The Homer Encyclopedia [1] 1405177683, 9781405177689

Citation preview

Volum e I

The

Homer Encyclopedia Edited by

Margalit Finkelberg SBD-FFLCH-USP

370157

®W ILEY-BLACKW ELL A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

ò 'M

This edition first published 2011 © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, P019 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, P019 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Margalit Finkelberg to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Ail rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designsand Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If profes­ sional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Homer encyclopedia /edited by Margalit Finkelberg. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-4051-7768-9 (hardcover: alk. paper) 1. Homer-Encyclopedias. I. Finkelberg, Margalit. PA4037.A5H58 2011 883'.01-dc22 2010025063 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Set in 9.5/11.5pt Minion by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2011

Brief Contents

Volume I List o f Entries List o f Illustrations List o f Maps Notes on Contributors Preface and Acknowledgments Synopsis List o f Abbreviations

vi xvii xix xx xxxvii xxxix xlv

The Homer Encyclopedia A-G

1-325

Volume II List o f Illustrations List o f Maps List o f Abbreviations The Homer Encyclopedia H -Q

vi viii ix 326-705

Volume III List o f Illustrations List o f Maps List o f Abbreviations The Homer Encyclopedia R-Z References Index

vi viii ix 706-954 955 1031

List of Entries

Volume I Abantes Abioi Abydos Achaean Wall Achaeans Achaia see Achaeans Acheloos Acheron see Underworld Achilles Admetos Adrasteia Adrastos Aegis Aeneas Aeolians Aeolic Phase Aeolids Aethiopians Aetolians Afterlife Agamede Agamemnon Agapenor Agelaos Agenor agora (agorê) see Assembly Agriculture Agrios Ahhiyawa

Aiaia Aiakos Aiantes see Ajax the Greater; Ajax the Lesser aidôs Aietes Aigai Aigeus Aigialeia see Adrastos Aigialos Aigilips Aigina Aigisthos Aigyptios Ainienes Aiolia Aiolos Aipytos Aisepos Aison Aisyetes Aithikes Aithiopis Aithon Aithra Ajax the Greater Ajax the Lesser Akamas Akrisios Aktor Aktorione Alastor

Aleian Plain Alexander the Great and Homer Alexandrian Scholarship Alexandras Alkathoos Alkestis Alkimedon Alkinoos Alkmaon Alkmene Allegorical Interpretation Allegory Allusion see Intertextuality AJoads Alope see Thessaly Alphabet Alpheios Altes Althaia Alybe Amarynkeus Amazons Ambrosia Amisodaros Ammonius Amnisos Amphiaraos Amphidamas Amphilochos Amphimachos

LIST OF E N TR IE S

Amphimedon Amphinomos Amphion Amphios Ainphitrite Amphitryon Amyclae Amydon see Paeonians Amyntor Amythaon Anachronism Analysts Anatolia Anchialos Anchises Andromache Anger Animals Ankaios Anteia Antenor Anthedon Anthropology Antikleia Antilochos Antimachos Antimachus of Colophon Antinoos Antiope Antiphates Antiphos Antron aoidos see Singers Apaisos Aphareus Aphrodite Apisaon Apocrypha Apollo Apollodorus of Athens Apollonius Sophista Apologue Araithyria Arcadians Archaeology, Homeric Archaic Age Archaisms Archelochos Archery Areithoos Arene

Ares aretê Arete Arethousa see Geography, the Odyssey Aretos Argeiphontes see Hermes Argissa Argives Argo see Argonautica Argolid Argonautica Argos(1) Argos(2) Ariadne Arimoi see Typhoeus Arisbe Aristarchus of Samothrace Aristeia Aristocracy Aristonicus Aristophanes of Byzantium Aristotle and Homer Arkesilaos Arktos Arming-Scenes Armor see Weapons and Armor Arne Artakie Artefacts Artemis Artisans see Handicrafts Asine Asios Askalaphos Askania Asklepios...................... Asopos Aspledon Assarakos Assembly Assonance Asteris asteriskos see Sigla, Critical Asteropaios Astronomy Astyanax

VII

Astyoche Astyocheia atasthaliê atê Athene Athenians Athens and Homer Athetosis Athletics see Sport Athos Atlas Atreidai see Atreus Atreus Atrytone Atticisms Atymnios Auerbach, Erich Augeiai Augeias Aulis Aulos Autolykos Automedon Avdo Medjedovic Axios Balios see Xanthos Barbarians basileus see Kingship Bathing Batieia Batrachomyomachia Battle o f Frogs and Mice see Batrachomyomachia Battle-Scenes Bear (the constellation) see Arktos Beilerophon Bias Biographies o f Homer ..Birds.___ Black Sea Biegen, Carl William Boagrios Board Games Body Body Language Boeotians Boibe Book Division Bootes Boreas

VIII

-LIST OF ENTR IES

Boros Boudeion boulê Bouprasion Bow Briareos Brisei's Bronze ........ Bucolic Diaeresis Burial Customs Caesurae Carians Catalogue of Heroines see Nekyia Catalogue of Ships Catalogues Centaurs Centos Cerber see Kerberos Chalcis Characterization Chariots Charis Charites Charops Charybdis Cheiron Children Chimaira Chios Chloris Chorizontes Chromios Chryse see Chryses Chryseis Chryses Chrysothemis Chthonic Deities Cilicians Cimmerians.................. Cinema and TV Circe see Kirke Class Cloth see Dress Colonization Competition Composition-inPerformance Concordance Interpolations Conjecture

Contemporary Theory Contest o f Homer and Hesiod Contraction Corinth Correption Corslet see Weapons and Armor Council see boulê Crates of Mallos Creophylei Crete Cult see Religion Cycle, Epic Cyclopes Cyclops see Polyphemus Cynaetbus Cypria Cyprus Daidalos daimôn Danaans Danae Danaos Dance Dardanians Dardanos Dares see Idaios (2) Dark Age Date o f Homer Daulis Dawn see Eos Death Decision-Making Deimos Deiopites De/phobos Delpyros Delos Delphi see Pytho Demeter Demetrius o f Scepsis dêmioergoi Demodokos Demoptolemos Deukalion Didymus Diectasis Diet see Food Digamma Digressions

dikê Diokles Diomede Diomedes Dione Dionysos Diores diorthôsis Dios Apatê Dios Boulê Dioscuri Diplê Direct Speech see Speeches Divination see Prophecy Divine Apparatus Divine Audience Dmetor Dodona Dogs Dolios Dolon Doloneia Dolops Dorians Dorion Double Motivation Doulichion Dreams Dress Drugs see Magic Dual Duels Dymas Earth see Gaia Echeneos Echephron Echepolos Echetos Echinades Economy Editions Education, Homer in Education, in Homer Eeriboia see Aloads Eètion Egypt and Homer Eidothea 8th-Century Renaissance Eileithyia ekdosis Ekphrasis

LIST OF EN TRIE S

Elatos Electronic Homer Eleon Elephenor Elis Elision Elone Elpenor Elysium Emathia Embassy to Achilles Emendation Emotions Eneti Enipeus Enjambment Ennomos Enope Enyalios see Ares Enyo Eos Eosphoros see Hesperos Epeians Epeigeus Epeios Ephialtes see Aloads Ephyra Epidauros Epikaste Epimerismi Homerici Epipolesis Epirus Epistrophos Epithets epos Eratosthenes of Cyrene Erebos Erechtheus Eremboi Eretria Ereuthalion Erich thonios Erinyes Eriopis Eriphyle Eris Erymanthos Erythinoi Erythrai Eteocretans Eteokles

Eteoneus Eteonos Ethnicity Etymology Euboea Euchenor Eudoros Euenos Eumaios Eumelos Euneos Eupcithes Euphorbos Europa Euros Euryades Euryalos Eurybates Eurydamas Eurydike Eurykleia Eurylochos Eurymachos Eurymedon Eurymedousa Eurynome Eurynomos Eurypylos Eurystheus Eurytion Eurvtos Eustathius Eutresis Evans, Arthur Exchange Exempla see Paradigms exôkeanismos Family Fate Feasting Fish Focalization Folktale Food Foreshadowing Formula Friendship Furies see Erinyes Furniture Gaia Ganymedes

Gargaros Gender Genealogies Genre see Songs Geography, the Iliad Geography, the Odyssey Geometric Period Geraistos geras Gerenian Giants Gifts see Exchange Gilgämesh Glaukos Glaukos-Diomedes Episode Glisas Glory Glosses Gods Gold Gorgon Gorgythion Gortyn Gouneus Graces see Charites Graia Guest-Friendship Gygaean Lake Gyraean Rock(s) Gyrtone

Volume II Hades Haimon Hair Haliartos Halios Halitherses Halizones Handicrafts hapax legomena Harma Harmonides Harpalion Harpies Heart see Mental Organs

IX

X

L-IST OF ENTRIES

Hebe Hecatomb Hector Hecuba Hekamede Helen Helenos Helike Helikonian Helios Hellas see Hellenes Hellenes Hellespont Helmet see Weapons and Armor Helos Hephaistos Hera Heraclids Heraclitus Homeric Problems Herakles Heralds Hermes Hermione Hermos Hero Hero-Cult Herodian Heroic Age Hesiod Hesperos Hexameter see Meter Hiatus Hiketaon Hippemolgi Hippodameia Hippolochos Hippothoos Hippotion Hira Histiaia Historians and Homer Historicity of Homer Hittites Hodios Homeric Question Homerica Homeridae Homicide Honor

Hoplite Tactics see Warfare Horai Horses Hospitality Household Houses Hunting ....... hupomnêmata Hyades Hyam polis Hybris Hyde Hyle Hyllos Hymns, Homeric Hypereia Hyperenor Hyperesie Hyperion Hypnos Hypothebes Hypsenor Hypsipyle Hyria Hyrmine lalmenos lalysos lapetos lardanes Iasion lasos Icarian Sea Ichor Iconography, Early Ida Idaios Idas Idomeneus Ikarios Ikmalios Iliad Ilias parva see Little Iliad Ilion [lioneus Iliupersis see Sack o f Ilion Ilos Imbrios Imbros Indo-European Background

Ino Inscriptions Interpolations Intertextuality Iolkos Ionian Islands Ionians Ionic Dialect ___ Iphianassa Iphidamas Iphiklos Iphimedeia Iphis Iphitos Iphthime Iris Iron Irony Iros Ischia see Pithekoussai Ismaros Ithaca Ithakos Ithome Iton Itylos Ivory Ixion Jason Judgment of Paris Justice Kadmeians see Thebes, Boeotian Kadmos Kaineus Kalchas Kallikolone Kalydnai Kalydon Kalypso Kameiros Kapaneus Kardamyle Karpathos Karystos Kasos Kassandra Kastor Kaukones Kaystrios Kebriones

LIS T OF EN TR IE S

Keladon Kepliallenes Kephisian Lake Kephisos Kerberos Kerinthos Kerkopes see Apocrypha Kêteioi Kikones Killa Kingship Kinship Kinyras Kirke Kisses Kithara see Phorminx Kleitos Kleonai Kleopatre kleos Klonios Klymene Klytaimnestra Klytios Klytoneos Knossos Koiranos Kokytos see Underworld Kolos Mache Koön Kopai Kopreus Koroneia Kos Kranae Kreon Kretheus Krisa Krokyleia Kromna Kronides, Kronion Kronos Krounoi Kteatos Ktesippos Ktimene Kunstsprache Kuretes Kydonians Kyllene Kyllenios

Kynos Kyparisseis see Messenia Kyparissos Kypris Kythera Kythereia Kytoros Laas ................. — Lacedaemon Laèrkes Laertes Laestrygonians Lament Lantos Lampetia Lampos Landscape Language, Homeric Language, in Homer Laodamas Laodameia Laodike Laodokos Laomedon Laothoe Lapiths Larisa Laughter Law Lede Lefkandi Tomb Leiodes Leiokritos Lei'tos Lekton Leleges Lemnos Leonteus Lesbos Leto ----Leukadian Rock Leukothea see Ino Libation Libya Lies Likymnios Lilaia Lindos Linear B Linos Lions

XÍ

Litai Literary Criticism, Early Period Literary Criticism, Hellenistic and Roman Little Iliad Lives o f Homer see Biographies o f Homer Livestock Locrians Longinus see Ps.-Longinus Lord, A. B. Lotophagi Luwians Lycians Lydians see Maeonians Lykaon Lykomedes Lykourgos Lyktos Lyre see Phorminx Lyrnessos Machaon Maeander Maenads Maeonians Magic Magnetes Maia Maion Maira Makar Malea Mantinea Mantios Manuscripts Marathon Margites Maron Marpessa Marriage Marxism see Contemporary Theory Mases Medeon Medesikaste Medicine see Machaon Medon Megapenthes Megara

XII

- L IS T OF EN TRIE S

Megaron see Houses Meges Mekisteus Melam pous Melanippos Melanthios Meiantho Melas Meleager Meliboia Memnun Memory Meneluos Menestheus Menesthios mcnis Menoitios menos Mental Organs Mentes Mentor Meriones meropes Merops Mesaulios Messe Messene see Messenia Messenia Mesthles Mestor Metacharacterism Metals Metaphor Meter Methone mêtis Metrical Lengthening Metrodorus o f Lampsacus Mideia Miletos Mimas Minoan Civilization Minor Warriors Minos Minyan Minyeios moira Molione see Aktorione Money see Exchange Monologues Monsters

Mortality see Death Morys Motivation Moulios Mules Muses Music muthos Mycenae Mycenaean Age Mydon Mygdon Mykale Mykalessos Mykene Mynes Myrine Myrmidons Myrsinos Mysians Myth «-mobile Naiads Names, Personal Narrative Narratology Nastes see Amphimachos Nausicaa Nausithoos Neaira Near East and Homer Necromancy Nectar Nekyia Neleus nemesis Neoanalysis Neo-Ionisms Neoplatonic Interpretation Neoptolemos Nereids Nereus Nerikos Neriton Neritos Nestor Nestor’s Cup Nicanor Nietzsche and Homer Niobe

Nireus Nisa Nisos Nisyros Noernon noos see Mental Organs Nostoi see Returns Notos numerus versuum Nymphs Nyseion Oaths Obelos Ocean Odios see Hodios Odysseus Odysseus’ Companions Odysseus’ Wanderings Odyssey Oedipus Ogygia Oichalia Oi'kles oikos see Household Oileus Oineus Oinomaos Oitylos Okalea Old Age Olenian Rock Olenos Olive Olizon Oloosson Olympos Omens Onchestos Onetor Ophelestes Opheltios Opoeis Oral-Derived Text Oral Dictated Texts Oral-Formulaic Theory Oral Traditions Orchomenos Orestes Orientalizing Period Orion Ormenion

LIST OF EN TRIE S

Orsilochos Ortilochos Ortygie Ossa Othryoneus Otos Otreus Oukcdegon Ouraniones Paean Paeonians Paisos see Apaisos Pallas see Athene Pammon Panathenaia see Athens and Homer Pandareos Pandaros Panhellenism Panopeus Pantheon see Gods Panthoos Paphlagonians Paphos Papyri, Homeric Parables Paradigms Paraphrases Parataxis Paris Parnassos Parrhasia Parry, Milman Parthenios Particles Pathos Patroklos Pedasos Peira Peiraios Peirithoos Peiroos Peisandros Peisenor Peisistratos Pelagon Pelasgian Argos Pelasgians Pelegon Peleus Pelias

Pelion Pellene Pelops Peneios Peneleos Penelope Performance Perga mene School Pergamos Periboia Periklymenos Perimedes Periphas Periphetes Perkote Pero Perrhaebians Perse Persephone Perseus Personification Peteon Peteos Phaeacians Phaethon Phaethousa Phaidimos Phaidra Phainops Phaistos Phalkes Pharos Pheai Pheidon Phemios Pheneos Pherai, Messenian Pherai, Thessalian Phereklos Pheres Philo of Alexandria Philoitios Philoktetes Philomeleides Philosophy, Contemporary Phlegyes Phobos Phocians Phoenicians Phoibos Phoinix

XÍÜ

Phorbas Phorkys Phorminx Phratries phrenes see Mental Organs; Self Phrontis Phrygians Phthia Phthires Phylake Phylakos Phyleus Pieria Piracy see Economy Pisistratean Recension Pithekoussai Pittheus' Pityeia Plakos Planktai Plataia Plato and Homer Pleiades Pleuron Plus-Verses Plutarch and Homer Podaleirios Podarge Podargos Podarkes Podes Poets and Poetry Polis Polites Pollution Polybos Polydamna Polydeukes see Dioscuri Polydora Polydoros Polyidos Polykaste Polyktor Polymele see Eudoros Polyneikes Polypheides Polyphemos Polypoites Polyxeinos Pontonoos

x iv

. L I S T OF ENTRIES

Porphyry Portheus Poseidon Poulydamas Praktios Prayer Priam Proclus’ Summary see Cycle, Epic Proems Proitos Prokris Promachoi see Warfare Promachos Prophecy Protesilaos Proteus Prothoenor Prothoos Protogeometric see Geometric Period Ps.-Longinus Ps.-Plutarch De Homero Psyche Psychoanalytic Criticism see Contemporary Theory Psyria Pteleon Purple Pygmies Pylaimenes Pylartes Pylos Pyraichmes Pyrasos Pyriphlegeton see Underworld, Topography of Pytho Quantitative Metathesis Querelle des andern et des modernes, La Quotations

Volume III Reception, Archaic and Classical Reception, Hellenistic

Reception, Roman Reception, Imperial Reception, Early Christian Reception, in Rabbinic Judaism Reception, Byzantine Reception, Syriac and Arabic Reception, in Latin Middle Ages Reception, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment Reception, from the Enlightenment to the 20th Century Reception, in the 20th Century Reception, in Visual Arts Reciprocity see Exchange Recognition-Scene Religion Reminiscences Repetitions Responsibility Returns Rhadamanthys Rhapsodes Rhea Rhesos Rhetorical Figures of Speech Rhexenor Rhianus of Crete Rhipe Rhodes Rhytion Ring Composition Rivers Romanticism Rumor see Ossa Sack o f Ilion Sacrifice Salamis Salmoneus Same Samos Sangarios Sarpedon Satnioeis Scaean Gates

Scar of Odysseus Scepter Schedios Scheria Schliemann, Heinrich Schoinos Scholarship, Ancient Scholarship, Byzantine Scholarship, Renaissance through 17th Century Scholarship, 18th Century Scholarship, 19th Century Scholarship, 20th Century Scholia Schools see Education, Homer in Schooltexts Sea Seafaring Sea Peoples Seasons Self Self-Referentiality Selleeis Selloi Semele Sesamos Sestos Sexuality Shame Shield Shield o f Achilles Ships Sicily - Sidon Sigla, Critical Sikania Sikels see Sicily Sikyon Silver Similes Simoeis Simoeisios Singers Single Combats see Duels Sintians Sipylos Sirens Sirius Sisyphos Skamandrios

LIS T OF E N TR IE S

Skamandms Skandea see Kythera Skolos Skylla Skyros Slavery Sleep see Hypnos Smintheus Society, Homeric Sokos Soliloquies see Monologues Solymi Songs Soul see Psyche Sounion South Slavic Heroic Epic Sparta Spear see Weapons and Armor Speech-Act Theory Speech Introductions Speeches Spercheios Sport Staff see Scepter Stars see Astronomy Stentor Stesimbrotus of Thasos Sthenelos Stichios Stoic Interpretations Storytelling Strabo and Homer Stratios Strife see Eris Structuralism see Contemporary Theory Style Stymphalos Styra Styx Suitors of Penelope Sun see Helios Supplication Sword see Weapons and Armor Syme Synizesis Syntax Syrie

Talaimenes Talaos Talent Talthybios Tantalos Taphians Tarne Tartaros Taygetos Tegea Teichoscopia Telamon Telegony Telemachos Telemachy Telemos Telephos Telepylos see Laestrygonians; Lamos temenos Temesa Temples Tenedos Tereia Terror see Deimos Tethys Teucer Teuthras Text and Transmission Textiles Thalpios Thamyris Thanatos Theagenes of Rhegium Theano Theban Cycle Thebes, Boeotian Thebes, Cilician Thebes, Egyptian Theme themis see Justice Themis Theodicy Theoklymenos Theomachy Theoxeny Thersilochos Thersites Theseus Thespeia

XV

Thesprotians Thessalos Thessaly Thestor Thetis Thisbe Thoas Thôn see Egypt and Homer Thoön Thoösa see Polyphemos Thracians Thrasymedes thrênos Thrinakia Thryoèssa see Thryon Thryon thumos Thyestes Thymbra Time timê Tin Tiresias Tiryns Titanos Titans Titaresios Tithonos Tityos Tlepolemos Tmesis Tmolos Tools see Utensils and Tools Trachis Trade see Economy Tragedy and Homer Translations Transliteration of Books Transmission see Text and Transmission Trees Trikke Tritogeneia Troad see Geography, the Iliad Troi'los Troizen Trojan Catalogue

xvi

. LIST OF ENTR IES

Trojan Horse see Wooden Horse Trojan War Trojans Tros Troy Tychios Tydeus _____ Tyndareos Type-Scenes Typhoeus Tyro Underworld, Topography o f Unitarians Utensils and Tools Utopias Values

van's lectio Variant Reading ace varia lectio Venetus A Vergil and Homer Vico and Homer Viermännerkommentar Vulgate wanax see Linear B Wanderings see Odysseus’ Wanderings Warfare Weapons and Armor Weeping Weil, Simone Winds Wine Wolf, Friedrich August

Women Wooden Horse Wounds Writing, in Homer Xanthos xenia see GuestFriendship Xenophanes of Colophon Youth Zakynthos Zeleia Zenodotus of Ephesus Zephyros Zethos Zeus Zielinski’s Law see Time Zoi'lus

Illustrations

Fig. 1

Earliest known photograph of the Lion Gate at Mycenae, ca. 1859

70

Fig. 2

Plan of the citadel of Mycenae showing the excavations by Schliemann in the area immediately inside the Lion Gate and Grave Circle A

71

Fig. 3

Tiryns, the eastern approach, ca. 1886

71

Fig. 4

The fortifications of Troy VI, with Dörpfeld standing on top, 1894

72

Fig. 5

Scythian warrior stringing a composite bow

Fig. 6

“Schliemann’s Nestor’s cup” from Shaft Grave IV

100

Fig. 7

A woodcut of Nestor’s cup by A. Alciato (1584)

101

Fig. 8

Avdo Medjedovic

121

Fig. 9

Carl W. Biegen

134

Fig. 10

Plan of the Mycenaean palace of Pylos

376

Fig. 11

Lefkandi (Toumba), plan

377

Fig. 12

Lefkandi (Toumba), reconstruction

377

Fig. 13

Oropos, aerial photo o f the Early Iron Age settlement

378

Fig. 14

Blinding of cyclops, amphora, Eleusis; early 7th century

Fig. 15

Blinding of cyclops, Etruscan pithos; 650-625

Fig. 16

Chariot race at the Funeral Games for Patroklos, from the François vase; early 6th century bce

393

Fig. 17

The “Euphronios krater,” ca. 515

403

Fig. 18

Transcription of the Dipylon Oinochoe inscription o f a Late Geometric prize jug from Athens, ca. 730 bce

410

Albert B. Lord

488

Fig. 19

80

bce

bce

bce

392 392

XVIII.

LIST OF IL L U STRA T IO N S

Fig. 20

The area of Mycenae

536

Fig. 21

The inscription on “Nestor’s Cup,” from Pithekoussai, ca.730 no;

573

Fig. 22

Odyssey 9.295-309, 344-384, and 11.273-282, archive of Aurelius Ammon, Panopolis (Egypt), 3rd century cf.

622

Fig. 23

Miiman Parry

630

Fig. 24

Phoinix leads the Embassy to Achilles; bronze iripod leg, Olympia, ca. 620 bc.k

662

Fig. 25

Nicosia, Kouklia T.9:7, 1 lth-century

664

Fig. 26

Archelaus of Priene, Apotheosis of Homer(3rd centurybce )

709

Fig. 27

Pintoricchio (1454-1513), Penelope with the Suitors, ca.1509

730

Fig. 28

Gavin Hamilton (1723-1798), Achilles Lamenting the Death o/Patroclus, 1760-1763

731

Fig. 29

John Flaxman (1755-1826), The Embassy to Achilles from The Iliad, 1793

732

Dame Elisabeth Frink (1930-1993), from The Odyssey, Odysseus and Penelope, 1973-1974

733

Fig. 31

Heinrich Schliemann

762

Fig. 32

Ship and rigging

781

Fig. 33

Impression of the Shield of Achilles

795

Fig. 34

Large building of Troy Vila excavated in the course of recent excavations west o f the citadel

899

Fig. 35

Plan o f Late Bronze Age Troy

900

Fig. 36

South Gate of Troy VI and VII

901

Fig. 37

Troy VIII, ca. 100 BCE

903

Fig. 38

Troy IX, ca. 100 ce

904

Fig. 39

Folio 19r of the Venetus A, featuring Iliad A 352-376, with accompanying scholia

923

F. A. Wolf, painting by )ohann Wolff, 1823

937

Fig. 30

Fig. 40

hce

proto-bichromekalathos

Maps

Map 1

Troy’s Homeric Allies

52

Map 2

The bases of the Greek contingents in the Catalogue o f Ships

154

Map 3

The Troad

307

Map 4

Troy and environs

308

Map 5

Major regions and cities enjoying close contacts with Ithaca in the Ithacan books of the Odyssey (1—4, 13-24)

310

Notes on Contributors

Maureen Alden read Classics at Liverpool, where she studied Homeric archaeology with John Pinsent, himself a pupil o f H. L. Lorimer. She wrote her PhD thesis, on Mycenaean tombs, at Liverpool and the British School at Athens, where she was the School Student. Her teaching interests include Homer, tragedy, and art, and she has published on Homer, Bronze Age archaeology, and costume, ancient and modern. 0ivind Andersen is Professor o f Classics at the University o f Oslo. He was formerly Director o f the Norwegian Institute at Athens. He has published on a variety of topics, including ancient rhetoric and the orality/literacy question. As a Homerist, he has edited (with M. Dickie) H om er’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality (1995) and (with D. Haug) Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry (2010). He is a member o f the Norwegian Academy o f Science and Letters. Michael J. Anderson is the author o f The Fall o f Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art (1997). He teaches Classics at Trinity College, Connecticut. Carla M. Antonaccio is Professo*- o f Archaeology at Duke University. She was educated at Wellesley and Princeton and has excavated in Greece, Cyprus, and Sicily. Before joining the faculty o f Duke University, she taught at Wesleyan University. Her work has dealt with the Greek Iron Age and early Archaic period, and she has written extensively on Greek burial customs, ancestor and hero-cult, and colonization. Egbert f. Bakker (PhD Leiden, 1988) is Professor o f Classics at Yale University. He has written on oral poetry, poetic performance, the linguistic articulation o f narrative, and the differences between speaking and writing. His publications include Linguistics and Formulas in H om er (1988); Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse (1997); and Pointing a t the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics (2005). He is editor or co-editor o f Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Performance, Tradition, and the Epic Text (1997); Gram m ar as Interpretation (1997); Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (2002); and the Blackwell Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (2010). William Beck is Coordinator at the Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (LfgrE), Universität Hamburg. He has published extensively on Homeric subjects, especially Homer s language and formulae.

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

XXI

Trevor Bryce, formerly Professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of New England, Australia, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Lincoln University, New Zealand, is cur­ rently Honorary Research Consultant at the University of Queensland and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. He has published many articles and books on the history and civilizations of the ancient Near East, with particular emphasis on Anatolia. Recent books include Life and Society in the Hittite World (2002); Letters o f the Great Kings o f the Ancient Near East (2003); The Kingdom o f the Hittites (2005); The Trojans and their Neighbours (2006); and The Routledge Handbook o f the Peoples and Places o f Ancient Western Asia (2009). )onathan S. Burgess is a Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Toronto. His major publications are The Tradition o f the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle (2001) and The Death and Afterlife o f Achilles (2009). Douglas Cairns is Professor o f Classics at the University o f Edinburgh. He currently holds a Major Research Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust, London, and has previously been Visiting Professor in Classics, Kyoto University, Japan, and Research Fellow, Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Bonn. His publications include Aidôs: The Psychology and Ethics o f Honour and Sham e in Ancient Greek Literature (1993); Oxford Readings in Hom er’s Iliad (2001); Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds (2005); and Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (2010). Diskin Clay is Distinguished Professor of Classical Studies Emeritus at Duke University. He has written extensively on Plato and Greek philosophy and contributed a chapter on “Plato Philomythos” to the Cambridge Companion to Plato (2007) as well as an essay on “The Islands of the Odyssey” in Mapping the Mediterranean (2007). Jenny Strauss Clay is the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor o f Classics at the University of Virginia. She is the author o f The Wrath o f Athena: Gods and Men in H om er’s Odyssey (2nd ed., 1997); The Politics o f Olympus: Form and Meaning in the M ajor Homeric Hymns (rev. ed., 2006); Hesiod’s Cosmos (2003); numerous articles on Greek and Roman poetry; and H om er’s Trojan Theater (2010). She served as President o f the American Philological Association and o f the Classical Association o f the Middle West and South. Bruno Currie is a Fellow and Tutor at Oriel College, Oxford. His main research interests are Greek lyric and early hexameter poetry (Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns). He is the author o f Pindar and the Cult o f Heroes (2005) and co-editor o f Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils (2006). Anastasia Dakouri-Hild teaches Aegean and Near Eastern Art and Archaeology at the Lindner Center for Art History at the University o f Virginia. Her field o f specialty is the Mycenaean civilization, in particular the region o f Boeotia, and the application o f digital technologies in archaeology and the humanities. She is co-editor (with E. S. Sherratt) of Autochthon: Papers Presented to O. T. P. K. Dickinson on the Occasion o f his Retirement (2005) and Beyond Illustration: 2D an d 3D Technologies as Toolsfo r Discovery in Archaeology (2008). She is currently working on the final publication o f The House o f Kadmos at Thebes, Greece. Irene J. F. de Jong studied Classics at the University of Amsterdam. Since 2000 she has held the Chair of Ancient Greek at the same university. She has published extensively on Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides, and at present is editing a multi-volume history o f ancient Greek narrative, two volumes o f which have appeared (Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, 2004; Time in Ancient Greek Literature, 2007). Her publications

XXII _ NOTES ON C ONTR IBUTO RS

include A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (2001) and (with A. Rijksbaron) Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects o f Diction, Syntax, and Semantics (2006). Eleanor Dickey learned Greek at Bryn.Mawr College and completed her doctorate at Merton College, Oxford. She taught at the University o f Ottawa and Columbia University before taking up her current position as Associate Professor o f Classics at the University o f Exeter, England. She is the author o f Greek Forms o f Address from Herodotus to Lucian (1996); Latin Forms o f Address from Plautus to Apuleius (2002); and Ancient Greek Scholarship (2007): Oliver T. P. K. Dickinson is Reader Emeritus and Honorary Fellow at the Department of Classics and Ancient History, Durham University, UK. He has participated in excavations at Lefkandi, Knossos, and Nichoria, and in the Boeotia Survey Expedition; he is currently a member of the Middle Helladic Argolid Project. He has been Chairman o f the Lefkandi Committee of the British School at Athens since 2005, and member o f the Research Review Committee of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, New York, since 2003. His major publications include The Origins o f Mycenaean Civilisation (1977); A Gazetteer o f Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age, Vol. 1: The M ainland and Islands (with R. Hope Simpson, 1979); The Aegean Bronze Age (1994); and The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age (2006). Lillian E. Doherty is Professor o f Classics at the University o f Maryland, College Park. She is the author o f Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey ( 1995) and Gender and the Interpretation o f Classical Myth (2001), and the editor of Oxford Readings in H om er’s Odyssey (2008). Casey Due is Associate Professor and Director o f Classical Studies at the University of Houston as well as co-Executive Editor at the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC. Publications include Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briscis (2002); The Captive Woman’s Lament in Greek Tragedy (2006); and Iliad 10 and the Poetics o f Ambush: A Multitext Edition with Essaysand Commentary (2010, with Mary Ebbott).She is the editor of Recapturing a Homeric Legacy: Images and Insights from the Venetus A Manuscript o f the Iliad (2009) and the Homer Multitext (http://www.homermultitext.org). Daniela Dueck is Senior Lecturer in History and Classics at Bar Ilan University, Israel. She has published articles and book chapters, and a book, Strabo o f Amasia: A Greek Man o f Letters in Augustan Rome (2000). She is co-editor of Strabo's Cultural Geography: The Making o f a Kolossourgia (2005). Her Geography in Classical Antiquity is forthcoming. Mary Ebbott is Associate Professor o f Classics at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. She is co-editor of the Homer Multitext project (http://chs.harvard.edu/ chs/homer_multitext), author of Imagining Illegitimacy in Classical Greek Literature (2003), and co-author (with CaseyDué) o f Iliad W an d the Poetics o f Ambush: A Multitext Edition with Essays and Commentary (2010). Birgitta Eder is Reader in Aegean Archaeology and Early Greece in the Department of Classical Archaeology at the University o f Freiburg in Germany. Previously she held a research position at the Mykenische Kommission at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Her fields of interest include the archaeology and history of the Greek mainland from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age and Homeric geography. She has published exten­ sively on materials from Olympia and Elis. Radcliffe G. Edmonds III is an Associate Professor in the Department of Greek, Latin, and Classical Studies at Bryn Mawr College. His research interests center on Greek social and intellectual history, with particular focus on mythology, religion, and Platonic

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

XXIII

philosophy. He has published on eros and midwifery in Plato, on Orphism and the mys­ terious gold tablets, and on magical techniques in the “Mithras Liturgy.” His study of the journey to the Underworld in the Greek mythic tradition was published in 2004 by Cambridge University Press. Current research includes the history of myth interpretation and the marginal categories of magic and Orphism within Greek religion. Mark W. Edwards has degrees in Classics from Bristol University, England. He has taught successively at Brown University, Queen’s University, and Stanford University, and retired in 1991. His publications include Homer: Poet o f the Iliad (1987); The Iliad: A Commentary: Vol. 5: Books 17-20 (1991); and Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Creek and Latin Poetry (2002). David E Elmer is Assistant Professor of the Classics at Harvard University and Assistant Curator of the Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature. His research interests include Homeric poetry, South Slavic epic, and the Greek novel. He is currently working on a monograph about consensus and collective decision-making in the Iliad, and a study of the epic singing of Alija Fjuljanin, one of Milman Parry’s informants. Nancy Felson is a Professor of Classics at the University of Georgia. She is Whitehead Professor at the American School for Classical Studies in Athens (2010/2011). She is the author of Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics (1994) and editor o f two special issues of Arethusa: Semiotics and Classical Studies (1983) and The Poetics o f Deixis in Aleman, Pindar, and Other Lyric (2004). She has published widely on Pindar and archaic' Greek poetry. Margalit Finkelberg is Professor o f Classics at Tel Aviv University. She is the author o f The Birth o f Literary Fiction in Ancient Greece (1998); Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition (2005); and of numerous articles on a variety o f topics, par­ ticularly Homer and Greek epic tradition. She is co-editor (with Guy Stroumsa) o f Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (2003). She is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. John Miles Foley is W. H. Byler Endowed Chair in the Humanities and Curators’ Professor of Classical Studies and English at the University of Missouri. He has written eighteen books and more than 160 articles on the oral traditions of ancient Greece, medieval English, and the former Yugoslavia. He is also the founding editor of Oral Tradition and the founding director o f the Center for Studies in O a l Tradition and Center for eResearch. Andrew L. Ford is the Ewing Professor of Greek Language and Literature at Princeton University. His work has focused on the history of Greek criticism, taking into account changing modes of poetic performance and interpretation. His monographs include Homer: The Poetry o f the Past (1992) and The Origins o f Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece (2002). Robert L. Fowler is Henry Overton Wills Professor of Greek at the University of Bristol. He has edited the Cambridge Companion to Homer (2004), and published on Greek lyric poetry, historiography, and religion. He is currently writing a commentary on the texts of his Early Greek Mythography, Vol. 1 (2000). John C. Franklin is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Vermont. Most of his research deals with the musical interface between early Greece and the Near East. He is working on two books, Kinyras: The Divine Lyre and The M iddle Muse: Eastern Echoes in Early Greek Music. He has also published a lighthearted CD o f Greek musical impressions, The Cyprosyrian Girl: Hits o f the Ancient Hellenes.

x xiv .

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

Rainer Friedrich, Alexander McCleod Professor Emeritus, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, has published widely on Homer, Greek drama, ritual and ritualism, modern drama, and critical theory. His publications include Stilwandel im Homerischen Epos (1975) and Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics o f the Breaches (2007). Michael Gagarin is the James R. Dougherty, Jr. Centennial Professor o f Classics at the University of Texas in Austin. He has written widely in the areas of Greek literature, Greek philosophy, and especially Greek law, in the Archaic and Classical periods. Among his books are Draco and Early Athenian H omicide haw (T981); Early Greek Law (1986); Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law, and Justice in the Age o f the Sophists (2002); and Writing Greek Law (2008). He is also the editor-in-chief o f the seven-volume Oxford Encyclopedia o f Ancient Greece an d Rome. Peter Gainsford works primarily on Homeric families and the framing o f epic and mythi­ cal narratives. He comes from New Zealand, and has studied and taught there and in Canada and England. Currently he lives in Wellington, New Zealand, and is working on the Odyssey and on the novelization o f the Trojan War by “Dictys o f Crete.” Deborah L. Gera is an Associate Professor o f Classics at the Hebrew University o f Jerusalem and the author of Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization (2003). Christopher Gill studied Classics at Cambridge and Yale. He has been Professor o f Ancient Thought at the University o f Exeter since 1997. His special subjects include ancient psy­ chology and ethics, especially conceptions o f character, personality and self, and Platonic philosophy, in particular the philosophical use of dialogue form. His books include Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: The S elf in Dialogue (1996), which was awarded a Runciman Prize in 1997; The Structured S elf in Hellenistic and Roman Thought (2006); and a number of edited volumes of essays. Forthcoming books include Naturalistic Psychology in Galen and Stoicism (2010). Fritz Graf is Distinguished University Professor o f Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University and Director of Epigraphy at its Center for Epigraphical Studies. His work focuses mainly on ancient religions. His most recent publications include Apollo (2008) and (with Sarah lies Johnston) Ritual Texts on the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (2007). Currently he-is working on religion and epigraphy, and is preparing a monograph on Roman festivals in the antique East. Justina Gregory is Professor of Classical Languages and Literatures at Smith College. She is the author of Euripides and the Instruction o f the Athenians (1991) and a commentary on Euripides’ Hecuba (1999), and the editor of A Companion to Greek Tragedy (2005). Jasper Griffin was for many years Professor of Classical Languages and Literature at Oxford University, where he was also Public Orator, writing and delivering the speeches in Latin for those receiving honorary degrees. He is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, having been, until his retirement, Fellow in Greek and Latin Language and Literature for over forty years. He is the author of numerous books, articles, and reviews. His books include H om er on Life and Death (1980); Latin Poets and Roman Life (1985); and Homer and Virgil in the Past Master Series o f Oxford University Press. He is a Fellow o f the British Academy. Dimitri Gutas is Professor o f Classical Arabic Studies and Greco-Arabic Studies in the Department o f Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University. He has writ­ ten about the history o f the medieval translation o f Greek scientific and philosophical works into Arabic in Greek Thought, Arabic Culture (1998), and in Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition (2000). He is an authority on the Arabic philosophical tradition, in

NOTES ON C O N TRIB U TO RS

XXV

particular Avicenna, on whom he wrote Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition (1988). He has recently published an edition, translation, and commentary of both the Greek text and the medieval Arabic translations of Theophrastus’ On First Principles (2010). He con­ tinues to edit (with G. Endress) A Greek and Arabic Lexicon (1992-). Constanze Giithenke is Associate Professor of Classics and Hellenic Studies at Princeton University. She writes on European philhellenism, the cultural and literary history of clas­ sical scholarship, modern Greek literature, and on issues of antiquity after antiquity. She is the author, most recently, of Placing Modern Greece: The Dynamics o f Romantic Hellenism, 1770-1840 (2008). Her latest research is on the cultural history and imagery of German classical scholarship in the long nineteenth century. Benjamin Haller is Assistant Professor of Classics at Virginia Wesleyan College. His research interests include Homer, landscape in literature, and the ancient novel. Robert Hannah is Professor of Classics at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He has written extensively on the use of astronomy in Greek and Roman culture. His most recent publications include Greek and Roman Calendars: Constructions o f Time in the Classical World (2005) and Time in Antiquity (2009). His current interests are in calendars, the everyday measurement and perception o f time, and star-based navigation. William Hansen is Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies and Folklore at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. He received his BA (1965) and PhD (1970) in Classics at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Conference Sequence: Patterned Narration and Narrative Inconsistency in the Odyssey (1972); Saxo Grammaticus and the Life o f Hamlet: History, Translation, and Commentary (1983); Phlegon o f Tralles' Book o f Marvels (1996); Anthology o f Ancient Greek Popular Literature (1998); Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature (2002); and Classical Mythology: A Guide to the Mythical World o f the Greeks and Romans (2005). Stephen J. Harrison is Fellow and Tutor in Classics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and Professor o f Latin Literature in the University of Oxford. He is the author of a commen­ tary on Vergil, Aeneid 10 (1991), of Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (2000), and of Generic Enrichment in Vergil and H orace (2007), and editor o f a number o f other volumes on Latin literature and its reception. Michael Haslam is Professor of Classics at the University o f California at Los Angeles. He has edited literary papyri in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri series. Dag Trygve Truslew Haug studied classical languages, Sanskrit, and Lithuanian at the University of Oslo, where he received his PhD in 2001 with a thesis on the Homeric lan­ guage. He was an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Freiburg (2002-2004) and became an Associate Professor of Latin at the University of Oslo in 2005. His main field o f interest is the linguistic study of ancient languages. Since 2008 he has been leading a project funded by the Norwegian Research Council on the syntax o f the early IndoEuropean translations of the New Testament. Faya Haussker teaches Greek subjects at Open University, Israel. She received her PhD in Classics from Tel Aviv University. Her research interests include Greek literature and reli­ gion, Greek cultural history, and gender relations and perspectives in ancient Greece. John Heath is Professor of Classics at Santa Clara University, California. He is the co­ author (with Victor Davis Hanson) of Who Killed Homer? The Demise o f Classical Education and the Recovery o f Greek Wisdom (1998), as well as Bonfire o f the Humanities: Rescuing Classics from an Impoverished Age (2001, co-authored with Victor Davis Hanson and

XXV I.

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

Bruce Thornton). His most recent book is The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato (2005). His current research interests include the classical origins o f Western attitudes toward animals and the Greek tragic vision. Malcolm Heath is Professor o f Greek Language and Literature at the University o f Leeds. His publications include The Poetics o f Greek Tragedy (1987); Political Comedy in Aristophanes (1987); Unity in Greek Poetics (1989); Hermogenes On Issues: Strategies o f Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric (1995); Interpreting Classical Texts (2002); and Menander: A Rhetor in Context (2004). He has translated Aristotle’s Poetics for Penguin Classics (1996), and is currently working on a study o f Aristotle’s anthropology of poetry, as a preliminary step toward the long-term goal of a theoretical commentary on the Poetics. Bruce Heiden is Professor o f Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University, where he has taught since 1984. He is author of Hom er’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad (2008), and Tragic Rhetoric: An Interpretation o f Sophocles' Trachiniae (1989). His translations o f Homer and other Greek poets have appeared in The Greek Poets: Homer to the Present (2010), Southwest Review, and Literary Imagination. Carolyn Higbie is Park Professor o f the Classics at the University at Buffalo, New York. Her interests include the cultural history of the Greeks, how they remembered and pre­ served their past, especially the Trojan War. She has published articles and books on the Homeric epics; her most recent book is The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation o f Their Past (2005). She is currently at work on a book about cultural forgeries. Since 1995, Michael Hillgruber has been Full Professor of Classical Philology at the Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg. His main areas o f research are classical rhetoric and literary criticism, along with the history o f science in the 19lh and 20th cen­ turies. His most important publications are Die zehnte Rede des Lysins (1988); Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift D e Homero (two parts, 1994/1999); and Otto Kern, M eine Lehrer: Erinnerungen (2008). Louise Hitchcock is Senior Lecturer in Bronze Age Aegean Archaeology at the University of Melbourne. Her fields o f interest include Aegean archaeology (especially architecture), archaeological theory, and interconnections with Cyprus and Israel. She currently exca­ vates at the Philistine site o f Tell es-Safi/Gath in partnership with Bar Ilan University. She has written numerous articles on Aegean archaeology and several books, including Minoan Architecture: A Contextual Analysis (2000); Aegean Art and Architecture (1999, co-authored, with Donald Preziosi); and Theory fo r Classics: A Student’s Guide (2008). She is co-editor (with Robert Laflineur and Janice Crowley) of DAIS: The Aegean Feast (2008). Richard Hitchman took his first degree, in Classics, at Oxford University. After thirty years as a banker, he returned to take an M.Phil. and D.Phil. in comparative philology. He is a lecturer in Classics at Somerville College, Oxford, and his main research interest is personal names in ancient Greece. Thomas K. Hubbard is Professor o f Classics at the University o f Texas. He is the author of books on Pindar, Aristophanes, pastoral poetry, and ancient homosexuality, as well as numerous articles on topics ranging from Homer to the Greek novel. Askold Ivantchik is Senior Research Fellow at CNRS, Bordeaux, France, Director of the Center for Comparative Studies of Ancient Civilizations, Moscow, and Professor of Ancient History at Moscow State University. His main research interests are ancient his­ tory and the archaeology o f the Eurasian steppes and the Black Sea region; Greek and Latin epigraphy; and relations between Greeks and the Iranian world. He is author of five books, including Am Vorabend der Kolonisation: Das nördliche Schwarzmeergebiet und die

NOTES ON C O N TR IB U TO R S

XXVII

Steppennomaden des 8.-7. Jhs. v.Chr. in der klassischen Literaturtradition (2005), and o f 160 articles. He is a corresponding member o f the Russian Academy o f Sciences. Peter Jablonka is an archaeologist at the Department of Prehistory, University o f Tübingen, Germany. He studied prehistory and classical archaeology in Vienna, Austria. His field work includes excavations in Austria, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lebanon, and Turkey. He has participated in the ongoing excavations in Troy since 1988. Currently he is co­ directing the Troy project, and is both an author and editor o f its publications. Ahuvia Kahane is Professor of Greek and Director o f the Humanities and Arts Research Center at Royal Holloway, University of London. Among his publications are The Interpretation o f Order (1994); Written Voices, Spoken Signs (1997, with E. Bakker); D iachronic Dialogues (2005); The Chicago H om er (with M. Mueller, online); and a Hebrew translation o f Homer’s Odyssey (1996). Forthcoming work includes Epic, Novel, and the Progress o f Antiquity; Antiquity and the Ruin; and Homer: A Guide to the Perplexed. His research interests include questions o f historical time, representation, genre and more, with special emphasis on the reception o f antiquity and the classical tradition. Anthony Kaldellis is Professor o f Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University. He has published many articles and books on Byzantine culture, historiography, and the recep­ tion o f classical antiquity in Byzantium, most recently Hellenism in Byzantium (2007) and The Christian Parthenon (2009), both with Cambridge University Press. He has also pub­ lished translations o f many Byzantine authors. Emily Kearns teaches Greek literature and language at St. Hilda’s College, Oxford. Her main area of research is Greek religion, but she has also written on Homer, Greek tragedy, and Renaissance Latin. She is the author o f The Heroes o f Attica (1989) and editor (with Simon Price) of The Oxford Dictionary o f Classical Myth and Religion (2003), and is cur­ rently preparing a sourcebook on religion in Archaic and Classical Greece. Adrian D. Kelly is Fellow and Tutor in Ancient Greek Literature at Balliol College, University of Oxford. He is the author o f A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Homer Iliad VIII (2007) and Sophocles: Oedipus a t Colonus (2009). Katherine C. King received her PhD in Comparative Literature from Princeton Univer­ sity. For thirty years she has been a professor at UCLA in the Departments o f Classics and Comparative Literature. She specializes in epic, tragedy, the classical tradition (medi­ eval, Renaissance, and modern revisions of classical works), and gender studies. Her first two books - Achilles: Paradigms o f the War Hero from H om er through the M iddle Ages (1987) and H om er (1994), an edited collection about authors influenced by Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey - reflect her scholarly interest in why and how a writer manipulates important cultural texts for ideological purposes. Her most recent book is Ancient Epic (2009). David Konstan is the John Rowe Workman Distinguished Professor of Classics and the Humanistic Tradition, and Professor of Comparative Literature, at Brown University. In 2010, he joined the Department o f Classics at New York University. Among his books are Roman Comedy (1983); Sexual Symmetry (1994); Greek Comedy and Ideology (1995); Friendship in the Classical World (1997); Pity Transformed (2001); The Emotions o f the Ancient Greeks (2007); “A Life Worthy o f the Gods”: The M aterialist Psychology o f Epicurus (2008); and Before Forgiveness: The Origins o f a Moral Idea (2010). He served as President o f the American Philological Association in 1999, and is a Fellow o f the American Aca­ demy of Arts and Sciences.

XXVIU

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

Robert Lamberton is Professor of Classics at Washington University in St. Louis. He has worked for several decades on Homeric allegory and is the author o f Homer the Theologian (1986), and co-editor (with J. Keaney) o f H om er’s Ancient Readers ( 1992). Donald Lateiner publishes on Homer, Herodotus, and Heliodorus, although Thucydides brought him to Classical Studies. He has taught at Ohio Wesleyan University for three decades. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (University of Edinburgh) specializes in gender and the sociocul­ tural history o f Greece and the Near East. He has a particular interest in ancient dress. He is the author of Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman o f Ancient Greece (2003), and the editor o f Women's Dress in the Ancient Greek World (2002) and The Clothed Body in the Ancient World (2005). He has most recently co-authored a dictionary o f Greek and Roman dress, and published a translation o f Ctesias’ Persica. He is currently working on a mono­ graph on royal women and court society in Persia and the Near East. Carolina López-Ruiz is Associate Professor o f Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University. She has published articles on the connections between Greek and Near Eastern literature, as well as on Phoenician historiography (as part o f Brill’s New Jacoby). She has co-edited (with Michael Dietler) the volume Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations (2009). Her monograph When The Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East was published in 2010. Bruce Louden received his PhD at the University o f California at Berkeley. He has published widely on Homer, including three books, the third o f which, The Odyssey and the Near East, will be published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press. He has also published on the Rigveda, the Bible, Greek tragedy and lyric, Roman comedy, Beowulf, Shakespeare, and Milton. He is especially interested in intersections between Homeric epic and the Bible. Deborah Lyons teaches Classics at Miami University and taught previously at the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University. She is the author o f Gender and Immortality: Heroines in Ancient Greek Myth and Cult (1997) and co-editor (with Raymond Westbrook) o f Women and Property in Ancient M editerranean and N ear Eastern Societies (2005). She is currently completing a book entitled Dangerous Gifts: ideologies o f Gender and Exchange in Ancient Greece. Christopher John Mackie is Professor in Classics at La Trobe University. He is a graduate o f the University o f Newcastle (Australia) and the University of Glasgow. He has written widely on Homer and Vergil, including a recent book called Rivers o f Fire, which focuses on some key symbolic themes in Homer’s Iliad. Hilary S. Mackie is Associate Professor o f Classics at Rice University. Her interests include oral tradition, oral performance, and the representation o f speech and storytelling in Homeric and other Greek poetry. She is the author o f Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad (1996) and “Song and Storytelling: An Odyssean Perspective” (1997). She has also published work on narrative style and performance in Pindar’s odes, and on the use o f classical myth in Victorian and contemporary fiction. J. A. MacPhail, Jr. teaches Latin and Greek in the Classics department at New York University. His most recent publication is Porphyry’s “Homeric Questions” on the “Iliad”: Text, Translation, Commentary (2010). Antony Makrinos is a research and teaching fellow in the Greek and Latin Department, University College London. His research interests include Homer, scholarship in Byzantium (especially reception o f the Homeric text with emphasis on allegorical interpretation), and

NOTES ON C O N TRIB U TO RS

XXl'X

modern reception of antiquity. He is currently working on an edition of Eustathius’ Commentary on the Odyssey (Book 1). John Marincola is Leon Golden Professor o f Classics at Florida State University, Tallahassee. He is the editor of A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (WileyBlackwell, 2007) and has published widely on the ancient historians. He is currently at work on a book on Hellenistic historiography. Samuel Mark is an Associate Professor in the Maritime Studies Program at Texas A&M University at Galveston. He has published on various aspects o f ancient Mediterranean seafaring and shipbuilding as well as in the field o f paleopathology, especially on the inci­ dence of leprosy and cancer in ancient populations. Richard Martin is Antony and Isabelle Raubitschek Professor in Classics at Stanford University, where he has taught since 2000. He works primarily on Homeric poetry and Archaic Greek performance traditions. Among his books are Healing, Sacrifice, and Battle: Amechania and Related Concepts in Early Greek Poetry (1983); The Language o f Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad (1989); and Myths o f the Ancient Greeks (2003). He has also published articles on Pindar, Orphic texts, the Cynics, Horace, Solon, Stesichorus, Hesiod, Greek music, the Greek novel, and Irish literature. He is currently completing a volume on hexameter poetics and at work on studies in Homeric religion. Alexander Mazarakis Ainian is Professor o f Classical Archaeology at the University of Thessaly (Volos). He directs archaeological surveys on the Cydadic island of Kythnos and the island of Skiathos, as well as excavations at Oropos (Attica), Kythnos, and Soros (Thessaly). He also conducts an underwater excavation in the ancient harbor of Kythnos. His main field of specialization is the archaeology and architecture o f Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece. He is the author of From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) (1997) and H om er and Archaeology (2000) (the latter in Greek). Jeremy Mclnerney received his PhD from the University o f California, Berkeley, in 1992. He is now the Davidson Kennedy Term Professor in the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Folds o f Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis (1999) and The Cattle o f the Sun: Cows and Culture in the World o f the Ancient Greeks (2010), and is editing the Blackwell Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Elizabeth Minchin is Professor of Classics at the Australian National University, Canberra. Her research focus is oral poetry (the Homeric epics) and memory: the structures of memory that we all share; social memory and the memory store that we call collective memory; and personal (or autobiographical) memory. She is particularly interested in the evidence within the poems for these aspects o f memory and what this evidence can tell us about composition and performance in this oral tradition. Robin Mitchell-Boyask, Professor o f Classics at Temple University, was educated at the University o f Chicago and Brown University. He has written numerous articles on epic and tragedy, as well as several books, including Plague and the Athenian Imagination: Drama, History and the Cult ofAsclepius (2008). He is currently writing a monograph on epic horses and editing A Companion to Euripides for Wiley-Blackwell. Teresa Morgan is Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at Oriel College, Oxford. She has written on Greek and Roman education, popular morality, Greco-Roman religions, and early Christianity. Her interests also include theoretical historiography, gender studies, and other aspects o f ancient cultural history.

XXX

NOTES ON C ONTR IBUTO RS

Martin Mueller has taught at Northwestern University since 1976. His primary research field has been the uses of ancient epic and tragedy by European writers since the Renaissance. He has also written on Homer and Shakespeare. More recently he has become interested in the uses of information technology for traditional philological inquiries. Together with Ahuvia Kahane, he is the editor of The Chicago Homer (online). He is the general editor of WordHoard, an application for the close reading and scholarly analysis of deeply tagged texts, and one of the editors of the MONK Project, a digital environment designed to help humanities scholars discover and analyze patterns in the texts they study. James D. Muhly taught Ancient History and Near Eastern Languages at the University of Minnesota (1964-1967) and then at the University of Pennsylvania (1967-1997). He served as Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (1997-2002). He has been involved in archaeological field work in Israel and in Crete and has published widely on many aspects of history and archaeology in the Aegean and the Near East, espe­ cially in the field of archaeometallurgy. He was the holder of the Alexander von Humboldt Prize in 1989-1990 and was awarded the Pomerance Science Medal by the Archaeological Institute of America (1994). He was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Cyprus in October 2009. Sheila Murnaghan is the Allen Memorial Professor of Greek at the University of Pennsylvania. Her publications on Homer include Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey (2nd ed. forthcoming, 2010) and introductions to new translations o f the Iliad and Odyssey by Stanley Lombardo (1997, 2000). She also works on Greek tragedy, gender in classical culture, and classical reception. Shlomo Naeh is Professor of Talmudic Studies and Rabbinic Thought at the Hebrew University o f Jerusalem, a member o f the Academy for Hebrew Language, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. He has published widely on rabbinic textual culture, hermeneutics o f Talmud and Midrash, and early rabbinic thought. Gregory Nagy is the author o f The Best o f the Achaeans: Concepts o f the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (1979; 2nd ed., 1999). Other publications include Plato’s Rhapsody and H om ers Music: The Poetics o f the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens (2002); Hom er’s Text and Language (2004); H om er the Classic (online, 2008; print, 2009); and Homer the Preclassic (2010). He co-edited (with Stephen A. Mitchell) the 40th anniversary second edition o f Albert Lord’s The Singer o f Tales (2000). He has been the Director of the Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC, while continuing to teach at the Harvard campus in Cambridge as the Francis Jones Professor o f Classical Greek Literature and Professor o f Comparative Literature. Maren R. NiehofF graduated from Oxford University and since 2003 has been Senior Lecturer in the Department o f Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University o f Jerusalem. She is the author o f Jewish Exegesis and H om eric Scholarship in Alexandria (2011) and Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (2001). After holding professorships at the universities o f Freiburg and Heidelberg, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier has been the Director o f the German Archaeological Institute at Athens since 2001. His special field is the archaeology o f Greece from the Bronze to the Archaic ages. He has authored more than 100 publications and has excavated extensively in Greece, Italy, Turkey, and Israel. He holds an honorary doctorate from the University of Liège and is member o f the German Archaeological Institute, the Austrian Archaeological Institute, the Archaeological Institute of America, and the Archaeological Society o f Athens.

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

XXXI

Pura Nieto Hernández completed her undergraduate and graduate studies at the University o f Salamanca, Spain. She is now a Senior Lecturer at Brown University, where she teaches Greek language and literature. Her main field of research is Homer, but she is also interested in Greek literature (especially poetry) of all periods, Greek mythology and religion, and linguistics. RenéN ünlist is Professor of Classics at the University of Cologne. His research interests include early Greek poetry, literary criticism (ancient and modern), and papyrology (especially Menander). He is a co-founder o f the Basel commentary on the Iliad (2000-) and the author o f Poelologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (1998) and The Ancient Critic a t Work: Terms and Concepts o f Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (2009). John K. Papadopoulos is Professor o f Archaeology and Classics at the University of California at Los Angeles. His research and teaching interests include the Aegean, as well as the eastern and central Mediterranean in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Greek colonization, the topography of Athens, and the integration o f literary evidence with the material record in the study o f the past. He has authored or edited eight books and over 70 articles. Zinon Papakonstantinou is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Athens. His research interests focus on the history o f Archaic and Classical Greece, especially law, sport, and leisure practices. He has authored a monograph entitled Lawmaking and Adjudication in Archaic Greece (2008) and edited Sport in the Cultures o f the Ancient World: Slew Perspectives (2009). Hayden Pelliccia has taught Classics at Cornell University since 1989. He is the author of Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar (1995) and a variety o f articles on classical literature from Homer to Vergil; he has edited Selected Dialogues o f Plato (2000). John Peradotto is Andrew V. V. Raymond Professor Emeritus and SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus at the State University of New York at Buffalo. His publica­ tions include Classical Mythology: An Annotated Bibliographical Survey (1973); Man in the M iddle Voice: N am e and Narration in the Odyssey ( 1990); and (as editor with ). P. Sullivan) Women in the Ancient World: The Arethusa Papers (1984), and articles and reviews on Greek myth, epic, and tragedy. A founder of the classical journal Arethusa, he was its edi­ tor-in-chief from 1975 to 1995. Irene Polinskaya (Department o f Classics, King’s College London) specializes in the social and religious history of Greece, mainly o f the Archaic and Classical periods. Her current research concerns conceptual approaches used in the study of ancient Greek reli­ gion; the political, religious, and economic history of the island of Aigina, including its epigraphy and archaeology; and the leasing o f public lands in Attica. Her book on the Aiginetan deities and cults is due to be published in 2011, and she is involved in prepar­ ing for publication a new corpus of Greek and Latin inscriptions from the Northern Black Sea. James I. Porter is Professor of Classics at the University of California, Irvine. He is author, most recently, of The Origins o f Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece: Matter, Sensation, and Experience (2010) and editor of Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions o f Greece and Rome (2006). His current projects include a study in the invention and reception of Homer and further studies in ancient aesthetics. Barry B. Powell is the Bascom-Halls Professor o f Classics Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Schooled at Berkeley and Harvard, he has published widely on

X XX IL

NOTES ON C ONTR IBUTO RS

Homer, the history of writing, Greek myth, and Greek history. He has lectured in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and the Americas. Presently he is writing a book on myths of the world. Louise Pratt is Associate Professor of Classics at Emory University. She is the author of Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics (1993), and is currently working on a book about representations o f children and childrearing in Greek literature. Alex C. Purves (PhD University of Pennsylvania, 2002) is Associate Professor o f Classics at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the author of Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative (2010 ) as well as articles on Homer, Herodotus, Hesiod, and Aristophanes. Her current work on Homer focuses on the gods and their bodies. She is also co-editing (with Shane butler) a collection o f essays on the senses in antiquity. Kurt A. Raaflaub is David Herlihy University Professor and Professor o f Classics and History Emeritus at brown University. His research interests focus on the social, political, military, and intellectual history of Archaic and Classical Greece (including the historicity of “Homeric society"), the social and political history o f the Roman Republic, and the comparative history of the ancient world. Recent publications include The Discovery o f Freedom in Ancient Greece (2004, winner of the American Historical Association’s James Henry Breasted Prize) ; Origins o f Democracy in Ancient Greece (co-author, 2007); War and Peace in the Ancient World (editor, 2007); A Companion to Archaic Greece (co-editor, 2009); and Epic and History (co-editor, 2010). He is currently working on a book on Early Greek Political Thought in Its Mediterranean Context. Steve T. Reece is Professor of Classics at Saint Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. He has published a wide variety o f articles and book chapters on Homeric studies, New Testament studies, comparative oral traditions, historical linguistics, and pedagogy. He is also the author of a book about the rituals of ancient Greek hospitality titled The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory anti the Aesthetics o f the Homeric Hospitality Scene (1993), and o f a book on early Greek etymology titled H om er’s Winged Words: The Evolution o f Early Greek Epic Diction in the Light o f Oral Theory (2009). Yoav Rinon is Senior Lecturer in the Department o f Comparative Literature and the Department of Classics at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. His books include Aristotle’s Poetics: Translation, Notes and Commentary (2003 [in Hebrew]) and Hom er and the Dual Model o f the Tragic (2008). Hanna Roisman is the Francis F. Bartlett and Ruth K. Bartlett Professor o f Classics at Colby College, Waterville, Maine. She specializes in early Greek epic, Greek and Roman tragedy, and in Classics and film. In addition to articles and book chapters, she has pub­ lished Nothing Is As It Seems: The Tragedy o f the Implicit in Euripides’ Hippplytus (1999); Sophocles: Philoctetes (2005); and Sophocles: Electro (2008). She is co-author of The Odyssey Re-Formed (1996); of Euripides’ Alcestis (2003); and o f Euripides: Electra (2010). She also serves as the editor of the Encyclopedia o f Greek Tragedy to be published by WileyBlackwell. James Romm is James H. Ottaway, Jr. Professor o f Classics at Bard College in Annandale, New York, and recipient o f both Guggenheim and Cullman Center Fellowships. He is the author of The Edges o f the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction (1992) and editor of The Landm ark Arrian: The Campaigns o f Alexander (2010). C. Brian Rose is James B. Pritchard Professor of Mediterranean Archaeology at the University o f Pennsylvania, and Curator-in-Charge of the Mediterranean Section,

NOTES ON C O N TR IB U TO R S

XXXII I

University Museum. He has overseen the excavations of Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Troy since 1991, and is co-director o f the Gordion Excavations. He has been president of the Archaeological Institute o f America since 2007. Andrea Rotstein is Senior Lecturer in the Department o f Classics at Tel Aviv University. She studied General Literature at the Universidad Nacional del Sur (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) and was a graduate student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel (MA, PhD) and at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. She is the author o f The Idea o f Iambos (2010) as well as o f articles dealing with ancient Greek poetry and p o e tic s ...................... Joseph Russo is the Audrey and John Dusseau Professor Emeritus o f Humanities and Classics at Haverford College. He received his BA from Brooklyn College and his PhD from Yale University. He is co-author o f A Commentary on H om ers Odyssey (1992) and has written on Greek epic, lyric, mythology, and proverbial speech. He studies folklore as well as Classics, and is co-author (with Jack Zipes) o f The Collected Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales o f Giuseppe Pitre (2008). Ian C. Rutherford is Professor o f Greek at the University o f Reading. He is author of Pindar's Paeans (2001), and is currently working on Greek religion, particularly pilgrim­ age, and its relation with the religions o f Bronze Age Anatolia. Richard B. Rutherford has been Tutor in Greek and Latin Literature at Christ Church, Oxford University, since 1982. Among his publications are a commentary on Books 19 and 20 o f Homer’s Odyssey (1982), and Classical Literature: A Concise History (2005). He is currently working on a book on the language o f Greek tragedy. Seth L. Schein is Professor of Comparative Literature at the University o f California, Davis. He has written mainly on Homeric epic, Attic tragedy, and receptions o f classical literature. His books include The M ortal Hero: An Introduction to H om er’s Iliad (1984), Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays (edited, 1996), and Sophokles’ Philoktetes: Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Interpretive Essay (2003). He is currently work­ ing on a commentary on Philoktetes and a volume of interpretative essays on Homeric poetry and its reception. Renate Schlesier is Professor for the Study o f Religion at the Freie Universität Berlin. Her work concentrates on Greek religion, the history o f classical scholarship, and the impact of ancient myth and ritual on modern European culture, art, and literature. In this realm, she directs several research projects. She was the co-curator o f an exhibition on Dionysos at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin from 2008 to 2010 and is editing the proceedings of the conference A Different God? Dionysos an d Ancient Polytheism (forthcoming). Francesca Schironi is Associate Professor o f Classical Studies at the University of Michigan. Her main interests are Hellenistic scholarship, papyrology, and reception stud­ ies. Among her publications are the monographs I fram m enti di Aristarco di Samotracia negli etimologici bizantini (2004); From Alexandria to Babylon: N ear Eastern Languages and Hellenistic Erudition in the Oxyrhynchus Glossary (2009); Tò pcy a ßißXiov: Book-Ends, End-Titles, Coronides in Papyri with H exametric Poetry (2010). Her current research focuses on Aristarchus o f Samothrace, in particular on Aristarchus’ work on Homer and his methodology. Adam Schwartz is a temporary Associate Professor o f Classics at the University of Copenhagen, where he received his PhD in 2005. His research focuses on ancient Greek history and literature, with particular emphasis on military history. His latest monograph, Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic an d Classical Greece,

X XXIV

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

was published in the Historia Einzelschriften series in 2009. He is currently working on a book on the introduction and early use of alphabetic writing in Archaic Greece. Ruth Scodel is D. R. Shackleton Bailey Collegiate Professor of Greek and Latin at the University of Michigan. She has published books and articles on a variety of topics in Greek literature, particularly Homer and tragedy. An Introduction to Greek Tragedy will appear in 2011 from Cambridge University Press. Stephen Scully is finishing a book, entitled Hesiod’s Theogouy: From Babylonian Creation Myths to Paradise Lost. He teaches in the Department of Classical Studies at Boston University. Richard Seaford is Professor o f Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. His books include Reciprocity and Ritual: H om er and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994) and Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy (2004). E. S. Sherratt (Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield) specializes in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of the Aegean, Cyprus, and the wider eastern Mediterranean, particularly in all aspects of trade and interaction within and beyond these regions. She is also interested in exploring the ways in which the Homeric epics and the archaeological record can most usefully be combined. Along with numerous articles addressing these topics, her publications include Arthur Evans, Knossos and the Priest-King (2000) and Autochthon: Papers Presented to O. T. P. K. Dickinson on the Occasion o f his Retirement (2005, with A. Dakouri-Hild). Laura M. Slatkin is a Professor in the Gallatin School of Individualized Study at New York University. Her research interests include ancient Greek and Roman poetry, especially epic and drama; wisdom traditions in classical and Near Eastern antiquity; gender studies; anthropological approaches to the literature of the ancient Mediterranean world; and cul­ tural poetics. She has published articles on Greek epic and drama; a second edition of her book The Power o f Thetis was published in 2009. She has served as the editor-in-chief of Classical Philology, and has co-edited Histories o f Post-War French Thought, Vol. 2: Antiquities (with G. Nagy and N. Loraux, 2001). Peter T. Struck is Associate Professor in the Department of Classical Studies at the University o f Pennsylvania. His primary research interests are in ancient sign systems, including theories o f the sign in literary criticism, in divination through oracles, omens, and dreams, and in medical symptomology. He has published the Birth o f the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits o f their Texts (2004) and is currently at work on a study of Greek and Roman divination. He has edited a collection o f studies on ancient divination, M antikê (2006, with S. I. Johnston) and the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Allegory. David W. Tandy is Professor and Head o f Glassies at the University o f Tennessee. He con­ centrates on the economy and agriculture o f the Archaic and Classical periods. His two current projects are studies o f the intersections o f economy and democracy and o f the economic development of the Archaic Aegean up to about 585 bce , the latter a sequel of sorts to his Warriors into Traders: The Power o f the M arket in Early Greece (1997), which tackled the economies of the Homeric and Hesiodic worlds. William G.Thalmann is Professor of Classics and Comparative Literature at the University of Southern California. His books include Conventions o f Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry (1984); The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations o f Class in the Odyssey (1998); and a forthcoming book on the production of space in Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica.

NOTES ON C O N T R IB U T O R S

X XXV

Christos Tsagalis is Associate Professor o f Greek Literature at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. He has published on Homer, Hesiod, Greek historiography, and epigram. He is the author o f Epic Grief: Personal Laments in H om er’s Iliad (2004); The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the H om eric Epics (2008); and Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams (2008). He has co-edited (with F. Montanari and A. Rengakos) Brill’s Companion to Hesiod (2009) and edited a special issue on Homeric Hypertextuality (Trends in Classics 2.2,2010). Thomas Van Nortwick is Nathan ArGreenberg-Professor o f Classics at Oberlin College, where he has taught since 1974. He has published scholarly articles on Greek and Latin literature, autobiographical essays, and five books, Somewhere I Have Never Travelled: The Second S elf and the Hero’s Journey in Ancient Epic (1992); Compromising Traditions: The Personal Voice in Classical Scholarship (1997, with Judith Hallett); Oedipus: The Meaning o f a Masculine Life (1998); Imagining Men: Ideals o f Masculinity in Ancient Greek Culture (2008); and The Unknown Odysseus: Alternate Worlds in H om er’s Odyssey (2009). He is a contributing editor of North Dakota Quarterly. Hans van Wees is Professor of Ancient History at University College London. He is the author of Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in H om er and History (1992) and Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (2004), as well as numerous articles on Homer, Archaic Greece, and warfare. He has (co-)edited several volumes, including most recently the Cambridge History o f Greek and Roman Warfare (2007) and the Blackwell Companion to Archaic Greece (2009). K. Janet Watson teaches Greek at Newcastle University, UK. Her research interests include Homer and ancient Greek oral tradition, and she is the editor of Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World (2001) and H om er Odyssey VI & VII (2002). Martin L. West was a Fellow and Praelector in Classics at University College, Oxford from 1963 to 1974, then a Professor of Greek in the University o f London until 1991, then a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford; since his retirement in 2004 he has been an Emeritus Fellow of All Souls. He is a Fellow o f the British Academy and an exter­ nal member of three foreign Academies. In 2000 he was awarded the international Balzan Prize for Classical Antiquity. He has published critical editions o f the Iliad (1998-2000) and various other Greek poetic texts, besides a series o f books that include Greek Metre (1982); Ancient Greek Music (1992); The East Face o f Helicon (1997); Indo-European Poetry and Myth (2007); and The Making o f the Iliad (2010). Malcolm H. Wiener is Chair of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory. Author of numerous works with a principal focus on Minoan Crete and the Minoan thalassocracy, Mycenaean Greece plus Homer, and interconnections between the Aegean, Egypt, the Near East, and Anatolia. He is a member or Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Society of Antiquaries, Royal Swedish -Academy of Letters; History and Antiquities, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, and the Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. He is the recipient o f Honorary Doctorates from the Universities of Sheffield, Tübingen, Athens, Cincinnati, and University College London, and of the Gold Ring o f Honor of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. He was awarded the Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres by the French Ministry of Culture. John M. Wilkins is Professor of Classics at the University of Exeter, UK. He is a specialist in the history of food and medicine in Greco-Roman culture. His publications include Food in Antiquity (1995, with David Harley and Michael Dobson); Food in European Literature (1996); Athenaeus and his World (2000, with David Braund); The Rivals o f

xxxyi

NOTES ON CON TRIB U TO RS

Aristophanes (2000, with D. Harvey); The Boastful Chef: The Discourse o f Food in Ancient Creek Comedy (2000); and Food in the Ancient World (2006, with Shaun Hill). Andreas Willi is Diebold Professor of Comparative Philology at the University of Oxford. His research interests include Greek, Latin, and Indo-European comparative grammar, Greek dialectology, and the history of Greek as a literary language. He is the author of The Languages o f Aristophanes (2003) and Sikelismas: Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (2008). Assaf Yasur-Landau is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Maritime Civilization at the University o f Haifa. He is the author o f The Philistines and Aegean Migration a t the End o f the Late Bronze Age (2010) and co-director of the excavations o f the Canaanite palace at Tel Kabri. Alexei Zadorojnyi is Lecturer in Greek Language and Literature at the University of Liverpool. His research interests include Greek historiography and biography, GrecoRoman literary criticism and education, aspects o f ancient intertextuality, and the relationship between literature and philosophy. Froma I. Zeitlin is Charles Ewing Professor of Greek Language and Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Princeton University. She specializes in Greek lit­ erature from the Archaic period to the Second Sophistic, with emphasis on epic, drama, and ancient prose fiction, with interests in myth and ritual, gender studies, and relations between art and text.

Preface and Acknowledgments

The poems of Homer originate in Greek epic tradition, which goes back to the 2nd millennium m;u. Somewhere in the Archaic Age they were fixed in writing, and since the 6th century non began being recited at the prestigious Panathenaic festival, which was among the central events of the public life of Athens and of the whole of Greece. Even more importantly, they formed the basis of elementary education, to be memorized at schools all over the Greek world during two millennia, until the dissolution o f Byzantium in the 15th century ce . This is why the history o f the Homeric poems is not simply a his­ tory o f a literary text but that of a literary text highly privileged in the civilization to which it belonged. The situation was different in the Latin West, where Vergil was universally read whereas Homer became a mere name. The modern reception o f Homer started only in the 17th and 18th centuries, with the appearance o f the first translations o f the Homeric poems into European languages. But it was above all the radical change in the taste o f the reading public effected by Romanticism that firmly established Homer’s position as one o f the canonical authors of modernity. The Iliad and Odyssey have become an integral part of contemporary cultural experience, while adaptations o f the Homeric poems in fiction, poetry, visual arts, theater, and film have made the story and the history o f the Trojan War widely popular with audiences all over the world. In view o f this lasting interest, it is sur­ prising that no comprehensive reference work that would guide the readers o f Homer, with or without Greek, through what was once defined by Eric Havelock as the “tribal encyclopedia” o f ancient Greece, has been produced thus far. The Horner Encyclopedia is the first such reference work on Homer’s diction and artistry, the historical and cultural background o f the Iliad and the Odyssey, as well as Homeric scholarship and the reception o f Homer in education, literature, and art from antiquity to the present. First and foremost, however, it is a gateway to the world of Homer. O f the more than 1,300 alphabetically arranged entries that constitute this encyclope­ dia, almost 900 address personal and geographical names, including those that are men­ tioned only in passing in the Homeric poems. Alongside being informative in itself, the introduction of the bulk of minor and ostensibly inconsequential characters belonging to the latter category offers to the reader a highly illuminating prosopographical perspective o f Homer’s world. A team of graduate students working under my supervision - Amit Baratz, Asaf Bartov, and Daphne Cohen, all o f them from the Department o f Classics of

XXXVIII

PRE FA CE AND A CKN OW LEDG M ENTS

Tel Aviv University - did excellent work in preparing 416 shorter entries constituting this group. H. Ebeling’s Lexicon Homericum (1880-1885) served them as a database, and they were further aided by the Cambridge commentary on the Iliad (1985-1993) and the Oxford commentary on the Odyssey (1988-1992). All the entries belonging to this category go unsigned. The entries that do not feature proper names encountered in Homer are arranged around two mains axes: (1) the diachronic, or historical, axis, addressing such topics as Greek epic tradition: the historical background o f the Homeric poems; the history o f the text of Homer; Homeric scholarship, ancient and modern; the history o f the interpreta­ tion of the Homeric poems and their reception in literature, philosophy, and art; and (2) the synchronic axis, or that o f the Homeric text proper, which addresses Homer’s language, meter, style, and narrative; Homeric society, religion, and values; the view o f poets and poetry, as well as various aspects o f Homer’s world (see the Synopsis). Each main category (except for those that are enclosed by square brackets) receives a separate long entry, which further directs the reader to more detailed treatments o f the most important topics. For example, side by side with the overall characterization of Homer’s narrative, the entry “Narrative” directs the reader to such entries as Similes, Speeches, Reminiscences, Digressions, Paradigms, Parables, and Catalogues, and the entry “Society” to Law, Family, Women, Class, Exchange, Slavery, Warfare, Economy, and Household; the latter in their turn contain further references to still shorter units addres­ sing more narrowly defined issues as well as realia and technical terms. All Greek terms in the names of the entries (e.g., oikos, thumos, hapax legomena) are transliterated. My intention was to produce a Homer encyclopedia as polyphonic as the Homeric poems themselves are, being representative o f different trends and opinions in the ever vibrant field of Homeric scholarship. One hundred and thirty-two contributors from all over the world, among them established authorities in the field as well as younger schol­ ars, have taken part in the project, generously sharing their scholarly expertise and their enthusiasm for Homer. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to them all. I am especially indebted to Mark W. Edwards and Martin L. West for their help and advice at the initial stages o f my work on this project. Maureen Alden, Oliver Dickinson, Mark W. Edwards, and Donald Lateiner have generously contributed approx­ imately twice as much as their original shares, while Adrian Kelly, Andrea Rotstein, Ruth Scodel, and Martin L. West kindly agreed to accept certain last-minute assignments, thus making it possible to bring the project to completion at the planned time. I would also like to thank A1 Bertrand and Haze Humbert for their help and support. My special thanks go to Galen Smith for her indispensable assistance over the past two years and to Brigitte Lee Messenger and her wonderful team o f copy-editors for their devoted work over the project. It is my pleasure to acknowledge that the first and probably the most significant stage o f the work on The Homer Encyclopedia was carried out during my term as a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (January-April 2007). Margalit Finkelberg August 2010, Tel Aviv

Synopsis

Personal and geographical names encountered in Homer are not included.

1. 1.1

T H E D IA C H R O N IC A X IS

TEXT AND TRANSMISSION

1.1.1

EDITIONS Athetesis, Book Division, diorthôsis, ekdosis, hupom nêm ata, numerus versuum. Transliteration of Books, Venetus A, Vulgate

1.1.2

MANUSCRIPTS Concordance Interpolations, Conjecture, Emendation, Interpolations, Plus-Verses, varia lectio 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2

Papyri Sigla, Critical diplê, Obelos

1.1.3

HOMERICA Apocrypha, Batrachomyom achia, Margites

1.1.4

BIOGRAPHIES

1.1.5

QUOTATIONS...........................................................................................

1.2

[SCHOLAR SHIP, HISTORY OF] Date of Homer, Homeric Question

1.2.1

SCHOLARSHIP, ANCIENT Antimachus of Colophon, Apollodorus of Athens, Apollonius Sophista, Demetrius of Scepsis, Rhianus of Crete, Zoilus 1.2.1.1

Alexandrian Scholarship Ammonius, Aristarchus of Samothrace, Aristonicus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Chorizontes, Didymus, Eratosthenes, exôkeanismos, Herodian, Nicanor, Viermännerkommentar, Zenodotus

xl

-SYNOPSIS

[.2.1.2 1.2.1.3

Pergamene School Crates of Mallos Scholia

1.2.2

SCHOLARSHIP, BYZANTINE Eustathius

1.2.3

SCHOLARSHIP, FROM RENAISSANCE TO 18th CENTURY

1.2.4

SCHOLARSHIP, 18th CENTURY F. A. Wolf

1.2.5

SCHOLARSHIP, 19th CENTURY Analysts, Unitarians

1.2.6

SCHOLARSHIP, 20th CENTURY 1.2.6.1

1.2.6.2 1.2.6.3 1.2.7

Oral Formulaic Theory Composition-in-Performance, Formula, A. B. Lord, Oral-Derived Text, Oral Dictated Texts, M. Parry, Theme Neoanalysis Electronic Homer

ARCHAEOLOGY, HOMERIC C. W. Biegen, A. Evans, H. Schliemann [also Argolid, Elis, Lacedaemon, Messenia, Miletos, Mycenae, Thebes, Troy, etc.] 1.2.7.1

Metals Bronze, Gold, Iron, Silver, Tin

1.2.8

CONTEMPORARY THEORY Anthropology, Focalization, Gender, Intertextuality, Narratology, Self-Referentiality, Speech-Act Theory

1.3

[RECEPTION, HISTORY OF]

1.3.1

ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL Aristotle and Homer, Historians and Homer, Iconography, Early, Plato and Homer, Tragedy and Homer, Xenophanes of Colophon

1.3.2

HELLENISTIC Alexander the Great and Homer

1.3.3

ROMAN Vergil and Homer

1.3.4

IMPERIAL Contest o f Homer and Hesiod, Heraclitus Homeric Problems, Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch, Ps.-Longinus, Ps.-Plutarch De Homero, Strabo

1.3.5

EARLY CHRISTIAN Centos

1.3.6

RABBINIC JUDAISM

1.3.7

BYZANTINE

1.3.8

SYRIAC AND ARABIC

1.3.9

IN LATIN MIDDLE AGES

SYNO PSIS

1.3.10

FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT Querelle des anciens et des modernes, La, Vico and Homer

1.3.11

FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT TO THE 20th CENTURY Nietzsche and Homer, Romanticism, Translations

1.3.12

20th CENTURY E. Auerbach, S. Weil

1.3.12.1 1.3.13

1.4

Cinema and TV

.......................................

IN VISUAL ARTS

EDUCATION, HOMER IN Epimerismi Homerici, Glosses, Paraphrases, Schooltexts

1.5 1.5.1

1.5.2

[INTERPRETATIONS] ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION Metrodorus o f Lampsacus, Stesimbrotus o f Thasos, Theagenes of Rhegium NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATION P orphyry

1.5.3

STOIC INTERPRETATIONS

1.5.4

ETYMOLOGY

1.5.5

LITERARY CRITICISM, ANCIENT Early Period, Hellenistic and Roman

1.5.6

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY

1.6

[HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS]

1.6.1

MYCENAEAN AGE Artefacts, Linear B, Minoan Civilization

1.6.2

DARK AGE Geometric Period, Lefkandi Tomb

1.6.3

ARCHAIC AGE Alphabet, Black Sea, Colonization, 8th-Century Renaissance, Inscriptions, Nestor’s Cup, Panhellenism, Pithekoussai, Temples 1.6.3.1 1.6.3.2 1.6.3.3

1.6.4

Rhapsodes Creophylei, Cynaethus, Homeridae Aristocracy Near East and Homer Anatolia, Ahhiyawa, Egypt and Homer, Hittites, Gilgãmesh, Luwians, Orientalizing Period, Sea Peoples [also Alexandras, Phoenicians, Sidon]

ATHENSAND HOMER Metacharacterism, Pisistratean Recension [also Athenians, Menestheus, Theseus]

Xli

x lii.

S Y N O P S IS

1.6.5

HISTORICITY OF HOMER Anachronism

2.

2.1

T H E S Y N C H R O N IC A X IS

[EPIC TRADITION] Folktale, Heroic Age, Indo-European Background, Trojan War

2.1.1

ILIAD Achaean Wall, Aristeia, Catalogue o f Ships, Dios Apatê, Dios Boulê, Doloneia, Embassy to Achilles, Epipolesis, Glaukos-Diomedes Episode, Kolos Machê, Minor Warriors, Peira, Scaean Gates, Shield o f Achilles, Teichoscopia, Theomachy, Trojan Catalogue

2.1.2

ODYSSEY Apologue, Nekyia, Odysseus' Companions, Odysseus’ Wanderings, Scar of Odysseus, Suitors o f Penelope, Telemachy, Utopias

2.1.3

EPIC CYCLE Cypriii, Aithiopis, Judgment o f Paris, Little Iliad, Returns, Sack o f Ilion, Telegony, Theban Cycle, Wooden Horse

2.1.4

HOMERIC HYMNS

2.1.5

HESIOD

2.1.6

ARGONAUTICA

2.1.7

ORAL TRADITIONS Avdo Medjedovic, South Slavic Heroic Epic

2.2

LANGUAGE Aeolic Phase, Archaisms, Atticisms, Contraction, Diectasis, Digamma, Dual, hapax legomena, Ionic Dialect, Kunstsprache, Metrical Lengthening, «-mobile, Neo-Ionisms, Quantitative Metathesis, Tmesis

2.2.1

SYNTAX Parataxis, Particles

2.2.2

NAMES, PERSONAL

2.3

METER Bucolic Diaeresis, Caesurae, Correption, Elision, Enjambment, Hiatus, Synizesis

2.4

NARRATIVE Catalogues, Digressions, Parables, Paradigms, Reminiscences, Similes, Time

2.4.1

2.5

SPEECHES Monologues, Speech Introductions

STYLE Allegory, Characterization, Ekphrasis, Epithets, Foreshadowing, Irony, Pathos, Repetitions, Ring Composition

2.5.1

TYPE-SCENES Arming-Scenes, Battle-Scenes, Recognition-Scene

SYNO PSIS

2.5.2

2.6

RHETORICAL FIGURES OF SPEECH Assonance, Metaphor

SOCIETY Assembly, boulc, Class, Competition, dêmioergoi, Feasting, Heralds, Hospitality, Kingship, Polis, Phratries, Scepter, Slavery

2.6.1

FAMILY Kinship, Marriage, Women

2.6.2

LAW dike. Homicide, Justice, Oaths (also Themis)

2.6.3

ECONOMY Agriculture, Household, Livestock, Talent, temenos

2.6.4

EXCHANGE Guest-Friendship

2.7

WARFARE Archery, Chariots, Duels, Wounds [also Machaon]

2.7.1

2.8

WEAPONS AND ARMOR How, Shield RELIGION Chthonic Deities, Erinyes, Fate, Hero-Cult, Maenads, moira, Pollution

2.8.1

GODS Aegis, Ambrosia, daim ôn, Divine Apparatus, Divine Audience, Giants, Ichor, Nectar, Personification, Theodicy, Theoxeny [also Nymphs, Olympos, Titans etc., as well as individual gods]

2.8.2

DEATH Afterlife, Burial Customs, Psyche, Underworld, Topography of [also Elysium, Hades]

2.8.3

PRAYER Lament, Litai, Supplication

2.8.4

SACRIFICE Hecatomb, Libation

2.8.5

PROPHECY Dreams, Necromancy, Omens [also'individual prophets]

2.8.6

MAGIC

2.8.7

MYTH

2.9

VALUES aidôs, aretê, atasthaliê, Friendship, geras, Glory, Hero, Honor, Hybris, Shame, time

2.10

SELF Decision-Making, Double Motivation, Motivation, Responsibility

X liii

x liv -

SYNOPSIS

2.10.1

MENTAL ORGANS atê, menos, metis, thumos

2.10.2

BODY Body Language, Laughter, Sexuality, Weeping

2.10.3

EMOTIONS Anger, minis, nemesis

2.11

[ASPECTS OF HOMER’S WORLD] Astronomy, Board Games, Education, Geography, Handicrafts, Hunting, Ivory, Language, Olive, Seafaring, Seasons, Ships, Sport, Writing

2.11.1

CHILDREN, OLD AGE, YOUTH

2.11.2

ANIMALS Birds, Dogs, Horses, Lions, Monsters, Mules

2.11.3

HOUSES Bathing, Furniture, Utensils and Tools

2.11.4

DRESS Hair, Purple, Textiles

2.11.5

FOOD Fish, Wine

2.11.6

LANDSCAPE Rivers, Sea, Trees, Winds

2.11.7

ETHNICITY Barbarians, Genealogies [also Hellenes and other tribe names

2.11.8

POETS AND POETRY epos, kleos, muthos, Proems, Singers, Songs [also Demodokos, Muses, Phemios]

2.11.8.1 2.11.8.2 2.11.8.3 2.11.8.4

Storytelling Lies Performance Aulos, Dance, Music, Paean, Phorminx, thrênos Memory

Abbreviations

A&A

Antike und Abendland

AA

Archäologischer Anzeiger

AAA

Archaiologika analekta exAthenon {Athens Annals o f Archaeology)

AAntHung

Acta Antiqua A cadem iae Scientiarum Hungaricae

AC

LAntiquité classiqne

AClass

Acta Classica

AH

Archaeologia Homeriea: die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos, ed. Friedrich Matz and Hans-Gunter Buchholz. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967—

AJA

American Journal o f Archaeology

AJP

American Journal o f Philology

Allen

T. W. Allen. Homeri Opera, vols. 1-2: 3rd ed. (1920); vols. 3-4: 2nd ed. (1917-1919). Oxford: Clarendon Press

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

AS

Anatolian Studies

ASNP

Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa

ATU

H-J. Uther. The Types o f International Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography, vols. 1-3. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2004

AW

Antike Welt

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR

Bulletin o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research

BCH

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique

x lv L

LIS T OF ABBRE VIA T IO N S

Bcazley, ARV

J. U. Beazley. Attic Red-Figure Vase Painters, vols. 1-3.2n d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963

Bernabé

A. Bernabé. Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta (PEG). I. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1996 (1st ed., 1987). II. Munich and Leipzig: Saur, 2004-2005 (= OF Bernabé)

BICS

Bulletin o f the Institute o f Classical Studies

BMCR

Bryn Mtnvr Classical Review

BNP

Brill's New Pauly. Leiden and Boston, 2002-

BSA

Annual o f the British School at Athens

CA

Classical Antiquity

CAF

T. Kock. Comicarwn Atticorum Fragmenta. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880-1888

CAG

Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca

CAH

Cambridge Ancient History

Campbell

D. A. Campbell (ed.). Greek Lyric: Sappho and Alcaeus. Cambridge, MA, 1982

CEG

Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, vols. 1-2, ed. P. A. Hansen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1983-1989

Chantraine

P. Chantraine. Dictionnaíre étymologique de la languegrècque. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck, 1968. New edition with supplement, 1999

CJ

Classical Journal

CoMIK

]. Chadwick, L. Godart, J. T. Killen, J.-P. Olivier, A. Sacconi, L. Sakellarakis. Corpus o f Mycenaean Inscriptions, vols. 1-4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986-1998

CP

Classical Philology

CQ

Classical Quarterly

CR

Classical Review

CSCA

California Studies o f Classical Antiquity

CTA

A. Herdner (ed.). Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Paris: Geuthner 1963

CW

Classical World

D-K

H. Diels and W. Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker10 (DielsKranz). Berlin: Weidmann, 1960-1961

Davies, EGF

M. Davies (ed.). Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Göttingen: Vandenhoek 8t Ruprecht, 1988

Davies, PMGF

M. Davies (ed.). Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991

-

—

LIST OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S

xlvii

Ebeling

H. Ebeling. Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880-1885

EGF

see Davies, EGF

EMC

Echos du M onde Classique

FGrHist

see Jacoby

Fowler

R. L. Fowler. Early Greek Mythography, vol. 1: Text and Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000

G&R

Greece and Rome

GEF

see West

GGM

see Miiller

GRBS

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

GVI

W. Peek (ed.). Griechische Vers-Inschriflen I: Grab-Epigramme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955

HED

Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1 9 9 1 -

HSCP

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

ICS

Illinois Classical Studies

IEG

M. L. W est (ed.). Iam bi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, vols. 1 -2 . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 2 (= W)

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae, 1873—

IJCT

International Journal o f the Classical Tradition

Jacoby

F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann 1 9 2 3 - (= FGrHist)

JANER

Journal o f Ancient Near Eastern Religions

JH I

Journal o f the History o f Ideas

JHS

Journal o f Hellenic Studies

JNES

Journal o f N ear Eastern Studies

K-A

= PCG

Kannicht

R. Kannicht (ed.). TrGF, vol. 5: Euripides (2004)

KGW

Friedrich Nietzsche. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Ed. G. Colli and M. Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967-

Kroll

W. Kroll (ed.). Procli D iadochi in Platonis Rem publicam commentarii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899-1901

KUB

Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi

Lex. Vind.

Lexicon Vindobonense, ed. A. Nauck. St. Petersburg, 1867. Repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965

Lfgi-E

Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1955—

X lv it i

LIS T OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S

LIMC

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classical:, vols. 1-9. Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1981-L999

Lobel-Page

Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, ed. E. Lobel and D. Page. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963

ISAM

F. Sokolowski. Lois sacrées de l ’Asie Mineure. Paris: de Boccard, 1955

LSJ

H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. A Greck-English Lexicon, 9th ed. Revised and augmented by H. S. (ones with the assistance of R. McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940

Maehler

H. Maehler. Die Lieder lies Bakchylidcs: t. Die Siegeslicder (1982), II. Die Dithyramben und Fragmente (1997). Leiden: Brill.

MH

Museum Helveticum

MHV

A. Parry (ed.). The Making o f Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers o f Milman Parry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971

Montanan

F. Montanari. I fram m enti dei grammatici Agatltoklcs, Hellanikos, Ptolemaios Epithetes: in appendice i grammatici Theophilos, Anaxagoras, Xenon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988

Most

G. W. Most. Hesiod, vols. 1-2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006-2007

motif

S. Thompson. A M otif-Index o f Folk-Literature: A Classification o f Narrative Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Tables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends, vols. 1-6. Rev. ed. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1955-1958

Müller

K. Müller (ed.). 1855. Geographi graeci minores (GGM). Paris: A. Firmin Didot

M-W

R. Merkelbach and M. L. West. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967

Nauck

= TGF

NP

Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, M. Landfester. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996-

OCD

S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003

OF Bernabé

A. Bernabe (ed.). Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et frag­ menta. PEG 11, vols. 1-2. Munich and Leipzig: Saur, 2004-2005

OF Kern

O. Kern (ed.). Orphicorum fragmenta. Berlin: Weidmann, 1863

OJA

Oxford Journal o f Archaeology

OT

Oral Tradition. Also available online at http://journal.oraltradition. org

Page

= PMG

PCG

R. von Kassel and C. Austin (K-A). Poetae Comici Graeci, vols. 1-8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983-2001

LIST OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S

XÜX

PCPS

Proceedings o f the Cambridge Philological Society

PdP

La Parola del Passato

PEG

see Bernabé

Pfeiffer

Pfeiffer, R. Callimachus, vol. 1. Fragmenta; vol. 2. Hymni et epigrammata. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949-1953

PGM

K. Preisendanz. Papyri Graecae Magicae, vols. 1-2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1931. 2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1973-1974

PHP

Galen De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis

PMG

D. L. Page (ed.). Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962

PMGF

see Davies, PMGF

PRIA

Proceedings o f the Royal Irish Academy

QUCC

Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica

RA

Revue archéologique

RAAN

Rendiconti dell’Accadcmia di Archeologia, Lettcre e Belle Arti di Napoli

Radt

S. Radt (ed.). TrGF, vol. 4: Sophocles (1977)

RE

Paulys Real-Encyclopädie Stuttgart

RÊA

Revue des Études Anciennes

der

klassischen

Altertumswissenschaft.

RÉG

Revue des Études grecques

RFIC

Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica

RhM

Rheinisches Museum

RIA

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter

Roscher

W. H. Roscher. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-

Rose

V. Rose (ed.). Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967

RPh

Revue de philologie, de littérature et d ’histoire anciennes

SB

Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter

SCI

Scripta Classica Israelica

SEG

Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, 1923-

SIG

W. Dittenberger. 1915-1925

SMEA

Studi M icenei ed Egeo-Anatolici

SO

Symbolae Osloenses

ST

Studia Troica

Sylloge

Inscriptionum

Graecarum.

3rd

ed.

I

LIST 0 F A B B R E V IA T IO N S

Stud.Pal.

Studien zur Pataeographie und Papyruskunde

SVF

StoicoTum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. H. von Arnim. Repr. Stuttgart 1978 from lsted ., 1903-1905

SyllClass

Syllecta Classica

TAPA

Transactions and Proceedings o f the American Philological Association

T G F_____

A. Nauck (ed.). Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner. 2nd ed., 1889. Repr. with suppl. by B. Sneli. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964

ThesCRA

Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. Los Angeles and Basel: Paul Getty Museum, 2004-2005

TrGF

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vols. 1-5, ed. B. Snell, S. Radt, R. Kannicht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1971-2004

W

= IEG

West

M. L. West (ed.). Greek Epic Fragments (GEF). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003

W5

Wiener Studien

ycs

Yale Classical Studies

ZPE

Zeitschrift fü r Papyrologie und Epigraphik

A

Abantes ("Aßa-vrec;) For Homer (//. 2.536) the Abantes are the occupants of Euboea (“Good cow land”), but he gives no explanation of their name. According to Strabo (10.1.3),“Abantis” was an ear­ lier name of the island. This is also attested in Aigimios, a traditional epic poem ascribed to Hesiod ( [Hes.] frs. 294—301 M-W;cf. [Hes.] Cnt.fr. 1Oa.6—19 M-W), according to which the name was given by Zeus in honor of lo, after she was transformed into a cow (boos). In the 4th century bce Aristotle of Chalcis identified the Abantes as T hracians who had reached the island by way of Abai in Phokis (Strab. 10.1.3; see P hocians), but this is no more than a guess, if not an outright invention. Homer’s Abantes are vividly described as “breathing rage” and are led by E lephrnor, who is twice labeled “lord of the great-hearted Abantes” (II. 2.541,4.464). The Abantes are notable in two respects; their unusual hairstyles (see Hair ) and their taste for close combat. Homer describes them as“having long hair behind” (2.542, schol.). To distinguish them from the rest of Homer’s “long-haired Achaeans” another local historian, Archemachus of Euboea, explained that the men of C halcis (1) used to cut their hair in front to prevent the enemy from dragging them down (Strab. 10.3.6). Such close fighting was remem­ bered as a feature of the Lelantine War, since Strabo (10.1.10) cites a stele at the Amarynthion The Homer Encyclopedia, edited by Margalit Finkelberg © 2 0 1 1 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

banning the use o f long-distance weapons in that conflict. Accordingly Homer’s distinctive description may reflect traditions concerning the Lelantine War in the 8th century. References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985, 203-205. JEREMY McINERNEY

Abioi ("Aßtoi) Characterized in Iliad 13.6 as “justest of men,” Abioi are not known from other sources. Their appearance side by side with the T hracians, M ysians, and H ippemolgi suggests their northeastern location. Later commentators often identify Abioi as a nomadic Scythian tribe (Strab. 7.3.3), and it has been conjectured that they are the tribe Aeschylus fr. 196 calls “Gabioi.” Homer presumably derives their name from alpha-priva­ tive and bia, “violence,” viz. “devoid of violence.” See also B lack S ea. References and Suggested Readings Reece 2001.

Abydos (’'AßuöoO A city on the Asiatic shore o f the H ellespont , at its narrowest point (see also S estos ); a Trojan ally. The site of historical Abydos; it was at Abydos that Xerxes’ troops crossed to Europe in 480 bce .

2

A B YD O S

Abydos’ troops were led to Troy by Asios (2) son o f Hyrtakos (II. 2.836-837), whose son P hainops (2), the dearest of Hector’s guest - friends , lived in Abydos (17.583-584). The only other citizen o f Abydos mentioned by Homer is P riam 's illegitimate son (nothos) Demokoön, slain by O dysseus in the first battle of the I liad ; it seems to follow from this passage that Abydos was famous for its horses (4.499500). Leander, the protagonist o f the Hellenistic love-story immortalized by Ovid (Herolds 18 and 19), lived in Abydos. See also T rojan C atalogue. MARGAUT FINKELBERG

At Iliad 7.327-343, Nestor pro­ poses that the Achaeans bury their dead, and also build a defensive fortification. At 436—441 they build a wall and dig a ditch. This wall is a focus of the battle later, especially in Book 12, though it is mostly ignored in Booki 11. Sarpedon damages the wall at 12.397-399, and Apollo lev­ els a section o f it at 15.361-364. The Wall is a problem in several ways. First, it resembles more a city wall than an improvisation. Its precise form is puzzling (Hainsworth 1993, 345-346). Second, it seems bizarre to build a defensive wall in the ninth year o f a siege, and Thucydides 1.11.1 mentions a wall built after a victory when the Achaeans first landed. Hence some scholars have thought that Thucydides’ I liad did not include the wall built in Book 7, and that the passages referring to it are interpolated (Bolling 1925, 92-99; Page 1959, 315-324; see Interpolations ). Finally, the Achaeans offer no sacrifices when they build the wall, and immediately fol­ lowing its construction Poseidon complains to Z eus that the wall will cause mortals to lose their respect for the gods, while its fame will overshadow that o f the walls o f T roy that he and Apollo built. Zeus gives him permission, when the Achaeans have left Troy, to obliterate the wall (7.445—463). At the opening o f Book 12, before the Battle for the Wall, the narrator explains that the wall was not going to last. He then narrates how, after Troy was sacked and the Achaeans left, Apollo and Poseidon diverted the Achaean Wall

rivers that flow from Mt. I da for nine days over the wall, while Zeus sent rain, until there was no trace (12.3-33). This is the only post-lliadic event that the poet narrates in his own voice, and it is also the only passage where the heroes are called “demigods or a different ‘race’ from later humanity” (f|pi0éuiv yévoç ávÔpwv; see also H eroic Age). Since antiquity, commenta­ tors have suspected that the poet tells how the wall vanished because there were no traces o f it (Strab. 13.1.36 = Arist. fr. 162 Rose and schol. bT 12.3-35 and 7.445). It is thus a crucial pas­ sage in the history o f thought about fictionality. The use of water to destroy the wall and the ref­ erences to "demigods” also link the passage to H esiod ’s Works and Days 156-173 and the Hesiod ic Catalogue o f Women ((Hes| fr. 155 Most = fr. 204 M -W ), where the T rojan War serves the function that the Great Flood serves in N ear Eastern mythology, dividing mytho­ logical from ordinary time.

References and Suggested Readings Page 1959,315-324 (with nn. 335-340) is very hill and clear, though polemical; West 1969 is a response. Scodei 1982 connects the wall with Near Eastern mythology, while Porter 2007 looks at ancient scholarship on the wall and the problem o f fictionality.

RUT H SCODEL

Achaeans (Ayaioi)

Homer refers to the Greeks as Danaans, Argives , and Achaeans, without any apparent distinction in nuance. O f the three, “Achaeans” is by far the commonest (about twothirds o f instances), but this can be explained by metrical considerations; the shape o f the word Akhaioi makes it suited for verse-end, where it has a very strong tendency to be located, embedded in a variety o f traditional formulae (e.g., sh ips / sons/champions/host o f the Achaeans; greathearted/well-grieved/long-haired Achaeans). The anapestic D anaoi is more flexible and is found everywhere in its various forms, except at versebeginning where it cannot go; the three longs of Argeioi can also be accommodated anywhere, but it is ideal for the start of the verse (occurring 38x). The complete synonymity of the terms is on view in lines such as Iliad 12.70 = 13.227 = 14.70 “that the Achaeans die here, nameless, away from

ACHAEANS

Argos,” or 1.79 “who is most powerful among the Argives, and the Achaeans obey him,” or 12.261262 “they thought to break the wall of the Achaeans, but the Danaans did not give way,” and countless others. Expressions for “the land of Achaia” are used with different referents, supporting no original claim to the title. At Iliad 1.254 = 7.124 (N estor speaking on both occasions), Odyssey 11.166 = 481, 13.249, and 23.68, the reference is to all of Greece. In the C atalogue oh S hips , the Achaeans are one of the names o f Achilles’ people (II. 2.684; cf. 9.395), living with the H ellenes and M yrmidons in Hellas, P hthia , and Pei.asgian Argos; the Thessalian tetrad Achaia Phthiotis is the heir of this tradition (see T hessaly). At 3.75 = 258, “horse­ grazing Argos and Achaia with its fair women” (Hellas too has fair women at 2.683 and 9.447; oth­ erwise only S parta, Od. 13.412) is where the Greeks will go if they leave Troy; it is tempting to see this line as referring to southern and northern Greece. “Horse-grazing Argos” in the O dyssey certainly refers to the Peloponnesian Argoud (15.239,274), and again at Iliad 15.30. At Iliad 11.770, O dysseus and Nestor are guests o f P bleus on a recruiting mission in Achaia. Set against this northern Achaia, however, are lines such as Iliad 9.141,9.283,19.115, and Odyssey 3.251 where “Achaian Argos” is used of the Argolid (perhaps in contrast to “Pelasgian Argos,” which paradoxically is associated with the northern Achaia), or Odyssey 21.107, where Penelope has no peer “in the land o f Achaia, nei­ ther in holy P ylos, nor Argos, nor M ycenae.” In themselves, diese passages suggest competing claims to the glory of a legendary name, “Achaia,” the northern homeland o f the greatest hero Achilles (scholars have not failed to suggest that the roots of the names are the same), and by exten­ sion the whole of the north; but the southerners were not to be left out. The Argives’ desire to be considered Achaean is visible in the founda­ tion legend of the Peloponnesian Achaia (Hdt. 1.145,7.94,8.73.1; Paus. 2.18.6-8,7.1.7-8) accord­ ing to which Teisamenos, son of O restes , led the Achaeans from Argos to their new homeland in the north Peloponnese; and in the legend of the return of the H eraclids, which allowed all Peloponnesians to claim Achaean status (Kleomenes o f Sparta famously produced this alternative passport when denied entry as a Dorian to the temple on the Adienian acropolis:

3

Hdt. 5.72.3). It would be hazardous to use such retrospective claims to argue that “Achaia” was the generally accepted name of all of Greece in the Bronze Age. Its virtual absence from Linear B (only KN C [2] 914 B, apparently of a village in C rete; cf. Od. 19.175) is unhelpful in this respect. On the other hand, one might put these passages together with the evidence of dialectology and suggest, if still somewhat adventurously, that “Achaia” in the Bronze Age encompassed all of Greece from Achaia Phthiotis southward, whence, after all, the main players all came. Most models for the distribution of Greek dialects in the Bronze Age work with a broad division of north and south, the line being drawn between Phthiotis and Thessaly. On the other hand, the line ought not to be drawn too sharply; one should think radier in terms of a continuum, especially at this northern border. Among Greek speakers in the south too there were differences, which increased through­ out the period. Finally, it is facile to equate linguis­ tic with ethnic unity. Neither on the basis of Homeric tradition nor on that o f modern dialectology, then, can the rela­ tion o f Homer’s Achaeans to the population of M ycenaean Greece be established. Evidence of a different sort is provided by H it t ite texts, even if a solution is still elusive. At the Hittite capital o f Hattusa, near the village of Bog”azköy in north central Turkey, the archives yielded some twentyfive texts referring to “Ahhiyawa” (a toponym, not an ethnic). The identification with Achaia was put forward as early as 1922, and though linguis­ tically not straightforward it is now accepted by most scholars. The texts date from the late 15th or early 14th century to the late 13th century bce and contain numerous hints, tantalizingly incon­ clusive, as to the location and nature of Ahhiyawa. The Hittite King Mursili 11 in the third year o f his reign (1319/18 or 1315/14) conquered the king­ dom o f Arza wa and marched into its capital Epasa (Ephesos); the fragmentary text mentions a king of Ahhiyawa, with whom the king of Arzawa had apparently sided. Millawanda, generally agreed to be M il e io s , was destroyed, and the hapless king fled “to the islands,” presumably under the con­ trol of his friend the king of Ahhiyawa. Earlier, the “Madduwatta letter” indicts one Attarissiya (= Atreus ?), “the man of Ahhiya” (a short form of Ahhiyawa), for his raid on western Anatolia involving 100 chariots and infantry; the subsequent

4

ACHAEANS

Hittite attack on Talawa (identified with Tlos in Lycia) might indicate a base in this area for Attarissiya. In the mid-13th century, the king of Ahhiyawa has regained control of Millawanda, as appears from the "Tawagalawa letter,” sent to him by the Hittite king complaining of more raids. The perpetrator Piyamaradu (= Priam osl), like Uhhaziti before him, escaped across the sea. A treaty of the late 13th century in which sea-traffic between Ahhiyawa and Assyria is banned con­ firms the status of the former as a seafaring power. Also to be noted are the northern invaders from Aqajwasa, “the foreign land across the sea,” men­ tioned among other S ea P e o p l e s in a victory stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah (1209/8 bcf .). Finally, a recently reinterpreted text of the mid13th century bce is thought to be the first exam­ ple, translated into Hittite, of a letter from the king o f Ahhiyawa to the Hittite king; it refers to a dispute over ownership of islands, possibly I mbros , Lemnos, and/or Samothrace (see Samos [1 ]), which the king of Ahhiyawa argues were his through the dynastic marriage of an ancestor (Latacz 2004,243-244). These texts are consistent with various recon­ structions. It is clear that Ahhiyawa is a kingdom, but not how integral to it such places as Millawanda or “the islands” might be. Some scholars have indeed suggested that R hodes and its neighbors were the heartland of Ahhiyawa rather than an outpost. Most have, however, looked for ways to equate Ahhiyawa with the mainland o f Greece. Mycenaean influence is well documented arch­ aeological ly in western Anatolia in the period (particularly at Miletos, which was settled by Mycenaeans), and if the linguistic equivalence Ahhiyawa = Achaia is accepted, the link with the mainland must be there, whatever the Hittites meant by the term; few will believe that the term, so deeply embedded in mainland tradition, came there from Anatolia during the Iron Age. But this falls well short o f establishing which part o f the motherland these migrants came from, or whether “Achaia” encompassed all o f Greece. Should the name o f the dynastic ancestor in the diplomatic dispute turn out to be Kadmos, as is claimed, it would point clearly to T hebes as the center of Ahhiyawa; but this sensational reading is strongly disputed by Hittitologists. It is to be hoped that further work in the Hittite records will bring a resolution of these questions.

References and Suggested Readings Hall 1997 and 2002a; Benzi 2002; Latacz 2004; Finkelberg 2005; Lehmann 2008.

ROBERT L. FOWLER

Achaia

see Achaeans.

Acheloos (AycXüMoç) Probably of pre-Greek ety­ mology (Mader LfgrE, s.v.; Isler 1970, 113) and in H esiod son of Ocf.an and T ethys ( Th. 337-345), Acheloos is an important river deity, the river itself being located in Acarnania, though Homer does not specif' this and only locates (another) Acheloos near S ipyi .os in Lydia (ll. 24.615-616), where the sc h o l ia preserve val iants Achclêsion and Achelèion (see Richardson 1993,342-343). Deployed together with Ocean in an unfavorable comparison o f their strength with that of Z eus by Achilles (21.194— 197), Acheloos could be a figure of cosmogonic significance already for Homer (so D’Alessio 2004), given ancient doubts over Iliad 21.195 (referring to Ocean), which would thus make Acheloos rather than Ocean the origin of “all rivers, springs, the sea, and wells” (21.196-197) in accordance with later attested traditions about Acheloos (none certainly earlier than the 5th century bce). Perhaps against this thesis, Acheloos shows no formula systems, his epithets including “lordly” (21.194), “silver­ whirling” ( Th. 340 - a formula in later poetry: see West 1966,261-262), and “broad-flowing” ([Hes.] fr. 10(a).35 M-W). See also R ivers . ADRIAN D. KELLY Acheron

see Underworld, Topography

of.

Achilles (AxtXAeúç) Achilles, son o f Peleus and the N ereid T hetis , is the main hero o f the I liad . The poem shows him moving toward disillusion­ ment and death to reach a new clarity about human existence in the context o f the eventual destruction of Troy and in an environment con­ sisting almost entirely o f war and death. Achilles is capable of destruction on a larger scale than any other warrior in the poem, but he also suffers more intensely than any other warrior. The tragic

A C H ILLES

contradictions o f warfare and heroism in the Iliad are nowhere more apparent and more moving than in the case o f Achilles. Among heroes in the Iliad, Achilles is preemi­ nent in beauty, swiftness, and strength, has the best horses and armor , and fights and kills more brilliantly and more effectively than any other warrior. He also speaks a language that, in its deployment o f traditional formulae and themes and expansive expression o f thoughts and feel­ ings, is richer, more complex, and closer to the language and style o f Homer himself than is the language o f other characters in the poem (Martin 1989,146-230). The Iliad suppresses elements in the mythological tradition, such as stories of Achilles’ invulnerability and eventual posthu­ mous immortality on the White Island, as told in the A ith io pis . But while Achilles resembles other heroes in the fact o f his mortality, he surpasses them in his understanding of it: all the poem’s warriors expect to die young in battle, but Achilles knows from his mother that he is “short-lived” and “most swiftly-doomed” (1.352, 505) beyond others and that he will die at Troy and not return home (9.412^116). His (and a reader’s) fore­ knowledge of his destiny becomes more specific and detailed in the course of the poem, especially in the final seven books (Griffin 1980, 163 n. 39). Despite his mortality, Achilles has a special relationship to the divine that goes far beyond his blood tie to the gods through his mother. This is clear from the beginning of the poem, which announces as its theme the mênis (“wrath,” “rage”) of Achilles and its destructive conse­ quences. Mênis is a special kind o f sacral, vengeful anger that is usually felt by gods, not mortals. It implies the power to unleash destructive physical force on a cosmic scale as a sanction against a social group, with drastic consequences for the whole community. Mênis is a dangerous and fear­ ful emotion , hard and costly to appease; it usu­ ally arises from transgressions of cosmic order and threats to the sovereignty o f Z eus (Muellner 1996, 8, 129). In Greek epic tradition, for exam­ ple, mênis is D emeter ’s emotional response to the rape o f her daughter by Hades and has as its consequence the famine with which she threatens all human existence (Hymn. Cer. 350); Aphrodite warns Anchises not to reveal that he had sex with her and to "watch out for the mênis of the gods” (Hymn. Yen. 290); H ermes warns Kalypso

5

to let O dysseus go back home and to “watch out for the mênis of Zeus” (Od. 5.146). Thus, there is something godlike about Achilles’ mênis, which is directed first against Agamemnon , with disas­ trous consequences for the Greek army, then (after the death of Patroklos) against H ector and the T rojans, with even more disastrous con­ sequences involving the death o f Hector and the eventual destruction o f Troy. The special relationship between Zeus and Thetis throws light on the source and nature of Achilles’ mênis. At 1.396-406, Achilles reminds his mother o f how she once “warded off unseemly destruction” from Zeus, when Athene , H era , and Poseidon had rebelled and wanted to bind him (an equivalent o f death for a god). Thetis summoned to his aid the hundred-handed B riarf.o s , “who is better in strength than his father” (404), and the gods were afraid and stopped trying to bind him. Only Zeus, Apollo , and Thetis among the gods and Achilles among humans are said to be able “to ward off destruc­ tion” (loigon am unai), an ability that goes along with the power to cause it on a massive scale as a consequence of mênis (Slatkin 1991,86-88). Thus Thetis traditionally had much greater power, including the power to “rage” and threaten the sovereignty o f Zeus, than she does in the Iliad, and her power fits with a story that the poem evokes without actually telling: there was a proph­ ecy that Thetis would give birth to a son mightier than his father, which discouraged both Zeus and Poseidon from mating with her and led to her being forced to marry a mortal, Peleus. Thetis complains bitterly and graphically to H ephaistos of the “painful cares,” the “sorrows” that her mar­ riage caused her (18.430—431), but the Iliad does no more than allude to this disciplining of her traditional power. It might have been explored at greater length in a theogonic epic, but the Iliad, with its focus on mortal heroism, transfers her traditional power and mênis to her son and explores its human consequences (Slatkin 1991, 99-105). Apart from Thetis, Achilles himself has tradi­ tional associations with the theme o f destruction. His name probably derives from achos (“grief”) and laos (“host of fighting men”) and suggests the kind of destruction that causes grief to an army (Nagy 1979 [ 1999], 69-83). In the Iliad this destruc­ tion and grief are the result of Achilles’ withdrawal

6

A C H IL L E S

from battle, which in turn is a product o f the mênis that springs from Agamemnon’s insult in robbing him o f his “ honor” ( tim e ) by appropri­ ating Briseis - the special “prize o f honor” ( geras ) the army had awarded him. At first this mênis is aimed at Agamemnon and the Greek army; after the death o f Patroklos it is transferred to Hector and the Trojans. In a different kind o f epic, Achilles’ mênis might have focused more on his mortality and might even have involved his resentment at not being Zeus’ son and the ruler of the cosmos. Before Achilles withdraws from the fighting and asks Zeus to hem in the Greeks by their sh ips while they are being killed (1.408—412), his moti­ vation is not personal but social: he calls the army to an assembly to learn why Apollo is inflicting the plague and what they can do to stop it. But his feelings of social solidarity (philotês) give way before his fury at Agamemnon for threatening to take away Briseis and then actually doing so, and his mênis continues to dominate his philotês until Patroklos is killed fighting in his place. Yet already by Book 9 his rage has less to do with tangible honors than with disillusion regarding the very premises of heroism. In a world where, as he sees it, the coward and brave man are honored equally and die alike (9.318-320), there is no longer an inducement to fight for honor and glory. On the contrary, no honor and glory are worth a human life - his life - as he tells Odysseus, P h oinix , and Ajax when he rejects Agamemnon’s offer o f g ifts (see Embassy to Achilles ). Rather than die young at Troy with “imperishable glory,” he will return home to P hthia , marry, and live a long, unremembered life (9.393—416). Later in Book 9, Phoinix’s plea that he save the army and Ajax’s comradely disapproval lead him to modify this position, but hatred for Agamemnon dominates Achilles, until Patroklos is killed. From that point on Achilles is devoted to vengeance on Hector and the Trojans, even though he knows this will involve his own death. He may carry into battle the shield made for him by Hephaistos, with its comprehensive representation o f human life (see S hield of Achilles ), but his focus is narrowed solely to killing his personal enemy. Achilles becomes an elemental force o f destruc­ tion in Books 20-22. He dismisses Lykaon’s (1) plea to spare his life by telling him that death is the only human reality (21.34—135), rejects

Hector’s request for burial with the comment thal lions don’t make treaties with lambs, and prom­ ises that Hector’s corpse will be eaten by dogs and bird s . He himself mutilates the corpse bydragging it across the plain and around Patroklos' tomb, but neither his friend’s funeral nor the con­ tinuing abuse of Hector’s body can satisfy the hatred he feels. Achilles has in effect ceased to be human. Only when he sees in P riam , who has come to ransom Hector’s body, someone even worse off than himself, and the two virtually adopt one another as father and son, does he regain his humanity. He offers the old king the pity, respect, and consolation that he cannot pro­ vide for his own father, and makes it possible for the Trojan community to mourn and bury Hector. Under the shadow o f his own imminent death and the destruction o f the city, Achilles realizes that he and Priam have more in common as suf­ ferers and mourners than what separates them as enemies. He is not changed into a new and differ­ ent character, but reestablished as his distinctive self , with a capacity for both philotês and mênis, but also with a new understanding of his own sorrows and those o f Priam as inherent in the conditions o f human life (Owen 1946, 246-247). Achilles’ death at the S caf.an G atf.s , at the hands o f Paris and Apollo, is prophesied by the dying Hector at 22.359-360 and was narrated in the Aithiopis. In Odyssey 11.467-540, Odysseus tells the P haeacians o f his encounter with the “soul” ( psyche) o f Achilles in the Land o f the Dead (see N bkyia ). Odysseus describes how he praised Achilles fulsomely as more blessed and honored than the rest o f the Greeks when he was living and more powerful now that he is dead, only to have Achilles reject this praise in language suggesting the futility o f heroic glory and great­ ness and a preference for even the humblest form o f life. By implication, Odysseus asserts the supe­ riority o f his own (and his poem’s) kind o f hero­ ism, the heroism o f a survivor, to the Iliadic heroism of the warrior who dies young for the sake o f “imperishable glory” (A. Edwards 1985, 43-69; Schein 1996, 11-13). Achilles’ psyche enjoys hearing Odysseus’ report o f the key role of his son, N eoptolemos, on the battlefield and during the sack o f Troy (11.508-540), but an audience familiar with the story o f Neoptolemos’ brutal slaughter o f Priam on the altar o f Zeus (narrated in the Sack of I lio n ) and his early

A E G IS

death at the hands o f O restes (later dramatized in Euripides’ Andromache) and contrasting this destiny to that of Odysseus’ son, T elemachos, might consider that in this respect too Odysseus outdoes Achilles. The formulaic epithets that describe Achilles emphasize his lineage as son o f Peleus (Pêleidês 52x, Pêleiôn 43x, Pêleos huios 9x) and grandson of Aiakos, the son o f Zeus (Aiakidês 24x); his likeness to the gods (theois epieikel’ 6x); and espe­ cially his speed and swiftness- He is “swift” (ôkus 6x) and “swift-footed” 68 times (podas ôkus 31x, podarkês 21x, podôkeos l l x , tachun podas 5x), perhaps recalling his climactic pursuit of Hector around the walls of Troy in Book 22. See cdso H ero . References and Suggested Readings Kakridis 1949, 65-95; Whitman 1958, 181-220; Schadewaldt 1965,234-267; Schein 1984,89-167; King 1987; Martin 1989, 146-230; Muellner 1996; Burgess 2009. SETH L. SCHEIN

Admetos (”Aôpr|Toç “invincible”; see Names 3.1b) King of P herai in T hessaly, son o f P heres , hus­ band of Alkestis , father of Eumelos who leads the Pherai contingent in the Catalogue of S hips (II. 2.713-714). Eumelos brought to Troy magnifi­ cent horses reared by Apollo (2.763-767): these horses were given to Admetos when Apollo, after having killed the C yclopes for forging Z eus’ thunderbolt by which Apollo’s son Asklepios had been smitten, served for a year as Admetos’ herds­ man (Pherecyd. fr. 35 Fowler; Apollod. 1.9.15, cf. 3.10.4). In literary tradition, Admetos is especially famous for the self-sacrifice o f his wife Alkestis, who volunteered to die in his stead (see esp. Euripides’ Alkestis). Admetos was renowned for his hospitality . See also Aeolids .

7

as part of the contingent led by Adrastos (2) and Amphios (1) sons o f M erops (II. 2.828-831). margalit finkelberg

Adrastos ("ASprioroç “unescapable”) (1) Son o f T alaos, brother o f M ekisteus and Eriphylf., brother-in-law and cousin o f Amphiaraos (see Aeolids ), father-in-law o f T ydeus (II. 14.121) and Polyneikes (Apollod. 3.6.1), as well as of Tydeus’ son D iombdes , married to Adrastos’ daughter Aigialeia (II. 5.412-415); the leader of the Seven against Thebes. King o f Argos in the mainstream tradition (including II. 14.119), Adrastos is represented in the C atalogue of S h ips (2.572) as the ruler o f S ikyon : this, as well as the fact that Sikyon was the place that had Adrastos’ herôon and cult (Hdt. 5.67; see H ero C ult), allows us to see Adrastos’ kingship at Argos as a secondary development (see further Nilsson 1932, 113-114; Finkelberg 1991, 309-311 and 2005,81-83). Adrastos’ divine horse Arion, pre­ sumably a reminiscence from the Cyclic Thebaid (fr. 11 West), is mentioned by Nestor in Iliad 23.346-347. See also T heban Cycle . (2) T rojan, the leader, with his brother Amphios (1), of the Adrasteia contingent; son of die prophet M erops who lived in the nearby Perkote (II. 2.830). Both brothers were killed by D iomedes in the Battle over the Wall (11.333-334). See also T rojan Catalogue. (3) T rojan, defeated by M enelaos. Menelaos was inclined to accept Adrastos’ supplication and spare his life in exchange for the generous ran­ som to be offered by Adrastos’ wealthy father, but Adrastos’ plea was rejected by Agamemnon, who killed him immediately afterwards (II. 6.37-65). (4) T rojan, killed by Patroklos (II. 16.694). MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Adrasteia (A0pr|OTeia) The easternmost city of the T road which overlooked the southwestern shore o f the Propontis (cf. Strab. 13.1.7: “The people from Abydos to Adrasteia were all T rojans”). Mentioned in the T rojan Catalogue

Aegis (aiyíç) The aegis is a divine object associated with the power o f Z eus through the epithet “aegis-bearing” (aigiokhos), which is a common description o f him in both Homeric poems.

8

A EG IS

The appearance and purpose o f the aegis are never made clear in Homer, although it both offers divine protection and inspires terror. It may be a shield carried by Zeus (II. 4.167, 17.593) and Apoixo (15.229, 306-366, 24.20-21), but in the possession o f Athene it is a kind o f bodice or shawl (5.738,18.204), as we see in later classical art (see LIMC 2.1, 121, 127, s.v. “Athena”). This may suggest that Athene has her own aegis and has no need to borrow Zeus’, as Apollo does (15.229-230). The etymology of aegis suggests that it is manu­ factured from goatskin (Janko 1992, on 15.308311), but the aegis of Zeus was made by the divine smith H ephaistos, who then gave it to his father (15.308-310). In the I liad the aegis is variously described as “with a shaggy fringe around it” (amphidaseia 15.309), “tasseled” (thussanoessa 5.738, 15.229, 16.593, 18.204, 21.400), “gleaming bright,” “terrible,” “ageless and immortal,” and “golden.” The effect of the aegis brings fear and confusion to men on the battlefield (cf. Od. 22.297-298), and at Iliad 5.738-742 Athene’s aegis has the Gorgon’s head on it together with P hobos (Rout), Eris (Strife), Alke (Valor), and Ioke (Pursuit). Zeus and Apollo shake it to bring vic­ tory to one side in battle (17.593-596,15.229-230, 318-322), but it also protects H ector’s body (24.20-21). Achilles’ dominance o f the batdefield after the death of Patroklos is foreshad ­ owed when Athene puts the aegis around his shoulders, and a golden cloud about his head, and makes him blaze with golden fire (18.203-206). CHRISTOPHER JOHN MACKIE

Aeneas (Aiveíaç) Main T rojan hero after H ector, descended like him from T ros (1) (II. 20.215-241, 303-304; see T rojans), son of Aphrodite and Anchises (Hymn. Ven.; cf. II. 2.820-821; Hes. Th. 1008-1010). He accompanied Paris to S parta for Helen’s abduction (C ypria : Bernabé, 39.10-11 =arg. 1 West) and was worsted by Achilles early in the war (Cypria: Bernabé, 42.61-63 = arg. 11 West; II. 20.89-96,188-194). In the Iliad he plays a part in various episodes (van der Valk LfgrE s.v., 314.44-54): enlists Pandaros in an assault on D iomedes , in which Pandaros is killed, he himself wounded, rescued by Aphrodite and Apollo, and loses his horses (Book 5); fights inconclusively with I domeneus at D biphobos ’

prompting (Book 13); joins in the fighting over the corpses of Sarpedon and Patroklos (Books 16 and 17); fights a duel with Achilles at Apollo’s prompting and is rescued by Poseidon (Book 20, mirroring Book 5). He survived the sack o f Troy (20.302-308; Hymn. Ven. 196-197), either falling to N eoptolemos as war-booty (L ittle I liad fr. 21.9-11 Bernabé = fr. 30.4-6 West, if genuine) or fleeing from Troy with Anchises and others (Sack of I lion : Bernabé, 88.9 = arg. 1 West; Bernabé fr. 1; cf. Soph. Laokoon fr. 373.4 Radt). His character is ambiguous in the Iliad (van der Valk 1979,314): a better fighter by reputation (second only to Hector: 6.78-79; cf. 5.467, 13.483—484) than by record (defeated by Diomedes and Achilles, rescued by various dei­ ties: 5.311-317, 433-446, 20.92-93, 194, 318339). The divine rescues may tarnish his heroism (Turnus, Verg. Aen. 12.52-53) or be a narrative necessity (Horsfall 1979, 372). The loss o f his divine horses may be poetic justice hinting at his implication in Trojan guilt (Taplin 1992, 109). Rivalry between Aeneas and P riam ’s sons (20.179-186; cf. 13.459-461: ad hoc invention according to Janko 1992, 105-106) need not imply treasonable intentions (Horsfall 1987,14). The Iliad virtually ignores his father, wife (Eurydike: Cypria fr. 31 Bernabé = fr. 28 West; Little Iliad fr. 22 Bernabé = fr. 19 West), and chil­ dren (cf. 20.302-308; Hymn. Ven. 196-197; on the putative link between these prophecies and a his­ torical ruling genos in the T road claiming descent from Aeneas, see Smith 1981b; Faulkner 2008b). This Iliadic neglect o f Aeneas’ family has been explained politically (Aeneas was adopted by Lesbians to support territorial claims in the Troad, our rescension o f Iliad is Athenian, and AthenianLesbian rivalry in the Troad led Athenians to mar­ ginalize him: Zanetto 1996,44-45; see also Lesbos ; Athens and Homer ) and poetically (in order not to distract attention from the very differendy fated family Priam, Hector, Andromache, Astyanax: Smith 1981b, 4 6 -50,56-57). In Roman poetry and historiography he is the founder o f Lavinium and, indirectly, Rome (Ennius, Ann.; Lucr. 1.1; Verg. Aen. 1.1-7; Livy 1.1-3; Horsfall 1987). The prophecy (II. 20.302308) o f his line’s destined hegemony - over Trojans, or all peoples? - was readily adapted to Rome (Lycoph. Alex. 1226-1280; Verg. Aen. 3.9798; Quint. Smyrn. 13.336-341). Via a son lulus he

A E O L IC PHASE

became archegete o f the gens Iulia (Verg. Aen. 1.267); “Askanios” is first attested in Hellanicus (fr. 31 Fowler). His Roman quality o f pietas is partly anticipated in Homeric/Cyclic epic (Horsfall 1987, 13-14; see C ycle, Epic ). See also V ergil

and

H omer .

References and Suggested Readings On Aeneas in Homer, see van der Valk LfgrE s.v.; Smith 1981b. On his Roman reception, see Horsfall 1979,1987.

BRUNO CURRIF.

Aeolians One o f the three Greek ethnè (Aioleis; sing. Aioleus), the others being I onians and Dorians . The Aeolians were the inhabitants of North Greece who are supposed to have colonized northwest Anatolia (henceforth called Aeolis), including the T road, and the islands o f Lesbos and T enedos in the 1 1th century bce . The Greeks believed that they were so called as being descended from Aiolos, the son of Hellen (see Hellenes ), a genealogy described in the Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] fr. 9 M-W, ca. 600 bce ; see Aeolids ). The real meaning is not known: it may mean “mixed” or it could be con­ nected with the H it t ite ethnonym Ahhiyawa. The term does not occur in Homer; Aiolos, lord of the winds , is quite distinct. Ancient scholars used “Aeolian” as a term for a class o f Greek dialects associated with the Aeolian area. The language o f Homer, which is basically Ionian (see I onic D ialect ), contains many ele­ ments that have parallels in the “Aeolic” dialects (i.e., the dialects o f Greek spoken in Aeolian areas), and this has suggested to some that the Homeric poems were composed in an Aeoliac dialect (perhaps in T hessaly or Lesbos) and sub­ sequently translated into the predominantly Ionic epic dialect (see Aeolic Phase ). References an d Suggested Readings Demir 2007. IAN C. RUTHERFORD

Aeolic Phase Although the Ionic dialect is the basic layer o f Homer’s language, there are quite numerous forms belonging to the Aeolic dialects

9

(spoken in Boeotia , T hessaly, and Lesbos with the nearby areas of Asia Minor). Scholars agree that the linguistic diversity of the Homeric lan­ guage points to the special history of the epic dic­ tion (see K unstsprache), and there are two competing models aiming to explain the Aeolic forms: the diffusionist model, which claims that Aeolic forms in the essentially Ionic tradition that Homer belongs to are borrowings from a neigh­ boring epic tradition; and the phase theory, which holds that Aeolic forms are reflexes o f an older, purely Aeolic stage o f an epic tradition which was later tonicized. There are different kinds o f arguments for the phasal theory. First, regarding the contents o f the poem, it is notable that Achilles is from P hthia in Thessaly; furthermore, several heroes associ­ ated with key events o f the Trojan C ycle , such as P rotesilaos, P hiloktf.tes , Ajax th e Lesser , and the sons of Asklepios , are Aeolians . On the linguistic side, the arguments for an Aeolic phase hinge on the fact that the Aeolic forms seem to have the distribution o f archa­ isms within the epic tradition: they are generally only found when they have a different metrical structure than the corresponding vernacular Ionic forms, and they seem to be preferred to Ionic archaisms, which would be the obvious choice in a continuous Ionic tradition. The argu­ ment was first put by K. Meister regarding the genitives of a-stems in -ao, which underwent QUANTITATIVE METATHESIS (QM) in Ionic: -O0- —> -qo— > -eu>-. Aeolic, on the other hand, kept -aofor a long time, before it eventually contracted to -a. Crucially, the Ionic middle stage -qo- is not attested in Homer, but it is what we would expect if it had once existed in the tradition. It is some­ times objected that some such sequences are actually found in other forms, like ateiopev (graphical representation of *arqop£v), but these all involve a morphological boundary which will have delayed the application o f the quantitative metathesis. Another crucial argument in favor o f an Aeolic phase comes from formulaic analysis (see Formula ). Very few formulae require quantita­ tive metathesis for their metrical structure, but this change must have started around 1000 bce , i.e., several centuries before Homer. In a continu­ ous Ionic tradition we would have expected new formulae to have been created, exploiting prosodic

10

A E O L IC PHASE

structures resulting from quantitative metathesis. Instead, we find that while the language o f Homer is basically Ionic, specifically Ionic forms are conspicuously absent from the traditional, formulaic language - something which suggests that there was a phase o f traditional epic composition in

Admetos and Alkestis, the brothers Protesilaos and Podarkes sons o f Iphiklos, and, on the Trojan side, Bellerophon’s descendant G laukos. See also H ellenes.

A eolic, which was taken over by Io nian s sh o rtly

References and Suggested Readings

b efo re the creatio n o f the I liad a n d th e Odyssey

West 1 9 8 5 ,6 0 -7 6 ,1 7 3 -1 7 6 ; Finkelberg 2 0 0 5 ,2 4 -3 3 .

more or less as we know them.

margai. it finkeldeug

See also Language, H omeric . References and Suggested Readings M eister 1921; S. West 1988; Haug 2002.

DAG TRYGVE TRUSI.EW HAUG

Aeolids Sons of Aiolos son of Hellen. The Panhellenic genealogy of Hellen and his sons Aiolos, Doros, and Xouthos, father o f Ion and Achaios, is attested for the first time in the traditional poem Catalogue o f Women, belonging to the school o f H esiod (|Hes.J fr. 9 M-W; early 6th century no;?). Among the sons of Aiolos were Salmoneus, K retheus , Athamas, Perieres, Deion, S isyphos , and perhaps Minyas (see M inyan). In Homer, the patronymic “Aeolid” is used only twice, in con­ nection with Sisyphos (II. 6.154) and Kretheus (Od. 11.237). An additional son o f Aiolos of whom Homer makes mention is Salmoneus (11.236). A m on g the d escend ants o f A iolos in a b ro ad er sense H o m er m en tio n s such p ro m in en t figures o f p re-T rojan saga as S a lm o n eu s’ d au gh ter T yro and h er sons N eleus and P elias (w ith Poseidon ), and

P heres , Amythaon, an d Aison (w ith

K reth eu s); A ison’s son Jason, th e leader o f the A rgonauts; Pheres’ son Admetos and his wife

Alkestis dau ghter o f Pelias; th e seer M elampous and his b ro th e r B ias (l), sons o f A m ythao n , and th eir d escend ants Amphiaraos and Adrastos (l);S is y p h o s ’grandsonBF.LLEROPHON;PENELOPE’s father I karios and H elen ’s m o rtal father T yndareos, sons o r grand so ns o f Perieres; I das son o f A phareus son o f Perieres; P hylakos so n o f D eio n an d his so n I phiklos . Oddly enough, not many descendants of Aiolos participated in the T rojan War . Among those appearing in Homer are Neleus’ son N estor and his sons Antilochos and T hrasymedes; Adrastos’ nephew Euryalos (1); Eumelos son of

Aethiopians (AiStoneç)

An idealized race of men living “furthest away” (eskkatoi) in an unlo­ calized Never-never land. They are not necessar­ ily to be thought o f as African or as dark-skinned, though the etymology o f their name, “Burnt­ faced,” has been taken to imply both (see also Names 3.6). Homer situates the Aethiopians “by the shores o f O cean” (II. 23.205) and describes them as "dwelling in two places, some where Hyperion [i.e., S un] sets, others where he rises” (Od. 23-24); later Greeks supposed that this referred to the presence o f dark-skinned races on the shores o f both Africa and Asia. Homer also applies the epith et am um on or “blameless” to the Aethiopians, firmly situating them in the world o f golden-age primitivism where they were to remain ever after (see, e.g., Hdt 3.17-25 and Heliodorus’ 3rd-century ce novel Aethiopica). The primary function Homer assigns the Aethiopians, in both the I liad and the O dyssey, is to host the gods when they depart their Olympian homes to enjoy banquets and recreation (see O lympos). While thus removed, the gods are una­ ware of action occurring in the sphere of the nar­ rative ; thus T h etis is unable to petition Z eus in Iliad 1 until he returns from the Aethiopians, and Poseidon is similarly secluded in Odyssey l when Zeus and Athene plot O dysseus’ homecoming. From the simple perspective of plot construction, then, the Aethiopians provide Homer with a con­ venient way to get one or more gods “offstage.” Thematically, the constant feasting to which the Aethiopians treat their divine visitors underscores the problems o f maldistribution of resources else­ where in the Homeric poems. To belong to the human condition, for Homer, involves dealing with shortages, hunger, and privation, whereas, in the golden-age world beyond the horizon, the banquets never end.

AFTERLIF E

11

According to legend referred to only obliquely by Homer (Od. 4.186-188,11.522), an Aethiopian king, M emnon , son of Eos and T ithonos , fought at Troy as an ally of P riam (his uncle), and killed Antilochos son of N estor before himself being killed by Achilles . Memnon featured promi­ nently in one of the poems of the Epic C ycle, which was titled A ith io pis as a result.

Pleuron and Kalydon (II. 13.216—2 J 8): Diomedes, although Aetolian by birth (II. 4.399), ruled over the A rgives (23.471).

See also

Afterlife The Homeric poems provide several different perspectives on what happens to an individual after death . The most marked and notable vision, supported by a few key passages in the epics, is that the souls of the dead lack all mind or force; once a hero leaves the light of the sun, only a grim, joyless, and tedious existence awaits, with no particular suffering but no pleas­ ure either. Such a view is supplemented by much less marked descriptions of a much more lively afterlife. The dead retain feelings and emotions, memories of their lives in the sun, and the ability to know o f and even interfere in the world of the living. These two opposing visions both appear in the poems, although the lively afterlife is, as it were, the default, with the other model appearing only in certain passages. The afterlife begins when the soul departs from the dying body and makes its way to the dark and shadowy realm of Hades . Although its primary characteristic is this shadowy darkness, the topography of the U nderworld is set out in detail in K irke ’s instructions to O dysseus before he makes his journey (Od. 10.508-515), as well as in the descriptions of the journey that the souls of the S uitors make in Odyssey 24 (see N f.kyia ). The rivers and other landmarks described, how­ ever, merely mark the route to the Underworld; there is no description of the Halls of Hades themselves or any other features o f the realm o f the dead. The soul’s journey to the Underworld is rela­ tively uncomplicated in the Homeric epics. The passage is direct and speedy, as Odysseus notes when he encounters the shade o f E lpenor, who reached the Underworld more quickly by falling off the roof than Odysseus did in his ship (Od. 11.57-58). The soul is generally thought to fly off like a breath or a bird, but the soul can also be imagined as having to trek more laboriously to Hades (II. 14.456-457). The journey is usually unaccompanied, although in a few instances

U

t o pia s.

JAMES ROMM

Aetolians (ArnoXoi) The C atalogue of S hips mentions the Aetolians, with forty ships under their leader, T hoas (1), last o f the contingents from northwestern Greece (//. 2.638-644). The five towns named are all in the coastal region of southwestern Aetolia: P leuron , west of Kalydon; O i.enos (located near Pleuron by Strab. 10.2.6); Pylene; and C hai.cis (2) (by the sea). Pleuron in Aetolia might be the destination of rowers on a tablet from Pylos (Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 153-154). Phrynichus composed a tragedy called Pleuroniai. For the discovery of the vine among the Aetolians, see FGrHist 1 Hecataeus F I5. The inhabitants o f Kalydon are called Aetolians (II. 9.529); the Kuretes live in nearby Pleuron, led by Thestios, father of Althaia (cf. Strab. 10.3.6). The sons of Portheus , great-grandfather of D iomedes , were Agrios , M elas , and O ineus , who lived in Pleuron and Kalydon (II. 14.112-118, cf. Strab. 10.3.1; [Hes.] Cat. fr. 10a.50-54 M-W mentions two more, Alkathoos and uylos). M eleager , son o f Oineus and Althaia, died fight­ ing the Kuretes at Pleuron ([Hes.] Cat. fr. 25.9-13 M -W ). After the death of Althaia, Oineus sacked Olenos, and received Periboia as a prize or mar­ ried her for other reasons (T hebaid fr. 5 Bernabé = West; Apollod. 1.8.4). Their son, T ydeus , killed his paternal uncles ([Hes.] Cat. fr. 10a.55-56) defending his father’s rights: Oineus remained in Kalydon, but Tydeus was exiled, settling in Argos and marrying the daughter o f Adrastos (1) (II. 14.119-125). (In later variants, Tydeus is exiled for killing the usurping sons of Melas [Alkmeonis fr. 4 Bernabé = West; Apollod. 1.8.5] or Agrios’ sons and his own brother, or uncle [FGrHist 3 F 122].) This bloody family history meant that, at the time of the T rojan War , Thoas ruled in

References and Suggested Readings Andersen 1982; B o m m eljé 1988; Janko 1992, 163-1 6 4 . MAUREEN AI.DEN

12

AFTEJUIFE

death daimons, T hanatos or the Kêres (the plural of Kêr “Doom”), usher the deceased out of the world of the living (cf. II. 2.302, 16.666). The Suitors in Odyssey 24 are guided by H erm es , but Hermes’ function as psychopomp, which becomes more prominent in later evidence, is not men­ tioned in any of the other deaths in the Homeric epics. The general absence o f a guide would seem to indicate that the journey was imagined as straightforward, lacking any of the choices of path or other complications that appear in other versions in the Greek mythic tradition. The guardian dog of the Underworld, Kekbhros, appears in references to H erakles’ mission to the Underworld (II. 8.362-369; Od. 11.622-626), but, in the Homeric poems, he never plays an active role in obstructing the journey into or out of the realm o f Hades, as he does in H esiod (T/i . 770-775). Odysseus fears the appear­ ance of the Gorgon’s head, sent up by P ersephone , might prevent him from departing (Od. 11.633-635), but even this potential obstacle never materializes. The one obstacle that does appear as a signifi­ cant factor in the journey of the deceased is the river, later identified as the Styx or the Acheron , which forms the boundary to the Underworld beyond which the soul must cross in order to become fully integrated into the realm of the dead. The infernal ferryman, Charon, does not appear in the Homeric epics, so winning his per­ mission or favor is never a factor. Instead, proper burial or memorialization seems crucial to crossing the river. The shade of Patroklos appears to Achilles , begging for proper burial, because the shades of the other dead prevent him from crossing the river into Hades before he is buried (II. 23.72-74). Elpenor, too, begs for burial when Odysseus encounters him at the border to Hades, asking him to set up a burial mound so that men to come may learn his story (Od. 11.60-78). Although Elpenor does not mention the river barrier, his position at the border seems to come from his unburied status. So too, the other shades that Odysseus sees before he completes the sacri­ ficial ritual have all been understood as varieties of the restless dead - the unburied, the unmar­ ried or otherwise untimely dead, and those dead by violence - who cannot fully enter into the realm o f the dead because o f the problematic time or way they left the world of the living. Even

if Elpenor and the other shades in this passage are kept physically outside the realm of Hades, which is not clear from the description, the “rule” concerning who can enter the realm of the dead is not consistently applied, since the souls of the Suitors in Odyssey 24 (violently slain unmarried men) enter the realm of the dead and converse with other dead before their bodies are buried. With regard to the realm of the dead itself, the Homeric poems present two different visions, one a uniformly bleak and dreary existence for the shades of the worn-out dead, the other a much more lively afterlife. The grim afterlife presents a picture closely tied to the epic view of life, in which achieving imperishable glory through great deeds is the highest aim. This vision is put forth in a few key passages in the epics - the encounter between Achilles and the ghost of Patroklos in the I liad and Odysseus’ journey to the Underworld in the O dyssey, particularly Odysseus’ encounters with his mother and with Achilles. After his dream vision of Patroklos, Achilles sums up the nature o f the dead as some sort of phantom that exists in the halls of Hades (II. 23.103-104). Whatever it is ( tiç) that survives lacks phrenes , the force o f mind or emotion that is an essential element o f the living individual, and the shade of Patroklos refers to the other ghosts as v|/uyai eiôwXa KapóvTiov “souls, phan­ toms o f the worn out” (23.72; cf. Od. 24.24). Achilles’ lament at the condition o f the soul of the deceased comes after he has attempted to embrace the shade o f his dearly departed companion, and the same pathetic scene produces the same idea when Odysseus tries three times in vain to embrace the shade o f his mother in the Underworld (see An tikleia ). She tells him that she is not a trick or false image, but that the soul flits away from the dead flesh and bones, flying off like a dream (Od. 11.218-222). This idea is reinforced in the Odyssey when Kirke describes T iresias as the only shade in the Underworld who has retained his mind ( noos); all the rest are mere gibbering ghosts (10.493— 495). Tiresias tells Odysseus that the other shades will only be able to speak with him once they have drunk the blood from his sacrifices (11.148150), but this explicit explanation is inconsistent with the sentience displayed by other dead in the epics, and these inconsistencies have generated many explanations over the millennia. One might

A FT E R L IF E

imagine that Achilles can only feel sorrow at being in Hades and joy for his son’s achievements (11.538-540) because he has drunk the blood, but A;ax can recall their past quarrel and remain angry at Odysseus while sulking at a distance (11.543-544). So too, Achilles worries in the Iliad lest Patroklos get angry at learning that he has given H ector’s corpse back to his father (24.592595). Patroklos is now safely cremated and cele­ brated in funeral games and thus fully integrated into Hades; if the “rule” of the standard version is that the deceased loses all consciousness once cre­ mated, as Rohde and others once argued, Patroklos should have no way o f knowing what Achilles has done nor any emotions to feel if he did learn. These inconsistencies with the grim heroic vision are unmarked in the narrative, indicating that the Homeric audience would need no special explanations to render them plausible; the idea of mindless, helpless dead requires more elaborate presentation than the idea of active and interested dead. Indeed, the passages with the stark and grim heroic vision of the afterlife have highly marked and carefully explicit explanations, suggesting that they are presenting ideas the Homeric audi­ ence might not have simply taken for granted. The bleak vision of death and afterlife is funda­ mental to the Homeric idea of the hero’s choice only in life is there any meaningful existence, so the hero is the one who, like Achilles, chooses to do glorious deeds. Since death is inevitable, Sarpedon points out (II. 12.322-328), the hero should not try to avoid it but go out into the front of battle and win honor and glory. Such glory ( kleos ) is the only thing that really is imperisha­ ble (aphthiton), the only meaningful form of immortality, since the persistence o f the soul after death is so unappealing. Outside the few passages that emphasize the helplessness o f the shades, however, the Homeric references to life after death provide a much more lively picture o f the afterlife. The dead have feel­ ings and emotions, memories o f their lives in the sun, and the ability to know o f and even interfere in the world o f the living. They appreciate the attentions paid to them by the living, not simply the burial and funeral rituals, but the offerings made subsequently at the tomb. Moreover, the world o f the dead itself is not so dreary, nor are all the shades merely flitting about, gibbering

13

mindlessly. The pursuits of the dead mirror the world of the living, and the social hierarchies of the living world persist in some form after death. This afterlife is not uniform for all; those who have angered the gods continue their punish­ ments in the afterlife, while those who have won their favor continue to enjoy its benefits. The differentiation o f lots in the afterlife does not come from some sort o f judgment o f the dead, as appears in other sources, but rather from a general continuation o f the activities of life for the spirits o f the dead. O rion continues his hunt­ ing, while M inos continues giving judgment and resolving conflicts, suggesting that, in the world o f the dead, the shades carry on with the charac­ teristically Greek pursuit o f lawsuits (Od. 11.568575; see Law). Minos’ position among the dead, not to mention Achilles’, suggests that the social hierarchies from the world o f the living are repro­ duced in the land o f the dead - the gods’ favorites remain favored. Likewise, those who won . favor from the gods by their deeds in life continue to reap the benefits, while those who incurred the wrath o f the gods continue to suffer their dis­ pleasure. Tantalos, T ityos , and S isyphos , for example, simply represent notable figures who are suffering in the afterlife, just as Odysseus also meets other notables with different fates. Those suffering suffer in the same region as those with a more enjoyable afterlife; T artaros is not a place for the afterlife o f mortals in Homer. These rewards and punishments represent a continua­ tion o f an individual’s lot in life, rather than a compensation in the afterlife for the deeds o f life. The Erinyes do appear in oaths (II. 3.276-280, 19.259-260) as figures who punish beneath the earth those who have transgressed oaths, but the Homeric poems do not elaborate, as other sources do, on the range o f crimes and punishments, as well as punishers. The favorites o f the gods, like M enelaos, may indeed be so favored that they are rewarded with an even better location in the afterlife. Because he has married H elen and thus has Z eus as a fatherin-law, Menelaos is told that he will go off to the Elysian Field (Od. 4.561-569; see E lysium ). Like the Isles o f the Blessed to which the heroes go in Hesiod (Op. 169-173), the Elysian Field is far off at the ends o f the earth, a place o f easy living without toil. Menelaos’ life before the Elysian Field is likewise fairly easy living, feasting in his

14

AFT ERLIF E

sumptuous palace as a king favored by the gods, so his afterlife does not so much compensate for his experiences in life as extend and enhance his lifestyle. Menelaos, however, is not the only figure in Horner to end up somewhere other than the Halls o f Hades. The D ioscuri, Kastor and Polydeukes, spend only half their time beneath the earth, alternating with life and divine honors through the will o f Zeus (Od. 11.300-304). Although Odysseus sees Herakles in the Underworld, he explains that only a phantom (eidolon) o f Herakles remains below, while Herakles himself (aútóç) enjoys feasting with the gods on high (11.602604). This passage, which seems to directly con­ tradict Achilles’ formulation o f the heroic ideal - do glorious deeds without fear, for even Herakles had to die (//. 18.117) - has troubled commentators since antiquity, and A ristarchus labeled it an interpolation by Onomacritus. Nevertheless, Herakles is not alone in finding an immortal life with the gods, since the Homeric epics refer to G anymedes (II. 20.231-235,5.265), T ithonos (Od. 5.1), and Kleitos (2) (15.250251) as mortals who were carried off to the divine realm. In something perhaps closer to the apothe­ osis of Herakles, the mortal I no, daughter of Theban Kadmos , becomes the sea goddess Leukothea, who assists Odysseus in his shipwreck (5.333-335). Although such afterlives fail to match the marked heroic vision o f a dreary, meaningless existence validated only by whatever epic glory the mortal has won during life, this opposing vision of afterlife appears in many such examples throughout the poems. Nevertheless, it is the grim and dreary afterlife that appears prominently to support the greatest heroes’ choices of how to live their lives and thus stands out most memorably in the reception of Homer. Achilles’ famous choice is based on the premise that all mortals must die, and the hero can only win immortality through the memory of his deeds among men to come as it is preserved in epic song. When Achilles tells Odysseus in the Underworld that he would rather be alive as a lab­ orer for the poorest man on earth than a king among the dead (Od. 11.488—492), he is no more rejecting his former choice of the heroic life than Sarpedon is, when he tells G laukos that, if they could live forever, he would never go into battle. Life is better than death, but real immortality is

only for those who have won unperishable glory. Odysseus indeed rejects the immortality that Kalypso offers (5.135-136) in favor of the return home that will guarantee that his story will be told to men to come. The kind o f immortality that a mortal might obtain as the consort of an immortal, like that o f Ganymedes or Tithonos, cannot compare to the immortality provided by epic fame. The uniform and drear vision o f after­ life thus appears at key moments in the poems to validate the heroes’ choice o f the kind o f immor­ tality that only the epic poems themselves can supply. See also Psyche . References and Suggested Readings Rohde 1925; Vermeule 1979; Sourvinoii-Inwood 1995; Johnston 1999; Albinus 2000. RADCUFEE G. EDMONDS III

Agamede (’Ayapijôq) The eldest daughter of Augeias , wife o f M oulios who was killed by young N estor in the war between the Epeians and the Pylians o f which he tells in one o f his reminiscences (II. 11.738-741; see also Pylos ). Agamede’s name, “very intelligent,” coupled with her characteristic as “knowledgeable in all drugs,” suggests witchcraft. Theocritus Idyll 2.14-15 calls her Perimede and associates her with K irke and Medea. Agamede is the only Homeric woman to whom the epith et xanthê “blond” is applied (see H air ). See also M agic .

Agamemnon (’Ayapepvtov) Agamemnon, king o f M ycenae, was the son o f Atreus , brother of M enelaos, husband o f K lytaimnestra , father o f O restes and o f three daughters, named C hrysothemis , Laodike (2), and I phianassa (II. 9.145 = 287). As leader of the Greek expedi­ tion to Troy, he figures prominently in the I liad . He is usually called “lord o f men” (anax andrôn 36X; see wanax), an unusual epith et phrase meant to mark his status as even higher than the other kings who serve in the Greek army. P riam , when surveying the Greek army with H elen (see T eichoscopia ), remarks that though he is not

AGAM EM NON

the tallest of the Greek leaders, he is definitely the most splendid and dignified (3.167-170). The contrast between the expectations raised by his special status and the frequent lapses in leader­ ship and judgment he displays is the key to his characterization in the Iliad. His quarrel with Achilles in Book 1, which drives the latter out of the Greek camp and into a self-imposed with­ drawal from battle, reveals his major traits: strongwilled, jealous of his prerogatives and insecure about his judgment, prone to rash and ill-advised decisions. The portrait is further developed in the beginning of Book 2, when Zeus sends him a deceptive dream , urging him to attack the T rojans and dangling the possibility of victory (2.1-34). Instead of following immediately the promptings of the dream, Agamemnon decides to test the fighting spirit of his men, by telling them that the campaign has been lost and urging them to leave T roy (see P f.ira ). The troops fail his test decisively, bolting for the sh ips . He loses control of the situation, and other Greek warriors must herd the men back into camp. Following the abortive duel between Menelaos and Paris , Agamemnon again displays clumsiness in attempting to rouse his troops for battle (see Epipo lesis ), insulting D iomedf.s and others. By the end of Book 8, Zeus’ plan (see Dios Boulê ) to make the Greeks suffer for dishonor­ ing Achilles has produced a crisis, with the Greeks pinned against the shore by the resurgent Trojans. Agamemnon panics, calling an assembly at the beginning o f Book 9 and suggesting that the Greeks flee. He is rebuked by Diomedes, backs down, and sends an Embassy to Achilles , armed with his offer of handsome recompense if the lat­ ter will relent and return to battle. The embassy fails, and the battle resumes in Book 11, opening with Agamemnon’s lengthy ARMiNG-scene (11.15—46) and aristeia (91-263). He is soon wounded, along with Diomedes and O dysseus. Their absence from the field emboldens Hector, who leads the Trojan charge across the wall sur­ rounding the Greek camp (see Achaean Wall). At the beginning o f Book 14, Agamemnon, still wounded, urges that the Greeks abandon the fight and return to Greece, only to be denounced again, this time by Odysseus. He does not figure promi­ nently in the fighting from then on. Agamemnon’s last important appearance in the Iliad is in Book 19. Patroklos has been killed by

15

Hector, and Achilles is eager to reenter the fighting to avenge his friend’s death by killing Hector. He calls an assembly o f the Greek forces and renounces his anger against Agamemnon, eager to put it behind him in his desire to punish Hector. Agamemnon, typically ill-attuned to the necessi­ ties of the moment, then delivers a lengthy apology for his actions (19.78 144). He begins awkwardly, with a plea for sympathy and attention, then pro­ ceeds to argue for his own innocence, claiming that he is not responsible for his mistakes because Zeus sent “blind distraction” (atê) upon him, then ends by offering lavish gifts to Achilles. The selfdefense rings hollow in the circumstances, and is brushed aside by Achilles, who says he can do whatever he likes with the gifts (19.78-148). Agamemnon’s last appearance in the poem is in the Funeral Games for Patroklos in Book 23, where he is treated with respect by Achilles, who awards him the prize for spear-throwing without holding a contest (23.890-894; see Sport ). The subtle and consistent characterization of Agamemnon in the Iliad makes him a foil for Achilles, full of bluster yet disappointing in per­ formance where the latter is supremely gifted and delivers on his promises. Agamemnon also plays an important role in the Odyssey. The story of his homecoming and subsequent murder by Klytaimnestra and her lover Aigisthos serves as a cautionary tale for Odysseus as he makes his way back to Ithaca, adding urgency to the por­ trait o f P enelope : will she remain faithful to Odysseus or turn bad like the treacherous Klytaimnestra? Likewise, O restes exemplifies for T elemachos the good son who supports his father. The paradigm surfaces immediately in Book 1, as Zeus grumbles about Aigisthos, an example o f how mortals behave beyond proper measure even after being warned by the gods (1.32-43) (see: T heodicy ). The specter of Agamemnon’s murder and Klytaimnestra’s betrayal hovers over the rest o f the poem. Odysseus meets his ghost in the U nderworld in Book 11 (see N ekyia ), and is told the dismal story o f the homecomingin Argos (see R eturns ). When the souls o f the dead S uitors arrive in Hades at the beginning o f Book 24, Agamemnon delivers one more handsome tribute to Penelope (11.397-464,24.35-202). Agamemnon’s homecoming and murder are the subject o f Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. He appears

16

AGAMEMNON

elsewhere in Sophocles’ Ajax, arguing over the disposal of Ajax ’s body after the latter’s suicide, and in Euripides’ lphigeneia at Aulis, where he lures his unsuspecting daughter to the seashore with the promise of marrying her to Achilles, while planning to sacrifice her to appease Autemis , who is holding up the Greek expedi­ tion to Troy. Seneca’s Agamemnon is the last com­ plete work of classical literature devoted to Agamemnon. References and Suggested Readings The most significant scholarship on Agamemnon in Homeric epic has addressed his characterization in the Ilia d . Whitman 1958, 156-163, offers a subtle analysis. See also Taplin 1990 and Donlan 1971. Greenberg 1993 is a sensitive appraisal o f Agamemnon’s treatment o f Chkysrs in I li a d 1. On his apology in Book 19, see also the classic account o f Dodds 1951,1-27.

THOMAS VAN NORTWICK

Agapenor (’Ayamivtup, “lovingmanliness") Men­ tioned in the C atalogue of S hips as the leader o f the Arcadians (II. 2.609-611). Agapenor, son of Ankaios (1), was known in mythical tradition as one of die suitors of H fxen (Apollod. 3.10.8) and as the founder, after the T rojan War, of the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Paphos in Cyprus (Paus. 8.5.2; Strab. 14.6.3). Homer does not mention this foun­ dation, but the sanctuary appears in the Odyssey (8.362-363) as the refuge of Aphrodite after her love affair widi Ares. In odier sources this sanctuary was founded by Kinyras. Regarding these tradi­ tions, see Baurain and Destrooper-Georgiades (1995,603-604,624-626). CAROLINA LÓPEZ-RUIZ

Agelaos (’AyéXaoç) (1) T rojan, son of Phradmon, killed by Diomedes in Kolos M achê as he turned his chariot to escape (II. 8.256-260). (2) Achaean, killed by H ector in the Battle over the Wall (II. 11.302). (3) Ithacan, son o f Damastor, one o f the S uitors of Penelope. Urges her to wed “whoever [of the suitors] is the best (aristos) and offers her the most” (Od. 20.335). During the killing of the Suitors Agelaos acts as one of their leaders, and often speaks for them (22.131-134,212-223,241, 248-254). Killed by O dysseus (22.293); with the

sword that Agelaos dropped at his death Odysseus kills Leiodes (327).

Agenor (’Aygviop) One o f the leaders o f the T rojans (II. 12.93, 13.490), son of T heano (6.298) and Antenor , characterized as “great­ hearted” (4.467,13.598) and “godlike” (11.59 etc., cf. 21.595). Agenor has the first kill for the Trojan side in the Iliad (of E lf. phenor , 4.469); he attended the wound of H elenos in the Battle at the Ships (13.598-600). Agenor was the only Trojan to withstand Achilles ’ onslaught during the Battle by the River. He attacked Achilles unsuccessfully, and was then snatched by Apollo and removed from the battlefield. Apollo himself takes on Agenor’s likeness, attracting Achilles away from the fleeing Trojans and facilitating their retreat into the city (21.544-611). Agenor’s son Echeklos was killed by Achilles earlier in the same battle (20.474-477). His own death at the hands o f Neoptoi.emos was described in the Cyclic L itt le I liad (fr. 27 West).

agora (agorê)

see Assembly .

There are enormous agricultural production centers in the background of the Homeric poems. Deep fields o f grain sway in the breezes o f sim iles . Production on these oversized households in the epics is exceptionally varied. The great holdings (temenea, see tbmenos ) that the people or others grant to worthy individuals are routinely described as containing phutaliê, fruit-tree land, and aroura, plowland, often called grain-bearing, or oinopedon, vineyard-land, and arosis, plowland. The large estate o f a basileus on the S hield , of Achilles , contains the same two parts, plowland, which we see being plowed, and a vineyard, which we see being harvested; there is an enormous number of dependent laborers toiling away with smiles on their faces and songs on their lips. On Laertes’ farm in the Odyssey, vie see many fewer workers - only Laertes himself plus an elderly slave with his wife and four sons (see S lavery) - but impressive arboreal variety: pear trees , fig trees, vines, and the olive (24.247-248). The place was more magnificent when O dysseus was a boy: thirteen pear trees, ten apple trees, forty

Agriculture

A G R IO S

fig trees, and fifty rows o f grapevines (24.340342). Although there is olive oil in the poems and in the similes, olive trees are for the most part wild in the poems, cultivated only in a homely simile (which contains very accurate details o f an olivetree trench: II. 17.53-58), on Laertes’ plot, and in Ai.kinoos’ garden in the Odyssey (7.114-126), which contains pears, pomegranates, apples, figs, olives, and vines. (Alkinoos’ garden may owe less to the audience’s world than to Greek knowledge of similar Asian paradises: Cook 2004.) We can presume that Laertes is growing grains, but we are not told so. Odysseus’ wealth seems to reside emphatically in livestock , but we get (acciden­ tal?) glimpses o f grain production on Ithaca when we meet Argos the loyal dog lying in don­ key and cow manure that Odysseus’ slaves will dis­ tribute later on his fields (17.298-299), and when we see an old female slave, because she works more slowly than the rest, grinding grain by hand into the night: “At the mills twelve women all told toiled / working barley and wheat, the marrow of men. / The others were sleeping, since they had ground their wheat, /but one was still at it, for she was the weakest one” (20.107-109). Alkinoos also has female workers grinding grains (7.103-104). So there are grains being grown, harvested, and processed in the poems and in their similes, but it is apparent that the poet does not wish to fore­ ground agricultural production. Furthermore, there is no stated storage of agricultural produc­ tion in the epics, although it may be implicit in the siege of Troy. But there is storage in the audience’s world: H esiod mentions granaries five times in the Works and Days, and we have archaeological evidence of grain storage as early as 850 b c e (Smithson 1968) and possible granary founda­ tions in 8th-century Euboea (Tandy 1997, 39 n. 91). Absence in Homer may be intentional. It must be the case that .Hesiod’s narrative of quotidian activities resembles the daily life of the members of the audiences of both Hesiod and Homer. Hesiod’s oikos, household , is located on his klêros, his lot. He keeps sheep and goats, but concentrates most of his energies on growing grains. He uses a two- or a threefold bare-fallow system (as opposed to annual manuring [perhaps the case on Ithaca] or cereal/pulse rotation). Hesiod does not mention manure, but he keeps sheep, one of which can produce 500 kilograms of manure per year. On his farm we can count

17

between eight and twelve pamii.y members and dependent laborers, among them an crithos, who is a female non-family member, a 40-year-old man who plies the plow, and a thcs. a true depend­ ent, whose work is only seasonal. To support this population, he would need as much as six hec­ tares (fifteen acres) o f land under grains and veg­ etables/pulses; some space would be needed also for fruit trees and vines. Hesiod tells us that there are at least two types of plow, one-piece and twopiece (Op. 432-436); Homer knows o f the latter, called the “fitted” plow (pêkton arotron: II. 10.353, 13.703; Od. 13.32). Although there were several locations known for their fine wines in early Greece, among them Maroneia (Od. 9.197-198, cf. Archil, fr. 2 W; see M aron) and Biblia (Hes. Op. 598: see further West 1978, ad b e .), both in Thrace (see T hracians), individuals also under­ took viticulture, and vineyard care was one of many seasonal tasks that were part o f the year’s rhythm: slow times (December into January, August) were balanced by busy ones (e.g., October into December, when plowing and sowing were undertaken and trees and vines required a lot of attention). On the rhythm o f the agricultural year see Foxhali (2007,127 fig. 5.4); see also S easons. See also Economy. References and Suggested Readings Richter 1968; Tandy 1997. DAVID W. TANDY

Agrios ("Aypioç) Son of Portheus (Porthaon and Eureitein [Hes.] Cfli.fr. 10a 50 M-W), brother of M elas and O ineus (II. 14.115-117), uncle of T ydeus and M eleager, and great-uncle of D iomedes . “Hesiod” names two further brothers, Alkathoos and Pylos, who joined Agrios and Melas in ousting Oineus from the throne of Kalydon, for which they were murdered by Oineus’ son Tydeus (Cat. fr. 10a 52-57 M-W). This event may lie behind Diomedes’ account of Tydeus’ exile in Argos while Oineus remained in Kalydon (II. 14.119-120). In post-Homeric tradition, Agrios is the father of T hersites (schol. 17. 2.212). See also Aetolians. K. JANET WATSON

18

AHHI-YAWA

A land with the name Ahhiyawa is mentioned in approximately twenty-live texts, dating between the end o f the 15th century and the second half o f the 13th century bce , from the clay tablet archives of Hattusa, capital of the Hittite Empire. This land played an important role in the relations and conflicts between the H iit it e s and other lands of western. Asia Minor. For at least a period of time in the 13th century bce , Ahhiyawa enjoyed recognition as an equal power by the Hiitites; the Hitrite great king Hattusilis III addressed in his diplomatic corre­ spondence the ruler of Ahhiyawa as “My Brother, Great King, my equal.” Ever since 1924, when E. O. Forrer argued that Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts were to be identified with the Homeric Achaeans and consequently with the Mycenaean Greeks, there has been much debate about the identity and location of the land. Scholars both for and against Forrer’s theory have proposed various locations, ranging between the Greek mainland in the west and Cilicia (see C ilicians ) in the east, C rete and C yprus in the south, and Thrace (see T hracians) in the north. After Forrer was mercilessly criticized, from the early 1980s his theory began to be rehabilitated. Nowadays most scholars agree on identifying Ahhiyawa with the M ycenaean world, or a part thereof. Millawanda, a base of Ahhiyawa on the western coast o f Asia Minor, is generally identi­ fied with M iletos , where according to the results of recent excavations Mycenaean Greeks had set­ tled since the second half of the 15th century bce . Names of persons from Ahhiyawa mentioned in the Hittite sources are furthermore to be identified with Mycenaean Greek names (see Alexandros). Unfortunately, these sources do not contain any substantial geographical infor­ mation about Ahhiyawa. Its territory included islands - most probably the islands o f the eastern Aegean, where Mycenaeans had settled - where enemies o f the Hittites could flee into the protec­ tion o f Ahhiyawa. Regarding the location o f the center o f Ahhiyawa, R hodes is to be excluded from the places proposed on the basis o f its very limited resources, which disqualify it as the seat of a great power. This leaves as potential candidates M ycenae and Boeotian T h ebes . The Hittite Ahhiyawa texts represent the oldest sources of Greek history. The earliest surviving reference to Ahhiyawa is found in the“Maduwatta Ahhiyawa

letter," which gives an account o f the events in the late 15th century bce concerning Attarasyia, the “man o f Ahhiya” (an older abbreviated form for Ahhiyawa), who was crushed by a Hittite army after a raid in western Asia Minor. The fact that Attarasyia had one hundred battle chariots at his command and that after their victory the Hittite army marched against Talawa (= Tlos in Lycia: see Lycians) make it likely that Attarasyia launched his operations from a base in southwestern Asia Minor, probably Miletos/Millawanda. In the late 14th century bce Ahhiyawa formed an alliance with its vassals Millawanda and Arzawa, the capital of which lay at Apasa = Ephesos, against the Hittite great king Mursili II. The latter dis­ patched in his third year of reign an army against Millawanda and destroyed it, leading thereafter an invasion against Arzawa, which he subsequently captured and divided into smaller vassal states. Ahhiyawa, nevertheless, regained control of Millawanda, which in the first half of the 13th cen­ tury bce and for many decades functioned as the base of operations for Piyamaradu, one of the most provocative enemies of the Hittites. Piyamaradu undertook raids and military expeditions from Wilusa = Ilion/Tuoy in the north to Lukka/Lycia in the south, until he was defeated by the Hittite great king Hattusili and had to flee overseas to Ahhiyawa, as reported in the “Tawagalawa letter.” In the second half o f the 13th century bce the influence of Ahhiyawa in western Asia Minor came to an end. The “Milawata letter” shows that control over Millawanda/Miletos was lost and that the latter came into Hittite sovereignty. As a result, in the “Sausgamuwa treaty,” a pact between Tuthaliya IV and King Sausgamuwa o f Amurru (Syria) that forbids trade between Ahhiyawa and Assyria, Ahhiyawa is belatedly struck off the list of great powers. What is the explanatory power o f the Hittite Ahhiyawa texts in relation to the controversial and much-discussed question o f the historicity of the myth of the T rojan War in the Bronze Age? The war is not to be found directly in the docu­ ments; however, the latter allow one to conjure up a plausible scenario, involving armed conflicts between Hittites and their vassals - amongst whom were Wilusa/Troy on the one hand and Ahhiyawa with its allies on the other - that would accommodate in a satisfactory manner an attack against Wilusa/Troy.

A ID Õ S

See also Anatolia. References and Suggested Readings Forrer 1924; Güterbock 1983, 1984, 1986; Bryce 2005 [19981; Hawkins 1998; Niemeier 1998, 1999, 2005, 2007b; Benzi 2002; Hope Simpson 2003; HeinholdKrahmer 2003.

WOLF-DIETRICH NIEMEIER

Aiaia (Aialq) The name of K irkf.’s island (Od. 10.135, 11.70, 12.3), related to Aia, the site o f the palace of Helios (Kirkes father) (cf. Mimn. fr. 1 la W), hence also the name o f Aietes , the king of Kolchis in the Argo legend (see Augonautica), who was another of Helios’children (cf. Hdt. 7.193). The link between Kirke and Helios, mentioned explicitly at Odyssey 10.138, is reinforced indirectly by Homer’s description of the island’s location, “where the house and the dancing floors of Dawn are, and the risings of Helios” (12.3—4), i.e., in the farthest east. It is also clear, from the directions Kirke gives for the crossing to H ades, that Aiaia lies in the stream of O cean (10.507-508). However, other writers, including Hesiod (Th. 1011-1015) and V erg il (Aen. 7.10-24), chose to identify it with a western locale, Monte Circeii in Latium, in part so as to better align it with the other landings of O dysseus, which had by then become associated with Italy and S icily. Kirke and her attendants seem to be the only inhabitants of Aiaia; outside o f her palace compound, the island is a dense wood where deer browse. The abnormally tame wolves and lions that surround the palace (10.216-219) have apparently been charmed by Kirke’s magic. See also O dysseus ’ Wanderings . IAMES ROMM

Aiakos (A íokóç) In Homer (II. 21.189), Aiakos is son o f Z eus and father o f Peleus . Peleus (16.15, 18.433, 21.189) and Achilles (2.860 etc.; Od. 11.472) are each called Aiakidês, that is, “descend­ ant o f Aiakos.” The home o f Aiakos is not stated explicitly in Homer, but the Aiakids Peleus and Achilles are said to be rulers in P hthia (9.480). The evidence for Thessalian Aiakos is either early (Homeric) or late (Steph. Byz. s.v. Dia). In postHomeric epic sources, starting with Alkmeonis

19

(ff. 1.1 West) and the Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.) fr. 205 M-W), Aiakos is a native of the island o f Aigina, although the latter fragment still describes Aiakos as hippiokharmês “one who fights from a chariot,” betraying the Thessalian origin o f the hero in the country suitable to horse-breeding. According to the Aiginetan tradition, Aiakos was the son of Zeus and of nymph Aigina who gave her name to the island previously known as Oinone (Apollod. 3.12.6) or Oinopia (Pind. Isthm. 8.21). He was the first human inhabitant o f Aigina, for whom Zeus created a subject population from ants, the Myrmidons. Aiakos fathered T elamon and Peleus with the nymph Endeis (Pind. Nem. 5.12; Apollod. 3.12.6) , and Phokos with the nymph Psamathe (Hes. Th. 1003-1005). According to Pindar (Ol. 8.30-46), Aiakos helped Poseidon and Apollo to build the walls o f Troy (see Laomf.don) that were breached in the T roian War in the part that had been built by him. Aiakos was worshipped on Aigina in a precinct that was located in the “most prominent part of town” (Paus. 2.29.6), and his cultic image was sum­ moned for help in the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 8.64). Athletic games in honor of Aiakos took place during the festival oftheAiakeia (schol. Pind. Ol. 13.155). References and Suggested Readings Toepffer RE 1.1. s.v.; Zunker 1988,63-89.

IRENE POLINSKAYA

Aiantes see Ajax

the

G reater ; Ajax

the

Lesser . aidôs (aiôú ç conventionally translated “shame,” “respect”) The noun aidôs occurs 25 times (16x II, 9x Od.) in Homer. Like most emotive and ethi­ cal terminology, it and its cognate verb (24XII., 19x Od.) are much more common in speech than in narrative (see S peeches ). More than just “shame,” aidôs is an important element in the inclusive Homeric conception of honor. Its focus on the honor o f both self and others is shown by the way that the verb, aideom ai, governs two kinds of object, denoting either those whose criticism one fears or those for whom one feels particular respect. To the latter category belong superiors, family, and friends, but also suppliants and strangers. The object o f aideom ai in Homer is always per­ sonal or quasi-personal (e.g., by metonymy or personification ); it never refers to one’s own

20

A! DO S

past actions. Aidôs can be based on a retrospective awareness that one has done something discredit­ able (e.g., II. 22.104-107), but formally its orien­ tation is forward-looking, to the audience or recipients o f one’s actions. Regret for one’s own past failings can be expressed (e.g., 3.180, 18.98111), but not by retrospective uses o f aideom ai. When aidôs does focus on an action, the verb is followed by an infinitive and the sense is prospec­ tive, inhibiting conduct which either compro­ mises one’s own honor or trespasses upon the honor o f another. Such aidôs can indicate an over­ sensitivity to others’ claims and judgments (e.g., Od. 3.14) and can be unhelpful when self-asser­ tion is called for (17.307), but the quality is much more often commended. Without it, indeed, a person is barely human at all (II. 24.39—45). Aidôs responds to the standards of appropri­ ateness and appearances by which individuals should regulate their conduct. It can focus on any social or ethical norm, from the martial to the personal, both competitive and cooperative. Its connection with others’ reactions and judgments (in particular with its reflexive counterpart, nem ­ esis , “indignation”) is intrinsic; yet it also requires an internalized sense of one’s own honor and one’s status as one among many. See also S hame . References and Suggested Readings Riedinger 1980; Cairns 1993.

Aigai (Aiyai) In Herodotus’ (1.145) day Achaia had twelve divisions and cities, which, from east to west, began with Peli.ene (nearest to S ikyon), then Aigeira and Aigai, and ended with Tritaia. In the classical period, Aigai was where the never-failing Krathis River flowed. In Homer, Agai appears only twice in the I liad and once in the Odyssey. In Iliad 13.21 and in Odyssey 5.381, it does not appear as a city but as die abode of Poseidon , where die god had his fabulous palace. In Iliad 8.203, Agai, together with H eu ke , was where the Danaans brought offerings to Poseidon. References and Suggested Readings Papadopoulos 2 001,377-381, fig. 3.

JOHN K. PAPADOPOUl.OS

Aigeus (only in the patronymic AiyeKSqv at II. 1.265) King of Athens who gave his name to the Aegean Sea, father o f T heseus by Aithra . Probably one of the incarnations of Theseus’ divine father Poseidon . Although quoted in full by Diodorus Siculus and Pausanias, the Iliadic line in which Ageus is mentioned (= [Hes.] Scut. 182) is absent from many Homeric papyri and medieval manuscripts (see West 1998-2000, vol. 1, on II. 1.265) and hence has been suspected as an Athenian interpolation . See also Athens

Aigialeia

See also A rgonautica . MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Homer . MARGALIT FINKELBERG

DOUGLAS CAIRNS

Aietes (Aif|tqç) Son of H elios by P erse daugh­ ter o f O cean; brother o f K irke (Od. 10.135-139; Hes. Th. 956-957) and father of Medea (Th. 959962, 992). Neither Aietes’ position ás king of Kolchis nor the part he played in the story of Jason and the Argonauts are mentioned in Homer, but the O dyssey line “when Argo known to all was on her way from Aietes” (12.70; see P lanktai) certainly implies that much (cf. Hes. Th. 992-994). Aietes’ epith et “of baleful mind” (oloophrôn Od. 10.137) is shared with Atlas and M inos .

and

see Adrastos (1).

Aigialos (AiyiaXóç; “seahore”) (1) The north­ ern coast of the Peloponnese between S ikyon and E lis ; presented in the C atalogue of S hips as part of Agamemnon’s domain (II. 2.575). Agialos is roughly commensurate with the later Achaia . (2) One of the cities of the Paphlagonians along the southern shore of the B lack Sea; men­ tioned in the T rojan C atalogue (II. 2.855).

Aigilips (Aiyi\u|i) According to the Catalogue of Ships , theK ephallenes ledbyODYSSEus“dwelt in K rokyleia and rugged Agilips” (II. 2.633). The

A IG IS T H O S

popular etymology interpreted the adjective aigilips as deriving from a ix "goat” and leipô.“to abandon,” and therefore as “destitute even of goats,” hence, “steep,’’“sheer” (schol. II. 9.15; cf. LSJ s.v.; Chantraine s.v.). Probably a region or a natural landmark in Ithaca. The ongoing debate about the exact geo­ graphical identification of Odysseus’ island also involves speculation on the identity of Aigilips. References and Suggested Readings Itittlestone 200?, 242-248.

Aigina (Alyiva) Island in the Saronic Gulf o f the Aegean Sea. In the Catalogue of S hips (II. 2.559-564), Agina belongs to the domain of Diomedes, along with Argos, T iryns .H ermione , Asine , T roizen , Ei'onai, Epidauros, and M ases , the cities of the central, southern, and eastern Argoi.id . Residents of these cities make up the crews o f eighty ships that Diomedes, Sthf.nelos, and Euryalos bring to Troy. Agina was an important center of population in the Bronze Age. The site of Kolonna accommo­ dated a series of fortified settlements from the Early Bronze Age to ca. 1000 BCE (Walter 1993,14-33). It may have served as an important link between the M inoan andMYCENAEAN worlds (Niemeier 1995): in the Middle Bronze Age, Aginetans produced and exported local ceramics (Welter 1938, 14-21), and the shaft grave at Kolonna predates those at Mycenae (Walter 1993,25-26). In the Late Bronze Age period, there were at least four significant sites on Agina: at Kolonna, Aphaia, Oros, and Lazarides (Welter 1938, 26,70; Walter 1993,33). In the historic period, Agina may have had extensive and varied links to the Argolid. Agina was a member of the Kalaureian amphictiony (Strab. 8.6.14; see also T roizen), together with Hermione, Epidauros, Nauplia, Athens, Prasiai, and M inyan O rchomf.nos. This association might date back to the G eometric period (earli­ est archaeological remains o f the historic period at the site of the sanctuary of Poseidon Kalaureios). Aigina’s sociopolitical association with Argos and the eastern Argolid in the Archaic period is reflected in ancient historiographic traditions about the origin o f the Aginetans: Dorians from Epidauros who came to the island that originally bore the name Oinone (Hdt. 8.46.1); a band of Argives who took possession o f Epidauros under

21

the command of Deiphontes, or Triakon (schol. Pind. Ol. 8.39b), and then crossed over to Aigina where they settled, mixing with the preexisting (arkhaioi) local population and imparting Dorian customs and speech to the islanders (Paus. 2.29.5). Ephorus in Strabo (8.8.16) says the island was settled in succession by Argives, Cretans, Epidaurians, and Dorians. Dorian ethnicity was central to the Aginetan civic identity in the Archaic and Classical periods (Pind. Isthm. 9.3-4: foundation o f Agina by the Dorian army of Hyllos and Aigimios, Pa. 6.124—125; Hdt. 5.88). Aginetans were politically dependent upon Epidauros at some point in the Early Archaic period, but broke away by the late 7th century when they began to build ships (Hdt. 5.82-89). According to the H esiodic Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] ff. 205 M-W), the M yrmidons of Aigina were the first to sail the sea in winged ships (see also S eafaring). The Aginetan genealogy of the Aakids (Alkmeonis 1.1 West; see Aiakos) is first attested.about the same time, ca. 600 bce , and might be related to the Aginetan assertion of political independence and formulation of civic identity. IRENE POUNSKAYA Aigisthos (Aíyioôoç; see Names 3.2) Son of T hyestes ; a cousin of Agamemnon . His revenge for Atreus ’ crimes against his father and brothers aims at the family of the Atreus-son Agamemnon. Agisthos seduces his wife K lytaimnestra , mur­ ders Agamemnon upon his return from Troy, and is in turn killed by O restes in retaliation for his father’s murder (Od. 1.29,35-43,299-300,3.193198, 234-235, 249-275, 301-310, 4.512-537, 11.387—413, 24.20-22,96-97). Agisthos is already dead at the beginning of the epic. That he occupies nevertheless a prominent position in it is owing to the fact that Z eus has turned Agisthos’ fate into the paradigm of men’s suffering incurred “beyond their allotted portion” (huper moron) as a result o f “reckless folly” (atasthaliê ) (Od. 1.33-34). Zeus enunciates this novel notion o f human respon sibility in the programmatic speech with which he opens the divine assembly at the beginning o f the Odyssey (1.32-43) and exemplifies this by citing the fate of Agisthos: he prematurely (i.e., huper moron) per­ ished in consequence o f committing crimes, despite divine warning, in blind recklessness

22

AIGI-STHOS

(see T heodicy ). His fate is analogous to that o f the Suitors in O dysseus’ house: they, too, perish as a result of crimes committed, against divine warnings, in blind recklessness (cf. 23.412). The Aigisthos-Paradigm is a component of the larger and complex “Atreidai-Paradigm” that in the O dyssey takes the place of the plurality of sin­ gle freestanding mythological examples of the Iliad ; as it extends over the whole epic action of the Odyssey, it contributes considerably to its unity and coherence (Friedrich 1975). This “Atreidai- Paradigm” constellates the fates and actions o f the members of the House of Atreus (Agamemnon-Klytaimnestra-Orestes-Aigisthos) in analogy to those o f the royal house in Ithaca (OdySSeUS-PENELOPE-TEI.EMACHOS-SuitOrs) by way o f similarity but most o f all by way of con­ trast. The contrast highlights the deserved good fortune o f Odysseus and his family; and the simi­ larity underscores this in that it connotes the pos­ sibility that things could have turned out in Ithaca the same way as in Argos. In one respect the “Atreidai-Paradigm” points beyond the constella­ tion o f the members o f both royal houses: it also illustrates and interprets the fate of O dysseus’ companions on T hrinakia in terms of the new ethos enunciated by Zeus (first noted by Pfeiffer . 1928 = 1960; contradicted by Focke 1943; Heubeck 1950; Fenik 1974; defended by Friedrich 1987). The expression òpúpovoç Aiyioôoio (Od. 1.29), traditionally translated as “o f blameless Aigisthos,” also served as a paradigm o f a different sort, that o f the epitheton akairon, the illogically used ep i ­ thet (M HV 151). Yet it has been argued with good reasons that amumôn may also be translated as “handsome” (Amory Parry 1973, 123-124, 157) or “stately”: in that case the man who caught the eye of Klytaimnestra and became her seducer may be said to be appropriately called amumôn, “stately’’ (Friedrich 2007,119), as he is in Richmond Lattimore’s translation. References and Suggested Readings D’Arms and Hulley 1946; Hommel 1955; Combellack

1982; Lloyd-Iones 1983,28—30; Kullmann 1993a, 49.

Aigyptios is referred to as “ hero” and, like other Homeric old men, characterized as “knowing countless things”; the fate o f his sons Antiphos (4) and Eurynomos is depicted in an elaborate digression . The name “Egyptian” is attested as early as the L inear B tablets (gen. ai-ku-pi-ti-jo; see Egypt and H omer ). See also O ld Age. MARGAUT FINKEI.BERG

Ainienes (Aivirjvec;) This, not the “Enienes” of tire V ulgate, is the Homeric form (M. L. West 2001,182; cf. Hymn. Ap. 217). They are mentioned but once by Homer, in the C atalogue of S hips as part of G ounp.us’ contingent (II 2.749), a hero otherwise unknown to early epic, from the equally unknown town of Kyphos. He leads also the peo­ ple who lived round T itaresios , an unidentified tributary of the P eneios , and the P errhaebians; these lived north o f the Thessalian plain in histori­ cal times, but Homer puts them near Dodona far to the west. If one connects Gouneus with Gonnos in Perrhaebia, and imagines (incredibly) that some other Dodona is meant than the famous one in E pirus , one can save Homer’s geographical accu­ racy here; more likely tradition, or his grasp of it, was vague on the subject. In the historical period tlie Ainienes inhabited the region south o f the headwaters o f the S percheios (Hdt. 7.198.2; cf. Thuc. 5.51.1), whither they must have migrated, if history lies behind the earlier tradition. They claimed, however, to be descended from the M yrmidons (ps.-Skymnos 616-617), presumably by intermarrying after arrival. See also T hessaly. References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,236; Visser in Latacz 2003,243-244; Decourt, Nielsen, Helly, et al. 2004.

ROBERT L. FOWLER

RAINER FRIEDRICH

Aigyptios (AiyÚ7rnoç, “Egyptian”) An Ithacan elder, who was the first to speak at the assembly summoned by T elemachos (Od. 2.15—34).

Aiolia (AioXiq) “The Aiolian island,” in which O dysseus arrives after his encounter with the C yclops, Aiolia is named after Aiolos , the ruler of the winds , who dwelt there. It contained Aiolos’ palace, surrounded by bronze walls atop

A IS Y E T E S

sheer cliffs (Od. 10.1-4). Since Aiolia is described by Homer as a floating island, no definite location can be offered, although in antiquity it was habit­ ually associated with the Lipari islands (Thuc. 3.88; Strab. 6.2.11). See also O dysseus ’ Wanderings .

Aiolos (AíoXoç) The ruler of the winds , son of Hippotas, in Homer’s O dyssey. O dysseus’ encounter with him (10.1-79) lies within the long narration of his earlier wanderings. Aiolos is a human, who is “dear to the immortal gods” (10.2), and it was Z eus who gave him his role as keeper of the winds. He dwells on a floating island (see Aiolia ) with an unbreakable bronze wall and a sheer cliff. His six sons and daughters are married to one another, and they also dwell in his house, endlessly feasting . Odysseus and his men stay with him for a month before leaving with a bag o f winds given to them by Aiolos. All the unfavorable winds are bound up in the bag, but Z ephyros , the West Wind, blows the fleet toward I thaca. Within sight of their desti­ nation, Odysseus’ men open the bag, whereupon they are driven back to Aiolos (see O dysseus ’ Companions). This time he offers Odysseus no hospitality because he is “hated by the immor­ tals” (10.74-75). The capacity o f Aiolos in the Odyssey to con­ trol the winds and harness their elemental force in a bag is quite different from the Iliad 's treat­ ment of the winds (especially Zephyros and Boreas, who are minor gods in their own right [note II. 23.198-211]). Aiolos plays a significant role at the beginning of V ergil ’s Aencid when Juno bribes him to unshackle the winds and afflict them on the Trojan fleet (Aen. 1.50-91). Vergil explicitly identifies Aiolia with Lipari (off the north coast of S icily, Aen. 8.416), whereas Homer offers no such specificity for his floating island. References and Suggested Readings Bremmer B N P s.v. “Aeolus” [2]; L I M C 1.1 s.v. “Aiolos.”

23

166 M-W). His tomb is mentioned in the Arcadian entry of the C atalogue of S h ips (II. 2.604) as one of the landmarks o f Arcadia. See also Arcadians. References and Suggested Readings West 1985,42,93. ___ ___ ___

_______

..

Aisepos (Aíoqnoç) (1) T rojan , son of the nymph Abarbarea and Boukolion, a bastard son of king Laomedon; killed by Euryalos (1) together with his twin brother P edasos (1) (II. 6.21-28). See also M inor Warriors . (2) A river in the T road, on the western side of the I da range (Map 3); one o f the eight rivers that flow into the sea from Mt. Ida (II. 12.19-22). The people led by Pandaros lived by its banks (2.824-827,4.91).

Aison (Aícjcüv) Son of T yro and K retheus , brother of Amythaon and P heres (Od. 11.258259) and half-brother of P elias and Neleus , Tyro’s sons by Poseidon (11.241-257); father of Jason by Polymela (Hes. Th. 993, 999; [Hes.] Cat. frs. 38,40 M-W) or Alkimede (Pherecyd. fr. 104 Fowler; Ap. Rhod. 1.47 etc.). In Homer, Pelias is king of Iolkos (Od. 11.256); the tradi­ tion that he usurped Aison’s throne appears first in Pindar (Pyth. 4.109-110). Aison died either when Jason was a child, leaving Pelias as regent (schol. Od. 12.69), or was killed by Pelias, or opted for suicide by drinking bull’s blood when the Argonauts were presumed lost (Apollod. 1.9.27). See also A rgonautica . K. JANET WATSON

CHRISTOPHER JOHN MACKIE

Aipytos (A uiutoç) Arcadian, son of Elatos and grandson o f Arkas (Pind. Ol. 6.33-36; Paus. 8.4.4), father of Tlesenor and Peirithoos ([Hes.] Cat. fr.

Aisyetes (Atouqrqc;; probably of A natolian ori­ gin [Janko 1992,101]) (1) A Trojan hero o f old, whose tomb was one o f the landmarks of the Trojan plain (II. 2.793; cf. Strab. 13.1.34).

24

A IS Y E T E S

See also G eography, the Iliad . (2) Trojan, father of Ai.kathoos (II. 13.427).

Aithikes (A í Bikeç) A Thessalian tribe to whose lands the Lap iths drew the C entaurs from Mt. Pelion, their earlier abode (II. 2.744). This migration presumably followed the war between the Lapiths and the Centaurs that broke up at the wedding of P ehuthoos and H ippodameia (1). According to Stra bo (9.5.12), the Aithikes lived in the Pindus mountains. See also T hessaly .

Aithiopis The Aithiopis was the Cyclic epic that formed the sequel to the I liad and culminated in Achilles ' death. It was divided into five books and attributed, together with the shorter Sack of Ilion , to Arktinos of Miletus. It was apparently composed as a direct continuation of the Iliad, without sepa­ rate proemium: a scholium on Iliad 24.804 and a papyrus fragment (PLond. Lit. 6 col. xxii; see Papyri, Homeric ) attest the transition, and line 804 itself really belongs to this, not to the Iliad. The main events of the poem were as follows. Following H ector’s funeral the Amazon Penthesileia arrived at Troy. Fighting on the Trojan side, she carried all before her until Achilles slew her. He then also killed T hersites , who had made offensive remarks about his being in love with the Amazon. This homicide necessitated Achilles’ temporary departure to Lesbos to make sacri­ fices and his purification. Another exotic ally now arrived to assist the T rojans: M emnon, son of the Dawn, leading an army of Aethiopians from the distant East. He killed Antii .ochos in battle but was then slain by Achilles. Achilles now pursued the fleeing Trojans into the city and would have taken it, had he not been felled at the Scaean Gates by an arrow shot by Paris with A pollo’s help. The Achaeans recovered his body after a strenuous battle and gave him and Antilochos a solemn funeral; the Nereids and M uses came to lament him, after which T hetis conveyed his body from the pyre to the White Island in the B lack Sea. Funeral games were celebrated. Achilles’ arms and armor were offered as the prize for the out­ standing hero . A bitter dispute arose over them

between O dysseus and Ajax . They were awarded to Odysseus, and Ajax committed suicide. The Aithiopis plays a key role in Neoanalyst argument because of its structural parallels with the Iliad (see N eoanalysis). The battle for Patroklos’ body in Iliad 17, his lamenting by Thetis and the Nereids in 18, his funeral and funeral games in 23, are often seen as modeled on the corresponding scenes following Achilles’ death. The episode where one of N estor’s horses is wounded and he has to be rescued (II. 8.80159) is seen as adapted from one in the Aithiopis where he was saved by his son Antilochos at the cost of the latter’s life (Pind. Pyth. 6.28—42). Certainly the Iliad poet based Patroklos-death scenes on Achilles-death scenes that he or others had sung. But he almost certainly knew nothing of Penthesileia or Memnon, figures who first appear in art at the end of the 7th century bce (see Iconography, E arly). The Odyssey poet did know a poem similar to the Aithiopis, though perhaps without the Amazon episode and with­ out Achilles’ translation to the White Island: see Od. 3. 111-112, 4.187-188,11.522,24.36-92. See also Cycle, Epic . References and Suggested Readings West 2003b; for the fragments and testimonia see West, GEF, 14-15, 108-117.

MARTIN L. WEST

Aithon (Aíôüiv) (1) A false name assumed by O dysseus when disguised as a beggar in Ithaca (Od. 19.183). “Aithon” claims that he is a Cretan, son of Deukalion (1) and brother of I domeneus (181). On the name see Russo in Russo et al. 1992,86. See also Lies . (2) One of H ector’s four horses , the other three being X anthos (3), Podargos (1), and Lampos (2) (II. 8.185). See also C hariots . Aithra (At0pq) Aithra, daughter of P ittheus king of T roizen , is identified as a handmaiden to H elen in the T eichoscopia , though the line

A J A X THE GREATER

(II. 3.144) has been suspected since antiquity as an Athenian interpolation , presumably in an attempt to give that city more presence in the poem; Aristarchus athetized it (see Ath etesis ), if it referred to T heseus’ mother, but kept it, if it referred to another woman with the same name. Aithra makes no other appearance in either epic. Homer does not further identify her, but in other sources, she is a grand-daughter of P ei.ops and the mother of Theseus by Aigeus (cf. II. 1.265) or Poseidon . When Theseus kidnapped Helen and brought her to Aphidna in Attica, he installed Aithra as her protector (cf. Cypria fr. 12 West). Later, the Dioscuri rescued Helen and brought Aithra with her back to S parta. Presumably, Aithra later accompanied Helen to Troy. At that city’s fall, her grandsons Demophon and Akamas took Aithra home to Sparta (L itt le Iliad fr. 17 West; Sack of Ilion arg. 4 West). According to Pausanias, scenes of Aithra appeared both on the chest of Cypselus at Olympia (5.19.3) and in the painting by Polygnotus at Delphi (10.25.7-8; see Apollod. 3.10.7-8, 3.15.6-7, Epit. 1.23, 5.22; Plut. Thes. 31.3, 34). For a very different version of Aithra’s fate, see P lutarch, Theseus 34, citing Istrus: H ector made an attack on Troizen and kidnapped Aithra, taking her to Troy (FGrHist 334 F 7). See also Athens

and

Homer .

References an d Suggested Readings L/MC 1.420-431 (Kron); Kearns 1 9 8 9 ,143;Gantz 1993, 2 8 9 -290,6 5 7 -6 5 8 .

CAROLYN HIGBIE

Ajax the Greater (Aíaç) Son o f T elamon , halfbrother o f T eucer , one o f H elen ’s suitors ([Hes.] Cat. ff.204.44—51), came to Troy from Salamis with a contingent o f twelve sh ips (II. 2.557-558). One o f the most prominent warriors in the I liad , seen as a valiant warrior on the battlefield but also able to deliver speeches to rouse troops (e.g., 15.732-742). In both the Iliad and the Odyssey , the poet describes him as second only to Achilles , which may explain why Ajax is the third o f the heroes sent on the E mbassy to him in Iliad 9. Ajax speaks last, after O dysseus and P hoinix have spoken to no avail, and his speech is the one

25

that wins a concession front Achilles. In Iliad 18.192-195, Achilles tells T h etis that the only shield he could wear is Ajax’s, but that hero is already using it. The poet and figures within the poem regularly identify Ajax by his size and strength, as well as by his distinctive shield (see, e.g., 11.527), which is given a genealogy (7.219-225; see also W eapons and A rmor ). In the T eichoscopia , both P riam and Helen single Ajax out for his size and Helen refers to him as “the wall of the Achaeans” (3.225229). In battle, Ajax uses his shield to protect himself and others (see, e.g., 8.266-272,330-331), and he is massive enough to use a boulder as a weapon (7.268-272). He fights ably on his own, but works in combination with other heroes, either as a fighting team or to rouse troops; he volunteers to accompany D iomelies in the D olonf.ia , but Diomedes chooses Odysseus instead. The Athenian leader, M enestheus , calls upon Ajax to come to his assistance in the desper­ ate fighting of Iliad 12 (331-377). Combat between Ajax and H ector occupies much o f Iliad 7: after his lot is chosen, Ajax has an inconclusive encounter with the Trojan (see D uels ); when Hector throws a spear at him, he responds by hit­ ting the Trojan with a boulder. The two fight among the ships; after Hector lops off Ajax’s spear, he keeps trying to hit the Trojan and rally his own troops (13.188-194, 14.402-413); Ajax shelters Patroklos’ body under his shield and keeps the Trojans from despoiling it (17.128-138). In the Funeral Games for Patroklos (Iliad 23), Ajax participates in three events without winning first prize in any o f them (see S port ). When Ajax wrestles against Odysseus, Achilles intervenes and declares that they have both won (23.733-737). In close combat o f Ajax against Diomedes, Achilles stops the fight and gives the prize to Diomedes (23.824—825). Four heroes participate in the axe-throwing contest and Ajax throws the second farthest (23.841-849). It is possible that these scenes foreshadow the results o f the con­ test for the arms o f Achilles, in which Ajax loses and falls into madness. If Achilles provides one set o f standards against which Ajax is judged, Odysseus provides another, against which Ajax often comes in second. The contest for the arms o f Achilles is referred to briefly in Odysseus’ story o f his trip to the

26

A J A X THE GREATER

U nderworld (see Nekyia ), the only time that Ajax appears at any length in the Odyssey. Odysseus records conversations with other Greek heroes, notably Achilles, but is anguished that Ajax turns away from him. Odysseus believes that he is still angry over the contest for the arms (Od. 11.543-564). Other sources fill out the story of Ajax’s madness and suicide, which was told in detail in the lost Cyclic A ith io pis and L ittle Iliad ; see Pindar Nem. 7.25-27, 8.23-27; Sophocles, Ajax; Apollod. Epit. 3.5.5-7. Both St ra bo (13.1.30) and Pausanias identify the site o f Ajax’s tomb at Rhoetion, on the coast o f Asia Minor near Troy (see G eography , the Iliad ). Pausanias adds that, according to a local tradi­ tion, when Odysseus was shipwrecked, Achilles’ armor was washed up on the grave o f Ajax; according to another story, when the tomb was opened, Ajax’s bones were much larger than those o f contemporary humans (1.35.3). This may be a reference to Ajax’s size and physical power as described in the Iliad. In some traditions, Ajax’s sons Philaios and Eurysakes were believed to have given control of Salamis to Athens (see Plut. Sol. 10.3). Ajax was notable as the only non-Athenian hero to be one of the eponymous heroes of the ten tribes under Clisthenes’ reforms (Hdt. 5.66.2). Ajax and his sons were the recipients of various honors and monuments in Attica, attested in inscriptions and authors like Pausanias. The genos called the Salaminioi may well have played a role in the acquisition o f the island by Athens, but there is no clear evidence for this. Ajax’s only unique epithets are his patro­ nymic in the form Telamôniadês (not shared with Teucer, to whom Telamânios is applied), and “halting in speech” (ham artoepês), spoken to him by Hector (II. 13.824). Ajax’s name, in both the dual and the plural, is applied to two different pairs o f heroes in the Iliad: sometimes, Aiante(s) refers to Ajax the Greater and Ajax the Lesser (e.g., 13.46-75); sometimes, it refers to Ajax and his half-brother Teucer (e.g., 4.273). Ajax was a popular subject of Greek art (see Iconography, Early). Surviving pieces show him in battle with many different Trojan heroes, including Aeneas , Hector, and T roTlos. Greek artists illustrated many scenes o f Achilles and Ajax: the two heroes play some sort of board game illustrated on several black-figure and

red-figure vases; Ajax is also shown carrying the dead Achilles off the battlefield. It is possible that Athenian artists, especially Exekias, used images of Ajax in their vases in the 6th-century campaign by Athens to make a case for the subjugation of Salamis. Ajax’s suicide was also the subject of Greek vase-painters. See idso Ath ens

and

H om er .

References and Suggested Readings Shapiro 1981; UMC 1.312-336 (Touchefeu); Kirk 1985, on II. 2 .4 0 6 ; Finkdberg 1988a; Kearns 1989, 80-91, 141-142, 164, 203; Higbie 1997.

CAROLYN HIGBIE

Ajax the Lesser (Aíaç) Locrian, son o f O'ilf. us (1) and Eriopis , leads to Troy a contingent of forty ships (II. 2.527-535; see Locrians ). Ajax numbers among the chiefs and nobles o f the Achakans, as he is summoned to Agamf.mon’s council along with Nestor, Idomeneus, Ajax the G reater, D iomedes , and O dysseus (2.406). He was also one of nine Achaean warriors who volunteered lo fight a duel against H ector (7.164) . Although “lesser by far” than Ajax son of T elamon (2.529), Ajax is a formidable hf.ro. He occasionally fights side by side with Lykomedes (12.364), but most often with the Telamonian Ajax (4.274-291, 5.519, 13.46, 66-75, 126). In 13.202-203, Ajax, in the heat of battle and in fury for the slaying of Amphimachos (1), beheads the Trojan I mbrios in revenge. At 14.442-447 he spear­ heads the Achaean attack, striking Satnios (see Satnioeis ), and in 16.330-334 fells KÍeoboulos. In the final reckoning after the Battle at the Ships (14.520-522), Ajax emerges with the greatest nu mber of slain T rojans to his name, as he is swift of foot and best in pursuit of those fleeing. Homer makes dramatic and poetic use of the two homonymous heroes, grouping them in battle - scenes and referring to them by the dual Aiante, “leaders of the bronze-armored Argives ” (4.285, 12.354, 17.508, 669), “helmet-men” (13.201, 18.163), “longing for battle-prowess” (6.164) , “attendants of Ares” (10.298), “insatiable of war” (12.335), and likening them to lions snatching a goat from under the noses of guard­ ing hounds (13.198-200) and to two oxen yoked together doing common work (13.701-708;

A K RISIO S

see S im iles ). To distinguish the two, the Lesser Ajax, when described alone, is always accompa­ nied by his patronymic, “son o f Oileus” (e.g., 13.202,446,16.330). In the I liad , Ajax is nine times described as “swift” (tachus) (see Epithets ), being inferior in this respect only to Achilles (23.791). Ajax’s swiftness often translates into his being the first to jump into the fray o f battle (14.442-447) or respond to a call for help (17.256-257). In the Funeral Games for Patroklos, he comes second in the foot race only because Athene makes him slip in order to let Odysseus win (23.773—784). Short in stature (oligos), outfitted in a linen breast­ plate (linothôrêx: see Weapons and Armor ), Ajax surpasses all Hellenes and Achaeans with the spear (2.529-30) and is called “spear-famed” (14.446). Perhaps foreshadowing the reckless actions o f Ajax in the Sack of I lion , and his unhappy nostos, Idomeneus calls Ajax, in a quarrel, the most stubborn among the Argives (23.484). Ajax dies on his way back from Troy, as Odyssey 4.499-511 recounts: driven by Poseidon onto the Gyraean R ocks , he escapes drowning, but fur­ ther angers Poseidon by boasting about his escape in spite of the gods, and is then plunged into the sea by the trident’s strike on the rock that had given him shelter. This episode was also described in the Cyclic R eturns (arg. 3 West). In a scene representing a group of “enemies of Odysseus” on the wall painting in the Cnidian Lesche at Delphi, Polygnotus depicted Ajax as a shipwrecked sailor, with brine on his skin (Paus. 10.31.2). The anger of Athene, mentioned in Odyssey 4.502, stems from the infamous role played by Ajax in the capture of Troy: the Cyclic Sack o f Ilion tells of Ajax dragging Kassandra from her refuge at the wooden statue (xoanon) o f Athene and physically violating her (arg. 3 West; cf. Apollod. Epit. 5.22). The subject of Ajax’s rape of Kassandra was popular in ancient art (LIMC 1.1, 336-351, nos. 16-110): painting by Panaenus on the side screen under the throne of Zeus Olympius in his temple at Olympia (Paus. 5.11.6); the chest of Cypselus in the Heraion at Olympia (Paus. 5.19.5) (see also I conography, Early). Ajax’s actions were perceived as "not at all pru­ dent or just” (oü ti voqpoveç ouôè Ôíkcuoi Od. 3.133, tr. R. Lattimore) in the words of Nestor, and in reference to all the Greeks who sacked Troy but failed in their nostoi as they were punished by

27

Athene. Athene’s wrath against Ajax was mentioned in the Sack o f Ilion (arg. 3 West; cf. Returns arg. 3 West), and according to later sources, it so unsettled the Greeks that it led Odysseus to propose stoning Ajax to death (Paus. 10.31.2, but see already the Sack o f Ilion, above). The latter was saved then by taking refuge at Athene’s altar (ibid.; cf. Apollod. 5.23). The scene o f Greek leaders delibera ti ng Ajax’s crime was depicted on the middle wall at the Stoa Poikile in the agora o f Athens (Paus. 1.15.2), and painted by Polygnotus on the inner wall of the Cnidian Lesche at Delphi (Paus. 10.26.3). References and Suggested Readings ToepfFer and Rossbach RE 1.1. s.v. “Aias (3)”; Clay 1983, 4 6 -5 3 , esp. 49; Kearns, NP s.v. “Aias (2).”

IRENE POLINSKAYA

Akamas (Ämpac;) (l)TROiAN.son o f Antenor . Together with Aeneas and his own brother Archelochos, the leader o f the D ardanians in the T rojan Catalogue [II. 2.819-823). The three appear together as the joint leaders o f one of the Trojan contingents also in the Battle over the Wall (12.98-100), but only Akamas and two other Antenorids, Polybos (1) and Agenor, appear, side by side with Aeneas again, among the leading Trojan warriors who surround H ector in 11.56-60. In the Battle at the Ships, avenging the death of Archelochos, Akamas kills P romachos the Boeotian, but retreats before P eneleos (14.476-489). Killed by M eriones in 16.342-344. (2) Thracian, son of Eüssoros (II. 6.8). The leader (with P eiroos ) of the T hracians from across the Hellespont (II. 2.844-845; see also T rojan Catalogue). In D iomedes ’ aristeia , Ares , having taken the form of Akamas, encour­ ages the sons of P riam to rescue the wounded Aeneas (5.461-470). Soon afterwards Akamas was killed by Ajax th e G reater (6.5-11). margalit finkelberg

Akrisios King o f Argos, son o f Abas, brother of P roitos ([Hes.] Cat. frs. 129.8; 135.2 M-W), grandfather o f the hero Perseus , Akrisios is mentioned in Homer as father of D a n a e (Akrisionê II. 14.319). According to later sources, such as

28

A K R L SIO S

Pherecydes (fr. 26 FGrHist = fr. 12. Fowler) and Apollodorus’ Library (2.4.4), Akrisios asked the Oracle at D elphi whether he would have a son. The oracle responded that Danae would have a son who would kill Akrisios. Akrisios then impris­ oned Danae in an underground chamber to pre­ vent her from having children, and after she gave birth to. Perseus, he enclosed them in a chest and set it adrift at sea. Both survived, and later Perseus accidentally killed Akrisios by hitting him with a discus while competing in athletic games. MARY F.BBOTT

Aktor ("AKTtop “Leader”)

(1) Epeian , son of Phorbas and Hyrmine, brother o f Augeias (Apollod. 2.7.2), father o f the twins Eurytos (2) and Kteatos. See further Aktorione (1). (2) Father o f M enoitios (11. 11.785; Apollod. 1.9.16), grandfather o f Patroklos. (3) King o f theMiNYAN O rchomenos (l),s o n of Azeos, father o f Astyoche whose sons by Ares , Askalaphos and I almenos, lead the Orchomenos contingent in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.511-515). (4) Father of Echekles, one of the leaders of the M yrmidons ( I I . 16.189).

Aktorione (Aicropkove; a dual form) (1) the twins Kteatos and Eurytos (2), E pf.ians, nomi­ nally sons of A ktor (1 ),actually of Poseidon (II. 11.751). The patronymic “Aktorione” emerges twice in N estor ’s reminiscences in Books 11 and 23 of the I liad (11.750, 23.638). On two occasions they are also called “Molione” (11.709) or “Aktorione Molione” (11.750). “Molione” has been interpreted since antiquity as deriving either from the name o f the twins’ mother or (which seems more plausible) from that of their maternal grandfather; according to the suggestion made by C. J. Ruijgh, “Molione” should be taken as a nick­ name of the pair (for the discussion see Willcock 1978, 310; Hainsworth 1993, 304). However that may be, employing two names in such a manner is highly irregular, so that it may be suggested that the second name was introduced in order to dis­ tinguish the twins from their sons Aktorione (2). The Aktorione were imagined in later tradition as Siamese twins (see further Kteatos).

(2) “The two grandsons of Aktor.” The patro­ nymic is applied to the cousins Amphimachos (1) and T hai.pios, sons o f Aktorione (l), who are mentioned among the leaders of the Epeians in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.620-621). MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Alastor (AXótmúp)

(1) T roian, father o f T ros (2) (II. 20.463): a patronymic only. (2) A Lycian whose name appears, side by side with that o f C hromios (4), in the list o f the Lycian warriors killed by O dysseus in the first battle o f the Iliad (5.677; see C atalogues). (3) A Pylian, one o f N estor ’s men in the Iliad. As with Alastor (2), Alastor’s name appears side by side with that o f a C hromios (this time Chromios [1] is meant) in the description o f the first battle o f the Iliad (4.295). He is referred to as “godlike” (dios) at 8.333 = 13.422. See further Kirk 1985,360. MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Aleian Plain (’AXf|iov néõiov)

The Aleian plain in Lycia about which B ellerophon wandered alone, "eating his heart and avoiding the path of men,” after he had become hateful to all the gods (II. 6.200-202). A real plain in Cilicia seems to be meant (see Hdt. 6.95; Strab. 14.5.21): the name was apparently chosen because of the wordplay Alèion/alato (“wandered”) in 1. 201 (see also Assonance).

Alexander the Great and Homer

In the many ancient sources on the life and career of Alexander the Great (356-323 bce ), however they may be embellished by his later biographers, one consist­ ent theme is Alexander’s passionate attachment to Homer, from boyhood on. (Evaluation of the historical accuracy o f the sources about Alexander is beyond the limits of this entry.) A copy of the I liad , reputedly edited by Aristotle , accompa­ nied Alexander in his campaigns as a vademecum o f military strategy. He kept it under his pillow, together with his dagger, later to be deposited in the famous gem-encrusted chest taken from the Persian king, Darius (Plut. Alex. 8.2, 26.1; cf. M oralia 327F-328A; Strab.13.1.27), so that “the

A L EX A N D E R THE GREAT AND HOMER m ost precious w ork o f the h um an m ind m ight be placed in the keeping o f the richest w ork o f a rt” (Pliny HN 7 .2 9 .1 0 8 ). O n on e o cca sio n , when responding to the arrival o f un exp ected good news, he queried the ju b ila n t m essenger, “W h at can you possibly tell m e that deserves such excite­ m en t except perhaps that H o m er has co m e back to life?” (P lu t. De p r o f . virt. 8 5 C .1 - 5 ) . B arrin g such a m iracle, the next best was the claim o f a n octu rn al vision o f the bard, whose allusion to som e

lines

from

the

Odyssey ( 4 .3 5 4 -3 5 5 )

prom pted A lexander’s ch o ice o f site fo r the fu ture city o f A lexandria, his nam esake. “H om er,” he declared, “was n ot only a d m irab le in o th e r ways, but also a very wise a rch itect” (P lu t. Alex. 2 6 .3 - 5 ) . A lthough the o rg an izatio n o f M aced o n ian so ci­ ety fostered H o m eric values an d h ero ic aspira­ tions in its political and cultu ral life, particu larly in respect o f its hereditary kingship an d valori­ zation o f m ilitary a r e t ê , A lexander w ent m uch fu rther in his p h ilh o m eric ways (c f.S tr a b . 13.1.27) to deliberately fashion an im age o f h im se lf that sustained his ow n grand iose a m b itio n s and sealed his claim s to a genu in e H ellen ic pedigree. His obsession with H o m er m anifested itself especially in his innovative taste fo r reen actm en t o f Iliad ic scenes (e.g., his exp ed ition to Asia against the Persians in 334 boh as a secon d T rojan War ) and for role-playing, particu larly in regard to Achilles , w hom he seem s to have consciously chosen as his h ero ic paradigm an d fro m whom he claim ed descent on his m o th er’s side (see

Neoptolemos ). O n e o f his tutors, Lysim achus, “was esteem ed, n o t for his refinem ent, b u t because he called h im se lf P hoinix , A lexander Achilles, and Philip Peleus ” (P lut. Alex. 5.5). O n n u m er­ ous o ccasio n s, in fact, A lexander virtually im per­ sonated Achilles in gesture and co stu m e and m anipu lated his official p o rtraits to c o n fo rm to a likeness o f his favorite hero, w hose exploits, excellence, and fam e ( kleos ) he yearned to rival and su rp ass (A rr. Anab. 1.12.1; D io d . 17.17.3; P lu t. Alex 15.7). (H is o th e r fa v o rite m o d els, Herakles and Perseus , were also reputed an ces­ tors; later, he added the god D ionysos to his rep­ ertory.) C rossing the H ellespont o n his way to the con q u est o f Asia (334 bce ), he stopped at the T road w here, am o n g o th er sym b o lic gestures, he h onored A chilles’ to m b , and “ran a race by it with his co m p an io n s, naked, as is the cu sto m , and then crow n ed it w ith garlands, p ro n o u n cin g the hero

29

happy in having, while he lived, a faithful friend, and after death, a great herald o f his fame” (Plut. Alex. 15.4.5). At the same time, he did penance at an altar of Z eus for the death o f P riam on the grounds o f his descendance from Neoptolemos, Achilles’ son, who murdered the aged king. Consecrating his own armor in Athene’s temple, he took in exchange the ancient weapons stored there, including the reputed Shield o f Achilles (Arr. Anab. 1.11.8). It was this same shield that eight years later in the Indian campaign is said to have saved his life, when he was wounded in bat­ tle (6.9.3), while his rescue from the Acescines River he interpreted as a repetition o f Achilles’ victorious battle with the S kamandros (Diod. 17.97.3). On more than one occasion, he angrily sulked in his tent on the model o f his mythic exemplar, and in a fit o f fury was said to have dragged an enemy’s body in the manner of H ector (e.g., Dion. Hal. Comp. 18). Above all, however, was his passionate friendship - with Hephaestion. Already at Troy Hephaestion was represented as a latter-day Patroklos, who along with Alexander, was said to have offered homage to the tombs o f heroes. But the comparison devel­ ops into a full-scale reenactment many years later in Alexander’s extravagant display o f grief at Hephaestion’s death, followed by still more elabo­ rate funeral games (Arr. Anab. 17.14.1-10; cf. Ael. VH 7.8). Ironically, he was eventually to match his idol’s fate in his own early demise. Alexander’s motives reflected his charismatic ambitions as well as his political agenda, but his personal thirst for a celebration o f his accom­ plishments on a par with Achilles is repeated often ,enough to justify the rhetorical extrava­ gance that threads its way through the sources. He explained the joy he would feel if Homer had come back to life on the grounds that “the one thing he lacked was a voice that would give him undying fame” (husterophêm ia: Plut. Quomodo adul. 85C; cf. Cic. Arch. 10.24). He refuses a native o f Troy’s offer to view the purported lyre o f Paris (whose name, Alexandros, he shared), prefer­ ring instead that o f Achilles, because this was the instrument “to which the hero used to sing the glorious deeds o f brave men” (Plut. Alex. 15.4; cf. II. 9.186-189). At the tomb of Achilles, accord­ ing to Arrian, Alexander declares “the hero blessed for having Homer to proclaim his fame to poster­ ity,” a remark quoted to justify Arrian’s own

30

A L EX A N D E R THE GREAT AND HOMER

declared mission as the bard of Adexander’s exploits: “No other single man performed such remarkable deeds," says Arrian, “whether in number or magnitude, among either Greeks or barbarians. That, I declare, is why I myself have embarked on this history, not judging myself unworthy to make Alexander’s deeds known to men” (Anab. 1.12.5). The desires o f the man and his present-day bard coincide exactly. At the same time, the biographical tradition suggests how deeply he had internalized the texts he so loved, a point elaborated in the Imperial period, when Plutarch, for example, declares that at Troy, the king could engage his visual imagination to “form a mental picture for himself” of the heroic deeds that had once taken place there (ávoxuTtoúpcvoç tck; f|ptüiKàç rtpáfeiç; Plut. De Alex. fort. 331D). Whether Alexander himself believed the selfimage he so carefully fashioned or merely exploited the potential o f a resurrected heroic model in real life to gain his political ends is finally less significant than his originality in draw­ ing inspiration from the Homeric past to create a new vision o f the world, with himself as the embodiment o f its ideals and the new champion of the Greeks. See also R eception , Hellenistic . References and Suggested Readings Edmunds 1971; Lane Fox 1973, 59 -6 2 ; Ameling 1988; Stewart 1993, esp. 7 8-85; Cohen 1995; Carney 2000; Flower 2000; Zeitlin 2 0 0 1.

FROMA I. ZEITLIN

Alexandrian Scholarship The expression “Alexandrian scholarship” generally indicates the scholarship that was produced at Alexandria in Egypt in ca. 285 bce .until ca. 7th century ce when the Arabs occupied Alexandria. However, more specifically, by “Alexandrian scholarship” scholars mean the philological, grammatical, and exegetical activity that took place in Alexandria from ca. 285, when the Museum and the Library were founded by Ptolemy I (d. 283/282 bce ), to 145 bce . That year, Ptolemy VIII came to power and many intellectuals, and in particular the head librarian o f that time, Aristarchus of Samothrace, had to abandon the city en masse, bringing to an end the golden age o f Hellenistic

scholarship. The Alexandrian refugees spread over the rest of the Mediterranean (Aristarchus went to Cyprus, where he died in 144 bce ) and founded new schools outside Egypt. The Library and the Museum itself were not closed or destroyed in 145 bce and some scholars, less sus­ picious to the regime, remained. Therefore, even though the golden age o f ancient scholarship ended with Aristarchus o f Samothrace, the last and most famous o f the head librarians, many scholars and intellectuals still continued to work in Alexandria on the exegesis and edition of ancient texts. This learned activity continued under the last Ptolemies and under the Roman Empire, when Alexandria became an important center for Hellenized Jews like P hilo and, later on, for the Christian philologist, exegete, and the­ ologian Origenes (who edited the Bible following Alexandrian philological criteria). Even if the Library was at least partially burned by Caesar during his siege of Alexandria in 48 bce , intellec­ tual life never ceased during the Roman Empire. The foundation of the Library and the Museum is traditionally attributed to Ptolemy I and his son Ptolemy II (d. 246 bce ); the role that each of them played is impossible to determine since our main sources (Tzetzes, Prolegomena ad Aristophanes, and the Letter o f Aristeas) are confused on this point. Ptolemy I invited Demetrius o f Phalerum, a Peripatetic and pupil of Theophrastus, to help him with his project. Though the real contribu­ tion o f Demetrius to the constitution o f the Library and the Museum is difficult to assess, the learned work produced by the Alexandrian schol­ ars is definitely influenced by the Peripatetic approach to knowledge and research. First and foremost, the Library was organized with the goal o f collecting all the works o f Greek literature, in order to catalogue and reorganize the past literary tradition of the Greeks. To reach this goal, the Ptolemies pursued a policy o f systematic book acquisition. The books - approximately 490,000 according to Tzetzes - were all collected in the Library, and scholars hired by the king worked in the Library and in the Museum to organize and study them. At the head o f the Library was a head librarian. We know the names of six librarians (POxy. 1241): Z enodotus of E phesus (ca. 285-270 bce ), Apollonius Rhodius (ca. 270-245 bce ), E ratosthenes of C yrene (ca. 245-204/201 bce ), Aristophanes of B yzantium

A L E X A N D R IA N S C H O L A R S H I P

(ca. 204/201-189/186 bce ), Apollonius Eidographus (ca. 189/186-175 bce ), and Aristarchus of Samothrace (ca. 175-145 bce ). The main achievement of the Alexandrian scholars o f this period is the reorganization of the past literary tradition of Greece and the produc­ tion o f standard editions of Greek authors, which are at the basis of the medieval tradition that we still use. They also wrote commentaries ( h u po m n êm a ta ) on ancient authors, lexica (lexeis) collecting literary as well as dialectal or rare words, and monographs discussing particular lit­ erary topics (sungrammata). Callimachus, who also worked there, was the author of the so-called Pinakes, “tablets,” a catalogue of Greek literary works ordered according to author and genre. Each author was given a short biography, a list of works with the incipit, the total number o f lines, and probably some discussion over questions of date and authenticity. The work on Archaic and Classical literature carried out at Alexandria led to the formation of the “canon”: the Alexandrian scholars selected the most representative authors for each genre and it is their selection that has shaped our classical tradition. O f course Homer was the most studied author at Alexandria. First, he was the basis of Greek paideia and hence was considered “the poet” par excellence (ó 7totr|Tf|r|viieiv as formulated by Porphyry [on II. 2.297;I6 Schrader 1880-1882)). This means that the exegete should not reinterpret the Homeric poems as he pleases (for example, according to allegory or other principles exter­ nal to the poem itself); rather, he should keep his analysis as close as possible to what the poet wanted to express. If Homer has a poetic license, which allows him to depart from the general rule, in general he is consistent with himself; therefore, anything in the poem that is against internal con­ sistency should be avoided or eliminated by the philologist. Alexandrian scholars o f the 3rd to 2nd century BCE used to define themselves as gram matikoi and they are often labeled as “Alexandrian grammari­ ans” even now. The term, however, does not mean “student of grammar” in the modern sense of the word (a proper technê grammatikê, as explained above, developed only later in the 1st to 2nd cen­ tury ce ) but has a wider meaning. Kgram matikos is a “philologist” and a “literary critic," as clarified by the definition o f Dionysius Thrax (1.1-6), a pupil o f Aristarchus: for him, gram m atikê is “an experience (em peiria) o f what is for the most part said by poets and writers” and consists o f six parts; (1) reading aloud according to prosody; (2) interpretation o f the poetic figures (see R hetorical F igures of S peech ); (3) explana­ tion o f words and contents; (4) analysis of the etymology ; (5) calculation o f analogy; (6) judg­ ment of poems. The latter is the final goal of the Alexandrian scholar, who is able to judge and hence to select the literary canon that has imprinted all our subsequent tradition.

See also T ext

and

T ransmission .

References and Suggested Readings An introduction to Alexandria, the Museum, and the Library can be found in Fraser 1972, vol. I, 447—479. The best survey on Alexandrian scholarship, Alexandrian scholars, and their methodology is still Pfeiffer 1968. Richardson 1994 focuses on the Aristotelian background o f Alexandrian scholarship, while the history o f textual traditions and the role of Alexandrian scholars are covered by Pasquali 1952, 200-247, and, on Homer, by M. L. West 2001, 33-85. More technical studies on the methodology o f Alexandrian scholars, and on what dieir “fragments" are and how we should approach and work on them, are Montanari 1997 and 1998. The highly controversial theories o f van Thiel 1992 and 1997, along with the criticism o f Schmidt 1997, are also worth reading.

FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Alexandras (’AAiÇavÔpoç) That son o f P riam who brought Helen to Troy is named 11 times in the Iliad as Paris and 44 times as Alexandras (= Latin Alexander). No explanation is given of his having two names. “Alexandras” is transpar­ ently Greek, “Fighter-off o f men,” whereas Paris appears to be an Asiatic (L uwian ) name, related to that of Priam. This suggests that Priam and Paris may be old traditional figures in the saga, perhaps ultimately historical persons. In about 1290 or 1280 bce the H it t it e king Muwatallis II concluded a treaty with one Alaksandus, ruler o f Wilusa in northwestern Anatolia. It is generally accepted that Wilusa = the Homeric Ilios (earlier Wilios; see I lion ), and that Alaksandus is not an Asiatic name but a ren­ dering o f Greek Alexandras. Apparently Ilios was at that time under the temporary suzerainty of a Greek. The date is about a century too early for the archaeologically attested sacking and burning of T roy Vila (= VIh). But the coincidence with the Homeric figure can hardly be fortuitous. It would seem that the tradition remembered Alexandras’ name in connection with Troy but over time transformed his role and confused the chronology. A further trace o f a historical memory from the late Bronze Age may lurk in Stephanus of Byzantium, who lists a town Samylia in Caria founded by “Motylos, the man who received Helen and Paris.” It has been surmised that this

A L K IN O O S

“Motylos" was none other than the Muwatallis with whom Alexandras o f Wilusa made the treaty. See also T roian War. MARTIN L. WES T

Alkathoos (AXkóOooç) A prominent T roian, son o f Aisyetes (2) (II. 13.427). Married to Aeneas’ elder sister H ippooameia (2) (13.429433), Alkathoos raised his young and presumably motherless (an allusion to Anchises’ love affair with Aphrodite ?) brother-in-law in his house (13.463-466). Along with Paris and Agenor, he led one o f the five subdivisions o f the Trojan army in the Battle over the Wall (II. 12.93). Killed by I domeneus (13.434-444, cf. 496; see Wounds). The names “Alkathoos” and “Hippodameia” are frequently encountered in Greek heroic saga, and their story is probably a Homeric invention (Janko 1992, 101). See also M inor Warriors . margalit finkelberg

Alkestis (’ÂXicr|cmç) “The most beautiful of the daughters of P elias ,” this celebrated heroine was obviously deemed important enough to be mentioned, side by side with her husband Admetos , in the entry of the Catalogue of Ships that introduces the contingent of Thessalian Pherai led by their son Eumelos (II. 2.713-715). Alkestis and her two sisters (Medousa and Pasidike in [Hes.] Cat. fr. 37.20-22 M-W) were tricked by Medea into murdering their father: the Catalogue’s referring to “the daughters of Pelias” may well signal Homer’s awareness of this myth (see further A rconautica ). But she was mostly known in Greek tradition for her heroic act of self-sacrifice, which is not mentioned in Homer: Alkestis volunteered to die instead o f her hus­ band Admetos, but was brought back from Hades either by H erakles ( so in Euripides’ tragedy o f the same name) or by the gods (so in Plato’s Symposium 179b). MARGALIT FINKELBERG

33

Alkimedon (AÀKipéôwv) A Myrmidon, son of Laèrkes (1), one o f the five captains o f the M yrmidons led by Patroklos in his onslaught on Troy (II. 16.197). It is Alkimedon rather that Patroklos’ (and Achilles’) charioteer Automedon who proves able to drive Achilles’ horses after the death of Patroklos (17.466-483). Alkimedon fights side by side with Automedon (17.500-506), but the poet loses sight o f him soon afterwards unless he is the same one as Achilles’ charioteer Alkimos appearing side by side with Automedon again in 19.392 and 24.474,574 (Janko 1992,317; see also Names 2). MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Alkinoos (’AXkívooç) King o f the P haeacians, Arete ’s husband, father o f Nausicaa, Laodamas (2), and four additional sons (Od. 6.62-63), Alkinoos serves as one o f O dysseus’ most impor­ tant hosts and audiences. His own father Nausithoos , Poseidon ’s son, founded the Phaeacians’ city (6.7-10). In his initial relations with Odysseus he closely conforms to a narrative pattern extant in Old Testament myth, Alter’s “betrothal type-scene” (1981, 52), the father of the maiden whom the hero meets when she draws water at a well (Gen. 24:10-61, 29:1-20; Ex. 2:15b—21). After giving him instructions to her father’s house, she rushes home to tell her par­ ents. Her father, on first meeting the hero, offers his daughter’s hand in marriage in the three ver­ sions in Old Testament myth, as does Alkinoos (7.311-315). Alkinoos is an attentive host, and much of Book 8 of the Odyssey grows out of his attempts to entertain his mysterious guest (though see Reece 1993,104-107, on problems in his hospitality ). Only he sees that the stranger is crying (8.94). He suggests holding the athletic games in an attempt to cheer up his guest. Though this backfires due to E uryalos’ rudeness, he alone notices his guest crying a second time (8.533), prompting him to pose specific questions. As an audience that appre­ ciates Odysseus’ storytelling ability he suggests parallels with E umaios (Louden 1999,50-68). He prompts the Apologue when he insists his guest shed his anonymity and name his parents and city so the Phaeacians can ferry him home (8.550558), asking him to specify where he was driven

34

A L K IN O O S

off course (àTTsnXá-yxOlÇ 8.573). This is reminis­ cent o f the proem (cf. itA.áyx0r| at 1.2), as well as his asking what countries, what peoples and cities Odysseus came to (8.573-574) through a form o f the verb plazô,"be driven,” in the passive (Louden 1999, 75-76). Later Alkinoos comments approv­ ingly on Odysseus’ narrative powers (11.363-369, 374-376), and both hosts say the night is endless (vúÇ...á0éccj)aTOç 11.373, vOktsc; à0éo V evidently in an effort to fashion a coherent system o f aspi­ rated stops, but the signs were not always phone­ mic and led to considerable confusion: in the Western varieties o f script x = /ks/ (as in modern English) and \|i = /kh/, but in the Eastern scripts X = /kh/ and t|t came to = /ps/. The final letter in the Greek series to is a dou­ blet for o, added in the Eastern scripts in the 6th century bce but not common until the 5th cen­ tury bce or later. The adapter himself made no distinction between long and short vowels. The later distinction between long lei (q) and short lei ( e) in the Ionian variety of the Greek alphabet results from the loss of Ihl sounds in Ionian speech (so hêta became Ota) and is not a reform as such (see also M etacharacteuism ). References and Suggested Readings Jeffery 1990; Powell 1991. BARRY B. POWELL

Alpheios (ÀÂ(|>eióç) The largest river in the Peloponnese and the god of this river. Rising in the Taygetos mountains in the south, Alpheios flows northwest through Arcadia, the northern

40

A L P H E IO S

part of P ylos (II. 2.592, 5.545, 11.712, 726, 728) and E lis , and empties into the Ionian Sea. Alpheios was the father o f O rtilochos, king o f Messenian P herai (5.545; Od. 3.489 = 15.187; seeMEsSENi a). H erakles turned the water of Alpheios through Augeias’ stables in one of his most famous labors. Alpheios is mentioned second, immediately after the Nile, in the list of the rivers sons of O cean as given by H esiod in the Theogony (338). MARGALIT FINKELBKRG

Altes ("AArqç) King o f the Leleges , father of P riam ’s secondary wife Laothoe; lived in Pedasos (3) near Mt. Ida (if. 21.85-87). “An old man o f illustrious name (onomakhitos)” (22.51), Altes gave with his daughter a large amount of gold and uronze with whose help Priam hoped to ransom Laothoe’s sons Lykaon (1) and Polydoros (2), not knowing that they were already dead (22.46-51). MARGALIT FINKEI.BERG

Althaia (AA0alr|) Daughter of Thestios, king of the Kuretes and wife of king O ineus of Kalydon, Althaia was the mother of M eleager (II. 9.555). When Meleager killed her brother in the battle for the spoils o f the Kalydonian boar, the Erinyes heard her prayer for his death (9.567-572). (Erinyes side with a mother against her son; 21.412; Od. 2.135, 11.280.) Meleager took offense and withdrew from the defense of Kalydon, but the motif of “the ascending scale of affection” (Kakridis 1949, 18-23, 151-164) still requires Althaia to appear with her daughters in the sequence o f visitors entreating Meleager to aban­ don his wrath (9.584—585). According to “Hesiod” (Cat. ft. 2 5 .12-13M -W ), Althaia’s curse results in Meleager’s death at the hands o f Apollo. In an alternative and probably older version (Stesichorus POxy. 3876 frs. 1-36, esp. if. 4; Bacchyl. 5.127-154; TrGF vol. 1 no. 3 Phrynichus F6; Aesch. Cho. 603-612; Ov. Met. 8.445-546; Apollod. 1.8.3; Paus. 10.31.4; Lactantius Placidus ad Stat. Theb. 2.469 and 4.103), Meleager kills more than one maternal uncle, and Althaia avenges them by burning Meleager’s life-token, the brand which she has cherished since the Fates declared that he would perish when it was consumed.

References and Suggested Readings Kakridis 1949, 11-25, 28^12; Hainsworth 1993, 131— 1 3 2,134-1 3 5 ,1 3 7 -1 3 8 ; Alden 2000,234n . 138.

MAUREEN ALDEN

Alybe (’AXOßq) Alybe, the “birthplace o f sil ­ ver ,” is mentioned in the T roian C atalogue (ll. 2.857) as the origin o f the Halizones, led by Hom os (1) (killed by Agamemnon at H. 5.39) and Epistrophos (2). Strabo (12.3.23) connec­ ted Alybe with Chalube, home o f the Chalubes, famous miners of iron (the latter name could reflect a Hitlite original: see Puhvel HED 3, 118). Some modern scholars have linked Alybe to the H it t it e s , whose capital was written as the logogram “silver” (KÜ.BARBAR), and with the Halys River (see Kirk 1985, 259). The view goes back to A. H. Sayce, quoted in Allen (1910, 315 = Allen 1921, 160), who linked it to the Hittite toponym Khalywa, which he interpreted as “the land of the Halys." The latter point seems wrong (cf. Huxley 1960, 35, following E. Forrer, and we know that the Hittite name for the river was not Halys but Massarantiya; on the issue, see Bryce 2006, 139). References and Suggested Readings Camassa 1984.

IAN C. RUTHERFORD

Amarynkeus (ApapuyKeúç) King o f the E peians , father of D iores (1), one of the leaders o f the Epeians in the Catalogue of S hips (II. 2.622, 5.517). Amarynkeus’ other son, Hippostratos, is mentioned in the Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] fr. 12M-W). In the days of N estor ’s youth Amarynkeus’ sons held funeral games in his honor; he was buried in Bouprasion (23.630-631). According to Pausanias (5.1.8), Amarynkeus was a co-ruler o f Augeias. See also S port. MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Amazons (Apafóveç) The Amazons are a race of warrior women, usually considered to be descendants o f A res , that appear in a variety of

AM M 0 N I US

Greek myths and sources. In Iliad 3.189 P riam recalls that he once fought against a vast army of Amazons,“who are a match for men” (antianeirai, cf. 6.186), in order to bring to a halt their attack on Phrygia (see P hrygians), but in the Cyclic Aith io pis they arrive as allies of the T roians. The T scholia note that in place o f our last line of the I liad_ (“Thus, then, did they celebrate the funeral o f H ector , tamer o f horses”) “some” texts had “Thus, then, did they celebrate the funeral of Hector; and an Amazon came, the daughter of great-hearted man-slaying Ares.” (And indeed, PLond. Lit. 6 col. xxii has a variation on this version.) According to Proclus’ summary (see C ycle, E pic ), in the Aithiopis Achilles killed the Amazon Penthesileia in the middle o f her aristeia . Then Achilles killed T hersites for say­ ing that Achilles loved Penthesileia. A 6th-century vase from Etruria painted by Exekias depicts the very moment that Achilles kills Penthesileia, with the two suggestively making direct eye contact. In Iliad 6, B ellerophon , the hero o f a previ­ ous generation, is said to have been sent upon a series o f tasks in Lycia (see Lycians) that were meant to end in his death, including the killing of the C himaira and also the Amazons, which he accomplished successfully (6.186). This episode and those involving H erakles and T heseus out­ side of Homeric epic suggest that the Amazons represent a trial in the myth of the hero in the way o f other MONSTER-slaying myths. Later sources place the Amazons geographically at the edges o f the known world, just beyond civiliza­ tion in the East, along the southern shore of the Black Sea . On the earliest representations of Amazons and their function in myth see Blok 1995 and Dowden 1997. CASEY DUE

Ambrosia (d|ißpoair|) Food of immortality, as its etymology indicates (Chantraine s.v. pporóç; cf. Od. 5.199), it constitutes, together with nec­ tar, divine nutrition. Goddesses use it also as a beautifying cleanser (H era , II. 14.170). Homer gives no information about its production or ori­ gin, but the S imoeis River grows it on its banks for the horses of Hera (5.777) and trembling doves are said to carry it to Z eus (Od. 12.63). Although a divine prerogative, gods administer it

41

to humans for various purposes: preservation of corpses (Patroklos, II. 19.38, Sarpedon , 16.670 and 689, H ector , 23.187); rejuvenation (P enelope , Od. 18.193); perfuming agent against stench (Od. 4.445); reinvigoration after fast (Achilles , II. 19.347, 353). References and Suggested Readings

.................

Clay 1981-1982; Lazzeroni 1988; Drew 1994; Grethlein 2005.

PURA NIETO HERNANDEZ

Amisodaros (’Apiouiôapoç) Father o f the Trojan allies Atymnios (2) and Maris, Amisodaros was the one who had reared the C himaira (II. 16.328329). Since the latter was firmly associated with Lycia, Amisodaros was probably seen as Lycian, perhaps even the very Lycian king whose daugh­ ter, according to Xenomedes o f Ceos (fr. 3 Fowler), Bellerophon the slayer o f the Chimaira married (Xenomedes styles Amisodaros as C arian ). The name “Amisodaros” is of Anatolian provenance (see also N ames 3.6). References and Suggested Readings Janko 1992,358.

MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Ammonius Ammonius of Alexandria (second half of the 2nd century b Ce ), not to be confused with the author of the extant De adfinium vocabulorum differentia (ed. K. Nickau, 1966), was a pupil of Aristarchus who took charge o f the Alexandrian school (and perhaps o f the Library) after the expulsion of his teacher in 145 BCE. In addition to his activity on Pindar and Aristophanes, he wrote a commentary on Homer, (perhaps he is to be identified with the Ammonius author of hupom nêm a to Iliad 21 in POxy. 221; see hupomnêmata ) and discussed Homeric problems in the monograph Against Athenocles as well as P lato’s dependence on Homer in On What Plato Took from Homer. Ammonius devoted much attention to Aristarchus’ diorthòsis of Homer; two titles are preserved by D idymus ’ scholia , “On the fact that there were not more than one? Or two? - edition(s) o f Aristarchus’ Homeric recension” (schol. II. 10.397-399a) and

42

AM MONIU S

“On the republished recension - of Aristarchus” (schol. II. 19.365-368al). The real meaning of these two titles, which are extremely important in assessing the number of the Homeric editions by Aristarchus, is debated.

alive after the battle (perhaps near Oropos where he later had an oracular sanctuary). His son, Alkmaon (1), avenges his death by murdering his mother. The alpha (rather than the Ionic êta) after rho in Amphiaraos’ name is an Atticism introduced by Aristarchus .

See also A lexandrian S cho larsh ip . FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

See also P rophecy . STEPHEN SCULLY

Amnisos (Âpviaóç) O dysseus in one o f his lying tales entered, on his way to Troy, the “dan­ gerous harbor” at Amnisos, where there is a cave of E ileith yia , goddess o f childbirth (Od. 19.188-189; see also Lie s ). Amnisos is located on the northern coast o f C rete , 7 km east of Herakleion, at the foot o f Palaoichora Hill. It is the site of a M inoan town and the “Villa o f the Lillies,” a villa appointed with pier-and-door partitions and a Knossian style wall painting, depicting a vase of lilies. Linear B tablets from Knossos associate Amnisos with dedications to various deities, including honey to Eileithyia and offerings o f oil to Diktaian Zeus along with all the gods at Amnisos (see also Daidalos ). Betancourt’s (2007a) reinvestigation of the Cave of Eileithyia, overlooking Amnisos, has shown that it does not contain the requisite cultic mate­ rial from the Late Bronze, Archaic, or Classical periods to associate it with the cult o f Eileithyia. A temple o f Eileithyia is attested for Amnisos by Strabo (10.4.8). References and Suggested Readings Betancourt 2007a.

LOUISE HfTCHCOCK

Amphiaraos (’Apt|>iápaoç) Beloved by Z eus and Apollo, the seer Amphiaraos, son o f O ikles and descended from the seer M elampous , is a central figure in the T heban C ycle and well known to Homer (Od. 15.244-248) and H esiod ([Hes.] fr. 25.34-38 M -W = ff. 22 Most). After a quarrel with Adrastos (1), king o f Argos, reconciliation is sealed by marriage to Adrastos’ sister, Eriphyle . Bribed by Polyneikes , she compels her husband to join the Seven against Thebes, leading, as he foresaw, to his end when the earth swallows him

Amphidamas (ApiÔapaç) (1) An inhabitant o f Skandea, the sea-port o f Kythf. ra, one o f the previous owners o f M f.rionf.s’ boar-tusk helmet (see W eapons and Armor ) given to O dysseus for his and D iomedf.s ’ night raid into the Trojan camp described in the Doloneia . Amphidamas received the helmet (stolen from Amyntor, the original owner) from Odysseus’ maternal grand­ father Autolykos, and then gave it to Meriones’ father Molos as a guest-gift (see G uest Frien dsh ip ) (II. 10.268-270). (2) A Locrian from O po eis , father of Patroklos’ playmate unintentionally killed by him: Patroklos, even if still a child, had to leave home and go into exile as a result o f this homi­ cide (II. 23.85-88). MARGALIT finkf.lberg

Amphilochos (’ApijiiXoxoi;)

SonofAMPHiARAOs,

brother of A lkmaon (Od. 15.244-248), one of the participants in the Epigoni expedition against T h ebes . Although neither Amphilochos nor Alkmaon are ever mentioned by Homer in the context o f the T rojan War , both appear among the suitors o f H elen in the H esiodic Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] fr. 197.6-7 M-W). The M elam podia, another early epic poem ascribed to H esiod , preserves the tradition, reflected also in later sources, o f Amphilochos’ migration to Asia Minor (Colophon), Pamphylia, and Cilicia in the company of Achaean survi­ vors o f the Trojan War ([Hes.] frs. 278-279; cf. Hdt. 7.91; Strab. 14.4.3; see further Finkelberg 2005, 150-151). See also T heban C ycle. MARGALIT FINKELBERG

AM PH IO N

Amphimachos (’Ap(]>ípaxooç) (1) Achaean , son of T hessalos; Antiphos and his brother Pheidippos

APH RODITE

63

led the contingent o f Kos in the C atalogue of S h ips (II. 2.676-680). (2) Leader o f the M aeonians; son o f Talaimenes and the N ymph o f the G ygaean L ake, brother o f M esthles (II. 2.864-866).

probably for the reason that another Aphareus, son of Perieres son of Aiolos, was his kinsman (see A e o l i d s ) . Nestor’s son T h r a s y m f . d e s also participated in the watch.

See also T rojan Catalogue.

Aphrodite (A4>poöirr|) Goddess of sexual love, prominent throughout early Greek epic. Prior to the events of the Iliad , she slept with A n c h i s e s and conceived A e n e a s (Hymn. Veil.; II. 2.819-821 etc.; Hes. Th. 1008-1010), defeated H e r a and A t h e n e in the beauty contest judged by P a r i s (C ypria 39 Bernabé = arg. 1 West; II. 24.25-30; see J u d g m e n t o f P a r i s ) , and aided Paris in the seduction o f H e l e n having promised him her love (Cypria 39 Bernabé = arg. 2 West). Her main appearances in the Iliad recall earlier incidents of her mythology (Reinhardt 1997). Her rescuing Paris from M e n e l a o s and forcing Helen to sleep with him (Book 3) evokes Helen’s initial seduc­ tion and elopement from S p a r t a (3.386-388, 442-445). Her rescuing Aeneas from D i o m e d e s , but getting wounded in the process (Book 5), recalls her rescue of Paris in Book 3 (in turn recall­ ing the elopement from Sparta); but her power is now circumscribed and Athene’s and Hera’s scoff­ ing (5.418—430) recalls the rivalry o f the beauty contest in a less positive light. Her being duped into aiding Hera’s preparations to seduce Z e u s on Mt. I d a (Book 14) recalls her preparations tor her erotically charged encounters with Anchises and Paris on Mt. Ida, with ironic reversals. Her humili­ ation by Athene and Hera in the Battle of the Gods (Book 21; see T h f . o m a c h y ) again recalls the rivalry o f the beauty contest in a less positive light. She does not feature in the primary n a r r a t iv e of the Odyssey , but stars in the inset song of D e m o d o k o s about her adulterous affair with A r e s and the revenge of her returning husband H e p h a i s t o s (8.266-366) - with an obvious ironic resonance with the themes of the Odyssey. Her character is ambivalent: simultaneously powerful and weak, adored and humiliated. Her natural beauty (Od. 8.334-342; Beck LfgrE, 1721.73-1722.10) is enhanced by a meticulous toi­ lette (Hymn. Ven. 58-67; Od. 8.362-366; Cypria ff. 5 Bernabé = fr. 6 West). Her métier is tricks and deception (Hes. Th. 205). Her particular aspect of love is not married love (despite II. 5.429, 22.470472; Od. 20.73-74), but overpowering, illicit passion, contrary to better judgment, that gets one

(3) T rojan , son o f P riam by H ecuba , together with his half-brother Isos killed by Agamemnon (//. 11.101-112). The brothers were once captured by Achilles at Mt. I da while shepherding their sheep, brought to the Achaean camp and released for ransom; Agamemnon recognized them after having stripped the armor from their bodies. In the first battle o f the I liad , Antiphos kills Leukos, one o f O dysseus ’ men (4.489-492). (4) Ithacan, son o f A igyptios , one of O dysseus’ companions, last victim devoured by the C yclops (Od. 2.17-20). (5) I thacan , mentioned at Odyssey 17.68-69 alongside M entor and H alitherses as one of O dysseus ’ friends o f old.

Antron (’Aviptiiv) A coastal town in T h e s s a l y (Phthiotis) mentioned in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s as part of the kingdom of P r o t e s i l a o s (II. 2.697); described as “rocky Antron” in the Homeric Hymn to D emeter 491. According to St r a b o (9.5.14), Antron was located on the Euboean strait south of P t e l f . o n (1).

aoidos

see S

in g e r s

.

Apaisos (Anaiaóç) A town in the T road over­ looking the upper H ellespont , also called Paisos (II. 5.612; cf. Strab. 13.1.19). Mentioned in the T rojan C atalogue (II. 2.828) as part o f the Adrasteia contingent led by Adrastos (2) and Amphios (1) sons o f M erops .

Aphareus (’Aijxipeíiç) A c h a e a n , son of Kaletor, appointed one o f the seven captains of the night watch ordained b y N e s t o r (II. 9.83). Killed by A e n e a s in the Battle for the A c h a e a n W a l l (13.541-544). The scholiast remarks that Aphareus’ father Kaletor was Nestor’s brother,

64

APHR-ODITE

into trouble (ate: II. 24.28; Od. 4.261-262; makhlosytiê: II. 24.30, 14.217; Hymn. Vat. 36; of Aphrodite herself: Od. 8.319-320; Hymn. Ven. 253254). There is a natural antithesis with Hera, god­ dess of m a r r i a g e , which is played out in the Dios Apatê. She is not a warlike goddess (ft. 5.348-351, 428—430), unlike Ishtar/Aslarte (Breitenberger 2007,24—25; see M y t h 4.2.2), but she loves the war god Ares (Od. 8.267, 309; Hes. Th. 934-937). Her marriage with Hephaistos (Od. 8.269-270; Hymn. Horn. 6 perhaps narrated how she caine to be betrothed to him) suggests the beauty of artwork (cf. C h a r i s as spouse of Hephaistos: II. 18.382283); she is closely associated with the C h a r i t e s and ( H ) o r a i . Among mortals she has a particular affection for T r o i a n s : Anchises, Aeneas, Paris (cf. H e c t o r and A n d r o m a c h e , 22.470-472). Her rela­ tionship with Helen combines protection and domination in almost equal measure (3.383—420; Od. 4.261-264). Her cult centers are C y p r u s ( P a p h o s : Hymn. Ven. 58-59,292; Hymn. Horn. 6.2; Od. 8.363; Hes. Th. 193,199) and K y t h e r a (cf. Hes. Th. 192,198; cf. K y p r i s , K y t h e r e i a ) . Her constant e p i t h e t in Homer is “golden” (khruseê, lOx). Two versions of her parentage are given in early Greek epic. In Homer her father is Zeus (II. 5.428; Od. 8.289, 308, 318-320), her mother in one place D i o n e (//. 5.370— 371). In H e s i o d ’s Theogony she is engendered by the foam (aphros) around die geni­ tals of Ouranos cast into the sea (190-206, cf. Hymn. Horn. 6.3-5). Some would see Hesiod’s ver­ sion as die more ancient and his connection (200) o f Aphrodite’s epithet philomme(i)dês with mêdea “genitals” as preserving an original aspect of a “hermaphrodite" goddess (Burkert 1985,155, after Heubeck 1965). Homer might then be reacting against a more primitive version of her origin (Kirk 1990, 99). Equally, Hesiod may be the one reacting against tradition (cf. Beck LfgrE, 1720.31-36), for he nods to philommeidêsos meaning“lover of smiles” (Th. 205; Faulkner 2008a, 92). Antiquity might be assumed for Zeus’ paternity of Aphrodite given that the name-epithet “Aphrodite daughter of Zeus” is well established in early Greek epic and I n d o - E u r o p e a n (West 2007, 186, 221); but as Dios thugatèr Aphrodite alongside philommeidês Aphroditê breaches formular economy, it may not be ancient (Hainsworth in Heubeck et al. 1988,37; Kirk 1985,326-327; see F o r m u l a ) . Even if Zeus’ paternity were ancient it would not follow that Dione’s maternity was. Moreover, even if Zeus

and Dione were an ancient Greek or IndoEuropean couple (Dunkel 1988-1991), it is ques­ tionable whether Homer would spell out Dione’s status as Aphrodite’s mother if it had the weight of tradition. Both the Homeric and the Hesiodic ver­ sions may be inspired by Near Eastern traditions; II. 5.343-430 is very close to Gilg Amesh SBV VI (Burkert 1992,96-99), while Hesiod’s narrative is close to the Hurrian-Hittite Song o f Kumarbi (West 1997a, 279-280; Woodard 2007; see N e a r E a s t a n d H o m e r ) . If Aphrodite’s birth m y t h was influ­ enced by Near Eastern mythology, this may have happened early (West 1966, 28-29) or late in the tradition (Burkert 1992,96-99,129). The name“Aphrodite”is not attested in L i n e a r B; its etymology and origin are unclear. Some favor a Greek/Indo-European etymology, from aphros (after Hes. Th. 195-198); on one analysis of the name as aphros “foam, cloud” plus *dite > *dei“shine? Aphroditê emerges as the name o f a celestial figure, analogous to the Indo-European Dawn god­ dess (Boedeker 1974,8-17; West 2007,186,221): cf. Eos, some of whose mythology she shares (Boedeker 1974, 84). Others would connect Aphroditê with the Semitic AshtoretlAstarte (Frisk 1960-1970, i. 196-197; Burkert 1992,98; differently West 1997a, 56), supported by various parallels in mythology and cult with the Near Eastern goddesses InanaIstar-Astarte; Aphrodite’s Cypriot connections may p o i n t to a P h o e n i c i a n input in the formation of the d e i t y (cf. Hdt. 1.105.2—3). The most productive elements o f her Homeric mythology as regards her subsequent reception are perhaps Aphrodite as mother o f Aeneas and so ancestress o f the Romans (Lucr. 1.1) and the Julians (Verg. Aen. 1.286-288); her affair with Ares (Lucr. 1.29-40, given a Roman and philo­ sophical significance); her role as a cosmogonic force, perhaps implicit in Hesiod’s Theogony, is developed further in the hexameter poetry of “Orpheus,” Parmenides, Empedocles (Burkert 1985,154). See also Gods . References and Suggested Readings On Aphrodite in general, see Pirenne-Delforge 1994; Breitenberger 2007; Pironti 2007. Origins: Boedeker 1974; Friedrich 1978; Budin 2003. On the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Faulkner 2008a. BRUNO CURRIE

APO LLO

65

Apisaon (’Amacuov) (l)TRojAN,sonofPhausios, The Epikichlides was a relatively short hexam­ killed byEuRYPYLOS (1). Eurypylos was wounded eter poem (epullion, Ath. 65a) o f erotic content by Paris ’ arrow in an attempt to strip Apisaon’s (Clearchus ap. Ath. 639a). Although the title is dead body o f his armor (II. 11.578—584). probably related to kikhlizein, “to giggle” (West (2) Paeonian, son of Hippasos, said to be second2003a, 229), Menaechmus (ap. Ath. 65a) derives it from Homer’s receiving thrushes (kikhlai) as a in batde only to A s t e r o p a i o s , a leader o f the gift when he recited the poem to boys (Ath. 65a), P a e o n i a n s . Killed by L y k o m e d e s (II. 17.348-351). which may suggest paido-erotic content. Plato See also M i n o r W a r r i o r s . Phaedrus 252b was recently assigned to this poem (West 2003a, 229,256-257). Nothing is known o f a work transmitted Apocrypha Among the works attributed to Homer as H eptapaktike (Ps.-Hdt. Vita H om eri 24), were a number of humorous, light poems (paignia, Entepaktion Aix or H eptapektos Aix (Prod. Vita Ps.-Hdt. Vita Homeri 24; Proclus Vita Homeri 9): H om eri 9, the latter with Toup’s emendation), the Margites , Kerkopes, Epikichlides, and Ethiepaktos or lam boi (Hesych. Vita H om eri 6) Batrachomyomachia, for which the term “apoc­ and H epta ep ’ Aktion (Tzetzes proem , alleg. rypha” has been adopted (West 2003a, 224, who Horn. 33). includes the fragmentary' “Battle o f the Weasel and Humorous or even scurrilous, some o f the the Mice," a sixty-line papyrus text with no ascrip­ paignia attributed to Homer belonged to the tion to Homer, PMich. 6946, Schibli 1983, 2nd-lst repertoire o f performers o f paroidia at musical century b c e ) . Only the Margites was credited to c o m p e t i t i o n s (IG XII 9.189.20; Wilamowitz' Homer in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. In Moellendorff 1905,174; Degani 1983; Olson and addition to the Batrachomyomachia, the titles of Sens 1999, 5 -1 2 ). Professional performers, such three further animal and bird epics were considered as the Chian H o m e r i d a e (Allen 1913, 24; West Homeric: the Psaromachia or “Batde of Starlings” 2003a, 311) or a Colophonian guild o f r h a p ­ (Ps.-Hdt. Vita Homeri 24), the Arachnomachia or s o d e s (Gostoli 2007, 23), probably played a role “Batde of Spiders,” and the Geranomachia or “Batde in advertising Homeric authorship. In the of Cranes” (Hesych. Vita Homeri 6). ancient biographical tradition (Ps.-Hdt. Vita The Kerkopes (from kerkos, “tail,” perhaps H om eri 24; Dio Chrys. 53.4, Certamen 2) the membrum virile) were a pair of cunning brothers. paignia contributed to fill in the early stages They were warned by their mother to beware o f Homer’s poetic career (see B i o g r a p h i e s o f meeting the Black-Buttocks (melampúgos). H o m e r ). H e r a k l e s caught the Kerkopes trying to steal his arms and bound them to a pole by the feet. As he See also H o m e r i c a . walked with the Kerkopes hanging upside down over his shoulder from the ends of the pole, the References an d Suggested Readings two laughed and mocked his “black buttocks” Texts and translations: Allen 1912; Lobel 1954; Schibli 1983; Glei 1984; West 1992a, 1992b, 2003a; Gostoli (Pseudo-Nonnus’ account, schol. myth. 4.39, 6th 2007. Studies. General: Rzach 1913; Degani 1983; Olson century c e ) . A work entitled Kerkopes is first and Sens 1999. Margites: Langerbeck 1958; Förderer attributed to Homer in the 2nd century c e I960; Bóssi "1986; Jaköb 1993. Batrachomyomachia: (Harpocr. K 42), though evidence for the legend Bliquez 1977; Wölke 1978; Carpinato 1988; Fusillo is early (Archil, fr. 178 W; Hdt. 7.216), and the 1988. Kerkopes: Adler 1921. Herakles scene was popular in 6th- to 4th-century A N D R E A R O T S T E IN b c e visual arts (LIM C s.v. “Kerkopes”) and in Attic comedy (Kirkpatrick and Dunn 2002, 35-36). The only surviving fragment, following a paraphrase of the beginning of the poem, comes Apollo (’AnóXXcov) Apollo, “L eto ’s and Zeus’ from the Suda ( k 1406): three dactylic hexameters son” (II. 1.9), is the second god, after Z e u s , to describing the Kerkopes as itinerant tricksters. appear in the I liad : he plays a decisive role in The encounter with Herakles may have been one setting off the mènis action, as the protector o f several accounts o f mischief. o f his priest C hryses against Agamemnon ’s

66

APOLLO

Iransgression. As an archer, he sends the plague against the A c h a e a n army; when Agamemnon gives in, the god receives the propiatory s a c r i ­ f i c e and the p a e a n from the Greeks in his sanctu­ ary at Chryse while the army performs a purification ritual. At the same time, the Iliad and O d y s s e y are familiar with his main sanctuaries and most o f his religious functions. In Homer, his most common epithet is P h o i b o s ; other tradi­ tional e p i t h e t s are hekaergos, hek(at)êbolos, both meaning “far-shooting,” and kluto-/argurotoxos, “with famed/silver bow." 1. Apollo as a character in the Iliad. Through­ out the Iliad, Apollo is firmly on the Trojan side, together with his mother and sister. A c h i l l e s will find his death at the hands o f P a r i s and Apollo (22.359). When P a t r o k i . o s attacks the walls of Troy, Apollo protects them, standing on a high tower, and pushes Patroklos away (16.700711; see also 21.538). When D i o m e d e s stuns A e n e a s and wounds A p h r o d i t e who shields him, Apollo drives Diomedes away and brings Aeneas to his Trojan t e m p l e where Leto and A r t e m is nurse him (5.344, 444-446). When H e c t o r challenges a Greek warrior, he vows to dedicate the armor in Apollo’s temple, should he win (7.83), and his victory over Patroklos is helped by the god (16.788), whom Zeus ordered to strengthen Hector after A j a x had weakened him (15.220-280). He abandons Hector only when his p a t e becomes inevitable (22.213), and even after his death he protects Hector’s body (24.18) and angrily censures his fellow gods for letting Achilles try to disfigure it. This interven­ tion triggers P r i a m ’s ransom o f the body (24.32-76). Apollo encourages Aeneas to resist Achilles and in so doing angers H e r a (2 0 .7 5 131). But he does not transfer his partisanship to the divine level: when P o s e i d o n challenges him, Apollo refuses to fight his uncle, thus provoking Artemis’ scorn (21.435—478) (see T

h e o m a c h y

).

Apollo’s main opponent is A t h e n e who, like Hera, is angry at the T r o j a n s because o f the J u d g m e n t o f P a r i s . Over and over again, they counteract each other. During the Funeral Games for Patroklos, Diomedes is leading the c h a r io t race when Apollo, still angry at him, throws the whip out o f his hand; Athene hands it back and helps Diomedes win (23.383-400). But

unlike Athene, Apollo has no good narrative reason lo side with the Trojans. Together wilh Poseidon, he built the walls of Troy for L a o m ed o n (7.452-453), or he guarded I.aomedon’s cattle while Poseidon built the wall (21.448-449); either way, Laomedon cheated them of their rewards. If anything, this should have moved Apollo against the Trojans, as it did Poseidon, who points this out to Apollo (21.444-460). Nor is the fact that Apollo has a temple on the acropolis of Troy a good reason to side with them: so has Athene. 2. Apollo's sanctuaries and festivals. Homer mentions Apollo’s major sanctuaries, on D e l o s a n d at D e l p h i ; the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (see H y m n s , H o m e r i c ) tells the story of their respec­ tive foundation, Delos as the god’s birthplace, Delphi a s h i s oracle where Apollo killed the mon­ strous but nameless female snake (later Delphyne, Callim. fr. 88, or male Delphynos, Callim. Del. 91, or Python, Ephorus FGrHist 70 F 31; see also T y p h o k u s ) and laid the foundation o f his own temple. O d y s s e u s compares N a u s i c a a to the palm t r e e he once saw next to the Delian altar (Or/. 6.162): the tree that marks Apollo’s birth (Hymn. Ap. 117) and the altar made from the left horns o f sacrificial goats are the main features of the sanctuary. Delphi’s main claim to fame were the oracle and the stone temple whose “threshold o f stone” was built by Trophonios and Agamedes (Hymn. Ap. 294-297): Agamemnon steps over this threshold to obtain an oracle (Od. 8.80); inside there is vast wealth (II. 9.404—405), a refer­ ence to the many dedications that characterized A r c h a i c Delphi. Both Troy and I t h a c a had their sanctuary of Apollo, Troy on the acropolis, Ithaca in a sacred grove outside the city where its citizens assembled for Apollo’s festival (Od. 20.276-268). Groves were a constant feature o f Apollo’s sanctu­ aries throughout antiquity; another sacred grove o f Apollo was at I s m a r o s in Thrace (9.200-201). The sanctuary of Apollo S m i n t h e u s at Chryse contained an altar as its religious center and a temple as the god’s home that the priest himself had roofed (II. 1.39). 3. Apollo’s functions. As soon as he is born, Apollo claims b o w and l y r e (Hymn. Ap. 131); in the Hymn he uses both, to kill the m o n s t e r in Delphi and to entertain the g o d s on O l y m p o s . In the Iliad and Odyssey, Apollo is

A P O L L O N IU S SO PH I STA

mainly an archer and shoots his plague arrows into the Greek encampment (II. 1.43-52). He protects and punishes archers. He gave the bow to the Lycian P a n d a r o s (2.287), to T e u c f . r (15.441), and to H e r a k l e s ; he directs Teucer’s arrow away from Hector (8.31). He receives the p r a y e r s and vows o f archers before a decisive shot: that o f M e r i o n e s during the Funeral Games for Patroklos (23.865; Teucer shoots without a prayer and misses), and that o f the S u it o r s before the contest on Ithaca (Od. 21.265), where he grants the victory to Odysseus (21.338) (see also A r c h e r y ) . In the Hymn, he also claims divination (see P r o p h e c y ) , his main role in Greek history. Apollo reasserts this in his quarrel with H e r m e s , who wants to share this privilege with his older brother, without success (Hymn. Merc. 471-474,533-540). In the two poems, prophecy is mentioned only incidentally, as when K a l c h a s is said to have led the Greeks to Troy by virtue o f his skill in proph­ ecy granted him by Apollo (II. 1.71-72), or when Agamemnon is said to have consulted the Delphic oracle (Od. 8.80). Other functions of Apollo are less visible. Apollo the protector o f cattle appears in the story of how he guarded Laomedon’s herds, and in the fact that he has his own cattle (H om eric Hymn to Hermes). Apollo as protector of young men might be the background to the Koöpoi ’ Ayaiciiv per­ forming his paean in Chryse to propitiate the god’s wrath (II. 1.473). Apollo’s festival on Ithaca takes place at the new moon: as Noumenios, Eikadios, and as the god who received cult on the seventh day of each month (and whose birthday was Bysios 7 in Delphi), he is intimately connected with the phases o f the moon and the calendar (see A s t r o n o m y ) . If this points to the N e a r E a s t , as do the plague arrows (above), it must be older than Njlsson thought since the calendrical system seems already to have been in place in the M

y c e n a e a n

A

g e

.

The most problematical function, in the Homeric context, is Apollo’s healing. Apollo might be invoked as a healer in Iliad 1, although any god who punishes also receives atonement. On other occasions the healer among the gods is Paiêôn, who seems distinct from Apollo (see P a e a n ) , despite the fact that “Paian” i s Apollo’s common epithet as a healer. This might reflect

67

the Bronze Age situation: the Mycenaean texts mention Paiawon b u t not Apollo (see L i n e a r B). References and Suggested Readings Solomon 1994; Detienne 1998; G raf 2008.

FRITZ GRAF ApollodorusofAthens (180-1 I O b c e ) Apollodorus was first a pupil o f the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon and then, in Alexandria, of A r i s t a r c h u s o f S a m o t h r a c e . After fleeing Alexandria in 144 B C E (see A l e x a n d r i a n S c h o l a r s h i p ) , he might have gone to Pergamon (see P e r g a m e n e S c h o o l ) and then to Athens. He was author o f a Chronicle (144/143 B C E , dedicated to Attalus 11) in iambic tri­ meter, which embraced the period from the T r o j a n W a r until 144 b c b . He dated the Fall of Troy in 1184/83 and Homer in 944/43 (see D a t e o f H o m e r ) . A s a philologist, he worked on comedy and mime, Homer and lexicography. In the field of Homeric criticism he wrote On the Catalogue of Ships in twelve books, which served as one o f the sources o f S t r a b o in Books 7-10 o f his Geography. He believed that there was a true geographical real­ ity behind the Catalogue and in this monograph tried to explain the meaning and history o f the place names mentioned by Homer. Apollodorus is also very famous for his On Gods on the e t y m o l o g y of divine names. The mythological handbook entitled Library that cir­ culates under his name is spurious. See also S c h

o l a r s h ip

, A

n c ie n t

.

References and Suggested Readings Schwartz, RE, s.v.; Pfeiffer 1968,252-266. FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Apollonius Sophista Greek lexicographer of the 1st century ce . An epitome o f his Homeric Lexicon has reached us in one manuscript (Coisl. 345), but several fragments on papyri have also been found. They often differ from the medieval manuscript and show how complex the tradition of this lexicon is. This can be explained by its popularity in antiquity, which gave rise to many different “excerpted” versions. Apollonius Sophista’s Lexicon shows some similarity to the D

68

A P O L L O N IU S SO PH IS TA

as well as to the scholia derived from the Vier Männer Kommentar . His main sources included Apion, a Greek grammarian who wrote H om eric Glossai (1st century n c E -ls t century ce ), and the more mysterious “Aristarchean” Heliodorus. Indeed, the Homeric Lexicon o f Apo­ llonius Sophista preserves much material going back to A ristarchus ’ work on Homer. scholia

See also Scholarship , Ancient. References and Suggested Readings Cohn 1896c; Schenck 1974; Haslam 1994a, 1994b. FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Apologue (for Alkinou apologos, lit “The story o f Alkinoos”) The ancient title for O dysseus’ first-per­ son account of his adventures before Alkinoos and other P haeacians in Books 9-12 of the Odyssey. The expression is attested as early as P lato (Resp. 10.614 b2) and Aristotle (Poet. 16 1455a2; Rh. 16 1417al3). The only interruption of the first-person narrative occurs in the so-called Intermezzo in Book 11 (333-384; see also Nekyia ). See also O dysseus ’ Wanderings . MARGAI.it F1NKEU1ERG

Araithyria (Àpat0upér|) One of the communi­ ties listed as sources of Agamemnon’s contingent in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.571). Strabo ’s and Pausanias’ comments show that it was con­ sidered the predecessor of historical Phlius, and a site with M ycenaean material fitting their indi­ cations has been identified. However, more recently the name has been associated with the important Mycenaean cemetery of Aidonia, whose acropolis has been identified by survey work, which has also found at least one other sig­ nificant Mycenaean cemetery, including a tholos tomb, in the region. No significant Early Iron Age remains have yet been reported from the region. References and Suggested Readings Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 67; Krystalli-Votsi 1996,25; Whitley 2 0 0 2 -2 0 0 3 ,2 1 -2 2 .

OLIVER T. P. K. DICKINSON

Arcadians ( ’ApKÓôeç) The inhabitants o f the his­ torical district of Arcadia in the mountaneous cen­ tral Peloponnese, the Arcadians were generally considered in antiquity to descend from the preDorian population of southern Greece (Hdt. 8.73, 9.26; Strab. 8.8.1; Paus. 5.1.1; see Dorians), a tradi­ tion that finds corroboration in the linguistic evi­ dence (summarized in Finkelberg 2005, 129). In view of this, it is noteworthy that the Arcadians are mentioned only twice by Homer. In the Catalogue of S hips , “Arcadia below the steep mountain of Kyllene, /by the tomb o f Ai pytos" is referred to as having sent contingents from P heneos, O rchomenos (2), R hi pe , Stratia, Enispe, T egea, M antinea, Stymphalos, and Parrhasia; theywereledbyAGAPENORSonof Ankaios (1) (II. 2.603-608; Kirk 1985, 217-218). The Arcadians, who are described as “skilled in fighting hand to hand” and “expert in the art of war” (604, 611), brought to Troy a large contingent of sixty ships , supplied to them by Agamemnon, because, inland­ ers as they were, the Arcadians “had no concern with seafaring” (614). They also appear in Nestor’s reminiscences about a military conflict between the Pylians and the Arcadians “eager with the spear” (7.134), which took place by the Kf. ladon River in the days of Nestor’s youth. The Arcadian mythological tradition (for a summary see West 1985,154-155) is never evoked in Homer. The tradition of Agapenor’s migration to C yprus after the T rojan War (Strab. 14.6.3; Paus. 8.5.2) apparently reflects the migration of the Bronze Age population of the Peloponnese that took place after the fall of the M ycenaean civilization. In historical times the Greek inhabit­ ants of Cyprus spoke the same (Arcado-Cyprian) dialect of the Greek language as the Arcadians. m a rg a lit fin k elber g

Archaeology, Homeric Homeric archaeology begins with the text of Homer and is very much determined and defined by it. Various scholars have warned against privileging the text and focusing on the material record through the filter of the text, but the lure - and rewards - are enor­ mous, as they continue to captivate generations of scholars and the public. A version of Homeric archaeology existed in antiquity, in part the result o f the widespread knowledge of Homer among the literate elite and

A R C H A E O L O G Y , HO M ERIC

in part because of the blatant physicality of cer­ tain sites and monuments, such as M ycenae, that were never lost from human view. Thucydides (1.9-10), for example, in referring to Agamemnon and the Trojan expedition, states that Mycenae was certainly a small place, and that many of the towns o f that period were not particularly impos­ ing (1.10), yet that this was not good evidence for rejecting what the poets and the general tradition had to say about the size of the expedition. In his description o f Mycenae, Pausanias (2.15.4-2.16.5) not only refers to parts of the circuit wall that were still standing in his day, including the gate surmounted by lions, and the belief that these were the work o f ihe C yclopes, but also to the actual tombs o f Atreus , Agamemnon, Electra, as well as those of Aigisthos and Ki.y taimnestra , among others. For Pausanias, not only the text of Homer but also ihe physical topos of Mycenae was very real. As for T roy, Strabo (13.1.38, 41) was adamant that no trace of the ancient city sur­ vived, it having been utterly demolished (Leaf 1923, 195). But the equation of items in the text with actual places and objects did not go very far and was certainly not applied systematically. Most ancient critics accepted Homer’s vista of the world of the H eroic A g e as a more or less rea­ sonable description of a time long ago. Although modern travelers attempted to locate the site of Troy, and scholars like Charles Maclaren, from his desk in Edinburgh, argued that the leg­ endary Troy may have been at the site of New I i . i o n , and despite the fact that Frank Calvert conducted trial excavations at His(s)arlik in 1865, the credit for modern Homeric archaeology goes to Heinrich S c h i . i k m a n n (1822-1890) (Wood 1996 [1985], 19-93; Allen' 1999, esp. 48-127). What Schliemann did was to shatter an ortho­ doxy that was long held by most classicists before the 1870s, namely, that the T r o j a n W a r and Homeric s o c i e t y reflected in the I liad and O d y s s e y were little more than fictions composed, most likely, in the 8th century b c e ; put another way, most classicists believed that Homer’s epics had nothing to do with any real or historical ver­ sion of antiquity (cf. Page 1959). According to Lorimer (1950, vii), although Schliemann’s exca­ vations at Troy were initiated in 1870, “it was not till 1873, when the first 'Homeric’ results were obtained by the discovery o f ‘ P r i a m ’s ’ palace and treasure and of the ‘ S c a e a n ’ G a t e s ... that schol­

69

ars realised that they would have to take account of Schliemann and his spade.” Schliemann, like Thucydides or Strabo or Pausanias, believed pas­ sionately in the reality o f Homer’s Trojan War. Consequently, the objects and places described by Homer reflected a real world and with singleminded determination Schliemann showed the world, through his excavations at Troy and later at Mycenae, that Homer’s Heroic Age was more than just legend. But there was a good deal of skepticism with the equation Troy = Hisarlik. Writing to Charles Newton, Schliemann stated: “Troy is not large; but Homer is an epic poet and no historian. He never saw either the great tower o f Ilium, not the divine wall, nor Priam’s palace, because when he visited Troy 300 years after its destruction all those monuments were for 300 years couched with its ten feet thick layers o f the red ashes and ruins o f Troy, and another city stood upon that layer... Homer made no excava­ tions to bring these monuments to light, but he knew them by tradition for Troy’s tragical fate had ever since its destruction been in the mouth of the rhapsodes ” (Wood 1996 [1985], 61). Spectacular as they were, Schliemann’s discov­ eries at Troy were largely based on the city that has come to be known as Troy II, which had been destroyed ca. 2200 bce according to the conven­ tional chronology. The modest size o f this settle­ ment - a mere 100 m by 80 m or so - coupled with the feet that its prehistoric layers produced obscure pottery that seemed too primitive for the “age of heroes,” confounded Schliemann, and the nagging question remained: was this Homer’s Troy? Indeed, a number of scholars who visited Schliemann’s earlier excavations were so unim­ pressed that several declared that Homer’s Troy must have been at Bunarbashi, not Hisarlik. Although the location of Homer’s Troy remained in doubt, by leaving the T road and focusing his attention on the A r g o lid , first at Mycenae (in 1876) and later in T ir y n s , Schliemann took Homeric archaeology one step further: he not only uncovered the citadel of Agamemnon, but he also brought the Heroic Age itself to life. After cleaning the portal of the Gate of the Lions (Fig. 1), Schliemann excavated in the area immediately inside the gate and soon uncov­ ered Grave Circle A (Fig. 2). The excavations not only caused an immediate sensation, they secured for Schliemann world renown. And although the

70

A R C H A E O L O G Y , HOM ER IC

Fig. 1. Earliest known photograph of the Lion Gate at Mycenae, ca. 1859, predating Schliemann’s excavations by seventeen years. Albumen silver print, anonymous photographer (Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles [92.R.84]).

mask that he thought to be the face of Agamemnon (Dickinson 2005) - not that nor­ mally equated with Agamemnon (Athens NM 624), but mask NM 623 - was not Agamemnon, the 16th-century bce Shaft Graves being too early for both the great leader, had he ever existed, and the Trojan War, the “Homeric” reality o f Mycenae as the citadel o f Agamemnon was beyond doubt. In 1876 Schliemann also dug trial trenches at Tiryns, and in 1884 conducted full-scale excava­ tions (Fig. 3). Late Bronze Age architecture was quickly revealed immediately below the small Byzantine church on the Tiryns citadel, particu­ larly the megaron, preceded by a courtyard and outer colonnaded hall, and then the columned inner court (see H ouses ). The layout o f the great hall (porch, anteroom, throne-room), and the discovery o f fragmentary frescoes depicting battle - and hunting scenes, together with the great walls and ramp o f Tiryns, all seemed to gold

reflect Homer’s descriptions and portrayal o f the Heroic Age. Indeed, taking Homer at his word, Schliemann, in 1880, turned his attention to O rchomenos (1) as the final stage o f his investi­ gations o f the “gold-rich” trio o f Troy, Mycenae, and Orchomenos. But a Mycenae without Troy would not do, so Schliemann returned to Hisarlik in 1878 and 1879 and further work led him to recognize at least two more “cities,” including one (the sixth) he tenta­ tively identified as a pre-Greek settlement founded by the Lydians (see M aeonians). Doubts, how­ ever, persisted, and there was no shortage of detractors. Schliemann returned to the Troad in 1881, trekking on horseback for fifteen days look­ ing for another possible site for Troy, and in 1882 he resumed excavations at Hisarlik. Schliemann’s last great campaign at Hisarlik/Troy was from the fall o f 1889 to August 1890. The critical discovery lay well outside the great ramp of Troy II, which

Fig. 2. Plan of the citadel of Mycenae showing the excavations by Schliemann in the area immediately inside the Lion Gate and Grave Circle A, drawn by V. Drosinos (1876), from Schliemann’s Mycenae Album. Courtesy of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland (Acc. 12973/11).

Fig. 3.

Tiryns, the eastern approach, ca. 1886. Courtesy of the German Archaeological Institute

72

Fig. 4.

A R C H A E O L O G Y , HO MERIC

The fortifications o f Troy V I, with Dörpfeld standing on top, 1894. Courtesy o f the Germ an

Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH, Troja 545).

Schliemann believed was Priam’s Troy: a large building resembling the megaron found at Tiryns was unearthed in the sixth city, in association with fragments of M i n y a n , as well as M y c e n a e a n painted pottery. Ironically, it was not Schliemann’s Troy II but the “Lydian” Troy VI - almost a millen­ nium later than Troy II - that now seemed des­ tined to be the Troy o f Priam and H e c t o r . Schliemann planned a final season for 1891 to resolve the issue once and for all, but at Christmas of 1890 he died in Naples. What most scholars today consider Homer’s Troy was to be discovered, or rather clarified, by Wilhelm Dörpfeld, who returned to Troy in 1893-1894, after Schliemann’s death, and opened up a great swath on the south side o f the mound, focusing on the megaron building discovered in 1890. Dörpfeld’s excava­ tions quickly revealed fortification walls much more magnificent than anything discovered by Schliemann (Fig. 4). The long dispute over the existence o f Troy was now over, Schliemann was vindicated, and the ramparts o f Sacred Ilion were exposed for the world to see.

In the end, Hisarlik comprised a small citadel mound of about 25 m of accumulated debris and a lower town of about 1 square km. Excavations were continued by Carl B i . e g e n in 1932-1938, who believed that it was Troy Vila that actually yielded evidence of siege, capture, and destruc­ tion by hostile forces sometime in the general period assigned by Greek tradition to the Trojan War (Biegen et al. 1958,10-13). Excavations were resumed by the Universities of Cincinnati and Tübingen in the 1980s and are still ongoing. The site was occupied ca, 3000 bce-1200 çe , with well over fifty building phases conventionally grouped into nine layers, often referred to as settle­ ments or cities (for the various layers and their dates, see Cook 1973, 92-103; see also T r o y ) . Meanwhile, controversies about the size, chronol­ ogy, and importance of the site, and its connections to A n a t o l i a and Mycenae, continue to flourish. By focusing on Homer’s Iliad, Schliemann brought to light Troy and Mycenae, but the Odyssey also loomed large in his imagination, for he was also the first to explore the island known

A R C H A E O L O G Y , HO M ERIC

to the Classical Greeks as Ithakê (and at the time as Thiaki) in 1868 (see I t h a c a ) . I n the words of Alan Wace, the “foundation of Schliemann’s work was his strong faith in Homer and his belief that the life and characters depicted by Homer had had a historic reality” (Wace and Stubbings 1962, 325-326). By 1886, Wolfgang Helbig, in the 2nd edition of his Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert, provided a comprehensive SLirvey of Homeric archaeology up to that date, and by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, useful sum­ maries and standard histories reaffirmed that Homer’s Iliad referred to the people, places, and civilization of Late Bronze Age Greece (Tsountas and Manatt 1897; Bury 1913, 5, 50; Nilsson 1933). More than this, Schliemann’s discovery of a new world for archaeology opened up the field to a branch of archaeology that had not existed before, Aegean prehistory. The fact that now Troy, Mycenae, and Orchomenos were “real” places inspired a wave of excavations in mainland Greece, the islands of the Aegean, the west coast of Asia Minor, and fur­ ther afield in C y p r u s . Among the more spectacu­ lar were Christos Tsountas’s excavations at prehistoric Dimini and Sesklo, which brought to light the Neolithic era o f Greece, as well as his dis­ covery o f the Early Bronze Age culture of the Cyclades. Later in the 20th century, Carl Blegen’s excavations near the village o f Englianos in M e s s e n i a brought to light not just a Late Bronze Age site, but the Palace of N e s t o r . In a similar vein, rescue excavations under modern T h e b e s uncov­ ered the Kadmeion, and a site near S p a r t a has long been known and investigated as the Menelaion. But the excavations that captured the attention o f the public more than others in Greece - and certainly for a time eclipsed the work o f excava­ tion at Mycenae - were those o f Arthur E v a n s at K n o s s o s , beginning in 1900, and following the original excavations at the site by Minos Kalokairinos in the winter o f 1878-1879. Schliemann together with Dörpfeld and others considered the remains uncovered by Kalokairi­ nos as belonging to a Mycenaean palace, and Schliemann himself had hoped to excavate Knossos in 1883, but his plans were to no avail (Papadopoulos 2005,95-6). What was perhaps most remarkable about the excavations o f Evans - like those o f Tsountas was that this work took him back to an era before

73

Schliemann’s Homeric Greece, and this was achieved without the aid of substantial texts. Evans ventured into a realm of interpretation based largely on objects and architecture, the very stuff of the archaeological record, and his own vivid imagination. As Evans’s excavations pro­ gressively revealed a culture, which he dubbed “M inoan ,” that was not only of a character differ­ ent to Mycenaean but demonstrably older, the complexity of the Mycenaean/Homeric civiliza­ tion became increasingly apparent. Nevertheless, the excavations at Knossos were very much inspired by Homeric archaeology and before the invention of the term "Minoan,” the ruins at Knossos were referred to by Evans and his fellow excavator Duncan Mackenzie as Mycenaean. Schliemann had no shortage of critics. Although many o f his views met with heated debate, most of these disputes were quickly set­ tled in his favor, and by the late 1930s scholarly consensus maintained that Homer’s epics reflected the world of the Late Bronze Age. In the words of I. Morris and B. Powell (1997, xiii), the new attitude that dominated scholarship was that “the Iliad and Odyssey were basically Bronze Age poems, transmitted more or less intact across the D a r k A g e , accurately reflecting the realities o f the Mycenaean world.” This consensus was nowhere clearer than in the first Companion to Homer. Although published in 1962, five years after the death of its editor, Alan Wace, the volume was essentially conceived in the late 1930s, its publica­ tion delayed by World War II, not to mention Wace’s death. Despite the fact that H. L. Lorimer’s seminal work had appeared over a decade before the publication of the Companion, its lull force had little effect on the latter, though Wace did acknowledge that while it is undeniable that there is in Homer much o f the Mycenaean civilization, there is also some that is post-Mycenaean (Wace and Stubbings 1962,327-328). In the middle o f the 20th century several fac­ tors combined to undermine this consensus. According to Ian Morris (1997b, 536-537), the three critical developments were, first o f all, Milman P a r r y ’s and Albert L o r d ’s research into oral poetry, which made it increasingly unlikely that Homer was describing a society 500 years earlier. Secondly, the decipherment o f L i n e a r B by Michael Ventris in 1952 revealed forms o f Mycenaean bureaucracy unlike anything

74

A R C H A E O L O G Y , HOM ER IC

described in Homer (subsequently and spectacu­ larly brought to life by the closer study o f the Linear B tablets, especially those from P y lo s ). Finally, at about the same time, new excavation reports and syntheses of post-Bronze Age pottery were beginning to make the material culture of the Early Iron Age accessible. The real water­ shed, however, was the publication, in 1950, o f H. L. Lorimer’s Homer and the Monuments. By surveying the archaeological finds from almost a millennium beginning ca. 1700/1600 and contin­ uing to ca. 700 BCE, Lorimer argued that Homers poems conflated objects spanning almost this entire millennium, and that although prominent in the epics, Bronze Age objects were far less so than previously assumed. Although she retained the assumption that one of the goals o f archaeol­ ogy was to date the "real” heroic world described in the poems, Lorimer used the material record to challenge some o f Schliemann’s conclusions. Lorimer’s precept was to be taken further, first by Moses Finley, in his The World o f Odysseus (1954), who shifted focus to the Early Iron Age, away from Mycenaean realia, for understanding Homeric society (S. Morris 2007,59), and later by Chester Starr in his Origins o f Greek Civilisation (1961), who focused on the Early Iron Age as a major source for social history. This was followed in the 1970s by a whole slew o f syntheses of Early Iron Age archaeology (Snodgrass 1971a; Desborough 1972; Coldstream 2003 [1977)). O f these it was perhaps Snodgrass more than others who saw the Homeric epics as evidence for the culture o f 8th-century b c e Greece. By the mid1980s the pendulum had swung, and general con­ sensus held that Early Iron Age archaeology - not the material culture o f the Late Bronze Age was critical for understanding the poems. Consequently, in the New Companion to Homer (Morris and Powell 1997), it was the Early Iron Age that loomed large. The pendulum may have swung too far, however, and if a third Companion to H om er is ever entertained, a more nuanced approach might prevail, one that sees the archae­ ology o f both the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age as contributing to the culture reflected in the poems. Indeed, such an approach would not pit the Bronze Age against the Early Iron Age, but rather see them as one continuum o f social his­ tory, with important diachronical changes, to be sure. In such an approach, the Dark Age would no

longer serve as a barrier separating the Bronze Age from the Iron Age, and we may well benefit by questioning the very terms of periodization that we have constructed. A further development in the 1980s moves us a little closer to the Bronze Age, namely, the revival o f interest in H it t it e names for persons and places in western Asia Minor (Gitterbock 1986; Latacz 2004). Non-Greek texts appear to refer to places like Taruisa (Troia?) and Wilusa (llion), and to people like the A h h i y a w a ( A c h a e a n s ? ). These, together with images o f Aegean-like warriors and Aegean Bronze Age dedications at the Hittite capi­ tal, link the Aegean with Hittite history and open up the possibility o f actual Bronze Age conflicts between the Aegean and Anatolia (S. Morris 2007, 59-68). The Homeric poems need not reside in a purely Greek vacuum but in a universe that encompasses the Aegean and Anatolia and the Bronze and Iron Ages (Latacz 2004). Despite the fact that archaeologists have war­ ned that the assumptions inherent in “Homeric archaeology” are inappropriate (most recently, I. Morris 1997b, 538), scholars - whether archae­ ologists or not - continue to compare the finds with the texts in order to uncover some truth in Homer. The classic case in point is the location of O dysseus’ Ithaca. Dörpfeld, for example, pas­ sionately believed that Homer’s Ithaca was mod­ ern Leukas (Dörpfeld 1927), and he spent the later part o f his life conducting excavations on that island, particularly around Nidri. Most recently, an economist, Robert Bittlestone, teamed up with a classicist, James Diggle, and a geophysi­ cist, John Underhill, to argue that the Paliki (Lixouri) peninsula o f Kephallenia was originally separated front the rest o f Kephallenia in the Bronze Age and that it was Homer’s Ithaca (Bittlestone et al. 2005). In this line o f reasoning, a well, whether ancient, Byzantine, or modern, is t h e Arethousa Spring (Od. 13.408; see G eoo ra i>hy, the O d y s s e y ) , and any old field wall becomes t h e site for E um aios ’ pig farm (Bittlestone et al. 2005, 450-451, figs. 32.7-8). More recently, journalist Raoul Schrott (2008) has argued that the Trojan War did not take place in the Troad but in Cilicia! The location of Ithaca will no doubt challenge and delight generations to come, just as the loca­ tion o f Troy challenged and delighted scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, as it continues to do so today.

A R C H A IC AGE

Meanwhile, new excavations relaunched at Troy since the 1980s, although initiated to answer modern questions, have reopened many a debate on the h istoricity of Homer , the identity of Troy, and the relationship o f Greek poetry to pre­ historic archaeology (Latacz 2001; various papers, not least by Korfmann, in Studia Troica). When one asks the question why, the answer is straight­ forward: it is the power o f Homeric poetry. As long as the Iliad and Odyssey are read, a type of Homeric archaeology will always exist, no matter how loudly some archaeologists protest. JOH N K. PA PA DO PO ULO S

Archaic Age From about 750 bce onwards, the Greek world developed and expanded at a rapid rate: city-states with republican governments, militia armies, and a distinctive material and intellectual culture emerged, and Greeks began to travel and settle all over the Mediterranean. The composition of the I l i a d and O d y s s e y is most often dated near the start of these developments, 750-650 bce , though some would argue that the epics remained fluid until they began to be per­ formed at the Panathenaia festival, ca. 550-530 bce (see Athens and H omer ). Either way, the Archaic Age is a crucial period in the history of the epics. To what extent the poems reflect the time of their composition remains a matter of debate. Traditionally, scholars have looked to the Bronze and Early Iron Ages as models for the world of the heroes (see Mycenaean Age ; Dark Age ), and acknowledged only a few Archaic ele­ ments, which they have often dismissed as later “interpolations .” More recently, the trend has been to identify many more late 8th- and 7thcentury dements, and to argue that the epics drew heavily on their contemporary world, as well as on older O ral T radition . The Archaic period saw the rise o f cities in Greece. The small and scattered settlements o f the Early Iron Age grew larger, more densely inhab­ ited, and acquired public facilities and spaces, such as tem ples , fortification walls, meeting places, and eventually also government buildings. The earliest temples appeared ca. 800 bce , in the shape o f large houses o f wood and brick with thatched roofs; in the course o f the 7th century, such sanctuaries gradually acquired their familiar

75

monumental form, and the associated complexes of treasuries and stoas. City walls are attested from about 750 bce onwards (the sole earlier wall, at Smyrna, is likely to have been a sea-defense rather than a fortification), while designated open spaces serving as an agora appeared only a little later. Whereas older houses were single-room structures standing in relative isolation from one another, from about 725 bcf. we find multiroomed houses, often directly abutting their neighbors and sometimes lined up to form regu­ lar streets and even grids, as at Megara Hyblaea in S icily and Vroulia in R hodes. Public buildings other than temples are a relatively late phenome­ non: prutaneia and bouleuteria first appear around 600 bce ; gumnasia and theaters follow later still. City walls and temples are notably absent from Homer’s account of I thaca and Pylos, for exam­ ple, where religious festivals take place in a sacred grove and on the beach (Od. 3.5-8,20.276-278), but on the other hand the fortifications and tem­ ples o f T roy and Scheria are described in some detail, and in general fortifications are presented as a vital necessity (esp. 11.262-265), while tem­ ples filled with precious dedications are a familiar phenomenon (esp. 12.346-347; II. 9.404—405). Ithaca is sufficiently densely settled to have recog­ nizable “streets” (aguiai, e.g., Od. 2.388), as do other towns, and it has a formal agora surrounded by benches (2.10-14; cf. II. 18.503-504), as well as an indoor public meeting place, the community hall (leskhê; Od. 18.328-329), and an elaborate artificial fountain outside town (17.205-211; see N eritos ). The P haeacians even use a walled precinct (or else a paved area: 6.266-267) for their agora, and the T rojans have man-made public laundry basins (II. 22.153-155). The nature of the heroes’ houses is controversial, but they are in any case multi-roomed structures with bedrooms and storerooms separate from a central hall. Overall, Homer’s image o f a settlement is very close to Greek towns as they existed ca. 700 bce , and it includes some public amenities which may sug­ gest an even later date. Alongside urbanization, the Archaic Age wit­ nessed a process o f state formation, and specifi­ cally the emergence o f republican institutions (see Polis ). According to later Greek tradition, all Greek cities were ruled by hereditary monarchs during the H eroic Age , and for many generations

76

A R C H A IC AGE

or centuries thereafter, but were eventually replaced by boards o f elected annual magistrates in most parts of Greece. Where hereditary monarchs continued to govern, as at Sparta or Cyrene, their powers were curtailed. Over the course of the Archaic period, boards of magistrates prolif­ erated so that their power was increasingly diluted, and it was further limited by legislation defining the officeholders’ rights, powers, and responsibili­ ties. Formal councils with fixed membership and political and judicial functions emerged as lead­ ing bodies of government, and the powers and procedures of popular assemblies were increas­ ingly formalized. By what stages and when these changes took place is hard to tell. The later tradi­ tion about the end of kingship is far from reliable, but contemporary evidence from ca. 650-600 bce shows that the development of republican institu­ tions was by then well underway. From about 650 onwards, however, we also find continual attempts by political factions to reverse the trend toward republicanism and to set up their leaders as auto­ cratic monarchical rulers, “tyrants” (turannoi). Most of these regimes were short-lived, but some tyrants managed to pass their position on to their sons and thus established a form o f hereditary kingship for two or three generations. In Homer, hereditary monarchs rule every­ where (see K ingship ), councils (see boulê ) are informal bodies, and popular assemblies are called irregularly, as the need arises. In these respects, the world o f the epics seems to predate the develop­ ments sketched above. In part, this may be delib­ erate archaization o f the same kind that we find in Classical Athenian tragedy : neither epic poets nor tragic playwrights could portray the heroes as magistrates in defiance o f the tradition that the Heroic Age knew only kings. The hereditary mon­ archies that still existed in the Archaic Age, and perhaps the tyrants found across Greece, could have been a model for heroic kings. Moreover, allusions scattered throughout the Iliad and Odyssey suggest familiarity with quite highly developed institutions o f government. It emerges that courts are not convened a d hoc, but meet on fixed days when they will deal with mul­ tiple cases (Od. 12.439-441), and that they oper­ ate according to quite elaborate procedures {II. 18.497-508), even if the details o f their workings are disputed (see Law). A body o f public officials, the heralds {kêrukes) who are “servants o f the

community” (d é m i o e r g o i , Od. 19.135), as opposed to the private heralds used by the heroes as their personal representatives, is involved in these court proceedings and also summons pub­ lic meetings, maintains order, and controls who speaks by handing out a speaker’s staff (e.g., II. 2.95-98, 8.517-522, 9.170, 11.685-686, 24.701;' Od. 2.36-38,17.172-173). The heralds are also in charge of public sacrifices and religious festi­ vals (II. 3.116-120 and 245-274, 18.491-496; Od. 20.276-278; see R eligion ) and act as public rep­ resentatives in relations with outsiders (II. 7.273282,372-417). Another board of officials appears among the Phaeacians: nine “chosen public umpires” (aisumnetai kritoi... démioi), “who used to arrange everything well for competitions” (Od. 8.258-259). How these umpires were picked we cannot tell, but even senior military command­ ers may be chosen by popular opinion: “there was no way to refuse, for the harsh voice o f the people controlled us” (14.237-239). References to ad hoc taxation to meet public expenses (13.13-15, 19.194—198; cf. II. 17.248-250), as well as public confiscations o f property (Od. 16.424-430; II. 18.300-302) and public fines (13.669), complete a picture which suggests that a quite highly devel­ oped state apparatus forms the backdrop o f the epic world (see also Society , H omeric ). A striking military development o f the Archaic Age was the adoption o f heavy armor by the cities’ militia armies. This so-called hoplite panoply consisted o f a large and heavy round wooden shield with bronze trappings (or even a full bronze facing), and a bronze helmet, greaves, and cuirass. Not every hoplite wore greaves, and the cuirass was worn only by a minority, a few of whom added still further pieces o f body armor. The panoply was introduced ca. 725-700 bce (not 700-650 as the older literature suggests: greaves are now also attested by 700) and seems to have spread across Greece very quickly. What impact it had on the nature of warfare and battle, or indeed on the balance o f power within Greek cities, is much debated: for some, the hoplite shield pre­ supposes the existence of, or else created at a stroke, the large and dense battle formation known from Classical Greece, the hoplite phalanx; others argue that such a formation began to develop only at the end o f the Archaic period. The nature o f battle in Homer is equally subject to debate, and depending on one’s interpretation

A R C H A IC AG E

of the Iliad and the historical evidence, the epic may represent a version of either an early Archaic or an Early Iron Age style of fighting, if any histori­ cal form of warfare at all (see Warfare ). Homer’s description of the heroes’ equipment, however, is very dose to the hoplite panoply. Shields are described as having bronze facings, and some have hoplite-style figurative blazons; in several passages they are rested against the shoulder in a way that would have been possible only with hoplite shields. Bronze helmets, cuirasses, and greaves are imag­ ined as in common use (see W eapons and A rm or ). Some shields and armor do not lit this pattern, but such exceptional pieces are in a small minority, and it seems clear that Homer imagines his heroes by and large as wearing panoplies of a kind which existed in Greece only after ca. 700 licit. The heroes’ use of a pair of spears, rather than the Classical single thrusting spear, is sometimes regarded as an Early Iron Age element (see Dark Age ), but it was in fact the norm in Greece for most of the 7th century bc e as well. The mobility that had already characterized the previous period continued and led the Greeks in the 8th century to begin traveling and settling far beyond the Aegean, in the Levant, the western Mediterranean, and the Black S ea (see Seafaring). Greek travelers were for most of the Archaic period as likely to be raiders as traders, and their new heavy armor made them sought-af­ ter mercenaries in Egypt and the Near East as well. Later traditions give a variety of reasons for the establishment o f each new settlement abroad and in general suggest that the process entailed a state-controlled form o f“colonization.” It is pos­ sible, however, that these sources project Classical models back into an earlier age, and that Archaic settlement was in fact more piecemeal and more often a private venture, which only gradually developed formal structures, more or less formal ties to a “mother city,” a foundation story, and a founder-cult. The main driving force behind over­ seas settlement would then in many cases not have been the interests o f the mother city in finding new land, or access to new resources or trade routes, but the private interests of the settlers, seek­ ing new opportunities or escaping trouble at home. The main waves o f overseas settlement occurred in Sicily and southern Italy from about 750 bce onwards, in the Black Sea and Libya from ca. 650 bce , and in the far western Mediterranean from

77

ca. 600 bce . Overseas raiding remained common throughout; it took the combined forces of the Etruscan and Carthaginian fleets to suppress the large-scale piracy of the Phocaeans settled on Corsica, ca. 535 bce (Hdt. 1.166). Greek trade, by contrast, appears to have remained small scale until about 550 bce , when large Greek merchant sailing ships first appear in art and among ship­ wrecks. The introduction of coinage in eastern Greece around 600 bce , slowly spreading across and beyond mainland Greece in the course of the 6th century, is probably another reflection of the increasing scale, range, and frequency of trade (see also Economy). Homer’s picture of extensive overseas travel not just in die adventures of O dysseus but also, for example, in his “lying stories” (esp. Od. 14.199-359; see Lies ) and in the tale of M enelaos’ voyage (4.78-93, 125-132, 227-232) - which involves much raiding and relatively little trade fits the early Archaic Age well, but probably fitted earlier, peri­ ods, too. The poet’s evident eye for good sites at which to settle (9.116-141) and his description of the establishment of a new settlement with temples and fortifications (6.7-10) suggest that the process of overseas settlement was well underway. The geo­ graphical knowledge o f the Odyssey, however, is rather limited: S icily and its inhabitants are men­ tioned repeatedly, and the Levant, Egypt, and Libya are relatively familiar, though the poet’s picture is selective and inaccurate in some details. Italy and the rest of the western Mediterranean, by contrast, are a blank, as is the Black Sea. This range o f geo­ graphical knowledge seems to fit the early 8th cen­ tury better than any later period, but perhaps the mythical elements in the story of O dysseus’ Wanderings compelled the poet to be vague about regions that were in fact fairly well known. Alternatively, the blanks may reflect a particular east Greek perspective on the world: the initial waves o f settlement in Sicily and the West were dominated by mainland Greeks, and the region may have remained much less familiar than the Levant and northern Africa to the Ionians until ca. 650 bce. After that, however, one would have expected Ionian poets and audiences to have a much more detailed and wide-ranging understand­ ing o f the Mediterranean and Black Sea (see also G eography, the I liad ; G eography, the Odyssey). Overseas raiding, trade, and settlement must have had some impact on the home communities,

78

A R C H A IC AGE

but there is no clear evidence that they stimulated the rise of significant new social groups, such as a “merchant class” or a “middle class” o f small inde­ pendent farmers, of whom there is little or no sign until the late 6th century. The social tensions which are another notable feature of Archaic Greek his­ tory, and which erupted into violence around 600 bck in Athens, Megara, and elsewhere, were thus probably not the result of new or newly powerful social classes asserting themselves, but rather the result o f an increasing social and economic gap between the landowning elite and the majority of the working population. Given the heroic subject matter of Homer’s poems, and their generally favorable image of the ruling elite, it is not surpris­ ing that social conflict does not feature promi­ nently. If anything, it is remarkable that such conflict is acknowledged at all, as it is in several ref­ erences to rulers being exploitative “devourers of the people" and “robbers o f sheep and goats among their own people” (II. 1.231,24.255-262), who are unfair in their distribution of booty (2.224-242; Or/. 10.40—42) and partisan in their administration of justice (4.689-692; II. 16.384-392). These sen­ timents have very close parallels in H esiod ’s Works and Days, ca. 700 isce (see also C lass). Among the many cultural developments of the Archaic Age which may have left some trace in the epics one may note the emergence of narrative art, as first seen in vase-paintings from the mid-8th cen­ tury onwards (see Iconography, Early) and in spectacular form on the S hield of Achilles (II. 18.478-608) as well as specific iconographic ele­ ments such as the G orgon’s head, first seen in early 7th-century art, and on the shield of Agamemnon (11.36-37); life-size statues first appear in the 7th century as well (Od. 7.100-102). But older nonGreek artefacts may have provided the inspira­ tion for at least some of diese filings. The adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet to create a new Greek system of writing, ca. 800 bce, after centuries with­ out literacy, was a development of major impor­ tance, but is reflected in only one or two passages that allude to writing in rather obscure terms (II. 6.168-170; cf. 7.175-189; see W riting , in Homer ). This might reflect the situation in the early 8th cen­ tury, or else be the result of a deliberate exclusion of writing as somehow inappropriate to the heroic world (analogous to the exclusion of heroes eating fish , as opposed to meat; see Food ). Among the earliest uses of literacy was the writing down of

poetry, attested in graffiti of ca. 740 bcf., and many genres of poetry, or rather song, were developed and recorded in the Archaic Age (see inscriptions). The Odyssey emphasizes above all the appeal of epic song by specialist bards (see Poets and Poetry), but the Iliad acknowledges at least two of the other key genres, after-dinner singing by host and guests (9.186—191; see Feasting) and choral song by young men and women in honor o f a deity (1.472474,16.179-183; see Songs). Finally, two Archaic religious developments (apart from the emergence o f temples) have a par­ ticular relevance to the history of the epics. One is the appearance of hero - cult, i.e., the worship of men and women who have been granted die semi­ divine status of hêrôs after their death. Around 750 bce in mainland Greece we encounter for the first time acts o f worship at Bronze Age and other old tombs, which were evidently regarded as the burial places of epic heroes. The idea that the epic heroes had collectively formed an entire “race of demi­ gods” is attested in Hesiod (Op. 159-160; [Hes.] fr. 204.98-104 M-W), in the earliest lyric poetry (Callinus fr. 1.19-20) and, once, in Homer (II. 12.22—23) (see H eroic Age ). The epics do fre­ quently refer to their protagonists as heroes (see H ero ), but on the other hand do not clearly allude to hero-cult. Perhaps in epic usage the word hêrôs did not have its normal religious meaning, or else the poet did regard his heroes as demigods but was not familiar with their tomb-cult, which seems to have been a mainland Greek rather than Ionian phenomenon. The other significant development is the institution of sporting and musical com­ petitions at religious festivals, culminating in the performance of the Iliad and Odyssey by a relay of rhapsodes at the Great Panathenaia from the late 6th century onwards (see Athens and Homer ). When the first such musical competition took place we do not know, but competitions seem to have spread widely only in the course of the 7th century. In all probability, it was only when festivals began to provide scope for the performance of lengthy poems that the composition of epics on the vast scale of the Iliad and Odyssey became feasible. See also O rientalizing P eriod . References and Suggested Readings S u r v e y s o f A r c h a ic G r e e k h is to r y . Starr 1977; Snodgrass

1980; Murray 1993; Hanson 1995; Hall 2007; Shapiro

ARCHELOCHOS 2007; Osborne 2009; Raaflaub and van Wees 2009. C o lle c t e d p a p e r s o n A r c h a ic G r e e c e : Dougherty and Kurke 1993; Mitchell and Rhodes 1997; Fisher and van Wees 1998; I. Morris 2000. H o m e r a n d A r c h a ic G re e c e: Crielaard 1995a; van Wees 2002. HANS VAN W EES

79

were conditioned by their metrical utility, but they became integrated in the synchronic system o f the Kunstsprache widely used in all parts of the Homeric poems. It is possible that the genitives in -oio, which in historical times are found only in Thessalian, are specifically Aeolic archaisms, and not directly comparable lo the Mycenaean genitive^ in -o-jo. Furthermore, forms that have not undergone quantitative metathesis typically show the Aeolic form in -ao-, not the old Ionic forms in -qo- (see Ionic D ia lect ). This, com­ bined with the fact that there are few or no spe­ cifically Ionic archaisms, is an argument in favor o f an A eolic fha .s e . But in the more com­ mon case, our evidence is not sufficient to say which dialect an archaism comes from, or how old it is. Nevertheless, it is clear that Greek heroic poetry has Indo-European origins: this is shown by themes and phrases that have likely cognates in other languages (see I ndo-E urofean Back­ ground ). But the lines which express such old content do not necessarily contain linguistic archa­ isms, demonstrating that although the language system o f the Iliad and the Odyssey is linguisti­ cally stratified, the texts themselves largely resist stratification on linguistic grounds.

Archaisms Archaisms in the epic language are linguistic forms that were obsolete in the vernac­ ular of Homer’s time. They make up an impor­ tant part of Homer’s K un stsprac h e . Archaism is in itself a purely chronological term, but although it is true that the Greek dia­ lects were more similar the further we go back in time, it is still possible to assign some archaisms to specific dialects and thereby supply evidence for the prehistory o f the epic diction. There are there­ fore two important questions concerning archa­ isms: How old are they? Which dialects do they belong to? Regarding the age o f archaisms, many scholars hold that some verses of Homer require a vocalic r, i.e., the formula àvôporrjTa Kat rjßqv would reflect older ávrtfjxa Kai rjßqv. Since vocalic r was lost in pre-MYCENAEAN times, such a form would antedate 1400 bce . But other scholars consider that the verse reflects a metrical archa­ ism (a syllable-counting verse o f the Aeolic type) instead. Another feature that has been claimed to See also Language, Homeric . be very old is t m esis , which is not attested in L inear B, but this is also controversial. In sum, References and Suggested Readings while there are certainly features common to Chantraine 1958 passim, esp. 495-513. Mycenaean and Homeric Greek, not least in the DAG TRVGVF. TRUSI.F.W HAUG lexicon, these are typically traits that might once have had a wider distribution, and we do not know when they went out o f use. This is true among other things for the adverbial case ending Archelochos (’ApxéXoxoç) T roian, one o f the in -pi/-cj)i. sons o f Antenor fighting at Troy; his mother was For the D a r k A g e between Mycenaean and presumably T heano. Together with Aeneas and his own brother Akamas (1), both experienced alphabetic Greek, we know very little about the absolute chronology, but it is clear that Homer “in every manner o f fighting,” Archelochos is a attests several features that disappeared from leader o f the Dardanians in the T rojan most or all Greek dialects during this period. C atalogue (II. 2.819—823); the three appear together again as the joint leaders o f one o f the These include the digamma , forms without con­ Trojan contingents in the Battle over the Wall traction , the athematic dative in -et (masked as -l scanned long), many athematic nominal and ' (12.98-100, with 2.823 = 12.100; cf. Apollod. £pit. verbal formations, the optional use o f the 3.34). Archelochos falls by the hand o f Ajax the augment, and the short vowel subjunctives, to G reater shortly afterwards: his head has been mention but some o f the more common features. severed from the body, and Ajax boasts that he has The retention and survival o f these archaisms killed a relative o f Antenor, whom he recognizes

80

ARCHEIOCHO S

Fig. 5. Scythian warrior stringing a composite bow. Drawing after figures on an electrum vessel from the Bosporan Kingdom (400-350 bce). Found at the Kul-Oba kurgan, Kerch.

by his looks (14.463-474; for the text o f 14.474 see M .L. West 2001, 229). See also Wounds. MARGAUT F1NKELBERG

Archery Bows described in detail in the Homeric poems are composite bows. This type is strung by sitting down or kneeling on one knee, stemming one end against the knee, and passing the other end under the other leg, bending it backwards to meet the bowstring loop (II. 4.112113; Od. 22.404-409; Fig. 5). The kneeling pos­ ture may be maintained while shooting: after O dysseus has strung his bow sitting down, he scatters his arrows on the floor, probably remain­ ing in that position while shooting at the S uitors (21.420,22.1-4, cf. II. 1.47-48). A similar scenario seems plausible for T eucer , who shoots from behind Ajax’s shield (8.266-273). When draw­ ing, the archer holds the bow in his outstretched arm and pulls the string as far back as the arrow allows - normally to his breast (4.121-124), but on one occasion to the shoulder (8.325). Contingents of archers seem to play a subdued but important role in Iliadic battles, testifying to the efficiency of military archery: Philoktetes led

seven ships each with “fifty skilled bowmen” (2.720); men of Ajax the Lesser , “placing their trust in bows and slings” (13.716-717), from behind the front lines “shot dense volleys and broke the Trojan ranks” (13.718-721; cf. Od. 8.217-218). The toll exacted by archers in battle is also subtly reflected in descriptions of warriors who lie wounded and out of action, having been struck by arrows (II. 8.513-515; cf. 13.763-764, 11.514-515). Nevertheless, only a few warrjors o f distinction on either side use a bow in battle: Paris , Panda ros, Teucer, and on occasion M eriones . Dolon and Odysseus are equipped with bows, but solely for their nightly reconnaissance mis­ sions (II. 10.260, 333). This lends some justifica­ tion to the view that the aristocratic warrior code holds the bow in contempt as a military weapon and considers it suitable only for fighters who shrink from hand-to-hand combat (see also Aristocracy ). Contempt for bows and archers is expressed explicitly by D iomf.des (11.384-395; cf. possibly 4.242), and even Ajax’s bowmen (mentioned above) are said by the poet to lack the courage for close combat (13.713). However, there is no trace of this attitude in Teucer’s short aristeia , during which he shoots ten T rojans and is praised by Agamemnon (8.266-315). The view of military archery is far less judgmental in the Odyssey, where Odysseus

ARES

boasts o f his military prowess with the bow (Od. 8.215-228), just as the trial o f Odysseus’ bow and the subsequent slaying o f the Suitors in Books 21-22 are pivotal scenes in the n a r r a t i v e . Important Olympian deities such as Apollo (whose epith ets include “of the silver bow,” II. 1.37 etc.; “famous for his bow,” 4.101 etc.; “farshooting,” 1.14 etc.) and A rtemis (“shooter of arrows,” 5.53 etc.) are famously archer-gods whose weapons bring swift death from afar, but they are scarcely less revered for that in either poem (although, perhaps significantly, both side with the Trojans). The attitude to military archery is ambiguous and depends largely on context: the weapon may be dismissed as cowardly, yet its effi­ ciency is acknowledged, if somewhat grudgingly, by the poet. See also

W a rfa re.

References and Suggested Readings Balfour 1921; Lorimer 1950, 289-300; McLeod 1965; Snodgrass 1999; Farron 2003. ADAM SCHW A RTZ

Areithoos (’ApqíSooç, “swift in battle,” see Names 3.5) A rcadian (?), father of M enesthios (1) by Phylomedousa (II. 7.10), a warrior o f N estor’s day, known as "the mace-man” (korunêtês), after his weapon of choice. Nestor’s account of the glory of his own prime (7.132-156) tells how the Arcadian Ereuthalion used to go to battle wearing Areithoos’ armor , given to him byLYKOURGOs (2), who despoiled it from Areithoos’ dead body after having killed him in a sneak-attack. Areithoos’ armor was given him by A res (II. 7.146). The grave of Areithoos “the mace-man” was being shown in Arcadia in the 2nd century ce (Paus. 8.11.4). . . . References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1990,232.

Arene (’Apijvr))

A town in Elis , mentioned as “lovely Arene” in the Pylian entry o f the Catalogue of S h ips (II. 2.591; see P ylos ), and described in N estor ’s reminiscences o f a war between the Pylians and the Epeians as close to where the M inye 'ios River pours into the sea

81

(11.723). Speculations about the exact location of Arene have been preserved by Strabo (8.3.19). Modern scholars equate it with Classical Samikon in Triphylia, at the site o f which a M ycenaean fortified settlement has been identified. See also M essenia . References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,214—215"

Ares C'ApriO Ares, “insatiate of battle” (II. 5.388), is the god of slaughter and war and is doc­ umented for Greek since M ycenaean times (on the Mycenaean personal name a-re-m e-ne, a-re-ime-ne, see García Ramón 2008). The son o f Z eus and H era , he fights on the side o f the T roians in the I liad , although often with surprisingly poor results. He is wounded on the battlefield first by D iomedes (5.846-863) and then by Athene (21.391 -406), and in the lay sung by D emodokos is the laughing-stock o f the gods when caught in bed with Aphrodite by the weaker and slower H ephaistos (Od. 8.266-343). Ares is the only god to kill a mortal directly in the Iliad and is depicted stripping the armor from the body (5.842). Famed for his loud cry or shriek (5.859861,20.51-52), he is often accompanied by Terror (D eimos ), Rout (P hobos ), and Strife (E r is ), and appears, coupled with Athene, on a battle - scene on the S hield of Achilles (18.516). His most common epith et is brotoloigos, “destroyer o f men” (12x, only o f Ares). In keeping with his low status among the gods, Ares is the most despised of all the Olympians by Zeus (5.890). He does not appear as a character in the main narrative of the O dyssey. Ares in Homer is a metonym for battle: warriors are described as “stirring up” Ares, “glutting him with blood” when they die, and the Achaeans are called his servants (see further Nagy 1979 [1999], 293-295). The exact meaning o f the formulaic and very ancient phrase môlos Areas (“battle,” 4x II.) has been debated, but a Hittite parallel suggests that war was understood as “the grinding o f Ares” (Barnes 2008). Etymologically, the name Arês is related to Greek are (damage, destruction), aros (harm), and the participle arêmenos (ground down, worn out), and to cognate Indo-E uropean mate­ rial elsewhere, all based on a verbal root that meant

82

ARES.

“crush, destroy.” inasmuch as he displays these attributes in the Iliad, Ares is a far inferior warrior to Athene, the martial goddess of strategy and vic­ tory who fights on the side of the Achaeans. Scholars have posited that Ares’ special connection with bronze (5.704; Nagy 1979 [1999], 156-157; Vian 1968, 64-66) denotes a connection to H esiod ’s Race o f Bronze (Op. 127-142), and thus a more primitive and unsuccessful mode o f warfare. Two stories are told about Ares in Homer that require further explication. In the Iliad, D ione recounts how Ares, when bound in a bronze jar by Otos and Ephialtes, “would have perished” had he not been rescued by Hermes (5.388-391). This story, alongside the Iliad’s two references to Ares’ potential death on the battlefield, suggest that Ares at times comes unusually dose to the mortal condition (cf. Levy 1979; Loraux 1986; Purves 2006,199-203). It is thought that the story of Ares bound in the jar may also reflect local apotropaic cult practices, which prescribed the binding and burying o f statuettes of Ares as talis­ mans (Faraone 1992, 74-78). In the Odyssey, the story that Demodokos tells of the affair between Ares and Aphrodite troubled the early Greek phi­ losophers, most notably X enophanes, for its presentation o f the Olympian gods as ignoble and unseemly (cf. PI. Resp. 389e-390c). As a result, the scene was interpreted by ancient allegorists as the coming together o f the two opposing Empedoclean principles of Love and Strife (see Allegoricai. Interpretation ). The allegory of their union was also a favorite depiction in Renaissance art (see, e.g., Rubens and Brueghel, The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus; see also R eception , in V isual Arts ). Ares does not hold a prominent position in Greek cult or myth . He is a lesser god whose role is always on the margins o f social order. He is associated with Thrace, an area that was regarded as wild and barbarous in the Greek world (see T hracians), and he is connected in myth with the Theban race (see T heban Cycle ). In some accounts he sires the Kadmeion dragon, making Ares the ancestor of T h ebes , and he is the father of Harmonia wife of K admos. The Amazons and several warrior sons also descend from him, including Kyknos whom H erakles kills in the Ps.-Hesiodie Shield o f Herakles. The phrase “to H ermes of Ares” occurs in a list of offerings on a Mycenaean tablet found at Pylos (Palaima 2004;

see also Linear B), although the association between the two gods is unclear. He is most closely associated with the war god Enyalios, usually to the point where their identities overlap - in the Iliad, he may appear as an epithet o f Ares (17.211), but the two also appear separately as far back as the Mycenaean texts, where Enyalios occurs as a divinity in his own right. See also

Asty o c h e.

References and Suggested Readings See further Burkert 1985, 43—44, 169-170; on Arcs' role in Homer, see Loraux 1986; Wathelet 1992b; Prieto 1996. On the etymology of Ares, see García Ramón 2008 and Barnes 2008. On Ares in ancient art; LIMC 2.479—492. A LEX C. PU RVES

a retê (àpexij; conventionally translated “excel­ lence”) As is the case with many other Greek words, the semantic development of the word aretê, whose firmly established meaning in later Greek literature and especially philosophy is “virtue,” pro­ ceeded from the particular to the general and from the concrete to the abstract. In the overwhelming majority of the Homeric contexts, aretê still keeps its original meaning “excellence” (cf. aristos “the best”). Accordingly, there is more than one kind of aretê. Thus, of the two principal formulae for aretê, one means “all manner of aretê” and is usu­ ally followed by the enumeration of various prop­ erties such as swiftness o f foot, military prowess, intelligence, and so on (II. 15.642,22.268; Od. 5.725 and 815,13.45,18.204), while the other is the enu­ meration of these very properties preceded by the word aretê (II. 9.498, 23.578; Od. 12.211, 18.251, 19.124). The aretê of a horse consists in its swift­ ness of foot, the aretê of soil in its fertility, the aretê of a woman in her being a good housewife, the aretê of a slave in his or her loyalty to a master, the aretê of a warrior in his bravery, and so on. One can see that what unites all the examples adduced is the sense of fitness as regards the specific function that a person, an animal, or even an object is purported to fulfill at a given moment. Small wonder, there­ fore, that it is often translated merely as “swiftness,” “courage,” “beauty,” etc. When aretê is given a general sense, it functions as a characteristic that is as innate to a person as

ARETE

his or her physical properties, such as strength or beauty. This seems to indicate that, in conformity with the general Homeric system of values and contrary to the later Greek view, aretê as such is envisaged in the Homeric poems as predetermined by birth and wealth rather than as something to be proved in fair c o m petitio n (Long 1970,126-128; Cairns 1994, 101, both contra Adkins 1960a, 30-85). The O dyssey dictum “Zeus the far-seeing takes away the half of a man’s arete, when the day of slavery comes upon him” (17.322-323) is arguably the only Homeric example of aretê being understood as something on a par with the later “virtue” (cf. Ebeling s.v.). Even if this may well be too restrictive an interpretation (see Finkelberg 1998b), it does not alter die fact that aretê as “virtue” is almost nonexistent in Homer. m argai .it fin kelberg

Arete (’Apiyrr)) Queen of the P haeacians, the only child of R hexenor (7.63-66, 146), wife and niece o f Alkinoos (7.66), and mother of Nausicaa and five sons (6.62). Her name may mean “Prayed for” or possibly “Accursed,’’ because her father died as a bridegroom and without male issue (Peradotto 1990, 108, 138). It is however redefined as “Prayed to” because both Nausicaa and Athene in disguise tell O dysseus that Arete has decisive power among the Phaeacians and that “if she has thoughts in her mind that are friendly to you,” she can speed his homecoming (6.303-315, 7.66-77). Athene emphasizes her extraordinary status and intelligence and des­ cribes how she dissolves quarrels and how every­ one “looks to her as to a god when they see her” (7.71). These robust portraits in close proximity reinforce one another and inform the scenes to follow, once Odysseus reaches the palace. When Odysseus first arrives, alone and in gar­ ments obtained from Nausicaa that the queen herself had woven (7.230-235), Arete immedi­ ately asks who gave him these clothes. He responds with a narrative deflecting blame from the prin­ cess, as somehow compromised, and from him­ self as her potential corrupter. Odysseus aims to win Arete over, not so he can woo Nausicaa (as the queen might expect) but to secure escort home, for which he explicitly beseeches her (7.146-152). Though he is her suppliant (see

83

Supplication ), soon after their exchange over who supplied the clothing, they become virtual equals. Later he honors her by presenting a cata­ logue of the heroines he encountered in the Land of the Dead (11.225-332; cf. Doherty 1991, 145— 174, 1992, 167-170; see also N ekyia ). She responds by asking the Phaeacians how they find “his looks and stature and balanced mind” (11.336—337) - for the first time indicating her approval of him and thus, by implication, guaranteeing his safe return. At this moment, she claims him as her guest-friend (xeinos, 11.338; see G uest - frien d sh ip ), leading the aged E cheneos to challenge her authority and exhort Alkinoos to speak and act (11.342-346, cf. 7.155166). The king obeys but the expression he employs (11.353: “for mine is the power in this district”) actually signals his lack of power (Martin 1993,236-237), and the challenge under­ scores Arete’s prominence and Alkinoos’ relative ineffectuality. When Odysseus departs for home, Arete gives him clothing, a treasure chest, and food and drink for his journey. He, in turn, bids her a warm farewell (13.59-62), wishing her “delight in your home, your children, your peo­ ple, and Alkinoos the king.” Arete is not only Odysseus’ benefactress. Having to negotiate with this queen o f high status ( tim ê ) among her fam­ ily and people prepares Odysseus to face the daunting P enelope , who in her own person combines the traits o f both Arete and Nausicaa (Felson 1994, 49). The Phaeacian queen never flaunts her authority; she exercises it indirectly and selectively. This has led many scholars to see a discrepancy between the power Nausicaa and Athene attribute to Arete and her virtual silence (Pedrick 1988, 86-87, with references in n. 8). More plausibly, Arete’s position among the Phaeacians reflects matrifocality, and Echeneos’ reaction is that o f a male elder who chafes under female domination. Athene’s comparison of Arete’s honor to that o f “women nowadays” (7.68; "oaaai vuv ye yuvaÍKEç) invites the external audi­ ence to reflect on the implications o f female power in any given (fictional or actual) society: the poem is self-conscious about gender hierar­ chy, especially in a royal marriage . See also Women. NANCY FEI.SON

84

A R E IH O U S A

Arethousa

see G eography, the Odyssey.

Aretos (’'Apptoç) (1) T rojan, killed1 by Automedon when, during the fight over the body of Patroki.os, he attempted, together with C hromios (5), to obtain Achilles ’ horses ( II. 17.494^196, 516-524; see Wounds). Haying despoiled Aretos’ body, Automedon declared the killing a partial remedy for the death Patroklos, though Aretos was “the lesser man” (538-539). Though Homer never says so, Apollodorus (3.12.5) states that Aretos was a son of P riam . (2) A son of Nestor . At the sacrifice to Poseidon that took place in Pylos, Aretos car­ ried the vessel that held the lustrai water and a basket of barley-corns to be sprinkled on the head of the sacrificial animal ( O d . 3.414, 440-442).

ArgeTphontes

see H ermes .

Argissa ('Apytcaa) A town in northeastern T hessaly, mentioned in the Catalogue of S hips as part o f the contingent o f the Lapiths Polypoites and Leontbus (II. 2.738). Strabo (9.5.19) equates Argissa with the later Argura on the P eneios River, where much M ycenaean and Protogeometric (see G eometric P eriod ) pot­ tery was found.

Argives (’Apyeioi) Argeioi is one o f three terms Homer uses to describe the Greeks at Troy, the others being Danaoi (see Danaans) and Achaioi (see Achaeans). The three terms have different metrical shapes, and their usage is determined as much by metrical convenience as by anything else (see M eter ); there is no discernible difference in meaning. These terms could be generalized to mean “Greeks” because of their association with venerable antiquity; two (Argeioi and Danaoi) refer to the southern Argolid, a site o f very old Helladic occupation, and the third is associated with the northern heartland o f Hellas in Greek legend, home of Achilles himself (see H ellenes). That precisely these three terms were chosen, and not others with equally ancient reference such as “Kadmeians” (see T hebes ) or “Athenians,” is a function of the development of this particular

epic tradition; the Thebans were perhaps excluded as belonging to a different cycle of poems (not the Trojan Cycle: see T heban C ycle), and the Athenian marginalization probably reflects their relative unimportance in the M ycenaean period. In keeping with the somewhat flexible significa­ tion of “Argos” itself, however (sometimes the .southern city, sometimes the Argolid, sometimes the Peloponnese or all of southern Greece), “Argives” once refers not to all of the Greeks but to the people of D iomedes (ll. 23.471), who leads the contingent of Argos in the C atalogue of S h ips , and once apparently to the southern Greeks (7.128). Otherwise, the adjective “Argive” in the singular is used often with “Helen” through­ out the epic and lyric tradition, and also with Argos’ patron deity, H era . RO BERT' L. FOW LER

Argo

see Aeconautica .

Argolid If the Peloponnese may be described as a plane leaf (Pomponius Mela Chorographia 2.38), the Argolid is its easternmost lobe. It is bor­ dered in the east by the Saronic Gulf, in the west by the gulf of Argos. It is mosdy mountainous, surrounded by narrow coastal plains. The most fertile part o f the Argolid, and hence the most densely populated, was the Argive plain, which lies at the head o f the gulf o f Argos (see Map 2: “Diomedes”). However, a significant number of Bronze and Iron Age sites existed in the more rocky and hilly southern Argolid and in the Methana peninsula. Communication by land to the north followed several passes to Corinthia (see Corinth ), and then through the Isthmus. Numerous remains o f Mycenaean roads and bridges suggest a well-developed road system already in the 2nd millennium bce (see also M ycenaean Age ). Despite being a coherent geographic unit, the political landscape o f the Homeric Argolid, man­ ifested in the C atalogue of S h ips , shows a clear division into two, each a part o f a larger kingdom extending beyond the Argolid. The kingdom of D iomedes encompassed much o f the Argolid, and included T iryns , Argos, Asinf., H ermione , T roizen, and E pidauros (II. 2.559-561), as well

A R G O L ID

as areas outside it, such as Aigina . The realm of Agamemnon , the overlord of the Achaeans, included the northern part o f the Argolid, with its center at M ycenae, yet expanded to the north and west to include Corinthia (2.569-575). It may not be a coincidence that the Argolid was at the heart o f the Mycenaean culture. Also similar to the Homeric tradition, the Mycenaean Argolid was dominated by Mycenae and Tiryns, two large fortified centers surrounded by towns. Each may have been the center of a polity, and a major administrative center, as seen in the remains o f their palaces and in Linear B documents. The surrounding countryside showed a complex, three-tiered settlement hierarchy with a major center, sub-centers (some fortified), villages, hamlets, and sanctuary sites. Other centers in the Argolid, such as Nauplia, Midea, Argos, and Asine, may have been dominated by Mycenae and Tiryns or had only a two- to three-tiered settlement hier­ archy. It is unclear how the small area o f the Argive plain, covering less than 1,000 sq. km, could have supported two fully fledged palatial centers. It was suggested by C. W. Shelmerdine that, similar to the Catalogue of Ships, the terri­ tory of Mycenae might have extended further north into Corinthia. At the same time, Mycenae might have served a greater political role in Mycenaean Greece. The Ahhiyawa kingdom, mentioned in the Hattusa archives and Ugarit, almost certainly refers to a major polity within the Mycenaean Aegean. While the exact location as well as the boundaries of this kingdom have been hotly debated, it is widely accepted that it included part of mainland Greece. Scholars such as W.-D. Niemeier have suggested that Mycenae was the capital of this vast kingdom, its ruler termed a “great king” by the H it t ite s . There are further indications of the important place of the Argolid within the Mycenaean world. It was the most important production center of Mycenaean pottery intended for export. NAA analyses of samples from various Levantine sites suggest that Argolid wares, and very likely the perfumed oils they contained, were readily con­ sumed by non-Aegeans. The acquaintance of Mycenaean potters with Cypriot and Levantine tastes led to the creation of ceramic forms intended for export, chief among them the char­ iot krater, with a production center in Berbati by Mycenae. The topography of the Mycenaean

85

Argolid may have been known to the Egyptians of the New Kingdom. The famous statue base of Amenhotep III from Kom el-Hetan, mentioning Aegean toponyms in C rete , the Aegean main­ land, and western Anatolia, was interpreted as a description o f an Egyptian ship’s journey in the Aegean. It included toponyms from the Argolid, most notably Mycenae and Nauplia. Although the Bronze Age political reality seems to correspond well with the Homeric narrative, there is little material evidence of direct continuity o f Bronze Age traditions in the Argolid into the Iron Age and the historical period. The collapse of the Mycenaean palatial culture at the end of Late Helladic IIIB severely affected the Argolid. The early 12th-century hce destruction of the palaces at Tiryns and Mycenae, as well as the end of literate administration, were inevitably accompanied by a decrease in the levels of social hierarchy and politi­ cal integration from LH IIIB. Still, at least for a short time during LH IIIC, there were some claims to the power of the past, as seen in the building of Megaron T in Tiryns on top of the ruined palace, the reuse of the Midea Megaron, and, as suggested by E. B. French, some building remains in the area of the ruined palace at Mycenae. The most important settlements remained inhab­ ited continuously into the Dark Age, as indicated by Submycenaean strata at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Asine, and burials at Mycenae, Asine, Tiryns, and Argos. A significant drop in population is evident after LH IIIC Late. Instead of large towns, settle­ ments seemed to consist of smaller communities, as is the case with Argos, in which three village­ like settlements of the Protogeometric-Middle Geometric (see G eometric Period) have several small cemeteries. In the Argive plain, as well as in the fringe areas, as seen in the finds of the Southern Argolid survey, recovery from the Dark Age settle­ ment crisis was slow, and did not accelerate much before the 8th century bce. It is difficult to know when the Argolid became populated by Dorian populations attested for the Archaic and Classical periods (see Dorians). On the one hand, the Dorian dialect was not attested in the Linear B tablets found in Mycenae and Tiryns. On the other hand, there is no archaeological evidence for a major migration to the Argolid at the beginning of the Iron Age. The ephemeral nature of all SubmycenaeanProtogeometric settlements in the Argolid, and the difficulty in identifying pre-Geometric cult places,

86

ARG OLID

hinders any argument supporting continuity of cult between Mycenaean times and Geometricand Archaic times. Whether or not cultic continuity existed, there is certainly an active dialogue with the Mycenaean past during the Late Geometric and Archaic periods, conducted by a Dorian Iron Age population. The Argive Heraion was founded on a Bronze Age sire, and its Cyclopean-style ter­ race wall reflects a conscious effort to create an image of antiquity. Faint traces of Late Geometric and later cult activity have been found also in front o f the ruins o f the LH II1C structure built on top o f the palace in Tirvns. In Mycenae cultic activity on top of the ruined Mycenaean palace started in the Late Geometric, yet the acropolis t em p l e was built only in the 7th century bc e ; its location is another bold statement o f connection to the Mycenaean past. Another conspicuous appeal to the Bronze Age past can be seen in the Late Geometric and Archaic reuse of and deposits in Mycenaean tombs in Berbati, Argos, Mycenae,and Prosymna. However, rather than maintaining dear historical memory o f the Bronze Age dignitaries interred, these deposits may be connected to ances­ tral legitimization through the use of mostly Ac­ tive genealogy . Similarly, the “Agamemneion” at Mycenae, as well as the “Menelaion” by S parta and the “Odysseinn" in Ithaca , may represent a combination of persisting memories from the heroic past with a political use of the Homeric epics in Archaic and later periods. During the Archaic period the Argolid was divided into a number of sovereign poleis: Argos, the strongest and most aggressive, Tiryns (up to 470 bce ), Mycenae (up to 468), and (for a short time) Asine. At least some of this activity, which sought legiti­ mization for the present by connection to the past, can be related to political friction between the poleis of the Argolid, including frequent military attempts by Argos to maintain its hegemony over the region in die Archaic period. References and Suggested Readings Shelmerdine 1997; Mountjoy 1999; French 2002; Hall 2002b; Sjöberg 2004. A SSA F YASUR-LANDAU

Argonautica

Jason’s voyage in the Argo from I olkos in T hessaly to the distant land o f Aietes , son o f the sun god, is recalled in Odyssey 12.69-72

as a story well known to everyone. It is not directly alluded to in the Iliad , but implied by mentions o f E unbos as a son o f Jason and H ypsipyle and ruler of Lemnos (7.468—469, 21.41, 23.747). Hesiod ( Th. 340) knew o f the mythical Phasis River, which existed only in Argonautic myth. Further references to the story in early poetry; Mimn. frs. 11 and 11a W; [Hes.] Th. 956-962, 992-1002, frs. 38, 40, 63, 241, 253-255, 263, 299; Carmen Naupactium frs. 3 -9 West; Simon. PMG 544-548, 576; Pind. Pyth. 4. The myth was also touched on and developed in the Corinthiaca attributed to Eumelus, and an epic on the subject was ascribed to Epimenides. The Argonautica presupposed in the O dyssey cannot be identiAed with any poem attested later, and may well have been current only in oral form. This unwritten poem is o f great signiAcance for the genesis o f the Odyssey itself, as A. Kirchhoff first observed in 1869. When O dysseus is told that the Argo is the only ship ever to have made the passage through the Clashing Rocks (see P lanktai), the inference is that they only existed in the Argo story and that the Odyssey poet has taken them from there. It is likely that he took from the same source several other adventures and narrative elements that elsewhere have Argonautic associations: Kirke (Aietes’ sister, 10.137), the S irens (12.39if.), the passage of O cean’s stream (10.508, 11.13), the spring Artakie (10.107). Kirke’s location near the sun­ rise (12.3-4) suits the geography of the Argonauts’ voyage but is anomalous in terms of Odysseus’ travels, which are on the whole conceived as being in the western Mediterranean (see O dysseus ’ Wanderings ). Other pointers to an eastern (Pontic) setting are the Laestrygoni ans, whose enclosed harbor (10.87-90) is best paral­ leled by Balaklava in the Crimea, and the world’send C immerians (11.14), whose homelands were around the straits of Kerch. These Argonautic or Pontic elements make an almost continuous series within Odysseus’ adventures, as if the poet had imported them en bloc to extend the hero’s itinerary, at the expense o f geo­ graphical coherence. The Argonautic legend may have originated in Submycenaean Thessaly. But the particular poem on which the Odyssey poet drew, incorporating as it did rumors from the northern sector o f the B lack S ea from the Crimea to Kerch, must date

A R IA D N E

from a period when that was the frontier zone of Greek exploration, tentatively prospected but not yet colonized. In the light of the archaeological evidence for Greek expansion in these areas, the mid-part o f the 7th century bcf. seems the likeli­ est time for it. This will be a terminus post quem for the Odyssey. References and Suggested Readings Meuli 1975,593-676; West 2005. M A RTIN L. W E S T

Argos (1) ("Apyoç; “swift-footed,” often o f dogs) Argos was the faithful dog raised by O dysseus (see H unting ) and left behind when his master sailed for T roy. When Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, returns with Eumaios to his palace in Ithaca, Argos is the first to recognize his master. Lying on a dunghill by the front gates, the old dog feebly wags his tail and lays back his ears, a last salute to his master. After an admiring appraisal by Odysseus, seconded by Eumaios, Argos dies (Od. 17.290-327). Dogs appear frequently in the O dyssey, often reflecting something significant about their mas­ ters. When T elemachos calls an assembly o f the men on Ithaca in Book 2, he makes his way there “not alone, but two swift dogs accompanied him” (2.11), a debased version o f the common motif o f the empowered male accompanied by hench­ men (e.g., II. 24.571—574); the entrance to Ai.kinoos’ palace is flanked by wondrous immor­ tal golden dogs, fashioned by Hephaistos (7.91-94; see A rtefacts); Eumaios’ enclosure is guarded by fierce dogs, loyal keepers, like their master, o f royal property in the king’s absence (13.29-31). Argos’ cameo is both a miniature recogni­ tion - scene , prefiguring the more elaborate reunions to follow, and a homely version o f the typical warrior’s death in the I liad . Once a fine hunter and tracker, he has fallen into ruin in his master’s absence. As Odysseus moves on toward the palace, “the portion ( moira ) of dark death took Argos” (17. 326).

See also A n im a ls . THOMAS VAN NORTWICK

87

Argos (2) ("Apyoç) In historical times, a Dorian state in the northeastern Peloponnese (see Argolid ), one of the principal city-states of ancient Greece. Although not present in the Peloponnese before the Iron Age, the Dorians of Argos actively cultivated the memory o f the heroic past (Whitley 1988), and it is unclear how much., of the ideological aspirations of the A rchaic Age state o f Argos went anachronistic.ally into the representation o f Argos in Homer (Finkelberg 2005, 170-175; see also C atalogue of S h ips ). The picture is further complicated by the fact that the place name “Argos” (whose meaning is apparently “plain," Allen 1909, 81-82) may be used both inclusively, relating to the whole of the Peloponnese (if not the whole of Greece; see Argives ), and specifi­ cally, designating the Argolid in the proper sense of the word and thus embracing such important centers of M ycenaean civilization as M ycenae and T iryns , both abundantly represented in heroic tradition. In the Catalogue of Ships, this territory is presented as divided between Agamemnon (Mycenae) and D iomedes (Argos and Tiryns) (see Page 1959, 127-132, on the problems involved). More idiosyncratic usages include “Achaian” and “P elasgian ” Argos (of the Argolid and southern T hessaly, respectively; see Achaeans), and lason Argos (of the Peloponnese; see lasos [4]). For a thorough, if somewhat outdated, dis­ cussion o f the entire spectrum, see Allen (1909). margalit finkelberg

Ariadne (’Apióôvq)

Ariadne is mentioned twice in Homer, once in each epic: at Iliad 18.592, where she is qualified as kalliplokamos, “with beautiful .tresses,” an epith et otherwise reserved in Homer for goddesses, and at Odyssey 11.321, as a heroine in the U nderworld (see Nekyia ). Taken together, the two passages embrace the main geographical and personal names continued to be associated with Ariadne in later tradition (Schlesier NP Suppl. 5, s.v.): the Cretan city of K nossos where she comes from; an island (named Dia) between C rete and Athens where she finds her death; the architect Daidalos who invents a chorus ( dance and dancing-ground, Lonsdale 1995) for her; King M inos, her father; and her

88

A RIA DN E

two lovers, D ionysos and T heseus . Yet even these dements combined do not form a coherent mythical structure. With the labyrinth and the Minotaur missing, her role as a helper of the Athenian hero Theseus is omitted. Theseus is not charged with abandoning her, nor is she said to become immortal as Dionysos’ wife. Conversely, the designation of Artemis as her—killer, .at the testimonies (inarturiui) of Dionysos (CM. 11.325), fails to reappear in later sources. This seems to presuppose a Cretan love affair between Ariadne and the god prior to her affair with Theseus. Minoan tradition ultimately lurks behind her chorus(Burns 1974-1975; Gutzwiller 1977),the model for the labyrinthine dance of girls and young men depicted on the S hield of Achilles (II. 18.590602). Eventually, this points to the “mistress of the labyrinth” attested in Linear B (KNGg 702), who receives honey offerings (da-pu-ri-to-jo po-ti-ni-ja me-ri), as do Z eus and Dionysos according to another Cretan tablet (KH Gq5). See also M inoan C ivilization . RENATE S C H L E SIE R

Arimoi

seeTYpHOEUS.

Arisbe (Äploßr]) A town along the H e l l e s p o n t , on die banks of the S e l l f . e i s (2) River, mentioned i n the T r o i a n C a t a l o g u e as part o f the contin­ gent of P e r k o t e (11.2.836), and home o f its leader Asios (2) (2.838-839 = 12.96-97). A x y l o s son of T e u t h r a s (2), killed by D i o m e d e s , belonged to a wealthy local family (6.12-13; see also H o u s e ­ h o l d ) . P r i a m ’ s son L y k a o n (1), after having been ransomed from captivity at L e m n o s , was brought to Arisbe before returning to Troy (21.40-48).

Aristarchus of Samothrace (216-144 bce) The most important Alexandrian grammarian; his fame as philologist is testified by the ancient defi­ nition of him as mantis, a “seer,” by Panaetius (Athen. 14.634c) or ô ypappartKtÍJTaToç, the“best of the grammarians” (Athen. 15.671-672). In Alexandria he was student of Aristophanes of Byzantium and became head librarian in 175 bce . When Ptolemy VIII became king in 145 bce ,

he expelled many intellectuals from Alexandria. Aristarchus had to leave Alexandria for Cyprus, where he died shortly after. None of Aristarchus’ works has reached us by direct tradition (apart from a scrap o f papyrus with the last lines of his commentary on Herodotus in PAmherst.12). but many fragments of his works have been preserved by later sources such as s c h o l ia to various authors (Homer and Pindar above all), lexica, and other types of exegetical works. Aristarchus’ philological work consisted of three main products; editions (see also ekdosis ), com­ mentaries (see hupom nêm ata ), and monographs (sungrammata) on particular topics. He prepared editions and/or commentaries of Homer, H esiod , Archilochus, Alcaeus, Pindar, Aristophanes, and Herodotus. He also worked on Anacreon, Aleman, Bacchylides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Ion of Chios, perhaps Euripides, and P lato. Among his mono­ graphs were Against Philitas, Against Conumus, Against the paradox o f Xenon, a polemical work against the C horizontes, On the Iliad and the Odyssey, and On the anchorage, on the Greek ship camp at Troy. Aristarchus’ most important achievement is his work on Homer. He produced an edition and a commentary but the sources are in disagree­ ment about whether there were more than one edition and more than one commentary, perhaps reflecting different stages o f his own philological activity on the Homeric text (see Ammonius). The shape of his ekdosis and his huponmênia are still debated. The most current opinion is that they were two separate texts, one (ekdosis) con­ taining the Homeric text proper together with critical signs (see S igla, C ritical ) (and perhaps with variants in the margins?), and the other (hupomnêma) containing a running commentary organized by lemmata (the Homeric lines com­ mented upon) and explanations. Aristarchus’ philological work on Homer is characterized by a constant attention to the socalled 'OpripiKii cruvf|0£ia, the “Homeric usage." His interest in the Homêrikon, i.e., what is specifi­ cally “Homeric,” is not limited to the linguistic usage and style but encompasses also the world and society depicted in the poems, the myths known to Homer, and the ethos o f the characters. In his analysis of Homeric text, Aristarchus dis­ tinguishes what is properly Homeric (Homêrikon) from what is later (neôterikon); the latter is to be

A R IS TEIA

rejected as spurious. In addition, internal incon­ sistencies must be rejected since Homer is always consistent with himself. Aristarchus considered both the Iliad and the O dyssey to be written by Homer and disagreed with the so-called Chorizontes, scholars who thought that the poems were by two different authors. In this view, as well as in the criteria he uses to analyze Homeric poetry, Aristarchus seems to follow Aristotle ’s judgment o f poetry as expressed in the Poetics. Aristarchus appears to be a prudent scholar, who did not indulge in emendations but rather tried to explain why the transmitted text was sound and indeed Homeric. In this regard, much o f his polemical force is directed against Z enodotus who, unlike Aristarchus, was much more prone to emendation or deletion of what he thought to be incorrect. Linguistic analysis played a fundamental role in helping Aristarchus to establish the right Homeric text; without being the author o f a technê grammatikê, an “Art of Grammar,” Aristarchus, who is said to have recognized eight parts o f speech (noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction), displays a strong sense of Homeric language and grammatical rules. Using philological methods such as etymology, linguistic analysis, and mythological data, he also fought against crates of mallos’ interpretations leaning toward a Stoic and allegorical inter­ pretation of the Homeric poems. In this regard, Aristarchus’ methodology is well summarized by the phrase “to clarify Homer with Homer” ("OpUpov èÇ 'Ofirjpou craijjqvifciv). This quote from Porphyry (on II. 2.297.16 Schrader), even though it is probably not original, surely describes Aristarchus' philological activity, which is highly consistent and rationalistic. Many of his observa­ tions are indeed extremely modern and subtle. Aristarchus’ impact on the Homeric tradition was paramount since the text of the Iliad and the Odyssey that we still read today is basically due to him as far as the numerus versuum is concerned. He fixed a “standard” text of Homer by deleting many pi.us-verses that had crept into the tradi­ tion due to oral recitations. See also Alexandrian Scholarship . References and Suggested Readings Lehrs 1882; Ludwich 1884—1885; Cohn 1896a; Severyns 1928; Erbse 1959; Pfeiffer 1968, 210-233; Schenkeveld

89

1970; Ax 1982; Lührs 1992; Porter 1992; Montanan 1998; Matthaios 1999; Schironi 2 001,2004,2009.

FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Aristeia The noun is formed from aristos, the superlative for agathos, the Greek word for “good.” An aristeia is like a solo in a concerto: for a while a warrior becomes the focus o f narrative atten­ tion and displays his “bestness." More often than not it ends with the hero’s injury or death . An aristeia will include (1) the arming o f the warrior (see Arming -S cenes), (2) a sequence of minor deeds, and (3) a major deed in which the warrior may win or lose. An aristeia may involve a special moment o f crisis or setback, and it may involve interludes during which the narrator’s attention shifts elsewhere. A very simple example o f an aristeia occurs when T eucer , protected by the shield o f his half-brother Ajax , kills eight T rojans in catai.ogue form and then takes two shots at H ector (II. 8.266-334), who smashes Teucer’s arm with a stone before he can get off the third. One can think o f Hector’s career from the point o f Agamemnon’s withdrawal in Iliad 11 as a gigantic aristeia, but this stretches the utility of a term that is best used to describe a relatively short and clearly contained narrative schema. There are four major aristeias on the Achaean side, and their respective heroes are D io m ed es (Book 5), Agamemnon (Book 11), Patuoki.os (Book 16), and Achilles (Books 20-21). Each of them leads to a turning-point in the n a rra tive . The aristeias of Agamemnon, Patroklos, and Achilles mark turning-points in Hector’s career: his course of victory is explicitly dated from the withdrawal o f the injured Agamemnon; it culmi­ nates with the death of Patroklos and comes to an end with his defeat by Achilles. The major aristeias begin with a scene of arm­ ing, whose details are closely tailored to the status of the warrior and subsequent events. In the case of Diomedes, however, the arming-scene is replaced with a symbolic rearming as Athene makes his shield and helmet shine (5.1-8) and marks the beginning of a narrative that ends with their joint attack on A r e s . There follows a chain o f individual killings and a finale in which the warrior triumphs (Diomedes, Achilles), is injured (Agamemnon), or killed (Patroklos).

90

A R IS L E IA

In the aristeia of Agamemnon, the splendor of his armor contrasts, perhaps intentionally, with the inconsequentiality of his achievements. His biggest triumph involves the very young and unre­ markable I phidamas, and he is put hors de combat by his equally unremarkable brother Koön. The aristeias of Diomedes, Patroklos, and Achilles involve the opposition.of the warrior and Apollo. In the Diomedeia, the major opponent Aeneas is rescued from death and restored to health by the god. Diomedes challenges, but ulti­ mately yields to Apollo’s threats, and survives. Sarpedon , Patroklos’ major opponent, is killed but given a special burial by Apollo. Patroklos also yields to the god’s threats but is ruined by him anyhow. Both these scenes are proleptic vari­ ations of the aristeia of Achilles, in which the hos­ tility of Apollo finds its mostsignificantexpression (see also Foreshadowing ). Iliad 13 contains a double aristeia of I domeneus and his henchman M eriones (13.210-539). This begins with a quasi-arming-scene, but it lacks a finale, and the fighting in the middle differs from other aristeias in its enchainment of events. See also Battle -S cenes . References and Suggested Readings Kríscher 1971. M A R TIN M U E L L E R

Homer’s heroes have often been described as “aristocrats” with “aristocratic val­ ues,” who as such appealed to Homer’s likewise “aristocratic” audiences. But there is little agree­ ment on what this means, and some scholars have argued that the concept o f aristocracy is not applicable to the world o f Homer or his audi­ ences. One view is that Homer’s heroes belong to an aristocracy in the sense of a hereditary elite which monopolizes most formal positions o f power and privilege, i.e., the kind o f aristocracy that governed many European countries at least until the French Revolution. “Aristocratic values,” on this view, are ideals associated with this European nobility which the Homeric hero is thought to share, such as the striving for honor, the cultivation of beauty, and the principles of generosity and noblesse oblige. This view was held Aristocracy

almost universally until the 1970s (see esp. Finley 1978 [19541). Insofar as more recent studies speak of “aristoc­ racy,” they tend to use the term in a much broader sense to mean “elite” or “upper class,” without any implication that it is a particular kind of elite, hereditary or otherwise closed. The notion that this elite has distinctive “aristocratic values” neverthe­ less persists, and is central to some interpretations of Greek ethics (e.g., Kurke 1999a). In other recent work, the concept of an “aristocracy” in the tradi­ tional sense has been abandoned altogether, and it is argued that the position of the Homeric elite is not simply hereditary but based on a combination of birth and merit (esp. Donlan 1999), or else that there is no distinct elite at all but that some men merely enjoy temporary and informal positions of eminence and influence based primarily on per­ sonal merit (esp. Ulf 1990; Rihll 1992; with a fore­ runner in Calhoun 1934a, 1934b, 1962). At least one episode in the Iliad makes a clear distinction between the elite and the rest, when O d y s s e u s tries to restore order in the Greek army and metes out different treatment to the men depending on whether one is “a lord ( basileus ) and excellent man” or “a man o f the people (dêm os)”: the former are politely asked to sit down and make others sit down as well (2.188196; see P e i r a ) . The latter are beaten with a s t a f f and shouted at, told to obey their superiors, and reminded that they “count for nothing in war or c o u n c i l ” (19 8 -2 0 6 ); their treatment is further illustrated by Odysseus’ beating o f T h e r s i t e s (211-278). This sharp divide in power and status is probably taken for granted throughout the poems, but its nature is not immediately clear. The status o f “lords” (basileis) is a matter of debate. M ost o f the evidence relates to the supreme “lord” who rules the community: his position is normally hereditary, though legitimate heirs may be bypassed and outsiders co-opted (see K i n g s h i p ) . That the other, lesser, lords also normally enjoy a hereditary position is implied by the fact that their unmarried sons and daugh­ ters are already called basileus and basileia (Od. 6.115, 18.64-65, 24.179; cf. 7.148-150), and by the exhortation that one should not pick a worse com panion over a better man, “motivated by respect, with an eye on his descent (geneê), not even if he is more lordly (basileuteros)” (II. 10.237-239). The significance of “descent” as

A R IS T O C R A C Y

a criterion of status is repeatedly mentioned (II. 7.128, 11.786-787, 14.113 and 126-127; Od. 4.611), and men and women pride themselves on having “a good father" (II. 6.292, 21.109; Od. 1 1.235, 21.335,22.227). Several heroes recite their g en ea lo g ies (II. 6.150-236,20.203-241,21.157161), often in order to demonstrate that their high birth entails superior personal qualities (21.184-199; cf. 5.631-642, 13.449-453, 20.105107; Adkins 1975). The lords’ distinctive good looks ("you look like a basileus": Od. 17.416, 20.194-196, 24.253) are also inherited (4.62-64). Personal merit is an integral element of elite status: the heroes are often collectively called “the best men” (aristoi); even Odysseus’ enemies are thought of as “the best men” of the region (Od. 2.51,23.121-122; cf. 4.652, 24.429; cf. 6.257, 8.91 and 108; II. 10.214), while those who are not lords are categorically described as “bad men” (kakoi, Od. 4.62-64; cf. II. 2.190). The heroes’ motto is famously “always be the best and excel above others” (II. 6.208,11.784), and, by and large, Homer portrays a world in which all the major forms of excellence (see auetê) are indeed united in the same men: the strongest warriors are also the most handsome men, the best councilors, and the greatest athletes. By contrast, the only com­ petitor in the games in the Iliad who is not a leader, E peios , is emphatically portrayed as good at only one event, boxing, and useless in other sports as well as in combat (II. 23.670-671, 839-840). The “people” at large are collectively dismissed as “cowards and weaklings” (2.200-202) and as inca­ pable o f producing children as beautiful as the offspring of basileis (Od. 4.62-64; cf. 1.411). A third criterion of status alongside descent and personal merit is wealth. The ruler o f each city tends to be its richest man (Od. 4.78-81, 14.96-99; II. 24.535-536); many lesser figures are also called “rich” or “prosperous” (e.g., 5.541545 and 707-710, 6.12-15 and 47-48, 9.483, 10.314-315,13.663-664,14.121-125,16.594-596, 23.296-299). There are only a few hints that “the rich” are a distinct group, however (“those who live well and are called rich,” Od. 17.423,19.79; cf. 15.433), and no references to “the poor” as a class: with the exception o f slaves and beggars in the Odyssey , Homer never describes anyone as poor, or even merely moderately well off. Such a combination o f wealth, descent, and personal merit may exist in a society where the

91

only significant way to acquire property is through inheritance, and where the families who control most wealth cultivate personal excellence to an extent which those with fewer assets cannot match. Some argue that this is precisely what we find in Homer (esp. Adkins 1960a; Finley 1978 [1954], 53,59-60). Yet in a story told by Odysseus, a poor man acquires wealth in a series of success­ ful plundering raids, then marries into a rich family and joins the ruling elite, only to lose everything again when his next raiding venture fails (Od. 14.199-212, 229-239). The frequency of warfare and raiding in the Homeric world implies that this kind of upward and downward mobility would not be unusual. Other means o f acquiring (or losing) wealth are the seizure of land within the community, whether by public confiscation (II. 18.300-302; Od. 16.428—429) or by private usur­ pation (e.g., II. 5.478—481; Od. 16.383-386), and the occupation of new land by either internal or external “colonization” (Od. 6.6-10, 24.205207). Homer tells stories o f penniless wanderers who marry into the ruling elite on the strength of their heroic prowess (IL 6.192,14.119-121), as well as o f rich men who expect to be able to marry a woman of the highest status purely on the basis of their wealth, regardless of descent or personal merit (Od. 15.16-18, 20.289-290, 21.162). Conversely, those who lose their property may become social outcasts, even if they are o f the most noble descent (II. 22.489-498). Homer does not suggest that ownership of property is static, or that the elite is hereditary and closed. Another way o f interpreting Homeric social structure is therefore to stress the importance of personal excellence, as well as the indications of social mobility, and to infer the existence of a very open and egalitarian society in which personal merit is the most important factor and almost anyone has the opportunity to win wealth and prestige (U lf 1990; Rihll 1992). Yet on this view it is hard to understand the significant role of descent, or the wide social gap between “the lords” and “the people” suggested by the Iliad. Since it is difficult to reconstruct from the epics a picture o f the elite that is both consistent and realistic, one may instead explain Homer’s image of the “lords” as an amalgam o f historical ele­ ments, some derived from a relatively egalitarian and fluid Dark Age social structure, others from an early Archaic society more sharply divided

92

A R IS T O C R A C Y

along class lines (Rose 1992, 43-140; 2009, 475). Or again one could argue that the picture includes a large element of fantasy, either because it is a vague, fairy-tale construction (Geddes 1984) or because it projects contemporary ideals rather than realities (van Wees 1992, 78-89). It is possi­ ble, for instance, that Homer reflects a society like that of Archaic Greece in which the status of the elite was in practice largely based on their wealth, and in which the newly rich were absorbed into the elile through mauri age - as well as by admis­ sion to their dining circles ( O d . 11.184—187; van Wees 1995; see also Fkastinc;) - yet in which this quite fluid elite of property legitimated their posi­ tion by claiming superior descent as well as supe­ rior personal qualities. Homer does, in any case, set out an "aristocratic ideal” in the literal sense that he portrays the lords who rule the community as its “best” men, who excel in military and athletic prowess, in beauty, and usually also in wisdom and eloquence. Exceptions are noted and criticized (e.g., II. 24.260-262; Od. 8.165-177, 17.454-457). The lords are expected to use their personal excellence to defend their cities in war and to ensure that jus­ tice is upheld (esp. II. 16.542; cf. on justice 1.234-239, 2.205-206, 9.98-99, 156, and 298, 16.384-392,18.503-506; Od. 11.569-571,19.108114), as well as to allow their subjects to bask in the reflected glory of their military and athletic achievements (e.g., II. 12.315—321; cf. Donlan 1999, 1-25). This ideal is evidently shared by rul­ ers and subjects alike. It is not obvious that there are any other “aristocratic” Homeric norms or ideals in the sense that they are exclusive to, or much more developed among, the elite. Little is said about the values o f the common man, but it is significant that even slaves and servants share their masters’ ideals of competitiveness (Od. 6.91-92, 15.321-323, 18.366-375; see competition ), bravery (21.202,22.283-292), and generosity (14.48-82,413-445). See also C i.ass ; Values. HAN S VAN W E E S

Aristonicus Alexandrian grammarian of the Augustan Age, contemporary of D idymus and Strabo . He was active in Rome and wrote

commentaries of Pindar, Aleman, and Stesichorus. He worked on Homer, but it is not dear whether he wrote commentaries (Etym. Gud. 348.20 and also 334.12; Ammon. Diff. 352) or monographs on specific topics (Strab. 1.2.31). Aristonicus is mainly famous for his work on the critical sigla used by Aristarchus to comment on Homer and on H esiod . . His. work On the signs o f the. Iliad and o f the Odyssey (it is uncertain whether this was a single work or two separate works, one for each poem) has been preserved through the Viermannbrkommentar in the Homeric scholia , in particular in the V enetus A of the I lia d . These notes are the main source for Aristarchus’ work on Homer. The scholia derived from Aristonicus (edited by Friedländer 1853 and Carnuth 1869) are recognizable because they normally start with o il (“because”) or apex; (“with reference to”), a shorthand incipit for which one must assume the omitted phrase: “ [the critical sign is placed here) ‘because’/'with reference to.’” See also Scholarship , Ancient. FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257-180 bce ) In ca. 200-195 bce Aristophanes became the fourth head librarian o f Alexandria after Eratosthenes of Cyrene. Together with Aristarchus of Samothrace, lie is the most important Alexandrian grammarian. His main work is the editions o f the lyric poets and their colometry, a work that established the canon of the nine lyric poets. He also wrote the hypotheses o f Attic dramas, edited Aristophanes, and worked on H esiod , Sophocles, Euripides, and P lato. He is the author of the. most famous collections of difficult words (lexeis) o f antiquity as well as of several monographs on literary topics and other antiquarian collections. Aristophanes made an edition (see also ekdo sis ) of Homer but did not write any commentary (see hupomnêmata). Unfortunately, little of Aristophanes’ editorial activity is preserved because the fame o f his pupil Aristarchus surpassed his own; since they often agreed, Aristophanes’ opin­ ion was seldom reported (while the opinions of Z enodotus were preserved because Aristarchus

A RIS TO TLE AND HOMER

often argues against him). From the fragments, it is clear, however, that Aristophanes disagreed with Zenodotus’ previous edition and reinserted many lines that Zenodotus had deleted. When Aristo­ phanes had doubts about the authenticity o f lines, he marked them with an odei.os rather than delet­ ing them from his text. He added some new critical sigla , such as the asteriskos to indicate repeated lines and the couplet sigma/antisigma for two suc­ cessive lines o f identical meaning. Aristophanes (followed by Aristarchus) con­ sidered Odyssey 23.296 the peras or telos (the “end”) of the O dyssey. This does not mean that he considered the rest of the poem as spurious, but rather that, according to him, in a very Aristotelian manner, with the reunion of O dysseus and P enelope the plot of the Odyssey had reached a resolution. His Homeric edition was at the basis of Aristarchus’ work on Homer. See also Alexandrian Scholarship . References and Suggested Readings Cohn 1896b; Pfeiffer 1968, 171-209; Slater 1982, 1986; Blank and Dyck 1984; Ax 1990.

FRANCESCA SCHIRONI

Aristotle and Homer Aristotle’s Homer is the single poet who composed the I liad and Odyssey , and the burlesque narrative Margites (Poet. 4, 1448b30; Eth. Nie. 6.7, U 41al2-15; West 2003a, 225-228, 240-253). In Aristotle’s view the Iliad and Odyssey possessed technical excellences that set them apart from other epics, and Margites shared the two most important o f these distinc­ tive features. To appreciate the significance which Aristotle attached to these two features, we must understand his view of poetry’s natural progres­ sion from primitive improvisations to the most advanced poetic forms. In the first decisive trans­ formation, poems of praise (hymns and encomia) and blame (iambic invective) become vehicles for storytelling , producing epic and burlesque narratives. The second transformation sees the emergence o f drama, in which a story is enacted rather than narrated. The latter step was not taken by Homer him­ self; in Aristotle’s view, drama emerged from cho­ ral rather than narrative poetry (Poet. 4, 1449a9-14). But Homer adumbrated drama in

93

his use o f a quasi-dramatic narrative technique: “Homer deserves praise for many reasons, but above all because he alone among poets is not ignorant of what he should do in his own person... Other poets perform in person through­ out, and imitate little and seldom; but after a brief preamble Homer introduces a man or woman or some other character” (24,1460a5-11, interprcled differently by de Jong 2005; cf. 3, 1448a 19—27). The Homeric narratives are therefore analogous to drama: Iliad and Odyssey to tragedy , Margites to comedy ( 4 , 1448b38-49a2). In tragedy, “the imitation of character is not the purpose of what the agents do: character is included along with and on account o f the actions” (6, 1450a20-22). The same principle can be applied to epic. In the poetry of praise or blame, actions are reported in order to illustrate character; but in narrative poetry, the representa­ tion o f character is subordinate to the story. The Odyssey, for example, is not an encomium of O dysseus, nor even a poem about Odysseus; it recounts a sequence o f actions, in which Odysseus is protagonist. The question of how these actions should be selected and organized is therefore of paramount importance. A properly constructed plot must satisfy two basiccriteria (7 ,1450b20-34): the complete series o f actions is appropriately delimited (it has a beginning and an end); and the constituent actions in the middle are linked by necessary or probable connections (one thing because o f another, not simply one thing after another: 10, 1452a20f.). Most epic poets have failed to grasp this, and have constructed their plots from causally unrelated incidents from a hero’s life ( 8 , 1451al6-21), or from causally unre­ lated events occurring within a single period of time (23, 1459al7-30). Even the few who have avoided those errors have composed epics about “a single action of many parts,” like the C ypria and L it t l e I liad (23, 1459a37-b7). Homer, uniquely, based his plots on one part of such an extended sequence ( 2 3 ,1459a30-37). In the Iliad, for example, instead of narrating the whole T roian War, which would have been “a single action o f many parts,” he focused selectively on one part of the war, using other parts, such as the C atalogue of S h ips , as “episodes” (23, 1459a35-37). The account of the deployment of the Greek army in Iliad 2 is integral to the narra­ tive of the poem’s connected plot; but a detailed

94

A R I S I O T L E AND HOMER

enumeration o f the contingents, based on the assembly of the fleet at Aulis , was not essential. The Iliad and Odyssey are alike in this respect (8, 1451a28-30). The Odyssey does not narrate the whole o f Odysseus’ life, or even the whole of his journey from Troy. In Aristotle’s analysis (17, 1455bl5-23), the plot begins near the end of Odysseus’ absence, and contains only the final stages o f his return: “A man has been away from home for many years... Despite being ship­ wrecked he reaches home, reveals his identity to a number o f people and attacks. He survives and destroys his enemies.” Aristotle comments: “that much is integral; the rest is episodes.” The rest will include Odysseus’ account o f his past wander­ ings . Aristotle was not forced to exclude the past wanderings from the Odyssey’s plot, since he rec­ ognizes that some elements of a plot may precede the beginning of the narrating text (1 4 ,1453b31f.; 15, 1454b3—8; 18, 1455b24f.; 24, 1460a27-32). But their inclusion would produce an inferior “single action of many parts”; treating the past wanderings as episodes does more justice to the poem’s structural excellence. It must be acknowledged that “episode” in Aristotle is a contested term (Friedrich 1983). In tragedy, “episode” is defined as a segment of text between choral songs (12, 1452b20f.). In a wellconstructed play, the episodes present parts of a connected plot; failing that, the play is “episodic” in a pejorative sense (10,1451 b33-52a 1; Metaph. 14.3, 1090bl9f.). Comedy retained this primitive struc­ ture longer than tragedy, preserving the “iambic form” (iambikê idea) - that is, the lack of causal connection typical of non-narrative invectives {Poet. 4, 1449b5-9). The “iambic form" is com­ monly understood as the lampooning o f real indi­ viduals, as distinct from comic fictions; but Aristotle’s discussion o f poetic universality, cited in support o f this interpretation (9, 1451b6-16), clearly makes fiction secondary to necessary or probable connection ( 9 , 1451b29-32; Heath 1991). Epic has no chorus; so epic episodes cannot be defined in the same way as episodes in drama. They, too, are segments o f text; but because epic is more expansive than drama, segments o f epic text can legitimately be used to lengthen, punctuate, and diversify the poem (17, 1455bl5f.; 23, 1459a36f.; 2 4 ,1459b28-30). This analysis does not imply that such episodes are arbitrary intrusions, or that they add nothing o f value to a poem. Rather, Aristotle

distinguishes plot from the text in which plot is realized. Constraints on plot-structure are broadly similar in epic and drama, but epic and dramatic textualization adds value in different ways. The analogy between epic and drama allows Aristotle to characterize the plots o f the Iliad and Odyssey in terms o f plot-types also found in trag­ edy. The Odyssey is an example o f a “complex”, plot, i.e., one which has recognition and/or reversal (10, 14 52a 16). The poem is “recognition through­ out” (23, I459bl5), and in the scene in which Odysseus is bathed by E u r y k i . f . i a the effect of the recognition is enhanced by a simultaneous reversal (16, 1454b25-30; cf. 11, 1452a32f.; see R e c o g n i t i o n - S c e n e ; S c a r o f O d y s s e u s ) . Reversal (peripeteia) must not be confused with a mere change o f fortune, from good to bad, or vice versa: that also occurs in simple plots, while reversal is a deli ni ng feature o f complex plots. But Aristotle’s explanation o f reversal is unclear (1 1 ,1452a22—24), and its interpretation remains disputed (Belfiore 1988). Reversal and recognition are, at any rate, absent from the /find, which is simple and depends for its emotional impact on suffering (2 3 ,1459bl4). “Suffering” {pathos) is “an action that involves destruction or pain,” such as death or wounding (11, 1452bl0—13). The Iliad is thus comparable to a tragedy like Sophocles’ Ajax (1 8 ,1455b34f.). Recognition and reversal are the most power­ ful sources o f tragedy’s psychological impact (6, 1450a33-35); hence complex plots are supe­ rior to simple plots ( 1 3 ,1452b30-32). But just as Aristotle’s argument for the superiority o f trag­ edy to epic {Poetics 26) does not imply that the Iliad is inferior to every individual tragedy, so the superiority o f complex plots does not warrant the conclusion that Aristotle ranks the Odyssey more highly than the Iliad. Any generalization about plot-types is subject to an implicit ceteris paribus, since the quality o f a poem depends on many variables. So, for example, the Odyssey is also an example o f the “double plot," i.e., one “which ends with the opposite outcome for better and worse people” (13, 1453a31-34). Aristotle rejects the view of some contemporaries that this was the optimal tragic plot-type. Indeed, he seems at first sight not to regard the double plot as tragic at all: “this is not the pleasure which comes from tragedy; it is more characteristic o f comedy. In comedy even people who are the bitterest ene­ mies in the story, like O r e s t e s and A i g i s t h o s , go

A RIS TO TLE AND HOMER

off reconciled in the end, and no one gets killed by anybody” (13, 1453b35-39). But Odysseus and the S uitors are not reconciled, and the Suitors do get killed. The transparent caricature is a jocu­ lar polemical device: Aristotle’s sober judgment is that the double plot represented by the Odyssey is “second best” (13, 1453a30f.). We have still not exhausted Homer’s technical excellences. The effect of the quasi-dramalic technique noted earlier is enhanced by his abil­ ity to portray character: “after a brief preamble Homer introduces a man or woman or some other character - and none of them are charac­ terless: they have character” (24, 1460a9-ll; see C haracterization ). The other elements of epic, alongside plot and character, are poetic diction and thought (the means by which characters seek to influence one another by argument and emo­ tional appeal: Poet. 6,1450b4—12; 19,1456a34-b8). Homer excels in both (24, 1459b 16). Sometimes Homer exploits these excellences to distract us from aspects of his narrative that might otherwise seem odd or implausible. This reveals an important element of flexibility in Aristotle’s views on plot construction. It might be thought that irrationalities and impossibilities would compromise the necessity or probability of the sequence of events that constitutes the plot. However, Aristotle believes that they are accepta­ ble if they help the poem achieve its effect (25, 1460b23-26). His example is the pursuit of H ector , which (as he has explained earlier) “would seem preposterous on stage, with the oth­ ers standing by and taking no part in the pursuit while Achilles shakes his head to restrain them; but in epic it escapes notice" (24, 1460al4-17). The fact that epic is not enacted ensures that this implausibility does not obtrude on the audience’s attention and spoil their experience of the narra­ tive. But in the scene where the P haeacians leave Odysseus asleep on the shore, distraction requires Homer’s exceptional skill: “the irrationalities involved in Odysseus’ being put ashore...would be manifestly intolerable if a second-rate poet had composed them, but as it is the poet conceals the absurdity with other good qualities, and makes it a source o f pleasure” (24, 1460a34-b2). That is not to say that Homer is faultless. His epics, by implication, exceed the ideal length (24, 1459b 17-22; cf. 7, 1450b34-51al5). And some details can be faulted: for example, the divine

95

intervention that prevents the launching of the in Iliad 2 is not a resolution that arises “from the plot itself” (15, 1454a7-b2; cf. fr. 142 Rose [366 Gigon]). Fourth-century intellectuals discussed apparent faults in Homer intensively (P lato exploited this industry in his critique of poetry in Republic 2). Aristotle collected and examined many such objections in his six books of Homeric Problems. Only fragments survive, but Poetics 25 provides an extremely compressed syn­ opsis. Aristotle sets out principles for dealing with problems and their solution in a way that is strik­ ingly systematic, when compared with the a d hoc rationalizations found in the fragments of other contributors to the discussion (Heath 2009). A corpus of poetry of acknowledged excellence that has been subjected to intense critical scrutiny provides the basis for understanding what is, and what is not, a relevant fault in poetry. Aristotle included biographical traditions about Homer in the dialogue On Poets (fr. 76 Rose [20 Gigon]; Huxley 1974; see biographies of homer). He lived at the time of the Ionian migration under Neleus; his mother, a girl from Ios, left home after becoming pregnant, was captured by pirates, and was given to Maeon, the Lydian king o f Smyrna (see M aeonians). He was buried on Ios, having died o f depression after failing to solve a riddle. It is not clear how much o f this romance Aristotle endorsed: he is unlikely, for example, to have believed that Homer’s mother was made pregnant by “one o f the spirits who dance with the M uses .” We can be more confident o f his commitment to inferences about Homer’s poetic abilities drawn from the poems themselves. The remarkable fact that Homer excelled in both serious and comic forms o f poetry suggests that he possessed to a unique degree the adaptability o f the kind o f poet who is “gifted” {Poet. 1 7 ,1455a32-34). Aristotle is not convinced that Homer’s insight into plotstructure was due to “art” (i.e., a reasoned under­ standing o f the principles o f poetics: Metaph. 1.1, 981al-b6); natural talent is an alternative possibil­ ity {Poet. 8, 1451a23f.). Significantly, although he assumes that tragedians converged on the best material for tragic plots by “chance” (i.e., trial and error) rather than by reasoned understanding (14, 1454al0f.), he does not consider chance as a factor in Homer’s achievements. In Aristode’s other works, Homer is cited or mentioned more than a hundred times. These

sh ips

96

ARIS TO TLE AND HOMER

references provide illustrations of, or indicative support for, Aristotle’s opinions, rather than authoritative proof (Johansen 1999); Aristotle is happy to point out Homer’s factual errors (Hist. An. 8.28,606al8-21). He does use Homer as evi­ dence for social structures in earlier times (Eth. Nie. 3.3, 1113a5-9; Pol. 1.2, 1252b20-27; 3.14, 1285a7-14); even his silences can ground historical inferences (Mete. 1.14, 351b32-2a5). Conversely, puzzling aspects of Homeric life can be illuminated by practices attested in the contemporary world, whether in Greece (fr. 166 Rose [389 Gigon]) or among non-Greeks, who often preserve old cus­ toms now obsolete among the Greeks (Poet. 25, 1461al; fr. 160 Rose [383 Gigon|; Huxley 1979). Aristotle’s quotations frequently differ from thetransmittedtext(seeTF.XTANDTRANSMissiON). The significance of these differences is hard to assess. Some may provide evidence for the text current in the 4th century, especially when the point of a citation depends on the variant reading (see varia lectio ). For example, Aristotle reports Hippias of Thasos’ solution to a problem in Iliad 2.15, apparently unaware of the reading o f the transmitted text, in which the problem does not arise (Poet. 2 5 ,1461a21—23; Soph. El. 4 , 166b l-9); M. L. West (2001, 175) accordingly accepts the reading presupposed by Hippias’ problem. Similarly, a problem in Iliad 10.1-2 (Poet. 25, 1461al6-20) depends on the reading “all”; the problem does not arise if we read “others,” with the transmitted text. In most cases, however, a lapse of memory may be the best explanation for otherwise unattested variants in Aristotle’s quota­ tions. At Nicomachean Ethics 3 .8,1116a29-35, for example, Aristotle intends to quote Hector’s words at Iliad 15.348-349, but produces a (loose and informally abbreviated) quotation of words spoken in a similar context by Agamemnon at Iliad 2.391-393; Agamemnon’s lines are correctly attributed elsewhere (Pol. 3.14, 1285a7-14) though with the puzzling addition of an entirely unparalleled half-line. A “corrected” copy o f the Iliad reportedly treasured by Alexander the G reat is attributed to Aristotle by some sources (Plut. Alex. 8.2), but not others (Strab. 13.1.27). Though a systematically edited text is unlikely, a copy in which Aristotle had sporadically anno­ tated problems is conceivable. If such a copy did exist, there is no evidence that it was available to later scholars; their knowledge of Aristotle’s views

on the Homeric text probably derived from the Homeric Problems. See also Scholarship , Ancient. R e fe r e n c e s a n d S u g g e s te d R e a d in g s

The P o e tic s is a complex, cryptic, and inevitably contro­ versial text. Translations from the P o e tic s are based on Heath 1996; Janko 1987 may provide a useful contrast, with fuller annotation. Lucas 1968 remains a servicea­ ble commentary. Richardson 1992 concisely illuminates the background to Aristotle’s reading o f Homer. Hogan 1973 surveys Homer in the P o e tic s without deep analy­ sis. Halliwell 1986, 253-66 considers epic in a booklength treatment o f the P o e tic s . Sanz Morales 1994 discusses a number o f aspects o f Aristotle’s Homer, including the text o f the quotations.

MALCOLM HEATH

Arkesilaos (’Apiceaíkaoç) One o f the five com­ manders o f the Boeotian contingent in the C atalogue of S h ips (II. 2.495). As with his co­ leaders P rothoenor and K i.onios , practically nothing further is known of him. Killed by H ector in the Battle at the Ships (15.329-330). See also Boeotians.

Arktos ( “ApKroç, “bear”) The Bear, a constella­ tion comprising at this period only the seven bright stars, a ß y ô e Ç q, of the later, larger Ursa Major (Hipparchus, Comm, in Arat. 1.5.6). It is mentioned at Iliad 18.487 as part of the decora­ tion of the S hield of Achilles , and at Odyssey 5.273 as part of the sailing instructions given O dysseus by Kalypso. The name Arktos may be a corruption of a Near Eastern word for “wagon,” such as ereqqu, the name for this constellation in Babylonian astronomy, and a shape that the stargroup more closely resembles; Amaxa, the Wagon, is Homer’s alternative name for this constellation (Hunger and Pingree 1989, 22, 137; Kidd 1997, 181-182). Arktos is a circumpolar constellation, neither rising over the horizon nor setting under it, a point made at Iliad 18.489. Its close associa­ tion with the P leiades, H yades, and O rion on the Shield may signify its upper or lower culmina­ tion at the time when these other stars rise or set at dawn, and a seasonal, agricultural association

ARN E

seems likely (Edwards 1991, 212; Hannah 1994, 2005, 18-27; see seasons ). Navigation is the explicit context in the O d y s s e y (see S ea farin g ), and while it has been doubted whether the stars enumerated could be so used (Hainsworth in Heubeck et al. 1988, 276-277), on the assumption that the north celestial pole was crucial to ancient navigation, arguments have been made instead in favor of the use of stellar navigation, by which the stars listed by Kalypso may have signaled specific compass directions for Odysseus (Hannah 1997). See also Astronom y . ROBERT HANNAH

Arming-Scenes The poet sings an armingscene on four occasions in the I l i a d : 3.328-338 (Pa r is ); 11.15-55 (A gamemnon ); 16.130-154 (P atroklos ); and 19.364-424 (A c h il l e s ). A fifth scene, the arming of T euger , occurs in attenu­ ated form at 15.479-482. There are no armingscenes in the O d y s s e y . An arming-scene is characterized by a recog­ nizable sequence of ideas; for this reason it is identified as a “typical scene” (see T ype -S cenes). The hero dons greaves and corslet, slings his sword over his shoulder, puts on his helmet, and takes up his spear(s) (see W eapons and Armor ). If he is a charioteer (as are Patroklos and Achilles), his horses are made ready. The order in which the war-gear is put on is fixed, not because the scene has been ritualized, but because a warrior arms in a sequence dictated by practical consid­ erations. By studying what is stable and what is variable in these arming-scenes, we gain insight into compositional practice in this oral epic tradition. The order of arming may be routine, but the arming of each warrior is different. Every item o f armor is described at least briefly. This elabora­ tion distinguishes the war-gear of each hero and invites us to reflect on his character, his role in the story, or his destiny. M etals and metalwork are valued. For example, the hero’s greaves are invari­ ably beautiful, and they are fitted with silver ankle clasps. His sword is bronze, and is distinguished by nails of silver (or gold, in Agamemnon’s case: 11.29-30). The poet pauses over the corslet (nota­ bly Paris’, on loan [3.333), and Agamemnon’s, a

97

gift from K inyras [11.19-28]) and the shield (Agamemnon’s at 11.32-40; Achilles’ at 19.373380) to single out the attributes of each, celebrat­ ing it, and by implication the hero, through description, narrative, and sim ile . Each arming-scene prefaces a critical phase in the story. Paris’ arming precedes his inconclusive duel with M enelaos (reminding us of the wrong that gave rise to the war). The splendid arming of Agamemnon, accompanied by a heaven-sent crash of thunder in his honor, looks ahead to his decisive, although brief, performance on the field, as leader of the Achaean forces (see Aristeia ). When Patroklos dons Achilles’ war-gear we are reminded of the affection that binds the two heroes; and when he does not take up Achilles’ huge, heavy spear (16.140-144), we perceive what Patroklos lacks, Achilles’ great strength. When a mortal horse is harnessed up for him (16.152-154) alongside Achilles’ divine horses, Patroklos’ vulnerability again comes to mind. Despite his armor he is des­ tined for death, at the hands of Hector. Finally, Achilles’ arming-scene is expanded by detailed description and simile. Each item, except his Pelian ash spear (see P elion), has been newly made by H ephaistos. His shield is like the moon (19.374); his helmet shines like a star (19.381). The magnifi­ cence o f Achilles’ armor befits his parentage, his strength, his peerless skill, and his capacity for vengeance. Achilles’ arming is, as Armstrong ( V958a, 354) observes, “climactic.” It awakens our expecta­ tions o f a brilliant performance. And this is what we see, first, in Achilles’ battle with the S kamandros River (II. 21) and, secondly, in his much-delayed duel with Hector (II. 22), in which Achilles finally brings down the man who slew Patroklos. See also Style . References and Suggested Readings Armstrong 1958a; Reinhardt 1961,310-313; Kirk 1985, 313-314. EL IZ A B E T H M IN C H IN

Armor

see W eapons

Arne (’Apvq)

and

Armor .

City in Boeotia, mentioned as “many-vined Arne” in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.507). M enesthios (1), son o f Ake'ithoos ,

98

ARNE -

is said to have lived in Arne (II. 7.9). Its actual location is unknown. According to one view, adduced by Strabo (9.2.35; cf. 1.3.18), it was subsumed by Lake Kopais (see K ephisian Lake ), while according to Pausanias (9.40.3) Arne was an ancient name o f Chaeronea deliberately used by Homer (cf., however, [Hes.] Sc. 381,475 and fr. 218 M -W)_. Instead o f Amê__at Iliad 2.507, Z enodotus read Askrê and others Tarne.

battle, and which, like the boar’s tusk helmet that M hriones lends O dysseus (10.261-271), have passed through the hands of several heroic owners in several different places and thereby acquired “biographies.” These typically take the form o f warrior equipment or o f other equip­ ment characteristic o f a heroic lifestyle, like the gilded silver krater for mixing w ine which M knelaos gives T klemachos as a parting gift at the end o f his visit to S parta (Od. 4.615-619 = See also Boeotians. 15.115-119). Although not strictly speaking arte­ facts, animate possessions, like the twelve prize­ winning horses and eight female captives, Artakie (’Aprouciq) A spring in the land o f the including B riseis , offered by Agamemnon to Laestrygonians (Od. 10.108). Its name is almost Achilles (11. 9.123-134 = 265-276), also fall into this category (see further Exchange). certainly drawn from an older A rgonautica , cf. the spring Artakie at Cyzicus in the Propontis, There are some reasons to suspect that the idea which became an integral part o f the Argonaut of these personal, portable artefacts and their bio­ legend (Ap. Rhod. 1.957). The problem o f the graphical histories (if not their particulars) form location o f the Homeric Artakie has been the one of the more traditional motifs of the epics’ content (Bennet 2004). Not only are they on occa­ subject o f much discussion. sion the subject of verbatim repeated passages but also, in the case of the boar’s tusk helmet (the only References and Suggested Readings Heubeck in Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989,49. one mentioned in either epic), this is a type which is last glimpsed in any form in the archaeological record of the 11th century bce, in representations of warriors in the 13th century, and probably has Artefacts Artefacts - items of material culture not been a regular type o f elite warrior helmet since play a variety o f important roles in relation to the the end of the 15th century. In another interesting Homeric epics: as “props” belonging to the com­ posite heroic world created by the epics themselves; case (that o f the unworked throwing-weight [solon as items to be envisaged or appreciated by succes­ autokhoônon] in Iliad 23.826-835), the cultural sive Homeric audiences; as objects to be puzzled values embodied in the pedigree of such a prized object appear to be at odds with the expectations of over by ancient and modern Homeric commenta­ a Homeric audience. Solon is an obscure word of tors; and (since the late 19th century) as a means unknown derivation that appears only in the Iliad of attempting to unlock the relationships of the and one or two other probably derivative contexts epics to the archaeological record of early Greece. (cf. Frisk 1970, 753), but it appears from the pas­ Within the I liad and Odyssey , one o f the sage as a whole that Homeric audiences “knew” it more striking roles o f artefacts is as distinguish­ to be of iron . What they clearly had difficulty in ing attributes o f individual heroes. In the Iliad, comprehending, however, was how this unworked for example, Ajax is distinguished on three occa­ iron object could have been so valued for its own sions by his tower-like shield (7.219, 11.485, 17.128), an attribute that seems to be associated sake as to have been thought worth taking as a spoil with him alone; while Achilles is distinguished of war and offering as a prize in a shot-putting con­ test; and, as a result, a few explanatory lines were by the size, heaviness, and thickness of the single needed to point out how many agricultural and spear with which he arms himself before battle and which only he is capable of handling (19.387— pastoral tools it would provide for the winner. The pedigree of this lump thus seems consonant with a 388), just as only N e s t o r can easily lift the curi­ Bronze Age attitude to iron, which regarded it as ously elaborate cup that belongs to him (11.636-637; see N e s t o r ’s C u p ) . Named heroes the most precious of metals - an attitude which a fully Iron Age audience, for whom iron was a base also often possess other prized artefacts which they have received as gifts or taken as booty in metal of primarily utilitarian application, would

ARTE FA C TS

find extremely difficult to understand. Elsewhere, scattered throughout the Iliad and Odyssey, we find similar incompatible attitudes to iron that probably also reflect the values of different chronological eras in which certain formulaic lines or phrases initially entered the bardic repertoire (see Formula ): the bronze, gold, and laboriously wrought iron (apparently in ascending order of value) which epitomize a hero’s idea of wealth as measured in bullion (II. 6.48 = 1 0 .3 7 9 = 1 1. 1 3 3 = Od. 21.10, 14.324); and, against this, the frequent metaphorical use of iron which emphasizes hard­ ness and unyieldingness (e.g., II. 4 . 5 1 0 , 2 0 . 3 7 2 , 22.357,23.177, 2 4 . 2 0 5 , 521; Od. 1 . 2 0 4 , 4 . 2 9 3 , 5 . 1 9 1 , 12.280,19.211 and 494,23.172), qualities most eas­ ily appreciated in a context in which the main value of iron is as the normal everyday material for effec­ tive cutting tools and weapons. Other arlefactual anomalies, such as the single thrusting spears with which certain heroes are habitually armed but which are subsequently treated as multiple throw­ ing spears in battle (II. 6.318-320 = 19.387-391, 13.830, 19.387-391; contrast 20.273, 413, 438) or neck-to-ankle body shields which unexpectedly become perfectly (and unrealistically) round (6.117; contrast 7.250; see Weapons and Armor), probably also have their roots in formulaic lines or phrases inherited from different periods in which the artefacts they describe were the most fashiona­ ble equipment for contemporary heroes (see also anachronism ). For Homeric audiences, artefacts will also have played an important role in several different ways. Apart from their often integral roles in the plots o f various episodes and certain types of scenes (for example, Odysseus’ bow which only he can string, and the intriguing axes capable o f having an arrow shot through them in the contest of the bow in Od. 19.572-578, 21.73-76, 118-123, 420423, or the armor with which heroes arm them­ selves in scenes such as II. 16.130-144 or 19.369-391; see A rming -S cenes), there is the minute detail o f description that contributes to the vividness o f other scenes. Who could forget the sensuous vision o f the goddess H era at her toilette (II. 14.166-183) as, after washing and anointing her body and combing her hair, she dresses herself in a robe described as embroidered with “many adornments” (179 daidala polla; see D ress ), ties a girdle decked with a hundred tas­ sels around her waist, and completes the effect

99

with a gold brooch pinned at the breast and ear­ rings in the form of triple mulberry drops (183 triglêna momenta) in her ear lobes, these last con­ juring up the image of a pair o f granulated gold earrings from a 9th-century grave at Lefkandi in E uboea (Higgins 1980,106 pi. 16C)? There is also the sheer memorability of the most striking and unusual artefacts described in the epics. Objects such as the S hield of Achilles , with its lengthy elaboration of miraculously life­ like scenes (II. 18.478-607), Odysseus’ brooch with its animate struggle of golden hound and fawn (Od. 19.226-231), or the gold and silver wntch-DOGS and gold humanoid torchbearers in Alkinoos’ palace on Scheria (7.91-102) would be likely to remain in the mind’s eye after the details of the contexts in which they occurred had been forgotten, in much the same way that dresses woven out of moonbeams or dogs with eyes like bowis linger as isolated memories o f childhood fairy tales. Much o f this has to do with the power of the storyteller to enlist a listener’s own imag­ ination in the creation o f vivid material images all the more vivid because no one has ever actually seen such a shield, brooch, dog, or torchbearer. However, this typical ability o f the oral to delegate to the imagination is also strengthened in the epics through an impressionistic ambiguity o f language when it comes to material culture, which allows successive audiences (both listeners and readers) to imagine what they wish to envisage. Hence, for instance, the composite impression o f Odysseus’ dômata (literally the plural o f dwelling space, but, especially since Schliemann ’s day, often trans­ lated as “palace”) on Ithaca, which (unlike Alkinoos’ dôm ata) is conveyed by means not of any freestanding description but o f small snippets of information contained in numerous individual words, scenes, and episodes in the Odyssey, can equally be envisaged in terms o f Classical build­ ings (as it was by the illustrators o f Homeric com­ mentaries and dictionaries during most of the 19th century) or as a M ycenaean palace such as T iryns or P ylos (as it has often been since Schliemann’s excavations at Tiryns in the 1880s). The fixed central hearth, absent from the earlier reconstructions but a prominent feature o f the later ones, is extremely elusive (or arguably non­ existent) in the Odyssey itself. The scope for seeing it is possibly there if one expects to envisage it (see, for example, Wilhelm Dörpfeld s comments on

100

_____ O-

A RTEFAC TS

Fig. 6. “Schliemann’s Nestor’s cup” from Shaft Grave IV. The author of the photo Patrick Beasom. [Wikimedia Ticket#: 2006042710005882].

cn

x

u

l_i_

LL. O

aQ

Od. 6.305-307 in Schliemann 1878 [1976), 223), but not if one does not (see also H ouses). It seems likely that this ambiguity of language, which allows aspects of material culture in the epics to be envisaged by different audiences in different ways, is actually the result of a kind of adaptive mechanism that operated as long as the Homeric epics themselves and the long history of heroic lays which contributed to their formation were composed and performed orally, and which filtered out anything that was too alien to the contemporary experiences or too for beyond the imaginative powers of successive bards and audi­ ences. Ajax’s “tower-like” shield, for example, or H ector’s “neck to ankle” one, which may well have their origins in the full-length body shields o f early Late Bronze Age warrior equipment, can easily be imagined even if such equipment is long obsolete; and, in both cases, the concepts are contained in a word, a phrase, or at most a line,

which flash in the audience’s vision and are then gone. Similarly, Nestor’s fam ous cu p with its four handles with two feeding doves surrounding each and its two stems (II. 11.632-635), which, if taken detail by detail was probably as difficult for Homeric audiences to envisage as it is for us, as a whole can be (and has been) envisaged in differ­ ent forms by different listeners or readers (Ath. 11.76-79; cf., e.g., Alciato 1584, 139-141 with Fig. 7; Schliemann 1976 [ 1878J, 235-238, fig. 346; see also Fig. 6). Only occasionally, as in the case of the unworked iron lump mentioned above, has the Homeric (or later) bard felt compelled to explain an oddity in terms which his audience could understand. Another feature o f Homeric artefacts is the occasional strangeness and incomprehensibility o f the terminology used to historical Greek commentators and modern readers o f the epics alike (for example the mysterious aulôpis

A R TE M IS

g|...

§r s; §C gf E J ■i I; fe H. S g: g_ 1

101

Fig. 7. A woodcut of Nestor’s cup by A. Alciato (1584). Courtesy of University of Glasgow Library. Department of Special Collections.

truphaleia \Il. 13.530, 16.795; cf. Lorimer 1950, 239-242; Kirk 1990, 78] or the equally mysterious depas am phikupelloon (1.584, 6.220, 9.656, 23.219, 656, 663, 667, 699; Od. 3.63, 8.89, 13.57, 15.102 and 120, 20.153, 22.86; c f LSJ s.v. àp4>iKÚ7teXXoç]). While vocabulary o f this sort may originally have been associated with artefacts already long obsolete in Homeric times and may possibly have been applied to successions o f somewhat different artefacts in the interval, it is probably not necessary to assume that it similarly puzzled members o f Homeric audiences, for whom at least the contexts in which it occurred were reasonably dear and who were given little chance to linger over it before the bard moved on to something else. This is where the language o f the epics, with its obscuri­ ties and ambiguities, gave scope to audiences’ imaginations through its power to represent whatever any audience or individual deemed appropriate (see Language, Hom eric ).

See also Archaeology, Homeric ; H andicrafts . e.

s.

sherratt

Artemis C'ApTcpu;) The virgin daughter o f Z eus and Leto and twin sister o f A pollo . 1. Artemis as an epic character. In the Homeric poems, Artemis plays only a minor role. In the I liad , Artemis sides with the T rojans, as do her brother Apollo and her mother Leto (20.39). Together with Leto, she tends to the wounded A eneas in Apollo’s tem ple (5.447). When Apollo refuses to fight Poseidon , she censures him; in reaction, angry H era humiliates her (21.470-477; see T heomachy ). She never intervenes directly in the action o f the O dyssey . 2. Function. Hera defines Artemis’ functions as both killer o f women (leonta gynaikôn, lit. “lion o f women”) and huntress (II. 21.483-486; cf. her title as “Lady o f the Beasts,” Potnia Thêrôn at

102

ARTEM IS

21.470); it is in these two roles that she most often See. idso G od s . appears in both poems. She killed Ariadne (Od. 11.324), the daughters of N iobe (II. 24.606), the References and Suggested Readings Burkert 1985, 149-152; Calame 1997. mothers of Sarpedon and Andromache (6.205, 428), and the wife o f Eumaios (Od. 15.478); FRITZ GRAF Eumaios also relates that she and Apollo killed the inhabitants of his native island of Syrie in old age because no disease caused their death, Artisans see H an d icra fts . Apollo taking care of the men, Artemis the women (15.410). In both cases Artemis uses bow and arrows; her most common epithet is iokheaira, Asine (’Aaivq) One of the Argoud communi­ “shedder o f arrows" (8x). The only men she kills ties named in the Catalogue of S hips as provid­ are O rion and T ityos - the latter with Apollo ing the contingent led by D iomkdrs (II. 2.560). after Tityos attempted to rape Leto (11.222), the Its location is certain, a rocky peninsula near former out o f envy because he had become the modern Tolon. It had a long Bronze Age history lover o f Eos (5.123; but see Hyg. Poet. Astr. 2.34 and was clearly a significant center in M ycenaean for other reasons). times, especially in the postpalatial period, and it Artemis is also connected with the life of nubile continued to be substantial in the Early Iron Age, girls. She was leading the dances o f the nymphs only being effectively destroyed as a community when H ermes spotted Polymele among them (II. in a war with Argos around 700 bce , after which 16.183; see Eudoros ). Nausicaa stands out front it did not become well populated again until her girl companions as Artemis stands out among Hellenistic times. the nymphs with whom she hunts (Od. 6.102, cf. 151). Both instances reflect archaic rituals of References and Suggested Readings groups o f nubile girls dancing in Artemis’ sanctu­ Hope Simpson 1981,26; Dietz 1982,98-103. aries far outside their cities; Artemis protects OLIVER T. P. K. DICKINSON them in the same way as Apollo protects young men (see Youth ). •The same two roles, hunting and dancing, are described in Homeric Hymn 27 (see Hymns , Asios C'Aaioi;) There are two men named Asios in the I liad , both of whom fight on the Trojan Hom eric ), which associates her closely with Apollo in D elphi. The association with Apollo, side. (1) Son of Dymas (1): brother of H ecuba and this time in Clarus, is even more to the fore in thus maternal uncle (metrôs) of H ector , Homeric Hymn 9. She is curiously absent from Apollo’s birth-scene in the Hymn to Apollo: in described as a vigorous and powerful man from Phrygia, near the stream of Sangarios. Apollo other versions of the story, she is born a day before takes on his form to encourage Hector to return Apollo’s birth on the seventh day in order to assist to battle against Patroklos (II. 16.716-719). Leto with the birth o f her son. This reflects Artemis’ role as birth goddess, which is especially visible in her frequent identification with See also Phrygians. Eileithyia and which is conspicuously absent in (2) Son o f Hyrtakos, leader of a contingent of Homeric poetry. 3. Prehistory. Unlike Apollo, who remains unat­Trojan allies from the city Arisbf., which is north tested in M ycenaean Greek, Artemis’ name o f Troy on the H ellespont. With H elenos and D eiphobos he leads one o f the five divisions of probably appears on two Linear B tablets from the Trojan forces arranged to attack the Achaean Pylos (PY Es 650.5; UN 219.5). Her role as Potnia Thêrôn would fit with the function attested for a Wall (II. 12.94-97). This leadership position is also reflected in his epith ets , including “leader pre-Greek goddess. Artemis’ connection with Iron Age Anatolia, advocated by earlier scholar­ of men” (orkhamos andrôn 2.837 = 12.96), “hero” (hêrôs 13.95, 110), “great” (megas 13.136), and ship, is unlikely; her name in Lydian and Lycian “lord” (*[w janax 13.139). His horses are special might just as well derive from Greece.

A SO P O S

enough to be mentioned in the T rojan Catalogue (2.835-839) and again each time Asios appears in battle. He is portrayed as a cou­ rageous but headstrong warrior: while the rest of the Trojan forces agree to attack the Achaean Wall on foot, Asios decides to charge by chariot . The narrator calls him nêpios (foolish) for doing so, adding that Asios would not return to Troy from this battle, but would instead be killed by I domeneus (12.108-117). This proleptic comment reveals the planning that can and does happen in an oral-traditional song (see also Foreshadowing ). His death does indeed occur during the aristeia of Idomeneus in the next part of the battle (13.383-401). Asios is the father of P hainops (2) and of Adamas, who fights with him (12.140) and is killed soon after Asios is (13.560-575, cf. 759, 771). MARY E B B O T T

Askalaphos (’AoxáXatjioç) Co-leader, together with his brother I almenos, of the O rchomenos (1) contingent. They are both sons of Ares by Astyoche, daughter of Aktor (3) (//. 2.511-515). Askalaphos and Ialmenos were among five other captains and seven hundred men who went on guard-duty outside the Achaean Wall following Nestor’s advice (9.80-87). In the Battle at the Ships, Askalaphos came to the aid o f I domeneus against Aeneas (13.478-488), and was killed by D e'i'phobos (13.526-527), for which Ares seeks revenge at 15.115-120. Askalaphos’ name means “owl.”

Askania (’AcJKaviq) A region in northwest Asia Minor, sending to Troy P hrygian allies led by P horkys (1) and Askanios (//.■2.862-863). When mentioning M ysi an fighters coming from Askania, Homer describes the region as “very fertile” (13.793). Strabo (12.4.5,14.5.29) claims that the Homeric verses refer to two different regions named Askania: the Phrygian, situated farther from Troy, and the Mysian, nearer Troy and adjacent to a homonymous lake and river. Askania gave its name to the Askanian Lake near the later Nicaea. See also T rojan C atalogue.

/ DANIELA DUECK

103

Asklepios (’AaKXriTUÓç) In Homer, father of M achaon (who is sometimes referred to as Asklepiades, “son of Asklepios”) and Podaleirios , the Greek army’s physicians, and leaders of the contingent from T rik k e , Ithome , and O ichai.ia (II. 2.729-732). Asklepios is described as the “excellent physician” (4.194, 11.518), to whom the C entaur C heiron gave soothing drugs, which he passed on to his sons (4.219). There is no mention of Asklepios’ origins in Homer, where he and his sons appear to be mor­ tal heroes and doctors. Elsewhere, however, he is of divine descent: he is the son of Apollo and either Arsinoe, daughter o f the M essenian Leukippos ([Hes.| Cat. fr. 50 M -W ), or Koronis, daughter of the T hessalian Phlegyas (Hymn. Horn. 16; see P hlegyes ). Pindar gives the earli­ est surviving account of his birth (to Koronis), in which Apollo punished Koronis with death when he discovered her marriage to Ischys, but rescued the baby Asklepios from the funeral pyre and gave him to Cheiron to rear (Pyth. 3.8-46). Both traditions agree that Z eus killed Asklepios with his thunderbolt, for the reason (not in “Hesiod”) that he raised mortals from the dead ([Hes.] Cat. fr. 51 M-W; Stesichorus fr. 194 PMG; Pherecyd. fr. 35 Jacoby = Fowler; Pind. Pyth. 3.55-58). In retaliation for Asklepios’ death, Apollo killed the C yclopes , who made the thun­ derbolt, for which Zeus threatened to hurl him down to T artaros, but was persuaded to reduce the punishment to serving a mortal, Admetos , for a year ([Hes.] Cat. fr. 54 M -W ). Homer evi­ dently alludes to these events with regard to the mares o f Eumelos , son o f Admetos, which Apollo had reared (II. 2.766). K. JANET WATSON

Asopos (’Aaomóç; modern Vurieni) (1) The largest river in Boeotia, mentioned twice in the I liad , both times in connection with the exploits of T ydeus (4.383, 10.287; see T heban C ycle ). It is described as “deep in rushes” and as having “grassy banks” (4.383). (2) The god o f the same river, who fathered the heroine Antiope (Od. 11.260). See also R ivers .

104

AS PLEDO N

Aspledon (’AotiXtiötov) A city in northwestern Boeotia, presented in the C atalogue of S h i p s a s controlled by O rchomenos (1) (//. 2.511). Aspledon was probably situated at modern Pyrgos, between Orchomenos and Kopai. A M ycenaean settlement with no indication of later occupation.

1997,48-52), and step in the middle. The “discus­ sion" is more competitive than rational (Finley 1978 [1954], 114): politics is performed (Hammer 1998, 2002). Upon reaching consensus, or if this proves impossible, the assembly is dissolved. It is sanctioned by Z eus and T hemis , who convenes and dissolves assemblies (Od. 2.68); even Agamemnon’s skêptron comes from Zeus (II. References and Suggested Readings 2.100-108; Griffin 1980,9-10; Easterling 1989). Kirk 1985, 198. Speakers are usually the elite leaders (see no u l ê ), not the commoners (II. 2.198-206), although T hkrsitf.s is punished because he Assarakos (’AaaápaKoç) Son of T ros (1), speaks ou kata kosmon (out of order: 2.213-214). brother of Ilos (1) and G anymedes, father of The assembly deals with “public matters” (dêmion, Kapys, grandfather of Anchises , great-grandfa­ Od. 2.32, 44) affecting the community, directly ther of Aeneas (II. 20.232, 239). According to (war [2.28-32], an embassy [II. 3.205-224, Apollodorus (3.12.2), Assarakos’ wife was 11.138-142]) or indirectly (the abuses of Hieromneme, a daughter of the S imof.is River. P enelope’s Suitors may harm the community [Od. 2.62 ff., 161 ff., 2 2 9 ff.]), and it witnesses and See also T roians. legitimizes public acts (distribution o f booty [II. 11.684-706; see Society , Hom eric ], ending a feud [19.42 ff.], or a trial [18.497-508]). Assembly (àyopf| < àyeípoj, to assemble) The The assembly lacks independent authority, ini­ word agorê (agora) designates the assembly, hence tiative, free speech, and vote (Finley 1978 [1954], also the meeting place and public discourse 78-83, 113-116); it expresses approval or disap­ (Chantraine s.w.; Ruzé 1997, 25-29). Assemblies proval by shouting or even leaving (II. 2.142 ff.): feature 22 times in the epics (Carlier 1984, 183— Yet it is not, therefore, insignificant (similar limi­ 184nn. 219-220), often described in detail (esp. tations occur in S parta, Macedon, or Rome); its II. 1.54ff., 2.87ff., 9 .9 ff., 19.40ff.; Od. 2.1 ff.; communal importance is demonstrated by the 8.4—45). (For recent discussion, see Gschnitzer traits mentioned above, its centrality in the poet’s 1980; Hölkeskamp 1997, 2002; Ruzé 1997, part I; conceptualization o f civilized society (the Raaflaub 1997b, 8-20.) C yclopes’ non-society lacks decision-making Assemblies are common wherever a decision assemblies [agorai boulêphoroi, 9.112]), the needs to be made: in communities (P o lis ), even importance attributed to persuasive speech (II. among the fantasy Laestrygonians (Od. 10.114— 1.274, 3.216-224, 9.440-443; Od. 8.169-173; 115), in the field (II. 8.489-542, 18.243-313), or Kennedy 1963,35-39; Ruzé 1997,75 If.), the neg­ en route (Od. 9.171, 10.188, 12.270-303, 319ative consequences if the leader ignores good 324). They are somewhat formalized and regu­ advice or the assembly’s expressed opinion and lated by common norms. Upon orders by a leader, fails (illustrated by Agamemnon’s and H ector ’s heralds announce them to the entire commu­ cases; Raaflaub 1997b, 18-19), and the demos’ nity (II. 2.50—52; Öd. 2.6-8, 8.7-13). The agorê ultimate authority in many communal matters. may be paved (Od. 6.267), with polished stones Determined action by the assembly appears a in a circle as seats for the leaders and benches possibility (Od. 2.235 ff., 16.374 ff.). Although it is for the rest (II. 2.99, 18.503-505; Od. 8.7, 16; necessary to avoid a teleological perspective McDonald 1943, 22-36; Martin 1951, 17-62). It (Hölkeskamp 2002, 306-310, against Gschnitzer forms the “middle” (meson), the communal center 1980, 1991), Homer’s agorê is well on its way to (Detienne 1965), often near a temple or altars (II. being institutionalized and documents the egali­ 11.807-808; Od. 6.266). The convener announces tarian foundation o f the early Greek polis the “agenda” and presents his opinion. Subsequent (Raaflaub and Wallace 2007). speakers hold the leader’s staff (skêptron; see Scepter ) as sign o f communal authority (Ruzé KURT A. RAAFLAUB

A ST ER ISK O S

Assonance Homer is as alert as any poet to the sound o f the words he is using and to the effects that can be produced by repetition or the imita­ tion o f natural noises (onomatopoeia). This was observed in antiquity; ancient commentators often remark on effects like the use o f the verb f|fe for the break-ing (êxe.) of a chariot yoke (II. 23.392); Dionysius o f Halicarnassus calls Homer “the most many-toned (poluphóuotatos) of all poets,” and cites more than fifty of his verses for their sound (Packard 1974,239; Packard lists sta­ tistics o f repeated sounds in Homer). There are obvious instances of onomatopoeia; cows moo (puKi]0põ) lm ukcthm ôi| II. 18.575), unmilked ewes bleat (èpépqKov [ememèkon] Od. 9.439), Polyphemos’ eye sizzles (atC \sizil’] 9.394) as O dysseus sticks in the red-hot stake, a bow­ string twangs (Xiyfe |lingxc| II. 4.124), the waves of die sea beat on die shore in a regular formula (TtoXixpXoiaßoio 0aXácrai]ç [polnphloisboio thakissês] 6X II., 2x Od.), once amplified by a preced­ ing splash (rtacpXafovTa \pnphlazdoiitn\ II. 13.798); thunder crashes out and dien rumbles on ([Zeus] àoxpcu|/aç ôè póXa peyáX’ êktutte, xqv 6' èrívaÇe, 17.595). Noisy aspirated consonants imitate the tearing of Odysseus’ sail by the wind (xpix0d re teal TETpayfia ôiéctxiuev, Od. 9.71), and the clangor of weapons striking armor is represented by rep­ etition of the syllables ball- and bei- five times in Iliad 16.102-108; the lines include the vivid word kanakhê for the sound of a smitten helmet. Vowels are often used for euphonious effect. Kalypso sings in her beautiful voice (àoiÔiáouo’ òtti KaXfj, Od. 5.61) with a five-syllable word aoidiaous’ with only one intermediate consonant. Ttie description of a riverside pasture on the S hield of Achilles has been called the most beautiful verse in Homer (nap noxapòv KsXáôovxa, napà (ioôavòv ôovaicfja, II. 18.576; see Edwards 1991, 226) for its nine short «’s alternating with six short o’s and repetition of the syllable -on. The first line Patroklos’ shade speaks to Achilles begins and ends with the syllable -eu- and may have had two other instances within it (//. 23.69; see Edwards 1987,118), and at his friend’s funeral Achilles moves around the pyre in a slow, fourword verse which has no short syllables (23.221; Dee 2004). Two passages in particular are well known for the adaptation of sound and meter to suit the sense. As mules go to fetch wood from Mt. I da for

105

Patroklos’ pyre, they go “in all directions, up and down, crosswise and slanting” (tioXXo ô’ âvavxa KÓxavxa itápavxá xe ôóypiá x’ fjX0ov, II. 23.116), a dactylic line with eleven a-vowels, three successive cretic words (short-long-short syllables), and six successive acute pitch-accents, which seems designed to imitate their erratic movement (the three -avxa words are hapax legom ena in Homer). There are more complex effects when Odysseus, in the U nderworld, sees S isyphos interminably rolling his rock uphill and seeing it fall back again (Od. 11.593-600), including a four-word verse (594), a harsh hiatus (xf|v avto (SOeoke, 596), a swift rush of consonants when the rock begins to fall back (tót’ ànoaxpé\|/aaKE Kpaxaiíç, 597), and bouncing dactyls (the short syllables split by word-end) as it then rolls down again to the plain (aõxiç enerra ttéôovôe KuXivÔexo Xãaç àvaiôqç, 598). Then he resumes his struggle in two long, heavy words (Ö y’ aiy ciioaoKe xixaivópevoç, 599). See also R hetorical F igures

of

S peech .

MARK W. EDWARDS

Asteris (’Aoxepiç) Described as “not a large island, halfway between Ithaca and Samos [2] [later Kephallenia]” (Od. 4.845-846), Asteris is the place where the S uitors laid an ambush, planning to intercept and kill T elemachos upon his return from P ylos (cf. 16.365-370). Strabo (1.3.18, 10.2.16) identified Asteris with Asteria, modern-day Daskalio, a narrow limestone reef west o f Polis Bay. However, it does not match the Homeric description o f Asteris as “having two bays” (846-847). The identification of Asteris depends on that of the Homeric Ithaca. If Ithaca is the same as Leukas (see Ionian I slands ), as W. Dörpfeld suggested, then Asteris can be iden­ tified as Arkhoudi, halfway between modern Ithaca (Thiaki) and Leukas; if, as in a recent hypothesis, it is the same as Paliki, a peninsula of Kephallenia, then Asteris should be seen as a promontory rather than as an island (Bittlestone 2005,138-157). See also Archaeology, H om eric .

asteriskos see S igla , C ritical .

106

AST.EROPAIOS

Asteropaios (’AarepoTtafoç;) Son of P elegon, leader of the Paeonians. Considered by Sarpedon the best of the Trojan allies after himself and G laukos (//. 12.101-104), he was “the best of the Paeonians in battle” (17.351-352). In the Battle by the River, he feces Achilles, exhibiting ambidexterily and courage, even grazing Achilles slightly - the only hero to do so - but is ultimately slain by him (21.144-181).Much is made of his descent from the Axios River, and Achilles boasts of his own ancestry, traced back to Z eus, trumping Asteropaios’ pedigree (184—199). Asteropaios’ body was left lying on the sand, “drenched in the dark water. And about / Asteropaios the eels and die other fish were busy / tearing him and nibbling the fat that lay by his kidneys” (202-204; tr. R. Lattimore). In the Funeral Games for Patroklos, Achilles gives Asteropaios’ bronze corslet to E umelos (23.558-565) and his exquisite siLVER-studded T hracian sword (complete with scabbard and baldric: see W eapons and Armor) to D iomf. des (23.805-825). See also M inor Warriors .

Astronomy Astronomy, like much else o f cultural interest in the complex fabric o f the Homeric poems, provides simply part of the assumed backdrop to the action and major themes o f the I liad and the O dyssey. There is no interest expressed by Homer in the mechanics of the cosmos, Certainly the sun, moon, and stars rise or set, but how or why this happens is of no concern to the poet. There is also obviously a body o f star lore to be drawn on from time to time, but again, there is no indication o f a preexisting systematization o f this body of knowledge. This stands in marked contrast with the situation in the contemporary Near East, where records demonstrate a deepseated interest in organizing the stars and even the planets to assist in establishing a calendar, timing events, and reading omens (Hunger and Pingree 1989; Rochberg 2004). Furthermore, the catasterismic tendencies o f the Greeks, which led to the populating of the night sky with various mythological characters in the form of the named constellations, will have to wait until the 5th century bce and later to flourish fully (Condos 1997; Hannah 2002). Nonetheless, in the Homeric poems there are indications of varying traditions

already established for identifying the stars: A rktos , the Bear, is also called Amaxa, the Wagon, As the former, the constellation has a relationship with O rion , the hunter, while as the latter, it connects with B ootes, the Plowman. It may be that the latter identification and relationship derive from the Near East, where the Bear equated with the Babylonian Wagon (Hunger and Pingree 1989, 22, 137; Kidd 1997, 181-182), and Bootes with SU.PA, the constellation of Enlil, god o f the earth (Hunger and Pingree 1989, 21, 137, 139). The Bear and Orion, on the other hand, would seem to be indigenous, Greek inventions. In the Homeric poems we find a very limited number of stars identified: the P leiades , the Hyades, Orion, Arktos, Bootes, and the Dog (S ir iu s ), together with the Morning and Evening stars (Eosphoros ll. 23.226 and H espekos 22.318 respectively, not yet, it seems, identified as one and the same planet, Venus). Most o f these appear in just two contexts: the description o f the S hield of Achilles at Iliad 18.485-489, and the sailing instructions given to O dysseus by the goddess K alypso at Odyssey 5.269-281. But where in H esiod ’s slightly later Works and Days we can see how most o f these same stars, as well as the shifting position of the sun (as evinced in its solstices), are used consciously to time activities on the farm or at sea , and form part o f a background body of astronomical knowledge which understood that there is a regularity to the movements, appearances, and disappearances of these celestial bodies, in Homer, on the other hand, we have to invest more effort to work out why certain stars are chosen. There is sometimes a tendency to assume that the choices made by the poet resulted from a desire simply to add decoration to the narrative (e.g., Hainsworth in Heubeck et al. 1988, 276277), but this probably reflects more the modern divorce from the celestial dome as a time-keeper than a dominant practice in Homer’s time. It is more realistic to assume that a pre-industrial society like Homer’s chose certain stars for particular reasons, such as signaling the appropriate time for agricultural activities or for sailing (Hannah 2005,18-27: see also S eafaring). Astronomy, after all, forms die principal foundation for marking, measuring, and telling time in antiquity (Hannah 2005, 2008). Homer characterizes the year as “revolving” (II. 2.551, 8.404, 8.418, 23.833; Od. 1.16,11.248); it incorporates days and

ASTYOCHE

107

months, which bring the seasons round in a circle (1 1.294—295, 14.293-294). The waning o f the old moon and the appearance o f the new signal the time for Odysseus’ return to Ithaca (19.307), while months ate used to count the length of a pregnancy (II. 19.117). No month, however, is named (even in Hesiod only Lenaion is named: Op. 504), so there is no means o f seeing whether there is any continuation of the Bronze Age months known from the Linear B tablets (Hannah 2005, 16-17) - nor, one might add, is there any indica­ tion of the astronomical orientation o f buildings that we find in die Bronze Age (Henriksson and Blomberg 1997-1998; Goodison 2004) and the Archaic and Classical periods (Boutsikas 2007). Overall, the Homeric year was a seasonal and agricultural one, and therefore solar rather than lunar. The celestial events that form die core o f this seasonal calendar are the risings and settings of certain stars. These are observed in the evening after sunset and at dawn just before sunrise, die pivotal periods when people shift from daytime activities to those o f night-time, and vice versa. At Iliad 5.1-6 we find Homer referring to this sea­ sonal year and its star-markers, when he mentions the dawn rising of the “star of late summer” (mean­ ing Sirius, though it is never so named by Homer), to capture the brightness o f D i o m e d e s ’ armor. This rising is specifically the first visible appear­ ance o f Sirius at dawn in July, after a period o f two months’ invisibility since it was last seen, when it set after the sun in the evening in May (Evans 1998,3). A long period o f close observation o f the skies and a consequent realization of the regularity o f this and other stars’ movements are implied prior to the composition o f the poem. At Iliad 22.26-31 the bright appearance o f the same star, now identified as “the Dog o f Orion,” is used in a s i m i l e to refer again to the gleam o f armor, now A c h i l l e s ’, as he approaches Troy full o f the spirit o f vengeance. This time the poet uses the compari­ son for a double purpose, as Sirius is not only the brightest star in the sky, but also a sign o f evil, sig­ naling the period o f “greatest heat for wretched mortals” in the height of summer. Hesiod says much the same, ascribing to Sirius the ability to dry up men’s heads and knees (Op. 587). Here we may see a glimpse o f something like the Near Eastern ominological tendencies in astronomy.

Astyanax ( A arúavaf) Infant son of H ector and Andromache , called S kamandrios by his parents but Astyanax (“lord o f the city,” see Names 3.1b) by the T roians to honor his father’s role as city defender (Í1. 6.402-403; cf. 22.506-507). His presence at the meeting o f Hector and Andromache in I liad 6 underlines the contrast between Hector’s tender family life and the violence beyond the city walls. Here Andromache evokes pity for Astyanax to dis­ suade Hector from risking his life in battle (6.407-408, 432), Astyanax is terrified by the sight o f Hector’s menacing helmet (6.466-470), and Hector dandles the child while praying that he will become a successful warrior and rule the city, a prayer that will go unfulfilled (6.474-481) (see also I rony ). Upon learning o f Hector’s death, Andromache fears that her fatherless son will be dishonored and mis­ treated by his peers (22.484-507), and at Hector’s funeral she envisions the child one day thrown from Troy’s walls by an enemy o f his father (24.726-738). L it t l e I liad (fr. 21 Bernabé, fr. 29 West), using language similar to that of Andromache’s vision, reports that Neoptolemos hurled Astyanax to his death after the capture o f the city. The Sa ck of I lion summary instead identifies O dysseus as Astyanax’s murderer (cf. Eur. Tro. 721). In Athenian black- and red-figure vase-painting Astyanax’s death at Neoptolemos’ hands is often depicted in conjunction with the death of P riam (see Iconography , Early ).

R O B E R T HANNAH

M A R G A LIT FIN K ELBER G

See also C hildren . MICHAEL J. ANDERSON

Astyoche (’Aatuoxn, “City-Holder”) Daughter o f Aktor (3), king o f the M inyan O rchömenös; mother by Ares o f Askalaphos and Ialmenos who led the Orchomenos contingent in the Catalogue of S h ips . When still a chaste virgin (parthenos aidoiê), Astyoche lay with the god in secret in her chamber (II. 2.511-515). Nothing is known about her from other sources, but later in the poem Ares acknowledges Askalaphos as “his own” and seeks to avenge his death at all costs (15.110-120).

108

A S T Y O C H E IA

Astyocheia (’Acrruoxeia; “Astyoche” in Apollod. 2.7.6 etc.) Mother of T i .bpolem os by H erak ­ l e s , who tookherasa war-captive in T h esprotian E phyra (II. 2.658). “Hesiod” (Cat. fr. 232 M-\V) and Pindar (01. 7.23) call her Astydameia.

(19.88), of E uryai.os the P haeacian (8.166), of the E peians (II. 11.695, told by N esto r ), of the T rojans (13.634), of Ac h illes (22.418, said by P r ia m ), and of the G iants (Od. 7.60). See also

References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,225-226.

atasth aliê (áraaSaXíq, in Horner plural only: -at) Atasthaliê is recklessness, the disposition to acts of contemptuous heedlessness (of limita­ tions, rules, norms). The word is derived from the adjective atasthalos-, despite semantic proximity, an etymological relationship with a t é “destruc­ tive folly” has been repeatedly questioned because of the different vowel-quantity. Though the relationship is not always made explicit, atasthaliai (11 instances in Homer) essen­ tially denote the products - particular decisions/ actions - of hubris (“vicious insolence”), cf. Od. 23.63. The relation of atasthaliai to hubris is more often expressed by atasthalos ( 17 instances), which appears as an e p it h e t of hubris (16.86) and in connection with the participle and agent-noun hubrizontes and hubristai. The relation appears clearly when the hubrizontes are said “to devise atasthala” (II. 11.695; Od. 3.207, 17.588, 20.170, 370; cf. also the huper-compounds denoting trans­ gression and lack o f control: LfgrE IV 733-746). As such the “bad (kakai, Od. 12.300, 24.458) atasthaliai” sometimes bring destruction to oth­ ers, but almost always to their perpetrators, who act despite warning and whose punishment is directly or indirectly of divine origin (e.g., II. 4.404—410; Od. 1.7-8 and 34-43, 3.205-207, 23.63-67) (see T h e o d ic y ). Thus atasthaliai refer mainly to the behavior o f the S u ito rs (Od. 21.146, 22.317 and 416, 23.67, 24.458), and of O d ysseu s ’ com panions (1.7, 12.300), as well as to that o f A ig ist h o s (1.34), o f O d ysseu s (10.437, said by E u rylo c h o s ), o f H ec to r (II. 22.104, selfreproach), and o f the Seven against Thebes (4.409; see T heban C ycle ). It should be kept in mind that all instances except two (Od. 1.7,21.146) are in direct speech, characterizing the speaker’s atti­ tude toward those censured (see S p e e c h e s ). This is the case without exception with atasthalos and the verb atasthallô (2 instances), also used o f the Suitors (11 instances), o f Odysseus’ female slaves

H y br is. W ILLIAM BECK

afê (Sri], conventionally translated “blindness,” “folly"; derived from a i m , a a s t h a i , “damage," “be impaired”) The etymology is unknown, but the basic sense seems to be “harm,” a meaning appar­ ent in the verb’s reference to the effect of w in e on the senses at Odyssey 11.61,21.297; cf. the “harm” the sleeping O d ysseus suffered when his com­ panions disobeyed his instructions (10.68, 12.372). Are is more common in the I l i a d than the O d y s s e y (20:5 noun, 12:7 verb); no fewer than 1 lx noun and 8x verb refer to or are spoken by the Iliadic Agam em non . In Homer, atê is most often the force that leads one to act in ways that prove disastrous, though it may also refer to disaster itself (II. 8.237, 24.480; Od. 12.372). Often, both cause and effect are present in a single instance: in P h o in ix ’s alle ­ gory of the Entreaties ( L i t a i ) , a t ê encompasses both mental impairment and its disastrous con­ sequences. but the emphasis is first on the subjec­ tive aspect (Agamemnon’s disastrous delusion, 9.504-505), then on the objective (the disaster that will overtake Ac h il le s if he refuses the E m ba ssy ’s request, 9.512). Since a t ê includes both the blindness that leads to disaster and the disas­ ter that results, the beginning o f the process is often diagnosed from its end, and there is a fre­ quent connection between a t ê and regret, as in the case o f H elen (Od. 4.260-264; cf. 23.218224), who regretted her (god-sent) a t ê only after its disastrous consequences became clear. A t ê is commonly discussed as an aspect o f the interaction of human and divine causation and as an exhibit in the historiography o f ideas. Following E. R. Dodds (1951), such discussions typically focus on Agamemnon’s “Apology” (II. 19.85-138), where he claims that the irresistibility of a t ê relieves him of r espo n sib il ity for his disastrous provoca­ tion o f Achilles, yet accepts the need to make amends. But a t ê , though occasionally deployed by the narrator (noun: II. 16.805, 24.28, 480; Od.

15.233; verb: Ü. 11.340,16.685), is much more fre­ quently used by speakers, whose explanations of their own or others’ conduct always have an agenda (see S p eec h es ). The plausibility o f Agamemnon’s strategy may be gauged by Odysseus’ warning that Agamemnon, who started the quarrel, must be more just in future (19.181-183). This clearly con­ tradicts Agamemnon’s self-exculpation, since it can focus only on what is in the agent’s power. Thus Agamemnon gives us not the last word on atê, but a partial interpretation that maximizes the “self-distancing” that the concept allows. His desire to save face in this crucial public context may be contrasted with the element of self-reproach in his use of the term in private at 9 .115-116, in accept­ ance o f N estor ’s criticism that he started the quarrel. This relation to an acknowledged fault recurs in Phoinix’s personification of ate at 9.496-514. This does not exculpate, but reminds Achilles that to err is human, and that the attempt to make amends deserves forgiveness; anything else risks becoming an error as serious as the origi­ nal offense. Many regard this prediction as fulfilled by the atê which afflicts Patroki.os at 16.685,805. Agamemnon’s acceptance of Nestor’s charge that he dishonored Achilles (9.110-111,116-118) fulfills Achilles’ prediction at 1.244 that Agamemnon will “tear his thumos in anguish that he paid no honor to the best of the Achaeans .” Achilles reformulates this prediction at 1.412 (repeated by Patroklos at 16.274): if Z eus grants him the honor he deserves (352-354), then Agamemnon “will recognize his atê in failing to pay honor to the best of the Achaeans.” Atê again refers to action undertaken in ignorance of its consequences - Agamemnon does not (yet) realize what a disastrous miscalculation he has made - but neither Achilles nor Patroklos wants to absolve him o f responsibility. The notion o f atê is thus open to rhetorical manipulation to suit a speaker’s aims in context, and its implications for characters’ responsibility are not a matter of fixed orthodoxy. Agamemnon in Iliad 19 is the only character to use it in an attempt to deny responsibility altogether; other characters use it now to mitigate, now to condemn. See also M otivation . References and Suggested Readings The classic treatment of atê as the external projection of non-rational impulses unauthorized by the self is

Dodds 1951, 2-8, 17-18 (cf. 37-41 on post-Homeric literature). Later accounts (many focusing on the relation between Homer and tragedy) include Dawe 1967; Wyatt 1982; Francis 1983; Doyle 1984; Neuburg 1993; Padel 1995, 167-92, 249-259; Yamagata 2005; Sommerstein forthcoming. On atê and human/ divine motivation, cf. Lesky 1961, 2001; Schmitt 1990, 36-52,72-114; on atê and responsibility, Adkins 1960a, esp. 51-52; Williams 1993,52-55. DOUGLAS CAIRNS

Athene (’Afiijvq or ’AGqvaiq) Athene appears more, frequently in the Homeric epics than does any other divinity with the exception of Z eu s , either through her direct participation in the action o f the poems or through references to her by the characters or the narrator. She (unlike Zeus) is notable for her frequent presence on the scene in both the I liad and Odyssey , interacting closely and in person with the mortal men and women whose lives she enters, bidden and unbid­ den; in the Iliad, only one book (12) does not make specific reference to her. Her name is thought to have an early provenience: she may be identified with the a-ta-na po-ti-n i-ja (“the Mistress Athene”) o f the L in ea r B tablets, and scholars have connected her with the Bronze Age Shield-Goddess worshipped in M ycenaean cult. Her name also associates her with At h e n s , though whether the city takes its name from the goddess, or the reverse, is in dispute. The poems know her also as Pallas Athene (the etymology of the first term is uncertain) and regularly invoke her under a variety - and sometimes a combina­ tion - o f titles and e p it h e t s , for several o f which the meaning and etymology are in doubt as well: she is atrutônê (“tireless”?), tritogenbia (“born by the Trito River”? “third-born”?), ageleiê (“bringer of spoils”), alalkomenêis (“defender”), and most often glaukôpis (“silvery-eyed”? “shin­ ing-eyed”? “owl-eyed”?) and dios thugatêr or dios kourê (“daughter o f Zeus”). These latter appellations, signaling Athene’s close identification with her father, evoke both her genealogy and her role as Zeus’ representative among mortals. Neither epic offers an explicit account o f the goddess’s birth, but both suggest throughout that she is the child o f Zeus alone, born from him without any mother: in Iliad 5, when A res protests to Zeus that Athene has

110

ATHENE

encouraged D iomedes ’ battlefield excesses, he holds Zeus responsible for having brought forth such a daughter as she “by himself” (5.872-880). In keeping with her motherless birth, the goddess Athene herself produces no offspring - although the Iliad’s Catalogue of S hips makes reference to her motherly nurture o f the earth-born child Erkchtheus , a mythical founder o f Athens (2.547-548) to whom the Athenians trace their autochthonous origins. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (see H ymns, Hom eric ) includes her in the group o f three virgin goddesses who alone are impervious to A phrodite ’s power; it is Athene who comes to be known simply by the title “Parthenos” (“ Maiden”). Hesiod ’s Theogony narrates a version of Athene’s birth in which Zeus impregnates the god­ dess of practical skill and intelligence, Metis, then swallows her to avoid being supplanted by their impending male offspring; instead he produces Athene on his own, from his head. In the Homeric Hymn to Athene, she is said to have emerged at birth fully armed. While neither the Iliad nor the Odyssey mentions the maternal figure o f the god­ dess Metis, the quality of intelligence she personi­ fies is embodied in Athene and her father, as the Homeric poems represent them both. It is as a representative of prudent judgment that Athene first appears in the Iliad (albeit at H era’s behest), intervening in Book 1 to persuade the outraged Achilles not to draw his sword on the Greek army’s leader, Agamemnon . In subse­ quent appearances, however, her persuasive pow­ ers and compelling presence (whether seen or otherwise perceived) inflame the warriors’ fight­ ing spirit. In Book 2, when the Achaeans are moved to abandon the expedition and sail for home (see P eira ), it is Athene who turns them back to their original goal of battlefield victory, sweeping through the ranks herself and bearing the fearsome, inspiring aegis o f Zeus; the irre­ sistible aura produced is such that “war became sweeter [to the fighters] ... than going back to their beloved fatherland” (2.445—454). In Book 5, not only does she stir up their passion for the fray, but she also sheds her dress (peplos), puts on full battle gear, and takes the field herself. Armed with spear , helmet, the mysterious, terri­ fyingly decorated aegis, and the tunic (khitõn) of Zeus, the goddess seeks out the wounded Diomedes and spurs him to extraordinary prowess, serving as

his charioteer and unerringly guiding his spear, even against her brother, Ares. The elaborately wrought dress (peplos) Athene discards in favor of a combatant’s armor is of her own creation (5.734-735 = 8.385-386); her exper­ tise in such civilized arts as weaving, metalwork (Od. 6.232-234), and carpentry - in particular, shipbuilding (//. 15.411-412) -a n d her patronage of them are well represented in Homeric epic, Hesiod, and the Hymns (see also Handicrafts). In the Odyssey, she is said to have endowed Penelope with her skill in handiwork (2.116117). Thus, as her involvement in the making of the T roian Horse suggests (8.492-493), she is at the same time the engineer of martial depradation (ageleiê - “bringer o f spoils”) and the benevolent sponsor o f cultural production. Correspondingly, the aegis, as her attribute, in its dual function as instrument o f aggression and of protection (e.g„ II. 18.203-204, 24.20), mirrors Athene’s roles as ruthless warrior and benign city guardian - the latter aspect continuously in evi­ dence in her worship throughout the Greek citystates. Even the T roians appeal to her to safeguard their city: H ector directs his mother and the other Trojan women to pray at Athene’s temple , on the heights of their citadel, for T roy’s protec­ tion (6.269-278). Yet Athene refuses their plea: together with Hera, often in her company - and spurned, like her, in the J udgment of Paris - she champions the Achaeans throughout. In fulfill­ ment o f the vows she and Hera evidently shared, to take vengeance on the Trojans (20.315-317), Athene takes part in the T heomachy and does battle with the divine partisans of Troy; her cul­ minating blow is struck against Aphrodite Athene’s and Hera’s successful rival for Paris’ admiration. Far more poignant - and not only because fatal- is her deception of Hector (22.226— 305) in his final confrontation with Achilles: unable to recognize the goddess who appears in the guise o f his brother D eiphobos , Hector believes that help is at hand - only to realize at the crucial moment that he is Athene’s victim. As much strategist and advisor as armed fighter, Athene is known for keeping a vigilant eye on her protégés (e.g., II. 5.808-810, 10.278-291); the Odyssey opens with her plan for the rescue of the wandering (and now marooned) O dysseus, whom, according to Nestor , she favored beyond all other heroes at Troy (3.218-222). Yet the early

ATHENE books of the poem allude as well to Athene’s anger at the Achaean cohort after the sack of Troy, which caused them a “bitter homecoming” (3.130-135, 5.108-109). Precisely how the Achaeans she had championed managed to alien­ ate Athene is not specified in the Odyssey, but their offenses during the last days of Troy - including the rape of Kassandra in front of the goddess’s statue - were apparently narrated in one of the (now lost) poems o f the Epic Cycle, the Sack of I lion , and invoked in tragic drama, e.g., Euripides’ Troades 69-71 (see Tragedy and Homer ), and may underlie the Odyssey’s veiled allusions. The Odyssey keeps such stories in the back­ ground, however, although it represents Athene, like Zeus, as concerned with human ethics (e.g., 1.45-47). The poem foregrounds her loyalty to Odysseus throughout, and highlights Poseidon ’s anger, not Athene’s, as the principal impediment to Odysseus’ homecoming. It is she who, at the outset, sets in motion his return - and in that sense takes charge o f the epic’s plot, interweaving the otherwise separate narratives of Odysseus’ return and T elemachos’ voyage in search o f his father. Repeatedly, at crucial junctions - for exam­ ple when, in 6.1-47, she appears in Nausicaa’s dream and thus guarantees Odysseus’ friendly reception by the P haeacians and his eventual homecoming, or when, in 19.31-46, she carries a lamp before Odysseus and Telemachos as they empty the royal hall o f weapons, implicitly giving her blessing to the slaughter o f the Suitors - her facilitating interventions (seen and unseen) guide the progress o f the epic through to completion (see also Narrative ). Athene, it might be said, is the divinity o f the Odyssey, assuming a preeminent, even preemp­ tive, role - such that (apart from Poseidon’s loom­ ing threat) no other Olympian plays a significant part in the action of the poem, unless prompted by Athene. Insofar as she and Zeus are entirely like-minded in this epic, no other Olympian, so to speak, is needed. The Odyssey principally accents Athene’s protective, kindly aspect - ensur­ ing Odysseus’ safety, smoothing the way for Telemachos, even reassuring the anxious Penelope (4.795-829); yet her warlike temper too is fully on display - as is her aegis - in the battle with the Suitors (22.224-235,296-297). Her participation (direct and indirect) in the plot as it unfolds encompasses the full range of divine intervention

111

in human affairs: in a telling moment of comic irony, Nestor’s son Pbisistratos enjoins Athene (disguised as M entor ) to make a prayer to Poseidon, on the occasion of the god’s festival in Pylos ; the goddess duly appeals to the earthshaker for the success of the ventures at hand, and the narrative adds, “so she prayed, but she herself was bringing all things to fulfillment” (3.55-62). The Odyssey strikes a balance, however, between Athene’s overt efforts on behalf of Odysseus’ fam­ ily and her discreet withdrawal into watchful ally behind the scenes, to allow them to make the most of their own capacities for triumph over adversity. Her avowed reluctance openly to provoke Poseidon (see esp. 5.380-387) offers a justifica­ tion for her calculated, if ambiguous, invisibility during Odysseus’ travels and underscores her confidence in the hero’s shrewdness (13.339—343). Even more so than the Iliad, the Odyssey shows her to be the incarnation of m êtís , appearing nei­ ther (as gods mostly do on the plain of Troy) on impulse nor as a crisis manager, but to implement a plan and as a sponsor of human forethought. Although she has occasion to augment the physi­ cal powers o f her favorites (e.g., 24.520-521), her principal impact in the poem - especially as the advisors M entes and Mentor —is to foster a lively mental theater. An agent o f direct mediation, she is also an inspirational presence, an animating spirit o f astute intelligence. As the goddess herself asserts, she and Odysseus are matched in cunning (13.296-299). She is no puppet-master but rather a kind o f cognitive aid, enhancing the mental powers o f receptive addressees; as such, she stim­ ulates some o f their most ingenious ideas, notable among them Penelope’s test of the bow - the resourceful solution by which Odysseus can both reveal himself and rid his house of the Suitors. Although there is no role for the goddess in the recognition - scene between Odysseus and Penelope, their night-time reunion prompts per­ haps the kindliest o f all Athene’s gestures: she delays the arrival o f the dawn. Among her tactical maneuvers are the many guises under which the goddess enters the action, unrecognized (e.g., Od. 1.102-105, 2.267-268, '6.19-20, 8.193-194, 13.221-225); rarely does she allow the mortals with whom she interacts to dis­ cern the presence o f divinity, except on those occasions when, leaving them to their own devices, she departs the scene in the form of a

112

ATHENE

bird (e.g., 1.319-323). Equally strategically, she applies her powers o f metamorphosis to her pro­ teges: under her touch, Odysseus takes on the appearance of a decrepit beggar, so altered that even his household members - much less the Suitors - do not know him. At other points, he is rendered younger, stronger, more charismatic in the eyes o f Telemachos, Nausicaa, and Penelope; and Penelope is made taller, fairer, more alluring, when she appears before the admiring Suitors to ask for gifts (18.190-196). The audiences for these transformations are disarmed, in various ways - to the benefit o f the goddess's favorites and the plot is advanced. But beyond the level of the plot, such changes effected by Athene bespeak the mystery and mutability of identity, and the opaqueness of its relation to embodied presence. As Athene launches the complex narrative of the Odyssey, so she brings the epic to its close; the last word is, literally, hers. In her culminating, Zeus-endorsed intervention - with the restora­ tion o f Odysseus’ household assured - the poem represents her as city-protector, no longer citysacker: counseling restraint, she calls a halt to the civil strife among the Ithacans and, even-handedly, insists on a settlement without vengeful bloodshed. Homeric epic thus leaves us with a final vision o f Athene that prefigures her later role, celebrated in Athenian civic ideology, as mediator of quarrels, reconciler of factions, and fierce defender of the integrity of the polis (see also Athens and Homer ).

LAURA M. SLATKIN

Athenians (’A0r|vaioi) Although given a sub­ stantial entry in the Catalogue of S h ips (17. 2.546-556) and represented among other Achaean contingents in the E pipolesis (4.327328), the Athenians are notoriously inconspicu­ ous in the I liad and are never mentioned in the Odyssey. Their leader M enestheus appears in a number o f battle - scenes , usually side by side with Stich io s , his second-in-command (the two are called “the leaders (arkhoi] of the Athenians” at 13.196), but the only occasion on which the Athenians are shown to fight as a contingent is the so-called “little catalogue” (see C atalogues), where they, alongside B oeotians , I onians, Locrians , P hthians , and E peians , try to prevent

Hector from reaching the Achaean ships (13.685-700). Additional Athenian participants in the T rojan War mentioned in the Iliad are Pheidas, Bias (3) (both in the “little catalogue,” 13.691), and Ia so s (I) (15.337). Athens and the Athenian tradition fare some­ what better. The city is mentioned twice in the Iliad (2.546 and 549) and four times in the O dyssey (3.278 and 307, 7.80, 11.323). The Athenian heroes Erechtheus , P rokris , and T heseus are also mentioned, even if only in pass­ ing, and, in what has been suspected since antiq­ uity as an Athenian Interpolation , Theseus’ mother Aithra makes a brief appearance. Oddly enough, although Theseus’ sons Akamas and Demophon feature as the Athenian leaders at Troy in both the Epic C ycle and later tradition (see Lit t le Iliad fr. 17 West; Sack of Ilion arg. 4 West; cf. Apollod. Epit. 5.22), Homer supplants them with the obscure Menestheus. The Athenian entry in the Catalogue of Ships is remarkable in that, as distinct from the other entries, it mentions only one city (M arathon and Sounion are each referred to once in the Odyssey), thus being consistent with Athens’ official claim that the synoecism o f Attica, that is, its unification under Athens, was carried out as early as Theseus. This, as well as the omission of the rival state of Megara and the location of the Salamis contin­ gent next to that of Athens, has been used since antiquity to support the argument in favor of Athenian interference with the text of Homer somewhere in the 6th century bce (see further Pisistratean Recension ). However that may be, the city’s underrepresentation in the Homeric poems, sorely felt in Classical Athens (see, e.g., Thuc. 2.41.4, Pericles’ Funeral Oration), is consist­ ent with the rest of Greek heroic tradition and probably reflects the city’s relative insignificance at any historical period before the 6th century bce . See also Athens

and

Homer .

References and Suggested Readings Page 1959, 145-147; Kirk 1985; Finkelberg 1988a. margai.it finkelberg

Athens and Homer The relationship between Athens and Homer developed over time. In earlier phases of the epic traditions that resulted

ATHENS AND HOMER ultimately in the Homeric I liad and O dyssey , the city o f Athens had only the weakest o f links with these epic traditions. The fact that this city is mentioned only in one passage o f the Iliad (2.546,549) and in three passages of the Odyssey (3.278, 307, 7.80, 11.323) makes it clear that it had once been peripheral to the Homeric tradi­ tions of epic poetry (see also Athenians ). In later phases of the Homeric tradition, however, starting in the 6th century bce , Athens became central. The centrality of Athens for Homer can be explained in terms of (1) the traditions of per­ forming Homeric poetry on a seasonally recur­ ring basis at the premier festival of the Athenians known as the Panathenaia and (2) the effects of these traditions of performance on the form and content of Homeric poetry, which became an expression of the Athenian cultural agenda. 1. Performing Homeric poetry at the Panathen­ aia. In a work attributed to P lato, we find an explicit reference to traditions of performing Homeric poetry in Athens. The performers are identified as rhapsôidoi “rhapsodes ,” whose Homeric performances were regulated by an Athenian called Hipparchus: “Hipparchus, ... who publicly enacted many and beautiful things to manifest his expertise [sophia], especially by being the first to bring over to this land |= Athens] the verses [epos pi.] o f Homer, and he required the rhapsodes at the Panathenaia to go through [diienai] these verses in sequence [ephexês], by relay [ex hupolêpseôs], just as they [= the rhapsodes] do even nowadays” ([Pi.] Hipparch. 228b-c). The speaker in the dialogue here is Socrates the Athenian, and he is referring to Hipparchus as a fellow-Athenian o f an earlier generation whom he credits with two great accomplish­ ments. One o f these is the introduction of Homeric poetry to the Athenians, while the other is the so-called Panathenaic Regulation, which pertained to rhapsodic performances of this poetry at the Panathenaia. These and other such accomplishments of this earlier Athenian in fos­ tering poetry served the purpose of educating the citizens o f Athens, according to Socrates (Hipparch. 228c taura ô' ènoíei PouXópevoç naiÔeúeiv toúç noXítaç “he did these things with the intention of educating the citizens”). It has been conjectured, plausibly, that Hipparchus

113

arranged for the first complete rhapsodic per­ formance of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey at the festival of the Panathenaia that started on August 19, 522 bce (West 1999, 382). Hipparchus belonged to a lineage known as the Pisistratids, who were a dynasty of “tyrants” rul­ ing Athens in the 6th century bce . He was assas­ sinated in 514 bce (the timing of the deed was symbolic: it happened during the great proces­ sion of the festival of the Panathenaia that was being celebrated that year), but his brother Hippias continued to rule Athens until 510, when he was finally overthrown. The regime that suc­ ceeded the “tyranny” of the Peisistratidai was the “democracy” initiated in 508 by Cleisthenes, head of the rival lineage of the Alcmaeonids. As we have seen in the passage just quoted, the regulat­ ing of the rhapsodes’ performances of Homeric poetry at the Panathenaia is described as a prac­ tice that continues “even nowadays." Given the time frame of this description, we may infer that this practice, the Panathenaic Regulation, out­ lasted the old era of the tyrants and was actively perpetuated in the new era of the democracy. We know about the Panathenaic Regulation also from Dieuchidas of Megara (FGrHist 485 F 6), whose testimony is recorded by Diogenes Laertius (1.57): “He [= Solon] has written a law that the words o f Homer are to be performed rhapsodically [rhapsôidein], by relay [hupobolê], so that wherever the first person left off [lêgein], from that point die next person should start [arkhesthai]!’ The institutionalization o f the Panathenaic Regulation, which requires that rhapsodes perform Homeric poetry by way of hupobolê “relay,” is attributed here not to Hipparchus but to the earlier figure o f Solon, archon o f Athens in 594/93 Bce . Such an attribu­ tion is typical o f Athenian democratic ideologies in the 5th century bce , when the historical figure of Solon, memorialized as the definitive lawgiver o f the Athenian democracy, was credited with the establishment of institutions that were actually established only later, by the Pisistratids (Nagy 1996b, 104-105). Though not much is known about the actual performances of Homeric poetry by rhapsodes at the Panathenaia in Athens, there is sufficient evi­ dence for positing three features: (1) in line with the Panathenaic Regulation, the rhapsodes took turns in performing the narrative sequence of the

114

ATHENS AND HOMER

Homeric Iliad and Odyssey; (2) each of these two epics was divided into twenty-four rhapsodic performance-units or rhapsôidiai “rhapsodies”; and (3) the rhapsodes were actively competing as well as collaborating with each other in perform­ ing, by way of their rhapsodic relay, the actual narrative sequence (Nagy 2002, 36-69; see also B o o k D i v i s i o n ).

We learn more about the rhapsodic relay required by the Panathenaic Regulation from a reference made in a speech delivered in 330 bce by the Athenian statesman Lycurgus (Against Lcocrates I02): “I wish to adduce for you Homer, quoting |epainein] him, since the reception that he had from your (Athenian] ancestors made him so important a poet that there was a law enacted by them that requires, every fourth year o f the Panathenaia, the rhapsodic performing [rhapsôitlein] of his verses [epos pi.] - his alone and no other poet's. In this way they [= your Athenian ancestors] made a demonstration [epideixis], intended for all Hellenes to see, that they made a conscious choice of the most noble of accom­ plishments." The phrasing “since the reception that he [llomer] had from your ancestors made him so important” can be rendered more literally as “since the way your ancestors received [hupolam banein] him [= Homer] made him so impor­ tant.” The verb hupolambanein "receive” here can be interpreted in terms of reception theory (Nagy 2002, 11-12; see also C ontemporary T heory ). But there is more to it. As we saw earlier in the passage quoted from the Hipparchus (228b-c), the noun that derives from the verb hupolam ­ banein, hupolèpsis, means not just “reception” but also “relay,” with special reference to the Panathenaic Regulation. The relay of rhapsodes at the Panathenaia is figured as the model for the “reception” o f Homeric poetry. The “receiving” o f this poetry, from one generation of Athenians to the next, is modeled on the idea of “relaying” from one rhapsode to the next. The reception of Homer by the Athenians is seen metaphorically as a perpetuation of his poetry by way of rhapsodic relay (Nagy 2002, 11 n. 8). As the orator is saying in the passage under consideration, he is about to adduce a quotation from Homer (the passage to be quoted is II. 15.494-499; see also Q uotations). Adducing this Homeric quotation is figured here as if it were a matter o f adducing Homer himself, that is,

“praising” him (on the rhapsodic term epainein, meaning “praise” in the sense o f “quote”: Nagy 2002, 27—28 and Elmer 2005). It is made explicit in this passage that the epê or “verses” (epos pi.) performed at the Panathenaia belonged to Homer only, to the exclusion o f other poets. The poets to be excluded were other authors, as it were, o f epic. These authors,.as we are about to see, are known as the poets o f the Epic Cycle . The “verses” to which the Athenian orator Lycurgus is referring in this passage are the dac­ tylic hexameters performed at the Panathenaia by competing rhapsôidoi “rhapsodes,” not lyric meters performed at the same festival by compet­ ing kitharôidoi or “kitharodes, kithara-singers” and aulôidoi or “aulodes, aulos-singers” (see M usic ). It is important to keep in mind that the festival o f the Panathenaia featured kitharodic and aulodic competitions in lyric as well as rhapsodic competitions in epic. Since Lycurgus, in the context we are examining, uses the word rhapsôidein “rhapsodically perform” with refer­ ence to Homeric poetry, what he has in mind are epic poets other than the Homer he knows. And the Homer he knows is the poet o f the Iliad and the Odyssey (see also Homerica ). As we may infer from the actual wording o f Lycurgus here, the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey were performed as a full and continuous narration at the so-called Great Panathenaia, held every fourth year, but not necessarily at the so-called Lesser Panathenaia, held every year in the other three years. Such an inference about a full and continuous narration is supported by the testimony of Dionysius of Argos (FGrHist 308 F 2; commentary by Nagy 2002, 10-12,47). We see another such reference to the Homeric performances of competing rhapsodes at the Panathenaia in yet another 4th-century source, which is Speech 4 of' Isocrates, the Panegyricus (159): “I think that the poetry [poiésis] of Homer received all the more glory because he celebrated so beautifully those who waged war against the barbarians, and it was because of this that our [Athenian] ancestors wanted to make his craft [tekhni] a thing to be honored both in the competi­ tions [athbi] in mousikê and in the education [paideusis] of the young, so that we, having the chance to hear often his [= Homer’s] verses [epos pi.], may learn thoroughly the existing hostility against them [= the barbarians], and so that we may admire the

ATHENS AND HOMER accomplishments of those who had waged war and desire to accomplish the same deeds that they had accomplished.” Isocrates here links the “craft” of Homer with (1) the Panathenaic athloi or “compe­ titions” of rhapsodes and (2) the paideusis or “edu ­ cation” of the young. In view of the fact that mousikê was an appropriate term for designating not only the craft of, say, competing kitharodes performing lyric poetry at the Panathenaia but also the craft of competing kitharodes performing the epic poetry of Homer at the same festival, it is important to keep in mind that mousikê in such contexts cannot be understood as “music” in the modern sense of the word. The ancient sense, more basically, is “the craft of tire M uses .” The wording of Isocrates in this passage assumes that the epics performed at the Pana­ thenaia were familiar to all Athenians. Such epics, in the Athens of Isocrates in the 4th century bce , could only be the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. Even in the general usage of Isocrates (2.48,10.65, 12.18, 33, 293, 13.2), we find that the term “Homer” refers to no poet other than the poet of the Iliad and Odyssey. The same goes for the gen­ eral usage of another prominent figure in the 4th century bce , Plato himself (a case in point is Ion 539d). As we see from such indications, epics other than the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey were excluded from rhapsodic competitions in the Classical period o f the Panathenaia. In the preClassical period, however, the epic repertoire seems to have been more inclusive. In the 6th cen­ tury, the era o f the Pisistratids, the Epic Cycle was not yet distinguished from the Homeric tradition of epic performance in Athens. In this pre-Classical period, the epics of the Cycle were not antiHomeric or even non-Homeric: they were simply Homeric. Homer was considered to be the poet of an epic cycle that still included what we know as the Iliad and Odyssey. This view o f Homer goes back to the Ionian epic traditions o f the preClassical period in Asia Minor and in the outlying islands, especially in C hios and in Samos, as is evident in the Life of Homer traditions (Nagy 2006a; see also B iographies of Homer ). The stories about a “P isistratean R ecension ,” according to which the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus assembled fragments of Homer scattered throughout Asia Minor and beyond, show traces of such an Ionian phase of Homeric transmission (Nagy 2009a Epilegomena §§ 11-60).

115

Only gradually did the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey become differentiated from the Epic Cycle. In the course of this differentiation, the Iliad and Odyssey became the only epics that were truly Homeric, while the Cycle became nonHomeric. 2. H om eric poetry as an expression o f the Athenian cultural agenda. The lengthy tradition o f performing the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey at the Panathenaia in Athens affected, in the long run, the form and the content of the two epics. On the level of form, we can see the Athenian influence in the linguistic evidence: the Homeric textual transmission shows indirect traces of the Athenian dialect - that is, of Attic - in the form of hyperionisms that mask Atticism s (Nagy 2004, 124; see also Language, Hom eric ). On the level of content, there is a variety of thematic evidence for Athenian influence. First, there are references to Athenian figures. There is Erechtheus , the prototypical cult hero of the Athenians (II. 2.546-551; Od. 7.81); or T h eseus , their culture hero (II. 1.265; Od. 11.322, 631) and his mother A ith ra (II. 3.144); or even M en esth eus , their epic hero, who is pictured as their leader in the war at Troy (II. 2.552, 4.327, 12.331, etc.). Second and more important, there are also references to details that were central to the myths and rituals o f the Athenians. A prime example o f such details is the reference in the Odyssey to the olive tree that supports the bedroom of O dysseus (23.190). Another prime example is the refer­ ence, again in the Odyssey, to the lamp held by the goddess Athene to guide the way for Odysseus and T elemachos in the darkness of their palace (19.34). The olive tree and the lamp are relevant to the myths and rituals linked with the acropolis of Athens, in particular, with a sacred precinct that was located there. This precinct was the Erechtheion, shared by the goddess Athene with the prototypical cult hero o f the Athenians, Erechtheus. In the Odyssey, there is even a refer­ ence to the sharing o f the precinct by the goddess and the hero (7.80-81). Like Odysseus, Erechtheus was linked to Athene as his patroness and to Poseidon as his antagonist. Relevant to this link with Athene was the presence o f a sacred olive tree and a sacred lamp within the precinct o f the

116

ATHENS AND HOMER

Erechtheion. Both the tree and the lamp were essential features o f a charter m y t h that told o f a primal struggle between Athene and Poseidon for the identity o f Athens (Cook 1995, 161-168). In the Homeric Odyssey as well, we find the olive tree and the lamp o f Athene, but here we see them as key features o f the epic plot itself. The inner­ most sanctum o f Athene at Athens can be viewed as the ritual and mythological impetus for the poetics of the very epic that is the Odyssey. Moreover, the sacred yearly cycle o f Athenian fes­ tivals, conveying the central idea that civic order, temporarily dissolved, must be reaffirmed in an act of violence, finds its ultimate epic expression in the final violent struggle between a just Odysseus and the unjust S uitors , culminating in the definitive reassertion o f kingship for the hero and of sovereignty for the state (Cook 1995,168170; see also J ustice ). To a degree, then, Athenian ideology merges with Homeric poetry. And such a merger is rele­ vant to the prestige of Homeric poetry in the Classical period. By this time, Homer was already thought to be the universal educator o f all Hellenes, as we see from the succinct formulation of Plato in the Republic (2.376e-398b; 10.599c-d, 606e). And, as we have seen, Athens had by this time become central for the mediation o f Homeric poetry in performance. So the prestige o f Homeric poetry could become equated with the prestige of Athens itself (Nagy 2009a Epilegomena § 200). Pericles actually makes such an equation in his Funeral Oration as dramatized by Thucydides; the city o f Athens, says Pericles, has become the universal educator o f all Hellenes (2.41.1 “sum­ ming it all up, then, I say that our city is in its entirety the education [paideusis] o f Hellas”). The city has become a universal educator by way o f mediating Homer, and so it supposedly no longer needs to be mediated by Homer (2.41.4 “we will not need Homer as our agent o f praise [epainetês] or anyone else whose verses will give pleasure only for the moment”). G REG O RY NAGY

Athetesis ( à G É T q a iç , “setting aside”) A techni­ cal term o f ancient scholarship to indicate the rejection o f a line considered spurious. Z enodotus of E phesus , Aristophanes of Byzantium , and Aristarchus of Samothrace

all suggested athetêseis o f many Homeric lines that they considered suspicious and marked them in the text with an obelus . To athetize a line thus did not mean to eliminate it from the text but rather to mark the line with a particular critical sign (see S igla , C ritical ) to warn the reader that its authenticity was questionable. Lines can be suspect because o f their content, because of their language, because they are inconsistent with the rest o f the poem, because they tell something that is not “proper" (aprepes) and does not fit the ethos o f the poem, or because they are badly attested in the manuscript tradition. See also Alexandrian Scholarship ; Scholar­ ship , Ancient. FRANCESCA SCHI KONI

Athletics

see S port.

Athos (’AGóüiç) A mountain (2,033 m high) in northeastern Greece, situated on the peninsula protruding into the Aegean Sea, which today bears the same name but was called “Acte" in antiquity; it forms the easternmost part of the Chalcidice peninsula. On her way from Mt. O lympos to Mt. I da, where she will meet and seduce Z eus (see Dios Apatê), H era passes by P ieria and Emathia, and then reaches “the snowy mountains o f horse-herding T hracians, on to their highest peak”: from Athos she crosses over the Aegean and arrives in Lf.mnos, where she meets S leep (II. 14.225-231, tr. M. Hammond). The mountain is called “Thracian Athos” in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (33; cf. Strab. 7 fr. 11; cf.also Janko 1992,187; see Hymns, Hom eric ). MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Atlas (“ArXaç) Titan, son o f Iapetos (Hes. Th. 509), father of Kalypso (Od. 1.52, 7.245) and M aia (Hes. Th. 938). The Odyssey description of Atlas as one who “himself holds the high pillars that keep the earth and the sky apart” (1.53-54) differs from H esiod (Th. 517-520, 746-748) and suggests Near Eastern influences. His charac­ terization as one who “knows the depths o f the sea

ATTICISMS in its entirety” (1.52-53) is shared with P roteus (4.385-386) and the epith et “malevolent” (ioloophrôn 1.52) with A ietes and M inos (10.137, 11.322); on Cleanthes’ attempts to adjust it so that it might mean “mindful,” see Stoic Interpretations.

117

tant clues to the history of the text and have been widely debated among scholars. We can distinguish two groups of Atticisms, the sporadic and the systematic. The systematic Atticisms are mostly orthographic/phonological modernizations which do not affect the meter : thus we find Attic Kpeiaouiv and pei(uiv for Ionic Kpéaauiv and pé(u>v; yiXioi for yeiXioc some cases See also T itans. of Attic ã for Ionic q after r; it is also likely that the Ionic text was psilotic and that the Spiritus References and Suggested Readings S. West in Hcubeck et al. 1988,81-82. asper is an Atticism o f the tradition; this will explain why the text has f|pépq, in a word which occurs in Attic, but no aspiration in qpap or Atreidai s e e A t r e u s . autfjpap, which belong to the same group of words but do not occur in Attic. Furthermore, we find cases o f contraction of eo to ou as in Attic, Atreus (’Axpeúç) King of M ycenae, son of instead o f eu as in Ionic. PELOPS.brotherofTHYESTES,fatherofA g a m e m n o n On the other hand, the text also contains more and M f.nei.aos (or o f their father Pleisthenes, see sporadic Atticisms which are sometimes metri­ [Hes.J Cat. fr.194 M -W ). Atreus, “shepherd of the cally irreducible: this is the case, for example, people,” inherited his royal scepter from Pelops o f the 3. pi. ending in - vto instead o f Ionic -axo in and upon his death passed it over to Thyestes, who forms like qvxo. The orthography -to- instead o f in turn left it to Atreus’ son Agamemnon (//. 2.104— -ecu- for the result o f quantitative metathesis 109). Homer does not make use o f the myth of the in forms like piíüv is also likely to be o f Attic mortal feud between Atreus and Thyestes, known origin and occurs sporadically in our texts, but at least since the Cyclic Alkmeonis (fr. 6 West; see since -eu)- with Ionic orthography are also also C ycle, Epic ), and Aristarchus thought that scanned as monosyllables in all but a very few Homer did not know this version (schol. A on cases, there is no metrical difference. 2.106). Yet the Odyssey treatment of the murder of The majority view among scholars is that the Agamemnon by Thyestes’ son Aigisthos suggests Atticisms did not belong to the original text of some such knowledge. the poems, but rather reflect the central role of Agamemnon and Menelaos are often referred Athens in their later transmission (see Athens to by the common patronymic Atreidai “sons of and H omer ). Whatever reality lies behind the Atreus” (sometimes in dual). “P isistkatean R ecension ” o f ancient sources, it is clear that Athens was an important center in References and Suggested Readings the transmission of the I liad and the O dyssey Kirk 1985, 126-127. from the late 6th century to the time of Alexander . The systematic Atticisms must reflect orthographic modernization during this Atrytone (’AipuTtiivir) An epith et of Athene period and are often unanimously attested in the (5x //., 2x Od.) of obscure derivation and mean­ manuscript tradition. ing, probably o f non-Greek origin; not attested in The sporadic, metrically significant variants cult. Conventionally translated “unwearied.” are harder to interpret. According to Wackernagel, a form like rjvxo (“they sat”) at Iliad 3.153 points References and Suggested Readings to an Attic origin for the whole passage where it S. West in Heubeck et al. 1988,140-141. occurs (the T eichoscopia ), but such analytic argumentation is less acceptable today (see Analysts). Although lines with irreducible Atticisms must have got their final form in an Atticisms Atticisms - forms belonging to the dialect of Athens - are the most recent elements Attic context, they could represent more or less radical manipulations of Ionic lines. Some of of Homer’s language. As such, they are impor­

118

ATTICISMS

them could be variants due to Attic r h a p s o d e s . In conclusion, then, it seems safest to assume that the Atticisms of the Homeric texts - unlike most other linguistic variants - tell us more about the transmission of the established text than about the development of the epic tradition and the establishment of the text. See also

L

a n g u a g e

, H

o m e r i c

..

References and Suggested Readings Wackernagel 1916, 1-159; Chantraine 1958, 15-16; Shipp 1972, 10-15 and passim. D A G T R Y G V E T R U S I.E W H A U G

Atymnios (’Arúpvioç) (1) Father o f M ydon (1), a Paphlagonian ally of the T rojans killed by Anth.ochos {II. 5.581). (2) An ally of the T rojans, son o f A m iso d a ro s . Atymnios was killed by Antilochos whereas his brother Maris was killed by Antilochos’ brother T hrasymedes (II. 16.317-329). C arians had a name Tumnes, and two border-towns in Caria are called Tumnos and Tumnessos. Variants on the name “Atymnios" appear in various sources all over the region, the name “Maris” is attested in H it tite and later Anatolian, and their father’s name is also o f Anatolian provenance (Janko 1992, 358-359). See also Names 3.6.

Auerbach, Erich (1 892-1957) Born in Berlin to wealthy Jewish parents, Auerbach studied law, served in the German army during World War I, and only later changed fields to Romance philol­ ogy, earning his doctorate in 1921 from Greifswald. He went on to teach as a professor at Marburg until his dismissal as a Jew by the Nazis in 1935. He fled to Istanbul, pursuing an invitation by Leo Spitzer, where he taught until he could emigrate to the United States to assume distinguished teaching and research positions at Pennsylvania State University, Princeton, and Yale. While in Istanbul, Auerbach composed his bestknown book,Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur (1946), which later appeared in English translation (1953). It is for this study that Auerbach is known to Homerists, because it opens with

a brilliant if disturbing comparison, or rather contrast, between Homer and the Old Testament (OT), a chapter entitled “Odysseus’ Scar.” The contrast can be summarized briefly. Homer’s n a r r a t i v e style, demonstrated through the scar scene from Odyssey 19, is characterized by naive superficiality: it is all foreground, no background, all surface, no depth; its action is clear and “uniformly illuminated”; appearances are “palpable and visible”; its narrative follows the principle o f “out o f sight, out of mind” (now known as Z i e l i n s k i ’s Law). Hence, there is no past in Homer, no narrative perspective or sus­ pense, no layering, only a perpetual sequence of present moments, each equally to hand, all equally significant: nothing changes in Homer’s narrative lotus-land. The “epic style” of the OT, read through the Abraham and Isaac episode, is in contrast dimly lit, full o f obscure meanings and wrenching conflict, and marked by terrifying verticality (god above, man below) and temporal change. Magisterial in scope, Auerbach’s study took in the entirety o f the Western literary canon. And the two Bibles, the Greek and the Jewish, are placed at the foundation o f this history. Indeed, the themes o f the first chapter resonate through later chapters, and above all the closing chapter on Woolf. Auerbach earned both criticism and praise for his efforts. The heaviest attacks came from contemporary classicists, and they continue to do so (see S c a r o f O d y s s e u s ) . One reason for the criticism has to do with his apparent reductivism. The two “epics” are con­ trasted with a starkness that would make any literary critic cringe, particularly anyone who assumes that Homer is capable of narrative and psychological depth. Auerbach will have none of this. The OT scores all the points for complexity and depth, for metaphysical and characterological insight, for a sense of moral and historical truth and purpose, while Homer’s epic appears to be a superficial pack of lies meant to entertain audi­ ences for a few hours, but offering nothing else. Indeed, so skin-deep are Homer’s literary surfaces, they cannot even be interpreted. Auerbach’s read­ ing thus pulls, irritatingly, in two different direc­ tions at once, and in two ways: it robs Homer of all complexity while awarding him unquestioned classical grandeur, though of the simple and naive stamp; and it makes a pretty Homer comparable, but ultimately inferior, to the sublime OT. But

AULOS how seriously is this rigidly contrapuntal reading intended? A first clue to the ultimate complexity of Auerbach’s essay lies in the very selection o f the two r e c o g n i t i o n - s c e n e s and the further con­ trast that silently undoes several of his operative categories: O d y s s e u s is after all concealing his scar, while Abraham is exposing himself openly to God’s gaze (“Behold, here I am!”). What is more, Auerbach subliminally aligns Homeric epic with fascist propaganda and its mechanisms of disavowal (of truth and history), in contrast to the OT, which is stubbornly Jewish and unflinchingly historical. Auerbach’s reading is incomprehensible unless it is situated against his immediate background, to which he alludes in his essay. Most relevant of all were the Nazi appropri­ ation of the classical heritage on the one hand, and lhe attempts among German Lutherans on the other to “eliminate the Jewish influence” from the Bible and to decanonize portions if not the whole of the OT, starting with the binding o f Isaac, which forms the core of his essay. In his “Epilegomena to Mimesis" (1953), written in response to critics, a defiant Auerbach made no apologies: “Classical literature is treated in my book above all as a coun­ terexample,” while the aim was to show “what clas­ sical literature does not possess.” He concludes, “Mimesis is quite consciously a book that was written by a particular person in a particular place at the start of the 1940s.” References and Suggested Readings Lerer 1996; Auerbach 2003b; Barck and Treml 2007; Heschel 2008; Porter 2008.

JAMES I. PORTER

Augeiai (Anyeiai) In the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s the expression “lovely Augeiai” refers to two dif­ ferent towns, one in Locris (II. 2.532; see L o c r i a n s ) , the other in L a c e d a e m o n (2.583), neither of them identifiable (cf. Strab. 8.5.3,9.4.5; Paus. 3.21.5).

Augeias (Aúyeíaç) King of the E p e i a n s in the days o f Nestor ’s father N e l e u s ; father of P h y l e u s (II. 2.628-629; not mentioned by name) and Agamede (1 1.739-740); grandfather of M eges . His withholding a four-horsed chariot sent by Neleus to Elis for competitions trig­

119

gered the conflict between Elis and P y l o s (11.698-705; cf. schol. 11.672). At 11.701 he is referred to as “lord o f men,” a f o r m u l a usually applied to A g a m e m n o n . Homer does not make use of the popular story of Augeias’ stables, which played a prominent part in the m y t h of H e r a k l e s ’ labors, but perhaps makes a l l u s i o n to it in the reference to a quarrel o f Phyleus with his father at Iliad 2.629 (see further P h y l f . u s ) . m a r g a i .i t

f i n k f .i . b f . r g

Aulis (AúXíç) Aulis is on the coast o f Boeotia opposite the island of E u b o e a ; introduced in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s as “rocky Aulis” (II. 2.496). It was famous in Greek m y t h as the place where the Greeks gathered their forces before the T r o j a n W a r (Hes. Op. 651-653). In Book 2 o f the Iliad (299330) O d y s s e u s recalls an o m e n that was observed by Greeks there. A snake devoured eight chicks and a sparrow, and K a l c h a s interpreted this to mean that the Greeks would take Troy in the tenth year. In the C ypria o f the Epic C y c l e , according to the summary by Produs, this omen occurred dur­ ing the first gathering of die Greek fleet at Aulis, before their mistaken expedition to Teuthrania, the land of T e l e p h o s . At the second gathering at Aulis A r t e m i s , angered by A g a m e m n o n ’s boasting of his hunting prowess, detained the troops with unfavorable weather. Agamemnon is told by Kalchas that to appease the goddess he must sacri­ fice his daughter Iphigeneia, whom he summons on the pretense of a marriage to A c h i l l e s . In the variant followed by the Cypria Artemis rescues Iphigeneia by substituting a deer in her place and conveys her to the Taurians of the northern B l a c k S e a (cf. [Hes.] Cat. ft. 23a. 15-26 M-W, where “Iphimede” is similarly rescued; see also I p h i a n a s s a ) . The gathering o f the Greek fleet and sacrifice of Iphigeneia at Aulis were prominent in Greek drama, notably in the Agamemnon by Aeschylus and Iphigeneia a t Aulis and Iphigeneia among the Taurians by Euripides. In historical times a temple o f Artemis was constructed at Aulis. JONATHAN S. BURGESS

Aulos (aúXóç) Double reed-pipes, widely distrib­ uted since the Early Bronze Age. M y c e n a e a n rep­ resentations are lacking, and Homer omits aulos in

120

AULOS

some expected contexts. But the aulos was probably not an Iron Age parvenu. The word itself (lit. “tube,” so at II. 17.297) is found in Mycenaean names; a musical sense is not excluded here (Ilievski 1972, 268-269. 276). The Haghia Triada sarcophagus shows pipes and i .y r e during s a c r i f i c e /l i b a t i o n , an important aulos-function in historical Greece; the lyre’s striking resemblance to the P y l o s throneroom instrument suggests a MiNOAN-Mycenaean musical koine in palatial contexts. The A r c h a i c aulete Spendon (“Mr. Libation,” Pint. Lyc. 28.5), whether historical or symbolic, accords perfectly with Herodotus’ statement (6.60) that aulos-playing was a hereditary profession at Sparta. The verb Spendern (verse f o r m u l a //. 9.177; Od. 5x) is related to H i t t i t f . skipand-, not as I n d o - E u r o p e a n cog­ nates but via (indirect?) lateral diffusion, probably in the Bronze Age (Burkert 1985, 35-36, 374n. 34). Significantly, the aulos was traditionally connected with “P h kygi a” (already anachronistic in t r a g e d y ) . Importantly, aulos and syrinx are played around Trojan campfires (//. 10.13 [ D o l o n f . i a ] ; cf. Hdt. 1.17 for Lydian military band). Auloi were also typi­ cal of Kybele cult (Hymn. Horn. 14.3, with krotala [clappers| and ty[m]pana [frame-drum, Semitic derivation]). Yet auloi and phorminges (see P h o r m in x ) on the S hield o f A c h i l l e s (II. 18.495), accompanying male choral d a n c e , attest the pipes’ mainstream position already in Homer’s world(s); cf. 8th-century Attic vase (Wegner 1968, Taf. Vb, Cat. 75) and the early importance o f choral poetry. Here the pipes join musical symbolism of peaceful order; cf. rhapsodic i n t e r p o l a t i o n at 18.606a (auloi, syringes, kitharis); [Hes.] Scutum 281-284; Hymn. Merc. 452. These passages reflect the rich totality of Archaic mousikê, reasonably retrojected into the Late Bronze Age (probable contexts: choral/sacrifice/libation). Yet Homer’s sidelining o f aulos is due not to the instrument’s controversiality (contra Huchzermeyer 1931, 32-34; Wegner 1968,20), which was a 5th-century development (Wilson 1999; Franklin forthcom­ ing); it is due to epic’s artificial emphasis on its own lyre-culture. See also Music. JOHN C. FRANKLIN Autolykos (A òtó X ukoç ) The name means “the wolf himself” or “a true wolf”; like many Homeric

n a m e s , it is a nom parlant. This rather shadowy figure is mentioned in only two passages of Homer. In Book 10 o f the Iliad , as he prepares to set out on a night’s spying expedition with D i o m e d f . s (see D o l o n e i a ) , O d y s s e u s dons a boar-tusk h e l m e t o f unusual design which is said to have been stolen by Autolykos, who broke into the house of its owner A m y n t o r . It eventu­ ally finds its way to M f . r i o n e s , who lends it to Odysseus on this occasion. For an illustration of a comparable M y c e n a e a n helmet see Hainsworth (1993,179). In the Odyssey we learn that Autolykos is Odysseus’ maternal grandfather. Most substantial is the passage in Odyssey 19.394-466, which con­ stitutes a d i g r e s s i o n explaining the background to the scar by which E u r y k l e i a recognizes her master (see S c a r o f O d y s s e u s ) . Autolykos gave Odysseus his name (etymologized as, roughly, “trouble”) and entertained him on Mt. P a u n a s s o s , where the young man undertook the boar h u n t that seems to represent a rite de passage into adult­ hood (see E d u c a t i o n , i n H o m e r ) , and on which Odysseus suffered the injury that caused the scar. Other sources ([Hes.] frs. 64, 67 M-W) made Autolykos the son o f H e r m e s and associated him with trickery and fraud; in some stories he was associated with J a s o n and the Argo (see

A

r g o n a u t ic a

).

References and Suggested Readings LIMC 3.1, 55-56; Stanford 1968, ch. 2; Clay 1983, 74-89; Hainsworth 1993. RICHARD B. RUTHERFORD

Automedon (Aúropéôtüv, “self-ruler")

A son o f D i o r e s (2), Automedon is one o f A c h i l l e s ’ followers, “whom he honored most o f his com­ panions, after dead P a t r o k l o s ” (II. 24.574-575). When Patroklos goes into battle, “he ordered Automedon to swiftly harness the h o r s e s , / whom he honored most o f all after Achilles, / and trusted most to stand fast in the turmoil of battle” (16.145-147). He serves as Patroklos’ charioteer (and also for Achilles after Patroklo,s’ death), swiftly cuts loose a trace-horse S a r p e d o n has brought low (16.472—475), and after Patroklos’ death carries on the fight against H e c t o r and enjoys an a r i s t e i a (17.459-542). He appears as attendant at Achilles’ meals (9.209,

AVDO MEDJEDOVIC

121

Fig. 8. Avdo Medjedovic. Courtesy of The Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature at Harvard University. 24.474, 625). In later literature his name is used as a metonym for charioteer (e.g., Juvenal 1.61). See also C h a r io t s . MARK W. EDWARDS

Avdo Medjedovic (ca. 1870-1955; Fig. 8) Avdo Medjedovic was the most talented and accom­ plished, indeed the most Homeric, o f the South

Slavic oral epic singers (guslari) encountered by Milman Parry , Albert L o r d , and Nikola Vujnovié during their on-site field work in the former Yugoslavia. A native of the Bijelo Polje district of Bosnia, Avdo was bilingual in Serbo-Croatian and Turkish, although he could neither read nor write. For much o f his life he worked in a butcher shop and tended the small plot of land owned by his family, and was known among his peers as the foremost guslar in the region. Parry and Lord’s focus on Avdo Medjedovid both during field work and in eventual

122

AVDO -MEDJEDOVIC

publication - stemmed from their fundamental commitment to finding a worthy parallel to Homer, someone who, although illiterate, could compose extensive and elaborate epic songs in performance (see C o m p o s i t i o n - in P erformancf .). Their initial field trip in 19331935 produced nine full-length oral epics recorded acoustically from Avdo, together with four additional epics taken down in writing via dictation, from the singer’s claimed repertoire of fifty-eight songs. Versions of three of these epics were recorded by Lord when he returned to the area in 1950-1951, and numerous conversations with the singer helped to fill out the biographical and artistic portrait that Lord presented of a reallife oral epic singer of extraordinary ability (1974, 3-34; cf. Bynum 1974, 37-75). Avdo Medjedovic learned his craft chiefly from his father, and to a lesser extent from other guslari in the Bijelo Polje and Novi Pazar districts, all of them citing the probably legendary Cor Huso Husein as their ultimate source (Foley 1999, 51-56). The entire corpus of his performances and conversations is deposited at the Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature at Harvard University. Within Avdo’s recorded repertoire, the pf.rformance that has received the most attention is The Wedding o f Smailagit Meho - at 13,323 lines approximately the length of Homer’s O dyssey that was dictated to Vujnovic over a period of eight days (July 5-12, 1935). In general, this per­ formance follows the story-pattern o f the Wedding Song subgenre in the South Slavic heroic epic tradition, consisting o f a sequence o f events that compares generically to the T elemachy , Books 2-4 o f the Odyssey. Thus it is most basi­ cally the story o f a young princely figure coming of age, although it also chronicles a royal wedding and an associated major battle that erupts when the bride-to-be is kidnapped. Incorporated into this particular Wedding Song, set in the era of the Ottoman ruler Sulejman the Magnificent (r. 1520-1566), is a highly traditional dramatis per­ sonae, all of whom make regular appearances in other South Slavic heroic epics. Avdo learned the story when a friend, Hivso Dzafic, read it to him aloud from a published songbook; as Lord documents (1974, 13-34), Avdo recomposed the narrative within the traditional epic idiom but

also much augmented from the source, and was able to perform his version very soon after hear­ ing the story only a single time. Avdo Medjedovic composed an even longer song (Osmanbeg Delibegovii and Pavicevic Luka, 13,326 lines; Bynum 1980, 153-333), as well as resang an epic performed by another guslar at about three times its original length (Lord 1960,223-234). The quality of his epic performances - in terms of both tradition and originality - was unmatched in the collections made by Parry and Lord. As Nikola Vujnovic put it in 1939, “When Avdo is no longer among the living, there will be no one like him in singing” (Lord 1974, 11). References and Suggested Readings Of primary importance are those volumes of SerboCroatian Heroic Songs that chronicle Avdo Medjedovic’s performances, biography, and comments about his craft. Volume 3 (Lord 1974) consists of an English translation of The Wedding o f Smailagic Meho, with contextual materials; volume 4 (Bynum 1974) contains an original-language transcription of the same songperformance; and volume 6 (Bynum 1980) presents two additional song-performances from Avdo in the original language. For a separately published portrait of the singer, see Lord 1956. Avdo Medjedovic’s songs are listed according to the titles assigned by the investiga­ tors in several places (Parry and Lord 1954, 38,41; Kay 1995; and online at http://chsl I9.harvard.edu/mpc/). A brief film of him performing is available on the disk accompanying the second edition of Lord’s The Singer o f Tales (2000). See also

S

o u t h

S

l a v ic

H

e r o ic

E

p ic

.

lOHN MILES FOLEY

Axios (’Aljióç) A river in Paeonia and the god of same river. Homer describes its water as“the fairest that flows on earth” (II. 2.849-850). With P e r i b o i a (1), the eldest daughter o f the T h r a c i a n king Akessamenos, Axios begot P e l e g o n , who was father to A s t e r o p a i o s , one o f the leaders o f the P a e o n i a n s in the T r o j a n W a r (21.140-142). Axios is the modern Vardar, flowing into the sea near Thessaloniki. See also

R

iv e r s

.

Balios

see X anthos (2).

Barbarians Homer uses a word from the root barbar- only once (also the sole occurrence in early Greek epic), to refer to the C a r i a n s “o f bar­ barian voice” (ßapßctpoc|xüvcüv, II. 2.867), Trojan allies inhabiting the area of western Asia Minor around M i l f . t o s . Their presence has been seen as evidence of the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s ’ and T r o j a n C a t a l o g u e ' s Bronze Age origins (Latacz 2004, 232-238), though Carians are attested through­ out the ancient historical period (Asheri et al. 2007, 192), and their language has been linked to the Anatolian group o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n (Finkelberg 2005,49; see A n a t o l i a ) . Joined with the M a e o n i a n s here and at Iliad 4.141-142 (where, in a s i m i l e , a Maeonian or Carian woman dyes i v o r y ) , the Carians are imag­ ined as speaking either a language other than Greek (Schmidt LfgrE s.v. ßapßapov[o for òp, which is from òpcuo. Most examples belong to the conjugation o f contract verbs in -a. Two groups must be dis­ tinguished, according to whether the first syllable was originally short (as in ópáiü) or originally long, as in ôpúouoi, in which case the vowel is

DIGRESSIONS

205

written long in the result as well, Spuxvat. Although it has been argued that this orthogra­ p h y represents an assimilation of the two vowels prior to contraction, nothing similar is found in other Greek dialects and it is more probable that it reflects a compromise between the vernacular pronunciation and the demands of the m e t e r . The phenomenon bears all the hallmarks of the metrically conditioned K u n stspra c h e . It is never found in contractions of two short vowels, where the result was metrically equivalent to the old form. Thus we find àpdtai, which might reflect à p Ó E T a i, but never *áp áatat with diectasis; c; whenever the second sylla­ ble is long by position, since in the latter case, it was possible to adapt the form to the vernacular pronunciation (fxôç.

On the other hand, not every initial digamma which can be reconstructed on the basis of evi­ dence from Mycenaean, other digamma-conserving dialects and comparative linguistics is respected in Homer and it is clear that in the later stages of the tradition, respecting the digamma repre­ sented an option, though a clearly preferred one, lor the poets. Here as in other cases, the epic K unstsprache has features from many chrono­ logical layers.

See also

Digressions Like most o f the world’s oral story ­ traditions, Homer’s I liad and Odyssey are full of digressions. Digressions include stories, mythological paradigms, long sim iles , descrip­ tions (see E kphrasis ), catalogues, genealo­ g ies , and so forth, that bring the flow o f the main narrative to a halt in order to provide back­ ground information, to offer a model o f behavior or action, or to elaborate, ornament, and accentu­ ate a particularly important event or scene. As ubiquitous as digressions are in Homer, they are generally brief, with only a few exceeding a few dozen lines; yet, they often halt the progress o f the narrative at critical moments, and thereby etch into the audience’s mind some of the most mem­ orable moments of the Homeric epics. Digressions of the Iliad include: N estor ’s tales of his youthful exploits (1.259-274); Achilles ’ reminder to T hetis of her assistance to Z eus in the past (1.393-407); history of Agamemnon’s scepter (2.100-109); O dysseus ’ account of the portent at Aulis (2.299-332); Achaean C atalogue of S hips (2.484-770); T rojan C atalogue (2.816-877); Antenor’s account of M enelaos’ and Odysseus’ previous visit to T roy (3.203-224); Agamemnon’s reminder to D iomedes of his father T ydeus ’ bravery (4.370400); D ione’s reminder to Aphrodite about gods who suffered at the hands o f men (5.381415); duel between G laukos and Diomedes (6.119-236); Andromache’s account of Achilles’ sack of her city (6.407^432); more of Nestor’s

L a n g u a g e , H o m e r ic . DAG TRYGVE TR U S L E W HAUG

Diet

see Food .

Digamma

Digamma is a letter of the Greek representing the sound w. The name comes from its shape (p), which looks like a “dou­ ble gamma,” and is due to the Greeks themselves, the traditional Semitic name being wau. Phis sound was lost at an early date in many Greek dialects, including Attic and I onic , and so the let­ ter does not appear in the alphabets of these areas, except as a numeral (6). Though the letter digamma never occurs in our manuscripts , and was perhaps never pro­ nounced as such by poets in Homer’s time, it is clearly an essential part of the epic language. It is required by the prosody of countless Homeric verses, as discovered by Richard Bentley in the 18th century. Its most common effect is to pre­ vent hiatus and to block the elision of a short vowel, as for example in qpETéptp èvi (p)ottcw, but it can also block correption ( tó ye 6f| teat (p)íôpev ãnavxEç II. 7.281) and lengthen a syllable by position together with a preceding consonant, as in (p)Etneç (p)ÊTtoq. The effect o f the digamma is often masked by the introduction of an n- mobile . alphabet

See also

La n g u a g e , H o m e r ic .

References and Suggested Readings Hoekstra 1965,42-70. DAG T R Y G V E T R U SL E W HAUG

telling

206

I

DIGRESSIONS

U l f

tales o f his youthful exploits (7.123-160); P hoi nix ’s tale o f his youth (9.434-495); Phoenix’s tale of the wrath o f M eleager (9.524-605); his­ tory of M eriones ’ helmet (10.254-272; see Weapons and Armor ); even more o f Nestor’s tales o f his youthful exploits (11.669-760); Nestor’s reminder to Patroklos o f P eleus ’ admonition (11.764-789);genealogyofDiomedes (14.110-127); catalogue o f Zeus’ paramours (14.313-328); Zeus’ reminder to H era about how he once hung her from the heavens (15.18-33); catalogue o f N ereids (18.39-49); H ephaistos ’ reminder to C haris about how Thetis had once saved him (18.395-405); description o f the S hi eld of Achilles ( 18.474-607); Agamemnon’s tale of Hera’s deception o f Zeus (19.95-133); genealogy of Aeneas (20.215-241); and even more of Nestor’s tales o f his youthful exploits (23.626-645); history of Achilles’ silver mixingbowl (23.740-749); and Achilles’ tale o f the sor­ row of N iobe (24.599-620). Digressions of the Odyssey include: Antinoos ’ account of P enelope’s ruse (2.94-110); Nestor’s account of the fates of the Achaean heroes (3.103200); Nestor’s account of the fate o f Agamemnon (3.254-312); H elen ’s account o f Odysseus’ entry into Troy (4.240-264); Menelaos’ account of Odysseus and the Wooden Horse (4.265-289); Menelaos’ account of his own return home (4.351-586); catalogue of goddesses who loved mortal men (5.118-138); Odysseus’ account of how he came from O gygia to S cheria (7.241297); D emodokos’ song of the quarrel between Odysseus and Achilles (8.73-83); Demodokos’ song of the love o f Ares and Aphrodite (8.266369); Demodokos’ song o f the Wooden Horse (8.499-521); Odysseus’ tales of his own return from Troy (9.39-11.330, 11.385-12.453); Odys­ seus’ false tale to Athene (13.254-287); Odysseus’ false tale to Eumaios (14.199-359); Odysseus’ story to Eumaios of how he acquired a cloak (14.462-506); genealogy of T heoklymenos (15.225-257); Eumaios’ tale of how he came to Ithaca (15.403-484); Odysseus’ false tale to Antinoos (17.415—444); Penelope’s account of her ruse (19.138-156); Odysseus’ three false tales to Penelope (19.165-307); story of the Scar of O dysseus (19.392-469); story of Odysseus’ bow (21.11-41); Amphimedon ’s account o f Penelope’s ruse and the death of the S uitors (24.120-190); and Odysseus’ two false tales to Laertes (24.266-

279, 304-314). As similes make up a category of their own, with their own special features, they are not included here. Given the tendency o f past generations of Homeric scholars to dismiss the digressions as later additions to an original text, hence as evi­ dence o f multiple authorship (see Analysts), and the tendency o f more recent critics to regard — digressions as, at worst, peripheral distractions, and, at best, pleasant ornamentations, several fea­ tures o f these digressions are worth highlighting. Digressions are spread out over the entire extent o f the Iliad and Odyssey: significant digressions occur in thirty-four o f the forty-eight books. They are not concentrated in only a few sections. They are an inherent part o f the epic genre. The goal o f the Analysts to rid the narrative of digres­ sions in order to get to the pure and original forms o f the poems is not just elusive; it is entirely ill-conceived. The longest digression by far in Homer, taking up the better part o f four books of the Odyssey, is Odysseus’ tale to the P haeacians about his vari­ ous adventures during his return from Troy (see Apologue). Menelaos’ tale o f his own return from Troy, and Nestor’s tales of the returns o f various Achaean heroes, take up substantial portions of the narrative as well. Odysseus’ false tales to Eumaios and Penelope, Demodokos’ song of the love of Ares and Aphrodite, and the description of Odysseus’ scar are among die other longer digres­ sions of the Odyssey. The Iliad, on the other hand, includes very few long stories about the past: Nestor’s tales of his youthful exploits; the paradig­ matic tale of Meleager. Its longest digressions come in the form of catalogues: the Achaean Catalogue of Ships and the Trojan catalogue. The account of the duel between Glaukos and Diomedes and the description of Achilles’ shield are among the other longer digressions of the Iliad. Digressions are not designed to offer the audi­ ence an escape from the tension o f the narrative: rather, they focus the audience’s attention on that very tension. Digressions bring the progress of the narrative to a halt during the most critical situations: when Achilles is finally about to reenter the battle, for example, or when Odysseus is on the verge o f being recognized. Where the drama is most intense, the digressions tend to be longest. Digressions are usually placed in the mouths of the characters; the poet himself is rarely their

DI KÊ

primary voice. As A r i s t o t l e observed. Homer lets his characters speak for themselves, and this is particularly true with respect to digressions. Most digressions involve a change o f time from the main narrative. They are a way o f bringing the past into the present (see also S p e e c h e s ) . Mythological paradigms, as well as many other types o f digressions, are often inserted into the larger fabric o f the poem by means of r i n g c o m ­ p o s i t i o n , beginning and ending with the same details or even verbatim verses. The tale o f Niobe is an example o f a fairly simple ring composition: (A) Let us remember to eat. (B) For even Niobe remembered to eat. (C) Story o f Niobe. (B) Niobe remembered to eat. (A) Let us also remember to eat. Diomedes’ speech to Glaukos is illustrative of a more complex ring composition: (A) What mortal man are you? (B) Mortals who face me perish. (C) But if you are a god ... (D) I would not fight gods. (E) Lykourgos did not live for long after angering the gods. (F) Story of L y k o u r g o s (1). (E) Lykourgos did not live for long, since he was an enemy to the gods. (D) 1 would not fight gods. (C and A) But if you are a mortal ... (B) Come dose and perish. Complex ring composi­ tions, with their many concentric layers, enable the poet to descend into the core of an episode and then find his way back out again along the same path to the main narrative. Such arrange­ ments are aesthetically pleasing to the audience of an oral p e r f o r m a n c e , and they are useful aids to composition for the oral poet. See also

N

a r r a t iv e

.

References and Suggested Readings On the narrative and thematic functions of digressions generally, see Austin 1966. On the difference between the two epics in their use of digressions, see Gaisser 1969a. On the relatively recent language of Homeric digressions, see Ingalls 1982. On the relative passage of time during digressions and the main narrative, see Scodel 2008b. On mythological paradigms generally, see Willcock 1964. On the tale of Meleager, see Sachs 1933. On the tale of Niobe, see Kakridis 1930. STEVE T. REECE

d ik ê (Ôhcq) Related to deiknum i “show” (with derivatives dikaios, dikazein, dikaspolos, adikos, eudikiê), dikê is prmarily procedural: a decision or

li

207

proposal made to end a dispute. Defining e p i ­ are “crooked,” “twisted" (skoliê of “bad” dikê) and, in opposition, “straight,” “true” (itheia). Among the five instances of dike in the Iliad the two scenes of arbitration stand out: that on the S h i e l d o f A c h i l l e s where two contestants receive proposals from a group of arbitrators, of which the one whose proposal is accepted is to receive a reward of two t a l e n t s (18.497-508, cf. Od. 12.439—440) (see L a w ) . The other instance is the controversy between M e n e l a o s and A n t i l o c h o s following the c h a r i o t race, when Menelaos him­ self makes a proposal to the others present, which includes Antilochos taking an oath; but the pro­ cedure is cut short because Antilochos immedi­ ately concedes (23.566-613: dikazein “judge” 574, 579). At 16.384—388 reference is made to the anger of Z e u s at those who use force to bend the themistes and drive off dike. The passage has been suspected because of its affinity to H e s i o d , who thematizes “crooked judgments” (Op. 180-239), but it con­ forms with the stated origin of the themistes from Z e u s (II. 1.238 with dikaspoloi ) . In the O dyssey (eleven instances) the proce­ dural use appears again where King M i n o s (son of Zeus) is seen explaining rules (themisteuonta) and giving judgments (dikas) to the dead (11.568571). Another instance is the contention (dikazomenos) over A c h i l l e s ’ arms decided (dikasan) b y Trojan children and A t h e n e (11.543-548). These are cases of verdicts and not of proposals. Because dikê is the concrete and presumably cor­ rect application of the themistes, i.e., “right” deci­ sion in the particular case, as a desideratum it became abstracted (cf. II. 16.388, see above, and eudikiê Od. 19.111) and an explanatory term. Therefore the seven instances in die Odyssey where dikê is used to characterize the actions of classes o f persons, in phrases such as “this is the dikê o f” (4.691, 11.218, 14.59, 18.275, 19.43, 168, 24.255, cf. later use of dikên with gen.), meaning “this is the (appointed) norm for.” The Odyssey is particularly concerned with the transgressions against the social order, especially against the law o f h o s p i t a l i t y (e.g., C y c l o p s and the S u i t o r s ) and it is in this context that the hubris (and violence)-d ik è opposition (most familiar from Hesiod, Op., above) appears when O d y s s e u s arrives in a new place questioning whether the inhabitants are hubristai or dikaioi (6.120-121 = 9.175-171 = 13.201-202) (see H y b r i s ) .

t h e t s

208

dike

See also

J

u s t ic e

father T

.

y d e u s

settled in Argos and there married

Adrastos ’ (1) daughter (14 .116-120). Diomedes

References and Suggested Readings Schm idt LfgrE s.v.; Lèvy 1998; Penta 1998; Janik 2000; M athieu 2004; G agarin 2008, 1 3 -38. W I L L I A M HE C K

Diokles (AtÓK\r|ç) Son o f O r t i l o c h o s , rich and prosperous king of Messenian P h f . r a i ; Diokles’ sons Krethon and O r s i l o c h o s (1) fell at Troy by the hand of A e n e a s (II. 5.541-549). On their way from P y l o s to S p a r t a and back, T e l e m a c h o s and P e i s i s t r a t o s spent a night at Diokles’ house and enjoyed his h o s p i t a l i t y ( O d. 3.488-490= 15.186-188). See also

M

e s s e n ia

.

MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Diomede (Aiopfjôii) Diomede is the daughter of King P h o r b a s (1) of L e s b o s (II. 9.665). Diomede and a number o f other women were taken captive in the raids made by A c h i l l e s on and around that island. Achilles is said to sleep with her in the absence o f B rise Ts . Alongside BriseisandPATROKLOs’concubine I ph is , Diomede appeared on the famous painting o f Polygnotus dedicated at the Lounge (Lesche) o f the sacred precinct o f Apollo in Delphi (Paus. 10.25.2). CASEY DUÉ

Diomedes (Aiopí|ôr| vóqae II. 3.374,5.312 [Aph rodite ], 8 . 1 3 2 [ Z e u s ] , 20.291 [ P o s e i d o n ] , oOö'dXaoaKomqv eíx' 10.515 [ A p o l l o ], 13.10, 1 4 . 1 3 5 [Poseidon], Od. 8.285 [ A r e s ], etc.). “X noticed” implies the possibility of “X did not notice,” and frequently gods fail to notice goings-on that intimately con­ cern them and require an informant {II. 1 3 . 5 2 1 — 525, 15.110-112; Od. 12.374-375, despite 3 2 3 ~ II. 3.277; Od. 8.268-272; Hymn. Cer. 3 9 - 9 0 ; Hymn. Merc. 185-211). Gods as moral overseers are deficient in other ways as well: they fail, collectively or individually, to oversee events when visiting A e t h i o p i a n s {II. 1.423—425; cf. Od. 1.22-26, 5.282-283), when snoozing {II. 15.4-12), when looking elsewhere (13.3-7), when observing but with moral disen­ gagement as at an engrossing spectacle (Griffin 1980, 182, 193), with “wonder” (13.11), “pleasure” (20.23), even seeking out ring-side seats (8.47—52; 13.11-14)! The deficiency of the Iliadic gods as moral overseers is an aspect of their reduced

moral awareness, relative to tradition (Kearns 2 0 0 4 , 6 8 - 6 9 ; differently, Allan 2 0 0 6 ; see J u s t i c e ) . This permits an opening of divergent moral per­ spectives between human and divine characters in the poem; the gods, as collective spectators, chan­ nel our aesthetic, emotional, and moral response to the poem. “Divine watching can ... be tragic” (Griffin 1 9 8 0 , 1 9 5 ) and, as well as pleasure, divine spectators may feel pity ( 2 4 . 2 3 ; cf. 1 6 . 4 3 1 - 8 . 3 5 0 , cf. 1 7 . 4 4 1 ~ 1 9 . 3 4 0 ; cf. 2 4 . 3 3 2 ) , a proper response for the audience of a tragedy. The divine audience introduces a sense of perspective (“both exalts and humbles human action,” Griffin 1 9 8 0 , 2 0 1 ) , even of absurdity, on human affairs (cf. Halliwell 2 0 0 8 , esp. 5 8 - 6 9 , 3 3 7 - 3 3 9 ) . The gods’ existence also has its own absurdity, highlighted by the contrast with humans; and gods too in their less dignified moments submit to the delighted spectatorship of their fellows ( 2 1 . 3 8 8 - 3 9 0 ; Od. 8 . 3 0 6 - 3 4 3 ; II. 1 . 5 9 9 - 6 0 0 ) . The gods are one of the poems’ most important internal audiences (for others, see 2 3 . 4 4 8 — 4 9 8 ; Od. 1 1 . 3 3 3 - 3 7 6 ) , and thus there is also a significant narratological aspect to the divine audience (Richardson 1 9 9 0 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 1 2 2 ; de Jong 2 0 0 4 [ 1 9 8 7 ] , 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 ; see Narratology ). S imiles (e.g., II. 2 2 . 1 6 2 - 1 7 0 ) and the hypothetical indefi­ nite spectator ( 1 3 . 3 4 3 - 3 4 4 , 1 6 . 6 3 8 - 6 3 9 ) frequently lead on to descriptions of either Zeus or the gods collectively looking on, suggesting that these were the implied focalizers of the preceding narrative (Janko 1 9 9 2 , 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 9 1 - 3 9 2 ; see Focalization). See also D ivine Apparatus. References and Suggested Readings Griffin 1980,179-204. BRU N O C U R R IE

Dmetor (Apf|ro)p)

A ruler of C y p r u s , son of I a s o s (3), mentioned by O d y s s e u s in the lying tale he tells A n t i n o o s in I t h a c a {Od. 17.442-443). Odysseus claims to have come from Cyprus, having been sold into slavery by Egyptians (see E g y p t a n d H o m e r ) . The name Dmetor, “subduer,” is archetypal for a ruler, and together with the feet that nothing else is known of a Dmetor of Cyprus, strongly suggests that the name is the poet’s invention.

See also

L

ie s

.

DOGS Dodona (AoiSorvq) The site of the great oracle of Z e u s in E p i r u s (Homeric T h e s p r o t i a ) , 12 miles southwest of modern Yannina; dedications from the 8th century onward. The C a t a l o g u e o p S h ip s introduces the Thessalian tribes of A i n i e n f . s and P f. r r h a e b i a n s as having once dwelt around “Dodona suffering from hard win­ ters” (II. 2.749-750, cf. 16.234). The responses of the oracle came from a sacred oak (Od. 14.327328 = 19.296-297) and were interpreted by S p. l i . o i , the priests of the oracle (II. 16.234-235). The oracle of Dodona is mentioned by Homer twice. In Iliad 16.233 A c h i l l e s prays to the “ P e i . a s g i a n Zeus of Dodona”; in the O dyssey , in a lying tale the disguised O d y s s e u s tells first to E u m a i o s and then to P e n e l o p e , he says that before returning home Odysseus went to Dodona to hear the counsel o f Zeus “from the oak o f lofty foliage” (above). While the Odyssey account poses no problems, both Achilles’ prayer to Zeus who dwells in Dodona, far away from Achilles’ Thessalian home, and the epithet “Pelasgian," also pointing to T h e s s a l y , have been a matter o f discussion since antiquity. Yet, the association o f Achilles’ family with Epirus is taken for granted in the Epic C y c l e , where N e o p t o l e m o s returns from Troy not to his father’s P h t h i a but “to the Molossians,” and is recognized there by P e l e u s (Returns arg. 4 West) (cf. also above, on the Ainienes and the Perrhaebians). In later times, the Molossians controlled the oracle and Neoptolemos was seen as the founder o f their royal dynasty (cf. Eur. Andr. 1243-1251). For the popular and lit­ erary tradition about Dodona, see Hdt. 2.52-57; Strab. 7.7.10-12. See also

T

h e s p r o t ia n s

.

References and Suggested Readings.................. Parke 1967, 11-13,20-33; Janko 1992,348-349. m a r g a l it

f in k e l b e r g

Dogs Homer’s epics include h u n t i n g hounds, herd and guard dogs, “table” pets, and numer­ ous characters acting in metaphorically “dog­ gish” fashion. Homeric dogs are most commonly described as “swift,” occasionally as “sharp-” or “white-toothed.” The poet makes no effort

215

to distinguish linguistically between breeds: kuôn is the only word used for dog (skulakes are puppies). In the I lia d , dogs are found almost exclusively in s i m i l e s and as scavengers threatening to devour corpses. Individual warriors are fre­ quently compared to hunting dogs pursuing prey (usually boars) or to dogs protecting the herds from l i o n s . Speed, tenacity, and obedience, or fear and caution, are the usual points of compar­ ison (e.g., 8.338-340, 10.360-362, 15.579-581). The terms can be reversed when fighters pull back timidly front a resilient hero like dogs from an angry boar or stubborn lion (e.g., 5.476, 12.41-48, 17.61-67, 17.725-729). T r o i a n s arc the “dogs” in these comparisons twice as often as the Greeks, but the final two similes suggest that H e c t o r has become the hunted (22.25-31, 189— 192). The progression o f similes has been con­ nected with the dehumanization of both Hector and A c h i l l e s . The tragedy o f the Iliad springs from the con­ sequences o f Achilles’ wrath, which “sent many to H a d e s and made men spoil for dogs and b i r d s ” (1.4-5). This mutilation is never actually depicted in the epic (though cf. 21.203-204; Od. 22.474477), but provides p a t h o s to warriors’ threats and boasts, and the fears of and for the van­ quished. Over half of these references involve the fates of P a t r o k l o s (Books 17-18) and Hector (Books 22-24). Dogs pose a final threat to heroic existence, of being devoured “raw” by scavengers far from home. Dogs as “domesticated nature” represent the thin veneer of civilization that excessive violence inherent in the successful war­ rior threatens to wipe away (see also P r i a m ’ s dogs, 22.66-76). In the O dyssey, references to canine mutila­ tion (now linked to O d y s s e u s ’ feared fate) give way to actual dogs in action, A series of cru­ cial thresholds is marked by the presence of guard dogs: g o l d and s i l v e r dogs guarding A l k i n o o s ’ palace (7.91), K i r k e ’s “fawning” critters (10.215), S k y l l a ’ s canine jaws (12.96), E u m a i o s ’ “wild” hounds (14.29-39, 16.4-6, 16.162-163), the famous A r g o s r e c o g n i t i o n - s c e n e (17.291327 - the only animal other than h o r s e s with a name in Homer), and Odysseus’ identifying brooch (19.228-231; see also A r t e f a c t s ) . In each case the scene reveals the status of Odysseus and his supporters. The fall of faithful Argos from

216

DOGS-

beloved hunting dog to parasite-ridden victim, as well as Odysseus’ emotional but silent response, reveals much about the character of Odysseus and the state of his h o u s e h o l d . Both epics share the frequent metaphorical use of "dog” as an insult. Hector is called dog four times, for example, the last by a “rabid ’’ Achilles in a convergence of canine imagery (22.345-354). H e l e n uniquely calls herself a dog, or dog-faced, in both epics (e.g., II. 3.180, Od. 4.145). “Shamelessness” is the conventional interpreta­ tion of this insult, though cowardice, dissolute­ ness, impudence, surfeit, and avarice have all been suggested. See also

A

n im a l s

.

References and Suggested Readings Liíja 1976,13-36; Faust 1970; Goldhill 1988; Beck 1991. JOH N HEATH

Oolios (AoXíoç) An aged servant o f P e n e l o p e , Dolios came with her from her father’s estate to O d y s s e u s ’ h o u s e h o l d upon their mar­ riage (Od. 4.735-736); his duties include labor­ ing in the fields with his sons (24.387-388), but also taking care o f the “many-treed garden” of L a e r t e s (4.735-737; see T r e e s ) . He is the father o f the unfaithful M e l a n t h i o s (17.212, 22.159) and M e l a n t h o (18.322). Dolios him­ self remains loyal to his master, and eventually he and his six sons rally around the undisguised Odysseus and greet him warmly; alongside Odysseus, Laertes, and T e l e m a c h o s they fight against the relatives of the S u i t o r s in the O d y s s e y ’ s concluding book (24.397, 409-411, 492-499).

T r o j a n , son o f Eumedes the “rich in g o l d and b r o n z e ,” D olon was “ill-favored to look at but swift o f foot” (II. 10.314-316). Following H e c t o r ’s call, he volun­ teered to spy on the A c h a e a n s , having condi­ tioned this on the prize o f the h o r s e s o f A c h i l l e s (10.321-324). He contrived to approach the s h i p s camouflaged in wolfskin and a ferret mask (10.334-335), but had the misfortune to run into O d y s s e u s and D i o m e d e s on their own spying

D olon (A ó Xüjv )

h e r a l d

,

mission. They captured Dolon and interrogated him, promising him his freedom if he talked, but ultimately killed him (10.454—457). A direct result of the information provided by Dolon was the slaying of the T h r a c i a n king R h e s o s (10.474). See also D oloneia .

Doloneia “Doloneia” is the name traditionally given to Book 10 of the I l ia d , which describes a spying mission towards dawn (10.251-253) on the night o f the failed E m b a s s y t o A c h i l l e s . A g a m e m n o n and M e n e l a o s cannot sleep, tor­ mented by the proximity of the T r o i a n s encamped near the s h i p s . They consult N e s t o r , who offers a black ewe and lamb from each Greek leader to the man who can discover whether the Trojans intend to maintain the position they have occupied since their successes in Books, or retreat into the city. D i o m e d e s volunteers, choosing O d y s s e u s as a companion. After p r a y e r s to A t h e n e , they capture a Trojan spy, D o l o n (son o f the h e r a l d , Eumedes) to whom H e c t o r had promised the h o r s e s and c h a r i o t of A c h i l l e s if he could ascertain whether the ships are still under guard, or if the Greeks are in confusion. Under interrogation, Dolon reveals that the Trojans are deliberating their intentions; their main camp is under guard, but their allies are asleep without sentries. He describes the disposi­ tion o f the allies, including the newly arrived T h r a c i a n s and their king, R h e s o s , renowned for his splendid panoply, chariot, and magnificent horses. Dolon asks to be taken prisoner or left bound for the Trojans to find, but Diomedes kills him as he attempts s u p p l i c a t i o n , his corpse is stripped, and the spoils left for a landmark. Diomedes kills twelve Thracians and Rhesos him­ self, while Odysseus clears away their corpses, to facilitate driving off (as booty) the king’s horses and chariot. According to s c h o l i a A on 10.435, an oracle said that if Rhesos and his horses drank the waters o f the S k a m a n d r o s , they would be invin­ cible (see also Verg. Aen. 1.469-473). Scholia bT on 10.435 attribute to Pindar (fr. 262) the story that the heroic deeds o f Rhesos on the day he arrived at Troy so alarmed H e r a that she sent A t h e n e to lead Diomedes and Odysseus to kill

D O R IA N S

him as he slept that night. The Rhesos attributed to Euripides seems to draw on the same tradition as the Homeric Doloneia, also evidenced by a lekythos o f 480—470 b c e , showing Dolon on all fours in a wolfskin (LIM C 3.1, 661, and 3.2 pi. 525, “Dolon” B). The place o f the Doloneia in the Iliad was defended by Shewan (1911) (see U n i t a r i a n s ) , and the unusual vocabulary, a r m i n g - s c e n e s , and action which since antiquity have caused the epi­ sode to be condemned as an addition to the Iliad are perhaps best explained in terms o f its excep­ tional nature as the Iliad’s only military operation under cover o f night. (For similar night raids in the tradition, see Kullmann 1960,86; Fenik 1964, 12-13.) Night maneuvers require camouflage gear in the form o f animal pelts and other spe­ cialized equipment, such as leather helmets (kataitux) (10.258), lined with felt and sewn all over with slivers o f boar’s tusks (10.261—270), which, unlike metal, will not gleam in the moon­ light ( s e e also W e a p o n s a n d A r m o r ) . For iconographic representations, see LIMC 3.1, 660-664, and 3.2 pis. 525-529; the earliest shows Dolon alone under the handle of an early 6th-century Corinthian cup. He first appears caught by Odysseus and Diomedes at the end of the 6th century and early in the 5th. For later ref­ erences, see Apollod. 1.3.4, Epit. 4. 4; Ov. Met. 13.98, 243-252 (where Odysseus, not Diomedes, kills Dolon); Her. 1.39-40; Serv. ad Aen. 12. 347; Spenser, The Faerie Queene 5.6.32—40. References and Suggested Readings Fenik 1964; Thornton 1984; Danek 1988; Hainsworth

1993; Dué and Ebbott 2010. M AUREEN ALDEN

Dolops (AóAovy, see Names 3.6) (1) “Dolopian.” A tribe in North Greece (T hessaly), later on members o f the Dephic Amphictiony. In the I liad (9.484) P hoinix recalls that P eleus gave him a control on the edge o f P hthia , with author­ ity over the Dolopes. IAN C. R U TH ER FO R D

(2) T rojan. H ector’s cousin, grandson of LAOMEDON,“the best of the sons” of Lampos (1) (II. 15.525-527). An expert and brave spearman,

217

he attacks M e g e s and nearly slays him, but is eventually killed by M e n f . l a o s (15.528-543). The battle over his corpse (544—591) culminates in Hector’s successfully breaking the Achaean defense of the first row o f s h i p s . (3) A c h a e a n , son of K l y t i o s (2), one of the series o f warriors slain by H e c t o r in Iliad IT.299-303. The fact that “Klytios” is the name of both Dolops’ (2) unde (see K l y t i o s [1]) and Dolops’ (3) father reinforces the assumption that this Dolops is a stock character (cf. Janko 1992, 285-286). See also

M

in o r

Dorians

W

a r r io r s

.

Alongside I o n i a n s and one o f the three principal subdivisions o f the H e l l e n e s . Panhellenic genealogy (see P a n h e l l e n i s m ) as attested for the first time in the Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women (fr. 9M -W ; probably early 6th century b c e ) derived their name from Doros son o f Hellen (see further G e n e a l o g i e s ) . The Dorians o f the historical period occupied large territories in the Peloponnese ( S p a r t a , A r g o s , C o r i n t h , S i k y o n , E p i d a u r o s ) and adjacent lands (Megara.AiGiNA), and their settlements were spread over the Eastern Mediterranean ( C r e t e , Melos, R h o d e s , K o s , Thera), as well as Italy, S i c i l y , and North Africa. The Dorian communities were distinguished by their specific dialect, their division into three tribes (as against four tribes of the Ionians), and by their political, social, and religious institutions (Malkin 1994a, 33-45). According to Greek tradition, the Dorians migrated into the Peloponnese from their home­ land in E p i r u s soon after the T r o j a n W a r ; they were led by kings who traced their descent to H e r a k l e s ’ son Hyllos (“the H e r a c l i d s ” ) : this is why the emergence of the Dorians in southern Greece was traditionally referred to as “Return of the Children o f Herakles” (Diod. Sic. 4.58.1-5; Apollod. 2.8.2-5; Paus. 2 .1 8 .6 -7 ,4.3.3-5, 5.3.5-6, 8.5.1, 8.45.3; cf. Hall 1997, 56-65). The tradition o f the late emergence of the Dorians in southern Greece is strongly supported by the dialect map of the region (Finkelberg 2005, 140-149). At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the widespread term "Dorian invasion” in fact relates to miscellaneous population movements A

e o h a n s

(A c o p ié e ç )

,

218

DORIANS

from

the

periphery to the center of the world that took place at the end of the Bronze A g e , by no means all of them associ­ ated with the Dorians proper (thus the southward movements of the B o e o t i a n s should also be taken into account). The Dorians as such are mentioned in Homer only once, in the O dyssey list of the tribes that inhabit Crete: “There are A c h a e a n s , there are the great-hearted E t e o c r e t a n s , there are the K y d o n i a n s , as well as the Dorians of three tribes [trikha’ikes} and the divine P e i . a s g i a n s ” (19.175177). The reference to the Dorians is a blatant a n a c h r o n is m reflecting the geopolitical reality of the A r c h a i c A c f . , s o that it is not surprising that in the rest of the epics Homer, who obviously shared the common opinion that the Dorians emerged on the Greek scene only after the end of the H e r o i c A g e , consistently abstains from men­ tioning them. Nevertheless, allusions to their pres­ ence in the Aegean can also be found the C a t a l o g u e o k S h i p s ’ references to descendants of Herakles coming to Troy from Rhodes and Kos, both inhabited by Dorians in historical times (see further H e r a c l i d s ) . Moreover, although the Dorian states of Argos and Sparta do not properly belong to the Heroic Age, in Homer the Argos o f D i o m e d e s and the Sparta o f M e n e l a o s actually replace T i r y n s and A m y c l a e , the traditional cent­ ers of the relevant territories whose key position in Greek legend shows that their function as admin­ istrative and cult centers o f pre-Dorian Greece was well known to the Greeks of Homer’s times (Cartledge 2002,93; Finkelberg 2005,171-172). As a result, although it was a matter o f common knowledge that the Dorians were newcomers into the Peloponnese, they could nevertheless easily locate themselves within the “usable, ideological past” (Whidey 1988, 181) that the Homeric epics supplied. M

y c f . n a .e a n

MARGALIT FINKELBERG

Dorion (Aiiipiov) This is listed in the Catalogue S h ips as one o f the nine settlements from which N estor drew his contingent (II. 2.591). Unusually, the reference is expanded with a story concerning the poet T hamyris , sometimes thought to be a later expansion but argued to be part o f the entry by E. Visser (1997). Strabo (8.3.25) was uncertain whether “Dorion” was the of

name of a mountain, plain, or settlement; Pausanias (4.33.7), however, identified it as a ruined settlement near a spring, Achaia. The theory that this was the prehistoric site Malthi, which dominates the Soulim a plain (M e s s e n ia ), rests largely on the supposedly unique position and history o f M althi, but several comparable sites are now known in the neighbor­ hood (McDonald and Hope Sim pson 1969, 141). The evidence for Early Iron Age occupation at Malthi (Coulson 1986, 16, 30), contrary to pre­ vious statements, undercuts claims for the M yc en a ea n source o f the Catalogue entry. It seems questionable in any case whether genuine tradition could have survived the Spartan con­ quest of Messenia; this could be a case o f attach­ ing a Catalogue name to a notable local site. The existence o f a Doureon, which entertained Delphic envoys ca. 200 b c e (Giovannini 1969, 15), is of questionable relevance, but serves to underline the potential for gaps in our knowledge. References and Suggested Readings Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 85 ; Kirk 1985, 215; Anderson 1995, 184-185; Visser 1 9 9 7 ,5 1 4 -5 2 2 .

OLIVER T. P. K. DICKINSON

Double Motivation “Double m otivation” (or “double determination”) is m odern scholarship’s (imperfect) name for the H om eric tendency to place the causality o f human actions under two different headings, the external and internal. Interpretive problems arise because no explicit explanation o f how one relates to the other is provided, and juxtapositions can be stark: at Odyssey 18.158-165 the narrator tells us that Athene put it into Penelope ’s head to show her­ self to the S uito rs ; Penelope then says: “E urynome , my thumos wants me to appear before the suitors.” The term “double motivation” carries anach­ ronistic dust from modern debates on free will vs. determinism: are the actions o f “H omeric man” caused by internal forces under his control, or is she or he the mere pawn o f the g o d s ? Lesky (1961), pointing to passages like the O d yssey passage discussed above, showed that for Homer the two types are parallel o r com plem entary rather than opposed; the characters are familiar

DREAMS with both possibilities, and though individuals may invoke divine interference in order to deny culpability ( A g a m e m n o n in II. 19.86-138) or credit ( P a t r o k l o s 16.844-850), a culture of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y remains intact (Agamemnon, not Até , gives compensation to A c h i l l e s , and Achilles identifies H e c t o r , not A po llo or E u p h o r b o s , as the slayer of Patroklos). Much confusion about motivation derives from the poet’s use of certain conventions, first described by (örgensen ( 1904), about who is allowed to know what: internal motivation is focalized to the sub­ jective experience of the character, and the actions of the gods working externally upon the character are, by Jorgensen’s Law, visible to the audience only through the poet (so Penelope in Od. 18 (aboveI cites her own thumos, while the narrator identifies Athene; see also F o c a l i z a t i o n ) , who himself is assumed to have it from the M uses (II. 2.485-486). The upshot is that when, for example, O d y s s e u s takes over as narrator in Odyssey 9-12 (sec A p o l o g u e ) , the " d i v i n e a p p a r a t u s ” largely disappears. Put Horner seems troubled by its removal: once Odysseus’ n a r r a t i v e is over, the hero is made to complain to the self-revealed Athene that he has not had her help or company for many years (13.314-319); she does not deny it, and says she has stayed away out of deference to her uncle, P o s e i d o n (13.339-343). This looks like the poet’s attempt to explain a protracted manifes­ tation of (argensen’s Law in “real” terms; but who did he think needed it explained, Odysseus or the audience? Divine motivation is not to be assumed eve­ rywhere. Agamemnon can blame Atê for his mistreatment of Achilles in Iliad 1, but we think we know the facts: Athene is shown intervening to restrain Achilles from killing the king (1.194— 2 2 2 ) , and she says H e r a has sent her out o f con­ cern fo r them both (208-209); she and the narrator mercilessly fail to give any hint that a god Atê is across the way working on Agamemnon, whose blunders are thus allowed to be his own. If his later appeal to Atê is taken as allegorical (see Allegory ), a different can of worms is opened. More simply, not all motiva­ tion is double. See also M otivation . HAYDEN PELLICCIA

219

Ooulichion (AouXixiov) One of the Ionian Islands, the location of which has proved a puzzle. In the C atalogue of Ships it is paired with the “sacred Echinades” under the leadership o f M eges son o f P hyleus, and is described as being across from Elis (II. 2.625-626); Strabo (8.2.2, 10.2.10 and 19) considers it o f the Echinades. For the Odyssey poet, it is ruled by Akastos (14.336), and supplies fifty-two o f Penelope’s S uitors (16.247). The portrait o f the island in the Odyssey is hard to reconcile with the Echinades. O dysseus describes Doulichion as one o f three islands “very close to one another” which gird Ithaca: Doulichion, Same , and well-wooded Zakynthos (9.23-24; see Map 5). In addition, as noted by Stubbings (1962b, 403), in the Odyssey Doulichion provides almost twice as many suitors for Penelope as Same and is described as polupuros "rich in corn” and poiêeis “rich in grass” (16.396), suggesting a much larger island than one of the Echinades. Possibilities for the location o f Doulichion have included the western half of Kephallenia (the Pale peninsula, see Same), Ithaki itself (an interpreta­ tion which Diggle 2005, 515, traces back to Verg. Eel. 6.76), Meganisi, Leukas, or Makri in the Echinades (whose name would be semantically equivalent: “Long Island,” cf. Fernández-Galiano in Russo et al. 1992, on 21.346-347). Bittlestone (2005, 264—266) observes that if Doulichion is identified with modern Ithaki, Meges and Odysseus then control discrete adjacent kingdoms: Meges’ in the northeast, Odysseus’ in the southwest. See also Ithaca. References and Suggested Readings Overviews o f the debate on the location o f Doulichion can be found in Stubbings 1962b and Bittlestone 2005.

BENJAMIN HALLER

Dreams Both narrator and characters treat dreams in Homer primarily as communications from gods to mortals. In the I liad , Z eus is called the source o f dreams (1.63) and we witness him sending Dream (personified) to Agamemnon in order to advance his plan to honor Achilles (2.5-83; see P ersonification ). In the O dyssey, we get detailed accounts o f Athene sending a dream to P enelope (4.796-841) and appearing to Nausicaa in a dream (6.13-40). In each instance,

220

DREAMS

the dream appears near the head of the dreamer in the form of someone whom the dreamer knows and trusts: N e s t o r , Agamemnon’s trusted advi­ sor; Ii' hthime , Penelope’s sister; and Dymas’ (2) daughter, Nausicaa’s beloved agemate. The action in these dreams is exclusively talk. Nestor and Dymas’ daughter deliver messages to spur an action desired by the gods; in Penelope’s dream, she and her sister engage in an extended dialogue, in which Iphthime conveys Athene’s message pre­ cisely while refusing to reveal anything about Penelope’s lost husband in response to her sister’s direct questioning. These dreams communicate their message directly, in unambiguous language, (hough the dream that Zeus sends to Agamemnon is false and intended to mislead him. Homer knows of dream-interpreters (oneiropo b i), which permits speculation that Homer was aware of the practice attested in later authors of using symbolic interpretation of details to deter­ mine a dream’s message; however, the only issue of interpretation that characters in Homeric epic explicitly address is that of a dream’s truth or fal­ sity. When Agamemnon reports his dream to the other Achaean soldiers, Nestor comments “if any other Achaean spoke o f this dream /we would call it a lie and would turn away front it. / But now he who boasts to be the best o f the Achaeans has seen it” (II. 2.80-82). Nowhere else in Homer does any­ one suggest that the status o f the dreamer has any relationship to the truth status o f the dream, and the explicit falseness of the dream undermines the authority o f Nestor’s comment. Aristarchus athetized these lines (see Athetesis ); Reid (1973, 38) suggests that Nestor is seduced by his own appearance in the dream into thinking it must be true. Iliad 5.150 suggests limitations on dreaminterpretation as a form of mortal knowledge, when the poet comments on a dream-interpreter’s inability to save his sons from death in battle. A unique example of dream interpretation occurs in Odyssey 19, where Penelope recounts a dream to the disguised Odysseus (19.535-553). Her dream contains a bird-sign, in which an eagle comes and kills Penelope’s twenty geese, which are feeding in the yard (see B irds ). When Penelope in the dream cries for her slaughtered geese, the eagle returns and interprets the sign for her, saying that he is Odysseus and tlte geese are the S uitors and predicting Odysseus’ imminent return. The dream thus offers its own interpretation. Nonetheless,

scholars have found the dream peculiar enough to require further interpretation. Some have argued that Penelope’s affection for and subsequent sor­ row over the geese expresses repressed attraction to the Suitors (Rankin 1962, followed by others), though nothing suggests that the ancients ever interpreted dreams as revealing the hidden secrets of the soul. Other scholars have read Penelope’s dream as a deliberate fiction, designed to commu­ nicate with the beggar whom she recognizes at some level as Odysseus (Winkler 1990, 153-156). Dreams are useful in deception, given how diffi­ cult they are to substantiate, and Odysseus actu­ ally tells a story to E umaios (14.462-506) which reports a fictional Odysseus inventing a dream for convenience. Nonetheless, Homer here leaves much to the audience’s imagination, offering little hint of Penelope’s thoughts in the text. When the disguised Odysseus replies to Penelope’s questioning that it is impossible to interpret the dream other than as the dream-Odysseus already has (19.555-558), Penelope responds with a myste­ rious remark about dreams that tends to confirm that for Homer dreams belong in one of two catego­ ries: true or false prediction. “There are two gates of fleeting dreams, one made of horn, the other of ivory. Those dreams that come through sawn ivory [è\áj>avroç] deceive [èXeaípovTai], bringing words that will not be fulfilled [cucpaavra]. But those that come through the door of smooth horn [KEpótüv], these achieve [icpaivouacu] true things” (562-567). No scholar has succeeded in explaining the origin o f these gates or finding a parallel in other ancient texts; the two gates may therefore be an ad hoc Homeric invention, inspired by the wordplay on ivory/deception and horn/fulfillment, though gates of dreams are mentioned also at Odyssey 4.809. The gates of horn and ivory, if they exist in any tangible sense, are presumably in or near the U nderworld, elsewhere associated with dreams in Homer. Thus, the souls of the dead Suitors pass through the land o f Dreams on their way to the Underworld (Od. 24.10-15; see Psyche). The con­ ception is apparently that dreams inhabit the realm o f the intangible and unconscious, where dwell the twin brothers Sleep (H ypnos) and Death (T hanatos) (II. 14.231,16.454,672); Hermes with his magic wand (rhabdos) serves as the escort into both realms (24.343-344; Od. 24.1-5). Ghosts are compared to dream-figures (Antikleia , 11.207, 222); both are insubstantial though visible (cf. II.

DRESS

; K"

”p--■"f'!^!.---•S'-'f’=|i':::1'S'r''--::r-fr---?:^;::^'

?■;

'!i|- fí.*::: ?;^j-;: ’•j:‘-]:',’:’': •-

:■ ‘ :■-■■■”

•••': s •’ •' •;; •'. -;}]: "'•«

!_

23.99-101; Od. 4.795, 802, 838-839, 6.20). When the ghost o f P a t r o k l o s addresses the sleeping Achilles at Iliad 23.65-101, the line between dream and phantom is vague; even more uncertain is the status o f Hermes’ visit to the sleeping (?) P r i a m at Iliad 24.682, and that o f the dream that stands over R h e s o s as D i o m e d e s slays him (10.494— 497). A more modern conception of a dream makes a brief appearance in Iliad 22. Homer compares Achilles’ pursuit o f H e c t o r to a dream in which neither pursuer nor pursued can achieve his goal (22.199-201). The psychological state o f frustra­ tion suggested by the s i m i l e , the lack o f clear origination in the gods, and the absence o f spe­ cific directive conveyed in words, have made this dream seem more naturalistic to modern readers than the typical Homeric dream. Nonethless, the brevity and uniqueness o f this example make it difficult to draw broad conclusions about its sig­ nificance (though see Latacz 1992). Two related words for dream occur in Homer, onar (neuter, occurring four times) and oneiros (masculine, the most common word for dream in Homer), which also occurs more rarely in a neu­ ter version, oneiron. Kessels (1978, 174—185) argues that the masculine version reflects an ear­ lier conception o f the dream as a personal agent that was gradually replaced by a more impersonal and abstract concept o f the dream, but a distinc­ tion is not very clear in the relatively few Homeric examples that use the neuter. Thus, for example, the words oneiros and onar are both used in the discussion of Penelope’s dream in Odyssey 19. The usage question is further complicated because the eagle in the dream says that it is not an onar but hupar (19.547, see also 20.90). Based on these two passages, earlier scholars thought that onar must mean “false dream” as opposed to hupar “true dream,” noting the similarity in root to the Greek word for sleep, hupnos. Scholars no longer accept this identification and commonly translate onar simply “dream” and hupar “waking vision” (see Kessels 1978,186-189). See also P rophecy. References and Suggested Readings Kessels 1978 is the most thorough and systematic exami­ nation of dreams in Homer. Näf 2004 discusses Homer briefly in the larger context of ancient dream interpreta­ tion. On Agamemnon’s dream, see Reid 1973. On

221

Penelope’s dream, see Rankin 1962, Russo 1982, FelsonRubin 1987, Athanassakis 1987, 1994, Winkler 1990, 129-161, Latacz 1992, Rozokoki 2001. On gates of horn and ivory, see Rozokoki 2 0 0 1 ,4 -6 and works cited there. LO U ISE PRATT

Dress While Homeric epic contains abundant references to clothing and to the acts of dressing and undressing, there are very few passages of text per se which describe garments in any detail. Consequently, scholarship has tended to concen­ trate on understanding the large, complex, and often baffling vocabulary o f dress-terms found in Homer (Lorimer 1950,336—405). Scholarship has frequently attempted to link Homeric dress to the representations o f clothing to be found on the highly conventionalized depictions o f human fig­ ures in G e o m e t r i c P e r i o d art. This approach has been met with varying decrees of success, since, by and large, the conventions o f Geometric art render the task o f “reading” the depiction of dress a somewhat hopeless enterprise. In recent years, however, a more lively form of scholarship has developed in which the study o f Homeric dress has become informed by the wider disci­ plines o f dress historians, anthropologists, and sociologists, so that the codes of Homeric cloth­ ing are beginning to be unlocked to reveal much about early Greek conceptions of fashion, aes­ thetics, social affiliations, e t h n i c i t y , g e n d e r and status, non-verbal communication (see B o d y L a n g u a g e ) , e c o n o m y , trade, and manufacture (Cairns 1996b, 2001a, 2002; Llewellyn-Jones 2003; van Wees 2005a, 2005b). We now acknowl­ edge that ancient dress was far more than an empty sign; it was a complex and multifaceted social, cultural, aesthetic, and material phenome­ non to its wearers, observers, and depicters (Llewellyn-Jones 2002; Cleland, Davies, and Llewellyn-Jones 2008). What then is worn by Homer’s men and women? It is clear that Homeric morality required the human b o d y to be clothed, for in Homer nakedness is not acceptable (II. 2.262, Od. 6.28-48, 214). Even poor shepherds and beggars wear clothes made from sheepskins, deerskins, or rags (13.434-438,23.94-95; van Wees 2005a; Milanezi 2005). When O d y s s e u s masquerades as a beggar, the diminution o f his status is emphasized by his ragged clothing, so that even P e n e l o p e does not

222

DRESS

recognize him and consequently affords him no respect. As van Wees (2005b, 1) notes, “Clothes really make the man in Homer’s world.” Homeric male dress consists of two essential gar­ ments: a tunic (khitôn) and a cloak (khlaina). The khitôn, a rudimentary garment made from two rec­ tangles of cloth sewn together at the sides and across the shoulders, leaving holes for the arms and head, could he worn long or short. It was pulled on over the head (//. 2.42 ,5 .736,8.387,10.21, 18.416,23.416; Od. 15.61) and its length could be adjusted by hitch­ ing up the fabric at the waist and securing it with a belt (II. 4.134-139; Od. 14.72), certainly when flex­ ible movement was looked for. The khitôn could be worn so long that it trailed on the floor, a fashion conceit Homer gives to the Ionians (II. 13.685), although it is probable that the tunics of slaves, workmen, and beggars were very short since the length of the khitôn had connotations of wealth. Homer marks out the khitôn as a fine garment, known for its softness and luster (perfumed and oiled; Od. 15.60, 19.232-234; see T e x t il e s ), although only one passage suggests that tunics might be dyed (a rich purple : 19.241-242). The khitôn is ubiquitously worn by Homeric men and is only discarded in bed or during vigorous exercise or labor (II. 18.416,23.683; Od. 18.67). The khlaina is a large, thick, woolen rectangle flung around the shoulders and secured there by a fibula or pin (II. 10.131-135, Od. 19.225-227). Sometimes called a khlaina diplê (double cloak), its size and versatility is attested to by its use as a blanket, shroud, and ritual courtship canopy (II. 10.131-135, 16.224, 24.230; Od. 14.520-522; Scheid and Svenbro 1996,53-82). As a high status garment, a khlaina is sometimes described as redpurple (II. 10.131-135, Od. 14.500) and was worn indoors at f e a s t s (4.49-50, 17.89-90) and only thrown off before physical exercise (It. 2.183). Clearly a garment which helps buffer the wind (16.224, Od. 14.429; its thick woolen nap is referred to as “curly” at II. 24.646), to help keep out the rain, however, the khlaina is sometimes covered by a goatskin (Od, 14.428-431). For warmth, Homeric warriors occasionally wear ani­ mal pelts at night (II. 10.23-24, 29-30), but the khlaina always remains the hallmark of the welldressed Homeric man. As an alternative to the khlaina, the Homeric nobleman wears a fine mantle or pharos (Homer is consistent in distinguishing between the khlaina

and the pharos and the two garments are never worn together; pharos is also used as an item of women’s dress, see below). Described variously as “large,” “well-washed,” and “delicate” (II. 2.42—43, 8.221; Od. 2.95, 8.392-393, 425), the pharos is draped loosely over the shoulders, but it is never fastened with a pin. Often colored purple-red (II. 8.221; Od. 8.84, 13.107-108), the pharos is occa­ sionally white (II. 18.353) and used as a fine shroud (24.229-231, 580, 588). The pharos is never utilized as a blanket. Interestingly, Homeric men are attested with very few dress accessories beyond the obligatory sandals, spears, and s t a f f s (and hunting d o g s ) . Headgear is conspicuous by its absence, except for caps made from felt, goatskin, or dog-skin (II. 10.257; Od. 24.231). The earliest description of gloves in the Greek world is Homeric: L a e r t e s wears gardening gloves to protect his hands from thorns (24.230). While Homeric men wear the sewn khitôn as a basic garment, w o m e n primarily don the open­ sided peplos (sometimes called he(f)anos), con­ structed from a huge rectangle o f uncut, unstitched cloth (probably wool), folded over above the waist to create a deep over-hang or flap o f cloth (apoptugma), and held on the shoulders by pins or fibu­ lae (II. 14.180, Od. 18.292-294), thereby exposing the wearer’s “white arms” (II. 1.55,6.371). That the peplos is a kind of pinned “blanket-dress” is sup­ ported by the fact that the word itself can be used to describe blankets or coverings for beds and couches, chairs and c h a r i o t s , as well as wallhangings (Llewellyn-Jones 2005; see F u r n i t u r e ) . In Homer the best quality peploi are noted for their sheer size - a symbol, clearly, of wealth (6.90,271, 293; Od. 15.107). The conspicuous “leisure” o f a Homeric noblewoman’s lifestyle is thereby reflected by the size of her peplos, the size and volume of which disables her from participating in any active work beyond the genteel practices of wool-work­ ing and weaving (see W o m e n ) . The peplos’ bulk is held in at the waist by a zônê (belt). H e r a possesses a belt of magical seductive powers, decorated with a hundred tassels (II. 14.181). These belts might be referred to with the epithet bathuzônos (“deep girt”; II. 9.594, Od. 3.154), alluding to a very tong girdle that encircles the waist with the excess ends hanging down to the feet. The girding of the waist allows the peplos to be worn in a variety of ways, also reflected in

DUELS : bathukolpos (“deep-bosomed”; II. 18.122,339,24.155) refers to the over-hang o f the peplos at the bosom (kolpos), which could be made deeper and fuller by pulling up excess mate­ rial from beneath the zone. Helkesipeplos (peplostrailing; 6.442,7.297,22.105) suggests that women might pull the front section o f their gowns up through the belt to reveal their feet (and allow for an easy step) while permitting the back o f the dress to fall on the ground and form a train. The goddesses K i k k e and K a l y p s o are attested wearing a pharos as a kind of loose wrap-around gown, apparently unpinned at the shoulders but held in place with a belt (Od. 5.230-232, 10.543545; van Wees 2005b, 10). The erotic qualities o f the two female characters are enhanced through the use o f this Homeric-style négligée. Homeric goddesses, noblewomen, and their maids o f honor (amphipoloi) are given particular social status by their use of the head veil, although it is difficult to understand the nuances o f the three main veil-words used by Homer: krcdcmnon (II. 14.184, 16.100, 22.470; Od. 1.334), kaluptrê (II. 22.406, Od. 5.230-232), and kalum m a (II. 22.93-96). We cannot easily qualify these veils with a color, fabric, or a style that is precisely defined by Homer and we must acknowledge that the three main veil-terms can have a flexible usage in accord­ ance wdth other Greek dress-terms (LlewellynJones 2003, 28-33, 122-137; van Wees 2005b, 10-12). It is clear that these veils are placed over the back of the head to cover the hair, neck, and shoulders; whether they reach the floor is uncer­ tain (see H a i r ) . Veils can be drawn forward to conceal all, or part, of the face. Veils have a sym­ bolic function: krêdemnon also translates as “city wall” or “battlement,” suggesting that the veil acts as protection for a woman’s honor and status and to highlight her a i d ô s (Cairns 1996b, 2002). Nonetheless, a veil can also be utilized by a woman as an erotic prop, highlighting her sexual c h a r i s , a notion qualified by the epithet liparos (“shining,” Od. 1.334, 16.416, 18.210, 21.65) commonly used to describe veils (Llewellyn-Jones 2003,289-293). In a similar vein, Homer depicts women utiliz­ ing jewelry a n d other accoutrements to a d d to their sexual allure: wreaths of flowers worn on top o f veils, necklaces of g o l d and amber, a n d e a r ­ rings o f spiraled gold all become part o f a wom­ an’s armory o f enchantment, and the epic scenes o f women dressing for sexual congress are surely e p it h e t s

m e a n t to b a ttle

m ir r o r

th e

m a le

scen es o f

a r m in g

223 fo r

(II. 14.170-186; Od. 15.460, 18.292-298).

See also

T

e x t il e s

.

LLOYD LLE W ELLY N -JO N ES

Drugs

see M

a g ic

.

Dual In many Greek dialects, nouns and verbs are inflected in three numbers, singular, dual, and plural. Attic is one o f the dialects which preserve the dual for a long time, but I o n i c does not. Since Ionic is the basic dialect o f epic Greek, it is not surprising that the dual is used inconsistently in Homer as well. The possibility o f choosing between the plural and the dual gives the poet metrical flexibility. Agreement is not always respected, even inside noun phrases: we find õ À K i p a Ôoupe where the short vowel o f the nominative plural neuter õ À K i p a is necessary for the m e t e r , whereas the dual form would give a cretic sequence. On the textual level, also, the poet varies between the dual and the plural. Thus, in N e s t o r ’s speech to A g a m e m n o n and A c h i l l e s in Iliad 1, we find both plurals and duals. In some cases, the dual seems to have plural force. The most famous case is the E m b a s s y t o A c h i l l e s (Book 9 of the I l ia d ), where the duals referring to O d y s s e u s , A j a x , and P h o i n i x have been argued to reflect an older stage o f the story where Phoinix did not take part, but given the general uncertainty in the use of the dual, this conclusion is perhaps too rash. It is remarkable that natural pairs are more rarely expressed by the dual than other pairs: nouns like yoOva (knees), oikrra (ears), K v r j p a i (legs), and Ttóôec; (feet) never occur in the dual, and other nouns denoting paired body parts are also more often found in the plural than in the dual. See also

L

a n g u a g e

, H

o m e r ic

.

DAG TR YG V E T R U SL E W HAUG

Duels Duels are engagements between major warriors that are set off from the general figh­ ting in some fashion. Intentional distance from

224

DUELS

general fighting is one shared feature of these scenes. In addition, they share an unusual number of narrative or verbal echoes. Paris and Menei.aos agree to settle their dis­ pute in a duel before any other fighting happens in the I l i a d , but the gods prevent a decisive out­ come (3.58-120, 245-382, 449-461). After all other fighting has stopped, Achilles’ defeat of Hector settles the fall o f Troy (22.90-166, 248404). During a pause in the war, created by Apollo and Athene, Hector and Ajax fight a duel that belongs in the world of tournaments rather than war and ends in a draw (7.181-282). While H ector is on his way back to Troy, Glaukos and Diomedks meet each other (see G laukosDiomedes Episode). After reciting their gene­ alogies they discover that their fathers were guest- friends and exchange their armor rather than fight. But the poet declares Glaukos the loser because Zeus took his wits away and he exchanged a golden for a bronze armor (6.119-236). Aeneas is the first warrior Achilles encounters after reentering. They too exchange long speeches before fighting. Aeneas is saved from certain death by Poseidon’s intervention (20.75-352). The Paris-Menelaos and Hector-Achilles duels are in different ways deeply consequential. The other three are intermezzi without conse­ quence. The Paris-Menelaos duel is inconclusive from a fighting perspective, but consequential because it prevents a settlement of the war by the men who have an interest in its cause. With the death of Hector the fall of Troy is assured. These two duels are ironically related and form part of the “geometric” structure of the Iliad (Whitman 1958, 87 ff., 249). Occurring within approxi­ mately 1,500 lines of the beginning and end of the poem, their elaborate structural relationships drive home the point that the cost of war is never restricted to those who caused it. A council of the gods follows the duel o f Paris and Menelaos (4.1-78) and precedes that of Hector and Achilles (22.166-187). On both occasions Athene exe­ cutes the will of the gods in a peculiarly deceptive and destructive manner, encouraging Pandaros to break the truce (4.86-104) and giving Hector the false hope of support by a fellow warrior (22.226-247).

From a narrative perspective, the inconclusive Paris-Menelaos duel is very close to the intentionally pointless encounter o f Hector and Ajax. No two other scenes in the Iliad are related through an equally dense web of extended verbal echoes, and there can be little doubt about the specific textual interdependence o f these two scenes (Kirk 1978). .... The fighting in the duels closely follows the pat­ terns found in battle- scenes. In the ParisMenelaos duel we find the characteristic turn from spear to sword in a second exchange. After an initial exchange o f spearcasts, Hector rushes at Achilles with his sword drawn (22.311), but Achilles, his spear miraculously restored to him by Athene, takes careful aim at what he knows to be the weak spot o f his old armor, which Hector is wearing (22.326). Such deliberate aiming is very rare in the Iliad. The Hector-Ajax duel is the only Iliadic encounter that goes beyond a second blow: after throwing spears and thrusting them, the warriors hurl stones at each other, and are about to turn to swords in a fourth exchange, when the heralds separate them and declare a draw. S ee a ls o

Warfare. M A RTIN M UELLER

Dymas (Aúpaç) (1) King of Phrygia, father of Asios (1) and Hecuba, who dwelt “by the streams of Sangar i os” (II. 16.717-719;cf.Apollod.3.12.5). Pherecydes (fr. 136 Fowler) makes Dymas son of Eioneus son of Proteus, or of the river Sangarios, and says tiiat he had Hecuba by a Nai'ad nymph, Euagora or Euthoe, according to different sources. Euripides (Hec. 3) represents Hecuba as a daughter of Kisseus (see Kisses); he is followed in this by Vergil (Aen. 7.320,10.705). See also Phrygians. References and Suggested Readings Frazer 1921, v. 2,45. (2) A P haeacian; Athene took the form of his daughter in Nausicaa’s dream (Od. 6.22-23). margalit finkelberg

E

: 5;: E ' : • •’ M'.s' :

í-.je-ij.-

:j -Hí1

Earth

see G aia .

Echeneos (’Exévqoç) Phaeacian; an elder nobleman, who, being “well-skilled in speech, understanding all the wisdom o f old,” delivers advisory speeches to the Phaeacian court. In Odyssey 7.155-166 his speech follows O dysseus’ supplication before queen Arete : Echeneos advises extending hospitality to the suppli­ cant and sensibly adds that food and drink ought to be served. In 11.342-346, Echeneos speaks again, supporting the queen’s plan, but reminding the assembled that the power to decree thus or otherwise still lies with the king,

Alkinoos. See also O ld Age .

Echephron (’Exetfipwv) One o f the sons of Nestor (Od. 3.413) and Eurydike (3.452) or Anaxibia ((Hes.) fr. 35.11-14, followed by Apollod. 1.9.9). At the sacrifice that took place in Pylos, Echephron with his brother Stratios led the sacrificial bull by horns (3.439).

Echepolos ( ’ExétoúXoç) (1) Trojan , son o f Thalysios, Echepolos is the first casualty of the Tile Homer Encyclopedia, edited by Margalit Finkelberg ©2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Iliad . Killed by Antilockos (4.457-462). The first Achaean to fall in battle, Elephenor , was killed while attempting to despoil Echepolos’ body. See also M inor Warriors . (2) Achaean, son o f Anchisbs (2). A wealthy citizen o f S ikyon , Echepolos made Agamemnon the g ift o f a mare named Aithe so that he should not have to join the Trojan expedition (II. 23.295-299).

Echetos (’'E xetoç “Holder”) While feasting in O dysseus’palace in Ithaca, the Suitor Antinoos threatens the beggar I ros with being sent “to the mainland, to king Echetos, the maimer o f all men” (Od. 18.84-85, cf. 116-117). Later, Antinoos threatens Odysseus with the same words (21.307309). Echetos is most probably the folktale “wicked king” who puts strangers to death, though scholia offer corroborating stories o f Echetos, treating him as a historical figure, king o f either Sicily or Epirus . References an d Suggested Readings Russo in Russo et al. 1992,52-53.

Echinades (’Exivai) The Echinades or Echinai are small islands at the mouth o f the Acheloos

226

E C H IN A D E S

River, defined by S. Benton as “Petala, Makri, Vromona, all the islands South o f Petala and the Kurtsolari” (1931-1932, 236-237; II. 2.626; Hdt. 2.10; Thuc. 2.102-103). They are named by Pliny the Elder (4.19) as Aegialia, Cotonis, Thyatira, Geoaris, Dionysia, Cyrnus, Chalcis, Pinara, and Mystus. Strabo (8.2.2, 10.2.10 and 19) adds Doulichion to their number, and suggests that the “swift ( thoai) islands” men­ tioned at Odyssey 15.299 comprise the southern part o f the Echinades (Hoekstra in Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989, on 15.299, expresses doubts). The name arises from the perceived resemblance of their spiny appearance to the Greek ekhinos, hedgehog or sea urchin. In the Catalogue of S hips , the Echinades appear to be located near, but not in, the regions under O dysseus’ sway: whereas he commands twelve ships of Kephallbnes from Ithaca,

Neriton, Krokyleia, Aigilips , Zakynthos, and Samos (Same) (II. 2.631-637), Meges son of Phyleus commands those from Doulichion and the “sacred Echinades” (2.625; see Map 2). Thucydides observes that already in his day the islands are in the process o f being connected to the mainland through the deposition o f silt from the Acheloos (2.102.3-5), prompting later gener­ ations of scholars to suspect that some parts of Acarnania were in Homer’s time independent islands (Bittlestone 2005,265; Benton 1931-1932, 238 adds: “the hills marked Kunevima on the Admiralty chart”). Strabo confirms this observa­ tion, adding that they possess poor soil for agriculture. See also Ionian Islands. B E N JA M IN H ALLER

Economy Two characteristics o f the Homeric economy need to be appreciated before all others. First, nearly everyone in the epics and in their audiences was an agriculturist first and foremost, as the vast majority of labor was expended in extracting agricultural production from the earth (see Agriculture). Second, what we recognize as economic behavior was to a large extent embed­ ded or contextualized by social expectations or institutions.

Labor, production, and extraction. The means of production for most free individuals was the oikos, “ household.” Male and female individu­ als, including slaves (see S lavery) but excluding beggars and thêtes (hired laborers), belonged to an oikos. There are a few specialists, such as herd­ ers (see Livestock) and craftsmen: potters, metal workers, and carpenters (see Handicrafts); there are traveling seers, healers, and singers (see dêmioercoi ). But for the most part we need to assume that references in the narrative and in the similes to apparent specialists, such as wood­ cutters, wainwrights, hunters, and tanners, are references to ordinary people in the act o f cutting wood etc. Women are expected to work in the home at the loom, as would be the case in all later periods in the Greek world. They also grind grains and in Hesiod a woman of his household follows the plow to break up the clods. In the poems and among the audiences there are no shortages of slaves and dependent laborers to work the fields and serve in the house. Some persons end up as beggars (e.g., Iros in the O d y s s e y ). Metals that are present reflect either the investment of labor in its extraction or the bring­ ing of it into the community, or both. In the

poems there are gold, silver, copper, tin , iron, and lead; alloys include bronze (copper plus tin) and kuanos (something dark and pliant, perhaps enamel). There are great estates in the epics, most prom­ inently that of a BAStLEus on the S hield of Achilles, where we witness scenes o f plowing and o f the reaping o f grains and o f the vintage (II. 18.541-572), and that o f O dysseus on Ithaca (Od. passim). Worthy heroes are given or prom­ ised great swathes o f land (see temenos ) in exchange for or in recognition o f their exploits on behalf o f the community, among them B ellerophon (II. 6.191-195), Aeneas (20.184186), and Meleager (9.574-580). Alkinoos’ offer to Odysseus to marry his daughter and take a property in the process would be a similar arrangement (Od. 7.311-315). Economic clout meant having a position in the center either of a community, as Alkinoos in Scheria, where the leader can recoup expenses from his sub-chiefs (13.13-15), or of a dominant oikos, as Odysseus on Ithaca. Distribution. There are no standing markets in the epic poems, in which the agora is used only

EC ONOMY

for assemblies. Heroes no more acquire things in markets than they read and write (see Writing ). This omission may paradoxically reflect a new importance o f markets. Phoenicians bring goods to communities and sell them at the harbor piers (e.g., Od. 15.415-456); Euneos of Lemnos brings wine in this way to the Achaeans at the end o f Iliad 7 (467-475); Hesiod may be participating in such one-time markets (Tandy 1997, 117-119). There are spear-prize markets on Lemnos, Samothrace (see Samos [ 1]), and Imbros (24.753). Slavers seem to have brought their wares into purchasing communities; in this way Laertes acquired Eurykleia (Od. 1.430-431). and Eumaios (15.483). In the world of the audience, there began before 800 BCE a concerted effort by predominantly Euboean Greeks (with Phoenician partners) and later (last third of the 8th century) by Corinthians to go abroad by ship and acquire wealth, mostly in the form of iron. (In the Hind, five years’ use of a bloom of iron is a prize at Patroki.os’ Funeral Games [23.833-835].) This iron-moving activity is refracted in the epic so that there are no Greeks out on the sea lanes trading, their place being taken by Phoenicians and Taphians, the latter a people apparently invented to substitute for the Greeks. Jason's son Euneos the Lemnian, who brings wine and exchanges it with the Achaeans (above), is an exception, but the Lemnians are also slavers, like the Taphians, so perhaps not to be reckoned as Greeks: Lemnians do not fight with the Achaeans at Troy. In the 8th and 7th centuries there were no special-purpose boats (see S eafaring). Odysseus’ boats are penteconters, fifty-oared fighting ships that also were able to carry small amounts of cargo. There are no special-purpose boats until 600 BCE at earliest (e.g., the Pabuç Burnu wreck ca. 565: Greene et al. 2008). Here we can mention piracy, undertaken by Odysseus and others. It is not difficult to imagine penteconters meeting one another. Whether exchange or piracy ensues would depend on the relative numbers of the two parties. Compare the economics of the raid, undertaken by Achaean warriors against commu­ nities near Troy, as well as by Odysseus and his Cretan avatars in the later poem (see also Lies ). The formulaic question asked o f strangers, “Are you wanderers on business (kata prêxin) or hap­ hazardly like pirates (feisteres)?” (Od. 3.72-73,

227

9.253-254), limns well the thin line between com­ merce and piracy. M entes the Taphian is an old guest - friend of Odysseus’ household, a trader and slaver, whom Athene impersonates when she goes to arouse Telemachos to action. Athene/Mentes says that he is carrying a shipload of iron to Temesa to get copper (Od. 1.184). (Temesa is either in Bruttium in southern Italy or on Cyprus .) In reality there appears to have been much iron, already processed or semi-processed, being carried by Phoenicians and Greeks together (see Snodgrass 1983), so it is noteworthy that the epic poems dissociate Greeks from trade in gen­ eral and from iron-moving in particular. In any case, Mentes’ east-west movement reflects the activities of the early Euboean traders, who seem to have had a regular run from the Bay of Naples in the west to al Mina on the mouth of the Orontes River in Syria in the east (see Euboea ). There are great redistribution structures in the epics, far larger than anything in the audiences’ worlds. Consider Agamemnon’s offer of seven cities in Iliad 9 (see Embassy to Achilles), where the general population is characterized as indif­ ferent to who is situated at the center o f the sys­ tem. Consider also Eumaios’ supplying o f swine to the Suitors. He would prefer that Odysseus return home, but in the meanwhile he is making his living within a large redistributive oikos. Consumption and investment. The Homeric diet is narrowly a steady one o f grains, particu­ larly wheat and barley (see Food). Meat is con­ sumed by ordinary people only after (infrequent) sacrifices (e.g., at Chryse at II. 1.464-468). The leaders of the Achaeans at Troy regularly con­ sume meat, mostly beef; the Suitors on Ithaca devour the livestock of Odysseus’ household, especially the swine that Eumaios supplies them. The Suitors are shown to eat so much meat at least in part to emphasize how different they are from regular people. It is unlikely that leaders in 8th- and 7thcentury Greece lived in structures very much dif­ ferent from those of ordinary people. Everyone wore clothing woven by family members (see Dress); hats and footware were made from goat­ skins. People are in good health in the epics and those who survive war and pillage can live to a very old age (Nestor, Pbleus, Priam ). Audience members lost half their children to illness or

228

L.

qvu>p) Achaean, son of Chalkodon, Elephenor is represented in the Catalogue of S hips as the leader of the Abantes who came from Euboea with forty ships (II. 2.536-541). Killed by Agenor in the first battle of the I l i a d while attempting to despoil the body of Echepolos (I) (4.463-469). Elephenor appears as one of Helen’s suitors in the Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] fr. 204.52—54 M-W; the second line is identical to ll. 2.541).

Elis (’ HXiç) Toponym, region in the northwest­ ern Peloponnese, adjacent to Achaia in the northeast, Arcadia in the east (see Arcadians) and Messbni a in the south (see Map 5). Two river valleys which run in an east-west direction shape the character o f the area: the Peneios river valley in the north and the Alpheios river valley in the south. Elis, Walis in the Elean dialect (see D igamma), is linguistically related to Latin vallis and thus English “valley” and relates to the river valley of the Peneios River, where it enters the fer­ tile plain. This core region o f the Eleans around the ancient city o f Elis is also known as koilê Êlis “hollow Elis.” With the successive expansion of the Elean state in the Archaic and Classical peri­ ods the name of the city state o f Elis spread to the east and south o f the region. Elis thus came to include the regions o f the Pisatis (around Olympia) and Triphylia south o f the Alpheios River (Roy 2002 and 2004). The Catalogue of Ships (II. 2.615-624) offers the description o f the region by pointing out Bouprasion, Elis, Hyrmine, Myrsinos, Alesion,

El is

and the Olenian Rock & leniê petrê) as regional landmarks. The reference to Elis and to the per­ sonnel of the local mythology such as Augeias, imply that the passage in the Catalogue of Ships pertains at least partly to the historical region of Elis in the northwestern Peloponnese, although its borders are not clearly defined. There appears to be no name for the region as a whole, and Elis seems to denote only either a sub-region and/or a place name. The entry in the Catalogue follows after Pylos and Arcadia and precedes the des­ cription of the contingents of Mucus from Doulichion and of the forces of O dysseus from the Ionian Islands. The Epeians are throughout the epics named as the population of Elis, although they appear as an ethnic group in other regions than Elis as well (Doulichion and the Echinades). They apparently occupy a territory which is larger than the historical region of Elis and includes western Achaia and the group of small islands opposite the coast of AetoloAcarnania (see Aetolians). Four leaders com­ mand the Epeians and each of them contributes ten ships , as if they were to represent four inde­ pendent contingents (Visser 1997, 555-573). The ethnic name “Eleians” appears only once (II. 11.671), and then apparently as a synonym for the Epeians. Although they are frequently identi­ fied with the ancestors of the historical Eleians, they are not identical with them (Gehrke 2003 [2005] and 2005). The text of the I l i a d remains in several cases ambiguous as to whether Elis designates only the region or also the homonymous city. Iliad 11.672— 673 may rather be a reference to Elis as a site than a region, and this interpretation accords with the archaeological evidence (Visser 1997,560-563; see below). Elis carries the recurrent epithet dia “divine” and is thrice referred to as blessed with livestock o f all sorts. Nestor’s tale (11.671-681) illustrates this aspect particularly well, as it is all about cattle rustling; herds of cattle and horses, flocks of sheep and pigs appear as the main indica­ tor of material wealth of Elean and Pylian parties alike. The region of Elis thus forms the appropri­ ate setting of Herakles’ fifth labor, when the hero had to clear away the dung of mythical numbers of cattle in the stables of Augeias (cf. Graf NP s.v.). In the O d y s s e y Elis is always referred to as a region, and three times an almost identical expres­ sion names the Epeians as the population of Elis

245

(13.275, 15.298, 24.431; cf. Hymn. Ap. 426). Special links exist between Elis and Ithaca , as Ithacan nobles apparently graze their horses in Elis (4.635; cf. 21.347). Elis is referred to as stop­ over or destination of a voyage by ship (13.274275, 24.431), and 15.297-298 mentions in such a context P heai, which was one of the few harbors along the coastline of Elis (Mader LfgrE s.v. ’HXiç; Visser 1997,561). Although the Alpheios appears to form a kind of border line between Elis and Pylos, Olympia is not mentioned. However, the reference to the four prize-winning horses which Neleus had sent to take part in a c h a r i o t race in Elis and which Augeias stole (II. 11.699-702) implies the existence of a famous place in Elis where games took place (see also S p o r t ) . This passage may be taken as an allusion to the Olympic Games, although its implications for the chronology of the Iliad are difficult to assess (the suggested date of post-680 b o ; by Kullmann 2002,101-104 relies on Paus. 5.8.7, who dates the introduction o f the chariot race with a team of four horses). The tra­ ditional date of 776 bce for the beginning o f the Olympic Games is under discussion, as well as the order in which the various contests were intro­ duced (cf. Christesen 2007). The archaeological exploration o f the region of Elis has revealed an extensive habitation o f the area in the Mycenaean period, and chamber tomb cemeteries form our main source o f evi­ dence to reconstruct settlement patterns (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979,93-102 B 65-B94). Smaller and larger groups of tombs suggest the existence o f villages o f various sizes, but there is no prominent site within the region which may be identified with a palatial center of the Late Bronze Age. Material connections exist with west­ ern Achaia, and when the clustering o f richly fur­ nished tombs is any guide, the area around Patras appears to have formed a focal point for the northwestern Peloponnese. Bronze Age Elis is thus probably a mirage, and the political geo­ graphy of the region will have been quite dif­ ferent from that o f what we know about the extent of the historical city-state o f Elis (Eder, forthcoming). The site of ancient Elis and the sanctuary of Olympia, which form the two major focal points of the region in the historical period, emerged during the Early Iron Age (see Dark Age ). Evidence for

246

eu s

settlement in ancient Elis goes back to the 11th century bce, when small tomb groups indicate the establishment of the site of the later capital. Continuity in habitation proves the existence of the settlement prior to the literally documented synoecism of 471 bce, which can only refer to the reorganization, but not to an entire new founda­ tion of the city (Yalouris 1996, 23-24; Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999; Eder 2001, 2003b). The results of recent excavations show that the beginnings of the cult in Olympia go back to the 11th century (Kyrieleis 2006). This was a site of super-regional prominence by the 8th century bce, although archaeological evidence for the beginnings of contests is difficult to assess. Figurines of warriors on chariots may suggest the existence of chariot races from an early point in the history of the sanctuary. However, only from around 700 bce onward the construction of wells in the vicinity o f the stadium allowed to meet an increased demand of water and thus indicates that the Games became successively attractive for larger crowd of visitors (Mallwitz 1999; Eder 2003b). j»j

Il:

I I Hit

1

Éj iji:

B IR G IT T A E D E R

Elision Elision is the disappearance (at least for metrical purposes) o f a word-final short vowel before a word beginning in a vowel. Vowels a, s, o, and sometimes i (though never in Ttepi, ti or öti) are affected; the diphthong -ai o f the middle end­ ings is also often elided, as is sometimes -oi in the enclitic pronouns. It is probable that many eli­ sions were masked in the textual or oral tradition. For instance the endings -oio and-õo never occur before vowels, probably because the elided forms were easily replaced by the more recent Ionic forms like -ou and -Eto in hiatus. See also Meter .

which he identified with the Homeric T itaresios (Titaressos). Its identification with an important Mycenaean site at Karatsoli seems to be specula­ tive (Kirk 1985, 235).

Elpenor (’EXTtf|vu)p) Startled from a drunken sleep on Kirke’s roof, as O dysseus’ crew prepares to leave for Hades, Elpenor falls to his death, stepping off the roof (Oil. 10.551—560). He embodies the crew’s central thematics: lack of self-control, improper or excessive consumption (as at Ismaros and T hrinakia), failure to achieve a homecoming, all opposite Odysseus’ own quali­ ties (see O dysseus’ Companions). His name, from elpis “hope,’’ suggests his wistfulness. In his violation of hospitality through excessive drinking he is also an example of how the crew parallels certain aspects of the S uitors’ behavior. He particularly parallels Leiodes among the Suitors, as the alcoholic loner. He bookends the journey to the Underworld, falling to his death immediately before Odysseus and crew depart (10.551-560), quickly buried on their return (12.9-15). He perhaps instantiates a traditional motif o f one “sacrificial” death that ensures the others’ safe crossing or return, as seems clearer in Vergil’s Palinurus episode (Aen. 5.813-871). After dying, his dialogue with Odysseus in Hades (11.51-83), in its surreal manner, epito­ mizes the dreamlike quality o f the episode. His unburied state, and his earnest request that Odysseus bury him on returning to Aiaia are most strongly emphasized (see Nekyia). The GilgAmesh epic offers a relevant parallel in its mention of a dead man who had been struck by a mooring-pole, received no burial ritual, and now wanders the Underworld (12.144-145; cf. ISO153). Their dialogue is perhaps an instance of a specific subgenre o f myth, The Hero Speaks with the Shades o f Other Heroes (cf. 11.387-565 and Bacchyl. 5.56-169).

DAG TR Y G V E T R U S L E W HAUG

See also Burial C ustoms. Elone

f: ST

(’HXiovq) A town in northeastern T hessaly mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships ; its forces were led by the Lapiths, Polypoites, and Leonteus (II. 2.738-744). According to Strabo (9.5.19), Elone was situated below Mt. O lympos, near the Europos River,

BR U C E LOUDEN

Elysium (’HXúoiov neôiov) Elysium was a kind o f paradise for heroes in Greek eschatol­ ogy. The name may come from enêlusios “struck

1

IP

.

— ............ .....

ip íg||. ■§' -

EMBASSY TO ACHILLES by lightning” (Burkert 1960-1961, 208-213). The notion o f Elysium corresponds to the Isles of the Blessed in Hesiod’s Works and Days (167-173), where heroes lead a happy existence beside the Ocean instead o f dying and ventur­ ing to Hades. Elysium is referred to only once in the whole of Homer (Od. 4.561-569). Proteus tells Menelaos that he will not meet his fate in Arcos in the normal fashion but “the immor­ tals will send (him| to the Elysian plain and to the ends o f the earth where Rhadamanthys lives, and where life is easiest for men.” The place is characterized by an absence o f unpleasant cold and wet weather. It receives instead the cool breeze o f the West wind. Proteus is specific about why Menelaos will receive such favored treatment (4.569) - the fact that, as husband o f Helen, he is the son-in-law o f Zeus. The notion of an idyllic existence is not uncom­ mon in the O d y s s e y . O i.ympos itself is a bit like Elysium (6.41-46), as is the garden of Alkinoos (7.117—132) and Eumaios’ island o f Sy r ie (15.403-414; S. West in Heubeck et al. 1988, on 4.563ff.). Likewise, the Cyclopes receive favored treatment from Zeus, who provides the requisite food and nourishment for them (9.105-115). The reference to Elysium is striking, however, because it is quite distinct from the usual Homeric escha­ tology. Elsewhere in the Odyssey the best of the Greek heroes have a gloomy existence in Hades (11.387-635, 24.15-204); and Achilles himself, in a renowned speech, laments the kind o f exist­ ence that he has there (11.488-491). In the Iliad too Zeus grieves for the fate of his son Sarpedon, who seems destined for Hades after his death like the other heroes (16.433-438, 490-501; cf. the speech of the dead Patroklos to the sleeping Achilles at 23.69-92). The presence of Rhadamanthys in Elysium in the Odyssey passage is presumably explained by his status as the son o f Zeus {II. 14.321-323; [Hes.] fr. 141.13 M-W; cf. Pind. Ol. 2.68-80). The reference to Rhadamanthys also raises questions about the Cretan provenance o f the conception of Elysium in the Odyssey (dealt with by S. West, above). Whilst Elysium is not referred to again until Apollonius Rhodius (4.811), other epics took an interest in the notion o f a pleasant afterlife. Produs’ account o f the Cyclic A i t h i o p i s refers to the translation o f Achilles to the “White Island,”

247

where he leads a much more idyllic life than the Homeric Hades, and Vergil (Aen. 6.637ff.) offers an expanded and elaborated vision o f Elysium. See also Afterlife. C H R IS T O P H E R [OHN M A CKIE

Emathia (’HpaBiq “Sandy"; see further Janko 1992, 187) “What was once called Emathia is now called Macedonia” (Strab. 7 fr. 11). Upon leaving Mt. Olympos for Mt. Ida, where she will meet Zeus (see Dios Apatê), Hera passes by Pieria and “lovely Emathia” {II. 14.225-226). According to Strabo (above), there was also a city Emathia close to the sea; the Byzantine lexi­ cographer Zonaras (12.26) identified it with Thessaloniki. margalit finkelberg

Embassy to Achilles

The quarrel arose when

Agamemnon took a prize { g e r a s ) from Ach i llbs, his greatest hero; Briseis , daughter of Brises, from Brisa. Achilles killed Briseis’ husband, sacked her town, and took her captive {II. 19.282-300). He claims that he loved her, though she was a spear-won captive, from his heart (9.343). That provides the poem with a woman to lament Patroklos’ death. Agamemnon, after publicly refusing, is forced to return his captive ChryseTs . Mortified, he tries to reestablish his position. Achilles must pay - he, too, shall lose a woman. Book 1 is humanly intelligible. Achilles invokes Zeus. The Achaeans are driven back to their ships . Weeping copiously, Agamemnon must climb down (9.115-161). Now, to induce Achilles to return, he offers lavish compensation. Let Achilles relent - unrelenting Hades is hateful and acknowledge Agamemnon as a greater king {basileuteros) { 160). The offer is generous enough, as Nestor acknowledges (163), but Odysseus wisely - does not report its last four feebly blus­ tering lines (159-162). Agamemnon sends Achilles’ dearest friends, Odysseus and Ajax, with his offers o f compensa­ tion. Nestor contributes advice (9.93-113). Unexpectedly, he names Phoinix, Achilles’ old tutor, as leader. That creates a problem. The Embassy consists o f three speeches, each by a

248

EMBASSY TO ACHILLES

different envoy, and three replies by Achilles. First, Odysseus sets out Agamemnon's offers, remind­ ing Achilles of his father’s advice: “Curb your proud heart!” (259-260). Let Achilles restrain his anger and accept compensation: gold, metal­ work (see Metals), horses, women; and (of course) Brisei's; and rich pickings, when Troy shall fall; and marriage with Agamemnon’s daughter. Odysseus ends with an appeal and a tempting sug­ gestion. Even if you hate Agamemnon, pity your suffering friends! And: now to kill H ector, over confident with temporary success (300-306). Achilles refuses (9.307-429), in a speech of unparalleled vehemence and power. Agamemnon is arrogant and ungrateful; Achilles has toiled for nothing. He gets little of the booty. Why are they fighting? Over a stolen wife; yet Agamemnon has stolen his wife, the woman he loved. Good luck to him! Though, somehow, things are going badly, since Achilles withdrew. Somehow, you are retreating. No treasures are worth Achilles’ life. He will not marry Agamemnon’s daughter, how­ ever beautiful or frugal. The gods let him choose his destiny: short and splendid, or long and inglo­ rious. Changing his mind, he now chooses the latter. His self-sacrificing brought no thanks. He will sail home tomorrow - the Achaeans are wel­ come to watch. This passionate outburst produces silence. Finally, Phoinix speaks: differently from the elo­ quent but dispassionate Odysseus (432-605). He tells his own story. Exiled and cursed by his father, he fled to Peleus, who made him tutor to his son. He has taught Achilles, fed him, loved him; Achilles is the son he never had. Yielding is no dis­ grace: even the gods yield to prayer. Phoinix tells the story of Meleager: he slew the Kalydonian Boar (see Kalydon); the Aetolians and Kuretes fought for its hide; Meleager sulked in idleness. He was induced to save the city, at the las.t moment. The Aetolians gave him no reward. Achilles might get none, unless he intervene now, to save the Achaeans. Accept the offered presents! Be honored like a god! Achilles replies: Phoinix should be on his side, not weaken his resolve, weeping and moaning. Let him sleep here tonight; tomorrow they will decide what to do (606-619). Patroklos makes Phoinix’s bed. The discussion is, apparently, over. Ajax has not yet spoken. No orator, he will not go in silence. At first, he does not address Achilles:

“Let’s get going, Odysseus, and give the Achaeans the bad news - they’re sitting up, waiting. - As for Achilles, he is hard-hearted; indifferent to his friends, who love him. Men can be appeased for the death of close kin, - but you” (turning sud­ denly on Achilles), “your heart is relentless, all over a girl - one girl! Why, we’re offering you seven, all good lookers! And plenty o f stuff, too. Come on, lighten up: we’re your guests and your friends” (624-642). That appeal hits home. Achilles has already got his grievances off his chest. “What you say is right,” he tells Ajax; “but when I think how Agamemnon treated me - as if I were some root­ less nobody - then my heart swells with rage! Well, go and report: I shall not think of fighting, until Hector reaches the Myrmidons’ camp, slaughtering the Argives, and setting fire to the ships. Then, at my hut, and my ship, I fancy Hector will find himself stopped, however eager he is for battle” (644-655). The episode is presented with marvelous vivid­ ness. The speeches are of the highest Homeric quality. It was sometimes, perhaps, performed separately. In consequence, the poem is a little ahead o f itself. Returning to the Achaean camp, the envoys - unforgivably, in real life - fail to report Achilles’ later and less disheartening speeches. “He will sail away in the morning,” they report; “he suggests that you give up the war with Troy-Zeus is defending the city” (677-687). This dispiriting report is received in silence, until D iomedes speaks up to raise morale, and the chiefs retire for the night. There are difficulties, including a problem about the dual forms of the opening verbs. That is connected with the fact that old Phoinix, a per­ son exclusively attached to Achilles, ought not to be coming as an envoy from Agamemnon and the army, like Odysseus and Ajax: he should be already with Achilles. Without him, the envoys would be two in number. We accept that inconcinnity, as the price of the marvelous scene. Book 9 is central to the plot of the I l i a d , explaining how the hero, in a story of heroic anger, withdrawal, and return, failed to come back in time, suffering a tragic loss as a result of his own mistake. It also forms a unity: the three speeches make a satisfying whole, which Achilles’ three replies perfectly complement: those replies lead skillfully up to his disastrous decision

EMOTIONS to send Patroklos, and so to the events of the last quarter o f the poem. References and Suggested Readings Griffin 1995.

JASPER GRIFFIN

249

ai\j/' È T t á a a v T o ; ... nevertheless, because of his extreme caution [imò nepirrrjç euXaßEia?], he changed nothing [oOôèv peteGqKev], having found in many of the texts this attested way of writing it [(Jispopévqv rf|v ypcxcpfjv].” We see here explicit testimony concerning Aristarchus’ prac­ tice of comparing variant readings (see varm l e c t i o ) by examining a wide range of manu­ scripts. As for the verb metatithenai “change” here and elsewhere in lhe Homeric scholia, it refers to emendations made by Aristarchus, not conjectures (Ludwich 1884-1885, vol. 2,97).

Emendation The modern term “emendation” (from Lat. em endatio “improvement”) approxi­ mates the ancient Greek term d i o r t h ô s i s , which means literally “correction.” GREGORY NAGY F. A. Wolf in his Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795) agreed with an inference made by Jean Baptiste Gaspard d’Ansse de Villoison in his own Emotions The Homeric epics display a wide Prolegomena (1788) to his edition of a most range of emotions, often intensely felt. Achilles’ important manuscript of the I l i a d , the Venetus A: on the: basis o f the scholia in this manuscript, anger launches the I l i a d (the first word of the poem, m è n i s , means “wrath”), and the epic con­ Villoison inferred that the Homeric text was cludes with the pity and empathy that induce “corrupted” by oral transmission in earlier pha­ ses of its transmission, and that editors like Achilles to return Hector’s body to Priam. Aristarchus attempted to make “corrections” of Achilles’ love for Patroklos is as profound as the grief that racks him when Patroklos is slain. In the the corruptions. But Wolf disagreed with Villoison about the value of these corrections, arguing that O d y s s e y , O dysseus yearns for home, and exults at the defeat of his adversaries (e.g., Poi.yphemos). they were most likely to be c o n j e c t u r e s . His desire to return to Ithaca and avenge the Such a formulation, however, blurs a distinc­ insolence o f the S uitors determines the narra­ tion that can be made between em endation and conjecture: in making a conjecture, an editor may tive trajectory of the poem, just as Achilles’ pas­ produce a form that is unattested in the manu­ sions do in the Iliad. Homer’s heroes feel hatred for their enemies, fear at impending danger, script evidence, whereas an emendation allows for choosing one attested variant over another, shame before their peers, indignation at offenses without necessarily making conjectures (Nagy against social norms or expectations; and a rich vocabulary marks various nuances in these 2004, 111). It can be said that all conjectures sentiments. are emendations but not all emendations are Long years of war and separation from one’s conjectures. native land give rise to powerful feelings. But Aristarchus, in editing the Iliad and O d y s s e y , Archaic Greek society was different from our introduced conjectures only in his h u p o m n Èown, and recent studies of the emotions have m a t a and not in his base text (see further Editions). He kept his base text free from conjec­ indicated that, despite fundamental continuities, tures (Ludwich 1884—1885, vol. 2, 92). And he the way emotions are understood and experi­ kept out o f his base text even emendations that enced may vary significantly from one culture to another (cf. Raster 2005; Konstan 2006). For were justified on the basis o f weakly attested read­ ings - if those readings were overruled by other example, what arouses Achilles’ kholos (the stand­ readings that were strongly attested. A case in ard term for anger in the Homeric epics) is point is the testimony o f scholia A for Iliad 9.222, Agamemnon’s insult to his honor, when he took where D idymus says about the received reading away Briseis , Achilles’ war prize (ge r a s ; cf. II. 1.244, 356, 412, 9.646-648). As a result, he begs i f Ipov evto, which was strongly attested in the that Zeus favor the Trojan side in the war until Homeric manuscripts available to Aristarchus: “it Agamemnon is compelled to recognize what would have been better, says Aristarchus, if it [ i f madness it was to dishonor the best o f the ipov gvTo} had been written úXq) Daughter of Talaos, sister of Adrastos (1), wife of Amphiaraos, mother of A i .km aon and Amphilochos , the “dreadful” (stugerê) Eriphyle was one of the heroines of old whom O dysseus met in the Underworld (Od. 11.326; see Nekyia ). Although she knew that her husband Amphiaraos was destined not to survive the expedition against T hebf .s , Eriphyle persua­ ded him to join it, bribed by the golden necklace of Harmonia promised to her by Polyneikes; she was eventually murdered by her own son Alkmaon who sought to avenge his father’s death (Apollod. 3.6.2, 3.7.5). The story is twice alluded to in the O dyssey (11.326-327, 15.247). See also T h e b a n C y c l e . margalit finkelberg

Eris (wEpiç) The goddess whose name means “strife” seems to belong traditionally in battle. She appears at the beginning o f the first battle o f the Iliad (4.440-445) among the war deities, including Ares, Athene , D eimos (Terror), and P hobos (Rout), who stir up the two armies to fight. She is given an extended description as “sister and com­ panion of man-slaying Ares,” who starts small but quickly grows until her head strikes the sky. She has no favorites at this point as she “inspires fighting on both sides.” Anodier active appearance is fittingly at the beginning of the long, central battle of the I liad . Z eus sends her to stir up the Achaeans, and stand­ ing at O dysseus’ ship, she shouts loudly and terri­ fyingly so that all the Achaeans fight on (11.3-14). Similarly, Eris is present in the battle depicted on the S hield of Achilles (18.535) along with the deities Kydoimos (Tumult) and Kêr (Doom). But Eris is better known for her role at an ear­ lier event, the wedding o f Peleus and T h etis ; her actions there eventually lead to the Trojan War. In the versions o f the story we know from later, encyclopedic mythographers (e.g., Apollod. 3.2; Hyg. Fab. 92), Eris was the only immortal not invited to die wedding. Yet she came anyway,

264

er

15

bringing a golden apple marked “For the Fairest.” The dispute over that title between Hera, Athene, and Aphrodite led to the Judgment of Paris, which was told as part of the lost epic known as the C y p r i a . In Hesiod’s Theogony (225-232), Eris is named as a daughter of Night, and as the mother of a whole host o f divinities embodying concepts that can lead to strife or are a product o f strife. The beginning o f Hesiod’s Works and Days (1 1-29) asserts that there are two kinds of Eris, one that is good for mortals (that is, something more akin to competition) as well as the negative kind. See also

P e r s o n if ic a t io n . MARY E BIIO TT

Erymanthos (’EpúpavOoç) Mountain range in northwest Peloponnese on the border of Arcadia (see Arcadians), Ei.is , and Achaia; the highest peak Mt. Erymanthos (modern Olonos). Along its ridges Artemis wandered with the countrynymphs, joying in pursuit of boars and deer (Od. 6.102-105). Erymanthos was known in antiquity for the large number of boars and deer dwelling on it; cf. the haunt o f the Erymanthian boar slain by Herakles.

Erythinoi (’EpuGi'voi, from eruthros “red") One o f the five towns o f the Paphi.agonians men­ tioned in the Troian Catalogue; introduced as “lofty Erythinoi” (II. 2.855; cf. Ap. Rhod. 2.94). Strabo (12.3.10) identifies Erythinoi with Erythrinoi o f his time, featuring two lofty prom­ ontories o f red stone along the southern shore of the Black Sea. The listing o f as many as five towns is unparalleled for a single contingent in the Trojan Catalogue. This peculiarity, alongside the fact that Iliad 2.853-855 were perhaps not read by such later authors as Eratosthenes and Apollodorus of Athens, may suggest that these verses are a learned interpolation o f the Hel­ lenistic period (contra Rengakos 1993, 129).

Erythrai (’EpúOpcu) City in southern Boeotia mentioned in the Catalogue of S hips (II.

2.499). Located down Mt. Kithairon to the east o f Plataia (Eur. Bacch. 751; Thuc. 3.24.2; Xen. Hell. 5.4.49; Strab. 9.404; Paus. 9.2.1); modern Erythrai (formerly Kriekuki). The ruins of Erythrai could be seen in the time o f Pausanias (loc. cit.). See also Boeotians.

Eteocretans (’Eteókpiitsç) The word eteos means true or authentic, and so Eteocretans are literally “true Cretans,” apparently referring to the “authentic” or indigenous inhabitants of the island, presumably the Minoans and their descendants. “Eteocretans” occurs only once in Homer, in a passage (Oil. 172-179) that offers valuable testimony about Crete at an early period. The disguised O dysseus, describing the island to Penelope in terms of its mixed popula­ tion, says it has “numerous inhabitants ... [in] ninety towns.... and one language is mixed with another: Achaeans, Eteocretans, Kydonians, .... Dorians and Pelasgians.” The Achaeans would be Mycenaeans, who are noted in Iliad 2.645-649 as dominating central Crete under Idomeneus’ leadership. The mention o f Dorians is unique in Homer, and seems anachronistic here because Dorians did not penetrate this far south until after the fall o f Mycenae, i.e., after 1100 bce (see Anachronisms). The elusive Pelasgians are a mysterious people often mentioned by Greek writers as the original inhabitants o f Greece. Pausanias (8.53.4) mentions the Kydonians as originating in Arcadian Tegea. Strabo (10.4.6), commenting on the O d y s s e y passage, says that Kydonians occupied the western part o f Crete, Dorians the east, and Eteocretans the south, specifically the city o f Praisos. Herodotus(7.170) identifies the Praisians as descendants o f the original Minoans, thus confirming the sense o f “Eteocretans” as original or autoch­ thonous inhabitants o f Crete. Inscriptions at Praisos in a non-Greek language continue down to the 3rd century bce . See also Minoan Civilization. JO S E P H RUSSO

ETHNICITY Son o f O edipus, brother of Polyneikes, king o f T hebes whose usurpation of

Eteokles

the throne caused the war of the Seven against Thebes. Eteokles’ name is evoked in the context of a reminiscence by Athene relating to Tydeus’ mission to Thebes, probably for the sake o f nego­ tiations, at some point before the beginning of the war (//. 4.370-400; cf. also 5.803-808 and 10.285-290). On his single appearance in Homer Eteokles is addressed by the periphrastic expres­ sion “the Eteoklean might” (4.386, cf. Names 3.6), formed by analogy with the closely similar for­ mula frequently used for designating Herakles. See also T heban Cycle. MA RGALIT F IN K EL BE R G

Eteoneus (’Etecjiveúç) Men ei.aos’ attendant and squire (Od. 4.22-23). Son of Boêthoos (4.31, 15.95). Introduced as “lord" (kreiôn), which implies a fairly high status (S. West in Heubeck et al. 1988, 195); the scholia on Od. 4.22 explain the title by that Eteoneus was a ruler ( basileus ) of others and second only to Menelaos. Scolded by Menelaos for not inviting Telemachos into the house of Menelaos as soon as he had seen him (4.30-36). He did not live far from Menelaos and in the morning Menelaos bade him kindle a fire and roast some meat (15.95-98). According to Pherecydes (fr. 132 Fowler), Pelops’ son Argeios settled in Amyclae and fathered Alektor and Eteoneus’ father Boêthoos. This would make both Eteoneus and Menelaos into descendants of Pelops. Cf. schol. 4.22: “Eteoneus is therefore a relative of Menelaus and his attendant, just as Patroklos [is a relative and attendant] of Achilles.”

Eteonos (’Eteiovóç) City in Boeotia men­ tioned in the Catalogue of S hips ; introduced as “mountainous Eteonos” (II. 2.497); this description was used by Eratosthenes to show that, while Homer knew Greece fairly well, he was not acquainted with lands and peoples far away from it (Strab. 7.3.6). According to Strabo (9.2.24), Eteonos was one o f the cities in Parasopia (“along the Asopos”); later changed its name to Scarphe; in the temple of Demeter in

265

Eteonos there was a memorial o f Oedipus (schol. Soph. OC 91).

Ethnicity Ethnicity, defined as the sense of belong­ ing to a people from a distinct region with a shared history, is not a dominant feature of Homer’s poems. The very term ethnos is problematic, since in Homer it may apply to any collective, from a swarm o f bees (II. 2.87) to a gathering of the souls of the dead (Od. 10.526). Most confusing are the ethnic labels employed by Homer for the entire Greek contin­ gent at Troy. The term later used to identify lire Greeks, “Hellenes,” for example, occurs only once, at II. 2.684, where the term does not apply to all the Greeks, but only to the inhabitants of Hellas, a region near Phthia in T hessaly, one group among the followers of Achilles. Homer usually labels the Greek contingents collectively as Argives, Danaans, or Achaeans, terms which were never applied to all o f Greece except in epic. To explain this discrepancy some scholars have looked for the origins o f Homer’s heroic world in Thessaly, since each o f tire names —Argive, Achaean, and Danaan - can be connected to toponyms in that region. A further complication is diat these ethnonyms may also reach back to the Late Bronze Age. “Achaean,” for example, has been plausibly derived from Ahhiyawa, a term that appears in Hittite texts, while “Danaan” may come from Denyen, one of the so-called Sea Peoples whose defeat in the 12th cen­ tury bce was commemorated by Ramses III. The opacity of the ethnic labels applied to all the Greeks reflects a significant feature o f Homeric society : operative group identities are more likely to depend on family, blood-line (see Kinship ), and place o f origin. “Range your men by tribes, even by clans, Agamemnon / so clan fight by the side of clan, tribe by tribe,” advises Nestor, reflecting the importance o f phulon (tribe) and phratra (clan) in the heroic world (II. 2.362-363; see also Phratries). Descent and locality also intersect in another group identifier, the genos (“stock”): “From Ithaca I am by birth (genos), and my father is O dysseus,” answers Telemachos when asked to identify his parents and the city ofh is birth (Od. 15.264-267). Regional ethnic labels are prominent in the great muster of the Greek army, the C atalogue of Ships , but not exclusively so. Although some

266

E T H N IC IT Y

contingents are classified as regional ethnic groups, such as the Boeotians, Phoctans, and Locrians , others are distinguished by associa­ tion with specific locales: “the men of Argos and T iryns with her strong walls,” or “the men who held M ycenae’s huge walled citadel.” The ethnic groups, in fact tend to play only a minor role in the rest of the I liad , while many of the specific locales mentioned are citadels whose material remains go back to the Bronze Age. It is unlikely, then, that the Catalogue reflects a single, coherent pattern of earlier ethnic groups. Instead the Iliad reflects attempts to forge a common Greek ethnic identity out o f a system of disparate tribal and local identities. In epic, with its building blocks of heroic genealogies and local myth cycles, Greek ethnic identity first begins to coalesce. This process of ethnogenesis is reflected in some of the expressions found in Homer. At Hind 2.530, for example, Ajax the Lesser is said to out-throw the Panhellenes (literally “All-Greeks”) and Achaeans, suggesting that the term “Hellenes,” like another Homeric expression, “Panachaeans,” is now emerging as a more inclusive label. As regional groups found common ground in the heroic world o f epic, then, older regional labels such as “Argive” and “Achaean” took on new meaning and were applied more broadly. This process is paralleled by changes in the 8th and 7th centuries to local cults, some o f which would be transformed into Panhellenic sanctuaries like Olympia and D elphi (see Panhellenism ). Another regional cult to undergo Panhellenization is that o f Z eus Hellenios, originally a local divinity on Aigina , who was taken to Naucratis in the Nile delta by Aeginetan traders, where the cult was made available to all the Greeks trading there (see Hdt. 2.178 and Paus. 2.29.6-8). A key element in the emergence o f an over­ arching Greek ethnicity was interaction with those who spoke differently. The Carians , for example, at Iliad 2.867 are described as barbarophônoi (“speaking a foreign language”), sug­ gesting that the categories o f Greek and non-Greek grew out o f a basic difference o f lan­ guage, or perhaps more accurately, comprehen­ sibility (see also Language, in H om er ). In the Iliad the T rojans are strongly associated with a Babel-like profusion of languages:“Their tongues mixed and clashed/their men hailed from so many far-flung countries” (4.438 tr. Fagles; cf.

3.1-9). The Trojans assemble for battle like bleat­ ing ewes, waiting to be milked (4.420—438), unlike the Greeks, who surge towards battle in silent waves, awaiting the clear commands of their leaders. In the O dyssey , too, the poet refers frequently to áXÀoGpóouç ávGptüuouç (“men who speak in foreign tongues”) (1.183, 3.302, 15.453), reflecting a world in which Greek speak­ ers traded and mixed with those whose speech was often unintelligible to them. The group whom they encountered most fre­ quently were the P hoenicians. In the Iliad the Phoenicians appear at 23.744, as transporters of the Sidonian mixing bowl given by Achilles as a prize in the Funeral Games of Patroklos (see also Sidon). Phoenician traders also turn up in the Odyssey. It is a Phoenician vessel that brings O dysseus Inline to Ithaca, at least in the story he tells Athene , and in Eumaios’ account of his sufferings, it is the arrival of Phoenician mer­ chants, described as tivktai (“nibblers”) that sets in motion his kidnapping (15.416). One of them seduces a woman - herself the Phoenician victim of a pirate raid - who offers the child Eumaios as the price of her escape (15.450). Some read the episode as a negative portrayal of a non-Greek ethnic group, in which the Phoenicians are the “out-group” against whom the Greeks define themselves. Yet later tradition associated the Phoenicians with the founding o f T hebes and the introduction o f w r i t i n g to the Greeks, so it is unlikely that there was a single, negative Phoenician stereotype. The association of Phoenicians with trade is less a matter o f ethnic bias than the contempt embedded in the heroic code for any commerce. Odysseus, for example, is mocked by the Phaeacian Euryalos for looking more like the captain o f a freighter than an ath­ lete, a neat distinction between the heroic and non-heroic worlds (8.159-164). Attempts to read Greek and Trojan as literary depictions o f real-world Greeks and Phoenicians are also problematic. Quite simply, the Trojans are too much like the Greeks. The Trojans are favored by certain Greek gods, such as Apollo and Aphrodite , are able to talk directly to the Greeks, and fight the same way as the Greeks. They share important social institutions such as Xenia and reciprocal gift-giving (see Exchange): G laukos, a Lycian, and D iomedes , a Greek, for example, recite elaborate genealogies and discover

ETYMOLOGY they are guest - friends , whereupon they cease fighting and exchange armor (II. 6.119-236; see also G laukos- D iomedf.s Episode ). At a struc­ tural level, the similarities between Greek and Trojan are more important than the differences. H ector and Achilles are two sides o f the same coin. Indeed, if Achilles is the supreme warrior, motivated by a thirsty for glory and a rage to maintain his honor, it is the Trojan Hector who fights on behalf o f his family, his city, and his peo­ ple. In the Iliad, in fact, the terrible consequences o f warfare confront all people, and despite the presence o f distinct ethnic groups, they are not very different from each other. As in the Catalogue o f Ships, the muster o f Trojan allies (see Trojan C atalogue) includes ethnic contingents such as the K ikones, the Phrygians, and the “tribes (phula) o f Pelasgians” (2.840), but the only major difference between the two sides seems to be that the Trojan forces include people remark­ able for their luxurious tastes, such as the Carian Amphimachos (2), who is described as strolling to battle decked in gold like a girl (2.872). If the Iliad recognizes various ethnic groups, but treats them neutrally, it is the Odyssey that reflects more profoundly the impact of the Greek encounter with non-Greek peoples. Cyclopes and Laestrygonians are mythopoetic versions o f the indigenous people encountered by the Greeks as they traded and colonized in the west­ ern Mediterranean (see Colonization). The Cyclopes, in particular, as pastoralists who live without laws, without councils, and without agriculture , represent the demonizing o f nonGreeks in epic storytelling . The Laestrygonians at least live in a city, but their gigantic stature and unnatural habits, notably cannibalism, make them both inhuman and emphatically non-Greek. Once again, speech is a key marker o f difference: the Laestrygonian king is named “Antiphates ” (2) (“opposite-speaker”). The Homeric poems, then, reflect conditions in the Iron Age, when Greek ethnicity was still fluid, but beginning to take shape under the influence o f what has been called “the ethnographic imagination.” See also B arbarians . References an d Suggested Readings Drews 1979; Dougherty 2001; Hall 2002a. JER EM Y M cIN E R N E Y

267

Etymology Etymology played a major role in Greek philosophy, grammar, and literary criti­ cism. Ancient etymology is a different discipline than modern etymology. For modern linguists etymology is the study of the origin of words and the change of their meaning in time; for the ancients, instead, etymology was the “study o f the true (etumon) meaning” o f the words; as a conse­ quence, the right etymological analysis would have disclosed the hidden and real sense o f a word and the reality it refers to. Even though etumologia was “invented” in the Hellenistic period by scholars like the Stoic Chrysippus and the grammarian Philoxenus, it has been commonly used by poets, philosophers, physicians, orators, etc. from the very beginning. Already Homer and Hesiod use etymology in their own poems. For example, Homer uses etymological wordplays with proper names: “O dysseus” was connected with oduresthai "to wail” in Odyssey 1.55 or with odussesthai“to hate,” i.e., “the one hated by the gods,” in 1.62; “Astyanax” was the name given to the son of H ector in honor o f his father who was the anax, the “lord” (see Linear B) and also the “defender,” of the astu (i.e., Troy) as explained in Iliad 6.403. Etymological wordplay was common among poets of every age, and became more and more used when the Sophists took a special interest in this type of linguistic analysis in order to inquire whether language was “by nature” (phusei) or “by convention” ( thesei or nomôi). The most impor­ tant text about ancient Greek etymology is Plato’s Cratylus, which pertains to the domain o f phi­ losophy of language rather than Homeric criti­ cism. Etymology, however, was also used by scholars of Homer in order to show that the ancient poet wanted to give a much deeper mean­ ing to his poems than the pure, literal one. The Stoics in particular used etymology to analyze the epithets and names o f the gods (e.g., SVF 1.103, 535, 540-543, 546-547, 1021, 10621063). For example, with reference to Homeric poetry, Cleanthes (331-232 bce ) read òXoópa>v, the epithet o f Atlas in Odyssey 1.52, with rough breathing (rather than smooth in the sense o f “baleful”) so that it meant “mindful o f every­ thing" (Ó Ttepi Ttüv oXuiv 4>povv) because he identified Atlas with Stoic Providence (SVF 1.549; see also Stoic I nterpretations ); he interpreted the pwXu o f Od. 10.305 as the Stoic “reason”

268

ETYMOLOGY

(logos) because “through it, the irrational impulses (horm ai) and the passions (pathê) fade away (pü)\úovxai)” (SVF 1.526). Later on, the same approach is adopted by Cornutus in his Compendium o f the Tradition o f Greek Theology (1st century ce). He used etymology to discover the real meaning of gods’ epithets and hence the beliefs that gave rise to those epithets. Cornutus often gives more than one etymology for a name and some of them agree with Stoic cosmology. In Hellenistic times, etymology was used by sev­ eral Homer scholars in order to support their own views of Homeric poetry. In particular, C rates of Mallos used etymological analysis to support his stoicizing reading of Homeric poetry. For exam­ ple, he believed in the so-called sphairopooiia, i.e., the idea that Homer already knew that the earth was spherical (as the Stoic cosmology held) and would express it in his poetry. To support his view he used etymology: in Iliad 11.754 he read 6i‘ áamôéoç tteôíoio “through the plain rounded like a shield,” instead of ôià amôéoç ireôioio “through the vast plain” (ft. 15 Broggiato; see Aristarchus, fr. 36 Schironi) in order to have an etymological description of the sphericity of the plain of Troy. Crates also applied etymology to the analysis of gods’ names: he derived the accusative Aia from ôiaiveiv because Zeus “moistens” the earth (with the rain),makingitfertile(fr. 131 Broggiato). The etymological analysis of gods’ names was also applied by Homeric scholars to settle exegetical problems. For example, the meaning and ortho­ graphy of Apollo’s epithet HIOZ had been dis­ cussed at length by both Crates and Aristarchus. Crates (F 23 Broggiato) wrote it with smooth breathing because, according to him, it derived from iaom ai“t.o heal” and that meant that already in Homer Apollo was a healing god, to be identi­ fied with Paiêôn (as in later poets; see Paean). Aristarchus, instead (fr. 45 Schironi), wrote HIO£ with rough breathing because it derived from hiêm i “to, hurl,” and was given to Apollo as an archer, killer of the dragon Python (see Pytho). Aristarchus fought Crates’ reading because according to him in Homer the archer-god Apollo is distinct from the healing god Paiêôn. Thus both Aristarchus and Crates used etymology to argue against each other; this shows that etymological analysis was a very widespread method to analyze Homeric words in antiquity, even for different purposes and with opposite results.

The scholars in Alexandria and Pergamon (see

Pergamf.ne School) used etymology not only to analyze epithets of the gods, but also as a philo­ logical and exegetical tool. Aristarchus often used it to establish the correct readings in his Homeric text. For example, in Iliad 16.234 he (fr. 47 Schironi) wrote “selloi” rather than “Helloi,” the name of the inhabitants of Dodona who watched over the sanctuary o f Zeus, because the name derived from the Selleeis (1) River which flowed nearby. The etymological analysis of gods’ epithets and names continued to play a major role in later scholarship. In particular, this type o f work was pursued by Aristarchus’ pupil Apollodorus of Athens (180-110 bce) in his On Gods (FGrHist 244, F 88-153, POxy. 2260 and PKöln 126). According to him, the epithets and the names of the gods did not derive from their sacred places but rather from their physical or moral character­ istics. In his analysis Apollodorus follows the Stoic etymological approach, but not - or not totally their allegorical interpretation. Later on, etymology was used in the allegorical exegesis of the Homeric Problems by the so-called PseudoHeracutus ( lst-2nd century ce). To conclude: etymology, even though it was often used as a tool for allegorical readings in Homer, must not be identified with allegory. It was an exegetical tool that was used by many scholars for many different purposes on the Homeric text: to decide between two variant readings, to establish the right orthography of a word, to explain the mythological world of the poems, and also (but not exclusively) to seek the true “philosophical” meaning behind them. References and Suggested Readings Pfeiffer 1968, index s.v. “etymology”; Most 1989, esp. 2027-2029; Long 1992; Broggiato 2001, lx-lxiii; Schironi 2003; Ramelli and Lucchetta 2ÓÒ4. FR A N C ESC A SC H IR O N I

Euboea (Eüßoia) The second largest Aegean island after Crete, Euboea (“a land good for cows”) is about ninety miles long and thirty miles wide at its greatest extent. A continuous chain of mountains runs along the spine o f the island, northeast to southwest, so close to the east coast o f mainland Greece that the channel separating

EUCHENOR the island, called the Euripus (“swift-flowing”), changes direction o f flow every three hours. There, near the Euripus, stood the Archaic city of C halcis (“bronze town”) and across the border­ ing Lelantine Plain ( named from the stream Lelas that crosses it) stood the rival city of Eretria. Euboea was “famous for its ships” [Hymn. Ap. 219); a sturdy sea-going vessel is represented on a pyxis from Lefkandi ca. 850-825 bce. In the early 8th century bce Chalcis founded the earliest Greek settlement in the far West on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) in the Bay of Naples, while Eretria maintained close ties in the opposite direction with the coast o f northern Syria. In the Late Iron Age, Euboeans, probably Eretrians, were living in A1 Mina, a harbor town at the edge of the Orontes estuary (near presentday Samandag). Its excavator found large quanti­ ties o f the distinctive Euboean ware decorated with pendant semicircles. While during the Dark Age the rest o f Greece lived in isolation, Euboeans maintained direct contact with the East, as proved by numerous ivory, gold, and faience finds in graves from the Dark Age site of Lefkandi (the name of a modern village) between Chalcis and the ruins o f Classical Eretria. The ancient name o f Lefkandi is unknown, but may have been Old Eretria because Classical Eretria, at the southeastern edge of the plain, was founded at about the same time, ca. 825-800 bce, that Lefkandi precipitously declined, then was abandoned ca. 700 bce, as if the Eretrians were coming from Lefkandi. O f exceptional importance from Lefkandi is the cremation burial in Homeric style, ca. 1000 bce, of a warrior and the inhumation of his consort, and several horses, beneath a mound covering a large house o f unclear purpose (Lefkandi Tomb). The unique burial is evidence o f the unique wealth and position o f seafaring Euboeans during the Dark Age, and o f their martial spirit. On rich, international, proud Euboea, accord­ ing to one reconstruction, the I l i a d and the O d y s s e y w e r e taken down by dictation (see O ral Dictated Texts), perhaps in Lefkandi. In sup­ port o f this thesis are apparently West Ionic fea­ tures to the Homeric dialect (spoken on Euboea; East Ionic was spoken in Ionia); very early evi­ dence for alphabetic writing from Lefkandi and the Chalcidian colony o f Pithekoussai (Ischia) in Italy; Euboea’s close ties with the East and its store

269

of epic themes and language, where the model for the alphabet was found; the Odyssey’s story of adventure in a far West dangerous and little known, suitable to Euboean experience there in the Late Iron Age. The Iliad’s description o f murderous warfare on an open plain, which may go back to a histori­ cal event, would have appealed to participants in Greece’s first historical war, between Chalcis and Eretria. There according to Homer lived the Abantes (“descendants o f Abas”), who “breathing fury held Euboea and Chalcis and Eretria and Histiaia , rich in vines, and Kerinthos close by the sea, and die steep citadel o f Dios; and they held Karystos and dwelled in Styra - all these had as their leader Elephenor o f the race of Ares . . . ” (II. 2.536-540). As is common in the Catalogue of S hips, we are sure o f the principal locations, but unsure about the rest. Thucydides (1.15) reports that the war fought over the Lelantine Plain attracted allies from overseas on both sides (as did the Trojan War). We cannot date the war, which is likely to have extended over generations, but cer­ tainly before 700 bce. A fragment of Archilochus, fl. ca. 680-640 (fr. 3 W), refers to an agreement in the war not to use bows or slings, as in the heroic code explicit in the Iliad. A leader from Chalcis named Amphidamas fell heroically and Hesiod, who may have been contemporary with Homer, competed at his funeral games (Op. 651-659). Menelaos, returning from Troy, makes straight for Euboea (Od. 3.174), to which the Phaeacians transported Rhadamanthys, “though it was the farthest o f lands” (7.321). The island’s impor­ tance to the Trojan saga is further reflected in the departure from Aulis , directly across the Euripus from Chalcis, port for the great Euboean sailors o f the Late Iron Age and early Archaic Age and hardly appropriate for an Argive expedition. See also Ionians. References and Suggested Readings leffery 1976; Popham et al. 1979-1980; Villing 2005. BA R R Y B . P O W ELL

(Euyriviup; from eüxopcu “to pray”) Achaean, son o f the seer Poly'idos (“knowing much”); killed by Paris ’ arrow (II. Euchenor

270

EUÇHENOR

13.664-672). A rich and brave man who had dwelt in Corinth , Euchenor went to Troy know­ ing full well of his fate, because his father had often told him that he is destined either to perish of painful disease at home or to join the Achaean fleet and perish at Troy. Euchenor and Polyidos are both apt names for seers.

Books 14-16 is mainly concentrated. There he tests Eumaios, evoking expressions of the swine­ herd’s love for him and devotion to his interests (but for an argument that Eumaios sees through his disguise, see Ahl and Roisman 1996,168-181). He also elicits the narrative of Eumaios’ life (15.403-484), a story of vicissitude that matches Odysseus’ own fictions. In addition to the practical help he gives Odysseus against the Suitors, Eumaios See also P rophecy. serves several functions in the narrative. For Odysseus (and us), he is a graphic example of the Eudoros (Eüôiüpoç) One of the five captains oppression suffered under flic regime of the of the M y r m i d o n s led by P a t r o k l o s in his Suitors, for whose feasts he is compelled to send onslaught on Troy (II. 16.179-192). Son of pigs. He thus attests the urgent need for Odysseus’ Polymele by H e r m e s , who fell in love with the restoration to control over household and com­ girl when he saw her d a n c i n g in the chorus of munity. His feelings, eloquently expressed, depict A r t e m i s . Later Polymele was given in marriage to Odysseus as a kindly master and so implicitly Echekles son of Aktor, and Eudoros was raised by support others’ memories of him as “gentle as a his maternal grandfather Phylas. Since at the time father” in exercising political authority on Ithaca of Eudoros’ birth Polymele was still unmarried, (2.47,234,5.12). The heroic diction that describes Eudoros is referred to as parthenios, “born of an him can be seen as adding to this warm portrayal: unmarried girl” (16.180). “divine” (dios) and “leader o f men” (orkhamos andrôn). These could be ascribed to an automatic use of formulae , but more than metrical con­ Euenos (Eiiqvóç) (1) KingofLYRNESsos.sonof venience seems to lie behind the tact that he is Selepios, father of Mynes and E pistrophos (3), the only character in the Odyssey whom the nar­ both killed by Achilles at the siege o f Lyrnessos rator addresses in the second person (in speech (II. 2.693). introductions , fifteen times) - surely a sign of (2) (Eür|voç) Aetolian, son o f Ares (Apollod.the narrator’s particular interest in him, and per­ Í .7.7), father of M arpessa (II. 9.557), a heroine haps affection (Parry 1972; Russo in Russo et al. of old who was wooed by Apollo . Marpessa 1992,33). chose Idas son of Aphareus and was carried away Such a prominent role is all the more remark­ by him. When his pursuit of Idas and Marpessa able (especially for epic) because Eumaios is a failed, Euenos slaughtered his horses and threw slave. Especially by contrast with Melanthios, himself into the Lykormas River, which came to he is a powerful realization o f the “good” or loyal be named “Euenos” after him (cf. Hes. Th. 345). slave, slaves’ moral qualities being defined by the master’s interests. He has accommodated to ser­ See also Aetolians . vitude and has even made something positive of it; for example, he even owns a slave himself M A RG A LIT FIN K ÈLBER G (14.449-451; this phenomenon, the servus vicarius, has parallels in other slave-owning societies). Eumaios (Eupatoç) The swineherd Eumaios He represents a positive paradigm of slavery and ("seeker after good”) in the O d y s s e y gives the hierarchical order generally. disguised O dysseus hospitality in his hut, takes What to make of his status depends on one’s him to town, and participates in the battle against broader reading of the poem. Interpretations the S uitors after Odysseus has disclosed his that emphasize theodicy will understand identity to him. He is an outstanding example of Eumaios as a dramatic example o f patient virtue the attention paid to lowly characters in the rewarded - the obverse o f the punishment of the Ithacan books o f the Odyssey. Suitors and the “bad” slaves: goodness can be When he reaches Ithaca, Odysseus goes first to found among the humble and wins out in the Eumaios’ remote steading, where the narrative of end. A more historicizing reading holds that

EUPEITHES Eumaios’ moral qualities, along with the aristo­ cratic Suitors’ licentiousness, undermines the identification, observable elsewhere in Homer, of excellence with high birth, and therefore ques­ tions a fundamental claim o f a r i s t o c r a c i e s that were emerging in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE (Donlan 1973, 153; Farron 1979-1980, 90-91; Rose 1992, 110-111). A variant of this view holds that Eumaios indeed seems at first to challenge this claim, and also the justification of slavery through the alleged inferiority of the slave (the “bad” slaves in the poem reinforce this claim; the “good” slave’s qualities raise the ques­ tion o f why he should be a slave at all). But this challenge is closed down when Eumaios turns out to be nobly born (15.413-414) and therefore innately noble in character (Thalmann 1998, 84-100). For A. T. Edwards (1993) Eumaios prominently represents the voice o f the country, which the hierarchical voice of the town seeks to “reterritorialize.” As these readings show, Eumaios condenses many of the moral and social issues that are central to the poem. See also

C la ss. W ILLIA M G . THALM AN N

Eumelos (EiípqXoç) Son o f Admetos and Alkestis (II. 2.711-715) called Phêrêtiadês in the I l i a d , after his grandfather Pheres (2.763; see Names 2). He is a “lord o f men” (anax andrôrt 23.288) and a “ruler” (kreiôn 23.354), “broad in the shoulders” (23.380), who led eleven ships to Troy manned by the inhabitants o f Thessalian Pherai, Eumelos’ residence (cf. Od. 4.798), and o f Boibe , Glaphyrai, and Iolkos. He had the best horses among the Greeks at Troy, swift as birds, “alike in texture o f coat, in age, both backs drawn level like a plumb-line” (2.765, tr. R. Lattimore), which were reared by Apollo (2.766; see Admetos). Eumelos himself is characterized as excelling in horsemanship (23.389). In the Funeral Games for Patroklos, Eumelos’ horses, racing against Diomedes, Antilochos, and Menelaos, take the lead, but Athene, enraged at Apollo’s attack on Diomedes, takes revenge on Eumelos and breaks the yoke of his chariot, so that he is hurled out of the chariot and badly hurt (23.375-397). He finishes the race

271

last, but Achilles awards him a prize (a bronze corslet overlaid with tin that he had stripped from Astekopaios) nonetheless (23.534—565). Alternatively, Apollodorus (Epit. 5.5) has Eumelos win lhe funeral games for Achilles, whereas Euripides in Iphihenia at Aults (206-230) has Eumelos compete in racing his horses against the running Achilles at Auus. Eumelos married P en elo pe ’s sister Iphthime, daughter of 1k a r i ö s (Od. 4.797-798). Visual repre­ sentations are not known: Gisler, LIM C 4.1,54-55. References and Suggested Readings H o e fc r R ll.s.w E u m e lo s ( 1 ) ; K u llm a n n I9 6 0 ,1 1 2 ; V is s e r 1 9 9 7 ,6 7 0 - 6 8 1 ; U lo c h N P s .v . IR EN E POLINSKAYA

Euneos (Eüvqoç “good with ships”) King of L em n os , son of Jason and Hypsipyle . Euneos sent forth many s h ip s bearing w ine to the A c h a e a n s in Troy. Agamemnon and M enelaos received from him a thousand measures o f wine, and the Achaean troops bartered their wine for bronze , iron , hides, cattle, and war-captives (II. 7.467-475): this befits the custom o f the ancients, who did not yet use coins (sehol. 7.473; see Exchange). Euneos ransomed Lykaon (1), son of P riam , from Patroklos with a silver mixingbowl (krater), a work o f the people o f S idon that had been given to Euneos’ grandfather T hoas (3) by P hoenicians. This bowl was presented by Achilles as a prize for a running competition in honor of Patroklos (21.41,23.740-747). See also A rgonautica .

Eupeithes (EúneiOqç “good at persuasion”) Father o f Antinoos, one o f the Suitors of P enelope. Eupeithes came to Ithaca as a fugitive and received shelter in the house of O dysseus, for he had once joinedTaphi an pirates,harried theTHESPROTiANS, and was persecuted by them hereafter (Od. 16.424430). After the death of his son among the rest of the Suitors, Eupeithes urged the assembled people o f Ithaca to avenge their deaths and succeeded in persuading part of them (24.422-438, 464-466). He led them to battle, from which he was not des­ tined to return, and was killed by the spear of Laertes (24.469-471,522-525).

272

EUPHORBOS

Euphorbos (Emjiopßor;) Son of Panthoos. A Trojan warrior who makes his entrance and exit at the I l i a d ’s climactic moment: the death of Patroklos. Euphorbos is the first man to wouiid Patroklos after Apollo stunned him (16.806807). Euphorbos’ sudden appearance has pro­ voked differing interpretations. Recently, R. Nickel (2002) has argued that Euphorbos is a "doublet” for Achilles, and as such, Euphorbos' role suggests both Achilles’ responsibility for Patroklos’ death and Achilles’ own death to come. W. Allan (2005,4-6) rejects the “doublet” concept and argues instead that Euphorbos’ strike dimin­ ishes Hector’s victory. That this excellent yet inexperienced (as evidenced by his failure to fin­ ish Patroklos off, 16.808-817) young warrior usurps Hector’s role, even momentarily, as “best of the T roians” (17.80-81) may also expose the randomness o f battle, that the best warriors may be killed by lesser ones or in unexpected ways. When Euphorbos returns to strip Patroklos’ armor, Menelaos, protecting Patroklos’ corpse, kills him (17.9-60). Euphorbos’ beauty is then highlighted, and a simile compares him to an olive tree stripling, well cared for and blossoming in splendor, that is suddenly uprooted by a fierce storm (17.50-60). The image of the young warrior as a plant is seen frequently in the Iliad, including in T hetis’ lament for Achilles (18.56-57; see Nagy 1979 [1999], 174-186). The simile conveys the lost potential of the young man cut down in his prime, expressing die sorrows as well as the glories o f war. That such sorrow is expressed for a Trojan reveals the deep humanity of the epic. MARY E B B O T T

Europa (Eúpcü7t£Íq [Hes.] fr. 141.8 M-W) Although her name never occurs in Homer, this famous, heroine of Greek myth, poetry, and art appears in Zeus’ list of his mortal lovers as “the daughter o f far-famed Phoinix (2) who bore me Minos and Rhadamanthys equal to gods” {II. 14.321-322; see also Dios Apatê). The way Europa is introduced probably suggests the audi­ ence’s close familiarity with the myth of how she was kidnapped from Phoenicia (see Phoenicians) to C rete by Zeus who had taken the shape o f a bull for this purpose. The story was told in full in the Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] frs. 140,141 M-W).

See also

K a d m o s. M A RG A LIT FIN KELBERG

Euros (Eüpoç) The East wind. One of the four main winds in Homer (the others being Boreas, Notos, and Zephyros); although, in keeping with the absence o f Euros in Hesiod’s descrip­ tion o f the winds (Th. 378-380, with West 1966, ad loc.), he is not as prominent as the other three. Together with his fellow winds, Euros is associ­ ated with storms in the I l i a d (2.144-154,16.765769), and he also plays his part in the great storm that afflicts Odysseus’ raft in the O d y s s e y (5.291-296, 328-332). He is more benign, how­ ever, earlier in Odysseus’ voyage (12.326), and, as a warm wind, he also melts the snow which the West wind has brought (19.205-207). Sec also Winds. C H R IS T O P H E R JOH N MACKIE

Euryades (Eúpuáôqç) One of the Suitors of Penelope, mentioned only at the moment of his death by the spear of Telemachos among three others killed by O dysseus and his men (Od. 22.265-269). The four Suitors killed here are pre­ sumably part of the group of six who were urged by Agelaos to throw their spears at Odysseus and missed their target (22.251-259).

Euryalos (EüpúaXoçj (1) Achaean, son of M ekistkus, grandson o f Talaos (II. 2.565, 23.677). Alongside Diomedes and Sthbnelos, one of the commanders of the Argos contingent in the Catalogue of Ships (2.559-568): the fathers of the three were among the Seven against Thebes whereas they themselves belonged to the Epigoni, who captured T hebes in the next gen­ eration (4.405-410; Apollod. 3.7.2; Paus. 2.20.5, cf. 10.10.2; see T heban Cycle). As an Argive leader Euryalos represents his paternal uncle Adrastos (1), who has been rendered childless after the death of his son Aigialeus in the expedi­ tion of the Epigoni; this is apparently why Homer emphasizes that Euryalos is a descendant of Talaos from whom Adrastos also descends (Finkelberg 2005,83-84; cf. Paus. 2.30.9)

EURYDIKE Euryalos performs bravely in Iliad 6 .2 0 - 2 8 , killing four Trojans - Dresos, O pheltios (1), Aisepos ( 1 ), and Pedasos ( 1 ) - one after another (see Aristeia ), but is defeated by Epeios in the boxing competition at the Funeral Games for Patroklos (2 3 .6 7 6 - 6 9 9 ) . He appeared, wounded in the head and the wrist, on Polygnotus’ painting in the Knidian Lesche at Delphi (Paus. 1 0 .2 5 .2 ). (2 ) O n e o f th e P haeacian you th s w ho p a rtici­ pated in th e competitions held by Ai.kinoos in O dysseus ’ h o n o r ( O d . 8 .1 1 5 ); w in n er o f the w restlin g c o m p etitio n (1 2 6 - 1 2 7 ; see S port ).

273

mistaken notion (Kirk 1985,85; already in ancient commentators) that Agamemnon also has a her­ ald with the same name. Part o f the E mbassy to Achilles in Book 9, Eurybates figures in the notorious problem o f the duals (9.182, 185, 192, 196, 197, 198; see D ual). In both episodes Agamemnon dispatches a delegation to remove or restore someone to Achilles. Since Odysseus or Eurybates or both take part in the relevant epi­ sodes it is possible that the duals originally desig­ nated the two o f them in an earlier version (Louden 2006,121-134).

W h en O dysseus d eclin es the inv itation to take p art in th e gam es, Eu ryalos insults h im , in sin u a t­

See also Names 3.5.

ing th a t th e stran ger behaves m o re like a trader th an

a n o b le m a n ,

BR U C E LO UDEN

thus provoking O dysseus’

p articip atio n (1 5 8 - 1 6 4 ; cf. 1 4 0 -1 4 2 ; see C lass ). A fter

the

gam es A lkin o o s

suggests

Euryalos

sh ou ld m ake am ends to the guest, and he assents w holeheartedly, m akin g a gracio u s apology and o fferin g O dysseus a siLVER-stubbed sword as a gift ( 3 9 6 - 4 1 6 ; see also G

uest

- F r i e n d s h i p ).

M ARG A LIT FIN K ELBER G

Eurybates (Eupupcmy;) O dysseus’ herald , Eurybates attends him (//. 2 .1 8 4 ) when the former, prompted by Athene , seeks to reverse the disas­ trous outcome of Agamemnon’s testing o f the troops (see Peira ). It is Eurybates’ form Athene apparently takes at Iliad 2.279-282 (Louden 2006, 142-143), to silence the assembly after Odysseus' thrashing o f T h ersites . He shares central characteristics with Odysseus, evident in the latter’s conversation with Penelope (Od. 19.244-248). A little older than Odysseus, he has a dark complexion ( m elanokhroos), and woolly h a ir . Odysseus is also melanokhroos (16.175), and Priam (II. 3.193-198) compares him to a “thick-fleeced ram,” perhaps suggesting woolly hair. He has a close rapport with Odysseus (Russo in Russo et al. 1992, on 19.248 “he knew fitting things in his mind”). Penelope also knows the herald well since this description of him by the disguised Odysseus forms the final proof that the stranger has recently been with her husband. Like Odysseus, Eurybates is especially involved in diplomatic missions. He is paired with Agamemnon’s herald Talthybios to take B riseis away from Achilles (II. 1.320), leading to the

Eurydamas (Eúpuôápaç) (1) D ream inter­ preter, the aged father of Abas and Polyidos ( l) , both killed by D iomedes (II. 5.148-151). His son’s name Polu-idos (“much-knower”; see Names 3.5), shared with a seer from Corinth (see Polyidos [2]), befits the father’s profession. The ambiguous 5.150, “the old man interpreted no dreams for them [his sons] upon their departure [for Troy]” has been interpreted since antiquity to the effect that Eurydamas foresaw his sons’ fate and there­ fore gave them no prophecy. Eurydamas is as obscure and devoid of ethnic identity as his sons. See also Prophecy. (2) One o f the S uitors of P enelope . His serv­ ants brought him two graceful earrings as a gift for Penelope (Od. 18.297-298). After the last Suitors remaining alive had made their spear-cast and succeeded in causing slight injuries to Telemachos and Eumaios, O dysseus and his men threw their spears and killed four o f them, including Eurydamas, who was killed by Odysseus (22.272-286).

Eurydike (Eüpuöhcq) Nestor’s wife in the O dyssey . Among other women o f the family raised the ritual cry at a sacrifice to Poseidon, after the victim had been slaughtered (3.450452). Eurydike was the eldest daughter o f a Klymenos; this is the only occasion when word presba “august”is used of a mortal. In the H esio dic

274

EURYDIKE

Catalogue o f Women ([Hes.] fr. 35.10-14, followed by Apollod. 1.9.9) the name o f Nestor’s wife is Anaxibia. See also P ylos.

Eurykleia (EupiucXeia) Eurykleia is a loyal, long­ time servant in the Ithacan royal household , purchased “in her bloom” by Laertes for an exorbitant twenty oxen (Od. 1.428—433). Her name, “Wide-Fame,” and her thrice-mentioned patriline, daughter o f Ops, the son o f P eisbnor (2) (1.429, 2.347, 20.148), indicates high birth, which is associated with her upstanding charac­ ter: she is twice called periphrôn “circumspect” (19.357,21.381), an epith et typical o f Penelope . In her youth, she was honored by Laertes equally to his wedded wife Antikleia , but “fearing his wife’s wrath” (1.432-433), her master never slept with her, as was his prerogative, and thus never disrupted the internal structure o f the family (Thalmann 1998, 76-77). Among the female servants, Eurykleia has the highest status: she supervises the other dm ôiai “slave-women,” and she is regularly called trophos “nurse." She has ties to three generations in the royal patriline: to Laertes as his purchase and aJ most-concubine, to O dysseus as his wet-nurse who takes part in his naming ritual (19.401-404), and to Tf.lemachos as his nurse and personal servant. This suggests that, unlike Eurynome (2), Penelope’s elderly servant, she is more aligned with the males in the Ithacan family than with the woman who married into it (Thalmai.n 1998, 76-78). Eurykleia has access to the whole palace and is often privy to family secrets. For example, when Telemachos is about to embark on his journey, she (and not Penelope) learns o f his voyage, gives him provisions for his crew, and at his insistence keeps his departure secret from Penelope (2.373376), who later reprimands her for this (4.742757). Eurykleia is also “far first to see him” on his return (17.31-32). Later, Eurykleia recognizes Odysseus before Penelope does in a tantalizingly protracted scene (see Scar of O dysseus ), in which she comments on the stranger’s resem­ blance to her master and uses the pronoun “you” first to apostrophize Odysseus in absentia and then to address the stranger. When Odysseus, still

in disguise, asks Penelope for an older servant to bathe him (see Bathing ), she selects Eurykleia, who handles his scar and immediately knows who he is (19.392-399, 467-468). The narrator interrupts this recognition with a lengthy tale of how Odysseus got his scar (a token of his distinc­ tive identity), as if Eurykleia is remembering its history (19.393—466; de Jong 1985, 517-518; but cf. Doherty 1995b, 156 and Clayton 2004, 74—78, esp. n. 47 for other possible focalizers: see Localization ). Before Eurykleia can shout with joy, Odysseus, determined to maintain his dis­ guise, grabs her by the throat and orders her to keep silent (19.476-490). His manner of speaking to Eurykleia on this and subsequent occasions reflects both their intimacy and their inequality, as master and slave. For example, he restrains her from raising the shrill women’s cry (ololugmos) upon seeing the S uitors ’ corpses, since one should not boast over the dead, and admonishes her to rejoice privately (22.407-418). Perhaps as a “gentle distraction" (Thalmann 1998, 80), or as a sign o f Eurykleia’s importance as an advisor (Karydas 1998, 8-63), after initially rejecting her offer to identify the wayward servant women (19.495-503), he now invites her testimony and bids her fetch the twelve guilty women, to be pun­ ished by Telemachos, and then bring sulfur and fire to purify the halls. When she joyfully goes to tell Penelope o f her husband’s return and encoun­ ters resistance and disbelief, she chides her mis­ tress (23.70-79). After the reunion, she and Eurynome prepare the couple’s bed (23.289-296), indicating “a convergence of the two sides o f the oikos" (Thalmann 1998,81). In the end, Odysseus restores his loyal servant to her position o f high status and trust in his household, now reclaimed. See also Slavery. nancy felson

Euryloehos (EúpúXoyoç) A comrade and rela­ tive (pêos, Od. 10.441; see Kin sh ip ) o f O dysseus; second in command on his ship. In the K irke episode Euryloehos, who has led the scouting party on Aiaia and escaped alone the metamor­ phosis into pigs, later opposes Odysseus’ plan to join the freed companions at Kirke’s dwelling (10. 429-448). In the Nekyia he assists, with

EURYMEDON P f. rimedes (2), Odysseus in performing the nec­ essary sacrifice (11.23); and in the S irens epi­ sode he reinforces, again with Perimedes, the lashings that tie Odysseus to the mast (12.195^ 196). Euryloehos is one o f the few comrades who are named and the only one given a characteri­ zation. This is due to the decisive role he plays in the worsening relationship between Odysseus and his comrades in the course o f O dysseus’ Wanderings, culminating in their mutiny on T hrinakia . Already in the Kirke episode Eurylochos resists Odysseus’ plans with mistrust and recriminations, blaming Odysseus’ recklessness for the death of six comrades in the Cyclops’ cave and urging disobedience (10.429-437). It is in the Thrinakia adventure that Euryloehos grows into the challenger o f Odysseus’ leadership. He articu­ lates the discontent and the desires o f the crew. Through his demagogic speeches he effects, against Odysseus’ strong warnings, the landing on Thrinakia. In the end his rhetoric persuades the comrades to commit the sacrilege o f slaugh­ tering the Sun god’s cattle, thereby breaking their o a t h sworn to Odysseus. The figure of Euryloehos is important within the general moral pattern of the O d y s s e y . Its innovative idea - the notion of humans’ own respon sibility for suffering they incur beyond their “allotted portion” (huper moron; see Fate) as a result o f their “reckless folly” (a t a s t h a l iê ) is intoned in the Odyssey proem with reference to the events on Thrinakia (1.6-9) and enunciated as an overarching theme in Z eus ’ programmatic speech (1.32-43; see also T heodicy ). It is consist­ ently exemplified in the fates of Aigisth os , the Suitors of P enelope , and Odysseus’ comrades (Friedrich 1987). The atasthaliê o f the latter is most pronounced in Euryloehos. See also O dysseus ’ C ompanions. RAINER FRIEDRICH

Eurymachos (Eúpúpayoç) The other ringleader o f the S uitors (with Antinoos ), Eurymachos son of Polybos (2) is the most debonair (the one Athene claims Penelope is about to marry; 15.17), the smoothest talker o f the group. Almost entirely duplicitous in his speeches , he is a mas­ ter at offering false assurances, opposite his real

275

intent (to Penelope, 16.435-447, to Telf.machos, 1.399-404). Repeatedly the second Suitor to act, he is second to speak in the assembly (2.178-179, 192-193), second to give Penelope a gift (18.295296), second to hurl an object at the disguised O dysseus (18.386-404), second to be slain by him (22.69). His name is part o f a larger structure linking the three groups of unruly young men, Suitors, O dysseus’ companions, and the P haeacian athletes, each of whom has a leader with a parallel name: Eurymachos, Eurylochos, Euryai.os (Louden 1999, 19-20). Book 18 offers his most vivid portrayal. Though ostensibly courting Penelope he has a sexual rela­ tionship with her maid M e l a n t h o ( 1 8 . 3 2 5 ) . When the disguised Odysseus offers to tend the palace braziers and provide light for the Suitors, Eurymachos asserts the torchlike glow from his baldhead means the gods attend him ( 1 8 . 3 4 9 3 5 5 ) , further accusing Odysseus of being lazy ( 1 8 . 3 5 6 - 3 6 4 ) . His ironic remarks and acts reveal his own hypocrisy. He is prone to defeatism, as in his disap­ pointment that Telemachos accomplished his journey (16.334-347) and his awareness that their failure to string the bow reveals their infe­ riority to Odysseus (21.245-455). He ridicules T heoclymenos ’ prophecy o f their coming destruction (20.359-362). When Odysseus slays Antinoos, Eurymachos blames him and offers reparations for their depredations (22.44-59). Then rushing Odysseus, he is shot in the liver, and dies doubled up in pain. BR UC E LOUDEN

Eurymedon (Eúpupéôcov “wide ruling”) (1) Achaean, son of Ptolemaios, grandson of Peiraios (1), Agamemnon’s squire and chariot­ eer, In the Epipolesis , Eurymedon held the horses aside when Agamemnon was walking through the ranks of warriors, for Agamemnon ordered Eurymedon to have the horses close at hand for whenever he might be weary (II. 4.226231). This motif properly belongs to descriptions of fighting in which the warrior might need to beat a hasty retreat and therefore keeps his chariot close by, cf. 11.338-342, 13.384-386,16.506-507. References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,355.

(2) Achaean, Nestor’s squire and charioteer introduced as “manly” (agapênor); tended the horses of Nestor after the latter had mounted D iomedes’ chariot (II. 8.113-114; cf. 104); loosed Nestor’s horses after the latter had brought the wounded M achaon back to the Achaean camp (11.620-621). That both Agamemnon and Nestor had a charioteer o f the same name is paid attention already in the scholia . Cf. also Autombdon, the charioteer o f Achilles . ( 3 ) King of the G i a n t s and, through his daugh­ ter P e r i e o i a ( 2 ) , founder of the royal dynasty of the P h a b a c i a n s ; introduced as “great-hearted.” Eurymedon brought destruction on his people and was himself destroyed (Od. 7 . 5 6 - 6 2 ) .

Eurymedousa (Eúpupéôouoa) Nausicaa’s aged waiting-maid (Od. 7.7-13). Eurymedousa was brought, probably by pirates, from Apeira (appar­ ently a fictitious name) and given as a gift of honor ( g e r a s ) to Alkinoos. She had reared Nausicaa, and when the latter came home after the meeting with O dysseus, Eurymedousa kin­ dled a fire and prepared the supper. Eurymedousa, “wide-ruling,” is an odd name for a servant.

Eurynomç (Eúpuvópq) (1) Daughter o f O cean, appears in Hephaistos’ account o f his rescue after his mother Hera had cast him out (18.394405). Eurynome and T h etis saved Hephaistos and hosted him in their cave for nine years. During this time neither mortal nor god knew o f his whereabouts apart from the two goddesses. Eurynome is mentioned by H esiod among the daughters o f Ocean and Tethys (Th. 358) and as mother (by Z eus) o f the Charites (907-909). As the scholia observe, the prominence given to Eurynome in this passage is due to her being Hephaistos’ mother-in-law; only Thetis is men­ tioned in a closely similar account in Hymn. Ap. 316-321. (2) Penelope’s housekeeper and chambermaid (Od. 17.495-498, 18.169-186, 19.96-101, 20.4, 23.153-155, 289-295). At 18.185 Eurynome is referred to as “old woman”; at 17.499, Penelope addresses her as “good mother” (m aid), the way in which Eurykleia is usually addressed. Eurynome’s position in the house seems to be second to that of Eurykleia, but the fact that both

are titled “housekeeper,” tamiê, has led some to believe that Eurynome was added by a different poet.

Eurynomos (Eúpúvopoç) One of the Suitors o f Penelope, son of Aigyptios (Od. 2.21-22). One of the last surviving Suitors, Eurynomos was among the six who stirred up the others and “excelled the other suitors in their a r e t e " ; killed by O dysseus (22.241-246).

Eurypylos (Eúpúmikoç) (1) A minor Achaean leader whose role in the Patrokleia underscores the themes of pity and solidarity that are promi­ nently associated with Patroklos. The “glorious son of Euaimon,” as he is called on four occasions, is referred to by name eighteen times, which puts him in fourteenth place among Achaean warriors by this crude but surprisingly accurate indicator. In the Catalogue of S hips he appears as a leader from Ormenion in T hessaly with forty ships, the standard number for a substantial fleet (H. 2.734—738). In Iliad 7 he is one of eight leaders who respond to Nestor’s scolding by volunteer­ ing to fight Hector (7.167). At the beginning o f Iliad 5 there is a collective aristeia in which the poet introduces six Achaean leaders and shows them killing their first victim from Agamemnon down to Eurypylos, who con­ cludes this narrative stretch with an eight-line killing (5.76-83). A warrior o f that name, not necessarily the same, also appears in a catalogue o f killings in the following book (6.36; see

Catalogues). The special role o f Eurypylos begins in Book 11 and is part o f a sequence o f events that trigger, retard, and advance Patroklos’ entry into battle. Each of these events highlights the virtue of soli­ darity among warriors. Paris wounds the phy­ sician Machaon with an arrow, whereupon Idomeneus urges Nestor to lead the wounded warrior out o f battle (11.505-520). The battle turns towards the Troians as even Ajax the Greater reluctantly retreats. Eurypylos comes to his aid, but suffers the same fate as Machaon at the hands of Paris (11.581-585). In calling out to the Achaeans he asks them not to help him but to help Ajax (11.587-591). We lose sight of Eurypylos as the action turns to Achilles, who

EURYTtON sees Nestor carrying a wounded warrior out of battle and dispatches Patroklos to find out more about him - a m om en t that the poet marks emphatically with the rare editorial comment “and this was the beginning o f his evil" ( 11.604). Patroklos goes to Nestor, sees Machaon, refuses Nestor’s invitation to stay, pleading Achilles’ over­ bearing and impatient nature, but standing in the doorway listens to a long speech by Nestor, who tells him about the injuries o f Achaeans, includ­ ing Eurypylos (11.662), and makes the fateful suggestion that Patroklos should ask Achilles to let him fight in his stead. Taking these words to heart, Patroklos rushes back to Achilles but encounters the bloody, sweaty, and weary Eurypylos limping from battle. He pities him - the verb oikteirâ is associated with Achilles or Patroklos in all o f its five occurrences - and when Eurypylos asks for his help, he pleads again that he must hurry back to Achilles, but stays anyhow and attends to the wounds of a fellow warrior. We lose sight o f Eurypylos once more for almost two thousand lines and encounter him again being comforted by Patroklos, who notices the Trojans attacking the wall, remembers Nestor’s advice, and leaves abruptly (15.390-404). Some three hundred lines later we hear Achilles com­ paring Patroklos to a crying little girl begging to be picked up by her mother when he responds to his friend’s plea, which gained power from Nestor’s advice and the vivid presence of the injured Eurypylos. Outside of Homer Eurypylos figured in the Cyclic L i t t l e I l i a d (fr. 26 West). In later sources (Apollod. 3.10.8) Eurypylos is referred to as one of Helen’s suitors; he also appears in Vergil’s Aencid (2.115) and Ovid’s Metamorphoses ( 13.357). M A RTIN M U ELLER

(2) The legendary king of Kos, whose capital is called “the city of Eurypylos” in the C atalogue of Ships (LI. 2.677). According to some sources, grandfather of the Heraclid T hessalos (see Heraclids), which makes the latter’s sons Pheidippos and Antiphos (1), who led the Coan contingent, into his descendants; according to others, Herakles became father o f Thessalos by Eurypylos’ wife Chalkiope. References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,228.

277

(3) KingofMysia.son ofTELEPHOS. His mother was bribed by Priam to persuade Eurypylos to take part in the war as a n a l l y o f the T r o j a n s ; he was killed by Neoptolf.mos. The story, which was definitely known to Homer (Od. 11.519-521), was presumably related in full in the Cyclic L i t t l e I l i a d (arg. 3 West). Eurypylos’ companions are referred to as K ê t e i o i . Sec tibo Mysians. References and Suggested Readings Heubeck in Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989, 108. margai.it finkelberg

Eurystheus (Eupuofieúç) Cousin and tormentor of Herakles; great-grandson o f Zeus through Perseus and Sthenelos (2); mythological arche­ type of an abusive tyrant. Agamemnon (II. 19.91133) tells the story of Eurystheus’ birth to demonstrate that even Zeus can be afflicted by ate . Anticipating his son Herakles’ birth, Zeus swore an oath that his descendant born that day would rule over all. Hera then delayed Herakles’ birth while hastening the birth o f Eurystheus so that Eurystheus became the ruler in fulfillment of Zeus’ oath. Eurystheus commands Herakles to undertake his famous labors, although he is, in Herakles’ words in the Odyssey, a man far worse than Herakles (11.621-622). See also Names 3.5. MARY E B B O T T

Eurytion (Eúputícov) Centaur, introduced as an example o f atê caused by excessive drinking of winf. in a story told by Antinoos (Od. 21.295304). It was because of Eurytion’s drunkenness that the quarrel between the Centaurs and men first arose. When Eurytion was in the house of Peirithoos, king o f the Lapiths, he became mad with wine and did evil. The heroes dragged him out and sheared his ears and nose. This is a vari­ ant of the famous story of Eurytion’s misbehavior at Peirithoos’ wedding feast that led to the War of the Lapiths and the Centaurs. The story is alluded to in passing in LI. 1.267-268 and 2.743-744. See also Paradigms.

278

EURYTOS

Eurytos (Eüputoç) (1) King o f O icha.u a , son of Stratonike and Melaneus, who was a son of Apollo. Eurytos, his son I phitos (3), and his daughter Iole figure prominently in Heraklean myth, as Iole provokes Herakles’sack o f Oichalia (f Hes.J fr. 26 M-W). O dysseus cites Herakles and Eurytos as earlier men who were sufficiently skilled in archery as to challenge the gods (Od. 8.223-229). Apollo, enraged by Eurytos, killed him. Odysseus received his bow from Iphitos, who had inherited it from his dead father (21.12-38). This conflicts with later traditions, since, if Eurytos dies before Herakles kills Iphitos, Herakles cannot take vengeance on him or sack Oichalia. Bacchylides (16.25-29) has Herakles send Iole home after the sack. Sophocles’ Trachiniac presents one story that Herakles destroyed Oichalia after Eurytos insulted Herakles’ bow prowess and expelled the drun­ ken hero from his house, which resulted in Herakles’ murder of Iphitos and enslavement by Omphale (248-280), and then another that Eurytos had refused his request that Iole become his concubine (476-478). Apollodorus (2.6.1) preserves another tradition o f an archery contest, with Iole as a prize, between Herakles, Eurytos, and his sons. Herakles then sacks the city after his reward denied. Homer would seem to allude to this indirectly since Odysseus himself is about to engage in a simi­ lar contest, bringing analogous violence into his own house in the deaths o f the S u ito r s . The I l i a d mentions Eurytos twice in the C atalogue oe S h ips (2.596,730).

ROBIN MITCHELL-BOYASK (2) Epeian, son o f Aktor (1), brother o f Kteatos, father o f T halpios who was one o f the leaders of the Epeians in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.621). See also Aktorione (I).

Eustathius Eustathius, archbishop o f Thessal­ onica, was born ca. 1115-1118 (a different date o f birth is suggested by Van der Valk 1971-1987, vol. 1, cxxxvii) in Constantinople (for some skepticism on his place o f birth: Kazhdan and

Franklin 1984, 117; Browning 1962, 191). His real name is unknown (“Eustathius” is his monastic name). He received a high education in the Patriarchal Academy, then followed the monastic life and continued his education in the convent o f St. Euphemia. Later on, he became a monk in the convent o f St. Floras of Constantinople from where he took the nick­ name kata Phlôron or Kataphlôros. A different view suggests that “Kataphloros” is a surname (Kazhdan and Franklin 1984,117-119; Browning, 1995, 84) indicating some kind o f relationship (nephew or pupil) with Nicholas Kataphloron, maistôr tôn rhêtorôn (teacher o f rhetoric and philosophy) in the Patriarchal School in the midn t h century. After completing his studies, he was employed as a scribe o f the patriarchal administration and a clerk at the patriarchal court and began a career as a private teacher o f grammar and rhetoric. Shortly after, the emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143-1180) made him deacon o f St. Sophia; he was also employed in the patriarchate’s depart­ ment o f petitions and at the patriarchal treasury. After 1170, he was appointed by Patriarch Michael III maistôr tôn rhêtorôn in the Patriarchal School where he taught Greek language and produced scholarly work. Although he was suggested as a candidate for the archbishopric o f Myra in 1174, because o f the insignificance o f the place and his intellectual activities in Constantinople, he was not willing to accept this appointment. His high connections resulted in his appointment by the emperor as archbishop in the basilica o f St. Demetrios of Thessalonica (1179). In Thessalonica, he turned his home into a center for people with literary tastes and contin­ ued teaching literature and rhetoric. These lec­ tures inspired him to write his philological works, which include: the Commentaries on Hom er’s Iliad an d Odyssey, written in order to satisfy the requests o f his pupils (Eust. on II. 1.3.3-5); a Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes-, a Commen­ tary on Pindar o f which only the introduction has survived; a Commentary on Aristophanes, which is not preserved. The Homeric Commentaries are vast com­ panions to the Homeric epics in which the I l i a d Commentary is much longer than that on the O d y s s e y . The Com m entary on the Ilia d is

EU T R E SIS

preserved in a pair o f autograph manuscripts (Codex Laurentianus Gr. 59 .2 -3 ) with annota­ tions on pieces o f papers, all pasted in the mar­ gins. The author, after a process o f revision, expanded the Commentary in order to make it more useful. The Com m entary on the Odyssey is preserved in two autograph manuscripts (Codex Parisinus Gr. 2702 and Marcianus Gr. 460), which both copy from an archetype no longer preserved to us (Pontani 2000; Makrinos 2007). From these codices originate some later manuscripts which, though o f interest for sub­ sequent transmission o f the text, are o f no sig­ nificant value for its establishment. The preface o f the Commentary on the Iliad deals with general issues o f Homeric poetry, the nature o f the Iliad, the differences between the poems, the cultural importance o f Homer and Eustathius’ methodology. The preface o f the Odyssey is shorter and discusses the composition o f the Odyssey, the story and the purpose o f the poem in combination to its rhetorical and moral value. The “disquisi­ tions” (parekbolai) discuss questions of language, mythology (interpreted allegorically or rational­ ized), lexicography (including etymological ana­ lysis: see Etymology), history, and geography. Allegorical interpretation is the essential method in Eustathius’ work in order to explain the pagan myths of the epics to a Christian audi­ ence and to discover the hidden ideas and the morals beneath the text (for more on allegory see Cesaretti 1991). The value o f the Homeric Commentaries con­ sists in the assemblage of material drawn from the old scholia and the works of earlier or con­ temporary scholars, lexicographers, or paraphrasts (see Paraphrases) as Eustathius had privileged access to the treasures o f the Byzantine libraries. His quotations from classical authors are taken mostly at second hand from scholia, lexica, grammarians, geographers, drama, epic, orators, historians, philosophers, mythographers, medical writers, ecclesiastical works, and other commentaries. He often illustrates a point by ref­ erence to the customs and observances o f his own time and to contemporary vernacular Greek. When in 1185 Thessalonica was sacked by the Normans o f Sicily, Eustathius was imprisoned but his courage and his spirit o f leadership in the negotiations with the adversary won the admira­ tion o f the citizens. These events inspired him to

279

write his Capture o f Thessalonica, which, together with his addresses to different emperors and sev­ eral speeches and letters, are his historical works. Eustathius also produced theological and pastoral works including several homilies and works that are related to monastic life. Eustathius’ imperial connections included John Doukas (the younger son o f Anna Komnena and first cousin o f the emperor Manuel I) and his son, Nikephoros Komnenos, and through them the emperor Manuel I. Eustathius belonged to a group o f intellectuals, many o f them pupils o f Nicholas Kataphloron. Among the group members were Euthymios Malakes, who delivered a funeral ora­ tion over Eustathius’ dead body; Michael Choniates, humanist scholar and archbishop of Athens, who studied at Constantinople under Eustathius and became his close friend, and his brother Nichetas Choniates, a brilliant medieval historiographer; Nicholas Hagiolheodorites, who was Michael’s predecessor in Athens; Constantine Manasses, Gregory Antiochos, and the patriarch Michael Autorianus. The exact date o f his death is unknown, but it has been placed ca. 1195-1199. After his death, Eustathius was worshipped as a saint, and on June 1988 he was canonized by the Orthodox Church (Panteleimon II, 1989), the oniy classical scholar to achieve this status. There are five conjectural representations o f Eustathius from the 14th cen­ tury. The oldest representation (1312) is found in the monastery o f Vatopedion. See also Scholarship , B yzantine. References and Suggested Readings Texts: Stallbaum 1825-1826 (1970); Müller 1861 [1965]; Kyriakidis 1961; Van der Valk 1971-1987; Kambylis 1991; Negri 2000; Wirth 2000. Scholarship: Wirth 1980; Wilson 1983, 196-204; Kazhdan and Franklin 1984, 115-195; Cesaretti 1991; Browning 1995,83-90; Pontani 2005a, 170-178.

ANTONY MAKRINOS

Eutresis (Eürpqon;; cf. EÔTpijToç “wellpierced”) A town in Boeotia mentioned in the Catalogue of S h ips (II. 2.502). According to Strabo (9.2.28), it was located on the Thespian territory (see T hespeia ), and it was there that Z ethos and Amphion lived before they reigned

280

EUTRESIS

over T hebes . Eutresis is firmly identified by an inscription with a site at the north end of the Leuktra plain, some eight miles southwest of Thebes (see also Houses). It seems to have been abandoned at the end o f the Bronze Age and not properly resettled until the 6th century bce. See also Boeotians. References and Suggested Readings Kirk 1985,192-193.

Evans, Arthur (1851-1941) Sir Ardiur John Evans, excavator of Knossos and preeminent expo­ nent o f Minoan civilization, was the son of Sir John Evans, a pioneer in the field of European pre­ history, whose family wealth helped fund his son’s activities. Evans attended Harrow School, gradu­ ated front Oxford and studied at Göttingen before becoming the Balkans correspondent for the Manchester Guardian. He championed Balkan inde­ pendence from Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule and published several papers on Balkan antiq­ uities. In 1884 Evans returned to Oxford to become Keeper (head) of the Ashmolean Museum, where he built the prehistoric collections in particular. In 1894 Evans went to C rete, where he was able to study Minoan engraved seals first brought to his attention by his friends the archaeologists Halbherr and Myres and immediately publish an important article about the script depicted. Evans subsequently recognized the presence of three scripts which he called Hieroglvohic, Linear A and Linear B, the terms still used today, in his seminal work Scripta M inoa, vol. 1, of 1909 (vol. 2 was published posthumously in 1952). In addi­ tion, Evans recognized that the signs he had seen on a few inscribed seals from Cyprus resembled those o f the Linear A script o f Crete and coined the term “Cypro-Minoan,” still used to denomi­ nate the Bronze Age scripts of Cyprus. Between 1894 and 1899 Evans (with the aid o f the father o f Cretan archaeology, Joseph Hatzidakis) purchased land in and around Knossos, and obtained an excavation permit, Knossos, as Evans knew, was described in Odyssey 19.178-179 (tr. Lattimore) as “the great city, the place where MiNOs/was King for nine-year peri­ ods, and conversed with great Zeus.” Much of the great central building that Evans named

the “Palace of Minos” was uncovered in the first season in 1900, with excavation continuing through 1904 and supplemental excavations in the Palace and the Knossos area until 1931. In his work Evans was aided by two experienced archae­ ologists, D. G. Hogarth and then in particular Duncan Mackenzie with his knowledge o f strati­ graphic recording, as well as the architect Theodore Fyfe. By 1901 Evans was able (based on his discoveries in the first season at Knossos, his knowledge of Minoan seals, and his exploration o f cave sites and other ritual places around Crete) to publish “Mycenaean free and Pillar Cult and Its Mediterranean Relations" (Evans 1901), laying a foundation for the study of Minoan religion. (During 1901-1902 Evans used the term “Mycenaean,” made familiar because of Schi.iemann’s discoveries at Mycenae, before adopting the term “minoisch” from earlier German scholars and establishing the term “Minoan” to describe the Bronze Age civilization o f Crete.) Evans’s discoveries and conclusions about Knossos and Minoan civilization were published between 1921 and 1935 in the magiste­ rial work, The Palace o f Minos a t Knossos. Evans’s work was recognized with a knighthood in 1911. Through stratigraphic recording and analysis much in advance of its time and careful study of the development of pottery shape and decora­ tion, Evans and Mackenzie were able to divide the Cretan Bronze Age into Early, Middle, and Late phases, following the tripartite division of Egyptian history into Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Each phase was further subdivided into tripartite segments, e.g., EM (Early Minoan) I, II, and III, etc., the designations still in use. Evans’s affirmation o f a Minoan empire based on control of the sea at the height of the Neopalatial period in Late Minoan I (ca. 1600 bce) has been questioned, but the discoveries o f recent years, such as the existence of a contemporary purely Cretan site at Miletos on the coast of Anatolia, have lent support to Evans’s interpretation. Evans went further, however, in asserting that the major Mycenaean sites o f the period were colonial out­ posts o f Minoan Crete. Strong dissent to Evans’s views was expressed by many, in particular by Alan J. B. Wace, based on his analysis of the results o f his excavation at Mycenae and his work with Blegen at other sites in the Akgoi.id and Corinthia. Evans’s view has no adherents today.

EXCHANGE Evans’s view that the great destruction which signaled the end o f the Palatial period in Crete and preserved the bulk of the recovered archive of Linear B tablets occurred in his Late Minoan II period has been revised by subsequent investiga­ tions. Most scholars now follow M. R. Popham’s (1970) conclusion that the destruction occurred early in Evans’s IIIA2 period around 1370 bce, while a minority believe with E. Hallager (1977) that the destruction should be placed in LM IIIB around 1250 bce (cf. Palmer 1965 and 1969). Evans’s destruction date may apply, however, to a destruction in the area of the Room of the Chariot Tablets which comprise a small but important part of the tablet archive (Driessen 2000). Evans’s term “Palace” has been rejected by some scholars, who refer instead to “central places” or “courtcentered buildings” in the belief that there is no convincing evidence that the buildings were the abode of a single ruler, notwithstanding the pres­ ence of what to many appear to be indications of luxurious living quarters. To Evans we owe the popularization of the term “Minoan,” derived from Homer’s account of the Cretan ruler, Minos (although Evans thought “Minos” a title rather than a personal name) and the fanciful but easily memorable names Evans gave to areas o f the Palace such as the “Throne Room,” “Queen’s Megaron,” “Temple Repositories,” and “Shrine of the Double Axes.” Evans has been criticized by some for creating a "concrete Crete” through his architectural recon­ struction o f portions o f the palace representing various phases and for doubtful restorations of wall paintings. Many, however, believe that Evans used the best materials and techniques available at the time, thus preventing the collapse o f the fivestory East Wing o f the Palace. As a result o f Evans’s actions, millions o f visitors to Knossos have been able to enjoy the intellectual and aesthetic stimu­ lation provided by the restored Palace of Minos. See also Archaeology, Homeric. References an d Suggested Readings Evans 1894,1909,1921-1935. About Evans: Myres 1941; J. Evans 1943; Brown 1994; Momigliano 1999; MacGillivray 2000; Warren 2000; Brown and Bennett 2001; Karadimas and Momigliano 2004. M ALCOLM H . W IE N E R

281

Exchange 1. “Homeric society” (the society implied by Homeric epic) is sufficiently similar to known societies to be called a poetic representa­ tion of an actual society (“the historical society”) rather than a mere fantasy. This article concerns exchange of goods, benefits, and injuries (but not, e.g., verbal exchange) in Homeric society, whether between mortals or between mortals and gods. 2. Hector and Aiax end their duel with an exchange of gifts (sword and belt), so as to estab­ lish a (temporary) relationship of “friendship” (//. 7.299-305). O d y s s e u s , pretending to be a stranger, tells his father that he once gave Odysseus hospitality and gifts of hospitality, to which Laertes replies that the gifts were given “in vain. If you had found him alive in Ithaca, he would have requited you and sent you off with gifts and good hospitality” (Od. 24.271-286). The giving or exchange of gifts is the most prominent form of the transfer of goods in Homer. Other instruc­ tive examples are at Iliad 1.13, 6.232-236, 9.147161, 10.254-265, 11.19-23, 24.228-237; Odyssey 1.316-318, 4.590-592 and 613-619, 11.355-361, 15.51-55, 21.35. The goods thus exchanged are items not o f subsistence but o f prestige, such as artefacts o f precious metal, unworked pre­ cious metal, weapons, textiles , women, and chariots with HORSES. The gift, in Homeric society as in numerous pre-modern societies, is valuable and voluntary, and is given (a) without calculating its inherent value, and (b) to establish or maintain a positive relationship between people or households. It may also be (c) in expectation o f a gift or benefit in return that may be immediate or eventual, or may never occur. Given (b), and (c), the Homeric gift always implies an underlying sense o f reci­ procity, kharis (“gratitude,” but also the power to please). By contrast in commercial exchange (for whose representation in Homer see sections 7 and 8) the exchange per se is instantaneous, and neither requires nor creates an interpersonal rela­ tionship, but is rather for the sake o f the things or services exchanged, and is based on the relation­ ship (o f calculated inherent equivalence in value) between these things or services. In some pre-modern societies the apparent selflessness o f gift-giving may belong to a strategy that by eliciting a return is ultimately selfish. Although this has been thought to be there in

282

EXCHANGE

Agamemnon’s offer of gifts to Achilles in Iliad 9, it is in Homer never made explicit. In some pre-modern societies the gift retains its connec­ tion with the donor, as if inalienable. But in Homer any such connections are relatively weak, as in Odysseus’ now being called a memorial (m ncm a) of its donor (Od. 21.40). No doubt the historical society contained widespread forms of everyday exchange (notably barter) that Homeric society largely or entirely excludes. But other absences, common to Homeric society and the historical society, cohere with the prominence of the gift. One such absence is of money (and so of monetized exchange), the other is of the centralizing authority of a strong state (the state in Homer is rudimentary). The gift is often relatively central - economically and politi­ cally - in pre-monetary societies. And a strong state may be required to create the conditions for stable commodity-exchange, especially in its monetized form. 3. The social significance of positive reciprocity in Homer is reflected in its projection in offerings to deity. This is of course not confined to Homer, but it is striking that the Homeric gods are never indif­ ferent to the claim for reciprocal benefit imposed on them by mortals with their offerings (especially animal sacri f i c e ), even though they are sometimes prevented from fulfilling the claim (Parker 1998). Even a god who favors the Greeks can be swayed by Trojan sacrifices (II. 20.297-299; see also especially 4.48-49,22.170-172; Od. 1.59-62,64-67). 4. In Homer and other Greek texts the positive reciprocity of gift-exchange and the negative reci­ procity of revenge share vocabulary, e.g., am oibê (exchange) at Odyssey 1.318 and 12.382. And in general they may have much in common with each other; ritualization, the importance of honor, voluntary but expected requital, recipro­ cal acts that sustain a relationship between people or households. But reciprocal acts o f revenge between kinship groups (the vendetta) are not a feature o f Homeric society, not least because injury may be recompensed by gifts rather than by counter-injury (see homicide): for instance Ajax, urging Achilles to accept the compensatory gifts o f Agamemnon, cites the reconciling power of material compensation for murder (II. 9.632636; see also Embassy to Achilles). 5. Homeric gifts may be given or exchanged in various contexts, such as the duel and (above all)

hospitality, as exemplified in section 1. Goods, sometimes described as gifts, may be given in exchanges that seem to have some of the internal necessity that is more characteristic of the com­ mercial transaction than of gift-exchange. They may be given as ransom for people, whether alive (e.g., II. 1.12-13, 20-21, 99, 2.230, 6.46-48, 10.378-380) or dead (22.342, 349-352, 24.76, 137, 228-237). They may be given in return for a bride (e.g., 11.244-245), or for military or domes­ tic service, notably in the distribution of booty after battle or of meat in the animal sacrifice. Dependency may be imagined as voluntary exchange, as when E u m a i o s speaks of the wife, farm, and house “that a kind master gives to a servant who works hard for him” (Od. 14.63-65). Goods given in return for a specific service con­ stitute reward (e.g., II. 11.281-291; Od. 21.214), and in return for injury or insult constitute com­ pensation (e.g., II 1.231, 19.138; Od. 8.318, 332, 22.55-58). 6. It is in the context of the distribution of booty, or rather of its (centralized) redistribution, by the leader, that the crisis at the heart of the I l i a d occurs. After the initial disastrous rejection o f the ransom-gifts offered to Agamemnon by Chryses for his daughter (1.9-32), Agamemnon’s public taking o f BriseIs from Achilles causes a break­ down o f the centralized system o f exchange of booty for military service. Achilles complains that, although he does most o f the hard fighting, in the sharing of the booty he receives much less than does Agamemnon. The loss o f Briseis will cause him to desist from fighting. Subsequently a repent­ ant Agamemnon offers to return Briseis to Achilles as well as to give him substantial gifts, and prom­ ises much more in the future. But Achilles now maintains that (in effect) no amount o f gifts will reconcile him: “hateful to me are his gifts....” (9,378—391). Exchange; or rather the principle of reciprocity underlying exchange, has broken down, and will be restored - by various means only after the deaths o f Patroklos and o f Hector. The Suitors’ consumption of Odysseus’ wealth is an anomalous prolongation of the normal practice of entertaining suitors and a negation of the normal alternation o f hosts (Od. 1.374-375, 2.139-140). And so this too is a breakdown of reciprocity; and their eventual offer of gifts as compensation, to Odysseus fails to save their lives. In the background of both epics gifts are positively

EXCHANGE

283

evaluated and effective in creating good will, as contrast to the giving or exchange of gifts, which when, e.g., M enelaos gives gifts to the departing is ritualized, there is no mention of the conduct Telemachos (4.589-619; cf. 1.311-313, 13.7-16). of the transaction, with the result that in some But in both the central narratives the crisis of cases - e.g., (c) - we cannot be certain that it is reciprocity is compounded by the failure of the what we would call trade. The range of things exchange elicited by gifts. traded is limited: with the significant exceptions 7. The commercial exchange of goods (trade)o f (a), (e), and (k), all that is named as exchanged in Homeric society takes the form of barter (there is slaves (see slavery). Trade never occurs within a community. Indeed there is not even a case of is no money). The instances of it are as follows. The Iliad: (a) 7.467^168. Euneos’ ships from Greeks trading with Greeks (unless, not uncontrothe island of Lemnos bring winf. to the Greek versially, we include Lemnos in the Greek world). camp. He first “separately” gives a thousand meas­ The trade is all by sea (see seafaring), except for ures of wine to the A t r e id a i , and then the Greeks (f) and (h), where the origin of the slave is acquire from him wine,“some with bronze, oth­ unspecified. Greeks buy and sell slaves, and buy ers with shining iron, others with skins, others from traders wine (a) and trinkets (k). But the with whole cattle, others with slaves taken in war.” only specialist traders are non-Greeks, especially (b) 21.4(1—41. Achilles exported Lykaon (1) to the Phoenicians, who in the historical society Lemnos, where Euneos gave a price (ô tto s ) that is were indeed the leading traders in the Medi­ specified in one passage as a hecatomb (21.79) terranean of the 9th and 8th centuries. but in another as a mixing bowl given to Patroklos None of the instances creates lasting personal (23.744-748). (c) 21.102 (also 22.44-45, 24.752). relations between the transactors, except that in Achilles claims to have exported many Trojans, (a) the preliminary gift to the kings may reflect (d) 21.454. Laomf.don threatens to export his the practice o f establishing by gifts the relation­ hired laborers. ship needed for trade. Similarly the mixing-bowl The O d y s s e y : (e) 1.183-184. Mentes king of o f (b) had been given to Euneos’ grandfather by the Taphi ans (in fact Athene in disguise) claims Phoenicans, who are the traders par excellence. to be sailing “to men o f alien language, to Temesa, This mixing-bowl also illustrates the point that the same object can be transferred in very differ­ after bronze, and my cargo is gleaming iron.” (f) 1.430-431. Laertes bought Eurykleia “with his ent kinds o f transaction, for it is first a gift, then a price, and finally a prize in the Funeral Games for possessions,” giving the value o f twenty cattle, (g) Patroklos. 14.115 (cf. 388 and 483). Laertes bought Eumaios “with his possessions,” from Phoenicians, (h) The only instances that specify both the items 14.202. A “bought” (ônêtê) woman in C rete, (i) exchanged are (a), (b), and (e). And the only 14.297. A Phoenician planned to export the instance in which the value o f one commodity is “Cretan” and acquire a large “price (ônos).” (j) expressed in terms o f another is (f). There is no 14.452. Eumaios “with his possessions” bought clear case o f a commodity being produced or Mesaui.ios from the Taphians. (k) 15.415-473. A acquired for the sake o f being exchanged with Phoenician ship containing numerous trinkets another one, except possibly idea that (in a fic­ traded (456 ÈpnoXóüivTo) for a year at the place tional narrative) the gifts “gathered” by Odysseus where Eumaios was born. As they were showing a as a guest would provide food for ten generations gold necklace for sale, a Phoenician woman, who (Od. 19.293-294). had herself once been sold to Eumaios’ father for 8. Whereas voluntary reciprocity is prominent a good price (ônos) by Taphian pirates, helped in the main narratives o f both epics, trade is them to kidnap Eumaios. (1) 17.250. Melanthios always in the margin. This marginality is probably threatens to take the beggar Odysseus “far from not uninfluenced by the reality o f the historical Ithaca, so that he may earn me much livelihood.” society, but surely goes far beyond that reality. (m) 20.382-383. The Suitors threaten to export The complete absence o f trade between Greeks is Telemachos’ guests to the Sicilians (see Sicily) to ideological, an expression o f the dislike o f trade fetch a good price. underlying the portrayal o f Phoenician traders as The omissions from these passages are signifi­ dishonest in (i) and (k). The Phaeacian Euryalos cant. There is no mention o f a marketplace. In (2) insults Odysseus by saying that he seems more

284

EXCHANGE

like a sea-lrader than an athlete (Od. 8.158-164). The exclusion of trade between Greeks belongs to a whole series o f absences or marginalities - e.g., of communal festivals, state organization, agri­ culture and the deities o f agriculture - that express a heroic ideology, the glorification o f a way of life based on the dominance of a class who acquire goods by.inheritance, gift-exchange, and plunder (see Hero). And yet a crisis in this ideology is indicated by the problematization of reciprocity in the main narratives. The crystalliza­ tion o f Homeric epic after all occurred in a society on the verge of fundamental economic and politi­ cal change, in part through the long-term growth of trade. Tension between the opposites of gift-exchange and commodity-exchange is implied at Iliad 6.232-236. Diomf.des and the Lycian G i.aukos, on the point of fighting, have discovered that they are in fact guest-friends by inheritance (see G uest-F riendship ). Diomedes' grand­ father Oineus had once been the host to Glaukos’ grandfather Beh.erophon. Oineus gave Bellerophon a dyed belt, and Bellerophon gave Oineus a golden cup. Diomedes suggests accord­ ingly that they do not fight each other but exchange armor. They dismount, clasp hands, and swear friendship. “Then,” comments the poet, “Zeus son of Kronos took away the mind of Glaukos, who exchanged with Diomedes the son of Tydeus gold for bronze, worth a hundred cat­ tle for worth nine cattle” (see also GlaukosD iomkdes Episode). We note here that the relationship established and maintained by giftexchange is powerful enough to trump the hostil­ ity between two sides in war. But paradoxically, in this most striking expression of its power, the relationship is undermined, from the perspective of commodity-exchange. The numerical calcula­ tion o f the value of one commodity, in terms of. another, producing awareness of the arithmetical

inequality of the exchange, is antithetical to the spirit of gift-exchange. It gives rise to an instance rare in Homer - of authorial comment. See also Economy. References and Suggested Readings Seminal wa^ Finley L978 [1954]. For reciprocity in Homeric exchange see Donlan 1981-1982 and several other papers by him. Gill et al. 1998 contains various papers pertaining to Homer (including one by Donlan). General treatments of the tension between forms of exchange are von Reden 1995 and (more historically) Tandy 1997. For Homeric epic as reacting to the growth of commodity-exchange see Seaford 2004. RIC H A RD SEAFORD

Exempla see Paradigms. exôkeanismos Literally a “removal into Ocean,” a word-coined by the Alexandrian scholars of Homer (perhaps Eratosthenes) to satirize the fabulous quality of the O d y s s e y 's travel tales. In the view of these scholars, Odysseus’ wander­ ings were "oceaned out” by Homer, i.e., situated beyond the boundaries o f the known world, as a strategy for increasing narrative pleasure and abandoning didactic or practical goals. Scholars belonging to the Stoic philosophic school, among them Crates of Mallos and Strabo, mounted a vicious attack on this approach to the Odyssey, finding the idea of a non-didactic Homer utterly unacceptable (see Stoic Interpretations). In their works of criticism the Greek system of Odyssean geography attained its canonical form, such that each of Odysseus’ landings could be situated on a map rather than in the ill-defined and legendary realm of Ocean. JAM ES ROMM

F

Family The present article treats family as a literary construct. For family as an anthropologi­ cal and/or economic construct, see Householo, Kinship, and Marriage. Family is symbolically and thematically impor­ tant in both the I l i a d and O d y s s e y , though in slightly different ways. Family relationships involve both sorrow and affection; they can be celebrated, but can also be competitive. A healthy family may stand united against outside threats, but can also be divided by betrayal. The most important family unit is a nuclear family, consisting of a married couple and children, but also often including one or both o f the husband's parents; as in Classical Greece, males are under an obligation to care for aged parents (see Old Age). Homer has no word that refers specifically to a “family” in the sense of a nuclear family; relatives within the nuclear fam­ ily are demarcated from the extended family by which household they inhabit. One theme associated with family in both epics is that o f obligation and dependence; a hero has responsibilities to his family, and the family depends on him. For example, in the Iliad, Hector’s bonds with members of his family are central to the portrayal of his character. He is repeatedly torn between his preoccupation with his own reputation and his family’s requests for him to preserve his life: both Hector’s parents The Homer Encyclopedia, edited by Margalit Finkelberg © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

implore him to “take pity” on them by saving his own life (22.33-92); his wife Andromache expli­ citly states her complete dependence on Hector now that her father and brodiers are dead ("Hector, now you are my father, my lady mother and brother; and you are my beloved bedmate,” 6 .4 2 9 430) and imagines the unpleasant fate that awaits their son Astyanax as a result o f Hector’s deadi (22.482-507; cf. 24.723-746). In the Odyssey, O dysseus’ absence from his family is a dystopian state that is represented by misery and loss for all members o f his family: his mother Antikleia dies of grief, and his father Laertes retires to a degraded lifestyle away from other people (1 1. 170-203); his wife’s fidelity is compromised when Odysseus is not there to safeguard it; and his son Telemachos has his patrimony threatened by the Suitors’ con­ tinuous depredations (1.245-251, etc.). The flipside o f the obligations built into family relationships is that families are regularly charac­ terized by affection and loyalty. Agamemnon’s reaction when Menelaos is wounded (II. 4.148182) shows fear and sorrow, but also an attempt to comfort his brother: the vengeance he prom­ ises is not a matter of mere duty, but a fiercely felt desire. Elsewhere, conversations between hus­ bands and wives show a degree of intimate knowl­ edge of one another that may well exceed that of many modern couples (Hector and Andromache, II. 6.392-502; Odysseus and Penelope, Od. 23.85-343). Parents grieve for children that have died, but living children are celebrated and receive

286

FAMILY

affection (HectorandAndroinache with Astyanax, II. 6.466-481; Menclaos and Helen with Hermione, Od. 4.3-19). Relationships between fathers and living sons can be more problematic under some circum­ stances. Generally, a father sets an educatio­ nal example for his son to emulate (Crotty 1994,24-41), but the Odyssey shows some tension in the relationship between Odysseus and Telemachos. The narrative lays repeated stress on the importance o f Telemachos being capable to inherit his father’s status if Odysseus is dead, but at the same time Telemachos cannot actually inherit this status. As a result, when Telemachos sets up the b o w contest and himself takes part (21.101-139), he is genuinely competing; but against his father, not the Suitors (Thalmann 1998, 206-223). This tension vanishes in llie last book, when father and son stand side by side and Laertes rejoices to see his descendants competing against one another in valor (24.504-513). In the Iliad the topos of grief over lost family members arises in several other contexts as well, and enables family to be used as a tool for persua­ sion and s u p p l i c a t i o n . Many d e a t h scenes in battle are marked by a d i g r e s s i o n that describes the grief of the dying warrior’s parents, who do not yet realize that their son is dead, who will be unable to bury the son’s body in his homeland, or whom the son will no longer be able to look after (4.473-479, 5.20-24, 5 .15 2 - 158, etc.; see also Minor Warriors). In a similar vein, attempts to supplicate Achilles often draw on his desire to prevent his own father Peleus from suffering this same grief: Odysseus’ and Phoinix’s appeals to Achilles in the Embassy of Iliad 9 both refer to Peleus (9.251-259, 438-441, 478-485), and so does Priam’s at the end of the epic (24.486-506). Family is still more central in the Odyssey. At one level it represents one side of a divide between the household and society at large; Penelope’s Suitors break down this barrier by invading the household (Thalmann 1998,115-170). The Odyssey also uses different kinds of fami­ lies to represent a continuum between utopian and dystopian extremes (see also Utopias). One aspect of Odysseus’ goal of nostos, “return home,” is reintegration with his family; without him, the family is a dystopian mess, as described above. Reintegration is enacted through recognitionscenes between Odysseus and members of the

household. This reintegration extends even beyond the nuclear family into other appendages to the household; Odysseus is also reunited with his patron goddess Athene and with household slaves (Eurykleia, Eumaios, and Philoitios) through recognition-scenes. Indeed, in the recognition-scene with Eumaios and Philoitios, Odysseus promises to make them full members of his family (“to me, you will be companions and brothers of Telemachos,” 21.215-216). The recog­ nition o f Odysseus by his dog Argos (17.290-327) is also an emotive moment, though not a recogni­ tion-scene in the sense of a formal type- scene. Other families represent intermediate stages along this continuum, and are repeatedly juxta­ posed with Odysseus’ family as paradigms to live up to or to avoid. The family o f Agamemnon is especially heavily used in this respect: the adultery ofKi.YTAiMNESTRAand the murderofAgamemnon are repeatedly juxtaposed with Odysseus’ family as a paradigm o f a bad homecoming (beginning from Od. 1.29-47 and continuing until 24.191202), while Orestes’ vengeance is a paradigm for Telemachos to follow (1.298-302, etc.) (see fur­ ther Olson 1995, 24—42). Other families serve similar functions. Books 3 and 4 open with tab­ leaux of happy families engaged in healthy activi­ ties, those of Nestor and Menelaos engaged in sacrifice and marriage, respectively, as promises of what Odysseus’ family will look like once Odysseus returns. The Catalogue of Heroines in the Nkkyia (11.225—327) depicts a diverse range of families, showing an even fuller spectrum of storylines that a family can follow. References and Suggested Readings Lacey 1968, 33-50, and Patterson 1998, 44-69, give semi-ethnographic descriptions of the family as repre­ sented in Homer. Among more literary discussions, Thalmann 1998, 115-237, is invaluable; see also Arthur 1981, Crotty 1994, Felson 1994, Heitmari 20057 P E T E R G A IN SFORD

Fate In the I l i a d , the concept “fate” is generally used to mean the time appointed for a human being’s death. The Greek word is usually aisa or Mo i r a , and (in the Iliad only) the forms peprômenon and pepm tai “(it is) fated” o f the defective verb ‘ Ttópw also have this sense. Achilles says, “Moira and the baleful anger o f Hera killed him

FEASTING [ P a t r o k l o s ] . And I too, if a like moira has been made for me, shall lie still in death” (II. 18.119121); the dying Patroklos says, “Deadly moira killed me and L e t o ’ s son” (16.849), and later his shade tells Achilles, “There is moira for you too to be killed below Troy’s wall” (23.80-81). Before the duel of P a r i s and M e n e l a o s , Z e u s and the other g o d s are said to know to which man the end o f death is appointed (rtETtptopévov eativ, 3.308-309), and after Patroklos’ death Achilles laments that it is fated (ireitpcoTai) that the blood o f both of them redden the same soil of Troy (18.329-330). Both Hera and A t h e n e have to remind Zeus, who is shrinking at the deadly danger o f S a r p e d o n and (later) H e c t o r , that “a man, being mortal, has long ago been doomed by fate (nenpwpevov ai'ar|)” (16.441 = 22.179). In the O d y s s e y , Fate has a somewhat wider range, including also events other than deaths which are to come about in the future, particu­ larly O d y s s e u s ’ homecoming. “It is not his [Odysseus’ ] aisa," says H e r m e s , “to die here, far from his kin, but he still has the moira to see his folk and return to his home and country” (5.113115); and even his enemy P o s e i d o n knows that it is his aisa to escape his woes in the P h a e a c i a n s ’ land (5.288-289). Odysseus himself, back in I t h a c a , knows that it is his aisa still to live on (14.359). Menelaos, too, is told that moira will give him a safe return home, though not until he has performed more s a c r i f i c e s in E g y p t (4.475479). In the Iliad, only in the unique compound moirêgenes, “born to [good] fate,” used of A g a m e m n o n along with “fortunate” and “godblessed” by the admiring and envious P r i a m (3.182), does moira have a strongly positive connotation. Phrases meaning “beyond fate” often occur (huper moiran, huper aisan, huper moron, huperm ora), either when a god is concerned that such an event may happen (e.g., II. 20.30, 21.517), which actually does not, or when a god acts to prevent such an occurrence (e.g., 2.155, 17.321; Od. 5.436; see Dihle 1970, 165-167). The idea is dramatized in the scene where Zeus is much con­ cerned that his son Sarpedon is fated to be killed by Patroklos, and wonders if to save him; Hera objects strongly, and Zeus mournfully gives up the idea (II. 16.433-461). The poet may have in mind the potential power of a human king to go against custom or law if he wills it. But instances

287

like these are employed for dramatic effect, and do not really imply that it is actually possible for a thing which is “beyond fate” to happen. In one isolated case Zeus remarks that human­ kind, because o f their foolish recklessness (see a t a s t h a l iê ), have troubles huper moron, just as A i g i s t h o s has huper moron married Agamemnon’s wife (Od. 1.34, 35); in both instances the meaning seems to be not “beyond fate” but “beyond their [his] due share” (cf. m o ir a ).

In two emotional passages Achilles is said to have a choice between two fates. When explaining his feelings to the E m b a s s y , he says his goddessmother has told him that “twofold fates [kêres] bear me towards the end o f death” (II. 9.411), and later she herself tells him that “your fate [potm os] is ready for you right after Hector’s” (18.96). This is, o f course, done for dramatic effect, and the idea is not made use o f elsewhere in the poem. It is the existence o f fate which enables predic­ tion and f o r e s h a d o w i n g o f the future. Thus, in his last words, Patroklos can forecast the death o f Hector (“already Death and powerful Moira stand beside you”: 16.853) and Hector that o f Achilles (22.358-360). Much o f the emotional power of the poem derives from this inevitability. See also

T

a l e n t

.

References and Suggested Readings Edwards 1987,127-128,136; Janko 1992,4-7. M ARK w . EDW ARDS

Feasting The verb dainum i (from daiom ai, “to distribute”) first signifies hosting (many) others at a ceremonious meal, then partaking to the full of the fairly apportioned feast (dais). This inti­ mate sharing, commensality, punctuates critical moments in both poems, especially, or at least more frequently, the O d y s s e y , where strangers usually arrive with a feast conveniently in progress. H e p h a i s t o s places h e r a l d s on the S h i e l d o f A c h i l l e s laying out a socially stratified feast (II. 18.558-560). Feasting is the elaboration of mere eating, animal fuel supply. Who eats, what they eat (sometimes the chine [Od. 4.65, 14.434-436], a choice cut, or first sips [3.51-53]), and how they consume it - all these heroic procedures have elaborate protocols. Feasts foster elite bonding

288

FEASTING

and rf.ciprocity (cf. 1.309-320), a central tenet of Homeric equals or presumed equals (Sherratt 2004; see also Aristocracy ). Homeric feasts, ideology and practice, provided a paradigm for later Hellenes. The feast most frequently indexes heroic eti­ quette or its lapses. The doers o f deeds’ first obli­ gations and pleasures (Od. 1.369) are fighting, pillaging, and distributing, but feasting with friends and guests on bread, barbecued beef, and good wink comes soon after. Homeric heroes naturally follow a more consistent pattern for the orderly, peaceful activities o f the feast than those of battles, although that can be the locus for vio­ lence as well (21.293-304). Feasts accompany the exclusive inner a s s e m ­ b l ie s of Uiadic b a s i l e i s (see b a s i l e u s ) . The ele­ gant food rituals limit attendance to the best of the A c h a e a n s (II. 9.90, 18.558). A g a m e m n o n ’ s honored guests/advisors include only fellow b a s i l e i s . Similarly, the King on the Shield enter­ tains only his retainers - while the workmen eat barley (560). The foods thus are another marker of social status and confirmation o f that social status (see also C l a s s ) . T h e r s i t e s knows better than to appear at the banquets, and the S u i t o r s are most unhappy with T e l e m a c h o s ’ inclusion (and therefore elevation) o f A i t h o n (1) the beg­ gar. The pig-herd E u m a i o s uses the “feast” word ironically for the scraps that the beggar O d y s s e u s must obtain from the Suitors (17.11, cf. 220). Odysseus’ beggar belly, however, obtains better fodder than ordinary workmen do ( e r i t h o i , II. 18.550, 560), explaining his predecessor I r o s ’ stigmatized presence. The beggar’s oft-mentioned belly distinguishes animal consuming from peers’ feasting. Offerings - l i b a t i o n s , ritual s a c r i f i c e s , and often p r a y e r s (e.g., II. 1.458-471: prayer, barleyscatter, slaughter and meat preparation, wine poured on cuts while cooking) - precede the presentation and division of food and wine. Arend (1933) demonstrates that the meal t y p e s c e n e s are as formulaic as a r m i n g - s c e n e s . The offerings invite and include the g o d s . Then Homer’s men (sometimes w o m e n too) feast, eat and drink, and finally pour a last drink or liba­ tion. Heirloom drinking-cups and precious guestgifts elevate the ceremony (e.g., N e s t o r ’ s c u p , 11.631-639, cf. 23.741; see also E x c h a n g e ) . The P h a e a c i a n s always pour this potation to

e r m e s (Od. 7.136-138). Preparation descrip­ tions can be half a line (8.61) or a five-verse block (17.91-95) or even longer (15.135-141). The actual ingestion receives briefer attention. The end is marked, sometimes with a post-feast drink and toast (II. 9.224). The Suitors ignore many for­ malities, at least in Homer’s presentation, to their detriment. Invitation to a feast both confirms the host’s civilized manners and graces the welcomed guest. Telemachos awakens from impotent reveries to bring in the stranger M e n t e s , while the poaching Suitors (not guests but only usurping hosts at best) ignore this xenos, stranger/guest, until she/he has departed (Od. 1.113-143, 405-411; see also G u e s t - F r i f . n d s h i p ) . N e s t o r promptly invites two young strangers to join the religious feast in honor of P o s e i d o n (3.34-74). M e n e l a o s ’ factotum E t e o n e u s gauchely wonders to his lord whether to invite the strangers to the secular wedding feast. For this fault, the perfect host roundly reprimands him (4.22-76) (see also

H

H

o s p it a l i t y

).

The Phaeacians and their king, after reasonably finding themselves dumbfounded by the stranger suddenly in their midst, hesitate to treat him right - to raise him from the hearth and feed him - until reprimanded (Od. 7.139-177). The Phaeacians uniquely have the resources to feast all year round (7.248-249), a contrast to the thin resources and limited time for revelry known to Ithacans other than the parasitic Suitors. Phaeacian vegetables and fruits are always in sea­ son (7.112-132). They have feasted with the gods themselves (7.201-203). In the concatenated xEN/A-hostile stories of Odysseus’ A p o l o g u e , the C y c l o p s eats his “guests,” A i o l o s ’ incestuous brood feasts all their days, K i r k e turns her invited guests into swine and feeds them acorns and other pig-food rather than feed her four-footed a n i m a l s to human guests. Kirke’s hospitality provides another take on the spoiled feast. Her special diet for guests embodies the perils o f ingestion. Her perverse hospitality - bad d r u g s in the puzzling cheese, barley, honey, and wine potation (10.213: kaka pharm aka) - provides a semi-divine variation on the potential perils o f accepting kind strangers’ hospitality. Odysseus’ crew seals their doom by their forbidden final feast on H e l i o s ’ kine (9.288293, etc., 10.8-11, 230-243, 12.353-398; see also

FEASTING h r i n a k i a ) . These intentionally repulsive scenes invert and parody the positive, conventional type. F i s h , or b i r o s , as the s c h o l i a note (on 4.368; cf. on II. 16.407, 747), are food for Homer’s heroes only when they can find no cattle to roast. Odysseus’ beggar persona, Aithon (1), repeatedly complains about his starving belly, the antithesis o f bountiful banquets. Cyclops variously perverts apparendy feast-like dinners and breakfast: the food is human flesh six human eaters eaten; the feaster has no com­ panions at the feast; the putative guests become the food and this meat is not cooked, carved, prayed over, or properly served - all elements of civilized Achaean dining in company. “Feast” words significantly do not surface in the Cyclops’ cannibalistic, gustatory, but anti-social revels. What he eats in solitary is antithetical to proper heroic revelry. Polyp h e m o s ’ monstrous manners anticipate those of the L a e s t r y g o n i a n s and the equally confident and unguarded Suitors. But “blameless” A i g i s t h o s and H e r a k l e s also vio­ lated the rules of hospitality, murdered guests at feast-tables (O d . 11.409-415, 21.26-30; cf. the c e n t a u r E u r y t io n p a r a d ig m o f bad guest behavior: 21.293-304). On I t h a c a , the swineherd Eumaios proves the perfect host, despite the limited resources o f his upland hut. The Suitors, meanwhile, repeatedly violate hospitality expectations, denying food, throwing objects and other insults. They force the now invited, if déclassé and stigmatized, guest to fight for his beggar’s place, and refuse him as their competitor at the feast contests. P e n e l o p e com­ plains of the Suitors’ inversion of the custom ( d i k e : 18.279) for bridal feasts. Instead of suitors feting and feeding fattened oxen to the family o f the bride (see M a r r i a g e ) , this pseudo-bride and pseudo­ widow faces the opposite: suitors devour her (and her husband’s) goods at a spoiled banquet. Some grieving humans reject even simple sub­ feast meals: Odysseus reminds Achilles that troops need food before they fight, once Achilles agrees to return to battle. He cannot persuade, however, the fasting Achilles, in stop-time lamen­ tation and berserk fury, to eat before his return to killing (II. 19.205-214). Homer neatly reverses Achilles’ role in the I l i a d ’s final feast scene. Achilles receives his enemy Priam and guides the grieving father to their own intimate, necessary, but dismal funeral feast - by mention o f the

T

289

mythological paradigm of grief-bound, suddenly childless, and so fasting Nio be (24.334-694). This brief commensality unites survivors amid mur­ der and destruction. Odysseus the captain must talk his grieving, surviving crewmembers into partaking o f food (Od. 9.162, 557, 10.176-177). The Pylian pre-feast sacrifice of eighty-one bulls fqrj-’oseidon and then the commensal crowd sharing out Nestor’s wealth honoring the gods is the most elaborate feast in the surviving epics. Distributions of nine bulls for every five hundred retainers (Od. 3.7) parallels later p o l l s hierar­ chies. Better cuts are awarded higher-status indi­ viduals. Similarly, Menelaos’ wedding feast for his only legitimate child, his daughter H e r m i o n e (4.3),shows the wealthy b a s i l e u s o f L a c e d a e m o n granting generous bounty to his guests - conspic­ uous expense and consumption suited to his position both as ruler of much o f the Pelo­ ponnesian warrior band and as husband o f the divinely descended H e l e n . The orderly top-down organization o f both these mainland rulers’ communities contrasts with the Suitors’ selfish and unapproved seizure o f the foodstuffs contributed to and raised for Odysseus’ palace. Here the young thug-like soidisant suitor-squatters shut out most o f the Ithacan community from the bounty arrogated in peacetime from the house o f the proper master of the revels. The promiscuously everyday festival enjoyment o f animal flesh and fine wine perpe­ trated daily by the Suitors contrasts with normally restricted times and places o f feasting. The imposed guests’ infinite consumption corrupts the nomos o f heroic banquet. They disrespect the gods, they strike the Zeus-protected beggar, and they disregard, indeed mock, their very hosts. When Odysseus pivots from beggar to lordavenger (21.424-430), his sardonic hostly refer­ ence to the holy feast o f food (dais) degrades the eaters’ anticipated food event to the less ceremo­ nious and celebratory meal (dorpott) in which he sticks arrows in the guilty guests’ gullets. Achilles had once promised B r i s e 'i s that she would enjoy a wedding feast with him (II. 19.299), but it will never happen. T h e t i s ’ wedding feast irritates the easily irritable H e r a even as only a memory (24.62-63). Odysseus feigns a happy, bogus wedding feast to mislead the soon-togrieve families o f the now slaughtered Suitors (Od. 23.131-136).

290

FEASTING

Funeral feasts complement wedding feasts. Both occasions constitute major rites o f passage, and so ceremonious food-events mark them. The hearty funeral banquet, such as Achilles lays on in honor o f Patroklos (fl. 23.29-34), solemnizes death by further killing: shining blood o f oxen fills cups for 10,000 M y r m i d o n s surrounding the corpse. Priam hosts a glorious funeral feast for the final passage o f dead H e c t o r (and his Trojan world), as the Iliad ends (24.801-804). O r e s t e s allegedly held such a death feast after killing his father’s assassin Aigisthos (Od. 3.309-310,4.547). Funeral rites feature a funerary feast. The com­ munity bonds by feasting, for this is the privilege and necessity o f brotou bread-eating mortals who have survived. Outside Homer’s text, too, in the tombs o f the early Iron Age, survivors consumed meals at the tomb and grave, and bones o f cooked meat and metal spits, perhaps from cooking feasts, contributed to “heroic” burial assemblages (Burkert 1983; Sherratt 2004; see also B u r i a l C u s t o m s ) . The feast reveals manners, focuses heroic resources, and publicizes their redistribu­ tion among warriors. See also F o o d . References and Suggested Readings Arend 1933, ch. 3; Burkert 1983, 50-51; Reece 1993, 22-25; Sherratt 2004. DONALD LA TEIN ER

Fish (ix0úç, plural tyGuet;) The consumption of fish in the Homeric poems is notoriously min­ imal, in comparison with the enthusiasm for fish in later Greek culture. The s e a permits trade and travel, but is also a natural space that is difficult for human beings to engage with, and is inhab­ ited by fish, which might consume a man if he is lost at sea (Od. 5.419-423), just as b i r d s and d o g s devour the unburied dead on land. Like r i v e r s , the sea is a wild place where the human b o d y might be devoured without the rituals o f b u r i a l (fl. 21.123-127). Fish and fish­ ing technology are mentioned in the O d y s s e y , but this is the food o f desperation, like eating birds, for those on the verge of starvation, such as the companions o f M e n e l a o s (4.368-369) and O d y s s e u s ’ c o m p a n i o n s on the Island o f the Sun (12.331-332). Fishing techniques are mentioned:

a r p e d o n (II. 5.487-488) compares catching fish with a net; I r i s plunges to the sea “like the lead sinker set in the horn of the field-dwelling ox, which goes down bringing death to flesh-eating fish” (24.79-82; tr. M. Hammond); S k y l l a catches human victims like a fisherman with a rod (Od. 12.251-255); and the L a e s t r y g o n i a n s spear human beings like fish (10.124) (see also U t e n s il s a n d T o o l s ) . If fish is eaten in the poems, then it is under the disguise o f the port­ manteau phrase “foods o f every kind,” which might include the fish, fruit, and vegetables that later scholars found absent in the Homeric poems (cf. Ath. 1.16b). The Homeric poets show no interest in either shoals of fish as a source o f protein, or single large fish as a prestige dish. Nor are they interested in differentiating species in detail (Purcell 1995). These were all o f interest in the Greek world in later centuries. The absence o f fish-eating by the Greek army camped beside the teeming H e l l e s p o n t was noticed by P l a t o (Resp. 404 b -c), the comic poets, such as Eubulus fr. 118 K-A, and Hellenistic commentators, in whose time the eating of certain expensive fish had acquired luxury status (cf. Plut. Quaest. conv. 730 C -D ). The Homeric diet concentrated on the meat o f s a c r i f i c e , probably to emphasize the close links between h e r o e s and g o d s , possibly to present a prestigious diet unattainable for the majority o f the population in either Bronze Age or Classical Greece. Athenaeus and his scholarly sources (1.8e-f) chose to emphasize what they inferred was Homer’s insistence on moderation and simplicity. This is probably a perspective of the 4th century B C E , which is reflected in the parodie poem o f Archestratus o f Gela who put all the fish back into Homeric verse, with much emphasis on different species, luxurious eating, and manipulation o f Homeric phrases and rhythms (Olson and Sens 2000). The poem was translated into Latin by Ennius.

S

See also

F

o o d

.

JO H N

M . W IL K IN S

Focalization Coined by French narratologist G. Genette (1972), “focalization” represents the second of the two concepts that “point o f view”

FOLKTALE normally lumps together: (a) the “voice” that is “heard” in a text and (b) the“lens” through which (or viewpoint from which) the events are pre­ sented. This distinction is relevant because the act of narrating (a) need not reside with the same agent as the act of focalizing (b). The primary narrator (“Homer”) can easily represent the focalization of a character (e.g., AjAx“rejoicing in his victory,” after the nuia with H ectok ended in a draw: [l. 7.312). Irene de long (2004) identifies three basic n a r r a t i v e situations in the Homeric epics: (1) simple narrator-text: the primary nar­ rator presents his own focalization; (2) complex narrator-text: the primary narrator presents the focalization of a character (as in the example); (3) speech: a character (i.e., a secondary narra­ tor) presents his/her own focalization. Complex narrator-text (or embedded focalization) can often be identified by so-called shifters that mark the transition (e.g., verbs of perception or thought/emotion, as in the example). Embedded focalization (approximately 5 percent of the Homeric epics) also helps explain apparent irreg­ ularities, for example, the unexpected presence of evaluative terms in the narrator-text (e.g..“woeful war” in II. 3.112 represents the focalization o f the two armies). Following her mentor Mieke Bai, de Jong (2004) also uses the term “localizer” for the narrative agent whose focalization is represented in the relevant passage. This use is disputed among narratologists (Genette 1983 vs. Bal 1977). In spite o f the apparent similarity of the two terms, focalization should not be equated with focus. See also Narratoi.ogy. R E N É N Ü N L IS T

Folktale Some o f the stories recounted, or alluded to, in the Homeric poems are early Greek forms o f international folktales and legends, that is, stories o f generally unknown origin that circu­ late, or have until recently circulated, among dif­ ferent peoples primarily in oral tradition. Thus the encounter o f O d y s s e u s and P o l y p h e m o s the Cyclops (Od. 9.105-542) was recognized long ago (Grimm 1857) as having a close analogue in a folktale known in many countries (ATU 1137 The Blinded Ogre). In the

291

folktale a man (sometime with companions) comes to the dwelling o f a huge one-eyed shep­ herd, who imprisons him in his lair and intends to eat him. But the man blinds the ogre by thrust­ ing a spit through his eye while he sleeps (or by pouring boiling liquid on his eye). Subsequently dressing himself in a sheepskin and mingling with the ogre’s sheep, he escapes when the ogre lets his sheep out to pasture. Sometimes the blinded ogre now gives the man a magic ring that, after he puts it on, calls out “Here I am,” obliging the man to cut off his finger (Anderson 2000, 123-131; Hansen 2002,289-301). Comparative studies o f Homeric narratives and international folk-narratives can thus show that a particular story was likely to be a tradi­ tional oral tale that the ancient poet or poets worked up but did not invent. Further, the inter­ national tradition can serve as a control, show­ ing what is typical and what is peculiar to Homer. In the present case the Homeric narra­ tive lacks the Ring Episode with which the oral folktale usually concludes; or, more accurately, the Ring Episode is present only vestigially, for we probably catch a glimpse o f it when Polyphemos urges Odysseus to come back in order that he may give him g u e s t - f r i e n d s h i p gifts (9.517). The episode has been adapted to the dignity o f epic. At the same time we see that the Homeric tell­ ing incorporates an incident that ordinarily does not form part o f The Blinded Ogre, the Noman Episode (9.355-414), which is a reflex o f an international story-type in its own right (m otif K602 “N om an”). In this simple tale a man who encounters a non-human creature tells him falsely that his own name is Myself. The man harms the creature, who cries out in pain to his fellow creatures. They ask him what the mat­ ter is, but when he explains that he has been injured by Myself, they ignore him (Anderson 2000,126-127; Abry 2 0 0 2 ,5 7 -6 5 ; Hansen 2002, 295-296). Although the story o f Odysseus and Poly­ phemos is the most-studied and best-known international tale in Homer’s O d y s s e y , the most important n a r r a t i v e for the architecture o f the poem is the Return o f Odysseus, a Greek form of the international story known to folk-narrative scholars as The H omecoming Husband (Foley 2000, 2002; Hansen 2002, 201-211; ATU 974

FOLKTALE

292

T h e H o m e c o m i n g H u s b a n d ) . A m an leaves his wife

soon after their m arriage to go to war o r to m ake a pilgrim age. He may instru ct her to wait a cer­ tain nu m b er o f years fo r his return, after which she is free to rem arry. A bsent for m any years, the husband returns ju st as his wife is about to choose a new husband. A lthough he is h um ble in ap p ear­ ance, he m anages to gain adm ittance to the household, where eventually he causes his wife to recognize him , and, if she is loyal, they are reunited. Unlike the O d y s s e y , the I l i a d is n ot constru cted upon an international tale, but the setting o f the I l i a d is the siege o f Troy, and key events o f the

T rojan legend parallel the intern atio n al folktale called T h e G o l d e n R u m (ATU 8 5 4 ). A king c o n ­ futes a princess within his palace, w here a soldier wishes to gain access to her. T h e soldier has a craftsm an co n stru ct an artificial anim al from m etal o r wood, and conceals h im self w ithin it. T h e hollow anim al is then stationed en ticingly before the palace. T h e king acquires this w o n ­ drous artefact, placing it in the prin cess’s ro o m to am use her during her co n fin em en t. T h e soldier thereby gains access to the princess and weds her (H ansen 20 0 2 , 1 6 9 -1 7 6 ). Just as the so ld ier’s m otive is n o t m erely to penetrate the palace b u t to gain access to the princess, the ultim ate o b je ct o f the device o f the

W

o o d e n

H

o r s e

conq u est o f Troy but the retrieval o f Two quite dissim ilar erotic

H

is n o t the e l e n

,

stories in

the

H om eric epics have parallels in internatio n al story. O n e is the legend o f and

P

r o it o s

B

f. i . l e u o p h o n

, A

n t e ia

,

( I I . 6 .1 5 2 -1 7 0 ), a variant o f th e tr i­

angle tale know n as P o t i p h a r ’s W i ) e (m o tif K 2 1 11) after the Hebrew legend (G en . 3 9 :1 - 2 0 ) . A lustful m arried w om an prop ositions a h and som e you th in her household, b u t he rebuffs h er advances. Fearing that the youth m ay reveal th e m a tter to her husband, she falsely accuses h im , claim in g th at th e young m an

m ade advances to her.

Believing her, the h usband takes actio n against the youth (H an sen 2 0 0 2 , 3 3 2 -3 5 2 ) . A lthough the story is logically co m p lete in itself, it regularly fu nction s, as it does here, as o n e o f a strin g o f adventures in a larger

n a r r a t iv e

.

T h e o th er story is also a triangle tale, the m yth ic novella o f the love affair o f

A

r e s

and

A

p h r o d it e

( O d . 8 .2 6 6 -3 6 9 ), a reflex o f a hu m o ro u s and ris­

qu é tale (A TU 5 7 IB T h e L o v e r E x p o s e d ) - , it also resem bles the urban legend know n as T h e Stu ck

Couple (Hansen 1995). In the folktale a man carries on an affair with a blacksmith’s wife. The smith learns of the affair, acquires a magic for­ mula that makes things stick together, surprises the naked lovers in bed, causes them to stick together, and parades them around in public. Two other notable Homeric narratives with international analogues are those of M e l e a g e r . and of Odysseus and the Oar. The classical Meleager legend agrees to an extent with an inter­ national folktale (ATU 1187 Meleager) in which a supernatural being grants that a person shall live until a particular piece of wood burns up or aparticular candle burns out. The Homeric version (II. 9.524-599) appears to represent an adapta­ tion of the usual Greek story to the requirements of epic, where the magic brand has been replaced by a curse that, it seems, dooms the protagonist (Hansen 1997,452—453; Grossardt 2001). Finally, there is the story of Odysseus and the Oar (Od. 11.121-137, 23.265^153), which the poet is obliged to foretell as a future occurrence, since Odysseus’ last quest takes place after the events with which the Odyssey concludes. A sailor who is weary o f the sea walks inland with an oar in search of people who know nothing of the sea, whom he will recognize when a local person mis­ takes his oar for a non-marine implement. In the usual story (ATU 1379** The Sailor and the Oar) the weary sailor seeks a community ignorant of the sea in order to setde down there, away from the sea; in the Odyssey he seeks a community ignorant o f the sea in order to perform a sacri­ fice there, placating Poseidon by, one infers, introducing his cult far from the sea. The legend still circulates in Greece, where it is told o f differ­ ent saints (Hansen 2002,371-378). The stories here considered show considerable range in their realism and atmosphere, from the fantastic, fairytale-like quality o f Odysseus and the Cyclops to the possible but improbable strata­ gem o f the Wooden Horse and the realism of Odysseus’ inland quest, and from the harsh eroti­ cism of the dealings o f Bellerophon and Anteia to the romantic reunion o f Odysseus and Penelope and the irreverent ribaldry o f the cuckold’s revenge. Interestingly, all the stories are told by males, either by the bard himself or by his inter­ nal narrators, which perhaps is not surprising, since most of Homer’s internal narrators are males. That being the case, themes characteristic

FOOD o f m a l e s t o r y t e l l i n g , such as achievement, pre­ dominate (Minchin 2007,245—281). Inasmuch as these stories, like all Homeric nar­ ratives, are presented as historical events, they strictly cannot be called folktales, traditional fic­ tions that make no serious claim upon their audi­ ence’s belief. In that sense there are no folktales in the Iliad or Odyssey, only legends and m y t h s that in some cases can be found as folktales in the international tradition. But if Homeric narratives make a claim to historicity, they do not do so with equal insistence, and Homer does not assume equal responsibility for them, distancing himself by assigning some of them to secondary narra­ tors, as when D f . m o d o k o s sings a humorously ribald song (Hansen 2004) or Odysseus recounts his astonishing adventures to his P h a e a c i a n hosts (Od. 9-12; see A p o l o g u e ) .

See also

O

r a l

T

r a d it io n s

.

References and Suggested Readings 1915; Petersm ann 1981; Hansen 1997,

R aderm acher

2002; H eklm ann 2000. W IL L IA M H AN SEN

Food Food has a large role to play in the Homeric poems; the production o f cereals, o l i v e oil, vines, and l i v e s t o c k was important in the Homeric (as in the later ancient e c o n o m y ) and (olive oil excepted) is prominently illustrated on the S h i e l d o f A c h i l l e s (II. 18.478-608) and in the duties of the good king (Od. 19.109-114). Food was a major component o f the wealth stored in M y c e n a e a n palaces ( K n o s s o s , P y l o s ) ; food was at the center o f e x c h a n g e s with the g o d s , in animal and other sacrifices; and food marked the proper functioning, or not, o f human s o c i e t y . In the ritual o ( xenia or reciprocal g u e s t - f r i e n d s h i p , food and drink were offered before a new arri­ val was asked his name and credentials (see H o s p it a l it y ). A t h e n e arrives in I t h a c a dis­ guised as M e n t e s in O d y s s e y I, and is properly received by T e l e m a c h o s . He gives her a seat (Homeric diners did not recline) and stool. A maid brings water for hand-washing (a refine­ ment not found in the I l i a d , according to Ath. 1.18-19), and a polished table (Od. 136-138; see F u r n i t u r e ) ; and the housekeeper brings sitos (cereal-based food) and eidata polla, “many kinds

293

o f food,” rejoicing in what she can offer. A male carver brings them dishes o f “all sorts o f meats” and g o l d cups, into which a h e r a l d pours w i n e . The scene distinguishes the correct pro­ cedure o f Telemachos from the pleasure-loving S u i t o r s , who eventually turn their minds to the “adornments o f the feast,” the m u s i c and d a n c ­ in g (see F e a s t i n g ) . Proper eating signals good order, whether the agreement between A g a m e m n o n and A p o l l o ’ s priest C h r y s k s in Iliad 1 (458-471), or A c h i l l e s ’ insistence on eat­ ing with P r i a m in Iliad 24 (5 9 9 -6 2 0 ), which marks his desire for reconciliation. The wish to eat the liver of an enemy expresses extreme hostil­ ity (24.212-213), while leaving the dead to be consumed by b i r d s and d o g s is the ultimate expression of enmity (22.344-354). Fasting marks distress {19.319—321; 24.129). The suitors of P e n e l o p e not only impose themselves upon the wife of the absent O d y s s e u s but also consume his wealth as expressed in pigs and other livestock (Od. 14.80—108); in addition, they fall short of desirable conduct when they eat these foods al table in the palace o f Odysseus (17.445-476). The fundamental human need for food is fre­ quently expressed. Odysseus (Od. 7.216-218) cannot evade his belly’s demand for food; his companions are driven to sin against the S u n god by their hunger (12.329-332); and the troops at Troy need food to sustain them before fighting and to restore them when wounded or exhausted (see esp. //. 19.154-172). As in the later Greek p o l i s , much food process­ ing and serving fell to w o m e n and slaves (see S l a v e r y ) . The housekeeper brings the food to the new arrival in Odyssey 1. Slave women clear the tables after the feast (19.61-62) and grind the corn (20.105-108). Women also prepare special foods, which act as d r u g s on the body. H b k a m e d e prepares a restorative medicine for the wounded M a c h a o n in Iliad 11.638-641. H e l e n adds special drugs from E g y p t into the wine at Odyssey 4.219-234 to help the men for­ get memories o f their sorrows at Troy. And K i r k e changes men into pigs by mixing drugs into their food (10.233—240). Men, meanwhile, who on occasion serve food (P a tro klo s , II. 9 .2 1 6 -2 1 7 ), raise, slaughter, and butcher the prestigious meat and distribute wine. Raising a n i m a l s is a subject for the Homeric poet: much detail is added by E u m a i o s , who is a poor man able to eat meat,

294

fo o d

piglets, while the Suitors take the fat sows (Od. 14.80-81). The pastoralist Cyclops makes his cheese (9.237-249). The most important food rituals are preemi­ nently the slaughter and butchering of large ani­ mals in animal sacrifice, which is described with much variation according to circumstance and par­ ticular occasion (Hitch 2009). According to occa­ sion and poetic need, animals may simply be slaughtered (//. 7.466); slaughtered with much attendant detail (1.458-468); or slaughtered with many variant procedures (Od. 14.418-456). The principal aim of all these procedures is to show honor and deference to the gods. It is normal to employ the products of domesticated agriculture (DetienneandVernant 1979),deviation from which is potentially disastrous (12.352-397, with VidalNaquet 1986). Very frequendy, the human partici­ pants share the meat in a feast, often with drinking o f wine to follow. Distribution in equal portions is frequently specified. Such commensality has a great importance in the poems, expressing a harmonious community, honored status (an ox-chine for Aiax at 7.321; a similar gift from Menelaos for his guest Telemachos in Sparta at Od. 4.65-66), or com­ mensality gone wrong (14.80-108). The rituals of eating in Homer were part o f the transmitted text o f the poems, and thus caught the attention o f later commentators. The large consumption o f beef and the avoidance o f fish particularly prompted later comment (e.g., PI. Resp. 404 b -c; Plut. Quaest. corn. 730 C-D). The consumption o f fruit and vegetables and boiled meat appears to be absent, though fruit trees are described in Odyssey 7.112-121, an onion is used with a restorative drink in Iliad 11.630, and reduced lard (21.362-364) and a cow’s foot (Od. 20.299-300) are mentioned in passing. All such foods may possibly, like fish, be included under the rubric “food o f every kind.” There are many interesting comments in this area in the Homeric scholia , and a rich review of them is assembled in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae. With reference to Zenodotus, Aristarchus, and the less wellknown Dioscorides (4th century bce) and Megacleides, Athenaeus comments (1.8e-25f with Heath 2 0 0 0 ,5.185a-193c, 12.511a-513e) on how the Homeric diet does and does not fit into later Greek practice. Issues raised include roast­ ing o f meat preferred to boiling, sitting at table and not reclining, consumption o f meat above

fish, birds, fruit, and vegetables, and the discour­ agement of luxury and drunkenness. There were also textual changes in passages on eating by Zenodotus (Ath. 1.12c—f on II. 1.4-5), and Dioscorides, pupil of Isocrates (1.11 a—b on an extra line at II. 9 . 1 19a). Megacleides commented on the apparently luxurious eating of Odysseus with the Phaeacians (12.513a-c, and 512e); and Athenocles o f Cvzicus disagreed with Aristarchus on the famous failure o f Agamemnon to invite Menelaos to a feast in Iliad 2.408, which is a topic for discussion in Plato’s Symposium (174 b-c) and elsewhere. As indicated, the Homeric king should preside over nourishing arable and pastoral farming, not to mention a sea rich in fish. The products thus proc­ essed into food (preeminently cereals, olives, and wine) will identify the eaters as belonging to Greek culture and not others. Even the Greek gods will follow the rituals of consumption o f food, while expressing their identity through the eating of a m b r o s i a and drinking o f n e c t a r . At Iliad 1.584611, Hei' haistos acts as wine-pourer, Apollo pro­ vides the music, and the gods retire to sleep. The key difference between human and divine eating is brought out in Odyssey 5.194-202, where Kalypso and Odysseus eat in Kalypso’s cave, he sitting on a chair, she serving him “all the food to eat and drink which mortals eat,” and then sitting opposite him, while her maids serve her with ambrosia and nec­ tar. They each launch into the good things on offer and take pleasure in the food and drink. Odysseus’ other encounters on his journey all identify non-Greek eating, which is emphasized by his being placed under an olive tree when he is returned to Ithaca (13.122-124). The Lotus-eaters (see Lotophagi) serve fruit that remove memory and identity (9.93); Kirke changes human beings into pigs (10.233-240); S kylla fishes for men like fish (12.245-259); the Cyclopes live in a nat­ ural paradise with food-bearing plants but Poi.yphemos eats men raw (9.287-298, in con­ trast to Euripides’ Cyclops who cooks them first); the Laestrygonians spear men like fish (10.124); the cattle o f the Sun are no ordinary cattle (12.352-397); the Phaeacians live closer to the gods and have year-round agricultural produce (6.203, 7.112-133), which later Greeks could imagine only in utopia and in the Nile delta. The rituals o f sacrifice, dining, and drinking have such a prominence in the Homeric poems

FORESHADOWING that there was rich material for reflection when the Greeks in later centuries came to see them as a template for literary and ethical guidance. Despite the remarkable emphasis on beef, which was very expensive to produce in Mediterranean lands, and the equally remarkable indifference to fish which could be caught in profusion at certain times and places (Purcell 1995), the Homeric poems present a model of dining on cereal, sitos, and protein supplements, opsa (the latter word often used, incidentally, for food packed up for the journey, Od. 3.480, 5.267) that was instantly recognizable to later generations. Homeric drink­ ing, equally, anticipated the sumposiou of the Archaic city-state. This is true too of the Homeric H y m n s , particularly those in honor of D emeter and D ionysos. Such rituals were enshrined in later Greek literature extensively, and gave birth to, among other food-rich genres such as comedy, epic parodie verse, in some of which (the H edupatheia o f Archestratus of Gela and Attic Dinner of Matro of Pitane, both of the 4th cen­ tury bce) the descriptions of foods, including fish, were extensive (Brandt 1888). See also Utensils and Tools. JOH N M . W IL K IN S

Foreshadowing In both I l i a d and O d y s s e y , the narrator often points towards future events. The Odyssey includes many hints and explicit predic­ tions o f the Suitors’ deaths, while the Iliad is rich in hints and predictions both o f events within the poem (o f Hector’s death, for example) and of events that will take place later, such as Achilles’ death and the fall o f Troy. Such hints about the future are often called “foreshadowing” (in the Narratology o f Bal 1985,63-66, “anticipation”). The term is broad, and usually includes both direct statements by characters (whose authority varies) or the narrator (“announcements”) and inexplicit pointers (“hints”). In traditional narratives, where the audience is already familiar with at least the outlines o f the plot, a narrator can implicitly fore­ shadow his story by prompting the audience’s memory; for example, the many references to Agamemnon’s story in the Odyssey alert the audi­ ence to the similarities and differences between Agamemnon’s and O dysseus’ fetes (Olson 1995,

295

24-42). When Achilles lies as if dead after he hears of Patroklos’ death and his mother, coming from the sea with her Nf.reid sisters, holds his head (II. 18.122-171), Neoanalyst scholarship proposes that a narrative of Achilles’ death is the model (Kakridis 1949, 65-95) (see Neoanalysis). The narratologist agrees and says that Achilles’ death is thereby foreshadowed (Edwards 1987,270-271). Foreshadowing begins with the narrator’s proems, which in declaring the topic also pro­ vide information about the plots: Achilles’ anger will cause many deaths, Odysseus will not be able to save his companions, because they ate the S un’s cattle. Foreshadowing, both inter­ nal and external, generally tends to become more frequent and more precise as an event approaches. Achilles is already feted to a short life at Iliad 1.416; at 9.410-416 he describes his famous choice between glory and long life; at 22.358-360 the dying Hector announces that Achilles will be killed by Paris and Apollo at the Scaean Gates. So although the epics constantly foreshadow, foreshadowing is characteristically limited or slightly inaccurate, though it often becomes fuller and more precise as it is nearer the event. This is the “Insufficiency Principle” (Schadewaldt 1966, 140). This inaccuracy frequently serves as “misdi­ rection” - the audience is led to expect that events will take a different course from the one they do. So, for example, Zeus twice predicts the course of the Iliad (8.473—477, 15.61-71). The second prophecy is more detailed, including Patroklos’ killing o f Sarpedon, Patroklos’ death, and Achilles’ slaying o f Hector, but it still gives the impression that Achilles will spontaneously send Patroklos into battle. Even though Patroklos is already on his way back to Achilles from Nestor’s tent, the prophecy makes no allusion to the importance o f Nestor’s advice to Patroklps. Often, too, events happen as predicted, but only after a delay (“retardation”). The interaction o f fore­ shadowing with retardation and misdirection is typical o f Homeric narrative and creates simul­ taneous foreknowledge and suspense.

References and Suggested Readings The foundational study is Duckworth 1933. For “misdirection,” see Morrison 1992. R U T H SC O D EL

296

FORMULA

Formula When Milman Parry set about rebuilding the edifice o f Homeric studies, his foundation was the formula. Parry offered the compelling vision o f a poet who skillfully com­ posed in a traditional style through manipulation o f inherited formulae and formulaic systems. But when later scholars sought to continue his inves­ tigations into the diction o f Homeric poetry and its counterparts in other oral traditions, Parry’s definition o f “formula” and “formulaic” underwent continual modification. Parry defined the formula in his 1928 French thesis as “an expression regularly used, under the same metrical conditions, to express an essential idea” (MHV, 13). He was concerned primarily with formulae «insisting o f noun plus epithet, the most easily schematized verse-ending systems, which also exhibit the most “economy” and “scope.” Prominent examples of such formulae are, for proper nouns, “swift-footed Achilles,” “Odysseus of many wiles,” “Hector of the gleaming helmet,” “cloud­ gathering Zeus,” “owl-eyed Athena”; and for com­ mon nouns, “swift horses,” “perfectly rounded shield,” and “black ship” (see also Epithets). In his 1930 study he added that a formula should be “made up of at least four words or five syllables, with the exception of noun-epithet phrases, which may be shorter” (MHV, 275, n. 1). This note also conceded that “formulas, in the strictest sense of the term, may be of any length,” and that Parry was excluding the shorter word-groups merely for the practical purpose of making the task of identifying and counting formulae more manageable. The linguist Antoine Meillet, who believed Homeric verse was entirely formulaic, influenced Parry’s thinking, when he was in Paris. Another influence was Matthias Murko, who described the oral epic he had collected in Yugoslavia (see South Slavic Heroic Epic). Therefore, by the time Parry published his first American essay in 1930 (“Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. I. Homer and Homeric Style” = MHV, 266-324), he had shifted his stance in two important directions: he was now seeking to document as much formularity as possible throughout the texture of Homer’s hexameters, and seeking to tie such pervasive formularity to the oral technique of verse-making as practiced by the Serbo-Croatian epic singers. His method was to analyze the first twenty-five lines o f the I l i a d and O d y s s e y , using solid underlining for “straight formula” and broken

underlining for what was “formulaic.” Thus a two-tier system was created, in the distinction between the strict formula and the more mutable formulaic phrase. This mutability would eventu­ ally be taken to a level far beyond what Parry could have envisioned. It is clear that Parry already felt the need for a conception o f “formulaic” elastic enough to allow for the natural poetic tendency to play creatively with language. In his seminal 1930 essay, after identifying both strict formulae and formulaic expressions, he added, “But there are more gen­ eral types o f formulas, and one could make no greater mistake than to limit formulaic material to what is underlined” (MHV, 313). This sugges­ tion provided the opening wedge for an increas­ ingly elastic conception o f what is “formulaic.” O f the subsequent scholars who sought to revise the concept of formula, let me summarize the views of A. B. Lord, J. A. Russo,). B. Hainsworth, and M. N. Nagler. Lord was Parry’s collaborator and the great continuator o f his work, whose The Singer o f Tales (1960) is a landmark in Homeric studies. Analyzing the formulae o f Serbo-Croatian verse, he noted the important role played by substitu­ tion within systems: formulae were created by analogy accordingtofamiliarsyn tactic-rhythmical patterns embedded in the Serbo-Croatian deca­ syllabic verse. Lord analyzed the first fifteen lines of the Iliad using Parry’s method o f underlining and, finding analogical formulae almost every­ where, judged these verses (and, by implication, Homeric poetry itself) to be well over 90 percent formulaic (Lord 1960,143-144). Russo, following Lord’s emphasis on analogy, analyzed the formula in termsof syntactic-metrical patterns localized at preferred places in the verse (see Meter). Following O’Neill’s (1942) research into the localization tendencies o f words o f spe­ cific metrical shapes, and Parry’s belief that there were more general types o f formulae than those containing verbatim repetition, Russo opted for a “structural formula” (Russo 1963,1966). Formula structures were seen in terms o f the four-colon theory put forward by Frankel (1926) and Porter (1951), the formula being a syntactic-metrical matrix contained in one or two cola, all o f whose words were substitutable as long as they kept the same shape and grammatical category. This approach kept Parry’s “same metrical conditions”

FORMULA while abandoning his requirement o f “same essential idea.” Hainsworth (1962, 1964, 1968) demonstrated that formulae undergo more flexibility and varia­ tion - including change of metrical shape and location within the line, and even splitting- than was allowed for in Parry’s theory (or in the con­ cept of the structural formula). His major study (1968) presented an elaborate list of modifica­ tions of both word shape and metrical position, thus breaking with Parry’s requirement that a for­ mula keep a consistent metrical identity. He offered the interesting definition that a formula consists of two or more words that share a bond of mutual expectancy. Like the structural for­ mula, the flexible formula was another attempt to show that Homer’s creativity was not impeded by his reliance on traditional and limited resources of language. Nagler (1967, 1974) took a significant step for­ ward in formula theory with his concept of the “generative formula,” best understood as a “pre­ verbal Gestalt,” the source of a wide variety of verbal productions (called allomorphs instead of formulae) that cannot all be connected by criteria of structure, meaning, location, or lexicon. This is the loosest definition possible, allowing formula “families” to connect by association o f sound and rhythm. It is an appealing theoretical vision, based on contemporary linguists’ belief that all language is generated by a pre-verbal potentiality actualized in a wide variety of ways. Such a view, however, inevitably leads to excessive subjectivity in deciding what is a formula, since family resem­ blance grows increasingly remote in Nagler’s examples. While this revision of the concept o f formula was taking place, many scholars were offering sig­ nificant analyses o f formula use in Homeric verse. These studies, taken together, revealed a much greater element o f freedom in the poet’s choice o f language than Parry had envisioned. Hoekstra (1965) demonstrated how linguistic changes in the Greek language eased the modification of tra­ ditional formulae. Edwards (1966,1968) demon­ strated the subde craftsmanship by which Homer could vary formulae to fit changing constraints of meter and context. Finkelberg (1989) showed that for one unit o f meaning a considerable portion (29 percent) o f Homeric diction remains nonformulaic, and that even the apparent formula

2 97

kleos apthiton (“imperishable fame”) may not belong to formular tradition (Finkelberg 1986, 2007). Richardson (1987) made a strong case for the high expressive value of non-formulaic lan­ guage in Homer, which he maintained is more prevalent than studies in the Parry tradition had allowed, and derives extra force from its unex­ pectedness. Nagy (1990b, 18-35) argued that for­ mula shaped meter, emphasizing a diachronic perspective in which the hexameter took its final form from the association over time o f formulae that became its constituent cola. Sale (1984,1987, 1989) performed valuable analyses of Homer’s use of formulae related to specific places such as O lympos and Troy. Sale (1996) offered a new defense of Parry’s conception of oral poetry, impressive in its methodological rigor and pro­ viding a sophisticated review of the many levels at which Homer’s language is formulaic. Friedrich (2007) reprised earlier stages of the debate over formula, arguing again that formulaic language shows more adaptability to context than strict Parryan poetics had envisioned. By now few Homerists would claim a necessary connection between quantifiable formulaic con­ tent and oral genesis, since measurement o f the formulaic percentage remains elusive and the use o f non-formulaic language is clearly greater than Parry and Lord had imagined (Finkelberg 2004). For establishing the “essence” of the formula, a new approach appeared in a series o f studies begun in the late 1980s and continuing to the present decade. Visser (1987, 1988) proposed a concept o f formula where one key word, neces­ sary for the poet’s essential idea, was positioned with regularity, followed by the optional posi­ tioning o f a range o f possible “explanatory” words. Visser imagined a literate Homer compos­ ing more by single words than by formulaic phrases. A similar “nudeus/periphery” concept was proposed by Bakker and Fabbricotti (1991), although they use this approach to support the belief that Homer composed orally. Bakker’s sub­ sequent publications (1997a, 1997b, 2005) take an important theoretical leap forward, using the linguistics o f spoken language to replace formu­ laic patterning as a marker o f oral style. What characterizes oral discourse is not phrase repeti­ tion but intonation units, issuing from mental processes connected with speaking rather than writing. Hence the formula is best understood as

298

FORMULA

a “stylized intonation unit” (Bakker 1997b, 53, 92). A parallel move into what may be called the cognitive psychology and sociolinguistics o f oral verse production was made by Kahane (1994), who also studies the phenomenon o f repetition from this new conceptual framework (see

Repetitions). From our survey, some central truths emerge. Formula studies o f the last half century reveal a constant desire to grant formulaic language a range of flexibility closer to that o f spoken lan­ guage, in order to restore to Homer some o f the freedom that Parry seemed to deny him. We see how prescient were the words written in 1929, in a review of Parry’s initial theses by P. Chantraine: that esteemed linguist noted that many word groups cannot be confined to formulae and that “we must reserve for the bards a domain where they can move freely” (Chantraine 1929, 299). See also O hal-F ormulaic T heory. References and Suggested Readings Edwards 1986 and 1988 offers a full bibliographic sur­ vey (see also Edwards 1997); Hainsworth 1993 (1 -3 1 ) illustrates the workings o f formulae with clarity and detail; Russo 1997 gives a review and critique o f for­ mula studies since Parry. JO S E P H R U SSO

Friendship The friendship between Achilles and Patroklos, as described in the I l i a d , is among the most celebrated in antiquity, ranked with that between O restes and Pylades or T heseus and Peirithoos (Theoc. 29.34; Bion fr. 12; Dio Chrys. Or. 57.28; Lucian Toxaris 10; Plut. On Having Many Friends 93E; Themistius Or. 22.266b, 271a; Libanius Or. 1.56). When Achilles learns that Patroldos has been slain in battle, he exclaims; “there is nothing worse than this I could suffer, not even if 1 were to hear o f the death of my father ... or o f the death o f my dear son” (II. 19.321-322,326, tr. R. Lattimore). As a result, he gives over his resentment against Agamemnon, which had caused him to withdraw from the fighting, and does not eat, drink, or rest until he has avenged his friend by killing Hector. So intense are Achilles’ feelings for Patroklos that some ancient readers interpreted their relation­ ship as erotic, and it was debated which was the

lover, which the beloved (PI. Symp. 179d-180a; Sen. Ep. 88.6; in a more scabrous vein, Plut. Amat. 751C; Mart. 11.43.9-10; Lucian Amores 54). The Homeric epics give no evidence of the Archaic and Classical practice o f pederasty (see S ex­ uality); indeed, the Alexandrian commentator Zenodotus sought to excise Achilles’ passion­ ate wish that the Trojans and the Achaeans too might perish and he and Patroklos alone sur­ vive the war, as an interpolation by someone who wished to cast their relationship as erotic (schol. II. 16.97-100). But the debate bears wit­ ness to the strength o f their bond. Friendship, then, is central to the Iliad. As one scholar writes; “The plot o f our Iliad demands that Achilles and Patroklos should share a deep, unmotivated, gratuitous affection, which flour­ ishes outside the institutions o f the social hierar­ chy” (Hooker 1989,34). Yet other critics, inspired partly by the work o f Moses Finley (1978), have doubted that such an ideal could have existed in Archaic Greek society: “Homeric ‘friendship’ appears as a system o f calculated cooperation, not necessarily accompanied by any feelings of affec­ tion” (Millett 1991, 120-121; cf. Adkins 1972a, 18). This surprising divergence o f views over Homeric friendship is part of a wider controversy about the nature of philia, commonly rendered as “friendship” or “love,” and philos or “friend” in Greek generally. As an adjective, philos means “dear” or sometimes “loving,” and assumes the more restricted sense o f “friend” when it is accom­ panied by the definite article (Konstan 1997, 53-56; but even this is disputed). In epic diction, the adjectival use predominates, and covers a range o f relations, including friends and kin. But because philos may be applied in epic to parts of the body (e.g., knees and hands) and inner self (e.g., t h u m o s ) , some argue philos is equivalent to a possessive adjective, “one’s own” (cf. Landfester 1966,69). That philos and the possessive pronoun are often paired, however, might rather suggest they were distinct, and other scholars affirm (rightly, in my view) that philos almost always means “beloved” (cf. Robinson 1990,98). Another term for comrade is h e t a i r o s (or h e t a r o s ) , which embraces a wide range o f compan­ ionable relationships. O dysseus’ crew in the O d y s s e y are described as his h e t a i r o i , but though he refers to those who have died as “dear” (Od. 9.466), he does not necessarily feel personal

FURNITURE affection for all o f them (he comes near to killing one, 10.428-442). But especially intimate hetairoi are described as philoi: Sthenelos gave Aeneas’ horses into the care o f Deipylos, “his dear com­ panion [hetaros philos], whom he honored above all of his age group” (II. 5.325-326). When Achilles rejects Agamemnon’s ambassadors (see Embassy to Achiu .es), Ajax complains that Achilles “cares nothing for the love [philotês] o f his companions [hetairoi], with which we honored him by the ships beyond the others,” and declares; “we, out of the mass o f the Danaans, share your roof, and we have desired to be closest ]kêdistoi\ and dearest [philtatoi] to you beyond all the other Achaeans” (9.630-631, 640-642; cf. 9.585-586). Patroklos, in particular, is Achilles’ “dearest companion by far” (17.411,655). Those hetairoi who are singled out as philoi are what we would call close friends. The two terms are clearly contrasted, in turn, when the blinded Polyphemos prays that Odysseus never reach home; “But if it is his lot to see his p h ilo i... may he come late and badly, hav­ ing lost all his hetairoi" (Od. 9.532-535); hetairoi refers to Odysseus’ shipmates, while philoi indi­ cates his close kin back in Ithaca. As opposed to the Iliad, friendship does not play a central role in the Odyssey. When the Phaeacian king Alkinoos notices that D emodokos’ song about Troy has made Odysseus weep, he asks: “Has then some relative o f yours died at Ilion who had been a good man, a son-inlaw or father-in-law, who are closest [kêdistoi] after one’s own blood and family? Or perhaps some hetairos, a man of graciousness, and good? For not worse than a brother is a hetairos who has wisdom” (8.581-586). Hetairos, distinguished from kin, here refers to an especially intimate companion. But Alkinoos is mistaken, and Homer would seem to be implicitly contrasting the loner Odysseus with the deep bond between Achilles and Patroklos (cf. Clay 1983, 107; but contrast Menelaos’ warm description o f his love for Odysseus, 4.174-180). Despite the intimacy between Achilles and Patroklos, their friendship is not an equal one. Patroklos is described as Achilles’ therapôn (e.g., II. 23.89-90), “squire” or “henchman,” a term applied also to Glaukos’ relation to Sarpedon and Sthenelos’ to Diomedes. A therapôn too may be singled out as especially dear or philos (7.149, of Ereuthalion, squire o f Lykourgos [2]);

299

but Patroklos is called rather a philos hetairos (18.80-82). Finally, the term xenos (or xeinos), “foreigner,” is sometimes used in combination with philos (e.g., II. 6.224). This usage would seem to be para­ doxical: how can a stranger be dear to one? The contrast is often dear: Odysseus supplicates the Phaeacian queen Arete as one who is “far from his dear ones” (philoi, Od. 7.152), and she in turn reproaches her husband for allowing a xeinos to sit neglected on the ground (7.160; cf. 162, 166). When Telemachos and Peisistratos arrive at the palace of Menelaos in S parta, Menelaos’ therapòn announces them as “strangers” (4.26), but once he knows their identities, Menelaos addresses them consistently as philoi (e.g., 4.78, 204). The usual view is that in certain contexts xenos signi­ fies “guest-friend," a quasi-formal bond between people o f different communities. Yet no two Achaeans in the Iliad are described as xenoi, though their homelands are distant from one another. It would appear rather that the adjective philos picks out among xenoi or strangers those with whom a more personal relationship has been acknowledged (cf. Od. 8.133, 413 for the shift from xeinos to philos). Like all friendships, it is a voluntary bond, and requires no more formal gesture of ratification (contra Herman 1987). See also G uest-F riendship. References and Suggested Readings Spahn 2006. DAVID KONSTAN

Furies

see Erinyes.

Furniture The interior furnishing of houses in the epics is varied but rarely described in detail. It consists o f hearths and braziers, seats and tables, kitchen and storage facilities, beds and bath­ rooms. Since most o f these were o f perishable materials, very few have survived. Hearths (singular eskharê, istiê) and braziers (lamptêr). Hearths are often mentioned (RougierBlanc 2005, 222-228), though their form and location within the room are not clearly specified. In the palace o f Alkinoos, O dysseus sits “at the hearth (eskharê] in the ashes by the fire” (Od. 7.153-154), which reminds one o f the raised

300

FURNITURE

monumental hearths of the Mycenaean palatial megara or the stone-built platform in the main room o f Unit IV-1 at Nichoria in Mrssenia ( 10th century bce). In another passage, however (Oil. 23.89-90), Penelope sits next to the hearth and by the megaron’s wall, which suggests that the hearth may have been off the central axis of the room. Nevertheless, even in this case, an axial and central location of the hearth cannot be excluded, since the dimensions o f the interior chambers, especially in the Early Iron Age, were often rather modest in size, and therefore one could sit bv the wall and be next to the hearth as well (cf. Zagora on Andros). In the epics there is no clear indi­ cation of an equipped kitchen. These basic fea­ tures of the hearth fit better the data of the Protogeometric and G eometric periods . It is accepted that the sizeable hearths o f the Mycenaean palatial megara were not “functional” but served primarily for rituals and also had a symbolic meaning. The traces of fire upon these hearths, the fact that they were coated with plas­ ter, and the absence o f animal bones, all suggest a different use from the one deriving from the epics. On the other hand, the majority o f rulers’ dwellings of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods were provided with modest hearths that served for heating and cooking, as well as light­ ing. Indeed, lighting in the epics is usually pro­ vided by the burning fire in the hearth or the lampters, but also by torches (II. 24.647; Od. 1.434, 4.300, 19.48, 23.290). The golden lamp of Athene (19.33-34) has been considered a later - —- interpolation, as it is the only lamp mentioned in the epics (see also Athens and Homer). Terracotta lamps are not found in archaeological contexts before 700 bce (Lorimer 1950, 509-511; Pfeiffer 1956). They were however known in the Late Bronze Age (Powell 1991, 201-202). The hearth may serve for the preparation o f food and roasting meat (cf. Od. 14.420, 18.44). In the Early Iron Age the hearths except for ashes contained also animal bones. It is a natural assumption that this activity, involving only men in the epics, took place within the megaron, over the hearth. It is indicative that iron spits (obeloi, Od. 3,460-463) and firedogs (krateutai, II. 9.214) accompany only male burials of the elite during the Geometric period (see Argos). It should be pointed out, however, that in general in the epics the preparation o f food and especially cold dishes

was women’s responsibility and this activity was held in another room of the house or palace, since the food is brought from without in order to be served and consumed. The raised platform inside the main room of Unit IV-1 at Nichoria has been compared to the braziers of Odysseus’ o ik o s (Fagerstrom 1988). In the Odyssey (19.61-64) the servants enter the megaron and clean up the leftovers of the Suitors’ meal and afterwards clean the lampters on the floor and stack wood in them. Something similar was observed at Nichoria, where ashes and ani­ mal bones were dumped next to the round raised platform of the main chamber. Yet, the lampters appear to have been movable (Antonaccio 1995a, 206, and Od. 18.307). In the epics, during feasts (see Feasting), women usually draw back against the walls to spin and weave (Od. 4.121-135, 17.96-97). Is it a pure coincidence that in Unit IV-1 at Nichoria and Oropos the majority of the loom weights were discovered alongside the walls? Seats (singular thronos, klismos, klisiê, diphros). The owners of the house usually sit by the hearth (e.g., Arete, Od. 6.305 or Penelope, 23.89). The participants in a banquet apparently sit alongside the walls (see Od. 7.95-96, the palace o f Alkinoos: “Inside, to the left and right, from the entrance down to the very end, there were chairs [thronoi] ranged along the wall”; tr. W. Shewring). This arrangement brings to one’s mind the position of the thrones of the Mycenaean megara, but also the layout o f the stone-built benches o f the meg­ ara o f the Protogeometric and Geometric periods (e.g., Smari, Zagora, Room II at Lathouriza, Building 0 at Oropos, etc.). In the epics we hear o f several kinds o f seats, occasionally o f dressed stones (Od. 3.406) though usually wooden and sometimes richly decorated in inlay.-The thronos (usually with the epithet hupsêlos, “high”) is interchangea­ ble with klismos or klisiê, though it seems that the former term refers to the more imposing seats o f the kind reserved for persons o f high status (though Achilles has an elaborate couch, klismos, perhaps because it should be portable: II. 24.596-598). This is a seat with back and armsets, and it is mentioned only in relation to rooms with more official use. It is on such seats that divine or heroic hosts and guests sit (e.g., II. 18.389-390; Od. 1.130-131,

FURNITURE 10.314-315 and 366-367). The house o f Odysseus has several o f these (17.31-33). The only seat described in detail is Penelope’s favorite chair ( k lis iê - seat or couch), which was decorated with an inlay o f ‘‘circling ivory and silver ” (19.53-59), though several other thrones which were richly decorated are also mentioned (see esp. 10.314-315: Odysseus in the house o f K i r k f : ) . These descriptions allow comparisons with some thrones found in the royal tombs at Salamis on Cyprus. Thrones and ktismoi form usually a set with an attached footstool, the thrênus (1.130-131, 19.57) or an independent footstool called sphelas (17.231, 18.394). As often one would walk in the house barefoot (1.96), and floors would have been of beaten earth, their necessity is understandable. The more simple seat is called diphros; it is a light wooden stool without a back. These seats are often covered with simple or luxurious cloths (linen, cloaks, fleeces, and occa­ sionally p u R P i.F .-d y e d rugs) (Od. 1.130-131, 10.352-353; see Textilf.s ). Tables (singular trapeza). Inside the Homeric house there were portable tables that could be brought in front of guests. Some of them would have been plain, though others richly decorated, such as the one mentioned in relation to Nestor, inlaid with lapis lazuli substitute (kuanos, II. 11.628-629) or made out of precious metals (Od. 10.354-355 in Kirke’s house).

301

Chests (singular khêlos). These served to keep the clothing and linen, though they could also have con­ tained precious items (Od. 13.10-11), even if often these would hang from pegs on the walls (1.440). T hetis orders a chest or traveling wardrobe for Achilles before he leaves for Troy (II. 16.220-224). Beds (singular lekhos). Wooden beds were also known in the epics. Odysseus’ magnificent bed in Ithaca was non-movable (Öd. 23.181-204), but as a rule they could be transported. They were some­ times decorated, as implied by epithets accompa­ nying the term (for instance, dinôtos, “carved"; II. 3.391). Odysseus’ bed was made by himself: “1 was the maker, no one else ... I shaped the frame com­ plete, inlaying it with silver and gold and ivory and stretching across it bright crimson oxhide” (Od. 23.189,199-200; see also Handicrafts). Bath tubs. The bath (asaminthos) was not nec­ essarily in a separate room. The epithet euxestos (well-polished) suggests bath tubs of metal (see, for instance, Od. 4.128, in which Menelaos receives two silver bath tubs as a gift). Wash foot basins are also mentionéd (see also Bathing). See also Utensils and Tools. References and Suggested Readings Seymour 1965; Richter 1966; Laser 1968; Kyrieleis 1969; Rougier-Blanc 2005; Andrianou 2006; VlassopoulouKarydi 2008. A LEX A N D E R M A ZA RA KIS A INIAN

G

Gaia (raia) Earth, of unknown but pre-Greek etymology (Mader LfgrE, s.v.; West 2007, 174), and not always easily separable front the element itself (e.g., Od. 1.54), GaialG ê is in Hesiod the consort of Ouranos, Sky (Th. 106) and heavily involved in the Succession Myth (Th. 494, 626, 884, 891; see further Hesiod), a story known to but not explicitly narrated by Horner (e.g., II. 5.898, 8.478-482, 14.279, 15.225; see Kirk 1990, 153). Named as T ityos’ mother (Od. 7.324, 11.576), Gaia is only elsewhere invoked in Homer by gods and mortals as a witness/guarantor of oaths, always with other deities: Iliad 3.103-104 with Helios; 3.276-280 with Zeus, Helios, the rivers and “avengers”; 15.36-38 with Ouranos and Styx (Od. 5.184-186 = Hymn. Ap. 84-86: see below); 19.258-260 with Zeus, Helios, and the Erinyes. Gaia’s sole Homeric formular expres­ sion (see Formula), “let Gaia and broad Ouranos above now know this,” is confined to oaths sworn by gods: II. 15.36 (H era) = Od. 5.184 (Kalypso) = Hymn. Ap. 84 (L eto); cf. also Hymn. Ap. 334 (Hera). The prominence o f Gaia and Ouranos in this context may reflect not only primordial antiquity but also (as in the case o f Styx, with whom they are linked in this formula: )anko 1992, 194-195) their aid o f Zeus in his rise to power (though cf. Th. 820-822), and perhaps their pre­ dictive ability (Th. 463—465, 474-476, 886-900). The Homer Encyclopedia, edited by Margalit Finkelberg © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The Cyclic C y p i i i a (fr. 1 West) makes Gaia bring about the end of the Heroic Age in the Trojan War (see Dios Boui.ê). See also T itans. A D R I A N D. KELLY

Ganymedes (ravupqôqç) Ganymedes is identi­ fied as the son o f Tros (1), the early T rojan king who was the great-grandfather o f both Priam and Anchises. He was the most beautiful of humans, so the gods took him to O lympos to become Zeus’ wiNE-server (it. 20.231-239). In recom­ pense, Zeus gave Tros a team of the finest horses (5.265-267). Such is the extent o f what we hear in the Homeric epics. However, the Homeric H y m n t o Aphrodite reverses the I l i a d by attributing Ganymedes’ disappearance to Zeus alone, but making him the wine-server of all the gods. It also fills in a few more details: he was carried away by a wind and his father mourned for his loss until Zeus sent Hermes to explain what happened and reassure Tros that Ganymedes would become “immortal and ageless” (Hymn. Ven. 202-217). As elsewhere in the Homeric tradition (see Sexuality), any homoerotic motivation is unac­ knowledged; the myth is introduced here to praise the beauty of Anchises’ race, although one might read its parallelism with the relationships o f Eos and T ithonos and o f Aphrodite and Anchises (both explicitly sexual) as implying a god’s sexual

GENDER love. We cannot be certain whether epic tradition (including fr. 6 West of the L i t t l e I l i a d where Ganymedes is made son of Laomepon and thus brother o f Priam) omits to specify an erotic motive for Ganymedes’ abduction because this motif had not yet been incorporated into the underlying myth or due to conventional suppression of any reference to homosexuality, which had probably not yet attained status as a Panhellenic institution during the period of epic formation. By the time o f Theognis 1345-1348 and redfigure vase-painting, however, the sexual nature of the relationship is emphasized; Ganymedes subse­ quently became a symbol of pederastic desire throughout Latin poetry, including that of the high Middle Ages, as well as in Renaissance art.

THOMAS K. HUBBARD See also T rojans.

Gargaros (only acc. Tdpyapov; today Baba Dag at the western end of the Kaz Dag ridge). The highest peak of Mt. I da, usually introduced as “topmost Gargaros” (T. üxpov II. 14.292, 352; 15.152), where Zeus had his t e m e n o s and altar (8.48). It is from Gargaros that Zeus used to look down at T roy and the Achaean camp (cf. II. 8.47—52). Hera arrived there in order to seduce Zeus, and he fell asleep on Gargaros after making love to her (14. 292-353; see Dios Apatê); he is still there when he dispatches Iris and Apollo to undo the harm done by Hera during his sleep (15.151-167,220-235). Gargaros’ grammatical gender is uncertain, and ancient and modern commentators alterna­ tively identified it as either Gargaros or Gargaron. The town Gargara, founded by the Aeolians nearby, was named after it (Strab. 13.1.5). See also G eography, the I liad .

Gender A sex/gender system (Rubin 1975) con­ sists o f the full range of practices, beliefs, and rep­ resentations (including mythic and literary representations) involving the relationships between men and w o m e n in a given society in a given historical period. Although individual female characters in Homer have long been a focus of

303

critical attention, the Homeric gender system as a whole has been studied only recently, as a result of the interest in gender relations inspired by the movement for women’s equality in the late 20th century. The entrance of many women into the field of classics at this period surely played a part as well; many of the studies cited here are by women scholars. Because gender systems are historical phenomena that evolve over time, some discus­ sions of the Homeric system (e.g., van Wees 1998b) situate themselves in the debate over the historical period in which the epics were composed (see Society, Homeric). Most studies, however, focus on the representation of gender in the fictional worlds of the I u a d , the O d y s s e y , or both. Gender systems are not monolithic; that is, they include many points of view and are subject to internal debate. This has become especially obvi­ ous in the contemporary world, but it can clearly be seen, for example, in the difference o f opinion between Andromache and Hector about how best to defend Troy (II. 6.406—493), or in Kai.ypso’s protest that the gods have a double standard where relations with mortals are con­ cerned (Od. 5.118-129). Inevitably, discussions of the Homeric gender system participate in our own gender system, but this should not be seen as invalidating our views of the former. Rather, our disagreements echo those within the epics and reveal the varied facets o f a complex phenomenon. There are important differences between the Iliad and the Odyssey because of their thematic empha­ ses on war and the o i k o s , respectively; there are also differences between gods and mortals and between different classes o f mortals. Norms of masculinity govern relations among men as well as those between men and women; relations among women are much less prominent in the epics, due to patterns o f focalization in which masculine perspectives predominate. A major tension in the secondary literature involves the amount o f power that female charac­ ters are seen to have in shaping the outcomes o f the stories and their own roles within them. While most scholars would agree that in the normative system women are subordinate to men and god­ desses to male gods, some emphasize the comple­ mentarity and equal dignity o f male and female spheres (Nagler 1996) or the “like-mindedness” of Odysseus and Penelope (Felson-Rubin 1994; Winkler 1990, 129-161), while others stress the

304

GENDER

limitations that even an extraordinary woman like Penelope suffers (Murnaghan 1986). Female gods have powers that no mortal woman enjoys: thus Athene participates actively in battle and can assume a male or female body as best suits her purpose. Yet even Athene and Hera, who occasionally challenge Zeus and persuade him to compromise with them (II. 4.20-67), must yield to his will when he chooses to assert it (1.560567). When the gender hierarchy conflicts with the divine/mortal hierarchy, as in the relations between Odysseus and Kalypso or Kirke, there is a more delicate balance; although the goddess in each case is portrayed as more powerful, the claims of Odysseus, seconded by Zeus, ultimately outweigh hers. Perhaps the most powerful of the goddesses, Athene - daughter of Zeus and bearer of his special attribute, the aegis - uses her power in the service of the male heroes in both epics. In the Odyssey, she sends a dream to reassure Penelope that Telemachos is safe, but otherwise is concerned solely with Telemachos and Odysseus, to the point of abetting Odysseus’ decision to hide his identity from his wife. Where mortal women are concerned, the most ostensibly powerful can also be seen as constrained in certain ways. The Trojan War is said to be fought for Helen, and some scholars have claimed that Menelaos needs her back because he owes his kingdom to her (e.g., Atchity and Barber 1987). Helen has also been compared to Homer because in the robe she is weaving at Iliad 3.125-128, she transmutes into art the battles fought “for her sake.” But in the action o f the Iliad, Helen has no power to change the course of events, and is even portrayed as blaming herself more severely than others do for leaving her husband and child. In the Odyssey, she plays the part of the loyal wife, and is like Kirke in using drugs to control the men around her; but thedrug’s effect rebounds, eliciting a counter-story from Menelaos that undermines her claim to a change of heart (see Storytelling). At the same time, the operation of her drug can be seen as destabilizing the nor­ mative binary oppositions within epic diction, including that between male and female (Bergren 1981). Women in their role as mothers are assigned the paradoxical function o f ensuring the continu­ ity of the (paternal) line while simultaneously “bringing mortality” to both sons and fathers, that is, making them aware o f the fact that one will

replace the other (Murnaghan 1992). Even the immortal T h e t is plays this role for her mortal son A c h il l e s , and as Slatkin (1991) has shown, behind this tragic portrayal lies the mythic tradi­ tion that in accepting a mortal husband, Thetis assured the permanence o f Zeus’ rule, and with it the stability of the divine order. The adaptation of n a r r a t o l o g y to Homeric criticism has lent greater precision to the study of certain power relations in the epics. Yet here too differences of opinion remain. Thus, FelsonRubin (1994) argues that individual audience members can be expected to identify with differ­ ent characters and thus to see the story through their eyes, while Doherty (1995a) emphasizes the unconscious ways in which audience attention can be shaped by patterns o f focalization. FelsonRubin sees Penelope as participating in a variety of possible plots and as acting on her own desires in the face o f uncertainty; in this reading, the epic narrator is seen to “court” his audience as Odysseus courts Penelope. In Doherty’s more “closed” reading, the authority o f the epic narra­ tor is seen to reinforce that o f Odysseus, whose focalization often coincides with his and predom­ inates in the epic as a whole. In this view, women in the audience are induced to identify with female figures who have the interests o f the hero at heart, even when this means accepting a subordinate position in the gender hierarchy. A number of studies have examined the perme­ ability between masculinity and femininity as portrayed in the epics. From the perspective of classical Athens, as noted, for example, by Loraux (1995) and van Wees (1998b), Homeric males behave in distinctly “feminine” ways, weeping in pain and in despair, lamenting the deaths of their comrades (see W e e p i n g ) . In both epics, s i m i l e s compare the warriors to women or female ani­ mals; at one point the pain of a w o u n d is even compared to that of a woman in labor (II. 11.264-283). In the Odyssey, such “reverse simi­ les” (Foley 1978) are applied to the hero and bal­ anced by a series comparing his wife to male figures (a l i o n , a king). These blur the otherwise clear boundaries between male and female roles and suggest that the capacities o f women and men are more comparable than is usually admitted. As H. Foley sees it, however, the return o f Odysseus puts an end to this suspension o f the usual order, as he and Penelope resume their normative roles. In a

GENEALOGIES study o f “the feminine” as a mental projection of Greek males, Loraux (1995, 99) argues that in Homer “a man is never so much a man as when there is something of a woman in him.” Thus the comparisons to women serve to enlarge the (imag­ ined) sphere o f masculine experience. At least one recent study, however, takes the distinctively femi­ nine activity o f weaving as paradigmatic for the poetics o f the Odyssey as a whole (Clayton 2004). Clearly, the Homeric poems are “good to think with” where gender relations are concerned. See also Con temporary T heory. References and Suggested Readings Arthur 1973; du Bois 1988; Cohen 1995; Kelson and Slatkin 2004. LILLIAN E. DO HE RT Y

Genealogies At Iliad 7.127-128, Pf. i.eus, welcom­ ing Nestor from far-off Pylos to his home in Phthia, asks about his guest’s ancestry, and hears the response with much pleasure. His purpose is to learn where Nestor fits in the world. The vignette nicely illustrates the social function of genealogies. The resonant names, many with famous stories attached to them, constituted in their manifold relationships a sociological and historical map from which one could read the structure, and understand the foundations, of contemporary society. The Greeks share their liking of genealogies with peoples all over the world; industrialization and literacy have changed the modalities of this anthropological phenomenon, but have not done away with it. In pre-industrial societies genealo­ gies can be extremely important in establishing relationships between individuals and groups (clarifying status and degrees of affinity, from which may follow many rules of behavior), legiti­ mizing political power, and providing a sense of history (Henige 1982; Vansina 1985; West 1985, ch. 1; Thomas 1989, ch. 3; Fowler 1998,2 nil. 7-8; Hirschberger 2004,63-70; Finkelberg 2005, ch. 2). Because the genealogies serve vital contemporary purposes, they must correspond in their details to the society’s living sense of the relationships they underpin. A king’s ancestry must be the grandest o f all. Consequently, when these relationships change, so do the genealogies - a process particu­

305

larly fluid in oral societies, where the corrective of a permanent record is not available to challenge retrospective amendment. Though reflecting pre­ vious history, genealogies are more revealing of the time and place in which they are created. An egregious example o f innovation in the Greek context is the genealogy of the Hellenes them­ selves. Homer speaks only o f A khaioi (Achaeans), Danaoi (D anaans), and Argeioi (Argives) in describing the Greeks; the single Hellenic eth­ nicity, which the putative descent from Hellen expresses, is demonstrably a creation o f the early Archaic period - contemporary with Homer, but suppressed by him as alien to the world he depicts. The use of ancestry as a point o f reference is deeply embedded in the Homeric poems through the formulaic use of patronymics such as “Achilles son of Peleus” (in the first line o f the I l i a d ). Elsewhere, brief genealogies may be deployed for introductions (fourteen in the Catalogue of Ships; also II. 5.541-549; Od. 15.225-256,16.117120; see T heoklymenos) or by way o f flyting and intimidation (Idomeneus at II. 13.448—453; Diomedes at 14.113-127; Achilles at 21.188189). Longer genealogies are given by Glaukos at Iliad 6.154-206 in response to Diomedes’ enquiry about his identity (compare Peleus above) (see Glaukos-D iomedes Episode), and Aeneas’ at 20.208-240, the longest in the poem (eight gen­ erations to Glaukos’ six). It has long been sus­ pected that the length and detail of Aeneas’ pedigree reflects the claim of a historical aristocratic family resident in the Troad to be descended from him (cf. II. 20.307-308; Hymn. Ven. 196-197) - an example therefore of genealo­ gies used to bestow and sustain status. Aeneas interestingly asserts that both he and Achilles, though they have never met each other’s families, know all about them through the ètoci Ovgrtuv àvBpiómov (204), the “words of mortal men”; to the real audience, this will have meant perform­ ances of epic poetry, which indeed was one meaning of e p e a (see e p o s ) . Among Glaukos’ ancestors is Bellerophon, whose tragic story the poet memorably relates. Both Glaukos and Aeneas, facing death, attach to their accounts poignant reflections on man’s frail mortality and utter dependence on the gods, echoing the central themes of the Iliad; Glaukos’ narrative is particu­ larly moving. It is introduced by one of Homer’s

306

GENEALOGIES

most imitated similes, comparing the genera­ tions of men to those of leaves (6.146-149); the way the poet turns the common device o f the genealogy, by which people grounded their every­ day sense o f identity, into an expression o f exis­ tential futility, is a stroke o f genius. Happily, however - a sublime, life-affirming touch Glaukos escapes death, as his story has revealed an ancestral guest- friendship with his adversary. In the Catalogue o f Heroines O dysseus meets in the Underworld (Od. 11.235-332; see Nekyi a), genealogies are routinely given; if a link to epic poetry is suspected in the case o f Aeneas’ remark, it is plainly visible in the strong resem­ blance of this passage to the Hesiodic Catalogue o f Women, a fascinating genealogical poem o f the early 6th century bce (but based on a Hesiodic original, see Hf.siod), which carefully correlates the various strands o f Panhellenic mythology into a single whole in a way that made sense in its day (Hunter 2005). Other poets such as Asius of Samos and Cinaethon o f Lacedaemon wrote genealogical poetry; epics such as the Phoronis, the Naupactia, or the Corinthiaca, which worked local lore into poetry, would have recounted the descent o f the founders. Theogony, the descent o f the gods, is a special kind of genealogizing, a quasiphilosophical ordering of divine powers and abstract forces in the cosmos; Hesiod’s great work is the surviving example, but others such as those of Pherecydes o f Syrus or "Orpheus” circulated. Theogony, too, is a worldwide phenomenon (West 1966,1-16). Genealogy was not confined to epic; the pedi­ gree of the victorious athlete could in no way be omitted from the celebratory epinician ode; epitaphian orations began with praise o f the noble ancestors. Ancestry figures in story after story in Herodotus’ text, and genealogy is the foundation of his world chronology. In the Platonic Hippias Maior (285d), Hippias says that the Spartans like to hear nothing more than genealogies and foun­ dation tales o f cities. Mythography, the prose recording o f myths, begins in the late 6th century with Hecataeus of Miletus, and continues with Acusilaus o f Argos, Pherecydes of Athens, Hellanicus of Lesbos, and many others: much of their work was genealogical in form. These were historical works to their authors and readers; noble families claimed descent from the heroes (such as the kings of Sparta, descended from

Herakles, or the Philaids o f Athens, descended from Ajax the Greater). Appeals to kinship could be decisive in war and peace (Jones 1999; Hornblower 1996, 61-80). Genealogizing was in fact so tediously familiar that Plato (Tht. 175a) found it easy to mock. See also Catalogues. ROBERT L. FOWLER

Genre

see Songs.

Geography, the Iliad The I l i a d contains fleet­ ing references to inhabitants o f far-off lands (e.g., Aethiopians, 1.423, 23.206, Pygmies, 3.6, and northern peoples, 13.4-6), indicates good knowl­ edge of the eastern Mediterranean world (Egypt, 9.381-382, Phoenicia, 6.290-291, 23.743-744 [see Phoenicians], and Cyprus, 11.21), and dis­ plays extensive knowledge of areas from which the Greek forces had been marshaled (the main­ land and various islands, including Crete, Kos, and Rhodes, all referred to in the Catalogue of Ships). But its geography usually concerns the northern Aegean and Asia Minor (see also Anatolia). Islands relatively near Troy include Lesbos (9.129, 271,664, 24.544), Tenedos (1.38, 452, 11.625, 13.33), Lemnos (1.593, 2.722, etc.), Imbros (13.33, 14.281, 24.78, 753), and Samos (1) (i.e., Samothrace, 13.12-13, 24.78, 753). In Book 2 the Trojan Catalogue (2.816-877) refers to allies who live north o f the Hellespont in Thrace (see T hracians) and beyond, east along the Hellespont and south of the Black S ea, and also to the southeast and southwest o f Asia Minor as far as Phrygia (see Phrygians) and Lycia (see

Lycians). The allies closest to Troy dwell in the modern Biga peninsula, or the Troad ( Troiê is employed in Homer to designate the city or its surrounding area; Troias is first attested in Classical Greek). Dardanians led by Aeneas dwell nearMt. I da to the southeast. Other nearby allies include the inhabitants of Zeleia, on the western side of the Ida range near the Aisepos River, and the Pelasgians of Larisa, perhaps to the south of Troy. The Troad is essentially Priam’s kingdom, which Achilles succinctly demarcates with

GEOGRAPHY,

Lesbos to the south, the Hellespont to the north and northeast, and Phrygia to the east (24.544545). The Aisepos River (2.825, 4.91, 12.21) and Mt. Ida (2.821, 824, et al.) seem to serve as more precise markers for the east and southeast bound­ aries o f the Troad. Several cities on nearby islands and toward the south o f the Troad were sacked by the Greeks; Achilles claims credit for sacking twelve by ship and eleven on foot at 9.328-329. A number o f these Troad cities are notable as the origin o f key characters in the Iliad-. Chryse, home o f C hryses and his daughter ChryseIs (1.37, 100,431, etc., though Achilles’ account at l .366-369 indicates that Chryse'is was captured at Cilician T hebes); Lyrnessos, home o f Briseis (2.689-91, 19.60, 20.92, 191); and Cilician (Hypoplacian) Thebes, home o f Andromache (1.366, 2.691, 6.397,416; see Map 3). The topography in the Iliad can be vague, but it is marked by a recurring set o f landmarks, often described f r o m the aerial perspective o f g o d s

THE

I L I AD

307

in flight or perched on high (e.g., 13.1Ö-14, 14.280-288; see D ivine Audience). The Homeric landscape is probably largely conceptual, designed to serve the immediate needs o f the narrative. But many details seem discernible in the landscape today, which has encouraged specu­ lation that autopsy of the Troad informed the Iliad or its tradition. A strict antithesis between poetic imagination and topographical exactitude need not be made, though it should be kept in mind that the Troad’s landscape changed greatly between the time o f the Late Bronze Age and the early Archaic Age, and even more between antiquity and the present. The Iliad indicates that the Greek camp was near the Hellespont, and scholars traditionally localized the Greek ships between the Sigeion and Rhoition ridges (not mentioned in the Iliad). This would seem rather close to the historical Ilion/ Ilium at Hisarlik, and as a consequence Troy was often located further south (Strab. 13.1.36-37).

308

Map 4.

GEOGRAPHY,

THE

ILIAD

Troy and environs.

But the area between the Sigeion and Rhoition ridges was actually a shallow bay in antiquity (con­ temporaneously to the composition of the Homeric poem, as well as in the Late Bronze Age). This was sometimes suspected in antiquity (Strab. 13.1.36), but it could be denied (Leaf 1912,30) until proven by recent scientific investigation. As a result, an alternative localization for the Greek camp at Besika Bay on the Aegean shore to the south o f the Sigeion ridge has gained favor (which depends on a flexible conception o f the Homeric Hellespont). A variant o f this theory specifies the east slope o f the southern Sigeion ridge (Luce 1998,140-148). Since no archaeological evidence for a Greek camp or harbor has been found, the issue remains one of mytho-poetic, not historical topography. Favoring the location o f the Greek camp by the Aegean is the frequent appearance o f Achilles by the sea and the general tendency o f the poem to associate salt water with the Greeks and fresh water

with the Trojans (Fenno 2005). The plain itself is traversed by several rivers (12.20-22), though only three are mentioned elsewhere: the Aisepos (2.825,4.91), Simoeis (4.475,5.7/4,777,6.4,20.53, 21.307), and S kamandros/Xanthos (mortal and divine name [20.74]; both forms employed repeat­ edly: see Language, in Homer). The latter is most important; Astyanax takes his by-name Skamandrios from it (6.402; cf. 2.465,467,5.49), a ford over it is occasionally mentioned (14.433434, 21.1-2, 24.692-693; cf. 24.349-51), and the river battles mightily with Achilles in Book 21. Other natural features serve as landmarks, like the hill Kallikolone to the east of Troy (20.53, 151), two trees near the city (oak: 6.237 [v. 1.}, 7.22, 9.354, 11.170; cf. 5.693, 7.60, 21.549; fig: 6.433, 11.167, 22.145), and the twin springs at some distance to the city by which Hector and Achilles run in Book 22 (145-146). The springs have traditionally been localized at Bunarbashi or

GEOGRAPHY,

Pinarbasi to the south of Hisarlik, though Lechevalier’s claim to have found a hot spring and a cold spring, matching the Homeric description, has never been confirmed. Human-made monuments are also prominent in Homeric topography. Besides Troy and its gates, notably the Scaean Gates (3.145, 149, etc.), there is the defensive wall (Achaean Wall) and ditch built around the Greek camp in Book 7 (336-343, to be destroyed by Poseidon with the Troad rivers after the war, as foretold at 12.24-33) and the “fort o f Herakles” (20.144-148), per­ haps a structure or tumulus on the Aegean coast. Mounds associated with legendary or heroic figures are prominent features of the Iliad's land­ scape. Modern archaeological investigation has not clearly demonstrated that any originated before the Classical Age, and some have proved to be natural formations. Their permanence in the landscape cannot be assumed; erosion, grave rob­ bing, archaeological exploration, and military fortification have modified or destroyed many. The Homeric poems clearly assume their exist­ ence, however. In the Iliad some are associated with shadowy figures of the past, like the tombs of Aisyetes (2.793) and the Trojan ancestor Ilos (1) (10.415, 11.166, 372, 24.349). The hill known by mortals as Batieia is known by divinities as the tomb of “much-bounding Myrine” (2.811-814; Myrine is identified by scholia as an Amazon). Heroic tumuli are produced in the course of the Iliad-, in Book 23 one is constructed to serve as the eventual resting place for the bones o f Patroklos and Achilles (actualized at Odyssey 24.80-82), and the poem ends with the construction o f a tomb for Hector. At 7.86 Hector imagines that a burial mound might be built by the Hellespont for a slain opponent. The practice o f identifying mounds in the Troad with Homeric heroes continued on through­ out antiquity (and persists to the present day; dozens still exist in the Troad area). Particularly famous were tombs identified with Protesilaos on the north shore o f the Hellespont, with Ajax located at the Rhoetion ridge, and with Achilles and Patroklos on the northern slope o f the Sigeion ridge. Because o f controversy over the localiza­ tion o f the Greek camp and the town o f Achilleion (which probably existed at the Besika cape south o f the Sigeion ridge), Sivri Tepe near Besika Bay has recently found favor as a tumulus o f Achilles

THE

ODYSSEY

309

(dated to the Hellenistic period in its latest form). The heroic tumuli have often attracted the atten­ tion of visitors, such as Alexander the G reat, Julius Caesar, and Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople. References and Suggested Readings For ancient views on the geography o f the Troad, the primary text is S t r a b o 1 3 .1 , on which Leaf 1 92 3 pro­ vides a thorough commentary. Leaf 1 9 1 2 is dated and sometimes opinionated, but is still useful. Leaf 1 9 1 2 , Cook 1 9 7 3 , and Luce 1 998 have the merit o f employing personal autopsy and enquiry. Cook 1 9 7 3 provides the most detailed scholarship on ancient and modern views; Luce 1998 gives more attention to the Homeric evidence and is more confident than many about the correlation between poetry and reality. JONATHAN S. E U R G ES S

Geography, the Odyssey The geography of. the O d y s s e y which, as distinct from that o f O dysseus’ wanderings, would have been readily identifiable with real places, encompasses locales throughout most of the eastern Mediterranean: Homer dem­ onstrates and assumes in his audience at least a passing knowledge of familiar locales such as the Troad and western Greece, but also o f Egypt, Phoenicia (see Phoenicians), Crete, Cyprus, and Libya. This entry treats only the places that surround Ithaca and those that are visited by Telemachos on his travels to Pylos and Sparta. Serving narrative rather than navigational aims (to cite but one example, scholars have long noted the impossibility o f Telemachos’ chariot ride across Mt. Taygetos: S. West 1988, 64), Homer’s geography has not unexpectedly created consider­ able consternation for subsequent generations of scholars. Most famously, the location o f O dysseus’ home island o f Ithaca has been a crux since the time o f Strabo (10.2.8-26). Many o f the data offered by Homer would suit virtually any o f the Ionian Islands (4.605-608, 9.21-27, 13.242247): for example, it is “rough” (trêcheia 9.27), narrow, poor for raising horses, but good for cat­ tle and goats and timber, and some o f the descrip­ tors used are o f dubious signification (x6apaXf|, eòôeíeXoç, Ttpòç Çóijiov; for suggested meanings of these terms, see Stubbings 1962b, 400—402 and Diggle 2005,520). More helpfully, we learn (9.24) that Ithaca is near Doulichion (perhaps Paliki in

310

G E O G R A P H Y , THE O DY S S E Y

Map 5. Major regions and cities enjoying close contacts with Ithaca in the Ithacan books of the Odyssey (1-4, 13-24). western Kephallenia, or Leukas), S a m e (perhaps Kephallenia), and well-wooded Z akyn th os (cf. Stubbings 1962b, 400; S. West 1988, 64). Ithaca itself has been variously identified with modern Ithaki and the promontory of Leukas (Dörpfeld 1927). Recently, R. Bittlestone has championed Paliki as Ithaca, which is separated from the larger, eastern portion of the island by only a small chan­ nel which may have been submerged at times in antiquity (Strab. 10.2.15; Diggle 2005,508). On Ithaca, the Odyssey presents a well-articulated set o f distinctive, named geographical features: Rheithron Bay and a wooded mountain, Ne'ion (1.186); Odysseus’ palace and Laertes’ gardens; E um aios ’ pig farm; the Bay of P horkys (2) and the nearby Mt. Nf.riton and the Cave o f the Nymphs (13.96-112); the rock Korax and the spring Arethousa (13.408); the island o f Asteris . The political influence o f Odysseus’ Ithaca extends to other southern Ionian Islands and the west coast o f the mainland as well (Map 5). At Iliad 2.631 -6 3 7 , Odysseus leads the Kephallenes ,

who control a range of sites in the adjacent islands and the “mainland” (èpeiron) and “facing parts" (antiperaia). The Odyssey implies a similar extent to Odysseus’ dominion: Eumaios claims that none rival Odysseus’ holdings in l i v e s t o c k “either on the black èpeiron nor Ithaca itself” (14.96-98). Kirk (1985, 221) notes that Elis , where the Ithacan Noêmon (3) owns horses (4.634-637), and Acarnania both match this description o f the mainland (see also Nerikos). The communis opinio favors Acarnania and pos­ sibly Aetolia (Malkin 1998, 130). Nevertheless, at 21.344-347 Telemachos refers to the isles near Elis, and Strabo (10.2.10) suggests that one of the Echinades may have been part of Odysseus’ kingdom. Further, Odysseus’ family has genea­ logical ties to the Peloponnese (Penelope was born to Ikarios - often identified as Spartan and had a tomb in Arcadia), and in the Tblecony , Odysseus seems to have traveled to Elis to inspect cattle belonging to him (Malkin 1998, 130-131). There is also archaeological evidence that during

GEOMETRIC PERIOD the Bronze Age a special connection existed between the Ionian Islands and the western Peloponnese, and that this connection prevailed also during the Iron Age (Petrakis 2006). The west coast o f the mainland further north plays a crucial role in the Odyssey and likely the Telegony as well: Thesprotia (E pirus ) and Dodona, though lacking their own epithets in the epic tradition (cf. Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989, 214-215), are a destination o f Odysseus’ sojourn in his lying tale to Eumaios (14.314—340) and a final stop on his itinerary in the tale to Penelope (19.270-299) (see also T hesprotians ); Odysseus also has intimate relations of guest friendship with I los (2) ofThesprotian E phyra (1.259). From Homer’s treatment of these places in the alternative versions o f Odysseus’ home­ coming in his lying tales, Malkin (1998,131) con­ cludes: “Thesprotia in the Odyssey and Elis in both the Telegony and the Odyssey seem to indi­ cate both an allusion o f the Odyssey to its sequels and alternatives and a reflection o f Ithaca’s multiple real-world connections with its various mainlands (Epirus and the Peloponnese).” Among the ancient contenders for Homeric Pylos, the Mycenaean “Palace o f Nestor” at Ano Englianos enjoys pride of place owing to the pres­ ence of Linear B tablets containing the word pu-ro (“Pylos”; but see S. West 1988,64,159; see also M essenia ). Its most distinctive landscape feature is its “fair harbor” and shoreline where Tclemachos first encounters Nestor (3.1-8). Homeric Sparta presents difficulties: Cartledge (2002, 288-292) notes that Homer’s Sparte “may refer either to classical Sparta or to an earlier counterpart of that name, for which the site on the Menelaion ridge is the only real candidate,” and, observing the absence of evidence for a large palace, speculates that “the description of Menelaos’ palace in the fourth book o f the Odyssey [may be largely] fictional.”

References and Suggested Readings Stubbings 1962b discusses candidates for the primary distinctive features o f Ithaca on both Leukas and Ithaki; see Bittlestone 2005 on Paliki. For Pylos, see Biegen 1962, 1966-1973; for Sparta, Cartledge 2002; for the Peloponnese in general, see Nobili 2009. For the impor­ tance o f Epirus and Elis for the Odyssey, the Thesprotis, and the Telegony, see chapter 4 o f Malkin 1998.

BENJAMIN HALLER

311

Geometric Period This name is most fre­ quently given to the period 900-700 bce , the conventional dating given to the Geometric style o f painted pottery developed at Athens that spread throughout Greece; sometimes this is described as the “full Geometric period” and the preceding period, stretching back to the sec­ ond half o f the 11th century bce , during which the Protogeometric style was current, may be included in the term. Although the Geometric style took time to spread, being effectively universal only in the second half o f the 8th century bce , and although the term is basically an artistic one, also applica­ ble in metal , ivory, and terracotta work, espe­ cially the increasingly elaborate figurines, the period has been thought to have a definable his­ torical character, in that it reflects Greece’s emergence from the Dark Age. It is seen as a period o f growing stability, prosperity, and expansion, especially in overseas contacts that brought increasing exposure to foreign, espe­ cially N ear Eastern , influences. These stimu­ lated developments o f many kinds, most notably the adoption o f the alphabet , and may well have been felt in the development and telling of myths and heroic tales. The growing stability and prosperity are reflected in the establishment o f larger and more nucleated settlements, that were often provided with shrine buildings for patron gods, and the burial custom s : especially in the second half of the 8th century, archaeologically detectable forms of formal burial became much more com­ mon, and at many sites conspicuously elaborate and well-provided burials may be identified as those o f an established and self-confident a ris ­ tocracy . Vases used as markers for such burials at some centers (particularly Athens), to hold the ashes of the dead where cremation was the normal rite, or to serve as grave-goods, were decorated first with systems o f zones and panels, usually filled with geometric patterns and only very rarely containing animals, humans, or clearly mythical figures such as sphinxes; but from the middle o f the 8th century scenes involving these were made the focus of the dec­ oration on many elaborate vases. The themes of these scenes very much reflect the likely preoc­ cupations o f the aristocracy: battles, seafaring , hunting , horses and horse-taming, elaborate funerals, processions, and ritual dances.

312

GEOM ETRIC

PERIOD

Some o f these, particularly Battle-S cenes, have been interpreted as representations of specific heroic legends; the arguments are inconclusive, but that they reflect a society whose leaders saw themselves in a self-consciously “heroic” light and imagined the heroic world as an idealized and much more splendid version of their own seems likely enough. Hence, many of the details of life and society of the Homeric epics seem appro­ priate to the Geometric period and particularly the 8th century. See also D ark Age . References and Suggested Readings Coldstream 1968, 2003; Hägg 1983; Snodgrass 1987, ch. 6; Whitley 2001, chs. 5 -6 .

pany Penelope (15.522). The imminent loss gives resonance to Odysseus’ wish that the P haeacian nobles might pass down their geras ' (7.149-150) as well as to the words o f Kt e sip p o s , who hurls a hoof at the disguised Odysseus for the beggar to give as geras to a bath attendant (20.296-298). The dead merit the geras of proper burial (II. 16.675, 23.9; see B urial C ustoms ), while the elderly deserve a social role (4.323, 9.422). Meat-SACRIFICE is the gods’ due geras (4.49, 24.70), just as the geras o f a prime meat portion honors the king (O d. 4.66), a special guest (14.437), or a champion (//. 7.321). This usage colors the suggestion by T h ersites that Agamemnon be abandoned to “cook his [own] prizes Igera].”

OLIVER T. P. K. DICKINSON

RICHARD MARTIN

Geraistos (Tepaicrróç) The southernmost point of Euboea , famous for its temple to Poseidon (Strab. 10.1.7). After having crossed the Aegean on their way home from Troy, the Greeks stopped at Geraistos and offered a sacrifice to Poseidon (Od. 3.176-179).

Gerenian (TEpijvioç) A component of two Homeric formulae for N estor : “the Gerenian horseman” (twenty-one times in the I l i a d , ten times in the O d y s s e y ) , and “Nestor the Gerenian, the warder of the Achaeans” (four times in the Iliad, once in the Odyssey). The origin of the name is obscure. According to the H esiodic Catalogue o f Women, at the time of Herakles ’ raid of Pylos, which cost the lives of his eleven brothers, Nestor stayed as a guest with “Gerenian tamers of horses ” and thus survived ([Hes.] fr. 35.6-8 M-W, cf. fr. 34). Later tradition associated this story with Gerenia in Messenia , which bordered on Messenian Pherai (Strab. 8.4.4; cf. Paus. 3.26.8; cf. 4.3.2).

geras (yépaç) Entitlement due to martial per­ formance or status. In the I l i a d , it usually desig­ nates prizes of war, including captive women , awarded by the group (II. 9.111, 344, 16.56, 18.444, 19.89; cf. Od. 7.10). Agamemnon, forced to return his gems (C hryseis ) to stop a plague, in turn takes Achilles’ (B rise 'i s ), prompting the hero’s boycott in protest at the consequent loss of honor. In Achilles’ view, status alone motivates Agamemnon’s greater gems, despite his own equal efforts (1.161-168). Their clash over entitlement emphasizes the disequilibrium between authority and ability. Achilles alludes to this theme when remarking that for reasons o f status (P riam ’s sons taking precedence), Aeneas will never be honored with the geras of commanding Troy’s fighters (20.182). The O d y s s e y focuses on a threat to domestic wealth, called geras, which implicitly can be supplemented by war booty (cf. 11.534). O dysseus enquires about his estate using the term (11.175); Telemachos acknowledges that the S uitors seek his father’s gem s, to accom-

MARGAHT FINKELBERG

Giants (Liyavtc«;) In the Theogony of H esiod the great Giants are born (along with the E rinyes and the Melian Nymphs ) from Earth and the blood from the severed genitals o f the Sky god (178-187). Hesiod presents them as warriors “shining in their armor” and “holding long spears in their hands” (185-186). Homer mentions the Giants only in the Odyssey at 7.56-59,7.205-206, and 10.119-120, and offers little detail about them. In the first of these, Athene tells O dysseus that Nausithoos, the former king of the P haeacians, was the son of Poseidon and

G1LGÃMESH

P eriboia (2), the daughter of Eurymedon (3), "who once ruled over the great-hearted Giants” (7.59). The king, however, destroyed his “reckless [iatasthalon] people” (7.60, see atasthauê ) and perished himself. In his commentary, Hainsworth (1988, at 7.59) argues that Homer "betrays no acquaintance with the elaborate mythology of the Gigantomachia. The allusion to the Giants’ defeat in 60, if not an ad hoc invention, is obscure.” The apparent savagery of the Giants is reiterated by Alkinoos , king of the Phaeacians, who claims that his people are very close to the gods “as are the C yclopes and the wild [agria} tribes of the Giants” (7.205-206). The third reference to the Giants in the Odyssey (10.119-120) again points to their destructive violence. Odysseus describes the Laestrygonians, who destroy his whole fleet (apart from his own ship), as “not like men, but like Giants.” The story of the battle o f the Giants against the gods (Gigantomachia), a favorite myth in the Greek world, is related in some detail by Apollodorus (1.6.1) and is frequent in art and sculpture (Vian, LIMC 4/1,191-270). CHRISTOPHER JOHN MACKIE

Gifts

see Exchange.

Gilgämesh Gilgämesh was a Sumerian godhero, considered to have been an ancient king of the city o f Uruk. He was the subject o f five Sumerian narrative poems and o f a more extended one in Akkadian conventionally known as the Epic o f Gilgämesh. This is known to us from over two hundred fragments of cuneiform tablets from different periods and sites. The first was read in 1872, and they con­ tinue to be found; we now have perhaps two thirds o f the original. It is much the longest of Mesopotamian poems and also the most affect­ ing, with its tragic perspective on issues o f life and death. Its importance for Homeric studies is that it contains a series o f episodes and motifs that have remarkable correspondences in the I l i a d and O d y s s e y . The hero’s name is first attested in the mid-3rd millennium as Pabilga-mes,“The forebear a hero,” later reduced to Bilgames; the form Gilgämesh became established by the early 2nd millennium.

313

The epic had a long history. The first written ver­ sion dates from the Old Babylonian period, about the 18th century uce. Manuscript divergences show that variant versions were current, perhaps representing different oral performances that the scribes had heard. By the later 2nd millennium, copies existed not only in Mesopotamia but also in Syria and Palestine and at the H it t it e capital Hattusas in central Anatolia. There are also frag­ ments of translations or paraphrases in Hurrian and Hittite. Sometime in this period a revised and expanded recension was made, apparently by the learned exorcist or diviner Sin-lèqi-unninnT. This is what is known as the Standard Babylonian Version, represented by the majority o f the known fragments. It had a fixed format of twelve tablets, of which I-X I contain the revised poem, some 3,100 lines in length, while XII is a prose append­ age, a translation of part o f the Sumerian poem Bilgames and the Netherworld. Here is a synopsis: (I) Gilgamesh’s overbearing behavior as king of Uruk prompts the gods to create a counter to him, a man of the wild, Enkidu. Hearing of this savage, Gilgämesh sends a harlot to seduce him and bring him to town. (II) Enkidu comes. He wrestles with Gilgämesh, who realizes that he has met his match. The two become firm friends. Gilgämesh announces his intention to journey to the faraway Cedar Forest to fight its monstrous guardian Humbäba. (HI—V) It is agreed that Enkidu will accompany him. They make the jour­ ney, kill Humbäba, and return with his head. (VI) The love-goddess Ishtar, impressed by Gilgämesh’s manliness, offers him her love, but he rejects her. Furious, she goes up to heaven, weeps before her parents Anu and Antu, and prevails upon Anu to let her deploy the Bull o f Heaven. It causes havoc in Uruk. Gilgämesh and Enkidu kill it. (VII) The gods decide that one o f the two must die. The choice falls upon Enkidu, and he wastes away. (VIII) Gilgämesh laments him at length and sees to his funeral. (IX) Distraught, troubled by the problem o f death, Gilgämesh decides on a jour­ ney to see Uta-napishti, the survivor o f the Flood to whom the gods granted eternal life at the ends o f the earth. He reaches Mt. Mäshu, from where the sun rises, and persuades its guardians to let him pass through the long, pitch-dark tunnel that leads to the far side. He emerges in a shining garden o f precious stones. (X) He finds an iso­ lated tavern and asks the alewife, Shiduri, for

314

GILGÃM ESH

directions on how to cross the sea to Ütanapishti. The ferryman Ur-shanabi is induced to lake him over the“waters of death.” (XI) Gilgãmesh questions Üta-napishti on how he obtained eter­ nal life. Üta-napishti relates the story of the Flood. As for Gilgãmesh, if he wants immortality, he must first remain awake for a week. Gilgãmesh fails the test and falls asleep for a week. He sets off lo return home. Ota-napishti tells him where to dive in the sea to pluck an underwater plant that restores youth. He obtains it, but as he continues his journey it is stolen from him by a snake. He arrives hack in Uruk in the knowledge that his journey was in vain. (XII) An alternative story of Enkidu's death, alter which his ghost returns through a hole in the earth and describes to Gilgãmesh the horrors of the Underworld. The principal Homeric comparanda are as follows. Ach illes , like Gilgãmesh, is an impul­ sive hero with a divine mother who sorrows over her son’s destiny. He has a much-loved comrade who dies tragically, provoking him to extrava­ gant lamentation and thoughts of his own death ; the sim ile in Iliad 18.16-23 is closely paralleled in the Akkadian poem. Later, his com­ rade’s soul comes up from Hades and he tries to embrace it, as Gilgãmesh embraces Enkidu’s ghost. (There is a similar scene between O dysseus and his mother’s ghost in Hades.) Finally, Achilles’ meeting with a famous older man from outside his own w o rld - Priam -p u ts an end to his frenzy and brings him to philo­ sophic acceptance. The Ishtar episode in Gilg. VI is strikingly echoed in Iliad 5.3.30-43U, where Aph ro d ite , wounded by D iomf. des , withdraws to O lympos and complains to her parents Z eus and D ionb (Sky-god and consort, = Anu and Antu). In the Odyssey the lonely hostess Kir k e , who lives near the sunrise and sends the hero over the water to Hades, has many points o f contact with Shiduri, and Kalypso has others. Gilgãmesh motifs can also be found in Odysseus’ stay with the P haeacians and at other points in his distant travels. The sum of the parallels is substantial and compels us to suppose that knowledge o f the Gilgãmesh story somehow filtered across to Greek poets. It is hard to imagine an actual Greek ver­ sion o f the Akkadian epic, but if one existed it would explain much.

See also Near East and H omer . References and Suggested Readings Oberhuber 1977 (anthology o f scholarly essays from 1903 to 1964); West 1997a, esp. 151-167, 336-347, 402-417; George 1999,2003. m a r t in l . w e s t

Glaukos (rXaÜKOç) The Glaukos (“the gleam­ ing one”) o f the Iliad is first mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue (7/. 2.876-877) as, together with his cousin Sarpedon , a co-leader of the Lycians. In the G laukos- D iomedes episode (6.119-236) he proudly relates his genealogy, from Aiolos’ son S isyphos (see Aeolids ) over another Glaukos and B ellerophon , down to Hippolochos (1) and his generation. “Hippoiochos fathered me” (6.206), Glaukos says, without revealing his own name. His family story suffices to identify him as D iomedes ’ guest-friend (see G uest -F rien d sh ip ), as the latter’s grand­ father O ineus once entertained Bellerophon. Diomedes and Glaukos then famously exchange armor , and the poet comments that Zeus took away Glaukos’ wits (6.234; see Exchange). Glaukos fights bravely (7.13, 12.387, 14.426). At 12.310-328, he is the addressee o f Sarpedon’s reflections on the privileges and obligations of heroes (see H ero ). At 16.492-501, the dying Sarpedon beseeches him to fight for his body and armor. The wounded Glaukos appeals to Apollo, is healed, takes action, castigates Hector (16.537547), and is “first in battle” (16.593); but as Patroklos takes center stage, we lose sight of Glaukos until we hear him threaten to withdraw his Lycians and chide Hector for abandoning Sarpedon’s body and failing to secure Patroklos’ (17.142-168); Hector is somewhat annoyed, and surprised as well, as he thought that “for wits you surpassed all others” (17.171). In the fight over Achilles’ body, Glaukos is killed by Aiax (Aith iopis arg. 3 West; Apollod. Epit. 5.4) or by Agamemnon (Hyg. Fab. 113); his body is snatched from the pyre by Apollo and taken to Lycia (Quint. Smym. 4.4-6). These will probably be later accretions to his story. Whatever Glaukos may owe to pre-Homeric tradition, in the Iliad he emerges as a distinct character, not much unlike Diomedes. 0 IV IN D A N D ERSEN

GLORY

Glaukos-Diomedes Episode DuringAcHiLLEs’ absence in Book 5 of the I lia d , D iomedes has spectacular success, even wounding Ares and Aph ro d ite . In Book 6, H ector goes into Troy to direct the women to pray to Athene for help against Diomedes. As Hector travels, the poet, as he often does, inserts an episode with different characters in another location to occupy the time o f the journey (Bassett 1938, 39-40; de Jong 2001, xiv calls this "fill-in technique’; see also T im e ). This is the encounter between Diomedes and G laukos (6.119-236), the chief follower of S arpf. don, the Trojans’ Lycian ally (see Lycians ). Diomedes does not know Glaukos, and asks whether he is a god, threatening to kill him if he is mortal. The speech includes a short narrative about King Lykourgos (1), who fought the god D ionysos, but suffered for it. Glaukos replies by first denigrating genealogy (“as the generation of leaves, so is the generation of men”), but then narrating at considerable length the story o f his grandfather, B ellerophon . Bellerophon’s story is complex: driven from Greece to Lycia by a false accusation, he kills the monstrous C himaira and seems to have achieved supreme success, but ends in miserable wandering, hated by the gods. Gods also kill two o f his three children. Glaukos describes how his father sent him to Troy, telling him “always to be best.” Diomedes surprisingly responds that they should not fight, because Bellerophon was a guest-friend of Diomedes’ grandfather. Instead, they should exchange armor , so that everyone will recognize their friendship (see G uest -F rien dsh ip ). Then Zeus “took Glaukos’ wits away,” so that he traded his gold armor for Diomedes’ bronze . The unequal exchange is hard to understand. Is Diomedes winning a contest, even though they do not fight, and, if he is, does he win because o f his cleverness or because the gods favor him? The episode raises other questions, too. Diomedes would seem to be the last hero in a position to speak piously about the dangers o f fighting with gods. Glaukos’ narrative omits famous details in the Bellerophon story, such as the flying horse, Pegasos, and is obscure at many points. How a reader interprets these speeches will affect the interpretation o f the episode as a whole. It remains puzzling, and discussion about it will certainly continue.

315

See also Exchange. References and Suggested Readings On the Bellerophon story as n ar rativ e , see de long 2004, 162-168. For a range o f recent interpretations, see Gaisser 1969b, Donian 1989a, Scodel 1992, Harries 1993. RUTH SC ODEL

Glisas (only acc. rkioavr’) Town in Boeotia mentioned in the C atalogue of S hips (II. 2.504). Located on Mt. Hypatos, modern Saginaw, to northeast o f T hebes , a mile away from Teumessos, modern Mesovouno (Hdt. 9.43.2, Strab. 9.2.31, Paus. 9.19.2). The decisive battle in the war of the Epigoni against Thebes is said to have taken place here, and Glisas was known in antiq­ uity for its gravemound o f the fallen Argive heroes (Paus. 1.44.7, 9.4.7, 9.8.3, 9.9.1). Usually identified with a strongly built acropolis (M ycenaean and Classical sherds) on the top o f the hill. See also T heban Cycle.

Glory The primary motivation for heroic action in the epics, resulting from divine bestowal of fighting strength in the midst of battle, and, in the longer term, public commemoration of martial deeds or character. Glory from the former is usu­ ally designated kudos; the latter is most often called k l b o s , which can be translated “fame,” “report,”o r“glory besto wed by poetry.” If Homeric heroes were not mortal, they would neither need nor desire glory, as the Trojan ally S arpedon explains to his companion G laukos (II. 12.310— 328). Warriors are honored by the community with special privileges, grants of land, and feasts because on its behalf they risk death. This in turn gives them a wide reputation, spreading the fame of their people, which gives grounds for the com­ munity’s expenditure and ensures that their lives will not be forgotten. The powerful ideology o f glorious commemoration extending eternally thiis justifies the very medium o f Homeric epic. Kims is literally “that which is heard” (cf. kluô, “hear,” cognate with English “loud”). In several passages of the Odyssey this literal meaning can still be found. O dysseus seeks to delay the spread of the news of the Suitors’ slaughter (23.137).

316

GLORY

Telemachos journeys to get news o f his father (3.83) and on his return asks the swineherd Eumaios about the news from town (16.461). In ' a more marked sense, kleos in the Odyssey signi­ fies “good reputation” due to widespread report. Telemachos will win it for himself (1.95) and is reminded of the reputation O restes won (1.298), while his mother Penelope has gained repute by her fidelity (18.255, 19.108, 128). In a fur­ ther stylization, the kleos of Orestes’ deed and Penelope’s loyalty is predicted to be material for future songs (singular aoidê) (3.204, 24.196), an allusion to poetic traditions that must have been known to the Homeric audience. The con­ nection o f glory and repute with song stands out most clearly in the depiction o f the activity of D emodokos, the bard at the court of the P haeacians, whom the Muse inspires to sing the “glories o f men” (klea andrôn) in the form o f sto­ ries of the T rojan War (8.73). The actual song (or “plotline”: oimê) that he performs is charac­ terized as having its own burgeoning repute (kleos: 8.74; cf. the similar description of the activity of the Ithacan bard P hemios at 1.338). As a verbal product that can transmit kleos at the same time as it obtains its own form of celebrity, poetic song therefore has a status similar to pro­ phetic voices and signs originating from Z eus (1.282-283; cf. II. 2.325; see also P rophecy ). It is appropriate that Odysseus begins his autobio­ graphical narration with a reference to his own glorious repute (kleos) that reaches the heavens (Od. 9.20), when he is about to perform like the bard Demodokos at the royal court in Scheria . For it is poetry that embeds his words and carries his story to future generations. Achilles , too, is seen performing stories of fame (II. 9.186-189), while accompanying him­ self on a stringed instrument (unlike Odysseus during his long narration)., But the hero o f the I l i a d apparently sings about past figures, such men as M eleager whose unfortunate tale, an example of the “glories of heroes” (klea andrôn hêrôôn), is recounted to him later in the same epi­ sode by the aged P hoinix (9.524-525). The Iliad itself, meanwhile, is explicitly characterized by the poet as what has been heard from the M uses , in contrast to and relying on what the goddesses, with timeless knowledge, once observed when events were unfolding (2.484-486). This invoca­ tion introducing the extensive C atalogue of

S h ips thus connects the literal meaning of kleos with its more developed sense o f “glory through poetry.” The Iliad describes several warriors as having chosen to go to Troy “after glory” (meta kleos: [phidamas 11.227; O thuyoneus 13.364). For Achilles,“unwithering fame" (kleos aphthiton) must come at the price o f death at Troy, in con­ trast to a return home without glory (9.413). Hector , when faced with death, wishes for future glory instead of perishing without kleos (22.304-305). Athletic feats (Od. 8.147-148), kind treatment o f beggars (17.418), cunning intelligence (13.299), agood shot (II. 4.207), and a h e c a t o m b (23.864) can all bring repute. It can be embodied also in material objects, like the armor that one takes as spoil from an enemy (17.131), Nestor’s elabo­ rate shield (8.192), and (so Poseidon fears) the wall built by the Achaeans over the bones of those who died in battle (7.451; see Achaean Wall ). Another means for the diffusion of fame is through proper burial . Hector imagines that an enemy’s conspicuous tomb will prompt future generations to remember his own fame as a fighter (7.91), just as Agamemnon's tomb built by M enelaos will be a source o f “unquenched fame” for his brother (Od. 4.584). Odysseus regrets that death at sea will deprive him of such a reminder o f glory (5.311), the visible marker that his son believes would have provided kleos for himself as well (1.240). Kudos, the word that refers to more immediate and conspicuous “glory” rather than long-term fame, derives from an Indo -E uropean root meaning “marvel” (cf. Russian chudo, "miracle”). It can denote a luxury object that gives status or charisma to its owner, like an ornate horse-bit (II. 4.145). Most often the word refers to a divine gift of power enabling extraordinary martial or athletic deeds (cf. 23.400). Victory goes to which­ ever side in batde is favored with kudos from Zeus (5.33). In such situations, kudos might be trans­ lated “success” (cf. Od. 15.320, concerning the patronage o f Herm es ). In this sense of immediate, recognizable advantage the word appears in the frequent epic formula “to win kudos" (e.g. II. 21.596,22.393). Mainly in this usage the mention o f kudos overlaps with phraseology surrounding kleos (cf. 5.3, 273, 6.446). Metonymically, for his role in winning such victories and attention through successful battle, a hero himself can

GODS

be designated the "glory” (kudos) of his commu­ nity (e.g., Odysseus: 9.673; Nestor: 10.87; Hector: 22.435). Such a speech habit underlies Agamemnon's strategy in motivating heroes by giving them and their ancestors honor through words (10.69). See also Hero.

1

...

__________________ ....

References an d Suggested Readings Benveniste 1969a includes an important section on the semantics of kudos; Finkelberg 1986 examines the for­ mulaic evidence for the antiquity of the expression kleos aphthiton and related phraseology; Martin 1989 analyzes spkeches within the poem and speaking abili­ ties as an aspect of repute; Nagy 1999 (revised edition of G. Nagy 1979) explores the semantics of kleos within the analysis of heroic status; Pucci 1998, 179-230, is a detailed appraisal of the thematics of the concepts as they relate to one another; Watkins 1995 discusses the antiquity and cognates in other traditions of Greek poetic expressions, including the notion of “unwither­ ing fame.” RICHARD MARTIN

Glosses Ancient term (glôttai) for difficult and obsolete words that required an explanation. Such explanations appear either in the margins and between the lines o f the relevant text (see Scholia) or as self-contained word lists (glossa­ ries). The first collections were made by rhap­ sodes, perhaps as early as the 6th century bce. No later than the last third o f the 5th century, the learning of glosses had become a common school exercise (Aristophanes fr. 233 K-A) (see Education, Homer in). Glosses were considered typical of (heroic) poetry (Arist. Poet. 1459a9-10). They were contrasted with “current” words (kuria) and thus included dialectal and foreign words. The first comprehensive and learlied'SSllections were made around 300 bce by Philitas o f Cos (ffs. 29-59 Kuchenmüller = Spanoudakis) and Simias o f Rhodes (ff. 27 Powell = 29-32 Fränkel). Glosses remained an important part of ancient lexicography. RE N É N Ü N L IST

Gods The Greek historian Herodotus tells us that Homer and Hesiod “composed the theogony

317

for the Greeks, assigning the gods their names, defining their honors and abilities, and describ­ ing their forms” (Histories 2.53). The Homeric poems provide our earliest literary delineation of the gods of ancient Greece - one congruent with the account o f divine kinship given in Hesiod’s Theogony, they are also the authoritative source _ o f later- images that we associate with a distinc-----tively Hellenic pantheon. Yet the myths o f the gods embedded in, and forming the background to, the I l i a d and O d y s s e y attest the poems’ close ties to ancient Near Eastern polytheistic mytholo­ gies and religions (see Near East and Homer). Significant parallels with the divinities of ante­ cedent Mesopotamian and Anatolian epic indi­ cate a shared mythopoeic terrain - established through transmission via what Walter Burkert has called the “Near-Eastern-Aegean cultural community” - and possibly, in the of case o f some features, a shared ancestry. One common mythological element is that o f a succession of primordial struggles among the divine powers, ending in the achieved sovereignty o f a deity who presides over his fellow gods and goddesses. Much as the Babylonian Enuma Elish relates the ascendancy o f Marduk, so the Iliad alludes to the triumph o f Z eus over the previous generation o f T itans, fully narrated in the Theogony, this succession is evoked for example in the reference to the tripartite division o f the cosmos under the rule of the brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades (II. 15.187-193). Like the ancient Near Eastern divinities, but in contrast to the supreme being in Judeo-Christian tradition, even the acknowledged sovereign among the Homeric gods, Zeus, has a history: his parentage and the circumstances o f his birth are identified. He is not the creator but the culmination of an evolved cosmic structure. ... - Unlike the Enuma Elish (and other M eso------potamian and West Asiatic mythological texts that may have had a liturgical role in religious ceremonies), however, the Iliad and Odyssey were in no sense invoked as “sacred texts” (which in any ease did not form part of early Greek reli­ gious practice); they were, rather, resolutely secu­ lar. Indeed, it may be said that the artistic goals and social function o f the poems transformed their inherited elements and shaped their specific representation o f the gods more than did any particular religious belief or practice.

318

GODS

Religious practice in early Greece, just as it eschewed doctrinal scripture, similarly did not rely on a professional priesthood or centralized religious body or institution; on the contrary, worship took the form o f locally developed ritual performance dedicated to a god or goddess asso­ ciated-with a specific place. A highly localized divinity - the god believed to inhabit a particular river, for instance - whose presence had profound impact on the surrounding environs, would have great prestige within his domain, but not beyond it (see also R i v e r s ) . Other gods were less exclu­ sively identified with a given territory, and were worshipped in cults developed (with individual variations in ritual) across a number of commu­ nities. Those whose cult worship was most wide­ spread, and who were therefore most widely recognized, emerged as the Panhellenic pan­ theon - twelve major divinities, and some sub­ sidiary ones, with distinguishing attributes and realms o f function. The preeminent deities are Zeus, H e r a , Poseidon, A t h e n e , A p o l l o , A r t e m i s , A

p h r o d it e

,

H

e r m e s

,

D

e m e t e r

,

H

e p h a is t o s

,

and A r k s (see also P a n h e l l f . n i s m ) . Appealing to the broadest Panhellenic audi­ ence, the Homeric poems represent the extended family o f gods as residing together beyond any known terrain, on the remote pinnacle of Mt. O l y m p o s ; the gods may have their favorite communities - as Hera favors A r g o s , S p a r t a , and M y c e n a e (11.4.51-52) - but each god belongs to them all. On Olympos, the gods gather in council (as in Odyssey 1) and survey the entirety of the human realm. Challenges to Zeus’ author­ ity raise the specter o f the old succession struggles and bring the threat of expulsion from that lofty summit. Lesser divinities, like T h e t i s or the n y m p h s K a l y p s o and K i r k e , may play impor­ tant roles in the n a r r a t i v e , but they are explic­ itly said to reside elsewhere, apart from the Olympian community. The Iliad and Odyssey incorporate and synthe­ size a range of sometimes inconsistent traditions about each of the Olympians (for some of which we have evidence from other ancient texts, scho­ lia, and commentaries). These stories illustrate the powers and spheres o f influence for which each god is an object o f reverence; at the same time, as a collectivity they are represented as con­ tentious, amorous (except for the virgin god­ desses, Athene and Artemis) - even promiscuous, D

io n y s u s

,

capricious, and capable of deceit. Ancient critics, like X e n o p h a n e s (6th century u c e ) and P l a t o , famously censured the poems for ascribing to these anthropomorphic deities the ethically dis­ graceful and dispiriting behaviors o f mortals; such episodes as the adultery o f Ares and Aphrodite (Od. .8.266-366) were thought espe­ cially unworthy. Yet, other ancient authors, espe­ cially Zeno (4th century b c e ) and other early Stoic philosophers, defended the Homeric depic­ tions, often advancing a l l e g o r i c a l readings of the individual gods (e.g., Athene = wisdom, Aphrodite = erotic desire) - precursors, perhaps, o f modern readings that see the gods as the externalization of inner psychological forces (see S t o i c In

t e r p r e t a t io n s

).

This raises the issue for modern readers o f the relation o f the Homeric gods to ancient religious belief. Doing justice to this question would mean considering the philosophical problem of the nature of belief, and the ways in which people may hold contradictory beliefs, both of which are beyond the scope of this discussion. We can say, however, that without orthodoxy and without gate-keeping institutional mediators, early Greek culture may have enjoyed a flexibility in repre­ senting their gods that is hard for us always to grasp. To worship the gods did not mean forgoing an occasionally irreverent representation o f their activities. For all their grandeur, the gods of Homer cannot be assimilated to modern notions o f piety or divine decorum. As the Ares-Aphrodit» episode suggests, the Homeric gods, like men, are susceptible to erôs though in the case of the gods, it simultaneously makes manifest their vulnerability and their power: unable to resist desire, they cannot be resisted by the objects o f their passion. The cata­ logue of Zeus’ lovers (II. 14.315-328), almost all mortal women who bore him children, evokes this simultaneity (see also, for example, Od. 11.235-252 [Poseidon]; II. 2.511-215 [Ares], 9.559-564 [Apollo]). The episode of Hera’s manipulation and seduction of Zeus in Iliad 14 (see Dios A p a t ê ) is thus a humorous reversal of the usual dynamic o f conquest. The Iliad and Odyssey locate in the past the era when the gods’ unions with goddesses (or with women) pro­ duced offspring (see H e r o i c A g e ) : in the time of the Homeric poems, no more gods or demigods will be generated. Yet in the world o f the epics,

GODS divinities still occasionally consort with mortals (however much the gods apparently begrudge goddesses their liaisons with men, as Kalypso complains bitterly to Hermes at Od. 5.118-120); this possibility is evident in O d y s s e u s ’ worry t h a t a god may have “moved his bed” (23.184-186). That gods and humans of both genders mingle, erotically and more generally socially, suggests that at least on the level of corporeality, the boundary that divides them can be a fluid one (see B o d y ) . Like mortals, for example, the gods have skin that can be penetrated, they feel pain, their tears flow, they even bleed (as in the wound­ ing o f Aphrodite, II. 5.334-340) - not blood, but a substance called i c h o r . Though usually invisible in the presence of men, they may also make them­ selves visible, though unrecognizable as divinities. A god may appear in human disguise, sometimes taking the form of a stranger (e.g„ II. 24.349-469), sometimes as a known individual - as when, at a fatal moment, Athene impersonates Hector’s brother D e i p h o b o s (22.225-247). When Athene, “taking the shape of a handsome, tall woman,” reveals herself to Odysseus on I t h a c a , she points out that she has accompanied him all along his journey, although he has not recognized her something hard to do, Odysseus protests, since she can appear in any likeness (Od. 13.311-313). (This includes a n i m a l likenesses: in a memora­ ble scene at II. 7.58-61, Apollo and Athene take the form of vultures, perching in a tree to observe the battle below.) By contrast, the poem makes a point o f saying that gods are never unknown to each other (Od. 5.77-80). Only to a few mortals is it given to recognize the Olympians face-to-face, as themselves ( A c h i l l e s , H e l e n ; D i o m e d b s is given the privi­ lege temporarily). What do the gods look like in such epiphanies? Beyond the flashing eyes of Athene (II. 1.200), the white arms o f Hera, the dark h a i r o f Poseidon, and the alluring neck and breast by which Helen recognizes Aphrodite (3.395-397), there are few specifics given; and these features could equally well describe mortals. Presumably, then, P a r i s was not mystified, even if he was dazzled, by the loveliness of the three goddesses, Hera, Athene, and Aphrodite, who vied for the title o f “the fairest” and solicited his judgment (see J u d g m e n t o f P a r i s ) . Human beauty and grace, such as the heroes and heroines o f epic display, are a reflection,

319

however pale, of the radiance o f the gods. As pres­ ences in the world, gods and mortals may be said to be located on a continuum o f charisma and vulnerability. Helen is described as “terribly like the immortal goddesses in her face” (II. 3.158), and heroes on both sides o f the T r o j a n W a r are referred to as “godlike”; in-fact, their dignity on the battlefield is far more impressive than the gods’ brawl in Iliad 2 1 (see T h e o m a c h y ) . Yet even while Homeric epic elaborates the brilliance, vitality, and allure o f its human characters, it stresses relentlessly the ultimate disparity between mortals and immortals; for example, when a war­ rior is designated with the explicit f o r m u l a “equal to a god,” it signals his imminent defeat (e.g., P a t r o k l o s , II. 16.786). When Diomedes, on a battlefield rampage, charges A e n e a s despite the presence o f the Trojans’ partisan, Apollo, the god warns him to give way, with the rebuke that “never the same are the tribe o f gods and that of earthbound men” (II. 5.440-442). It is the gods’ very resemblance to mortals that underscores the irreducible gulf between those “immortal and ageless” gods who “live easily” and the mortals for whom they “spin destruction” (Od. 8.579; see also D e a t h ) . We see this ontologi­ cal gap between mortals and the deathless gods in alimentary, sacrificial, and sexual norms. Gods and men may consort together in the world o f the poems, but, as the Odyssey tells us, Kalypso sets before Odysseus “such f o o d as mortals eat,” while “her serving-maids put before her n e c t a r and a m b r o s i a .” The gods do not eat as men do: they do not consume the perishable substances by which perishable humans are nourished and replenished; thus the burnt sacrifices made to the gods require offering them only the fragrance and savor o f cooked meat, not the meat itself. On the level of the structure o L k i n s h i p , Zeus and his sis­ ter Hera not only have sex, as do the siblings Ares and Aphrodite, they marry and procreate as well. There is no incest taboo on Olympos. For all their likeness to men and women, the gods’ relations signify practices that are out o f bounds for human beings. Apart from communication with the gods through s a c r i f i c e , the most important modality of human-divine contact is p r a y e r . Gods and men participate in an ethic o f reciprocal obligations, sig­ naled by the formal configuration of the typical prayer (see also E x c h a n g e ) . The priest C h r y s e s ,

320

GODS

appealing

Apollo in Iliad 1 to avenge mistreatment of him, prefaces his request with a reminder of his service to the god, for whom he has built a t e m p l e and offered “pleasing” sacrifices; and Apollo responds instantly. Not all prayers succeed, however. When the Trojan wives implore Athene to take pity on their city and on themselves, promising a sacrifice in return, the god­ dess turns her head away from them (II. 6.311). And in a moment decisive for the Iliad's plot, Achilles prays to Zeus to let Patroklos drive the Trojans back from the Achaean ships and to allow him to return safely to Achilles: Zeus “granted him the one prayer, but denied him the other” (16.250). Athene’s rejection o f the Trojan w o m e n ’s entreaty bespeaks her partisanship in the war. Like Athene, Hera, similarly slighted in the Judgment of Paris, fervors the A c h a e a n s ; Apollo, because his priest was dishonored by the Greeks (among other reasons suggested by his complex mythology), enters the battle on behalf of the T r o i a n s . Zeus, in his role as the guarantor of xenia ( “ g u e s t - f r i e n d s h i p ” ) , is necessarily par­ tial to the Greeks, given Paris’ violation of his host’s household; in general, however, he does not take sides, which is to say that in the course o f the Iliad he acts on behalf of both. But the Olympians do not attempt to adjudicate the claims o f Greeks or Trojans; their interventions are not principally based on the merits of either side’s cause, but rather on their sympathies with the individuals, as it were, on the ground. In this sense, there are subtle but notable dif­ ferences between the Iliadic and Odyssean treat­ ments of the gods’ judging of human behavior. Although in the Odyssey Poseidon’s purely per­ sonal grudge against Odysseus propels the first half o f the narrative, the poem represents the rest of the Olympians, and especially Zeus and Athene, as taking a wider interest in j u s t i c e and retribu­ tion (3.131-135). The gods’ first council, as the poem opens, reflects on human folly and immo­ rality (see T h e o d i c y ) ; and the eventual destruc­ tion of the S u i t o r s , in which Athene takes an active part, is seen as a just punishment for the abrogation of xenia. In both the Iliad and Odyssey, however, what­ ever the gods’ intentions toward particular human communities or individuals - or toward the spe­ cies in general - they are, for all their power, subject to the constraints imposed by the higher A

to

g a m e m n o n ’s

authority of m o i r a (“destiny” or “portion”), to which even Zeus yields. This does not mean that all outcomes are predetermined and unfold mechanically. In its broadest sense, the “portion” of human beings is that they will die; this is the m oira that the gods may not contravene. Even if a divinity can intervene to postpone the fatal moment for any hero (as Aphrodite does for Paris in Iliad 3), the condition o f mortality cannot be fundamentally altered. The Iliad seems to intro­ duce an ambiguity at the point at which Zeus, anguished, sees his son S a r p e d o n confront imminent death, and contemplates saving him; but in the end there is no attempt to challenge the inexorable logic of m oira (16.433-461). This episode illustrates the conjunction of the two forces, in addition to erôs, before which the Homeric gods are helpless; m oira and its corol­ lary, grief. Only in their relations with mortals are the gods moved to profound sorrow and regret. Their grief in the face of their children’s suffering (e.g., Thetis’ l a m e n t for Achilles) or death (Zeus’ and Ares’ sorrow for their sons Sarpedon and A s k a l a p h o .s ) , expresses, at its most intense, their utter, continuous enmeshment in human life. The representation of the gods’ perpetual involvement in the affairs o f mortals has posed an interpretive problem for modern readers o f Homeric epic: are we to understand human beings in the poems as manipulated and control­ led by the gods, essentially devoid o f autonomy? The Iliad, after all, announces the story it narrates as fulfilling the plan o f Zeus, and asks which god set Achilles and Agamemnon in conflict (see Dios B o u l ê ) . The gods are responsible too for putting ideas in people’s heads (II. 2.5-34, Od. 21.1-4; see D o u b l e M o t i v a t i o n ) , for making them aware or unaware of events around them (19.476-479), for prompting decisions; and divine intervention can help or hinder the heroes on the battlefield (II. 22.273-277, 16.700-712), or in other situa­ tions of crisis (see also D i v i n e A p p a r a t u s ) . The Odyssey offers a response to the question above. In the opening council on Olympos, Zeus protests that although mortals always blame the gods for their misfortunes, they themselves, through their choices, are responsible for what they suffer. This passage precludes an oversimpli­ fying reading of Homeric men and women as puppets of the gods. For all the gods’ power and efficacy, divine intervention is not mind control;

GOLD it does not determine individual ethos: no god is the cause, for example, of Achilles’ sense of vio­ lated h o n o r , nor o f Penelope’s S u i t o r s ’ disso­ luteness, nor of P e n e l o p e ’s fidelity. We might say that neither divine nor human agency is exclu­ sively accountable for human outcomes, but that they are multiply determined (see also R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) . The role o f the gods might be seen as a structure o f explanation for what is beyond individual human control - analogous to modern structures o f explanation o f human experience that look to the role o f psychology (e.g., the unconscious) or genetics or societal fac­ tors for the causes o f an individual’s actions. The part played by the Homeric gods anticipates our modern awareness that all our undertakings even the reading o f encyclopedia entries - are shaped by an array of forces, some manifest, others inaccessible to our mortal comprehension. See also

M

y t h

; R

e l ig io n

.

LAURA M . SLA TK IN

Gold (xpoaóç; chemical symbol Au) The Greek word for gold is one o f the best examples o f a Semitic loanword in the Greek lexicon (for this and other examples, see Chadwick 1976, 144; Cline 1999, 125). It occurs already in L i n e a r B as ku-ru-so and is related to Akkadian hurãsu, Ugaritic hrs, and Hebrew harus. When Heinrich S c h l i e m a n n excavated Grave Circle A at M y c e n a e , in the summer o f 1876, he established, once and for all, the validity of Mycenae’s e p i t h e t as polukhrusos (“rich in gold”; part of a genitive f o r m u l a in II. 7.180, 11.46; Od. 3.305, surviving into the 5th century b c e in the Electro o f Sophocles,. 9 )..The gold from the Shaft Graves astonished the scholarly world o f the late 19th century. Such “barbaric ostentation” could not possibly be ancient Greek. It must be related to Thracian, Scythian, even Byzantine goldwork, but surely had no connection with the world o f Homer. Artistic opinions and chrono­ logical evaluations have changed dramatically over the past hundred years (I. Morris 1997a), but great controversy still reigns over the historical meaning o f the finds from Grave Circle A and the somewhat earlier but overlapping Grave Circle B, the relationship o f these finds to the world of

321

Mycenaean Greece and the survival o f that world i n the Homeric poems. Who was buried in the Shaft Graves; where did they live and what do these burials represent in terms of the population o f the A r g o l i d i n the 16th century b c e ? All these questions still remain unanswered (for discus­ sion, see Dickinson 1999a), and may never be answered (see also M y c e n a e a n A g e ) . In order to gain some sort o f a perspective we can begin by looking at two basic issues (Mycenaean and Homeric): 1 2

Quantities o f gold. Sources o f gold.

Anyone walking into the old Mycenaean gallery in the central room o f the National Museum in Athens was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of gold, in every form imaginable (all superbly docu­ mented in Laffineur 1996), even to a suit o f clothes for a small child, cut out of sheet gold. In feet most o f this goldwork consisted o f objects cut out of thin sheet so that the total weight o f all the gold from Grave Circle A was just over 14 kg (Karo 1930-1933,166-168). That amounts to roughly 'h o f a t a l e n t . Compare Homeric references to the quantities o f gold given to departing guests. Gifts regularly include tripods, w o m e n , t e x t i l e s , and 10 talents o f gold (e.g., II. 9.121-124 = 262-266, Od. 4.128-132). When O d y s s e u s left the palace of A l k i n o o s he took with him, in addition to other costly presents, 13 talents of gold, that is, 364 kg or just over 800 lbs. (Od. 8.390-395). Are these figures realistic? Not at all. All the figures documenting Homeric gift-giving represent a fairy-tale world of epic literature that has nothing to do with the realia of either Mycenaean or early Iron Age Greece. In the same way, the figures describing the gold-used in the temple o f Solomon represent Hebrew epic literature and are not to be taken seri­ ously (Pinkelstein and Silberman 2006,151-154). The gold hoard excavated by P. G. Themelis at E r e t r i a , dating to the 8th century b c e , consists of both gold and electrum and had a total weight of 510g, or just over Yi a kilo (Themelis 1983, 160 and Fig. 7). This is a far cry from the amounts of gold mentioned in the Homeric poems. Sources of gold represent an even more contro­ versial subject. The immediate reaction to the quantities of gold excavated by Schliemann was that it must all have come from E g y p t . This basic

322

GOLD

supposition was soon elaborated into a scenario in which Mycenaean mercenaries were hired by pharaoh Ahmose to help him drive the Hyksos out o f Egypt (and thus establish the XVIIIth Dynasty). These mercenaries were then rewarded for their contribution with gold and other treas­ ure looted from the sack o f Avaris, the Hyksos capital in the Delta. They brought their loot back to Mycenae and had it buried with them in the graves excavated by Schliemann in 1876 (Persson 1942,178-196). A great romantic fantasy without historical content. In a memorable footnote, Emily Vermeule disposed o f the idea for all time to come (Vermeule 1975,19, n. 32; see also Hooker 1976,49-54). An even more elaborate theory was proposed by Georg Karo (1930-1933, 334-349). The wealth of the Shaft Graves represented loot brought back from C r e t e by Mycenaean warri­ ors who plundered Knossos at the end of the Middle Helladic period, or ca. 1570 b c e and brought back to Mycenae captured M inoan craftsmen who were then put to work creating new works o f art in the Minoan style. Lorimer (1950, 19) already saw the flaws in such argu­ ments that have now been thoroughly discredited (Hooker 1976, 46-49). This is not to deny that some of the Shaft Grave gold could have come from Egypt, a country in which, according to Amarna Letter 26, gold was as plentiful as the sands o f the desert (Moran 1982). In his discussion o f the sources for Shaft Grave gold, R. Laffineur (1996) places great emphasis upon the “Transylvanian Connection” proposed by Davis (1983). Gold sources in the area that the Romans knew as Dacia, especially in the Siebenbürgen area o f Romania known as the “Golden Quadrangle,” were certainly o f great importance in the Roman world, constituting the main impetus for Trajan’s great Dacian campaign, but it would be very difficult to document Mycenaean exploitation of such deposits. More importantly, there are major Greek gold deposits much closer at hand, although they have been ignored by all Bronze and Iron Age archaeologists. Surely it is reasonable to assume that the spectac­ ular gold treasures excavated in recent years at sites in Hellenistic T h e s s a l y and Macedonia were made o f locally mined gold. The Cassandra gold mines near Stageira (the birthplace o f Aristotle), some 100 km east o f Thessaloniki, contain both gold and s i l v e r . A 1998 estimate puts reserves at

410,000 ounces of gold and two million ounces of silver (Kathimerini October 29, 1998, 5). The German mining engineer Ernst Mack, who did a detailed study of auriferous mineralization in northern Greece, claimed to have discovered at least seventeen sites with evidence for ancient exploitation (Mack 1964). In the -l-970s-and early.1980s a. major program of gold analysis was carried out by the German scholar Axel Hartmann, published as volumes III and V of SAM (= Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie, 1970 and 1982). Hartmann analyzed 3,300 Bronze Age gold artefacts from all the muse­ ums o f Europe, including thirty-one front Bronze Age Greece. For many reasons, this analytical pro­ gram proved to be a total failure. Once Hartmann announced that the famous gold torques (or lunulae) of the Irish Early Bronze Age were made not of gold from County Wicklow, in Ireland, but of alluvial gold from the Rhine (Hartmann 1970, 31), it was obvious that this was a research project doomed to failure. Irish archaeologists went after Hartmann with a vengeance (Scott 1974, 1976). Yet Hartmann’s elaborate research project has proved to be o f use in determining Mycenaean sources o f gold (Muhly 1983,1989). One of the basic assumptions in all recent Minoan-Mycenaean work in precious m e t a l s has been the belief that the Minoans worked mainly in silver whereas the Mycenaeans had an obsession for gold (Davis 1977). It has even been claimed that the Mycenaeans developed some­ thing o f a mass production o f gold jewelry through the hammering o f sheet gold over a mold or matrix made o f steatite, the famous jeweler’s molds o f Mycenaean Greece (Laffineur 1990-1991). The problem in all such conclusions is the skewed basis for comparison. This is because of the lack o f rich “royal” burials from Late Minoan I Crete. Some o f the silver artefacts from the Shaft Graves are certainly Mycenaean works of art, especially the silver krater from Shaft Grave IV (Sakellariou 1974), described by Vermeule (1975,30,29) as “a true Mycenaean creation” and “the best piece in the Shaft Graves.”' References to gold in Homer, apart from its use in gift-giving (see Exchange), involve such tradi­ tional uses as gilding the horns of a sacrificial ani­ mal (II. 10.294; Od. 3.432—438; see Sacrifice ), a Minoan-Mycenaean practice that continued into the Classical world, and as decorative inlay,

GOUNEUS as in the bed of O d y s s e u s (23.199-201). The golden spindle and the parcel-gilt sewing basket given to H e l e n (4.131-132) designated, accord­ ing to Frank Stubbings (1962a, 532), “a rather precious and extravagant symbol o f her return to domestic virtue.” The golden wheels of the twenty magical tripod cauldrons made by H e p h a i s t o s (IL 18.372-377) clearly belong to the realm of fairy tale and, in any case, represent a confusion of form. Wheels were put only on four-sided stands, not on three-legged tripods. The famous “ N e s t o r ’ s C u p ” (II. 11.63-107) constitutes one o f the most puzzling references to the use o f gold in Homer. The cup involved the use o f gold rivets and o f eight gold doves, perched on the rim on either side o f the vessel’s four han­ dles. Homer, however, says nothing about the composition of the body of the vessel itself. Was it also of gold? Perhaps it was, but there is no evi­ dence for this. In any case, there is now general agreement that this famous vase has nothing to do with the famous two-handled gold cup found by Schliemann in Shaft Grave IV (Davis 1977,183- 186, no. 63, see Fig. 6). Nor can we be sure what Homer meant in referring to the “Cup o f Nestor” as a depas. The famous Linear B tablet from P y l o s (Ta 641) depicts a depas (di-pa), either with three handles (ti-ri-jo-we) or without handles (a-nowe), that looks very much like what would be called a krater, such as the bronze example from Shaft Grave V (Karo 1930-1933, PI. CLX). See also A

r t e f a c t s

.

JA M ES D . M U H LY

Gorgon (ropyib) In the Homeric epics, the Gorgon’s (Medusa’s) head is already detached from her body, and it has become a potent symbol of fear and death. Three sisters, the daughters of P h o r k y s (2), are the Gorgons: Stheno and Euryale, who are immortal, and the mortal Medusa (Hes. Th. 274-283). Medusa turned men to stone with her gaze, and her eyes retain this power alter P e r s e u s beheads her. Perseus has given the head to A t h e n e , and it is now on the a e g i s she wears into battle (II. 5.741-742). A g a m e m n o n also has a depiction o f a Gorgon’s head on his s h i e l d (11.36-37), a decoration often placed on shields (as seen in ancient vase-paintings) to put fear

323

into one’s enemy. Its associations with fear and death are also seen when O d y s s e u s leaves the U n d er w o rld in fear that P e r s e p h o n e might send up a Gorgon head (Od. 11.633-635). The Gorgon appears frequently in ancient art, in both painting and sculpture. It is recognizable by its large eyes and wide, open mouth, often with its tongue sticking out and sometimes with snakes on its head (LÍM C 4.2, Í6 3 -1 8 8 ). Such fierce eyes are used as a comparison for H e c t o r ’s eyes as he rages in battle (II. 8.349). The Gorgon continues to wield its powerful symbolism in multiple ways. Vernant (1991, 111-150) ana­ lyzed the Gorgon as the ultimate “Other.” The female Gorgon was especially dangerous to men, and “Feminists have adopted her as a sign of powerful womanhood” (Garber and Vickers 2003, 1). M ARY E B B O T T

Gorgythion (ropyuOitov) Son o f P r i a m by Kastianeira, a secondary wife (see also L a o t h o e ) who came from a place called Aisyme, which should probably be located in Thrace. Killed by T eucer (II. 8.302-305). See also

M

a r r ia g e

.

Gortyn (róp-ruv) City in south central C r e t e , in the fertile Messara plain. Gortyn is introduced in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s as “high-walled” (II. 2.646). Some o f M e n b l a o s ’ ships crashed into a d iff on the borders o f its territory (Od. 3.293-299). There was a small settlement on the site of Gortyn since the Late M i n o a n period, but the city only rose to importance with the arrival o f the D o r i a n s .

Gouneus (Touveúç)

Leader of peoples from the region around D o d o n a in northwest Greece. He leads an unusual number o f s h i p s , twenty-two, and troops identified by tribal names; he lacks a patronymic, and appears only in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s in the I l ia d (2.748-755; see also Strab. 9.5.20, who quotes these lines and discusses the region). There are at least two different traditions about Gouneus’ fate after the T r o i a n W a r : in the Aristotelian Peplos (fr. 640, pp. 400-401 Rose), he

Bib. Florestan Fernandes Aquisição:

324

N .F .

is said to have drowned at Cape Kaphereus, but according to Apollodorus (Epit. 6.15-15a) and Lycophron (897-898), Gouneus survived the Trojan War and went to L i b y a . CAROLYN H IG B IE

see C

h a r it e s

.

Graia

(rpaia, “an old woman”) Town in mentioned in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s (II. 2.498). In S t r a b o ’ s times, there was a Graia located near Oropos, with a temple of A m p h ia r a o s within its boundaries (Strab. 9.2.10). Both Strabo and Pausanias (9.20.2, quot­ ing the Iliadic line) say that according to some, Graia was the early name of Tanagra. B

370157

j

_________ P ro c . / S P E C IA L B O O K S E R V IC E S

GOUNEUS

Graces

Tombo:

Compra / RUSP

o e o t ia

Guest-Friendship (or, perhaps better, “ritualized friendship”) In Homer, guest-friendship is an association involving mutual obligation and e x c h a n g e o f gifts and services between elite males of different communities. As a form o f reciprocity that creates bonds beyond the boundaries of the community, it supplements intra-community alli­ ances a leading man makes through exchanges o f generosity for services, although unlike them it is, ideally at least, a relation not o f subordination but between equals (the famous unequal gift-exchange between G l a u k o s and D i o m e d e s in Iliad 6 [see G l a u k o s- D io m e d e s E p is o d e ] is perhaps an exception). A network o f ritualized friends offers not only prestige but also practical benefits. It gives a person entrée into communities in various parts of his world when he travels, and he can call upon widespread friends for help when needed. The relationship is essentially between individu­ als, although it can serve the community indi­ rectly. Ritualized friendship works against the exclusiveness o f h o u s e h o l d s and communities by transforming the hostility normally expected between strangers into amity, and so by convert­ ing an outsider into a quasi-insider. The word xeinos, which can mean either “stranger” or, on the other hand, “host,” “guest,” or “ritualized friend,” encapsulates this status of outsider-insider. The relationship generally involves h o s p i t a l i t y , but whereas in other circumstances outsider relations

1 9 5 4 0 6__________/ R$

3 32 ,85 1 0 /0 1 /2 0 1 3

j

(including c o m p e t i t i o n ) are in abeyance oniy as long as the visit lasts, ritualized friendship perma­ nently suspends these relations even when the parties are far apart and even after their deaths. In this w a y i t approaches k i n s h i p . The fullest account in Homer o f the formation o f this bond is given at Iliad 6.212-236, when Diomedes recognizes Glaukos as his “paternal xeinos,” the relation descending from their grand­ fathers. B e l l e r o p h o n was O i n e u s ’ guest for twenty days, and they exchanged “friendshipgifts” (xeinêia). Presumably they also carried out the other formalities, the handclasp and exchange o f pledges, as their grandsons now do before they exchange gifts in renewal of the relationship. In addition to illustrating how these rites obligate the two friends’ descendants as well as themselves (cf. Od. 1.175-176, 417, 3.354-355, 15.196-197, 17.522-523), and how this relation holds hostility at bay even in the midst of war, this account sug­ gests that in origin ritualized friendship, with its exchange o f gifts, is distinct from instances of hospitality that do not involve it, in which the host gives a gift to his departing guest (van Wees 1992, 228-237). Exactly similar to the case of Oineus and Bellerophon is the exchange of gifts between O d y s s e u s and I p h i t o s (3) to originate ritualized friendship (21.31-36). The further comment that Iphitos’ murder forestalled their “knowing each other at the table” suggests that ritualized friendship, although distinct from hos­ pitality, might naturally involve it. In such cases whichever friend was host would probably give the other the customary parting gift, as T e l e ­ m a c h o s offers to do for A t h e n e disguised as Odysseus’ xeinos M e n t e s (1.309-313). Each time someone refers to another as his xeinos in a con­ text that implies a permanent relationship, the initial ritual, including gift-exchange, is probably presupposed (possible, but not indisputable, counter-examples are 9.17-18 and 24.262-279). Each service done for such a xeinos is a moment in a series of favors and counter-favors over time and through generations. Benefactions take vari­ ous forms. Odysseus,, disguised as A i t h o n ( 1 ) , tells P e n e l o p e that when her husband was blown off-course to C r e t e and needed food and shelter, he gave hospitality from his own resources to Odysseus, his brother I d o m e n e u s ’ xeinos (Od. 19.185-201; in contrast, he got provisions for Odysseus’ men from the community: ritualized

GVRTONE friendship is a personal relation). The father of “Mentes” gave Odysseus poison for his arrows when I l o s (2) would not, even at risk of the gods’ resentment (1.260-264). Both tales are Active but intended to be plausible. E ê t i o n (2) ransomed his xeinos P r i a m ’ s son L y k a o n (1) from E u n e o s of L e m n o s , to whom A c h i l l e s had sold him (II. 21.42-44). S a r p e d o n was H e c t o r ’ s xeinos and evidently fought at Troy for that reason as “a great help to the city and [Hector]”; now Glaukos rebukes Hector for failing to defend his xeinos’ corpse in return (17.149-153). P a r i s is enraged when his xeinos H a r p a l i o n is killed and avenges him (13.660-672). Clearly, one could draw on friendship obligations for defense in war, whereas the other Trojan allies exchange their services for gifts (17.225-228). When A g a m e m n o n came to I t h a c a to persuade Odysseus to join the Trojan expedition, his xeinos Melaneus, father o f the suitor A m p h i m e d o n , was his host (Od. 24.114119); this gave him a foothold in the Ithacan community. T y d e u s seems to have used a xeinos relationship to introduce P o l y n e i k e s into M y c e n a e for a similar purpose (II. 4.376-377). K i n y r a s o f C y p r u s , hearing that the A c h a e a n s were about to set out against Troy, sent Agamemnon an ornate breastplate as a xeinSion (11.19-23) - generosity that was probably a move within a ritualized friendship. Thus these relationships were useful in a variety o f contexts. The more wealthy and powerful a man was, the moreftiendshipshehadabroad.Telemachos wonders if “Mentes” is a “paternal xeinos” because his own house is well known, “since [Odysseus] was well-traveled among men” (Od. 1.175-177); and Penelope says that few Achaeans had as many friendships as Odysseus (19.239-240). The gifts exchanged between xeinoi - w e a p o n s , armor, or prestige craft items (see A r t e f a c t s ) could be used but often were_stored;. theyxarried. symbolic value as tokens o f the relationship and enshrined narratives o f its history: how and where it was formed, and who the friends were. Even in this case, they prove useful at critical moments. Odysseus left the b o w Iphitos gave him in his storeroom when he left for Troy, but he now uses it to kill the S u i t o r s . The breastplate given by Euphetes o f E p h y r a to P h y l e u s saves the life o f the latter’s son, M e g e s (II. 15.529-534). The gift seems an extension o f the friend, performing a crucial service in time o f need.

325

Ritualized friendship was to have a long history among the elite in the fully developed p o u s , where it complemented, but often was in tension with, civic loyalties. See also

F

r ie n d s h ip

.

References and Suggested Readings T h e essential work on ritualized friendship is H erm an 1987, to w hich the above a ccou n t is heavily indebted. O th er im portant discussions include Finley

1978,

9 9 - 1 0 3 ; D on lan 1989a; van W ees 1 9 9 2 , 1 6 8 - 1 7 2 , 2 2 8 -2 3 0 ; and von Reden 1 9 9 5 ,2 6 - 3 5 . w il l ia m

g

.

t h a l m a n n

Gygaean Lake (ruyaiq Xipvr|) Lake in Lydia, located near Sardis and Mt. T m o l o s . M e s t h l e s and A n t i p h o s ( 2 ) , t h e l e a d e r s o f the M a e o n i a n s , were sons o f T a l a i m e n e s and the n y m p h of the lake (II. 2.864-865). Another Maeonian, Iphition son o f Otrynteus, killed by A c h i l l e s in Iliad 20 (390-391), was also associ­ ated with it. It was presumably named after an ancestor o f the famous Gyges o f Lydia. According to S t r a b o (13.4.5), the lake’s name was later changed to Coloe (modern Mermereh). See also T

io ja n

C

a t a l o g u e

.

Gyraean Rock(s) (Tupaiq nérpij, cf. yupóç “round”) A j a x t h e L e s s e r was drowned there by P o s e i d o n on his way home from Troy (Od. 4.499-511). According to most ancient commen­ tators, it was located in the Cyclades near Mykonos. An alternative tradition placed it by Kaphareus, the southeast promontory o f E u b o e a . References and Suggested Readings S.

W est 1988.

Gyrtone (Tuptoivi)) A city in T h e s s a l y (Pelasgiotis) mentioned in the C a t a l o g u e o f S h i p s ; its contingent was led by the L a p i t h s P o l y p o i t e s and L e o n t e u s (II.2.738-744). Gyrtone was presumably located on the P e n e i o s River ca. 13km from Larisa and was considered to be the homeland o f the Lapiths and the P h l e g y e s .