβούλου

Oropos

Festival of Amphiaraea and Rhomaea

after the First Mithridatic War

Stephanis 

[Εἴραν]ος Φρυνίδου

Thespiae

Festival of the Mouseia

– or – BC

Stephanis 

Ἑρμόφαντος

Alexandria

Theater

middle rd c. BC

Stephanis 

Εὐθύδημος Χάρητος

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Stephanis 

Εὐρύβιος Megalopo- Delphi Λυκίσκου (bis) lis

Festival of the Aetolian So-

/ and / BC

Opous

Tanagra

Athens

 118 There is also a tragic poet Aristomenes son of Aristomenes from Athens (TrGF 1, 145), who participated in the fourth Pythais of the Athenians in Delphi in 97 BC. It must be noted that these two figures share many common features (first name, father’s name, and association with musical contests in Delphi).

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period

Reference

Name

Place of Origin

Stephanis 

Ζηνόδοτος Σωπάτρου

Antiocheia Thespiae

Stephanis 

Ἡγησίας

Stephanis 

Θεόδοτος Πυθίωνος

Stephanis 

Place of Performance

Occasion

Date

teria Festival of the Mouseia

– BC

Alexandria

Theater

middle rd c. BC

Athens

() Delphi () Thespiae

() th Atheni- ()  BC an Pythais () after  BC () Festival of the Mouseia

Θεοφάνης Σωκράτου

Thebes

Oropos

Festival of Amphiaraea and Rhomaea

after the First Mithridatic War

Stephanis 

Καλλίας Ἀρχετίμου

Syracuse

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

– BC

Stephanis 

Κάλλων Κάλλωνος

Athens

Delphi

th Athenian Pythais

 BC

Stephanis 

Κλειτόριος Ἀριστείδου (four times)

Arcadia

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

–; / or /; / or /; / or / BC

Stephanis 

Κράτων Κλέωνος

Thebes

() Oropos

() Festival of Amphiaraea and Rhomaea () Charitesia

() after the First Mithridatic War () early st c. BC

() Festival of Charitesia () Contest of rhapsodes

() beginning of st c. BC () beginning of st c. BC

() Orchomenos Stephanis 

Μέντωρ Heracleia Ἀπολλοδώρου

() Orchomenos

Stephanis 

Μιλιτάδης Διονυσίου

Chios

Chios

() Amarynthos

Musical and nd c. BC athletic games in the gymnasium

Appendix 6: Rhapsodes in the Hellenistic Period  

Reference

Name

Stephanis 

Μνασίων

Stephanis 

Νικίας

Stephanis 

Nικομήδης

Stephanis 

Νουμήνιος Νουμηνίου

Stephanis 

Ξενόφαντος Εὐμάχου

Stephanis 

Π[-]

Stephanis 

Πολύμνηστος Ἀλεξάνδρου

Stephanis 

Place of Origin

Place of Performance

Occasion

Date

Epideixis

th–rd c. BC119

Delphi

Festival of the Aetolian Soteria

/ BC

Rhodes

Festival of the Megala Erethimia

rd c. BC

Athens

Orchomenos

Festival of the Charitesia

beginning of st c. BC

Athens

Delphi

th Athenian Pythais

 BC

Delphi

Festival of the Aetolian Soteria

/ BC

Arcadia

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Πυθοκλῆς Ἀριστάρχου

Hermione

Nemea or Peirene Festivals with or Delphi or musical conOlympia or Boeo- tests tia120

rd c. BC

Stephanis 

Σίμακ?]ος Σατύρου

Argos

Delphi

Festival of the Aetolian Soteria

/ BC

Stephanis 

Φιλοκράτης Λυσίππου

Argos

Delphi

Festival of the Aetolian Soteria

last decade of the rd c. BC

Stephanis 

[..-..]ν Θρασωνίδου

Sinope

Delphi

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

/ or / BC

Stephanis

]ράτης Καλλίφ[

Delphi

Festival of the

c.  BC

 119 Given Mnasion’s uncertain date, I have decided to include him in the appendices of rhapsodes provided here and in chapter 18. The fifth- to third-century BC range is determined by the fact that this rhapsode recited Simonides’ iambs (late six – early fifth century BC) and is mentioned by the third-century BC grammarian Lysanias in the first Book of his work On Iambic Poets. 120 See Nachtergael 1977, 319, 321, 429–430; González 2013, 503 n. 28.

  Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period

Reference

Name

Place of Origin

Place of Performance

 Stephanis 

Occasion

Date

Amphictyonic Soteria ]ς

Stephanis 

ΙΑΛΛΗΣ

Stephanis 

[Βοι]ώτιος

IG VII 

[-]

IG XII. 

[-]

Festival of the Amphictyonic Soteria

c.  BC

Delphi

Festival of the Aetolian Soteria

end of rd c. BC

Lebadeia

Festival of the Basileia

c. middle of the nd c. BC

Acraephia

Festival of the trieteric Soteria

st c. BC

Athens

Boeotia

Keos (Coresia)

beginning rd c. BC

 Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period After the Hellenistic period, rhapsodic recitations undergo a significant decline. The numbers speak for themselves: in a total of 62 references for all periods, the majority (46) belong to the Hellenistic era, whereas only 10 pertain to the Imperial Period.1 Such a decline is noteworthy and must be explained. It is the result of significant changes concerning the political context, as well as developments regarding the professional artists during this period. The shrinking of rhapsodic recitations is reflected on the epigraphic material, which is clearly limited in comparison to the Hellenistic Period. It is also implicitly verified by the fact that, of all the available references to professionals during this era, we cannot in any of those cases speak with certainty about a rhapsode.2 Towards the same direction points the use of relevant terminology from ancient writers, such as Plutarch, Lucian, and Athenaeus, who employ the terms ῥαψῳδέω, ῥαψῳδία, ῥαψῳδός in a highly stylized manner, without referring to specific rhapsodic performances.3 The structure of the chapter is twofold: I first study the surviving references to rhapsodes and rhapsodic recitations in public festivals on the basis of their geographical location, and then I examine the remaining references to rhapsodes in the Imperial Period.

. Public Festivals In contrast to the numerous rhapsodic performances taking place in contests during public festivals across the Greek-speaking world in the Hellenistic Period, rhapsodic recitations in the Imperial period are geographically limited to Boeotia, and more specifically to two festivals only: the Ptoia in honor of Apollo at Acraephia, and the Mouseia in honor of the Muses at Thespiae.

 1 See Stephanis 1988. 2 I am here reproducing the view of Gangloff (2018, 131) that is based on an oral communication with Christophe Vendries. 3 The relevant technical terminology about rhapsodes is not attested in [Plutarch] De Musica. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-020

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period .. Boeotia ... Acraephia The surviving epigraphic material provides information with respect to three rhapsodes dated to the period between the 1st and 3rd c. AD. Two of them have been distinguished as both rhapsodes and heralds. Moreover, one of them has won in these two categories three times in total (of which one during the same contest, both as a rhapsode and as a herald). In the following presentation I begin by citing the relevant material in chronological order and then I offer a commentary. .... 1st c. AD 1. Catalogue of Victors Editions: Bizard BCH 1920, 44: 262, no. 12 Studies: Koumanoudis 1979, 222, no. 28; Roesch 1982, 226, no. 5; Stephanis 1988, no. 2846; Manieri 2009a, 122, Acr. 20; González 2013, 515, no. 57. [οἵδε ἐνίκων·] [σαλπιγκτής,] —— Ὀπούν[τιος] —— κῆρυ[ξ], —— νος Ἀθην[αῖος] [ῥαψῳδό]ς, —— [Φι]λοκράτους Θη[βαῖος] These were the victors: trumpeter, … Opοuntian, herald … Athenian. … rhapsode … Philocrates’ son, a Theban.

The extant inscription belongs to a small fragment of white marble from the right side of a column. It contains the beginning of a catalogue of victors in a public festival that was taking place in Acraephia. While Bizard,4 the first publisher, did not commit himself regarding the dating of the inscription, Roesch5 placed it between the end of the 1st and the beginning of 2nd c. AD, on the basis of the form of the letters (e.g. omicron and theta are of oval shape). However, it is not possible to determine to which of the two festivals taking place in Acraephia this column belongs, the Ptoia or the Soteria.

 4 Bizard 1920, 262, no. 12. 5 Roesch 1982, 226, no. 5.

Public Festivals  

The surviving catalogue begins with the trumpeter, continues with the herald, and then follows the rhapsode.6 It appears that in these contests participated contestants from several regions (Opous, Athens, and Thebes). The rhapsode comes from Thebes. .... 2nd c. AD Catalogue of Victors Editors: Α: Holleaux, BCH 1890, 14: 191–192, no. 22; IG VII 4150. Β: Holleaux, BCH 1890, 14: 190–191, no. 21; IG VII 4151. C: Holleaux, BCH 1890, 14: 192, no. 24; IG VII 4152. Studies: Holleaux, BCH 1890, 14: 190–192; Roesch 1982, 227; Stephanis 1988, no. 956; Manieri 2009a, 123–125, Acr. 22; González 2013, 516, no. 60. A ἀγαθῇ τύχ[ῃ] ἄρχοντ[ο]ς Ἀθ[ην — — — —] Β σαλπικτ̣ῶν Μ̅(ᾶρκος)· Ἰστάνιος Μαρκιανὸς Ἀργεῖος κηρύκων Κορ(νήλιος)· Εὔ[καρ]πο[ς] Ἀργεῖος [ῥα]ψῳδῶν Κορ(νήλιος)· Εὔ[καρ]πο[ς] Ἀργεῖος [αὐλ]ητῶν Τύλλιο[ς — — —]αμας Π[ — — —] κυκ[λίων αὐλητ]ῶν7 · Λ̅(ούκιος · Οὐεν[τίδιος Εὐφρ]όσυνος Μαντινεύς ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ψειλοῦ κιθαριστοῦ ἀγῶνα πληρώσας τὸ θέμα [— — — —] Γ κιθαρῳδῶ̣[ν] Λαβέριος Περικλ[ῆς] [Κορίν]θιος καὶ Θεσπιε[ύς].

5

10

15

 6 I am adopting the additions of the first editor, Bizard. The rhapsode’s patronymic is a supplement by Roesch. 7 The supplement belongs to Dittenberg (SIG) and is adopted by Holleaux (1890). Roesch (1982, 227) considers [ποι]ητῶν an equally possible supplement. See the analysis in the main text.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period A Good luck. On the archonship of B (victor) of the trumpeteers: Marcus Istanius Marcianus, Argive; (victor) of the heralds: Cornelius Eucarpus, Argive; (victor) of the rhapsodes: Cornelius Eucarpus, Argive; (victor) of the pipers: Tullius …; (victor) of the cyclic pipers: Lucius Ventidius Euphrosynus, Mantinean; the same one, after having completed the kitharist contest, unaccompanied by song, the prize … C (victors) of the kitharodes: Laverius Pericles, Corinthian and Thespian.

These are the three fragments of a marble slab in blue, which were found near the temple of Apollo Ptoius and belong to the same inscription.8 The place where they were found guarantees that these are winners who participated in the contests that took place in the festival in honor of Apollo Ptoius at Acraephia. The material must be earlier than 212 AD, which can safely function as a terminus ante quem, since none of these victors who got Roman citizenship (as their Latin-related names testify) was named Aurelius, as was common according to what was decreed in the Constitutio Antoniana.9 After the trumpet contest, in which the victor was the Argive Istanius Marcianus, followed the herald contest and then that of the rhapsodes, in both of which the victor was Cornelius Eucarpus, also an Argive. It is not common to have the same person winning twice in two separate contests during the same festival, but it is also not unique. What is worth noting concerns the criteria used for determining rhapsodic excellence. Just as it is certain that in the herald contest the power and clarity of voice were of crucial important, so it is possible that similar criteria must have (at least partially) applied to rhapsodic contests. A rhapsode should have a strong, clear, and evocative voice.10 As regards the content of the epic poem the rhapsode was reciting, i.e. whether it was an older epic poem or a new composition, a careful study of the inscription may yield interesting results. Before we move on, it is necessary to keep in mind that the  8 This is Dittenberg’s (SIG) suggestion. It has been adopted by Roesch 1982, 227, Manieri 2009a, 123–125, Acr. 22, and González 2013, 516. 9 According to the Constitutio Antoniana (212 AD), all free men who lived in Roman Empire would become Roman citizens and all free women of the Empire would have the same rights with those who were born Roman. 10 How important voice is for heralds can be seen by the word’s etymology (< καρκαίρω ‘resonate’, Sanskrit kārú; see DELG s.v. κῆρυξ). In Homeric poetry heralds are usually designated by adjectives that refer to their voice: ἠερόφωνοι (Il. 18.505), λιγύφθογγοι (e.g. Il. 2.50), ἠπύτα (Il. 7.384), ἀστυβοώτης (Il. 24.701). Talthybius has a voice as loud as the gods’ (Il. 19.250: θεῷ ἐναλίγκιος αὐδήν). For heralds in Homeric poetry, see Mondi 1978.

Public Festivals  

reference to the pipers’ contest is based on a supplement by Dittenberg’s (SIG) that has been adopted by Holleaux.11 On the other hand, if we adopt Roesch’s12 addition, who considers [ποι]ητῶν an equally possible supplement, then the overall picture is different, as the reference pertains to a contest between epic poets. In my opinion, Roesch’s correction is less likely to be correct, since in the surviving catalogues of victors of the Hellenistic Period, rhapsodes usually follow (and rarely precede) the epic poets (ἐπῶν ποιηταί), who were composing new poems with which they participated in the contests. The same image emerges from another relevant inscription from the Ptoia in Acraephia dating to the Imperial Period. In the catalogue of victors,13 the rhapsode follows right after the epic poet. Moreover, in another inscription (IG VII 2726) the rhapsodic contest is followed by the contest of the pipers playing the Pythian nomos, without any reference to a contest of epic poets.14 Therefore, it is more likely that the rhapsodic contest in the Acraephia did not contain any new poems. As I have already argued in the previous chapter regarding the Amphictyonic Soteria in Delphi,15 where the names of several rhapsodes are cited, but not the names of epic poets, it would be odd if the rhapsodes performed new epic poems composed for that very occasion, while the poet who composed them was absent and there were no contests at all in which he could participate. The reference to contests of cyclic pipers is also interesting, especially when combined with the reference to a separate piper contest. As was the case with the Argive Cornelius Eucarpus, who participated and won in the herald and the rhapsodic contests, so the Mantinean Lucius Ventidius Euphrosynus participated in the cyclic piper contest (which he won) as well as in the contest of instrumental kitharisis (ψιλοκιθάρισις). The reference to a monetary prize (θέμα) constitutes the earliest attestation of a contest with a monetary prize (ἀγὼν

 11 Holleaux 1890, 190–191. 12 Roesch 1982, 227. 13 Bizard 1903, 296–297. 14 Although the terms πυθαύλης και πυθικός αὐλητής (and not αὐλητής) are attested in inscriptions dating to the Imperial Period (Frei 1900, 60), the argument ex silentio cannot be considered trustworthy. The use of the term αὐλητής for the πυθαῦλαι in the context of Alexander’s wedding at Susa (324 BC) shows that both terms can be employed interchangeably, like the κύκλιοι αὐληταί and the χοραῦλαι (Athen. 12.538c-539a = Chares FGrHist 125 F 4); see also González 2013, 517 n. 151. 15 See pp. 527–528.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period θεματικός) that replaced the contest in which the prize was a garland (ἀγὼν στεφανίτης).16 .... 3rd c. AD 1. Catalogue of Victors Editions: Lolling, AM 1878, 3: 140; Holleaux, BCH 1892, 16: 461, n. V; IG VII 4150; Pedrizet, BCH 1900, 24: 79–80; Roesch 1982, 227–228 no. 10; IG VII 2726 (SEG 32: 449). Studies: Lolling, AM 1878, 3: 140; Holleaux, BCH 1892, 16: 461; Pedrizet, BCH 1900, 24: 78–80; Roesch 1982, 228; Stephanis 1988, no. 955; Manieri 2009a, 128– 129, Acr. 25; González 2013, 517, no. 64. [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [ῥαψ]ῳδῶν· Αὐρ(ήλιος) Εὔκαι̣ρ[ος Ταναγραῖος]· [π]υ̣θαυλῶν· Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἀγρίππας Καισ̣[α][ρ]εύς· χοραυλῶν· vacat [κ]ιθαρῳδῶν· Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἔγλεκτος vac. [Ἀθ]ηναῖος· vacat [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] (victor) of the rhapsodes: Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra; (victor) of the Pythian pipers: Aurelius Agrippa the Caesarean; (victor) of the chorus pipers: … (victor) of the kitharodes: Aurelius Eglectus … Athenian

This is a catalogue of contests that belong to the Ptoia, dated after 212 AD, as indicated by the use of the name Αὐρήλιος17 and Holleaux’s restoration of the name Εὔκαι̣ ρ[ος instead of Εὔκαρπος. Both Eucaerus18 and Eucarpus are attested as rhapsodes in other inscriptions pertaining to contests held in Boeotia, which date to the Imperial Period.19 Epigraphical criteria, however, allow for reading the Greek letter Ρ, a clue that supports Lolling’s20 reading.  16 Manieri 2009a, 125. For the various kinds of pipers, see Frei 1900, 60–62, 67–70; Robert 1930, 55; Bélis 1988, 230–232, 242–244; Strasser 2002, 97–142; Almazova 2008, 5–34; 2017, 150– 158. 17 See what I am saying about the Constitutio Antoniana in the analysis of the previous inscription. See also Roesch 1982, 227–228 no. 9 and 10; Strasser 2002, 117. 18 The winner Aurelius Eucaerus came from Tanagra. Here he is not mentioned as Marcus Aurelius, but simply as Aurelius. 19 Eucaerus: IG VII 1776.15–16, Bizard 1903, 27, 296–297; Eucarpus: IG VII 4151.4–6. 20 See Roesch 1982, 228.

Public Festivals  

We are in no position to know whether a poetic contest was mentioned in the missing part of the inscription which preceded the reference to the victor of the rhapsodic contest.21 González leaves this possibility open,22 which should nevertheless remain a possibility, since on one hand, in the IG VII 4150 from Ptoia in Acraephia from the same period, trumpeters and heralds are mentioned before the rhapsodes (not before the poets), while in another inscription23 the victor of the poetic contest follows the trumpeters and the heralds, and then comes the victor of rhapsodic contest. 2. Catalogue of Victors and Honorary Inscription Editions: Bizard, BCH 1903, 27: 296–297. Studies: Bizard 1903, 296–297; Robert 1935, 442; Roesch 1982, 227; Stephanis 1988, no. 955; Manieri 2009a, 125–128, Acr. 24; González 2013, 517–518, no. 64. Α … [ἐν τῷ αὐ]τῷ ἔτει στεφανηφόρον καὶ ἀγωνοθέτην ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Αὐρ. Ὑπερδεξίου τοῦ Σωκράτους ἀγωνοθετοῦντος τοῦ ἀγῶνος τῶν πενταετηρικῶν Πτωΐων Καισαρείων Αὐρ. Ἀρχεδήμου τοῦ Σωτήρου. εἰσαγωγέως τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Αὐρ. Σωτήρου, προφητε[ύ]οντος Αὐρ. Νεικασίωνος τοῦ Παραμόνου, ἱερέως Αὐρ. [Ὀν]ησιφόρου τοῦ Ὀνησιφόρου, ἐνείκων οἵδε· σαλπιγκτῶν· Μαρ. Αὐρ. ῾Ροῦφος Ἀθηναῖος. κηρύκων· Μαρ. Αὐρ. Εὔκαιρος Ταναγραῖος. ποιητῶν· Μαρ. Αὐρ. Διονύσιος Βυζάντιος, καὶ ἔλαβεν κατὰ τὰς διατάξεις διπλοῦν τὸ θ[έ]μα. ῥαψῳδῶν· Μαρ. Αὐρ. Εὔκαιρος Ταναγραῖος. πυθικ[ῶν αὐ]λητῶν· Αὐρ. Ἀθηναῖος Ἀθηναῖος. κυκλίων [αὐλητῶν. Αὐρ.] Ἀθηναῖος. Ἀθηναῖος. κιθα[ριστῶν Λαοδικεὺς… Αὐ[ρ]. Β … ἀλεί[ψ]α[ν]τα δὲ πάσας ἑορτὰς ἔν τ[ε] πόλει

 21 The same conjecture has been made (González 2013, 517) about the trumpeter and herald contests. 22 González 2013, 517. 23 Bizard 1903, 296–297.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period καὶ ἐν Πτωΐῳ τῇ τετρ[α]ετίᾳ … A … in the same year a wreath-bearer and a contest organizer. Good luck. When Aurelius Hyperdexius, son of Socrates, was archon, and when the organizer of the five-year Ptoia and Caesarea contest was Aurelius Archedemus, son of Soter, when Aurelius Soter’s son was the director, when Aurelius Neicasion, son of Paramonus, was the prophet, when Aurelius Onesiphorus, son of Onesiphorus was priest, these were the victors: trumpeters: Marcus Aurelius Rufus, an Athenian; heralds: Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus, from Tanagra; (epic) poets: Marcus Aurelius Dionysius from Byzantium, who received, according to the rules, a double prize; rhapsodes: Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra; Pythian pipers: Aurelius Athenaeus from Athens; cyclic pipers: Aurelius Athenaeus from Athens; kitharists: Laodiceus … Aurelius. B … who was offering the oil for all the festivals in the city and the Ptoion for four years …

This inscription from Larymna (a few kilometers away from Ptoion), dated after 212 AD, consists of three parts that have been inscribed on two columns. The first (top part of column A) and the third part (column B) are about Aurelius Archedemus, son of Soter, who was both the contest organizer and wreathbearer (στεφανηφόρος) in the same year ([ἐν τῷ αὐ]τῷ ἔτει). The same official was (most probably) responsible for the oil supplies for all the festivals that would take place within four years’ time.24 The second part (the largest part of column A) includes the names of other officials (as is usual in an honorary inscription), as well as the catalogue of victors in the Ptoia. This inscription discloses the process of judging the participants’ performance in the various contests. The explicit reference to a director (εἰσαγωγεύς), a role that in this instance belonged to the son of the contest’s organizer, next to the archon, contest organizer, prophet, and priest proves the existence of an official whose sole responsibility was to introduce the contestants, as well as to announce the judges’ verdict to the audience and participants. The contest director (εἰσαγωγεύς) is already known since the Classical Period. In Pl. Lg. 765a it is specified that the director should be at least thirty years of age and his role would be to write down the names of the participants in the contest and deter-

 24 For a similar case, see Manieri 2009a, 116–119, Acr. 18.

Public Festivals  

mine the order in which they would compete.25 Robert considers the role of the director (εἰσαγωγεύς) to be secondary, bearing no major significance to the contests.26 Manieri, who has thoroughly studied the function of the director (εἰσαγωγεύς) in inscriptions of the Imperial Period, is of a diametrically different opinion. According to her, the official was responsible both for the selection of participants (based on certain criteria, obviously) and for the validation of their application for participation in the contest.27 In a later era, the director (εἰσαγωγεύς) would also deliver the triumphant speech about the games.28 Therefore, this was an official that had been regularly mentioned in honorary decrees, which indicates that he was at the peak of his career. The director (εἰσαγωγεύς) came from a famous family, other members of which would usually hold public office or were benefactors.29 His office would be lesser only in relation to that of the contest organizer, of whom he would sometimes be the assistant. What is more, in some instances, he would be closely related to him, as in the inscription we are examining here, where the director (εἰσαγωγεύς) is the son of the organizer of the contest.30

 25 ἱκανὸς δὲ καὶ περὶ μονῳδίαν εἷς, μὴ ἔλαττον ἢ τριάκοντα γεγονὼς ἐτῶν, εἰσαγωγεύς τε εἶναι καὶ τοῖς ἁμιλλωμένοις τὴν διάκρισιν ἱκανῶς ἀποδιδούς. 26 See his opinions in a series of studies: 1929, 140–142 (= OMS II, 1106–1108); 1940, 509–516 (= OMS I, 633–643); 1966, 733–770 (= OMS VI, 551–88). 27 If Manieri’s opinion is correct, then what exactly was the role of the heralds? Did they just participate in a separate contest or did they have an additional, administrative role, announcing the participants and the victors at the end? From at least 396 BC, heralds of athletic contests would not be chosen by locals; instead, a contest was established for their selection. This development must be due to the fact that the victor’s proclamation (made by the herald and accompanied with a wreath award) had acquired the status of a prize and should, therefore, somehow be differentiated from the simple announcements that were only administrative acts. The double role of the heralds, who were now part of the administrative as well as the competitive part of the contest, granted their profession glory, especially since the victor of the contest had the obligation to announce the participants and the victors to the audience. See Wolicki 2002, 69–97. Crowther (1994, 135–155) claims that the appearance of the names of the trumpeter and the herald in the beginning of the catalogue of victors is clear evidence that the victors of these two contests would also carry out their official duties in addition to their participation in the contest. 28 Manieri 2009b, 103–128. 29 See Charneux 1956, 612; Gallina 1974, 227–228; Manieri 2009b, 106 n. 27. 30 See Manieri 2009b, 106 and 108–109; she refers to an excerpt from the Roman orator Marcus Cornelius Fronto (ad M. Caes. et invicum 2.12.3: εἰ δ᾽ ἦν ἐγὼ πρὸ θύρας εἰσαγωγεύς τις εἶναι λαχὼν τῶν τῆς ἑορτῆς ἀξίων, πρώτας ἄν Ὁμήρῳ πειθόμενος ἀπέκλεισα τὰς τὴν εὔνοιαν ψευδομένας καὶ πλαττομένας καὶ «ἕτερον μέν τι κευθούσας ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ λεγούσας», ἅπαντα δὲ τὰ ἀπὸ γέλωτος μέχρι δακρύων προσποιουμένας). Manieri claims that Fronto’s phrasing

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period The existence of an εἰσαγωγεύς then indicates that all participants, and therefore epic poets and rhapsodes as well, were passing from a preliminary selection stage, after enrolling in the contest. What could have been the criteria for this selection? In the aforementioned excerpt from Plato’s Leges (765a) it is emphasized that the selection of the εἰσαγωγεύς presupposes (as is the case with other contest officials) knowledge of the subject of that particular contest (ἱκανὸς δὲ καὶ περὶ μονῳδίαν εἷς). This clarification only makes sense if the εἰσαγωγεύς judged whether someone is worthy as an epic poet, rhapsode, or Pythian piper, in order to be granted permission to participate. Such a provision was necessary for various reasons: first, no one would want to see participating in the contest someone who just thought of himself as rhapsode, while he was completely unsuitable for such a profession. This was a measure that seemed necessary, since it was likely that some of those who thought highly of their vocal abilities would want to participate in official contests in front of a large audience. Second, there should be a relatively fixed number of participants in each contest, so that it could fit the duration allowed for this specific festival. Third, it was the organizers’ duty to protect the prestige and quality of the contests. The success of the music contests would reflect upon the festival. This observation becomes even more significant when the contests had to acquire imperial approval. Important officials would be present in such events, and no organizer would want to damage the contests’ reputation in front of such people. In this light, a preliminary selection was deemed necessary.31 What form could this selection take? Obviously, it would have been of a combined nature: applicants would have had to present some guarantee of their ability. They might have had to present a short sample of their work or inform the εἰσαγωγεύς of the material they would perform (perhaps the poem’s title, since the performance would have been a recitation).32 In some instances, fame or

 suggests a contest and that, although the author refers to women that he would admit to or exclude from a festival, the use of the term εἰσαγωγεύς means that this official was indeed responsible for the selection and disqualification of applicants to a contest. 31 On this topic, see my observations regarding the Panathenaea in p. 489. 32 In the context of dramatic contests in classical Athens, there was an official pre-selection. During the προαγών, poets would present the chorus; that would result to the selection of only three of them who would participate in the contest. See e.g. Ar. Ach. 8–11: ἀλλ᾽ ὠδυνήθην ἕτερον αὖ τραγῳδικόν, | ὅτε δὴ ᾽κεχήνη προσδοκῶν Αἰσχύλον, | ὁ δ᾽ ἀνεῖπεν· «εἴσαγ᾽, ὦ Θέογνι, τὸν χορόν». πῶς τοῦτ᾽ ἔσεισέ μου δοκεῖς τὴν καρδίαν (‘but then I had another pain, quite tragic: when I was waiting open-mouthed for Aeschylus, the announcer cried, “Theognis, bring your Chorus on!” How do you think that made my heart quake?’). The titles of poems, the producers and actors would be publicly announced before the poem’s official performance, probably

Public Festivals  

participation in other contests might have been also used as an additional criterion in the selection process. The victor-rhapsode Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra is also known from another inscription of the same period, which mentions the winners in the Mouseia that took place in Thespiae.33 In both inscriptions it is stated that Eucaerus won both the heralds’ and rhapsodes’ contest. Winning in four contests of two different festivals during the same period shows that Eucaerus was distinguished for his vocal abilities and the quality of his recitation. He probably did not just have a strong voice (as was expected of someone who had won in the heralds’ contest as well), but was also able to use it euphonically since he was a rhapsode.34 Let us not forget that heralds, too, did not compete by screaming, but by means of pronouncing some phrases metrically (as the use of the term πόδες attests), perhaps in just one breath.35 Cornelius Eucarpus from Argos won twice in the same contest (IG VII 4151), and so did Aurelius the Athenian, as a Pythian and cyclic piper, in the same festival in which Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus had his double win (IG VII 2726). However, only Eucaerus managed (according to the surviving sources) to win twice in two different festivals. Such clues are usually cited in the bibliography as plain information. They are, however, important from another aspect, as they tell us about the mobility of the artists participating in the contests, as well as the rhapsode’s exact role in that particular era, at least within the frame of the contests taking place during public festivals. Eucaerus’ victories showcase, to the extent that we consider that the example of a rhapsode winning in two different contests is indicative of a widespread  during the προαγών, which would take place in the Odeion, built between 450–446 BC (Σ Aeschin. 3.67; Pl. Smp. 194b with a reference to the Lenaea of 416 BC; Vita Eur. 20 with a reference to the 406 BC Dionysia). See Sommerstein 2010, 21. 33 See pp. 560–566. 34 See what Pollux says of heralds (4.94): τὸ δὲ φθέγμα αὐτῶν μέγα, ἁδρόν, ὑψηλόν, πρόμηκες, ἐπίμηκες, σαφές, ἀρτίστομον, συνεχές, διηνεκές, ἀποτάδην φθεγγόμενον, ἀπνευστί, καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα ἐν τοῖς περὶ φωνῆς εἴρηται (‘the sound of their voice was strong, robust, on a high pitch, long, stretched, clear, euphonic, continuous, long-lasting, expressed intensely, without a breath; all that has been said about the voice applies to the heralds’). The heralds were using ἀναδείγματα (special mouth devices) which would help them not to harm their vocal cords during contests. See also p. 500, for the well-known reference in Diodorus (14.109.1–2) to the euphony of rhapsodes reciting tyrant Dionysius’ low-quality poems in the Olympic Games. Gangloff (2018, 141) makes the same point. 35 See Pollux 4.91: εἰς δὲ φιλοτιμίαν τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ προελθόντων οἵ τε καλούμενοι πόδες συνετέθησαν, ἔλεγχον ἔχοντες εἰς μῆκος πνεύματος (‘the so-called πόδες (feet) were regulated so as to control the extent of the breath of those who participated in the contest’).

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period phenomenon, rhapsodic mobility which was possibly more intense in a local level (Eucaerus won at Acraephia’s Ptoia and at the Thespian Mouseia). Such mobility was undoubtedly easier and should be taken as the norm. Regarding the rhapsode’s role, it is striking that there is no case in which a rhapsode and an epic poet are the same person, while on the contrary, we have examples in which the same person is a herald and a rhapsode or a Pythian and cyclic piper. Seen from this vantage point, it is likely that the prize awarded in contests of epic poetry concerned composition and not recitation. Otherwise, there would have been one and the same person reciting the old and composing the new poem. This particular inscription is revealing regarding the fact that more attention was clearly paid to the composition of new epic poetry than to the rhapsodic recitation of an older epic. This is the most reasonable explanation for the reference to a double monetary prize (διπλοῦν τὸ θέμα) according to the regulation applied to that specific festival (κατὰ τὰς διατάξεις). The change of the contest from στεφανίτης to θεματικός had already taken place in the 2nd c. AD (IG VII 4150); however, the limitation of this reference to a monetary prize for the epic poet, in contrast to all other victors for whom there is no monetary prize mentioned, is remarkable. Using the expression διὰ πάντων as an equivalent, Manieri assumes that the special promotion of the epic poet is perhaps due to the high quality of his art.36 The expression διὰ πάντων is used at the end of honorary inscriptions containing a catalogue of victors. It refers, in some instances (IThesp 177, IThesp 178, IThesp 180), to the ultimate victor of the contest who had won in a specific musical contest (poet of prosodion, a comic actor of old comedy, cyclic piper) and had been mentioned in the catalogue of victors.

.. Thespiae Regarding the festival of the Mouseia in Thespiae during the Imperial Period, we have information pertaining to three rhapsodes. Their origins (Corinth, Hypata, Tanagra) show that the contests were taking place within the framework of public festivals and were attracting contestants from more areas of the Greekspeaking world. The Mouseia, therefore, were of a more limited range than the Ptoia.

 36 Manieri 2009a, 128, Acr. 24.

Public Festivals  

... 2nd c. AD 1. Catalogue of Victors Editions: CIG 1585; IG VII 1773; Jamot, BCH 1895, 19: 340–341, no. 15; Mette 1977, IIC, 5c; IThesp 178. Studies: Jamot 1895, 359–360; Plassart, Laographia 1923, 7: 179–180; SEG XXVI, 616; Etienne and Knoepfler 1976, 8–9, no. 19; Roesch 1982, 226 no. 5; Schachter 1986, 176; Stephanis 1988, no. 993; Manieri 2009a, 412–414, Thes. 42; González 2013, 515, no. 58. - - - - - - -ΝΕΙΔΕΙΔ - - - - - ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ· ἐνείκων ἐπὶ Φλαουΐῳ Παυλείνῳ ἀγωνοθετοῦντι Μουσῶν, ἐν ἄρχοντι Μητροδώρῳ τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου· ποιητὴς προσοδίου Εὐμάρων Ἀλεξάνδρου Θεσπιεὺς καὶ Ἀντιφῶν Ἀθηναῖος, κῆρυξ̣ Πονπήϊος Ζωσίμου Θεσπιεύς, σαλπικτάς· Ζώσιμος Ἐπικτοῦ Θηβαῖος, ἐνκωμιογράφος εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτ[ο]ρα· Πούπλιος Ἀντώνιος Μάξιμος Νεοκορείτης, ἐνκώμιον εἰς Μούσας· Πούπλιος Ἀντώνιος Μάξιμος Νεοκορείτης, ποιητὴς εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα· Αἰμίλιος Ἐπίκτητος Κορίνθιος, ποίημα εἰς τὰς Μούσας· Δαμόνεικος Δάμωνος Θεσπιεύς, ῥαψῳδός· Εὐτυχιανὸς Κορίνθιος, πυθαύλας Φλά(βιος) Ἀκτιακὸς Κορίνθιος, κιθαριστάς· Θεόδωρος Θεοδότου Νεικομηδεύς, [ὑποκριτ]ὴς παλαιᾶς κωμῳδίας· [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Θεσ]πιεύς, τραγῳδοὺς παλαιᾶς τραγῳδίας Ἀπολλώνιος Ἀπολλωνίου Ἀσπένδιος, ποιητὴς καινῆς κωμῳδίας· Ἀντιφῶν Ἀθηναῖος, ὑποκριτὴς καινῆς κωμῳδίας· Ἀντιφῶν Ἀθηναῖος, ποιήσεως καινῆς τραγωδίας· {Αρτμιων} Ἀρτέμων Ἀρτέμωνος Ἀθηναῖος, ὑποκριτὴς καινῆς τραγῳδίας· Ἀγαθήμερος Πυθοκλέους Ἀθηναῖος, χοραύλης· Ὅσιος Περγαμηνός, νεααρῳδούς· Α(ὖλος) Κλώδιος Ἀχιλλεὺς Κορίνθιος, σατυρογράφος· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αἰμίλιος Ὑμηττός, διὰ πάντων Εὐμάρων Ἀλεξάνδρου Θεσπιεύς. vac

5

10

15

20

25

30

Good luck; when Flavius Paulinus was the organizer of the contest of the Mouseia, when Metrodorus, son of Onesiphorus, was archon, the victors were; poet of prosodion: Eumaron, son of Alexander from Thespiae and Antiphon from Athens; herald: Pompeius, son of

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period Zosimus from Thespiae; trumpeter: Zosimus, son of Epictus from Thebes; encomium writer for the emperor: Publius Antonius Maximus the Neocorean; composer of an encomium for the Muses: Publius Antonius Maximus the Neocorean; poet for the emperor: Aemilius Epictetus from Corinth; composer of a poem for the Muses: Damonicus, son of Damon from Thespiae; rhapsode: Eutychianus from Corinth; Pythian piper: Flavius Actiacus from Corinth; kitharist: Theodorus, son of Theodotus from Nicomedia; actor of old comedy: [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - from Thes]piae; tragic actor of old tragedy: Apollonius, son of Apollonius from Aspendos; poet of new comedy: Antiphon from Athens; actor of new comedy: Antiphon from Athens; poet of new tragedy: [Artmion] Artemon, son of Artemon from Athens; actor of new tragedy: Agathemerus, son of Pythocles from Athens; chorus piper: Hosius from Pergamum; singer of new songs: Aulus Claudius Achilles from Corinth; author of satyr play: Marcus Aemilius from Hymettus; for all: Eumaron, son of Alexander from Thespiae.

The inscription, which dates to the middle of 2nd c. AD, includes a catalogue of victors in the Mouseia that took place in Thespiae.37 On the basis of the first edition of the now lost inscription, we know that the catalogue was inscribed on the sides of a triangular marble base on which was placed a tripod. The victor of the contest of rhapsodic recitation was Eutychianus from Corinth, who may be the same person as the namesake artist who is mentioned in another inscription (2nd–3rd c. AD) from the same region (IG VII 1886 = IThesp 1251).38 The description of Eutychianus as σοφός (wise) and ὃς Μουσῶν δώροις ἔσχε λόγον Χαρίτων seems to be referring to poetic activity and not exclusively rhapsodic recitation.39 I am referring to some examples: Hes. Th. 99–100: αὐτὰρ ἀοιδός | Μουσάων θεράπων κλεῖα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων Archil. fr. 1 IEG2: εἰμὶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ θεράπων μὲν Ἐνυαλίοιο ἄνακτος | καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος Homeric Hymn to Selene (32.19–20): ᾄσομαι ἡμιθέων ὧν κλείουσ᾽ ἔργματ᾽ ἀοιδοί | Μουσάων θεράποντες ἀπὸ στομάτων ἐροέντων Opp. Hal. 2.26: δῶρα δὲ Μουσάων τε καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος ἀοιδαί

 37 Roesch (1982, 181, no. 3) defines the date further within the period 150–160 AD. 38 Ἐνθάδε σῆμα θ|έασ᾽ ἀνδρὸς σο|φοῦ Εὐτυχια|νοῦ, ὃς Μου|σῶν δώροις | ἔσχε λόγον | Χαρίτων. This inscription was found in the ruins of a church located in the small valley of Episcope, at the northeast foot of Ascra. 39 See also a funerary epigram of the 3rd c. AD, from the region of Demetrias in Thessaly (GVΙ 1074), where the expression Μουσῶν θεράπων is used for an elderly deceased person who used to write poetry; see Santin 2009, 162–163.

Public Festivals  

Is it possible that Eutychianus was not only a rhapsode but also an (epic) poet? It should be noted that the reference to a contest of epic poets is absent not only from this particular catalogue of victors, but also from others from the same era pertaining either to the Mouseia at Thespiae (IThesp 180) or the Ptoia in Acraephia (IG VII 4151). The same is sometimes the case as regards the contest of rhapsodic recitation.40 Gangloff is right to deduce that epic poetry, both as composition and recitation, is losing ground regarding its inclusion in the contests.41 This becomes clear by the fact that the rhapsode is sometimes also a herald and by the fact that the author of the encomium seems to be gradually replacing the epic poet, especially since the encomium is about the emperor. In this vein, we cannot rule out the possibility that the reference to Eutychianus as the victor of the contest of rhapsodic recitation reflects only part of his participation in the Mouseia. The same person might have participated in the same contest as a poet, but not with equal success, and hence he is not mentioned in the catalogue of victors. However, the matter gets even more complex, as we are in no position to determine whether Eutychianus from Corinth who won in the rhapsodic contest (IThesp 178) is the Eutychianus of the funerary epigram or if these are two different persons. Could it have been Eutychianus from Athens who won as a comedian in another contest that took place during the Mouseia (IThesp 180)?42 Or are these three different persons? The wisest (and safest) attitude is to declare our ignorance. What kind of poetry could Eutychianus have recited in the Mouseia? Traditional epic, most definitely, perhaps even Hesiodic. The suggestion belongs to Gangloff43 and is on the right track, if we take into account Hesiod’s association with Boeotia. Hesiod was being honored in Thespiae, where a bronze statue, dedicated to him, was erected, as well as in the Muses’ temple on Mt Helicon, since he was considered the founder of the Muses’ worship. 2. Catalogue of Victors Publishers: Jamot, BCH 1895, 19: 342–345, no. 16; Plassart, Laographia 1923, 7: 177–180, no. 1 (l. 99–55); SEG III, 334; Mette 1977, IIC, 5d; IThesp 177. Studies: Jamot 1895, 359–360; Roesch 1982, 181 Schachter 1986, 177; Stephanis 1988, no. 2859; Manieri 2009a, 412–414 Thes. 43; González 2013, 516, no. 63.

 40 E.g. IThesp 179. 41 Manieri 2018, 141–142. 42 Manieri 2009a, 423. 43 Gangloff 2018, 141.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ· ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀβιδίου Δημητρίου καὶ μηνὶ Δαματρίῳ ἀγωνοθετοῦντος τῶν μεγάλων Τραϊανήων Ἁδριανήων Σεβαστήων Μουσήω[ν] Τ(ίτου) Φλαβίου Ἀρίστωνος, πυρφοροῦντος Φλαβίου Εἰσιδώρου γρανματεύοντος Χαρικλέους τοῦ Σωσικλέους, vac ἐνείκων vac οἵδε· ποιητὴς προσοδίου Εὐμάρων Ἀλεξάνδρου Θεσπιεύς, κῆρυξ Γναῖος Πονπήιος Σώσιμος Κορίνθιος ὁ καὶ Θεσπιεύς, σαλπικτὴς Ζώσιμος Ἐπικτήτου Θηβαῖος, ἐνκωμιογράφος εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Μ(ᾶρκος) Ἀντώνιος Μάξιμος Νεοκαισαρεύς, vac ἐνκωμιογράφος εἰς Μούσας vac Μ(ᾶρκος) Ἀντώνιος Μάξιμος Νεοκαισαρεύς, ποητὴς εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Θρέπτος ὁ καὶ Νεικάνωρ Κῷος, ποιητὴς εἰς Μούσας [Ζώ]σιμος Τρύφωνος Ἀργε̣ ῖος .. μοφάνης Βρο[μί]ου Θ̣ε̣[σ]πιεύς [ῥαψῳδ]ός - - - - - - - - - - - ν̣ ου Ὑπαταῖος, [πυθα]ύ̣λης - - - - - - - - - -οχιανός, κιθαριστὴς [.] Κ̣ αστριανὸς (Καστριανοῦ) Χεῖος, κ̣ωμῳδὸς παλαιᾶς κωμῳδίας Κλ(αύδιος) Ἀπολλώνιος Μειλήσιος, τραγῳδὸς παλαιᾶς τραγῳδίας Μητρόβιος (Μητροβίου) ὁ καὶ Φιλήμων Ἀθηναῖος, ποιητὴς καινῆς κωμῳδίας Λ(ούκιος) Μάριος Ἀντίοχος Κορίνθιος, ὑποκριτὴς καινῆς κωμῳδίας Φλ(άβιος) Ἔννυχος Θεσπιεύς, καινῆς τραγῳδίας ποιητὴς Ἀπολλώνιος (Ἀπολλωνίου) Ἀσσπένδιος, ὑποκριτὴς καινῆς τραγῳδίας Λ(ούκιος) Μάριος Ἀντίοχος Κορίνθιος, κιθαρῳδὸς

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Public Festivals  

Μέμμιος Λέων Λαρισαῖος χοραύλης Μ(ᾶρκος) Ἄντιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος Ἀλεξανδρεύς, vac σατυρογράφος Λ(ούκιος) Μάριος Ἀντίοχος Κορίνθιος, διὰ πάντων Κλ(αύδιος) Ἀπολλώνιος Μειλήσιος. vac

50

Good luck; when Avidius Demetrius was archon, during the month Demetrius, when Titus Flavius Ariston was the contest organizer of the Great Trajanea Hadrianea Sebasteia Mouseia, and when Flavius Isidorus was responsible for the holy fire, and when Charicles, son of Sosicles, was secretary, the following won: poet of prosodion: Eumaron, son of Alexander from Thespiae; herald: Gnaeus Pompeius Sosimus, a Corinthian, who is also called a Thespian; trumpeter: Zosimus, son of Epictetus, a Theban; writer of encomium for the emperor: Marcus Antonius Maximus from Neocaesarea; … writer of encomium for the Muses: Marcus Antonius Maximus from Neocaesarea; poet for the emperor: Threptus, also called Nicanor, from Cos; poet for the Muses: Zosimus, Tryphon’s son, an Argive; …mophanes, son of Bromius, a Thespian; rhapsode: ……..nus from Hypata; Pythian piper: …ochianus; kitharist: Castrianus (son of Castrianus) from Chios; poet of old comedy: Claudius Apollonius from Miletos; poet of old tragedy: Metrobius (son of Metrobius), also called Philemon, an Athenian; poet of new comedy: Lucius Marius Antiochus from Corinth; actor of new comedy: Flavius Ennychus, a Thespian; poet of new tragedy: Apollonius (son of Apollonius) from Aspendos; actor of new tragedy: Lucius Marius Antiochus from Corinth; kitharode: Memmius Leon from Larissa; chorus piper: Marcus Antius Artemidorus, from Alexandria; writer of satyr play: Lucius Marius Antiochus from Corinth; for all: Claudius Apollonius from Miletos.

This catalogue of victors dates either to 150–160 AD or after 169 AD.44 It falls into five parts, as is the case with other catalogues from the Mouseia of the same period: (a) the introductory part, where the first to be mentioned is the poet of prosodion, followed by the herald and the trumpeter; (b) the second part, in which belong the encomia to the emperor and the Muses, followed by respective poems about the emperor and the Muses; (c) the third part, which includes the rhapsode, Pythian piper, and kitharist; (d) the fourth part, dedicated to the drama (poet of old comedy, poet of old tragedy, poet of new comedy, poet of new comedy, poet of new tragedy, poet of new tragedy); (e) the fifth and final part, including the kitharist, the chorus piper, and the writer of the satyr play. The last one to be mentioned in the catalogue is the artist who was declared the best of all victors (διὰ πάντων). In this specific catalogue, that person is the poet of old comedy Claudius Apollonius from Miletos.  44 See Roesch 1982, 181, no. 4; Manieri 2009a, 418.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period Seen against the backdrop of a such a rich contest program, with participants from many cities (Thespiae, Corinth, Thebes, Neocaesarea, Cos, Argos, Hypata, Chios, Miletos, Athens, Aspendos, Larissa, Alexandria), the rhapsode from Hypata seems unimportant. After the initial part, which reflects the beginning of the contests (herald and trumpeter), follows the ‘dedicative part’, which relates to the emperor and the local worship of the Muses. The main ‘course’ is undoubtedly the rotating lyric (third and fifth part) and dramatic contests (fourth part) that were the most glamorous, as we can conclude from the relevant monetary prizes.45 What is more, the rotation between lyric and dramatic contests might mean that their established distinction, both generic and literary, to which we are accustomed, is no longer absolute.46 The marginalization or downgrading of the rhapsode is also evident from the fact that the ultimate victor (διὰ πάντων) in three catalogues of victors from the Mouseia was selected from dramatic (Claudius Apollonius from Miletos, old comedy poet: IThesp 177) or lyric poetry (Eumaron, son of Alexander, a Thespian, poet of prosodion: IThesp 178, Marcus Aurelius Septimius Nemesianus, son of Antigenes, from Colonantiochea, cyclic poet: IThesp 180). 3. Catalogue of Victors Editions: IG VII 1776 Jamot, BCH 1895, 19: 345–346, no. 18; IThesp 180. Studies: Jamot 1895, 360; Schachter 1986, 179; Knoepfler 1996, 142; Stephanis 1988, no. 955; Manieri 2009a, 422–423, Thes. 43; González 2013, 517, no. 64. [ἀ]γαθῇ τύχῃ· ἀγωνοθετοῦντος τῶν μεγάλων Καισαρήων Σεβαστήων Μουσεί– [ω]ν Αὐρη(λίου) Καλλικλι5 ανοῦ τοῦς Σωτηρίχου· vac ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Αὐρη(λίου)· Μουσέρωτος (τοῦ Μουσέρωτος) πυρφοροῦντος Αὐρη(λίου)· Ἀριστοκλέους τοῦ Ἐπικτᾶ, 10 γραμματεύοντος Αὐρη(λίου) Λιβάνου (τοῦ Λιβάνου) ἐνείκων οἵδε· σαλπικτής· Πού(πλιος) Αἴλιος Σεραπίων Ἐφέσιος, κῆρυξ· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος) Εὐτύχης Ταναγραῖος, ῥαψῳδός· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος)

 45 Wörrle 1988, 234–236; Crowther 1994, 153–155. 46 See Manieri 2009a, 29–32 and 418.

Public Festivals  

Εὔκαιρος Ταναγραῖος, πυθικός αὐλητής· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος) Ἰουλιανὸς Τριπολείτης, πυθικὸς κιθαριστής· Λούκίλιος Αἴλιος Ἀλέξανδρος, κύκλιος αὐλητής· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος) Σεπτίμιος Νεμεσιανὸς Ἀντιγενίδης Κολωναντιοχεύς, τραγῳδός· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐφίδιος ᾽Αρτεμίδωρος Κορίνθιος, κωμῳδός· Μ(ᾶρκος) Εὐτυχιανὸς Ἀθηναῖος, κιθαρῳδός· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος) Ἀλέξανδρος Νεικομηδεύς, χοροῦ πολειτικοῦ· Αὐρή(λιος) Ζωσιμιανὸς Γλύκωνος Θεσπιεύς, διὰ πάντων· Μ(ᾶρκος) Αὐρή(λιος) Σεπτίμιος Νεμεσιανὸς Ἀντιγενίδης Κολωναντιοχεύς.

15

20

25

30

Good luck. In the Great Caesarea Sebasteia Mouseia; when Aurelius Calliclianus, son of Soterichus was contest organizer; when Aurelius Mouseros, son of Mouseros, was archon; when Aurelius Aristocles, son of Epictas, was responsible for the holy fire; when Aurelius Livanus, son of Livanus was secretary; the winners were the following: trumpeter: Publius Aelius Serapion, an Ephesian; herald: Marcus Aurelius Eutyches from Tanagra; rhapsode: Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra; Pythian piper: Marcus Aurelius Julianus from Tripolis; Pythian kitharist: Lucilius Aelius Alexander; cyclic piper: Marcus Aurelius Septimius Nemesianus, son of Antigenes, from Colonantiochea; tragic poet: Marcus Auphidius Artemidorus, a Corinthian; comic poet: Marcus Eutychianus, an Athenian; kitharode: Marcus Aurelius Alexander from Nicomedia; victor of the city chorus: Aurelius Zosimianus, son of Glycon, from Thespiae; for all: Marcus Aurelius Septimius Nemesianus, son of Antigenes, from Colonantiochea.

Based on the fact that all names are (partly) Roman and include the word Aurelius (Auphidius and Aelius being the only exceptions), the inscription can be safely dated to 3rd c. AD (after Caracalla’s reforms and the allotment of the title of the Roman citizen to all free residents of the empire). Victor of the rhapsodic contest was Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra, who achieved double victories as a herald and rhapsode in two different contests at the Ptoia in Acraephia.47 Therefore, Eucaerus from Tanagra won (at least) five times in total in three different contests, two of which were in two different literary genres. The fact that he won the rhapsodic contest of the Mouseia is extremely interesting, if we take into account that the victor in the contest of heralds at the same  47 Bizard 1903, 296–297 και IG VII 2726.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period festival was his fellow citizen, Marcus Aurelius Eutyches. It is also likely that Eucaerus took part in the heralds’ contest, as he had done twice (and successfully so) at the Ptoia in Acraephia, but was defeated by Eutyches, who was also from Tanagra. The Mouseia program was richer than that of the Ptoia, but this realization should not lead to the hasty conclusion that Eucaerus won twice in two different contests (herald and rhapsode) at the Ptoia because of limited participation. I am skeptical about Gangloff’s48 argument that double victories in two contests organized during the same festival shows ‘how difficult it was to enlist a significant number of competitors in the Ptoa by the end of second and throughout the third century CE’. At the Mouseia, where participation was extremely high (with respect to the number as well as the geographical origin of the participants), double victories are also attested: in IThesp 177, Marcus Antonius Maximus from Neocaesarea won both as the writer of encomium for the emperor and as writer of encomium for the Muses; Lucius Marius Antiochus from Corinth won as a poet of new comedy as well as writer of satyr play. In IThesp 178 Publius Antonius Maximus from Neocoria won as writer of encomium for the emperor and as an writer of encomium for the Muses; Antiphon from Athens won as a poet of prosodion (together with Eumaron, son of Alexander, from Thespiae), as a poet of new comedy and as actor of new comedy. In IThesp 178, Vipsanius Philoxenus from Thespiae won in the prosodion and the encomium for the Muses. It is worth focusing a bit more on the case of Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus’ from Tanagra, given his success as herald and rhapsode. I have previously emphasized that the importance of a robust and clear voice is reflected on the success enjoyed by contestants who distinguished themselves both in the herald and the rhapsode contests. Eucaerus’ repeated success in these two contests during two different festivals, as well as his success as a rhapsode at the Mouseia, brings even more imperatively into the spotlight the matter of theatricality and its influence on rhapsodic recitation. In chapter 17, I referred to the influence of the theater on the dressing code of the rhapsodes and on the significance of their vocal abilities. Now I turn my attention to a rather neglected dimension of the influence the world of theater had on rhapsodic recitation that becomes clear by the double role of some individuals as heralds and rhapsodes. First, a methodological caveat: in such an analysis lurks the danger of one becoming involved in a vicious circle of inquiring about the main professional identity of individuals like Eucaerus from Tanagra. Was he mainly a herald who also functioned as a rhapsode or a rhapsode who also functioned as a herald?  48 Gangloff 2018, 141.

Public Festivals  

His mention in the IThesp 180 exclusively as a winner in the rhapsode contest could be misleading, since only the victors (and not all the contestants) are mentioned in the catalogue. Eucaerus might have competed as a herald, too, but unsuccessfully so, and thus his name is not stated. What is important is the close relation between the two professions. A herald could function as a rhapsode and vice versa. However, the relation between herald and rhapsode was not a primary one, as is obvious from the fact that rhapsodes start appearing as heralds at a later stage, mostly under the influence of the theater. Since rhapsodes were reciting in theaters and large open-air venues where the contests were taking place, a loud voice would be the decisive factor for success. A rhapsode wanted to be heard by even the most remote spectator. Seen from this vantage point, it may be argued that rhapsodes were the ones who would have something to learn from the heralds, since the experience of the latter with respect to addressing large audiences could be useful to rhapsodes reciting at the theater. The pair actors-orators provides an instructive analogy. Let us examine the following examples:49 [Plutarch], Moralia (Lives of the Ten Orators 8) 845a–b: ἐκπεσὼν δέ ποτ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ ἀθυμῶν ἐβάδιζεν οἴκοι· συντυχὼν δ᾽ αὐτῷ Εὔνομος ὁ Θριάσιος πρεσβύτης ἤδη ὢν προετρέψατο τὸν Δημοσθένη, μάλιστα δ᾽ ὁ ὑποκριτὴς Ἀνδρόνικος εἰπὼν ὡς οἱ μὲν λόγοι καλῶς ἔχοιεν λείποι δ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ τῆς ὑποκρίσεως, ἀπεμνημόνευσέ τε τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λελεγμένων· καὶ δὴ πιστεύσαντα τὸν Δημοσθένη παραδοῦναι αὑτὸν τῷ Ἀνδρονίκῳ. ὅθεν ἐρομένου αὐτόν τί πρῶτον ἐν ῥητορικῇ, εἶπεν ‘ὑπόκρισις’· καὶ τί δεύτερον ‘ὑπόκρισις’· καὶ τί τρίτον ‘ὑπόκρισις’. After failing in the assembly (Demosthenes) was returning home sad; when Eunomus the Thriasian, who was quite old already, ran into him, he encouraged him and even more so did Andronicus the actor, who told (him) that his speeches are good but lack certain elements that pertain to histrionic skill. Andronicus delivered Demosthenes’ speech [remembering it] by heart. After (the orator) realized what the difference was, he hired Andronicus50 as his teacher. When someone asked him what the most important thing for oratory is, he replied ‘histrionic skill’. When he was asked what the second most important thing for oratory is, he replied ‘histrionic skill’. And when asked what the third most important thing for oratory is, he replied again ‘histrionic skill’.

 49 See the anlysis by Chaniotis 2009, 64 and 215. 50 For Andronicus, see Stephanis 1988, no. 179. Plutarch (Dem. 7) mentions an actor named Satyrus (Stephanis 1988 no. 2241) as Demosthenes’ teacher and stresses that the orator understood ‘how beautiful and influential a speech may become thanks to acting’ (ὅσον ἐκ τῆς ὑποκρίσεως τῷ λόγῳ κόσμου καὶ χάριτος πρόσεστι).

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period [Plutarch], Moralia (Lives of the Ten Orators 8) 844f: τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος αὐτῷ ἐνδέοντος Νεοπτολέμῳ τῷ ὑποκριτῇ μυρίας δοῦναι, ἵν᾽ ὅλας περιόδους ἀπνεύστως λέγῃ.51 Since he was not breathing correctly (when delivering his speeches), he paid Neoptolemus52 the actor ten thousand drachmas, to deliver whole periods without a breath.

According to another testimony, Demosthenes would rehearse the speech he intended to deliver in front of the mirror, in order to see what image he would be presenting to his audience.53 These examples show how much the ὑπόκρισις had influenced the technique of delivery of rhetorical speeches. The same remark applies to tragic poetry. According to Aristotle, at a later stage ὑπόκρισις influenced tragic poetry and rhapsodic performances, since tragedies were initially being performed by the poets themselves (Rh. 1403b23): τρίτον δὲ τούτων ὃ δύναμιν μὲν ἔχει μεγίστην, οὔπω δ᾽ ἐπικεχείρηται, τὰ περὶ τὴν ὑπόκρισιν. καὶ γὰρ εἰς τὴν τραγικὴν καὶ ῥαψῳδίαν ὀψὲ παρῆλθεν· ὑπεκρίνοντο γὰρ αὐτοὶ τὰς τραγῳδίας οἱ ποιηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον. The third one of these, which has the greatest power, we have not yet examined, and I mean of those related to acting. For it has influenced tragic poetry and rhapsodic performances at a later stage; at first, the poets themselves were also actors to their own tragedies.

What is more, González has claimed that in the excerpt above Aristotle does not limit himself to the external elements of a certain genre of speech, whether that  51 See also Dem. De corona 308.9; De falsa legatione 336.8. 52 See Stephanis 1988, no. 1797. 53 Quintil. Inst. Or. 11.3.68: Ideoque Demosthenes grande quoddam intuens speculum componere actionem solebat (‘for that reason, Demosthenes used to regulate his presentation by looking at a big mirror’); Apuleius, Apologia 15: Demostenen uero, primarium dicendi artificem, quis est qui non sciat semper ante speculum quasi ante magistrum causas meditatum (‘is there anyone who does not know that Demosthenes, that exquisite technician of speech, was preparing the scenarios of his speeches in front of a mirror as if (he stood) in front of his teacher?’) According to Plutarch (Dem. 7.6), Demosthenes was practicing regularly in an underground study room he had built, in order to shape the way his speeches would be performed and to train his voice (πλάττειν τὴν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ διαπονεῖν τὴν φωνήν). The anecdotal material about Demosthenes has been thoroughly studied and is nowadays dated to the 4th c. BC. See Graf 1991, 48 and n. 36; Hall 2006, 369–370. For the influence of elements deriving from the art of ὑπόκρισις on Demosthenes’ and Aeschines’ work, see Gotteland 2006, 588–608. For the matter of kinesiology in relation to actors, see Taplin 1985, 15, 58–76; Neiiendam 1992, 57–62; Green 1994; 2002, 93–126; Valakas 2002, 69–92.

Public Festivals  

is oratory or tragic and epic poetry, but he underscores the importance of ὑπόκρισις as a method of persuasion. Like the orator, the tragic poet and the rhapsode use ὑπόκρισις to win their audience.54 In the Imperial Period, orators were trained by teachers of recitation, who were called φωνασκοί ή φωνασκικοί55 and doctores scaenici.56 Several inscriptions, some of which are honorary decrees for heralds (IG II2 3169/70, IvO 237) and kitharodes (IG IV 591, Smyrna 145), mention the name of the φωνασκός who had trained the herald or the kitharode respectively. The absence of any relevant information on rhapsodes must be due to the extremely limited material we have at our disposal. If the φωνασκός was training the herald and the kitharode, then he must have done the same for the rhapsode who is sometimes victorious in the contest of heralds as well. Voice reinforcement was not only related to robustness and volume, but also to sweetness. It could also be achieved by using a φωνασκικὸν ὄργανον. Plutarch mentions that Gaius Gracchus, when delivering a speech, had his slave Licinnius with him, who would stand behind his master with a device to regulate his voice. Every time he realized Gracchus’ voice had become hoarse and broke because of his anger, Licinnius would make this device emit a sweet sound, with which Gaius would immediately soften his voice, decreasing the intensity of its passion and giving the impression that he could easily regain his calmness.57 Taking care of the voice was important and that also becomes obvious by the development of some theoretical and practical thoughts on that matter. Aristotle says that actors and dancers would train their voice without having eaten, explaining that this habit is based on the notion that wearing up the voice was connected to the part of the body where it is produced.58 The philoso-

 54 See González’s thorough analysis 2013, 521–639. 55 IG II2 3169/70, IG IV 591, IvOl 237, EKM 1: Veroia 373, Smyrna 145, TAM V, 3.1509; see also Arr. Epict. Diss. 1.4.20; Gal. Hyg. A 6.358.15. The study of voice production gradually ended up becoming the subject of medicine as well, which is why relevant vocabulary is used in medical texts. See e.g. Pall. in Hp. 2.93. 56 Quint. Inst. Or. 2.8.15, 11.3.9, 11.3.22; Tac. Ann. 14.15.16. 57 Plut. T. Gracchus 2.6.3: ὅθεν καὶ βοήθημα τῆς ἐκτροπῆς ταύτης ἐποιήσατο [τὸν] Λικίννιον οἰκέτην οὐκ ἀνόητον, ὃς ἔχων φωνασκικὸν ὄργανον, ᾧ τοὺς φθόγγους ἀναβιβάζουσιν, ὄπισθεν ἑστὼς τοῦ Γαΐου λέγοντος, ὁπηνίκα τραχυνόμενον αἴσθοιτο τῇ φωνῇ καὶ παραρρηγνύμενον δι᾽ ὀργήν, ἐνεδίδου τόνον μαλακόν, ᾧ τὸ σφοδρὸν εὐθὺς ἐκεῖνος ἅμα τοῦ πάθους καὶ τῆς φωνῆς ἀνιεὶς ἐπραΰνετο καὶ παρεῖχεν ἑαυτὸν εὐανάκλητον. 58 Prοbl. 901b 1.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period pher Theodorus (4th–3rd c. BC) had written an exquisite (according to Diogenes Laertius) book on the φωνασκικὴ τέχνη (‘the art of training the voice’).59 The double victories of Marcus Aurelius Eucaerus from Tanagra as herald and rhapsode twice in the Ptoia and his victory as a rhapsode in the Mouseia testify to the fact that rhapsodic performances in the Imperial Period depended on one’s histrionic skills which were taught by professional teachers called φωνασκοί. The significance of instruction with respect to histrionic and performance skills concerned other contests taking place during public festivals, such as that of the herald and the kitharode.

. Other References Other references to rhapsodes in the Imperial Period can be grouped by source. This classification is simply methodological, with no implications pertaining to the role of the rhapsodes included in different subgroups. Eraton’s (1st–2nd c. AD) case has caused disagreement between scholars: Stephanis60 and González61 place him under rhapsodes, while Gangloff62 considers him to be a lyre-player (λυρῳδός), in accordance to the term used by Plutarch, who is the source of this reference (Quaest. Conv. 645d3, 10; 736e4; 743c11). The problem with Eraton is that Plutarch refers to him as ‘skilled in music’ (ἁρμονικός, Quaest. Conv. 645d3). The fact, however, that he sings twice, accompanied by a lyre, the excerpt about the two Erides (736e4–9)63 from Hesiod’s Works and Days (11–26) as well as the passage referring to the birth of the Muses from Hesiod’s Theogony (53–62),64 after having modified them to fit the occasion (736e7: τῷ καιρῷ πρεπόντως ἁρμοσάμενον),65 shows us that this is a  59 2.103: τέταρτος (sc. Θεόδωρος) οὗ τὸ φωνασκικὸν φέρεται βιβλίον πάγκαλον. 60 Stephanis 1988, no. 881. 61 González 2013, 514 no. 55. 62 Gangloff 2010, 52–53; 2018, 131 and 144. 63 διὸ πρῶτον μὲν ἐκέλευσεν ᾇσαι τὸν Ἐράτωνα πρὸς τὴν λύραν· ᾄσαντος δὲ τὰ πρῶτα τῶν Ἔργων «οὐκ ἄρα μοῦνον ἔην Ἐρίδων γένος», ἐπῄνεσεν ὡς τῷ καιρῷ πρεπόντως ἁρμοσάμενον· ἔπειτα περὶ στίχων εὐκαιρίας ἐνέβαλεν λόγον, ὡς μὴ μόνον χάριν ἀλλὰ καὶ χρείαν ἔστιν ὅτε μεγάλην ἐχούσης. 64 ἐκ τούτου σπονδὰς ἐποιησάμεθα ταῖς Μούσαις, καὶ τῷ Μουσηγέτῃ [Ἀπόλλωνι] παιανίσαντες συνῄσαμεν τῷ Ἐράτωνι πρὸς τὴν λύραν ἐκ τῶν Ἡσιόδου τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν Μουσῶν γένεσιν. 65 Strictly speaking, ἁρμοσάμενον only refers to the first performance of the two Hesiodic excerpts. However, it can easily be implied for the second one as well, especially since Eraton had been called ‘skilled in music’ (ἁρμονικός, Quaest. Conv. 645d3). Moreover, the statement regarding the proper adjustment of a typical recitation without the use of a musical instrument

Other References  

rhapsode, who recites epic poetry in a banquet. After all, Plutarch himself has already referred to Eraton’s negative criticism towards the poet Agathon for his innovation (πρῶτον) regarding the introduction of a chromatic musical scale66 during the teaching of the tragedy Mysians (Quaest. Conv. 645e1).67 Eraton could have simple been a rhapsode with a particular musical background.68 Another possible reference to a rhapsode in the Imperial Period comes from a funerary epigram from Athens that dates between the 1st and 2nd c. AD (IG II/III2 9145.5–8).69 It is inscribed on a column of Pentelic marble: ὄντως δίζηαι, | ξένε φίλτατε, τίς | πόθεν εἰμί; Κῶ μέν | μοι πατρίς, ἐστιν ἐγ[ὼ] | δ᾽ ὄνομα Νεικομήδη[ς], | Μουσάων θεράπων | ἄδῳν υμέλασιν Ὅ|μηρο, δόξαις ἐνγε|λάσας περίκειμαι νή|δυμον ὕπνον. Are you really asking, dear stranger, who I am and where I come from? Cos is my homeland, my name is Nicomedes, a servant of the Muses. Singing Homer in the theater and having enjoyed my successes, I am surrounded by sweet sleep.

This epigram is also attested in the Planudean Anthology (219), the only difference being a false dative Ὁμήρῳ instead of the accusative Ὅμηρον that appears in the inscription. Kaibel70 noticed that Nicomedes being referred to as ἄδῳν θυμέλαισιν Ὅμηρον would resemble the actor/rhapsode (?) described by Achilles Tatius (Leukippe and Cleitophon 3.20), with the phrase καὶ γάρ τις ἐν αὐτοῖς ἦν τῶν τὰ Ὁμήρου τῷ στόματι δεικνύντων ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις. Kaibel’s interpretation directs us towards the Homeristes, especially since the actor mentioned by

 to the context of the banquet, where all symposiasts sing the Hesiodic verses along with Eraton (743c11: συνῄσαμεν τῷ Ἐράτωνι), only makes sense the first time (for this banquet) Eraton makes that adjustment. 66 The chromatic or twelve-tone scale is a group of twelve pitches which are separated by the interval of a semitone (in contrast to the major diatonic scale in which the sequence of musical notes consists of tones and semitones). 67 θαυμάζω δὲ καὶ Ἐράτωνα τουτονὶ τὰς μὲν ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι παραχρώσεις βδελυττόμενον καὶ κατηγοροῦντα τοῦ καλοῦ Ἀγάθωνος, ὃν πρῶτον εἰς τραγῳδίαν φασὶν ἐμβαλεῖν καὶ ὑπομῖξαι τὸ χρωματικόν, ὅτε τοὺς Μυσοὺς ἐδίδασκεν. 68 Teodorsson (1989–1996, ΙΙΙ, 346) calls him a professional musician, but González (2013, 514) is skeptical about this view. For Athenaeus’ reference (14.620a: οὐκ ἀπελείποντο δὲ ἡμῶν τῶν συμποσίων οὐδὲ ῥαψῳδοί) to rhapsodes in a banquet, see pp. 512–513 (chapter 19); also Gangloff 2018, 144. 69 See Stephanis 1988, no. 1782; González 2013, 515. 70 Kaibel 1878, 34, epigr. 101).

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period Achilles Tatius is equipped with what is necessary for a war scene.71 However, Gangloff claims that we cannot safely determine whether Nicomedes was a Homeristes or a rhapsode.72 González focuses on the word θυμέλαισιν, which he understands as being consonant with rhapsodic performances in the theater. He is right to highlight that the epigram’s language is traditional.73 I have already discussed in the context of the rhapsode Eutychianus from Corinth, who had won in the Thespian Mouseia in the 2nd c. BC,74 the reference to the Muses, whom one serves (Μουσάων θεράπων) or whose gifts one accepts. I believe that we cannot proceed any further. Another instance in which the word ῥαψῳδός might be implied by the context is that of an inscription from Cition in Cyprus, which, based on the way the letters are inscribed, dates to the 2nd/3rd c. AD.75 μὴ σπεύσῃς, ὦ ξεῖνε, παρελθέμεν, | ἀλλά με — βαιόν στῆθι — μάθῃς | Κιλικᾶν ἔξοχον ἠιθέων, | ὅς ποθ᾽ Ὁμηρείαισι μετέπρεπον | ἐν σελίδεσσιν, δεικνὺς ἡρώων | ἠνορέην προτέρων. vacat εἰ δὲ | πάτρην ζητεῖς, Κίτιον μάθε· πεντάκι δ᾽ ὀκτώ Μοῖρα μ᾽ ἐτῶν | ζωῆς νόσφισεν ἠδ᾽ ἑτάρω. vacat

5

6 ἠδ᾽ ἑτάρω Peek : ᾗδε τάφῳ: marmor : ἥδε τάφῳ Seyrig, Sykutris Do not tread over this place hastily, stranger, but stand by for a while, so that you may learn about me, Cilicas, the best of the young men, once distinguished for showing the glory of heroes of the past in Homeric pages. If you seek to know about my homeland, learn that it is Cition; in my five times eight years (40) of age Fate deprived me from life and friends.

According to Sykutris,76 Cilicas from Cition was a teacher with a distinguished performance reputation in Homer. This explains the repetitive use of Homeric vocabulary (ἔξοχον, ἠιθέων, ἠνορέην, προτέρων, νόσφισεν). Sykutris assumes that these elements, combined with the fact that one can also notice some lin-

 71 3.20: τὴν Ὁμηρικὴν σκευὴν ὁπλισάμενός τε αὐτὸς καὶ τοὺς ἀμφ᾽ αὑτὸν οὕτω σκευάσας ἐπεχείρουν μάχεσθαι. 72 Gangloff 2010, 56–57; 2018, 134–135. 73 González 2013, 515, no. 56. 74 IG VII 1773. 75 Kyriazis 1924, 216–217; Seyrig 1927, 147, no. 6; Sykutris 1928, 110–111; GVI 1305; Chatziioannou 1971–2001, 4.1.220, 4.2.157; Tsopanakis 1984, 398, no. 31; Yon 2004, no. 2083; Gangloff 2010, 53–54; 2018, 133–134, 147–148 n. 2–3; González 2013, 516, no. 59. See also SEG 6.829. 76 Sykutris 1928, 110–111.

Other References  

guistic oddities (1: με instead of μοι, 2: στῆθι instead of a purpose clause introduced by the conjunction ἵνα) are due to the fact that the composer of the funerary epigram is one of Cilicas’ students, who had learned Homeric poetry next to Cilicas.77 Another inscription that might, at least partly, shed some light on the issue, comes from Apollonia in Mygdonia (Macedonia).78 It is a funerary epigram of the Hellenistic era (2nd–1st c. BC),79 that includes ten distichs and is about a child, Philotas, son of Aristomenes, who was buried in the same tomb with his namesake grandfather and his mother. The phrase μουσογράφους φοιτῶν ἀρτιμαθεῖς σελίδας (‘spending time with the filled-with-poetry pages that I had just started learning’), given the deceased’s young age,80 probably refers to a student and not a rhapsode.81 Sykutris’ interpretation is certainly a legitimate possibility. However, other researchers do not rule out the possibility that Cilicas was a rhapsode or a Homeristes. Tsopanakis claims that Cilicas was a rhapsode.82 His opinion is based on the fact that the prepositional phrase Ὁμηρίαισι ἐν σελίδεσσιν does not define the verb μετέπρεπον, but the participial phrase δεικνὺς ἠνορέην προτέρων ἡρώων.83 According to Tsopanakis, Cilicas was known for presenting the bravery of the heroes of the past through ‘the Homeric pages’, meaning the Homeric text. In that case, of course, we should take the reference to a written text as referring to rhapsodic activity during the Imperial Period. González rejects the possibility that Cilicas was a Homeristes. Instead, he believes that a written text could hardly be used for evaluating a Homeristes and prefers to treat Cilicas as a rhapsode. Another inscription from Aphrodisias, dated approximately to 100 BC, sheds light on Cilicas’ profession. It is a funerary epigram in iambic trimeter, in  77 See also Garulli 2017, 144. There are two instances where the word ῥαψῳδός is ambivalent: ISalamis 64, 3rd–4th c. AD and IG IV 682.9, from Hermione, which also dates to the Imperial Period. 78 See Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1975, 119–130; Peek 1978, 265–269 (SEG 28 [1978] 541); SaatsoglouPaliadeli 1982, 295–296; Hatzopoulos-Loukopoulou 1992, vol. 1, 98–101. 79 See Hatzopoulos-Loukopoulou 1992, vol. 1, 101. 80 See νήπιον ὄντα με (17). The age of the deceased child must have been mentioned in one of the first lines of this epigram. Editors disagree: Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (1975, 119–130) adds δωδεκέτης in line 3, while Peek (1978, 265) ἑξαέτης in line 4. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli revisits the matter of the deceased’s age (1982, 296 and n.4) and defends the addition δωδεκέτης in line 3, noticing that, since the child was studying poetry, he should have been 11–15 years old. 81 That is also Peek’s (1978, 268) interpretation of line 16. 82 See also Chatziioannou 1971–2001, 4.1.220, 4.2.157. 83 See translation (above). For derivatives of the name ‘Homer’ in epigrammatic poetry, see Garulli 2017, 141–156.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period which the loss of a certain Epicrates is lamented by means of a list of items (and not persons as is typical in sepulchral epigrams) that he loved and had left behind. Among these items is included an implied feminine noun that is defined by the adjective Ὁμηρικαί. As Chaniotis correctly observes, we should bring in the noun σελίδες (‘pages’, and not e.g. ᾠδαί) to match the other items catalogued in the inscription (barbita and not music, the palaestra’s dust and not wrestling, the horses’ reins and not horse riding, spears and a shield instead of war).84 Making use of the fact that the Epicrates inscription comes from a γυμνάσιον, Chaniotis includes the reference to the Homeric pages in the context of activities taking place in a Hellenistic γυμνάσιον: wrestling, weapon training, horse riding, music, poetry. The adolescent from Aphrodisias would have been practicing the recitation of Homeric poetry by reading out the Homeric text. According to Chaniotis,85 we arrive at the same conclusion on the basis of other epigraphic material referring to a wooden slab (Ὁμήρου δέλτον), which bears written excerpts from Homer’s poetry. The key word to interpret the Cition inscription is the participle δεικνύς, which, however, could refer both to a teacher ‘showing’ his students the bravery of ancient heroes through Homeric poetry as well as to a rhapsode/actor ‘showing’ his audience the contents of Homer’s heroic poetry. Therefore, a finite solution to this problem is not possible. Another reference to a rhapsode is attested in a funerary epigram from Argos,86 which dates between the 2nd and 3rd c. AD.87 Αὖ̣[λ(ος)] Ἀπολλωνίδης, [ἱερεὺς] Διὸς Σεβαζείου, τὸ μνῆμα [κατεσκ]εύασεν ζῶν. Πο. Ἀπολλωνίδ ίων· χαίρε[τε]. [– –]ιον, ζήσασ ἡλικία[ς] ἔτεσι τριάντα δύω. Πολείταρχ[ε] vacat [– – –]α ῥαψῳδέ, χαῖρε, ζήσας ἔτη λ´. Aulus Apollonides priest of Zeus Savazius, (this) tomb he created while he was alive. Publius Apollonides, farewell. [– –]ion, (girl) you who lived for thirty two years. Poleitarchus, … [– – –] rhapsode, farewell, you who lived for thirty years.

 84 Chaniotis 2010, 265–267. It is obvious that the epigram systematically uses synechdoche. 85 Chaniotis 2010, 267. 86 IG IV 649. 87 See SEG 31.312; Mitsos 1952, 146, s.v.; Feissel 1981, 142; González 2013, 516, no. 61.

Other References  

The priest Aulus Apollonides constructed the funerary monument to honor some members of his family: Publius Apollonides, Dio, a young woman (as we can tell by the ending –ιον, the female participle [ζήσασα] and her age [ἔτεσι τριάντα δύω]), and Poleitarchus, who also died at a young age (thirty years old). Poleitarchus is the only one from the deceased mentioned in the epigram whose professional identity is stated.88 The following case is noteworthy because it refers to an epic poet who was also a rhapsode.89 This poet-rhapsode was Publius Aelius Pompeianus Paeon,90 Ε]ἰσηγησαμένου Ποπλίου Αἰλίου Πομπη[ϊανοῦ] Παίονος Σιδήτου καὶ Ταρσέ[ως] καὶ Ῥοδίο[υ,] [ποιη]τοῦ πλειστονείκου, μελοποιοῦ καὶ ῥαψ[ῳδοῦ] [θε]οῦ Ἁδριανοῦ θεολόγου ναῶν τῶν ἐν Π[εργάμῳ,] [ἀγ]ωνοθέτου ἀποδεδειγμένου τῶν Σεβ[αστῶν] Πυθίων After the suggestion by Publius Aelius Pompeianus Paeon from Side and Tarsus and Rhodes, a poet, lyric poet, and rhapsode who had won multiple times, god Hadrian’s theologus in the Pergamum temples, the appointed contest organizer at the Sebasta Pythia

Unlike other cases, we are well informed of Paeon.91 As is evident from this inscription which was inscribed on Memnon’s colossus,92 Paeon had petitioned for an honorary decree for T. Aelius Alcibiades93 on behalf of the synod of the Dionysou technitai for a contest in Ephesus. He was also in charge of the delivery of this decree to Nyssa, the honored poet’s place of origin. T. Aelius Alcibiades was honored with many privileges and honors, among which that of the archpriest for life (ἀρχιευρεὺς διὰ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος).94 In this vein, it becomes clear that Paeon was member of an organization of artists with an important role. We also know that, along with some Roman official named Mettius,95 he visited

 88 Stephanis 1988, no. 2082. 89 González 2013, 490, 516 no. 62. 90 Stephanis 1988, no. 1979. 91 See Robert 1980, 10–20; Bowie 1990, 65–66; Fein 1994, 118–126. 92 These are two huge stone statues of the pharaoh Amenhotep III, who ruled Egypt during the 18th Dynasty. The statues are in the necropolis of Thebes at Luxor. 93 ΙΚ 11.1 no. 22, ll. 1–6, see Stephanis 1988, no. 134. 94 ΙΚ 11.1 no. 22, ll. 25–26. As Robert (1938, 45–53) has shown, T. Aelius Alcibiades lived in Rome and was associated with the emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. 95 This could be Mettius Modestus, Pamphylia’s governor (130–131 AD); see ΤΑΜ ΙΙ 421.

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period Memnon’s colossus at Thebes, Egypt.96 Considering that his visit at Memnon’s colossus and his origin from Side cannot be irrelevant to the two epigrams inscribed on Memnon’s colossus which explicitly mention a Paeon from Side as their composer, some researchers claim that this is one and the same person.97 However, as Kaibel98 has observed, one of these epigrams states that it has been written by Mettius Paeon from Side and not Publius Aelius Pompeianus Paeon.99 Furthermore, the name Paeon is attributed to other men from Side as well. These clues make West believe that these are two different people.100 It is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Nevertheless, in the epigram (Kaibel 1006) in which Paeon from Side is mentioned as its composer (and not Mettius Paeon as in Kaibel 1007), it is stated that Paeon, who had heard in the past of a rumor about a ‘speaking’ statue, has now heard it with his own ears, after visiting the necropolis of Thebes.101 Could, therefore, the first epigram (Kaibel 1006) indeed belong to Publius Aelius Pompeianus Paeon, and the second one to Mettius Paeon? The possibility that the same person wrote two epigrams on the same topic (i.e. the speaking statue) and stated his name in two different ways seems unlikely. The honorary decree, in which Paeon from Side is mentioned as a rhapsode, has attracted considerable scholarly interest regarding his professional skills and generic classification of his poetry. Robert claimed that Paeon had composed lyric and epic poetry, which he recited to Hadrian.102 Conversely, Follet thought that the genitive θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ should not be connected to the genitive ῥαψῳδοῦ, but to the phrase θεολόγου ναῶν τῶν ἐν Περγάμῳ. According to this opinion, Paeon was Hadrian’s lyric poet, rhapsode103 and theologian, perhaps within the context of the emperor’s worship at Pergamum. However, this interpretation is marred by the fact that Paeon is called the new Homer (νέος Ὅμη-

 96 We cannot say with certainty whether this happened during Hadrian’s visit to Egypt (130 AD). 97 Bernard 1960, 48–51, no. 11–12; Robert 1980, 10–20; Gangloff 2010, 61; 2018, 144. 98 Kaibel 1965, 424 no. 1007. 99 Εἰ καὶ λωβητῆρες ἐλυμήναντο δέμας σόν, | ἀλλὰ σύ γ᾽ αὐδήεις, ὡς κλύον αὐτὸς ἐγώ. | Μέττιος, ὦ Μέμνον, Παίων, τάδ᾽ ἔγραψε Σιδήτης (‘although destructors hurt your body, | you nevertheless speak, as I have heard myself. | Mettius Paeon from Side has written these words, Memnon’). 100 West 2010, 11 n. 29. 101 Kaibel 1006: Α]ὐδήεντά σε, Μέμνον, ἐ[γὼ] Πα[ίω]ν ὁ Σιδήτης | τὸ πρὶν ἐπυνθανόμην, νῦν δὲ παρὼν ἔμαθον (‘that you speak, Memnon, I, Paeon from Side | have heard some time ago. Now I know it myself, having been here’). 102 Robert 1980, 1–20. 103 Chaniotis (2019, 41) assumes that it could be the Pythia at Ephesos.

Other References  

ρος) in an inscription from Side.104 West believes that this phrase only makes sense if Paeon, apart from lyric poetry, also composed hexameters in the form (perhaps) of encomia for the emperor, which, as his rhapsode, he also recited.105 The acknowledgement of his performance in the genres of lyric and epic must have been based on his distinction in something more famous than the contests taking place in Boeotia (mainly) during the Imperial Period, which were of limited range. Chaniotis’ theory is more convincing: it is based on the widespread practice of praising emperors with prosaic encomia and hymns, which is indicated by the use of expressions such as ὑμνῳδοὶ θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ θεᾶς ῾Ρώμης,106 ὑμνῳδὸς Θεοῦ Αὐγούστου,107 συνυμνῳδός θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ,108 ὑμνωδὸς ναοῦ θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ,109 ὑμνῳδοὶ τῆς Μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν.110 According to this approach, Paeon was a lyric poet, a rhapsode, and an epic poet composing poetry about the deified emperor Hadrian.111 Thus, Paeon was not reciting poetry to Hadrian, but composing poetry in his honor, making use, evidently, of epic (Homeric) models, such as perhaps the analogy between Hadrian’s homoerotic relationship with Antinoos and the homosexual (according to widespread beliefs during the Hellenistic and the Imperial Period) relationship of Achilles and Patroclus,112 or mentioning Hadrian’s hunting achievements or his relationship to the also deified Antinoos. Chaniotis reminds us that the emperor himself had composed a poem about his hunting skills (IG VII 1828).113 This last possibility sounds rather attractive. The example of the epic poet Pancrates who composed an epic poem including mythical material, in which Hadrian and Antinoos hunt a monstrous lion, is indicative of the trend noticed during this era.114 Paeon

 104 ISide 70.10–11: υ]ἱὸς Αἰλίου | Παίονος φιλοκαίσαρος νέου Ὁμήρο[υ (‘son of Aelius Paeon, friend of the emperor, the new Homer’). 105 2010, 11. 106 IPergamon II 374. 107 IPergamon II 523. 108 ISmyrna 109. 109 IEphesos 1745. 110 TAM V 2.955. 111 Chaniotis (2019, 42) draws attention to the expression ποιητὰς εἰς αὐτοκράτορα (‘poets in the service of the emperor’) at the Thespian Mouseia (IThesp 178–179). 112 Goukowsky 2002, 217–246. 113 Chaniotis (2019, 42) argues that composing encomia for Roman emperors (as well as for Antinoos) was part of the education of young Athenians. See the catalogue of victors at the Ἀντινόεια (IG II2 2087) in Athens, where there is an explicit mention to the victory with an encomium (30–33) and a poem (44). 114 GDK 51–54 (f. 15). See also Ath. 15.21, p. 677D-F (Kaibel).

  Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period could very well be another such case.115 The success of Paeon’s hexametric poetry is the most likely explanation for the conferral of the title ‘the new Homer’ to him. Paeon’s activity as a theologian116 must have included composing and reciting encomia for the emperor, perhaps within the context of emperor worship at Pergamum.117 Everything suggests that Publius Aelius Pompeianus Paeon from Side was a successful lyric and epic poet, rhapsode and theologian in the service of the deified emperor Hadrian. This Roman citizen (Publius being his pronomen and Aelius his nomen) had won multiple times (πλειστονίκου) in contests, which made him gain the emperor’s appreciation. As a result, he was given multiple offices, such as his participation in Hadrian’s worship. His recognition is evident from the fact that he had received the honorary title of citizen of Tarsos and Rhodes. Even though this is a noteworthy example, it should not lead us to wrong conclusions as regards the role of rhapsodes in the Imperial Period. Paeon’s importance is not due to the acknowledgement of his rhapsodic skills, but probably to his close relation to the emperor Hadrian. Tab. 8: Rhapsodes in the Imperial Period. Reference

Rhapsodes

Origin

Stephanis 

Ἐράτων (;)

Stephanis 

Νικομήδης

Cos

Stephanis 

Son of Philocrates

Thebes

Stephanis 

Εὐτυχιανός

Corinth

Place of Recitation

Occasion

Date

banquet

st–nd c. AD

funerary epigram

st–nd c. AD

Acraephia

Ptoia

st–nd c. AD

Thespiae

Mouseia

nd c. AD

 115 Hadrian appreciated the archaic style in poetry as well as the new poets’ predecessors. Moreover, he was patron of the lyric poet Mesomedes from Crete, who, among other things, had also composed an encomium for Antinoos. See Fein 1994, 26 and 47–60; Bélis 2003, 223– 235; Whitmarsh 2004, 377–402; Beck 2015; Gangloff 2018, 144–146. 116 The same person could be both a ὑμνῳδός and a ῥαψῳδός (ISmyrna 500). 117 The term θεολόγος (‘theologian’) is equivalent to ἀρεταλόγος (‘the person praising someone’s miraculous power’) and to σεβαστολόγος (‘the person praising the emperor’). We know of a council of ὑμνῳδοὶ and θεολόγοι at Ephesus (IEphes 645). See Chaniotis (2019, 42–43 n. 44), who draws attention to IG II2 3816 (θειολόγου Λαίτοιο μετάρσιον ὕμνον).

Other References  

Reference

Rhapsodes

Origin

Place of Recitation

Stephanis 

Κιλικᾶς (;)

Cition

Cyprus

Stephanis 

Κορνήλιος Εὔκαρπος

Argos

Acraephia

Stephanis 

Πολείταρχος

Argos

Stephanis 

Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Πομπηιανός Παίων

Side

Stephanis 

Occasion

Date nd c. AD

Ptoia

nd–rd c. AD

funerary epigram

nd–rd c. AD nd c. AD

Hypata

Thespiae

Mοuseia

nd c. AD

Stephanis 

Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Εὔκαιρος

Tanagra

Thespiae

Mοuseia

rd c. AD

Stephanis 

Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Εὔκαιρος

Tanagra

Acraephia

Ptoia

rd c. AD

Stephanis 

Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Εὔκαιρος

Tanagra

Acraephia

Ptoia

rd c. AD

Bibliography Aceti, C. 2008. ‘Sarpedone fra mito e poesia’, in: Ch. Aceti, D. Leuzzi, and L. Pagani (eds.), Eroi nell’Iliade: personaggi e strutture narrative. Rome, 1–269. Alden, M. 2000. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the ‘Iliad’. Oxford. Alden, M. 2017. Para-Narratives in the Odyssey: Stories in the Frame. Oxford. Allan, W. 2005. ‘Arms and the Man: Euphorbus, Hector, and the Death of Patroclus’, CQ 55: 1–16. Allan, W. 2008. ‘Performing the Will of Zeus: The Διὸς βουλή and the Scope of Early Greek Epic’, in: M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford, 204–216. Allen, T.W. 1913. ‘Homerica II: additions to the epic cycle’, CR 27: 189–191. Allen, T.W. 1924. Homer: The Origins and the Transmission. Oxford. Allen, T.W., W.R. Halliday, and E.E. Sikes 1936. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford. Almazova, N. 2008. ‘On the Meaning of αὐλῳδία, αὐλῳδός’, Hyperboreus 14.2: 5–34. Almazova, N. 2017. ‘De tibicine Pythico ludisque Nemeis’, Mnemosyne 70.1: 150–158. Aloni, A. 1989. L’aedo e i tiranni: ricerche sull’Inno omerico a Apollo. Rome. Aloni, A. 2007. ‘Storie di Telefo a Paro. A proposito di POxy. LXIX 4708: Archilochus, Elegy’, in: P.A. Bernardini (ed.), L’epos minore, le tradizioni locali e la poesia arcaica. Pisa/Rome, 73–89. Aloni, A. 2017. ‘Hesiod between Performance and Written Record’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Poetry in Fragments: Studies on the Hesiodic Corpus and Its Afterlife. Berlin, 3–28. Aly, W. 1966. ‘Hesiodos von Askra und der Verfasser der Theogonie’, in: E. Heitsch (ed.), Hesiod. Darmstadt, 50–99. Ambaglio, D. 1990. ‘I Deipnosofisti di Ateneo e la tradizione storica frammentaria’, Athenaeum 78: 51–64. Ameis, K.F. and C. Hentze 1882–1900. Anhang zu Homers Ilias. Leipzig. Andersen, Ø. 1978. Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias. Oslo. Anderson, M.J. 2011. ‘Wooden Horse’, in: Finkelberg (ed.), The Homer Encyclopedia. 3 vols. Chichester, 941–942. Aneziri, S. 2009. ‘World Travelers: The Associations of Artists of Dionysus’, in: R. Hunter and I. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and PanHellenism. Cambridge, 217–236. Arnott, G. 2000. ‘Athenaeus and the epitome: texts, manuscripts, and early editions’, in: D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter, 41–52. Arrighetti, G. 1996. ‘Hésiode et les Muses: Le don de la vérité et la conquête de la parole’, in: F. Blaise, P. Judet de la Combe, and P. Rousseau (eds.), Le metier du mythe. Lectures d’Hésiode. Lille, 53–70 (= 1992. ‘Esiodo e le Muse: il dono della verita e la conquista della parola’, Athenaeum 80: 45–63). Arthur, M. 1983. ‘The Dream of a World without Women: Poetics and the Circles of Order in the Theogony prooemium’, Arethusa 16: 97–116. Asheri, D., A. Lloyd, and A. Corcella 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus, Books I–IV. Oxford. Athanassaki, L. 2009. Ἀείδετο πὰν τέμενος: Οι χορικές παραστάσεις και το κοινό τους στην αρχαϊκή και πρώιμη κλασική περίοδο. Herakleion. Austin, N. 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-021

  Bibliography Bachvarova, M. 2016. From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic. Cambridge. Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. London. Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin. Bakker, E.J. 1997a. ‘The Study of Homeric Discourse’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 284–304. Bakker, E.J. 1997b. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca/London. Bakker, E.J. 1999. ‘Pointing to the Past: Verbal Augment and Temporal Deixis in Homer’, in: J.N. Kazazis and A. Rengakos (eds.), Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis. Stuttgart, 50–65. Bakker, E.J. 2001a. ‘The Greek Gilgamesh, or the Immortality of Return’, in: M. PaïsiApostolopoulou (ed.), Eranos. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on the Odyssey. Ithaki, 331–353. Bakker, E.J. 2001b. ‘Homer, Hypertext, and the Web of Myth’, in: U. Schaefer and E. Spielmann (eds.), Varieties and Consequences of Literacy and Orality / Formen und Folgen von Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeit: Franz H. Bäuml zum 75. Geburtstag. Tübingen, 149–160. Bakker, E.J. 2001c. ‘Similes, Augment, and the Language of Immediacy’, in: J. Watson (ed.), Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Ancient Greek and Roman World. Leiden, 1– 23 (= 2005, 114–135). Bakker, E.J. 2002. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival’, Arethusa 35: 63–81 (= 2005, 136–153). Bakker, E.J. 2005. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Washington, DC. Bakker, E.J. 2009. ‘Homer, Odysseus, and the Narratology of Performance’, in: J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (eds.), The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin, 117–136. Bakker, E.J. 2013. The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey. Cambridge. Ballabriga, A. 1989. ‘La prophétie de Tirésias’, Métis 4: 291–304. Ballabriga, A. 1990. ‘La question homérique. Pour une réouverture du débat’, RÉG 103: 16–29. Ballabriga, A. 1998. Les fictions d’Homère. Paris. Bannert, H. 1988. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Vienna. Barney, S. 1982. ‘Chaucer’s Lists’, in: D. Benson and S. Wenzel (eds.), The Wisdom of Poetry. Kalamazoo, 189–223. Barthes, R. 1974. S/Z, transl. by R. Miller. New York. Bass, G.F. 1987. ‘Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Bronze Age Splendors’, National Geographic 172. Bass, G.F., et al. 1989. ‘The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign’, AJA 93: 1–29. Basset, S.E. 1923. ‘The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey’, AJP 44: 339–348. Bassett, S.E. 1938. The Poetry of Homer. Berkeley. Baumeister, A. 1860. Hymni Homerici. Leipzig. Beck, B. 2020. ‘Reassessing the Scholiastic Evidence for the Cretan Odyssey Theory’, TAPA 150.2: 357–378. Beck, J.-W. 2015. ‘Poetae novelli’, Der Neue Pauly. Brill Online. Beckman, G.M. 19832. Hittite Birth Rituals. Wiesbaden. Bélis, A. 1988. ‘Les termes grecs et latins désignant les spécialités musicales’, RPh 62: 227– 250.

Bibliography  

Bélis, A. 2003. ‘Un lyrikos de l’époque des Antonins: Mésomède de Crète’, in: La poésie grecque antique: Actes du 13ème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 18 & 19 octobre 2002. Paris, 223–235. Bener, F. 1945. Amphiaraossage in der griechischen Dichtung. Chur. Bergquist, B. 1990. ‘Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek Dining-Rooms’, in: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford, 37–65. Bernard, A. and É. 1960. Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon. Cairo. Bernardini, P.A. 2010. ‘Eracle: una biografia eroica tra epos arcaico, poesia lirica e tradizioni locali’, in: E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali. Alessandria, 385–409. Beta, S. 2016. Il labirinto della parola: enigmi, oracoli e sogni nella cultura antica. Torino. Bethe, E. 1914–19292. Homer. Dichtung und Sage, 2 vols. (I, 1914; II, 1929). Leipzig/Berlin (repr. Darmstadt 1966 as: Der troische Epenkreis, nebst den Resten des troischen Kyklos). Beye, C.R. 1964. ‘Homeric Battle Narrative and Catalogues’, HSCP 68: 345–373. Bizard, L. 1903. ‘Un inscription du sanctuaire d’Apollon Ptoïos trouvée à Larymna’, BCH 27: 296–299. Bizard, L. 1920. ‘Fouilles de Ptoïon (1903): Insciptions’, BCH 44: 227–262. Blümlein, G. 1971. Die Trugreden des Odysseus. Diss. Frankfurt. Boedecker, D. 1983. ‘Hecate: A Transfunctional Goddess in the Theogony?’, TAPA 113: 79–93. Boersma, J. 2000. ‘Peisistratos’ Building Activity Reconsidered’, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Amsterdam, 49–56. Bolter, J.D. and R. Grusin 1999. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA. Bonifazi, A. 2008. ‘Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers’, in: E.A. Mackay (ed.), Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World (vol. 7). Leiden, 35– 64. Bonifazi, A. 2012. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Washington, DC. Bonitz, H. 18815. Über die Ursprung der homerischen Gedichte. Vienna. Bonnet, A. 2001. ‘En parcourant le Val des Muses. Remarques sur un concours musical de l’Antiquité: Les Mouseia de Thespies’, in: G.-J. Pinault (ed.), Musique et poésie dans l’Antiquité. Clermont-Ferrand, 53–60. Bousset, W. 1915. Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. Göttingen. Bowie, A.M. 2007. Herodotus: Histories, Book VII. Cambridge. Bowie, E.L. 1993. ‘Lies, Fiction, and Slander in Early Greek Poetry’, in: C. Gill and T.P. Wiseman (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Austin, 1–37. Bowie, E.L. 1990. ‘Greek poetry in the Antonine Age’, in: D.A. Russell (ed.), Antonine Literature. Oxford, 53–90. Bowra, C.M. 1930. Tradition and Design in the Iliad. Oxford. Bowra, C.M. 1952. Heroic Poetry. London. Braswell, B. 1998. A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine. Berlin. Bréchet, C. 2007. ‘Du “grand livre” homérique aux Deipnosophistes: exploration d’un continuum’, in: D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens. Paris, 321–340. Breglia Pulci Doria, L. 1991–1994. ‘Argo Amfilochia, l’Alkmaionis e la tradizione di Eforo’, Ann. Ist. ital. studi stor. 12: 123–140. Brown, G. 1977. Listening to Spoken English. London. Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis, Cambridge. Brügger, C. et al. 2003. Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar: Band II, zweiter Gesang (B): Faszikel 2: Kommentar. Leipzig.

  Bibliography Brunt, P.A. 1980. ‘On historical fragments and epitomes’, CQ 30: 477–494. Bryce, T. 1978–1979. ‘A Recently Discovered Cult in Lycia’, JRH 10: 115–127. Bryce, T. 1986. The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphical Sources. Copenhagen. Bryce, T. 1988. Review of Troy and the Trojan War, ed. M.J. Mellink. Bibliotheca Orientalis 45: 668–680. Bryce, T. 1990–1991. ‘Lycian Apollo and the Authorship of the Rhesus’, CJ 86: 144–149. Bryce, T. 1992. ‘Lukka Revisited’, JNES 51: 121–130. Bryce, T. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford. Bryce, T. 2006. The Trojans and their Neighbours. London/New York. Bundrick, S. 2018. ‘Reading Rhapsodes on Athenian Vases’, in: J. Ready and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homer in Performance: Rhapsodes, Narrators, and Characters. Austin, 98–129. Burgess, J.S. 1997. ‘Beyond Neoanalysis: Problems with the Vengeance Theory’, AJP 118: 1–19. Burgess, J.S. 1999. ‘Gilgamesh and Odysseus in the Otherworld’, CV/EMC [Mouseion] 18: 171– 210. Burgess, J.S. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore, MD/ London. Burgess, J.S. 2004. ‘Performance and the Epic Cycle’, CJ 100.1: 1–23. Burgess, J.S. 2006. ‘Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of Homeric Motif Transference’, Oral Tradition 21: 148–189. Burgess, J.S. 2009. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore. Burgess, J.S. 2010. ‘The Hypertext of Astyanax’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hypertextuality, TC 2.2: 211–224. Burkert, W. 1972. ‘Die Leistung eines Kreophylos. Kreophyleer, Homeriden und die archaische Herakles epik’, MH 29: 74–85. Burkert, W. 1979. ‘Kynaithos, Polycrates, and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo’, in: G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M.C.J. Putnam (eds.), Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to B.M.W. Knox. Berlin, 53–62. Burkert, W. 1983. Homo necans. Berkeley. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA. Burkert, W. 1987. ‘The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century B.C. Rhapsodes versus Stesichorus’, in: Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World (Colloquium Sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Symposium sponsored by the J. Paul Getty Museum). Malibu, 43–62. Burkert, W. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA (first publ. as Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. Heidelberg 1984). Burkert, W. 1999. ‘Der Odyssee-Dichter und Kreta’, in: Chr. Riedweg (ed.), Kleine Schriften I: Homerica. Göttingen, 127–137. (= 2001. ‘Der Odyssee-Dichter und Kreta’, in: Tagung Kreta & Zypern: Religion & Schrift. Von der Frühgeschichte bis zum Ende der archaischen Zeit. 26–28.2.1999, Ohlstadt/Oberbayern-Deutschland, 87–100). Burrows, R.Z. 1965. ‘Deception as a Comic Device in the Odyssey’, CW 59: 33–36. Calder, W.M. 1978. ‘Gold for Bronze: Iliad 6.232–36’, in: K.J. Rigsby (ed.), Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday. Durham, NC, 31–35. Calvet, M. and P. Roesch 1966. ‘Les Sarapieia de Tanagra’, Revue Archéologique 2: 297–332. Cameron, A. 2004. Greek mythography in the Roman world. Oxford/New York.

Bibliography  

Camerotto, A. 2010. ‘Storie cretesi, ovvero alter storie: tra Idomeneus e i suoi parenti’, in: E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali. Generi poetici e storiografia. Rome, 1–40. Campanile, E. 1977. Ricerche di cultura poetica indoeuropea. Pisa. Cardin, M. and F. Pontani 2017. ‘Hesiod’s Fragments in Byzantium’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Poetry in Fragments: Studies on the Hesiodic Corpus and Its Afterlife. Berlin, 245–287. Carey, C. 2015. ‘Stesichorus and the Epic Cycle’, in: P. Finglass and A. Kelly (eds.), Stesichorus in Context. Cambridge, 45–62. Carruba, O. 1995. ‘Aḫḫiyā e Aḫḫiyawā, la Grecia e l’Egeo’, in: T.P.J. van den Hout and J. de Roos (eds.), Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Leiden/Istanbul, 7–22. Casanova, A. 1977. ‘Lite per un matrimonio truffaldino nella Grecia arcaica (Hes. fr. 43 M.-W.)’, Prometheus 3: 21–38. Càssola, F. 1975. Inni omerici. Milan. Cebrián, J.P. 2007. Mythographus Homericus: Estudi i edició comentada, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona. Chafe, W. 1980. ‘The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative’, in: W. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, 9–50. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speech and Writing. Chicago. Chaniotis, A. 1990. ‘Zur Frage der Spezialisierung im griechischen Theater des Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit auf der Grundlage der neuen Prosopographie der dionysischen Techniten’, Ktéma 15: 89–108. Chaniotis, A. 2009. Θεατρικότητα και δημόσιος βίος στον ελληνιστικό κόσμο. Herakleion. Chaniotis, A. 2010. ‘The Best of Homer’: Homeric Texts, Performances and Images in the Hellenistic World and Beyond. The Contribution of Inscriptions’, in: Ε. Walter-Karydi (ed.), Myths, Texts, Images: Homeric Epics and Ancient Greek Art. Ιthaki, 257–275. Chaniotis, A. 2019. ‘The Oral Transmission of Memory in the Greek Cities of the Imperial Period’, in: C. Ruiz-Montero (ed.), Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire. Newcastle upon Tyne, 32–48. Chantraine, P. 1958–1963. Grammaire homérique: phonétique et morphologie. Paris. Charneux, P. 1956. ‘Inscriptions d’Argos’, BCH 80: 598–618. Chatman, S. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structures in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY. Chatziioannou, Κ. 1971–2001. Ἡ Ἀρχαία Κύπρος εἰς τὰς ἑλληνικὰς πηγάς. Nicosia. Christidis, A.-Ph. (ed.) 2001. ‘Προφητικός Λόγος’, in: A.-Ph. Christidis (ed.), Ιστορία της ελληνικής γλώσσας: από τις αρχές έως την ύστερη αρχαιότητα. Thessaloniki, 1022–1029. Cingano, E. 1985. ‘Clistene di Sicione, Erodoto e i poemi del Ciclo Tebano’, QUCC 20: 31–40. Cingano, E. 2004. ‘Tradizioni epiche intorno ad Argo da Omero al VI sec. A. C.’, in: P.A. Bernardini (ed.), La città di Argo: mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche. Rome, 59–78. Cingano, E. 2005. ‘A Catalogue within a Catalogue: Helen’s Suitors in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 118–152. Cingano, E. 2010. ‘Differenze di età e altre peculiarità narrative in Omero e nel ciclo epico’, in: E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali. Generi poetici e storiografia. Alessandria, 77–90.

  Bibliography Cingano, E. 2015a. ‘Oedipodea’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 213–225. Cingano, E. 2015b. ‘Epigonoi’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 244–260. Clader, L.L. 1976. Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition. Amsterdam. Clark, H.H. and E.V. Clark 1977. Psychology and Language. New York. Clark, M.C. 1997. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham/Boulder/ New York/Oxford. Clark, M.E. 1986. ‘Neoanalysis: A Bibliographical Review’, Classical World 7: 379–384. Clay, J.S. 1976. ‘The Beginning of the Odyssey’, AJP 97: 313–326. Clay, J.S. 1983. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton. Clay, J.S. 1984. ‘The Hecate of the Theogony’, GRBS 25: 27–38. Clay, J.S. 1993. ‘The Education of Perses: From ‘Mega Nepios’ to ‘Dion Genos’ and Back’, in: A. Schiesaro, P. Mitsis, and J. Strauss Clay (eds.), Mega Nepios: il destinatario nell’epos didascalico, MD 31. Pisa, 23–33. Clay, J.S. 1997. ‘The Homeric Hymns’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 489–507. Clay, J.S. 2003. Hesiod’s Cosmos. Cambridge. Clay, J.S. 2005. ‘The beginning and end of the Catalogue of Women and its relation to Hesiod’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 25–34. Cohen, I.M. 1986. ‘The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and the Megalai Ehoiai’, Phoenix 40: 127–142. Cohen, I.M. 1989. ‘Traditional Language and the Women in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’, SCI 10: 12–27. Collins, D. 2001. ‘Homer and Rhapsodic Competition in Performance’, OT 16: 129–167. Combrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge. Coppola, A. 2008. L’eroe ritrovato. Il mito del corpo nella Grecia classica. Venice. Craig, J.D. 1967. ‘ΧΡΥΣΕΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΕΙΩΝ’, CR n.s. 17: 243–245. Crane, G. 1988. Calypso: Background and Conventions of the Odyssey. Frankfurt. Crowther, N.B. 1994. ‘The Role of Heralds and Trumpeters at Greek Athletic Festivals’, Nikephoros 7: 135–155. Csapo, E. and P. Wilson 2015. ‘Drama outside Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC’, in: A. Lamari (ed.), Reperformances of Drama in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: Authors and Contexts. Berlin, 316–395. Currie, B. 2005. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford. Currie, B. 2006. ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition’, in: M.J. Clarke, B.G.F. Currie, and R.O.A.M. Lyne (eds.), Epic Interactions. Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to J. Griffin by Former Pupils. Oxford: 1–45. Currie, B. 2012. ‘The Iliad, Gilgamesh, and Neoanalysis’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin, 543–580. Currie, B. 2015. ‘Cypria’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 281–305. Currie, B. 2016. Homer’s Allusive Art. Oxford. Currie, B. 2021. Herodotus as Homeric Critic. Oxford.

Bibliography  

Currie, B. (forthcoming). ‘Theogonic Allusions in the Iliad’. Curtius, E.R. 1953. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. London. Curtius, G. 18795. Grundzüge der griechischen Etymologie. Leipzig. D’Alessio, G.B. 2005. ‘The Megalai Ehoiai: a survey of the fragments’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 176–216. D’Alessio, G.B. 2006. ‘Note al nuovo Archiloco’, ZPE 156: 19–22. D’Alessio, G.B. 2015. ‘Theogony and Titanomachy’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 199–212. D’Alfonso, di F. 2008. ‘La Terra Desolata: Osservazioni sul destino di Bellerophonte (Il. 6.200– 202)’, MH 65: 1–21. Danek, G. 1988. Studien zur Dolonie. Vienna. Danek, G. 1992. ‘Zur Prologrede der Aphrodite im Hippolytos des Euripides’, WS 105: 19–37. Danek, G. 1998. Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. Vienna. Danek, G. 2002. ‘Traditional Referentiality and Homeric Intertextuality’, in: F. Montanari and P. Ascheri (eds.), Omero tremila anni dopo. Rome, 3–19. Danek, G. 2006. ‘Die Gleichnisse der Ilias und der Dichter Homer’, in: F. Montanari and A. Rengakos (eds.), La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, vol. 52, Fondation Hardt. Vandoeuvres and Geneva, 41–71. Danek, G. 2015. ‘Nostoi’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 355–379. Davies, D.R. 1992. Genealogy and Catalogue: Thematic Relevance and Narrative Elaboration in Homer and Hesiod, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Davies, M. 1980. ‘Poetry in Plato. A New Epic Fragment?’, MH 37: 129–132. Davies, M. 1982. ‘Tzetzes and Stesichorus’, ZPE 45: 267–269. Davies, M. 1986. ‘Prolegomena and paralegomena to a new edition (with commentary) of the fragments of early Greek epic’, Nachr. Akad. Wissensch. Göttingen (Phil.-hist. Kl.) 2: 91– 111. Davies, M. 1989. The Greek Epic Cycle. London. Davies, M. 2000. ‘Euripides Telephus fr. 149 (Austin) and the Folk-Tale Origins of the Teuthranian Expedition’, ZPE 133: 7–10. Davies, M. 2007. ‘The hero and his arms’, Greece & Rome 54: 145–155. Davies, M. 2014. The Theban Epics. Washington, DC. Davies, M. 2016. The Aethiopis. Neo-Neoanalysis Reanalyzed. Washington, DC. Davies, M. 2017. ‘The Origin of Things: A Study in Contrasts’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Poetry in Fragments: Studies on the Hesiodic Corpus and Its Afterlife. Berlin, 83–95. Davies, M. 2019. The Cypria. Washington, DC. Davies, M. and P.J. Finglass 2014. Stesichorus: The Poems. Cambridge. Davison, J.A. 1958. ‘Notes on the Panathenaea’, JHS 78: 23–42. Davison, J.A. 1965. ‘Thucydides, Homer, and the Achaean Wall’, GRBS 6: 5–28. Debiasi, A. 2003. ‘Ναυπάκτια–Ἀργοῦς ναυπηγία’, Eikasmos 14: 91–101. Debiasi, A. 2004. L’epica perduta. Eumelo, il ciclo, l’occidente. Rome. Debiasi, A. 2013. ‘The Norm of the Polyp’, TC 5.2: 195–207. Debiasi, A. 2015. ‘Alcmeonis’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 261–280. de Jong, I.J.F. 1987. Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. Amsterdam. de Jong, I.J.F. 2001. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge.

  Bibliography Del Corno, D. 1978. ‘Le aventure del falso mendico’, RCCM 20: 835–845. Denniston, J.D. 1952. Greek Prose Style. Oxford. Deubner, L. 1969. Attische Feste. Darmstadt. Dickie, M. 1995. ‘The Geography of Homer’s World’, in: Ø. Andersen (ed.), Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality. Bergen, 29–56. Dickson, K. 1995. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York/London. Diels, Η. 1888. ‘Atacta II’, Hermes 23: 279–288. Dietrich, B.C. 1964. ‘Xanthus’ Prediction — a Memory of Popular Cult in Homer’, Acta Classica 7: 9–24. Dihle, A. 1970. Homer-Probleme. Opladen. Dimock, G.E. 1989. The Unity of the Odyssey. Princeton. Dirlmeier, F. 1967. Die Vogelgestalt homerischer Götter. Heidelberg. Donlan, W. 1989. ‘The Unequal Exchange between Glaucus and Diomedes in Light of the Homeric Gift-Economy’, Phoenix 43: 1–15. Dougherty, C. 2001. The Raft of Odysseus: The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford. Dowden, K. 1996. ‘Homer’s Sense of Text’, JHS 116: 47–61. Dräger, P. 1993. Argo Pasimelousa. Der Argonautenmythos in der griechischen und römischen Literatur. Teil 1: Theos Aitios. Stuttgart. Duckworth, G.E. 1933. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and Vergil. Princeton. Ducrot, O. and T. Todorov, 1972. Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Paris. Dué, C. 2002. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis. Lanham. Dué, C. 2010. ‘Agamemnon’s Densely-Packed Sorrow in Iliad 10: A Hypertextual Reading of a Homeric Simile’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hypertextuality. Trends in Classics 2.2: 279–299. Dué, C. and M. Ebbott 2010. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush. A Multitext Edition with Essays and Commentary. Washington, DC. Düntzer, H. 1865. ‘Homerische etymologien’, KZ 12: 181–214. Durante, M. 1957. ‘Il nome di Omero’, Rendiconti della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 12: 94–111 (reprinted with modifications 1976: 185–204). Durante, M. 1976. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Rome. Ebbott, M. 2010. ‘Error 404: Theban Epic not Found’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hypertextuality, TC 2.2: 239–258. Ebbott, M. 2020. ‘Homeric Epic in Performance’, in: C. Pache (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Homer. Cambridge, 9–20. Ebert, J. 1969. ‘Die Gestalt des Thersites in der Ilias’, Philologus 113: 159–175. Edelstein, E.J. and L. Edelstein 1945. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, vol. 2. Baltimore. Edmunds, L. 1997. ‘Myth in Homer’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 415–441. Edwards, A.T. 1985. ‘Achilles in the Underworld. Iliad, Odyssey, and Aethiopis’, GRBS 26: 215– 228. Edwards, M.W. 1980. ‘The Structure of Homeric Catalogues’, TAPA 110: 81–105. Edwards, M.W. 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore. Edwards, M.W. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge.

Bibliography  

Edwards, M.W. 2002. Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry. Princeton. Eichner, H. 1993. ‘Probleme von Vers und Metrum in epichorischer Dichtung Altkleinasiens’, in: G. Dobesch and G. Rehenböck (eds.), Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Akten des Symposiums vom 23. bis 25. Oktober 1990, Phil.hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 238. Vienna, 97–169. Eisenhut, W. 1958. Dictys Cretensis Ephemeridos Belli Troiani Libri. Leipzig. Elliger, W. 1975. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Berlin. Emlyn-Jones, C. 1986. ‘True and Lying Tales in the Odyssey’, Greece & Rome 33: 1–10. Erbse, H. 1986. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Berlin. Erhardt, L. 1894. Die Entstehung der homerischen Gedichte. Leipzig. Esrock, E.J. 1994. The Reader’s Eye: Visual Imaging as Reader Response. Baltimore, MD. Etienne, R. and D. Knoepfler 1976. Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 J.C. Paris. Fantuzzi, M. 19882. ‘Introduction’, in: K. Ziegler (ed.), L’epos ellenistico: un capitolo dimenticato della poesia greca. Bari, xxv–lxxxxix. Fantuzzi, M. 2012. Achilles in Love. Intertextual Studies. Oxford. Fantuzzi, M. 2015. ‘The aesthetics of sequentiality and its discontents’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 405–429. Fantuzzi, M. and C. Tsagalis 2015. ‘Introduction’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 1–40. Fantuzzi, M. and C. Tsagalis (eds.) 2015. The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception. Cambridge. Faraone, C. 2005. ‘Catalogues, Priamels, and Stanzaic Structure’, TAPA 135: 249–265. Farnell, L.R. 1896–1909. Cults of the Greek States. Oxford. Faulkner, A. 2008. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford. Fein, S. 1994. Die Beziehungen der Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian zu den litterati. Stuttgart. Feissel, D. 1981. ‘Trois aspects de l’influence du latin sur le grec tardif’, Travaux et mémoirs du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantines 8: 135–150. Fenik, B. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Wiesbaden. Fenik, B. 1974. Studies in the Odyssey. Wiesbaden. Feyel, M. 1942. Contribution à l'épigraphie béotienne. Le Puy. Fick, A. 1887. Hesiods Gedichte in ihrer ursprunglichen Fassung und Sprachform wiederhergestellt. Göttingen. Finglass, P. 2014: see Davies and Finglass. Finkelberg, M. 1990. ‘A Creative Oral Poet and the Muse’, AJP 111: 293–303 (= 2020, 118–126). Finkelberg, M. 1998. The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece. Oxford. Finkelberg, M. 2000. ‘The Cypria, the Iliad, and the Problem of Multiformity in Oral and Written Tradition’, CP 95: 1–11 (= 2020, 305–317). Finkelberg, M. 2002. ‘The Sources of Iliad 7’, Colby Quarterly 38: 151–161 (= 2020, 140–149). Finkelberg, M. 2003. ‘Homer as a Foundation Text’, in: M. Finkelberg and G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond. Leiden, 75–96 (= 2020, 318–330). Finkelberg, M. 2011. ‘Homer and His Peers: Neoanalysis, Oral Theory and the Status of Homer’, TC 3: 197–208 (= 2020, 158–168).

  Bibliography Finkelberg, M. 2012. ‘Oral Formulaic Theory and the Individual Poet’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts, Berlin/New York, 73–82 (= 2020, 95– 103). Finkelberg, M. 2015. ‘Meta-Cyclic Epic and Homeric Poetry’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception. Cambridge, 126–138 (= 2020, 169–181). Finkelberg, M. 2020. Homer and Early Greek Epic. Berlin. Fitter, C. 1995. Poetry, Space, Landscape: Toward a New Theory. Cambridge. Fitzgerald, A. 1926. Letters of Synesius of Cyrene. London. Fletcher, K. 2006. ‘Review of R. Hunter, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions, Cambridge, 2005’, BMCR 2006–10–03. Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a “Natural” Narratology. London. Focke, F. 1954. ‘Zum I der Ilias’, Hermes 82: 257–287. Foley, H.P. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton. Foley, J.M. 1991. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington. Foley, J.M. 1999. Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park. Foley, J. M. and J. Arft 2015. ‘The Epic Cycle and Oral Tradition’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 78–95. Forbes Irving, P.M.C. 1990. Metamorphosis in Greek Myths. Oxford. Ford, A. 1988. ‘The Classical Definition of ΡΑΨΩΙΔΙΑ’, CP 83: 300–307. Ford, A. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca, NY. Ford, A. 1997. ‘The Inland Ship: Problems in the Performance and Reception of Homeric Epic’, in: E. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text. Cambridge, MA, 83–109. Ford, A. 2011. ‘Singers’, in: M. Finkelberg (ed.), The Homer Encyclopedia, 3 vols. Malden, 804. Forrest, W.G. 1981. ‘A Lost Peisistratid Name’, JHS 101: 134. Forsdyke, J. (Sir). 1956. Greece before Homer: Ancient Chronology and Mythology. London. Foucault, M. 1986. ‘Of Other Spaces’, trans. by J. Miscowiec, Diacritics 16: 22–27. Fowler, D. 2000. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford. Fowler, R.L. 1998. ‘Genealogical Thinking: Hesiod’s Catalogue and the Creation of the Hellenes’, PCPS 44: 1–19. Fowler, R.L. 2004. ‘The Homeric Question’, in: R.L. Fowler (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Homer. Cambridge, 220–232. Frame, D. 1971. The Origins of Greek NOYΣ, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Frame, D. 1978. The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic. New Haven. Frame, D. 2009. Hippota Nestor. Washington, DC. Fränkel, H. 1921. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen. Fränkel, H. 19622. Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Munich. Frédéric, M. 1985. La répétition: étude linguistique et rhétorique. Tübingen. Frei, J. 1900. De certaminibus thymelicis. Bâle. Frei, P. 1978. ‘Die Lykier bei Homer’, in: E. Akurgal (ed.), Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology: Ankara-Izmir 1973. Ankara, 819–827. Frei, P. 1993. ‘Solymer, Milyer, Termilen, Lykier: ethnische und politische Einheiten auf der lykischen Halbinsel’, in: J. Borchhardt, R. Jacobek, and A. Dinstl (eds.), Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien. Vienna, 7–17. Friedman, S.S. 2005. ‘Spatial Poetics and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things’, in: J. Phelan and P.J. Rabinowitz (eds.), A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford, 192–205.

Bibliography  

Friis Johansen, K. 1967. The “Iliad” in Early Greek Art. Copenhagen. Fuchs, E. 1993. Pseudologia: Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Heidelberg. Gainsford, P. 2015. Early Greek Hexameter Poetry. Cambridge. Gaisser, J.H. 1969a. ‘A Structural Analysis of the Digressions in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, HSCP 73: 1–43. Gaisser, J.H. 1969b. ‘Adaptation of Traditional Material in the Glaucus-Diomedes Episode’, TAPA 100: 165–176. Gallina, M. 1974. ‘Appendice II’, in: D. de Bernardi Ferrero (ed.), Teatri classici in Asia minore, IV: Deduzioni e proposte. Rome, 193–197. Gambiato, M. 2000. ‘The Female-Kings: Some Aspects of the Representation of Eastern Kings in the Deipnosophistae’, in: D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Exeter, 227–230. Gangloff, A. 2010. ‘Rhapsodes et poètes épiques à l’époque impériale’, RÉG 123: 51–70. Gangloff, Α. 2018. ‘Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Contests in the Imperial Period’, in: J.L. Ready and C.C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homer in Performance: Rhapsodes, Narrators, & Characters. Austin, 130–150. Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore. García, J.F. 2002. ‘Ritual Speech in Early Greek Song’, in: I. Worthington and J.M. Foley (eds.), Epea & Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece. Leiden, 29–53. Garulli, V. 2017. ‘Les dérivés du nom d’Homère dans la tradition épigrammatique grecque’, in: Y. Durbec and F. Trabjer (eds.), Traditions épiques et poésie épigrammatique. Leuven, 141–156. Garzya, A. 1979. Synesii Cyrenensis Epistolae. Rome. Gelzer, T. 1987. ‘Bemerkungen zu Homerische Ares-Hymnus (Hom. Hy. 8)’, MH 44: 150–167. Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, trans. J.E. Lewin. Ithaca, NY (French original Paris 1972). Gentili, B. 1988. Poetry and Its Public in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the Fifth Century. Trans. A.T. Cole. Baltimore. Glenn, J. 1971. ‘The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer’s Kyklopeia’, TAPA 102: 133–181. Godley, A.D. 1920. Herodotus. Cambridge, MA. Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics in Greek Literature. Cambridge. González, J.M. 2013. The Epic Rhapsode and His Craft. Washington, DC. González, J.M. 2020. ‘Rhapsodes and the Homēridai’, in: C. Pache (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Homer. Cambridge, 196–188. Gordesiani, R.V. 1986. Kriterien der Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeit im homerischen Epos. Frankfurt. Goslin, O. 2010. ‘Hesiod’s Typhonomachy and the Ordering of Sound’, TAPA 140: 351–373. Gotteland, S. 2006. ‘La Sirène et l’enchanteur: portraits croisés d’Éschine et de Démosthène à la tribune’, RÉG 119: 588–608. Goukowsky, P. 2002. ‘Sur une épigramme des Thespies’, in: J. Dion (ed.), L’épigramme de l’Antiquité au XVIIe siècle ou Du ciseau à la pointe. Nancy, 217–246. Gould, J. 1973. ‘Hiketeia’, JHS 93: 74–103. Graf, F. 1991. ‘Gestures and Conventions: The Gestures of Roman Actors and Orators’, in: J. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture from Antiquity to the Present Day. Cambridge, 36–58. Grandolini, S. 1996. Canti e aedi nei poemi omerici: Edizione e commento. Pisa.

  Bibliography Graver, M. 1995. ‘Dog-Helen and Homeric Insult’, CA 14.1: 41–61. Graziosi, B. 2002. Inventing Homer. The Early Reception of Epic. Cambridge. Green, J.R. 1994. Theatre in Ancient Greek Society. London. Green, J.R. 2002. ‘Towards a Reconstruction of Performance Style’, in: P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge, 93–126. Grethlein, J. 2006. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Berlin. Griffin, J. 1977. ‘The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer’, JHS 97: 39–53. Griffin, J. 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin, J. 1986. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers’, JHS 106: 36–57. Griffin, J. 1995. Iliad: Book Nine. Oxford. Griffith, M. 1983. ‘Personality in Hesiod’, CA 2: 37–65. Griffith, R.D. 2005. ‘Gods’ Blue Hair in Homer and in Eighteenth-Dynasty Egypt’, CQ 55: 329–334. Groddeck, G.E. 1786. De Hymnorum Homericorum Reliquiis. Göttingen. Grossardt, P. 1998. Die Trugreden in der Odyssee und ihre Rezeption in der antiken Literatur. Frankfurt. Grossberg, L. 1996. ‘The Space of Culture, the Power of Space’, in: I. Chambers and L. Curti (eds.), The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons. London, 169–188. Grote, G. 18692. A History of Greece, vol. 2. London. Groten, F.G. 1968. ‘Homer’s Helen’, Greece & Rome 15: 33–39. Guarducci, M. 1935–1950. Inscriptiones Creticae, 4 vols. Rome. Guggenheimer, E.H. 1972. Rhyme Effects and Rhyming Figures: A Comparative Study of Sound Repetitions in the Classics with Emphasis on Latin Poetry. The Hague. Günzel, S. (ed.) 2010. Raum. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Stuttgart. Hadjicosti, I.L. 2005. ‘Death by a Turtle. The Route of a Motif from Telegonia to the Vita of Aeschylus’, Eranos 103: 78–82. Hadzis, C.D. 1997. ‘Corinthiens, Lyciens, Doriens et Cariens: Aoreis à Corinthe, Aoroi à Corcyre, Aor fils de Chrysaor et Alétès fils d’Hippotès’, BCH 121: 1–14. Hainsworth, B. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge. Hall, E. 2006. The Theatrical Cast of Athens. Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society. Oxford. Halliwell, S. 1995: see Innes, Halliwell, and Fyfe. Hamilton, R. 1989a. The Architecture of Hesiodic Poetry. Baltimore. Hamilton, R. 1989b. ‘Alkman and the Athenian Arkteia’, Hesperia 58: 449–472. Handley, E. 1957. The Telephus of Euripides. London. Hansen, W. 1972. The Conference Sequence: Patterned Narration and Narrative Inconsistency in the Odyssey, Berkeley. Hansen, W. 1977. ‘Odysseus’ Last Journey’, QUCC 24: 27–48. Hansen, W. 1990. ‘Odysseus and the Oar: A Folkloric Approach’, in: L. Edmunds (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth. Baltimore, 241–272. Hansen, W. 1997. ‘Homer and the Folktale’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 442–462. Hansen, W. 2002. Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature. Ithaca, NY. Hartmann, A. 1917. Untersuchungen über die Sagen vom Tod des Odysseus. Munich. Hatzopoulos, M.B. and L.D. Loukopoulou 1992. Recherches sur les marches orientales des Temenides (Anthemonte-Kalindoia), vol. 1. Athens.

Bibliography  

Haubold, J. 2005. ‘Heracles in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 85–98. Havelock, E.A. 1982. The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Consequences. Princeton. Havelock, E.A. 1986. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections On Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven. Heiden, B. 2007. ‘The Muses’ Uncanny Lies: Hesiod, Theogony 27 and its Translators’, AJP 49: 153–175. Heitsch, E. 2001. Gesammelte Schriften. i. Zum frühgriechischen Epos. Munich/Leipzig. Heitsch, E. 2005. ‘Ilias und Aithiopis’, Gymnasium 112: 431–441. Hellwig, B. 1964. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Hildesheim. Henrichs, A. 1975. ‘Philodems De Pietate als mythographische Quelle’, CrErc 5: 5–38. Hercher, R. 1873 (repr. 1965). Epistolographi Graeci. Paris. Herington, J. 1985. Poetry into Drama: Early Tragedy and the Greek Poetic Tradition. Berkeley. Herman, D. 2002. Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln. Hermann, K.F. 1846. Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, vol. 2. Heidelberg. Heslin, P.J. 2005. The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius’ Achilleid. Cambridge. Heubeck, A. 1974. Die homerische Frage: ein Bericht über die Forschung der letzten Jahrzehnte. Darmstadt. Heubeck, A. 1984. Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur. Erlangen. Heubeck, A. 1986. ‘ἐρινύς in der archaischen Epik’, Glotta 64: 143–165. Higbie, C. 1990. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Higbie, C. 1995. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. New York. Hiller, S. 1993. ‘Lykien und Lykier bei Homer und in mykenischer Zeit’, in: J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch (eds.), Akten des II. Internationalen Lykiens Symposions, Wien 6–12 Mai 1990. Vienna, 107–115. Hirschberger, M. 2001. ‘Die Erzählungen der Frauen in der Nekyia der Odyssee’, in: M. PaïsiApostolopoulou (ed.), Eranos. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on the Odyssey. Ithaki, 123–151. Hirschberger, M. 2004. Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen. Munich/Leipzig. Hoesktra, A. et al. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books ix-xvi. Oxford. Höfer, O. 1897–1909. ‘Polypoites’, ALGRM: iii.2715–2717. Hofmann, H. 1971. ‘Hesiod Theogonie V. 35’, Gymnasium 78: 90–97. Hölscher, U. 1978. ‘The Transformation from Folk-Tale to Epic’, in: B.C. Fenik (ed.), Homer: Tradition and Invention. Leiden, 51–67. Hölscher, U. 19903. Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman. Munich. Holt, P. 1992. ‘Ajax’s Burial in Early Greek Epic’, AJP 113.3: 319–331. Holleaux, M. 1890. ‘Inscriptions du temple d’Apollon Ptoos’, BCH 14: 1–64 and 181–204. Holleaux, M. 1892. ‘Notes d’épigraphie béotienne’, BCH 16: 453–473. Homeyer, H. 1977. Die spartanische Helena und der trojanische Krieg: Wandelungen und Wanderungen eines Sagenkreis vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart. Wiesbaden. Hopkinson, N. 1982. ‘Juxtaposed Prosodic Variants in Greek and Latin Poetry’, Glotta 60.3/4: 162–177. Hornblower, S. 2015. Lykophron: Alexandra. Greek Text, Translation, Commentary, and Introduction. Oxford. Hornby, P.A. 1972. ‘The psychological subject and predicate’, Cognitive Psychology, 3: 632– 642.

  Bibliography Hubbard, T.K. 1992. ‘Remaking Myth and Rewriting History: Cult Tradition in Pindar’s Ninth Nemean’, HSCP 94: 77–111. Hunter, R. 2009. ‘Hesiod’s Style: Towards an Ancient Analysis’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden/Boston, 253–269. Hunter, R. 2014. Hesiodic Voices: Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days. Cambridge. Husson, G. 1993. ‘Les homéristes’, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 23: 93–99. Huxley, G.L. 1960. ‘Homerica II: Eugamon’, GRBS 3: 23–28. Huxley, G.L. 1969. Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis. London. Ilgen, C.D. 1796. Hymni Homerici cum Reliquis Carminibus Minoribus Homero Tribui Solutis et Batrachomyomachia. Halle. Innes, D.C., S. Halliwell, and W.H. Fyfe 1995. Aristotle: Poetics, Longinus: On the Sublime, Demetrius: On Style. Cambridge, MA/London. Irwin, E. 2005. ‘Gods among Men? The Social and Political Dynamics of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 35–84. Jamot, P. 1895. ‘Fouilles de Thespies: Les jeux en l’honneur des Muses’, BCH 19: 21–366. Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction. Cambridge. Janko, R. 1986. ‘The Shield of Heracles and the Legend of Cycnus’, CQ 36: 38–59. Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad: A Commentary, Volume IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge. Janko, R. 2000. Philodemus. On Poems Book I. Oxford. Jebb, R.C. 19057. Homer. Glasgow. Jenniges, W. 1998. ‘Les Lyciens dans l’Iliade: sur les traces de Pandaros’, in: L. Isebaert and R. Lebrun (eds.), Quaestiones Homericae: acta Colloqui Namurcensis, habiti diebus 7–9 mensis Septembris anni 1995. Leuven, 119–147. Jensen, M.S. 1980. The Homeric Question and the Oral-Formulaic Theory. Copenhagen. Jones, W.H.S. 1965–1971. Pausanias: Description of Greece, 5 vols. Cambridge, MA/London. Jouan, F. 1966. Euripide et les légendes des Chants Cypriens: des origines de la guerre de Troie à l’Iliade. Paris. Jouan, F. 1980. ‘Le Cycle épique: État des questions’, Association Guillaume Budé, Actes du Xe Congrès. Paris, 83–104. Jowett, B. 19313. The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 3. Oxford. Judet de la Combe, P. 1996. ‘La dernière ruse: ‘Pandore’ dans la Théogonie’, in: F. Blaise, P. Judet de la Combe, and P. Rousseau (eds.), Le métier du mythe. Lectures d’Hésiode. Lille, 263–299. Kahane, A. 1994. The Interpretation of Order. A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford. Kahane, A. 1997. ‘Quantifying Epic’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell, A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 326–342. Kaibel, G. 1878 (repr. 1965). Epigrammata graeca ex lapidibus collecta. Hildesheim. Kaibel, G. 1887–1890 (repr. Stuttgart 1965–1966). Dipnosophistarum libri xv. Kakridis, J.T. 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund. Kakridis, J.T. 1971. Homer Revisited. Lund. Kakridis, J.T. 1980. Προομηρικά, Ομηρικά, Ησιόδεια. Athens. Kakridis, J.T. 1982. ‘Μετακένωσις’, WS 16: 5–12.

Bibliography  

Kakridis, P. 1995. ‘Odysseus und Palamedes’, in: Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie (eds.), Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality. Bergen, 91–100. Kalinka, E. 1901: see TAM I. Kalinka, E. 1920–1944: see TAM II. Kambylis, A. 1965. Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik. Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius. Heidelberg. Karavites, P.P. 1992. Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making. Homer and the Near East. Leiden. Kees, H. 1933. Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients. iii.1. Agypten. Munich. Kelly, A. 2007a. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII. Oxford. Kelly, A. 2007b. ‘How to End an Orally-Derived Epic Poem’, TAPA 137: 371–402. Kelly, A. 2012. ‘The Audience Expects: Penelope and Odysseus’, in: E. Minchin (ed.), Orality, Literacy, and Performance in the Ancient World. Leiden, 3–24. Kelly, A. 2015. ‘Ilias parva’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 318–343. Kiene, A. 1864. Die Komposition der Ilias. Göttingen. King, B. 1999. ‘The Rhetoric of the Victim: Odysseus in the Swineherd’s Hut’, CA 18: 74–93. Kirk, G.S. 1962. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge. Kirk, G.S. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge. Kirk, G.S. 1990. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 2: Books 5–8. Cambridge. Knoepfler, D. 1988. ‘Sur les traces de l’Artémision d’Amarynthos près d’Érétrie’, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 132: 382–421. Knoepfler, D. 1996. ‘La réorganisation du concours des Mouseia à l’époque hellénistique: Esquisse d’une solution nouvelle’, in: A. Hurst and A. Schachter (eds.), La montagne des Muses. Geneva, 141–167. Knoepfler, D. 2004. ‘Les Rômaia de Thèbes: Un nouveau concours musical (et athlétique?) en Béotie’, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 148: 1241–1279. Koller, H. 1957. ‘Hypokrisis und Hypokrites’, MH 14: 100–107. Koning, H. 2010. Hesiod: The Other Poet. Ancient Reception of a Cultural Icon. Leiden. Koning, H. 2017. ‘Helen, Herakles, and the End of the Heroes’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Poetry in Fragments: Studies on the Hesiodic Corpus and Its Afterlife. Berlin, 99–114. Konstan, D. 2015. ‘Wit and irony in the Epic Cycle’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 164–177. Kopff, E. 1983. ‘The Structure of the Amazonia (Aethiopis)’, in: R. Häag (ed.), The Greek Rennaissance of the 8th Century B.C. Stockholm, 57–62. Kopperschmidt, J. 1967. Die Hikesie als dramatische Form, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen. Kosslyn, S. and O. Koenig 1992. Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience. New York. Koumanoudis, S.N. 1979. Θηβαϊκὴ προσωπογραφία. Athens. Kourouniotis, K. 1899. ‘Ἐπιγραφαὶ Χαλκίδος καὶ Ἐρέτριας’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 38: 133–148. Krafft, F. 1963. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Homer und Hesiod. Göttingen. Kranz, W. 1961. ‘Sphragis. Ich-form und Namensiegel als Eingangs- und Schlusmotiv antiker Dichtung’, RhM 104: 3–46 and 97–124. Kraus, W. 1955. ‘Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum’, WS 68: 65–87. Kretschmer, P. (1892). ‘Indogermanische Accent- und Lautstudien’, KZ 31: 325–472. Krischer, T. 1965. ‘ΕΤΥΜOΣ und ΑΛΗΘΗΣ’, Philologus 109: 161–174. Kullmann, W. 1955. ‘Ein vorhomerisches Motiv im Iliasproömium’, Philologus 99: 167–192 (= 1992, 11–35).

  Bibliography Kullmann, W. 1956. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen “Götterapparats”. Berlin. Kullmann, W. 1960. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Wiesbaden. Kullmann, W. 1984. ‘Oral Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research’, GRBS 25: 307– 323 (= 1992, 140–155). Kullmann, W. 1991. Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse)’, in: J. Latacz (ed.), 200 Jahre Homerforschung – Rückblick und Ausblick. Stuttgart, 425–455 (= 1992, 100–134). Kullmann, W. 1992. Homerische Motive: Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee. Stuttgart. Kullmann, W. 1995. ‘The two Nekyiai of the Odyssey and their Oral Sources’, in: M. PaïsiApostolopoulou (ed.), ΕΥΧΗΝ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on the Odyssey. Ithaki, 41–53 (= 2002, 147–155). Kullmann, W. 2002a. ‘Nachlese zur Neoanalyse’, in: A. Rengakos (ed.), Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike. Stuttgart, 162–176. Kullmann, W. 2002b. Realität, Imagination, und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike. Stuttgart. Kullmann, W. 2005. ‘Ilias und Aithiopis’, Hermes 133: 9–28. Kullmann, W. 2011. ‘Neoanalysis between Orality and Literacy: Some Remarks Concerning the Development of Greek Myths Including the Legend of the Capture of Troy’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin/New York, 13–25. Kurke, L. 1993. ‘The Economy of Kudos’, in: C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics. Cambridge, 131–163. Kyriazis, Ν.G. 1924. ‘Ποικίλα’, Κυπριακὰ Χρονικά 2: 216–217. Lamberton, R. 1988. Hesiod. New Haven. Lambrou, I. 2018. ‘Homer and Achilles’ Ambush of Troilus: Confronting the Elephant in the Room’, Greece & Rome 65: 75–85. Landow, G.P. 19972. Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore. Landow, G.P. 20063. Hypertext 3.0. Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore. Laroche, E. 1979. ‘L’inscription lycienne’, in: H. Metzger and E. Laroche (eds.), Fouilles de Xanthos, vol. VI: la stèle trilingue de Létoon. Paris, 44–197. Larson, S. 2000. ‘Boeotia, Athens, the Peisistratids, and the Odyssey’s Catalogue of Heroines’, GRBS 41: 193–222. Larson, S. 2014. ‘Boeotia, Athens, the Peisistratids, and the Odyssey’s Catalogue of Heroines’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Theban Resonances in Homeric Epic, special issue TC 6.2: 412–427. Latacz, J. 19973 [1985]. Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Düsseldorf. Latacz, J. 2000–. Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar. Munich/Leipzig. Latham, J.E. 1982. The Religious Symbolism of Salt. Paris. Lattimore, R. 1951. The Iliad of Homer. Chicago. Lausberg, H. 19903. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart. Leaf, W. 1900. The Iliad, 2 vols. London. Leaf, W. 1912. Troy. A Study in Homeric Geography. London. Leclerc, M.-C. 1993. La parole chez Hésiode. À la recherche de l’harmonie perdue. Paris.

Bibliography  

Legrand, P.-E. 1905. ‘Observations sur le Curculio’, RÉA 7: 25–29. Legras, L. 1905. Les légendes thébaines dans l’épopée et la tragédie grecques. Paris. Lenz, A. 1980. Das Proem des frühgriechischen Epos: Εin Beitrag zum poetischen Selbstverständnis. Bonn. Lérat, L. 1952. Les Locriens de l’Ouest. 2 vols. Paris. Lessing, G.E. 1974 (1766). Werke. Sechster Band. Kunsttheoretische und kunsthistorische Schriften. Munich. Létoublon, F. 1987. ‘Le messager fidèle’, in: J.M. Bremer, I.J.F. de Jong, and J. Kalff (eds.), Homer Beyond Oral Poetry. Amsterdam, 123–144. Levaniouk, O. 2011. Eve of the Festival. Making Myth in Odyssey 19. Cambridge, MA. Levaniouk, O. 2012. ‘Οὐ χρώμεϑα τοῖς ξενικοῖς ποιήμασιν: Questions about Evolution and Fluidity of the Odyssey’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin/New York, 369–412. Levet, J.-P. 1976. Le vrai et le faux dans la pensée grecque archaique: étude de vocabulaire. Paris. Lipka, M. 2018. ‘Aretalogical Poetry: A Forgotten Genre of Greek Literature (Heracleids and Theseids)’, Philologus 162.2: 208–231. Linsday, J. 1974. Helen of Troy: Woman and Goddess. London. Livrea, E. 1998. ‘Nuovi frammenti della Telegonia’, ZPE 122: 1–5. Löffler, I. 1963. Die Melampodie. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Inhalts. Meisenheim am Glan. Lohmann, D. 1970. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Berlin. Lolling, H.G. 1878. ‘Schauspieler in Inschriften’, AM 3: 135–143. Lord, A. 1960/20002. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA. Louden, B. 1999. The Odyssey: Structure, Narration, and Meaning. Baltimore. Louden, B. 2006. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Lowenstam, S. 1975. The Typological Death of Patroklos, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Lowenstam, S. 1992. ‘The Use of Vase-Depictions in Homeric Studies’, TAPA 122: 165–198. Lowenstam, S. 1993. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Lanham. Lowenstam, S. 1997. ‘Talking Vases: The Relationship between the Homeric Poems and Archaic Representations of Epic Myth’, TAPA 127: 21–76. Lowenstam, S. 2008. As Witnessed by Images: The Trojan War Tradition in Greek and Etruscan Art. Baltimore. Luppe, W. 1985. ‘Achilleus bei Lykomedes in P.Berol. 13930 (Pack2 1203)’, APF 11: 5–11. Lyons, D. 1997. Gender and Immortality: Heroines in Ancient Greek Myth and Cult. Princeton. Mackie, H. 1996. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Lanham. Maehler, H. 1963. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Göttingen. Maftei, M. 1976. Antike Discussionen über die Episode von Glaukos und Diomedes im VI. Buch der Ilias. Meisenheim. Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley. Malten, L. 1911. Kyrene. Sagengeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen. Berlin. Malten, L. 1944. ‘Homer und die Lykischen Fürsten’, Hermes 79: 1–12. Mandler, G. and P. Dean 1969. ‘Seriation: Development of Serial Order in Free Recall’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 81: 207–215. Manieri, A. 2009a. Agoni poetico-musicali nella Grecia antica. 1. Beozia. Pisa.

  Bibliography Manieri, A. 2009b. ‘L’εἰσαγωγεύς degli antichi agoni’, Nikephoros 22: 103–128. Marckscheffel, G. 1840. Hesiodi, Eumeli, Cinaethonis, Asii et Carminis Naupactii Fragmenta. Leipzig. Marin, T. 2008–2009. ‘Tradizioni epiche sulla sosta di Achille a Sciro e la nascita di Neottolemo’, in: L. Cristante (ed.), Incontri triestini di filologia classica 8, 211–238. Marks, J. 2002. ‘The Junction between the Kypria and the Iliad’, Phoenix 56: 1–24. Marks, J. 2003. ‘Alternative Odysseys: The Case of Thoas and Odysseus’, TAPA 133: 209–226. Marks, J. 2005. ‘The Ongoing Neikos: Thersites, Odysseus, and Achilleus’, AJP 126: 1–31. Marks, J. 2008. Zeus in the Odyssey. Washington, DC. Maronitis, D.N. 1983. ‘References latentes de l’Odyssée à l’Iliade’, in: Melanges E. Delebecque. Aix-en-Provence, 279–291 (= 2004, 133–146 = 20052, 245–266). Maronitis, D.N. 1990. ‘Ο ομιλητικός χώρος και τα σήματά του: από την Ιλιάδα στην Οδύσσεια’, in: M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou (ed.), O ομηρικός οίκος. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on the Odyssey (11–14 September 1987). Ithaki, 105–126 (= 2004, 29–45 = 20052, 61–87). Maronitis, D.N. 1995. ‘Προβλήματα της ομηρικής Ελένης’, in: M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou (ed.), Eὐχὴν Ὀδυσσεῖ. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Odyssey (3–8 September 1993). Ithaki, 55–73 [2004, 117–132 = 20052, 167–191). Maronitis, D.N. 1998. ‘Αοιδός-Αφηγητής-Ποιητής: Εσωτερική Ποιητική της Οδύσσειας’, in: M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou (ed.), Ομηρικά. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on the Odyssey (1–5 September 1996). Ithaki, 57–75 (= 2004, 101–115 = 20052, 294–316). Maronitis, D.N. 2004. Homeric Megathemes: War-Homilia-Homecoming. Lanham. Maronitis, D.N. 20052. Ὁμηρικά μεγαθέματα: πόλεμος, ὁμιλία, νόστος. Athens. Maronitis, D.N. and L. Polkas 2007. Αρχαϊκή επική ποίηση. Thessaloniki. Marsilio, M. 1997. ‘The Poetics of Hesiod’s Winter’, ASNP 4.2.2: 411–425. Marsilio, M. 2000. Farming and Poetry in Hesiod’s Works and Days. Lanham. Martin, R.P. 1989. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca, NY. Martin, R.P. 1992. ‘Hesiod’s Metanastic Poetics’, in: A.N. Athanassakis (ed.), Essays on Hesiod, Ramus 21: 11–33. Martin, R.P. 2000. ‘Synchronic Aspects of Homeric Performance: The Evidence of the Hymn to Apollo’, in: A.M. Gonzalez de Tobia (ed.), Una nueva visión de la cultura griega antigua hacia el fin del milenio. La Plata, 403–432. Martinus, B. 1605. Variarum lectionum libri IV. Paris. Matthews, M. 1976. The Expression ΥΠΕΡ ΜΟΙΡΑΝ in Homer, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Matthews, M. 1977. ‘Naupaktia and Argonautica’, Phoenix 31: 189–207. Matthiae, A. 1800. Animadversiones in hymnos homericos cum prolegomenis de cuiusque consilio, partibus, aetate. Leipzig. Matz, D. 1995. Ancient World Lists and Numbers: Numerical Phrases and Rosters in the GrecoRoman Civilizations. Jefferson. Mayer, K. 1996. ‘Helen and the ΔΙΟΣ ΒΟΥΛΗ’, AJP 117: 1–15. Mazon, P. 1928 (198612). Hesiode. Theogonie, Les Travaux et les Jours, le Bouclier. Paris. Mazon, P. 1942. Introduction à l’Iliade. Paris. McLennan, G.R. 1977. Callimachus: Hymn to Zeus. Rome. Meier, W.D. 1976. Die epische Formel in pseudohesiodischen Frauenkatalog. Eine Untersuchung zum nachhomerischen Formelgebrauch. Zürich. Melchert, C.H. 1990. ‘Review of Otten 1988’, Kratylos 35: 202–203.

Bibliography  

Mellink, M.J. 1995. ‘Homer, Lycia, and Lukka’, in: J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris (eds.), The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. Austin, 33–43. Merkelbach, R. 1952. ‘Die pisistratische Redaktion der homerischen Gedichte’, RhM 95: 23–47. Merkelbach, R. 1957. Die Hesiodfragmente auf Papyrus. Leipzig. Merkelbach, R. 1969. Untersuchungen zur Odyssee. Munich. Merkelbach, R. and M.L. West 1967. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford. Μette, H.J. 1977. Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland. Berlin. Meuli, K. 1921. Odyssee und Argonautika. Berlin. Meyer, E. 1966. ‘Hesiod’s Erga und das Gedicht von den fünf Menschengeschlechtern’, in: E. Heitsch (ed.), Hesiod (Wege der Forschung vol. XLIV), Darmstadt: 471–522 [= id., Kleine Schriften II. Halle, 1924, 15–66]. Minchin, E. 1996. ‘The Performance of Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics’, in: I. Worthington (ed.), Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Leiden, 3–20. Minchin, E. 2001. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and Odyssey. Oxford. Minchin, E. forthcoming. ‘Moving towards Textualization: Evidence for Poetic Preparation in Homer’, in: M. Finkelberg, D. Shalev, and R. Zelnick-Abramowitz (eds.), Speech into Text: Patterns of Textualization in the Ancient World. Leiden. Minton, W.W. 1962. ‘Invocation and Catalogue in Hesiod and Homer’, TAPA 93: 188–212. Mitsos, Μ. 1952. Ἀργολικὴ Προσωπογραφία. Athens. Moga, I. 2009. ‘Symbolic Functions of Salt and Related Similes in Oriental Curses and Blessings’, Arheologia Moldovei 32: 265–271. Mondi, R. 1978. The Function and Social Position of the Keryx in Early Greece, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Monro, D.B. 1884. ‘The Poems of the Epic Cycle’, JHS 5: 1–41. Monro, D.B. (ed.) 1901. Homer’s Odyssey: XIII–XXIV. Oxford. Montanari, F. 2017. ‘The Failed Embassy: Achilles in the Iliad’, in: C. Tsagalis and A. Markantonatos (eds.), The Winnowing Oar-New Perspectives in Homeric Studies. Berlin, 43–55. Montanari, F., A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.) 2009. Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden. Montiglio, S. 2005. Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture. Chicago. Most, G. 1992. ‘Il poeta nell’Ade: catabasi epica e teoria dell’epos tra Omero e Virgilio’, Atti del IX Congresso della Federazione internazionale delle Associazioni di Studi Classici = SIFC 10.2: 1014–1026. Most, G. 1997. ‘Hesiod’ Myth of the Five (or Three or Four) Races’, PCPS 43: 104–127. Most, G. 2006–2007. Hesiod I: Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia; II: The Shield, Catalogue of Women, Other Fragments, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA/London. Moulton, C. 1981. ‘The Speech of Glaukos in Iliad 17’, Hermes 109: 1–8. Mueller, M. 1984. The Iliad. London. Müller, K.O. 18753 [1841]. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur bis auf das Zeitalters Alexander’s, vol. 1. Stuttgart. Müller, W. 18362. Homerische Vorschule. Leipzig. Munck, J. 1933. Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandria. Stuttgart. Mureddu, P. 1983. Formula e tradizione nella poesia di Esiodo. Rome. Mureddu, P. 2008. ‘Epiteti femminili nel Catalogo esiodeo’, in: G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds.), Esiodo. Cent’anni di papiri, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi (Florence, 7–8 June 2007). Florence, 97–112. Murnaghan, S. 1987. Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Princeton.

  Bibliography Murnaghan, S. 2006. ‘Farming, Authority, and Truth-Telling in the Greek Tradition’, in: R.M. Rosen and I. Sluiter (eds.), City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity. Leiden, 93–118. Murray, G. (ed.) 19344 (1907). The Rise of the Greek Epic. Oxford. Murray, O. 2008. ‘The Odyssey as Performance Poetry’, in: M. Revermann and P. Wilson (eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford, 161–176. Murray, P. 1981. ‘Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece’, JHS 101: 87–101. Murray, P. 1996. Plato: On Poetry. Cambridge. Mylonas-Shear, I. 1998. ‘Bellerophon Tablets from the Mycenaean World? A Tale of Seven Bronze Hinges’, JHS 118: 187–189. Nachtergael, G. 1977. Les Galates en Grèce et les Sotêria de Delphes. Brussels. Nagler, M. 1996. ‘Dread Goddess Revisited’, in: S.L. Schein (ed.), Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays. Princeton, 141–161. Nagy, G. 1982. ‘Hesiod’, in: T.J. Lucey (ed.), Ancient Authors. New York, 43–73. Nagy, G. 1990a. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca, NY. Nagy, G. 1990b. Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore. Nagy, G. 1996a. Homeric Questions. Austin. Nagy, G. 1996b. Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge. Nagy, G. 1997. ‘Ellipsis in Homer’, in: E. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text. Cambridge, MA/London, 167–189. Nagy, G. 19992 (1979). The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry and Myth. Baltimore. Nagy, G. 2001. ‘Homeric Poetry and Problems of Multiformity: the ‘Panathenaic Bottleneck’, CP 96: 109–119. Nagy, G. 2002. ‘The Language of Heroes as Mantic Poetry, in: M. Reichel and A. Rengakos (eds.), Epea Pteroenta: Beiträge zur Homerforschung (Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag). Stuttgart, 141–150. Nagy, G. 2003. Homeric Responses. Austin. Nagy, G. 2004. Homer’s Text and Language. Urbana. Nagy, G. 2009. ‘Hesiod and the Ancient Biographical Tradition’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden, 271–311. Nagy, G. 2010. Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley. Neiiendam, K. 1992. The Art of Acting in Antiquity. Iconographical Studies in Classical, Hellenistic, and Byzantine Theatre. Copenhagen. Neitzel, H. 1975. Homer-Rezeption bei Hesiod. Interpretation ausgewählter Passagen. Bonn. Nelson, S.A. 1997. ‘The Justice of Zeus in Hesiod’s Fable of the Hawk and the Nightingale’, CJ 92: 235–247. Nelson, S.A. 2005. ‘Hesiod’, in: J.M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic. Malden, 330– 343. Nesselrath, H.-G. 1992. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. “Beinahe Episoden” im griechischen und römischen Epos. Stuttgart. Nicolai, R. 2002. ‘I veleni di Efira. A proposito di Od. 1.259 e 2.328’, in: F. Montanari (ed.). Omero tremila anni dopo, (Atti del Congresso di Genova, 6–8 July 2000). Rome, 455–470. Nicolai, W. 1964. Hesiod’s Erga. Beobachtungen zum Aufbau. Heidelberg. Niles, J.D. 1999. Homo Narrans: The Poetics and Anthropology of Oral Literature. Philadelphia. Nilsson, M.P. 1906. Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung (mit Ausschluss der attischen). Leipzig.

Bibliography  

Nilsson, M.P. 1933. Homer and Mycenae. New York. Nitzsch, G.W. 1852. Die Sagenpoesie der Griechen. Braunschweig. Notopoulos, J. 1964. ‘Studies in Early Greek Oral Poetry’, TAPA 122: 1–77. Nünlist, R. 1998. Poetologische Bildersprache in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart/ Leipzig. Nünlist, R. 2004. ‘Hesiod’, in: I.J.F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie (eds.), Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden, 25–34. Nünlist, R. 2009. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. O’Bryhim, S. 1996. ‘A New Interpretation of Hesiod Theogony 35’, Hermes 124: 131–138. Obbink, D. 1993. ‘The Addressees of Empedocles’, in: A. Schiesaro, P. Mitsis, and J. Strauss Clay (eds.), Mega Nepios: il destinatario nell’epos didascalico, MD 31. Pisa, 51–98. Obbink, D. 2005. ‘4708. Archilochus, Elegies’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 69: 19–42. Obbink, D. 2006. ‘A New Archilochus Poem’, ZPE 156: 1–9. Oesterreicher, W. 1997. ‘Types of Orality in Text’, in: E. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text. Cambridge, MA/London, 190–214. Oettinger, N. 1976. Die militärische Eide der Hethiter. Wiesbaden. Olivieri, O. 2004. ‘Analogie e rovesciamenti tra i Sette e gli Epigonoi’, in: P.A. Bernardini (ed.), La città di Argo. Mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Urbino 13–15 giugno 2002). Rome, 79–91. Olivieri, O. 2010. ‘La geografia mitica delle imprese di Alcmeone dalla poesia epica alla tragedia’, in: E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali. Alessandria, 299–314. Olrik, A. 1992. Principles for Oral Narrative Research, trans. by K. Wolf and J. Jensen. Bloomington. Olson, S.D. 2008. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, vol. IV: Books 8–10.420e. Cambridge, MA/London. Olson, S.D. 2010. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, vol. VI: Books 12–13.594b. Cambridge, MA/London. Olson, S.D. 2011. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, vol. VII: Books 13.594b-14. Cambridge, MA/London. Olson, S.D. 2019–2020. Athenaeus Naucratites: Deipnosophistae, vols. III.A-IV.A. Berlin. Olson, S.D. and A. Sens 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Atlanta. Olson, S.D. and A. Sens 2000. Archestratus of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Oxford. O’Neill, E. Jr. 1942. ‘The Localization of Metrical Word-Types in the Greek Hexameter’, YCS 8: 105–178. Ong, W. 1982. Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York. Onians, R.B. 19882 (1954). The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman, and Kindred Evidence, also of some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs. Cambridge. Ormand, K. 2014. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women and Archaic Greece. Oxford. Osborne, R. 2005. ‘Ordering Women in Hesiod’s Catalogue’, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions. Cambridge, 5–24. Otten, H. 1988. Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy: ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV. Wiesbaden. Page, D.L. 1955. The Homeric Odyssey. Oxford. Page, D.L. 1959. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley.

  Bibliography Pagels, H.R. 1989. The Dreams of Reason: The Computer and the Rise of the Sciences of Complexity. New York. Paivio, A. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York. Pallone, M.R. 1984. ‘L’epica agonale in età ellenistica’, Orpheus 5: 156–166. Papaioannou, S. 2007. Redesigning Achilles. ‘Recycling’ the Epic Cycle in the ‘Little Iliad’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.1–13.622). Berlin. Papanastasiou, G. 2000. ‘αἴξ, αἶγες, αἰγαῖος κτλ.’, in: Μελέτες για την ελληνική γλώσσα. Thessaloniki, 406–417. Parke, H.W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. London. Parker, R. 1983. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. Parks, W. 1990. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: the Homeric and the Old English Traditions. Princeton. Parry, M. 1971. The Making of the Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. A. Parry. Oxford. Patzer, H. 1952. ‘ΡΑΨΩΙΔΟΣ’, Hermes 80: 314–325. Pavese, C.O. 1972. Tradizioni e generi poetici della Grecia archaica. Rome. Payton, R. 1991. ‘The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set’, AnatStud 41: 99–110. Pedrick, V. 1992. ‘The Muse Corrects: The Opening of the Odyssey’, YCS 29: 39–62. Pedrizet, P. 1900. ‘Inscription d’Acraiphie’, BCH 24: 70–81. Peek, W. 1978. ‘Grabepigramm von der Chalkidike’, ZPE 31: 265–269. Pelliccia, H. 1995. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Göttingen. Pellin, A. 2010. ‘Il mito di Telefo nell’epos ellenistico: l’Epyllium Telephi, fr. ep. adesp. 3 Powell’, in: E. Cingano (ed.), Tra panellenismo e tradizioni locali: generi poetici e storiografia. Alessandria, 519–540. Pellizer, E. 1990. ‘Outlines of a Morphology of Sympotic Entertainment’, in: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford, 177–184. Peppermüller, R. 1962. ‘Die Glaukos-Diomedes Szene der Ilias. Spuren vorhomerischen Dichtung’, WS 75: 5–21. Peradotto, J. 1985. ‘Prophecy Degree Zero’, in: B. Gentili and G. Paioni (eds.), Oralita, cultura, letteratura, discorso. Rome, 429–459. Peradotto, J. 1990. Man in the Middle Voice. Name and Narration in the Odyssey. Princeton. Perrin, B. 1967. Plutarch’s Lives: Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Caesar, vol. 7. Cambridge, MA/London. Pestalozzi, H. 1945. Die Achilleis als Quelle der Ilias. Erlangen. Petropoulos, J.C.B. 1994. Heat and Lust: Hesiod’s Midsummer Festival Scene Revisited. Lanham. Petsalis-Diomidis, A. 2006. ‘Amphiaraos Present: Images of Healing Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece’, in: R. Shepherd and R. Maniura (eds.), Images and Presence: Essays on the ‘Presence’ of the Prototype Within the Image. Ashgate, 205–229. Pfeiffer, R. 1933. ‘Die Skurioi des Sophokles’, Philologus 88: 1–15. Pfister, F. 1928. ‘Die Hekate-Episode in Hesiods Theogonie’, Philologus 84: 1–15. Phillips, E.D. 1953. ‘Odysseus in Italy’, JHS 73: 53–67. Plassart, A. 1923. ‘Inscriptions des Thespies’, Λαογραφία 7: 177–185. Platter, C. 2007. Aristophanes and the Carnival of Genres. Baltimore. Pohlenz, M. 1916. ‘Kronos und die Titanen’, Neue Jahrbuch 37: 549–594. Pöhlmann, E. 1989. ‘Dichterweihe und Gattungswahl’, in: A.E. Radke (ed.), Candide iudex: Beiträge zur augusteischen Dichtung. Festschrift fur Walter Wimmel zum 75. Geburtstag. Stuttgart, 247–260.

Bibliography  

Pontani, F.-M. 2007–2022. Scholia Graeca in Odysseam, 5 vols. (I: α-β; II: γ-δ; III: ε-ζ; IV: η-θ; V: ι-κ). Rome. Potter, M.A. 1902. Sohrab and Rustem. The Epic Theme of a Combat between Father and Son. London. Powell, B. 1978. ‘Word Patterns in the Catalogue of Ships (B 494–709): A Structural Analysis of Homeric Language’, Hermes 106: 255–264. Power, T. 2004. ‘Cleisthenes and the Politics of Kitharōidia at Delphi and in Sicyon’, Aevum Antiquum 4: 415–437. Power, T. 2010. The Culture of Kitharōidia. Washington, DC. Pratt, L. 1993. Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics. Ann Arbor. Preiser, C. 2000. Euripides, Telephos. Einleitung, Text, Kommentar. Hildesheim. Prinz, F. 1979. Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie. Munich. Pucci, P. 1987. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad. Ithaca, NY. Pucci, P. 1996. ‘Between Narrative and Catalogue: Life and Death of the Poem’, Mêtis 11: 5–24. Pucci, P. 1998. The Song of the Sirens. Essays on Homer. Lanham. Puelma, M. 1989. ‘Der Dichter und die Wahrheit in der griechischen Poetik von Homer bis Aristoteles’, MH 46: 65–100. Pohlenz, M. 1933. ‘Τὸ πρέπον: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des griechischen Geistes’, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1.16: 53–92 (= M. Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften, ed. by H. Dörrie, vol. I. Hildesheim 1965, 100–139). Puhvel, J. 1991. Homer and Hittite. Innsbruck. Purves, A.C. 2002. Telling Space: Topography, Time, and Narrative from Homer to Xenophon, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Purves, A.C. 2006. ‘Falling into Time in Homer’s Iliad’, CA 25: 179–209. Purves, A.C. 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge. Purves, A.C. 2019. Homer and the Poetics of Gesture. Oxford. Race, W.H. 1982. The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius. Leiden. Race, W.H. 1992. ‘How Greek Poems Begin’, YCS 29: 13–38. Ready, J.L. 2011. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge. Ready, J.L. 2019. Orality, Textuality & the Homeric Epics: An Interdisciplinary Study of Oral Texts, Dictated Texts, and Wild Texts. Oxford. Reece, S. 1994. ‘The Cretan Odyssey: A Lie Truer than Truth’, AJP 115: 157–173. Reichel, M. 1994. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. Tübingen. Reichel, M. 1998. ‘How Oral is Homer’s Narrative?’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 10: 1–22. Reinhardt, K. 1960. Tradition und Geist: Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung. Göttingen. Reinhardt, K. 1961. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter. Göttingen. Reisch, E. 1885. De musicis Graecorum certaminibus capita quattor. Vienna. Rengakos, A. 2002. ‘Narrativität, Intertextualität, Selbstreferentialität. Die neue Deutung der Odyssee’, in: M. Reichel and A. Rengakos (eds.), Epea Pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homerforschung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag. Stuttgart, 173–191. Rengakos, A. 2015a. ‘Narrative Technique in the Epic Cycle’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception. Cambridge, 154–163. Rengakos, A. 2015b. ‘Aethiopis’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception. Cambridge, 306–317.

  Bibliography Richardson, A. 2006. ‘Cognitive Literary Criticism’, in: P. Waugh (ed.), Literary Theory and Criticism. Oxford, 544–556. Richardson, N.J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford. Richardson, N.J. 1980. ‘Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch’, CQ 30: 265–287. Richardson, N.J. 2010. Three Homeric Hymns: to Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite, Hymns 3, 4, and 5. Cambridge. Richardson, S. 1990. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Rieu, E.V. 2003. Homer: The Odyssey (rev. translation by D.C.H. Rieu). London. Risch, E. 19742. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin/New York. Rivero García, L. 2008. ‘Virgil Aeneid 6: 445–446. A Critical Note’, HSCP 104: 273–287. Robert, C. 1873. De Apollodori Bibliotheca. Berlin. Robert, C. 1881. Bild und Lied. Berlin. Robert, C. 1914. ‘Pandora’, Hermes 49: 17–38. Robert, C. 1920–19264. Die griechische Heldensage. Berlin. Robert, L. 1929. ‘Études d’épigraphie grecque: XIII, Εἰσαγωγεύς’, RPh 55: 140–142. Robert, L. 1930. ‘Études d’épigraphie grecque’, RPh 56: 25–60. Robert, L. 1935. ‘Études sur les inscriptions et la topographie de la Grèce Centrale’, BCH 59: 438–452. Robert, L. 1936. ‘ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ’, RÉG 49: 235–254. Robert, L. 1938. ‘Les Aelius Alcibiade de Nysa’, in: L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris, 45–53. Robert, L. 1940. ‘Ἀμφιθαλής’, HSCP suppl. 1: 509–519. Robert, L. 1966. ‘Inscription de l’antiquité et du Bas-Empire à Corinthe’, RÉG 79: 733–770. Robert, L. 1980. ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque impériale’, in: Κ. Schefold and J. Pouilloux (eds.), Στήλη: τόμος εἰς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος. Athens, 1–20. Robert, L. 1983. ‘Bulletin épigraphique 475’, RÉG 96: 182–184. Robertson, N. 1984. ‘The ritual background of the Erysichthon story’, AJP 105: 369–408. Roesch, P. 1982. Études béotiennes. Paris. Roller, D.W. 1989. Tanagran Studies, vol. 1. Amsterdam. Romeo, A. 1985. II proemio epico antico. Rome. Roques, D. 1989. Études sur la correspondence de Synésios de Cyrène. Brussels. Rosen, R.Μ. 1990. ‘Poetry and Sailing in Hesiod’s Works and Days’, CA 9: 99–113. Rosen, R.M. 2007. Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire. New York. Rosen, R.M. and I. Sluiter (eds.) 2006. City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity. Leiden. Rösler, W. 1990. ‘Mnemosyne in the Symposion’, in: O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford, 230–237. Rotstein, A. 2012. ‘Mousikoi Agones and the Conceptualization of Genre in Ancient Greece’, CA 31: 92–127. Rousseau, P. 2010. ‘Hector’s Inaction (Iliad 5.471–492)’, in: P. Mitsis and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic and Rhetorical Praxis. Berlin, 77–86. Routledge Encyclopedia of Literary Theory, 2005. Edited by D. Herman, M. Jahn, and M.-L. Ryan. London. Rudhardt, J. 1993. ‘A propos de l’Hécate hésiodique’, MH 50: 204–213.

Bibliography  

Rudhardt, J. 1996. ‘Le préambule de la Théogonie. La vocation du poète. Le langage des Muses’, in: F. Blaise, P. Judet de la Combe, and P. Rousseau (eds.), Le métier du mythe. Lectures d’Hésiode. Lille, 25–39. Russo, J. 1994. ‘Homer’s Style: Nonformulaic Features of an Oral Aesthetic’, Oral Tradition 9: 371–389. Russo, J. 1999. ‘Sicilian Folktales, Cognitive Psychology, and Oral Theory’, in: T.M. Falkner, N. Felson and D. Konstan (eds.), Contextualizing Classics: Ideology, Performance, Dialogue. Lanham, 151–171. Rüter, K. 1969. Odyssee Interpretationen. Untersuchungen zum I. Buch und zur Phaiakis. Göttingen. Rutherford, I. 2000. ‘Formulas, Voice, and Death in Ehoie-Poetry, the Hesiodic Gunaikon Katalogos, and the Odyssean Nekuia’, in: M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds.), Matrices of Genre. Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA, 81–96. Rutherford, I. 2009. ‘Hesiod and the Literary Traditions of the Near East’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden, 9–35. Rutherford, R.B. (ed.) 1992. Odyssey XIX and XX. Cambridge. Rutherford, R.B. 1996. ‘Tragic Form and Feeling in the Iliad’, JHS 102: 145–160. Rutherford, R.B. 2001. ‘From the Iliad to the Odyssey’, in: D.L. Cairns (ed.), Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford: 117–146 (= 1991–1993. BICS 38: 47–54). Ryan, M.-L. 2003. ‘Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space’, in: D. Herman (ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, 214–242. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. 1975. ‘Ἐπιτύμβιο ἐπίγραμμα ἀπὸ τὰ Δουμπιὰ Χαλκιδικῆς’, Annual of the School of Philosophy of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 14: 119–130. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. 1982. ‘On the Epigram from Chalkidike’, ZPE 46: 295–296. Sammons, B. 2007. Homeric Catalogue: Tradition, Paradigm, and the Limits of Narrativity, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University. Sammons, B. 2017. Device and Composition in the Greek Epic Cycle. Oxford/New York. Santin, E. 2009. Autori di epigrammi sepolcrali greci su pietra. Firme di poeti occasionali e professionisti. Rome. Scafoglio, G. 2004. ‘Proclo e il ciclo epico’, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 7: 39–57. Schachter, A. 1981–1994. Cults of Boiotia, 4 vols. London. Schadewaldt, W. 19654. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage. Stuttgart. Schadewaldt, W. 19663. Iliasstudien. Darmstadt. Scheliha, R. von. 1943. Patroklos. Gedanken über Homers Dichtung und Gestalten. Basel. Scheliha, R. von. 1987. Vom Wettkampf der Dichter: Der musische Agon bei den Griechen. Amsterdam. Schenkeveld, D.M. 1970. ‘Aristarchus and Ὅμηρος φιλότεχνος: Some Fundamental Ideas of Aristarchus on Homer as a Poet’, Mnemosyne 23: 162–178. Schironi, F. 2018. The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Schischwani, S. 1994. Mündliche Quellen der Odyssee, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Freiburg. Schmidt, J.L. 1885. ‘Ulixes posthomericus’, Berliner Studien für classische Philologie und Archäologie 2: 399–497. Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schmoll, E.A. 1994. ‘Hesiod’s Theogony: Oak and Stone Again’, Scholia 3: 46–52. Schoeck, G. 1961. Ilias und Aithiopis: Kyklische Motive in homerischer Brechung. Zurich.

  Bibliography Schwartz, E. 1887–1891. Scholia in Euripidem, 2 vols. Berlin. Schwartz, E. 1924. Die Odyssee. Munich. Schwartz, J. 1960. Pseudo-Hesiodeia: Recherches sur la composition, la diffusion et la disparition anciènne d’œuvres attribuées à Hésiode. Leiden. Schwinge, E.-R. 1993. Die Odyssee nach den Odysseen: Betrachtungen zu ihrer individuellen Physiognomie. Göttingen. Scodel, R. 1992. ‘The Wits of Glaucus’, TAPA 122: 73–84. Scodel, R. 1996. ‘Self-Correction, Spontaneity, and Orality in Archaic Poetry’, in: I. Worthington (ed.), Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Leiden, 59–79. Scodel, R. 1998. ‘Bardic Performance and Oral Tradition in Homer’, AJP 119: 171–194. Scodel, R. 2002. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scott Smith, R. and S. Trzaskoma. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology. Indianapolis. Scott, W.C. 1989. ‘Oral Verse-Making in Homer’s Odyssey’, Oral Tradition 4: 382–412. Sealey, R. 1957. ‘From Phemios to Ion’, RÉG 70: 312–355. Segal, C. 1994. Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the Odyssey. Ithaca. Sens, A. 2006. ‘‘Τίπτε γένος τοὐμὸν ζητεῖς;’: the Batrachomyomachia, Hellenistic Epic Parody, and Early Epic’, in: F. Montanari and A. Rengakos (eds.), La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique. Geneva, 215– 244. Severyns, A. 1928. Le cycle épique dans l’école d’Aristarque. Liège/Paris. Severyns, A. 1938a. Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos. Le Codex 239 de Photius. ii. Texte, traduction, commentaire. Paris. Severyns, A. 1938b. ‘Sur un sens de l’adjectif ἀργαλέος’, in: Mélanges Émile Boisacq (Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 6). Brussels, 239–241. Severyns, A. 1953. Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos. iii. La Vita Homeri et les sommaires du Cycle. Paris. Severyns, A. 1962. ‘Ulysse en Elide’, AC 31: 15–24. Seyrig, H. 1927. ‘Inscriptions de Chypre’, BCH 51: 138–154. Shapiro, H.A. 1983. ‘Painting, Politics, and Genealogy: Peisistratos and the Neleids’, in: W.G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography. Madison, 87–96. Shapiro, H.A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants. Mainz. Shapiro, H.A. 1992. ‘Mousikoi Agones: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia’, in: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Princeton, 53–75. Shapiro, H.A. 1998. ‘Hipparchos and the Rhapsodes’, in: C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics. Cambridge, 92–107. Sharples, R.W. and D.W. Minter 1983. ‘Theophrastus on Fungi: Innacurate Citations in Athenaeus’, JHS 103: 154–156. Shewan, A. 1911. The Lay of Dolon (The Tenth Book of Homer’s Iliad). London. Sifakis, G.M. 1967. Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama. London. Sifakis, G. 1988. Γιὰ μιὰ ποιητικὴ τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ δημοτικοῦ τραγουδιοῦ. Herakleion. Silk, M.S. 1974. Interaction in Poetic Imagery. Cambridge. Silk, M.S. 1983. ‘LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: From Meanings to Iconyms’, CQ 33.2: 303–330. Simon, E. 1969. Die Götter der Griechen. Munich. Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attic: An Archaeological Commentary. Madison. Sinexu, P. 2007. Amphiaraos. Guerrier, devin et guérisseur. Paris.

Bibliography  

Sistakou, E. 2005. Ἡ γεωγραφία τοῦ Καλλιμάχου καὶ ἡ νεωτερικὴ ποίηση τῶν ἑλληνιστικῶν χρόνων. Athens. Skempis, M. and I. Ziogas 2009. ‘Arete’s Words: Etymology, Ehoie-Poetry and Gendered Narrative’, in: J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (eds.), Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin, 213–240. Slatkin, L.M. 1991. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad. Berkeley. Slings, S.R. 2000. ‘Literature in Athens, 566–510 BC’, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence. Amsterdam, 57–77. Smith, P. 1980. ‘Hesiod and the Individual in Hesiod’s Myth of Five Races’, CW 74: 145–163. Smitten, J.R. and A. Daghistany 1981. Spatial Form in Narrative. Ithaca, NY. Smyth, H.W. 1920. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA. Söder, A. 1939. Quellenuntersuchung zum 1. Buch der Apollodorschen Bibliothek, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Würzburg. Soja, E. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Theory. Solmsen, F. 1901. Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre. Strasburg. Sommerstein, A.H. 2008. Aeschylus: Persians, Seven Against Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus Bound. Cambridge, MA/London. Sommerstein, A.H. 2010. The Tangled Ways of Zeus and Other Studies in and around Greek Tragedy. Oxford. Spina, L. 2001. L’oratorio scriteriato: Per una storia letteraria e politica di Tersite. Naples. Stanford, W.B. 1967. The Sound of Greek: Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony. Berkeley. Stanley, Th. 1663. Aeschyli tragoediae septem: cum scholiis Graecis omnibus; deperditorum dramatum fragmentis, versione e commentario Tomae Stanleii. London. Stein, E. 1990. Autorbewustsein in der frühen griechischen Literatur (= Scripta Oralia vol. 17). Tübingen. Steinthal, H. 1991. ‘Frauen um Odysseus: Studien in Poetik, Erotik, und Ethik’, Gymnasium 98: 497–516. Stephanis, I.E. 1988. ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΟΙ ΤΕΧΝΙΤΑΙ. Herakleion. Stewart, S. 2008. ‘Emending Aratus’ Insomnia: Callimachus Epigr. 27’, Mnemosyne 61: 586– 600. Stockinger, H. 1959. Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos. Ihre Typik und ihre Bedeutung. St. Ottilien. Stoddard, K. 2004. The Narrative Voice in the Theogony of Hesiod. Leiden. Strasser, F.X. 1984. Zu den iterata der frühgriechischen Epik. Königstein/Ts. Strasser, J.-Y. 2002. ‘Choraules et pythaules d’époque impériale: A propos d’inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 126: 97–142. Strömberg, R. 1961. ‘Die Bellerophon-Erzählung in der Ilias’, Cl&M 22: 1–15. Suzuki, M. 1989. Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference and the Epic. Ithaca, NY. Svenbro, J. 1976. La parole et le marbre: aux origines de la poétique grecque. Lund. Swift, L. 2019. Archilochus: The Poems (Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary). Oxford. Sykutris, J. 1928. ‘Epigramm aus Kition’, Hermes 63: 110–111. Tandy, D.W. and W.C. Neale 1996. Hesiod’s Works and Days: A Translation and Commentary for the Social Sciences. Berkeley. Taplin, O. 1985. Greek Tragedy in Action. London. Taplin, O. 1992. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford.

  Bibliography Teodorsson, S.-T. 1989–1996. A Commentary on Plutarch’s Table Talks, 3 vols. Göteborg. Terranova, Ch. 2013. ‘Il mito di Amphiarao in età omerica fra costruzione e destrutturazione’, QUCC 103: 11–32. Thalmann, W.G. 1984. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Poetry. Baltimore. Thomas, R. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Thomas, R.F. 1986. ‘Vergil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference’, HSCP 90: 171–198. Thompson, D’A.W. 1947. A Glossary of Greek Fishes. London. Thompson, S. 1955–1958. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of Narrative Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books, and Local Legends, rev. ed. 6 vols. Bloomington. Thornley, G. 1916. Longus: Daphnis and Chloe. Cambridge, MA/London. Thornton, A. 1984. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication. Göttingen. Torres-Guerra, J.B. 1995. La Tebaida homérica como fuente de Ilíada y Odisea. Madrid. Torres-Guerra, J.B. 2012. ‘The Writing Down of the Oral Thebaid that Homer Knew: in the Footsteps of Wolfgang Kullmann’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin, 517–530. Torres-Guerra, J.B. 2015. ‘Thebaid’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 226–243. Trahman, C.R. 1952. ‘Odysseus’ Lies (Odyssey, books 13–19)’, Phoenix 62: 31–43. Traill, D. 1989. ‘Gold Armor for Bronze and Homer’s Use of Compensatory τιμή’, CP 84: 301– 305. Traina, G. 1992. ‘Sale e saline nel mediterraneo antico’, La parola del passato 47: 363–378. Travlos, I.N. 1971. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen. Tübingen. Treu, M. 1957. ‘Das Proömium der hesiodischen Frauenkataloge’, RhM 100: 169–186. Tronson, A. 1984. ‘Satyrus the Peripatetic and the Marriages of Philip II’, JHS 104: 116–126. Troxler, H. 1964. Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zürich. Trüb, H. 1952. Kataloge in der griechischen Dichtung. Oberwinterhur. Tsagalis, C. 2003. ‘The Homeric Formula νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ’, Classica et Mediaevalia 54: 5–40. Tsagalis, C. 2004. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Berlin. Tsagalis, C. 2005. ‘Detextualizing Homer: Intonation Units, Background Knowledge, and the Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Eranos 103: 55–62. Tsagalis, C. 2006a. ‘Poet and Audience: From Homer to Hesiod’, in: F. Montanari and Α. Rengakos (eds.), La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire. Vandoeuvres-Geneva, 79–130. Tsagalis, C. 2006b. ‘Ποίηση και ποιητική στη Θεογονία και στα Έργα και Ημέραι’, in: Ν. Bezantakos and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Μουσάων Ἀρχώμεθα: ο Ησίοδος και η αρχαϊκή επική ποίηση. Athens, 139–255. Tsagalis, C. 2007. ‘The Metaphor of Sailing and the athlon of Song: Reconsidering the Nautilia in Hesiod’s Works and Days’, in: M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Άθλα και έπαθλα στα ομηρικά έπη. Ithaki, 269–295. Tsagalis, C. 2008. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Washington, DC. Tsagalis, C. 2009. ‘Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. Leiden, 131–177. Tsagalis, C. 2010. ‘The Dynamic Hypertext: Lists and Catalogues in the Homeric Epics’, in: C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hypertextuality, TC 2.2: 323–347. Tsagalis, C. 2011a. ‘Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis’, TC 3: 209–244.

Bibliography  

Tsagalis, C. 2011b. ‘Intertextuality’, in: M. Finkelberg (ed.), Homer Encyclopedia, 3 vols. Chichester, 413–414. Tsagalis, C. 2012a. ‘Deauthorizing the Epic Cycle: Odysseus’ False Tale to Eumaeus (Od. 14.199– 359)’, in: F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin, 309–345. Tsagalis, C. 2012b. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Washington. Tsagalis, C. 2012c. ‘Cypria, fr. 19 (Bernabé, West): Further Considerations’, RFIC 140: 257–289. Tsagalis, C. 2014. ‘Verses Attributed to the Telegony’, CQ 64: 448–461. Tsagalis, C. 2015. ‘Telegony’, in: M. Fantuzzi and C. Tsagalis (eds.), The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge, 380–401. Tsagalis, C. 2016. Ομηρικές μελέτες: διακειμενικότητα, προφορικότητα, νεοανάλυση. Thessaloniki. Tsagalis, C. 2017a. Early Greek Epic Fragments I: Genealogical and Antiquarian Epic. Berlin. Tsagalis, C. 2017b. Poetry in Fragments: Studies on the Hesiodic Corpus and its Afterlife. Berlin. Tsagalis, C. 2020a. ‘Panathenaia’, in: C. Pache (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Homer. Cambridge, 187–189. Tsagalis, C. 2020b. ‘Pisistratus’, in: C. Pache (ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Homer. Cambridge, 193–195. Tsagalis, C. 2022. Early Greek Epic Fragments II: Epics on Herakles (Kreophylos and Peisandros). Berlin. Tsagalis, C. forthcoming(a). ‘Space and Story: the Iliad and the Odyssey’, in: E. Greensmith (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Epic. Oxford. Tsagalis, C. forthcoming(b). The Homeric Doloneia: Evolution and Shaping. Oxford. Tsagalis, C. forthcoming(c). Omero: Iliade IX-XII. Testo e commento. Milan. Tsagarakis, O. 2000. Studies in Odyssey 11. Stuttgart. Tserepis, G.N. 1902. Τὰ σύνθετα τῆς ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης. Athens. Tsopanakis, A. 1984. ‘Σύμμεικτα κυπριακά’, Ἑλληνικά 35: 389–401. Turkeltaub, D. 2010. ‘Reading the Epic Past: The Iliad on Heroic Epic’, in: P. Mitsis and C. Tsagalis (eds.), Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic and Rhetorical Praxis. Berlin, 129–152. Tziovas, D. 1989. ‘Residual Orality and Belated Textuality in Greek Literature and Culture’, JMGS 7: 321–335. Usener, K. 1990. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. Tübingen. Valakas, K. 2002. ‘The Use of the Body by Actors in Tragedy and Satyr-Play’, in: P. Easterling and E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge, 69–92. Valenzuela Montenegro, N. 2004. Die Tabulae Iliacae. Mythos und Geschichte im Spiegel einer Gruppe frühkaiserzeitlicher Miniaturreliefs. Berlin. van der Valk, M. 1958. ‘On Apollodori Bibliotheca’, RÉG 71: 100–168. van der Valk, M. 1963–1964. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, 2 vols. Leiden. van der Valk, M. 1971–1987. Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, 4 vols. Leiden. van Groningen, A. 1946. ‘The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Meded. Ned. Akad. Van. Wetensch. Afd. Letterkunde 9.8: 279–294. van Noorden, H. 2015. Playing Hesiod: The «Myth of the Races» in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.

  Bibliography van Otterlo, W.A.A. 1944. Untersuchungen über Begriff, Anwendung und Entstehung der griechischen Ringkomposition. Amsterdam. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1997. Greek Readers’ Digests: Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri. Leiden. van Thiel, H. 1988. Odysseen. Basel. Verdenius, W.J. 1972. ‘Notes on the Proem of Hesiod’s Theogony’, Mnemosyne 25: 225–260. Vernant, J-P. 1960. ‘Le mythe hésiodique des races: Essai d’analyse structurale’, Révue de l’Histoire des Religions 157: 21–54 (= 1985. [ed.], Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs, vol. I, Paris, 19–45 = 1990. ‘Le mythe hésiodique des races: Essai d’analyse structurale’, in: J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet [eds.], La Grèce ancienne, vol. I. Paris: 13–43). Visser, E. 1997. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart/Leipzig. Vivante, P. 1970. The Homeric Imagination. Bloomington. von der Mühll, P. 1940. ‘Der Dichter der Odyssee’, Jahrbuch des Vereins Schweizer Gymnasiallehrer 68: 80–103. von der Mühll, P. 1952. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Basel. von Lieven, A. 2006. ‘Fiktionales und historisches Ägypten. Das Ägyptenbild der Odyssee aus ägyptologischer Perspektive’, in: A. Luther (ed.), Geschichte und Funktion in der homerischen Odyssee. Munich, 61–75. Vürtheim, J. 1901. ‘De Eugammonis Cyrenaei Telegonia’, Mnemosyne 29: 23–58. Wackernagel, J. 1916. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Göttingen. Wade-Gery, H.T. 1952. The Poet of the “Iliad”. Cambridge. Waern, I. 1951. Γῆς ὀστέα: the Kenning in the Pre-Christian Greek Poetry, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Uppsala. Walcot, D. 1977. ‘Odysseus and the Art of Lying’, AncSoc 8: 1–19. Walcot, P. 1969. ‘ΧΡΥΣΕΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΕΙΩΝ: A Further Comment’, CR n.s. 19: 12–13. Waldner, K. 2000. Geburt und Hochzeit des Kriegers. Geschlechtdifferenz und Initiation in Mythos und Ritual der griechischen Polis. Berlin. Walsh, T.R. 1995. ‘Odyssey 1.6–9: a Little More than Kine’, Mnemosyne 48: 392–403. Ward, D. 1968. The Divine Twins: An Indo-European Myth in Germanic Tradition. Berkeley. Warner, R. 1972. Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War. London. Watkins, C. 1975. ‘Latin ador, Hittite ḫat- Again: Addenda to HSCP 77 (1973) 187–193’, HSCP 79: 181–187 (= 1994. Selected Writings: Culture and Poetics, vol. II: 480–486 [edited by L. Oliver]). Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York/Oxford. Watkins, C. 1997. ‘Luvo-Hittite ‹‹lapan(a)-’, in: D. Disterheft, M. Huld, and J. Greppin (eds.), Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel: Ancient Languages and Philology, vol. I. Washington, DC, 29–35. Webster, T.B.L. 1958. From Mycenae to Homer. London. Wehr, O. 2015. Die Ilias und Argos. Ein Beitrag zur homerischen Frage. Frankfurt. Weil, H. 1900. ‘Nouveaux fragments de Ménandre et d’autres classiques grecs’, Journal des Savants: 48–54 and 95–106. Welcker, F.G. 1865–18822. Der epische Cyclus oder die Homerischen Dichter, 2 vols. Bonn. West, M.L. 1966. Hesiod: Theogony (Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary). Oxford. West, M.L. 1971. ‘Stesichorus’, CQ 21: 302–314. West, M.L. 1978a. Hesiod: Works and Days (Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary). Oxford. West, M.L. 1978b. ‘Phocylides’, JHS 98: 164–167.

Bibliography  

West, M.L. 1981. ‘The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music’, JHS 101: 113–129. West, M.L. 1983. The Orphic Poems. Oxford. West, M.L. 1985. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Oxford. West, M.L. 1988. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic’, JHS 108: 151–172. West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. West, M.L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West, M.L. 1998–2000. Homerus: Ilias. Stuttgart/Leipzig/Munich. West, M.L. 1999. ‘The Invention of Homer’, CQ 49: 364–382. West, M.L. 2000. ‘Iliad and Aethiopis on the Stage. Aeschylus and Son’, CQ 50: 338–352. West, M.L. 2001. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich/Leipzig. West, M.L. 2002. ‘‘‘Eumelos’’: a Corinthian Epic Cycle?’, JHS 122: 109–133. West, M.L. 2003a. Greek Epic Fragments: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge, MA/London. West, M.L. 2003b. Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer. Cambridge, MA/London. West, M.L. 2003c. ‘Iliad and Aethiopis’, CQ 53: 1–14. West, M.L. 2004. ‘The Death of Baldr’, Journal of Indo-European Studies 32: 1–9. West, M.L. 2005. ‘Odyssey and Argonautica’, CQ 55: 39–64. West, M.L. 2006. ‘Archilochus and Telephos’, ZPE 156: 11–17. West, M.L. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West, M.L. 2010. ‘Rhapsodes at Festivals.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 173: 1–13. West, M.L. 2011a. The Making of the Iliad. Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West, M.L. 2011b. ‘Rhapsodes’, in: Finkelberg (ed.) The Homer Encyclopedia. Malden, 745–746. West, M.L. 2013. The Greek Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. West, M.L. 2014. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford. West, M.L. 2017. Homerus: Odyssea. Berlin. West, M.L. 2018. ‘Gilgamesh and Homer: The Missing Link?’, in: L.G. Audley-Miller and B. Dignas (eds.), Wandering Myths: Transcultural Uses of Myth in the Ancient World. Berlin, 265–280. West, S.R. 1981. ‘An Alternative Nostos for Odysseus’, LCM 6: 169–175. West, S.R. et al. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Introduction and Books i-viii. Oxford. West, S.R. 2007. ‘Rhampsinitos and the Clever Thief (Herodotus 2.121)’, in: J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Oxford, 322–327. White, J.A. 1982. ‘Bellerophon in the “Land of Nod”. Some Notes on Iliad 6.153–211’, AJP 103: 119–127. Whitmarsh, T. 2004. ‘The Cretan Lyre Paradox: Mesomedes, Hadrian and the Poetics of Patronage’, in: B.E. Borg (ed.), Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic. Berlin, 377–402. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1884. Homerische Untersuchungen. Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1916. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. Wilamowitz- Moellendorff, U. von 1931. Der Glaube der Hellenen, vol. I. Berlin. Willcock, M. 1997. ‘Neoanalysis’, in: I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Leiden, 174–189. Wills, J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion. Oxford. Wilson, D. 2002. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge.

  Bibliography Wilson, P. 2009. ‘Thamyris the Thracian: The Archetypal Wandering Poet?’, in: R. Hunter and Ι. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality, and Panhellenism. Cambridge, 46–79. Winter, N. 1993. Greek Architectural Terracottas. Oxford. Wismann, H. 1996. ‘Propositions pour une lecture d’Hésiode’, in: F. Blaise, P. Judet de la Combe, and P. Rousseau (eds.), Le métier du mythe. Lectures d’Hésiode. Lille, 15–24. Wolicki, A. 2002. ‘The Heralds and the Games in Archaic and Classical Greece’, Nikephoros 15: 69–97. Wolkow, B.M. 2007. ‘The Mind of a Bitch: Pandora’s Motive and Intent in the Erga’, Hermes 137: 247–262. Woodhouse, W.J. 1930. The Composition of Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford. Worman, N. 2001. ‘This Voice Which Is Not One: Helen’s Verbal Guises in Homeric Epic’, in: A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton, 19–37. Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda. Munich. Yon, M. et al. 2004. Kition dans les textes: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et corpus des inscriptions. Paris. Zanetto, G. 20063 [1988]. Inni omerici. Milan. Zeitlin, F.I. 1996. ‘Signifying Difference: The Case of Hesiod’s Pandora’, in: F.I. Zeitlin (ed.), Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature. Chicago, 53–86. Zepernick, K. 1921. ‘Die Exzerpte des Athenaeus in den Deipnosophisten und ihre Glaubwürdigkeit’, Philologus 77: 311–363. Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time Maps. Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago. Ziegler, K. 19882 (1934). L’epos ellenistico: Un capitolo dimenticato della poesia greca. 2nd ed. with an appendix (Ennio poeta epico ellenistico) by F. de Martino. Bari. Zografou-Lyra, G. 1987. Ο μύθος του Παλαμήδη στηv αρχαία ελληvική γραμματεία, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ioannina. Zoran, G. 1984. ‘Towards a Theory of Space in Narrative’, Poetics Today 5: 309–335. Zschietzschmann, W. 1931. ‘Homer und die attische Bildkunst um 560’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 46: 45–60. Zumthor, P. 1990. Oral Poetry: An Introduction, trans. by K. Murphy-Judy. Minneapolis.

General Index *Achilleis 6 n. 12, 45 n. 5 Achilles XVIII n. 2, 7, 8 and n. 19, 9 and n. 24, 10 n. 26, 11 n. 31, 12, 13 and nn. 37–38, 16 and n. 56, 19, 23, 35–37, 39, 41, 46, 57, 59–61, 73 and n. 23, 74, 80– 81, 86 n. 14, 88, 99, 101 n. 67, 103, 123–125, 131 n. 58, 132 n. 61, 133–135, 136 n. 13, 137 and nn. 15–16, 138 and nn. 20–21, 139, 140 n. 24, 141, 142, 143 and n. 32, 144 and n. 36, 145, 146, 147 and n. 46, 148, 149 and nn. 51–52, 150 and n. 60, 151–152, 153 and n. 70 and 72, 154–155, 160–161, 170 n. 32, 185 n. 62, 186 n. 69, 190 n. 82, 203, 243–244, 254, 283, 287–289, 290 and n. 17, 291 and n. 19, 292 and n. 22, 293 and n. 25, 295, 300, 301 and nn. 47–49, 302 and nn. 51–52, 305–310, 318, 319, 321, 323 and n. 27, 325 and nn. 35–36, 326 and n. 42, 327 and nn. 43 and 45–46, 328 and n. 47, 329–330, 331 and n. 58, 334 and nn. 75–76, 336–339, 340 and n. 99, 341 and n. 99, 342–343, 347–349, 353, 355 and n. 1, 356, 357 and n. 4, 358 and nn. 7 and 11, 359 and n. 11, 360 and n. 15, 361 and n. 20, 362 and n. 23, 363 and n. 25, 364 and n. 33, 365 and nn. 35–36, 366–367, 368 and n. 50, 369 and n. 51, 370 and n. 54, 371 and n. 57, 372 and nn. 65–66, 373 and n. 68, 374 and nn. 69 and 71, 375, 376 and n. 78, 377–380, 396, 432 n. 29, 436, 437 and nn. 57 and 61, 451–454, 457, 556, 567– 568, 573 adjacency across lines 260 n. 13, 267 Adrastus 298–299, 318, 321, 324, 328 and nn. 47 and 49, 329–330, 331 and n. 58, 332, 334, 340, 344 n. 112, 487 n. 96, 502 and n. 168, 503 Aeaea 9, 309, 385, 393, 394 and n. 54, 395, 398, 399 and n. 89, 406, 423 Agamedes 384, 386 n. 17, 387, 389, 390 and n. 34, 391–392, 405, 412 n. 22

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-022

Agamemnon 5, 9 n. 24, 15, 61, 80, 101 n. 67, 122, 124, 131 n. 58, 134 n. 7, 136 n. 13, 137 and n. 15, 138–139, 140 and n. 24, 141–144, 145 and n. 39, 147 and n. 46, 149, 150 and n. 55, 151, 153, 155, 159–160, 161, 166, 170 n. 32, 175–176, 189, 244, 259, 286–289, 291 n. 19, 293, 301, 303, 305, 343 and n. 107, 344, 353, 355, 362, 363 n. 26, 369, 370 n. 54, 420 n. 49, 435 and n. 48, 450 n. 101, 451, 453 Agias of Troezen: see Epic Cycle –poems ––Nostoi Aisepos 106 Ajax –Locrian 293, 306, 327 n. 45, –Telamonian 16, 57, 88, 100, 135, 143, 149, 151, 159, 186 n. 69, 189, 244, 290 n. 17, 432 n. 29 Alaksandu 326 Alcmaon 286, 304 and n. 61, 314, 318, 321–322, 329, 333, 334 and n. 75, 346, 350 alliteration –general 45, 66, 95, 97 n. 59, 240, 257– 260, 262 n. 17, 271, 274–275, 277, 279, 452–454, 455 and n. 128, 456 –verse-initial 272 –verse-internal 66 –verse-terminal 66 –word-initial 258–259, 268, 272 n. 34, 273, 274, 276, 455 –word-terminal 274 alternative Odyssey(s) 15, 163–166, 167 and n. 21, 168 n. 21, 178–179, 188 n. 77, 190 n. 81, 192, 198–199, 204, 206 Amazon(s) 97, 105 n. 82, 291, 292 and n. 23, 295, 308 ambush 60, 97, 179, 186 and nn. 67 and 69, 187 and n. 74, 188 n. 77, 288, 303 Amphiaraus 7, 189, 190 n. 82, 303–304, 314, 317, 318 and n. 16, 319 n. 18, 321– 322, 323–325, 327 n. 46, 328 and nn. 47 and 49, 329–330, 332 and n. 62, 333

  General Index and nn. 62 and 68, 334 and nn. 75–76, 338, 339 and n. 90, 340, 346, 349–350, 378, 485 and n. 92, 502, 503 n. 169, 519 Analysis/Analysts/Analytical School XVIII, XX n. 18, 3, 7 n. 15, 42, 72 n. 19, 87, 134 and n. 1, 136, 140, 148, 152, 153, 213–214, 290 n. 18 anaphora 44, 156, 215, 265 n. 24 Andromache 69, 75–76, 81, 91 and n. 34 Apollo 9, 61, 106–107, 121 n. 34, 168 n. 21, 210 and n. 6, 226 n. 69, 246, 278– 279, 287–289, 290 and n. 18, 291 n. 19, 292 and nn. 22–23, 293 and n. 26, 294–295, 297 n. 38, 300 n. 46, 302 and n. 53, 303, 304–305, 308, 314, 327, 333 n. 68, 342, 347, 376 n. 78, 385, 390– 391, 432, 436 and n. 54, 437 n. 56, 438–439, 445–446, 472–473, 474 n. 42, 476 n. 45, 486, 494 and n. 137, 495, 501, 506, 509, 515, 526, 529, 533, 535 n. 105, 543, 546 Arcesilaus: see Ptoliporthes Arcesilaus I 388 Arcesilaus II 388, 507 Arctinus of Miletos: see Epic Cycle – poems ––Aethiopis and Iliou persis aretalogy/aretalogical poetry 244, 251 and n. 195 *Argonautica XXII, 14, 164, 206, 315 Argos 38 n. 11, 77 and n. 32, 79, 80 n. 39, 95, 96 and n. 52, 97–98, 249 n. 189, 264, 287, 341–342, 343 and n. 107, 344 and n. 112, 347, 370 n. 54, 439–440, 447, 453 n. 116, 455 n. 130, 465, 484 and n. 86, 485–487, 499, 501, 502 and nn. 165 and 168, 503 and n. 168, 526, 541, 553, 560, 570, 575 Arion 298, 299 and n. 42, 324 and n. 31, 325–328, 330, 331 and n. 58, 487 n. 96 Aristarchus XIX n. 12, 150 n. 60, 152, 156, 170, 358 n. 9, 411 n. 13, 475 and n. 44, 500 Aristonicus 156–157, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 n. 40, 357, 502 n. 165 Artucca 106 assonance –and complex cases

––long-range aural association 276–277 ––middle-range aural association 272 n. 35, 273, 275 ––progressively-developed aural associations 270 ––short-range aural association 271 –and syllabic repetition or near-repetition of stem syllables 257, 265, 269, 278 –and vocalic repetition 257, 259–264, 276 n. 46 –progressive 66 –verse-initial 66, 241 –verse-internal 66, 241 –verse-terminal 66, 241 –word-initial 66, 240, 260–264, 271, 272, 274 –word-internal 270 –word-terminal 66, 240, 241, 269, 271, 274, 456 Assuwian Confederacy 106 Athena 14, 70, 77 n. 32, 106, 121 n. 34, 169, 170–171, 174–178, 181 n. 59, 182 n. 59, 184 n. 61, 187, 200 n. 110, 210, 245, 258 and n. 9, 266–267, 283, 285– 286, 289, 293 and n. 28, 294–297, 298 and n. 39, 300 n. 46, 306, 309, 333 n. 68, 370, 376 n. 78, 385, 399, 481 and n. 69, 487 n. 96 Atreidon Kathodos 5, 166, 409 audience/s –multiplicity of 22–25, 315 –performative communication with 28 Aulis 49, 228, 254, 287, 289, 305–306, 342–343, 344 and n. 112, 345, 358, 376, 447, 470 authorship 26, 54, 56, 256, 385–386, 417–418, 474 n. 42 Bellerophon 93, 95, 96 and nn. 53–54, 97 and n. 57, 98 and n. 61, 100 n. 64, 102 n. 73, 266–267, 456 Bronze Age 101, 103, 105 and n. 86, 479, 487 n. 96 Caicos 325 n. 37, 335 and n. 78, 336–338 Calchas –Calchas/Poseidon 138

General Index  

–seer 9, 71 n. 18, 138, 287, 292 n. 22, 305–307, 333, 342, 343 n. 104, 347, 471 n. 29 Calypso 7, 16, 17 and n. 57, 180, 187 n. 75, 197, 198 and n. 98, 205, 393 n. 51, 437 n. 61 catalogue –of Nereids 17, 32, 44–45, 47, 51–53, 65–66, 241, 457 –of Phaeacians 241 –of Ships 23 n. 79, 32 n. 101, 48–49, 71– 72, 108, 117, 134, 170 n. 32, 241 –of Trojans and their Allies 23 n. 79, 100, 105 n. 87, 241, 288 Catalogue of Heroines 46, 48, 243, 244 and n. 149, 252–253 Catalogue of Women –and automatization XXIV, 252, 255 –and generic crossing XXIV, 253, 255, 256 and n. 5 Catalogue-poetry –and direct speech 247–248, 255 –and increment recall 47, 243 –and itemizing device/mechanism 47, 243, 247, 253 –and seriation 47 and n. 10, 50, 243 and n. 145, 256 Catalogues –and fragment/fragmented text XXIII, XXIV, 48, 244 n. 153, 260, 261 and n. 14, 262 n. 15, 265, 268 n. 30, 273, 275, 276 and n. 49, 294, 300 n. 45, 303, 494 –and horizontal associations 200 –and link(s) 48 –and vertical associations 48, 98, 185 n. 65, 200 –boundless 48 certamen: see Hesiod –contest with Homer ‘Cf.’ dilemma 22, 28 Chanson de Roland 5 Chiron 275, 298 and n. 40, 302, 340, 341 and nn. 99 and 103, 359 Chromius 324, 332 n. 61, 335 and n. 77, 338, 503 n. 168 chronotopes/chronotopic map: see timespaces

Circe 7, 9, 16–17, 197, 198 and n. 98, 205, 308–309, 385, 393 and n. 51, 394, 395 and n. 62, 396, 398, 399 and n. 89, 404 n. 106, 423, 424 and n. 62, 437 n. 61, 488 collective epic 246 ‘commentary’ –by etymologizing 216 –critical 217 and n. 39, 218 –interpretive 218 Creophyleioi 445 Crete 115 n. 19, 120, 163 n. 2, 167 and nn. 20–21, 168 and nn. 21 and 23, 169, 170 and n. 32, 171–173, 174 and n. 40, 175– 180, 181 and n. 58, 182–183, 184 and n. 61, 188 n. 77, 190 and nn. 79 and 81, 198, 245, 307, 386 n. 16, 420 n. 49, 507, 574 n. 115 cross-referencing –oral 32 –written 32 Cynaethus 438–440, 495, 505–506 *Cypria 189 Demodocus 18–20, 188 n. 77, 428, 430, 431 and n. 28, 432–433, 434 nn. 36 and 37, 435, 443 detextualization 34, 36 Digenes Akrites 5 Diomedes XXIII, 13 and nn. 37–38, 14, 16, 83, 85–89, 90 and n. 30, 91 and n. 32, 92 and n. 37, 93 nn. 37–38, 94 and n. 46, 95, 97 and n. 59, 98–100, 106–107, 108 and nn. 99–100, 150–151, 155, 158– 159, 161, 176, 186–187, 197, 291 n. 19, 319, 344, 345 n. 114, 349, 356–357, 364, 365 n. 36, 368–369, 488 n. 101 Dionysus 62–63, 95, 210, 287, 305, 319, 330–331, 333 n. 68, 345 and n. 114, 373 n. 68, 468, 507, 531 Dodona 181 n. 58, 202, 204–205, 496, 508, 510 Dolopes 358 and n. 11, 369, 375 and nn. 72 and 76, 376–379 double entendre 119–120

  General Index doublet 9 and n. 25, 12, 13 and n. 36, 16, 198 n. 98, 205, 291, 312, 318, 325, 345, 349, 353 dual-coding hypothesis 249 Egypt 170 n. 32, 172, 175, 176 and n. 44, 183, 190 n. 79, 194 and n. 88, 195 and n. 90, 196 and n. 93, 197, 198 and n. 100, 201, 205, 387, 388 n. 29, 391 and n. 39, 414, 521 n. 39, 571 n. 92, 572 and n. 96 ehoiai –and offspring 47, 62, 241, 245, 270, 275 –and presentation XXIII, XXVI, 241 –and procreation myth 241 ehoie-formula 238–239, 249, 253, 255 Elis 8, 179, 203 n. 120, 389–390, 395– 396, 404, 405 and nn. 106 and 109, 407 n. 3, 418–419, 420 nn. 48–49, 421 and n. 51, 422 and nn. 54–55, 424 and n. 61 embassy (to Achilles) 133–134, 135 and n. 11, 136, 137 and nn. 15–16, 140–142, 147, 149, 150 n. 60, 151, 152 and n. 69, 153 and n. 71, 154, 357, 362 and n. 23, 363 and nn. 25–26, 364, 365 and n. 36, 368–370, 373 entities –evoked ––current-textual 41 ––situational 41 –implied ––current-textual 41 ––situational 41 entry: see lemma/lemmatization Epeus 60, 296–297 Ephyra 181 and n. 58, 203 and n. 120, 204 and n. 120, 205 Epic Cycle –features ––qualitative XXVI, 7, 26 ––stylistic and narrative 8 –poems ––Aethiopis XVIII, XXVI n. 45, 6–9, 10 n. 26, 11 n. 31, 12, 16, 104, 244 n. 148, 283, 289, 290 and nn. 17–18, 291 and n. 19, 292, 293 and n. 25, 295 and n. 32, 301 n. 48, 302, 305 n. 66, 306, 308–

309, 310 n. 79, 328 n. 47, 376 n. 79, 392 n. 45, 396, 474 n. 42 ––Alcmeonis 284, 285 and n. 6, 286, 304 and n. 61, 317 n. 14, 334 and n. 70 ––Cypria XXVI n. 45, XXVII, 5 n. 8, 7–9, 11 n. 31, 28 n. 90, 60, 184 n. 61, 187, 190 n. 82, 191–192, 198 n. 101, 199, 203, 283, 286, 288 and n. 13, 289–290, 293 and n. 25, 295–296, 297 n. 34, 299– 302, 305–309, 318–319, 325, 339, 340 and n. 97, 341, 343–344, 355 and n. 3, 357, 358–361, 362 and n. 22, 363–364, 365 and n. 35, 367–370, 371 and n. 63, 372 and n. 66, 373 and n. 68, 375 and n. 72, 376 and n. 78, 377–380, 396, 409, 421 n. 54, 446 n. 86, 476 n. 42, 493, 497 ––Epigonoi 38 n. 11, 48, 283, 285 and n. 6, 286, 303, 316, 317 and n. 14, 329, 343 n. 104, 345, 349, 474 and n. 42, 475, 487 ––Ilias parva 7–9, 10 and n. 26, 11 n. 31, 60, 186, 244 n. 148, 283, 289, 296, 297 and n. 37, 306, 321 n. 23, 332, 359, 360, 361 nn. 19–20, 367, 368 and n. 50, 371, 372 n. 66, 373, 376 and nn. 78–79, 378–380, 409, 474 n. 42 ––Iliou persis 8, 11 n. 31, 283, 289, 293, 297, 306, 409 ––Nostoi 5, 7, 11 n. 31, 187, 197, 244, 252, 284, 289, 293, 302 n. 52, 306, 307, 316–317, 370 n. 54, 385 n. 8, 398, 417, 474 n. 42 ––Oedipodea 283, 285 and n. 6, 286, 302–304 ––Telegony XXVII, 7–9, 11 n. 31, 15, 198 and n. 101, 199, 202 and n. 115, 204 n. 120, 244 n. 148, 283, 291 n. 21, 293 and n. 25, 294–295, 302 n. 52, 306, 309– 310, 361 n. 20, 384, 385 and nn. 8–10 and 12, 386–388, 390–392, 393 and n. 53, 395, 396 and n. 72, 397, 399 and n. 89, 400 and n. 91, 402, 404, 405 nn. 106–107 and 109, 407 and n. 3, 408– 409, 411 and n. 17, 412, 415 and nn. 26– 27, 417 and n. 39, 418 and n. 41, 421

General Index  

and nn. 51 and 54, 422 nn. 54–55, 423, 424 and n. 62, 507 ––Thebais 7, 9, 14, 38 n. 11, 48, 283, 285 and n. 6, 286, 298, 299 and n. 42, 300, 303, 308–309, 317 n. 14, 324, 333 and n. 62, 409, 474 and n. 42, 475, 485 n. 92, 487 and n. 96, 502 and n. 168, 503 n. 169 –proto-cyclic poetry 10 Eriphyle 46, 286, 304 and n. 62, 316 and n. 11, 317 n. 14, 318–319, 321, 322 and n. 24, 329, 339–340, 346 and n. 115, 349 Eugammon of Cyrene: see Epic Cycle – poems ––Telegony Eumaeus 12, 18–19, 140, 163, 168, 176, 178–180, 181 and n. 59, 182 n. 59, 183– 184, 185 and n. 66, 186 n. 71, 187, 190, 192–193, 194 nn. 89–90, 196 and n. 93, 197 and n. 96, 198, 200–202, 203 n. 116, 204 n. 120, 205, 401, 410–411 Eurypylus 59–60, 156, 158 n. 10, 159– 161, 314, 319, 321–322, 328–329, 332, 333 and n. 66, 334–339, 341, 345–347, 350, 357, 359, 360 and n. 15, 368 and n. 46, 373 and n. 68, 374 and nn. 69 and 71, 380–381 Eustathius 111 n. 3, 114, 117, 144 n. 36, 146 n. 45, 167 n. 21, 171–172, 321 n. 23, 322 n. 23, 331, 364, 371, 385, 396, 399, 410 n. 10, 457–458 evolutionary model XIX and n. 12, 6, 33 n. 105, 224 expansion aesthetic 38 and n. 13 figura etymologica 454 foci/us of consciousness 36, 38 and n. 12, 65 folk song (Modern Greek) –fourfold pattern 157 and n. 8 –threefold pattern 158 –twofold pattern 157 formula/formulaic –chain(s) 78 and n. 38 framing 37–38, 56, 58–59, 84–85

Gilgamesh (hero) 131, 326 n. 42 Glaucus XXIII, 83, 85–89, 90 and n. 30, 91, 92 and n. 37, 93 n. 38, 94 n. 46, 95– 96, 97 and n. 59, 98–99, 100 and nn. 64 and 66, 101 and n. 68, 104, 105 and n. 87, 107–108, 261, 267, 516, 521, 522, 525 n. 69, 526, 535 n. 105 Goat Island 117 goats –and bleating 119–120, 403–404, 414, 416 –and waves 112, 116–118, 120 and nn. 29 and 31, 121 gods –and counseling XXVII, 284, 296–297, 310 –and immortalization XXVII, 7, 283, 308, 309 and n. 76, 310 and n. 79, 311, 400, 423 –and joint intervention XXV, 300 –and metamorphosis XXVIII n. 52, 122, 245–246, 255, 298 n. 39, 299–300, 310, 311 and n. 81, 487 n. 96 –and parentage XXVI, 149 n. 52, 284, 307, 308 and n. 73, 309–310, 331 n. 58 –and preventive self-protection 284 –and prophecies and signs XXVI, 302 –and rivalry XXV, 283, 294, 295, 296, 310 –and wrath ––in Cyclic Theogony and Titanomachy 283–4 ––in Theban epic 285–6 ––in Trojan epic 14, 35–36, 39, 41, 61, 147 n. 46, 286, 288–290, 292 and n. 22, 293 and n. 28, 349, 414 –as divine messengers 307 Hades 36, 184, 284, 334 n. 68, 398 n. 55, 420 n. 47, 424, 482 Hattusili 114 Hecate 209, 213–216, 253 Hector 8 n. 19, 13, 16 and n. 56, 74, 76, 80 n. 39, 81, 86 n. 14, 90 and n. 30, 91 and n. 34, 93 n. 37, 94, 100 and n. 66, 101 n. 68, 102 n. 73, 104, 105 n. 82, 135 n. 7, 143, 145, 159–160, 185 n. 62, 288, 310 n. 79, 325 n. 37, 327 nn. 43 and 45,

  General Index 335 and n. 77, 436 and n. 55, 437 n. 61, 453 and nn. 113–114 Hecuba 69, 297 n. 34 Helen –and marital status 76–77 –and metrical structure of name 69 n. 8 –in the accusative 70 n. 15, 71 n. 15, 77, 81 –in the dative 74 –in the genitive 70, 71 n. 15, 72 and n. 19, 315 n. 8, 475 n. 44, 572 –in the nominative 68–69, 70 n. 15 –in the vocative 70 n. 15, 80–81 Heracles XXII, XXIV, 12, 16, 62–63, 85, 164, 217–218, 236, 237 and n. 113, 238 n. 113, 244–245, 248–249, 258, 261, 264, 266, 271, 278, 287, 299, 308, 309 n. 76, 323, 324 and n. 29, 325 and n. 35, 326 and nn. 41–42, 327 and n. 46, 330– 332, 333 and n. 66, 338, 340 n. 99, 341 n. 101, 347, 360, 362, 383 n. 1, 384, 395, 405, 444, 482, 485 and n. 90, 487 n. 101, 514 Hesiod –Agriculture 215, 220, 225, 226 and nn. 65 and 69, 227–228, 254 –contest with Homer 446–448, 449 n. 98, 471 n. 29, 474 and n. 41–42, 475 n. 42, 503 n. 168 –Nautilia 215, 220, 225, 228, 229 and n. 79, 230, 232–233, 254, 447, 471 n. 28 historia 366–367, 369, 373, 378 Homeridae 438–40, 442 n. 68, 445–446, 457–459, 461, 489, 494 Homeristai XXVIII, XXIX, 44, 102, 511, 512, 513 and nn. 6 and 8, 513, 514, 534, 567– 568 hypertext 43, 50, 54, 61, 63–66 hypertextuality –explicit 51 –implicit 50–52 iconym(s) 110, 131 Ida 85, 94 n. 45, 106, 295, 297 and n. 34 Idomeneus 159–160, 168–173, 175–178, 179 and n. 48, 184 n. 61, 186 n. 67, 187,

188 and n. 77, 189, 190 and nn. 79 and 81, 191, 271, 370 and n. 54 interformularity XXVII, 312, 351–352 intertextuality –and diachronically diffused associations 15–16 –and explicit or implicit referencing 14 –and implicit allusion to alternative versions 15 –and inversion of the source 15 –and parody of the source 15 –and quotation of the source 14 –and self-reflexive tendencies 15 –and window of allusion 16 –meta-traditional 15 –oral 26, 352 intertraditionality 312, 351–352 intonation units 34, 36, 38 n. 12, 39 Iris 75–76, 134 n. 7, 286, 307 Ismenos 335–336, 338 Item-pluses 38, 65 katabasis 16, 165 kitharis 428, 433 n. 35, 435 n. 43, 443 n. 76, 450 n. 101 kitharoidia 444 Kukkunnis 326 Kurunta 114, 116 n. 21 Law of Final Stress: see ‘6+1 days’ motif lemma/lemmatization 46–47, 52, 110, 217, 238, 243, 249, 255–256, 312, 366, 378 Lesches of Mytilene: see Epic Cycle – poems ––Ilias parva linguistic variation 30, 32 literacy –and orality: see orality and literacy Lukka 105, 106 and n. 88, 107 n. 98 Luwian 104 and n. 78, 105–106, 114–115, 116 and n. 20, 121, 126 and nn. 44–45, 128, 129 Lycia/Lycians XXIII, 84, 95, 96 and nn. 53–54, 97 and n. 58, 98, 100, 101 and n. 67, 102 and nn. 72–73, 103 and nn. 74 and 76, 104 and n. 78, 105 and n. 87,

General Index  

106 and nn. 88–89, 107 and nn. 97–98, 108 Lycomedes 355–357, 358 n. 7, 361–362, 364, 368, 369 and n. 51, 372–373, 374 and n. 70 Lycurgus 93, 95, 96 and n. 54, 98, 339– 340, 483, 490 and n. 117, 503 n. 169 Machaon 155, 159–161, 334, 341 and nn. 102–103, 451 Mahabharata 5 Margites 446 and n. 89 Meleager XXII, 23 and n. 79, 98, 143, 151 n. 63, 260, 432 n. 29 *Memnonis 6 and n. 12, 16, 104 n. 77, 148, 167 Menelaus 7, 58–59, 72 and n. 19, 73, 76, 79–80, 90, 99, 101 n. 67, 106, 159, 166, 169, 171–173, 175–178, 184 n. 61, 190 and nn. 79–80, 192, 196 and nn. 93, 197 and n. 95, 198, 259, 275, 286, 293, 306–307, 318, 321 n. 23, 341, 355–356, 360–364, 365 n. 36, 369–370, 420 n. 49, 504, 520 Menoetius 146, 149 n. 52 metacyclic epic 192 and n. 84, 197 metakenosis 161, 180 n. 53 motifs/patterns/sub-motifs ‘abused son of a younger co-wife becomes hero’ 185 ‘advice of leader is not followed by comrades’ 194–195, 198 n. 102 ‘apotheosis’ 245–255 ‘bastard hero’ 185 ‘being defeated in a foreign land’ 196, 199 ‘besieging Troy for Nine Years and Sacking the City on the Tenth’ 193 ‘clothing 201 and n. 111 ‘death away from the sea’ 406 ‘divine care’ 245, 255 ‘divine punishment’ 99, 221, 245–246, 255 ‘enemy arrives with huge force’ 194 ‘gift/riches and stealing’ 201 ‘hiding’ 202, 369 n. 51 ‘lowly hero marries princess’ 185

‘marriage of poor boy and rich girl’ 185 ‘metamorphosis’ XXVIII n. 52, 122, 245– 246, 255, 298 n. 39, 299–300, 310, 311 and n. 80, 487 n. 96 ‘misunderstood oracle’ 396 n. 72 ‘of Potiphar’s wife’ 96 and n. 53, 246 ‘poisonous barbed spine of the sting-ray’ 406 ‘relief of earth’ 203 ‘second departure’ 196, 198 ‘son/daughter takes the stranger/castaway to the palace and presents him to his/ her father’ 201 ‘son kills his father through ignorance’ 385 n. 7, 398 n. 80, 422 ‘they do not know of the sea’ 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 ‘three times but the fourth time’ 156 ‘unwillingness to participate in the Trojan War’ 190 ‘6+1 days’ 194 ‘7+1 years’ 194 n. 90, 197, 205 Muse(s) 18 and n. 62, 35, 37, 47, 49, 54– 56, 58, 64, 123, 182–183, 210 and nn. 6–7, 211 n. 10, 212 and n. 15, 213, 215, 218–222, 226–228, 233, 236 and n. 108, 246, 250–251, 430, 432, 434, 435 and n. 41, 436 and n. 53, 437 n. 56, 439, 442, 466–467, 469, 470 and n. 29, 514, 523, 543, 555–556, 557, 559, 560, 562, 566–568 Mycenae 140, 303, 343–344, 435 Myth of Races 222–225 Mythographus Homericus (MH) 366 Mythopoiesis 164 Name-patterns –in absentia 81 and n. 45 –in praesentia 81 and n. 45 narrative –and analepsis/flashback 213, 298, 353, 359, 373, 376 –and prolepsis 9 n. 26, 305, 307 –and speed 35, 39, 457 Naupactia/Naupactiaca 497, 498 and n. 156 Near-Eastern literature

  General Index –Dumuzi-Inanna Sumerian songs XXI –Gilgamesh XVIII n. 3, XXII, 16, 131, 164 and n. 8, 198 and n. 98, 206, 326 n. 42 –Royal Hymns of the Sumerians XXI Neoanalysis –and Faktenkanon 25 n. 85, 28 n. 90, 313, 322, 329, 371 n. 57 –oral, intertextual 21–22 Neoptolemus 8–9, 10 n. 26, 59–61, 176, 306, 314, 319, 321 n. 23, 322 n. 23, 328–329, 334 and n. 75, 336–337, 339, 347, 350, 356–359, 360 and n. 15, 363 n. 25, 366–367, 368 and n. 46, 370, 371 and n. 61, 372–373, 374 and nn. 69 and 71, 377–378, 380, 391 n. 47, 564 neoteroi 342–343, 347, 357, 367 Neo-Unitarians 152–153 Nereids 17, 32 n. 101, 44–45, 47, 51–53, 64–66, 241, 457 Nestor 57, 71 and n. 18, 72, 73 and n. 21, 137, 142, 148, 149 and nn. 51–52, 150– 151, 153 and n. 72, 154–156, 158–159, 160 and n. 17, 161, 170–173, 175–178, 197, 205 n. 124, 287, 318, 357–358, 360–362, 363 and n. 25, 364, 365 n. 36, 368, 370, 479, 485, 487 n. 96 Nibelungenlied 5 *Nostoi 5, 14, 165–167, 177–179 Odysseus XVII, XXI n. 22, XXII, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 nn. 27 and 30, 11 and n. 31, 12, 14– 16, 18 and n. 62, 19, 35, 39, 41 and n. 25, 57–61, 84 n. 9, 90, 99, 114 n. 13, 135, 140, 141–142, 148–151, 155, 158–159, 161, 163, 164 and nn. 5 and 8, 165, 166 and n. 16, 167 and n. 21, 168 and n. 25, 169, 170 n. 32, 172–178, 179 and n. 48, 180, 181 and nn. 57–58, 182 and nn. 59–60, 183, 184 and n. 61, 185 and nn. 62–63 and 66, 185 and n. 66, 186 and nn. 67, 69 and 71, 187 and nn. 75–76, 188 n. 77, 189 and n. 78, 190 and nn. 79–81, 191–192, 193 and n. 85, 194 and n. 89, 195 and n. 91, 196 and n. 93, 197 and n. 95, 198 and nn. 101–102, 199 and n. 105, 200 and n. 110, 201 n. 111, 202 and n. 115, 203 and n. 120, 204 and

nn. 120–121, 205–206, 211 n. 11, 212, 230, 232–233, 244, 248, 251 n. 193, 252 n. 201, 271, 287–288, 290 and n. 18, 291 and nn. 19 and 21, 293 and n. 25, 294–295, 297, 305–306, 308–309, 318, 319 and n. 19, 352, 356, 357 and n. 6, 358–359, 360 n. 15, 361 and n. 18, 362 and n. 23, 363 and nn. 25 and 28–29, 364 and n. 33, 365 and n. 36, 366, 368 and n. 46, 369–373, 377–378, 384– 386, 387–388, 390–391, 392 and nn. 42 and 46, 393 and nn. 51 and 53, 394 and nn. 54–55 and 57, 395 and n. 62, 396 and n. 72, 397 and nn. 75–76, 398 and n. 80, 399 and n. 89, 400 n. 89, 401 and n. 93, 402–404, 405 and nn. 108–109, 406, 407 n. 3, 408–409, 410 and nn. 9–10, 411 and n. 17, 412, 414– 419, 420 and nn. 47–48, 421, 422 and nn. 55 and 57, 423, 424 and nn. 61–62, 430, 431 and n. 28, 432 and n. 29, 435, 451–452, 457, 488, 507 onomatopoeia 452 Oralists/Oral Theory XVII, XIX–XXI, XXVIII, 3–4, 6, 11, 64, 133, 152, 313 orality –and literacy 30, 32 nn. 101–102, 33 –developed orality 32 –simulated orality 32 –undeveloped orality 31 organization of information 37 orientation 14, 37–39, 65 Palamedes 9, 10 n. 30, 191–192, 288– 298, 319 and n. 19, 361, 363 and nn. 28–29, 364 and n. 33, 365 n. 36, 370 Pandarus 105 and n. 87, 106 and n. 89, 107 and n. 96 Pandora 9 n. 23, 214, 236–237, 265 and n. 23 Panhellenic –Panhellenism 10–11, 28–30, 165–166, 205 –Pre-Panhellenism 11 –Proto-Panhellenism 10, 29, 205

General Index  

Panionia: see performance context –in the Archaic and Classical Periods ––Asia Minor ––Ephesos/Mycale paralepsis 162 paratones 40 and n. 19 pareidolia 131–132 paronomasia 453 Patroclus 57, 94, 100, 103 n. 73, 123– 124, 135, 142, 143 and n. 32, 144 and n. 36, 145, 146 and n. 45, 147–148, 149 nn. 51–52, 150–156, 159–161, 288, 329, 330 and n. 55, 340, 345 n. 114, 358, 370, 377, 432 n. 29, 436, 437 n. 57, 452, 488, 537 n. 114, 573 patronymics 88–89, 526 Peleus 7, 36, 137, 146, 151–152, 246, 286, 288, 299 and n. 44, 302, 308– 309, 327 nn. 43 and 46, 331, 340, 342, 355–357, 358 and n. 11, 359–362, 363 n. 25, 364–366, 368, 369 and n. 51, 370, 375, 376–377, 380, 396, 454 Penelope 7, 9, 14, 64, 166, 178–179, 182 n. 59, 184 n. 61, 191–192, 201 n. 111, 242 n. 138, 244, 247 n. 181, 251, 252 nn. 196 and 201, 309–310, 385–388, 392– 393, 394 and n. 53, 394 and n. 54, 397 n. 76, 398, 399 and n. 89, 406, 418, 423, 507 performance context –in the Archaic and Classical Periods ––hors concours 465, 526, 535 n. 105 ––funeral games 215, 470 and n. 28, 488 ––public festivals 463, 465, 471 ––Asia Minor –––Claros 472, 508 –––Ephesos/Mycale 473–474, 499 n. 158, 500, 508–509, 572 n. 103 –––Phocaea 476, 508, 518, 526 ––Attica –––Apatouria 477–478 –––Brauronia 478 and n. 51, 480 –––Eleusis 480–481, 508 –––Galaxia 492 –––Hephaestia 481 –––Marathon 482 and n. 77, 508 –––Panathenaea 459, 477–479, 482 n. 77, 483 and nn. 80 and 82, 484–485,

487 and n. 96, 488 and n. 101, 489– 491, 500, 509, 552 n. 31 –––Pandia 492–493 ––Crete 507, 575 n. 115 ––Cyprus 493–494, 508 ––Delos 473, 476 n. 45, 494 and nn. 136–137, 495, 506, 508–509 ––Delphi 486, 495, 502 n. 165, 508, 510 ––Dodona 496, 508, 510 ––Eretria 496, 508 ––Naupactos 497, 498 and n. 156, 508 ––Peloponnese –––Epidauros 499–500, 508–509, 513 –––Olympia 496, 499, 501, 503 n. 169, 508–509 –––Sicyon 484 n. 85, 485, 499, 501 and n. 165, 502 and n. 165, 503 and n. 168, 504 and n. 170, 508–510 ––Samos 477, 494, 504, 508 ––Sparta 503 n. 169, 506 ––Syracuse 468, 501, 503 n. 168, 505– 506, 508–509 –in the Hellenistic Period ––Festivals –––Boeotia 515, 516 and n. 18, 517–520, 521 and n. 39, 526–528, 534, 541–542 –––Keos 515, 532–534, 535 n. 105, 542 –––Orchomenos 515, 517–520, 521 and n. 39, 525–526, 532, 534, 536 n. 109, 540–541 –––Oropos 515, 517–519, 524, 525 and n. 69, 526, 534, 536, 539–540 –––Tanagra 515–516, 520, 521 and n. 39, 525 and n. 69, 530, 534, 539 –––Thebes 515–516, 518–523, 525–526, 534, 535 and n. 105, 536, 538–540 –––Thespiae 515, 516 and n. 20, 517– 518, 521–524, 524 and nn. 61–62, 526, 530, 534, 536. 537 n. 114, 538–540 –––Delos 515, 526, 534, 535 n. 105, 539 –––Delphi 512, 515, 521, 523, 526–528, 529 and nn. 88 and 93, 534–535, 538, 539 and n. 118, 540–542 –––Euboea 519, 521, 534 –––Rhodes 515, 533–534, 535 n. 105, 537, 541 ––Gymnasia 514

  General Index ––Theaters 512–513, 534 –in the Imperial Period ––in other occasions 492 ––in public festivals –––Boeotia 543–544, 548, 557, 573 –––Thespiae 543, 553–557, 559–562, 574–575 Persephone 46, 394 n. 55, 420 n. 47, 424, 481 Phemius 19–20, 111 n. 4, 428–429, 431 and n. 28, 433 n. 33, 435, 443, 449, 450 and n. 101, 496 Phoenicia/Phoenicians 11–12, 179, 181, 183, 196 n. 93, 197 n. 96, 199–202, 205, 232 Phoenix 62–63, 135, 143, 151 n. 63, 356, 357 n. 6, 363 n. 25, 364, 368–373, 375, 376, 432 n. 29 Phorminx 25, 315, 428, 443 phraseology recurrent/repeated 128, 314, 353 reiterated 40, 65, 353 Pisistratus (Telemachus’ friend) 58, 177, 479, 487 n. 96 Pisistratus (tyrant of Athens) 474–480, 483 and n. 80, 484 and nn. 86–87, 485 and n. 88, 486–487, 489, 494 poetics (Hesiodic) –Agriculture 215, 220, 225–228, 254 –Nautilia 215, 220, 225, 228–235, 254, 447, 471 n. 28 Polynices 303–304, 316, 317 n. 14, 318, 321 Polypoites 385, 393 n. 52, 394 and n. 54, 400, 406, 411 n. 17, 423 polyptoton 266, 454 Poseidon 14, 19, 47, 114 n. 13, 121, 123, 138, 147 n. 46, 210, 245, 266, 267 and n. 26, 270–271, 276–277, 283–284, 288, 291 n. 21, 293, 297 n. 38, 298, 299 and n. 42, 308, 324 and n. 31, 325–326, 327 and nn. 43 and 46, 331 and n. 58, 333 n. 68, 387 and n. 21, 402–405, 414, 417, 419, 424 n. 61, 456, 473–474, 475 and n. 44, 476 and n. 44, 487 n. 96 Priam 57, 60, 72 n. 19, 76, 79–90, 132 n. 61, 185 n. 62, 187, 189, 291, 297

n. 34, 306, 319, 321 and n. 23, 322 n. 46, 336, 346 n. 115, 347, 371 n. 54, 373–374 priamel 63, 145, 158 n. 11, 248 n. 185 proem –of the Iliad 34 and n. 2, 35, 36, 41–42, 65, 220, 236 n. 108, 430 –of the Odyssey 18 n. 62, 34 and n. 2, 35, 37–42, 65, 168 and n. 22, 183, 220, 236 n. 108, 430 –of the Theogony 209, 210 and nn. 4–5 and 7, 220, 221 and n. 49, 222, 226, 253 –of the Works and Days 215, 217 n. 39, 219–221 and n. 50 Proetus 96 n. 53, 97 and n. 57, 98, 264, 455 n. 130 Prometheus 9 n. 23, 217, 236–237, 296 and n. 33, 298, 357 proto-Odyssey 164–166, 178, 405 Ptoliporthes 385, 392, 393 and n. 50, 394 and n. 54, 399–400, 405 n. 109, 406, 418, 423 Pylos 71, 169–172, 174–179, 181 n. 57, 203 n. 120, 266, 278, 329, n. 53, 341 n. 102, 479, 485 and n. 91, 487 n. 96 rhapsodes –performance XXVIII, XXIX, 433, 437, 441, 458–459, 463, 471 and n. 30, 477, 479–480, 483–485, 487, 496, 499, 507–508, 513, 533, 544, 564, 566, 568 –performance context 315, 442, 444, 463, 465, 466, 480, 481 and n. 69, 482, 492, 498, 511 –relation to singers 427, 428 and n. 10, 429 and n. 16, 430, 433–435, 436 and n. 52, 439–440, 442 and n. 68, 443, 444 n. 78, 446, 470, 476, 490, 494 n. 137 ring-composition 11 n. 31, 35 and n. 4, 39, 40 and n. 18, 231, 453 n. 109 rituals (Hittite) –conjuration of water and salt 126 n. 44, 128 –of Ḫantitaššu 130 –parturition 129

General Index  

‘Sailor and the Oar’ 393, 406 and n. 110, 418 and n. 42, 421 n. 51, 423, 424 and n. 61 salt 114 and nn. 13 and 15, 115 and n. 19, 116, 121, 126 n. 44, 128–129, 130 and n. 57, 131–132, 402, 414 Sarpedon 16 and n. 56, 94 and n. 45, 100, 101 and n. 67, 102, 103 and n. 73, 104 and n. 77, 105 and n. 87, 134, 245 Scamander 335–338 Scyros 7–8, 10 n. 26, 111 n. 4, 190 n. 82, 287, 319, 334, 343, 355 and n. 1, 356– 357, 358 and nn. 7 and 11, 359–362, 363 n. 25, 364 and n. 33, 365 n. 35, 366–367, 368 and n. 50, 369 and n. 51, 370–371, 372 and n. 66, 373–374, 375 and n. 72, 376 and n. 78, 377, 378 and n. 86, 379–381 Self-actualization –performative communication with the audience: see audience –interaction with other epic songtraditions 28–29 –reaction to larger cultural phenomena 28–29 self-awareness of the medium 31–32 simile(s) 15, 20–21, 86 n. 13, 93 and n. 40, 94–95, 108, 124 and n. 38 and 40, 125–128, 130, 131 and n. 58, 132 n. 61, 144 and nn. 36–37, 145–146, 262 n. 17, 300 n. 46, 474 space –and map strategy 89 –and perspective-taking 89, 92 ––and tour 92 –embedded story space XXIII, 84, 93– 96, 98–99, 108 –intertextual 84, 100, 103 –merging 99 –story space XXIII, 84, 85 and n. 10, 86, 89–96, 98–99, 108 –symmetrical organization of 32 n. 102, 86 Sparta 7–8, 77, 169, 170 and n. 32, 171– 173, 174 and n. 40, 175–179, 182 n. 59, 189, 190 n. 79, 197, 203 n. 120, 271, 287, 297, 300, 307, 344, 377, 387 and

n. 23, 388, 420 n. 49, 435, 503 n. 169, 507 special speech 34, 36, 39–40, 65 speech paragraphs: see paratones Stasinus of Cyprus: see Epic Cycle – poems––Cypria Stesichorus XXVI, 304 n. 62, 322 and n. 24, 339–340, 344, 417 n. 36, 443, 444 and n. 78, 446 n. 79, 512 style –adding/paratactic 36 subscription 366–367, 371 supplication 99, 133 and n. 11, 136 n. 12, 137 n. 16, 142 and n. 29 and 31, 143, 144 and n. 38, 145, 146 and n. 45, 147 n. 46, 148, 151, 153 and n. 72 syllable increase 66, 241 Tarḫuntašša 114, 116 n. 21, 126 and n. 44 Telegonus 7, 9, 308–310, 384 n. 1, 385, 387, 393 and n. 51, 394 and n. 57, 395 and n. 62, 396, 397 n. 76, 398 and n. 80, 399 and nn. 86 and 89, 404–405, 406 and n. 110, 421 n. 51, 422 n. 54, 423 Telemachus 7, 9, 57–58, 169–174, 175 and n. 42, 176–179, 180 and n. 53, 181 and n. 57, 182 and n. 59, 187, 190 n. 79, 191–192, 201 and n. 111, 203 n. 120, 204 n. 120, 309–310, 353, 361, 371, 385–386, 387 and n. 20, 392 n. 46, 393, 394 and n. 54, 398 and n. 80, 399, 406, 423, 487 n. 96 Telephi epyllium 336–337 Telephus 59–60, 199 and n. 107, 264, 287, 302, 305, 314, 319, 321–322, 325 and n. 37, 326–332, 333 and n. 66, 334, 335 and n. 78, 336 and n. 78, 337–340, 341 and n. 99, 342–345, 346 and n. 115, 347, 348 and n. 124, 350, 357, 359, 360 and n. 15, 368 n. 46, 373 and n. 68, 374 and n. 71, 376, 380–381 Tenedos 287, 289, 290, 297, 358 n. 11, 420 n. 49 Tenes 287, 290, 292, 302 n. 53, 305, 308 Teuthrania/Teuthranian expedition 59, 198 n. 101, 199 and n. 104, 287, 319, 321, 328, 333, 335, 342, 343 and n. 104,

  General Index 344–345, 349, 359–361, 368, 372, 373 and n. 68, 376, 378–381 text-fixity XVIII, 4, 5 and n. 8, 25 n. 85, 28 and n. 90, 32 and n. 99 text-fluidity 31 textification 4–6, 33 textuality XIX, 4–5, 21, 31–32 textualization XIX, 4 and n. 6, 5 n. 7, 214 Thersander 287, 304, 316, 318–319, 321, 339, 345 and n. 114 Thesprotia 8, 11, 16, 180, 181 and n. 58, 183, 199, 202, 203 n. 120, 204 n. 121, 205, 294, 392–394, 395 n. 54, 398 n. 80, 400, 404, 405 and n. 109, 406, 407 n. 3, 418–419, 420 and n. 47, 421 and n. 51, 422 and n. 55, 423–424 *Thesprotis 202 and n. 115, 204 n. 121, 392 and nn. 44–45, 393, 405, 406 and n. 110, 411 n. 17 Thetis XXVIII, 7, 69, 85, 96, 143, 147 n. 46, 148, 150 n. 56, 151–152, 286–288, 290 and n. 17, 295, 299 and n. 44, 300, 301 and n. 48, 302 and n. 53, 305 and n. 66, 306–307, 308 and n. 74, 309, 327 n. 43, 328 n. 47, 331, 353, 360, 363 n. 25, 367–369, 374, 377, 380–381, 396, 457 Thoas 23 n. 79, 168 and n. 25, 189 and n. 78, 271 Thrinacia 18 n. 62, 194 and nn. 89–90, 195 and n. 90, 196, 403, 416, 417 time-spaces 84 topic boundary markers 40 traditional referentiality 20–21, 90 and n. 29, 141 and n. 27, 226 and n. 67 transference –of motifs XVIII n. 2, 11, 13, 21, 26 and nn. 86–87, 188, 313 –of phraseology XXII, 316 Trophonius 384, 386 n. 17, 387 and n. 24, 389, 390 and n. 34, 391–392, 412 n. 22 Tudhaliya –I 106 –IV 114

Tydeus 7, 14, 88, 108 and n. 100, 155, 246, 285, 294, 303, 309–310, 340, 488 n. 101, 502 Typhonomachy 218 and n. 42, 272 n. 36, 294 typology –and bifurcation or splitting of the source 16 –and diachronic skewing 19–20, 25, 428, 437 n. 57 –and elliptical reference 20 –and explanation of events by reference to fate or divine will 19 –and intertextuality: see intertextuality –and limited repetition 12 –and narrative inconsistency 13, 134, 180 n. 51 –and versioning 17, 54, 61, 63, 182 n. 60 ––acknowledgment of the bard’s limited abilities 18 ––covert allusion to different kinds of audiences 18 ––ending a catalogue 17 ––epic hesitation 17, 182 n. 60 ––if-not situations 17 ––indirect reference to the present performance 18 –and weaker and stronger aspects 12–13 Ulmi-Tesub 114, 130 Ur-Ilias 133, 136, 213 Wilusiad 104 Wooden Horse 10 n. 30, 60, 186, 289, 297 and n. 38, 306, 432, 434 n. 38 Wooing of Helen 247, 248 n. 185, 251 word-initial rhyme: see alliteration Xanthos (river) 102, 103 and n. 74, 104 n. 78, 336–338 Xanthus (horse) 331 and n. 58 xenia 93 n. 37, 97–98, 99 and n. 62 Zeleia 105–106 Zenodotus 135 n. 8, 169–173, 174 and n. 40, 175–176, 178, 341 n. 100, 517, 523 n. 57, 524 and n. 61

General Index  

Zeus 9 n. 23, 19, 37, 42, 55, 58, 61–64, 92 n. 37, 93 n. 37, 94 n. 45, 121 n. 34, 134 n. 7, 147, 148 and nn. 48–49, 174– 175, 194, 196, 202, 204 and n. 121, 211, 214–215, 217, 220, 221 and nn. 48 and 50, 224 n. 61, 226, 236–237, 245, 252 n. 201, 261–262, 264–265, 271, 272 and n. 36, 274–277, 283–286, 288–

289, 294–295, 299 and n. 44, 300–301, 303, 307, 308 and n. 73, 309, 310 n. 79, 314, 323 n. 27, 324–325, 327 nn. 43 and 46, 332–333, 339, 353, 373, 387 n. 21, 388 n. 27, 403, 416, 430 n. 22, 432, 435 n. 41, 437 n. 59, 439, 442 and n. 68, 493, 496, 498, 529, 570 Zitat XVII and n. 1, 163, 205, 348 n. 124

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages Hesiod Theogony 1 1–115 9 11 22 24 25 26 26–28 27 28 29 30–34 34 35 42 53–62 86–88 94–97 99–100 144–145 166 233–236 245 245–247 246 247 252–253 262 369–370 378–380 412 414–415 418 419 422 426 428 429–430 432 439 435–438

210, 226 210 226 n. 68 77 n. 32 213 226 n. 68 210 211 211 211–212 211, 222 211 211 402, 403 n. 99, 416 212 52 566 223 n. 53 210 n. 6 556 216 417 n. 34 53 n. 21 51 and n. 16, 63 51 52 52 53 53 218 218 215 n. 33 215 n. 33 215 n. 33 215 215 n. 33 215 n. 33 215 n. 33 215 n. 34 215 n. 34 215 n. 34 215

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110981384-023

438 215 440 215 442 215 443 215 and n. 34 445–447 215 446 215 n. 34 447 215 449 215 n. 33 452 215 n. 33 484 120 613 237 839–840 272 n. 36 871 218 872–880 218 839–849 272 n. 36 930–961 236 950–955 217 954–955 218 984 218 1011–1018 393 1021–1022 236 Works and Days 1 220, 228 n. 75 1–2 220, 270 n. 33 1–10 221 n. 50 2 220 3 220 3–4 220–221 4 220 5 215, 221 5–6 215 6 215, 221 7 221 8 221 9 221 n. 48, 226 n. 68 9–10 220, 221 n. 48 11–26 566 20–26 229 27 227 28 222 73–75 237 n. 111 105 237 106 222 106–108 222 and n. 51

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 107 113 129 144 160 173 174–175 202 249 282–285 284 285 325 349–350 383–384 383–404 383–617 386 387 388 394 396–397 403 404 448 448–452 456 456–457 486–490 582 582–584 582–596 583 593 618 627–629 630–640 631–632 632 633 640 641–642 641–645 642–643 643–645 644 644–645

222 229 224 224 323 n. 26 224 n. 61 224–225 223 221 n. 50 230 n. 83 230 230 230 227 226 226 225 226 n. 68 226 n. 68 226 227 227 226 and n. 69 227 227 228 227 227 228 228 n. 76 227 228 228 n. 75, 229 228 n. 75 215, 229 229 229 229 n. 81 230–231 227 209 229 229 232 230 n. 89 232 n. 91 229 n. 81

646–659 646–662 648 649 654–659 656–659 659 660 663–677 672 673 678–688 687 689–690 689–694 690 693 694 828 826–828

470 229, 231, 447 215, 227 n. 72, 229 229 470 227 228 n. 75, 229, 233 158, 229 229 230 n. 82 230 229 230 231 n. 92 229 229 n. 82 230 and n. 82 227 n. 72, 229 276 n. 49 276 n. 49

Hesiodic Fragments Catalogue of Women (M–W) 1.9 236, 336 1.9–10 348 and n. 121 5.1–4 265 10a 247 n. 177 10a.60–62 246 n. 167 10a.84–98 245 n. 157 12 246 n. 170 16 372 17a.13–17 270 17b 245 n. 162 19 245 n. 163 22 245 n. 164 23a.5 241 25.14 242 25.15–16 242 25.16 260 25.19 240, 269, 456 25.29 261 26.5–21 246 26.12 274 n. 45 26.25 246 n. 166 27 245 n. 159 30.1–24 245 n. 156 30.13 276

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

30.15–23 30.25 30.27 30.31–35 30.33 31.2 33 33a.2 33a.9 33a.11 33a.11–12 33a.12–14 33a.19–21 33a.25 33a.28 33a.30 35 35.2–5 35.12 37.10 37.38–39 37.41–43 37.76 37.77 43a 43a.4 43a.21 43a.38 43a.38–39 43a.39 43a.40 43a.41–42 43a.41–43 43a.44– 50 43a.51–52 43a.62 43a.66 43a.68–69 43a.75–76 43a.76 43a.77 43a.78 43a.79 43a.83 43a.83–84 43a.85 43a.87

276 242 n. 138 277 277 276 365 n. 36 278 271, 278 278 269 269 266 278 271 271 271 278 278 261 265, 255 258 n. 9 274 n. 42 267 n. 28 259 n. 11 247 n. 177 242 and n. 139 242 n. 134 258 258 n. 9 258 258 273 274 n. 42 262 n. 15 262 258 258 267 267 267 n. 28 259 n. 11 267 262 456 266 267 n. 25 259

49–50 53 54a 54a.7 54a.7–8 58.13 59–60 59.2–4 59.4 60.1–4 62.1–3 70 70.6 70.13 70.18 70.21 70.23 *70.30 *70.35 73–76 73.1–5 73.3 75.16 75.17 75.24 76.4–6 76.20–21 129 129.10 129.16 131–132 133.3–5 136.2 141 141.1–3 141.6 150.21 150.22 150.25 150.26 150.28 165.5 165.11 165.14–15 165.20 171.8 176

262 n. 15 387 n. 19 272 n. 36 272 and n. 36 272 n. 36 259, 455 246 n. 168 270 242, 271 278 274 245, 263 368 261, 276 n. 46 262, 265, 455 262, 265, 455 262 and n. 17 262 262 263 263 242 n. 139 272 272 264 264 270 264 264 264 516 and n. 153 274 261 245 n. 165 274 274 263 273 262 263 265 260 264 328 n. 50 328 n. 50 279 244 n. 153

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 176.4 180.14 195.13 195.33 195.36 196.6 196–204 197.7 198.1–8 198.2 198.4 198.10 199.4 200.3 200.11 204.44 204.52 204.56 204.56–65 204.61 204.78–85 204.85–86 204.85–93 204.87–90 204.87–92 204.89–90 204.100 204.101 204.124–128 204.124–129 204.129 204.130 204.131 204.136 204.137 208–9 211.1 211.3 212.8 214 215.1–2 217.7–8 220 224 229 231 240.1–2

258 261 265 261 261 242 251 247 n. 182 188 247 n. 182 271 271 247 n. 182 247 n. 182 261 247 n. 182 247 n. 182 247 n. 182 188 271 318 n. 17 275 371 n. 57 275 302 275 223 n. 26 323 n. 26 94 n. 44 275 275 275 275 271 272 246 n. 171 260 299 n. 44 260 471 n. 29 243 n. 139 245 n. 158 120 504 n. 170 245 n. 160 268 268

240.3–4 268, 273 Melampodia (M–W) 270–279 304 n. 61 [Hesiod] Shield of Heracles 6 26 29 Homer Iliad 1.1 1.1–7 1.2 1.2–4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.20 1.30 1.54–55 1.56 1.59

1.150–160 1.152–157 1.169–171 1.185–187 1.240–241 1.245–246 1.308–311 1.352 1.352–356 1.366 1.366a–b 1.366c 1.403–404 1.408–412 1.411–412 1.416 1.418 1.430–474 1.472–474 1.500–502

265 261 261

210 36 41 n. 22 150 41 41 238 n. 107, 430 430 136 n. 13 343 n. 107 341 n. 101 145 n. 40 325 n. 34, 328, 330– 331, 342, 347, 373 n. 68, 378 n. 87 101 n. 67 365 143 149 n. 53 145 n. 42 353 290 n. 18 148 148 358 n. 11 376 n. 78 376 n. 78 121 147 n. 46 147 n. 46 418 363 n. 25 290 n. 18 436 142 n. 31

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

1.512 1.538 1.556 1.601–604 1.677 2.50 2.100 2.108 2.148 2.158–162 2.161 2.161–162 2.173 2.174–178 2.177 2.186 2.328–329 2.354–356 2.356 2.363 2.382–384 2.432 2.484 2.484–493 2.484–510 2.486 2.488 2.488–490 2.488–492 2.488–493 2.493 2.494–759 2.550–551 2.559 2.559–568ab 2.569 2.586–590 2.589 2.590 2.594–600 2.599–600 2.632–635 2.633 2.638–642 2.649 2.691

142 n. 31 69 n. 9 69 n. 9 436 450 546 n. 10 150 n. 55 343 n. 107 121 n. 34 79 77, 79 79 450 79 77 150 n. 55 193 71 70, 72 and n. 19, 73 n. 22 454 156 429 48 55–56 48 18 352 47 56 , 219 n. 43 18 49 241 483 488 n. 101 447 343 n. 107 72 72 72 n. 19, 70 71 n. 18, 434 n. 41 471 n. 29 122 111, 117 23 n. 79 45 n. 5 358 n. 11

2.731 2.811 2.819–877 2.824–827 2.876–877 3.68–70 3.70 3.89–91 3.91 3.125–128 3.126–128 3.146–148 3.151–152 3.164 3.171 3.189 3.195 3.199 3.205–224 3.207 3.228 3.232–233 3.329 3.380–382 3.400–401 3.418 3.426 3.458 4.8 4.19 4.62–63 4.100–103 4.101 4.105–111 4.119 4.119–121 4.157 4.169–175 4.171 4.172 4.174 4.177–178 4.194 4.218 4.218–219 4.295 4.361

340 97 n. 55 241 106 and n. 91 100 90 74–75 90 74–75 20 72 n. 19 20 20 72 n. 19 68 105 n. 82 90 68 365 n. 36 99 68 190 n. 79 70 301 n. 48 301 n. 47 68 68 77–78, 80 77 n. 32 77, 80 273 106 107 and n. 93 107 107 106 348 n. 125 79 345 n. 107 79 77 79 340 140 n. 25, 341 n. 103 341 n. 103 240 n. 129 140

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 4.376 4.376–381 4.390 4.398 4.408 4.462 4.473–489 4.526 5.4–8 5.51 5.53 5.102–105 5.104–105 5.105 5.115–120 5.116–126 5.171–178 5.265–267 5.311–318 5.337 5.368–370 5.385–395 5.422 5.438 5.447 5.471–492 5.472–473 5.472–492 5.481 5.541–560 5.542 5.546 5.549 5.560–561 5.567 5.576 5.628–698 5.677 5.908 6.96–101 6.119 6.119–122 6.119–236 6.120 6.127 6.132

343 n. 107 303 and nn. 55 and 58 14 n. 46 303 303 nn. 56 and 59 94 n. 43 93 n. 40 93 n. 39, 453 13 69 n. 10 69 n. 10 106 107 106 n. 90 14 107 n. 96 106 332 301 n. 48 398 128 156 475 n. 44 156 69 n. 10 101 n. 67 453 100–101 106 n. 88 93 n. 40 177 177 177 273 416 260 100 240 n. 129 77 n. 32 13 n. 37 87 85, 88 83 87 and n. 21 97 n. 59 95

6.140 6.147 6.152 6.154 6.156–157 6.158 6.160 6.169 6.173 6.186 6.200 6.205 6.213 6.232 6.232–233 6.232–236 6.234–236 6.290–291 6.292 6.306–307 6.323 6.323–324 6.343 6.357–358 6.360 6.415 6.428 6.436 6.473 7.13 7.58–60 7.58–61 7.59–60 7.237–241 7.241 7.350 7.355 7.384 7.401 7.411 7.451–453 7.452–453 8.25–27 8.69–74 8.82 8.178 8.180

96 93 n. 39 97 97 97 n. 56 97 n. 57 97 n. 59 100 n. 64 106 n. 88 97 n. 59 96 and n. 54 69 n. 10 90–91 92 n. 36 92 87 n. 22, 90 93 377 n. 84 77 13 n. 37 68 80 n. 39 68 15, 435 n. 44 80 358 n. 11 69 n. 10 186 n. 67 91 100 300 n. 46 300 n. 46 300 n. 46 156 437 n. 61 77, 80 70 546 n. 10 77 73 n. 21 327 n. 46 297 n. 38 487 n. 96 295 n. 32 70 398 n. 80 343 n. 107

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

8.203 8.203 8.231 8.333 8.371–372 8.511 8.553–554 9.4–8 9.13–15 9.13–16 9.14 9.14–15 9.14–16 9.15 9.16 9.20 9.37 9.44 9.58 9.77 9.80–86 9.111–113 9.115–120 9.118 9.120 9.129 9.140 9.141 9.150–152 9.158–161 9.186–191 9.206 9.234 9.252–256 9.252–259 9.252–260 9.252–294 9.254–258 9.271 9.282 9.283 9.283–290 9.284 9.301–303 9.303 9.312–313

475 475 n. 44 411 n. 13 240 n. 129 142 n. 31 177 135 n. 9 131 n. 59 131 n. 59, 122, 126, 130 144 127, 130 n. 58 131 132 n. 61 110–113 124 and n. 40 124 150 n. 55 343 n. 107 149 n. 52 135 n. 9 135 n. 9 137 147 147 136 n. 13 292 n. 22, 358 n. 11 77, 80 343 n. 107 170 n. 32 149 and n. 52 436 411 n. 13 135 n. 9 362 n. 22 358, 365, 370 151 and n. 65 170 n. 32 365 358 n. 11 77, 80, 242 n. 138 343 n. 107 370 n. 54 370 n. 54, 375 136 n. 12, 142 142 141 n. 26

9.315–316 9.321 9.321–322 9.335 9.336–337 9.339 9.357–363 9.378–391 9.388 9.395–397 9.410 9.410–411 9.410–420 9.419 9.421–422 9.428–429 9.438–439 9.451 9.484 9.500–501 9.520–522 9.528 9.533 9.560–565 9.574 9.602–603 9.602–605 9.604–605 9.619 9.626–627 9.640–642 9.647 9.648 9.650–655 9.651–655 9.653 9.664 9.666–668 9.668

9.686 9.697–709 9.698 9.698–700

145 n. 39 149 149 521 142 70, 73 143 142 453 375 69 n. 9 148–149 148 104 n. 81 136–137 143 341 n. 100 142 n. 31 369 n. 53, 375 and n. 76 145 136–137 432 n. 29 69 n. 10 150 n. 60 152 n. 69 143 n. 34 143 144 n. 35 143 137, 149 137 140 140 143, 147 n. 46, 150, 160 135 n. 9 150 358 n. 11 375–376 357–358, 367 and n. 42, 369 n. 53, 372 n. 66, 375–377 104 n. 81 151 151 n. 64 150

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 9.700 9.709 10.5 10.12 10.59 10.106 10.228–232 10.251–253 10.329 10.454–455 11.1 11.46 11.50–51 11.83 11.123–125 11.125 11.166 11.167 11.172 11.284 11.360 11.369 11.383 11.423 11.494–495 11.497–501 11.505 11.505–522 11.515 11.518 11.523–530 11.583–584 11.599 11.599–600 11.600–601 11.609 11.609–610

11.625 11.658 11.658–659

151 n. 62 151 n. 64 73 , 135 n. 9 135 n. 9 135 n. 9 135 n. 9 186 n. 67 135 n. 9 73 n. 21 142 n. 31 134 343 n. 108 148 454 114 n. 13 77, 80 159 158 and n. 12 158 and n. 12 159 159 70 119, 120 n. 28 92 n. 36, 93 156 159 70 359 140 n. 25 340 159 158 n. 10, 160 451 160 n. 19 145 n. 39 151 n. 62 XXII, 134 and n. 1, 135 and n. 10, 136, 137 and n. 16, 138, 140 n. 24, 142–144, 145 n. 41, 146 , 147 n. 46, 148, 151 and n. 62, 152, 153 and n. 70, 154 358 n. 11 160 161

11.658–664 11.659–662 11.660 11.660–661 11.660–662 11.661 11.662 11.664–668 11.666–667 11.710 11.765–772 11.765–785 11.765–790 11.786 11.787 11.790 11.794–797 11.794–803 11.796–803 11.809–813 11.809–848 11.810 11.820–821 11.823–824 11.825–827 11.830 11.830–832 11.832 11.833–836 11.843–848 11.844 11.844–846 12.23 12.70 12.101–104 12.310–471 12.330 13.62 13.62–65 13.63 13.108–119 13.114 13.115 13.115 13.117 13.117–119

155 161 158 159 158 161 XXII, 155–156, 158, 160 and n. 17, 161 150 160 97 n. 55 358, 365 370 151 149 n. 52 149 n. 52 150 148–149 149 n. 51 153 n. 72 161 160 158 n. 10 160 160 161 140 n. 25 341 and n. 100 341 n. 100 161 n. 24 161 158 n. 10 160 323 n. 26 14 100 100 106 n. 88 300 n. 46 113, 123 111 138 138 138 138 n. 20 138 139 n. 22

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

13.128 13.130–131 13.154 13.249 13.364 13.365–369 13.376–382 13.382 13.512–515 13.773 14.139–141 14.199–359 14.289–291 14.315–328 14.382 15.71 15.215 15.237–238 15.295–296 15.302 15.558 16.2–4 16.3 16.4 16.7–11 16.8 16.9 16.10 16.12–17 16.17–18 16.18 16.20 16.27 16.36–39 16.36–45 16.36–46 16.38–47 16.46 16.46–47 16.47 16.52–59 16.54–56 16.61 16.61–63 16.62–63 16.72

333 n. 68 455 73 n. 21 186 n. 67 370 n. 54 374 370 n. 54 97 n. 55 186 n. 67 104 n. 81 147 n. 46 163 300 n. 46 61 454 104 n. 81 104 n. 81 300 n. 46 55 n. 24 260 104 n. 81 123, 126, 130, 131 n. 58 130 n. 58 111–112 144 144 n. 36 144 144 145 n. 44 144 145 451 161 148–149 149 n. 51 142 146 n. 45 144 and n. 36, 146 144 n. 36 144, 146 136 n. 14, 139 149 150 n. 60 150 n. 60 150 134

16.72–73 16.74 16.74–77 16.83–86 16.84 16.84–85 16.84–86 16.85–86 16.88 16.102–108 16.140–144 16.153 16.156–162 16.196 16.215 16.222 16.273–274 16.419–683 16.459 16.786 16.844–845 17.72 17.140 17.140–182 17.142–168 17.194–197 17.328 17.398 17.408–409 17.460 17.470 17.480 17.555 17.561 18.12 18.37–49 18.39–48 18.39–49 18.40 18.40–42 18.49 18.59–60 18.84–85 18.95–96 18.127 18.146 18.182–183

140–141 151 n. 64 151 141 142 142 142 136 n. 13 73 n. 21 453 396 n. 69 358 n. 11 124, 130 370 454 69 n. 9 147 100 94 n. 45 156 161 260 100 101 n. 68 100 n. 66 396 n. 69 104 n. 81 333 n. 68 148 92 n. 36 93 93 370 370 261 44, 45 n. 5 32 n. 101, 66, 241 457 63 51 17, 45 n. 5 148 396 n. 69 148 69 n. 9 69 n. 9 437 and n. 58

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 18.205–214 18.225–227 18.329–332 18.369 18.381 18.397 18.444–456 18.448 18.448–450 18.448–452 18.478–608 18.484–493 18.493 18.505 18.570 18.590–605 18.604 19.28 19.59 19.60 19.250 19.277 19.287–300 19.290 19.297–299 19.310–311 19.311–313 19.315–337 19.324–325 19.325 19.326

19.326–327 19.326–337 19.327 19.328–330 19.329–330 19.332 19.350–351 19.388–391 19.407 19.408–417 20.39

13 13 148 69 n. 9 69 n. 9 150 n. 56 152 152 n. 69 151 152 n. 69 46, 243 55–56 437 546 n. 10 437 n. 61 437 n. 61 429 n. 17 69 n. 9 69 n. 9 358 n. 11 546 n. 10 396 n. 69 377 454 375 370 370 n. 55 370, 377 101 n. 67 70, 73 335, 355, 357, 360– 361, 362 n. 22, 363 n. 25, 364, 366–367, 368 and n. 50, 369– 370, 371, 374, 376 n. 78, 377–378, 383 372 377 364 n. 32, 371 369 453 357 300 n. 46 396 n. 69 331 n. 58 331 n. 58 69 n. 10

20.48 20.79 20.84 20.89–98 20.92 20.94 20.145–148 20.158–160 20.159 20.176–177 20.184 20.191 20.201–203 20.228 20.236–240 20.248–249 20.401 20.403 20.403–405 20.404 20.432–444 20.447 20.487 21.76 21.146 21.162 21.166–168 21.208 21.220 21.257–264 21.441–457 21.442–457 21.568–570 22.114 22.121 22.133 22.164 22.208 22.209–213 22.391–394 22.441 23.30–32 23.31 23.116 23.264 23.276–278 23.346–347

94 n. 43, 333 n. 68 333 n. 68 411 n. 13 324 358 n. 11 358 n. 11 327 n. 46 88 87 88 454 358 n. 11 156 177 156 226 n. 69 92 n. 36 475 n. 44 474 475 n. 44 156 156 94 n. 43 99 337 396 n. 69 290 n. 17 336 n. 81 336 125 297 n. 38 327 n. 46 290 n. 17 77, 80 261 396 n. 69 429 n. 17 156 n. 4 295 n. 32 436 76 156 119, 120 n. 28 452 429 n. 17 396 n. 69 487 n. 96

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

23.347 23.360 23.702 23.790–792 23.811–814 23.814 24.61 24.68 24.89 24.120 24.200 24.396–401 24.398 24.465–467 24.478–479 24.606 24.613–617 24.699 24.701 24.719–722 24.724 24.730 24.761 Odyssey 1.1 1.1–10 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.10 1.20 1.93 1.122–123 1.152 1.185 1.257–264 1.259–266 1.284–285 1.285 1.285–286 1.320 1.325

299 n. 43, 331 n. 58 370 429 n. 17 186 n. 67 88 87 132 n. 61, 299 n. 44 315 n. 8 69 n. 9 69 n. 9 14, 179 185 n. 62 185 n. 62 377 and n. 81 142 n. 31 69 n. 10 132 n. 61 242 n. 138 546 n. 10 436 453 453 68 18, 41 n. 22, 210, 236 n. 108, 430 18, 37 41 n. 22 156, 168 n. 22 41 217 n. 39, 430 18, 210, 236 n. 108, 430 365 n. 36 135 n. 8, 169–171, 173–175, 178 415 n. 26 436 170, 174 203 n. 120 181 n. 58 170–171 135 n. 8, 169, 171, 173–175, 178 172 300 n. 46 429 n. 17

1.325–327 1.326–327 1.336 1.337–338 1.338 1.346 1.351–352 2.80–81 2.118–122 2.124–125 2.214 2.235–237 2.238–240 2.325–330 2.326–327 2.327 2.359 3.4–61 3.36–53 3.103–117 3.109–111 3.142 3.181–198 3.191 3.191–192 3.247–252 3.267–271 3.276–311 3.276–312 3.281 3.281–300 3.313

3.323–325 3.326 3.331 3.368–370 3.372 3.430–435 3.488–489 3.489 4.17 4.17–19 4.82 4.83–85 4.184–186

429, 431 n. 28 433, 450 n. 101 429 n. 17 429, 433 and n. 33 433 429 n. 17 433 353 244 n. 149 252 174 and n. 40, 175 203 n. 120 203 n. 120 203 n. 120 174 n. 39 174 n. 40 169, 174 n. 40, 175 487 n. 96 487 n. 96 57 156 177 176 175 190 n. 81 175 429 n. 17, 435 172 176 396, 402, 415 190 n. 79 169 and n. 29, 170 and n. 33, 171–172, 175 n. 43 177 173 n. 36 176 178 300 n. 46 156 177 178 429 n. 17 435 197 n. 94 196 n. 93 156

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 4.220–221 4.235–237 4.240–241 4.240–243 4.362 4.555–560 4.559 4.560 4.561–569 4.606 5.16 5.17 5.61 5.141 5.142 6.18 6.102–108 6.130–136 6.162–165 6.178–179 6.192 6.214 6.249–250 7.120–121 7.215–218 7.216 7.218 7.219 7.219–221 7.221 8.43 8.43–45 8.67 8.73 8.74 8.75–82 8.82 8.85–72 8.97–101 8.99 8.111–114 8.124 8.139–140 8.159–164 8.244 8.254–255

58 58 58 n. 28 58 177 180 187 n. 75 177 306 69 n. 10 187 n. 75 177 437 n. 61 187 n. 75 177 242 n. 139 437 15 305 201 201 201 401 n. 93, 410 n. 11, 411 n. 15 455 407–408 411 n. 13 408 n. 5, 411 n. 12 408 n. 5 408 408 n. 5 429 n. 17 434 n. 36 428 428 430, 433 305 70 433 434 n. 37 436 241 119 430 231 119 434 n. 36

8.266–366 8.341 8.367 8.465 8.471 8.475 8.479–481 8.483 8.487 8.488–491 8.492 8.492–493 8.492–495 8.496 8.499–520 8.501–502 8.521 8.536–543 8.539 9.3–4 9.38–39 9.39–61 9.40–42 9.44–46 9.45 9.51–52 9.54 9.60–61 9.71 9.80 9.124 9.125–127 9.147–148 9.150–151 9.161–162 9.162 9.166–167 9.244 9.341 9.439 9.556–557 9.557 10.80–81 10.184 10.184–185 10.221 10.467–468

433 119 429 n. 17 73 n. 21 429 n. 17 429 n. 17 429 n. 17 429 n. 17 429 n. 17 431 432 434 n. 38 297 n. 36 431 n. 25, 432 433 434 n. 38 429 n. 17 434 n. 37 429 n. 17 429 n. 17 193 n. 85 199 195 194 n. 90 157 199 and n. 106 199 and n. 107 195 452 175 119 n. 24, 120 n. 28 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 352 401, 408, 410, 412 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 120 n. 28 120 n. 28 403 n. 101, 417 n. 35 352 401, 410 194 n. 89 352, 401, 410 352 437 n. 61 352

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

10.476–477 10.477 10.521–525 10.521–540 10. 522–525 11.77 11.100–137 11.107–115 11.121 11.121–122 11.122 11.122–123 11.129 11.130–131 11.130–134 11.132–134 11.134

11.134–137 11.136–137 11.225–332 11.264–265 11.291 11.326 11.328 11.328–329 11.364 11.364–365 11.368 11.370–372 11.447–451 11.506–509 11.510–537 11.516–522 11.516–537 11.519–521 11.520 11.520–521 11.520–522 11.521 11.523–537 12.29–30 12.30

352 401, 410 424 420 n. 47 424 n. 62 419 n. 43 14 403, 416 402 and n. 96, 415 and n. 29 198 n. 101 415 402, 415 419 n. 43 291 n. 21, 419 420 n. 46 291 n. 21, 293, 419 394, 395 n. 58, 396 and nn. 67–68 and 71, 397 n. 75, 398 n. 80, 422, 423 n. 58 397, 411 n. 17 398 n. 80 45–46, 243 273 331 303 n. 57 352 47, 56 244, 273 273 223 n. 52, 431 n. 25 251 n. 193 192 357 314 59 59 314, 317, 373 317 n. 15, 347 317 n. 15 347 n. 119 347, 315 and n. 8, 321 n. 23 59 352 401, 410

12.44 12.52 12.183 12.265–266 12.279–396 12.286 12.289–291 12.299–306 12.320–323 12.395–396 12.397–399 12.420–453 13.242 13.256–257 13.256–258 13.259–266 13.260 13.272–286 13.404–411 13.411 14.29 14.37 14.109–110 14.122 14.130–233 14.149–164 14.152–157 14.166 14.180 14.189 14.192–198 14.196–198 14.199–206 14.199–210 14.199–234 14.199–359 14.202–203 14.204 14.210 14.211–212 14.211–213 14.211–234 14.216–218 14.216–234 14.217 14. 217–218 14.220

437 and n. 61 437 n. 61 437 n. 61 403, 416 403, 416 403, 416 157 15 194 n. 90 403, 416 194 n. 89 195 117 184 n. 61 168 n. 23 186 n. 67 179 200 n. 110 181 n. 59 187 185 401, 410 401, 410 n. 11, 411 401, 410 187 181 n. 57 201 401, 410 176 178 182 and n. 60 182 and n. 60 184 168 n. 23, 183–184 183 163 185 185 n. 63 185 185 185 183 186 n. 69 185 186 n. 67 186 186

  Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages 14.224 14.235–242 14.237–238 14.238–239 14.239–240 14.242 14.244–246 14.244–245 14.246 14.246–247 14.248 14.249–252 14.252 14.257–259 14.266–268 14.273–284 14.275 14.279 14.282–283 14.283–284 14.285 14.287–297 14.287–313 14.290–292 14.292–294 14.300–301 14.314–359 14.317 14.320 14.327 14.353–354 14.379–385 14.386 14.395–396 14.462–506 14.508 15.112 15.180 15.186–187 15.187 15.223–256 15.234 15.243–248 15.244 15.248 15.267 15.293

187 n. 75 187 187 190 187 187 405 n. 108, 422 198 176 n. 44 198 199 194 n. 89 168 n. 23 176 n. 44 199 and n. 106 195 176 n. 44 194 194 194 197 197 200 197 202 168 n. 23 200 201 n. 108 201 202 202 168, 179 401, 410 201 186 n. 71 401, 410 73 n. 21 73 n. 21 177 178 314 331 n. 58 314, 317 333 n. 68 315 and n. 8 398 n. 80 121 n. 34

15.302 15.307 15.335–336 15.403–484 15.476 15.492 16.24 16.63–64 16.82–84 16.118 16.123 16.142 16.222–224 16.238–239 16.239 16.245–251 16.391 16.454–459 16.705 17.37 17.42 17.145 17.146 17.207 17.271 17.382–386 17.385 17.426–427 17.448 17.523 18.21 18.21–22 18.56 18.74 18.299 19.96–604 19.170 19.172–180 19.172–202 19.185–188 19.191–192 19.203 19.297 19.300–307 19.338 19.554–558

182 n. 59, 260 182 n. 59 182 n. 59 197 n. 96 194 n. 89 168 n. 22 176, 178 168 n. 22 182 n. 59 384 n. 1, 385 n. 12 393, 398–399 507 176, 178 180 180 n. 55 182 n. 59 247 n. 181 259 n. 11 182 n. 59 156 n. 4 242 n. 138 176, 178 187 n. 75 177 185 n. 62 436 434 429 n. 17 176 n. 44 176 n. 44 168 n. 23 401, 410 411 410 n. 10 401, 410 185 n. 62 14 168 n. 22 179, 184 n. 61 168 n. 23 175 172 211 nn. 10–11, 212 202 181 n. 57 168 n. 23 181 n. 57

Index of Hesiodic and Homeric Passages  

20.158 21.13–38 21.15–16 21.161 21.430 22.47 22.184–185 22.210 22.240 22.243 22.330 22.334–336 22.347 22.347–348 22.348–349 22.376 23.263–287 23.264–284

130 n. 58 170 n. 32 177 259 n. 11 436 157 182 n. 59 333 n. 68 300 n. 46 185 n. 62 496 182 n. 59 429 431 431 n. 28, 450 n. 101 431 15 397 n. 76

23.268 23.269 23.269–270 23.277–281 23.281 23.281–284 23.283–284 23.286–287 23.304–305 24.58–62 24.115–119 24.152 24.192–202 24.196–201 24.197–198 24.200 24.539–548

402, 415 415 402, 415 and n. 26 420 n. 46 396 397, 411 n. 17 398 n. 80 397 n. 76 157 436 192 176, 178 5, 244 n. 150, 252 435 n. 44 15, 179 14, 179 295