Reconstructing the Epic: Cross-Readings of the Trojan Myth in Hellenistic Poetry 904292117X, 9789042921177

Citation preview

HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA 14

HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA M o nographs Editorial Board: M.A. Harder R.F. Regtuit G.C. Wakker

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Advisory Board:

Cross-R eadings of the T rojan M yth in H ellenistic P oetry

K. Gutzwiller, Cincinnati, OH R.L. Hunter, Cambridge A. Köhnken, Münster R.F. Thomas, Cambridge, Mass. F. Williams, Belfast

E v in a S is t a k o u

M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Callimachus, 1993. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Theocritus, 1996. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, 1998. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. W akker, Apollonius Rhodius, 2000. L. Rossi, The Epigrams Ascribed to Theocritus: A Method of Approach, 2001. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Hellenistic Epigrams, 2002. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. W akker, Callimachus II, 2004. G. Berkowitz, Semi-Public Narration in Apollonius’ Argonautica, 2004. A. Ambühl, Kinder und junge Helden. Innovative Aspekte des Umgangs mit der literarischen Tradition bei Kallimachos, 2005. 10. J.S. Bruss, Hidden Presences. Monuments, Gravesites, and Corpses in Greek Funerary Epigram, 2005. 11. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Wakker, Beyond the Canon, 2006. 12. E. Prioux, Regards alexandrins. Histoire et theorie des arts dans l Epigramme hellinistique, 2007. 13. M.A. Tueller, Look Who’s Talking: Innovations in Voice and Identity in Hel­ lenistic Epigram, 2008.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY, MA

2008

A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

To Professor Michalis Kopidakis

© 2008 - Peeters - Bondgenotenlaan 153 - B-3000 Leuven - Belgium ISBN 378-90-429-2117-7 D. 2008/0602/107

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s ........................................................................................

ix

In t r o d u c t io n ....................................................................................................... T he avant-garde o f A lexandria and the w riting o f ep ic ............. T he paradigm o f the Trojan m yth .......................................................

1 5 16

A . T he T rojan M yth

H omeric E pics . . .

27

A . 1. H om eric a d u n a t a .......................................................................... A .2 . H om eric catalogues .........................................................................

27 37

A.

50 50

on the

F ringe

of the

3. T he fo ssiliza tio n o f the Trojan m y t h .................................... A .3.a. Proverbs and riddles .......................................................... A . 3.b. H om ericizing e p ig r a m s ................................................

B. T he T rojan M yth

a n d the

S tyles

of

E p i c ...................................

55 62

l . R ea ssessin g the Cypria .............................................................

62

B .2 . H esio d ic t r o p e s ................................................................................... B . 2.a. The archaeology o f T r o y ..............................................

72 73

2.b. Trojan a e t i a .......................................................................

76

B.

B.

B .3. H ellenistic n o s to i .............................................................................. B .4. T he Argonautica as a com m ent upon the Trojan m yth . . B . 5. T he Alexandra on the cusp b etw een ep ic and tragedy . . .

81 88 100

C. T he T rojan M yth a n d the R evision of E p i c .............................. C . l . T he (para)Trojan ep y llio n ........................................................

121 121

C .2. Trojan n o v e lla s ................................................................................... C .3. T he debunking o f the h e r o e s ....................................................... C . 3.a. H eroes on the m a r g in s................................................... C .3.b. C hanging id e n t it ie s ............................................................

135 142 143

C .4. A ch illes as a m odem h e r o ............................................................ C .4.a. E peius, the a n ti- A c h ille s .................................................. C .4.b. A ch illes, warrior or lover? .............................................

158 159 163

E pilogue ..............................................................................................................

177

B iblio g r a ph y ....................................................................................................... A. Editions ............................................................................................................

186 186

1. F ra g m en ts.................................................................................................. 2. T e x t s ............................................................................................................ B. References ....................................................................................................

186 187 187

149

In d ex L o c o r u m ..................................................................................................

201

G eneral Index ..................................................................................................

207

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book has its roots in my (nearly) fifteen year-long engagement with Hellenistic poetry, which, among other things, resulted in the publication of three monographs in Modem Greek (Theocritus Thyrsis or the Song, Herakleion 1998, The Rejection of Epic. Aspects of the Trojan Myth in Hellenistic Poetry, Athens 2004 and Callimachus’ Geography and the Avant-Garde Poetry o f the Hellenistic Period, Athens 2005). It is the second of these, in particular, that forms the core of Reconstructing the Epic. Professor Annette Harder has offered me active encouragement to revise, recast and bibliographically update my already stated ideas on the reception of the Trojan myth in Hellenistic poetry. I owe a special debt of gratitude to her: since 1994 when I started attending the celebrated Groningen Workshops as a post-graduate student until 2006 when, as a speaker by then, I gave a paper on the description of natural phenomena in Callimachus, I have been deeply impressed by her constant willing­ ness to yield the floor to young scholars of Hellenistic poetry. Needless to say that without Annette Harder this book would never have come into being. My gratitude extends, of course, to my teachers. Michalis Kopidakis was the first to guide me through Hellenistic poetry, and it is to him that I have dedicated this book. My adviser and colleague, and, above all, a dear friend, Antonios Rengakos, had a formative influence on the pre­ sent study: in sharing his cosmopolitan outlook and his philological expertise with me, he helped me develop my own ideas on Hellenistic poetry and poetics. I would like to thank Daniel Iakov (also my teacher at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), and especially Richard Hunter and Marco Fantuzzi for their helpful observations and criticisms. Jannick Durbec deserves sincere thanks for his patience in reading through the manu­ script and making numerous critical remarks; Martine Cuypers and Enrico Magnelli for providing me with unavailable bibliography; and Lia Koutoupa for her moral support. W J. and A. Lillie contributed sub­ stantially to the improvement of the English text. On the final prepara­ tion of the manuscript for publication I am indebted to Remco Regtuit, and, last but not least, to the editorial board for including this book in the series of Hellenistica Groningana.

INTRODUCTION

Just as we cannot imagine medieval Europe without Christianity, it is equally impossible to conceive antiquity without Homer. For centuries, Greeks had recourse to ‘Homer’ to define their identity -historical, polit­ ical and cultural1. The composition of the Homeric epics, the ‘Homeric question’, has proved one of the major philological problems ever, and their author has passed into the sphere of legend as a blind, itinerant bard, of uncertain origins. Already in the 6th century, the Homeridae, a guild claiming descent from the legendary poet, were declared guardian of the Homeric tradition, while other rhapsodes attempted to compose epics in imitation of the Homeric style and subject matter2. Opposed to the general view that the θείος άοιδός was the school of Greece -according to the famous Platonic saying τήν Ελλάδαν πεπαίδευκεν ούτος ό ποιητής- were the philosophers, with their religio-ethical objections. Xenophanes of Colophon and Theagenes of Rhegion clashed over the improper depiction of the gods in Homer; Heraclitus demanded that Homer be excluded from poetic contests and that he be given an exemplary scourging; Plato went even further in imagining his ideal state entirely free of the passions which inform the Homeric epics. In the post-classical era, Homer’s reputation spread even more and his influ­ ence increased. It is reported that Alexander the Great read the Iliad on a daily basis and had visions of himself as a general on the scale of Achilles3. Hellenistic culture as a whole was engaged in an intense dia­ logue with Homer. This would explain the assiduity of the Ptolemies in 1. Mehmel (1954) provides a general overview o f Homer as seen by the Greeks. On the early reception o f Homer, see the detailed study by Graziosi (2002). For the reception of Homer in antiquity from a modem point of view, see e.g. the collection o f essays in Lamberton-Keaney (1992) and the short outline by Lamberton (1997). Hunter (2004a) brilliantly illustrates the pervasive influence o f Homer on Greek literature and thought, whereas Porter (2004) discusses the idea of Homer throughout the centuries and collects the bibliography on this huge subject. On the visual representations o f Homer as a god, see Petrovic (2006: 16-22). 2. On the performance o f the Homeric epics from the archaic period down to the Ptolemaic era, see Collins (2004: 165-222). On the prehistory and the early history of Greek epic, see Lambin (1999: 47-77). 3. According to Plutarch, Alexander lamented the fact that unlike Achilles he lacked a poet o f the stature o f Homer to immortalize his deeds (Alex. 15.8 τήν δ’ Ά χ ιλ λ έ ω ς στήλην ά λειψ ά μ ενος λίπα, καί μετά τών έταίρω ν συναναδραμώ ν γυμνός ώ σπερ Εθος έστίν, έστεφ άνω σε, μακαρίσας αυτόν δτι καϊ ζώ ν φ ίλου πιστού καί τελευτήσας μ εγά λου κήρυκος ϋτυχεν).

3

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

INTRODUCTION

collecting all the editions of the Homeric epics, which were in circula­ tion at their time, under the roof of a single library, and then subjecting them to intensive scrutiny. In this way, Homer became the central core around which philological studies took shape in Alexandria, as also of their derivative: learned poetry4. Even though it was in Alexandria that Homeric philology was first cultivated as an independent discipline, the study of the Homeric epics goes back a good deal further than that. The rhapsodes themselves touched upon particular aspects of the language of the epics such as the etymology of proper nouns and the interpretation of glossae', they also developed stories about Homer’s life, thus contributing to the tradition of Homeric biography. Later on, the Sophists became active in the field of Homeric exegesis, particularly as glossographers. At the same time, Herodotus was cautiously raising the question of the authorship of the epics. Until then, the rhapsodic tradition had held that Homer was the author, not only of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, but also of a whole host of epic poems, within and outside the Trojan cycle (Thebais, Epigonoi, The Fall o f Oechalia). Interpretation of Homer acquired moral dimensions in Plato’s Republic, while Aristotle’s response took the form of scientific ‘solutions’ to chronic Homeric problems (Aporemata Homerica)5. A pioneer of Homeric philology was the 5th century gram­ marian and poet, Antimachus of Colophon, to whom the first edition of the Homeric epics is attributed (ή ’Αντιμάχου έκδοσις)6. A hundred years later, Zenodotus of Ephesos, a pupil of Philitas, became the first critical editor of Homer, in the sense that he collated different manu­ scripts, expunged doubtful verses and probably introduced new readings into the epics7. Eratosthenes took Homeric criticism down different paths, in rejecting the centuries-old doctrines related to the historical and geographical authenticity of Homer and subjecting them to his scientific rationalism. By stating explicitly that poetry was aimed at enjoyment, not teaching, Eratosthenes contributed indirectly to the process of strip­ ping the Homeric epics of their ideological integument8. At the end of the 3rd century, Aristophanes of Byzantium worked on critical editions

of older poetry, including the Homeric epics9; in the 2nd century, with the corrections (διορθώσεις) and commentaries (δπομνήματα) of Aristarchus of Samothrace, Homeric philology became a painstaking discipline10. The legacy of Homer, provoking discussions throughout antiquity on its political, social and cultural implications, was matched by parallel developments in the rest of epic poetry. From the classical age to late antiquity, epics were written which consciously followed Homer in terms of subject matter, style and ideology11. One problem that postHomeric epic poets no doubt faced (at least as evidenced by the criticism to which Aristotle subjected them) had to do with their handling of muthos, in particular: the possibility of extending a muthos in a single, unified narrative line, from the begining to its very end; the sheer versi­ fication demanded by such an exhaustive presentation; and the uncritical addition of mythological characters and episodes bearing little or no relation to the main plot. As a response to the production of ‘Homericizing’ epics on mythological or historical subjects, the first revisionists of the genre appeared12. From the 5th century, Choerilus of Samos recounted contemporary historical events in Homeric style, while Anti­ machus of Colophon attempted to renew the mythological epic, relying on the philological interpretation of Homer. In his Thebais, and even the elegy Lyde, Antimachus combined the epic genre with conscious erudi­ tion; in this respect he was the first poeta doctus of Greek literature13.

4. Fraser (1972) has convincingly demonstrated that the cultural activity o f Ptolemaic Alexandria had a profound impact on the formation o f the new literary aesthetic; thus, as a rule, we refer to this type o f literature as ‘learned’, see Rossi (1995). 5. Richardson (1992: 1994). 6. On Antimachus as a Homeric scholar, see Matthews (1996: 46-51). 7. Pfeiffer (1968: 92) points out that “it was only after Philitas, the poet and scholar, that the true scholar came into being, and this scholar [i.e. Zenodotus] was the personal pupil o f the poet.” Essential for the study o f Zenodotus is Nickau (1977). 8. See Gens (2002).

9. For Aristophanes’ fragments, see Slater (1986). 10. Pfeiffer (1968) offers a thorough study o f ancient scholarship. On Alexandrian Homeric philology, see e.g. the more recent overview in Montanari (2002); on Aristarchus, see esp. Nagy (2004: 110-128). For the ancient theoretical approaches to epic, see the detailed monograph by Koster (1970). 11. Latacz (2001: 19-21) aptly distinguishes four phases in the development o f Greek epic: i) the phase of vitality (‘Vitalitätsphase’), from the beginnings o f oral impro­ visation to its artistic perfecting by ‘Homer’ and other archaic poets such as Hesiod, Parmenides and Empedocles, ii) the phase o f supplementation (‘Komplettierungsphase’) during which epics were written to fill the ‘gaps’ o f the Trojan war stories and o f other mythical cycles; at the same time, the epic form was used for multiple purposes and sub­ jects, iii) the phase o f an attempted revitalization o f the genre (‘versuchte Revital­ isierung’), from Panyassis, Antimachus and Choerilus to the refashioning of the epic into epyllion, idyll, didactic poetry etc. during the Hellenistic period, and iv) the phase of

reproduction. 12. Hainsworth (1991: 9): “A vital epic must be something other than a combination o f Homeric structure, elevated language, funeral games, and divine machinery. In prac­ tice there is more than a suspicion that many o f the epic poets who invoked the Muse during the eight centuries between 400 BC and AD 400 were studiously ventilating a corpse.” 13. On Antimachus, see the two recent monographs by Lombardi (1993) and Matthews (1996). See especially Lombardi (1997) for the innovations introduced into

INTRODUCTION

Epic poetry written in the shadow of Homer, with the deployment of his ‘Kunstsprache’ and narrative techniques, but with significant differ­ ences to do with the handling of the plot and the treatment of the heroic action, has been likened to a cycle. In philosophy -in Plato, and particu­ larly in the writings of Aristotle- the term κύκλος describes any natural movement that recurs periodically: time, the motion of the planets, the change of seasons or the succession of birth and death. In rhetoric, it denotes a closed, harmonious, syntactical period, which begins and ends with the same word (D.H. Comp. 19.70, [Longin.] 40.1, Hermog. Inv. 4.8)14. In philological treatises, κύκλος implies a group of poems of the same genre; as a technical term έπικός κύκλος is encountered in Athenaeus Deipn. 7.5 (cf. Arist. APo. 77b)15. Despite the fact that in Aristarchus, the adverb κυκλικώς initially had the neutral meaning ‘in the manner of cyclic poets’, Aristonicus also added the negative conno­ tation of repetitiveness in his comment on //. 9.222a κυκλικώτερον κατακέχρηται τω στίχω 16; κυκλικός gradually acquired the sense of ‘common’ and therewith of ‘hackneyed’ in the context of literary polemics (cf. Call. Ep. 28.1 Pf. έχθαίρω τό ποίημα τό κυκλικόν and AP. 11.130.1-4)17. The change of ‘cycle’ from a descriptive term to a generic category with negative connotations was due to the evolution of Homeric criti­ cism, and, in particular, to the constant opposition of the technical terms κυκλικοί and νεώτεροι in the Homeric scholia18. With Homer as his reference point, Aristarchus calls all Greek poets who followed him neoteroi -starting with Hesiod, the iambic, elegiac, lyric and dramatic poets, down to the Hellenistic ones. At times, sub-divisions of the neoteroi are made, such as ‘Attic poets’ or ‘the tragedians’, while one also finds variations in the terminology (οί μεθ’ "Ομηρον, ol μεταepic by Choerilus and Antimachus, as well as for their reception by Hellenistic poets. Matthews (1996: 64-76) offers an overview o f Antimachus’ controversial reputation in antiquity. 14. A negative connotation of κύκλος is associated with anything peripheral or mar­ ginal to the main point, as in Arist. Rh. 1415b ού τά έρω τώ μενα λ έγ ο υ σ ιν ά λλά τα κύκλω, καί προοιμιάζονται. Cf. the verb κυκλογραφέω used to denote the constant repetition in speech in D.H. Dem. 19.6 τήν πρώτην δ ιά νοια ν...μ α κ ρά ν π ο ιεί κυκλο­ γραφώ ν καί δίς η τρις τά αύτά λέγω ν. 15. The ancient testimonies on κύκλος-κυκλικός are collected by Bemabe (1996). 16. Based on the surviving fragments, Griffin (1977: 48-53) argues for the poor qual­ ity o f the cyclic style. On the Hellenistic poets’ attitude towards the Epic Cycle, see Cameron (1995: 394-402). 17. The meaning κύκλιος ‘plain, comprehensible’ is reintroduced by Pretagostini (2000a: 14). 18. For these Aristarchean terms, see the exhaustive analysis by Severyns (1928: 3181); cf. Cameron (1995: 396).

5

γενέστεροι, οί νέοι). The comment ή Ιστορία παρά τοϊς κυκλικοΐς or έκ τοΰ Κύκλου is common in the Homeric scholia; in this context κυκλικός is a specific subcategory among the neoteroi, including specifically those aspired to supplement the Homeric muthos with their own epics, as we shall see below19.

The avant-garde of Alexandria and the writing of epic It would appear that those concerned with Homeric philology also pointed out the blandness of the epic genre in post-Homeric times. Their forerunner was probably Philitas of Cos (end 4th-beginning 3rd c. BC), the first ποιητής άμα καί κριτικός, lit. ‘poet and at the same time critic’, according to Strabo (14.219), who was considered to have pro­ posed a new school of poetry. His philological activity was linked to glossography, i.e. the collection and interpretation of rare, particularly poetic, words. His work Ataktoi glossae caused a stir in Hellenistic cir­ cles20. With his two most important poems, Hermes and Demeter, he reworked ancient themes in the more concise narrative forms of hexametric poetry21. Simias of Rhodes also belongs to the first generation of Hellenistic poets (fl. ca. 300 BC); Simias compiled a collection of glos­ sae, but is better remembered as a creator of pattern poems, the socalled technopaegnia22. Tragedy also flourished; it is well known that during the reign of Ptolemy Π Philadelphus, a group of seven tragic poets, the Pleiad, was formed at Alexandria, its most prominent mem­ bers being Alexander Aetolus (315-mid 3rd c. BC)23 and Lycophron of Chalcis (3rd c. BC)24. As a grammarian Lycophron specialized in com­ edy, but as a poet he was better known for his tragedies on themes that were in part mythological and in part historical (Suid. s.v. Λυκόφρων). Another group of innovative poets and ardent scholars formed around Callimachus of Cyrene (300-240 BC), among them the poet and gram19. However, the distinction between cyclic and non-cyclic epics was not always clear-cut: even Hesiod is closely related to the cyclic poets by Philo of Byblus FGrHist 790 ff. 2 ένθ εν Η σ ίο δ ο ς ο ΐ τε κυκλικοί π ερ ιη χ η μ ένο ι Θ εογονία ς καί Γ ιγα ν­ τομαχίας καί Τ ιτανομαχίας έπλασαν. 20. On Philitas as a collector o f glossae, see Bing (2003). 21. See the recent commented edition of Philitas by Spanoudakis (2002). 22. See Frankel (1915) on Simias and Strodel (2002) on the genre o f technopaegnia. 23. On the fragments o f Alexander Aetolus, see the detailed commentary by Magnelli (1999). 24. Gigante Lanzara (1998) clearly distinguishes between the 3rd century poet Lycophron and the author o f Alexandra whom she dates in the first half o f the 2nd cen­ tury BC.

INTRODUCTION

marian Apollonius of Rhodes and the polymath Eratosthenes of Cyrene25. The slogan central to Callimachus, to avoid the bustle of the broad avenue of poetry and seek out the untrodden paths (Aet. fr. 1.2728 Pf. δίφρον έλ]αν μηδ’ οΐμον άνά πλατύν, άλλα κελεύθους/ άτρίπτους), took the shape of original experimentation with concise poetic forms, variety of texture and minor myths. Theocritus of Syra­ cuse (300-260 BC), a contemporary of Callimachus, divided his life and poetic output between Sicily and Alexandria; he is known as the inven­ tor of the idyll in bucolic or urban setting. Apollonius of Rhodes (bom 295 or 290 BC) occupied the post of chief librarian in Alexandria, where he made his name as an outstanding Homerist. His great poetic achievement, however, was the Argonautica in four books, the only epic from the time that has survived in its entirety, for many an experiment on several levels to modernize the genre26. Euphorion of Chalcis (ca. 275-200 BC) was based in a different region of the Hellenistic world, in Antiochia of Syria. Euphorion, a librarian, scholar and skilled handler of the epyllion, was the main representative of Hellenistic aestheticism. It was, in fact, he who gave his name to the Roman neoteroi ‘cantores Euphorionis’2728.Another author belonging to the tradition of hexametric poetry is Nicander of Colophon -his double dating to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC led to the theory that there were two Nicanders; he wrote didactic epics, the Theriaca and the Alexipharmaca, and is said to have composed a mythological poem in hexameters, the Heteroioumena, which served as a model for Ovid’s Metamorphoses28. Parthenius of Nicaea (1st c. BC) represents the end point of the avant-garde aesthetic of Hellenism, since, with his prose work Erotika Pathemata, he pro­ vided material for the composition of elegies in what was now Roman territory. With these poets, we arrive at a critical turning point; in contempo­ rary terminology, we would speak of literature turning towards mod25. Pfeiffer's edition (1949; 1953) has remained up to the present day an invaluable tool for the study of Callimachus; for the first two books o f the Aetia , see the in-depth commentary by Massimilla (1996a). 26. G lei’s (2001) bibliographical survey is a comprehensive guide to the basic tenden­ cies o f Apollonian scholarship during the last 50 years. 27. Taking as the most characteristic test case the poetry o f Euphorion, van Gronin­ gen (1953) introduced the term ‘poesie verbale’ into the analysis o f Hellenistic poetics. For a new approach to Euphorion as a ‘poete verbal’, see Kolde (2006). 28. On a basic introduction to Nicander, see Jacques (2002) and the 1953 edition by Gow and Scholfield; especially on the problem of the two Nicanders, see Lightfoot (1999: 20-22); on the dating o f Nicander on the basis o f his intertextual relations to other Hellenistic authors, see Magnelli (2007). Forbes Irving (1990: 24-32) discusses Nicander’s metamorphosis poetry.

7

emism29. Of course, Hellenistic ‘modernism’ did not consist of a partic­ ular school, as is at times assumed schematically by students and readers of Hellenistic literature. The big names -Theocritus, Callimachus and Apollonius- correspond to very different poetic trends. The division into the early and late Hellenistic period (from Philitas ca. 300 BC to Parthe­ nius in the 1st c. BC)30, geographical distance (Euphorion was based in Antiochia, a long way from the influential centre of Alexandria), the cul­ tivation of almost all poetic genres and the creation of new ones, such as the epyllion and the idyll, and isolated instances (such as the iambic monodrama Alexandra), in combination with the various socio-political contexts (since poetic discourse at times reflected Ptolemaic rule in Egypt and at others the ascendant power of Rome) -all clearly point towards the multiformity of Hellenistic poetry. Nevertheless, from the surviving fragments, the ancient testimonies and the well-attested recep­ tion of Hellenistic poetics by the Romans it is clear that these poets revised the literary past and, from that point of view, their general char­ acterization as ‘modem’ seems justified31. However, it was the new historical and cultural context, especially of Hellenistic Alexandria, that led to the modernization of poetry. Sugges­ tions as to the main parameters of this context have been: the replace­ ment of the city-state by the decentralized, imperialistic kingdoms of the Successors; syncretism as regards political and religious symbols with those of the East, particularly of Egypt; new institutions, such as patron­ age of poets by the monarchs; ‘bookish’ aesthetics in the framework of the library; reading instead of performance in the literary communica­ tion32; and post-Aristotelian concepts regarding knowledge, science, 29. On Callimachus and Theocritus as ‘modernists’ avant la lettre, see FantuzziHunter (2004: vii). 30. That there existed a significant difference between poets belonging to ‘high Hel­ lenism’ and the ones constituting the ‘second generation’, who acknowledged the ‘clas­ sic’ status o f their predecessors, has been rightly emphasized by Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 444-449). Moreover, third-century Alexandria was viewed as a ‘golden age’ by the Romans of the early empire, and, thence, the poets flourishing under the first three Ptolemies were considered as belonging to a ‘glorious past’; therefore, for Latin poets, Callimachus and his contemporaries, rather than the poets o f late Hellenism, seemed to be worth imitating (Hunter [2006: 143-146]). 31. Given that Callimachus’ leading role in the development o f Hellenistic poetics has long since been acknowledged and Alexandria has been presented as the spiritual land­ scape in which his avante-garde aesthetic flourished, the terms ‘Hellenistic’, ‘Callimachean’, ‘Alexandrian’ and ‘modem-modernistic’ are considered to be virtually equiva­ lent within the scope o f the present monograph; on Hellenistic ‘modernism’, see Hunter (2003b). The term ‘neoteric’, on the other hand, is systematically avoided, since it is usu­ ally used to denote the Roman poets around Catullus; on the term ‘neoteric(s)’, see Fan­ tuzzi-Hunter [2004; 464 n.85]) with bibliography. 32. A notable exception to this general ‘rule’ is the rhapsodic performance of the

INTRODUCTION

aesthetics and literature33. In this changing world, the values which were under review were related to the system of values which had been cre­ ated and supported by the literary genres of the past34. Of course, the Hellenistic poets were not the first to realize that grand literature was a thing of the past. The idea that epic and tragedy had ended their cycle and that the Grand Masters belonged to the past (their final flare being assigned to the 5th century) was in great part due to the retrospective view of Aristotle’s Poetics. Aristotle was, in any case, the source of the interest in the history of literature and of concerns about the ‘canoniza­ tion’ of authors and genres, two trends dominant in Hellenistic literature. We must here make a crucial observation, however: much as the philol­ ogists accepted ‘classicism’ in the categorization of authors and works, the poets (who often happened to be one and the same person, as in the case of Callimachus, Apollonius and others) were seeking new, ‘unclassical’, paths for poetry35. One feature of the Hellenistic poets’ ‘modernity’ was the concept they had of the subject matter of poetry. Myth, in the sense of the history of the distant past, was the collective memory of the archaic and classical polis. With this function, it dominated in the elevated genres, such as the epic, lyric poetry and tragedy. With the change of political identity, and, no doubt, of the social role of the poet, myth as a proper subject for the new poetics was called into question36. Hellenistic poets were looking for suitable material, or, better, the ‘subject’ of modem poetry in entirely different, and sometimes unexpected, directions. It is beyond dispute, for example, that poems with non-mythological subjects increased impresHomeric epics during the Ptolemaic period until Aristarchus’ time, see Collins (2004: 203-218). 33. Bulloch et al. (1993) discuss the various aspects of the new political and cultural identity in the Hellenistic era with respect to kingship, religion, aesthetics and philosophy. Stephens (2003) sheds new light on the Egyptian-oriented identity o f Alexandrian intel­ lectuals. The claim that the Library was undoubtedly a key factor for the formation of Hellenistic poetry has recently been supported by Pretagostini (2000b). The theory o f the ‘ivory-tower’ is seriously challenged by Cameron (1995: 3-103), who argues for the pub­ lic, performative character o f Hellenistic poetry. However, Bing (2000) and Harder (2002b), among others, have recently questioned whether Callimachean poetry actually fulfilled a social function in the Hellenistic period. 34. As a rule, scholars have explained the Hellenistic poets’ attitude towards the liter­ ary past as a peculiar mixture of ‘m im esis’ and ‘innovation’, e.g. Bing (1988: 50-90) and Hunter (2003b: 479-481). 35. Equally contradictory is the Hellenistic poets’ stance on the issue of the literary genre; as Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 23-24) aptly put it, “the poet-philologists establish rules and structures qua philologists, which they then set about violating qua poets”. 36. Gelzer (1993) suggests that the Hellenistic poetics were the result o f a serious cri­ sis in Greek poetry, a crisis which can be dated back to the end o f fifth century and is related to the gradual decline o f the polis.

9

sively at that time. A broad category includes poems with a (pseudo-) scientific content and didactic tone, such as Aratus’ Phaenomena or even Callimachus’ Aetia, which focus upon the notion of knowledge between myth and history37. Furthermore, the dialogue with reality assumed new dimensions. Contemporary politics, particularly the monarchs of the Hellenistic courts, became the subject of a varied, encomi­ astic discourse, while on the other hand ‘living’, everyday routine was represented in terms of artificial and stylized realism38. An exceptional case is that of the Theocritean bucolic, which is grounded in a new mythological utopia with fictional protagonists39. At the same time, sto­ ries from Greek myth with well-known heroes continued to fuel poetry, as is clear from fully-blown mythological works such as the Argonautica by Apollonius and Lycophron’s Alexandra. Naturally, for there to be any understanding between author and reader, there has to be a code common to both, and this was provided by the rich substratum of Greek mythology. Nevertheless, under the powerful influence of rhetoric, generic formalism and scholarship, the revision of archaic and classical mythology in Hellenistic poetry was radical, and Hellenistic myth was complicated to the extent that it became ever less recognizable. Apart from the subject matter appropriate to this modem poetry, though, the avant-garde of Alexandria seem to have focused on the liter­ ary genre, the style and the narrative form of poetry40. Of all the Hel­ lenistic poets, we mostly turn to Callimachus for evidence on the princi­ ples of the new poetics. Of this evidence, the Ae/ia-Prologue (fr. 1 Pf.) has provoked much philological discussion about its aim and meaning41. On the one hand because the literary credos of Callimachus are formu­ lated here in a series of ambiguous images, symbols and metaphors, on the other because we do not have an accurate picture today of the cul­ tural framework to which the Aetia-Prologue refers. According to older 37. For Callimachus’ Aetia as a poem o f knowledge, see the analysis by Hutchinson (2003); the didactic dimension o f the poem is discussed by Kaesser (2005). 38. On politics within the context o f Hellenistic poetics, see Hunter (2003a: 24-53) and Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 350-403). 39. That the introduction o f humans instead o f gods and heroes into Theocritus’ enco­ miastic and bucolic poetry is a clear manifestation o f his attempt to demythologize poetry is convincingly proposed by Fantuzzi (2000a). 40. Lowe (2000: 97-99) argues that plot is no longer at issue in Hellenistic poetry, due to the fact that the author shifts the reader’s attention from the actual story to the nar­ rative itself. 4L See the provocative -but controversial- reading o f the Aetia -Prologue by Cameron (1995: passim); the most recent studies include Schmitz (1999), Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002) and Petrovic (2006). For detailed comments on the Aeria-Prologue, see Massimilla (1996a: 199-231) and Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 66-76).

INTRODUCTION

assessments of the Prologue -as well as of other passages of literary polemics, such as the last verses of the Hymn to Apollo and epigram 28 Pf.-42, there seems to be no doubt that Callimachus devised the elegy as a counter-genre to the increased output of ‘Homericizing’ epics, with a mythological or historical subject matter43. From as long ago as antiq­ uity the biographical aspect in this literary dispute has been stressed, particularly in relation to Apollonius of Rhodes and the supposed rejec­ tion of the Argonautica by Callimachus44. At times, even modem schol­ arship has claimed that Callimachus and Apollonius clashed over the composition of long, verse epics with a linear narrative and a heroic theme45. This position has been very much questioned, given the suppo­ sition that the epic was, in any case, a marginal portion of Hellenistic lit­ erary production. Instead, it has been suggested that Callimachus’ objec­ tions had more to do with the proper style for the composition of the elegy. It is for this reason that the Prologue of the Aetia does not com­ pare epic poets against each other, but rather the refined elegies of Mim­ nermus and Philitas with epicizing elegies, such as Antimachus’ Lyde46. 42. Regarding the passage from the Hymn to Apollo, Williams (1978: 98-99) has argued that its central symbol, the Ocean, is a metaphor for Homeric poetry itself. For Epigram 28 Pf., see Blumenthal (1978), Schwinge (1986: 5-9) and Cameron (1995: 387393). 43. The idea that the Ae/ia-Prologue should be interpreted as an anti-epic manifesto is suggested by Newman (1974) and Klein (1974). daym an (1977) attempted to associate the termini technici of the Prologue with Greek rhetorical and aesthetic theories; for a thorough analysis o f poetological metaphors and imagery in Callimachus, see Asper (1997). The traditional view, according to which Callimachus marked a turning point for the transition from war epic to love elegy, is held by Wimmel (1960); Hunter (2006: 2841) argues that the Roman elegists were responsible for this creative ‘misreading’ of the Aefia-Prologue. 44. In the context o f the biographical reading o f the Ae/ia-Prologue, the Telchines were identified by the ancient scholiasts with Posidippus and Asclepiades (Sch. Flor. Aet. fr. 1-12 Pf.). 45. This interpretation stems, to some degree, from ancient scholiastic tradition, according to which Callimachus wrote Hecale, an epyllion on an anti-heroic subject, in response to the large-scale epic o f Apollonius, the Argonautica (Sch. Call. Ap. 106 έγ κ α λ εΐ.,.το ϋ ς σκώ πτοντας αύτόν μή δύνασθαι π οιήσα ι μέγα ποίημα, δθεν ήναγκάσθη π οιήσα ι τήν Έ κ ά λη ν). In modem times the most enthusiastic supporter of the biographical dimension o f this controversy is Eichgrün (1961). I need hardly note that the notion o f a literary ‘quarrel’ between Callimachus and Apollonius has been seriously challenged in the last decades: Lefkowitz (1980) and Rengakos (1992) have shed new light on the evidence provided by the ancient Lifes. It is widely accepted today that in fact Apollonius adopted Callimachean poetics, see e.g. DeForest (1994); moreover, the narra­ tive technique of the Argonautica appears to be much more sophisticated in comparison to other post Homeric epics (Fusillo [1985]). 46. This original interpretation was put forward by Cameron (1995: 303-328) in a provocative monograph which in turn gave rise to new dispute; see e.g. the well-argued review by Harder (2002b) who rejects some o f his fundamental views as mere specula­ tive.

11

It nevertheless seems that Callimachus -or more properly the narrator of the Ae/ia-Prologue who attempts to win over the implied reader-47 is referring to the writing and reception of poetry in general. This ‘general’ literary criticism is reflected in the variety of metaphors and images employed which direct the reader to the whole range of Greek poetry -Homer (1 έπιτρύζουσιν), Hesiod (2 νήιδε]ς οϊ Μούσης ούκ έγένοντο φίλοι, cf. νν. 37-38), the epic in general (13-15 the metaphor of the cranes and the Massagetes), Pindar (25-28 the untrodden paths metaphor), tragedy (17-18 the idea of measuring the quality of poetry by σχοΐνος Περσίς, 19 μηδ’ άπ’ έμοΰ διφατε μέγα ψοφέουσαν άοιδήν/ τίκτεσθαι- βροντάν ούκ έμόν, άλλα Διός)48, elegy (9-12 the compar­ ison of the elegiac poems), even the literary criticism of Aristotle (3 ούχ §v αεισμα διηνεκές)49. The narrator clearly distances himself from the traditional ‘genres’, against which he proposes his own personal style. Terms such as λεπταλέος ‘elegant, slender, delicate’ (fr. 1.24 Pf.), λιγύς ‘clear, sweet’ (fr. 1.29 Pf.), καθαρός/ άχράαντος ‘clean, pure’ (cf. hymn Ap. I l l ) and όλίγος Tittle, small’ (cf. hymn Ap. 112) and their negative equivalents μέγας ‘big’ (cf. hymn Ap. 108), πλατύς ‘broad, wide’ (if. 1.27 Pf.) and παχύς ‘thick or heavy’ (If. 398 Pf.) give an idea of the features of this personal style, far removed from sheer bulk and bombast. The most significant criticism of older and contemporary poetry of the canon has to do with the reconstitution of the mythological material in terms of plot and narrative. The saying in the Prologue εϊνεκεν ούχ έν αεισμα διηνεκές ή βασιλήας..ή...ήρωας, έπος δ’ έπι τυτθόν έλ[ίσσω (fr. 1.3-5 Pf.) is believed to be emblematic of Callimachean poetry, since it is generally perceived as an express refutation of the nar­ rative linearity and thematic unity sought by the epic poets.50 The ques­ tion of narrative unity is critical for the assessment of poetry according 47. According to Schmitz’s (1999) analysis, Callimachus manipulates the implied reader’s sympathy in order to create a relation o f solidarity between author and audience, and thus make his erudite style accepted. 48. On a different approach, according to which Zeus in the Aeiia-Prologue stands for Homer, see Petrovic (2006). 49. For this very convincing reading of the Aef/a-Prologue as a general discussion of poetic style and quality against the background of a kaleidoscopic picture o f earlier Greek poetry, see Harder (2002a: 206-211); cf. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2002: 246-253). 50. Alexandrian scholars were particularly concerned with linear narratives in epic, see Rengakos (2004: 290-293). For a comparative study of the relevant terminology in Callimachus and Aristotle, see Hunter (1993: 190-195) and Asper (1997: 217-224), cf. Heath (1989: 48-49). Van Tress (2004 : 24-43) explores the stylistic and narratological connotations o f δ ιη νεκ ές in Callimachus, Horace and Ovid, by pointing out that it refers to temporal continuity as a device typical of a particular style of poetry. On δ ιη νεκ ές denoting unity o f composition in any type o f narrative, see Durbec (2006b: 5-6).

INTRODUCTION

to Aristotle, who, in his Poetics distinguished the Iliad and the Odyssey from the rest of epic poetry. Aristotle recognized in the Homeric epics the virtues of the perfectly-wrought tragedy, i.e. unity, completeness and magnitude. Thus, Homer is described as δ τά σπουδαία μάλιστα ποιητής (Arist. Po. 1448b), an expression similar to μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας (Arist. Po. 1449b), which refers to the content of tragedy. The reason for the poetic superiority of the Homeric epics lies in the presentation of one coherent muthos, i.e. a plot, which corresponds to the breadth of a tragedy (Arist. Po. 1459a): οί δ’ άλλοι περί ένα ποιοϋσι καί περί ένα χρόνον καί μίαν πράξιν πολυμερή, οΐον ό τά Κύπρια ποιήσας καί τήν μικρόν Ίλιάδα. τοιγαροΰν έκ μέν Τλιάδος καί Ό δυσσείας μία τραγωδία ποιείται έκατέρας ή δύο μόναι, έκ δέ Κυπρίων πολλαί ‘all other poets take a single hero, a single period, or a single action, but with a multiplicity of parts; thus did the author of the Cypria and of the Little Iliad. For this reason the Iliad and the Odyssey each provide the subject of one tragedy, or, at most, of two, while the Cypria supplies material for many’. The criterion of Aristotle is not primarily qualitative, but is subject to the internal cohesion of the constituent elements of the plot (1451a τόν μύθον, έπεί πράξεως μίμησίς έστι, μιας τε είναι καί ταύτης όλης...ώστε μετατιθεμένου τινός μέρους ή άφαιρουμένου διαφέρεσθαι καί κινεΐσθαι τό δλον ‘the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action in its entirety... so if one of its parts is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed’)51. As opposed to the Homeric epics, Aristotle notes that the basic flaw of the other epic poets is that they are unable to maintain the unity of the plot. There is a never-ending multiplication of episodes which give the impression of an artificial unity centred on a particular character (1451a)52, but which do not result in a discernible telos (1459a προς τό αύτό συντείνουσαι τέλος)53. More important for the understanding of the Aristotelian muthos is not so much the round­ ing off of the plot, but the concept of an ultimate telos and of a katharsis which is kindled by this54. The aesthetic of Callimachus seems antiAristotelian as regards the possibility of applying έν, δλον, τέλος and 51. On the unity of plot in Aristotle, see Heath (1989: 38-43). Belfiore (2000) stresses the differences between the Aristotelian muthos and the narratological term ‘plot’. 52. For Aristotle unity o f action does not necessarily result from singleness o f action; several events might constitute one total action, leading up to a single end (Halliwell [1987: 104-105], cf. Heath [1989: 43-45]). 53. Thus, the epic poet has to make a crucial decision when choosing his subject mat­ ter, taking into account the intrinsic unity and the ‘teleology’ of his plot (Halliwell [1987: 165]). 54. Heath (1989: 45-46).

13

μέγεθος to the narration of the post-classical muthos55. With his ούχ έν άεισμα διηνεκές, Callimachus did not merely reject unity of plot, but broadly Aristotelian teleology as a key to understanding reality; in effect, casting doubt on the unified plot brought to the surface an ideo­ logical issue of the age56. Callimachean criticism, therefore, focuses on matters involving the presentation of the muthos and its ideology, structure of the plot and nar­ rative unity. Even when the expression of such a literary polemic was not occasioned by a pointed reaction to some low-quality epic poetry of considerable popularity in the post-classical world57, Hellenistic ‘mod­ ernism’ had by definition a strong generic orientation. The fact that Hel­ lenistic poetry was particularly genre-sensitive is easily demonstrated by the variation and innovation with which the Hellenistic poets rewrote and combined the genres of the archaic and classical tradition58. Of the three generic categories of Greek poetry, much interest was focused on the hexametric poetry and its subgenres. There are many reasons which would explain why the epic, rather than the drama or lyric poetry, became the preferred field for multi-level discussions and experimenta­ tion. In the first place, it was because epic is such a broad genre that can be found among all peoples, and reflects the narrative traditions of each and every culture -myth, legend, folk tale59. As an archetypal literary 55. Pfeiffer (1968: 137). 56. Cf. Halliwell (1987: 166): “This theory o f artistic or aesthetic pleasure can be taken to reflect the outlook o f a philosopher who seeks to find intelligible order in the human and natural worlds, and whose system of thought puts a premium on synthesizing interpretations of phenomena in terms o f their ends or purposes.” 57. Ziegler (1934) has strongly supported the idea that historical and mythological epics were massively produced during the Hellenistic period; the Italian translation of Ziegler’s monograph is introduced by a detailed survey o f authors and titles o f Hellenis­ tic epic by Fantuzzi (1988). Cameron (1995: 263-302) seriously questions the mass pro­ duction of large-scale Homericizing epics before Callimachus; instead, he suggests that, as a rule, shorter hexameter poems o f encomiastic character were written. That Calli­ machus was hostile to contemporary epic on the basis o f its style but not o f its encomias­ tic content is argued by Barbantani (2005). On epics and elegies, closely imitating Homer in language and style, that flourished during the Hellenistic poetry in Callimachus’ AetiaPrologue, see Petrovic (2006: 25). 58. The idea was clearly suggested by the well-known term ‘Kreuzung der Gattungen’ coined by Wilhelm Kroll; on the need o f revising Kroll’s theory, see Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 17-26). Fundamental to our understanding o f ‘genre’ and its functions from the archaic up to the Hellenistic period is Rossi (1971). I need hardly mention how genrecentred (Hellenistic) scholarship has grown to be in the last two decades, see e.g. Harder et al. (1998) and from a wider perspective Depew-Obbink (2000). On the ‘mixing o f the genres’ in terms of the dominance o f two metres, hexametric and elegiac, even in forms and subjects which in the past were peculiar to the melic or mimetic genres, see FantuzziHunter (2004: 26-37). 59. According to Martin’s (2005: 18) concluding aphorism, “ep ic...is on the level of

INTRODUCTION

genre, it is a record of the ideological, historical and cultural identity of the ancient society that created it; as an orally-composed genre, it evolves and is recreated with each performance. Moreover, in Greek lit­ erature, the history of epic also has a most striking feature: the poet who is said to be the ‘first’ in the epic tradition, Homer, is also considered to have perfected the genre. So from Aristotle onwards, every kind of epic writing was compared to its detriment against Homer, while tragedy was placed at the peak of the pyramid of genres, on the grounds that it repre­ sented the boundary of the perfect epic, i.e. the Homeric. This conscious appreciation of the epic genre naturally stems from the Homeric epics being given a fixed written form and becoming an object of literary study. It is far from accidental that both Homeric philology and textual criticism of the Homeric and the cyclic epics were cultivated systemati­ cally in the Hellenistic age. As scholars, the ‘neoterics’ of Alexandria were well aware of the concept of the genre and its conventions; as poets, they had to deal in terms of language, metre and also subject mat­ ter with a long poetic tradition which is constantly relating to Homer60. It is not only the production and reception of the epic, especially the Homeric, which created the conditions for an intertextual dialogue with the past. Ideological issues, such as the concept of heroism, the redefin­ ition of gender identity, the role of poetry in the memorialization of the past, the values of Hellenism, which it was thought were taught by the Homeric epics, again became of current interest in the Hellenistic age, in view of the redefinition of ‘Greek’ identity61. The main reason, however, is to be found in the internal features of the genre, and especially in the free association of narration and dramatization; the alternation between various perspectives seems to be an attractive feature of the genre. As well as this, the epic, in the broader sense of hexametric poetry, presents great generic mobility, since its narrative modes, metre, length, and sub­

ideology a metonymy for culture itself” . Cf. the interpretation o f epic in relation to its ori­ gin in oral storytelling in Edmunds (2005). 60. Hunter (2004a: 238-239) illustrates the omnipresence o f ‘Homer’ in Greek litera­ ture by emphasizing that Homeric language underlies all types o f hexametric, elegiac and tragic poetry, lyric narratives and epigram. In his very apt wording (p.238) “Homer is immanently present in a special way in the very fabric o f much Greek poetry” ; thus “ poets...allusively exploit the fact that the very language with which they are working is ‘used’, and hence all poiesis is in one sense repetition”. 61. Dominant is the view that immigrant intellectuals in Alexandria, such as Calli­ machus, tried to establish a Greek literary culture in the new Ptolemaic capital, cf. Seiden (1998). From another point o f view Stephens (2003: 238-257) emphasizes the develop­ ment o f a cultural identity by Alexandrians under the influence both o f the Greek past and o f the Egyptian present.

15

jects can be combined to create new subgenres62. Besides, by the time of the Hellenistic age the epic had become an ‘open’ genre, both from the point of view of the conditions under which it could be performed or read63 and also from that of the narrative means employed64. The elegy was suggested as a modernized version of the epic, proba­ bly because the elegiac distich, unlike the repeated hexameter, made comfortable pauses and rounded micro-units available to the narrative65. The model for the Hellenistic elegy goes back to the archaic Mimner­ mus, particularly to Nanno, an episodic poem consisting of short, mythological narratives, in which, for the first time in elegy, the per­ sonal perspective can be traced66. Antimachus of Colophon, who pro­ duced both the mythological epic Thebais and the elegy Lyde, was the cause of much divided opinion in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC67. According to the evidence of Plutarch (Consolatio ad Apollonium 106b=test. 12 Matthews), Antimachus in Lyde used the disasters which befell the heroes as examples of consolation. Callimachus called the verses of Antimachus ‘dim-witted’ (ff. 398 Pf. Λύδη καί παχύ γράμμα καί oö τορόν), unlike his contemporaries Hermesianax, Asclepiades and Posidippus, who showed themselves to be staunch supporters of his elegies68. Elegies with an erotic framework and mythological subject 62. Martin (2005) offers an original and comprehensive approach to the generic iden­ tity o f epic. For a theoretical discussion o f the epic genre, cf. also Lambin (1999: 13-26). 63. Schmitz (1999: 177) stresses the ‘openness’ o f Callimachus’ poetry in the sense that it could be read outside its original historical context. This does not exclude, how­ ever, the possibility that some poetic genres were actually performed in public festivals, see Cameron (1995 : 24-103). But due to the secondary importance o f dramatic poetry in the Hellenistic age, large-scale epic contrasted with the poetry of the short form on the basis of their ideological and aesthetic differences (Wimmel [1960: 50-127], Schwinge [1986: 30-43]). Overviews of the Hellenistic poets’ stance towards epic in Heath (1989: 56-70), Cameron (1995: 263-302), Pretagostini (2000a) and Hunter (2001: 105-119). 64. Such as the introduction into the narrative o f the first-person authorial voice, a characteristic stemming from the Hesiodic tradition o f epic. This feature, however, seems to contradict Aristotelian poetics, as is pointed out by Hunter (2001: 121): “The constant presence o f a commentating and often ironising poet...is entirely foreign to the Aris­ totelian ideal o f a poet ‘who lets his characters do the talking’”. The prominent role o f the narrator in Hesiod hardly needs demonstration, see the thorough survey by Stoddard (2004); de Jong (2006) has recently argued that self-referentiality is suggested, albeit indirectly, even by the Homeric narrator. 65. Hexameter, together with the use o f glossae, belongs to the most prominent char­ acteristics o f the elevated epic style (Arist. Po. 1459b); cf. Koster (1970 : 67-68). 66. Mimnermus also wrote an elegy on a historical subject, Smyrneis', however, this elegy bore more similarities to aetiology and ta's/j-poetry than to historical epic (Haussier [1976: 79-80]). 67. Vessey (1971) claims that Callimachus’ philological circle was responsible for Antimachus’ bad reputation in antiquity. 68. Cf. Matthews (1996: 26-39) on the literary debate regarding Lyde. Callimachus

16

17

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

INTRODUCTION

matter were written by Philitas, Hermesianax (Leontiori) and Phanocles (Erotes) and perhaps Parthenius69, while Callimachus introduced multi­ ple mythological narratives into the elegiac Aetia10. The epyllion was suggested as another generic version of hexametric poetry. The subject of the epyllion may come from heroic myth, but is combined with a series of non-epic motifs, such as poverty, everyday life, childhood, old age and love71. The epic plot is replaced by the small-scale episode72, where novelistic tones and realistic conventions bring the heroic protag­ onists very much down to earth. The epyllion begins with Philitas’ Her­ mes, is perfected in Callimachus’ Hecale and Theocritus’ Little Hera­ cles, and continues with Euphorion. Also part of the hexametric genres is the Theocritean idyll, through which the generic principles of the epic are overturned through its stylistic and rhetorical devices, while innova­ tions are introduced such as the mingling of dramatic features in the third person narrative, bucolic and urban scenery, humanization of the heroes and realistic reworking of the myth73.

It is self-evident that the treatment of myth and all that it entails (ideol­ ogy, characters, plot) by the Hellenistic poets reflects their skepticism about the literary genres of the past. Thus, my aim is to show how, in dealing with the Trojan myth in particular, they express their thinking on

the thematics and narrative techniques of epic poetry. As an emblematic theme, I have chosen the study of the Trojan myth, for obvious reasons: because the Trojan myth is a diachronic reference point for Greek his­ tory, cultural identity and literature74; because it provided the material for the Homeric and cyclic epics, and is therefore the epic myth par excellence75; because the dramatic and lyric poets revised the Trojan myth, thus engaging in an intertextual dialogue with Homer and the rest of the epic poets; because Aristotle in his Poetics considered the exem­ plary treatment of the Trojan episodes in Homer as the basis for his comparison with the epics of the Cycle; and because Alexandrian philol­ ogy systematically distinguished Homer from the neoteroi with the ver­ sions of the Trojan myth as a guide-line. For the purpose of the present study, I define as Trojan myth the host of episodes which are linked directly or indirectly with the Trojan war and its protagonists. Recent theories speak of an enormous and multi­ faceted mythological tradition around the Trojan war, which evolved through a variety of artistic devices -oral poetry, prose recitations, iconography-76 and which is, at bottom, pre-Homeric77. In a later period there was a clear tendency to arrange the various episodes of the Trojan myth into a coherent cycle; thus, themes and characters from the Trojan myth present a whole host of thematic and narrative correspondences with each other78. However, as is well-known, the Homeric epics have at their core no more than an episode of the Trojan myth. The Iliad concentrates on the

showed his disapproval o f Antimachus’ lofty style which had been transferred from epic to elegy and juxtaposed it with the elegiac style o f Mimnermus and Philitas: see Pfeiffer (1968: 94-95) and Spanoudakis (2001). Testimonies on the subject matter and style of Antimachus’ poetry in Matthews (1996: 3-14). 69. Calderon Dorda (1997) argues for the existence o f Hellenistic erotic elegy with a mythological subject matter. 70. Magnelli (2005) discusses Callimachus' fr. 75 Pf. as a test case for the narrative techniques employed in Hellenistic elegy. 71. Although the term ‘epyllion’ was coined by Aristophanes to mockingly describe Euripides’s poetry (Ach. 398, Ra. 942, Pas 532; cf. however the definition τα έπη, ϋποκοριστικώ ς in Suda s.v.), it is used conventionally by modem scholars to denote a subgenre o f epic poetry and does not indicate a distinct genre in antiquity. For the epyl­ lion, see Crump (1931) and Gutzwiller (1981), as well as more recent approaches by Cameron (1995: 447-452) and Hunter (Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004: 191-196]). 72. Hunter (2001: 114) observes that the absence o f linear narrative from the Hel­ lenistic epyllion is due to the influence o f genres such as choral lyric where selectivity and lack o f symmetry dominate. 73. It is not certain whether Callimachus and his contemporaries considered Theocri­ tus’ hexametric poetry as a new literary genre, since the term είδ ύ λ λ ιον was first intro­ duced by 1st c. BC scholars mainly to describe his bucolic poems (see Sch. Theoc. pas­ sim).

74. The political and historical associations o f Troy with Greece and Rome are dis­ cussed by Erskine (2001). For a diachronic survey of the idea of Troy, see the recent col­ lection of articles by Zimmermann (2006) published under the expressive title Der Traum von Troia; with particular emphasis on Homer, see Porter (2004). 75. Nagy (1979: 140) speaks o f the “centralized thematic concern o f the Iliad” and aptly points out that “the Trojan expedition, as it is presented in its ultimate form by our Iliad, is a grand theme which, by converging on the one main goal of Troy, unites on the level o f content the heroic and material resources o f the various cultural centers that may each once have had their own epic traditions about conquering various territories.” 76. For the non-Homeric representations of the Trojan myth in archaic art, see Burgess (2001: 35-44). 77. Burgess (2001: 4). Burgess also observes that (p. 5) “ there is no ‘early’ version of the Trojan war on which the Homeric poems are based, as opposed to a ‘later’ version of the Trojan war represented by the Epic Cycle. The essential story o f the Trojan war in the archaic age cannot be separated into different temporal strata to which individual epics can be assigned.” 78. Common motifs between the Homeric epics and the Epic Cycle were brought to light due to the detailed investigation o f the neoanalytical Wolfgang Kullmann (1960). From the same neoanalytical perspective Anderson (1997: 9-17) has attempted to show the correspondences between episodes related to the fall o f Troy within the corpus of archaic epic poetry.

The paradigm of the Trojan myth

INTRODUCTION

wrath of Achilles and deals with a few days of the ten-year siege of Troy, which is completed with the death of Hector, while the Odyssey has as its subject the wanderings of Odysseus until his return to Ithaca and his restoration. The need for a poetic treatment of the Trojan myth as a whole, for a fleshing out of the chapters in the great book of the ancient Greek epic, took the form of the Epic Cycle19. The poems of the Epic Cycle owe their provenance to the long oral tradition of the archaic age, though they appear to have been crystallized as written texts much later. Their material is pre-Homeric and their composition is considered, by contemporary scholars at least, to be independent of and parallel to that of Homer*0. It is claimed that the widespread popularity of the Trojan stories of the Epic Cycle in the poetry and art of the archaic era indicates a long-held resistance on the part of the cyclic tradition to the domination of Homer*1. Once the Homeric epics had triumphed through­ out Greece, these lesser epic poems seem to have been arranged chrono­ logically into a unified narrative. Thus, the Epic Cycle is most probably the creation of the scholars of the Hellenistic age, who, within the con­ text of their editorial activities, divided the poems into books, reorgan­ ized the material and perhaps went on to abridge the original epics7980182. The principal evidence for the Epic Cycle goes back to Proclus’ Chrestomathia (5th c. AD) which commemorates the six cyclic epics 79. However, the entire cycle includes all the events beginning with the coupling of Uranus and Gaia and extending until the death o f Odysseus (Phot. Bibl. 319a). Thus, apart from the epics with a Trojan subject matter, epics such as the Theogony, the Titanomachy, the Oedipodia, the Thebais and the Epigonoi fall into the same category (for the cyclic epics, see Bemabe [1996]). The idea o f ‘completeness’ within the cycle is alluded to by Joannes Philoponus (adA rist. APo. 77b) η κύκλον λ έ γ ε ι τά έγκύκλια λεγά μ ενα μαθή­ ματα...ώ ς πάσαν Ιστορίαν π ερ ιέχο ντ ά πως. Such mythical cycles are characteristic o f any oral epic tradition (Foley [1999]). 80. The conflicting evidence regarding the dating o f the Epic Cycle is discussed by Kullmann (1960: 18-28) and Burgess (2001: 8-12). Nagy (1990: 73-81) assumes that the Epic Cycle predates the Homeric epics, but it was the Panhellenic dominance of Homer that led to the marginalization o f previous epic narratives on the Trojan war; he accepts, however, that the two distinct epic traditions, the Homeric and the more ‘archaic’ one of the Epic Cycle, developed simultaneously. The issue is again raised by Kullmann (2002). 81. Burgess (1996: 79). 82. According to this theory, the Epic Cycle was an ‘editorial manufacture' of Hel­ lenistic scholars who arranged archaic epics on the Trojan war in chronological order (Burgess [1996; 2001: 12-33]. Foley (1999: 99) argues that epic cycles in general are fig­ ments of a textually oriented critical imagination; thus, it was the scholars who attempted to provide the ‘missing’ chapters in the great book o f epic. That cyclic epics were com­ posed independently from the Homeric epics is a widely held view, put forth by Kull­ mann (1960); with focus on the composition o f the Cypria, see Burgess (1996). Nagy (1990: 75-76) maintains that the Epic Cycle gradually dominated over other epic tradi­ tions and that the conflict between different kinds o f epic poetry is reflected in the biog­ raphical tradition about the supposed contests between epic poets.

19

concerning Troy, together with their authors, and briefly summarizes their subject matter. However, we ought not forget that Proclus bases his recapitulation on abridged versions, not on the original cyclic epics, and, therefore, he gives a less accurate picture of the structure and content of the original Epic Cycle83. According to Proclus, and in conjunction with other evidence, the Epic Cycle consisted of the following works: 1) Cypria attributed to Stasinus of Cyprus (11 books); 2) Aethiopis to Arctinus of Miletus (5 books); 3) Little Iliad to Lesches of Mytilene (4 books); 4) The Sack of Troy to Arctinus of Miletus (2 books); 5) Nostoi to Agias of Troezen (5 books); and 6) Telegony to Eugammon of Cyrene (2 books)84. The Epic Cycle begins with the decision by Zeus to bring about the Trojan war (Proclus 1 K. Ζευς βουλεύεται μετά τής Θέμιδος περί τοΰ Τρωικού πολέμου), which he starts to put into effect at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis and sets in motion with the judgment of Paris; it ends with the death of Odysseus and the weddings of Penelope and Telegonus, and of Circe and Telemachus. Apart from the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Epic Cycle extends to over a hundred dif­ ferent episodes85. Post-Hellenistic epics also draw upon the Trojan mythological cycle, among them Virgil in the Aeneid and Quintus Smyr­ naeus in the Posthomerica. Nevertheless, it should always be borne in mind that the picture we have of the Epic Cycle is very much the result of multiple intermediaries. The widely held conviction concerning the superiority of Homer, the philological arrangement of the Epic Cycle and the, no doubt, rather free summaries by Proclus strongly affect our judgment of them86. The juxtaposition of Homer and the Epic Cycle was not limited to locating the differences between the Trojan episodes they dealt with, but also had moral overtones, especially since gods, heroes and female fig­ ures seemed to be downgraded from their Homeric status and indulged in inappropriate behaviour in the poems of the Epic Cycle. From the summary provided by Proclus, it is clear that, in the cyclic epics, respectable heroes are shown as people of low moral fibre, cowards, 83. Burgess (1996: 87). Before Proclus, the Trojan myth is recounted in Ps.-Apol­ lodorus’ Library in the 1st c. AD. 84. All the testimonies on and fragments o f the Epic Cycle are brilliantly edited by Bemabe (1996); as a rule I quote his edition (abbreviated as B.). One may also consult the older edition by Davies (1988). For an overview o f modem approaches o f the Epic Cycle, see Burgess (2001). For Proclus’ summary I follow the numeration and text pro­ posed by Kullmann (abbreviated as K.). 85. Kullmann (1960: 52-57) has divided Proclus’ summary into 130 paragraphs. For an analysis o f the Trojan episodes with reference to the Homeric scholia o f Aristarchus, see Severyns (1928: 245-425). 86. Burgess (1995 : 80-81).

INTRODUCTION

thieves and hedonists87. The narrative technique of the cyclic poems is also judged negatively by Proclus (Phot. Bibl. 319a): λέγει δέ ώς του έπικοΰ κύκλου τά ποιήματα διασώζεται καί σπουδάζεται τοΐς πολλοΐς ούχ οϋτω διά τήν άρετήν ώς διά τήν άκολουθίαν των έν αυτω πραγμάτων ‘Proclus says that the poems of the Epic Cycle are preserved and studied not primarily for their qualities but because of the arrangement of the material within them’. From this quotation, we would highlight τήν άκολουθίαν των έν αυτω πραγμάτων as a descrip­ tion of the linear, chronological narrative which was considered typical of this category of poetry. In the Homeric scholia, the same feature is understood as being a convention of prose chronicles rather than of ele­ vated poetry (Sch. ex II. 2.494): ή γάρ κατά τάξιν διήγησις νεωτερικόν καί συγγραφικόν καί τής ποιητικής απο σεμνότητος ‘nar­ ration according to the chronological order of the events is characteristic of the neoteroi and a device of prose and totally alien to grand poetry’88. Besides, the cyclic epics must have been based primarily on narration and not on dramatization, while the Homeric epics are distinguished for a combination of both modes89. From a stylistic point of view, the cyclic epics are different because of the greater proportion of supernatural and erotic features, in comparison to the Homeric ones90. It is a common­ place of scholarship that the imaginary, fabulous and romantic atmos­ phere of the cyclic epics differs from the more elevated style of Homer91. Aristarchus, who established the relevant technical terminol­ ogy, essentially distinguishes between two traditions, two worlds, the Homeric and the cyclic92. 87. Negative characterization o f traditional heroes can be found in episodes such as Achilles taking refuge in the court o f Lycomedes, Odysseus’ feigned insanity and Diomedes stealing the Palladion, see Griffin (1977: 45-46). Hellenistic scholars tended to consider as spurious Homeric passages which presented heroes behaving improperly or even immorally (Hainsworth [1991: 54-56]); related scholia in Severyns (1928: 141149). 88. This is the ‘annalistic’ type o f epic in contrast to the ‘tragic’ type finely exempli­ fied in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Nevertheless, though the latter is characterized by the high frequency o f analepses and prolepses, flashbacks and foreshadowings are also pres­ ent in the cyclic epics (Rengakos [2004: 282-287]). For the ‘para-narratives' in the Iliad, see Aldeen (2000). 89. On how Plato viewed the blending of narration and dramatization in Homer, see Koster (1970: 39-41). 90. Jouan (1966: 27-30) and Burgess (2001: 169-171). For the prominence o f magic and the theme of metamorphosis in the Epic Cycle, see Forbes Irving (1990). 91. Griffin (1977) is the first to maintain that such novelistic features were typical of the Epic Cycle. In reassessing Griffin’s view, Nagy (1990: 72 n.99) considers the novel­ istic character as a result o f the local political and religious ideology underlying the cyclic epics. 92. Aristarchus contrasted the cyclic poets and Homer to such a degree that he even

21

Para-narratives and numerous allusions demonstrate that the Trojan myth as a whole was well-known to Homer93, and also to the other poets of the archaic era. In closing the Theogony, Hesiod rounds off the geneal­ ogy of the gods and, in an invocation to the Muses, heralds the birth of the great heroes, sired by mortal men from goddesses (Th. 965-967): νΰν δέ θεάων φΰλον άείσατε...δσσαι δή θνητοΐσν παρ’ άνδράσιν εύνηθεΐσαι/ άθάναται γείναντο θεοΐς έπιείκελα τέκνα ‘now sing of the race of the goddesses...the immortal ones who coupled with mortal men and bore godlike children’. In the catalogue (Th. 969-1018), after Hera­ cles, Memnon and Jason, Hesiod refers to Achilles, who was bom by Peleus and Thetis (Th. 1006-1007), and to Aeneas, who was bom by Aphrodite and Anchises (Th. 1008-1010), as well as to the descendants of Odysseus from his coupling with goddesses such as Circe, Calypso and even Aphrodite (Th. 1011-1018). The Theban and Trojan wars are referred to as the most brilliant achievements of the heroes, the fourth race in the genealogy of men in Works and Days; it is worth noting that Hesiod, doubtless following traditions outside Homer concerning the worship of the heroes, deifies the warriors of Troy in the isles of the blessed (Op. 156-173). In the Catalogue o f Women, we find both an extensive catalogue of the suitors of Helen (fr. 196-204 M.-W.) and an epithalamion for the wedding of Peleus and Thetis (fr. 211 M.-W.). Versions of the Trojan myth that were outside the range of the Home­ ric epics are also to be found in lyric poetry and drama94. Aleman, for instance, describes the siege of Aphidnae by the Dioscuri when Helen was abducted by Theseus, an episode that in part, at least, also occurred in the cyclic epics (fr. 21 PMG, cf. Cypria fr. 13 B.). But for the other references in Aleman to the Trojan myth and its heroes we are left with no more than sporadic evidence (fr. 68, 71, 77, 80 PMG). From the sur­ viving fragments of Ibycus, on the other hand, the poet’s intense interest in the Trojan myth is quite evident. Achilles’ marriage to Medea in the Elysian fields (fr. 291 PMG) and, in particular, the seduction of Menelaus by Helen at the time when her cuckolded husband was deleted Homeric verses in which words, names or episodes o f cyclic provenance occurred; e.g. he deleted verse 11.547 o f the Odyssey, because he considered it to be a rhapsodic interpolation due to the reference to a cyclic episode, the judgment o f Achilles’ arms (Severyns [1928: 64-65; 96-98]). 93. This assumption forms the core o f Neoanalysis, see Kullmann (1960). For a gen­ eral overview o f the main cyclic episodes in the Homeric epics, see Burgess (2001: 4749); Kullmann (1960: 5-11) remains the best starting point for a more detailed approach of the issue. 94. Pallantza (2005) offers an in-depth analysis o f the reception of the Trojan myth by lyric and tragic poets as well as by historians down to the 5th century BC. On the recep­ tion of the Trojan war in Old Comedy, see Wright (2007).

INTRODUCTION

attempting to kill her (fr. 296 PMG), as well as a certain reference to his rival, Deiphobus (fr. 297 PMG) indicate a clear preference for Trojan episodes with an erotic undertone. Indeed, in the laudation for Polycrates (fr. 282 PMG), the synopsis of the Trojan war in an introductory cata­ logue functions as a recusatio of the heroic subject matter: the broad use of descriptive adjectives in images of brilliance and loveliness and, at the same time, the emphasis on the ‘beautiful’ heroes, such as Helen and Troilus, mark the poet’s distancing from the martial dimension of the Trojan myth. For Alcaeus and Sappho, the Trojan war was a recurrent mythological exemplum. Alcaeus dealt at length with at least two cyclic episodes: the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (fr. 42 L.-P. ~ Cypria Proclus 2 K.), and the hubristic behaviour of Locrian Ajax towards the Tro­ jan statue of Athena (ff. 298 L.-P. ~ The Sack o f Troy Proclus 93 K.), while he also dramatized Helen’s desertion of hearth and home (fr. 283 L.-P., cf. Cypria Proclus 11 K.). From Sappho the epithalamion for the wedding of Hector and Andromache (fr. 44 L.-P.) and Helen as an erotic heroine (fr. 16 and 23 L.-P.) stand out. At the other end of the spectrum there is the Trojan myth in Pindar and Simonides. In the generic context of the victory hymn and encomium, the Trojan myth regains its heroic depth. In Pindar, images of war show off the heroes of Troy, and espe­ cially Achilles, as exemplars of virtue and glory (0.2, 0.9, PA, P.3, N.3, N J , 1.5, 1.6). Simonides borrows elements from the Trojan myth to invest an encomiastic elegy for those who fell at Plataea (fr. 11 W2.). Among the lyric poets, it was Stesichorus who introduced major inno­ vations into the Homeric Trojan myth. Stesichorus distanced himself from the ‘orthodox’ version of the Trojan myth (as in the case of the double sketch of Helen) and returned firmly to local legends of cyclic provenance (The Sack o f Troy fr. 196-205 PMG, Nostoi fr. 208-209 PMG, Helen fr. 187-191 PMG, Palinode fr. 192-193 PMG)95. Stesicho­ rus was recognized in antiquity, both because he was ‘most Homeric’ ([Longin.] 13.3) and because he introduced innovations into his stories -or, at least, contributed to the wider spread of mythological variants96. In Stesichorus’ Helen, Paris takes her reflection to Troy; this version of the myth conflicts with the Homeric one and also with the cyclic narra­ tive, both of which presuppose the presence of Helen in the flesh in Troy. Besides, Stesichorus was famed for his facility for bringing not only mythological material to the lyric genre but also the grandeur of the 95. Nagy (1990: 418-422) suggests a close affinity between Stesichorus and the Epic Cycle in terms o f subject matter, arrangement o f material and structure. Cf. the basic arti­ cle by Page (1973). 96. Arrighetti (1996).

23

epic97. Propriety was one of the requirements of his poetry, and in this sense, he was able to bridge the epic and tragic genres through lyric poetry. In tragedy the employment of the Trojan myth was particularly com­ plex and certainly cannot be adequately dealt with here. The tragedians of the 5th century found the Trojan myth singularly attractive, not merely because war was linked to the experiences of their audiences, but mainly because the stories of Troy posed the most important questions in political, social and private life98. It ought to be noted, however, that the plots of tragedies with Trojan themes are, in the main, based on episodes which were not treated by Homer99. It seems that the ‘dramatic’ epics of the Iliad and the Odyssey did not lend themselves to further dramatization100. Of the surviving tragedies by Aeschylus, the Oresteia trilogy is linked to a late phase of the Trojan myth which begins with the return of Agamemnon and ends with Attic cult myths. Of the lost works of Aeschylus, mention is made of an Achilleis trilogy, to which belonged the Myrmidons, the Nereids and the Phrygians. The Cycle inspired tragedies with episodes from the Cypria (Mysians, Telephus, Iphigenia, Alexandras, Tenes, Philoctetes, Palamedes) and post-Iliadic myth (Cares, Memnon, Weighing o f Souls), a trilogy centred on Ajax (Judgment of Arms, Women o f Thrace, Women of Salamina), and one with the myth of Odysseus as its subject (Ostologoi, Penelope, Psychagogoi), as well as the satyr dramas Proteus and Circe. More than Aeschylus, Sophocles 97. For Quintilian, Stesichorus rivaled Homer in terms o f subject matter, depiction of characters and style {Inst. 10.1.62 Stesichorus quam sit ingenio validus materiae quoque

ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et epici carminis onera lyra susti­ nentem. reddit enim personis in agendo simul loquendoque debitam dignitatem ac si tenuisset modum, videtur aemulari proximus Homeri potuisse). Cf. Arrighetti (1996: 5961). 98. Pallantza (2005: 207-211) acutely observes that the Trojan myth addresses focal problems of Greek tragedy, mainly polarities o f human society, such as the opposition between public/private, male/female, old/young, action/inaction. In this line o f interpreta­ tion, she distinguishes three major Trojan themes in tragedy (pp.210-211): the various aspects and judgments o f war; the relations between the warriors, and between those who participate in the war and those who do not; and, finally, the attitude of the Greek com­ munity towards their common enemy. 99. This is the view adopted by Hall (1989: 32-33). As Knox has estimated, more than 68 plays drew upon the Trojan myth for their plots (see in Anderson [1997: 105 n-11); Jouan (1966) charted the main stories o f the Epic Cycle in relation to the plots of the Attic tragedies and satyr plays. For Achilles in tragedy, see Michelakis (2002); in pp.13-14 Michelakis lists 75 tragedies, satyr plays and comedies directly or indirectly relating to Achilles. Fundamental to the association o f the Greek tragedies with the Epic Cycle is Welcker (1839). Gamer (1990) summarizes the main allusions to the Homeric epics in the three tragedians. 100. Lange (2002: 22).

INTRODUCTION

dealt with story lines drawn from the Epic Cycle. Ajax and Philoctetes belong to his surviving Trojan dramas. Lost tragedies with the Trojan cycle as their reference point are, among others, the following: Iphige­ nia, Scyrians, Polyxena, Ajax of Lokroi, Laocoon, Gathering of the Achaeans, Eurypylus and the satyr dramas Lovers of Achilles and Nausi­ caa101. Euripides also dedicated a host of tragedies to the Trojan cycle. Those which survive are Hecabe, Andromache, The Trojan Women, Iphigenia at Aulis and Iphigenia at Tauris, Helen and the satyr play Cyclops. Of the plays that have been lost or are fragments, those with a Trojan theme are Telephus, Scyrians, Alexandres and Palamedes from the so-called Trojan trilogy. A significant turning-point in the evolution of the Trojan myth comes with Attic tragedy, and with Euripides in particular102, mainly through the reworking of the cyclic material, the reassessment of Homeric val­ ues103 and the induction of the tragic Trojan myth into the ideological thinking of the 5th century. If we except Aeschylus’ Achilleis, the plot of which was structured round the wrath of Achilles, a bold attempt to rewrite an epic in tragic metre104, as well as his Odyssean trilogy, the Homeric myth of Phoenix which was treated by Sophocles and Euripi­ des in their tragedies, and some satyr plays inspired by the Odyssey, Attic tragedies in the main draw their plots from episodes which precede the Trojan war (those which belong to the plot of the Cypria)105 and from those referring to the fall of Troy (those found in Aethiopis, The Sack of Troy and Little Iliad)106. The way in which the three tragedians, 101. Athenaeus emphasized Sophocles’ penchant for dramatization o f episodes relat­ ing to the Trojan myth (7.5 Ιχ α ιρ ε δέ Σ οφ οκλής τφ έπικφ κύκλφ, ώς καί δ λα δρά­ ματα ποιή σα ι κατακολουθώ ν τή έ ν τούτφ μυθοποιίμ). 102. Aeschylus and Sophocles in their tragedies seem to reflect the Homeric values and to focus on the type of hero described in the Homeric epics; thus, Aristotle considers the plot o f their tragedies comparable to the plot(s) o f the Homeric epics. Euripides, how­ ever, diverges markedly from the ‘Homeric’ type o f tragic plots, see Michelini (1987: 5269). On the revision o f the traditional myth by Euripides, see Stephanopoulos (1980) with an overview o f previous research on the subject; in particular on the judgment o f Paris, see Stinton (1965). Bibliography on the reception of the cyclic stories by Euripides in Lange (2002: 28-29). 103. Euripides was influenced by the Odyssey rather than by the Iliad: according to Lange (2002: 23), Euripides was attracted by the multiplicity o f places, episodes and sit­ uations found in the Odyssey. 104. Cf. Ath. 8.39 τεμάχη ά πό των μεγάλω ν Ό μ η ρ ο υ δείπνω ν. It should be noted that this particular trilogy (in fact the only tragic trilogy to focus on Homeric Achilles) had a profound impact on contemporary Athens (Michelakis [2002: 15 and n.74]). For an overall approach to the trilogy, see Michelakis (2002: 22-57 and 22 n .l for bibliography). 105. On the Cypria in Euripides, see Jouan (1966) and Scodel (1980). 106. On the reception o f episodes from The Sack of Troy by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, see Anderson (1997: 105-173).

25

each in his own style, tumble the Iliadic hero par excellence, Achilles, off his plinth reflects their ideological distancing from the Homeric val­ ues107. Even socio-political questions of classical Athens, such as the issue of war or the cultural antithesis between Greeks and barbarians, contributed to the Trojan myth being subjected to a new ideology108. The difference between the Trojan myth in Homer and in the Epic Cycle, and consequently in its variants in lyric poetry, tragedy and the other genres, even in iconography, is not merely generic but is mainly of an ideological order. The Homeric Trojan myth expressed the needs and desires of archaic and classical Greece -it was the contemporary equiva­ lent of national history109. On the other hand, the Epic Cycle, which included rare variants of the Trojan myth, was probably of local ori­ gin110. The Hellenistic poets read the Trojan myth through its successive stratifications in earlier poetry; however, since the Trojan myth is heav­ ily charged as being the epic theme par excellence, its treatment by the Hellenistic poets is primarily part of their thinking about the modes of epic writing. As has been noted, critical reflection upon and re-evalua­ tion of the epic were linked to two developments. On the one hand, there is the writing of a great many long poems in hexametric verse, the sub­ ject matter of which has been drawn from various mythological cycles, in imitation of the external features of the Homeric epics (formulaic lan­ guage and typical scenes for the most part), though without their compo­ sitional and narrative complexity. On the other, there was the concrete effort to complement the Trojan myth with episodes from before and after Homer, drawing on a long epic tradition which culminated in the Epic Cycle. This second issue concerned the scholar poets, since both the compilation of the Epic Cycle and its systematic comparison with the Homeric epics was the work of Hellenistic philology. Moreover, the following assertion is fundamental to the understanding of the close connection between the Trojan myth and the epic genre: of the Homeric epics, the Iliad rather than the Odyssey was considered the exemplar of epic writing111. This perception is widespread throughout 107. Michelakis (2002) explores the depiction o f Achilles as a ‘problematic hero’ in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons, as a ‘dead hero’ in Euripides’ Hecabe and as a ‘hero-to-be’ in

Iphigenia at Aulis. 108. Scodel (1980) and Hall (1989), cf. Pallantza (2005: 297-307). 109. The idea o f a ‘Panhellenic’ poetic truth in contrast to the multiple local stories has been associated with Homer, see Nagy (1990: 52-81). 110. Nagy (1990: 71 and n.96) gives as a typical example the plot o f the Aethiopis, since A chilles’ immortalization on the island o f Leuke in this cyclic epic echoes the Mile­ sian cult o f the hero. 111. The Iliad is regarded as the archetype o f epic poetry since Aristotle, whereas the

antiquity, since the Iliad was synonymous with pathos in epic, once heroism, especially as expressed in war, was elevated to being the most tragic of poetic themes112. To put it another way: the kernel of the Tro­ jan myth, the war of Troy, is told in the Iliad, so the Odyssey is, of necessity, an epilogue to the former epic113. As a rule, thus, the Iliad is considered the example of the epic, while the Odyssey a novel of char­ acters and intrigue114. The close linkage between the epic genre and heroic subjects influenced the Hellenistic poets, and, through them, Roman poetic ideology. Thus, when these poets appear to be deviating from the heroic epic -this is how Callimachus’ call for poets to avoid writing about kings and heroes is usually interpreted- they are in effect renouncing the value system of a bygone society. This was a society that had viewed its glorious past, the Panhellenic identity and its orientation towards male heroism in the epic. Given this, the central concern of this book has already been sketched out: that the choice of certain views of the Trojan myth reflects the aes­ thetic and ideological distancing of the Hellenistic poets from the tradi­ tional muthos of the elevated genres, particularly the epic. The three parts of my study correspond to the various stages of their modernistic approach to the literary past: first, the avoidance of the Trojan myth as told by Homer; second, the rewriting of the Trojan stories which derive from authors of the literary canon, i.e. the Epic Cycle, lyric and dramatic poetry; and finally, the working out of a new Trojan myth, which took the form of a generic reaction against the elevated but now fossilized lit­ erature of the past.

Odyssey is considered less tragic in character (Hainsworth [1991: 52-53]). See also Graziosi (2002: 164-200), who, after comparing ancient sources on the reception of Homer, concludes that (p.199) “ the Iliad represents the core o f the Homeric poetry, and in the fifth century and perhaps in Athens in particular, it is presented as a poem that can teach how to use hoplite warfare and oppose the barbarians.” 112. An example o f how closely the ideology o f male heroism and the subject matter o f war are related to each other is the high ranking o f the heroes o f the Theban and the Trojan wars within the five ages of men in Hesiod (Op. 156-173). 113. On the heroic values in Homer, see e.g. Ar. Ra. 1034-1036 6 δέ θ είος Ό μ η ρ ο ς άπό τοΰ τιμήν καί κ λ έο ς έ σ χ ε ν π λ ή ν τοΰδ’ δτι χ ρ ή σ τ ’ έδίδαξεν, τά ξεις, άρετάς, ό π λ ίσ εις άνδρών; Plato comments on the ‘tragic’ Homer in R. 607a Ό μ η ρ ο ν ποιητικώτατον είνα ι καί πρώ τον των τραγφδοποιώ ν. Ps.-Longinus (9.12-13) argues that the Iliad is far more dramatic and full o f suspense compared to the Odyssey. 114. Arist. Po. 1459b ή μ έν Ί λ ιά ς ά πλοΰν καί παθητικόν, ή δέ Ό δ ύ σ σ εια π επ λ εγ μ έν ο ν (άναγνώ ρισις γάρ διόλου) καί ήθική ‘the Iliad is a simple story depend­ ing on calamity, whereas the Odyssey is complex (it is full of recognitions) and oriented to the depiction of character’. Ps.-Longinus considers the Odyssey an epilogue to the Iliad (9.12 τής Ί λιά δ ος έπ ίλ ο γ ό ς έσ τιν ή Ό δ ύ σ σ εια ).

A. THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

A.l. Homeric adunata According to an old saying, the Hellenistic poets attempted “to follow in the footsteps of Homer but be as little Homeric as possible” 1. It is there­ fore natural that they avoided any direct treatment of the Homeric Trojan myth and favoured rewriting episodes from the Homeric epics into other mythological cycles. Callimachus in Hecale set the scene for Theseus being sheltered by an old woman along the lines of the model of the meet­ ing between Odysseus and the humble swineherd Eumaeus in book 14 of the Odyssey. The gods of the Callimachean Hymns were often involved in Homeric situations: in the Hymn to Artemis, the goddess visits the work­ shop of the Cyclopes in Lipara by analogy with Thetis’ arrival at the home of Hephaestus in book 18 of the Iliad, while in the Hymn to Delos, the central scene of the clash of the natural elements echoes the great battle scenes under the watchful eye of the gods and the fight between Achilles and Scamander, again from the Iliad. The sense of this ‘Homericity’ is strengthened in Apollonius’ Argonautica, where it is not only the recog­ nizable features of the Homeric epics which are recast, such as the cata­ logue of heroes, the ecphrasis and the typical scenes (arrival and depar­ ture, sacrifice and supper, dressing and arming), but also the narrative itself (the Argonauts ‘read’ the Odyssean nostos during their return). There are very few exceptions to this general rule; those that occur are of considerable importance for Hellenistic poetry. In this chapter I will discuss the case of Theocritus, who dedicated two of his idylls, the Cyclops (Id. 11) and the Epithalamion for Helen (Id. 18), to the rewrit­ ing of the Homeric muthos. In recontextualizing a Homeric passage or, more importantly, a Homeric figure, Theocritus offers a new presenta­ tion of its recognizable features which conflicts with the version familiar from the epic. In effect, in Theocritus’ variations, the Homeric protago­ nists exhibit a behaviour totally inconsistent with their epic ‘past’; it is this device which I call a Homeric adunaton. But before proceeding with my reading of these two idylls, I will shortly discuss a similar case of a literary adunaton drawn from Theocri1. Heiter (1929: 50).

29

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

tus’ Idyll 1. In this idyll, the death of the shepherd Daphnis is presented in terms drawn from epic and tragedy. In his encounter with Aphrodite, Daphnis, through a series of mythological examples, ironically reminds the goddess of her erotic entanglements with shepherds, Anchises on the Trojan Mount Ida (105-107) and Adonis (109-110). Although the union of the goddess with Anchises takes us into the epic tradition2, the refer­ ence to Adonis is a metaliterary allusion to the erotic/bucolic poetry introduced by Theocritus. In the third example the antithesis between the easy erotic victory of Aphrodite over the herdsman Daphnis and her clash with Diomedes in war is very clear (112-113):

moral attitude from cowardice to bravery and the rewriting of the Home­ ric passage in the light of this new ethic. Nevertheless, commenting on the Homeric scene does not necessarily involve any identification of the resistant Daphnis and the undefeated Diomedes. The interpretation of the Theocritean scene may be illumined by a passage in the Iliad where Diomedes addresses Aphrodite in these terms (II. 5.349): ή ούχ άλις οττι γυναίκας άνάλκιδας ήπεροπεύεις; ‘is it not enough that you deceive defenceless women?’ The insinuation refers to the blinding of Helen by Aphrodite -and so the lovesick Daphnis invites comparison with her7. The juxtaposition of love and war, with Aphrodite as the ref­ erence point, is the axis along which the Trojan myth evolves in the third book of the Iliad, where Aphrodite prevents the duel between Paris and Menelaus -the proposed solution to the impasse of the ten-year war- by staging a hastily erotic encounter between Paris and Helen instead. Lex­ ical similarities between this scene and the passage in Theocritus -such as νεμεσσητόν at II. 3.410 and Κυπρί νεμεσσατά at verse 101 of Idyll 1- also suggest the image of Helen in the sketch of Daphnis in thrall to the power of love8. Despite the fact that, superficially, Daphnis corre­ sponds to Diomedes, in the erotic context of the idyll his masculine identity recoils before the dynamic feminine figures of Helen and Aphrodite. In the idyll, there is therefore an underlying literary adunaton, in the sense that Aphrodite’s epic/martial past is hosted in an erotic ode9.

αυτις δπως στάσή Δ ιομ ήδεος ά σ σ ο ν Ιοΐσα, καί λ έγ ε ‘τόν βούταν νικώ Δ άφνιν, άλλα μάχευ μ οι’. Go back and stand with Diomedes and tell him: “I beat the herdsman Daphnis, come on and fight me now”.

This couplet condenses Diomedes’ aristeia from the fifth book of the Iliad, which is adapted to the erotic context of Daphnis’ speech3. Daph­ nis’ insulting words are introduced by αυτις, an adverb denoting repeti­ tion, since Daphnis seems to be rewriting the Iliadic match between Aphrodite and Diomedes4. The reassessment of the Homeric situation is radical, since the epic Aphrodite is reconstituted within the context of love poetry. In the Iliad, the presence of Aphrodite on the battlefield is linked to cowardice, treachery and, literally, a cover-up, while it is typi­ cal of her that she withdraws from the bloody clashes between the Tro­ jans and the Achaeans which take place under the supervision of the other Olympian gods5. In the Theocritean idyll, on the other hand, Daph­ nis urges the goddess on to a fight at close quarters (112 στάσή ~ ασσον Ιοΐσα)6, which she will provoke with a direct address typical of Homeric heroes (113 τόν βούταν νικώ Δάφνιν, άλλα μάχευ μοι). The adoption of martial terminology hints at both the shift of the goddess’ 2. Aphrodite’s union with Anchises is mentioned several times in the Iliad (2.819821; 5.247-248, 312-313 etc.); it forms the core o f the Homeric hymn To Aphrodite and is also referred to in H esiod’s Theogony 1008-1010. 3. Diomedes, in fact, is contrasted to Daphnis who represents the new type o f the bucolic hero (Zänker [1987: 173-174]). 4. Theocritus alludes also to Sappho fr. 1 L.-P., where the invocation to Aphrodite recalls the Iliadic duel between Diomedes and the goddess o f love, see Gamer (1990: 1214 and n.14 with bibliography). 5. Diomedes’ aim in the Iliad is to repulse Aphrodite from the battle (5.348-349) είκε Δ ιός θύγατερ πολ έμ ου δηϊοτήτος. Cf. the scholiast’s comment ad loc. (Sch. II. 5.348): προπ αρασκευά ζει μηκέτι φ ανή ναι αυτήν έ ν τη θεομαχίμ. 6. The phrase ά σ σ ο ν Ιών in the context o f the Homeric battle suggests the idea o f the imminent death o f the warrior, as, e.g., when Achilles addresses Hector in II. 20.429 ά σ σ ο ν ϊθ ’ ώς κ εν θ α σ σ ον όλ έθρ ου π είρ α θ ’ ΐκηαι (cf. 6.143; 22.92).

The way in which the Homeric text is highlighted in Cyclops (Id. 11) functions in much the same way. Here, however, the Homeric situation precedes the literary future of the protagonist, since Theocritus is look­ ing at Cyclops at an early age, by exploiting a device known as ‘future reflexive’10. His Cyclops has close links with both the Odyssey and postHomeric poetry, as well as with the ancient folk tradition of Sicily11. 7. This original reading is suggested by Zimmermann (1994). 8. The similarities between Helen and Daphnis are pointed out by Zimmermann (1994: 378-379). 9. Similarly, Gamer (1990: 13) reads Sappho fr. 1 L.-P. as a metaliterary call for Aphrodite to withdraw from the epic battle and enter the erotic atmosphere o f her poetry. 10. By introducing the term ‘future reflexive’, Barchiesi (2001: 105-106) describes a new type o f intertextuality. The reader is familiar with a character’s future based on tra­ ditional texts: the modem poet (Barchiesi uses O vid’s Heroides as an obvious example) supplements the ‘unknown’, i.e. not already ‘written’ past, thereby emphasizing the dra­ matic irony between new and older text. For an overview o f how the Hellenistic poets, and especially Callimachus, exploit the narrative device o f ‘future reflexive’, see Ambühl (2005: 23-30). 11. The Homeric Cyclops has its roots in folktale, see e.g. Glenn (1971); Theocritus

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

His initial address, ό Κύκλωψ δ παρ’ άμΐν, ώρχαΐος Πολύφαμος ‘Cyclops, our fellow countryman, the ancient Polyplemus’ (7-8), already constitutes an intertextual comment on this double provenance. The παρ’ άμΐν -shared by the Theocritean narrator and his friend, the doctor Nicias- is an elegant echo of the Homeric Cyclops, while άρχαΐος is the typical Hellenistic epithet denoting at once the intertextual depth and mythological background of the hero, as well as his pre-Homeric prove­ nance12. Cyclops’ love for Galateia is placed in his youth (8-9 δκ ’ ήρατο τάς Γαλατείας,/ άρτι γενειάσδων ‘he fell in love with Galateia, when his first beard began to grow’), a youth which, in literary terms, is set at a much earlier stage than the Cyclops-episode of the Odyssey13. Thus, there are two ‘textually’ different Cyclopes: the young herdsman singer, who fits comfortably into bucolic love poetry, and Homer’s familiar epic monster who is defeated by cunning Odysseus14. Polyphemus’ erotic identity is clear from the lyric monologue of Theocritus’ idyll; in con­ trast, the circumstances which will stamp his mythological personality in the future arise from the carefully staged allusions to the Homeric text15. The idealized self-portrayal of Cyclops as the owner of large flocks (34-37) and the idyllic description of his well-appointed lair (4548) tend towards hyperbole, observations already made by the Homeric Odysseus (Od. 9.105-124, 130-141, 182-186, 219-223); the primitive­ ness of the Homeric Cyclops is refined within the bucolic convention of the locus amoenus. The indifference of the mountain-dwelling Cyclopes also alludes to Philoxenus’ Sicilian poem on the love o f Cyclops for Galateia (fir. 815-824 PMG), see Farr (1991: 479-480). For the reception o f the Odyssey by Euripides, see Lange (2002: 191-223; cf. also 191-192 and n.588 for bibliography). -H owever, Theocri­ tus is not the only Hellenistic poet who treated the story o f Cyclops in a ‘Homeric’ way. Posidippus in his Lithika (epigram 19 AB) also exploits the Homeric subtext, see Hunter (2004b), Petrain (2003) and Sistakou (2007b). 12. Papanghelis (1999: 289). It is noteworthy that in the Odyssey only the Cyclopes address the son of Poseidon as Π ολύφ ημος (Od. 9.403, cf. 1.70), whereas Odysseus refers to him as Κύκλωψ (Od. 9.347, 364). For the Hellenistic use o f the epithet άρχα ΐος, see Gow (1952 : 2.210). 13. On the Homeric echoes in Idyll 11, see Farr (1991: 480). Cf. also the analysis by Goldhill (1991: 246-261). 14. Polyphemus had both identities, the one o f the monster and the one o f the lover, in Philoxenus: in this poem Odysseus probably presented himself as a sorcerer, offering love potions to Polyphemus to help him conquer Galateia (fr. 818 PMG). 15. “The Cyclops is trapped in the language, not just of Homer, but o f Odysseus” : with these words Hunter (1999: 219) suggests that the naive Theocritean Cyclops fore­ shadows his literary future by citing the Homeric text; the idea is also hinted at by Fantuzzi (1995: 17-18). Cf. also Hunter (2003b: 481) on the ‘young’ Polyphemus as a metaliterary comment upon the poetry o f Alexandrians, divided between the present and the past.

31

towards seafaring skills, which is emphatically stressed in the Odyssey (9.125-129), is a consummation devoutly to be wished for Polyphemus. When Cyclops wishes a stranger would come to his island (61 αϊ κά τις συν ναΐ πλέων ξένος ώδ’ άφίκηται) to teach him how to swim (60 αΰτίκα νεΐν γε μαθεΰμαι), he is, with his characteristic naivety, sketch­ ing Odysseus himself16. Even the cave, the site of the contest between the hero and the mythical monster in the epic, is cleansed of its negative connotations and becomes a chamber fit for the lovemaking of Cyclops and Galateia. The promise that Galateia will spend her nights more pleasantly in Cyclops’ cave (44 άδιον έν τώντρφ παρ’ έμίν τάν νύκτα διαξεΐς) echoes the dreadful night Odysseus and his companions spent in the same cave (Od. 9.235-243). The warmth of the fire (51 έντί δρυός ξύλα μοι καί όπό σποδφ άκάματον πΰρ Τ have oak-logs and undying fire beneath the ash’) is also a portent of the downfall of Polyphemus (Od. 9.375-395). The Theocritean Cyclops perceives the epic sphere as a threat, the bucolic world as an erotic refuge. On the other hand, Galateia is involved in actions which, in the Homeric epic, are attributed to Odysseus: underlying her love is a threat, comparable to Polyphemus’ future blinding by Odysseus.17 The phantom presence of the water nymph, which haunts the cave, foreshadows the treachery of Odysseus and his companions towards the sleeping Polyphemus. Odysseus’ decision to twist the burning stake into Cyclops’ eye when he falls asleep (Od. 9.333 τρΐψαι έν όφθαλμφ, δτε τον γλυκύς ύπνος ίκάνοι) and his escape after the giant wakes up are espoused as a plan by Galateia for an erotic siege (22-23): φοιτης δ’ αυθ’ ούτως δκκα γλυκύς ύπνος έχη με,/ οϊχη δ’ εύθύς Ιοΐσ’ δκκα γλυκύς ύπνος άνρ με ‘you come near me when sweet sleep holds me still and disappear when sweet sleep leaves me’. Theocritus borders on the grotesque when he reframes the blinding of the Cyclops against the background of the literary topos of the burning love (52-53): καιόμενος δ ’ όπό τεΰς καί τάν ψ υχάν ά νεχοίμ α ν καί τόν έ ν ’ όφθαλμόν, τώ μοι γλυκέρώ τερον οόδέν. Your fire bums me so that I could bear to lose my life, and my one eye, the dearest thing I own.

Polyphemus’ joke about his blindness is an exercise in black humor -and Theocritus, by coupling the epic code (that is the future Homeric 16. Hunter (1999: 239) links Polyphemus’ reference to swimming with the seafaring adventures o f Odysseus, especially after the shipwreck in book 5 o f the Odyssey. 17. Galateia, coming from the sea (as does Odysseus) represents a destructive power for the landlubber Polyphemus (Brooke [1971: 77]).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

situation) with the erotic atmosphere (the narrative present of the Cyclops), stretches the underlying irony of the idyll to its limits18. Theocritus’ Idyll 11 can, however, also be read quite differently, that is not only as a humorous adjustment of the Cyclopeia to the generic background of bucolic and erotic poetry, but as an inversion of the Homeric episode as a whole. A different reading reveals that beneath the apparently naive character of the Cyclops underlies the ambiguous morality of Odysseus. The Homeric Odysseus often resorts to internal monologues, addressing either his soul or his brain in the stereotype expressions είπε πρός öv μεγαλήτορα θυμόν and ό ταΰθ’ ώρμαινε κατά φρένα καί κατά θυμόν. In Idyll 11, Theocritus transforms the Odyssean internal monologue to an erotic monody, with verse 72 ώ Κύκλωψ Κύκλωψ, πφ τάς φρένας έκπεπότασαι Ό Cyclops, Cyclops, have you lost your mind?’, being the most obvious echo of this tech­ nique19. That the monologue also belongs to the Homeric Odysseus in the Theocritean idyll is, in any case, made abundantly clear in the verse where the Cyclops is boasting of his flute-playing skill (38): συρίσδεν δ’ ώς οΰτις έπίσταμαι ωδε Κυκλώπων Τ can play the pipe as none other Cyclops can’. Polyphemus is, at the same time, the Cyclops and his opponent, Οΰτις!20 From the introductory verses, the attitude of Polyphemus reproduces that of his greatest rival, Odysseus himself -the difference being that the motive force is not the desire to return but that of lovemaking. The main reference point of the idyll is book 5 of the Odyssey, the beginning of the end for Odysseus’ return to Ithaca21. The natural beauty of the setting is common to both the island of the Cyclops and that of Calypso, two loci amoeni with lush vegetation, water, livestock and idyllic caves {Id. 11.45-48 ~ Od. 5.55-74).22 The actions of the two protagonists, the 18. Irony might be detected from the beginning of the idyll where Cyclops, distraught with passion, is shown to neglect his flocks (II ά γεΐτο πάντα πάρεργα). Verse 12 πολλάκι τοι δ ίες ποτί τω ΰλιον αύταϊ ά πηνθον alludes to the escape of Odysseus and his companions under the sheepskins ( Od. 9.424-461) as a repeated (πολλάκι) consequence of Cyclops erotic pathology. On the ‘innocence’ o f the Theocritean Polyphemus who thus allows Odysseus to deceive him, see Miles (1986: 145-146). 19. Cf. Od. 5.355 είπ ε π ρ ός öv μεγαλήτορα θυμόν, 10.438 μετά φ ρεσ ί μερμήριξα etc. Walsh (1990) discusses the archaic device o f a hero addressing himself as adapted into Hellenistic poetics. Polyphemus’ inner monologue relates closely to the power of poetry as a self-cure for love, see Brooke (1971: 79). 20. Οΰτις has also a humorous undertone in Eur. Cyc. 535 μεθάω μέν, έμπας δ’ οΰτις α ν ψ αύσειέ μου. On anecdotes in Euripides, see Lange (2002: 218-219). 21. Cyclops and Calypso are already associated with each other in Sch. Od. 1.199 άγριοι] άνή μ εροι. οίος ό Κύκλωψ και ή Καλυψώ. 22. The likeness o f the Theocritean setting to that of the Homeric scene in Calypso’s island is only hinted at in Gow (1952: 2.212). Hunter (1999: 228) points out the similar-

33

Cyclops and Odysseus, are also remarkably similar: Cyclops rises at dawn (15 έξ άοϋς), sits on the beach (14 έπ’ άιόνος κατετάκετο φυκιοέσσας) or on some rock (17-18 καθεζόμενος δ’ έπϊ πέτρας/ ύψηλάς) and, gazing at the sea (18 ές πόντον όρων), tries to heal the wound Aphrodite has caused him (15 έχθιστον έχων υποκάρδιον έλκος). Odysseus’ first appearance in the epic -the moment when Calypso brings to the hero the gods’ decision regarding his return- is very much like that of the Theocritean Cyclops {Od. 5.156-158): ήματα δ ’ άμ πέτρησι καί ή ϊό νεσ σ ι καθίζων [δάκρυσι καί στοναχή σ ι καί α λγεσ ι θυμόν έρέχθων] πόντον έ π ’ άτρύγετον δερκέσκ ετο δάκρυα λείβω ν For days he sat upon the rocks and the seashore his breast troubled with bitter thoughts and pain, and shedding tears he gazed upon the sea.

The Odyssean passage invites a reading of the idyll in the light of the Homeric situation. The Cyclops’ erotic invitations do not simply echo the, poetically, already accomplished lovemaking between Odysseus and Calypso; they are also an ironic inversion of it, since the Theocritean Cyclops, in the guise of Odysseus, seems to thoroughly approve, while the Homeric hero systemically seeks to avoid such erotic encounters23. The first line of Cyclops’ monologue can be read as a humorous response to the announcement of Calypso about Odysseus’ returning home (19): τί τον φιλέοντα άποβάλλη; ‘why do you send away the one who loves you?’ If in the Theocritean idyll speaks an Odysseus in travestimento, it would appear that he is favouring the embrace of the Atlantis nymph (44 άδιον έν τώντρφ παρ’ έμίν τάν νύκτα διαξεΐς ‘you will spend the night more pleasantly with me in my cave’ ~ Od. 5.154-155 άλλ’ ή τοι νύκτας μέν Ιαύεσκεν καί άνάγκρ/ έν σπέεσι γλαφυροΐσι παρ’ ούκ έθέλων έθελούση ‘at night he was forced to sleep with her in the hollow cave as she wished, although he did not want to’) over his return home, which would certainly involve maritime adventures (49 τίς κα τώνδε θάλασσαν έχειν καί κύμαθ’ έλοιτο; ‘who would choose the sea and the waves instead of these?’). In the end, the Cyclops calls on Galateia to forget her nostalgia for her home (63ities between the two scenes; moreover, apart from Odysseus, he draws a parallel between the secluded Cyclops and the isolated Achilles lying on the seashore in //. 24.12. 23. Odysseus’ love affair with Calypso does not conform with the epic morality; therefore, the scholiast attempts to explain Odysseus’ behaviour as an act o f gratitude towards Calypso (Sch. Od. 5.153): έπ εί ούκέτι ή νδ α νε νύμφη] κατ’ ού δ έν ή ρ εσ κ εν άποπέμπειν ετι αύτόν, ήτοι τό μ έν πρώ τον ώς σώ σα σα ν έσ τ ερ ξ εν, τό δέ μετά ταΰτα ούκέτι.

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

64): λάθοιο, [Γαλάτεια], ώσπερ έγώ νΰν ώδε καθήμενος, οϊκαδε άπενθεΐν ‘and forget, Galateia, as I do now sitting here, to go back home’. With the suggestive phrase ώσπερ έγώ, the Cyclops sees the abandonment of the thought of return as a prerequisite of lovemaking in his own beautiful land. And he recalls ironically that even the Homeric Odysseus preferred the erotic embrace of Calypso to his return home, which, by contrast, was the ultimate goal of any heroic mission in epic. In Theocritus Idyll 11, the Trojan myth is reinterpreted, as is the epic ethos, through the use of ‘future reflexive’. The Cyclopeia has very few heroic features, since it belongs to the folk tale tradition; by stressing the bucolic backdrop and inverting the actions of the epic heroes, Theocritus constructs an erotic/bucolic episode with Galateia in the leading role. The Cyclops himself, through the epic convention of the monologue and with reference to the Homeric Ogygia, is identified with Odysseus: an Odysseus divided between his love for Calypso and his desire to return home. Thus, through the model of the lovesick Cyclops, Theocritus mas­ terminds the ‘heroic’ debunking of the Homeric Odysseus. The displacement of the Homeric situation to an unrealized or even imaginary temporal level offers a wide margin for its reconsideration. The same metaliterary game with ‘future reflexive’ is to be found in Idyll 18, a wedding song for young Helen24. The thematic kernel, the loci communes and the stylistic conventions place it in the lyric subgenre of the epithalamion25. The atmosphere is Sapphic26, the acknowledged model Stesichorus27, and there are echoes of religious ceremonies in honour of the Spartan Helen in the idyll. The narrator celebrates the wedding of Helen and Menelaus: with sham desire and evident naivete, he cleanses the blackened picture of the epic Helen by means of archaic lyricism28. The purification of Helen’s character is achieved through 24. Stem (1978) stresses that an epithalamion for Helen evokes ominous thoughts right from the start; cf. Miles (1986: 142-143). 25. On the similarities between Idyll 18 and archaic lyric poetry, mainly o f Sappho and Alcaeus, see Hunter (1996: 149-157). On the genre of the epithalamion, see Contiades-Tsitsoni (1990). 26. Sappho is especially relevant here, because she devoted an epithalamion to another fateful couple o f the Trojan war. Hector and Andromache (fir. 44 L.-P.), see Contiades-Tsitsoni (1990: 68-109). Stem (1978: 31) draws a parallel between Theocritus’ Idyll 18 and the ironic epithalamia for the marriage o f Peleus and Thetis (Eur. I A 10361079, Cat. c. 64) and the imaginary marriage o f Cassandra and Agamemnon (Eur. Tr. 308-340). See also Dagnini (1986). 27. Stesichorus fr. 187-191 PMG, on which see Contiades-Tsitsoni (1990: 64-67). For Stesichorus’ influence on Theocritus, see Massimilla (1996b: 45-48). 28. Similarly in Stesichorus, cf. Austin (1994: 3): “The Palinode stands as the first instance in our literary record o f a Greek poet attempting a deliberate and wholesale revi-

35

positioning the epithalamion in the heroine’s youth, that is in events which not only precede those of Troy, but are virtually independent of them. In the Homeric epics -which often display narrative contradictions and differences in the characterization of the same individual- there are two different Helen figures: that of the Iliad, a totally negative person who is behind the Trojan war and its bloody consequences; and that of the Odyssey, the penitent wife who renounces her past and returns to her lawful abode29. Even though the consciousness of the post-Homeric pub­ lic was charged more with the Helen of the Iliad, Theocritus is firmly in favour of an emphatic absence of this figure. Certain ambivalent words allow the spectre of Trojan Helen to hover over the Theocritean idyll. Although it contradicts later assertions on the part of the narrator con­ cerning her divine descent from Zeus (18-19), her patronymic Tyndaris (5) is a recognizable badge of the accursed heroine and her sister Clytemnestra30; the phrase δ νεώτερος Ά τρέος υίών (6) echoes the formula Ά τρέος υΙός which typically introduces Menelaus in the Iliad·, and the epithet άριστέες (17) certainly signals the typical manner in which the leaders of the Achaean camp in Troy are characterized (//. 1.91, 227; 2.404 etc.). Altogether, it would seem that Theocritus every now and then raises an ironic smile from the reader with his excessive well-wishing for the groom and his systematic refusal to mention the mythological future of the couple (14-15, 16, 49, 58)31. Theocritus insists on the Helen of the Odyssey and brings her divine characteristics to the fore32. Both the timeless beginning (1 έν ποκ’ sion o f a myth canonized in the epic tradition.” On the alternative story o f Helen in Stesi­ chorus, see Austin (1994: 90-117) and Pallantza (2005 : 98-122). Moreover, Sapphos’ epithalamion for Hector and Andromache provides a sharp contrast to the tragic end of the two heroes in epic, see Contiades-Tsitsoni (1990: 105-107). 29. On the different identities of Helen in the Iliad and the Odyssey, see Austin (1994: 23-50 and 71-89). Unlike other scholars, Reichel (1999: 292-295) holds that Helen in the Odyssey is depicted more negatively than Helen in the Iliad, since in the former she admits having followed Paris o f her own free will. 30. Clytemnestra, referred to only as the daughter o f Tyndareus, is contrasted to Pene­ lope by Agamemnon himself in Od. 24.194-202. In tragedy the phrase ‘daughter o f Tyn­ dareus’ denotes, as a rule, Clytemnestra (Aesch. Ag. 83, Eur. IA 1532, Or. 374, El. 117, cf. Hes. fr. 23a. 14 M.-W.). Stesichorus stresses the negative connotations o f the ‘daugh­ ter o f Tyndareus’ in fr. 223.3-5 PMG: κ είνα δέ [i.e. ή ’Α φ ροδίτη] Τ υνδαρέου κόραις/ χολω σαμένα διγάμους τε καί τριγάμους ιίθ η σ ι/ καί λ ιπ εσ ά νορ α ς (cf. Eur. Or. 249250). Helen’s descent from Tyndareus, and not Zeus, is pointed out in Eur. Tr. 766 ώ Τ υνδάρειον δρνος, οΰ π οτ’ ε ί Δ ιός. 31. Effe (1986: 86-87). Besides, Menelaus might be called 'the perennial second best’ and is presented as the model o f the deceived husband, as pointed out by Austin (1994: 58-60); cf. e.g. Hesiod fr. 204.89-92 M.-W. 32. Pantelia (1995) also recognizes the O dyssean’ Helen in the idyll. In the Odyssey

37

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

αρα...) as well as the signaling of the location (1 έν Σπάρτςι), and also the epithet ξανθοτρίχι (1), derived from satyr plays33, as a variant of the epic expression ξανθός for Menelaus, takes us into the fabulous, and certainly lighter, atmosphere of the Odyssey. The Homeric situation from the book 4 of the Odyssey is adapted to the mythological specifics of the Hellenistic idyll. The setting is Menelaus’ palace in Sparta (Od. 4 .1 -2 ~ Id. 18.1); Telemachus is visiting the royal couple at the time of the wedding of their daughter, Hermione {Od. 4 .3 -4 ); in the Theocritean idyll, the wedding breakfast of Menelaus and Helen is in progress (2-4, 56-58). The Helen of the Odyssey appears as a dutiful spouse and multi­ tasking homemaker (4 .1 2 1 -1 3 2 ), virtues that Theocritus transfers to the newly-wed Helen, who is described as a virtuous housewife (3 1 -3 8 ). Her descent from Zeus, rather than Tyndareus with attendant negative con­ notations, has a central position both in the Odyssey (4 .1 8 4 , 5 6 9 ) as well as in the Theocritean idyll (18-1 9 ). Even the maternal care she extends to Telemachus is projected in the idyll into the worship of Helen kourotrophos34. There is, however, also the model of loyalty and cleverness, Penelope, which is reflected in the personality of Theocritus’ Helen35. The climate of Homeric Ithaca passes into the idyll through the participle μναστεύσας (6), which denotes Menelaus and implicitly aligns him with the suitors in the Odyssey. This connotation seems to lie behind the generally anti-heroic preference of Menelaus for sleep and drink (9-11), whereas a more serious and superior Helen appears alongside him. The identification with Penelope is detectable in verse 20 οϊα Ά χαηάδων γαΐαν πατεϊ οΰδεμί’ α λ λ α ‘a maiden unlike any other Achaean woman that walks the earth’, a very clear reference to Telemachus’ words in praise of his mother {Od. 21.107) οϊη νυν ούκ £στι γυνή κατ’ Ά χαιΐδα γαΐαν ‘a woman who has no equal in the land of the Achaeans’36. The Helen of the idyll is a jewel for her homeland (31 κό­ σμος Λακεδαίμονι) and a conscientious housewife (38 οΐκέτις), skilled at the loom (32-34)37. The image of Helen weaving at home is, of

course, Iliadic {II. 3.125-128), but the epithets δαιδάλεος and πυκινός recall the cloak given by the heroine to Telemachus in the Odyssey (15.104-108) and, indirectly, to the handiwork of Penelope which was devised with excessive guile (2.93-109)38.

Helen sets her demonic forces in motion (Austin [1994: 73-74]); from a broader perspec­ tive, the godlike Helen seems to offer an alternative to the tragic mortal heroine known from epic, see Stem (1978: 33-37). 33. In a lost satyr play by Aeschylus (fr. 159.3 Radt). 34. Austin (1994: 78 n.13). Theocritus obviously draws upon Stesichorus for the model of the religiously marked Helen o f Sparta, cf. Pallantza (2005: 112-118). 35. Austin (1994: 84 n.22) draws a parallel between Helen and Penelope in the Odyssey on the basis of their inclination towards cunning and seduction. 36. It is worth noting that Penelope seriously doubts Helen’s guilt in Od. 23.218-224. Yet Effe (1986: 87) views the parallelism between Helen and Penelope as purely ironic. 37. Weaving on the loom was the main task o f a wife staying within the oikos, an idea

In Theocritus, the Homeric situation is often adopted into a new context in order to redefine the moral standing of the epic heroes. The epic future appears threatening for the primitive, naive status of the lovesick Polyphemus and the newly-wed Helen. With a retrospective look at a hero in his younger years, and therefore at a stage before his Homeric fixation, the poet allows us a peek into his literary workshop39. And besides, as with the similitude between the Cyclops and Odysseus and between Helen and Penelope, it allows us to see the ‘rejuvenated’ hero as a reflection of his Homeric anti-model.

A.2. Homeric catalogues Theocritus interacts with the Trojan myth with greater frequency than do other Hellenistic poets. As seen above, the transformation of the young Cyclops into a lovelorn herdsman and the exculpation of Helen through a naive epithalamion mark an important stage in the de-Homerization of the Trojan myth. Another technique which Theocritus adopts is linked to the compression of the Homeric muthos into proper names and formu­ laic expressions. Thus codified, Homeric mythology is used by Theocri­ tus as a refined metalanguage; this metalanguage is expressed in lengthy synopses of well-known Trojan stories, generally in the form of a cata­ logue, with a parallel stress on the central role of the aoidos40. In the fol­ lowing chapter, I will explore the ways in which these ‘Homeric’ catareflected in Telemachus’ recommendation to Penelope in Od. 1.356-357: ά λ λ ’ είς οίκ ον Ιοϋσα τα σ ’ αυτής έργα κ όμ ιζε,/ Ιστόν τ ’ ήλακάτην τε (cf. Hector addressing Andro­ mache with similar words in II. 6.490-491). 38. The allusion to the gift offered to Telemachus is pointed out by Pantelia (1995: 79). Moreover, embroidered clothing, as a result o f weaving and as an artifact worth viewing, has broader implications for Hellenistic poetics, cf. also the decorative tapestries for the feast of Adonis in Theocritus’ Idyll 15, and also Jason’s cloak in Apollonius’ Arg­

onautica. 39. On the presentation of the childhood and youth of well-known heroes as an inno­ vative feature o f Callimachean poetics, see the excellent monograph by Ambiihl (2005). 40. Catalogue is a common device o f heroic epic (Trüb [1952: 13-28]), and Theocri­ tus employs this particular function o f the catalogue in order to create an ‘epic’ atmos­ phere in some of his idylls. However, in referring to heroes o f the past in his encomiastic idylls Theocritus uses, archaic lyric poets, namely Simonides, Ibycus and Pindar, as his models, see Fantuzzi (2000b), cf. Gutzwiller (1983: 227-228).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

logues constitute a literary comment on the function of the traditional hexametric genres, the epic and the hymn, within the context of Idylls 15, 16, 17 and 22 of Theocritus. In the monody dedicated by the γυνή άοιδός to Adonis in Idyll 15, the lyrical aria is cut short by an epic digression, a catalogue of the type of Priamel. The lover of Aphrodite has the privilege of coming and going between the realms of life and death, through his continual regen­ eration (136 έρπεις, ω φ ίλ’ ’Άδωνι, καί ένθάδε κής ’Αχέροντα ‘only you, dear Adonis, can visit both the earth and the Acheron’); much harsher is the fate of death which awaits the heroes of Troy (137-140): οδτ’ ’Α γαμέμνω ν τοΰτ’ έπαθ’ οδτ’ Αίας ό μέγας, βαρυμάνιος ήρως, οδθ’ Έ κτω ρ, Έ κάβας ό γεραίτατος εΐκατι παίδων, ού Π ατροκλής, ου Π ύρρος άπό Τροίας έπανενθώ ν For Agamemnon had no such lot, nor huge Ajax, that hero of the terrible anger, nor Hector, the eldest bom of the twenty sons of Hecabe, nor Patroclus, nor Pyrrhus, who returned from Troy.

The superiority of the young Adonis over the heroes of the war, which is markedly described as a victory over death, suggests the supremacy of the erotic/lyric over the martial/epic subject matter. Agamemnon, Ajax, Hector, Patroclus and Neoptolemus excelled in the field of battle at Troy, and, with the exception of the last, played leading roles in the Iliad. Among them. Hector, Patroclus and Neoptolemus signal a beauti­ ful death in the hour of battle, and their beauty at that time is compared with the beauty of the dying Adonis41. Achilles is not included in the catalogue of the dead, perhaps because he is the only one of the war­ riors of Troy for whom death does not equate with the darkness of Hades, but with an agreeable post mortem life in the Elysian Fields42. The Odyssean scenes dealing with the fortunes of the Trojan warriors after death in books 11 and 24 seem to have imposed on Theocritus the reference to the rest of the heroes. Among them, Agamemnon is one of the most miserable figures in the Underworld (Od. 11.385-394; 24.2021, 95-97): the verb έπαθε in the Theocritean idyll (138) echoes the sufferings of the house of the Atreids, as they are recounted in the Odyssey by the Mycenaean king himself (Od. 11.409-434). Ajax, the 41. Hunter (1996: 134-135). 42. Achilles received preferential treatment in Hades according to the Odyssey: his comrades honoured him with exceptional burial rituals (24.36-92), he was glorified among the dead (11.485-486; 24.93-94) and he inhabited the asphodel meadows (11.539540; 24.13).

39

βαρυμάνιος ήρως of the Theocritean catalogue, evokes his embittered refusal to speak to Odysseus in the Nekyia (Od. 11.543-564). Patroclus is mentioned as the companion of Achilles in Hades in both Odyssean Underworld scenes (Od. 11.468; 24.16, 77). Moreover, the adventures of Neoptolemus after the fall of Troy (140 άπό Τροίας έπανενθών) are the main subject of conversation between the dead Achilles and Odysseus (Od. 11.505-537). Even the continuation of the catalogue (141-142), οδθ ’ οί έτι πρότεροι Λ απίθαι καί Δευκαλίω νες, ου Π ελοπηιάδαι τε καί "Αργεος ακρα Π ελα σ γοί Nor the heroes of yet more ancient days, the Lapithae and Deucalion’s sons, nor the sons of Pelops, nor the Pelasgians, first among Argos

has the Nekyia of the Odyssey as its starting-point. The phrase έτι πρότεροι in both texts (141 ol έτι πρότεροι ~ Od. 11.630 καί νύ κ ’ έτι πρότερους ϊδον άνέρας) takes us back to the generation of heroes before Troy; also the mention of mythological personages recalls the catalogue which is to be found in the Nekyia of the Odyssey43. It seems, then, that the Theocritean digression condenses the Underworld scenes of the Odyssey in order to project the continually rejuvenated Adonis as a modem hero, as opposed to the unjustly slain victims of Troy. Another metaliterary comment on the epic is included in the catalogue from the Idyll 16, the encomium upon Hiero II, the tyrant of Syracuse. The idyll, composed under the potent influence of the poetry of Pindar and Simonides44, explores the confines of the hymnic and encomiastic discourse, addressed to the gods and mortals respectively (3-4 Μοΐσαι μέν θεαί έντί, θεούς θεαί άείδοντί'/ αμμες δέ βροτοί οϊδε, βροτούς βροτοί άείδωμεν ‘the Muses are goddesses and as goddesses they sing of gods, whereas we mortals sing, as mortals, of other mortals’). The narrator adopts the perspective of the bard, who is placed in the service of a powerful monarch to immortalize his glory. Through the narrative persona of the impecunious poet who is a friend of the Muses, he criti­ cizes the reception accorded to the encomiastic epics and their authors by the powerful patrons of the day (5-21). The poverty of the poet is merely an illustration of Callimachean leptotes, and, thus, the idyll 43. At least two o f the names mentioned in these lines might be associated with emblematic figures of the Underworld in the Homeric Nekyia: the Lapiths with Peirithous (Od 11.630) and the Pelopids with Tantalus (Od. 582-592). 44. Gow (1952: 2.150 and passim), cf. Meincke (1965: 79-84) and Griffiths (1979: 950). For a ‘Pindaric’ reading o f Idyll 16, see Hunter (1996: 82-90, and 83 n.25 for a bib­ liographical overview). On Simonides as the idyll’s model, see Austin (1967) and Kyriakou (2004).

40

41

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

includes itself among the poems of the literary polemic of the Alexandri­ ans45. The commonplace notion that poetry preserves highly-endowed mor­ tals from the oblivion of death dominates the first part of the idyll (2257). The emphasis focuses both on their prowess, the κλέα άνδρών (cf. v. 2 ύμνεΐν άγαθών κλέα άνδρών), and on how each bard treats them. The narrator, presented with the persona of the court poet, interacts in the beginning with Simonides, recalling the historical figures hymned by the Κήιος άοιδός (34-47). The catalogue which follows no longer refers to the encomiastic poetry of Simonides, with ordinary mortals as its subject, but to the poetry for heroes (48-57)46. With an internal break at verse 50, the catalogue divides itself between the heroic epics par excellence, the Iliad and the Cypria, and the novelistic, adventure epic represented by the Odyssey. Verses 48-50 summarize the Trojan battles as seen from the side of the enemies of the Achaeans:

in the description of the warriors, since the participle κομόωντες, sym­ bolizing the brave heroes in the Iliad, became, at a later time, a feature of decadence and moral laxity49; moreover, the reference to the fierce warrior Cycnus, who was undefeated even by Achilles, curiously con­ flicts with his femininity (49 θήλυν άπό χροιάς)50. From the war epic, which is evoked by the Iliadic word φυλόπιδας (50)51, the catalogue moves on to the Odyssey (51-57):

τίς δ’ αν άριστήας Λ υκίων ποτέ, τίς κομόωντας Πριαμίδας ή θήλυν άπό χροιά ς Κ ύκ νον έγνω, εΐ μή φυλόπιδας προτέρω ν ύμνησαν άοιδοί; And who indeed would ever know the Lycian chiefs o f yore, who Priam’s long-haired sons, and Cycnus, o f a maiden’s hue, had bards not sung the war cries o f their forebears?

The formulaic expressions άριστήες and κομόωντες are transferred from the Achaeans to their opponents, the Lycians and the Trojans. The άριστοι of the Lycians recall the two central heroes of the Iliad, Glau­ cus and Sarpedon (cf. II. 2.876 Σαρπηδών δ’ ήρχεν Λυκίων καί Γλαύκος άμύμων). In the same epic, the protagonists are, of course, the Priamids, the heroes who belong to the royal house of Priam. Lycians and Trojans are mentioned as close allies in the Iliad (II. 6.68 Τρώων καί Λυκίων, cf. Sch. ex II. 6.68a Λυκίων κατ’ έξοχήν των συμ­ μάχων)47. On the other hand, Cycnus is one of Achilles’ opponents in the Cypria (Proclus 37 K.), as well as one of the symbols of the war hero in post-Homeric literature48. There is, however, an underlying irony 45. Gutzwiller (1983: 214-217). 46. Griffiths (1979: 30-32) reads the history o f poetry before Theocritus in the cata­ logue; moreover, he sees a culmination from the Thessalian heroes of Simonides’ poetry to the protagonists o f the Epic Cycle, those o f the Odyssey and finally those of the Iliad. 47. However, after Sarpedon’s death, the Lycians led by Glaucus threaten to revolt -just as Achilles withdraws from his alliance with the Achaeans (II. 17.154-155 τώ νΰν εϊ τις έμ οί Λυκίω ν έπ ιπ είσ ετα ι άνδρώ ν/ οϊκα δ’ ϊμ εν, Τ ροίη δέ πεφ ήσ ετα ι αΐπύς όλεθρος). Cf. Wathelet (1989: 80-84). 48. There existed several heroes under the name o f Cycnus. Two of them were sons o f Poseidon and both were killed by Achilles (for the first, see Cypria Proclus 37 K., for

ούδ’ Ό δ υ σ εΰ ς έκατόν τε καί εϊκατι μήνας άλαθείς πάντας έ π ’ άνθρώπους, Ά ίδ α ν τ ’ είς έσ χα το ν έλθών ζωός, καί σπήλυγγα φυγών ό λ ο ο ΐο Κύκλωπος, δη να ιόν κλέος έ σ χ ε ν , έσιγάθη δ ’ αν ύφορβός Εΰμαιος καί βουσί Φ ιλοίτιος άμφ’ άγελαίαις έρ γο ν έχω ν αυτός τε π ερ ίσ π λ α γχνο ς Λ αέρτης, εί μή σφ εας ώ νασαν Ί ά ο νο ς άνδρός άοιδαί. Nor would Odysseus have won his lasting fame, for all his fifty two months of wandering amid every kind o f folk; and the visit he paid, a living man, to Hades’ inmost depths, and even his escape from the murderous Cyclops’ cave; unheard, too, would be the names of the swineherd Eumaeus, and o f Philoetius, whose work was with the cattle, and even of Laertes, great of heart -w ere it not for the songs o f the Ionian man.

According to this summary, the plot of the Odyssey is dual. On the one hand, it focuses on the supernatural feats of the wandering hero (Odysseus) and, on the other, on the humble representatives of bucolic life (Eumaeus and Philoetius) and the countryside (Laertes). Odysseus, of course, belongs to the world of fable, and so his adventures are invested with the rhetoric of hyperbole (51 έκατόν τε καί εϊκατι μήνας, 52 πάντας έπ’ άνθρώπους), the non-human (52 Ά ίδαν τ ’ είς έσχατον) and the monstrous (53 όλοοΐο Κύκλωπος). On the other hand, the perspective of the humble people brings us down to earth, since it is linked to the tasks and emotions of routine toil52. the latter, Lyc. 232 and Sch. ad loc.). The most celebrated is the son of Ares killed in a duel by Heracles (Hes. Sc. 57ff„ Stesich. ft. 207 PMG, Pi. O. 2.82; 10.15, Eur. Ale. 503). 49. Theocritus (22.77) also used the Homeric epithet κομόω ντες to describe the bar­ baric customs o f the Bebryces. 50. On the inappropriateness o f describing Cycnus as feminine, see Sch. Theoc. 16.49 λευκός γάρ ή ν τήν χ ρ ο ιά ν έκ γ ενετή ς [i.e. ό Κ ύκνος], ως φ η σ ιν Ε λ λ ά ν ικ ο ς, διό καί θήλυν αύτόν εϊπ εν 6 Θ εόκριτος. 51. Cf. the Iliadic formula φ ύλοπις αίνή denoting the battle cry and metonymically the battle itself; the phrase is parodied in Aristophanes as a symbol of war (Pax 10751076 ού γάρ πω τοΰτ’ έσ τί φ ίλ ο ν μ α κά ρεσσι θεο ΐσ ιν, φ υλόπιδος λή ξαι, πρίν κ εν λύκος ο ίν ύμεναιοΐ). 52. Odysseus’ relation to Eumaeus exemplifies life in Ithaca, and, by extension, sym­ bolizes the relation o f Hiero with the people o f Sicily, see Griffiths (1979: 40-42).

43

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

In effect, in the two parts of the catalogue, a subgenre of epic, in which war adventures are narrated, is contrasted with a more modem one, the Odyssey, which Theocritus recognizes obliquely as the begin­ ning of anti-heroic poetry53. There is a tension underlying the antithesis between the many poets (even the ‘Homer’ of the Iliad is included here) at verse 50 ύμνησαν άοιδοί and the only poet of the Odyssey at verse 57 Ίάονος ανδρός άοιδαί. In the second part of the idyll the mythological catalogue places the Sicilian monarch alongside the most important Iliadic heroes (73-75):

Σιμόεντος δθι Φρυγός ήρίον ’Ίλου). After the Iliadic setting of the battle, all that remains is to picture Hiero as a Homeric hero in action. In the next verses (78-81), the military preparations of the Syracusans, which culminate in the arming of Hiero, recall the dramatic scene in book 19 of the Iliad where Achilles prepares to re-enter the battle59. But what is the real feat that Hiero will achieve through his military virtue? Unexpectedly, the establishment of peace is described as an idyllic image of the Sicilian countryside, as a spur to arable and stock-rearing activity, as the gift of a hero to the many anonymous farmers and herds­ men (90-97). That the scene pictures the transition from the heroic/epic to the anti-heroic/bucolic poetry is apparent also from a series of literary symbols: the sweet sound of the cicada echoes all around (94-96), at the same time as the spider delicately mutes the clash of military weapons (96-97). Theocritus uses Callimachean imagery to indicate that the new poetics have replaced the lofty poetic genres of the past and their ele­ vated style60. In Idyll 16 the encomiastic occasion at the court of Hiero Π of Syra­ cuse and the forthcoming war with the Carthaginians acquire a literary and poetological dimension. The monarch’s heroic ‘moment’ obliges the poet to enter into a dialogue with Simonides and Pindar, his immediate predecessors in the genre of encomiastic poetry. But the idea of fame after death -the increasingly revisited Leitmotif of the idyll is the term kleos- is first and foremost linked to the heroes of the past, and therefore brings to the fore the question of epic ideology. In this sense, the cata­ logues of names make up the mythological section of the encomium, since they condense well-known epic stories61. Thus, the Trojan myth, in combination with the Homeric formulaic expression, constitutes the metalanguage that Theocritus exploits in order to compare the different subgenres of epic writing: first, Homer and the cyclic poets, then the Homer of the Iliad and the Homer of the Odyssey, and, finally, the ‘fab-

42

έσσ εται ούτος άνήρ δς έμοϋ κ εχ ρ ή σ ετ’ άοιδοΰ, ρέξας ή Ά χ ιλ ε ύ ς δ σ σ ο ν μέγας ή βαρύς Αίας έν πεδίω Σ ιμόεντος δθι Φ ρυγός ή ρίον Τλου. The man shall be found who’ll take me for his bard; a man o f deeds like great Achilles, or weighty Ajax, on the plain of Simois, where Phrygian Ilus’ memorial has been set.

The έσσεται ουτος άνήρ δς έμοΰ κεχρήσετ’ άοιδοΰ parallels the dra­ matic prophecy in the Iliad, έσσεται ήμαρ δ τ’ αν ποτ’ όλώλη Ίλ ιο ς Ιρή ‘a day will come when holy Troy will perish’ {II. 4.164; 6.448)54. The best of the Achaeans, Achilles and Ajax55, recall the archetypes of virtue manifested in the battlefield, while the absence of Agamemnon from the catalogue further emphasizes the martial against the monarchic identity of Hiero56. The Homeric formulaic epithets for Achilles (πόδας ώκύς, δΐος, θεοείκελος) and Ajax (μεγάθυμος, άντίθεος, ταχύς, μεγαλήτωρ) are replaced by the general and indefinite μέγας57 and βαρύς58 respectively. The setting is also Iliadic, since, in a single verse, there is a joint reference to two of the most important battlegrounds of the Trojans and Achaeans outside the fortress of Ilion: the river Simois and the tomb of Ilus, the mythical founder of the city (75 έν πεδίω 53. Gutzwiller (1983: 227-228). 54. Meincke (1965: 63). 55. Achilles is mentioned side by side with Ajax already in the Odyssey (11.469-470): Α ϊαντος θ ’, δς ίίριστος έη ν είδος τε δέμας τε/ των ά λλω ν Δαναώ ν μ ετ’ άμύμονα Π ηλεΐω να (cf. Od. 11.550-551; 24.17-18). 56. Gow (1952: 2.305-306). 57. It is noteworthy that among the Achaeans the biggest in size is Ajax and not Achilles (11. 3.229): ουτος δ’ Α ίας έστΐ πελώ ριος ερκος ’Α χαιώ ν, cf. 11. 5.610 μέγας Τ ελα μώ νιος Αίας. As a rule the epithet μέγας is attributed to Hector (II. 2.816 etc. μέγας κορυθαίολος Έ κτω ρ); at one instance, though, Achilles refers to himself as being μέγας (11. 21.108 ο ύ χ όρά ρς ο ίο ς καί έγώ κα λός τε μέγας τε;). 58. In the Iliad the formulaic expression βαρύς στενά χω ν is attributed to Achilles and Thetis (1.364; 18.70, 78, 323) and to Agamemnon (4.153; 9.16); it is generally used for heroes under psychological pressure (cf. Od. 8.534 where it describes Odysseus’ emo­ tional reaction to the song of Demodocus).

59. Although there are no direct verbal echoes o f the Homeric passages, the similarity is obvious (Gow [1952 : 2.320]). E.g. verses 80-81 from the Theocritean Idyll 16 έν δ ’ αύτοΐς Ίέρ ω ν προτέροις ίσ ο ς ή ρώ εσ σ ι/ ζώ ννυται evoke II. 19.364 έ ν δέ μ έσ οισ ι κορύσσετο δΐος Ά χ ιλ λ ε ύ ς . On the Homeric style o f the Theocritean passage, see Grif­ fiths (1979: 36-37). 60. Τ έττιξ and λ επ τός are key-words in Callimachus’ Aer/o-Prologue, esp. fr. 1.24 Pf. Μ ο ύ σ α ν...λ επ τα λ έη ν and ff. 1.29-30 Pf. ένί τοΐς γάρ ά είδ ο μ εν ο ΐ λιγΰ ν ή χ ο ν / τέττιγος, θ]όρυβον δ ’ ούκ έφ ίλ η σ α ν δνω ν; on these terms, see the in depth discussion by Asper (1997: 156-198). The image o f the spider spinning its web echoes Euripides fr. 369.1 Kannicht κείσθω δόρυ μοι μίτον ά μ φ ιπ λέκ ειν ά ρά χνα ις, but is also found in Call. fr. 285.12 Pf. έρ γ ο ν άραχνάω ν, probably with a poetological connotation. 61. By recalling the Homeric heroes, Pindar closely associates the kleos attributed to his patron with that Homer has bestowed on his characters (Nagy [1990: 199-214]).

44

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

ulous’ and the ‘realistic’ sections of the Odyssey. Homeric protagonists and heroic mortals, mythical past and historical present are bridged through the figure of Hiero and the restoration of peace in Sicily. Through the same process, Theocritus tests his novel epic writing in war and peace. And although in his description of war he recalls cyclic episodes and Iliadic battle-scenes, in his hymn to post-war, everyday liv­ ing he seeks his precedent in the Odyssey, and the humble heroes of the ‘new’ epic, Eumaeus, Philoetius and Laertes, are mentioned along with the anonymous representatives of the Sicilian countryside. By contrast­ ing the two distinct epic situations, Theocritus defines the gap separating him from heroic epic and, in essence, defends his own bucolic poetics62. In his encomiastic poem for Ptolemy Philadelphus (Id. 17), the role of the bard is again stressed in the context of providing the enduring glory of the monarch.63 The key to the interpretation of the idyll is to be found in the special meaning of the term heros. In verse 5 ήρωες, tot πρόσθεν άφ’ ήμιθέων έγένοντο heroes are specifically described as descendants of the demigods; in this sense, Ptolemy’s status as a hero is explained on the basis of his descent from Heracles (26-27). The praise of Ptolemy is refracted through the comparison of the Hellenistic monarch with two of the most prominent of the Iliadic heroes, Diomedes and Achilles, the recognizable model of the catalogue again being Simonides64. The incontestable masculine virtues which the poet recog­ nizes in them (53 λαοφόνον Διομήδεα ~ 55 άκοντιστάν Ά χιλ ή α ~ 56 αίχμητά Πτολεμαΐε) are secondary in comparison to the feminine figures who stand out at the beginning of their generation (53-57): Ά ρ γ ε ία κυάνοφρυ, σύ λα οφ όνον Διομήδεα μ ισγομένα Τυδήι τέκες, Κ αλυδωνίφ άνδρί, άλλά Θ έτις βαθύκολπος άκοντιστάν Ά χ ιλ ή α ΑΙακίδμ Πηλήι- σ έ δ ’, αίχμητά Π τολεμαΐε, αίχμητά Πτολεμαίο) ά ρίζη λος Βερενίκα. Dark-browed Argive lady, in wedlock with Tydeus, the man from Calydon, you bore Diomedes the slayer; 62. Characters typical o f the humble life in the Odyssey are used as models for influ­ ential Hellenistic poems, such as Callimachus’ Hecale and Victoria Berenices, and The­ ocritus’ Thalysia (Griffiths [1979: 49]). 63. On the distinction between the hymnic poetry on gods and heroes o f the past and the encomiastic poems on mortals of the present, see Fantuzzi (2000a: 142-145). A detailed commentary of Idyll 17 is offered by Hunter (2003a). 64. Fantuzzi (2000b: 235-241) argues that the origin o f Theocritus’ qualification o f the epic heroes can be traced back to the elegy o f Simonides for the Greeks fallen at Plataea (ff. 11 W2.), where the Iliadic heroes are juxtaposed with the warriors o f the Per­ sian wars. That Idyll 16 draws heavily upon Simonides is discussed in detail by Hunter (1996: 97-109), cf. also Hunter (2003a: 138-139).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

45

and deep-bosomed Thetis bore the great spearman Achilles to Peleus, son o f Aeacus. And you, the warrior Ptolemy, renowned Berenice bore to Ptolemy the warrior.

Emphasis shifts from the protagonists of the Trojan war to their ances­ tors. Both Calydonian Tydeus and Peleus, son of Aeacus, belong to preTrojan mythological cycles and are occasionally recalled in the Iliad65: Tydeus played a leading role in the war of the Seven against Thebes (II. 4.372-399) and was indirectly linked to the hunt for the Calydonian boar (through his father Oeneus, see II. 9.529-599; cf. II. 5.812-813). The marriage of Peleus and Thetis is also to be found at the very beginning of the Trojan myth (II. 18.84-87, 432-441)66. Nevertheless, the address to Diomedes’ mother, Deipyle, with the archaic periphrasis Ά ργεία κυάνοφρυ, the epic ring of Θέτις βαθύκολπος and άρίζηλος Βερε­ νίκα and the formulaic expression μισγομένα...τέκες evoke the antipodes of the Homeric tradition, the genealogical poetry of Hesiod67. The issue of the union of goddesses with mortals in order to bear heroes refers in particular to the last verses of the Theogony: Achilles’ descent from the goddess Thetis and the mortal Peleus might be seen as a direct echo of the passage in question (Th. 1006-1007). So, although Deipyle from Argos does not formally belong to the category of goddesses68, the reference to the Nereid Thetis and then to Berenice reveals the divine identity of the latter. Through this sequence of names Theocritus alludes to Hesiodic genealogy in order to stress the divine descent of Ptolemy Philadelphus69. Thereafter the Homeric model is clearly differentiated from the Epic Cycle (116-120): 65. Gow (1952: 2.335) acutely observes that the resemblance between father and son is a reminiscent o f / /. 5.800 ή δ λ ίγ ο ν ο ί παϊδα έοικότα γείνα το Τυδεύς. Cf. II. 7.127128 δ ς [i.e. δ Π η λεύς] π ο τέ μ ’ εΐρ ό μ ενο ς μ έγ ’ έγ ή θ εεν ω έ ν ι ο ΐκ φ ,/ πάντων Ά ρ γ είω ν έρέω ν γ ε ν ε ή ν τε τόκ ον τε with reference to Achilles. See also Hunter (2003a: on v. 53). 66. Hunter (2003a: on v. 55) rightly suggests that ά κοντιστά ν is an allusion to the heavy wooden spear given to Peleus by Cheiron as a wedding present, 67. The catalogue emphasizes the fact that the parents bequeath their special qualities to their progenies, see Weber (1993: 232-233). On the rhetoric o f this particular cata­ logue, see Meincke (1965: 108-110), Gerber (1981) and Fantuzzi (2000b: 239 n.25). On the catalogues o f the Ehoiae-xype, see Trüb (1952: 44-69), and on Hesiod’s catalogue poetry in general, see the fine collection of papers edited by Hunter (2005). 68. The substitution o f the name Deipyle by the epithet Ά ρ γ ε ία is not due to confu­ sion on the part o f Theocritus, as Gow (1952: 2.335) supposes. Ά ρ γ ε ία is a typical rit­ ual epithet attributed to Hera (Aesch. Supp. 299, Eur. 7V. 23; Rh. 376), and thus, in using it, Theocritus implicitly suggests the deification o f Deipyle. 69. According to Meincke (1965: 110), this genealogical catalogue draws a parallel between the birth o f Philadelphus and the birth o f a god; this interpretation further sup-

46

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

τί δέ κ ά λ λιοv άνδρί κ εν εϊη όλ β ίφ ή κ λ έος έσ θ λόν έ ν άνθρώ ποισιν άρέσθαι; τοΰτο καί Ά τρ εΐδ α ισ ι μένει- τά δέ μυρία τήνα δ σ σ α μέγαν Π ριάμοιο δόμ ον κτεάτισσαν έλό ντες ά έρι πμ κέκρυπται δθεν πά λιν ούκέτι νόστος. What fairer thing might a wealthy man befall than winning glory among his fellow men? No more than this the Atreids have, and all the countless treasures that they won, on taking Priam’s mighty house, are lost among the mists whence none return.

The mission of the epic poet is to confer kleos on the hero being sung. In the case of Homer, the Atreids -who stand for all the Greeks that took part in the Trojan war- acquire eternal fame because of their feats. The dark side of the campaign, the siege and the sack of Priam’s house, are condemned to be erased from human memory. If, in verses 118-119 τά δέ μυρία τήνα/ δσσα μέγαν Πριάμοιο δόμον κτεάτισσαν έλόντες Theocritus is alluding to events narrated in the Epic Cycle with regard to the consequences of the fall of Troy70, then the next verse άέρι πμ κέκρυπται δθεν πάλιν ούκέτι νόστος sounds like a reproach against the imitators of Homer. The distancing of the contemporary poet from the epic bards is now quite marked: the compression of the epic subject matter into catalogues of names becomes a refined recusatio of epic on the part of Theocritus71. Occasionally, Theocritus, particularly in the court poems, clothes the individuals of the historical present in epic attire, so that, mutatis mutan­ dis, he can hymn them as Homer did the gods and heroes72. In Theocri­ tus’ poetic emulation with Homer, the leading role is played by the adoption of the hexameter form, in combination with the rhetoric of the epic and the hymn73. The mythological idyll on the Dioscuri {Id. 22) is ports the view that Idyll 17 is a hymn intended to praise the deification of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 70. The aftermath o f the sack o f Troy includes the capturing o f the Troads (Cassan­ dra, Andromache), the sacrifice o f Polyxena, the killing o f Astyanax and the dividing of the spoils (cf. Proclus’ summary o f The Sack of Troy passim, esp. the phrase in 98 K. καί τά λ ο ιπ ά λάφυρα διανέμονται). 71. Theocritus probably draws on Ibycus’ encomium for Polycrates (ff. 282 PMG): in his proem the archaic poet lists a series o f Iliadic themes and Trojan heroes as part o f the literary device o f praeteritio, i.e. in order to stress that such themes are only suited to epic poetry, see Fantuzzi (2000b: 240 n.28). 72. On Homer as a latent model o f Theocritus’ poetry, see Hunter (1996: 90-92) with bibliography. 73. Simonides (ff. 11 W2.) offers the model for the adaptation of a hymn (addressed to the hero Achilles) and an epic narrative (on the Persian Wars) to the small-scale genre o f elegy. Theocritus in Idyll 17 further compresses his narrative, and, thus, the reference

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

47

also on the cusp between the epic and the hymn. The idyll contains the typical hymnic proem, two epic episodes, the duel between Pollux and Amycus and the match between Castor and Lynceus, and closes with an epilogue in catalogue form. By narrating stories about the Dioscuri familiar from earlier poetry, Theocritus develops a dialectic with the various traditions of epic writing: the Homeric epics, the Homeric hymns, the Epic Cycle, Apollonius’ Argonautica74 and the epyllion75. The idyll closes with yet another catalogue of Homeric heroes (214-223): χαίρ ετε, Λ ήδας τέκνα, καί ή μετέροις κ λ έο ς ϋμνοις έσ θ λ ό ν ά εί πέμποιτε. φ ίλοι δέ τε πάντες άοιδοί Τυνδαρίδαις Ε λ έ ν η τε καί ά λλοις ή ρώ εσσιν "Ιλιον οΐ διέπερ σ α ν ά ρ ή γοντες Μ ενελάω . ύμΐν κΰδος, άνακτες, έμήσατο Χ ίο ς άοιδός, ύμνήσας Π ριάμοιο π ό λ ιν καί νήας ’Α χαιώ ν Ίλιάδας τε μάχας Ά χ ιλ ή ά τε πύργον άυτήςϋμίν αυ καί έγώ λιγέω ν μειλίγματα Μ ουσέω ν, ο ί ’ αύταί πα ρ έχουσ ι καί ώς έμός οικος ύπάρχει, τοΐα φέρω. Farewell, children o f Leda, and ever to our hymns may you send fame. All bards are friends o f the Tyndaridae and o f Helen, and o f the other heroes who sacked Dion when aiding Menelaus. For you, princes, the bard o f Chios wrought renown, in hymning Priam’s town and the Achaean ships, the Diadic battles and Achilles a tower therein. And in my tum I bring to you the sweet-tongued M uses’ soothing song, as they have passed it on to me and I have kept it in my home.

In the epilogue, the conjunction of the Dioscuri with Homer (218 ύμΐν κΰδος, ανακτες, έμήσατο Χίος άοιδός) and with Theocritus himself (221 ύμΐν αυ καί έγώ) apparently hints at the ambition of the Hellenis­ tic poet to be ranked alongside his archetype. In effect, though, there is a big difference in the treatment of the same mythological material, since the story of the Dioscuri from a Homeric footnote in the Teichoskopia in the Iliad {II. 3.236-244) is raised to the status of a major Helto the heroes o f the past becomes a short catalogue o f the typical themes sung by the archaic aoidoi (Fantuzzi [2000b: 238-239]). 74. This assumption presupposes that the Argonautica actually predated this Theocritean idyll, a fact, however, that cannot be proved, see Moulton (1973: 44 n.12), Hunter (1996: 57-63) and Sens (1997: 24-33). 75. For an analysis o f Idyll 22 within the tradition o f archaic epic and lyric poetry, see Cameron (1995: 431-436) and Hunter (1996: 63-73).

48

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

lenistic theme by Theocritus. The underlying irony of the passage should also be noted: in the Teichoskopia the only ‘hymning’ that the Dioscuri get from Homer is the reference to their absence from the Iliadic battle­ field (//. 3.241 νΰν αυτ’ ούκ έθέλουσι μάχην καταδύμεναν άνδρών ‘but now they do not wish to join the battles of men’), their deaths being given as the reason for this (//. 3.244-245 τούς δ ’ ήδη κάτεχεν φυσίζοος αΐα/ έν Λακεδαίμονι αυθι φίλη έν πατρίδι γαίη ‘but the life-producing earth already held them in Lacedaenon, in their dear homeland’)76. In Theocritus, on the other hand, the two heroic brothers escape death in their clash with the Apharetiadae. Thus, the dramatic statement of the Iliad is completely inversed, and in this way the reason for their absence from the Iladic battlefield is left to speculation77. As the tragic detail of the Iliad is overturned in the Hellenistic idyll, Theocritus is ultimately claiming his own aesthetic and ideological independence from the epic version of the story78. With Theocritus as his model, the anonymous poet of the Epitaph for Bion also exploits the technique of the Homeric catalogue, but does so in order to contrast epic with a particular subcategory of hexametric poetry, the bucolic. The Epitaph for Bion is a lament in hexameters with the insertion of a repeated epode on the death of the leading bucolic poet Bion. From the point of view of form, tone and content it is a generic imitation of Theocritus’ Idyll 1 and the Epitaph for Adonis by pseudoBion. The final part of the poem is dedicated to the epic/lyric poets of the ‘canon’. Pride of place in the catalogue is given to Homer, whose poetic achievement is comparable only to that of Bion (71 άπώλετο πραν τοι Ό μη ρος ‘Homer is long dead’ ~ 74-75 νΰν πάλιν άλλον/ υίέα [i.e. Βίωνα] δακρύεις καινφ δ’ ύπό πένθεϊ τάκη ‘now you weep for another son, Bion, and you melt by a new sorrow’). The difference between them seems to concern mainly the thematics of their poems (78-80): 76. On this Homeric paradox, see Sens (1992: 336-337). 77. Sens (1992: 348) comments on the passage: “The narrator o f the idyll makes the Homeric duel from which the Dioscuri are so conspicuously absent the model for his own account o f the episode in which their life on earth traditionally comes to an end; then, by allowing both o f the twins to escape the conflict alive, he eliminates what, in the Iliad, is the implicit reason for their inability to participate in the expedition to Troy in the first place”. 78. Sens (1992: 349 and n.26) rightly points out that verse 221 ύμΐν αύ καί έγώ λ ιγέω ν μειλίγματα Μ ουσ έω ν and especially the epithet λιγύς suggest the adoption of Callimachean poetics on the part of Theocritus. According to Griffiths (1976: 363-367), on the other hand, the idyll seems to parody the Homericizing style; the idyll’s epilogue, in particular, should be read as a literary polemic against the epic poetry of Apollonius. On the idyll’s critical distancing from the epic, see Sens (1997: 20-22).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

49

χώ μ έν Τ υνδαρέοιο καλάν ά εισ ε θύγατρα καί Θ έτιδος μέγαν υία καν ’Α τρείδαν Μ ενέλα ο ν, κείνος δ’ ου πολέμ ους, ου δάκρυα, Π άνα δ ’ έμ ελ π ε... For he sang o f the fair daughter o f Tyndareus, the great son o f Thetis and Menelaus the Atreid, while the other sang neither of war nor tears, but only of Pan...

The catalogue continues with the whole range of post-Theocritean pas­ toral heroes -apart from Pan, the shepherds, the pederastic Muse, Eros and Aphrodite- which are artfully contrasted to the gloomy epic subjects of the war, and ends with the leading figure of the bucolic Muse, The­ ocritus (93). It follows that the reference to Homer is not merely a rhet­ oric convention, characteristic of late Hellenistic aesthetics79, but also an indirect indication of the alignment of the bucolic poets with the bard of Chios: an alignment which marks the bucolic genre as the most modem manifestation of epic writing. As seen above, catalogues of epic heroes in Theocritus occur in idylls which are somehow related to the genre of hymn80, since the hymn rep­ resents a transitional stage between the epic narrative and the lyrical ode. Besides, hymns were considered in antiquity to be proems before the recitation of large-scale narrative poems with a mythological content81. The Theocritean idyll held a similar intermediary position between the epic and the lyric genres. Through the codification of mythological material into catalogues, Theocritus no doubt demonstrates the quandary in which myth places the modem poet, who is neither purely lyrical nor epic. By compressing the mythological part of the hymn, he also rejects, at the same time, epic narrative. Instead, in each case he proposes his own narratives: the Homeric muthos is contrasted with the erotic story of Adonis in Idyll 15, and with the demythologizing of the Dioscuri in Idyll 22, while the epic hero is replaced by the lauded monarch in Idylls 16 and 17. In particular, the use of the Trojan myth as an exemplar of epic writing functions on different levels in Theocritus’ poetry. The rich shades of proper names and formulaic language used in the catalogues allow Theocritus to compare Homer with other epic poets, the various types of epic heroes, as well as the thematic of the Iliad and the 79. The direct reference to the Homeric archetype assumes two main forms in Hel­ lenistic poetry: a) Homer is mentioned as the poet par excellence in a series o f Hellenis­ tic epigrams on poets, and b) the catalogue o f the Homeric heroes is broadly used in the technopaegnia, a genre closely associated with the corpus o f bucolic poetry. 80. According to Hunter (1996: 47), Idylls 16, 17, 22 as well as the ode to Adonis from Idyll 15 (that is, all the Theocritean poems containing a catalogue o f Homeric heroes) belong to the genre o f hymn. 81. On Hellenistic literary hymns, see Hunter (1996: 46-52).

50

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

Odysssey against each other. Thus, the Homeric catalogue constitutes a refined system through which the poet spotlights his own unique aes­ thetic against the hexametric tradition to which he belongs82.

poetry through the exchange of Homeric proverbs84. At the time when the crowd is thronging the streets of Alexandria, two lower-class women, Gorgo and Praxinoa, as well as an anonymous old woman, describe the commotion as follows (60-64):

51

ΓΟΡΓΩ

A.3. The fossilization of the Trojan myth

ειτα π α ρ ενθεΐν εύμαρές;

Of the entire Greek myth the stories of Troy were the most widespread in literature and art. Knowledge of the Trojan episodes and their heroes must have been taken for granted among the ancient public, given the wide popularity of the Homeric epics, lyric and tragic poetry, and even iconography representing them. The common mythological substratum, with which both author and reader were acquainted, guaranteed the immediate recognition of the Trojan stories and their variations; this is the basic requirement both for the understanding of any allusion to them as well as for their codification. However, as episodes of the Trojan myth did not, as a rule, constitute the main plot of any major Hellenistic poem (with the exception of Alexandra), we must reconstruct the ‘mod­ ernized’ version of the Trojan mythology through the study of cata­ logues, as I have shown in the previous chapter, and also of proverbs, riddles and loci communes. In other words, it is mostly in passages with­ out any narrative or dramatic development that the Hellenistic poets incorporated the Trojan stories, or rather the essential parts of these sto­ ries; thus, the Trojan myth, employed in rhetorical expressions and cliched exempla, was eventually ‘fossilized’. In this chapter, instances of the fossilized Trojan myth will be traced in three (non-mythological and non-narrative) Hellenistic genres, the urban mime, the technopaegnion and the epigram. A.3.a. Proverbs and riddles Proverbial expressions often codify an isolated episode of the Trojan myth83. In Theocritus’ Idyll 15, the urban setting and the description of the phauloi encounters, against all expectations, the rhetoric of elevated 82. Hellenistic poets use a wide range o f symbols, signs and metaphors to suggest their innovative poetics; Callimachus is here the most obvious example: Schwinge (1986: 2-4) speaks o f the ‘theory-practice character o f the Alexandrian poetry’ and Asper (1997) of Callimachus’ ‘poetological metaphors’. 83. Cf. the following ‘Trojan’ proverbs: Ά γ α μ έμ ν ο ν ο ς θυσία, Π ατρόκλειος πρόφασις, Α Ιάντειος γέλω ς, ά νχ’ εύ ερ γεσ ίη ς Ά γ α μ έμ νο να δήσ αν ’Α χ α ιο ί, β έβ λ η κ ’ Ά χ ιλ λ ε ύ ς δύο κύβω και τέτταρα, Δ ιομ ή δ ειος άνάγκη; also with a metaliterary undertone, ά π όλογος ’Α λ κ ινόου and Ί λ ιά ς κακών.

ΓΡΑΥΣ ές Τ ροίαν πειρώ μενοι ή νθ ο ν ’Α χα ιοί, κάλλισται παίδων· πείρςι θην πάντα τελείται. ΓΟΡΓΩ χρησμώ ς ά πρεσβΰτις ά π φ χετο θεσπίξασα. Π ΡΑ ΞΙΝ Ο Α πάντα γυναίκες ΐσαντι, καί ώς Ζεύς ά γά γεθ ’ Ή ρ α ν . GORGO Is it easy to get there? OLD WOMAN The Achaeans got into Troy by trying, pretty ladies. It’s the effort that gets results. GORGO The oracle has spoken. And off she goes. PRAXINOA Women know everything! Even how Zeus coupled with Hera.

The elderly woman, who, in an elevated manner, is emphatically styled μήτερ85, comments on the crushing press of people in the Ptolemaic city on a feast day with a saying about the fall of Troy. The philological comment, coming from the lips of an uneducated old woman, acquires the dimensions of an oracle (63)86. The dialogue continues in similar vein when the story of the coupling of Zeus and Hera is recast from the sphere of epic poetry into that of oral gossip87. By exchanging these stereotypes, Theocritus recalls the epic tradition in the midst of a comic urban scene with anti-heroic protagonists. This is a typical instance of 84. This might be viewed as an exception to the general practice o f Theocritus which consists in using everyday, rustic proverbs to stress the simplicity which is typical o f his bucolic characters, see Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 160-161). 85. As an expression o f respect in Aesch. Pers. 215, 832; cf. Gow (1952: 2.282). 86. Griffiths (1979: 122) observes that Theocritus in using θεσ π ίξα σ α parodies the elevated tone o f the old woman’s response. Cf. in verse 92 the juxtaposition o f the two women with Bellerophon on the basis o f their common descent from Corinth: according to Griffiths (1979: 122), the scene echoes the encounter between Glaucus and Diomedes from book 6 of the Iliad that culminates in the story o f Bellerophon. 87. The reference to the union between Zeus and Hera is not coincidental since the relevant Homeric passage (II. 14.295-296) was much-discussed in Alexandrian literary circles. It belongs to the ‘nefanda’, see Call. Aet. ff. 75.4 Pf. Ή ρ η ν γάρ κοτέ φ ασι- and Sotades fr. 16 CA. Cf. Pfeiffer’s comments (1949: on ff. 75.4).

52

53

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

reframing the mythical past within a new genre, the urban idyll, which emphasizes its orientation towards the present. Within this context, the proverbial discourse with the Homeric and epic connotations marks the ideological distance between the Greek past and the Alexandrian pres­ ent88. Proverbs drawn from the Trojan myth are also encountered in other Hellenistic poems, where the genre favours a flourishing ‘quasi-realistic’ discourse culminating in gnomic expressions. A typical example is pro­ vided by the iambic poems of Herodas, who, like his contemporary The­ ocritus, recognizes as their common model the Sicilian comedy of Epicharmus and the mimes of Sophron. In Herodas’ mimes ordinary people, basically lower-class females, evoke, every now and then, wellknown mythological stories in order to embroider their realistic dis­ course with learned material89. In the first mime {Procyclis or The Bawd), an old go-between, Gylle, describes the voluptuous life of Egypt and in particular the plethora of erotic opportunities with a reference to the judgment of Paris (32-35): γυναίκες...την δ ’ δψιν οιαι προς Πάριν κοθ’ ώρμησαν/ θεαί κρ]ιθήναι καλλονήν ‘women...equal in beauty to the goddesses who once went to Paris and asked him to choose the most beautiful among them’. The judgment of Paris is a subject which, in Hellenistic literature, and especially in the epigram, was trans­ formed from an epic episode into an erotic topos90. In Herodas’ mime 4, two common women, who have gone to worship at the temple of Asclepius, introduce into their speech a learned epic reference. In verses 7-9, famous doctors are mentioned: χοΐ Λεωμέδοντος οίκίην τε καί τείχη/ πέρσαντες, Ιητήρες άγριων νούσων,/ Ποδαλείριός τε καί Μαχάων ‘those who sacked the house and walls of Laomedon, the doc­ tors of malignant diseases, Podaleirius and Machaon’. According to the Iliad, Machaon and Podaleirius were sons of Asclepius (II. 2.732) and served the Achaean troops well at critical moments (II. 4.193; 11.514515, 833). Even in mime 8 (Enypnion), a poem of literary polemic, a

Homeric reference is imported into the description of a wineskin (37): ναύταις Όδυσσέως όλοόν Αίολου δώρον ‘Aeolus’ fatal gift to the companions of Odysseus’. In the passage in question, the dancing com­ petition (ascoliasm) in honour of Dionysus is ‘Homericized’ through the mention of the connotations of the bag (ascos) in the Odyssey. Through this proverbial use, the Trojan myth loses its heroic elevation and humorously colours the everyday speech of the low and everyday char­ acters of Hellenistic poetry. However, the use of Homeric maxims does not merely reveal the gap between the ‘elevated’ and the ‘low’; it also demonstrates, in the most symbolic manner, the extent to which the Homeric muthos had been stripped of any ideological and social func­ tion at Hellenistic times91.

88. Burton (1995: 15-19) holds the view that by evoking the mythical past in the lowly context o f the urban mimes Theocritus rather bridges the gap between the old Greek world and the new Hellenistic: thus, the whole scene should be interpreted as a reminder o f Greek identity to the immigrants o f cosmopolitan Alexandria. 89. Heldmann (2000: 112-120) points out that certain heroic stories (such as the myths of Heracles) were part o f popular culture and were regularly discussed between women during leisure time. The idea that the boundaries between myth and fairytale were often blurred in everyday speech may have inspired those scenes between folk women in Herodas and Theocritus. 90. In the erotic and epideictic epigrams o f the Anthology, esp. with reference to Aphrodite (AP . 5.36, 222, cf. 6.48; 9.576, 633; 16.168-170). Cf. also the epigram by Alexander Aetolus (AP. 16.172=fr. 9 Magnelli).

In another poetic genre, the technopaegnion, the Trojan myth, under the influence of rhetoric, became a literary topos. The pattem poems or technopaegnia were characterized by the fact that their visual form directly determined their content and style; as typical products of the bookish culture of the Alexandrians, they were distinguished for their enigmatic style92. The conundrums (γρίφοι) of the technopaegnia can be deciphered only by reference to well-known mythological personages and episodes. In this sense, the formalized Trojan myth found fertile soil in such poems. The pseudo-Theocritean technopaegnion Syrinx centres on Pan and other archetypal figures of bucolic poetry. What is of inter­ est here is the periphrasis οόδενός εόνάτειρα Μακροπτολέμοιο δε μάτηρ ‘the partner of Nobody’s bed and mother of War-Abiding’ (1). The phrase οόδενός εόνάτειρα echoes the alternative name for Odysseus, Outis, while the attributive Μακροπτόλεμος is a variation of the compound noun Telemachus93. In verse 12 Theocritus himself is pre­ sented as Paris Simichidas. The situation does not merely recall the idea that Paris is an archetype herdsman, but in addition gives a playful ety­ mology of the name Theocritus itself (Sch. Syrinx v. 12 Θεόκριτος δε 91. In Cercidas’ ff. 5.32 CA w e find yet another Trojan proverb, Τ υ νδ α ρ έοιο γαμ­ βρός, on which see Williams (1994). 92. DeForest (1994: 20-21). The stylistic affinities o f the pattern poems with Lycophron’s Alexandra are highly visible; however, we lack conclusive evidence regard­ ing their relative dating, see Holzinger (1895: 48-50). Gow (1952: 2.553) distinguishes between the pattem poems composed in γρίφ οι (Syrinx, Dosiadas’ Altar) and those that employ just recondite words and not riddles (such as the poems by Simias). On the pat­ tern poems, see Guichard (2007). 93. However, κλωποπάχωρ in verse 15 obliquely suggests the second version of Pan’s parentage from Penelope and Hermes or the suitors (Sch. in v. 15 ή Π η νελόπ η τόν Π άνα έ γ έ ν ν η σ ε κατά μέν χινας άπό Έ ρμου, κατά δέ ά λλους έκ χών μνησχήρων), see Gow (1952: 2.557).

54

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Πάριν έαυτόν εϊπεν έπειδή ό Πάρις τάς θεάς κρίνων υπό τινων Θεόκριτος ώνομάσθη ‘Theocritus calls himself Paris, because Paris, as a judge of the goddesses, was named by some Theocritus’). In Dosiadas’ Altar, a technopaegnion which is closely related to the Syrinx94, the name game with the characters of the Trojan myth becomes even more clear. At the centre of the poem is the Argonautic myth (the actual occasion being an altar set up by Jason) but every now and again there are digressions towards well-known episodes and the cast of the Trojan myth. Contrasted to the figure of Jason is Achilles, whose main adventures are codified in a roundabout conundrum (Altar 3-4): σποδεύνας Ινις Έ μπούσας, μόρος Τ εύκροιο βούτα καί κυνός τεκνώματος Empusa’s cinder-bedded bairn, that killed the Teucrian herdsman and the issue of the bitch

With his own coinage σποδεύνας, Dosiadas describes the childhood of Achilles and, in particular, his baptism of fire by Thetis. His Trojan career also incorporates the death of the herdsman Paris and of Hector, the son of Hecabe (referred to here as ‘the bitch’). Similar lexical riddles are also used for Philoctetes, Odysseus (the most impressive being δίζωος, which is a reference to his descent into Hades and his return to life), Diomedes and Troy itself called τρίπορθος95. Thus, in the techno­ paegnia, the total familiarity of the Trojan myth is actually what sparks its use as an affected codification of itself in linguistic puzzles. This cod­ ification is an ironic comment on the formulaic strategies of naming (for example, through stereotyped patronymics) encountered in the epic. From this point of view, the familiar heroes of the Trojan myth are the most eligible for this type of wordplay. 94. The thematic and stylistic similarities o f the two technopaegnia, as well as the main speculations about the priority o f the one or the other poem, are summarized by Gow (1952: 2.553). 95. Cf. the similar function o f enigmatic names in Lycophron’s Alexandra: the mere fact that the Trojan heroes are widely recognizable enables the poet to codify them into obscure riddles. There are three main modes o f naming mythical characters in Alexandra: the animal metaphors (261 aletc^=A chil!es, 1107 Xeaiva=Clytemnestra, 102 X0Koq=Paris, 269 ταϋρος=ΗβαοΓ etc.), the reference to family ties (Teucer=467 Τραμβήλου κάσις, Achilles=860-861 tö v είνά π η χυ ν ΑΙακοΰ τρίτον/ καί Δω ρίδος, and Orestes= 1374-1375 is the son o f τοΰ πεφ α σμ ένου κ έλω ρ/ έ ν ά μφιβλήστροις) and the identification by one o f their characteristic traits (Helen=143 πεντά λεκτρ ος, Telamon=469 πυργοσκάφ ος, Neoptolemus=183 ούλαμώ νυμος, Achilles=276 νεκ ρ οπ έρ νας, A jax=U 43 άθεσμόλεκ τρος). On the categorization and the examples cited, see Ciani (1973: 134-142). On a brilliant analysis o f naming based on bestiary-metaphors, see Cusset (2001).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

55

A.3.b. Homericizing epigrams In another Hellenistic genre, the epigram, the treatment of the Trojan myth reflects how actively the learned poets and/or scholars of Alexan­ dria were engaged with Homeric poetry. Under the influence of rhetoric and philology the Homeric epics and their protagonists became popular subjects for the epigram96. A series of funerary epigrams dedicated to the heroes of Troy (AP. 7.136-152),97 intended as epitaphs for the tombs of Achilles, Patroclus, Nestor, Ajax, Hector, Priam and Protesilaus98, form the first category of these ‘Homericizing’ epigrams. For example, in the funerary epigrams about Hector (AP. 7.137-140), apart from their patriotic tone with their insistent repetition of the word Ε λλάς and a rhetoric which clearly echoes the inscriptions of Simonides on the fallen in the Greek-Persian wars99, in short, apart from the indirect identifica­ tion of the Trojan myth with the crowning moment of Greek history,100 the Homeric contribution to the immortalization of the Trojan hero is stressed. The most popular motif in the funerary epigrams dedicated to Telamonian Ajax (AP. 7.145-152) refers to the Homeric depiction of the hero, but also to the commonplaces which accompany him in Sophocles’ tragedy: the victory of treachery and deceit over military virtue, the betrayal of friendship and, of course, his suicide. A better known exam­ ple can be found in an epigram by Asclepiades (AP. 7.145): 'Ά δ ’ έγώ ά τλάμων Ά ρ ε τ ά παρά τφδε κάθημαι Α ΐαντος τύμβφ κειρ ομ ένα πλοκάμους.

96. Harder (2007: 410-411) distinguishes several categories o f Hellenistic epigrams which are thematically related to ancient epic: epigrams on the tombs o f heroes; ecphrastic epigrams on the representation o f mythical heroes in visual art; epigrams about the destruction of a mythical (or historical) town; short narratives about mythical heroes and subjects; short speeches by mythical heroes or heroines; and scenes inspired by epic pat­ terns. 97. Noteworthy is also the collection of funerary epigrams on Homeric heroes, known as the pseudo-Aristotelian Peplos (AP. Appendix 2.54-119). These epigrams focus on major and lesser-known heroes o f the Trojan war and were composed either between 250150 BC or during the imperial period. 98. These epigrams focus rather on the ‘sympathetic’ heroes of both the Trojan and the Greek side, see Harder (2007: 412). 99. The name Ε λ λ ά ς and the ethnonyms ’Α χ α ιο ί, Δ α ναοί, Π ελα σ γο ί in Homer can be found in most o f the epigrams o f this series (in particular in tin. 137, 139, 142, 145, 146, 147). The use o f first person plural (136.2 έχω ννύμεθα, 139.4 ά γαλλόμεθα), the refined two-verse epitaphs (136, 143, 144, 150, 151), the use o f personification, the dra­ matic cataloguing o f proper names denoting heroes and sites etc. strongly suggest the Simonidean rhetoric. The model for the fusion of Greek history and Homeric muthos is probably Simonides fr. 11 W2., on which see Boedeker-Sider (2000). 100. In AP. 7.139 Hector is directly compared to Alexander (verses 1 and 3) Έ κ τορ ι μέν Τ ροία σ υ γ κ ά τθ α νεν...Π έλ λ α δ ’ Ά λ εξ ά ν δ ρ ψ συναπώ λετο.

56

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC θυμόν α χεί μεγάλφ βεβ ολη μ ένα , εΐ παρ’ Ά χ α ιο ΐς ά δολόφρω ν Ά π α τα κ ρ έσ σ ο ν έμεΰ δύναται. Here I am, miserable Virtue, sitting at Ajax’ tomb, with my locks shorn. Pierced with great sorrow that among the Greeks vile Fraud has more power than I.

Variations on the same Trojan theme were also written by Antipater Sidonius (AP. 7.146) and Archias (AP. 7.147).101 Two anonymous epi­ grams (AP. 7.151 and 152) on the dramatic death of Ajax exploit the Iliadic passage where Ajax and Hector exchange belt and sword (II. 7.287-305) and the tragic treatment of the same episode in Sophocles (when these gifts become the symbols o f their ignoble deaths, Aj. 10261035).102 Thus, AP. 7.151, Έ κτω ρ Α ΐαντι ξίφ ος ώ πασεν, Έ κ τορ ι δ ’ Αίας ζω στήρ’· άμφοτέρων ή χάρις είς θάνατος. Hector gave his sword to Ajax, Ajax to Hector his belt; to both a gift unto death.

is an epigram which conflates an epic and a tragic instance of the Trojan myth103. In two epigrams by Antiphilus (AP. 7.141) and by Philippus from Thessalonica (AP. 7.385) there is a description of the death of Protesi­ laus, the early victim of the Trojan war. The story of Protesilaus is hinted at in the Iliad (2.698-702), but was treated as an individual episode in the Cypria (Proclus 36 K. καί θνήσκει Πρωτεσίλαος ύφ’ Έκτορος) and in Euripides’ Protesilaus (ff. 647-657 Kannicht). In those late epigrams of the 1st century AD, the motif of the sympathetic participation of nature, the pathetic fallacy device, in the death of a hero is introduced into the episode. The Nymphs and the elms which hung over his grave were, indeed, present at the sad and untimely death of Protesilaus. The trees shared in his suffering by rustling angrily before the walls of Troy (AP. 7.141.5-6) δένδρεα δυσμήνιτα καί, ήν ποτέ τείχος ϊδωσι/ Τρώιον, αόαλέαν φυλλοχοεΰντι κόμην ‘the frees are wrathful, and if they ever see the walls of Troy, they will shed their withered leaves’ (cf. AP. 7.385.7-8); the ire on Protesilaus’ death clearly echoes the epic motif of the wrath of Achilles (AP. 7.141.5 δυσμήνιτα, 101. Harder (2007: 413-415) emphasizes the generation of epic and tragic atmosphere in the epigrams for Ajax. 102. On Ajax in Homer and Sophocles, see Gamer (1990: 49-64). 103. Also, other Homeric scenes are echoed in the same group o f epigrams, such as Thetis’ lament for Achilles (AP. 7.142.3-4, cf. II. 18.35-69) or the friendship between Achilles and Patroclus (AP. 7.143).

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

57

7 χόλος, AP. 7.385.2 θυμόν, 4 χόλον). Suffice it to recall the similar involvement of nature in the death of other ‘modem’ heroes, such as Thyrsis in Theocritus (Id. 1.132-136) and Adonis in Bion (Epitaph for Adonis 18-19, 31-36). One of the marginal characters of the Trojan myth, Ganymede, is introduced, with clearly erotic intent, into the epigrams of the Anthology and into Hellenistic iconography. Ganymede is referred to as a model of beauty and as the wine-bearer of the gods as early as the Iliad (5.265266; 20.232-235, cf. Little Iliad fr. 29.4 B., Ibyc. fr. 289 PMG, Pi. O. 1.44-45). His epic identity is degraded when he is centralized by Theog­ nis as featuring primarily in paidikos eros (1345-1348 W.) and this con­ tinues down to the satiric Cyclops by Euripides (582-586)104. In the pederastic epigrams, Ganymede is already a mythological exemplar. In Callimachus Ep. 52 Pf., Dioscorides AP. 12.37, Meleager AP. 12.65, 68, 133 and Straton AP. 12.220-221, the fossilized story of Ganymede invests the erotic reality of the hie et nunc of the narrator. Elsewhere, Callimachus humorously exploits the formalized Trojan myth. In fragment 491 Pf., which probably belonged to a funerary epi­ gram, he presents us with the dictum μεΐον έδάκρυσεν Τρωίλος ή Πρίαμος. From later authors, Cicero and Pseudo-Plutarch, who quote the passage, and also from Latin poets who mention Troilus (Virgil and Horace), it would appear that the context has to do with the motif of the Trojan prince’s untimely death105. Apart from the obvious relationship between Troilus and Priam (Troilus being Priam’s youngest son) and their common bond with Achilles (both Troilus and the most glorious of Priam’s sons, Hector, are slain by the hand of the chief of the Myrmi­ dons), Troilus and Priam are referred to here as models of grief. Troilus is, of course, known in poetry as one of the victims of Achilles, but at an early stage of the tradition, and quite apart from being the son of Priam, he begins to make his presence felt as the model of the handsome cheva­ lier106. What is interesting is that Troilus is firmly represented as 104. Euripides played a key role in the development o f Ganymede to a pederastic archetype; see Ambrose (1995-1996). 105. Testimonies in Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 491). See esp. Hör. II.9.15-17 nec impubem parentesi Troilon aut Phrygiae sorores/ flevere semper. On Troilus in the Iliad, see Wathelet (1989: 117-118). 106. Both Phrynichus (fr. 13 Snell (de Troilo] λάμπει δ' έπΐ πορφ υρέαις παρήσι φώς δρω τος’ ‘his red cheeks beamed with the light o f love’) and Ibycus (fr. 282.41-45 PMG Τ ρω ίλον/ ώ σ εΐ χ ρ υ σ ό ν όρ ειχά λ κ ω / τρις α πεφ θο[ν] ήδη/ Τ ρώ ες Δ [α]ναοϊ τ ’ έρ ό [ε]σ σ α ν/ μορφ άν μ ά λ ’ έίσ κ ο ν δ μ οιον ‘the Trojans and the Greeks likened Troilus to gold three times refined in copper’) depicted Troilus as a symbol o f beauty. Sophocles wrote a tragedy with the title Troilus, where the young prince was described as άνδρόπαις (fr. 619 Radt).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

Achilles’ young lover mainly in Alexandrian poetry (for example in Lyc. 307-313)107. Two passages shed further light on the brilliant way in which Callimachus de-Homerizes the two Trojan heroes. The first comes from the beginning of book 16 of the Iliad and describes the scene where Patroclus weeps in Achilles’ arms over the horrors of war and Achilles asks him (//. 16.7-8): τίπτε δεδάκρυσαι Πατρόκλεες, ήΰτε κούρη/ νηπίη; ‘why are you crying, Patroclus, like a little girl?’ The act of weeping is unbecoming to a war hero and, by contrast, char­ acteristic of women: is perhaps Callimachus, through the reference to threnos, ironically alluding to Troilus’ effeminization?108 The second passage is much later and belongs to the pederastic epigrams of Straton (AP. 12.191):

event, the killing of baby Astyanax, as recorded in the cyclic epic The Sack o f Troy and in Euripidean tragedy. And although the subtle hint underlying the likening of the failed lover to the tragic prince of Troy eludes us, the bizarre effect of this comparison owes much to the deheroization of the Trojan myth in Hellenistic poetry110. In an epigram by Dioscorides even the fall of Ilion becomes a topos of erotic poetry (AP. 5.138):

Ούκ έχθές παΐς ήσθα; καν ούδ’ δναρ ούτος ό πώγων ήλυθε. πώς άνέβη τούτο τό δαιμόνιον καί τρνχί πάντ’ έκάλυψε τά πριν καλά; φεΰ τί τό θαύμα; έχθές Τρωίλος ών πώς έγένου Πρίαμος; Weren’t you a child yesterday? Not even in your dreams had you a beard like this. How did this demon arise and cover with hair what once was fair? Where is the wonder there? Troilus yesterday, how are you Priam today? Here, for the first time in literature, the names of Troilus and Priam are mentioned in an example of erotic parody. And it may well be that through his own epigram, Callimachus contributed to the humorous exemplification of this significant Homeric duo109. Moreover, this is not the only instance where Straton recontextualizes the Trojan myth into an erotic epigram. In AP. 12.11 a sexually frustrated lover, after having failed to meet the expectations of a certain Philostratus, demands that he be thrown from the city walls as a second Astyanax (2-3): άλλ’ έμέ μηκέτ’ εχοιτε, φίλοι, φίλον, άλλ’ άπό πύργου/ £>ίψατ\ έπεί λίην Άστυάναξ γέγονα ‘but, friends, do not consider me a friend anymore; instead, throw me from the city walls, since I really have become an Astyanax’. Straton is obviously making a joke out of a tragic, post-war 107. However, the relationship between Achilles and Troilus was previously described in erotic terms in 6th c. BC iconography, see Scaife (1995: 190). 108. Threnos is, as a rule, an activity of women; it is noteworthy that in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons lamentation is performed by the male hero par excellence, namely Achilles. According to Michelakis (2002: 45), Achilles, in performing on the Athenian stage the practice o f lamentation, was identified sexually, politically or ethnically with the ‘other­ ness’. 109. In Priam’s concluding monologue (//. 24.255-257): & μοι έγώ πανάποτμος, έπ εί τέκ ον υίας άρίστους/ Τ ροίη έ ν εύ ρείη , τών δ ’ οϋ τινα φημι λελεϊφ θ α ι,/ Μ ήστορα τ ’ ά ντίθ εον καί Τ ρω ΐλον Ιππιοχάρμην.

59

"Ιππον Άθήνιον ήσεν έμοί κακόν· έν πυρί πάσα ’Ίλιος ήν, κάγώ κείνη άμ’ έφλεγόμαν, ίούδείσας Δαναών δεκέτη πόνον· έν δ’ ένί φέγγει τώ τότε καί Τρώες κάγώ άπωλόμεθα. Little Athena sang of the Wooden Horse. Alas, the whole of Ilion was in flames and I did bum for her. Little I cared for the ten-year toils of the Greeks. In just one day the Trojans and I both were lost. The fire of the siege is converted by poetic license into the flame of love, the decade-long war of the Greeks into a painful servitium amoris·, moreover, the epic poet himself is replaced by a lute-player -the object of the erotic passion- and her love-struck listener suffers along with the undeservedly-suffering Trojans. In Dioscorides’ epigram we can see the adaptation of the Trojan myth with its tragic connotations to the context of an erotic epigram. The impression is no less unexpected than that caused by the transformation of the monstrous Cyclops into a lover by Theocritus and Callimachus111. As we move from the Hellenistic age to late antiquity, the Trojan myth is more often exploited as material for rhetorical exercising. Epideictic epigrams are dedicated to the cities that are signals of the Trojan myth: Mycenae and Argos (AP. 9.28, 62, 101-104, 688) and, of course, Troy (AP. 7.141, 385, 387 and 9.62, 152-155). These are cities seen through the prism of their Homeric treatment (AP. 9.28.6 άρκοϋμαι μάρτυρι Μαιονίδη ‘the testimony of the Maeonian bard is enough for me’, 9.62.3-4 [Ilion speaks] έν Όμήρορ/ κείμαι χαλκείων έ'ρκος έχουσα πυλών ‘you will find me in Homer, the city which is protected by bronze gates’, 9.104.1 "Αργος, 'Ομηρικέ μΰθε καί Ελλάδος Ιερόν 110. On the witty and humorous effect o f the epigram and its imitations, see Magnelli (1998: 202-204). 111. Antipater o f Thessalonica masterly merges two images o f ‘fire’, namely the burning o f a sacked city with the flames o f desire, against the background o f Trojan myth in AP. 9.77. In late antiquity other Trojan episodes are incorporated into erotic epigrams, the most popular among them being the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus: see e.g. Straton (AP. 12.217.5-6 ώ μακαριστός έκ εΐνο ς, δτις ποτέ, καινός Ά χ ιλ λ ε ύ ς / τοίω έ ν ί κ λ ισ ίη τερ π όμ ενος Π ατρόκλφ).

61

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH ON THE FRINGE OF THE HOMERIC EPICS

ουδας ‘thou, Argos, Homer’s legend and the holy land of Greece’). Those ‘heroic capitals’ are compared on the basis of their glorious epic and tragic past and their historic a present. Mycenae, now abandoned and in ruins (AP. 9.28.1 εΐ και έρημαίη κέχυμαι κόνις ένθα Μυκήνη ‘even if I lie here in ashes, the deserted Mycenae’), and with the ancient curse of Troy still a burden (AP. 9.102.4 τείσασα Πριάμου δαίμοσιν όψέ δίκας ‘having paid after a long time for the ill fortune of Priam’), had as its reference point the splendid wealth of the Atreids {AP. 9.103 ή πολύχρυσος έγώ τό πάλαι πόλις ‘I am the rich in gold city of old’). Troy, on the other hand, is described through the employment of Home­ ric diction (cf., for example, the adjective ευπυργος AP. 9.62.2 or the adjective δουρατέαν AP. 9.152.4), sometimes in conjunction with its sufferings {AP. 9.62, 152-153) and sometimes as revived through the glory of Rome {AP. 9.155.7 είμί πάλιν βασίλεια, σύ δ’, ω τέκος, άτρομε 'Ρώμη... Ί am a queen again. And you, my child, dauntless Rome...’).112 Some epigrams are inspired by plots of the Trojan cycle outside the Iliad, in particular the judgment of Paris (AP. 9.154), the death of Protesilaus {AP. 7.141 and 385), the judgment of Achilles’ armour (AP. 9.115-116), the fall of Ilion and the part played therein by the Wooden Horse (AP. 9.152 and 156).113 Even the Homeric epics and their author become subjects for epi­ gram; this subject matter takes the form either of metaliterary comments by grammarians, mainly of late antiquity, or of funerary epigrams for Homer. The Iliad and the Odyssey, the heroes and the poet himself, are recontextualized from the epic to the short form of the epigram. A gram­ marian by the name of Stephanus produced a paraphrase of the 24 books of the Iliad with an one-verse summary of the content of each book (AP. 9.385). The tradition was already going strong in the years of Calli­ machus, when Sotades took up his own version of the Iliad, a metrical experiment on Iliadic verses (fr. 4a-b-c, cf. 18 and 24 CA). Among grammarians playing with the Homeric epics, an interesting case is that of Palladas, who flourished late, in 400 AD114. Taking as his starting point the Homeric text, Palladas wrote epigrams in his own personal style: thus, the clashes between Zeus and Hera in the Iliad are used as models for the problems of conjugal relations (AP. 9.165-166) and the wrath of Achilles is charmingly transformed into the wrath of a poor grammarian studying Homer (AP. 9.168-169). The very proem of the

Iliad is paraphrased into an anathema of the grammarian in AP. 9.173. It is legitimate to talk of a pastiche of Homeric verses, of the patching together of versions of recognizable Homeric verses into artificial verse compounds.115 Besides, Athenaeus gives evidence of a game between poets at the symposia, the rule of which was to recall the names of Greek and Trojan heroes in alphabetical order (Ath. 10.86).116 It seems that the funerary epigrams for Homer were of a different nature, the purpose no longer being an academic game but the memorialization of Homer as the poet who stands at the beginning of Greek literature and Greek his­ tory117. In these epigrams, the established Trojan myth becomes the background onto which Homer is projected and the epic heroes stand for the literary ‘heroization’ of the poet himself118.

60

112. On the political dimension o f the epigrammatists’ references to Mycenae and Troy, see Harder (2007: 420-421). 113. See Skiadas (1965: 148-151) and Hartigan (1979: 23-30 and 67-75). 114. On Palladas’ epigrams related to Homer, see Skiadas (1965: 153-157).

As shown above, new genres are introduced in Hellenistic poetry, in which the whole purpose of the plot is called into question; genres in which there is neither narration nor muthos in the classic concept of the terms. In these genres, such as the urban mimes of Theocritus and Herodas, the focus is transferred from the cliched epic muthos to the context of everyday life, thus creating a dynamic antithesis between the elevated subject matter and the humble discourse of the leading figures. In the technopaegnion and the epigram we see another side of the formalization of the Trojan myth. On the one hand, rigid lexical conundrums which sig­ nify the end of direct communication with the Trojan myth -a develop­ ment which came to a head with Lycophron’s Alexandra·, and, on the other, the Trojan heroes becoming the subjects of funerary and erotic epi­ grams and the cities of the Trojan myth being employed as vehicles for rhetoric. Thus, with the Homeric maxims, the riddles of the technopaeg­ nia, and the loci communes of the epigram, the Trojan myth, especially as known from the Homeric epics, gradually became fossilized119. 115. Skiadas (1965: 158-159). As Lamberton (1997: 50) points out “citation and pas­ tiche o f Homer are increasingly common from the Hellenistic period on, and in the Greek prose o f the Roman empire, Homeric echoes are heard line after line.” 116. The 4th c. BC poet Matro o f Pitane parodied Homer in his verses, see OlsonSens (1999). 117. This is the basic idea o f Skiadas’ book (1965) on Homer in Hellenistic epigram. On the sepulchral epigrams dedicated to Homer as the national poet o f Greece, see the recent survey by Bolmarcich (2002). 118. Bolmarcich (2002: 68-78) analyzes a 3rd c. BC epigram by Alcaeus o f Messene (AP. 7.1) and two o f the 2nd c. BC by Antipater o f Sidon (AP. 7.2 and 6) from this per­ spective. 119. From another point o f view Harder (2007: 411) speaks o f ‘reduction’ of the epic format: the epigram focuses on the essential points o f the story, since the reader is expected to know the highlights o f the epic tradition and supplement the missing information.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

B. THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

B.l. Reassessing the Cypria As we have seen, the Hellenistic poets only rarely dealt with the Home­ ric stories about Troy; recontextualization or even fossilization of this myth are the keys to the understanding of their distancing from the Homeric muthos. The other versions of the Trojan myth, however, par­ ticularly those deriving from the Epic Cycle, must have given rise to philological discussions and literary reassessments in Hellenistic times. But since the Epic Cycle is known to us almost exclusively from indirect evidence and summaries, the range of cyclic episodes recast by the Hel­ lenistic poets as well as the aesthetic quality of this treatment, is more hypothetical than proved; nor, of course, is it possible to evaluate the effect produced by another route, i.e. the dramatic and lyric poets who rewrote the main episodes of the cyclic epics about Troy, upon the Hel­ lenistic reconstructing of the Trojan myth. However, it seems an attractive hypothesis that the Hellenistic poets turned their attention to pre-Homeric episodes, especially those originat­ ing from the Cypria1. This preference may be due to the plethora of love affairs, to the novelistic details (mostly supernatural events, transcenden­ tal experiences and prophecies) and to the presentation of Achilles as an erotic hero in this particular epic2. Beyond the narrative monotony which this epic probably displayed (and perhaps despite the widespread rejec­ tion of the ‘cyclic’ among the Callimachean avant-garde)3, it seems highly probable that the Hellenistic poets valued certain elements of archaic aesthetics and ideology in the Cypria, as was the case with older poets who engaged in an intertextual dialogue with this cyclic epic, mostly Hesiod, Pindar, the lyric and tragic poets4. One of the primary 1. Scaife (1995: 166-168) outlines the basic structure and contents o f the Cypria based on Proclus and various sources, namely ancient scholia, Athenaeus, Pausanias, Pin­ dar, Attic tragedy and Apollodorus. 2. On the basic features o f the Cypria, see Jouan (1966: 27-30). 3. It should be noted though that the supposed inferiority o f the Cypria derives from the Aristotelian prejudice in favour o f narrative unity which influenced criticism from the 5th century onwards (Arist. Po. 1459a). 4. On the archaic aesthetic of the Cypria, a fact that explains the broad reception of the poem by archaic poetry and art, see Scaife (1995: 175-191). Jouan (1966: 404-405) explains the profound influence which the Cypria exerted upon 5th century tragedy, and especially Euripides, on the basis o f its novel-like plot.

63

aims of this book is to show that the stories included in the Cypria in particular were tested in new ideological moulds by the Hellenistic poets. To that end, I will first attempt to sketch out how these poets introduced episodes from the Cypria into mythological exempla or sec­ ondary narratives; the reception of the Cypria in major Hellenistic nar­ ratives, such as Apollonius’ Argonautica and Lycophron’s Alexandra, will be addressed in the subsequent chapters. One notable example of the Hellenistic reception of the Cypria is to be found in Callimachus’ The Bath o f Pallas. The religious background of the hymn concerns a duo firmly established in the Iliad, namely Athena and Diomedes, who meet on the Trojan battlefield. This Home­ ric duo enter the Callimachean hymn through the liturgical objects which symbolize them -the statue of Athena, the Palladion, brought back from Troy by Diomedes himself, and the shield of the Aetolian hero. In the Callimachean hymn, the ritual procession of the sacred relics might be read as an incorporation of a grand moment of heroic epic into a Hellenistic aetion5. From the first verses of the hymn Callimachus adopts epic diction and imagery6; moreover, two well-known appear­ ances of Athena in epic poetry are compressed into mythological exem­ pla. The first has to do with the involvement of Athena in the Gigantomachia, centred on the ritual washing of her horses in the mythical Ocean (7-12)7; the reference point here is Homer and especially Hes­ iod8. The second example, the judgment of Paris, is the very beginning of the Trojan war and a distinguished episode of the Cypria (Proclus 23 K.)9. The judgment of the three goddesses is described as follows {Lav. Pall. 18-22): ούδ’ δκα τάν “Ιδςι Φρΰξ έδίκαζεν Spiv, οδτ’ ές όρείχαλκον μεγάλα θεός ούτε Σιμοΰντος έβλεψεν δίναν ές διαφαινομέναν· ούδ’ "Ηρα· Κύπρις δέ διαυγέα χαλκόν έλοΐσα πολλάκν τάν αύτάν δίς μετέθηκε κόμαν. Not even when the Phrygian judged the strife on Ida, did the great goddess gaze into the bronze mirror 5. Bulloch (1985: 14-16) discusses the literary and archaeological evidence on the Palladion and the shield of Diomedes. 6. On verbal and thematic parallels from Homer, see Bulloch (1985: 111-131). 7. Cf. Sch. PQ Od. 7.59 which note the different descriptions o f the appearance o f the Giants in the Odyssey and the neoteroi: more in Severyns (1928: 169-170). 8. Cf. the detailed analysis o f the epic, mainly Hesiodic, connotations o f these verses by Reinsch-Wemer (1976: 94-100). 9. The judgment o f Paris was also mentioned in II. 24.25-30 as the cause o f the Tro­ jan war; the lines were, however, athetized by Aristarchus who observed that Homer was not aware o f this episode (Sch. ex. It. 24.23 τήν τε 8ριν του κά λλους ούκ ο ίδ εν δ ποι-

64

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

nor into the transparent pools of Simois; and nor did Hera. But Cypris took the shining bronze and rearranged the same lock again and again. Epic motifs, evoking the Homeric and Hesiodic sketches of the warrior Athena, are reversed through the rewriting of the cyclic episode into Alexandrian poetics. The cyclic example is ousted by the epigrammatic topos of the vain hetaera10; moreover, Athena’s depiction suggests, through a complex web of intertextual references to Theocritus’ Idyll 18, Helen of Troy11. Thus, the traditional image of a masculine Athena recedes in the face of her feminine identity12. The paradox is obvious and works on many levels: the eulogy of Athena’s beauty is actually aetiologized by the episode where Paris judges her rival, Aphrodite, to be superior in beauty. The broader context of hymn on the ritual wash­ ing of the Palladion and the story of the blinding of Teiresias for watch­ ing Athena naked are typical instances of Alexandrian aestheticism. It is likely that the description of the preparation of Aphrodite in the Cypria was similarly hedonistic, as the passages where the Graces and the Hours dress the goddess clearly demonstrate (fr. 4 and 5 B.). It seems that Callimachus confounds the expectations of his readers when he transfers the characteristics of the traditional Aphrodite from the cyclic epic to the reassessed image of the war-like, masculine Athena13. Callimachus also alludes to two different versions of another cyclic episode, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which, although widespread in ητής), see Severyns (1928: 261-264). On the numerous allusions to this episode in Greek poetry, see Jouan (1966: 95-109). 10. Aphrodite's coquettishness recalls the Cypria (fr. 4-5 B.), but Callimachus also compares the goddess to a common prostitute, in alluding to the epigrammatic topos of the hetaera dedicating her equipment to Aphrodite (Bulloch [1985: 130-131]). Cf. the acute observation by Bulloch (1985: 142) that the passage ironically alludes to the Iliadic scene where Hera prepares herself to seduce Zeus (II. 14.175-177). 11. On a comparative reading of the two poems, see Bulloch (1985: 131-132). More­ over, the mention o f the Dioscuri in vv. 24-30 establishes Callimachus’ allusion to Helen here; see Bulloch (1985: 133). 12. Even the geographical names o f the passage stress the divide between heroic epic and Alexandrian aestheticism. E.g. the crystal clear waters o f the Trojan Σιμοΰντα are contrasted to the Iliadic Σιμόεντος: this river becomes a tomb for the warriors and their weapons in II. 12.22-23 and is identified as the brother o f Scamander in the scene where the latter enters into a duel with Achilles (II. 21.305-310). The name Φρύξ, used metonymically for Paris, has an undertone o f contempt and is frequently a symbol o f bar­ barism, see Bulloch (1985: 128) and Hall (1989: 38-39); cf. the usage o f the same ethnic name for Paris in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aults 576, 662, 672, 682. 13. Unlike Callimachus, Apollonius (3.45-50) retains the cyclic image o f Aphrodite’s vanity. However, Alexander Aetolus (AP. Appendix 172=fr. 9 Magnelli) in an epigram describes a statue of Aphrodite dressed as a warrior, which -ironically enough- was crafted by Athena herself, after having forgiven Paris for his judgment; on the humorous pointe o f this epigram, see the excellent remarks by Magnelli (1999: ad fr. 9).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

65

ancient poetry, is not found in the Homeric epics14. In the Hymn to Artemis, the sacrifice of Iphigenia is presented together with secondary myths concerning the cult of Artemis. The first reference comes at verses 173-174, where the transfer of the wooden image of Artemis from the land of the Taurians to the Attic deme of Halae is recorded as an aetion explaining the numerous local cults of the goddess. In the aretalogical section of the hymn, Callimachus chooses to praise the vengeful­ ness of the goddess, one of whose victims is Agamemnon himself (262263): μηδ’ έλαφηβολίην μηδ’ εύστοχίην έριδαίνειν/ (ουδέ γάρ Ά τρεΐδης όλίγφ έπί κόμπασε μισθφ) ‘nor should any compete against the goddess in shooting of deers or in archery; for not even the son of Atreus could vaunt without paying a high price’. The noun έλαφηβολίη ‘deer-shooting’ refers both to the legendary prowess of Artemis with the bow and to the hubristic slaughter of her sacred deer by Agamemnon15 -and, doubtlessly, to the timely replacement of Iphigenia by a deer a few moments before her sacrifice16. So far, Callimachus has followed the tradition of tragedy; but the focus of the episode is of cyclic provenance (Dian. 228-232)I7: Χησιάς Ίμβρασίη πρωτόθρονε, σον δ’ ’Αγαμέμνων πηδάλιον νηός σφετέρης έγκάτθετο νηώ μείλιον άπλοΐης, 6τε οΐ κατέδησας άήτας, Τευκρών ήνίκα νήες Άχαιίδες αστεα κήδειν επλεον άμφ’ Ελένη 'Ραμνουσίδι θυμωθεΐσαι. Chesias, Imbrasia, high-throned: Agamemnon dedicated his ship’s rudder to you in your temple; a sweet charm against storm or deadly calm. When you bound the winds, the Greek ships sailed to grieve the cities of the Trojans, maddened over Rhamnusian Helen. 14. See Sch. Ariston. II. 9.145 ούκ οϊδε [i.e. Ό μ η ρ ο ς] τήν παρά τοΐς νεω τέροις σφ α γήν ’Ιφ ιγένεια ς. There is, though, an indirect hint at this episode at the point where Agamemnon addresses Calchas in II. 1.106-108. 15. In referring to the deer, Callimachus alludes both to the Cypria (Proclus 29 K. ’Α γαμέμνω ν έπϊ Θήρας βαλώ ν έλ α φ ο ν ύ π ερ β ά λ λ ειν έφ η σ ε καί τήν "Αρτεμιν) and to Sophocles El. 566-569. It is noteworthy, though, that Sch. D? II. 1.108-109b know of an alternative version o f the story, according to which Agamemnon did not kill the sacred deer but the sacred goat o f Artemis. 16. On this miraculous event, see Euripides IA 1543-1612, cf. IT 28-29 and 783-785. 17. The epithet 'Ραμνουσίς alludes to H elen’s origin from Nemesis and Zeus, an episode recounted also in the Cypria (ff. 9 B.), see Severyns (1928: 269-270), Jouan (1966: 145-152) and Bommann (1968: 111). Callimachus shows his preference for the cyclic genealogy, thus avoiding the more common version, according to which Helen was a daughter o f Leda (Sch. QTV Od. 11.298 Ζ ευς Λ ήδας έρ α σ θ είς...κ α ϊ τήν Ε λ έ ν η ν γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι.,.ή δέ Ιστορία παρά τοΐς νεω τέροις, cf. Eur. ΙΑ 49; IT 210).

66

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

The voyage of the Greeks against Troy is described in two phases in the Cypria: the first phase ends with the unsuccessful landing at Mysia and the second with the sacrifice of Iphigenia -though in both cases the departure point for the fleet is Aulis in Boeotia (Proclus 23-24 and 2931 K.). However, it is not known just how the temple of Artemis on Samos, to which the geographical epithets Chesias and lmbrasia point, is connected with the course of the Greeks from Aulis to Troy -it may well be that Callimachus is introducing here a philological detail not mentioned in the Cypriax%. But while the vocabulary of the passage is in general terms a reminiscence of tragedy1819, the phrase σοΐ δ ’ ’Αγαμέμ­ νων... μείλιον clearly echoes book 9 of the Iliad, concerning the gifts offered by Agamemnon to assuage the wrath of Achilles (e.g. II. 9.147 έγώ δ’ έπι μείλια δώσω Τ will give gifts to make atonement’)20. The dedication which Callimachus attributes to Agamemnon is shaped after the Alexandrian votive epigrams: it refers to the topos of the dedication of a steering-wheel to a temple by seamen after the successful comple­ tion of their voyage21. It thus appears that Callimachus substitutes for the sacrifice of the king’s daughter, Iphigenia, as handed down by the Epic Cycle and tragedy, the dedication of a humble votive offering on the part of Agamemnon, a detail echoing the description of daily life in Hellenis­ tic epigram. Several fragments attributed to Euphorion demonstrate that his work also contained numerous allusions to characters and events of the Cypria. For instance, the first abduction of Helen by Theseus as narrated in the Cypria (fr. 13 B.)22 is mentioned in passing by Euphorion in his account of the genealogy of Iphigenia (fr. 90 CA=fr. 94 v.Gr.): ουνεκα δή μιν/ ΐφι βιησαμένφ Ε λ ένη ύπεγείνατο Θησεΐ ‘on account of this Helen bore her fi.e. Iphigenia] after Theseus had raped her by force’23. 18. Bommann (1968: 109) assumes that Callimachus alludes to an unknown episode (an expedition to Samos?) from the Epic Cycle. 19. The noun ά πλοια alludes to the detention o f the Acheans in Aulis, as described in Aeschylus Ag. 147-150 and Eur. IA 88; IT 15. Moreover, the participle θυμωθεΐσαι, probably evoking tragic discourse (Soph. fr. 589.3 Radt, Eur. Ph. 461; Or. 765), appears here as an alternative to the Homeric χολω θείς, see Bommann (1968: 111). 20. Cf. the ambiguous reading o f the Homeric hapax (έπ ι)μ είλ ιος by Hellenistic scholars in Rengakos (1993: 108 and 123). 21. E.g. AP. 6.69-70. 22. The story o f the first abduction o f Helen was not recounted by Homer (Sch. ex It. 3.140a ά γ ν ο ε ΐ τήν Θ ησέω ς ά ρπ α γή ν δ ποιητής). However, ancient commentators saw a reminiscence o f this event in It. 3.144, at the point where Aethra is mentioned as a handmaiden of Helen; the verse was considered as an Athenian interpolation, see Kirk (1985: ad loe.). 23. Stesichorus fr. 192 PMG knew of this alternative genealogy of Iphigenia, cf. Massimilla (1996b: 48-50). According to Pausanias 2.22.7, this genealogy was also found in

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

67

In the Cypria, the episode would no doubt have been the starting point for the description of the siege of Aphidnae by the Dioscuri (Sch. II. 3.242 διά γάρ τήν τότε γενομένην άρπαγήν ’Άφιδνα πόλις ’Αττικής πορθεΐται, καί τιτρώσκεται Κ άστωρ...οί δε Διόσκουροι Θησέως μή τυχόντες λαφυραγωγοΰσι τάς ’Αθήνας ‘due to the abduction that took place then, Aphidnae, a town of Attica, was besieged and Castor was wounded...as for the Dioscuri, when they failed to find Theseus, they plundered Athens’)24, while in the Hellenistic fragment, emphasis is given to the love affair between Helen and Theseus, espe­ cially to the detail of the rape. In another fragment, obviously from a cat­ alogue of place-names with an aetiological undertone, Euphorion men­ tions a rare version of the sacrifice of Iphigenia performed not at Aulis but at Brauron (fr. 91 CA=fr. 95 v.Gr.): άγχίαλον Βραυρώνα, κενήριον Ίφ ιγενείης ‘the seaside town of Brauron, Iphigenia’s ceno­ taph’. Even though in the Cypria, as also in Euripides’ tragedy, the episode is stated to have taken place at Aulis, some part of the postHomeric tradition still knew of the Brauron version25. Of the titles attributed to Euphorion’s epyllia, two appear to have dealt with episodes drawn from the Cypria, namely Philoctetes and Anius. Philoctetes would probably have treated the abandonment of Philoctetes on Lemnos by the Greeks. The incident is recorded in the Cypria from the perspective of the Greeks who were determined to con­ tinue their campaign (Proclus 33 K.): καί εύωχουμένων αύτών Φιλοκτήτης υφ’ υδρου πληγείς διά τήν δυσοσμίαν έν Λήμνφ κατελείφθη ‘while the Greeks were feasting, Philoctetes was bitten by a snake and left behind on Lemnos because of the odour of his sore’. Both surviving fragments (fr. 44 and 45? CA=ff. 48 and 49 v.Gr.) show that Euphorion included in this episode (or rather focused on) the story of Iphimachus, who nursed Philoctetes when he was on Lemnos, and perhaps incorporated the whole story into a narrative about the founding of some town in Italy by the exiled Achaean hero26. The second epyllion, Anius (fr. 2 CA=fr. 4 v.Gr.), recounted the story of the priest Anius, who, with the assistance of his daughters, the Oenotropae, saved the Alexander Aetolus fr. 11 Magnelli καί έπι τφδε [i.e. the story about Helen, Theseus and Iphigenia] Εΰιρορίων Χ α λκ ιδεύ ς και Π λευ ρ ώ νιος ’Α λ έξα νδ ρ ο ς έπη ποιήσα ντες. Cf. Magnelli (1999: on fr. 11). 24. Cf. Aleman fr. 21 PMG. 25. The alternative version o f Iphigenia’s sacrifice, attested in Sch. Ar. Lys. 645 (esp. o l δε τά π ερ ί τήν ’Ιφ ιγ ένεια ν έ ν Βραυρώνι φ ασίν, ούκ έ ν Α ύλίδι), was associated with a mystery cult in honour o f Artemis o f Brauron; for the presumed ‘political’ conflict between Boetia and Attica on the issue, see van Groningen (1977: 162). 26. On the epyllion, see the analysis by Livrea (2002).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

Achaean forces from the plague. Euphorion, Callimachus, Lycophron, and, later, Ovid27, drew Anius, who was not mentioned in the Homeric epics28, from the cyclic tradition of the Cypria (fr. 29 B.)29. Midway between hymn and epyllion, Theocritus refashioned a cyclic episode in the Dioscuri (Id. 22), namely the duel between the Dioscuri and Lynceus and Idas (137-213), as a response to the telling of the same episode in the Cypria (Proclus 14-16 K.)30. But there are two critical points where the Hellenistic poet diverges from his epic model: a) whereas in the Cypria Castor and Pollux are caught cattle rustling (Proclus 2-3 K.), in Theocritus the cause of the fight is the seizure of the daughters of Leucippus (137-138); and b) while, in the epic Castor comes to grief at the hands of Idas and Zeus grants him, alternately with Pollux, a place in the sky (Proclus 15-16 K.), in Theocritus Castor slays Lynceus while Idas is struck by a thunderbolt sent from Zeus (201211)31. As I have already demonstrated, Theocritus’ Idyll 22 essays the whole range of epic writing. The two embedded narratives -the boxing match between Pollux and Amycus and the duel between Castor and Lynceus- echo respective episodes featuring minor heroes who were active before the beginning of the Trojan war proper. The thematic selection presupposes an intertextual dialogue with the Cypria, and, probably, the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes32. The hymnic set­ ting creates the required distance from the epic narrative; and if the first episode is related to epic and tragedy alike, in the second, diction33, cliches and scenes from the Iliad are reproduced meticulously34. Tyn-

daridae and Apharetiadae converse exchanging long verses of direct speech and go on to fight like true Homeric heroes, clearly recalling the duel between Menelaus and Paris from the Iliad35. The scene of the fight, with its exhaustive description of the armour (183-186, 191-195), the reference to the warrior’s family and its future mourning (171-180), and especially the emphasis on the macabre details of the slaughter (196204) are pure Iliad. At the same time, features which appear to have been stressed in the Cypria, such as the supernatural vision of Lynceus (fr. 15 B.) end up as the cliche άκριβής ομμασι Λυγκεύς (94)36. But in contrast to the Homeric heroes, in kidnapping the daughters of Leucip­ pus, the Dioscuri are shown as being in the wrong -just as Paris was when he abducted Helen37. In this way, serious doubt is cast upon their heroic status38. Lynceus, on the other hand, stripped as he is of his tran­ scendental powers, arouses the sympathy of the reader, since he is sketched as the Hellenistic counterbalance to the old heroic values rep­ resented by the Dioscuri39. To the degree that epic writing -whether Homer or the Epic Cycle- is based on the heroic values of the past, it is rejected by Theocritus. The idyll closes with the catalogue of Iliadic heroes, which ends in a renunciation of the Homeric treatment: in fact, Theocritus is advancing a modernistic adaptation of a marginal episode, bringing to the epic stage his own anti-heroes and expressing his con­ cern over the moral basis of heroism in his time40.

68

27. Call. fr. 188 Pf„ Lyc. 570-583, Ov. Met. 13.632-674. 28. Aristarchus, however, associated the story o f the Oenotropae with an expedition to Delos led by Odysseus; in his opinion, Homer alluded to this expedition in Od. 6.162165, see Sch. EPQ Od. 6.164, cf. Severyns (1928: 311). 29. The version followed in the Cypria is also attested in Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 fr. 140) and Simonides (fr. 537 PMG). There was probably a disagreement between the neoteroi as to whether the event took place in Delos after the first gathering of the fleet at Aulis or at the time when the Greeks were suffering from famine at Troy (Severyns [1928: 311-312]). 30. See Sens (1997: 168-217). 31. Theocritus also alludes to Pindar’s Nemean 10: although the cyclic version o f the story dominates the ode (e.g. in regard to the reason o f the disagreement in v. 60 άμφι β ου σ ίν πως χολω θείς and the death of Castor in v. 110), the killing o f Idas by a thun­ derbolt in v. 71 seems to be a Pindaric alternative. It should also be noted that the abduc­ tion o f the Leucippidae was mentioned in the Cypria, but was not the actual cause o f the quarrel, see Severyns (1928: 278-279). 32. E.g. the depiction o f the blasphemous Idas and the supernatural Lynceus in Apol­ lonius echoes the Cypria (Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004: 96-97]). Cf. the same episode in Lyc. 517-568. 33. Theocritus’ duals in vv. 137-140 recall the much-discussed duals o f the book 9 of the Iliad and the duals regarding the two heralds o f Agamemnon, Talthybius and Eurybates, who went to Achilles’ tent to take Briseis in II. 1.326-332.

69

34. Theocritus even adapts the epic catalogue to die narrow confines o f the idyll in vv. 154-158. Gow (1952: 2.401) notes that the Theocritean catalogue of the brides is mod­ elled upon Od. 21.250-252 or II. 9.395-397. 35. For a comparative reading of Idyll 22 and the Iliadic duel between Menelaus and Paris, see Sens (1992: 337-347). Laursen (1992: 90 and n.54) suggests another model for this Theocritean episode, namely the duel between Achilles and Hector from book 22 of the Iliad. 36. On the contrary, Apollonius overemphasizes the supernatural vision of Lynceus by suggesting that he was able to see even beneath the earth (AJi. 1.153-155)! 37. An ancient scholiast draws a parallel between the abduction o f the Leucippidae and the abduction o f Helen, perhaps referring to the Cypria (fr. 11 B.): εΐ γ ο ΰ ν μή οι Τυνδαρίδαι πρώτοι π ερ ί τάς έξα δέλφ α ς αυτών έμά νησ αν, ούδ’ αν ’Α λ έξα νδ ρ ος περί τή ν αύτών ά δελφ ήν. That the abduction o f women is a common motif between the Theocritean Dioscuri and Paris is also suggested by Sens (1992: 339 and n .ll). 38. Unlike the author of the Cypria (Proclus 16 K.), Theocritus did not stress the immortality o f the Dioscuri (Severyns [1928 : 279-280]). On the de-heroization of the Dioscuri, see Griffiths (1976) and Effe (1986: 80-81); the Dioscuri are in fact guilty of three crimes, namely abduction, breaking o f oath and bribery, see Laursen (1992: 88). 39. Griffiths (1976: 359-360) draws a parallel between Lynceus and other representa­ tives o f humble life in Theocritus’ idylls, namely Praxinoa (Id. 15), Alcmene (Id. 24) and Simaetha (Id. 2). 40. Moulton (1973: 46-47) reads Idyll 22 as a commentary on the different kinds of epic and the old-fashioned heroic violence they display. According to Laursen (1992), the idyll centres on the problem of heroic violence and its ethical implications.

70

r e co n stru ctin g t h e epic

Within the context of the Hellenistic reassesment of the Cypria, the fragmentary Telephi Epyllion (Epica adespota 3 CA), despite its proba­ ble late dating, is of particular interest41. The anonymous poet, or, because of its inelegant style, a grammarian42, designates a marginal fig­ ure of the story of Telephus (perhaps Astyoche, the wife of Telephus) to narrate in a flashback, probably modelled as an Odyssean apologos, the encounter between the Greeks and Telephus on the occasion of their first, unsuccessful disembarkation at Mysia (Epica adespota ff. 3.1-5 CA): [Έ]ξαπίνης έπέδησεν άνωίστοισι κλάδοισιν [ου] κεν έτι ζώοντες ές "Ιλιον ήλθον [’Αχαιοί, [έ]νθα δέ κεν Μενέλαος έκέκλιτο, έν[θ’ ’Αγαμέμνων [ώ]λετο, καί τόν αριστον έν Άργείοις [Άχιλήα Τήλεφος έξενάριξε πριν Έκτορος άντίον έλθεΐν. He suddenly fell over roots he had not seen, or else the Greeks would not have come to Ilion, but Menelaus would have lain there and Agamemnon been lost there and Achilles, greatest of the Greeks, slain by Telephus, before Hector ever emerged to answer him. The Hellenistic narrator chooses to begin his narration with the critical moment when Telephus, fleeing Achilles, becomes entangled with a grape vine and is badly wounded. This episode was included in the Cypria (Proclus 25 and 28 K., Cypria fr. 20 and 22 B.), and from the ancient evidence it is manifest that it was recounted with extreme dra­ matic tense (Cypria ff. 20 B.=Sch. II. 1.59 Ludwich όρμήσαντος δέ έπ ’ αυτόν [i.e. Τήλεφον] Ά χ ιλ λ έω ς ού μείνας έδιώκετο· έν δέ τφ τρέχειν έμπλακεΐς άμπέλου κλήματι τόν μηρόν τιτρώσκεται ‘when Achilles begun chasing Telephus, he did not stand fast; but, while run­ ning, he got entangled in a grape vine and was wounded in the thigh’)43. By stressing this dramatic adventure from the Epic Cycle, the Hellenis­ tic narrator projects an ‘if not-situation’, an episode or course of action that is suddenly interrupted and brings an unexpected development to the whole plot or a complete reversal of expectations44. In the first place 41. Nesselrath (1992: 51), follow ing Heitsch’s suggestion, dates the epyllion in the imperial period. 42. On this hypothesis put forward by Ludwich, which is also supported by Powell, see the comments on Epica adespota 3 CA. There is no evidence that a poem on this sub­ ject might be attributed to Philitas, see Spanoudakis (2002: 309-312). 43. The story also in Lyc. 211-215. 44. I refer in particular to the ‘if nof-situations’ in the Iliad pointed out by de Jong (1987: 68-81) and, in general, to the ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ technique described by Nessel­ rath (1992) as a standard narrative strategy o f epic.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

71

negatively ([ου] κεν έτι ζώοντες ές ’Ίλιον ηλθον [’Αχαιοί), then affirmatively ([έ]νθα δέ κεν Μ ενέλαος έκέκλιτο, έν[θ’ ’Αγαμέμνων/ [ώ]λετο), it is stated that without that accidental occurrence, Telephus would have slain Achilles in the fight and so the latter would never have got to Troy and killed Hector45. The whole narrative continued with the scene of a great storm (Epica adespota fr. 3.22ff. CA): it is assumed that the storm scene would have echoed the version introduced by the neoteroi, according to which Telephus and not Calchas brought the Greek ships to the harbour of Troy (Sch. II. 1.71a Ludwich αύτός [i.e. ό Τήλεφος] έδειξε τόν έπί Τροίαν πλοϋν. ταΰτα μέν οί νεώτεροι· ό δέ ποιητής λέγει Κάλχαντα άφηγήσασθαι τοΰ έπί ’Ίλιον πλοΰ ‘Telephus showed the Greeks the way to Troy, as the neoteroi said; but, according to Homer, it was Calchas who led the way to Ilion’)46. I discussed above only a few passages which reflect the increased interest on the part of the Hellenistic poets in stories drawn from the Cypria, as these were set down in mythological exempla or reworked as epyllia. But the manner in which the Hellenistic age engaged with the Cypria was more complex than this, as I intend to show in the following chapters: the marriage of Peleus and Thetis is refashioned by Apollonius in the Argonautica as a modem epyllion; the Cypria provides not only the material but also the perspective for the narration of events which occurred before the Trojan war in the Alexandra', Euphorion illuminates the secondary characters of this cyclic epic in his epyllia; the epithalamion for Achilles and Deidameia brings to the surface an (anti-)epic ide­ ology about gender, also to be found in the Cypria41. The preference for 45. This is perhaps a combination o f ‘the near death of a hero’ and ‘the near defeat of either Trojans or Greeks' motifs, as displayed in the Iliad, see de Jong (1987: 70-75) and Nesselrath (1992: 11-16). The role Telephus could have played to prevent the Trojan war is comparable to the vital role o f Patroclus in the Iliad who would have sacked Troy had not Apollo intervened {II. 16.700-701 εΐ μή ’Α π όλλω ν Φ οίβος έϋδμήτου έπί πύργου/ έ σ τ η ...), see Nesselrath (1992: 1-4). 46. According to the scholiasts, it was the ambiguous participle πα λιμπλα χθέντας in II. 1.59, reflecting the difficulties faced by the Greek fleet on their course towards Troy, that gave rise to the story about the accidental disembarkation at Mysia (Sch. Ariston. II. 1.59c < π α λιμπλα χθέντα ς:> πρός τή ν τών νεω τέρω ν Ιστορίαν, ότι έντεϋ θ εν τήν κατά Μ υσίαν Ιστορίαν έπλασαν). According to Bate (2004), the storm narrative, which is a prominent theme within the epic genre (Odyssey 5 provides the prototype for this type o f narrative), was reworked by Ovid to an elegiac narrative with erotic associations. I sus­ pect that a similar emotional symbolism o f the storm underlies this fragmentary scene from Telephi Epyllium, thus making the possibility that Astyoche is speaking here even more plausible, and consistent with the new poetics. 47. It is noteworthy that most o f the stories from the Cypria, which were a source o f inspiration for archaic visual artists, have also attracted the Hellenistic poets. Scaife (1995: 175) points out that pivotal moments from the Cypria, such as the rape of Thetis, her marriage to Peleus, the presentation o f Achilles to Cheiron, the judgment o f Paris and

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

stories stemming from the Cypria was perhaps due to the great fluidity of this epic, the episodes and characters of which had plenty of scope for adaptation, and also to its multifaceted reception in lyric poetry, drama and iconography48. More broadly, the dialectic with the Cypria devel­ oped within the context of the philological reassessment of the Epic Cycle and within the experimentation of the Hellenistic poets with epic and its subgenres49. As scholars, they were actively engaged in the dis­ cussion about the different types of epic; as poets, in the quest for a ‘modem’ epic and its possible models: both routes inevitably led not only to the re-evaluation of the Epic Cycle but also of Hesiod, to whom I will now turn.

arship and literature, philological and poetic discourse50. In this chapter, I will discuss the ways in which this notion of epic, which I broadly describe as ‘Hesiodic’, determined the narration and conception of the Trojan myth in Hellenistic poetry, by highlighting the ‘archaeological’ reconstruction of the res Troicae and the reading of the Trojan aetia from a scholarly perspective51.

72

B.2. Hesiodic tropes From the beginnings of Greek literature Hesiod offered an attractive alternative to the Homeric epics. The Theogony, the Works and Days, the Catalogue o f Women have a series of features that contrast with the Homeric way of making epics: the search for hidden knowledge; the tendency to explore and explain origins; the concept of the world as a succession of generations and the arrangement of myth according to genealogy; the structuring around catalogues; the narrative discontinu­ ity; the emergence of a personalized poetic voice. But what clearly dif­ ferentiates Hesiodic poetics from the other epic poetry is the absence of a focal and coherent muthos, since in the catalogue-like and didactic epics of Hesiod mythological stories do not develop into autonomous plots but instead they are embedded into digressions and exempla. It is highly probable that Callimachus’ modernistic aesthetic, as reflected in his call for the ούχ έν αεισμα διηνεκές, was modelled upon Hesiodic poetics. Moreover, Hellenistic poets obviously embraced Hesiodic poetry, because it paved the way for the sophisticated blending of scholthe killing o f Troilus, were central motifs or archaic iconography. We can not exclude the possibility that in choosing these particular episodes (as well as others which were pre­ sented in iconography, see Scaife [1995: 175-191]) the Hellenistic poets were alluding to specific works of art. 48. On the multiformity o f the Cypria in both its oral and its written tradition, as opposed to the early ‘crystallization’ o f the Homeric epics, see the excellent analysis by Finkelberg (2000), who compares various evidence relating to the actual plot o f the Cypria (from Herodotus, Pausanias, Apollodorus, Proclus) and proposes that there were many variations, in which the basic structure of the story remained the same while the details o f the narrative were more fluid. 49. On the metaliterary character o f the reception o f the Cypria by Hellenistic poets, see Sistakou (2007a).

73

B.2.a. The archaeology o f Troy The archaeology of myth, i.e., the reconstruction of its distant past and origins, is a central subject underlying epic poetry written from an aetiological and/or a genealogical perspective, as the epics of Hesiod are. In adopting this perspective, the Hellenistic poets, on the one hand, high­ light the very beginnings of the Trojan myth, whereas, on the other, they provide explanations for key episodes of the Trojan war52. In this chap­ ter, I shall be looking at some instances of Trojan archaeology within the context of Hellenistic aesthetic. The building of Troy dates from the era of the gods, when Apollo and Poseidon undertook the construction of its walls but were cheated of their wages by Laomedon. In the Iliad, the events leading up to the con­ struction are recalled by Poseidon to Apollo in a lengthy para-narrative (II. 21.441-460). Addressing Apollo, Poseidon outlines his role as the builder of the walls and mentions how Apollo was herdsman to Laomedon’s flocks (II. 21.446-448): ήτοι έγώ Τρώεσσι πόλιν πέρι τείχος έδειρα/ εύρύ τε καί μαλα καλόν, ϊν ’ άρρηκτος πόλις εΐη· Φοίβε, σύ δ ’ είλίποδας έλικας βοΰς βουκολέεσκες Τ built the Trojans a wall around their city, so wide and fair that it might be impregnable, while you, Phoebus, herded cattle for Laomedon’. The ancient scholiasts had 50. ‘Hesiodism' is succinctly termed by Schroeder (2006: 288-290) to describe a lit­ erary phenomenon o f the Hellenistic age. On Callimachus as the ‘New Hesiod’, see Hunter [Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 51-54)]. Two monographs explore Hesiod as a model poet for Callimachus [Reinsch-Wemer (1976)] and Aratus [Fakas (2001)]. For Apollo­ nius fundamental is the analysis by Campbell (1981); cf. the discussion o f the catalogue o f the Argonauts against the background o f Homer and Hesiod in Roth (2004). On The­ ocritus’ Lycidas in idyll 7 recalling the archetypal figure o f Hesiod, see Schwinge (1974); on the Hellenistic and Roman m otif o f the initiation into poetry in the manner o f Hesiod, see Kambylis (1965). Alexander Aetolus is examined from a Hesiodic perspective by Schroeder (2006). 51. On Hesiod as the model for Callimachus’ elegiac style, see Cameron (1995: 362386). Reinsch-Wemer’s (1976) monograph about the Hesiodic influence on Callimachus offers a useful comparative reading of the two poets. On Hesiod, along with Euripides, as a forerunner o f Hellenistic aetiology, see Codrignani (1958). 52. For a very convincing discussion o f how Hellenistic aetiology was modelled upon Hesiodic poetics, see Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 51-60).

74

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

75

The gods crowned the wall with battlements, and this detail is fixed in the expression περί κρήδεμνα δέμοντες. Κρήδεμνον in the sense of

‘battlements’ occurs only once in book 16 of the Iliad, in the crucial conversation between Achilles and Patroclus55. It is the moment when Achilles expresses his wish that all the Trojans and Greeks should per­ ish, leaving only himself and Patroclus (II. 16.99-100): νώϊν δ’ έκδΰμεν όλεθρον,/ δφρ’ οίοι Τροίης Ιερά κρήδεμνα λύωμεν ‘would that we two might be alone left to tear aside the holy battlements of Troy’. Euphorion’s fragment is illumined by the Homeric allusion; thus, while archaeologizing the Trojan myth, Euphorion, through the Homeric quo­ tation, still has an eye on the end of the war. In other Hellenistic fragments, the archaeology of the Trojan myth is intersected by a pan-mythological figure, Heracles. After the construc­ tion of the wall of Troy, Laomedon deceives the gods and, to get their revenge, they send a sea-monster against him. Then Laomedon calls upon Heracles to rescue his daughter, Hesione, from the monster of the deep, promising his famous horses in exchange. Heracles frees Hesione, but Laomedon again reneges, with the result that the demigod returns many years later as a conqueror of Troy. The story is encountered as a para-narrative in the Iliad (5.638), was recounted by Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 fr. 26b), and perhaps treated by Callimachus in the Aetia56. But the episode was certainly mentioned in Nicander, in whose narrative we can clearly discern the features of Callimachean poetics (fr. 562 SH). The first verse conceals an aetion concerning the etymologically trans­ parent place name ’Ά της λόφος, formed under the influence of Hellan­ icus (FGrHist 4 fr. 25a). As one would expect, the aetion transposes the narrative to an earlier chronological phase and so the ancient history of Troy is taken back from the time of Laomedon to that of its mythical founder, Ilus. Nicander’s verse ΤΙλος δ’ άφραδίηισι λόφον] περιδώμεεν "Ατης ‘Ilus thoughtlessly built Troy on the hill of Ate’ (fr. 562.1 SH) marks the lack of foresight on the part of Ilus in building Troy on the hill where Ate, the goddess of mischief, landed after falling from heaven. His action had been foretold by the oracles who urged him to build a city on the site to which he would be led by a cow, a tradition condensed by Lycophron in the elaborate paraphrase ’Ά τη ς άπ’ άκρων βουπλανοκτίστων λόφων ‘the high hill of Ate that was founded by the wandering cow’ (Lyc. 29). Nicander’s narrative continues with the

53. This is why Homeric scholars athetized II. 7.453, see Sch. Did. II. 7.443-464b καθόλου τήν των θεώ ν ά γορά ν ήθέτουν ο ΐ π ερ ί Ζ ηνόδοτον καί ’Α ριστοφάνη καί αυτός Ά ρ ίσ τ α ρ χ ο ς and Sch. Ariston. II. 21,446a 1 πρός τή ν έν τοΐς έπάνω ά θέτησιν [i.e. 7.443-464} δτι διαφω νεί ταΰτα < έκ εινοις> . 54. If Callimachus actually wrote έδειρα, a verbal reminiscence o f II. 21.446, then he probably accepted the athetesis of II. 7.443-464 by Zenodotus. See Pfeiffer (1949: on fir. 467) and the ancient scholia discussed by Hirschberger (2004: 430).

55. The word occurs in a passage severely criticized by Zenodotus for its pederastic tone (Sch. ex. [Did.?] in II. 16.97-100a): καλώς οδ ν φ η σ ιν Ά ρ ίσ τ α ρ χ ο ς Ζ η νόδ οτον ύπω πτευκέναι ώς ε ϊε ν πα ρ εντεθ έντες οί σ τίχ ο ι υπό τών ά ρσ ενικ ού ς έρωτας λ εγόντω ν είναι π α ρ’ Ό μ ή ρ φ καί (ιπονοούντω ν παιδικά είναι Ά χ ιλ λ έ ω ς Π άτροκλος. 56. Cf. Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 698 and 537).

already spotted the contradiction between this reference and another pas­ sage in the Iliad (7.452-453) τό [i.e. τείχος] έγώ καί Φοίβος ’Απόλλων/ ήρφ Λαομέδοντι πολίσσαμεν άθλήσαντε ‘the wall which Phoebus Apollo and myself built with so much labour for Laomedon’. Here both gods are said to have constructed the Trojan wall, whereas in book 21 only Poseidon seems to have undertaken the building work53. The ver­ sion involving the participation of both gods is not mentioned in Proclus’ summary of the Epic Cycle, but does occur in the Hesiodic Cata­ logue o f Women (fr. 235.4-5 M.-W): δτε τείχος έυδμήτοιο πόληocj υψηλόν ποίησε Ποσειδάων καί ’Απόλλων ‘when Poseidon and Apollo made the lofty walls of the well-built city’. The two parallel tra­ ditions (on the one hand that in book 21 of the Iliad and on the other that of Hesiod, which agrees with the athetized scene of Iliad book 7 and also with Pindar 0. 8.31-33), can be read into the ambiguous Callimachean verse έδείμαμεν αστεα μορτοΐς ‘we have built cities for mor­ tals’ (fr. 467 Pf.). One assumes that a god is speaking, perhaps Apollo, and depending on the reading of the word as either έδείμαμεν (in which case it refers in common to Apollo and Poseidon) or έδειμα μέν (in which case it means that Apollo was the sole builder), Callimachus is referring to one or other of the versions handed down, and no doubt tak­ ing sides in the related philological dispute54. Some light is shed on this double meaning by a fragment from Euphorion, where it is said that both gods shared the task of construction and, indeed, called in the mortal, Aeacus, for assistance. In this point Euphorion follows the innovation introduced into the story by Pindar (Sch. Pi. O. 8.41 παρ’ ουδενί δέ πρεσβυτέρα) Πινδάρου ή Ιστορία). Euphorion’s fragment presents added interest, since it contains a significant Homeric reference (fr. 54 CA=fr. 59 v.Gr.): TH γάρ δή Φοίβος τε Ποσειδάων τ’ έκάλεσσαν ΑΙακόν οόκ άβοηθί περί κρήδεμνα δέμοντες. For Phoebus and Poseidon called Aeacus to their aid when building the battlements.

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

76

deception of Poseidon and Apollo by Laomedon (with the added clarifi­ cation that this was the first instance of deceitfulness on the part of the king of Ilion, the second, no doubt being that concerning Heracles) and the sending of the sea-monster. Although we cannot further reconstruct the content of the fragment with any confidence, it is likely that Nican­ der -perhaps following Hellanicus- told the story of the earlier capture of Troy by Heracles57. Archaeologizing the Trojan myth is not merely a conventional return to its starting-point. In describing the walls of Troy, through the noun κρήδεμνα, Euphorion casts a quick glance at the Iliadic war and its fatal consequences. On the other hand, the narrative concerning the first cap­ ture of Troy, with its emphasis on the hubristic behaviour of Laomedon, prefigures the well-known capture of the city by the Greeks. Aetia, rare etymologies and marginal stories offer images of the Trojan war, which, because of their fragmentary nature and philological provenance, dull its tragic repercussions. It is, in any case, characteristic that the archaeolog­ ical episodes echo the Trojan perspective in the reading of the myth; it is precisely this Trojan perspective that is exploited by Lycophron in the Alexandra, as we shall see in the following chapters. B.2.b. Trojan aetia The episodes discussed below show the dynamic transformation of the Trojan myth through the prism of aetiology. Starting with the explana­ tion of an archaeological paradox, the statue of wounded Athena in the Arcadian city of Teuthis (fr. 667 Pf.), Callimachus extends the story into the past, when a drought affected the area (fr. 276.1-11 SH), and even further back to when the Greeks gathered at Aulis before sailing for Troy (fr. 276.12-15 SH): τοΰδέ κοτ’ Άργείοισιν ές Αύλίδα [ κοίρανος· Άτρείδαις δ’ είς έριν άνπ[ ήγειρεν μέγα νεϊκος, δ καν πα[ εις έόν, άλλ’ εστη, παΐ Δνός έμ μ[εσάτφ Once the king of this place was with the Argives at Aulis; but quarrelled mightily with the Atreids and great strife arose... but you, daughter of Zeus, came between... The plot can be reconstructed from this fragment by comparison with the sole record of the episode in Pausanias (8.28.4-6)58. The subject of 57. The two stories were connected in Ov. Met. 11.199-217. 58. On this Callimachean aetion, see Koenen-Luppe-Pagan (1991) and H ollis (1992).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

77

the episode is a quarrel (13 είς εριν, 14 ήγειρεν μέγα νεϊκος) between Teuthis, who had joined the alliance of the Greeks at Aulis, and Agamemnon. Athena intervened in the conflict, disguised as a friend of Teuthis, but received a spear-thrust in the right thigh from the furious king. The episode resulted in Teuthis withdrawing his contingent into Arcadia and taking no part in the war. The episode, for which there is no evidence in the Homeric and cyclic tradition59, is built around the domi­ nant Leitmotif of the Iliad, i.e. the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon and the consequences thereof. The difference being that in the Callimachean narration, the role of the Myrmidon hero is undertaken by an unknown Arcadian king. Even the placatory intervention by Athena must be read against the background of her corresponding role towards the furious Achilles at the beginning of the Iliad (1.194-214). Nevertheless, Callimachus reorganizes the original episode of the quar­ rel between the heroes, adopting anti-epic techniques in his narrative. The beginning τοΰδέ κοτ’ Ά ργείοισιν ές Αΰλίδα is to be found in flashbacks, but here the deliberately vague ποτέ is used to take the reader into an undefined, fabulous past60. On the other hand, the direct address to Athena (15 άλλ’ έστη, παΐ Διός έμ μ[εσάτφ), untypical of third-person narratives, is frequently employed by Callimachus to stress the dynamic presence of his narrator61. Besides, the aetiological context lightens the tension with which the corresponding motif is invested in Homer, while the wrath, as the thematic thread of a largescale epic, is reduced so that it can be incorporated into the limits of an elliptical elegiac narrative. Two other aetia which are attributed to Callimachus -one of which was written in elegiac distichon and may have belonged to the Aetia- are linked to customs which echo military events in the Iliad. The desecra­ tion of the body of dead Hector by Achilles is a dramatic detail from book 24 (24.14-16, 50-52, 755-756). The scholiasts wonder (Sch. II. 24.15): διά τί ό Ά χιλλεύς τον Έ κτορα ενλκε περί τον τάφον τοΰ Πατρόκλου παρά τά νενομισμένα ποιων είς τόν νεκρόν; ‘why did Achilles drag Hector around the tomb of Patroclus performing rituals for 59. In //. 2.603-614 the Arcadian ships were led by Agapenor, the son o f Ancaeus. 60. Π οτέ in the Homeric epics does not occur in the main narrative, but only in digressions (e.g. II. 2.547; 4.474; 6.216; Od. 19.393). It is used regularly in the catalogue poetry o f the Ehoie-type (e.g. Hes. fr. 17.4; 25.21; 26.7 M.-W.; see especially the use of π οτέ in the genealogical catalogue o f die heroines in Od. 11.281 and 322). On the paral­ lels from Callimachus and Theocritus, see Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 230). 61. M ostly in the Aetia, see fr. 18.5-11 Pf. (address to Apollo), fr. 23.2-7 Pf. (to Her­ acles), fr. 75.40-53 Pf. (to Acontius), fr. 102 Pf. (to Pasicles), fr. 108 Pf. (to Argo), fr. 178.4 Pf. (to Erigone).

78

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

the dead against customary practice?’. Callimachus draws the answer to this question straight from Aristotle, who rationalizes the strange behav­ iour of Achilles by comparing it to a Thessalian custom from his own time (Arist. fr. 166 Rose): φησΐν ’Αριστοτέλης, καί εις τά ΰπάρχοντα άνάγοντ’ έθη τά τοιαΰτα ήν, έπεί καί νϋν έν Θετταλίμ περιέλκουσι περί τούς τάφους ‘Aristotle says that such practice conformed to existing customs, since even today the Thessalians drag the dead around the tombs’. In fact, Aristotle provides a scientific way out of the moral criticism of Plato on Achilles’ inappropriate behaviour (R. 391b): τάς τε αυ Έ κτορος ελξεις περί τό σήμα τού Πατρόκλου καί τάς των ζωγρηθέντων σφαγάς εις τήν πυράν, σύμπαντα ταΰτα ου φήσομεν άληθή είρήσθαι ‘that Achilles dragged Hector round the tomb of Patroclus, and slaughtered the captives at the pyre -all this I cannot believe is true’. Callimachus refers to Aristotle’s observation in order to obviate the moral dimension of the episode (fr. 588 Pf.): πάλαι δ’ έτι Θεσσαλός άνήρ βυστάζει φθιμένων άμφί τάφον φονέας For of old to this day, the man of Thessaly drags the slayer round the victim’s grave... The link between the Callimachean and the Homeric passage is the verb Νυστάζει which alludes to the Iliadic verse πολλά £>υστάζεσκεν έοϋ περί σήμ’ έτάροιο ‘he dragged you many times around the grave of his comrade’ (//. 24.755). But with the adverbs πάλαι and έτι, the general­ ized attribution Θεσσαλός άνήρ, the present tense to denote duration (βυστάζει) and the doubling of the objects (φονέας), the isolated episode is elevated into an ancient and universal custom62. In essence, the prior existence of a customary ritual absolves the action of Achilles of its vengeful and hubristic dimension. Through the aetiological per­ spective, Callimachus reads the Homeric passage without the moralizing spirit of previous literature63. The second aetiological story from Callimachus with an Iliadic sub­ ject matter is linked to the cult of a hero of the Trojan war in the land of 62. The rhetoric o f the passage is aetiological: on the phrase Θ εσ σ α λό ς άνήρ cf. Aet. fr. 3 Pf. κώς ανις αύλώ ν ή έζειν και στεφ έω ν εΰαδε τώ Π αρίψ, Aet. fr. 7.19 Pf. κώς δέ, θεαί, άνήρ ’Α να φ α ϊο ς..., fr. 509.1 Pf. ά νέρα Β ου χέτιον, fr. 517 Pf. Δ ελ φ ός άνήρ; in aetiology the gap between past and present is bridged through the use o f temporal expressions, see Aet. fr. 44 Pf. Α ίγυπτος π ρ ο π ά ρ ο ιθ εν..., Del. 30 ώς τά πρώ τιστα.... Lav. Pall. 36 ώς έθ ος Ά ρ γ είω ς τοϋτο πα λ α ιοτέρ ω ς..., fr. 226 Pf. ή Λ ή μ νο ς τό π α λ α ιό ν... 63. In describing the mutilation o f Hector’s corpse, Homer shows Achilles rejecting Hellenic values and thus alienating himself not only from the Achaean community but also from humanity at large (Hall [1989: 25-28]).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

79

his birth (fr. 663 Pf.). He was Menedemus, in whose honour his fellowcountrymen in Crete offered sacrifices without using knives; according to the scholiast, the reason for this peculiar cult was the hero’s’ death from stabbing during the Trojan war. Menedemus, who is not mentioned in the Iliad, is one of the minor figures of the Trojan myth64. This story, displaying a genuine Hellenistic flavour, recalls another cult aetion from Callimachus, that of Minos, who, on laying aside his crown when informed of the death of his son, Androgeus, established his cult without crowns in the island Paros (Aet. fr. 3-7.14 Pf.). Thus, another violent incident of the Trojan battlefield is transformed, through the aetiological perspective into an eccentric cult practice, and, in this way, its emotional charge is defused. The very name of the protagonist of the war, Achilles, excited the lin­ guistic imagination of poets and philologists. The spelling Ά χιλ ή ο ς in the first verse of the Iliad was accompanied by the following scholion (Sch. II. 1.1): ούτως άναγνωστέον δι’ ένός λ διά τό μέτρον καί διά τό αχός έπενεγκεΐν τοΐς Ίλεΰσιν, οΐ δέ παρά τό μή θιγεΐν χείλεσι τροφής ‘the name must be spelled with a single λ because it best suits the metre and because Achilles caused suffering (αχός) to the inhabi­ tants of Ilion (Ίλεΰσιν); others, though, etymologize the name from the fact that Achilles did not touch food with his lips (χείλεσι)’. The scho­ liast preserves two conflicting theories concerning the derivation of the name Ά χιλ(λ)εύς: either from αχός and Ίλεύς (someone who causes suffering to the Trojans), or from the privative ά- and the word χείλος65. Callimachus comments upon the name of Achilles by observing that the hero owed his name to divine providence (fr. 624 Pf. όπό θείας πρόνοιας...έκλήθη ούτως). The observation emphasizes the foresight of the gods in the naming of the hero, since his name describes him as someone who would cause disaster to the Trojans; thus, the Calli­ machean ‘folk-etymology’ reflects the Achilles of the Homeric epic and the values he represents66. The second etymology echoes the image of 64. Ovid also recounts the story o f Menedemus {Ibis 451-452 vulnera totque feras quot dicitur ille tulisse,/ cuius ab inferiis culter abesse solet, cf. Sch. Ον. Ib. 451 quia in Troiano bello plurimis vulneribus cultrorum interiit). 65. On the name o f Achilles as a compound formation built from the roots ά χο ς ‘g r ie f and λαός ‘host o f fighting men, folk’, see Nagy (2004: 131-137). 66. Nevertheless, this observation would have sounded, at least potentially, ironic, since in the Iliad , the wrath o f Achilles causes grief primarily to himself, and only sec­ ondarily to the besieged Trojans. "Α χός is often used in the Iliad to describe A chilles’ emotional state (e.g. in 1.188; 9.243; 16.55; 19.367; 23.47); also in regard to the Trojans and especially Priam, e.g. in 20.282, 293; 21.43, 425). The divine providence alludes to Zeus’ plan; however, there was a philological dispute as to whether it referred to the vic­ tory o f the Trojans which would satisfy Achilles’ wrath (Sch. Ariston. II. 1.5-6; cf. 1.524-

80

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Achilles in the Cypria. Attic iconography and the Cypria affirm that Achilles was fed the insides of wild animals by the centaur Cheiron, to whose care he had been entrusted by Peleus; Achilles’ raw diet was incorporated into a hymnic context by Pindar (N . 3.43-52).67 A distich on the same subject is attributed to Euphorion (fr. 57 CA=fr. 62 v.Gr.): ές Φθίην χιλοΐο κατήϊε πάμπαν απαστος·/ τούνεκα Μυρμιδόνες μιν Ά χιλ έα φημίξαντο ‘in Phthia he abstained from food altogether; therefore the Myrmidons called him Achilles’. If the phrase χιλοΐο πάμ­ παν άπαστος denotes total abstention from cereals and, in general, from the fruits of the earth, and if the context refers to the time during which Achilles returned from Pelion to the palace of Peleus in Phthia, then we again have a refracted cyclic version of the separation between Peleus and Thetis68. Agamestor from Pharsala, an elegiac poet of the late Hel­ lenistic era, knew of a variation of this etymology. In an epithalamion for Thetis, he incorporated a double aetion for the name of Achilles (ff. 14 SH), clearly referring to the scene in Apollonius’ Argonautica (4.866-879) where Thetis is caught anointing the hero with fire. Peleus is said to have given two names to his son: Πυρίσσοος, because he was saved from the fire, and Ά χιλεύς, because he lost a lip when he was burned in the fire.69 It is not without significance that the starting point for this philological discussion is the double spelling of the name Achilles (Α χιλλεύς or Ά χιλεύς)70. The aetiology of the Trojan myth boldly links the heroic world with everyday life in an aetion concerning the shield of Odysseus. According to Euphorion (fr. 67 CA=fr. 72 v.Gr.), a dolphin was depicted on Odysseus’ shield; also Lycophron (658) alludes to the same aetion through the use of the epithet δελφινόσημος for Odysseus. The mytho­ logical detail goes back to Stesichorus (fr. 225 PMG), from whom the Hellenistic poets drew similar anecdotes71. Plutarch (Πάτερα των ζφων 530 530) or their destruction (Cypria fr. 1.6-7 B. ot δ’ ένϊ Τ ρ οίη ι/ ήρω ες κτείνοντο, Δ ιός δ ’ έ ιε λ ε ίε τ ο βουλή). Nagy (1979: 69-93) discusses thoroughly the Indo-European ety­ mology o f ’Α χ ιλ λ ε ύ ς from α χό ς and λαός and the etymology o f the name ’Α χ α ιο ί from α χός. 67. Pindar actually shows the six year-old Achilles killing lions and boars outside Cheiron’s cave, see Robertson (1940). 68. Apollodorus (3.172) etymologizes the name from the fact that Achilles τά χ είλ η μαστοΐς ού π ρ ο σ ή νεγκ ε, cf. van Groningen (1977: 130). 69. The story is attested by Tzetzes and Photius; on the testimonies, see ff. 14 SH. 70. The name with a single λ is rarely used in the Iliad, but is attested in the Cypria (ff. 25 B.), in the Little Iliad (ff. 24 and 32 B.), and also in Callimachus (Ap. 20), in The­ ocritus {Id. 16.74; 17.55 etc.), in Apollonius’ Argonautica (1.558; 4.868), and in the Posthomerica o f Quintus Smymeus (1.94; 1.113 etc.). 71. For an outline o f Stesichorus’ influence on Hellenistic poetry, see Massimilla (1996b: 52-53).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

81

φρονιμότερα 985b-c) gives the explanation offered by the Zacynthians for this depiction: when Telemachus was still a child, he fell into the sea and was rescued by dolphins; thereafter Odysseus honoured the animal by having its form represented on his shield. It is not known whether Euphorion narrated this episode; however, the detail of the shield’s dol­ phin motif, accompanied -either obviously or suggestively- by its aetion is a characteristically Alexandrian choice. Thus, the magnificent depic­ tions of the heroic shield (such as those engraved by Hephaestus on Achilles’ shield in book 18 of the Iliad or those described in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes) are replaced by a simple, everyday symbol, the dolphin. All the more does this story conform with Hellenistic aesthet­ ics, because the outstanding symbol of epic warfare is linked with an incident from private life, the unexpected rescue from drowning of little Telemachus, and the dedication of the shield to the memory of this occurrence. It is only in philological reconstructions of the Trojan myth that we will come across allusions to episodes which as a rule belong to heroic epic. The etymologizing of the name of Achilles introduces, albeit by a scholarly route, the κλέα άνδρών into Hellenistic poetry: the Hellenis­ tic ‘folk-etymologies’ suggest both the heroic status of Achilles as well as the crucial matter of his immortality. Elsewhere, the antiquarian curiosity of the Alexandrians leads them to describe the shield of Odysseus, a symbolic object of epic warfare; similar themes of war epic which are inscribed within an aetiological perspective are the wrath of Achilles and the humiliation of Hector’s corpse after his death. Thus, by introducing the Homeric and cyclic stories into aetiological tesserae, the Hellenistic poets were able to distance themselves from the Trojan myth and its tragic climaxes, and add a ‘Hesiodic’ twist to their narratives.

B.3. Hellenistic nostoi The Homeric battles and the tragic consequences of the siege of Troy do not sit easily with the undramatized tone of the Hellenistic narratives. However, the other major theme of the heroic epic, the nostos, is wide­ spread in Hellenistic poetry; Apollonius of Rhodes and Lycophron embraced the journey home in their revamped writings, and will be dis­ cussed in the following chapters as representatives of borderline forms of the epic. Here I will limit my survey to the thematics of nostos as these pass from the epic into tragedy and thence into the aetiological narratives of Callimachus and Euphorion.

82

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

In the epic tradition, the return journey of the Achaeans who after their ten-year sojourn at Troy take the maritime road back to their home­ land is significant in more than one ways. In the Iliad, the longing for return stands in tragic contrast to the military involvement of the heroes on hostile ground, while in the Odyssey the wanderings of Odysseus, with their fabulous and novelistic dimensions, are crowned with success and in the end the hero is restored entirely to his royal and household privileges. On the other hand, the Epic Cycle focuses on journeys home, some of which were plain sailing (those of Nestor and Diomedes), some were tortuous (those of Menelaus via Egypt and Neoptolemus via Thrace) and some remained unaccomplished (those of Locrian Ajax and of Agamemnon). These stories formed both the general context of the cyclic Nostoi (Proclus 101-113 K.), as well as the subject of the apologoi of Nestor and Menelaus in the Odyssey; they had also a considerable impact on tragedy72. Thus, the theme of nostos is graded from its epic starting point and its novelistic realization in the Odyssey through to its tragic conclusion, as it is correspondingly inducted into the elevated poetic gemes, epic and dramatic poetry. The exemplar of the theme of the journey home is given by the Odyssey: this is the ‘form of the return and revenge’ of a hero after a great mission or adventure73. The Odyssean model impregnates epic and tragedy. However, the treatment of the journey home by the Hellenistic poets follows a different route: in their poetry the return loses its dra­ matic interest as a plot of revenge and focuses on the adventures of the wanderers, in most cases ending with the foundation of cities. In these narratives, we do not merely follow the tragic protagonist of the epic nostos but also the type of the founding hero. In book 1 of the Aetia Cal­ limachus narrated the violent death of Locrian Ajax in the Cyclades (fr. 35 Pf.). The same incident -o f the storm in the course of which Ajax is pursued by Athena and punished by Poseidon- has at least two prece­ dents in poetry: the episode as recounted in the Nostoi (Proclus 107 K. ειθ’ ό περί τάς Καφηρίδας πέτρας δηλοΰται χειμών καί ή Αϊαντος φθορά τοΰ Λοκροΰ ‘then the storm round the Capherean rocks and the death of Ajax the Locrian was recounted’) and the retelling of the event by Menelaus to Telemachus in the Odyssey (4.499-511). Apart from the position probably adopted by Callimachus as regards the precise geo72. Euripides integrated the nostos theme, in its Odyssean and cyclic version, into several o f his tragedies, namely Electra, Iphigenia at Tauris, Helen, Orestes and Cyclops : see Lange (2002), and especially p.33 for the bibliography discussing the relation between Euripides and Homer. 73. Lange (2002: 25-27).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

83

graphical location of the incident74, the story in itself would not have been related in any great detail, since it was already known from the epic. From the scholia it appears that the story of Ajax (which has not so much to do with his death as with the rape of Cassandra in the temple of Athena and the wrath of the goddess) was linked to an ancient custom which connected the Locrians with the Trojans: for almost a thousand years, the descendants of Ajax paid for his hubris by sending two virgins a year to Troy75. Having quoted the story, Tzetzes (Sch. Lyc. 1141, cf. Sch. D II. 13.66) notes: ταύτης δε τής Ιστορίας καί Καλλίμαχος μέμνηται ‘also Callimachus mentions the story’. The source would have been the Sicilian historiographer Timaeus (FGrHist 566 fr. 146), and it would have been on him that not only Callimachus drew in the Aetia but also Euphorion in the Chiliades (fr. 53 CA=fr. 192 v.Gr.) and Lycophron in the Alexandra (1141-1173)76. However, the Hellenistic poets focused not so much upon the dramatic details, i.e. the rape of Cassandra and the death of Ajax, but rather upon the fate of the anony­ mous virgins, who were either stoned as soon as they reached Troy or became priestesses in the temple of Athena77. In other words, thanks to Callimachus, who filtered the epic version through the historiographic perspective of Timaeus, the focus was transferred from the hubris and the return home of the Achaean hero to the collective damnatio which followed his death78. The Alexandrian poets rewrote the journeys home that were, in the version of the Odyssey, successful from the point of view of aetiology and foundation poetry79. According to the Odyssey, Diomedes, together with Nestor, reached his homeland within four days (3.180-183 τέτρατον ήμαρ έην, δ τ ’ έν ’Ά ρ γεϊ νήας έΐσας/ Τυδεΐδεω εταροι Διομή74. In the Odyssey the incident takes place at the Gyreae Petrae (4.500 Γ υ ρ ή σ ιν... π έτρ η σιν, 507 Γ υραίην πέτρην), but according to the cyclic epics at the Capherean rocks (Proclus 107 K .); Callimachus probably knew o f a third alternative, cf. Sch. Od. 4.500. 75. On the testimonies, see Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 35). 76. See Manni (1963). 77. Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 35) warns: “ caveas ne universas scholiastarum ‘historias’ Callimachi tribuas". Even Lycophron distinguishes between the story o f the Locrian maid­ ens and that o f Ajax, since he recounts the episodes in different sections of Alexandra (1141-1173 the story o f the Locrian maidens, 357ff. Ajax’s crime, 387ff. Ajax’s death). The detail o f Ajax’s stoning originates from the Epic Cycle, see The Sack o f Troy Proclus 94 K. έφ ’ φ πα ροξυνθέντες o l Έ λ λ η ν ε ς καταλεΰσαι βουλεύονται τόν Αΐαντα), 78. Probably Euphorion integrated into this general frame the narration about Nau­ plius who caused the destruction o f the Greek ships, see fr. 73 CA=fr. 78 v.Gr, Δίρφυν ά νά τρη χενα ν ύ π ’ Ε ύβοίη κ εκ ό νισ το ; cf. Lyc. 365-386. 79. The ktisis theme developed into an autonomous poetic genre during the Hellenis­ tic period, see Dougherty (1994).

84

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

δέος ίπποδάμοιο/ ’έ σχασαν ‘four days later, when the tamer of horses, Diomedes Tydeides, and his men arrived with their ships in Argos’; cf. Proclus 103 K. Διομήδης δέ και Νέστωρ άναχθέντες είς τήν οΙκίαν διασφζονται ‘Diomedes and Nestor sailed for their homeland and returned safely’). The local historian Timaeus fleshes out the story of Diomedes with the information that the hero, chased out by his wife, left Argos and ended up in Italy (Timaeus FGrHist 566 fr. 53 = Sch. Lyc. 615): Διομήδης...παραγενόμενος δέ είς τό ’Ά ργος και έλαθείς υπό ΑΙγιαλείας τής γαμέτης, παρεγένετο είς ’Ιταλίαν ‘when Diomedes... arrived in Argos, he was driven away by his wife Aegialia and then went to Italy’80. It may be that we owe to Timaeus the information that the hero built a town called "Ιππιον Ά ρ γο ς in the region inhabited by the Italian tribe ruled by Daunus (Sch. Lyc. 592). According to the testi­ mony of Aristotle (Arist. Mir. 840b), Diomedes dedicated his arms, as he brought them back from Troy, to the temple of Athena in the same region. Callimachus’ fr. 562 Pf. ές δάϊν όπλισμόν| ιππιον ’Ά ργος έχει ‘Hippion Argos keeps the weapons he had in battle’, probably orig­ inating from the Aetia, refers to the same story. The dedication of the weapons, in conjunction with the ambiguous δάϊς (ές δάϊν in the sense of ‘in the battle’) directly recalls the Trojan battlefield; however, the dedicatory tone dulls the emotional charge of the episode. The ‘double’ nostos of Diomedes was also treated by Lycophron (592-632), who he focused more on the hero’s wanderings in the West and on the dramatic adventures of his companions. The detail of the transformation of Diomedes’ companions into birds (594-597) πικρόν έταίρων έπτερωμένην Ιδών οΐωνόμικτον μοίραν, οϊ θαλασσίαν δίαιταν αΐνήσουσι πορκέων δίκην, κύκνοισιν Ινδαλθέντες εύγλήνοις δομήν Seeing the bitter fate of his comrades turned to winged birds, who shall lead a sea life in the manner of fishermen, in the form of bright-eyed swans was no doubt due to the Alexandrian preference for metamorphosis sto­ ries81. Thus, in the Hellenistic version of the return of Diomedes the 80. Apart from Timaeus, Ibycus, too, wrote on the cult o f Diomedes in the Adriatic (fr. 294 PMG). 81. Callimachus also alluded to Diomedes’ nostos (cf. Lav. Pall. 35 ά Δ ιομ ή δ εος άσπίς, fr. 407.XLIII Pf. on the ‘paradoxa’ on Diomedes’ island, esp. ώς τών τού Διομήδους έταίρω ν είς τήν τών όρ νέω ν τούτων φ ύσιν μετασχηματισθέντω ν). On this metamorphosis story, see Forbes Irving (1990: 230-232).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

85

Homeric nostos is broadened, enriched with adventurous features such as the wanderings in the West and the metamorphosis anecdote, and in this way it is modernized. The return of Philoctetes is transcribed in much the same way into the context of Hellenistic poetry. The successful nostos of Philoctetes is reported briefly in the Odyssey (3.190): ευ δέ [i.e. φάσ’ έλθέμεν] Φιλοκτήτην, Ποιάντιον άγλαόν υίόν ‘and Philoctetes, the valiant son of Poias, returned home safely’. In this case, too, Lycophron (911-928) and Euphorion in his lost (foundation?) poem82 Philoctetes (fr. 45 CA=fr. 49 v.Gr.), record at least two events that are related to the ‘sec­ ond’ nostos of the Achaean hero: his wanderings through Italy, which culminated in the foundation of the town of Crimisa, and the construc­ tion of a sanctuary there to Apollo, where he dedicated his famous bow (Sch. Lyc. 911). The narration of the journeys of Philoctetes in Magna Graecia and the dedication of his bow to the temple of Apollo there are known from the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise Mirabilium auscultationes 840a. The paradoxographical and historical treatments of this story explain the duplication of Philoctetes’ nostos in the Hellenistic tradi­ tion83; thus, Philoctetes’ nostos looses its epic qualities and should be regarded within the framework of ktisis-literature. Besides, the geo­ graphical location of Philoctetes’ journeys and foundations in the West cannot be considered independently of the discussion among the Alexandrian scholars concerning the places in the Mediterranean that Odysseus (supposedly) visited during his ten years of voyaging on the sea84. The theme of return is substantially linked to the subject matter of kti­ sis in the nostos of the seer Calchas. Proclus states that the story, accord­ ing to which Calchas, returning to his homeland by land, died in Colophon and was buried there by his companions, played a significant role in the Nostoi (Proclus 105 K.): οί δέ περί Κάλχαντα και Λεοντέα και Πολυποίτην πεζή πορευθέντες είς Κολοφώνα Κάλχαντα ένταϋθα τελευτήσαντα θάπτουσι ‘those with Calchas, Leontes, and 82. See Crump (1931: 97 n.3). 83. ‘Double’ nostoi are also to be found in the tradition o f the Epic Cycle. In the Cypria the first disembarkation at Mysia and the capture o f Teuthrania were followed by a difficult return back to Greece (Proclus 26 K. ά π οπ λ έου σ ι δέ αΰτοΐς έκ τής Μ υσίας χειμ ώ ν έπιπίπτει καί διασκεδάννυται), thus foreshadowing the returns after the fall of Troy. 84. On the importance o f western geography in the ‘historicization’ o f Odysseus’ nos­ tos, see Berard (1927-1929) and W olf (1968); on mythical and historical geography in the Odyssey, see Lesky (1948-1949). Strabo attributes the ‘historicization’ o f Odysseus’ nos­ tos to Hesiod (Str. 1.2.14 ’Ε ρα τοσ θένη ς δέ Η σ ίο δ ο ν μ έν εΙκάζει π επ υ σ μ ένο ν περί τής Ό δ υ σ σ έω ς π λά νη ς δτι κατά Σ ικελία ν καί ’Ιταλίαν γεγένη τα ι).

86

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Polypoetes walked by land to Colophon and bury Calchas who died there’. It appears that the cyclic narrative unfolded in typical epic fash­ ion: the hero withdraws from the war front together with his compan­ ions, follows a route by land or sea and comes to a happy or sorry end. Hesiod added interesting details to the cyclic tradition of Calchas’ nos­ tos. In his Melampodia (fr. 278-279 M.-W.) Hesiod introduced as a clos­ est companion of Calchas the seer Amphilochus, who is mentioned in the Odyssey only in a genealogical footnote and not at all in the ///ad85; furthermore, he presented the death of Calchas as a result of a bitter row he had with Mopsus over soothsaying8687. The Hellenistic poets developed this episode into a ktisis story. The construction of the town of Mallos by Mopsus and Amphilochus and the etymologizing of the name from μαλλοί, the crowns linked to its foun­ dation, is treated by Callimachus (fr. 38 Pf.), Lycophron (Lyc. 439-446), Euphorion (fr. 98 CA=fr. 102 v.Gr.) and Eratosthenes (Sch. Lyc. 444)* ’. In the Callimachean Aetia, emphasis was probably given, as in the action on the ktisis of the Sicilian towns in the second book (fr. 43 Pf.), to the miraculous contribution of a bird to the building of the city (East, in Dion. Per. 875): άπό μαλλών, ήγουν στεμμάτων, ä κόρακος άρπάσαντός ποθεν καί καταθέντος ένταΰθα, έκτίσθη ή πόλις ‘the town was founded on the occasion when the μαλλοί, that is the crowns, were carried off by a raven and layed on its location’. This was the beginning of the disagreement which developed between Amphilochus and Mopsus regarding the assumption of power, which culminated in the death of both of them in a duel and their symbolic burial in distant parts of Mallos, so that neither tomb was in sight of the other88. Underscoring the detail of separate burials, Lycophron (445-446 ώς μή βλέπωσι, μηδέ νερτέρων έδρας/ δύντες, φόνφ λουσθέντας άλλήλων τάφους ‘so that may not behold each other’s tomb, bathed in blood, even in the dwellings of the dead’) and Euphorion (fr. 98.4 CA=fir. 102.4 v.Gr. μουνάξ άλλίστοιο πύλας εβαν Ά ϊδονήος ‘singly did they pass through the gates of inexorable Hades’) evoke the story of Eteocles and 85. In Od. 15.247 (in regard to Amphiaraos) ά λ λ ’ δ λ ε τ ’ έ ν Θ ή βη σ ι γυναίω ν εΓνεκα δώρων,/ τοϋ υ ΐεϊς έγ ένο ντ ' Ά λ κ μ ά ω ν Ά μ φ ίλ ο χ ό ς τε. 86. Probably Euphorion recounted the first episode of Calchas’ nostos, namely his competition with Mopsus in the sacred grove o f Gryneion; cf. the same story in the Latin elegiac poet Gallus (ft. 97 CA=fr. 101 v.Gr.). See van Groningen (1977: 169-173). 87. Strabo (14.5.16-17). The elegiac poet CaJlinus recounted the story of Mopsus in Pamphylia (Str. 14.4.3), on whom probably drew Callinus (Dieg. Iamb. 10). The western version o f Mopsus death in Libya is attested in Apollonius 1.79-81. 88. Baldriga (1994) discusses thoroughly the testimonies on the story o f Mopsus, Calchas and Amphilochus.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

87

Polyneices89. In this way Lycophron and Euphorion adopt a motif from the Theban cycle and adapt it to the context of the post-Homeric Trojan epics, the link being the seer Amphilochus, who played no more than a minor role in the Trojan war proper. The example above makes clear the preference of the Hellenistic poets for the return journeys of minor heroes, that is of those who were overshadowed by the nostos of Odysseus. One person who is of no con­ sequence at all in the return of Odysseus but becomes the central figure in an aetiological narrative by Callimachus is the anonymous έν Τεμέση ηρως (fr. 98 Pf.). In an analeptic narrative, the aetion was given for the statue of Zeus and that of the boxer Euthymus being dis­ played together at Olympia: Euthymus became famous for freeing Temesa from the burden of the dire toll imposed on the inhabitants by an abandoned companion of Odysseus. As is clear from the Diegesis, the return of Odysseus himself has no place in the Callimachean narrative. Instead, there is a description of the circumstances in which the compan­ ion was left behind in Temesa (Dieg. fr. 98 Pf. ο[τι έν Τεμέση ήρως περίλοιπος τής Όδυσσέως νεώς... ‘that the hero of Temesa surviving from the ship of Odysseus...’). It is not possible to identify this anony­ mous companion with any of the known comrades of Odysseus who play a role in the Odyssey90. However, the narrative details preserved by Strabo (6.1.5) and Pausanias (6.6.7-9) indicate that, in the aetion in question, Callimachus is rereading the story of Elpenor from the Odyssey (11.51-80). By tracing the story, we discover significant simi­ larities between the two narratives (if we can actually assume that Pau­ sanias is quoting Callimachus): during the return to his homeland, Odysseus wanders through the region of Italy (Paus. 6.6.6 Όδυσσέα πλανώμενον.,.ές τε αλλας τών έν Ίταλίςϊ καί Σικελίςι πόλεων); at some stage, one of his companions, under the influence of alcohol, rapes a young virgin and is stoned by the local inhabitants (Paus. 6.6.7 μεθυσθέντα ουν ένταΰθα ένα τών ναυτών παρθένον βιάσασθαι καί ύπό τών έπιχωρίων άντί τούτου καταλευσθήναι); Odysseus leaves, indifferent to the burial of the young man (Paus. 6.6.8 Ό δυσσέα μέν δή έν ούδενί λόγφ θέμενον αύτοϋ τήν άπώλειαν άποπλέοντα οϊχεσθαι); the soul of his companion does not find peace after death (Paus. 6.6.8 τοϋ καταλευσθέντος δέ άνθρώπου τόν δαίμονα οΰδένα άνιέναι καιρόν άποκτείνοντά τε δμοίως τούς έν τή Τεμέση) until 89. Gigante Lanzara (2000) 269-271. 90. According to Strabo (6.1.5), this man was Polites, one o f Odysseus’ companions (see Od. 10.224); on the name Λ ύκας or Ά λ ύ β α ς attested in Pausanias 6.6.11, see Pfeif­ fer (1949: on ft. 98).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

the living make acts of expiation (Paus. 6.6.8 τον δ]έ Ή ρ ω σφας έκέλευσεν Ιλάσκεσθαι). But the differences also repay attention, since Callimachus subjects the Odyssey story to the complex aetiological framing: as in the case of the death of Locrian Ajax, the ritual of the sac­ rifice of the virgins would have been the central axis of the story, while the starting-point and conclusion of the narrative was the archaeological aetion for the statue of Euthymus91. With these narrative strategies, the Hellenistic poets rewrite the tradi­ tional (epic and cyclic) nostoi: the tragic return of Agamemnon is not mentioned anywhere; we have no more than fleeting references to Neop­ tolemus’ and Menelaus’ homecomings92; the return of Ajax results in a thousand-year blood price; Diomedes and Philoctetes, after their nostos, find themselves wandering around the West. Their places are taken by minor persons, such as Amphilochus and Odysseus’ anonymous com­ rade, while the returns sometimes end in inglorious deaths. Here, the domination of the Odyssean nostos opened up new paths for the Hellenis­ tic poets. The return of the hero did not create the preconditions for the development of fabulous wanderings and adventuresome revenge along the lines of the Odyssey itself. Arcane stories, local religious customs, unusual locations, the foundation of cities and marginal personae point the way for an anti-heroic, novel poetry of return journeying.

onauts belong to a primitive and fabulous age is prevalent throughout Apollonius’ epic94. But this is an illusion that conflicts with the metaliterary character of the Argonautica, since Apollonius narrates the Arg­ onautic myth against the backdrop of previous epic poetry, both Homer95 and the Epic Cycle96. Thus, although the Trojan mythological material does not form the core of the Argonautica, the Homeric and cyclic way of ‘epicizing’ myth is apparent throughout this Hellenistic epic97. In addition to the intertextual dialogue of the Argonautica with the epic tradition, the Argonautic myth can be read as the archaeology of the Trojan myth proper. Since the Argonauts are a generation older than the Achaeans who campaign in Troy, it is only natural that unknown stories concerning the ‘fathers’ of the Trojan heroes, who during their youth belonged to the crew of the Argonauts, play an important role in the Argonautica. Moreover, Apollonius fully exploits the chronological con­ nection between the two myths by introducing well-known characters of the Trojan myth, such as Thetis, Peleus and even Achilles, into second­ ary narratives of the Argonautica. In what follows I will discuss the ‘Trojan’ passages of the Argonautica both within the context of Apollo­ nius’ narrative as well as from an intertextual viewpoint.

88

B.4. The Argonautica as a comment upon the Trojan myth The Argonautica is an epic concerning the very beginnings of myth. It is dominated by creation stories, narratives about the Olympian gods and little known heroes and heroines, the mythical adventures of Deucalion, Prometheus and Phrixus, Heracles and Theseus, all invested with arcane genealogical and aetiological knowledge93. The impression that the Arg91. Callimachus also recounted the story o f another companion o f Odysseus, Aenus, after whom the city Aenos o f Thrace was named, see ff. 697 Pf. and the testimonies col­ lected by Pfeiffer (1949: ad loc.), cf. Euphorion (fr. 62 CA=fr. 67 v.Gr.). 92. On the nostos o f Neoptolemus, see Theocritus 15.140 ού Π ύρρος άπό Τροίας έπανενθώ ν; perhaps it figured also in the story o f Peleus at Icus in Callimachus’ Aetia (fr. 178-185 Pf.), cf. Sch. Eur. Tr. 1129. Callimachus only indirectly hints at Menelaus’ passage from Egypt and his meeting with Proteus in fr. 254.4-5 SH είς Έ λ ένη ίς νησ ΐδ]α καί είς Π α λ λ η νέα μ ά [ντιν/ π οιμ ένα [φωκάων] (cf. Od. 4.351-480). 93. Stephens (2003: 171-183) argues that Apollonius situates his narrative in the preHomeric world, in order to create, through the Argonautic myth, a new ‘epic’ past for the Ptolemies. According to her view, the Trojan myth was highly unsuitable for such an aim (p. 173): “But the uniqueness of Alexandria, with its bicultural formation, the ethnic diversity o f its Greek population, its lack o f autochthonous heroes, as well as the histori-

89

cal circumstance o f its very recent foundation, made it sufficiently unlike earlier Greek cities that the Homeric epics with their heroic values and their focus on the defining moment o f the Trojan war were an uneasy fit for the emerging apparatus o f the Ptolemaic state.” 94. Apollonius in his proem alludes to the proems o f the fictional Homeric bards, namely Demodocus and Phemius. But unlike the Homeric aoidos who presents himself as being contemporary with the heroes he sings of, Apollonius with the first verse o f his poem, π α λα ιγενέω ν κλ έα φωτών, emphasizes the gap between the narrator and the dis­ tant world o f the Argonauts (Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004: 90-93] and Clare [2002: 20-32], cf. Albis [1996: 8-11]). 95. Knight (1995) offers a good starting point, when she summarizes the Homeric substratum o f the Argonautica as follows (p. 9): use o f Homeric devices such as ‘typical scenes’ and extended similes, reference to the pantheon o f gods who intervene at crucial points o f the action, and re-writing o f mega-themes o f the Homeric epics (e.g. the nostos o f Odysseus). Nevertheless, Homeric allusion in the Argonautica is a complex and much debated issue in Apollonian scholarship, on which see the monographs by Knight (1995), Dufher (1988) and Clare (2002), cf. Carspecken (1952) and Fantuzzi (2001). On Apollo­ nius being aware o f his epigonal status, see the discussion o f the Argonautica in Goldhill (1991: 284-333). 96. According to Hunter (Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004: 96-97]), the Argonautica, as regards both its mythological substratum and its main poetic devices, conforms with the tradition o f the Epic Cycle; Apollonius certainly utilized Eumelus’ Corinthiaca, the Naupactica, narratives from the Theban Cycle and the Cypria. Griffin (1977) has argued that the magical, the fantastic and the erotic-romantic elements in epic poetry derive from the Epic Cycle (cf. Albis [1996: 5 n. 18]). Magic is contrasted to the ‘rationalization’ o f myth in the Homeric epics, see Lesky (1966: 36). 97. Analogous is the adaptation o f the Odyssey to Virgil’s Aeneid, see Papanghelis (1999).

90

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

The Iliadic heroes are written into the genes of the Argonauts; the for­ mulaic patronymics and genealogy of the Achaeans is reflected in the naming of Jason’s companions98. The Argonaut Iphiclus (1.45), king of Phylace, comes into the Homeric catalogue as the father of Protesilaus and Podarces, who replaced his brother in the battle (cf. //. 2.705 Ίφίκλου υίός πολυμήλου Φυλακίδαο); Admetus (1.49) is the father of the minor Iliadic hero Eumelus (cf. II. 2.713 Ά δμήτοιο φίλος πάϊς); Coronus, son of Caeneus (1.57) is the father of Leonteus, a Homeric hero who appears only once in the Iliadic battle in 12.127-194 (cf. II. 2.746 υίός ύπερθύμοιο Κορώνου Καινεΐδαο); Menoetius (1.69) is dis­ patched on the Argonautic campaign by his father. Actor, just as he him­ self later sends his own son Patroclus to Troy (in the Iliad Patroclus is known as Μενοιτίου άλκιμος υίός or Μενοιτιάδης); Oeleus (1.74) is the father of Locrian Ajax (cf. II. 2.527 Ό ϊλήος ταχύς Αίας), and of Medon (cf. II. 2.727 Ό ϊλή ος νόθος υίός); the two Aeacids, Telamon and Peleus (1.93-94), are the fathers of Ajax and Achilles respectively (cf. the patronym Aeacides and Peleides for Achilles, and Telamonius and Telamoniades for Ajax); Heracles is represented in the Iliad by Tlepolemus (Heracleides); Periclymenus (1.156), the elder son of Neleus, recalls the venerable Nestor of the Iliad (II. 7.100 Νηληϊάδαο γέροντος); Ancaeus (1.164) is the father of Arcadian Agapenor (cf. II. 2.609 Ά γκαίοιο πάϊς); since Meleager is already dead at the time of the Trojan campaign (1.191), the position of the head of the Aetolian forces is taken by Thoas (II. 2.638-644); the Argonaut Iphitus (1.207) also sends his sons to Troy (II. 2.518 υίες Ίφίτου)99. The participation of these heroes in the Argonautic campaign indirectly gives the grounds for the presence of their descendants in the war at Troy. There is, how­ ever, a crucial difference between the two catalogues: in the Iliad, the forces mentioned are overshadowed by a central figure, Achilles, while 98. Knight (1995: 27-28) observes the interest shared by Hellenistic poets in the ‘preHomeric generation’ o f heroes. 99. And conversely, the names of some minor heroes from the catalogue o f the Arg­ onauts occur in genealogies o f the Trojans in the Iliad (Eurydamas 1.67 - II. 5.149 υίέας Εύρυδάμαντος, Clytius 1.86 ~ It. 15.419 υια Κ λυτίοιο Κ αλήτορα, cf. Euphemus 1.179 ~ II. 2.846 for the leader o f the Cicones and Laocoon 1.191 ~ the priest o f Apollo in Troy). The Argonaut Iphitus gives Odysseus the bow with which he kills the suitors in Od. 21.1 Iff.; the Argonaut Amphidamas is the one who gives Odysseus his helmet {II. 10.268-271) and he is also the father o f the child accidentally killed by Patroclus over a dice game {II. 23.87-88). It should also be noted that the Dioscuri, who have a central role in the Argonautica, are absent from the Iliad (3.236-242), although they are the only heroes who could bridge the chronological gap between the two mythological cycles. Several other protagonists o f the Argonautica, such as Polyphemus, Theseus, Peirithous and Augeias, are mentioned by Nestor in the Iliad as heroes of the distant past {II. 1.263265 and 2.701-702).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

91

the Argonauts function as a disparate group without a proper leader. The numerous minor leading players in the Argonautica replace the single Homeric hero; from a generic point of view, this may indicate that Apollonius departs from the model of the Iliad and the Odyssey and approaches that of the Epic Cycle100. The gathering of the clans of the Argonauts at Pagasae naturally has its literary precedent in the Catalogue o f Ships in the Iliad101, but is closer thematically to the assembly of the Greeks at Aulis, familiar from the Cypria and tragedy. Nevertheless, the splendid event of the departure of the Argo is staged on the basis of a crucial episode from the beginning of the Trojan cycle, the wedding of Peleus and Thetis102. In the Argonautica, embarkation onto the Argo takes on the dimen­ sions of a theatrical performance for the gods (1.547-548): πάντες δ ’ ουρανόθεν λεϋσσον θεοί ήματι κείνα>/ νήα καί ήμιθέων άνδρών γένος ‘on that day all the gods looked down from heaven on the ship and the half-divine generation of men’. The scene is set in Pelion, where, according to the Cypria, the gods had feasted in earlier days to bless the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (fr. 3=Seh. II. 16.140 κατά γάρ Πηλέως καί Θέτιδος γάμον οί θεοί συναχθέντες είς τό Π ήλιον έπ ’ εύωχίμ ‘on the occasion of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis the gods gathered together on Pelion to feast’)103. In both episodes, the Trojan and the Argonautic, Cheiron plays a central role104. In the Cypria he appears as the giver of the victorious spear, which from Peleus will pass to Achilles. The spear is made of ash from Pelion and crafted by Athena herself (fr. 3 B.=Sch. II. 16.140 Χείρων δέ μελίαν ευθαλή τεμών είς δόρυ παρέσχεν, ψασί μέν Ά θηνάν ξέσαι αύτό ‘Cheiron gave him an ashen shaft which he had cut for a spear, and 100. Hunter (Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004 : 95-97]) suggests epics such as the Nostoi and the Epigonoi as models for the proliferation o f the heroes in the Argonautica. Rengakos (2004) argues for the similarity o f narrative technique between the Argonautica and the cyclic epics on the basis o f their linear plot. 101. On a parallel reading o f the two catalogues, see Carspecken (1952: 38-58), Clauss (1993: 57-87), Sistakou (2001) and Roth (2004). 102. In Catullus c.64.1-30 the departure o f the Argo was the occasion during which Peleus and Thetis met and fell in love. 103. Hunter (1993: 73) suggests that the wedding-scene o f Jason and Medea in Arg­ onautica 4.1139-1152, performed in the cave o f the Phaeacians (4.1139 Φαιήκων Ιερφ ένϊ τη λ ό θ εν αντρω) and witnessed only by the local nymphs, owes much to poetic accounts o f the wedding of Peleus and Thetis in the cave o f Cheiron on Pelion. 104. It is not without significance that while the poet o f the Iliad was aware o f the story o f Cheiron, he preferred to present a more human figure, i.e. Phoenix, as Achilles’ teacher (see Mackie [1997] with a bibliographical overview). By stressing the presence of Cheiron, Apollonius obviously reintroduces the supernatural element into the myth of Achilles.

92

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Athena, it is said, polished it’, cf. //. 16.143 Πηλιάδα μελίην). Cheiron and his wife bid the Argonauts farewell with infant Achilles in their arms (1.553-558); and the ship talcing the Argonauts on their epic voyage is also made of wood from Pelion and was built under the supervision of Athena (1.525 Π ηλιάς ’Αργώ and 551 εργον Ά θηναίης Ίτωνίδος). In fact, the Iliadic triangle Peleus-Thetis-Achilles has a crucial role in the Argonautica. Peleus appears as an Argonaut (in the Iliad Peleus is, along with Priam, the dominant father figure); Thetis is the one who mediates between the divine and human planes for the salvation of the Argonauts (she has the same role in the Iliad in restoring Achilles’ hon­ our); and even Achilles himself appears in the margins of the Argonautic myth as a young infant in the custody of Cheiron. As a dynamic hero and father of a hero, Peleus symbolizes in his person the passage from the first generation of heroes, the Argonauts, to the next, the warriors of Troy. In a similar fashion, Thetis is presented as an alternative maternal figure, with erotic overtones, in the Argonautica, though without the tragic coloring she is given in the Iliad. It is typical that Thetis in the Argonautica is animated by anger; her wrath towards Peleus precedes -and on a textual level repeats- the wrath of Achilles in the Iliad (4.816 τί tot χόλος έστήρικται; ‘why is your wrath so steadfast?’; 4.863-864 νόφ δ’ έχε, μή με χολώσρς/ πλεΐον ’έ τ ’, ή τό πάροιθεν άπηλεγέως έχόλωσας ‘but beware not to anger me anymore as you did anger me so recklessly in the past’)105. Apollonius bridges the two cycles, the Argonautic and the Trojan, in the persons of Peleus, Thetis and, by extension, Achilles. Achilles appears in the Argonautica as an infant under the guardianship of the Centaur Cheiron; on a textual level, the best of the Achaeans has already completed his course in literature -with the Iliad recording his heroic wrath and martial feats, the cyclic epics his adventures before the start of the war until his death and the distribution of his weapons, and the Odyssey his fate after death in the Elysian Fields. Through the Alexan­ drian transformation of the Achaean hero into a charming infant, Apollo­ nius incorporates into Hera’s speech a retrospective look at the begin­ nings of the Trojan conflict, i.e. the marriage between Peleus and Thetis106. In this instance, Hera, who wanted to reward Thetis for turning down an offer of making love to Zeus, gave her Peleus for her husband 105. Fantuzzi-Hunter(2004: 104-117). On the wrath o f Thetis in the Argonautica, see Clauss (1993: 88-105); on the Iliadic allusions on the same subject, see Slatkin (1986). That wrath is the central theme o f the Argonautica is argued by Dräger (2001). 106. On the ‘urbanization’ o f the episode, see Fusillo (1985: 65-68).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

93

(4.790-809)107: the prehistory of the union of the immortal Thetis and the mortal Peleus culminates in the mention of the wedding, in which all the gods took part. The episode had a central role in the Cypria (Proclus 2 K., Cypria fr. 2-3 B.), while it was also incorporated in the Catalogue of Women (fr. 211 M.-W.), in a poem by Alcaeus (ff. 42 L.-P.), in Euripi­ des’ Iphigenia at Aulis (1036-1079) and also in Catullus’ c.64108. The common bond between Jason and Achilles is that they both had the Centaur Cheiron to bring them up. The figure of Cheiron is a com­ ponent part of the literary prehistory of Jason and, as such, is introduced in the first verses of the Argonautica (1.33 ΑΙσονίδης Χείρωνος έφημοσύνμσι πιθήσας ‘Aeson’s son obedient to the behest of Cheiron’). On the other hand, the induction of Achilles into the mysteries of the art of medicine (already known from Iliad 11.830-832) and his upbringing from early infancy in the. Argonautica (1.553-558 and 4.812-813) are the consequence of the separation of his parents, a mythological event which, as has been noted, derives from the Epic Cycle109. Besides, the appearance of Cheiron introduces us into a magical/supematural atmos­ phere and, from an intertextual point of view, brings Apollonius closer to the extra-Homeric models of his poetry, and, principally, to Hesiod (cf. his poem The Precepts of Cheiron fr. 283-285 M.-W.)110. In the scene of the departure of the Argo, Apollonius reverses expectations: the reader is expecting that Cheiron will be coming down from Pelion together with his wife to bid farewell to his charge, Jason (1.556 νόστον έπευφήμησεν άπηρέα νισομένοισι ‘he cried out to them as they departed to have a sorrowless return home’). It is gradually revealed, however, that the farewell has to do with Peleus and his infant son Achilles (1.557-558): συν καί ol παράκοιτις, έπωλένιον φορέουσα Πηλεΐδην Άχιλήα, φίλφ δειδίσκετο πατρί. 107. This version is probably hinted at by Apollonius (see A.R. 4.806-807 where Hera is speaking έγώ τον α ρισ τον έπ ιχθονίω ν π ό σ ιν είνα ι/ δώκά τοι), while in the Iliad (and presumably in the Cypria ) it was Zeus who imposed the marriage with a mortal on Thetis (//. 18.431-434, cf. Cypria fr.2 B.). 108. The marriage o f Peleus and Thetis belongs to the cyclic episodes that deeply influenced epic, lyric and tragic poetry, see Jouan (1966: 68-87). On the epithalamion from the Catalogue of Women, see Hirschberger (2004: 386-387), cf. Contiades-Tsitsoni (1990: 45); in connection with Apollonius, see Sistakou (2007a: 80-83). 109. Sch. A.R. 1.558 ή κ ο λ ο ύ θ η σ εν Α π ο λ λ ώ ν ιο ς τοΐς μ εθ ’ Ό μ η ρ ο ν ποιηταΐς ύπό Χ είρ ω νος λέγω ν τον Ά χ ι λ λ έ α τραιρήναι. On the pre-Homeric image of Achilles in epic, lyric and dramatic poetry, see Jouan (1966: 87-92); especially on the upbringing o f divine or heroic infants as a theme o f the satyr drama, see Micheiakis (2002: 173 n.69). 110. Mackie (1997: 1-6).

94

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Together with his bedmate bearing Achilles Peleides, to bid farewell to his beloved father. The mood of the passage -the sequence of the ritualistic departure of the Argo with the leave-taking of the heroes, the dramatic separation of Jason from his mother and the sacrifice to the gods for a successful out­ come of the campaign- transfers the atmosphere of Iliad book 6 to the context of the Argonautic myth. There Hector returns to Priam’s palace, where he has an emotionally charged meeting with his mother and asks her to sacrifice to the gods (6.242-310). Hector’s dramatic goodbye cul­ minates, however, in his meeting with Andromache and his little son (6.370-493). The thematic and narrative similarities between the two scenes can readily be seen: it is precisely these similarities that allow the appearance of Achilles as a child in the Argonautica in the light of the description of Astyanax in the Iliad'11. The word παράκοιτις, although it refers to the wife of Cheiron, clearly echoes the conjugal identity of Andromache in the Iliad (II. 6.374 ακοιτιν, 394 αλοχος, cf. 430 παρακοίτης for Hector). The contrast between the tiny size of the infant (1.557 έπωλένιον φορέουσα) and the heroic deposition of the Homeric formula Π ηλεΐδην Ά χιλ ή α (1.558), the co-existence in a single verse of the unformed, in terms of age, Achilles and the fully-fledged, in liter­ ary terms, epic hero minimizes an antithesis which informs the whole speech of Hector and Andromache in the Iliad: the image of the inno­ cent babe, Astyanax and his fate after the fall of Troy (6.407-409), and that of Achilles, who had already slain the whole of Andromache’s paternal house and would kill Hector (6.409-410, 414-424). The adop­ tion of the Homeric situation brings to the reader’s mind the Iliadic scene112. And yet the Homeric Astyanax lives the tragedy of war through being terrified at the sight of Hector in arms (6.466-474). Much more distanced, the Achilles of Apollonius addresses the start of the Argonau­ tic campaign and the departure of Peleus indifferently, free of the pas­ sions of Astyanax, which were suited only to an epic of the dimensions of the Iliad. In other words, the mention of Achilles among the Centaur Cheiron and the Nymphs, as an eyewitness of the Argonautic campaign in conjunction with his infant years, strip him of the tragic weight he has as a hero in the Iliad. 111. We should not overlook the ‘pictorial’ quality o f the description o f babies and children in Hellenistic poetry; for visual arts and poetry as ‘sister arts’ in the Hellenistic period, see Zänker (2004). Euripides seems to have been the first to present famous Tro­ jan war heroes (such as Neoptolemus and Orestes) as infants or children in his dramas in order to produce a strong theatrical effect, see Jouan (1966; 436-437). 112. It should be noted, though, that the image o f the infant Achilles is also a vivid memory for the Iliadic Phoenix (9.485-491).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

95

The young age of Achilles is not merely a realistic convention, or a symbol of anti-heroism, but a stage during which author and reader watch how an innocent and unformed individual is transformed into a textually-charged hero113. Within this context, Apollonius introduces a digression on the separation of Thetis and Peleus (4.866-879): Τόν δ’ αχός αίνον ετυψεν, έπεϊ πόρος ούκέτ’ Ιοΰσαν έδρακεν, έξότε πρώτα λίπεν θάλαμόν τε και εύνήν, χωσαμένη Άχιλήος άγαυοΰ νηπιάχοντος. Ή μέν γάρ βροτέας αίεϊ περί σάρκας έδαιε νύκτα διά μέσσην φλογμφ πυρός- ηματα δ’ αυτε άμβροσίη χρίεσκε τέρεν δέμας, δφρα πέλοιτο άθάνατος καί οί στυγερόν χροΐ γήρας άλάλκοι. Αυτάρ 6 γ’ έξ εύνής άναπάλμενος είσενόησε παΐδα φίλον σπαίροντα διά φλογός- ήκε δ’ άυτήν σμερδαλέην έσιδών, μέγα νήπιος. Ή δ’ άίουσα, τόν μέν αρ’ άρπάγδην χαμάδις βάλε κεκληγώτα, αυτή δέ, πνοιή Ικέλη δέμας, ήύτ’ δνειρος, βή β’ ϊμεν έκ μεγάροιο θοώς καί έσήλατο πόντον χωσαμένη- μετά δ’ ου τι παλίσσυτος ΐκετ’ όπίσσω. Sharp pain smote Peleus, for he had never seen Thetis come, since she left her bridal chamber and bed in anger, on account of noble Achilles, who was then an infant. For always at night she wrapped his mortal flesh with the flame of fire; and day by day anointed with ambrosia his tender frame, so that he might be immortal and she ward off loathsome old age from his body. But Peleus sprang out from his bed and saw his dear son gasping in the flame; and at the sight he uttered a terrible cry, the foolish man; Thetis heard it, and catching up the child threw him screaming to the ground, and herself like a breath of wind passed swiftly from the hall as a dream and leapt into the sea, with exceeding wrath, and never more returned again. Thetis abandoned her conjugal hearth due to her clash with Peleus over her attempt to make Achilles immortal by burning him with fire. The episode is overlooked in the Iliad"4, but can be found in a significant number of the neoteroi and probably in the Cypria (fr. 35 B.)115. The 113. This idea is suggested by Barchiesi (2001. 106). 114. E.g. in the scene where Thetis predicts the death o f Achilles in II. 18.59-60. According to the Iliad Achilles was brought up in the house of Peleus (see for example the narration o f Pheonix in 9.478ff.) and not in the cave o f Cheiron, as attested by the neoteroi (Cypria fr. 36 B.). Cf. the scholia collected by Severyns (1928: 254-259). 115. Severyns (1928: 254-259) maintains that Apollonius, in presenting this episode, drew upon the Cypria. Unlike the poets o f the Epic Cycle, Alcaeus (fr. 42 L.-P.) pre­ sented Thetis as a model w ife in contrast to Helen.

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

Hesiodic branch of the epic tradition provides evidence that Thetis also attempted to make Peleus’ elder sons immortal, actually by baptizing them in water, while Peleus prevented the same happening to Achilles116. The symbolism of water in connection with Achilles is also encountered in the Iliad, when the hero plunges into the Scamander (II. 21.233-234), whereas another branch of epic tradition claims that Achilles was baptized in the Styx117. Apollonius obviously refers to the cyclic version of the story; however, by substituting fire for water and by eliminating the minor figures, the six sons of Peleus, Apollonius adapts the story to match Hellenistic aesthetic118. The use of the epic tra­ dition does not involve the unrestricted adoption of the cyclic narrative; even though the cyclic version must have displayed supernatural ele­ ments, the bold management of the scene in Apollonius is genuinely Alexandrian. The episode takes place in the middle of the night, as appropriate to magical rites (4.870 νύκτα διά μέσσην)119; the insistence on the bodily presence of Achilles reflects Alexandrian aestheticism (4.869 βροτέας...σάρκας and 871 τέρεν δέμας); the sudden awaken­ ing of Peleus, the writhings of the infant in the fire and its loud cry all make for wonderfully realistic pictures (4.873-874 έξ βύνης άνεπαλμενος, 874 παΐδα.,.σπαίροντα διά φλογός and 876 κεκληγώτα)120. The war cry of the Iliad is transposed from the field of battle to the premises of a home (874-875 ήκε δ ’ άυτήν/ σμερδαλέην); and the Homeric address μέγα νήπιος is attributed, ironically, not to Thetis but to Peleus (4.875). To this elaborate setting we may add the psychologi­ cal exploration of the emotions of the protagonists (such as the delicate observation of Peleus’ pain at seeing Thetis again, 4.866 τον δ ’ αχός αίνον έτυψεν, or on the wrath of the goddess, 4.879 χωσαμένη) and the atmosphere of fantasy dominating the conclusion of the scene (when the flight of Thetis is compared to a breath of wind or a dream in 4.877

πνοιη Ικέλη δέμας, ήύτ’ δνειρος, while at the same time her miracu­ lous immersion in the Ocean is recalled 4.878 βή β’ ϊμεν έκ μεγάροιο θοώς καί έσήλατο πόντον). The episode is crucial for the redefinition of epic ideology within the framework of Hellenistic poetics. The epic roles of male and female regarding the oikos are reversed in a dramatic way when Thetis abandons her mortal spouse and her innocent child121. Besides, the attempt on the part of Thetis to baptize Achilles so that he will attain immortality supplants his heroic ethos with a magic charm, transferring the male virtue par excellence to a female character122. Apollonius reserves another reference for Achilles, to do with his fate after death. As Hera prophesies, Achilles will marry Medea in the Elysian Fields (4.811-815); ευτ’ αν ές Ή λύσιον πεδίον τεός υίός ϊκηται.,.χρειώ μιν κούρης πόσιν έμμεναι Αίήταο/ Μ ηδείης ‘when your son will come to the Elysian plain...it is fated that he will become the husband of Medea, Aeetes’ daughter’123. In the Argonautica Achilles, as the post mortem husband of Medea, ironically replaces Jason. In real­ ity, the Achilles of the Iliad (the mature warrior) is entirely absent from the Argonautica, and in his place there appears an infant and a deified hero. Even more so, the Achilles of Apollonius is distanced from mor­ tals -since he is inducted into a fabulous context- and therefore from the dramatic and more earthly Achilles of the Iliad, with the result that his tragic bearing is substantially reduced124. With this shedding of his

96

116. In the hexametric poem Aegimius (fr. 300 M.-W.). Lycophron 178-179 adopts an alternative version, according to which Thetis used fire in order to render her sons immor­ tal. On a detailed discussion o f the episode, see Mackie (1998: 329-338) and Burgess (1995). 117. Mackie (1998: 330 and n.6). Burgess (1995: 218) suggests that there was an early tradition o f the infant Achilles being placed in fire or boiling water, as opposed to a later tradition of Achilles being dipped into the Styx. 118. Mackie (1998) first draws a parallel between Apollonius’ description o f the episode and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, where the goddess attempts to make Demophon immortal, and then he goes on to compare Achilles’ immersion in fire with the symbol o f the death pyre, as found in connection with Achilles’ death in the Odyssey and the Aethiopis. 119. Cf. two famous ‘nocturnal’ scenes from Theocritus: Simaetha’s magic ritual in Idyll 2 and the heroic deeds of baby Heracles in Idyll 24, both performed during the night.

97

120. The image o f the infant Achilles in Apollonius should be read against the back­ drop of Pindar’s Nemeart 3, where Achilles is presented as a child prodigy (e.g. in vv. 4449, where Achilles kills wild animals with his child’s spear, cf. Sch. Pi. N. 3.79 άνάλογ ο ν ε ίχ ε τή ήλικίςι βρα χυ σ ίδ η ρ ον ακοντα, τουτέστι παιδικφ δόρατι έχρήσα το). 121. The gender-system o f the Homeric epics, especially o f the Odyssey, is structured around the idea o f the oikos, see Felson-Slatkin (2004) with bibliography. Broadly speak­ ing, Apollonius seems to insist on unsuccessful family relationships and broken family bonds, thus distancing his heroes from the traditional ethical values o f the Homeric epics. Thus, as Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 99) aptly remark, “in the Argonautica, family relations are principally sources o f grief (Jason and his parents, Cyzicus and his young bride) or hostility (Medea and her parents). Viewed from this perspective, Jason has no future, and his epic remarkably scripts its own marginality.” 122. Stephens (2003: 212 and n.103). On how Achilles was made invulnerable, see King (1987: 131 and 271 n.68). 123. The image o f Achilles in Hades is already present in Od. 11.467ff. and 24.15ff. However, the marriage o f Achilles and Medea was not part o f the epic tradition but is a fact known only to the lyric poets (Sch. A.R. 4.814-815a δτι δέ Ά χ ιλ λ ε ΰ ς ε ίς τό Ή λ ύ σ ιο ν π εδ ίο ν π α ρ α γενόμ ενος εγη μ ε Μ ήδεια ν, πρώτος Ί β υ κ ο ς εϊρη κε, μ εθ ’ δ ν Σιμωνίδης), and also mentioned by Lycophron 174-175. 124. The immortalization o f Achilles, as presented in Apollonius, Lycophron and Theocritus, lessens the tragic effect of the ‘mortal hero’ o f the Iliad, see Schein (1984). That the Iliad, an anatomy o f death in war, cannot focus upon an invulnerable hero is pointedly suggested by Griffin (1977: 40-41). Achilles is immortal only in the Odyssey (11.539-540, 24.13), the Aethiopis (Proclus 66 K.) and the lyric poets, namely

98

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

heroic persona, he now approaches the Hellenistic hero, the model for whom is also the Argonaut Jason125. The wanderings and return of the Argonauts create the thematic con­ ditions for Apollonius to suggest not only the Iliad but also the Odyssey with his epic126. The return of the Argonauts to Greece is fashioned on the plan of the wanderings of Odysseus. The literary inversion is created by the feeling that the Odyssean nostos with its geographical locations, its leading figures and its dramatic scenes was actually first experienced by the Argonauts'27. The geographical milestone for both journeys is the passage through the Symplegades, the boundary between East and West or, otherwise, the notional boundary between historical and fabulous wanderings128. The first reference to the Planctae (a place-name identi­ fied with the Symplegades in Homeric geography) occurs in the prophetic speech of Circe to Odysseus and his companions (Od. 12.5982). In this passage, there is, indeed, a metaliterary allusion to an earlier epic on the Argonautic expedition {Od. 12.69-70) οϊη δή κείνη γε παρέπλω ποντοπόρος νηΰς/ "Αργώ πδσι μέλουσα, παρ’ Αίήταο πλέουσα ‘the only ship that ever sailed and got through, was the famous Argo on her way from the house of Aeetes’129. In making the Argonauts go through the Symplegades, once on the way to Aea (2.528-647) and again from Planctae on their sea route to the Adriatic (4.924-963), Apol­ lonius interprets a problem of Homeric geography130, but at the same Simonides fr. 558 PMG, Ibycus fr. 291 PMG and Pindar O. 2.28-30, see Fantuzzi (2000b: 233 n.3). 125. Clause (1993 : 98 and n.21) draws a parallel between the divorce o f Peleus and Thetis and the divorce o f Jason and Medea, with emphasis on the issue of parental con­ trol. 126. Clare (2002) views the Argonautica as a metaliterary comment on the Odyssey, as a whole, the journey o f the Argonauts might be viewed as a symbol o f the poet’s own ‘voyage’ (Albis [1996: 43-66]). By placing the wanderings o f Aeneas in the fantastic world o f Odyssean landmarks, Virgil stresses the intertextual dialogue between his epic and the Odyssey, see Papanghelis (1999 : 275-284). 127. Knight (1995: 122-266) argues that, apart from the direct allusions to Odyssean episodes, the atmosphere and the main themes relating to the Cicones, the Lotus-Eaters, the Cyclops, Aeolus, the Laestrygonians and Circe are indirectly reflected in the charac­ ters and episodes o f the Argonautica. 128. Knight (1995: 41-48 and 210-216) offers a detailed discussion o f the passage o f the Symplegades in the Odyssey and the Argonautica. 129. Argonautic and Trojan myth converge in the Iliad: in 7.464-469 the Achaeans drink wine sent by Euenus, the son o f Jason and Hypsipyle; the allusion to the episode o f Lemnos is reflected in Sch. ex [Ariston.?] II. 7.468, where it is noted that Homer καί τά Ά ρ γονα υ τικ ά οϊδεν. Lemnos as the seat o f the Argonauts is also mentioned among the allies o f the Greeks in 21.40-44 (cf. Sch. ex. II. 21.40b ήδη γάρ αύτήν φ κ ου ν "Ελληνες τών ’Αργοναυτώ ν). 130. On the confusion between the place names Συμπληγάδες and Π λαγκταί, see Seaton (1887), Lindsay (1965) and the testimonies collected by Livrea (1973: on A.R.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

99

time, in alluding to the Odyssean passage, he comments upon the epic tradition in general. As the Argonauts pass through Planctae, Apollo­ nius, on his intertextual journey, is taken back to the very beginnings of the pre-Homeric poetic tradition. In fact, the fairytale-like adventures that begin from the meeting with Circe and continue until Thrinacia were transferred to the Odyssey from an earlier cycle of mythical narra­ tives concerning the Argonauts131. But while any direct dependence of Apollonius on the most ancient epic tradition regarding the Argonauts can be seriously questioned, the pretence of this dependence is adopted as an academic pose by the Hellenistic poet132. In any case, the fact that the Argonautic myth was founded on the supernatural adventures of heroes who were not risking their lives to achieve their epic feats con­ tributed to the choice of this particular myth by Apollonius133. So Apollonius reworks the homecoming of the Homeric Odyssey. from the crucial visit to Circe, the meeting with the Sirens, the passage between Scylla and Charybdis, the journey through Planctae and the voy­ age to Thrinacia until the final stop at Phaeacia and the palace of Alcinoos (4.552-1169)134. The atmosphere in the Argonautica is fabulous, especially in the scenes where the Argo plays the leading role as a ship with supernatural powers135, whereas the geographical setting is realistic. With help from scientific geography, the imaginary journey of Odysseus, as projected upon the Argonautic nostos, is introduced into the real world136. The dialogue which develops between the Hellenistic and the Homeric epic takes place, therefore, on a number of levels. It is not only the commonplaces of imaginary travels around mythical locations that unite the Argonautic and Trojan myths, but also the dramatic variations that Apollonius introduces into the Odyssean return as told by Homer. First of all, the moving powers of the Odyssey, and, indeed, of the Iliad, are present in the return of the Argonauts: Hera, Iris, Hephaestus, Aeolus, and Thetis all work together towards the successful outcome of 4.786). Knight (1995: 153-156) offers an overview o f the locating o f O dysseus’ wander­ ings in the western Mediterranean from Hesiod onwards. 131. On this much debated issue dating from the time o f Kirchhoff and Meuli until today, see the bibliography collected by Knight (1995: 152 n.68). 132. E.g. in the proem o f the Argonautica, where the poet hints at his difficulty o f beginning anew, i.e. o f narrating a story retold by poets o f older times, see Clare (2002: 31-32). Cf. the metaliterary allusion o f verse 4.985 ούκ έθέλ ω ν ένέπω προτέρω ν Επος. 133. On this dimension o f the Argonautic myth, see Griffin (1977: 41). 134. Apollonius omits, however, the descent to Hades; nevertheless, he emphasizes that Hades was a typical destination for heroes o f epics (e.g. in reference to Theseus 1.101-104, see Clare [2002: 84-88]). 135. Gaunt (1972). 136. Clare (2002: 131-139).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

the Argonautic voyage. It is also of interest that Apollonius chooses Medea as his protagonist in the epic of the return journey, rather than Jason, who would have been the epic equivalent of Odysseus. So yet again in the Argonautica, the role of the hero, both in feats as well as in wanderings, i.e. precisely where one would expect an Achilles or an Odysseus, is given to a female. The Argonautic and Trojan cycles are quite clearly connected to each other. Given the mythological chronology, the one succeeds the other directly, just as the generation of the Trojan heroes succeeds the one of the Argonauts. But in essence the Trojan myth is never a real narrative in the Argonautica. Fleeting images of an Achilles we do not recognize from the heroic epic, catalogues of names which recall the patronymics of the Iliad and textual echoes from the Odyssey are momentary and static projections of the Trojan myth. The thematic contiguity between the two myths is the excuse for Apollonius to cross older epics with his own, to make the Argonautica an intertextual comment on the epic tra­ dition itself. Peleus and Thetis link the cyclic and Homeric versions of the Trojan myth; Achilles and Odysseus, the former with the sketch of his pre-heroic phase and the latter through his absence, signpost the con­ nection between the Homeric and the modem epics. The Argonautica thus epitomizes all the genres of epic writing: the heroic epic of the Iliad·, the novelistic poetry of nostoi represented by the Odyssey; the aetiological/genealogical epic of Hesiod; and the broad category of the Epic Cycle. Thus, with the Argonautica, Apollonius reconsiders the principles of the epic genres by making successive references to the matrix which created them.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

101

ing consequences of the capture and the post-war search for new homes, particularly in the West, acquire a new dimension through their recontextualization into history. The Trojan myth as an allegory of war with its multiple socio-political facets, is already to be seen in the tragedies of Euripides138, as in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, while it is also projected as the initial cause of the confrontation between Europe and Asia, and also as a model of the total conflict between two great powers by Herodotus and Thucydides respectively139. Attic tragedy and historiography are indeed the main sources for the Trojan myth in the work of Lycophron. Never­ theless, at many points the later poet gives his work an obvious political colour and a tone which verges on propaganda: in the Alexandra, Xerxes and Alexander the Great play leading roles alongside the Trojan heroes, and the poem culminates in the subjection of Greece to all-pow­ erful Rome. From this point of view, the Alexandra is the precursor of Virgil’s Aeneid, an epic emblematic of Roman history140. The interpretation of the historical allusions which are to be found in the Alexandra is closely linked to the problem of its date and authorship. An early dating to the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus allows us to associ­ ate the work with Lycophron, the member of the Alexandrian Pleiad. If, indeed, Alexandra was written by the poet of the tragic Pleiad of the 3rd century BC, then the tragedies Nauplius, Telegonus and Elephenor which are attributed to him would be closely related to the correspon­ ding parts of the Alexandra14'. On the other hand, placing Alexandra in the middle of the 2nd century BC would mean attributing it to a Greek poet, who, like Parthenius a century later, wrote in a Roman environ­ ment and certainly under the influence of a more systematical rheto­ ric142. Independently of the problem of its provenance, however, the Alexandra demonstrates the intense interest of the Hellenistic age in the

B.5. The Alexandra on the cusp between epic and tragedy With Lycophron’s Alexandra, the most extreme experiment of the poetae docti of the Hellenistic age, the boundaries between ‘modernism’ and ‘mannerism’ are now difficult to discern; the dramatic monologue, delivered in the form of a messenger speech, echoes the prophecies of Alexandra/Cassandra to the Trojan king Priam. It is different from all the other ways in which the Trojan myth is treated in Hellenistic poetry, since it records a very clear shift towards making mythological material more topical -or, rather, towards linking the mythical past and the his­ torical present in an achronical system137. The Trojan war, the devastat137. Fusillo (1984: 507-516).

138. The Trojan myth is projected onto the tragedies o f Euripides on the occasion of the Peloponnesian War, see Jouan (1966: 440-449). 139. For a detailed analysis o f the Trojan war within the context o f Greek historiogra­ phy, see Pallantza (2005: 124-200). The fact that the Trojan war and its causes acquired a paradigmatic function in fifth-century thought and literature, and especially in Old Comedy, is stressed by Wright (2007). 140. On the Trojan myth between Greece and Rome, see Erskine (2001). On the Roman dimension o f Alexandra, see W est (1984). 141. Ziegler (1927: 2319-2321). 142. Especially Gigante Lanzara (1998: 407-411) who dates the author to the 2nd c. BC. Kosmetatou (2000) dates Alexandra to about 195 BC and proposes that it was written in the court o f the Attalids on the basis o f their connection with the rising power o f Rome. Opposed to this ‘unitarian’ approach is the analytical theory put forward by West (1984), according to whom the poem was initially written in the 3rd c. BC but aug­ mented by interpolators later (esp. in the so-called Roman passages 1226-1231 and 14351450). From another point o f view, Erskine (2001: 155-156) argues that Lycophron’s

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

Trojan myth and also preserves an inexhaustible amount of apocryphal knowledge of a literary, historical and philological nature concerning this myth. Because of its metre, the Alexandra is classified, as a rule, into the dramatic genre, but the hypothesis that the poem was not actually intended for the stage makes it preferable to categorize it as Hellenistic Buchpoesiem . Lycophron adopts the convention of the messenger speech which evokes either lyric monody or epic-style narrative144, since this type of speech, featuring the narration of off-stage events, excludes direct dramatization. Besides, certain aspects of narrative style, such as the emphasis on description, link the messenger speech more closely with the epic genre145. Moreover, prophecy is one of the main mechanisms of prolepsis in the epic -and, as such, would have been recognized by Lycophron’s public146. On the other hand, of course, the prophetic frenzy of Cassandra rhetorically reconstructs tragic pathos with the extended apostrophes to the characters of the plot and the dramatic use of the present tense147. It follows that the Alexan­ dra allows itself to be read as a work on the cusp between epic and tragedy148. The generic experiment of the Alexandra starts with a paradox: the anonymous servant-cum-narrator does not report events that have family ties with southern Italy formed his ‘Roman’ ideology; on the basis of Lycophron’s connection with the historian Lycus of Rhegion, Amiotti (1982) argues that Alexandra can be dated to the end o f the 4th c. BC. On a detailed discussion o f the problem with bib­ liography, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 5-21) and Schade (1999: 215-228) 143. Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 432-437) parallel Hellenistic drama with the contempo­ rary genre o f ‘Singspiel’. It is also possible that works such as Alexandra were intended for reading. 144. Alexandra might also be viewed as a hybrid o f lyric poetry; cf. Tzetzes on Lyc. introduction μονω δοί λ έγοντα ι ποιηταί o l μονοπροσώ πω ς γεγραφότες έπιταφίους φδάς, κ α τα χρη στικά ς δέ καί ο ί μονοπροσώ πω ς δ λ η ν τήν ύ πόθεσ ιν άφ η γούμενοι, ώ σπερ νΰ ν τηδε τη Ά λ εξά νδ ρ ςι 6 Λ υκόφρω ν π οιεί. The lyric subgenre o f threnos, embedded also in the Iliadic laments o f Briseis, Hecabe, Helen and Andromache, pro­ vides another model for this para-tragic monologue, see Lowe (2004: 307-308). 145. The generic affinity o f the messenger speech with epic is associated with the broader issue o f the origins o f tragedy, see Fantuzzi-Hunter (2004: 439). 146. On prophecies and oracles as a vital element o f the cyclic epics, see Kullmann (1960: 221-223). -H owever, prophecy is supposed to have been the main narrative device used by Alexander Aetolus in his lost poem Apollo (fir. 3 Magnelli), and perhaps it was this poem that served as a model for Alexandra; for this interesting suggestion, see Mag­ nelli (1999: 15-17 and 133-134) 147. Fusillo (1984: 514-516). 148. For a detailed analysis in this direction, see Fountoulakis (1998); Fusillo (1984: 498 and n.6) offers a theoretical approach to the similarities between epic and drama. For a narratological approach o f Alexandra, see Lowe (2004).

103

already happened, as would normally be expected from a messenger speech, but, rather, prophecies, which, however, have already been ful­ filled on a textual level, insofar as Lycophron is commenting on previ­ ous literature, namely the Homeric and cyclic epics, tragedy and com­ edy149, lyric poetry, historiography and mythography150. The prophecies of Cassandra cover the departure of Paris for Sparta until the homeward journeys of the Achaeans and Trojans after the end of the war. So the whole ‘cycle’ of the Trojan war is traced, fleshed out with historical events which culminate in the triumph of the Romans -the descendants of the Trojans in the Mediterranean. The poem is structured as fol­ lows151: 1-30 31-364

Prologue Part I Trojan war 31-85 The early history of Troy 86-215 The beginning of the war 216-364 The war and the fall of Troy 365-1282 Part II Homecomings 365-591 Homecomings in the East 592-1089 Homecomings in the West 1090-1282 Adventures of the Greeks after their return 1283-1450 Part ΙΠ Confrontation between Asia and Europe 1283-1368 Before the Trojan war (the abduction of lo and Europe, the campaign of Teucer in Troas, the Argonautic cam­ paign, the war with the Amazons, the campaign of Ilus in Thrace, the campaign of Heracles in Troy) 1369-1434 From the Trojan to the Persian war (Agamemnon’s campaign in Achaia, Aeolian, Ionian and Doric colo­ nization in Asia Minor, the campaigns of Midas in Thrace and of Xerxes in Greece) 1435-1450 Rome and Greece (contemporary historical events) 1451-1474 Epilogue

ΐ S c fr ur ” be8inl,in8 of ,he Troja" * “·■«* of w Z n T m0™ m ° f dePanure is dramatized: at the time when Dawn first sees the Tmjan ships -sigmfted with the impress,™ 149. Research has rightly emphasized the influence o f comedy on Alexandra, see Hurst (1998); cf. Ziegler (1927: 2323-2325) on Lycophron’s philological study o f com­ edy. Moreover, Holzinger (1895: 32-33) catalogues 30 fairytale motifs and themes which deviate from tragic style. 150. On the complex issue o f the ‘sources’ used by Lycophron, see the account given by Holzinger (1895: 36-45) and esp. Ziegler (1927: 2336-2343). On Lycophron’s affilia­ tions with archaic, classical and Hellenistic poetry, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 25-37); esp. Cusset (2005) on the influence o f tragedy. 151. I roughly follow here Holzinger’s (1895: 11-14) division into thematic sections; see also the division proposed by Ziegler (1927: 2326-2328).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

metaphor in v. 24 al Φαλακραΐαι κόραι152- as they depart, the prophetic mania of Cassandra is aroused (28 ή δ’ ενθεον σχάσασα βακχεΐον στόμα ‘and she opened her inspired Bacchic mouth’). Three episodes from the beginning of the Cypria are merged into a single scene, in which Paris builds his ships with the aid of Aphrodite and, after his departure, Cassandra begins her prophecy (Proclus 4 K. έπειτα. δέ ’Αφροδίτης ύποθεμένης ναυπηγείται ‘then Alexandras builds his ships at Aphrodite’s suggestion’, 6 K. καί ’Αφροδίτη ΑΙνείαν συμπλεΐν αυτφ κελεύει ‘Aphrodite orders Aeneas to sail with him [i.e. Alexandras]’, 7 K. καί Κασσάνδρα περί των μελλόντων προδηλοΐ ‘Cassandra prophesies as to what will happen afterwards’)153. Besides, the metonymy παρθενοκτόνον Θέτιν (22) for the Hellespont is an allu­ sion to the negative role that Thetis is set to play in the Trojan myth154. The first and shortest unit of the poem is dedicated to the res Troicae. It is a synopsis of the Epic Cycle and includes portions from the Cypria, the Iliad, the Aethiopis, the Little Iliad and The Sack o f Troy. Lycophron’s innovation lies in reflecting this epic material from the standpoint of the Trojan camp155. The narrative begins from Trojan pre­ history as this is recalled by the messenger (29 ’Ά της άπ’ άκρων βουπλανοκτίστων λόφων ‘the high hill of Ate that was founded by the wandering cow’). The fall of Troy is presented as a tragically recurring event -the first besieger being Heracles who was seeking revenge for Laomedon’s underhand dealings (31-37), a theme also treated by Euphorion (fr. 54 CA=fr. 59 v.Gr.) and Nicander (fr. 562 SH), who thus highlighted an Iliadic para-narrative156. With the mention of the second destruction of Troy there is a projection into the future, and Cassandra 152. It is uncertain whether Callimachus mentioned the Trojan Φαλάκρη in associa­ tion with Paris’ ships or with the sacrifice o f the Locrian maidens (Pfeiffer (1949: on fr. 34]). Regarding Lycophron’s metaphor: the ships o f Paris, built under the supervision o f Aphrodite, parallel the Wooden Horse, built under Athena’s guidance; thus, the ships become symbols o f the outset and the end o f the war, see Anderson (1997: 20-26). The analogy is also implied by Euphorion who thought that the Wooden Horse was actually a ship (fr. 68 CA=fr. 73 v.Gr. π ερ ί τοΰ δουρείου ίππου ό Εύφορίων φ η σ ΐν π λ ο ΐο ν γενέσ θ α ι τοΐς Έ λ λ η σ ιν "Ιππον λ εγ ό μ ενο ν). 153. On Cassandra in archaic, classical and Hellenistic literature, see the monograph by Neblung (1997). 154. On the metonymic use o f Thetis here and in Callimachus’ Coma Berenices (fr. 110.70 Pf.), see Hunter (2006: 78-79 and n.l 14). 155. According to Schade (1999: 19), the negative characterization o f the Greeks, in fact their de-heroization, is a vital feature o f the Alexandra: see e.g. the description of Odysseus as a thief (658 κλώπα) and liar (763 κόπις) and of Achilles as a merchant of the dead (276 νεκροπέρνα ς). 156. Tzetzes cites Hellanicus’ Troica as a source for the siege o f Troy by Heracles (Sch. Lyc. 29, cf. 33 and 34).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

105

foretells the fall of the city at the hands of an Aeacid (52-53 λεύσσω σε, τλήμον, δεύτερον πυρουμένην/ ταΐς τ ’ Αίακείοις χερσ ί Τ see you, miserable city, set on fire for a second time by the hands of an Aeacid’). In verses 52-56, the allusion to Neoptolemus157 refers mainly to two episodes of the Little Iliad: the oracle of Helenus regarding the fall of Troy (Proclus 72 K .)158 and the transfer of Neoptolemus from Scyros to Troy (Proclus 76 K.). There follows a rare variation, probably unknown before Lycophron, regarding the beginnings of the Achaean campaign. The story of Oenone, who out of revenge for Paris’ betrayal is said to have instigated the campaign through their son, Corythus, and then com­ mitted suicide over Paris’ corpse, is a typical ‘novella’ in what we could call ‘late Alexandrian style’, where love and death are interwoven (5768)159. The unit is completed with an aetiological narrative about Dard­ anus and his migration from Samothrace to Troy (69-85), the justifica­ tion for this digression being his tomb in the city of Ilion (72-73 τάφους Ά τλαντίδος/ δύπτου κέλωρος ‘the tomb of the diver, the son of the Atlantis nymph’). Troy and, by extension, the Trojan war had now been set sufficiently far back in the past. The sudden return to the narrative present (86 λεύσσω θέοντα γρυνόν έπτερωμένον... ‘I see the winged firebrand running...’), i.e. to the moment of Paris’ departure, focuses the prophetic discourse on the fateful journey to Sparta and the abduction of Helen. In the Cypria the episode of Paris and Helen must have had considerable length, its actual details having more to do with Paris’ sojourn in Sparta and the return journey to Troy (Proclus 8-13 K.). In the corresponding unit of the Alexandra (86-179) different episodes are highlighted. Through the use of apostrophes to the second person, verses 90-114 dramatize the jour­ ney of Paris to Sparta, with all the topographical notes and the nautical details of the voyage. There follows the abduction of Helen (102 καί 157. Tzetzes associates the adjective Α Ιά κ ειος with Neoptolemus or Epeius (Sch. Lyc. 52 ταΐς Α Ιακείαις χ ε ρ σ ί ήτοι τοΰ Έ π ειοΰ η Ν εοπ τολέμ ου), in which case Lycophron would be alluding here to the Little Iliad. However, Holzinger (1895: in v. 52) rejects the allusion to Epeius. 158. In Alexandra, the prophecy associates the fall of Troy with the bones o f Pelops and the bow o f Philoctetes (53-56 τοΐς τε Τ αντάλου λ ειψ ά ν ο ις,.,τ ο ΐς Τ ευτα ρέοις πτερώ μασι). However, the connection o f the Trojan war events with the story o f Pelops was not part o f the Little Iliad, as far as we can judge from Proclus’ summary, but is only recorded by Pausanias (5.13.4). 159. This blending o f love and death in the story o f Paris and Oenone attracted Parthenius (Erotika Pathemata 4 On Oenone), Nicander (fr. 108 G.-S.) and Ovid (Her. 5); however, these poets followed alternative versions regarding the role of Corythus, see Lightfoot (1999: 546). The oldest known source for this story is Hellanicus, but we can­ not exclude that the story was also recounted in the Cypria (Holzinger [1895; on v. 57]).

reco n stru ctin g t h e epic

τήν ανυμφον πόρτιν άρπάσας λύκος ‘and then you, the wolf, will seize the unwed heifer’) and the lovers’ union for a single night on an island near Attica. There is no second night of love, since Helen is trans­ formed into a phantom (110-114): νήσφ δ’ ένί δράκοντος έκχέας πόθον ’Ακτής, διμόρφου γηγενούς σκηπτουχίας, τήν δευτέραν έωλον ουκ δψει Κύπριν, ψυχρόν παραγκάλισμα κάξ όνειράτων κεναΐς άφάσσων ώλέναισι δέμνια. In Acte, the island of the dragon, ruled by the biformed son of earth, you shall spill your passion but you shall see no aftermath of love next day, fondling in empty arms a chill embrace and a bed belonging to your dreams. In contrast to the Homeric and cyclic story which has Helen marrying Paris in Troy, Lycophron adopts the Stesichorean version from Helen ’s Palinode and that of Euripides’ Helen regarding her sojourn in Egypt160. Two paren­ thetic narratives around the central core are introduced by flashbacks: the rare version according to which Menelaus and Paris first meet in Troy and from there end up in Lacedaemon (132-143), and the story of Helen’s five suitors (144-182). Menelaus’ sacrifice to the deities of Troy, where he first met Paris, is attested in the ancient scholia (Sch. ex. II. 5.64d); the hospi­ tality afforded to Paris in Sparta was an autonomous episode in the Cypria (Proclus 8-11 K.). The epithet πεντάλεκτρος for Helen introduces the detailed presentation of her five suitors -Theseus, Menelaus, Paris, Dei­ phobus and Achilles. Apart from Menelaus and Paris, the well-known suit­ ors of Helen in epic and tragedy, Theseus was the first to seize Helen according to the Cypria (ff. 13 B.). Deiphobus was the successor-spouse to Paris on Trojan soil; his marriage to Helen is attested in the Odyssey (4.276), but was developed as an episode in the Little Iliad (Proclus 75 K. μετά δέ ταΰτα Δηΐφοβος Ε λένην γαμεΐ ‘after this Deiphobus marries Helen’). The most critical reworking on the part of Lycophron has to do with the fifth suitor, Achilles (171-173): έν δέ δεμνίοις, τον έξ όνείρων πέμπτον έστροβημένον είδωλοπλάστω προσκαταξανεΐ βέθει... 160. The journey to Egypt is also accepted by Herodotus (2.112-117), whereas in the

Iliad (6.290-291) and the Cypria (Proclus 12 K.) Helen was associated with the siege of Sidon. On the phantom o f Helen in Greek literature from Stesichorus onwards, see Austin (1994: 90-203).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

107

And the fifth she shall cause to pine upon his bed, distracted by her phantom form in his dreams... The passage is probably based on the Cypria, where there is a scene in which Achilles meets with Helen through divine intervention (Proclus 41 K.): και μετά ταΰτα Ά χιλλεύς Ε λ ένη ν έπιθυμεΐ θεάσασθαι, και συνήγαγεν αυτούς είς τό αυτό ’Αφροδίτη και Θέτις ‘after this, Achilles desires to see Helen, and Aphrodite and Thetis arrange a meet­ ing between them’161. Indirectly, Lycophron tells of another of Achilles’ ‘unnatural’ marriages, the one contracted in the Elysian Fields with Medea (174-175). In both cases, on the coupling of Achilles with Helen and with Medea, Lycophron transposes an epic scene, where gods and people interact, into the realm of fantasy. When the unit related to Paris is rounded off (180 χώ μέν παλιμπόρευτον ί'ξεται τρίβον ‘and he will again make his way home­ ward’), Cassandra’s prophetic eye turns to the Greek camp. She describes the sacrifice of Iphigenia at Aulis (183-199) and the first (unsuccessful) campaign of the Greeks in Mysia (200-215). Lycophron reverses the order of the episodes as they occur in the Cypria·, first assembly at Aulis (Proclus 23 K.), the campaign in Mysia (Proclus 24-26 K.), second assembly at Aulis (Proclus 29 K.) and the sacrifice of Iphi­ genia (Proclus 30-31 K.). Bowing to his dramatic instinct, Lycophron severs the story of Iphigenia from the war itself, his original aim being to sketch the ethos of the Greek camp in negative terms (184 ώμησταί) and to trace, in somber tones, Iphigenia as she was at Tauris (187 Ελλάδος καρατόμον, 196-199 description of the bloody sacrifices at Tauris)162. Besides, Lycophron finds the opportunity to recount the story of Achilles’ marriage to Iphigenia, described as erotic madness on the part of the hero (186-190), and to quote a rare genealogical version, accord­ ing to which Neoptolemus was the fruit of this marriage (185 τοϋ Σκυρίου δράκοντος έντοκον λεχώ, cf. 183 προγεννήτειραν). This is a philological variant of the cyclic version which pairs Achilles and Deidameia on Scyros and gives Neoptolemus as their son (Proclus 27 K. Ά χιλλέας δέ Σκύρφ προσοχών γαμεΐ τήν τοΰ Λυκομήδους θυγατέρα Δηϊδάμειαν ‘Achilles arrives at Scyros and marries Dei­ dameia, the daughter of Lycomedes’, cf. Cypria fr. 19 B.)163. Achilles’ 161. Obviously Lycophron recalls the Stesichorean version of Helen's phantom, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 219). Testimonies and discussion o f the episode in epic and art in Tsagalis (2004). 162. Gigante Lanzara (2000: 222-226). 163. Sch. Lyc. 183 Τρυφιόδω ρος δέ καί οί λοιπ οί πά ντες Δ ηιοαμείας τής Λ υκομήδους θυγατρός καί Ά χ ιλ έ ω ς παΐδα τόν Ν εο π τό λ εμ ο ν ο ϊδ α σ ι.,.τή ν δέ

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

five-year quest in Scythia in search of Iphigenia164 is also the transition to the second assembly of the Achaeans at Aulis and their oath (200204)165: χώ μέν πατήσει χώ ρον αΐάζων Σκύθην, είς πέντε που πλειώ νας Ιμείρων λέχους, οΐ δ ’ άμφΐ βωμόν τοΰ προμάντιος Κ ρόνου, σ ύ ν μητρΐ τέκνω ν νηπίω ν κρεανόμου, όρκων τό δευτεροΰχον αρσαντες ζυ γ ό ν...

He lamenting shall pace the Scythian land for some five years yearning for his bride. And they, beside the altar of the primal prophet, Cronus, who devours the young with their mother, binding themselves by the yoke of a second oath... Unlike the arrangement of the events in the Cypria, the prophecy of Calchas about τά περί τόν δράκοντα και τούς στρουθούς γενόμενα ‘the events concerning the snake and the sparrows’ (Proclus 23 K.) is placed by Lycophron at the second meeting of the Greeks166. What fol­ lows is the journey to Mysia and the decisive intervention of Dionysus in the fight between Achilles and Telephus (205-215). The campaign in Mysia is also the link with the second, successful landing at Troy (216-218). As the Greeks approach Troy the motif of the oracle is brought to the fore: the narrative includes the prophecy made by Pryles to Agamemnon in Lesbos concerning the fall of Troy through the Wooden Horse (219-223) and the interpretation of Hecabe’s dream by Aesacus that the forthcoming birth of Paris would mean the end of Troy (224-231). The arrival of the Greeks on the Trojan shore is delayed by yet another episode which takes place on Tenedos and has to do with the murder of Cycnus and his son Tenes by Achilles (232-242), an episode well-known from the Cypria (Proclus 37 K.) ’έ πειτα Ά χιλλεύς αυτούς τρέπεται άνελών Κύκνον τόν Ποσειδώνος ‘Achilles then kills Cycnus, the son of Poseidon, and drives the Trojans back’. In this ’Ιφ ιγένεια ν κατά τούς ά κριβεΐς των Ιστορικώ ν ού γυναίκα έσ χ η κ ε ν Ά χ ιλ ε ύ ς . The alternative version on the marriage of Iphigenia and Achilles and the birth of Neoptole­ mus from this marriage originates from Duris o f Samos (FGrHist 76 fr. 88). 164. Lycophron alludes here to the aetion which explains the Scythian toponym ’Α χ ίλ λ ε ιο ς δρόμος (Sch. Lyc. 192 έ ν Σκυθίμ έσ τϊν α ίγ ια λ ό ς .,.δ ς καλείται Ά χ ιλ έ ω ς δρόμος έπειδή μ όνος Ά χ ιλ ε ύ ς τρέχω ν έκ εΐσ ε διέβη). On Achilles as a king of Scythia, see Alcaeus fr. 354 L.-P. Ά χ ίλ λ ε υ ς , 6 τάς Σκυθίκας μέδεις. 165. The vow made by the Greeks was referred to in the Catalogue of Women (fr. 204 M .-W .) and Stesichorus (ff. 190 PMG); on other ancient sources, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 227). 166. The omen o f Aulis was mentioned in the Cypria (Proclus 23 K.) as well as in the

Iliad 2.305-329.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

109

cyclic episode Lycophron introduces a minor figure, Mnemon, the ser­ vant who was charged with reminding Achilles not to become involved in a duel with an offspring of Apollo; this offspring is Tenes, who was said to be a son of Cycnus, but in reality was the son of Apollo (Sch. Lyc. 232 Τένην τόν υΙόν Κύκνου λόγφ, έργφ δέ ’Απόλλωνος)167. Cassandra follows the Trojan battle from the very moment of Achilles’ landing on the beach (with the relevant aetion on the gushing of the spring at the site called ’Αχιλλέως πήδημα ‘Achilles leap’ at verses 245-248)168 until the outbreak of war before the walls of Troy. The syn­ tactic structures 243 καί δή στένει Μύρινα ~ 249 καί δή καταίθει γαΐαν, the metonymic use of Ares for the broader notion of war in the Homeric manner (249 καταίθει γαΐαν όρχηστής "Αρης), the refer­ ences to the bloody battle (250 τόν αίματηρόν έξάρχων νόμον), the ravages it causes (251 άπασα δέ χθών,.,δηουμένη κεΐται), the lamen­ tations of the besieged from the tower tops and the grief of the women (253-257)169 summarize the martial aspect of the Iliad. Lycophron brings the prophecy of Cassandra down to the last books of the Iliad, to the final match between Achilles and Hector, to the death and maltreatment of the latter, through the allegorical image of a fight between an eagle and a fledgling bird (258-268). In the next verses (269-297), two lines of the epic tradition are essentially inter­ laced: the Iliadic, which records the death of Hector and the ransoming of his body170, and the tradition of the Aethiopis, where the issue of death and the ransom of the corpse are related to Achilles171. Moreover, by using the motif of death as a linking device, Lycophron transposes the disguising of Achilles as a young virgin at the court of Lycomedes, an episode stemming from the Cypria (fr. 19 B.=Sch. II. 19.326), from the prehistory of the war to the tragic ending of the hero (270-280). The retrospective narrative about Achilles is balanced by a similar one about Hector. Hector’s major heroic feat, the moment when he set fire to the 167. On Cycnus as a legendary opponent o f Achilles, see Pindar O. 2.79-83; on Cyc­ nus, Tenes and Mnemon, see the citations in Holzinger (1895: 204-206) and Jouan (1966: 303-308) who focuses on Euripides’ lost tragedy Tenes. 168. Lycophron presents the landing o f Achilles as a divine epiphany, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 236) and Durbec (2008). 169. The scene o f the threnos recalls Iliad 22.405ff.; Holzinger (1895: on v. 255) rightly points out that the scene foreshadows the death o f Hector. 170. This version, however, is inconsistent with II. 24.579, as pointed out by the scho­ lia (Sch. Lyc. 270): σκεθρώ ταλάντφ· Ό μ η ρ ο ς μ έν άπλώς δώρα φ ησι τώ Ά χ ι λ ε ΐ δοθηναι υπέρ Έ κ το ρ ο ς, ό δέ Λ υκόφρω ν καί ά λ λ ο ι τινές ζυγοσταθμηθέντα αύτφ ίσ ο ν χ ρ υ σ ό ν δοθηναι τοΰ βάρους. 171. The M uses’ lament for Achilles is a theme that Lycophron (274) borrows from the Odyssey 24.60 and the Aethiopis (Proclus 65 K.), see Holzinger (1895: on v. 274).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Greek ships, is projected upon the scene of his untimely death (286297) 112. The enumeration of the victims on the Trojan side begins with a tran­ sitional scene in which Cassandra mourns Hector (298-306). The name of Troilus introduces another episode from the Cypria into the prophecy. If in the Cypria the murder of Troilus was indeed one of the exploits of Achilles (Proclus 45 K. καί Τρωΐλον φονεύει ‘and he kills Troilus’), in Lycophron the story takes on a clear erotic tone (307-313)172173. There follows a catalogue with the victims of the house of Priam, together with crucial moments from the fall of Troy (314-364), where Lycophron essentially selects episodes from the Little Iliad and The Sack of Troy. The death of Laodice occurs at the same time as the fall of the city, near the tomb of Ilus or Laomedon, called the άλμα παππού ‘the grandfa­ ther’s grove’ (319-322)174. This signpost is the cause for a narrative digression on the murder of Cilia by Priam, together with their illegiti­ mate son, Mounippus175. The slaughter of Polyxena, the last episode in The Sack o f Troy (Proclus 100 K. Πολυξένην σφαγιάζουσιν έπί τόν τοΰ Ά χιλλέω ς τάφον ‘[the Greeks] sacrifice Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles’), is described as a particularly bloody sacrifice (323-329), which takes us back to corresponding sacrifices by the mother of Neop­ tolemus, Iphigenia of Tauris (cf. 187-199)176. There follows the stoning of Hecabe and her transformation into a bitch (330-334), a story which is not present in the Epic Cycle, but is adopted through tragedy and his­ toriography177. The end of Priam (335-336) is followed by a series of flashbacks: Hesione changing his name from Podarces to Priam after the capture of Troy by Heracles (337-339) and then the betrayal by Antenor (340-341), the vigil of the Greeks in the Wooden Horse (342-343), the signal of Sinon to the Achaean ships off Tenedos (344-346) and the deaths of the 172. The relevant Iliadic passages are collected by Holzinger (1895: on vv. 286-297). 173. On the erotic implications of verse 312 πρός τοΰ δαμέντος αΰτός ού τετρωμ ένος, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 246). 174. In vv. 497-498 Lycophron presents yet another version o f the story, according to which Laodice died as a captive o f Acamas from sorrow over the death o f Mounitus; on the two contradictory versions, see Cazzaniga (1959: 331-333). 175. This episode continues the story about the prophecy o f Aesacus (224-231), since it is due to the misinterpretation o f this prophecy that Priam decides to murder Cilia and not Hecabe (Sch. Lyc. 319, cf. Gigante Lanzara [2000: 247]). 176. For the story in epic, tragedy and lyric poetry, see Holzinger (1895: on v. 323). An alternative version, according to which Polyxena was wounded by Odysseus and Diomedes, is attested in the Cypria (ff. 34 B.). 177. Also as an aetion explaining the Trojan place name Κ υνός σήμα, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 249-250).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE STYLES OF EPIC

111

sons of Laocoon (347), episodes which all precede the capture of Troy by the Achaeans. The death of Priam is probably set in Sparta (335 ό δ’ άμφΐ τύμβφ τάγαμέμνονος δαμεΐς... ‘and he, killed beside the tomb of Agamemnon...’); the version differs from both The Sack o f Troy (Pro­ clus 91 K. Νεοπτόλεμος μέν άποκτείνει Πρίαμον έπι τον τοΰ Διός τοΰ έρκείου βωμόν καταφυγόντα ‘Neoptolemus kills Priam who had fled to the altar of Zeus Herceius’) and the Little Iliad, according to which the murder was carried out in Troy (fr. 16 B.=Paus. 10.27.2 Πρίαμον δέ άποθανεΐν...πρός τής οΙκίας γενέσθαι θύραις ‘Priam died near the entrance of his house’). Lycophron probably derived the aetion for the naming of Priam and the betrayal by Antenor from the Troica of Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 fr. 31)178, while for the other episodes he drew upon the Epic Cycle (for the Little Iliad, see Proclus 84 K. and for The Sack o f Troy Proclus 87, 89 and 90 K.). The visionary trance of Cassandra culminates with the story of her own rape by Locrian Ajax in front of the sacred Palladion. The story of how Apollo had condemned the prophetess Cassandra not to be believed179 and of Palladion’s miraculous fall from heaven on the first day of the founding of Ilion180 is narrated again in a series of flashbacks. The hubris of Ajax and the revenge of Athena took up a considerable amount of room in the narrative of The Sack o f Troy (Proclus 93-96 K.). In Alcaeus they constitute a recognizable mythological exam­ ple (fr. 262c+262 SLG) and the core muthos in Sophocles’ lost tragedy Locrian Ajax (fr. 10a-18 Radt), where the wrath of Athena is attributed to the action of Ajax and the fact that it went unpunished by the Achaeans181. It seems nevertheless that Lycophron transposes the emphasis from Ajax’s sacrilege to the erotic abuse of Cassandra. This is why the μισόνυμφος goddess Athena takes revenge for the rape of the virgin who was under her protection (348 έγώ δέ τλήμων ή γόμους άρνουμένη ‘and I, unhappy, who refused to get married’). The paradox­ ical detail of the statue coming to life at the moment of the rape lends the genuine Alexandrian touch to the passage (361-362)182: 178. On an older view held by Welcker, according to which Antenor (on whom see II 3.303 and 7.347) was depicted as a traitor in the Little Iliad, see Holzinger (1895: on v. 340); the etymological aetion on the name o f Priam was probably also mentioned by Hellanicus, see Holzinger (1895: on v. 337). 179. The prophetess Cassandra was probably not known to the poet o f the Iliad (Sch. e x II. 24.699-700 ο ύ ya p ο ϊδ εν αύτήν μ ά ντιν 6 ποιητής), but only to the tradition o f the Cypria (Proclus 7 K .) and Attic tragedy (Aesch. Ag. 1202-1212). 180. On the relevant passages, see Holzinger (1895: on v. 364). 181. On this episode in The Sack o f Troy, see Rosier (1987). On the reception o f this episode in Greek literature and art, see Mazzoldi (1997). 182. Probably Lycophron is drawing here on a detail found in Alcaeus (fr. 262.24

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

rj δ’ εϊς τέραμνa δουρατογλύφου στέγης γλήνας ανω στρέψασα χώσεται στρατφ... And she shall cast her eyes upon the ceiling of the wooden roof and be angry with the army... This event marks the beginning of the nostoi. The causative linkage of the rape and the post-war tribulations of the warriors of Troy already existed in the Odyssey (5.108-109 άτάρ έν νόστω Ά θηναίην άλίτοντο,/ ή σφιν έπώρσ’ άνεμόν τε κακόν και κύματα μακρά ‘on their way home they sinned against Athena, who raised wind and waves against them’), and in The Sack o f Troy (Proclus 93 K. Κασσάνδραν δε Αίας δ Ίλέω ς πρός βίαν άποσπών συνεφέλκεται τό τής Ά θηνδς ξόανον ‘Ajax the son of Ileus, while trying to drag Cassandra away by force, tears away with her the statue of Athena’ and 96 K. φθοράν αύτοΐς ή Α θήνα κατά τό πέλαγος μηχαναται ‘Athena plans to destroy the Greeks on the high seas’). Lycophron exploits the link in order to close the tragic fall of the house of Priam, and thus move on to the most extensive portion of the poem, the homecoming stories (3651282). From the Trojan point of view, the tragedies of the Greeks return­ ing to their homelands make the voyages into symbols of divine justice and justification for the defeated Trojans (365-366): ένός δέ λώβης άντί, μορίων τέκνων/ Ε λ λ ά ς στενάξει πάσα τούς κενούς τάφους ‘for the sin of one man, the whole Greece will mourn the empty tombs of ten thousand children’183. Here the Epic Cycle (more so with the Nos­ toi and the Telegony), the Odyssey and the tragedies written about the events at Troy (especially Aeschylus’ Oresteia) are enriched with the numerous foundation stories which had been preserved through the his­ toriographers, in particular Timaeus. In this part of the poem, the epic/dramatic Alexandra approaches fo/i/s-poetry184. The great shipwrecks are presented in a passage full of geographical names and dramatic depictions of drownings at sea185. The episodes nar­ rated here are the treachery of Nauplius and the sinking of the Greek ships off Euboea near the Capherean rocks (373-386), and the spectacular death SLG ά δέ δ ε ιν ό ν ύ π ’ (ο]φρυ φανείς χάρμα μοι/ φίλιον, δτ’ έμ’ ήγάπας), prob­ ably because he has abandoned her after his return from Troy (β'.1-2 νΰν δε μούναν μ’ άφείς/ αλοχον, άστοργ’, απεις). Is this an unat­ tested version of the story or perhaps some (para)Trojan anecdote in novelistic style?97 We are brought closer to the answer by a fragment of Nicander’s which involves Helen in an affair with Corythus, the son of Paris and Oenone (fr. 108 G.-S.):

92. See Pantelia (1995: 80), who also notes (p. 78) that the ‘bourgeois wit’ o f Odyssey book 4, and especially verses 351-355 where Alexandria is established as a Homeric site, underlie the epithalamion. 93. Luccioni (1997). 94. Luccioni (1997: 625) draws a parallel between the two passages, since only Helen might be called τρίγα μος ‘thrice married’ due to her union with Menelaus, Paris and Dei­ phobus, whereas the adjective should be seen as an allusion to Stesichorus. 95. The same contrast between the Homeric mortal heroes and their godlike presenta­ tion in later literature is noted by Austin (1994: 26 n,4). 96. See Brillante (2004). -The apostrophe is a rhetorical device used to heighten the pathetic and tragic atmosphere of a scene. Tragic connotations were also recognized in Euphorion fr. 92 CA=fr. 96 v.Gr. τέκνον, μή σό γ ε μητρος ώπ’ άνθερεώνας ά μήσης.,.: Euphorion seems to have put at the centre of his poem an apostrophe of Clytemnestra towards Orestes (a direct imitation o f Aesch. Ch. 895ff, see van Groningen [1977: 162-163]).

147

ή ρία τ ’ είς Ά ίδ α ο κατοιχομένου Κ ορύθοιο δ ν τε καί άρπακτεΐσιν όποδμ ηθεΐσ’ ύμεναίοις Τυνδαρίς α ϊν ’ άχέουσ α κακόν γ ό νο ν ήρατο βούτεω. The grave o f Corythus who descended to Hades- Corythus, the shepherd’s son, whom Tyndareus’ daughter, forced by abduction into an unwilling marriage, loved with great pain.

According to one rare version, doubtless connected to Parthenius’ story about Oenone, Corythus was murdered by Paris himself when he discov­ ered Helen’s secret passion for his son. With Nicander, the Homeric image of Helen returns to the fore, though now reframed in the genre of the Troiaroman, since the heroine is inducted into the post-Hellenistic stories about the Trojan war98. The more the famous heroes lose their Homeric brilliance, the more the Hellenistic poets create their own models. So minor figures make force­ ful appearances in the Hellenistic Trojan myth and new ones are devised who overshadow the ‘great’ heroes. This emphasis on minor figures and anti-heroes seems to be at base a criticism of the elevated poetic genres, epic and tragedy99. From the margins of the Homeric and cyclic Trojan narratives are drawn figures who, with their actions, support the heroic epic tale. These really are ‘unsung heroes’, the phauloi instead of the spoudaioi in the Aristotelian sense of the terms100. The model of the 97. Brillante (2004: 53-55), based on a testimony by Aelian (NA 9.21), suggests that this incident took place during Menelaus’ nostos and his wanderings in Egypt, when Helen was for a while left alone at the island o f Pharos. It seems possible that this episode had been narrated in the cyclic Nostoi and then reworked by the historian o f the early Hel­ lenistic period, Anticleides of Athens; it was exactly the novelistic character and the pathetic tone of this story that attracted the anonymous author o f this Hellenistic poem. 98. Cf. Brillante (2004: 62) who, commenting on the Helenae querimonia, reaches a similar conclusion, i.e. that the presentation o f Helen accompanying Menelaus on his return journey home and her subsequent abandonment by the hero is a ‘new’ story, mod­ elled upon earlier, unknown episodes from the epic cycle. 99. Schwinge (1986: 42-43) and Zänker (1987: 133-154). 100. The distinction between the spoudaioi and the phauloi is not socially but morally conditioned, in the sense that the spoudaioi are preoccupied with arete while the phauloi are not (Zänker [1987: 140 and n.24]).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

humble person101 who appears at a crucial moment -as a deus ex machina- in order to reinforce or even ensure the success of a heroic feat is given to us by Callimachus in the figure of Hecale. A counterpart is the priest Anius who saves the Greeks from starvation during their sojourn in Troy (Call. Aet. fr. 188 Pf., Lyc. 570-583 and Euphorion fr. 2 CA=ff. 4 v.Gr.). Anius the companion of Odysseus played the leading role in a variation of this story (Call. fr. 697 Pf., Euphorion fr. 62 CA=fr. 67 v.Gr.)102. Servius (in Virg. Aen. 3.16) testifies: Euphorion et Calli­ machus hoc dicunt etiam, quod Aenum dicatur a socio Ulixis illic sepulto eo tempore quo missus est ad frumenta portanda. Besides, shep­ herds such as Eumaeus and Philoetius, who assist Odysseus (Theoc. Id. 16.54-55), and Iphimachus, who tends the wounded Philoctetes on Lem­ nos (Euphorion fr. 44 CA=fr. 48 v.Gr.), represent the socially inferior who give aid to their superiors in their heroic task. Exceptionally innovative in this regard is the figure of Mnemon, Achilles’ servant, who with his powerful memory has the task of fore­ stalling any contest between the hero and the son of Apollo (Lyc. 240-242): συν τ ο ΐς δ ’ 6 τλή μ ω ν, μ η τρ ό ς oö φ ρ ά σ α ς θεά ς μνήμω ν έφ ετμάς, ά λ λ α λ η θ ά ρ γ φ σ φ α λ είς, π ρ η ν ή ς θ α ν ε ΐτα ι σ τερ ν ό ν ο ό τα σ θ είς ξ ίφ ει. And therewithal the wretch, who was not mindful to tell the bidding o f the goddess mother but erred in forgetfulness, shall die upon his face, his breast pierced by the sword.

Mnemon’s carelessness (241 ληθάργφ σφαλείς) in failing to warn Achilles before the crucial clash with Tenes, the son of Apollo, is pun­ ished by the hero with death. Achilles’ cruelty excites the sympathy of Cassandra for the unfortunate servant (240 ό τλήμων). Lycophron is the first to record the story of Mnemon and it is not impossible that this unknown figure was of the poet’s own invention103. Moreover, in the narrative about Tenes the motif of the minor figure who supports a heroic action is reversed -a significant indication that Lycophron was writing within an already established framework concerning relations between the phauloi and the spoudaioi. 101. In particular, o l τοιοΰτοι or o l καθ’ ήμας ‘everyday people like you and m e’ (as the focus of Hellenistic realism, see Zänker [1987: 144-150]). Theocritus in Id. 16.4 βροτούς βροτοΐ άείδω μεν stresses his preference for the singing o f everyday people and not o f the gods and heroes, see Koster (1970: 114-117). 102. The story obviously dramatized a secondary detail o f the Iliad (4.520): βάλε δέ Θ ρηκώ ν ά γο ς άνδρώ ν/ Π εΐρω ς Ίμ βρ ασ ίδης δ ς α ρ ’ Α ΐν ό θ εν είλη λ ού θ ει (thus Servius in Virg. Aen. 3.16). 103. As an aetion in Plut. Aet. Rom. Gr. 297D-F.

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

149

Another example of the spotlight being turned onto humble person­ ages along with recognized heroes is to be found in Apollonius’ poem Canobus (fr. 1-3 CA). Canobus (or Canopus) was Menelaus’ sea captain who, after the fall of Troy, took Helen to Egypt. His death from a snake bite and the aetion of the star and Egyptian city of the same name belong to the Hellenistic (para)Trojan stories104. Apollonius probably incorpo­ rated this story into a ktisis-poem, but embellished it with details of Alexandrian taste: the lyrical description of the cruise on the Nile, recorded with an eye on his own personal perspective (fr. 2 CA), and the attribution of the death of Canobus to a poisonous snake bearing the sci­ entific-sounding name of αίμορροΐς (fr. 3 CA=Sch. Nie. Ther. 305 ’Απολλώνιος δέ φησι των πληγέντων υπό αίμορροΐδος βήγνυσθαι καί τάς ώτειλάς ‘Apollonius says that the bite of a haemorrois also causes the wounds to open and bleed’)105. Nicander in the Theriaca (309-319) also focuses on the moment of death and involves Helen in the story. It ought to be noted, finally, that the death of a humble assis­ tant and the commemoration of his or her death in an aetion was a recur­ ring motif of these stories, such as the narrative concerning Aenus, Iphi­ machus, Mnemon and Canobus, an influence which again starts with Callimachus’ Hecale. C.3.b. Changing identities Another way of changing the ideological orientation of the Trojan myth consists in transferring the heroic values from the Achaean warriors to their opponents. In the Hellenistic era, particularly in the late period when the power of Rome was increasing, the Trojan view of the war gained greater ideological influence and this had a concomitant impact on literature106. Therefore, in Hellenistic poetry the Trojan perspective is presented with notable force, when the war is sketched from the Trojan side107. In the Iliad, the Trojans, with Hector as their leader and the Priamids as the tragic house, are the dramatic counterweight to the Achaeans, Achilles and the passions of the Greek leaders. In the Cam104. It is noteworthy, though, that the naming of the Egyptian Canobus after Menelaus’ captain was already known to Hecataeus (FGrHist 1 fr. 308). 105. Cf. the similar description o f Mopsus’ death by a poisonous snake in the Libyan desert in A.R. 4.1505-1531. On a parallel reading o f the two scenes in Apollonius and of the related passage in Nicander, see van Krevelen (1961). 106. On the subject, see Erskine’s (2001: 6-12) introduction. 107. It is no coincidence that the exegetical scholia on Homer stress the ‘philhellenism ’ o f the poet (e.g. Sch. ex II. 2.673 φ ιλ έλ λ η ν δέ [i.e. ό ποιητής] ώ ν πάντας ά ξιομ νή σ τους π ο ιεί καί πάντας έπ α ινεΐ, όπω ς πιστεύοιτο, καί ΐν α τούς έ ν άνδρείμ και σώματι καϊ κ ά λ λει διαφ έροντας είδώ μεν "Ελληνας).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

logue o f Ships, Achaean and Trojan forces are recorded in parallel, though unequally as regards the weight given to the former108. Thus, although Homer reserves a secondary role for the Trojans, he does not present them as barbarians; literary and historical testimony from the archaic period -among this the Epic Cycle- argue for the view that the Greeks did not treat the Trojans with negative prejudice109. In the histor­ ical and political context of the Persian Wars, however, the Trojans are presented as being barbaric in tragedy and historiography110. In tragedy, the starting point are again the passions of the Achaeans (particularly in Aeschylus’ Oresteia and in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Ajax), but with Euripides there is a decisive shift towards the post-war fortunes of the Priamids, i.e. the fall of the royal house and the decimation of its mem­ bers111. Works of art from the archaic period present episodes from the events at Troy for which there is no evidence in Homer and which come from the Epic Cycle (Cypria, Little Iliad, The Sack of Troy)112. These episodes were particularly common in Lycophron, Euphorion and Nicander. As noted above, Trojan archaeology is an increasingly recurring theme in this period. A large part of the Alexandra is dedicated to this (31-85), Euphorion deals with it (fr. 54 CA=fr. 59 v.Gr.), as does Nicander (fr. 562.10-12 SH). In all three cases, Laomedon, as the instigator of the first destruction of Troy, foreshadows the catastrophic figure of Paris. The omens accompanying the birth of Paris are another popular theme of the Hellenistic poets. This was the story according to which Hecabe, in a prophetic dream, saw that Paris, the child she would bear, was destined to bring ruin upon Troy. Priam, however, was hesitant about murdering the child himself and instead exposed him on Trojan Mount Ida. When Paris grew up and returned to Troy, Deiphobus and Hecabe attempted to kill him: the story was treated by Euripides in Alexandras (fr. 42-64 108. In the Iliad the focus shifts constantly from the gods to the Achaeans and from them to the Trojans; on the point o f view ‘from within the walls o f Troy’, see Hall (1989: 31) and Erskine (2001: 53-54). 109. On the controversial ‘barbaric’ identity of the Trojans in the Iliad, see Erskine (2001: 51-54). The polarity between Trojans and Greeks is not present in the Homeric epics, due to the fact that the concepts o f Hellenism and barbarism had not yet been crys­ tallized (Hall [1989: 3-13]). For a general overview o f the Trojans in the Iliad, see Wathelet (1989). 110. Hall (1989: 56-100). Cf. Erskine (2001: 61-92), on the parallelism of the Trojan with the Persian royal house. On the ‘Phrygianization’ o f Troy in 5th c. tragedy, see Hall (1989: 32-40). 111. Anderson (1997: 27-48). Wathelet (1989: 11) rightly views this perspective of Euripidean tragedy as being a result of the poet’s preference for the presentation o f for­ eigners and women in his tragedies. 112. Erskine (2001: 59).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

151

Kannicht)113. Either Euphorion (fr. 55 CA=fr. 60 v.Gr.) or Lycophron (224-228 and 319-322) introduced significant innovations, particularly as regards the role of Priam. Valuable evidence is preserved by Servius regarding the account given in Euphorion (in Virg. Aen. 2.32): Ut Euphorion dicit, Priamus ex Arisba filium vatem suscepit. Qui cum dixis­ set quadam die nasci puerum, per quem Troia posset everti, pepererunt simul et Thymoetae uxor et Hecuba, quae Priami legitima erat. Sed Pria­ mus Thymoetae filium uxoremque iussit occidi ‘As Euphorion says, Arisba bore Priam a son who was a seer. This seer told him that someday a son would be bom who would lead Troy to destruction; both the wife of Thy­ moetes and Hecabe, his lawful wedded wife, bore a son at the same time. But Priam ordered that the son and the wife of Thymoetes be put to death’. Thus, the traditional muthos is altered with typical Hellenistic motifs -an oracle instead of a prophetic dream, the doubling of the critical event of the narrative, i.e. the pregnancy, and the contrast between the lawful wedded wife and the unlawful mistress. Lycophron, on the other hand, whose narration is fortunately well-preserved, gives us a clearer image of how the Hellenistic poets viewed this narrative. In emphasizing Priam’s haste to kill the newborn child along with his mother still in con­ finement (321-322 πριν λαφύξασθαι γάνος,/ πριν έκ λοχείας γυΐα χυτλώσαι δρόσω ‘before the babe ever drew the sweet milk, before she cleansed it with fresh water from the dirt of childbed’), Lycophron stresses once more the cruelty and inhumanity of his anti-heroes. There­ fore, in the Hellenistic version of the story the moral standing of Priam is significantly reduced, since the king orders the murder of both Thy­ moetes’ wife, Cilia, and her newborn son, an illegitimate child of Priam himself, called Mounippus114. His barbaric attitude deviates both from the moral hesitancy which Euripides certainly attributed to him in his tragedy and also from the grandeur of soul he had as a paternal figure in the Iliad. A Trojan character rediscovered by the Hellenistic poets was Laodice, who is referred to in the Iliad as one of the daughters of Priam and the wife of Helicaon, son of Antenor (3.121-124). Euphorion (fr. 72 CA=fr. 77 v.Gr., fr. 58 CA=fr. 63 v.Gr. and fr. 453 SH) and Lycophron (Lyc. 316-318 and 495-503), closely dependent on each other, and Parthenius, in a different version from theirs (Erot. Path. 16), highlight a minor fig­ ure of the Iliad as the passive agent in a love story. Pausanias (10.26.79) attests a pre-Hellenistic version, according to which Agamemnon and 113. On Euripides’ Alexandras, see Jouan (1966: 113-142) and Scodel (1980: 20-42). The dream of Hecabe was also recounted in Pi. fr. 52iA. 14-23 Sn.-M. with emphasis on the supernatural elements. 114. See the account given in Sch. Lyc. 319.

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

Menelaus did not maltreat Laodice after their entry into Troy, since the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus had once enjoyed the hospitality of Antenor. He adds the comment: Εύφορίων δέ.,.σύν ούδενί εΐκότι τά ές τήν Λαοδίκην έποίησεν (Euphorion fr. 72 CA=fr. 77 v.Gr.). In the Hellenistic variation of Laodice’s story, the interest was transposed from the hospitality theme (offered to Diomedes and Acamas this time) to the adultery with Acamas and the tragic suicide of the heroine, as we saw when discussing Lycophron. Laodice is a candidate for an elegiac hero­ ine already in the Iliad™, since she is described as the most beautiful among the daughters of Priam (3.124 Πριάμοιο θυγατρών είδος άρίστην), but mainly at the point where she is presented as a person closely related to Helen115116. The adaptation of the Laodice of the Iliad into a Hesiodic heroine is probably due to Euphorion, as appears from fr. 58 CA=fr. 63 v.Gr.: ή o l Μ ούνιτον υϊα τέκε π λ ομ ένφ ένΐ ώρω ά λλα έ Σιθονίη τε καί έν κ νη μ οΐσιν Ό λύνθ ο υ ά γρώ σσονθ’ άμα πατρί πελώ ριος εκτανεν ϋδρος When she had lived with him for a year, she gave birth to Mounitus, but in Sithonia and the heights of Olynthus a huge snake poisoned him when he was hunting with his father.

Euphorion dedicates his story to Laodice’s son, Mounitus; the perspec­ tive is post-war and probably has to do with his return to Greece1 . Dur­ ing his journey he went hunting at Olynthos in Chalcidice; at some point during the hunt, Mounitus is killed, in accordance with Alexandrian preferences, by a water snake of huge dimensions (πελώριος ϋδρος). The final surviving fragment was probably related to Laodice’s suicide in a chasm in the earth at the time of the fall of the city which occurs at a fateful location in Troy (fr. 453 SH): ένθα Τρώϊον άλμα καί ήρία Μουνίπποιο ‘where the Trojan leap and Mounippus’ tomb is located’118. The toponymic signs recall two persons from the sacrili115. Laodice’s love affair with Acamas took place before the expedition against Troy (Sch. Lyc. 495 Δ ιομήδης καί Ά κ ά μ α ς ό Θ ησέω ς πρό χοϋ να υ στολή σ αι τούς Έ λ λ η ­ νας έπ ρ έσ β ευ σ α ν πρός τούς Τρώας). , _ _. , 116. In II. 3.121-138 Iris, in the shape of Laodice (implying a relationship o f friend­ ship or protection), urges Helen to watch the duel between husband and lover. Iris appears here as a goddess of love (Sch. ex //.3 .1 2 1 ) and foreshadows the appearance o f Aphrodite later on. 117. According to an Attic version o f the story, found only m a painting by Polygno­ tus, Laodice was taken as a captive by Acamas (Cazzaniga [1959. 324-330]). 118. In the aforementioned Attic version of the story the captured Laodice died tar

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

153

geous past of Troy: the hubristic oath-breaker Laomedon and Priam, the murderer of newly-bom Mounippus119. After the war, the Trojans moved West and the roles of executioner and victim were reversed: one of the unknown post Trojan war episodes is alluded to by Euphorion in the verse Ψίλιν Ά σκάνιόν τε... Ναυαίθοιο (fr. 46 CA=fr. 50 v.Gr.). Two minor rivers of Troas (καί Ψίλιν Ά σκάνιόν τε)120 are paired with the river name Ναύαιθος. The mythological aetion of this hydronym is given by Sch. Lyc. 921: Ναύαιθος ποταμός Κρότωνος ώνομάσθη δε οΰτως, διότι μετά τήν Τλίου άλωσιν ήλθόν τινες των 'Ελλήνων έκεϊσε, αί δε αιχμάλω­ τοι, αί Τρφάδες εύλαβούμεναι τήν δουλείαν τήν έν Έ λλάδι καί τήν έσομένην ζηλοτυπίαν των γυναικών αυτών ένέπρησαν τάς ναΰς τών δεσποτών ‘Nauaithos, the river of Croton, was named after the following event: after the fall of Troy some of the Greeks went there; the captive Trojan women to avoid slavery in Greece and the future jealousy of the wives of the Greek leaders, they set their ships on fire’. It may be that the captive Troad women, who had already been transported to Italy, recognized some of their fellow-countrywomen and agreed with them to set fire to the Greek ships121, thus importing the Trojan perspective into the myth122. By Trojan perspective I do not merely imply the multiplication of sto­ ries with Trojan protagonists, but the experience and interpretation of the war through their eyes in particular. The Trojan focalization of the myth is encountered in Euphorion and becomes dominant in Lycophron’s Alexandra™. Within the framework of the poem, in a voice which comes from tragedy, Alexandra/Cassandra prophesies the fall of Troy

l T j . ray' Lf 0pIr n (497'498’ cf· Sch· Lyc · 497> “ d Triphiodorus (Capture of Troy 660-663) confuse the two conflicting versions, obviously echoing a philological contro­ versy on the subject (Sch. Lyc. 497) φεΰ, πώς, Λ ύκοφ ρον, ά νακόλουθα γρά φ εις ένα ντια συμπασι καί σεαυτώ π λ έο ν; Cf. Cazzaniga (1959: 335-336). 119. It seems that Euphorion (ff. 70 CA=ff. 75 v.Gr.) also presented Laocoon as a symbol o f the fall o f Troy. Servius (Sch. Virg. Aen. 2.201) notes that according to Euphonon s version Apollo punished Laocoon for his hubristic union with Antiope in front o f his statue. * [1977° 11Δ]) n0t’ Μ W° Uld be eXpeCted’ 1,16 Scamander and the Simoeis (van Groningen 121. Van Groningen (1977: 117). 122. Simias described the surrender o f Andromache and Aeneas to Neoptolemus in his Gorgo (ff. 6 CA). He thus distanced himself from the cyclic version, according to i o0A^ neaS t00k refuge in Mount Ida before the siege o f Troy (The Sack of Troy Proclus 88 K.). 123. If we accept that Euphorion was prior to Lycophron (as perhaps their use o f the same Homeric glossae implies, see e.g. Gigante Lanzara [2000: 33-34]), then it is possi­ ble that it was Euphorion who first introduced the Trojan perspective into his poetry.

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

and triumphantly foretells the domination of the Trojan/Romans in the West under Aeneas. The Trojan perspective is therefore presented through the pathos that flows from her tragic monologue124. Cassandra is mentioned in the Homeric epics, though it is not known if the poet was aware of her prophetic gift125. Cassandra the seer is a figure Lycophron borrows from the Epic Cycle and, obviously, from Aeschylus’ Agamem­ non126. One thread of the Trojan perspective consists in the attribution of the successive destructions of Ilion to human sacrilege: Ilus, who builds the city on the hill of Ate (29), Laomedon who breaks his contracts with the gods (31-51), and Paris. The departure of the fleet for Greece is selected as the high point for the beginning of the Alexandrian Trojan tragedy (17-27). In this context, the Trojan war is provoked by two (almost con­ tradictory) reasons: the commonplace, according to which Paris abducted Helen, thus trampling upon the rules of Greek hospitality (86114, 132-143), and the apocryphal, which has the betrayed spouse Oenone inciting the Achaeans to war (57-68). In both cases, Paris sym­ bolizes the utterly destructive side of erotic passion, either as the active agent in adultery or as the passive recipient of its consequences (Oenone is, in any case, a φαρμακουργός, too)127. The second thread which defines the Trojan perspective in the Alexandra is connected to the fate of the Priamids. The heroification of Hector is very obviously a Homeric legacy, but Lycophron gives it added emphasis, on the one hand contrasting the hero to Paris and Helen’s suitors, and, on the other, downgrading the martial status of Achilles (269-280). Alexandra commemorates the victims of the house: Troilus (307-313) the symbol of untimely death in post-Trojan mythol­ ogy; Laodice (314-322), the love heroine of Alexandrian mythography, Polyxena (323-329), according to the cyclic and particularly the Euripidean tradition a victim of Achilles’ erotic passion even after his death; 124. The same generic conventions that apply to Alexandra might be traced in a poem by another tragedian o f the Hellenistic era, who set at the core of his ‘monodrama’ the duel between Hector and Achilles as reported by Cassandra to Priam and Deiphobus (adesp. fr. 649 Kannicht-Snell, see Neblung [1997: 93-97] and Fantuzzi-Hunter [2004: 433]). Cassandra also had a major role in an anonymous Hellenistic fragment (Lyrica adespota fr. 11 CA), on which see Neblung (1997: 98-104). 125. Neblung (1997) has dedicated his monograph to the reception o f Cassandra in lit­ erature; see especially pp. 73-106 for her reception in Hellenistic literature. 126. Neblung (1997: 76-80) offers an overview o f the prophetic gift o f Cassandra and its literary models. 127. On Oenone as an erotic/passionate figure, see Gigante Lanzara (2000: 196-197); on her reception in Parthenius and later poetry (up to Tennyson), see Lighfoot (1999: 391-393).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

155

and the tragic parents Hecabe (330-334) and Priam (335-339)128. The last two are introduced through episodes of Alexandrian aestheticism: the transformation of Hecabe into a bitch (334 μαίρας δταν φαιουρόν άλλάξης δομήν ‘when you shall change and take the form of the sable­ tailed dog’) and the aetion of change of name of the Trojan king from Podarces to Priam (338-339 ώνητός αίθαλωτόν ές πάτραν μολών,/ τό πριν δ’ άμυδρόν οβνομ’ άιστώσας σκότφ ‘he came, a bought slave, to his country burnt to ashes, and hided in darkness his former obscure name’). With the third thread, the rape of Cassandra by Locrian Ajax (348364) as foretold by herself (348 έγώ δέ τλήμων...), the heroine is also inducted into the cycle of Hellenistic love tales. With the punishment of her own suffering, brought on by erotic passion, the victorious war and the roles of victors and vanquished are reversed129. The first justification comes when the Achaeans pay for the war with their unaccomplished homecomings; the second when the dead Priamids take the place of the Achaeans in the pantheon of sanctified heroes (Cassandra 1126-1140, Hecabe 1174-1188, Hector 1189-1213); and the third when the success­ ful foundations of the Trojans in the West are capped by the building of Rome by Aeneas (1126-1280). Aeneas is the second most important Trojan hero in the Iliad and is, indeed, almost deified by the people, per­ haps because of his direct descent from Aphrodite (II. 11.58), while his origins as a scion of the house of Dardanus make him by right an heir to Troy’s centuries-long history (11. 20.213-241). His next appearance in literature is connected to the Epic Cycle, since in The Sack of Troy (Proclus 88 K.) ol περί τον ΑΙνείαν flee to Ida. Through a variety of allu­ sions, from Hellanicus, Stesichorus and Sophocles down to Lycophron and Virgil, Aeneas represents a bridge between the myth of Troy and the story of Rome. And the Alexandra ends with Alexander the Great, who, through his distant descent from Dardanus, is presented as a second Aeneas in the Hellenistic world of Lycophron130. Any discussion of the strategies adopted by the Hellenistic poets to update the meaning of epic heroism ought also to take into account the political identity of the heroes of the Trojan myth. In the elevated 128. Euripides depicted the Priamids as noble barbarians in contrast to the Greeks (Hall [1989: 211-223]). 129. The act o f rape stands in sharp contrast to Cassandra’s virginity, a feature high­ lighted in Lycophron’s narrative (Neblung [1997: 80-84]). 130. Gigante Lanzara (2000: 430-432). The passage alludes in particular to the bloody wars that follow ed the death o f Alexander, see Holzinger (1895: 58-59).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

poetic genres, such as, for instance, archaic lyric poetry or classical tragedy, the heroes of the Greek myth were not ideologically and polit­ ically neutral; the fact that kings and heroes line up alongside each other in Callimachus’ Aetia-Prologue demonstrates how closely these two thematic categories depended on each other. The question is there­ fore if and how far the contemporary political reality of the Hellenistic poets entered their poetry through the heroes of the Trojan war131. This crucial issue is directly connected to the old conflict regarding the politico-ideological neutrality of the Alexandrian poets and their ties with the Ptolemaic court132. Theocritus, for example, hymns the beauty of Arsinoe, comparing her with Helen (Id. 15.110-111) ά Βερενίκεια θυγάτηρ Έλένςι είκυΐα/ Ά ρσ ινόα 133. Similarly, Callimachus sketches Alexandria as the residence of Helen and indirectly hints at the identification of Arsinoe with her (Victoria Berenices fr. 254.4-6 SH)134. Menelaus and Helen, the blissful newly-weds in Theocritus’ Idyll 18, perhaps stand for the royal couple of Philadelphus and Arsi­ noe, especially given the fact that Egypt had powerful cult and literary ties with Helen135. In the encomiastic idylls of Theocritus, in the cata­ logues of the heroes of Troy, the glory of the mythological personae is compared to that of the subject of the encomium. In Idyll 17, for Ptolemy Philadelphus, there is a direct comparison between him and the famous Homeric heroes Diomedes and Achilles (Id. 17.53-57). The description of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the same idyll (103) ξανθοκόμας Πτολεμαίος, έπιστάμενος δόρυ πάλλειν ‘Ptolemy, the prince with the blond hair, who knows how to wield the spear’ corresponds to the prototype of the Homeric hero. In this particular instance, the snap131. The opposite is well attested by the biographers o f Alexander: according to Plutarch’s Life, Alexander was a fanatic reader o f Homer and an admirer o f Achilles (e.g. see Alex. 15.8 on his sacrifices performed at Troy and at the stele of Achilles and Alex. 8.2 on his systematic reading o f the Iliad on a daily basis). 132. The older view, introduced by Schwinge (1986: 36-40), regards Alexandrian aestheticism as a symptom o f the Helenistic poets’ a-political attitude. On the contrary, Weber (1993) interpreted Alexandrian poetics as a means o f political affirmation, in the sense that they strongly supported the sovereignty of the Ptolemies. According to Cameron (1995: 431-436), both the Dioscuri and the Epithalamion fo r Helen created the dominant image o f the Ptolemies for Theocritus’ contemporaries; on the political symbol­ ism o f the Dioscuri, see Sens (1997: 23). 133. Basta Donzelli (1984). On the cult o f Helen and the Dioscuri in Ptolemaic Alexandria as a background for Theocritus’ idylls, see Weber (1993: 346-347). Pantelia (1995: 76-79), in discussing the political meaning o f Idyll 18, suggests that Helen and Menelaus represent the Theoi Adelphoi, the Ptolemaic royal couple o f Alexandria. 134. Weber (1993 : 397 n .l). 135. Griffiths (1979: 86-91) and Hunter (1996: 163-166).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

157

shot is of Achilles, who is both blond (II. 1.197 ξανθής δε κόμης ελε Πηλεΐωνα ‘she seized the son of Peleus from his blond hair’) and unique in his handling of weapons (II. 19.388-389 τό [εγχος] μέν oö δύνατ’ άλλος ’Αχαιών/ πάλλειν, άλλά μιν οϊος έπίστατο πήλαι Ά χιλ εύς ‘a spear which none of the Achaeans had strength to wield it save only Achilles’). A parallel is drawn between the military planning of Hiero against the Carthaginians and the feats of Achilles and Ajax at Troy (Id. 16.73-75), while, again, the description of the Syracusan king corresponds to the Homeric image of Achilles136. If we except the Roman-friendly orientation of the Trojan myth in Lycophron, the enco­ mia of Theocritus represent an isolated incident of linkage between the heroes of the Trojan war and Hellenistic monarchs137. The contextualization of the Trojan myth into politics was possible because Theocritus wrote within the conventions of the encomia of Pindar and Simonides138. Thus, the praise of monarchs by reference to the heroic prototypes of the epic can be also be interpreted as a generic ‘inheri­ tance’ to the encomiastic poetry of Theocritus. The strategies mentioned above record the transition from heroic poetry, the quintessence of which were the epic and tragedy, to a poetry with shadowy, inert or anti-heroic protagonists. The treatment of people in the example of the Trojan myth reveals the dominant trends of poetic modernism: de-Homerization of the great heroes, sympathetic sketches of characters with a lurid past in Homer, emphasis on everyday and minor figures, re-interpretation of the war from the Trojan point of view, location of the Trojan heroes within a recognizable historical and politi­ cal setting. Thus, the stripping away of the heroic features of the Trojan myth and the deflation of its protagonists took its final shape in Alexan­ dria in the quest for a new poetic ideology. In the last chapter, I will try to show how crucial was the de-heroization of Achilles, the archetypal epic hero, to the Hellenistic rewriting of the Trojan myth.

136. Gow (1952: 2.320) notes that Theocritus’ picture o f Hiero arming among his troops recalls Achilles arming among the Greeks in II. 19.364. 137. Griffiths (1979: 122-123) sees Theocritus’ descriptions o f the Ptolemies with reference to the Trojan myth as an attempt to project the heroic world o f the past onto contemporary Alexandria. 138. Schwinge (1986: 50-55 and 59-63). That Theocritus wrote his encomium with the Homerization o f the battle o f Plataea by Simonides (esp. ff. 11 W2.) in mind, is pointed out in Fantuzzi (2000a: 240-241).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

C.4. Achilles as a modern hero Homeric epic is inconceivable without Achilles. The αριστος των ’Αχαιών, demonstrates his heroic passions, his wrath towards Agamem­ non and his friendship towards Patroclus, through his tragic withdrawal from the battle of Troy and his even more tragic return to it. His divine provenance and his access to the Olympian gods are constantly at odds with his mortal nature: the ώκύμορος Achilles is called upon to fight, even though he is deeply conscious of his impending doom139. It is no accident that he is the model for a series of heroes who come into con­ flict with their social environment, are isolated and eventually selfdestruct -the example and definition of the ancient Greek hero140. The Achilles of the Iliad embodies the idealized Heldenleben which can be lived only within the context of epic poetry by a powerful prototype of masculine heroism141. However, if we follow the cultural, religious and literary transforma­ tions of Achilles, we will see that he is a fluid figure in myth, with mul­ tiple and sometimes conflicting properties. After his strong presence in the Homeric epics, Achilles continued to be a symbol of the hero in lyric poetry. In the Epic Cycle, however, he seems to be knocked off his pedestal, since he is associated with a series of military and erotic adven­ tures which shape his later physiognomy. The dramatic poets of the 5th century introduced fundamental changes into his character, mainly under the influence of non-Homeric literary traditions142. By blending together the relevant episodes from the Epic Cycle and tragedy two variations of

139. Nagy (1979: 9): “The hero must experience death. The hero’s death is the theme that gives him his power -n ot only in cult but also in poetry” . Nagy (1979: 151-173) clearly distinguishes between the mortal Achilles of the Iliad on the one hand and the immortal Achilles o f the cyclic Aethiopis and the immortal heroes presented in Hesiod’s poetry (Op. 156-173) on the other. The mortality of the hero is a much more sophisticated epic situation compared to the rather primitive theme o f immortality (Nagy [1979: 174-

210]). 140. On Achilles as a model for Ajax, Philoctetes, Antigone, Oedipus, Prometheus and Medea, even Socrates, see Michelakis (2002: 16-18). 141. Achilles reflected the values of a society that by the 8th c. BC belonged already to the past; therefore, the heroic image o f Achilles was already outdated in Homer’s era, when the aristocratic society and its values were extinct and their place was taken by the new type o f the practically oriented man (Latacz [1995: 28-33]). For the masculine dimension o f Iliadic heroism, see Clarke (2004) with bibliography. 142. A concise outline o f the differentiated images o f Achilles in ancient poetry is offered by Nagy (2005: 80-81). On the reception o f Achilles in Greek tragedy, see Michelakis (2002). Euripides regards the idealized image of Achilles with irony and bit­ terness within the context o f his anti-war criticism, as expressed in Hecabe and Electra (Latacz [1995: 27]).

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

159

Achilles emerge: the superhuman, sometimes bloodthirsty, warrior and the ardent lover143. Hellenistic literature represents an important stage in this transforma­ tion144. We have seen how the deification of Achilles in the Elysian Fields, as recorded in Apollonius, Lycophron and Theocritus, was a decisive step in his de-Homerization, in the annulling of his tragic profile in the Iliad145. Another strategy is the depiction of Achilles as an infant in the Argonau­ tica, since the artificial ‘heroification’ of the baby Achilles through the spells of Thetis reflects a more general concern with the nature and essence of epic heroism146. Thereafter I will attempt to sketch out the dif­ ferent personalities of Achilles in Hellenistic poetry from the point of view of three crucial areas: art, war and love147. Through the de-heroification of Achilles on the basis of these reference points, the epic ideology of mas­ culine heroism is, in the end, itself called into question. C.4.a. Epeius, the anti-Achilles Achilles was not directly involved in the fall of Troy, but was its imme­ diate cause, since he killed the city's main defender, Hector, on the bat­ tlefield. The actual fall of the city occurred after the death of both Iliadic heroes, thanks to the inspiration of Athena and the inventiveness of Odysseus who ordered the craftsman Epeius to construct the Wooden Horse. The incident is mentioned in the Odyssey by Odysseus himself, as the synopsis of a widespread epic theme among the bards who sang of the sufferings of the Achaeans in Troy, with Epeius still a secondary figure (Od. 8.492-495, cf. 11.523-524)148. Epeius, however, alongside his image as an able craftsman, also bears the identity of a cowardly 143. The apposite terms used by King (1987) are ‘lover o f war’ and ‘soldier o f love’ respectively. 144. The Roman depiction of Achilles is probably due to Hellenistic influence: in the Aeneis, Achilles is presented as a fierce slayer, while in Propertius and Ovid he is the par­ adigm o f the erotic hero (Latacz [1995: 25-26]). 145. It is no coincidence that in Attic literature -m ainly tragedy and philosophy-, which in a sense represents 5th century Panhellenic ideology, Achilles dominates as an epic hero and not as a cult figure. Thus, the Iliadic Achilles becomes ‘Panhellenic’, whereas Achilles as a local hero is only honoured in the periphery o f the Greek world (Michelakis [2002: 2-13]). By bringing the deified Achilles to the fore, the Hellenistic poets recall the lesser known Achilles o f the various local cults. 146. Apollonius further exploits the Euripidean image o f Achilles, who, by presenting him as a self-conscious teenager in Iphigenia at Aulis, deprives him o f his heroic quali­ ties (on this interpretation, see Michelakis [2002: 84-143]). 147. In the following analysis, I roughly adopt King’s (1987) line o f interpretation, as expressed in her fundamental study o f the paradigm of Achilles as a war hero from Homer to the Middle Ages. 148. In the Little Iliad, Epeius is still a marginal character (Proclus 81 K. καί Έ π ε ώ ς

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

warrior in Homeric tradition149. In the Iliad, he does not take part in a single battle scene, but only in the athletic games arranged in memory of Patroclus (23.653-699, 826-849). There Epeius, in direct speech, con­ fesses his lack of prowess in war (II. 23.668-671): ή μ ίονον δ ’ οϋ φημί τιν’ ά ξέμ εν ά λλ ον ’Α χαιώ ν πυγμή νική σα ντ’ έπεΐ εύχομαι είναι αριστος. ή ούχ αλις δττι μάχης έπιδεύομαι; ουδ’ αρα πως ήν έν π ά ντεσ σ ’ εργοισι δαήμονα φώτα γενέσθα ι. The mule is mine and no other Achaean will beat me to win it, since I maintain I am the best. I’m not much good at fighting, true, but no man can be good in everything.

Epeius’ evaluation is, in effect, a comparison between war (where strength is of the essence) and boxing (where it is skill that counts)150. Epeius’ appropriation of the crucial boast in the Iliad, εύχομαι είναι αριστος ’Αχαιών, is ironically juxtaposed with the same declaration expressed by Achilles, within a military context though (II. 1.244). The elevation of Epeius into a hero-conqueror through his art and skill is probably due to Euripides, who, for the first time attributed the fall of Troy not so much to Athena or to Odysseus, but to Epeius himself (Jr. 9-12): ό γάρ Π αρνάσιος Φωκεύς Έ π ειός μηχαναΐσι Π αλλάδος έγκ ύμον’ 'ίππον τευχέω ν συναρμόσας πύργων έπεμψ εν έντός From his home beneath Parnassus, Phocaean Epeius, aided by the craft o f Pallas, constructed a horse to bear within its womb an armed host, and sent it within the battlements.

In Hellenistic poetry, Epeius assumed a prominent role, probably because the Hellenistic myth focused on themes that were no longer associated with military prowess but with the exercise of art. Simias dedicated to Epeius one of his technopaegnia, the Axe, which the hero is supposed to have given to Athena as a votive offering151. The readiness κα τ’ ’Α θήνας π ρ ο α ίρ εσ ιν τόν δ ού ρ ειον ίπ π ον κατασκευάζει), however, he is first acknowledged as a skilled manufacturer in this epic (Little Iliad fr. 8 B.=Apollod, Epit. 5.14 ουτος άπό τής "Ιδης ξύλα τεμώ ν ίπ π ον κατασκευάζει κοΐλον). 149. On the legendary cowardice of Epeius, see Acosta-Hughes (2002: 298 n.55). 150. Cf. Sch. ex II. 23.665b ή ν δέ, ώς έοικ ε, και τέχνη πα ρ’ αύτοΐς τής πυγμής, οΰ μ ό νο ν ή δύναμις. 151. The Axe is edited and commented by Strodel (2002: 158-198).

161

to elevate the skill of Epeius into a military feat is clear from the first word of the poem, Άνδροθέμ, which also suggests the idea of a mascu­ line Athena who is a military leader152. In a digression concerned with the fall of Troy, three dynamic siege actions have Epeius as their subject (Axe 1-3): ώ πασ’ Έ π ειό ς π έλεκ υ ν τώ πόκα πύργων θεοτεύκτων κατέρειψ εν αΐπος, τόμος έπεΐ τάν Ιερόν κηρΐ πυρίπνω π όλιν ήθαλωσαν Δαρδανιδαν, χρυσοβά φ εις δ’ έσ τυ φ έλ ιξ’ έκ θεμέθλων ανακτας Epeius has given the axe with which he once overthrew the upstanding height o f god-built walls, on the day when with a fire-breathed doom he made ashes of the holy city of the Dardanids and thrust gold-broidered lords from their high seats.

The axe of Epeius, a building tool and murderous weapon153, is a metonymy for the fall of Troy, because of its use in the construction of the Wooden Horse154. The siege of Troy, which is recorded as a feat of Epeius, is expressed in Homeric language and imagery; however, it also recalls tragic passages related to the fall of Ilion155. The continuation contains a significant surprise, since Epeius, though a mere water-carrier (Axe 6 άπό κραναν Ιθαραν νάμα κόμιζε δυσκλής)156 and not one of the main warriors of the Achaeans (5 ού ένάριθμος γεγαώς έν προμάχοις ’Αχαιών), in the end occupies a place in the Homeric pan­ theon (7 νυν δ’ ές Ό μήρειον έβα κέλευθον). The poetological terms of the passage, νάμα, κέλευθος and, in particular, the epithet Ό μήρειος lend a metaliterary tone to the comment -and from this point 152. On this undertone of the name Ά νδ ρ ο θ έα , see Strodel (2002: 167). 153. Calypso provides Odysseus with an axe so that he may build a boat for his escape (Od. 5.234-236). However, in tragedy, especially in Euripides, the axe is an instru­ ment of violent murders (Aesch. Ch. 889, Soph. El. 99, Eur. Hec. 1279, El. 1160, Tr. 361 etc.). 154. However, the lack o f reference to the Wooden Horse in the technopaegnion was erroneously interpreted as an attempt to replace its role in the siege o f Troy with the axe (the view is criticized by Strodel [2002: 162 and n.7]). 155. The image o f the collapsing Trojan walls is already mentioned in Pindar, at the point where the prophetic dream o f Hecabe on the future catastrophic role o f Paris is described (fr. 52iA.20-23 Sn.-M.). Troy is covered by thick fog during its fall (Eur. Hec. 905ff.), whereas the epic verb στυφελίζω recalls the divine power in the Iliad (of Zeus 1.581, o f Apollo 5.437). See Strodel’s (2002: 176-183) detailed commentary on the imagery. 156. In Stesichorus, Epeius is the water-carrier of the Achaeans (fr. 200 PMG), cf. Strodel (2002: 170-171). May we assume that exactly this humble service performed by Epeius has led the Alexandrian poets to focus on him and his ‘heroization’? On the adjec­ tive δυσκλής echoing the epic term kleos, see Strodel (2002: 185).

RECONSTRUCTING THE EPIC

THE TROJAN MYTH AND THE REVISION OF EPIC

of view officially rebaptize Epeius as the new hero157. In Lycophron, there is all the literary evidence about Epeius mentioned above: his tech­ nical skill (Lyc. 930 Ιπποτέκτων, cf. 945), his proverbial cowardice in battle (931 έγχος πεφρικώς καί φάλαγγα θουρίαν, cf. 943)158, his boxing prowess (943) and also the matter dealt with by Simias, i.e. the dedication of his building tools to Athena (948-950). Epeius increasingly replaces the typical war heroes of the epic and his skill becomes the symbol of his peculiar aristeia. In Iambus 7, Callimachus allocates the laudation of Epeius to one of his creations159. The wooden statue of Hermes Perpheraeus confesses in propria persona'60 -and with some degree of paradoxographic ironythat it was resistant to weapons and fire to such an extent that it was honoured as a god by the inhabitants of Aenus (Dieg. VII.7-8 σχίζειν τε αύτόν καί παρακαίειν αυτοΐς έπεχείρουν ‘they tried to cut the statue into pieces and light a fire for themselves’). The statue appeared, unharmed, despite the vicissitudes of the war, thanks to the exceptional skill of Epeius; it may even be that the details of the process of its con­ struction were described, as seems likely from the word σ]κέπαρνον (fr. 197.2-3 Pf.). But Callimachus, ever ready to innovate, does not leave us without a description of the heroic craftsman (fr. 197.2-3 Pf.): έμμι τώ φυγαίχμα/ πάρεργον ίπποτέκτον[ος Τ am the by-work of the coward who built the Horse’. Through two compound words that are found only once elsewhere, Aeschylus’ φυγαίχμας (Pers. 1025) and Lycophron’s Ιπποτέκτων (Lyc. 930)161, Callimachus suggests Epeius’ double identity. Yet the statue of Hermes is a minor work and, indeed, was made before Epeius’ masterpiece, the Wooden Horse (Dieg. VII. 12 Έ πειός πρό τοΰ δουρείου ίππου έδημιούργησεν Έ ρμδν ‘Epeius created the statue of Hermes before the Wooden Horse’). He is shown as

practising his craft as a woodcarver with no concern for the Trojan war that was raging. The fact that artistic creation and battle were happening at the same time is apparent from two clues, the phrase Σκάμα[ν]δρος άγριωμένος (fr. 197.13 Pf.) and the information from the Diegesis (VII.2-3) that Έ ρμάν...ό Σκάμανδρος πολύς ένεχθείς κατέσυρεν ‘the swollen Scamander swept away the statue of Hermes’. Scamander symbolizes Achilles’ dramatic encounters in the last books of the Iliad162 and recalls the anger of the personified river (II. 21.136 ποταμός δέ χολώσατο κηρόθι μάλλον ‘the river was enraged with all his heart’, esp. 234-271). The scene reproduces, in particular, Achilles’ threat to Lycaon (II. 21.123-125) ουδέ σε μήτηρ/ ένθεμένη λεχέεσσι γοήσεται, άλλα Σκάμανδρος/ οϊσει δινήεις εϊσω άλός εύρέα κόλπον ‘your mother shall not lay you on a bier to mourn you, but the eddying Scamander shall bear you into the broad bosom of the sea’, as the wooden Hermes is cast into the Scamander together with the other vic­ tims of Achilles (Lycaon, for example, in II. 21.120 τόν δ ’ Ά χιλεύς ποταμόνδε λαβών ποδός ήκε φέρεσθαι ‘Achilles seized him by the foot and flung him into the river’)163. Thus, Callimachus parodies the focal battle of the Iliad and its leading fighter, Achilles, by presenting him as throwing along with the dead and the artistic creation of Epeius, who, ironically, was to become the man that breached the defenses of Troy in the end.

157. On the adjective Ό μ ή ρ ειο ς, obviously used in its broadest sense so as to include Homer and epics belonging to the Homeric tradition, see Strodel (2002: 188189). 158. Testimonies in Kerkhecker (1999: 188 and n.22); see esp. the proverbial expres­ sion Έ π ειοΰ δειλότερ ος. 159. On a general analysis o f this Iambus, see Acosta-Hughes (2002: 294-300). 160. The literary convention o f the speaking object stems from the epigram, see Daw­ son (1950: 83) and Kerkhecker (1999: 183 and n.3 with bibliography). Acosta-Hughes (2002: 280-288) groups Iambus 7 together with Iambi 6 and 9 on die basis that they all represent cult statues o f origin far from Alexandria; from a broader perspective he relates these particular Iambi to archaic aesthetic criticism and to descriptions of works of art elsewhere in the poetry o f Callimachus. See also Kerkhecker (1999: 194-196) on the humorous use o f this device in Iambus 7. 161. Apart from the current meaning T8KT