Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SETH L. SCHEIN
1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/11/2015, SPi
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
# Seth L. Schein 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015940139
ISBN 978–0–19–958941–8
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/11/2015, SPi
Preface
viii Preface
at Purchase, Queens College and the Graduate School of the City
University of New York, and the University of California at Davis, at
Santa Cruz, and at Berkeley. I benefited greatly from the libraries at
these institutions and the librarians who helped to make my scholarly
work possible.
I would like to thank the editors at Oxford University Press for
their expertise and professionalism. Hilary O’Shea and Charlotte
Loveridge welcomed and encouraged my work; Annie Rose prepared
the book for production; Kizzy Taylor-Richelieu and Emma Slaughter
were the Production Editors, who kept things on course and on
schedule.
I am especially grateful to Heather Watson for her salutary copy-
editing, which improved this book by making it more accurate, clear,
and consistent. Working with her has been enjoyable and instructive.
I would also like to thank Tom Chandler for his alert and beneficial
proofreading.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Albert Schein and
Sylvia Orlikoff Schein, for the copies of the Samuel Butler translation
of the Iliad and the Andrew Lang and Samuel H. Butcher translation of
the Odyssey that I read as a child and for their later encouragement
of my work.
I happily dedicate this book to my wife, Sherry Crandon, and our
son, Daniel Schein.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/11/2015, SPi
Contents
Abbreviations xiii
Introduction 1
1. The Death of Simoeisios: Iliad 4.473–489 5
2. The Horses of Achilles in Book 17 of the Iliad 11
3. Odysseus and Polyphemos in the Odyssey 27
4. Mythological Allusion in the Odyssey: Herakles and the
Bow of Odysseus 39
5. Divine and Human in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite 55
6. Homeric Intertextuality: Two Examples 81
7. A Cognitive Approach to Greek Metre: Hermann’s
Bridge in the Homeric Hexameter and the Interpretation
of Iliad 24 93
8. Milman Parry and the Literary Interpretation of Homeric
Poetry 117
9. Ioannis Kakridis and Neoanalysis 127
10. Cavafy and Iliad 24: A Modern Alexandrian Interprets
Homer 137
11. ‘War—What is it Good For?’ in Homer’s Iliad and Four
Receptions 149
12. An American Homer for the Twentieth Century 171
Bibliography 189
Index of Passages 207
General Index 216
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/11/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/11/2015, SPi
Abbreviations
Introduction
The twelve chapters of this book were written over the past forty-five
years. Chapters 1–6, 8, 10, and 12 are lightly revised (and in some
cases, expanded) versions of previously published papers. Chapters 7,
9, and 11 are new, though a shorter (by 30%) version of Chapter 11
will appear in Caston and Weineck (eds.) 2015. Most of the papers
were originally written for oral presentation. I have kept their original
form and occasionally informal tone in memory of the occasions on
which they were presented and as a tribute to the audiences’ helpful
comments, questions, and suggestions.
The twelve chapters illustrate my long-standing scholarly interests
in, and approaches to, the literary interpretation of Homeric poetry.
Since all but two of the previously published pieces first appeared in
conference volumes and Festschriften that are not to be found in most
North American college and university libraries and not readily
accessible online, I wanted to make them more widely available.
More important, I think that all twelve essays gain by being brought
together in a single volume that focuses on the Iliad, the Odyssey, and
the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite as literary works.
The chapters do not appear in chronological order of composition
or publication, but are grouped thematically and methodologically.
1–3 and 5 pay close attention to the diction, metre, style, and thematic
resonance of particular passages and episodes and combine close
reading with more general ideas and interpretations. Chapters 4, 5,
6, and 7 also focus on diction, style, and thematic resonance and test
the usefulness for literary interpretation of mythological allusion and
intertextuality, hexameter metrics, and the contrast between human-
ity and divinity. Chapters 8 and 9 focus on the work of Milman Parry
and Ioannis Kakridis, who founded the two most fruitful twentieth-
century scholarly approaches to Homeric epic: the study of the Iliad
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
2 Introduction
and Odyssey as traditional oral formulaic poetry and of the ‘epic tech-
nique of oral versemaking’ (Parry, see Chapter 8) and the ‘Neoanalytical’
approach to the Homeric adaptation and transformation of traditional
mythology, folktales, and poetic motifs (Kakridis, see Chapter 9). Finally,
Chapters 10 and 11 discuss some of the most compelling poetic and
critical receptions of the Iliad since the late nineteenth century, by
Constantine Cavafy, Alice Oswald, Christopher Logue, Simone Weil,
and Rachel Bespaloff, while Chapter 12 studies the institutional recep-
tion of the Iliad and Odyssey in colleges and universities in the United
States over the past two centuries.
*
Some of the interpretive pathways that I explore in this book go back
to my discovery, when I read the Homeric epics as a graduate student,
of the scholarly work of Parry, Kakridis, and Hermann Fränkel, who
demonstrated the fourfold colometric structure of the Homeric hex-
ameter.1 Together, the contributions of these three scholars in the
1920s and 1930s provided a basis for new kinds of literary Homeric
scholarship: they enabled Homerists to get past the ‘weary, stale, flat
and unprofitable’ debates between Analysts and Unitarians that had
dominated Homeric scholarship since the late eighteenth century.
Fränkel and Parry showed, in different ways, that the language, metre,
and style of Homeric epic were traditional and had changed only
minimally over many centuries of oral composition and performance,
and therefore that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, by these criteria
alone, to draw significant conclusions about the contested authenti-
city of particular passages or to attribute specific parts of the poem to
different authors or different eras. Kakridis, on the other hand,
showed how the narrative and mythological inconsistencies and so-
called illogicalities, which Analysts had seen as signs of the work of
different poets at different times, should not be ignored or dismissed
out of hand, as they were by most Unitarians, but should be under-
stood as traces of a single poet’s distinctive appropriation and adap-
tation of traditional narrative or mythological motifs for his own
artistic purposes. It took about another half-century for the debates
between Analysts and Unitarians to give way to more fruitful inter-
pretive approaches (see p. 129), and when things finally changed, it
1
Fränkel 1960 [1926].
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Introduction 3
was largely because of the work of Fränkel, Parry, and Kakridis and
scholarship that their writings inspired.
In their discussions of metre and formulaic style, neither Fränkel
nor Parry offered much in the way of literary interpretation, but their
discoveries established a new foundation for such interpretation,
grounded in a truer understanding than had previously existed of
the poems’ metrical, linguistic, and stylistic norms. Kakridis did offer
literary interpretation, but his greatest contribution was to show how
mythological allusion and what today one might call intertextuality
help to shape Homer’s narrative and serve his poetic purposes. Both
Fränkel and Parry, in different ways, made it possible to appreciate
in detail how Homeric epic generates and satisfies audiences’ and
readers’ expectations and desires for the fulfilment of metrical, styl-
istic, and narrative norms and patterns that had been established over
many centuries of poetic tradition, before the Iliad and Odyssey, as we
know them, were written down in the late eighth or early seventh
century BCE. Even more interesting, at least to me, is that Fränkel and
Parry made it possible for audiences and readers to perceive and
appreciate the poetic significance of departures from these norms,
just as Kakridis showed that deviations from traditional mythology
and contradictions in narrative details are best understood as evi-
dence of a creative poet’s distinctive aims and achievements.
Since the 1920s and 1930s, there has been a vast amount of
scholarship on Homeric poetry from which all students of the epics
can now profit, even though no one person can read and profit from
all of it. The essays in this book have benefited, in particular, from
scholarship on the language and style of the epics, their narrative
strategies and techniques, their treatment of time and space, their
representations of social institutions, practices, and values, and the
ways in which they engage listeners and readers artistically and
ethically.
After much consideration, I decided not to revise the nine previ-
ously published essays in any fundamental way, since their arguments
still seem valid. I have, however, corrected errors, made numerous
stylistic improvements, sometimes inserted a sentence or two or even
a whole paragraph, and rewritten and reorganized parts of Chapter 5.
I have not systematically updated the footnotes and bibliography,
though I have made a number of small changes and added new
references here and there to work published since a particular paper
was written, if it seemed especially useful to readers. I have also added
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
4 Introduction
a short bibliographical postscript to Chapter 3 (the earliest essay in
the book). The original dates of composition of the previously pub-
lished chapters are as follows: 1: 1976, 2: 2002, 3: 1970, 4: 2002, 5:
2012, 6: 1999, 8: 1998, 10: 1994, 12: 2007.
*
I feel fortunate to have been working on Homeric epic during five
decades of outstanding scholarly achievements, which have provided
new resources for my own work and the work of all Homerists
interested in the literary interpretation of the Iliad and Odyssey.
These achievements include the completion of the Lexikon des früh-
griechischen Epos (1955–2010); the revised editions (1962) by
B. Marzullo of the Homer concordances of G. Prendergast and
H. Dunbar, and the computer-generated concordances to both
poems by J. Tebben (1994, 1998); the edition of the Iliad scholia by
H. Erbse (1969–88); P. Chantraine’s Dictionnaire étymologique de la
langue grecque (1968–80, Suppl. 1999); the six-volume Cambridge
commentary on the Iliad, with individual volumes by various scholars
under the general editorship of G. S. Kirk (1985–93), and the three
volume Oxford commentary on the Odyssey, with individual volumes
by various scholars under the general editorship of A. Heubeck
(1988–92, translated with revisions from the six-volume Fondazione
Lorenzo Valla edition and commentary, 1981–6); the recent editions
of the Iliad by M. L. West and the Iliad and Odyssey by H. van Thiel,
the in-progress, multivolume Basel Gesamtkommentar on the Iliad
by various authors, and the smaller-scale commentaries on indi-
vidual books of both poems, published by Cambridge University
Press and Oxford University Press; The Homer Encyclopedia, edited
by M. Finkelberg (2011); and the creation, sophistication, and ever-
increasing availability of texts, commentaries, and other scholarly
resources in electronic form, including the Chicago Homer (at
<http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/homer/>), the Homer Mul-
titext Project (at <http://www.homermultitext.org>), the Thesaurus
Linguae Graecae (at <http://www.tlg.uci.edu>), and the Perseus
Project (at <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu>).2
2
I am grateful to Nancy Felson, Sheila Murnaghan, and Alex Purves for comments
on an initial draft of this Introduction.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
Friedrich 1956: 65 and Fenik 1968: 152 note, respectively, the ‘Mitgefühl’ and
‘peculiar pathos’ aroused by the description of Simoeisios’ death. Cf. Komninou-
Kakridi 1947: 44. Strasburger 1954: 37 ff. discusses the passage in light of others that
involve ‘Erweiterungen der Herkunft’ of the victims and contain similes. The present
essay owes much to Strasburger’s perceptive book.
2
Cf. Sarpedon’s speech to Glaukos at Il. 12.310–28.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
3
The greater Ajax in the nominative is ºÆØ
`YÆ
21 times at the end of the
hexameter and `YÆ
Ø ªc
(or, in the vocative, `rÆ Ø ª
) five times at the
beginning of the line. Therefore some scholars would doubtless ‘explain’ the epithets
in 473 and 489 merely as normal formulaic language, signifying in each case no more
than ‘Ajax’, which seems to me simplistic. For a theory of the formula and of oral
composition that takes into account questions of ‘denotative and poetic meaning’, see
Nagler 1967: 269–311, revised and expanded in Nagler 1974: 1–63.
4
Young men: Il. 3.26, 10.259, 11.414, 14.4, 17.282; husbands: 6.430, 8.156, 190
(and a wife, 3.53). The word is also used of tears (2.266, 6.496, 24.709, 794), a voice
choked by tears (17.696, 23.397), and, less tenderly, Ares’ thighs (15.113).
5
4.477–9 Pb ŒFØ . . . e ıæd ÆØ = 17.301–3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
6
Cf. the battle between Achilles and the river Skamandros in Book 21, where at
first Skamandros calls to Simoeis to rise in defence of Troy (21.308 ff.), and where his
ultimate surrender to Hephaistos explicitly symbolizes the fall of the city. See
Whitman 1958: 140. The death of Simoeisios, by its poetic elaboration, is made far
more significant than the deaths of the superficially similar Satnios (14.442 ff.), who
was also named after the river by whose banks he was born, and of Skamandrios
(5.49), Ilioneus (14.489 ff.), and Tros (20.463 ff.), whose names similarly suggest Troy
or the Trojan landscape. To some extent, every Trojan death prefigures the fall of
Troy. Cf. n. 7.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
7
Cf. Strasburger 1954: 125: ‘The Trojans constitute the far greater number of the
fallen, because they are from the start the weaker ones, the losers hastening towards
their destruction . . .’. It is no coincidence that, with one exception (5.559 f.), all the
warriors who fall like trees are on the Trojan side: 13.178 ff., 13.389 ff. = 16.482 ff.,
14.414 ff., 17.53 ff.; cf. 13.436 ff.
8
Reinhardt 1951: 338 = Reinhardt 1960: 13.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
The scene in which the horses of Achilles stand immobile on the field of
battle, weeping for the dead Patroklos, and Zeus asks himself why the
gods involved them in the miseries of mortal existence (17.426–55),
memorably expresses the poem’s fundamental contrast between div-
inity and humanity and anticipates its emphasis in the final seven
books on the mortality and death of Achilles. Although, like the rest
of the Iliad, this scene is composed of traditional formulas and themes,
as a whole it is ‘unparalleled’ and ‘unlike anything else in the poem’.1 In
this chapter, through close attention to its diction, style, and thematic
resonance, I attempt to elucidate the significance of this remarkable
episode for the overall interpretation of the Iliad.
The scene with the horses takes place at a point in the narrative
when the two armies have taken turns pushing one another back from
the body of Patroklos (17.270–80, 316–32, 342–3) and are locked in
desperate, relentless combat (384–422). The scene is introduced by
twenty-five lines that are noticeably unusual in their diction, syntax,
and the action they describe—lines that help to establish the context
in which the passage about the horses should be understood.
17.400–1 sum up, as it were, the desperate battle raging over the
corpse of Patroklos since the beginning of the Book, and sound the
note of divine responsibility for human suffering in a deadlocked
battle: E Zf Kd —Æ挺øØ I æH ŒÆd ¥ø / X
ÆØ HØ
Kı ŒÆŒe (‘Such an evil toil of men and horses did Zeus /
draw tight over Patroklos on that day’).2 Æ
ø, ‘draw tight’, and its
1
Fenik 1974: 180.
2
Cf. 13.358–60, with the comment by Janko 1992: 92 ad loc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
P ’ ¼æÆ Ø
XØ —挺 ŁÅÆ E åغº
·
ººe ªæ Þ’ IıŁ H
æÆ Łø,
åØ o æø·
Ø h º Łı
HØ
Ł
, Iººa Çøe KØåæØ
çŁÆ
ºÅØØ 405
ił IØ, Kd P b e º
Æ,
KŒæØ ºŁæ ¼ı Ł, P f ÆPHØ·
ººŒØ ªaæ ª
Åæe K
Ł çØ IŒ
ø,
l ƒ IƪªººŒ ˜Øe
ªºØ Å
Æ.
c ª’ h ƒ Ø ŒÆŒe ‹ K
åŁÅ 410
Åæ, ‹Ø Þ ƒ ºf çºÆ þºŁ’ KÆEæ.
Achilles was not yet
afraid that Patroklos was dead, because the fighting
was taking place a great distance away from the ships,
beneath the walls of Troy; he never expected in his heart
that he was dead, but that he would return alive, 405
after going right up to the gates, for he didn’t at all expect
that he would sack the city without him, or even with him;
for often, listening apart, he had learned this from his mother,
3
Edwards 1991: 100 on 400–1. On X
ÆØ HØ . . . , see de Jong 1987: 234–5.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
4
Cf. the bT Scholia cited by Edwards 1991: 101 on 404–11: ‘[Homer] often arouses
sympathy like this when the greatest sufferers are unaware of disaster and are borne
up by loving hopes . . .’. Cf. Fenik 1974: 179.
5
As parallels to these comments by anonymous members of the opposing armies,
Edwards 1991: 103, cites 3.297–301, 319–23; 7.178–80, 201–5.
6
Mirto 1997: 1294.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
7
See, though, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 67 and 457, where IæıªØ
similarly modifies ÆNŁæ. In both these instances the unexpected appearance of the
adjective reflects Demeter’s viewpoint: in 67 the negatively charged IæıªØ cor-
relates with her despair at hearing ‘the voice of her daughter through the barren air, as
if she were suffering violence’; in 457 Demeter rushes through the air that is ‘barren’ in
the absence of her daughter to meet Persephone for the first time since her abduction.
8
Edwards 1991: 101. Cf. Mirto 1997: 1294: ‘. . . gli epiteti che ornano la
descrizione . . . del fragore, che dal campo di battaglia raggiunge il cielo, sembrano
evidenziare l’inesorabile crudeltà del massacro.’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
9
Komninou-Kakridi 1947: 139.
10
Perhaps the horses depicted on Mycenaean kraters and Geometric and Archaic
funeral amphorae, and occasionally found in Mycenaean graves, are meant to pre-
serve the memory of dead warriors in just this way. Cf. Vermeule 1979: 59–61, 226–7
nn. 40–1; Edwards 1991: 106 on 434–6, 283 on 23.404–17. Edwards: 105–6 notes that
the phrase ‘to the broad Hellespont’ (Kd ºÆf Eºº, 17.432), found in 7.86
and Od. 24.82), ‘suits the context and looks forward to the gravestone simile two lines
later’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
11
S. Cole, oral communication.
12
The horses of Achilles, offspring of the Harpy Podarge and the West Wind,
Zephyros (16.150), are described as ‘immortal’ at 16.154, 17.444, and 23.277 (cf.
10.402–4). Their immortality distinguishes them from other horses in the poem
with divine connections: those of Eumelos, ‘swift-footed like birds, / . . . / which
Apollo of the silver bow bred and reared . . . ’(2.764–6), and those given by Zeus to
Tros in recompense for his son Ganymede, ‘the best / horses there are, East or West’
(5.266–7). There is no indication in the text that the remarkable horses of Rhesos,
‘whiter than snow and running like the winds’ (10.437), have anything to do with the
gods.
13
See p. 7.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
14
On the association of ŁÆºæ with tears, see Lowenstam 1979: 125–35.
15
Monsacré, 1984: 177.
16
æÅ (‘round’, or perhaps ‘delicate’), another adjective used to describe tears
(3.142, 16.11, 19.323; Od. 16.332), also is associated with vitality: it is used of leaves
and flowers that are full of life (13.180, Od. 9.449, 12.357), and also of human flesh
(4.237, 13.553, 14.406).
17
See Mirto 1997: 1295. Edwards 1991: 106, on 437–40, compares the gesture of
Laertes at Od. 24.316–17 and notes that ‘Patroklos used to wash and oil [the horses’]
manes’ (23.280–2).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
p غ, çHœ
—źBœ ¼ÆŒØ
ŁÅHØ,
E ’ Ke Iªæø IŁÆø ;
q ¥Æ ıØØ
’ I æØ ¼ºª’ åÅ; 445
P
b ªæ
KØ OœÇıææ I æe
ø ‹Æ ªÆEÆ Ø Ø ŒÆd æØ.
Ah, you two wretches, why did we give the pair of you to lord
Peleus,
a mortal, while you two are ageless and immortal?
Was it so that you two might have sorrows along with wretched
men? 445
There is nothing anywhere more miserable than a man,
of all the things that breathe and move over the earth.
These five lines include several of the words that most frequently
denote the misery and suffering of the human condition: غ,
‘wretches’ (443), from غ, a word that typically expresses pity for
the suffering of others (e.g. Patroklos in 17.670; 23.65, 105, 221) or self-
pity (e.g. Thetis in 18.54, Hekabe in 22.431);19 ıØØ, ‘miserable’
(445), from
Å, a word that often suggests human misfortune or
unhappiness; OœÇıææ, ‘more miserable’ (446), from OœÇıæ, a
word associated with the physical hardship, pain, and sorrow of the
human condition, and in particular with Achilles, whom Thetis
describes at 1.417 as ‘swiftly doomed and miserable beyond all men’
18
Cf. Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981: 175.
19
On the meaning and associations of غ in the Iliad, see Kim 2000: 30–1 n. 80.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
20
Slatkin, 1991: 38 n. 24, makes the connection between 17.446 ff. and 1.417 and
notes that ‘what mortals are by nature, Achilles is most’.
21
Cf. Edwards 1991: 107 on 443–5; Mirto 1997: 1295.
22
Kim 2000: 44; cf. Macleod 1982: 15. Zeus’ pity for the horses is quite different
from his pity elsewhere in the poem for individual mortals who are facing death: his
son, Sarpedon, at 16.431–3, 450, 459–61, and Hektor at 22.169–76. Similarly, the focus
in 17.446–7 is on the contrast between human suffering and immortal freedom from
misery and care, not on the helpless human condition itself, though this is what
Odysseus emphasizes when he addresses Amphinomos in similar terms at Od.
18.130–1. See Edwards 1991: 107 on 446–7.
23
Leinieks 1973: 102–7 sees Pedasos as ‘in effect, a symbol of Patroklos’ mortality’
(103); Thalmann 1984: 200 n. 40 adds that ‘Pedasos evokes the idea of Achilles’
mortality too . . .’. Cf Atchity 1978: 276, 305.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
24
Thalmann 1984: 46, 200 n. 41.
25
It is possible too that in 17.426 ff. and 23.283–4 the horses are thinking not only of
Patroklos but of the approaching death of Achilles himself, as at 19.409, 416–17.
Certainly a listener or reader of the poem cannot help doing so. Cf. Kakridis 1954:
113; Thalmann 1984: 48. Kullmann 1960: 329 suggests that ‘the motif “Automedon and
the horses of Achilles” ’ may in some pre-Iliadic form have already been associated with
the mythology of Achilles’ death. In this light, it is probably no accident that the only
other instance in the Iliad of a trace horse being killed in battle, and having to be cut
away from the other two horses, occurs at 8.80–8, when Paris’ arrow kills Nestor’s trace
horse. Diomedes then comes to Nestor’s rescue in a scene that is generally connected
with the episode in the Aithiopis, in which Antilochos rescues his father in a similar
situation and is killed by Memnon (cf. Pindar, Pythian 6.28–42). The conspicuous
killing of the trace horses in the narratives of the deaths of Antilochos and Patroklos
suggests that both the Aithiopis and the Iliad drew on older mythology in which this
motif was associated with the events leading to the death of Achilles.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
26
There is no explicit indication that the horses were a wedding gift to Peleus like
the armour, but many scholars have drawn that conclusion, as they have in regard to
Cheiron’s gift to Peleus of the Pelian ash spear (16.143–4 = 19.390–1). See, e.g.,
Kullmann 1960: 232–6; Wilson 1974: 385–9, esp. 385; Willcock, 1984: 254 on
16.867; Mirto 1997: 1299; Seiradaki 2014: chapter 4. At 23.277–8, Achilles says that
Poseidon gave the horses to Peleus, and this seems to contradict the statement that
they were a gift of the gods collectively (16.381 = 867, 17.443–4). Achilles, however,
may simply be emphasizing how outstanding the horses are by attributing the gift to
the god especially associated with horses and horsemanship (cf. 23.307, 582–5). Cf.
Willcock 1978: 62–3, 140–1 nn. 11–15 on Pandaros’ bow as a gift of Apollo. On
Poseidon and horses, see Burkert 1985: 138–9. It is also possible that Poseidon was
associated with the gift of the horses to Peleus, because he was one of the divine suitors
of Thetis for whose sake she was forced to marry a mortal. Cf. Pindar, Isthmian
8.26–48[SnM].
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Laura Slatkin has shown that there is a pattern of allusion in the Iliad
to mythology associated with Thetis as a cosmic, theogonic power and
‘efficacious protectress . . . of the gods’, and in particular to the story,
familiar from Pindar Isthmian 8.26–48 and elsewhere, that despite
the desire of Zeus and Poseidon to mate with her, she was forced into
the bed of the mortal, Peleus, because of a prophecy that she would give
birth to a son mightier than his father.27 Had Zeus mated with her, he
would have lost control of the cosmos to his son, like Ouranos and
Kronos before him. Therefore the gods decided, at Themis’ urging, that
Thetis must marry a mortal and ‘see her son die in battle’ (Pindar,
Isthmian 8.36a [SnM]. In other words, as Slatkin demonstrates, Thetis’
grief at her subjection to Peleus and at Achilles’ short-lived mortality is
part of the price of Zeus’ continued mastery over the cosmos.28
Thus Zeus’ apparently rhetorical question, ‘Why did we give the
pair of you to lord Peleus, / a mortal, while you two are ageless and
immortal?’ has a quite specific answer: ‘we’ did so in celebration of a
marriage that was arranged specifically to maintain the cosmic order
in which Zeus is supreme. This marriage implicated both Thetis and
the immortal horses in human suffering—specifically, the suffering of
Achilles and, by extension, that of Patroklos—in effect sacrificing
their immortal ease and freedom from care to those of Zeus and the
other Olympians. It is no accident that Thetis describes herself as
‘wretched’ ( غ)—the same word by which Zeus addresses the two
horses in 17.441—in the same line in which, using a unique coinage,
she calls herself ıÆæØŒØÆ (‘the bitterly unfortunate mother of
27 28
Slatkin 1991: passim. The words quoted appear on p. 52. Ibid. 101–3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
29
Kim 2000: 44 n. 29 aptly compares ‘Thetis’ suffering through Achilles’ death’ to
that of the immortal horses. On ‘the horses of Achilles, gifts of the gods (Iliad
17.426–53)’ and the mythology of Thetis as alluded to in the poem, see now
Rutherford 2013: 114–17.
30
See Schein 1984: 92, referring to Owen 1946: 11.
31
The god, of course, is the same, Apollo. Hektor makes a more specific prophecy
to Achilles at 22.359 that he will die at the hands of Apollo and Paris. Cf. Edwards
1991: 283.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
beneath the horses’ feet, and the horsehairs were stained 795
with blood and dust; before it was not permitted
that the helmet crested with horsehair be stained with dust,
but it protected the head and handsome forehead of a man
of divine descent, Achilles.
(16.793–9)
The words
ØŁÅÆ b ŁØæÆØ / Æ¥
ÆØ ŒÆd ŒÅØØ (‘and the horse-
hairs were stained / with blood and dust’) recalls the horses’ mane[s]
being ‘stained’ (K
ØÆ) as they touch the ground in 17.438–9 (cf.
19.405–6, 23.283–4). Both the horses and the helmet are emblems of
Achilles’ unique relation to divinity, and there is, in particular, a
special emphasis in the word ŁØ (‘of divine descent’, 16.798):
only here in the Iliad and Odyssey does this adjective modify the
word ‘man’ (I æ) in a quasi-oxymoronic usage, and only here and
in 10.314 does the genitive ŁØ occur at position 5.5, the so-called
B1 caesura.32 These two anomalies call attention to the word and to
‘the irony and incongruity of its use’,33 which involve not only
Achilles’ having a goddess for a mother, but also the whole history
of Thetis being forced to marry a mortal and Achilles’ consequent,
short-lived mortality. As with the immortal horses implicated in
human misery, whose manes are defiled in mourning for Patroklos
and Achilles, the helmet defiled just before the death of Patroklos
evokes the painful combination in Achilles of humanity and divinity.
In one other significant passage, at the end of Book 20, the horses of
Achilles are associated with a kind of defilement and with the contradic-
tions inherent in the human condition and especially in Achilles himself:
32
See p. 109. At 10.314 ŁØ modifies ŒæıŒ, in reference to Eumedes, the
father of Dolon. It is hard to see any ‘divine descent’ in this use of ŁØ, but here too,
as a T Scholion ad loc. suggests, the unexpected adjective may signal a contrast
between the fortunate herald and his wealthy but unfortunate son (e b heoio, ‹Ø
I
Ø HØ Ææ).
33
Thalmann 1984: 48.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
34
On this simile and the horses of Achilles generally, see Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981:
175–6. Mirto 1997: 1384 and Edwards 1991: 345, note that the final clause in Book 20,
‘his unconquerable hands were splattered with gore’ (20.503), is also used of Agamem-
non at 11.169 in the course of his savage IæØÆ, and Edwards asks, ‘[I]s there a
suggestion that Achilles has become as brutal as Agamemnon?’ Actually he has become
far more brutal, as is indicated by the continuation of his rampage in Book 21, including
his slaughter of Lykaon (21.34–135), and by his killing of Hektor in Book 22.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
35
Kakridis 1954: 111.
36
I am grateful to Nancy Felson for criticism and suggestions that improved this
essay.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
Page 1955: 1–20, referring to Hackman 1904 and other earlier studies; see p. 18,
especially nn. 1 and 5.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
2
Page 1955: 9, 19 n. 16. Cf. Hackman 1904: 164.
3
In this chapter translations of lines and passages in the Iliad and Odyssey are from
Lattimore 1951 and Lattimore 1965 (occasionally adapted).
4
The barbarism and lawlessness of the Kyklopes as a group are emphasized at
9.105 ff. That of Polyphemos is obvious throughout the story, e.g. at 9.278 ff.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
5
Cf. the horror of Odysseus’ men eaten by the Laistrygones at Od. 10.116–24.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
6
I follow the B, P, Q, and T scholia in taking çıºÅ
(5.477) as a kind of wild olive,
but the identification is uncertain and evidence inconclusive. See Chantraine 1968–80
s.v. çıºÆ and, for the ancient evidence, Ebeling 1880–5: 2.445 s.v. çıºÅ.
7
Segal 1962: 62 n. 31 (cf. 63 n. 41) mentions ‘the saving aspect of the olive tree for
Odysseus’. Porter 1962: 5–6 sees in the olive wood and olive trees mentioned at 5.236,
476–8, 9.319–20, 382–3, 13.102, 372, and 23.190–1, 195, 204, ‘an elaborate recurrent
image which punctuates . . . the narrative, marks its major stages . . . by symbols evoking
the idea of death and rebirth’. Dimock 1963 [1956]: 72 speaks of ‘the fruitfulness . . .
hinted at . . . particularly by the image of the olive’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
8
Cf. Porphyry, De antro nympharum 33–4, where the olive tree at the head of the
harbour of Phorkys near the cave of the nymphs (Od. 13.102–4) is made to symbolize
that ‘the kosmos is an accomplishment of a god’s reason and of intellectual nature.
. . . For it is the plant of Athena, and Athena is practical wisdom’ (› Œ
. . . Ø
çæø
ŁF ŒÆd æA
çø
IºÆ. . . . ŁÅA
b ªaæ e çı
, çæ
ÅØ
b ŁÅA’. In 33, Porphyry says that the olive tree is appropriate to Odysseus, who
has successfully returned to Ithaca by his own mental prowess and with Athena’s help,
who has so often survived when he seemed about to die (the quality for which the
olive tree is properly called IØŁÆº
(‘ever-blooming’), and who is a suppliant to the
nymphs and Athena (cf. 13.355–60). (I thank J. A. Coulter for the reference to
Porphyry.) For the olive as a tree of life, cf. Kallimachos Epode 4.
9
At 9.251, Polyphemos catches sight of Odysseus and his men immediately after
lighting the fire. Cf. Stanford 1965–7: 1.356 on 9.234.
10
Segal 1962: 34.
11
For similar contrasts between the Kyklopes and the Phaiacians, see Porter 1962:
8–9; Segal 1962: 33–5; Vidal-Naquet 1996 [1970]: 49–50.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Odysseus wishes to slay the sleeping Polyphemos with his sword, ‘but
another impulse held me back’ (æ
Łıe
æıŒ, 9.302), since
he and his men would then be trapped within the cave, unable to move
the heavy boulder from the entrance. The expression æ
. . . Łı
is
unparalleled in Homer and is a catachresis of traditional language for
the sake of describing Odysseus’ unique intelligence and resourceful-
ness.13 These mental qualities had already been illustrated at 9.281ff.,
where Odysseus, N
Æ ºº (‘knowing many things’), deceitfully
( ºØ
KØ) tells Polyphemos that his ship was totally wrecked.
12
Page 1955: 3–8, 19 n. 8. The inebriation of the Kyklops is borrowed from a type
of folk-tale in which a man ‘inebriates a devil or demon in order to capture him and
force him to reveal some knowledge or perform some act’ (p. 6).
13
The scholiast ad loc. (Dindorf 1855: 2.430) glosses Łı
(‘impulse’) by the word
ºªØ
(‘calculation’), but this is too simple-minded. Snell 1953: 14 writes: ‘But
thymos may . . . serve as the name of a function, in which case we render it as “will” or
“character”; and where it refers to one single act, the word once more transcends the
limitations of our “soul” or “mind”. The most obvious example occurs at Od. 9.302,
where Odysseus says, “Another thymos held me back”; each individual impulse,
therefore, is also a thymos.’ Odysseus has a ‘second thought’, but this ‘thought’ is
too impulsive to be translated as ‘calculation’ or, indeed, ‘thought’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
14 15
Page 1955: 13–14. Page 1955: 5, 18–19 nn. 6–8.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
meaning to say that the man ˇsØ
(‘Nobody’) is killing him by a trick,
not by force. But the others understand him to say h Ø
(‘not anyone’,
‘nobody’ ), a negated indefinite pronoun rather than a man’s name, and
say (9.410–11),
N b c
ØÇÆØ r K
Æ–
F
ª’ h ø
Ø ˜Øe
ªºı IºÆŁÆØ . . .
If, alone as you are, nobody uses violence on you,
why there is no avoiding the sickness sent by great Zeus . . .
16
Podlecki 1961: 125–33, esp. 130–1, discusses this word-play in detail. Stanford
1965–7: 1.361 and 1939: 105 also notes the paronomasia.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
17
For a different theory of how the name ‘Nobody’ is connected with a basic theme
of the poem, based on a play on words involving h Ø
(‘nobody’) and T
(‘a bird
with long ears’, a ‘bustard’) or t
, ‘a long-eared owl’), see Carpenter 1946: 139–41.
According to Carpenter, ‘Odysseus told Polyphemos his boyish nickname ‘Big Ears’,
and the giants had only themselves to blame for their misinterpretation’ (p. 140).
Carpenter’s interpretation, however, does not take into account the play on Ø
and
BØ
.
18
Cf. Segal 1962: 34. Porphyry, De antro nympharum 35, finds it significant that
the harbour where the cave of the nymphs is located, and where the Phaeacians leave
Odysseus, is ‘the harbour of Phorkys’ (13.96). Phorkys is the grandfather of the
Kyklops (1.71–2) and a god of the sea. For Porphyry, the sea represents matter (
ºØŒc ÆØ
), and Odysseus, symbolizing the spirit moving through becoming to
being, is reminded by the name of the harbour that he is not yet free from the BØ
±ºø ŒÆd ºØŒH ŁH (‘the wrath of the gods of the sea and of matter’), which he still
must appease. According to Porphyry, Odysseus will be ƺH
ƺ
. . . ήd
¼Øæ
ŁÆºÆø ŒÆd Kºø æªø (‘completely out of the sea and without experi-
ence of actions that have to do with matter and the sea’) only when he carries out
Teiresias’ instructions (11.121 ff.) and encounters c H Kƺø Oæªø ŒÆd æªø
ƺB IØæÆ (‘the complete inexperience of sea instruments and actions’).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
One of the principal themes of the Odyssey is that guests and suppliants
should be received with hospitality and gifts, because, as Odysseus
reminds Polyphemos (9.270–1),
Zf
’ KØØøæ ƒŒø ø
Ø
, n
ØØ –’ ÆN ØØ OÅ E.
Zeus the guest god, who accompanies respected strangers with honours,
avenges any wrong done to strangers and suppliants.
19
ήd
ªø (‘and he learned of their mind’, 1.3) refers to Odysseus’ knowledge
of the attitudes of those whom he meets while journeying home—whether each was
hçæø or ŒÆŒ
çæø, ‘well-minded’, i.e. ‘friendly’, or ‘evilly-minded’, i.e. ‘hostile’. Cf.
Stanford 1965–7: 1.207 on 8.559.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
20 21
Dimock 1963: 54 et passim. Ibid. 58.
22
The interpretation is also supported by the play on O ı
/O ÆŁÆØ at
1.62 and 19.407–9 (cf. 5.340).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
23
On the adaptation of traditional folk-tales and folk motifs, see Kakridis 1949:
106–26, 1971: 25–53, 141–63. Cf. Chapter 9, this volume.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
Andersen 1998: 137–48. The words quoted appear on p. 148.
2
This is essentially the position of Danek 1998, who shows by detailed and
convincing analyses how what he calls ‘quotations’ (Zitaten), but some might term
‘allusions’ (Anspielungen), tend to have a programmatic relevance not only to the
dramatic situations in which they occur, but to the main themes and distinctive values
of the Odyssey as a whole.
3
Clay 1983: 90–6 and Danek 1998: 247–9, 403–6 discuss the significant contrasts
between Herakles and Odysseus, but not the equally important similarities. See Clay
1983: 91 n. 68 for references to earlier scholarship on differences between the two
characters.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
4
Slatkin 1991 (= 2011a: 17–95).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
5
The lines on Tithonos in Sappho 58 do not actually appear in Voigt 1971 or in
any standard edition of Sappho’s fragments, because they were discovered only
recently in two papyri first published in 2004: Cologne Papyrus 21315 and Cologne
Papyrus 21376. These papyri expanded the text of the fragment radically, which, in
the case of lines 19–22, was previously limited to two or three words at the end of each
line. See Obbink 2011. Od. 5.1–2 are identical to Il.11. 1–2.
6
Vernant 1982: 13–9 [=Engl. trans.: 185–9].
7
Cf. Finley, Jr. 1978: 20–1. Penelope does not make the allusion to Iphitos and the
bow in direct speech, as would most likely have been the case in the Iliad (though in
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
that epic too, when Patroklos puts on the armour of Achilles and is said not to have
taken Achilles’ great spear of Pelian ash, ‘which no one else of the Achaians could
wield’—a gift of the Centaur Cheiron to Achilles’ father ‘to be slaughter for mortal
heroes’ (Il. 16.140–4)—perhaps this reference to the spear and the reason for not
taking it should be thought of as focalized by Patroklos. Odysseus’ bow and Achilles’
spear bear comparison as instances of the common folk-motif ‘of an object that only
one man can wield’ (Janko 1992: 355 on Il.16.141–4, referring to Thompson 1955–8:
D 1651.1.1). Although neither Patroklos nor the rest of the Greeks can wield the spear,
Achilles uses it to take vengeance on the man who killed his comrade (cf. Il.
19.388–91), just as Odysseus uses the bow that none of the Suitors can string to
work his vengeance on them. On the place of the spear in the poetic and ethical
economy of the Iliad, see now Seiradaki 2014: chapter 4.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
8
See Willcock 1977: 41–53. The words quoted appear on p. 43. Cf. Willcock, 1964:
141–54; Braswell 1971: 16–26. Andersen 1998: 148, comments: ‘What the poet evokes,
is often what he creates.’
9
e.g. Kakridis 1949, 1971; Kullmann 1960; Danek 1998.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
10
See Schein 1984: 136–7, 164. Telemachos, however, is referred to seven times in
the Odyssey as Y . . .
źå Ø (2.409 = 18.405 = 23.101; 16.476; 18.60 = 21.130 =
22.354. The use of Y with Æ E (‘river’, Il. 21.356), I ı (Il. 15.383) and I Ø
(‘wind’, Il. 17.739, Od. 9.71, 13.276, 19.186), and of Oı
B (Odysseus, Il. 23.720) is
not quite periphrastic, because in these places Y denotes the actual strength of a river,
a wind, or Odysseus. See Richardson 1993: 82 on Il. 21.356.
11
See Schmitt 1967: 110 n. 67, cited by Nagy 1979: 318 §2 n. 2. Schmitt argues that
periphrases combining a noun with a proper adjective are more archaic than those
combining a noun with the genitive case form of a name, and Nagy notes, ‘In this light
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
the preponderance of biê plus adjective of [Herakles] over biê plus genitive of
[Herakles] is itself significant’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
12
The V scholion says only that Herakles killed Iphitos because he and his father
would not give him Iole in marriage, although he had won her as a prize. Apollodoros
offers more detail, saying that Eurytos had offered Iole as a bride to whoever should
defeat his sons and himself in an archery competition, but when Herakles surpassed
them in this competition, he did not receive the bride. Therefore Herakles later killed
Iphitos when the latter came to his house seeking some cattle that had been stolen
from Euboia by Autolykos, but that Eurytos thought Herakles had taken. Subse-
quently, after being punished for this murder by enslavement to the Lydian queen,
Omphale, Herakles campaigned against Oichalia, killed Eurytos and the rest of his
sons, and sacked the city (2.7.7). The BQ scholia on Od. 21.22 briefly mention Iphitos’
quest for horses stolen by Autolykos and sold to Herakles, and state explicitly that
Homer ‘does not know about the passion for Iole, nor that [Herakles], when he was
unsuccessful in his passion for Iole, stole Eurytos’ mares’. For other relevant sources,
see Thalmann 1998: 167 n. 37. Thalmann, however, doubts the relevance of the story
of the archery contest for Iole as told in the scholia, and emphasizes instead the
significance of ‘the whole tradition of the courtship competition . . .’ (pp. 167–8).
Schwisani 1995: 247–54 argues that the ‘Odyssey poet’ transformed a traditional story
in which Eurytos was killed by Apollo and left his bow to Iphitos, who was killed by
Herakles in connection with an incident of cattle rustling. She suggests that the poet
did this and invented a situation that would bring Odysseus together with Iphitos,
because he wanted the famous bow to play a positive role in his poem.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
13
Cf. Clay 1983: 95–6; Danek 1998: 405–6.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
14
Cf. Crissy 1997: 42–6, Thalmann 1998: 174–7.
15
Cf. Dimock, Jr. 1963 and 1989: 258–9.
16
See Ready 2010: 134–41, 148, who argues that Odysseus’ displaying the bow on
Ithaca contributes to and advertises his ‘coercive power’ as the island’s main leader
(Æ
غ) and his household’s wealth. Cf. Nagler 1993: 250–1 on Odysseus’ bow as
‘stand[ing] for violence used to control one’s own community’ (cited by Thalmann
1998: 178, Ready 2010: 145).
17
Murnaghan 1987: 115–16, sees ‘the scar, which is the most frequently used token
of Odysseus’ identity’, as combining the social aspect of the bow, as ‘the token by
which Odysseus reveals himself as someone deserving to be considered a guest-friend
and the avenger of the Suitors’ offences against hospitality’, with the personal aspect of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
the bed described in Book 23, the ‘inalienable quality’ of which ‘is essential to its use as
a token of Odysseus’ identity to Penelope and as a sign of Penelope’s fidelity to
Odysseus’. In a sense, too, the bow resembles Odysseus’ dog, Argos, in that its
power comes to life only when Odysseus returns home. Argos, however, revives
only momentarily to acknowledge his master and then dies, while the bow serves as
the means by which Odysseus regains his kingdom. For a structural comparison of the
complex narrative ‘digressions’ telling of the bow and the scar, see Gaisser 1969: 20–3.
18
Cf. Ready 2010: 135–8.
19
Cf. Danek 1998: 405–6; Thalmann 1998: 175.
20
Cf. Russo in Russo and Heubeck 2004: 153–5. Cf. Bakker 2013: 132–4 on the
Odyssey as ‘giv[ing] a positive turn’ to the ‘negative depict[ion]’ of Odysseus in epic
tradition ‘by pit[ting] Zeus against Poseidon in a conflict that remains unresolved
throughout the poem’ (134).
21
See Austin 1975: 245–51.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
22
Cf. Il. 1.603 ‘the lyre (çæت) that Apollo wielded’.
23
Thalmann 1998: 178, anticipated by Nagler 1990: 348, compares Odysseus’
‘quasi-epiphany’ as Apollo, when he has strung the bow, leapt to the threshold, and
is about to begin killing the Suitors, to Apollo at HHAp 2–4, where he enters Zeus’
house and strings his bow, and the other gods leap from their seats in fear.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
24
I would like to thank Franco Montanari and the Scientific Committee of the
Congress Omero Tremila Anni Dopo for the invitation that gave rise to this essay.
I also am grateful to Georg Danek, Nancy Felson, and Leslie Kurke for their encour-
agement and helpful criticism of an early draft.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women might be another such example, but it is too
fragmentary to speak of as ‘surviving’.
2
Brown 1953: 35.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
3
Clay 1989: 154–5. For older scholarship on the hymn’s religiosity or non-
religiosity, see 152–3.
4
Cf. Il. 13.481–2
ØÆ ’ ÆNH / `N
Æ, which also ‘plays on the name’s folk-
etymology’ (Janko 1992: 108–9). There may be a similar, etymological play on the
name Anchises (ªå
Å) in Iªå
ŁØ (‘near to the gods’, HHAphr 200). Cf.
Gambarara 1984: 157 n. 3; van der Ben 1986: 24; Faulkner 2008a: 261. Gambarara
1984: 136, compares Aphrodite’s naming of Aineias to the naming of Odysseus at Od.
19.406–9 (cf. Od. 1.62). Smith 1981: 126 n. 82 notes the similar play on åغºF,
åÆØH, ¼å, and åÆØ at Il. 16.21–2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
5
See Hyginus, Fab. 94, Servius on Aeneid 2.649 (Anchises was lamed, after
Aphrodite deflected Zeus’ thunderbolt) and Aeneid 1.617 (Anchises was blinded by
Zeus’ thunderbolt); cf. Soph. fr. 373.1–3, from Laokoon, the details of which may go
back to the Iliou Persis (Sack of Ilium) attributed to Arctinus: F ’ K ºÆØØ `NÆ
› B ŁF / æ’, K’ þø Ææ’ åø jeqaum
ou / ı ŒÆ ÇÆ Ø
ç æ (‘Now Aineias, the goddess’s son, is present at the gates, / carrying on his
shoulders his father, who lets fall / a linen robe over his back that had been hit by a
thunderbolt’ (or, with the variant reading loto Ðu in place of ı, ‘his father with his
/ linen robe stained by the lightning’)). Cf. Radt 1999: 332–3, 755; Lloyd-Jones 1996:
200–1; Lenz 1975: 144–52.
6
Reinhardt 1961b: 507.
7
Griffin 1980: 162, 167–70, Schein 1984: 51–6.
8
Graziosi and Haubold 2005.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
9
On allusion and intertextuality in early Greek epic, see Chapters 4, 6, and 7;
Slatkin 1991; Danek, 2002; Tsagalis 2008.
10
Cf. Allan 2006.
11
See Clay 1989: 166–70, who refers to van der Ben 1981: 89, 93, 1986: 30–1. But
Thalmann 1991: 146 and Faulkner 2008a are sceptical; cf. Faulkner 2008b: 3–18 and
de Roguin 2007: 192.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
The story that Aphrodite will be forced to stop boasting that she
makes gods and humans mate with one another also recalls the Hesi-
odic reference to the end of the race of heroes in Works and Days
159–73, which speaks of ‘the divine race of warrior-men, / who are
called demigods’ (IæH æø ŁE ª, Q ŒÆºÆØ /
ŁØ,
159–60), who perished in the fighting at Thebes and Troy (161–5) and
for whom ‘father Zeus, son of Kronos, provided an existence and way of
life / apart from human beings and made to dwell at the ends of the
earth’ (E b
å’ IŁæø
ŒÆd XŁ’ O Æ / Zf ˚æ
Å
ŒÆÆ Æcæ K
æÆØ ªÆ
Å 167–8). The Hymn also coheres
with the retrospective opening of Book 12 of the Iliad, which looks back,
from a time after the end of the Trojan War, to the ‘race of demigod
men’ (ØŁø ª IæH, 12.23) who died fighting at Troy.12 The
reason that Aphrodite will no longer mock the other gods by boasting
that she made them sleep with mortals and have mortal children is that
there will be no more such children, though the Hymn does not say so
explicitly.13 This change in the cosmic order is analogous to the changes
one finds in the other major Homeric hymns, when a god must
subordinate his or her power to that of Zeus, in order to obtain or
retain a place among the Olympians.14
*
If the story of Aphrodite’s seduction of Anchises is a piece of cosmic
history with the kind of resonance found elsewhere in early Greek
epic poetry, the poem’s narrative recalls particularly the representa-
tion of divinity in the Iliad (and, to a lesser extent, the Odyssey). In
these epics the conflicts involving earlier generations of gods, leading
to the established Olympian order with Zeus as ‘father of gods and
men’, are a thing of the past. The Titans are bound in Tartaros, the
12
On the ØŁø ª IæH of Iliad 12.23 and the Hesiodic passages, see
Reinhardt 1961a: 267–9, Nagy 1979: 159–61, 219–20; Scodel 1982: 33–50,
Thalmann 1984: 102–6, and de Roguin 2007: 191–3.
13 14
Clay 1989: 193. Allan 2006: 29.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
15
Slatkin 1991: 18–21, 64–6, 68–70 (= Slatkin 2011a: 30–3, 58–60, 61–2).
16
Reinhardt 1961a: 128, 1960 [1938]: 25. Cf. Griffin 1980: 199.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
17
Cf. Clay 1989: 171 n. 62, pace Podbielski 1971: 36–9; Lenz 1975: 118–23. Cf.
Reinhardt 1960 [1938]: 514–15, de Roguin 2007: 184–5.
18
Cf. the exception to Aphrodite’s erotic power at HHAphr 16–17: P ’
æØÆ åæıź ŒÆ ŒºÆØc / ÆÆØ K çغÅØ çغØc çæ
Å
(‘nor does smile-loving Aphrodite ever conquer huntress Artemis of the golden
distaff ’). Cf. Od. 1.100–1, where Athena’s spear, ‘with which she conquers the ranks
of men, / warriors at whom she of the mighty father is angry’, corresponds to the
sexual desire that is Aphrodite’s distinctive weapon.
19
Smith 1981: 41. Reinhardt 1960 [1938]: 515 notes that both goddesses triumph
through ‘the revelation of irresistible beauty’, but ‘was bei Hera Trug ist, ist bei
[Aphrodite] ihr Wesen’. One also might compare the virginal appearance and adorn-
ing of the first woman in Hes. Th. 572–84 and the dressing and adorning of Aphrodite
by the Hours in the minor Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite (HH 6.5–12), which leads
each of the gods, when they set eyes on her, to admire her form and ‘pray to bring her
home as his wedded wife’ (HH 6.15–18). Cf. Loraux 1981: 85–7 (= Engl. trans. 1993:
80–2); Bergren 1989: 11–14.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
20
See Winkler 1990: 167–70, who refers to earlier scholarship.
21
Cf. Monsacré 1984: 63–77, Schein 1990: 96–8.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Not only does the poet of the Hymn reverse the conventional arming
motif by mentioning the goddess’s clothing and adornment when it is
being removed rather than when she puts it on; he wittily adapts
another motif, that of one warrior stripping another’s corpse, which
in the Iliad would signify the defeat and death of the warrior being
stripped and the triumph of the one doing the stripping, to signify
precisely the reverse: the triumph of Aphrodite being undressed over
the defeated Anchises.22
In this context, however, the significance of ‘triumph’ and ‘defeat’
is by no means straightforward. Anchises is defeated in so far as he is
Aphrodite’s victim, after ‘the goddess threw sweet desire into his
heart, / and erôs seized Anchises’ (Ła ªºıŒf ¥æ ƺ ŁıHØ.
/ ªå
Å ’ æ xº, 143–4); to that extent she is ‘triumphant’, and
her triumph is in keeping with the cultural code, familiar to the poet
and his audiences, that affirms the hierarchy in which the divine is
opposed to, and superior to, the human. At the same time, however,
Anchises is triumphant in so far as he satisfies his desire by having
intercourse immediately with the ‘virgin’ who has presented herself to
him, without having to wait, as she requests, until they are married in a
ritual that will be ‘honourable in the eyes of both mortals and the
immortal gods’ (139–42). In this way he affirms his masculine super-
iority in conformity with another, equally familiar cultural code by
which the male is opposed to, and superior to, the female. Anchises’
masculinity is also expressed in the description of his bedspread, which
consists of the ‘skins of bears and deep-roaring lions / which he himself
had killed in the high mountains’ (158–9). Hunting involves the
domination of nature in a manner analogous to the sexual domination
22
The frequently noted parallels in ancient Mesopotamian texts to the removal of
Aphrodite’s clothing (cf. Faulkner 2008a: 229) are perhaps less significant than the
Hymn’s adaptation of a motif found in traditional Greek epic.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
23
Cf. Stehle 1996: 202–3, 207–8.
24
Cf. Faulkner 2008a: 253–4, who compares Zeus’ intercourse with Europa and
subsequent speech at Moschos, Europa 154–61 to the scene of intercourse and
Aphrodite’s speech in the Hymn.
25
Doherty 1995: 111.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
26
Cf. Reinhardt 1961b: 515.
27
In a sense, Aphrodite is reduced to the level of an animal, since she acts without
intent or choice (254 Iº ªåŁÅ b Ø).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
28
These activities are traditionally associated with the goddess (cf. Il. 14. 214–17,
Hes. Theog. 205–6); thus her seduction of Anchises instantiates her distinctive power.
Cf. Bergren 1989: 17–25, who discusses the link between erôs and epos.
29
Cf. Boedeker 1974: 33–5; Faulkner 2008a: 92–3.
30
Boedeker 1974: 24. Perhaps çغØ
came to be used of Aphrodite in erotic
contexts, because it was associated acoustically with the homophonous, metrically
identical çغÅ
(‘genital-loving’). Cf. Hesiod’s word-play at Theog. 200, when he
lists the epithets given by gods and men to Aphrodite: ‘and genital-loving, because she
appeared from the genitals [sc. of Ouranos]’ (Mb çغÅÆ, ‹Ø Åø KçÆ ŁÅ).
West 1966: 88, comments on the ‘corresponsion of sound’ and Hesiod’s connection of
the two words, though he accepts Bergk’s emendation çغØÆ (‘laughter-loving’)
for çغÅÆ (‘genital-loving’) in his text.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
31
Accepting Martin’s conjecture Æ å
ÆØ for Æå
ÆØ, the reading of
the MSS, in 252. Cf. Olson 2012: 259 on 252–4.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
32
For ˜Øe Łıª Åæ as an epithet of Aphrodite, see Il. 3.374 = 5.312, 5.131 = 820,
14.193, 224, 21.416, 23.185, Od. 8.308, and HHAp 195. The formula is used elsewhere
of other daughters of Zeus and regularly implies their subordination to his patriarchal
authority: Athene (Il. 2.548, 4.128, 515, Od. 3.337, 378, 13.359, 22.205=24.502);
Artemis (Od. 20.61); Atê (Il. 19.91); Persephone (Od. 11.217); Helen (Od. 4.227); a
Muse (Od. 1.10, HH 14.2); Muses (Hes. Theog. 76). Cf. Boedeker 1974: 30–2. In
HHAphr, where Zeus’ patriarchal authority is a major theme of the poem, ˜Øe
Łıª Åæ is more than usually ‘marked’ in contrast to çغØ
.
33
At Il. 3.186 Priam mentions Otreus as a Phrygian king alongside whom he once
fought against the Amazons by the banks of the Sangareus (today, the Sakarya) river.
34
Boedeker 1974: 37–8. Cf. how, in a similar distribution of metrically equivalent
epithets, Aphrodite in the genitive is called ºıåæı in the context of her ‘deeds’
(æªÆ), i.e. sexual activity, at 1 and 9 ( cf. Olson 2012: 54, second apparatus), but the
metrically equivalent Nç ı in her epiphany before Anchises at 175 and on her
first appearance before the other immortals at HH 6.18. Cf. too how Hermes is called
åæıææÆØ (‘of the golden staff ’) at 117 and 121, but the metrically equivalent
Ø Œæ (‘runner’) at 213 when he is doing an errand for Zeus.
35
Hephaistos’ lameness may seem to provide a counter-example, if it is the result
of his having once been seized by the foot and thrown ‘from the divine threshold’ by
Zeus (Il. 1.590–4). But this is the kind of event which, in the Iliad, no longer occurs
among the gods, given the established cosmic order under Zeus.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
36
Elsewhere K
ø is used of a hostile weapon or other force that falls on a
(potential) victim, of an emotion that falls on or into someone’s ‘spirit’ (Łı), and of
the warning () by Teiresias and Circe, which ‘falls on [Odysseus’] spirit’, that he
should avoid the island of Helios—a warning he remembers when he hears the ‘lowing
of the oxen of the Sun in their dwelling / and the bleating of his sheep’ (Od. 12.265–6).
K
ø is also used of various items that ‘fall’ into the sea: a rock split by Poseidon’s
trident (Od. 4.508), the sail and top of the mast of Odysseus’ raft (Od. 5.318), and a
diving bird (Od. 5.50). See Cunliffe, s.v. K
ø.
37
Cf. LSJ s.v.
ø B.II.1; Cunliffe 1963: s.v.
ø 7C.
38
Purves 2006: 179–209. The words quoted appear on p. 206.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
39
See Slatkin 1991: 69–77 (= Slatkin 2011a: 61–7).
40
Ibid.: 84–9 (= 72–4).
41
See Olson 2012: 233 on 196–9, who notes that Iæ PBØ is similar to
Il. 18.85 and describes K
ø ‘as a functional passive of K ººø’. For KŒ
ø
serving as the passive of KŒ ººø, cf. Eur. Medea 450.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
42
e.g. in the formulas çºØ (-Ø) ÆN
(-
) and ÆNBØ (-B) ÅœBØ (-).
43
But Dione’s warning that if Diomedes fights someone ‘better’ than Aphrodite,
his wife may lament his death, is not borne out.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
44
See Kirk 1990:151–2, who notes the ‘thematic connection’ of 5.885–7 with Ares’
wish at 15.115–18 to avenge his dead son Askalaphos, even if this involves being hit by
Zeus’ thunderbolt and ‘lying together with corpses in the blood and dust’ (15.118).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
45
See Giacomelli 1980: 1–19.
46
Perhaps 13.206–7, where Poseidon is angry at the death of his grandson
Amphimachos, who has fallen K ÆNBØ ÅœÅØ, should count as a fourth example
of ÆN used in a passage associated with a god’s (over-)engagement with mortality.
Poseidon himself, however, does not suffer as do Aphrodite, Ares, and Demeter in the
other three passages, the passage is less developed than the other three, and it is
spoken by the poem’s speaker, not by Poseidon himself.
47
Cf. Pindar, Isthm. 8.37. 48
Cf. Il. 18.104 qÆØ . . . KØ ¼åŁ IææÅ.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
49
Brillet-Dubois 2006: 75. Cf. Càssola 1975: 230, 233–4. Faulkner 2008a: 1–5, 18
and 2011: 4–7 unconvincingly revives the argument, originating with Matthiae 1800:
66–7 and most influentially set forth in Reinhardt 1961b, that the focus on Aineias
and his descendants in the Hymn has more to do with honour being paid to a family
of Aineiadai, living in the Troad at the time the Hymn was composed, than with
overcoming the limits of mortality through sexual reproduction. Cf. Edwards 1991:
299–301, Olson 2012: 1–9.
50
On the contrast between the warrior-heroism of the Iliad as a means of winning
‘imperishable glory’ and erôs in the Hymn as a means of transcending mortality
through sexual reproduction, see Brillet-Dubois 2001: 250–6: 258–9. It is no accident
that the only close parallel to the phrase ÆE Æ
Ø (197) is ŒÆd Æ
ø ÆE at
Il. 20.308, which occurs precisely when Poseidon tells Hera and Athene that Aineias
and his children’s children are destined to rule the Trojans. Hoekstra 1969: 39–40
argues on historical grounds that the Hymn passage must be an adaptation of the Iliad
passage, but is refuted by Janko 1982: 158. It is likely that both passages use similar
formulaic language reflecting the traditional motif of Anchises and his son Aineias
overcoming the normal limits of mortality. In the Iliad, this overcoming is associated
with Zeus’ wish that the lineage of Dardanos not perish without seed, despite his
hatred for the lineage of Priam (20.303–6), while in the Hymn it is the result of
Aphrodite’s liaison with Anchises.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
51
Fränkel 1975: 248 (= Fränkel 1962: 285).
52
Porter 1949: 270, quoted by Clay 1989: 170 n. 58
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
53
Brillet-Dubois (personal communication) once suggested that Ganymede may
seem to have ‘reached a state of perfect bliss’, and that ‘his father’s mourning is
adequately compensated by the gift of the horses, whose graceful beauty turns sorrow
into joy’ (cf. Il. 5.265–6). But as D. J. Rayor 2004: 136 observes, though ‘[t]he story of
Ganymede would seem to be a positive example . . . ’, Ganymede himself ‘has no
choice in the matter . . . Though the exemplum ends happily . . . Ganymede forever
remains the adolescent cupbearer to the gods, never maturing into an adult man . . .’
Cf. Stehle 1996: 206 with n. 52 on Adonis and ‘other . . . youths who fail to make the
transition to adulthood’. In Iliadic terms, to exchange humanity and mortality for the
ethically trivial status of an immortal god is a loss that no compensation can make
good. Cf. Schein 1984: 51, 53.
54
Hermann 1806: lxxxix–xcv; Porter 1949: 250 and 1951: 34; Reinhardt 1961b:
507–21.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
55
Hermann 1806: lxxxix; Reinhardt 1961b: 513, 521; Porter 1949: 271–2. Cf.
Groddeck 1786: 42 (cited by Podbielski 1971: 8), who remarks that the Hymn
‘›ÅæØŒÆ iure appellari debeat’.
56
Hoekstra 1969: 40; Janko 1982: 180; Faulkner 2008a: 49; West 2003: 16. Janko
2012: 21 has changed his mind and now ‘prefer[s] to date the Hymn to Aphrodite to
Homer’s time’, based on the linguistic methodology set forth in Janko 1982: 151–80,
74 fig. 3), which he had formerly ignored because ‘arguments from the detection of
exemplum and imitatio’ seemed to date the Hymn later than Hesiod’s Theogony.
57
Brillet-Dubois 2001: 257–9.
58
G. Nagy has argued, in my view unpersuasively, that a creative Homeric
performance tradition existed well after the end of the eighth century, and that
there were many versions of the Iliad (and Odyssey) until the text was fixed sometime
in the Hellenistic period. See Nagy 1996, 2003, 2010.
59
Brillet-Dubois 2011 modifies her earlier position and suggests that ‘creative and
subtle interaction existed between well-established Aphroditean and Iliadic traditions’
(p. 131), and that ‘the hymnic and heroic traditions [may have] developed
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
simultaneously in a fruitful dialogue, and ‘the same poets could adopt alternately [both]
perspectives’ (p. 132).
60
The nucleus of this essay was written for the Ancient Greek Hymns conference
organized by Richard Bouchon, Pascale Brillet-Dubois, and Nadine Le Meur-
Weismann, which took place in Lyon in June 2008. Later I presented revised and
expanded versions at Columbia University, Princeton University, UCLA, the Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, the Univer-
sity of Oregon, and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I thank those present on all
these occasions, especially Ann Bergren, Jim Coulter, Susan Drummond, Helene
Foley, Liz Irwin, Laura McClure, Greg Thalmann, and Nancy Worman, for helpful
comments, questions, and suggestions. I am also grateful to Pascale Brillet-Dubois,
Nancy Felson, John Gibert (and his students in Boulder), Sarah Nooter, Lauri
Reitzammer, and especially Maria Serena Mirto for their encouragement and
thoughtful responses to several earlier drafts.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
About forty lines later, when Iros seems afraid to fight, after seeing
Odysseus’ mighty build (as enhanced by Athene), Antinoos threatens
him (18.83–7):
1
Just under 99% of the lines in the Iliad and Odyssey have a penthemimeral or ‘B’
caesura at position 5 or 5.5. I name the caesurae and number the metrical positions in
the hexameter according to the system employed by Porter 1951: 3–61, esp. p. 16. See
Chapter 7, Appendix 1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Then, about twenty lines later, Hektor echoes these words, telling
both assembled armies (Il. 3.92–4):
› æ
Œ ØŒÅØ Œæ
ø ªÅÆØ,
ŒÆŁ’ ºg KV Æ ªıÆEŒ
YŒÆ’ IªŁø·
ƒ ’ ¼ºº
Ø çغÅÆ ŒÆd ‹æŒØÆ Øa ø.
Whichever of the two is stronger and conquers,
let him bring the woman and all her possessions home with him,
but let the rest of us cut reliable oaths of friendship.
2
Cf. Steiner 2010: 162–3. Monro 1901: 127 on Od. 18.46 seems to me to miss the
point when he speaks of the line as ‘a formula repeated from Il. 3.71,—doubtless in the
spirit of parody’. Monro often tends to see parody in the use of formulaic diction in
the Odyssey that is also found in the Iliad: cf. p. 331 on the scene with Iros, and the
Index, p. 510, s.v. parody.
3
Lateiner 1995: 190–1.
4
Woodhouse 1930 (reprinted 1969): 54–5, 60–1, 90–1, 98–9, 107. Cf. Kakridis
1971: 151–63.
5
Cf. Lateiner 1995: 77; Saïd 1998: 188 (Engl. trans., 199).
6
Thalmann 1998: 103, citing Levine 1982: 200–4. Russo, in Russo, Fernández-
Galiano, and Heubeck 1992: 132 on 18.100, notes that the metaphor anticipates the
actual death of the Suitors ‘in an oddly parodic way’. Cf. Komninou-Kakridi 1969: 201.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
7
On Penelope’s reference to Helen, see Felson-Rubin 1994: 39–40; Schein 1996a:
29–30.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
8
See Schein 1996a: 10–14.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
9
Dimock 1989: 298.
10
Contrast, e.g., Od. 1.203–4, 3.113–17, 14.138–41.
11
Cf. Fernández-Galiano, in Russo, Fernández-Galiano, and Heubeck 1992: 232,
on 22.61–3. In the Iliadic passages, however, there are ‘two asyndetic clauses with
P’
N, followed by
P’ z’; cf. Leaf 1900–2: 2.454 on Il. 22.346.
12
Cf. Leaf 1900–2: 1.398 on Il. 9.379; ˚
Å
-˚ÆŒæØ 1969: 242. Currie
forthcoming: ch. 1 notes that ‘there are striking similarities of wording’, as well as of
situation and syntax, between ‘the Odyssean and the two Iliadic scenes’. For example,
both Eurymachos and Phoenix conclude their promises of recompense to Odysseus and
of Agamemnon’s proposed gifts to Achilles in identical language (Od. 22.59 = Il. 9.523
æd ’
h Ø Åe Œå
ºHŁÆØ. Cf. Od. 22.62 Il. 9.380.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Perhaps æÆ
Å (‘transgression’) at Od. 22.64 is slightly less
abstract than ºÅ (‘disgrace’) at Il. 9.387, but both nouns suggest
intangible, injured feelings that cannot be satisfied by any amount of
actual gold, bronze, or other tangible offerings, feelings for which
there is no ‘equivalent measure’.13 In each epic the hero is represented
as taking vengeance for these injured feelings: in the Iliad, Achilles’
vengeance is problematically self-defeating, but in the Odyssey, Odys-
seus overcomes his enemies completely and un-ambivalently, and
there is nothing at all self-defeating about his triumph.
It is entirely consistent with Achilles’ characterization through most
of the Iliad, and especially in Book 9, that his BØ (‘wrath’) cannot be
appeased by conventional offers and expressions of honour. Even when
he accepts Agamemnon’s gifts in Book 19, this wrath is merely trans-
ferred to Hektor and the Trojans as its new objects. Thus in Book 22,
when Hektor begs Achilles to return his body for burial, Achilles’
response once again is to reject tangible quantities of honour, in the
form of gifts of ransom, in the name of his unsatisfiable anger and
hatred (Il. 22.345–54):
13
Hainsworth 1993): 114 on 9.387. It is worth noting that Achilles elsewhere uses
the word æÆ
Å (‘transgression’, Il. 16.18) to describe the behaviour of the Argives
against him, for which ‘they are [deservedly] perishing / by the hollow ships’ (Il.
16.17–18). Cf. Schein 1996a: 9.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
He is still the same Achilles, quick to anger (cf. 11.564), rising ‘like a
lion’ (24.572),14 and he must keep Hektor’s body out of sight in case
Priam might be unable to control his passion and he himself, in turn,
might lose control and kill him (24.583–6).
In Od. 22.60–7, Odysseus is depicted as absolute and Achillean in
his refusal to soften his anger (Ό
ºHŁÆØ, 22.59) and accept the
payment Eurymachos offers, if only he will spare the Suitors’ lives. In
effect, he is represented as a different kind of hero than he has been
through most of the poem, and this representation is strengthened by
the subsequent description of the Iliadic combat in which he kills
all the Suitors.15 The Odyssey registers this temporary shift in its
14
Cf. King 1987: 43.
15
Odysseus’ heroism at this point in the poem could even be thought of as pre-
Iliadic. His slaughter of the suitors recalls Tydeus in the story Agamemnon tells at Il.
4.384–98, who alone, with Athene’s aid, killed all but one of the fifty men sent from
Thebes to ambush him, after he had defeated the Kadmeans in various athletic
contests. Cf. Diomedes’ brief account of this incident at Il. 10.285–90 and Athene’s
version of part of the story at Il. 5.800–8. In mythology outside the Iliad, Tydeus is
associated with a particularly crude kind of heroism, involving his gnawing the brain
of his dead enemy Melanippos, who had mortally wounded him—an action that leads
Athene, who intended to make him immortal, to abandon him to his death. Of course,
even the possibility of immortality would be completely out of place in the Odyssey (as
in the Iliad), where the emphasis is on mortal heroism. In the final lines of the poem,
when Odysseus obeys Athene and shuns the anger of Zeus by sparing the families of
the Suitors, he avoids a transgressive deed that might have been as offensive to the gods
in its brutality as the action traditionally associated with Tydeus. For a convenient
collection of sources for the story of Tydeus’ death, see Gantz 1993: 518.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
16
See Danek 2002, Burgess 2012.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Studies of Greek literature that draw on, or are grounded in, cognitive
science have become increasingly conspicuous. Many of these studies
focus on epic, lyric, or dramatic performance and receptions of per-
formance texts by both audiences and readers.1 The present chapter
argues that recent work in cognitive neuro-linguistics provides a
more solid theoretical basis for the study of metre as a pathway into
the interpretation of Homeric epic, both in performance and as a
literary text, than do aesthetic approaches on which scholars have
previously relied. To show this, I first draw on research into ‘Event-
related Brain Potentials’ (or ERPs), a class of stimuli that generate
distinctive, measurable brain activity in the form of brainwaves cor-
related with syntactic, semantic, and prosodic processes. Then, with
this research in mind, I focus on the early Greek hexameter, especially
the metrical norm known as Hermann’s Bridge, which can be defined
as the avoidance of polysyllabic words ending at position 7.5 of the
hexameter (in conventional terminology, after the so-called ‘trochee’ or
first light syllable of the fourth foot).2 This avoidance can be thought of,
more positively, as a function of the normative, desired four-colon
1
e.g. Minchin 2001, 2007, Chaston 2010, Meineck 2012a, 2012b, Budelmann and
LeVen 2014. For cognitive scholarship not having to do with performance, see, e.g.,
Lowe 2000, Battezzato 2009.
2
For the terminology and notation by which I describe the hexameter, see
Appendix 1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
3
See Fränkel 1960 [1926], Porter 1951. Cf. Fränkel 1975: 30–4.
4
Cf. West 1966: 37–8, who refers to O’Neill 1942; cf. Fränkel 1960 [1926]: 123–4.
5 6
Porter 1951: 7–8. Jakobson 1960 [1933], Porter 1951.
7
Porter 1951: 8.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
8
In this paragraph I follow Friederici 2004, who brings together and summarizes
the findings of many scholars.
9
Friederici 2004: 467; cf. Debruille 2007: 475.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
10
See Lentz 1867: 473, 551 ff. G. Hermann 1801: 96 coined the term ‘proclitic’ to
describe words that supposedly ‘lean forward’ on the following word: forms of the
definite article beginning with a vowel (›, , ƒ, ƃ), the prepositions K, N or K, KŒ or
K, the conjunction N and conjunction/preposition ‰, and the negative adverb P,
PŒ, På.
11
Hermann 1805: 692.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
12 13
van Leeuwen 1890. Cf. Maas 1962: 60, §87.
14
See Appendix 2, which also includes three lines of Hesiodic poetry (Theog. 23
and 319, WD 751) and four in the Homeric Hymns (HH 1.5, HHDem 17, 452, HHAp
36) that violate Hermann’s Bridge. There is another violation in line 11 of the
‘fragmentum dubium’ in Bernabé 1996: 85–6, though this line may not be archaic
but the product of later Homericizing. Bernabé thinks this fragment, in which an
unknown speaker foretells Achilles’ posthumous translation to the Isles of the Blest,
and Odysseus urges Ajax to help rescue his corpse, may come from an Ilias Parva; it
would, perhaps, better suit an Aithiopis, since in the Argumentum of the Cyclic
Aithiopis, Ajax bears Achilles’ corpse to the ships and Odysseus fights off the Trojans.
In the fragmentum dubium, however, it appears that Odysseus will carry the corpse on
his back (see line 13).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
15
The single exception, in 23.760, is part of a simile by the poem’s narrator.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
16
Wilamowitz 1921: 8 n.1.
17
West 1966: 254 notes that Theogony 319 ‘combine[s] the Chimaera’s epithets Fæ
ıÆ (cf. Hes. fr. 43(a).87, Il. 6.182, Pindar, Olympian 13.90) and IÆØ
Œ (Il.
6.179, 16.329), [the latter of] which has become transferred to Fæ in the process’.
18
Cf. Hesiod, Theogony 322, b åØÆ æÅ, ’ ZçØ ŒæÆæE æ
Œ, with
relatively rare word-end in a heavy final syllable at position 4 and no B caesura, just
three lines after the anomalous line 319. Cf. Porter 1951: 23, 48; O’Neill 1942: 142,
table 10; West 1966: 256, on line 322.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
19
For the rarity of monosyllables at position 10, see Porter 1951: 62, table XXII.
20
There might be another example of a mimetic violation in ¸B (-)
IØåŁÆºÆ (-Æ) at Il. 24.753 and HHAp 36, if only we knew the meaning of
IØåŁÆºÆ.
21
See Porter 1951: 13, 44, with table XIX.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2015, SPi
22
Minchin 1985: 272.
23
But cf. I ŒØÇ() in 24.22 and 54, as the Book opens on a strongly ethical note.
Some scholars argue that IØŒ Å, 24.22 I ŒØÇ, and similar comments by the
poem’s primary narrator elsewhere, e.g. 22.395 q æÆ ŒÆd EŒæÆ E I ŒÆ
æªÆ (‘So he [sc. Achilles] spoke and planned unseemly acts against brilliant Hektor’),
do not indicate a negative ethical judgement on the part of the narrator, but should be
understood as focalized by Achilles and therefore as expressing his desire to disfigure
Hektor as part of his revenge. See de Jong 2012: 162–3 on 22.395, citing Bassett 1938:
203, Griffin 1980: 85, van Wees 1992: 129. But Segal 1971: 12–17 argues convincingly
that such language is ethically charged and can connote the narrator’s ‘repugnance
and even some measure of moral outrage’(13). Danek 2014: 139 concludes, ‘[I]t
is clear . . . that the stem I،- can be used both in an objectivizing descriptive way
(“a deed which causes disfigurement of a person”) and an evaluative moralizing way
(“a deed which is unseemly and thus in the first instance disfigures the doer, and not
the damaged one”).’
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
which, when it has given in to its proud spirit and great violence,
will go against the flocks of mortals to take a meal.
So Achilles has lost [or: ‘destroyed’?] (his) pity, and there is no shame
in him . . .
24
At 15.12 Zeus pities Hektor, who has been knocked out and is nearly dead, and
at 16.431 he pities his son, Sarpedon, who is about to die. At 13.15–16 Poseidon pities
the Greeks being conquered by the Trojans, and at 8.350 Hera pities them being
routed by Hektor.
25
See Macleod 1982 and Richardson 1993, ad loc.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
26
Reading NøE AØ at Il. 1.5 with Aristarchos and the manuscripts, not
NøE ÆEÆ with Zenodotos. See Pfeiffer 1968: 111–13. Æ is also used of an
animal’s meal at Archilochos fr. 175.2, if Lasserre’s conjecture ÆE]Æ is correct, and
Archilochos 179, but this is a matter of genre: both fragments belong to a poetic fable
(of the fox and the eagle), and in fables, animals think, speak, act, and suffer like
human beings.
27
For the association of ÆN with ŒÅ, see Hes. WD 192–3, Tyrtaios fr. 12.40
(West) = fr. 9.40 (Gentili and Prato), Theogn. 291–2, Plato, Protagoras 322c2–d5,
Laws 943e1–2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
In the phrase Iæd æ Ææ
ŒØØ (‘I gave [her] as wife and
bedmate to a man’, 24.60), the word Iæ , at position 7.5 of the line,
violates Hermann’s Bridge and thus is particularly emphatic. The
unexpected emphasis, however, is not only on the highly unusual
marriage between a goddess and a mortal, but, given Kªg ÆP in the
preceding line (59) and the explicit reference in the following lines to
the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, on Hera’s role in bringing about
this union.
Hera’s statement is surprising in several ways, given what we hear
earlier in the poem about Thetis’ attitude towards the wedding and
Hera’s attitude towards Thetis. For Thetis herself, the wedding that
Hera recalls so positively was not a positive event. At 18.85 Achilles,
in describing his own troubles to his mother, refers to ‘that day when
the gods threw you into the bed of a mortal man’ and then goes on to
describe ‘the infinite sorrow’ (Ł . . . ıæ ) she suffers because of
the mortality of the son conceived in this marriage (18.88–90). Later
in the same book (18.430–4), Thetis asks Hephaistos, rhetorically, if
any other Olympian goddess
e ˙æÆ æÆçEÆ).
Recent commentators on Iliad 24, including Macleod, Richardson,
Mirto, and Brügger, assume that Apollonios and Apollodoros base
their accounts on Hera’s story in 24.58–63, not on the Kypria, and
they endorse B. K. Braswell’s suggestion that this story is an ad hoc
28
Cf. Bernabé 1996: 45, Davies 1988: 36.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
29
Braswell 1971: 23–4.
30
See Slatkin 1991: 82–4, 114–22 (=2011a: 70–1, 90–5). Cf. Hes. Theog. 897–900,
where one reason that Zeus ‘put Metis into his belly’ is the prophecy by Gaia that ‘she
was going to give birth to a son (who would be) king of gods and men . . .’. Some
scholars reject the possibility or minimize the importance of mythological allusion in
Homeric epic, owing to their conviction that such allusion is impossible in oral poetry,
e.g. Willcock 1964, 1977, Braswell 1971, Andersen 1998. See, however, Kakridis 1949,
1971, Slatkin 1991, esp. 115–19 [= 2011a, esp. 90–3], Danek 1998, 2002, and Schein
2002 [Ch. 4, this volume], who argue that mythological allusion is an important
dimension of Homeric compositional technique and helps to generate poetic meaning
in both the Iliad and the Odyssey.
31
Slatkin 1991: 53–84 (= 2011a: 52–71) .
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
32
I owe this point to Jinyo Kim.
33
Cf. Lang 1983; Slatkin 1991: 108–9 (= 2011a: 87–8).
34
Reinhardt 1960 [1938].
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
35
Graziosi and Haubold 2005 speak of ‘the resonance of epic’, while Slatkin 1991:
109–10 (= 2011a: 108–9), adopting Lang’s term (Lang 1983), discusses the ‘reverber-
ation’ in the Iliad of myths of generational strife and ‘divine disorder’ that ‘produc[e]
not a single meaning but a sequence of overlapping significations—as with echoes, in
which it is not the original sound but each subsequent iteration that is picked up and
relayed’.
36
I presented an early version of the first half of this chapter at the Cognitive
Classics conference in London in 2008. I am grateful to the organizers, Felix Budel-
mann and Nick Lowe, for inviting me to try out my ideas, and to the audience for
exceptionally helpful responses. I also thank audiences at Brown University, Bryn
Mawr College, Northwestern University, and The University of Colorado for encour-
agement and constructive criticism of later versions of the full chapter.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
37
O’Neill 1942: 105–14 refers to the patterned alternation of heavy and light
syllables and their analysis into ‘feet’ as the ‘outer metric’ of the line, and the fourfold
colometric structure as the ‘inner metric’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
38
Porter 1951: 13. Cf. Fränkel 1960: 123, who notes that in theory, as far as
heavy and light syllables and ‘feet’ go, there could be lines like a transformed
version of Il. 1.2, PºÅ, l ’ ¼ºªÆ ıæ Æ ŁBŒ åÆØE, but no such lines exist.
39
For analyses of the structure of the hexameter grounded in the work of Fränkel
et al., see Michelazzo 1996, Rossi 1996 [1965], Foley 1991: 68–84.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Without enclitics
Not counted
Without enclitics
Hesiod
Homeric Hymns
Fragmentum Dubium (Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci, 2nd edn., pp. 85–6)
P. Oxy. 2510.11 –]Æ ŒÆd ØØ Œı Yø[
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Some of the latest essays in Milman Parry’s all too brief scholarly
oeuvre suggest unresolved contradictions between his insights into
‘the epic technique of oral verse-making’, on the one hand, and, on
the other, his sense of the role and value of poetry in a traditional
culture and of the reasons for studying such poetry. In this chapter
I discuss his eloquent but problematic address to the Overseers of
Harvard College in May 1934 on ‘The Historical Method in Literary
Criticism’.1 My aim is to elucidate the ideas and problematic impli-
cations of this essay and its significance for both classical scholarship
and literary criticism generally, in light of Parry’s work on Homeric
and South-Slavic poetry. I focus on two conflicting features of ‘The
Historical Method . . .’: first, Parry’s tacit adherence to a then current
model of the anthropologist as native and to the possibility, through
empathy and attention, of becoming part of the culture one is study-
ing; second, Parry’s insistence on scholarly exactitude and rigorous
analysis. Parry was committed to both principles, without fully real-
izing the tension between them and how difficult such a commitment
is when they are in conflict.
Addressed to a non-specialist audience, ‘The Historical Method in
Literary Criticism’ raises broader, more fundamental concerns than
Parry’s more technical essays. In it, he quotes the same sentence from
Ernest Renan’s The Future of Science with which he began L’Épithète
traditionelle dans Homère six years earlier, and which expressed a
1
Published posthumously in the Harvard Alumni Bulletin 39 (1936): 778–82, and
reprinted in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 408–13. All page references are to this reprint.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
2
Parry 1933, in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 365–75.
3
This is a peculiar claim, considering that Parry first reached his conclusions about
traditional oral style, composition, and performance from his studies of the Homeric
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
texts, and only then went to Yugoslavia to confirm these conclusions. Perhaps he has
in mind the work of M. Murko and others cited in Parry 1932: 6–19 (= A. Parry (ed.)
1971b: 329–38).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
4
A. Parry (ed.) 1971a: lix.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
Kakridis 1929: 111–12.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
2 3
Willcock 1997: 174. Kakridis 1949: 8.
4
Kakridis 1949: 7, 10. Cf. Nietzsche 1966: 166–9 on Homer’s ‘personality’ (‘Per-
sönlichkeit’) as an ‘aesthetic judgement’ of the artistic quality of the Iliad and Odyssey
as ‘Individualsdichtung’ (or ‘Kunstdichtung’), and of Homer’s individual ‘Genius’.
5 6
Kakridis 1949: 8. Ibid. 1–2.
7
A. Parry (ed.) 1971a: li with n. 1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
8 9
Kakridis 1971: 12, quoting Lesky 1967: 78. Kakridis 1949: 3.
10 11 12
Ibid. 8–9. Ibid. Slatkin 1991 (= 2011a: 17–95).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
13
Kakridis 1949: 65–95.
14
Cf. Burgess 2001: 157. Burgess demonstrates the difficulty of trying to date the
Epic Cycle absolutely or in relation to the Homeric epics (pp. 10–12, 149–57).
15
Kakridis 1949: 10
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
16 17
Pestalozzi 1945. Kakridis 1949: 29 n. 38.
18
Schadewaldt 1965 [1951]: 155–202; Heubeck 1950.
19
Heubeck 1978: 9, quoted by Willcock 1997: 187 n. 27.
20 21
Kakridis 1949: 106–26. Ibid. 107.
22
Ibid. 107–20. The words quoted appear on p. 109.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
23 24
Cf. Kakridis 1971: 89–124, 1949: 159–64. Kakridis 1949: 127–48.
25 26
Ibid. 24, 49–51. Kakridis 1949: 152–64, esp. pp. 160, 162.
27
Kakridis 1949: 58.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
28 29
Radermacher: 1915. Kakridis 1971: 151–63.
30
Kazantzakis and Kakridis 1955, 1965.
31
On the genesis of the Iliad translation and some details of how the two
translators worked together (and separately), see Kakridis 1959. On the diction of
the translation, see Kakridis 1956. On the ‘male’ and ‘female’ rhetoric of the translation
in its historical and socio-cultural contexts, in relation to its intended audience, and in
comparison with Alexander Pope’s translation, see Antonopoulou 2010.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
32
Cf. Willcock 1997: 183.
33
Martin 2013: final paragraph. Cf. the scepticism about the methods and achieve-
ments of Neoanalysis in Kelly 2012a, 2012b, 2013.
34
Radermacher 1915, Carpenter 1946, Page 1955, 1973, Reinhardt 1948: 52–162
(= Reinhardt 1960: 47–124; English translation in Schein (ed.) 1996b: 63–132),
Hölscher 1989.
35
e.g. Lord 1960, Foley 1990, 1991, Danek 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 2010.
36
See Burgess 2006, Montanari 2012.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
37
For a recent example, see the papers in Montanari, Rengakos, and Tsagalis (eds.)
2012.
38
Kakridis 1971: 19–20. The words quoted appear on p. 20. For examples of work
that fruitfully combines Oralist and Neoanalytical approaches to generate insightful
literary interpretations, see Slatkin 1991, 2011a and Danek 1998.
39
Pestalozzi 1945; Schadewaldt 1965 [1951]: 155–202, Kullmann 1960, Schoeck
1961.
40
See Willcock 1997: 186.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
APPENDIX
41 42
See Chapter 8 this volume. See Willcock 1997: 186–7.
43
Kullmann has even treated literary and religious parallels in, and similarities
between, the Iliad and ancient Near Eastern texts in Neoanalytical terms. Cf.
Kullmann 1991.
44 45
Kullmann 1994: 82. Cf. Willock 1997: 175.
46
I am grateful to Jonathan Burgess for helpful comments on an early draft of this
essay and to Sophia Papaioannou for copies of Kakridis 1956 and Kakridis 1959.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
10
1
On Cavafy’s unusual way of publishing (or not publishing) his poems, see Savidis
1966; Keeley and Savidis 1971: ix–xiii; Jusdanis 1987: 58–63.
2
I print and translate the text of “—æØı ˝ıŒæÆ” in Savidis (ed.) 1968:
51–3. My translation aims to be literal and to preserve as far as possible Cavafy’s word
order, though not his rhyme scheme (aa bb in each stanza). For more artistic versions,
see Dalven 1976: 232–3, Mendelsohn 2009: 270–1.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
ºÆæ
,
ŒÆd ‹, Ø ¼ºº æçæ
NŒÇØ,
Œ’ Kd F –æÆ ı a ØÇØ. 20
¨ºØ b ºæÆ Ie e
ææe
KåŁæe
F Œ
ı ı e HÆ
’ I
ƌ
ށ,
ήd b c
ŒÅÆ
Æ Ø
ށ.
ªØ K
B
fi
ıŒd B fi .
fi تźB 25
¸ÆºE
OºªÆ.
Å
ŒłØ
æÆ åØ
Æå, Æåf e –æÆ ı
a æåfiÅ.
¯Œ
ÆØ › æ Ççæ .
ˇNŒæH 30
› ¼
OæÆØ Œ’ NÇØ.
˚æÆ IÆØ ÆŒæŁ
ŒæÇØ.
¯H, Œı
e IŒ’ "ºÆŒ
·
KŒE
‰ łŁıæ ºÆªg æ
fi A Æåı . 35
› Æغf Œ
fi A, Œ
fi A f ¥ı .
B Ø Kı
F
ŒØÆd
ºÆØÆ,
ŒÆd IæF
æe K
fiÅ Æ
fi
fi A › ˜ÆæÆ
Å æe a ºEÆ 40
æªø
ç
ØŒH
, ŒÆd åÆØH
ŒÆØH
.
`ººa › Æغf ÆPa b
a æåØ·
çŁ
Ø e –æÆ ı Æå, Æåf
a æåØ.
3
Maronitis 1986: 40 n. 4.
4
Ibid. 62 n. 6. Ricks 1989: 86–7 denies the direct influence of the Homeric text,
arguing that ‘[f]rom childhood Cavafy . . . was rather more familiar with English than
with Greek poetry, ancient or modern’ (p. 87), and that his Homeric poems, including
‘Priam’s Night-Journey’, were influenced in their tone and diction by Pope’s transla-
tion of the Iliad, a copy of which Cavafy is known to have owned. Yet Ricks himself
notes (90 n. 21) that ‘some words from Homer are repeated verbatim in “Priam’s
Night-Journey” ’, which he considers to be ‘essentially an unfinished poem’.
5
I am here less concerned with other ways in which Cavafy can be seen as a ‘modern
Alexandrian’: he was born in the city and lived there for most of his life, many of his
poems are set in the city’s streets, shops, and buildings, and others refer explicitly to, or
evoke, its distinctive style, culture, values, and almost mythical status. See Keeley 1976.
6
Lowell 1961.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
7
Cf. Maronitis 1985: 451: ‘reading perhaps constitutes Cavafy’s constantly devel-
oping poetic method from his first to his last moment’.
8
See Maronitis 1986: 45–9.
9
Contrast Malouf 2009, whose fictional narrative combines the representation of
mental interiority with much more ‘external’ dramatic action than Cavafy offers.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
10
Macleod 1982: 108.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
11
See Maronitis 1986: 50.
12
Perhaps, though, as Maronitis 1986: 51 suggests, Cavafy derived the division of
his poem into what takes place in light and what in darkness from Iliad 24: there, all
the action, from the assembly of the gods to the departure of Priam and Idaios,
apparently takes place on the twelfth day after the death of Hektor (cf. 24.31);
darkness falls (24.351) just before the herald notices Hermes; then it is night until
Hermes departs for Olympos, and dawn breaks (24.695) just as Priam and Idaios
return to the city.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
13
On dogs and birds in the Iliad, see Redfield 1975: 168–9, 184–6, 199, 200.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
14
In Il. 24, Priam’s family and friends (çºØ) escort him out of the city, ‘as if he
were going to his death’ (24.328). As Whitman 1958: 217–18 suggests, Hermes
meeting Priam ‘in the darkness, by the tomb of Ilus, a sort of terminus between the
two worlds [sc. of the living and the dead]’, and escorting him across the river to
the shelter of Achilles, suggests a journey to the Land of the Dead, where Achilles
symbolically ‘fills the role of the king [sc. Hades] . . .’. On such a journey it would be
appropriate for Priam to encounter ‘souls’ in the form of the uncomprehending
‘shadows’ that, in Cavafy’s poem, wonder why he is hurrying toward the Greek ships.
15
Maronitis 1986: 53.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
16
Cf. M. Pieris 1985b: 458 on ‘the symbolist objective and intention of the poem’.
17
Maronitis 1986: 55. Jusdanis 1987: 71 discusses the symbolist qualities of
‘Windows’ and refers to a letter from Cavafy to his brother John in which he says,
in Jusdanis’ words, that in composing this poem, ‘he sought a vague, enigmatic mode
so as to create an effect rather than to describe concrete objects. The aim of the poem
was to evoke a mood of pessimism and desperation . . .’. A similar mood is evident in
‘Priam’s Night-Journey’.
18
This essay derives from a paper presented in the early 1990s at the University of
California, Los Angeles, and The Graduate School of the City University of New York.
I am grateful to Mary Depew and Michele Hannoosh at UCLA and Constance
Tagopoulos and Marina Kotzamani at CUNY for their helpful criticism and sugges-
tions. I am especially grateful to Katherine C. King for improvements of both style and
substance.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
11
Some of you may recognize that my title comes from the Motown
soul song, ‘War’, by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong, originally
sung in 1969 by The Temptations but best known in the intense
version recorded a year later by Edwin Starr, which channelled and
gave voice to the sentiments of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
‘War’ is also familiar from the live recording by Bruce Springsteen
and the E Street band in the mid-1980s; they performed it again in
2003, before, during, and after the US invasion of Iraq, when it again
served to express popular, antiwar feelings. ‘War’ repeatedly and
insistently asks the question, ‘War, what is it good for?’ and provides
the immediate response, ‘Absolutely nothing’. It speaks of the
‘destruction of innocent lives’, evokes the ‘tears . . . of thousands of
mothers’ eyes / when their sons go to fight / and lose their lives’, and
calls war the ‘enemy of mankind’ and friend ‘only to the undertaker’.
When I think about the Iliad, as I frequently do, in relation to war,
the song ‘War’ often comes to mind, because the sentiments it
expresses recall a central theme in some of the most compelling
twentieth-and twenty-first-century receptions of the epic. These
receptions, however, rarely do justice to the complexity of the
poem’s representation and descriptions of war, and in this chapter
I focus on some of the differences between that complexity and the
more one-dimensional receptions. I shall first sketch the distinctive
ethical and existential features of the representation of war in the
Iliad; next I shall revisit Simone Weil’s well-known essay, ‘The Iliad,
or the Poem of Force’, and Rachel Bespaloff ’s short book, On the Iliad;
then I’ll discuss two of the most compelling artistic responses to
the Iliad in recent decades: Alice Oswald’s Memorial: An Excavation
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
1
Weil: 1940–1 [2005]; Bespaloff 1943 [2005]; Oswald: 2011; Logue 1997.
2 3
Redfield 1975: 119. Slatkin 2011b.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
4
Wofford 1992: 29–96; cf. Finkelberg 2003.
5
Wofford 1992: 97–211, 372–91.
6
Ironically enough, this publication in a pacifist journal took place well after Weil
had renounced her pacifism (at the latest in March, 1939, after Hitler and the German
army entered Prague); see her letter of 1942 to Jean Wahl (Rees 1965: 158); cf.
Pétrement 1976: 337–52, Summers 1981: 91–2, Fraisse 1989: 333, and Benfey 2005:
x–xi. Weil’s perceived pacifism led to the republication of the McCarthy translation by
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
9
Letter to Jean Posternak, in Rees 1965: 63. The edition to which Weil refers is
probably Goya 1937.
10
Russell 1989 called this exhibition ‘each for each and canvas for canvas, the
single greatest loan exhibition of European painting that there has ever been’.
11
Cf. Sontag 2003: 44, quoted by Benfey 2005: xi: ‘Each image, captioned with a
brief phrase lamenting the wickedness of the invaders and the monstrous suffering
they inflicted, stands independently of the others.’
12
Cf. Ferber 1981: 75–6, Schein 1984: 68–9, 83.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
13
Benfey 2005: back cover.
14
e.g. Taplin 1980: 17, Ferber 1981, Macleod 1982: 1, Schein 1984: 82–3, Holoka
2002, 2003, Baracchi 2011.
15
Cf. Jutrin 2010: 203.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
16
All quotations from Bespaloff ’s book are taken (and sometimes adapted) from
the reprint of McCarthy’s translation in Benfey (ed.) 2005: 83, 62. Jutrin 2010: 201,
205 observes that Bespaloff derived her conception of the ‘moment’ from Kierkegaard.
17
Bespaloff, Letter to Jean Grenier, 23 December 1941, quoted by M. Jutrin in
Jutrin (ed.) 2003: 24.
18 19
Cf. Ferber 1981: 66, Benfey 2005: vii–xix. Warner 2006.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
20
Tatum 2003.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
or,
Laothoe, one of Priam’s wives
Never saw her son again he was washed away
Now she can’t look at the sea she can’t think about
The bits unburied being eaten by fishes
He was the tall one the conscientious one
Who stayed out late pruning his father’s fig trees
Who was kidnapped who was ransomed
Who walked home barefoot from Arisbe
And rested for twelve days and was killed
LYCAON killed Lycaon unkilled Lycaon
Bending down branches to make wheels
Lycaon kidnapped Lycaon pruning by moonlight
Lycaon naked in a river pleading for his life
being answered by Achilles No. (p. 69)
21
See p. 7.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
22
Homer has Œı
(18.319), which occurs only here in the Iliad and Odyssey,
but elsewhere in Greek literature typically refers to the young of animals. For language
appropriate to humans used of animals, see 24.41–3, where Æ, which normally
denotes a human meal, is used in a simile comparing Achilles to ‘a lion that, yielding
to great violence and his proud spirit, will go after the flocks of mortals to take a meal’
(¥Æ ÆEÆ ºÅØØ). Here ÆEÆ makes Achilles, who is compared to the lion, seem
even more savage. Cf. p. 106.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
23
Edwards 1991: 184 on line 318, assumes that the lion in the simile is female,
citing the AT scholia which say that a lioness has a ‘most beautiful’ (ŒººØ
) beard
and a lion, a mane. Edwards, on 18.318–22 generally, notes that ‘the parent–child
theme is often used in similes to illustrate the Akhilleus–Patroklos relationship’; cf.
23.222–5, Mirto 1997: 1323. On the psychological dimension of 18.318–22, which,
unlike most lion similes in the Iliad, has nothing to do with combat and, like
20.164–74, sets Achilles apart from other Greek warriors, see Schnapp-Gourbeillon
1981: 87–8. Moulton 1977: 106 contrasts 18.318–22 to the simile at 17.132–7 compar-
ing Ajax protecting Patroklos’ corpse to a lion who successfully protects his offspring
from hunters in the forest; cf. Mirto 1997: 1323, Edwards 1991: 75 on 17.133–6.
24
Here the word ‘ghosts’ heightens the leaves’ resemblance to dead humans in
Homer, whose ‘images’ ( YøºÆ) are all that is left of them in the land of the dead (Od.
11.83, 213, 476, 602, Il. 23.72, 104).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
25
On the complicated publication history of WAR MUSIC, see Greenwood 2007:
175–6.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
26
Quotations of GBH are taken from Logue 1997.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
The silver hairclip (like Thackta’s fish) is clearly inspired by the detail
in Il. 17.52 that Euphorbos’ hair, once like that of the graces but now
bloodied, had been ‘pinched in like a wasp’s waist’ (KçŒ
) with
gold and silver, a reference, it seems, to a kind of gold spiral, used for
binding hair, that has been found in graves dating from the sub-
Mycenaean and Geometric eras (c.1125–c.1050, c.900–c.700 BCE).29
The detail is both striking and unusual (çÅŒø is found only here in
Homeric epic), and it is easy to see why it inspired both Oswald and
27
Cf. Martin 1989: 47, 68–75.
28
See Strasburger 1954, Schein 1984: 73–5, 86 nn. 18–19, Chapter 1 of this volume.
29
See Edwards 1991: 67–8 on 17.51–2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
30
Cf. Simoesios’ corpse at 4.487 (pp. 7–8).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
APPENDIX
In a footnote to the first translated passage from the Iliad in Weil’s essay, a
footnote omitted by her three English translators (though it appears in
French reprints of the essay), Weil says, ‘The translation of the passages is
new. Each line translates a Greek verse, the various enjambments are scru-
pulously reproduced; the order of the Greek words within each verse is
respected as far as possible.’32 Weil’s claim of fidelity to the form and
structure of the Greek text is for the most part valid, but in at least two
crucial instances her translations are (perhaps unconsciously) tendentious
and seriously misleading. As Michael Ferber pointed out over thirty years
ago in his outstanding chapter on Weil’s essay, she makes two basic errors in
translating and discussing the scene in which Priam visits Achilles in Book 24
to ransom the corpse of Hector, a scene she discusses in connection with her
definition of the suppliant as ‘one whose life hangs entirely at the whim of
another and who for that reason is no different from a thing or a corpse’.33
Second, she omits fifteen lines from her translation of the encounter between
Achilles and Lycaon in Book 21, without indicating any ellipsis.
Weil says that when Priam appears suddenly in Achilles’ shelter, he makes
an impression on Achilles and the Myrmidons who are with him ‘like that of
a dead body’, and ‘a shudder seizes those who see him’ (pp. 6–7). Yet there is
31
Logue 2005: 10, 2003: 39–40, 45. Cf. Benfey 2005: xiii n. 5.
32
‘La traduction des passages cités est nouvelle. Chaque ligne traduit un vers grec,
les rejets et enjambements sont scrupuleusement reproduits; l’ordre des mots grecs à
l’intérieur de chaque vers est respecté autant que possible.’
33
Ferber 1981: 70.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
34
McCarthy, as Ferber points out (71 n. 3), omits even ‘un peu’ from her
translation; Holoka translates it, and Geissbuhler silently restores the word ‘gently’,
in effect translating Homer rather than Weil.
35
Cf. Ferber 1981: 71 n. 10.
36
For a biographical explanation of Weil’s mistranslation and misreading of the
scene in terms of her own experience as a kind of (rejected) suppliant for legal
assistance on behalf of her imprisoned brother, see Rybakova 2007: 34–5.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
37
Weil, pp. 7–8. Weil may be influenced in her translation and interpretation by
the descriptions of the deaths at 4.523 and 13.549 of Diores and Thoon, each of whom
is said to ‘spread wide both hands to his dear comrades’ (¼çø å Eæ çº
Ø æ
ØØ
Æ) as he falls back from the force of a wound inflicted by an enemy who then
rushes forward and finishes him off. Cf. 14.495–6, where Ilioneus sinks to the ground,
fatally wounded by Peneleos, who proceeds to cut off his head—helmet and all. In all
four cases the warrior’s gesture of ‘spreading wide’ both hands, expressed by
Æ, immediately precedes a fatal blow, but only Lykaon is unwounded when
he makes this gesture: unlike Diores and Thoon, Lykaon has no comrades present,
and unlike Ilioneus, he ‘sits back’ and ‘spreads wide both his hands’ voluntarily, not as
the result of his injury. Richardson 1993: 63 notes that Lykaon, unlike Diores and
Thoon, has not yet been struck and interprets his gesture as one of despair.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
38 39 40
Ferber 1981: 72. Fraisse 1989: 306. Ibid.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
41
Ibid. 309.
42
Ibid 309. Drafts of some translations seem to date from 1937–8; the essay was
written in 1939–40. Cf. Fraisse: 306, 334–5. Holoka 2003: 107–18 gives the Greek texts
of the 78 passages from the Iliad that Weil cites or translates, with Book and line
numbers, in the order she cites them. I hope in the future to compare systematically
and in detail Weil’s draft-translations with those published in her essay, and all her
published and unpublished versions with the Greek texts and the English translations
by McCarthy, Geissbuhler, and Holoka.
I would like to thank participants and audiences at the Our Ancient Wars conference
at the University of Michigan in 2012, where I presented an initial version of this paper,
and audiences at Amherst College, Bowdoin College, Queens College (C.U.N.Y.),
UCLA, and Wesleyan University for helpful questions and suggestions. I am also
grateful to Alyssa Danigelis and Monique Jutrin for material on the life and writings
of Rachel Bespaloff and to Katherine C. King, Alex Purves, Lauri Reitzammer, and Silke-
Maria Weineck for encouragement and constructive criticism.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
12
1
Each year perhaps another 150,000 or 200,000 undergraduates read all or parts of
the Iliad, the Odyssey, or both epics in Western literature survey courses, Classics
courses, Comparative Literature courses, and themed courses (e.g. ‘the hero’ or ‘the
epic tradition’), according to the estimate of the Executive Editor for Literature and
Director of Sales at a major American publishing house, and thousands of students in
secondary school read all or parts of these same texts annually.
2
On the politics of classical receptions in film, see Goldhill 2007.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
3
Cf. Stray 1998 for the history of classical curricula in British universities and
schools, 1830–1960.
4 5
Levine 1996: 45–7, Winterer 2002: 153–6, 174–8. Bell 1966: 13.
6
Winterer 2002: 118–32.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
7
See Bell 1966: 3, 19–21, 25; Glazer 1988: 271–2; Shils 1988: 228–9; Levine 1996:
57–60, 133–9.
8
Day and Kingsley 1829: 328–30, cf. Stevenson 1988: 161–2.
9 10
e.g. Everett 1826, Felton 1833, Anthon 1838. Winterer 2002: 52–7.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
11
Felton 1833 and 1848.
12
Felton 1833: iii–iv, quoted by Winterer 2002: 88–9.
13 14 15
Felton 1848. Grote 1846–9. Felton 1833: vii.
16
Levine 1996: 46–7; Winterer 2002: 152–7, 175–8; Bell 1966: 16–18.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
17 18
Winterer 2002: 117. Ibid. 118–19.
19 20
Bushman 1992: 273, 251, 264, 280. Bulfinch 1979: vi, vii, viii.
21
Cleary 1993.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
22 23
Heckel 1919; Bell 1966: 14–15; Levine 1996: 54–7. Levine 1996: 55.
24
Gruber 1975: 214–19, 238–42.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
25 26
Levine 1996: 58, 184 n. 6. Stray 1998: 30–45.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
27 28
Radway 1997: 163. Ibid. 147–51.
29
Ibid. 146. Radway quoting from the advertisement in American Magazine,
February 1926: 195.
30
Benjamin 1969: 221–3, 245 n. 5; Radway 1997: 166, 376 n. 42.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
31 32
Adler 1952. Bell 1966: 14–15, 26–7; Levine 1996: 47–53.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
33
Wilson 2005.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
34
Willcock 1976.
35
But cf. Verity 2011, a verse translation intended for general readers.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
36
See Graziosi and Haubold 2005: 35–93.
37 38
Guillory 1994: 43. Ibid. 51.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
39 40
Auerbach 1953: 2, 3, 5. Bakhtin 1981: 7, 10, 34–5.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
41 42
Porter 1962: 15–16. Ibid. 18.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
43 44
Dimock 1956: 57, cf. 67–8, 70. Porter 1962: 17, 19.
45 46
Denby 1996: 76. Ibid. 462.
47
I owe this insight and wording to Emily Greenwood.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
48
Columbia University Bulletin 1996–7: 46, quoted in Eng 1998: 21 n. 1.
49 50
See Schein 2007: 76–81. Williams 1983: 60–9, 87–93.
51
I would like to thank Emily Greenwood for detailed comments and criticism
that improved this essay. I also am grateful to Caesar Adams, Penelope Adams, Nancy
Felson, Barbara Graziosi, and Emily Wilson for their encouragement and suggestions.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Abbreviations
AJPh American Journal of Philology
BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
BMCRev Bryn Mawr Classical Review
CCJ Cambridge Classical Journal
CJ Classical Journal
ClAnt Classical Antiquity
CPh Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
CSCA California Studies in Classical Antiquity
G&R Greece & Rome
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
HSPh Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
PP La Parola del passato
TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association
TLS Times Literary Supplement
WHB Wiener humanistische Blätter
WS Wiener Studien
YClS Yale Classical Studies
190 Bibliography
Erbse, H. (1969–88), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vetera), 7
vols. Berlin.
Faulkner, A. (2008a), The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Introduction, Text,
and Commentary. Oxford.
Gentili, B., and Prato, C. (1979), Poetae elegiaci: testimonia et fragmenta, Pars
prior. Leipzig.
Graziosi, B., and Haubold, J. (2010), Homer: Iliad, book 6. Cambridge.
Groddeck, G. H. (1786), Commentatio philologica de hymnorum Homeri-
corum reliquiis. Göttingen.
Hainsworth, B. (1993), The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. 3: books 9–12.
Cambridge.
Heubeck, A., West, S., and Hainsworth, J. B. (1988), A Commentary on
Homer’s Odyssey, Vol. 1, Books i–viii. Oxford.
Heubeck, A., and Hoekstra, A. (1989), A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey,
Vol. 2, Books ix–xvi. Oxford.
Holoka, J. (2006), Simone Weil’s ‘The Iliad or the Poem of Force’: A Critical
Edition. New York. (Originally Published 2003.)
Janko, R. (1992), The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. 4: books 13–16. Cambridge.
de Jong, I. J. F (2001), A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey.
Cambridge.
de Jong, I. J. F (2012), Homer, Iliad: book 22. Cambridge.
Jutrin, M. (ed.) (2003), Lettres de Rachel Bespaloff à Jean Wahl, 1937–1947.
Paris.
Kazantzakis, N. [˚ÆÇÆÇŒÅ, ˝.], and Kakridis, J. Th. [˚ÆØ ˚ÆŒæØ, Ι. Θ.]—.
( Æçæ.) (1955), ˇæ
ı ºØÆ. Athens.
Kazantzakis, N. [˚ÆÇÆÇŒÅ, ˝.], and Kakridis, J. Th. [˚ÆØ ˚ÆŒæØ, Ι. Θ.]—.
( Æçæ.) (1965), ˇæ
ı ˇ
ØÆ. Athens.
Keeley, E., and Savidis, G. P. (eds.) (1971), C. P. Cavafy: Passions and Ancient
Days. New York.
Kirk, G. S. (1985), The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. 1: books 1–4. Cambridge.
Kirk, G. S. (1990), The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. 2: books 5–8. Cambridge.
Lattimore, R. (1951), The Iliad of Homer. Chicago.
Lattimore, R. (1965), The Odyssey of Homer. New York.
Leaf, W. (1900–2), The Iliad of Homer, 2nd edn. 2 vols. London. Reprinted
Amsterdam, 1960.
Lentz, A. (ed.) (1867), Herodiani Technici Reliquiae, I. Leipzig.
Lloyd-Jones, H. (ed. and trans.) (1996), Sophocles, Fragments. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, Mass., and London.
Lowell, R. (1961), Imitations. New York.
Macleod, C. W. (1982), Homer, Iliad: book 24. Cambridge.
Mastronarde, D. (2002), Euripides, Medea. Cambridge.
Mendelsohn, D. (trans.) (2009), C. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems. New York.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 191
Mirto, M. S. (1997), Commento, in Omero, Iliade, Traduzione e saggio
introduttivo di Guido Paduano, Commento di Maria Serena Mirto. Bib-
lioteca della Pléiade. Turin: 797–1520.
Monro, D. B. (1901), Homer’s Odyssey: Books xiii–xxiv. Oxford.
Olson, S. D. (2012), The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts: Text,
Translation and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare, 39. Berlin and Boston.
Pfeiffer, R. (1968), History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the
End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford.
Radt, S. (1999), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. 4: Sophocles. Editio
correctior et addendis aucta. Göttingen. (Originally published 1977.)
Rayor, D. J. (2004), The Homeric Hymns: A Translation, with Introduction and
Notes, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. (Revised and expanded edn. 2014.)
Richardson, N. (1993), The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. 4: books 21–24.
Cambridge.
Russo, J., Fernández-Galiano, M., and Heubeck, A. (1992), A Commentary
on Homer’s Odyssey, Vol. 3, Books xvii–xxiv. Oxford.
Russo, J., and Heubeck, A. (2004), Omero, ODISSEA, Vol. 6: Libri xxi–xxiv,
7th edn., completely revised. Milan.
Savidis, G. P. [ÆÅ, ˆ. —.] (1968), ˚. —. ˚ÆçÅ, Œ
Æ —
ØÆÆ
1882–1923. Athens.
Stanford, W. B. (1965–7), The Odyssey of Homer, 2nd edn. with alterations
and additions. 2 vols. London and New York.
Steiner, D. (2010), Homer, Odyssey: books 17 and 18. Cambridge.
Van Thiel, H. (1991), Homeri Odyssea. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York.
Van Thiel, H. (2010), Homeri Ilias, 2nd edn. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York.
Verity, A. (trans.) (2011), Homer: The Iliad. Introd. and Notes by B. Graziosi.
Oxford.
Voigt, E. M. (1971), Sappho et Alcaeus: Fragmenta. Amsterdam.
Von der Mühll, P. (1962), Homeri Odyssea, 3rd edn. Stuttgart.
West, M. L. (1966), Hesiod, Theogony. Oxford.
West, M. L. (1978), Hesiod, Works and Days. Oxford.
West, M. L. (1998), Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantata. Editio
altera aucta et emendata. 2 vols. in one. Oxford. (1st edn. 1971.)
West, M. L. (1998–2000), Homerus, Ilias, 2 vols. Munich/Stuttgart and Leipzig.
West, M. L. (2003), Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass., and London.
Willcock, M. M. (1978–84), The Iliad of Homer, 2 vols. London.
General
Adler, M. J. (1952), The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the
Western World. Chicago.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
192 Bibliography
Allan, W. (2006), ‘Divine Justice and Cosmic Order in Early Greek Epic’, JHS
126: 1–35.
Andersen, . (1998), ‘Allusion and the Audience of Homer’, in M. Païzi-
Apostolopoulou [. —ÆÇØ-`
º
º
ı] (ed.), ˇÅæØŒ. Ithaca,
Greece: 137–48.
Andersen, ., and Haug, D. T. T. (eds.) (2012), Relative Chronology in Greek
Epic Poetry. Cambridge.
Anthon, C. (1838), A Grammar of the Greek Language, for the Use of Schools
and Colleges. New York.
Antonopoulou, Z. (2010), ‘Shifting Perspectives in Translating Homer’s
Iliad’, Interlingual Perspectives 10: 1–28. <http://en.metafraseis.enl.uoa.
gr/fileadmin/metafraseis.enl.uoa.gr/uploads/English_Zoi_Anto_PUBLI
CATION__1_.pdf>
Atchity, K. J. (1978), Homer’s Iliad: The Shield of Memory. Carbondale and
Edwardsville.
Auerbach, E. (1953), Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western
Literature, trans. W. Trask. Princeton.
Austin, N. (1972), ‘Name Magic in the Odyssey’, CSCA 5: 1–19.
Austin, N. (1975), Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in
Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley.
Bakhtin, M. (1981), ‘Epic and Novel’, in The Dialogic Imagination: Four
Essays, ed. M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin and London.
Bakker, E. (2013), The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey.
Cambridge.
Baracchi, C. (2011), ‘Force’, in Political Concepts, 1. <http://www.polit
icalconcepts.org/issue%201/force.>
Bassett, S. E. (1938), The Poetry of Homer. Berkeley. [2nd edn. with an
Introduction by B. Heiden, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford, 2003.]
Battezzato, L. (2009), ‘Techniques of Reading and Textual Layout in Ancient
Greek Texts’, CCJ 55: 1–23.
Bell, D. (1966), The Reforming of General Education: The Columbia College
Experience in its National Setting. New York.
Bender, T. (ed.) (1988), The University and the City from Medieval Origins to
the Present. Oxford and New York.
Benfey, C. (2005), ‘Introduction’, in C. Benfey (ed.) 2005.
Benfey, C. (ed.) (2005), War and the Iliad: Simone Weil and Rachel Bespaloff.
New York.
Benjamin, W. (1969), ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Repro-
duction’, trans. H. Zohn, in Illuminations. New York. (= ‘L’œuvre d’art à
l’époque de sa reproduction mécanisée’, in Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung
5 (1936): 40–68.)
Bergren, A. (1989), ‘The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite: Tradition and Rhet-
oric, Praise and Blame’, ClAnt 8: 1-41.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 193
Bespaloff, R. (1943), De l’Iliade. New York. Reprinted in Conférence 10–11
(Spring–Fall, 2000); Paris, 2004. (= On the Iliad, trans. M. McCarthy, New
York, 1947. Reprinted 1962 and in C. Benfey (ed.) 2005: 39–100. All
references are to the 2005 reprint.)
Boedeker, D. D. (1974), Aphrodite’s Entry into Epic, Mnemosyne Suppl. 31.
Leiden.
Braswell, B. K. (1971), ‘Mythological Innovation in the Iliad’, CQ 21: 16–26.
Brillet-Dubois, P. (2001), ‘Les liaisons dangereuses: Dieux et mortels dans
l’Hymne homérique à Aphrodite’, Europe 865: 250–60.
Brillet-Dubois, P. (2006), ‘Le revanche d’Aphrodite: L’Hymne homérique à
Aphrodite et l’idéal héroïque de l’Iliade’, in P. Brillet-Dubois and E. Parmentier
(eds.), غ
º
ªÆ: Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Lyon: 67–75.
Brillet-Dubois, P. (2011), ‘An Erotic aristeia: The Homeric Hymn to Aphro-
dite and its Relation to the Iliadic Tradition’, in A. Faulkner (ed.) 2011:
104–32.
Budelmann, F., and LeVen, P. (2014), ‘A Cognitive Approach to the Lan-
guage of the New Music’, CPh 109: 191–210.
Bulfinch, T. (1979), Bulfinch’s Mythology. New York.
Burgess, J. S. (2001), The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer & the Epic
Cycle. Baltimore and London.
Burgess, J. S. (2006), ‘Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examina-
tion of Homeric Motif Transference’, Oral Tradition 21: 148–89.
Burgess, J. S. (2012), ‘Intertextuality without Text in Early Greek Epic’, in .
Andersen and D. T. T. Haug (eds.) 2012: 168–83.
Burkert, W. (1985), Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J. Raffan.
Cambridge, Mass.
Bushman, R. (1992), The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities.
New York.
Cairns, D. (ed.) (2001), Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford.
Carpenter, R. (1946), Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics.
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Chaston, C. (2010), Tragic Props and Cognitive Function: Aspects of the
Function of Images in Thinking, Mnemosyne Suppl. 317. Leiden.
Clay, J. S. (1983), The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton.
Clay, J. S. (1989), The Politics of Olympus: Form and Meaning in the Major
Homeric Hymns. Princeton.
Cleary, S. M. (1993), ‘Classical Mythology in American Life and Literature to
1885’ <http://www.fivecolleges.edu/mcleary/cmal.html>
Crissy, K. (1997), ‘Herakles, Odysseus, and the Bow: Odyssey 21.11–41’, CJ
93: 41–53.
Currie, B. (forthcoming), Homer’s Allusive Art. Oxford.
Danek, G. (1991), ‘—
ºÅØ Oı
und Tale budalina: Namensformeln
bei Homer und im serbokroatischen Epos’, WS 104: 23–47.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
194 Bibliography
Danek, G. (1992), ‘ “Literarische Qualität” bei Homer und im jugoslawischen
Heldenlied’, WHB 34: 16–32.
Danek, G. (1995), ‘Erzählvarianten in Odyssee und serbokroatischem Heim-
kehrerlied’, in M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou [. —ÆÇØ-`
º
º
ı]
(ed.), ¯ıå ˇı
. Ithaca, Greece: 183–98.
Danek, G. (1996), ‘Die Apologoi der Odyssee und “Apologoi” im serbokroa-
tischem Heimkehrerlied’, WS 109: 5–30.
Danek, G. (1998), Epos und Zitat: Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee,
Wiener Studien, Beiheft 22. Vienna.
Danek, G. (2002), ‘Traditional Referentiality and Homeric Intertextuality’, in
F. Montanari and P. Ascheri (eds.) 2002: 3–19.
Danek, G. (2010), ‘Agamemnon’s ancestors and Ruza’s Bridegroom: Il.
2.99–109 and a Bosnian Parallel’, in Ch. C. Tsagalis (ed.), Homeric Hyper-
textuality. Berlin and New York: 225–38.
Danek, G. (2014), ‘Achilles Hybristês? Tisis and Nemesis in Iliad 24’, in
M. Christopoulos [. æØ
ıº
] and M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou
[. —ÆÇØ-`
º
º
ı] (eds.), 0¯ªŒºÅÆ ŒÆØ ØøæÆ
Å ˇÅæØŒ
ŒÆØ `æåÆœŒ —
Å
Å (Crime and Punishment in Homeric and Archaic
Epic). `
Æ —æƌ،
ı IB ˜Ø Ł
ı æ
ı ªØÆ Å ˇ
ØÆ.
Ithaca, Greece, 137–50.
Day, J., and Kingsley, J. L. (1829), ‘Original Papers in Relation to a Course of
Liberal Education’, American Journal of Sciences and Arts 15: 297–351.
Debruille, J. B. (2007), ‘The N400 Potential Could Index a Semantic Inhibi-
tion’, in Brain Research Reviews 56: 472–7.
Denby, D. (1996), Great Books: My Adventures with Homer, Rousseau,
Woolf, and Other Indestructible Writers of the Western World. New York.
Dimock, Jr., G. (1956), ‘The Name of Odysseus’, The Hudson Review 9:
52–70. (Reprinted in G. Steiner and R. Fagles (eds.) 1962: 106–21; in
C. H. Taylor (ed.) 1963: 54–72. References are to the reprint in Taylor (ed.).)
Dimock, Jr., G. (1989), The Unity of the Odyssey. Amherst.
Doherty, L. E. (1995), Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the
Odyssey. Ann Arbor.
Dunbar, H. (1962), A Complete Concordance to the Odyssey of Homer.
Revised by B. Marzullo. Hildesheim.
Eng, D. L. (1998), ‘Queer/Asian American/Canons’, in L. R. Hirabayashi
(ed.), Teaching Asian America: Diversity and the Problem of Community.
Lanham and Oxford: 13–24.
Everett, E. (1826), Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools, from the German of
Philip Buttman. Boston.
Falcon, M. (1990), Apparent Violations of Hermann's Bridge in Homer.
M. A. thesis, University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill.
Fantuzzi, M., and Pretagostini, R. (eds.) (1995–6), Struttura e storia dell’esa-
metro Greco, 2 vols. Rome.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 195
Faulkner, A. (2008b), ‘The Legacy of Aphrodite: Anchises’ Offspring in the
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, AJPh 129: 1–18.
Faulkner, A. (ed.) (2011), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays. Oxford.
Felson, N. (1997), Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics. Oklahoma
City. (Originally published under the name Felson-Rubin, Princeton, 1994.)
Felson, N. (2007), ‘Epinikian Ideology at the Phaeacian Games: Ł 97–265’, in
M. Paїzi-Apostolopoulou [. —ÆÇØ-`
º
º
ı], A. Rengakos
[`. ªŒŒ
], Ch. Tsagalis [.
ƪªºÅ] (eds.), AŁºÆ ŒÆØ ¯ÆŁºÆ
Æ ˇÅæØŒ¯Å (Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics). Ithaca,
Greece: 129–43.
Felton, C. C. (1833), The Iliad of Homer, from the Text of Wolf. With English
Notes and Flaxman’s Illustrative Designs. Boston. Revised edn. 1848.
Fenik, B. (1968), Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative
Technique of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden.
Fenik, B. (1974), Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden.
Fenik, B. C. (ed.) (1978), Homer: Tradition and Invention. Leiden.
Ferber, M. (1981), ‘Simone Weil’s Iliad’, in G. A. White (ed.) 1981: 63–85.
Finkelberg, M. (2003), ‘Homer as a Foundation Text’, in M. Finkelberg and
G. Stroumsa (eds.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious
Canons in the Ancient World, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2.
Leiden: 75–96.
Finkelberg, M. (ed.) (2011), The Homer Encyclopedia. 3 vols. Malden,
Oxford, Chichester.
Finley, Jr., J. H. (1978), Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge, Mass.
Foley, J. M. (1990), Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the
Serbo-Croatian Return Song. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Foley, J. M. (1991), Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Oral
Traditional Epic. Bloomington.
Fraisse, S. (ed.) (1989), Simone Weil: Œuvres complètes,T. II, Vol. 3, Écrits
historiques et politiques. Paris.
Fränkel, H. (1960), ‘Der homerische und der kallimachische Hexameter’, in
Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens, 2nd edn. Munich: 100–56.
(Completely revised and expanded version of ‘Der kallimachische und der
homerische Hexameter’, in Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis-
senschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1926: 197–227.)
Fränkel, H. (1975), Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, trans. M. Hadas and
J. Willis. Oxford. (= Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums,
2nd edn. Munich, 1962.)
Friederici, A. D. (2004), ‘Event-related Brain Potential Studies in Language’,
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 4: 466–70.
Friedrich, W.-H. (1956), Verwundung und Tod in der Ilias. Göttingen.
(= Wounding and Death in the Iliad: Homeric Techniques of Description, trans.
G. Wright and P. Jones, with Appendix by K. B. Saunders. London, 2003.)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
196 Bibliography
Gaisser, J. H. (1969), ‘A Structural Analysis of the Digressions in the Iliad
and Odyssey’, HSPh 73: 1–43.
Gambarara, D. (1984), Alle fonti della filosofia del linguaggio: ‘lingua’ e ‘nomi’
nella cultura greca archaica. Rome.
Gantz, T. (1993), Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Historical
Sources. Baltimore and London.
Giacomelli, A. (1980), ‘Aphrodite and After’, Phoenix 34: 1–19.
Glazer, N. (1988), ‘Facing Three Ways: City and University in New York
since World War II’, in T. Bender (ed.) 1988: 267–89.
Glenn, J. (1971), ‘The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer’s Kyklopeia’, TAPhA
102: 133–81.
Goldhill, S. (2007), ‘Naked and O Brother, Where Art Thou? The Politics and
Poetics of Epic Cinema’, in B. Graziosi and E. Greenwood (eds.): 245–67.
Goya, F. (1937), Los Desastres de la Guerra. Madrid.
Graziosi, B., and Greenwood, E. (eds.) (2007), Homer in the Twentieth
Century: Between World Literature and the Western Canon. Oxford.
Graziosi, B., and Haubold, J. (2005), Homer: The Resonance of Epic. London.
Greenwood, E. (2007), ‘Logue’s Tele-vision: reading Homer from a distance’,
in B. Graziosi and E. Greenwood (eds.) 2007: 145–76.
Griffin, J. (1980), Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.
Grote, G. (1846–9), A History of Greece, Vol. 1: Legendary Greece. London.
Gruber, C. S. (1975), Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the
Higher Learning in America. Baton Rouge.
Guillory, J. (1994), Cultural Capital. Chicago.
Hackman, O. (1904), Die Polyphemsage in der Volksüberlieferung, akade-
mische Abhandlung. Helsinki.
Heckel, A. K. (1919), ‘The War Aims Course in the Colleges’, Historical
Outlook 10: 20–2.
Hermann, G. (1801), De emendanda ratione Graecae grammaticae. Leipzig.
Hermann, G. (1805), Orphica. Leipzig.
Hermann, G. (1806), ‘Epistula editoris’, in Homeri Hymni et Epigrammata.
Leipzig: iii–cxxii.
Heubeck, A. (1950), ‘Studien zur Struktur der Ilias (Retardation-Motiv-
übertragung)’, in Gymnasium Fridericianum. Festschrift zur Feier des
200-jährigen Bestehens des Hum. Gymnasiums Erlangen, 1745–1945.
Erlangen: 17–36.
Heubeck, A. (1978), ‘Homeric Studies Today’, in B. C. Fenik (ed.) 1978: 1–17.
Hoekstra, A. (1969), The Sub-Epic Phase of the Formulaic Tradition. Amster-
dam and London.
Holoka, J. (2002), ‘Homer and Simone Weil: the Iliad sub specie violentiae’, in
M. Reichel and A. Rengakos (eds.) 2002: 63–75.
Hölscher, U. (1978), ‘The Transformation from Folk-Tale to Epic’, in
B. C. Fenik (ed.) 1978: 56–67.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 197
Hölscher, U. (1989), Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman. Munich.
Jakobson, R. (1960), ‘Über den Versbau der serbokroatischen Volksepen’,
Slavic Epic Studies (Selected Writings, IV). The Hague: 51–60 (originally in
Archives néerlandaises de la phonétique expérimentale 7–9 (1933):
135–44).
Janko, R. (1982), Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in
Epic Diction. Cambridge.
Janko, R. (2012), ԾH ήd o
Æ
ÆNb I Ø: Relative Chronology in
Early Greek Epos’, in . Andersen and D. T. T. Haug (eds.) 2012: 20–43.
de Jong, I. J. F. (1987), Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story
in the Iliad. Amsterdam.
Jusdanis, G. (1987), The Poetics of Cavafy: Textuality, Eroticism, History. Princeton.
Jutrin, M. (2010), ‘Rachel Bespaloff: liberté et pensée éthique’, Europe 88 (no.
972): 198–208.
Kakridis, J. Th. (1929), æÆ. ıŁ
º
ªØŒc ºÅ. Athens.
Kakridis, J. Th. (1949), Homeric Researches. Lund. (Originally published as
ˇÅæØŒ¯æ ı . Athens, 1944.)
Kakridis, J. Th. (1954), ˇÅæØŒ ¨ÆÆ. Athens.
Kakridis, J. Th. (1956), ‘Η Μετάφραση της Ιλιάδας’, ˚ÆØ
æØÆ ¯
å,
Ø Æ: 17–64.
Kakridis, J. Th. (1959), ‘Το Χρονικό μιας Συνεργίας’, ˝Æ ¯
Æ 779,
æØ
ª Æ: 115–20.
Kakridis, J. Th. (1971), Homer Revisited. Lund. (Also published as
˛ÆƪıæÇ
Æ
OÅæ
. Athens, 1971.)
Kakridis, J. Th. (1980), —æ
198 Bibliography
Kullmann, W. (1960), Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes
Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden.
Kullmann, W. (1991), ‘Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu
Homer (Neoanalyse)’, in J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung:
Rückblick und Ausblick. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart: 425–55.
Kullmann, W. (1994), ‘Johannes Theophan Kakridis{’, Gnomon 66: 81–4.
Lang, M. (1983), ‘Reverberation and Mythology in the Iliad’, in C. A. Rubino,
and C. W. Shelmerdine (eds.), Approaches to Homer. Austin: 140–63.
Lateiner, D. (1995), Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor.
Leeuwen, J. van. (1890), ‘Homerica, IV. De caesura quae est post quartum
trochaeum’, Mnemosyne NS 18: 265–76.
Leinieks, V. (1973), ‘A Structural Pattern in the Iliad’, CJ 69: 102–7.
Lenz, L. (1975), Der homerische Aphroditehymnus und die Aristie des Aineias
in der Ilias. Bonn.
Lesky, A. (1967), ‘Homeros’, RE Supplementband 11. Stuttgart: 1–160 (num-
bers refer to columns).
Levine, D. B. (1982), ‘Iros as a Paradigm for the Suitors’, CJ 77: 200–4.
Levine, L. W. (1996), The Opening of the American Mind: Canons, Culture,
and History. Boston.
Logue, C. (1997), WAR MUSIC: An Account of Books 1–4 and 16–19 of
Homer’s Iliad. New York. (Reprinted Chicago, 2003. For the complicated
publication history of Logue’s ‘account’ of Homer’s Iliad between 1959
and 2005, see E. Greenwood 2007: 175–6.)
Logue, C. (2003), All Day Permanent Red. The First Battle Scenes of Homer’s
Iliad Rewritten. London.
Logue, C. (2005), Cold Calls: War Music Continued. London.
Loraux, N. (1981), Les enfants d’Athéna: Idées athéniennes sur la citoyenneté
et la division des sexes. Paris. (Engl. trans. by C. Levine, The Children of
Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship & the Division between the
Sexes. Princeton, 1993.)
Lord, A. B. (1960), The Singer of Tales. Cambridge. (Reprinted New York, 1965.)
Lowe, N. J. (2000), The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative.
Cambridge.
Lowenstam, S. (1979), ‘The Meaning of IE *dhal’, TAPhA 100: 125–35.
Maas, P. (1962), Greek Metre, trans. H. Lloyd–Jones. Oxford.
Malouf, D. (2009), Ransom. Sydney and New York.
Martin, R. P. (1989), The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the
Iliad. Ithaca.
Martin, R. P. (2013), Review of F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis
(eds.), Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral
Poetry. BMCRev 2013.09.21. On <http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/
2013-09-21.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_
campaign=Feed%3A+BrynMawrClassicalReview+(Bryn+Mawr+Classical
+Review%3A+Latest+Reviews)>
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 199
Maronitis, D. N. [Μαρωνίτης, Δ. Ν.] (1985), ‘Κ.Π. Καβάφης· ένος ποιητής-
αναγνώστης’, in M. Pieris (ed.) 1985b: 451–75.
Maronitis, D. N. [Μαρωνίτης, Δ. Ν.] (1986), —
ø æ· —æ
Ł
Ø ŒÆd
#
Ł
Ø ªØÆ ˝
ººÅØŒ —
Å
Å ŒÆd — Ç
ªæÆçÆ. Athens.
Matthiae, A. (1800), Animadversiones in Hymnos Homericos cum prolego-
menis. Leipzig.
Meineck, P. (2012a), ‘The Neuroscience of the Tragic Mask’, Arion 19:
113–58.
Meineck, P. (2012b), ‘The Embodied Theatre: Cognitive Science and Ancient
Greek Drama’. Video podcast at <https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/
embodied-theater-cognitive/id385665061?i=125470442&mt=2?
Michelazzo, F. (1996), ‘Per una rilettura dell’Esametro di Hermann Fränkel’,
in M. Fantuzzi and R. Pretagostini (eds.), 1995–6: II: 139–72.
Minchin, E. (1985), ‘The Sleeplessness Theme at Iliad 24.1–18: a Study of
Function and Form’, PP 40: 269–75.
Minchin, E. (2001), Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications
of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford.
Minchin, E. (2007), Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford.
Monsacré, H. (1984), Les larmes d’Achille: Le héros, la femme et la souffrance
dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris.
Montanari, F., and Ascheri, P. (eds.) (2002), Omero tremila anni dopo. Rome.
Montanari, F., Rengakos, A., and Tsagalis, C. (eds.) (2012), Homeric Con-
texts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin and Boston.
Montanari, F. (2012), ‘Introduction: the Homeric Question today’, in
F. Montanari, A. Rengakos, and C. Tsagalis (eds.) 2012: 1–10.
Moulton, C. (1977), Similes in the Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49.
Göttingen.
Murnaghan, S. (1987), Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Princeton.
(Reprinted Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, 2011.)
Nagler, M. N. (1967), ‘Towards a Generative View of the Oral Formula’,
TAPhA 98: 269–311.
Nagler, M. N. (1974), Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of
Homer. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Nagler, M. N. (1990), ‘Odysseus: the Proem and the Problem’, ClAnt 9: 335–56.
Nagler, M. N. (1993), ‘Penelope’s Male Hand: Gender and Violence in the
Odyssey’, Colby Quarterly 29: 241–57.
Nagy, G. (1979), The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic
Greek Poetry. Baltimore and London. (Revised edn. 1999.)
Nagy, G. (1996), Poetry as Performance. Homer and Beyond. Cambridge.
Nagy, G. (2003), Homeric Responses. Austin.
Nagy, G. (2010), Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Nietzsche, F. (1966 [1869]), ‘Homer und die klassische Philologie’, in
K. Schlechta (ed.), Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke in drei Bände, Vol. 3.
Munich: 155–74.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
200 Bibliography
Obbink, D. (2011), ‘Sappho Fragments 58–59: Text, Apparatus Criticus, and
Translation’, in Classics@ Volume 4: E. Greene and M. Skinner (eds.). The
Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard University. Online edn., March 11,
2011. <http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&
mn=3534.>
O’Neill, Jr., E. G. (1942), ‘The Localization of Metrical Word-Types in the
Greek Hexameter: Homer, Hesiod and the Alexandrians’, YClS 8: 103–78.
Oswald, A. (2011), Memorial: An Excavation of the Iliad. London.
(= Memorial: a Version of Homer’s Iliad. New York, 2012.)
Owen, E. T. (1946), The Story of the Iliad. Toronto. (Reprinted Ann Arbor,
1966.)
Page, D. L. (1955), The Homeric Odyssey. The Mary Flexner Lectures
Delivered at Bryn Mawr College. Oxford.
Page, D. L. (1973), Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge, Mass., and
Oxford.
Parry, A. (1971a), ‘Introduction’, in Parry 1971b: ix–lxii.
Parry, A. (ed.) (1971b), The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers
of Milman Parry. Oxford.
Parry, M. (1928), L’Épithète traditionelle dans Homère. Paris. (= ‘The Tradi-
tional Epithet in Homer’, trans. A. Parry, in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 1–172.)
Parry, M. (1932), ‘Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making, II:
The Homeric Language as the Language of Oral Poetry’, HSPh 43: 1–50.
Reprinted in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 325–63.
Parry, M. (1933), ‘The Traditional Metaphor in Homer’, CPh 28: 30–43.
Reprinted in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 365–75.
Parry, M. (1936), ‘The Historical Method in Literary Criticism’, in Harvard
Alumni Bulletin 39: 778–82. Reprinted in A. Parry (ed.) 1971b: 408–13.
Peradotto, J. (1990), Man in the Middle Voice: Name and Narration in the
Odyssey. Martin Classical Lectures, NS 1. Princeton.
Pestalozzi, H. (1945), Die Achilleis als Quelle der Ilias. Erlenbach–Zurich.
Pétrement, S. (1976), Simone Weil: A Life, translated by R. Rosenthal. New
York (condensed version of La vie de Simone Weil, 2 vols. Paris, 1973).
Pieris, M. [Πιερής, Μ.] (1985a), ‘Κ. Π. Καβάφης· έφοδος στο σκοτάδι
(η εξελικτή πορεία)’, in Μ. Πιερής (ed.) 1985b: 357–427.
Pieris, M. [Πιερής, M.] (ed.) (1985b), ¯Ø
ƪøª
Å —
Å
Å
ı ˚ÆçÅ.
Rhethymnon.
Podbielski, H. (1971), La Structure de l’Hymne Homérique à Aphrodite à la
lumière de la tradition littéraire. Wroclaw.
Podlecki, A. (1961), ‘Guest-Gifts and Nobodies in Odyssey 9’, Phoenix 15: 125–33.
Porter, H. (1949), ‘Repetition in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, AJPh 70:
249–72.
Porter, H. (1951), ‘The Early Greek Hexameter’, YClS 12: 3–61.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 201
Porter, H. (1962), ‘Introduction’, in The Odyssey of Homer, trans.
G. H. Palmer, ed. H. N. Porter. New York: 1–20.
Prendergast, G. L. (1962), A Complete Concordance to the Iliad of Homer.
Revised by B. Marzullo. Hildesheim.
Purves, A. (2006), ‘Falling into Time in Homer’s Iliad’, ClAnt 25: 179–209.
Radermacher, L. (1915), Die Erzählungen der Odyssee. Sitzungsberichte der
kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 178.1.
Vienna.
Radway, J. A. (1997), A Feeling for Books: The Book-of-the-Month Club,
Literary Taste, and Middle Class Desire. Chapel Hill.
Ready, J. L. (2010), ‘Why Odysseus Strings His Bow’, GRBS 50: 133–57.
Redfield, J. M. (1975), Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector.
Chicago and London. (Second edn., expanded. Durham, North Carolina,
1994.)
Rees, R. (ed.) (1965), Simone Weil: Seventy Letters. Oxford.
Reichel, M., and Rengakos, A. (eds.) (2002), Epea pteroenta: Beiträge zur
Homerforschung. Festschrift für W. Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag.
Stuttgart.
Reinhardt, K. (1938), Das Parisurteil. Wissenschaft und Gegenwart, Heft. 11.
Frankfurt-am-Main. Reprinted in Reinhardt, Von Werken und Formen
(Godesberg, 1948: 11–36) and in Reinhardt 1960: 16–36. (Engl. trans. in
P. V. Jones and G. M. Wright, Homer: German Scholarship in Translation.
Oxford 1997: 170–91.) References are to the 1960 reprint.
Reinhardt, K. (1948a), ‘Die Abenteuer der Odyssee’, in Reinhardt 1948b:
52–162. (Reprinted in Reinhardt 1960: 47–124; Engl. trans. in Schein (ed.)
1996b: 63–132.)
Reinhardt, K. (1948b), Von Werken und Formen. Godesberg.
Reinhardt, K. (1951), ‘Tradition und Geist im homerischen Epos’, Studium
Generale 4: 334–9. (Reprinted in Reinhardt 1960: 5–15. References are to
the 1960 reprint.)
Reinhardt, K. (1960), Tradition und Geist: Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung.
Göttingen.
Reinhardt, K. (1961a), Die Ilias und ihr Dichter. Göttingen.
Reinhardt, K. (1961b), ‘Ilias und Aphroditehymnus’, in Reinhardt 1961a:
507–21. (= ‘Zum homerischen Aphroditehymnus’, in Festschrift für Bruno
Snell. Munich, 1956: 1–14.)
Ricks, D. (1989), The Shade of Homer: A Study in Modern Greek Poetry.
Cambridge.
Roguin, C.-F. de (2007), ‘. . . et recouvre d’une montagne leur cité!’: La fin du
monde des héros dans les épopées homériques, Hypomnemata 169. Göttingen.
Rossi L. E. (1996 [1965]), ‘Estensione e valore del colon nell’esametro omer-
ico’, in M. Fantuzzi and R. Pretagostini (eds.), II: 271–320.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
202 Bibliography
Russell, J. (1989), ‘Art View: Masterpieces Caught between Two Wars’, in
The New York Times, September 3, 1989. <(http://www.nytimes.com/
1989/09/03/arts/art-view-masterpieces-caught-between-two-wars.html.)>
Rutherford, R. B. (2013), Homer, 2nd edn. Greece & Rome New Surveys in the
Classics 41. Cambridge.
Rybakova, M. (2007), ‘Imagination versus Attention: Simone Weil Translat-
ing the “Iliad” ’, Arion, 3rd Series, 15: 29–36.
Saïd, S. (1998), Homère et l’Odyssée. Paris. (Revised and expanded as Homer
and the Odyssey, trans. R. Webb. New York, 2011.)
Savidis, G. P. (1966), ˇƒ ˚ÆÆçØŒ ¯Œ
Ø (1891–1932). Athens.
Schadewaldt, W. (1951), ‘Einblick in die Erfindung der Ilias. Ilias und
Memnonis’, in Varia Variorum. Festgabe für Karl Reinhardt. Dargebracht
von Freunden und Schülern zum 14 Februar 1951. Weimar: 13–48.
(Reprinted in Schadewaldt (1965): 155–202.)
Schadewaldt, W. (1965), Von Homers Welt und Werk. 4th edn. Stuttgart.
Schein, S. L. (1976), ‘The Death of Simoeisios: Iliad 4.473–489’, Eranos 74:
1–5. (This volume, Chapter 1.)
Schein, S. L. (1984), The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Schein, S. L. (1990), ‘ˇØ ªıÆŒ
Å ºØÆ ŒÆ
Å ˇ
ØÆ’, in M. Paїzi-
Apostolopoulou (ed.), ˇ ˇÅæØŒ ˇŒ
. ` Æ —æƌ،
ı ¯0
ı æ
ı ªØÆ Å ˇ
ØÆ (11–14 æ
ı 1987). Ithaca, Greece:
93–103.
Schein, S. L. (1996a), ‘Introduction’, in Schein 1996b: 3–31.
Schein, S. L. (ed.) (1996b), Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays.
Princeton.
Schein, S. L. (2002), ‘Mythological Allusion in the Odyssey’, in F. Montanari
and P. Ascheri (eds.) 2002: 85–101. (This volume, Chapter 4.)
Schein, S. L. (2007), ‘ “Our Debt to Greece and Rome”: Canon, Class, and
Ideology’, in L. Hardwick, and C. Stray (eds.), A Companion to Classical
Receptions. Oxford, Malden, Victoria: 75–85.
Schmitt, R. (1967), Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit.
Wiesbaden.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. (1981), Lions, héros, masques: les représentations de
l’animal chez Homère. Paris.
Schoeck, G. (1961), Ilias und Aithiopis: kyklische Motive in homerischer
Brechung. Zurich.
Schwisani, S. (1995), ‘Mündliche Eurytossage in der Odysee’, in M. Paїzi-
Apostolopoulou (ed.), ¯ıå ˇı
. Ithaca, Greece: 247–54.
Scodel, R. (1982), ‘The Achaean Wall and the Myth of Destruction’, HSPh 86:
33–50.
Segal, C. P. (1962), ‘The Phaeacians and the Symbolism of Odysseus’ Return’,
Arion 1: 17–64. Reprinted in Segal 1994: 12–64.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 203
Segal, C. (1971), The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad,
Mnemosyne Suppl. 17, Leiden.
Segal, C. P. (1994), Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the Odyssey. Ithaca and
London.
Seiradaki, E. (2014), The Arms of Achilles: Re-exchange in the Iliad. Ph.D.
Diss., University of Toronto. Toronto.
Shils, E. (1988), ‘The University, the City, and the World: Chicago and the
University of Chicago’, in T. Bender (ed.) 1988: 210–30.
Simonsuuri, K. (1985), ‘Simone Weil’s Interpretation of Homer’, French
Studies 39: 166–77.
Simonsuuri, K. (2003), ‘Imaginary Systems: Simone Weil and the Iliad’, in
The Impact of Classical Greece on European and National Identities:
Proceedings of an International Colloquium, held at the Netherlands Insti-
tute at Athens, 2–4 October 2000. Amsterdam: 267–77.
Slatkin, L. M. (1991), The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the
Iliad. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. Reprinted in Slatkin 2011a: 17–95.
Slatkin, L. M. (2011a), The Power of Thetis and Selected Essays. Hellenic
Studies 16. Washington, DC.
Slatkin, L. M. (2011b), ‘Les amis mortels’, in Slatkin 2011a: 120–38. (Origin-
ally in L’Écrit du Temps 19 (1988): 119–32.)
Smith, P. (1981), Nursling of Mortality: A Study of the Homeric Hymn to
Aphrodite, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 3. Frankfurt-am-Main,
Berne, Cirencester.
Snell, B. (1953), The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European
Thought, trans. T. G. Rosenmeyer. Cambridge, Mass. (Translated from Die
Entdeckung des Geistes, 2nd edn. (Hamburg 1948); originally published
1946; 4th revised edn., 1965.)
Sontag, S. (2003), Regarding the Pain of Others. New York.
Stanford, W. B. (1939), Ambiguity in Greek Literature. Oxford.
Stehle, E. (1996), ‘Sappho’s Gaze: Fantasies of a Goddess and Young Man’,
in E. Greene, (ed.), Reading Sappho: Contemporary Approaches. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London: 193–225. (Originally in differences 2: Sexuality in
Greek and Roman Society, 1990: 88–125.)
Steiner, G., and Fagles, R. (eds.) (1962), Homer: A Collection of Critical
Essays. Englewood Cliffs.
Stevenson, L. L. (1988), ‘Preparing for Public Life: The Collegiate Students at
New York University, 1832–1881’, in T. Bender (ed.) 1988: 150–77.
Strasburger, G. (1954), Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Ph.D. Diss., Johann
Wolfgang Goethe Universität. Frankfurt-am-Main.
Stray, C. (1998), Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Societies in
England, 1830–1960. Oxford.
Summers, J. H. (1981), ‘Notes on Simone Weil’s Iliad’, in G. A. White (ed.),
1981: 87–93.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
204 Bibliography
Taplin, O. (1980), ‘The Shield of Achilles within the Iliad’, G&R 27: 1–21.
Tatum, J. (2003), The Mourner’s Song: War and Remembrance from the Iliad
to Vietnam. Chicago.
Taylor, C. H. (ed.) (1963), Essays on the Odyssey. Bloomington.
Tebben, J. R. (1994), Concordantia Homerica, Pars I: Odyssea. A Computer
Concordance to the van Thiel Edition of Homer’s Odyssey. 2 vols. Hildesheim.
Tebben, J. R. (1998), Concordantia Homerica, Pars II: Ilias. A Computer
Concordance to the van Thiel Edition of Homer’s Iliad. 3 vols. Hildesheim.
Thalmann, W. G. (1984), Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek
Poetry. Baltimore and London.
Thalmann, W. G. (1991), Review of J. S. Clay (1989), in CPh 86: 144–7.
Thalmann, W. G. (1998), The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of
Class in the Odyssey. Ithaca, N. Y.
Thompson, S. (1955–8), Motif-Index of Folk Literature, 2nd edn. 6 vols.
Copenhagen.
Tsagalis, C. (2008), The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the
Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington, DC and Cambridge,
Mass.
Turner, F., and Pöppel, E. (1983), ‘The Neural Lyre: Poetic Meter, the Brain,
and Time’, Poetry Magazine 142: 277–309.
Van Der Ben, N. (1981), ‘De Homerische Aphrodite-hymne 2: Een inter-
pretatie van het Gedicht’, Lampas 14: 69–107.
Van Der Ben, N. (1986), ‘Hymn to Aphrodite 36–291: Notes on the pars
epica of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, Mnemosyne 39: 1–41.
Vermeule, E. (1979), Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Vernant, J.-P. (1982), ‘Le refus d’Ulysse’, Le temps de la réflexion 3: 13–19
(= ‘The Refusal of Ulysses’, trans. V. Farenga, in Schein (ed.) 1996b: 185–9.)
Vidal-Naquet, P. (1996), ‘Land and Sacrifice in the Odyssey: A Study of
Religious and Mythical Meanings’, trans. A. Szegedy-Maszak, in Schein
(ed.) (1996b): 33–53. Also in P. Vidal-Naquet, The Black Hunter: Forms of
Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World, trans. A. Szegedy-
Maszak. Baltimore and London, 1986: 15–38. [Originally published in
Annales E.S.C. 25 (1970): 1278–97 = M. I. Finley (ed.) Problèmes de la
terre en grèce ancienne. The Hague, 1973: 269–92.]
Warner, M. (2006), ‘Books of the Year’, TLS, 29 November. <http://www.the-
%20tls.co.uk/tls/reviews/arts_and_commentary/article732377.ece>
van Wees, H. (1992), Status Warriors: War, Violence, and Society in Homer
and History. Amsterdam.
Weil, S. (1940–41), ‘L’Iliade, ou le poème de la force’, Les Cahiers du Sud 230:
561—74 and 231: 21–34. Reprinted in La source grecque (Paris, 1953):
11–42; in S. Fraisse 1989: 227–53, with notes: 318–21, and background
information, 298–9, 304–9; in J. Holoka 2006: 19–44. (Engl. trans. by
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
Bibliography 205
M. McCarthy, ‘The Iliad, or the Poem of Force’, Politics 2 (November
1945): 321–30; reprinted as Pendle Hill Pamphlet, no. 91 (Wallingford,
Pennsylvania) 1957, and in C. Benfey 2005: 1–37. Engl. trans. by
E. C. Geissbuhler, ‘The Iliad, Poem of Might’, in S. Weil, Intimations of
Christianity among the Ancient Greeks. London, 1957: 24–55. Engl. trans.
by J. Holoka, in Holoka 2006: 45–69. All references are to the reprint of
McCarthy’s translation in Benfey 2005.)
West, M. L. (1982), Greek Metre. Oxford.
White, G. A. (ed.) (1981), Simone Weil: Interpretations of a Life. Amherst.
Whitfield, N., and Strong, B. (1969), ‘War’. Detroit.
Whitman, C. H. (1958), Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1921), Griechische Verskunst. Berlin.
Willcock, M. M. (1964), ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad’, CQ NS 14:
141–54. (Reprinted in D. Cairns (ed.) 2001: 435–55.)
Willcock, M. M. (1976), A Companion to the Iliad Based on the Translation
of Richmond Lattimore. Chicago.
Willcock, M. M. (1977), ‘Ad hoc Invention in the Iliad’, HSPh 81: 41–53.
Willcock, M. M. (1978), ‘Some Aspects of the Gods in the Iliad’, in J. Wright
(ed.), Essays on the Iliad: Selected Modern Criticism. Bloomington and
London: 58–69, 139–42. (Originally in BICS 17 (1970): 1–10.)
Willcock, M. M. (1997), ‘Neoanalysis’, in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.),
A New Companion to Homer. Leiden: 174–89.
Williams, R. (1983), Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, rev. edn.
Oxford and New York.
Wilson, E. (2005), ‘Forever in Fiji’, TLS, 13 May.
Wilson, J. R. (1974), ‘The Wedding Gifts of Peleus’, Phoenix 28: 385–9.
Winkler, J. J. (1990), ‘Double Consciousness in Sappho’s Lyrics’, in The
Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient
Greece. New York and London: 162–87. (Revised version of ‘Gardens of
Nymphs: Public and Private in Sappho’s Lyrics’, in H. P. Foley (ed.),
Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York, London, Paris, 1981:
63–89.)
Winterer, C. (2002), The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in
American Intellectual Life, 1780–1910. Baltimore and London.
Wofford, S. L. (1992), The Choice of Achilles: The Ideology of Figure in the
Epic. Stanford.
Woodhouse, W. J. (1930), The Composition of Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford.
(Reprinted 1969.)
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/10/2015, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/11/2015, SPi
Index of Passages
Aeschylos/Aischylos Euripides
Prometheus Bound Medea
755–70 109 450 71 n.41
907–27 109 ‘fragmentum dubium’ (Bernabé 1996:
947–59 109 85–6)
Apollodoros 11 99 n.14, 115
The Library Hesiod
2.6.1 48 Catalogue of Women
2.7.7 48, 48 n.12 fr. 43(a).87 102 n.17
3.13.5 108 fr. 204.98–103 58–9
Apollonios of Rhodes Theogony
Argonautika 23 99 n.14, 115
4.790–8 108 76 69 n.32
200 67 n.30
Archilochos 205–6 67 n.28
fr. 175.2 106 n.26 319 99 n.14, 101–2, 102 n.17, 102
fr. 179 106 n.26 n.18, 115
Aulus Gellius 322 102 n.18
Noctes Atticae 19.8.15 187 572–84 61 n.19
Cavafy, Constantine 897–900 109 n.30
‘Priam’s Night Journey’ Works and Days
1–44 137–9 148 44
3 143 158–9 44
6–8 143 159–60 59
13 141 159–73 59
13–27 142 161–5 59
13–28 144 167–8 59
14–20 141 192–3 106 n.27
16–17 147 276–80 106
17–18 142, 147 751 99 n.14, 115
19 142, 145 Homer
20 142, 145 Iliad
21–4 143 Book 1
25 143 1 112
27–28 145 2 113 n.38
28 142 4–5 144
29 144 5 106 n.26
31 144 7 100
32 144 48 53
33 144 49 53
35 144 54–5 110
36 145 168 114
37 146 387 104
37–41 146 396–406 43, 60, 109
37–42 147 414 71
39–42 147 417 18–19, 19 n.20
43–4 147 555–9 108
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/11/2015, SPi
General Index