Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity 9780198847687, 0198847688

Table of contents :
Title_Pages
Dedication
Preface
List_of_Illustrations
Texts_Translations_Abbreviations
Introduction_Approaching_Divinity
Divine_Happiness_and_Beauty_in_Wedding_Songs
Divine_Happiness_in_the_Victory_Ode
Divine_Power_in_Tragedy
Epilogue
Iconographical_Appendix
References
Index_of_Passages
General_Index

Citation preview

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford

The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books based on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.

Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity FELIX J. MEISTER

1

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 © Felix J. Meister 2020 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 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: 2019946769 ISBN 978–0–19–884768–7 DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY 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.

Meinen Eltern

Preface This book is a revised and expanded version of my D.Phil. dissertation entitled ‘Momentary immortality: Greek praise poetry and rhetoric of the extraordinary’, which was submitted and defended at the University of Oxford in 2015. The title of this book is an attempt at toning down the apparent paradox in the original title. In the course of writing the dissertation and rewriting it for publication as a monograph, I was privileged to receive the help of distinguished scholars, to whom I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude. Gregory Hutchinson, who supervised both my M.St. and my D.Phil. studies at Oxford, provided me with comprehensive guidance and support. He gave most generously of his knowledge, time, and patience, not only while I was in Oxford, but also after I moved to Germany for a position at the University of Cologne in 2014. Bruno Currie, who supervised the first year of my D.Phil., offered valuable help in laying the foundations of my dissertation. Scott Scullion, Armand D’Angour, and William Allan assessed early versions of chapters for the transfer and confirmation of status. Their criticism prevented me from pursuing many a blind alley. In Cologne, Jan-Felix Gaertner generously accommodated the completion of my degree. The two examiners of my thesis, Felix Budelmann and Andrea Rodighiero, gave invaluable advice for the transition of the dissertation into a book, as did the anonymous reader appointed by the press. Armand D’Angour supervised the transition process with great patience and expertise. As I was approaching the finishing line, Cologne’s emeritus Rudolf Kassel kindly agreed to read the manuscript. His rigorous method and unerring eye helped me correct various oversights. I would also like to thank the Faculty of Classics at the University of Oxford and Wolfson College for funding my D.Phil. studies, and Wolfson and Exeter College for providing the most stimulating of environments. My work in Cologne has benefitted immensely from the thought-provoking discussions at the Doktoranden-Kolloquium convened by Rudolf Kassel and Jürgen Hammerstaedt, and from access to the excellent faculty library.

viii

Preface

The most patient and constant source of support has been offered to me by my wife Veronica. She not only provided encouragement and stimulating conversation but also read each and every draft of every chapter of the dissertation as well as the final manuscript of the book, red pen in hand. I cannot express with words the extent of my indebtedness to her. The last word of thanks is owed to my parents for their love and support. F. J. M. Cologne April 2018

List of Illustrations 2.1. Peleus and Thetis during their wedding procession. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 3790.

60

2.2. Admetus and Alcestis during their wedding procession. Loutrophorus fr. by the Methyse Painter, 475 25 BC; Athens, Acrop. Mus. NA 1957 Aa 757.

61

2.3. Heracles and Hebe during their wedding procession. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 14.105.10.

62

2.4. Dionysus and Ariadne. Calyx crater fr. by the Group of Polygnotus, 475 25 BC; Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Univers., Arch. Inst. 5439.

63

2.5. Mule carts at the wedding procession. Lecythus by Amasis, 575 25 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 56.11.1.

65

2.6. Hades’ abduction of Persephone on a Locrian pinax (2/24 Zancani Montuoro).

68

2.7. Simple abduction of the bride during the wedding procession on a Locrian pinax (2/5 Zancani Montuoro).

69

2.8. Abduction of the bride with Hades standing by on a Locrian pinax (2/30 Zancani Montuoro).

69

2.9. Abduction of the bride with cock, flowers, and winged horses on a Locrian pinax (2/13 Zancani Montuoro).

70

3.1. East and west pediment of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

93

3.2. West and east metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

94

3.3. Heracles wrestling with the Ceryneian Hind on the west metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

95

3.4. Heracles having defeated the Nemean Lion on the west metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

96

3.5. Lapith fighting a centaur on the west pediment of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

96

4.1. Cassandra supplicating a statue of Athena and Ajax. Hydria (calpis type) by Cleophrades, 480 75 BC; Naples, Museo Nazionale 81699.

136

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations For the sake of convenience, references to fragments of Hesiod are by default from the edition of Reinhold Merkelbach and Martin West (Oxford 31970), those to the fragments of Sappho from Eva-Maria Voigt (Amsterdam 1971), those to the fragments of Pindar from Bruno Snell and Herwig Maehler (Leipzig 1989), those to the fragments of Aeschylus from Stephan Radt (Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta 3, Göttingen 1985), those to the fragments of Sophocles from Stephan Radt (Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta 4, Göttingen 1977), those to the fragments of Euripides from Richard Kannicht (Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta 5, 2 vols, Göttingen 2004). Translations of ancient passages are my own. Abbreviations of Greek and Latin authors and works follow the lists of A GreekEnglish Lexicon (ed. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones, Oxford 9 1940) and the Oxford Latin Dictionary (ed. P. G. W. Glare, Oxford 2 2012) respectively, with the exception of Plutarch’s Moralia, where essays are abbreviated individually, and Euripides’ Heracles, which is abbreviated not as HF but as Her. Abbreviations of modern journals follow the list of l’année philologique where available. In other cases, journal names are given in full. In addition, editors, editions, and collections are referred to with the following abbreviations: ABFH ABV Ahlberg ARFH Arrighetti ARV 2 BAPD

J. Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases: A Handbook (London 1974). J. D. Beazley, Attic Black Figure Vase Painters (Oxford 1956). G. Ahlberg, Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (Göteborg 1971). J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases, The Archaic Period: A Handbook (London 1975). Epicuro: Opere, ed. G. Arrighetti (Turin 1960). J. D. Beazley, Attic Red Figure Vase Painters (Oxford 21963). Beazley Archive Pottery Database (www.beazley.ox. ac.uk)

xiv Blomfield Boardman Bothe Buecheler Calame Camper Cannatà Fera CCSL Christ CIL Collard Morwood Colonna

Courtney CSEL Davies Dawe Diehl2 Diggle W. Dindorf

Drachmann

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations Aeschyli Agamemnon, ed. C. J. Blomfield (London 3 1826). ‘Painted funerary plaques and some remarks on prothesis’, BSA 1 (1955): 51 66. Euripidis dramata, ed. F. H. Bothe, 2 vols (Leipzig 1825/6). Carmina Latina epigraphica, ed. F. Buecheler, 2 vols (Leipzig 1895/7). Alcman: Fragmenta, ed. C. Calame (Rome 1983). Euripidis Electra, ed. P. Camper (Leiden 1931). Pindarus: Threnorum fragmenta, ed. M. Cannatà Fera (Rome 1990). Corpus christianorum: Series Latina, 201 vols (Turnhout 1953 ). Pindari carmina prolegomenis et commentariis instructa, ed. W. Christ (Leipzig 1896). Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, 20 vols (Berlin 1862 1959). Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis, ed. C. Collard and J. Moorwoord 2 vols (Liverpool 2017). Himerii declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum fragmentis, ed. A. Colonna (Rome 1955); and Sophoclis fabulae, ed. id., 3 vols (Turin 1975 83). The Fragmentary Latin Poets, ed. E. Courtney (Oxford 1993). Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 100 vols (1864 ). Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ed. M. Davies (Oxford 1991). Sophoclis tragoediae, ed. R. D. Dawe, 2 vols (Stuttgart 31996). Anthologia lyrica Graeca, ed. E. Diehl, 2 vols (Leipzig 21936/42). Euripides: Fabulae, ed. J. Diggle, 3 vols (Oxford 1981 94). Euripidis tragoediae superstites et deperditarum fragmenta, ed. K. W. Dindorf, 3 vols (Oxford 1832 40); and Poetarum scenicorum Graecorum Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis et Aristophanis fabulae et perditarum fragmenta, ed. id. (Oxford 51869). Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, ed. A. B. Drachmann, 3 vols (Leipzig 1903 27).

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations FGrH Fink Fraenkel Fränkel Gow Page

Günther GVI Hall Hartung Hermann

Heyne3 Heyworth Hollis

Kassel Austin Kühner Gerth

Kühner Stegmann

Lachmann LfgrE Lloyd Jones Parsons

xv

Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby et al., 18 vols (Leiden 1923 ). F. Fink, Hochzeitsszenen auf attischen schwarz und rotfigurigen Vasen (Vienna 1974). Aeschylus: Agamemnon, ed. E. Fraenkel, 3 vols (Oxford 1950). De Simia Rhodio, ed. H. Fränkel (Göttingen 1915). The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, ed. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, 2 vols (Cambridge 1965); and The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, ed. eid., 2 vols (Cambridge 1968). Euripides: Iphigenia Aulidensis, ed. H. C. Günther (Leipzig 1988). Griechische Versinschriften 1: Grabepigramme, ed. W. Peek (Berlin 1955). Claudii Claudiani carmina, ed. J. B. Hall (Leipzig (1985). Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis, ed. J. A. Hartung (Leipzig 1852). Euripidis Iphigenia in Aulide, ed. G. Hermann (Leipzig 1831); and Aeschyli tragoediae, ed. id., 2 vols (Leipzig 1852). Pindari carmina, ed. C. G. Heyne, 3 vols (Leipzig 3 1817). Sexti Properti elegi, ed. S. Heyworth (Oxford 2007). Callimachus: Hecale, ed. A. S. Hollis (Oxford 1990); and Fragments of Roman Poetry, ed. id. (Oxford 2007). Poetae comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin, 8 vols (Berlin and New York 1983 ). Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 2: Satzlehre, ed. R. Kühner, rev. B. Gerth, 2 vols (Hanover and Leipzig 31898). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 2: Satzlehre, ed. R. Kühner, rev. C. Stegmann, 2 vols (Hanover 21877/9). Q. Valerii Catulli Veronensis liber, ed. K. Lachmann (Berlin 1829). Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, ed. B. Snell et al., 4 vols (Göttingen 1955 2010). Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd Jones and P. Parsons (Berlin 1983).

xvi

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations

Lloyd Jones Wilson Lobel Page LSJ

Macleod Markland Morel Büchner Blänsdorf

Murray Nauck OED OLD Page

Pearson Pfeiffer PG PL

Poltera Powell Prückner

Sophoclis fabulae, ed. H. Lloyd Jones and N. G. Wilson (Oxford 21992). Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, ed. E. Lobel and D. L. Page (Oxford 1966). A Greek English Lexicon, ed. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones (Oxford 91940), Revised Supplement (Oxford 1996). Luciani opera, ed. M. D. Macleod, 4 vols (Oxford 1972 87). Euripidis Supplices et Iphigenia in Aulide et in Tauris, ed. J. Markland (Leipzig 1822). Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, ed. W. Morel (Leipzig 1927), rev. K. Büchner (Leipzig 21982), rev. J. Blänsdorf (Stuttgart 31995, Berlin 42011). Euripidis fabulae, ed. G. Murray, 3 vols (Oxford 1902 13). Euripidis tragoediae, ed. A. Nauck, 3 vols (Leipzig 3 1884 5). The Oxford English Dictionary, ed. J. Simpson and E. Weiner, 20 vols (Oxford 21989). Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford 2 2012). Poetae melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page (Oxford 1962); and The Epigrams of Rufinus, ed. id. (Cambridge 1978). Sophoclis fabulae, ed. A. C. Pearson (Oxford 1924). Callimachus, ed. R. Pfeiffer, 2 vols (Oxford 1949/53). Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graecae, ed. J. P. Migne, 161 vols (Paris 1857 66). J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black Figure Vase Painters and to Attic Red Figure Vase Painters (Second Edition) (Oxford 21989). Simonides lyricus, ed. O. Poltera (Basel 2008). Collectanea Alexandrina, ed. J. U. Powell (Oxford 1925). H. Prückner, Die lokrischen Tonreliefs: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte (Mainz 1968).

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations Radt

Rodighiero Russell Wilson

Rutherford Schauer Manuwald Schneider Snell Maehler Stockert SVF

Thomson TLL Usener Usener Radermacher Voigt VS Wachsmuth Wecklein

Weil West Wilamowitz

xvii

Strabons Geographika, ed. S. Radt, 10 vols (Göttingen 2002 11); NB: page numbers follow the edition of I. Casaubon (Geneva 1587) with line numbers added by Radt. Sofocle: Edipo a Colono, ed. A. Rodighiero (Venice 1998). Menander Rhetor: Epideiktikon, ed. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Oxford 1981); NB: page numbers and line numbers follow L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci 3 (Leipzig 1856). Pindar’s Paeans, ed. I. C. Rutherford (Oxford 2001). Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta, ed. M. Schauer and G. Manuwald, 2 vols (Göttingen 2012). Grammatici Graeci 2, ed. R. Schneider, 3 vols (Leipzig 1878 1919). Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, ed. B. Snell and H. Maehler, 2 vols (Leipzig 61980/9). Euripides: Iphigenie in Aulis, ed. W. Stockert, 2 vols (Vienna 1992). Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. H. v. Arnim, 3 vols (Leipzig 1903 5); vol. 4 (indices) ed. M. Adler (Leipzig 1924). The Oresteia of Aeschylus, ed. G. Thomson, 2 vols (Cambridge 1938). Thesaurus linguae Latinae, 11 vols (Leipzig 1900 ). Epicurea, ed. H. Usener (Leipzig 1887). Dionysii Halicarnasei opuscula, ed. H. Usener and L. Radermacher, 2 vols (Leipzig 1899/1929). Sappho et Alcaeus, ed. E. M. Voigt (Amsterdam 1971). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, 3 vols (Berlin 61950 2). Ioannis Stobaei anthologii libri duo priores, ed. C. Wachsmuth, 2 vols (Berlin 1884). Aeschyli fabulae, ed. N. Wecklein, 2 vols (Berlin 1885/93); and Euripidis Iphigenia Aulidensis, ed. id. (Leipzig 1899). Aeschylus: Agamemno, ed. H. Weil (Leipzig 1858). Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M. L. West, 2 vols (Oxford 21989 92). Aeschyli tragoediae, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz Moellendorff (Berlin 1914).

xviii

Texts, Translations, Abbreviations

Wilson Zancani Montuoro

Zschietzschmann

Herodoti historiae, ed. N. G. Wilson, 2 vols (Oxford 2015). P. Zancani Montuoro, ‘Note sui soggeti e sulla technica delle tabelle di Locri’, ASMG 1 (1954): 71 106. W. Zschietzschmann, ‘Die Darstellung der Prothesis in der griechischen Kunst’, MDAI (A) (1928) 53: 17 47.

1 Introduction: Approaching Divinity NOTIONS OF DIVINITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL LITERATURE The question of how and when archaic and classical Greek poetry may present human individuals as leaving behind their humanity and approaching the sphere of the gods is central to this book. The answer to this question depends largely on how divinity is perceived during these periods. Generalizations are not without difficulties. Cultural developments during the eighth to the fifth centuries BC may have resulted in changing religious attitudes. Different genres of poetry may dictate different visions of the world. Individual authors may pursue specific agendas. For instance, Xenophanes’ notion of a singular, abstract, omnipotent, and omniscient deity at the beginning of the fifth century BC could not seem further from the variety of anthropomorphic, passionate, biased, at times even irrational gods of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which Xenophanes explicitly criticizes.1 However, specific differences aside, even these two seemingly extreme notions are based on similar general assumptions about what it means to be a deity and live a divine life. These fundamental assumptions, which are likely to preserve an inherited Indo-European vision of the gods and pervade Greek thinking about divinity, are the focus of this survey. Throughout archaic and classical writing, one of the most fundamental attributes of the gods is immortality. The term ἀθάνατοϲ, which etymologically denotes something or someone not subject to 1 Cf. Xenoph. VS 21 F23 6; for criticism of Homer, cf. also F11 12. On the influence of epic poetry on archaic and classical religion, see Burkert (1977) 191 9. On criticism on the Homeric gods in general, see Dreyer (1970) 20 4.

Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity. Felix J. Meister, Oxford University Press (2020). © Felix J. Meister. DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001

2

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

death, is used to refer to the gods and the particular form of existence enjoyed by them from its earliest attestations in epic onwards.2 As an adjective, ἀθάνατοϲ is a stock epithet of the gods. As a noun, οἱ ἀθάνατοι can serve as a synonym for οἱ θεοί.3 The importance of referring to the gods as οἱ ἀθάνατοι is illustrated by the fact that epic convention makes a conscious effort to accommodate this term. Though ἀθανατ- involves short syllables in three consecutive places, the originally short initial alpha is lengthened in epic in order to allow using the term.4 Divine immortality also constitutes the most basic contrast with humans. Terms like βροτόϲ and θνητόϲ, both of which originally denote a state of being subjected to death, are, as adjectives, combined with ἄνθρωποϲ or ἀνήρ and, as nouns, serve as synonyms for them.5 Similar observations can be made in Latin (immortalis and mortalis)6 as well as in Vedic and other Indo-European languages, which suggests a common inherited notion.7 Closely connected to deathlessness is agelessness. In epic, the attribute ἀγήραοϲ is formulaically combined with ἀθάνατοϲ, and either ἤματα πάντα, ‘for all days’, or αἰεί, ‘always’, to refer to the immortal life of the gods.8 Parallels in Vedic literature again indicate an IndoEuropean notion.9 Additionally, divine life is characterized in archaic and classical poetry by the absence of other factors that impede the lives of humans. This is reflected by a considerable number of privative adjectives applied to the gods.10 Thus, divine life is ἀκηδήϲ, ‘without

2

See LfgrE s.v. ἀθάνατος, 196.7 10. See LfgrE s.v. ἀθάνατος, 197.29 200.2, 200.3 204.62. 4 See K. Meister (1921) 37 8, Chantraine (1942/53) 1.98 9. 5 See LfgrE s.v. βροτός, 101.14 21, s.v. θνητός, 1049.33 47. 6 For immortalis as an epithet for deus, see TLL s.v. immortalis, 492.31 40, s.v. deus, 906.31 8. For immortalis as a noun, see TLL s.v. immortalis, 492.61 6. For mortalis as an adjective, meaning ‘human’, see TLL s.v. mortalis, 1510.3 34. For mortales as a noun, meaning ‘the humans’, see TLL s.v. mortalis, 1510.42 1511.6. 7 See West (2007) 127 8 with examples and further literature. 8 Cf. Il. 2.447, 8.539, 12.323, 17.444, Od. 5.136, 218, 7.94, 257, 23.336, Hes. Th. 277, 305, 949, 955, frr. 25.28, 229.7 8, h.Ap. 151, h.Cer. 242, 260, h.Ven. 214. Cf. also S. OC 607 9. See also West (1966a) 246 on Hes. Th. 277. The importance of the combination of deathlessness and agelessness is expressed in the myth of the eternal ageing of Tithonus, cf. e.g. Mimn. fr. 4 West, h.Ven. 218 38, and now Sapph. fr. 58 with P.Köln XI 429. 9 See West (2007) 128. 10 A Latin parallel for these adjectives is securus, ‘without worry’, and the noun securitas, which are often associated with divinity, cf. e.g. Lucr. 5.82, 6.58, Hor. S. 1.5.101, Cic. Amic. 47. 3

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

3

worries’; ἄνο(υ)ϲοϲ, ‘without disease’; ἀπήμων or ἀπήμαντοϲ, ‘without harm’; ἄπονοϲ, ‘without toil’; and generally ἄπειροϲ with genitives of something negative, ‘without suffering something negative.’11 Frequently, these attributes are combined to produce the emphatic effect of anaphora of initial ἀ-.12 A paradigmatic example is encountered in Pindar’s fr. 143, which describes the life of the gods: κεῖνοι γάρ τ’ ἄνοϲοι καὶ ἀγήραοι πόνων τ’ ἄπειροι, βαρυβόαν πορθμὸν πεϕευγότεϲ Ἀχέροντοϲ. For they are without disease and without old age, without experience of trials, having forever escaped the heavy sounding passage across the Acheron. (Pi. fr. 143)

A similar list of attributes is found in Simonides: οὐδὲ γὰρ οἳ πρότερόν ποτ’ ἐπέλοντο, θεῶν ἐξ ἀνάκτων υἱ⟨έ⟩εϲ ἡμίθεοι, ἄπονον οὐδ’ ἄφθιτον οὐδ’ ἀκίνδυνον βίον τελέϲαντεϲ ἐϲ γῆραϲ ἐξίκοντο.13 For not even those who lived long ago, demigods and sons of mighty gods, arrived at old age having completed a life without trial, without dying, without danger. (Simon. fr. 523 Page = 245 Poltera)

Since Simonides denies these attributes to mortals, even to the demigods of mythical times, it is understood that they are fundamental prerogatives of the gods.

11 ἀκηδήϲ: Il. 24.526, Hes. Th. 61, 489, Op. 112, 170, fr. 229.7. ἄνο(υ)ϲοϲ: Pi. fr. 143.1. ἀπήμων/ἀπήμαντοϲ: Hes. Th. 955, perhaps also fr. 229.7 (conj.), A. A. 553 4. ἄπονοϲ: A. Supp. 100 3, S. OC 1585; cf. also Xenoph. VS 21 F25 ἀπάνευθε πόνοιο. ἄπειροϲ: Pi. fr. 143.2. 12 See West (2007) 108 9, 128. 13 The text printed here is that of Stob. 4.34.14 with the correction of line 2 proposed by Wilamowitz (1879) 170 = (1962) 8 for the transmitted θεῶν ἐξ ἀνάκτων ἐγένοντο υἷεϲ ἡμίθεοι. Poltera prints a substantially altered text, but some suggestions fail to convince. In line 3, he prints ἄφθονον instead of ἄφθιτον, developing ἀφθόνητον suggested by Wilamowitz (1879) 170 = (1962) 8. However, the passive sense of either adjective (‘unenvied’) is ruled out, since a life without toil and danger is evidently enviable. The active sense (‘without feeling envy’) is unlikely, since even the gods, who are implicitly referred to in these lines, feel φθόνοϲ, as is often expressed e.g. in Pindar. In line 4, Poltera deletes τελέϲαντεϲ and poses a lacuna before ἐϲ γῆραϲ, since he perceives, perhaps overly critically, an inconsistency between arriving at old age and completing one’s life.

4

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

Solon’s famous characterization of true happiness in response to Croesus’ question of whether he knows someone very fortunate (ὀλβιώτατον, Hdt. 1.30.2) is similar: ἄτην μὲν καὶ ἐπιθυμίην οὐκ ὁμοίωϲ δυνατὸϲ ἐκείνωι ἐνεῖκαι, ταῦτα δὲ ἡ εὐτυχίη οἱ ἀπερύκει, ἄπηροϲ δέ ἐϲτι, ἄνουϲοϲ,14 ἀπαθὴϲ κακῶν, εὔπαιϲ, εὐειδήϲ . . . (8) τὰ πάντα μέν νυν ταῦτα ϲυλλαβεῖν ἄνθρωπον ἐόντα ἀδύνατόν ἐϲτι, ⟨ἀλλ’⟩15 ὥϲπερ χώρη οὐδεμία καταρκέει πάντα αὐτὴ16 παρέχουϲα, ἀλλὰ ἄλλο μὲν ἔχει, ἑτέρου δὲ ἐπιδέεται. He (sc. the happy man) may not be equally able to support disaster or desire as the other (sc. the rich man), but his luck keeps these things away from him, and he is without harm, without disease, without suffering of evil, of good children and good appearance. . . . For a human to acquire all of these things is impossible, but just as no land is self sufficient and provides everything herself, one has some things and lacks others. (Hdt. 1.32.6 8)

Here, too, a series of privative adjectives defines ideal happiness, and the fact that this state is denied to humans indicates that this happiness is, first and foremost, a privilege of the gods. Unhindered by harm, toil, worry, disease, age, or death, divine life is perceived as a state of endless supreme and unsurpassable ease and happiness. Hence, the gods are described as ‘living easily’ (ῥεῖα ζώοντεϲ) in epic.17 For the same reason, they are called ‘blessed’ (μάκαρ in Greek, beatus in Latin) throughout antiquity.18 This brief survey of the common attributes of divine life offers a first indication of the aspects of this life to which human individuals of archaic and classical times may, in certain circumstances, approximate. Immortality, as a combination of deathlessness and agelessness, which fundamentally distinguishes gods from mortals, is not usually

14

This is the text of the mss. Powell (1949) 2.687 changes ἄπηροϲ δέ ἐϲτι, ἄνουϲοϲ to ἄπειροϲ δέ ἐϲτι νούϲων, and Wilson prints this conjecture. Given the extreme rarity of ἄπηροϲ, which is, outside the lexica and etymologica, only found in AP 7.110.3 (D. L.), this is an attractive conjecture. 15 Supplemented by Powell (1949) 2.687. 16 Changed by Powell (1949) 2.687 for transmitted ἑωυτῆι. 17 For θεοὶ ῥεῖα ζώοντεϲ, cf. Il. 6.138, Od. 4.805, 5.122, Aristid. Or. 45.3. 18 On μάκαρ, its meaning, and its point of reference in the divine sphere, see LfgrE s.v. μάκαρ, 10.20 11.15, De Heer (1969) 4 11, esp. 6; see also Keyssner (1932) 50, 69, 133, West (1978) 186 7 on Hes. Op. 141, ibid. 193 4 on Hes. Op. 171. On beatus as an attribute of the gods, see TLL s.v. beo, 1913.25 47, s.v. deus, 905.52. The adjective felix can describe divine life in a similar way, see TLL s.v. felix, 439.16 48.

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

5

available to humans. There may be mythical examples of mortals who are welcomed at Olympus, like Heracles, or transported to the Isles of the Blessed or the Elysian Fields in order to enjoy eternal life.19 The majority of mortals, however, even of the mythical age did not entertain any prospect of acquiring this kind of immortality.20 A more realistic prospect, at least for exceptional humans, is the transcendence of death by two other means, which, nevertheless, presuppose physical death. The first is the epic notion of ‘undying fame’ (κλέοϲ ἄφθιτον), where remarkable deeds may outlive the hero performing them.21 The choice offered to Achilles by Thetis, either to withdraw from battle and face oblivion or to die a warrior and live on in the memories of men (Il. 9.412–14), is the most famous expression of this notion. The lyric poets, and above all Pindar, frequently refer to this notion in order to highlight the commemorative powers of their poetry.22 The second means is worship in hero cult, where individual mortals continue to exercise some form of power beyond their death. This kind of worship, both for mythical figures and deceased historical persons, gains increasing significance over the archaic and classical periods.23 Though this form of immortality may be more ‘literal’ than the preservation of fame in song,24 its distance from the lives of the gods is considerable. The recipient of such cult is normally dead,25 and his posthumous consciousness and powers depend entirely on being summoned by the living.26

19 For Heracles, cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 950 5. For the Isles of the Blessed, cf. e.g. Hes. Op. 170 3. For the Elysian Fields, cf. e.g. Od. 4.561 9, Verg. A. 6.637 78. 20 Significant exceptions are Croesus’ transportation to the Hyperboreans at B. 3.58 62, which seems to entail immortal life (see below, p. 121), and Harmodius’ life on the Isles of the Blessed at Carm.Conv. fr. 894 Page. 21 See Redfield ap. Nagy (1979) x, Nagy (1979) 174 210, Nagy (1990) 244 5, Griffin (1980) 95, Rosalind Thomas (1995) 113 14, Currie (2005) 71 84, West (2007) 396 410. 22 For Pindar, see Currie (2005) 71 2 and below, p. 83. Cf. also Sapph. fr. 44.4. 23 In general, see Burkert (1977) 312 19, Antonaccio (1995) 1 9, R. Parker (1996) 33 9, R. Parker (2005) 445 51, Boehringer (2001) 25 46, Bremmer (2006) 15 20, Ekroth (2007) 103 6. 24 On hero cult as a form if ‘literal immortality’, as opposed to ‘metaphorical immortality’, see Currie (2005) 74 8. 25 On death as a precondition for cult, cf. e.g. S. OC 621 2 ἵν’ οὑμὸϲ εὕδων καὶ κεκρυμμένοϲ νέκυϲ | ψυχρόϲ ποτ’ αὐτῶν θερμὸν αἷμα πίεται, ‘So that one day my sleeping and buried cold corpse will drink their warm blood.’ See, however, Currie (2005) 7 9. 26 See Ekroth (2007) 111 12.

6

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

Immortality in song and immortality in heroic worship are both inferior versions of the lives of the gods. In this way, they constitute mere approximations to divinity. These approximations are restricted to the quantitative, temporal aspect of divine life. However, since immortality is not the only characteristic of divinity, other forms of approximation are conceivable as well. On principle, it would also seem possible to compare exceptional qualities of individual humans to the supreme attributes of the gods, even if these humans possess these qualities only for a limited period. Thus, extraordinary happiness experienced by a human individual in a certain moment may be characterized with a reference to divine bliss, without any implication that this individual would be capable, like a deity, of prolonging this experience indefinitely. Such references would constitute approximations to the qualitative aspects of divine life. Whereas eternal fame in song and heroic worship have been treated copiously in the scholarship of the last decades, this approximation to the qualitative aspects of divinity has received little attention in the studies of individual authors and virtually no systematic analysis at all.27 Such an analysis, however, seems important as it may lead to a deeper understanding of the conception of divine life and of the precise relationship between the human and the divine in archaic and classical literature and, with due caution, also perhaps in the historical realities of the eighth to fifth centuries BC. This book aims to fill in this gap.

APPROXIMATIONS TO DIVINITY AFTER THE FIFTH CENTURY In Hellenistic and Imperial Greek literature and in Roman literature generally, approximations to divinity are found in a specific range of contexts to convey specific notions. A survey of these contexts and notions may offer a good vantage point for the analysis of archaic and classical literature. 27 An exception is Roloff (1970), who, however, is only concerned with explicit comparisons, and here omits a substantial amount of passages, particularly from tragedy.

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

7

In comparisons between individual humans and gods, one of the predominant underlying notions is concerned with extraordinary happiness, joy, and pleasure. A systematic equation of perfect happiness and divine life, and the possibility of approximating to it, is found in Hellenistic moral philosophy and its legacy in Rome.28 Epicurean and Stoic ethics are united in their effort to guide their followers to a state of εὐδαιμονία or uita beata. In this way, both schools appropriate notions that are originally associated with divine life. The question of how the ideal philosopher, who has attained this kind of life, differs from the gods emerges, and the answers advanced by individual writers are highly relevant for the present purposes. Epicurus, for instance, defines divinity as a combination of immortality and perfect happiness.29 Immortality is unattainable to the mortal philosopher.30 However, since happiness is derived from pleasure, and pleasure from fulfilling the needs of the body, perfect divine happiness can be achieved if these needs are completely satisfied: ϲαρκὸϲ φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τιϲ καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν κἂν ⟨Διὶ⟩31 ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίαϲ μαχέϲαιτο.

28 I omit the Platonic notion of ‘approximation to god’, ὁμοίωϲιϲ θεῶι, developed e.g. at Tht. 176b and R. 10 613b. This notion is based on divine perfect virtue and therefore not derived from common conceptions of the gods as outlined above; see also Roloff (1970) 200 6. 29 Cf. e.g. Epicur. Ep. 3.123 = 4.123 Arrighetti πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῶιον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡϲ ἡ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ νόηϲιϲ ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆϲ ἀφθαρϲίαϲ ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆϲ μακαριότητοϲ ἀνοίκειον αὐτῶι πρόϲαπτε, ‘First, consider the deity an imperishable and blessed being, just as the common notion of god suggests, and attach to it nothing that is alien to imperishability or incompatible with bliss.’ Cf. also Epicur. Ep. 1.76 = 2.76 Arrighetti, Lucr. 5.1175 82, Cic. N.D. 1.44 5, Sen. Ep. 92.27, S.E. M. 9.44 7. 30 Cf. e.g. Cotta’s criticism of Velleius’ Epicurean doctrine at Cic. N.D. 1.96 ergo hoc te ratio non docebit, cum praestantissima natura quaeratur eaque beata et aeterna, quae sola diuina naturast, ut immortalitate uincamur ab ea natura sic animi praestantia uinci, atque ut animi item corporis?, ‘Hence, since we are searching for the perfect nature and one that is happy and eternal, which alone is the divine nature, will reason not teach you that we are inferior to this nature not only with regards to immortality, but also with regards to perfection, both of the mind and the body?’ 31 ⟨Διὶ⟩ is supplemented by Hartel ap. Usener (1888) 193 = (1912) 316, based on Epicur. fr. 602 Usener. The supplement is printed by most editors. Bollack (1975) 469 70 attempts to defend the ms. reading καὶ ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίαϲ μαχέϲαιτο, but his interpretation (‘on peut lutter pour la félicité aussi’) is obscure and leaves καί as well as the optative unexplained.

8

Introduction: Approaching Divinity The voice of the flesh bids you not to be hungry, not to be thirsty, not to feel cold. For someone who has these things and can hope to have them in the future may rival even Zeus for happiness. (Epicur. Sent.Vat. 33)

The highest of the gods of the popular pantheon, Zeus here represents the highest conceivable degree of happiness, which the philosopher may attain within the temporal confines of his mortality.32 This argument is often echoed in Epicurean philosophy.33 Despite a different definition of happiness, Stoic philosophy reaches a similar conclusion. Here, too, divinity is characterized as a combination of immortality and perfect happiness and, while mortals cannot become immortal,34 divine happiness may be reached by the ideal philosopher through strict adherence to rational virtue: δι’ ὃ καὶ πάντωϲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἀεὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺϲ ἀγαθούϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ φαύλουϲ κακοδαιμονεῖν. καὶ ⟨ἐκείνων⟩35 τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν μὴ διαφέρειν τῆϲ θείαϲ εὐδαιμονίαϲ, μηδὲ τὴν ἀμεριαίαν ὁ Χρύϲιππόϲ φηϲι διαφέρειν τῆϲ τοῦ Διὸϲ εὐδαιμονίαϲ, ⟨καὶ⟩36 κατὰ μηδὲν αἱρετωτέραν εἶναι μήτε καλλίω μήτε ϲεμνοτέραν τὴν τοῦ Διὸϲ εὐδαιμονίαν τῆϲ τῶν ϲοφῶν ἀνδρῶν. Therefore, the virtuous among men are always happy in every respect and the base fare ill. And the happiness of the former does not differ from divine happiness nor does, according to Chrysippus, momentary happiness differ from that of Zeus and in no respect is the happiness of Zeus more desirable or more beautiful or more reverend than that of the wise men. (Stob. 2.7.11g = Chrysipp. SVF 3 p. 14.8 13)

32 On the ideal philosopher living like a god among mortals, cf. also Epicur. Ep. 3.135 = 4.135 Arrighetti, Plu. Non posse 7 1091b c. Long and Sedley (1987) 2.148 suggest that these passages might indicate a full scale deification of individual philo sophers, but that is not supported by the evidence. 33 Cf. also Epicur. fr. 602 Usener, Lucr. 3.322, Cic. Fin. 1.63, 2.40, 88, N.D. 1.96, Sen. Ep. 25.4 (cf. also 119.7). The same sentiment is expressed in the proposal of Zago (2017) 112 13 to alter Hor. Epist. 1.1.106 from sapiens uno minor est Iove, ‘The wise man is inferior to Jupiter alone’ to sapiens nilo minor est Iove, ‘The wise man is inferior to no Jupiter.’ 34 Cf. e.g. Cic. N.D. 2.153 quae contuens animus accipit cognitionem deorum, e qua oritur pietas, cui coniuncta iustitia est reliquaeque uirtutes, e quibus uita beata existit par et similis deorum, nulla alia re nisi immortalite, quae nihil ad bene uiuendum pertinet, cedens caelestibus, ‘When the mind considers these things, it receives know ledge of the gods, from which arises piety, with which is connected justice and the remaining virtues, from which emerges a happy life equal and similar to that of the gods, inferior to the gods in nothing but immortality, which makes no difference for a happy life.’ 35 36 Supplement by Usener ap. Wachsmuth. Supplement by Wachsmuth.

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

9

This argument, too, pervades Stoic doctrine after Chrysippus.37 Epicurean and Stoic ethical doctrines continue the popular notion of divinity pursued in the previous section by considering immortality and perfect happiness as its main characteristics. The terminology of both schools distinguishes rigorously between these two aspects, namely between εὐδαιμονία, μακαριότηϲ, or uita beata38 on the one hand, and ἀθαναϲία, ἀφθαρϲία or immortalitas on the other. This strict distinction is important, as it facilitates the argument, employed by both schools, that, whereas the philosopher is excluded from the aspect of immortality, he may find the aspect of happiness by observing the respective precepts. Outside of philosophical debates, comparisons with divine life are also made on the grounds of happiness. Here, however, the terminological distinctions between divine life and immortality are not always observed. A good example for the blurring of the two aspects is found in one of Cicero’s letters to his brother: quod scribis te a Caesare cottidie plus diligi, immortaliter gaudeo. I am immortally pleased that you write that Caesar appreciates you more every day. (Cic. QF 3.1.9)

The remarkable expression immortaliter gaudeo here conveys the joy that Cicero felt on receiving good news from Quintus. On the surface, there appears to be a paradoxical discrepancy between the momentary nature of this joy and the infinite duration apparently conveyed in immortaliter. Since the Latin term immortalis may, like the Greek term ἀθάνατοϲ, be used as a synonym for the gods, immortaliter refers not to eternal life but to divine life in general and to its characteristic bliss in particular.39 Though the expression immortaliter gaudere is without exact parallels in extant Latin,40 its formation and casual usage in Cicero might suggest a model in colloquial Latin.

37 Cf. the other passages assembled at Chrysipp. SVF 3 no. 54, as well as Cic. N.D. 2.153, Sen. Dial. 1.1.5, 2.8.2, Ep. 53.11 12, 73.13, Plu. Stoic.Rep. 2 1033c d, 25 6 1046c e, Comm.Not. 31 1075c. 38 Among the nouns derived from beatus, both beatitas and beatitudo appear to be coined first at Cic. N.D. 1.95, perhaps in order to mock Epicurean parlance; see TLL s.v. beatitas, 1794.36, s.v. beatitudo, 1794.61, Pease (1955/8) 1.458 on Cic. N.D. 1.95. 39 See OLD s.v. immortalis 3. 40 See TLL s.v. immortalis, 495.60 1. The adverb is not attested before Cicero.

10

Introduction: Approaching Divinity A similar expression is found in Cicero’s speech Against Piso:

unus ille dies mihi quidem immortalitatis instar fuit quo in patriam redii, cum senatum egressum uidi populumque Romanum uniuersum, cum mihi ipsa Roma prope conuolsa sedibus suis ad complectendum conseruatorem suum progredi uisa est. For me, that one single day, when I returned home, was like immortal ity, when I saw the senate and the people of Rome gathered outside, when Rome herself seemed to me to be dislodged from her seat and to approach me in order to embrace her saviour. (Cic. Pis. 52)

As in the letter to Quintus, the reference to immortalitas refers to a specific experience in Cicero’s life. Here, the temporary nature of this experience is stressed with the emphatic expression unus ille dies. Again, any supposed paradox between this temporary experience and the term immortalitas disappears, if a colloquial equation of divinity and immortality is assumed. Similar equations are found in another larger literary context in which approximations to divinity are conventionally employed. This is the context of love and desire. In New Comedy, for instance, it is a stock motif that the male protagonist likens himself to an unspecified deity or even to Jupiter.41 In other passages, the protagonist also attributes immortalitas to himself.42 As opposed to the philosophical context examined above, there appears to be no fundamental distinction between divine life and immortality. All of these references occur either at the first entry of the beloved or, later on in the plays, on realizing that marriage is possible after all.43 These references are made on the grounds of happiness, because the lover compares his own experience in these situations with the sublime bliss that characterizes divine life. It is understood that this approximation to divinity is only temporary and bound to end as the first rush of excitement abates.44 Occasional references to immortalitas are therefore informed 41 Cf. Plaut. Cur. 167 8 (deus), Pers. 99 100 (Iuppiter), Ps. 1257 (dei), Ter. An. 959 (deorum uita), Hau. 693 (deorum uita), Hec. 843 (deus). In general, see also Webster (1953) 203, Shipp (1960) 196 on Ter. An. 959 60. On the proverbial character of these and similar utterances, see Otto (1890) s.v. deus 5, Häussler (1968) s.v. deus 5. 42 Cf. Plaut. Mer. 603 4 (immortalitas), Poen. 275 8 (immortalis), Ter. An. 960 1 (immortalitas). 43 First entry: Plaut. Cur. 167 8, Pers. 99 100, Poen. 275 8. Realization: Plaut. Mer. 603 4, Ps. 1257, Ter. An. 959 61, Hau. 693, Hec. 843. 44 Significantly, it is another motif of love poetry that lovers reject eternal life if it were to be spent without the beloved, cf. Tib. 2.3.31 2, CIL 4.1928 tab. 22.7 = 2.2.937

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

11

by the kind of equation of divine life and immortality that can also be observed in Cicero’s colloquial expressions. Approximations of lovers to divinity are found also in erotic epigrams. An instructive example is offered by an epigram by Dioscorides, in which the speaker describes his sexual encounter with a certain Doris:45 Δωρίδα τὴν ῥοδόπυγον ὑπὲρ λεχέων διατείναϲ ἄνθεϲιν ἐν χλοεροῖϲ ἀθάνατοϲ γέγονα. Having stretched out rosy rumped Doris on the blankets, I became immortal amid verdant flowers. (AP 5.55.1 2 = Diosc. 5.1 2 Gow Page)

In the first line, the encounter is clearly marked, by the aorist participle διατείναϲ, as a singular and temporarily confined experience.46 In line 2, the pleasures enjoyed during this experience are summarized with the term ἀθάνατοϲ. As with immortalis in Cicero and the comic passages considered above, this term does not refer to an indefinite experience comparable to eternal life, but to a momentary experience of perfect happiness comparable to divine bliss.47 A similar expression is found in a Propertian elegy, in which the speaker reflects on his erotic joys with Cynthia:48 10

quanta ego praeterita collegi gaudia nocte: immortalis ero si altera talis erit.

. . . how many pleasures I collected last night. I shall be immortal if she gives another such (sc. night). (Prop. 2.14.9 10)

Buecheler scribenti mi dictat Amor monstratque Cupido: | a] peream, sine te si deus esse uelim, ‘My writing is dictated by Amor and guided by Cupido. Ah, I may perish if I wanted to be a god without you’, and the material collected in Kost (1971) 267 8 on Musae. 80 1. 45 A similar expression at AP 5.94 = Rufin. 35 Page is discussed at the beginning of the following chapter. 46 See Kühner Gerth §386.1. 47 The use of γέγονα is somewhat puzzling. The resultative aspect of the perfect would normally convey that the state described extends into the present time of the enunciation; see Kühner Gerth §384.1 2. It is possible either that the joy conveyed in ἀθάνατοϲ is renewed with the present memory, or that the expected aorist γενόμην would have sounded excessively paradoxical with ἀθάνατοϲ. 48 A similar expression at Prop. 2.15.37 9 is discussed at the beginning of the following chapter.

12

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

In line 9, the focus is explicitly on the pleasures (gaudia) experienced within the temporal confines of a single night (praeterita nocte). Line 10, which contains the term immortalis, projects the same confines into the future (altera talis, sc. nox). Hence, immortalis refers here, like ἀθάνατοϲ in Dioscorides, to a momentary experience of extraordinary pleasure.49 In the context of love and desire, comparisons of the lover’s joy with divine bliss are not the only form of conventional approximation to divinity. In New Comedy, erotic epigrams, as well as Catullus and Roman elegy, comparisons between the beloved and deities also appear to belong to the conventional formal repertoire.50 Here, lovers compare their beloved to particular deities famed for beauty,51 pretend to confuse the beloved with a deity,52 claim that the beloved is more beautiful even than a deity,53 or rank the beloved among the Graces.54 All of these comparisons are made on the grounds of beauty, which deities like Aphrodite (Venus) or Hera (Juno) possess to the highest conceivable degree. In these passages, it is understood that the beloved cannot retain this high degree of beauty indefinitely but loses it with age. For the beloved to be like a goddess means that she appears to be as beautiful as a goddess in the particular moment in which she is seen.

49

See also Fedeli (2005) 422 ad loc. In general, see Rohde (1876) 155 6, Kroll (1923) 229 on Catul. 68.70, Lieberg (1962) 9 13, Bömer (1969 2006) 3.224 on Ov. Met. 7.87 8, Syndikus (1990) 2.274 5 on Catul. 68.70. 51 Cf. AP 5.70 = Rufin. 26 Page (Aphrodite, Peitho, Horae, Calliope, Themis, Athena, Graces), AP 5.94.1 2 = Rufin. 35.1 2 Page (Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, Thetis), Plaut. Bac. 217 (Venus, Juno), Cur. 192, 196 (Venus), Poen. 277 8 (Venus), Rud. 420 (Venus), Catul. 68.70 (unspecified goddess), Verg. E. 3.68 (Venus), Ov. Am. 3.11.47 (unspecified deity), Ep. 13.159 (unspecified god), Met. 4.320 1 (Cupido), 7.86 8 (unspecified god). The conventionality of these comparisons is confirmed by Lucr. 4.1160 72, where comparisons with Pallas, Ceres, and Venus are listed among the follies of love. 52 Cf. AP 5.73 = Rufin. 27 Page (Aphrodite), AP 5.75 = Rufin. 29 Page (Aphrodite). 53 At AP 5.35.9 10 = Rufin. 11.9 10 Page, AP 5.36.9 10 = Rufin. 12.9 10 Page, AP 5.69 = Rufin. 25 Page, the beloved would win against Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite in front of Paris. At Plaut. Poen. 1219 20, Agorastocles claims that he, if he were Jupiter, would reject Juno and marry Adelphasium. At Catulus fr. 2.4 Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/Courtney, Roscius is said to be pulchrior deo. 54 Cf. AP 5.95, AP 5.140 = Mel. 30 Gow Page, AP 5.146 = Call. 15 Gow Page = Epigr. 51 Pfeiffer, AP 5.148 = Mel. 47 Gow Page, AP 5.149 = Mel. 32 Gow Page, AP 5.195 = Mel. 39 Gow Page, AP 5.196 = Mel. 40 Gow Page. 50

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

13

A last context in which notions of approaching the divine are attested is military and warfare. In his biography of Alexander, Plutarch narrates an episode in the campaign against Darius when the Macedonian army are worn out and short of water supplies (Alex. 42). They regain morale after Alexander rejects an offering of water and gives it to his soldiers instead: θεαϲάμενοι δὲ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ μεγαλοψυχίαν οἱ ἱππεῖϲ ἄγειν ἀνέκραγον θαρροῦντα καὶ τοὺϲ ἵππουϲ ἐμάϲτιζον οὔτε γὰρ κάμνειν οὔτε διψᾶν οὔθ’ ὅλωϲ θνητοὺϲ εἶναι νομίζειν αὑτούϲ, ἕωϲ ἂν ἔχωϲι βαϲιλέα τοιοῦτον. Witnessing his self control and noble spirit, the knights shouted that he should lead them confidently and whipped their horses. For they said they would consider themselves neither tired nor thirsty nor mortal at all, so long as they would have such a king. (Plu. Alex. 42.10)

The primary aim of this passage is to praise Alexander,55 but it also reveals what it means to be ‘not mortal’ in a military context.56 First and foremost, this state is characterized by the absence of tiredness and thirst (οὔτε γὰρ κάμνειν οὔτε διψᾶν), that is, by the absence of the needs and restrains of the human body. If the phrase οὔθ’ ὅλωϲ θνητοὺϲ εἶναι provides not only a summary of the two preceding items, but widens the scope (ὅλωϲ), other qualities may be associated with this state as well, like extraordinary strength and courage and a certain safety from harm. Striking, however, is the temporal condition attached to these attributes of the superhuman state (ἕωϲ ἂν ἔχωϲι βαϲιλέα τοιοῦτον). It reflects the soldiers’ knowledge that the spirit that they seem to experience is not perpetual, as it would be for actual immortals, but, as it emanates from Alexander’s inspirational aura, depends on his existence, presence, and leadership. Despite the etymological connection of the term θνητόϲ with mortality, the phrase οὔθ’ ὅλωϲ θνητούϲ conveys here not that the soldiers are exempt from death, but that they momentarily transcend their human limitations. The passages selected in the preceding paragraphs serve to illustrate how, in Hellenistic and Imperial Greek literature and in Roman

55

See J. Hamilton (1969) 113 ad loc. The expression is not found in other versions of the incident. Arr. An. 6.26.3 simply states that the soldiers ‘regained their strength’ (ἐπιρρωϲθῆναι), Polyaen. 4.3.25 that they ‘resisted thirst firmly’ (πρὸϲ τὸ δίψοϲ εὐρώϲτωϲ ἀντέχοντεϲ). No effect whatever is mentioned at Curt. 7.5.20, Fron. Str. 1.7.7. 56

14

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

literature, notions of a temporary approximation to aspects of divinity are employed in various contexts. In moral philosophy, ideal wise men can achieve a degree of pure tranquillity that is associated with the life of the gods. In Cicero’s colloquial expressions, single moments may cause such unexpected joy that it allows to be compared to divine happiness. In love and desire, erotic pleasures may elevate the lover to a sphere of divine bliss. Here, the beauty of the beloved may also be compared to the absolute beauty of the gods. In war, exceptional leadership may inspire soldiers to shed their physical limitations. It needs to be emphasized that all of these forms of approximation are either explicitly characterized as temporary experiences or understood to end with death. Though terminological equation of ‘divinity’ and ‘immortality’ occurs in some contexts, approximation to divinity does nowhere entail a human individual’s transcendence of death.

THE HUMAN AND THE DIVINE IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL GREEK LITERATURE Though the passages presented in the preceding section span over a period from the fourth century BC to the first century AD, they all exhibit a distinct connection with the specific period of the fourth and third centuries BC. Epicurus and Chrysippus were active during this period and later writers of philosophy, like Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch, model their theories or those of their characters on these early philosophers. Erotic epigrams were either written during this period (Dioscorides, Meleager) or adopt the imagery of these models (Rufinus).57 The plays of Plautus and Terence depend greatly on those of Menander.58 Hellenistic epigrams and New Comedy are, in turn, likely to have influenced relevant passages in Propertius.59 Plutarch’s narrative in the Life of Alexander is evidently situated in the fourth century. 57

On the controversial dating of Rufinus, see the discussions in Page (1978) 23 7, 44 8, Cameron (1982). 58 Don. Ter. An. 959 (= Men. test. 146 Kassel Austin) confirms that Charinus’ comparison of his own happiness with divine bliss at Ter. An. 959 61 is taken entirely from Menander’s Eunuchus; see also Webster (1953) 203, Fraenkel (1960) 208 10 = (2007) 148 50, Shipp (1960) 196 7 on Ter. An. 959. 59 See Fedeli (2005) 422, 462.

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

15

Prima facie, it might seem that the changing social and religious realities of this period gave rise to the ideas presented in these passages. After all, during the fourth and third centuries BC, individual humans received cultic honours during their lifetime, on a broad scale, and, in some cases, by default.60 Rulers of the Diadoch dynasties were worshipped as gods in centrally organized cults throughout their empires.61 They also received, along with successful generals, victorious athletes, and other eminent individuals, local cults from independent communities.62 The extent to which such forms of cult have precursors in earlier times is controversial.63 Whereas religious continuities from the fifth to the fourth centuries BC are now more widely accepted,64 it remains a prevalent view in the study of the history of Greek religion that the boundaries between mortal and immortal, and between human and divine, are defined differently before and after Alexander.65 Against this wider cultural background, literary topoi involving approximations of human individuals to divinity in Hellenistic and Imperial literature might reflect a more obscured perception of the boundaries between human and divine. In this case, the

60

In general, see Sourvinou Inwood (1995) 205 6, Herrmann (1995) 195 7, R. Parker (1996) 276. 61 See Habicht (1970) passim, Fears (1981), Fears (1988), Shipley (2000) 158 9, Mikalson (2006) 213 15. 62 See Habicht (1970) 160 71, 195 213, Hughes (1999), Mikalson (2006) 215. On cults for athletes, see Fontenrose (1968), Bohringer (1979), Currie (2005) 120 9. 63 On pre Hellenistic cults for living mortals in particular, see Habicht (1970) 3 16, Dover (1974) 81, Préaux (1978) 1.238 41, 257, Fredricksmeyer (1981), Sanders (1991) 257 87, Currie (2005) 89 119, 158 72. Traditionally, the oldest attested case is considered to be Lysander, the Spartan commander at the end of the fifth century; cf. Plu. Lys. 18.4 5: πρώτωι μὲν γάρ, ὡϲ ἱϲτορεῖ Δοῦριϲ (FGrH 76 F71), Ἑλλήνων ἐκείνωι βωμοὺϲ αἱ πόλειϲ ἀνέϲτηϲαν ὡϲ θεῶι καὶ θυϲίαϲ ἔθυϲαν, εἰϲ πρῶτον δὲ παιᾶνεϲ ἤιϲθηϲαν, ὧν ἑνὸϲ ἀρχὴν ἀπομνημονεύουϲι τοιάνδε (Carm.Pop. fr. 867 Page)· ‘τὸν Ἑλλάδοϲ ἀγαθέαϲ | ϲτραταγὸν ἀπ’ εὐρυχόρου πάρταϲ | ὑμνήϲομεν, ὢ ἰὲ Παιάν’, ‘According to Duris, he (sc. Lysander) was the first of Greeks to whom the cities dedicated altars and made sacrifices and sang paeans, the beginning of one of which they record as follows: “Of the commander of most holy Greece, coming from broad Sparta, we shall sing, O Ie Paian.” ’ Badian (1981) 33 8 considers the life time honours for Lysander a later invention. 64 See e.g. Graf (1995), R. Parker (1996) 280, Mikalson (1998) 315 23, Mikalson (2006) 212 13, Hughes (1999) 171 2, Shipley (2000) 153 63, Currie (2005) esp. 9 10, 137 8, 158 9, 406 7, Wikander (2005). 65 See e.g. Rohde (1898) 2.356 62, Farnell (1920) 152 4, Farnell (1921) 361 9, Nilsson (1941/50) 2.129 37 and, more recently, Badian (1981) 33, Walbank (1981) 209 10, Bosworth (1988) 278, Bosworth (1994) 871, Sourvinou Inwood (1995) 199 216, Ekroth (2002) 17.

16

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

question of whether these approximations have any models in archaic and classical Greek literature arises. To find an answer to this question at the outset, it is necessary to review some of the prevalent assumptions about the perceptions of men and god in the archaic and classical periods and their reflections in literature. To a varying degree, many current studies on these subjects exhibit the influence of the scholarship of the first half of the twentieth century, as exemplified by the fundamental studies of Rudolf Pfeiffer, Martin Persson Nilsson, Bruno Snell, or Hermann Fränkel. For these studies, the eighth to sixth centuries BC are a period of transition, from the Dark Ages to classical Athens, which is characterized chiefly by geographical expansion, social re-evaluation, and political revolution. A result of these processes is supposed to be a profound sense of human instability and insecurity, which is counterbalanced and contrasted by an increasingly heightened sense of the absolute power of divinity.66 Fränkel, for instance, who presents a tendency to conceive the world in absolute (‘polar’) dichotomies as characteristic of archaic thinking, detects one such dichotomy in the relationship between man and god. Accordingly, humans are perceived as having no knowledge, power, or means to influence their fate at all, whereas gods are omniscient, omnipotent, and generally unrestricted in their actions.67 In his view, archaic religion presents a gulf between mortal and immortal that is conceptually extreme and in practice insurmountable.68 Any notion where humans may approximate to divinity, comparable to the notions encountered in later literature, would seem difficult to accommodate in such a rigid and extreme opposition of man and god. In its general form, the picture of the archaic period and literature painted by Fränkel and his contemporaries is accurate and remains highly instructive. However, in the light of the results of more recent scholarship, it is now in need of modification. Among the most serious shortcomings of the view of a universally stark contrast

66 See Snell (1928) 27, Snell (1946) 59, 71 5, Pfeiffer (1929) = (1968) 42 54 on human ἀμηχανία. See also Fränkel (1955) 26 31, Dickie (1976) on human nature as ἐφήμεροϲ. 67 See Fränkel (1951) esp. 59, 603. 68 See Fränkel (1951) 128 9 (on Hesiod), 544 5 (on Pindar). See also Nilsson (1925) 224 8, 288, Nilsson (1948) 50 1, 55.

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

17

between man and god is its insensitivity to differences of genre, particularly to the possibility that different genres may promote different ideologies.69 The negative view of the world supposedly characteristic of archaic literature and thinking as a whole is found, in a pronounced and distinctive manner, only in some genres of poetry. Apart from a famous passage in the Odyssey (18.129–37),70 such views are primarily expressed in the traditions of early iambus and elegy, where human fragility and total dependence on the arbitrary will of the gods is frequently expressed.71 Outside iambus and elegy, in lyric poetry in a stricter sense, similar views are found mainly in fragments of Simonides.72 For Simonides, however, the generic provenance of the relevant fragments is particularly important. Some of these fragments are explicitly quoted as originating from the book of dirges (threnoi) in the Alexandrian edition of Simonides,73 while others are highly likely to originate from this book as well.74 The predominance of the threnos as a certain or possible original genre of these fragments seems significant. In a threnodic context, that is, in a context of lamenting the dead and consoling the bereaved, emphasis on the toils of life and the inescapability of death would appear to be, first and foremost, dictated by the immediate demands of the occasion. Here, a negative view of the world does not necessarily

69

See similarly M. Griffith (2009) 80 1. On the influence of this passage, see now Steiner (2010a) 175 ad loc. 71 Cf. e.g. Archil. frr. 128, 130, 131 West, Semon. fr. 1 West, Mimn. fr. 2 West. 72 Cf. e.g. Simon. frr. 520 Page = 21.5 10 Poltera, 521 Page = 244 Poltera, 522 Page = 258 Poltera, 523 Page = 245 Poltera, 524 Page = 22.8 Poltera. 73 Cf. Stob. 4.41.9 (= Simon. fr. 521 Page, 244 Poltera), 4.34.14 (= Simon. fr. 523 Page, 245 Poltera). On the book of threnoi in the Alexandrian edition of Simonides, cf. also Σ Theoc. 16.36/37 (= Simon. fr. 529 Page, 247 Poltera), Harp. τ 3 (= Simon. fr. 530 Page, 248 Poltera), Sud. σ 439, Σ Ar. V. 1411b, Σ Theoc. 16.44. For Simonides’ fame for his threnoi in antiquity, cf. Aristid. Or. 31.2 (= Simon. fr. 528 Page, 246 Poltera), Catul. 38.7 8, Hor. Carm. 2.1.37 40. 74 Simon. fr. 522 Page = 258 Poltera is placed among the threnoi by Page, while Poltera (2008) 449 is cautious. A more difficult case is fr. 520 Page = 21 Poltera, which Plu. Cons.Apoll. 11 107b quotes merely as being by Simonides. Whereas most editors (e.g. Page) place it among the threnoi, Poltera now considers it an epinician, because an overlapping piece of papyrus (POxy. XXXII 2623 fr. 14) seems to originate from a roll that elsewhere contains fragments of epinicians; see also Rutherford (1990) 202, Poltera (2008) 329. However, as D’Alessio (1997) 23 4 demonstrates for Pindar, the argument that all fragments of a given roll of papyrus originate from the same book of the Alexandrian edition is not always compelling. Hence, it is not conclusive that the fragment is not from a threnos. 70

18

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

reflect a wider, cultural melancholy, but is part of the generic repertoire.75 Other occasions pose different demands, and the kinds of song to which these occasions give rise may respond to these demands with substantially different views of the world. Celebrations involving exuberant joy and festivity may depict a world in which humans may even approximate to the happiness of the gods. Stephen Halliwell, for example, has recently argued that poetry performed at the symposium, or imagined to be performed at it, tends to present the symposium as an ideal space of harmony, joy, and festivity, where worries are not allowed to enter.76 As the passages quoted at the beginning of this chapter demonstrate, worrying is a symptom of ignorance and weakness, characteristic of the human condition. A life completely free of worry (ἀκηδήϲ/securus) is a prerogative of the gods. In this way, the symposium can be conceived as an occasion where the mortality of the participants is temporarily suspended, where mortals can indulge in what Halliwell describes as a ‘simulation of immortality.’77 If sympotic poetry may present the human symposiasts as enjoying a taste of divine ease, the gulf between mortal and immortal is here evidently treated as less vast than it is in iambus, elegy, and threnos. The aim of this book is to pursue other occasions where archaic and classical poetry depicts forms of a temporary suspension of human limitations. Ideal candidates for such occasions are the large community celebrations centred on individual humans, like the wedding ceremony or the victory celebration, which engage the population of their polis as a whole and lift them out of their everyday tedium. The first two chapters of this book aim to demonstrate how the songs sung at these occasions may present the joy of their participants as a state of quasi-divine joy, similar to the joy experienced during the symposium. Another candidate are perceptions, not

75 Caution is required, however, as there is a risk of circularity. Some fragments are assigned to the threnoi precisely for their negative perspective; see Rutherford (1990) 202. For similar problems in Pindar, see also Currie (2005) 34 5. 76 See Halliwell (2008) 104 7. 77 Halliwell (2008) 104 ‘[T]he thematic place of laughter in human symposia is connected at least subliminally to a simulation of immortality: a simulation that, for the duration of the symposium, tacitly renders the participants god like, suspended in the hoped for perfection of the moment and able to float temporarily free of the downward drag of pessimism.’

Introduction: Approaching Divinity

19

of extraordinary joy, but of extraordinary power, for which tragedy and comedy, examined in the third chapter of this book, offer a number of highly relevant passages. The symposium, as analysed by Halliwell, is instructive also in another respect. With its well-circumscribed libations, prayers, and hymns, the symposium is embedded in a context of ritual. In fact, ritual provides an important concept for understanding cases of approximation to divinity. Ritual is here considered, in Walter Burkert’s influential definition, as a repeatable set of actions with a recognizable communicative effect.78 As such, ritual tends to engender standardized responses to particular situations. It generates, in its participants, a distinct vision of the central figures at whom it is directed, either at gods and heroes in cultic rituals or at contemporary humans in other forms of ritual. These visions may be communicated in the songs composed to be performed during the ritual, but they may also be expressed in the actions constituting the rituals themselves or reflected in the iconography and literature depicting the ritual. A particular aim of this book is to demonstrate that momentary approximations of certain human individuals in particular situations may be owed to such ritual visions.

78 See e.g. Burkert (1972) 31 9, Burkert (1977) 99 100, Burkert (1979) 35 58, Burkert (2006) 23.

2 Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs INTRODUCTION The material presented in this book’s Introduction suggests that love and sex provide general experiences that can be presented as approximating to divine pleasure. In those cases where marriage is understood to be the ultimate goal of love, weddings can be presented as particular moments of extraordinary, godlike, happiness. This is evidently the case in the passages from New Comedy presented above, where the protagonist’s realization that marriage to his beloved is possible defines the conventional climax of the plot. It is also suggested in Propertius 2.15, where marital imagery features prominently.¹ The opening couplet sets out the theme: io² me felicem! io nox mihi candida! io tu lectule deliciis facte beate meis! Io happy me! Io night splendid for me! Io you dear bed, blessed by my pleasure! (Prop. 2.15.1 2)

¹ On marital imagery in Prop. 2.15, see R. Reitzenstein (1912) 5 9, E. Reitzenstein (1936) 80 1. On marital imagery in Propertius in general, cf. 2.6.41 2 nos uxor numquam, numquam deducet amica: | semper amica mihi, semper et uxor eris, ‘Never will a wife, never will a girlfriend separate us: you will always be my girlfriend and my wife’; see also Lyne (1980) 79, P. Miller (2013) 175. On the theme in Catullus’ elegiacs, see Lyne (1980) 33 8, Syndikus (1984 90) 2.279, P. Miller (2013) 170. For Tibullus, see P. Miller (2013) 171 2. ² Housman (1888) 5 6 = (1972) 1.32 suggests reading monosyllabic io for the transmitted o in all three places to avoid hiatus after felicem. See also Heyworth (2007) 173 4. The parallel at Catul. 61.117 18 seems to support this reading. Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity. Felix J. Meister, Oxford University Press (2020). © Felix J. Meister. DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001

22

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

These lines contain a clear reference to the opening of a wedding song by Ticida,³ which has survived as a fragment: felix lectule talibus sole amoribus O dear bed, only ⟨ . . . ⟩⁴ to such love (Tic. fr. 1 Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/Courtney = 102 Hollis)

The theme of marriage is continued when, later in the poem, the speaker compares his relationship to his mistress to the life-long coniugium of doves (27–8), and echoes the sentiment of traditional Roman wedding vows, ubi tu Gaius, et ego Gaia, ‘Where you are Gaius, I, Gaia, will be as well’, in the phrase huius ero uiuus, mortuus huius ero, ‘Hers I will be in life, in death I will be hers’ (36).⁵ In the last section of the poem, these thoughts are concluded with a reference to ‘immortality’:

40

quod mihi si ⟨in⟩te⟨r⟩dum⁶ tales concedere noctes illa uelit, uitae longus et annus erit. si dabit haec multas, fiam immortalis in illis: nocte una quiuis uel deus esse potest.

For if she wanted to grant me such nights from time to time, even a year of my life will be long. If she will give many, I shall be immortal in them. In a single night, anyone can be even a god. (Prop. 2.15.37 40)

The marital imagery of the preceding sections reverberates in these lines. The emphasis on time (37 interdum, 38 uitae longus et annus, 39 si dabit haec multas) indicates that the speaker envisages a longterm relationship with Cynthia comparable, if not identical, to actual marriage. This relationship is presented as a series of momentary pleasures (39 in illis), each of which is so extraordinary that it seems to approximate to divine bliss, which is referred to in the term immortalis. In the text as it is transmitted,⁷ this idea is reinforced in line 40, in the clash between nocte una and deus esse. ³ See R. Reitzenstein (1912) 5, Hollis (2007) 162. ⁴ Various nouns are supplied to agree with sole, e.g. conscie (Housman (1907) 158 = (1972) 2.695), testis (Pighi (1974) 436), arbiter (Scivoletto (1974) 210). ⁵ On Roman wedding vows, see the evidence in Hersch (2010) 187 90. Similar poetic adaptations are found at Prop. 2.20.17 and Hor. Epod. 15.1 10. ⁶ interdum is the emendation of Housman (1888) 6 = (1972) 1.32 for the trans mitted tecum. ⁷ Lines 37 40 are considered spurious by Jachmann (1935) 203 5; see, how ever, E. Reitzenstein (1936) 82 4. Lines 39 40 are considered spurious by Günther (1997) 141 2 and are not printed in Heyworth (see also Heyworth (2007) 176).

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

23

A similar notion is found in an epigram attributed to Rufinus, which, mocking the traditional language of mystic initiation, ranks the various ways of enjoying the company of a certain Melite. Here, marriage is the ultimate stage: ὄμματ’ ἔχειϲ Ἥρηϲ, Μελίτη, τὰϲ χεῖραϲ Ἀθήνηϲ, τοὺϲ μαζοὺϲ Παφίηϲ, τὰ ϲφυρὰ τῆϲ Θέτιδοϲ. εὐδαίμων ὁ βλέπων ϲε, τριϲόλβιοϲ ὅϲτιϲ ἀκούει, ἡμίθεοϲ δ’ ὁ φιλῶν, ἀθάνατοϲ δ’ ὁ γαμῶν. You have the eyes of Hera, Melite, the hands of Athena, the breasts of Paphian Aphrodite, the ankles of Thetis. Fortunate is he who sees you, thrice blessed he who hears you, semi divine he who kisses you, and immortal he who marries you. (AP 5.94 = Rufin. 35 Page)

As with Propertius’ immortalis, ἀθάνατοϲ (4) here encapsulates the idea that marriage brings an extraordinary degree of bliss comparable only to that of the gods.⁸ These two explicit references to divinity and immortality in the context of marriage offer an informative point of departure for this chapter, which aims to show that, in archaic and classical weddings, similar visions are found where the bridal couple approximate, at the moment of their wedding, to divinity in terms of happiness and beauty. The focus of this chapter is on the literary manifestations of this vision in wedding songs (epithalamia).⁹ The second part of this chapter includes discussions of the wedding ceremony and iconography to examine whether this vision might be owed to a wider ritual vision.

Indeed, the anti climax from 39 to 40, from many nights to a single night, is hard to reconcile. Even more problematic is the apparent distinction between immor talis and deus, and attempts to explain it (e.g. Richardson (1977) 257 ad loc.) are unsatisfactory. ⁸ Page (1978) 102 ad loc. suggests that γαμῶν might not refer to marriage but merely to sexual intercourse (LSJ s.v. II). However, the present epigram apart, this sense appears to be attested only once in the AP (12.9.2 (Strat.)), while all other twenty three occurrences (see Citti, Degani, Giagrande, and Scarpa (1985 90) s.v.), including another one potentially by Rufinus (or Palladas: AP 5.71.1), clearly refer to marriage. It is therefore not clear why, in AP 5.94, marriage may not be used so as to imply regular, socially sanctioned intercourse. ⁹ The terms ‘epithalamium’ and ‘epithalamia’ are here used in their modern broad sense to refer indiscriminately to any song sung during a wedding (see OED s.v. ‘epithalamium’), not in its original specific sense of a song sung in front of the bridal chamber. On the development of the term, see Muth (1954) 38 45.

24

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs TRADITIONS OF WEDDING SONGS

Evidence suggests that various choral songs accompanied many of the stages of weddings in Greek communities for a decisive period of time.¹⁰ A reference to such songs in the Iliadic description of Achilles’ shield and its echo in the Pseudo-Hesiodic Shield provide the terminus post quem for this period.¹¹ A remark by Philodemus in the first century BC, that ‘epithalamia have now virtually everywhere stopped’, provides the terminus ante quem.¹² From this evidence, the impression arises of a culture of songs, connected with the wedding as their context of performance, that prevailed in most Greek communities over a period of almost seven centuries. The precise nature of these songs is beyond recovery, since they are almost entirely lost. This absence itself, however, suggests that these songs were, for the most part, anonymous oral compositions relying on conventional formulas and ideas, which could be adapted without great effort to any given wedding. Closely connected, though probably not quite identical, to this tradition are the fragments of epithalamia by Sappho, which were almost certainly composed to be performed at contemporary weddings,¹³ and the epithalamia in fifth-century drama, which appear to re-enact contemporary Athenian wedding customs on-stage.¹⁴ Alcman is praised

¹⁰ On the stages of the wedding ceremony and their songs, see Mangelsdorff (1913) 1 13, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 33 41, Oakley and Sinos (1993) 23 38, Rehm (1994) 14 18, Swift (2010) 242. Post Alexandrian scholarship subcategorizes wedding songs according to these stages, cf. Σ Theoc. 18 arg. (κατακοιμητικά, ὄρθρια, διεγερτικά, etc.). Archaic and classical usage, however, employs terms like ὑμέναιοϲ and γαμήλιοϲ indiscriminately for any song performed during the wedding ceremony; see Muth (1954) 23 43, Swift (2010) 242 3. ¹¹ Cf. Il. 18.490 508, [Hes.] Sc. 273 80. ¹² Phld. Mus. 4 PHerc. 1497 col. 119.37 40 νῦν δ’ [ἤ]δη ϲχεδὸν καὶ παντάπ[α]ϲι καταλελυμένων τῶ[ν] ἐπιθαλαμίων. For Augustine, epithalamia are a phenomenon of scholastici, cf. in Psalm. 44.3 = CCSL 38 p. 495.9 12 solent dici ab scholasticis carmina quaedam uxores ducentibus et nubentibus, quae uocantur epithalamia; quidquid ibi cantatur, ad honorem cantatur sponsi et sponsae, ‘Certain songs tend to be sung by the erudite for bridegrooms and brides, which are called epithalamia; what is sung in these is sung in honour of bridegroom and bride.’ ¹³ On the performance of Sapphic epithalamia, see Page (1955) 120, Bowra (1961), 214, Lardinois (1996). ¹⁴ On the re enactment of ritual in drama in general, see below, pp. 133 4. Mangelsdorff (1913) 25 argues for a strict independence of the Lesbian and Athenian traditions of wedding songs, but that seems excessively schematic. Kugelmeier (1996) 11 27, 37 41 and Swift (2010) 40 discuss the knowledge of Sappho in fifth century Athens.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

25

by Leonidas of Tarentum as an expert of epithalamia, but none of his extant fragments can safely be attributed to this genre.¹⁵ Exactly how these compositions, which are now linked with the names of individual poets, relate to the wider anonymous tradition of wedding songs is difficult to determine. If, as seems likely, individual families commissioned and paid Sappho for wedding songs, the appeal in doing so, rather than relying purely on conventional material, may have revolved around the higher artistic complexity of the resulting song, the prestige emanating from the name of the famous poetess, and the possibility of reconsumption of the poem.¹⁶ On the other hand, it is also conceivable that Sappho or the dramatists adapted substantial amounts of traditional material or that their songs subsequently entered this tradition anonymously.¹⁷ Herodotus’ account of the work of a certain Olen from Lycia on traditional cultic songs from Delos offers an instructive paradigm for the flexibility of these processes.¹⁸ What has survived of Sapphic and dramatic epithalamia certainly appears to be highly conventional.¹⁹ Next to these scant remains of lyric songs, there is a much larger body of poems of a more literary nature, which are usually composed in hexameters or elegiac distichs. Some of these celebrate mythical weddings, like the song for Peleus and Thetis in the Hesiodic Catalogue (fr. 211), for Menelaus and Helen in Theocritus 18, or for Peleus and Thetis by Agamestor of Pharsalus (fr. 14 Lloyd-Jones–Parsons). ¹⁵ Cf. AP 7.19.1 2 = Leon. 57.1 2 Gow Page τὸν χαρίεντ’ Ἀλκμᾶνα, τὸν ὑμνητῆρ’ ὑμεναίων | κύκνον, τὸν Μουϲέων ͜ ἄξια μελψάμενον, ‘Graceful Alcman, the swan singer of wedding songs, who celebrated things worthy of the Muses.’ Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 47 63 interprets various fragments as epithalamia, though, in some cases, the evidence is ambiguous. See also my remarks regarding Sapph. fr. 117 in F. Meister (2017b) 662 3. ¹⁶ Palmisciano (2003) esp. 153 61 questions, with strong arguments, most of the categories usually employed to distinguish ‘popular’ and ‘literary’ poetry. In the case of choral songs, he considers prestige and economical value the main characteristic of commissions from famous poets; see esp. Palmisciano (2003) 164. Surprisingly, however, he treats Sapphic epithalamia as purely monodic. See also Yatromanolakis (2009). ¹⁷ On such processes in general, see Palmisciano (2003) 153, Yatromanolakis (2009) 275. ¹⁸ Hdt. 4.35.3 καὶ γὰρ ἀγείρειν ϲφι τὰϲ γυναῖκαϲ ἐπονομαζούϲαϲ τὰ οὐνόματα ἐν τῶι ὕμνωι τόν ϲφι Ὠλὴν ἀνὴρ Λύκιοϲ ἐποίηϲε . . . οὗτοϲ δὲ ὁ Ὠλὴν καὶ τοὺϲ ἄλλουϲ τοὺϲ παλαιοὺϲ ὕμνουϲ ἐποίηϲε ἐκ Λυκίηϲ ἐλθὼν τοὺϲ ἀειδομένουϲ ἐν Δήλωι, ‘For the women collected money for them, calling them by their names in the song that Olen, a man from Lycia made for them. . . . That Olen also made the other old hymns, after he had come from Lycia, that are sung in Delus.’ On this passage, see also Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.146 7. ¹⁹ See Page (1955) 119 20, Treu (1968) 169.

26

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Others appear to celebrate contemporary weddings, some of which, like Callimachus’ poem for the wedding of Arsinoe II (fr. 392 Pfeiffer) or Catullus 61, may indeed have been performed in some way at the wedding ceremony in question.²⁰ Among these should also be mentioned a fourth-century papyrus from Hermopolis (Eshmunȇn) in Egypt that contains a simple wedding song in six hexameters:²¹

5

νυμφίε, ϲοὶ Χάριτεϲ γλυκεραὶ καὶ κῦδοϲ ὀπηδη[ε]ῖ, Ἁρμονίη χαρίεϲϲα γάμοιϲ γέραϲ ἐγγυάλιξε. νύμφα φίλη, μέγα χαῖρε διαμπερέϲ ἄξιον εὗρεϲ νυμφίον, ἄξιον εὗρεϲ, ὁμοφροϲύνην δ’ ὀπάϲ̣ε̣[ιε]ν̣ ἤδη που θεὸϲ ὔμμι καὶ αὐτίκα τέκνα γενέ[ϲ]θ̣α̣ι̣ καὶ πα[ί]δων παῖδαϲ καὶ ἐϲ βαθὺ γῆραϲ ἱκέϲ̣θ[αι

Bridegroom, the sweet Graces and fame surround you, gracious Harmony has bestowed honour on your wedding. Dear bride, may you be happy forever. You have found a worthy husband, worthy indeed, and may the deity grant you concord and that you will soon have children and children’s children and reach a ripe old age. (PRyl. 17)

Even if an actual performance of poems like Catullus 61 could be established beyond doubt, such performances would have to be considered as highly exceptional events. At the time of their composition, traditional wedding songs were no longer customary. However, all these texts aim to establish a connection with the anonymous tradition of wedding songs by two different strategies. First, they all pretend, often in the form of a proem, to have been performed by a chorus at the wedding in question.²² Second, they adhere closely to ²⁰ See, however, Forsyth (1986) 295, who doubts any real life performance of Catul. 61. For a similar argument regarding Catul. 62, see Thomsen (2002). ²¹ Available editions are by Hunt (1911) no. 17, Page (1950) no. 139, Heitsch (1963/4) 1 no. 25, Pack (1965) no. 1456. ²² Cf. Hes. fr. 211.6 καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔποϲ εἶπαν ἅπαντεϲ, ‘And all sang this song’, Theoc. 18.7 8 ἄειδον δ’ ἅμα πᾶϲαι ἐϲ ἓν μέλοϲ ἐγκροτέοιϲαι | ποϲϲὶ περιπλέκτοιϲ, ὑπὸ δ’ ἴαχε δῶμ’ ὑμεναίωι, ‘And they all sang together, beating time with their crossing feet to one tune, and the house resounded from the wedding song’, Catul. 64.321 talia diuino fuderunt carmine fata, ‘Such prophecies they poured forth in their divine song’, Stat. Silv. 1.2.16 17 te concinit iste | (pande fores!) te, Stella, chorus, ‘Of you, Stella, (open the gates!) sings this chorus.’ See also Horstmann (2004) 325 on adaptations of this topos at Dracont. Rom. 7.25 7 and Auson. Carm. 18.68 9. Exceptions are the solo performance at Philox. fr. 828 Page καὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον ἄιϲαϲ ὑμέναιον . . . πάνταϲ ἐψυχαγώγηϲεν, ‘And after the dinner he beguiled all by singing a wedding song’, and the recital at Luc. Symp. 40 1 p. 159.14 16 Macleod ἀλλ̓ ὁ γραμματικὸϲ Ἱϲτιαῖοϲ ὁ

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

27

the linguistic and thematic conventions that constitute the repertoire of traditional wedding songs. The fact that these conventions are already observed in the Hesiodic Catalogue suggests that they are not, as might have happened in other genres, the product of supposed Hellenistic formalism, but a fundamental characteristic of the genre.²³ It emerges from this brief survey of the various strands of epithalamia that conventional expressions and themes are at the heart of the genre.²⁴ This suggests that, in order to study perceptions of the bridal couple expressed in this medium, an approach centred on such conventions would be most appropriate. The strict adherence to these conventions throughout wedding poetry also allows to evaluate, with due caution, Hellenistic and Imperial material, even though the focus of this book is on archaic and classical poetry. There is a risk of overextending this line of argument, since continuities with ancient wedding songs are sometimes pursued as far as Roman late-antique epithalamia, Byzantine wedding songs, and even the songs of modernday Greece.²⁵ Accounting for all of these traditions comprehensively would go beyond the scope of this chapter, though individual aspects may at times be referred to. In examining this material, central questions are how bride and bridegroom are conventionally praised in epithalamia and whether, within this conventional praise, categories of mortal and immortal play a significant role.

EXPLICIT COMPARISONS WITH HEROIC AND DIVINE BEAUTY Among the conventional features of extant epithalamia, the most easily discernible strategy of blurring the demarcation between humanity

βέλτιϲτοϲ, ‘παύϲαϲθε’, ἔφη· ‘ἐγὼ γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐπιθαλάμιον ἀναγνώϲομαι.’ καὶ ἀρξάμενοϲ ἀνεγίνωϲκεν, ‘But the dear grammarian Histiaeus said, “Stop, for I will read you a wedding song,” and he began to read.’ ²³ In general, see also Pöhlmann (1990) 11. ²⁴ Lyghounis (1991) offers a general analysis of the diachronic continuities in formal elements of wedding poetry. ²⁵ On Roman late antique songs, see Horstmann (2004) passim. On Byzantine wedding songs, see Mangelsdorff (1913) 47 51. On modern Greek wedding songs, see Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 110 32.

28

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

and divinity is encountered in comparisons.²⁶ The importance of comparisons for epithalamia is indicated by the programmatic opening of a Sapphic wedding song: τίωι ϲ’, ὦ φίλε γάμβρε, κάλωϲ εἰκάϲδω; To what may I well compare you, dear bridegroom? (Sapph. fr. 115.1)

Significantly, one conventional source domain for these comparisons is the sphere of the heroes and gods. Himerius, for example, reports that Sappho regularly likened the bridegroom to Achilles,²⁷ and fr. 111 preserves, despite corruption, an explicit comparison of the bridegroom with Ares.²⁸ Similar comparisons with heroes and gods are found throughout Sappho’s poetry, even though it is often debatable to what genre a given fragment belongs. In fr. 23, there is a comparison with Helen,²⁹ in fr. 96 with demigods in general.³⁰ Attributions as ‘godlike’ are found in frr. 31,³¹ 68a,³² and perhaps 96.³³ Sappho calls even the heroic couple of a mythical wedding ‘godlike’.³⁴

²⁶ On comparisons in general, see Rohde (1876) 152 6, Snell (1931) 72, Fränkel (1951) 195, Wills (1967) 178, Fedeli (1972) 34 5, Hague (1983) 132 4, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 94 7, Feeney (2013) 71 5 and passim. ²⁷ Him. Or. 9.16 p. 82.189 91 Colonna [sc. απφοῦϲ ἧν] τὸν νυμφίον τε Ἀχιλλεῖ παρομοιῶϲαι καὶ εἰϲ ταὐτὸν ἀγαγεῖν τῶι ἥρωι τὸν νεανίϲκον ταῖϲ πράξεϲι, ‘(It was a habit of Sappho’s) to liken the bridegroom to Achilles and to put the young man on a par with the hero for his achievements.’ ²⁸ Sapph. fr. 111.5 γάμβροϲ {(εἰϲ)έρχεται ἶϲοϲ Ἄρευι{, ‘The bridegroom is coming like Ares’. ²⁹ Sapph. fr. 23.4 5] Ἐρμιόνα τεαυ[τα | ]ξάνθαι δ’ Ἐλέναι ϲ’ ἐΐϲ[κ]ην, ‘Hermione herself [ . . . ] to compare to blond Helen’. ³⁰ Sapph. fr. 96.21 2 ε]ὔ̣μαρ[εϲ μ]ὲ̣ν οὐ α. μ.ι θέαιϲι μόρ |φαν ἐπή[ρατ]ον ἐξίϲω |ϲθ̣αι, perhaps ‘It is not easy to rival goddesses in loveliness of figure.’ Supplementation of this line is uncertain. Lobel Page suggest ἄμ̣μι, although, as they point out, the space after α seems too small to accommodate μ. Diehl² proposes α̣ἰ̣μιθέαιϲι (on the form, cf. Alc. fr. 42.13). ³¹ Sapph. fr. 31.1 ἴϲοϲ θέοιϲιν, ‘like a god’. The generic provenance of fr. 31 remains controversial. The argument that the fragment originates from an epithalamium, first advanced by Welcker (1856) 248 = (1861) 89 and developed by Wilamowitz (1913) 56 8, Snell (1931), and Merkelbach (1957) 6 12, is criticized int. al. by Perotta (1935) 46 8, Setti (1939), Page (1955) 30 3, Jachmann (1964), and Privitera (1974) 93 4. Livrea (2008) 3 7 has recently tried to support it through a (somewhat inconclusive) parallel in Nonnus. ³² Sapph. fr. 68a.3 ἴϲαν θέοιϲιν, ‘like the goddesses’. ³³ Sapph. fr. 96.4 5 {θεαϲικελαν ἀριγνωτα{. ³⁴ Sapph. fr. 44.21 ἴ]κελοι θέοι[ϲ, ‘like gods’, 34 ὔμνην δ’ Ἔκτορα κ’ Ἀνδρομάχαν θεο⟨ε⟩ικέλο[ιϲ, ‘They sang in praise of godlike Hector and Andromache’.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

29

These comparisons are not restricted to Sappho. In Catullus 61, Aurunculeia is likened to Venus and Manlius to Paris (16–20).³⁵ In Seneca’s Medea, Jason’s beauty is said to be greater than that of Bacchus, Apollo, and Castor and Pollux (82–9). In Statius’ epithalamium (Silv. 1.2), in a series of mythical comparisons, Stella’s successful wooing of Violentilla is likened to the labours of Heracles, Odysseus, Jason, and Pelops, and his union with his bride is said to exceed that of Paris and Helen and that of Eos and Tithonus (38–45). Towards the end of that poem, the bride’s beauty is said to outshine that of Rhea Silvia, Lavinia, and Claudia (242–6). In Lucian’s Symposium, Histaeus has the bride surpass Aphrodite and Helen (41 p. 159.21 Macleod), and the bridegroom Achilles and Nireus (41 p. 159.23 Macleod). The conventionality of such comparisons is further suggested by late-antique epithalamia. In Claudian’s Fescennina (Carm. 11), the bridegroom Honorius exceeds Castor, Achilles, Apollo, and Bacchus (6–9) as well as Adonis and Virbius (16–17), and could have achieved what was refused to heroes such as Heracles (31–9). In Ausonius’ Cento nuptialis (Carm. 18), verses of the Aeneid are rearranged in such a way that, first, the bride is compared to Helen, gods in general, and Venus (42–4) and, second, the bridegroom to an unspecified god (51). By a similar technique, in Luxorius’ epithalamic cento for Fridus (Anth.Lat. 18), the bride is compared to the Nereids Doto and Galatea (35–42). Another late reflection of this convention is perhaps found in Menander, who advises that narratives of heroic or divine weddings should be related to the present bridal couple.³⁶ A subset of these comparisons with immortal beings are those with celestial bodies.³⁷ In the messenger speech that introduces the wedding song in Aristophanes’ Aves, the gleam of the moon and stars is exceeded by Peisetaerus and Basileia (1709–14). In Theocritus 18, Helen’s radiance is compared with that of dawn and spring (26–8). In Seneca’s Medea, stars and the sun serve as a measure for Medea’s

³⁵ See also Svennung (1945) 61 3. ³⁶ Cf. Men.Rh. p. 400.20 1 Russell Wilson ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν ὅμοια, ‘And now I see similar things here among us’; p. 400.27 8 Russell Wilson τῆϲ δὲ {τῆϲ} ικυωνίαϲ οὐ χείρων ἡ παρ’ ἡμῖν, ὥϲτε καὶ ταὐτὰ δεύτερα γίνεϲθαι, ‘The woman among us is not inferior to the Lady of Sicyon (i.e. Aphrodite), so that the same thing happens again.’ ³⁷ However, one should hesitate to declare, with Griffiths (1972) and Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 58 60, Alcm. fr. 1 Davies = 3 Calame a wedding song because Agido is compared to the sun in 41 3.

30

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

beauty (95–101). In Claudian, the bridegroom is compared to an unspecified star (Carm. 11.1), and in Ausonius, to the morning star (Carm. 18.52–4). If Sappho’s fr. 96 is indeed composed to give Arignota away in marriage,³⁸ this fragment would present another comparison between the bride and the moon in the context of a wedding:

10

νῦν δὲ Λύδαιϲιν ἐμπρέπεται γυναί κεϲϲιν ὤϲ ποτ’ ἀελίω δύντοϲ ἀ βροδοδάκτυλοϲ ⟨ϲελάννα⟩ ⟨ ⟩ πάντα περ⟨ρ⟩έχοιϲ’ ἄϲτρα φάοϲ δ’ ἐπί ϲχει θάλαϲϲαν ἐπ’ ἀλμύραν ἴϲωϲ καὶ πολυανθέμοιϲ ἀρούραιϲ

Now she stands out among Lydian women like the rose fingered moon after sunset, surpassing all the stars. And its light spreads over the salty sea and the flowery fields alike. (Sapph. fr. 96.6 11)

The individual contexts of these comparisons, both with particular deities and heroes and with celestial bodies, leave no doubt that they are made in praise of the physical appearance of bride and bridegroom. The bride is portrayed as graceful and radiant like the most beautiful Homeric heroines or the goddess of seduction herself.³⁹ The bridegroom is portrayed as tall and strong like the most valiant Homeric heroes or the god of war himself.⁴⁰ Although many comparisons in epithalamia, particularly in Sappho, recall formulaic comparisons in the Homeric epics,⁴¹ this does not necessarily lessen their effect when applied to contemporary mortals. Epic narrators themselves readily concede that the sphere inhabited by epic heroes is closer to that of the gods than to historical times.⁴² What is said of these heroes by default is likely to constitute an extraordinary honour for a living human person that lifts him or her out of ordinary humanity. ³⁸ See Hutchinson (2001) 145, Swift (2006) 131. ³⁹ Helen’s supreme beauty is mentioned by Sappho herself at fr. 16.6 7 ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περϲκέ̣θ̣ο̣ι̣ϲα | κ̣άλ̣λο̣ϲ̣ [ἀνθ]ρ̣ώπων Ἐλένα, ‘For she, Helen, who surpassed mankind in beauty’; cf. also Il. 3.154 8. See also Lyghounis (1991) 168 70. ⁴⁰ See Merkelbach (1957) 10, Roloff (1970) 110, Lyghounis (1991) 170 1. The praise of male beauty follows the Homeric ideal καλόϲ τε μέγαϲ τε (e.g. Il. 21.108, Od. 1.301, 6.276), on which see Pfister (1924) 314 15 and Verdenius (1949) 295. In addition to the material collected there, cf. also Archil. fr. 114.1 West. ⁴¹ See Roloff (1970) 103 4. ⁴² Cf. e.g. Il. 5.302 4, 12.381 3, 447 9, 20.285 7. See also Roloff (1970) 106, Currie (2005) 178 9.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

31

The superlative qualities conveyed in comparisons with heroes and gods seem to be modified by another group of comparisons, namely with plants, often found in the vicinity of the first group. The conventionality of this source domain is indicated by the answer that the Sapphic narrator proposes to the question quoted at the beginning of this section: ὄρπακι βραδίνωι ϲε μάλιϲτ’ ἐικάϲδω, ‘I compare you above all to a slender sapling’ (Sapph. fr. 115.2). In fr. 105a, the bride is compared to an apple, which according to Himerius (Or. 9.16 p. 82.185–6 Colonna) happens also in other songs. In fr. 105b, she is likened to a hyacinth flower. Eratosthenes seems to compare the bride to grapes of wild vine (frr. 28, 37 Powell). In Theocritus 18, Helen is likened to a cypress (29–31). Catullan epithalamia employ the images of a myrtle (61.21–5), a hyacinth flower (61.87–9), an unspecified flower (62.39–47), and wild vine (62.49–58). In a fragment of an epithalamium by C. Licinius Calvus, the bride seems to be compared with an unknown flower to be cut by a nymph.⁴³ In Claudian’s epithalamic Fescennina for Honorius and Maria (Carm. 14), the bride is compared, first, to a rose guarded by thorns and to honey protected by bees (7–13) and, second, to a vine supported by a tree (18–22). Both images are adopted in Dracontius’ epithalamic Romulea for Ioannes and Vitula (Rom. 7.48–54). In Claudian’s epithalamium for Palladius and Celerina, the bride’s skin is compared to snow and lilies (Carm.Min. 25.125–7 Hall), and in Pseudo-Claudian’s epithalamium for Laurentius and Florida to lilies and roses (Carm.App. 5.32–3 Hall). This convention of epithalamia is also transferred into prose wedding speeches, like in the examples provided by Menander: δυνατὸν δὲ καὶ ἰδίαι καὶ χωρὶϲ ἑκάϲτου διελόμενον τὸν ἔπαινον ἐπαινεῖν, κάλλοϲ δὲ παρ’ ἀμφοῖν κατὰ ἀντεξέταϲιν πάντωϲ οὐχ ἡ μὲν φυτῶν καλλίϲτωι ἐλαίαι, ὁ δὲ φοίνικι παραπλήϲιοϲ; καὶ ὅτι ὁ μὲν ῥόδωι προϲέοικεν, ἡ δὲ μήλωι. It is also possible to praise them separately by dividing the praise of each of them, but beauty (needs to be praised) among both through com parison: ‘Is she not equal to the most beautiful of plants, the olive tree, and he to the date palm?’ ‘He resembles a rose, and she an apple.’ (Men.Rh. p. 404.4 8 Russell Wilson)

⁴³ Calv. fr. 4 Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/Courtney = 29 Hollis uaga candido | nympha quod secet ungui, ‘that a wandering nymph cuts with her white nail’. See also Hollis (2007) 72 3.

32

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Like the comparisons with heroes and gods, comparisons with plants also characterize the beauty, predominantly of the bride, as a sublime quality.⁴⁴ Unlike those, however, they also mark this quality as transient. A flower, precious though it may be in bloom, is ultimately destined to wither. Likewise the young bride, radiant though she may appear at her wedding day, is bound to return to a normal human life and face the prospect of old age and fading beauty. For understanding possible concepts of a momentary approximation to divinity in epithalamia, this contrast between comparisons with immortal beings and those with plants is most informative.

IMPLICIT COMPARISONS WITH DIVINE HAPPINESS Approximation of the bridal couple to the divine sphere can be observed not only in explicit comparisons, but also implicitly in transpositions of originally divine qualities to the bride or bridegroom. In Sappho, the bride is called εὔπωϲ, ‘with pretty feet’,⁴⁵ which later authors use exclusively for goddesses,⁴⁶ and which recalls epic terms like καλλίϲφυροϲ, ἐύϲφυροϲ, and τανίϲφυροϲ/τανύϲφυροϲ, which are used as epithets for goddesses or mythical heroines.⁴⁷ Sappho also uses the term ἰόκολποϲ, ‘with dark (or fragrant) bosom’, for the mortal bride

⁴⁴ See Mangelsdorff (1913) 17 18, Roloff (1970) 103 7. The purpose of the comparisons of Sapph. frr. 105a and 105b is controversial. However, pace Davison (1968) 78, an encomiastic function seems a priori preferable; see Mangelsdorff (1913) 17, Fränkel (1951) 194, Gomme (1957) 260, Treu (1968) 152 3, 223 4, Harris (1986), R. Griffith (1989) 57 61, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 95 6, Mason (2004), Tsomis (2005). Similarly, the intention behind the comparison of the bridegroom with a sapling in Sapph. fr. 115 is debated. Most likely, pace Wills (1967) 181 n. 26, it aims at the ideal of a tall and athletic physique; see the discussion in Swift (2010) 246. ⁴⁵ Sapph. frr. 103.2, 103B.2. ⁴⁶ Cf. Call. Hec. fr. 302.2 Pfeiffer = 103.2 Hollis (Persephone), Nonn. D. 8.5, 28.330, 38.131, 331, 415 (all εὔποδεϲ Ὧραι). ⁴⁷ καλλίϲφυροϲ: Il. 9.557 (Marpessa), 560 (Halcyone), 14.319 (Danae), Od. 5.333 (Ino), 11.603 (Hebe). ἐύϲφυροϲ: Hes. Th. 254 (Amphitrite), 961 (Medea). τανίϲφυροϲ/ τανύϲφυροϲ: Hes. Th. 364 (Oceanids); frr. 43a.37 (Mestra), 73.6, 75.6 (both Atalante), 198.4 (Helen), [Hes.] Sc. 35 (Electryone); h.Cer. 2, 77 (both Persephone). See also Harvey (1957) 220.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

33

and perhaps for Aphrodite, Hebe, or Hera.⁴⁸ Moreover, in Theocritus 18, Helen is called χρυϲέα, ‘golden’ (28), which is firmly linked with Aphrodite in the epic tradition.⁴⁹ She is also called ῥοδόχρωϲ, ‘of rosy skin’ (31), which later authors use as an epithet for Aphrodite and Apollo,⁵⁰ and which recalls Sappho’s βροδοπάχεεϲ Χάριτεϲ, ‘Graces with rosy arms’ (fr. 53) or the epic epithet of Eos, ῥοδοδάκτυλοϲ, ‘of rosy fingers’.⁵¹ The effect of these attributes is similar to that of explicit comparisons between the bride and Helen or Aphrodite. They ascribe to the bride a degree of beauty that is too high to be measured by merely human standards.⁵² A similar effect can be observed in conventional attributes for the bridegroom, which tend to be focused on pre-eminence among fellow men.⁵³ Noteworthy among these is the term ὄλβιοϲ, ‘happy’, which is found in a number of epithalamia.⁵⁴ The conventionality of this term is confirmed by tragic passages where it is associated with weddings more widely.⁵⁵ The Latin equivalent of the Greek term ὄλβιοϲ appears to be felix, which is conventionally applied to Roman bridal couples. It is used in Roman wedding songs themselves,⁵⁶ and is found in descriptions of weddings⁵⁷ as well as in testimonies referring to the Roman custom of hailing the bridal couple with this term.⁵⁸ Both ὄλβιοϲ and felix describe the peak of human achievement in terms of

⁴⁸ Bride: Sapph. frr. 30.4 5, 103.4(?). Goddess: Sapph. frr. 21.13, 103.3, 103.4(?). For fr. 21.13 as a reference to Aphrodite, see Treu (1968) 189. For fr. 103.3 as a reference to Hera, see Treu (1968) 169. For fr. 103.4 as a reference to Hebe, see Lobel (1951) 25; to Aphrodite, see Treu (1968) 169. See also Romè (1965) 234. ⁴⁹ See LfgrE s.v. χρύϲε(ι)ος, 1268.26 60 (23). See also Schlesier (2014). ⁵⁰ Aphrodite: Anacreont. 55.22, Nonn. D. 12.111. Apollo: AP 9.525.8. ⁵¹ See LfgrE s.v. ῥοδοδάκτυλος, 45.40 6.19 (28). ⁵² For Helen, see also Calame (1977) 343 4 = (1997) 197 8. ⁵³ On the theme of pre eminence, cf. also, apart from the passages quoted in these paragraphs, Sapph. frr. 106 πέρροχοϲ, ὡϲ ὄτ’ ἄοιδοϲ ὀ Λέϲβιοϲ ἀλλοδάποιϲιν, ‘superior, as the Lesbian singer is to those of other lands’, 116 τίμιε γάμβρε, ‘worthy bridegroom’, Luc. Symp. 41 p. 159.22 Macleod {κρατερῶν κράτιϲτε ἐφήβων{, perhaps ‘most handsome of your contemporaries’. In Tic. fr. 1 Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/Courtney = 102 Hollis (see above, p. 22), this theme transferred to the marriage bed. ⁵⁴ Cf. Hes. fr. 211.7, Sapph. fr. 112.1, Theoc. 18.16, ὄλβοϲ at E. fr. 781.27 = Phaëth. 240. ⁵⁵ Cf. E. Alc. 916 19, Andr. 1218, Hel. 639 41, 724 5. ⁵⁶ Cf. Catul. 64.373, 382; Tic. fr. 1 Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/Courtney = 102 Hollis; Sen. Med. 105; Stat. Silv. 1.2.236, Auson. Carm. 18.70 1, 77 8. ⁵⁷ Cf. Verg. A. 12.821, Sen. Tro. 873, Firm. Math. 6.23.5. For felix in erotic contexts, cf. also Catul. 68.155. See also Hersch (2010) 150 1. ⁵⁸ Cf. Juv. 2.119, Σ Lucan. 2.371, Phaed. 5.1.4.

34

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

happiness, wealth, or power, as bestowed by a deity.⁵⁹ In the context of a wedding song, it is the achievement of the particular wedding that singles out the bridegroom.⁶⁰ In Sappho’s fr. 112, for instance, the bridegroom is called ὄλβιοϲ because he has secured the wedding that he desired (1–2 ἄραο), and is honoured ‘eminently’ (5 ἔξοχα) by Aphrodite. In Theocritus 18, Menelaus is isolated from of a group of ‘other noblemen’ (17 ὧλλοι ἀριϲτέεϲ) and ‘demigods’ (18 ἡμιθέοιϲ) as ‘the only one’ (18 μῶνοϲ). In the Hesiodic Catalogue, Peleus is distinguished from the masses of ‘other seafaring men that feed off the fruit of the earth’.⁶¹ These descriptions convey that bridegrooms reach, at their respective weddings, a state of happiness that surpasses the ordinary human experience. Such an experience is conveyed even more emphatically in the conventional attribution of the bridegroom with the term μάκαρ.⁶² This term is attested not only in what appears to be the oldest extant example of a wedding song, i.e. in the Hesiodic Catalogue,⁶³ but also in the Odyssey, when Odysseus refers to Nausicaa’s future husband:

160

κεῖνοϲ δ̓ αὖ περὶ κῆρι μακάρτατοϲ ἔξοχον ἄλλων, ὅϲ κέ ϲ̓ ἐέδνοιϲι βρίϲαϲ οἶκόνδ̓ ἀγάγηται. οὐ γάρ πω τοιοῦτον ἴδον βροτὸν ὀφθαλμοῖϲιν, οὔτ᾿ ἄνδῤ οὔτε γυναῖκα ϲέβαϲ μ̓ ἔχει εἰϲορόωντα.

That man is blessed in his heart above all others, who prevails with his bride prices and leads you home. For I have never seen such a mortal with my eyes, neither man nor woman. Awe holds me as I look at you. (Od. 6.158 61)

A decisive number of passages from drama suggests that the hailing, either of the bridal couple as a whole or only of the bridegroom, with the term μάκαρ is a conventional feature of epithalamia.⁶⁴ This rich attestation is remarkable given that μάκαρ is, outside of wedding ⁵⁹ On ὄλβιοϲ, see De Heer (1969) 21, LfgrE s.v. ὄλβιος, 637.55 8, 639.34 6, Metcalf (2015) 126 7. On felix, see TLL s.v. felix, 441.6 60. ⁶⁰ See De Heer (1969) 32 3. ⁶¹ Hes. fr. 211.12 13 περ]ί̣ τ’ ἄλλων ἀλφηϲτάων | . . . χθονὸ]ϲ ὅϲ̣[ϲ]ο̣[ι καρ]πὸν [ἔ]δ̣ουϲι. ⁶² See R. Reitzenstein (1900) 80, Mangelsdorff (1913) 16, Wills (1967) 178 9, Fedeli (1972) 18 19, Hague (1983) 134 5, Lyghounis (1991) 185, Swift (2006) 130, Baltieri (2011) 218 21. ⁶³ Hes. fr. 211.7 τρὶϲ μάκαρ Αἰακίδη, ‘thrice blessed son of Aeacus’. ⁶⁴ Cf. E. Hel. 1433 5, Her. 493, IA 439 (spur.), 832, 1076 9, 1404 5, Med. 957, Or. 602 4 (spur.), 1208, Ph. 345, Tr. 311 12, 327, 336, 1170, fr. 781.27 = Phaëth. 240, fr.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

35

songs, usually reserved for descriptions of the gods and their divine bliss.⁶⁵ In epic, the term is applied to living humans only in a handful of cases, where a comparison with the life of the gods seems to be implicit.⁶⁶ Other poets deny mortals the possibility of attaining a comparable state of happiness.⁶⁷ Pindar, too, tends to attribute it exclusively to gods and semi-divine tribes or heroized mortals.⁶⁸ Only once, in Pythian 5, is the term used of living mortals (Arcesilas in line 20 and his charioteer in line 46), and here considerations of hero cult might be relevant.⁶⁹ The wedding song, therefore, conventionally ascribes to the bridal couple an experience that other poetic genres hesitate, or straightout refuse, to ascribe to mortals. In the ideology of the wedding song, it seems, the bridal couple experience a moment of joy so extraordinary that it can only be compared to the undisturbed existence of gods.

HYMNIC REGISTER The observations made in the preceding sections about the approximation of the bridal couple to divinity in terms of beauty and happiness can be juxtaposed with linguistic aspects of the praise of the bridal couple that are found also in the praise of immortal heroes and gods in prayers and hymns. Defining the linguistic features that constitute these religious registers is a difficult task.⁷⁰ Even on a cautious approach, however, epithalamia reveal a remarkable proximity with hymns. One of the most easily recognized structural conventions of extant epithalamia is the address of bride and bridegroom in the vocative.⁷¹ Where complete poems are available, such 1057, Ar. Av. 1707, 1725, 1760. For blessings during the wedding, cf. also E. Heracl. 10 12, Supp. 995 9. ⁶⁵ See Keyssner (1932) 50, 69, 133, De Heer (1969) 4 11, esp. 6, West (1978) 186 7 on Hes. Op. 141, ibid. 193 on 171. See also above, p. 4 n. 18. ⁶⁶ Cf. LfgrE s.v. μάκαρ, 11.15 34, De Heer (1969) 6 11. ⁶⁷ Cf. e.g. Sol. fr. 14.1 West, S. OT 1193 6. ⁶⁸ On the use of μάκαρ in Pindar, see Currie (2005) 229 30. ⁶⁹ See Currie (2005) 248 9. ⁷⁰ On linguistic register in general, see Willi (2010) passim. On registers of hymns and prayers in particular, see Willi (2003) 8 50. ⁷¹ See also Lyghounis (1991) 186 7, Baltieri (2011) 222 4.

36

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

addresses tend to occur in either the first or last sections, thus serving to open or close the poem.⁷² Personal names are found only in songs for mythical weddings.⁷³ In other songs, the bride is addressed generically as νύμφη and nupta, the bridegroom as γάμβρε or νυμφίε and marite. At the outset, this general absence of personal names suggests an idealized vision of the bridal couple, who appear to be stripped of their individuality and assume a generic role. Since these generic terms are applied to human, heroic, and divine couples alike, they might contain a first indication of a perception of the bridal couple that does not distinguish sharply between mortal and immortal. Addresses to the bridal couple are conveyed either through single bare vocatives⁷⁴ or, more commonly, in an extended form, augmented with laudatory attributes or participle and relative clauses describing commendable qualities, and repeated through more vocatives and second-person pronouns and verbs. Sappho’s fr. 112 provides an impressive example of such extended addresses, even though here the gaps make it difficult to determine whether the bride or the bridegroom is addressed:⁷⁵

5

ὄλβιε γάμβρε, ϲοὶ μὲν δὴ γάμοϲ ὠϲ ἄραο ἐκτετέλεϲτ’, ἔχηιϲ δὲ πάρθενον, ἂν ἄραο. ϲοὶ χάριεν μὲν εἶδοϲ, ὄππατα ⟨δ’ ⟩ μέλλιχ’, ἔροϲ δ’ ἐπ’ ἰμέρτωι κέχυται προϲώπωι ⟨ ⟩ τετίμακ’ ἔξοχά ϲ’ Ἀφροδίτα.

Happy bridegroom, your marriage has been fulfilled as you prayed, and you have the girl for whom you prayed . . . Your appearance is graceful, and your eyes . . . gentle, and love is spread over your beautiful face . . . Aphrodite has honoured you eminently. (Sapph. fr. 112)

⁷² First sections: Sapph. fr. 112(?), Hes. fr. 211.7, Ar. Pax 1333, Av. 1725, Theoc. 18.9, PRyl. 17.1. Last sections: E. fr. 781.27 = Phaëth. 240, Theoc. 18.49, Luc. Symp. 41 p. 159.22 Macleod. ⁷³ Proper names only at Hes. fr. 211.7 Αἰακίδη . . . Πηλεῦ, Theoc. 18.15 Μενέλαε, 41 Ἑλένα. The exception is Luc. Symp. 41 p. 159.18 19 Macleod. See, however, F. Meister (2017a) for the possibility that gaps in fr. Sapph. fr. 112 originally contained the names of bride and bridegroom, and F. Meister (2019a) 4 5 for a similar argument for Sapph. fr. 114.2. ⁷⁴ For bare vocatives, cf. Sapph. fr. 113 ὦ γάμβρε, Luc. Symp. 41 p. 159.22 Macleod νυμφίε, PRyl. 17.1 νυμφίε, Catul. 61.189 at marite, Auson. Carm. 18.73 marite. ⁷⁵ See my discussion of the options in F. Meister (2017a) 489 91.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

37

Similar repeated addresses are found also in other epithalamia:

20 (235)

25

πότνια, ϲοὶ τάδ’ ἐγὼ νυμφεῖ ’ ἀείδω, ͜ καλλίϲτα, Κύπρι, θεῶν τῶι τε νεόζυγι ϲῶι πώλωι τὸν ἐν αἰθέρι κρύπτειϲ, ϲῶν γάμων γένναν ἃ τὸν μέγαν ͜ βαϲιλῆ νυμφεύεαι τᾶϲδε πόλεωϲ ἀϲτερωποῖϲιν δόμοιϲι χρυϲέοιϲ ἀρχὸν φίλον Ἀφροδίτα

Mistress, for you I sing this marriage song, Cypris, most beautiful of the gods, and for your newly wed stallion, whom you keep hidden in heaven, offspring of your marriage; you who will marry the great king of this city, a leader dear to the starry golden palace, Aphrodite! (E. fr. 781.18 26 = Phaëth. 231 9) ὄλβιε γάμβρ’, ἀγαθόϲ τιϲ ἐπέπταρεν ἐρχομένωι τοι ἐϲ πάρταν ἅπερ ὧλλοι ἀριϲτέεϲ, ὡϲ ἀνύϲαιο μῶνοϲ ἐν ἡμιθέοιϲ Κρονίδαν Δία πενθερὸν ἑξεῖϲ. Happy groom, a good man sneezed for you, when you came to Sparta with the other nobles, so that you would be successful. You alone of all the heroes will have Zeus, the son of Cronus, as your father in law. (Theoc. 18.16 18) 815 sensim super attolle limen pedes, noua nupta; sospes iter incipe hoc, uti uiro tuo semper sis superstes, 820 tuaque ut potior pollentia sit uincasque uirum uictrixque sies, tua uox superet tuomque imperium: uir te uestiat, [tu] uirum despolies. noctuque et diu ut uiro subdola sis, opsecro, memento. Gently lift your feet over the threshold, new bride. Begin this journey without harm, so that you may always stand above your husband, and so that your power may be greater and you may defeat the man and be victorious, and your voice and your command may be superior. Your husband shall clothe you, you shall plunder him. By night and by day you shall trick your husband; remember that, I beg you. (Plaut. Cas. 815 24)

Especially at the opening of a choral song, such addresses create a sublime tone of praise, which resembles, in many ways, the register of hymns. A hero or god is characteristically invoked at the beginning of a hymn with an address in the vocative, which can then be extended by epithets,

38

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

relative and participle clauses, or repeated addresses with second-person pronouns and verbs. Eduard Norden, in his ground-breaking study on the formal characteristics of appeals to deities, coined the term Du-Stil for this kind of hymnic invocation.⁷⁶ Similar to these extended addresses is the question directed at the bridegroom at the opening of Sappho’s fr. 115, which is quoted above (p. 28). Here, the adverb κάλωϲ indicates that the initial question is focused entirely on how the speaker may conduct the praise of the bridegroom in the most appropriate way possible. Since a similar question is found also at the beginning of Claudian’s epithalamic Fescennina, it seems likely that such questions were a conventional means of opening a wedding song:

5

princeps corusco sidere pulchrior, Parthis sagittas tendere certior, eques Gelonis imperiosior, quae digna mentis laus erit arduae? quae digna formae laus erit igneae?

Prince, more beautiful than a vibrant star, more sure to shoot arrows than the Parthians, a more powerful rider than the Geloni, what praise will be worthy of your proud mind, what praise will be worthy of your resplendent beauty? (Claud. Carm. 11.1 5)

Outside of wedding songs, similar questions at the openings of songs are the sign of an elevated style of praise that can be directed to human subjects⁷⁷ or to deities in hymns.⁷⁸ In other epithalamia, more oblique openings are preferred over these direct addresses to the bride or bridegroom.⁷⁹ One such opening strategy is found in statements, usually involving a verb of singing, that either reflect the intention of the speaker to praise the bridal

⁷⁶ See Norden (1913) 143 62. See also Race (1982) 5 6, Race (1990) 85 6, Bremer (1981) 195, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.52 9. ⁷⁷ Cf. Pi. O. 2.1 2, with its echoes in Theoc. 17.11 13 and Hor. Carm. 1.12.1 3; A. A. 785 and 1490 (see below, p. 174), E. IA 977 (Clytemnestra to Achilles) πῶϲ ἄν ϲ’ ἐπαινέϲαιμι μὴ λίαν λόγοιϲ, ‘How can I avoid praising you excessively?’, Ar. Eq. 460 (chorus to the Sausage Seller, after a quasi hymnic address) πῶϲ ἄν ϲ’ ἐπαινέϲαιμεν οὕτωϲ ὥϲπερ ἡδόμεϲθα, ‘How can we find the praise to match our delight?’ See also Race (1990) 105. ⁷⁸ Cf. e.g. h.Ap. 19, 207, Theoc. 22.25, Call. Del. 28 9, Aristid. Or. 43.6. See also Norden (1913) 143 7, Bundy (1972) 60 76, Race (1990) 86, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.56, Metcalf (2015) 135 6. ⁷⁹ See Treu (1968) 169, 199, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 83.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

39

couple or prompt the chorus to deliver this praise. Such statements are attested for Sappho in the first line of a wedding song preserved in POxy. XXI 2294,⁸⁰ in Euripides’ Phaëthon,⁸¹ and in Callimachus’ poem for Arsinoë.⁸² Elsewhere, Muses or Graces are invoked in support of the song of praise for the bridal couple. Examples of such invocations are found in one Sapphic line also preserved in POxy. XXI 2294,⁸³ and as an introduction, uttered by the messenger, to the wedding song for Peisetaerus and Basileia at the end of Aristophanes’ Aves.⁸⁴ While these opening strategies have few parallels in other forms of praise for humans,⁸⁵ they are predominantly associated with formal features of the hymnic praise of deities, for which Norden coined the term Er-Stil.⁸⁶ In fact, the resemblance of these to similar invocations in hymns creates a telling problem in three Sapphic fragments that contain such invocations but lack obvious generic markers: βροδοπάχεεϲ ἄγναι Χάριτεϲ, δεῦτε Δίοϲ κόραι Rosy armed holy Graces, come here, daughters of Zeus (Sapph. fr. 53) δεῦρο δηὖτε Μοῖϲαι χρύϲιον λίποιϲαι Come here again, Muses, leaving the golden . . . (Sapph. fr. 127) δεῦτέ νυν ἄβραι Χάριτεϲ καλλίκομοί τε Μοῖϲαι Come here now, tender Graces and lovely haired Muses (Sapph. fr. 128) ⁸⁰ Sapph. fr. 103.2 ἀεί]ϲ̣ατε τὰν εὔποδα νύμφαν, ‘Sing of the bride with her beautiful feet.’ ⁸¹ E. fr. 781.15 = Phaëth. 228 τὰν Διὸϲ οὐρανίαν ⟨ἀ⟩είδομεν, ‘we sing of Zeus’ heavenly daughter.’ ⁸² Call. fr. 392 Pfeiffer Ἀρϲινόηϲ, ὦ ξεῖνε, γάμον καταβάλλομ’ ἀείδειν, ‘I start to sing, O stranger, of the wedding of Arsinoë.’ ⁸³ Sapph. fr. 103.5 δεῦτέ ν]υ̣ν̣ ἄγναι Χάριτεϲ Πιέριδε[ϲ τε] Μοῖ[ϲαι, ‘Come here, holy Graces and Pierian Muses.’ Cf. also fr. fr. 103.1 ἐννεπε[.]η. ⁸⁴ Ar. Av. 1718 19 ἀλλὰ χρὴ θεᾶϲ | Μούϲηϲ ἀνοίγειν ἱερὸν εὔφημον ϲτόμα, ‘But we must open the holy mouth of the divine Muse in auspicious song.’ ⁸⁵ Cf. e.g. Pi. P. 9.1 3 ἐθέλω χαλκάϲπιδα Πυθιονίκαν | ϲὺν βαθυζώνοιϲιν ἀγγέλλων | Τελεϲικράτη Χαρίτεϲϲι γεγωνεῖν, ‘I wish, in announcing Telesikrates as a bronze shielded Pythian victor, to proclaim with the aid of the deep bosomed Graces . . .’ On the possibility of hymnic model for Pindaric phrases of this kind, see Norden (1913) 153, Schadewaldt (1928) 45 n. 30, 272, Kambylis (1964) 106 n. 1, Slater (1969) 86, Race (1990) 108 9, A. Miller (1993) 26, Devlin (1995) 87 9. ⁸⁶ See Norden (1913) 163 6. See also Bundy (1972) 58 9, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.58 9, Willi (2003) 23 7, Metcalf (2015) 131 50. Men.Rh. p. 334.27 32 Russell Wilson singles Sappho out for having used cletic invocations particularly often.

40

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Before the publication of POxy. XXI 2294, these were all thought to be part of hymns to gods.⁸⁷ Now, since the papyrus preserves an unambiguous example from a wedding song, it is equally likely that they originate from epithalamia. Another formal element of relevance to this survey is the richly attested combination of addresses to the bridal couple with the imperative χαῖρε or variations of it. The meaning, and consequently the impact, of χαῖρε depends on the position that it assumes within a given composition. In extant wedding poetry, this position is not always easily determined. Sappho’s fr. 117⁸⁸ is quoted by Hephaestion (4.2) for its metre, and the natural origin of such a quotation would seem to be the first line of a poem displaying the metre in question.⁸⁹ On the other hand, for Sappho’s fr. 116,⁹⁰ which Servius (G. 1.31) quotes for its usage of the term γαμβρόϲ, there is no reliable indication as to its position within the original poem.⁹¹ Where complete poems by later authors are available, the address to the bridal couple with forms of χαῖρε always occurs towards the end. This is the case in Theocritus 18,⁹² the wedding song in Lucian’s Symposium,⁹³ and in PRyl. 17.⁹⁴ Catullus seems to provide a Latin version of this feature at the very end of his epithalamic poem 61 with the imperative bene uiuite (226),⁹⁵ which Pseudo-Claudian adapts at the end of his epithalamium for Laurentius and Florida.⁹⁶ Its predominant position at ⁸⁷ See e.g. Wilamowitz (1913) 43 n. 1. Metcalf (2015) 116 treats Sapph. fr. 53 again as hymnic. ⁸⁸ Sapph. fr. 117 {χαίροιϲ ἀ νύμφα{ χαιρέτω δ’ ὀ γάμβροϲ, ‘Farewell bride and farewell bridegroom.’ For attempts to emend this fragment, see my survey in F. Meister (2017b) 658 60. ⁸⁹ See also Snell (1944) 283 5. ⁹⁰ Sapph. fr. 116 χαῖρε, νύμφα, χαῖρε, τίμιε γαμβρέ πόλλα, ‘Farewell bride, farewell worthy bridegroom.’ ⁹¹ See also Kaibel (1892) 154, Mangelsdorff (1913) 19. ⁹² Theoc. 18.49 χαίροιϲ, ὦ νύμφα· χαίροιϲ εὐπένθερε γαμβρέ, ‘Farewell bride, fare well bridegroom with a good father in law.’ ⁹³ Luc. Symp. 41 p. 159.22 Macleod νυμφίε, καὶ ϲὺ δὲ χαῖρε, ‘And you, O groom, farewell too.’ ⁹⁴ PRyl. 17.3 νύμφα φίλη, μέγα χαῖρε διαμπερέϲ, ‘Dear bride, farewell [and be happy] forever.’ ⁹⁵ See Fedeli (1972) 119. On sis felix vel sim. as equivalent to χαῖρε, see also Bundy (1972) 50 on Verg. A. 1.330. Cf. also Verg. E. 5.64 5 ‘deus, deus ille, Menalca!’ | sis bonus o felixque tuis!, ‘ “A god, a god he is, Menalcas!” May you be good to your own and happy yourself!’ ⁹⁶ [Claud.] Carm.App. 5.85 6 Hall uiuite felices quam longaque carpite saecla; | uiuite concordes, ‘Live happily and enjoy the longest lives possible; live in harmony!’

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

41

the end of these poems makes clear that here χαῖρε is not used as a salutation, as it is found between Homeric heroes, in epigrams, or in sympotic contexts, but as a farewell.⁹⁷ At the end of a song performed in honour of the person addressed, the verb χαίρειν, with its primary meaning ‘to take pleasure in something’,⁹⁸ might also denote the wish that the song may be received favourably. In this position and meaning, however, forms of χαῖρε are also one of the most widespread and easily recognized features of Greek hymns and prayers.⁹⁹ Outside of epithalamia, χαῖρε is hardly used in this way for living humans and, where this happens, hymnic overtones are generally assumed.¹⁰⁰ In fact, the end of the wedding song in Lucian’s Symposium with the words καὶ ϲὺ δὲ χαῖρε . . . ἄμμεϲ δὴ αὖθ’ ὑμῖν τοῦτον θαλαμήϊον ὕμνον | ξυνὸν ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροιϲ πολλάκιϲ αἰϲόμεθα, ‘And you farewell . . . but we will sing this wedding song for you two together, repeatedly and often’ (41 pp. 159.22–160.2 Macleod) seems to deliberately adopt the formulaic end of the majority of Homeric Hymns with καὶ ϲὺ μὲν οὕτω χαῖρε . . . αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ ϲεῖο καὶ ἄλληϲ μνήϲομ᾽ ἀοιδῆϲ, ‘And you farewell . . . but I will remember you and another song.’¹⁰¹ In addition to conventional linguistic features that recall hymnic praise, two particular epithalamia also display a distinct structure that is associated with a form of hymn. The first song is Sappho’s fr. 111:

5

ἴψοι δὴ τὸ μέλαθρον, ὐμήναον, ἀέρρετε, τέκτονεϲ ἄνδρεϲ ὐμήναον. γάμβροϲ {(εἰϲ)έρχεται ἶϲοϲ Ἄρευι{,¹⁰² ⟨ὐμήναον,⟩

⁹⁷ On salutations between Homeric heroes, see LfgrE s.v. χαίρω, 1096.26 62. In epic poetry, χαῖρε and χαίρετε are used rarely (never in the Iliad) to bid farewell, see LfgrE s.v. χαίρω, 1096.63 1097.6. On the usage in epigrams, see Sourvinou Inwood (1995) 180 216. On sympotic salutations, cf. Pi. N. 3.76 with Σ Pi. N. 3.132a and Instone (1996) 168. ⁹⁸ See LfgrE s.v. χαίρω, 1092.33 48. ⁹⁹ See e.g. Keyssner (1932) 131 2, Bundy (1972) 49 52, Race (1982) 8, Furley (1995) 32, 45 6, Pulleyn (1997) 16 38, Bremer (1998), Depew (2000), Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.61 3, Willi (2003) 29 cautiously, Metcalf (2015) 128. ¹⁰⁰ Cf. e.g. Pi. P. 2.67 (Hieron) with Most (1985) 96 101 and Morgan (2015) 192 3. ¹⁰¹ Cf. h.Ap. 545 6, h.Cer. 495, h.Merc. 579 80, h.Hom. 6.19 21, 9.7 8, 10.4 6, 19.48 9, 25.6 7, 27.21 2, 28.17 18, 29.13 14, 30.17 19, 33.18 19. Cf. also the end ings of h.Ven. 292 3, h.Hom. 18.10 12. See also Race (1982) 9. ¹⁰² For a discussion of the textual problems of this fragment, see my remarks in Meister (2019c).

42

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs ἄνδροϲ μεγάλω πόλυ μέϲδων. ⟨ὐμήναον.⟩

Raise high the roof Hymenaeus! you carpenters Hymenaeus! The bride groom is coming like Ares Hymenaeus! much larger than a large man Hymenaeus! (Sapph. fr. 111)

Reinhold Merkelbach once suggested that the description of the bridegroom’s arrival in this fragment evokes descriptions of divine epiphanies.¹⁰³ Indeed, this fragment exhibits a remarkable resemblance with a model that Kenneth McKay has shown to be characteristic of descriptions of epiphany.¹⁰⁴ Accordingly, such descriptions typically contain a sequence consisting of a command, a reason for the command, and a confirmation of that reason. In fr. 111, the command is found in the prompt to raise the roof of the bridal chamber (1–4), the reason in the bridegroom’s impending arrival (5–6), and the confirmation in the statement about the bridegroom’s extraordinary height (7–8). The second example is a passage from Catullus 61: claustra pandite ianuae. uirgo adest. uiden ut faces splendidas quatiunt comas. Throw open the bolts of the door. The maiden is here. Do you see how the torches shake their shining hair? (Catul. 61.76 8)

This description of the bride’s arrival exhibits the same structure as Sappho’s fr. 111. The command is provided by the prompt to open the door (76), the reason by the realization that the bride has arrived (77 adest),¹⁰⁵ and the confirmation by the reaction of the torches (77–8). The emphasis on seeing (uiden) and on changes of light render a connection with descriptions of epiphany particularly

¹⁰³ See Merkelbach (1957) 8. See also Treu (1968) 226, McKay (1967) 190. For criticism of this interpretation, see Wills (1970) 112, Roloff (1970) 109 n. 8. ¹⁰⁴ See McKay (1967) esp. 192 3. ¹⁰⁵ McKay (1967) 193 considers adest the Latin version of Greek ἥκει γάρ. Since this is possible (cf. e.g. Cic. Tusc. 1.37 = Trag.Adesp. fr. 50 Schauer Manuwald adsum atque aduenio ⟨ab⟩ Acherunte; see also OLD s.v. adsum 9, 10), there may be no reason to change adest to ades, as first proposed by Schrader ap. Lachmann (from Schrader’s handwritten notes, now Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms Diez. B. Sant. 44, p. 1v) and independently by Krebs (1813) 56. ades is promoted e.g. by Fraenkel (1955) 7 n. 3 = (1964) 98 n. 3, Fedeli (1972) 55, Syndikus (1984 90) 2.26 n. 140.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

43

compelling.¹⁰⁶ Here, then, the bride’s arrival at the house of the bridegroom’s family is presented as though it were the epiphany of a goddess at a temple.¹⁰⁷ Since further examples for adaptations of this structure in epithalamia are lacking, it remains uncertain whether they constitute a conventional feature of epithalamia or whether they are restricted to Sappho’s fr. 111 and Catullus 61. The preceding survey of the formal and structural conventions of epithalamia reveals a decisive and pervasive resemblance to the praise of heroes and gods in hymns. This is especially remarkable, since the praise of mortals in other contexts in archaic and classical poetry does not usually display comparable features evoking hymnic register.¹⁰⁸ Assessing the religious significance of this resemblance involves a methodological difficulty. On principle, it might appear unclear whether it involves a transposition of originally hymnic register to the mortal sphere or whether it indicates the existent of wider register of praise that can be applied to mortal and immortal addressees alike. Therefore, it might also appear unclear whether the language employed in these epithalamia bears any religious connotations. An answer is suggested by the conventional explicit and implicit comparisons between the bridal couple and immortal heroes and gods on the grounds of beauty and happiness that are pursued in the previous sections. Evidently, these comparisons base the point of reference in the immortal sphere and approximate the mortal bridal couple to it. Given this context, linguistic features associated with hymnic register are likely to convey religious overtones. The momentary approximation of the bridal couple to divine beauty and happiness, it seems, engenders a quasi-hymnic glorification.

HEROES AND GODS AS BRIDAL COUPLES The argument developed at the end of the previous section regarding the religious register in epithalamia can be tested against a particular ¹⁰⁶ On seeing, cf. e.g. Call. Ap. 1 8, esp. 4 οὐχ ὁράαιϲ; ‘Do you not see?’; 7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸϲ οὐκέτι μακρήν, ‘For the god is no longer far away’, and the material collected in Pfister (1924) 311 12, 317 20. On the role of light, see Pfister (1924) 315. ¹⁰⁷ See also Kroll (1923) 112 ad loc., McKay (1967) 191 4, Trappes Lomax (2007) 144. ¹⁰⁸ See Meyer (1933) 17 18, 69 73. See also my discussion of the exceptional treatment of Hieron in Pindar’s epinicians in F. Meister (2019b).

44

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

group of extant epithalamia, namely those that purport to have been sung at weddings of immortal heroes or even gods. For the present purposes, it is an important question whether immortal bridal couples in such songs are in any way treated differently from mortal bridal couples in conventional epithalamia. In particular, it needs to be determined whether the acknowledgment of immortality is here juxtaposed with the conventional praise of the bridal couple or whether the hymnic overtones palpable in the praise of all bridal couples can also be employed for the glorification of heroes and gods. Three passages may serve to address these questions. An instructive first example is encountered in the choral wedding song in Euripides’ fragmentary play Phaëthon: 15 (230)

20 (235)

25 (240)

30

Ὑμὴν Ὑμήν. τὰν Διὸϲ οὐρανίαν ⟨ἀ⟩είδομεν, τὰν ἐρώτων πότνιαν, τὰν παρθένοιϲ γαμήλιον Ἀφροδίταν. πότνια, ϲοὶ τάδ̓ ἐγὼ νυμφεῖ ̓ ἀείδω, ͜ καλλίϲτα, Κύπρι θεῶν τῶι τε νεόζυγι ϲῶι πώλωι τὸν ἐν αἰθέρι κρύπτειϲ, ϲῶν γάμων γένναν ἃ τὸν μέγαν ͜ βαϲιλῆ νυμφεύεαι τᾶϲδε πόλεωϲ ἀϲτερωποῖϲιν δόμοιϲι χρυϲέοιϲ ἀρχὸν φίλον Ἀφροδίτα ὦ μάκαρ, ὦ βαϲιλεὺϲ μείζων ἔτ̓ ὄλβον,¹⁰⁹ ὃϲ θεᾶι κηδεύϲειϲ καὶ μόνοϲ ἀθανάτων γαμβρὸϲ δἰ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν θνατὸϲ ὑμνήϲηι.

Hymen, Hymen! We sing of Zeus’ heavenly daughter, the mistress of love, the goddess of marriage for unmarried girls, Aphrodite. Mistress, for you I sing this marriage song, Cypris, most beautiful of the gods, and to your newly wed stallion, whom you keep hidden in heaven, offspring of your

¹⁰⁹ The transmitted text reads ὦ μακάρων βαϲιλεὺϲ μείζων ἔτ’ ὄλβον, ‘O king greater still in prosperity than the blessed gods’, which Hermann (1821) 16 = (1828) 16 changed to ὦ μάκαρ, ὦ βαϲιλέωϲ μείζων ἔτ’ ὄλβον. Diggle (1970) 154 ad loc. accepts ὦ μάκαρ, but rightly retains βαϲιλεὺϲ.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

45

marriage; you who will marry the great king of this city, a leader dear to the starry golden palace, Aphrodite! O blessed, O king greater than ever in happiness, you who marries a goddess and will be sung of across the boundless earth as the only mortal in law of immortals. (E. fr. 781.14 31 = Phaëth. 227 44)

The song that the chorus deliver at Aphrodite’s and Phaëthon’s wedding is explicitly marked as a wedding song (cf. 4–5 γαμηλίουϲ | μολπάϲ, 14 Ὑμὴν Ὑμήν, 18 τάδ’ . . . νυμφεῖ’, cf. 35 ϲεμνοῖϲιν ὑμε ναίοιϲιν). Assimilated with this structure are also elements that acknowledge Aphrodite’s divine status. After the opening cultic cry, the song formally begins with a thematic announcement (15 τὰν Διὸϲ οὐρανίαν ⟨ἀ⟩είδομεν). As is argued above, such announcements are conventional both in epithalamia and in hymns.¹¹⁰ Moreover, the diction of this announcement, with its genealogical focus, adds to it a distinctly hymnic tone.¹¹¹ Significantly, the expression τὰν Διὸϲ οὐρα νίαν occurs also in a similar announcement in Euripides’ Hippolytus, in Hippolytus’ prayer to his patroness Artemis.¹¹² The announcement then leads into a series of asyndetic attributions, which shift from third-person Er-Stil (or, in this case, Sie-Stil) to second-person DuStil, both of which are conventional in epithalamia and in hymns. In these attributes, Aphrodite’s dual role as a bride in love and as the divine patroness of love is reflected. This dual role is palpable already in the expression ἐρώτων πότνιαν, ‘mistress of loves’ (16), but it comes into sharp relief in Aphrodite’s description as γαμήλιον (17), which expresses simultaneously her divine presiding over weddings in general and her involvement in this particular wedding.¹¹³ Moreover, the praise of Aphrodite’s beauty (19 θεῶν ͜ καλλίϲτα, ‘most beautiful of goddesses’) conveys, at the same time, the generic praise of the bride in the wedding song and the specific attribute that the goddess is given in hymns like, for instance, the second Homeric Hymn to

¹¹⁰ See above, pp. 38 9. Metcalf (2015) 132 treats this expression as hymnic without considering the fact that this song is a wedding song. ¹¹¹ On genealogy in hymns, see Bremer (1981) 195, Race (1990) 86, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.56. ¹¹² E. Hipp. 58 60 ἕπεϲθ’ ἄιδοντεϲ ἕπεϲθε | τὰν Διὸϲ οὐρανίαν | Ἄρτεμιν, ἇι μελόμεϲθα, ‘Follow me, follow me singing of Zeus’ heavenly daughter Artemis, who cares for us!’ Artemis is Διὸϲ κόρα par excellence; cf. Calame (1977) 174 6 = (1997) 92 3. ¹¹³ On γαμήλιοϲ as ‘pertaining to the wedding’, cf. A. Ch. 487 (χοαί), Eu. 835 (τέλοϲ), Supp. 805 (κοίτη), fr. 242 (λέκτρα); E. Med. 673 (εὐνή). As an attribute of deities, cf. Ath. 5.1 185b, Poll. 1.24.

46

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Aphrodite.¹¹⁴ The ode of Phaëthon can thus serve to illustrate how conventional structural and thematic elements of the epithalamium can be adopted for a hymnic purpose. A second, more complex example of this kind is found in the last scene of Aristophanes’ Aves. Here, a conflation of wedding song and hymn is dramatically motivated, because the wedding with Basileia is the symbol of, and the reward for, Peisetaerus’ victory over the Olympians and so motivates his apotheosis.¹¹⁵ Upon the arrival of the couple, the chorus are obliged simultaneously to celebrate Peisetaerus’ wedding and to acknowledge his newly assumed divine status. This double purpose already pervades the messenger speech:

1710

1715

ὦ πάντ̓ ἀγαθὰ πράττοντεϲ, ὦ μείζω λόγου, ὦ τριϲμακάριον πτηνὸν ὀρνίθων γένοϲ, δέχεϲθε τὸν τύραννον ὀλβίοιϲ δόμοιϲ. προϲέρχεται γὰρ οἷοϲ οὔτε παμφαὴϲ ἀϲτὴρ ἰδεῖν ἔλαμψε χρυϲαυγεῖ δρόμωι, οὔθ̓ ἡλίου τηλαυγὲϲ ἀκτίνων ϲέλαϲ τοιοῦτον ἐξέλαμψεν, οἷοϲ ἔρχεται ἔχων γυναικὸϲ κάλλοϲ οὐ φατὸν λέγειν, πάλλων κεραυνόν, πτεροφόρον Διὸϲ βέλοϲ ὀϲμὴ δ̓ ἀνωνόμαϲτοϲ εἰϲ βάθοϲ κύκλου χωρεῖ, καλὸν θέαμα, θυμιαμάτων δ̓ αὖραι διαψαίρουϲι πλεκτάνην καπνοῦ. ὁδὶ δὲ καὐτόϲ ἐϲτιν. ἀλλὰ χρὴ θεᾶϲ Μούϲηϲ ἀνοίγειν ἱερὸν εὔφημον ϲτόμα.

O you successful in everything, O greater than words, O thrice blessed winged race of birds, receive your ruler in a happy house. For he is appearing neither like a radiant star shines to behold on his gold gleaming path, nor like the light of the rays of the sun shines, as he comes bringing the beauty of a wife impossible to describe, brandishing the thunderbolt, Zeus’ winged missile. A fragrance without name travels to the height of the sky, beautiful spectacle, and the breezes touch upon a coil of incense smoke. And there he is himself. But we must open the holy mouth of the divine Muse in auspi cious song. (Ar. Av. 1706 19)

¹¹⁴ Cf. h.Hom. 6.1 2 αἰδοίην χρυϲοϲτέφανον καλὴν Ἀφροδίτην | ἄιϲομαι, ‘I will sing of venerable, gold crowned, beautiful Aphrodite.’ Cf. also E. Hel. 1348 9, IA 553. ¹¹⁵ See Prometheus’ remark about Basileia in 1537 9, καλλίϲτη κόρη, | ἥπερ ταμιεύει τὸν κεραυνὸν τοῦ Διόϲ | καὶ τἄλλ’ ἁπαξάπαντα, ‘a most beautiful girl, who administers Zeus’ thunderbolt and everything else too.’

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

47

The wider structure of this speech seems to adopt a model that is familiar from epiphany descriptions, as it is outlined in the previous section for Sapppho’s fr. 111 and Catullus 61.¹¹⁶ Here, the typical command is found in the form of the imperative δέχεϲθε, which has, among other usages, a strong religious tone and is common in descriptions of epiphanies to refer to the reception of a deity and the acknowledgment of his or her divinity.¹¹⁷ As indicated by γάρ, lines 1709–14 provide the reason for the command, namely that the god has arrived (προϲέρχεται) in all his divine splendour. Finally, in lines 1715–17, Peisetaerus’ arrival is described as causing a palpable reaction in the environment (ὀϲμή, καλὸν θέαμα), a phenomenon often encountered in epiphany scenes.¹¹⁸ However, this speech also features, interwoven with this structure, elements that appear to originate from the conventions of epithalamia. The theme of blessedness, for instance, appears twice in the address to the birds (1706–7). The following reference to the ὀλβίοιϲ δόμοιϲ recalls the common thought that the bridal couple bestow happiness upon their houses.¹¹⁹ Another convention of epithalamia is encountered in the comparison of Peisetaerus to a star (1709–12) and of Basileia to the sun (1713), since, as is shown above, comparisons to celestial bodies are found frequently in wedding poetry. The prompt for εὐφημία (1719) aptly unites the combined intentions of wedding song and hymn, because similar prompts are found, in Aristophanes and elsewhere, in the context

¹¹⁶ McKay (1967) does not evaluate comic material systematically. On epiphany motifs in the messenger speech of Aves, see also Kleinknecht (1937b) 295 301, Horn (1970) 41, Dunbar (1995) 744. ¹¹⁷ See Pfister (1924) 312, Pfister (1930) 148, Kleinknecht (1937b) 296, Dunbar (1995) 745 on 1708 9, Currie (2005) 181 3, who concludes that ‘[i]n these cases where the figure “received” is a god (Poseidon, Athena, Dionysos, Asklepios) or a hero (Theseus), it is clear that their “reception” involves recognizing their divine status and their entitlement to cult. The implication of extending such a “reception” to a historical person is clear: they too were being cast as someone more than human and a fit object of veneration.’ See, however, Willi (2003) 28. ¹¹⁸ See McKay (1967) 193. On ὀϲμή and divine epiphanies, cf. h.Cer. 277 8, h.Merc. 231, [A.] PV 115 (Prometheus upon the appearance of the Oceanids), E. Hipp. 1391. See also Van Leeuwen (1902) 256 on 1715. The visual quality (καλὸν θέαμα) of this olfactory sensation caused Wilamowitz (1928) 374 5 = (1962) 458 9 to refer it to the following θυμιαμάτων, but see Dunbar (1995) 748 on 1715 and Sommerstein (1987) 309 on 1716. ¹¹⁹ Cf. e.g. E. Hel. 724 5 (servant to Helen) ϲὺ δ’ ἐν δίφροιϲ | ϲὺν τῶιδε νύμφη δῶμ’ ἔλειπεϲ ὄλβιον, ‘As a bride, you left a blessed house in a chariot with this man here beside you.’

48

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

of religious ceremonies.¹²⁰ In Pax, a similar prompt also precedes a wedding song.¹²¹ The messenger speech thus relies on a hymnic structure and integrates into this structure conventional motifs of the wedding song. In the choral ode that is introduced through this speech, the structure of a wedding song appears to integrate elements of hymns: 1720

1725

ἄναγε, δίεχε, πάραγε, πάρεχε, περιπέτεϲθε μάκαρα μάκαρι ϲὺν τύχαι. ὦ φεῦ φεῦ τῆϲ ὥραϲ, τοῦ κάλλουϲ. ὦ μακαριϲτὸν ϲὺ γάμον τῆιδε πόλει γήμαϲ.

1730

μεγάλαι μεγάλαι κατέχουϲι τύχαι γένοϲ ὀρνίθων διὰ τόνδε τὸν ἄνδῤ . ἀλλ̓ ὑμεναίοιϲ καὶ νυμφιδίοιϲι δέχεϲθ̓ ὠιδαῖϲ αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν Βαϲίλειαν.

str.

1735

ant.

Ἥραι ποτ̓ Ὀλυμπίαι τὸν ἠλιβάτων θρόνων ἄρχοντα θεοῖϲ μέγαν Μοῖραι ξυνεκοίμιϲαν ἐν τοιῶιδ̓ ὑμεναίωι. Ὑμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναι᾿ ὦ. ⟨Ὑμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναἰ ὦ.⟩¹²² ὁ δ̓ ἀμφιθαλὴϲ Ἔρωϲ χρυϲόπτεροϲ ἡνίαϲ ηὔθυνε παλιντόνουϲ,

¹²⁰ On cultic εὐφημία in Aristophanes, cf. Av. 958, Eq. 1316, Nu. 263, 297, Th. 39 40, 295 6. On its meaning and significance, see Pulleyn (1997) 184, Willi (2003) 42 5, esp. 42 ‘Communication with the gods is potentially dangerous. To guarantee the absence of ill omened interference, εὐφημία is proclaimed at the first stage of a communal prayer ceremony. In practical terms this was a call for abstention from articulated speech. εὐφημία is also established before other situations that demand religious concentration (e.g. a sacrifice or the performance of a hymn).’ ¹²¹ Ar. Pax 1316 17 εὐφημεῖν χρὴ καὶ τὴν νύμφην ἔξω τινὰ δεῦρο κομίζειν | δᾶιδάϲ τε φέρειν, καὶ πάντα λεὼν ϲυγχαίρειν κἀπικελεύειν, ‘We must speak auspiciously and escort the bride outside here, and fetch torches, and all the people shall rejoice with us and cheer us on.’ See also Sommerstein (1985) 139 on Pax 96, Olson (1998) 86 on Pax 96 7, Willi (2003) 42 5. ¹²² Supplemented by W. Dindorf.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs 1740

49

Ζηνὸϲ πάροχοϲ γάμων τῆϲ τ̓ εὐδαίμονοϲ Ἥραϲ. Ὑμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναἰ ὦ. Ὑμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναἰ ὦ.

Get back, divide, form up, make room, fly around the blessed man with blessed fortune! Oh, oh, what youth, what beauty! O you who have secured a marriage most blessed for this city! Great, great fortune embraces the race of the birds through this man. But receive him with wedding songs and nuptials, him and Basileia. The Fates once brought together the great one who rules over the gods from a high throne with Olympian Hera in a wedding song like this. Hymen O Hymenaeus O! Hymen O Hymenaeus O! And all abounding Eros with golden wings guided the stretched reins, the best man at the wedding of Zeus and blessed Hera, Hymen O Hymenaeus O! Hymen O Hymenaeus O! (Ar. Av. 1720 43)

Through its explicit identification as ὑμέναιοϲ (1728–9, 1735) and through the refrain Ὑμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναἰ ὦ (1736, 1742–3), this song is formally marked as a wedding song. Following this structure, the opening adopts the conventional themes of beauty and blessedness (1721–2). However, when the chorus immediately afterwards measure the wedding by its benefit for the community (1725), they shift the focus, within the conventional theme of blessedness, from admiring the happiness of the bridal couple to glorifying Peisetaerus’ apotheosis. In the following section, a thematic announcement calls for a wedding song (1728–9), but the verb is δέχεϲθαι, which here, as in the messenger speech discussed above, can serve to recognize Peisetaerus’ divine status. Of particular interest is the reference to the wedding of Hera and Zeus in lines 1731 to 1743. The wedding of the two highest Olympian gods offers an eternal paradigm for any wedding.¹²³ As such, it lends itself to being referred to in an epithalamium, even if no other example has survived.¹²⁴ Here, however, the emphasis is not on a general continuity between divine and human

¹²³ See Calame (1977) 209 10 = (1997) 113, Avagianou (1991) passim. ¹²⁴ On the possibility that epithalamia conventionally contained mythical narra tives, see Snell (1931) 73, Snell (1946) 57, Schadewaldt (1951) 49, Merkelbach (1957) 7, 14 19, Roberts (1989) passim, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 103 9. This might be supported both by wedding speeches that refer to paradigmatic mythical weddings ([D.H.] Rh. 2.5 p. 264.7 13 Usener Radermacher, Men.Rh. p. 400.11 28 Russell Wilson) and by Christian epithalamia that refer to paradigmatic biblical weddings (e.g. Paulin. Carm. 25.103 12 = CSEL 30 p. 241 2 with Horstmann (2004) 162). See, however, below, pp. 187 8.

50

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

activities, but specifically on the similarities between the song sung by the Moirae on Olympus and the one sung among the birds (1735 ἐν τοιῶιδ’ ὑμεναίωι). This emphasis seems to be due to the fact that both songs involved a similar combination of praising divinity and celebrating a wedding. The wedding song of Aves, interpreted in this way, provides a complex conflation of the praise of the bridal couple and the praise of Peisetaerus’ apotheosis, incorporated into the general structure of a wedding song. Characteristically, Peisetaerus responds to this song in a manner that reflects his dual role as god and bridegroom. Although the chorus do not explicitly bid farewell, Peisetaerus seems to presuppose an implied χαῖρε when he says: ἐχάρην ὕμνοιϲ, ἐχάρην ὠιδαῖϲ· | ἄγαμαι δὲ λόγων, ‘I am pleased by your hymns, I am pleased by your songs, and I love your words.’ (Ar. Av. 1743–4). Through this gesture, Peisetaerus anticipates an element that is customary at the end of epithalamia as well as hymns.¹²⁵ A last example, which is somewhat different from the first two but should not be omitted from this discussion, is Theocritus 18 for the wedding of Menelaus and Helen. The song, which begins in line 9, is clearly identified as a wedding song through remarks in the prologue (1–8, esp. 8 ὑπὸ δ’ ἴαχε δῶμ’ ὑμεναίωι, ‘The house rang with the bridal hymn’), the final invocation to Hymenaeus (58 ῾Υμὴν ὦ Ὑμέναιε, γάμωι ἐπὶ τῶιδε χαρείηϲ, ‘Hymen O Hymenaeus, rejoice in this wedding’), and the generic markers that are carefully observed throughout the song itself. At its centre, however, it features an element that seems alien to this wider structure of the wedding song: 40

45

ἄμμεϲ δ’ ἐϲ Δρόμον ἦρι καὶ ἐϲ λειμώνια φύλλα ἑρψεῦμεϲ ϲτεφάνωϲ δρεψεύμεναι ἁδὺ πνέονταϲ, πολλὰ τεοῦϲ, Ἑλένα, μεμναμέναι ὡϲ γαλαθηναὶ ἄρνεϲ γειναμέναϲ ὄιοϲ μαϲτὸν ποθέοιϲαι. πρᾶταί τοι ϲτέφανον λωτῶ χαμαὶ αὐξομένοιο πλέξαιϲαι ϲκιαρὰν καταθήϲομεν ἐϲ πλατάνιϲτον πρᾶται δ’ ἀργυρέαϲ ἐξ ὄλπιδοϲ ὑγρὸν ἄλειφαρ λαζύμεναι ϲταξεῦμεϲ ὑπὸ ϲκιαρὰν πλατάνιϲτον γράμματα δ’ ἐν φλοιῶι γεγράψεται, ὡϲ παριών τιϲ ἀννείμηι Δωριϲτί ‘ϲέβευ μ’ Ἑλέναϲ φυτόν εἰμι.’

¹²⁵ On the hymnic aspect, see Dunbar (1995) 761 on 1743 7 ‘[Peisetaerus] is here acting the god, graciously “taking pleasure” in the worship offered.’

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

51

Early in the morning, we will go to the Course and to the leaves of the meadows to pluck fragrant wreaths, often thinking of you, Helen, like suck ling lambs longing for the teat of the mother sheep. We will be the first to wreathe for you a crown of trefoil growing on the ground and place it on a shady plane tree. We will be the first to draw smooth oil from the silver flask and drip it beneath the shady plane tree. And letters will be written in the bark, so that a passer by may read in Dorian: ‘Worship me. I am Helen’s plant.’ (Theoc. 18.39 48)

In these lines, the chorus of Spartan maidens present to Helen, who is now leaving their ranks, a wedding gift. By promising to dedicate to Helen a tree that can be worshipped (48 ϲέβεϲθαι) by future generations, they propose to install a form of cultic worship for Helen in the form of a tree cult in her honour.¹²⁶ The promise of immortality renders this wedding song, and the celebration at which it is meant to be performed, distinctly cultic. Though the actual installation of the cult is envisaged only for the following day, the detailed description of the acts involved (esp. 43–6) anticipates their implementation and projects them into the present performance. By these means, the wedding itself is transformed into the inauguration ceremony of Helen’s hero cult, and the wedding song becomes the first hymn sung in honour of Helen in the context of this cult. The hymnic quality of this wedding song is further highlighted when its function for the primary narrator of the poem, who introduces the wedding song in the prologue (1–8), is considered. As is clear from the temporal adverb ποκα, ‘once’ (1), and the past tenses used to characterize the activity of the Spartan maiden chorus (3 ἐϲτάϲαντο, 5 κατεκλάιξατο, 7 ἄειδον, 8 ἴαχε), the temporal dimension of the narrator is meant to be later than that of the wedding of Menelaus and Helen. This creates the impression that the establishment of the tree cult for Helen in the mythical past is relevant to the narrator because the cult still exists in the hic et nunc of the prologue, regardless of whether or not such a cult existed in this form in historical times. The wedding song serves to illustrate the origins of this cult. In other words, one of the motivations for this passage is aetiological explanation. Aetiology, however, is primarily a feature of cultic hymns, where it serves to connect the surrounding performance ¹²⁶ See Kaibel (1892) 255 9, Mangelsdorff (1913) 15, 18 19, Gow (1950) 2.348, Merkelbach (1957) 20, West (1975) 5. On the historical cult of Helen at Sparta, see also West (1975) passim, Calame (1977) 333 50 = (1997) 191 202.

52

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

of certain rituals with their paradigmatic first performance.¹²⁷ On this interpretation, Theocritus 18 provides an impressive, albeit exceptional, case for the argument that epithalamia can serve hymnic purposes. The three texts discussed in this section shed an interesting light on the argument pursued in the preceding section regarding the formal resemblance of epithalamia and hymns. The authors of all three passages are confronted with the poetic requirement to recognize the divinity of their subjects within a wedding song. All three achieve this recognition not by augmenting the conventional structure of such songs with new elements designed exclusively to praise their subjects as divine, but by creatively exploiting the traditional register of epithalamia as it is employed even for mortal couples. Epithalamia for heroes and gods do not seem to be fundamentally different from those for humans. On the one hand, this could be explained as a symptom of anthropomorphism. On the other hand, this can serve as further evidence for the extraordinary treatment that bridal couples are granted at the moment of their wedding.

WEDDING CEREMONIES The preceding sections demonstrate the various means by which archaic and classical epithalamia conventionally approximate the bridal couple to the gods in terms of happiness and beauty. The question arises whether these approximations are mere literary tropes or whether they are more deeply embedded in the ritual context of the wedding ceremony. The following two sections pursue this question through examinations of the elements of archaic and classical wedding ceremonies and wedding iconography. To understand how the wedding ceremony itself may convey a momentary approximation of the bridal couple to something higher, traditional modern-day Greek weddings provide an instructive parallel. Here, it is customary for bride and bridegroom to wear metal crowns (στέφανα) at the day of their wedding, which are modelled after crowns worn by monarchs. It is understood that these crowns ¹²⁷ On aetiology in hymns, see Depew (1993), Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.13, 1.18 20.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

53

reflect, as symbols, a perception of the bridal couple as something like royalty. Royalty is here meant to encapsulate notions of an elevated social status, unrestricted authority, and carefree joy, and these notions are in turn ascribed to the bridal couple. This happens regardless of the status of the bridal couple prior to their wedding, and has no effect on it thereafter. The couple are allowed to rise above their everyday status, but only for the duration of their wedding. It seems worthwhile to ask whether this peculiar feature of the modern Greek wedding ceremony, which has developed continuously from antiquity,¹²⁸ might have precursors in similar perceptions of a momentary approximation of the bridal couple at the ancient Greek wedding. Speaking generally of ‘the’ Greek wedding ceremony is not without difficulties. A certain degree of variation, across time and from one community to another, needs to be accounted for on principle. Here, as elsewhere, there is a risk that Athenian material, which has survived more copiously than evidence from anywhere else, is unduly generalized.¹²⁹ However, a survey of the relevant descriptions in literature and depictions on vases suggests that there are specific elements that are firmly associated with the wedding ceremony throughout Greek culture. Among these elements are found, chiefly, the wedding sacrifices (προτέλεια, προγάμεια, προαύλια, sc. ἱερά), the nuptial bath and adornment of the bridal couple with special garments and wreaths, the wedding symposium and the singing of paeans, and, most important, the procession to the house of the bridegroom at dusk, with torches held by the participants, shouts of ὑμήν or variations of it, and a vehicle carrying the bridal couple.¹³⁰ The literary evidence is ambiguous as to the nature of the vehicle.

¹²⁸ On continuities between ancient and modern Greek weddings, see Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 110 32. ¹²⁹ Plutarch’s account of Spartan wedding customs at Lyc. 15.4 6 would leave little room for any public ceremony. However, these customs, which are not mentioned in X. Lac. 1.5 8, may be subject to the ‘Spartan mirage’; see discussions in MacDowell (1986) 79 82, Millender (2017) 508 9. ¹³⁰ Most of the evidence is collected in Oakley and Sinos (1993) 11 34. On wedding sacrifices, see also Burkert (1972) 74 5, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 39. On wedding paeans, see also Deubner (1919) 391, Käppel (1992) 50 1, Rutherford (2001a) 56. On torches, cf. E. IA 732, Σ E. Ph. 344 8, Σ E. Tr. 315, Σ A.R. 4.808 9, AP 7.712.6 = Erinn. 2.6 Gow Page. On shouts of ὑμήν, see Maas (1907), Mangelsdorff (1913) 4 5, Muth (1954) 7 8. On the vehicle, cf. Poll. 2.195, 3.40 with the character istic term χαμαίπουϲ, ‘going on foot’, for the poor bride that cannot afford a vehicle for the wedding procession.

54

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

While lexicographers tend to speak of mule-drawn carriages (ἄμαξα, ἀπήνη, ζεῦγοϲ),¹³¹ descriptions of mythical weddings also contain references to horse-drawn chariots (ἅρμα, δίφροϲ).¹³² For example, when Sappho relates the wedding of Hector and Andromache, all of Troy mount their vehicles:

15

αὔτικ’ Ἰλίαδαι ϲατίναι[ϲ] ὐπ’ ἐυτρόχοιϲ ἆγον αἰμιόνοιϲ, ἐ̣π̣[έ]βαινε δὲ παῖϲ ὄχλοϲ γυναίκων τ’ ἄμα παρθενίκα[ν] τ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ϲφύρων, χῶριϲ δ’ αὖ Περάμοιο θυγ[α]τρεϲ[ ἴππ[οιϲ] δ’ ἄνδρεϲ ὔπαγον ὐπ’ ἀρ̣[ματα π[ ]εϲ ἠίθ̣εοι, μεγάλω[ϲ]τι δ̣[ δ[ ] ̣ἀνίοχοι φ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣[

At once the sons of Ilus yoked the mules to the smooth running carriages, and the whole crowd of women and [tender? ]ankled maidens climbed on board. Separately (drove) the daughters of Priam . . . and unmarried men yoked horses to chariots, . . . and greatly . . . charioteers . . . (Sapph. fr. 44.13 19)

Generally, while it may be rash to exclude altogether the possibility that chariots were employed at archaic and classical weddings, especially at those organized by wealthy and influential families, carriages appear to be the more common choice. Carriages would have been both more easily available, serving as versatile transport vehicles for most crafts, and more comfortable, allowing the bridal couple to sit and leave the stirring to the ‘best man’ (παρανύμφιοϲ).¹³³ Many of these objects and actions are elsewhere associated with the cultic worship of heroes and gods. Torches, for example, are a stock component of the nocturnal worship of Dionysus, Demeter, and other deities.¹³⁴ The cultic cry recalls similar shouts as part of the ¹³¹ Cf. Hsch. κ 3001, Phot. ζ 28, Poll. 10.33, Sud. ζ 33 (s.v. ζεῦγος ἡμιονικόν). ¹³² A reference to horses is found at E. Hel. 722 4 νῦν ἀνανεοῦμαι τὸν ϲὸν ὑμέναιον πάλιν | καὶ λαμπάδων μεμνήμεθ’ ἃϲ τετραόροιϲ | ἵπποιϲ τροχάζων παρέφερον, ‘Now I renew the wedding song once again and remember the torches that I carried marching with the four yoked horses.’ Hofinger (1975 8) s.v. ἀπήνη interprets [Hes.] Sc. 273 (ἐυϲϲώτρου ἐπ’ ἀπήνηϲ) as ‘chariot’, though the passage seems ambigu ous. Similarly, Dunbar (1995) 760 1 on Ar. Av. 1738 40 argues that Zeus and Hera are seated on a chariot, though the text gives no clear indication. ¹³³ See Oakley and Sinos (1993) 39, Dunbar (1995) 752, M. Griffith (2006) 236. The evidence of wedding iconography, which shows predominantly chariots, is evaluated in the next section. ¹³⁴ See Mau (1909) 1953, Gagé (1969) 158 61, who assumes a connection between torches at the wedding and those at the cult of Demeter, Burkert (1972) 299, 302,

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

55

performances of cultic songs like paeans or iobakchoi.¹³⁵ Perhaps the strongest evocation of cult, however, is found in the use of vehicles, regardless of their precise nature, in public processions. In the life of archaic and classical poleis, both chariots and carriages are firmly associated with the communal worship of deities, where, on fixed days in the religious calendar, cult images or humans enacting deities are driven through public space.¹³⁶ In the famous anecdote of Peisistratus’ return to Athens ‘with a woman named Phye’, related in Herodotus 1.60, the impression of a divine epiphany is conveyed, at least in part, through the entry on a chariot. Weddings aside, most living humans of the archaic and classical periods are not usually allowed to ride a carriage or chariot in a procession through the polis. Even for monarchs it seems to have been unusual before Hellenistic times to do so, and, where royalty enters the stage on vehicles in tragedy, notions of transgression and orientalism are usually close by.¹³⁷ Only victorious athletes are sometimes granted processions in their hometowns on chariots, but these processions are exceptional events highly charged with spiritual meaning.¹³⁸ The use of torches, cultic cries, and, above all, vehicles identifies the wedding ceremony as a ritual with a strong resemblance of cultic ritual.¹³⁹ This is confirmed by the fact that, in early and classical Greek, the verb used to refer to the performance of a wedding celebration is τελεῖν or ἐκτελεῖν (sc. γάμον), which is elsewhere used for the performance of cultic worship.¹⁴⁰ It may be tempting to seek

Käppel (1992) 251 n. 170, Krummen (1998) 316 n. 52. Ambiguities between the wedding ceremony and Dionysiac mania, exemplified in the use of torches, are exploited at E. Tr. 308 10, 320 5, on which see Krummen (1998) 320. ¹³⁵ On the similarities between the cultic cries at weddings and those in cult, see Rutherford (2001a) 56 7. All the genres listed in Pi. fr. 128c (Thren. 3) = 56 Cannatà Fera have the cultic shouts in common. ¹³⁶ Cf. the evidence collected in Rutherford (1992) 69 72, Sinos (1993) 79 90, esp. 83 4, Rutherford (2001) 412 13 on Pi. fr. 52p (Pae. 15) = S4 Rutherford, Pavlou (2011) 67 8, Petridou (2015) 154 6. On enacted epiphanies, see also Petridou (2015) 43 64. ¹³⁷ Cf. particularly the entries of the Persian Queen at A. Pers. 155 8 (cf. 607 8), of Agamemnon at A. 782 (cf. 906), on which see below, p. 174; of Clytemnestra at E. El. 988 97 (cf. 998), on which see below, p. 169; and the description of Laius at S. OT 800 5. See also Taplin (1977) 303, Hall (1989) 205 on the chariot as an ‘Aeschylean danger sign’. ¹³⁸ See below, p. 129. ¹³⁹ See also Swift (2010) 245. ¹⁴⁰ Cf. e.g. Od. 4.7, Alcm. fr. S5(b).16 Davies = 241.16 Calame, Sapph. fr. 112.2, Pi. P. 9.66. On the semantics of τελετή/τελῶ, see Yatromanolakis and Roilos (2004) 5 6 and the literature recorded there.

56

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

the reason for this cultic nature of the ritual in the deity Hymenaeus, who is sometimes invoked as patron of weddings. However, this figure is first attested in the fifth century BC, and as a nuptial deity he is not found before Euripides, at a time when the invention of gods and introduction of new cults is a well-documented phenomenon in Athens.¹⁴¹ The same applies to the deity Gamus, who is not attested before the fourth century BC.¹⁴² Outside of these few instances, the bridal couple are the uncontested centre of attention at the wedding ceremony and all those elements that create a sense of cultic ritual serve only to elevate and glorify them. This interpretation is strengthened if the wedding ceremony is compared with the funeral, which shares many conventional elements with the wedding. Archaic and classical funerary rites involve the washing of the dead, adornment with special garments and wreaths, uttering of cultic cries and singing of choral songs by the community, and torch-lit processions through the polis.¹⁴³ Strikingly, tragedy and funerary epigrams for unmarried or newly wed girls frequently reflect the similarities between these two rituals by identifying marriage with death or death with marriage.¹⁴⁴ What sets the funeral apart from the wedding ceremony is the decisive evidence for laws, passed by a ¹⁴¹ The first reference to Hymenaeus that is not merely a cultic cry appears to be Pi. fr. 128c.7 9 (Thren. 3) = 56.7 9 Cannatà Fera. However, this Hymenaeus does not seem to be a god in charge of weddings, but a young man of heroic times. On the deity Hymenaeus and his relationship to the cultic cry, see Muth (1954) 8 22. E. Tr. 322 4 and Theoc. 18.58 seem to allude to a notion that weddings are cultic offerings in honour of Hymenaeus. Catul. 61.1 75 appears to be an adaptation, and substantial expansion, of these invocations. Cultic worship of Hymenaeus outside of weddings is attested only for Argus, cf. Hyg. Fab. 273.2 and the discussion in Horstmann (2004) 195 8. On religious innovation in the fifth century, see R. Parker (1996) 152 87. ¹⁴² Cf. e.g. Philox. fr. 828 Page Γάμε θεῶν λαμπρότατε, ‘Gamus, most splendid of the gods.’ ¹⁴³ On the general outlook of archaic and classical funerals, see Kurtz and Boardman (1971) 142 61, Kurtz and Boardman (1985) 169 87, Engels (1998) 24 9. On the similarities between the two rituals, see Jenkins (1983) 141 2, Seaford (1987) 107, Rehm (1994) 29, Swift (2010) 251 4, Mackin (2018) 209 10. On similarities with modern Greek weddings, see Alexiou (1974) 120. ¹⁴⁴ Cf. S. Ant. 781 816, esp. 813 16, E. Alc. 922, Her. 481 4, IA 460 1, Med. 626, Tr. 351 2, AP 7.182 = Mel. 123 Gow Page, AP 7.183 = Parmen. 3 Gow Page, AP 7.188 = Anton.Thall. 3 Gow Page, AP 7.291 (Xenocr.Rhod.), AP 7.568 (Agath.), AP 7.610 (Pall.), AP 7.711 = Antip.Sidon. 56 Gow Page, AP 7.712 = Erinn. 2 Gow Page, Mart. 3.93.23 7, GVI 658 (Rome, 3/4th c.AD), 1162 (Lemnos, 2nd c.AD), 1238 (Leontopolis, 1st c.AD), 1551 (Teos, 2nd/1st c.BC), 1553 (Crete, 1st c.BC), 1989 (Pantikapaios, 2nd/1st c.BC). See also the discussions in Seaford (1987), Seaford (2004) 87 90, Rehm (1994) passim, Papadopoulou (2000) 520, Baltieri (2011) 210 17.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

57

number of communities from the seventh century BC onwards, that meticulously restrict the size of funeral ceremonies and the luxury displayed at them.¹⁴⁵ The majority of these laws seem to be motivated by attempts to confine family funerals to the domestic sphere and reduce their engagement with the community to a minimum. In fifthcentury Athens, for example, precisely those elements prohibited for family funerals are used in the state-controlled funerals of the casualties of the Persian Wars.¹⁴⁶ Because of this discrepancy between domestic and state funerals, funerary legislation is often interpreted as an attempt of the polis authorities either to dissolve tensions between influential families, which might have exacerbated and even escalated at lavish funeral processions,¹⁴⁷ or to appropriate the privilege of installing hero cults through funerals, which was before exercised by aristocratic clans.¹⁴⁸ Weddings, which engaged with the public in similar ways, might have provided an equally suitable stage for the display of wealth, power, and support among the polis population.¹⁴⁹ Aristotle recognizes this potential when, in his discussion of the right use of magnificence (μεγαλοπρέπεια), the wedding celebration is named among those events where expenditure benefits the majority of the polis population: τῶν δὲ ἰδίων ὅϲα εἰϲάπαξ γίνεται, οἷον γάμοϲ καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον, καὶ εἰ περί τι πᾶϲα ἡ πόλιϲ ϲπουδάζει ἢ οἱ ἐν ἀξιώματι, καὶ περὶ ξένων δὲ ὑποδοχὰϲ καὶ ἀποϲτολάϲ, καὶ δωρεὰϲ καὶ ἀντιδωρεάϲ οὐ γὰρ εἰϲ ἑαυτὸν δαπανηρὸϲ ὁ μεγαλοπρεπὴϲ ἀλλ̓ εἰϲ τὰ κοινά, τὰ δὲ δῶρα τοῖϲ ἀναθήμαϲιν ἔχει τι ὅμοιον. (Occasions to display magnificence are) also among the private occa sions that only happen once, like a wedding or the like, when the entire polis hurries together or only the people of distinction; and also in welcoming guests and celebrating their departure, and in the giving and ¹⁴⁵ For a collection and evaluation of the evidence for these laws, see Engels (1998) passim. ¹⁴⁶ See Loraux (1981) 39 42, R. Parker (1996) 130 9, Currie (2005) 112 14. ¹⁴⁷ See Alexiou (1974) 13 19, Garland (1989), Toher (1991) 174 5, Morris (1992) 35 50, Engels (1998) 30 47. ¹⁴⁸ See Humphreys (1980) 102 = (1983) 89, Engels (1998) 86 7. See also Toher (1991) 175. For other possible motives, see Cannon (1989) 437 58, who examines social interactions by means of anthropological comparison, and Sourvinou Inwood (1995) 33 49, 429 39, who regards the laws as a protection of the living from the power of the dead. ¹⁴⁹ On the public and social aspects of weddings, see Lyghounis (1991) 163 4, 172.

58

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

returning of gifts. For the magnificent man does not make expenses for himself but for the public, and his gifts resemble votive offerings. (Arist. EN 4.2 1122b35 1123a5)

Later still, it becomes commonplace among Christian authors to criticize pagan wedding ceremonies for their display of ‘profane ambition’ (profana ambitio).¹⁵⁰ If the ostentation of wealth and power can still be observed at weddings in fourth-century Athens and the later Roman Empire, it seems highly likely that, in Greek archaic and classical poleis, aristocratic families might have exploited weddings for similarly ostentatious purposes, as was certainly done at funerals.¹⁵¹ However, as opposed to the ubiquitous funerary legislation starting in the seventh century, no laws are known that restrict the luxury displayed at weddings.¹⁵² This absence confirms the impression that many Greek communities were prepared to concede honours to the bridal couple that, in other contexts, were considered inappropriate for humans. The religious dimension of funerary legislation is important in this respect, as it seems to suggest that the bridal couple were honoured in a way that would elsewhere indicate cultic worship. In accounting for these extraordinary honours, it is attractive to assume a cultural perspective where bridal couples approximate, at their weddings, to higher spheres.

WEDDING ICONOGRAPHY Ancient Greek wedding ceremonies have engendered not only the wedding song as a voice to advance perceptions of the bridal couple at the moment of their wedding but also a distinct iconography ¹⁵⁰ Paulin. Carm. 25.34 = CSEL 30 p. 239. Cf. also Cyprian Hab.Virg. 21 = CCSL 3F pp. 313 14 and, in the East, John Chrysostom in Ac.Hom. 42.3 = PG 60 pp. 300 1, in 1 Cor.Hom. 12.6 = PG 61 pp. 103 4. On this criticism, see also Horstmann (2004) 155. ¹⁵¹ The difficult Alc. fr. 5 Voigt might preserve an example for this. The fragment appears to be concerned with the connection between Pittacus’ marriage (11 γάμει, 18 γάμο̣ν̣) and his rise to power (esp. 14 βα]ϲίλευϲ ἔχην). In this context, there is also a reference to his personal guard (12 ξυϲτοφο[ρή]με[νοϲ). Perhaps this indicates that the wedding procession comprised armed soldiers comparable to the processions on funerary vases. ¹⁵² There is only a spurious reference in Poll. 1.246 to a ‘Solonic’ law defining the household goods to be carried by the bride during the procession. Perhaps in response to the absence of marriage laws, Pl. Lg. 8 841d e treats such laws as among the most important responsibilities of the ideal lawgiver.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

59

of weddings. This is preserved with particular richness on Athenian black-figure and red-figure vases and on the so-called Locrian pinakes, i.e. clay relief tablets from Epizephyrian Locri dating roughly from the first half of the fifth century BC.¹⁵³ Both Athenian vases and Locrian pinakes are immediately connected with the wedding ceremony. The vases are likely to have served as gifts presented to bridal couples at their weddings.¹⁵⁴ The pinakes seem to be dedications to a local cult of Persephone made by newly wed brides.¹⁵⁵ In this way, their iconographies can offer valuable views on the bridal couple complementary to the views found in wedding songs. Regarding the question of whether or not the bridal couple may be thought of as approximating to divinity momentarily, these iconographies are particularly revealing, since they frequently seem to experiment with the boundaries between humanity and divinity. A distinct feature of the iconography of the vases is their uniform representation of bride and bridegroom. The vast majority of blackfigure vases depict the bridal couple wearing special garments and standing on a chariot amid the wedding procession.¹⁵⁶ Red-figure vases exhibit a greater variety of wedding scenes but here, too, bridal couples are uniformly represented with special garments and wreaths as well as the nuptial veil for the bride.¹⁵⁷ Only in a handful of cases are weddings between heroic or divine figures identified through inscriptions. On two black-figure vases, Menelaus and Helen and Peleus and Thetis (Fig. 2.1) are named respectively, while one redfigure vase names Admetus and Alcestis (Fig. 2.2).¹⁵⁸ However, these

¹⁵³ A useful collection and evaluation of wedding vases is found in Fink (1974). In this section, vases are referred to by their number in the list in the Iconographical Appendix (appx). Locrian pinakes are referred to by the types assigned to them by Zancani Montuoro, which are retained in the new comprehensive editione by Lissi Caronna, Sabbione, and Vlad Borrelli (1999 2007). ¹⁵⁴ See Fink (1974) 187, 247. It is no objection that the majority were found in tombs, since it is conceivable that precious wedding gifts would have been buried with their owners. ¹⁵⁵ See Sourvinou Inwood (1973), Sourvinou Inwood (1978) 104 5. ¹⁵⁶ See appx 4 71. See also the summary in Fink (1974) 180, Jenkins (1983) 140. Appx 1 3 stand out in that they depict Peleus and Thetis standing on the ground as they receive their divine guests on chariots. ¹⁵⁷ See appx 76 82. The hymenaios appears as a new type of komos like procession scene where neither bride and groom nor chariots feature (appx 83 6). See also Jenkins (1983) 140. ¹⁵⁸ For Menelaus and Helen, see appx 72. For other, more dubious cases, see Boardman (1952) 43 n. 219.

60

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

bridal couples are represented exactly in the same way as the majority of unidentified couples, without the conventional iconographical attributes that identify them elsewhere. In fact, identification is possible only because of the inscriptions. The absence of individual conventional attributes is particularly striking in one black-figure vase, where the bridal couple are identified, through inscription, as Heracles and Hebe (Fig. 2.3). Heracles is here depicted like all the other bridegrooms, without, for instance, his lion skin and club, which serve to identify him throughout black-figure and red-figure styles and even in the secondary zones of many wedding vases.¹⁵⁹ Similarly, in one red-figure vase, the couple are identified as Dionysus and Ariadne (Fig. 2.4), where Dionysus is bare of his drinking cup and panther skin, which always identify him, even when he is part of wedding processions on other wedding vases.¹⁶⁰

Fig. 2.1. Peleus and Thetis during their wedding procession. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 3790. Su concessione de Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo Polo Museale della Toscana Firenze. Further reproduction or duplication by any means is expressly prohibited without permission.

¹⁵⁹ See appx 6, 8, 16, 22, 24, 31, 32, 36, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 73. ¹⁶⁰ See also Heinemann (2016) 444, 490. In some Dionysiac scenes it is doubtful whether they depict a wedding: appx 89 clearly features a satyr rather than Dionysus; appx 90 is too unspecific to be decisive.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

61

Fig. 2.2. Admetus and Alcestis during their wedding procession. Loutro phorus fr. by the Methyse Painter, 475 25 BC; Athens, Acrop. Mus. NA 1957 Aa 757. © Acropolis Museum, 2018.

If even the most distinguished figures of Greek iconography are identifiable, when depicted as brides and bridegrooms, only via inscriptions, this seems to suggest that the standardized iconography of the bridal couple has the capacity to supersede the specific iconographies of individual figures. This uniform iconography creates a methodological problem when approaching the large number of depictions without inscriptions. There is no way of determining whether these unlabelled scenes depict human, heroic, or divine weddings. In fact, there are a number of fragmentary vases where it is highly debated whether they depict the wedding of an unnamed human couple or, say, Peleus and Thetis or Zeus and Hera.¹⁶¹ It might be thought that inscriptions are a necessary condition for identifying mythical weddings between heroic and divine

¹⁶¹ See appx 32, 74 (divine or mortal weddings?), 63 (Zeus and Hera?), 64, 77, 93 8 (Peleus and Thetis?), 91 (Heracles and Hebe?), 92 (Menelaus and Helen?).

62

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Fig. 2.3. Heracles and Hebe during their wedding procession. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 14.105.10. © bpk | The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

weddings and that, consequently, all unlabelled wedding scenes depict human weddings contemporary to the time of production of the vase.¹⁶² However, even the unlabelled scenes feature elements that are clearly designed to create a sense of distance from a purely human sphere. One such element is the presence of the gods. In the majority of black-figure vases, and on some red-figure vases, gods are found as members of the wedding procession. In various combinations, they depict Hermes leading the procession, Apollo with his lyre, Dionysus with his drinking cup, and Artemis with either a torch or a flower in ¹⁶² See Fink (1974) 12, 100, 183, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 40.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

63

Fig. 2.4. Dionysus and Ariadne. Calyx crater fr. by the Group of Polygnotus, 475 25 BC; Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Univers., Arch. Inst. 5439. © Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Antikensammlung.

her hands.¹⁶³ These depictions may, to some extent, be interpreted as iconographical conventions aimed to represent certain aspects of the wedding celebration, like transition (Hermes), music (Apollo), revelling (Dionysus), or maidenhood (Artemis).¹⁶⁴ However, these scenes are not always clearly distinct from representations of the same deities in scenes of labelled heroic or divine weddings, where the gods are to be interpreted as actual attendants rather than symbolic representations. This iconographical equivocation between gods as guests and gods as elements of the wedding celebration is bound to obscure a clear distinction between depictions of mythical and non-mythical weddings. ¹⁶³ See appx 4 5, 7 8, 12, 17, 19 21, 23 5, 27 8, 30 2, 34 6, 38 40, 42 3, 45 64, 66 8, 87, 99. ¹⁶⁴ See Boardman (1952) 34.

64

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

A second, more decisive element of ambiguity is the chariot. In the previous section of this chapter, it is argued that, while some form of vehicle is certain to have featured at most archaic and classical weddings, mule-drawn carriages are likely to have been significantly more common than horse-drawn chariots. This general consideration is contrasted by the observation that, compared to sixty-six blackfigure vases and seven red-figure vases depicting bridal couples on chariots,¹⁶⁵ there seems to exist only one vase depicting, in a exceptionally realistic vein, two mule carts (Fig. 2.5). For the overwhelming majority of vases, the iconography of weddings appears to deviate, in a crucial point, from predominant customs at contemporary wedding ceremonies. The reason for this deviation is not difficult to conceive. In the semantics of Athenian vases, chariots serve, first and foremost, as the vehicle of heroes, when they perform mythical deeds, and of gods, when they appear in epiphanies. Given the function that chariots have in the cultic life of Greek communities, the iconography of the chariot is firmly associated with the mythical and divine spheres.¹⁶⁶ When, therefore, chariots feature in wedding scenes that are not explicitly mythical or divine, they are, like the depictions of accompanying gods, likely to be aimed to elevate the significance of these ceremonies into semi-mythical heights.¹⁶⁷ To understand this process of elevation better, comparison with the funeral can again be illuminating. Athenian geometric vases and black-figure clay plaques seem to establish a connection between the funerals that they depict and the funerals for which they were produced and dedicated.¹⁶⁸ Here, the laid-out corpse (during πρόθεϲιϲ) is frequently shown in open space with large groups of male and female mourners, sometimes even surrounded by processions of warriors and chariots.¹⁶⁹ Scenes of the funeral procession (ἐκφορά) often involve lavishly adorned corpses, laid out on horse-drawn chariots and

¹⁶⁵ See appx 6 71, 76 82. ¹⁶⁶ See Sinos (1993) passim. ¹⁶⁷ See Sinos (1993) 76 7. ¹⁶⁸ Geometric vases are conveniently collected and evaluated in Ahlberg (1971), clay plaques in Zschietzschmann (1928) and Boardman (1955). Numbers again refer to the list in the appendix. ¹⁶⁹ Baldachins are stretched out above the bier in appx 100 3. Floral motifs are found in appx 102, 104 6. See the discussion in Ahlberg (1971) 165. For branches, leaves, and birds on clay plaques, see appx 133 9. See the discussion in Boardmann (1955) 55 7. For warrior processions, see appx 107. For chariot processions, see appx 105 15.

Fig. 2.5. Mule carts at the wedding procession. Lecythus by Amasis, 575–25 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 56.11.1.

© bpk The Metropolitan Museum of Art Justin Kerr.

66

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

sometimes accompanied by other chariots in the same scene.¹⁷⁰ Some vases depict, in the vicinity of funeral scenes, processions of armed men and chariots, as well as races of chariots and even ships.¹⁷¹ Because such agonistic scenes are found in the majority of secondary zones of funerary vases and, in this way, appear to be part of the iconography of funerals, they are interpreted to represent funeral games.¹⁷² These depictions do not provide accurate representations of prevalent funerary customs in archaic Athens. In fact, many of the elements depicted on the Athenian vases are explicitly prohibited by the Athenian funerary legislation that was later ascribed to Solon.¹⁷³ These laws confine the πρόθεϲιϲ to indoor space, limit the number of mourners, and simplify the decoration of the corpse. The vehicle used at the ἐκφορά is always referred to as a mule-cart. The only context for which elements found on vases and plaques, including funeral games, are attested is the fifth-century polis-controlled cult of the casualties of the Persian Wars, an extraordinary form of worship that appears to be deliberately anachronistic.¹⁷⁴ Rather than representing contemporary customs, funerary iconography evokes the grand heroic funerals of the epic tradition, for which Iliad 23 with its chariot race and other competitions and, somewhat later, Aeneid 5 with its ship race provide famous examples.¹⁷⁵ By evoking heroic funerals in the contexts of real-life archaic funerals, these vases and plaques attempt to bridge the gulf that separates historical present and mythical past. In so doing, they emphasize the timeless nature of communal ritual. The question of whether the deceased depicted in such scenes is a contemporary human or a mythical hero is deliberately obscured and so allows a given spectator to perceive the similarities between the two spheres. A similar explanation can be developed for the discrepancy between wedding iconography and the wedding ceremony. Wedding

¹⁷⁰ On vases, see appx 116 18. On clay plaques, see appx 136, 138. ¹⁷¹ For processions of armed men, see appx 106, 108 9, 113, 119 23. For chariot processions, see appx 100, 105 12, 124. For chariot races, see appx 106, 125, 100, 117, 102, 121, 126 31. For ship races, see appx 105, 107, 119. See also Ahlberg (1971) 194 6, 204 5, 209. ¹⁷² See Ahlberg (1971) 209. ¹⁷³ For evidence for and dating of these laws, see Engels (1998) 93 4. ¹⁷⁴ See R. Parker (1996) 132 3, Currie (2005) 113 14. ¹⁷⁵ See Ahlberg (1971) 165, 292 4.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

67

iconography, like funerary iconography, while being rooted in contemporary wedding customs, elevates these customs to the mythical and heroic spheres. This interpretation suggests that a neat division of mythical and non-mythical scenes, depending on the presence or absence of inscriptions, would be problematic, because all wedding vases establish a connection with the world of myth. Comparison with funerary iconography also indicates that the categories of human, heroic, and divine might be out of place in considering the iconography of the bridal couple. As is argued above, in both blackfigure and red-figure styles, the bridal couple are a highly standardized motif, almost a template, which lacks obvious iconographical indicators of human, heroic, or divine statuses. By eliminating these conventional distinctions, wedding iconography, like funerary iconography, emphasizes how these differences, which dominate everyday life, become somewhat irrelevant during the wedding ceremony.¹⁷⁶ Iconographical assimilation in contexts of weddings is not restricted to Athenian examples, but appears to be found also among the Locrian pinakes. The second group of types assigned to these tablets by Paula Zancani-Montuoro features abduction scenes.¹⁷⁷ One series of types clearly show Hades’ abduction of Persephone.¹⁷⁸ Here, Hades is bearded, Persephone is identified through attributes associated with her iconography (a cock and a flower basket), and the horses drawing the chariot are winged (Fig. 2.6). Another series of types is highly similar to the first series. However, since here the abductor is an unbearded youth, he is unlikely to be Hades (e.g. Fig. 2.7).¹⁷⁹ In one type, Hades even stands by and watches the abduction by the young man (Fig. 2.8). Instead, the unbearded nature of the abductor in these scenes seems to suggest that he is a bridegroom ‘abducting’ his bride during the wedding procession.¹⁸⁰ Even on this interpretation, the similarities between these types and those depicting Hades and Persephone remain striking. Apart

¹⁷⁶ See Boardman (1952) 34, Sourvinou Inwood (1973) 18, Sinos (1993) 77. ¹⁷⁷ These are collected in the first volume of Lissi Caronna, Sabbione, and Vlad Borrelli (1999 2007). ¹⁷⁸ See 2/1, 2/18, 2/19, 2/22, 2/24 Zancani Montuoro. ¹⁷⁹ See 2/2 17, 2/20 1, 2/23, 2/25 30 Zancani Montuoro. 2/31 4 Zancani Montuoro are too fragmentary. ¹⁸⁰ See Sourvinou Inwood (1973), Sourvinou Inwood (1978) 104 5, Redfield (2003) 363, Mackin (2018) 214 15. For other interpretations, see the survey in Lissi Caronna, Sabbione, and Vlad Borrelli (1999 2007) 1.248 56.

68

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Fig. 2.6. Hades’ abduction of Persephone on a Locrian pinax (2/24 Zancani Montuoro). Reproduced by kind permission of the Società Magna Grecia.

from a general resemblance of scenery and postures, some types feature cocks and flower baskets, the iconographical attributes of Persephone found also in those types depicting her own abduction.¹⁸¹ Moreover, the majority of horses are winged, which seems to elevate the scenes into mythical heights (e.g. Fig. 2.9).¹⁸² To account for these peculiarities, it is thought that the iconography of the wedding scenes is here assimilated into the iconography of Persephone’s abduction. For the Locrian cult of Persephone, it seems, the wedding of Hades and Persephone, as represented through the abduction, offers a paradigm for the wedding, and depictions of ¹⁸¹ Cocks: 2/4, 2/6, 2/7, 2/13, 2/15, 2/26, 2/28, 2/30 Zancani Montuoro; flower baskets: 2/4, 2/6, 2/7, 2/9, 2/12, 2/13, 2/20 Zancani Montuoro. See also Prückner (1968) 70 7, Redfield (2003) 355. ¹⁸² See 2/3, 2/4, 2/12, 2/13, 2/15, 2/20, 2/21, 2/25, 2/26, 2/28, 2/29, 2/30 Zancani Montuoro.

Fig. 2.7. Simple abduction of the bride during the wedding procession on a Locrian pinax (2/5 Zancani Montuoro). Reproduced by kind permission of the Società Magna Grecia.

Fig. 2.8. Abduction of the bride with Hades standing by on a Locrian pinax (2/30 Zancani Montuoro). Reproduced by kind permission of the Società Magna Grecia.

70

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

Fig. 2.9. Abduction of the bride with cock, flowers, and winged horses on a Locrian pinax (2/13 Zancani Montuoro). Reproduced by kind permission of the Società Magna Grecia.

mortal weddings aspire to this paradigm.¹⁸³ The result of this assimilation is a hybrid of mortal and divine iconographies, which, in effect, serves to highlight the similarities between all bridal couples, regardless of their respective statuses. Athenian black-figure and red-figure vases and Locrian pinakes are similar in that they open interpretative paths from the immediate contexts of their use to the world of myth. The present wedding is given meaning through its connection with the mythical paradigm and vice versa. The connection between these two spheres is made in the representation of the bridal couple, the iconography of which transcends the boundaries between human, heroic, and divine. Thus understood, wedding iconography preserves a vision where even mortal bridal couples enter a sphere close to immortal heroes and gods.

¹⁸³ See Redfield (2003) 363 4, 367, Mackin (2018) 215 17.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

71

CONCLUSION The preceding interpretations of extant epithalamia, both fragmentary and complete, from archaic to Hellenistic times and beyond suggest that these songs conventionally portray the bridal couple as surpassing their human limitations for the duration of their wedding. Explicit comparisons with immortal heroes, gods, and celestial bodies communicate the superhuman beauty especially of the bride, while comparisons with plants highlight the momentary nature of this beauty. Implicit comparisons with divine bliss conveyed in terms like μάκαρ communicate the extraordinary happiness experienced by the bridal couple. Hymnic register adopted conventionally even for human weddings further contributes to the presentation of bride and bridegroom as quasi-divine beings who appear during the wedding procession almost like a divine epiphany. In ascribing the bridal couple a special, almost superhuman status and experience during their wedding, these songs treat the bridal couple in a way that can also be observed in elements of the wedding ceremony and wedding iconography. This agreement of ceremony, iconography, and song suggests that the perception of the bridal couple as something more than mortal is not merely a poetic trope, but is rooted in the ritual of the wedding itself. Ritual, it appears, engenders a distinct vision of the bridal couple that manifests itself independently in various media. The approximation of the bridal couple to divinity, in the context of the wedding in general and in wedding songs in particular, is striking for its explicitness and pervasiveness. In itself, such a treatment would seem to have a high potential for being perceived as transgressive and hubristic. This prompts the question of whether epithalamia contain any strategies designed to counter or avoid divine jealousy and retribution. One such strategy might be humour. In some form or other, humour features in most of the texts considered here. In Rome, with its distinct tradition of fescennini uersus, there is strong evidence that forms of mockery and abuse, particularly directed at the bridegroom, precede their poetic manifestations and are an established element of the Roman wedding celebration.¹⁸⁴ The same can be assumed for archaic and classical Greek weddings, even ¹⁸⁴ On fescennini versus, cf. Catul. 61.119 20, Sen. Med. 113 14, Hor. Epist. 2.1.145 6, Liv. 7.2.7, Serv. A. 7.695. See also Hersch (2010) 151 6.

72

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

though the precise nature of the humour is here likely to have been milder than at Roman weddings.¹⁸⁵ The purpose of this humour is well illustrated by Sappho’s fr. 111: 5

γάμβροϲ {(εἰϲ)έρχεται ἶϲοϲ Ἄρευι{ ⟨ὐμήναον,⟩ ἄνδροϲ μεγάλω πόλυ μέϲδων.

The bridegroom is coming like Ares Hymenaeus! much larger than a large man. (Sapph. fr. 111.5 7)

There is a notable anti-climax in the development from the comparison with Ares, who, in the Iliad, is said to be seven plethra, i.e. about seven hundred feet, over two hundred metres, tall (21.407) and to roar like nine or ten thousand men combined (5.859), to the almost childlike expression ‘much larger than a large man’. This anti-climax adds a self-conscious note to the powerful comparison, and this note may be intended to amuse.¹⁸⁶ If this is the case, humour would here be employed to mitigate the religious impact that a direct comparison of a human with a deity might have.¹⁸⁷ Smile and laughter would dispel associations of arrogance and presumption. However, this kind of ritual laughter serves primarily to protect the speaker from charges of excess, rather than modifying the statement that might be perceived as excessive. In its essence, the striking comparison with Ares is not modified through the additional statement. Another strategy of escaping hubris might be encountered in Sappho’s fr. 27, which is, in all likelihood, a wedding song placed,

¹⁸⁵ For humour in Greek epithalamia, see Mangelsdorff (1913) 7 9, R. Griffith (1989) 57, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 94. For Sappho in particular, cf. Demetr. Eloc. 166 8 and see Page (1955) 120, Bowra (1961) 216, Marcovich (1969) 35, Marcovich (1972) 32. For differences between Greek and Roman humour, see Fedeli (1972) 73. ¹⁸⁶ Kirk (1963) takes offence with the ‘flatness’ of this humour and interprets the expression instead as an ithyphallic description of the bridegroom’s penis rising above his head. Lloyd Jones (1967), Wills (1967) 180 n. 26, Wills (1970) 112, Killeen (1973), Kirkwood (1974) 264 n. 64, Livrea (2008) 1 support this interpretation, which, however, continues to appear excessively fantastical. For criticism, see also Marcovich (1963/4), Marcovich (1969) 34 6, Marcovich (1972) 29 32, McKay (1967) 189, Renehan (1983) 20 3, R. Griffith (1989) 57, Contiades Tsitsoni (1990) 93 4, Zellner (2006) 294. ¹⁸⁷ On this function of humour, see also Treu (1968) 224, R. Griffith (1989) 56 7, MacLachlan (1997) 182.

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

73

for metrical reasons, in the first book of the Alexandrian edition of Sappho rather than in the book of epithalamia:¹⁸⁸

10

ϲ]τείχομεν γὰρ ἐϲ γάμον εὖ δε[ κα]ὶ ϲὺ τοῦτ’, ἀλλ’ ὄττι τάχιϲτα[ πα]ρ̣[θ]ένοιϲ ἄπ[π]εμπε, θέοι[ ]εν ἔχοιεν ] ὄδοϲ̣ μ[έ]γαν εἰϲ Ὄλ[υμπον ἀ]νθρω[π ]αίκ. [

For we are proceeding to the wedding. Well . . . you too, but as quickly as possible dismiss the girls, the gods . . . may have . . . the path to great Olym pus . . . for mortals . . . (Sapph. fr. 27.8 13)

Of particular interest for the present purposes is the gnomic reflection of lines 11–12.¹⁸⁹ It is often observed that this reflection bears a striking resemblance to similar reflections found, for instance, in Alcman and Pindar:¹⁹⁰

20

μή τιϲ ἀνθ]ρώπων ἐϲ ὠρανὸν ποτήϲθω μηδὲ πη]ρήτω γαμῆν τὰν Ἀφροδίταν ϝ]άν[α]ϲϲαν ἤ τιν’ ] ἢ παίδα Πόρκω Χά]ριτεϲ δὲ Διὸϲ δ[ό]μον ]ϲιν ἐρογλεφάροι.

No man shall fly to heaven or attempt to marry Aphrodite or the queen of the gods or . . . or a child of Nereus . . . The sweet eyed Graces . . . into the house of Zeus. (Alcm. fr. 1.16 21 Davies = 3.16 21 Calame) ὁ χάλκεοϲ οὐρανὸϲ οὔ ποτ’ ἀμβατὸϲ αὐτῶι ὅϲαιϲ δὲ βροτὸν ἔθνοϲ ἀγλαΐαιϲ ἁπτόμεϲθα, περαίνει πρὸϲ ἔϲχατον πλόον.

¹⁸⁸ See Page (1955) 125 6. On the Alexandrian edition of Sappho, see also Page (1955) 114, Yatromanolakis (1999), Liberman (2007). ¹⁸⁹ Snell (1944) 286 7 argues that lines 11 12 constitute the beginning of a new poem, observing that, after the exhortation to dismiss the chorus ‘as quickly as possible’ (9 10), the song would be normally expected to end without a retarding gnomē. Snell may be right. However, since fr. 27 is the penultimate poem of the book and fr. 30 the last, lines 11 12 would constitute the beginning of fr. 30, i.e. another wedding song, in which case it remains relevant to the present discussion. ¹⁹⁰ See e.g. Voigt in app.

74

Divine Happiness and Beauty in Wedding Songs

The brazen heaven is never accessible to him (sc. Phriceas, the victor’s father). But however many glories we, the mortal race, achieve, he has accomplished the furthest journey. (Pi. P. 10.27 9)

Though the context in fr. 27 is lost, these parallels suggest that the references to the ‘path to great Olympus’ and ‘for a mortal’ or ‘for mortals’ are made in the context of the praise of the bridal couple. Olympus defines here, as in Alcman and Pindar, divine life in all of its aspects, particularly as an endless enjoyment of divine bliss. Since this life is unattainable for mortals, Olympus serves as a limit against which the present happiness of the bridal couple can be defined. As in Pindar’s Pythian 10, the expected continuation of the argument would be a contrast stating that, as far as mortal happiness is concerned, the bridal couple have reached the furthest point. On this interpretation, fr. 27 contains a cautionary differentiation between the experience of the bridal couple and actual divinity, which may serve to escape potential charges of hubris and transgression, even though it leaves the question open whether the experience of the bridal couple differs from divine life in anything other than duration. Among the extant instances of wedding songs, the sentiment expressed in fr. 27 is unique. No other song or fragment seems to reflect explicitly on the exact differences between the bridal couple’s momentary joy and divine joy. This absence is in itself a telling symptom of the extraordinary boldness with which bridal couples are praised. It emerges as particularly striking if it is compared with the praise of the victor in epinicians, where such reflections abound. The following chapter is dedicated to this praise.

3 Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode INTRODUCTION In the famous opening of the first poem of the first book of Odes, Horace makes an explicit comparison between athletic victory and divinity that encapsulates the argument developed in this chapter:

5

Maecenas, atauis edite regibus, o et praesidium et dulce decus meum: sunt quos curriculo puluerem Olympicum collegisse iuuat, metaque feruidis euitata rotis palmaque nobilis terrarum dominos euehit ad deos.

Maecenas, descended from old kings, O my protection and sweet adornment: there are those whom it pleases to have collected Olympic dust in the race, and whom the turning post, avoided by the blazing wheels, and the honourable palm lift up to the gods as masters of the lands.1 (Hor. Carm. 1.1.1 6)

The statement about the victor’s elevation to the sphere of the gods, expressed in euehit ad deos, is striking. It does not seem to be designed to convey that certain successful athletes enjoyed some form of actual immortalization, be it as heroic worship or full-scale apotheosis. Rather, since meta euitata and palma nobilis are the subject of euehit and therefore the cause of this elevation, the focus seems to be on the moment of victory and its immediate aftermath.2 The image 1 The reference of terrarum dominos is debated. Skutsch (1964) and others relate it to ad deos, Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) 6 7 ad loc. to quos. The latter interpretation is preferred here. 2 For the curious choice of palma as a symbol for victory, see Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) 6 ad loc., Richard Thomas (2011) 110 on Hor. Carm. 4.2.17 18.

Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity. Felix J. Meister, Oxford University Press (2020). © Felix J. Meister. DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001

76

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

developed in this passage is of a victor who, as a result of extraordinary efforts and extraordinary success, enjoys a moment in which he appears to be closer to the gods than to his fellow humans. The precise quality in respect of which the victor appears to approximate to divinity is left unspecified. Strength, appearance, or happiness are all conceivable. Despite this ambiguity, however, the temporary nature of this approximation itself makes this passage highly relevant for the present purposes. A similar comparison occurs in the second ode of book 4:

20

siue, quos Elea domum reducit palma caelestis, pugilemue equumue dicit et centum potiore signis munere donat.

. . . or whether he (sc. Pindar) tells of those whom the Elean palm brings home as gods, be it a boxer or a horse, and bestows on them a gift more powerful than a hundred statues. (Hor. Carm. 4.2.17 20)

Here, the apposition caelestis entails an approximation of the victor to divinity. As in the passage from Ode 1.1, this approximation is concentrated on a particular moment resulting from victory, in this case the victor’s triumphant return to his home city. Again, the quality that results in the victor’s appearing to be close to the gods is not specified. Significantly, however, Ode 4.2 connects the notion of a victor’s temporary approximation to divinity with Pindar and his victory odes, which are said to preserve lasting impressions of it (19–20 centum potiore signis | munere). This supposed feature of Pindaric epinician is presented not as being reserved for particular individuals but as a fundamental feature of the genre as a whole. Horace’s depiction in these two passages may be bold, but, as this chapter aims to demonstrate, it is accurate in the basic notion that, for Pindar’s epinicians, divinity and immortality provide an important point of reference for the praise of the victor, not dissimilar to the ways in which bridal couples are exalted in wedding songs. To illustrate this particular feature of Pindaric praise, this chapter first advances, in the next three sections, a general perspective on the themes of divine life and immortalization and on the relevance of these themes for the praise of the victor. The remaining three sections of this chapter are dedicated to detailed interpretations of three Pindaric odes, where the themes relevant to this book are expressed particularly instructively.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

77

MYTH AND IMMORTALITY Understanding how the victory ode uses divinity and immortality as a point of reference for the praise of the victor poses unique challenges. Comparisons with heroes and gods and hymnic register, which evoke divinity and immortality in the praise of bridal couples, are not employed for the same purpose in victory odes. First, direct explicit comparisons with mythical heroes occur rarely, and where they are found, they tend to be centred not, as might be expected, on athletic prowess but on other, seemingly circumstantial qualities.3 Second, apart from a few exceptional passages, the structures and language in which the praise of the victor is conveyed does not exhibit any obvious similarities with the praise of immortal heroes and gods in hymns.4 For instance, no epinician is structured so as to invoke the victor at the beginning of the song, recount his victory in glorifying terms in the middle, and re-address him and bid farewell at the end. The few existing passages where singular echoes of hymnic register can be detected in the praise of the victor, like the opening of Bacchylides 5 (1–16) or the farewell with χαῖρε in Pythian 2 (67), are restricted to odes composed for Hieron of Syracuse, which seem to pursue a specific agenda.5 Hieron aside, hymnic language in the

3 At O. 6.12 18, Hagesias is compared to Amphiaraus because both are, in addition to being athlete warriors, also seers. At O. 10.16 19, Hagesidamus is compared to Patroclus, because he displays the same gratitude towards his trainer Ilas that Patroc lus extended to Achilles. At P. 6.19 27, Thrasybulus is attributed with the same reverence towards Zeus and his parents that Chiron once instructed Achilles to observe. In the lines that follow, Antilochus is introduced as another example of filial devotion, and, at the end of the narrative, Thrasybulus is presented as the present day counterpart of that hero (44 5). At P. 1.50 1, Hieron is likened to Philoctetes, because both went to war in spite of illness. At N. 9.39 42, Chromius is compared to Hector because both fought battles by a river. An exception is the (almost explicit) compari son between Melissus and Heracles at I. 3/4.67 73, which is discussed in detail below. At Simon. fr. 509 Page = 18 Poltera, the victor seems to be compared with Heracles and Polydeuces on the grounds of his boxing skills, but the fragment is too mutilated to permit a conclusive assessment. 4 See Meyer (1933) 54 5, 69 71, Kambylis (1964) 145 7, Devlin (1995) 83 4, 100 1. The claim that the praise of the victor developed from the praise of heroes and gods in hymns (Jaeger (1933 47) 1.275 6, Bowra (1961) 310 11, Rose (1992) 159) cannot be substantiated. Simon. fr. 515 Page = 2 Poltera seems to derive comic effect from invoking the victor’s mules in hymnic language; see Marzullo (1984), Poltera (2008) 275 ad loc. 5 On B. 5.1 16, see Lefkowitz (1969) 48 9, Goldhill (1983) 66, Devlin (1995) 105, Cairns (2010) 216, Morgan (2015) 254. On Pi. P. 2.67, see Kambylis (1964) 155 6,

78

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

epinician is reserved for the praise of heroes and gods in prayers and hymnic passages, which are found in virtually every ode.6 One strategy by which divinity and immortality appear to be integrated into the structure of the epinician on a systematic level is mythical narrative. In the epinician, just as elsewhere, the world of the mythical past is generally characterized by a greater proximity of humans to the gods. Gods might assist chosen heroes in their endeavours, live among them, entertain them at their own divine dwellings, dine with them, and even marry them.7 What makes the world of myth relevant for the present purposes is the particular observation that, in this world, the boundary between mortality and immortality does not seem to be impenetrable. In fact, many narratives end with the immortalization of the hero, like that of Heracles, which is recounted or alluded to in no less than five odes.8 Epinician narratives also refer to places at the edge of or beyond the known world, where mortals can be transported to enjoy immortal life.9 The fluent nature of the boundary between mortality and immortality in epinician narrative is further illustrated by the fact that this boundary can be crossed not only in one direction. Ixion (P. 2.25–31) and Tantalus (O. 1.54–64) are expelled from their quasi-divine lives Most (1985) 96 101, Morgan (2015) 192 3. For the representation of Hieron in Pindar, see also my remarks in F. Meister (2019b). 6 On hymns in the epinicians, see Schadewaldt (1928) 270 4, Meyer (1933) 54 69, Race (1990) 85 117, Bremer (2008). On prayers, see R. Hamilton (1974) 17, Race (1990) 119 40, Mackie (2003) 77 107. 7 Artemis receives Heracles in the land of the Hyperboreans (O. 3.26 7). Athena delivers to Bellerophon the bridle of Pegasus (O. 13.65 9) and leads Perseus to the Hyperboreans (P. 10.45 6). Tantalus dines with the gods both on Olympus and at his palace (O. 1.36 9, 10.104 5). Pelops and Ganymede are transported to Olympus (O. 1.40 5). Ixion lives among the gods (P. 2.25 8). Heracles marries Hebe (I. 3/ 4.76 8). Apollo marries Cyrene (P. 9.5 13). Peleus is granted marriage to Thetis, Cadmus to Harmonia, and both marriages are attended by the gods and accompanied by songs of the Muses (P. 3.86 95, cf. N. 5.25 37, I. 6.25). 8 For Heracles, cf. O. 3.36 8, N. 1.69 72, 3.22, 10.17 18, I. 3/4.76 8. At O. 1.90 3, Pelops receives heroic worship after defeating Oenomaus in the chariot race. At O. 2.22 33, Semele and Ino Leucothea are immortalized in return for their suffering. Amphiaraus (O. 6.14, N. 9.24 7, 10.8 9, cf. P. 8.39 56) and Iamus (O. 6.60) continue to live as oracular heroes. At O. 7.77 80, Tlepolemus receives worship ‘like a god’ (ὥϲπερ θεῶι) for colonizing Rhodes. At P. 9.63, Aristaeus will, according to Chiron’s prophecy, be immortalized by Gaia and the Horae. At N. 10.7, Athena makes Diomedes a god. 9 At O. 2.78 9, Peleus, Cadmus, and Achilles live on the Isles of the Blessed (cf. also P. 3.88, fr. 172.1). At B. 3.58 62, Croesus is transferred to the Hyperboreans by Apollo (see below, p. 121).

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

79

among the gods and receive the opposite of immortal bliss, namely eternal punishment in the Underworld. In other cases, attempts to transcend death fail without divine approval. Asclepius’ resurrection of a dead man results in his own death (P. 3.55–8). Bellerophon is killed in his attempt to ascend to Olympus (I. 7.44–7, cf. O. 13.91), while his horse Pegasus is accepted among the gods (O. 13.92). The choice offered to Polydeuces by Zeus (N. 10.55–9, 80–90), either to live as a god on Olympus or to share his lot with his brother, demonstrates the degree of flexibility in the world of myth. A central question of this chapter is why epinician odes depict so pervasively, in the context of the celebration and glorification of athletic victory, a world where mortals can become immortal and immortals mortal. Most odes fail to specify explicitly how their narratives should be interpreted. Hence, the function of epinician narratives, especially in Pindar, troubled even ancient scholarship, which is testified in the scholia,10 and has resurfaced in modern times alongside the question of the aesthetic unity of Pindaric composition.11 As the complexity of these narratives has become increasingly apparent, all-encompassing answers to these issues now appear to be neither attainable nor desirable. In some cases, it cannot be excluded that narratives are recounted simply and solely for the purpose of delectation, without any deeper significance for the victory celebrated.12 In other cases, a connection between the figures of the mythical narrative and those of the hic et nunc can often be assumed to contribute to the overall praise of the victor.13 Here too, however, differentiation is required. Some mythical exempla, like that of Tantalus in Olympian 1 (54–64), clearly provide negative paradigms for objectionable aspects

10 See Drachmann (1891) 5 18, Most (1985) 12 25, Currie (2005) 331 with n. 196. A famous example is Σ Pi. P. 2.40a τίνοϲ ἕνεκεν εἰϲ τοὺϲ περὶ Ἰξίονα παρεκβέβηκε λόγουϲ ὁ Πίνδαροϲ; ‘To what end did Pindar digress into the story about Ixion?’ For other examples, see the index s.vv. παρεκβαίνω, παρέκβασις in Drachmann’s edition. 11 See Drachmann (1891) 18 44, Schadewaldt (1928) 259 65, Young (1964), Köhnken (1971) 1 13, Most (1985) 25 41, Heath (1986), Krummen (1990) 10 30, Pfeijffer (1999) 12 18, Patten (2009) 144 86, Indergaard (2011b) 1 5. 12 On the ‘decorative’ function of myth, see Thummer (1968/9) 1.107 21, Patten (2009) 146 54. 13 In general, see Köhnken (1971) esp. 220 32, Young (1971) 34 8, Slater (1977) 195 6, Slater (1984) 250, Bernardini (1983) 75 92, Segal (1986) esp. 130 4, A. Miller (1993) 24, Lattmann (2010). See also Carey (1981) 10, Lloyd Jones (1982) 146 7 = (1990) 64 5, Erbse (1999) esp. 30 2, Indergaard (2011b) 2 3.

80

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

of the human condition in general.14 Narratives that involve seers and prophets seem to provide a parallel, not for the victor, but for the poet.15 In complex longer narratives, there may even be ambiguity and development, as in Isthmian 6, where an account of Heracles’ heroic exploits initially seems to reflect the victor’s athletic achievements (31–5), while Heracles’ later prophecy about Ajax’ future career parallels the task of the poet (51–4).16 Despite these general limitations, narratives about immortalization, which are the focus of this chapter, can be examined as an isolated group, because they appear to exhibit a common plot structure and poetic purpose. In these narratives, immortalization and divine life are frequently presented, either explicitly or implicitly, as the reward for tasks performed or suffering endured during a hero’s lifetime. This plot structure is prefigured in the account of Heracles’ apotheosis in Hesiod’s Theogony: 950

955

Ἥβην δ’ Ἀλκμήνηϲ καλλιϲφύρου ἄλκιμοϲ υἱόϲ, ἲϲ Ἡρακλῆοϲ, τελέϲαϲ ϲτονόενταϲ ἀέθλουϲ, παῖδα Διὸϲ μεγάλοιο καὶ Ἥρηϲ χρυϲοπεδίλου, αἰδοίην θέτ’ ἄκοιτιν ἐν Οὐλύμπωι νιφόεντι ὄλβιοϲ, ὃϲ μέγα ἔργον ἐν ἀθανάτοιϲιν ἀνύϲϲαϲ ναίει ἀπήμαντοϲ καὶ ἀγήραοϲ ἤματα πάντα.

But the valiant son of fair ankled Alcmene, the strength of Heracles, after he had completed painful toils, made Hebe, the child of great Zeus and golden sandaled Hera, his revered wife on snowy Olympus. Blessed is he, who, having fulfilled a great deed among the gods, lives without pain or old age for all days. (Hes. Th. 950 5)

The emphasis in this passage on notions of toil and achievement (951 τελέϲαϲ ϲτονόενταϲ ἀέθλουϲ, 954 μέγα ἔργον ἐν ἀθανάτοιϲιν ἀνύϲϲαϲ), which precede Heracles’ acceptance on Olympus, is conspicuous. After Hesiod, Heracles continues to be the primary model for immortality as the reward for exceptional achievements, not only in Pindar, who calls his apotheosis ‘choice recompense for great toils’ (N. 1.70 14 Cf. also Phalaris at P. 1.95 6, Ixion at P. 2.21 43, Coronis and Asclepius at P. 3.8 60, Clytemnestra at P. 11.17 37. See now Morgan (2015) 180 1, 276 80, 344 5. 15 On the relationship between the epinician laudator and prophets in general, see Duchemin (1955) passim, Mackie (2003) 79 87, Felson (2004) 369 77, Grethlein (2011) 402 3, Sigelman (2016) 3 6, 45 9. On poets and prophets, see also Slings (1989) 76 9, Detienne (1996) 53 67, Flower (2008) 22. 16 On I. 6, see Nieto Hernández (1993) 93 4, Indergaard (2011b) 34 9, Sigelman (2016) 47 8.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

81

καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν . . . ἐξαίρετον), but also in other authors.17 This structure, however, is not restricted to Heracles in the epinician. In Olympian 2, for instance, it is stressed that the daughters of Cadmus ‘suffer greatly’ (23 ἔπαθον αἳ μεγάλα) before they are granted lives among the gods. In Olympian 7, the apotheosis of Tlepolemus is described as ‘sweet recompense for his sad misfortune’ (77 λύτρον ϲυμφορᾶϲ οἰκτρᾶϲ γλυκύ). In all these narratives, immortalization marks the final stage in the structure of a plot that involves toils and suffering, which a hero needs to face in order to prove his worth, for which he is then rewarded with immortal life. This mythical plot bears a strong resemblance to descriptions of athletic victory. These also involve, first, hardship in the form of training and competition, followed by a deed of excellence. Pervasive verbal correspondences suggest that this resemblance is no mere coincidence. Terms like κάματοϲ, μόχθοϲ, and πόνοϲ are used to refer both to heroic toil and to athletic hardship.18 The term ἀρετά is used to refer both to heroic military and cultural achievement and to athletic victory.19 Moreover, gnomic reflections on the necessity of hard work for great achievements are often phrased so that they can be applicable both to heroic exploit and to athletic victory.20 At the beginning of Olympian 6, for example, one such reflection serves as a transition from the praise of Hagesias’ victory to a short narrative about Amphiaraus: ἴϲτω γὰρ ἐν τούτωι πεδίλωι δαιμόνιον πόδ’ ἔχων ωϲτράτου υἱόϲ. ἀκίνδυνοι δ’ ἀρεταὶ οὔτε παρ’ ἀνδράϲιν οὔτ’ ἐν ναυϲὶν κοίλαιϲ τίμιαι πολλοὶ δὲ μέμνανται, καλὸν εἴ τι ποναθῆι.

17 Cf. also Hes. frr. 25.26 33, 229, h.Hom. 15.4 8, S. Ph. 1418 20, Catul. 68.113 16, Sen. Ag. 812 13, Her.F. 1 98. See also Brommer (1984) 60 3, Jourdain Annequin (1980/1), Indergaard (2011b) 3 7. 18 For κάματοϲ/μόχθοϲ/πόνοϲ of mythical exploits, cf. Pi. P. 3.96, 4.243, 9.31a, 12.18, N. 1.70, 7.74, 8.31, I. 6.54, perhaps also O. 10.25 (with conj. by Christ in app.). For the victor, cf. Pi. P. 1.46, 5.47, N. 5.48, I. 3/4.17b, 8.1. See also Carey (1981) 96 7 on P. 9.96 7. 19 For ἀρετά in the myth, cf. Pi. P. 1.94, 4.187, 8.22, N. 1.34, 3.32, 6.47, 7.51, 10.2, I. 1.22, 3/4.56, 8.48. For ἀρετά of the victor, cf. O. 1.13, 3.43, 4.10, 5.1, 7.89, 9.83, P. 1.80, 2.62, 5.98, 10.23, N.1.9, 5.53, 6.23, 7.7, 9.54, I. 5.17, 7.22. 20 For κάματοϲ/μόχθοϲ/πόνοϲ in gnomai, cf. Pi. O. 2.34, 5.15 16, 8.7, 10.22 3, 10.93, 11.4, P. 5.54, 8.73, N. 4.1, 7.16, 8.42, 50, 9.44. I. 1.42, 46. For ἀρετά in gnomai, cf. Pi. O. 2.53, 3.37, 5.15 16, 6.9, 7.43, 8.6, 9.101, 10.20, 11.6, P. 1.41, 2.14, 3.114, 5.2, 6.42, 9.76, N. 3.8, 42, 8.40, 11.37, I. 1.41, 2.44, 3/4.4, 6.11.

82

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

10

Ἁγηϲία, τὶν δ’ αἶνοϲ ἑτοῖμοϲ, ὃν ἐν δίκαι ἀπὸ γλώϲϲαϲ Ἄδραϲτοϲ μάντιν Οἰκλείδαν ποτ̓ ἐϲ Ἀμφιάρηον φθέγξατ̓ , ἐπεὶ κατὰ γαῖ̓ αὐτόν τέ νιν καὶ φαιδίμαϲ ἵππουϲ ἔμαρψεν.

The son of Sostrates shall know that he has his foot in such a sandal by divine grace. Excellence without risk is without acknowledgment, be it among men or in hollow ships. But many remember if a good deed is achieved by toil. Hagesias, for you the praise stands ready that Adrastus spoke justly to the seer Amphiaraus, the son of Oecles, at that time when the earth swallowed him up and his famous horses. (Pi. O. 6.8 14)

Passages like this suggest that such narratives are recounted, above all, as a parallel for the victor. Through the resulting parallelism, the particular victory is presented as an achievement that transcends its own occasional nature and is seen as part of a continuous history of extraordinary deeds. It is through this paradigmatic function of mythical narrative that immortality and divine life become relevant for the characterization of the victor. If the hero’s toils parallel the athlete’s training and competition, and heroic military and cultural exploits parallel the achievement of victory, immortality as the reward for heroic achievement may have a correspondent in the hic et nunc as well. In fact, the rhetoric of reward and recompense, which is found in accounts of heroic immortalization, is also found, with remarkable verbal echoes, in descriptions of the aftermath of athletic victory.21 In mythical narratives that result in a hero’s immortalization, immortality and divine life can therefore be interpreted as an image for the reward following athletic victory.

MOMENT AND ETERNITY Determining the precise nature of the reward that follows athletic victory is controversial. Traditionally, it is denied that a hero’s

21 Cf. e.g. Pi. O. 8.7 (μόχθων ἀμπνοάν), P. 1.46 (καμάτων ἐπίλαϲιν), 2.14 (ἄποιν’ ἀρετᾶϲ), 5.106 7 (λυτήριον δαπανᾶν), N. 4.1 2 (πόνων κεκριμένων | ἰατρόϲ), 5.48 (μόχθων ἀμοιβάν), 7.16 (ἄποινα μόχθων), I. 1.46 (ἀντὶ μόχθων παντοδαπῶν), 3/4.7 (εὐκλέων δ’ ἔργων ἄποινα), 8.1 (λύτρον . . . καμάτων), 6 (ἐκ μεγάλων δὲ πενθέων ͜ λυθέντεϲ).

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

83

apotheosis in the myth can be interpreted as a reference to potential prospects of actual immortality, in the form of cultic worship, for the victor.22 This view seems to find support in many odes themselves, where the possibility for contemporary mortals to attain immortality is explicitly denied. One example is encountered in Olympian 5: . . . ὑγίεντα δ’ εἴ τιϲ ὄλβον ἄρδει, ἐξαρκέων ͜ κτεάτεϲϲι καὶ εὐλογίαν προϲτιθείϲ, μὴ ματεύϲηι θεὸϲ γενέϲθαι. If a man fosters sound wealth, content with his possessions and adding praise to them, he shall not strive to become a god. (Pi. O. 5.23 4)

Similar gnomic statements are found frequently in Pindaric epinicians.23 They are part of a larger group of reflections on the virtue of contentment and the dangers of excess.24 As such, they are applicable to the laudator, who must not exceed his praise of the laudandus beyond due measures, and to the laudandus, who must not seek honours beyond the peak of human achievement, which is victory at the Panhellenic Games.25 Instead of conveying any prospects of actual immortality for the victor, immortality in the myth, it is argued, serves as a metaphor in the hic et nunc, representing the conservation of the victor’s fame in the victory ode. Such a metaphorical relationship between immortality and eternal fame seems to be suggested by passages found outside of mythical narratives. In Pythian 4, for example, Pindar refers to his own poetry as a ‘source of immortal words’ (299 παγὰν ἀμβροϲίων ἐπέων).26 In a recent study on this subject, Bruno Currie challenges this prevalent view and contends that narratives ending with the hero’s immortalization, in addition to conveying the victor’s eternal fame in song, also reflect the victor’s prospect of attaining actual immortality in cult.27 In order to demonstrate this, Currie argues, first, that

22 See e.g. Rohde (1898) 2.205, Norberg (1945) 27 8, Lattimore (1942) 45, Bowra (1964) 95 6, Race (1986) 61 3, Steiner (1986) 129, Cannatà Fera (1990) 31, Young (1993) 127, Robbins (1997) 258. 23 Cf. Pi. P. 3.59 62, 10.27 9, N. 9.46 7, 11.13 16, I. 5.12 16, 6.10 13, 7.39 44. 24 See also Thummer (1968/9) 1.67 81, Gianotti (1975) 129 30, Gerber (1982) 173 5 on O. 1.114, Hubbard (1985) 11 12, Race (1990) 191 5. 25 See also Hubbard (1985) passim, Lardinois (1995) 264 8, Indergaard (2011b) 120 1. 26 On this passage, see now Sigelman (2016) 120. 27 See Currie (2005) esp. 41 6, 409 11.

84

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

historical fifth-century victors did entertain the prospect of receiving cultic worship as immortal heroes and, second, that Pindar’s odes contain allusions to such prospects.28 Whereas the first argument might find some support for some victors,29 the second appears to be more problematic. It may be possible to reduce the significance of gnomai that, like the one quoted above, deny the possibility of immortal life, if they are considered merely one voice within an essentially polyphonic competition of different voices.30 However, Currie does not succeed in identifying other voices that might even come close to competing with these gnomai in terms of explicitness and rhetorical impact. No Pindaric ode contains an unambiguous allusion to a victor’s supposed cultic aspirations, not even in the case of, say, Hieron of Syracuse, who, to judge from other sources, actively worked towards, and succeeded in, being worshipped as the founder of Aetna.31 Currie’s strategy of compensating for this lack of relevant evidence by interpreting oblique allusions and symbols has some cumulative force, but it renders the argument as a whole somewhat inconclusive.32 Safer paths for determining the nature of the reward for athletic victory might be provided by contexts in which the rhetoric of reward and recompense is explicitly employed. One such context is the theme of song and its preservative powers, which lends great plausibility to the argument of a metaphorical relationship between immortalization in the myth and eternal fame in the hic et nunc. A good example is found in Nemean 7:33 15

28

ἔργοιϲ δὲ καλοῖϲ ἔϲοπτρον ἴϲαμεν ἑνὶ ϲὺν τρόπωι, εἰ Μναμοϲύναϲ ἕκατι λιπαράμπυκοϲ εὕρηται ἄποινα μόχθων κλυταῖϲ ἐπέων ἀοιδαῖϲ.

See Currie (2005) esp. 74 84. See, however, Nicholson (2016) 62 4, who denies any relevance of this evidence for Pindar’s epinicians. 30 See Currie (2005) 78 81. His approach is criticized by Morgan (2008) 138 9. On the subordinate role of gnomai, see also Hubbard (1985) 7, Young (1993) 126. In contrast, the supremacy of gnomai is stressed by Bowra (1964) 61, Kirkwood (1981), Instone (1993) 19 20. On epinicians and polyphony, see also A. Miller (1993), Hutchinson (2001) 436 7, Currie (2013) 244. On polyphony and lyric poetry gener ally, see also Blevins (2008). 31 On Hieron, cf. Σ Pi. N. 1 inscr. a, D.S. 11.49.2, 11.66.4, Str. 6.2.3 p. 268.21 32 Radt with Currie (2005) 344 8. 32 For criticism on Currie’s methods, see esp. Morgan (2008). 33 Cf. also Pi. O. 7.16 17, P. 1.59, 2.14, 5.105 7, N. 3.17 18, I. 1.45 6, 3/4.7 8. 29

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

85

We know of a mirror for beautiful deeds in only one way, if, in accordance with Mnemosyne with the bright headband, recompense for toils is found in the famous songs of poetry. (Pi. N. 7.14 16)

In her influential work on the social economy of the Greek archaic aristocracy and its echoes in Pindar’s metaphors, Leslie Kurke argues that the rhetoric of reward and recompense is owed to a central aristocratic institution by which one noble house recompenses another for a great loss in order to avoid vengeance and bloodshed.34 According to Kurke, the penal imagery underlying this rhetoric is part of a larger field of images drawn from aristocratic modes of gift exchange, to which wedding gifts and funerary offerings also belong. By employing this rhetoric, the Pindaric laudator presents himself as something like an aristocratic family that offers recompense to the victor and his family for the struggles involved in victory. This recompense is the victory ode and the fame that it conserves. Kurke’s socio-economical approach works well for passages like the one from Nemean 7, where the laudator employs the rhetoric of reward and recompense to highlight the service that he is capable of offering to the victor and his family, i.e. eternal fame in song. However, the same rhetoric is also employed in other contexts:

5

Κλεάνδρωι τιϲ ἁλικίαι τε λύτρον εὔδοξον, ὦ νέοι, καμάτων πατρὸϲ ἀγλαὸν Τελεϲάρχου παρὰ πρόθυρον ἰὼν ἀνεγειρέτω κῶμον, Ἰϲθμιάδοϲ τε νίκαϲ ἄποινα, καὶ Νεμέαι ἀέθλων ὅτι κράτοϲ ἐξεῦρε . . .

May one of you, O youths, go to the splendid gate of his father Telesarchus and raise for young Cleandrus the celebration, as glorious requital for his toils and as recompense for his Isthmian victory, and because at Nemea he found strength in competition. (Pi. I. 8.1 5)

The phrases ‘glorious requital for his toils (1)’ and ‘recompense for his Isthmian victory’ (4) clearly employ the rhetoric of reward and recompense. Here, this rhetoric is not applied to the eternal fame in song but to the victory celebration, referred to as κῶμοϲ in line 4. Since the laudator cannot claim to have any part in the organisation

34

See Kurke (1991) 108 16.

86

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

and administration of this celebration, the penal image of recompense exacted between two families does not seem to apply in this passage. Kurke incorporates passages like this in her argument by contending that the victory celebration, as the real or imagined context for the performance of the victory ode,35 represents the song and the long-term benefits that it subsequently bestows.36 This interpretation, however, is based on a problematic reading of a passage from Nemean 4:

5

ἄριϲτοϲ εὐφροϲύνα πόνων κεκριμένων ἱατρόϲ αἱ δὲ ϲοφαὶ Μοιϲᾶν θύγατρεϲ ἀοιδαὶ θέλξαν νιν ἁπτόμεμαι. οὐδὲ θερμὸν ὕδωρ τόϲον γε μαλθακὰ τεύχει γυῖα, τόϲϲον εὐλογία φόρμιγγι ϲυνάοροϲ. ῥῆμα δ’ ἐργμάτων χρονιώτερον βιοτεύει, ὅ τι κε ϲὺν Χαρίτων τύχαι γλῶϲϲα φρενὸϲ ἐξέλοι βαθείαϲ.

The best healer for judged toils is celebration. And songs, the wise daugh ters of the Muses, soothe them37 with their touch. Not even warm water makes the limbs as soft as does praise in communion with the lyre. The

35 The controversy as to whether or not epinicians were performed at symposia, and whether they were sung by solo performers or choruses, is based on passages like the ones considered here; see Lefkowitz (1988), Lefkowitz (1995), Heath (1988), Burnett (1989), Carey (1989), Bremer (1990), Heath and Lefkowitz (1991), Carey (1991), Morgan (1993), D’Alessio (1994), Strauss Clay (1999). It has recently resur faced in the contributions of Eckermann (2010), who argues that κῶμοϲ in Pindar always refers to a stationary, sympotic celebration, and that of Lattmann (2012), who argues that all epinicians were performed at processions. Both readings are danger ously reductive. Ultimately, it seems impossible to go beyond the performative fictions presented in the poems. See now also the balanced discussion in Athanassaki (2016). 36 See Kurke (1991) 112. 37 The reference of νιν is debated since antiquity. According to Σ Pi. N. 4.5, Aristarchus referred it to εὐφροϲύνα, Didymus to πόνων. The controversy is echoed in modern scholarship (εὐφροϲύνα: Heyne (1823) 364, Mezger (1880) 392, Bury (1890) 68, Fraccaroli (1894) 565. πόνων: Headlam (1905) 148 9, Farnell (1930/2) 2.264, Slater (1969) s.v. νιν, Kurke (1991) 143 n. 18). Some scholars also assume that νιν refers to the victor as the implicit indirect object of lines 1 2 (Boeckh (1821) 380, Dissen (1830) 2.395, Fennell (1883) 33, Düring (1933) 14 15, Des Places (1947) 30, Köhnken (1971) 193 4) Willcock (1995) 95. However, it seems highly unlikely that the unemphatic pronoun may refer to a word not explicitly introduced before. More over, a reference to εὐφροϲύνα would presuppose a meaning for θέλγειν not attested before A.P. 9.544.4 = Adaeus 9.4 Gow Page (first century AD); see also LSJ s.v. V (‘produce by spells’). Since νιν can refer to plural words in Pindar and elsewhere (A.D. Pron. p. 84.8 Schneider = Pi. fr. 7, B. 1.76; cf. also A. Supp. 729, [A.] Pr. 55, S. El. 436, 624, OC 43, OT 868, 1331, E. Ba. 32, 988, Supp. 1139), the reference to πόνων is here preferred.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

87

word lives longer than deeds, which the tongue, with the act of the Graces, draws from a deep mind. (Pi. N. 4.1 8)

The expression ‘best healer for judged toils’ (1 πόνων κεκριμένων ἱατρόϲ) is analogous to expressions like ἄποινα μόχθων in other odes, and it is applied to the victory celebration (εὐφροϲύνα). For Kurke, the victory celebration is only described in this way, because it provides the context for the performance of the victory ode, and that it is ultimately subordinated to the superior powers of song. On closer inspection, however, this interpretation appears to be reductive. Lines 1 to 5 constitute an individual train of thought. As the emphatic beginning with ἄριϲτοϲ indicates, its design is similar to the famous opening of Olympian 1 (1–7).38 There, the implicit question ‘What is most precious?’ is answered with reference to three items of increasing relevance for the present circumstances: water for all living beings, gold for all men, Olympic victory for all athletes. Similarly, in Nemean 4, the implicit question ‘What offers best relief after toil’ is answered with two items of increasing relevance: celebration in general with all the joys that it entails and, among these joys, music in particular. This priamel does not in itself imply that the celebration is subordinated to music, just as, in Olympian 1, the value of water and gold is not subordinated to that of Olympic victory. Music is simply the more relevant particular item for the laudator uttering a song. Moreover, these lines do not contain any concern for the lasting nature of poetry. Instead, they are focused entirely on the immediate soothing relief offered by celebration and music. Concern for preservation only occurs in lines 6 to 8 as a new thought, which is loosely connected to the preceding mention of music. This interpretation of the beginning of Nemean 4 suggests that, for the victor, the victory celebration constitutes a reward for the toils of athletic training and competition in its own right, separate from the kind of recompense found in song and fame. This corresponds to a general feature of Pindar’s odes, where the victory celebration is depicted in highly idealized terms. In Olympian 10, for instance, an

38 See Bundy (1962) 11 12, 36 8. Surprisingly, Bundy (1962) 22 3 does not apply this model to N. 4, but assumes a contrast between the momentary nature of the celebration and the lasting, and ultimately superior, effect of song.

88

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

account of the foundation and first performance of the Olympic Games culminates in an idyllic, almost romantic scene of the first celebration, where the entire grove is illuminated by the light of the moon and filled with the festive exuberance of the participants (73–7). It remains to be determined whether the celebration thus portrayed may, like eternal fame in song, be represented by images of immortality or divine life. A key passage for approaching this question is found in Nemean 9, which is, as a whole, remarkably preoccupied with the celebration held in honour of Chromius’ victory with the chariot.39 At the beginning, the ode is presented as a processional song sung on the way from the game site in Sicyon to Chromius’ symposium in Aetna (1–5). In the last third of the song, this destination is reached, and the ode itself turns into a drinking song reflecting on the pleasures of the symposium: ἐκ πόνων δ̓ , οἳ ϲὺν νεότατι γένωνται ϲύν τε δίκαι, τελέθει πρὸϲ γῆραϲ αἰὼν ἡμέρα. 45 ἴϲτω λαχὼν πρὸϲ δαιμόνων θαυμαϲτὸν ὄλβον. εἰ γὰρ ἅμα κτεάνοιϲ πολλοῖϲ ἐπίδοξον ἄρηται κῦδοϲ, οὐκ ἔϲτι πρόϲωθεν θνατὸν ἔτι ϲκοπιᾶϲ ἄλλαϲ ἐφάψαϲθαι ποδοῖν. ἡϲυχία δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν ϲυμπόϲιον νεοθαλὴϲ δ̓ αὔξεται μαλθακᾶι νικαφορία ϲὺν ἀοιδᾶι θαρϲαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρατῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται. From toils that are borne in youth and with justice old age becomes gentle. He (sc. Chromius) shall know that he has received wonderous happiness from the gods. For if famous glory is won alongside many possessions, it is not possible for a mortal to set his feet further on another peak. Rest loves the symposium. But new victory is increased with gentle song, and the voice grows courageous over the mixing bowl. (Pi. N. 9.44 9)

It is often overlooked in discussions of this passage that line 44, rather than ascribing old age to the victor, contains an analogy. Just as a gentle old age is the reward for a life dedicated to hard work, Chromius’ victory celebration is the reward for his athletic toils. Line 48 makes the connection explicit, because ἡϲυχία refers here, first and foremost, to the rest and respite that Chromius enjoys after

39 See also Fogelmark (1972) 102 n. 33, Crotty (1982) 90 2, Braswell (1998) 142 on N. 9.50. Despite the arguments in Strauss Clay (1999) 31, this poetic fiction says little about the actual first performance of N. 9.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

89

competing in Sicyon at his victory celebration.40 These lines thus embed the victory symposium in the familiar dynamic of toil and reward. However, the description of the Chromius’ experience during the celebration deserves special attention. This experience is designated in line 45 as ‘wondrous happiness’ (45 θαυμαϲτὸν ὄλβον). As is argued in the preceding chapter on the wedding song, ὄλβοϲ denotes an extraordinary state of happiness that falls short only of the supreme uninterrupted bliss that is the prerogative of divine life.41 The qualification of this state with θαυμαϲτόϲ reinforces the extraordinary nature of this state, because, in Pindar as well as in epic, this adjective usually refers to things divine or of divine origin.42 In the following sentence of lines 46–7, which provides the reason for this experience (γάρ), this state of happiness is even characterized as one of the highest achievements that humans can attain.43 Nemean 9 illustrates that, in the idealized representation of the epinician, the victor enjoys an extraordinary experience during the victory celebration. Relaxation, tranquillity, and serenity, combined with carefree drinking and feasting among friends and relations, are understood to be the fundamental elements of this experience. This strongly recalls Stephen Halliwell’s concept of ‘simulation of immortality’ at the symposium in general, which is quoted in the Introduction to this book.44 In fact, the phrasing in Nemean 9 also suggests that there is an implicit comparison between this experience and the bliss of the gods. For the mortal victor to enjoy a victory celebration means a momentary approximation to the eternal happiness that constitutes divine life. This underlying comparison is likely to motivate the use of the rhetoric of reward and recompense, which echoes heroic narratives about immortalization. Like the mythical hero, who is granted immortality and sometimes even accepted at the banquet

40 Many commentators assume political overtones in ἡϲυχία and translate it as ‘peace’; see e.g. Slater (1981) esp. 208, Hubbard (1992) 110. They are perhaps influenced by O. 4.16 and P. 11.55, where ἡϲυχία appears in political discourse (see Kurke (1991) 210, 217 18). However, no such discourse can be detected in the context of N. 9. 41 See above, p. 33. 42 See LfgrE s.v. θαῦμα, 977.5 8, s.v. θαυματ(ός), 980.11 12. 43 See also Strauss Clay (1999) 31 on the symposium as ‘the symbol of the highest pinnacle of human achievement’. 44 See above, p. 18.

90

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

of the gods after enduring trials, the athlete is granted a victory celebration after undergoing the hardships of athletic training and competition. According to this approach, there are two distinct rewards for the athlete victorious at the Panhellenic Games, the momentary bliss of the victory celebration and, where a poet is commissioned, the preservation of fame in song. Immortality and divine life provide a point of reference for both forms of reward. However, there is no conflict between them. In Pindaric scholarship, the preservation of fame in song is often treated as a mere transmission of the victor’s name and the parameters of his victory. Statues may achieve this, which the Pindaric laudator deems inferior to his song.45 The higher artistic complexity of the epinician ode is determined by the aim to preserve and disseminate a particular vision of the victor in a certain moment and to re-enact this moment performance after performance, not unlike a photograph. Olympian 10 provides a particularly instructive example. At the end of this ode, the laudator reports how he saw Hagesidamus’ extraordinary beauty at the moment of his victory (99–102). Subsequently, this beauty is compared to that of Ganymede, which caused Zeus to fall in love with him and grant him immortal life on Olympus (103–5). Mythical immortalization corresponds here to the eternal preservation of Hagesidamus’ beauty in the song.46 However, this preservation is merited only because, in the particular moment in which the laudator saw Hagesidamus, his beauty appeared godlike like that of Ganymede.47 ‘Immortalization’ of the victor’s fame is here motivated by a moment in which the victor appears to transcend his human limitations. A similar explanation can be developed for the vision of the victor during the victory celebration, as it is found in Nemean 9, where Chromius is presented as enjoying a moment of godlike happiness. The approximation to divine bliss during the celebration is the extraordinary reward for an extraordinary achievement and, as such, it is worthy of being immortalized in song.

45

Cf. N. 5.1 5 with Fearn (2017) 16 23. See also Wilamowitz (1922) 220, Nassen (1975) 239, Hubbard (1985) 69, Hutchinson (2011) 115 with n. 7. 47 On Ganymede’s godlike beauty, cf. Il. 20.232 3 ἀντίθεοϲ Γανυμήδηϲ, | ὃϲ δὴ κάλλιϲτοϲ γένετο θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων, ‘godlike Ganymede, who was the most beautiful of mortal men’. 46

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

91

VICTORY SCULPTURE The argument developed in the preceding sections about the metaphorical force of narratives about immortality, and about its target in the hic et nunc, can be corroborated by a comparison with interpretative approaches to sculpture found in monuments associated with athletic competition. For the questions relevant to this chapter, this type of sculpture provides a more immediate access than the odes themselves, because it is not addressed to a particular victor but seeks universal relevance. Thus, several of the voices that can complicate narratives in the epinician, like that of the laudator, are absent in sculpture. If mythical scenes can here be shown to serve a paradigmatic purpose, they are likely to reflect the achievement of the athlete rather than that of the sculptor. The relevance of sculpture for epinician poetry is suggested by frequent explicit references to it in Pindar’s odes.48 It is also suggested by archaeological findings that reveal the astonishing extent to which Pindar engages with this artistic medium, depending largely on the place where a victory was won and where the respective ode was first performed. The Alcmaeonid temple of Apollo at Delphi, for example, which shows on the east pediment Apollo with his chariot, is alluded to in Pythian 7 (9–11) for the Alcmaeonid Megacles.49 The Siphnian treasury at Delphi, which was built between 530 and 500 BC, depicting on the east frieze the battle of Achilles and Memnon over Antilochus’ body with Nestor in the far right, seems to have influenced the mythical narrative of Pythian 6 (28–42).50 The new pediments of the temple of Aphaea in Aegina, which were added around 480 BC and depict on the east frieze the first sack of Troy, on the west frieze the second, seem to provide a model for the narratives of the Aeginetan odes Olympian 8 (30–46), and Isthmians 5 (34–8) and 6 (26–35,

48 Cf. e.g. Pi. P. 6.5 18, 4.79 85, N. 5.1 5, I. 2.45 6. On Pindar and sculpture generally, see Steiner (1993), Steiner (1998), Steiner (2001) passim, Kurke (1993), O’Sullivan (2003), Rosalind Thomas (2007), Smith (2007), Fearn (2017) passim. 49 For a reconstruction of the pediment, see Lacoste (1920), La Coste Messelière (1931) 33 67. For its influence on P. 7, see Steiner (1993) 166 7, Athanassaki (2011b) 245 54. 50 For a reconstruction of the frieze, see Brinkmann (1985), Brinkmann (1994) 139 53. For the dating of the treasury, see Scott (2007) 323 with n. 32, Scott (2010) 63 6. For its influence on P. 6, see Shapiro (1988), Athanassaki (2012).

92

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

51–4).51 A description in Pausanias of the temple of Heracles at Thebes, which seems to have depicted the dodecathlon but gave special prominence to the fight with Antaeus, may have influenced the narrative of Isthmian 4 for the Theban Melissus, where this particular episode is singled out (70–3).52 For the present purposes, a particularly instructive case is encountered in the sculptural programme of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, built in all likelihood between 470 and 456 BC, while Pindar was composing odes for Olympic victories.53 This monument shows on the east pediment Pelops and Oenomaus with their chariots, on the west pediment the battle between Lapiths and Centaurs (Fig. 3.1), and on the metopes of pronaos (east) and opisthodomos (west) the twelve labours of Heracles, six on either side (Fig. 3.2). The significance of this iconography is informed by the significance of the temple, which was the centre of the temple district at Olympia. In the bouleuterion, athletes sacrificed and swore the oath of fair play before competing.54 In the pronaos, victorious athletes might have been crowned.55 Votive offerings made by victors still surround the vicinity of the temple.56 It may not be immediately obvious why the temple of Zeus should depict scenes involving Heracles and Pelops rather than scenes, for instance, that involve Zeus himself. On the surface, the presence of Pelops is evidently motivated by his role in the foundation of the Olympic Games. The same might be true for Heracles, who, according to a version familiar to Pindar, was also involved in the foundation of the Games.57 However, for each of the two heroes, a deeper motivation also appears to be relevant. In the case of Pelops, the chariot race with Oenomaus, which led to the foundation of the Olympic Games, is in itself an athletic activity, which offers a parallel for all athletes competing in the chariot race, even though, in some 51 For reconstructions of the friezes, see Ohly (1976) passim. For its influence on O. 2, see Podlecki (1976) 405 8, Burnett (2005) 29 44, 219, 245 7, Santi (2006), Athanassaki (2011a) 281 6, Athanassaki (2012) 139 42. For its influence on I. 5 and 6, see Indergaard (2011a) 306 21. 52 Cf. Paus. 9.11.6. See also Krummen (1990) 38. The dating of the temple is controversial; see also Brommer (1971) 58. 53 On the dating of the temple, see Sinn (1991) 50, Pimpinelli (1994) 402 5, Barringer (2005) 213 14. 54 55 Cf. Paus. 5.24.9. See Sinn (1996) 45. 56 See Barringer (2005) 212. 57 Cf. Pi. O. 2.3 4, 3.11 38, 10.43 85. See also Barrett (2007) 66 72.

Reproduced by kind permission of Adolf M. Hakkert publishers.

Fig. 3.1. East and west pediment of the temple of Zeus, Olympia.

94

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

Fig. 3.2. West and east metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia. Reproduced by kind permission of Adolf M. Hakkert publishers.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

95

versions of the stories, the victory was not achieved by fair means.58 Evidently, the version favoured at Olympia is the one, preserved also in Pindar (O. 1.71–88), where Pelops wins by Poseidon’s help. Here, the mythical hero can be interpreted to serve a paradigmatic role. The same role can be observed more distinctly in the depictions of Heracles. In some scenes, he is engaged in poses that are typical of wrestling or boxing, inviting comparisons with athletes competing in these two disciplines (Fig. 3.3).59 A peculiar detail of this parallelism is provided in two scenes where Heracles (Fig. 3.4) and one Lapith (Fig. 3.5) respectively display an injury on the ear that is highly

Fig. 3.3. Heracles wrestling with the Ceryneian Hind on the west metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia. Reproduced by kind permission of Adolf M. Hakkert publishers.

58

Pelops is elsewhere said to have bribed Oenomaus’ charioteer Myrtilus, cf. e.g. S. frr. 471 7, E. frr. 571 7, D.S. 4.73, Apollod. Epit. 2.4 8. 59 See also Raschke (1988) 42 3, Barringer (2005) 234, 237, and, in general, Mackey (2002).

96

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

Fig. 3.4. Heracles having defeated the Nemean Lion on the west metopes of the temple of Zeus, Olympia. Reproduced by kind permission of Adolf M. Hakkert publishers.

Fig. 3.5. Lapith fighting a centaur on the west pediment of the temple of Zeus, Olympia. Reproduced by kind permission of Adolf M. Hakkert publishers.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

97

characteristic for professional boxing in antiquity, the so-called ‘cauliflower ear’.60 In fact, several anecdotes confirm that famous athletes competing at Olympia in the sixth and fifth centuries BC compared themselves to Heracles. The wrestler Milo of Croton is said to have called an extraordinarily strong opponent a ‘second Heracles’. Milo himself is reported to have appeared at Olympia dressed as Heracles, complete with lion skin and club. The pancratiast Polydamas of Scotussa allegedly slayed a lion near Elis and likened this feat to Heracles’ killing of the Nemean Lion.61 Some scholars have argued that immortality features implicitly as an additional element of this parallelism.62 Heracles’ apotheosis is not shown on the metopes. However, it is meant to be evoked in the minds of the spectators, as the implicit result of and reward for the labours actually depicted. This impression might be enhanced by the way in which the twelve scenes progress linearly through the hero’s life, from a beardless youth in the first scenes to a bearded middle-aged man in the later scenes. The implied end of this progression would be the last stage of the hero’s life as a deity on Olympus. A similar argument can be developed for Pelops. Apotheosis is no element of accounts of the hero’s life. However, Pelops enjoyed cultic worship at Olympia, in the Pelopion just opposite the temple of Zeus. In fact, the Olympic cult of Pelops seems to have been on a considerably larger scale than cults for other heroes at other places. There is even evidence that his cult statue was nearly as big as that of Zeus.63 Moreover, the Pelopion played an active role in the ritual activity of the athletes, who are reported to have sacrificed there.64 The depiction of Pelops on the east pediment of the temple of Zeus was perhaps designed in such a way as to ‘interact’ with the Pelopion some thirty metres North of the 60 See also Raschke (1988) 33 4, Pimpinelli (1994) 353 4, Rehak (1998) 199, Barringer (2005) 234, 237. 61 On Milo and Titormus, cf. Ael. VH 12.22, 14.47b. On Milo’s dress, cf. D.S. 12.9.6. On Polydamas, cf. Paus. 6.5.5. See now also Nicholson (2016) 27 8. 62 See e.g. Barringer (2005) 237. 63 On the dimensions of Pelops’ statue, cf. Paus. 5.13.1. See also Tulunay (1998) 453, Barringer (2005) 212. On Pelops’ cult at Olympia in general, see Herrmann (1980), Burkert (1972) 108 19. 64 Cf. implicitly Paus. 5.13.3, 8.

98

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

temple, and spectators would have made connections between athlete and hero. If immortality does feature as an implicit element of these parallelisms, it remains to be determined what this element might represent for the athlete victorious at Olympia. Evidently, it would not seem to convey, on a direct correspondence, any promise of actual cultic worship, since no such worship of contemporary victors is attested for the game sites during this period.65 Nor does it, in its general applicability to any victor, seem to be concerned with the preservation of fame of a particular victor, as can be done by epinicians and victory statues. Instead, as these sculptural narratives are placed at the very spot where victors seem to have been crowned, immortalization is most likely to be associated with this particular moment, representing the exuberant, almost divine joy and relief felt by the victor on receiving the crown from the judges and acclaim from the masses. On this interpretation, the sculpture at the temple of Zeus at Olympia functions in a way very similar to mythical narratives in the epinician.66 It unfolds stories about heroic exploits that ultimately result in immortalization, and encourages comparison between these exploits and athletic training and competition. By extension, it also encourages comparison between immortal life, as the reward for heroic exploits, and the joy and honour that follows athletic victory. However, the sculpture at Olympia also aptly demonstrates the limits of this approach. The intimation that the moment of victory might approximate to the divine bliss bestowed on heroes like Heracles is here highly oblique. In order to reach at this particular part of the parallelism, spectators are required to actively interpolate scenes that are not explicitly depicted. Not every spectator might have been prepared to do so, nor is every modern interpreter. The parallelism between immortalization in the myth and the reward for victory in the here and now is an attractive construal, because it is the one most complimentary for the victor, but it is one among others. Thus, the sculpture at Olympia provides an intriguing parallel, and an important caveat, for pursuing similar parallelisms in the epinician.

65 66

See also Barringer (2005) 237. See also Stewart (1983), Barringer (2005) 237 9.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

99

NEMEAN 1 A good first example for the general argument developed in the preceding sections is offered by the narrative about Heracles that occupies the entire second half of Nemean 1. This narrative exhibits, from the beginning, striking parallels with the victor Chromius and his career.67 The transition from the hic et nunc to the myth in the antistrophe and epode of the second triad deserves attention: πράϲϲει γὰρ ἔργωι μὲν ϲθένοϲ, βουλαῖϲι δὲ φρήν, ἐϲϲόμενον προϊδεῖν ϲυγγενὲϲ οἷϲ ἕπεται. Ἁγηϲιδάμου παῖ, ϲέο δ’ ἀμφὶ τρόπωι 30 τῶν τε καὶ τῶν χρήϲιεϲ. οὐκ ἔραμαι πολὺν ἐν μεγάρωι πλοῦτον κατακρύψαιϲ ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἐόντων εὖ τε παθεῖν καὶ ἀκοῦ ϲαι φίλοιϲ ἐξαρκέων. κοιναὶ γὰρ ἔρχοντ’ ἐλπίδεϲ

35

πολυπόνων ἀνδρῶν. ἐγὼ δ’ Ἡρακλέοϲ ἀντέχομαι προφρόνωϲ ἐν κορυφαῖϲ ἀρετᾶν μεγάλαιϲ, ἀρχαῖον ὀτρύνων λόγον, ὡϲ, ἐπεὶ ϲπλάγχνων ὕπο ματέροϲ αὐτίκα θαητὰν ἐϲ αἴγλαν παῖϲ Διὸϲ ὠδῖνα φεύγων διδύμωι ϲὺν καϲιγνήτωι μόλεν,

⟝

Γ'

ὡϲ {τ’}68 οὐ λαθὼν χρυϲόθρονον Ἥραν κροκωτὸν ϲπάργανον ἐγκατέβα.

For strength works through deeds and wisdom works through counsels among those who have the ability to foresee the future. But you, son of Hagesidamus, will, because of your character, use both of these. I do not desire to have great wealth hidden away in a big house, but to benefit from the things that I have and to stand in good reputation for helping my friends. Common are the hopes of much toiled men. I, however, gladly hold up Heracles in the great heights of excellence, rousing the old story of how, as soon as the son of Zeus came from under his mother’s womb into the wondrous light, fleeing the pains of childbirth together with his twin brother, he did not enter his yellow swaddling clothes hidden from golden throned Hera. (Pi. N. 1.26 38) 67 On a parallelism between Heracles and Chromius in general, see Σ N. 1.49b, c, Dissen (1830) 2.356 7, Bowra (1964) 306 7, Radt (1966) 167, Newman and Newman (1984) 70 1, Slater (1984) 250 1, Braswell (1992) 56, Erbse (1999) 14 15, Nicholson (2001) 87, Currie (2005) 1 2, Morgan (2015) 387 90. A parallelism is denied by Drachmann (1891) 207, Wilamowitz (1922) 256, Thummer (1968/9) 1.111, Fraenkel (1972) 85 6. 68 Deletion by Hermann ap. Heyne3 (vol. 3 p. 365).

100

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

This introduction of the narrative stands out among a pattern discernible in the narratives of most other odes. There, a central term in the description of the hic et nunc or in a gnomic reflection leads, in an ostensibly casual manner, into the narrative through a relative pronoun mostly combined with ποτε and a verb in the aorist tense.69 As a result, the paradigmatic function of such narratives tends to remain implicit. In Nemean 1, in contrast, the paradigmatic function of the narrative about Heracles is explicitly stated in the sentence that introduces Heracles in lines 33–4, immediately after the praise of Chromius in lines 29–32. The theme that connects Chromius and Heracles is identified as ‘the great heights of excellence’ (34 ἐν κορυφαῖϲ ἀρετᾶν μεγάλαιϲ), where ἀρετά, as noted above, encompasses both heroic exploit and athletic victory. Moreover, the striking verb ἀντέ χεϲθαι (33), which literally denotes a holding or clinging on to something, seems to convey that, for the laudator, Heracles is the natural paradigm in the context of great achievements.70 The paradigmatic function of Heracles, which is announced in these unusually explicit terms, is confirmed as the narrative develops. The choice of Heracles’ very first adventure as an infant may surprise at first, but its purpose becomes clear in the last triad, when Tiresias is summoned to interpret the events: Δʹ ἔϲτα δὲ θάμβει δυϲφόρωι 56 τερπνῶι τε μιχθείϲ. εἶδε γὰρ ἐκνόμιον λῆμά τε καὶ δύναμιν υἱοῦ παλίγγλωϲϲον δέ οἱ ἀθάνατοι ἀγγέλων ῥῆϲιν θέϲαν. 60 γείτονα δ’ ἐκκάλεϲεν Διὸϲ ὑψίϲτου προφάταν ἔξοχον, ὀρθόμαντιν Τειρεϲίαν ὁ δέ οἱ φράζε καὶ παντὶ ϲτρατῶι, ποίαιϲ ὁμιλήϲει τύχαιϲ, ὅϲϲουϲ μὲν ἐν χέρϲωι κτανών, ὅϲϲουϲ δὲ πόντωι θῆραϲ ἀϊδροδίκαϲ καί τινα ϲὺν πλαγίωι

69

Cf. e.g. P. 10.31 (see below, p. 118). On this pattern, see Schadewaldt (1928) 83 5, Slater (1979) 65, Slater (1983) 128, Sigelman (2016) 23 8. On ‘casual’ transi tions, and the underlying fiction of impromptu composition, see also Carey (1981) 5 6, Carey (1991), A. Miller (1993), Morgan (1993), Scodel (1996) 69. See also Bonifazi (2000) for a critique of this notion. 70 See LSJ s.v. ἀντέχω III, though the paraphrase of N. 1.33 offered there (‘worship him above all’) is misleading. See also Radt (1966) 168.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

101

65 ἀνδρῶν κόρωι ϲτείχοντα τὸν ἐχθρότατον φᾶ ἑ δαιώϲειν μόρον.71 καὶ γὰρ ὅταν θεοὶ ἐν πεδίωι Φλέγραϲ Γιγάντεϲϲιν μάχαν ἀντιάζωϲιν, βελέων ὑπὸ ῥιπαῖϲι κείνου φαιδίμαν γαίαι πεφύρϲεϲθαι κόμαν ἔνεπεν . . . He (sc. Amphitryon) stood with mixed feelings of grievous fear and joyous wonder. For he saw the extraordinary will and strength of his son, and the gods had rendered the messengers’ report false. He called for his neighbour, the outstanding prophet of highest Zeus, Tiresias, the giver of correct prophecies. He (sc. Tiresias) told him and the entire host what fates would await him (sc. Heracles), and how many lawless beasts he would kill on land and at sea. He also said that he would give the most hateful fate to men walking with crooked arrogance. For even when the gods would face the Giants in battle in the plain of Phlegra, he said that their (sc. the Giants’) bright hair would be fouled with earth under the blows of his arrows. (Pi. N. 1.55 69)

The length of this part of the narrative, which neatly balances the account of Heracles’ struggle with the snakes in the third triad, indicates that the prophecy is attributed at least as much significance as the actual event. It is only through the prophecy that the function of the episode from Heracles’ infancy becomes comprehensible within the context of the ode as a whole. For Tiresias, the killing of the snakes provides the omen on which his prediction of Heracles’ future is based. As the first heroic deed, it foreshadows a lifetime of further heroic deeds. Through Tiresias’ interpretation, auspicious origins, and the future that they betoken, emerge as a central theme of the narrative.72 In fact, this theme might be alluded to already in the introduction of the narrative, when the story is described as ἀρχαῖον λόγον (34). In the present context, the adjective ἀρχαῖοϲ may refer not merely to the age of the story about Heracles,

71 The text printed here is the transmitted text as printed in Snell Maehler. However, guided by the paraphrase in the scholia (Σ Pi. N. 1.97c ἔφαϲκε δώϲειν μόρον), most editors emend δαιώϲειν to δώϲειν. The resulting problem of the two accusatives τινα ϲτείχοντα and μόρον is solved either by restoring a dative in τινι ϲτείχοντι, as adopted in the translation above, or in μόρωι; see the various conjectures listed in Gerber (1976) 100 1. Braswell (1992) 76 ad loc. attempts to defend the two accusatives by assuming, less attractively, an anacoluthon. 72 See also Radt (1966) 167 8, Rose (1974), Segal (1974) 30 1, Erbse (1999) 14 15.

102

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

if indeed it is an old story at all,73 but also to its focus on the ἀρχαί of the hero. The theme of auspicious origins echoes a section of praise directed at Chromius at the beginning of the ode: ἅρμα δ’ ὀτρύνει Χρομίου Νεμέα τ’ ἔργμαϲιν νικαφόροιϲ ἐγκώμιον ζεῦξαι μέλοϲ.

10

ἀρχαὶ δὲ βέβληνται θεῶν κείνου ϲὺν ἀνδρὸϲ δαιμονίαιϲ ἀρεταῖϲ. ἔϲτι δ’ ἐν εὐτυχίαι πανδοξίαϲ ἄκρον μεγάλων δ’ ἀέθλων Μοῖϲα μεμνᾶϲθαι φιλεῖ.

Chromius’ chariot and Nemea urge me to yoke my song of praise with victorious deeds. The origins have been cast by the gods with the divine excellence of this man. In success lies the highest renown. The Muse loves to remember great achievements. (Pi. N. 1.7 12)

The reference to ἀρχαί here is ambiguous. Initially, it seems to denote the origins of the song, whose metaphorical journey is described in the preceding line.74 However, in its combination with references to divine agency (θεῶν), Chromius’ excellence (ἀρεταί), and especially his success (εὐτυχία), these origins also seem to denote the origins of Chromius’ victory. Ultimately, the two notions coincide, because victory gives rise to song and therefore the origins of victory are also the origins of song. This is important for understanding the nature of the parallelism between Chromius and Heracles. On a verbal level, the reference to Chromius’ ἀρχαί might correspond to the following introduction of the narrative about Heracles as ἀρχαῖον λόγον. On a thematic level, moreover, the attribution of god-given origins to Chromius is paralleled by Tiresias’ interpretation of Heracles’ first adventure as an omen. Accordingly, in addition to the general theme of ‘heights of excellence’ (34), Chromius and Heracles are also paralleled through the specific theme of auspicious origins.

73

See Braswell (1992) 57 ad loc., who observes that there is no literary evidence for this episode before Pindar and Pherecydes of Athens (FGrH 3 F69a, b), and no iconographical record before the fifth century BC. 74 See Σ Pi. N. 1.11a, Braswell (1992) 39 ad loc.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

103

For Chromius, this particular parallelism does not convey that a bright career still awaits him.75 He is no boy victor, for whom such a thought might be appropriate. Rather, as the perfect βέβληνται indicates, his origins lie in the past, and the deeds of excellence that these origins betoken have already been fulfilled. The generic confines of the epinician in general, and the context in which Chromius’ origins are mentioned in lines 8–12 in particular, suggest that these deeds of excellence are to be located first and foremost in the athletic sphere, in the actions that led to the victory in Nemea. Heracles’ exploits foreseen in lines 62–9 then provide another instance where heroic exploits in the myth parallel athletic achievements in the hic et nunc. In the particular case of Chromius, an additional parallelism with his own military exploits might also be intended, though, for understanding Nemean 1 in itself, this parallelism may not be necessary.76 His success as general under Hippocrates, Gelon, and Hieron are well known from the scholia.77 In Nemean 1, the particular emphasis on Heracles’ exploits on land and at sea recalls the record of Chromius’ military campaigns in Nemean 9, which celebrates another of Chromius’ victories with the chariot: 35

. . . Χρομίωι κεν ὑπαϲπίζων παρὰ πεζοβόαιϲ ἵπποιϲ τε ναῶν τ’ ἐν μάχαιϲ ἔκριναϲ, ἂν κίνδυνον ὀξείαϲ αὐτᾶϲ,

Ηʹ οὕνεκεν ἐν πολέμωι κείνα θεὸϲ ἔντυεν αὐτοῦ θυμὸν αἰχματὰν ἀμύνειν λοιγὸν Ἐνυαλίου. . . . Carrying the shield for Chromius among the foot soldiers and horses and in battles of ships, you (sc. Zeus) might have judged, during the danger of the sharp battle cry, that that goddess (sc. Aidos) urged his (sc. Chromius’) warring spirit to ward off destruction by Enyalius.78 (Pi. N. 9.34 7)

The verbal echoes between the two odes, particularly between the encompassing juxtaposition of land and sea in the description of

75

Contra Rosenmeyer (1969) 240 1. See also Slater (1984) 254 8. For caution in including biographical material in the parallelism, see Privitera (1972) 48 50, Erbse (1999) 14 15. 77 See Luraghi (1994) 338 40 with the evidence. 78 ἄν is here interpreted as a form of ἀνά rather than the modal particle. Hence, οὕνεκεν is taken to provide the content of ἔκριναϲ (‘that’) rather than the reason (‘because’) for the preceding clause. See Braswell (1998) 114 15 for discussion and further literature. 76

104

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

Heracles’ exploits in Nemean 1 (63–4) and those of Chromius in Nemean 9 (34), point to a deeper parallelism between Chromius and Heracles, which would be developed across two odes. Given that both odes are likely to have premiered in front of similar audiences in Syracuse and Aetna, the audiences are likely to have perceived a connection between these two songs.79 The temporal difference between Heracles’ future feats and Chromius’ past achievements is particularly important for understanding the nature of another parallelism that is often seen in Nemean 1, namely between Tiresias and the laudator.80 In terms of narratology, Tiresias acts as a secondary narrator, whose prophetic account constitutes a prior narrative. As such, he replaces the primary narrator of the ode, who might instead have continued to relate Heracles’ ‘terminal exploits’ in subsequent narrative.81 Other early extant accounts or depictions before Theocritus, who in turn depends on Pindar, do not feature Tiresias. Tiresias’ role in this ode is therefore particularly striking, especially as it is not clear if he featured in the story before Nemean 1.82 The choice to include him seems to be motivated as a reflection of the laudator’s activity in the myth itself. Both figures recognize extraordinary greatness in their respective subject. However, a central difference that is not usually stressed enough is that the laudator evaluates actions of the past, whereas the prophet predicts those of the future. These observations lead to the final epode of Nemean 1, which is of central importance for the purposes of this chapter:

79 See Morrison (2007) 11 18 and passim. On intertextuality in Pindar in general, see also Morrison (2011). 80 See Rose (1974) 173 5, Segal (1974) 38 9, Petrucione (1986) 43 4, Indergaard (2011b) 81 2. This does not exclude the possibility of a parallelism between the laudator and Amphitryon, who both ‘stand’ in awe of extraordinary deeds (19 ἔϲταν, 55 ἔϲτα); see e.g. Segal (1974) 35, Petrucione (1986) 42, Nicholson (2001) 87. Petrucione (1986) 41 2 also argues for a parallelism between the laudator and Heracles, which is, however, based on rather unconvincing verbal echoes. 81 On prior and subsequent narrative in Pindar, see Nünlist (2007) without discussion of N. 1. See also Morrison (2007) 30. On ‘terminal exploits’ usually related in subsequent narrative, see Young (1968) 4, Slater (1979) 64, Slater (1983) 119 20. 82 Tiresias does not appear to feature in (the highly fragmentary) Pi. fr. 52u (Pae. 20) = S1 Rutherford, nor at Pherec. FGrH 3 F69a or in the iconographical evidence collected by Jean Marc Moret ap. Braswell (1992) 83 90. Later passages that do feature the prophet (Theoc. 24.64 8, [Apollod.] 2.4.8, Plaut. Am. 1128 9) might well depend, in one way or another, on Pindar.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode 70

105

. . . αὐτὸν μὰν ἐν εἰρήναι τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ⟨ἐν⟩83 ϲχερῶι ἡϲυχίαν καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν λαχόντ’ ἐξαίρετον ὀλβίοιϲ ἐν δώμαϲι, δεξάμενον θαλερὰν Ἥβαν ἄκοιτιν καὶ γάμον δαίϲαντα πὰρ Δὶ Κρονίδαι, ϲεμνὸν αἰνήϲειν νόμον.

And that he (sc. Heracles) would, after receiving peaceful rest as choice recompense for his great toils for all times without interruption in a blessed house, and taking blooming Hebe as his wife and celebrating his wedding next to Cronus’ son Zeus, praise his sacred rule. (Pi. N. 1.69 72)

The careful design of the parallelisms between Chromius and Heracles, and between the laudator and Tiresias, suggests that the account of Heracles’ apotheosis is also part of these parallelisms. In fact, the striking rendering as ‘choice recompense for his great toils’ (70) explicitly presents this apotheosis as the final stage of a plot that, as is argued above, lends itself to being considered as a paradigm for the victor’s achievement and reward. In addition, it is also possible to relate a peculiar detail in the account of Heracles’ apotheosis to Chromius’ biography. The scholia report that Chromius received, in return for his services to Gelon, one of Gelon’s and Hieron’s sisters in marriage.84 To an audience familiar with the Syracusan court, the emphasis on Heracles’ marriage with Hebe (71), which accompanies his acceptance on Olympus, might evoke Chromius’ own marriage.85 As with Chromius’ military successes, however, knowledge of this detail is not required to account for the function of the narration of Heracles’ apotheosis. The exact correspondent of Heracles’ apotheosis in the hic et nunc remains to be determined. Bruno Currie has recently suggested that this part of the parallelism might indicate that Chromius was himself to expect some form of cultic immortality after his death.86 This 83

Supplement by Hermann ap. Heyne3 (vol. 3 p. 367). Cf. Σ Pi. N. 9.95a = Timae. FGrH 566 F21, Σ Pi. P. 2.36c. On the relationship between Hieron and Chromius, cf. also Σ Pi. N. 9 inscr. See also Radt (1966) 196 8, Rose (1974) 169 with n. 72, Braswell (1992) 82. 85 The possibility of this evocation provides an argument for scholars who see a secondary parallelism between the divine host Zeus and Hieron, Chromius’ king and likely host of his celebration. On this parallelism, see F. Meister (2019b) 368 9 with further literature. 86 Currie (2005) 2 ‘There is an implied parallelism between Chromios and Hera kles; one is left wondering about its exact extent, and about Chromios’ future after his death.’ Similar arguments are advanced already by Mezger (1880) 111 12, Boehmer (1891) 91. 84

106

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

suggestion is rendered unlikely by the observations made above about the difference between the laudator and Tiresias. The laudator does not predict Chromius’ future. Rather, he acknowledges events past and present. The emphasis that the account of Heracles’ apotheosis places on feasting in lines 71–2 offers a hint for determining the true nature of Chromius’ reward. Here, divine life as bestowed upon Heracles is represented in his participation in the eternal unperturbed banquet of the gods. This image evokes the victory banquet at which the laudator imagines his song to be performed at the beginning of the second triad:87 Βʹ 20

ἔϲταν δ’ ἐπ’ αὐλείαιϲ θύραιϲ ἀνδρὸϲ φιλοξείνου καλὰ μελπόμενοϲ ἔνθα μοι ἁρμόδιον δεῖπνον κεκόϲμηται, θαμὰ δ’ ἀλλοδαπῶν οὐκ ἀπείρατοι δόμοι ἐντί. . . .

I stand by the courtyard gates of a hospitable man, singing of beautiful deeds, where a fitting feast is prepared for me. This house is not unfamiliar with frequent strangers. (Pi. N. 1.19 22)

The parallelism between the two banquets is reinforced by the reference to the ‘blessed house’ (71 ὀλβίοιϲ ἐν δώμαϲι) in the description of Heracles’ divine life. Elsewhere, ὄλβοϲ refers exactly to the state of blissful carefreeness that the victor is allowed to enjoy during the celebrations of his victory. It may be no coincidence that one of the most striking depictions of this state is found in a passage from Nemean 9 quoted above, where Chromius is ascribed ‘wondrous happiness’ (45 θαυμαϲτὸν ὄλβον) during his victory symposium. Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of this parallelism is the fact that Nemean 1 does not, like the great majorities of epinicians, return to the hic et nunc at the end of the ode, but instead ends in the myth.88 This peculiar end creates the impression that an explicit return to the imagined celebration is not required because, implicitly, the ode has 87 See also Σ Pi. N. 1.49c, Rose (1974) 169 70, Segal (1974) 37, Slater (1984) 251, Krummen (1990) 56 7, Kurke (1991) 113 14, Indergaard (2011b) 90 1. This paral lelism does not provide any evidence as to the actual context of the first performance of N. 1, as is assumed by Wilamowitz (1922) 254, Krummen (1990) 276, Carey (2007) 204, Morrison (2007) 24 5. 88 On such endings in lyric, see Bernsdorff (2005) esp. 3.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

107

already arrived there. The depiction of the divine banquet, it appears, resembles its earthly counterpart to such an extent that one may evoke the other in the minds of the ancient audiences and modern readers.89 Through the parallelism between the two banquets, Chromius is himself characterized as experiencing, as ‘choice recompense for his great toils’, a state of happiness and relief comparable to Heracles’ divine life on Olympus. This parallelism also involves a crucial contrast. Whereas Heracles enjoys this state indefinitely, it is confined to a short moment in the case of Chromius. Nemean 1 places considerable emphasis on the eternity of Heracles’ experience (69 τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ⟨ἐν⟩ ϲχερῶι, ‘for all times without interruption’), as if to call attention to the contrast with Chromius. This contrast, however, does not constitute a paradox.90 Since Heracles’ eternal bliss serves as an image for Chromius’ happiness, exact correspondence of all elements is not required. The focus of the correspondence, it seems, is on quality rather than quantity. Chromius’ happiness, though bound to end, constitutes a momentary approximation to divine bliss.

ISTHMIAN 4 Isthmian 491 is chosen as the second example, because, at the end of this ode, the paradigm of Heracles is employed in a way similar to Nemean 1. Hence, it serves to confirm the results of the interpretation of the preceding section. At the same time, Isthmian 4 as a whole also engages in a discourse on divinity and immortality more nuanced than that of the Nemean 1. Here are found, side by side, notions of actual immortalization, of immortal fame in song, and of divine bliss during the celebration, and all these notions are represented, in highly suggestive ways, through mythical symbols and figures. Close 89

See also Radt (1966) 165, Young (1993) 128 9, Indergaard (2011b) 92. Pace Petrucione (1986) 36, who adduces this contrast to reject the parallelism between Heracles and Chromius and argues, most improbably, for a parallelism between Heracles and the laudator. 91 It is assumed here, with the majority of scholars, that Isthmians 3 and 4 are different poems; see e.g. the discussions in Barrett (1956) 249 n. 1 = (2007) 315 n. 3, Köhnken (1971) 87 94, Willcock (1995) 69 72, Cole (2003), Ivanov (2010) 1 10. See contra Thummer (1968/9) 2.55 8. For the sake of convenience, the numbers of lines and triads in Snell Maehler are retained. 90

108

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

examination of Isthmian 4 may therefore offer a deepened understanding of how these various notions relate to one another. The first element in the discourse on divinity and immortality is encountered at the beginning of the ode. After a brief sentence acknowledging Melissus’ victory in the pancratium at the Isthmian Games,92 the focus shifts to the praise of his family, the Theban clan of the Cleonymidae: Βʹ 20

ἔϲτι μοι θεῶν ἕκατι μυρία παντᾶι κέλευθοϲ, ὦ Μέλιϲϲ’, εὐμαχανίαν γὰρ ἔφαναϲ Ἰϲθμίοιϲ, ὑμετέραϲ ἀρετὰϲ ὕμνωι διώκειν αἷϲι Κλεωνυμίδαι θάλλοντεϲ αἰεὶ ϲὺν θεῶι θνατὸν διέρχονται βιότου τέλοϲ. ἄλλοτε δ’ ἀλλοῖοϲ οὖροϲ πάνταϲ ἀνθρώπουϲ ἐπαΐϲϲων ἐλαύνει.

25

τοὶ μὲν ὦν Θήβαιϲι τιμάεντεϲ ἀρχᾶθεν λέγονται πρόξενοί τ’ ἀμφικτιόνων κελαδεννᾶϲ τ’ ὀρφανοὶ ὕβριοϲ ὅϲϲα δ’ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπουϲ ἄηται μαρτύρια φθιμένων ζωῶν τε φωτῶν ἀπλέτου δόξαϲ, ἐπέψαυϲαν κατὰ πὰν τέλοϲ ἀνορέαιϲ δ’ ἐϲχάταιϲιν οἴκοθεν ϲτάλαιϲιν ἅπτονθ’ Ἡρακλείαιϲ

30

καὶ μηκέτι μακροτέραν ϲπεύδειν ἀρετάν I have numberless ways in every direction in accordance with the gods, O Melissus, since you have displayed skill at the Isthmian Games, to pursue your excellence in song. The Cleonymidae, flourishing because of that excellence, always reach the mortal end of life with the help of a deity. At different times, different kinds of wind rush onto all men and drive them on. But they are said to be honoured in Thebes from the very beginning as protectors of neighbours and free of noisy arrogance. And however many testimonies of boundless fame of men dead and alive are wafted among humans, they attain it in regard to every end. And with supreme manliness

92 Privitera (1978/9) argues that I. 4 celebrates a victory in the chariot race rather than the pancratium, and Wilcock (1995) 71 2 leans towards this argument. How ever, Privitera’s interpretation of lines 43 7, on which most of his argument rests, is not compelling. Any Panhellenic victory could reawaken the clan’s suspended fame, not only a specific victory in the chariot race. Cf. P. 11.43 8, where the family’s successes with chariots are also highlighted, though the present victory is in the stadium race. On the whole, it seems unlikely that the entire second half of I. 4 should be dedicated to supposed victories in the pancratium at local games at Thebes, which are mentioned only in passing at the very end of the ode; see also Ivanov (2010) 185 7.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

109

they have reached from their home the Pillars of Heracles. Do not seek an even larger excellence.93 (Pi. I. 3/4.19 31)

The initial praise of the Cleonymidae is strong. The clan are said to occupy a special position among men. Though they are, like all humans, subject to the vicissitudes of fortune (23–4), they oppose this arbitrary aspect of the human condition with moral constancy. Individually, they succeed in upholding excellence throughout their lives (22–3). Collectively, they have maintained an honourable reputation in Thebes since the remotest past (25–7). This praise reaches its climax in lines 27–9, where the Cleonymidae are attributed with the highest achievements in all areas in which men excel. However, though the Cleonymidae are presented as extraordinary humans, there is no insinuation that they might be more than mortal. In fact, mortality looms large in these lines. Despite their excellence, ultimately they each arrive at the end of their lives (23).94 Despite their achievements, they are part of the feeble race of ‘men dead and alive’ (28), who, in the best case, are outlived by their fame. Accordingly, the praise of the Cleonymidae is characterized by a contrast between supreme achievement and ultimate limitation. This contrast is aptly expressed in the image of the Pillars of Heracles in lines 30–1, which concludes this section of praise for the Cleonymidae. The Pillars of Heracles are a prominent image in the Pindaric corpus. They demarcate the western end of the mortal world, beyond which lies the Oceanus and the immortal realm.95 Crossing this boundary would be dangerous if not deadly. Thus, as a metaphor, the Pillars extend the image of the journey and define a point on that journey from which there is no safe continuing. In this capacity, they

93

ϲπεύδειν is construed as consecutive final infinitive by Bury (1892) 65 6 ad loc., Wilamowitz (1922) 338 n. 1, Farnell (1930/2) 2.350 ad loc. See, however, Thummer (1968/9) 2.66 7 ad loc. and Privitera (1982) 175 ad loc. for reasons for preferring an infinitive for imperative here. 94 The use of διέρχεϲθαι, which usually means ‘to pass through’ (see LSJ s.v. I), is unique here (see LSJ s.v. V). Indergaard (2011b) 149 n. 498 argues that the verb retains its basic meaning and insinuates that the Cleonymidae cross through the mortal end of life. This, however, seems incompatible with the wider context of the passage and especially with the fact that four members of the clan have died (cf. 34 35b). See also Bury (1892) 64 ad loc., Ivanov (2010) 107 ad loc. 95 Cf. Pi. O. 3.43 4, N. 3.19 21, 4.69 70; cf. also fr. 256. In general, see Péron (1974) 73 84, Mullen (1982) 130, Kurke (1991) 22 4, Indergaard (2011b) 118 37.

110

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

can reflect both the laudator’s path of song and laudandus’ path of achievement.96 The worlds within and without the Pillars are presented as a dichotomy evaluated in terms similar to those of the gnomic dichotomies of near and far, familiar and strange, or mortal and immortal.97 In Isthmian 4, the Pillars represent the limits of mortality, which the Cleonymidae are said to have reached. They are explicitly advised not to seek to cross these limits (31), and the implicit reason for this admonition is that, though immortality might be found behind the Pillars, the more likely destiny is destruction. On this approach, the first section of Isthmian 4 presents, not unlike gnomic statements collected above, immortality as dangerous and unattainable, and advocates instead contentment with mortal limitations. The following section of the ode provides a reason for the emphasis on mortal limitations in the preceding praise of the clan: ἱπποτρόφοι τ’ ἐγένοντο, χαλκέωι τ’ Ἄρει ἅδον. ἀλλ’ ἁμέραι γὰρ ἐν μιᾶι 35 τραχεῖα νιφὰϲ πολέμοιο τεϲϲάρων 35b ἀνδρῶν ἐρήμωϲεν μάκαιραν ἑϲτίαν νῦν δ’ αὖ μετὰ χειμέριον ποικίλα μηνῶν ζόφον ͜ ἄνθηϲεν ῥόδοιϲ 36b χθὼν ὥτε φοινικέοιϲιν ⟝

Γʹ

40

45

96

δαιμόνων βουλαῖϲ. ὁ κινητὴρ δὲ γᾶϲ Ὀγχηϲτὸν οἰκέων ͜ καὶ γέφυραν ποντιάδα πρὸ Κορίνθου τειχέων, τόνδε πορὼν γενεᾶι θαυμαϲτὸν ὕμνον ἐκ λεχέων ἀνάγει φάμαν παλαιὰν εὐκλέων ἔργων ἐν ὕπνωι γὰρ πέϲεν ἀλλ’ ἀνεγειρομένα χρῶτα λάμπει, Ἀ͜ οϲφόροϲ θαητὸϲ ὣϲ ἄϲτροιϲ ἐν ἄλλοιϲ ἅ τε κἀν γουνοῖϲ Ἀθανᾶν ἅρμα καρύξαιϲα νικᾶν ἔν τ’ Ἀδραϲτείοιϲ ἀέθλοιϲ ικυῶνοϲ ὤπαϲεν τοιάδε τῶν τότ’ ἐόντων φύλλ’ ἀοιδᾶν. οὐδὲ παναγυρίων ξυνᾶν ἀπεῖχον καμπύλον δίφρον, Πανελλάνεϲϲι δ’ ἐριζόμενοι δαπάναι χαῖρον ἵππων. τῶν ἀπειράτων γὰρ ἄγνωτοι ϲιωπαί.

See Becker (1937) 71 2, Péron (1974) 34 5, Kurke (1991) 49 50, Indergaard (2011b) 119 22, 149. Cf. Pi. N. 4.69 70, where the reference to the Pillars is followed by the laudator’s self exhortation to return to a more suitable subject. 97 See also Hubbard (1985) 13 62.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

111

They were raisers of horses and pleased brazen Ares. But, on a single day, the savage cloud of war emptied their blessed hearth of four men. Now, after the gloom of winter for months, it blooms again like the earth dappled with red roses, by the gods’ design. The shaker of the earth, who dwells in Onchestus and at the sea bridge before the walls of Corinth, by granting the family this wonderous song, raises their old fame of glorious deeds from its bed. For it had fallen asleep. But having been woken, it (sc. fame) shines in flesh like the splendid Morning Star among the other stars. Pronouning their victorious chariot on the heights of Athens and in the Adrasteian Games at Sicyon, it had once given them leaves of song, like these ones now, from the men who lived then. Nor had they kept their curved chariot away from national festivals, but competing with all Greeks they rejoiced in expenditure on horses. For ignominious silence belongs to those who do not try. (Pi. I. 3/4.32 48)

The description of the death of four members of the Cleonymidae in lines 32 to 35b is of remarkable poignancy and pathos.98 Subsequently, however, the dejection over this loss provides merely a contrastive background for assessing the impact of Melissus’ victory.99 Here, too, considerable pathos is invested in the rapid succession of the images of spring following winter and of the Morning Star, both of which recall the exuberant imagery of wedding songs. Parallels particularly with the appearance of Peisetaerus and Basileia in Aristophanes’ Aves (cf. 1709–14), which is discussed in detail in the preceding chapter, suggest that Melissus’ victory is presented as irrupting into the collective fate of the clan almost like a divine epiphany. By resuming the clan’s history in athletic success (43–7), Melissus restores their fame across Greece. Moreover, the reference to the clan’s ‘blessed hearth’ (35b μάκαιραν ἑϲτίαν), placed emphatically at the juncture from darkness to light, suggests that Melissus’ victory celebration returns to the clan a state of cheerful festivity and revelry that it had enjoyed as a result of previous victories, but which was suspended because of death.100 The fact that this state is qualified as μάκαρ indicates that 98

See esp. Segal (1981) 70 3. See also Schadewaldt (1928) 49 n. 4, Woodbury (1947) 368 70, Bundy (1962) 14 15, 49 50, Thummer (1968/9) 1.66 81, Köhnken (1971) 97, Lee (1978) 66 70, McNeal (1978) 146 7, Segal (1981) 71, Krummen (1990) 81. See, however, the limitations set out by Kurke (1991) 72 4, 81 2. 100 Cf. also Pi. O. 1.11 and P. 5.11, where Hieron’s and Arecesilas’ hearths are called μάκαιρα because of their victories. See also Thummer (1968/9) 2.68 on 35b. De Heer (1969) 29 30 unnecessarily assumes that the hearth is called ‘blessed’, because Hestia is worshipped there. 99

112

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

this joy is represented, here as elsewhere, as an experience of sublime, almost divine joy. Accordingly, this section of Isthmian 4 contains a first hint at a notion of quasi-divine happiness in the context of Melissus’ victory celebration. In the immediately following section, this notion is not developed further. Instead, the ode returns to the theme of mortal limitations: 50

53b 54b

ἔϲτιν δ’ ἀφάνεια τύχαϲ καὶ μαρναμένων, πρὶν τέλοϲ ἄκρον ἱκέϲθαι τῶν τε γὰρ καὶ τῶν διδοῖ {τέλοϲ}101. καὶ κρέϲϲον’ ἀνδρῶν χειρόνων ἔϲφαλε τέχνα καταμάρψαιϲ’ ἴϲτε μάν Αἴαντοϲ ἀλκάν φοίνιον102, τὰν ὀψίαι ἐν νυκτὶ ταμὼν περὶ ὧι φαϲγάνωι μομφὰν ἔχει παίδεϲϲιν Ἑλλάνων ὅϲοι Τροίανδ’ ἔβαν.

⟝

Δʹ 56

60

ἀλλ’ Ὅμηρόϲ τοι τετίμακεν δι’ ἀνθρώπων, ὃϲ αὐτοῦ πᾶϲαν ὀρθώϲαιϲ ἀρετὰν κατὰ ῥάβδον ἔφραϲεν θεϲπεϲίων ἐπέων λοιποῖϲ ἀθύρειν. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀθάνατον φωνᾶεν ἕρπει, εἴ τιϲ εὖ εἴπηι τι καὶ πάγκαρπον ἐπὶ χθόνα καὶ διὰ πόντον βέβακεν ἐργμάτων ἀκτὶϲ καλῶν ἄϲβεϲτοϲ αἰεί. προφρόνων Μοιϲᾶν τύχοιμεν, κεῖνον ἅψαι πυρϲὸν ὕμνων καὶ Μελίϲϲωι, παγκρατίου ϲτεφάνωμ’ ἐπάξιον, ἔρνεϊ Τελεϲιάδα. . . .

Even for those who fight there is uncertainty of fate, before they reach the ultimate goal. Fate may give one thing or another. And even a stronger man is overtaken and defeated by the skill of the weaker. Surely you know of the blood stained strength of Ajax, which he pierced on his sword late at night and so scolded103 the children of the Hellenes who went to Troy. But Homer, who lifted up his entire excellence and declared it in accordance with his staff of divine words for future men to sing of, has honoured him among men. For

101

Deletion by Triclinius. The text of Snell Maehler printed above has a comma before φοίνιον, thus including it in the relative clause. See, however, Köhnken (1971) 109 10 with n. 97 for reasons for placing the comma after φοίνιον. 103 For this translation of the difficult μομφὰν ἔχει, see e.g. Farnell (1930/2) 2.351 ad loc., Thummer (1968/9) 2.72 3 ad loc., Köhnken (1971) 108 with n. 90, Privitera (1982) 179 80 ad loc., Ivanov (2010) 139 40. For an alternative translation (Ajax ‘was scolded by the children of the Hellenes’), see Wilamowitz (1922) 338 with n. 3. 102

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

113

a thing lives on with immortal voice, if someone says it well. And on the fertile land and across the ocean the gleam of noble deeds is forever unquenchable. May I find favourable Muses to light such a fire of songs, as a crown worthy of the pancratium, also for Melissus, the son of Telesiadas. (Pi. I. 3/4.49 63)

The reference to the vicissitudes of fate in lines 49–51 connects this passage with the beginning of the ode. Here, the phrases ‘it may give one thing or another’ (51) corresponds to the image of the different winds that drive humans at different times (23–4), and ‘before they reach the ultimate goal’ (50) corresponds to the statement that the Cleonymidae have always reached the end of their lives through excellence (23). These echoes evoke and reaffirm the initial admonition to remain within the mortal world demarcated by the Pillars of Heracles. In addition, through the reflection of the contrast between Ajax’ fate leading to his suicide and the eternal glory bestowed on him by Homer’s song, this passage is also connected to the preceding section, which mentions the songs sung in honour of past victories of the Cleonymidae (45). The consequence that is drawn from the paradigm of Ajax in lines 58–60 is one of the most explicit renderings of the notion of eternal preservation of fame in song.104 The use of the term ἀθάνατον here is striking, especially after the warning not to seek to exceed mortal limitations at the beginning of the ode (31 καὶ μηκέτι μακροτέραν ϲπεύδειν ἀρετάν). The two propositions do not involve a contradiction. Melissus will, like all Cleonymidae (cf. 23), reach the end of his life. The only claim to eternity that he may entertain is the continued existence of his fame in the Pindaric ode. After the paradigm of Ajax, Isthmian 4 resumes the theme of momentary quasi-divine joy during Melissus’ victory celebration, which, as is argued above, is already hinted at in the description of the festivities that Melissus brought to the Cleonymidae:

65

. . . τόλμαι γὰρ εἰκὼϲ θυμὸν ἐριβρεμετᾶν θηρῶν λεόντων ἐν πόνωι, μῆτιν δ’ ἀλώπηξ, αἰετοῦ ἅ τ’ ἀναπιτναμένα ῥόμβον ἴϲχει χρὴ δὲ πᾶν ἔρδοντ’ ἀμαυρῶϲαι τὸν ἐχθρόν. οὐ γὰρ φύϲιν Ὠαριωνείαν ἔλαχεν ἀλλ’ ὀνοτὸϲ μὲν ἰδέϲθαι,

104

See also Segal (1981) 75 7, Currie (2005) 76, 312 14.

114 70 71b 72b

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode ϲυμπεϲεῖν δ’ ἀκμᾶι βαρύϲ. καί τοί ποτ’ Ἀνταίου δόμουϲ Θηβᾶν ἄπο Καδμεϊᾶν μορφὰν βραχύϲ, ψυχὰν δ’ ἄκαμπτοϲ, προϲπαλαίϲων ἦλθ’ ἀνὴρ τὰν πυροφόρον Λιβύαν, κρανίοιϲ ὄφρα ξένων ναὸν Ποϲειδάωνοϲ ἐρέφοντα ϲχέθοι,

⟝

Εʹ

υἱὸϲ Ἀλκμήναϲ . . .

For in courage he (sc. Melissus) resembles the boldness of loud roaring lions in struggle, and in skill he is a fox, which wards off the darting of the eagle by lying on its back. One needs to defeat the enemy by all means available. For he was not allotted the build of an Orion. But, though he is reproachable to behold, he is heavy to meet in strength. Indeed, once a man came from Cadmean Thebes to the house of Antaeus in wheat bearing Libya, short of appearance, but unbendable in his spirit, in order to wrestle with him (sc. Antaeus), in order to stop him from covering the temple of Poseidon with the skulls of strangers. He was the son of Alcmene. (Pi. I. 3/4.63 73)

In this passage, the paradigmatic function of the short narrative about Heracles for Melissus and his victory is carefully constructed around several points of correspondence.105 Heracles’ Theban origin, which is emphasized in line 71, parallels Melissus’ own origin. His intention to ‘wrestle’ with Antaeus (71b προϲπαλαίϲων) corresponds to Melissus’ victories in the pancratium. Most important, however, seems to be the relative disproportion between height and valour in each case. Melissus defeated his opponent despite his short stature, just as Heracles defeated Antaeus despite appearing short in comparison to the giant.106 The impression of a parallelism between Melissus and Heracles is further enhanced by the observation that the hero’s identity is fully revealed only at the very end of the long sentence about him, at the dramatic opening of the new triad with

105 See also Bury (1892) 53, Farnell (1930/2) 1.259 60, Thummer (1968/9) 2.76 7 on 71, Köhnken (1971) 116 with n. 126, Privitera (1982) 56, 183 on I. 4.52 5, Krummen (1990) 57, 91 2, Currie (2005) 76 7. 106 On Heracles’ relative shortness, see also Σ Pi. I. 4.87a, Wilamowitz (1922) 340. Other scholars have, for various reasons, argued that Heracles is meant to be pre sented as absolutely short, see Farnell (1930/2) 2.354, Bowra (1964) 48, Grant (1967) 54 5, Krummen (1990) 95 7. However, none of the explanations proposed are satisfactory.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

115

υἱὸϲ Ἀλκμήναϲ (73).107 Before this revelation, Heracles’ identification is delayed by the ambiguous phrasing of the entire episode.108 Such a delaying technique further highlights the similarities between Melissus and Heracles. The parallelism between Melissus and Heracles developed in the epode of the fourth triad continues to be relevant as the narrative evolves in the strophe of the fifth triad: Εʹ υἱὸϲ Ἀλκμήναϲ ὃϲ Οὔλυμπόνδ’ ἔβα, γαίαϲ τε πάϲαϲ καὶ βαθύκρημνον πολιᾶϲ ἁλὸϲ ἐξευρὼν θέναρ, 75 ναυτιλίαιϲί τε πορθμὸν ἡμερώϲαιϲ. νῦν δὲ παρ’ Αἰγιόχωι {Διῒ}109 κάλλιϲτον ὄλβον ἀμφέπων ναίει, τετίματαί τε πρὸϲ ἀθανάτων φίλοϲ, Ἥβαν τ’ ὀπυίει, χρυϲέων οἴκων ἄναξ καὶ γαμβρὸϲ Ἥραϲ. He was the son of Alcmene, who went to Olympus after he explored every land110 and the high cliffed shallows of the grey sea, and secured the passage for shipping. Now he lives with the Aegis Bearer, enjoying the most beautiful happiness, and he is honoured by the gods as a friend and is married to Hebe. He is the lord of a golden home and son in law of Hera. (Pi. I. 3/4.73 8)

The sudden reference to Heracles’ apotheosis just after the first mention of his name is unexpected. Especially after the metrical break, the narrative here might seem detached from its previous purpose of providing a paradigm for Melissus. In this case, Heracles’ apotheosis would be told simply because this episode is most intimately associated with the hero’s career. However, it is more likely that the parallelism between Heracles and Melissus extends also into this part of the narrative. Heracles’ cultural exploits on land and at sea, which are narrated in lines 73–5, provide the reason for his acceptance on Olympus, which frames the account of the exploits.111 It therefore exhibits the same narrative pattern of toil, excellence, and

107 See also Thummer (1968/9) 2.76, Krummen (1990) 57 n. 38, Willcock (1995) 83 4 on 52 5. 108 On ambiguity, see also Thummer (1968/9) 2.76 on 67 9. 109 Deleted by Triclinius. 110 It is controversial whether γαίαϲ πάϲαϲ is genitive singular or accusative plural. The majority view of an accusative plural is assumed here for the sake of convenience. However, Thummer (1968/9) 2.77 ad loc. has good reasons for preferring the genitive. 111 See also Krummen (1990) 92. Ring composition in I. 4 is further analysed by McNeal (1978).

116

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

reward that is commonly found in epinicians and that, as is argued above, provides a fitting paradigm for the victor’s career in general. In the depiction of Heracles’ life on Olympus, there are also particular echoes of Melissus’ victory celebration. Olympian friendship, kinship, and mutual appreciation are emphasized, and this evokes the description of the Theban clan centred around a common hearth and united in ancestral virtue.112 Moreover, Heracles is said to enjoy a state of ‘most beautiful happiness’ (76 κάλλιϲτον ὄλβον), which recalls the state of μακαρία that Melissus has restored to the hearth of the Cleonymidae in line 35b. In fact, the choice of words here deserves attention, because, as is stressed in the previous chapter, μάκαρ is usually used to describe the bliss of the gods, whereas ὄλβοϲ is more commonly employed for the peak of human happiness.113 The reversal of this ordinary usage is perhaps designed to create a link between the two kinds of joy. Another strong argument in favour of this parallelism is the fact that the description of Olympian harmony leads immediately into a description of the Theban sacrificial banquet at which the ode imagines to be first performed (79–84). At the end of Nemean 1, it is argued above, the absence of any return to the hic et nunc may be interpreted as a device of evoking the victory celebration. At the end of Isthmian 4, in contrast, the immediate transition from one celebration to another invites comparison between the two and enhances the impression of parallel activities on Olympus and in Thebes.114 According to this interpretation, Isthmian 4 employs Heracles’ apotheosis, which it presents as the reward for his tasks undertaken on earth, as a mirror image of the Theban feast at which Melissus’ victory is celebrated. The perfect sympotic bliss that Heracles is granted to enjoy for all eternity here reflects the supreme joy that Melissus and the Cleonymidae are allowed to enjoy for the duration of this celebration.115

112

On the details of this correspondence, see Privitera (1982) 184 on I. 4.55 7. See above, pp. 34 5. This passage is not included in the discussion in De Heer (1969) 37 8. 114 See also Krummen (1990) 56 7, Carey (2007) 201 2. Ivanov (2010) 76 91 is critical of this interpretation. On the nature of the Theban celebration in general, see Krummen (1990) 35 79. 115 Pace Bury (1892) 53 4, Segal (1981) 78 9, who interpret Heracles’ immortality as a metaphor for Melissus’ eternal fame. 113

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

117

It might seem as though the paradigm of Heracles contradicts the warning of the beginning of Isthmian 4, where the Cleonymidae are advised not to seek to exceed their own mortality. The paradigm of Ajax belongs to this warning, as it presents immortality in song as the only form of immortality available to humans. The paradigm of Heracles, in contrast, illustrates a mortal who attained actual immortality.116 Building on this contradiction, Bruno Currie argues that the paradigm of Heracles undermines and replaces the paradigm of Ajax and that, consequently, Melissus may hope not only for metaphorical immortality in song but also for literal immortality in cult.117 However, the interpretation presented in this section suggests that there may be no contradiction after all. The image of Heracles’ feasting on Olympus, rather than representing divinity as a whole, focuses only on its qualitative aspect, which is divine bliss. The Theban banquet approximates to divinity in this aspect. For the hic et nunc, Heracles’ apotheosis does not represent the quantitative aspect of divinity, which is eternal life. By a contrasting technique that is observed also in Nemean 1, Heracles’ eternal feasting on Olympus corresponds to the momentary feasting during the victory celebration. In this way, the paradigm of Heracles does not conflict with the paradigm of Ajax, which represents, conversely, the quantitative aspect of divinity to the exclusion of its qualitative aspect. In song, the name of the victor may live on forever, but the victor himself has to die. For Melissus and the Cleonymidae, therefore, the paradigms of Ajax and Heracles represent the two aspects of divine life that can separately be attained by exceptional humans.

116 A particular symbol of this contradiction might be the Pillars of Heracles, which represent mortal limitations at the beginning of the ode. The Pillars might re appear in the account of Heracles’ exploits, since some scholars interpret the term πορθμόν (75) as a reference to them; see e.g. by Farnell (1930/2) 2.354 5 on I. 3/4.55 57, Willcock (1995) 84 on I. 4.55 7, Pfeijffer (1999) 294 6 on N. 3.23 5, Indergaard (2011b) 154; see contra Thummer (1968/9) 2.78 on I. 3/4.75. Indergaard (2011b) 155 6 places considerable emphasis on the fact that, in other accounts, Heracles crosses the Pillars on his way either to the garden of the Hesperides or to Geryon’s cattle; see also Wilamowitz (1922) 278 n. 4, Erbse (1969) 276, Krummen (1990) 88, 262. Hence, Heracles might seem to contradict the initial admonition to stay within the world demarcated by the Pillars. However, this interpretation is rendered highly questionable by the fact that Pindar does not mention that Heracles crossed the Pillars, neither here nor at N. 3.22 3. 117 See Currie (2005) 76 7.

118

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode PYTHIAN 10

The last example to be discussed here is the narrative about Perseus’ visit of the Hyperboreans in Pythian 10.

35

παῤ οἷϲ ποτε Περϲεὺϲ ἐδαίϲατο λαγέταϲ, δώματ̓ ἐϲελθών, κλειτὰϲ ὄνων ἑκατόμβαϲ ἐπιτόϲϲαιϲ θεῶι ῥέζονταϲ ὧν θαλίαιϲ ἔμπεδον εὐφαμίαιϲ τε μάλιϲτ̓ Ἀπόλλων χαίρει, γελᾶι θ̓ ὁρῶν ὕβριν ὀρθίαν κνωδάλων.

⟝

Γ΄

40

45

Μοῖϲα δ̓ οὐκ ἀποδαμεῖ τρόποιϲ ἐπὶ ϲφετέροιϲι παντᾶι δὲ χοροὶ παρθένων λυρᾶν τε βοαὶ καναχαί τ̓ αὐλῶν δονέονται δάφναι τε χρυϲέαι κόμαϲ ἀναδήϲαντεϲ εἰλαπινάζοιϲιν εὐφρόνωϲ. νόϲοι δ̓ οὔτε γῆραϲ οὐλόμενον κέκραται ἱερᾶι γενεᾶι πόνων δὲ καὶ μαχᾶν ἄτερ οἰκέοιϲι φυγόντεϲ ὑπέρδικον Νέμεϲιν. θραϲείαι δὲ πνέων καρδίαι μόλεν Δανάαϲ ποτὲ παῖϲ, ἁγεῖτο δ̓ Ἀθάνα, ἐϲ ἀνδρῶν μακάρων ὅμιλον ἔπεφνέν τε Γοργόνα, καὶ ποικίλον κάρα δρακόντων φόβαιϲιν ἤλυθε ναϲιώταιϲ λίθινον θάνατον φέρων . . .

Among them (sc. the Hyperboreans) Perseus, the leader of the people, once feasted and reaching their houses he found them performing their illustrious hecatombs of asses for the god. In their continuous celebrations and praises Apollo takes special delight, and he laughs seeing the shrill insolence of the beasts. The Muse does not live far from their way of life. Everywhere choruses of maidens and the sounds of lyres and the shrilling of auloi are stirred. Binding their hair with golden laurel they celebrate happily. Neither disease nor wretched old age is mixed with their holy race. Without toil or fight they live escaping the severely just Nemesis. The son of Danae once went with a bold heart, and Athena led him, to this gathering of blessed men. He slew the Gorgo and went to the islanders bringing stoney death with her head, many coloured with locks of snakes. (Pi. P. 10.31 48)

A central question of this narrative concerns the exact sequence of events on which this narration is based. All other accounts of the legend of Perseus, including the summary in Pythian 12 (11–17),

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

119

agree on a general sequence where Perseus travels to the Graeae to extort from them the location of the divine items required to kill Medusa, obtains these items, kills Medusa, and returns to Seriphus to petrify Polydectes and the other islanders who hold his mother Danae captive.118 Other accounts also include the famous journey to Ethiopia, where Perseus destroys the monster that threatens to kill Andromeda and marries Andromeda, before he returns to Seriphus. However, since this episode is referred to neither in Pythian 10 nor Pythian 12, it is possible that Pindar developed a version of the story that did not involve Andromeda.119 More important, however, is that no other account contains a journey to the Hyperboreans, except for a fragment from the Hellenistic poet Simias of Rhodes, who is ostensibly indebted to Pindar.120 There is reason to believe that Pindar invented this episode for the purposes of Pythian 10. Neither Pindar’s nor Simias’ account specify exactly when Perseus’ journey to the Hyperboreans is supposed to have taken place within the wider sequence outlined above. The scholia despair over this question,121 and modern scholars have argued that the visit occurred either before the slaying of Medusa, or after the slaying but before the petrification of the Seriphians, or after the petrification.122 Crucial for this question is the summary in lines 46–8, which relates the slaying of the Medusa and the petrification of the Seriphians, before the narrative breaks off abruptly. The close coordination of the two tasks renders the argument that the visit of the Hyperboreans occurred between them highly unlikely. More difficult is the question of whether the visit took place before these two events

118

The testimonies are collected in Catterall (1937) 984 6. See Wüst (1967) 25. Simm. fr. 1.1 2 Fränkel/Powell (Apollo speaks) τηλυγέτων δ’ ἀφνειὸν Ὑπερβορέων ἀνὰ δῆμον, | τοῖϲ δὴ καί ποτ’ ἄναξ ἥρωϲ παρεδαίϲατο Περϲεύϲ, ‘and among the rich people of my well beloved Hyperboreans, among whom once lord Perseus feasted’. On the dependency on Pindar, see Fränkel (1915) 16 17. 121 Cf. Σ Pi. P. 10.72b πῶϲ δὲ εἰϲ Ὑπερβορέουϲ ἦλθεν ὁ Περϲεὺϲ ἐπὶ τῶι ἀποτεμεῖν τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆϲ Γοργόνοϲ; . . . οὐδεὶϲ γὰρ ἱϲτόρηϲεν, ‘But how did Perseus go to the Hyperboreans in addition to cutting off the head of Medusa? . . . For no one gives an account of this.’ 122 Before the slaying of Medusa: Schroeder (1922) 95, Slater (1979) 64 n. 5, Slater (1983) 128 9. After the slaying but before the petrification of the Seriphians: Wüst (1967) 23, Kirkwood (1982) 243. After the petrification: Wilamowitz (1922) 469, Burton (1962) 9, Köhnken (1971) 177 9, Robbins (1984) 22 n. 29. 119 120

120

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

or after. In terms of narratology and language, lines 46–8 are remarkably ambiguous. On the one hand, they may be a chronological narration, relating events subsequent to the preceding section. In this case, the visit of the Hyperboreans would have taken place before the slaying of the Medusa. On the other hand, they may be an analepsis, supplying relevant details from a time before the main events. Instances of such analepsis are not uncommon in Pindaric narrative and the aorist is the predominant tense in them.123 On this reading, the visit took place after the petrification. If both readings are viable, there is little reliable evidence to decide this important question. A tentative answer, however, is provided by consideration of the reasons why Perseus is made to travel to the Hyperboreans. If Pindar did indeed invent this episode of the saga, its exact motivation gains particular momentum. Throughout Greek literature, the Hyperboreans are associated with distinct qualities, and these qualities offer a key to understanding Perseus’ journey. Located in the extreme North, the Hyperboreans are the counterpart to the Ethiopians in the extreme South.124 The two tribes are sometimes juxtaposed in a polar antithesis designed to encompass the entire world, comparable to the antithesis of the Pillars of Heracles in the West and the river Phasis in the East.125 Like the Ethiopians, who are Zeus’ favourite tribe in the Iliad (1.423–4, 23.205–7), the Hyperboreans are the favourite people of Apollo. The god spends the winter among them, and at various stages they influenced Apollinic worship in Greece.126 Due to their piety and proximity to Apollo, they enjoy extraordinary lives. According to a tradition attributed to 123 See already Wilamowitz (1922) 469 70. On analepsis in Pindar, see Nünlist (2007) 243 (without discussion of P. 10). On ‘flashbacks’ and related phenomena, see also Duchemin (1967) 97, Young (1968) 103 4, Sigelman (2016) 31. On the aorist instead of the pluperfect in Pindar, see Köhnken (1983) 51, Slater (1983) 127, Hummel (1993) 245. In general, see also Kühner Gerth §386.14. Slater (1983) 128 9 rejects the argument of analepsis in P. 10, because it does not cohere with his model of ‘lyric narrative’. However, as Köhnken (1983) shows in the case of O. 3, Slater’s model is too schematic to form the basis of a definite argument for P. 10. 124 Cf. Pi. O. 3.31 2 ἴδε καὶ κείναν χθόνα πνοιαῖϲ ὄπιθεν Βορέα | ψυχροῦ, ‘He (sc. Heracles) also saw that land beyond the blowing of the cold North Wind.’ See also the testimonies collected in Daebritz (1914) 276 7. 125 Cf. e.g. Pi. I. 6.22 7, h.Bacch. 28 9, perhaps also Hes. fr. 150.14 21, Hdt. 4.36 with Romm (1989). 126 Cf. e.g. P. O. 3.16 δᾶμον Ὑπερβορέων . . . Ἀπόλλωνοϲ θεράποντα, ‘the people of the Hyperboreans, who worship Apollo’. At Alc. fr. 307c, Apollo spends a whole year, rather than just the winter, among the Hyperboreans. Pi. fr. 52i (Pae. 8) = B2

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

121

Simonides and Pindar, they live for a thousand years.127 According to another tradition, they end their long and happy lives voluntarily by jumping off a cliff.128 There may even be a tradition according to which they were immortal. When, in Bacchylides 3, Croesus is saved by Apollo from the pyre and brought to the Hyperboreans (56–66), the god seems to grant Croesus the blissful and deathless existence that is elsewhere said to be enjoyed by those living forever on the Isles of the Blessed.129 The characterization of the Hyperboreans in Pythian 10 follows precisely this image found in other sources.130 The proximity to Apollo is explicitly stated in lines 34–6, where the deity is said to take delight in the Hyperborean sacrifices. It is also referred to in the description of the Hyperboreans as ἱερὰ γενεά, ‘holy people’ (42), which conjures the notion of a tribe collectively consecrated to the worship of the deity.131 Moreover, there is a contrast between this ἱερὰ γενεά and the preceding reference to ordinary mortality with βροτὸν ἔθνοϲ, ‘the mortal race’ (28). This contrast might entail that the Hyperboreans are more than mortal. In fact, in lines 41–4, they are attributed with qualities that are usually associated with divinity. Pindar’s own description of the life or the gods in fr. 143 exhibits the most striking parallels: κεῖνοι γάρ τ’ ἄνοϲοι καὶ ἀγήραοι πόνων τ’ ἄπειροι, βαρυβόαν πορθμὸν πεφευγότεϲ Ἀχέροντοϲ For they are without disease and without old age, without experience of trials, having forever escaped the heavy sounding passage across the Acheron. (Pi. fr. 143)

Rutherford, contains reference to the second temple of Apollo in Delphi, the ‘feathery one’ (πτέρινον), that was carried from the Hyperboreans by the wind. Hecat.Abd. FGrH 264 F7.2 relates that Leto was born among the Hyperboreans. Hdt. 4.34 6 tells of pairs of Hyperborean women (Hyperoche and Laodice, Arge and Opis) carrying Apollinic offerings around Greece, and of Abaris, a Hyperborean priest who carried Apollo’s golden arrow through Greek cities; on these figures, see now Sandin (2014). 127 Cf. Str. 15.1.57 p. 711.24 6 Radt = Megasth. FGrH 715 F27b, Simon. fr. 570 Page/288 Poltera, Pi. fr. 257 (identified, perhaps wrongly, as a reference to P. 10.41 2). 128 Cf. e.g. Plin. HN 4.89 90, Mela 3.37, Solin. 16.4, Mart.Cap. 6.664. 129 For the transportation of Croesus as a form of immortalization, see Jebb (1905) 460 on B. 3.59, Cairns (2010) 73 4, Currie (2011) 366 with n. 126. 130 See also Schroeder (1922) 94 6, Köhnken (1971) 159, Robbins (1984) 226 7. 131 On the connotations of ἱερόϲ, see Burkert (1977) 402 3, Currie (2005) 237.

122

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

The references to disease, old age, and toils correspond exactly to the description of the Hyperboreans. The only difference is the explicit mention of the absence of death in fr. 143, which is contrasted by the obscure reference to Nemesis in Pythian 10 (44). Adolf Köhnken goes to some length to argue that Nemesis here means death and that, accordingly, the Hyperboreans are immortal.132 This argument, however, has been criticized, because such a meaning of νέμεϲιϲ is nowhere else attested. Instead, it is suggested that the term retains its basic meaning of ‘divine retribution’ and refers, in the context of Pythian 10, to the absence of the envy of the gods, which would normally strike anyone aspiring to escape the banes of ordinary humanity.133 Even on this interpretation, however, it emerges that the Hyperboreans lead extraordinary lives that are, in terms of quality, hardly inferior to the lives of the gods themselves. In particular, the endless performance of public celebrations accompanied by the dance of maiden choruses seems to echo the festive life of the gods on Olympus.134 It is this form of life that justifies the description of the Hyperboreans as ἀνδρῶν μακάρων ὅμιλον, ‘gathering of blessed men’ (46), since, as is argued in the preceding chapter, μάκαρ summarizes the happiness of divine life.135 These aspects of the Hyperborean life suggest an answer to the question why Perseus is made to travel to them. Any participation in this blissful form of existence would have to be considered a privilege. For Perseus, it is the goddess Athena who grants this privilege (45). As the gnomic statement of lines 29–30 indicates, Perseus, unlike Heracles in Olympian 3 (31), would not have found the way alone. However, as opposed to the permanent transportation of Peleus, Cadmus, and Achilles to the Isles of the Blessed in Olympian 2 (78–9), and possibly also that of Croesus to the Hyperboreans in Bacchylides 3 132 See Köhnken (1971) 163 8. The present tense in the description of Hyperborean life (36 χαίρει, γελᾶι, 37 ἀποδαμεῖ, 39 δονέονται, 40 εἰλαπινάζοιϲιν, 43 οἰκέοιϲιν) offers no compelling argument in favour of immortality, because this tense may be owed to ethnographical description; see Kühner Gerth §382.1b, Wilamowitz (1922) 136 7. Simi larly, ἔμπεδον (34), which here seems to mean ‘continuously’ (LSJ s.v. II) might simply denote that the Hyperborean sacrifices are carried on from generation to generation. 133 See Slater (1983) 130 1, Brown (1992). 134 See also Calame (1977) 173 = (1997) 90. 135 On the bliss of the Hyperboreans, cf. also A. Ch. 372 4 (the chorus, responding to Electra’s wish that Agamemnon had never died) ταῦτα μέν, ὦ παῖ, κρείϲϲονα χρυϲοῦ, | μεγάληϲ δὲ τύχηϲ καὶ ὑπερβορέου | μείζονα φωνεῖϲ, ‘That, O child, would be mightier than gold, you speak of things greater than great fortune and that of the Hyperboreans.’

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

123

(58–62), Perseus’ stay among them appears to be only temporary.136 This is indicated by the aorist tense used for his activities among the Hyperboreans (31 ἐδαίϲατο, 45 μόλεν), which stands in marked contrast to the present tenses used for the actions of the Hyperboreans themselves, and by the repeated qualification with the adverb ποτε, ‘once’ (31, 45).137 In the light of this nature of Perseus’ visit, it seems best to interpret it as a reward given to Perseus by Athena.138 The emphasis on the absence of toil and fighting in line 42 suggests that a few days spent among the holy tribe, amid their quasi-divine existence and eternal feasting in honour of Apollo, serves as a form of respite and recreation from the tasks performed beforehand. Perhaps the same reward is referred to in Pythian 12, where Athena is said to have ‘drawn the dear man (sc. Perseus) from these toils’ (18–19 ἐπεὶ ἐκ τούτων φίλον ἄνδρα πόνων | ἐρρύϲϲατο παρθένοϲ). On this approach, the narrative about Perseus exhibits the general structure of mythical plots outlined above that involve a sequence of toils, excellence, and final reward. As a form of reward, the visit among the Hyperboreans emerges as distinctly more likely to have occurred after the slaying of Medusa and the petrification of the Seriphians than before. This interpretation provides a good foundation to examine the function of the narrative within Pythian 10 as a whole. The narrative is attached to a gnomic discourse about human happiness developed in the strophe and antistrophe of the second triad: Β΄ 20

τῶν δ’ ἐν Ἑλλάδι τερπνῶν λαχόντεϲ οὐκ ὀλίγαν δόϲιν, μὴ φθονεραῖϲ ἐκ θεῶν μετατροπίαιϲ ἐπικύρϲαιεν. θεὸϲ εἴη ἀπήμων κέαρ εὐδαίμων δὲ καὶ ὑμνητὸϲ οὗτοϲ ἀνὴρ γίνεται ϲοφοῖϲ, ὃϲ ἂν χερϲὶν ἢ ποδῶν ἀρετᾶι κρατήϲαιϲ τὰ μέγιϲτ’ ἀέθλων ἕληι τόλμαι τε καὶ ϲθένει,

136 See also Schroeder (1922) 95, Wüst (1967) 24, Erbse (1969) 291, Köhnken (1971) 175 81, Willcock (1974) 195. The criticism of Slater (1983) 131 remains obscure. Even on his view, that Perseus went to the Hyperboreans before returning to Seriphus, the visit has to be temporary. 137 On the aorist of momentary actions, see Kühner Gerth §386.1 2, Hummel (1993) 244. See also Illig (1932) 90 1, Köhnken (1971) 174 5. Present and perfect tenses are used for Heracles’ permanent enjoyment of immortal pleasures at I. 3/4.77 (ναίει, τετίμαται, ὀπύει). 138 See Schroeder (1922) 95, Wüst (1967) 24, Köhnken (1971) 177.

124 25

30

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode καὶ ζώων ἔτι νεαρὸν ͜ κατ’ αἶϲαν υἱὸν ἴδηι τυχόντα ϲτεφάνων Πυθίων. ὁ χάλκεοϲ οὐρανὸϲ οὔ ποτ̓ ἀμβατὸϲ αὐτῶι ὅϲαιϲ δὲ βροτὸν ἔθνοϲ ἀγλαΐαιϲ ἁπτόμεϲθα, περαίνει πρὸϲ ἔϲχατον πλόον ναυϲὶ δ̓ οὔτε πεζὸϲ ἰών ⟨κεν⟩139 εὕροιϲ ἐϲ Ὑπερβορέων ἀγῶνα θαυμαϲτὰν ὁδόν.

Having attained no small share of the delights in Hellas, may he (sc. Phricias) not encounter jealous reversals from the gods. May the deity be propitious in his heart. For the wise, a man is blessed and worthy of song who, prevailing with his hands and the virtue of his feet, takes the highest of prices with courage and strength and, still alive, sees his young son duly achieve Pythian crowns. The brazen heaven is never accessible to him. But however many glories we, the mortal race, achieve, he has accomplished the furthest jour ney. Neither by ship nor on foot might one find the wonderous path to the assembly of the Hyperboreans. (Pi. P. 10.19 30)

This discourse starts with the victor’s father Phricias, who is said to be twice blessed. He himself has won athletic renown in the past and he now witnesses his son’s victory in one of the Panhellenic Games. From this extraordinary fate, the discourse continues, in lines 27–30, to reflect on the limits of human joy, which applies also to the victor Hippocleas or in fact to any victor. To define these limits, two images are developed, first that of the ‘brazen sky’, which refers to divine bliss on Olympus, and second that of Hyperborean life. These two images are not identical but rather seem to form two levels on a scale of joy, where divine bliss marks the absolute top and Hyperborean life is situated somewhere beneath it.140 For humans, the first state is qualified as ‘unreachable’ (ἀμβατόϲ). The second state, however, is not denied in such unambiguous words but is merely qualified as unreachable ‘by ship or on foot’. This remarkably conditional phrasing begs the question of whether, for humans like Phricias and Hippocleas, the metaphorical journey to the Hyperboreans is at all possible.141 The gnomic discourse itself

139

Supplement by Hermann ap. Heyne3 (vol. 3 p. 356). See also Köhnken (1971) 159. 141 The Hyperboreans are unreachable: Wilamowitz (1922) 128, Illig (1932) 91 2, Burton (1962) 7, Wüst (1967) 31, Thummer (1968/9) 1.118. They are reachable: Friederichs (1863) 57 8, Mezger (1880) 261, Schroeder (1922) 95, Bowra (1964) 305, Köhnken (1971) 174. 140

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

125

does not answer this question. Instead, it leads immediately into the mythical narrative about Perseus. However, it is precisely through this narrative that an answer seems to be found. Perseus himself did not find the way to the Hyperboreans by ship or on foot, but because Athena guided him. The theme of divine assistance also concludes the narrative: . . . ἐμοὶ δὲ θαυμάϲαι

50

θεῶν τελεϲάντων οὐδέν ποτε φαίνεται ἔμμεν ἄπιϲτον. . . .

When the gods fulfil something for me to marvel at, nothing ever seems unbelievable. (Pi. P. 10.48 50)

Here, θαυμάϲαι recalls the description of the path to the Hyperboreans as θαυμαϲτάν in line 30 and confirms the observation, made in the preceding section, that the term θαυμαϲτόϲ refers to something provided by a deity.142 Moreover, the phrase θεῶν τελεϲάντων bears a strong resemblance with a statement at the beginning of the ode, which acknowledges Apollo’s assistance in Hippocleas’ victory: 10 Ἄπολλον, γλυκὺ δ’ ἀνθρώπων τέλοϲ ἀρχά τε δαίμονοϲ ὀρνύντοϲ αὔξεται. Apollo, a sweet end and beginning is provided for men if a deity provides it. (Pi. P. 10.10)

These verbal echoes create the impression of a parallelism where Apollo guided Phricias and Hippocleas just as Athena guided Perseus. This seems to imply that Apollo granted these two victors a state of supreme joy and relief comparable to that enjoyed by Perseus among the Hyperboreans.143 This is corroborated by a systematic parallelism between Thessaly, the victor’s home, and the realm of the Hyperboreans.144 At the beginning of the ode, Thessaly is invoked as ‘blessed’ (2 μάκαιρα), which is echoed later in the description of the Hyperborean realm as 142

See above, p. 89. See also Illig (1932) 92, Slater (1979) 65, Slater (1983) 128, Hubbard (1985) 23. 143 See also Köhnken (1971) 174 6, 183. Pace Wilamowitz (1922) 128, Radt (1974) 119, Newman and Newman (1984) 85 6. 144 In general, see also Mezger (1880) 264, Gildersleeve (1885) 350, Bowra (1964) 305, Köhnken (1971) 163, 183 6, Kirkwood (1982) 235, Krummen (1990) 256, Brown (1992) 95, Cairns (2010) 72, Indergaard (2011b) 162.

126

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

‘gathering of blessed men’ (46).145 Hippocleas’ return journey itself, from Delphi to Thessaly, the far North of the Greek world, parallels Perseus’ journey from Seriphus into the furthest North inhabited by the Hyperboreans.146 Moreover, the central notion underlying this parallelism seems to be one of celebration and feasting. The emphasis on the eternal sacrificial feasting of the Hyperboreans is already noted above. Significantly, the depiction of these feasts resembles the depiction of victory celebrations, in Pythian 10 and elsewhere. The feasts are introduced in lines 34–5 as θαλίαι, a term which is also used in reference to victory celebrations.147 The choral songs mentioned in lines 37–9 mirror the songs that the laudator imagines to be performed in honour of Hippocleas’ victory: Δʹ 56

ἔλπομαι δ’ Ἐφυραίων ὄπ’ ἀμφὶ Πηνεϊὸν γλυκεῖαν προχεόντων ἐμὰν τὸν Ἱπποκλέαν ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον ϲὺν ἀοιδαῖϲ ἕκατι ϲτεφάνων θαητὸν ἐν ἅλιξι θηϲέμεν ἐν καὶ παλαιτέροιϲ, νέαιϲίν τε παρθένοιϲι μελήμα.

I hope that, when the Ephyraeans pour forth my sweet voice near the Peneus, I will with my songs make Hippocleas even more admirable among his contemporaries and the older men because of his crowns, and a concern for young maidens. (Pi. P. 10.55 9)

The lyres and auloi found among the Hyperboreans (39) can be paralleled with passages that mention the same instruments in the context of victory celebrations.148 The most striking point of contact, however, is the reference to the wreaths of laurel (40), which is the prize for a Pythian victory, referred to in lines 26 and 58.149 These parallelisms can be interpreted to convey that Hippocleas and his father Phricias are granted a Thessalian celebration in return for Hippocleas’ victory just as Perseus was granted a visit to the Hyperboreans in return for his exploits. The aspects of immortal life and divine bliss found in the depiction of the Hyperboreans 145

146 See also Brown (1992) 95. See also Brown (1992) 95 with n. 2. Cf. Pi. O. 7.94, 10.76, P. 1.38. 148 E.g. Pi. O. 10.93 4 τὶν δ’ ἁδυεπήϲ τε λύρα | γλυκύϲ τ’ αὐλὸϲ ἀναπάϲϲει χάριν, ‘On you (sc. Hagesidamus) the sweet speaking lyre and the delightful aulos shed grace.’ 149 The qualification of the Hyperborean crowns as χρυϲέαι (40) denotes their value, not the material of which they are made, cf. Pi. O. 8.1, 11.13, N. 1.17 with Radt (1966) 152 n. 3. 147

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

127

further convey that Hippocleas and Phricias enjoy a similar state of extraordinary happiness.150 In this respect, the narrative of Pythian 10 is comparable to the narratives of Heracles in Nemean 1 and Isthmian 4. However, Pythian 10 is exceptional in that it does not, like the other odes, contrast the eternal enjoyment of divine bliss with the momentary happiness of the victor, but reflects the temporal limitations of the victor’s happiness in the myth itself. Perseus had to return to the mortal realm after enjoying Hyperborean bliss for a day or so, and so do Hippocleas and Phricias.151 William Slater once aimed to reduce ad absurdum an interpretation similar to one presented here by asking the provocative question ‘is there such a thing as temporary immortality?’152 The answer, it seems, has to be affirmative, if immortality refers to divine life with all the privileges associated with it. Instead of uncovering an insurmountable contradiction in the parallelism between Perseus and Hippocleas, Slater has neatly summarized a central aspect of the depiction of the victor during the victory celebration.

CONCLUSION In the introduction to this chapter, two passages from Horace’s Odes are quoted that present an image of the epinician laudandus who, at a particular moment in the aftermath of athletic victory, seems to approximate to divinity. It emerges from the interpretations offered in this chapter that this image is more than a poetic conceit of the Roman poet. The phrases euehit ad deos (Carm. 1.1.6) and reducit caelestis (Carm. 4.2.17–18) appear to be apt reflections of an epinician technique that juxtaposes, and thus implicitly compares, victors with mythical heroes, athletic achievements with heroic cultural and martial exploits, and the reward for victory with certain forms of divinity. One reward for athletic victory is immortal fame, if the victory is celebrated with a Pindaric ode. Imagery of immortality features frequently in descriptions of such fame. For the epinician poet, it is natural to place emphasis on this form of reward, as it is, on an 150 See also Bowra (1964) 305, Köhnken (1971) 155, 163 5, Robbins (1984) 225 6. Verdenius (1975) 201 is sceptical. 151 152 See also Köhnken (1971) 181. Slater (1983) 130 n. 39.

128

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

economical level, the most valuable service that his commissioned poetry may offer. However, as this chapter aims to demonstrate, there exists also another form of reward for the victor that the poet cannot bestow. In the descriptions of divine and quasi-divine life, be it on Olympus or among the Hyperboreans, the focus on sympotic exuberance and similar forms of revelry is striking. In all cases discussed here, this emphasis lends itself to a comparison with the celebrations at which the ode in question imagines to be performed. This parallelism between the victory celebration and divine or quasi-divine life suggests that, for the victor, to enjoy these aspects of the idealized victory celebration is like enjoying a moment of divine bliss itself. As the example of Isthmian 4 illustrates particularly clearly, for the victory celebration, imagery of divinity is focused exclusively on the qualitative aspects of divine life. In this regard it is distinct from similar imagery used for the victor’s eternal fame, where this imagery is hinged primarily on the quantitative aspects of immortality, i.e. eternal life. It is understood that the victor is, as a human, inherently unable to prolong the momentary joy experienced during the victory celebration. In this way, he remains fundamentally inferior to divinity and claims like μὴ ματεύϲηι θεὸϲ γενέϲθαι (O. 5.24) and μὴ μάτευε Ζεὺϲ γενέϲθαι (I. 5.14) remain unchallenged. In terms of quality, however, the question is left open if there is any fundamental difference between the victor’s momentary experience, as seen through the epinician, and divine bliss. The victory odes discussed here are similar to the epithalamia discussed in the previous chapter in that they present a certain moment in the lives of their protagonists, and the emotions involved in this moment, as an experience comparable to divine bliss. There is, however, an important difference in the ways that the two genres convey this comparison. In epithalamia, the bridal couple are compared to immortal heroes and gods explicitly, through direct comparisons, terms like μάκαρ, and hymnic register. In epinicians, in contrast, similar comparisons between a victor and a hero or a deity are, to a varying degree, always indirect and implicit. Here, the connections between the world of the myth and the hic et nunc are not explicitly expressed, but have to be reconstructed by the audience and the modern reader. In order to arrive at the parallelism between a given victory celebration and mythical tales about divine life, interpretative effort is required, which, in some cases, can be substantial.

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

129

The reasons for this difference between wedding songs and victory odes are not straightforward. On principle, the perfect happiness that both genres ascribe to their respective protagonists is equally likely to provoke the envy of the gods for the bridal couple and for the victor. Yet, only the epinician laudator frequently shows concern for divine retribution,153 whereas extant specimens of epithalamia exhibit virtually no sign of it. One cause for this difference might be the mitigating effect of convention. As is argued in the preceding chapter, extant wedding songs draw on a substantial tradition of songs now lost. By the sixth and fifth centuries BC, comparisons between bridal couples and heroes or gods appear to have been employed at weddings in many Greek communities for a considerable amount of time. Such pervasiveness is likely to reduce the hubristic potential of these comparisons in any given individual application. The victory ode, in contrast, was relatively new even for Pindar, and its performances were unique events even in the most successful of cities. Apart from the general conventions of encomiastic lyric, these songs had few conventions to draw on. Here, comparisons between a victor and a hero or god may have sounded excessive and even transgressive. These differences in the degree of conventionality are connected to wider considerations regarding the ritual contexts in which epithalamia and epinicians are embedded. For the wedding song, it can be shown that the approximation of the bridal couple to divinity corresponds to a ritual perspective that becomes manifest also in elements of the wedding ceremony and in wedding iconography. No such correspondence can be detected for the victory ode, the ritual embedment of which is often obscure and appears to have varied considerably from polis to polis. There may be traces of a vision where the victor, on his return to his polis, is perceived as a bearer of certain talismanic powers.154 However, the evidence for this vision is isolated and comes from times substantially later than Pindar. Pindar’s odes themselves show no awareness or no interest in such visions. It is easy to conceive a portrayal of the victor returning home on a warrior chariot, surrounded by an aura of godlike strength and success, and

153

Cf. the passages assembled in Bulman (1992) 9 14, Most (2003). Some poleis tore down parts of their city walls on the arrival of a victor, cf. Plu. Quaest.Conv. 2.5.2 639e, Suet. Nero 25.1. In Sparta, victors were placed next to the king in battle; cf. Plu. Quaest.Conv. 2.5.2 639e, Lyc. 22.7. See also Versnel (1970) 155 62, Kurke (1993) 133 7, Currie (2005) 140.

154

130

Divine Happiness in the Victory Ode

cheered by the masses, like a divine epiphany. Instead, Pindar portrays the victor in his hometown either performing cultic activities for his local gods or feasting, and in both activities he is surrounded by friends and relations. The effect of this portrayal is evident. Whereas the depiction of a quasi-divine epiphany would separate the victor from his polis and so offer sufficient reason for envy from the citizens, the depiction among his friends and relations facilitates the victor’s re-integration into the social fabric of his polis.155 The absence of an established ritual vision appears to prompt a more careful and mediated approach to approximating a human individual to the gods. This strategy is used in order to reduce the increased dangers of hubris, jealousy human and divine, and ultimate destruction.

155

See Crotty (1982) 104 38, Kurke (1991) 15 61.

4 Divine Power in Tragedy INTRODUCTION In a fragment from an unknown comedy by Eupolis, a speaker makes a comparison between the treatment of military commanders in the past and the worship of the gods:

5

καὶ μὴν ἐγὼ πολλῶν παρόντων οὐκ ἔχω τί λέξω. οὕτω ϲφόδῤ ἀλγῶ τὴν πολιτείαν ὁρῶν παῤ ἡμῖν. ἡμεῖϲ γὰρ οὐχ οὕτω τέωϲ ὠικοῦμεν οἱ γέροντεϲ, ἀλλ̓ ἦϲαν ἡμῖν τῆι πόλει πρῶτον μὲν οἱ ϲτρατηγοὶ ἐκ τῶν μεγίϲτων οἰκιῶν, πλούτωι γένει τε πρῶτοι, οἷϲ ὡϲπερεὶ θεοῖϲιν ηὐχόμεϲθα καὶ γὰρ ἦϲαν. ὥϲτ̓ ἀϲφαλῶϲ ἐπράττομεν νυνὶ δ̓ ὅπηι τύχοιμεν, ϲτρατευόμεϲθ̓ αἱρούμενοι καθάρματα ϲτρατηγούϲ.

Now, in the face of so many things, I do not know what to say. So much does it pain me to see the state of our goverment. We, the old people, did not use to live like this in the past, but in the city we had, first of all, commanders of the greatest houses, leaders in wealth and birth, to whom we used to pray as to gods. For gods they were. Hence, we lived in security. But now, wherever we happen to go to war, we advance with rubbish as commanders. (Eup. fr. 384 Kassel Austin)

This fragment summarizes many of the themes pursued in this chapter. First, it attests a vision of the Athenian commanders as godlike that is explicitly based on social standing, wealth, and a general degree of power (5). Second, it is implied that this vision occurs especially to those less wealthy, noble, and powerful, who depend on the protection of the commanders and, if this protection is granted, feel secure (7). Third, the nature of the appeal for the protection of the commanders is conveyed in the phrase ὡϲπερεὶ Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity. Felix J. Meister, Oxford University Press (2020). © Felix J. Meister. DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001

132

Divine Power in Tragedy

θεοῖϲιν ηὐχόμεϲθα (6). This phrase, which occurs in many of the passages discussed in this chapter, deserves closer attention. There is a debate in scholarship as to whether this and similar phrases convey an equation with divinity (praying to someone ‘as a deity’, i.e. ‘insofar as he or she is a deity’) or a treatment that formally resembles that of a god (‘as to a deity’, i.e. ‘as though he or she were a deity’).¹ Greek ὡϲ and related expressions, which can be both restrictive and comparative, usually permit either interpretation.² In Eupolis’ fragment, the expression is comparative, because otherwise the afterthought καὶ γὰρ ἦϲαν would be superfluous. Hence, the speaker of the fragment conveys that he and his contemporaries used to appeal to the commanders as they would pray to deities. This chapter argues that the depiction found in Eupolis’ fragment is not entirely a comical fiction but can be paralleled with a significant number of other passages from drama, particularly from tragedy, that convey similar comparisions between an individual and the gods on grounds of wealth, social standing, and power.³ This chapter pursues these comparisons, first, in the context of the ritual of supplication and, second, in contexts outside of supplication. The inclusion of tragedy in this discussion may require justification. Prima facie, it might appear that the characters in tragedy are located in a sphere different from that of the protagonists of epithalamia or epinicians. Whereas most bridal couples and all athletic victors inhabit the historic present of the songs and are presented as living contemporaries of the audiences, characters in tragedy belong to the realm of myth. In this way, they seem to have greater similarity with the mythical paradigms of Pindaric epinicians than with the victors or bridal couples. For instance, characters in tragedy frequently attain immortality, in the form of either heroic worship or full-scale deification.⁴ Fifth-century Athenians may have ¹ For equation, see Currie (2005) 114 16, 188 9. For formal resemblance, see Taeger (1957/60) 1.60, Habicht (1970) 196, Shipley (2000) 156 9. ² See Kühner Gerth §581.5. ³ It is unclear why Roloff (1970) 111 n. 10 asserts that Aeschylus’ Persae is the only tragedy that contains a comparison of a human with a deity. Persae aside, this chapter presents eleven passages that involve direct comparisons with gods. ⁴ Darius’ spirit is ritually conjured up like a hero at A. Pers. 634 80 and appears and interacts on stage after line 680. Agamemnon’s posthumous heroic powers are invoked with offerings, prayers, and incantations e.g. at A. Ch. 139 63, 306 475, S. El. 453 4. Rites of a cultic nature performed at Ajax’ tomb are anticipated at S. Aj. 1166 7 (see Garvie (1998) 231 ad loc.; Finglass (2011) 465 6 ad loc. is more sceptical). Oedipus’ posthumous powers are anticipated e.g. at S. OC 92 3, 287 8, 787 8,

Divine Power in Tragedy

133

been familiar with most, or some, of these cults and the origins depicted in these plays.⁵ However, it is unlikely that any spectator would have had first-hand real-life experience with cases of individual immortalization. On the tragic stage, immortalization might serve to relegate the protagonists to a remote mythical past and mark the distance between that past and the reality of the audiences. This prompts the question of whether comparisons between tragic characters and gods simply reflect a greater proximity of these characters to the gods, as they do, for instance, in epic.⁶ If this were the case, these comparisons and their implications would be different from those found in epithalamia and epinicians. Despite this distance between tragic characters and contemporary audiences, tragedy also encourages its spectators to somehow identify with the figures on-stage. Facilitators of such identification are employed pervasively, for example, in a civic ideology emerging from many plays and appealing to a democratic audience, in the positive representation of Athens, and in anachronisms.⁷ All these strategies serve to bridge the gulf between the mythical past and contemporary Athens. Another systematic strategy of this kind is implemented in virtually all the plays by the performance on-stage of rituals and the songs that accompany them.⁸ Among these are cultic rituals with prayers and hymns, funerals with threnoi, wedding ceremonies with epithalamia, and victory celebrations with epinicians.⁹ These rituals are, in all likelihood, based on

1544 5. The deification of Heracles is recounted at S. Ph. 1413 14. At E. Alc. 995 1005, the chorus promise heroic worship to Alcestis. Cadmus is promised a life on the Isles of the Blessed at E. Ba. 1338 9, Menelaus at E. Hel. 1675 7. A hero cult for Eurystheus is prophesied at E. Heracl. 1032 44. At E. Hipp. 1423 30, a cult for Hippolytus is anticipated. A Corinthian festival for Medea is anticipated at E. Med. 1381 3. Peleus is deified at E. Andr. 1253 62, Helen at E. Hel. 1666 9 and Or. 1683 90, and Rhesus at [E.] Rh. 970 3. ⁵ The majority of scholars (e.g. Seaford (2009)) take Euripidean references to cult to be accurate. See, however, Scullion (1999/2000), who argues that these aetia, for which there is often no external evidence, might be inventions designed to enhance in the audience a sense of distance from the events depicted. ⁶ See above, p. 30. ⁷ On ideology, see e.g. Buxton (2013) 145 60. On Athens, see e.g. Swift (2010) 59. On anachronisms, see Easterling (1985). ⁸ In general, see Jouanna (1992), Krummen (1998), Lloyd Jones (1998), Foley (2001) passim, Sourvinou Inwood (2003) passim, Easterling (2004) 151 2, Seaford (2004). ⁹ For wedding songs in drama, see Swift (2010) 26, Rodighiero (2012) 95 101, and above, p. 24. For victory odes, see Wilson (2007), Steiner (2010b), Swift (2010) 104 72, Swift (2011), Carey (2012), Rodighiero (2012) 73 9, Rawles (2013).

134

Divine Power in Tragedy

contemporary Athenian models.¹⁰ The songs, too, are no mere allusions to or quotations from paradigmatic songs of, for instance, Sappho, Simonides, or Pindar.¹¹ Instead, they engage with the genres of songs such as they are likely to have been performed in fifth-century Athens.¹² It would follow that the protagonists of these rituals and songs in tragedy are not treated differently from the protagonists of similar rituals outside the tragic stage. Where comparisons between humans and gods take place in the context of ritual, they would seem closer to those found in epithalamia and epinicians. The distance between mythical past and contemporary audiences might then be undermined by this context.

THE RITUAL OF SUPPLICATION According to the definition of ritual referred to in the Introduction to this book,¹³ supplication constitutes a ritual. Its actions, like the touching of the knee and chin, are distinctly recognizable and so imitable and repeatable. These actions serve a communicative purpose, because they convey an appeal for mercy. They are interpersonal, because this appeal happens from one person to another, from the suppliant to the supplicandus.¹⁴ A remarkable feature of this ritual, as it is presented in epic poetry and elsewhere, is that it can be addressed to human and divine ¹⁰ See Easterling (1988) 98 9 = (1993) 17, Krummen (1998), Henrichs (2000), Sourvinou Inwood (2003) passim. The tendency of tragedy to present ritual in a ‘perverted’ form (see Zeitlin (1970) 351 70, Segal (1986) 35, Henrichs (2004)) does not conflict with this argument. ¹¹ Lyric quotations in tragedy are extremely rare. See the collections in Garner (1990), Bagordo (2003a), Bagordo (2003b). For comedy, see Kugelmeier (1996). In general, see also Rutherford (1995a) 118 21, Swift (2010) 27, Rodighiero (2012) 7 17, Carey (2013) 155 6. ¹² See Swift (2010) passim. ¹³ See above, p. 19. ¹⁴ Gould (1973) is the first approach to supplication as a ritual. His anthropological model, especially his thoughts on ‘automated gestures’ exercising ‘ritualistic power’, is criticized for its neglect of communicative aspects, see e.g. Lynn George (1988) 201, Goldhill (1991) 74, Crotty (1994) 104, and the survey in Naiden (2006) 8 18. Mediation between the two approaches is advocated by Mercier (1998), Giordano (1999), Gödde (2000). Crotty (1994) 20 applies the concept of ‘ceremony’, developed by Redfield (1975) 163, to supplication, though the differences from ritual are not always clear. On supplication as a ritual, see also Burkert (1979) 43 5.

Divine Power in Tragedy

135

addressees alike. There is a tendency in recent scholarship to describe supplication as a ritual conducted exclusively among humans.¹⁵ This tendency seems to be based on a biased preference for certain supplicatory scenes in the Iliad, where defeated warriors frequently supplicate their victorious opponents. However, in Iliad 1, Thetis famously supplicates Zeus by touching his knee and chin (500–10). Some scholars argue therefore that supplication should be considered as a ritual among equals, i.e. either among humans or among gods.¹⁶ However, there are examples that illustrate that this is not the case. In Odyssey 5, for instance, Odysseus supplicates a river deity (445–50). Where gods themselves are absent, their altars or temples are supplicated.¹⁷ For instance, in Alcaeus’ fr. 298, Cassandra takes refuge in the temple of Athena (8] ἐν̣ ναύω) and supplicates her statue (21 ἀγάλματι) by touching its chin (10 ἐ̣παπ πένα γενήω).¹⁸ There are even passages where suppliants may choose between human and divine supplicandi. In Odyssey 22, Phemius is confronted with a decision between two equally viable gestures of begging for his life, either to supplicate the altar of Zeus or to supplicate Odysseus (333–7). His choice for the latter is based merely on a calculation of what might be more effective in the present case (338–9). Strikingly, in a red-figure calpis by the Cleophrades Painter, Cassandra is depicted with one hand clasping a statue of Athena, while the other reaches for Ajax’ knees (Fig. 4.1). If supplication can be directed at deities themselves or their altars and temples, there appears to be a substantial overlap of supplication and prayer, as they both communicate appeals to higher powers. This close relationship is also manifest in the lexical observation that forms of λίϲϲεϲθαι/λιτή can refer to appeals made in supplication and in prayer.¹⁹ This seems significant given that more precise lexical distinctions between prayer (εὔχεϲθαι/εὖχοϲ) and

¹⁵ See e.g. Crotty (1994) 98, 104, Naiden (2006) 7. See also Mercier (1998) 193 4. ¹⁶ See e.g. Pedrick (1982) 128 ‘[S]upplication normally occurs between physical equals (man to man or god to god)’. ¹⁷ In general, see Cassella (1999) passim. ¹⁸ The papyrus (P.Köln II 59) is transcribed as ἀ̣παππένα γενείω by Merkelbach (1967), though traces of the first letter are hardly visible. See, however, the discussion of the text in Slings (1979). On the gesture, see also Hutchinson (2001) 219 20 ad loc. ¹⁹ See LfgrE s.v. λίσσομαι, 1704.7 12. See also Gould (1973) 76 n. 12, Clark (1998) 10. On the usage in fifth century Athens, see Willi (2003) 23 5.

136

Divine Power in Tragedy

Fig. 4.1. Cassandra supplicating a statue of Athena and Ajax. Hydria (calpis type) by Cleophrades, 480 75 BC; Naples, Museo Nazionale 81699. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Photo: Giorgio Albano.

supplication (ἱκετεύειν et al./ἱκεϲία) are available. There are various accounts of the supposed differences between these two rituals, but none seems entirely satisfying.²⁰ For the present purposes, perhaps the most important difference is found in the communicative nature of ritual. Both supplication and prayer can be described as triangular speech acts involving an addresser, an addressee, and an item appealed for. Here, supplication and prayer differ in their allocation of specified and unspecified elements. In archaic and classical times, prayers are addressed virtually exclusively to heroes and gods (specified), while the help appealed for can involve a wide range of

²⁰ Crotty (1994) 95 8 sees the main difference in the argumentation of the suppliant, prayer supposedly being based on exchange, supplication on pity. Naiden (2006) 7, who denies that deities can be supplicated, considers the difference in the absence and presence of the addressee in prayer and supplication respectively. For Pulleyn (1997) 56 69, esp. 64, ξενία, λιτή, and ἱκετεία form three sections on a continuous scale from self assertion to self abasement. However, his connection of prayer and ξενία, and the separation of λιτή from these, is obscure. In contrast, Gould (1973) 91 4 connects supplication with ξενία.

Divine Power in Tragedy

137

human needs (unspecified). Supplication, in contrast, always concerns an act of mercy or protection (specified), while the supplicandus tends to be the character most capable of delivering this act, regardless of whether he or she is mortal, heroic, or divine (unspecified). An overlap of supplication and prayer might therefore be possible, when the supplicandus is heroic or divine and when the object of prayer is mercy or protection. In supplication, the unspecified nature of the addressee is symptomatic of the situations in which it is usually performed. These situations tend to be characterized by helplessness and dependency on the part of the suppliant, whose life is normally in danger. In such extreme circumstances, any help available is welcomed without a second thought. Any precise distinction between human and divine supplicandi becomes unimportant to the suppliant. An instructive case is encountered in Odysseus’ supplication of Nausicaa in Odyssey 6. Shipwrecked, naked, and helpless, Odysseus is unable to determine whether his potential saviour is a goddess or a mortal woman (149). Therefore, he offers hymnic praise in case she is a goddess (150–2), and praises her beauty through a blessing of her parents and future husband in case she is mortal (153–7). This blurred distinction between the human and the divine has an effect, above all, on the perception of the human supplicandus, who is frequently elevated into the divine sphere. Offering help, it seems, is a fundamental service of the gods, and any mortal capable of delivering similar help is assimilated with divinity. For example, in Odyssey 8, when Odysseus prepares to leave Scheria, he promises that he will pray to Nausicaa ‘as to a deity’ (467 θεῶι ὣϲ εὐχετοώιμην), because she saved his life by granting his supplication (468 ϲὺ γάρ μ᾽ ἐβιώϲαο, κούρη). The phrase εὔχεϲθαι ὡϲ θεῶι recalls the phrase ὡϲπερεὶ θεοῖϲιν ηὐχόμεϲθα encountered in the fragment by Eupolis.²¹ Here, too, the expression is comparative, since Odysseus has long established that Nausicaa is in fact human. His promise to pray to her as he does to the gods merely recognizes the fact that, in saving him, Nausicaa exercised a degree of power that, to him, recalls that of a deity. A similar case occurs in Odyssey 13, when Odysseus, who has just awoken alone and disoriented on Ithaca, chances upon a young

²¹ See above, p. 131.

138

Divine Power in Tragedy

shepherd. Odysseus immediately supplicates him with the words ‘I pray to you as to a god and supplicate your dear knees’ (231 εὔχομαι ὥϲ τε θεῶι καί ϲεο φίλα γούναθ̓ ἱκάνω). As in Odyssey 8, Odysseus has no intention to deify his addressee. Rather, his ‘prayer’ expresses the total degree of his dependency on the help of the human interlocutor.²² The passages considered so far suggest that supplication might provide another ritual context with a ritual vision where human protagonists approximate to divinity. The following section pursues this vision and tragedy.

SUPPLICATION IN TRAGEDY If humans usually resort to supplication in the face of danger, this is particularly true in the case of tragedy, where the ritual of supplication dominates the plot of a entire plays, like Aeschylus’ Supplices, Sophocles’ Oedipus Coloneus, Euripides’ Andromache, Heracles, Heraclidae, and Supplices, and also features in a number of other plays.²³ Here, supplication is characterized by two specific conditions. First, tragic supplication is a response, not to just any kind of threat, but always to life-threatening danger. In the dynamic tragic plot, which depicts movements from extreme happiness to extreme suffering and vice versa, supplication marks the lowest point in a character’s steep fall. For tragic suppliants, who are usually royal figures, the need to supplicate characterizes a total loss of self-determination, an inability to influence their fortune by their own means, and a submission of their freedom into the hands of someone else. A second condition concerns the morality of the supplicandus. On the epic battlefield, supplication is usually a bilateral relationship between a defeated soldier and his potential killer. There, the sources of danger and of potential mercy are conflated in the same person. Rejection of supplication, which in fact occurs more often than its acceptance, is

²² The primary narrator might employ some irony here, since the shepherd is in fact Athena in disguise (cf. 221 5). Odysseus himself, however, is unaware of this. ²³ On ‘suppliant drama’ in general, see Lattimore (1964) 46 7, Taplin (1977) 192 3, Heath (1987) 148, Burian (1971), Burian (1972), Burian (1997) 188, Turner (2001) 27.

Divine Power in Tragedy

139

morally questionable.²⁴ In tragedy, in contrast, supplication tends to involve, apart from suppliant and supplicandus, an external source of danger.²⁵ If the supplicandus decides to yield to supplication, he must actively intervene and risk his own life and the lives of people under his care, rather than simply refraining from killing the suppliant.²⁶ The tragic supplicandus appears therefore frequently as a glorious figure who, in the suppliant’s perception, represents hopes for rescue and survival. This is manifest in the fact that the supplicandus is addressed as ‘saviour’ (ϲωτήρ),²⁷ and is compared to light after dark²⁸ and to a safe haven after a stormy passage.²⁹ These life-threatening circumstances, and this elevated portrayal of the supplicandus, engender comparisons with gods. A good first example is found at the end of the parodos of Sophocles’ Oedipus Coloneus. After Oedipus’ identity is revealed, Antigone supplicates the chorus of Attic elders in an attempt to gain their protection:

240

245

ὦ ξένοι αἰδόφρονεϲ, ἀλλ̓ ἐπεὶ γεραὸν πατέρα τόνδ̓ ἐμὸν οὐκ ἀνέτλατ̓ ἔργων ἀκόντων ἀίοντεϲ αὐδάν, ἀλλ̓ ἐμὲ τὰν μελέαν, ἱκετεύομεν, ὦ ξένοι, οἰκτίραθ̓ , ἃ πατρὸϲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τλάμονοϲ ἄντομαι, ἄντομαι οὐκ ἀλαοῖϲ προϲορωμένα ὄμμα ϲὸν ὄμμαϲιν, ὥϲ τιϲ ἀφ̓ αἵματοϲ ὑμετέρου προφανεῖϲα, τὸν ἄθλιον αἰδοῦϲ κῦρϲαι ἐν ὑμῖν ὡϲ θεῶι κείμεθα τλάμονεϲ ἀλλ̓ ἴτε, νεύϲατε τὰν ἀδόκητον χάριν,

²⁴ See esp. Pedrick (1982) 132, Mercier (1998) 196, Cassella (1999) 27 37. ²⁵ See Kopperschmidt (1967) 46 53, Kopperschmidt (1971) 321 2. A complicated case is Medea’s supplication of Creon at E. Med. 324. See also Turner (2001) for problems in Aeschylus’ Supplices. ²⁶ For an exception, cf. Helen’s supplication of Theonoe at E. Hel. 894 943. ²⁷ Cf. A. Supp. 982, S. El. 1354 5, OT 47 8, 300 4, E. Heracl. 640, IT 923. Cf. also the use of ϲώιζειν at S. OC 276, Ph. 501, E. Hel. 900, IA 915 16, Or. 384. ²⁸ Cf. Od. 16.23 = 17.41, S. El. 1354, E. Ba. 608, Hec. 841, Her. 531, IA 1063, Med. 482. See also Wilamowitz (1889) 2.157 on E. Her. 563, Fraenkel (1950) 2.266 on A. A. 522. ²⁹ Cf. E. Andr. 891. On maritime imagery, cf. also A. A. 897, 899, E. El. 992 3, 1348, Or. 1637.

140

Divine Power in Tragedy

250

πρόϲ ϲ̓ ὅ τι ϲοι φίλον οἴκοθεν ἄντομαι, ἢ τέκνον, ἢ λέχοϲ, ἢ χρέοϲ, ἢ θεόϲ. οὐ γὰρ ἴδοιϲ ἂν ἀθρῶν βροτὸν ὅϲτιϲ ἄν, εἰ θεὸϲ ἄγοι, ἐκφυγεῖν δύναιτο.

O compassionate strangers, since you could not endure hearing my father’s account of his unintended deeds, do have pity on my wretched self. O strangers, I beseech you, as I entreat you on behalf of my miserable father. I entreat you looking at your eye with eyes not blind, appearing like someone from your own blood, so that my pitiful father may find your respect. We miserable ones depend on you like on a god. But come, grant the unexpected favour, I entreat you by whatever is dear to you in your home, be it a child, a spouse, a valuable thing, or a god. For even if you look hard, you will not see a mortal who, if a god drives him, can escape. (S. OC 237 54)

Antigone’s utterance is identified as a supplicatory appeal in line 241 with the verb ἱκετεύομεν, which is corroborated by the repeated respectful address as ὦ ξένοι (237, 242),³⁰ the plea for pity (237 αἰδόφρονεϲ, 242 οἰκτίραθ̓ ), and the rhetoric of kinship (245–6), which is a conventional feature of supplicatory appeals.³¹ It is possible to imagine Antigone on her knees as she speaks these words. At the same time, Antigone’s appeal also reveals the extent of her distress. The dactylic metre is used, elsewhere in Sophocles, for agitated lament.³² The repetition of words (ὦ ξένοι: 237, 242; ἄντομαι: 243, 244, 250) sounds desperate. The particular repetition of ἀλλά before imperatives (238, 239, 248) produces a tone of insistence born out of hopelessness.³³ In this state of distress, Antigone makes the remarkable comparison between the chorus and the gods ‘We miserable ones depend on you like on a god’ (247–8). As the application of the singular ὡϲ θεῶι to the group of Attic elders indicates, the expression is here

³⁰ On vocative ξένοι, see Wendel (1929) 29, Dickey (1996) 149. ³¹ See Burian (1974) 415. Cf. the argument advanced by Polynices when suppli cating Oedipus at OC 1323 4 ἐγὼ δ’ ὁ ϲόϲ, κεἰ μὴ ϲόϲ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κακοῦ | πότμου φυτευθείϲ, ϲόϲ γέ τοι καλούμενοϲ, ‘I am yours, and even if I am not yours but begotten from evil destiny, I am still called yours.’ ³² Cf. esp. S. Ph. 1169 217 (astrophic, like here) and El. 121 52 (strophic). On dactylic metres in Sophocles, see L. Parker (1997) 51. ³³ See Denniston (1954) 15 16.

Divine Power in Tragedy

141

as comparative as it is in the passages from Eupolis and Odyssey 8 and 13 discussed above (pp. 131, 137–8). If Antigone wanted to equate the chorus with divinity, the plural (ὡϲ θεοῖϲ) would be expected. Rather than ascribing the elders actual divine powers, Antigone merely conveys that, in their particular situation, she and Oedipus are exposed to the chorus’ decision, either to save or destroy them, as man generally is exposed to the whim of divinity. The gnomic reflection concluding Antigone’s appeal (252–4) expresses this sentiment concisely. On this interpretation, the comparison of the chorus with a god at the beginning of the play effectively introduces a central interest of Oedipus Coloneus in the dynamics of vulnerability and power and, more precisely, of supplication and divinity. Whereas the play as a whole appears to be modelled on the general structure of the suppliant plays,³⁴ it contains a theme not found elsewhere, namely the heroization of Oedipus. A fundamental paradox of Oedipus Coloneus is that Oedipus arrives at Attica both as its suppliant and as its future guardian.³⁵ This paradox is expressed in the shifting attribution of the power to save, conveyed in forms of the verb ϲώιζειν, the noun ϲωτήρ, or derivatives of them. Initially, Oedipus beseeches the chorus for rescue: 275

ἀνθ̓ ὧν ἱκνοῦμαι πρὸϲ θεῶν ὑμᾶϲ, ξένοι, ὥϲπερ με κἀνεϲτήϲαθ̓ ὧδε ϲώϲατε, καὶ μὴ θεοὺϲ τιμῶντεϲ εἶτα τοὺϲ θεοὺϲ ποιεῖϲθ̓ ἀμαυροὺϲ μηδαμῶϲ . . .

Because of these things, I entreat you, strangers, by the gods. As you lifted me up, so save me, and in no way first honour the gods and then neglect them! (S. OC 275 8)

Later, Ismene delivers the Pythian oracle, which mentions Oedipus’ role as protector of Athens: 390

ϲὲ τοῖϲ ἐκεῖ ζητητὸν ἀνθρώποιϲ ποτὲ θανόντ̓ ἔϲεϲθαι ζῶντά τ̓ εὐϲοίαϲ χάριν.

. . . that one day you, both dead and alive, will be sought by men for the sake of protection. (S. OC 389 90)

³⁴ See Burian (1974), Cassella (1999) 154 5.

³⁵ See Kelly (2009) 75, 121 33.

142

Divine Power in Tragedy

Oedipus then bargains with the chorus using this information:

460

ἐὰν γὰρ ὑμεῖϲ, ὦ ξένοι, θέλητ̓ ἐμοὶ ϲὺν ταῖϲδε ταῖϲ ϲεμναῖϲι δημούχοιϲ θεαῖϲ ἀλκὴν ποεῖϲθαι, τῆιδε μὲν πόλει μέγαν ϲωτῆῤ ἀρεῖϲθε, τοῖϲ δ̓ ἐμοῖϲ ἐχθροῖϲ πόνουϲ.

For if you, strangers, would agree to offer me protection together with these reverend goddesses of your deme, you will find yourselves a great saviour, and trouble for my enemies. (S. OC 457 60)

The chorus, in turn, seize the notion of Oedipus as their future saviour: ἐπάξιοϲ μέν, Οἰδίπουϲ, κατοικτίϲαι, αὐτόϲ τε παῖδέϲ θ̓ αἵδ̓ ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆϲδε γῆϲ ϲωτῆρα ϲαυτὸν τῶιδ̓ ἐπεμβάλλειϲ λόγωι, παραινέϲαι ϲοι βούλομαι τὰ ϲύμφορα. You, Oedipus, deserve to be pitied, you yourself and these daughters of yours. And since, in your speech, you offer yourself as saviour of this land, I wish to give you some useful advice. (S. OC 461 4)

According to the manuscript tradition, the chorus even coin the striking paradox ‘suppliant saviour’ (487 τὸν ἱκέτην ϲωτήριον),³⁶ which aptly summarizes Oedipus’ shifting role from requiring protection from the people of Attica to offering it to them. Within this paradoxical development of the role of Oedipus, Antigone’s initial comparison of the Attic elders with the gods provides a compelling starting point. When it is made, Antigone and Oedipus depend on the protection of the Attic elders as though it were a divine power. At the end of the play, however, the people of Attica depend on Oedipus’ powers, as he has now become an immortal hero.

³⁶ Following Bake (1825) 22, most editors (e.g. Pearson, Dawe, Lloyd Jones Wilson) change ϲωτήριον to ϲωτηρίουϲ to agree with Εὐμενίδαϲ. More recently, Colonna and Rodighiero both preserve the mss. reading ϲωτήριον. Older editions assume an otherwise unattested passive meaning of ϲωτήριοϲ (saluus, instead of the common salutaris); see e.g. Campbell (1879/81) 1.99, 1.330, Jebb (1885) 85 ad loc. In favour of an active meaning, see Kamerbeek (1984) 85 ad loc., Kelly (2009) 75 n. 39.

Divine Power in Tragedy

143

A second example occurs in Aeschylus’ Supplices. When Pelasgus dismisses the Aegyptid herald in lines 938–49, he implicitly also accepts the supplication of the Danaids. Danaus responds to this acceptance with the following words: 980

ὦ παῖδεϲ, Ἀργείοιϲιν εὔχεϲθαι χρεὼν θύειν τε λείβειν θ̓ ὡϲ θεοῖϲ Ὀλυμπίοιϲ ϲπονδάϲ, ἐπεὶ ϲωτῆρεϲ οὐ διχορρόπωϲ.

O children, we must pray, sacrifice, and pour libations to the Argives as if to Olympian gods, since they are our saviours without doubt. (A. Supp. 980 2)

The comparison of the Argives with the Olympic gods resembles the expressions involving ὡϲ θεῶι in Odyssey 8 and 13 and Sophocles’ Oedipus Coloneus. Here, however, the comparison with the gods is significantly more specific.³⁷ The Argives are compared not merely with an unspecified deity but the particular group of Olympic gods, which represents divinity of the highest order. The term θεοῖϲ Ὀλυμπίοιϲ leaves no doubt that ὡϲ is here, too, comparative, since the Argives are not meant to replace Zeus, Poseidon, and the others but rather to receive honours equivalent to the worship of these deities. More detail is also found in the honours promised, which are complete with prayers (980 εὔχεϲθαι), bloody sacrifices (981 θύειν), and libations (981–2 λείβειν . . . | ϲπονδάϲ). Treating a human individual, or a group of humans, with these honours, which are reserved for the worship of the gods, means to worship these humans as gods. The reason for this extraordinary treatment is stated in line 982. The people of Argus have established themselves as the ‘saviours’ (ϲωτῆρεϲ) of the Danaids, which, in the rhetoric of supplication, refers to the acceptance of the Danaids’ plea. For Danaus, it appears, this act of quasi-divine salvation can only be answered with a full-scale treatment of the supplicandi as gods. A careful reading of Supplices as a whole reveals that the treatment of the Argives in this passage is prepared by two earlier passages in which the chorus of Danaids address Pelasgus. Significantly, both addresses are also part of the stages of supplication. The first is the

³⁷ See also Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 3.274 ad loc., Bowen (2013) 338 9 ad loc.

144

Divine Power in Tragedy

chorus’ sung appeal to the king, which formally completes the first stage of their supplication:

350

Παλαίχθονοϲ τέκοϲ, κλῦθί μου πρόφρονι καρδίαι, Πελαϲγῶν ἄναξ. ἴδε με τὰν ἱκέτιν φυγάδα περίδρομον, λυκοδί⟨ω⟩κτον³⁸ ὡϲ δάμαλιν ἂμ πέτραιϲ ἠλιβάτοιϲ, ἵν̓ ἀλκᾶι πίϲυνοϲ μέμυ κε φράζουϲα βοτῆρι μόχθουϲ.

Son of Palaechthon, hear me with a willing heart, lord of the Pelasgians. Look at me, the suppliant, the roaming refugee, like a heifer chased by wolves on steep rocks, where, trusting in the herdsman’s protection, she lows to alert him to her troubles. (A. Supp. 348 53)

The dochmiac metre of this song indicates an intense state of fear on the part of the Danaids.³⁹ This intensity seems to inform the way that they perceive Pelasgus and the potential for rescue that he represents. The initial address with the patronymic Παλαίχθονοϲ τέκοϲ (348) is solemn and deferential,⁴⁰ and recalls similar addresses in hymnic invocations.⁴¹ This religious tone is reinforced significantly by the imperative κλῦθι, which is, in archaic and classical Greek literature, virtually restricted to prayers and hymns.⁴² The same can be observed in the case of πρόφρων (349), which is used ubiquitously in prayers to indicate the wish that the deity may receive the request favourably.⁴³ Especially in their combination, these three expressions indicate that the Danaids address Pelasgus like a god in a prayer or a hymn. This, in turn, appears to be motivated by the hopes for quasi-divine salvation that the chorus associate with Pelasgus. ³⁸ Correction by Hermann for the transmitted λευκόδικτον. ³⁹ On the metrical design of Supp. 348 437, see Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.279 80, Sandin (2003) 184 5. On the nature of dochmiacs, see L. Parker (1997) 67, 134. ⁴⁰ See Wendel (1929) 79. ⁴¹ See Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.54. ⁴² Cf. A. Ch. 139, 157, 332, 399, 802, S. El. 1376, E. Ph. 605. On the general usage, see LfgrE s.v. κλύειν, 1458.31 2, Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.280 on 348, Pulleyn (1997) 134 6, 146 8. The nature of the addressee in Anacr. fr. 418 Page (κλῦθί μεο γέροντοϲ εὐέθειρα χρυϲόπεπλε κοῦρα, ‘Hear me old man, O girl with fair hair and a golden robe’) is uncertain; the reference to the speaker’s old age could suggest a human beloved, her epithets a goddess. ⁴³ Cf. A. Supp. 1, 216, Ch. 1063, S. El. 1380, E. Alc. 743. On the general usage, see LfgrE s.v. πρόφρων, 1580.54 1582.3, Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.280 on 349, Pulleyn (1997) 145, 219.

Divine Power in Tragedy

145

The second passage is the chorus’ reaction to Pelasgus’ acceptance of their supplication, immediately before Danaus’ prompt to treat the Argives as gods:

970

ἀλλ̓ ἀντ̓ ἀγαθῶν ἀγαθοῖϲι βρύοιϲ, δῖε Πελαϲγῶν. πέμψον δὲ πρόφρων δεῦῤ ἡμέτερον πατέῤ εὐθαρϲῆ Δαναόν, πρόνοον καὶ βούλαρχον . . .

But in return for these good things may you teem with good things, noblest of the Pelasgians! Kindly send us our father, Danaus, who is courageous, prudent, and a good adviser. (A. Supp. 966 70)

The language of this address continues the tendency of religious register observed in the passage of lines 348–53 above. The expression ἀντ̓ ἀγαθῶν (966) echoes the rhetoric of reciprocity employed in prayer.⁴⁴ πρόφρων again qualifies the imperative (968 πέμψον). Moreover, the address of Pelasgus as δῖε Πελαϲγῶν (967) is highly exceptional. Though the adjective δῖοϲ is sometimes applied to illustrious men in epic, it is rarely used in this way outside of epic and, where it is used, its original connection with the sphere of the gods tends to be important.⁴⁵ Charged with religious register, these two addresses imply a formal treatment of the Argive king as a deity. In this way, they effectively prepare Danaus’ prompt to treat the Argives collectively like gods. As a whole, the three passages contribute to creating a suppliant vision where human supplicandi appear as saviour figures and are merged with gods and their inherent power to save and protect humans. In Supplices, this merging is also responsible for a series of difficult but telling ambiguities in the second half of the play. From line 710 onwards, on hearing about the arrival of the Aegyptids, the Danaids succumb to terror. In this state of mind, they repeatedly invoke unspecified father (πάτερ) and ruler (ἄναξ) figures.⁴⁶ In the case of πάτερ, it is unclear whether the Danaids are referring to Danaus, who

⁴⁴ See Pulleyn (1997) 36 on formulaic ἀνθ’ ὧν. On reciprocity in general, see int. al. R. Parker (1998) passim, Depew (2000) 61 3. ⁴⁵ See LrgfE s.v. δῖος, 313.33 7, Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 3.265 6 on 967. The only other attestation in tragedy is S. Ph. 344 (δῖόϲ τ’ Ὀδυϲϲεύϲ). ⁴⁶ Cf. πάτερ at 811, 885; ἄναξ at 835, 908.

146

Divine Power in Tragedy

receives this title when on the stage⁴⁷ but is absent during both addresses, or to Zeus, who is elsewhere invoked as Ζεὺϲ πατήρ.⁴⁸ In the case of ἄναξ, it is unclear whether the Danaids are appealing to Pelasgus, who is elsewhere addressed in this way⁴⁹ but does not re-enter the stage before line 911, or again to Zeus, who is invoked as divine king.⁵⁰ Whether intended by Aeschylus or not, these ambiguities effectively illustrate how, for the suppliant, all figures capable of rendering help are blended into one unspecified helper figure, which is not marked as human or divine. A third play that is relevant to this examination is Euripides’ Heracles. This play opens with the depiction of Amphitryon, Megara, and the children of Heracles supplicating the on-stage altar of Zeus Soter (cf. 47–8).⁵¹ Since Heracles is assumed dead, Zeus is the only power left that they can resort to. The situation of these suppliants is bleak from the outset (cf. 51–9), and becomes increasingly hopeless as the first half of the play unfolds.⁵² At the emotional height of this development, when the group are prepared to leave the house to surrender themselves to their executioners, Amphitryon utters a prayer to Zeus for a last-minute miracle (498–502). When, almost immediately after this prayer, between lines 513 and 514, Heracles enters the stage, this miracle seems to come true, leaving Megara and Amphitryon stupefied and speechless:

515

Με. ἔα ὦ πρέϲβυ, λεύϲϲω τἀμὰ φίλτατ̓ , ἢ τί φῶ; Ἀμ. οὐκ οἶδα, θύγατερ ἀφαϲία δὲ κἄμ̓ ἔχει. Με. ὅδ̓ ἐϲτὶν ὃν γῆϲ νέρθεν εἰϲηκούομεν, εἰ μή γ̓ ὄνειρον ἐν φάει τι λεύϲϲομεν. τί φημί, ποῖ̓ ὄνειρα κηραίνουϲ̓ ὁρῶ; οὐκ ἔϲθ̓ ὅδ̓ ἄλλοϲ ἀντὶ ϲοῦ παιδόϲ, γέρον.

⁴⁷ Cf. 204, 480, 734, 738, 748, 756, 1015. ⁴⁸ Cf. 139, 592, 902. Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.162, 216 argue for Zeus, based on the term βρέτεοϲ in line 885. However, βρέτεοϲ ἄροϲ | ἀτᾶι is merely the (albeit likely) emendation of Wilamowitz, based on paraphrases in Σ ad loc. and Eust. 1422.19, for the transmitted βρότιοιϲα ροϲαται. See Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.216 17 for the full argument. ⁴⁹ Cf. 328, 349, 616. ⁵⁰ Cf. 524, 592, 1062. Σ 835a and Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980) 2.181 2 on 835 assume that Pelasgus is addressed. ⁵¹ On the presence and position of the altar, see Poe (1989) 127. ⁵² See also Yunis (1988) 140 1.

Divine Power in Tragedy

147

Me. Ah! O sir, do I really see that which is most dear to me, or what shall I say? Am. I do not know, my child. Speechlessness holds me, too. Me. That is the man who we heard was under the earth, if indeed we do not see a dream in daylight. What shall I say? What dream vision do I see in my distress? This is no one other than your son, old man. (E. Her. 514 19)

The interjection ἔα, placed emphatically outside the surrounding metrical structure, signals a high degree of surprise and perplexity on the part of Megara.⁵³ It conveys her inability to comprehend the appearance of something entirely unexpected. At first, Megara rejects this appearance, distrusting her own vision as a result of the extreme inner tension that she suffers (518 κηραίνουϲ̓ ).⁵⁴ However, on realising that it is in fact Heracles who stands before her, abundant relief suddenly replaces her tension. In this state of mind, she makes a peculiar connection between Heracles and Zeus: 520

δεῦρ’, ὦ τέκν’, ἐκκρίμναϲθε πατρώιων πέπλων, ἴτ’ ἐγκονεῖτε, μὴ μεθῆτ’, ἐπεὶ Διὸϲ ϲωτῆροϲ ὑμῖν οὐδέν ἐϲθ’ ὅδ’ ὕϲτεροϲ.

Come here, O children, cling to your father’s robes. Go, make haste, do not let go, since for us this man is no later than Zeus Soter himself. (E. Her. 520 2)

Megara compares Heracles to Zeus and, as the particular identification of Zeus Soter demonstrates, this comparison is made on the grounds of his powers to save Megara, Amphitryon, and the children of Heracles from imminent death. The word conveying the comparison, ὕϲτεροϲ, is unusual. Though the originally temporal meaning of the adjective need not be absent altogether (Heracles is no later a saviour than Zeus Soter), the primary sense here seems to be concerned with quality.⁵⁵ Heracles is no less a saviour than Zeus, because, in this particular moment, he saves exactly as Zeus would be expected to save. In Megara’s current misery, Heracles

⁵³ On the connotations of ἔα, see Biraud (2010) 18, Nordgren (2015) 218 19. See also Page (1938) 146 on E. Med. 1004, Dodds (1944) 149 on E. Ba. 644, Fraenkel (1950) 3.580 n. 4 on A. A. 1256 7, Stevens (1971) 200 on E. Andr. 896, Bond (1981) 198 ad loc. ⁵⁴ On κηραίνειν, see Wilamowitz (1889) 2.152 ad loc., Barrett (1964) 203 on E. Hipp. 223, Bond (1981) 199 ad loc. ⁵⁵ On this meaning of ὕϲτεροϲ, see LSJ s.v. III with S. Ant. 746, Ph. 180 1.

148

Divine Power in Tragedy

appears to her to approximate to the highest of gods because of his ability to save. Megara’s comparison between Heracles and Zeus clearly corresponds to Amphitryon’s preceding prayer to Zeus. However, through this correspondence, the praise of Heracles also conveys a subtle note of criticism of Zeus. Though Zeus’ help was invoked, the god himself does not intervene. Heracles arrives instead, but his arrival seems to be mere coincidence, unmotivated by Zeus’ divine agency. The prayers to Zeus went unanswered and the deity appears not to care about the fate of his daughter-in-law and grandchildren. In this way, Megara’s comparison between Heracles and Zeus develops a central theme of Heracles, namely the criticism of Zeus’ inactivity and injustice. An early manifestation of this criticism is found in Amphitryon’s interaction with Lycus in the first episode. Here, Amphitryon states that, rather than being killed by Lycus, he should kill Lycus, ‘if Zeus had a just mind towards us’ (212 εἰ Ζεὺϲ δικαίαϲ εἶχεν εἰϲ ἡμᾶϲ φρέναϲ). The unreal condition indicates that Zeus is unjust in allowing the actual turn of events.⁵⁶ This criticism is further developed in the second episode: 340

345

ὦ Ζεῦ, μάτην ἄῤ ὁμόγαμόν ϲ̓ ἐκτηϲάμην, μάτην δὲ παιδὸϲ κοινεῶν̓ ἐκλήιζομεν ϲὺ δ̓ ἦϲθ̓ ἄῤ ἧϲϲον ἢ ̓ δόκειϲ εἶναι φίλοϲ. ἀρετῆι ϲε νικῶ θνητὸϲ ὢν θεὸν μέγαν παῖδαϲ γὰρ οὐ προύδωκα τοὺϲ Ἡρακλέουϲ. ϲὺ δ̓ ἐϲ μὲν εὐνὰϲ κρύφιοϲ ἠπίϲτω μολεῖν, τἀλλότρια λέκτρα δόντοϲ οὐδενὸϲ λαβών, ϲώιζειν δὲ τοὺϲ ϲοὺϲ οὐκ ἐπίϲταϲαι φίλουϲ. ἀμαθήϲ τιϲ εἶ θεὸϲ ἢ δίκαιοϲ οὐκ ἔφυϲ.

O Zeus, in vain have I acquired you as the lover of my wife, in vain have I called you partner in my son’s begetting. Indeed, you were less a friend than you appeared. I, a mere mortal, surpass you, the great god, in virtue. For I have not abandoned the children of Heracles. You may know how to sneak into beds, taking other men’s wives though no one gave them to you, but you do not know how to save those dear to you. You are either a stupid god or unjust by nature. (E. Her. 339 47)

⁵⁶ See Kühner Gerth §574.

Divine Power in Tragedy

149

The tone of this critique is sharp and borders on blasphemy. Zeus is portrayed as depraved even by human standards, as an adulterer unconcerned with the consequences of his conquests or with any bonds of kinship (339–40) or relation (341).⁵⁷ Amphitryon states his own moral superiority, effectively contrasting divinity with virtue, and the expression ‘great god’ (342 θεὸν μέγαν) lingers cynically. The conclusion (347) resorts to bitter insult. The reason for Amphitryon’s disappointment and disillusion is stated in line 346. Zeus fails to save (ϲώιζειν). The tone of aggressive criticism is continued in the second appeal to Zeus, shortly before the appearance of Heracles:

500

ἐγὼ δὲ ϲ̓ , ὦ Ζεῦ, χεῖῤ ἐϲ οὐρανὸν δικὼν αὐδῶ, τέκνοιϲιν εἴ τι τοιϲίδ̓ ὠφελεῖν μέλλειϲ, ἀμύνειν, ὡϲ τάχ̓ οὐδὲν ἀρκέϲειϲ. καίτοι κέκληϲαι πολλάκιϲ μάτην πονῶ θανεῖν γάρ, ὡϲ ἔοικ̓ , ἀναγκαίωϲ ἔχει.

But, O Zeus, I call upon you, with my hand cast in the sky. If you are going to lend any help to these children here, defend them, because, soon, you will not be able to help them. Alas, I have called you many times. I toil in vain. It is necessary, it seems, for us to die. (E. Her. 498 502)

Both in its verbal and non-verbal gestures, Amphitryon’s appeal begins as a prayer to Zeus.⁵⁸ This prayer, however, is quickly tainted by thoughts about its ineffectiveness. The phrase ὡϲ τάχ̓ οὐδὲν ἀρκέϲειϲ (500) already implies Zeus’ failure to intervene sooner. καίτοι (501) then signals a harsh break-off and the end of the prayer.⁵⁹ μάτην (501) connects this appeal to Zeus with the earlier criticism of Zeus’ behaviour (339–40). Time is an important factor in this appeal (500 τάχ’). Zeus has been inactive for a long time. There is still time to prove Amphitryon’s doubts wrong, but the window is closing. The temporal aspect of Amphitryon’s second appeal provides a background for Megara’s comparison between Heracles and Zeus ⁵⁷ See also Yunis (1988) 142 3. ⁵⁸ On the ‘calling’ of a god’s name in prayers and hymns, see Adami (1900) 221, Willi (2003) 17; see also below, p. 157 on Ar. Ach. 406. On the gesture of raising hands, see Sittl (1890) 174 5, Neumann (1965) 78, Poltera (2008) 320 on Simon. fr. 509.2 Page = 18.2 Poltera. ⁵⁹ See Denniston (1954) 557 (‘used by a speaker in pulling himself up abruptly’).

150

Divine Power in Tragedy

twelve lines down, which emerges as a response to Amphitryon’s criticism. As opposed to Zeus, Heracles arrives in time and offers protection. Therefore he takes, in the perception of the suppliants, the place previously held by Zeus.⁶⁰ This shift is visually expressed, when the children, who supplicate the altar of Zeus up to line 347, proceed to supplicate their father instead (520–1, cf. 624–5). Unlike the other passages discussed so far, the comparison between Heracles and Zeus in this play does not convey a certain similarity between a human individual and divinity. Instead, it conveys Heracles’ superiority over Zeus in terms of tangible effect and moral justice. A similar sentiment resurfaces at the end of the play, when Heracles, after his frenzied killing of his children, chooses to be the son of Amphitryon rather than Zeus:

1265

Ζεὺϲ δ’, ὅϲτιϲ ὁ Ζεύϲ, πολέμιόν μ’ ἐγείνατο Ἥραι (ϲὺ μέντοι μηδὲν ἀχθεϲθῆιϲ, γέρον πατέρα γὰρ ἀντὶ Ζηνὸϲ ἡγοῦμαι ϲ’ ἐγώ).

But Zeus, whoever Zeus may be, begot me as an enemy of Hera (but you, old man, do not take offence. I consider you my father instead of Zeus). (E. Her. 1263 5)

The preference for mortal virtue over divine cruelty, which Heracles expresses in these lines, emerges as one central conclusion of the play. Heracles’ replacement of Zeus in Megara’s appeal provides an early contribution towards this conclusion. The passages discussed so far present cases where suppliants do not distinguish strictly between human and divine in appealing to the supplicandus. These passages can be complemented by a passage from Euripides’ Iphigenia Aulidensis, which provides additionally the supplicandus’ response to being appealed to in this way. Clytemnestra, on learning about Agamemnon’s intention to sacrifice Iphigenia, supplicates Achilles for his help and protection. She opens her appeal with a statement that is designed to persuade Achilles through a combination of glorification of the supplicandus and self-abasement of the suppliant: 900

οὐκ ἐπαιδεϲθήϲομαι ̓ γὼ προϲπεϲεῖν τὸ ϲὸν γόνυ θνητὸϲ ἐκ θεᾶϲ γεγῶτοϲ τί γὰρ ἐγὼ ϲεμνύνομαι; ἦ τινοϲ ϲπουδαϲτέον μοι μᾶλλον ἢ τέκνου πέρι;

⁶⁰ See also Wilamowitz (1889) 2.152 on 522, Barlow (1996) 148 on 521 2.

Divine Power in Tragedy

151

I, a mortal woman, will not be ashamed to fall at your knee, before the son of a goddess. Why would I exalt myself? About what should I be more anxious than my child? (E. IA 900 2)

In this opening statement, Achilles is removed from ordinary humanity, with which Clytemnestra associates herself, and, through his divine mother, approximated to the sphere of the gods. This proximity to the gods, which for Clytemnestra justifies the treatment that she offers, pervades the following appeal, where Achilles’ divine parentage is repeatedly stressed (903, 909). Then, in Clytemnestra’s final remarks, the approximation of Achilles to divinity is made explicit:

915

οὐκ ἔχω βωμὸν καταφυγεῖν ἄλλον ἢ τὸ ϲὸν γόνυ, οὐδὲ φίλοϲ οὐδεὶϲ πέλαϲ μοι τὰ δ̓ Ἀγαμέμνονοϲ κλύειϲ, ὠμὰ καὶ πάντολμ̓ ἀφῖγμαι δ̓ , ὥϲπερ εἰϲορᾶιϲ, γυνὴ ναυτικὸν ϲτράτευμ̓ ἄναρχον κἀπὶ τοῖϲ κακοῖϲ θραϲύ, χρήϲιμον δ̓ , ὅταν θέλωϲιν. ἢν δὲ τολμήϲηιϲ ϲύ μου χεῖῤ ὑπερτεῖναι, ϲεϲώμεθ̓ εἰ δὲ μή, οὐ ϲεϲώμεθα.

I have no altar to flee to other than your knee, and no friend near me. You have heard of Agamemnon’s cruel and reckless designs. I have come, as you can see, as a woman to an unruly naval host, daring in evil, useful only when they want to be. If you dare to stretch your hand out over me, we will be saved. If not, we are lost. (E. IA 911 16)

The comparison of Achilles’ knee with an altar in lines 911–12 is powerful. It equates the appeal at Achilles’ knees with the invocation of a divine power at an altar. Both are treated as equal, because precise distinctions between mortal and immortal addressees seem less relevant than the service that both may grant. Clytemnestra herself emphasizes this service in lines 915–16, and it is no coincidence that she uses the verb ϲώιζειν, which encapsulates the quasi-religious prospect of salvation that emanates also from mortal supplicandi. Achilles’ reply to Clytemnestra’s supplication (919–74), which is among the most corrupt passages of the play, can only be included in this discussion with a high degree of caution.⁶¹ It deserves attention

⁶¹ In general, see discussions in Page (1934) 175 60, Ritchie (1978), Stockert (1992) 2.462 3, Michelakis (2002) 130 4, Collard and Morwoord (2017) 2.474 5.

152

Divine Power in Tragedy

here, because, at its end, Achilles seems to refer precisely to those elevating aspects of Clytemnestra’s appeal that approximate him to divinity: 970

τάχ̓ εἴϲεται ϲίδηροϲ, ὃν πρὶν ἐϲ Φρύγαϲ ἐλθεῖν φόνου κηλῖϲιν Ἕλληνοϲ⁶² χρανῶ, εἴ τίϲ με τὴν ϲὴν θυγατέῤ ἐξαιρήϲεται. ἀλλ̓ ἡϲύχαζε θεὸϲ ἐγὼ πέφηνά ϲοι μέγιϲτοϲ, οὐκ ὤν ἀλλ̓ ὅμωϲ γενήϲομαι.

My sword will quickly know this. Even before going to Phrygia, I will stain it with the blood from Greek murder, if someone should take your daughter away from me. But be calm. I appear to you as the greatest god, though I am not. But I may become it. (E. IA 970 4)

If lines 973–4 are genuine,⁶³ they contain the most striking acknowledgment of Clytemnestra’s supplicatory vision that makes the supplicandus appear to be more than mortal. The use of πέφηνα aptly conveys this acknowledgment, since forms of φαίνεϲθαι are common in descriptions of divine epiphanies.⁶⁴ The resultative aspect of the perfect highlights this meaning, since it expresses that Achilles has revealed himself, and so now acts, as a divine power for Clytemnestra. However, the addition of ϲοι already indicates that this supposed epiphany is in fact only a subjective impression. Achilles admits that, for Clytemnestra, the protection that he offers must appear comparable to divine salvation. The following concise and highly effective οὐκ ὤν makes it clear beyond doubt that he does not share the view that he is a god. Thus, up to this point, his statement provides a coherent response to Clytemnestra’s earlier comparison between his knee and an altar. Only with ἀλλ̓ ὅμωϲ γενήϲομαι, which

⁶² This is the emendation proposed by Piccolomini ap. Vitelli (1877) 14 (see Diggle (1992) 12) for the transmitted αἵματι. ⁶³ The passage was first considered spurious by Markland and first deleted by Hartung. See also the arguments in England (1891) 98 ad loc., Page (1934) 177. Hermann and, more recently, Ritchie (1978) 196 defend its authenticity, and the editions of Diggle and Günther print it as genuine. See also Stockert (1992) 2.480, Collard and Morwoord (2017) 2.487. ⁶⁴ Cf. esp. E. Ba. 42 φανέντα θνητοῖϲ δαίμον’, ‘appearing to mortals as a deity’, 182 Διόνυϲον ὃϲ πέφηνεν ἀνθρώποιϲ θεόϲ, ‘Dionysus who came to the mortals as a god’, 1031 θεὸϲ φαίνηι μέγαϲ, ‘you appear as a great god’. In general, see Pfister (1924) 279.20 280.24, Petridou (2015) 3, and the parody at Ar. Ach. 566 7 (see below, p. 158).

Divine Power in Tragedy

153

would undo the meaning of οὐκ ὤν, the coherence of Achilles’ response seems to be lost. In the light of this, the emendation of Gottfried Hermann ἀλλὰ φῶϲ γενήϲομαι, ‘but I will become your light’, seems preferable, especially since, as is shown above, light imagery is common in the context of supplication. The last tragic passage to be discussed here comes from Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus. The very opening of the play is a scene of supplication, which involves a priest and a group of children beseeching an altar outside Oedipus’ palace (1–3). On Oedipus’ entry, the priest, representing the group, directs a supplicatory appeal to him. As a whole, this appeal is characterized by a series of features that might evoke prayers and hymnic invocations. In lines 35–9, the priest recalls Oedipus’ past services for Thebes, which may adapt the hymnic strategy of hypomnesis, where a worshipper aims at securing the favour of a deity by recalling favours granted in the past.⁶⁵ Through these services, Oedipus is said to have established himself as ‘saviour’ (48 ϲωτῆρα) of Thebes, like a deity presiding over the city. Moreover, the superlative address in line 40 as ὦ κράτιϲτον πᾶϲιν Οἰδίπου κάρα, ‘Oedipus, mightiest man for all’ is highly elevated, and the request ἀνόρθωϲον πόλιν in line 46 has close parallels in hymns.⁶⁶ In contrast to these features clearly reminiscent of hymns and prayers, the priest emphasizes Oedipus’ mortality with the address as ‘best of mortals’ (46 ὦ βροτῶν ἄριϲτ’) and explicitly refuses to liken him to a deity: θεοῖϲι μέν νυν οὐκ ἰϲούμενόν ϲ’ ἐγὼ οὐδ’ οἵδε παῖδεϲ ἑζόμεϲθ’ ἐφέϲτιοι, ἀνδρῶν δὲ πρῶτον ἔν τε ϲυμφοραῖϲ βίου κρίνοντεϲ ἔν τε δαιμόνων ϲυναλλαγαῖϲ. I myself and these children beseech you in supplication not as someone equal to the gods, but because we judge you the first among men in the misfortunes of life and in the dealings with the immortals. (S. OT 31 4)

The priest’s refusal is striking in its explicitness. He seems to presuppose a supplicatory gesture where the mortal supplicandus is conventionally ⁶⁵ On hymnic hypomnesis, see Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.57 8. On prayers of the type da quia dedisti, see Bremer (1981) 19, Pulleyn (1997) 16 38. ⁶⁶ E.g. Carm.Conv. fr. 884.1 2 Page Παλλὰϲ Τριτογένει’ ἄναϲϲ’ Ἀθηνᾶ, | ὄρθου τήνδε πόλιν τε καῖ πολίταϲ, ‘Pallas Tritogeneia, lady Athena, lift up this city and its citizens’, with Furley and Bremer (2001) 2.215 ad loc.

154

Divine Power in Tragedy

likened to divinity. To some extent, he implicitly observes this convention by applying features of the register of prayers and hymns. However, he refuses to make this likening explicit, in a manner comparable, for instance, to Antigone’s statement in Oedipus Coloneus (ἐν ὑμῖν ὡϲ θεῶι | κείμεθα τλάμονεϲ, see above, pp. 140–1). Through this refusal, he nevertheless confirms, ex negativo, the existence of a conventional ritual perspective. At the beginning of the play, the priest’s remarks are likely to be designed to contribute to the characterization of the protagonist Oedipus. The precise effect of this characterization is controversial. On one interpretation, the refusal to liken Oedipus to the gods might be in defiance to supposed aspirations of Oedipus to be treated as a god by his subjects. In this case, the priest’s remarks would serve to portray an arrogant and hubristic ruler.⁶⁷ Alternatively, the remarks might be in accordance with Oedipus’ own wish not to be treated like a god. In this case, they would portray a moderate ruler conscious of his proper place in the world.⁶⁸ Taking into account the wider development of the play, the second interpretation seems decidedly more attractive. At this early stage, there is no compelling reason for the priest to question the integrity of Oedipus, which is taken for granted at least up to line 873.⁶⁹ The general relationship between knowledge and guilt, which the play explores, emerges more clearly if Oedipus is characterized, at the outset, as a flawless monarch and the least likely suspect for the murder of Laius. If the audience are meant to perceive Oedipus as a just and moderate ruler, the priest’s refusal to liken Oedipus to the gods is part of that image. Approximating a ruler to the gods, and its acceptance or rejection by the ruler, is here assessed in moral terms, within a dichotomy of modesty and hubris. By catering to the monarch’s self-representation, the priest withholds the comparison with the gods, because he anticipates that Oedipus might reject it. Thus, while in Iphigenia Aulidensis a case is encountered where the supplicandus supposes that the suppliant may perceive him as godlike, ⁶⁷ See e.g. R. Griffith (1999) 77 8. ⁶⁸ See e.g. Dawe (2006) 74 on 31, Manuwald (2012) 67 on 31 4. ⁶⁹ Even in line 873, a notion of Oedipus’ arrogance is only found if the emendation of Blaydes (1859) 122 on 873 is accepted, who changed the transmitted ὕβριϲ φυτεύει τύραννον, ‘Hubris begets the tyrant’, to ὕρβιν φυτεύει τυραννίϲ, ‘Tyranny begets hubris’. See the discussions in Dawe (2006) 14, 147 8. On the meaning of the sentence, see now Ugolini (2017) 466 9.

Divine Power in Tragedy

155

Oedipus Tyrannus provides an example where the suppliant anticipates the supplicandus’ reaction to being perceived in this way.

COMIC ENTRIES The preceding arguments regarding supplicatory appeals in tragedy and their underlying ritual vision where supplicandi seem to approximate to the gods in their power to save can be corroborated by a comparison with comedy. Prima facie, comedy might appear to offer little help for understanding supplication in tragedy. Only a few of the extant comic plays and fragments engage in large-scale adaptations of the plots of suppliant plays. A famous but isolated instance of such an adaptation is the parody of Euripides’ Telephus in Aristophanes’ Acharnenses.⁷⁰ Moreover, explicit supplicatory gestures are rarely found in comic plays.⁷¹ However, a parallel to the tragic theme of supplication is found in the plots of most comic plays in the form of the so-called helper figures, i.e. characters who promote and execute the ‘big ideas’ of the protagonists.⁷² Since these ‘big ideas’ are often conceived as a form of salvation (ϲωτηρία) from certain problems,⁷³ helper figures are frequently appealed to as ‘saviours’ (ϲωτῆρεϲ).⁷⁴ They share this aspect with tragic supplicandi, who are also perceived as ϲωτῆρεϲ. In this way, the treatment of these helper figures can be approached as a comic reflection of the same dynamics of power, protection, and salvation that underlies supplication in tragedy.⁷⁵

⁷⁰ See Rau (1967) 40 2, Foley (1988) 34 6, Olson (2002) LX LXI. See also Bakola (2010) 150 8 on Cratinus’ Drapetides. ⁷¹ Cf. e.g. Ar. Av. 120, Eq. 30 1, Th. 179, 224. ⁷² On ‘big ideas’ and helper figures, see Arrowsmith (1973) 137, Sommerstein (1980) 11 12, Sifakis (1992) 129 32, Given (2009). ⁷³ Cf. e.g. Ar. Av. 878 9, Ec. 202, 395 6, 402, 412 14, Eq. 11 12, Lys. 29 30, Pax 301, 595, Ra. 1435 6, Th. 765, 965, V. 369. See also Dunbar (1995) 371 2 on Ar. Av. 544 5, Given (2009) 109. ⁷⁴ Cf. e.g. Ar. Av. 545 (chorus to Peisetaerus), Eq. 146 9 (servant to the sausage seller), 457 60 (chorus to the sausage seller), Nu. 1161 (Strepsiades to his son), Pax 914 (chorus to Trygaeus). ⁷⁵ See similarly Frey (1948), Garzya (1962) 165 7. Rau (1967) 177 9 is sceptical that ‘Rettungsthematik’ in Aristophanes does in itself constitute parody of tragedy. However, the passages selected in this section all contain additional lexical and metrical features that indicate paratragedy.

156

Divine Power in Tragedy

A distinct feature of appeals by comic protagonists to helper figures is their unmistakable adaptation of religious register. Since these appeals usually introduce the respective helper figure on-stage, this register tends to create the impression of an impending divine epiphany. A straightforward example is encountered at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Equites, when the two slaves of Demus summon the sausage seller as their supposed helper (149 ϲωτῆρ): . . . ὦ μακάριε ἀλλαντοπῶλα, δεῦρο δεῦρ’, ὦ φίλτατε, ἀνάβαινε, ϲωτὴρ τῆι πόλει καὶ νῶιν φανείϲ. O blessed sausage seller, come here, come here! O dearest friend, who has revealed himself as the saviour of this city and us! (Ar. Eq. 147 9)

The opening with ὦ μακάριε recalls the characterization of the life of the gods as perfect bliss.⁷⁶ The impression of an epiphany is created by the repeated δεῦρο (148, cf. 150), which adopts an important term of cletic hymns.⁷⁷ Moreover, the participle φανείϲ echoes the use of the verb φαίνεϲθαι in descriptions of epiphany.⁷⁸ A similar register is found again in the second address to the sausage seller, after his somewhat perplexed entry: . . . ὦ μακάρι’, ὦ πλούϲιε, ὦ νῦν μὲν οὐδείϲ, αὔριον δ’ ὑπέρμεγαϲ, ὦ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ταγὲ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων. O blessed one! O rich one! O you who are nothing now but will be super great tomorrow! O captain of blessed Athens! (Ar. Eq. 157 9)

The series of four asyndetic vocative addresses, the first of which again involves the term μακάριοϲ, contributes to a highly elevated style, comparable to the repeated addresses found in hymns. ⁷⁶ Based on Pi. P. 5.20 and 46, De Heer (1969) 31 assumes that μακάριοϲ is weaker in meaning than μάκαρ. This, however, is not supported by the evidence; see Currie (2005) 229 n. 28. ⁷⁷ Cf. Ach. 665, Ec. 882, Eq. 559, 586, 591, Lys. 1263, 1271, Ra. 395, 1306, Th. 319, 1137. See also Willi (2003) 17 with n. 38, 19 n. 50. Cf. also e.g. Sapph. frr. 2.1, 121, Alc. fr. 34.1, Pi. fr. 75.1, Herod. 4.11. ⁷⁸ See above, p. 152 on E. IA 973 and Kleinknecht (1937a) 79 n. 1, Horn (1970) 46, 51, Given (2009) 121 2.

Divine Power in Tragedy

157

Moreover, the phrase ὦ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ταγὲ τῶν εὐδαιμόνων might contain a specific allusion to the description of Zeus as ταγὸϲ μακάρων, ‘captain of the blessed gods’, in Pseudo-Aeschylus’ Prometheus Vinctus (96).⁷⁹ Another example is found in Acharnenses, when Dicaeopolis appeals to Euripides with the following address:⁸⁰ 405

Εὐριπίδη, Εὐριπίδιον, ὑπάκουϲον, εἴπερ πώποτ’ ἀνθρώπων τινί Δικαιόπολιϲ καλεῖ ϲε Χολλήιδηϲ, ἐγώ.

Euripides, Euripidikins, answer me, if ever you answered any man. Dicaeo polis of Cholleidae calls you. (Ar. Ach. 404 6)

Here, the double address recalls similar addresses in tragedy, where they are used to invoke deities,⁸¹ though the diminutive in the second vocative is humorous. The imperative ὑπάκουϲον is reminiscent of imperatives of the same verb in prayers throughout Aristophanes’ plays and elsewhere.⁸² The phrase εἴπερ πώποτ’ unmistakably adopts an argument (da quia dedisti) that is fundamental to prayer.⁸³ Moreover, the peculiar phrase ἀνθρώπων τινί seems to place Euripides in contrast to ordinary humanity. Finally, καλεῖ ϲε matches hymnic expressions designed to identify the worshipper.⁸⁴ Similar language is found later in Acharnenses, when Lamachus is summoned by the semichorus. Lamachus does not act as a helper figure for the plan conceived by Dicaeopolis, but as its opponent.

⁷⁹ However, ταγόϲ denotes the human holder of a military office at A. A. 110, Pers. 23, 324, 480, S. Ant. 1057, E. IA 269. ⁸⁰ On this passage, see also Kleinknecht (1937a) 79, Horn (1970) 46, 51, Olson (2002) 179 on 405 6, Willi (2003) 28 n. 82 (cautiously). ⁸¹ Cf. e.g. S. Aj. 694 ἰὼ ἰὼ Πὰν Πάν, ‘Io, Io, Pan, Pan’, E. Ba. 582 4 ἰὼ ἰὼ δέϲποτα δέϲποτα, | μόλε νυν ἁμέτερον ἐϲ | θίαϲον ὦ Βρόμιε Βρόμιε, ‘Io, Io, lord, lord, come now to our thiasus, O Bromius Bromius.’ ⁸² Cf. Lys. 878, Nu. 274, Pax 785. See also Dover (1968) 134 on Nu. 274, Olson (2002) 179 ad loc., Willi (2003) 28 with n. 82 (cautiously). At E. Alc. 400, ὑπάκουϲον is used in a supplicatory appeal. In general, see also Pulleyn (1997) 134 6. ⁸³ On εἴ ποτε in general, see Bremer (1981) 196, Race (1982) 8 14, Pulleyn (1997) 16 38, Depew (2000) 61 3, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.50 2. On εἴ ποτε and similar strategies in Aristophanes, cf. Eq. 591 4, Nu. 356 7 with Dover (1968) 148 ad loc., and Th. 1157 8. ⁸⁴ Cf. Lys. 356 7, Nu. 564 5, Th. 1145 6. See also Willi (2003) 17 with n. 39.

158

Divine Power in Tragedy

However, during the debate between the two semichoruses about Dicaeopolis’ proposal, he is invoked by the opposing semichorus as their helper:⁸⁵ ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ βλέπων ἀϲτραπάϲ, βοήθηϲον, ὦ γοργολόφα, φανείϲ, ἰὼ Λάμαχ’, ὦ φίλ’, ὦ φυλέτα. Io Lamachus! O you whose eyes shoot lightning, help us! O you with the Gorgon crest, appear! Io Lamachus, O dear friend, O fellow tribesman. (Ar. Ach. 566 8)

The dochmiac metre and the repeated interjection ἰώ before the vocatives (566, 568) indicate that this ode is modelled particularly closely on agitated calls for assistance in tragedy.⁸⁶ At the same time, adaptation of religious register is evident. In tragedy, ἰώ before a vocative constitutes a solemn form of invocation that is directed almost exclusively at divine addressees.⁸⁷ This passage presents one of the rare cases where ἰώ precedes an address to mortals. The participle extensions to the vocatives, βλέπων (566) and φανείϲ (567), recall what Norden described as Partizipialstil of hymnic invocations.⁸⁸ The expression βλέπων ἀϲτραπάϲ presupposes similar descriptions in epic and tragedy of fierce monsters or berserk warriors.⁸⁹ The form of the verb φαίνεϲθαι evokes once again divine epiphanies.⁹⁰ The imperative βοήθηϲον (567) is found frequently in prayers, though it is not exclusive to them.⁹¹ γοργολόφα is an epithet of Athena at Equites 1181.⁹² In Thesmophoriazusae, Euripides requires the help of Agathon. In this capacity, Agathon is summoned by his servant in highly evocative terms: ⁸⁵ On this passage, see also Kleinknecht (1937a) 77 9, Dover (1968) 125 on Nu. 219, Rau (1967) 40 2, Horn (1970) 46 7, Olson (2002) 221 on 566 7, Given (2009) 118. ⁸⁶ On dochmiacs, see above, p. 144 on A. Supp. 348 437. On dochmiacs as an indicator of paratragedy, see esp. L. Parker (1997) 67. ⁸⁷ See Biraud (2010) 133 4, Nordgren (2015) 227. On ἰώ as a variation of the paeanic epiphthegma ἰή, see Käppel (1992) 225 with n. 79. ⁸⁸ See Norden (1913) 166 8. ⁸⁹ See LfgrE s.v. δέρκομαι, 251.59 76. For similar expressions in Aristophanes, see Taillardat (1962) 186 93. ⁹⁰ See above, p. 152 on E. IA 973. ⁹¹ See Willi (2003) 27 8. ⁹² See Van Leeuwen (1901) 202 ad loc., Anderson (1995) 26 7.

Divine Power in Tragedy 40

45

159

εὔφημοϲ πᾶϲ ἔϲτω λαόϲ, ϲτόμα ϲυγκλήιϲαϲ ἐπιδημεῖ γὰρ θίαϲοϲ Μουϲῶν ἔνδον μελάθρων τῶν δεϲποϲύνων μελοποιῶν. ἐχέτω δὲ πνοὰϲ νήνεμοϲ αἰθήρ, κῦμά τε πόντου μὴ κελαδείτω γλαυκόν . . .

Let the entire people observe holy silence, shutting their mouth. For in this lordly house lives the swarm of the Muses making songs. The air may calmly hold its blasts, the wave of the grey sea shall not roar . . . (Ar. Th. 39 45)

This introduction involves many of the elements encountered already in discussions of other passages.⁹³ The call for εὐφημία (39) recalls an established beginning of cultic ritual.⁹⁴ The reason supplied with γάρ (40), following the initial prompt to the ‘congregation’, evokes a well-known model of descriptions of epiphany.⁹⁵ According to this model, this reason is usually followed by a palpable change in nature in response to the epiphany. Here, this element is adopted in the form of a prompt to nature to respond to the impending epiphany (43–5). After the interruptions made by Euripides and his companion, these prompts continue in lines 46–8. After another interruption, the real reason for these prompts is provided, again introduced with γάρ: 50

μέλλει γὰρ ὁ καλλιεπὴϲ Ἀγάθων πρόμοϲ ἡμέτεροϲ . . .

For Agathon, elegant in diction, our master, is about to . . . (Ar. Th. 49 50)

Though Agathon’s servant is again interrupted before he can utter the infinitive after μέλλει, there can be little doubt that this infinitive would be either ἥκειν, ‘to come’, or φαίνεϲθαι, ‘to appear’. Either infinitive would enhance the impression of an impending divine epiphany.⁹⁶ In addition to these elements, the anapaestic dimeters,

⁹³ See Horn (1970) 95 7, Kugelmeier (1996) 272, Sommerstein (1994) 160 on 39, Austin and Olson (2004) 65 on 39 57, Given (2009) 117. ⁹⁴ See above, pp. 47 8 on Ar. Av. 1719. See also Kleinknecht (1937a) 21 n. 4, 151 n. 1, Kleinknecht (1939) 59. ⁹⁵ See above, p. 47 on Ar. Av. 1709. ⁹⁶ On verbs of coming in epiphanies, see Petridou (2015) 3.

160

Divine Power in Tragedy

which Aristophanes employs predominantly in prayers, strengthen the religious tone of the servant’s utterance.⁹⁷ The elevated diction of all these passages, and the metrical design of some, identifies tragedy as a particular target of parody.⁹⁸ Given the similar roles of comic helper figures and tragic supplicandi, these passages may be interpreted as a comic reflection of the tragic supplicatory vision pursued in the preceding section. The high degree of religious language that is applied in these comic passages is then significant, as it seems to presuppose that a certain approximation of helper figures to divinity is part of this vision. Comedy may be considerably more explicit in applying religious register in these contexts than tragedy. Such explicitness, however, is owed primarily to comic licence.⁹⁹ Its impact is mitigated by the comic effect created by the blatant clash of the high expectations raised by this register and the silly figures that, in each case, actually appear on-stage. Underneath these comic exaggerations, a vision of the supplicandus as a source of quasi-divine salvation can be perceived.

TRAGIC ILLUSIONS The preceding sections of this chapter focus on supplication in tragedy and a possible parallel in comedy. Tragedy also contains comparisons between individual characters and gods that are made outside this ritual context. The purpose of the following sections is to demonstrate that these comparisons have a distinctly different effect from those made within the context of supplication. A clear first example is found in Troades, in Hecuba’s address to her dead grandson Astyanax. Here, she envisages what would have awaited the prince of Troy, had the city not been conquered by the Greeks:

1170

ὦ φίλταθ’, ὥϲ ϲοι θάνατοϲ ἦλθε δυϲτυχήϲ. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἔθανεϲ πρὸ πόλεωϲ ἥβηϲ τυχὼν γάμων τε καὶ τῆϲ ἰϲοθέου τυραννίδοϲ, μακάριοϲ ἦϲθ’ ἄν, εἴ τι τῶνδε μακάριον.

⁹⁷ See Austin and Olson (2004) 65 on 39 62. ⁹⁸ See Rau (1967) 29 30 on Ach. 404 6, 100 1 on Th. 39 45, 188 on Eq. 147 9. ⁹⁹ See esp. Willi (2003) 12.

Divine Power in Tragedy

161

O dearest child, what an unfortunate death has come to you. For if you had died for the city, after reaching youth and marriage and godlike kingship, you would have been blessed, if any of these things is blessed. (E. Tr. 1167 70)

Hecuba lists the experiences that would have made Astyanax, had he survived, μακάριοϲ, which denotes, here as elsewhere, a share in divine bliss.¹⁰⁰ Among the experiences that bring such bliss, the ability to rule over others is singled out by the striking attribute ἰϲόθεοϲ, which creates an explicit analogy between power and divinity.¹⁰¹ Here, godlikeness refers to an eminent position at the top of the social hierarchy. The passage from Troades offers an instructive background for the second example, found in Polyxena’s speech in Hecuba, after the heroine realizes that her death is inescapable: 350

355

τί γάρ με δεῖ ζῆν; ἧι πατὴρ μὲν ἦν ἄναξ Φρυγῶν ἁπάντων τοῦτό μοι πρῶτον βίου. ἔπειτ̓ ἐθρέφθην ἐλπίδων καλῶν ὕπο βαϲιλεῦϲι νύμφη, ζῆλον οὐ ϲμικρὸν γάμων ἔχουϲ̓ , ὅτου δῶμ̓ ἑϲτίαν τ̓ ἀφίξομαι δέϲποινα δ̓ ἡ δύϲτηνοϲ Ἰδαίαιϲιν ἦ, γυναιξὶ παρθένοιϲ τ̓ ἀπόβλεπτοϲ μέτα, ἴϲη θεοῖϲι πλὴν τὸ κατθανεῖν μόνον. νῦν δ̓ εἰμὶ δούλη. . . .

For why should I live? My father was lord of all the Phrygians. Such was the beginning of my life. Afterwards, I was nourished with great hopes as a bride for kings, causing no small rivalry for my hand, to what house and hearth I shall come. I, the miserable one, was the lady of the Idaeans, conspicuous among the women and maides, like the gods except alone for dying. Now I am a slave. (E. Hec. 349 57)

The phrase ἴϲη θεοῖϲι πλὴν τὸ κατθανεῖν μόνον (356) contains an explicit comparison with the gods. As in the passage from Troades, the qualities that make life appear as godlike are concerned with social standing, wealth, and freedom. Unlike the passage from Troades, however, Polyxena’s statement is not concerned with the

¹⁰⁰ See above, p. 156 on Ar. Eq. 147. ¹⁰¹ Socrates seems to have this passage in mind when he expels Euripides, and with him all tragedians, from the republic for praising dictatorship (Pl. R. 8 568a b).

162

Divine Power in Tragedy

state of a hypothetical future, but with her past. Polyxena speaks at the height of her misery, condemned to death and even prevented from supplicating for her life (cf. 342–4). The reversal of her fortune is expressed in the clashing contrast between the long description of her past privileges (349–56) and the brief and highly effective ‘now I am a slave’ (357).¹⁰² Having reached the absolute low point of the human social order, Polyxena perceives her past in similarly absolute terms. The comparison of her past life with that of the gods is therefore informed by a contrast with slavery, vulnerability, and impotence. This stark contrast engenders a binary perspective between two polar opposites. In this way, the statement contributes effectively to the play’s wider interest in the dynamics of slavery and freedom.¹⁰³ Two particular features of this comparison deserve closer attention. The first feature is the form ἀφίξομαι in line 353. As a simple future (‘I will come’), this form would seem to imply that a future in which Polyxena finds a suitable husband is still attainable. The context, however, indicates that such a future has been rendered impossible by the sack of Troy. Hence, a future unreal condition (‘I would have come’) would be expected.¹⁰⁴ This remarkable use of tense seems to indicate that Polyxena does not speak from her present point of view but from that of her past. This is confirmed by the second feature, which concerns the restriction attached to the characterization of her past godlike life (356 πλὴν τὸ κατθανεῖν μόνον, ‘except alone for dying’). In Polyxena’s present situation, this restriction seems incomplete. Her own reversal of fortune demonstrates dramatically that she is different from the gods not only in her mortality but also in her inability to preserve the godlike happiness that she once experienced. As passages discussed in previous chapters of this book show, archaic and classical literature frequently emphasizes humanity’s incapacity

¹⁰² Cf. also Tecmessa’s identical statement at S. Aj. 485 9. Sexual connotations may be relevant as well, since in epic, where forms of δοῦλοϲ are rare, δούλη seems to mean ‘concubine’; see LfgrE s.v. δούλη, 341.11 15. ¹⁰³ Cf. e.g. Hecuba’s summary at 863 7. On slavery and freedom as central themes of Hecuba, see Daitz (1971) esp. 217, Matthiessen (2010) 41 2. ¹⁰⁴ See also Garzya (1955) 63, Biehl (1985) 259, Matthiessen (2010) 301 ad loc. Where the point of reference is the future, from the speaker’s present point of view, imperfect or aorist with ἄν are usually found; see Kühner Gerth §393.6. Cf. also E. Tr. 1168 70 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἔθανεϲ . . . μακάριοϲ ἦϲθ’ ἄν (see above, p. 160). It is a shortcoming of Lloyd (2007) not to discuss the passage from Hecuba.

Divine Power in Tragedy

163

to prolong present happiness. The fact that Polyxena does not draw this moral from her own experience might indicate that she is not speaking from a point of view in which these events have yet occurred. In their combination, these two features contribute to a depiction of Polyxena who, led by powerfully emotive recollections, is transported back in time and assumes the perspective that she then had as the promising princess of Troy. The fact that the comparison with the gods is part of this perspective affects the characterization of her past life in a significant way. Polyxena may have thought that she was like a goddess in all but her mortality. Through her reversal, however, this supposed likeness is unmasked as an illusion. The third example is found in the second part of the prologue of Euripides’ Hippolytus. After Hippolytus’ prayer to Artemis, a servant addresses his master with the following sentence: ἄναξ, θεοὺϲ γὰρ δεϲπόταϲ καλεῖν χρεών, ἆρ’ ἄν τί μου δέξαιο βουλεύϲαντοϲ εὖ; Lord for one needs to address one’s masters as gods will you listen to a well meant word from me? (E. Hipp. 88 9)

The interpretation of this sentence depends on the controversial question of whether δεϲπόταϲ should be considered the direct object to καλεῖν and θεούϲ its predicate, as it is translated above, or vice versa as ‘Lord—for one must address (only) the gods as masters . . .’¹⁰⁵ As is often observed, δεϲπότηϲ is the normal address of a slave to his master and can, by analogy, also be addressed to deities.¹⁰⁶ ἄναξ, in turn, can be addressed to human kings in poetry, but it is addressed distinctly more frequently, and in prose exclusively, to deities.¹⁰⁷ In the light of this usage, it seems inconceivable that the servant should address Hippolytus with a term that would normally be applied to a deity (ἄναξ) and explain (γάρ) this unusual address by restricting to the gods the term that he would normally apply to his master (δεϲπότηϲ). The opposite interpretation seems distinctly more likely.

¹⁰⁵ For the former interpretation, see West (1965), West (1966b), West (1980) 10 11, Kovacs (1980) 136 7. For the latter, see Barrett (1964) 176 ad loc., Glucker (1966), Diggle (1967), Dickey (1996) 102 3. ¹⁰⁶ See Barrett (1964) 176 ad loc., Dickey (1996) 95 7, Dickie (2001) 3 5. ¹⁰⁷ See LfgrE s.v. ἄναξ, 784.37 785.75 for gods. See LfgrE s.v. ἄναξ, 785.75 787.6 for humans. See also Dickey (1996) 101 2.

164

Divine Power in Tragedy

The servant applies to Hippolytus a term usually applied to gods and produces an explanation for this choice of word that is coherent with regular usage. Similar expressions in other plays further support the argument that θεούϲ is in fact the predicate to δεϲπόταϲ. In Helena, for instance, when Helen first sees but not yet recognizes Menelaus, she voices her surprise with the following words: ὦ θεοί θεὸϲ γὰρ καὶ τὸ γιγνώϲκειν φίλουϲ. O gods! For recognizing one’s friends is also a god. (E. Hel. 560)

As in Hippolytus, an unusual vocative (ὦ θεοί) is followed by a statement that explains (γάρ) the choice of the vocative. θεόϲ occurs first, as in Hippolytus, and is here unequivocally the predicate to the subject τὸ γιγνώϲκειν φίλουϲ. According to this interpretation, the servant addresses Hippolytus as a god. As a prelude to the cautious criticism that the servant advances in the ensuing interaction, this address serves, first and foremost, as a means of appeasement, intended to mitigate what might be perceived by Hippolytus as impertinence. Moreover, since the servant’s statement is cast as a general rule (‘all servants must call their masters gods’), it appears to be targeted not at certain aspects of the particular relationship between him and Hippolytus but at the dichotomy of slave and master in general. In this context, an analogy might be expected, according to which a free master is to a slave what a god is to man generally. This analogy would leave the fundamental difference between human masters and gods intact. The servant, however, does not explicitly express such an analogy but simply equates his master with divinity. The reason for such imprecision is likely to be psychological in nature. For the servant, who perceives his master’s enormous liberties from the opposite end of the social scale and feels his own distance from them, the boundaries between these privileges and those of a god might appear blurred. The servant’s statement contributes effectively to the development of the central themes of the play across the prologue. The address of Hippolytus as a god corresponds to Hippolytus’ preceding selfcharacterization as a chosen intimate of Artemis, who is separated from ordinary mortality (84–6, esp. 84 μόνωι γάρ ἐϲτι τοῦτ’ ἐμοὶ γέραϲ βροτῶν, ‘I alone of all mortals have this privilege’). To ancient audiences and modern readers, however, Hippolytus’ confidence in his own superhuman status is bound to cause unease, particularly given

Divine Power in Tragedy

165

Aphrodite’s objection, already in the first part of the prologue, to his ‘friendship more than mortal’ (19 μείζω βροτείαϲ ὁμιλίαϲ).¹⁰⁸ Hippolytus’ royal powers may seem to approximate to divinity to his servants, and he may think of himself as more than mortal for his friendship with Artemis. Ultimately, however, neither conceit is able to protect him from the intervention of a real deity, who is here portrayed in strikingly human terms.¹⁰⁹ In this way, the initial impression of Hippolytus’ godlikeness is systematically overturned and unmasked as an illusion, based on a wrong understanding of true power and safety. A fourth example comes from the ode with which the chorus welcome the arrival of Clytemnestra and Iphigenia in Euripides’ Iphigenia Aulidensis: 590

595

ἰὼ ἰώ μεγάλαι μεγάλων ͜ εὐδαιμονίαι τὴν τοῦ βαϲιλέωϲ ἴδετ̓ Ἰφιγένειαν, ἄναϲϲαν ἐμήν, τὴν Τυνδάρεω τε Κλυταιμήϲτραν, ὡϲ ἐκ μεγάλων ἐβλαϲτήκαϲ̓ ἐπί τ̓ εὐμήκειϲ ἥκουϲι τύχαϲ. θεοί γ̓ οἱ κρείϲϲουϲ οἵ τ̓ ὀλβοφόροι τοῖϲ οὐκ εὐδαίμοϲι θνητῶν.

Io, Io! Great happiness attends the great. See Iphigenia, daughter of a king, my mistress, and Clytemnestra, daughter of Tyndareus. How they have sprouted from great ancestors! They have come to great fortunes. To those less fortunate among mortals, the more powerful and wealthy ones are gods. (E. IA 590 7)

This passage presents a number of difficulties. To many scholars, the cheerful reception of Clytemnestra and Iphigenia seems inappropriate in the light of the chorus’ knowledge of Agamemnon’s scheme. Moreover, the following passage of lines 598–606 contains a second welcoming of the royal pair, which is redundant after lines 590–7. ¹⁰⁸ It is debated whether Hippolytus’ demeanour in the prologue displays a degree of arrogance sufficient to justify Aphrodite’s vengeance. See e.g. Barrett (1964) 172 3, Dimock (1977), Griffin (1990), Mills (2002) 64 77, all of whom detect arrogance. A more sympathetic approach is attempted by Kovacs (1980) 133 7. ¹⁰⁹ An implicit comparison with human pettiness is found already in line 7 ἔνεϲτι γὰρ δὴ κἀν θεῶν γένει τόδε, ‘For this is also found in the race of the gods.’ Artemis repeatedly criticizes Aphrodite’s ungodly behaviour (e.g. 1328, 1400, 1402). In suc cumbing to vengeance, Aphrodite also defies the servant’s postulate that ‘gods ought to be wiser than mortals’ (120 ϲοφωτέρουϲ γὰρ χρὴ βροτῶν εἶναι θεούϲ).

166

Divine Power in Tragedy

Hence, some editors consider lines 590–7 an interpolation, made perhaps not too long after Euripides’ death by the so-called ‘reviser’.¹¹⁰ This, however, might not be necessary. Since Agamemnon orders the chorus to keep silent about his scheme in line 542,¹¹¹ it is no surprise that their reception does not reflect any knowledge of it. In fact, lines 598–606 contain a considerable number of substantial difficulties, which renders a deletion of the later passage more attractive.¹¹² Most recent editors therefore retain lines 590–7 and suggest deletion of lines 598–606.¹¹³ A third difficulty of this passage is found in the reference to Clytemnestra as ‘my queen’ (592), which may be hard to accept from a chorus of Euboean woman. Hence, some editors assume that the song is not sung by the main chorus but by a secondary chorus, perhaps of Argive soldiers forming the escort of the royal pair.¹¹⁴ However, it is possible that this problem has perhaps been overstated.¹¹⁵ Moreover, a metrical difficulty of line 592 can be avoided if ἐμήν is deleted.¹¹⁶ The argument that this song is designed to be sung by the main chorus gains further support from internal features. As the exclamation ἰὼ ἰώ and the repeated emphasis on fortune and wealth indicate, the chorus are surprised on seeing Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive in their royal splendour.¹¹⁷ Such surprise, however, is conceivable ¹¹⁰ W. Dindorf, in his edition of Euripides, is the first to suspect the passage. See also Page (1934) 160, Barrett (1964) 368 n. 1 on E. Hipp. 1102 50, Taplin (1977) 77. Diggle prints it as spurious. ¹¹¹ The line is suspected by Diggle, though there appears to be little basis for deleting it. ¹¹² See the summaries in Stockert (1992) 2.378 9 and Collard and Morwoord (2017) 2.399. ¹¹³ See also Lammers (1931) 103 4. Lines 590 7 are printed as authentic by Günther, Stockert, Collard Morwood. See also Matthiesen (1999) 399. ¹¹⁴ See Murray in app., Wilamowitz (1919) 52 3 = (1962) 290 1, Page (1934) 160, Stockert (1992) 2.376 7 on 590 7. ¹¹⁵ See also Firnhaber (1841) 138 on 586 7, Matthiesen (1999) 399. At 1619, the chorus refer to Agamemnon as ἄναξ, though the entire section of lines 1510 1629 is often treated as suspect. ¹¹⁶ Caesura between the expected first and second anapaestic metra is not observed (Ἰφιγένει | αν). This, however, is not unparalleled; see West (1982) 95. Deletion of ἐμήν would result in a paroemiac. Deletion is suggested by Bothe in app., Hermann (1847/8) 2.7, Hartung in app., Wecklein in app., Lammers (1931) 103 4. Ennius’ version of the play, which seems to feature a chorus of soldiers (cf. Enn. fr. 84 Schauer Manuwald), is sometimes cited as evidence for a secondary chorus. How ever, Skutsch (1953) 197 201 = (1968) 160 5 argues that Sophocles’ lost Iphigenia might be Ennius’ actual model. ¹¹⁷ On surprise conveyed in ἰώ, see Biraud (2010) 133 with e.g. Σ S. Aj. 1491.

Divine Power in Tragedy

167

only if the chorus welcome the royal pair, not if they accompany them. With its emphasis on seeing (592 ἴδετ’) and arrival (595 ἥκουϲι),¹¹⁸ this even seems to adapt descriptions of divine epiphanies. The grand entry on the horse-drawn carriage (πωλικὸϲ ὄχοϲ/ὄχημα at 599, 610, 616, 619–20, 623) might seem sufficient to evoke an epiphany.¹¹⁹ However, such an adaptation would require Clytemnestra and Iphigenia to arrive in front of, not alongside, the chorus. In the context of this quasi-divine epiphany, the chorus also seem to advance a direct comparison with the gods in lines 596–7. The meaning of this sentence is contested. Three points of controversy can be identified. First, θεοί might be the subject of the sentence and οἱ κρείϲϲουϲ οἵ τ̓ ὀλβοφόροι its predicate (‘Gods are more powerful and wealthy’), or vice versa (‘The more powerful and wealthy ones are gods’). Second, the otherwise unattested adjective ὀλβοφόροϲ could mean either ‘bestowing wealth’ or ‘possessing wealth’.¹²⁰ Third, the dative τοῖϲ οὐκ εὐδαίμοϲι θνητῶν might refer either to those who receive ὄλβοϲ from οἱ ὀλβοφόροι, if the adjective is interpreted as ‘bestowing wealth’, or to those to whom the sentiment expressed in this sentence is subjectively valid.¹²¹ Regarding the first issue, the direct article before κρείϲϲουϲ and ὀλβοφόροι, and its absence before θεοί, strongly suggests that οἱ κρείϲϲουϲ οἵ τ̓ ὀλβοφόροι is the subject of the sentence and θεοί the predicate.¹²² This affects the third issue regarding the dative τοῖϲ οὐκ εὐδαίμοϲι θνητῶν, since comparable predications of humans as gods are frequently accompanied by datives restricting the validity of the equation.¹²³ Without such a restriction, the statement here would sound excessively broad and absolute. Consequently, regarding the second issue, ‘possessing wealth’ emerges as the preferable translation of ὀλβοφόροϲ.

¹¹⁸ See above, pp. 41 3 on Sapph. fr. 111.5 and Catul. 61.77. ¹¹⁹ See also Taplin (1977) 303, Currie (2005) 139 40. ¹²⁰ For ‘bestowing wealth’, see e.g. LSJ s.v. For ‘possessing wealth’, see e.g. England (1891) 63 ad loc. Parallel formations involving φόροϲ suggest that both translations are viable. χρυϲοφόροϲ refers to a neck that ‘has’ gold at E. Hec. 152, while πλουτοφόροϲ refers to a goat that bestows wealth on its owner at Com.Adesp. fr. 708 Kassel Austin. ¹²¹ For the dative as the recipient, see e.g. Firnhaber (1841) 138 9 on 592. See also the (rather arbitrary) conjecture of Hermann θεοί τοι κρείϲϲουϲ, οἵτ’ ὀλβοφόροι | ⟨τοῖϲ εὐδαίμοϲι⟩ | τοῖϲ τ’ οὐκ εὐδαίμοϲι θνατῶν, ‘The gods are stronger and give wealth to mortals, fortunate and unfortunate alike.’ ¹²² On direct articles before subjects, see Kühner Gerth §461.1 n. 3. ¹²³ See Collard and Morwood (2017) 2.400 ad loc. and Currie (2005) 188 9 with A. Pers. 711, Ar. Av. 722 3, Emped. VS 31 F112.4 5, Verg. E. 1.6 8.

168

Divine Power in Tragedy

On this interpretation, the chorus’ statement offers an explanation for their impression of a quasi-divine epiphany. To the less fortunate chorus, Clytemnestra and Iphigenia appear, in their royal splendour, to approximate to the gods. Whether intended by the chorus or not, this statement contains intense dramatic irony for ancient audiences and modern readers, who are aware of the fate that awaits Iphigenia. With this awareness, terms like ὄλβιοϲ and εὐδαίμων convey a dark sense of foreboding, since they denote not only financial prosperity but also a general state of good fortune. For Clytemnestra and Iphigenia, this fortune is about to be overturned drastically. Wealth may make humans appear godlike. However, this appearance is identified as an illusion, since wealth offers no protection from divine punishment.¹²⁴ After Agamemnon’s plan is revealed, the chorus’ initial admiration of the queen and princess turns into outright pity: ἐγὼ μὲν οἰκτίρω ϲε ϲυμφορᾶϲ κακῆϲ τυχοῦϲαν, οἵαϲ μήποτ’ ὤφελεϲ τυχεῖν. I pity you for your evil fate, with which you should never have met. (E. IA 1336 7)

In a previous section of this chapter, a passage of Iphigenia Aulidensis (lines 911–16) is examined, where Clytemnestra, on learning about Agamemnon’s true intentions, supplicates Achilles and likens him to a god. This shifting of attributions as ‘godlike’ over the course of the play emerges as a powerful indicator of one of the play’s fundamental truths. To the weak, powerful humans may appear to be like gods. However, when a real deity like Artemis exercises her powers, the qualities that give rise to this impression prove utterly ineffectual.

ILLUSIONS INDUCED In all of the four passages considered in the preceding section, comparisons between individual characters and divinity convey a certain degree of ignorance, on the part of the characters making the comparisons, as to the limits of human power and the instability ¹²⁴ See esp. Hdt. 1.30 2, partially quoted above, p. 4. This subtlety is lost if ὀλβοφόροϲ is translated as ‘bestowing wealth’.

Divine Power in Tragedy

169

of their fortune. The illusion of godlike power, to which these characters are subjected, is encountered, in a more pronounced way, in passages where characters liken other characters to gods in an attempt to manipulate them. Evidently, neither the servant in Hippolytus nor the chorus in Iphigenia Aulidensis have ulterior motives in comparing their superiors to gods. From their perspectives, these comparisons are harmless, if not decidedly laudatory, and a sense of foreboding is aroused only in the audiences resulting from their knowledge of the plot. This is different in Agamemnon’s arrival in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon and Clytemnestra’s arrival in Euripides’ Electra. These two scenes lend themselves to comparison as they reveal striking similarities. In both cases, a royal person arrives at a house on a carriage, is welcomed exuberantly, lured into the house, and murdered. In fact, the scene in Agamemnon almost certainly served as a model for the one in Electra, and Euripides deploys a certain degree of irony in portraying Clytemnestra as the victim of the very scheme that she contrives for Agamemnon in Aeschylus’ play.¹²⁵ Comparisons with gods feature in both passages and contribute decisively to the intentions of the murderers. Though Agamemnon is the earlier play, Electra offers a more suitable starting point. After Orestes manages to kill Aegisthus, Electra invites Clytemnestra into her house, where the two siblings intend to kill her. Clytemnestra enters the stage between lines 987 and 988. She does so magnificently, mounted on a carriage and followed by a retinue of luxuriously adorned slave girls, perhaps on a separate carriage.¹²⁶ The chorus respond to this splendid appearance with the following address:

990

ἰὼ ⟨ἰώ⟩,¹²⁷ βαϲίλεια γύναι χθονὸϲ Ἀργείαϲ, παῖ Τυνδάρεω, καὶ τοῖν ἀγαθοῖν ξύγγονε κούροιν Διόϲ, οἳ φλογερὰν αἰθέῤ ἐν ἄϲτροιϲ

¹²⁵ See Cropp (2013) 214 on E. El. 988 97. ¹²⁶ Clytemnestra’s command to the slave girls in lines 998 9 (ἔκβητ’ ἀπήνηϲ, Τρωιάδεϲ, χειρὸϲ δ’ ἐμῆϲ | λάβεϲθ’, ἵν’ ἔξω τοῦδ’ ὄχου ϲτήϲω πόδα, ‘Alight from the cart, Trojan girls, and take my hand, so that I may place my foot from this carriage!’) could denote two different carriages; see Cropp (2013) 214 on 988 97. On the attire of Clytemnestra and the slave girls, cf. 315 18, 966, 1139 40. ¹²⁷ A single ἰώ is preserved in mss. L (Laur. Pl. 32.2) and P (Laur. Conv. Soppr. 172), which Triclinius deletes. Wilamowitz (1875) 69 inserts a second ἰώ to balance παῖ Τυνδάρεω (989).

170

995

Divine Power in Tragedy ναίουϲι, βροτῶν ἐν ἁλὸϲ ῥοθίοιϲ τιμὰϲ ϲωτῆραϲ ἔχοντεϲ χαῖρε, ϲεβίζω ϲ̓ ἴϲα καὶ μάκαραϲ πλούτου μεγάληϲ τ̓ εὐδαιμονίαϲ. τὰϲ ϲὰϲ δὲ τύχαϲ θεραπεύεϲθαι καιρόϲ, ⟨πότνἰ ⟩¹²⁸ ὦ βαϲίλεια.

Io, Io! Queen of the Argive land, daughter of Tyndareus, and sister to the two good sons of Zeus who live in the fiery heaven among the stars, who are worshipped by mortals as saviours in the rushing of the sea! Hail you, I worship you like the blessed gods for your wealth and great fortune. It is appropriate, O queen, to worship your fate. (E. El. 988 97)

This song reveals many similarities with the song accompanying the entry of Clytemnestra and Iphigenia in Iphigenia Aulidensis discussed above. Here, too, the chorus hail Clytemnestra with ἰώ, perhaps reduplicated, and address her in solemn anapaests.¹²⁹ The general tone is also one that recalls hymnic invocations.¹³⁰ ἰώ precedes the vocative, which is elsewhere found in calls for divine assistance.¹³¹ A series of asyndetic vocatives indicate Clytemnestra’s sphere of power (988 βαϲίλεια γύναι χθονὸϲ Ἀργείαϲ), genealogy (989 παῖ Τυνδάρεω), and relation to other ‘companion’ deities (990–1 ξύγγονε κούροιν | Διόϲ). All of these elements are also found in hymns.¹³² The imperative χαῖρε (994), has of course a very strong hymnic force.¹³³ While these lines implicitly approximate Clytemnestra to the gods, the sentence of lines 994–5 contains a direct likening of Clytemnestra to a goddess. Especially striking in this comparison is the use of the ¹²⁸ The mss. reading καιρόϲ, ὦ βαϲίλεια produces a pherecratean, which seems out of place in a neatly anapaestic environment. Nauck proposes καιρόϲ. ⟨χαῖρ’⟩, ὦ βαϲίλεια, which meets with the approval of Denniston (1939) 173 on 996 7. Camper reads καιρὸϲ ⟨παίδοϲ,⟩ βαϲίλεια, thus construing τὰϲ ϲὰϲ in 996 as genitives. See, however, L. Parker (1958) 58, who suggests καιρόϲ, ⟨πότνι’⟩ ὦ βαϲίλεια. ¹²⁹ On anapaest, cf. also A. A. 783 809, Pers. 150 4, E. Or. 348 55, Tr. 572, [E.] Rh. 380 7. See Taplin (1977) 74 5, L. Parker (1997) 56 7. ¹³⁰ Characteristically, the verdict of Cropp (1988) 167 ad loc., that ‘[t]hese con ventions need not be confused with those of the religious cult hymn’, is not repeated in the second edition, i.e. Cropp (2013) 214 ad loc. ¹³¹ See above, p. 158 on Ar. Ach. 566 8. ¹³² On genealogy, see above, p. 45 on E. fr. 781.15 = Phaëth. 228. On spheres of power, see Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.55. On ‘companion deities’, see Fraenkel (1957) 198 n. 2 on Hor. C. 1.30, Fraenkel (1962) 193 5 = (1975) 34, Horn (1970) 59 n. 94, Slater (1988) 59, Furley and Bremer (2001) 1.56. ¹³³ See above, pp. 40 1.

Divine Power in Tragedy

171

verb ϲεβίζειν, which frequently refers to the worship of gods and heroes.¹³⁴ The theme of worshipping Clytemnestra seems to be continued in the following sentence with the verb θεραπεύειν (996), which can refer to the worship of the gods.¹³⁵ By presenting their relationship with Clytemnestra in terms reminiscent of the relationship between worshipper and deity, the chorus assume a highly subservient position towards their queen. Electra assumes a similar position in the ensuing agon with her mother: 1005

1010

Ἠλ. οὔκουν ἐγώ (δούλη γὰρ ἐκβεβλημένη δόμων πατρώιων δυϲτυχεῖϲ οἰκῶ δόμουϲ) μῆτερ, λάβωμαι μακαρίαϲ τῆϲ ϲῆϲ χερόϲ; Κλ. δοῦλαι πάρειϲιν αἵδε μὴ ϲύ μοι πόνει. Ἠλ. τί δ̓ ; αἰχμάλωτόν τοί μ̓ ἀπώικιϲαϲ δόμων, ἡιρημένων δὲ δωμάτων ἡιρήμεθα, ὡϲ αἵδε, πατρὸϲ ὀρφανοὶ λελειμμένοι.

El. Since I, cast out of my father’s house, live as a slave in miserable dwellings, shall I take your blessed hand, mother? Cl. I have these slaves for that. Do not worry on my account. El. But why not? As a captive you have abandoned me from home, and since my home is destroyed, I too am destroyed, like these slaves here left without a father. (E. El. 1004 10)

In Electra’s address, the qualification of Clytemnestra’s hand as ‘blessed’ (1006 μακαρίαϲ) recalls the comparison made by the chorus ‘like the blessed gods’ (994 ἴϲα καὶ μάκαραϲ). In addition to echoing the rhetoric of worship developed by the chorus, Electra also strains to depict her relationship with her mother as one between slave and master. Before offering to help Clytemnestra alight from the carriage, she inserts a parenthesis stating her servile position (1004–5 δούλη). Clytemnestra, however, rejects Electra’s self-presentation as a slave, pointing to the actual slaves that she brought and refusing emphatically to accept her daughter’s servile assistance (1007).¹³⁶ Electra, in

¹³⁴ Cf. e.g. E. El. 195 7, Pi. P. 5.80 1, A. Eu. 12, S. OC 1007, 1556 7. For ϲεβίζειν in human contexts, cf. A. A. 258, 785, E. Med. 155. ¹³⁵ Cf. E. Ba. 82, Ion 111, 183, IT 1105. For the implications of θεραπεύεϲθαι, see Denniston (1939) 173 on 996 7. ¹³⁶ See Scullion (1999/2000) 224 on the presentation of Clytemnestra as someone who is ‘sympathetically circumspect and human, and whose execution is therefore brutalizing’.

172

Divine Power in Tragedy

turn, insists, stressing the similarities between herself and these slaves (1009–10). There may be reproach and sarcasm in Electra’s words, especially since she makes her mother responsible for her being reduced to the status of a slave.¹³⁷ However, a more important effect of this characterization as a slave is that Electra conveys her inability to determine her own actions and her total dependence on her ‘mistress’ Clytemnestra. This treatment extended to Clytemnestra by the chorus and by Electra, first as a deity among worshippers and second as a mistress among slaves, is likely to be part of the scheme to kill her. The chorus are explicitly identified as accomplices in this scheme in lines 272–3. Their true intentions are manifest in the irony underlying their likening of Clytemnestra to the gods. This irony is different from the one observed in Iphigenia Aulidensis, which is employed by the chorus unwittingly and grasped by ancient audiences and modern readers only through their knowledge of the plot. Instead, the praise of the chorus in Electra appears as a conscious and careful choice of words that may seem flattering to a vain character. Ultimately, however, they foreshadow Clytemnestra’s impending downfall.¹³⁸ The emphasis on wealth (995) serves to convey this irony, since, prior to Clytemnestra’s arrival, Electra explicitly mocks dead Aegisthus for having believed that wealth could be a reliable protection from harm (938–44). While it seems evident that the reception offered to Clytemnestra by the chorus and Electra is intended to deceive, the precise target of this deception deserves closer attention. According to an influential interpretation by John Denniston, Electra and the chorus aim, by deliberately overshooting their praise, to provoke divine φθόνοϲ to assist them in their attack.¹³⁹ However, this interpretation may only account for the chorus’ quasi-hymnic address, but not for the servile self-abasement displayed by Electra. Moreover, as a deceptive strategy, this treatment of Clytemnestra would seem perfunctory and conspicuous. For the murder to succeed, Clytemnestra needs to ¹³⁷ The question τί δ’ seems especially indignant, see Denniston (1954) 173 4. ¹³⁸ See Denniston (1939) 173 on 995, 996 7 for similar irony in the terms θεραπεύεϲθαι, which can mean not only ‘to be worshipped’, but also, with a medical connotation, ‘to be treated’, ‘to be seen to’, and ἀγαθοῖν (of the Dioscuri), given that Electra later calls Clytemnestra and Helen ‘unworthy of Castor’ (1064 Κάϲτορόϲ τ’ οὐκ ἀξίω). ¹³⁹ See Denniston (1939) 172 on 988 97.

Divine Power in Tragedy

173

enter the house without even a hint of suspicion. Clytemnestra, far from being suspicious or even reasonably cautious, seems to gain in confidence from the chorus’ address and her interaction with Electra. She instructs her slaves with grandeur and pride (998–1003) and replies to Electra with regal benevolence (1007). In light of this behaviour, it seems that Clytemnestra readily accepts the role of the godlike queen and mistress offered to her by the chorus and Electra, and so unwittingly steps into a trap laid out before of her. The chorus and Electra lure her into a sense of control and safety, which leads to carelessness and, in this way, assists the attack. The comparison with the gods is of primary importance for this strategy as it encapsulates precisely this sense of invulnerability and supreme control. Using this comparison to deceive Clytemnestra, the chorus consciously apply the same illusion to which Polyxena in Hecuba, the servant in Hippolytus, and the chorus in Iphigenia Aulidensis are involuntarily subjected. Electra is instructive not only because it develops a negative notion of godlike power in the figure of Clytemnestra, but also because it provides a positive counterpart at the beginning of the play, when Electra addresses her husband:

70

ἐγώ ϲ̓ ἴϲον θεοῖϲιν ἡγοῦμαι φίλον ἐν τοῖϲ ἐμοῖϲ γὰρ οὐκ ἐνύβριϲαϲ κακοῖϲ. μεγάλη δὲ θνητοῖϲ μοῖρα ϲυμφορᾶϲ κακῆϲ ἰατρὸν εὑρεῖν, ὡϲ ἐγὼ ϲὲ λαμβάνω.

I consider you a friend equal to the gods. For in my bad situation you have not transgressed against me. For mortals, it is a great lot to find a healer for bad fortune, as I have found in you. (E. El. 67 70)

As opposed to the address to Clytemnestra, Electra speaks these words sincerely. The comparison with the gods may surprise, given that the simple and pragmatic farmer does not appear to be remarkable for anything except for his humane treatment of Electra. However, since this treatment is translated into quasi-religious categories of transgression and observance of boundaries (68 ἐνύβριϲαϲ, cf. 45 ὑβρίζειν), the farmer emerges as a supreme paradigm of moderation and self-knowledge. Like Clytemnestra, the farmer holds power over Electra, but, unlike her, he does not abuse it or give himself airs because of it. The resulting paradoxical contrast, between this godlike farmer and a (seemingly) godlike queen neatly encapsulates the play’s central discourse on power and its proper application.

174

Divine Power in Tragedy

The reception of Agamemnon in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon is in many respects similar to the welcoming of Clytemnestra in Electra. There are, however, crucial differences that render the interaction in Agamemnon more complex. Agamemnon probably enters the stage between lines 782 and 783¹⁴⁰ and he, like Clytemnestra in Electra, does so triumphantly. Based on the ancient hypothesis of the play,¹⁴¹ some scholars assume a lavish procession that may include two vehicles, rich spoils, and groups of attendants and captive slaves.¹⁴² Other scholars are more sceptical of the hypothesis and assume, perhaps rightly, a more humble entry.¹⁴³ However, at least one carriage is indicated in the text (905–6), which suggests, especially in the light of similar scenes considered so far, a certain air of grandeur.¹⁴⁴ The address with which the chorus respond to Agamemnon’s entry is also similar to that of Electra, but, since this chorus’ reverence for their king is sincere, it is decidedly more cautious:

785

ἄγε δή βαϲιλεῦ, Τροίαϲ π⟨τ⟩ολίπορθ̓ ,¹⁴⁵ Ἀτρέωϲ γένεθλον, πῶϲ ϲε προϲείπω, πῶϲ ϲε ϲεβίξω,¹⁴⁶ μήθ̓ ὑπεράραϲ μήθ̓ ὑποκάμψαϲ καιρὸν χάριτοϲ;

Come, my king, sacker of Troy, offspring of Atreus, how shall I address you, how will I worship you, so that I may neither overshoot nor fall short of the right measure of pleasure? (A. A. 783 7)

As in Iphigenia Aulidensis and Electra, the address is in elevated anapaests and recalls the register of hymns. A sublime tripartite set of vocatives encompasses Agamemnon’s reign (783 βαϲιλεῦ), ¹⁴⁰ See the discussion in Taplin (1977) 302 4. ¹⁴¹ Cf. A. A. hyp. 8 9 Ἀγαμέμνων δ’ ἐπὶ ἀπήνηϲ ἔρχεται, εἵπετο δ’ αὐτῶι ἑτέρα ἀπήνη ἔνθα ἦν τὰ λάφυρα καὶ ἡ Καϲάνδρα, ‘Agamemnon arrives on a carriage, and another carriage follows him on which are the spoils and Cassandra.’ ¹⁴² See e.g. Murray (1940) 215. On attendants, see also Ortkemper (1969) 21 6. On a second carriage, see O. Thomas (2013) 494 5. ¹⁴³ Wilamowitz (1914) 171 2 argues against the presence of attendants. See also Taplin (1977) 304 6, Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 148 9. ¹⁴⁴ See now Steiner (2010b) 23 4 on the similarities of this entry with victorious athletes returning to their cities. ¹⁴⁵ Correction by Blomfield. ¹⁴⁶ ϲεβίξω is the correction in ms. F (Laur. Pl. 31.8) for ϲεβίζω. The combination with the deliberative subjunctive προϲείπω makes this reading more likely. See also Fraenkel (1950) 2.358 9 ad loc.

Divine Power in Tragedy

175

exploit (Τροίαϲ πτολίπορθ’), and genealogy (784 Ἀτρέωϲ γένεθλον).¹⁴⁷ As in Electra, the verb ϲεβίζειν is used (785) to describe the chorus’ quasi-religious veneration of the addressee. The verb is embedded in a question about the appropriate form of praise. Such questions are encountered also in hymns and, perhaps in imitation of hymnic register, in epithalamia.¹⁴⁸ Here, however, the question is more than conventional ornament. Instead, it initiates a discourse on praise that dominates the ensuing interactions. Though the chorus’ address is sublime and borders on a style usually reserved for the gods, it appears to be developed within acceptable limits. This is acknowledged explicitly in Agamemnon’s response to the chorus: 830

τὰ δ̓ ἐϲ τὸ ϲὸν φρόνημα, μέμνημαι κλυὼν καί φημι ταὐτὰ καὶ ϲυνήγορόν μ̓ ἔχειϲ. παύροιϲ γὰρ ἀνδρῶν ἐϲτι ϲυγγενὲϲ τόδε, φίλον τὸν εὐτυχοῦντ̓ ἄνευ φθόνων ϲέβειν.

As far as your thoughts are concerned, I remember what I have heard and I say the same and I agree with you. For few men have it in their nature to revere a friend who is fortunate without envy. (A. A. 830 3)

Here, the cognate form ϲέβειν responds to the earlier form of ϲεβίζειν in the chorus’ question and confirms that the chorus have in fact found an appropriate form of praise for their returned monarch. The chorus’ acceptable form of praise and Agamemnon’s approval provide an important contrast for the following scene, in which Clytemnestra takes her turn to address Agamemnon: 895

νῦν, ταῦτα πάντα τλᾶϲ̓ ἀπενθήτωι φρενὶ λέγοιμ̓ ἂν ἄνδρα τόνδε τῶν ϲταθμῶν κύνα, ϲωτῆρα ναὸϲ πρότονον, ὑψηλῆϲ ϲτέγηϲ ϲτῦλον ποδήρη, μονογενὲϲ τέκνον πατρί,

¹⁴⁷ Steiner (2010b) 24 reaches a different interpretation by connecting this address with the epinician custom of providing the victor’s name, his father’s name, and victory. The two interpretations need not be exclusive, though ϲεβίξω points more decisively towards hymnic register. ¹⁴⁸ See above, p. 38. The question is mirrored in 1489 91, after the murder of Agamemnon: ἰὼ ἰὼ βαϲιλεῦ βαϲιλεῦ, | πῶϲ ϲε δακρύϲω; | φρενὸϲ ἐκ φιλίαϲ τί ποτ̓ εἴπω; ‘Io, Io, my king, my king, how shall I bewail you? What shall I say from my dear heart?’

176 900

905

910

Divine Power in Tragedy γαῖαν¹⁴⁹ φανεῖϲαν ναυτίλοιϲ παῤ ἐλπίδα, {κάλλιϲτον ἦμαρ εἰϲιδεῖν ἐκ χείματοϲ,}¹⁵⁰ ὁδοιπόρωι διψῶντι πηγαῖον ῥέοϲ. {τερπνὸν δὲ τἀναγκαῖον ἐκφυγεῖν ἅπαν} τοιοῖϲδε τοί νιν ἀξιῶ προϲφθέγμαϲιν, φθόνοϲ δ̓ ἀπέϲτω πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ πρὶν κακὰ ἠνειχόμεϲθα. νῦν δέ μοι, φίλον κάρα, ἔκβαιν̓ ἀπήνηϲ τῆϲδε, μὴ χαμαὶ τιθεὶϲ τὸν ϲὸν πόδ̓ , ὦναξ, Ἰλίου πορθήτορα. δμωιαί, τί μέλλεθ̓ , αἷϲ ἐπέϲταλται τέλοϲ πέδον κελεύθου ϲτορνύναι πετάϲμαϲιν; εὐθὺϲ γενέϲθω πορφυρόϲτρωτοϲ πόροϲ, εἰϲ δῶμ̓ ἄελπτον ὡϲ ἂν ἡγῆται Δίκη.

Now, having endured all this, with a heart no longer grieving, I may call this man here a watchdog for the farm, forestays saving the ship, a firmly based pillar for a high roof, a single child to a father, land appearing to sailors against all hope {a most beautiful day after a storm}, a stream of a spring for a thirsty traveller. {It is sweet to escape all necessity.} Of such appellations I consider him worthy. May envy be far. For we have already endured many evils. But now, my dear heart, descend from that carriage, but do not place your foot, which destroyed Troy, on the earth, my lord. Servants, why do you delay? To you was assigned the task to cover the ground of his path with fabrics. His passage shall immediately be spread with crimson, so that Justice may lead him into the unexpected house. (A. A. 895 911)

As lines 903–4 indicate, this address purports, on the surface, to be concerned with the same boundaries of appropriate praise that the chorus establish and of which Agamemnon approves. In fact, however, Clytemnestra’s address clearly exceeds these boundaries, both in its verbal and non-verbal gestures. In lines 896–902, she advances a sequence of no less than six (or, depending on the text, seven) laudatory images of increasing intensity, each conveying protection and quasi-divine salvation.¹⁵¹ Moreover, in lines 908–11, she orders ¹⁴⁹ γαῖαν is the attractive emendation by Blomfield for the transmitted καὶ γῆν, which stands out from the other asyndetic terms. ¹⁵⁰ Lines 900 and 902 are marked as spurious in the text of Fraenkel; see also the discussion in Fraenkel (1950) 2.406 9. Line 900 is already excized in Blomfield; lines 900 2 by Headlam ap. Thomson, but see Fraenkel (1950) 2.408 9 in favour of 901. ¹⁵¹ For possible Near Eastern models for these images, see Wilamowitz (1927) 287 8 = (1962) 442 3, Kranz (1933) 102, Fraenkel (1950) 2.406 10 on 899 902, Hall (1989) 206. On salvation, see Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 161 on 896 901. Steiner

Divine Power in Tragedy

177

her servants to spread out a red fabric for Agamemnon to tread on and, to judge from lines 919–20, prostrates herself in front of him.¹⁵² The implications of this treatment are best considered in the light of Agamemnon’s response: 915

920

925

Λήδαϲ γένεθλον, δωμάτων ἐμῶν φύλαξ, ἀπουϲίαι μὲν εἶπαϲ εἰκότωϲ ἐμῆι μακρὰν γὰρ ἐξέτειναϲ ἀλλ̓ ἐναιϲίμωϲ αἰνεῖν, παῤ ἄλλων χρὴ τόδ̓ ἔρχεϲθαι γέραϲ. καὶ τἄλλα μὴ γυναικὸϲ ἐν τρόποιϲ ἐμὲ ἅβρυνε, μηδὲ βαρβάρου φωτὸϲ δίκην χαμαιπετὲϲ βόαμα προϲχάνηιϲ ἐμοί, μηδ̓ εἵμαϲι ϲτρώϲαϲ̓ ἐπίφθονον πόρον τίθει θεούϲ τοι τοῖϲδε τιμαλφεῖν χρεών, ἐν ποικίλοιϲ δὲ θνητὸν ὄντα κάλλεϲιν βαίνειν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδαμῶϲ ἄνευ φόβου. λέγω κατ̓ ἄνδρα, μὴ θεόν, ϲέβειν ἐμέ.

Offspring of Leda, guardian of my palace, you spoke in a way resembling my own absence, for you stretched it out too long. But the honour of proper praise needs to come from others. As far as the other things are concerned, do not treat me delicately in the ways of a woman nor, like a barbarian, prostrate yourself before me with loud cries. Nor, by strewing my path with clothing, render it invidious. It is the gods whom one should honour with these things, but for a mortal to walk on beautiful garments is in no way without risk. I tell you to revere me like a man, not like a god. (A. A. 914 25)

As with the chorus’ address, Agamemnon assesses Clytemnestra’s welcoming speech within the categories of proper praise (916–17 ἐναιϲίμωϲ | αἰνεῖν). Unlike the chorus’ address, however, Agamemnon rejects Clytemnestra’s speech, both in its verbal and non-verbal gestures. As for the verbal gestures, he curtly deplores the length of the speech (915–16), particularly, it seems, the series of images of lines 895–902. As for the non-verbal gestures, he vehemently objects to the prostration and the red fabric. For Agamemnon, prostration is associated with feminine softness and with Eastern monarchs,

(2010b) 32 5 seeks connections with epinician imagery, but the parallels often remain inconclusive. ¹⁵² It is debated whether Clytemnestra actually prostrates herself in front of Agamemnon; see Sommerstein (2008) 106 n. 192. Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 161 on 895 assume that she does.

178

Divine Power in Tragedy

perhaps like Priam, his former opponent (919–20).¹⁵³ The red fabric is more elusive, both in its symbolic force and dramaturgical function, and scholarship has advanced various interpretations.¹⁵⁴ For the present purposes, Agamemnon’s own assessment is of primary importance, since he explicitly associates it with the cultic worship of the gods (922). This causes him considerable alarm (923–4 οὐδαμῶϲ ἄνευ φόβου), since appropriating this cultic element would seem to constitute an act of transgression that might provoke divine retribution. This becomes the central concern in his rejection of Clytemnestra’s reception, and is cast in the striking instruction ‘I tell you to revere me like a man, not like a god’ (925). The use of the verb ϲέβειν connects this passage with the chorus’ speech (785 ϲεβίξω) and Agamemnon’s approval of it (833 ϲέβειν) and, in this way, highlights the contrast between the chorus and Clytemnestra. Whereas the chorus’ praise is found appropriate because it merely intimates an approximation of Agamemnon to the gods on formal grounds, Clytemnestra’s reception is rejected because it involves a blatant equation of Agamemnon with a god. As in Electra, the precise reasons for the treatment as a god deserve closer attention. Here, too, most interpreters assume that Clytemnestra aims at arousing divine jealousy to facilitate her impending attack on Agamemnon.¹⁵⁵ Clytemnestra indeed refers to φθόνοϲ, ‘jealousy’, in line 904. This motif, however, is commonplace in contexts of praise,¹⁵⁶ and Clytemnestra does not specify whether this anticipated jealousy is supposed to be divine or human. In light of line 833, where φθόνοϲ unambiguously refers to the jealousy of the citizens, human jealousy might even be more likely in line 904. Clytemnestra’s true ¹⁵³ See Easterling (1973) 10 11. At 935 6, Priam is mentioned as a paradigmatic Eastern king; see Dover (1977) 61 3 = (1987) 155 6. ¹⁵⁴ In general, see the discussions in Taplin (1977) 308 16, Goward (2005) 33 4. For Lloyd Jones (1952) = (1990) 300 4, the fabric refers back to 239 and the robe Iphigenia wore at her sacrifice. For Goheen (1955) 115 26, the purple red colour foreshadows murder, which, in light of Clytemnestra’s reference to it as πορφυρόϲτρωτοϲ πόροϲ (910) seems particularly likely. Jenkins (1985) 116 18 roots the fabric in a general context of ambivalence associated with textiles and the female world that produces them. For Dover (1977) 58 61 = (1987) 153 5, it denotes sacrifice. Associations with oriental monarchies are emphasized by S. West (1992), Crane (1993) 122 3, Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 162 3 on 905 11. ¹⁵⁵ See Fraenkel (1950) 2.411 on 904, Denniston and Page (1957) 148 on 909, Sailor and Stroup (1999) 168 9, Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 162 3 on 905 11. See also Dover (1977) 66 7 = (1987) 158 7. ¹⁵⁶ See Steiner (2010b) 31 and above, p. 129.

Divine Power in Tragedy

179

intentions might be more subtle than arousing divine jealousy. Like the chorus and Electra in Electra, she seems to aim at instilling in Agamemnon a sense of godlike power and control, which may lead to overconfidence and carelessness and diminish any suspicion that he may have against Clytemnestra. In all the respects analysed so far, Agamemnon and Electra emerge as strikingly similar. In one crucial respect, however, the two plays differ. In Electra, Clytemnestra embraces the godlike treatment offered to her and, succumbing to overconfidence and haughtiness, contributes to her own murder. In Agamemnon, Agamemnon emphatically rejects being treated like a god, because he perceives, if not the imminent danger of being murdered by his wife, some form of danger originating from an appropriation of divine privileges (924). The effect of this difference is evident. Because Agamemnon remains aware of his own mortal limitations and rejects being treated like a god, he emerges as a more sympathetic character than Clytemnestra in Electra. At the same time, Agamemnon’s refusal also provides an opportunity to depict the true nature of Clytemnestra. In the ensuing interaction, Clytemnestra strains to persuade Agamemnon to accept the fabric and its implications (931–43). Her insistence and ultimate success subvert the very impression that she aims to create. While the godlike treatment of Agamemnon is intended to inspire in him a sense of control, Clytemnestra now has to exercise considerable control over Agamemnon to impose on him the illusion of his own control. In doing so, she reveals impressively that it is she who is truly in control.¹⁵⁷ This paradoxical situation is expressed in her statement that ends the dialogue: πιθοῦ κρατεῖϲ μέντοι παρείϲ [γ’] ἑκὼν ἐμοί.¹⁵⁸ Obey! You are still in power, you know, if you yield to me voluntarily. (A. A. 943)

CONCLUSION The interpretations offered in this chapter aim to show that tragedy contains a significant number of approximations of individual human ¹⁵⁷ On the reversal of power, see also Hall (1989) 205 7, Raeburn and Thomas (2011) 166 on 931 43, Bierl (2017) 534 6. ¹⁵⁸ The text printed here is the conjecture of Weil, combined with the deletion of γ’ proposed by Wecklein, for the transmitted πιθοῦ, κράτοϲ μέντοι πάρεϲ γ’ ἑκὼν ἐμοί. See also the discussion in Fraenkel (1950) 2.427 8 ad loc.

180

Divine Power in Tragedy

characters to divinity. In many ways, these approximations resemble and supplement those observed in wedding songs and victory odes. They are distinct from the two lyric genres merely in that they are not primarily concerned with momentary beauty or happiness, but with power, social prestige, and wealth. This chapter also demonstrates that these approximations are found in two distinct situations. The first situation is supplication, where suppliants conventionally compare supplicandi to gods on the grounds of their potential ability to offer rescue and protection. The second series of comparisons is not restricted to specific contexts, but is found as a general response to a character’s extraordinary power, wealth, or general fortune. The second series of comparisons tends to have a distinctly social quality, since they are usually made by slaves and servants towards their superiors, by women towards men, or in recollection of a superior, more powerful past. At the surface, approximations to the gods made in supplication and those made elsewhere might appear to be very similar in that both are concerned with forms of power. However, there are important differences between the two groups of comparisons. One concerns dramatic effect. Supplicatory comparisons with gods contribute primarily to the characterization of the suppliant making them rather than the characterization of the supplicandus. Within the dynamic plot of tragedy, supplication depicts protagonists at the end of their reversal of fortune, in their most miserable, vulnerable, and exposed state. It is a highly dramatic symptom of this state that, in the prospect of rescue, the boundaries between human and divine appear blurred and any supposed source of help appears as divine salvation. In contrast, the second group of comparisons is focused primarily on the characters compared and contributes to their depiction at the height of their happiness, strength, or beauty. In all passages presented here, this height is merely the starting point for processes of reversal of fortune, at the end of which these allegedly godlike characters are forced to submit to injury, slavery, or death. The inevitable conclusion of this process is that the impressions of human individuals as godlike is always an illusion. This truth is expressed impressively in the gloomy parodos of Aeschylus’ Choephori:¹⁵⁹

¹⁵⁹ On the meaning of this obscure passage, see Both (1957), Both (1959).

Divine Power in Tragedy 60

65

181

. . . τὸ δ̓ εὐτυχεῖν, τόδ̓ ἐν βροτοῖϲ θεόϲ τε καὶ θεοῦ πλέον ῥοπὰ δ̓ ἐπιϲκοπεῖ Δίκαϲ ταχεῖα τοὺϲ μὲν ἐν φάει, τὰ δ̓ ἐν μεταιχμίωι ϲκότου μένει χρονίζοντα βρύειν, τοὺϲ δ̓ ἄκρατοϲ ἔχει νύξ.

Good fortune, that is a god among mortals and more than a god. But the swift scale of Justice watches closely those in daylight, those lingering in the borderland between light and darkness and waiting to burst forth, and those that are surrounded by pure darkness. (A. Ch. 59 65)

People of good fortune (59 εὐτυχεῖν) may appear to be gods or, in the striking language of the song itself, more than gods (60 θεοῦ πλέον). However, as the addition of ἐν βροτοῖϲ indicates, this appearance is only a temporary illusion. Justice (Δίκα), in the form of reversals of fortune, will strike eventually and reassert the fundamental instability of humanity (61–5). By the conventions of the tragic plot, comparisons of characters made outside of the context of supplication provide a powerful dramatic device that serves to foreshadow the imminent downfall of these characters. A second difference between the two groups of comparisons concerns moral assessment. Arguably, all comparisons with gods made outside of supplication are embedded, either implicitly or explicitly, in discourses on hubris and appropriate forms of praise. In Hippolytus, the address of Hippolytus as ἄναξ provides an important first stroke in the depiction of his self-perception as more than mortal, which sets Aphrodite’s wrath in motion. A notion of transgression is expressed particularly clearly in those cases where characters treat other characters like gods in order to kill them. In Electra, Clytemnestra fails to perceive the dangers lurking in being treated like a deity and walks blindly into her murder. In Aeschylus, Agamemnon perceives these dangers but is ultimately forced to submit to them. To feel like a god is here associated with negative traits of arrogance, overconfidence, and carelessness. The downfall that usually follows is, at least in part, caused by these traits. In supplicatory comparisons, in contrast, there is virtually no trace of these traits. The only case where hubris seems to be relevant in the context of supplication is found in Oedipus Tyrannus. The priest’s

182

Divine Power in Tragedy

refusal to liken Oedipus to the gods may be designed to contribute to the initial depiction of Oedipus as a moderate and self-conscious ruler. Here, the protagonist is not, as elsewhere, the suppliant, but the supplicandus. It is his downfall that constitutes the plot of the play. In all other instances, comparisons between supplicandi and gods are not evaluated in moral terms and do not seem to infringe on the rules of appropriate praise. In Aeschylus’ Supplices, Pelasgus, the ideal of the ‘democratic monarch’,¹⁶⁰ is not alarmed by being compared to a deity and does not feel compelled to take the precaution of explicitly rejecting such a treatment. In Iphigenia Aulidensis, Achilles even acknowledges that he must reasonably appear to be like a god to Clytemnestra. In consequence, tragedy contains cases where similar formulations of approximations of human individuals to divinity on the grounds of power may sound, in one context, laudatory without any indication of harm and, in another context, transgressive and foreshadowing imminent calamity. This contrast is similar to the one between wedding songs, where bridal couples are approximated to the gods systematically and without inhibition, and victory odes, where comparable approximations are conveyed obliquely and with an omnipresent awareness of the dangers of overshooting and transgressing. In the preceding chapters, it is argued that this difference between the two lyric genres may result from the existence of a firmly established ritual vision of the bridal couple approximating to divinity on their wedding day, and the absence of a comparable vision for the victor during his victory celebration. A similar argument can be developed for the difference between the two groups of comparisons with gods in tragedy. Supplication is, throughout antiquity, a well circumscribed ritual, and approximations of supplicandi to gods appear already in epic. This suggests the existence of a ritual vision of the supplicandus that causes a blurring of the differentiations between human and divine. Appeals to helper figures in comedy confirm the existence of such a vision. It seems that, because of this vision, comparisons with the gods in tragic supplicatory appeals are not perceived as problematic. Similar comparisons made outside of supplication, on the other

¹⁶⁰ See e.g. Pattoni (2011).

Divine Power in Tragedy

183

hand, are not rooted in a ritual context and accompanying ritual vision. The absence of such a vision is likely to be responsible for the acute sense of transgression and danger that is palpable in these comparisons. Approached in this way, tragedy provides a crucial testimony for the role of ritual in the form and effect that approximations to divinity may have.

5 Epilogue In one way or another, all the passages from archaic and classical literature discussed in this book presuppose one global vision: Mortals cannot become immortal, and humans cannot become gods. This vision is frequently expressed, from Alcman’s ‘No man shall fly to heaven’ to Sappho’s ‘The path to great Olympus [perhaps: is blocked] for mortals’ and Pindar’s ‘He shall not strive to become a god.’1 There is little reason to doubt that this vision is based on a real religious sentiment predominant in the period from the eighth to the fifth centuries BC, and that the boundaries between human and divine are here drawn more firmly than in the following period of the fourth and third centuries BC. However, as this book aims to illustrate, this sentiment does leave sufficient room for creative explorations and negotiations in the poetry of these periods. In fact, the poetic appeal of experimenting with these boundaries is likely to be greater in a social context with a relatively clear and common understanding of their precise nature than in a context where these boundaries are easily blurred and obscured. The way in which archaic and classical poetry engages with these boundaries is determined, first and foremost, by genre and by the specific agendas stipulated by different occasions. Some genres, like iambus, elegy, and threnos, assert the boundaries between human and divine to the extent that they do not allow for any approximation, even momentarily, of individual humans to divinity. Other genres are more flexible. Among these, lyric songs concerned with praise in the contexts of large-scale celebrations are particularly instructive. Wedding songs and victory odes conjure up a spirit of exuberant festivity 1 Cf. Alcm. fr. 1.16 Davies = 3.16 Calame, Sapph. fr. 27.12 13, Pi. O. 5.24. See above, pp. 73 4, 83, for text and discussion.

Greek Praise Poetry and the Rhetoric of Divinity. Felix J. Meister, Oxford University Press (2020). © Felix J. Meister. DOI: 10/1093/OSO/9780198847687.001.0001

186

Epilogue

and revelry. From this spirit, both genres derive a vision of their protagonists, to whom the respective celebration is owed and on whom it is focused, where they appear to transcend their mortal limitations temporarily in terms of beauty and happiness. Tragedy and comedy incorporate such generic visions in response to extraordinary power, wealth, or fortune. To a varying degree, epithalamia, epinicians, and tragedy are aware that human beauty, happiness, and power are merely transient, as opposed to their eternal counterparts among the gods. This awareness is bound to cast a certain shadow over formulations of momentary approximation to divinity. The extent to which this awareness is integrated into these genres reveals important differences between them. Extant epithalamia are completely immersed in the present moment and, conventional wishes for a happy future and speedy offspring aside, they are deliberately oblivious of the past and future. Here, comparisons with heroes or gods serve no purpose other than the immediate praise of the bridal couple. Thoughts about the vicissitude of human fortune are suspended as much as possible. Tragedy, in contrast, fully embraces this awareness of human instability. In the structures of many plays, impressions of godlike privileges are given a frame in which they are juxtaposed with equally steep suffering. In the context of supplication, it is the character making the comparison who suffers, whereas, outside this context, it is the character initially compared to a god who suffers once his fortune is reversed. This juxtaposition adds distinct connotations of apprehension to comparisons between humans and gods. Initially, these comparisons may serve as a means of praise, as they do in epithalamia. Ultimately, however, impressions of a human individual as godlike inevitably emerge as an illusion. A false sense of security, as conveyed in a false sense of divinity, is unmasked as naive and dangerous. In this antithesis of epithalamia and tragedy, the epinician takes a middle position. Like epithalamia, epinicians focus on the moment of celebration and subordinate other temporal layers to the characterization of the hic et nunc. At the same time, the epinician laudator is acutely aware of the dangers that the future may bring, such as they are illustrated on the tragic stage. Here, this awareness prompts a high degree of caution and restriction applied in formulations of approximation to divinity. An instructive reflection of these differences between the three genres is found in their use of myth. Even short and specific references to myth tend to evoke the wider narrative contexts from which

Epilogue

187

they are derived. In this way, myth can lead away from the present moment and its demands and invite reflections on wider contexts. Tragedy readily employs this characteristic feature of myth in order to depict a character’s development through happiness and suffering and extract from it a universal truth about humanity and its place in the world. For epinicians, the use of myth is more complicated. The activities of the hic et nunc can be paralleled in mythical narratives and, in this way, be elevated to a higher sphere of significance. Mythical narratives often also lead into encompassing gnomic conclusions containing universal truths about the world. However, myth also poses the risk of distracting from the present occasion in a way displeasing to the audience and, above all, the victor commissioning the ode. Thus, there are cases, like Pythian 10 (51–9) encountered above, where the laudator suddenly terminates a narrative and explicitly returns to a subject closer to the laudandus. In this tension between acknowledging the present occasion and making claims of a more universal nature, narratives about toil and ultimate reward appear to provide a solution. They reflect the victor and his achievement in figures like Perseus or Heracles and their exploits, and infer from them a universal truth. In epithalamia, it is difficult to achieve a similar effect. The world of myth offers hardly any example of a marriage that does not involve forms of prolonged suffering or death. It is hard to conceive, for instance, how couples like Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, Menelaus and Helen, or Hector and Andromache might provide optimistic paradigms for a young bridal couple.2 Peleus and Thetis offer perhaps the least portentous paradigm, and indeed they are frequently depicted and labelled on Athenian wedding vases. It may be because of these difficulties that, though it is possible that more elaborate wedding songs contained forms of mythical narratives, no actual example is attested except for Aristophanes’ Aves. There, it is characteristically the wedding of Zeus and Hera that parallels primarily the wedding of the ‘new Zeus’ Peisetaerus. Instead of potentially ambiguous and distracting narratives, epithalamia contain direct comparisons between the bridal couple and heroes or gods for certain, often explicitly stated qualities. For instance, the bride is likened to Helen or Aphrodite for grace and 2 Sapph. fr. 44 narrates the wedding of Hector and Andromache, but the genre of the original song is far from certain. For the problems of Helen as a paradigm, see Bierl (2003) on Sapph. fr. 16.

188

Epilogue

beauty, and the bridegroom to Achilles or Ares for athletic appearance and strength. The myths of Helen and Achilles contain adultery and early death respectively, but a direct comparison allows greater control over the evocative powers of myth. In epithalamia, the present moment remains in focus, so much so that most songs are restricted from elevating this moment towards a universal truth. Another determining factor in the ways that momentary approximations to divinity are expressed in these genres is ritual. Epithalamia are firmly embedded in the established ritual context of the wedding ceremony. As is argued in this book, this context involves a treatment of the bridal couple that evokes, in many ways, the treatment of gods in cult. It also engenders an iconography of the bridal couple where the boundaries between human and divine are suspended. Consequently, the ritual of the wedding ceremony appears to involve a vision of the bridal couple as rising above their fellow humans and approaching divinity, for the duration of the wedding. This preexisting vision not only gives rise to comparisons between bridal couples and heroes and gods in epithalamia, it also shapes their precise form. The observation that these comparisons are, by default, distinctly explicit and direct, with little if any concern for hubris or divine jealousy, seems to originate from the mitigating effect of this established and ubiquitously recognized ritual vision. Since a similar vision cannot be detected for the victory celebration, a similar effect does not seem to mitigate the impact of approximations of athletic victors to divinity in epinicians. Hence, it is no surprise that epinicians do not, exceptions aside, conventionally compare victors explicitly to heroes and gods, attribute to them a state of being μάκαρ, or praise them in terms reminiscent of the praise of gods in hymns. Instead, they employ less explicit and less direct techniques that merely insinuate an analogy between the victor’s momentary happiness and divine bliss. The same difference can be observed in tragedy. Here, explicit comparisons between characters and gods appear to be unproblematic and unconcerned with thoughts of arrogance and transgression when they are made in supplicatory appeals, since the ritual of supplication itself seems to involve a vision of the supplicandus as a source of divine power. Outside supplicatory appeals, however, similarly explicit comparisons are perceived as dangerous, transgressive, and a foreshadowing of future suffering. Ritual also allows broadening the scope of this inquiry, from the study of poetic imagery per se to an appreciation of the social realities

Epilogue

189

from which this imagery is derived. With due caution, it seems viable to conclude that the precise definition of human and divine, and of the distance between them, depends not only on the various poetic genres that reflect on these matters, but also on the occasions in the life of archaic and classical poleis that give rise to these genres. While the notion of a stark contrast between humans and gods in archaic and classical religion may generally be valid, it needs to be modified so as to accommodate occasions where, in the conventionalized perception of the participants, these boundaries are temporarily collapsed.

ICONOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX Athenian Black-figure Vases Depicting Weddings 1. Crater by Cleitias, 600 550 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 4209 = ABV 76.1, PL 29, Fink 5, BAPD 300000 2. Dinus fr. by Sophilus, 600 550 BC; Athens, Acrop. 587 = ABV 39.15, PL 19.16, Fink 1, BAPD 305074 3. Dinus by Sophilus, 600 550 BC; London, Brit. Mus. 1971.11 1.1 = ABV 40.16, PL 19.16, Fink 2, BAPD 350099 4. Cup by C Painter, 575 25 BC; London, Brit. Mus. B381 = ABV 61.10, Fink 4, BAPD 300537 5. Hyrdia by Tyrrhenian Group, 575 25 BC; Rome, Market = ABV 105.133, Fink 12, BAPD 310132 6. Amphora A by Group E, 575 25 BC; London, Brit. Mus. B160 = ABV 134.15, Fink 16, BAPD 301049 7. Panathen. amphora by Group E, 575 25 BC; Tarquinia, Mus. Naz. RC1061 = ABV 137.58, PL 56.58, Fink 17, BAPD 350437 8. Amphora B by Painter of the Vatican Mourner, 575 25 BC; Christchurch (NZ), Univ. Canterbury, J. Logie 43.57 = ABV 140, PL 58, Fink 18, BAPD 350443 9. Amphora B by Painter of the Vatican Mourner, 575 25 BC; Los Angeles, County Mus. M77.48.1 = ABV 140, PL 58, Fink 19, BAPD 350444 10. Amphora B by Group of London B174, 575 25 BC; London, Brit. Mus. B174 = ABV 141.1, Fink 20, BAPD 310361 11. Amphora A by Group of London B174, 575 25 BC; Melbourne, Nat. Gall. Victoria 1729.4 = ABV 141.4, PL 58.4, Fink 21, BAPD 350445 12. Neck amphora by Group of London B174, 575 25 BC; Naples, Mus. Arch. H2498 = ABV 141.5, Fink 22, BAPD 310365 13. Amphora B by Towry Whyte Painter, 575 25 BC; Orvieto, Mus. Civ. 315 = ABV 142.2, Fink 23, BAPD 310370 14. Neck amphora by Towry Whyte Painter, 575 25 BC; Vatican, Mus. Gregoriano 358 = ABV 142.7, PL 58, Fink 24, BAPD 310375 15. Loutrophorus fr. by Taleides, 550 500 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ABV 174.2, PL 73.2, Fink 26, BAPD 350508 16. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 3790 = ABV 260.30, PL 114, Fink 27, BAPD 302262 17. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; Oxford, Ashmolean 1965.119 = ABV 261.35, PL 115, Fink 28, BAPD 302267

192

Iconographical Appendix

18. Hydria by Lysippides, 550 500 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 14.105.10 = ABV 261.37, Fink 29, BAPD 302269 19. Hydria by Group of London B339, 550 500 BC; London, Brit. Mus. B339 = ABV 264.1, Fink 30, BAPD 302301 20. Hydria by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; London, Brit. Mus. 1843.11 3.83 = ABV 267.9, Fink 31, BAPD 320019 21. Hydria by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Berlin, Antikensammlung F1891 (lost) = ABV 267.10, Fink 32, BAPD 320020 22. Hydria by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Civitavecchia, Mus. Civ. 1319 = ABV 267.11, Fink 33, BAPD 320021 23. Amphora by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Paris, Market = ABV 274.132, Fink 34, BAPD 320143 24. Hydria by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Toronto, Royal Ontario 919.5.133 = ABV 277.10, Fink 35, BAPD 320172 25. Lebes by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Athens, Nat. Mus. 19363 = ABV 280, PL 122, Fink 36, BAPD 340496 26. Amphora A by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Orvieto, Mus. Civ. 578 = ABV 281.13, Fink 37, BAPD 320233 27. Amphora A by Antimenes; 550 500 BC, Naples, Mus. Arch. 2466 = ABV 281.14, Fink 38, BAPD 320234 28. Calyx crater by Antimenes, 550 500 BC; Brussels, Mus. Royaux R310 = ABV 281.17, Fink 39, BAPD 320237 29. Hydria by Eye Siren Group, 550 500 BC; Basel, Ludwig LU25 = ABV 287.13, Fink 40, BAPD 320300 30. Neck amphora by Group of Würzburg 199, 550 500 BC; Orvieto, Mus. Civ. 1008 = ABV 288.22, Fink 41, BAPD 320325 31. Hydria by Group of Würzburg 199, 550 500 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 94315 = ABV 289.29, Fink 42, BAPD 320332 32. Amphora A by Painter of Berlin 1686, 550 500 BC; London, Brit. Mus. B197 = ABV 296.1, Fink 43, BAPD 320380 33. Amphora B by Painter of Berlin 1686, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antiken sammlungen 1375 (prev. J392) = ABV 297.15, Fink 44, BAPD 320394 34. Hydria by Painter of Louvre F42, 550 500 BC; Paris, Louvre F42 = ABV 304.1, Fink 45, BAPD 301479 35. Amphora fr. by Painter of Munich 1410, 550 500 BC; Leipzig, Antiken museum T381 = ABV 311.3, Fink 46, BAPD 301595 36. Neck amphora by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; Berlin, Antikensammlung F1872 = ABV 322.15, Fink 47, BAPD 301701 37. Neck amphora by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; London, Market = ABV 323.16, Fink 48, BAPD 301702 38. Hydria by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensammlungen J44 (prev. 1697) = ABV 324.31, Fink 49, BAPD 301717

Iconographical Appendix

193

39. Hydria by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; Aberdeen, Univ. 696 (prev. 64020) = ABV 324.32, Fink 50, BAPD 301718 40. Hydria by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; San Simeon (CA), Hearst 9518 (prev. 5433) = ABV 324.33, Fink 51, BAPD 301719 41. Hydria by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensammlungen 1699 (prev. J649) = ABV 324.34, Fink 52, BAPD 301720 42. Hydria by Euphiletus, 550 500 BC; Würzburg, Univ., M. v. Wagner Mus. L312 = ABV 324.35, Fink 53, BAPD 301721 43. Amphora B by Long Nose Painter, 550 500 BC; London, Sotheby’s = ABV 328.11, Fink 54, BAPD 301757 44. Neck amphora by Pasicles, 550 500 BC; Syracuse, Mus. Arch. P. Orsi 50819 = ABV 328.4, Fink 55, BAPD 301761 45. Neck amphora by Madrid Painter, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensamm lungen J312 (prev. 1529) = ABV 330.1, Fink 56, BAPD 301777 46. Neck amphora by Madrid Painter, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensamm lungen J1196 (prev. J119, 1534) = ABV 330.2, Fink 57, BAPD 301778 47. Hydria by Priam Painter, 550 500 BC; Oxford, Ashmolean 1965.108 = ABV 333.35, Fink 58, BAPD 301803 48. Hydria by Priam Painter, 550 500 BC; Naples, Mus. Arch. 112847 = ABV 333.29, Fink 59, BAPD 301807 49. Amphora A by Rycroft Painter, 550 500 BC; Lyon, Mus. d. Beaux Arts 1169 = ABV 335.5, Fink 60, BAPD 301828 50. Amphora fr. by Rycroft Painter, 550 500 BC; Athens, Agora P3167 = ABV 336.7, Fink 61, BAPD 301831 51. Hydria by Rycroft Painter, 550 500 BC; Copenhagen, Thorvaldsen 74 = ABV 337.28, Fink 62, BAPD 301852 52. Hydria by Rycroft Painter, 525 475 BC; New York, Sotheby’s = ABV 337.28, Fink 63, BAPD 351105 53. Amphora B by Rycroft Painter, 550 500 BC; Copenhagen, Nat. Mus. 113 = ABV 364.51, PL 39.1, Fink 64, BAPD 301857 54. Hydria by Leagrus Group, 550 500 BC; St Petersburg, State Hermitage Mus. 2067 (prev. 235) = ABV 364.59, Fink 66, BAPD 302054 55. Hydria by Leagrus Group, 550 500 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. 94.322 = ABV 364.60, Fink 67, BAPD 302055 56. Amphora A by Leagrus Group, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensammlun gen J693 (prev. 1413) = ABV 366.85, Fink 69, BAPD 302080 57. Amphora B by Leagrus Group, 550 500 BC; Munich, Antikensammlun gen J592 (prev. 1406) = ABV 368.108, PL 171.1, Fink 70, BAPD 302103 58. Oinochoe, akin to Class of Würzburg 346, 550 500 BC; Philadelphia, Univ. of Pensylvania 4838 = ABV 420, Fink 71, BAPD 303197 59. Oinochoe, near Altenburg Class, 550 500 BC; New York, Sotheby’s = ABV 423, PL 182, Fink 72, BAPD 351322

194

Iconographical Appendix

60. Oinochoe, similar to Class of Vatican G47, 550 500 BC; Berlin, Anti kensammlung F1923 = ABV 431.4, Fink 73, BAPD 303325 61. Oinochoe, similar to Class of Vatican G47, 550 500 BC; Munich, Anti kensammlungen J433 (prev. 1778) = ABV 431.5, Fink 74, BAPD 303326 62. Lecythus by Phanyllis Group A, 525 475 BC; Antwerp, Vleeshuis 877 = ABV 463, PL 204, Fink 75, BAPD 340618 63. Lecythus by Painter of Oxford 245, 525 475 BC; Oxford, Ashmolean V245 = ABV 498, PL 212.1, Fink 76, BAPD 305324 64. Lecythus by Edinburgh Painter, 525 475 BC; Tampa, Mus. of Arts 86.44 = ABV 477, PL 217, Fink 77, BAPD 380857 65. Lecythus by Class of Athens 581, 550 500 BC; Lincoln, City and County Mus. C2338 = ABV 492.79, Fink 78, BAPD 303594 66. Neck Amphora by unknown painter, 525 475 BC; New York, Gallatin = ABV 489, PL 295, Fink 79, BAPD 352173 67. Neck amphora by Painter of Villa Giulia M482, 525 475 BC; Tarquinia, Mus. Naz. 645 = ABV 590.5, PL 295.5, Fink 80, BAPD 352184 68. Amphora B by unknown painter, 550 500 BC; Naples, Mus. Naz. H2535 = ABV 607, Fink 81, BAPD 9009447 69. Hydria by unknown painter, 575 25 BC; Paris, Louvre F48 = Fink 85, BAPD 9535 70. Hydria by unknown painter, 575 25 BC; Paris, Louvre F10 = Fink 86, BAPD 11294 71. Hydria by unknown painter, 575 25 BC; Paris, Louvre F44 = Fink 87, BAPD 371 72. Lebes by Sophilus, 600 550 BC; Izmir, Arch. Mus. 3332 = ABV 40.20, PL 18, Fink 3, BAPD 305079 73. Hydria by Guglielmi Painter, 575 50 BC; Leiden, Rijksmus. Oudheden PC44 (prev. XVE26) = ABV 105.132, PL 36, 39, Fink 11, BAPD 310131 74. Cup fr. by Lydus, 575 525 BC; Athens, Agora P14326 = ABV 107.3, Fink 13, BAPD 310149 75. Lecythus by Amasis Painter, 575 25 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 56.11.1 = ABV 155, PL 66, Fink 25, ABFH 775, BAPD 350478

Athenian Red-figure Vases Depicting Weddings 76. Frr. by Painter of Bologna 228, 500 450 BC; Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Univ., Inst. Arch. E86 = ARV2 513.21, Fink 13, BAPD 205758 77. Loutrophorus by Alcimachus, 500 450 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ARV2 534.11, Fink 19, BAPD 206056 78. Lebes by Florence Painter, 500 450 BC; Athens, Nat. Mus. 1251 (prev. CC1234) = ARV2 544.19, Fink 23, BAPD 206194 79. Loutrophorus fr. by Painter of London E494, 475 25 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ARV2 1079.2, Fink 50, BAPD 214499

Iconographical Appendix

195

80. Hydria by Painter of Tarquinia 707, 475 25 BC; Würzburg, Univ., M. v. Wagner Mus. L535 (prev. H4307) = ARV2 1112.3, Fink 66, BAPD 214708 81. Lebes or Loutrophorus fr. by Painter of Athens 1454, 450 400 BC; Athens, Vlasto = ARV2 1179, Fink 93, BAPD 215625 82. Pyxis, similar to Oppenheimer Group, 450 400 BC; Brussels, Mus. Royaux A3547 = ARV2 1224, Fink 96, BAPD 216669 83. Loutrophorus fr. by Painter of Bologna 228, 500 450 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ARV2 513.16, Fink 12, BAPD 205753 84. Loutrophorus by Pan Painter, 500 450 BC; Houston, Mus. of Fine Arts 37.10 = ARV2 544.79, Fink 25, BAPD 206322 85. Column crater by Ariana Painter, 475 25 BC; Geneva, Mus. d’Art et d’Histoire 14990 = ARV2 1101.2, Fink 60, BAPD 216135 86. Loutrophorus by Washing Painter, 450 400 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ARV2 1127.19, Fink 82, BAPD 214900 87. Loutrophorus fr. by Methyse Painter, 475 25 BC; Athens, Acrop. NA 1957 Aa 757 = ARV2 632.1, Fink 29, BAPD 207336 88. Calyx crater fr. by Group of Polygnotus, 475 25 BC; Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Univers., Arch. Inst. 5439 = ARV2 1057.97, PL 445, Fink 49, BAPD 213727 89. Calyx crater by Group of Polygnotus, 475 25 BC; Tarquinia, Mus. Naz. RC4197 = ARV2 1057.96, PL 445, Fink 48, BAPD 213726 90. Lecanis by unknown painter, 400 300 BC; St Petersburg, State Hermitage Mus. ST1983 = ARV2 1499.2, PL 499, Fink 166, BAPD 230842 91. Loutrophorus by Persephone Painter, 475 25 BC; Athens, Acrop. = ARV2 1013.12, Fink 41, BAPD 214169 92. Lecythus by Providence Painter, 475 25 BC; Boston, Mus. of Fine Arts 95.44 = ARV2 640.76, Fink 30, BAPD 207428 93. Calyx crater frr. by Berlin Painter, 525 475 BC; Athens, Nat. Mus. 2.732 = ARV2 205.119, Fink 3, BAPD 201928 94. Cup frr. by Macron, 500 450 BC; Boston, Mus. of Fine Arts 03.856 = ARV2 460.16, PL 377, Fink 8, BAPD 204697 95. Cup fr. by Macron, 500 450 BC; Paris, Louvre CP11272 = ARV2 460.17, Fink 9, BAPD 204698 96. Cup frr. by Macron, 500 450 BC; Florence, Mus. Arch. PD278, 280 1 = ARV2 460.18, Fink 10, BAPD 204699 97. Bell crater frr. by Dinus, 450 400 BC; Athens, Nat. Mus. = ARV2 1155.1, Fink 89, BAPD 215301 98. Fr. by Painter of Athens 1454, 450 400 BC; Athens, Vlasto = ARV2 1179, Fink 93, BAPD 215625 99. Lebes by undetermined early mannerist, 500 450 BC; Athens, Nat. Mus. CC1229 = ARV2 585.33, Fink 28, BAPD 206763

196

Iconographical Appendix Geometric Vases Depicting Funerals

100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132.

Crater; New York, Met. Mus. 14.130.15 = Ahlberg 22, BAPD 9018110 Amphora fr.; Thorikos, Nat. Arch. Mus. TC65.666 = Ahlberg 30 Neck amphora; Oxford, Ashmolean 1916.55 = Ahlberg 33, BAPD 160000 Amphora fr.; Paris, Mus. Sèvres (prev. Louvre A516) = Ahlberg 3, BAPD 9018281 Amphora; Athens, Nat. Mus. 804 = Ahlberg 2, BAPD 1010917 Crater; Paris, Louvre A517 = Ahlberg 4, BAPD 1008009 Crater; Paris, Louvre A552 = Ahlberg 16, BAPD 1008097 Crater frr.; Paris, Louvre A522 = Ahlberg 5, BAPD 1008011 Crater fr.; Paris, Louvre A547 = Ahlberg 13 Crater; Sydney, Nicholson 46.41 = Ahlberg 14 Crater frr.; Paris, Louvre A541 = Ahlberg 15, BAPD 1008098 Frr.; Athens, Nat. Mus. 802 = Ahlberg 7, BAPD 9018412 Crater; Athens, Piraeus Street = Ahlberg 8 Crater frr.; Halle, Robertinum 58/58a.1 2 = Ahlberg 6 Crater fr.; Amsterdam, A. Pierson 2015 = Ahlberg 9 Crater frr.; Athens, Nat. Mus. = Ahlberg 19 Crater fr.; Bonn, Univ. Akad. Kunstmus. = Ahlberg 55a b Crater; New York, Met. Mus. 14.130.14 = Ahlberg 25, BAPD 9018109 Crater; Athens, Nat. Mus. 990 = Ahlberg 54, BAPD 9018158 Crater; New York, Met. Mus. 34.11.2 = Ahlberg 1 Amphora; Athens, Nat. Mus. 18062 = Ahlberg 24 Amphora; Athens, Brauron = Ahlberg 35 Amphora; Hamburg, Mus. für Kunst und Gewerbe 1966.89 = Ahlberg 43 Amphora; Athens, Benaki 7675 = Ahlberg 46 Crater frr.; Paris, Louvre A545 = Ahlberg 11, BAPD 1008054 Crater; Athens, Nat. Mus. 806 = Ahlberg 20, BAPD 9018578 Amphora; Cleveland, Mus. of Art 1927.27.6 = Ahlberg 36 Amphora; Baltimore, Walters 48.2231 = Ahlberg 37 Amphora; Athens, private collection = Ahlberg 38 Amphora; Athens, Agora P4990= Ahlberg 39 Amphora; Athens, Stathatou 222 = Ahlberg 40 Amphora; Athens, Kerameikos 1371 = Ahlberg 42 Amphora; Essen, Folkwang K969 = Ahlberg 41

Black-figure Clay-plaques Depicting Funerals 133. Plaque, 540 530 BC; Brussels, Mus. Royaux A5 7 = Zschietzschmann 30, Boardman 14, BAPD 24158 + 24161

Iconographical Appendix

197

134. Plaque fr., c 520 BC; Dresden, Albertinum 814 = Zschietzschmann 32, Boardman 17, BAPD 20526 135. Plaque, c 510 BC; Athens, Kerameikos 677 (lost) = Boardman 19, BAPD 43698 136. Plaque, c 500 BC; New York, Met. Mus. 54.11.5 = Boardman 23, BAPD 3749 137. Plaque fr., c 500 BC; Amsterdam, A. Pierson 1366 = Zschietzschmann 33, Boardman 25, BAPD 42146 138. Plaque frr. by Execias, 540 30 BC; Berlin F1811 26 = ABV 146.22 3, Zschietzschmann 27, Boardman 9, BAPD 350041 139. Plaque by Burgon Group, c 560 BC; Paris, Louvre CA255 = ABV 90.8, Zschietzschmann 31, Boardman 15, BAPD 300835

Alia 140. Hydria (calpis type) by Cleophrades, 480 75 BC; Naples, Mus. Naz. 81699 = ARV2 189.74, PL 341, ARFH fig. 135, BAPD 201724

References Adami, F. (1900), De poetis scaenicis Graecis hymnorum sacrorum imitatoribus (Leipzig). Agócs, P., C. Carey, and R. Rawles (eds) (2012), Reading the Victory Ode (Cambridge). Ahlberg, G. (1971), Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (Göteborg). Alexiou, M. (1974), The Ritual Lament in the Greek Tradition (Cambridge); 2nd ed. rev. D. Yatromanolakis and P. Roilos (Lanham, MD 2002). Anderson, C. A. (1995), Athena’s Epithets: Their Structural Significance in the Plays of Aristophanes (Stuttgart). Antonaccio, C. M. (1995), An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (Lanham, MD). Arrowsmith, W. (1973), ‘Aristophanes’ Birds: the fantasy politics of Eros’, Arion 1: 119 67. Athanassaki, L. (2011a), ‘Giving wings to the Aeginetan sculptures: the Panhellenic aspirations of Pindar’s Olympian Eight’, in Fearn (ed.): 257 93. Athanassaki, L. (2011b), ‘Songs, politics, and cultural memory: Pindar’s Pythian 7 and the Alcmeonid temple of Apollo’, in Athanassaki and Bowie (eds): 235 68. Athanassaki, L. (2012), ‘Performance and re performance: the Siphnian treasury evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2 and Isthmian 2)’, in Agócs, Carey, and Rawles (eds): 134 57. Athanassaki, L. (2016), ‘The symposion as theme and performance context in Pindar’s epinicians’, in V. Cazzato, D. Obbink, and E. E. Prodi (eds), The Cup of Song: Studies on Poetry and the Symposium (Oxford): 85 112. Athanassaki, L. and E. L. Bowie (eds) (2011), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination (Berlin). Austin, C. and S. D. Olson (2004), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford). Avagianou, A. (1991), Sacred Marriage in the Rituals of Greek Religion (Bern). Badian, E. (1981), ‘The deification of Alexander the Great’, in H. J. Dell et al. (eds), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki): 1 71. Bagordo, A. (2003a), Reminiszenzen früher Lyrik bei den attischen Tragikern: Beiträge zur Anspielungstechnik und poetischen Tradition (Munich). Bagordo, A. (2003b), ‘Sofocle e i lirici: traduzione e allusione’, in G. Avvezù (ed.), Il dramma Sofocleo: Testo, lingua, interpretazione (Stuttgart): 5 15. Bake, I. (1825), Review of G. Hermann, Sophoclis Oedipus Coloneus (Leipzig 1825), in Nova Bibliotheca Critica 1 (Leiden): 1 39. Bakola, E. (2010), Cratinus and the Art of Comedy (Oxford).

200

References

Bakola, E., L. Prauscello, and M. Telò (eds) (2013), Greek Comedy and the Discourse of Genre (Cambridge). Baltieri, N. (2011), ‘Il ruolo dei canti di nozze nei drammi di Euripide’, Prometheus 37: 205 30. Barlow, S. A. (1996), Euripides: Heracles (Warminster). Barrett, W. S. (1956), ‘Dactylo epitrites in Bacchylides’, Hermes 84: 248 53 = (2007) 314 21. Barrett, W. S. (1964), Euripides: Hippolytus (Oxford). Barrett, W. S. (2007), Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism: Collected Papers, ed. M. L. West (Oxford). Barringer, J. M. (2005), ‘The temple of Zeus, heroes, and athletes’, Hesperia 74: 211 41. Becker, O. (1937), Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechischen Denken (Berlin). Bernardini, P. A. (1983), Mito e attualità nelle odi di Pindaro: La Nemea 4, l’Olimpica 9, l’Olimpica 7 (Rome). Bernsdorff, H. (2005), ‘Offene Gedichtschlüsse’, ZPE 153: 1 6. Biehl, W. (1985), ‘Interpretationsprobleme in Eurpides’ Hekabe’, Hermes 113: 257 66. Bierl, A. (2003), ‘ “Ich aber (sage), das schönste ist, was einer liebt”: eine pragmatische Deutung von Sapph. Fr. 16 L. P./V.’, QUCC 74: 91 124. Bierl, A. (2017), ‘Klytaimestra tyrannos: fear and tyranny in Aeschylus’ Oresteia (with a brief comparison with Macbeth)’, Comparative Drama 51: 528 63. Biraud, M. (2010), Les interjections du théâtre grec antique: Étude sémantique et pragmatique (Leuven). Blaydes, F. H. M. (1859), Sophocles (London). Blevins, J. (ed.) (2008), Dialogism and Lyric Self Fashioning: Bakhtin and the Voices of a Genre (Selinsgrove, PA). Boardman, J. (1952), ‘Pottery from Eretria’, BSA 47: 1 48. Boardman, J. (1955), ‘Painted funerary plaques and some remarks on pro thesis’, BSA 50: 51 66. Boeckh, A. (1821), Pindari epiniciorum interpretatio Latina cum commentario perpetuo, fragmenta et indices = Pindari opera quae supersunt 2.2 (Leipzig). Boehmer, E. (1891), Pindars sicilische Oden nebst den epizephyrischen (Bonn). Boehringer, D. (2001), Heroenkulte in Griechenland von der geometrischen bis zur klassischen Zeit: Attika, Argolis, Messenien (Berlin). Bohringer, F. (1979), ‘Cultes d’athlètes en Grèce classique: propos politiques, discours mythiques’, REA 81: 5 18. Bollack, J. (1975), La pensée du plaisir: Épicure (Paris). Bömer, F. (1969 2006), P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen, 8 vols (Heidelberg). Bond, G. W. (1981), Euripides: Heracles (Oxford).

References

201

Bonifazi, A. (2000), ‘Sull’ idea di sotterfugio orale negli epinici pindarici’, QUCC 66: 69 86. Bosworth, A. B. (1988), Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge). Bosworth, A. B. (1994), ‘Alexander the Great part 2: Greece and the con quered territories’, in D. M. Lewis et al. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient History 6 (Cambridge): 846 75. Both, N. B. (1957), ‘Aeschylus, Choephori, 61 5’, CQ 7: 143 5. Both, N. B. (1959), ‘The run of the sense in Aeschylus Choephori 22 83’, CPh 54: 111 13. Bowen, A. J. (2013), Aeschylus: Suppliant Women (Oxford). Bowra, C. M. (1961), Greek Lyric Poetry: From Alcman to Simonides (2Oxford). Bowra, C. M. (1964), Pindar (Oxford). Braswell, B. K. (1988), A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin). Braswell, B. K. (1992), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean One (Fribourg). Braswell, B. K. (1998), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine (Berlin). Braswell, B. K. (2012), ‘Reading Pindar in antiquity’, MH 69: 12 28. Bremer, J. M. (1981), ‘Greek hymns’, in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden): 193 215. Bremer, J. M. (1990), ‘Pindar’s paradoxical ἐγώ and a recent controversy about the performance of his epinicia’, in S. R. Slings (ed.), The Poet’s I in Archaic Greek Lyric (Amsterdam): 41 58. Bremer, J. M. (1998), ‘The reciprocity of giving and thanksgiving in Greek worship’, in N. P. Gill et al. (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford): 127 38. Bremer, J. M. (2008), ‘Traces of the hymn in the epinikion’, Mnemosyne 61: 1 17. Bremmer, J. N. (2006), ‘The rise of the hero cult and the New Simonides’, ZPE 158: 15 26. Brinkmann, V. (1985), ‘Die aufgemalten Namensbeischriften an Nord und Ostfries des Siphnierschatzhauses’, BCH 109: 77 130. Brinkmann, V. (1994), Beobachtungen zum formalen Aufbau und zum Sinngehalt der Friese des Siphnierschatzhauses (Ennepetal). Brommer, F. (1971), Denkmälerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage 1: Herakles (Marburg). Brommer, F. (1984), Herakles 2: Die unkanonischen Taten des Helden (Darmstadt). Brown, C. G. (1992), ‘The Hyperboreans and Nemesis in Pindar’s Tenth Pythian’, Phoenix 46: 95 107.

202

References

Budelmann, F. (ed.) (2009), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric (Cambridge). Bulman, P. (1992), Phthonos in Pindar (Berkeley). Bundy, E. L. (1962), Studia Pindarica (Berkeley). Bundy, E. L. (1972), ‘The “quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios” part 1: the epilogue of Kallimachos’ Hymn to Apollo’, ClAnt 5: 39 94. Burian, P. (1971), ‘Suppliant drama: studies in the form and interpretation of five Greek tragedies’ (Diss. Princeton). Burian, P. (1972), ‘Supplication and hero cult in Sophocles’ Ajax’, GRBS 13: 151 6. Burian, P. (1974), ‘Suppliant and saviour: Oedipus at Colonus’, Phoenix 28: 408 29. Burian, P. (1997), ‘Myth into muthos: the shaping of the tragic plot’, in P. E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge): 178 208. Burkert, W. (1972), Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen (Berlin) = Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, transl. P. Bing (Berkeley 1983). Burkert, W. (1977), Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart); 2nd ed. rev. C. M. Schröder (Stuttgart 2011) = Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J. Raffan (Cambridge 1985). Burkert, W. (1979), Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley). Burkert, W. (1991), ‘Homer’s antropomorphism: narrative and ritual’, in D. Buitron Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Washing ton): 81 91 = Kleine Schriften 1, ed. C. Riedweg (Göttingen 2001): 80 94. Burkert, W. (2006), ‘Ritual between ethology and post modern aspects: philological historical notes’, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Ritual and Communication in the Graeco Roman World (Liège): 23 35. Burnett, A. P. (1989), ‘Performing Pindar’s odes’, CPh 84: 283 94. Burnett, A. P. (2005), Pindar’s Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina (Oxford). Burton, R. W. B. (1962), Pindar’s Pythian Odes (Oxford). Bury, J. B. (1890), The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London). Bury, J. B. (1892), The Isthmian Odes of Pindar (London). Burzacchini, G. (2009), ‘Momenti della poesia d’amore nella Grecia antica’, AMAM (M) 12: 231 58. Busche, K. (1903), Euripides: Iphigenie in Aulis (Leipzig). Buxton, R. G. A. (2013), Myths and Tragedies in their Ancient Greek Contexts (Oxford). Cairns, D. L. (2010), Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (3, 5, 9, 11, 13) (Cambridge). Calame, C. (1977), Les chœurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque I: Morpho logie, function religieuse et sociale (Rome) = Choruses of Young Women in

References

203

Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Function, trans. D. Collins and J. Orion (Lanham, MD 1997). Cameron, A. (1982), ‘Strato and Rufinus’, CQ 32: 162 73. Campbell, L. (1879/81), Sophocles, 2 vols (2Oxford). Cannatà Fera, M. (1990), Pindarus: Threnorum Fragmenta (Rome). Cannon, A. (1989), ‘The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and sentiment’, Current Anthropology 30: 437 58. Carey, C. (1981), A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2, Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8 (Salem, NH). Carey, C. (1989), ‘The performance of the victory ode’, AJPh 110: 545 65. Carey, C. (1991), ‘The victory ode in performance: the case for the chorus’, CPh 86: 192 200. Carey, C. (2007), ‘Pindar, place and performance’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds): 199 210. Carey, C. (2012), ‘The victory ode in the theatre’, in Agócs, Carey, and Rawles (eds): 17 36. Carey, C. (2013), ‘Comedy and the civic chorus’, in Bakola, Prauscello, and Telò (eds): 155 74. Cassella, P. (1999), La supplica all’ altare nella tragedia greca (Naples). Catterall, J. L. (1937), ‘Perseus 1’, RE 19: 978 92. Chantraine, P. (1942/53), Grammaire homérique, 2 vols (Paris). Citti, V., E. Degani, G. Giagrande, and G. Scarpa (1985 90), An Index to the Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Palatina and Planudea, 4 vols (Amsterdam). Clark, M. (1998), ‘Chryses’ supplication: speech act and mythological allusion’, ClAnt 17: 5 24. Cole, T. (2003), ‘Pindar’s two odes for Melissos of Thebes’, in F. Benedetti and S. Grandolini (eds), Studi di filologia e tradizione greca in memoria di Aristide Colonna (Naples): 241 52. Collard, C. and J. Moorwoord (2017), Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis, 2 vols (Liverpool). Contiades Tsitsoni, E. (1990), Hymenaios und Epithalamion: Das Hochzeit slied in der frühgriechischen Lyrik (Stuttgart). Crane, G. (1993), ‘The politics of consumption and generosity in the carpet scene of the Agamemnon’, CPh 88: 117 36. Cropp, M. J. (1988), Euripides: Electra (Warminster). Cropp, M. J. (2013), Euripides: Electra (2Oxford). Crotty, K. (1982), Song and Action: The Victory Odes of Pindar (Baltimore). Crotty, K. (1994), The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (Ithaca, NY). Currie, B. G. F. (2005), Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford). Currie, B. G. F. (2011), ‘Epinician choregia: funding a Pindaric chorus’, in Athanassaki and Bowie (eds): 269 310. Currie, B. G. F. (2013), ‘The Pindaric first person in flux’, ClAnt 32: 243 82.

204

References

Daebritz, R. (1914), ‘Hyperboreer’, RE 9: 258 79. Daitz, S. G. (1971), ‘Concepts of freedom and slavery in Eur. Hec.’, Hermes 99: 217 26. D’Alessio, G. B. (1994), ‘First person problems in Pindar’, BICS 39: 117 39. D’Alessio, G. B. (1997), ‘Prosodia and the classification of Pindaric papyrus fragments’, ZPE 118: 23 60. Davison, J. A. (1968), From Archilochus to Pindar (London). Dawe, R. D. (2006), Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (2Cambridge). Denniston, J. D. (1939), Euripides: Electra (Oxford). Denniston, J. D. (1954), The Greek Particles (2Oxford). Denniston, J. D. and D. L. Page (1957), Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford). Depew, M. (1993), ‘Mimesis and aetiology in Callimachus’ Hymns’, in M. A. Harder et al. (eds), Callimachus (Groningen): 57 77. Depew, M. (2000), ‘Enacted and represented dedications: genre and Greek hymn’, in: M. Depew and D. Obbink (eds), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, MA): 59 79. Detienne, M. (1996), The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece (New York). Deubner, L. (1919), ‘Paian’, Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 22: 385 406. Devlin, N. G. (1995), ‘The hymn in Greek literature: studies in form and content’ (Diss. Oxford). Dickey, E. (1996), Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford). Dickey, E. (2001), ‘Κύριε, δέσποτα, domine: Greek politeness in the Roman empire’, JHS 121: 1 11. Dickie, M. (1976), ‘On the meaning of ἐφήμερος’, ICS 1: 7 14. Diggle, J. (1967), ‘Euripides, Hippolytus 88 89’, CR 17: 133 4. Diggle, J. (1970), Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge). Diggle, J. (1992), Review of Euripides, Iphigenia Aulidensis, ed. H. C. Günther (Leipzig 1988), CR 42: 9 14. Dimock, G. E. Jr (1977), ‘Euripides’ Hippolytus, or virtue rewarded’, YCS 25: 239 58. Dissen L. (1830), Pindari Carmina, 2 vols (Gotha and Erfurt). Dodds, E. R. (1944), Euripides: Bacchae (Oxford). Dornseiff, F. (1921), Pindars Stil (Berlin). Dougherty, C. and L. Kurke (eds) (1993), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (Cambridge). Dover, K. J. (1968), Aristophanes: Clouds (Oxford). Dover, K. J. (1974), Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford). Dover, K. J. (1977), ‘I tessuti rossi dell’ Agamennone’, Dionisio 48: 55 69 = ‘The red fabric in the Agamemnon’, in Greek and the Greeks. Collected Papers 1: Language, Poetry, Drama (Oxford 1987): 151 60. Drachmann, A. B. (1891), Moderne Pindarfortolkning (Copenhagen).

References

205

Dreyer, O. (1970), Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Hildesheim). Duchemin, J. (1955), Pindare, poète et prophète (Paris). Duchemin, J. (1967), Pindare: Pythiques (III, IX, IV, V) (Paris). Dunbar, N. (1995), Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford). Düring, I. (1933), ‘Pindarica’, Eranos 31: 1 20. Easterling, P. E. (1973), ‘Presentations of character in Aeschylus’, G&R 20: 3 19. Easterling, P. E. (1985), ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’, JHS 105: 1 10. Easterling, P. E. (1988), ‘Tragedy and ritual: “cry woe, woe, but may the good prevail!” ’, Mètis 3: 87 109 = R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and Society in the Classical World (Ann Arbor 1993): 7 23. Easterling, P. E. (2004), ‘Now and forever in Greek drama and ritual’, in Yatromanolakis and Roilos (eds): 149 60. Eckermann, C. (2010), The κῶμος of Pindar and Bacchylides and the seman tics of celebration, CQ 60: 302 12. Ekroth, G. (2002), The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero Cults (Liège). Ekroth, G. (2007), ‘Heroes and hero cults’, in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion (Chichester): 100 14. Engels, J. (1998), Funerum sepulcrorumque magnificentia: Begräbnis und Grabluxusgesetze in der griechisch römischen Welt mit einigen Ausblicken auf Einschränkungen des funeralen und sepulkralen Luxus im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart). England, E. B. (1891), The Iphigeneia at Aulis of Euripides (New York). Erbse, H. (1969), ‘Pindars dritte Nemeische Ode’, Hermes 97: 272 91 = Ausgewählte Schriften zur klassischen Philologie (Berlin 1979): 104 25. Erbse, H. (1999), ‘Über Pindars Umgang mit dem Mythos’, Hermes 127: 13 32. Farnell, L. R. (1920), Outline History of Greek Religion (London). Farnell, L. R. (1921), Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford). Farnell, L. R. (1930/2), The Works of Pindar, 2 vols (London). Fearn, D. (ed.) (2011), Aegina. Contexts for Choral Lyric Poetry: Myth, History, and Identity in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford). Fearn, D. (ed.) (2017), Pindar’s Eyes: Visual and Material Culture in Epini cian Poetry (Oxford). Fears, J. R. (1981), ‘Gottesgnadentum (Gottkönigtum)’, RAC 11: 1103 59. Fears, J. R. (1988), ‘Ruler Worship’, in M. Grant and R. Kitzinger (eds), Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome 2 (New York): 1009 25. Fedeli, P. (1972), Il carme 61 di Catullo (Fribourg) = Catullus’ Carmen 61 (Amsterdam 1983). Fedeli, P. (2005), Properzio: Elegie libro II (Cambridge).

206

References

Feeney, D. (2013), ‘Catullus 61: epithalamium and comparison’, Cambridge Classical Journal (formerly PCPhS) 59: 70 97. Felson, N. (2004), ‘The poetic effect of deixis in Pindar’s Ninth Pythian Ode’, Arethusa 37: 365 89. Fennell, C. A. M. (1883), Pindar: The Nemean and the Isthmian Odes (Cambridge). Finglass, P. J. (2011), Sophocles: Ajax (Cambridge). Fink, F. (1974), Hochzeitsszenen auf attischen schwarz und rotfigurigen Vasen (Vienna). Firnhaber, C. G. (1841), Euripides: Iphigenia in Aulis (Leipzig). Flower, M. A. (2008), The Seer in Ancient Greece (Berkeley). Fogelmark, S. (1972), Studies in Pindar with Particular Reference to Paean VI and Nemean VII (Lund). Foley, H. P. (1988), ‘Tragedy and politics in Aristophanes’ Acharnians’, JHS 108: 33 47. Foley, H. P. (2001), Female Acts in Greek Tragedy (Princeton). Fontenrose, J. E. (1968), ‘The hero as athlete’, ClAnt 1: 73 104. Forsyth, P. Y. (1986), The Poems of Catullus (Lanham, MD). Fraccaroli, G. (1894), Le odi di Pindaro (Verona). Fraenkel, E. (1950), Aeschylus: Agamemnon, 3 vols (Oxford). Fraenkel, E. (1955), ‘Vesper adest: Catullus LXII’, JRS 45: 1 8 = Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 2 (Rome 1964): 87 101. Fraenkel, E. (1957), Horace (Oxford). Fraenkel, E. (1960), Elementi Plautini in Plauto, trans. F. Munari (Florence) = Plautine Elements in Plautus, trans. T. Drevikovsky and F. Muecke (Oxford 2007). Fraenkel, E. (1962), ‘Die Parabasenlieder’, in: Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome): 190 216 = H. J. Newiger (ed.), Aristophanes und die alte Komödie (Darmstadt 1975): 30 55. Fraenkel, E. (1972), ‘Pindaro senza lacrime’, Belfagor 27: 78 96. Fränkel, H. (1915), De Simia Rhodio (Göttingen). Fränkel, H. (1951), Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums: Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mittte des fünften Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt a.M.). Fränkel, H. (1955), ‘Ἐφήμερος als Kennwort für die menschliche Natur’, in Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens: Literarische und philosophie geschichtliche Studien (Munich): 23 39. Fredricksmeyer, E. A. (1981), ‘On the background of the ruler cult’, in H. J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honour of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki): 145 56. Frey, V. (1948), ‘Zur Komödie des Aristophanes’, MH 5: 168 77. Friederichs, C. (1863), Pindarische Studien (Berlin).

References

207

Friis Johansen, H. and E. W. Whittle (1980), Aeschylus: The Suppliants, 3 vols (Copenhagen). Furley, W. D. (1993), ‘Types of Greek hymns’, Eos 81: 21 41. Furley, W. D. (1995), ‘Praise and persuasion in Greek hymns’, JHS 115: 29 46. Furley, W. D. and J. M. Bremer (2001), Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols (Tübingen). Gagé, J. (1969), ‘Fackel (Kerze)’, RAC 7: 154 217. Garland, R. (1989), ‘The well ordered corpse: an investigation into the motives behind funeral legislation’, BICS 36: 1 15. Garner, R. (1990), From Homer to Tragedy: The Art of Allusion in Greek Poetry (London). Garvie, A. F. (1998), Sophocles: Ajax (Warminster). Garzya, A. (1955), Euripide: Ecuba (Rome). Garzya, A. (1962), Pensiero e tecnica drammatica in Euripide (Naples). Gerber, D. E. (1976), Emendations in Pindar: 1513 1972 (Amsterdam). Gerber, D. E. (1982), Pindar’s Olympian One (Toronto). Gerber, D. E. (ed.) (1984), Poetry and Philosophy: Festschrift L. Woodbury (Chico, CA). Gerber, D. E. (ed.) (1997), A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets (Leiden). Gianotti, G. F. (1975), Per una poetica Pindarica (Turin). Gildersleeve, B. L. (1885), Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York). Giordano, M. (1999), La supplica: Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero (Naples). Given, J. P. (2009), ‘When gods don’t appear: divine absence and human agency in Aristophanes’, CW 102: 107 27. Glucker, J. (1966), ‘Euripides, Hippolytus 88’, CR 16: 17. Gödde, S. (2000), Das Drama der Hikesie: Ritual und Rhetorik in Aischylos’ Hiketiden (Münster). Goheen, R. F. (1955), ‘Aspects of dramatic symbolism: three studies in the Oresteia’, AJPh 76: 113 37. Goldhill, S. (1983), ‘Narrative structure in Bacchylides 5’, Eranos 81: 65 81. Goldhill, S. (1990), ‘Supplication and authorial comment in the Iliad: Iliad Z 61 2’, Hermes 118: 373 6. Goldhill, S. (1991), The Poet’s Voice (Cambridge). Gomme, A. W. (1957), ‘Interpretations of some poems of Alkaios and Sappho’, JHS 77: 255 66. Gould, J. (1973), ‘Hiketeia’, JHS 93: 74 103 = Myth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange (Oxford 2003): 22 77. Gow, A. S. F. (1950), Theocritus, 2 vols (Cambridge). Goward, B. (2005), Aeschylus: Agamemnon (London).

208

References

Graf, F. (1995), ‘Bemerkungen zur bürgerlichen Religiosität im Zeitalter des Hellenismus’, in Wörrle and Zanker (eds): 103 14. Graf, F. (ed.) (1998), Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Festschrift W. Burkert (Stuttgart). Grant, M. A. (1967), Folktale and Hero Tale Motifs in the Odes of Pindar (Lawrence, KS). Grethlein, J. (2011), ‘Divine, human and poetic time in Pindar, Pythian 9’, Mnemosyne 64: 383 409. Griffin, J. (1980), Homer on Life and Death (Oxford). Griffin, J. (1990), ‘Characterization in Euripides: Hippolytus and Iphigenia at Aulis’, in C. B. R. Pelling (ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford): 128 49. Griffith, M. (2006), ‘Horsepower and donkeywork: equids and the ancient Greek imagination’, CPh 101: 185 246. Griffith, M. (2009), ‘Greek lyric and the place of humans in the world’, in Budelmann (ed.): 72 94. Griffith, R. D. (1989), ‘In praise of the bride: Sappho fr. 105(A) L P, Voigt’, TAPhA 119: 55 61. Griffith, R. D. (1999), The Theatre of Apollo: Divine Justice and Sophocles’ Oedipus The King (Montreal). Griffiths, A. (1972), ‘Alcman’s partheneion: the morning after and the night before’, QUCC 14: 7 30. Günther, H. C. (1997), Quaestiones Propertianae (Leiden). Habicht, C. (1970), Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (2Munich) = Divine Honours for Mortal Men in Greek Cities: The Early Cases, trans. J. N. Dillon (Ann Arbor 2017). Hague, R. H. (1983), ‘Ancient Greek wedding song: the tradition of praise’, Journal of Folklore Research 20: 131 43. Hall, E. (1989), Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self Definition Through Tragedy (Oxford). Halliwell, S. (2008), Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge). Hamilton, J. R. (1969), Plutarch: Alexander (Oxford). Hamilton, R. (1974), Epinikion: General Form in the Odes of Pindar (The Hague). Harris, J. R. (1986), ‘Sappho 105a and the Gaelic songs of Mary MacLeod: poetic representation vindicated’, CJ 81: 112 18. Harvey, A. E. (1957), ‘Homeric epithets in Greek lyric poetry’, CQ 7: 206 23. Häussler, R. (1968), Nachträge zu A. Otto, Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche Redensarten der Römer (Darmstadt). Headlam, W. G. (1905), ‘Illustrations of Pindar II’, CR 19: 148 50. Heath, M. (1986), ‘The origins of modern Pindaric criticism’, JHS 106: 85 98.

References

209

Heath, M. (1987), The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London). Heath, M. (1988), ‘Receiving the κῶμος: the context and performance of epinician’, AJPh 109: 180 95. Heath, M. and M. Lefkowitz (1991), ‘Epinician performance: a response to Burnett and Carey’, CPh 86: 173 91. Heer, C. de (1969), Μάκαρ εὐδαίμων ὄλβιος εὐτυχής: A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the Fifth Century (Amsterdam). Heinemann, A. (2016), Der Gott des Gelages: Dionysos, Satyrn und Mänaden auf attischem Trinkgeschirr des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin). Heitsch, E. (1963/4), Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kai serzeit, 2 vols (2Göttingen). Henrichs, A. (1994/5), ‘ “Why should I dance?”: choral self referentiality in Greek tragedy’, Arion 3: 56 111. Henrichs, A. (2000), ‘Drama and dromena: bloodshed, violence, and sacri ficial metaphor in Euripides’, HSPh 100: 173 88. Henrichs, A. (2004), ‘ “Let the good prevail”: perversions of the ritual process in Greek tragedy’, in Yatromanolakis and Roilos (eds): 189 98. Hermann, G. (1821), Euripidis fragmenta duo Phaethontis e Cod. Claromon tano edita (Leipzig) = Opuscula 3 (Leipzig 1828): 1 21. Hermann, G. (1847/8), De interpolationibus Euripideae Iphigeniae in Aulide, 2 vols (Leipzig). Herrmann, H. V. (1980), ‘Pelops in Olympia’, in Στήλη: Festschrift N. Kontoleon (Athens): 59 74. Herrmann, H. V. (1995), ‘Γέρας θανόντων: Totenruhm und Totenehrung im städtischen Leben der hellenistischen Zeit’, in Wörrle and Zanker (eds): 189 97. Hersch, K. K. (2010), The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity (Cambridge). Heyne, C. G. (1823), Pindari Carmina (London). Heyworth, S. (2007), Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius (Oxford). Hofinger, M. (1975 8), Lexicon Hesiodeum cum indice inverso, 4 vols (Leiden). Hollis, A. S. (2007), Fragments of Roman Poetry, c. 60 B.C. A.D. 20 (Oxford). Horn, W. (1970), Gebet und Gebetsparodie in den Komödien des Aristoph anes (Nuremberg). Hornblower, S. and C. Morgan (eds) (2007), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire (Oxford). Horstmann, S. (2004), Das Epithalamium in der lateinischen Literatur der Spätantike (Munich). Housman, A. E. (1888), ‘Emendationes Propertianae’, Journal of Philology 16: 1 35 = (1972) 1.29 54. Housman, A. E. (1907), ‘Luciliana’, CQ 1: 53 74, 148 59 = (1972) 2.662 97.

210

References

Housman, A. E. (1972), The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman, ed. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear, 3 vols (Cambridge). Hubbard, T. K. (1985), The Pindaric Mind: A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Leiden). Hubbard, T. K. (1992), ‘Remaking myth and rewriting history: cult tradition in Pindar’s Ninth Nemean’. HSPh 94: 77 111. Hughes, D. D. (1999), ‘Hero cult, heroic honours, heroic dead: some devel opments in the Hellenistic and Roman periods’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult (Stockholm): 167 75. Hummel, P. (1993), La Syntaxe de Pindare (Leuven). Humphreys, S. C. (1980), ‘Family tombs and tomb cult in Ancient Athens: tradition or traditionalism?’, JHS 100: 96 126 = The Family, Women and Death: Comparative Studies (Ann Arbor 1983): 79 134. Hunt, A. S. (1911), Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library 1 (Manchester). Huntington, R. and P. Metcalf (1979), Celebrations of Death: The Anthro pology of Mortuary Ritual (Cambridge). Hutchinson, G. O. (2001), Greek Lyric Poetry: A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces (Oxford). Hutchinson, G. O. (2011), ‘Morality and time in fifth and fourth century Greek literature’, Eikasmos 22: 111 30. Illig, L. (1932), Zur Form der pindarischen Erzählung (Berlin). Indergaard, H. M. (2011a), ‘Thebes, Aegina, and the temple of Aphaia: a reading of Pindar’s Isthmian 6’, in Fearn (ed.): 294 322. Indergaard, H. M. (2011b), ‘Pindar and the mythology of Heracles’ (Diss. Oxford). Instone, S. (1993), ‘Problems in Pindar’s third Nemean’, Eranos 91: 13 31. Instone, S. (1996), Pindar: Selected Odes (Warminster). Ivanov, R. V. (2010), ‘Pindar’s Isthmians 3 and 4’ (Diss. Cornell). Jachmann, G. (1935), ‘Eine Elegie des Properz ein Überlieferungsschicksal’, RhM 84: 193 240. Jachmann, G. (1964), ‘Sappho und Catull’, RhM 107: 1 33. Jaeger, W. (1933 47), Paideia: Die Formung des griechischen Menschen, 3 vols (Berlin). Jebb, R. C. (1885), Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments 2: Oedipus Coloneus (Cambridge). Jebb, R. C. (1905), Bacchylides: The Poems and Fragments (Cambridge). Jenkins, I. D. (1983), ‘Is there life after marriage? A study of the abduction motif in vase paintings of the Athenian wedding ceremony’, BICS 30: 137 45. Jenkins, I. D. (1985), ‘The ambiguity of Greek textiles’, Arethusa 18: 109 32. Jong, I. J. F. de and R. Nünlist (eds) (2007), Time in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden).

References

211

Jouanna, J. (1992), ‘Libations et sacrifices dans la tragédie grecque’, REG 105: 406 34. Jourdain Annequin, C. (1980/1), ‘Héraclès héros culturel’, Atti del Centro Ricerche e Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica 11: 8 29. Kaibel, G. (1892), ‘Theokrits Ἑλένηϲ ἐπιθαλάμιον’, Hermes 27: 249 59. Kambylis, A. (1964), ‘Anredeformen bei Pindar’, in A. Anastasiou, A. Kambylis, and A. Skiadas (eds), Χάρις: Festschrift K. I. Vourveris (Athens): 95 199. Kamerbeek, J. C. (1984), The Plays of Sophocles 7: The Oedipus Coloneus (Leiden). Käppel, L. (1992), Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung (Berlin). Kelly, A. (2009), Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus (London). Keyssner, K. (1932), Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus (Stuttgart). Killeen, J. F. (1973), ‘Sappho fr. 111’, CQ 23: 197. Kirk, G. S. (1963), ‘A fragment of Sappho reinterpreted’, CQ 13: 51 2. Kirkwood, G. M. (1974), Early Greek Monody: The History of a Poetic Type (Ithaca, NY). Kirkwood, G. M. (1981), ‘Pythian 5.72 7, 9.90 9, and the voice of Pindar’, ICS 6: 12 23. Kirkwood, G. M. (1982), Selections from Pindar (Chicago). Kleinknecht, H. (1937a), Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (Stuttgart). Kleinknecht, H. (1937b), ‘Zur Parodie des Gottmenschentums bei Aristoph anes’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 34: 294 313. Kleinknecht, H. (1939), ‘Die Epiphanie des Demos in Aristophanes’ Rittern’, Hermes 177: 58 65. Köhnken, A. (1971), Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar: Interpretationen zu sechs Pindargedichten (Berlin). Köhnken, A. (1983), ‘Mythical chronology and thematic coherence in Pindar’s Third Olympian Ode’, HSPh 87: 49 63. Kopperschmidt, J. (1967), Die Hikesie als dramatische Form: Zur motivischen Interpretation des griechischen Dramas (Tübingen). Kopperschmidt, J. (1971), ‘Hikesie als dramatische Form’, in W. Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie (Munich): 321 46. Kost, K. (1971), Musaios: Hero und Leander (Bonn). Kovacs, D. (1980), ‘Euripides Hippolytus 100 and the meaning of the prologue’, CPh 75: 130 7. Kranz, W. (1933), Stasimon: Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragödie (Berlin). Krebs, J. P. (1813), Des Kaius Valerius Katullus Brautlied auf die Vermählung des Manlius Torquatus und der Iulia Aurunculeia (Giessen). Kroll, W. (1923), C. Valerius Catullus (Leipzig).

212

References

Krummen, E. (1990), Pyrsos Hymnon: Festliche Gegenwart und mythisch rituelle Tradition als Voraussetzung einer Pindarinterpretation (Isthmie 4, Pythie 5, Olympie 1 und 3) (Berlin) = Cult, Myth, and Occasion in Pindar’s Victory Odes: A Study of Isthmian 4, Pythian 5, Olympian 1, and Olympian 3, trans. J. G. Howie (Prenton 2014). Krummen, E. (1998), ‘Ritual und Katastrophe: Rituelle Handlung und Bil dersprache bei Sophokles und Euripides’, in Graf (ed.): 296 325. Kugelmeier, C. (1996), Reflexe früher und zeitgenössischer Lyrik in der Alten attischen Komödie (Stuttgart). Kurke, L. (1991), The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca, NY). Kurke, L. (1993), ‘The economy of kudos’, in Dougherty and Kurke (eds): 131 63. Kurtz, D. C., and J. Boardman (1971), Greek Burial Customs (Ithaca, NY). Kurtz, D. C., and J. Boardman (1985), Thanatos: Tod und Jenseits bei den Griechen (Mainz). La Coste Messelière, P. de (1931), Art archaique 3: Sculptures des temples (Paris). Lacoste, H. (1920), La terrasse du temple: Relevés et restaurations (Paris). Lammers, J. (1931), Die Doppel und Halbchöre in der antiken Tragödie (Paderborn). Lardinois, A. P. M. H. (1995), ‘Wisdom in context: the use of gnomic statements in archaic Greek poetry’ (Diss. Ann Arbor). Lardinois, A. P. M. H. (1996), ‘Who sang Sappho’s songs?’, in E. Green (ed.), Reading Sappho: Contemporary Approaches (Berkeley): 150 72. Lattimore, R. A. (1942), Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, IL). Lattimore, R. A. (1964), Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (London). Lattmann, C. (2010), Das Gleiche im Verschiedenen: Metapher des Sports und Lob des Siegers in Pindars Epinikien (Berlin). Lattmann, C. (2012), ‘Ritualisierter Siegpreis: Anmerkungen zur pragma tischen Dimension von Epinikien’, Nikephoros 25: 19 78. Lee, H. M. (1978), ‘The “historical” Budy and encomiastic relevance in Pindar’, CW 72: 65 70. Leeuwen, J. D. van (1901), Aristophanis Acharnenses (Leiden). Leeuwen, J. D. van (1902), Aristophanis Aves (Leiden). Lefkowitz, M. R. (1963), ‘Τῶ καὶ ἐγώ: the first person in Pindar’, HSPh 67: 177 253 = (1991) 1 71. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1969), ‘Bacchylides’ ode 5: imitation and originality’, HSPh 73: 45 96. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1974), Review of Köhnken (1971), CW 68: 117 18. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1988), ‘Who sang Pindar’s victory odes?’, AJPh 109: 1 11 = (1991) 191 201. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1991), First Person Fictions: Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’ (Oxford).

References

213

Lefkowitz, M. R. (1995), ‘The first person in Pindar reconsidered again’, BICS 40: 139 50. Liberman, G. (2007), ‘L’édition alexandrine de Sappho’, in G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds), I papiri di Saffo e di Alceo (Florence): 41 65. Lieberg, G. (1962), Puella divina: Die Gestalt der göttlichen Geliebten bei Catull im Zusammenhang der antiken Dichtung (Amsterdam). Lissi Caronna, E., C. Sabbione, and L. Vlad Borrelli (1999 2007), I pinakes di Locri Epizefiri: Musei di Reggio Calabria e di Locri, 3 vols (Rome). Livrea, E. (2008), ‘Sapphica’, ZPE 164: 1 7. Lloyd, M. A. (2007), ‘Euripides’, in De Jong and Nünlist (eds): 293 304. Lloyd Jones, H. (1952), ‘The robes of Iphigenia: Aeschylus, Agamemnon 228 43’, CR 2: 132 5 = (1990) 300 4. Lloyd Jones, H. (1967), ‘Sappho fr. 111’, CQ 17: 168. Lloyd Jones, H. (1982), ‘Pindar’, PBA 68: 139 63 = (1990) 57 79. Lloyd Jones, H. (1990), Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd Jones (Oxford). Lloyd Jones, H. (1998), ‘Ritual and tragedy’, in Graf (ed.): 271 96 = The Further Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd Jones (Oxford 2005): 141 62. Lobel, E. (1951), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXI (London). Long, A. A. and D. N. Sedley (1987), The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols (Cambridge). Loraux, N. (1981), L’invention d’Athènes: Histoire de l’oraison funèbre dans la ‘cité classique’ (Paris) = The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City, trans. A Sheridan (Cambridge, MA 1986). Luraghi, N. (1994), Tirannidi archaice in Sicilia e Magna Grecia: Da Panezio di Leontini alla caduta dei Dinomenidi (Florence). Lyghounis, M. G. (1991), ‘Elementi tradizionali nella poesia nuziale greca’, MD 27: 159 98. Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1980), The Latin Love Poets: From Catullus to Horace (Oxford). Lynn George, M. (1988), Epos: Word, Narrative and the Iliad (London). Maas, P. (1907), ‘Ὑμὴν ὑμήν’, Philologus 66: 590 6. MacDowell, D. M. (1986), Spartan Law (Edinburgh). Mackey, E. A. (2002), ‘The hairstyle of Herakles’, in A. J. Clark and J. Gaunt (eds), Essays in Honour of Dietrich von Bothmer (Amsterdam): 203 10. Mackie, H. S. (2003), Graceful Errors: Pindar and the Performance of Praise (Ann Arbor). Mackin, E. (2018), ‘Girls playing Persephone (in marriage and death)’, Mnemosyne 71: 209 28. MacLachlan, B. C. (1997), ‘Personal poetry’, in Gerber (ed.): 133 220. Mangelsdorff, E. A. (1913), Das lyrische Hochzeitsgedicht bei den Griechen und Römern (Hamburg). Manuwald, B. (2012), Sophokles: König Ödipus (Berlin).

214

References

Marcovich, M. (1963/4), ‘On Sappho fr. 111 L. P.’, Humanidades 5 6: 223 7. Marcovich, M. (1969), ‘Bedeutung der Motive des Volksglaubens für die Textinterpretation’, QUCC 8: 22 36. Marcovich, M. (1972), ‘Sappho fr. 31: anxiety attack or love declaration?’, CQ 22: 19 32. Marzullo, B. (1984), ‘Simonides fr. 515 Page’, Philologus 128: 145 56. Mason, H. J. (2004), ‘Sappho’s apples’, in M. Zimmerman and R. T. van der Paardt (eds), Metamorphic Reflections: Festschrift B. Hijmans (Leuven): 243 53. Matthiessen, K. (1999), Review of H. C. Günther (ed.), Euripides, Iphigenia Aulidensis (Leipzig 1988) and Stockert (1992), Gnomon 71: 395 402. Matthiessen, K. (2010), Euripides: Hekabe (Berlin). Mau, A. (1909), ‘Fackeln’, RE 6.2: 1945 53. McKay, K. J. (1967), ‘Door magic and the epiphany hymn’, CQ 17: 184 94. McNeal, R. A. (1978), ‘Structure and metaphor in Pindar’s fourth Isthmian’, QUCC 28: 135 56. Meister, F. J. (2017a), ‘The addressee(s) of Sapph. fr. 112 V.’, Mnemosyne 70: 488 93. Meister, F. J. (2017b), ‘The text and aurthor of Sapph. fr. 117 V.’, Mnemosyne 70: 658 65. Meister, F. J. (2018a), ‘A form of Greek emphatic address: σὺ δέ with vocative’, Glotta 94: 243 58. Meister, F. J. (2018b), ‘Hieron at Pi. O. 6.12 18’, Mnemosyne 71: 315 21. Meister, F. J. (2018c), ‘The syntax of Pi. I. 3/4.9 13’, Mnemosyne 71: 861 4. Meister, F. J. (2018d), Review of S. Caciagli (ed.), Eros e genere in Grecia arcaica (Bologna 2017), CR 68: 319 22. Meister, F. J. (2019a), ‘The text and metre of Sapph. fr. 114 V.’, Mnemosyne 72: 1 11. Meister, F. J. (2019b), ‘Hieron and Zeus in Pindar’, CPh 114: 366 82. Meister, F. J. (2019c), ‘The text and metre of Sapph. fr. 111 V.’, Mnemosyne 72: 705 16. Meister, F. J. (2019d), ‘The text and metre of Sapph. fr. 117 V.’, Mnemosyne (forthcoming). Meister, F. J. (2019e), ‘The transmission, genre, and metre of Sapph. fr. 104a V.’, RhM (forthcoming). Meister, K. (1921), Die homerische Kunstsprache (Leipzig). Mercier, C. E. (1998), Review of Crotty (1994), CPh 93: 192 6. Merkelbach, R. (1957), ‘Sappho und ihr Kreis’, Philologus 101: 1 29. Merkelbach, R. (1967), ‘Ein Alkaios Papyrus (P.Colon. inv. 2021)’, ZPE 1: 81 95. Metcalf, C. (2015), The Gods Rich in Praise: Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry (Oxford).

References

215

Meyer, H. (1933), Hymnische Stilelemente in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Würzburg). Mezger, F. (1880), Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig). Michelakis, P. (2002), Achilles in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge). Mikalson, J. D. (1998), Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley). Mikalson, J. D. (2006), ‘Greek religion: continuity and change in the Hellen istic period’, in G. R. Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (Cambridge): 208 222. Millender, E. G. (2017), ‘Spartan women’, in A. Powell (ed.), A Companion to Sparta (Hoboken, NJ): 500 24. Miller, A. M. (1993), ‘Pindaric mimesis: the associative mode’, CJ 89: 21 53. Miller, P. A. (2013), ‘The puella: accept no substitutions!’, in T. S. Thorsen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy (Cambridge): 166 79. Mills, S. (2002), Euripides: Hippolytus (London). Morgan, K. A. (1993), ‘Pindar the professional and the rhetoric of the κῶμοϲ’, CPh 88: 1 15. Morgan, K. A. (2008), Review of Currie (2005), Hermathena 185: 135 40. Morgan, K. A. (2015), Pindar and the Construction of the Syracusan Mon archy in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford). Morris, I. (1992), Death Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge). Morrison, A. D. (2007), Performance and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes (London). Morrison, A. D. (2011), ‘Aeginetan odes, reperformance, and Pindaric inter textuality’, in Fearn (ed.): 227 53. Most, G. W. (1985), The Measures of Praise: Structure and Function in Pindar’s Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes (Göttingen). Most, G. W. (2003), ‘Epinician envies’, in D. Konstan and K. Rutter (eds), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh): 123 42. Mullen, W. (1982), Choreia: Pindar and Dance (Princeton). Murray, G. G. A. (1940), Aeschylus: The Creator of Tragedy (Oxford). Muth, R. (1954), ‘Hymenaios und Epithalamion’, WS 67: 5 45. Nagy, G. (1979), The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore). Nagy, G. (1990), Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore). Naiden, F. S. (2006), Ancient Supplication (Oxford). Nassen, P. J. (1975), ‘A literary study of Pindar’s Olympian 10’, TAPhA 105: 219 40. Neumann, G. (1965), Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst (Berlin).

216

References

Newman, J. K. and F. S. Newman (1984), Pindar’s Art: Its Tradition and Aims (Hildesheim). Nicholson, N. (2001), ‘Victory without defeat? Carnival laughter and its appropriation in Pindar’s victory odes’, in P. Barta et al. (eds), Carnivaliz ing Difference: Bakhtin and the Other (London): 79 98. Nicholson, N. (2016), The Poetics of Victory in the Greek West: Epinician, Oral Tradition, and the Deinomenid Empire (Oxford). Nieto Hernández, M. P. (1993), ‘Heracles and Pindar’, Mètis 8: 75 102. Nilsson, M. P. (1925), A History of Greek Religion, trans. F. J. Fielden (Oxford). Nilsson, M. P. (1948), Greek Piety, trans. H. J. Rose (Oxford). Nilsson, M. P. (1941/50), Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 2 vols (Munich). Nisbet, R. G. M. and M. Hubbard (1970), A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book 1 (Oxford). Norberg, D. (1945), L’Olympionique, le poète et leur renom éternel: Contri bution à l’étude de l’ode I, 1 d’Horace (Uppsala). Norden, E. (1913), Agnostos Theos (Leipzig). Nordgren, L. (2015), Greek Interjections: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics (Berlin). Nünlist, R. (2007), ‘Pindar and Bacchylides’, in De Jong and Nünlist (eds): 233 51. Oakley, J. H. and R. H. Sinos (1993), The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison, WI). Ohly, D. (1976), Die Aegineten: Die Marmorskulpturen des Tempels der Aphaia auf Aegina, 2 vols (Munich). Olson, S. D. (1998), Aristophanes: Peace (Oxford). Olson, S. D. (2002), Aristophanes: Acharnians (Oxford). Ortkemper, H. (1969), Szenische Techniken des Euripides: Untersuchungen zur Gebärdensprache im antiken Theater (Berlin). O’Sullivan, P. (2003), ‘Victory statue, victory song: Pindar’s agonistic poetics and its legacy’, in D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard (eds), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World (Swansea): 75 100. Otto, A. (1890), Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig). Pack, R. A. (1965), The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco Roman Egypt (2Ann Arbor) Page, D. L. (1934), Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy: Studied with Special Reference to Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis (Oxford). Page, D. L. (1938), Euripides: Medea (Oxford). Page, D. L. (1950), Select Papyri 3: Poetry (Cambridge, MA). Page, D. L. (1955), Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry (Oxford).

References

217

Page, D. L. (1978), The Epigrams of Rufinus (Cambridge). Palmisciano, R. (2003), ‘È mai esistita la poesia popolare nella Grecia antica’, in Ῥυσμός: Festschrift L. E. Rossi (Rome): 151 71. Papadopoulou, T. (2000), ‘Cassandra’s radiant vigour and the ironic opti mism of Euripides’ Troades’, Mnemosyne 53: 513 27. Parker, L. P. E. (1958), ‘Some observations on the incidence of word end in anapaestic paroemiacs and its application to textual questions’, CQ 8: 82 9. Parker, L. P. E. (1997), The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford). Parker, R. (1996), Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford). Parker, R. (1998), ‘Pleasing thighs: reciprocity in Greek religion’, in C. Gill et al. (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford): 105 25. Parker, R. (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens (Oxford). Patten, G. (2009), Pindar’s Metaphors: A Study in Rhetoric and Meaning (Heidelberg). Pattoni, M. P. (2011), ‘Scene di supplica nel teatro eschileo: simmetrie strut turali ed equivalenze politiche’, in A. Beltrametti (ed.), La storia sulla scena: Quello che gli storici antichi non hanno raccontato (Rome): 127 48. Pavlou, M. (2011), ‘Past and present in Pindar’s religious poetry’, in A. P. M. H. Lardinois et al. (eds), Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion (Leiden): 59 78. Pease, A. S. (1955/8), M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum Libri III, 2 vols (Cambridge, MA). Pedrick, V. (1982), ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, TAPhA 112: 125 40. Perón, J. (1974), Les images maritimes de Pindare (Paris). Perotta, G. (1935), Saffo e Pindaro: Due saggi critici (Bari). Petridou, G. (2015), Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford). Petrucione, J. (1986), ‘The role of the poet and his song in Nemean 1’, AJPh 107: 34 45. Pfeiffer, R., (1929), ‘Gottheit und Individuum in der frühgriechischen Lyrik’, Philologus 84: 137 52 = Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. W. Bühler (Munich 1968): 42 54. Pfeijffer, I. L. (1999), Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar (Leiden). Pfister, F. (1924), ‘Epiphanie’, RE Suppl. 4: 277 323. Pfister, F. (1930), Die Religion der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig). Pighi, G. B. (1974), Il libro di Valerio Catullo e i frammenti dei ‘poeti nuovi’ (Turin). Pimpinelli, M. A. (1994), ‘Eracle ad Olimpia: la metope del tempio di Zeus’, Ostraka 3: 349 416. Places, E. des (1947), Le pronom chez Pindare: Recherches philologiques et critiques (Paris).

218

References

Podlecki, A. J. (1976), ‘Athens and Aegina’, Historia 25: 396 413. Poe, J. P. (1989), ‘The altar in the fifth century theater’, ClAnt 8: 116 39. Pöhlmann, E. (1990), ‘Zur Überlieferung griechischer Literatur vom 8. bis zum 4. Jh.’, in W. Kullmann and M. Reichel (eds), Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen (Tübingen): 11 30. Poltera, O. (2008), Simonides lyricus (Basel). Powell, J. E. (1949), Herodotus, 2 vols (Oxford). Préaux, C. (1978), Le Monde hellénistique: La Grèce et l’Orient de la mort d’Alexandre à la conquête romaine de la Grèce (323 146 av. J. C.), 2 vols (Paris). Privitera, G. A. (1972), ‘Eracle nella prima Nemea’, GIF 3: 28 51. Privitera, G. A. (1974), La rete di Afrodite: Studi su Saffo (Palermo). Privitera, G. A. (1978/9), ‘Le vittorie di Melisso nelle Istmiche III e IV’, Helikon 18/19: 3 21. Privitera, G. A. (1982), Pindaro: Le Istmiche (Milan). Prückner, H. (1968), Die lokrischen Tonreliefs: Ein Beitrag zur Kultur geschichte von Lokroi Epizephyrioi (Mainz). Pulleyn, S. (1997), Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford). Race, W. H. (1982), ‘Aspects of rhetoric and form in Greek hymns’, GRBS 23: 5 14. Race, W. H. (1986), Pindar (Boston). Race, W. H. (1989), ‘Elements of style in Pindar’s break offs’, AJPh 110: 189 209. Race, W. H. (1990), Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes (Atlanta). Race, W. H. (2004), ‘Elements of the plot and the formal presentation in Pindar’s Olympian 12’, CJ 99: 373 94. Radt, S. L. (1966), ‘Pindars erste Nemeische Ode: Versuch einer Interpret ation’, Mnemosyne 19: 148 74. Radt, S. L. (1974), Review of Köhnken (1971), Gnomon 46: 113 21. Raeburn, D. and O. Thomas (2011), The Agamemnon of Aeschylus (Oxford). Raschke, W. J. (1988), ‘Images of victory: some new considerations of athletic monuments’, in id. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Olympics: The Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity (Madison, WI): 38 54. Rau, P. (1967), Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aris tophanes (Munich). Rawles, R. (2013), ‘Aristophanes’ Simonides: lyric models for praise and blame’, in Bakola, Prauscello, and Telò (eds): 175 201. Redfield, J. M. (1975), Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Chicago). Redfield, J. M. (2003), The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy (Princeton). Rehak, P. (1998), ‘Unfinished hair and the installation of the pedimental sculptures of the temple of Zeus at Olympia’, in K. J. Hartswick and

References

219

M. C. Sturgeon (eds), Στέφανος: Festschrift B. S. Ridgway (Philadelphia): 193 208. Rehm, R. (1994), Marriage to Death: The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy (Princeton). Reitzenstein, E. (1936), Wirklichkeitsbild und Gefühlsentwicklung bei Properz (Leipzig). Reitzenstein, R. (1893), Epigramm und Skolion: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung (Giessen). Reitzenstein, R. (1900), ‘Die Hochzeit des Peleus und der Thetis’, Hermes 35: 73 105. Reitzenstein, R. (1912), Zur Sprache der lateinischen Erotik (Heidelberg). Renehan, R. (1983), ‘The early Greek poets: some interpretations’, HSPh 87: 1 29. Richardson, L. (1977), Propertius: Elegies I IV (Norman, OK). Ritchie, W. (1978), ‘Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis 919 974’, in R. D. Dawe et al. (eds), Dionysiaca: Festschrift D. L. Page (Cambridge), 179 203. Robbins, E. (1984), ‘Intimations of immortality: Pindar, Ol. 3.34 35’, in Gerber (ed.): 219 28. Robbins, E. (1997), ‘The public poetry’, in Gerber (ed.): 221 87. Roberts, M. (1989), ‘The use of myth in Latin epithalamia from Statius to Venantius Fortunatus’, TAPhA 119: 321 48. Rodighiero, A. (2012), Generi lirico corali nella produzione drammatica di Sofocle (Tübingen). Rohde, E. (1876), Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig). Rohde, E. (1898), Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, 2 vols (2Freiburg). Roloff, D. (1970), Gottähnlichkeit, Vergöttlichung und Erhöhung zu seligem Leben: Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der platonischen Angleichung an Gott (Berlin). Romè, A. (1965), ‘L’uso degli epiteti in Saffo e Alceo con riferimento alla tradizione epico rapsodica’, SCO 14: 210 46. Romm, J. (1989), ‘Herodotus and mythic geography: the case of the Hyper boreans’, TAPhA 119: 97 113. Rose, P. W. (1974), ‘The myth of Pindar’s first Nemean: sportsman, poetry, paideia’, HSPh 78: 145 75. Rose, P. W. (1992), Sons of the Gods, Children of the Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece (Ithaca, NY). Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1969), ‘The rookie: a reading of Pindar Nemean 1’, ClAnt 2: 233 46. Rutherford, I. C. (1990), ‘Paeans by Simonides’, HSPh 93: 169 209. Rutherford, I. C. (1992), ‘Two heroic prosodia: a study of Pindar, “Paeans XIV V” ’, ZPE 92: 59 72. Rutherford, I. C. (1995), ‘Apollo in ivy: the tragic paean’, Arion 3: 112 35.

220

References

Rutherford, I. C. (2001), Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre (Oxford). Sailor, D. and S. C. Stroup (1999), ‘Φθόνος δ’ ἀπέστω: the translation of transgression in Aiskhylos’ Agamemnon’, ClAnt 18: 153 82. Sanders, L. J. (1991), ‘Dionysius I of Syracuse and the origins of the ruler cult in the Greek world’, Historia 40: 275 87. Sandin, P. (2003), Aeschylus’ Supplices: Introduction and Commentary on vv. 1 523 (Göteborg). Sandin, P. (2014), ‘Famous Hyperboreans’, Nordlit 33: 205 21. Santi, F. (2006), ‘Gli Egineti, gli Eacidi e le figlie di Asopo’, ArchClass 7: 1 27. Schadewaldt, W. (1928), Der Aufbau des pindarischen Epinikion (Halle). Schadewaldt, W. (1951), Sappho. Welt und Dichtung: Dasein in der Liebe (Potsdam). Schlesier, R. (2014), ‘Goldene Aphrodite: zu einem Paradigma der antiken Literatur’, in A. Sakoparnig et al. (eds), Paradigmenwechsel: Wandel in den Künsten und Wissenschaften (Berlin): 259 76. Schroeder, O. (1922), Pindars Pythien (Leipzig). Scivoletto, N. (1974), ‘Ticida, poeta novus’, in G. Puccioni (ed.), Poesia Latina in frammenti: Miscellanea filologia (Genoa): 201 11. Scodel, R. (1996), ‘Self correction, spontaneity, and orality in archaic poetry’, in I. Worthington (ed.), Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece (Leiden): 59 79. Scott, M. (2007), ‘Putting architectural sculpture into its archaeological context: the case of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi’, BABesch 82: 321 31. Scott, M. (2010), Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Period (Cambridge). Scullion, S. (1999/2000), ‘Tradition and invention in Euripidean aitiology’, in M. J. Cropp et al. (eds), Euripides and the Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (Champaign, IL): 217 33. Seaford, R. (1987), ‘The tragic wedding’, JHS 107: 106 30. Seaford, R. (1994), Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Devel oping City State (Oxford). Seaford, R. (2004), ‘Tragedy, Ritual, and Money’, in Yatromanolakis and Roilos (eds): 71 93. Seaford, R. (2009), ‘Aetiologies of cult in Euripides: a response to Scott Scullion’, in J. C. R. Cousland and J. Hume (eds), The Play of Texts and Fragments: Festschrift M. Cropp (Leiden): 219 34. Segal, C. P. (1974), ‘Time and the hero: the myth of Pindar’s First Nemean’, RhM 117: 29 39. Segal, C. P. (1981), ‘Myth, cult, and memory in Pindar’s Third and Fourth Isthmian Odes’, Ramus 10: 69 86. Segal, C. P. (1986), Interpreting Greek Tragedy: Myth, Poetry, Text (Ithaca, NY).

References

221

Segal, C. P. (1993), Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow: Art, Gender, and Commemoration in Alcestis, Hippolytus, and Hecuba (Durham). Setti, A. (1939), ‘Sul fr. 2 di Saffo’, SIFC 16: 195 231. Shapiro, K. (1988), ‘Hymnon thesauros: Pindar’s sixth Pythian ode and the treasury of the Siphnians at Delphi’, MH 45: 1 5. Shipley, G. (2000), The World after Alexander 323 30 B.C. (London). Shipp, G. P. (1960), P. Terenti Afri Andria (2Melbourne). Sifakis, G. M. (1992), ‘The structure of Aristophanic comedy’, JHS 112: 123 42. Sigelman, A. C. (2016), Pindar’s Poetics of Immortality (Cambridge). Sinn, U. (1991), ‘Olympia: Die Stellung der Wettkämpfe im Kult des Zeus Olympios’, Nikephoros 4: 31 54. Sinn, U. (1996), Olympia: Kult, Sport und Fest in der Antike (München) = Olympia: Cult, Sport, and Ancient Festival, trans. T. Thornton (Princeton 2000). Sinos, R. H. (1993), ‘Divine selection: epiphany and politics in Archaic Greece’, in Dougherty and Kurke (1993): 73 91. Sittl, C. (1890), Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig). Skutsch, O. (1953), ‘Der Ennianische Soldatenchor’, RhM 96: 193 201 = ‘The soldiers’ chorus in Iphigenia’, in Studia Enniana (London 1968): 157 65. Skutsch, O. (1964), ‘Rhyme in Horace’, BICS 11: 73 8. Slater, W. J. (1969), Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin). Slater, W. J. (1977), ‘Doubts about Pindaric interpretation’, CJ 72: 193 208. Slater, W. J. (1979), ‘Pindar’s myths: two pragmatic explanations’, in G. W. Bowersock et al. (eds), Arktouros: Festschrift M. W. Knox (Berlin): 63 70. Slater, W. J. (1981), ‘Peace, the symposium and the poet’, ICS 6: 205 14. Slater, W. J. (1983), ‘Lyric narrative: structure and principle’, ClAnt 2: 117 32. Slater, W. J. (1984), ‘Nemean One: the victor’s return in poetry and politics’, in Gerber (ed.): 241 64. Slater, W. J. (1988), ‘Pindar’s Pythian 3: structure and purpose’, QUCC 29: 51 61. Slings, S. R. (1979), ‘Ἀπαππένα γενήω: some problems in Lesbian grammar’, Mnemosyne 32: 243 67. Slings, S. R. (1989), ‘Poet’s call and poet’s status in archaic Greece and other oral cultures’, Listy Filologické (Folia Philologica) 112: 72 80. Smith, R. R. R. (2007), ‘Pindar, athletes, and the early Greek statue habit’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds): 83 139. Snell, B. (1928), Aischylos und das Handeln im Drama (Leipzig). Snell, B. (1931), ‘Sapphos Gedicht φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος’, Hermes 66: 71 90. Snell, B. (1944), ‘Zu den Fragmenten der griechischen Lyrik’, Philologus 96: 282 92.

222

References

Snell, B. (1946), Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen (Hamburg). Sommerstein, A. H. (1980), Aristophanes: Acharnians (Warminster). Sommerstein, A. H. (1985), Aristophanes: Peace (Warminster). Sommerstein, A. H. (1987), Aristophanes: Birds (Warminster). Sommerstein, A. H. (1994), Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae (Warminster). Sommerstein, A. H. (2008), Aeschylus: Oresteia (Cambridge, MA). Sourvinou Inwood, C. (1973), ‘The young abductor of the Locrian pinakes’, BICS 20: 12 21. Sourvinou Inwood, C. (1978), ‘Persephone and Aphrodite at Locri: a model for personality definitions in Greek religion’, JHS 98: 101 21. Sourvinou Inwood, C. (1995), ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period (Oxford). Sourvinou Inwood, C. (2003), Tragedy and Athenian Religion (Lanham, MD). Steiner, D. T. (1986), The Crown of Song: Metaphor in Pindar (London). Steiner, D. T. (1993), ‘Pindar’s oggeti parlanti’, HSPh 95: 159 80. Steiner, D. T. (1998), ‘Moving images: fifth century victory monuments and the athlete’s allure’, ClAnt 17: 123 49. Steiner, D. T. (2001), Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought (Princeton). Steiner, D. T. (2010a), Homer, Odyssey: Books XVII XVIII (Cambridge). Steiner, D. T. (2010b), ‘The immeasures of praise: the epinician celebration of Agamemnon’s return’, Hermes 138: 22 37. Stevens, P. T. (1971), Euripides: Andromache (Oxford). Stewart, A. (1983), ‘Pindaric dike and the temple of Zeus at Olympia’, ClAnt 2: 133 44. Stockert, W. (1992), Euripides: Iphigenie in Aulis, 2 vols (Vienna). Strauss Clay, J. (1999), ‘Pindar’s sympotic epinicia’, QUCC 62: 25 34. Svennung, J. (1945), Catulls Bildersprache: Vergleichende Stilstudien (Uppsala). Swift, L. (2006), ‘Mixed choruses and marriage songs: a new interpretation of the third stasimon of the Hippolytos’, JHS 126: 125 40. Swift, L. (2010), The Hidden Chorus: Echoes of Genre in Tragic Lyric (Oxford). Swift, L. (2011), ‘Epinician and tragic worlds: the case of Sopholes’ Trachi niae’, in Athanassaki and Bowie (eds): 391 413. Syndikus, H. P. (1984 90), Catull: Eine Interpretation, 3 vols (Darmstadt). Taeger, F. (1957/60), Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes, 2 vols (Stuttgart). Taillardat, J. (1962), Les images d’Aristophane: Études de langue et de style (Paris). Taplin, O. (1977), The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Oxford).

References

223

Thomas, O. (2013), ‘Nine passages of Aeschylus, Agamemnon’, CQ 63: 491 500. Thomas, Richard I. (2011), Horace, Odes Book IV and Carmen Saeculare (Cambridge). Thomas, Rosalind (1995), ‘The place of the poet in archaic society’, in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek World (London): 104 29. Thomas, Rosalind (2007), ‘Fame, memorial, and choral poetry: the origins of epinikian poetry’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds): 141 66. Thomsen, O. (1992), Ritual and Desire: Catullus 61 and 62 and Other Ancient Documents on Wedding and Marriage (Aarhus). Thomsen, O. (2002), ‘An introduction to the study of Catullus’ wedding poems: the ritual drama of Catullus 62’, C&M 53: 255 87. Thummer, E. (1968/9), Pindar: Die Isthmischen Gedichte, 2 vols (Heidelberg). Toher, M. (1991), ‘Greek funeral legislation and the two Spartan funerals’, in M. A. Flower and M. Toher (eds), Georgica: Festschrift G. Cawkwell (London): 159 75. Trappes Lomax, J. M. (2007), Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal (Swansea). Treu, M. (1968), Sappho (4Munich). Tsomis, G. (2005), ‘Sappho, Longos und das Apfel Gleichnis: Ein Beitrag zum pragmantischen Charakter des Sapphischen Fragments 105a V.’, Eranos 103: 63 7. Tulunay, E. T. (1998), ‘Pelops statt Apollon? Ein neuer Deutungsvorschlag für die mittlere Figur im Westgiebel des Zeustempels in Olympia’, IstMit 48: 453 60. Turner, C. (2001), ‘Perverted supplication and other inversions in Aeschylus’ Danaid trilogy’, CJ 97: 27 50. Ugolini, G. (2017), ‘Φόβος φυτεύει τύραννον: the tyrant’s fears on the Attic tragic stage’, Comparative Drama 51: 456 74. Usener, H. (1888), ‘Epikureische Spruchsammlung’, WS 10: 175 201 = Kleine Schriften 1 (Leipzig 1912): 297 325. Verdenius, W. J. (1949), ‘Κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος’, Mnemosyne 2: 294 8. Verdenius, W. J. (1975), Review of Köhnken (1971), Mnemosyne 28: 200 1. Versnel, H. S. (1970), Triumphus: An inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden). Vitelli, G. (1877), Intorno ad alcuni luoghi della Ifigenia in Aulide di Euripide (Florence). Walbank, F. W. (1981), The Hellenistic World (London). Webster, T. B. L. (1953), Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester). Welcker, F. G. (1856), ‘Über die beiden Oden der Sappho’, RhM 11: 226 59 = Kleine Schriften 4 (Bonn 1861): 68 101. Wendel, T. (1929). Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit (Stuttgart).

224

References

West, M. L. (1965), ‘Euripides, Hippolytus 88’, CR 15: 156. West, M. L. (1966a), Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford). West, M. L. (1966b), ‘Euripides, Hippolytus 88 again’, CR 16: 274 5. West, M. L. (1975), Immortal Helen (London). West, M. L. (1978), Hesiod: Works and Days (Oxford). West, M. L. (1980), ‘Tragica IV’, BICS 27: 9 22. West, M. L. (1982), Greek Metre (Oxford). West, M. L. (2007), Indo European Poetry and Myth (Oxford). West, S. R. (1992), ‘Textile homage: a note on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 895 974’, in Apodosis: Festschrift W. W. Cruickshank (London): 111 18. Wikander, C. (2005), ‘The practicalities of ruler cult’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian (Stockholm): 113 20. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1875), Analecta Euripidea (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1879), ‘Parerga’, Hermes 14: 161 86 = (1962) 1 23. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1889), Euripides: Herakles, 2 vols (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1913), Sappho und Simonides: Untersu chungen über griechische Lyriker (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1914), Aischylos: Interpretationen (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1919), ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 54: 46 74 = (1962) 284 313. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1922), Pindaros (Berlin). Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1927), ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 62: 276 98 = (1962) 431 53. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1928), ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 63: 369 90 = (1962) 454 75. Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1962), Kleine Schriften 4: Lesefrüchte und Verwandtes, ed. K. Latte (Berlin). Willcock, M. M. (1974), Review of Köhnken (1971), CR 24: 191 6. Willcock, M. M. (1995), Pindar. Victory Odes: Olympians 2, 7, 11; Nemean 4; Isthmians 3, 4, 7 (Cambridge). Willi, A. (2003), The Language of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Vari ation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford). Willi, A. (2010), ‘Register variation’, in E. J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (Chichester): 297 310. Wills, G. (1967), ‘Sappho 31 and Catullus 51’, GRBS 8: 167 97. Wills, G. (1970), ‘Phoenix of Colophon’s κορώνισμα’, CQ 20: 112 18. Wilson, P. (2007), ‘Nike’s cosmetics: dramatic victory, the end of comedy, and beyond’, in C. Craus et al. (eds), Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature. Festschrift F. Zeitlin (Oxford): 257 87. Woodbury, L. (1947), ‘Pindar, Isthmian 4.19f.’, TAPhA 78: 368 75.

References

225

Wörrle, M. and P. Zanker (eds) (1995), Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus (Munich). Wüst, E. (1967), Pindar als geschichtsschreibender Dichter (Tübingen). Yatromanolakis, D. (1999), ‘Alexandrian Sappho revisited’, HSPh 99: 179 95. Yatromanolakis, D. (2009), ‘Ancient Greek popular song’, in Budelmann (ed.): 263 76. Yatromanolakis, D. and Roilos, P. (eds) (2004), Greek Ritual Poetics (Cambridge, MA). Young, D. C. (1964). ‘Pindaric Criticisim’, The Minnesota Review 4: 584 641 = W. M. Calder and J. Stern (eds), Pindaros und Bakchylides (Darmstadt 1970): 1 95. Young, D. C. (1968), Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3, and Olympian 7 (Leiden). Young, D. C. (1971), Pindar. Isthmian 7: Myth and Exempla (Leiden). Young, D. C. (1984), The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics (Chicago). Young, D. C. (1993), ‘Something like the gods: a Pindaric theme and the myth of Nemean 10’, GRBS 34: 123 32. Yunis, H. (1988), A New Creed: Fundamental Beliefs in the Athenian Polis and Euripidean Drama (Göttingen 1988). Zago, G. (2017), ‘Due note sul testo e la fortuna di Orazio (Epist. 1.1.106 108; Carm. 1.12.49 52; Auson. Caes. 1 2)’, Prometheus 43: 112 14. Zeitlin, F. I. (1970), ‘The ritual world of Greek tragedy’ (Diss. Columbia). Zellner, H. (2006), ‘Sappho’s supra superlatives’, CQ 56: 292 7. Zschietzschmann, W. (1928), ‘Die Darstellung der Prothesis in der grie chischen Kunst’, MDAI (A), 53: 17 47.

Index of Passages 1. Literature Aelian VH 12.22: 97 n. 61 14.47b: 97 n. 61 Aeschylus A. 110: 157 n. 79 258: 171 n. 134 553 4: 3 n. 11 782: 55 n. 137 782 3: 174 783 7: 174 5 783 809: 170 n. 129 785: 38 n. 77, 171 n. 134, 178 830 3: 175 883: 178 895 911: 175 7 897: 139 n. 29 899: 139 n. 29 904: 178 905 6: 174 906: 55 n. 137 910: 178 n. 154 914 25: 177 9 919 20: 177 931 43: 179 935 6: 178 n. 153 943: 179 1489 91: 175 n. 148 1490: 38 n. 77 hyp. 8 9: 174 n. 141 Ch. 59 65: 180 1 139: 144 n. 42 139 63: 132 n. 4 157: 144 n. 42 306 475: 132 n. 4 332: 144 n. 42 372 4: 122 n. 135 399: 144 n. 42 487: 45 n. 113 802: 144 n. 42 1063: 144 n. 43 Eu. 12: 171 n. 134 835: 45 n. 113 Pers. 23: 157 n. 79 150 4: 170 n. 129

155 8: 55 n. 137 324: 157 n. 79 480: 157 n. 79 711: 167 n. 123 Supp. 1: 144 n. 43 100 3: 3 n. 11 139: 146 n. 48 204: 146 n. 47 216: 144 n. 43 328: 146 n. 49 348 53: 144 5 349: 146 n. 49 480: 146 n. 47 524: 146 n. 50 592: 146 n. 48, 146 n. 50 616: 146 n. 49 710: 145 729: 86 n. 37 734: 146 n. 47 738: 146 n. 47 748: 146 n. 47 756: 146 n. 47 805: 45 n. 113 811: 145 n. 46 835: 145 n. 46 885: 145 n. 46 902: 146 n. 48 908: 145 n. 46 911: 146 966 70: 145 980 2: 143 982: 139 n. 27 1015: 146 n. 47 1062: 146 n. 50 fr. 242: 45 n. 113 [Aeschylus] PV 55: 86 n. 37 96: 157 115: 47 n. 118 Agamestor of Pharsalus (Lloyd Jones Parsons) fr. 14: 25 Alcaeus (Voigt) fr. 5: 58 n. 151

228

Index of Passages

Alcaeus (Voigt) (cont.) fr. 34.1: 156 n. 77 fr. 42.13: 28 n. 30 fr. 298: 135 fr. 307c: 120 n. 126 Alcman (Davies) fr. 1.16 21 = 3.16 21 Calame: 73, 185 n. 1 41 3: 29 n. 37 fr. S5(b).16 = 241.16 Calame: 55 n. 140 Anacreon (Page) fr. 418: 144 n. 42 Anacreontea 55.22: 33 n. 50 Anthologia Palatina 5.35.9 10: 12 n. 53 36.9 10: 12 n. 53 55.1 2: 11 69: 12 n. 53 70: 12 n. 51 71.1: 23 n. 8 73: 12 n. 52 75: 12 n. 52 94: 11 n. 45, 12 n. 51, 23 95: 12 n. 54 140: 12 n. 54 146: 12 n. 54 148: 12 n. 54 149: 12 n. 54 195: 12 n. 54 196: 12 n. 54 7.19.1 2: 25 n. 15 110.3: 4 n. 14 182: 56 n. 144 291: 56 n. 144 568: 56 n. 144 610: 56 n. 144 711: 56 n. 144 712: 53 n. 13, 56 n. 144 1109.3: 4 n. 14 9.525.8: 33 n. 50 12.9.2: 23 n. 8 Antipater Sidonius (Gow Page) 56: 56 n. 144 Antonius Thallus (Gow Page) 3: 56 n. 144 Apollodorus Epit. 2.4 8: 95 n. 58 [Apollodorus] 2.4.8: 104 n. 82

Apollonius Dyscolus Pron. p. 84.4; Schneider: 86 n. 37 Archilochus (West) fr. 114.1: 30 n. 40 fr. 128: 17 n. 71 fr. 130: 17 n. 71 fr. 131: 17 n. 71 Aristides Or. 31.2: 17 n. 73 43.6: 38 n. 78 45.3: 4 n. 17 Aristophanes Ach. 404 6: 157 566 7: 152 n. 64 566 8: 158 665: 156 n. 77 Av. 120: 155 n. 71 545: 155 n. 74 722 3: 167 n. 123 878 9: 155 n. 73 958: 48 n. 120 1537 9: 46 n. 115 1706 19: 46 8 1707: 35 n. 64 1709 14: 29, 111 1718 19: 39 n. 84 1720 43: 48 50 1725: 35 n. 64, 36 n. 72 1743 4: 50 1760: 35 n. 64 Ec. 202: 155 n. 73 395 6: 155 n. 73 402: 155 n. 73 412 14: 155 n. 73 882: 156 n. 77 Eq. 11 12: 155 n. 73 30 1: 155 n. 71 146 9: 155 n. 74 147 9: 156 150: 156 157 9: 156 7 457 60: 155 n. 74 460: 38 n. 77 559: 156 n. 77 586: 156 n. 77 591: 156 n. 77 591 4: 157 n. 83 1181: 158 1316: 48 n. 120 Lys. 29 30: 155 n. 73 356 7: 157 n. 84 878: 157 n. 82

Index of Passages 1263: 156 n. 77 1271: 156 n. 77 Nu. 263: 48 n. 120 274: 157 n. 82 297: 48 n. 120 356 7: 157 n. 83 564 5: 157 n. 84 1161: 155 n. 74 Pax 301: 155 n. 73 595: 155 n. 73 785: 157 n. 82 914: 155 n. 74 1316 17: 48 n. 121 1333: 36 n. 72 Ra. 395: 156 n. 77 1306: 156 n. 77 1435 6: 155 n. 73 Th. 39 40: 48 n. 120 39 45: 159 46 8: 159 49 50: 159 60 179: 155 n. 71 224: 155 n. 71 295 6: 48 n. 120 319: 156 n. 77 765: 155 n. 73 965: 155 n. 73 1137: 156 n. 77 1145 6: 157 n. 84 1157 8: 157 n. 83 V. 369: 155 n. 73 Aristotle EN 4.2 1122b35 1123a5: 57 8 Arrian An. 6.26.3: 13 n. 56 Athenaeus 5.1 185b: 45 n. 113 Augustine in Psalm. 44.3 = CCSL 39 p. 495.9 12: 24 n. 13 Ausonius Carm. 18.42 4: 29 51: 29 52 4: 30 68 9: 26 n. 22 70 1: 33 n. 56 73: 36 n. 74 77 8: 33 n. 56 Bacchylides 1.76: 86 n. 37

229

3.56 66: 121 58 62: 5 n. 20, 78 n. 9, 122 3 5.1 16: 77 Callimachus (Pfeiffer) Ap. 1 8: 43 n. 106 Del. 28 9: 38 n. 78 Epigr. 51 = 15 Gow Page: 12 n. 54 Hec. fr. 302.2 = 103.2 Hollis: 32 n. 46 fr. 392: 26, 39 n. 82 Calvus (Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/ Courtney) fr. 4 = 29 Hollis: 31 with n. 43 Carmina Convivialia (Page) fr. 884.1 2: 153 n. 66 fr. 894: 5 n. 20 Carmina Popularia (Page) fr. 867: 15 n. 63 Catullus 38.7 8: 17 n. 73 61: 26 1 75: 56 n. 141 16 20: 29 21 5: 31 76 8: 42 3, 47 87 9: 31 117 18: 21 n. 2 119 20: 71 n. 184 189: 36 n. 74 226: 40 62.39 47: 31 49 58: 31 226: 40 64.321: 26 n. 22 373: 33 n. 56 382: 33 n. 56 68.70: 12 n. 51 113 16: 81 n. 17 155: 33 n. 57 Catulus (Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/ Courtney) fr. 2.4: 12 n. 53 Chrysippus SVF 3 p. 14.8 13: 8 SVF 3 no. 54: 9 n. 37 Chrysostom, John in Ac.Hom. 42.3 = PG 60 pp. 300 1: 58 n. 150

230

Index of Passages

Chrysostom, John (cont.) in 1 Cor.Hom. 12.6 = PG 61 pp. 103 4: 58 n. 150 Cicero Amic. 47: 2. n. 10 Fin. 1.63: 8 n. 33 2.40: 8 n. 33 2.88: 8 n. 33 N.D. 1.44 5: 7 n. 29 1.95: 9 n. 38 1.96: 7 n. 30, 8 n. 33 2.153: 8 n. 34, 9 n. 37 Pis. 52: 10 QF 3.1.9: 9 Tusc. 1.37: 42 n. 105 Claudian Carm. 11: 29 1: 30 1 5: 38 6 9: 29 16 17: 29 Carm. 14.7 13: 31 18 22: 31 Carm.Min. 25.125 7 Hall: 31 [Claudian] Carm.App. 5.32 3 Hall: 31 85 6 Hall: 40 n. 96 Comica Adespota (Kassel Austin) fr. 708: 167 n. 120 Curtius 7.5.20: 13 n. 56 Cyprian Hab.Virg. 21 = CCSL 3F pp. 313 14: 58 n. 150 Demetrius Eloc. 166 8: 72 n. 185 Diodorus Siculus 4.73: 95 n. 58 11.49.2: 84 n. 31 11.66.4: 84 n. 31 12.9.6: 97 n. 61 [Dionysius of Halicarnassus] Rh. 2.5 p. 264.7 13 Usener Radermacher: 49 n. 124 Dioscorides (Gow Page) 5.1 2: 11 Donatus Ter. An. 959: 14 n. 57

Dracontius Rom. 7.25 7: 26 n. 22 48 54: 31 Duris of Samos (FGrH 76) F71: 15 n. 63 Empedocles (VS 31) F112.4 5: 167 n. 123 Ennius (Schauer Manuwald) fr. 84: 166 n. 116 Epicurus (Usener) Ep. 1.76 = 2.76 Arrighetti: 7 n. 29 3.123 = 4.123 Arrighetti: 7 n. 29 135 = 4.135 Arrighetti: 8 n. 32 Sent.Vat. 33: 7 8 fr. 602: 8 n. 33 Eratosthenes (Powell) fr. 28: 31 fr. 37: 31 Erinna (Gow Page) 2: 53 n. 130, 56 n. 144 Eupolis (Kassel Austin) fr. 384: 131, 137 Euripides Alc. 400: 157 n. 82 743: 144 n. 43 916 19: 33 n. 55 922: 56 n. 144 995 1005: 133 n. 4 Andr. 891: 139 n. 29 1218: 33 n. 55 1253 62: 133 n. 4 Ba. 32: 86 n. 37 42: 152 n. 64 82: 171 n. 135 182: 152 n. 64 582 4: 157 n. 81 608: 139 n. 28 988: 86 n. 37 1031: 152 n. 64 1338 9: 133 n. 4 El. 45: 173 67 70: 173 195 7: 171 n. 134 272 3: 172 315 18: 169 n. 126 938 44: 172 966: 169 n. 126 987 8: 169 988 97: 55 n. 137, 169 71

Index of Passages 992 3: 139 n. 29 995: 172 998: 55 n. 137 998 9: 169 n. 126 998 1003: 173 1004 10: 171 2 1007: 173 1064: 172 n. 138 1139 40: 169 n. 126 1348: 139 n. 29 Hec. 152: 167 n. 120 349 57: 161 3 841: 139 n. 28 Hel. 560: 164 639 41: 33 n. 55 722 4: 54 n. 132 724 5: 33 n. 55, 47 n. 118 874 943: 139 n. 26 900: 139 n. 27 1348 9: 46 n. 114 1433 5: 34 n. 64 1666 9: 133 n. 4 1675 7: 133 n. 4 Her. 47 8: 146 51 9: 146 212: 148 339 47: 148 9 347: 150 481 4: 56 n. 144 493: 34 n. 64 498 502: 146, 149 513: 146 514: 146 514 19: 146 7 520 2: 147 8, 150 531: 139 n. 28 624 5: 150 1263 5: 150 Heracl. 10 12: 35 n. 64 640: 139 n. 27 1032 44: 133 n. 4 Hipp. 7: 165 n. 109 19: 165 58 60: 45 n. 112 84 6: 164 5 88 9: 163 5 120: 165 n. 109 1328: 165 n. 109 1391: 47 n. 118 1400: 165 n. 109 1402: 165 n. 109 1423 30: 133 n. 4

Ion 111: 171 n. 135 IA 269: 157 n. 79 439: 34 n. 64 460 1: 56 n. 144 542: 166 553: 46 n. 114 590 7: 165 8 598 606: 165 6 599: 167 610: 167 616: 167 619 20: 167 623: 167 732: 53 n. 130 832: 34 n. 64 900 2: 150 1 903: 151 909: 151 911 16: 151, 168 915 16: 139 n. 27 919 74: 151 3 970 4: 152 3 977: 38 n. 77 1063: 139 n. 28 1076 9: 34 n. 64 1336 7: 168 1404 5: 34 n. 64 1510 1629: 166 n. 115 1619: 166 n. 115 IT 923: 139 n. 27 1105: 171 n. 135 Med. 155: 171 n. 134 324: 139 n. 25 482: 139 n. 28 626: 56 n. 144 673: 45 n. 113 957: 34 n. 64 1381 3: 133 n. 4 Or. 348 55: 170 n. 129 384: 139 n. 27 602 4: 34 n. 64 1208: 34 n. 64 1637: 139 n. 29 1683 90: 133 n. 4 Ph. 345: 34 n. 64 605: 144 n. 42 Supp. 995 9: 35 n. 64 1139: 86 n. 37 Tr. 308 10: 55 n. 134 311 12: 34 n. 64 320 5: 55 n. 134 322 4: 56 n. 141

231

232

Index of Passages

Euripides (cont.) 327: 34 n. 64 336: 34 n. 64 351 2: 56 n. 144 572: 170 n. 129 1167 70: 160 1 1168 70: 162 n. 104 1170: 34 n. 64 frr. 571 7: 95 n. 58 fr. 781.14 31 = Phaëth. 227 44: 44 6 18 26 = Phaëth. 231 9: 37 15 = Phaëth. 228: 39 n. 81 27 = Phaëth. 240: 33 n. 54, 34 n. 64, 36 n. 72 fr. 1057: 35 n. 64 [Euripides] Rh. 380 7: 170 n. 129 970 3: 133 n. 4 Firmicus Math. 6.23.5: 33 n. 57 Frontinus Str. 1.7.7: 13 n. 56 Harpocration τ 3: 17 n. 73 Hecataeus of Abdera (FGrH 264) F7.2: 121 n. 126 Hephaestion 4.2: 40 Herodas: 4.11: 156 n. 77 Herodotus 1.30.2: 4 1.30 2: 168 n. 124 1.32.6 8: 4 60: 55 4.34 6: 121 n. 126 4.35.3: 25 n. 18 4.36: 120 n. 125 Hesiod (Merkelbach West) Op. 112: 3 n. 11 170: 3 n. 11 170 3: 5 n. 19 Th. 61: 3 n. 11 254: 32 n. 47 277: 2 n. 8 305: 2 n. 8 364: 32 n. 47 489: 3 n. 11

949: 2 n. 8 950 5: 5 n. 19, 80 955: 2 n. 8, 3 n. 11 961: 32 n. 47 fr. 25.26 33: 81 n. 17 28: 2 n. 8 fr. 43a.37: 32 n. 47 fr. 73.6: 32 n. 47 fr. 75.6: 32 n. 47 fr. 150.14 21: 120 n. 125 fr. 198.4: 32 n. 47 fr. 211: 25 6: 26 n. 22 6 7: 34 n. 61 7: 33 n. 54, 34 n. 67, 36 nn. 72,73 fr. 229: 81 n. 17 7: 3 n. 11 7 8: 2 n. 8 [Hesiod] Sc. 35: 32 n. 47 273: 54 n. 132 273 80: 24 n. 11 Hesychius κ 3001: 54 n. 131 Himerius Or. 9.16 p. 82.185 6 Colonna: 31 p. 82.189 91: 28 n. 27 Horace Carm. 1.1.1 6: 75 76, 127 1.12.1 3: 38 n. 77 2.1.37 40: 17 n. 73 4.2.17 20: 76, 127 Epist. 1.1.106: 8 n. 33 2.1.145 6: 71 n. 184 Epod. 15.1 10: 22 n. 5 S. 1.5.101: 2. n. 10 Hyginus Fab. 273.2: 56 n. 141 Hymni Homerici h.Ap. 19: 38 n. 78 151: 2 n. 8 207: 38 n. 78 545 6: 41 n. 101 h.Bacch. 28 9: 120 n.125 h.Cer. 2: 32 n. 47 77: 32 n. 47 242: 2 n. 8 260: 2 n. 8

Index of Passages 277 8: 47 n. 118 495: 41 n. 101 h.Merc. 231: 47 n. 118 579 80: 41 n. 101 h.Ven. 214: 2 n. 8 218 38: 2 n. 8 292 3: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 6.1 2: 46 n. 114 19 21: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 9.7 8: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 10.4 6: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 15.4 8: 81 n. 17 h.Hom. 18.10 12: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 19.48 9: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 25.6 7: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 28.17 18: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 29.13 14: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 30.17 19: 41 n. 101 h.Hom. 33.18 19: 41 n. 101 Iliad 1.423 4: 120 500 10: 135 2.447: 2 n. 8 3.154 8: 30 n. 39 5.302 4: 30 n. 42 859: 72 6.138: 4 n. 17 8.539: 2 n. 8 9.412 14: 5 557: 32 n. 47 560: 32 n. 47 12.323: 2 n. 8 381 3: 30 n. 42 447 9: 30 n. 42 14.319: 32 n. 47 17.444: 2 n. 8 18.490 508: 24 n. 11 20.232 3: 90 n. 47 285 7: 30 n. 42 21.108: 30 n. 40 407: 72 23: 66 205 7: 120 24.526: 3 n. 11 Juvenal 2.119: 33 n. 58 Leonidas of Tarentum (Gow Page) 57.1 2: 25 n. 15 Livy 7.2.7: 71 n. 184

233

Lucian Symp. 41 p. 159.16 17 Macleod: 26 7 n. 22 p. 159.18 19: 36 n. 73 p. 159.21: 29 p. 159.22: 33 n. 53, 36 nn. 72,74; 40 n. 93 pp. 159.22 160.2: 41 p. 159.23: 29 Lucretius 3.322: 8 n. 33 4.1160 72: 12 n. 51 5.82: 2. n. 10 1175 82: 7 n. 29 Luxorius Anth.Lat. 18.35 42: 29 Martial 3.93.23 7: 56 n. 144 Martianus Capella 6.664: 121 n. 128 Megasthenes (FGrH 715) F27b: 121 n. 127 Mela 3.37: 121 n. 128 Meleager (Gow Page) 30: 12 n. 54 32: 12 n. 54 39: 12 n. 54 40: 12 n. 54 47: 12 n. 54 123: 56 n. 144 Menander test. 146 Kassel Austin: 14 n. 58 Menander Rhetor p. 334.27 32 Russell Wilson: 39 n. 86 p. 400.11 28: 49 n. 124 p. 400.20 1: 29 n. 36 p. 404.4 8: 31 Mimnermus (West) fr. 2: 17 n. 71 fr. 4: 2 n. 8 Nonnus, Dionysiaca 8.5: 32 n. 46 12.111: 33 n. 50 28.330: 32 n. 46 38.131: 32 n. 46 331: 32 n. 46 415: 32 n. 46

234

Index of Passages

Odyssey 1.301: 30 n. 40 4.7: 55 n. 140 561 9: 5 n. 19 805: 4 n. 17 5.122: 4 n. 17 136: 2 n. 8 218: 2 n. 8 333: 32 n. 47 445 50: 135 6.149 57: 137 158 61: 34 6.276: 30 n. 40 7.94: 2 n. 8 257: 2 n. 8 8.467 8: 137 8 11.603: 32 n. 47 13.231: 137 8 16.23: 139 n. 28 17.41: 139 n. 28 18.129 37: 17 22.333 7: 135 338 9: 135 23.336: 2 n. 8 Ovid Am. 3.11.47: 12 n. 51 Ep. 13.159: 12 n. 51 Met. 4.320 1: 12 n. 51 7.86 8: 12 n. 51 Parmenon (Gow Page) 3: 56 n. 144 Paulinus of Nola: Carm. 25.34 = CSEL 30 p. 239: 58 n. 150 103 12 = CSEL 30 p. 241 2: 49 n. 124 Pausanias 5.13.1: 97 n. 63 5.13.3: 97 n. 64 5.13.8: 97 n. 64 5.24.9: 92 n. 54 6.5.5: 97 n. 61 Phaedrus 5.1.4: 33 n. 58 Pherecydes of Athens (FGrH 3) F69a: 104 n. 82 Philodemus Mus. 4: 24 n. 12 Philoxenus (Page) fr. 828: 26 n. 22, 56 n. 142

Photius ζ 28: 54 n. 131 Pindar I. 1.22: 81 n. 19 41: 81 n. 20 42: 81 n. 20 45 6: 84 n. 33 46: 81 n. 20, 82 n. 21 I. 2.44: 81 n. 20 45 6: 91 n. 48 I. 3/4: 107 17, 127 4: 81 n. 20 7: 82 n. 21 7 8: 84 n. 33 17b: 81 n. 18 19 31: 108 10 23 4: 113 31: 113 32 48: 110 12 34 35b: 109 n. 94 45: 113 49 63: 112 13 56: 81 n. 19 63 73: 113 15 67 73: 77 n. 3 70 3: 92 73 8: 115 16 76 8: 78 nn. 7,8 77: 123 n. 137 79 84: 116 I. 5.12 16: 83 n. 23 14: 128 17: 81 n. 19 34 8: 91 I. 6.10 13: 83 n. 23 11: 81 n. 20 22 7: 120 n. 125 25: 78 n. 7 26 35: 91 31 5: 80 51 4: 80, 92 54: 81 n. 18 I. 7.22: 81 n. 19 39 44: 83 n. 23 44 7: 79 I. 8.1: 81 n. 18, 82 n. 21 1 5: 85 6 6: 82 n. 21 48: 81 n. 19 N. 1: 99 107, 116, 117, 127 7 12: 102 3 9: 81 n. 19

Index of Passages 17: 126 n. 149 19: 104 n. 80 19 22: 106 7 26 38: 99 100 34: 81 n. 19 55: 104 n. 80 55 69: 100 2 62 9: 103 69: 107 69 72: 78 n. 8, 105 6 70: 80 1, 81 n. 18 71: 106 N. 3.8: 81 n. 20 17 18: 84 n. 33 19 21: 109 n. 95 22: 78 n. 8 22 3: 117 n. 116 32: 81 n. 19 42: 81 n. 20 76: 41 n. 97 N. 4.1: 81 n. 20 1 2: 82 n. 21 1 8: 86 7 69 70: 110 n. 96 69 71: 109 n. 95 79 85: 91 n. 48 N. 5.1 5: 90 n. 45, 91 n. 48 25 37: 78 n. 7 48: 81 n. 18, 82 n. 21 53: 81 n. 19 N. 6.23: 81 n. 19 47: 81 n. 19 N. 7.7: 81 n. 19 14 16: 84 5 16: 81 n. 20, 82 n. 21 51: 81 n. 19 74: 81 n. 18 N. 8.31: 81 n. 18 40: 81 n. 20 42: 81 n. 20 50: 81 n. 20 N. 9.1 5: 88 24 7: 78 n. 8 34 7: 103 4 39 42: 77 n. 3 44: 81 n. 20 44 9: 88 90 45: 106 46 7: 83 n. 23 54: 81 n. 19 N. 10.2: 81 n. 19 7: 78 n. 8

8 9: 78 n. 8 17 18: 78 n. 8 55 9: 79 80 90: 79 N. 11.13 16: 83 n. 23 37: 81 n. 20 O. 1.1 7: 87 11: 111 n. 100 13: 81 n. 19 36 9: 78 n. 7 54 64: 78, 79 71 88: 95 90 3: 78 n. 8 O. 2.1 2: 38 n. 77 3 4: 92 n. 57 23: 81 34: 81 n. 20 53: 81 n. 20 78 9: 78 n. 9, 122 O. 3.11 18: 92 n. 57 6 7: 78 n. 7 16: 120 n. 126 31: 122 31 2: 120 n. 124, 122 36 8: 78 n. 8 37: 81 n. 20 43: 81 n. 19 43 4: 109 n. 95 O. 4.10: 81 n. 19 16: 89 n. 40 O. 5.1: 81 n. 19 15 16: 81 n. 20 23 4: 83 24: 128, 185 n. 1 O. 6.8 14: 81 2 9: 81 n. 20 12 18: 77 n. 3 14: 78 n. 8 60: 78 n. 8 O. 7.16 17: 84 n. 33 43: 81 n. 20 77: 81 77 80: 78 n. 8 89: 81 n. 19 94: 126 n. 147 O. 8.1: 126 n. 149 6: 81 n. 20 7: 81 n. 20, 82 n. 21 30 46: 91 O. 9.83: 81 n. 19 101: 81 n. 20 O. 10.16 17: 77 n. 3

235

236

Index of Passages

Pindar (cont.) 20: 81 n. 20 22 3: 81 n. 20 25: 81 n. 18 43 85: 92 n. 57 73 7: 87 8 76: 126 n. 147 93: 81 n. 20 93 4: 126 n. 148 99 102: 90 103 5: 90 104 5: 78 n. 7 O. 11.4: 81 n. 20 6: 81 n. 20 13: 126 n. 149 O. 13.65 9: 78 n. 7 91: 79 92: 79 P. 1.38: 126 n. 147 41: 81 n. 20 46: 81 n. 18, 82 n. 21 50 1: 77 n. 3 59: 84 n. 33 80: 81 n. 19 94: 81 n. 19 95 6: 80 n. 14 P. 2.14: 81 n. 20, 82 n. 21, 84 n. 33 21 43: 80 n. 14 25 8: 78 n. 7 25 31: 78 62: 81 n. 19 67: 41 n. 100, 77 P. 3.8 60: 80 n. 14 55 8: 79 59 62: 83 n. 23 86 95: 78 n. 7 88: 78 n. 9 96: 81 n. 18 114: 81 n. 20 P. 4.187: 81 n. 19 243: 81 n. 18 299: 83 P. 5.2: 81 n. 20 11: 111 n. 100 20: 35, 156 n. 76 46: 35, 156 n. 76 47: 81 n. 18 54: 81 n. 20 80 1: 171 n. 134 98: 81 n. 19 105 7: 84 n. 33 106 7: 82 n. 21

P. 6.5 18: 91 n. 48 19 27: 77 n. 3 28 42: 91 42: 81 n. 20 44 5: 77 n. 3 P. 7.9 11: 91 P. 8.22: 81 n. 19 39 56: 78 n. 8 73: 81 n. 20 P. 9.1 3: 39 n. 85 5 13: 78 n. 7 31a: 81 n. 18 63: 78 n. 8 66: 55 n. 140 76: 81 n. 20 P. 10: 118 127 2: 125 10: 125 19 30: 123 5 23: 81 n. 19 26: 126 27 9: 73 4, 83 n. 23 28: 121 31: 100 n. 69 31 48: 118 123 34 5: 126 37 9: 126 40: 126 n. 149 41 2: 121 n. 127 45 6: 78 n. 7 46: 126 48 50: 125 51 9: 187 55 9: 126 58: 126 P. 11.15: 89 n. 40 17 37: 80 n. 14 43 8: 108 n. 92 P. 12.11 17: 118 19 18: 81 n. 18 18 19: 123 fr. 7: 86 n. 37 fr. 52i (Pae. 8) = B2 Rutherford: 120 1 n. 126 fr. 52p (Pae. 15) = S4 Rutherford: 55 n. 136 fr. 52u (Pae. 20) = S1 Rutherford: 104 n. 82 fr. 75.1: 156 n. 77 fr. 128c (Thren. 3) = 56 Cannatà Fera: 55 n. 135 7 9: 56 n. 141

Index of Passages fr. 143: 3, 121 2 1: 3 n. 11 2: 3 n. 11 fr. 172.1: 78 n. 9 fr. 256: 109 n. 95 fr. 257: 121 n. 127 Plato Lg. 8 841d e: 58 n. 152 R. 8 568a b: 161 n. 101 10 613b: 7 n. 28 Tht. 176b: 7 n. 28 Plautus Am. 1128 9: 104 n. 82 Bac. 217: 12 n. 51 Cas. 815 24: 37 Cur. 167 8: 10 nn. 41,43 192: 12 n. 51 196: 12 n. 51 Mer. 603 4: 10 nn. 42 43 Pers. 99 100: 10 nn. 41,43 Poen. 275 8: 10 nn. 42 43 277 8: 12 n. 51 1219 20: 12 n. 53 Ps. 1257: 10 nn. 41,43 Rud. 420: 12 n. 51 Pliny HN 4.89 90: 121 n. 128 Plutarch Alex. 42.10: 13 Comm.Not. 31 1075c: 9 n. 37 Cons.Apoll. 11 107b: 17 n. 74 Lyc. 15.4 6: 53 n. 129 22.7: 129 n. 154 Lys. 18.4 5: 15 n. 63 Non posse 7 1091b c: 8 n. 32 Quaest.Conv. 2.5.2 639e: 129 n. 154 Stoic.Rep. 2 1033c d: 9 n. 37 25 6 1046c e: 9 n. 37 Pollux 1.24: 45 n. 113 1.246: 58 n. 152 2.195: 53 n. 130 3.40: 53 n. 130 10.33: 54 n. 131 Polyaenus 4.3.25: 13 n. 56 Propertius 2.6.41 2: 21 n. 1 2.14.9 10: 11 12

2.15.1 2: 21 30 40: 22 37 9: 11 n. 48 2.20.17: 22 n. 5 2.24.9 10: 11 Rufinus (Page) 11.9 10: 12 n. 53 12.9 10: 12 n. 53 25: 12 n. 53 26: 12 n. 51 27: 12 n. 52 29: 12 n. 52 35: 11 n. 45, 12 n. 51, 23 Sappho (Voigt) fr. 2.1: 156 n. 77 fr. 16.6 7: 30 n. 39 fr. 21.13: 33 n. 48 fr. 23: 28 with n. 29 fr. 27.8 13: 72 4, 185 n. 1 fr. 28: 31 fr. 30: 73 n. 189 4 5: 33 n. 48 fr. 31: 28 with n. 31 fr. 44: 187 n. 2 4: 5 n. 22 13 19: 54 21: 28 n. 34 fr. 53: 33, 39 fr. 58: 2 n. 8 fr. 68a: 28 n. 32 fr. 96: 28 nn. 30,33 6 11: 30 fr. 103.1: 39 n. 83 2: 32 n. 45, 39 n. 80 3: 33 n. 48 4: 33 n. 48 5: 39 n. 83 fr. 103B.2: 32 n. 45 fr. 105a: 31 fr. 105b: 31 fr. 106: 33 n. 53 fr. 111: 28 n. 28, 41 3, 47 5 7: 72 fr. 112: 36 nn. 72 73 1: 33 n. 54 1 2: 34 2: 55 n. 140 5: 34 fr. 113: 36 n. 74 fr. 114.2: 36 n. 73

237

238 Sappho (Voigt) (cont.) fr. 115: 32 n. 44, 38 1: 28 2: 31 fr. 116: 33 n. 53, 40 n. 90 fr. 117: 25 n. 15, 40 n. 88 fr. 121: 156 n. 77 fr. 127: 39 fr. 128: 39 Scholia A.R. 4.808 9: 53 n. 130 Ar. V. 1411b: 17 n. 73 E. Ph. 344 8: 53 n. 130 E. Tr. 315: 53 n. 130 Lucan. 2.371: 33 n. 58 Pi. I. 4.87a: 114 n. 106 Pi. N. 1 inscr. a: 84 n. 31 Pi. N. 1.49c: 106 n. 87 Pi. N. 1.97c: 101 n. 71 Pi. N. 3.132a: 41 n. 97 Pi. N. 4.5: 86 n. 37 Pi. N. 9 inscr.: 105 n. 84 Pi. N. 9.95a: 105 n. 84 Pi. P. 2.36c: 105 n. 84 Pi. P. 2.40a: 79 n. 10 Pi. P. 10.72b: 119 n. 121 S. Aj. 1491: 166 n. 117 Theoc. 16.36/37: 17 n. 73 Theoc. 16.44: 17 n. 73 Theoc. 18 arg.: 24 n. 10 Semonides (West) fr. 1: 17 n. 71 Seneca Ag. 812 13: 81 n. 17 Dial. 1.1.5: 9 n. 37 2.8.2: 9 n. 37 Ep. 25.4: 8 n. 33 53.11 12: 9 n. 37 73.13: 9 n. 37 92.27: 7 n. 29 119.7: 8 n. 33 Her.F. 1 98: 81 n. 17 Med. 82 9: 29 95 101: 29 30 105: 33 n. 56 113 14: 71 n. 184 Tr. 873: 33 n. 57 Servius A. 7.695: 71 n. 184 G. 1.31: 40

Index of Passages Sextus Empiricus M. 9.44 7: 7 n. 29 Simias of Rhodes (Fränkel/Powell) fr. 1.1 2: 119 n. 120 Simonides (Page) fr. 515 = 2 Poltera: 77 n. 4 fr. 520 = 21.5 10 Poltera: 17 nn. 72,74 fr. 521 = 244 Poltera: 17 nn. 72 73 fr. 522 = 258 Poltera: 17 nn. 72,74 fr. 523 = 245 Poltera: 3, 17 nn. 72 73 fr. 524 = 22.8 Poltera: 17 n. 72 fr. 528 = 246 Poltera: 17 n. 73 fr. 529 = 247 Poltera: 17 n. 73 fr. 530 = 248 Poltera: 17 n. 73 fr. 570 = 288 Poltera: 121 n. 127 Solinus 16.4: 121 n. 128 Solon (West) fr. 14.1: 35 n. 67 Sophocles Aj. 485 9: 162 n. 102 694: 157 n. 81 1166 7: 132 n. 4 Ant. 746: 147 n. 55 781 816: 56 n. 144 1057: 157 n. 79 El. 121 52: 140 n. 32 436: 86 n. 37 453 4: 132 n. 4 624: 86 n. 37 1354: 139 n. 28 1354 5: 139 n. 27 1376: 144 n. 42 1380: 144 n. 43 OC 43: 86 n. 37 92 3: 132 n. 4 237 54: 139 41 275 8: 141 276: 139 n. 27 287 8: 132 n. 4 389 90: 141 457 60: 142 461 4: 142 487: 142 585: 3 n. 11 607 9: 2 n. 8 621 2: 5 n. 25 787 8: 132 n. 4 1007: 171 n. 134

Index of Passages 1323 4: 140 n. 31 1544 5: 132 3 n. 4 1556 7: 171 n. 134 1585: 3 n. 11 OT 1 3: 153 31 4: 153 4 35 9: 153 40: 153 46: 153 47 8: 139 n. 27 48: 153 300 4: 139 n. 27 800 5: 55 n. 137 868: 86 n. 37 873: 154 with n. 69 1193 6: 35 n. 67 1331: 86 n. 37 Ph. 180 1: 147 n. 55 344: 145 n. 45 501: 139 n. 27 1169 217: 140 n. 32 1413 14: 133 n. 4 1418 20: 81 n. 17 frr. 471 7: 95 n. 58 Statius Silv. 1.2.16 17: 26 n. 22 38 45: 29 236: 33 n. 56 242 5: 29 Stobaeus 2.7.11g: 8 4.34.14: 3 n. 13, 17 n. 73 4.41.9: 17 n. 73 Strabo 6.2.3 p. 268.21 32 Radt: 84 n. 31 15.1.57 p. 711.24 6: 121 n. 127 Suda ζ 33: 54 n. 131 σ 439: 17 n. 73 Suetonius Nero 21.1: 129 n. 154 Terence An. 959: 10 n. 41 959 61: 10 n. 43, 14 n. 58 960 1: 10 n. 42 Hau. 693: 10 n. 41, 10 n. 43 Hec. 843: 10 n. 41, 10 n. 43 Theocritus 17.11 13: 38 n. 77 18: 25, 50 2 1 8: 50, 51

239

7 8: 26 n. 22 9: 36 n. 72 15: 36 n. 73 16: 33 n. 54 16 18: 37 17: 34 18: 34, 40 26 8: 29 28: 33 29 31: 31 31: 33 39 48: 50 2 41: 36 n. 73 49: 36 n. 72, 40 n. 92 58: 50, 56 n. 141 22.25: 38 n. 78 24.64 8: 104 n. 82 Tibullus 2.3.31 2: 10 n. 44 Ticida (Morel Büchner Blänsdorf/ Courtney) fr. 1 = 102 Hollis: 22, 33 nn. 53,56 Timaeus (FGrH 566) F21: 105 n. 84 Tragica Adespota (Schauer Manuwald) fr. 50: 42 n. 105 Vergil A. 1.330: 40 n. 95 5: 66 6.637 78: 5 n. 19 12.821: 33 n. 57 E. 1.6 8: 167 n. 123 3.68: 12 n. 51 5.64 5: 40 n. 95 Xenophanes (VS 21) F11 12: 1 n. 1 F23 6: 1 n. 1 F25: 3 n. 11 Xenophon Lac. 1.5 8: 53 n. 129 2. Papyri PHerc. 1497 col. 119.37 40: 24 n. 12 P.Köln II 59: 135 n. 13 P.Köln XI 429: 2 n. 8 POxy. XXI 2294: 39 40 POxy. XXXII 2623 fr. 14: 17 n. 74 PRyl. 17: 26, 40 with n. 94, 36 nn. 72,74

240 3. Inscriptions CIL 4.1928 tab 22.7 = 2.2.937 Buecheler: 10 11 n. 44 GVI 658: 56 n. 144 GVI 1162: 56 n. 144

Index of Passages GVI 1238: GVI 1551: GVI 1553: GVI 1989:

56 n. 144 56 n. 144 56 n. 144 56 n. 144

General Index NB: Greek words are alphabetized as they are transliterated. Thus, φ is treated as ‘ph’, θ as ‘th’, χ as ‘ch’. Aspirated vowels are placed under ‘h’. Abaris 121 n. 126 Achilles 5, 24, 28, 29, 38 n. 77, 77 n. 3, 78 n. 9, 91, 122, 150 3, 168, 182, 188 Adelphasium 12 n. 53 Address, hymnic 35 8, 40, 144 6, 153 156 8, 170, 172, 174 5 Admetus 59 Aegina 91 Aegisthus 169, 172 Aegyptids 143 Aeneid 66 Aeschylus: ch. 4 Aetiology 51 2 Aetna 88 Agamemnon 55 n. 137, 122 n. 135, 132 n. 4, 150, 151, 165 6, 168, 169, 174 9, 181 Agamestor of Pharsalus 25 Agathon 158 ἀγήραοϲ 2 Agorastocles 12 n. 53 Ajax 80, 113, 117, 132 n. 4, 135 ἀκηδήϲ 2 3, 18 Alcestis 59, 133 n. 4 Alcman 24 5, 73 4, 185 Alexander 13, 15 ἀλλά, before imperative 140 Amphiaraus 77 n. 3, 78 n. 8, 81 Amphitryon 104 n. 80, 146 50 Analepsis 120 Analogy, between humans and gods 161, 164, 188 Anapaestic metre 159 60, 170, 174 ἄναξ 145 6, 163, 181 Andromeda 119 Announcements, thematic 38 9, 45, 49 ἄνο(υ)ϲοϲ 3 Antaeus 92, 114 ἀντέχεϲθαι 100 Antigone 139 42, 154

Antilochus 77 n. 3, 91 ἄπειροϲ 3 ἀπήμων/ἀπήμαντοϲ 3 Aphaea 91 Aphrodite 12, 23, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 44 6, 73, 165, 181, 187 Apollo 29, 33, 62 3, 78 nn. 7,9, 91, 118, 119 n. 120, 120 1, 123, 125 ἄπονοϲ 3 Apotheosis 46, 49, 50, 75, 80, 81, 83, 87, 105 6, 115 17 Approximation, to the gods vel sim. 6, 7 n. 28, 10 12, 14 16, 19, 32, 43, 52, 53, 71, 76, 89, 90, 107, 129, 151, 160, 178 80, 182, 185, 186, 188 Arcesilas of Cyrene 35, 111 n. 100 ἀρχαῖοϲ 101 2 ἀρχή 101 2 Ares 28, 42, 72, 111, 188 ἀρετή 81, 100, 102 Arge and Opis 121 n. 126 Argos, Argive 143 6, 166 Ariadne 60 Arignota 30 Aristaeus 78 n. 8 Aristophanes 29, 46 50, 155 60, 187 Aristotle 57 Arsinoe II 26 Artemis 45, 62 3, 78 n. 7, 163 5, 168 Asclepius 79, 80 n. 14 Astyanax 160 1 ἀθάνατοϲ 1 2, 9, 11 12, 23, 113 Athena 12 nn. 51,53, 23, 47 n. 117, 78 nn. 7 8, 118, 122 3, 125, 135, 138 n. 22, 153 n. 66, 158 Athens, Athenian 16, 24 n. 14, 53, 55 9, 64, 66 7, 70, 102 n. 73, 111, 131 4, 135 n. 19, 141, 156, 187 Ausonius 29, 30

242

General Index

Bacchus 29 (see also ‘Dionysus’) Bacchylides 77, 121, 122 Banquet 89, 106 7, 116 17 Bath, nuptial 52 beatus 4 (see also ‘uita beata’) Bellerophon 78 n. 7, 79 Bliss 6, 9 12, 14, 22, 23, 35, 71, 74, 79, 89, 90, 98, 106, 107, 116, 117, 121, 122, 124, 126 8, 156, 161, 188 (see also ‘happiness’, ‘joy’) Boundaries, between mortal and immortal 15, 59, 70, 78, 109, 164, 173, 176, 180, 185, 188, 189 βροδόπαχυϲ 33 βροτόϲ 2, 121, 153, 164 5, 181 Cadmus 78 nn. 7,9, 81, 122, 133 n. 4 Callimachus 26, 39 Calliope 12 n. 51 Calvus, C. Licinius 31 Carriage 54 5, 64, 167, 169, 171, 174, 176 Cassandra 135, 14 n. 141 Castor and Polydeuces (Pollux) 29, 79, 172 n. 138 Catullus 12, 26, 29, 31, 39, 42 3, 47 Celebration: of victory 18, 79, 85 90, 105 7, 111 13, 116 18, 122, 126 8, 133, 182, 188 of weddings 55, 57, 63, 71 Centaurs 92 Ceres 12 n. 51 (see also ‘Demeter’) χαῖρε 40 1, 50, 77, 170 Chariot 47 n. 119, 54, 55, 59, 64 7, 88, 91 2, 102 3, 108 n. 92, 111, 129 Charites 12 n. 51, 33 Chiron 77 n. 3, 78 n. 8 Chromius 77 n. 3, 88 90, 99 107 χρυϲέα 33 Chrysippus 8 9, 14 Cicero 9 10, 14 Claudia 29 Claudian 29, 30, 31 Cleonymidae 108 17 Cleophrades Painter 135 Clytemnestra 38 n. 77, 55 n. 137, 80 n. 14, 150 3, 165 79, 181, 182, 187 Comedy 155 60, 182 New Comedy 10 11, 12, 21

Comparisons: in epithalamia 27 32, 128 with heroes and gods 6 n. 27, 7, 9, 12, 14 n. 58, 28 33, 35, 43, 72, 75 7, 89, 95, 98, 116, 128, 129, 131 4, 139, 141 3, 147 52, 154, 155, 160 3, 165, 167 71, 173, 180 3, 186 8 with celestial bodies 29 30, 47, 71 with plants 31 2 Corinth, Corinthian 111, 133 n. 4 Coronis 80 n. 14 Cries, cultic 45, 53, 54 5, 56 Croesus 4, 5 n. 20, 78 n. 9, 121, 122 Cult, cultic: in general 19, 25, 48 n. 120, 54 6, 64, 159, 170 n. 130 for gods 47 n. 117, 59, 68, 130, 178, 188 for heroes 5, 47 n. 117, 51 2, 57 8, 66, 83 4, 97, 132 3 for living mortals 15 nn. 62 63, 35, 83 4, 98, 105, 117 Cyrene 78 n. 7 Dactylic metre 140 Danaids 143 6 Danaus 143 6 Darius 132 n. 4 Dative, of subjective impressions 152, 167, 181 δέχεϲθαι 47, 49 Delphi 91, 121 n. 126, 126 Demeter 54 Demus, slaves of 156 δεϲπότηϲ 163 δεῦρο 39, 156 δεῦτε 39 Dicaeopolis 157, 158 Dice 181 Dichotomies, polar 16 Diomedes 78 n. 8 Dionysus 54, 60, 62 3, 152 n. 64 δῖοϲ 145 Dioscorides 11, 14 Dirge: see ‘threnos’ Divinity: central attributes 1 4 quantitative and qualitative aspects 6, 117, 128 Dochmiac metre 144, 158

General Index Doto 29 Dracontius 31 Drama ch. 4, 24 ἔα 147 εἴπερ 157 ἐκφορά 64, 66 Electra 122 n. 135, 169 73 Elegy 17 Elis 97 Elysian Fields 5 Ennius 166 n. 116 Envy 130, 172, 178 9 Eos 29, 33 Epicurus 7 8, 14 Epinician ch. 3, 132, 133 4, 180, 182, 185 9 Epigram, erotic 11 12, 14 Epiphany 41 3, 47, 64, 130, 152, 156, 159, 167 8 Epithalamium ch. 2, 128, 132, 133 4, 180, 182, 185 9 Eratosthenes 31 Ethiopians 120 Euboea, Euboean 166 εὔχεϲθαι, εὖχοϲ 135, 137, 138, 143 εὐδαίμων, εὐδαιμονία 7, 9, 168 εὐφημία 47 8, 159 Eupolis 131 2, 141 εὔπωϲ 32 Euripides ch. 4, 39, 44 6 Eurystheus 133 n. 4 ἐύϲφυροϲ 32 εὐτυχεῖν 181 Excellence 81, 82, 99, 100, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115, 123 (see also ‘ἀρετή’) Fabric 178 Fame 5 6, 83 5, 87, 88, 90, 98, 107, 109, 111, 113, 116 n. 115, 127 8 (see also ‘κλέοϲ ἄφθιτον’) felix 33 4 fescennini uersus 71 Fridus 29 Funeral: rites 56 and marriage 56 n. 144 legislation 56 7 iconography 64 6 games 66 in tragedy 133

243

Gaia 78 n. 8 Galatea 29 γαμήλιοϲ 45 Games: Isthmian 108 Olympic 88, 92 Panhellenic 83, 90, 124 Gamus (deity) 56 Ganymede 78 n. 7, 90 Gelon of Syracuse 103, 105 Genealogy 45, 170, 175 Genre 1, 17, 27, 27, 28, 35, 55, 76, 128, 129, 134, 180, 182, 185 9 (see also under ‘vision’) Geryon 117 n. 116 Gestures: of prayer 149 of supplication 134 5, 153, 155 Gnomai: in general 141, 187 about contentment 73, 83, 84, 110, 122 about toil and reward 81 leading into a narrative 100, 123, 124 5 Godlike 21, 28, 90, 129, 131, 154, 161 2, 165, 168, 169, 173, 179, 180, 186 γοργολόφα 158 Graces: see under ‘Charites’ Graeae 119 Hades 67 8 Hagesias 77 n. 3, 81, 82 Hagesidamus 77 n. 3, 90, 99, 126 n. 148 Happiness 4, 7, 8 11, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 35, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 71, 74, 76, 88 90, 106, 107, 112, 115, 116, 122, 123, 127, 129, 138, 162, 163, 165, 180, 186, 187 (see also ‘bliss’, ‘joy’) Harmodius 5 n. 20 Harmonia 78 n. 7 Hebe 32 n. 47, 33, 60, 61 n. 161, 78 n. 7, 80, 105, 115 Hector 28 n. 34, 54, 77 n. 3, 187 Hecuba 160 ἥκειν 42 n. 105, 159 Helen 25, 28, 29 33, 47 n. 119, 50 2, 59, 61 n. 161, 133 n. 4, 139 n. 26, 164, 172 n. 138, 187 n. 2, 188 Helper figures, in comedy 155 60

244

General Index

Hephaestion 39 Hera 12, 23, 33, 49, 54 n. 132, 61, 80, 99, 187 Heracles 5, 29, 60, 61 n. 161, 77 n. 3, 78 nn. 7 8, 80, 92, 95, 97, 99 107, 114 17, 122, 123 n. 137, 127, 133 n. 4, 146 50 Hermes 62 3 Hermopolis 26 Herodotus 25, 55 Hesiod 26, 27, 34, 80 Hesperides 117 n. 116 Hieron of Syracuse 41 n. 100, 43 n. 108, 77, 78 n. 5, 84, 103, 105, 111 n. 100 ἱερόϲ 121 ἱκετεύειν, ἱκεϲία 136, 140 Himerius 28, 31 Hippocleas 124 7 Hippocrates, brother of Hieron 103 Hippolytus 45, 133 n. 4, 163 5, 181 Histaeus 29 Homer 113 Homeric Hymns 41, 45 6 Honorius and Maria 29, 31 Horae 12 n. 51, 78 n. 8 Horace 75 6, 127 ὡϲ θεῶι vel sim. 78 n. 8, 131 2, 137 8, 140 1, 143, 154 Hubris, hubristic 71, 72, 74, 129, 130, 154, 173, 181 2, 188 (see also ‘transgression’) Humour 71 2 Ὑμήν 53 Hymenaeus the deity 50, 56 the hero 56 n. 141 Hymn 19, 25 n. 18, 35, 37 41, 43, 45 8, 50 2, 77, 78, 133, 144, 149 n. 58, 153, 154, 156, 170, 174, 175, 188 Hyperboreans 5 n. 20, 78 nn. 7,9, 118 28 Hyperoche and Laodice 121 n. 126 Hypomnesis 153 n. 65 ὕϲτεροϲ 147 8 Iambus 17 Iamus 78 n. 8 Iconography: of weddings 23, 52, 54 n. 133, 58 70, 71, 128, 188

of funerals 64 6 of Heracles and Pelops at Olympia 92 8 Ilas, trainer of Hagesidamus 77 n. 3 Iliad 66, 72, 120, 135 Illusion 163, 165, 168, 169, 173, 179 81, 186 immortalis 2, 9, 11 12, 22, 23 immortalitas 9, 10 Immortality: in general 22, 23, 44, 51, 91, 97, 98, 106, 108, 110, 116 n. 115, 117, 122 n. 132, 127, 132 of the gods 1 4 vs. divine happiness 6 11, 14, 18, 22 3 in song 5 6, 83, 85, 90, 107, 113, 117 in cult 5 6, 51, 105 6, 117, 132 in epinician narrative 76 9, 82 3, 88 90 Immortalization 75, 76, 78, 80 4, 89, 90, 98, 107, 121 n. 129, 133 Ino Leucothea 78 n. 8, 81 Invocation: hymnic 38, 144, 151, 153, 158, 170 to the Muses 39 40 to Hymenaeus 50, 56 n. 141 ἰώ 158, 166, 170 Ioannes and Vitula 31 Iobakchoi 55 ἰόκολποϲ 32 3 Iphigenia 150, 165 8, 170, 178 n. 154 Isles of the Blesses 5, 78 n. 9, 121, 122, 133 n. 4 ἰϲόθεοϲ 161 Ixion 78, 79 n. 10 Jason 29 Joy 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 35, 53, 74, 87, 98, 112, 113, 116, 124, 125, 128 (see also ‘bliss’, ‘happiness’) Juno 12 (see also ‘Hera’) Jupiter 12 n. 53 (see also ‘Zeus’) καίτοι 149 καλεῖν 157 καλλίϲφυροϲ 32 κάματοϲ 81 see also ‘μόχθοϲ’, ‘πόνοϲ’, ‘toil’) Kinship, rhetoric of 140 κλέοϲ ἄφθιτον 5 (see also ‘fame’) κλῦθι 144

General Index Laius 154 Lamachus 157 8 Lapiths 92, 95 Laurentius and Florida 31, 39 Lavinia 29 λείβειν 143 Leonidas of Tarentum 25 Leto 121 n. 126 Lion, Nemean 97 λίϲϲεϲθαι, λιτή 135 Lucian 29, 39 40 Luxorius 29 Lycus 148 μάκαρ, μακάριοϲ 4, 34 5, 71, 111 12, 116, 122, 128, 156, 161, 171 Manlius and Aurunculeia 29 Medea 29, 32 n. 47, 133 n. 4, 139 n. 25 Medusa 119, 120, 123 Megacles 91 μεγαλοπρέπεια 57 8 Megara 146 50 Meleager 14 Melissus 77 n. 3, 92, 107 17 Memnon 91 Menander Rhetor 29, 31 Menelaus 25, 34, 50 2, 59, 61 n. 161, 133 n. 4, 164, 187 Milo of Croton 97 μόχθοϲ 81 (see also ‘κάματοϲ’, ‘πόνοϲ’, ‘toil’) Moirae 50 mortalis 2 n. 6 Muses 39 40, 78 n. 7, 86, 113, 159 (see also under ‘Invocations’) Myrtilus 95 n. 58 Myth 186 8 and iconography 66 7, 70 Narrative 29, 77 n. 3, 78 83, 89, 91, 92, 98 102, 104, 114, 115, 118 20, 123, 125, 127, 186, 187 Nausicaa 34, 137 Nemesis 122 Nereids 29 Nestor 91 Nireus 29 Oceanus 109 Odysseus 29, 34, 135, 137 8 Odyssey 34, 135, 137 8, 141, 143 Oedipus 132 n. 4, 139 42, 153 5, 182

245

Oenomaus 78 n. 8, 92 ὄλβοϲ, ὄλβιοϲ 33 4, 47, 89, 106, 116, 168 ὀλβοφόροϲ 167 Olen of Lycia 25 Olympia 92 8 Olympus 5, 50, 74, 78 n. 7, 79, 80, 90, 97, 105, 107, 115 17, 122, 124, 128, 185 Orestes 169 Paean 15 n. 63, 53, 55, 158 n. 87 Palladius and Celerina 31 Pallas 12 n. 51 (see also ‘Athena’) Parallelism, with the myth 82, 97, 98, 99 n. 67, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 114 16, 125 8 παρανύμφιοϲ 54 Paratragedy 155 n. 75 Paris 29 πατήρ 145 6 Patroclus 77 n. 3 Patronymic address 144 Pausanias 92 Pegasus 78 n. 7, 79 Peisetaerus and Basilea 29, 39, 46 50, 111, 187 Peisistratus 55 Peitho 12 n. 51 Pelasgus 143 6, 182 Peleus 25, 34, 59, 61, 78 n. 7, 78 n. 9, 122, 133 n. 4, 187 Pelopion 97 Pelops 20, 78 n. 7, 78 n. 8, 92, 95, 97 Performance: of epinicians 86, 87, 106 n. 87, 129 of epithalamia 24, 25 n. 16, 26 Persephone 67 8 Perseus 78 n. 7, 118 27 Phaëthon 45 φαίνεϲθαι 152, 156, 158, 159 Phalaris 80 n. 14 Phasis 120 Phemius 135 Philoctetes 77 n. 3 Philodemus 24 Philosophy: Hellenistic and Imperial 7 9, 14 Epicurean 7 8 Stoic 8 9 Phricias, father of Hippocleas 124 7

246

General Index

φθόνοϲ: see ‘envy’ Phye 55 Pillars of Heracles 109 10, 113, 117 n. 116, 120 Pinakes, Locrian 59, 67 70 Pindar 5, 35, ch. 3, 134, 185 Pittacus 58 n. 151 Plautus 14 Plutarch 13, 14 Polydamas of Scotussa 97 Polydectes 119 Polyxena 161 3 πόνοϲ 81 (see also ‘κάματοϲ’, ‘μόχθοϲ’, ‘toil’) Poseidon 95, 143 ποτε 100, 123 Prayer 19, 35, 41, 45, 48 n. 120, 78, 132 n. 4, 133, 135 8, 143 6, 148, 149, 153, 154, 157, 158, 160, 163 Priamel 87 Procession 53, 56 7, 59, 64 Propertius 11, 21 2 Prophet, and poet 80, 104 πρόφρων 144, 145 πρόθεϲιϲ 64, 66 Pseudo Claudian 31, 39 Pseudo Hesiod 24 Questions, hymnic 38, 175 Reciprocity 145 Recompense: see ‘reward’ Refrain 49 Register: hymnic 35 41, 43, 71, 77, 128, 154, 174, 175 religious 43, 145, 154, 156, 158, 160 Religion: archaic and classical vs. Hellenistic 15 16 in twentieth century scholarship 16 Repetition 140 Requests, hymnic 47, 144, 145, 153, 157, 158 Reward (also ‘recompense’) 80 90, 97, 98, 105 7, 116, 123, 127, 128, 187 Ritual: definition 19 visions: see under ‘vision’ in tragedy 133 4 Rhea Silvia 29

ῥεῖα ζώοντεϲ 4 Rhesus 133 n. 4 ῥοδοδάκτυλοϲ 33 ῥοδόχρωϲ 33 Rufinus 14, 23 Sacrifice: in general 15 n. 62, 92, 97, 121, 122 n. 132, 143, 150, 178 n. 154 wedding sacrifices 53 Sappho 24 43, 47, 54, 72 3, 134, 185 Sausage seller 156 Sculpture, at Olympia 91 8 ϲεβίζειν, ϲέβειν 51, 171, 174, 178 securus 2 n. 10, 18 Semele 78 n. 8, 81 Seneca 14, 29 Seriphus, Seriphian 119, 123, 126 Servius 39 Ship 66 Shouts, cultic: see ‘Cries, cultic’ Sicyon 88 Simias of Rhodes 119 Simonides 17 18, 120 1, 134 Solon 4, 58 n. 152, 66 Sophocles: ch. 4 ϲώιζειν, ϲωτήρ 139, 141 2, 143, 147 8, 149, 151, 153, 155 Statius 29 Stella and Violentilla 29 Style, hymnic: in general 38, 156, 175 Du Stil 38, 45 Er Stil 39, 45 Partizipialstil 158 Suppliant drama 138 Supplication 132, 134 155, 180 3 Symposium 18 19, 53, 88 9, 106, 128 Sympotic poetry 18 ταγόϲ 157 τανίϲφυροϲ/τανύϲφυροϲ 32 Tantalus 78, 79 τελεῖν/ἐκτελεῖν 55 Terence 14 θαλία 126 θαυμαϲτόϲ 89, 125 Thebes, Theban 92, 108, 109, 114, 116, 153 Themis 12 n. 51 Theocritus 25, 31, 33, 34, 39, 50 2, 104 θεραπεύειν 171

General Index Thetis 5, 12 n. 51, 23, 25, 59 n. 156, 61, 78 n. 7, 135, 187 θνητόϲ 2, 13 Thrasybulus 77 n. 3 Threnos 17, 133 θύειν 143 Ticida 22 Tiresias 100 2, 104 6 Tithonus 29 Titormus 97 n. 61 Tlepolemus 78 n. 8, 81 Toil 3, 4, 17, 80 2, 85 9, 105, 107, 115, 118, 122, 123, 187 (see also ‘κάματοϲ’, ‘μόχθοϲ’, ‘πόνοϲ’) Torches 53 4, 56 Tragedy ch. 4, 185 9 Transgression 55, 74, 173, 178, 181, 183, 188 (see also ‘Hubris, hubristic’) Troy 91, 160, 162 3 uita beata 7, 9

247

Vases, Athenian 59 67 Vehicles 53 4, 55 Venus 12, 29 (see also ‘Aphrodite’) Vision: in general 1, 19, 23, 36, 70, 71, 90, 129, 131, 185 6 different visions in different genres 1, 17 18, 185 6 ritual visions 19, 23, 71, 129 30, 138, 155, 182 3, 188 9 supplicatory visions 145, 152, 160, 188 Wars, Persian 57, 66 Zeus 8, 37, 39, 44, 45 n. 112, 46, 49, 54 n. 132, 61, 73, 77 n. 3, 79, 80, 90, 92, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 105, 120, 135, 143, 146 50, 157, 170, 187 Temple at Olympia 92 8