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

Citation preview

Christos Tsagalis Early Greek Epic: Language, Interpretation, Performance

Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes

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

Volume 138

Christos Tsagalis

Early Greek Epic: Language, Interpretation, Performance

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



For Jonathan Burgess

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

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

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

Part I: Homer 

Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis  3



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



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



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



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



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



Revisiting an Old Crux: Iliad 11.609–610  133



Iliad 11.662: A Note  155



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

X  Contents

Part II: Hesiod 

Poetry and Poetics in the Hesiodic Corpus  209



Soundplay in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women  256

Part III: The Epic Cycle 

The Gods in Cyclic Epic  283



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



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



Telegony  384



Verses Attributed to the Telegony  407

Part IV: The Performance of Epic 

Ἀοιδός and ῥαψῳδός: Methodological Problems and Assumptions  427



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



Performance Contexts for Rhapsodic Recitals in the Hellenistic Period  511



Rhapsodes and Rhapsodic Recitals in the Imperial Period  543

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

List of Abbreviations DELG

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

D-K

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

EDG

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

EGEF

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

EGF

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

EGM

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

EKM

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

EM

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

FGrHist

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

GDK

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

GEF

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

GEW

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

HED

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

Hesych.

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

IChios

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

ICret

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

IDelos

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

IEG

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

IEphesos

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

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae

IK

Inschriften griechischer Städte Kleinasiens

IPergamon

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

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

XII  List of Abbreviations ISalamis

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

ISide

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

ISmyrna

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

IThesp

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

Lexilogus

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

LfgrE

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

LIMC

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

LSJ

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

OCD

Oxford Classical Dictionary.

OMS

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

PEG

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

PMG

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

PMGF

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

RE

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

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.

Severyns

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

SH

Supplementum Hellenisticum.

TAM I

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

TAM II

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

TrGF

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction  XIX

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

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

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

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

Introduction  XXI

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

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

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

Introduction  XXIII

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

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

Introduction  XXV

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

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

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

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

Introduction  XXVII

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

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

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

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

Introduction  XXIX

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



Part I: Homer

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

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

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

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

Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity  

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

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

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

Textuality, Textification, and Text-Fixity  

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

  Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis as we can judge from the extant summary of Proclus, characters like Philoctetes and Neoptolemus on the Achaean side or Deiphobus in the Iliou persis on the Trojan side do not question the heroic code but are simply used as pawns that bring the war closer to its end.19 Likewise, Odysseus in the Telegony is not preoccupied at all with his return to Ithaca nor is he concerned with his military failure as leader of the Thesprotians against the Brygoi. 8. Predilection for oracles and prophecies: Helenus foretells the outcome of Paris’ journey to Sparta (Cypria); Cassandra prophesies about the future of Troy (Cypria); Helenus prophesies that Troy will only fall when the Achaeans bring Philoctetes from Lemnos and Neoptolemus from Sc